Deen

HOME
COMPREHENSIVE
CONCISE
DECEPTION
FIQH
QUESTIONS
NASIBI
Chapter Two: General facts on Fadak

What is Fadak?
For evidence as to how much area constituted fadak, we are relying on the following esteemed Sunni
works:
1.
Maujam ul Buldan by Yaqoot Hamawi, v14, p238
2.
Tareekh Khamees, v2, p88
3.
Wafa-ul-Wafa by Noor-ud-Deen Al-Samhoodi, v4, page 1480
Fadak was a city, which was situated 2 or 3 days of travel from Madina. There were wells of
water and trees of dates in it. It was the same Fadak, about which Fatima Zahra (r) said to Abu
Bakr, My father gave me this Fadak as a present. Abu Bakr asked her in reply to produce
witnesses.
Note: Upon this demand of Abu Bakr, Fatima (as) recited this verse of the Quran:
Nay, but ye have yourselves contrived a story (good enough) for you. So patience is most
fitting (for me).
Al-Quran, Surah 12, Ayah 83, translation by Yusufali
Objection raised by Sunni scholors

Fadak was only a village, in which there were some date trees. How
did it become a city?
In Ahlul Sunnahs authority work Dairat-ul-Maarifa, Volume 7 page 135 it is written:
Fadak is the name of a Qarya near Khayber.
The term Qarya according to Ahlul Sunnahs authority work Al-Qamoos, chapter Bab ul Waa
Waliya is as follows:
In all respects, Qarya means Masar Jameh.
In Ahlul Sunnahs esteemed work Tafseer Ibn Katheer, Urdu edition, v1, page1 18 under the Tafseer
of following Quranic verse:
And remember We said: Enter this Town Qarya, and eat of the plenty therein as ye wish;
Al-Quran, Surah 2, Ayah 58, translated by Yusufali
Ibn Katheer in his commentary of this verse states that:
Qarya means Bait ul Muqaddas
Now people with rational minds should recognise that Bait-ul-Muqaddas was not a village, but it was
the first Qibla, and in the same way that the second Qibla is situated in a city, the first Qibla was also
situated in a city.
The question no doubt comes to mind, Why is there a dispute in the meanings of Qarya?
Our response is that the defenders of the Sahaba want to prove that Fadak was not a large property
hence taking a small piece of land was not such a contentious issue. They should of course accept
the orders of the Quran, where we are told that:
And oppression is the biggest evil.
Why was it named Fadak?

We read in the esteemed Sunni works, Maujam-ul-Buldan, Volume 14 page 240 and Wafa-ul-Wafa,
Volume 4 page 1281:
This city was named Fadak, while the son of Adam (as) Ham first came to this place and he
put the foundation of this city.
What was the value of property of Fadak?

Fourteen centuries have passed since the advent of Islam and historians, either due to their genuine
inability or enmity towards AhlulBayt, have never described it fully. Thats why it is difficult to estimate
the true value of this property. Nevertheless, we shall provide some historical facts, which will help to
understand the income generated from this land.
The income from Fadak

In the authority work of Ahlul Sunnah, Sunan Abu Dawud, Volume 3 page 144 it is written:
:
Abu Dawood said: When Umar bin Abdul-Aziz became Caliph, the income (from the property
of Fadak) was 40,000 Dinars.
The land of Fadak and income from its dates

It is written in Sharh of Nahaj ul Balagha by Ibn Abi Al-Hadeed, Volume 4 page 108:
Umar expelled the Jews from Fadak. And the value of the land along with its dates was 50,000
Dirhams.
Blessings that came from the Dates of Fadak

Ibn Abi Al-Hadeed in Sharh Nahj ul Balagha wrote in v4, p108:
There were eleven fruit trees in Fadak, that Rasulullah (s) planted with his own hands. The
children of Fatima used to present them to Hajj pilgrims and they would give them Dinars and
Dirhams for this service.
Did Imam Ridha (as) exaggerate over the size of Fadak?

The brilliant scholarly Imam from Ansar.Org Muhammad al Khider presents this devastating proof as
evidence that the Shias exaggerate over the size of Fadak:
Al-Kulayni narrates in al-Kafi:
Abul Hasan [Imam 'Ali ar-Rida] came to [the 'Abbasid Khaleefah] al-Mahdi and saw him redressing
grievances and returning property to its owners that was unrightfully appropriated). He [Imam Rida]
asked, What about our grievance? Why is it not returned? Al-Mahdi asked. And what might that be,
Abul Hasan? He replied, When Allah granted his Prophet the conquest of Fadak Al-Mahdi asked,
Abul Hasan, describe to me the extent of this property. He [Imam Rida] replied, One side of it is
Mount Uhud. Another side is al-Arish in Egypt. Another side is the coastline. Another side is Dawmat
al-Jandal. (al-Kafi, Bab al-Fay wal-Anfal, vol. 1 p. 543; also Bihar al-Anwar, vol. 48 p. 156)
How can a piece of land in Khaybar possibly fit this description? Is this the extent to which people will
allow themselves to be duped and deceived?
Reply
This is a figurative term in the same way that the Ahlul Sunnah often claim that Umar spread Islam
throughout the world, whilst in reality he did not even conquer the entire Asian Sub Continent. The
need for such usage was because the Imam (as) was seeking to point out that Fadak was not the only
thing that was usurped from the rightful heirs, there was also their legal entitlement to the rule of
Islamic State. It is a matter of fact that the nascent Islamic State was stabilized via the financial
benefits that had been gained from the lands of Khayber, that Sayyida Fatima (as) made a claim to.
Prior to the conquest of Makka the Muslims did not had enough food to satiate their stomachs, the
situation changed after this conquest and to this effect we read in Sahih al Bukhari Volume 5, Book
59, Number 548, Chapter Military Expeditions led by the Prophet (s) (Al-Maghaazi):
Narrated Ibn Umar:
We did not eat our fill except after we had conquered Khaibar.
The Estates of Fadak and Khayber created financial stability for the Islamic State, and the Imam (as)
was pointing out this significant fact through this figurative term.
The income of Fadak was used for military purposes

We read in Ahlul Sunnahs esteemed work Insanul Ayun fi Seerah al Halabiyah,Volume 3, p487-488,
Chapter The death of the Prophet (s)
Umar was angry with Abu Bakr and said, If you give Fadak back to Fatima, where the
expenses for army and defence will come from for at present all the Arabs are fighting against
you. He then took the papers of Fadak from Fatima (as), and tore them into shreds.
Insanul Ayun fi Seerah al Halabbiyah, Vol. 3, Page 487 & 488
As we have shown, the historical facts are clear that Fadak was property from which not only one
family could live easily, but which could help maintain the entire army. Tragically, the State usurped it
so that its political opponents, the family of the Prophet (s), would be weakened thus preventing any
attempts to oppose them.
The status of Fadak under the Shariah

There were several types of things, upon which Rasool Allah (saww) had a right to -E.g. Zakat,
Ghanimat, Fay etc.
What is the difference between Ghanimah and

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

Ghanimah is (that property) in which you had worked to get it and used horses or rode while
the Fay is (that property) in which you didnt have make efforts to attain.
Fadak was the Fay Property

The Quran has ruled on the status of Fadak as property of Fay.
What Allah has bestowed on His Messenger (and taken away) from them for this ye made no
expedition with either cavalry or camelry (like Fadak): but Allah gives power to His
messengers over any He pleases: and Allah has power over all things.
Commentaries of the Quran confirm that Fadak

was Fay property
1.
Tafseer Kabeer, Volume 10 page 506
2.
Tafseer Mazhari, p238
3.
Tafseer Ruh Al-Maani, Tafseer Surah Hashr.
4.
Tafseer Muraghi, Tafseer Surah Hashr.
5.
Tafseer Durr-e-Manthur, Tafseer Surah Hashr.
6.
Tafseer Juwahir Tantawi, Tafseer Surah Hashr.
Imam Fakhrudeen Radhi writes in Tafseer Kabeer:

This verse was revealed with regard to Fadak, which the Prophet (s) acquired as it was
conquered without any fighting.
Tafseer al-Kabeer, Vol. 10, page 506
Comment
From all these Sunni commentaries it is clear that Fadak was property of Fay, which the Prophet gave
to Fatima Zahra (as) as a gift. But after the death of Allahs Apostle, Abu Bakr seized it by force.
How did the Prophet attain Fadak?

The following Sunni works shed light on this fact:
1.
Fatah ul Buldan, p46, by Abi al-Hassan Baladhuri.
2.
Majma ul Baldan, p139, v14
3.
History of Tabari, v3, p1583
4.
Tareekh Kamil, v2, p108, by Ibn Atheer Jazari
5.
Tareekh Khamees, v2, page58, by Husayn Diyar Bakari.
All of the books record the following:

When the Prophet (s) returned from Khayber, he sent Muhisa bin Masood to propagate Islam
to the people of Khayber. The leader of the Jews of Khayber at that time was Yusha bin Nun.
The people of Fadak refused to accept Islam, but offered to give them half of their Land of
Fadak. The Prophet (s) took half the land and allowed them to live there. This half Land of
Fadak was the property of the Prophet (s), as the Muslims didnt ride horses over it.
Comment
There are several more references which show clearly that no battle was fought to conquer Fadak.
The fathers of Hadhrat Ayesha and Hadhrat Hafsa neither rode their horses over this land, nor
displayed their legendary bravery to acquire the land. The Prophet (s) acquired this land from the
Jewish occupants who gave it to him in return for which no war would be waged against them. He (s)
presented it to his daughter Sayyida Fatima (as). It is indeed sad that after his death, the Shaykhayn
failed to display their exemplary mercy and snatched it away from her.

And do not think Allah to be heedless of what the unjust do; He only respites them to a day
on which the eyes shall be fixedly open (14:42)
The Prophet (s) owned half of the Fadak

For proof we shall cite the following Sunni works:
1.
Nawawi in Sharh Sahih Muslim, Volume 12 page 82
2.
Sunan Nasai, v7, p137
3.
Wafa ul Wafa, v4, p1280
4.
Sirat un Nabi by Ibn Hisham, v3, p353
5.
Tareekh Abul Fida, p140, Dhikr Ghazwa Khayber
6.
Al-Thuqat, Volume 2 page 15
Imam Nawawi writes in his Sharh of Sahih Muslim:

.
Half the Land of Fadak, which was given by the Jews following the peace treaty, was purely
the property of Rasool Allah (s). Similarly, one third of the Valley of Qura which was given by
the Jews after the peace treaty and two forts of Khayberall these were the exclusive
properties of the Prophet (s) and no one else had a share of it.
Imam Ibn Habban also testified that:

Fadak was a exclusive property of Allahs Apostle
Comment
However as opposed to all other Sunni historians, Shah Waliyullah in Quratul Ain page 228 and Ibn
Taymeeya in his Minhaj al Sunnah, Dhikr of Fadak, both have impertinently refused to accept that
Fadak was in possession of the Prophet (s). We have proven from esteemed Sunni works that the
Prophet (s) had exclusive ownership of Fadak.
Those who conceal the right of Sayyida Fatima (s) deserve the recital:
the curse of Allah on the liars (Al-Quran)
Umar also deemed Fadak to be the exclusive

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

Rasulullah (s)
The author of The Issue of Fedek: A rebuttal to common lies propagated against Ahl al-Sunnah
regarding Ahlul-Bayt makes this curious unfounded claim in his article, namely that Abu Bakr used
the land in exactly the same manner that Rasulullah (s) wished.
Ahmad Jawdat Pasha al-Lofji writes in his Qisas-e-Ambiya:
Rasulullah Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam devoted his date orchard named Fadak in Khaybar to the
pious foundation and dictated how it was to be utilized. He advised in his will that income from the
orchard should be given to foreign ambassadors, to visitors, guests and travellers. Hadhrat Abu Bakr,
Radhi Allahu Anhu implemented this will during his Khaleefat.
Reply One
The authors assertion that Khayber and Fadak were used for supporting guests, travellers and
ambassadors is a complete lie. Let us see how Fadak and Khayber was utilised by Rasulullah.We
read in Sahih Muslim, Bab ul Fai Book 019, Number 4347:
It has been narrated on the authority of Umar, who said: The properties abandoned by Banu
Nadir were the ones which Allah bestowed upon His Apostle for which no expedition was
undertaken either with cavalry or camelry. These properties were particularly meant for the
Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him). He would meet the annual expenditure of his family
from the income thereof, and would spend what remained for purchasing horses and weapons
as preparation for Jihad.
Umar said that the land was given to support his family and for weapons, al Lofji claims that it was to
meet the expenditure of foreign ambassadors, visitors, guests and travellers.Now the reader has to
decide whose words are to be relied upon Umar or those of al Lofji?
Reply Two
If Abu Bakr was merely implementing the will of Rasulullah (s) then how did he have possession of it
and not his descendants? If one consults Sahih Bukhari, we see that Ayesha provides a detailed
description of the final days of the Prophet (s), and yet she furnishes no evidence of Abu Bakr being
within close proximity of the Prophet (s) during that time, rather she informs us:
When Allahs Apostle fell sick with the fatal illness and when the time of prayer became due
and Adhan was pronounced, he said, Tell Abu Bakr to lead the people in prayer
Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 11, Number 633
We would also like some clarity, who is to be in possession of the will after the death of the
deceased,his legal heirs or the khalifa of the time? Moreover if this Will ever existed then why wasnt
this presented as evidence during the Fadak dispute? Why do we not find any Sunni sources proving
that Abu Bakr produced this will, or made reference to the will of the Prophet (s)? This Nasibi Mullah
has attributed something to Abu Bakr that he never himself claimed. At no time did Abu Bakr say that
he was implementing the will of Rasulullah (s). We challenge this unnamed author to produce any
Sunni text containing copy of this will with these conditions? How did Abu Bakr get sight of it? Abu
Bakr would only have had sight of the will if he was the trustee or the beneficiary. He was neither.
Maula Ali (as) was the Wasi, and Sayyida Zahra (as) was the beneficiary so how does Abu Bakr
come into the equation? No one would have greater knowledge on this supposed will than these two
individuals, so Can the Ahlul Sunnah produce a single source wherein Imam Ali (as) and Sayyida
Zahra (as) referred to Prophet (s) stipulating this order under his will?
In any case this whole discussion should be (in Sunni eyes) an irrelevant issue since their principle
book would have us believe that Rasulullah (s) left no will whatsoever. This is what we read in Sahih
Bukhari:
Narrated Talha bin Musarrif:
I asked Abdullah bin Abu Aufa, Did the Prophet make a will? He replied, No, I asked him,
How is it then that the making of a will has been enjoined on people, (or that they are ordered
to make a will)? He replied, The Prophet bequeathed Allahs Book (i.e. Quran).
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 51, Number 3
The unnamed author claims that Abu Bakr was implementing the will of the Prophet (s), Muhammad
bin Ismaeel Bukhari recorded that the Prophet (s) left no will, we leave it to our readers to decided on
which of these two is lying.
Reply Three
The claim that Abu Bakr that income from the orchard should be given to foreign ambassadors, to
visitors, guests and travellers is destroyed by the very Hadith he cited to deny Sayyida Fatima (as) her
inheritance rights. The Nasibi suggested:
Ahmad Jawdat Pasha al-Lofji writes in his Qisas-e-Ambiya:
He advised in his will that income from the orchard should be given to foreign ambassadors, to
visitors, guests and travellers. Hadhrat Abu Bakr, Radhi Allahu Anhu implemented this will during his
Khaleefat.
The supposed Hadith that Abu Bakr cited, Our property will not be inherited, whatever we (i.e.
prophets) leave is Sadaqah (to be used for charity) would make the ability to implement this will
impossible, since the entire contents of the orchard would not be Abu Bakars to distribute. It would be
in the possession of the poor and needy it would have been their right as Sadaqa, and it would be
their discretion to decide on how they disposed of the income of Fadak, since (according to the Hadith
of Abu Bakr) they were the beneficiaries of the Estate of Muhammad (s), it was them to decide where
this went not Abu Bakr.
The means via which Sayyida Fatima (as)

acquired Fadak
Allah declares in the Holy Quran:

And render to the kindred their due rights, as (also) to those in want, and to the wayfarer: But
squander not (your wealth) in the manner of a spendthrift.
Note:
Allah who owns every thing has provided a means for his Servants to acquire some of these things.
Land e.g that is acquired without fighting is Fay and the Prophet (s) is its sole owner. He could give it
to whoever he pleased, either as a gift, or by any other mode. Accordingly, when this verse was
revealed he (s) gave the land of Fadak to Fatima Zahra (as) under the order of Allah. This is proven
from the following authority works of Ahlul Sunnah:
1.
Tafseer Durr al Manthur v4, p177
2.
Kanzul Ummal, v2, p158
3.
Lababul Naqool, p137, Sura Isra
4.
Jame Asbab al-Nazul, Surah 17 verse 26 by Shiekh Khalid
5.
Shawahid al-Tanzeel, Volume 1 page 570
In the Tafseer of above mentioned verse we read:

Abu Saeed al Khudri and Abdullah Ibn Abbas narrate that when the verse relating to giving
rights to kindred was revealed, the Prophet called Fatima Zahra (as) and gifted the land of
Fadak to her.
Tafseer Dur al-Manthur, Vol. 4, page 177
Also see:
Jame Asbab al-Nuzul by Sheikh Khalid Abdurehman Makki (published in Karachi)
The deceitful Nawasib in their hatred for Sayyida Fatima Zahra (sa) often make feeble attempts to
create doubts over the authenticity of the chain of this narration because of a narrator Atya al-Aufi by
citing the criticism levelled at him by some people. What they never present is the authentication of
Atya al-Aufi by some the famed Sunni scholars. For example Muhammad al-Nuhamisi in the foot note
of Shaykh Taqiuddin Ahmad bin Ali bin Abdulqadir al-Moqrizis (d. 845 H) famed book Emta al-Asma,
Volume 13 pag 16 stated: According to me his hadith is not less than the grade of Hasan. Ibn
Hajar records that Imam Tirmidhi considered his hadith as Hasan (Nataj al-Afkar, v2 p414). Imam Ibn
Hajar himself declared him Seduq (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1 p678). Imam Yahyah bin Moin
said: Nothing bad about him (Tarikh ibn Moin by al-Daqaq, p27) while Sunni scholar Mahmood
Saeed Mamdoh said in his book Rafe al-Manara, page 163: Yahya bin Moin declared that about
whom he said nothing bad about him, it means that he is Thiqah. Imam Muhammad Ibn Saad
said: Thiqah (Tabaqat al Kubra, v6 p304). Allamah Umar bin Shaheen included him in the book of
Thiqah narrators (Asma al-Thuqat, p172). al-Ejli said: Thiqah (Marifat al-Thiqat). Mahmoud Saeed
Mamdouh rightly states in his book: We conclude that Atya al-Aufi are authenticated by Yahya
bin Saeed al-Qatan, ibn Saad, ibn Moin, al-Tirmidhi, al-Bazar, ibn Shaheen and some
others. (Rafe al-Manara, p173). And most relevantly, on p144 of the same book, we read: It is
settled in the science of Hadith that if there is praise and criticism about a narrator and the
reason for the criticism is unknown then (criticism) must be rejected and shall not be relied on
and the praise about the narrator must be accepted. This is the correct (act) and that is what
the scholars follow.
Similarly Hakim Haskani al-Hanai also records in Shawahid al-Tanzeel, Volume 1 page 570:
: : :
: : : :
) ( : : .
Aqeel bin al-Hussain from Ali bin al-Hussain from Muhammad bin Ubaidullah from Abu
Marwan Abdulmalik bin Marwan the judge of Madina from Abdullah bin Manee from Adam
from Sufyan from Wasel al-Ahdab from Atta from ibn Abbas saying: When Allah
revealed {And give to the near of kin his due} Allahs Apostle (s) called Fatima and gave her
Fadak because she was the near of kin.
As for Shia text, we read in Tafseer al-Qumi, Volume 2 page 155:
.:

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

One of the objections raised by the Sunni scholars to deny Sayyida Fatimas right to the land of Fadak
is that Sura Isra (also known as Sura Bani Israel) is a Makkan Sura which incorporates the verse on
giving close relatives their rights, whereas Fadak was acquired in Madina. How is it that an incident
that took place in Madina, is referred to in a Makkan verse?
Reply One
The present Quran was arranged during Uthmans era, he didnt arrange verses according to their
revelation. As there is no specific proof (by any tradition) that this verse was revealed in Makka, it
cannot be claimed as a Makkan verse.
Reply Two Some verses were revealed in Makka as well as in

Madina
There are several verses, which were revealed twice. Fakhrudeen Radhi for example stated that
Surah Fateha descended in Makka and Madina. Similarly Ibn Hajar al Makki in Sawaiqh Muhriqa,
page 102 writes:
Akrama Khariji claimed that verse of Muwaddah was revealed in Makka, but the great scholar
of Tafseer Ibne Abbas said that it was revealed in Madina.
Comment
Ibn Hajr is in effect stating that if the position of Ibn Abbas is correct, then this verse was revealed
twice. We shall likewise advance that the verse of Dhul Qurba was revealed twice.
Reply Three The Quran contains Madani verses in Makkan

Surahs
It is important to highlight here the legal position of the Quranic verses when it is to be decided
whether a sura is Makkan or Madini.
While determining whether a Quranic Sura is Makkan or Madani it is seen whether it was revealed
before the Hijra or after it. If a Sura has been revealed before Hijra it is designated Makkan no matter
where the Holy Prophet was at the time of revelation. On the other hand if the Sura is revealed after
the Hijra, it is considered Madani no matter where the Holy Prophet was at the time of its revelation.
However a problem arose with some Quranic Suras whose revelation started in Makka (before Hijra)
but which were completed after the Hijra (in Madina). To deal with such a situation, the unanimous
agreement among the Sunni scholars is that such a Sura is to be considered Makkan as its revelation
started before Hijra even though some of its portion has been revealed after Hijra. Acting on this
accepted principle we can very safely say without any contradiction that the verse of Dhul Qurba in
Sura Isra had been revealed in Madina though the Sura was first revealed before Hijra in Makka.
In Umdah tul Qari Sharh Sahih Bukhari is an esteemed Sunni work. In its Volume 19 page 243 we are
told that Surah Taghbun is a Makki Sura containing Madani verses:
.
Taghabun Sura. Maqatil said that it was revealed in Madina and include verses that were
revealed in Makka, Kalbi said that it was revealed in Makka and Madina, Ibn Abbas said that it
was revealed in Makka except the last verses that have been revealed in Madina.
The same position with regard to another Quranic verse is highlighted in the authority work of Ahlul
Sunnah Asbabul Nazool, page 280 where it is written:
Sura Shura is a Makki Surah but verse of Muwaddat is a Madani verse.
We shall accordingly advance that Sura Isra was a Makkan Surah that included Dhul Qurba a
Madani verse and duty is cast upon our opponents to positively prove that ALL the verses in Surah
Isra were revealed in Makkah.
Reply Four The merits of Ayesha

In authority work of Ahlul Sunnah, Lababul Naqool, page 137 Sura Isra, it is written:
Once the Prophet (s) asked Ayesha to spend all that they had. Ayesha replied then nothing
would be left for them. After that this verse was revealed Wala tajal. Allamah Suyuti writes
that this verse is Madani
Comment
The Verse of Dhul Qurba is 26th verse of Sura Isra. And the above mentioned verse Wala tajal is
29th verse of Sura Isra. Since this verse showed the merits of Ayesha and proves that Ayesha was in
the house of the Prophet (s) in Madina, the Nasibis accepted that this verse (in a Makkan Sura) was
Madani not Makki.
We appeal to justice, when it comes to the rank of Ayesha it can be accepted that some verses of a
Makkan Surah were revealed in Madina, but when it comes to Fatima Zahra (as) her right is denied
solely on the basis that the Surah is Makki, so the verse of Dhul Qurba could not have been revealed
in Madina! Is this not a clear contradiction?
Reply Five
Even if we accept for the sake of argument that the verse ordering the Prophet(s) to give his relatives
their rights is a Makkan verse and not Madani this still does not negate Syeda Fatimas claim to the
land of Fadak. We as Muslims believe that the Quran is a book whose every Ayah is valid and
applicable till the Day of Judgment. If a verse is revealed in Makka, does it lose its validity when the
Prophet moves to Madina? Of course any command by Allah to His Prophet holds good wherever the
Prophet is and the Prophet is under an obligation to act upon it. If the Prophet gifted Fadak to his
daughter in Madina, this was no doubt an implementation of the will of Allah.
The Prophet (s) also gave Fatima Zahra (as) a

written instruction about Fadak
Following are the proofs from authority works of Ahlul-Sunnah:
1.
Rauzat ul Safa as quoted in Tashdheed-ul-Mathaeen page 102
2.
Maarij un Nabuwwah, page 321
3.
Habeeb us Siyaar, vol 1, Dhikr of Ghazwa Khayber
The texts read as follows:

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

In Fatawa Azizi, page 165, (published Karachi) al Muhaddith Shah Abdul Aziz sets out the contents of
the written document:
Muhammad bin Abdullah bin Abdul Muttalib bin Hashim bin Abd Manaf has given this piece of
land, whose premises are known, to his daughter Fatima Zahra. And after her, this land is
entrusted to her children. And anyone who denies it after hearing it, then its sin is on his
head. And Allah is Sami and Aleem.
Comment
We have proved from 10 Sunni works that the Prophet (s) presented Fadak to Fatima Zahra (as) as a
gift by the orders of Allah (swt) and it was in her possession. But the same Shah Abdul Aziz in Tuhfa
Ithna Ashari, Shah Wali Ullah in Quratul Ain and Ibn Taymeeya in Minhaj-us-Sunnah and their
modern day apprentice al Khider in Fadak continue to lie by denying this fact. May Allahs curse be
upon these liars!
FADA K
Preface
General facts on Fadak
The claim of Sayyida Fatima (as)

Abu Bakrs rejection of witnesses testimony
Imam Ali (as)s position on Fadak
Rules of inheritance in the Quran
Analysing the judgement of Abu Bakr
The inheritance of previous prophets
Sayyida Fatima (as)s response to the confiscation of Fadak
Refuting the defences of Abu Bakrs advocates
Relations between Sayyida Fatima (as) and Maula Ali (as)
Further injustices perpetrated against Sayyida Fatima (as)
The Shia position on Abu Bakr
Conclusion
L A TE S T @ S H I A P E N
No public Twitter messages.
Shia Pen Newsletter

S U B S C R I B E T O O U R N E W S L E T T E R T O R E C E I V E R E G U L A R U P D AT E S O N O U R N E W
P U B L I C ATI O N S .
SHIA PEN USE S THE "G OOGLE GROUPS" S YST EM FOR IT S NEW SLETT ERS. SUBCRIBE NOW
2 0 11 2 01 2 S HI A P E N
Formerly known as:

Answering-Ansar.org
2002 - 2010
MISCELLANEOUS
About Us
Contact Us
Newsletter
Privacy Policy
S T AT E M E N T
Shia Pen is a volunteer project and is not linked or affiliated with any kind of organisation. We are completely
independent and do not receive or accept any financial backing from any third party.
TERMS & CONDITIONS
Although you are free to distribute the content, please take a minute to read our full terms & conditions as there
are some obligations.
Terms & Conditions
HOME
COMPREHENSIVE
CONCISE
DECEPTION
FIQH
QUESTIONS
NASIBI
Chapter Three: The claim of Sayyida

Fatima (as)
Abu Bakr usurped the land of Fadak and Fatima
Zahra (as) asked him for her Right
As evidence we have relied on the following esteemed Sunni works:
1.
Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 53, Number 325 and Volume 5, Hadeeth number 546, pp 381383
2.
Sahih Muslim, Volume 2 page 72, Chapter Prophets leave no inheritance
3.
Sunan Abu Dawood Book 19, Tribute, Spoils, and Rulership (Kitab Al-Kharaj, Wal-Fai WalImarah) Number 2967:
4.
Sunan al Kabeera Volume, 6 page 30 (published in Hyderabad)
5.
Riyadh al Nadira Volume, 4 page 231 (Baghdad publishers)
6.
Sawaiqh al Muhriqa, page 21 Bab Muthaeen Abu Bakr
7.
Maujam-ul-Buldan, Volume 3 page 312, Dhikr Fadak
8.
Tafseer Kabeer, Volume 8 page 125 Ayat Fay
9.
Kanz al Ummal, Volume 3 page 129, Kitab al Khilafat ma al Imara
10.
al Milal wa al Nihal, Volume 1 page 18
11.
al Bidayah wa al Nihaya, Volume 5 page 245
12.
Tareekh Tabari, Volume 4 page 1825
13.
Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Volume 1 page 158
14.
Tareekh Khamees, Volume 2 page 174
15.
Futuh al Buldan, page 35
16.
Wafa al Wafa, page 995
17.
Tabaqat Ibn Sad (Book of the Major Classes, d. 852 AD.), Volume 2, page 392 translated by
S. Moinul Haq assisted by H.K. Ghazanfar M.A.
18.
Naseem al Riyadh, Sharh Shifa Qadhi Khan Volume 3 page 414
We read in Riyadh:
When the Prophet died, Abu Bakr took Fadak from Fatima. Fatima went to him and said Give
the land of Fadak to me, as my father the Prophet (s) gave it to me.
Tafseer Kabeer:
When Rasulullah (s) died, Fatima claimed that Fadak was land bestowed to me by my father
the Prophet (s); Abu Bakr said I dont know if you are telling the truth.
We read in Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 53, Number 325:
Narrated Ayesha: (mother of the believers) After the death of Allahs Apostle Fatima the
daughter of Allahs Apostle asked Abu Bakr As-Siddiq to give her, her share of inheritance
from what Allahs Apostle had left of the Fai (i.e. booty gained without fighting) which Allah
had given him. Abu Bakr said to her, Allahs 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
Allahs 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 Allahs Apostle.
al-Bukhari under the Chapter of The battle of Khaibar, Arabic-English,v5, tradition #546, pp 381-383,
narrates from Ayesha that:
.. Fatimah became angry with Abu Bakr and kept away from him, and did not talk to him till
she died. She remained alive for six months after the death of the Prophet. When she died, her
husband Ali, buried her at night without informing Abu Bakr and he said the funeral prayer by
himself.
Tabaqat Ibn Sad:
Verily Fatimah, the daughter of the apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, sent (a message)
to Abu Bakr asking him about her share in the inheritance of the Apostle of Allah, may Allah
bless him, which Allah had bestowed on His Apostle as booty (without bloodshed). She at that
time claimed (a share from) the (Arabic text) of the Prophet, at al-Madinah, Fadak and what
had remained of the Khums of Khaybar. Thereupon Abu Bakr said: Verily, the Apostle of Allah,
may Allah bless him, said: We do not leave inheritance, what we leave goes into sadaqah.
Verily the members of Muhammads family will get provision from this money. By Allah! I shall
not change the distribution of the sadaqah of the Apostle of Allah from what it was in the time
of Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him. I shall continue to spend them under the same heads
as the Apostle of Allah was spending. So Abu Bakr refused to give anything to Fatimah.
Consequently Fatimah, may peace be on her, became angry with Abu Bakr and left him. She
did not talk with him till she died. She lived six months after the Apostle of Allah, may Allah
bless him.
We have proven from the most authentic Sunni works that Abu Bakr usurped the land of Fadak from
Sayyida Fatima (as) and she demanded it back. Abu Bakr was not ready to give even an inch of land,
and this so distressed Sayyida Fatima (as) she refused to talk to him until her dying day.
Sayyida Fatima (as) deemed Fadak to have been

gifted to her
The lying Nasibi seeks to expose a flaw in the Shia argument as follows:
All of the above concerns the status of Fadak as inheritance from Rasulullah . On the other hand, if it
is maintained that Fadak was a gift from Rasulullah -as claimed by al-Kashani in his tafsir, as-Safi (vol.
3 p. 186)-the matter needs to be looked into.
This claim is first and foremost contradicted by authentic reports of both the Ahl as-Sunnah and the
Shiah which state that Sayyidah Fatimah radiyallahu anha requested Fadak as her inheritance from
Rasulullah alayhi wa-alihi wasallam.
Reply
There is no contradiction over Sayyida Fatima (as) claiming Fadak as a gift and inheritance. The initial
demand of Sayyida Fatima (as) was that Abu Bakr returns the land that had been gifted to her by her
father. Sayyida Fatima (as) had the land in her possession but Abu Bakr ignored this and the written
bequest of her father (s) and refused to return the land. Abu Bakr deemed the land as that of the
Prophet which was in possession of his daughter held on trust as long as he (s) lived and which
reverted back to the State upon his death. Sayyida Fatima (as) used this assertion to challenge Abu
Bakrs right to control the land. After all he usurped the land on the basis that it belonged to the
Prophet (s). Sayyida Fatima (as) was still entitled to the land as the Legal Heir so she had every right
to make a claim on this basis. Abu Bakr refused her claim that the land was under her control, and he
also rejected her claim that she was her fathers Waris (legal heir). We shall now set out proofs that
leave no doubt that Fadak was in fact land that had been given to Sayyida Fatima (as) as a gift.
Proof One
The greatest proof that Fadak had been given as a gift to Sayyida Fatima (as) by Rasulullah (s), lies in
the fact that she already had possession of the land at the time of her fathers death. This would not
have been the case if the land belonged to Rasulullah (s). Property which is given as a gift is handed
over to the transferee at the time when gift is made (even before the death of the testator). Whereas
the share in estate of deceased is taken hold of only after the death of the deceased. The fact that
Sayyida Fatima (as) was already in possession of the land of Fadak at the time of The Prophets death
clearly shows that this land was given to her as a gift in the lifetime of her father and there was no
question of its being treated as a share in inheritance.
We read in al Milal wa al Nihal page 13, wherein Allamah Sharastani discusses the disputes that
arose following the death of Rasulullah (s):
The 6th dispute concerned Fadak and the inheritance of Rasulullah (s). Sayyida Fatima
deemed it her land, and the claim of Fatima to its ownership
Al-Milal wa al-Nihal, page 13
This reference proves that Fadak was not the same as the inheritance that Sayyida Fatima (as) was
claiming. She (as) already had control of Fadak and now wanted her rights as Heir of her deceased
fathers Estate.
If Nawasib such as al Khider have lied to the maximum by claiming that Fadak had not been gifted to
Sayyida Fatima (as) they should know that this claim is destroyed by the very testimony of the
claimant herself. Sayyida Fatima (as)s claim was that her father (s) had given Fadak to her, and this
makes the comments of al Khider null and void. We have already cited this reference from Riyadh al
Nadira, Volume 1 page 89:

When the Prophet died, Abu Bakr took Fadak from Fatima, she went to him and said: Give
the land of Fadak to me, as my father the Prophet (s) gave it to me.
Riyadh al Nadira, Volume 1 page 89
Allamah Yaqut al-Hamawi records in Maujam ul Buldan, Volume 3 page 313:
:

After the death of the Prophet, Fatima (r) said to Abu Bakr: My father the Prophet gave Fadak
to me, thus give it to me.
We also read:
: .
This is (the land) about which Fatima (ra) said: Allahs messenger gave it to me, hence Abu
Bakr (ra) said: I want witnesses. That had a story.
We read in Futuh al-Buldan, page 35:
: : :
.
Malik bin Jauna narrated from his father that he said: Fatima (r) said to Abu Bakr, Allahs
messenger gave Fadak to me, give it to me.
Al-Aathmi records in Simt al-Nujoom, Volume 2 page 391:

Fatima went to him and said: Allahs apostle granted me Fadak, he (Abu Bakr) replied Do
you have a proof? Thus Ali and Um Ayman testified in her favor.
What greater proof can there be than the claim brought by Sayyida Fatima (as) Give the land of
Fadak to me, as my father the Prophet (s) gave it to me she could not have advanced such a
claim without having existing possession of this land at the time, she (as) did not say he promised to
give it to me, that would have constituted a future guarantee, she was stating that it had already been
given to her, hence her stating the Prophet (s) gave it to me, meaning she existing possession of
the land at that time, and that her legal challenge was based on its usurpation. It is logical that no
common person would make a claim that is baseless, particularly when they know that they will be
proven wrong.
Proof Two Abu Bakr accepted Sayyida Fatimas existing

possession of Fadak
If it was not in her possession then why didnt Abu Bakr point this out to Sayyida Fatima (as)? Al Mihal
proves that Sayyida Fatima (as) had the land in her possession. Why didnt Abu Bakr dismiss this
claim straight away, stating You never had possession of Fadak? The fact that he didnt challenge
this aspect of Sayyida Fatima (as)s claim serves as proof that the land was in her possession.
Proof Three If Sayyida Fatima (as) had no control of Fadak why

did Abu Bakr give written instruction that it be restored to her?
We read in Seerah al Halabbiyah, Vol. 3, Page 487 & 488:
Sibt ibn Jauzi narrates that after Fatima made her claim to the ownership of Fadak, Abu Bakr
heard her claim and Abu Bakr left a written instruction that it be restored to her, then Umar
came to Abu Bakr, and asked Who is this document for? The Khalifa said Its with regards to
Fadak this is a written document for Fatima in relation to her fathers inheritance. Umar said
then how will you spend for the Muslims, when the Arabs are preparing to fight you, Umar
then took the document and ripped it up.
Insanul Ayun fi Seerah al Halabbiyah, Vol. 3, Page 487 & 488
Comment
This proves that the Hadith Prophets leave no inheritance is a lie, since Abu Bakr did in fact accept
the claim of Sayyida Fatima (as). If the Hadeeth proves the correctness of Abu Bakrs position, then Al
Khiders assertion is a lie, since al Mihal confirms that the claim of Sayyida Fatima (as) was over her
ownership of Fadak, Abu Bakr accepted this claim.
Proof Four Maula Ali confirmed that Sayyida Fatima already had
control of Fadak
The greatest proof that Fadak was in the possession of Ahlul bayt (as) comes from the comments of
Maula Ali (as). We are quoting from the Sunni commentary of Nahj ul Balagha by Shaykh Muhammad
Abduh page 83 letter to Abi Uthman bin Hunayf:
Of course, all that we had in our possession under this sky was Fadak, but a group of people
felt greedy for it and the other party withheld themselves from it. Allah is, after all, the best
arbiter.
Commentary of Nahj ul Balagha by Shaykh Muhammad Abduh, page 83
Comment
Maula Ali said Fadak was in her hands, anything in ones hands is ones possession, and this destroys
the assertion of liars such as al Khider, who claim that the Shia lie when they claim Sayyida Fatima
(as) had been gifted with Fadak during the lifetime of Rasulullah (s).
Proof Five Rasulullah (s) gave Fadak to Sayyida Fatima (as)

during his lifetime
Further proof can be ascertained from Sunan Abu Dawood Book 19, Tribute, Spoils, and Rulership
(Kitab Al-Kharaj, Wal-Fai Wal-Imarah), Hadeeth Number 2998:
Banu an-Nadir were deported, and they took with them whatever their camels could carry,
that is, their property, the doors of their houses, and their wood. Palm-trees were exclusively
reserved for the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him). Allah bestowed them upon him and
gave them him as a special portion.
He (Allah), the Exalted, said: What Allah has bestowed on His Apostle (and taken away) from
them, for this ye made no expedition with either camel corps or cavalry. He said: Without
fighting. So the Prophet (peace be upon him) gave most of it to the emigrants and divided it
among them; and he divided some of it between two men from the helpers, who were needy,
and he did not divide it among any of the helpers except those two. The rest of it survived as
the sadaqah of the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) which is in the hands of the
descendants of Fatimah (Allah be pleased with her).
Proof Six Maula Ali (as) told Abu Bakr that the Prophet (s) had
given Fadak to her during His lifetime
As evidence we shall quote directly from the article Early Differences and Sects in Islam adapted
largely from Al-Farq bayn al-Firaq (The Difference between the Sects) by Abu Tahir Àbd al-Qahir alBaghdadi that appears on this Sunni Website:
http://webpages.marshall.edu/~laher1/firaq.html Cached
Next, they differed regarding inheritance of the land of Fadak. This was a piece of land which
the Prophet had acquired as a form of booty, and which he retained during his lifetime. When
he passed away, Àli (may Allah be pleased with him) said that the Prophet (may Allah bless
him and grant him peace) had assigned it to Fatimah (may Allah be pleased with her) during
his lifetime.
Moreover, we read in Majmal Buldan, Volume 3 page 312:
:
Ali used to say: The prophet (s) granted it to Fatima during His life.
Comment
The claim of Maula Ali (as) before Abu Bakr that Rasulullah (s) gave Fadak to Sayyida Fatima (as)
during his lifetime, proves that she had existing possession of it, it was no inheritance.
Proof Seven If Sayyida Fatima (as) had no control over Fadak

then Umar ibn Abdul Aziz would not have returned it to the
descendants of Sayyida Fatima (as)
We read in Wafa al Wafa page 99:
When Umar Ibn Abdul Aziz became Khalifa he restored the land of Fadak to the descendants
of Sayyida Fatima, and wrote to his representative in Madina on this regards
Allamah Yaqut al-Hamawi records in Mujam al-Buldan, Volume 3 page 312:

When Umar bin Abdulaziz become the Caliph, he wrote to his governor of Madina and ordered
him to gave Fadak to the progeny of Fatimas (ra).
Similarly in Volume 1 page 38 we read:

The commander of believers wrote a message to his governor Mubarak al-Tabari ordering him
to return Fadak to the inheritors of Fatima the daughter of Allahs Prophet
In a renowned biography of Caliph Umar bin Abdul Aziz rendered by Sunni scholar Abdul Aziz Syed
al-Ahl translated in Urdu by Maulana Ragihb Rehmani states in pages 256-257:
The Holy prophet distributed the property of Bani Nazir and Bani Qariza quraida but did not
distribute Fadak (al-Khiraj, by al-Qarshi, page 41).
This was due to the fact that Fadak was not captured via the running of camels and horses (i.e.
during to war), it was hence purely for the Prophet of Allah. He (s) would spend this money on
his household and distribute the remainder amongst travellers.
It is said that Hadhrat Fatima asked for it, the Prophet (s) however refused the request. It is
also said that Prophet (s) had actually given Fadak to her. After the death of the Holy Porphet,
a difference of opinion emerged between Abu Bakr (ra) and Fatima (ra) over Fadak. Abu Bakr
perhaps kept it in his control so that he could help the Muslims in the time of need, as Muslims
were quite poor in the early days. Despite Fatima (ra) being unhappy with Fadak being under
the control of Abu Bakr, it still remained under the control of Caliphs and it were the Caliphs
who have always been looking after it. (Fatima al-Zahra wal Fatmioon, page 85, quoted from
Sharah Abul Hadeed Nahjul Balagha, page 109; Ibn Jauzi page 110).
During the era of Farooq Azam (ra), when the Muslims acquired victories, and their hardships
decreased, he contemplated returning Fadak to the heirs of Rasulullah (s), and accordingly did
so. Hadhrat Ali (ra) and Hadhrat Abbas (ra) approached him, disputing over the matter, but he
refused to make a decision and said that they were better informed of the situation than him.
Marwan bin Hakam then acquired Fadak as it was gifted to him by Muawiya. Then Marwan
bestowed it upon his sons, Abdul Malik and Abdul Aziz, it was then divided into three portions
between Umar, Walid and Sulaiman. When Walid became the Head of State, he gave his share
to Umar. When Umar acquired power, he wrote to the Governor of Madina stating that it be
returned to the progeny of Fatima (s). It hence remained under the control of the progeny of
Fatima (r) during his reign.
Khalifa tuz Zahid-Hadhrat Umar bin Abdul Aziz, pages 256-258 (Nafees Academy, Urdu Bazar,
Karachi)
Comment
In A short history if Islam Sunni scholar Dr A. Rahim page 168, Chapter Umar II, provides a
worryingly poor representation of facts whilst praising Umar ibn Abdul Aziz. He writes:
Umar II was very fair and generous to the members of Alis family. He restored to them the
property of Fadak which was appropriated by Marwan.
If only this scholar had looked into the truth of the matter! Marwan did not misappropriate Fadak. Poor
destitute Marwan was gifted this land from his kind hearted relative, who happened to also be the
Khaleefa of the time Uthman ibn al Affan. Uthman took control of it following Umar death, who had it
following Abu Bakrs death. It was Abu Bakr who misappropriated Fadak, which Umar ibn Abdul Aziz
then returned to the children of Fatima (as), and the author has shown maximum dishonesty as part of
his efforts to protect Abu Bakrs actions.The crucial thing to observe here is the historians usage of
the word restore. One can only restore something to someone who had an existing control of, and
that is why Umar Ibn Abdul Aziz returned Fadak to the descendants of Sayyida Fatima (as).
Proof Eight If Sayyida Fatima (as) had no control of Fadak then

the Just Khaleefa and Hafidh of the Quran Mamun would not have
restored the land to the descendants of Sayyida Fatima (as)
We read in Futuh al-Buldan, pages 36-37:
In 210 Hijri Ammerul Mumineen Mamun bin Harun al-Rashid gave an order that Fadak be given
to the family of Fatima. This order was given to his representative in Madina Quthum bin Jafar:
I Commander of the Faithful as the successor of the Prophet have a duty to follow the way of
the Prophet. Anything or Sadaqah that the Prophet (s) gave must be given by me, all his
virtues come from Allah, and my aim is to do that which pleases my Creator. I have found that
the Prophet (s) gave Fadak as a gift to his daughter and made her the sole owner and this is
such a clear matter that carries no doubt amongst the Prophets family. Verily the Commander
of the Faithful deems it correct to return Fadak to the descendents of Fatima so as to
implement the Justice of Allah (swt) and get closer to him in the process, and implement the
order of the Prophet (s) and attain a good reward. The Commander of the Faithful gives order
that the return of Fadak be recorded in a Register and that this Order be sent to employees.
Since the death of the Prophet (s) the tradition has remained that Pilgrims on Hajj give an
invitation to the People to claim anything Prophet (s) gave as Sadaqah or gift to the People,
their words would be accepted, in this circumstance Sayyida Fatima has a greater right that
her claim regarding the possession of Fadak after the Prophet (s) be accepted. The Khaleefa
has told his Servant Mubarak Tabari Return Fadak to the Waris of Fatima, all its boundaries,
rights, production and Servants should be returned. Muhammad bin Yahya bin Husayn bin
Zaid bin Ali bin Husayn bin Ali Ibn Abi Talib and Muhammad bin Abdullah bin Husayn bin Ali
bin Abi Talib, have been appointed by the Commander of the Faithful as Agents over Fadak.
Verily you should be made aware that this is the opinion of the Commander of the Faithful and
this is that which has come to him from Allah (swt) so as to receive the blessing of Allah and
his Prophet. Your subordinates should be informed that Muhammad bin Yahya and Muhammad
bin Abdullah be treated in the same manner as you dealt with Mubarak Tabari, these two
should be supported with the production processes, profits should given to them so as to
attain reward from Allah (swt). Wasallam Wednesday 2nd Zeeqad 210 Hijri
We read in Majma al-Buldan, Volume 3 page 313:
210

In year 210 Hijri Mamun gave an order to return (Fadak) to the progeny of Fatima. Thus he
wrote to his representative in Madina Qatham bin Jaffar and said: Allahs messenger (s) gave
Fadak to Fatima (r) and that was a known and clear matter according to His (prophet) family
and Fatima kept demanding it. Hence he (Mamun) has decided to return it to her inheritors
Comment
If Sayyida Fatima (as) had no control of Fadak then this Sunni Khaleefa would not have restored it to
her descendants.
Proof Nine The verse Dhul Qurba proves that Fadak had been
gifted to Sayyida Fatima (as)
Al Khider can bark all he likes but the bottom line is when this verse descended it was incumbent
upon Rasulullah (s) to act upon it, and give Sayyida Fatima (as) her rights. We have established from
the authentic works of Ahlul Sunnah that Rasulullah acted upon this verse accordingly, by gifting the
land of Fadak to Sayyida Fatima (as). Possession occurs when a thing is handed over without any
conditions. Rasulullah (s) never took it back, nor personally administered it after gifting it to Sayyida
Fatima (as). If Nawasib are to offer some lame excuse that Rasulullah (s) took it back prior to his
death, then we should point out that this was impossible, since taking back bestowed gifts is a major
wrong in the eyes of the Prophet (s). We read in We read in Sahih Bukhari, Book of Gifts Volume 3,
Book 47, Chapter 18 Hadith number 791:
The Prophet said the bad example is not for us. He who takes back his present is like a dog
that swallows back its vomit
An appeal to justice
If Sayyida Fatima (as) did not have an existing possession of Fadak:
1.
Sayyida Fatima (as) would not have made such a claim.
2.
Why did the other Sahaba and Wives of Rasulullah (s) remain silent? It would have been
incumbent on them to interject and point out that she had no existing possession of the land.
3.
Maula Ali (as) would not have permitted Sayyida Fatima (as) to make such a claim in court,
nor would he (s) had testified in her favour.
4.
Imam Hassan (as) & Imam Hassain (as) would not have testified in favour of their mother.
5.
Why didnt Abu Bakr challenge the assertion and demand that she present witnesses
confirming her existing possession of the land ?
Al Khiders attempts to use logic to refute the claim

of Sayyida Fatima (as)
As part of his massive effort to reject the notion that Sayyida Fatima (as) had possession of Fadak as
a gift, al Khider asserts:
However, even if this claim is assumed to be an authentic one, we still cannot accept it. We cannot
accept it since it is diametrically opposed to the precept of parental fairness to children espoused by
Islam.
The Sahabi Bashir ibn Sad came to Rasulullah alayhi wa-alihi wasallam, telling him that he had given
one of his sons a garden as a gift, and requesting Rasulullah to be witness thereto. Rasulullah asked
whether he had given a similar gift to all of his children. When he replied in that he had not in fact
done so, Rasulullah alayhi wa-alih wasallam told him, Go away, for I will not be a witness to
injustice. (Sahih Muslim, Kitab al-Hibat, no. 14)
Rasulullah denounced the act of giving one child more than the other as injustice. Is it then at all
plausible that one such as he, as an infallible Nabi who refuses to be witness to injustice, would
himself perpetrate that injustice? Is it imaginable that he, who is entrusted with the Trust of the
Heavens, could breach a mundane trust of this world by giving Fadak as a gift to Fatimah alone
amongst all his daughters? We all know that Khaybar was taken in the 7th year after the Hijrah, and
that Zaynab died in the 8th year, and Umm Kulthum in the 9th year after the Hijrah. How can it then be
thought that Rasulullah would give something to Fatimah but not to his other daughters?
Reply One This is the greatest proof that no other daughters

existed
If anything this serves as the greatest proof that Sayyida Fatima (as) was the sole daughter of
Rasulullah (s). If these daughters indeed existed then Rasulullah (s) would have certainly apportioned
them their share of inheritance as he had done with Sayyida Fatima (as). The very fact that we have
no historical evidence of him ever giving them anything as a gift / inheritance is the clearest evidence
that they did not exist. If they did exist then we have to accept that Allah (swt) and his Prophet (s) were
unjust. After all the same Prophet (s) who marries Sayyida Fatima (as) according to revelation from
Allah (swt) marries the other three daughters to kaafirs!
The same Prophet that showered all manner of honour on Sayyida Fatima (as) deeming her pain to
be on par with his, giving her the title Leader of the Women of Paradise does not bother to relay even
a single Hadith in praise of his other daughters. Ahlul Sunnahs authority work Mishkat al Masabeeh,
under the Chapter Bab Fadail Ahlul bayt has 49 traditions with regard of the relatives of the Prophet
including his uncle Abbas, even his adopted son Zaid. Curiously the author of a book that takes
traditions from TEN esteemed Sunni works fails to cite even a single Hadeeth on the other daughters
in this chapter.
Reply Two Maula Ali (as) was the only son in law of the Prophet
(s)
The truth is that Maula Ali (as) was the only son in law of the Prophet (s) as we read in Riyadh al
Nadira Volume 3 page 220, Dhikr Fadail Ali:
Rasulullah (s) said to Ali You possess three virtues not possessed by anyone else
1.
You have a father in law like me.
2.
You have received my truthful daughter as your wife
3.
You have received pious sons such as Hassan and Husayn
Comment
This virtue (Rasulullah being father in law) would not be exclusive if Rasulullah (s) also had other son
in laws! If Nawasib try to argue that Uthmans marriage may have occurred later we should point out
that according to the Ahlul Sunnah the daughters of Rasulullah (s) were married long before Sayyida
Fatima (as), and were the wives of two of Abu Jahls sons. Rasulullah (s) could not have praised Ali
(as) for this exclusive honour if he had other sons in law!
Reply Three The title Dhul Nurayn [possessor of two lights]

cannot be located in the authentic Sunni works
The famed title of Uthman Dhul Nurayn coming from the mouth of the Prophet (s)(as asserted by
Sunnis) is not present in any of the six esteemed works of Ahlul Sunnah. When the very existence of
these daughters cannot be established then how can we accept that Uthman was the possessor of
two lights?
Reply Four The Nasibi dont even believe the Prophet (s) was
created from Nur
It is indeed ironic that the Salafi and Deobandi Nawasib reject the notion of our Prophet (s) being
created from Nur (Light), rather they deem him an ordinary human like us created from mud. Curiously
when it comes to honouring Uthman suddenly he is deemed Dhul Nurayn the possessor of two lights.
If Prophet (s) is not Light then how can Uthman become the possessor of Two Lights? How can this
then be used as an excuse that he married the supposed two daughters of the Prophet (s)?
Reply Five The Ahlul Sunnah believe that the Prophet (s) was
unjust!
We would urge Al Khider to abandon using such principles of logic when debating with us. Particularly
when your esteemed works paint the picture of Rasulullah (s) being unjust to his wives. See Sahih al
Muslim Bab Fadil Sahaba Book 031, Number 5984:
Aisha, the wife of Allahs Apostle (may peace be upon him), said: The wives of Allahs Apostle
(may peace be upon him) sent Fatima, the daughter of Allahs Messenger (may peace be upon
him), to Allahs Apostle (may peace be upon him). She sought permission to get in as he had
been lying with me in my mantle. He gave her permission and she said: Allahs Messenger,
verily, your wives have sent me to you in order to ask you to observe equity in case of the
daughter of Abu Quhafa. She (Aisha) said: I kept quiet. Thereupon Allahs Messenger (may
peace be upon him) said to her (Fatima): 0 daughter, dont you love whom I love? She said:
Yes, (I do). Thereupon he said: I love this one. Fatima then stood up as she heard this from
Allahs Messenger (may peace be upon him) and went to the wives of Allahs Apostle (may
peace be upon him) and informed them of what she had said to him and what Allahs
messenger (may peace be upon him) had said to her. Thereupon they said to her: We think that
you have been of no avail to us. You may again go to Allahs Messenger (may peace be upon
him) and tell him that his wives seek equity in case of the daughter of Abu Quhafa. Fatima
said: By Allah, I will never talk to him about this matter. Aisha (further) reported: The wives of
Allahs Apostle (may peace be upon him) then sent Zainab b. jahsh, the wife of Allahs Apostle
(may peace be upon him), and she was one who was somewhat equal in rank with me in the
eyes of Allahs Messenger (may peace be upon him) and I have never seen a woman more
advanced in religious piety than Zainab, more God-conscious, more truthful, more alive to the
ties of blood, more generous and having more sense of self-sacrifice in practical life and
having more charitable disposition and thus more close to God, the Exalted, than her. She,
however, lost temper very soon but was soon calm. Allahs Messenger (may peace be upon
him) permitted her to enter as she (Aisha) was along with Allahs Messenger (may peace be
upon him) in her mantle, in the same very state when Fatima had entered. She said: Allahs
Messenger, your wives have sent me to you seeking equity in case of the daughter of Abu
Quhafa. She then came to me and showed harshness to me and I was seeing the eyes of
Allahs Messenger (may peace be upon him) whether he would permit me. Zainab went on until
I came to know that Allahs Messenger (may peace be upon him) would not disapprove if I
retorted. Then I exchanged hot words until I made her quiet. Thereupon Allahs Messenger
(may peace be upon him) smiled and said: She is the daughter of Abu Bakr. This Hadeeth has
also been narrated on the authority of Zuhri with the same chain of transmitters, but with a
slight variation of wording.
Comment
Sayyida Fatima (s) appeals on behalf of the prophets wives that he be just to them all and not
show favouritism
Rasulullah doesnt deny this to be the case, but rather says She is the daughter of Abu Bakr
Now the Sharii view on equity to wives is as follows:

1.
Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be
able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess,
that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice, (4:3)Rasulullah (s) was
unjust to his wives giving preference to Ayesha so did he contradict the Quran?
2.
We read in Sunan Abu Dawood Bab ul Nikah Book 11, Number 2128:The Prophet (peace be
upon him) said: When a man has two wives and he is inclined to one of them, he will come
on the Day of resurrection with a side hanging down.In light of the tradition are we to therefore
conclude that Rasulullah (s) was inclined to Ayesha more, even though this contradicted the
Quran and Sunnah?
We ask Al Khider to look at this reference closely. In their efforts to praise Ayesha Sunni Ulema have
accepted that Rasulullah (s) abandoned the principles of equity. Clearly if (according to Ahlul Sunnah)
Rasulullah (s) was unjust to his wives they cant rule out the possibility of him being unjust to his
daughters also!
Nasibi excuse that the acts of different caliphs are

not Hujjah upon them
The realisation by some of the Sunni caliphs of the usurpation of Ahlulbayts right in the case of Fadak
and its subsequent hand over to them (as) has caused such pain to the cyber Nawasib that they have
now come up with an excuse that the acts of their caliphs are not Hujjah upon them.
Reply One
What better rebuttal of the Nawasib can there be than our reminding them of the excelled status
afforded to Umar bin Abdul Aziz in their sect. Have they forgotten his being deemed the fifth rightly
guided caliph by some Sunni scholars? Allow us to remind them of the words of Ibn Tamiyah who in
his Minhaj al-Sunnah, Volume 4 page 104 stated:

After them (the four Caliphs) no one possesses the perfect qualities save Umar bin
Abdulaziz
Shaykh Hassan Saqqaf has stated in Sahih Sharh al-Aqeed al-Tahawya, page 722:

The fifth guided Caliph, the Imam, the Mujtahid, the Salafi pattern, Umar bin Abdulaziz
We read in Tarikh al-Khulafa by Suyuti, Volume 1 page 201:
:
Umar bin Abdulaziz bin Marwan Abu Hafs, the pious Caliph and the fifth guided Caliph
We also read:
: :
Sufyan al-Thawri said: The Caliphs are five: Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali and Umar
bin Abdulaziz
Legendry Salafi scholar Muhamad Rasheed Raza stated in Mujalat al-Mannar, Volume 1 page 504:

The just Caliph and the Mujtahid Imam Umar bin Abdulaziz who raised the status of the
Ahlulbayt who were previously oppressed by his Umayyad predecessors
Similarly Abu al-Hassan al-Sulaymani wrote in Fiqh al-Tafjeerat, page 189:

Our Salaf, in counting the reformers of each century, have counted Umar bin Abdulaziz (as
reformer) for the first century
This has been said about Umar bin Abdul Aziz in the light of the following Hadith that has been
graded Sahih by Al-Albaani in Silsila Sahiha, Volume 2 page 148:
Allahs Prophet (s) said : [After] every one hundred years Allah will send to this nation one
who shall reform the religion
Reply Two
This pathetic new generation of Nawasib may now take a U-turn and make an attempt to disassociate
themselves from the acts of their rightly guided caliphs but are they also trying to suggest that
Ahlulbayt (as), about whom we have clear directions from Holy Prophet (s) to adhere to them, actually
accepted land as rightful owners whilst they knew that they had no right of ownership in it? Are they
trying to say that the Imams of the Ahlubayt (as) by accepting land, they had no legal entitlement to,
thereby fell within the ambit of the following Hadith:
Narrated Salims father: The Prophet said, Any person who takes a piece of land unjustly will
sink down the seven earths on the Day of Resurrection.
Sahih Bukhari Book of Beginning Of Creation, Volume 004, Book 054, Hadith Number 418
Also we read in Sahih Muslim Book 10 , Number 3920:
Said b. Zaid b. Amr b. Nufail (Allah be pleased with them) reported Allahs Messenger (may
peace be upon him) as saying: He who wrongly took a span of land, Allah shall make him carry
around his neck seven earths.
We read in Majmoo by Nawawy, Volume 14 page 227:

If the wrongly taken property still exists, he should return it back
Moreover we would like Nawasib to clarify the role of the Sunni clergy during the said period? Why
did they not utter a word when this supposed illegal act, was going on, that went against the first
rightly guided khalifa whose decision should have been binding on the generations that succeeded
him?
Did they not have a religious duty to intervene in the matter and make it clear that the Caliph
was overruling the decision of the first Caliph? Todays advocates cannot argue that such silence was
on account of fear from a tyrannical leaders, since Umar ibn Abdul Aziz is counted as a rightly guided
khalifa, thus rendering him a very open minded approachable individual. There are only two options:
Option One: They were hypocrites that oversaw the unjust distribution of land and never uttered a
word
Option Two They accepted the ruling of Umar Ibn Abdul Aziz, hence their silence.
Abu Bakr had no right to seize land under Sayyida

Fatima (as)s possession
If Abu Bakr was indeed the rightful Khaleefa of Rasulullah (s), then he only had a right to control those
lands that were in the possession of Rasulullah (s) prior to his death. This was not the case with
Fadak; it was in the hands of Sayyida Fatima (as), so what right did he have to interfere in land that
was in her possession? Abu Bakr should have had a different approach, inquiring into the matter and
then deciding if the truth is established then I shall seize the land. Abu Bakrs failure to make a claim,
in the absence of proof, and decision to annex the land of another person cannot be deemed
appropriate behavior by the State.
FADA K
Preface
Conclusion
Shia Pen Newsletter

2 0 11 2 01 2 S HI A P E N
Formerly known as:

Answering-Ansar.org
2002 - 2010
MISCELLANEOUS
About Us
Contact Us
Newsletter
Privacy Policy
S T AT E M E N T
TERMS & CONDITIONS
Terms & Conditions
HOME
HOME
COMPREHENSIVE
CONCISE
DECEPTION
FIQH
QUESTIONS
NASIBI
COMPREHENSIVE
CONCISE
DECEPTION
FIQH
QUESTIONS
NASIBI
Chapter Four: Abu Bakrs rejection

of witnesses testimony
The author of Fedak asserts:
Ibne Mutahhir Hilli, a famous Shii clergyman (who was educated by Ahlus-Sunnah Ulema), states in
his book, Minhaj al-Karamah, When Fatimah said to Abu Bakr that Fedek had been bequeathed to
her, Abu Bakr wrote an answer asking for witnesses. When no witnesses were produced he dismissed
the case. If this report is correct, the case of Fedek, like any other case pertaining to inheritance,
gifting or bequeathing, lapses from Hadhrat Abu Bakr (Radhi Allahu Taala Anhu). So, there is no
reason for blaming Hadhrat Abu Bakr even from their own books in addition to the actions taken by
the Ahlul-Bayt Aimmah.
The Nasibi author failed to provide details such as the topic name or the volume and page numbers of
the reference he claimed. We will therefore not comment on it until the author or his Nasibi colleagues
prove the existence of any such narration. On the contrary, Allamah Hilli in his book Nahaj al-Hak,
page 537 records:

She brought Umm Ayman, Asma bint Umays with Ali (as) and they testified for her.
Similarly we read in another Shia text namely Tafseer al-Qumi, Volume 2 page 155:
.:

My Father narrated from Ibn Abi Umayr from Uthman bin Isa and Hamaad bin Uthman that Abu
Abdullah said: . she (Um Ayman) said: I testify that Allah revealed to Allahs apostle {And
give to the near of kin his due} thus he (s) gave Fadak to Fatima.
The alleged narration cited by the Nasibi author contradicts all the major Sunni and Shia sources that
confirm that witnesses were produced, and this was even acknowledged by a die hard Sunni scholar
such as Ibn Hajr al Makki. We also know from Sunni and Shia sources that the Fadak dispute did
NOT occur via written correspondence between the parties, it was face to face and there is a
complete unanimity on this point with Ahlul Sunnahs greatest masterpiece Sahih Bukhari confirming
it. This comment is not in line with what has been acknowledged in Sunni and Shia works and is
therefore without foundation. In the same article this mystery writer asserts confidently:
Claim
It is stated in a Hadeeth ash-Sharif, What we leave behind is to become alms. The so-called
allegation of a will could not be true in light of this Hadeeth ash-Sharif. If there had been such a will
and Hadhrat Abu Bakr had not heard about it, he would not have been held excusable unless it had
been proven by testimony.
The irony of the matter lies in the fact that it was proven by witness testimony. Sayyida Fatima (as)
brought forth witnesses to corroborate her claim, and he still struck it out. The scholars of Ahlul
Sunnah do not deny that witnesses were presented (as this Nasibi is claiming). They state that (for
various reasons) those testimonies were not accepted.
Abu Bakr sought witnesses that were produced but

their testimonies were refused on different grounds
We read in Al-Awael by Askari, page 258:
- - :
- -
Ali and Um Ayman testified before Abu Bakr that Allahs apostle granted Fadak to Fatima.
Al-Aathmi records in Simt al-Nujoom, Volume 2 page 391:

Fatima went to him and said: Allahs apostle granted me Fadak, he (Abu Bakr) replied Do
you have a proof? Thus Ali and Um Ayman testified in her favor.
We read in Fatuh al Buldan, page 35:
Malik bin Jawuna narrates from his father that Fatima said to Abu Bakr: Rasulullah (s)
bestowed Fadak to me, so return it. Ali testified in her favour, Abu Bakr asked for another
witness, and Umm Ayman testified in support of Fatima. Upon this, Abu Bakr said: O daughter
of Rasulullah (s), such testimony is unacceptable unless you have two males or one male and
two females, upon hearing this Fatima left.
We also read:
Jafar bin Muhammad said that Fatima said to Abu Bakr: Return Fadak to me as it was given to
me by Rasulullah (s). Abu Bakr demanded witnesses. Umm Ayman and Rabah the Servant of
Rasulullah (s) testified in support of her claim. He said that such testimonies were
unacceptable unless presented by one man and two women.
We also read:
Umm Hani states that Fatima daughter of Rasulullah (s) appeared before the Court of Abu Bakr
and asked: When you die who shall inherit you? He replied: My family and
descendants. Fatima said: What is your stance when you seize the inheritance of the Prophet
(s) and do not give it to us? He said: Oh daughter of Allahs messenger, I did not seize your
fathers gold and silver and this or that. Fatima then said: Give us our share of Khayber,
Fadak is our exclusive property. He [Abu Bakr] replied: Oh daughter of Rasulullah (s), I heard
the Prophet (s) say that (Fadak) is a pillar that Allah (swt) has provided for me as a source of
earnings during my life time, verily when I die, distribute this amongst the Muslims!.
We read in Wafa al Wafa, Volume 3 page 999 Bab Sadaqat un Nabi:
Fadak was that land that Fatima claimed Rasulullah (s) had given to me. Abu Bakr demanded
witnesses. Ali and Umm Ayman testified. Abu Bakr replied Only the testimony of a man and
two women are acceptable.
Prominent Sunni scholars not only affirmed

that testimonies of witnesses were rejected but
they too have supported such rejection by Abu
Bakr
It is indeed very strange to see that the new generation of the Nawasib are adopting new tactics and
denying that Abu Bakr sought witnesses from Fatima Zahra (as) or that she produced those witnesses
or that those witnesses were rejected by Abu Bakr for different reasons. All of these three stages are
documented in various Sunni books and prominent Sunni scholars have actually spent time, energy,
ink and paper with the sole purpose of supporting rejection of these witnesses. Such efforts made by
Sunni scholars shall suffice to remove those doubts being sown by those Nasibi seeking to challenge
the notion that the demand for witnesses, the testimony of such witnesses and their subsequent
rejection never happened.
The testimony of Imam Shareef Jarjani that witnesses were

produced before Abu Bakar who rejected their testimonies
Imam of Ahle Sunnah Syed Sahreef Jarjani in his authority worked Sharah Mawaqif, page 735:
If it is stated that Fatima claimed that Rasulullah had bestowed Fadak to her and that Ali,
Hassan, Husayn, Umme Kulthum testified in her favor, but the Sahih view is that it was Umm
Ayman who testified in her favor [not Umm Kulthoom], and Abu Bakr rejected their testimony
which made him an oppressor, so we will reply that the testimonies of Hasan and Husayn were
not accepted being her progeny and their being minors. As for the testimonies of Ali and Umm
Ayman, they were rejected being short of the requirement.
Are todays cyber generation of Nawasib trying to suggest that an exalted Imam of their cult was
ignorant about whether Abu Bakr demanded supporting witnesses from Fatima (as) that she
thereafter produced, and without a shred of evidence about the event went on to defend the stance
taken by his caliph for the rejection of testimonies? Worthy of note is that fact that Jarjani at
least acknowledge that Umm Ayman was produced as a witness.
The testimony of Ibn Hajjar Makki that witnesses were produced

before Abu Bakar rejected their testimonies
If the pathetic Nawaisb remain unconvinced then we now present the admission of Ibn Hajr al Makki in
his Sawaiq al-Muhriqa, pages 138 & 139. He defends Abu Bakr as follows:
In respect of claim made by Fatima that Rasulullah (s) had given Fadak to her, she could not
present any witness in her favor apart from Ali and Umm Ayman , thus the criteria for witness
numbers was not met. Moreover there are differences amongst the scholars as to whether a
husband can testify in favor of a claim made by his wife. It can also be said that Fatima did not
ask her witnesses to make a claim on oath. As for Hassan, Husayn and Umm Kulthoom
testifying in support of Fatimas claim, is incorrect, because the testimony of offspring or
underage children is unacceptable.
Sawaiq al-Muhriqa, pages 138 & 139
The testimony of Imam Fakhruddin al-Razi that witnesses were

produced before Abu Bakar who rejected their testimonies
Imam Fakhruddin al-Razi states in his Tafseer Kabeer:
:

After the death (of Rasulullah), Fatima raised the issue of Fadak that he (the Prophet) had
granted it to her, Abu Bakr said: I dont know if you are telling the truth, and I cant judge
according to it (your claim). Then Umm Ayman and a male servant testified for her. Abu Bakr
said: bring forth another witness whose word is acceptable.
The testimony of Allamah Halabi that witnesses were produced

before Abu Bakar who rejected their testimony
Allamah Burhanuddin Halabi is also counted amongst those Sunni scholars that come to the aid of
their caliphs rejection of the witness testimonies produced by Fatima (as). We read in Seerat al
Halabyah:
She asked for her share of inheritance in Fadak after she claimed that Allahs apostle had
granted her Fadak. He (Abu Bakr) said Do you have any proof? Ali gave testimony and so did
Umm Ayman. Abu Bakr said the number of witnesses have not been met by the testimonies of
a male and female. The Shias objected on Abu Bakrs act and said that Fatima (r) was truthful
in her claim because she is Masum according to the verse {Allah only desires to keep away
the uncleanness from you, O people of the House! and to purify you a (thorough)
purifying} and the words of the Prophet (s) Fatima is a part of me, and also [they say] that
Hasan, Husayn and Umme Kulthoom also testified.
The reply to them (Shias) is that the people of the house include the wives of the prophet and
they are not infallible, and the same are the rest of the people of the house. The Hadith which
was said [about Fatima] was merely figurative and the meaning of it is related to goodness and
mercy, as for the claim that Hassan and Umm Kulthoom gave testimonies, this is false
[tradition] because there is no reliable tradition prohibiting the children from testifying in favor
of their parents.
Insan al-Ayun fi Sirat al Halabiyah, Vol. 3, page 487 & 488
Comment
We have cited the fact that various Sunni works that Sayyida Fatima made her claim to the estate of
Fadak, and that Ali (as), Hassan (as), Husayn (as), Umme Kalthum (as), Umm Ayman and Rabah
testified in her favor. Later in the chapter we shall evidence that partiality exhibited by Abu Bakr in
Fatima Zahra (as)s case as there was no solid reason for rejecting her claim, the witnesses presented
during the dispute of Fadak were not short of the stipulated requirements since there had been cases
wherein the Prophet and the four caliphs accepted the sole testimony of a Sahabi and accordingly
ruled on the matter.
Status of Umm Ayman (ra)

For those who are unaware of the esteemed status of the female companion namely Umm Ayman, we
shall cite that:
Umm Ayman the Ethiopian, she was the slave of Allahs messenger
Siar alam alnubala, Volume 2 page 223
In fact, we read in Tabaqat al-Kubra, Volume 8 page 224 and Tarikh Damishq, Volume 4 page 303:
:
Rasulullah (s) said: Whoever wishes to marry a woman of paradise should marry Umm
Ayman
Abu Bakrs demanding witnesses is proof that he

did not deny her control of the land
Al Khider rejects the notion that Sayyida Fatima (as) had possession of Fadak during the lifetime of
her father, if Abu Bakr held this view he would have no doubt told her and dismissed the case
forthwith, after all why demand witnesses when you know she did not have existing possession of the
land? Abu Bakrs demanding witness testimony serves as proof that he did not dismiss that land
belonged to Sayyida Fatima (as), and demonstrates his uncertainly over whether the land belonged to
the Muslims.
Heirs have the right to demand witnesses on

matters of inheritance, not a Judge
Abu Bakr had no right to reject the assertion that the land had been bestowed to Sayyida Fatima (as).
This was a matter that concerned the heirs, let us give an example:
The deceased is survived by two Heirs. One Heir makes a claim that my father had bequeathed this
property to me, this claim affects the other Heir nobody else.
Upon the death of Rasulullah (s) no other Heir challenged the claim that had been made by Sayyida
Fatima (as), not then, nor at any other time. No other claimants came forward either, so what was the
use in Abu Bakr seeking to locate witnesses? If it was only for the purposes of having a thorough
investigation, he could have located the other Heirs, if they upheld the claim of Sayyida Fatima (as),
then the matter would have been settled there and then.
An Executor administering the deceaseds Estate

has the right to initiate inquiry not a Judge
We read in this Sunni Site:
Common errors and solutions pertaining to inheritance and winding up of estates
http://www.eastcoast.co.za/muawiya/inherit.html Cached
A person who is appointed by someone to take charge of his affairs after his death is known
as the wasiy (executor / trustee). The wasiy will be responsible for the winding-up of the
estate of the deceased, which includes the payment of debts, distribution of the inheritance
and taking care of matters relating to the family of the deceased.
The wasiy (executor) has an extremely delicate task to fulfil. His position is one of total trust. A person
is only appointed as a wasiy by the deceased, due to his reliance upon the former and his trust in
him. Since the one who appoints a wasiy realises that he will be in his grave when the executor takes
charge, he very carefully selects such a person as a wasiy who he expects will work in the best
interests of the heirs and who will ensure that all the matters are executed properly. Thus to abuse this
position of trust is the height of deception and dishonesty. Therefore, in such a matter it is imperative
to a much greater extent that one should at all times remember his being accountable to Allah Taala.
Comment
There is no evidence that Abu Bakr had been appointed as the Executor of the Prophet (s) who would
administer the distribution of his Estate after him. There is absolutely no Hadeeth to confirm this and
we challenge the Ahlul Sunnah to produce us a single authentic Hadeeth proving that the Prophet (s)
ordered Abu Bakr to take charge of his Estate as his Wasi after him. If anyone had been appointed as
the Executor of Rasulullah (s) it was Maula Ali ibn Abi Talib (as) for the Prophet (s) declared at the at
the Feast of Kinsmen before his close relatives the following about Hadhrat Ali:
This is my brother, Wasi (agent) and successor among you. Listen to him and obey him.
1. Tareekh Tabari, (English translation) by W.M.Watt, Vol 6 pp 90-91
2. Tafseer Tabari Vol 19, p 121
3. Tareekh ibn Atheer, Vol 2 p 62
4. Musnad Ahmed Ibn Hanbal, Vol 1 p 159
5. Khasais, by al Nasai, p 18
The Sunni website also says that paying debts is one of the main tasks of Wasi/executer. Now if we
look who was given the authority of paying debts of Prophet(s), we will know who was His(s) true
Wasi.
Imam Ali (as) said that he heard the Messenger of Allah (as) saying:
I have granted in Ali five things, none of which was granted to any Prophet (s) before me. One
of these is that Ali will repay my debts and will bury me.
1. Musnad of Imam Ahmed, v5, p45
2 .Musnad of Imam Ahmed, v6, p155
3. Kanz al-Ummal, v6, pp 153,155,404
We learn that Imam Ali (as) then fulfilled this duty as Wasi at a practical level following the death of the
Prophet (s). We read in Tabaqat ibn Sad Volume 2 page 396:
Muhammad ibn Abd Allah ibn Jafar Abdul Wahid ibn Abi Awn When the Prophet died,
Ali ordered a crier to cry if there was any to whom the Apostle of Allah, owed anything or to
whom he had made a promise, he should come to him. He continued to his death sending one
crier to every Festival of Sacrifice al Al-Aqabah to proclaim it. Then al Hasan ibn Ali followed
him (i.e. this practice) till he died. Then Al Husayn did it and the practise ceased after him.
Hence the role of administering the Estate of the Prophet (s) fell on the shoulders of Maula Ali (as), no
one else. Abu Bakr had no right to intervene in this matter, appoint himself Executor, take control of
the deceaseds land and refuse to return it to his legal heir. If any enquiry was to be conducted it had
to be done by Hadhrat Ali (as) and no one else. If the argument is advanced that Abu Bakrs role as
Khaleefa made him the Executor of the Prophets Estate, the Prophet (saww) left no inheritance to be
distributed, then we will say that this would make him the Wasi of the Prophets Seat [Khilafath]
nothing else! The Prophet (s) explicitly appointed Maula Ali (as) as his Wasi so if anyone was going to
distribute the Prophets belongings / land subject to his wishes that was the duty of Maula Ali NOT
Abu Bakr! If Imam Ali (as) as the Wasi was unsure over an heirs assertion that land had been
bequeathed to them, then it was as Wasi perfectly within his rights to bring the matter to the court of
law as it was his duty to distribute inheritance in accordance with the wishes of the Holy Prophet(s).
This serves as clear proof that Abu Bakr interfered in a matter that he had no right under the Shariah
to do.
Abu Bakr as Judge had no right to demand

witness corroboration
Abu Bakr had no right to adjudicate over this matter. The claim of Sayyida Fatima (as) was against
Abu Bakr, or at minimum was against the State, that was lead by Abu Bakr. In either case Abu Bakr
came within both i.e. he was a party to the action. It is a settled rule of law that the Head of a State
does not both contest and rule on a matter that is challenging his initial decision. No just legal system
allows a party to an action to adjudicate over it. The basic concept of law is that a judge should not
reside over a matter case wherein he has a personal interest. There must be nothing that may make it
appear to the public that the judge is partisan, even if in fact he is not as to do so may lead to an
assumption that he was improperly swayed.
We appeal to justice, was Abu Bakr not presiding over a matter case wherein he has a personal
interest? Can there be a greater personal interest that one, wherein you are being asked to rule on
your own personal decision? Would his deciding to rule over a matter wherein he was one party not
lead to an assumption of partisanship from the ordinary man on the street? Place yourself in the
shoes of Sayyida Fatima (as):
You own a plot of land that your father had given to you as a birthday present. The land is rich in
agriculture and supports the finances of you and your family. One morning you decide to visit the plot
to see how the produce is harvesting, and notice that Council Officers are walking along the land,
taking the produce away. You see a Notice on the land stating This Property belongs to the Local
Authority. You are absolutely outraged and immediately make a formal complaint to the Chief
Executive of the Local Authority, he replies I as Chief Executive of the Local Authority have taken the
decision to take charge of the land, as I was a close friend of your father, and he told me that he didnt
want to leave any inheritance, all that he owned should be handed over to the poor and destitute in the
community. You find this somewhat unusual; after all wouldnt your father have conveyed this
information to you? Angered you decide to challenge this assertion, the laws of inheritance make you
the legal Heir of this property and you decide to challenge this confiscation in a Court of Law, setting
out your case before a fair, impartial Judge. You enter the Court and find that the Judge is the same
Chief Executive who annexed your land in the first place.
Ask yourself:
1.
Would you deem this to be a fair trial?
2.
There is a principle enshrined in English Law Justice should not only be done, but should
undoubtedly and manifestly be seen to be done Has justice been seen to be done here?
3.
Is it appropriate for a Judge to rule on the correctness of a decision taken by him?
In the same way that Abu Bakr would seek to resolve other matters by consulting the Sahaba, he
should have gathered the Muslims in the Mosque, informed them of the dispute and appointed a
Judge, where Khaleefa Abu Bakr would have been given the opportunity to advocate his stance. This
was the approach of Rightful Khaleefa Ali (as). During his reign a Jew obtained possession of his
armour. Rather than exercise his power as Khaleefa and take it back, he (as) made a petition before a
Judge, and presented his case as plaintiff in Court, representing himself. This is what we call justice.
Think about this from a logical point of view:
Witnesses are required when the testimony of the claimant is challenged. In this dispute the claim of
Sayyida Fatima (as) could have been challenged by the wives of Rasulullah (s), Banu Hashim and
other Muslims and yet not one of this group challenged the claim of Sayyida Fatima (as), nor did they
make a claim to Fad.What right did the Khaleefa have to challenge the claim of Sayyida Fatima (as)
and confiscate her land?
Look at the practice of the Secular West. When a claim is made against the Government, the matter is
not decided by the State itself.Rather the Government has a representative, and the case is presented
before the Court which decides the matter. The Government is prevented from ruling on the matter.
We ask the jurists of Islam who defend Abu Bakr by stating that the testimony of children for their
mother is unacceptable in Islam. Why have they failed to look at the fact that here a party to the action
is also ruling on the dispute! Even if the claim was against the Government, Abu Bakr still had no right
to adjudicate the matter.The matter was made more serious by the fact that the land had been directly
confiscated by Abu Bakr making him the defendant, hence it was extremely important for just decision
of the case that he removed his every influence from its adjudication. He should have said that Fadak
is land that all Muslims should benefit from, and I hold it for them and I shall appoint an Independent
Judge to pass judgement on my assertion.
But ignoring the practice of Rasulullah (s) he deemed himself the rightful owner of Fadak and kept the
property in his own hands. Not a single narration exists suggesting that Abu Bakr distributed Fadak
amongst the Muslims. The clearest proof comes from the written instruction of Mamun al Rashid (that
we cited earlier from Futuh ul Buldan), who deemed the descendants of Sayyida Fatima (as) the
owners of Fadak in the same manner as his representative Mubarak Tabari was:
Your subordinates should be informed that Muhammad bin Yahya and Muhammad bin
Abdullah be treated in the same manner as you dealt with Mubarak Tabari
As the land was under the personal ownership of the Khalifas Servant it was under his control.
Sayyida Fatima (as)s claim was against Abu Bakrs control of the land, and accepting this claim was
against Abu Bakrs personal benefit.
The onus was on Abu Bakr to produce witnesses

not Sayyida Fatima (as)
The rule of law is that the burden of proof is on the party who denies the ownership of party in
possession.
So the question arises, which party had the burden to prove its case, which would in turn require it to
bring forth witnesses to corroborate its claim?
Sayyida Fatima (as) already had this land in her control. The onus was therefore on Abu Bakr to prove
the correctness of his decision to interfere and annex the land from her. Let us also look at this matter
from another angle. Sayyida Fatima (as) made her claim as legal heir to her fathers property. The law
of inheritance supported her stance. In contradiction to the Quranic injunctions on inheritance, Abu
Bakr advanced a Hadith that was rejected by Sayyida Fatima (as). In these circumstances the onus of
proving the authenticity of this Hadeeth was on Abu Bakr, as Sayyida Fatima (as) had textual evidence
(the Book of Allah (swt)) to support her right of inheritance while Abu Bakr was seeking to negate this
legitimate right on the basis of hearsay evidence. Obviously for textual evidence to be refuted clearer
evidence needs to be adduced to show that a Hadeeth exists that makes verses on Prophetic
inheritance null and void. The sole oral evidence of Abu Bakr(uncorroborated by any other witness)
who also happened to be the Judge was clearly not satisfactory. It required others to come forward to
confirm that the Prophets leave no inheritance. The onus was on Abu Bakr to prove that the Hadeeth
he cited was correct not on Sayyida Fatima (as) to prove that she was heir to the Estate of the Prophet
(s).
Although the settled rules of both Islamic and common law are sufficient to clarify our point, we here
cite an example to further elaborate the position to readers who do not know the legal points in depth.
You are one of the Tabieen (generation after the Prophet) and wish to marry a Christian woman. On
the day of the Wedding the Imam you had asked to perform the Nikah refuses to do so, stating that he
was told that the Prophet (s) said that marriage with the people of the Book is haraam.
Upon whom does the burden of proof lie? You or the Imam? The burden does not fall on you since the
Book of Allah (swt) permits such a marriage, so you dont need witnesses to corroborate your claim,
the Book is your witness. The Imam has made a claim that contradicts the Book of Allah (swt).
Therefore the onus falls upon him to summon witnesses who can confirm that they heard the Prophet
(s) say these words that render this verse abrogated.
The same facts apply here, Sayyida Fatima (as) required no witnesses to prove her status as Heir, the
Quranic verses on inheritance vouched for this. As Abu Bakr had made an assertion that in effect
challenged the validity of a Quranic verse the onus fell on him to produce witnesses to support his
claim.
Rather than demand witnesses why didnt Abu

Bakr allow the Muslims to rule on the matter?
If Abu Bakr was not the claimant then he should have referred the matter to those he deemed parties
to the action. He was of the opinion that the entire Estate of Fadak belonged to all the Muslims, so he
should have placed the matter into the hands of the Muslims.If they upheld the opinion of Sayyida
Fatima (as) there would have been no need for summoning witnesses.This is what is in line with
Islamic Fiqh. This entire matter was based on Fiqh, so why did he ignore the other claimants in the
matter? Abu Bakr should have said, Look Fadak is land that all Muslims should benefit from but the
reality is he deemed Fadak to be the personal property of the Prophet (s), which is why he brought it
under his own control. There is not a single narration from the books of Ahlul Sunnah that would
suggest that the land of Fadak had been distributed amongst the Muslims. Of interest is the fact that
Umar also held such a viewpoint, when it came to ruling on Muslim lands:
In Volume 2 page 51 of Hayatus Sahaba under the Chapter The practice of seeking advice of the
elite by Hadrat Abu Bakr (r) we read a narration transmitted by Ibn Abu Shaibah in Tarikh by al
Bukhari, Ibn Asakir, Baihaqi and Yaqoob bin Sufyan:
Ubaida reports Aina bin Hasan and Aqra bin Habis approached Hadrat Abu Bakr (rad) and
said O Caliph of the Messenger of Allah! There is some fallow land in out area. If you deem it
considerable, give us the land so that we can cultivate it to earn our livelihood. He donated it
to them and wrote a decree in support thereof. He also put down the name of Hadrat Umar (ra)
on it as a witness. On seeing the document Hadrath Umar spat over it and erased its contents.
Both of them grew angry and admonished Hadrat UImar (Rad). He replied The Holy Prophet
(s) infused love for Islam in both of you. It was the time when Islam was unstable, but now it
has gained an honourable status. You therefore go and do as you like. May Allah allow you
concession if you seek any. Both of them went grambling to Hadrat Abu Bakr (Rad) and said,
Tell us who is the Caliph, yourself or Umar? In a way he (umar) is the Caliph, because he
could become Caliph if he wanted to be so said Hadrat Abu Bakr (Rad). In the meantime Hadrat
Umar said Does te land you have donated to these two persons belong to you or to the
Muslims as a whole? Hadrat Abu Bakr replied, It is the property of the Muslims as a whole
Hadrat Umar (Rad) said What them made you to reserve this piece of land for these two
persons ignoring the Muslims as a whole? Hadrat Abu Bakr (Rad) said, The people around me
had advised me to do so. At this Hadrat Umar (Rad) said, Had you consulted only the people
around you or had you sought the opinion of all the Muslims who are the real owners of the
property? Hadrat Abu Bakr (Rad) replied, I had told you that you are stronger than me in
matters of Caliphate, but you did ignore my pleas and put me as Caliph [Al Kanz (Volume 2
page 189)al Isabah (Volume 3 page 55) Al Bukhari (Volume 1 page 59). This Hadith has been
mentioned by the above sources with a correct Isnad].
Hayat us-Sahaba, Vol. 2, Pages 51 & 52
To summarise the facts of this narration are as follows:
1.
Abu Bakr donated Muslim land to the Sahaba to aid them with livelihood.
2.
Abu Bakr arrived at the decision by seeking out advice of the people around me
3.
Umar overruled Abu Bakr, stating that the land was Muslim land and hence all the Muslims
required consultation on the matter.
Clearly Umars opinion was also applicable here, so why did the Khalifas key adviser not advance this
line of argument in the Fadak dispute? Like the land in the above scenario, Abu Bakr had also ruled
that Fadak upon the death of the Prophet (s) had become land belonging to the Muslims so why did
Umar not insist that the opinion of all Muslims be sought on the matter? Umars approach on Fadak
was indeed very different, we have already cited his approach as found in Seerah al Halbeeya Volume
2 page 488:
Sibt ibn Jauzi narrates that after Fatima made her claim to the ownership of Fadak, Abu Bakr
heard her claim and Abu Bakr left a written instruction that it be restored to her, then Umar
came to Abu Bakr, and asked Who is this document for? The Khalifa said Its with regards to
Fadak this is a written document for Fatima in relation to her fathers inheritance. Umar said
then how will you spend for the Muslims, when the Arabs are preparing to fight you, Umar
then took the document and ripped it up.
Why did Umar not intervene in this matter and insist that as Fadak belonged to all Muslims the opinion
of all Muslims should be sought? That was his line of argument when it came to Abu Bakrs donating
Muslim land to the Sahaba, but when it came to giving land to Sayyida Fatima (as) Umar deemed it
his sole entitlement to rule on the matter, without the need to consult the Muslims! If anything this
references serves as proof of the contradictory approach that Umar took when ruling on Muslim
lands, showing clear prejudice towards Sayyida Fatima (as).
We read in Tabaqat ibn Sad Volume 2 page 451 [English translation], under the Chapter The learned
and those who gave Fatwas from among the companions of the Apostle of Allah, May Allah bless him:
Muhammad ibn Umar al Aslami informed us; (he said): Jariyah ibn Abi Imran informed us on
the authority of Abd al-Rahman Ibn al Qasim, he on the authority of his father; Verily when Abu
Bakr confronted with an important affair about which he needed council of the wise and the
jurists, he called some Muhajirs and Ansars. He called Umar, Uthman, Ali, Abd-al Rahman Ibn
Awf, Muadh ibn Jabal, Unayy Ibn Kab and Zayd Ibn Thabit, every one of whom gave Fatwas
during the Caliphate of Abu Bakr. The cases of the people for Fatwas were referred to them(the
companions). This continued till the end of Abu Bakrs life.
Tabaqat Ibn Saad, Vol. 2, Page 451 & 452
When Abu Bakr had a Council of scholars to clarify legal disputes then why did he not utilise this
Panel of scholars during the Fadak dispute?
Either Abu Bakr deemed himself to be a claimant.
OR
He feared handing over the matter to the Muslims as claimants to the action since they may rule in
favour of the claimant.
Sayyida Fatima was Siddiqah hence it was Abu

Bakrs duty to accept her claim without demanding
witnesses
Sayyida Fatima (as) was clear and firm in her claim, namely that Rasulullah (s) had given Fadak to
her, and that she was entitled to her Share from Khayber and outskirts of Madina as Khums. She had
a legal right to the property of Rasulullah (s).
Sayyida Fatima was convinced about the correctness of her opinion and did not believe that her
truthfulness would be challenged. When witnesses were demanded she verified the truthfulness of her
claim by producing the testimonies of Imam Ali (as), Imam Hassan (as), Imam Husayn (as), Umm
Ayman, and Rabah the Servant of Rasulullah (s).
Why didnt Abu Bakr accept the claim of Sayyida Fatima (as) in the first instance? Why did he ask for
witness corroboration? If the court believes in the witness testimony, or that given by the claimant,
then judgement can be passed. Additional witnesses are required to confirm the truthfulness of a
claim, to convince a Judge. If a thing is truthful, then it remains true whether you have one witness or
ten witnesses. The witness of a credible witness followed by many witnesses who are not as strong in
no way weakens a case if the first witnesss credibility is proven. The Ulema of Islam have set
conditions on the number of witnesses in general circumstances which refers to specific situations,
but this does not apply where the Ruler has direct knowledge on a matter. Let us cite an example:
I am a Judge and I witness a man robbing another man, no other witnesses are present. Will I apply
the Islamic penalty or shall I state I demand two witnesses to verify what I saw.Failure to do shall lead
to me to dismiss the case.
Witnesses are summoned as a matter of clarity, to arrive at a correct judgement. If a Judge does not
have clear direct knowledge on matter then he can utilise reliance on witness testimony. Hadhrat Abu
Bakr should have accepted Fatimas belief in the correctness of her claim after all Sunnis Fiqh
stipulates that the testimony of one just Sahaba is all that is needed (Fathul Bari Volume 9 page 44).
That is a general rule, but Sayyida Fatima (as)s is far above that of any Sahaba, we read in Ahlul
Sunnahs authority work Riyadh al Nadira Volume 3 page 220, Dhikr Fadail Ali:
Rasulullah (s) said to Ali You have three virtues not possessed by anyone else
1. You have a father in law like me.
2. You have received my truthful daughter as your wife
3. You have received pious sons such as Hasan and Husayn
Comment
Three things are proven from this tradition
1.
No one other than Maula Ali (as) was the son in law of Rasulullah (s)
2.
No descendents are superior to Hassan and Husayn
3.
Other than Ali (as) no one has a truthful wife
The tradition testifies to the truthfulness of Sayyida Fatima (as).
Sayyida Fatima (as) is the example of Maryam (as)

We read in Ahlul Sunnahs authority work Kanz al Ummal Volume 6 page 219 Bab Fadail Min Qism al
Kaul:
Rasulullah said the first to enter Paradise shall be Fatima as she is the example of Maryam
for this Ummah
Dr Tahir al Qadri in Al Durrathul Baydha fee Manaqib Fatima al Zahra (as) page 106 also recorded
this narration from Kanz, counting it as one of her virtues.
Al Duratul Baydha fee Manaqib Fatima al Zahra (as), Page 106
Comment
In this Hadeeth Rasulullah (s) has compared Sayyida Fatima (as) to Hadhrat Maryam (as) that
confirms her status as Siddiqah and Batool.
The truthfulness of Sayyida Fatima (as) and

Hadhrat Maryam (as) is proven from the Quran
We read in Surah Maida verse 75:
Christ the son of Mary was no more than a messenger; many were the messengers that
passed away before him. His mother was a woman of truth.
Comment
In the Hadeeth earlier we showed that Rasulullah (s) compared Sayyida Fatima (as) to Hadhrat
Maryam (as) and the Quran confirms that Maryam (as) was Siddiqah as is the case with Hadhrat
Fatima (as).
The testimony of Hadhrat Ayesha that Sayyida

Fatima (as) was Siddiqah
As evidence we shall rely on the following esteemed Sunni works:
1.
al Mustadrak al Hakim, Volume 3 page 161
2.
al Istiab, Volume 4 page 366
3.
al Kamil fi Isma al Rijjal al Isab al Mushkwaath, page 29 Dhikr Fatima binte Rasul (printed
Kanpur)
4.
Hilayath al Awliya, Volume 2 page 42
Abdullah bin Zubair narrated from his father that whenever Ayesha mentioned Fatima the
daughter of the Prophet, she used to say: I never saw someone more truthful than her apart
from the one that produced her (her father).
Al-Mustadrak al-Hakim, Vol. 3, page 160 & 161
Imam Al-HakIm said: Sahih according to Muslims condition while Imam Dhahabi
stated: According to Muslims condition.
Imam Abu Yala records in his Musnad:

: : :
Amro bin Dinar narrated that Ayesha said: I never witnessed anyone more truthful than
Fatima except her father. When a dispute arose between them (Fatima and Ayesha) she
(Ayesha) said: Oh Allahs messenger ask her (Fatima) verily she will not lie
Musnad Abu Yala, Volume 9 page 465 Tradition 4850
Imam Abi Bakar Al-Haythami in Majma al-Zawaed, Volume 9 page 201 and Allamah Salehi al-Shami
in Subul al-Huda wa al-Rashad, Volume 11 page 47 said: The narrators are of Sahih (books) .
Comment
We appeal to justice. Would you ever accept that Ayesha and Hafsa would lie to gain material
possessions? If you could never accept that these mothers of the faithful and daughters of the
Khaleefa would lie for worldly gain, then is it possible that the daughter of Rasulullah (s) would bring a
false case and lie for worldly gain? We are talking about Sayyida Fatima (as) who shares her blood
with Rasulullah (s), whose happiness and anger is on par with the happiness and anger of Rasulullah
(s), whose truthfulness is declared by Allah (swt) in the Quran. The word of Rasulullah (s) is proof,
and when this truthful woman made a claim for Fadak, how is it that Tafseer Kabeer suggests that
Sayyida Fatima (as)s claim was a lie (astaghfirullah).
Sayyida Fatima (as) is the example of Maryam (as), and Maryam verified the truthfulness of her claim
by relying on the testimony of her infant son, and this testimony was accepted by her people. Sayyida
Fatima (as) sought to verify the truthfulness of her claim by relying upon the testimonies of her young
sons, and yet this did not convince Khaleefa Abu Bakr.
Sayyida Fatima Siddiqah (as) is Masum (Infallible)

For evidence we shall rely on the following esteemed Sunni works:
1.
Sahih al Bukhari Volume 5, Book 57, Number 61, Bab Fadail Fatima & Volume 7, Book 62,
Number 157 Bab ul Nikah
2.
Sahih Muslim Book 031, Number 6000 Bab Fatima Binte Rasul
3.
Mustadrak al Hakim Volume 3 159 Bab Fadail Fatima
4.
Kanza Thamil Volume 6 page 219 Kitab Fadail min Qism al Kaul
5.
al Isaba Volume 4 page 366
6.
Hilayath al Awliya Volume 20
7.
Ruzatul Ahbaab page 608
For the sake of brevity we shall cite only a handful of sources.

Sahih al Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 157 Bab ul Nikah:
Fatima is a part of my body, and I hate what she hates to see, and what hurts her, hurts me.
Sahih al Bukhari Volume 5, Book 57, Number 61, Bab Fadail Fatima:
Allahs Apostle said, Fatima is a part of me, and he who makes her angry, makes me angry.
Sahih Muslim Book 031, Number 6000 Bab Fatima Binte Rasul:
Miswar b. Makhramah reported Allahs Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: Fatima
is a part of me. He in fact tortures me who tortures her.
Commentary of the words Fatima is a part of me

In Ahlul Sunnahs authority work Naseem al Riyadh, Shah Shifa Qadhi Khan Volume 4 page 565, the
author Shuhabudin al Hanafi writes:
The author of Nihaya said the words Bazzaa whether with Fatha or Kasra are both
acceptable but the Kasr is better known as Biza means a piece of flesh, the Hadeeth means
that Fatima is a piece of me since Fatima is a part of Rasulullah (s), this Hadeeth proves the
virtuous rank of Sayyida Fatima, one that no other woman can attain
Commentary of the words part of my body

Qadhi Badradeen Aini in his famous commentary of Sahih al Bukhari, Umdah thul Qari Volume 7
page 665, comments on this tradition as follows:
Bayhaqi has deduced from the above Hadeeth, that anyone that swears at this lady is a
Kaafir.
Commenting on this Hadeeth at another place (Umdathul Qari Volume 9 page 514) Aini states:
From the above Hadeeth this ruling is proven that one whose pains Fatima, pains Rasulullah
(s), inflicting even the slightest pain to them is haraam
We have proven the authenticity of this Hadeeth from seven Sunni works, and we have produced the
commentaries from two esteemed Sunni works Naseem al Riyadh and Umdah thul Qari. The
conclusion that can be deduced is that inflicting pain upon Sayyida Fatima (as), is haraam in the same
way it is to pain Rasulullah (s) and that cursing Sayyida Fatima is Kufr as is the case with cursing
Rasulullah (s).
The Hadeeth proves the infallibility of Sayyida

Fatima al Siddiqah
The tradition proves that making Sayyida Fatima angry is on par with inflicting pain upon Rasulullah
(s), both are haraam. When hurting Sayyida Fatima (as) is haraam, such a position can only occur
when Sayyida Fatima (as) is infallible like Rasulullah (s). If Sayyida Fatima was not infallible then
hurting her in certain scenarios would not have been haraam, but hurting Fatima (as) whatever the
circumstances are is haraam, and this can only be the case when Sayyida Fatima (as) is infallible.
If Rasulullah (s) said to Abu Bakr this land belongs to me, so return it to me and Abu Bakr challenged
his claim by insisting on witnesses this would constitute major disrespect, neigh it would be haraam.
Similarly one should contemplate on Fatimas infallibility like the Prophet (s) hence Abu Bakrs
demanding witnesses in the Fadak dispute was major disrespect and a sin on his part. By rejecting
Sayyida Fatimas claim on the grounds that witnesses criteria was not met caused pain to her, and
one that pains Sayyida Fatima (as) pains Rasulullah (s).
Sayyida Fatima (as)s infallibility is proven from the

verse of purity
Note: Ansar.Org have written an article on this claiming that the verses refers to the wives of the
Prophet (s). We shall Inshallah dedicate a separate article to refute their lies.
The Holy Book of Allah mentions Ahlul-Bayt and their exceptional virtue in the following verse which is
known as Verse of purity (Ayah al-Tathir):
Verily Allah intends to keep off from you every kind of uncleanness O People of the House
(Ahlul-Bayt), and purify you with a perfect purification.
Al-Quran, Surah Al-Ahzab, Ayah 33
We shall now cite evidences to prove in whose honour this verse was descended:
1.
Sahih Muslim, Chapter of virtues of companions, section of the virtues of the Ahlul-Bayt of the
Prophet (PBUH&HF), 1980 Edition Pub. in Saudi Arabia, Arabic version, v4, p1883, Tradition #61.
2.
Jami al Tirmidhi Volume 2 page 589 Bab Manaqib Ahlul bayt (as)
3.
Tafseer Gharab al Quran Part 22 (Quran) page 11, commentary of Surah Ahzab
4.
Tafseer Kabeer Volume 6 page 579 commentary of Surah Ahzab
5.
Tafseer Rul al Maani Part 22 (Quran) page 13, commentary of Surah Ahzab
6.
Tafseer Fathul Qadeer Volume 4 page 270
7.
Tafseer Ibn Katheer Volume 4 page 4 commentary of Surah Ahzab
8.
Tafseer Mazhari Volume 7 page 373
9.
Tafseer Durre Manthur Volume 5 page 198 (printed Egypt)
10.
Tafseer Jauhar al Quran Part 22 (Quran) page 28, commentary of Surah Ahzab
11.
Tafseer al Itqan Volume 2 page 173
12.
Tafseer Asbaab al Nazool page 627
13.
Sharh Fiqh Akbar page 121
14.
Mishkat al Masabeeh Volume 2 page 254
15.
Mustadrak al Sahihayn, Bab fadhail al-ahlulbayt
The verse refers to a specific household

If we analyse the verse we see that Ahlul bayt (as) are addressed with the masculine / plural term
Kum whilst in the Quran the wives of the Prophet (s) are addressed in the plural feminine Kun. We
challenge the followers of Muawiya to show us a single verse of the Quran where the wives of the
Prophet are addressed with a masculine term.
When Allah (swt) addresses the houses of the Prophets wives the terms Bayootikun is used.
Bayoot is the plural (3 or more) of Bayt whilst the verse of purification makes reference to Bayt
(single) meaning a house. The verse refers to a house wherein the majority of inhabitants are male
this cannot be the case with wives of the Prophet (s).We therefore need to analyse the books of
Ahadeeth and Tafseer to understand in whose honour the verse has been descended.
Only five people were included in the cloak

We read in Sahih Muslim:
Narrated Ayesha:
One day the Prophet (PBUH&HF) came out afternoon wearing a black cloak (upper garment or
gown; long coat), then al-Hasan Ibn Ali came and the Prophet accommodated him under the
cloak, then al-Hussain came and entered the cloak, then Fatimah came and the Prophet
entered her under the cloak, then Ali came and the Prophet entered him to the cloak as well.
Then the Prophet recited: Verily Allah intends to keep off from you every kind of uncleanness
O People of the House (Ahlul-Bayt), and purify you with a perfect purification (the last
sentence of Verse 33:33).
We read in al Mustadrak al Hakim:
The narrator states, when the revelation descended, the Rasul (s) said, call them to me, call
them to me, Safia asked the Rasul(s) Ya Rasulullah whom shall I call then the Prophet(s)
replied My family namely, Ali, Fatima, Hassan and Hussain
When they came, the Prophet(s) wrapped them under the cloak and raised his hand in prayer
and said Ya Allah this is my progeny, send your blessings to me and my progeny
Thereafter Allah sent down the revelation of Ayat ul Tatheer
NB: This tradition can be summarised by the following four points
1.
The word Ahl(Family) is mentioned in this verse.
2.
The word Ahlulbayt.
3.
The revelation of Ayat ul Tathir is mentioned
4.
Four members of the family are also mentioned in this tradition.
So it becomes clear that this revelation has been revealed to those members of the family who are
Ali, Fatima, Hassan and Hussain.
This tradition shows and proves beyond doubt that this verse has been revealed in the glory of the
above mentioned members of the family. If there is a tradition that contradicts the glory of the
Ahulbayt(s) then surely this tradition will hold no weight when brought in front of the Quran.
The Prophet(s) would recite this verse outside the home of Sayyida
Fatima (as) for the next six nine months (following revelation)
We shall cite the following proofs from famous Ahlul Sunnah scholars:
1.
Fathul Qadeer by Allamah Shukani page 271 Volume 4
2.
Tafseer Maraaghi, V7 P 22
3.
Tafseer Durre Manthur, V5, P199
4.
Tasfeer Khazan, P213, V54
5.
Mustadrak al Hakim P158, V3
al Hakim states:
Anas states: The Prophet(s) after fajr prayer recited the verse for the next six months outside
the home of Sayyida Fatima.
Ahmad bin Mustafa al-Muraaghi (d. 1317 H) records in Tafseer Muraaghi:
Ibn Abbas states, we have witnessed that the Prophet (pbum), after every prayer used to visit
Ali Ibne Abi Talib door and recited Ayatu Tatheer. He did this continuously for 9 months. He did
this fives times a day.
There is absolute agreement that Sayyida Fatima (as), Ali (as), and their two sons are counted as
Ahlul bayt (as), while this consensus has not been established with regards to the wives. On the
contrary their inclusion has been questioned. It is common sense that we embrace a matter that has
no doubt and leave one that is doubtful.
The Prophet (s) visited his wives separately, but we find no evidence from the works of Ahlul Sunnah
of him reciting the verse of purification before entering their homes.
The above evidence proves beyond doubt that the verse of purity has been revealed for the five
members of the family.
The wives of the Prophet are not included in the

Ahlulbayt
We cite the following proof:
1.
Tafseer Ibn Katheer, v4 p4 Al Azhab
2.
Tafseer Ruh al Maani, p22 V13
3.
Tafseer Kabeer, p213 Volume 5 [printed Egypt]
4.
Tafseer Durre Manthur, p189 Volume 5
5.
Nazool Al Ibrar, p58
6.
Zakhair al Uqba, P22
In this case we will only cite an extract of the book Nazool Al Ibrar by Allamah Badkhashani alHanbali:
Umme Salma said that Rasul was in my house, the servant told us the Ali and Fatima have
arrived, the Prophet stated, Oh Umme Salama, please go elsewhere as my Ahlulbayt(as) has
arrived, Umme Salma stated that I got up and sat in one corner of the room. The Prophet took
Hassan and Hussain in his laps and he put his hands on Ali and Fatimas head and showed his
affection toward them. He put the mantle on them and raised his hands to the sky and prayed,
Oh Allah, for your sake me and my Ahlul Bayts(as)
Points to consider
1.
The Prophet told Umme Salama that my Ahlulbayt have arrived, please go elsewhere. If the
wife of the Prophet were a member of Ahlulbayt then Rasul would not have asked her to move
away.
2.
It is stated in Tafseer Durre Manthur that Umme Salama asked the Prophet (s) whether or not
she was included amongst the Ahlulbayt(as) The Prophet replied that you are amongst the wives
of the Prophet(as). Abu Bakr and the wives of the Prophet are not included in the people of purity.
If anyone does not accept this out of enmity then it is between him and Allah. We cannot see any
clear Hadeeth that mentions the wives of the Prophet or Abu Bakr within the fold of the Ahlulbayt
of the Prophet (as).
The final attempt of the Ahlul Sunnah to count

wives as Ahlul Bayt (as)
We read in Surah Hud verse 73:
They said: Dost thou wonder at Allahs decree? The grace of Allah and His blessings on you,
o ye people of the house! for He is indeed worthy of all praise, full of all glory!
Al-Quran, Surah Hud, Ayah 73, translated by Yusufali
When the Angels gave glad tidings to Lady Sarah that she would conceive a child, she was shocked
on account of her old age, but if Allah wills then He can give progeny to a 90 year old mother of the
Faithful whilst keeping an 18 year old mother of the faithful to be barren.
Objection:
The Ahlul Sunnah state in this verse that Lady Sarah (as) a wife of a Prophet is counted as Ahlul
Bayt, as would be the case for the wives of the Prophet (s).
Reply One:
This point can only be made by those ignorant of research of Tafseer and their translations. Esteemed
Deobandi scholar Allamah Ashraf Ali Thanvee has translated the words in this verse as follows:
O people of this family
Had Ahlul bayt (as) in this verse meant wife, then Thanvee would have translated the verse as
Zawaaj un Nabi.
If the meaning of the word Ahlulbayt is linked to the wives of the Prophet only then the scholars
should have addressed the wives as Zawaaj un Nabi (i.e. wives of the Prophet) instead of using the
terminology Ahlulbayt.
Reply Two the wife of Nabi Ibraheem (as) was included due to her
blood lineage with future Prophets
Allamah Qadhi Thanaullah Panee Pathee al Hanafi in his esteemed Sunni exegesis of the Quran,
Tafseer Mazhari Volume 5 page 38 [commentary of Surah Hud] stated:
Rehmat means Prophethood, Burqath means loins of Bani Israeel, since all Prophets come
from the loins of Bani Israeel, all are from the children of Sara
Comment
Qadhi is making an important point:
Hadhrat Sara shared blood lineage with Hadhrat Ibraheem (as). She was his uncles daughter, was
the mother of Prophet Isaac and the grandmother of Prophet Yaqoob (as). All Prophets come from
Banu Israeel so she was counted as Ahlul bayt (as) due to the fact that she shared her blood lineage
with the Prophets. Amongst the wives of the Prophet (s) only Hadhrat Khadeeja had such an honour,
she was mother of the Leader of the Women of Paradise and was the grandmother of eleven Imams,
all of whom traced their lineage back to her.
The Ahlul bayt (as) are exempt from all forms of

Rijs
There are no contradictions in the words of Allah (swt). In the verse under discussion, Allah (swt)
makes it clear that the Ahlul bayt (as) are those individuals that are exempt from all forms of Rijs. Rijs
is a term that carries many meanings in the Holy Quran, wherein Allah (swt) identifies deeds such as
Shirk and hypocrisy to be Rijs. Rijs is a term that includes physical and spiritual impurity. In the Hans
Wehr dictionary of modern written Arabic page 327:
Rijs is defined as dirt, filth, dirty thing or act, atrocity.
Now were the wives of the Prophet (s) exempt from all forms of Rijs as Allah (swt) guaranteed to Ahlul
bayt (as) in the verse of purity? If they were then they are indeed the Ahlul bayt. If they were not then
they cannot come within this definition, for Allah (swt) would not deem a group to be free from all
forms of Rijs when they are not. In Islam the state of Janub is a form of physical impurity in which a
remedial action requires a complete Ghusl of the body. For men this is linked to the excretion of
semen, it is required of married couples after sex. For women an additional form of Rijs innate in
females is menstruation. Allah (swt) deems menses to be Rijs. A woman remains in this impure state
until her period ends and she performs Ghusl.
Now if we analyse Bab ul Haidh in Sahih al Bukhari we see clear tradition showing that the wives also
experienced this type of Rijs. Sayyida Fatima (as) was protected from this type of Rijs, Rasulullah (s)
gave her the title Batool that means purity from Menses. Shia scholar Shaykh Seduq records in
Maani al-Akhbar, page 64:
Ali bin Abi Talib said: Once Allahs messenger was asked: What is batool? Oh Allahs
messenger, we heard you saying Mary is batool and Fatima is batool?. He (as) replied: Batool
is the one who never saw blood, has never had a period, because the daughters of prophets
are kept free of menses.
Imam of Sunnah Tabarani records in Muajam al-Kabir, Volume 22 page 401:
Ayesha said: I saw Allahs messenger (pbuh) kissing Fatima. Thus I said: Oh Allahs
messenger! I see you doing some thing you never used to do before? He replied: Oh
Humayra, the night I was taken on a journey of the heaven, I entered the paradise, I stood next
to a tree amongst the trees of the paradise and I never saw any tree looking better than it, nor
better leaves than it, nor better fruit than it, hence I took one of it fruits and ate it, then it
became a seed in my loin and then when I return back to earth, I had intercourse with Khadija
thus she become pregnant by Fatima. Therefore whenever I miss the smell of paradise, I smell
Fatima. Oh Humayra, verily Fatima is not like other women and she doesnt have periods.
As for the state of Janub, in his lifetime (s), only two people were protected from such a state, the
Prophet (s) and Maula Ali (as). In that there is no doubt and in this connection we shall rely on two
traditions narrated by al Hafidh Jalaludeen as Suyuti in Tareekh ul Khulafa. We are quoting from the
partial English translation of Abd as-Samad Clarke. On page 179 we read:
Sad said: The Prophet [p] said to Ali It is not permitted for anyone to be in a state of Janub
(requiring the complete washing of the body known as Ghusl) in the Mosque apart from me
and you.
Tareekh ul-Khulafa, Page 179
On page 180 we read the envy of Umar in this regards:
Abu Hurraira said: Umar ibn al Khattab said, Ali was given three qualities any one of which I
should prefer the gift of over high-bred camels. He was asked And what are they?. He said
He married him his daughter Fatimah, his dwelling at the mosque wherein what is not
permitted to me in it is permitted to him; and the standard on the Day of Khayber
The fact that Maula Ali (as) and Sayyida Fatima (as) were exempt from such states is proof that this
verse was in honour of them and their sons not the wives of the Prophet (s). If any doubt remains then
allow us to cite this tradition recorded by a leading contemporary Hanafi scholar Dr Tahir al Qadri. In
his book Maraja al-Bahrayn fi Manaqib al-Hasnayn page 48, he records this tradition:
Umme Salma (ra) narrates that she heard the Prophet (s) say It is never halaal for a person in
a state of Janaba or menstruation to enter this Mosque, apart from the Prophet of Allah (swt),
Ali, Fatima, Hassan and Husayn. With the exception of them no one else is permitted to enter
the Mosque of the Prophet (s). Go forth! I have told you the names to ensure that you are not
lead astray.
Maraja Al-Bahrayn fi Manaqib al-Hasnayn, Page 48
The significance of this tradition lies in the number of esteemed sources that Qadri relied on:
1. Sunan Bayhaqi, Volume 7 page 65 Hadeeth number 13178-13179
2. Kanz al Ummal, Volume 14 page 101 Hadeeth number 34183
3. Tareekh Ibn Asakir, Volume 14 page 166
4. Fadail min al Seerah, Volume 1 page 283 [by Ibn Katheer]
5. Khasais al Kubra, Volume 2 page 424
Clearly rules apply to all. States of Janaba and Haidh require bathing and no person can enter the
precincts of a Mosque before doing so. Rasulullah (s) would not have exempted himself, Sayyida
Fatima (as), Ali (as) and their sons unless they stayed aloof from such impurity. The fact that
Rasulullah (s) named only these personalities is the greatest proof that they were protected from
impurities innate in all other humans.
The verse of purity has been descended in honour of five individuals. Sayyida Fatima (as) is the only
woman that came within this verse, Allah (swt) vouched for her purity from any form of error. One
whose protection from wrong is guaranteed from Allah (swt) has no need to produce witnesses to
support her claim. To demand witnesses from her is due to doubts about the truthfulness of her claim.
One who demands witnesses from a woman, whose purity and perfection is assured by Allah (swt), is
in effect mocking the Word of Allah (swt) and his Prophet (s).
When this verse of purity descended for Sayyida Fatima (as) then why did Abu Bakr deny her rights
and question her claim by demanding further witnesses? Witnesses are only required when there is
evidence that a person might be lying. Abu Bakrs demanding witnesses in the Fadak dispute is a
proof that he did not believe the truthfulness of her claim. By doing this Abu Bakr has gone against the
rulings of Allah,and His Prophet (s) and has incurred the anger of Sayyida Fatima (as), Rasulullah (s)
and Allah (swt) as a result.
When Sayyida Fatima (as) made a claim that her father had bestowed the land of Fadak to her, then
Abu Bakr should have taken account of her truthfulness, purity and infallibility and not asked any
further questions. Yet Abu Bakr for political reasons rejected her claim and counted it as land for all
Muslims. Abu Bakrs unlawful confiscation of Sayyida Fatima (as)s land caused her extreme grief.
Anyone that has a daughter has mercy, was Muhammads daughter not an acceptable mercy?
Question Was a Masums sole testimony

acceptable during the lifetime of Rasulullah (s)
Our answer to this shall be based on the following Sunni sources:
1.
Sunan Abu Dawood The Office of the Judge (Kitab Al-Aqdiyah) Book 24, Hadeeth Number
3600
2.
Hayaat al Haywaan Volume 2 page 155 Dhikr al Fars
3.
Tareekh Khamees Volume 2 page 125 Dhikr Khayl Rasulullah (s)
4.
al Isaba Volume 1 page 425 Dhikr Khudeema
We read in Sunan Abu Dawood:

Narrated Uncle of Umarah ibn Khuzaymah:
The Prophet (peace be upon him) bought a horse from a Bedouin. The Prophet (peace be upon
him) took him with him to pay him the price of his horse. The Apostle of Allah (peace be upon
him) walked quickly and the Bedouin walked slowly. The people stopped the Bedouin and
began to bargain with him for the horse as they did not know that the Prophet (peace be upon
him) had bought it.
The Bedouin called the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) saying: If you want this horse,
(then buy it), otherwise I shall sell it. The Prophet (peace be upon him) stopped when he heard
the call of the Bedouin, and said: Have I not bought it from you? The Bedouin said: I swear by
Allah, I have not sold it to you. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: Yes, I have bought it
from you. The Bedouin began to say: Bring a witness. Khuzaymah ibn Thabit then said: I bear
witness that you have bought it. The Prophet (peace be upon him) turned to Khuzaymah and
said: On what (grounds) do you bear witness?
He said: By considering you trustworthy, Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him)! The Prophet
(peace be upon him) made the testimony of Khuzaymah equivalent to that of of two people.
Comment
So, if here in view of the Prophets (PBUH&HF) truthfulness, one evidence in his favor was deemed to
be equal to two, then could not the evidence of Ali and Umm Ayman be regarded enough for Fatima in
view of moral greatness and truthfulness?
Logical proof that an infallible testimony is

acceptable without the need for witnesses
You can have two types of evidence, clear strong evidence, and weak evidence. When a clear proof
exists then weak evidence should be discarded. Testimony is needed when the truthfulness of a claim
is called into question, and the claimants argument is weak. If a strong clear proof is presented then
there is no need to summon witnesses. For example:
If someone accepts a persons legal claim to land, then this is perfectly logical, no supporting
witnesses are required.
Infallibility is greater proof than both of these, and when you have such strong proof, then there is no
need for weaker proof. The testimony was by an infallible person hence no witnesses were required.
This is clear from logic and text, that the testimony of an infallible being is acceptable without the need
for witnesses.
Sayyida Fatima (as) was definitely Siddiqah, Masum, the verse of purity had descended in her honour.
Hence when this great Lady asserted her claim that she was the legal owner of Fadak, it was
incumbent on Abu Bakr to accept the word of this truthful woman without calling upon additional
witnesses. This would have led him to avoid incurring the anger of Sayyida Fatima (as) and so that of
Allah (swt) and his Prophet (s).
Three things are for certain in the Fadak dispute:
1.
A gift is not proven without actual possession
2.
Abu Bakrs demanding witnesses clarifies the fact that Sayyida Fatima (as) had possession of
the land at that time.
3.
The demand of witnesses suggests that Abu Bakr had doubts over whether the Prophets
property belonged to Muslims.
Now let us present some examples of the way that Khaleefa Abu Bakr resolved disputes, readers can
then ask themselves why he adjudicated over this matter differently
When it suited him Abu Bakr would oppose a

Quranic verse
We read in Surah al Maida verse 105:
O ye who believe! When death approaches any of you, (take) witnesses among yourselves
when making bequests,- two just men of your own (brotherhood) or others from outside if ye
are journeying through the earth, and the chance of death befalls you (thus). If ye doubt (their
truth), detain them both after prayer, and let them both swear by Allah: We wish not in this for
any worldly gain, even though the (beneficiary) be our near relation: we shall hide not the
evidence before Allah: if we do, then behold! The sin be upon us!
Comment
Some Nasibis claim that Abu Bakr was merely acting upon the Word of Allah (swt) as is stipulated in
the Quran. We should point out that in the Fadak dispute this was satisfied by the fact that both Imam
Ali (as) and the Servant Rabah testified in support of Fatima (as)s claim hence the criteria of two just
witnesses had been met. It should also be pointed out that Abu Bakr was not firm in his application of
this verse, and this is evidenced by the esteemed Sunni work al Isaba Volume 1 page 195-196, Dhikr
Thabit bin Qays bin Shammas:
Thabit said I shall give you a will and do not ignore it by deeming it a dream. When I am killed
my armour has been taken by a person who resides in such a place, his tent contains a water
pot containing an old rope. He also has a saddle, go to Khalid and tell him to get the armour
back. Then go to Abu Bakr and tell him I am in debt, so return what I owe to this child. The
man became anxious by the dream and told Khalid about it. Khalid got the armour and told
Abu Bakr about the dream. Abu Bakr upheld his will as correct.
Al-Isaba fi tameedh al-Sahaba, Vol. 1, page 195 & 196
Comment
The Quran deems a will valid when two just witnesses confirm it. The fact that Abu Bakr upheld a will
on the basis of a dream proves that Abu Bakr cared little about the law of inheritance as set out in the
Quran.
We appeal to justice, a claim of Hadhrat Ali (as) can not be in violation of the Quran, hence in Fadak
there was no possibility of Hadhrat Ali lying to obtain personal gain, his word should have meant that
no further testimony was required. Abu Bakrs willingness to accept the will on the basis of a dream
without requiring any witnesses, whilst at the same time rejecting the testimony of Hadhrat Ali (as)
shows clearly that he was unjust in his treatment of Imam Ali (as).
Abu Bakr in the Fadak decision contradicted nine verses of the Quran by his opposition to the stance
of Hadhrat Ali and Sayyida Fatima (as).This is a clear proof that he was in error.
When Abu Bakr felt like it, he would accept a claim

without the need for witnesses
As proof we have relied on the following esteemed Sunni works:
1.
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 48, Number 848: Book of Witnesses
2.
Sahih Muslim, Volume 2 page 291
3.
Sahih al Tirmidhi, vol 5 p 129
4.
Sunan al Kabeera, Volume 6 page 302
5.
Musnad Ahmad Hanbal, vol 3 p 307-308
6.
Tabaqat Ibn Saad, vol 2 part 2 p 88-89
7.
8.
Tareekh ul Khulafa, page 69 Fadail fi Abu Bakr
We read in Sahih Bukhari:

Narrated Muhammad bin Ali:
Jabir bin Abdullah said, When the Prophet died, Abu Bakr received some property from AlAla bin Al-Hadrami. Abu Bakr said to the people, Whoever has a money claim on the Prophet,
or was promised something by him, should come to us (so that we may pay him his right).
Jabir added, I said (to Abu Bakr), Allahs Apostle promised me that he would give me this
much, and this much, and this much (spreading his hands three times). Jabir added, Abu
Bakr counted for me and handed me five-hundred (gold pieces), and then five-hundred, and
then five-hundred.
Comment
All that it took was the word of Jabir that Rasulullah (s) owed him money; no witnesses were
presented to corroborate his evidence. Abu Bakrs opinion was that the money should be returned to
Jabir, without the need for witnesses, he didnt say anything that contradicted the Quran, yet when
Sayyida Fatima (as) claimed that the land of Fadak was bequeathed to her as inheritance, he refused
to grant her the land, on the premise that her words were questionable and the stipulated witnesses
required to give evidence were not met.
If Jabir made a claim from the treasury, then by the same token Fadak also did not belong to Abu
Bakrs ancestors, rather it belonged to Sayyida Fatimah al Zahra (as), but the Khaleefa said that the
land belonged to Muslims. If Jabir can receive monies from the Muslim treasury without the need of
witnesses, then by the same token the Khaleefa could have also given Sayyida Fatima land from the
Muslim treasury.
The narration informs us that Abu Bakr made the declaration at the time of the Hajj for people to come
forward and make their claims in relation to whatever had been promised to them by Rasulullah (s).
We ask those with brains, was Sayyida Fatima (as) a liar who presented false witnesses to
substantiate her claim? Sayyida Fatimas (as) testimony is false. The testimony of Imam Ali (as), and
his two sons are also false, yet an ordinary companions claim without any witness corroboration is
acceptable and he can attain property from the State treasury so as to prove the correctness of his
claim.
The Ahlul Sunnah believe that the testimony of the

Sahaba without witnesses is acceptable
In the annotations of this tradition, Imam Badruddin al Aini in Umdatul Qari said:

Some (scholars) said that according to it (the tradition) the evidence of one just companion is
accepted although it may be in his own favour, because Abu Bakr did not ask Jabir to produce
any witness to prove his claim.
Umadat ul Qari, Volume 12 page 121
Comment
Subhanallah! If Jabirs claim is acceptable without witnesses due to his station of being a Just
Companion, then Sayyida Fatima (as) in addition to the rank of Sahaba and Just, had also attained
the rank of purity and infallibility, and hence her exceptional testimony should have been accepted
without question, yet Abu Bakrs heart was not willing to concede to her claim, he considered her
claim to be of lesser value than that of an ordinary Sahabi.
We also read in Umadat ul Qari, Volume 12 page 120:
I say: By not seeking additional witnesses to back up Jabirs claim was an adherence the
principles of the Quran and Sunnah, since in the Quran Allah (swt) says that you are the
Khayr ul Ummah (Best of Ummahs), an wasat Ummah (Just Ummah) if Jabir is not counted
in the best and most just of Ummahs then who is? He acted on a Hadeeth in this way,
Rasulullah (s) said Whoever intentionally attributes a lie to me shall enter Hell hence whilst
the comments of a normal Muslim cannot be relied upon, it cannot be that a Sahabi would
attribute lies to the Prophet (s). If this problem arose today it would be unacceptable without
proof.
Umadat ul Qari, Volume 12 page 121
We should also highlight the fact that we read in Ahle Sunnahs authority work Al Alam al Moqeen
page 36:
The truth is when you have just one witness; a ruling should be based on their truthfulness. It
is established that the Prophet (s) ruled on the Abu Qathadas killing a Pagan, on the basis of
sole testimony, and rewarded him his armour on this basis, he did not even ask for the clear
testimony of Abu Qatada, rather the testimony of a single witness was deemed acceptable.
Comment
We appeal to justice Its hard to believe that a Sahaba neigh a common run of Muslim would ever
attribute a false utterance to Rasulullah (s) which is why Jabirs testimony was accepted by Abu Bakr
without the need for witnesses. Then we have Sayyida Fatima (as) superior in rank than other
Muslims, including the Sahaba, a woman in whose honour Allah (swt) sent down the verse of purity,
who has been given the title of Sayyida tul-Nisa ul-Jannah [Leader of the Women of Paradise]. We
cannot believe that this pure and truthful woman would attribute a false statement to her father
Rasulullah (s). It was incumbent on Abu Bakr to immediately accept the claim that had been made by
Sayyida Fatima (as).
Rasulullah (s) deemed his and Ali (as)s hand to

be equal in dispensing justice
This is clear from the following Sunni sources:
1.
Tareekh Baghdadi Volume 5 page 37 Dhikr Ahmad ibn Ahmad bin Abu Bakr al Tamadh
2.
Manaqib by Ibne Maghazli al Shaafi page 98,
3.
Kanz al Ammal Volume 11 page 604
4.
Riyadh al Nadira Volume page 154
Tareekh Baghdad records as follows:

Jaysh bin Janada states I was sitting next to Abu Bakr and he [Abu Bakr] announced Claim
anything that the Prophet owed you. One man said Rasulullah (s) promised me six handfuls of
dates. Abu Bakr then summoned Ali and told him the matter and asked that he distribute the
dates with handfuls, he did do. Abu Bakr said Gather them there were seven dates in each
All four books then have the testimony of Abu Bakr:
Verily Allah (swt) and his Prophet (s) spoke the truth, I heard Rasulullah (s) say on the night
of Hijrah as we left Makka My hand and Alis hand are EQUAL in dispensing justice.
Comment
Abu Bakr accepted this persons claim without recalling witnesses, perhaps he was one of his
supporters (a Saqifite). From this instance and that of Jabir Ibn Abdullah we see Abu Bakrs
willingness to show laxity/compromise on the rules of Shariah, and hence on this same basis the
testimony of the Sayyida Fatima (as) should also have also been accepted.
Rasulullahs deeming Alis hand of justice to be on par with his own, serves as proof that both were
equally just in words also. Hadhrat Ali (as) testified in Sayyida Fatima (as)s favour, and Abu Bakr
rejected this testimony, this serves as proof that on the issue of Fadak he was not prepared to accept
the testimony of any just person.
Ahlul Sunnah believe that the testimony of a single

person provided he is just shall suffice
We read in Sahih al Bukhari Chapter 52. Book of Setting Free, Hadeeth number 2481:
It is related from Abdullah Ibn Abi Mulayka that the two sons of Suhayb, the client of Ibn
Judan, laid claim to two houses and a room, saying that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah
bless him and grant him peace, had given that to Suhayb. Marwan asked, Who will testify to
that on your behalf? They said, Ibn Umar. He summoned him and he testified that the
Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, had given Suhayb two houses
and a room. Marwan judged in their favour on the basis of his testimony.
Imam of Ahlul Sunnah Badrudeen Al-Aini has given his commentary of this Hadeeth in Umdat ul
Qari, Volume 13 page 177:

Ibn Batal said: How did Marwan judge on the basis of Ibn Umar testimony only? The answer is
that Marwan judged by his testimony accompanied by the oath of the claimant according to
Sunnah in making judgment by a single witness and oath of claimant.
Comment
Here we see that one witness shall suffice to grant land, as was done by Marwan, hence the
defenders of Abu Bakr are left in a confused state. When the Ahlul Sunnah admit that on the issue of
Fay a Judge can exercise the right to grant it to whosoever he wishes as Marwan did with Banu
Saeeb, we appeal to justice did Abu Bakr not possess greater powers than Marwan?
If this is the case then why did Abu Bakr choose to discard the testimony of Imam Ali (as)? Whilst we
the Shia deemed Ali (as) to be Masum, Shah Abdul Aziz Dehlavi in Tauhfa Ithna Ashari stated:
the Ahlul Sunnah believe that Ali was Mahfuz [protected from sin].
Imam Ali (as) had a high ranking station in the realms of justice, rather no one could exceed him as
his justice was on par with that of Rasulullah (s). According to the madhab of Ahlul Sunnah, when
Imam Ali (as)s rank was so high in the field of justice, then all that a Judge needed to hear was his
sole testimony in order to arrive at a decision. Applying this principle to the facts, when Imam Ali (as)
testified to support the claim of Sayyida Fatima (as), then it was incumbent upon Abu Bakr to return
Fadak to her. Unfortunately power is an opium that drives people away from the truth.
The testimony of any just person is acceptable

When it comes to testimony there is always a standard, there are different levels to measure a
persons truth, it is linked to an individuals character. In this day and age there is a viewpoint that that
a pious educated individual will not be a liar. The need for witness corroboration in court arises when
the credibility of a witness comes into question. When a person is untruthful the individuals character
comes under scrutiny, a common accusation is that the individual will never say anything against his
relatives. If we were to say to a member of Sipaa-e-Sahaba Your leader Haq Nawaz Jhanvi spoke at
a venue where he made a statement that was a lie they will resort to physical violence to protect their
beloved Imam, because they deem of decent noble character. Perhaps al Khider could offer us some
explanation as to which aspect of Sayyida Fatima (as)s character was such that it caused Abu Bakr to
question the truthfulness of her claim? Whilst Nawasib would never tolerate any questions on the
truthfulness of their Imam, they should realise that their Khaleefa Abu Bakr considered Sayyida
Fatima (as) a liar; and no ordinary one at that, one wherein she (falsely) claimed the Prophet (s) left
land for her.
The Prophet (s) and all four caliphs would issue

rulings based on the testimony of one person and
swearing on oath by the claimant
We read in Ahlul Sunnahs authority work Kanz al Ummal:
Ali bin Abi Talib narrates that Allahs messenger, Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman would rule
upon the witness testimony of one person and the oath of the claimant .
Kanz al Ummal, Volume 7 page 23 Tradition 17786
Similarly we read in Sunnan al-Darqutni, Volume 10 page 338:
Ali (ra) narrates that Allahs messenger would rule upon the witness testimony of one person
and the oath of the claimant. (Darqutni said) Ali would issue rulings in this manner in Iraq.
Sunnan al-Darqutni, Volume 10 page 338 Tradition 4540
We read in Sunan ibn Majah:
Ibn Abbas narrates that Rasulullah (s) ruled on the basis of the testimony of a single witness
and (a claimants) oath.
Sunan ibn Majah, Volume 2 page 793 Hadith 2370
We read in Sunan Abu Dawud, The Office of the Judge (Kitab Al-Aqdiyah) Book 24, Number 360:
Narrated Abu Hurayrah:
The Prophet (peace be upon him) gave a decision on the basis of an oath and a single witness.
We read in Muwatta Imam Malik, Book of Judgements Book 36, Number 36.4.5:
Yahya said, Malik said from Jafar ibn Muhammad from his father that the Messenger of Allah,
may Allah bless him and grant him peace, pronounced judgement on the basis of an oath with
one witness.
Of interest is the fact that Ibn Taymiyah al Nasibi in Minhajj al Sunnah, Volume 4 page 125 also
stated:

Yes it can be ruled by the testimony of sole witness and the claimers oath according to the
scholars of Hijaz and Ahlul Hadith.
Imam Mawardi records in his authority work al-Ensaf, Volume 12 page 84:
:
We say: The testimony of one witness and oath of the claimant is acceptable
Comment
The land of Fadak was bestowed by Rasulullah (s) upon his beloved daughter Sayyida Fatima Zahra
(as). Abu Bakr should have adopted his famous kind heartedness in this dispute, and if he wanted to
uphold legal principles he could have asked Sayyida Fatima (as) to swear on oath that the property
had been bequeathed to her, [as there was an absence of witnesses] and on this basis restored
Fadak back to her. Worthy of note is the fact that Imam Malik in his Muwatta,Book of Judgements
Section: Judgement Based on Oaths with One Witness, having cited the fact that the Prophet would
pass judgement on the basis of the oath and testimony of a single witness, comments:
The precedent of the sunna in judging by an oath with one witness is that if the plaintiff takes
an oath with his testimony, he is confirmed in his right. If he draws back and refuses to take an
oath, the defendant is made to take an oath. If the defendent takes an oath, the claim against
him is dropped. If he refuses to take an oath, the claim is confirmed against him.
Malik said, This procedure pertains to property cases in particular.
This was a property dispute and all that Khalifa Abu Bakr needed to do was take the sole testimony of
Sayyida Fatima (as)(on oath) so as to confirm the truthfulness of her claim.
Sadly, Abu Bakr did not adhere to this principle, his objective was to make the Ahlul bayt (as) as weak
as possible. Abu Bakrs behaviour in the Fadak dispute proves that the Hadeeth the most merciful in
this Ummah is Abu Bakr is a fabrication for he afforded harsh treatment to the daughter of the
Prophet (s). If he (the supposed best friend of the Prophet) was so unjust what could be expected
from the rest of the Ummah? Sayyida Fatima (as) was shocked by this treatment, she had not
envisaged such a response which is why she initially presented her case without witnesses. When
Abu Bakr refused to entertain her claim, she brought forth several witnesses who were:
1.
Imam Ali (as)
2.
Imam Hassan (as)
3.
Imam Husayn (as)
4.
The servant of Rasulullah(s) Rabah
5.
The maid of Rasulullah (s) Umm Ayman.
Hence the advocates can present as many excuses as they like.If there were not sufficient witnesses,
it was still fine as Rasulullah (s) and the three Khalifas ruled on the testimony and oath of one person.
If the stipulated number of witnesses had been satisfied then Abu Bakr had to rule in their favour. This
was the case here as Imam Ali (as) and Rabah were both men and the testimony of two male
witnesses satisfy legal criteria. Despite this Abu Bakr struck out the claim of Lady Fatima (as).
At this point it is most appropriate to analyse the comments of Bilal Philips in Tafseer Soorah al
Hujuraat page 63:
In his analysis of verse 6 of this Surah O Believers if an unrighteous person comes to you with
information, you should verify itwherein Allah (swt) warned Muslims against accepting the word of the
Fasiq Waleed bin Utbah, Philips comments:
It should be noted that based on this verse Islamic scholars have unanimously ruled that the
testimony of one who is known to be unrighteous should be rejected as evidence in court
unless verified. If his testimony can be confirmed it is obligatory to do so and if it cannot be
confirmed it should flatly be rejected. The converse also holds true. The testimony of a just
righteous person does not require verification except in special cases identified by the Quran
or the Sunnah.
Tafseer Soorah al Hujuraat, Page 63
Perhaps Dr Philips could contribute to this debate and offer his valuable input as to whether he
believes that the Leader of the Women of Paradise was a just and righteous person whose testimony
required no further verification? If he does, then can he offer any explanation as to why her sole
testimony was deemed as unacceptable in the Fadak case? Philips has dedicated his life to exposing
the dangers of Shiaism to the unsuspecting Sunni public, and has made it his mission to highlight the
degrading / humiliating portrayal of the Sahaba from Shia works. Perhaps he could shed some light
on the degrading / humiliating treatment that Abu Bakr afforded Sayyida Fatima (as), whose witness
credibility was graded to be on par with that of a Fasiq (transgressor), to the point that the Khaleefa
said blatantly I dont know if you are telling the truth [Tafseer al Kabeer, Volume 10 page 506]?
We then see her humiliation compounded yet further when the witnesses she produces are also
rejected! Were Maula Ali, Rabah, Umm Ayman, Hasan, Husayn also Fasiqs who had jointly conspired
to secure land for Sayyida Fatima (as) that she had no legal right to?
We would like to ask Philips:
How would you feel if you walked into a Shariah Court lodging a petition to land, and the Judge
despite knowing your esteemed rank and knowledge challenged the truthfulness of your claim and
demanded witnesses. How would the Judges demand make you feel? Would you not feel humiliated
by such a comment?
Lets change scenarios, imagine that you are a Judge and Hadhrat Ayesha makes a petition to you for
land that her father Abu Bakr left her. Would you contemplate demanding that she bring witnesses to
corroborate her claim? Dont you think it would be an insult to her if you told her to go and get
witnesses? If so, why do you not have the same viewpoint when it comes to the treatment of Sayyida
Fatima (as)?
The Sunni Ulema have graded the testimony of the

killers of Husayn (as) to be superior to Sayyida
Fatima (as)
Whilst these Nasabi have set out a vast array of defences to justify Abu Bakrs demands for witness
corroboration, they have failed to take stock of the fact that according to Sunni Fiqh the word of a
Thiqah or a Seduq narrator requires no further witness corroboration. If for example there exists a
chain, wherein a Tabieen narrated a Hadeeth on the authority of a Sahabi if the Tabieen in the chain
is Thiqah (Very reliable) then his exemplary truthful character means that no separate chain needs to
be sought to corroborate his claim. The only analysis that needs to be conducted is the chain down.
Now we would like to ask all those that support Abu Bakr, what about the claim of Sayyida Fatima
(as)? Was this a faulty chain? Sayyida Fatima (as)s claim was based on what her father has said to
her directly. The claim that Abu Bakr heard was based on this chain, her direct testimony. Could Abu
Bakrs advocates tell us if they believe that Sayyida Fatima was a Thiqah narrator? We are sure that
no sincere Muslim would doubt this; in fact we have the testimony of the Ayesha that in effects proves
that no one was more Thiqah than her. Tahir ul Qadri in his inAl Durrathul Baydh fee Manaqib Fatima
al Zahra (as) page 110 recorded this tradition from Hilayath al Awliya Volume 2 page 41-42:
Umro bin Dinaar narrates that Ayesha said: Other than her father, no one is more truthful
than Fatima in this world.
When Sayyida Fatima (as vouched for by Ayesha) was the most truthful in the Ummah after the
Prophet (s), why have the Ahlul Sunnah upheld Abu Bakrs insistence that she produce witnesses to
substantiate the truthfulness of her claim? It is indeed unfortunate that the Sunni scholars of Rijjal
have graded the killers of Imam Husayn (as) Umar ibn Sad and his likes to be Thiqah or Seduq
narrators (see our article Who killed Imam Husayn). What conclusion should we reach about a
school of thought that grades the testimonies of the killers of Imam Husayn (as) as superior to
Sayyida Fatima (as)?
By rejecting the testimony of Imam Ali (as), Abu

Bakr opposed the Quran by failing to side with the
truthful
Allah (swt) says in Surah Tauba verse 19:

O ye who believe! Fear Allah and be with those who are true (in word and deed).
We shall now rely on the following Sunni commentaries of this verse:
1.
Tafseer Durre Manthur Volume 3 page 290
2.
3.
Ya Nabi al Muwaddah page 119
4.
Tadhkiratul Khawwas page 10, Bab Shaafi
5.
Tafseer Fatah ul Qadeer Volume 2 page 529
6.
Tafseer Ruh al Maani Part 11 page 45
For the sake of brevity we shall only quote verbatim Fathul Qadeer, Mazhari and Durre Manthur:
Ibn Abbas to be with the truthful refers to Hadhrat Ali
Fatah ul Qadeer, Vol. 3, page 529
Comment
This verse refers to the progeny of Rasulullah (s) since you can interpret Sadiqeen in any way you
choose, but Ahlul bayt (as) will fall within this definition, others may come within this (but their
identities are unknown) whilst there is no doubt that the Ahlul bayt are included here. It would be
better for sensible people to leave that in which there is doubt and embrace that which is proven. The
truthful are those that are purified from sin, since there is no sense in having a man of truth that
indulges in sins. Sadiqeen refers to the family of the Prophet and this is proven from their
perfection/infallibility.The testimony of the truthful without need for witnesses should be accepted, if it
is not then there exists no distinction between a man of truth and a liar.
Sayyida Fatima (as) was from the Sadiqeen, it was Abu Bakrs duty to accept her claim without
demanding supporting witnesses testimony. Hadhrat Ali (as) was also counted as amongst the
Sadiqeen, again he could have accepted his word, but Abu Bakr threw out their claims, and hence in
the process opposed the Quranic verse commanding us to be with the truthful.

Bakr abandoned the rope of Allah
We read in Surah Aal-e-Imran:
Hold tight the rope of Allah and do not be divided amongst yourselves
We will rely on the following Sunni Tafseers to establish the identity of the rope:
1.
Sawaiqh al Muhriqa, Page 517, Ayat al Khum Fadail Ahlul Bayt
2.
We read in Sawaiq al Muhriqa:

In Tafseer Thalabi it is narrated on the authority of Imam Jafar al Sadiq that the rope of Allah
refers to the Ahlul bayt
Sawaiq al-Muhriqa, Page 517
Ya Nabi al Muwaddah states:
Ibn Abbas narrates that we were sitting with the Prophet when an Arab approached and
asked Master I heard you say that we should grasp the Rope of Allah, what is the Rope of
Allah? Rasulullah (s) placed his hand on Alis and said Obey him firmly
Comment
A rope is flexible, it can bend in the same way that man can, and one can climb up and down it.
Obedience of Ali takes you from the foot upwards and opposition brings you to the ground, in a
disgraced state.
Applying this Hadeeth to the facts, it was incumbent on Abu Bakr to obey the claim of Imam Ali (as) in
the Fadak dispute. If he had , he would have attained a high rank in the process. Sadly Abu Bakr
denied Sayyida Fatima (as)s claim for Fadak, he rejected the testimony of Imam Ali (as) in the
process and removed himself from gaining any respect.

Bakr opposed the people who know
Ask those who know
Let us now turn to the Sunni commentaries of this verse:
1.
2.
Tafseer Ruh al Maani commentary of verse 23 of Surah Nail, page 148
We read in Ya Nabi al Muwaddah:

Jabir narrates from Ali,the people of knowledge refers to us
Comment
Dhikr refers to the Quran or the Prophet hence Ahlul Dhikr in either context refers to the progeny of
the Prophet (s). When the verse of the Quran had a clear or hidden meaning, it was incumbent on
Abu Bakr to seek clarification from those who know.
Both Hadhrat Ali (as) and Sayyida Fatima (as) were the Ahlul Dhikr, hence before ruling on the Fadak
dispute it was incumbent on Abu Bakr to get clarification on what their position was on Fadak. Instead
of doing so he rejected their positions and usurped the land, removing all rights that the progeny had
over the Estate. In doing so Abu Bakr openly rejected the Ahlul Dhikr.

Bakr rejected one who testified to the Prophethood
We read in Surah Hud verse 17:
Is he (to be counted equal with them) who relieth on a clear proof from his Lord, and a witness
from Him reciteth it, and before it was the Book of Moses, an example and a mercy?
Al-Quran, Surah Hud, Ayah 17, translated by Pickthal
The witness refers to Imam Ali (as) as has been vouched for in the following classical Sunni works:
1.
Tafseer Durre Manthur Volume 3 page 586
2.
Tafseer Khazan Volume 3 page 183
3.
4.
Tafseer Ruh al Maani Part 12 al Hud page 28
We read in Ruh al Maani:

Rasulullah said clear proof refers to the Prophet (s) and the witness refers to Ali
We read in Dur al-Manthur:
In the above verse, the witness refers to Ali Ibn Abi Talib and Mina refers to Rasulullah (s)
and Ali was witness to this, as he remained with the Prophet (s),and in the end Ali is
Rasulullahs immediate Khalifa.
Dur al-Manthur fi tafseer al-Mathur, Vol. 3, page 586
Comment
The individual claiming Prophethood is an esteemed personality, as is the one testifying to his
Prophethood. When Allah (swt) made Ali witness to the Prophethood of Muhammad (s) then he is
proven to have an esteemed rank. When such an esteemed figure who testified to the Prophethood
(s) gives evidence in a dispute, can there be a likelihood of his testimony being fraudulent?
When Hadhrat Ali (as) testified that Fadak was the right of Sayyida Fatima (as) and his evidence was
not upheld (inspite of the respect and digity Ali (as) enjoyed) it becomes clear that Abu Bakr bore
some enmity towards the Ahlul Bayt (as). If the Khalifa had the slightest respect for these figures he
should have accepted the claim of Sayyida Fatima (as) without demanding witnesses, when they were
called he could have at least accepted the word of Hadhrat Ali (as). Sadly the faith that Abu Bakr had
in the Sahabi Jabir Ibn Abdullah was not shared when it came to the purified members of Rasulullahs
household. Abu Bakr preferred the claim of common men to that of Sayyida Fatima (as), Leader of
Women of Paradise, and of Hadhrat Ali Witness to the Prophethood.

Bakr rejected one who possessed knowledge of
the Book
We read in Surah Rad verse 43:
The Unbelievers say: No messenger art thou. Say: Enough for a witness between me and
you is Allah, and such as have knowledge of the Book.
Al-Quran, Surah Rad, Ayah 43, translated by Yusufali
The following Sunni sources have confirmed that knowledge of the Book refers to Imam Ali (as)
1.
Ya Nabi al Muwaddah, Chapter 3
2.
Tafseer Ruh al Maani page 166, Commentary of Surah Rad
We read in Ya Nabi al Muwaddah:

Fadhil bin Atheer narrates from Imam Muhammad Baqir that this verse descended in the
honour of Imam Ali, research has established that Rasulullah is the Aalim of this Ummah
The text of Tafseer Ruh al Maani reads:
Min undh Ilm Kitab refers to Ali and Ali Nazeer Kitab refers to the Quran, by my life the
entire knowledge of the Quran was with Ali
Tafseer Ruh al-Maani, page 166
Comment
The verse confirms that Hadhrat Ali had an absolute knowledge of the Quran.Imam Ali (as) recited
verses on inheritance to prove that Fadak was the right of Sayyida Fatima (as). To rely on the poor
commentaries provided by Ibn Katheer is to in effect suggest that Imam Ali (as) did not have the
understanding of these verses, rather Ibn Katheer knew better! To interpret the verses in away that
differed to Imam Ali (as)s opinion is not only an insult to Hadhrat Ali it is also an insult to Allah (swt)
for He (swt) praised his Knowledge of the Book and yet this same man was unable to grasp the true
meaning of the verses of inheritance. The verse and commentary proves that apart from Rasulullah
(s), Hadhrat Ali (as) was the Sahabi who possessed the greatest knowledge of the Quran.
Imam Ali (as) possessed a greater knowledge the rules of witness testimony.When he testified in
favour of his wife in the Fadak Case, ignorant of the conditions of witnesses, then there would be no
substance in Allahs (swt) words declaring him as one who possesses knowledge of the Book. Abu
Bakr rejected Imam Ali (as)s understanding of the Quranic verses of inheritance and in doing so
rejected the Quranic verse confirming Ali (as) as possessing knowledge of the Quran.

Bakr rejected the opinion of the true possessor of
the knowledge of the Sharia
The Sharia is made up of two components the Quran and the Sunnah of the Prophet (s). The one
that excels on issues pertaining to Sharia is that individual whose command of the Quran and Sunnah
is at excelled level. Those with a knowledge of these sources tower above others due to their
knowledge, their views. The more expert one is ion these two sources, the more reliable his viewpoint
on Shari matters becomes, the common man will have faith that what such a person has opined has
been deduced on the basis of an accurate understanding of the Quran and Sunnah. The greater the
said individuals command of the Quran and Sunnah the greater his acceptance as the final word on a
matter. Anyone with a lesser degree that challenges one with greater knowledge will be frowned upon
and will be the subject of ridicule. With this in mind it is indeed incredible that Abu Bakar opposed the
testimony of Ali bin Abi Talib (as) who without a doubt possessed a greater knowledge of the Sharia
than any other companion of Holy Prophet (s) including Abu Bakar.
We read in Hulyat al-Awliya by Asbahani, page 33 as well as in Tarikh Dimashq, Volume 42 page 400:

:
.
Ibn Masoud Said: Quran had been revealed in seven different ways and every way has
internal and external meanings and Ali bin Abi Talib has the knowledge of both
Similarly we read the following words of Holy Prophet (s):
) (

Prophet (s) said: Fatima! Are you not pleased that your husband is the foremost of my Ummah
.in Islam, the most knowledgeable of them and also the most patient.
1. Tarikh Dimashq, Volume 42 page 132
2. Fadael al-Sahaba, by Ahmad ibn Hanbal, volume 3 page 32
3. Manaqeb, by Khawarezmi, page 106
We likewise read in Hulayat al-Awliya, by Asbahani, Volume 1 page 33:

Abdullah said: I was sitting with the Prophet (pbuh) when he was asked about Ali. He replied:
Wisdom has been divided into ten parts; Ali has been given nine parts whereas the people
have been given one part only
Kinji Shafyyie said: Hasan (Kifayat al-Talib, p171). Hafiz Ahmad bin Sidiq consider it authentic (Fath
al-Malik, p69). This tradition is also recorded in Tarikh Dimashq, v42, p384 and Shawahed al-Tanzil,
by Hasakani, v1, p136.
We read in Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Volume 3 page 33:

Abu Saeed al-Khudari narrated that Allahs Messenger (s) said: There is amongst you one
who will fight for the interpretation of Quran just like I fought for it revelation. Then Abu Bakr
and Umar stood up. Allahs Messenger said: No, but it is the one who is mending my shoe.
And Ali was mending his shoe.
Shuaib al-Arnaoot said: Sahih. Albani said: Sahih (Silsila Sahiha, v5, p486). Al-Haythami
said: The narrators are the narrators of Sahih (Majma al-Zawaed, v5, p186).
We read in Musanaf by ibn Abi Shayba, Volume 7 page 502:
:

Abda bin Sulaiman from Abdulmalik bin Abi Sulaiman who said: I asked Atta: Is there anyone
from amongst the companions of the Holy Prophet who is more knowledgeable than Ali? He
replied: No, by Allah I dont know anyone.
Abda bin Sulaiman: Dahabi said: Thiqah (Al-Kashif, v1, p677). Ibn Hajar said: Thiqah
Thabt (Taqrib al-|Tahdib, v1, p628).Abdulmalik bin Abi Sulaiman: Dahabi said: Thiqah (Al-Kashif,
v1, p665). Ibn Hajar said: Seduq (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1, p615). Atta:Dahabi said: Sheikh ulIslam(Siar alam alnubala, v5, p78). Ibn Hajar said: Thiqah (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1, p674).
We read in Tarikh ibn Mueen, by Duri Volume 1 page 106:

Yahya ibn Mueen from- Sufyan ibn Uyyania from Yahya bin Saeed from Saeed bin al-Musayab
who said: No one from amongst the companions of the Holy Prophet (s) would say ask me
save Ali bin Abi Talib.
Yahya bin Mueen: Dahabi said the imam of Muhadthin (Al-Kashif, v2, p376). Ibn Hajar
said: Thiqah (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v2, p316).Sufyan bin Uyyaina: Dahabi said: Thiqah Thabt (AlKashif, v1, p449). Ibn Hajar said: Thiqah (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1, p371). Yahya bin Saeed: Dahabi
said: Hujja (Al-Kashif, v2, p366). Ibn Hajar said: Thiqah Thabt (Taqrib al-|Tahdib, v2, p303). Saeed
bin al-Musayab: Dahabi said: Thiqah Hujja (Al-Kashif, v1, p444). Ibn Hajar said: Thabt (Taqrib alTahdib, v1, p364).
We read in Al-Mawaqif by Qadhi Eji, Volume 3 page 627:

Ali is the most knowledgeable of the companions
Similarly we read in Sharh al-Maqasid by Taftazani, Volume 2 page 300:

He is the most knowledgeable of the companions due to his strong intuition, his extreme
smartness and his closely accompanying the Prophet (s).
Knowing the internal and external meanings of the Holy Quran is not a thing that one can achieve by
striving alone. This is an exalted spiritual status that can only be granted by Allah (swt) to his chosen
ones. When a person who has been granted knowledge of both the internal and external meanings of
the Holy Quran by Allah (swt) and is holding firm to a particular interpretation of the Quranic verses
relating to the inheritance of prophets and is not ready to accept the alternative interpretation being
offered, who has the audacity to reject the words of such an individual?

Bakr rejected one who was Sufficient for Allah
We read in Surah Anfal verse 62:
Should they intend to deceive thee,- verily Allah sufficeth thee: He it is That hath strengthened
thee with His aid and with (the company of) the Believers;
Al-Quran, Surah Anfal, Ayah 62, translated by Yusufali
The believers whom Allah (swt) deemed the strength of RasulAllah(s) refers to Hadhrat Ali (as). This
is supported by the Sunni book Manaqib Murtazvi written by Allamah Muhammad Salaeh Kasjafi
Tirmidhi al Hanafi page 31:
The Hanbali Hadeeth scholars have commented that all the scholars of Tafseer are in
agreement that Manitaa ba-ik refers to Ali
Comment
This verse proves that Hadhrat Ali was sufficient for Rasulullah (s), hence his every word would suffice
for Rasulullah (s) so why was his testimony in favour of Sayyida Fatima (as) not sufficient in the
Fadak case? The Khalifa by rejecting the testimony of Hadrat Ali(as)in fact rejected this verse of the
Quran.

Bakr rejected the one with the truthful tongue
We read in Surah al Shuara verse 84:
Grant me honourable mention on the tongue of truth among the latest (generations);
Al-Quran, Surah ash-Shuara, Ayah 84, translated by Yusufali
Allamah Muhammad Salaeh Kashafi Tirmidhi al Hanafi in Manaqib Murtazvi Chapter 1 page 138
states:
Manqan Ibn Murdhaya narrated from Imam Muhammad Baqir that the truthful tongue refers to
Ali
Comment
The tradition confirms that Allah (swt) referred to Hadhrat Ali as the truthful tongue. When Allah (swt)
affirms a man as truthful tongue that clearly means that he does not lie, in any circumstance. When
this truthful tongue gave testimony supporting Sayyida Fatima (as)s claim, then it was Abu Bakrs duty
to accept the word of Hadhrat Ali (as). Sadly Abu Bakr rejected the word of a man whom Allah praised
as the truthful tongue and hence he also rejected this verse of the Quran.
Abu Bakr openly rejected 8 verses of the Quran in praise of Hadhrat Ali and Sayyida Fatima (as). The
Quran and Ahlul bayt (as) were the two weighty things; one who opposes them has no rightful claim
to the Khilafat.We the Shia dont bear any personal grudge to Abu Bakr; we are angered at him
because he usurped the legal right of the daughter of Rasulullah (s) and made her upset in the
process.

Bakr rejected the verse of purifity
We have already proved from numerous source that Hadhrat Ali (as) is included in this verse. The
verse is in honour of the Ahlul bayt (as), and in Ahlul Sunnahs esteemed work Sawaiqh al Muhriqa
page 85, Ibn Hajr al Makki, after collating the traditions concludes that the verse was in honour of the
Ahlul bayt (as) of the Prophet (s). He then said:
In this verse Rijs means sins, verily the Ahlul bayt (as) are aloof from all types of sin, and this
is an illuminating proof of their supreme station in every time Saints from the Ahlul bayt
shall exist.
Sawaiq al-Muhriqa, Pages 489 & 490
Comment
The verse proves the perfection of Sayyida Fatima (as), her husband and sons; hence it was
incumbent on Abu Bakr to honour the testimonies of these individuals. By rejecting their testimony he
put this verse of the Quran in contempt.
Now let us look at Abu Bakrs decision in light of the Hadeeth of Rasulullah (s)

Bakr rejected the Hadeeth of the two weighty
things
For evidence we shall rely on the following esteemed Sunni works:
1.
Musnad Ahmad, H 10681
2.
Sunnan Tirmidhi, H 3720
3.
Sunnan Kubra, by Nisai, v5, p130
4.
Al-Mustadrak, H 4576
5.
Tarikh Dimashq, v42, p219
6.
Mujam Saghir, by Tabarani, v1, p131
7.
Musnad Abi Yala, v2, p1021
8.
Al-Sunnah, by ibn abi Asem, p336
9.
Silsila Sahiha, volume 4 page 355
Prophet (s) said:

!
O people! I am leaving among you what if you follow them, you will never go astray; the book
of Allah and my Etra my Ahlulbayt
Declared Sahih by Imam Albaani in Silsila Sahiha, volume 4 page 355.
The renowned Hanafi scholar Mullah Ali Qari in his commentary of Mishkat al Masabih, Volume 11
page 376 writes:
Thaqlayn the letter Thay and Kaaf are all conquering they carry two great orders, they are the
Quran and Ahlul bayt, since these are the greatest. Thaql is a form of luggage that is placed
on the back of a carrier, Jinn and Mankind have been referred to as Thaqlayn as they are a
weight on earth. Quran and Itrat (progeny) are referred to in this traditionJinn and Man have
been called Thaqlayn as they have a distinction and the Quran and Ahlul Bayt are distinct
from other books and people
If Nawasib try to advance the claim that Thaqlayn actually refers to adherence to the Quran and
Sunnah, then our reply is that both sources are silent and correct understanding comes from seeking
knowledge of the Quran from Imam Ali (as) and the other Imams from the Ahlul bayt (as).
One who opposes Ahlul bayt (as) is from the Party

of Shaytan and hence outside the Deen
al-Hakim on page 149, Vol. 3, of Al-Mustadrak stated:
The stars protect the inhabitants of earth against drowning, and my Ahl alBayt protect my
nation against dissension. If a tribe among the Arabs differs from them, they will all then differ
and become the party of Satan. (Ibn Àbbas. Al-Hakim adds: This is an authentic Hadeeth
though they (both Shaykhs, i.e. Bukhari and Muslim) did not include it (in their books).
Shah Abdul Aziz in Tauhfa Ithna Ashari page 130 also admitted:
Shia and Sunni are in agreement that Rasulullah (s) said I am leaving among you two things
that are exalted
Verily we can see that on the principles of Shariah, Rasulullah (s) gave the order to obey both, any
madhab that on principles of aqeedah or practice opposes any one of them is a liar. Anyone who
opposes the Quran and Ahlul bayt falls outside the realms of the Deen, we will see who amongst
Sunni and Shia opposes adhering to the Quran and Ahlul bayt (as).
Comment
Let us decide on the Fadak dispute in line with these comments:
1.
We have proven the authenticity of the Hadeeth Thaqlayn from several recognised Sunni
works
2.
The tradition is authentic in terms of chain of narrators and is Muttawatir
3.
Tauhfa, Sawaiqh and Lughut al Hadeeth have proven that Itrat refers to Sayyida Fatima (as),
Imams Ali (as), Hassan (as), Husayn (as) and their pure descendants.
Applying this to the facts, Sayyida Fatima (as) claimed Fadak as land that was her legal entitlement,
and Imam Ali (as) and Hasnayn (as) also testified to support her claim. Hadeeth Thaqlayn made it
Abu Bakrs duty to obey the Ahlul bayt (as), but he opposed their position.The great advocate of the
Sahaba Shah Abdul Aziz Dehlavi has stated that those who oppose the Itrat of Rasulullah (s) fall
outside the Deen. Now its left to the Ahlul Sunnah to decide where the comments of this famed
debater leave Abu Bakr.

Bakr rejected Hadeeth-Safina
This hadith has been mentioned in the following esteemed Sunni works:
1.
al-Mustadrak, by al-Hakim, v2, p343, v3, pp 150-151 [ chapter 'on the authority of Abu Dhar'.]
2.
Mishkat al Masabih Volume 2 page 258
3.
Fadhail al-Sahaba, by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v2, p786
4.
Tafseer al-Kabeer, by Fakhr al-Razi, under the commentary of verse 42:23, Part 27, p167 alBazzar, on the authority of Ibn Abbas and Ibn Zubair with the wording drowned instead of
perished.
5.
al-Sawaiq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar Haythami, Ch. 11, section 1, p234 under Verse 8:33.
Also in section 2, p282.
6.
Tareekh al-Khulafa and Jami al-Saghir, by al-Suyuti
7.
al-Kabeer, by al-Tabarani, v3, pp 37,38
8.
Hilyatul Awliya, by Abu Nuaym, v4, p306
9.
al-Kuna wal Asma, by al-Dulabi, v1, p76
10.
Yanabi al-Muwaddah, by al-Qundoozi al-Hanafi, pp 30,370
For the sake of brevity we are quoting directly from al Mustadrak and Mishkat:
Abu Dharr narrates that Rasulullah (s) said Beware! My Ahlul-Bayt are like the Ark of Noah.
Whoever embarked in it is SAVED, and whoever turned away from it is perished.
Since the ancestors of the present day Nawasib rejected this directive they have preferred to cast
doubts on its authenticity. The case of Ibn al-Hashimi al-Nasibi is one such example:
http://www.ahlelbayt.com/articles/hadith/safinah
Let us remind these children of Muawiyah that Al-Hakim recorded the tradition in his book alMustadrak volume 2 page 343 and declared it as Sahih according to the condition of Muslim. Imam
Jalaluddin Suyuti in his book Al-Jame al-Saghir volume 2 page 533 declared it as Hasan. Imam AlSakhawi in his book Al-Baldanyat page 186 declared it as Hasan. Moreover, the great Hanafi Imam
Mullah Ali Qari in Mirqat Sharh Mishkat, Volume 18 page 48 explicitly writes:

.
Abu Dharr, narrated it, the same Abu Dharr with a truthful tongue. It is well known that he is
Thiqah in narrating, this Hadith is Sahih, there is no room to refute it. About Abu Dharr it has
been narrated by Abdullah ibn Amro bin al-Aas that Rasulullah (s) said: Heaven has not
shaded, nor has the earth carried a person more truthful than Abu Dharr.
Mirqat Sharh Mishkat, Volume 18 page 48
With regard to the meaning of this tradition let us quote the comments of Ibn Hajr al Makki in his anti
Shia book Sawaiqh al Muhriqa page 91:
Rasulullah compared his Ahlul bayt to the boat, since the boat was a means of salvation, and
any person who loves the Ahlul bayt, shall respect them and act upon their knowledge and
guidance, shall be protected from destruction and kuffar, whoever opposes them shall drown
in misguidance.
The comments of leading Deobandi Imam similarly loved by the Salafies, Shah Ismail Shaheed are
also worthy of note. Having narrated this Hadeeth in his classical source Taqwitatul Iman page 228,
Chapter The Companions and Ahl-e- Bait of the Messenger of Allah he offers his understanding of
the Hadeeth:
It is clear from this Hadeeth that those who follow the ways and modes of the ahl-bait
(members of the Prophets house) are saved from Unbelief and Hell, like those who were saved
by mounting on the Ark of Noah. Those who refused to be in the Ark were ruined, including a
son of Noah who was also among the Unbelievers,
Comment
Rasulullah (s) had set out how the Ummah could protect itself from error/ misguidance, by comparing
the Ahlul bayt (as) to the Ark of Noah. In the same way that the Ark was a source of salvation for the
Sahaba of Prophet Nuh (as), the Ark of the Ahlul bayt (as) was a source of guidance for the Sahaba
and all generations that followed them.
We have cited 10 authentic Sunni sources to prove the veracity of the Hadeeth along with the
commentaries of the tradition by three renowned Sunni scholars. We previously also cited the
comments of Shah in Tauhfa, namely one who opposes the Ahlul bayt (as) is misguided. We have
also shown the identities of the Ahlul bayt under the verse of purity, namely Sayyida Fatima (as), Ali
(as) and Hasnayn (as). Hence opposing them is misguidance.
The Shah said opposing them is misguidance we leave it to those with open minds where this leaves
Abu Bakr who did just that.

Bakr rejected the Hadeeth Ali is with the truth and
the truth is with Ali
As evidence we are relying on the following authentic Sunni sources:
1.
Nuzul ul Abrar, page 24
2.
Kanz al-Ùmmal, Volume 6 page 157 Chapter Fadail Ali Hadeeth number3301
3.
Tauhfa Ithna Ashariyyah, page 216
4.
5.
Jama Tirmidhi, Volume 2 page 573 Chapter Manaqib Ali Ibne Abi Talib
6.
Faraid us Simtayn, page 174 Chapter 36
7.
Manaqib, by Khawarzmi Chapter 8 page 56
8.
Kanzul al Haqaiq page 160
9.
Seerath Halbeeya Volume 3 page 236
10.
Manaqib by Ibne Maghazli page 144
All these books contain this tradition:
Ali is with the Truth and the Truth is with Ali

This Hadeeth is authentic and the great Sunni scholar Shah Abdul Aziz in Tauhfa Ithna Ashari page
211 said:
The Ahlul Sunnah accept this and are prepared to place this on our eyes
We read in Musnad Abu Yala, Volume 2 page 318:
Abu Saeed from his father said: Then Ali bin Abi Talib passed by us, hence He (s) said: The
truth with this one, the truth with this one.
The margin writer of the book Hussain Salim Asad said: The narrators are reliable. So did Imam
Al-Haythami in Majma al-Zawaed, Volume 7 page 235.
We read in Mustadrak al-Hakim, Volume 3 page 214:
Allahs messenger said: May Allahs mercy be upon Ali, Oh Allah, rotate the truth wherever he
rotates.
Hakim said: Sahih according to the condition of Muslim
Comment
This is a crucial Hadeeth proving that attaching oneself to the teachings of Ali (as) guarantees
religious guidance. In this connection Sunni Imam Fakhruddin Al-Razi records:
Ali bin Abi Talib used to recite Bismillah al Rehman al Rahim loudly in prayers and this is a
proven fact that whoever followed Ali bin Abi Talib in religion, has been guided and its proof is
that the Prophet (s) supplicated: O Allah, turn the truth in the direction where Ali turns.
Tafseer Kabeer, Volume 1 pages 180-181
The fact that Imam Ali (as)s position is always the correct one is clearly evidenced by this tradition, so
when he (as) took the side of Sayyida Fatima (as) testifying to support her claim, then his position was
indeed one of truth. Abu Bakr rejected this testimony of truth. Ahlul Sunnah need to decide with whom
was the truth, was it with Imam Ali (as) or Abu Bakr?

Bakr rejected the Hadeeth Ali is with the Quran
and the Quran is with Ali
As evidence we shall cite the following Sunni sources:
1.
al-Mustadrak, by al-Hakim, v3, p124 on the authority of Umm Salama
2.
al-Sawaiq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar, Ch. 9, section 2, pp 191,194
3.
al-Awsat, by al-Tabarani; also in al-Saghir
4.
Tareekh al-Khulafa, by Jalaluddin al-Suyuti, p173
5.
Kanz ul Ummal Hadeeth number 32912
All the above references contain these words of Rasulullah (s):

Ali is with the Quran and the Quran is with Ali, the two shall not separate until they meet me
at the Fountain of Kauthar
Comment
We have relied on numerous Sunni sources containing this tradition that proves the exalted rank of
Imam Ali (as). If Imam Ali (as) does the opposite, it renders the words of the Prophet(s) without any
substance. According to the Hadeeth we are relying on, his testimony would be on par with the
Quran, yet Abu Bakr rejected this testimony, he therefore rejected a Hadeeth of Rasulullah (s).Our
opponents need to decide on the Fadak dispute, was the Quran with Hadhrat Ali (as) or was it with
Abu Bakr?
In addition to this let us hear Imam Ali (as)s own claim of superiority with regard to the knowledge of
the Quran. These words can be located in the following esteemed Sunni works:
1.
Tareekh ul Khulafa (part English translation page 194, Dhikr Ali)
2.
Hilayath al Awliya page 68 Chapter 7
3.
Kanz al Ummal Volume 6 page 405
4.
Nathajab Kanz al Ummal Volume 5 page 48
5.
al Istiab Volume 3 page 463
6.
Dhukhair al Aqba page 83 Chapter 112
7.
al Isaba Volume 4 page 503
8.
Fayz al Qadeer Volume 3 page 42 Chapter 23
9.
Tadhkirathul Khawwas page 28
We quote verbatim from Tareekh ul Khulafa:

Abu Tufayl said: Ali said Ask me about the Book of Allah because there is no Ayah but that
know where it was revealed, at night or in day time, on the plain or in the mountain
Also on the same page of Tareekh ul Khulafa: we read:
Ali said, By Allah, an ayah has not been revealed without me knowing about what it was
revealed, when it was revealed, and about whom it was revealed. My Lord has given me a very
intelligent heart and a true and articulate tongue.
These words of Imam Ali (as) also appear in Tabaqat ibn Sad Volume 2 page 238, Chapter 8 and
Sawaiqh al Muhriqa page 13.
We read in Hilya tul Auwliyah, page 63 and in Tarikh Damishq, Volume 42 page 400:
Ibn Masud Said: Quran has been revealed in seven different ways and every way has internal
and external meanings and Ali bin Abi Talib has the knowledge of both
Comment
The two claims of Imam Ali (as) attest to the superior knowledge of the Quran that Hadhrat Ali (as)
possessed. He was aware of the dates, timing, places and reasons for revelation. In addition we have
the testimony of Ibne Masud wherein he made it clear that Imam Ali (as) had a command of the clear
and hidden meanings of the Quranic verses.

Bakr rejected the claim of Ali (as) I am the great
truthful one
As evidence we shall rely on the following authentic Sunni sources:
1.
Sunan Ibn Majah Volume 1 page 69, (chapter Fadail Ali ibn abi Talib)
2.
Al Riyadh al Nadira Volume 3 page 136 Part 3
3.
Sawaiqh al Muhriqa page 74 Hadeeth number 30
4.
Kanz al Ummal Bab Fadail Ali Volume 6 page 394
We quote verbatim from Ibn Majah:

I am a man of Allah, the brother of the Prophet, and the Great truthful one (Siddiq Akbar),
anyone who claims this other than me is a liar, I offered Salat 7 years before anyone else.
Sunan Ibn Majah, Vol. 1, Page 69
We read in Mansab-e-Imamate, page 105 by the Great Imam of the Deobandis Shah Ismail Shaheed:
Imamate is the Shadow of the Prophethood. The Imams leadership is openly declared.
Whereas history provides evidence of Saints that remained silent, the Imam announces
whatever powers he possesses as Imam Ali did when he declared I am the Siddiq al Akbar
(The Great Truthful One) and whoever declares this after me is a liar and I am the talking
Quran.
Mansab-e-Imamate, Page 105
Here we shall take the opportunity to refute all those pathetic Nawasib who try to create doubts over
the authenticity of this tradition in their attempt to save the fake Sideeq and Farooq found in their
camp. All such efforts are in vain since one of the beloved scholars of Salafis equally admired by
Hanafies namely Shaykh Muhammad bin Abdulhadi al-Sindi (d. 1138 H) in the margin of the book
Sunan Ibn Majah stated about this tradition:

I say that the chain is Sahih and the narrators are Thiqah
Moreover we read:

I say that it seems that those who criticize the reliability of this tradition do so because they
couldnt understand its meaning not because there is any error in the chain.
Hashyat al-Sindi, Volume 1 page 107
Another Sunni margin writer of Sunan ibn Majah namely Dr. Muhammad Fuad Abdulbaqi said:
The chain is Sahih and the narrators are Thiqah
Imam Buseri in his authority work Misbah al-Zajajah fi Zawaid Ibn Majah, Volume 1 page 61 Hadith 49
stated:

The chain is Sahih and the narrators are Thiqah
Qadhi Shawkani in his famed work Fawaed Majmoa, Volume 1 page 344 records:
: .
Al-Hakim narrated it in Mustadrak and said: Sahih according to the conditions of the two
Sheikhs
Let us now quote the words of one of the great students of Ibn Hajjar Makki al-Haythami and Mullah
Muttaqi Hindi namely Allamah Muhammad Tahir al-Sediqi al-Fatni (d. 986) from his work in Tazkirat alMawduat, page 96:

Al-Hakim declared it Sahih according to their (Bukhari and Muslims) conditions
Also the scan from the English version of Sunan Ibn Majah we provided confirms that Imam Hakim
declared this tradition Sahih yet the shameless Nawasib have deleted the words of Imam Hakim from
the current versions of the book Mustadrak. If the authentication of this tradition by Imam Hakim was
not important then what made the Nawasib delete his grading of it? The Nasibis attempts to discredit
the tradition receives a further blow when we see another tradition having words similar to the above.
We read in Mujam al-Kabir by Imam Tabarani, Volume 6 page 269:
Abu Dhar and Salam, may Allah be pleased with them narrated that Allahs messenger (pbuh)
held the hand of Ali (ra) and said: This is the first one who believed in my God, he is the first
one who will shake my hand in the hereafter, he is the great truthful one (Sideeq al-Akbar), he
is the Farooq of this nation, he distinguishes truth from falsehood, he is chief of believers
while the money is the chief of the unjust.
Mujam al-Kabir, Volume 6 page 269 Hadith 6184
Qadhi Shawkani in his book Dar al-Sahaba, page 205 stated about this tradition: The narrators are
Thiqah.
Comment
Despite this high rank of Hadhrat Ali (as), Abu Bakr rejected his testimony in favour of Sayyida Fatima
(as) in the Fadak dispute, Ahlul Sunnah will need to decide who the great truthful one was here, was
it Imam Ali (as) or Abu Bakr?

Bakr rejected the Hadeeth I am the City of
Knowledge and Ali is its Gate
As evidence we are relying on the following Sunni sources:
1.
Sahih al-Tirmidhi, v5, pp 201,637
2.
3.
al-Mustadrak, by al-Hakim, v3, pp 126-127,226, Chapter Virtues of Ali, narrated on the

authority of two reliable reporters: one, Ibn Abbas, whose report has been transmitted through two
different chains of narrators, and the other, Jabir Ibn Abdullah al-Ansari.
4.
Fadhail al-Sahaba, by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v2, p635, Tradition 1081
5.
Jami al-Saghir, by Jalaluddin al-Suyuti, v1, pp 107,374; Also in Jami al-Jawami; Also in
Tareekh al-Khulafa, p171.
6.
al-Kabeer, by al-Tabarani (d. 360); Also in al-Awsat
7.
Marifah al-Sahaba, by al-Hafidh Abu Nuaym al-Isbahani
8.
History of Ibn Kathir, v7, p358
9.
History of Ibn Asakir
10.
Tareekh, by al-Khateeb al-Baghdadi, v2, p337; v4, p348; v7, p173; v11, pp 48-50; v13, p204
11.
al-Istiab, by Ibn Abd al-Barr, v3, p38; v2, p461
12.
Usdul Ghabah, by Ibn al-Athir, v4, p22
13.
Tahdhib al-Athar, by Ibn Jarir al-Tabari
14.
Majma al-Zawaid, by al-Haythami, v9, p114
15.
Siraj al-Muneer, by al-Hafidh Ali Ibn Ahmad Azizi Shafii (d.1070), v2, p63
16.
Manaqib, by Ali Ibn Muhammad Ibn Tayyib al-Jalaabi Ibn Maghaazi (d. 483)
17.
Yanabi al-Muwaddah, by al-Qundoozi al-Hanafi, in Chapter 14
18.
Tadhkirat al-Khawwas al-Ummah, by Sibt Ibn al-Jawzi (d. 654), p29
19.
Kunz al-Badradeen, by Shaikh Khathri
20.
al-Sawaiq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar al-Haythami, Ch. 9, section 2, p189
We read in Tareekh ul Khulafa by Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti (d. 911 AH), p. 170
al-Tirmidhi and al-Hakim has quoted on the authority of Ali who said: The Messenger of
God, peace and blessings be upon him, said: I am the city of knowledge and Ali is its gate
Comment
Some modern day Salafis in line with their great Nasibi Imams Ibn Tamiyah and Ibn Jauzi have
deemed this Hadeeth to be a fabrication. It is indeed shameful that they have the audacity to deem a
Hadeeth weak
that a number of high ranking Sunni Imams have graded authentic. Al-Hakim recorded it in his book
al-Mustadrak, volume 3, page 126 and declared it as Sahih. Imam Yahya bin Moin declared it as
Sahih (Tahdib al-Kamal, v18 p72 Translation 3421). Imam Tabari in his book Tahdib al-Athaar page
104 declared it as Sahih. Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani declared it as Hasan (al-Fawaed al-Majmoa, v1,
p348 by Shawkani). We have provided the authentication of this hadith from various other Sunni
scholars in our article on Ibn Tamiyah.
These Nawasib should have some shame. Not a single Sahih Hadeeth exists in praise of Muawiya,
which is why your Imam Bukhari did not compile a Chapter on the Fadail of Muawiya. Despite this the
lovers of the Banu Umayyad regime, as part of their efforts to praise their Imam have devised a
concept that weak Hadeeth can be evidenced when discussing Manaqib or Fadail. When this is the
case why do they suffer from palpitations when asked to accept a Sahih Hadeeth in praise of Imam al
Muttaqeen, Ali Ibn Abi Talib (as)?
If the motive of Nawasib by casting doubts on the authenticity of this famed Hadith is to prove that Ali
bin Abi Talib (as) wasnt knowledgeable about Islam beside the Prophet (s), then we should point out
that there are various other traditions which testify to the knowledge and wisdom possessed by Ali bin
Abi Talib (as) and when we see Hadith Madina tul ilm in the light of such traditions, there remains no
doubt about the veracity of the hadith. We read in Hilya tul Auwliyah, page 63 and in Tarikh Damishq,
Volume 42 page 400:
Ibn Masud Said: Quran has been revealed in seven different ways and every way has internal
and external meanings and Ali bin Abi Talib has the knowledge of both
Prophet (s) once said:
O Fatima! Are you not pleased that your husband is the foremost of my Ummah in Islam, the
most knowledgeable of them and also the most patient.
1. Tarikh Damishq, Volume 42 page 13
2. Fadael al-Sahaba, by Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Volume 3 page 324
3. Manaqib by Khawarezmi, page 106
Comment
This tradition clearly makes it clear that it was the duty of Imam Ali (as) to clarify the Shariah of
Rasulullah (s). Since Shariah is made up of two components the Quran and Sunnah, Hadhrat Ali
(as)s ruling should be the final say in all disputes. When Hadhrat Ali (as) declared the Islamic position
on Prophetic inheritance during the Fadak dispute relying on the Quranic verses it was imperative for
Abu Bakr to accept the position of Imam Ali (as) .
Uns narrates from Rasulullah (s), on all that has been revealed by Allah (swt) the one with the
greatest knowledge is Ali
Manaqib Sayyida Ali by Aini, page 12
Refuting the defences presented by Abu Bakrs

advocates regarding witnesses
The witnesses produced in the fadak dispute were chosen by Allah to testify on behalf of Rasulullah
(s) during the Mubahila. Despite this these testimonies were rejected on the following grounds:
1.
The number of witnesses required to substantiate a claim were not met.
2.
Children cannot testify on behalf of their parents.
3.
Hassan and Husayn were too young to testify in the dispute.
4.
A husband cannot acts as witness for his wife
5.
Testimony of a slave is not acceptable
Let us analyse each of the points:
Defence One: The number of witnesses required

to substantiate a claim were not met
Reply
We have already mentioned the fact that there is no need for further witnesses when no other
claimant is challenging a claim. Witnesses are required by a Judge when he has no other means of
ascertaining the truth. When a Judge is definite on a matter then there is no need for him to ask for
witness testimony. The irony of the matter is that the stipulation for witness numbers had been met,
there was Ali (as), Rabah, Umm Ayman, Hassan (as), Husayn (as).
Although they did not all give testimony at the same time, they testified when the need arose. If we
accept that Imam Ali (as) and Umm Ayman testified in the first instance, then the witness stipulation
had been satisfied, since Sayyida Fatima (as) and umm Ayman were both women and Imam Ali was a
male. The argument that a claimants testimony cannot be included, (i.e. someone other than Sayyida
Fatima (as) was needed) is baseless since independent witnesses are required when a plaintiffs
claim is being challenged by another party, this was not the case here.
No one came forward during the dispute to counter the claim of Sayyida Fatima (as) by making oath
before Allah (swt) that he remained closely with Rasulullah (s) every day through his life, and at no
time did he (s) make a declaration to bestow this land to Sayyida Fatima (as). If such a situation had
arisen then this would have meant a direct challenge to Sayyida Fatima (as)s testimony.In such a
situation, the claim of the claimant and the rejection of a the plaintiffs claim by a second party would
negate the testimonies of both sides.It would then be necessary to summon witnesses other than
Abu Bakr was acting in the capacity of Ruler and without any knowledge, adopted a dictatorial
mindset demanding witnesses.There were no other claimants nor was anyone challenging the
claimants assertion hence in such a scenario the claimants lone testimony is perfectly acceptable.
The testimonies of Imam Ali (as) and his two sons also fulfilled the requirement of witness numbers. If
the excuse is provided that these children were under age the rule of law is that if a child possesses
common sense and knowledge then his/her testimony is acceptable.
One should think that when on the Day of Mubahila Rasulullah (s) presented Sayyida Fatima (as),
Imam Ali (as), Hassan (as) and Husayn (as) as witnesses to his Prophethood, the Christian delegation
did not raise a hue and cry that the witness stipulation had not been met. Rasulullah (s) was also one
of the witnesses, in exactly the same that Sayyida Fatima (as) was a witness in the Fadak dispute.
No further witnesses were summoned on the Day of Mubahila, their testimonies formed part of a
Supplication, and if the challenge had been accepted the following claim would have been made in
the first instance, that Rasulullah (s) was a truthful Prophet (s) and Esau (as) was Man selected by
Allah (swt), the Christians would reject this notion then both parties would curse one another.
Their testimony was that Rasulullah (s) was a true Prophet (s) and Esau (as) was a Prophet, not the
Son of God.
Defence Two Children cannot testify in support of

their parents
Reply One No proof from Quran
There is absolutlely no proof from the Quran that would substantiate such a defence. In fact Quranic
evidence is quite the opposite, wherein we see that an infant Hadhrat Esau testified in support of his
mother Hadhrat Maryam (as). If we accept this argument then it forms a real mockery in the eyes of
Non Muslims, who will state Muslims are so unreliable that children cannot testify in favour of their
relatives!
If you look at the West we see how childrens testimonies have come to be seen as acceptable in a
court of law. Not only can children testify in favour of their parents, they can even be claimants in a
dispute. This in effect recognises that a childs testimony is acceptable and can presented as
evidence, the Ahlul Sunnah opposing view has only been formulated to protect Abu Bakr, it has
nothing to do with Islamic justice.
Reply Two The Khalifas children have narrated Hadeeth praising

their fathers
There is no Quranic basis that stipulates that a child cannot testify in support of his/her parents claim.
If this is indeed true then by the same token all the virtues of Abu Bakr and Umar that have been
narrated by their offsprings such as Ayesha, Hafsa and Abdullah Ibn Umar should likewise be
rejected.This is indeed concerning when we learn that the sole narrator of the famous tradition
wherein Abu Bakr led the prayers during the last sickness of Rasulullah (s) was none other than
Ayesha. Although a Prophets children cannot testify on behalf of their parents, The Khalifas children
can.Their testimonies of their fathers virtues are acceptable and no one raises even an eyebrow of
concern. Compare this to the Judicial rules that operate in the Christian West, where peoples
interests are put on high station, not only can children testify in favour of their parents claims, the
testimony of the claimant is also deemed evidence in his favour. Unfortunately our opponents love of
principles, has in effect given ammunition to critics to attack our religion!
Reply Three Imam Ali (as) presented his son as his witness in a
court case
Imam Ali (as) knew the Shariah better than any other Sahabi .We read in Tareekhul Khulafa [partial
English translation] page 193:
The Qadi Shurayh said: When Ali was setting out to Siffin, he found that he was missing a
coat of armour of his. When the war was over and he returned to Kufa, he came across the
armour in the hands of a Jew. He said to the Jew, the armour is mine, I have not sold it or
given it away. The Jew said, It is my armour and it is in my hand. He said, Let us go to the
Qadi. Ali went first, sat beside the QadiSuhyayh said, Speak Amir al Muminin. He said Yes
this armour which this Jew has is my armour; I did not sell and I did not give it away. Shurayh
said, What do you say Jew? He said It is my armour and it is in my possession. Shurayh
said, Do you have any evidence Amir ul Muminin He said, Yes. Qanbar and al Hassan will
witness the armour is mine. Shurayh said, A sons testimony is not acceptable on behalf of
his father A man from the Garden, and his testimony is not acceptable? I heard the Prophet
may Allah bless him peace saying, al Hassan and al Hussein are the two Lords of the youth of
people of the Garden
Comment
If a sons testimony in support of a parent is unacceptable then Imam Ali (as) would not have
presented his son in this case. His testimony was presented because he was one of the people of
Paradise. Sadly in the Fadak dispute Abu Bakr heard the testimonies of four people of Paradise Imam
Ali (as), Hassan (as), Husayn (as) as well as the initial claim Sayyida Fatima (as). He rejected all of
their testimonies! If the testimony of offspring for their parents is unacceptable then the testimonies of
Ayesha, Hafsa and Abdullah Ibn Umar should also be rejected when it comes to narrating the virtues
of Abu Bakr and Umar.
Reply Four According to Sunni jurists it is correct if children testify

in support of their parents
Imam Ibn Qudamah records in Al-Mughni, Volume 12 page 64:

It has been narrated in a reliable narration from Ahmad may Allahs mercy be upon him stating
that the testimony of the son to support the father is acceptable.
al-Hatab al-Ruaini records in Muwahib al-Jalil, Volume 8 page 175:

The testimony of the progeny whether male or female to any one of the parents is acceptable
as long there isnt any inclination towards them.
Imam Tahawi records in Mukhtasar Ikhtelaf al-Ulama, Volume 2 page 409:

Uthman al-Batti said: the testimony of the son to his parents and the testimony of the father to
his son or wife is acceptable provided they are just.
Qadhi Shawkani records in his famed work Nail al-Auwtar, Volume 9 page 203:
{ }
Umar bin al-Khatab, Shuraih, Umar bin Abdulaziz, Itra (Ahlulbayt), Abu Thur, ibn al-Munder
and Shafiyee say that it is acceptable because the verse {and take for witness two persons
from among you, endued with justice} is general
Defence Three Underage children cannot testify

in favour of their parents
Reply One The superiority of the Awliya Allah in infancy
Hadhrat Yahya (as) was granted Prophethood whilst an infant.
We read in Surah Maryam verse 12:
(To his son came the command): O Yahya! take hold of the Book with might: and We gave
him Wisdom even as a youth,
Al-Quran, Surah Maryam, Ayah 12, translated by Yusufali
Isa (as) was granted Prophethood whilst still a child and testified to
counter the false allegations made against his mother
We read in Surah Maryam verses 29-30:
But she pointed to the babe. They said: How can we talk to one who is a child in the cradle?
He said: I am indeed a servant of Allah: He hath given me revelation and made me a prophet;
Al-Quran, Surah Maryam, Ayah 29 & 30, translated by Yusufali
A child testified to counter a false allegation made against Prophet

Yusuf (as)
Allah (swt) in Surah Yusuf cites the failed efforts of the wife of Aziz to seduce Prophet Yusuf (as), and
her efforts to absolve herself by falsely alleging that he (as) seduced her. Yusuf (as) was protected
through the assistance of an individual within the palace.
We read in Surah Yusuf verse 26:
(Joseph) said: She it was who asked of me an evil act. And a witness of her own folk testified:
If his shirt is torn from before, then she speaketh truth and he is of the liars.
Who was this witness? We read in Tafsir Ibn Kathir, under the commentary of this verse:
(and a witness of her household bore witness) He was a babe in the cradle. Similar was
reported from Abu Hurayrah, Hilal bin Yasaf, Al-Hasan, Saìd bin Jubayr and Ad-Dahhak bin
Muzahim, that the witness was a young boy who lived in the Àzizs house. Ibn Jarir At-Tabari
preferred this view.
Allah (swt) made Hassan (as) and Husayn (as) witnesses to the
Prophethood whilst they were still infants
Allah (swt) declares in Surah Aal-e-Imran verse 061:
If any one disputes in this matter with thee, now after (full) knowledge Hath come to thee, say:
Come! let us gather together,- our sons and your sons, our women and your women,
ourselves and yourselves: Then let us earnestly pray, and invoke the curse of Allah on those
who lie!
Al-Quran, Surah Al-e-Imran, Ayah 61, translated by Yusufali
The above verse is clear proof that on the day of Mubahila, Rasulullah (s) was accompanied by
Hassan (as) and Husayn (as) in order to testify to his Prophethood. It is therefore clear that you
cannot compare these children to others via the use of Qiyas.The testimony of ordinary men requires
them to be baligh, this was not the case here as Allah (swt) deemed these infants testimonies to be
correct.
Imam Jafer al Sadiq (as) would explain the way of Allah (swt) when
he was a child
We read in Ya Nabi al Muwaddah page 415:
Muhammad Ibn Arabi narrates that at a young age Jafer could converse on the realities of the
ways of Allah (swt)
Imam Abu Hanifa testified to the superior knowledge of a young

Imam Musa Kadhim (as)
We read in Tauhfa Ithna Ashari Part 82 page 69:
Abu Hanifa was sitting down, when the son of Imam Jafer, Musa came out, he was not baligh
[adult]. Imam Abu Hanifa stood up to honour the child, and afforded him respect, and then
asked him a question. Upon hearing the answer he was astounded and said Allah (swt) knows
best with regards to the House wherein he sent Prophethood
Imam Taqi (as) gave news of the unseen at a young age

For this we shall rely on the following two esteemed Sunni sources:
1.
Shawahid al Nubuwwa page 205, Bab Dhikr Imam Muhammad Taqi
2.
Sawaiqh al Muhriqa, Pages 682 & 683, Dhikr Ali Raza
Mamun Abbasid went hunting, left an eagle and it went missing from his sight. When the eagle
returned it carried a fish in his break. Mamun placed the fish in his handkerchief. On his return
children of Baghdad were playing on the road, when they saw him they ran off save one boy.
Mamun asked Tell whats in my hand, he said God from his creations has created fish in the
Sea, some Kings hunt them with eagles and via them the family of the Prophet are tested.
Sawaiq al-Muhriqa, Pages 682 & 683
Young Imam Askari (as) offered advice to Bahlool

We read in Sawaiqh al Muhriqa page 687 Fadail al Askari:
Bahlool once saw a child crying in the street where all the other children were busy playing
with their toys. Bahlool said Shall I purchase a toy for you? the child replied: We have not
been created to play!
Bahlool asked Why have you been created. The child said to attain knowledge and perform Ibadah
Imam Mahdi (as) attained knowledge at a young age

As evidence we shall cite the following classical Sunni works:
1.
Sawaiqh al Muhriqa, Page 689, Fadail Abu Muhammad
2.
We are quoting verbatim from Sawaiqh:

Imam Mahdi was five years old when his father died, Allah (swt) bestowed wisdom on him at
that age
Reply Two Young children are seen as innocent and truthful

We cited the fact that Nabi Esau (as) testified for his mother whilst still in the cradle. This verse
reflects the common notion that young children as seen as pure and innocent, which is why their
words are commonly accepted as fact, since young children will speak the truth without fear of the the
consequences / repercussions of such a comment. In this regard we have the episode wherein an
infant Imam Hasan (as) told Abu Bakr to move from his fathers pulpit.
Suyuti records that:
Al Hassan Ibn Ali came to Abu Bakr when he was upon the mimbar of the Prophet, may Allah
bless him and grant him peace, and said Come down from my fathers seat. He said You have
told the truth, it is your fathers seat, and he placed him in his lap and wept. Ali said By Allah
this was not from my command.
History of the Khalifahs who took the right away, by: Al Hafiz Jalaludin Suyuti. English translation by
Abdasamad Clark Page 71. Taha Publishers
Rather than brush aside this comment as the mutterings of a child fantasist, he said to the infant Imam
Hasan (as) You have told the truth, thus proving in Abu Bakrs eyes that the testimony of an infant is
acceptable.
By rejecting the testimonies of Hassan (as) and Husayn (as), Abu

Bakr inflicted injustice on the Ahlul Bayt (as)
Anyone who rejects the high rank of the Awliya Allah possesses a weak Iman. These two young boys
were not ordinary members of the Ummah, where a baligh testimony was required.Such rulings are
not applicable to Prophets and Imams and we have already cited the example of Khuzamah ibn Thabit
(al Bukhari, Abu Dawood) who was bestowed the title of Dhul Shahadatayn (one whose evidence is
equivalent to the evidence of two witnesses)
Reply Three Abu Bakrs daughter narrated the spiritual Miraj of

Rasulullah (s)
We read in Ahlul Sunnahs authority work Zaad al Maad, Volume 3 page 54, Dhikr Miraaj:
Ibn Ishaq narrated that Ayesha and Muawiya said: The Isra was spiritual, His (s) body didnt
disappear. And same has been narrated the from al-Hassan al-Basri.
Zaad al Maad, Volume 3 page 54
Comment
The Miraj occurred before the Hijrah in Makka, this was a time when Ansar.Orgs Imam Muawiya was
a Kaafir, and Ayesha was a mere child, she was unmarried and was in her fathers home, and had
never seen the bed of Rasulullah (s).
Reply Four Infant Ayesha also narrated the events of Hijrah

We read in Zaad al Maad, Volume 3 page 45 as writtein in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 72,
Number 698:
Ayesha said: So we prepared their baggage and put their journey food In a leather bag. And
Asma bint Abu Bakr cut a piece of her girdle and tied the mouth of the leather bag with it. That
is why she was called Dhat-an-Nitaqaln.
Comment
Ayesha was not adult at the time of the Hijrah, yet as this event is a virtue of Abu Bakr, she is a
narrator. We appeal to justice, at the time of Hijrah and Miraj, Ayesha had not attained puberty, rather
she was a mere child, yet the testimony of this infant daughter of Abu Bakr is acceptable. Curiously
the testimony of Hadhrat Hassan (as) and Husayn (as) was rejected by Abu Bakr in the Fadak case
on the ground that they had not attained puberty. Is this not a proof of bias and double standards?
Reply Five A three year old child becomes his mothers Wali and
performs her Nikah
We read in one of the most reliable Salafi/Wahabi books namely Zaad al Maad, Volume 1 page 102:

Rasulullah (s) asked Umar bin Salma for his mothers hand in marriage, he then performed the
Nikah of his mother, he was a child at the time
Comment
Later in the same text Ibn Qayyim states that Umar was three years of age. We have proven from the
books of Ahlul Sunnah that they accept the testimonies of children. We have the example of Ayesha
who narrated the event of Miraj when she was a mere infant, yet for the sake of exalting the rank of
her father Abu Bakr her words are perfectly acceptable. When it comes to such narrations the Ulema
of Ahlul Sunnah blindly accept such narrations, deeming them as part of their Iman. On the other
hand the words of a family whose children have knowledge of the unseen, who can discuss the ways
of Allah (swt) at the age of six, are completely rejected. Imam Hassan (as) and Husayn (as) were the
Leaders of the Youth of Paradise and they testified to the truthfulness of their mothers claim to Fadak.
Abu Bakr should have accepted their words, but did not and made the land a part of Muslim treasury;
by doing this he undoubtedly opposed the Quran and Sunnah.
Reply Six The esteemed grandson of Abu Bakr narrated the event
of Khandaq at the age of three
We read in Sahih Muslim, Book 031, Number 5941:
Abdullah b. Zubair reported: When it was the Day of the Battle of the Ditch I and Umar b.
Salama were in the fort in which there were women, i. e. the wives of Allahs Apostle (may
peace be upon him) ; the rest of the hadith is the same.
Ibn Zubayr was born in the first Hijrah, the Battle of ditch occurred in the 4th Hijrah.
We have no idea what wrong the family of Ali (as) had perpetuated against the Muslims that lead them
to rejecting the testimonies of Hadhrat Hassan (as) and Husayn (as) on the grounds that they were
not adult. The testimony of Abu Bakrs three year old grandson is acceptable, but the testimony of the
grandsons of Rasulullah (s) that their grandfather bestowed the land of Fadak to their mother is
unacceptable. If you accuse us of bearing enmity towards the Sahaba then let it be known that you
bear enmity to the Ahlul bayt (as); this dispute shall ultimately be decided on the Day of Judgement.
We bear no personal grudge towards Abu Bakr, but our affiliation is with the leader of the women of
Paradise.
Defence Four A husband cannot acts as witness

for his wife
Reply According to a group of Sunni jurists it is correct if a
husband acts as a witness for his wife
If Imam Ali (as) was amongst those who on account of worldly gain and personal benefit preferred
gathering at Saqifa to Rasulullahs funeral then their might well have been grounds to question his
testimony. The reality is Imam Ali (as) was a pious humble man and rejecting his testimony was a
major injustice.
We appeal to such advocates, we all have to die one day and held answerable to God. Have you ever
contemplated that your Imam Abu Hanifa or Muhammad Ismail Bukhari would lie to achieve some
personal benefit ? If you believe that these individuals would never do such a thing then how do you
believe that the Chief of the Pious, Hadhrat Ali (as) would lie to gain personal benefit?
In any case a husband is allowed to testify in support of his wife by your own scholars. Imam of the
Nasibis Ibn Taymiyah in Minhaj al Sunnah, Volume 4 page 125 states:
On a husbands testimony there exist two views of scholars, there are two narrations from
Ahmad, one of which says that it is not acceptable, and its the opinion of Abu Hanifa, Malik,
Laith bin Saad, Awzai, Ishaq and others while it is acceptable according to Shaafi, Abi Sawar,
Ibn Mazazir and others.
A clearer proof can be galvanised from Ahle Sunnahs authority work Al Alam al Moqeen page 41:
Allah (swt) and his Prophet (s) never raised doubts over the testimony of a father for his son,
or a brother or any other near relative. There exists no ijmaa amongst the Muslims refuting
this notion.
Abdul Razzaq (narrates from this chain) Abi Bakr bin Abi Samra Abi Zanaad Abdullah bin
Umar bin Zubay who heard Umar ibn al Khattab (ra) say The testimony of a father for his son,
or vice versa, or by a brother for a brother is permissible. He also narrated without a chain
from Zuhri that the Salaf had no objections to the testimony of a father for his or vice versa, or
brother, or husband for a wife
The tradition quoted above can be read in Musanaf Abdulrazaq, Volume 8 page 343 Tradition 15471.
Hanafi Imam Muhammad bin Ahmad Sarkhasi (d. 483 H) who enjoys the title of Shams al-Aimah
(Sun of Imams) in his esteemed and most acclaimed work al-Mabsut, Volume 16 page 123 records:

Sufyan al-Thawri may Allahs mercy be upon him says that the testimony of husband for his
wife is acceptable
Ibn Abdeen in Hashyat Rad al-Muhtar, Volume 6 page 21 records:

Testimony of the husband for his wife is acceptable

Ibn Rushd in his famed work Bidayat al-Mujtahid, Volume 2 page 380:

It is permitted by Shafifyee, Abu Thawr, al-Hassan. And ibn Abi Layla said: The testimony of
the husband for his wife is acceptable.
Defence Five Testimony of a slave is not

acceptable
One of the witnesses in Fatimas case was the slave of the Holy Prophet (s), Rabah. Although we
have not come across any Nasibi argument saying that the testimony of a slave is unacceptable but
since with the passage of time it may arise absolve their caliph from the crime he had commited, we
shall present our reply as a pre-emptive strike.
Reply According to the Sunni Imams the testimony of a slave is

acceptable
Imam Ibn Hazm records in Al-Muhala, Volume 9 page 412:

The testimony of a male and female slave is acceptable in every thing towards their masters
or others.
Imam of Salafies Ibn Qayim records in Alaam al-Muwaqin, Volume 2 page 98:

What the book of Allah (Quran) and Sunnah of Allahs messenger (Hadiths) and the Ijma of
Sahaba and justice refers to is the acceptance of the testimony of a slave
In his another book Al-Turuq al-Hikmia, Volume 1 page 244, Ibn Qayim records:

Accepting the testimony of the slave is based according to the book (Quran), Sunnah (hadith),
statements of Sahaba, analogy (Qyas), the fundamentals of law (Sharia), while those who
reject it neither have any (proof) from the book (Quran), nor traditions (Sunnah) nor Ijma nor
analogy (Qyas).
FADA K
Preface
Conclusion
Shia Pen Newsletter

2 0 11 2 01 2 S HI A P E N
Formerly known as:

Answering-Ansar.org
2002 - 2010
MISCELLANEOUS
About Us
Contact Us
Newsletter
Privacy Policy
S T AT E M E N T
TERMS & CONDITIONS
Terms & Conditions
HOME
COMPREHENSIVE
CONCISE
DECEPTION
FIQH
QUESTIONS
NASIBI
Chapter Five: Imam Ali (as)s

position on Fadak
The view of Maula Ali (as)the most superior judge
from amongst the Sahaba in relation to Abu Bakrs
ruling on the Fadak dispute
Nawasib can offer as many defences for Abu Bakr as they like, but the bottom line is that Imam Ali
(as) did not deem Abu Bakrs position to be correct, rather he was scathing in his criticism. We read in
Sahih Muslim Book 019, Number 4349 that Umar acknowledged the following to Imam Ali (as):
Umars Words:
When the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) passed away, Abu Bakr said: I am the
successor of the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him). Both of you came to demand
your shares from the property (left behind by the Messenger of Allah). (Referring to Hadhrat
Abbas), he said: You demanded your share from the property of your nephew, and he
(referring to Ali) demanded a share on behalf of his wife from the property of her father. Abu
Bakr (Allah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) had
said: We do not have any heirs; what we leave behind is (to be given in) charity. So both of
you thought him to be a liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest.
We appeal to justice, in any legal system the more senior a judge, the more reliability is afforded to his
decision on account of a recognition that the said judge excels all other on matters of law, so that
what he opines will be the most accurate ruling on a matter based on an accurate interpretation of the
Quran and Sunnah. Now when we look at the companions of the Prophet (s) we see that the most
senior judge from amongst them was Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib (as). In this regard we read the following
traditions:

Abullah said: We used to say that no one is the best Judge in Madina other than Ali
Hakim said: Sahih according to the standards of both Sheikhs
This tradition also recorded in:
1.
Tabaqat kubra, by ibn Saad, v2, p339
2.
Tarikh Dimashq, v42, p404
3.
Al-Estiab, by ibn Abdulbar, v3, p1103
With this in mind it is logical that the viewpoint of Ali (as) on a legal matter will be the most accurate
interpretation of the law, due to his being the most superior Judge from amongst the Sahaba. This
being the case when Imam Ali (as) supported the claim of his wife for Fadak, by:
testifying in support of her inheritance claim (as we proved in an earlier chapter)
submitted the same claim of his wife after she died (as can be evidenced by the
abovementioned narrations that he demanded a share on behalf of his wife from the
property of her father)
rejecting the rulings of the Shaikhain deeming both liars, sinful, treacherous and dishonest for
ruling against her
then his judgment is the most accurate and reliable judgment on the issue of Fadak, as this was the
viewpoint of the most superior judicial authority from amongst the Sahaba. It was a viewpoint that
was diametrically opposed to Abu Bakr, we are therefore at a loss as to why so much ink has been
wasted on defending Abu Bakr, when the opinion of Ali (as) the most senior judge from amongst the
Sahaba should be more accepted as the final word on the matter.
Why didnt Ali raise his sword to get Fadak back at

the time?
Imam Alis reasons for not fighting at the time to restore Fadak are the same as why he didnt fight to
claim his rightful throne back, and we have addressed these points in our article on Taqiyyah.
Taqiyyah (Expedient dissimulation)
If Nawasib are still not satisfied then allow us to give a more comprehensive reply from Kanz al
Ummal, Volume 11 page 399 Tradition 31519:
Rasulullah (s) said to Ali: When people love this world and shall usurp inheritance and love
money so much amd used the religion of Allah as a source of income and the property of Allah
as estates, what will you do? Ali (ra) replied: I shall leave them alone, and shall seek out Allah
(swt), his Prophet (s) and the next world. I shall bear patience in relation to worldly problems
until I meet you. Rasulullah (s) said: You spoke correctly, O Allah! Give Ali patience.
We appeal to justice. Abu Bakr loved this world and denied Sayyida Fatima (as) her legal right. If
Hadhrat Ali (as) chose not to exercise force to get Fadak back, preferring the matter to be resolved on
the Day of Judgement, he was acting in a way that had been endorsed as correct by Rasulullah (s).
The common Sunni/Nasibi counter attack and

alleged Shia defences for Khalifa Ali (as)s failure
to reclaim Fadak
Al Khider employs the common counter attack method on the Fadak dispute:
It is therefore concluded that Fadak was neither inheritance nor a gift. This was exactly the position of
Imam Ali. When he became the Khaleefah he did not treat Fadak as the estate of his deceased wife
Sayyidah Fatimah, by taking a quarter for himself and distributing the remaining three quarters
between , Husayn and Umm Kulthum according to the rule to the male twice the share of the female.
This is an established fact of history.
In the article Fadak the unnamed author then sets out what he deems are Shia responses to Khalifa
Ali (as)s decision not to restore Fadak to the Ahlul bayt (as). He attributes four common excuses
(conjured up in his mind) and then refutes each one of them. What is amusing is the fact that he fails
to provide even a single Shia source wherein such a defence has been put forward. He attributes
these defences to the Shia and then refutes them! Let us see the work of his genious mind:
1. Members of the Ahlul-Bayt will not resume property usurped from them. As a matter of fact, when
Rasulullah, Sallallahu Alayhi wa Sallam, conquered Mecca, he did not take his home back from the
Meccans who had usurped it from him.
This answer is not sound. Hadhrat Khalif Umar bin Abdul-Aziz (Radhi Allahu Anhu), during his
Khulafa, gave the orchard called Fedek to Hadhrat al-Imam Sayyid Muhammad al-Baqir (Radhi Allahu
Anhu), who accepted it, so that it was possessed by the Ahlul-Bayt Aimmah until it was seized by
Abbasid Khalifas. Then, in 203 Hijra, Khalifa Mamun wrote to his official, Qusam bin Jafar and thus
the orchard was given again to one of the Sayyid Imams, namely to al-Imam Ali Rida, and upon his
death the same year, it was given to Yahya, a grandson of Zayd, who was the grandson of Sayyidina
al-Husayn (Radhi Allahu Taala Anhu). This person should not be mistaken for his namesake, Zayd,
who was Hadhrat Sayyidah Nafisas grandfather and at the same time Hadhrat Sayyidina al-Hasans
son. The orchard was usurped again by Khalifa Mutawakkil, who was Mamuns grandson. Later on
Mutadid gave it back again. If members of the Ahlul-Bayt (Radhi Allahu Taala Anhum Ajmaeen)
would not take back their usurped property, then why did these Imams (who were members of the
Ahlul-Bayt) take the orchard back? By the same token, it is asserted that Hadhrat Abu Bakr (Radhi
Allahu Taala Anhu) usurped the office of Khalifa which belonged to Hadhrat Ali (Radhi Allahu Taala
Anhu) by rights. Why did Hadhrat Ali (Radhi Allahu Taala Anhu) accept this usurped right later?
Furthermore, why did Hadhrat al-Husayn (Radhi Allahu Taala Anhu) try to win his usurped right of
Khaleefah back from Yazid so earnestly that he attained the gardens of martyrdom in the end?
Not to be hard done by modern day Salafi hero Ibn al Hasihmi also adopts the same line of
argument
Ibn al Hashimi states:
) didnt take back

We have also seen the Shia propagandists claim that the reason Ali (
Fadak was that the Ahlel Bayt does not take back usurped property. To bolster this argument, the Shia
will bring up the example of Prophet Muhammad ( ) , whose Meccan home had been
usurped by the infidels; upon conquering Mecca, the Prophet ( ) did not take it
back.This answer is very weak, and easily debunked by simply providing the names of Infallible
Imams of the Shia who accepted usurped property. Caliph Umar bin Abdul Aziz returned Fadak to
Imam Muhammad Al-Baqir, who accepted it. Imam Al-Baqir is considered to be one of the Infallible
Imams of the Shia, and thus very much part of what the Shia consider to be the Ahlel Bayt. Caliph
Umar bin Abdul Aziz was wrong in returning Fadak (and his ruling was overturned by later Caliphs),
but thats not the point. The point is that we see here that one of their twelve Infallible Imams accepted
usurped property.
The government once again took back Fadak, and then another Caliph came along later down the line
) . Caliph Mamun
who decided to once again return Fadak to the descendants of Fatima (
would return Fadak to Imam Rida, yet another of those whom the Shia consider to be Infallible Imams.
And there are a couple more examples of the Shia Infallibles accepting usurped property. Thus, this
argument of the Shia is baseless.
Reply
Since Nawasib have deprived themselves from attaining the benefits of the rhetoric and wisdom
bestowed on the Ahlulbayt (as), they are incapable of grasping the matter and analyzing the issue
from all its aspects. The Nasibi author has stated that Members of the Ahlul-Bayt will not resume
property usurped from them but failed to understand the actual meanings of this belief in the light
of the practice of the very members of Ahlul bayt (as). We do not know what the Nasibi author
understood by the key word used in the sentence i.e. resume, whilst the actual meaning of this
sentence is that if the members of Ahlulbayt (as) are in power, they themselves do not take back the
property or any other right that has been usurped from them but they (as) expect the usurpers or their
adherents to realize the sin they committed and restore the legitimate right of Ahlulbayt to them (as).
There is a minor yet major difference between taking ones right back on his accord or an usurpers
restoring it to its actual owner. All the examples mentioned by the Nasibi authors fall into the latter
category therefore there isnt any contradiction between the (alleged) belief quoted by both Nasibi
authors and the examples they cited. Let us see one such tradition, recorded by Shaykh Seduq in Ilalul-Sharai, Volume 1 page 155 so that the points we have explained become clearer:
Al-Hasan ibn Ali ibn Fadhal narrated from Abul-Hasan (Ali ibn Musa Al-Ridha) [a]: I asked him
about Amir-ul-Momineen, why he did not seek to return Fadak when he ruled the people, and
he replied: Because we the Ahlul Bayt do not take our rights from those who have wronged
us, except Him (Allah). And we are the Awliya of the Momineen, we rule for them and take (and
return) their rights from those that wronged them, and we do not take it for ourselves.
The words of the Imam (as) make it clear that they rule for the benefit of the common man, when it
comes to their personal usurped rights, they do not take them back themselves rather their
expectation is that the usurpers and their adherents express remorse for the sin of usurping the right
of Ahlul bayt (as) and accordingly restore that right to them.
Imam Jafar Sadiq (as) was given it back by the successor of the usurpers voluntarily, he didnt take it
back himself. It was then taken back by the Abbasids then given back, then taken back and so on.
There is a big difference between Imam Ali (as) became Caliph and taking it back, and Imam Jafar
Sadiq (as) not having any political power and being given it back by the Caliph. Imam Jafar Sadiq (as)
took it back when the conditions were suitable. We throw it back to the the Nawasib, why did Imam Ali
bin Abi Talib (during Umars reign), Imam Jaffar Sadiq (as) and other Imams (as) take it back when
they deemed it Sadaqa whilst Maula Ali (as) did not take it back (during his own reign)?
What is interesting is his admission that three of the Khalifas, (according to the unnamed author)
Umar Ibn Abdul Aziz, Mamun and Mutadid restored Fadak to the descendants of Sayyida Fatima
(as). If Fadak was not their legal right then why did these Khalifas offer this rich land to them? Why did
these descendants accept the land if it was not their legal right? By advancing this argument the
author has shot himself in the foot, for he has inadvertently cited three Khalifas who rejected Abu
Bakrs decision in the Fadak dispute.
un named author states:
2. Hadrat Ali imitated Hadhrat Fatimah radi-allahu anhuma and did not accept any share from
Fedek.
This answer makes no sense. Why did the Ahlul-Bayt Aimmah (Radhi Allahu Taala Anhum Ajmaeen)
who accepted Fedek (afterwards) not imitate Sayyidah Fatimah az-Zahra (Millions of Sallams upon
her)? If it was a fard to imitate her, why did they ignore this fard, bearing in mind that their belief
regarding the Ahlul-Bayt Aimmah are without error and contradiction. If it was supererogatory (Wajib)
and not fard, then why did Hadhrat Ali (Karamallahu wajhu) do this supererogatory act at the cost of
omitting an act that was fard? Hadhrat Ali would never omit a fard act. For it is fard to give everyone
his or her due. Moreover, it might be reasonable to imitate someones optional behavior. If this
behavior is a result of coercion, then it should not be imitated. If Hadhrat Sayyidah Fatimahs (Radhi
Allahu Taala Anha) not utilizing Fedek was due to someone elses oppression, then she had to waive
her right because she had no other way. In this case it would have been senseless to imitate her.
Reply
Again the Shia never advance this imitation argument, if Imam Ali (as) was imitating anyone it was
Rasulullah (s) by not taking an action that would cause Fitnah, and we shall elaborate this later.
3. Hadrat Ali (radi-allahu taala) had witnessed Fedeks being bequeathed to Hadhrat Fatimah. In
order to show that this witnessing was done for Allahs sake and not for worldly advantages, he did not
accept any advantage from Fedek.
Al Khidhr replies to this:
Those who knew about Hadhrat Alis witnessing and those who rejected it were dead by the time he
became Khalifa. Furthermore, some Ahlul-Bayt Imams accepting the orchard named Fedek made the
group called Khariji consider that Hadhrat Ali might have done this witnessing in order to obtain
advantages for his children. In fact, in matters concerning real estates, such as fields, houses,
vineyards and orchards, one thinks of ones childrens advantages rather than ones own. Perhaps,
Hadhrat Ali might have advised his children not to utilize Fedek, lest his witnessing be tarnished. And
his children might have refused Fedek both to imitate Hadhrat Fatimah and to fulfill this secret advice.
Such is Ulamas comments on the matter.
Reply
Again this is not a Shia argument the reason that Imam Ali (as) did not take the land back was
because of the situation that he faced when he came to power. Those who rejected the claim may
have been dead by the time, but their memory lived on in the minds of their die hard adherents led by
Ayesha, Marwan and Muawiya, all of whom rejected the Khilafat of Imam Ali (as) and were willing to
use any type of propaganda to damage him.
According to the Shia, Fadak should have been rightfully distributed to the progeny of Fatima (
) do what is right? The only response the Shia can give is their
). Then, why didnt Ali (
) was doing Taqiyyah! The Shia will say that this is why
standard cop-out: why, of course Ali (
he didnt return Fadak. Oh, nice! Whenever the logic of historical facts do not sit well with the Shia
narrative, they will then always have the trump card of Taqiyyah.
un named author states:
Claim
4. Hadrat Alis not accepting the orchard called Fedek was intended for Taqiyya. Taqiyya is necessary
for Shiah.
Al Khidhr replies to this:
Taqiyya means to lie and Shiah believe it is fard to lie, especially to those of the Ummah of Sayyidina
Rasul-e-Akram, Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam, known as Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaah. This statement of
theirs is untenable. For, according to the adherents of Shiism, when an Imam takes the battlefield
and begins to fight it is haram for him to do Taqiyya. It was for this reason that Hadhrat Husayn did not
do Taqiyya. To say that Hadhrat Ali (Radhi Allahu Taala Anhu) did Taqiyya during the period of his
Khaleefat would mean to say that he committed haraam. Astaghfirullahal-Azeem.
Reply
Firstly Taqiyyah does not mean to lie and we have addressed the concept in two of our articles:
The creed of Shiaa; explained
Taqiyyah (Expedient dissimulation)
Like both authors, we also believe that Imam Ali (as) did not adopt Taqiyyah, his silence was because
he did not want any action to be used in the propaganda campaign against him and again we shall
address this in the later part of this article.
Was Maula Ali (as) ashamed to reclaim Fadak

Al Khider advances this earth shattering reference:
Sayyid Murtada (known as Alam al-Huda) narrates in his book on Imamah entitled ash-Shafi, that
when Ali became the khalifah he was approached about returning Fadak. His reply was: I am
ashamed before Allah to overturn something that was prohibited by Abu Bakr and continued by
Umar. (al-Murtada, ash-Shafi fil-Imamah, p. 231; and Ibn Abil Hadid, Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, vol. 4
It is amazing how these Nawasib all just perpetuate the same lies, like school kids spreading rumors
in a playground. One Nasibi dishonestly cites a text, and his followers copy it like blind mice. Take the
example of Ibn al Hashimi who even inspecting the original source quoted the same text verbatim in
) Return Fadak?. Is this what we have come to

his article Fadak, Part II: Why Didnt Ali (
expect from this great Shia destroyer?
Screenshot of Ibn al-Hashimi copy pasting the above alleged Shia tradition from Ansar.org in his
article
Reply One
Why dont these Nawasib understand that their Caliph did what he had to do, no matter how much
deceit the Nawasib adopt, they can never absolve their Caliph of this sin. They have indeed been
deceitful to cite Ibn Abi al Hadeed and convince the Shias when he was not a Shia, but a Mutazali
Sunni scholar. And as for the reference cited from Sayyid Murtadas work ash-Shafi fil-Imamah, it
should be known that his book was a refutation to a book Al-Mughni by a Mutazali Sunni scholar Qazi
Abduljabbar (d. 415 H) and hence adhering to the pattern of debates, at several places in the book,
Sayyid Murtada used the texts from the sources of his opponents and the tradition relied by the Nasibi
author is no different in this regards as the traditions chain includes the names of orthodox Sunni
figures:
Abu abdullah Muhammad bin Umran al-Merzebani from Muhammad bin Ahmad al-Katib from
Ahmad bin Ubaid bin Naseh al-Nahawi from al-Zyadi from al-Sharqi bin al-Qatami from
Muhammad bin Ishaq from Saleh bin Kysan from Urwa from Ayesha
The tradition is quite lengthy and contains the incident of Fadak from the beginning including the
Fatimas (as) notion of rejecting Abu Bakr. Sayyid Murtada quoted this Sunni tradition to prove that
lady Fatima Zahra (as) clashed with Abu Bakr and since the tradition is not from a Shia source, we
see that Sayyid Murtada before using the tradition clearly stated:

The Majority of these narrators are neither accused of Shiaism nor have fanatics narrated her
statements
This is a Sunni tradition that is non existent in Shia hadith literature, although it can be located in
Sunnis hadith books such as Maqtal al-Hussain by Khawarezmi. Therefore, the next time the cunning
Nawasib produce a Shia source to convince the Shias rather than demanding that we respond to the
words narrated from the mouths of their ancestors.
Reply Two
Al Khider wants to suggest that Maula Ali (as) was ashamed of changing the status quo set by Abu
Bakr and questions why he failed to take remedial steps to claim back Fadak and restore it to its
rightful owners, yet according to Ahlul Sunnahs most authentic work Sahih Bukhari, Maula Ali (as)
claimed Fadak during the Caliphates of Abu Bakr and Umar. Maula Ali (as) and Abbas:
- approached Umar and demanded the right of Fadak.

- were entrusted (by Umar) to manage Fadak in accordance with the conditions set by Abu Bakr.
- ignored these conditions and disputed with one other, that resulted in Maula Ali (as) attaining full
control over Fadak.
Note: We are only representing the Authentic Sunni Point of View on this historical incident, which
differs from Shia point of view. We will give Shia point of view about this later on.
This is the complete tradition from Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 367:
Narrated Malik bin Aus Al-Hadathan An-Nasri,
Then Umar turned towards Ali and Abbas and said, So I kept this property in my
possession for the first two years of my rule (i.e. Caliphate) and I used to dispose it of in the
same way as Allahs Apostle and Abu Bakr used to do; and Allah knows that I have been
sincere, pious, rightly guided and the follower of the right (in this matter.Later on both of you
(i.e. Ali and Abbas) came to me, O Abbas! You also came to me and the claim of you both was
one and the same.So I told you both that Allahs Apostle said, Our property is not inherited,
but whatever we leave is to be given in charity. Then when I thought that I should better hand
over this property to you both or the condition that you will promise and pledge before Allah
that you will dispose it off in the same way as Allahs Apostle and Abu Bakr did and as I have
done since the beginning of my caliphate or else you should not speak to me (about it). So,
both of you said to me, Hand it over to us on this condition. And on this condition I handed it
over to you. Do you want me now to give a decision other than that (decision)? By Allah, with
Whose Permission both the sky and the earth stand fast, I will never give any decision other
than that (decision) till the Last Hour is established. But if you are unable to manage it (i.e. that
property), then return it to me, and I will manage on your behalf. The sub-narrator said,
..So, this property (of Sadaqah) was in the hands of Ali who withheld it from Abbas
and overpowered him. Then it came in the hands of Hasan bin Ali, then in the hands of
Hussain bin Ali, and then in the hands of Ali bin Hussain and Hasan bin Hasan, and each of
the last two used to manage it in turn, then it came in the hands of Zaid bin Hasan, and it was
truly the Sadaqah of Allahs Apostle .
Readers can also consult traditions on this subject: Sahih Bukhari Hadeeth: 9.408, 8.720 4:326.
Can Al Khider and Ibn al Hashimi explain why they do not ascribe to what their most authentic
Hadeeth scholar Imam Bukhari has recorded? Once you accept that which has been authentically
transmitted to you (according to your standards), then why are you (al Khider) producing a weak
Hadeeth suggesting that Imam Ali (as) was ashamed of doing things which Abu Bakr prohibited?
Tell us al Khider and Ibn al Hashimi, does the above tradition corroborate the tradition you both cited,
wherein Imam Ali (as) was ashamed before Allah to overturn something that was prohibited by Abu
Bakr and continued by Umar?
Sahih Muslim Book 019, Number 4349 and 4350 informs us that Abu Bakr prohibited Fadak by using
the Hadith of No heirs of Prophet while Maula Ali (as) remained unconvinced with it and deemed the
Khalifas confiscation of Fadak as proof of him being a liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest.
If Maula Ali (as) was really ashamed of overturning something that was prohibited by Abu Bakr, why
would he make a claim before Abu Bakr in the first place?
Both Ahadith confirm the fact that when Hadhrat Umar continued to follow the practice of Hadhrat Abu
Bakr, Mawla Ali (as) also of deemed him a liar, dishonest, treacherous and sinful.
There is therefore no question of Maula Ali (as) being ashamed of reclaiming something that had
been prohibited by Abu Bakr and Umar.
Reply Three
The tradition suggests that Maula Ali (as) was ashamed to do anything that would contravene a
decision of Abu Bakr. If this was even remotely true, then there would have been no reason to for him
to reject the offer of Khilafath (the third time) on the condition that he adhered to the Quran, Sunnah
and to the practices of Abu Bakr and Umar! Whilst agreeing to the Quran and Sunnah he (as) refused
to adhere to the practices of Abu Bakr and Umar. This fact can be located in the following esteemed
works of Ahlul Sunnah:
1.
al Bidayah wa al Nihaya Volume 7 page 146
2.
Sharah Fiqh Akbar, page 66 Fadail Naas badh ai Rasulullah (Maktabah Haqaniya, Multan.
Pakistan)
3.
Iqd al Fareed Volume 2 page 213
4.
Tareekh Abu Fida Volume 1 page 166 Dhikr Maqatil Umar
5.
Tareekh Khamees Volume 2 page 255
6.
Tareekh Tabari Volume 14 page 158-159
7.
Tareekh Kamil Volume 3 page 35 Dhikr Shura
If Hadhrat Ali (as) was ashamed to contravene Abu Bakrs rulings then he would have accepted this
condition whole heartedly. What would be the reason for Imam Ali (as) refusing to abide by the
decision of a Khalifa whose rulings he was too ashamed to change? The refusal of Imam Ali (as) to
accept this condition serves as the greatest proof that he wanted to distance himself from their Bidah
rulings. The fact that this rejection by Maula Ali (as) of the so called hadeeth cited by Abu Bakr is
replete in Sunni books of Tareekh and Fiqh leaves no doubt that it is fabricated, and this clear proof
makes the narration cited by al Khider as completely baseless.
So Why didnt caliph Ali (as) take Fadak back?

After these great responses, the author of the article Fedek arrives at the following conclusion:
Conclusion with common sense
Hadhrat Abul-Barakat Abdullah Suwaydi al-Baghdadi writes in his Hujaj-e-Qatiya:
Supposing all these evidences are disignored and it is still presumed that the Khalifa Abu Bakr asSiddiq took the date orchard called Fedek by force; then why did Hadhrat Ali (Radhi Allahu Taala
Anhu) not give the date orchard to Hadhrat al-Hasan and al-Husayn when he became the Khaleefah
and everything was now in his hands, under his command? Why did he not change what had been
done by the three Khalifas previous to him? Hadrat Alis following the same policy as had been
followed by the previous three Khaleefahs concerning the date orchard is a plain evidence for the fact
that it had not been taken by force by Abu Bakr.
) return Fadak once he became Caliph?
So again, we ask our Shia brothers: why didnt Ali (
) if it was so wrong? Why dont the Shia hate Ali (
Why did he uphold Abu Bakrs decision (
) for failing to return Fadak? Why dont they hate Ali (
) for reaping the gains of

?) The Shia say that
Fadak while he was Caliph? Why the double standard with Abu Bakr (
) gave Fadak back to Hasan (
) and Hussain (
) , and they
Caliph Umar (
) of being a tyrant because he snatched it back from them. So then
accuse Caliph Uthman (
) return Fadak to Hasan (
) and Hussain (
)
the question is: why didnt Ali (
) is a tyrant but Ali (
) is not? Indeed this is
when he became Caliph? Uthman (
nothing short of an incredible double standard.
Reply One
We read in the esteemed Shia work Rudhutul Kafi, Sermon of Al-Fatan wa Al-Bidah, page 59,
published in Iran:
The Caliphs before me intentionally practiced such acts in which they went against Rasool
Allah (saww). They broke the promises (which they made with Rasool) and changed the
Sunnah of Rasool Allah (saww). If (today) I ask people to leave all these things (innovations)
and restore things back to the way they were at the time of Rasulullah (s), my army shall rebel
and abandon me, and I shall be left alone. All that shall remain turning to me shall be those
Shia who recognise my virtues and rank.
Then he further explained by giving some examples that: If I return Fadak to the heirs of
Fatima (as), and if I order to restore the Saa (a unit for measuring wheat) of Rasool Allah (s).
And if I return the properties, which were given by Rasool (s) to their original owners, and
deny the decisions which were based on injustice (and tyranny), and snatch the women who
were illegally taken by some people and return them to their husbands, and if I deny the
(unjust) distribution of Fadak, and start giving the shares to every one equally (as were
originally given by Rasool (s), but earlier caliphs started giving according to status), . and
restore the condition of Khums of Rasool (saww), and to bring Masjid-e-Nabi to its original
position, and to make Mash alal Khaffin haram, and to issue punishment (Had) for drinking
Nabeedh (alcohol made out of barley), and give the fatwa for Mutah being Halaal, and start
saying 5 Takbirs at funeral, and make it obligatory upon people to recite Bismillah loudly
during Salat and ask people to follow the Quranic and Sunnah way of giving Talaq, and
ask people to give all the Sadaqat, and to restore the way of ablution, ghusl and Salah to their
original forms and time, and give back the fidya (which was unjustly taken) to Ahl-e-Najran,
and return the slave girls of Ahle Faras, and ask people to return to Quran and Sunnah of
Rasool (s), then all people will abandon me (and I will be left alone). I ordered people that they
should only gather for Fardh (obligatory) prayers during Ramadhan, and told them that
congregation (Jamah) in Nafl (i.e. Tarawih) is a Bidah (innovation) then all of these people
started shouting that Sunnah of Hadhrat Umar has been changed.
Comment
Thanks to the efforts of the early Khalifas, the Estate of Fadak had ultimately reached the hands of
evil characters. Had Imam Ali (as) the Khalifa restored Fadak by force, these people would have
reacted with open opposition, and spread rumours / Fitnah and hatred against the Imam (as). It was
due to this difficult situation that Hadhrat Ali (as) chose not to raise the Fadak matter, to avoid the
propaganda, namely the moment Hadhrat Ali (as) came to power he annexed the land belonging to
his political opponents. Fadak was in the hands of Banu Umayyad, sworn enemies of Hadhrat Ali
(as), and he knew that they would never return Fadak of their own accord.Any attempt to take the land
would have lead to vocal opposition, they would have raised a hue and cry towards Hadhrat Ali (as)
stating:
You are taking land that was bestowed to us by the slain third Khalifa Uthman Ibn Affan, and on
becoming the Khalifa you have perpetuated injustice against us.
Aware of the potential ramifications of claiming Fadak back, Hadhrat Ali (as) restrained from any
physical aggression to wrest Fadak back, but condemned the usurpers through his eloquent sermon.
Reply Two The situation for Imam Ali (as) made it impossible for
him to take back Fadak, he had far greater priorities to focus on
A Head of State that takes the reigns of power does not implement his programs of reform forthwith.
Policies are implemented gradually, and based on prioritization. Those policies that need to be
addressed immediately are two fold, those that need to:
1)
overcome challenges such as poverty, unemployment and alienation
2)
address challenges that threaten the smooth functioning of the state, such as co-ordinated mob
rule creating criminality, anarchy and disorder, a failure to address such a challenge might lead to a
breakdown in the rule of law, bringing down the Government and creating a failed state ruled by
anarchy.
Both of the above priorities have an overriding objective, to improve the quality of life amongst the
people by eradicating those elements that were hitherto acting as a barrier to social cohesion and
equality. Any Head of State taking power during a period of social upheaval and decay will seek to
impress on his subjects that he will strive to alleviate their difficulties. The Head of State may have
himself suffered due to the decision making of the previous Government, he may have some personal
issues that require resolving, but in the greater scheme of things personal matters, are personal to
that individual, and they can be shelved since a Head of State will seek to prioritize on implementing
those policies that will benefit his subjects. If the Head of State was to leave societal ills / challenges
and instead focus on rectifying any injustice that had been done to him, that would lead to a messy
dispute that would not be resolved without a serious risk of disorder, how would his subjects view that
leader? Would they be impressed that he is fighting for his personal interests at a time when his
subjects are suffering from poverty, alienation and unemployment? If faced with major challenges the
Head of State chooses to abandon pursuing his personal disputes in favour of focusing on resolving
those ills affecting the people as a whole, this in no way means that the Head of State has temporarily
deferred his personal issues, it in no way means that he has relinquished his claim, he has merely
deemed it a lesser priority since the challenge of societal decay and civil unrest are those that need to
be addressed as a matter of urgency, all other matters becoming secondary.
With this in mind if one wishes to understand why Imam Ali (as) did not deem Fadak his priority when
taking up power one needs to understand the unique and unusual circumstances that led to him
taking office. This was not some simple transition of power. Uthman had been murdered and the
people had begged Maula Ali to take helm of the State to prevent matters falling into further anarchy.
Imam Ali (as) inherited a Khliafath that had been plagued by corruption and nepotism, that brought
riches to the Ummayyads and their supporters at the expense of the ordinary man on the street, which
is one of the main reasons why the anti Uthman movement commanded such popularity amongst the
masses, a movement that ultimately led to aggrieved parties storming Uthmans residence and killing
him. When the people then turned to Ali (as) and gave him bayya they did so in hope that he would
act as a force of good that would overcome the serious inequality and divisions that had been borne
out of Uthmans reign. Imam Ali (as)s priority once taking office was to address the plague of
nepotism and corruption that became a hallmark of the latter part of Uthmans rule which is why he
immediately began dismissing the Ummayads from their political positions. His next focus was to
quash the efforts of those that were seeking to sow discord in the Ummah, and this was a genuine
threat to his leadership since Imam Ali (as) was surrounded by Fitnah all around, no sooner had
Talha and Zubayr given bayya that they broke it, joining Ayesha in a movement against the Khalifa,
whipping up support and garnering a fighting force that was demanding he handed over the killers of
Uthman. Their refusals to abandon their Fitnah lead to the Battle of Jamal. At the same time
Muawiyah was also taking advantage of the situation, presenting the blood-stained shirt of Uthman,
and his wifes severed fingers throughout Syria he was cooking up a frenzy of agitation towards Imam
Ali (as) in Syria that lead to the Battle of Siffeen. The death of Uthman had provided the enemies of
Maula Ali (as) with ample opportunity to defame him. If readers inspect Volume 16 of Tabari, they will
see that:
Ayesha was constantly blaming Maula Ali (as) for killing of Uthman.
Marwan bin Hakam was constantly blaming Mawla Ali (as) for killing of Uthman.
(Note: Even during the time, when Uthman was alive, Marwan was constantly accusing Maula Ali
(as) of inciting people against Uthman and rule of Bani Ummiyyah)
Muawiyah was continually making propaganda that Ali and Bani Hashim killed Uthman for
their personal interests. (Note: Muawiyah even order that Ali to abandon opposition to Uthman
during the civil strife in Madina).
Surrounded by opposition / civil strife all round, the slightest action that would have been exploited by
his opponents, could create a further challenge to his reign. With such major challenges afoot, would
it have been correct to keep such matters in abeyance and instead focus on getting Fadak back, an
act that would no doubt have involved physical force? The usurpation of Fadak was indeed a genuine
grievance, as land that was the right ofFatima(as) had been annexed but it was ultimately a personal
dispute, one that would upon restoration benefit Ali (as) and his children, nobody else. Would it have
been correct for Imam Ali (as) to fight for the restoration of Fadak when the more pressing issue of
nepotism, corruption and civil disorder was affecting the Ummah as a whole? Imam Ali (as) was
already facing unprecedented criticism from those vigilante elements that were accusing him of
harboring the killers of Uthman and demanding that he transfer them into their hands, would it have
been a wise political decision to get embroiled into a further dispute that would no doubt provide the
opportunity for his critics to further attack him by suggesting he cared more about his personal land
than bettering peoples lives and seeking justice for Uthman? Did Imam Ali (as) not have enough on
his plate already? Why would he want to bring on an additional complication / challenge by fighting
for his personal interest against the Ummayyads?
Had Maula Ali (as) taken back Fadak back during this period, the Ummayads would have seized the
opportunity to accuse Ali of killing Uthman by inciting the people against him, so as to get attain power
and his objective in attaining power was for personal gain, taking land rather than peace. The Banu
Umayya were master tacticians in the field of propaganda and they would have pounced on the
slightest glimmer of opportunity, getting people to turn on the Khalifa. Let us not forget that in his letter
to Muawiyah as recorded in Nahj ul Balagha the Imam (as) questioned what right he had to accept
his authority when:
Verily, those who took the oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman have sworn
allegiance to me.
Nasibi love to misinterpret this letter suggesting that Maula Ali (as) endorsing the legitimacy of the
three Khaleefas. What he was actually doing was entering into a polemical debate with Muawiyah. In
Sunni / Shia polemics debates are based on one party quoting sources of the opposing camp as
proof, and this is exactly what Imam Ali (as) was doing. He (as) was telling Muawiya since he believed
that legitimacy of a Khaleefas rule is based on gaining bayya then he had also come to power on this
basis. What Imam Ali (as) was also presenting was the fact that those that had given him bayya were
supporters of the first three Khaleefas in other words they were the early remnants of what later
developed as Sunni aqeedah! Had Imam Ali (as) taken back Fadak, then those that had given bayya
to his predecessors would have attacked him for changing their practises; this would have increased
the likelihood of them deserting him and joining the ranks of Muawiyah. Maula Ali (as) was in effect
walking on egg shells, and of interest are his words recorded in Umadatul Qari Sharah Sahih Bukhari,
Volume 16 page 218:

Ali (r) said: You shall maintain the type of orders that you had done in the past, because I
dislike disagreement, until the people gather under a single group, or I die as my companions
died.
This best explains why Maula Ali (as) failed take remedial action to take back Fadak, his fear of further
division, that would only weaken his support base further.
Reply Three Hadhrat Ali (as) was merely adhering to the Sunnah
of Rasulullah (s)
We read in Sahih al Bukhari, Book of Knowledge Volume 1, Book 3, Number 128:

Narrated Aswad:
Ibn Az-Zubair said to me, Ayesha used to tell you secretly a number of things. What did she
tell you about the Kaba? I replied, She told me that once the Prophet said, O Ayesha! Had
not your people been still close to the pre-Islamic period of ignorance (infidelity)! I would have
dismantled the Kaba and would have made two doors in it; one for entrance and the other for
exit. Later on Ibn Az-Zubair did the same.
Comment
Was it incumbent on Rasulullah (s) to re-design the Kaaba, Yes or No? If it was not then why did
Rasulullah (s) say Had not your people been still close to the pre-Islamic period of ignorance
(infidelity)! I would have dismantled the Kaba and would have made two doors in it. If it was
compulsory then why did Rasulullah (s) fail to carry out this religious duty on account of his fear of the
reaction by the newly converted Sahaba?
The Hadeeth proves that a fear of Fitnah amongst the people led Rasulullah (s) to abandon an
important act. By the same token,Hazrat Ali(as)also din not take hold of Fadak and return it to his
children.Since Fadak was in the hands of usurpers, if he moved to take it back forcefully he would
have faced fierce resistance, Fitnah and a major backlash which would have been extremely harmful
to the nascent Islamic state and religion. Hadhrat Ali (as) therefore adhered to the Sunnah of
Rasulullah and maintained silence on the matter for the sake of maslahat.
Reply Four The wisdom behind not reclaiming Fadak

In his commentary of the above Hadeeth (destruction of the Kaaba) Allamah Badradeen Aini in his
commentary of Sahih al Bukhari Umdah thul Qari Volume 1 page 615, Bab al Ilm makes an interesting
comment:
Ibn Batal said: It is possible to abandon enjoining the good if there is a fear of fitna from the
people who would deny it.
Comment
According to this Sunni principle Hadhrat Ali (as)s not taking back Fadak was Amr bil Maroof
(enjoining the good), and if a good act creates a fear of inciting anger and Fitnah amongst the people
leading to chaos in the society then it is permissible to abandon its implementation. Based on the
facts, Imam Ali (as) was in a difficult situation when it came to getting back Fadak, he knew that doing
so would lead to open hatred and opposition from the followers of the first three Khalifas. It was this
fear that led to Imam Ali (as) preferring to adhere to the Sunnah of Rasulullah (s) and maintain
silence.
Reply Five
Allamah Badruddin al-Aini continues with his commentary of the Kaaba tradition in Umdat ul Qari,
Volume 2 page 204:

In Allahs religion, people want to be led in a manner that they are familiar with, however there
must be strictness when it comes the obligations (such as prayers, fasting etc)
Here Al-Aini is trying to say that the people were familiar with a particular appearance of the Kaaba
and had Prophet (s) sought to alter its appearance, the newly converted Muslims would have created
a hue and cry.
Comment
By the time Hadhrat Ali (as) came to power the Estate of Fadak had been usurped for 45 years. The
initial usurpers had died, but many amongst their subjects had witnessed Fadak as being in the hands
of the descendants of Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman. Imam Ali (as) upon becoming Khalifa had many
vigorous opponents to him coming to power and was faced with a difficult situation when it came to
dealing with those who had usurped his wifes land. If he adopted a firm approach and took it back by
force then this act would have created widespread Fitnah and opposition. His fear of the nefarious
activities of the Banu Umayyad and Ayesha, led him to steer clear of this matter.
Reply Six
Imam Nawawi says in his commentary of this Hadeeth, in his Sharh Muslim Volume 9 page 89:
This Hadeeth proves principles of Ahkam. When two issues conflict with one another, when a
problem that carries benefit conflicts with another carries harm and it is not possible to do the
good and abandon the harmful altogether, then one should start with the most important.
Rasulullah saw a benefit in reconstructing the Kaaba and build it as it was during the time of
Ibrahim. He (s) also feared Fitnah from the new Muslims, who would glorify the Kaaba and
believed that reconstructing it was some thing horrible, therefore he (s) chose not to
reconstruct the Kaaba.
Sharah Sahih Muslim, Volume 9 page 89
Comment
The restoration of Fadak carried a benefit, but would have created an image that Imam Ali (as) had
reclaimed land that had been taken by the earlier Khalifas. He was aware that the current unlawful
occupiers would openly resist this and would spread Fitnah throughout the empire, complaining
against Imam Ali (as)s unjust usurpation of the land that had been given to them by the third Khalifa.
The owners at that time were sworn enemies of Hadhrat Ali (as). Had Imam Ali (as) forcefully claimed
back Fadak at that critical time it would have created a very negative image, and would have been
mere fodder for the propaganda machine that was the Banu Umayyads. Hadhrat Ali (as) therefore
preferred silence on this matter.
Reply Seven When Hadhrat Ali became Khalifa, Fadak was in the
hands of Marwan
We read in Mirqat:

Then Marwan during Uthmans time made it his personal property and his retinue, the ruler
has the right to grant piece of land to whoever he wants and Marwan is Marwan ibn al-Hakam
the grand father of Umar bin Abdulaziz, he was born during Allahs messenger time but he
didnt see the prophet, because the prophet had exiled his father to Taeif and he remained
there till Uthman became the ruler, hence he (Uthman) brought him (al-Hakam) back to Madina
with his son (Marwan), after that Fadak was transferred to Umar bin Abdulaziz
Mirqat Sharh Mishkat, Volume 12 page 317
We read in Al-Aqd al-Farid, Volume 2 page 87:

He (Uthman) granted Fadak to Marwan
While talking about Fadak, Imam Jalaluddin Suyuti records in Tarikh Khulafa, Volume 1 page 95:

It was so during Abu Bakr and Umars time, then he (Uthman) granted it to Marwan and then it
transferred to Umar bin Abdulaziz
By granting the entire estate of Fadak to one man Uthman Ibn Affan contradicted the practises of the
Shaykhayn. Hadhrat Ali was faced with the land being in possession of Marwan, who was his enemy
in the same way as Iblis was an enemy of Hadhrat Adam (as). Hadhrat Ali (as) was therefore faced
with a difficult situation. Marwan would have argued that Fadak had been bestowed to him and if
anyone had usurped the land it was the early Khalifas, and he deemed them to be rightful Khalifas,
who would decide matters subject to Islamic Shariah, he would have then argued:
you have become Khalifa and are committing an injustice towards me, if you are with the truth you
should maintain silence as you had done so in the past.
Marwan knew Hadhrat Ali (as) would never wrest Fadak from him.
Reply Eight Nasibi double standards

It is indeed incredible that our opponents are fond of questioning why the all powerful Khalifa Ali (as)
never used force to take his rights back, but fail to ask why Uthman the Khalifa failed to use force to
defend his right of Khilafath! After all Nasibis claim that none of the inhabitants of Madina or the
surrounding areas rebelled against Uthman, rather it was the evil Sabaites from Egypt, who were
responsible for starting the agitation, laying siege to Uthmans residence for forty days and finally
killing him. We often quiz our accusers as to why the residents to Madina failed to defend Uthman?
The reply of great debaters like Ansar.org is that Uthman didnt want bloodshed in Madina, so he
didnt ask people to fight against the rebels.
Curiously when we argue that Maula Ali (as) didnt fight Marwan and the Bani Umayyads to restore
Fadak, so as to prevent bloodshed, they reject such an assertion. This clearly shows double
standards of the Nawasib.
Had Maula Ali (as) taken Fadak back at that time, his opponents would have seized the opportunity to
propagate that it was Ali himself who assisted in killing of Uthman, so as to ultimately take Fadak. The
same had already shamelessly blamed Muhammad bin Abi Bakr, Ammar Yasir and Malik bin Ashtar
for the killing of Uthman.Imam Ali (as) taking Fadak back would have been the perfect excuse for
them to add his name to the Killer List.
When Ayesha, Marwan, Talha, Zubayr and Muawiya were recruiting people in their armies against Ali
(as) for the accusation that he was hiding the killers of Uthman, taking Fadak back would have been
the perfect opportunity to paint him as the mastermind who wanted Uthman killed so as to attain
Fadak.
Reply Nine According to Ahlul Sunnah difficulties meant

Rasulullah (s) was unable to forcefully get his daughter back
We read in Tareekh Khamees, Volume 1 page 273 Hijrat Zaynab:
Ayesha narrates that Islam had caused a separation between Zaynab and Abi al-Aas but
Rasulullah (s) was in such a desperate situation that he was unable to separate them in
Makka
We read in Sirah Ibn Hisham:

Rasulullah (s) was in a difficult situation in Makka, he was unable to make something Halal or
Haram and when Zaynab became Muslim this caused a separation with her husband Abi alAas bin al-Rabeh. Despite this, Rasulullah (s) due to difficulties was unable to separate Zaynab
from Abi al-Aas. Zaynab despite embracing Islam remained with the Kaafir; he remained a
polytheist at the time that Rasulullah (s) migrated.
Sirah Ibn Hisham, Volume 3 page 202
Comment
Zaynab according to Ahlul Sunnah was the daughter of Rasulullah (s) and al Bidayah wa al Nihaya
Volume 3 page 332, states that she embraced Islam at the time of the first revelation. Her husband
Abi al Aas remained a Kaafir, and he embraced Islam after the battle of Badr. According to Ayesha,
Zaynabs embracing Islam caused a rift between husband and wife, but for Rasulullah (s) the situation
in Makka made him so desperate that he was unable to physically take his daughter away from the
clutches of the Mushrikeen, even though he had the power to create a crack in the moon. Let us not
forget that by his side was Umar Ibn al Farooq who Ahlul Sunnah acclaim as powerful, brave, and
tough against the Kuffar.We would like to know of what use was his power and strength in Makka
when instead of taking immediate remedial action Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman all remained silent. If
these three were indeed Rasulullahs closest friends then why did they not fight and risk their lives so
as to ensure that Zaynab was retuned to Rasulullah (s)? It is indeed sad that all these virtues were
present and yet Abu Bakrs kindness, Umars firmness against the Kuffar and Uthmans shyness were
of no use here.
We appeal to justice, the Fadak dispute concerned worldly possession, whilst Zaynab was a human
being; there is a world of difference between the two. If Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman were indeed the
closest friends of Rasulullah (s), then why do the sources portray Rasulullah (s) as so desperate in
Makka? If Rasulullah (s) was unable to claim his daughter back from the clutches of her Kaafir
husband, then Hadhrat Ali (as) was not superior to Rasulullah (s).If he was in difficulty following the
reigns of the first three Khalifas who made it impossible for him to claim back Fadak from the
usurpers, then no objections should be raised, since the Ahlul Sunnah have portrayed Rasulullah (s)
in such a desperate manner, that discussing the matter causes immense shame.
Reply Ten
We read in Ahlul Sunnahs esteemed work al-Istiab, Volume 1 page 147, the letter ra, Dhikr Rafa bin
Raafie:

When Talha and Zubayr rebelled against Ali, Um al-Fadhl bin al-Harith wrote to Ali informing
him about their rebellion, he (Ali) said: This is a astonishing from Talha and Zubayr. When
Allah (swt) brought his Prophet back to Him and we said We are his (prophet) family and
guardians, no one disputes us in his authority (leadership) our people rejected us and made
others as their leaders. By Allah! Had it not been a fear of dissension and a return to apostasy,
and my fear of the destruction of the religion, we would have changed things, but we
maintained silence.
Al-Istiab, Volume 1 page 147
Khilafat and Fadak were both the rights of the Ahlul bayt (as); both had been usurped. Just as fear of
disputes and return to Jahiliyya prevented Hadhrat Ali (as) from claiming his right of Khilafat back, the
same applied to the Fadak dispute.
Reply Eleven
We read in Ahlul Sunnahs esteemed work Lughut al Hadeeth Volume 2 page 97, Kitab Jeem:
Ali said had Rasulullah (s) not made me promise I would have killed my opponents
As we have already proven when Imam Ali (as) was the Khalifa, Fadak was in the hands of his enemy
Marwan. It was Marwans duty to return the land back of which he had no intention. Marwan was a
trickster, and a master in stirring dissension, the rich source of the Fadak land, served as a major
financial benefit to him. Had Imam Ali (as) moved to forcefully take back Fadak it would have no doubt
led to the death of his opponents that would have in turn constituted a breach of the promise that he
(as) made to Rasulullah (s).Hadhrat Ali (as) honoured his promise with Rasulullah (s) and adopted
patience, his stance in no way means that he deemed the Khilafat of the three Khalifas to be rightful,
neither does it prove that Imam Ali (as) deemed Abu Bakrs usurpation of Fadak to be correct.
Reply Twelve
We read in Sahih al Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Hadeeth Number 428: Narrated Jabir bin Abdullah:
We were in a Ghazwa (Sufyan once said, in an army) and a man from the emigrants kicked an
Ansari man (on the buttocks with his foot). The Ansari man said, O the Ansar! (Help!) and
the emigrant said. O the emigrants! (Help!) Allahs Apostle heard that and said, What is this
call for, which is characteristic of the period of ignorance? They said, O Allahs Apostle! A
man from the emigrants kicked one of the Ansar (on the buttocks with his foot). Allahs
Apostle said, Leave it (that call) as is a detestable thing. Abdullah bin Ubai heard that and
said, Have the (the emigrants) done so? By Allah, if we return Medina, surely, the more
honourable will expel there from the meaner. When this statement reached the Prophet. Umar
got up and, said, O Allahs Apostle! Let me chop off the head of this hypocrite (Abdullah bin
Ubai)! The Prophet said Leave him, lest the people say that Muhammad kills his
companions. The Ansar were then more in number than the emigrants when the latter came
to Medina, but later on the emigrant increased.
The reference makes it clear that a hypocrite was sitting in the midst of the Sahaba, Umar offered to
have him killed, but the Prophet (s) refused stating that he did not want outsiders to think that
Rasulullah (s) kills his Sahaba. On the same principle Hadhrat Ali (as) did not force Marwan to return
Fadak to him, already facing direct civil strife, he simply did not want to partake in any action that
would be used as propaganda by the Ummayads. Had he done so opposition would have led to
resistance and bloodshed, and people would have said Ali the Khalifa is killing his subjects for worldly
benefits. Ali (as) maintained silence for the same reason that the Prophet (s) did. Maula Ali (as) was
keen to avoid taking forceful steps to reacquire Fadak, as he was fearful over the manner in which his
loquacious Ummayad opponents would highlight his stance. This fear was a genuine one, we after all
see how todays pro Ummayad Salafi Shaykh Ibrahim al-Jabhan who in his work Tabdeed al-Dhalam
pages 131 & 132 unashamedly attack the reign of Ali (as) stating:

This is Ali (ra), he ruled for five years or more and the people during his reign didnt eat or
drink other than the blood of innocent people, the sweat of weak people, and the tears of
women, orphans and poor people.
If this Shaykh de jour is prepared to attack the reign of Ali (as), to the point that he even inferred his
culpability in the murder of innocent people, rather than attack those seditious elements whose
activities led to the battles of Jamal, Siffeen and Naharwan, can one imagine what he would have
written of Ali (as) had he sought to forcefully wrest Fadak from Marwan, that would have undoubtedly
raised the scepter of bloodshed between the Hashemites and Ummayyads? If Imam Ali (as) chose to
leave the issue of Fadak, fearing what the people might say, then he did so as he was adhering to the
Sunnah of the Prophet (s). In the same he (s) refrained from taking action against a blasphemer so
as to avoid criticisms from outside observers, Maula Ali (as) likewise during his reign refrained from
taking steps to get Fadak back under his control, fearing how such an action, during a period of civil
unrest would be viewed by onlookers.
Reply Thirteen
We read in Sahih al-Bukhari, Arabic-English version, Volume 9, p212: {Between Traditions 9.281 and
9.282}:
(21) CHAPTER. If a judge has to testify in favour of a litigant when he is a judge or he testifyied
for him before he became a judge (can he pass a judgment in his favour accordingly or should
he refer the case to another judge before whom he would bear witness?). And the judge
Shurayh said to a person who sought his witness, Go to the ruler so that I may bear witness
(before him) for you. And Ikrima said, Umar said to Abdur-Rahman bin Auf, If I saw a man
committing illegal sexual intercourse or theft, and you were the ruler (what would you do)?.
Abdur-Rahman said, I would regard your witness as equal to the witness of any other man
among the Muslims. Umar said, You have said the truth. Umar added: If I were not afraid of
the fact that people may say that Umar has added to the Quran extra (verses), I would have
written the Verse al-Rajm (stoning to death of married adulterers) with my own hands.
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9 pages 213-213
Interestingly we read the following words of Sunni Scholar Abu Bakar Razi recorded by Allamah
Jalaluddin Suyuti in Al Itqan (Urdu), Volume 2, page 67:
About the statement of Umar i.e If I were not afraid of the fact that people may say that Umar
has added to the Quran extra verses, I would have written the Verse al-Rajm with my own
hands Abu Bakar Razi has written in his book Al Burhan: The literal words of this statement
prove that it is permissible [Jaiz] to write down those words in the Quran, and it was the fear of
people which stopped Umar from this writing this in the Mushaf and sometimes it happens
that obstacles appear between permissible things and since the writing the verse of stoning
was permissible hence it is obvious that its recitation is also proven.
We appeal to justice, if Imam Ali (as)s abstaining from taking back Fadak from Marwan was due to
the difficult situation in which he had found himself in, namely that he feared the stead of Fitnah, then
this is no different to the position that had been adopted by Umar Ibn al Khattab, who through the fear
of Fitnah chose not to add a verse of Rajm into the Quran. If this fear, does not alter Ahlul Sunnahs
portrayal of Umar as a firm, strong Sahaba, then Imam Ali (as)s not taking back Fadak also does not
alter his position as a brave warrior.
Reply Fourteen A Bedouins insult of Ayesha and the silence of

Rasulullah (s)
We read in al Istiab Volume 3 pages 316 & 317, Dhikr Aini bin Hasan:
On one occasion Aineea entered the home of Rasulullah (s) without seeking permission.
Rasulullah (s) asked why he failed to ask for permission, he replied Master I have never
sought permission from anyone from the Hazr tribe. At the time Ayesha was sitting next to
Rasulullah (s), and the Chief of Bedouins asked Who is this red faced women? He (s) replied
This is my wife Ayesha. The Bedouin said Master if you allow me I shall give you a more
beautiful woman in exchange for her. Ayesha asked Who is this disgraceful person?
Rasulullah (s) said As you see, he is the Chief of his tribe.
Al-Istiab, Vol. 3, Pages 316 & 317
If a man enters your home without permission and offers to exchange your red cheeked wife with
another, and you have no response to such behaviour, then only two conclusions can be reached:
You are either:
A shameless person, devoid of any sense of dignity or honour.
OR:
You have maintained silence in response to the difficult situation that you find yourself in.
Applying this to the facts, Rasulullahs failure to address a mans entering his home without prior
permission and his subsequent insult of Ayesha was not because he (s) had no dignity (astaghfirullah)
rather he remained silent on account of the situation he was confronted with.
By the time Hadhrat Ali (as) became Khalifa, he had witnessed Abu Bakr usurp Fadak belonging to
his wife. If Hadhrat Ali (as) failed to take back Fadak during his rule it was due to the difficult situation
facing him.Had he taken it Marwan would have incited dissension throughout the Ummah. Hadhrat Ali
(as) did not alter the situation as he knew that any manoeuvring on his part would serve as
propaganda fodder for his opponents, that would in turn lead to mass Fitnah. Imam Ali (as) therefore
adopted silence in exactly the same manner that Rasulullah (s) had done. Let us not forget that
according to the Ahlul Sunnah, Ayesha was the most beloved wife of Rasulullah (s), and Angels
delivered a photo of Ayesha to him (s) prior to marriage [Sahih al Bukhari]. The Bedouins comments,
namely his attempted exchange for this beloved wife was a major insult, and Rasulullah silence to this
was definitely due to some hidden reason or foreseen problems.
A Nasibis false claim that Maula Ali (as) was

implementing the Sunnah of Abu Bakr
The author of Fedak advances this claim:
If there had been such a will and Hadhrat Ali (Karramallah wajhu) had known about it, it would have
been necessary and permissible for him to fulfill it during his khilafat. However, he followed the
example of Hadhrat Abu Bakr (Radhi Allahu taala Anhu) and dealt the property out to poor, destitute
and stranded people. If it should be maintained that he dealt out his share, then why did he deprive
the Sahibayn wa Syedayn, al-Imam al-Hasan and al-Imam al-Husayn Radhi Allahu Taala Anhuma of
the property they were to inherit from their blessed mother (may millions of Salaams be upon her)?
) are baseless, since he was following orders from
The Shia accusations against Abu Bakr (
) . If the Shia
Prophet Muhammad ( ) and this decision was upheld by Ali (
) for using Fadak as a charitable property, then the Shia
want to lay blame on Abu Bakr (
) since he did the same thing during his Caliphate.
should also accuse Ali (
Reply
Hadhrat Ali (as) did not take control of the property in his reign. We challenge this Nasibi to show us
which authentic Sunni source confirms that he followed the Sunnah of Abu Bakr with regards to its
distribution. The property had been given to Marwan by the Khalifa Uthman and he did NOT take it
back. This is one of the main arguments that Ahlul Sunnah use against us, namely he left it as it was,
whilst this author claims he took control of the land and then distributed it among the poor and needy
from it!
Theres a world of difference between the approach taken by Abu Bakr and Ali (as). Abu Bakr
usurped land that was in the lawful possession of somebody else, whereas Maula Ali (as) despite his
being the Head of State did not exercise force to reclaim this land. The difference between these two
approaches is like comparing night to day.
Ibn al Hashimis claim that the Shia are portraying

Imam Ali (as) as a coward
) was a brave and courageous man, then he should have done what is
In any case, if Ali (
) that the Shia
right and restored the land to its rightful owners. The cowardly image of Ali (
portrayof a man who cannot stand up for what he thinks is rightis offensive to the Ahlus Sunnah.
) could make all the atoms of the earth submit to him, so surely he
The Shia believe that Ali (
should have used some of this supernatural power to do what is right.
Reply One
Those that uphold and praise violence to attain power through methods such as suicide bombing in
market places that kill and maim innocent men, women and children would indeed interpret the stance
of Imam Ali (as) as that of a coward. What they dont appreciate is being a leader doesnt just involve
using your muscle to intimidate and brow beat your opponents! The intelligent leader knows when to
use force and when not to. If Imam Ali (as) desisted from violently claiming back Fadak it was on
account of him assessing the situation around him and deciding upon the best option. Is that not what
any good leader should do? Is the use of force the best option in all circumstances? Why should
Imam Ali (as)s decision to avoid Fitnah and turmoil from the Banu Ummaya by forcefully taking back
Fadak be deemed cowardly? Does Ibn al Hashimi really believe that Marwan a chief Fitnah monger
would have just restored Fadak to Imam Ali (as) without galvanising clan support and putting up a
fight? Would it have been brave if Imam Ali (as) had used force and in consequence hordes of Banu
Ummaya Nawasib from Madina came out and shed the blood of the supporters of Imam Ali (as)?
When The Islamic State had just (whether rightly or wrongly) rid itself of a corrupt Khalifa whose
nepotism made the Banu Ummayads and their supporters rich aristocrats, at the expense of all others
(who were living on or below the poverty line), what was the priority for Imam Ali (as)? Was it to use
his legendary bravery and get back the legal estate of his wife, or was it to meet the needs of his poor
down trodden subjects that had suffered so immensely during the reign of the third Khalifa? Imam Ali
(as) was not just the greatest Islamic warrior, he was also the greatest amongst the Sahaba in
wisdom. If Imam Ali (as) through his immense wisdom felt that the best option was to keep his sword
sheathed in the matter of Fadak, since raising it could risk turmoil, why should that be deemed
cowardice? These Salafis will never understand that resorting to violence to get your way is not
always the correct approach. Ibn al Hashimi needs to stop watching cowboy films and take a reality
check! Violence begets violence, and if a Leaders patience is prioritised over force that should not
automatically be rendered cowardice on the part of a Leader.
Reply Two
This shameless Nasibi did not even consider the fact that Allah (swt) has given man free choice, and
not forced him to believe in His (swt) Deen. He (swt) ordered his Prophets and their executors to lead
normal lives and not utilise the supernatural powers that He (swt) bestowed on them, as a mechanism
for improving their lives. That is why they were sometimes in power, whilst at other times they were
oppressed. Whilst Allah (swt) could have no doubt aided his Prophets via miracles, to overcome and
destroy their enemies, He (swt) said to the greatest of Creations:
Thou art not one to manage (mens) affairs.
Along the same lines, Allah (swt) says:
The worshippers of false gods say: If Allah had so willed, we should not have worshipped
aught but Him neither we nor our fathers,- nor should we have prescribed prohibitions other
than His. So did those who went before them. But what is the mission of messengers but to
preach the Clear Message?
That is why the objection of Ibn al Hashimi (as) to why Imam Ali (as) didnt utilise his supernatural
power is so false, since exactly the same questions could be asked of the Prophets and their
executors, who were overpowered by infidels and hypocrites, and yet Allah (swt) did not instruct them
to allay their difficulties by utilising miracles. Is it not an accepted fact that previous Prophets were
killed, and their executors were persecuted? Prophet Sulayman (as) was the Wasi of his father, the
powerful Dawood (as), yet after his death, his strong kingdom was snatched, even though Sulayman
(as) had amongst his loyal followers Asif, who the Quran attests possessed a partial knowledge of the
Book with which he was able to move the throne of Bilks within the blinking of an eye! How was such a
powerful supporter of Sulayman (as) incapable of using his supernatural power to prevent the
downfall of the Kingdom of his Master (as)? Along the same lines, Imam Ali (as) who possessed a
complete knowledge of the book, did indeed have far greater supernatural powers than moving a
throne within the blinking of an eye, had he supplicated against the usurpers of Fadak they would
have been destroyed, but he was ordered to maintain patience in the face of injustice, as were the
past divine orders given to Prophets and their executors.
FADA K
Preface

Conclusion
Shia Pen Newsletter

2 0 11 2 01 2 S HI A P E N
Formerly known as:

Answering-Ansar.org
2002 - 2010
MISCELLANEOUS
About Us
Contact Us
Newsletter
Privacy Policy
S T AT E M E N T
TERMS & CONDITIONS
Terms & Conditions
HOME
COMPREHENSIVE
CONCISE
DECEPTION
FIQH
QUESTIONS
NASIBI
Chapter Six: Rules of inheritance in

the Quran
Upon becoming Khalifa Abu Bakr quickly moved to annex the legal right of Sayyida Fatima (as). Abu
Bakr refused to entertain her claim that the land had been gifted to her, by her father (s) during his
lifetime. If a person receives possessions (by whatever means) they can claim them by any means
they choose appropriate. Hence Sayyida Fatima (as) also sought to claim Fadak by another claim,
namely that Fadak, the properties of Madina and the lands of Khayber were the personal possessions
of her father that she as his daughter and Waris could legally inherit from him (s). Abu Bakr also
rejected this claim on the rationale that he heard the Prophet (s) say Our property will not be
inherited, whatever we (i.e. prophets) leave is Sadaqah (to be used for charity). Sayyida Fatima
(as) rejected this argument and the decision angered to the extent that she never spoke on good
terms to the Khalifa again.
The Quran confirms that a daughter inherits from

her father
Proof One
With regard to inheritance, the verse of Surah Nisa 004.007 reads:
From what is left by parents and those nearest related there is a share for men and a share for
women, whether the property be small or large,a determinate share.
Al-Quran, Surah an-Nisa, Ayah 7, translated by Yusufali
The verse proves that a daughter is the Waris (heir) of her father. In accordance with this verse,
Sayyida Fatima (s) inherited from her father. This verse is sufficient to destroy the claim in the article
Fedak:
It would have been irrational to make a will on uninheritable property. Consequently, it would be wrong
to say that his lordship, Sayyidina Rasulullah, Sallallahu Alayhi wa Sallam, bequeathed the orchard,
called Fedek, to Sayyidah Fatima-tuz-Zahra (Alayhas-Salaam). For Rasulullah, Sallallahu Alayhi wa
Sallam, would not have done something which would have been wrong.
Reply One
The verse that we have cited proves that everyone is the heir of someone, hence the Prophet (s)
leaving material possessions such as Fadak for his daughter was in conformity with what is stipulated
in the Quran, so how can this author assert that Rasulullah (s) acting in such a manner would be
wrong?
Reply Two
We know that Fadak was bequeathed to Sayyida Fatima (as) and this is attested to in the books of
Ahlul Sunnah. Hence denying her this right was a clear injustice, and in violation to the Quran. One
who commits injustice can never be deemed rightly guided, this is clear from Surah al Maida 005.045:
And if any fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (No better than)
wrongdoers.
Proof Two
The verse on inheritance in Surah Nisa 004.011 reads:
Allah (thus) directs you as regards your Childrens (Inheritance): to the male, a portion equal
to that of two females: if only daughters, two or more, their share is two-thirds of the
inheritance; if only one, her share is a half.
In this verse, Allah (swt) has laid out rules for Muslims with regard to inheritance, making it clear that
all children inherit from their parents. Rasulullah (s) is also subject to this order that would make
Sayyida Fatima (as) was his Waris. Denying her this right was an injustice. Sayyida Fatima (as) and
the Quran were Thaqlayn; hence rejecting both is an act so severe that the perpetrator shall not even
smell the fragrance of Paradise.
Proof Three
We read in Surah Nisa 004.033:
To (benefit) every one, We have appointed shares and heirs to property left by parents and
relatives. To those, also, to whom your right hand was pledged, give their due portion. For
truly Allah is witness to all things.
Allah (s) has made EVERY ONE the Waris of someone. This verse clearly incorporates Rasulullah (s),
he inherits from his parents, and his offspring inherit from him (s). Hence issuing a ruling that
contradicts this verse is rejecting an order of Allah (swt) and constitutes Kufr as is clear from Surah
Maida verse 44:
If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than)
Unbelievers.
Proof Four
We read in Surah Ahzab 033.006:
Blood relations among each other have closer personal ties in the Decree of Allah than (the
Brotherhood of) Believers and Muhajirs
The verse of the Quran places this order on all blood relations and the children of Rasulullah (s) fall
within blood relations. An order that seeks to exempt the blood relations of Rasulullah (s) is an
injustice against Rasulullah (s), and one who opposes the Quran is a Fasiq, as declared by Allah
(swt) in Surah al Maida 005.04:
Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge
by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel.
Denying the daughter of Rasulullah (s) her

inheritance would be against the Justice of Allah
(swt)
We read in Tafseer Ibn Katheer Part 4, Surah Nisa 004.011 Allah (thus) directs you as regards your
Childrens (Inheritance):
The verse means that on the issue of children Allah (swt) is Just. During the era of Jahiliyya all
possessions would go to the male, females would go empty handed. Allah (swt) therefore
apportioned them their right.
In light of this commentary, denying the daughter of the Prophet(s) her right of inheritance was against
the Justice of Allah (swt).
Denying the daughter of Rasulullah (s) her

inheritance rights is a practise of Jahiliyya
We read in Tafseer al Kabeer Volume 3 page 153 Surah Nisa 004.011 Allah (thus) directs you as
regards your Childrens (Inheritance):
During the period of Jahiliyya people would inherit via two means.
No.1 is missing
(2) Nasab (Family tree) Women and underage children were not accepted as Waris, rather
only male relatives were accepted as Waris who participated in battle and received a share of
the booty
Sunni scholar and English translator of Sahih Muslim, provides the following introduction to the Kitab
al-Faraid (the book pertaining to the rules of inheritance):
The law of inheritance in Islam is based upon five main considerations:
In the pre-Islamic world and even in modern societies the law of inheritance has so many evils
in it, which may be summed up in the following points:
* Women had been completely denied the share of inheritance. They were rather regarded as part of
the property of the deceased and, therefore, their right to property by inheritance was out of question.
Islam introduced so many reforms in the laws of inheritance which can be succinctly summed up as
follows.
* It made the female, who had been previously thought a chattel, the co-sharer with the male and thus
not only restored her dignity, but safeguarded her social and economic rights.
Islam put an end to this discriminatory practice, and Abu Bakr resurrected it by denying Sayyida
Fatima (as) her inheritance rights.
The advocates of Abu Bakr such as Ibn Taymiyah and Shah Abdul Aziz have argued that these verses
of inheritance are of general applicability to the Muslim Ummah, not the Prophet (s). To respond to
such an excuse we shall rely on the words of Allah (swt) in Surah Az-Zukhruf 043.044:
The (Quran) is indeed the message, for thee and for thy people; and soon shall ye (all) be
brought to account.
This verse makes it clear that the Ummah and Rasulullah (s) are subject to the Quranic rulings, and
unless an exemption can be established, the obligation that Rasulullah (s) left inheritance for his
daughter is established. He had to act upon this order.
We have proven that Sayyida Fatima (as) was the Waris of Rasulullah (s) through verses of the
Quran. The verse To (benefit) every one prevents any excuse that the verse did not apply to
Rasulullah (s). The verse addresses him(s) in exactly the same way as the other three verses include
him(s).
Worthy of note is the fact that we read in Ahlul Sunnahs esteemed work Tafseer Ruh al Maani Part 4,
under the commentary of Surah Nisa 004.011 Allah (thus) directs you as regards your Childrens
(Inheritance) :
With regards to this verse one viewpoint is that it refers to all Believers another is it refers to
all those with off spring
Rasulullah (s) is included amongst the Believers and those with children hence he is included on both
counts, as are the rest of the believers.
After Rasulullah (s) those with a correct understanding of the Quran are the Ahlul bayt (as) and they
did not state that the verse Surah Nisa 004.011 Allah (thus) directs you as regards your Childrens
(Inheritance) excludes Rasulullah (s). Anyone asserting an opposing view is a munafiq, for he holds
an opinion that contradicts the Thaqlayn the Quran and Itrat of Rasulullah (s).
Ibn al Hashimis claim that prophets (as a general

rule) leave no inheritance in the Quran
In his article Fadak, Part III: Ahlus Sunnah is Not Abandoning the Quran, Ibn al Hashimi offers a
number of curious arguments to prove that our Prophet (s) is exempt from the Quranic verses of
inheritance, as were (according to him) past Prophets:
) went against the Quranic rules of
The Shia propagandists will argue that Abu Bakr (
inheritance, but these rules of inheritance do not apply to Prophets as clearly mentioned by the
Prophet ( ) in both Sunni and Shia Hadith. The very fact that such Hadith exist in the
) . In Al-Kafi, the
Shia canon makes impotent the Shia attack on the personality of Abu Bakr (
most reliable of the Shia books of Hadith, we find the following Sahih narration:
The Prophets did not leave dinars and dirhams as inheritance, but they left knowledge. (al-Kafi, vol.
1 p. 42)
Reply The Quran and Sunni Imams confirm that

prophets do leave inheritance
Whilst Ibn al Hashimi is advancing this distinction, is it not amazing that none of the Sahaba that Ibn al
Hashimi venerates, save Abu Bakar believed that Prophets were exempt from inheritance! As for the
Shia Hadith that Ibn al Hashimi cited, we shall address it thoroughly in another chapter, at this point
suffice it to say that the Nasibi has chosen to cite the Hadith out of context, as the Hadith relates to the
knowledge of Prophetic inheritance for his successors (Imams) and scholars NOT the material
possessions that heirs are entitled to. Fatima Zahra being (as) was the inheritor of His (s) material
possessions as His (s) daughter and this is also mentioned in Shia Hadith at the relevant place in the
books.
We should also point out that the Quran itself proves that Prophets do leave inheritance (see Surah
27, Ayah 16 & Surah 19, Ayah 4-6) so the argument that Prophets are exempt from inheritance holds
no water. In later chapters, we shall cite the views of esteemed Sunni Imams in terms of religious
knowledge which includes Ibn Abbas, Hasan, Shubi, Dahak and others who testified in their
commentaries that the above cited verses conformed that prophets did leave inheritance. Thus Ibn alHashimis notion that the rules of inheritance mentioned in the Quran do not apply to Prophets
becomes null and void.
Ibn al Hashimis claim that the Shia Imams (as) did

not distribute all of their belongings via inheritance
(The Shia propagandists may resort to dogmatic rhetoric declaring the supermacy of the Quran and
accusing the Sunnis of straying away from it by making exceptions to the laws of inheritance.
Unfortunately for the Shia, their own Infallible Imams have made exceptions to the rules of inheritance
that would make any Shia accusations against the Sunnis to be simply hypocritical and
sanctimonious. For example, the Shia Infallible Imams have prohibited some heirs from inheriting
)] , the Quran, the
certain items of their estates, including the Dhul Fiqar (Alis sword [
Prophets ring, and his bodily garments. These items were excluded from the Quranic laws of
inheritance and reserved for the new Imam, instead of being properly distributed amongst the other
children and eligible heirs. Hence, Imams had a different system of inheritance, so why is it surprising
for the Shia that the Prophets also have their own system of inheritance distinct from non-Prophets?
Reply One Our grounds for rejecting the tradition

coined by Abu Bakar
If the Shia, as the author stated accuse the Sunnis of straying away from the Quran by making
exceptions to the laws of inheritance, then it is strictly because:
At the time of the dispute of Fadak appeared, no one knew about the Prophet being exempt
from the laws of inheritance save Abu Bakar.
The Sahaba opposed the alleged notion coined by Abu Bakar i.e. prophets do not leave
inheritance and whatever they leave is Sadaqa.
The infallible Fatima Zahra (as) who is the mistress of the women of paradise, whose dust
cannot cited in the same breath as Abu Bakr, rejected the tradition.
The Quran proves that Prophets do leave inheritance.
Sunni jurists testified the previous prophets left inheritance .
In light of these brief facts, no rational minded individual is going to believe that Prophets have their
own system of inheritance distinct from non-Prophets! No one would have doubted that the Prophets
have their own system of inheritance distinct from non-Prophets, had the above cited facts been
absent. Ibn al-Hashimis efforts at comparing the inheritance system of Imams (as) to the alleged
system of inheritance of Prophets is indeed a feeble attempt.
Reply Two The Imams (as) receiving a ring,

sword and other related items
The author has lied when he sought to prove that according to the Shia, the Imams of Ahlulbayt (as)
have a separate system of inheritance. The Imams attaining a ring, sword and other related items is
not according to any special law but according to a general law namely Habwa which is not exclusive
to the Imams but is applicable to anyone. Let us explain the concept of Habwa from Minhaj al-Salihin
by Sayyed Khoei, Volume 2 page 412:

The elder son is given the Habwa for free that is the cloth, the ring, the sword and the Quran of
the dead.
On next page, we read:

If the deceased person had made a will that the whole Habwa is to be given or some of it to
someone other than the elder son, then his will is legal.
Thus, whenever the elder son of an Imam is going to be his successor, the items Ibn al-Hashimi cited
are received by him due to Habwa. When the successor is not the elder son, the will issued the
previous Imam (father) shall be applicable. As for Ali bin Abi Talib (as), the Holy Prophet (s) granted
such items to him (as) due him being his (s) true successor. We read in Al-Kafi, Volume 1 page 235:
Umar ibn Aban said: I asked Abu Abdullah (as) about what the people talk about, that he (the
prophet) submit a stamped will to Umm Salama. He (Imam Jaffar) said: When Allahs
messenger (s) died, he inherited to Ali (as) His knowledge, weapon and so. Then it remained
with al-Hassan, then with al-Hussain. I said: Then it reamined with Ali bin al-Hussain then
with his son then with you? He (imam Jaffar) said: Yes.
Allamah Majlesi declared it Sahih in Mirat al-Uqool, Volume 3 page 48
Defence of Ibn al Hashimi that equates Sayyida

Fatima (as)s prohibition on inheritance to that of a
kaafir
The Shia will argue that the Quranic verses on inheritance pertain to Prophets and non-Prophets
alike, and that these rules are all-inclusive without exception. This argument is weakened by the fact
that the Shia Ulema themselves make exceptions in the rules of inheritance. For example, the Quran
declares that children inherit wealth from their parents. However, the Shia Ulema (as well as the Sunni
Ulema) make an exception to this general rule: Kaffir children do not inherit from their Muslim parents.
Hence, not everyone is encompassed in the Quranic verse regarding inheritance; it is the general rule
for the average person, but there are exceptions for special cases (and Prophets are one such
exception).
The Ahlelbayt.com team seek to suggest that Sayyida Zahra (as) had no entitlement to inheritance
since she was exempt from such a right. The reason for excluding a kaafir and murderer from
inheritance is clear and understandable but Ibn al Hasihmi fails to provide any grounds for why the
children of the Prophet(s) should not inherit from him. Ibn al Hashimi has committed a major
blasphemy against the Ahlul bayt (as). No doubt kaafirs and murderers fall outside this verse, but they
are being penalised for committing a major sin! Lets give an example:
A man has two daughters, if one either apostatizes or kills him, she is not entitled to her fathers
inheritance. The other daughter who neither murdered her father nor became an apostate will still be
entitled to inherit her fathers possessions.
To argue that the daughter of Rasulullahs example was like that of a Kaafir daughter is amazing and
is a rejection of the concept of inheritance. Whilst there is proven evidence that a fathers murderer
and Kaafir children are not included in inheritance, the same is not the case with the family of the
Prophet (s). A murderess and Kaafir offspring fall outside the verse as they are being punished, what
act did Sayyida Fatima (as) commit that led to Allah (swt) to punishing her by ruling that she could not
inherit from her father?
Ibn al Hasihmis claim that the Prophet (s) was

exempt from the verses of inheritance
The Quran gives the general rule, and then the Hadith give the details and exceptions to this rule. For
example, the Quran says that men can only marry upto four wives. And yet, we find in Hadith that the
Prophet ( ) was exempted from this ruling and he married more than four. Thus, the
rules of Hadith grant an exception to the Prophets, and their rules are different than the rules of
ordinary people as mentioned in the Quran. Any time a Shia propagandist attempts to assert that we
are going against the Quran, we remind them that Prophets in general have different rules in certain
matters; otherwise, are the Shia accusing the Prophet ( ) of going against the Quran
by marrying more than four women? If the rule about marrying four women can be different for
Prophets, then similarly we see no problem in the rules of inheritance also being different for
Prophets. The analogy is perfect, and completely negates the Shia claims.
Reply One Allah (swt) has specified those things

that that were exclusive to the Prophet (s) in the
Quran
Allah (swt) mentions those matters specific to Muhammad (s) in the Quran itself. If the verses of
inheritance did not apply to him (s), Allah (swt) would have likewise specified this fact. Let us cite the
exclusive matters:
O ye who believe! Raise not your voices above the voice of the Prophet, nor speak aloud to
him in talk, as ye may speak aloud to one another, lest your deeds become vain and ye
perceive not.
Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but (he is) the Messenger of Allah, and the
Seal of the Prophets: and Allah has full knowledge of all things.
O ye of Faith! Say not (to the Messenger) words of ambiguous import, but words of respect;
and hearken (to him): To those without Faith is a grievous punishment.
O Ye who believe! Put not yourselves forward before Allah and His Messenger; but fear Allah:
for Allah is He Who hears and knows all things.
Those who shout out to thee from without the inner apartments most of them lack
understanding.
The Prophet is closer to the Believers than their own selves, and his wives are their mothers.
Blood-relations among each other have closer personal ties, in the Decree of Allah. Than (the
Brotherhood of) Believers and Muhajirs: nevertheless do ye what is just to your closest
friends: such is the writing in the Decree (of Allah).
In the same way that these verses mentioned the distinction, specific to the Prophet (s), Allah (swt)
would have likewise made clear that the Prophet (s) was exempt from the verses of inheritance. So
ibn al Hashimi was he? The answer is no, Allah (swt) has mentioned in His book that past Prophets
left inheritance! The onus is therefore on Ibn al Hashimi to corroborate his claim and cite the Quranic
verse wherein Allah (swt) makes it clear that Prophets leave no inheritance. If Ibn al Hashimi can
show us such a Quranic verse, proving explicitly that the Prophet was exempt from the verses of
inheritance, we shall leave our madhab!
If he argues that Hadith could work in this regard, then our point of view will be that a Ahad tradition
cannot be used when it is contradicting Quran and we know that the alleged Hadith Prophets do not
leave inheritance and what they leave is Sadqah has been declared a Ahad narration by the Sunni
Imams. Moreover, Ayeshas testimony that Abu Bakar was the only person to bring this Hadith forward
and on the top of that, the opposition of this alleged Hadith by the heir of Holy Prophet and other
Sahabah also negates any opportunity for Ibn al Hashimi to cite this fabricated tradition to prove that
the Prophet (s) was exempt from the Quranic verses of inheritance.
Reply Two The double standards of Nawasib

The Quran gives the general rule, and then the Hadith give the details and exceptions to this rule.
And when we advance the very notion in terms of proving the station of Imamate, these same
Nawasib (with Ibn al Hashimi at the forefront) adamantly demand that we produce explicit verses from
the Holy Quran proving the Imamate of Ahlulbayt (as) Imams. Nevertheless, these two issues are not
equivalent in terms of authenticity since the alleged rule of Prophets being exempt from the verses of
inheritance is based on an alleged Hadith of which Abu Bakar was the sole narrator that was rejected
by the Sahabah.
Ibn al Hashimis questioning why no verse exists

prohibiting the Ahlul bayt (as) from Zakat
Furthermore, the Shia admit that the Quran dictates that if a person becomes poor, then he becomes
eligible for Zakat. This is a right of an individual based in the Quran. And yet, the Hadith tells us that
the Prophets family is not permitted to take Zakat; even if he becomes poor, a member of the
Prophets family could not ask for Zakat. This fact is accepted by the Shia. If the Prophets family could
not recieve Zakat, then why are we surprised when they are also not allowed to recieve inheritance
from the Prophet ( ?) Both rules come from the Hadith, which modify the general rule
in the Quran.
Reply One There is a difference between

receiving inheritance and Zakat
Since the Prophets family are not entitled to receive Zakat, the author asks why we are surprised
when they are likewise prohibited from receiving inheritance. The analogy doesnt hold up because
one is entitled to receive Zakat only when he is or becomes poor. It could be received from outsiders,
those who can afford it, whilst the concept of inheritance is totally different, since a person attains
ownership of his deceased fathers possessions whether he is rich or poor, it is not received from
outsiders. Inheritance involves the family unit exclusively.
Reply Two Unlike the case of the Prophets

inheritance, no one objected the Prophets familys
non-entitlement to Zakat
The author has got carried away by comparing the Prophets familys non entitlement to Zakat and
their (alleged) non entitlement to inheritance, when the reality is that no one ever raised objections to
their prohibition on Zakat, whilst the Sahabah comprising of the immediate family members of the
Prophet (s) including Fatima Zahra (sa) and Ali bin Abi Talib (as) had no knowledge of any such
(alleged) rule, and vigorously opposed this unrealistic stance.
Reply Three The legal right of Khums has been

given to the Ahlul bayt (as)
If the Ahlul bayt (as) are exempt from Zakat entitlement, it does not in any way mean that they are
unprotected from the pangs of hunger or poverty. They have a specific legal right to Khums, and with
regards to that Allah (swt) sent down this verse:
Allah (swt) says:
And know that out of all the booty that ye may acquire (in war), a fifth share is assigned to
Allah,- and to the Messenger, and to near relatives, orphans, the needy, and the wayfarer
Notice how this entitlement has a verse relating to it. If the Ahlul bayt (as) were prevented from
receiving Zakat, Allah (swt) revealed a verse making it clear what they were entitled to. This in effect
makes the law clear. If (as Ibn al Hashimi claimed) Prophets leave no inheritance, can he cite the
verse that exempts them and informs us that all they own shall be given away as Sadaqah? Rather
than any verse showing such an exemption, the Quran confirms that they do inherit.
And Solomon was Davids heir. He said: O ye people! We have been taught the speech of
birds, and on us has been bestowed (a little) of all things: this is indeed Grace manifest (from
Allah.)
In Surah Maryam 019.004-6, Allah (swt) refers to the supplication of Prophet Zakariya:
Praying: O my Lord! infirm indeed are my bones, and the hair of my head doth glisten with
grey: but never am I unblest, O my Lord, in my prayer to Thee! Now I fear (what) my relatives
(and colleagues) (will do) after me: but my wife is barren: so give me an heir as from Thyself,(One that) will (truly) represent me, and represent the posterity of Jacob; and make him, O my
Lord! one with whom Thou art well-pleased!
Al-Quran, Surah 19, Ayah 4 6, translated by Yusufali
This leaves Ibn al Hashimis entire argument dead and buried.
Al Khiders false claim that daughters have no

rights of inheritance under Shia Fiqh
Al Khidr states:
A Womans Inheritance
A more astounding revelation-of which many people happen to be uninformed-is the fact that in the
Fiqh of the Imami Shiah a woman does noty inherit land or fixed property. How is it that the Shiah
accept it for Sayyidah Fatimah radiyallahu anha to inherit Fadak, when their own jurisprudence does
not allow the succession of a woman to land or fixed property?
* In al-Kafi al-Kulayni has included a chapter entitled Women do not inherit land. In this chapter he
narrates a hadith from Imam Muhammad al-Baqir, Women do not inherit anything of land or fixed
property. (al-Kafi, vol. 7 p. 127, Kitab al-Mawarith, hadith no. 1)
* Al-Tusi in Tahdhib al-Ahkam, and al-Majlisi in Bihar al-Anwar have narrated from Maysarah that he
asked Imam Jafar as-Sadiq about what a woman inherits. The Imam replied: They will get the value
of the bricks, the building, the wood and the bamboo. As for the land and the fixed property, they will
get no inheritance from that. (Tahdhib al-Ahkam, vol. 9 p. 299; Bihar al-Anwar, vol. 104 p. 351)
* Al-Tusi records in Tahdhib al-Ahkam and al-Istibsar from Muhammad ibn Muslim that Imam
Muhammad al-Baqir said: A woman will not inherit anything of land and fixed property. (Tahdhib alAhkam, vol. 9 p. 298; al-Istibsar, vol. 4 p. 152)
* He also records from Abd al-Malik ibn Ayan that either Imam Muhammad al-Baqir or Imam Jafar
as-Sadiq said: Women will have nothing of houses or land. (Tahdhib al-Ahkam, vol. 9 p. 299; Bihar
al-Anwar, vol. 104 p. 351)
Interestingly, this reference so overjoyed the Nawasib, that the literary successors of Ansar.Org such
as Deobandi Mufti Desai and Ibn al Hasihmi of Ahlelbayt.com also became party to this deception and
quoted this text verbatim, without looking at the original source!
Screenshot No.1 of Ibn al-Hashimis article copy pasting Al-Khidrs article from Ansar.org
Screenshot No.2 of Ibn al-Hashimis article copy pasting Al-Khidrs article from Ansar.org
Screenshot No.1 of Mufti Ibrahim Desais answer wherein he copy pasted Al-Khidrs article from
Ansar.org
Screenshot No.2 of Mufti Ibrahim Desais answer wherein he copy pasted Al-Khidrs article from
Ansar.org
Reply One
The methodology of reference citation utilised by this Nasibi author confirms that he is indeed a true
adherent of Abu Bakr who dealt with his opponents through deceit. Whilst the claim is that a woman
does not inherit land or property under Shia Fiqh it is worth noting that word daughter is not present
in any of these Shia traditions. These texts refer to the inheritance of a woman that is referring to a
widow not a daughter despite this the filthy followers of Muawiyah tried to prove that woman in any
case does not inherit in Shia fiqh. We would like to know what prevented the Nasibi author from
quoting the remaining part of the second tradition? The answer is simple, had he done so, his entire
argument would have been destroyed, since the tradition clearly stipulates that a daughter inherits
from her father and this is explained in a logical manner. Let us present the complete tradition that
shall suffice in exposing the dishonesty employed by this Nasibi:
Maysarah: I he asked Abu Abdullah (as) about what a woman inherits. The Imam replied: They
will get the value of the bricks, the building, the wood and the bamboo. As for the land and the
fixed property, they will get no inheritance from that. Maysarah said: What about daughters?
He (as) replied: The daughters shall inherit. Maysarah said: How come they (widow) dont
inherit (land or building) although their share is 1/8 of the inheritance and the (daughters)
share is 1/4 ? He replied: Because she is not a blood relative to inherit but she is relative in
law. And this (widow not inheriting land) is because that woman might marry again and bring
her husband or her sons from other husband (in the land/house) which would cause rivalry
with others living in their house.
Wasail al-Shia, Volume 26 pages 206-207
The same Hadith is also recorded in Al- Kafi, Volume 7 page 130, Tahdib al-Ahkam, Volume 9 page
299 and Al-Istibsar, Volume 4 page 153. It has also been recorded with a different chain in Ilal alSharai, Volume 2 page 471 and Min la Yahdruhu al-Faqih, Volume 4 page 347 and the reviser of the
book Min la Yahdruhu al-Faqih, Sheikh Ali Akbar Ghafari declared this tradition as Sahih in the
footnote.
Moreover we read the following tradition in Min la Yahdruhu al-Faqih, Volume 4 page 261 that has
been declared Sahih by Sayyed Rohani in Fiqh al-Sadiq, Volume 24 page 253:
Zurara narrated that Abi Jaffar (as) was asked about a man who died and left a daughter, sister
and mother. He replied: The daughter will inherit the whole property, the sister and mother has
no share in it.
This tradition is also been recorded with another chain in al-Kafi, Volume 7 page 87 and has been
declared Sahih by Allamah Majleii in Mirat al-Uqool, Volume 23 page 133.
On the same page of Min la Yahdruhu al-Faqih we read another tradition that has also been declared
Sahih by Sayyed Rohani:
(Qasim bin Hussain) al-Bezanti narrated that he said: I asked the second Abi Jaffar (as) and
said: May I be sacrificed for you, what if a man died and left a daughter and uncles. He
replied: The property is for the daughter.
Now that our readers can see the complete text, we hope they can appreciate how dishonest Al
Khider, Ibn al Hashimi and Mufti Desai are. Of these three, one would have assumed that Mufti Desai
would have been more careful in his approach! Whilst Al Khider is a nobody and Ahlelbayt.com are
comprised of hyperactive Nasibi adolescents, when it comes to Imam Desai, he is a Grand Mufti of
the Deobandis, one would have expected him to have been more careful, after all his followers are
entitled to assume that when a Mufti speaks he does so on the basis of textual proof not concocted
hearsay evidence! If this Mufti is so lacklustre that he cites texts without independently consulting the
original source what credibility should his followers give to anything that he states?
Reply Two
Although there remains no need for further discussion after unveiling the cunningness committed by
the Nasibi author, for the sake of discussion we should point out that all the Shia Mujtahideen from
1st the century until the present, are unanimous on the point that these Ahadeeth refer to the
Inheritance of widow not of a daughter (who has right to all the things including land and fixed
property).
Despite this, Ansar.org want to spread and propagate confusion, so that their ideas can get support.
As we have mentioned Allah (swt) sets out a daughters right to inheritance in the Quran as follows:
God (thus) directs you as regards your Childrens (Inheritance): to the male, a portion equal
inheritance; if only one, her share is a half. For parents, a sixth share of the inheritance to
each, if the deceased left children; if no children, and the parents are the (only) heirs, the
mother has a third; if the deceased Left brothers (or sisters) the mother has a sixth. (The
distribution in all cases (s) after the payment of legacies and debts. Ye know not whether your
parents or your children are nearest to you in benefit. These are settled portions ordained by
God; and God is All knowing, All wise.
Al-Quran, Surah 4, Ayah 11
The Shia Ulema have on the basis of this verse drawn up rules on inheritance. We read in the
Resalah of Tawdhih-al-Masael by Grand Ayatullah. Fazel Lankarani:
2886. If out of the first group, there is only one heir of the deceased (for example, father or
mother or only one son or only one daughter), he/she inherits the entire estate, and if there are
several daughters or sons, the estate is divided equally and if there is one daughter and one
son, the estate should be divided to 3 parts, two parts for the son and one part for the
daughter. And if, there are more than one son and daughter, the estate is divided among them
in such away that each son gets twice the share of each daughter.
Similar we read in Grand Ayatullah Seestanis Islamic Laws:
1. The first group consists of the dead persons parents and children, and in the absence of
children, the grand children, however low, and among them whoever is nearer to the dead
person inherits his property. And as long as even a single person from this group is present,
people belonging to the second group do not inherit.
2. The second group consists of paternal grandfather, paternal grandmother, and sisters,
brothers, and in the absence of sisters and brothers their children, whoever from among them
is nearer to the dead person, will inherit from him. And as long as even one person from this
group is present, people belonging to the third group do not inherit.
3. The third group consists of paternal uncles and paternal aunts and maternal uncles and
maternal aunts, and their descendants. And as long as even one person from the paternal
uncles and paternal aunts and maternal uncles and maternal aunts of the dead person is
present, their children do not inherit.
However, if the paternal step uncle and the son of the real paternal uncle are present, the son
of the dead persons real paternal uncle will inherit from him to the exclusion of the paternal
step uncle. But if there are several paternal uncles and several paternal cousins, or if the
widow is alive, then this rule is not without Ishkal.
He then states:
2740:If out of the first group, there is only one heir of the deceased (for example, father or
mother or only one son or only one daughter) he/she inherits the entire estate, and, if there are
more than one sons or daughters, the estate is divided among them in such a way, that each
son gets twice the share of each daughter.
FADA K
Preface
Conclusion
Shia Pen Newsletter

2 0 11 2 01 2 S HI A P E N
Formerly known as:

Answering-Ansar.org
2002 - 2010
MISCELLANEOUS
About Us
Contact Us
Newsletter
Privacy Policy
S T AT E M E N T
TERMS & CONDITIONS
Terms & Conditions
HOME
COMPREHENSIVE
CONCISE
DECEPTION
FIQH
QUESTIONS
NASIBI
Chapter Eight: Analysing the

judgement of Abu Bakr
Sayyida Fatima (as) asked for her inheritance
rights and Abu Bakr rejected her claim
As evidence we shall advance the following authentic Sunni works:
1.
Sahih Bukhari, Bab al Khums Volume 4, Book 53, Number 325:
2.
Sahih Muslim, No. 019 The Book of Jihad and Expedition (Kitab Al-Jihad wal-Siyar)
3.
Sunan Abu Dawood, Book 19, Tribute, Spoils, and Rulership (Kitab Al-Kharaj, Wal-Fai WalImarah) Number 2967
4.
Sunan Nasai Kitab, Kism al Fai Volume 7 page 132
5.
Sunan al Kabeera, Kitan Kism al Fay Volume 6 page 300
6.
Al Muthaqa, Dhkir Khums page 494
7.
Neel al Authar, Volume 6 page 78 Bab Meerath al Anbiys
8.
Wafa al Wafa, Volume 3 page 995 Dhikr Talib Fatima min Abu Bakr Siddique
9.
Kanz al Ummal, Volume 3 page 129, Dhikr Kism Fay
10.
Tabaqat al Kabeer, Volume 2 page 315 Dhikr Meerath Rasulullah (s)
11.
Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal Volume 1 page 27 Hadeeth 25
12.
Riyadh al Nadhira, Volume 1 page 231 Dhikr Meerathal Anbiya
13.
Izalat al Khifa, Part 2 Volume 3 page 112 [Karachi edition]
14.
Sharh ibn al Hadeed, Volume 2 page 113
Abu Bakr claimed that the Waris of Rasulullah (s)

is his Khalifa
Sunan Abu Dawood Book 19, Tribute, Spoils, and Rulership (Kitab Al-Kharaj, Wal-Fai Wal-Imarah)
Number 2967 reads:
Narrated Abu Bakr:
Abu Tufayl said: Fatimah came to Abu Bakr asking him for the inheritance of the Prophet
(peace_be_upon_him). Abu Bakr said: I heard the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) say:
If Allah, Most High, gives a Prophet some means of sustenance that goes to his successor.
Comment
Shibli Numanis vigorous argument that Abu Bakr as the Khalifa of Rasulullah (s) in effect became his
Waris is unacceptable. If he was an Heir then he was an Heir who inherited the Government. One
should remember that during his lifetime (s) and after that, there was no such thing as State owned
land. The lands of Khayber were immediately distributed amongst the people.The scholars of Islam
formulated this concept(of state owned land) much later .Anything that came into the possession of
the Government was automatically distributed amongst the Muslims, there was not even a system of
set stipends for the army, it was seen as a single unit, their participation in Jihad was compulsory,
distribution of stipends would occur when the army were gathered together. A more formal system of a
Stipends Register was developed by Umar, and it was at that time that the need to the concept of
State Ownership dawned on the Government, yet even then land was not included as part of State
ownership. In any case what is certain is that during the lifetime of Rasulullah (s) there was no such
thing as State owned land so as to make it legitimate for Abu Bakr to take RasulAllahs(s) land
alongwith the Khilafat.
Abu Bakr may be presented as a Waris (Heir) but the Hadeeth which he presented Our property will
not be inherited, whatever we (i.e. prophets) leave is Sadaqah (to be used for charity) is proof
that he acknowledged that Rasulullah (s) possessed personal property, but that his progeny was
excluded from inheriting it. If this was a ruling of Rasulullah (s), then this land would have been
distributed during his(Abu Bakrs)lifetime but it was not which proves that it was not State Land, hence
Abu Bakr was not the Waris of Fadak.
Abu Bakr admitted that the Waris of Rasulullah (s)

are his children
We read in Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal and Riyadh al Nadira:
Hadhrat Fatima went to Abu Bakr and said Is Abu Bakr the Waris of the Prophet (s) or his
children? Abu Bakr said I am not the Waris, rather his children are. Fatima then said Why
have you taken the Prophets portion? Abu Bakr said: I heard the Apostle of Allah (peace be
upon him) say: If Allah, Most High, gives a Prophet some means of sustenance that goes to his
successor.
We appeal to justice. These three references prove that Sayyida Fatima (as) asked for her inheritance
rights and Abu Bakr contradicted himself by claiming to be RasulAllahs Waris on one occasion and
saying that the children were his Waris on another. All three references serve as proof that at no time
did Abu Bakr state that the Prophet (s) has no inheritor. The two responses of Abu Bakr were very
weak, yet Abu Bakr feared the weakening of his rule and hence remained firm in his view, a view that
was a major injustice towards Sayyida Fatima (as). Al Khider and his Cronies need to show some
honesty, and admit that the Khalifas two replies clearly contradicted ten verses of the Quran and that
his decision serves as proof that he had unlawfully usurped land that was the legal entitlement of
Understanding the words Our property will not be

inherited, whatever we (i.e. prophets) leave is
Sadaqah (to be used for charity)
We quote verbatim from Sahih al Bukhari Volume 4, Book 53, Number 325 [although similar reports
can be found in Sahih Muslim and Sunan Nasai]:
Narrated Ayesha(mother of the believers):
After the death of Allahs Apostle Fatima the daughter of Allahs Apostle asked Abu Bakr AsSiddiq to give her, her share of inheritance from what Allahs Apostle had left of the Fai (i.e.
booty gained without fighting) which Allah had given him. Abu Bakr said to her, Allahs
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 Allahs 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 Allahs Apostle.
Comment
These three books from the Saha Sittah establish the fact that Sayyida Fatima (as) turned to Abu Bakr
in order to claim her inheritance rights and Abu Bakr held that Prophets leave no inheritance; rather
whatever they leave is Sadaqah.
There can be the following two meanings of Abu Bakrs words:
Meaning One Anything that Prophets leave as Sadaqah cannot be inherited. Such words do not
benefit Abu Bakr in the slightest, since it proves that he usurped Fadak and the portion of Rasulullah
(s) property, thus proving injustice on his part and this injustice destroys Abu Bakrs Khilafat.
Meaning Two Anything that Prophets leave behind them is Sadaqah and has no Waris, if we
understand this in this manner then this is also absolutely incorrect as already proved by us.
Summing up the arguments
Following the death of her father (s), Sayyida Fatima (as) asked Abu Bakr with regards to the
inheritance of three things:
1.
The Estate of Fadak in Madina that was Fay
2.
The Estate of Fadak
3.
Khums from the attributes of Khayber
Sayyida Fatima (as)s claim was that all three belonged to Rasulullah (s), and she was the Waris of
Rasulullah (s) as the Quran stipulates that a daughter is legally the Waris of her parents.
Abu Bakr gave three responses to the claims of Sayyida Fatima:
1.
After the Prophet (s) I have possession over these things.
2.
Prophets have no Waris rather everything they owned becomes Sadaqah.
3.
After Rasulullah (s) these things go to the children of the Prophet (s).
If any person was to make these three contradictory claims in a Court of Law, his case would clearly
be seen as weak.Yet the Justice of the Sahaba is indeed very unusual, all three comments of Abu
Bakr are acceptable.Even if those comments contradict the Quran, the support from Al Khider and Co
continues unabated.
The Khalifas first and second response contradict the Quran and is therefore not correct, the third is
correct but the Khalifa did not act on it, due to political reasons,namely the fact that the Ahlul Bayt
(as) were his political opponents, financial support that would strengthen them, may in turn be used to
mount a political campaign to topple him.
Every generation of Sunni throughout to the Neo Nasibi such as al Khider has deemed the reply of
Abu Bakr Prophets leave no inheritance to be a brilliant correct one. Let us analyse these words and
see how true Abu Bakrs claim was. We have divided our arguments into proofs:
Proof One Ali rejected the claim of Abu Bakr our

property will not be inherited, whatever we (i.e.
prophets) leave is sadaqah
1.
Kanz al Ummal, Volume 4 page 52 Dhikr Meeras al Nabi
2.
Neel al Autar, Volume 6 page 88 Dhikr Meeras al Nabi
3.
Sunan al Kabeera, Part 1, Volume 6 page 298, Kism al Fay
4.
Sahih Muslim, Book 019, Number 4349 The Book of Jihad and Expedition (Kitab Al-Jihad
wal-Siyar)
5.
Sahih Muslim Sharh Nawawi, Vol. 12, Page 75
6.
Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, Vol. 3, Page 128
7.
Musnad Abi Awana, Vol. 4, Page 137
8.
Umdah tul Qari fie Sharh Sahih al Bukhari Volume 11 page 476 Bab
9.
Sharh Sahih Muslim, by Nawawi Volume 2 page 90 Kitab al Fai
10.
Fathul Bari Sharh Sahih al Bukhari, Volume 13 page 280
11.
Irshad al Sari Sharh Sahih al Bukhari, Volume 28 page 52
We read in Kanz al Ummal taken from Ibn Hanbal with a Hasan [Good] chain.
On one occasion Hadhrat Umar said to Ali and Abbas Abu Bakr said I heard the Messenger
of Allah (may peace be upon him) had said: We do not have any heirs; what we leave behind
is (to be given in) charity. So both of you thought him to be a liar, sinful, treacherous and
dishonest.
We read in Neel al Autaar:
Hadhrat Umar cited the position of Ali and Abbas, that on the issue of the inheritance of the
Prophet (s), you held your opponent to be Dhaalim, as is discussed in Sahih al Bukhari
Neel al-Autaar, Vol. 6, Page 88
We read in Sunan al Kabeera:
On one occasion Hadhrat Umar said the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) had
you thought him to be a liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest.
Of course the seriousness of these words lead to Muhammad Ismaeel Bukhari seeking to cover up
the issue as much as possible. He replaced the offensive terms We read in Sahih Bukhari Hadith:
9.408:
Then he (Umar) turned to Ali and Abbas and said, You both claim that Abu Bakr did soand-so in managing the property.
Ibn Hajr Asqalani in Fathul Baree addresses this issue as follows:
Bukhari narrated the Hadeeth with Umar saying You both deemed Abu Bakr, the commentary
of this Hadeeth is located in Sahih Muslim, that they deemed him liar, sinful, treacherous and
dishonest
Umadah tul Qari informs us that:
Umar said Ali and Abbas you both deemed Abu Bakr to be on the wrong path.
We read in Irshad Sari Sharh Sahih Bukhari:
Umar said that Abbas and Ali both deemed the usurpation of Fadak to be a sinful,
treacherous deceit. This has been narrated by the Hadeeth scholar Zubayr, on some occasions
he provides a commentary to the words of Umar on other he gives a mere hint.
First Nasibi objection

Some Nawasib have seen some heart, by creating the counter, pointing out that Abbas used the same
derogatory term about Imam Ali at the beginning of the Hadeeth in Saheeh Muslim, hence the use of
such terms was just common between friends. Worthy of note is the fact that other than Sahih Muslim,
none of the other sources contain these words which clearly indicates that these words are a
fabrication. The most effective response comes to this counter argument comes from none other than
Shams al Hind, Allamah Shibli Numani, who in Sirat ul Nabi pages 67-68 states:
In the Sahih Muslim, in the Book of Jihad, Chapter al Fai, it is recorded that once Abbas and
Ali came to Umar, Abbas said to Umar, O Caliph, be judge between me and this liar, this
criminal, this misappropriator of trusts, this traitor. As no Muslim could utter such words for
Ali, many traditionists have omitted them from their books [al Nawawi, Sharh Sahih Muslim,
commentary on this Hadith, Kitab al Jihad, Chapter al Fai] Al Imam Mazari says When we
cannot interpret it any other way, we shall say the narrator must have been a liar [al Nawawi,
Sharh Sahih Muslim, commentary on this Hadith, Kitab al Jihad, Chapter al Fai]
Seerat un-Nabi, Page 67 & 68
This is interesting since Shibli was a die hard Sunni scholar and dedicated his life to portraying the
Sahaba in an image that suggested that they were the best of friends that never disputed with one
another. Shibli rejects the notion of Abbas uttering such terms against Maula Ali (as), he makes no
comment to the fact that the very same tradition in Saheeh Muslim records the fact that Ali (as) and
Abbas deemed Abu Bakr and Umar to be liars, treacherous, sinful and dishonest. Had Shibli even the
slightest doubt in his minds with regards to these words used against Abu Bakr and Umar this
paragraph would have given him the opportunity to also reject the tradition outright. His silence on the
matter, serves as proof that this bulwark of Sunni Islam also conceded to the fact that Abbas and
Maula Ali deemed the Shaykhayn to be liars, treacherous, sinful and dishonest.If for arguments sake
we accept that these words were indeed used by Abbas then we will reply as follows:
1.
This demonstrates that the Sahaba used to abuse each other while according to modern
standards set by Nawasib, it has been made part of Sharia that cursing Sahaba is Kufr and merits
the death penalty.
2.
If Abbas abuses Ali Ibn Abi Talib (as), then it is not a Shia headache but indeed a problem for
the Ahlul Sunnah since they will need to offer an explanation as to how they believe that all the
companions were just and truthful when this example demonstrates one accusing the other of
being a liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest.
3.
We need not to defend Ali Ibn Abi Talib (as) against the accusations of Abbas, since
according to all four Sunni sects, in the presence of real brothers and his children, the step uncle
has no right to get property of the deceased person.* Abbas was a step brother of Abdullah the
father of Prophet Muhammad (s).
* There was only one real brother of Abdullah i.e. Abu Talib (as).
Readers can therefore decide themselves over whose stance was correct, Ali Ibn Abi Talib (as) and
Abbas.
Second Nasibi objection

Another argument advanced is that the matter concerned managing the Sadaqa of the Prophet (s)
between Maula Ali (as) and Abbas (ra) not inheritance. In Awnul Mabud, the commentary of Abu
Dawud, we read:
This means Ali and Abbas, may Allah be pleased with them, acquired guardianship over the
Sadaqah after the Messenger of Allah and Abu Bakr. They argued about dividing the Sadaqah
between them, half and half, because one of them wanted to utilise the sadaqah in one way
and the other in another. However, Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, ruled that this should
not be done since this is how it would be if it was inheritied and the Messengers are not
inherited. This is why he repetitively said the hadith, to emphasise that it should not be divided
in a manner resembling how it would be if it were inherited, so people in the future do not
confuse the wealth as inheritance.
The issue is not about guardianship over sadaqah. A few of the reasons are as follows:
1.
There would be no reason for any Sahabi to simply dispute over the guardianship of sadaqah
unless they had an agenda to abuse their position and take personal benefits. Both Shias and
Sunnis agree that Abbas and Ali (as) had no such motives.
2.
If the issue was not about inheritance, there would have been no reason for Umar to bring up
the hadith Prophets do not leave inheritance.
3.
They originally went to Abu Bakr in a claim of inheritance and the narrations of when they
went to Umar tell us they claimed the same thing. If Maula Ali (as) considered Fadak to be Sadaqa
then why did he over-power Abbas and take the entire estate of Fadak from him?
We will also point out that Umar said very clearly that the issue was about inheritance and not
guardianship over wealth. In Bukharis version of the hadith, Umar said:
Then I took charge of this property for two years during which I managed it as Allahs Apostle
and Abu Bakr did. Then you both (Ali and Abbas) came to talk to me, bearing the same
claim and presenting the same case. (O Abbas!) You came to me asking for your share from
the property of your nephew, and this man (Ali) came to me, asking for the share of his wife
from the property of her father.
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 80, Number 720
Its very clear that this is in regards to Fadak which Fatima (as) and Abbas (r) claimed from Abu Bakr,
as made crystal clear in another Bukhari hadith:
Fatima and Al Abbas came to Abu Bakr, seeking their share from the property of Allahs
Apostle and at that time, they were asking for their land at Fadak and their share from Khaibar.
Abu Bakr said to them, I have heard from Allahs Apostle saying, Our property cannot be
inherited, and whatever we leave is to be spent in charity
Moreover, if we accept the line of reasoning, that Abbas and Ali (as) were given sadaqah to look after,
then there would be no reason for a dispute. Both would have received funds to use as they please.
Some narrations of this event tie the dispute to a particular piece of land of Banu Nadir which was
with-held by Umar from the two. This being the case, why would the two squabble over something
which the other didnt have? It was Umar who had it and did not give it. If there was any dispute, it was
Ali (as) and Abbas on one side and Umar and his supporters on the other.
The bottom line is that both Ali and Abbas were demanding their share from the inheritance of the
Holy Prophet (s) as stated by Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani in the commentary of the tradition:

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

Umar said: (O Abbas!) You came to me asking for your share from the property of your
nephew. Verily he (Umar) said that in order to clarify how the inheritance shares are divided in
case there is inheritance
Fathul Bari, Volume 6 page 145
In relation to Abu Bakrs decision to usurp Fadak on the basis that Prophets leave no inheritance,
Hadhrat Ali (as) deemed him to bea liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest. Rasulullah (s) had said Ali
is with the truth and the truth is with Ali, hence anyone that Hadhrat Ali deems to be a liar, sinful,
treacherous and dishonest is indeed one. If Imam Ali (as) did not believe this then why did he fail to
correct Umar when these comments were said to him? The silence of Hadhrat Ali (as) in response
Umars comments proves that he held this position. Umars additional statement that he was also
aware that Imam Ali (as) and Abbas also deemed him to be a liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest,
proves that that their view of Abu Bakr never changed, rather they deemed Umar the same for
upholding Abu Bakrs decision! This in many ways destroys all the romantic notions of closeness of
the four friends that has been penned by the classical Sunni scholars, most notably the assertion that
Maula Ali (as) accepted Abu Bakr as the legitimate khalifa of the Prophet (s) ask yourself, would
Maula Ali (as) have pledged his fealty / undying loyalty to a man that he deemed to be a liar, sinful,
treacherous and dishonest?
Anyone whom Ali (as) deems treacherous is also

treacherous in the eyes of the Sahaba
We read in Ahlul Sunnahs authority work Tafseer Mazhari Part 12, Volume 5 page 14, commentary
of Surah Hud:
In our view it is established that Hadhrat Ali was the axis of Wilayath and all other Saints
including the Sahaba follow his station of Wilaya
When Abu Bakr perpetrated injustice towards the daughter of the Prophet (s), Hadhrat Ali (as)
deemed him to be a liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest. If the Sahaba follow in the footsteps of the
Wilaya of Imam Ali (as) then Hadhrat Ali (as)s view of such a person is also shared by the Sahaba.
Proof Two The Hadeeth our property will not be

sadaqah (to be used for charity) was not used by
Abu Bakr to confiscate the land that Rasulullah (s)

left for the Sahaba
We read in Fatah ul-Buldan, page 19:
The wealth of Banu Nazir included those lands that Allah (swt) had bestowed to Rasulullah (s),
since Muslims did not run horses and camels across it to capture it, thus that was under the
exclusive ownership of Rasulullah (s). He distributed it amongst the Muhajireen, he gave
nothing to the Ansar save two people, who were poor Samak bin Kharsha, Abu Dajana and
Sahil bin Haneef
We read in Futuh al-Buldan, Volume 1 page 18:
The wealth and property of the Banu Nazir were the exclusive ownership of Rasulullah (s), and
Rasulullah (s) would use the land to under the date tress for cultivations, produce would then
be distributed to his family, anything that was outstanding would be purchased for weapons,
Rasulullah (s) gifted some of the lands of Banu Nazir to Abu Bakr, Abdur Rahman bin Auf, Abu
Dajana, Samak bin Kharsha and al Saadi as a gift.
We read in Fatah ul-Buldan, Volume 1 page 21:
: : :
.
Hisham bin Urwah narrated from his father that amongst the lands of Banu Nazir, the Prophet
(s) gifted the land of palm trees to Zubair bin al-Awam
Comment
These references demonstrate that Rasulullah (s) had bestowed land to Zubayr, Abdur Rahman ibn
Auf and Abu Dajana, why did not Abu Bakr ask these individuals to prove that the land had been
bestowed to them? If the Hadeeth he recited to quash Sayyida Fatima (as)s claim was true then why
did he not use it to justify the seizure of lands belonging to these Sahaba? Why were witnesses not
asked of them by Abu Bakr? Why was no action taken against them to vest control of these lands?
If the excuse is given that no claim was brought by these individuals, then this is baseless because
Sayyida Fatima (as) was in effect forced to bring a claim because the Khalifa had seized her property
and placed it under his own control.Had the same approach been taken against these individuals
there is no doubt that they would have likewise petitioned against Abu Bakr in a similar manner.
Proof Three The Hadeeth our property will not

be inherited, whatever we (i.e. prophets) leave is
sadaqah (to be used for charity) was even
rejected by the wives of the Prophet (s)
Al Khider manages to display his extreme ignorance in his efforts to defend Abu Bakr by asserting:
In addition, if Fadak had to be inheritance, the wives of Rasulullah like Aishah, and his daughters like
Zaynab and Umm Kulthum would have had a share in it. However, Abu Bakr, for the sake of the
hadith, did not give anything of it to the wives or daughters of Rasulullah , not even to his own
daughter Aishah. Why are the wives and the other daughters of Rasulullah alayhi wa-alihi wasallam
not mentioned as parties in the dispute over Fadak, and why is all attention focused only on Sayyidah
Fatimah.
Reply
Whilst we reject the notion that Rasulullah (s) had other daughters, even if this was true, the books of
Ahlul Sunnah attest to their deaths during the lifetime of Rasulullah (s), and this is admitted by al
Khider in this same article. He writes:
We all know that Khaybar was taken in the 7th year after the Hijrah, and that Zaynab died in the 8th
year, and Umm Kulthum in the 9th year after the Hijrah.
How these alleged daughters could claim their stake to the Prophets inheritance when they were
already dead?
The reason why the wives of the Prophet (s) are not mentioned disputing over Fadak is because they
knew that Fadak belonged to Fatima Al-Zahra (as) but that does not mean that they didnt ask for their
share of their inheritance. Al Khider is a blatant liar for seeking to suggest that they had not done so.
1.
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 367Kitab al Maghaazi
2.
Sahih Muslim, Volume 3 page 72, Hukm al Fay
3.
Sunan ibn Abu Dawood, Volume 3 page 145 Bab al Fay
4.
Sunan al Kabeera, Volume 6 page 301 Kitab Fay
5.
Majma al Buldan, Volume 14 page 239 Dhikr Fadak
6.
Al Bidaya wa al Nihaya, Volume 5 page285 Dhikr Meeras al Nabi
7.
Madarij al Nubuwwa, Volume 2 page 445 Dhikr Taqseem Meeras al Nabi
8.
Kashaf al Ghimma, Volume 2 page 42 Dhikr Meeras al Nabi
9.
Sawaiqh al Muhriqa, page 22 Dhikr Thaan Ghasb Fadak
We read in Sahih al Bukhari:

. I told Urwa bin Az-Zubair of this Hadeeth and he said, Malik bin Aus has told the truth I
heard Ayesha, the wife of the Prophet saying, The wives of the Prophet sent Uthman to Abu
Bakr demanding from him their 1/8 of the Fai which Allah had granted to his Apostle. But I
used to oppose them and say to them: Will you not fear Allah? Dont you know that the
Prophet used to say: Our property is not inherited, but whatever we leave is to be given in
charity?
Allah (swt) says in his Holy Book that the reason why we are supposed to have one male witness and
two female witnesses, is that if one the females forgets the other will remind her [2:282], but what we
see in the narration above is that one female does not forget and a large number had forgotten that
the Prophet had said a thing. It is indeed unfortunate that Muhammad Ismail Bukhari failed to record
the reply that these nine wives had given to Ayesha.
This tradition proves that the wives of Rasulullah (s) did not deem the Hadeeth cited by Abu Bakr
striking out the concept of Prophetic inheritance to be correct, if they did they would have not have
sent Uthman to claim their inheritance share. No doubt Nasibi will argue that this tradition from Ayesha
supports Abu Bakrs stance then our reply is simple if during the Fadak case, the testimony of
Hasnayn (as) was rejected due to them being too young, then by the same token the testimony of Abu
Bakrs daughter who played with dolls in 9 Hijri should also be rejected.
Proof Four Ayeshas applying for the inheritance

of her husband proves the Hadith our property
will not be inherited, whatever we (i.e. prophets)
leave is sadaqah (to be used for charity) false
As evidence we shall cite Madarij un Nabuwwah Volume 2 page 756:
Ayesha narrates after the death of Rasulullah (s) I went to claim my share of inheritance that
was Khayber, Fadak and the land of Banu Nadheer, but Abu Bakr gave nothing, he gave the
same reply that he had given to the other wives of the Prophet and Fatima daughter of the
Prophet (s).
Madarij un Nabuwwah, Volume 2 page 756
The same fact has also been accepted by Abu Bakrs advocate Ibn al Hashimi in his article Fadak,
Part VII: Charity is Good states:
) also asked her father Abu Bakr (
) to give her
It is reported that Aisha (
) refused on the basis of the fact that Prophets do not give
inheritance and Abu Bakr (
inheritance.
See screenshot of Ibn al Hashimis article Ayesha claimed inheritance of the Prophet
The questions arises how the same Ayesha that rebuked the wives from claiming inheritance (when
the Prophet repeatedly stressed he would leave none) would then make an inheritance claim following
his death?
The tradition proves that Ayesha believed that the Prophet left inheritance, and she felt that the reply
that her father had given in Sahih Bukhari was very weak. Think about this logically, the claim of
Sayyida Zahra (as) had already been struck out on the basis of this alleged hadith. If Ayesha (at that
time) deemed it authentic why did she seek to make the same claim? The reality is Ayesha had never
heard the words from the Prophet (s), the first that she heard that he (s) left no inheritance was from
her father, we read her testimony in Sawaiqh al Muhriqa page 14:
No one knew about the inheritance of the Prophet save Abu Bakr.
If we for arguments sake accept she upheld her fathers words whilst also believing (as Sunni do) that
witness numbers had not been met on the part of Sayyida Fatima (as) then Nasabi should know that
Ayesha stood alone with regards to backing her fathers claim, two witnesses were required, and in
fact two separate witnesses after all according to Ahlul Sunnah a child cannot testify in support of a
parent! Balance this against the number of witnesses that were corroborating the claim of Sayyida
Fatima.
If she really believed the tradition to be true then she wouldnt have made a claim for inheritance
having already been aware that Abu Bakr had rejected the claims of Sayyida Fatima (as) and the
other wives of the Prophet (s) by relying on this alleged Hadeeth.
Now there are only two options for Ahlul Sunnah to accept:
Option 1: Ayesha believed the Hadeeth to be correct and still wanted a share of the Prophets
inheritance.
Option 2: Ayesha deemed the Hadeeth to be false and still maintained this position after all the other
wives claims had been rejected.
If we accept Option 1, then we are in effect saying that Ayesha The truthful was prepared to turn a
blind eye to a Hadeeth, as it was to her financial advantage. This destroys the credibility of Ayesha
since it suggests that she preferred material possessions to the Prophets words, and anyone who
prefers filling his/her stomach to a Prophetic ruling can never be deemed a truthful narrator of
traditions.
If Option 2 is accepted, then this means that Ayesha deemed the Hadeeth advanced by Abu Bakr, to
be false. Think about this logically,8 wives and 1 daughter of Rasulullah (s) had already made their
claim for inheritance and Abu Bakr rejected it claiming that he heard the Prophet (s) say Our property
will not be inherited, whatever we (i.e. prophets) leave is Sadaqah. Now Ayesha was aware that these
claims had been struck out on the basis of this alleged Hadeeth, if she believed her fathers position
then why also make a stake for the inheritance? Logic dictates that you dont make a claim in a court
of Law, when you are fully aware those 9 claimants before you made the same claim that was rejected
by the same Judge. You only make such a claim if you believe that the Judges decision is wrong.
Why did the same Ayesha that went to claim inheritance then subsequently assert that the Prophet (s)
reminded his wives he left none? Simple, when Ayesha realised the true objective behind citing this
hadith was to financially cripple the key political opponents of her fathers reign, Ayesha deemed it her
duty to misinform the people that this was a Sahih Hadith of the Prophet (s). From then on Ayesha the
daughter of the same Khalifa who invented this tradition, was at the forefront in getting people to
accept it, by suggesting that the Prophet (s) had repeatedly said it!
Ansar.org states:
However, Abu Bakr, for the sake of the Hadeeth, did not give anything of it to the wives or daughters of
Rasulullah, not even to his own daughter Aishah
Ibn al Hashimi also adds this emotional rant:
Additionally, if it was really to be inherited by the family of the Prophet ( ) , then Abu
) would have given the rightful share of it to Aisha (
) but he did not. So why
Bakr (
) like they do for Fatima (
?) And what about
arent the Shia grieving for Aisha (
the other eligible relatives of the Prophet ( ?) Why is it that the Shia do not argue on
) also asked her father Abu Bakr
behalf of these people for Fadak? It is reported that Aisha (
) to give her inheritance and Abu Bakr (
) refused on the basis of the fact that
(
?)
Prophets do not give inheritance. Why arent the Shia crying over Aishas loss (
It would have been political suicide for Abu Bakr to have granted inheritance to Ayesha, hence he had
to apply this rule across the board, and thereby present himself as a just man. Despite this he sought
to ensure that she was not adversely affected by this decision. Denying Ayesha inheritance of the
Prophet was due to political considerations. Had Ayesha received this right she would have received
one ninth share, and this was the Fay that the Khalifa denied to his daughter, and made himself the
owner. Now what damage did this bring to Ayesha? What would be the basis for us to cry for Ayesha
when she had concerned parties that were representing her best interests? How could she be, when
Abu Hurraira conveniently recalled an exemption to the Hadeeth recited by her father, that in affect
provide her with a widows pension for life? Contemplate the words of Abu Hurraira in Sahih Bukhari
Volume 8, Book 80, Number 721:
Allahs Apostle said, Not even a single Dinar of my property should be distributed (after my
deaths to my inheritors, but whatever I leave excluding the provision for my wives and my
servants, should be spent in charity.
By the time Umar became Caliph a year later the wives of the Prophet also received a regular State
salary, with Ayesha getting the lions share in comparison to the other wives. What was the loss to a
widow with no offspring who received 12,000 Dinars as yearly stipend compared to the other wives
who received 10,000 Dinars? The combined sum of a State salary and a widows pension was
sufficient to compensate them for the revocation of their husbands inheritance. On a wider level
Khilafath remained in her household and unlike Sayyida Fatima (as) she was also entitled to inherit
her fathers possessions. The wives of the Prophet (s) were entitled to maintain possession of
anything they held. Ayesha was particularly fortunate; we read this tradition in Sahih Bukhari, Volume
4, Chapter of Gifts in between Hadeeth number 773 and 774:
Asma said to al Qasim bin Muhammad and Ibn Abu Atiq I inherited some land in the forest
from my sister Ayesha and Muawiyah offered me 100,000 for it but I give it to both of you as a
gift.
Consider this carefully. Rasulullah (s) left no inheritance for her, which in effect meant that she had to
live on a very basic standard of living, with a very basic staple diet. This being the case, how did she
attain possession of land valued at 100,000 dirhams? What Islamic Law gave her entitlement to such
rich land? The rich fortunes for Ayesha did not just end there, we see that Muawiya also lavished her
with money and gifts. Ibn Kathir narrates in Al-Bidaya Wa Al-Nihaya. Volume 11 page 443:
And Hisham Ibn Urwa from his father who said: Muawiya sent to Aisha the Mother of Believers
a hundred thousand dirhams, she spent it in one day, and there remained not even a single
Dirham, and one of her servants said to her: I saved you one Dirham for us to buy meat, she
said: if you reminded me before I would (have spent it). And Atta said: Muawiya sent to Aisha
a necklace worth a hundred thousand, when she was in Makka, and she accepted it.
Ayeshas riches are clear evidence that the State took no remedial steps that would cause financial
difficulties to her.
The only financial loss was to Sayyida Fatima (as) whose financial aid was stopped upon the death of
Rasulullah (s), her only means of additional support would have been from her step mother, and the
ways of such mothers are well known.
Rasulullah (s) transferred Fadak to his daughter for her financial support, yet this land was illegally
taken, and the Leaders objected to returning the inheritance of Rasulullah (s). There is a world of
difference between the treatment of Sayyida Fatima (as) and Ayesha. Such was the animosity that
Abu Bakr held towards Sayyida Fatima (as) he even ordered a search of her home to ensure that she
was not hoarding any money that she had to no right to. Lest Nawasib accuse us of lying, allow us to
prevent the evidence from their most esteemed writer Ibn Tamiyah:

he broke in the house to see if there was some thing of Allahs money to distribute it or give it
to the who deserved it
Minhaj al Sunnah, Volume 8 page 291
A series of questions arise from this reference:
1.
Were Sayyida Zahra (as) and Imam Ali (as) hoarding money that they had no right to?
2.
Were any other homes particularly those of the wives ransacked in this manner, if not why
not?
3.
In terms of distribution, this responsibility falls on the individual, what right did Abu Bakr have
to enter in the house and seize items for distribution?
We dont see any evidence of Ayesha, the other wives or any other Sahabi for that matter being
treated in such an atrocious manner, why was attention focussed on the home of Sayyida Zahra (as)?
Abu Bakr took every step to ensure that the needs of his daughter were met, whilst Hadhrat Fatima
(as) left the world in tears, and cursed Abu Bakr until she died. In clear contradiction to this the wives
of the Prophet (s) were treated very differently and somewhat curiously they inherited land and
material possessions from Rasulullah (s) despite Abu Bakrs recollection of the Hadeeth whatever we
(i.e. prophets) leave is Sadaqah. Let us cite some evidence to this effect:
Proof Five The wives of the Prophet (s) inheriting

their apartments from Rasulullah (s) proves that
the Hadeeth our property will not be inherited,
whatever we leave is sadaqahis false
If the Hadeeth whatever we (i.e. prophets) leave is Sadaqah is correct then why did Abu Bakr not
take possession of the homes belonging to Ayesha, Hafsa and the other wives of the Prophet (s) that
they had attained as inheritance upon the death of the Prophet (s)? It is a fact that these properties
belonged to Rasulullah (s) and his wives attained them (s) as inheritance after his death.
See: Wafa al Wafa ba Khabr Da Mustafa Part 1 page 325 Bab al Rabba Fasl al Thasa
Allamah Shibli Numani in his famed work Sirat-ul Nabi Volume 3 page 164, under the Chapter The
Sacred House sheds light on this matter, referring to the arrival of the Prophet (s) in Madina he states:
When he laid the foundation of Masjid-I-Nabvi, he got built small apartments adjoining to it.
He then sent a message and called his family from Makka to live in these apartments
The reference makes it clear that these apartments belonged to the Prophet build around his Mosque
this is where he housed his wives. What happened to these apartments following the death of the
Prophet? The answer is given by Allamah Shibli on the very next page:
These apartments remained in the possession of the wives after his death. Whenever any one
of his wives died, the apartment went to the possession of the relatives.
Seerat un-Nabi, Vol. 3, Page 164 & 165
The reference states that the apartments belonged to the Prophet and he housed his wifes there.
Upon his (s) death why were these wives not evicted by Abu Bakr, and these apartments given to the
poor and needy of Madina? If they remained the possession of the Prophet (s) and he had
bequeathed that they remain in there till they die, then upon their deaths these properties should have
automatically gone to the poor as Sadaqa (as the Hadeeth stipulated), Rather than this happening we
learn that the apartments went to the wifes heirs. This therefore proves that wives had inherited these
properties as heirs upon the death of the Prophet (s), that they in turn left as inheritance when they
died.
Nasibi Excuse Those houses were gifted to wives of Prophet (s)

by Prophet (s) himself
We have observed that whenever we mention the double standards adopted by Abu Bakr in not
confiscating the apartments of Prophet (s) and distributing it among the poor as Sadqa, the present
day Nawasib come up with different types of excuses making feeble attempt to absolve their king. To
argue their point, our opponents rely upon this Quranic verse:
O Prophet! When ye (men) put away women, put them away for their (legal) period and reckon
the period, and keep your duty to Allah, your Lord. Expel them not from their houses nor let
them go forth unless they commit open immorality. Such are the limits (imposed by) Allah; and
whoso transgresseth Allahs limits, he verily wrongeth his soul. Thou knowest not: it may be
that Allah will afterward bring some new thing to pass.
[Surah Talaq, verse 1, English translation by Pickthal]
O Prophet! When ye do divorce women, divorce them at their prescribed periods, and count
(accurately), their prescribed periods: And fear Allah your Lord: and turn them not out of their
houses, nor shall they (themselves) leave, except in case they are guilty of some open
lewdness, those are limits set by Allah: and any who transgresses the limits of Allah, does
verily wrong his (own) soul: thou knowest not if perchance Allah will bring about thereafter
some new situation.
[Surah Talaq, verse 1, English translation by Yusufali]
Reply One
The use of their houses in the cited verse is what the Nawasib have played upon and this, such
absurdity shows how desperate they have become, since they have sought reliance on a verse quoted
out of context, that serves no benefit, as we shall evidence in out later replies, but in this opening
response we would invite these individuals to produce a single Sahih Hadith wherein it is specifically
stated that the Holy Prophet (s) had gifted those apartments to his wives? In which year did such a
transfer took place? Since todays internet Nawasib place a great emphasis on Sahih chains, it is
therefore most apt that they accordingly substantiate their claim on the same basis.
Reply Two
These Nawasib have wrongly placed confident reliance upon the verse to argue that the houses had
been gifted to the wives of Prophet (s) since there exists a strong body of opinion amongst the Sunni
clergy that the verse was addressing the nation and not specifically the Prophet (s), and this fact shall
suffice to nullify the pathetic logic adopted by the Nawasib. We can for example cite the famous
Maulana Fateh Muhammad Jalandhari who rendered the Urdu translation of the verse in the following
manner:
) (

) ( ) (
) ( )
(
) (
) (
O Prophet (tell the Muslims that) when ye do divorce women, divorce them at their prescribed
periods, and count their prescribed periods: And fear Allah your Lord (neither you) turn them
not out of their houses (in their prescribed periods) nor shall they (themselves) leave, except in
case they are guilty of some open lewdness (then they should be expelled), those are limits set
by Allah.
A similar type of translation has been rendered in the Urdu version of Tafseer Ibn Kathir as well as in
Tafseer Maarif al-Quran by Mufti Muhammad Shafi, Volume 8 page 473. In fact, Ibn Kathir states:

The Holy Prophet (s) has been addressed in the beginning just for the sake of honour and
respect and this was then followed by an address to the Nation
Similarly one of the favorite scholars of the Salafis namely Shaykh Saleh bin Fozan stated in one of
his edicts:

This address is to the Prophet (s) and to his nation [Ummat] and the address to the Prophet is
for the sake of honor, the address is then directed to the nation.
http://ar.islamway.net/fatwa/10986
Mufti Muhammad Shafii Uthmani further explains this point in Maarif ul Quran, Volume 8 page 478:
In this Surah, orders regarding divorce were started in the manner that Holy Prophet (s) was
addressed by the word And as per Imam Qurtabi, this word is used when the order
given, is for the entire nation where as when an order is specifically for the Holy Prophet (s)
then the word is used.
And the word demanded that in the further verses, singular form should have been
used, however, plural form has been used contrary to that (singular form used before);
; and though Holy Prophet (s)has been addressed directly, and there is respect for Holy
Prophet (s) by using this plural form, it also points to the fact that this is not specific for the
Prophet (s) rather whole nation is included in this order.
And some people have added a hidden sentence ( ) to the verse, and done its
explanation like this [ O Prophet! tell faithful that when they
divorce women] and in summary of explanation above, this has been adopted (in this tafsir).
Reply Three
The verse has been revealed in Surah Talaq (divorce) and has been revealed in the context of
enabling the Ummah to acquire a know how of the rules and regulations regarding divorce and
matters related thereto. There is nothing in the Quran or Sahih Sunni Hadith works that suggest that
Allah (swt) or his Prophet (s) had ever gifted those apartments to the wives of the Holy Prophet (s), by
simply pointing to the mere presence of the words their houses in the cited verse, the Nawasib
cannot argue that the said verse proves the ownership of the wives of Prophet (s) over the apartments
they were living in. The use of their houses was to emphasize to Muslim men that they whilst they
might be owners of the house they live in from a legal sense, the house also belongs to their wives i.e.
as they are their martial homes because after marriage, when a woman leaves the house of her
parents, it is the abode of husband that is referred to as a wifes house whilst she might not
necessarily be the owner of the house in legal sense, that is why whenever a married a Muslim
woman referred to the house wherein she resides, she would always refer to my house whereas the
ownership or title remains that of her husband. The verse was revealed to make Muslim men realize
that whilst they may have divorced their wives, they are not to be expelled from their houses on this
ground alone and they still have to keep their wives in the houses until their Iddah period is over up
until that time, the house shall still be referred to as the wifes abode i.e. it remains their house. To be
more precise, their house means martial home that is why we read in Tafseer al-Qurtubi, Volume 19
page 102:

It is not the right of the husband to turn her out of her marital home during her waiting period.
Reply Four
If Nawasib persist to argue that their houses referred to in the cited verse somehow proves that the
houses wherein wives of Holy Prophet (s) lived became their exclusive property, then it would result in
a rather absurd anomaly i.e. whenever a Muslim man performs marriage with a Muslim woman and
brings her in his house, the house no longer remains the property of man but its ownership
automatically transfers to the wife!
Reply Five
Now we come to the most apt reply to the failed attempt made by our opponents from which they have
tried to prove that the apartments were gifted to the wives of Holy Prophet (s) and for this we would
like to remind them that once a donor has gifted his property to the donee and handed over its
physical or constrictive possession to the latter, the donor relinquishes all of his rights and interest in
the property to the gifted and hence no longer remains owner and its ownership gets transferred to the
donee who then becomes the sole arbiter, once this occurs the donor cannot revoke the said
transaction if he felt like it at some time later date. Keeping this principle of gift in mind, we would like
to ask our readers as well as our opponents to once again ponder into the verse under discussion and
see that whilst in the first part Muslim men are ordered not to expel their wives from their houses in
the later part Allah (swt) has also mentioned the condition wherein wives can be expelled from the
said houses i.e. when they commit open immorality (Pickthal) or they are guilty of some open
lewdness (Yusufali) and this right was given to the Holy Prophet (s), and Muslim men in general,
namely the right to expel wives from the houses, this fact should suffice to shut the dirty mouths of
Nawasib since had the houses indeed been gifted to the wives of the Prophet (s), as claimed by
Nawasib, there would have been no right left for the Holy Prophet (s) to expel the wives out from the
houses, that, as per Nasibi logic, was no longer owned by him (s) rather were under the ownership of
the wives!
We read in Tafseer Dur al-Manthur:
It is narrated from Ibn Abbas (ra) that the statement open immorality means that the woman
starts using foul language with the family members of the man (her husband). Thus if she
does so, it is Mubah to expel her.
Clarifying as to whose houses are referred to in the verse under discussion, we read in Tafseer
Mazhari, Volume 9 page 449, Urdu translation rendered by Muhamad Karam Shah al-Azhari (Zia ul
Quran publications):
Do not expel wives out of the houses wherein they were living at the time of divorce until the
Iddah period is over, these are the houses of their respective husbands and they should by
themselves also not leave these houses
Mufti Muhammad Shafi Uthmani explained it in Tafseer Maarif al-Quran, Volume 8 page 840:
In this the word , houses have been attributed to women, and this points to the fact
that till the time, her right of residence is upon the man, she has a right in that house. Letting
her live in that house is not a favor rather it is compulsory. One of the rights of women is the
right of residence and such a right does not end with divorce, rather she keeps this right till
the days of her prescribed period.
Similarly Shaykh Saleh bin Fozan has stated:

[1 : { ]

{expel them not from their house} in this (verse) Allah forbids the removal of the returnable
divorced woman from the marital house before the end of her Iddah period, and to indicate the
legality of staying within the marital house during the Iddah period for divorced woman and
not to leave the house because she still has the right enjoyed by wives, and it remains
possible for the divorced husband to take her back, so the opportunity for a return will be well
prepared that God encourages .
Maulana Maudoodi in his commentary of the said verse in his famed Tafhim ul Quran stated:
The house is hers during the waiting-period, and both the man and the wife should live
together so that advantage may be taken if there is any chance of reconciliation.
Just a few paragraphs later whilst discussing whether or not there exists an obligation to provided
maintenance and lodging to a divorced pregnant woman, he acknowledges that the term houses
means that of the husband:
Imam Abu Bakr al Jassas has given in his discussion of this question in his Ahkam al-Qur an
is that Allah has explicitly said: Divorce them for their prescribed waiting periods. This
Divine Command also applies to that person who might have taken his wife back after
divorcing her twice in the first instance, and no v he is left with only one divorce to
pronounce. His second argument is: When the Holy Prophet (upon whom be peace) taught
this method of pronouncing divorce that one should either pronounce divorce in such a period
of purity in which one may not have had sexual intercourse, or in a state when the signs of a
womans being pregnant might have appeared. In this he did not make any distinction between
the first, second, or final divorce. Therefore, the Divine (Command, `Lodge them (in the
waiting period) where you yourselves live, will be regarded as relevant to every form of
divorce. His third argument is; The maintenance and lodging of the pregnant woman,
whether divorced revocable or irrevocably, is binding on the husband, and in respective the
non-pregnant revocably divorced woman also both these rights are binding. This shows that
the maintenance and lodging have not been made incumbent on the basis of pregnancy but
because both are legally bound to stay in the husbands house. Now, if the same injunction be
applicable to the irrevocably divorced non-pregnant woman also, there can be no reason why
her lodging and maintenance should not be incumbent on the man divorcing her.
That is exactly why we see that in the Nobel Quran, the English translation of Holy
Quran rendered by Dr. Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din Al-Hilali and Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan, actually
referred to their as husbands and not wives.
O Prophet ( !) When you divorce women, divorce them at their Iddah
(prescribed periods) and count (accurately) their Iddah (periods ). And fear Allah your Lord (O
Muslims). And turn them not out of their (husbands) homes nor shall they (themselves) leave,
except in case they are guilty of some open illegal sexual intercourse. And those are the set
limits of Allah. And whosoever transgresses the set limits of Allah, then indeed he has
wronged himself. You (the one who divorces his wife) know not it may be that Allah will
afterward bring some new thing to pass (i.e. to return her back to you if that was the first or
second divorce).
WE can thus arrive at the just conclusion that the verse was not revealed to declare anything about
the transfer of ownership of the apartments of the Prophet (s) to his wives rather the verse was
revealed to prevent the Muslim men from expelling their wives from their marital houses until they
have observed the Iddah period in those very houses after divorce is pronounced to them.
Proof Six The three Khaleefas inheriting the ring

of the Prophet is proof that the Hadeeth Our
property will not be inherited, whatever we leave is
Sadaqah is false
We read in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 72, Number 767:
Narrated Anas:
that when Abu Bakr became the Caliph, he wrote a letter to him (andstamped it with the
Prophets ring) and the engraving of the ring wasin three lines: Muhammad in one line,
Apostle in another line, andAllah in a third line. Anas added: the ring of the Prophetwas in
his hand, and after him, in Abu Bakrs hand, and then inUmars hand after Abu Bakr. When
Uthman was the Caliph, once he wassitting at the well of Aris. He removed the ring from his
hand andwhile he was trifling with it, dropped into the well. We kept on goingto the well with
Uthman for three days looking for the ring, andfinally the well was drained, but the ring was
not found.
In this regard we have some Questions:
1.
during the Fadak dispute Abu Bakr said that Prophets leave no inheritance, rather all that they
leave becomes charity, so why didnt Abu Bakr give this ring away as Sadaqa after all it was a
possession of the Prophet?
2.
Why was this ring transferred from Khaleefa to Khaleefa?
3.
Isnt it funny the Khaleefas can successively inherit a possession of the Prophet (s), but his
daughter was not allowed to inherit anything?
The ring was a possession of Rasulullah (s) and Abu Bakr cited the fact that Prophet leave no
inheritance, rather all they leave becomes Sadaqah so it was Abu Bakrs duty to distribute this to the
needy not horde it for himself and then make it some system of lineal succession! Why didnt he
implement the Hadeeth that he cited?
Proof Seven Ayesha inheriting the garments of

Rasulullah (s) proves that the Hadeeth our
property will not be inherited, whatever we leave
is sadaqah is false
We read in the English Translation of Sahih Muslim, Book 24, under the Chapter The Book Pertaining
to Clothes and Decoration (Kitab Al-Libas wal-Zinah) Book 024, Number 5149 as follows:
Abdullah. the freed slave of Asma (the daughter of Abu Bakr). the maternal uncle of the son of
Ata, reported: Asma sent me to Abdullah b. Umar saying: The news has reached me that you
prohibit the use of three things: the striped robe. saddle cloth made of red silk. and the fasting
in the holy month of Rajab. Abdullah said to me: So far as what you say about fasting in the
month of Rajab, how about one who observes continuous fasting? -and so far as what you say
about the striped garment, I heard Umar b. Khatab say that he had heard from Allahs
Messenger (may peace be upon him): He who wears silk garment has no share for him (in the
Hereafter), and I am afraid it may not be that striped garment; and so far as the red saddle
cloth is concerned that is the saddle cloth of Abdullah and it is red. I went back to Asma and
informed her whereupon she said: Here is the cloak of Allahs Messenger (may peace be upon
him) and she brought out to me that cloak made of Persian cloth with a hem of brocade, and
its sleeves bordered with brocade and said: This was Allahs Messengers cloak with Aisha
until she died, and when she died. I got possession of it. The Apostle of Allah (may peace be
upon him) used to wear that, and we washed it for the sick and sought cure thereby.
We also read in the same chapter of Sahih Muslim Book 024, Number 5181:
Abu Burda reported: I visited Aisha and she brought out for us the coarse lower garment (of
Allahs Messenger) made in Yemen and clothes made out of Mulabbada cloth, and she swore
in the name of Allah that Allahs Messenger (may peace be upon him) died in these two
clothes.
These traditions prove that Ayesha had possession of the very garments that were worn by Rasulullah
(s) when he died. Ayeshas father had denied Sayyida Fatima (as) Fadak by advancing the
Hadeeth whatever we (i.e. prophets) leave is Sadaqah. This Hadeeth has in fact been narrated from
Abu Bakr via Ayesha. It is stipulated in the supposed Hadeeth whatever we leave that all material
possessions left by Prophets become Sadaqah upon their deaths, this incorporates property, money
and clothes. One therefore wonders why Ayesha was holding onto this material possession (the
garment of Rasulullah (s)) if she indeed believed in the truth of the Hadeeth cited by her father. If it is
true why was she withholding this Sadaqah from the Ummah? The Ahlul Sunnah count wives as
Ahlul bayt (s) and Rasulullah (s) said that Sadaqah is haraam on the Ahlul bayt (as), was she
therefore indulging in sin by holding onto this garment? Why did Abu Bakr not take this shirt from
Ayesha and give it to the Ummah as Sadaqah? Was this not the same Abu Bakr who according to Ibn
Taymeeya searched the home of Sayyida Zahra (as) to ensure she was not hoarding anything that
was the right of Allah (swt)? Sayyida Zahra (as) has her home searched and no questions are asked
of Ayesha that can hold onto a garment that is haraam for her to have in her possession. The fact that
Ayesha maintained possession of this shirt is proof that the Hadeeth whatever we (i.e. prophets)
leave is Sadaqah is fabricated, and was only advanced to deny Sayyida Fatima (as) her inheritance
rights.
Proof Eight Ayeshas inheriting land from

Rasulullah (s) is proof that the Hadeeth our
property will not be inherited, whatever we leave
is sadaqah is false
We read in the English Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Book 23: Chapter Funerals (Al-Janaaiz) Volume
2, Book 23, Number 475:
Narrated Amr bin Maimun Al-Audi:
I saw Umar bin Al-Khattab (when he was stabbed) saying, O Abdullah bin Umar! Go to the
mother of the believers Ayesha and say, Umar bin Al-Khattab sends his greetings to you, and
request her to allow me to be buried with my companions. (So, Ibn Umar conveyed the
message to Ayesha.) She said, I had the idea of having this place for myself but today I prefer
him (Umar) to myself (and allow him to be buried there). When Abdullah bin Umar returned,
Umar asked him, What (news) do you have? He replied, O chief of the believers! She has
allowed you (to be buried there). On that Umar said, Nothing was more important to me than
to be buried in that (sacred) place. So, when I expire, carry me there and pay my greetings to
her (Ayesha ) and say, Umar bin Al-Khattab asks permission; and if she gives permission,
then bury me (there) and if she does not, then take me to the grave-yard of the Muslims.
To understand the significance of this tradition one needs to be aware that when someone dies under
Sunni and Shia Fiqh the deceased can be buried in three places:
1.
His ancestral graveyard
2.
A Muslim graveyard
3.
Land belonging to somebody else.
For the first two options, no express permission is required BUT the third option requires the express
permission of the owners of that Land. Now let us consider the facts in this tradition:
Umar is stabbed
He asks the express permission of Ayesha to be buried with Abu Bakr and Rasulullah (s)
Ayesha said that she had reserved this plot for herself, but would allow Umar to be buried
there.
Umar would not need to have asked for permission to be buried in the Muslim graveyard, and he also
acknowledges this, stating if Ayesha rejects his request then take me to the grave-yard of the
Muslims. The Hadith that Abu Bakr cited would mean that all that the Prophet owned became
Sadaqah for the poor, so why did Umar not seek the permission of the Muslims, after all he was
essentially going to be buried on land that they owned? The fact that Umar asked for the express
permission of Ayesha proves that this plot belonged to her, and she admits this saying I had the idea
of having this place for myself. According to Ahlul Sunnah, Rasulullah (s) was buried at the very
place where he died and this was in the house of Ayesha which belonged to Rasulullah (s). Rasulullah
(s) was not buried in the Muslims graveyard he was buried in his own land. Ayesha had reserved her
burial place next to Rasulullah (s), and this could only have been done if she had inherited this space
from Rasulullah (s). If she was not the inheritor (owner) of this plot then why did Umar seek her
permission to be buried there? This was land that was privately owned and it was distinct from the
Muslim graveyard which is why he turned to Ayesha, Waris of that land to seek permission to be
buried there. If Prophets leave no inheritance then why did Ayesha inherit this plot of land from
Rasulullah (s)?
Proof Nine Umar giving Ayesha possession of

the very same land that Abu Bakr denied Sayyida
Fatima (as) is proof that the Hadith our property
will not be inherited, whatever we leave is
sadaqah is false
Anyhow what is even more extremely surprising is that Hadhrat Ayesha who silenced the other wives
of the Holy Prophet [saww] by addressing them that they are not entitled to inheritance herself gets a
better deal!
It is narrated in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 39, Number 521:
The Prophet concluded a contract with the people of Khaibar to utilize the land on the
condition that half the products of fruits or vegetation would be their share. The Prophet used
to give his wives one hundred Wasqs each, eighty Wasqs of dates and twenty Wasqs of barley.
(When Umar became the Caliph) he gave the wives of the Prophet the option of either having
the land and water as their shares, or carrying on the previous practice. Some of them chose
the land and some chose the Wasqs, and Aisha chose the land.
Comment
It is indeed sad that Ayesha inherited the very land that her father had denied Sayyida Fatima (as).
This is clear from Sahih Al- Bukhari: Volume 4, Book 53, Number 325:
Narrated Aisha: She used to ask Abu Bakr for her share from the property of Allahs
Apostle which he left at Khaibar, and Fadak, and his property at Medina (devoted for charity).
Abu Bakr refused to give her that property and said, I will not leave anything Allahs Apostle
used to do, because I am afraid that if I left something from the Prophets tradition, then I
would go astray. (Later on) Umar gave the Prophets property (of Sadaqah) at Medina to Ali
and Abbas, but he withheld the properties of Khaibar and Fadak in his custody and said,
These two properties are the Sadaqah which Allahs Apostle used to use for his expenditures
and urgent needs.
The above narrations clearly demonstrate that Khaybar, from which Fatima (as) claimed her share,
should have been given to her as inheritance. Abu Bakr disallowed her claim on the basis that the
Prophet of Allah (s) did not bequeath an inheritance. The shares to be given to the family of the
deceased are set out in Sura Nisa Verse 11:
inheritance; if only one, her share is a half. For parents, a sixth share of the inheritance to
each, if the deceased left children; if no children, and the parents are the (only) heirs, the
mother has a third; if the deceased Left brothers (or sisters) the mother has a sixth. (The
distribution in all cases (s) after the payment of legacies and debts. Ye know not whether your
parents or your children are nearest to you in benefit. These are settled portions ordained by
Allah; and Allah is All-knowing, Al-wise.
Sayyida Fatimah was entitled to half of the Prophets possessions. The next verse states that the
wives were entitled to an eighth.
In what your wives leave, your share is a half, if they leave no child; but if they leave a child, ye
get a fourth; after payment of legacies and debts. In what ye leave, their share is a fourth, if ye
leave no child; but if ye leave a child, they get an eighth; after payment of legacies and debts. If
the man or woman whose inheritance is in question, has left neither ascendants nor
descendants, but has left a brother or a sister, each one of the two gets a sixth; but if more
than two, they share in a third; after payment of legacies and debts; so that no loss is caused
(to any one). Thus is it ordained by Allah; and Allah is All-knowing, Most Forbearing.
The instructions of the Quran are clear and unambiguous, with regard to 1/2, 1/4th and 1/8th of the
deceaseds wealth. The above narration of Sahih al Bukhari clearly shows that Umar divided Khaybar
in the days of his Caliphate among the wives of the Prophet (s) and gave them the option of owning
the land or taking the wasaq (i.e. share of the crops), with Ayesha choosing the land. Is it not amazing
that Sayyida Fatima (as) who was under Quranic law entitled to half of her fathers Estate received
nothing from Abu Bakr, whilst the wives of Abu Bakr who were only entitled to an eighth of the
Prophets inheritance, inherited the ENTIRE land of Khaybar that belonged to the Prophet!
Now perhaps al Khider could answer us these questions:
If The Prophet [saww] did not leave behind material inheritance, as Abu Bakr quoted, then
how is it that Hadhrat Ayesha, the Wife of the Holy Prophet [saww] inherited? And how is it that the
Daughter of the Holy Prophet [saww] was deprived of inheritance?
Who was right in his dealings? Abu Bakr or Umar? They both cant be right because both of
them contradicted one another and one of them had seriously violated the laws of inheritance?
If Hadhrat Abu Bakr was right in his claim, then Umar and Ayesha not only went against the
actions of the first Caliph but also went against the Prophets Hadeeth and as such against the
Holy Quran. And if Hadhrat Abu Bakr was wrong, then who will pay for the wrong of confiscation?
Proof Ten Umars giving Rasulullahs property in

Madina to Maula Ali and Abbas is proof that the
Hadeeth Our property will not be inherited,
whatever we leave is Sadaqah is false
We read in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 53, Number 325 with regards to the claim of Sayyida
Fatima (as):
Narrated Ayesha: (mother of the believers) After the death of Allah s Apostle Fatima the
She used to ask Abu Bakr for her share from the property of Allahs Apostle which he left at
Khaibar, and Fadak, and his property at Medina (devoted for charity). Abu Bakr refused to give
her that property and said, I will not leave anything Allahs Apostle used to do, because I am
afraid that if I left something from the Prophets tradition, then I would go astray. (Later on)
Umar gave the Prophets property (of Sadaqa) at Medina to Ali and Abbas, but he withheld the
properties of Khaibar and Fadak in his custody and said, These two properties are the
Sadaqa which Allahs Apostle used to use for his expenditures and urgent needs. Now their
management is to be entrusted to the ruler. (Az-Zuhrl said, They have been managed in this
way till today.)
1.
If the Hadeeth (Prophets leave no inheritance) was true why did Umar violate the actions of
Rasulullah (s) and hand this property of Rasulullah (s) over to Ali and Abbas?
2.
If Imam Ali and Abbas werent entitled to this property (due to the Hadeeth) why did they
accept it?
3.
Abu Bakr said that all that the Prophet leaves becomes Sadaqa upon his death. The tradition
says Umar gave the Prophets property (of Sadaqa) at Medina to Ali and Abbas If this is true,
how could Ali (as) and Abbas accept this property when Sadaqa is haraam on the family of Ali
(as) and Abbas (ra)? Were Umar, Ali (as) and Abbas ignorant of the ruling?
4.
Why are there completely different views taken by the two Khaleefas over the inheritance of
the Prophet, evidenced from just this one narration. Abu Bakr said that Fadak belonged to the
Muslims as Sadaqa, Umars attitude was that it came under the control of the Khaleefa! Which of
these individuals is telling the truth?
If we accept the Hadeeth Abu Bakr attributed to the Prophet (s), then we have to question the integrity
of the companions of the Prophet, two of whom the Ahlul Sunnah count as Rightly Guided Khaleefas
are the Ahlul Sunnah content with that? This would be an unpalatable proposition, but you cant
have your cake and eat it You cannot accept the Hadeeth as Saheeh and also accept the integrity of
three Sahaba that openly violated the instructions of the Prophet.
For us, the matter is clear cut, Umars bestowing the property of the Prophet and Imam Ali (as) and
Abbas accepting it, is proof that the Hadeeth was a lie. Upon the death of Rasulullah (s) the property
of the Prophet (s) did not become Sadaqa, rather it went to the heirs of the Prophet (s). It is on this
very basis the Umar gave these properties to Ali (as) and Abbas, as can be evidenced by the
biography of Caliph Umar bin Abdul Aziz by Sunni scholar Abdul Aziz who on page 256 wrote whilst
discussing Fadak:
During the era of Umar, when the Muslims acquired victories, and their hardships decreased,
he contemplated returning it to the heirs of Rasulullah (s), and accordingly did so. Hadhrat Ali
(ra) and Hadhrat Abbas (ra) approached him, disputing over the matter, but he refused to make
any decision and said that they were better informed of the situation than him.
We appeal to justice if the Hadeeth recited by Abu Bakr is correct, namely that Prophets leave no
inheritance, why did Umar regard Ali (as) and Abbas as the heirs of Rasulullah (s) and hand over his
(s) properties to them? If everything is distributed to charity, then the role of an heir is completely
otiose. Umars recognising that heirs existed and accordingly handing over the assets of Rasulullah (s)
to them proves that even he doubted the authenticity of the Hadeeth recited by Abu Bakr.
Proof Eleven Rasulullah (s) opened a thousand

doors of knowledge for Hadhrat Ali (as) who
remained ignorant of the Hadeeth whatever we

(i.e. prophets) leave is sadaqah
As evidence we shall rely on Tafseer Kabeer Volume 2 page 233 In Ali Safathi Adam wa Nuh
Hadhrat Ali said Rasulullah (s) taught me one thousand doors of knowledge, and every door
contained another thousand doors of knowledge proves that it is false
Recognised Sunni scholars have recorded the following:
Umar ibn al Khattab used to seek refuge with Allah from every difficult question or case for
which there is no Abu Hasan in which he was not present.
1. Tareekhul Khulafa by al Hafidh Jalaladeen Suyuti page 178;
2. al-Istiab, by Ibn Abd al-Barr, v3, page 39;
3. al-Tabaqat, by Ibn Sad, v2, page 338
Hadhrat Ali (as)s superiority in resolving disputes is even acknowledged by the Wahabie scholar
Syed Abul Hasan Nadwi, he writes:
A number of reports testify that the Prophet said: Ali is most capable among you to deliver a
correct judgement. Ali is on record that he was a comparatively younger man when the
Prophet asked him to go to Yemen. Ali reports: thereupon I said to the Apostle of God You
are sending me to a people who would be having disputes among them but I have no
experience of deciding cases. The Prophet replied, Allah will help you to say only what is
right and just and you would be yourself satisfied by it. Ali then adds that he never had any
doubt about the correctness of his judgement since then. Umar was often exacerbated if Ali
was not available to solve an entangled problem. He often used to say: Umar would have been
ruined if Ali was not there.
The Life of Caliph Ali, page 202 , by Abul Hasan Nadwi
Comment
The tradition proves that the knowledge of Abu Bakr was not even an iota compared to that
possessed by Hadhrat Ali (as). Umar depended on Maula Ali in resolving disputes. Rasulullah (s)
taught Hadhrat Ali one thousand doors of knowledge, and yet he failed to tell him that Prophets leave
no inheritance, rather this was a top secret that only reached the ears of Abu Bakr.
Let us not forget that Maula Ali (as) shared the virtues of past Prophets, as is evidenced in the
following esteemed Sunni works:
1.
Nur al Absar, page 6 by Shiblinji
2.
Riyadh al Nadira Volume 2 page 239, Dhikr Ali ibn Abi Talib
3.
Tafseer al-Kabeer, by Fakhrudeen al-Razi, under the commentary of the Verse of Imprecation
(Mubahila), v2 p288.
4.
Mujam al-Adbaa, by Yaqut al-Hamawi, Volume 2 page 321
Allamah Yaqut al-Hamawi in his book Mujam al-Adba has copied down material from various elderly
Sunni scholars/authors, as at one stage, he clearly stated:

These written books which I copied from and I also copied from books by Arabs, Hadiths and
history books written by literature men and hadith scholars
In Volume 2 page 321, Yaqut Hamawi has recorded the following Hadith from the work of Imam
Abdurazzaq al-Sanani:
: :
)
.(
Abdurazzaq Muamar Zuhri Saeed ibn Musayib Abu Hurayrah from Holy Prophet
(pbuh): Whoever wishes to see Adam in his knowledge, Nuh in his determination, Ibrahim in
his morals , Musa in his sublimity , Isa in his devotion and Muhammed in his patience and
guidance, then he should look at Ali bin Abi Talib.
Mujam al-Adbaa, by Yaqut al-Hamawi, Volume 2 page 321
Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani in Taqreeb al-Tahdeeb has declared Abdurazzq al-Sanani as Thiqa Hafiz,
Muamar as Thiqa Thabt while about Zuhri he wrote: He was a Faqih and Hafiz and there is an
agreement on his great status, exellence and his firmness. About Saeed ibn Musayib he
wrote: He was among the great, firm fuqahaa Ulamaa. There is an agreement that his mursal
narrations are the most authentic of all. Al-Madini said: I do not know a Tabayee more
compassed with knowledge than him.
Proof Twelve The failure of Rasulullah (s) to tell

his Wasi (Ali) that our property will not be
sadaqah (to be used for charity) is further proof
that it is false
We have already cited the words of the Prophet (s), right at the beginning of his mission. The Prophet
(s) said at the Feast of Kinsmen before his close relatives the following about Hadhrat Ali:
This is my brother, Wasi (agent) and successor among you. Listen to him and obey him.
1. Tareekh Tabari, (English translation) by W.M.Watt, Vol 6 pp 90-91
2. Tareekh ibn Atheer, Vol 2 p 62
3. Musnad Ahmed Ibn Hanbal, Vol 1 p 159
4. Khasais, by al Nasai, p 18
Comment
The role of a Wasi is an administrative one, to pay off any debts and oversee the transition of the
deceaseds property to his legal heirs. Now is it believable that Rasulullah (s) appoint Imam Ali (as)
his Wasi but fails to inform him that upon his death he leaves no inheritance rather all that he owns
becomes Sadaqah for the Muslims? How could Rasulullah (s) fail to convey this message to his
appointed Wasi, but remember to tell Abu Bakr? Of interest is the fact that we read the testimony of
Ibn Masud in Tareekhul Khulafa page 178:
The most knowledgeable of the people of Madinah in the laws of inheritance and in judicial
decisions is Ali ibn Abi Talib.
Is it not curious that Maula Ali (as) was the most knowledge amongst the Sahaba on the laws of
inheritance, but was completely ignorant of the laws in relation to Prophetic inheritance, when he
should have known more than anyone, having been appointed as the Wasi of the Prophet!
Proof Thirteen Maula Ali (as)s possession of the

material possessions of the Prophet (s) proves that
the our property will not be inherited, whatever
we leave is sadaqah is false
We read in Ahlul Sunnahs work Manaqib Mutazvee, by Mullah Muhammad Saleh al Kashafi, this is
an old Sunni work and was prsesnted to the Indian ruler Shah Jahan at the time of completion in the
16th Century. These two narrations are on page 299:
Nuzlul Sahireen has this narration from Ibn Fakhree I heard the Commander of the Faithful on
the pulpit of Kufa whilst wearing the cloak helmet, ring of the Prophet (s), and carrying his (s)
sword say Ask me whilst I am still amongst you, since an ocean of knowledge is within my
heart, by Allah! If a cloth is placed before me I will issues verdicts for the people of the Torah
from the Torah, for the people of Injeel from the Injeel, if Allah (swt) gave (these books) the
authority to speak they would confirm Whatever Ali is stating is correct.
The Hadith cited by Abu Bakr would suggest that whatever the Prophet (s) owned had to immediately
be treated as Sadaqah and distributed to the poor and needy upon his death. If this was indeed the
case then how is it Maula Ali (as) continued to keep possession of the cloak helmet, ring and sword of
the Prophet (s)? Maula Ali (as) had advocated in the defence of the position of his wife during the
Fadak dispute, it is interesting to note that even after that dispute Maula Ali (as) continued to adhere to
the position that the Hadeeth Abu Bakr cited was false, evidenced by the fact that rather than
distribute the possessions of the Porphet (s) as they were now allegedly Sadaqa, he continued to
keep them in his possession and actually wore them.
Ibn Hajr al Makki al-Haythami writing on Imam Mahdi (as) states:
Imam Mahdi shall bring those things that had been removed from Bayt al Muqaddas,
including the coffin of Sakeena, the commandments for Bani Israeel, the divinely inspired
writings of Musa, the clothes of Adam, the stick of Musa, the pulpit of Sulayman and two
heavenly dishes that Allah (swt) sent to the Israelites, that will be whiter than milk.
Al Qol al Mukhthasar fee alamat al Mahdi al muntadhar page 42 [published in Riyadh]
Here we see that Imam Mahdi (as) will have possession of the belongings of past Prophets. In theory
this should be impossible since the alleged Hadeeth would suggest that such belongings would have
been distributed to the poor and needy of those times, so how will these distributed items reach the
hands of Imam Mahdi (as)? Even if we for arguments sake accept that Imam Mahdi (as) will have
these items, the alleged Hadeeth suggests that all items that Rasulullah (s) possessed converted into
Sadaqa upon his death. This being the case, then it would be haraam for Imam Mahdi (as) to have
possession to these Prophetic relics since they are sadaqa and the possession of sadaqa is haraam
on the descendants of Rasulullah (s)! Are Nawasib such as Al Khider going to suggest that Imam
Mahdi (as) will be so ignorant of the Shariah that he will have in his possession items that are haraam
for him to possess? The possession of Prophetic relics in the physical control of Imam Mahdi (as)
proves that the Hadeeth Abu Bakr cited was false.
Proof Fourteen The anger of Sayyida Fatima (as)

upon hearing the Hadeeth our property will not be
sadaqah (to be used for charity) is proof that it

was a lie
1.
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 53, Number 325, Book of Khums
2.
3.
Izala tul Khifa, Part 2 Volume 3 page 109
4.
Sunan al Kabeera, Volume 6 page 301 Kitab Fay

al-Bukhari under the Chapter of The battle of Khaibar, Arabic-English,v5, tradition #546, pp 381-383,
narrates from Ayesha that:
.. Fatimah became angry with Abu Bakr and kept away from him, and did not talk to him till
husband Ali, her at night without informing Abu Bakr and he said the funeral prayer by
himself.
Sunan Kabeera:
When the Khalifa recited the Hadeeth We the Prophets leave no inheritance, Fatima became
angry at Abu Bakr and never spoke to him until she died
In Sahih Bukhari Volume 5 Hadeeth 61, we read the honour bestowed on Sayyida Fatima (as), by
Rasulullah (s):
We appeal to justice.Abu Bakr recited a false Hadeeth and Sayyida Fatima (as) became angry at him,
and whoever angers Sayyida Fatima (as) also angers Allah (swt) and his Rasul (s) and cannot be
deemed the Khalifa of Rasulullah (s).
Sayyida Fatima (as) was truthful and Masum
We read in Surah Aale Imran verse 38:

When she was delivered she said: O my Lord! behold! I am delivered of a female child! And
Allah knew best what she brought forth, and nowise is the male like the female. I have named
her Mary and I commend her and her offspring to Thy protection from the Evil One the
Rejected.
Al-Quran, Surah Ale Imran, Ayah 38, translated by Yusufali
Rasulullah (s) made the same dua for his daughter. Imam of Ahlul Sunnah Qadhi Thanaullah Panee
Pathee in Tafseer Mazhari Volume 2 page 41, under the commentary of this verse states:
It is true that when Rasulullah (s) married his daughter to Ali he made this supplication O
Creator I commend her and her offsprings to Thy protection from the Evil One the Rejected.
This supplication has been narrated from Ibn Habban and was also made for Hadhrat Ali.
Rasulullah (s) had a greater right than the wife of Imran to have the dua accepted. We are
confident, neigh definite that Sayyida Fatima and her children are protected from Shaytan.
Also of relevance is the fact that Dr Tahir al Qadri in Al Durratul Baydh fee Manaqib Fatima al Zahra
(as) page 76:
Hadrath Abdullah ibn Masud narrates that the Prophet (s) said Hadhrat Fatima had protected
her exalted status and purity in such a manner that Allah (swt) deemed the Fire of Hell to be
haraam on her descendents.
Qadri took this Hadeeth from the following esteemed Sunni works:
1.
Musnad al Bazar, Volume 5 page 223
2.
Mustadrak al Hakim, Volume 3 page 165
3.
Hilayat al Awliya, Volume 4 page 188
4.
Meezan al Itidal, Volume 5 page 261
5.
Faydh al Qadeer, Volume 2 page 462
Sayyida Fatima (as) was Masum like her father, and if an infallible personality is angry at someone, so
is Allah (swt), and when Sayyida Fatima was angered at Abu Bakrs recital of this Hadeeth, then there
is no doubt that this Hadeeth was a lie, otherwise she would never have got upset. She was angered
at a man unworthy of the Khilafat who issued a ruling on the basis of a false Hadeeth that contradicted
the Quran.
Proof Fifteen Abu Bakrs asking for witnesses to

support the claim of Sayyida Fatima (as) serves as
a proof that the Hadeethour property will not be
sadaqah (to be used for charity) is false
This point is worthy of note. Abu Bakr is praised for his determination in sticking to the Sunnah of the
Prophet.He claimed that he had heard the Prophet (s) say Our property will not be inherited, whatever
we (i.e. prophets) leave is Sadaqah. His citing these words should have constituted conclusive proof,
that rendered the claim of Sayyida Fatima (as) baseless. When he allegedly heard these words from
Rasulullah (s) why did he continue to entertain the claim of Sayyida Fatima (as) and demand that she
produce witnesses who could verify her claim? The level of confusion is demonstrated e.g by
contemporary Deobandi scholar Sayad Athar Husain who in his Book the Glorious Caliphate praises
the Khalifas.Of those who have appraised this work are none other than Sayyid Abu Hasan Nadwi
who himself wrote the introduction to this book,praising the author and the accuracy of his work. On
pages 42 and 43 of this book Husain advances this appraisal of Abu Bakr:
To him the word of the Prophet was the law. In obeying it, he went to the length of incurring
the displeasure of the beloved daughter of the same Master. She claimed he right, upon the
basis of inheritance, in an orchard at Fidak and some other property of her father. Abu Bakr
pointed out that the Prophet had said, No one shall be my heir, that which I leave will be for
alms. Now therefore, the family of the Prophet shall not eat of these lands, for by the Lord I
will alter not a little of that which he hath ordained. But added he, If thou art certain that
they father have thee this property I will accept they word and fulfil his promise. She replied
she had no evidence except of the aged nurse, Umme Ayman. So Abu Bakr did not alter his
decision. When Ali remonstrated with him he replied, I swear my one who holds my life that
the relations of the Prophet are dearer to me that my own relations. In the matter of the dispute
over the property left by him, I have not deviated one hairs breadth in my decision from the
rule of the Prophet himself.
Umme Ayman is portrayed by the author as aged, so now we also have being too old as a ground to
reject witness testimony. Whilst Husain intentionally makes no reference to the fact that Sayyida
Fatima (as) also had other witnesses, we shall focus purely on the decision of Abu Bakr. Abu Bakr
rejects the claim of Sayyida Fatima (as) by pointing out that her father (s) said that he left no
inheritance. He also tells Imam Ali (as) that he will never deviate from the Sunnah of the Prophet (s).
If Abu Bakr was definite that this was the Sunnah of the Prophet, having heard it himself why did he
then add But If thou art certain that they father gave thee this property I will accept they word
and fulfil his promise. Having ruled on the Hadeeth heard from the Prophet (s) why add the words
But? The word But serves as clear proof that he himself didnt believe in the truth of the Hadeeth he
was advancing! Its like somebody saying I went shopping yesterday, and it began to rain so heavily
that I had to out my umbrella up, BUT I may be wrong! Is this logical?
Proof Sixteen Abu Bakrs failure to implement the

Hadith our property will not be inherited,
whatever we (i.e. prophets) leave is sadaqah (to
be used for charity) is further proof that it is false
If the Hadeeth is indeed correct and everything owned by Prophets becomes Sadaqah then why was
this land not distributed by Abu Bakr to his Muslim subjects? Why did he keep it under his own
control? He had taken the land from Sayyida Fatima (as) claiming that the land belonged to all
Muslims as it was Sadaqah so why did he not distribute this Sadaqah during his reign? His failure to
do so serves as clear proof that he concocted the Hadeeth to deny Sayyida Fatima (as) her right.
Proof Seventeen The fact that Sadaqa is haraam

on Banu Hashim is proof that the Hadeeth Our
property will not be inherited, whatever we leave is
Sadaqah is false
To understand this argument one needs to analyse the significance of Abu Bakrs words as set out in
Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 57, Number 60 reads as follows:
Narrated Aisha:
Fatima sent somebody to Abu Bakr asking him to give her inheritance from the Prophet from
what Allah had given to His Apostle through Fai (i.e. booty gained without fighting). She asked
for the Sadaqa (i.e. wealth assigned for charitable purposes) of the Prophetat Medina, and
Fadak, and what remained of the Khumus (i.e., one-fifth) of the Khaibar booty. Abu Bakr said,
Allahs Apostle said,We (Prophets), our property is not inherited, and whatever we leave is
Sadaqa, but Muhammads Family can eat from this property, i.e.Allahs property, but they have
no right to take more than the food they need.
Abu Bakr is claiming that all the Prophet (s) left converts into Sadaqa, and the Ahlul bayt (as) are
entitled to get their share of this Sadaqa. How can this Hadeeth be Saheeh when Sadaqa is haraam
on the family of Maula Ali (as)? In this connection we this Hadeeth in Saheeh Muslim Book 5, Number
2347, Bab al Zakath, under the Sub heading The posterity of the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon
him) is not allowed to make use of sadaqa includes these words of the Prophet (s):
It does not become the family of Muhammad (to accept) sadaqat for they are the impurities of
people.
We also read this tradition in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Hadeeth Number 306:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Al-Hasan bin All took a date from the dates of the Sadaqa and put itin his mouth. The Prophet
said (to him) in Persian, Kakh, kakh! (i.e.Dont you know that we do not eat the Sadaqa (i.e.
what is given in charity) (charity is the dirt of the people)).
In this connection we pose five questions:
1.
If Imam Hasan (as) was prohibited from eating a single date that was Sadaqa, how could
Rasulullah (s) have left an edict that after his death the family of Ali (as) could satiate their
stomachs with the same Sadaqa that he (s) deemed the dirt of the people?
2.
If we accept the ruling that Sadaqa is haraam on the Ahlul bayt (as) are we then saying that
Khaleefa Abu Bakr was prepared to satiate the stomachs of the Ahlul bayt (as) with haraam food?
3.
Were the family of Maula Ali (as) so ignorant of the Shariah that they were making a claim to
Sadaqa land that was haraam on them?
4.
If the Hadeeth that Abu Bakr cited is true, did Rasulullah (s) fail to tell the Ahlul bayt (as) that
Sadaqa was halaal on them after his death? If so, why did he make such a glaring omission?
5.
Both Sunni and Shia schools of thought are in absolute agreement that Sadaqa is haraam on
the Banu Hashim. We can for example cite the Fatawa of Deobandi scholar Ashraf Ali Thanvi says
in Behishthi Zewar, under the Chapter of Zakat:It is not permissible to give zakt to the
progeny of Hadrat Ftimah radiallahu anha, the progeny of Hadrat Ali radiallahu anhu,
Hadrat Abbas radiallahu anhu, Hadrat Jafar radiallahu anhu, Hadrat Aqeel radiallahu anhu,
Hadrat Hrith bin Abdul Muttalib radiallahu anhu. Similarly, the charities which have been
made wajib by the Shariah cannot be given to the progeny of the above Sahabah. Such
charities are, nazr, kaffarah, ushr, sadaqatul fitr. Apart from these, all other charities can be
given to them.
How could the Sunni Ulema past and present give such a ruling when Abu Bakr claimed the Prophet
(s) deemed his inheritance as Sadaqa that the Ahlul bayt (as) could benefit from? If they believe that
the Hadeeth was true why no Sunni scholar has ever issued a Fatawa deeming Sadaqa halaal on
Sayyids, by relying on the Hadeeth cited by Abu Bakr?
Comment
The very fact that Sadaqa is haraam on Ahlul bayt (as) serves as clear evidence that the Hadeeth
quoted by Abu Bakr was a lie. The Sunni Ulema are in complete agreement that Sadaqa was and
remains haraam on Sayyids until the Day of Judgment. Sunni aqeedah on this matter serves as proof
that even they have rejected the Hadeeth that Abu Bakr attributed to the Prophet. The Ahlul Sunnah
cannot have their cake and eat it. You cannot believe that Sadaqa is haraam on Ahlul bayt (as), and
also believe Abu Bakrs claim that they were entitled to Sadaqa.
How could something that the Prophet (s) deemed haraam during his lifetime suddenly become Halal
when he died? This is clearly illogical and further supports our stance that the Hadeeth Abu Bakr cited
was a fabrication.
Proof Eighteen Imam Zaynul Abideen (as)s

possession of the sword belonging to the Prophet
(s) is proof that the Hadeeth Our property will not
be inherited, whatever we leave is Sadaqah is
false
Narrated Ali bin Al-Husain:
That when they reached Medina after returning from Yazid bin Muawaiya after the martyrdom
of Husain bin Ali (may Allah bestow His Mercy upon him), Al-Miswar bin Makhrama met him
and said to him, Do youhave any need you may order me to satisfy? Ali said, No. AlMiswar said, Will you give me the sword of Allahs Apostle for I am afraid that people may take
it from you by force? By Allah, if you give it to me, they will never be able to take it till I die.
The fact that Imam Zaynul Abideen (as) possessed the sword belonging to Rasulullah (s) could only
have been attained if it had been passed on to him by his ancestors. In the tradition, it is clear from
the words of Al-Miswar Will you give me the sword of Allahs Apostle that this was the personal
possession of the Prophet (s). If the Prophet left no inheritance then the Ahlul bayt (as) would not
have kept this sword in their possession. Abu Bakr asserted that all possessions of the Prophet (s)
became Sadaqa upon his death, Sadaqa is haraam on Sayyids, is it believable that the Ahlul bayt
kept hold of items which the Shariah deemed haraam for them to have? The fact that the grandson of
Maula Ali (as) had in his possession the sword of Rasulullah (s) is major proof that the Hadeeth is a
fabrication.
Proof Nineteen The Dua of Prophet Zakariya

(as) proves that the Hadeeth our property will not
be inherited, whatever we (i.e. prophets) leave is
sadaqah is false
This is a supplication made by Prophet Zakariya (as) wherein the Prophet (as) prays for someone to
inherit him.
Praying: O my Lord! infirm indeed are my bones, and the hair of my head doth glisten with
grey: but never am I unblest, O my Lord, in my prayer to Thee! Now I fear (what) my relatives
(and colleagues) (will do) after me: but my wife is barren: so give me an heir as from Thyself,
(One that) will (truly) represent me, and represent the posterity of Jacob; and make him, O my
Lord! one with whom Thou art well-pleased!
Al-Quran, Surah Maryam, Ayah 4 6, translated by Yusufali
Comment
We have already proven that the fear of Prophet (s) of his relatives squandering his possessions led
him to make this supplication. If Prophets leave no inheritance then this supplication would be
pointless.Why make a dua to have an Heir to inherit when one leaves no inheritance, rather all that he
owns becomes Sadaqah for the people when he dies? This explicit dua of Zakariya (as) serves as a
proof that the Hadeeth that Abu Bakr advanced was fabricated.
Proof Twenty Rasulullah (s)s objection to the

Sahaba giving away over a third of their property to
charity is a proof that the Hadeeth our property
will not be inherited, whatever we (i.e. prophets)
leave is sadaqah is false
In theory a person can dispose of his property however he chooses, but the Islamic Shariah places a
condition that he make aWasiyya (will) stipulating where his property should be distributed. This
should not be confused with the payment of legacies i,e shares.So to clarify this term we quote from
Ahmad ibn Naqib al Misris Reliance of the Traveller A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law,
translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller, Revised Edition, 1994, amana publications, page 462:
The difference between will (Wasiyya) and estate division (irth) is that a will is the act of a
living person disposing of his own property, even if it is to be implemented after his death,
while estate division occurs after his death according to the Koranic rules of inheritance.
In other words, in his or her will a person specifies whether anyone, and if so, how much and who
receives part of the property as bequest(gift).
Nasibi cannot argue that Rasulullah (s) had made a will that all he owned goes to Charity, because
according to the Ahlul Sunnah, Rasulullah (s) did not leave a will at all.
Narrated Talha bin Musarrif:
I asked Abdullah bin Abu Aufa, Did the Prophet make a will? He replied, No, I asked him,
How is it then that the making of a will has been enjoined on people, (or that they are ordered
to make a will)? He replied, The Prophet bequeathed Allahs Book (i.e. Quran).
Sahih Al-Bukhari, Book of Wills and Testaments Volume 4, Book 51, Number 3
In the absence of a bequest the specified shares set out under the Quran applied and Sayyida Fatima
(as) was entitled to half of her fathers Estate. If for arguments sake we were to accept that there was
a will to give away al his property to Muslims,Nasibi should know that Rasulullah (s) had himself said
that giving away anything under a will above one third is haraam! As evidence we have the words of
Rasulullah (s):
Musab b. Sad reported on the authority of his father. I was ailing. I sent message to Allahs
Apostle (may peace be upon him) saying: Permit me to give away my property as I like. He
refused. I (again) said: (Permit me) to give away half. He (again refused). I (again said): Then
one-third. He (the Holy Prophet) observed silence after (I had asked permission to give away)
one-third. He (the narrator) said: It was then that endowment of one-third became permissible.
Sahih Muslim, The Book of Bequests (Kitab Al-Wasiyya) Book 013, Number 3994
Narrated Ibn Abbas:
I recommend that people reduce the proportion of what they bequeath by will to the fourth (of
the whole legacy), for Allahs Apostle said, One-third, yet even one third is too much.
Sahih al-Bukhari, Book of Wills and Testaments Volume 4, Book 51, Number 6
Narrated Ibn Abbas:

The Prophet said, Give the Faraid, (the shares prescribed in the Quran) to those who are
entitled to receive it, and then whatever remains, should be given to the closest male relative
of the deceased.
Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 80, Number 729
Did Sayyida Fatimah (as) not have rights like other people? Bequeathing property to charity requires a
will and the Ahlul Sunnah believe that the Prophet (s) never left one. Even with such a legally binding
will, Rasulullah (s) said only one-third of the deceaseds property could be charity, how could the
Prophet (s) then contradict his own ruling and give away all his property as charity? We cannot accept
that Rasulullah (s) would act in such a hypocritical manner, and the above two ahadith Hadeeth serve
as further proof that the Hadeeth advanced by Abu Bakr, contradicted a ruling of the Prophet (s) and
is therefore false!
Proof Twenty One The Prophet (s) inheriting

proves that the Hadith recited by Abu Bakr our
property will not be inherited, whatever we (i.e.
prophets) leave is sadaqah (to be used for
charity) is a lie
As evidence we shall cite the following esteemed Sunni works:
1.
Madarij un Nubuwwa Volume 2 page 756-757 Dhikr Taqseem Meeras al Nabi
2.
Izalat ul Khifa Volume 3 page 90
3.
Qurut ul Aynain Part 2 Dhikr Fadak page 228 by Shah Waliyullah Dehlavi
4.
Aftaab ai Hidayath page 240, Dhikr Fadak by Maulana Kareemudeen
5.
5. Tafseer Zia ul Quran by Peer Muhammad Karam Shah, Surah Maryam commentary
We read in Qurut al Aunain:

The great truthful one said that Rasulullah (s) said neither do we leave inheritance, nor do we
inherit from anyone, and this report is Muttawatir
We read in Aftaab:
The Sahih Hadeeth is present, namely that Prophets do no inherit, nor do they leave
inheritance, all they leave is Sadaqah
The three references assert that Sayyida Fatima (as) claimed her inheritance rights, and Abu Bakr
replied by saying that Prophets neither inherit nor do they leave any inheritance whatever we (i.e.
prophets) leave is Sadaqah (to be used for charity). And this Hadeeth according to the Ahlul Sunnah
is Sahih and Muttawatir.
The assertion that Prophets inherit from no one is a blatant lie and to prove our case, we advance the
following Sunni sources:
Rasulullah (s) inherited livestock belonging to his

father
We read in the following Sunni books:
1.
Dalail al Nubuwwah page 121 by Naeem Ahmad bin Abdullah al Safani (printed Hyderabad)
2.
Sirah Halabiyah, Volume 1 page 85 (Egypt print)
that Abdullah the father of the Prophet had five camels, a stable, and a herd of sheep which
Rasulullah (s) inherited from him.
Rasulullah (s) inherited a sword from his father

1.
Zaad al Maad Volume 1 page 48 Dhkir Sulha
2.
Seera Halbeeya Volume 3 page 247 Dhikr Sulha
3.
Mudharijathul Nubuwwa Chapter 11 Dhurby Sulha Akhzaath Volume 2 page 596
4.
Ruzatul Ahbaab page 299
We read in Zaad:
Rasulullah (s) owned nine swords,one was called Mashur.This was first sword that was
included amongst the possessions of Rasulullah (s) that he inherited from his father.
Rasulullah (s) inherited a male and female Servant

from his father
In al Maarif page 64, Dhikr Mawl Rasulullah (s) Ibn Qutaybah informs us:
Rasulullah (s) inherited a Servant called Shuqran from his father
Many Sunni sources confirm that Rasulullah (s) also inherited a female servant called Umm Ameen
Burra from his father and this is attested in the following esteemed Sunni works:
1.
al Bidaya wa al Nihaya, Volume 5 page 325 Dhikr Umm
2.
Dalail al Nubuwwa, page 1221
3.
Tabaqat al Kabeer, Volume 1 page 109
4.
Tareekh Khamees, Volume 2 page 18 Dhikr Mawaleeyath
5.
Naseem al Riyadh, Sharh Shifa Qadi Iyad Volume 3 page 420 Fadail Sahaba
6.
al Isaba, Volume 4 page 415 Fasl Fahmeen Urf ba Quneeyuth min al Nisa Dhikr Umm Ameen
7.
al Istiab, Dhikr Burkutha binte Thalba Volume page 243
8.
al Maarif, page 63 Dhikr Mawl Rasul
9.
al Ahkam al Sultanniya, English translation by Professor Wahba page 188
We read in Tabaqat:
Abd Allah left behind Umm Ayman (slave maid) five camels living on arak (a thorny tree) and a
flock of sheep, which the Prophet inherited.
al Ahkam al Sultanniya:
Al Waqidi has related that the Messenger of God, bless him and grant him peace, had
inherited from his father Abd Allah the Abbysinian Umm Ayman, whoses real name was
Baraka, five camels and some cattle.
We have proven from established Sunni works that Rasulullah (s) was indeed the heir of his father
and upon his death he inherited camels, livestock, a sword and two servants from him, one of them
Umm Ayman was the same Umm Ayman that Sayyida Fatima (as) presented as a witness during the
Fadak case. This refutes the claim of Abu Bakrs advocates that Rasulullah (s) did not inherit from
anyone. Sayyida Fatima (as) was the rightful heir of her fathers property, Abu Bakrs denying this
caused her wrath and his advancing this baseless Hadeeth is shameful.
Proof Twenty Two The tradition narrated by Abu

Bakr does not meet the standards of Hadeeth
authenticity set by the Sunni Ulema
The issue of proof is a key component required to arrive at a correct decision in a dispute. Abu Bakr
cited a single Hadeeth to strike out the inheritance claim, a Hadeeth that no one else had heard. If
justice really was being sought then clearly the onus was on Abu Bakr to prove the authenticity of the
Hadeeth, then we would have seen whether or not the requirement of witnesses could be met. No one
would have been located save Umar and Ayesha unless of course the Government adopted more
coercive methods. The scholars have developed certain rules as means of determining the
authenticity of a Hadeeth.We are quoting directly from Sirat-un Nabi Volume 1 page 42, by Hanafi
scholar Shibli Numani:
the following categories of reports are to be discredited without an enquiry into the
characters of their narrators:
1.
The traditions that are contrary to reason
2.
The traditions that go against accepted principles
3.
The traditions that belie common observations and physical experience
4.
The traditions that contradict the Quran or a Muttawatir Hadeeth
5.
The tradition that threatens severe punishment for a minor fault
6.
The tradition that sounds absurd and nonsensensical
7.
The tradition that promises big rewards for trivial acts of piety
8.
A tradition narrated by a single person who has never personally contacted the man
from whom he narrates
9.
A tradition that ought to have been known to all and sundry, but has only a single
narrator
10.
Any tradition concerning an incident so noteworthy that, if it had actually taken place,
it ought to have been related by many, and yet there is but a single narrator to it.
Seerat un-Nabi, Page 42

For the purposes of this discussion we shall refute this Hadeeth in light of rules 1, 2 and 10.
1. According to the Ahlul Sunnah a tradition contrary to reason is

false
Observation One
Our property will not be inherited, nor do we inherited whatever we (i.e. prophets) leave is Sadaqah
(to be used for charity)
Now the question that we ask is simple, are Prophets subject to the rules that they bring? The Ummah
were told not to lie, steal, fornicate, drink alcohol, was Rasulullah (s) also bound by these rules? Was
he bound by rules relating to Salat, Saum etc? If Rasulullah (s) is bound by all these rules, then why is
he exempt with regards to the Law of inheritance? Not every Prophet became a Head of State, nor did
every one attain land or property. Upon their deaths were their clothes and bowls down to the last
spoon distributed amongst the Ummah? If an individual has attained considerable possessions via
inheritance through his father and forefathers, and he is then subsequently given the mantle of
Prophethood, he must then immediately get rid of all that he inherited, he will die of hunger and thirst.
One cannot even guess why Allah (swt) would want his Prophet to live a life of dependency on his
Ummah. We cannot find such examples of extreme dependency from the reign of Umar. Just consider
the illogical thinking offered on this Sunni Website Benadir-Islam in their article Prophet Solomon
(Sulaiman):
Solomon inherited Davids prophethood and dominion. This was not a material inheritance, as
prophets do not bequeath their property. It is given away to the poor and needy, not to their relatives.
Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) said: The prophets property will not be inherited, and whatever we leave
is to be used for charity. (Sahih Al-Bukhari).
http://www.benadir-islam.com/sul.htm Cached
If the Hadeeth and Benadirs understanding is correct then this means that upon the death of his
father, Prophet Sulayman (as) should have become a Pauper rather than becoming a King.If for
Prophets-upon attaining Prophethood- the first inheritance that they attain becomes haraam on them,
what is a poor Prophet to do? He will go to the homes of the Kuffar begging for food whilst at the
same time condemning their pagan practices such as idol worship. What is the likelihood of him
receiving any form of food to fill his stomach, particularly when Allah (swt) mentions that past peoples
had killed Prophets? The Kuffar will want him to die as soon as possible. No doubt a Prophet in such
a situation would soon die of starvation. A very unusual situation develops. The Prophet has no
financial stability, he is penniless and has no support from his people, and his opponents refuse to
give him anything.
If it is said that words nor do we inherit in the tradition are wrong and the tradition only contains the
words,they dont leave any inheritance,meaning thereby they can inherit but leave no inheritance,
then a very unusual conclusion comes out from this Hadeeth. Let us cite an example:
A deceased father is survived by three sons. All he owned is divided up in three equal potions
between the brothers. After some time Allah (swt) bestows the mantle of Prophethood on the first
brother. Some time later the second brother dies, his inheritance is therefore divided between the
Prophet brother and brother three. The Prophet Brother now dies, everything that he owned including
his home and all its contents are automatically distributed to the Ummah. Has injustice not been
perpetuated against the third brother? This deceased brother benefited from the inheritance of his
father and brother, yet when he dies the brother is left without anything, everything that the Prophet
had has gone to the Ummah. The issue does not just end there. A widow and children survive the
Prophet; the responsibility to maintain their upkeep is now borne onto the shoulders of this surviving
brother. If he refuses to help them then they will in effect be rendered homeless fending for
themselves by begging on the streets.
Allah (swt) would never want a Prophets family to be treated in such an inhumane and unjust manner.
The unusual thing is that no verse has descended making it incumbent on the Ummah to give a
portion of their wealth to the Prophet (s). The Ummah were entitled to take all of the Prophets
possessions, but there was no duty to reciprocate that favour by meeting the needs of the poor
homeless surviving relatives. The only financial benefit that the Prophet has is in times of war. The
constant demands on the Prophet (s) by the Sahaba asking the same questions repeatedly led to an
order by Allah (swt) placing a requirement in Surah al-Mujadila verse 12
O ye who believe! When ye consult the Messenger in private, spend something in charity
before your private consultation. That will be best for you, and most conducive to purity (of
conduct). But if ye find not (the wherewithal), Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
Al-Quran, Surah Al-Mujadila, Ayah 12, translated by Yusufali
The failure of the Sahaba to make any form of payment led to this verse being revoked. If this verse
had not been revoked who would have fulfilled it? If the Sahaba were incapable of making charitable
contributions prior to seeing Rasulullah (s) what was the likelihood of them meeting the financial
needs and protecting the Prophets family that had become penniless and homeless upon his death?
The net conclusion of this Hadeeth is that upon his death, all that a Prophet owns goes to the
fortunate Ummah, but in return there is no onus on their part to meet the needs of his orphaned
children and widowed wife, they have to fend for themselves. Previous Prophets had many wives and
concubines so let us set another example for readers to ponder over:
A Prophet has many wives and concubines and has twenty children, whose age ranges from infant to
nearly baligh. The Prophet dies. That same night these grieving relatives are on the Street, homeless
and destitute since everything that the Prophet owned (Property and belongings) has now been
distributed amongst the Ummah. They now are destined to a life of poverty, fending through rubbish to
find food and depending on kind handouts from generous passers by. Every day is an uphill struggle
for survival, they thank the Spirit of the Prophet (s) that someone was kind enough to feed them.There
plight is just like that of the destitutes we see scowering through garbage cans and begging for money
outside Subways.
One should point out that in one of his articles al Khider has made the following claims:
It is well known that Dawud alayhis salam had 100 wives and 300 concubines. He had numerous
children from these wives and concubines.
If we apply the Hadeeth cited by Al Khider to the example we have just given,what this in effect means
is that on the Day that Prophet Dawood (as) died, Allah (swt) blessed his surviving relatives with the
honour of destitution, the Ummah took hold of all his material possessions, in his Kingdom, down to
the last brick and every content inside the house. Dawood (as) was therefore survived by one hundred
wives, three hundred concubines and numerous children,unable to inherit their deceased relatives
material possessions, penniless and without a home they were forced into a life of street begging to
satiate their stomachs.
Observation Two
Let us cite another scenario with some questions to ponder over:
A deceased man is survived by his wife and infant son. He leaves a large piece of land. His entire
income came from this land produce.
Based on these facts, what options are open for this widow and her son?
Option One She can administer the land herself,
Option Two She can remarry and get her new husband to provide for her and her son
Option Three She can spend her life living on charitable donations
Now which of these options were open to the wives of Rasulullah (s)?
Option One Not Possible. They were not allowed to inherit any land, as (according to Abu Bakr)
Prophets leave no inheritance.
Option Two Not possible. The wives of Rasulullah (s) were prohibited from remarrying.
Option Three Not possible. Charity is haraam on the Ahlul bayt (as) and the Ahlul Sunnah include
the wives as Ahlul bayt (as)
When none of these options were available to the wives of the Prophet (s) then how do you think they
survived? Did Abu Hurrayra knock from door to door every night to pick up any scraps of food and
bread for them? If anything,this example proves how illogical the Hadeeth advanced by Abu Bakr was.
If it was true then it in effect meant that wives of Rasulullah (s) would have been forced to live a life of
extreme poverty! It would simply not be logical for Allah (swt) to create a scenario that would in effect
force the wives of the Prophet (s) to live a life of extreme destitution, and of relevance is this narration
in Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 80, Number 725:
Narrated Sad bin Abi Waqqas:
I was stricken by an ailment that led me to the verge of death. The Prophet came to pay me a
visit. I said, O Allahs Apostle! I have much property and no heir except my single daughter.
Shall I give two-thirds of my property in charity? He said, No. I said, Half of it? He said,
No. I said, One-third of it? He said, You may do so, though one-third is also too much, for
it is better for you to leave your off-spring wealthy than to leave them poor, asking others for
help. And whatever you spend (for Allahs sake) you will be rewarded for it, even for a morsel
of food which you may put in the mouth of your wife.
If the Hadeeth advanced by Abu Bakr is true then it means that Rasulullah (s) had done exactly what
he had told Sad not to do! He (s) told Sad to give priority to the needs of his family, ensuring that any
charitable distribution does not render his family poor, but has no concern when it comes to the
upkeep of nine wives! The same Prophet (s) who deems the donating a third of his property to charity
as excessive, gives everything he owned (land, property) to charity! Is this logical?
Observation Three
The immediate distribution of property to charity would have impeded efforts of Prophets to spread the
Deen.
It needs to be recognised that charity does not just involve the immediate distribution of material
possessions. Such a hasty action, may well find a temporary solace, but it can stop longer term plans
in their tracks.Think logically the role of all Prophets was to spread the Deen. Charity is not just about
distributing material possession such as food / clothing to the poor and needy. Charity plays a major
educational function also and can in fact entail purchasing and administering fixed assets (buildings)
and material possessions (books, tables etc). In the West educational and religious organisations
(including Islamic Organisations) are granted the status of registered Charities, who as well as
distributing material possessions also purchase land / building so as to facilitate Dawah activities.
Land is used to build religious schools, orphanages,shops housing Islamic materials etc. The
purchase of building is part of a strategy, and is the springboard through which the Deen can be
propagated for decades to come!
Let us give an example for people to think about:
Imran is a pious man that has been blessed by Allah (swt) with immense riches. He owns a large
industrial mill, which produces steel throughout the country. The business provides employment 1,000
members of the local community. He sets aside vast portions of his wealth towards the Propagation of
Islam, paying for the publishing of religious materials etc. His aim is that the entire local community
embrace Islam. His son works for his father and also wants his fathers vision to be implemented.
Upon his death Imran bequeaths that all that he owns be given away to the poor and needy, the
factory can becomes the home of the needy, they can seize the equipment and sell it to support their
daily existence. Will this decision aid or impede the propagation of the Deen? Housing the poor and
needy might well satisfy the humanitarian need, but what about the vision to propagate the Deen? His
son will be unable to carry through this religious function, since his father left him nothing, he does not
even have a job, he like 1000 colleagues in unemployed! The net result of this decision is that all of
Imrans material possession have got into the hands of the poor, nothing has been used for religious
activities. Would the better approach not have been for him to leave the factory to his son as Legal
Heir who could administer the property accordingly, thus ensuring that his fathers dream of religious
propagation was met?
As this example demonstrates there are scenarios where material assets are used to aid, spread the
Deen. This is why religious Charities have clear five,ten year strategies setting out their vision, with
targets on what needs to be done to aid religious propagation! They will for example have plans to
locate land where they can build a religious institution / orphanage. When fallible humans have seen
the value of having assets to aid religious activities, dont you think Allah (swt) who is the greatest of
planners would see the sense of Prophets utilising their land and other assets as a mechanism to
spread the Deen? How could Prophet Zakariya (as) ensure that his successor continue this mission if
he did not have a house wherein he could invite the poor and needy in and speak to them about the
Deen? Would a homeless Prophet Sulayman (as) who had distributed every possession belonging to
his father as charity, be more successful in propagating the Deen, or King Sulayman (as) commanding
Palaces wherein he could house, feed and educate the poor and needy? The immediate distribution
of inheritance would in effect stop Dawah activities in their tracks! Allah (swt) would never create a
scenario that would create unnecessary obstacles for his Messengers to spread the Deen, the
immediate distribution of material possessions in charity would have been one such obstacle!
Observation Four
If we are to accept the notion that Prophets leave no inheritance, rather their belongings go to the
Ummah, then surely some reference to such an act (mass distribution of Prophets possessions)
should be present in the other religious texts whether Heavenly Books or otherwise.
Is it not unusual that an order that was the same for all Prophets of Allah (swt)s is correct accordingly
to Ahlul Sunnah, but cannot be evidenced in the Torah, Gospels, Psalms or the Quran? We also
cannot find any historical reference that a dead Prophets Estate from Kingdom to all its contents was
given away upon his death. Is it not curious that no other Prophet (s) issued such an order, rather only
the Final Messenger (who at the last stages of his life) managed to convey this crucial information into
Abu Bakrs ear? Allah (swt) sent 1,24000 Prophets from Adam to Muhammad (s) and not one of them
made this order; rather it was left to Rasulullah (s) to convey this fact? If this was such a crucial matter
then why did Allah (swt) not bother revealing it in any of the other Heavenly Books, or even the
Quran?Abu Bakrs recital of this Hadeeth is not acceptable, no previous people had any knowledge of
this, and it is unacceptable to apportion such absurdity to the last Prophet(s) of Allah, fault lies with
the narrators.
Observation Five
The Deobandi magazine Islamic Voice has an old habit of writing anti shia articles. One such classic
titled Shias and Sunnis published in july 2000, can be located online at:
http://www.islamicvoice.com/july.2000/dialogue.htm Cached
Whilst this is not the appropriate place to discuss all the fine points in the article, the comment on
Fadak is very interesting which we reproduce here:
He and his wife Hazrat Fatima were not happy over the Caliphs decision not to hand them
over the property of Fidak owned by the Prophet as he remembered to have heard the Prophet
(Pbuh) say that there is no inheritance from the prophets property for their progeny.
Apparently Ali and Fatima thought that he must have erred in hearing this from the Prophet
(Pbuh) because had it been so, the Prophets descendants would have been the first to be
informed of this by him. Hazrat Ali did not even inform Hazrat Abu Bakar of Hazrat Fatimas
death and he could not attend her funeral. However after his Baiat, he remained a sincere and
loyal advisor to the Caliph.
If this was indeed the reason why Sayyida Fatima (as) and Maula Ali (as) believed Abu Bakr narrated
a false hadeeth, was their reasoning wrong? Would it not have been expected of Rasulullah (s) to tell
his potential heirs this matter?
The Nasibi website, Reviving Islam also seek to suggest ignorance on the part of the Heirs by
stating:
it is possible that the people demanded this inheritance out of ignorance and this seems to be the
apparent reality of the matter. They simply did not know that the Nabi forbade the inheritance. When
the daleel (proofs and evidences) were brought some may have felt hurt or angry.
http://www.revivingislam.com/bidah/groups/thetruthaboutfadak.htm
We will respond by citing Tafseer Kabeer Volume 3, page 157, verse Yau Sakeem Allah:
Only Ali, Fatima and Abbas were affected by the ruling with regard to Prophetic inheritance,
they were amongst the highest ranks of knowledge and honesty. Abu Bakr did not come within
this ruling nor could he even contemplate that he was the Waris of Rasulullah (s), How can it
be Rasulullahs rank that those who came within the ruling were not informed whilst those
who were not affected were told.
The reference is clear that Rasulullah (s) would inform people of the ruling that referred specifically to
them. On this basis the rulings on his (s) inheritance affected his own family and yet he did not inform
them of any such ruling, this is not logical and proves that no such ruling had been issued on the part
of Rasulullah (s).
Ibn al Hashimi seems to suggest that is perfectly plausible that Sayyida Zahra (as) was mistaken on
this matter:
Of course, the Ahlus Sunnah does not judge the Companions and relatives of the Prophet (
;) we think she made
) , unlike the Shia slanderers. Hence, we do not criticize Fatima (
a sincere mistake, and nothing more. The Shia propagandists will now resort to rhetoric and emotional
arguments whereby they will ask if it is possible that the daughter of the Prophetwho was raised by
himcould possibly not know a Hadith or make such a grievous mistake. By this same logic, one could
) , for she was the wife of the Prophet who was married to
defend all of the actions of Aisha (
) made a mistake, we
him at the tender age of six. So if the Shia ask why we say Fatima (
) made mistakes (and even worse according to the Shia).
ask the Shia why they say Aisha (
The reality is that any human beingeven the greatest of Muslimsis capable of making mistakes. We
reject the concept of infallibility; it is a form of exaggeration and an extension of Shirk, whereby the
) did not know of the Prophets
quality of Allah (i.e. perfection) is given to humans. Fatima (
Hadith which forbade inheritance from him. Thus, her demand for Fadak was not based out of sin, but
rather out of a sincere mistake; mistakes are made by everyone, even the most pious individuals.
The question is how could she have been mistaken on this matter? Being dispossessed opf your
fathers inheritance is not some small matter that you would just forget! If this Hadeeth was true then
Sayyida Fatima (as), Ali (as), Hassan (as), Husayn (as) would have known of it, after all they were the
affected party who would suffer due to the ramifications of this Hadeeth. It was incumbent on
Rasulullah (s) to convey this to them, telling them that they could not claim anything he (s) left as
inheritance, and hence should not disturb his Successor by making such a petition before him.But he
failed to do so leaving thereby an obligation lying upon his shoulders unfulfilled.
Is it really palatable that Sayyida Zahra was sincerely mistaken when sha made a claim to her fathers
estate? Think about it. If your father was about to pass away, dont you think, if you werent going to
inherit his land, that the FIRST person he would tell would be you? Why would the Prophet (s) do
something so irrational give his daughter (as) the impression that she was going to inherit, when in
fact, she wasnt? Does this even make the slightest bit of sense to Abu Bakrs supporters? We should
also make clear that the title leader of the women in paradise is not just a title given to anybody. Even
if we believe for arguments sake that she could make mistakes, why would the leader of the women of
paradise be so upset about just a piece of land? Think about it, were not just talking about the
random woman on the street. When Fatima (as) got married, what kind of life did she lead? One of
extreme poverty and hardship. Do you really think that if it was just about a piece of land, she would
have gotten that upset? LOGICALLY, the answer is NO. It is not befitting of her, UNLESS the land
represents something else more than her rights being taken away from her. She was being
oppressed, and THAT is why she was upset otherwise, do you really think that the leader of the
women of paradise would have been so upset about something so material?
Of relevance in this discussion are the comments of the late Deobandi scholar Sayyid Abul Hasan
Nadwi who dedicated his life to defaming the Shia. In his article The Life of Caliph Ali, he offers this
false Qiyas to negate the claim of Sayyida Fatima (as):
There are other reports also which corroborate the determination of Abu Bakr never to deviate,
[not] even slightly, from the practice of the Prophet and follow only what he knew to be the
Prophets will. Fatima, however, continued to insist on her right of inheritance either because
she was not aware of the Prophets will or she considered the Caliph competent to meet her
wishes.
http://muslim-canada.org/ali_abubakr.html Cached
Is this a reasonable argument? What we certainly know is that Sayyida Fatima (as) did not approach
Abu Bakr for State handouts, what is clear from the Fadak dispute is she made a claim as the legal
heir to her fathers Estate. This therefore leaves us with Nadwis curious assumption, that she was
unaware of her fathers will. Is it really believable that the Prophet (s) would keep his daughter in the
dark over this matter, but informs a party that had no connection with such a ruling? Dont you think
that the Prophet (s) would have taken his daughter aside and told her:
Fatima you are dearer to me than anything in this world, but I must tell you that I fear for welfare of my
poor Sahaba such as Abu Hurrayra, hence when I die all that I own shall go to the Ummah, you
cannot claim anything, all must be handed over. Im telling you this so that you wont waste the time of
the Khalifa that succeeds me
Dont you think that the Prophet (s) would have given his daughter this crucial piece of information, or
would he have left it for her to learn of this information when she brought such a claim before the
Khalifa?
The renowned modern day Egyptian scholar Haykal in his famous work The Life of
Muhammad pages 515-516, provides this rather curious analysis of the dispute in his
Section Prophets leave no inheritance:
After the death of the Prophet his daughter Fatimah asked Abu Bakr to return to her the land
the Prophet which kept for himself at Fadak and Khayber. Abu Bakr however answered her by
quoting her fathers words; We the Prophets do not leave any inheritance for anyone,
whatever we do leave shall be given out in charity. Continuing with his own words Abu Bakr
said However if it was the case that your father had made a grant to you to you of this
property then I shall certainly honour your word to this effect and fulfil his commandment. At
this Fatimah answered that her father had not made any such grant to her, but that Umm
Ayman had informed that this might have been Muhammads purpose. Abu bakr therefore
resolved that the lands of Fadak and Khaybar should be kept by the public treasury of the
Muslims as State domain.
Firstly there was no such thing as nationalised property at the time.
Secondly Abu Bakrs actions automatically contradicted the very Hadeeth he had sought to rely on
since the Hadeeth he cited stated that all the Prophet (s) owns goes to charity, his failure to do so
proves that the Hadeeth is a lie.
If Sayyida Fatima (as) had made a claim on the assumption of Umm Ayman that the Prophet (s) may
have wished to grant the land to her then why was she making a claim on the basis of the laws of
inheritance? Is it not curious that Umm Ayman assumed the Prophets intention, Abu Bakr knew the
Prophets intention but the affected party (the Heir) Sayyida Fatima (as) didnt know on what condition
she would receive the land. Also she didnt have a clue that her father left no inheritance.
Only two options can be reached if we accept that this Hadeeth is Sahih.There was either major failing
on the part of Rasulullah (s) for not conveying this crucial fact to his family, or Sayyida Fatima (as), Ali
(as) and Hasnayn (as) despite their knowledge of this Hadeeth still made a false claim to procure
financial gain that in effect renders them deceptive personalities. We are not prepared to accept either
conclusion.
2. According to Ahlul Sunnah a tradition that contradicts the Quran

is false
The claim of Sayyida Fatima (as) was supported by the Quran.Abu Bakr rejected her claim by
advancing an alleged Hadeeth that contradicted10 Quranic verses.
Surah Nisa 004.011:
inheritance; if only one, her share is a half.
Allah deemed every person to be entitled to inheritance, hence Sayyida Fatima (as) was the Waris of
her father; the Hadeeth advanced by Abu Bakr contradicted the Quran. Any Hadeeth that contradicts
the Quran cannot be acted on.
Surah Nisa 004.007:
From what is left by parents and those nearest related there is a share for men and a share for
women, whether the property be small or large,-a determinate share.
When a woman is the Waris of her father then Sayyida Fatima (as) was the Waris of her father, Abu
Bakrs advancing of this Hadeeth was of no value.
Surah Nisa 004.033:
To (benefit) every one, We have appointed shares and heirs to property left by parents and
relatives. To those, also, to whom your right hand was pledged, give their due portion. For
truly Allah is witness to all things.
When every person inherits from their parents then Sayyida Fatima (as) likewise inherited from her
father (s).
Surah Ahzab 033.006:
Bloodrelations among each other have closer personal ties, in the Decree of Allah. Than (the
Brotherhood of) Believers and Muhajirs
When the Quran bestows the closest ties to blood relations, then they clearly are the closest when it
comes to inheritance. Rather than make judgement based on this alleged Hadeeth, Abu Bakr should
have recognised that Sayyida Fatima (as) was closet in ties to Rasulullah (s), hence when Sayyida
Fatima (as) produced Quranic evidence of her right to inherit her fathers property, his advancing this
Hadeeth was not correct.
Surah Naml 027.016:
And Solomon was Davids heir.

When Prophet Sulayman (as) was the Waris of Prophet Dawood (as) then by the same token Sayyida
Fatima (as) was the heir of Prophet Muhammad (s).This makes the Hadeeth advanced by Abu Bakr
null and void.
Surah Sad verses 30-31:
To David We gave Solomon (for a son),- How excellent in Our service! Ever did he turn (to Us)!
Behold, there were brought before him, at eventide coursers of the highest breeding, and swift
of foot;
Al-Quran, Surah Sad, Ayah 30 & 31, translated by Yusufali
We have already cited classical Sunni commentaries of this verse, where we learnt that the breed
referred to one thousand horses, which Hadhrat Sulayman (as) inherited from his father.
Sayyida Fatima (as) was likewise the Waris of her father, Abu Bakr alleged Hadeeth recollection
contradicted this verse of the Quran.
Surah Maryam 019.004-6:
Praying: O my Lord! give me an heir as from Thyself,- (One that) will (truly) represent me,
and represent the posterity of Jacob; and make him, O my Lord! one with whom Thou art wellpleased!
If Prophets do not leave inheritance, Prophet Zakariya (as) would not have prayed for an offspring to
inherit him. Sayyida Fatima (as) was likewise the Waris of her father.
Surah Anbiya verse 89:
And (remember) Zakariya, when he cried to his Lord: O my Lord! leave me not without
offspring, though thou art the best of inheritors.
Al-Quran, Surah Anbiya, Ayah 89, translated by Yusufali
This verse reminds us of the supplication of Prophet Zakariya (as), if Prophets cannot inherit then
Allah (swt) would have surely told him that Prophets leave no inheritance.
We read in Surah Aal-e-Imran 003.038:
There did Zakariya pray to his Lord, saying: O my Lord! Grant unto me from Thee a progeny
that is pure: for Thou art He that heareth prayer!
Hadhrat Zakariya (as)s fear that his property would be usurped by his relatives, led him to pray for a
pious offspring. If Prophets do not inherit then Allah (swt) would have rebuked Zakariya (as) for
making such a supplication. The Hadeeth advanced by Abu Bakr also contradicted this Quranic
verse.
Surah Baqarah 002.248:
And (further) their Prophet said to them: A Sign of his authority is that there shall come to
you the Ark of the covenant, with (an assurance) therein of security from your Lord, and the
relics left by the family of Moses and the family of Aaron, carried by angels. In this is a symbol
for you if ye indeed have faith.
These relics remained in the family of Yaqoob (as) why were they not given away as Sadaqah?
Sunni and Shia agreement

Both Sects are in agreement that any Hadeeth that contradicts the Quran should be rejected. The
Hadeeth advanced by Abu BakrOur property will not be inherited, whatever we (i.e. prophets) leave is
Sadaqa contradicted 10 verses of the Quran, hence the Hadeeth could not be advanced as
evidence.
We the Shia bring evidence from the Quran proving the inheritance of the Prophet (s), the Ahlul
Sunnah advance the comment of Abu Bakr. We appeal to justice, what value should we give to the
ruling of Abu Bakr, when we measure his judgement against the Quran? The ruling violated 10
Quranic verses, and denying Sayyida Fatima (as) her inheritance right was a major injustice.One who
perpetuates such injustice against her (as) can never be deemed a rightly guided Khalifa.
Allah (swt)s condemnation on he who turns his back on the Quran

We read in Surah as Sajdah 032.022:
And who does more wrong than one to whom are recited the Signs of his Lord, and who then
turns away there from? Verily from those who transgress We shall exact (due) Retribution.
Open challenge to Ahlul Sunnah
The Ahlul Sunnah have a habit of challenging the Shias to prove Matum, Tatbeer from the Quran
saying that this is a Book containing all answers. These sensible types never bother to contemplate
that no verse exists stipulating that Prophets leave no inheritance. We have proven through 10 verses
of the Quran that the inheritors of Prophets are their offspring now in the spirit of your second
Khalifa Umar Ibn al Farooq who said The Quran is sufficient for us we challenge you to produce a
single verse that proves that no one can inherit from Prophets.
3. According to the Ahlul Sunnah a tradition that ought to have

been known to all and sundry, but has only a single narrator is false
Observation One
The Quran clearly stipulates that all people have inheritors. If Rasulullah (s) was exempt on such a
rule then he would have surely sought to give the matter maximum publicity, making it clear to his
potential heirs that they would get nothing. This exemption was so significant that failure to give it wide
publicity would result in a major dispute upon the death of the Prophet (s) between his Heirs and
those who claimed his property as charity. At the minimum he would have told this ruling to the
affected parties who would have otherwise inherited his material possessions.
Let us not forget that Abu Bakr attributed these words to the Prophet (s) whatever we (i.e. prophets)
leave is Sadaqah in other words the beneficiaries to this land were the poor Muslims. Would
Rasulullah (s) not have made an open declaration to the Sahaba that Fadak was to be transferred to
the poor when he died? Is it not curious that neither the Heirs nor beneficiaries knew of this ruling,
rather this was only known to Abu Bakr? Think about this logically:
A man has a property and a large piece of land. He has a wife and three children. His desire is to give
his home to his wife and children as inheritance. As for the land he wants it to be used for by a small
local Charity to build a play park. Will he not seek to give convey this intention to his wife and son?
Will he not seek to tell the Charity of this intention also? Or will he keep this matter top secret and only
tell his close friend about it? Would there be any sense in him only telling his friend not telling his
Heirs or the lucky beneficiaries?
Observation Two
Curiously no one else seems to have recalled hearing this Hadeeth directly from the Prophet other
than Abu Bakr, and even he failed to point out the context and time when he heard these crucial
words. We ask Al Khider a simple question.
When did this alleged tradition descend?
Just as a Quranic verse was revealed at a specific time, place, event, the same is the case with
Hadeeth. Rasulullah (s) would state something in accordance with a specific situation or event so that
the Sahaba could understand the relevance and context in which Rasulullah (s) was speaking.
Rasulullah (s) would on different occasions state something that would correspond,elaborate
something which he had said in the past. There are for example numerous Hadeeth relating to loving
Imam Ali (as).
Rasulullah (s) also highlighted the knowledge of Imam Ali on different occasions, in different guises. If
you pick up Sahih al Bukhari and Sahih Muslim you will find how the same Hadeeth had been said on
different occasions, but correspond to the same event or topic in question. Unusually this
tradition Our property will not be inherited, whatever we (i.e. prophets) leave is Sadaqah has no
context as to when it was said nor is it supported by any other Hadeeth. This Hadeeth was only cited
out of necessity. It was fabricated to manouver the situation to ones personal ends.
In the same way that Hadeeth-e-Manzila, Hadeeth-e-Ghadir were appraisals of Hadhrat Ali (as) linked
to certain events and having a particular context, the Hadeeth stipulating that Prophets leave all their
possessions as inheritance also required recital as to the context, about when and upon whose death
this Hadeeth was said. This could have occurred at various points:
First missed opportunity

The verses of inheritance are general and include Rasulullah (s) also. If Rasulullah (s) was exempt
from these rulings, then clearly Rasulullah (s) would have seen the risk of Fitnah amongst the Sahaba
after him, had he failed to point this fact out. Therefore Rasulullah (s) in spirit with the order of Allah
(swt) and warn your near kinsmen had a duty to inform his daughter and all the Muslims that:
All Muslims leave inheritance behind them, except me, all that Prophets leave behind is Sadaqah.
Rasulullahs(s) failure to declare that he left no inheritance when the verses of inheritance were
revealed(perfect time for him to declare this) serves as evidence that this was a lie.
Second missed opportunity

When Rasulullah (s) attained possession of the lands of Khayber and Fadak, it was the incumbent
upon him to say:
Allah (swt) has given me these lands, my ownership is limited to my lifetime, after I die my daughter
cannot inherit it, as everything I own becomes Sadaqah for my Sahaba when I die.
The Leader of the Shariah made no such declaration at the time of attaining ownership of the lands of
Khaybar and Fadak which further suggests that this tradition was coined as a means of denying the
Ahlul bayt (as) their inheritance rights.
Third missed opportunity

Its relevance would have clearly arisen when Rasulullah (s) was in his final illness, yet he (s) did not
even make reference to it at this crucial time. Prior to his death (on his sick bed) it would have been
incumbent on Rasulullah (s) to inform his daughter and the Muslim Ummah that he left no inheritance
rather his possessions would become Sadaqah for his poor Sahaba such as Uthman Ibn Affan. Its
relevance would have clearly arisen when Rasulullah (s) was in his final illness, yet he (s) did not even
make reference to it at this crucial time. Prior to his death (on his sick bed) it would have been
incumbent on Rasulullah (s) to inform his daughter and the Muslim Ummah that he left no inheritance
rather his possessions would become Sadaqah for his poor Sahaba such as Uthman Ibn Affan. It is
not like the opportunity did not arise during the last days of the Prophet (s), we after all read in Sahih
Muslim Book 031, Number 6005:
Aisha reported that all the wives of Allahs Apostle (may peace be upon him) had gathered (in
her apartment) during the days of his (Prophets) last illness and no woman was left behind
that Fatima, who walked after the style of Allahs Messenger (may peace be upon him), came
there. He welcomed her by saying: You are welcome, my daughter, and made her sit on his
right side or on his left side, and then talked something secretly to her and Fatima wept. Then
he talked something secretly to her and she laughed. I said to her: What makes you weep? She
said; I am not going to divulge the secret of Allahs Messenger (may peace be upon him). I
(Aisha) said: I have not seen (anything happening) like today, the happiness being more close
to grief (as I see today) when she wept. I said to her: Has Allahs Messenger (may peace be
upon him) singled you out for saying something leaving us aside? She then wept and I asked
her what he said, and she said: I am not going to divulge the secrets of Allahs Messenger
(may peace be upon him). And when he died I again asked her and she said that he (the Holy
Prophet) told her: Gabriel used to recite the Quran to me once a year and for this year it was
twice and so I perceived that my death had drawn near, and that I (Aisha) would be the first
amongst the members of his family who would meet him (in the Hereafter). He shall be my
good forerunner and it made me weep. He again talked to me secretly (saying): Arnt you
pleased that you should be the sovereign amongst the believing women or the head of women
of this Umma? And this made me laugh.
This narration dates back to the final days of Rasulullah (s). He told Fatima (as) three things, namely
of:
his (s) impending death
her (as) being the first of his relatives to join him
her being the Leader of the women of Paradise
We appeal to justice, when history confirms that Fatima (as) was indeed the first to meet her father (s)
in Paradise, is it not logical that he would ask (s) her about how she fared after his demise (s)? Would
she not seek to inquire from her father why he had failed to inform her that he had left no inheritance
for her, rather all that he (s) left would go to the ummah? This tragedy caused her (as) immense pain,
had Rasulullah (s) informed her, she could have avoided the humiliation of appearing in a court of law
and having her claim struck out, had Rasulullah (s) informed her (s) that she had no entitlement to his
estate after him (s). Does his supposed failure to notify her not entitle het to complain before
Rasulullah (s) as to why he had failed to inform her, thus ensuring protecting her from all this
heartache? Was this not an opportune moment for Rasulullah (s) to inform her? He (s) told her two
facts relevant to her, both related to the next world and yet he (s) said nothing about her having no
right to his inheritance? And let us not forget who else was in the room at the time, all the wives of
Rasulullah (s) who also had a claim to the estate of Rasulullah (s). With all interested parties in that
room at a time when Rasulullah (s) was aware of his pending death (s), would he not have sought to
take advantage of this opportunity and informed them all that he would leave nothing for them as
Prophets leave no inheritance?
The fact that Rasulullah (s) made no such declaration in his final illness that is further evidence that
this Hadeeth is a lie. Failure of Rasulullah (s) to convey this message to the Ahlul Bayt (as) means
that he failed to convey his Prophetic duty (Naudhobillah), when Surah Maida deemed the Deen to
have been completed. All rules and regulation cover the people, and the entire duty of Rasulullah (s)
was to propagate the Deen to the masses, starting from the first verses through to the last Rasulullah
(s) made sure that his teaching reached the Faithful. To his Ahlul bayt (as) he was given a specific
order to convey the message verse warn your kinsmen it was incumbent upon Rasulullah (s) to
deliver this message to them. Failure to convey this message to his close relatives would have
therefore constituted a rejection of the Quran. Rasulullah (s) can never act against the Quran.
Any responsible dying father will seek to tie up any loose ends, so that no hardship comes to his
children on account of something that he has failed to resolve / address during his lifetime. To enable
this he will:
do all he can to resolve any outstanding issues and resolve anything that will effect their
children.
advise his children on anything of relevance that they will need to address, so as to avoid any
difficulties / challenges their distraught offspring might encounter.
A loving father will up until his last breath seek to have in place measures to aid his surviving children,
he will be most conscientious to ensure that they do not blame him for something that he had failed to
point out / address during his lifetime, a failure that might have direct repercussions upon them after
him. Now applying this to the facts, can there be a greater repercussion than being dispossessed of
your right to inherit your fathers estate? Would it never have crossed the mind of Rasulullah (s) that
he notifies his daughter of her non entitlement to his estate? Would a loving, responsible father really
have maintained silence up to his death, keeping the matter secret, leaving it to another to inform
Fatima (as) of her non entitlement after his (s) death? That is just thinking about things from a rational
perspective, in the case of the Prophet (s) if we accept that Rasulullah (s) failed to convey the ruling
on his inheritance to his family, but rather conveyed it to a third party who had no interest in the matter,
then the suggestion would be that the Prophet (s) failed to convey one aspect of his teachings
(astaghfirullah). If the Ahlul Sunnah wish to protect the Prophet (s) then they will need to reject the
Hadeeth presented by Abu Bakr.
If we accept that Rasulullah (s) failed to convey the ruling on his inheritance to his family, but rather
conveyed it to a third party who had no interest in the matter, then the suggestion would be that the
Prophet (s) failed to convey one aspect of his teachings (astaghfirullah). If the Ahlul Sunnah wish to
protect the Prophet (s) then they will need to reject the Hadeeth presented by Abu Bakr.
The fact that Rasulullah (s) failed to highlight the fact that he left no inheritance at these three critical
moments, proves that the Hadeeth Our property will not be inherited, whatever we (i.e. prophets)
leave is Sadaqah was a concoction. It is not acceptable to believe that Rasulullah (s) would keep this
matter hidden from Banu Hashim, (when disputes on inheritance would no doubt arise) and that he
just whispered this into Abu Bakrs ear, as this would cause Fitnah amongst the Sahaba and Ahlul
bayt (as). No logical person would believe that Rasulullah (s) would maintain silence on such an
important matter. The truth of the matter is Abu Bakr was clearly in error here.In his inaugural speech
he said that he had a Shaytan that misled him and his usurpation of Fadak from its rightful executor is
the perfect example of this.
We have consulted the books of Sunni Tafseer yet in none do we read this Hadeeth being narrated
when the verses on inheritance descended. When the historians and Tafseer scholars are unable to
determine when these words were said by Rasulullah (s), it was Abu Bakrs duty to clarify the
occasion / context when he heard these words. During the Fadak dispute Sayyida Fatima (as) had all
the evidence in her favour, Abu Bakr had no exit route and the only way he sought to rebut her claim
was by promptly citing this Hadeeth, if it was true then no doubt Abu Bakr would have sought to set
the background in relation to the occasion when he heard these momentous words.
At this point we feel that it would be appropriate to cite the comments of a renouned Hanafi scholar
Ihtisham udDeen Muradabadi from Pakistan in his glorious attack on the Shia, in Naseeyat ai Shia
[Advice for the Shi'a] Volume 3 page 544:
The amusing thing is the same Allah (swt) who has addressed all issues of Iman and aqeedah
in detail, leaves such a shortage on the issue of Imamate, that nothing can be deduced, when
such a shortage occurs on the part of Allah (swt), then Rasulullah (s) also did not deem it to be
his position to clarify the definition of Maula that carries multiple meanings.
Using this logic, we the Shia will reply that the issue of Prophetic inheritance had been settled. On
Fadak Muradabadi should have said:
The amusing thing is that the same Allah (swt) who has addressed all issues of Iman and aqeedah in
detail, leaves such a shortage on the inheritance, that nothing can be deduced, when such a shortage
occurs on the part of Allah (swt), then Rasulullah (s) also did not deem it to be his position to clarify
the issue of his inheritance.
This destroys Abu Bakrs Khilafat. When such a lack of clarification occurs on the part of Allah (swt),
and Rasulullah (s) did not deem it his duty to clarify the matter, rather kept his Executors in the dark
on the matter, preferring to whisper into the lone ear of Abu Bakr whatever we (i.e. prophets) leave is
Sadaqah words that also carry multiple meanings, and yet Rasulullah (s) failed to clarify this to Abu
Bakr, and Abu Bakr in order to protect his Khilafath attributed this to Rasulullah (s). After all Abu Bakr
was not infallible all people can makes mistakes.
Abu Bakrs decision in the Fadak dispute

contradicted his own method of ruling
We read in Izala tul Khifa Part 2, Volume 3 page 114:
Whenever a dispute was brought before Abu Bakr, he would seek to direct him towards the
Quran, or relevant Hadeeth of Rasulullah (s), if no evidence could be located from the Quran
or Sunnah he would ask for the help of the Sahaba, if the Sahaba were agreed on Hadeeth he
would take it, if a Hadeeth was not agreed upon he would gather selected people and seek
their advice. When all the people agreed on an opinion, Abu Bakr would rule accordingly.
Abu Bakrs double standards have been exposed here! If Abu Bakr was indeed the just man as is
claimed then when Fatima (as) made her claim to her fathers property, this was a general dispute,
Abu Bakr was himself a party to the dispute. He could have asked the Sahaba who would have
arrived at the correct outcome. He could have applied justice, a dispute had occurred, Sayyida Fatima
(as) was upset. Abbas and Ali did not concur with Abu Bakrs ruling so when Sayyida Fatima (as)
made her claim why not convene a meeting including Ali, Abbas and the Sahaba and ask them The
daughter of Fatima has claim her inheritance to Rasulullahs Estate what is your opinion? He could
have then made a ruling.But Abu Bakr did not have the courage to entertain a hearing wherein
Hadhrat Ali would be setting out his wifes case. After all Abdullah ibn Abbas had said:
When anyone would establish something said on the authority of Ali, then we would not turn
to anyone else for an answer.
Rabbah al Muttalib, page 143
Deciding claims of normal people through advice, whilst ruling on the claims of Ahlul Bayt (as)
through personal opinion, that incidentally is against them shows clear hypocrisy, and clearly proves
that the different approach was politically motivated.Upon hearing the claim of Sayyida Fatima (as) he
automatically produced a Hadeeth and issued a ruling against her claim that the daughter of
Rasulullah (s) a liar (Allah forbid) Neither did he consult the Quran for a ruling nor did he gather the
Sahaba together to seek their counsel he ruled against her and pained her in the process.
Abu Bakr did not honour his grounds for usurping

Fadak
In rejecting the claim of Sayyida Fatima (as), Abu Bakr based his decision on three points.
1.
The number of witnesses required to give evidence had not been met, or (as claimed by his
advocates) were unacceptable
2.
Prophets leave no inheritance
3.
I shall not change the practice of the Prophet (s)
We have already refuted points 1, 2 so we shall now scrutinise point 3. Abu Bakr assertion that he
was rigid in implementing the Sunnah of Rasulullah (s) is the greatest defence that his advocates
present, who can condemn someone who was only enforcing the Sunnah of Rasulullah (s). Sayyid
Abul Hasan Nadwi a leading Imam of the Deobandis in his book The Life of Caliph Ali heaps glowing
admiration on Abu Bakrs action:
There are other reports also which corroborate the determination of Abu Bakr never to deviate,
[not] even slightly, from the practice of the Prophet and follow only what he knew to be the
Prophets will.
Excerpted from The Life of Caliph Ali by Abul Hasan Nadwi
Ibn al Hashimi seeks to take things to another level, and actually suggests that Sayyida Zahra (as)
was a transgressor, for making the claim:
No obedience In transgression
) by bringing up the Prophets words (
When the Shia try to condemn Abu Bakr (
) angry, we ask these mindless Shia to think of similar Hadith
) about making Fatima (
and Quranic exhortations about not making ones parents angry. The Prophet has said that if a person
makes his parents angry, then this will anger Allah. We are told that if we disobey or anger our
parents, we disobey and anger Allah. However, what if a parent asks his daughter not to wear the
Hijab, and what if he gets angry if she does wear it? Would it then be sinful for the girl to continue
wearing Hijab? Of course not! The Prophet ( ) said:
There is no obedience in transgression. Verily, obedience is in good deeds [only]. (Sahih Bukhari,
Muslim)
We cannot obey another human being above Allah and His Messenger. So how could Abu Bakr (
) above that of the Messenger of Allah ()
) place the words of Fatima (
who clearly said that Prophets do not leave behind inheritance?
If we accept for arguments sake that the Prophet (s) left no inheritance, Abu Bakr still has no right to
control the land, administer it or distribute the profits thereof. The question of maintaining or changing
a practice of Rasulullah (s) should not even be brought up, and if the claim is advanced that we shall
maintain the needs of these individuals, even then no benefit reaches the State. The traditions show
that when something was left from Sadaqah Rasulullah (s) would distribute the remainder to the poor
and needy from Banu Hashim, lands other than Fadak were also under the control of Rasulullah (s),
and meeting the needs of travellers and the needy came from these lands. There is no evidence that
Rasulullah (s) utilised the land of Fadak in this manner when he attained possession of it. The claims
to the other lands were on the basis of inheritance. Whilst he was alive, Rasulullah (s) had every right
to give it to his family and to spend the outstanding monies in any way that he sought fit. Upon his
death this entitlement was given to his Executor not the Head of State.
Let us accept that the property has been rightly usurped, Abu Bakr said that he was not in a position
to change any practice of Rasulullah (s), tell us al Khider:
Was your Khalifa really that rigid when it came to enforcing the Sunnah?
If he was rigid on all matters of Sunnah then clearly his advocates could advance such a defence but
when we analyse the works of Ahlul Sunnah it becomes clear that these were just token words that
Abu Bakr never himself believed in. The Ahlul Sunnah have presented the aqeedah of Abu Bakr, that
he believed that Rasulullah (s) appointed no one to succeed him as Head of State. With this in mind,
why did Abu Bakr deem it fit to change this practice of Rasulullah (s) and appoint Umar as Khalifa?
We read in Sahih Muslim, The Book on Government (Kitab Al-Imara) Chapter Appointing anyone as a
succeeding caliph or leaving aside the question of appointment Book 020, Hadeeth Number 4485:
It has been narrated on the authority of Abdullah b. Umar who said: I was present with my
father when he was wounded. People praised him and said: May God give you a noble
recompense! He said: I am hopeful (of Gods mercy) as well as afraid (of His wrath) People
said: Appoint anyone as your successor. He said: Should I carry the burden of conducting
your affairs in my life as well as in my death? (So far as Caliphate is concerned) I wish I could
acquit myself (before the Almighty) in a way that there is neither anything to my credit nor
anything to my discredit. If I would appoint my successor, (I would because) one better than
me did so. (He meant Abu Bakr.) If I would leave You alone, (I would do so because) one better
than me, i. e. the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him), did so. Abdullah says: When
he mentioned the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) I understood that he would not
appoint anyone as Caliph.
His willingness to ignore the Sunnah of Rasulullah (s) here proves that this alleged rigid enforcement
of the Sunnah was a sham, and was said at the spur of the moment to strike out the claim of Sayyida
Fatima (as).
Abu Bakr prevented the recital of Hadeeth that

caused disputes
We read in Tadhkiratul Huffaz Volume 1 page 3 by Dhahabi:
After the death of the Prophet (s) Abu Bakr gathered the people and said You recite such
Hadeeth from Rasulullah, that you yourselves are at logger heads as to whether it is Sahih,
people after you shall differ even more, stop quoting such Hadeeth. If anyone asks you about a
matter then say the Book of Allah (swt) is between the two of us, whatever the Quran deems
halaal, you deem halaal, whatever it deems haraam you also deem haraam.
The narration informs us that Abu Bakr prohibited the recital of a Hadeeth thats authenticity was in
doubt and caused a dispute. We say that the Hadeeth We the Prophets leave no inheritance caused
such opposition in the eyes of Maula Ali that he deemed the Khalifa a liar, sinful, treacherous and
dishonest. Sayyida Fatima (as) and Abbas also rejected the Hadeeth. When Abu Bakr prevented his
subjects from reciting Hadeeth that caused disputes over authenticity, then why did he recite a
Hadeeth that contradicted the Book of Allah (swt), and opposed the views of Sayyida Fatima (as) and
Hadhrat Ali (as)? Both the Quran and these personalities were referred to by Rasulullah (s) as two
weighty things and according to Shah Abdul Aziz opposition to either is wrong, hence this Hadeeth
cannot be deemed correct.
Abu Bakr wanted people to turn to the Quran for guidance on what is halaal and haraam, yet he ruled
that the no one could inherit the Prophets possessions, in doing so he contradicted ten verses of the
Quran. Why did Abu Bakr reject the claim brought by the daughter of the Prophet (s), upsetting her
and violating the Quran in the process?
Abu Bakrs Hadeeth burning campaign

Dhahabi in Tadhkiratul Huffaz Volume 1 page 5 Dhikr Abu Bakr states:
Ayesha narrates My father Abu Bakr gathered the Hadeeth of the Prophet, there were 500 in
total, but following a difficult night of tossing from side to side, I heard the fear and asked
Have you seen a nightmare?, or are you changing sides for some other reason? When dawn
came Abu Bakr said Daughter bring the Hadeeth that are in your possession, he then
summoned fire, and burnt the Hadeeth. I asked Why did you burn them? He said I was
worried that they remain after I die, the Hadeeth I narrated from Thiqah narrators are not
relayed in the same manner. If they are not reported in the same way I shall be culpable for
such a mistake.
These were the close friends of Rasulullah (s) one threatened to set alight to the house of Sayyida
Fatima (as). We will discuss this in Chapter 12.
One set alight manuscripts of the Quran and Abu Bakr set alight Hadeeth! Abu Bakr set them alight
as he was unsure as to whether they were Sahih. The Hadeeth Our property will not be inherited,
whatever we (i.e. prophets) leave is Sadaqah (to be used for charity) was narrated solely by Abu
Bakr, one cannot even hazard a guess as to where he found this Hadeeth, yet he even set this on fire
during the final stage of life.
The Ahlul bayt rejected the assertion that the Hadeeth Our property will not be inherited, whatever
we (i.e. prophets) leave is Sadaqah (to be used for charity) was Sahih, so the claims of Abu Bakrs
advocates mean nothing to us. If chains have been coined then this has been from the Sect who are
Saqifites supporters of Abu Bakrs man made Khilafat. Their own client Abu Bakr was opposed to the
narrating of Hadeeth that caused differences / disputes, hence his decision to deny Sayyida Fatima
(as)s inheritance by ruling on the basis of a Hadeeth that caused differences, so severe that Hadhrat
Ali (as) deemed him a liar, clearly points to the fact that Abu Bakr had no right to make such a
decision.
Overall analysis of the Hadeeth
When Sayyida Fatima (as) made a claim to her fathers inheritance, Abu Bakr replied that he heard
the Prophet say Our property will not be inherited, whatever we (i.e. prophets) leave is Sadaqah (to
be used for charity). This reply:
1.
Contradicted the Quran, and anything that contradicts the Quran is batil.
2.
Contradicted Muttawatir Sunnah and anything that contradicts Muttawatir Sunnah is batil.
3.
Was rejected by Hadhrat Ali Rasulullah (s) said Ali is with the truth and the truth is with Ali
and Ali is with the Quran and the Quran is with Ali. A Hadeeth rejected by Hadhrat Ali (as)
should likewise be rejected.
4.
Was rejected by the wives of the Prophet (s) in particular Ayesha, who according to Ahlul
Sunnah had the title Siddiqa, a reply rejected by Siddiqa should likewise be rejected.
5.
Also contradicts logic and anything that rejects logic, will not be accepted by a logical person.
6.
Was not supported by the Quran or Sunnah, a reply that has no support of these key sources
is to be rejected.
Abu Bakrs favourable treatment of the Sahaba

compared to Sayyida Fatima (as)
Hayatus Sahaba by Maulana Mohammad Yousuf Kandlawi is a key modern day piece of work, held in
high esteem amongst the Hanafi Sect in Pakistan particularly used by the Tableeghi Jamaath for
Dawah purposes. The book provides a detailed backdrop to the lives of the Sahaba, with reliance on
the classical Sunni sources. Although we have cited the complete narration from Volume 2 page 51
earlier we shall now analyse this narration from from another angle:
Ubaida reports Aina bin Hasan and Aqra bin Habis approached Hadrat Abu Bakr (rad) and
said O Caliph of the Messenger of Allah! There is some fallow land in out area. If you deem it
considerable, give us the land so that we can cultivate it to earn our livelihood. He donated it
to them and wrote a decree in support thereof[Al Kanz (Volume 2 page 189)al Isabah
(Volume 3 page 55) Al Bukhari (Volume 1 page 59). This Hadith has been mentioned by the
above sources with a correct Isnad].
Although the narration later on shows that Umar overruled Abu Bakr on the matter, the striking thing
from this narration is the preferential treatment that Abu Bakr gave to the Sahaba compared to
Sayyida Fatima (as). Like this land, Abu Bakr also deemed Fadak to be land belonging to the
Muslims. Abu Bakr justified his confiscation of Fadak on this very basis, arguing that Sayyida Fatima
(as) had no claim to the land, upon the death of the Prophet (s) it reverted to the Muslims. If Sayyida
Fatima (as) had no right to claim land that (according to Abu Bakr) belonged to the Muslims, why was
he willing to donate Muslim land to two Sahaba as a gift? Could he not have adopted the same
approach with Sayyida Fatima (as)? Why was she treated differently? This reference clearly proves
that Abu Bakr showed prejudicial treatment with regards to the way he treated Sayyida Fatima (as) in
the Fadak dispute.
Umars favourable treatment of the Kuffar

compared to Sayyida Fatima (as)
Allamah Shibli Numani in al Faruq, Volume 2 page 95, whilst discussing the development of the
Mosque of Kufa under Umar states:
In front of the Mosque was build a vast pavilion, two hundred cubits long, which was
supported on pillars of marble that were procured from the palaces of the ancient emperors of
Iran. One fact should be remembered in this connection. There was no heir to the usages of
the estates, the Caliph of Islam was their only rightful heir. But Omar had different ideas about
the rights of states, paid the price of those pillars to his Magian subjects: their estimated price
was credited to their jizya account, the amount of the latter being reduced accordingly.
Al-Farooq, Vol. 2, Page 95
This reference alludes to the fact that the marble pillars were taken from the Iranian Palaces at the
time that they were conquered by Muslims, via the sword, and the laws of war dictate that this land
belonged to the Muslims as they had conquered it through fighting. The reference also points to the
fact as there were no living heirs to these buildings. The justice of Umar came into force and he paid
the price of these pillars to the Magians (Zorastrians) even though they were not the lawful heirs of
these buildings. Curiously when it comes to the legal entitlement of Sayyida Fatima, making her claim
as a surviving Heir, equipped with the Quran and eye witnesses to support her claim to Khums and
Fadak, Khums is withheld and Fadak is snatched from her! Compare Umars just treatment of the
Magians to the treatement he and his predecessor subjected Sayyida Fatima (as) and her
descendants to! What wrong did Sayyida Fatima (as) do that led to even Kaafirs being were afforded
better treatment than her?
FADA K
Preface

Conclusion
Shia Pen Newsletter

2 0 11 2 01 2 S HI A P E N
Formerly known as:

Answering-Ansar.org
2002 - 2010
MISCELLANEOUS
About Us
Contact Us
Newsletter
Privacy Policy
S T AT E M E N T
TERMS & CONDITIONS
Terms & Conditions
HOME
COMPREHENSIVE
CONCISE
DECEPTION
FIQH
QUESTIONS
NASIBI
Chapter Seven: The inheritance of

previous prophets
Quranic proof that Prophets leave inheritance to
their offsprings
Allah (swt) declares in Surah Naml 027.016:
Allah.)
The verse is clear proof that Suleiman (as) the son of a Prophet inherited from his father,hence the
claim that the Prophets leave no inheritance for their children is a blatant lie. Sayyida Fatima (as)
inherited her Prophet father, in exactly the same way that Suleiman (as) inherited from his Prophet
father. Any ruling rejecting her entitlement to her fathers inheritance, contradicts the Quran.
Al Khiders absurd claim that Prophets leave no

material possession as inheritance
In Ansar.Orgs masterpiece Fadak Area Between Abu Baker and Fatima, the author Muhammad AlKhider provides the following explanation to this verse:
The same is applicable to the argument in which the verse And Sulayman inherited Dawud (anNaml:16) is used as proof that the Ambiya do leave a material inheritance. The inheritance in this
case was not of material possessions. Rather, it was of prophethood, wisdom and knowledge.
Reply
The books of Ahlul Sunnah prove that Prophet Sulayman (as)
inherited his fathers worldly possessions
As evidence we shall rely on the following authentic Sunni sources wherein it is mentioned that
Sulayman (as) inherited Kingdom and knowledge. Notice how they are two seperate things. If the
defenders of Abu Bakr are to interpret Kingdom as meaning Prophetic knowledge there would be no
need to also use the word Kingdom. The Sunni scholars have distinguished the two by mentioning
both forms of inheritance. Kingdom is a tangible asset, so refers to all material possessions that make
up that kingdom. Knowledge is non tangible and it has been bestowed upon Sulayman as the
Prophetic successor to his father.
1.
Tafseer Khazan Volume, 5 page 112, Surah Naml
2.
Tafseer Durre Manthur, Volume 5 page 193 Surah Naml
3.
Tafseer al-Bahar al-Muheet, Volume 7 page 57
4.
Tafseer Mazhari, Part 16, Volume 7 page 100 Surah Naml
5.
Tafseer Maraaghi, Part 19 page 127 Surah Naml
6.
Tafseer Jauhar, Volume 13 page 135 Surah Naml
7.
Tafseer Gharab, al Quran Part 18 page 88
8.
Tafseer Kashaf, Volume 3 page 140
9.
Tafseer Mualim al Tanzeel, Volume 5 page 112
10.
Tafseer Fatooat al Ilayha Volume 3 page 202
11.
Al Bidayah wa al Nihayah, Volume 5 page 290
12.
Tareekh Abul Fida, Volume 1 page24
We read in Tafseer Kashaf:

Waris refers to Kingdom and Prophethood
Al-Kashaf, Vol. 3, Page 140
Tafseer Khazan:
} {
Allahs statement {And Solomon was Davids heir} means (he inherited) prophethood,
knowledge and kingdom.
Tafseer Durre Manthur:
Sulayman inherited both Kingdom and knowledge
Dur al-Manthur fi Tafseer al-Mathur, Vol. 5, page 193
Allamah Nisaburi records in Tafseer Gharaib al-Quran:
} {
Allahs statement {And Solomon was Davids heir}, al-Hassan said: It is material
possessions, because Prophethood is a gift
We read in Tafseer al-Bahar al-Muheet by Abi Hayan:
:
al-Hassan said: Inherited material possessions because Prophethood is a gift
We have cited 12 authentic Sunni sources that Prophet Dawood (as) inherited the worldly possessions
of his father, similarly Sayyida Fatima (as) was also the Waris of her father Rasulullah (s). Denying her
this inheritance right was a clear violation of the Quran. Whilst the above are classical sources it is
also worth noting that the Saudi published Holy Quran English translation of the meanings and the
commentary (published by the King Fahd Holy Quran Printing Complex), provides the following
commentary of the verse:
The point is that Solomon not only inherited his fathers kingdom but his spiritual insight and
the prophetic office, which do not necessarily go from father to son
Saudi published Holy Quran , page 1093
Prophet Sulayman (as) inherited one thousand horses from his

father
We read in Surah Sad verses 30-31:
To David We gave Solomon (for a son),how excellent in Our service! Ever did he turn (to Us)!
Behold, there were brought before him, at eventide coursers of the highest breeding, and swift
of foot;
Al-Quran, Surah Sad, Ayah 30 & 31, translated by Yusufali
These horses were inheritance, and as proof we shall cite the following classical Sunni sources:
1.
Tafseer Gharaib al Quran, Part 23, Surah Sad page 90
2.
Tafseer Khazan, Part 23, Volume 6 page 45
3.
4.
Hayat al Haywaan, Volume 1 page 218
5.
Tafseer Mazhari Volume 8 page 145 Surah Sad
6.
al-Tashil le Uloom al-Tanzil, Volume 3 page 185
7.
Tafseer al-Nasafi, Volume 4 page 39
8.
Zad al-Masir, Volume 6 page 334
9.
Tafseer Qurtubi, Volume 15 page 192
10.
Tafseer Baydhawi, Volume 5 page 46
11.
Tafseer al-Muharer al-Wajiz, Volume 5 page 449
We read in Tafseer Gharaib al-Quran:

:
It has been said: He inherited them (horses) from his father and his father had obtained them
as a booty from Amaliqs.
We read in al-Tashil le Uloom al-Tanzil by Abu Abdillah Ibn al-Jezi al-Ghernati (d. 741 H):

The majority said that Sulayman (as) brought for him horses he inherit them from his father
We read in Tafseer al-Nasafi:

It has been said that he inherited them from his father and his father had obtained them from
Amaliqa (as war booty)
We read in Zad al-Masir by Imam of Salafies Abu al-Faraj al-Jawzi (d. 597 H):
:
The third: That he inherited them from his father David
Imam Qurtubi records in his Tafseer:

Maqatil said that Solomon inherited 1000 horses from his father
Shaykh Kamaluddin Muhammad bin Musa Damiri (742-808 H) records in Hayaat al Haywan:

The majority of scholars say that those horses were inherited
We read in Tafseer Baydhawi:

It has been said that his father obtained them (as war booty) from Amaliq then he (Solomon)
inherited them
We read in Tafseer al-Muharer al-Wajiz by Abu Mhammad ibn Attya al-Maharebi (d. 546):

The majority of people state that those horses were inherited
These 23 sources prove that Sulayman inherited the material possessions of his father and this
included one thousand horses, this verse proves that the verse And Sulayman inherited
Dawud refers to the inheritance of material possessions not knowledge.
Whilst this should serve as sufficient proof to destroy this Nasibis claim, it is also important that we
highlight one of their claims that al Khider made
Al Khiders false claim that Sulayman (as) inherited

Prophethood, Knowledge and Wisdom from his
father, not material possessions
Ansar.org:
The inheritance in this case was not of material possessions. Rather, it was of prophethood, wisdom
and knowledge.
Reply One Prophets are Prophets from the time they are born
(prophethood is not something to be inherited)
We read in Surah Maryam 019.030 the following about Esau (as):
He said: I am indeed a servant of Allah: He hath given me revelation and made me a prophet;
Similarly, Allah (swt) praises Yahya in these words in Surah Maryam 019.012:
(To his son came the command): O Yahya! take hold of the Book with might: and We gave
him Wisdom even as a youth,
The stories of Prophet Esau (as) and Prophet Yahya (as) serve as clear proof that Prophets attain the
rank of Prophethood from the time of birth.
Reply Two Sulayman (as) was Prophet at the same time as his
father Dawood (as)
We read in Surah Anbiya 021.079:
To Solomon We inspired the (right) understanding of the matter: to each (of them) We gave
Judgment and Knowledge;
We read in Surah Naml 027.015:
We gave (in the past) knowledge to David and Solomon: And they both said: Praise be to
Allah, Who has favoured us above many of his servants who believe!
These verses do not prove that Dawood (as) possessed knowledge first and that his son Sulayman
(as) later inherited it after his death. Prophets are Prophets from birth and hold this excelled office
from the time they come in this world along with all the attributes such as knowledge etc. As Sulayman
(as) was born during the lifetime of his father, he attained Prophethood during his fathers lifetime.
Inheritance is something which is attained after death, this is an agreed fact. This verse therefore
clearly proves that inheritance in this verse does not mean Prophethood rather it refers to material
possessions.
The 16th Ayah of Surah Naml points to the fact that Prophet Sulayman was already a Prophet, had
knowledge and used to pass judgements during the lifetime of his father, how can it be said that the
inheritance which he received, was of Prophethood, wisdom and knowledge?
To Solomon We inspired the (right) understanding of the matter: to each (of them) We gave
Judgement and Knowledge; it was Our power that made the hills and the birds celebrate Our
praises, with David: it was We Who did (all these things).
The 15th verse of Sura Naml (which falls before Ayah 16th), also makes it clear that Knowledge was
already given to Sulayman (as) again how can it be accepted that the inheritance which Prophet
Sulayman received was to do with Knowledge and Wisdom only?
We gave (in the past) knowledge to David and Solomon: And they both said: Praise be to
Allah, Who has favoured us above many of his servants who believe!
Sayyida Fatima (as) inherited her fathers worldly possessions in exactly the same manner that
Prophet Sulayman (as) inherited from his father Dawood (as). The claim of Sayyida Fatima (as) was in
line with the Quranic verse And Sulayman inherited Dawud. Abu Bakrs rejection of her claim,
despite this verse is proof that Abu Bakrs decision was in contradiction to this Quranic ruling.
Al Khiders query as to why Dawoods other sons

are not mentioned in this verse
Al-Khider offers the following Batil Qiyas to this verse:
children from these wives and concubines. If this verse is assumed to speak of the inheritance of
material possessions, why is Sulayman mentioned as the sole heir?
Reply One
It is a generally accepted rule that proof is required when someone advances a claim that contradicts
an established law. It is a general rule that the land belonging to someone is distributed amongst his
legal heirs. When Al Khider is stating that some individuals do not benefit from this general principle,
the onus then falls upon him to prove why this is the case. Our claim is that according to the common
laws of Shariah, Sulayman (as) became the Waris of his father Dawood (as), and this precedent is
proven from the Law (as set out in the Quran). Al Khider is advancing a claim that is against the
established law, namely that Sulayman (as) was not the Waris of Dawood (as), hence the onus is
upon Al Khider to prove Sulaymans status as not being the heir when the Quran proves his position
as a heir.
Reply Two
Why has al Khider relied on a Jewish tradition that presents Dawud as having 400 women to have sex
with? Can anyone imagine a pious Nabi of Allah, Dawud (s) having 100 wives and 300 concubines
[i.e. a total of 400 women for having sex]?
Reply Three
The assertion of al Khider is a blatant lie; we read in Ahlul Sunnahs work Sharh ibn al Hadeed
Volume 4 page 126 that the claim that Sulayman (s) had sons other than Dawood (s) is a Jewish
claim. Reports that they were alive at the time that Dawood (as) died are not reliable.
Reply Four
Inheritance is the legal right of surviving relatives; al Khider claims that in the case of that left by
Dawood (as):
and knowledge.
This leaves us with a very simple question, if Prophethood is left as inheritance then why did only
Prophet Sulayman (as) inherit it, and none of the other sons of Dawood (as) that Al Khider cites?
When someone dies, his material possessions are distributed to the heirs, but the station of
Prophethood is not such a thing that can be distributed. If Prophethood could be transferred via such
a simple matter, then it would have definitely been distributed amongst the children of Adam (as), yet
we know that only Sheesh (as) attained this position. This fact clearly demonstrates that Prophethood
in not inherited, rather it is in accordance with the will of Allah (swt). If Prophethood was inherited
rather than getting appointed by Allah then that would mean that the disobedient son of Nuh (as)
would have inherited Prophethood from his father when he died! Prophethood is not some joke
concept that anyone can just get when a Prophet (s) dies, one which executors can distribute when
they feel like it.
Sunni Turkish scholar Professor Nureddin Uzongolu makes a crucial point in this respect in his Book,
History of the Prophets page 164, Chapter Solomon:
Solomon was thankful to his Lord for these blessing bestowed on him: And Solomon was
Davids Heir. And he said O mankind! We have been taught the language of birds, and have
been given (abundance) all things. This surely is evidence favour [Surah Saba Verse 12]
Here the point in the above verse is that Solomon not only inherited his fathers kingdom, but his
spiritual insight and the prophetic office, which do not necessarily pass from father to son
Reply Five
Even if we accept that they were alive, then this bares no relevance, for Allah (swt) states in Surah
Baqarah 2:251:
So they put them to flight by Allahs permission. And Dawood slew Jalut, and Allah gave him
kingdom and wisdom, and taught him of what He pleased.
It was the kingdom of Dawood, which was inherited by Sulayman. About other sons of Dawood, only
Allah (swt) knows how many existed but NO tradition suggests that they received nothing. They may
have received a share, but the Kingdom was bestowed on Sulayman (as). It should be pointed out
that a King has two types of land, a Kings personal property that is distributed amongst his heirs, and
Sovereign Land that goes solely to the person occupying his Seat. Prophet Sulayman (as) inherited
both, he had his share with his brothers from King Dawoods personal property and had exclusive
inheritance over Sovereign Land. This is like the other kingdoms in which the Crown Prince receives
kingdom along with his fathers personal property while other princes also get their share.
Reply Six
Allah (swt) says in Surah Sad 38:30:
To David We gave Solomon (for a son),- How excellent in Our service! Ever did he turn (to Us)!
According al Khider, Allah (swt) bestowed other sons on Dawood so why did He (swt) only refer to
Sulayman (as) in this verse? Can Al Khider and his Nasibi cronies offer an explanation or do they also
question Allah for failing to mention them? (after all they are in the habit of questioning everything) In
the same way that reference to Sulayman (as) in this verse does not negate the existence of other
sons, likewise the verse of inheritance wherein only Sulayman is referred to, does not deny the other
brothers their inheritance.
Reply Seven
We read in Surah Anaam verses 83-84:
That was the reasoning about Us, which We gave to Abraham (to use) against his people: We
raise whom We will, degree after degree: for thy Lord is full of wisdom and knowledge. We
gave him Isaac and Jacob: all (three) guided: and before him, We guided Noah, and among his
progeny, David, Solomon, Job, Joseph, Moses, and Aaron: thus do We reward those who do
good
In this verse Allah (swt) counts the progeny of Prophet Ibraheem (as) as David, Solomon, Job,
Joseph, Moses, and Aaron, what about all the other children in the progeny of Ibraheem (as), why are
they not mentioned here? Just as the reference to David, Solomon, Job, Joseph, Moses, and Aaron in
this verse does not negate the existence of the other progeny of Ibraheem (as), so the verse of
inheritance wherein only Sulayman is referred to does not deny the other brothers their inheritance.
Al Khiders claim that the inheritance of material

possessions is a matter too trivial to appear in the
Quran
Ansar.org:
If this verse is assumed to speak of material inheritance there does not remain much sense for it
being mentioned in the Quran, since it is then reduced to an ordinary and trivial matter. Material
inheritance is not something laudable, neither to Dawud nor to Sulayman alayhimas salam. Even a
Jew or Christian inherits the material possessions of his father. The purpose of this verse is to extol
the excellence of Sulayman and to make mention of that which was granted specifically to him.
Inheriting material possessions is an ordinary and trivial matter that is common to everyone, like
eating, drinking and burying the dead. This is not the kind of thing that would be mentioned about the
Ambiya, since it is simply inconsequential. Only such things would be related about the Ambiya which
carry lessons or benefit. Things like He died, and his son inherited his property, or They buried him,
or They ate and drank slept is not the kind of information that would be conveyed in the stories of the
Quran. (Mukhtasar Minhaj as-Sunnah, vol. 1 p. 240, with minor adjustments)
Reply One
Who is this Nasibi to decide what is sensible enough to be in the Quran? Many trivial matters are in
the Quran, and yet al Khiders absurd logic would argue that nothing trivial should appear in the
Quran. Allah (swt) knew that amongst the Ummah of Muhammad (s) unjust men would come who
would seek to deny to the Prophets daughter her inheritance, hence Allah (swt) especially for lying
Nasibis such as Muhammad al Khider of Ansar.org, made the specific reference to Prophet Sulayman
(as) inheriting from his father.
Reply Two Denying access to a fathers material possessions

does not constitute a bounty from Allah (swt)
We read in Surah Naml 027.016:
Allah.)
We should point out that Mr. Yusuf Ali has made tahreef in translating this verse.The verse says that
Allah (swt) bestowed ALL things on Prophet Sulayman as the heir of Dawood (as) but Yusuf Ali adds
the word a little that is no where to be found in the Arabic. Pickthals translation is much closer to the
actual Arabic:
And Solomon was Davids heir. And he said: O mankind! Lo! we have been taught the
language of birds, and have been given (abundance) of all things. This surely is evident favour
Translated by Pickthal
The Quran is not just restricted to Tarawih recitals during Ramadhan, rather it resolves all disputes.
Inspection needs to be given to the words wa theena min kul shay. Its literal meaning is Allah had
granted us all things in the world, and all things clearly includes the material possessions of Dawood,
and Prophet Sulayman (as) counted these worldly possession as a bounty from Allah (swt). If Prophet
Sulayman (as) was exempt from his fathers material possessions, then he would not have counted
this as a bounty from Allah (swt). Think logically, no person would deem his being denied to his
fathers material possessions to be a bounty from Allah (swt), rather such exclusion is due to the wrath
of Allah (swt) that is meted out on children who murder their father or become an apostate. This is a
punishment from Allah (swt) not a bounty.
Allah deemed childrens inheritance of their Prophet fathers possession to be a bounty from Allah
(swt), as is proven from the episode of Dawood (as), whose property was inherited by Sulayman (as).
Sadly when it came to the era of our Prophet Muhammad (s) this bounty was usurped by Abu Bakr.
Rasulullah (s) had only one daughter, and there is no doubt that a daughter is a Mercy from Allah
(swt). Sadly Abu Bakr failed to live up to his famed kindness and counted Rasulullahs Estate of Fadak
as belonging to the Ummah, and hence denied the daughter of Rasulullah (s) her inheritance right.
When the Quran is a witness to the fact that a Prophets son inherited from him and Sayyida Fatima
(as) made a similar claim, denying her that right contradicted this Quranic verse.
Our challenge to all Nawasib

We challenge Al Khider and Co to present even a single authentic report proving that the Kingdom of
Dawood (as) was distributed among the poor of his nation as Sadaqah after his death.
If you are unable to produce a single authentic Proof to this effect then we challenge you to produce a
weak tradition demonstrating that the kingdom of Dawood (as) had been distributed amongst the
needy after his death.
If you cannot produce a weak tradition,(then we challenge you further to produce a single report (from
a Sunni / Shia sources, Christian or Jewish source), that shows that property of even a single Prophet
(out of 1,24,000 prophets) was distributed amongst the poor as Sadaqah when they died.
Reply Three Prophet Zakariya prayed for someone to inherit his

material possessions
Saying: My Lord! Lo! the bones of me wax feeble and my head is shining with grey hair, and I
have never been unblest in prayer to Thee, my Lord. Lo! I fear my kinsfolk after me, since my
wife is barren. Oh, give me from Thy presence a successor. Who shall inherit of me and inherit
(also) of the house of Jacob. And make him, my Lord, acceptable (unto Thee).
Al-Quran, Surah 19, Ayah 4-6, translated by Pickthal
The wife of Zakariya (as), Umme Kalthum bint Imran was also his niece and the desire to have
children exizts in all humans. Zakariya (as) therefore made a supplication that he be given offspring
who shall spend his material possessions in pious manner.
The verse proves that Prophets do indeed leave inheritance, and Prophet Zakariya (as) asked that
Allah (swt) grant him a child to inherit his material possessions. Al Khider of course finds this fact
unpalatable and explains away the verse as follows:
The word al-irth (inheritance) does not refer to material possessions exclusively. It is also used to
denote knowledge, prophethood or sovereignty. Examples of such usage are found in Surah Fatir:32,
where Allah says: Thereafter We gave the Book as inheritance (awrathna) to such of Our servants as
We have chosen; and in Surah al-Muminun:10-11, where Allah says: Those are the Inheritors (alwarithun) who will inherit Paradise.
Some people are so filled with their enmity of the Ahlul bayt (as) that any verse that establishes their
legal rights, is automatically misinterpreted in such a false way to ensure that those rights are denied
to them.This type of attitude is only on account of their blind love for the Sahaba, Sayyida Fatima (as)
never committed any wrong against any Muslim. al-irth (inheritance) is a term that is commonly
associated with material possessions. To the common Arab when someone use the term al-irth is it is
clear that he is referring to material possessions. If someone dies and people are told he left irth, all
will understand that the term means material possessions. It is a term that is unambiguous. It is not a
term associated with knowledge and possessions. If someone seeks to refer to al-irth (inheritance) as
something different he shall seek to clarify his words by explaining exactly what he means by al-irth
that way people can be made aware of the what he means when he says inheritance.
Interestingly Allah (swt) does exactly the same, when He (swt) uses al-irth for something other than
material possessions, He (swt) makes it clear exactly what is being inherited in that very same verse
thus removing any doubts over the meaning of the verse.
The interesting thing is Al Khider, the very verses that al Khider cites corroborates our stance. Allow
us to cite his comments once more only this time we shall highlight the key words, wherein Allah (swt)
clarifies the meaning of inheritance in the context of the same verse:
The word al-irth (inheritance) does not refer to material possessions exclusively. It is also used to
denote knowledge, prophethood or sovereignty. Examples of such usage are found in Surah Fatir:32,
where Allah says: Thereafter We gave theBook as inheritance (awrathna) to such of Our servants as
We have chosen; and in Surah al-Muminun:10-11, where Allah says: Those are the Inheritors (alwarithun) who will inherit Paradise.
The aforementioned hadith which states that the Ambiya do not leave dinars and dirhams as
inheritance, but they leave knowledge explicitly negates the possibility of the Ambiya leaving a
material legacy as inheritance. This alone is sufficient proof.
Look carefully at both verses cited by al Khider. These verses demonstrate that when Allah (swt)
diverges from the traditional understanding of al-irth as in material possessions, He clarifies exactly
what that person inherits, to ensure that people are not left ignorant assuming the term refers to
material possessions. Allah (swt) could have simply said al irth and left it at that, but He (swt) wanted
people to be sure that al-irth here had nothing to do with material possessions. This can also be
proven from the verse of Surah Muminnon wherein it is made clear (in the preceding verses) that the
believers that are trustworthy and observe prayers will receive Paradise as inheritance.
Those who faithfully observe their trusts and their covenants;
And who (strictly) guard their prayers;These will be the heirs,
Who will inherit Paradise: they will dwell therein (for ever).
Al-Quran, Surah 23, Ayah 8- 10
Again to ensure that normal people are not confused into assuming that individuals will permanently
reside in their material possessions, He (swt) clarifies that inheritance means Paradise in the context
of this verse.
Whilst not cited by al-Khider let us show another verse as proof:
We did aforetime give Moses the (Book of) Guidance, and We gave the book in inheritance to
the Children of Israel
Again Allah (swt) makes it clear that the term waawrathna refers not to material possessions, and
does so by highlighting that thingwhich the Childern of Israel inherited, the Book of Guidance.
Exactly the same can be deduced from the Hadith that al-Khider cited, but produced only partially
here:
The aforementioned hadith which states that the Ambiya do not leave dinars and dirhams as
inheritance, but they leave knowledge explicitly negates the possibility of the Ambiya leaving a
material legacy as inheritance. This alone is sufficient proof.
The Hadith is cited in its entirety by al Khider elsewhere and is as follows:
Abu Abdillah (Imam Jafar as-Sadiq) says that Rasulullah said: And the Ulama are the heirs of the
Ambiya; and the Ambiya did not leave dinars and dirhams as inheritance; but they left knowledge.
Therefore whosoever takes knowledge has taken a great portion. (al-Kafi, vol. 1 p. 42)
Note: We have again underlined the words that clarify exactly what the Ulema have attained as
inheritance.
Like the Quranic verses cited by al-Khider, since al irth is normally associated with material
possession, the Prophet (as) clarifies this by explaining exactly what the Ulema inherit, that way there
is no confusion, a believer can understand that the Ulema have inherited the knowledge of Prophets,
not their material possessions.
Now with the points we have just made in mind let, us look at the verse:
Wainnee khiftu almawaliYa min waraee wakanati imraatee AAaqiran fahab lee min ladunka
Yarithunee waYarithu min ali YaAAqooba waijAAalhu rabbi radiyYan waliyYan
Oh, give me from Thy presence a successor. Who shall inherit of me and inherit (also) of the
house of Jacob.
In this verse Allah (swt) uses the word waYarithu (that comes from the root word al-irth) and provides
no further clarification on what that means. One is therefore entitled to assume that it means the
inheritance of material possessions as is the commonly understood of al-irth. If Allah (swt) intended
this to mean the inheritance of knowledge or Prophethood, then He (swt) would have clarified this
matter in the same may that He (swt) did in those verses where al-irth refers to the inheritance of the
Book or Paradise. If the verse meant knowledge or Prophethood, then Allah (swt) would have cited
the supplication as follows:
Oh, give me from Thy presence a successor. Who shall inherit the Book, and Prophethood and
inherit (also) of the house of Jacob.
The very fact that Allah (swt) did not clarify the meaning of al-irth as He (swt) had done with those
verses proves that it means material possessions and nothing else.
Who shall inherit of me (yarithunee) in this verse

means to inherit worldly possessions
Let us first cite the transliteration of the words of the verse under discussion:
Yarithunee wayarithu min ali yaAAqooba
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/transliteration/019.html
Who shall inherit of me and inherit (also) of the house of Jacob
Al-Quran, Surah 19, Ayah 6, translated by Pickthal
As evidence, we shall rely on the following esteemed Sunni sources:
1.
Tafseer Durr al-Manthur, Volume 2 page 467
2.
Tafseer Kabeer Volume, 5 page 521 verse Yad Thana
3.
Tafseer Khazan Volume, 4 page 194
4.
Maalim al Tanzeel, Volume 4 page 194
5.
Tafseer Gharaib al Quran, Part 12 Page 38, Surah Maryam
6.
Sahih Muslim Sharh Nawawi, Volume 2 page 92
7.
Tafseer Tabari, Volume 18 page 145
8.
Tafseer al-Thawri, Volume 1 page 181
9.
Tafseer Samani, Volume 3 page 278
10.
al-Muharer al-Wajiz, volume 4 page 5
11.
Zaad al-Masir, Volume 5 page 146
12.
al-Lubab fi Uloom al-Kitab, Volume 13 page 13
13.
Tafseer Qurtubi, Volume 11 page 78
14.
Tafseer Maqatil bin Sulayman, Volume 2 page 307
We read in Tafseer Maqatil bin Sulayman:

To inherit me is to inherit my material possessions
It should be pointed out at that although the great Imam of Ahle Sunnah Ibn Jareer Tabari, while making
commentary of the verse under discussion, quoted various interpretations including the one that is relied upon by
our opponents i.e. it refers to intangible entities such as knowledge, prophethood or sovereignty, but he himself
believed that the verse refers to material possession of Zakariya (as) as vouched by Ibn Katheer:

This (opinion) has been adopted by Ibn Jareer in his commentary.
Now to directly quote Tabari, we read:

. : ) ( :
.
His statement {Who should inherit me and inherit from the children of Yaqoub} that is to say
inherit my material possessions after my death and inherit Prophethood from children of
Yaqub and that is because Zakariya is Yaqubs descendant and this is the opinion of the
commentators of Quran.
We read in Tafseer al-Thawri:

Inherit my material possessions/property and inherit Prophethood from the children of Yaqub
We read in Tafseer Durr al-Manthur:
: } { : :
.
Al-Faryabi narrated from ibn Abbas that he said: Zakaria wasnt able to have a child, therefore
he asked his God and said: {Who should inherit me and inherit from the children of Yaqub}
inherit my material possessions and inherit Prophethood from children of Yaqub.
Dur al-Manthur fi Tafseer al-Mathur, Vol. 2, Page 467
Ibn Adil states in al-Lubab fi Uloom al-Kitab:
:
There are varied opinions about the meaning of inheritance, Ibn Abbas,Hassan and Dahak said
that its the inheritance of material possessions.
Tafseer Kabeer:
:.
The third: Inherit material possessions and inherit Prophethood from children of Yaqub, this
is the statement of Sidi, Mujahid, Shubi and also narrated by Ibn Abbas, al-Hassan and
Dahak.
Gharaib al Quran:
:
Narrated from Ibn Abbas, al-Hassan and Dahak that it means inheriting material possessions.
Qurtubi also counted Qatada among the list of those who believed that it refers to
material possessions. We read in Tafseer Qurtubi:

Ibn Abbas, Mujahid and Qutada stated that it is to inherit his material possessions he disliked
to be inherited by his relatives and not by his son.
Since these six personalities mentioned by Imam Fakhruddin Razi are considered authority figures in
the eyes of the Ahle Sunnah, their testimonies shall suffice to silence all those who defend the
tradition coined by Abu Bakr i.e. Prophets do not leave inheritance! In fact, a group of scholars of Ahle
Sunnah did indeed concur with what has been stated by these prominent Sahaba and Tabayeen. We
read in Tafseer Samani:
: :
:
The answer: There are various opinions about the meaning of inheritance, according to Ibn
Abbas it means the inheritance of material possessions and a group (of scholars) agreed with
him.
Ibn Jauzi states in Zaad al-Masir:
: :
There are four meanings of inheritance in this, one of it is to inherit my
material possessions and inherit Prophethood from Jaccobs house, this has been narrated by
Akrma from Ibn Abbas and that is what has been adopted by Abu Saleh.
Ibn Attya in his book al-Muharer al-Wajiz tried to adopt the usual stance of our opponents that the
cited verse refers to the inheritance of knowledge, but not before admitting that:

The majority of the commentators of Quran tends that it means the inheritance of
material possessions.
We have proven from the above mentioned Sunni sources that Prophet Zakariya (as) was praying for
a child to inherit his worldly possessions.
Inherit (also) of the house of Jacob (yarithunee

wayarithu min ali yaaaqooba) also refers to
Yarithunee wayarithu min ali yaAAqooba
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/transliteration/019.html
Who shall inherit of me and inherit (also) of the house of Jacob
Al-Quran, Surah 19, Ayah 6, translated by Pickthal
Had Prophet Zakariyya (as) merely supplicated for a Waris as in a Prophet that would inherit his
knowledge there would have been no need for him to add in the above words and inherit (also) of the
house of Jacob. This dua connects his desire for a Waris like the house of Jacob. Al Khider logic
would therefore suggest that Zakariyya (as) wanted a Waris to inherit his knowledge and Prophetic
Office as was the case with the house of Jacob. This argument falls flat on its face since
Prophethood and knowledge were not inherited by all of the sons of Prophet Yaqub (as)! If they did
attain these stations why did they throw Prophet Yusuf down the well (s), and lie to their father that he
had been eaten by a wolf? If they had Prophetic knowledge they would have been aware that Allah
(swt) had made it haraam for animals to eat the flesh of Prophets. They can cause harm to Prophets,
this proves that the linked supplication Who shall inherit of me and inherit (also) of the house of
Jacob related to the inheritance of material possessions not Prophethood.
We shall now prove this through textual evidence from the following authentic Sunni sources:
1.
Tafseer Kashaf, Volume 2 page 503, Surah Maryam
2.
Tafseer Rul al Maani, page 63, Surah Maryam
3.
Tafseer Muraaghi, page 35, Surah Maryam
4.
Tafseer Abi Saud, Volume 5 page 255
Ahmad bin Mustafa al-Muraaghi (d. 1317 H) records in Tafseer Muraaghi:

A son who shall inherit the kingdom of Bani Mathan
Shaykh Muhammad bin Muhammad al-Maadi Abu Saud (d. 951 H) records in Tafseer Abi Saud:

Zakaria was the head of Rabbis [Priest], that day he wanted a child to inherit his Priesthood
and inherit from children of Mathan their kingdom.
We read in Ruh al Maani:

Inherit from children of Mathan their kingdom

Tafseer Kashaf:

Inherit the kingdom from the children of Yaqub
Al-Kashaf, Vol. 2, Page 503
We have cited four authentic sources to prove that the words of Allah (swt) Yarithunee wayarithu min
ali yaAAqooba refer to the inheritance of worldly possessions. If this Nasibi still diagrees allow us to
present a question for him to ponder over:
If Yarithunee means knowledge then could he elaborate what type of knowledge is this?
1.
If knowledge means knowledge of the Heavenly Books, then heavenly books are counted as
material possessions, this therefore proves the inheritance of material possessions.
2.
If knowledge refers worldly issues and principles of Shariah, then it should be known that
Zakariya had delivered this type of knowledge through his Dawah activities, hence there was no
risk of such knowledge being stolen.
3.
If Ilm means past and future events there would be no need for him to fear his cousins, since
this type of knowledge poses no danger to him or his elderly wife.
If these Nawasib put aside the enmity of Fatima (as) they would soon understand that this verse has
nothing whatsoever to do with the inheritance of knowledge. In Ahlul Sunnahs authority work Tafseer
Fatah ul Qadeer the author in his commentary of this verse lists the different categories of people
who were the Heirs of Zakariya and also pointed out the fact that a group of scholars of Ahe Sunnah
indeed believed that Zakariya (as) wished for an heir to inherit his material possessions:

They (scholars) disagreed in the meaning of of Zakaryias fear of his relatives, some said that
he feared that they would inherit his property and he wished to have a son to inherit him, thus
he asked Allah to grant him a son.
Fatah ul Qadeer, Vol. 3, Page 398
Who shall inherit of me (yarithunee) can also

logically be proven as material possessions
We have conclusively proven that the words of the verse Who shall inherit of me
(Yarithunee) refer to the inheritance material possessions. We shall now evidence logically that Who
shall inherit of me (Yarithunee) refers to material possessions, as in tangible assets and for this we
shall analyse the previous part of the verse. If we analyse the words of Prophet Zakariya (as) Now I
fear (what) my relatives (and colleagues) (will do) after me, the following points come to ones
mind:
1.
A fear occurs of something that can be stolen such as material possessions, whilst
Prophethood is a station that is appointed by Allah (swt), and is hence a position that cannot be
taken by force. If Zakariya (as) meant that he feared that his Prophetic knowledge would be taken,
namely that after someone may take it by force, it makes no sense, and such an interpretation
disrespects the status of a Prophet. Knowledge is not a physical asset that can be identified and
subsequently stolen, and Sunni scholar Professor Masud ul Hasan in his book Hadrat Ali Mutada
[RAA] page 361, narrates that when Maula Ali (as) was quizzed over whether knowledge was
superior to wealth, one of his responses included Knowledge cannot be stolen, whilst
wealth is constantly exposed to the danger of being stolen. Accordingly knowledge is
better than wealth. Prophetic Knowledge comes from Allah (swt) and He gives it to whomsoever
He chooses, a Prophet has no right to interfere in such a matter, and appeal for it to be handed to
his descendants. Can al Khider produce a single reference where following the death of a Prophet,
a Fasiq / Faajir forcefully occupied the station of Prophet?
2.
Worldly possessions are items that can be held by Muslim, Kaafirs, fajirs, fasiqs, hence it is
natural to fear having material possessions being usurped. Zakariya (as) had some material
possessions and as he had no offspring these possessions would have fallen into the hands of his
nephews, who were not pious individuals. Zakariya (as) feared that his nephews would invest
these possessions in bad things. That is why Zakariya (as) asked for a Waris who would be pious
and would spend these possessions in a manner that would benefit the Deen. This is logical for
when offsprings perform good deeds blessings also reach the parents. Zakariya (as) wanted his
offspring to spend in the way of Allah (swt) so that the reward / blessings would also reach him.
Relevantly, Al-Qurtubi in his Tafsir, Volume 11 page 81 quoted Imam Nahas according to whom
scholars have advanced three possible interpretations of the prayer of Zakriya and confirmed that
according to scholars, it is not impossible to believe that Zakariya actually meant someone to inherit is
material possessions. We read:

Their statement that inheriting material possessions is not impossible.
Khiders suggestion that it would be inappropriate

for a Prophet (s) to pray for someone to inherit his
Al Khider uses Qiyas in his effort to deny Sayyida Fatima (as) her inheritance rights. In his
commentary of this verse he states:
It is not fit or proper for a pious man to ask Allah for an heir to inherit his possessions. How can it then
be found acceptable that a noble prophet like Zakariyya alayhis salam asked Allah for a son to inherit
his wealth? What Zakariyyah alayhis salam really asked for was a son who would bear aloft the
standard of Prophethood after him, and in whom the legacy of the progeny of Yaqub would continue.
Ibn al Hashimi the copy and paste King has stated the same, in almost identical words in his
masterpiece The Quran Does Not Say Prophets Give Inheritance
Screenshot from Ibn al Hashimis article
Reply
On the one hand Nasibi such as al Khider in accordance with the comments of their Salaf Ulema like
Ibn Taymeeya and Ibn Katheer believe that Prophets are humans just like us and on the other side
they believe that for such men to pray for someone to inherit their possessions is improper and
impious. Taking Afrikis moralistic approach on board let us see his proper and pious depictions of
Rasulullah (s), in his Madhab, namely that he would:
receive Satanic verses.

1. Ghanyatul Talibeen, by Shaykh Abdul Qadir Gilani, Page 172
2. Tafseer al-Kashaf, Vol. 3, Page 164
3. Ahkam al Quran, Vol. 3, Page 246
4. Tafseer al-Tabari, Vol. 17, Page 186
5. Irshad al Sari (Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari] by Qasthalani, Vol. 7, Page 194
6. Tafseer Ibn Katheer, Vol. 3, Page 229
7. Fatah ul Bari Sharh Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol. 2, Page 354
8. Tafseer al-Jalalayn, Page 284
Sleep with nine wives in one night (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1 Hadeeth number 225).
Become affected by witchcraft (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7 Hadeeth number 661)
Be unsure as to what would happen to him on the Day of Judgement (Sahih Bukhari, Volume
2 Hadeeth number 334)
Now Al Khider if you deem it fit, proper and pious for Rasulullah (s) to behave in such a manner then
why the revulsion to a Prophet praying for someone to inherit his material possessions? Let us not
forget that Prophet Sulayman (as) had thanked Allah (swt) for being bestowed with worldly Kingdom,
and Prophet Yusuf (as) asked the Kaafir Pharaoh to appoint him as the State Treasurer. If the acts of
these two Prophets do not constitute improper conduct on their part, then the dua of Prophet Zakariya
(as) that someone inherits his possessions also does not constitute conduct unbecoming of a
Prophet.
We would like to challenge the assertion of al Khider, would it be impious for a religious man to:
Worry about what will happen to his elderly wife in the eventuality of him dying?
Worry about his material possessions being utilised for immoral / irreligious purposes after his
death?
Wealth can lead to destruction if used inappropriately and it can be a blessing if used by the methods
explained by Allah. Hence there are many lawful reasons for a person to ask Allah for an heir to inherit
his possessions.
Example: If a pious person is showered with Allahs grace and he fears that his possessions will go to
waste or used in prohibited things by going to his relatives then cant this person ask Allah for an heir
to inherit his possessions and to spend it appropriately?
Lets cite another example:
Al Khider is pious man, and has dedicated his life to serving religious causes, through writing articles.
He is married but has no children. Apart from his principle home he also has a property (that he has
rented out) and land that is rich in agriculture. He donates a vast bulk of the profits made from these
material possessions to support Dawah activities such as purchasing books, printing pamphlets,
supporting a Website. The only close relatives he has are his nephews. Unlike al Khider they are not
interested in religion; they live for tomorrow, spending their time indulging in gambling, sins of the flesh
and alcohol. They are just waiting in anticipation, hoping that Al Khider dies quickly so that they can
take control of both properties, turning one into a Pub, the other into a brothel
Faced with such a bleak future, would it be impious for Al Khider to pray for a child to inherit /
administer his material possessions, thus ensuring that that they were not used for sinful purposes,
whilst at the same time providing protection for his elderly wife?
Leaving material inheritance has clear advantages, as is commented on the article Inheritance in
Islam that can be located at this Deobandi site.
http://www.islamsa.org.za/library/pamphlets/inheritance_in_islam.htm Cached
If one is righteous and keeps his financial matters clean, the barakah of his wealth is enjoyed
by generations after him. The Quraan relates the event of Khidhar alaihis salaam putting a wall
right on the objection of Moosa alaihis salaam that the people of that town did not host them.
Khidhar alaihis salaam should not have served them especially without renumeration. Khidhar
alaihis salaam explained that the inheritance of some orphans was buried there and had to be
protected because their parents were righteous.
Al Khiders interpretation of this verse discredits

the character of Prophet Zakariyya (as)
Consider this Nasibis interpretation of this verse:
It is not fit or proper for a pious man to ask Allah for an heir to inherit his possessions. How can it then
be found acceptable that a noble prophet like Zakariyya alayhis salam asked Allah for a son to inherit
his wealth? What Zakariyyah alayhis salam really asked for was a son who would bear aloft the
standard of Prophethood after him, and in whom the legacy of the progeny of Yaqub would continue.
When it came to the inheritance of Sulayman Al Khider claimed:
and knowledge.
If Prophethood is inherited, and Zakariyya (as) prayed for one to inherit Prophethood, not material
possessions, we will be forced to accept that Prophet Zakariyya committed a sin by making this dua.
Al Khider logic is that standard of Prophethood goes to the surviving relatives via inheritance which in
this case would have been the nephews of Zakariyya (as). Why then, would Prophet Zakariyya (as)
make a dua that they be kept aloof from this station, why was he opposing Allah (swt)s desire that
they inherit Prophethood after him? Why was Zakariyya (as) unhappy that his inheritance of
Prophethood was going to his nephews? Rather than act in such a jealous manner, should he not
have simply accepted the will of Allah (swt)? If we accept al Khider logic that Prophethood transfers as
inheritance then we have to accept that Zakariyya (as) was a sinner who through jealously wanted to
ensure Prophethood remained in his loins. He should have willingly accepted that the standard of
Prophethood was to be passed on to his nephews by virtue of inheritance. The al Khider
interpretation of this verse paints the picture of a deeply envious man, who rather than accept that
Prophethood would be inherited by his nephews, was opposed to it who wanted to confine
Prophethood to his immediate family. Then we also need to question the character of Prophet
Zakariyya (as) under the second portion of the Duaso give me an heir as from Thyself,- (One
that) will (truly) represent me, and represent the posterity of Jacob; and make him, O my Lord!
one with whom Thou art well-pleased!
If Prophet Zakariyya was making a supplication that his son inherit the station of Prophet as was the
case with the descendants of Yaqoob (as) he would have no need to then conclude with these
words and make him, O my Lord! one with whom Thou art well-pleased! since Allah (swt) is
automatically pleased with one He (swt) appoints as a Prophet, so what was the sense in Prophet
Zakariyya praying that he be given a son who (according al Khider logic) will inherit his Prophethood
AND Allah (swt) will be pleased with him.
Allah (swt) never grants Prophethood to unjust

people
We would ask our readers to ponder over the supplication of Prophet Zakariyya (as) in this verse:
Now I fear (what) my relatives (and colleagues) (will do) after me: but my wife is barren: so give
me an heir as from Thyself,The supplication of Zakariyya (as) was made as he feared his relatives becoming his heirs. Al Khider
is suggesting that he (as) was supplicating for heir as in Prophet. This would mean that Prophet
Zakariyya (as) was fearful of that his nephews would inherit Prophethood after him! How is that
possible, when we know that they were not of good character? Allah (swt) does not just pick anyone
for the position of Prophethood, this is a divine rank give to those blessed woth perfection, it is not just
inherited as like property to the surviving relative. If we are to accept al-Khiders understanding then
we will have to accept that he feared his nephews of ill character would inherit Prophethood after him!
Is that logical?
Al Khider has himself discredited the notion that

the standard of prophethood can be attained via
supplication
What greater proof can there be that al Khider is a liar than the fact he has actually contradicted his
position in another of his written articles. Here he said that his Nasibi position on the dua of Zakariyya
(as) was as follows:
What Zakariyyah alayhis salam really asked for was a son who would bear aloft the standard of
Prophethood after him, and in whom the legacy of the progeny of Yaqub would continue.
al Khider is informing his faithful readers that Prophet Zakariyya (as) was praying that he have a son
who will succeed him as a Prophet. Curiously the very same Nasibi author in his article Imamate
states:
Allah speaks of the prayer of His exemplary worshippers:

(They are) those who say: Our Lord, grant us the coolness of (our) eyes in our wives and children, and
make us leaders of the pious. (al-Furqan : 74)
This verse speaks of normal people who do not belong to a special class like the Ambiya, asking
Allah to make them imams, in the sense of paragons of virtue, whose example others would strive to
emulate. It is very obvious that it cannot refer to a group of divinely appointed Imams, for the reason
that the Imams elevation to the rank of Imamah is not on account of their prayers. Since their
appointment, like that of the Ambiya, is supposedly divine in origin, it not attainable by any amount of
exertion or devotion.
In this article Al Khider is stating that the divine station of Prophethood cannot be attained via
supplication! If anything it serves to prove the lengths that these Nawasib will go to deny Sayyida
Zahra (as) her inheritance rights. One author, one website two contradicting arguments! Let us just
compare the two contradictions side by side:
Al Khiders article on Fadak
Al Khiders article on Imamate
What Zakariyyah alayhis salam really asked for

was a son who would bear aloft the standard of
Prophethood after him, and in whom the legacy
of the progeny of Yaqub would continue.
Since their appointment, like that of the

Ambiya, is supposedly divine in origin, it not
attainable by any amount of exertion or
devotion.
Clearly al Khider you cannot have your cake and eat it. You cant on the one hand believe that
Prophethood cannot be attained via prayer and then also believe that Prophet Zakariyya (as) prayed
that a Prophet son inherit him. That would be in the normal world, but clearly the world of the Nasibi is
very different, disparaging Shiaism is the key, even if it means exposing yourself as a contradictory
hypocrite!
Al Khiders guesswork that Prophet Zakariya was

too poor to leave any inheritance
Prophet Zakariya (as) also had reasons for asking Allah to grant him an heir to inherit him and His
family.
It is well know that Zakariyya alayhis salam was a poor man who earned his living as a carpenter.
What wealth could he have had that would prompt him to request an heir from Allah? In fact, it was a
general rule with the Ambiya that they did not hoard anything beyond their need, and that they spent
any surplus in charity.
Reply One
We would like al Khider to inform us which time machine he had got into that enabled him to
confidently conclude the meagre livelihood of Prophet Zakariya? Al Khider has sought to assess the
skilled trade of carpentry in this day and age to that time. Wage structure throughout the ages has
been linked to demand. In this age of post modernity the lucrative professions are linked to those in
business, sports or professional in the IT, legal or medical profession. Carpentry has become
redundant due to the development of machine technology. This was not the case during the time of
Zakariyya (as). People during that time would make money through the management of agricultural
land, rearing livestock and through skilled trades such as carpentry. This was not an era when people
could purchase furniture through shopping retailers, or via the internet. Items such as chairs, table,
beds etc were made by hand, through skilled carpenters, such as Prophet Zakariyya (as). Carpentry
during that time was hence a recognised skilled trade where people could have a livelihood, due to the
demand for furniture! It is therefore baseless for al Khider to assume that Zakariyya (as) was living
below the poverty line because he was a poorly paid trade. Al Khider has no means to know what
Prophet Zakariya had or did not have. He had an elderly wife, a job, a house, perhaps land and it was
his fear that his relatives would seize these material possessions and trample on the rights of his
elderly wife that lead him to make this Dua.
Reply Two
Allah (swt) states in Surah Nur 024.015:
Behold, ye received it on your tongues, and said out of your mouths things of which ye had no
knowledge; and ye thought it to be a light matter, while it was most serious in the sight of
Allah.
It is amusing that the great Imam of the Deobandis Mahmud Ahmad Rizvi in his article Bagh Fadak
made the claim that during the Fadak dispute Abu Bakr presented all his own possessions to Syeda
Fatima(s) and offered her to take whatever she wished. We would like to ask how this is possible,
when Abu Bakr was a mere pauper, who had given all his possessions in the way of Allah (swt)?
Zakariya (as) prayed for offspring to inherit his

worldly possessions
We read in Surah Aal-e-Imran 003.038:
There did Zakariya pray to his Lord, saying: O my Lord! Grant unto me from Thee a progeny
that is pure: for Thou art He who heareth prayer!
Similarly we read in Surah Anbiya verse 89:
And (remember) Zakariya, when he cried to his Lord: O my Lord! leave me not without
offspring, though thou art the best of inheritors.
Al-Quran, Surah al-Anbiya, Ayah 89, translated by Yusufali
Zakariya (as) prayed for a helper and someone to inherit his worldly possessions, and as proof we
shall rely on the following Sunni sources:
1.
Tafseer Fathul Qadeer, Volume 3 page 526
2.
Tafseer Khazan, Volume 4 page 459
3.
Tafseer Gharaib al Quran, Part 16 page 38
4.
5.
We read in Tafseer Gharaib al Quran::

Differences have arisen amongst the Tafseer scholars as to whether he prayed for a son to be
his Waris, or whether he prayed for a successor, whether it was a son or someone else. The
first viewpoint is more likely as it is supported by Aal-e-Imran O my Lord! Grant unto me from
Thee a progeny that is pure this verse in Surah Anbiya also confirms this O my Lord! leave me
not without offspring, though thou art the best of inheritors.
We read in Tafseer Khazan:
The intention of Hadhrat Zakariya was that Allah (swt) may not leave him in a situation where
he has no son as helper, and grant him an inheritor
We read in Tafseer Kabeer:

Like, to have someone who amuses him and supports him in religious and worldly matters
and to take His place after His death
Reply Three Why did Imam Ali (as) and Abu Bakr not concur with
Al Khiders understanding of theses verses?
The Following narration, informs us of the conversation between Imam Ali (as) and Abu Bakr during
the Fadak dispute. We are quoting Ibn Sads Tabaqat Al-Kabeer, Vol-11, p393, by S. Moinul Haq:
English translation:
Muhammad Ibn Umar informed us; (he said): Hisham Ibn Sad related to me on the authority of
Abbas Ibn Abd Allah Ibn Mabad, he on the authority of Jaffar; he said: Fatima came to Abu
Bakr and demanded her share in the inheritance. Al-Abbas Ibn Abd al-Muttalib came to him
and demanded his share in the inheritance. Ali came with them. Thereupon Abu Bakr said: The
Apostle of Allah said: We leave no inheritance, what we leave behind us is sadaqah. I shall
make provisions for those for whom the Prophet had made. On this Ali said: Sulayman
(Solomon) inherited Dawud (David); and Zakariya said: He may be my heir and the heir of the
children of Yaqub. Abu Bakr said: This is as this is. By Allah! You know it as I know.
Thereupon Ali said: This is the book of Allah that speaks. Then they became quite and retired.
Tabaqat Ibn Saad, Vol. 2, Page 393
During the Fadak dispute Hadhrat Ali (as) cited the verses of inheritance relating to Sulayman (as)
and Zakariya (as) saying This is the book of Allah that speaks and Abu Bakr offered no
explanation as to the meaning of these verses or interpreted them in reply as alkhider has done. What
can be deduced from Abu Bakrs silence? Imam Ali (as) clearly viewed these verses as a proof that
Prophets leave material possession as inheritance for he was relying on these verses to prove that
Sayyida Fatima (as) could inherit her fathers land. The learned al Khider claims that these verses
have nothing to do with the inheritance of material possessions, but refer to the inheritance of
knowledge. Will al Khider go on record and declare that his knowledge of the Quran was superior to
that of Imam Ali (as)? This would indeed be deeply impressive when we have the testimonies of
Rasulullah (s) and the Sahaba confirming that none surpassed Hadhrat Ali (as) with regards to
knowledge of the Quran:
Uns bin Malik narrates Ali had the greatest knowledge of whatever had been revealed by
Allah (swt)
Manaqib Sayyidina Ali page 16 by Aini
Shaybi narrates All that has been revealed by Allah (swt) is contained between these two
covers, and no one possesses greater knowledge of it than Ali
Durre Simtayn page 128, by Muhammad bin Yusuf Zarandi
Umar ibn al Khattab narrates The Prophet said to Ali, You possess the greatest knowledge of
the verses of Allah (swt)
Rabeh al Muttalib page 139
Rasulullah (s) said Ali possesses the greatest knowledge of the Quran and Sunnah
al Imama wa al Siyasa page 103
In light of these traditions is it believable that an individual who exceeded all in knowledge of the
Quran was completely ignorant of the true meaning behind the verses of Prophetic inheritance?
If we are to accept al Khiders understanding of these verses then we are left with three options:
Option One: Imam Ali (as) was completely ignorant in relation to his understanding of this verse, and
it came to later day adherents of Muawiya such as Ibn Taymeeya and Ibn Katheer to clarify the truth.
Option Two: Imam Ali fully concurred with Al Khider about the meaning of the verse, but still decided
to present the verses as evidence as a deceptive means of gaining property for his wife.
Option Three: Imam Ali (as) cited the verses BECAUSE they were proof that Prophets leave behind
material possession as inheritance.
Clearly neither of the first two options are acceptable.We are not prepared to accept that Imam Ali
(as), whom Rasulullah (s) declared as the gate of the city of knowledge failed to comprehend the true
meaning of these verses, and it thankfully took Nasibi such as Ibn Taymeeya, Ibn Katheer and Al
Khider to set the record straight. Option two is even less palatable, our Imam (as) would never
misinterpret a verse for personal gain. The only acceptable option is the third one that our Imam (as)
presented the versebecause he deemed it as proof that the Prophets leave material possessions that
is inherited. Whose understanding of the Quran has greater value Hadhrat Ali (as) or al-Khider of
Ansar.org?
We would also like to ask al Khider and his cohorts as to why Abu Bakr failed to refute the verses
presented? If the verses mean inheritance of knowledge and Prophethood as al Khider has advanced
then why did not Abu Bakr clarify his understanding of these verses during the Fadak dispute? The
Ahlul Sunnah often advance that Abu Bakr was the most knowledgeable from amongst the Sahaba
so why did he maintain his silence here? If he felt that Imam Ali (as)s understanding of these two
verses was incorrect then why did he not seek to correct him by pointing out that the verses refer to
the inheritance of knowledge and not material possessions? If Khaleefa Abu Bakr had even the
slightest knowledge of the Quran, he would have never have bothered citing this Hadeeth, evidenced
by the fact that he was lost for words when Maula Ali (as) cited them. Clearly if Abu Bakr wanted to
produce such a Hadeeth the better approach would have been for the Khaleefa to take up some
classes at a local Arabic Madrassa, since he would have been able to coin a Hadeeth in a much
simpler manner.
The advocates of Abu Bakr claim that the verses refer to the inheritance of knowledge but Abu Bakr
failed to say anything of the sort during the Fadak dispute, rather his only response was that he heard
the Prophet say whatever we (i.e. prophets) leave is Sadaqah. Why are these advocates explaining
the verse in this manner, when their client Abu Bakr failed to do so? Can we conclude that the
knowledge of Ibn Taymeeya, Ibn Katheer and al-Khider with regard to the meaning of this verse was
greater than that of Abu Bakr?
The verses under discussion formed the basis on

which the earlier Hanafi Imams believed that the
material possessions of Prophets can be inherited
It is strange that our opponents always paint a happy and concrete picture to portray a unanimous
opinion in their sect that the verse under discussion does not talk about material possessions and
prophets material possessions can never be inherited. But to place a blemish on such a portrait we
would like to present words of Imam Sarkhasi, who in his authority work al-Mabsoot, Volume 12 page
29 stated:

Some of our Sheikhs may Allahs mercy be upon them have commented on his (Prophets)
statement we prophets do not leave inheritance whatever we leave is for charity and said
that it means, whatever they leave for charity cant be inherited but it doesnt mean that
prophets property cannot be inherited, Allah has said {And Solomon was Davids heir} and the
Almighty (swt) said{therefore grant me from Thyself an heir Who should inherit me and inherit
from the children of Yaqoub} so God forbids that Holy Prophet (s) opposed Quran in his
(aforementioned) statement.
Although Sarkhasi himself didnt concur with the opinion of his early Sheikhs and upheld the
interpretation of the verses that are usually made by our opponents but our objective behind citing this
reference is to only highlight the fact that there have prevailed in the ranks of the Sunni clergy, Imams
who did believe that the verses under discussion talk about material possessions.
The inheritance left by Hadhrat Adam (as)

Surah Baqarah 002.248 reads:
And (further) their Prophet said to them: A Sign of His authority is that there shall come to
you the Ark of the covenant, with (an assurance) therein of security from your Lord, and the
relics left by the family of Moses and the family of Aaron, carried by angels. In this is a symbol
for you if ye indeed have faith.

These relics reached the hands of Hadhrat Adam (as) and his descendants and as proof we shall rely
on the following esteemed Sunni works:
1.
Tafseer Kabeer Volume 2 page 506 & 507
2.
Tafseer Khazan Volume 1 page 216
3.
Tafseer al-Thalabi, Volume 2 page 212
4.
Al Jamah la Hukam Al Quran, by Qurtubi 2nd edition, Page 247, Published Beirut
Tafseer Kabeer:
The historians narrate that Allah (swt) sent some relics to Adam (as) which contained
pictures of the Prophets, and these relics were inherited by the children of Adam, to the point
that they reached Hadhrat Yaqoob (as)
Tafseer al-Kabeer, Vol. 2, Page 506 & 507
We read in Tafseer Thalabi:
It was with Adam till he died, then it was with Sheeth, then the progeny of Adam inherited it till
it reached to Ibrahim, when Ibrahim died it was with Ismaeel, because he was is his elder son,
then when Ismaeel died, it was with his son Kedar, then Isaacs progeny disputed with him
about it and said: Prophethood has gone from you and you have no other than this single
light (the light of Muhammad) hence give us the covenant, thus Kedar rejected to submit it to
them and said: Its a legacy from my father and I would never give it to any one.
Qurtubi, in his commentary of this verse states:
This Covenant was sent by Allah (swt) to Prophet Adam (as), and it remained with him until it
reached Prophet Yaqoob (as), after which it remained with Bani-Israel, and they kept
overcoming their opposing armies due to the blessings of this chest, until they disobeyed
Allah (swt), and were defeated by Amaliqans, who took the chest from them.
Did no paupers exist during the period of Hadhrat Adam (as) till Hadhrat Yaqoob (as)? If the
possessions of Prophets are Sadaqah for the Ummah, then why were these relics not distributed as
Sadaqah when these prophets died?
Complimenting these Tafsirs is this narrative from the History of Tabari Volume 3 pages 125-126:
Elisha was made a Porphet among the Israelites. He remained among them for as long as
God wished them to be; then He took him to Himself. People followed each other in
succession among them with sins increasing whilse the Ark was among them. Within it was
Sakinah and a remainder of what the people of Moses and Aaron had left. It was handed down
as an inheritance from one generation to another.
History of Tabari, Volume 3 pages 125-126
Prophet Isaac (as)s daughter inherited his

Strap/Belt
We read in Holy Quran :
[Yusufali 12:77] They said: If he steals, there was a brother of his who did steal before
(him).
Allamah Qadhi Thanaullah Panee Patee in commentary of above mentioned verse explains as to why
the brothers of Yusuf (as) saidIf he steals, there was a brother of his who did steal before (him)
. Qadhi writes:
Muhammad bin Isaac narrates from Mujahid that following the death of Yusufs mother, he (as)
started living with his paternal aunt (Bint Isaac), she loved him a great deal, and it was she
who nourished him, when he grew older, Hadhrat Yaqub (as) started loving him deeply and
requested his sister: Sister! Now han over Yusuf to me, as his absence from my sight for even
a moment has become unbearable for me. Hadhrat Yaqubs (as)s sister deemed this
impossible, whereas Hadhrat Yaqub(as) said that he could not leave Yusuf (as). His sister
asked that she be allowed to keep Yusuf for a few more days, as Allah might grant her patience
in regards to him. Hadhrat Yaqub (as) agreed to this. Hadhrat Isaac (as)s strap (cloth worn
around the waist) was to be inherited by the eldest child, being elder than Hadhrat Yaqub (as),
his sister had inherited that strap and it was in her possession. She tied this strap around
Hadhrat Yusufs (as) waist, underneath his clothes and then proclaimed that Hadhrat Isaacs
(as)s strap had gone missing and that family members be searched. All the household were
checked and the strap was recovered from Hadhrat Yusuf (as), hence Hadhrat Yaqubs (as)
sister proclaimed that from now on Yusuf (as) was to live with her. Hadhrat Yaqub (as) replied
that if he had indeed done such an act, he should remain with her (Under the Shariah of
Hadhrat Isaac (as) the owner of an appropriated belonging owned the thief as well), through
this planning she kept Hadhrat Yusuf (as) till her death.
Tafseer Mazhari, Volume 6 Page 121
Comments:
We can see that the inheritance of Prophet Isaac (as) was not distributed as charity rather his
daughter inherited his belongings. If the daughter of Prophet Isaac (as) was entitled to inherit him then
why not the daughter of the Holy Prophet (s) ? There are many traditions in the books of our
opponents, that demonstrate that the children of the Prophet (s) inherited from them. And there is not
even a single Report (either Authentic or Weak), which shows that child of any prophet was refused
for inheritance except incident of Abu Bakr. Its our challenge to these nasabis to produce such
evidence, from even one report.
Prophet Ibrahim (as)s shirt was inherited by Isaac

(as) till it reached Prophet Yaqub (as)
We read in Holy Quran:
[Shakir 12:93] Take this my shirt and cast it on my fathers face, he will (again) be able to see,
and come to me with all your families.
Qadhi Thanaullah under the commentary of above mentioned verse writes in Tafseer Mazhari,
Volume 6, Page 135-136, published by Daar ul Isha`t Karachi:
Take this shirt of mine and spread it over my fathers face, this would make his vision come
back, or it means that his father would return to him being able to see. Hasan said that
Hadhrat Yusuf (as) might have been told by Allah Almighty, that is why he said that his father
would be able to see, he couldnt have said such a thing without being informed by Allah.
Mujahid says that Hadhrat Jibrael(as) had conveyed Allahs order to Hadhrat Yusuf (as) to send
his shirt to Hadhrat Yaqub (as). This shirt belonged to Hadhrat Ibrahim (as), when he was
about to be thrown into the fire, his clothes were taken off, then Hadhrat Jibrael (as) had
brought a silk shirt for him from the heaven, the shirt remained with Hadhrat Ibrahim (as), after
his death the shirt was inherited by Hadhrat Isaac (as) and it went to Hadhrat Yaqub (as)
afterwards.
Tafseer Mazhari, Volume 6, pages 135-136
Need we to comment any more? If Prophets leave no inheritance then how did the shirt of Ibrahim
transfer through two generations of Prophets? Were these two Prophets so ignorant of the Shariah
that they did not even know that this shirt had to be distributed to the poor and needy? Did not even a
single poor destitute man exist during the era of Isaac (as) and Yaqub (as) who was entitled to this
shirt?
As we shall demonstrate later not only Sunni books, but the Old and New Testament depict the
Inheritance of Earlier Prophets.
Al Khiders false claim that Prophets never kept

anything beyond their need
Ansar.org:
In fact, it was a general rule with the Ambiya that they did not hoard anything beyond their need, and
that they spent any surplus in charity.
Reply
Al Khider has very confidently advanced this as a fact and general rule, could he therefore cite us a
single verse in the Quran or authentic Hadeeth literature whereby Prophets were ordered not to live
beyond their need and spend their surplus in charity? Prophet Dawood (as) and Prophet Sulayman
both had Kingdoms with all the perks that come with this position, e.g. Palaces, land, money etc.Was
such a royal lifestyle not beyond their need? We have already mentioned that Prophet Sulayman (as)
had 1000 horses in his possession, was such lavishness not beyond his need?
Biblical Proof that Prophets leave inheritance for

their children
The Bible provides a detailed insight into the lives of Prophets and their properties. It is strange that
there is not even a single clue to substantiate Abu Bakrs claim (i.e. the properties of all the prophets
from Adam (as) till Muhammad (s) were distributed as Sadaqah and that their children received no
share).
On the contrary we see at various points that when Prophets die their properties do not become
charitable donations but are inherited by their offspring. It seems that throughout the history of
mankind, Abu Bakr stands alone with his claim that prophets children dont inherit them. No one from
amongst Muslims confirmed the correctness of his claim, no one else narrated this from the Prophet,
and no such evidence can be deduced from the Bible either.
Some incidents from the Bible

Now let us quote some of the incidents from Bible, which clearly prove that children of earlier prophets
also inherited from them.
Solomon (as) inherited the Kingdom from David (as)

Ansar.org:
children from these wives and concubines.
It is indeed unfortunate that Al Khider chose to attribute Jewish fable to Prophet Dawud (as). He did
have several wives and concubines but this is ridiculous to exceed their number to 400 in total. Even
Bible also doesnt support this assertion.
Al-Khider wants to prove that Dawud (as) had hundreds of sons which is also wrong. according to
Bible, he had 6 sons while he was in Hebron.
2 Samuel 3:2-5 says:
Two Sons were born to David in Hebron:
His firstborn was Amnon the son of Ahinoam of Jezreel;
his second, Kileab the son of Abigail the widow of Nabal of Carmel;
the third, Absalom the son of Maacah daughter of Talmai king of Geshur;
the fourth, Adonijah the son of Haggith;
the fifth, Shephatiah the son of Abital;
and the sixth, Ithream the son of Davids wife Eglah.
And in Jerusalem, again he got 13 children.
1 Chronicle 14:4 reads:
These are the names of the children born to him there (Jerusalem): Shammua, Shobab,
Nathan, Solomon, Ibhar, Elishua, Elpelet, Nogah, Nepheg, Japhia, Elishama, Beeliada and
Eliphelet.
Moreover, also see 2 Samuel 5 (which claims 11 children in Jerusalem). This makes total children of
Dawud (as) around 17 to 19. This tallies with the tradition of the Shia Imams in Minhajus Sadiqeen
(presented earlier) which also tells that there were 19 children of Dawud (as).
According to Bible, the Kingdom of Dawud (as) was not left as Sadaqah, but it was the same Kingdom
which was inherited by Sulayman (as). We will prove it later, but first we will tell the whole story behind
this Kingdom which shows that none of the children of Dawud (as) considered this inheritance to be
the Sadaqah for poor.
Adonijah [son of David (as) and elder brother of Solomon (as)] tried
to occupy the Kingdom
1 Kings 1 tells that when David (as) got older, one of his sons Adonijah conspired and tried to
occupy the Kingdom. Let us see what Bible is saying:
And Adonijah slew sheep and oxen and fat cattle by the stone of Zoheleth, which is by
Enrogel, and called all his brethren the kings sons, and all the men of Judah the kings
servants: 10 But Nathan the prophet, and Benaiah, and the mighty men, and Solomon his
brother, he called not. 11 Wherefore Nathan spake unto Bathsheba the mother of Solomon,
saying, Hast thou not heard that Adonijah the son of Haggith doth reign, and David our lord
knoweth it not?
And Bathsheba said unto him, My lord, thou swearest by the LORD thy God unto thine
handmaid, saying, Assuredly Solomon thy son shall reign after me, and he shall sit upon my
throne. 18 And now, behold, Adonijah reigneth; and now, my lord the king, thou knowest it not:
And king David said, Call me Zadok the priest, and Nathan the prophet, and Benaiah the son
of Jehoiada. And they came before the king. 33 The king also said unto them, Take with you
the servants of your lord, and cause Solomon my son to ride upon mine own mule, and bring
him down to Gihon: 34 And let Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet anoint him there king
over Israel: and blow ye with the trumpet, and say, God save king Solomon. 35 Then ye shall
come up after him, that he may come and sit upon my throne; for he shall be king in my stead:
and I have appointed him to be the ruler over Israel and Judah.
Hence Solomon (as) became the heir of Dawoods (as) kingdom and it refutes the claim by Mr. AlKhider that Quran was talking about Solomon (as) as heir to David (as) only in terms of Knowledge
and Prophethood.
In the next chapter of 1 Kings, Adonijah tells the mother of Solomon (as), that whole Bani Israel was
looking at him to inherit the Crown. This also shows that Bani Israel never deemed that Prophets
property is a Sadaqah, but always believed it to be distributed only among the family of Prophets
according to the rules of earlier Sharias.
Not only Solomon Inherited Dawud (as), but also Rehoboam (son
of Solomon) inherited from his father
It is Interesting to see the following verses of Bible which confirms that Solomons son also inherited
the same kingdom from Solomon (as):
2 Chronicles 9:31:
And Solomon slept with his fathers, and was buried in the city of David his father; and
Rehoboam his son reigned in his stead.
2 Chronicles 10:1:
Rehoboam went to Shechem, for all Israel had come to Shechem to make him king.
The chapter 10 of Book of Chronicles 2 tells that Rehoboam was not a prophet but a fallible person.
And he was not chosen by Allah, but by people as the inheritor of kingdom of Solomon (as).
Jacobs land (as) was given to his Descendants as inheritance (and

not given to the poor as Sadaqah)
Bible also confirms that Inheritance of Jacob (as) was also given to his descendants, instead of being
divided amongst the poor as charity.
Book of Joshua 24:32:
The bones of Joseph which the people of Israel brought up from Egypt were buried at
Shechem, in the portion of ground which Jacob bought from the sons of Hamor the father of
Shechem for a hundred pieces of money; it became an inheritance of the descendants of
Joseph.
In other places in Bible, we find the whole history of this Land of Shechem and why Prophet
Josephs(s) bones were brought to this place after his death.
Genesis 34 give full details how Jacob (as) came to this land of Shechem, and how he bought it and
why he had to leave it later.
And before Joseph died (at the age of 110), he made a will that his bones must be brought to this
Promised Land. This whole incident can be found in Genesis 50.
Genesis 50:24-25:
Joseph said to his brothers: I am about to die. God will surely take care of you and lead you
out of this land to the land that he promised on oath to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Then,
putting the sons of Israel under oath, he continued, When God thus takes care of you, you
must bring my bones up with you from this place.
A Property of Abraham (as) was maintained by his children and was

not distributed as charity
Genesis 49 tells us that Abraham (as) bought a property from Hittite. After his death, this property
was not distributed as charity, but remained in the hands of his descendants.
Genesis 49:29-33:
The Death of Jacob
Then he gave them these instructions: I am about to be gathered to my people. Bury me with
my fathers in the cave in the field of Ephron the Hittite, 30 the cave in the field of Machpelah,
near Mamre in Canaan, which Abraham bought as a burial place from Ephron the Hittite, along
with the field. 31 There Abraham and his wife Sarah were buried, there Isaac and his wife
Rebekah were buried, and there I buried Leah. 32 The field and the cave in it were bought from
the Hittites.
When Jacob had finished giving instructions to his sons, he drew his feet up into the bed, breathed his
last and was gathered to his people.
Prophet Job (as) also gave the share of inheritance to his daughters
Job 42:15:
And in all the land there were no women so fair as Jobs daughters; and their father gave them
inheritance among their brothers.
Allah Promised Abraham to give him a son in old age who would
inherit him everything
Genesis 15:2:
Later the LORD spoke to Abram in a vision, Abram, dont be afraid! I will protect you and
reward you greatly. But Abram answered, LORD All-Powerful, you have given me everything
I could ask for, except children. And when I die, Eliezer of Damascus will get all I own. You
have not given me any children, and this servant of mine will inherit everything. The LORD
replied, No, he wont! You will have a son of your own, and everything you have will be his.
Then the LORD took Abram outside and said, Look at the sky and see if you can count the
stars. Thats how many descendants you will have. Abram believed the LORD, and the LORD
was pleased with him.
The Quran also refers to similar Dua by Zakariya (as) when he prayed to Allah Almighty for a child,
who may inherit from him, while he feared that all his possessions would go to his relatives.
In brief, we have showed from the Quran that Sulayman (as) inherited from Dawud (as), and
Zakariyyah (as) prayed for a child who inherit him, and showed Ahadeeth from Aima of Ahle-Bait (as),
and also showed Ahadeeth from Sunni books that sons of earlier Prophets inherited from them. Now
its challenge for our opponents to show us a single Quranic verse, or Hadeeth or even from Bible that
properties of all the Prophets from Adam (as) till Muhammad (s) had been distributed as charity
among the poor.
Do the References from Bible have any Importance?

The case of Bible is some what like Ahadeeth, which are not 100% authentic, but people added a lot
in them according to their wishes. Similarly Bible went through a lot of corruption. But still there are a
lot of things in Bible, which you will find completely in accordance with Quran and authentic Ahadeeth
of Rasool Allah (saw).
We will not go in details about Bible here, but we must keep the following facts in mind:
1.
Mostly the changes, that are made in Bible, concerns the part of Beliefs. But the stories about
the inheritances of Prophets does not come under Beliefs. So there is very less probability that
corruption took place in them.
2.
There is a term Tawatur in Ahadeeth. It means that if any report comes through several
different sources, then even if these chains have deficiencies still such report is considered to be
authentic. Similar is the case of inheritance of Prophets in Bible. In presence of so many different
reports about Prophets children getting the share in inheritance, it is unlikely that all these reports
have been fabricated and included by people in the Bible.Please also note that the
conditions/standards set for a Muttawatir report of ahadeeth (sayings of Rasool (s)) is strict, as it
concerns the part of our Beliefs. But in case of historical events, these conditions are lenient. And
the stories of inheritance in Bible come under these standards.
3.
Ibn Tamiyah in his book al-qaida al-jaleela fit- tawwasali wal-waseela, with commentary of
Dr. Rabia bin Hadi Umayr al-Mudkhali, professor in the Islamic University of Madinah alMunawwara, Page 162, gives a detailed discussion on the fact that it is acceptable to use a
hadith whose authenticity is unknown, as long as the hadith is known not to have been an actual
lie. On the same page paragraph 480 Ibn Taymeeya states same principle can be applied to
Jewish traditions:This is like the [situation] of the Israiliyyaat [stories related by the Jews].
It is permissible to be narrated as long as we know that it is not a lie, for encouraging or
discouraging in what we know that Allah has ordered in our law [shar'] or forbade in our
law [shar'].
Comment
Applying the principle established by Ibn Taymeeya to the Biblical references, we can that these
narrations in no way conflict with the Law of Allah (swt) as set out in the Quran, wherein we learn that
Prophets Dawood (as) and Zakariya (as) left inheritance on the contrary they corroborate these
verses. It is therefore perfectly acceptable to cite Biblical references to Prophetic inheritance.
The misuse of Shia traditions to prove that

prophets leave no inheritance
The author of Fedak had made this bold claim:
When a Nabi (Alayhis-Salaam) passes away, the property he leaves behind is not inherited by
anybody. This fact is written in Shii literature as well.
Reply
This claim is a shameless lie and complete failure of the author to cite any source points to the fact
that he is merely regurgitating the vomit of his Nasibi Shaykhs without actually looking in to the matter.
Alhamdulilah, unlike the tradition coined by Abu Bakr, in Shia fiqh the progeny of prophets are not
believed to have been derpived of their natural and religious right of inheriting from their father. The
following tradition shall pose a big slap to the ugly face of those Nawasib who try to bring Shia school
equal to theirs in this regard:
Zurara narrated that Abi Jaffar (as) said: Ali inherited the knowledge of Allahs messenger and
Fatima inherited his property.
1. Al-Kafi, Volume 7 page 86
2. Basair al-Darajat, page 314
3. Tahdib al-Ahkam, Volume 9 page 277
4. Min la Yahdrahu al-Faqih, Volume 4 page 261
5. Manaqib al Abi Talib, Volume 2 page 26
6. Allamah Majlisi declared it Hasan in Mirat al-Uqool, Volume 23 page 32
The tradition in first part is talking the inheritence of Holy Prphet (s) in respect of knowledge which
goes to his successor and scholars while in the second part the tradition is talking about the
inheritence of Holy Prophet (s) that goes to his biological progeny, yet the najis Nawasib take the first
part of the tradition in their attempt to prove that Shias also believed the fabrcicated concepted coined
by Abu Bakar according to whch the progeny of all prophets are kept deprvied from the natural and
relgious right of inheriting the material possessions.
Whilst the unamed author was so lazy that he had not bothered to bring forth any evidence, al Khider
brings his devastating evidence, but contradicts himself as follows:
The fact of the matter is that the hadith We, the Prophets do not leave heirs is authentic by both the
Ahl as-Sunnah and the Shiah. Why is it then that Abu Bakr is condemned for appropriating an
authentic statement of Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wa-alihi wasallam, and that he be accused of
fabricating the hadith in order to dispossess Fatimah of Fadak?
Reply
Just look at how this Nasibi contradicts himself:
First he mentions that Shias accept the Hadeeth: We Prophets do not leave. As
Authentic.
Then he mentions Abu Bakrand that he be accused of fabricating the Hadeeth in

order to dispossess Fatima of Fadak.
How can the Shias accept the Hadeeth to be Sahih and then accuse Abu Bakr of fabricating it? Al
Khider has yet again exposed himself as a liar.
Abu Abdillah (Imam Jafar as-Sadiq) says that Rasulullah said: And the Ulama are the heirs of the
Ambiya; and the Ambiya did not leave dinars and dirhams as inheritance; but they left knowledge.
Therefore whosoever takes knowledge has taken a great portion. (al-Kafi, vol. 1 p. 42)
Regarding the authenticity of this Hadeeth, Allamah Muhammad Baqir Majlisi states in his
commentary on al-Kafi, entitled Mirat al-Uqul:[This] Hadeeth has two chains of narration. The first is
majhul [contains an unknown narrator], and the second is hasan or muwaththaq. [Together] they do
not fall short of being Sahih. (Mirat al-Uqul, vol. 1 p. 111)
It is then a fact that this Hadeeth is reliable. Why do the ulama of the Shiah refrain from using it,
despite the fact that it so well-known in their ranks?
The strange thing here is that the Hadeeth is authentic enough for Khomeini to utilise it as evidence of
the validity of his monumental political theory of Wilayat al-Faqih (the Rule of the Jurisprudent). He
writes under the heading Saheehat al-Qaddah (the authentic narration of al-Qaddah):
Ali ibn Ibrahim narrates from his father, from Hammad ibn Isa, on the authority of ['Abdullah ibn
Maymun] al-Qaddah that Abu Abdillah [Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq] alayhis salam said: Rasulullah alayhi
wa-alihi wasallam said: Whoever walks a path seeking therein knowledge, Allah will lead him on a
road to Jannah And the Ulama are the heirs of the Ambiya; and the Ambiya did not leave dinars
and dirhams as inheritance; but they left knowledge. Therefore whosoever takes knowledge has taken
a great portion. (al-Kafi, Kitab Fadl al-Ilm, Bab Sifat al-Ilm wa-Fadlihi, Hadeeth no. 2)
To this narration Khomeini appends the following remark:
The narrators of this tradition are all reliable and trustworthy. The father of Ali ibn Ibrahim [namely
Ibrahim ibn Hashim] is not only reliable; he is one of the most reliable and trustworthy narrators. (alHukumat al-Islamiyyah, p. 133, published by Markaz Baqiyyat Allah al-Azam, Beirut)
Thereafter Khomeini points to another narration to the same effect that is recorded in al-Kafi with a
weak chain of narration, and comments as follows:
This narration has been narrated with a slight difference to the same effect through another chain of
narration that is weak, meaning that the chain is authentic up to Abul Bakhtari, but Abul Bakhtari
himself is weak. That narration is as follows:
[It is narrated] from Muhammad ibn Yahya, from Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Isa, from Muhammad ibn
Khalid, from Abul Bakhtari, that Abu Abdillah [Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq] alayhis salam said: Verily the
Ulama are the heirs of the Ambiya. That is because the Ambiya do not leave dirhams or dinars as
inheritance, but they leave their words. . (al-Hukumat al-Islamiyyah, p. 133)
It might be concluded from the above that the Hadeeth which states that the Ambiya do not leave
dinars and dirhams as inheritance, but they leave knowledge is authentic in one of its two chains of
narration, as attested to by Khomeini, and before him by Majlisi. Why should an authentically narrated
statement of Rasulullah be spurned when it is a matter of consensus that there can be no Ijtihad when
a Nass (text) exists? Again, why does this Hadeeth qualify to be used in support of Wilayat al-Faqih,
but not for the issue of Fadak? Is this issue being judged subjectively?
Reply One
When the Nawasib find this Hadeeth, they dance with joy as if it is the festival of Eid but as we pointed
out earlier, wherever the Shia text mentions the inheritance of prophets, it does from two perspectives:
1.
The spiritual inheritors of prophets This included their successors and the learned Ulema
(scholars) since they inherit the knowledge of prophets NOT Dinars and Dirhams [i.e. material
possessions] - Prophets do not leave Dinars and Dirham for this category of heirs /inheritors.
2.
The biological inheritors of prophets That obviously includes the biological offspring of
Prophets that inherit all Dinars and Dirham [i.e. material possessions] and we have cited one such
example of this category of heir/inheritor herein above. Unlike our opponents who would have us
believe, there exists NO Shia text that has suggested that this category of heir/ inheritors are
precluded from the right to inherit material possessions and that whatever is left by their Prophet
father is to be distributed as charity. The comparison can therefore never be drawn with the theory
coined by Abu Bakar with those that have been mentioned by the Imam in the Hadeeths cited by
Nawasib.
If our opponents insist on placing an emphasis on this part of Hadith i.e. Ambiya did not leave
dinars and dirhams as inheritanceare they trying to say that the Dinar or Dirham any prophet had
in his possession would automatically vanished when he took his last breath? Remember that our
opponents here cannot come up with the answer that the possessions that remained were distributed
forthwith as Saqda because this distribution as Sadqa theory does not exist in the Shia school, rather
it was the brain child of Abu Bakar and his supporters.
The traditions al-Khidr relied on are talking about the first aspect only and thus it provided an an
opening for the Nawasib to to commit dishonesty and present them as an orthodox belief of the Shia.
Pertaining to the traditions cited by the Nasibi author,
Ulema are not the actual son of Prophets
Prophets are not their actual fathers
Knowledge is not an actual possession that can be distributed.
In the same way that the Hadeeth refers to the Ulema as the figurative sons of Prophets and Prophets
as their figurative fathers; knowledge is also a figurative possession. The entire Hadeeth is along the
line of figurative terms, hence the term Waris can also be understood in a figurative manner the
Ulema attain some of the knowledge possessed by Prophets. The Waris Hadeeth cited by Abu Bakr in
Sahih al Bukhari that preceded the claim of Sayyida Fatima (as), did not refer to the inheritance of
knowledge but referred to the inheritance of possessions as mentioned in the Shia tradition we cited
above.
The Fadak dispute was in relation to a portion that had been set aside by Allah (swt) for Rasulullah
(s). Abu Bakrs response that Prophets leave no inheritance did not refer to knowledge, hence this
proves that the Hadeeth in al Kafi that the Ulema are the Heirs of the Prophets Knowledge is a
figurative term, it can not be advanced to prove that the Ahlul bayt (as) were prohibited from inheriting
the Prophets worldly possessions.
Reply Two
The Nasibi in many ways destroys his entire argument by posing this brain teaser:
Why does this hadith qualify to be used in support of Wilayat al-Faqih, but not for the issue of
Fadak?
The very fact that Ulema have used this Hadeeth to support the concept of State rule and nothing else
is proof that these particular Hadith of al Kafi is not addressing the children of the Prophet (s). The
Ulema have correctly interpreted the Hadeeth to mean that the Property of Prophethood is only
Knowledge (not Dinars and Dirhams) and it is this property that Prophets leave as inheritance for their
Ummah (not Dinars and Dirhams). The heirs of this knowledge are Ulema (People with knowledge).
The above narration is not talking about the inheritance of a material thing, i.e. a personal property or
a land but its talking about the knowledge of Prophets, which is inherited by the scholars of Islam.
The Hadith is informing us of exactly what the Ulema receive as inheritance from Prophets. It is
making clear that the Ulema are not the waris of the material possessions of the Prophets; rather the
only thing that they inherit is the knowledge of Prophets. If these Ulema were also the waris of the
material possessions of the Prophet (s) then that would constitute clear injustice for the surviving
relatives the Hadith therefore makes it clear that the only thing that scholars inherit from Prophets
are their knowledge. Such an interpretation is in complete conformity with the principle of Islamic laws
of inheritance that are set out in the Quran, the Ulema of tne Ummah have no right inherit the dinars /
dirhams of Prophets, rather all that they have entitlement to is their knowledge, since the Waris of
dinars / dirhams are the surviving relatives.
Reply Three
These particular Hadith mentions scholars not family. The tradition is stressing that Prophets did not
come on the earth to horde vast amounts of wealth for the scholars that succeeded them, the only
riches they left for the Ulema was their inheritance of knowledge.
The above Hadeeth is clear in its own context that the Prophets did not leave any of their material
belongings for the scholars but what they left for them was knowledge but THERE IS NO hadith in
Shia text that would suggest that biological children of prophets are prohibited from inheriting the
material possessions of their father and whatever they leave is to be distributed as Sadqa.
If Muhammad Al-Khider was a great scholar of Islam and I happen to be a student of his, I would
inherit from him the knowledge which he has but I would not inherit his material belongings that is
where his family comes in.
The laws of inheriting divine knowledge are very different from inheriting Material Possessions. Hence
the Hadeeth of Knowledge cannot be used to justify the actions of Abu Bakr against Fatima Al- Zahra
(as) because the Material Inheritance is connected to the family and is quite different from the
inheritance of knowledge which is not connected to the family alone.
Reply Four
These particular traditions do not address the personal life and personal properties of Prophets (in
which some of them were kings and some of them were poor), but address the inheritance of
Prophethood (in which all the prophets got knowledge). As for the tradition dealing with the personal
life and personal properties of Prophets, we have already cited a Shia tradition which will unveil the
usual deception that is committed by the Nawasib and as we said earlier, there is NOT A SINGLE
hadith in Shia books that would tell us that biological children of prophets are deprived of their right
of inheriting material possessions of their father and whatever their father leave behind is to be
distributed as Sadqa.
Reply Five
When someone is dying it is common for his relatives to keep a check on his material possessions,
such as land, business, property etc. What this Hadeeth is stressing is that Prophets leave something
of greater valuable than these tangible assets, what they leave is their manners, teachings, and way of
life. When someone wishes to emphasize something of importance they will do so by
highlighting / prioritizing that matter above all others. The Prophet (s) in this Hadeeth was saying that
Prophets should not be measured in terms of their wealth (the way people tend to measure others);
they should be measured subject to their permanent legacy [knowledge] that they transfer on to the
Ulema.
The tradition is telling adherents to concentrate on their teachings rather than their personal
possessions. Let us cite an example:
A religious scholar has lived a simplistic lifestyle at the local Mosque. He spends his time teaching
students about issues such as Islamic Fiqh and writing books. At the time of his death the only
savings that he has are 100 in the local bank. If it is commented that the Scholar Left no money,
rather what left as inheritance was his knowledge that his students have inherited This statement
does NOT mean that he died penniless, he left something but that was an issue that was only of
relevance to the legal heirs, what was of greater importance was his eternal legacy the knowledge that
he had conveyed to his students and placed in writing that his faithful students had inherited.
Similarly in this Hadeeth the tradition is stating that monetary inheritance of Prophets is an irrelevant
issue, as this is a matter that is only relevant to legal Heirs the only thing that followers need to know
are the teachings that they leave behind that all the Ummah can benefit from with the Ulema at the
helm.
Reply Six Analysing the words in the tradition

1.
Verily the Ulema are the heirs of the Ambiya. Although such traditions cannot be used
before Shias to prove that prophets do not leave inheritence for their progeny since we already
have made it clear from Shia text itself but l the tradition is still advanced as proof that children do
not inherit the Prophets possessions, then we say that the tradition could also be interpreted to
mean that the Ulema do not inherit from their own fathers since they inherit from the Prophets.
Should we not also ask ourselves why should the Ulema be the sole inheritors of the Prophets?
Does the Islamic Shariah allow for such a concept, when children are present, does the Shariah
allow for them to be ignored and inheritance go to an unconnected party? When this is not logical
then is it not against the principles of inheritance to believe that ordinary Ulema are the Heirs of
Prophets and their fathers, and yet the Prophets actual offspring inherit nothing from their fathers
as they are penalised for being the surviving children of Prophets? and get nothing?
2.
That is because the Ambiya do not leave dirhams or dinars as inheritance, but they left
knowledge. If no one inherits the Dirhams / Dinars of Prophets, it does not mean that if a Prophet
owns land that carries financial benefits such as money from the sale of produce, the heirs have
no right to inherit such land. Sayyida Fatima (as) did not make a claim for Dinars or Dirham, rather
she made a claim for her fathers Estate that she was entitled to inherit as his heir. Just consider
the example of Prophet Sulayman (as). He inherited the Kingdom of his father. Let us for
arguments sake accept that he did not attain any money as inheritance, due to this Hadith, does
this negate him inherting the capital asset (kingdom) of his father, whose value was that of Dinars
and Dirhams? Based on this very fact, if we for arguments sake agree Prophets leave no Dinars or
Dirhams that does not negate them leaving land, as was the case with Fadak.
3.
Therefore whosoever takes knowledge has taken a great portion. These words do
not prove that Prophets leave behind no material possessions. It is clear that is specifying.
These words also fail to prove that Prophets leave no inheritance, the words are clear that the
family of Prophets from the perspective of being scholars, are inheritors of the knowledge of
Prophets, and from the perspective of being their descendants they inherit their material
possessions.
Reply Seven
If this Nasibi is suggesting that that Prophets only leave knowledge as inheritance not material
possessions we will say that this only refers to what they leave for the Ulema, The tradition is
basically informing then Ulema of the inheritance that the Prophet (s) has left for them, Prophetic
knowledge. They only the heirs of knowledge not material possessions yet the Prophets children
inherit knowledge and the worldly possessions of Prophets.
Reply Eight
Material possessions are inherited after someone dies whilst knowledge can be obtained during ones
lifetime; hence a tradition that proves the inheritance of knowledge does not disprove the inheritance
of material possessions.
Reply Nine
If the tradition proved that Prophets leave no material possessions then this should have appeared in
the Chapter of Inheritance, it does not it appears in the Chapter of Ilm in Usool al-Kafi, under the
heading Chapter on the reward for the scholars and those who seek knowledge and hence
further strengthens our argument that the compiler Shaykh Kulayni also understood the Hadeeth to
refer specifically to the inheritance of knowledge, nothing else. If Kulaini understood this Hadeeth to
mean that Prophets leave no materials inheritance as an absolute rule then he would have placed this
Hadeeth in the chapter that discusses the inheritance of the Prophet (s). He did not and the fact that in
the same book Shaykh Kulaini has a chapter called Progenys inheritance that contains the
Hadeeth we previously mentioned, namely:
Zurara narrated that Abi Jaffar (as) said: Ali inherited the knowledge of Allahs messenger and
Fatima inherited his property.
The inserting of these two distinctive Hadeeth under their relevant Chapter headings corroborates our
assertion that Shaykh Kulaini (and others) recognized the Prophet left spiritual inheritance for scholars
and material inheritance for his progeny.
Reply Ten
Al Khider so as to prove his point has sought to suggest that the opening words in the tradition Verily
the Ulama are the heirs of the Ambiya are Kalima Hasr (an exclusive attribute) i.e. the realm of
Prophetic inheritance is the exclusive domain of the Ulema. The Nasibi is of course seeking to
suggest that the Prophet (s) left nothing save his knowledge that went solely to the Ulema. The
unusual thing is that Nasibi of this ilk reject the notion that the verse that descended in relation to the
Wilaya of Maula Ali (as) Your (real) friends are (no less than) Allah, His Messenger, and the
(fellowship of) believers,- those who establish regular prayers and regular charity, and they
bow down humbly (in worship) is not Kalima Hasr to Ansar.Org, despite the acceptance of the
Sunni Ulema over the reason for its descent, rather it incorporates all believers. It is truly amazing how
the goalposts change when it comes to issues relating to the praise of the Ahlul bayt! Unfortunately
his attempt to deem this as an exclusive attribute falls apart when we read these verses:
And so amongst men and crawling creatures and cattle, are they of various colours. Those
truly fear Allah, among His Servants, who have knowledge: for Allah is Exalted in Might, OftForgiving.
Al-Quran, Surah Fathir, Ayah 28, translated by Yusufali
The actual Arabic of who have knowledge in this verse is Ulema. Should we therefore conclude that
no one other than the Ulema possess a fear of Allah? Can you only attain this state when you attain
the rank of a scholar? The vast bulk of us cannot even think about attaining this esteemed rank, does
that mean than none of the millions of Muslims fear Allah, save the Ulema?
The Believers are but a single Brotherhood: So make peace and reconciliation between your
two (contending) brothers; and fear Allah, that ye may receive Mercy.
Al-Quran, Surah Hujuraath, Ayah 10, translated by Yusufali
If we literally accept this verse as we read it then we have to say that the bond of brotherhood is the
exclusive domain of Muslims. Is this really the case? Do the Kuffar not have a close bond of friends
that they can call a brotherhood?
We also read as follows in Surah Baqarah:
He hath forbidden you only carrion and blood and swine flesh and that which hath been
immolated to any other than Allah
Al-Quran, Surah Baqarah, Ayah 173, translated by Yusufali
With the verse containing the words only, should we therefore concluded that only pork and blood is
haraam to us, everything else such as coprses, faeces, urine and semen is halal?
We read in Surah al Kahf verse 110:
Say: I am but a man like yourselves, (but) the inspiration has come to me, that your Allah is
one Allah.
Should we conclude on the basis of this verse that other the declaration of Tauheed via revelation, all
other matters wer not revealed by revelation?
If Al Khider is seeking to suggest that Prophetic inheritance takes the shape of knowledge not material
possessions, and the Ulema are the sole beneficiaries of this inheritance then we shall say the
exclusive attribute in this Hadeeth links solely to what the Ulema can receive from the Prophet (s). The
Hadeeth states that if the Ulema attain anything from the Prophet (s) as inheritance it is his
knowledge, this is not the case with the family of the Prophet (s) they can inherit both his material
possessions and his knowledge.
Reply Eleven
The tradition does not elaborate on where these Dinars / Dirhams go after a Prophet (s) dies! Are we
to assume that these Dinars / Dirhams disappear into the Heavens, or are they buried with the
Prophet (s)? Clearly they have to go somewhere and that somewhere is the heirs of the Prophet (s)
spiritual inheritance namely knowledge goes to the Ulema as the tradition alludes to, but Dinar /
Dirhams have no nexus with the Ulema, these material items need to be left somewhere, and they
are, they are left with the legal heirs of a Prophets estate, namely his heir Sayyida Fatima (as).
Ibn al Hashimis absurd claim that the Usul al Kafi

Hadith is the same as that cited by Abu Bakr
Ibn al Hashimi sought to suggest the Hadith is identical to the one that Abu Bakr cited in the Fadak
dispute:
This is the general approach taken by such anti-Sunni websites such as Answering-Ansar. They will
say that this Hadith in Al-Kafi is not referring to the laws of inheritance for relatives but rather has a
symbolic meaning that scholars take the place of Prophets.
Let us even accept this fallacious assertion, or any other explanation the Shia give. The fact of the
) of fabricating the Hadith. They even say
matter is that the Shia are accusing Abu Bakr (
) accused him of this. Regardless of the interpretation of this Hadith, the fact is
that Fatima (
that it at least exists and thus the Shia claims that it is fabricated are simply false. If they claim that
) cursed Abu Bakr (
) and said that he was a fabricator, liar, and all sorts
Fatima (
of other things, then in reality the evidence from the Shias own Al-Kafi would prove Fatima (
] made a
)wrong! (On the other hand, the Ahlus Sunnah holds the view that Fatima [
sincere mistake, and nothing more.)
) never claimed that Abu Bakr (
We remind the reader thataccording to the ShiaFatima (
) was interpreting the Hadith in the wrong manner, but rather she was claiming that he

fabricated it completely! If it was a mere difference in interpretation, then we could say that they both
had their individual Ijtihad on the matter, and the Shariah law states that the Ijtihad of the Caliph takes
) made an incorrect Ijtihad,
priority. But the Shias main issue is not simply that Abu Bakr (
but rather that he fabricated the Hadith entirely. Whereas the Shia can certainly always argue
senselessly about interpretations of the Hadith, they have absolutely no basis for the claim that the
Hadith was fabricated. This claim is rejected on the basis of Al-Kafi, much to the chagrin of the Shia.
At no point does the Hadith state that inheritance left by Prophets is Sadaqah (charity) for the poor
people of the Ummah (as Abu Bakr claimed). The wording What we leave behind is charity found in
Sunni collections is an interpolation. Ibn al Hashimi would like his Sunni readership to believe that this
Hadith mirrors the one cited by Abu Bakr but the reality is that it does not in any way support the
position of Abu Bakr. The Hadith (according to Ibn al Hashimis interpretation) would suggest that the
Prophets leave absolutely nothing, save their knowledge, but the Hadith that Abu Bakr advanced
What we leave behind is charity would suggest that Prophets do leave something behind, after all
they have to leave something for it to be handed over as Sadaqah when they die! The two Hadith do
not in any way compliment one another as ibn al Hashimi is suggesting, rather they contradict one
another.Moreover one wonders how this Hadith mirrors the recital, when Abu Hurraira offers us an
exemption clause in his recollection of the same tradition. We read Sahih Bukhari, Book of inheritance
Volume 8, Book 80, Number 721:
Ibn al Hashimi we suggest you inspect this tradition closely. Just like that cited by Abu Bakr, you deem
it Sahih and in fact will deem it as the same as that cited by Abu Bakr, save the exemption. The
entitlement of the wives and servants of the Prophet to a salary destroys all attempts of Ibn al Hashimi
to get the Shia to recognise the Usool al-Kafi tradition as the same as that presented by Abu Bakr in
Fadak. Ibn al Hashimi wants us to accept that Prophets do not leave any Dinar or Dirham for anyone.
The Hadeeth narrated by Abu Huraira does not concur with this, after all the Prophet (s) leaves a
sufficient amount of Dinars and Dirhams to ensure that his Servants and nine wives obtain a regular
salary. You cannot rely on the Usool al-Kafi Hadeeth as proof that Prophets leave no Dinars and
Dirhams and also accept this narration of Abu Huraira that informs us that they do! The fact that Abu
Huraira and Abu Bakr are unable to agree on the degree of material possessions the Prophet (s)
further strengthen our stance that this was concocted following the death of the Prophet (s).
Ayatollah Khomeini also mentions that in his Hukumat al-Islamiyah, chapter 3, saying:
In certain cases, the phrase: What we leave behind is charity has been added to the
tradition, but it does not truly belong there. Found only in Sunni versions of the tradition, it
has been added for political reasons
This reference was Ayatullah Khomeinis criticism of Abu Bakr for usurping the land of Fadak from
Sayyida Fatima (as) for what he deemed political considerations. Of interest Haq Nawaz Jhangvi of
Sipah Sahaba, Pakistan, in his article attacks Ayatullah Khomeini for these comments:
AGAIN DWELLING ON THE LAW OF INHERITANCE STATED IN THE QURAN KHOMENI HAS
WRITTEN IN HIS BOOK THAT ACCORDING TO QURAN HADHRAT FATIMA WAS ENTITLED TO
HER SHARE OF INHERITANCE IN THE PROPERTY (FADAK GARDEN) LEFT BY RASUL-ALLAH
(SAW) BUT ABU BAKR IN CLEAR VIOLATION OF THE QURANIC INJUNCTION DEPRIVED HER
FROM IT AND INSTEAD PRESENTED THE CONCOCTED HADITH MENTIONED ABOVE.
Clearly he could not have held such a position if he believed that Shia literature proves that
Rasulullah (s) left no inheritance for his daughter! Its quite clear that both Ayatullah Khomeini and
Kulayni interpreted this Hadith in terms of the role of the Ulema inheriting knowledge and nothing else,
it had nothing to do with the inheritance that the Prophet (s) left his daughter. No Shia would ever be
able to understand a Hadith that would in effect render Sayyida Fatima (as) to be a liar, although the
Ahlul Sunnah have no diddficulty with such a notion.
Khomeinis criticism of Abu Bakrs usurpation of criticism serves as the clearest proof that he did not
understand the tradition in the fraudulent manner that Al Khider has sought to suggest!
The Nawasib should know that when any of our Imams narrate a hadith of the Prophet (s) the chain
lnks from the preceding Imams, through to Imam Ali (as) and then the Prophet (s). Imam Ali (as)
would have heard this hadith from the Prophet (s). If it was identical to the one that Abu Bakr cited,
then why did Imam Ali (as) support the claim of his wife during the Fadak dispute? Both Sunni and
Shia traditions confirm that he supported the claim of his wife, so how could he if we accept Ibn al
Hashimis claim that the Hadith that Abu Bakr produced mirrored that in al Kafi? The very fact that Ali
(as) supported his wife in the Fadak claim proves that the Hadith does not negate the right of Sayyida
Zahra (as).
Morover if the Hadith is the same as that Abu Bakr cited why did the later Imams accept Fadak when
it was given to them by the Caliphs of their time? When Abu Bakr (according to Ibn al Hashimi)
dispossessed their mother of land due to a hadith that also believed in, how were they then now
accepting that annexed land? Were they dishonestly claiming land when they knew the Prophet (s) did
not leave as inheritance? As Shia this doesnt even come into the equation, since we deem our
Imams to be Masum. The fact that they accepted the same land that Abu Bakr usurped by citing the
Hadith proves that they rejected the alleged Hadith he quoted and did not deem the Usul al Kafi
tradition Dinar / Dirhams traditions as evidence that the Prophet (s) left nothing to his legal heirs. The
action of Maula Ali (as) in supporting the claim of his wife and the Imams accepting Fadak during their
eras proves that the al-Kafi tradition is not the same as that produced by Abu Bakr to dispossess
Sayyida Zahra (as).
FADA K
Preface

Conclusion
Shia Pen Newsletter

2 0 11 2 01 2 S HI A P E N
Formerly known as:

Answering-Ansar.org
2002 - 2010
MISCELLANEOUS
About Us
Contact Us
Newsletter
Privacy Policy
S T AT E M E N T
TERMS & CONDITIONS
Terms & Conditions
HOME
COMPREHENSIVE
CONCISE
DECEPTION
FIQH
QUESTIONS
NASIBI
Chapter Nine: Sayyida Fatima (as)s

response to the confiscation of
Fadak
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 Allahs 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 fathers 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?
Abu Bakrs denial of Khums and Fadak incurred

the anger of Sayyida Fatima (as)
1.
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 53, Number 325, Book /of Khums
2.
3.
Sahih Ibn Hibban, Volume 11 pages 152-154
4.
Izalat ul Khifa, Volume 2 page 112
5.
Sunan al Kabeer, Volume 6 page 301 Kitab Fay
6.
Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Volume 1 page 167
7.
Kanz al Ummal, Volume 3 page 129 , Kitab Khilafath ma al Imara
8.
Wafa al Wafa, Volume 3 page 995 Talib Fatima min Abu Bakr
9.
Hadhrat Umar Faruq (ra) by M H Haykal page 101

We read in Musnad Ibn Hanbal:
Ayesha narrates that once Fatima (ra) sent her servant to Abu Bakr to stake her claim to the
Khums of the Holy Prophet (s) in Madina, Fadak and Khaiber. Abu Bakr said: Allahs Apostle
said: We (Prophets), our property is not inherited, and whatever we leave is Sadaqa, but
Muhammads progeny can eat from this property now I SWEAR THAT this is what I have
observed Prophet (s) DOING, I will not abandon it, but will observe WHAT the PROPHET DID.
So it is that Abu Bakr gave Fatima nothing, as a result of which lady Fatima got hurt. Abu Bakr
said: I swear by the one who holds my life! I love to show compassion towards the relatives of
the Prophet (s) more than to my own relatives but with regards to this difference of opinion
that we have in relation to this possession, I cannot divert from the truth; I shall not divert from
that which I had saw the prophet doing.
We read in Kanz ul Ummal:
Sayyida Fatima became upset at Abu Bakr and continued assuming that attitude until she
died .
Sunan al Kabeer:
Fatima became angry at Abu Bakr, and never spoke to Abu Bakr until she died
Wafa al Wafa:
Abu Bakr denied Fatima her right and she became angry never speaking to Abu Bakr until she
died.
Sahih Ibn Hibban:
Fatima (ra) approached Abu Bakr asking him for her inheritance from what Allah (swt)
bestowed upon his Prophet (s) and Fatima (ra) sought the alms of Rasulullah (s) in Madinah
and also Fadak and remaining khums of Khaibar. Ayesha narrates that Abu Bakr said: The
family of Muhammad (s) can only eat from this money nothing else and I shall not divert an
iota from the practice of the Porphet (s)..Abu Bakr refused to give Fatima any of it so Fatima
was angry and disappointed with Abu Bakr and she never spoke to him until she died. Fatima
(ra) survived the Prophet (s) by six months, when she died Ali (ra) buried her at night forbade
Abu Bakr from attending her burial, When Fatima (ra) passed away peoples views altered
about Ali (ra) that disappointed him he hence sought to heal the rift with Abu Bakr and pay
allegiance to him and he had not paying allegiance during these months .
We read in Hadhrat Umar Faruq (ra):
It is a proven fact that during the final stage of her life, the daughter of Holy Prophet Fatima
(ra) died in a state of anger at Abu Bakr (ra). Now was this anger due to her being denied the
inheritance of her father by Abu Bakr or was it because she deemed her husband to be more
worthy of being the Khalifa than Abu Bakr? There is a difference of opinion on this, but one
thing is unequivocally proven that Umar concurred with Abu Bakr that whatever the Poprhet
leaves is Sadaqa no one inherits it, and it was without a doubt this advice of Umar that caused
the anger of Fatima (ra)
Hadhrat Umar Faruq (ra) by M H Haykal page 101
Muhadith Shah Waliullah Dehalwi writes in his authority work Izalat ul Khifa:
Fatima (ra) became angry with Abu Bakr and left him and never conversed with him again
until she died
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:

.
.
..
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 ones mouth:
Ali bin Eisa said: The meaning of not speaking to you two is: Never again regarding this
inheritance, because you two are truthful.
Readers can now better understand how desperate the defenders of Shaykhayn are!
Sayyida Fatima (as) was so angry at Abu Bakrs

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
Ibn Katheers 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 dont 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).
Ayesha was also from the loins of Adam, yet Ahlul Sunnah deem her to be the beloved of Rasulullah
(s), reflected by the fact the Umar gave her greater stipends than any other woman.
The Reviving Islam Teams disrespect of Sayyida

Fatima (as)
The Nasibi contributors of Reviving Islam have actually entertained the notion that Sayyida Fatima
(as) was stubborn and greedy, and have sought to discredit her by saying:
Faatimah (alayhas salaam) didnt get what she wanted and because of that she was upset. May Allah
shed His immense mercy upon her and make her of rafeeq Al Alaa aameen.
There was no proof that she should have had the land of fadak. She produced no proof to Abu Bakr
As Siddeeq. Aliy and Al Abbas agreed with the decision of Abu Bakr. Abu Bakr judged this situation
by the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger. It is possible that Faatimah (alayhas salaam)
did not know that the Nabi forbade monetary inheritance and that when she heard it from Abu Bakr, it
upset her for not getting what she had hoped for. So if it is true that she died angry with Abu Bakr
(radhiya Allahu Anhu), then indeed that is between her and Allah. For her anger against him was not
based upon proof.
http://www.revivingislam.com/bidah/groups/thetruthaboutfadak.htm
It is responses like this that demonstrate the type of hatred that these Nawasib harbour in their hearts
towards Sayyida Fatima (as). We have already advanced evidence that refutes the last paragraph,
proving:
She produced evidence, her own testimony, supporting witness testimony and the Quran
Maula Ali and Ibn Abbas did not accept the Hadith rather they deemed Abu Bakrs using it as
evidence of him being a liar, treacherous, sinful and dishonest.
Abu Bakr failed to judge this situation by the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger.
That it is illogical that the Prophet (s) would fail to tell Sayyida Fatima (as) about a matter that
was consequential to her alone.
from authentic Sunni sources that previous prophets did leave inheritance which was inherited
by their respective heirs.
What we have issue with here is with the comment of this Nasibi:
Faatimah (alayhas salaam) didnt get what she wanted and because of that she was upset. May Allah
shed His immense mercy upon her and make her of rafeeq Al Alaa aameen So if it is true that she
died angry with Abu Bakr (radhiya Allahu Anhu), then indeed that is between her and Allah. For her
anger against him was not based upon proof.
Not only are these Nawasib seeking to compare Sayyida Zahra (as) to some child that gets upset
when she doesnt get what she wants, they are so shameless that they are praying that a woman,
whom Allah (swt) has purified all physical / spiritual impurity be made a rafeeq Al Alaa aameen. Was
she not already Rafeeq ul Alameen, or is she dependent on the plea of a band of Nawasib? These
Nasabis are asking that Allah (swt) shower his mercy on the Leader of the women of paradise (May
Allah (swt) forgive us).
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 Fatimas anger was such that she left a will stipulating that Abu Bakr not attend her
funeral prayers
This is a very painful reference for the followers of Abu Bakr to accept hence his advocates have
presented a revised version of events, led by Imam of Sipah-e-Sahaba namely Haq Nawaz Jhangvi:
THERE WAS SUCH A LOVE AND AFFECTION BETWEEN HADHRAT ABU BAKR (R.A) AND
HADHRAT ALI (R.A) THAT THE LATTER GOT THE FUNERAL PRAYER OF HADHRAT FATIMAH
(R.A) LED BY HADHRAT ABU BAKR (R.A). HADHRAT ABU BAKR (R.A) ON THIS OCCASION
ASKED HADHRATALI (R.A) TO LEAD THE FUNERAL PRAYER HIMSELF BUT WHEN HADHRAT
ALI (R.A) INSISTED, HADHRAT ABU BAKR (R.A) ASKED HIM WHETHER HE WILL STAND AS A
WITNESS BEFORE ALLAH THAT ABU BAKR LED THE FUNERAL PRAYER OF HADHRAT
FATIMAH (R.A), ALI REPLIED IN THE AFFIRMITIVE. THEREUPON HADHRAT ABU BAKR (R.A)
SAID: THIS WILL SUFFICE FOR MY SALVATION.
) did not attend the burial of Fatima (
) , Ali (
Furthermore, although Abu Bakr (

) on the basis that he was Caliphto conduct the Janaazah prayer.
) asked Abu Bakr (
) performed the Janaazah prayer. It is stated in the book Fasl ulConsequently, Abu Bakr (
Hitab:
Upon Hadhrat Alis request, Hadhrat Abu Bakr became the imam and conducted the namaz (of
Janaazah) for her with four takbirs.
) had said that Abu Bakr (
) should not lead
Thus, it cannot be said that Fatima (
) is the one who asked Abu Bakr (
) to do it in the first
the Janaazah, since Ali (
place!
Reply One Sahih Bukhari destroys this false claim

The single narration in Sahih Bukhari makes this claim baseless! We have already cited the fact that
(according to Ahlul Sunnahs most authentic work) Imam Ali (as) led the funeral prayer over her, and
did not inform Abu Bakr about it. When a book that the Ahlul Sunnah deem most authentic after the
Quran has this narration then any narrations pleading otherwise have no value!
Reply Two Maula Ali prevented Abu Bakr from participating in the
funeral prayer
We read in Ahlul Sunnahs esteemed work Tabari, vol IX p 196 [The Events of the Year 11, English
version:
Abu Salih al Dirari- Abd al Razzaq b. Hammam- Mamar- al Zuhri - Urwah- Aishah: Fatimah and
al Abbas came to Abu Bakr demanding their [share of] inheritance of the Messenger of God.
They were demanding the Messenger of Gods 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 prophet's
property] cannot be inherited and whatever we leave behinds is alms [i.e 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 doing it accordingly. 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].
The English translator of this edition of Tabari Ismail Poonawalla in the footnote of this narration cites
three other Sunni sources wherein these facts can be found.
1.
Tabaqat of Ibne Sad, vol VIII p 29,
2.
Yaqubi History, vol II p 117,
3.
Masudi in his Tanbih, p 250
Rauzatul Ahbaab, page 434 states that:

Upon the death of Fatimah [ra], Ali read her Funeral prayers. Some narrations state that they
were read by Ibn Abbas [ra]. The next day Abu Bakr Siddique, Umar ibn al Farooq and other
elderly Sahaba issued a complaint to Ali that he had not informed them about the funeral, so
that they could have been participants. He ['Ali] stated that he had acted in accordance with
the wishes of Fatima.
In Wafa al Wafa page 94 the author states that Abu Bakr was aware of the death of Fatima:
But he desired that the reasons behind Ali hiding the matter be fulfilled.
Reply Three The Sunni Muhadatheen have themselves

discredited narrations wherein Abu Bakr led the funeral prayers of
Sayyida Fatima (as)
Imam Ibn Hajr Asqalani one of Ahlul Sunnahs greatest Hadeeth scholars wrote in al-Isaba, Volume 8
page 58, Dhikr Fatima Binte Muhammad:
. :

Waqidi narrated from Shuabi that Abu Bakr prayed on Fatima but that (tradition) is weak and
disconnected. And some unreliable narrators narrated from Malik from Jaffar bin Muhammad
from his father the same. But Darqutni and Ibn Uday discredited it.
al-Isaba, Volume 8 page 58 Translation 11583
The Founder of Sipah-e-Sahaba also produces this devastating proof that Sayyida Fatima (as) was
happy with Abu Bakr, namely:
IT IS ALSO STATED IN ANOTHER SHIA BOOK (P. 73) THAT DURING THE ILLNESS OF HADHRAT
FATIMAH (R.A), ASMA, WIFE OF HADHRAT ABU BAKR USED TO ATTEND HER AND AFTER HER
DEATH GAVE HER THE LAST BATH.
A similar comment can also at the ahlelbayt.com site:
) to give her body ghusl after death and besides Ali (
) no
She instructed Asma (
one else should be present. This was the reason for the secrecy surrounding her burial. It should also
) was the wife of Abu Bakr (
) , which serves as another
be noted that Asma (
) resolved her issue with Abu Bakr (
) before her death.
evidence that Fatima (
Both Bawasib are of course suggesting that if Sayyida Fatima (as) was angry at Abu Bakr, then why
was his wife a participant in her funeral arrangements?
Reply One
It is not necessary that the character of a husband and wife be the same. Hadhrath Nuh (as) and
Hadhrath Lut (as) were both Prophets but their wives did not share their beliefs, on the contrary they
were enemies of Allah (swt), condemned in the Quran. Rasulullah (s), loved Hadhrat Ali (as) and
Sayyida Fatima (as), whilst Ayesha wife of the Prophet (s) bore enmity towards them. By the same
example Asma binte Umays wife of Abu Bakr, loved the Ahlul bayt (as), whilst Abu Bakr bore enmity
towards them. In the same way that Rasulullah (s) was unable to change the attitude of Ayesha, Abu
Bakr was also unable to change the attitude of Asma.
Reply Two Asma binte Umays physically prevented Ayesha from

participating in Sayyida Fatima (as)s funeral rites and even rejected
Abu Bakrs attempts to intercede for her
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.
5.
Tareekh Khamess Volume 1 page 277 Dhikr Fatima bine Rasulullah (s)
6.
Asadul 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:
Dont enter. Ayesha complained to Abu Bakr that: This woman has prevented me from
entering upon the Prophets 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).
Rasulullah (s) said that you cannot be angry at a

Muslim for more than three days
Fatima, the daughter of Allahs 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 Allahs 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.
Ibn al Hashmi stated:
) carried a grudge her whole life, as if that was a very
The Shia keep saying that Fatima (
) . Fatima (
)
long time and thus somehow indicative of Abu Bakrs grave mistake (
) made Fatima (
only lived six months after the Prophets death! So even if Abu Bakr (
)angry, her anger couldnt have lasted more than a few months. This is not such a big deal, nor is
it a long time. Perhaps she died so suddenly, within the span of a few months, that she did not get a
chance to cool down; had she lived longer, then she would no doubt have let her anger subside. Who
does not get into arguments with their siblings or other family members? Surely, a brother getting in an
argument with a sister for a few months is not unheard of. But obviously the Shia are super human
beings and they do not ever get into arguments with family members.
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:
Allahs 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..
Ibn Hajr Asqalani in Fathul Bari Volume 5 page 571, in his commentary of this Hadeeth said:
Ibn Barr narrates that there is an ijma amongst the scholars, that it is not permissible to stay
aloof from a Muslim for more than three days, failure to do so means that one is ignoring the
Deen
Sayyida Fatima (as) certainly did not concur with this ijma and one can clearly see the low estimation
that she held of Abu Bakr. Such was the anger of Sayyida Fatima (as) with regards to the treatment
that was meted out to her, she never spoke to Abu Bakr for the last six months of her life, and when
Abu Bakr sought forgiveness (as we cited in al Imama wa al Siyasa) she turned her face away.
Deobandi scholar Ashraf Ali Thanvi in his famed book of Fatawas Behishthi Zewaar under the Book
of Etiquette and Manners, cites a more explicit version of the Hadeeth of separation:
64. Raslullh sallallhu alayhi wa sallam said: It is not permissible for a Muslim to stop
talking with his fellow Muslim for more than three days. The person who stops talking for more
than three days and passes away in such a state (i.e. before he can reconcile) will enter
jahannam.
http://www.alinaam.org.za/bahishti/DEEDS.htm Cached
We would like to ask the Ahlul 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?
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 (i.e. would not die as a Muslim)
We also read in Sahih Muslim Book 020, Number 4562:
..One who withdraws his band from obedience (to the Amir) will find no argument (in his
defence) when he stands before Allah on the Day of Judgment, and one who dies without
having bound himself by an oath of allegiance (to an Amir) will die the death of one belonging
to the days of Jahillyya.
There is a similar narration in Sahih Muslim Book 020, Number 4560.
This tradition can also be found in the Sunni and Shia texts with the words one who doesnt
recognize the Imam
Sharh Fiqh Akbar, by Mulla Ali Qari, p 175 (publishers Muhammad Saeed and son, Quran Muhall,
Karachi
The term recognize is used as it is not physically possible for each and every believer on the earth to
approach the Imam of his time and give bayah, women are prohibited from doing so. The meaning of
bayah is same in both sects. Here bayah is not just the limited to the formal procedure of placing ones
hand into the hand of the Khalifa but it calls for the complete obedience and submission to the Imam
and any opposition to the Imam will make all the deeds done by the person void to the extent that s/he
will die the death of Jahilyah. Of relevance is this Hadeeth:
Allahs Apostle said, There will be three types of people whom Allah will neither speak to
them on the Day of Resurrection nor will purify them from sins, and they will have a painful
punishment:(2) a man who gives a pledge of allegiance to an Imam (ruler) and gives it only for
worldly benefits, if the Imam gives him what he wants, he abides by his pledge, otherwise he
does not fulfill his pledge
Sahih Bukhari 9:319
We have already proven that Sayyida Fatima (as) didnt accept the decision of Abu Bakr (the Imam of
her time according to Ahlul 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) didnt 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?
Nawasib deem Ahlul 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,
a. Were Sayyida Fatima (as) and Maula Ali (as) rafidhis? (They would fall within the definition of
Rafidhi that Nawasib give)
b. If they were not Rafidhi then the Shià are the true followers of Ahl ul bayt (as) and not Abdullah Ibn
Saba.
Rather than return Fadak to its rightful heirs, Abu

Bakr swore at the Ahlul 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.
We appeal to justice, a man that uses such filthy language against Sayyida Fatima (as), has no right
to be referred to as the Khalifa of Rasulullah (s), it is not appropriate for a leader to use such language
in his court before an ordinary member of the public and here Abu Bakr sought it fit to attribute such
terms to Fatima (as) daughter of the Prophet (s).
We are of course fully aware that some Nasibi will seek to negate this reference by alleging that Ibn al
Hadeed was a Shia. Those that deem Abu Bakr to be the rightful Khalifa are split into two groups
Ashari or the Mutazzalite and Ibn al Hadeed was of the Mutazzalite Sect. Ibn Taymeeya the beloved of
the Nasibis infact counted the Mutazzalite as Sunnis. He stated as follows in Minhaj as Sunnah:
The claim (of the Shia Ulema) that all the groups of Ahlul Sunnah seek to prove the Khilafat
of the first three caliphs on Qiyas (conjecture) is false because there are sects that dont rely
on Qiyas such as the Mutazzalite of Baghdad, and the Dhareeya such as Dawoud and ibn
Hazm and others and sects of Ahlluhadith and Sufia
Minhaj as Sunnah, Volume 3 page 401
Swearing at Hadhrat Ali and Sayyida Fatima (as)

is on par with swearing at Rasulullah (s)
1.
Mustadrak al Hakim, Volume 3 page 121, Bab Manaqib Ali
2.
Tareekh ul Khulafa page 173 Bab Fadail Ali
3.
Riyadh al Nadira Volume 3 page 157
4.
Kanz al Ummal Volume 6 page 152 Fadail, min Qism al Kaul
5.
al Bidayah wa al Nihaya Volume 7 page 355
6.
Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v6, p33
7.
8.
Sawaiqh al Muhriqa page 74 Hadeeth Sa min ashra
9.
Nur al Absar page 80, Bab Manaqib Ali
We read in Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal:

Whoever curses (or verbally abuses) Ali, he has, in fact, cursed me, and whoever has cursed
me, he has cursed Allah, and whoever has cursed Allah, then Allah will throw him into he Hellfire.
Along this line let us here the testimony of Ummul Momineen Salma (ra) in al Mustadrak:
Abdullah bin Manzila narrates I went to Umme Salama and she said Someone is cursing the
Prophet whilst sitting on his pulpit, before your very eyes. I said God forbid She said I heard
the Prophet (s) say whoever swears al Ali, swears at me.
Of interest is In Sharh Mishkat Volume 11 page 345, esteemed Hanafi scholar Mullah Ali Qari states:
Imam Ahmad narrates from the Prophet(s) Whoever curses Ali, he has, in fact, cursed me,
and whoever curses me, has cursed Allah., this Hadeeth means that cursing Hadhrat Ali is
Kufr.
Abu Bakr swore at Sayyida Fatima (as) and Hadhrat Ali (as) and also usurped the legal right of these
esteemed figures, and these are major sins. What is the point in having a Khalifa that Rasulullah (s)
shall not even wish to look at on the Day of Judgement? When Sayyida Zaynab (as) appeared before
Yazid as a prisoner in Sham (Syria), even he never subjected her to the type of swear words that Abu
Bakr exposed Hadhrat Fatima (as) to.
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.
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:
1.
Hilayat al Awliya page 201 Volume 3 the verse of Muwaddat
2.
Tafseer Durre Manthur page 7 Volume 5, the verse of Muwaddat
3.
Tafseer Kashaf Volume 2 page 239 the verse of Muwaddat
4.
Tafseer Kabeer Volume 7 page 309 the verse of Muwaddat
5.
6.
Tafseer Ruh al Maani Part 25 the verse of Muwaddat page 31
7.
Tafseer Gharaib al Quran Part 25 the verse of Muwaddat page 28
8.
Tafseer Fathul Qadeer Volume 4 page 522 the verse of Muwaddat
9.
Tafseer Jauhar page 129
10.
Tafseer Khazan Volume 6 page 104 the verse of Muwaddat
11.
Mustadrak al Hakim Volume 3 page 172
12.
Sawaiq al Muhriqa page 101, Bab al Hadi al Ashr Sadl Awal
13.
Ya Nabi al Muwaddah Bab Saneeh wa Salehsoon page 106
14.
Ausag al Ghaneen page 104 Bab al Saneeh
15.
Usdul Ghaba page 367 Volume 5
16.
Kanz al-ùmmal page 217 Volume 1
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 Quran 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 Ahlul Bayt (as) as a matter of pride and
superior rank
Let us now read a further reference from Tafseer Durre Manthur that is also in Tafseer Ruh al Maani:
When Imam Ali al-Sajdah bin Hussain (as) was imprisoned in Damascus, a Syrian man
expressed his joy in his presence. The Imam (as) asked Have you not read the verse of
Muwaddat in the Quran? He replied Yes, does the kinfolk whose love is compulsory refer to
you? He [the Imam] replied yes.
We read in Tafseer Mazhari:
Allah (swt) issued an order to his Prophet (s) to convey the ruling that his Ummah love his
Ahlul bayt, this refers to Imam Ali and the Imams from his children, who are the poles of
Wilayath (Mastership], which is why Rasulullah (s) said in praise of Ali I am the City of
Knowledge and Ali is its Gate.
We read in Sawaiqh al Muhriqa:
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. One narrator in this chain was an extremist [Ghali] Shia yet this is still
true. Hadhrat Ali said a verse in Surah Shuara descended in our honour and every believer is
required to act upon it, he then recited the verse Say: No reward do I ask of you for this
except the love of those near of kin.
Allah (swt) had made love of Sayyida Fatima, Imam Ali (as) and their children compulsory in the Holy
Quran, hence Abu Bakrs swearing at them is a clear breach of this Quranic verse and the Sunnah of
Muhammad (s). One who breaches the edicts of the Quran and Sunnah has no right to occupy the
throne of Rasulullah (s).
Let us for arguments sake accept Abu Bakr heard the Prophet (s) say Prophets leave no inheritance,
rather than hurt the feelings of Sayyida Fatima (as) could the Khalifa not have used another option
and granted her the land? According to the Ahlul Sunnah the Khalifa has the power to do whatever he
chooses. As is commented by Egyptian scholar Mahmud Abu Riyya in Risalath al Islam page 518:
It is permissible for the Khalifa to do whatsoever he chooses
We had also cited earlier from Hayatus Sahaba Volume 2 page 51 that Abu Bakr used his famed
kindness to donate Muslim lands to two Sahaba. So why did Abu Bakr not seek to pay back the wage
of Prophethood by granting Fadak to Sayyida Fatima (as)?
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.
2.
Kanz al Ummal, Volume 6 page 408 min Qism al Fayl
3.
4.
Nur al Absar, page 79, Bab Manaqib Ali
5.
Tareekh Baghdad, Volume 12 page 398, Dhikr Fayz ibn Wasiq
6.
Tadhkirat Khawwas al Ummah, page 27
7.
Musnad Abi Yala, Volume 1 page 437
8.
Musnad al-Bazar, Volume 1 page 422
9.
Muajam al-Kabir, by Tabarani, Volume 11 page 61
10.
Al-Kamil, by Ibn Uday, Volume 7 page 173
11.
Tarikh Damishq, Volume 42 page 322
We read in these books:

Ali bin Abi Talib narrated: While I was walking with Allahs messenger (s) through the streets
of Madina, we saw a garden and I said: Oh Allahs messenger, what a beautiful garden. Allahs
messenger (s) said: A better garden is awaiting for you in Paradise. Then we passed through
another one, thus I said: Oh Allahs messenger, what a beautiful garden. Allahs 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 Allahs messenger said to me A better
garden awaits you in Paradise. Then when the streets became empty, Allahs 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 Allahs messenger will my faith be safe? He (the prophet) said: Yes your
faith will be safe.
We have proved from an esteemed Sunni source that Rasulullah (s) acknowledged that the hearts of
the Sahaba towards his true rightful Khalifa Imam Ali (as) were not pure. This hatred shone after the
death of Rasulullah (s) the opponents of Imam Ali (as) headed by Abu Bakr, Umar and Abu Ubaydah
sought it fit to squabble over the Khilafat whilst the funeral arrangements of Rasulullah (s) were being
prepared by the other grieving Muslims. Abu Bakr then sought to legitimise his illegal right via public
bayya, when Imam Ali (as) and his supporters refused to enter into this bayya Abu Bakr sent his Vizier
Umar to force bayya, Umar even threatened to burn down Sayyida Fatima (as)s home in the process
[with her family in it].
If these actions were not sufficient to prove Abu Bakrs hatred of Hadhrat Ali (as) then came the next
stage in Abu Bakrs plan, financially crippling Imam Ali (as) so that he would be unable to have the
financial clout to mount a campaign against Abu Bakr, that came via the usurpation of Fadak justified
by concocting a false Hadeeth to maintain such an illegal act. The incorrect ruling on Fadak left
Sayyida Fatima (as) so distraught that she would curse Abu Bakr after every Salat. Her will was that
Abu Bakr not be present at her funeral as a result of which Imam Ali (as) buried her secretly at night.
She died in a state of displeasure towards Abu Bakr. Abu Bakrs treatment of Imam Ali (as) and
Sayyida Fatima (as) compliments the words of Rasulullah (s) that hatred towards Imam Ali (as) by the
Sahaba would appear after his death, that hatred was lead by Abu Bakr.
FADA K
Preface

Conclusion
Shia Pen Newsletter

2 0 11 2 01 2 S HI A P E N
Formerly known as:

Answering-Ansar.org
2002 - 2010
MISCELLANEOUS
About Us
Contact Us
Newsletter
Privacy Policy
S T AT E M E N T
TERMS & CONDITIONS
Terms & Conditions
HOME
COMPREHENSIVE
CONCISE
DECEPTION
FIQH
QUESTIONS
NASIBI
Chapter Ten: Refuting the defences

of Abu Bakrs advocates
In this chapter we will inshallah debase the defences that Abu Bakrs advocates have advanced (in
relation to Fadak) on the internet.
Defence One Ibn Taymiyahs false claim that

the Hadeethour property will not be inherited,
whatever we leave is sadaqah is Muttawatir
The Nawasib have been touting an alleged debate between a Shia scholar and their great Nasibi
Imam Ibn Taymiyah wherein he gave earth shattering replies to the Shia scholar. Whilst the entire
debate is about as reliable as the story of Peter Pan, allow us to refute the alleged comments of Ibn
Taymiyah (that he also asserted in Minhaj al Sunnah) on this issue of Fadak. We have taken this
debate from this website:
Ibn Taymiyya: Your statement that this was a narration which he alone transmitted is a lie. On the
contrary, Umar, Uthman, Ali, Talha, Az-Zubair, Abdur-Rahman bin Auf, Al-Abbas, the wives of the
Prophet and Abu Huraira narrated this in addition to Abu Bakr. Furthermore, your statement that he
wanted it for himself is a lie. Abu Bakr did not claim it for himself, rather it was sadaqa for those who
deserve it. Also, the sahaba were convinced, and Ali was one of them, that the Prophet is not
inherited.
http://www.utdallas.edu/orgs/MSA/ibn_mutahhir.html Cached
Reply One The tradition does not have multiple chains

This claim is of no worth to us since none exists in Shia books, if traditions were coined after Fadak
due to political affiliations it means nothing. Imam Ali rejected the tradition outright appearing as a
witness for his wife and his verdict on Abu Bakrs usage of the tradition was that it served as evidence
that he was a liar, treacherous sinful and dishonest (see Sunni references already cited by us). It
should be noted the Chief Nasibi Ibn Taymiyah in his book Minhaj asserted that the tradition was
Muttawatir and received ijma of the Sahaba, but we reject any Ijmaa that the infallible Imams have not
entered upon. Islam is not shaped by the Ijmaa of fallible humans. Maula Ali (as) and Sayyida Fatima
(as) rejected the Hadeeth, upon hearing it Sayyida Fatima (as) became upset with Abu Bakr, deeming
him to be a liar, his assertion contradicted ten verses of the Quran, and according to al Muhaddith
Shah Abdul Aziz Dehlavi any position against the Ahlul bayt (as) is Batil (void).
Since Nawasib such as Ibn Taymiyah have asserted that the Hadeeth has multiple narrators from
amongst the Sahaba then we challenge these defenders of Abu Bakr to present us with even a single
chain (other than that from Ayesha and Abu Bakr) from the Saha Sittah, where the Isnad is complete
and all the narrators are Thiqah confirming this.
Reply Two Umar did not testify that he heard this Hadeeth from
the Prophet (s)
There is no evidence of chains going back to these individuals. What Ibn Taymiyya is seeking to infer
to is this narration in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 92, Number 408:
Narrated Malik bin Aus An-Nasri:
I proceeded till I entered upon Umar (and while I was sitting there), his gate-keeper Yarfa came
to him and said, Uthman, Abdur-Rahman, Az-Zubair and Sad ask your permission to come
in. Umar allowed them. So they entered, greeted, and sat down. (After a while the gatekeeper
came) and said, Shall I admit Ali and Abbas? Umar allowed them to enter. Al-Abbas said
O Chief of the believers! Judge between me and the oppressor (Ali). Then there was a
dispute (regarding the property of Bani Nadir) between them (Abbas and Ali). Uthman and his
companions said, O Chief of the Believers! Judge between them and relieve one from the
other. Umar said, Be patient! beseech you by Allah, with Whose permission the Heaven and
the Earth Exist! Do you know that Allahs Apostle said, Our property is not to be inherited, and
whatever we leave is to be given in charity, and by this Allahs Apostle meant himself? On
that the group said, He verily said so.
It is interesting that Ibn Taymiyya is seeking to dupe his followers into believeing that he transmitted
this Hadeeth from the Prophet (s) when the reality is he had no knowledge of it, rather he enquired
from those Sahaba present if they were aware of this Hadeeth. He asked the group Do you know
that Allahs Apostle said had he been a direct transmitter there would have been no need for
Umar to questions the group in such a question, rather he would have confidently stated I heard the
Prophet (s) say Our property is not to be inherited, and whatever we leave is to be given in
charity did you also hear him say this? The very fact that Umar asked this group of this Hadeeth
proves that he was no an eye witness to the Prophet (s) ever saying this.
Reply Three Imam Ali (as) did not transmit this Hadeeth
It is indeed fascinating that Ibn Taymiyah suggests that Imam Ali (as) was a transmitter of this
Hadeeth when he in reality never ascribed to its authenticity and in fact continued to insist that Fadak
remained the legal right of Sayyida Fatima (as). We read in the English translation Sahih Bukhari,
Volume 8 Hadith 720:
Narrated Malik Ibn Aus:
Umar said to Ali and Abbas: Then I took charge of this property for two years during
which I managed it as Allahs Apostle and Abu Bakr did. Then you both (Ali and Abbas) came
to talk to me, bearing the same claim and presenting the same case. (O Abbas!) You came to
me asking for your share from the property of your nephew, and this man (Ali) came to me,
asking for theshare of his wife from the property of her father
Despite Abu Bakrs recital of this Hadeeth Maula Ali still made a claim to the inheritance of Sayyida
Fatima (as) during Umars reign, and continued to do so throughout his reign and upheld the position
that his deceased wife was the legal heir of her fathers Estate. If any Nasibi try to water this incident
down and misinterpret it to suggest that it had nothing to do with Prophetic inheritance then we should
point out that Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani in Fathul Bari, Volume 6 page 145 refuted all such opinion
givers whilst commenting on this Hadeeth as follows:
Darqutni narrated that Ismail al-Qazi said: They were not disputing about the inheritance, but
they were disputing about the charity what they shall be the Guardians of and how to be
distribute it That is what he (Qazi Ismail) said, but according to the narration of Nisai and
Umar bin Shaba from Abi al-Bakhtri, this is proof that they were disputing over the division of
the inheritance.
If Imam Ali (as) remembered the Hadeeth cited by Abu Bakr, deeming it correct then why did he
demand Sayyida Fatima (as)s inheritance right during Umars reign?
Reply Four Mutawatir hadith defined
The reality is there is no basis to claim that the Hadeeth is Muttawatir. Let us cite the definition of
Muttawatir as quoted by Dr. Suhayb Hasan, An Introduction to the Science of Hadeeth, Darussalam
Publishers, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, page 30:
Ibn Hajar [al-'Asqalani] has dealt with different classes of Hadeeth in the Sharh Nukhbat al-Fikr
at great length. The most important division of Hadeeth is into Muttawatir (continuous) and
wahid (isolated). A Hadeeth is said to be Muttawatir (lit. repeated successively or by one after
another) when it is reported by such a large number that it is impossible that they should have
agreed upon falsehood, so that the very fact that it is commonly accepted makes its authority
unquestionable. To this category belong Hadeeth that have been accepted by every Muslim
generation down from the time of the Holy Prophet.[52] The Muttawatir Hadeeth are accepted
without criticizing their narrators.
If we accept this principle then we should make it clear that it does not apply to Abu Bakrs recital of
the Hadeeth We the Prophets do not leave inheritance, and as evidence we shall rely on the fact
narrated by Ayesha:
They disagreed about his inheritance and could find no one with knowledge on that point,
then Abu Bakr said, I heard the Messenger of Allah may Allah grant him peace, saying We the
company of the Prophets, we are not inherited from. What we leave is Sadaqah.
1. Tareekh ul-Khulafa, Page 62
2. Kanz al Ummal Volume 12 page 488 Tradition 35600
3. Sawaiq Muhriqa, page 91
4. Tarikh Dimashq, v30, p311
5. Semt al-Awali by Esami, Volume 1 page 378
This proves that Abu Bakr was the sole narrator of this Hadeeth, a lone narration cannot be defined as
Muttawatir. This shall suffice to shut the mouth of Ibn Taymiyah and his modern day adherents.
Reply Five The Sunni have accepted that this Hadeeth has a sole
narrator
If any doubt still remains then allow us to cite the comments of one of the esteemed Sunni scholars Ali
bin Muhammad Qoshji (d. 879 H) from his authority work Sharh al-Qoshji, page 406, wherein the
author attacks the Shia position on Fadak:
(Tusi asserts that) amongst Abu Bakrs bad deeds is the fact that he contradicted the Quran
by refusing to apportion the Prophets inheritance, and this denial was based on his narration
prophets do not leave inheritance which is Ahad while to specify a rule from Quran must be
based on a mutawatir narration. [Qoshji's reply] Although the Hadeeth is Ahad and its content
(matan) is suspicious, sometimes even a Ahad narration provides absolute proof
Moreover, Qadhi Eji in his famed work Al-Mawaqif, Volume 3 page 607 clearly declared this
Hadith: Khabar al-Wahid (a single narration).
The admission from Allamah Qoshji and Eji that the tradition recited by Abu Bakr is Ahad or Khabar
al-Wahid destroys the claim of Ibn Taymiyah that it was Muttawatir. Qoshji and Eji accept that Abu
Bakr narration was Ahad and according to Ibn Taymiyah if the narration reminded everyone [of the
Hadeeth] the esteemed Ahlul Sunnahs scholars would not have deemed this to be a lone narration.
The research of these two scholars is clear proof that Ibn Tamiyahs claim is open deception. The
most incredible claim of this Nasibi is his passionate defence of Abu Bakr:
Also, the sahaba were convinced, and Ali was one of them, that the Prophet is not inherited.
This is amazing, since the same Ali (who Ahlul Sunnah deem Mahfuz (protected) and Shia deem
Masum) after hearing Abu Bakrs recital of this tradition (according to Sahih Muslim, on the authority
of Umar) concluded that Abu Bakr was a liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest! Imam Ali (as) did not
remember the Hadeeth after Abu Bakrs recital, when he rejected this Hadeeth then the defence of
others is worthless! If Nawasib are going to enter the world of fairy tales it would be advisable for them
not to suggest the inability of a Shia scholar to refute a claim that a Shia school child could take
apart! If there is any doubt as to the meaning and context of Hadhrat Ali (as)s comments then let us
cite the esteemed Sunni work al Awasim min al Qawasim page 194, by Qadhi Abi Bakr ibn Arabi:

Umars statement is that they (Ali and Abbas) believed Abu Bakr to be an unjust, treacherous
and dishonest, verily that is a narration relating to a disagreement in laws, he (Abu Bakr) had
an opinion and they (Ali Abbas) had another opinion. Thus Abu Bakr and Umar issued a
judgment according to their opinion while Abbas and Ali disagreed with that opinion.
Ibn Arabi was a major Sunni scholar that accepted that Abu Bakrs decision to hold and transfer the
Prophets property as Sadaqah, led to Maula Ali, grading him as unjust and treacherous. Clearly when
Ali (as) and Abbas (ra) heard Abu Bakr reciting this Hadeeth it was the first time that they had heard of
such a claim, and they rejected the authenticity of the tradition, hence Ibn Tamiyahs claim that the
Sahaba became convinced by Abu Bakrs citing the Hadeeth is a blatant lie, he even tried to include
Hadhrat Ali (as) among those who agreed!
Reply Six Uthman and the wives of the Prophet (s) had no
knowledge of the Hadeeth
Ibn Taymiyah al-Nasibi also counted Uthman and the wives of the Prophet (s) as narrators of the
Hadeeth. The simplest way to refute this comes from the Hadeeth (that we have already cited) in
Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 367, Kitab al Maghaazi:
. I told Urwa bin Az-Zubair of this Hadeeth and he said, Malik bin Aus has told the truth I
heard Ayesha, the wife of the Prophet saying, The wives of the Prophet sent Uthman to Abu
Bakr demanding from him their 1/8 of the Fai which Allah had granted to his Apostle. But I
used to oppose them and say to them: Will you not fear Allah? Dont you know that the
Prophet used to say: Our property is not inherited, but whatever we leave is to be given in
charity?
Ibn Taymiyah advanced Uthman and the wives as narrators of this Hadeeth, the reality is they had no
knowledge of this Hadeeth, proven by the fact that they sent Uthman to present their inheritance claim
on their behalf! If Uthman had heard this Hadeeth why did he not interject and say O Mothers, what
inheritance are you referring to, Rasulullah (s) said Our property will not be inherited,
whatever we leave is Sadaqah
The claim of the wives and Uthman going as their representative is proof that they had never heard of
the Hadeeth, a Hadeeth that Ibn Taymiyah al-Nasibi claims they narrated!
It is also worthy to note the surprise of Ayesha the words Dont you know that the Prophet used to
say these words are used point out something that is common knowledge, since the Prophet (s)
regularly stated this. If this was indeed the case, how is it that the other eight wives of the Prophet (s)
had no knowledge of these words of the Prophet (s)? Were they all suffering from amnesia when they
appointed Uthman to represent them in their inheritance claim? This proves that Ayesha was merely
propagating a rumour that had been started by her father. It is indeed interesting that she rebukes the
other wives for failing to recollect words that the Prophet (s) said frequently, yet (s), she herself
testifies that when the Prophet (s) died:
They disagreed about his inheritance and could find no one with knowledge on that point,
then Abu Bakr said, I heard the Messenger of Allah may Allah grant him peace, saying We the
company of the Prophets, we are not inherited from. What we leave is Sadaqah.
We appeal to justice, how can it be plausible that she had no recollection of this Hadith at the time that
the Prophet (s) died, but was then suggesting to the other wives that this was common knowledge to
everyone? One would have assumed a Hadith that the Prophet (s) repeatedly told the wives of the
Prophet (s), would have at least been recollected by the same Ayesha that was then criticizing the
other wives of the Prophet for forgetting? If anything this proves, how concerted efforts were made by
the State to propagate this tradition, so that the common man would assume it was original. Naturally
Ayesha the daughter of the Khalifa who invented this tradition, was at the forefront in getting people to
accept it, by suggesting that the Prophet (s) had repeatedly said it!
The Hadeeth Abu Bakr narrated contradicts the

one that Abu Huraira narrated
It is indeed interesting that Ibn Taymeeya suggests that Abu Huraira also attested to this Hadeeth,
since if we analyze his narration we note how it goes against the assertion of Abu Bakr that Prophets
leave nothing. This is the Hadeeth from Sahih Bukhari, Book of inheritance Volume 8, Book 80,
Number 721:
Firstly this tradition conflicts with the fact that Ayesha narrates that after the death of the Prophet (s),
Abu Bakr only knew of this Hadeeth. Secondly and most crucially, the tradition conflicts with that
narrated by Abu Bakr Our property will not be inherited, whatever we (i.e. prophets) leave is
Sadaqah (to be used for charity) for the Khaleefa made it clear that the Prophet (s) left nothing
behind. Abu Huraira narrates the same with an exemption, monies to servants and the wives are
protected from distribution. Where did this exemption appear? It is worthy to note that the same
narrator offers another exempt category in Sahih Muslim Book 019, Number 4355:
It has been narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be
upon him) said: My heirs cannot share even a dinar (from my legacy) ; what I leave behind after
paying maintenance allowance to my wives and remuneration to my manager is (to go in)
charity.
In this narration there is no mention of Servants being entitled to the money of the Prophet (s), here
salaries go to the wives and the manager.
Whilst these different narration from the same individual should suffice to discredit its authenticity,
even if we were to accept that this is authentic Why didnt Abu Bakr recall this Hadeeth in the same
manner? And even more interestingly, why did Ayesha not recall the Hadeeth in the same manner
when the other wives were applying to make a joint claim to the inheritance of the Prophet (s)? Why
did she not state Will you not fear Allah? Dont you know that the Prophet used to say: Our property is
not inherited, but whatever we leave is to be given in charity? We can only receive the alimony that the
Prophet (s) left for us? If anyone knew of the Hadeeth in the manner that Abu Huraira suggested it
would have been the wives of the Prophet (s) since it purported to state their monetary entitlement
following the death of the Prophet (s), so how is it not one of them knew the hadeeth as it appeared in
this fashion? The very fact that nine wives of the Prophet (s) and even Abu Bakr never narrated the
Hadeeth in this manner proves that the narration of Abu Huraira was concocted during the era of Abu
Bakr. When the sheer absurdity of the alleged Hadith dawned on the Khalifa, and it implications,
namely that the wives of the Prophet (s) would in effect be rendered poor and destitute overnight, it
was essential that an exemption to the rule be recited. It was most convenient that Abu Hurraira was
able to recall this exemption, even though Abu Bakr, his daughter and the other wives of the Prophet
(s) had no recollection of it! It was also convenient since this provided the means via which salaries
could be utilized to pay for public officials; after all they could all fall into the category of Servants and
claim a stake to the money of Muhammad (s) at the expense of his daughter, who was entitled to
nothing.
Defence Two Maula Ali (as) and Abbas (ra)

verified that the Hadeeth our property will not be
inherited, whatever we leave is sadaqah is
authentic
Whilst we have already refuted Ibn Taymiyah al Nasibis comments on this, Muawiyas children
Reviving Islam in their re-hash of Ansar.Orgs article seek to suggest that Maula Ali (as) attested to
the authenticity of this Hadeeth. They start by seeking to breakdown their evidence and we will
inhsallah comment on their points and then reply to their summary,
Reviving Islam states:
The Next proof comes from the following hadith, due to the incredible benefit of this hadith we will
state some points of benefit in brackets;
Narrated Malik bin Aus:
I went and entered upon Umar, his doorman, Yarfa came saying Uthman, Abdur-Rahman, Az-Zubair
and Sad are asking your permission (to see you). May I admit them? Umar said, Yes. So he
admitted them Then he came again and said, May I admit Ali and Abbas? He said, Yes. Abbas
said, Ya, Ameer-ul-Mumineen! Judge between me and this man (Ali ).
[Benefit of this part of the hadith: Notice how Al 'Abbas referred to 'Umar ibn Al Khattab (radhiyallahu
Anhumaa) as "Ameer-ul-mu'mineen (leader of the believers)!" This proves that 'Umar was a valid
Khaleefah, unlike the shi'aa try and claim. It furthermore points out that 'Aliy himself (radhiya Allahu
'Anhu) recognized the leadership of 'Umar! Furthermore, they were coming to him seeking judgment
as you will soon see.]
Comment
The words of Abbas cited in Sunni text are of no value to us. If the pair went to Umar this was
because he was the chief architect behind its usurpation during Abu Bakrs reign, and not that he was
a legitimate Khaleefa. It is common sense that when someone does injustice to you, you confront the
unjust party not some irrelevant third party!
Umar said, I beseech you by Allah by Whose permission both the heaven and the earth exist, do you
know that Rasoolullah said,
Our (the Prophets) property will not be inherited, and whatever we leave (after our death) is to
be spent in charity? And by that Allahs Apostle meant himself. The group said, (No doubt), he
said so. Umar then faced Ali and Abbas and said, Do you both know that Rasoolullah said that?
They replied, (No doubt), he said so.
[Benefit: 'Umar is narrating that the Nabi forbade anyone to inherit wealth from him. He asked BOTH
'Aliy and 'Abbas (radhiya Allahu 'Anhumaa) if it were true that the Nabi said that. They agreed that He
had said it! So we now have both Aliy and 'Abbas, from Ahlul Bayt, agreeing with Abu Bakr As
Siddeeq and 'Umar on this issue that nothing is to be inherited from the Nabi how Al 'Abbas referred to
'Umar ibn Al Khattab (radhiyallahu Anhumaa) as "Ameer-ul-mu'mineen (leader of the believers)!" This
proves that 'Umar was a valid Khaleefah, unlike the shi'aa try and claim. It furthermore points out that
'Aliy himself (radhiya Allahu 'Anhu) recognized the leadership of 'Umar! Furthermore, they were
coming to him seeking judgment as you will soon see.]
Comment
Ali (as) and Abbas were asked if they had heard this Hadeeth they confirmed they had. They were
saying that have heard a hadith that had gained popularity during the time of Abu Bakr, since he used
this to dispossess Sayyida Zahra (as) of her inheritance rights. They did not confirm that they had
heard this from the Prophet (s) or attested that it was Sahih, rather the example is like a widely
disseminated fictitious event that is aired before an individual, the person that fabricated the event
spread it so widely that it was common knowledge amongst the people. If you are then asked if you
have heard about this you will respond yes. This response does not mean that he attested to whether
authenticity of the event, it is merely an affirmation that the event is known to him. If our assertion is
reject our assertion and they remain adamant over this alleged admission the later text they cite in
effect negates all that they are grinning over.
Umar said, So let me talk to you about this matter. Allah favored His Messenger with something of
this Fai (i.e. booty won by the Muslims at war without fighting) which He did not give to anybody else;
Allah said:
And what Allah gave as booty (Fai) to His Messenger (Muhammad) from them, for which you made
no expedition with either cavalry or camelry. But Allah gives power to His Messengers over
whomsoever He wills. And Allah is Able to do all things. (Al-Hashr 59:6)And so that property was only
for Rasoolullah . Yet, Wallahi! (by Allah), he neither gathered that property for himself nor withheld it
from you, but he gave its income to you, and distributed it among you till there remained the present
property out of which the Prophet used to spend the yearly maintenance for his family, and whatever
used to remain, he used to spend it where Allahs property is spent (i.e. in charity etc.). Rasoolullah
followed that throughout his life.
Now I beseech you by Allah, do you know all that? They said, Yes. Umar then said to Ali and
Abbas, I beseech you by Allah, do you know that? Both of them said, Yes. Umar added, And when
the Prophet died, Abu Bakr said, I am the successor of Allahs Apostle, and took charge of that
property and managed it in the same way as Rasoolullah did.
Then Allah took Abu Bakr unto Him and I became Abu Bakrs successor, and I kept that property in
my possession for the first two years of my Caliphate, managing it in the same way as Rasoolullah
used to do and as Abu Bakr used to do, and Allah knows that I have been true, pious, rightly guided,
and a follower of what is right.
Now you both (i.e. Aliy and Abbas) came to talk to me, bearing the same claim and presenting the
same case; you, Abbas, came to me asking for your share from your nephews property, and this
man, i.e. Ali, came to me asking for his wifes share from her fathers property. I told you both that
Rasoolullah said,
Our (prophets) properties are not to be inherited, but what we leave is Sadaqa (to be used for
charity).
When I thought it right that I should hand over this property to you, I said to you, I am ready to hand
over this property to you if you wish, on the condition that you would take Allahs Pledge and
Convention that you would manage it in the same way as Rasoolullah used to, and as Abu Bakr used
to do, and as I have done since I was in charge of it.

So, both of you said (to me), Hand it over to us, and on that condition I handed it over to you. So, I
ask you by Allah, did I hand it over to them on this condition? The group said, Yes. Then Umar
faced Ali and Abbas saying, I ask you by Allah, did I hand it over to you on this condition? They
said, Yes. He said, Do you want now to give a different decision? By Allah, by Whose Leave both
the Heaven and the Earth exist, I will never give any decision other than that (I have already given).
And if you are unable to manage it, then return it to me, and I will do the job on your behalf.
[Volume 8, Book 80, Number 720; Kitaab Al Faraa'idh]
Points of Benefit:
1) Abu Bakr and Umar (radhiya Allahu Anhumaa) both dealt with this land as the nabi did.
Comment
This is irrelevant. Abu Bakr unlawfully usurped land that he had no right to and brought it under his
control. This land was the legal right of Sayyida Fatima (as), and it was up to HER how she
administered it. Let us cite an example:
My friend owns a charity truck that goes through the country distributing goods to the poor and
needy. Upon his death I, as his close friend steal the truck and use it to carry on that charitable work.
The deed may be noble and may have just carried on the status quo, BUT I have committed two major
sins:
1. Stolen the truck
2. Denied heirs their legal right to the truck
How I deal with that asset is irrelevant, the truck belongs to the Heirs and they are entitled under
Shariah to dispose of it in any way that they choose. I have no say / right to decide how that asset
should / should not be disposed off.
2) Both Aliy and Abbas agreed and recognized that both Umar and Abu Bakr had done so.
Comment
Again that recognition does not mean that they agreed with their positions. If they had no objection to
this method why did they make a claim to the inheritance during the reign of Umar? If they were
happy with the method of the first Khaleefa why did they not just let this state of affairs continue, and
allow Umar to continue implementing the Sunnah of the Prophet (s), after all, taking charge and
administering land is a huge administrative responsibility, when Maula Ali (as) and Abbas were
content that the Sunnah of the Prophet (s) was being correctly implemented by the Head of State, why
on earth would they want to burden themselves with taking on this massive responsibility? There is a
famous saying in English If it isnt broken, dont fix it when Shakhayn were already administering
the property appropriately why were Maula Ali (as) and Abbas demanding that it be given to them?
3) Unlike the Shiaa claim, this issue was solved in this sitting between Umar, Aliy and Al Abbas
(radhiya Allahu Anhum). There is no need even to discuss the issue if it had been solved over 1,400
years ago. This goes to show that the Shiaa are not following Ahlul Bayt as they claim. If they were
they would follow in the footsteps of Aliy and Al Abbas and be pleased with the verdict of Abu Bakr
and Umar.
Reply One Analysing other traditions from Bukhari will assist us in

determining the truth
We will now prove that the position touted by this Nasibi is a lie and he has sought to rely on a partial
narration to favour the sins of his caliph. Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 367:
Narrated Malik bin Aus Al-Hadathan An-Nasri,
Then Umar turned towards Ali and Abbas and said, So I kept this property in my
possession for the first two years of my rule (i.e. Caliphate) and I used to dispose it of in the
same way as Allahs Apostle and Abu Bakr used to do; and Allah knows that I have been
sincere, pious, rightly guided and the follower of the right (in this matter.Later on both of you
(i.e. Ali and Abbas) came to me, O Abbas! You also came to me and the claim of you both was
one and the same.So I told you both that Allahs Apostle said, Our property is not inherited,
but whatever we leave is to be given in charity. Then when I thought that I should better hand
over this property to you both or the condition that you will promise and pledge before Allah
that you will dispose it off in the same way as Allahs Apostle and Abu Bakr did and as I have
done since the beginning of my caliphate or else you should not speak to me (about it). So,
both of you said to me, Hand it over to us on this condition. And on this condition I handed it
over to you. Do you want me now to give a decision other than that (decision)? By Allah, with
Whose Permission both the sky and the earth stand fast, I will never give any decision other
than that (decision) till the Last Hour is established. But if you are unable to manage it (i.e. that
property), then return it to me, and I will manage on your behalf. The sub-narrator saidSo,
this property (of Sadaqah) was in the hands of Ali who withheld it from Abbas and
overpowered him. Then it came in the hands of Hasan bin Ali, then in the hands of Hussain bin
Ali, and then in the hands of Ali bin Hussain and Hasan bin Hasan, and each of the last two
used to manage it in turn, then it came in the hands of Zaid bin Hasan, and it was truly the
Sadaqah of Allahs Apostle .
As far as the Shia point of view is concerned, we believe that the sub-transmitter of Bukharis
Hadeeth made some mistake in giving the correct account. The relevant facts are as follows:
1.
For two years in Umars reign, both Maula Ali (as) and Hadhrat Abbas came to Umar and
demanded their right of Fadak (while they never accepted the fake Hadeeth by Abu Bakr).
2.
Umar restored Fadak to them on condition that they maintain it as Abu Bakr had done. But
they didnt observe this condition and wanted to take possession of Fadak.After some time, Maula
Ali (as) overpowered Hadhrat Abbas and took control of whole Fadak property (while he
considered Fadak to be the right of Fatima Zahra (sa). This dispute reached a level where both
Hadhrat Abbas and Hadhrat Ali(as) went to Umar to settle this dispute between them (while Abbas
was also of view that he had a share and Abu Bakr only lied upon Rasool (saww) by fabricating a
Hadeeth).
3.
Umar told them that they cannot maintain the property while they disputed over possession.
So, he placed it under his custody. This matches with history, it remained in the hands of the state
proven by the fact that when Uthman succeeded Umar as Khaleefa, the kind generous Khaleefa
who looked out for the needs of his poor relatives gave the entire Estate of Fadak to Marwan bin
Al-Hakam.
One needs to be aware that Maula Ali (as) and Abbas approached Umar on two occasions.
First Occasion: Umar entrusted them the entire Estate of Fadak.
Second Occasion: Umar restored Fadak back to his custody (on account of the dispute between Ali
(as) and Abbas).
Clearly, the sub-transmitter of Bukharis Hadeeth seems to have made a mistake by thinking that
Maula Ali (as) overpowered Abbas after they went to Umar the second time.
The overpowering had occurred before the second incident, prior to Abbas going to Umar. Following
the second incident (after Umar took Fadak back), there was no property left for Maula Ali (as) to
overpower Abbas.
What this in effect means is that long after the death of Abu Bakr, Maula Ali (as) maintained his stance
that the hadeeth Our property will not be inherited, whatever we leave is Sadaqah was false and he
deemed Fadak his right (so much so that he was prepared to over power Abbas for it)., so how can
we accept the tradition cited by this Nasibi?
Reply Two At what point did Maula Ali (as) realise that the
Hadeeth is Sahih?
This is a crucial point. When did Maula Ali (as) realise the truthful of Abu Bakrs claim?
We had in an earlier chapter cited from a Tabaqat Ibn Sad, showing hat Maula Ali advocated on
behalf of his wife and cited Quranic verses on Prophetic inheritance to disprove the alleged Hadeeth
cited by Abu Bakr. If Abu Bakr was unable to convince Ali at that time, when did he convince him?
We have already demonstrated in the previous chapter that Sayyida Fatima (as) made several claims
to Fadak in her final six months on the earth, why didnt Maula Ali (as) stop her by saying:
You are wasting your time, dont disturb the truthful Khaleefa, since your father had said We do not
have any heirs; what we leave behind is (to be given in) charity
Six months was ample time to convince her, so why didnt Maula Ali (as) succeed in doing this? How
could it be that Maula Ali (as) was aware of the Hadeeth and Sayyida Fatima (as) was ignorant of it,
and worse was so stubborn that she refused to accept that the Hadeeth was Saheeh, even though her
husband believed in it?
The absurdity takes an even more extreme level, when we think about the credible words of a very
important eye witness, Khaleefa Umar, we have previously cited his words from Saheeh Muslim Book
019, Number 4349
When the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) passed away, Abu Bakr said: I am the
successor of the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him). Both of you came to demand
your shares from the property (left behind by the Messenger of Allah). (Referring to Hadhrat
Abbas), he said: You demanded your share from the property of your nephew, and he
(referring to Ali) demanded a share on behalf of his wife from the property of her father. Abu
Bakr (Allah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) had
you thought him (i.e. Abu Bakr) to be a liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest. And Allah
knows that he was true, virtuous, well-guided and a follower of truth. When Abu Bakr passed
away and (I have become) the successor of the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him)
and Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with him), you thought me to be a liar, sinful, treacherous and
dishonest.
Umars every word should be embraced by the followers of Muawiya in the same way a mother
embraces its child. When Umar is stating that Maula Ali (as) and Abbas deemed his and his
predecessors position on Fadak as evidence that they were liars, sinful, treacherous and
dishonest, then how can this Nasibi claim that they both deemed the Hadeeth to be Sahih?
So, this means that Maula Ali (as):
1.
never considered the Hadeeth of Our property will not be inherited, whatever we leave is
Sadaqah to be Sahih but fabrication.
2.
never deemed Abu Bakr to be SADEEQ, but a liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest.
3.
held this position about Abu Bakr long after his death.
4.
had a negative position on Abu Bakrs seizing of Fadak, that Umar was witness to.
Reply Three Why did Umar give them Fadak when the Hadith is
Sahih?
Umars restoring these lands proves that the Hadeeth is false. If Nawasib advance the claim that he
had just handed over managerial administration of this land, then this means that such a handover
option was possible, so why was this option not made available to Sayyida Zahra (as)?
Reply Four Maula Ali (as)s approaching Umar for Fadak is proof
that he didnt believe the Hadeeth was Sahih
According to this Nasibi authors logic:
1.
The usurpation of Fadak was justified as Prophets leave no inheritance
2.
Maula Ali was aware of the Hadeeth and hence believed the confiscation of Fadak was lawful
If this is true, then why did Maula Ali (as) trouble himself by making a claim to Fadak during Umars
reign? If Maula Ali (as) knew and attested to the authenticity of the Hadeeth are we to then conclude
he was seeking to acquire possession to land that he had no legal right to?
This leaves us with two options:
Option One Maula Ali (as) accepted the Hadeeth and made a claim to Fadak.
This is clearly the implication of the Bukhari tradition that this Nasibi has sought solace in. If this is
true then it means that Maula Ali (as) was so dishonest that he consciously sought to obtain land that
he had no legal right to.
Option Two Maula Ali (as) rejected the Hadeeth and made a claim to Fadak.
This is clearly more logical and protects the integrity of Maula Ali (as). Imam Ali (as) could only have
made a claim to Fadak if he rejected the Hadeeth that Abu Bakr cited, and this must be the case since
Al Faruq made it clear that Maula Ali (as) deemed Abu Bakrs seizure of Fadak as evidence that he
was a liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest.
You cannot have your cake and eat it too, you cannot both agree that Maula Ali supported the taking
of Fadak on the basis of this Hadeeth and then also accept that he tried to claim this confiscated land
at a later date.
Defence Three Sayyida Fatima (as)s not

making a further demand is proof that Abu Bakr
was correct
So, In reality however, the proof stands and the Sunnah must be followed. That is why the Noble and
blessed Fatima bint Muhammad did not further demand after Abu Bakr had refused. She knew the
proof and so she obeyed.
Reply One Sayyida Fatima (as) made a continual demand that

Abu Bakr restore Fadak to her
We will respond by citing three narrations. Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 57, Number 60:
Narrated Aisha:
Fatima sent somebody to Abu Bakr asking him to give her inheritance from the Prophet from
what Allah had given to His Apostle through Fai (i.e. booty gained without fighting). She asked
for the Sadaqa (i.e. wealth assigned for charitable purposes) of the Prophet at Medina, and
Fadak, and what remained of the Khumus (i.e., one-fifth) of the Khaibar booty.
Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 53, Number 325:
Narrated Aisha:
(mother of the believers) After the death of Allah s Apostle Fatima the daughter of Allahs
Apostle asked Abu Bakr As-Siddiq to give her, her share of inheritance from what Allahs
Apostle had left of the Fai (i.e. booty gained without fighting) which Allah had given him.
Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 368:
Narrated Aisha:
Fatima and AlAbbas came to Abu Bakr, claiming their inheritance of the Prophets land of
Fadak and his share from Khaibar.
At minimum this show this evidences the Sayyida Fatima (as) petitioned for her inheritance rights on
three separate occasions:
On the first occasion she sent somebody to make the claim on her behalf
On the second occasion she appeared as the claimant in person
On the third occasion she was accompanied by Abbas, uncle of the Prophet (s), and they
appeared as joint claimants his (s) estate
If it is argued that the above narrations relate to same event then allow us to expand a little further on
the second tradition cited from Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4 Hadith 325 that will suffice as proof that
Sayyida Fatima (as) did make further demands:
After the death of Allahs Apostle Fatima (AS), the daughter of Allahs Apostle asked Abu Bakr
As Siddiq to give her, her share of inheritance from what Allahs Apostle (PBUH) had left of the
Fai which Allah had given him. Abu Bakr said to her: Allahs Apostle said: Òur Property will
not be inherited, what ever we (Prophets) leave is Sadiqa (to be used for Charity)
Fatimah remained alive for six months after the death of the Prophet (PBUH). She used to
ask Abu Bakr for her share from the Property of Allahs Apostle which he (PBUH) left at
Khaibar and his Property at Medina
This report informs us that she made the demand for her right repeatedly, and hence makes the
argument of this Nasibi null and void. The continued demand of Sayyida Fatima (as) despite the
excuse advanced by Abu Bakr is further proof that it was false! If Sayyida Fatima (as) was convinced
of the correctness of Abu Bakrs decision in the first instance, there would have been no need for her
to continue to demand her inheritance rights!
Reply Two
Let us for arguments sake accept the Nasibi authors claim that Sayyida Fatima (as) made no further
demand following the Khaleefas judgement, would this mean she accepted his evidence? Would it be
surprising if she (as) had abandoned pursuing matters further in light of the facts:
Her inheritance is seized
She (as) challenges the seizure
The matter is decided by the same individual that took the land in the first place
Her testimony, as well as that of her husband, sons and Servant are rejected
A false Hadeeth is conveyed to justify the seizure
In lights of these facts, would it have been a surprise of Sayyida Zahra (as) gave up on the matter? In
this day and age, people are often disaffected by the decisions of public bodies such as the police.
There is common assumption that even if a complaint is made, nothing will come of it, since people in
high places look after each other. Even when a complaint is made, the response can be so bias (one
sided) that an individual may simply lose faith in pursuing the matter. In the UK, people often do not
complain against the police, since the complaints are investigated by the police themselves. Now think
about the facts here, not only is the legal right of Sayyida Zahra (as) taken, the person who takes the
land is listening to the complaint in the capacity of a Judge.
Had Sayyida Zahra (as) chosen to abandon further complaints then she had every right to do so, a
system so unfair that allows the usurper to also act as a Judge contravenes the rules of natural
justice. Any reasonable person faced with such blatant injustice would lose faith in the judicial system,
and choose not to pursue the matter further.
Defense Four The crucial part of the Fadak

episode narrated in Sunni books is not the
statement of Ayesha rather that is what Zuhri
falsely opined
Whilst the Nawasib have tried their utmost to absolve their client Abu Bakrs usurpation of the legal
right of Fatima Zahras and have as part of their endeavors formulated an array of technical excuses.
One such excuse is, that the most crucial part of the episode of Fadak narrated in various Sunni
books, namely the words Therefore Fatima left Abu Bakr and did not speak to him till she died
is not the statement of Ayesha but rather the words of the sub narrator, namely Ibn Shihab Zuhri and
they seek to substantiate their position by pointing out that the said sentence begins with the word
Qal (He said) and not from Qalat (She said). The Nawasib, on the basis of this excuse, solace
themselves that neither did Fatima Zahra (sa) died angry of Abu Bakar nor did she cease speaking to
him until she died.
We should point out an irony pertaining to this very issue. We have frequently relied upon the works of
famed Sunni scholar Dr. Muhammad Tahir ul Qadri whom the hardcore Nawasib accuse of being a
Shia, yet now the same Nawasib happily quote him as he presented a series of Shia rebuttals
including the very issue under discussion pertaining to Zuhri.
Reply One: The incident has also been reported without Qal
If Nawasib are over obsessed with the presence of Qal (He said) in some of the versions of the
Fadak dispute, allow us to cite a version devoid of the word Qal that automatically renders it to be
the direct uncontaminated account of Ayesha. We read in Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number
546:
Narrated Àisha: Fatima the daughter of the Prophet sent someone to Abu Bakr (when he was
a caliph), asking for her inheritance of what Allahs Apostle had left of the property bestowed
on him by Allah from the Fai (i.e. booty gained without fighting) in Medina, and Fadak, and
what remained of the Khumus of the Khaibar booty. On that, Abu Bakr said, Allahs Apostle
said, Our property is not inherited. Whatever we leave, is Sadaqa, but the family of (the
Prophet) Muhammad can eat of this property. By Allah, I will not make any change in the state
of the Sadaqa of Allahs Apostle and will leave it as it was during the lifetime of Allahs
Apostle, and will dispose of it as Allahs Apostle used to do. So Abu Bakr refused to give
anything of that to Fatima. So she became angry with Abu Bakr and kept away from him, and
did not talk to him till she died. She remained alive for six months after the death of the
Prophet. When she died, her husband Àli, buried her at night without informing Abu Bakr and
he said the funeral prayer by himself. WhenFatima was alive, the people used to respect Àli
much, but after her death, Àli noticed a change in the peoples attitude towards him. So Àli
sought reconciliation with Abu Bakr and gave him an oath of allegiance. Àli had not given the
oath of allegiance during those months (i.e. the period between the Prophets death
and Fatimas death). Àli sent someone to Abu Bakr saying, Come to us, but let nobody come
with you, as he disliked that Ùmar should come, Ùmar said (to Abu Bakr), No, by Allah, you
shall not enter upon them alone Abu Bakr said, What do you think they will do to me? By
Allah, I will go to them So Abu Bakr entered upon them, and then Àli uttered Tashah-hud and
said (to Abu Bakr), We know well your superiority and what Allah has given you, and we are
not jealous of the good what Allah has bestowed upon you, but you did not consult us in the
question of the rule and we thought that we have got a right in it because of our near
relationship to Allahs Apostle . Thereupon Abu Bakrs eyes flowed with tears. And when Abu
Bakr spoke, he said, By Him in Whose Hand my soul is to keep good relations with the
relatives of Allahs Apostle is dearer to me than to keep good relations with my own relatives.
But as for the trouble which arose between me and you about his property, I will do my best to
spend it according to what is good, and will not leave any rule or regulation.
Reply Two: The incident has also been reported with the specific
use of Qalat
Again, for those Nawasib with an ardent obsession with the word Qal and Qalat we would like to
slap them with two Sunni reports containing the word Qalat (she said) that leaves us with no doubt
that this was indeed the direct testimony of Ayesha. We read in Musnad Abu Bakar al-Maruzi, page 87
Hadith No. 38:
, , , , , : : :

[ 88 : ],
,

,
, :
:
, : ,
,

: , ,
,

,
,
: : : ,
Narrated Ahmad Ibn Ali from Abu Bakr Ibn Zanjawaih from Abdulrazaq from Moammar from
Al-Zuhri from Urwa from Ayesha who said: Fatima and Al-Abbas came to Abu Bakr, seeking
their share from the property of Allahs Apostle and at that time, they were asking for their land
at Fadak and their share from Khaibar. Abu Bakr said to them, I have heard from Allahs
Apostle saying, Our property cannot be inherited, and whatever we leave is to be spent in
charity, but the family of Muhammad may take their provisions from this property. Abu Bakr
added, By Allah, I will not leave the procedure I saw Allahs Apostle following during his
lifetime concerning this property. She said: Fatima got angry with Abu Bakr and did not talk
to him about it till she died, then Ali buried her at night and did not allow Abu Bakr to take part
in her funeral. She said: Ali had a status in the life of Fatima but when she died, people
negated his status, and she lived for six months after death of holy prophet (saw) and then
died Moammar said: Then a man asked Al-Zuhri: Did he not pledge allegiance for six
months? He said: Neither he nor anyone of the tribe of Bani Hashim did pay allegiance, till
Ali pledged allegiance. He said: and when Ali saw that people negate his status so he asked
for treaty with Abu Bakr and to pledge allegiance; so he sent someone to Abu Bakr
Ahmad Ibn Ali is the legendary Imam Abu Yala the author of the famed Musnad Abu Yala whilst Abu
Bakr Ibn Zanjawaih is also another great Imam of Ahle Sunnah referred to by Dhahabi as Hafiz Imam
(Syar alam alnubala, v12, p346) and Ibn Hajar as: Thiqa (Taqreeb al-Tahdeeb, v2, p107 ).
Similarly, Imam of Ahle Sunnah Naeem bin Hamad al-Marozi (d. 229 H), who was one of the teachers
of Bukhari recorded the identical report on the authority of Abu Bakr Ibn Zanjawaih in his esteemed
work Al-Fetan.
Reply Three: The fact that Fatima (as) died angry of Abu Bakr has
been relied upon by various early Sunni Imams without any hint of
such excuse
We challenge our opponents to quote any early Sunni Imam who may have advanced the notion that
the portion of tradition under discussion was not part of Ayeshas statement rather a Idraj of Zuhri! We
have noticed that this excuse has been concocted by the enemies of Fatima Zahra (as) very recently
which is why we do not find any early Sunni Imam pointing out such a defect in their works. Imam
Dhahabi records in Siyar alam al-Nubala, volume 2 page 121:

When her father died, she sought for her inheritance thus she went to Abu Bakr asking for her
share, but he (Abu Bakr) told her that he had heard Allahs apostle saying we dont leave
inheritance, whatever we leave is charity therefore she got angry at him and then she got ill.
Defence Five Ayesha was mistaken when she

said Sayyida Fatima (as) never forgave Abu Bakr
From the next lodged defence one can quickly gauge how desperate the clients of Abu Bakr get to
absolve their client of any wrong doing. In Defence Four we noted their insistence that the anger of
Fatima (as) was the wrong interpolation of Zuhri and should be dismissed forthwith. The next defence
keep Zuhri out of the frame, whilst not denying the narration it suggest that their was in fact an error
on the part of the narrator Ayesha
The claim that she remained angry, seems to be incorrect. Aishah reports that she remained angry.
However, Aishah (radhiya Allahu Anhaa) was not around Faatimah (alayhas salaam) at all times.
Neither was she around Abu Bakr and other Sahaba at all times. So we can see that it is possible she
is mistaken.
Reply One
Why should Ayeshas testimony all of a sudden be deemed a mistake? Its amazing that the only
narration on the conquest of Constantinople exists in Sahih Bukhari from just one narrator and yet
Nawasib happily cited as evidence that Yazeed was in Heaven yet when we have the testimony
Ayesha that exists in the six major Sunni works all of a sudden the narration becomes doubtful, to the
point that Ayeshas position on the matter is criticised. When they feel like it these Nawasib will only
accept narration from the Saha Sittah and they will not accept anything that conflict with them, rather
will only deem evidence presented from these books as sound. Why they do the goal posts change on
this issue, the Nawasib are raising doubts over a narration from Sahih Bukhari, narrated by Ayesha
giving priority to a book outside the Saha Sittah, why is that?
Is it not tragic that in their hatred of Sayyida Zahra (as) these Nawasib didnt even care for the honour
of Ayesha who they deem Siddiqa. These Nawasib have suddenly initiated a desire to protect the
integrity Abu Bakr some 1400 years later, would Ayesha not have had the same desire for Ayesha to
protect the integrity of her father? If there was any element of doubt about the incident, an ordinary
supporter of Abu Bakr would have never narrated it, let alone his beloved daughter. If for arguments
sake the only evidence we had was that of Ayesha , then maybe the mistake defence could be
advanced, but when we analyse other supporting texts confirming the anger of Sayyida Fatima (as we
shall cite later), her cursing Abu Bakr and Maula Ali (as)s burying her without notifying Abu Bakr then
all this supports the stance of Ayesha and strengthen our position on this matter.
Reply Two
We read in Nur al Absar page 41, Dhikr Zawaaj al Nabi:
Ayesha narrated 2210 Hadeeth
Exactly the same figure has been recorded by Deobandi scholar Syed Sulaiman Nadvi in Hadhrat
Ayesha Siddiqa her life and works page 61.
Comment
If Ayesha had made such a major blunder, one that puts her fathers Khilafat and Iman at risk, then
why do you act on her 2210 narrations? What is the guarantee that Ayesha was not mistaken about all
those rest of the narrations?
Reply Three
We read in Nur al Absar page 41, Dhikr Zawaaj al Nabi:
Hadhrat Ayesha died in 84 Hjri, her Funeral prayer was offered by Abu Hurrayra
Comment
The incident of Fadak occurred in 11 Hijri and Ayesha lived for another 73 years, why did she not
correct her mistake and set out the correct position (alleged by this Nasibi)? Why did no one else
correct her position on this?
Reply Four Can half the Deen make such a mistake?

We read in Tauhfa Ithna Ashari page, 419
The Sahih narration has reached us. That Rasulullah pointed in the direction of Ayesha and
said Obtain half the Deen from this red faced one.
Comment
If Ayesha could narrate tradition incorrectly, then why would Rasulullah (s) deem such an unreliable
woman half the religion?
Reply Five Abu Hurraira also narrated that Sayyida Fatima (as)
never forgave Abu Bakr
Sunan Tirmidhi records a narration free of Zuhri and Ayesha, that informs us as follows:

Abu Huraira said: Fatima went to Abu Bakr and Umar asking them for her heritage from
Allahs Messenger, thus they said: We heard Allahs Messenger saying I dont leave
inheritance. She said: By Allah, I will not talk to you again ever. Thus she died and never
talked to them again.
Comment
It is interesting to note that a few Nasibi and Sunni commentator interpret that tradition to suggest that
Fatima only stopped talking to the Sheikhain on the matter of inheritance, when she makes it clear
that she would never talk to them again. The crucial thing is we have the testimony of two individuals,
arguably the most prolific hadeeth narrators from amongst men and women respectively, both of them
testifying to the fact that Fatima (as) died in a state of anger towards Abu Bakr. Whilst the narration of
Ayesha ends with her informing us of the anger of Fatima (as), Abu Hurraira actually cites the words
of Fatima (as), wherein she makes an oath By Allah, I will not talk to you again ever. If Ayesha
was mistaken as has been argued, was Abu Hurraira also mistaken? Abu Hurraira outlived Ayesha
and eventually died in 59 Hijri, and yet (like Ayesha) he never came across any tradition suggesting
that Fatima (as) forgave Abu Bakr.
Defence Six Fatima (as) did not talk to Abu

Bakr about that specific issue again but continued
to do so on other matters
On the basis of some accounts of the Fadak dispute from Sunni books, Nasibi advocates have put in
considerable overtime in their workstations, in hope of receiving remuneration on the day of Judgment
from their spiritual father Muawiya, and have lodged a submission that relations between the mistress
of the women of this universe (as) and Abu Bakr remained cordial, she simply ceased discussing the
issue of her inheritance with him. With this interpretation, Nawasib indirectly try to infer that Fatima
Zahra (sa) had actually accepted the stance of Abu Bakr.
Reply One: There are versions of the incident that prove that Fatima
(as) ceased talking to Abu Bakr on all matters ad infinitum
We shall cite some narratives of the Fadak dispute from Sunni Hadith work that certainly do not
suggest that the cessation in dialogue between Fatima Zahras (sa) and Abu Bakr was Fadak alone
and save that, friendly relations continued. We read in Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 53, Number
325:
Narrated Ayesha(mother of the believers),After the death of Allahs Apostle Fatima,the
daughter of Allahs Apostle asked Abu Bakr As-Siddiq to give her the share of inheritance from
what Allahs Apostle had left of the Fai (i.e. booty gained without fighting)which Allah had
given him. Abu Bakr said to her, the Holy Prophet (saww) had said, Our property will not be
inherited, whatever we (i.e. prophets) leave is Sadaqah (to be used for charity). Fatima, the
daughter of Allahs 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 the
Holy prophet(saww).
Reply Two: The fact that Fatima Zahra (as) kept herself aloof from
Abu Bakr nullifies this biased interpretation
Narrated Àisha: Fatima the daughter of the Prophet sent someone to Abu Bakr (when he was
a caliph), asking for her inheritance of what Allahs Apostle had left of the property bestowed
on him by Allah from the Fai (i.e. booty gained without fighting) in Medina, and Fadak, and
what remained of the Khumus of the Khaibar booty. On that, Abu Bakr said, Allahs Apostle
said, Our property is not inherited. Whatever we leave, is Sadaqa, but the family of (the
Prophet) Muhammad can eat of this property. By Allah, I will not make any change in the state
of the Sadaqa of Allahs Apostle and will leave it as it was during the lifetime of Allahs
Apostle, and will dispose of it as Allahs Apostle used to do. So Abu Bakr refused to give
anything of that to Fatima. So she became angry with Abu Bakr and kept away from him, and
did not talk to him till she died. She remained alive for six months after the death of the
Prophet. When she died, her husband Àli, buried her at night without informing Abu Bakr and
he said the funeral prayer by himself.
Ponder into the words and kept away from him coupled with what follows it i.e. and did not talk
to him till she died when read together any unbiased mind can deduce that her:
(a) anger
(b) keeping aloof from that particular individual and;
(c) not talking to him until she died
in no way suggests that it was restricted just the issue of Fadak, she completely severed links
completely from him..
Reply Three: The fact that Fatima Zahra (as) was angry with
someone is sufficient to negate the suggestion that it was merely
over a particular matter
Even if for the sake of argument we accept the interpretation advanced by our opponents, the fact
that the mistress of all the women of this universe died angry with Abu Bakr is undisputable, it
attracted her ire to such an extent that she refused to talk to Abu Bakr him on the issue. This clearly
was significant enough to upset her, so why are Nawasib not prepared to assess this? This entitles us
to ask questions of our opponents:
Why did this decision anger her so much?
Was anger because Abu Bakr cited a Hadith that she was unfamiliar with?
If she had become familiar, why was she still angered with Abu Bakr?
WasFatima(as) angry at Abu Bakr because he relied on a Hadith that negated her claim, or
was it because she rejected the authenticity of the Hadith?
Reply Four: Even this interpretation serves no benefit to Abu Bakrs

advocates
Even if for the sake of argument, we were to accept that Fatima Zahra (sa) became angry with Abu
Bakar and did not talk to him on the issue of Fadak this in no way entitles Nawasib to deduce that it
meant that she acceded to his stance because:
It is common sense that if you persistently demand something from another and that individual
through his stubbornness dismisses that demand, there will come a point you like any proud individual
will draw a line on the issue, you will simply state enough is enough and desist from making any
further demands. The decision not to appeal any further in no way means you accept that persons
viewpoint, you simply dont wish to waste your time and energy any further, moreover, the more
rejections you get then more humiliating it is for you, no matter wants to put up with being repeatedly
treated in such a shoddy manner. Having unsuccessfully made several demands before Abu Bakr,
Fatima Zahra (sa) recognized that he was not going to alter his stance so she deemed revisiting it to
be pointless, it would simply cause more stress, humiliation and pain to her. Fatima (as) had seen her
testimony rejected as well as that of her husband, sons and servant, there was clearly nothing further
that she could do, to alter his position.
Reply Five: The Nawasib themselves present evidence wherein

Fatima (as) forgave Abu Bakr on her deathbed
In there efforts to defend their client, his advocates sometimes forget that there past submissions
contradict the new ones. One of narration they quote ad nausea is this one:
there is proof from the Authentic Sunnah that Faatimah (alayhas salaam) became pleased with Abu
Bakr As-Siddeeq before her death.
al-Hafidh Ibn Katheer mentions in his al bidayaah 6/333 that: When Fatima (alayhas salaam) was
experiencing her sickness [before death], Abu Bakr as Sideeq came to her and sought to
please her, and she became pleased.
The exact narration has originally been reported by Imaam al-Baihaqi through Ismaeel ibn Abee
Khaalid who narrated from Ash-Shubi, and the isnaad (chain) of this report is sahih (authentic).
Whilst we will address this narration in Defence Seven, the important thing is the Nawasib are
rejoicing at the fact that a successful reconciliation was achieved on the deathbed ofFatima(as). If this
is the case how can Nawasib also argue that cordial relations continued between Fatima (as) and Abu
Bakr with Fadak being the only bone of contention? If that was the case there would be no reason
whatsoever for Abu Bakr to seek the pleasure ofFatima(as) since (as per Nawasib claims) he was
never out of favor. Nawasib cant have their cake and eat it, you cant on the one hand argue that no
relations broke down between the two following Fadak, and then also insist that Abu Bakr successfully
acquired the forgiveness of Abu Bakr on her death bed.
Reply Five Maula Ali (as)s decision not to notify Abu Bakr of the
funeral of Fatima (as) proves that he was honoring the fact that she
died angry at him
If our opponents are going to argue that the anger was solely with regards to Fadak, then this would
mean on all other matters, relations were completely cordial. If this was indeed the case why did
Imam Ali (as) bury her without notifying Abu Bakr? We read in Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59,
Number 546:
. So she became angry with Abu Bakr and kept away from him, and did not talk to him till
husband Àli, buried her at night without informing Abu Bakr and he said the funeral prayer by
himself
In any community when someone is deceased relatives and friends will try their utmost to cascade
this news to those that had good relations with him, even those that new the deceased remotely as in
they might exchange pleasantries in the Mosque. If there is some time between death and burial, the
surviving relatives will seek their utmose to invite acquanitabces to the funeral, they will think about
whoever the deaceased was close with and will the try and get the measseg out of the bas news, and
details of the funeral. The only person that youd choose not to notify would be that person the
deceased found abhorrent, that you knew the deceased died angry with. No relative would deem it
worthwhile notifying such an individual. So, if relations between Fatima Zahra (sa) and Abu Bakr were
fine save, the prickly issue of Fadak, the allow us to present three key observations:
observation one: why did maula ali (as) bury fatima (as) at night
and intentionally not tell abu bakr?
If the argument is that Fatima(as) died at night so there was insufficient time to notify Abu Bakr, we will
point out that she (as) died during the day so there was ample time to notify the Khalifa. Dr.
Muhammad Tahir ul Qadri in his book The virtues of Sayyedah Fatima (sa) records this tradition:
Fatimah ( ) was aware of her own death
: .82
! : ! : :
! :
. : ! :
Umm Salma ( ) narrates, When Fatimah
( ) had the illness which took her life, I nursed her. During this time, on one occasion
her condition was slightly better one morning. Ali ( ) had gone out for some job.
Fatimah said, O mother! Bring some water for me to bathe. I brought some water and as far
as I saw she bathed perfectly. Then she said, O mother, bring me new clothes so I gave her
clothes to her and she put them on. Then she said, O mother! Make my bed for me in the
middle of the house, so I did accordingly. Then she laid down, faced towards the Kabah,
placed her hand under her cheek and said, O mother! It is time for my death and I have
purified myself. Do not let anybody undress me. Fatimah ( ) passed away in that
very position. Umm Salmah continues, Then Ali ( ) came back and I informed him
of Fatimahs ( ) death
Please note that the said tradition can be located in the following books
Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v6, p461
Tarikh Madina, v1, p108
al-Zurya al-Tahira, by Dulabi, p155
Nasikh al-Hadith, by Umar bin Shahin, p587
Sunnis scholars weaken this tradition due to the presence of Muhammad bin Isehaq, and Ubaidullah
bin Abi Rafe. It should however be pointed out that Ibn Hajar refused to weaken this tradition and
defended both two narrators in his book al-Qawl al-Musadad Fi al-Dhub an Musnad Ahmad, page 71.
Ibn Hajr in fact e authored the said book to refute those Sunnis scholars who weakened some
traditions in Musnad Ahmad, he cited those traditions and then defended them.
Now turning to the text we learn that Sayyida Fatima (as) died during the morning, Imam Ali (as) was
away but returned during the day so was fully aware of her death. At this point Imam Ali (as) like any
other bereaved relative would have got the message out of the tragedy that had befallen his house, he
or those close to him would have got word out that Fatima (as) had left the earth, and the timing of her
funeral. Now if Imam Ali (as) recognized that Fatima(as) had good cordial relations with Abu Bakr,
why was he not informed of her death and the time of burial? There was ample time to do so the day
passed, she was buried at night, yet the Imam (as) consciously hid this from Abu Bakr, as Bulkhari
informs us he buried her at night without informing Abu Bakr and he said the funeral prayer by
himself there would be no reason w hatsever to keep this from Abu Bakr unless Imam Ali (as)
recognized that Fatima (as) died with Abu Bakr, and his decision not to invite him to the funeral was in
keeping with her hostile attitude towards him. It is clear Imam Ali (as) did not wish ti invite that
controversial figure to attend the funeral of his wife, that had caused her hurt and anguish, at such a
level her anger towards never subsided, she was angered with Abu Bakr for usurping Fadak and
remained angry with until she died.
observation two: why was asma the wife of abu bakr not only
informed but allowed to partake in the funeral rites?
This is a significant point. The wife of Abu Bakr, who had deep respect and love for Fatima (as)
attended the home of Ali (as) and partook in the burial rites. She was invited, it would not have taken
much trouble for Imam Ali (as) to request that she also go to her husband and tell him to share in their
grief and attend her funeral. The reality is she did not, if she did then there would have been no
reason for Abu Bakr to have remained ignorant of the funeral of Fatima(as).
observation three: why did maula ali (as) not give bayya to abu
bakr until afterfatima (as) left the earth?
Clearly there would be no reason to withhold allegiance of Fatima(as) was pleased with Abu Bakr, with
the exception of the Fadak dispute. Yet (as per Sunni narrations) thatFatima(as) was angry at Abu
Bakr and as long as she was alive Imam Ali (as) dod not give bayya to Abu Bakr. Now what would be
the reason for Imam Ali (as) to delay giving bayya to Abu Bakr unil after the death ofFatima(as). The
narrative of Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 546 states:
So she became angry with Abu Bakr and kept away from him, and did not talk to him till she
died. She remained alive for six months after the death of the Prophet. When she died, her
husband Àli, buried her at night without informing Abu Bakr and he said the funeral prayer by
himself. When Fatima was alive, the people used to respect Àli much, but after her death, Àli
noticed a change in the peoples attitude towards him. So Àli sought reconciliation with Abu
Bakr and gave him an oath of allegiance. `
Now if relations between Sayyida Fatima (as) and Abu Bakr were cordial why had Imam Ali (as)
refrained from giving bayya to Abu Bakr until after the death of Fatima(as)? The narration states
that Ali sought reconciliation with Abu Bakr clearly there would be no need for reconciliation if
there was no animosity between Ali (as) and Abu Bakr. In the first place. Clearly there was, and it had
a direct nexus with Fatima (as) as long as she was by his side Maula Ali (as) did not give bayya to Abu
Bakr. This in itself proves that the anger of Fatima (as) was so severe towards Abu Bakr, she wanted
nothing whatsever to do with him, so much so that her husband took the same line and (as per Sahih
Bukhari) did not reconcile and give bayya until his wife left the earth.
Defence Seven Sayyida Fatima (as) forgave

Abu Bakr before she died
First tradition
Taken from Madaarijun Nubuwwah, Kitaabul Wafaa, Baihaqi and in the commentaries of
Mishkaat.Kitaabul Muwaafiqah narrates that Anaani said:
Abu Bakr came to the door of Fatima in the midday sun and said: I shall not leave from here as long
as the daughter of Rasool-Allah remains displeased with me. Ali came to Fatima and giving her an
oath urged her to become pleased. Then she became pleased (with Abu Bakr)
Reply
The book Madaarijun Nubuwwah is a compilation of narrations from other books, without any chains
of narration. It is interesting that Ibn al Hashimi presents this text as fact when it contains no chain.
How can a chainless narration be presented as fact, when we have a Sahih narration leading up to
Ayesha who confirmed that Sayyida Fatima (as) never forgave Abu Bakr! If we are wrong and a Sahih
chain narration of the above tradition does indeed exist then we invite Ibn al Hashimi to present it.
Second tradition
there is proof from the Authentic Sunnah that Faatimah (alayhas salaam) became pleased with Abu
Bakr As-Siddeeq before her death.
al-Hafidh Ibn Katheer mentions in his al bidayaah 6/333 that: When Fatima (alayhas salaam) was
experiencing her sickness [before death], Abu Bakr as Sideeq came to her and sought to
please her, and she became pleased.
The exact narration has originally been reported by Imaam al-Baihaqi through Ismaeel ibn Abee
Khaalid who narrated from Ash-Shubi, and the isnaad (chain) of this report is sahih (authentic).
The same narration was also cited by Ibn al Hashimi. There are so many weak aspects in using the
tradition recorded by Baihaqi that an array of replies can be given in its refutation:
Reply One: The tradition is Mursal

By emphasizing on the chain of the narration being Sahih, the cunning author has tried to fool the
common and nave readers who are not well versed with the science of Hadith. The narrators in the
chain may be authentic but what the Nasibi author has failed to point out is that the tradition is Mursal
(disconnected) because it is a Tabayee (Shubi) who is giving testimony of an incident which he did
not see with his eyes and this testimony is not made by someone of that era i.e. by a Sahabi. We shall
remind them, that according to Salafies, the Mursal are not acceptable as Imam Nasiruddin Albaani
records in his book Deefa an al-Hadith al-Nabawi, page 82:

Mursal is a kind of weak according to hadith scholars
Another darling of Salafies Ibn Uthaimin recorded in his book Majmoa Fatawa ibn Uthaimin, Volume 6
page 164:

Mursal is a kind of weak [Hadeeth], hence its not hujja
And most importantly, the incident which Shubi claims to have witnessed, took place even before his
birth as Imam Ibn Hazam records in Al-Muhala, Volume 11 page 50:

Al-Shubi was born two years after the death of Umar (ra)
When al Shubi was born during the Caliphate of Uthman from whom did he get receipt of the
reconciliation? Is it not curious that an individual born during reign of Uthman, that would have meant
that he would have not acquired a sound of knowledge of Hadeeth until he was (at minimum a
teenager) thus placing him in the Caliphate of Ali ibn Ali Talib (as) came to know that Sayyida (as)
forgave Abu Bakr and yet not a single Sahabi that outlived Rasulullah (s) testified to Sayyida Fatima
(as) reconciling with Abu Bakr? Is that believable?
Reply Two: Mursal traditions narrated by Shubi are rejected by

Ahle-Sunnah
If a Nasibi comes producing scenarios wherein Sunni scholars accept a Mursal tradition, such is not
the case when the Mursal tradition is narrated by Shubi since they reject Mursal traditions explicitly
narrated by Shubi. Imam Qastalani records in his popular commentary of Sahih Bukhari namely
Irshad al-Sari, Volume 6 page 475:

The Mursal of al-Shubi is not hujja at all, especially when it is contradicting the Sahih
Therefore, the Mursal tradition is to be rejected automatically since according to the Sahih tradition of
Bukhari, Fatima Zahra (as) did not talk to Abu Bakr until she died. Allamah Ibn Abdul Barr while
referring to the opinion of Scholars regarding the Mursal narrated by Shubi records in his authority
work Al-Tamhid, Volume 22 page 320:

The mursal of al-Shubi according to them is worth nothing
The fact that Shubi has been blacklisted by the Sunni scholars in terms of Mursal traditions narrated
by him destroys the feeble attempts by Nawasib to absolve their caliph from the sin he committed by
making Fatima Zahra (sa) angry.
Reply Three: According to Ahlul Sunnah, a Musnad (connected)

tradition is given priority over a Mursal (disconnected) tradition
Allamah Abdulqadir al-Demashqi records in Al-Madkhal, Volume 1, page 397:

The preference is given to Musnad over Mursal
Imam of the Deobandies Anwar Shah Kashmiri records in Al-Urf al-Shadi Sharah Sunan Tirmidhi,
Volume 2 page 44:

The Musnad is preferred over the Mursal
Allamah Salahuddin Khalil al-Alaai (d. 761 H) records in Jamea al-Usool, Volume 1 page 43:

Most Malikies and Hanafies such as Abi Jaffar al-Tahawi and Abi Bakr al-Razi said to give
preference to Musnad over Mursal when they contradict each other
Qadhi Shawkani records in Irshad al-Fuhul, Volume 2 page 268:

The Musnad narration precedes the Mursal narration
Applying this Sunni principle, we see that the Mursal narrated by Shubi contradicts the Sahih tradition
of Bukhari hence the statement of Shubi remains worthless.
Reply Four A major Sunni scholars admission that the anger of

Fatima (as) towards Abu Bakr never subsided until she died
The fact that Fatima Zahra (sa) did not forgive Abu Bakr and died angry towards him has been
attested by Imam of Ahle Sunnah Shah Abdul Haq Muhadith Dehalwi in his famed work Ashat alLamaat Sharh Mishkat (Urdu translation by Allamah Muhammad Abdul Hakeem Sharaf Qadri),
Volume 5 pages 353-354:
The case of Fatima al Zahra is difficult among all the cases. If I say that Fatima was ignorant
with regards to the Hadeeth cited by Abu Bakr then it is impossible and if I say that she was
not provided the opportunity to hear this Hadeeth then it is also difficult, because after hearing
this Hadeeth from Abu Bakr and the testimonies of the Sahaba, she did not accept the Hadeeth
which is why she became angry. If she had become angry before hearing the Hadeeth then
why didnt desist from her anger, anger that was so lengthy that she did not talk to Abu Bakr
as long as she remained alive
Ashat al-Lamaat Sharh Mishkat, Volume 5 pages 353-354 (Farid Book Stall, Urdu Bazar, Lahore)
The testimony of this major Sunni scholar serves as clear proof that Sayyida Fatima (as) never
changed her position nor forgave Abu Bakr.
Reply Five Why was Ayesha left in the dark about the resolution?
Ayesha narrates in Bukhari that Sayyida Zahra departed from the world in a state of animosity towards
Abu Bakr. Ibn Katheer sites a disconnected and an unacceptable narration suggesting that the matter
was resolved. Is it not somewhat unusual that a source outside the family was aware that hostilities
were settled, yet one parties own daughter wasnt? Doesnt it strike our readers as somewhat odd that
something like being forgiven by the Prophets daughter, may have come up in conversation during the
last year of the Khaleefas life? How is it that outsiders knew that matter was resolved, whilst Ayesha
remained completely ignorant of it!
Reply Six The direct actions of Sayyida Zahra (as) prove that she
never forgave Abu Bakr
In a court case the strength of a case very much depends on the witness statements of the victim and
any eye witnesses. If both witnesses can corroborate what occurred then the case is a strong one. In
this regards we already have the witness testimony of Ayesha who states that Sayyida Fatima (as)
never forgave Abu Bakr. This position is supported by the direct actions / testimony of Sayyida Fatima
(as) in this regards. Ibn Qutaybah records the failed efforts of the Shaykhayn to seek forgiveness for
their upsetting Fatima (as) when they attended her home, she responded by making it clear to them:
When I meet my father the Prophet (s), then I shall complain about the both of you (Abu Bakr
and Umar), and said to Abu Bakr By Allah I shall curse you after every Salat.
Al-Imamah wa al-Siyasa, Vol. 1, Page 14
These words of Fatima (as) prove that she never forgave Abu Bakr and Umar and that she made it
clear that she would bring her anger to the attention of her father (s). The testimony Sayyida Fatima
(as) and the supporting evidence Ayesha leaves us with no doubt that Sayyida Zahra (as) never
forgave Abu Bakr.
Reply Seven Why did the principal claimants family not state that
the matter had been resolved?
We should not forget the surviving claimants that would have been affected by this alleged dramatic
change of heart. Do we any hadeeth from Imam Ali (as), or Sayyida Fatima (as)s children that could
have clear up this dispute, by notifying the people that all had been resolved? This would have been
more likely in the case of Imam Ali (as), particularly when we see the complete tradition in Sunan alBayhaqi is as follows:
When Fatimah was ill, Abu Bakr visited her and sought her permission (to see her). So Ali
called out, O Fatimah, Abu Bakr here seeks your permission (to see you). Fatimah asked,
Would you like that I permit him? Ali replied, Yes. Thus, she permitted him and he entered
seeking her contentment saying, By Allah I have not left home, wealth, family and kin other
than in pursuit of the pleasure of Allah, the pleasure of His Messenger, and the pleasure of you
all, the Ahl al-Bayt. So he continued trying to make her happy until she was well pleased.
[Sunan al-Baihaqi, Hadith 12515]
Here we see that it was Maula Ali (as) who allegedly persuaded Sayyida Fatima (as) to see Abu Bakr
that resulted in an amicable settlement. When Maula Ali (as) was witness to this joyous occasion why
do we not have a single narration wherein he recollects this incident and informs the people that his
wife had forgiven Abu Bakr (as)?
Reply Eight If Sayyida Zahra (as) forgave Abu Bakr, then why (as
per Sunni texts) did Maula Ali (as) fail to give bayya till after she
died and did not inform them of her funeral?
The books of Ahlul Sunnah state that Maula Ali (as) did not settle his differences with Abu Bakr until
Sayyida Fatima (as) died and only gave bayya six months after the death of the Prophet (s). If Sayyida
Fatima (as) had forgiven Abu Bakr then why would Maula Ali (as) had delayed giving bayya? If the
matter had been resolved there would have been no grounds for Maula Ali (as) to delay bayya until
after the death of Sayyida Fatima (as)! Why have the Sunni Ulema mentioned this delay, linking it to
the death of Sayyida Zahra (as)? When the matter had been allegedly resolved at the khaleefa had
graced his presence in the home of Maula Ali (as) then why did he (as) not seize the opportunity to
give bayya immediately? Why continue to delay the matter?
Whilst we as Shia reject the notion of Bayya outright, the Ijmaa amongst the Sunni Ulema is that
Maula Ali (as) gave bayya to Abu Bakr, following the death of Sayyida Fatima (as). This would mean
that he gave bayya six months after the death of the Prophet (s). Whilst the rules of Sunni / Shia
polemics stipulate that it is not incumbent on one Sect to accept a Hadeeth cited from the other Sects,
lets us cite a portion of the tradition that the Nasibis from Reviving Islam had themselves sought
solace in a tradition taken from Sahih al Bukhari Volume 5 Hadeeth number 546:
Aishah narrates what has been narrated above she adds,
So Abu Bakr refused to give anything of that to Fatima. So she became angry with Abu Bakr and kept
away from him, and did not talk to him till she died. She remained alive for six months after the death
of the Prophet.
When she died, her husband Ali, buried her at night without informing Abu Bakr and he said the
Janazah by himself. When Fatima was alive, the people used to respect Ali much, but after her death,
Ali noticed a change in the peoples attitude towards him.
So Ali sought reconciliation with Abu Bakr and gave him Bayah (the oath of allegiance). Ali had not
given the oath of allegiance during those months (i.e. the period between the Prophets death and
Fatimas death). Ali sent someone to Abu Bakr saying, Come to us, but let nobody come with you,
as he disliked that Umar should come.
If we accept that Maula Ali (as) never gave bayya to Abu Bakr until Sayyida Fatima (as) died then we
have yet further evidence that she left the earth angry with the Khaleefa and left the world in that
state. This would further explain why (according to Sunnis) Maula Ali gave bayya after six months. If
Sayyida Zahra (as) had made peace with Abu Bakr during her lifetime then there be any reason for
Maula Ali (as) to keep silent on the issue of bayya, particularly when no time should be wasted when it
comes to performing good deeds? If we accept the claim of the Reviving Islam Team, then Maula Ali
(as) should have given bayya to Abu Bakr immediately, since Sayyida Fatima (as) had resolved all
disputes with the Khalifa and was convinced by his ruling on Fadak.
Defence Eight An alleged Shia source confirms

that Sayyida Fatima (as) forgave Abu Bakr
The Ahlebayt.com produces this Shia source to debase Shia claims that Sayyida Fatima remained
angry with Abu Bakr.
The Imaamiyyah Shia author of Hujjaajus Saalikeen states:Verily, when Abu Bakr saw that Fatima
was annoyed with him, shunned him and did not speak to him after this on the issue of Fadak, he was
much aggrieved on account of this. He resolved to please her. He went to her and said: Oh daughter
of Rasulullah! You have spoken the truth in what you have claimed, but I saw Rasulullah (sallallahu
alayhi wasallam) distributing it (i.e. the income of Fadak). He would give it to the Fuqaraa, Masaakeen
and wayfarers after he gave your expenses and expenses of the workers. She then said: Do with it as
my father, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had done. Abu Bakr said: I take an oath by Allah
for you! It is incumbent on me to do with it what your father used do with it. Fatima said: By Allah! You
should most certainly do so. Abu Bakr said: By Allah! I shall most certainly do so. Fatima said: O
Allah! Be witness. Thus, she became pleased with this and she took a pledge from Abu Bakr. Abu
Bakr would give them ( Fatima and others of the Ahl-e-Bait) expenses therefrom and distribute the
balance to the Fuqaraa, Masaakeen and wayfarers.
Reply The book Hujjaajus Saalikeen is unknown in the Shia world

The stupid Ahlelbayt.com team obsession with cutting and pasting whatever they can without
substantiating it first has caught up with them! To describe Hujjaajus Saalikeen a Shia source was a
lie that was first perpetuated by Shah Abdul Aziz Dehlavi in his book Tauhfa Ithna Ashari. Amazingly
he was never able to actually produce the book, page, and publisher details as evidence. Sadly naive
Sunnis have ever since kept copying the same text, without even trying to prove the existence of the
book! Ahlelbayt.com has yet again done the same. It is indeed unfortunate that in their efforts to
exonerate Abu Bakr, they even fabricate the existence of books, this is indeed taking the notion of by
any means necessary to its most extreme level.
Defence Nine Ibn al Hashimis claim that

believing Sayyida Fatima (as) remained angry
with Abu Bakr makes her whimsical and greedy
) remained angry until her death, this does not look bad for Abu Bakr (
) ,
If Fatima (
) . She was clearly in the wrong, and we have cited
but rather it looks bad for Fatima (
evidence for this from the Shias own Al-Kafi, which clearly stated that Prophets do not leave
) made an error, and if she never forgave Abu Bakr (
) ,
inheritance. Thus, Fatima (
then she is angry at a man wrongfully. And not just any manbut the Caliph of the Ummah. This
) look whimsical. The Sahabahincluding Abu Bakr (
) used to
makes Fatima (
give half of their wealth, and even more than that, in charity. An unbiased observor could say that if
) remained adamant in her anger over Fadak being given as charity, then this only
Fatima (
makes her look greedy. She should be willing to give this property as charity for the benefit of the
emerging Muslim state.
) and gives her the
It is for this reason that the Ahlus Sunnah makes excuses for Fatima (
benefit of the doubt, citing narrations that show that she indeed did become happy with Abu Bakr (
) near the end of her life.

Reply One
Just look at the arrogance of this writer, he suggesting that they are doing Sayyida Fatima (a) a favor
by suggesting she resolved her differences with Abu Bakr, since failure to do so deems her greedy
and whimsical! What we see here is the perfect example of an advocate defending a weak case.
When it is clear that there is no realistic prospect of his client being absolved of the charges leveled
against him, he shall seek to attack the character and credibility of the opposing witnesses. This is
precisely what Ibn al Hashimi has done here.
Greedy by definition means excessively desirous of acquiring or possessing, especially
wishing to possess more than what one needs or deserves, is it right to conclude that to even
think that the daughter of the Prophet (s) was greedy?
Lest not forget that Sayyida Fatima (as) had possession of Fadak from the point that it was gifted to
her by the Prophet (s) until Abu Bakr usurped it. Despite her acquisition of such an estate that
generated considerable wealth, wealth that enabled Abu Bakr to fund the war effort during his reign
we see no evidence of her living any form of a lavish lifestyle of pomp and ceremony, that is
synonymous of those acquiring wealth, she continued to live a frugal, simple lifestyle and ensured the
riches of Fadak were utilized to aid the Ummahs poor and needy, so to suggest that she was greedy
is a baseless, shameless lie.
How can anyone entertain such a notion when the same daughter and her family have been praised
by Allah (swt) for their generosity in Surah Insaan:
They perform (their) vows, and they fear a Day whose evil flies far and wide.
And they feed, for the love of Allah, the indigent, the orphan, and the captive,(Saying),We feed you for the sake of Allah alone: no reward do we desire from you, nor
thanks.
We only fear a Day of distressful Wrath from the side of our Lord.
But Allah will deliver them from the evil of that Day, and will shed over them a Light of Beauty
and (blissful) Joy.
And because they were patient and constant, He will reward them with a Garden and
(garments of) silk.
Al-Quran, Surah Insan, Ayah 7-12, translated by Yusufali
Sunni Scholars have recorded that this verse descended in their honour. For example we red in
Tasehil le Uloom al-Tanzil, Volume 4 page 167

This verse is revealed in favor of Ali bin Abi Talib, Fatima, Hassan and Hussain may Allah be
pleased with them.
You can find such commentaries in the following Sunni Tafsirs:
1. Tafsir Thalabi, v10 p99
2. Asbab Nuzul al-ayat, by Wahidi, p296
3. Shawahid al-Tanzil by Hasakani, v2 p403
4. Tafsir Baghawi, v4 p428
5. Tafsir Zad al-Masir by Ibn Jawzi, v8 p145
6. Tafsir al-Razi, v30 p244
7. Tafsir ibn Arabi, v2, p370
8. Tafsir al-ez bin Abdulsalam, v3 p401
9. Tafsir Qurtubi v19, p130
10. Dur al-Manthur by Suyuti, v6 p299
11. Fath al-Qadir by Shawkani, v5 p349
These verses descended to highlight the selflessness and piety of the Ahlul bayt (as). The historical
occasion to which these blessed verses refer was, when Ali (as), Fatima (as), Hasan (as) and Hussain
(as) fasted for three consecutive days, because a needy person would come to the door asking for
sustenance at the time of breaking the fast, and they would immediately hand over their food to him.
Allah (swt) was so pleased by the generosity of the action of Sayyida Zahra (as), her husband and
sons that He (swt) converted their actions into verses of the Glorious Quran to serve as guidance for
the Muslims. Allah (swt) testifies to the generosity of Sayyida Fatima (as) and this impure Nasibi is
suggesting that her claim for Fadak made her greedy!
Reply Two
Why should Sayyida Zahra (as) claiming land as her legal right constitute an act of greed? If making a
claim to this Estate was greedy, what should we say of Rasulullah (s) who bestowed the entire estate
of Fadak to her? Was he greedy (God forbid) for gifting this large piece of land to her? What right
does Ibn al Hashimi have to deem Sayyida Zahra (as) greedy, when she has made a claim to the very
same land that the Prophet (s) had given her?
Reply Three
We find it interesting that this Nasibi has no qualms about suggesting that Sayyida Zahra (as) was
greedy for claiming Fadak, yet we never them pass similar judgments on those Sahaba that acquired
massive riches during the reign of the third khalifa. Syed Qutb Shaheed quotes the following in Social
Justice in Islam, page 250:
In the caliphate of Uthman the Companions acquired estates and wealth. On the day he was
killed Uthman held in his coffers a hundred and fifty thousand dinars and a million dirhams.
The value of his estates at Wadi al Qura, at Hunain and elsewhere was a hundred thousand
dinars; he also left a great number of horses and camels. The value of Zubairs estate at his
death was fifty thousand dinars; he also left a thousand horses and a thousand female slaves.
Talhas income from Iraq was a thousand dinars a day, and from the district of Sirat he still had
more. Abd al Rahman ibn Auf had in his stables a thousand horses, and he also possessed a
thousand camels and ten thousand sheep; at his death a quarter if his estate was valued at
eighty four thousand dinars. Zaid ibn Thabit left gold and silver in ingot form, besides money
and estates. Al Zubair built a mansion at Basra and had palaces also in Cairo, in Kufa and in
Alexandria. Talhs also built a mansion at Kufa, and he raised a palace at Medina, using
gypsum, baked brick and teak. Sad ibn Abi Waqqas built his palace with corneilian, roofed it,
and included a large courtyard placing on the top of all crenulated walls
We appeal to justice! Would Sahaba that became tycoons and amassed such massive amount of
wealth not come within the definition of greedy? Has Ibn al Hashimi or for that matter any of other Abu
Bakrs advocate ever attacked these Sahaba and deemed them greedy? Their pens have never been
utilized against these extravagant Sahaba but when the beloved daughter is making a claim to land
that had been snatched from her that she was now seeking to reclaim back as per the law of
inheritance; she is attacked by Ibn al Hashimi and deemed greedy. This evidences the grudge that
this Nasibi bears in his heart towards Sayyida Zahra (as).
Defence Ten Ibn al Hashimis assertion that

Sayyida Fatima (as) was duty bound to donate
Fadak, since it was for a good charitable cause
Here we shall address to comments of this Nasibi that he has asserted at different points in his article:
) used to give half of their wealth, and even more than
The Sahabahincluding Abu Bakr (
) remained adamant in her
that, in charity. An unbiased observor could say that if Fatima (
anger over Fadak being given as charity, then this only makes her look greedy. She should be willing
to give this property as charity for the benefit of the emerging Muslim state.
and here:
) did a very noble thing by donating Fadak to charity, as was the command of the
Abu Bakr (
Prophet () . The Shia try to villify Abu Bakr, but what was Abu Bakrs only crime
)
other than helping the poor? If the Shia want to make this a competition between Fatima (
) , then let us remember that the former wanted it for her own personal usage,
and Abu Bakr (
) wanted it to be given as charity for the benefit of the Muslim Ummah.
whereas Abu Bakr (
The Shia should stop focusing on the issue of Fadak, because it was a sincere mistake of Fatimas (
;) the Ahlus Sunnah does not discuss Fadak in its own circles for this very reason, out of

) . The Shia meanwhile force our hand and make us continually prove
reverence for Fatima (
) was in the wrong, in order that we may exonerate Abu Bakr (
) from
that Fatima (
) and Fatima (
) into the
wrong doing. We ask Allah Almighty to accept Abu Bakr (
Highest Ranks of Paradise.
Reply One
Ibn al Hashimi seems to suggest that Sayyida Fatima (as) was under some legal obligation to support
the confiscation of Fadak. In accordance with Ibn al Hashimis interpretation of the State position
should we assume that the decision in Fadak establishes a precedent whereby the owner of an estate
has no right of legal redress, if the State chooses to confiscate his land and donate it to charity? Ibn al
Hashimi in fact takes things a step further and seems to suggest that the affected party that
challenges such a decision should be deemed greedy and unpatriotic. The world according to Ibn al
Hashimi seems to suggest that citizens are afforded no protection if their possessions are seized by
the State and donated to further a noble cause.
Reply Two
According to the alleged Hadith, the command of the Prophet (s) is to give our personal possessions /
wealth as charity, not the assets of others. Whether the annexed land was more beneficial because it
aided the wider Muslim populous is an irrelevant issue, since Abu Bakr distributing the product from
land that he had no legal entitlement to. This is like the example of a robber that steals from the rich
and gives to the poor. No doubt many poor people may have escaped the pangs of hunger through
this financial assistance, but the bottom line is the robber remains a robber, and his status before
Allah (swt) shall be that of a robber, not one that bettered the lives of the poor and destitute. Along the
same lines consider the example of a drug dealer that lives of illegal and immoral earnings, such as
drug dealing and running a brothel, but donates all he makes to charity. Any money that he earns from
such earnings will not become purified and become Halal if they go to a good cause. There is not
mitigation, even if the money benefits scores of people, since the origin of that money is Haram that in
term makes such generous donations of no avail. The donor remains a sinner in the eyes of Allah
(swt) no matter what benefit people attained from his donations.
We would also urge our readers to think about the mindset of Ibn al Hashimi who is praising the
distribution of stolen property! Would he also praise a man in the example we gave that donated all
the money (attained through immoral earnings) to charity?
Reply Three
If Abu Bakr did a very noble thing by donating Fadak to charity, as was the command of the
Prophet what position will he hold of Uthman who shifted away from this noble thing, rather he gave
it to his cursed Nasibi cousin Marwan for his own personal usage?
Let us quote this fact from the testimony of Ibn al Hashimi who stated:
) for taking Fadak away from Ali (
) and giving it to
The Shia curse Uthman (
) .
Marwan (
We are yet to find any Ibn al Hashimi criticisms of Uthman who have the entire Estate of Fadak to
Marwan, even though he had no qualms with attacking Sayyida Zahra (as) for claiming Fadak for her
own personal usage. Is it not amazing that if Sayyida Zahra (as) claims Fadak as was her legal
right, an inference is drawn that she is greedy, but if Uthman generously donates Fadak for Marwans
personal use, it isnt objectionable on the contrary both the donor and donee are (ra).
Defence Eleven Sipah-e-Sahabas false claim

that Sayyida Fatima (as) recognised Abu Bakr as
the legitimate Khalifa
Sipah-e-Sahaba who have turned lying and misinterpreting Shia Islam and History into a fine art
advance this very curious argument in their article The theory of Imamte.
IT IS REPORTED THAT ON HADHRAT ABU BAKRS ELECTION TO CALIPHATE, HADHRAT
FATIMAH (R.A) ACCOMPANIED BY HER GRAND UNCLE HADHRAT ABBAS (R.A) WENT TO SEE
HADHRAT ABU BAKR, AND ASKED HIM NOT ONLY TO DISTRIBUTE THE PROPERTY LEFT BY
THE HOLY PROPHET AMONG HIS HEIRS, BUT ALSO TO GIVE THE REGION OF FADAK
EXCLUSIVELY TO HER ETC. CAN SHE GO WITHOUT THE CONSENT AND EVEN DIRECTION OF
HER HUSBAND HADHRAT ALI (R.A.)?
http://www.kr-hcy.com/statichtml/files/104294860870304.shtml Cached
Reply
Sayyida Fatima (as) did indeed take Maula Ali (as) before Abu Bakr and we are in no doubt that this
was under the consent of her husband. Maula Ali (as) had gone woth her so as to testify in her favour,
and to refute the assertions of Abu Bakr. Abbas went as he was also an Heir to the Prophets
inheritance.
Sipah Sahaba Pakistan states:
WHY DID SHE GO TO HIM, IF NOT BECAUSE SHE AND HER HUSBAND AND HER GRAND
UNCLE, ALL RECOGNISED IN HIM A LAWFUL INCUMBENT OF THE CALIPHATE? FOR IF THAT
WAS NOT SO SHE HAD TO TELL HADHRAT ABU BAKR TO QUIT THE OFFICE IN FAVOUR OF
HER HUSBAND THE SO-CALLED HEIR-PRESUMPTIVE OF THE HOLY PROPHET (SAW).
Reply One
During the Fadak dispute, Abu Bakrs usurpation made him a defendant in the action, which is why
she went to this unjust Khaleefa to claim the land back. Let us cite an example:
If you are at work and a colleague takes your watch that was on your table, you will go directly to him
because he was the person that took your possession; you wont go to another colleague and dispute
over the matter! The act of going there to him, demanding your right is because that person has
usurped your property, it cannot be interpreted as you recognising him as your loyal friend.
Had Sayyida Zahra (as) had a dispute with another party she would have never had gone to Abu Bakr
to resolve the dispute.
Reply Two
Had Sayyida Fatima (as) chose to remain silent and not issued proceedings before Abu Bakr, then his
modern day advocates would have absolved Abu Bakr of all charges that we level against him, on the
contrary they would have interpreted her silence as proof that she had accepted Abu Bakrs decision.
Sayyida Fatima (as) went to Abu Bakr to expose his injustice and present two blatant contradictions
that this party applied. Upon the deathbed of the Prophet (s) when Rasulullah (s) ordered writing
material to be brought to him, Umar replied The Quran is sufficient for us thus suggesting that the
Quran had greater weight that the word (Sunnah) of the Prophet (s). Just days later during the Fadak
dispute, Abu Bakr sought to strike out the claim of Sayyida Fatima (as) by presenting a Hadeeth he
attributed to her father. Sayyida Fatima (as) pointed out that her right was established from the Quran,
but now the Sunnah of the Prophet (s) was advanced to counter her claim. Sayyida Fatima (as)
therefore exposed the Saqifite party by proving that they neither adhered to the Quran or Sunnah of
the Prophet (s). She in effect exposed the activities of this party by pointing out that the same party
who said The Quran was sufficient ignored the Quran when it came to ruling on her inheritance
rights! Alhamdolillah Sayyida Fatima (as) lifted the veils on the Shaykhayns true attitudes!
Reply Three Demanding rights before an unjust Khaleefa is the

Sunnah of Prophets Musa (as) and Yusuf (as)
We read in Surah Taha verse 47, how Allah (swt) ordered Prophets Musa (as) and Harun (as) to
appeal directly to Pharoah, demanding their rights for their people:
So go ye both to him, and say, Verily we are messengers sent by thy Lord: Send forth,
therefore, the Children of Israel with us, and afflict them not: with a Sign, indeed, have we
come from thy Lord! and peace to all who follow guidance!
Al-Quran, Surah Taha, Ayah 47, translated by Yusufali
We read in Surah Yusuf verse 55 that Prophet Yusuf (as) made a direct appeal to the Kaafir King of
the time, demanding that he be appointed as treasurer:
(Joseph) said: Set me over the store-houses of the land: I will indeed guard them, as one that
knows (their importance).
Al-Quran, Surah Yusuf, Syah 55, translated by Yusufali
We appeal to justice. when Prophet Musa (as) demanded his right before Pharoah and Yusuf (as)
approached a Kaafir King demanding appointment as a treasurer, then does it prove that they
recognised these leaders as the rightful Heads of State and gave them bayya? Did these Prophets tell
these unjust Leaders to quit office so that they can take over the reigns of power? In the same way
that the approach of these Prophets to unjust caliphs cannot be advanced as proof of their being
lawful incumbents of State Leadership, Sayyida Fatima (as)s approach to Abu Bakr cannot be
produced as evidence that she deemed him to be the lawful incumbent of the Khilafath. If the failure of
these two Prophets to tell these unjust Leaders to leave their positions cannot be advanced as proof
that they were legitimate rulers, then Sayyida Fatima (as)s failure to tell Abu Bakr to abdicate his
seat in favour of Maula Ali (as) cannot be advanced as proof that she deemed his Khilafath to be
legitimate either. If Sayyida Fatima (as) said nothing to Abu Bakr at that time, then we will say that her
son Imam Hasan (as) in effect echoed her sentiments during Abu Bakrs reign, Suyuti: records that:
Al Hassan Ibn Ali came to Abu Bakr when he was upon the mimbar of the Prophet, may Allah
bless him and grant him peace, and said Come down from my fathers seat. He said You have
told the truth, it is your fathers seat, and he placed him in his lap and wept. Ali said By Allah
this was not from my command.
History of the Khalifahs who took the right away, by: Al Hafiz Jalaludin Suyuti. English translation by
Abdasamad Clark Page 71. Taha Publishers
Defence Twelve A Nasibis efforts to suggest

that the dispute was a minor matter
A Sunni website quotes:
Fatima remained alive for six months after the death of the Prophet. She held herself aloof
from Abu Bakr which shows that her grievance also persisted. Such complaints and
misunderstandings are, however, not uncommon among near relations. Often one becomes
very touchy about minor matters, particularly if one considers oneself to be right. But the
differences between Fatima and Abu Bakr never developed into animosity. Fatimas
resentment was marked by a restraint which speaks of her civility and cordiality which were
the essential features of her character.
Excerpted from The Life of Caliph Ali by Abul Hasan Nadwi
Reply
Consider the facts, property is usurped and the aggrieved party:
Has her truthfulness challenged by the usurper
Refuses to speak to the usurper for the rest of her short life
Curses him in her prayers
Orders that he does not attend her funeral
Would you describe such a reaction as a minor matter? Did Sayyida Fatima deem this as a common
misunderstanding or a minor matter? Had one of Nadwis relatives treated his daughter in such a
manner, usurping her legal rights that he left behind, do you think he would have defined the dispute a
minor matter? This Nasibi is so shameless that he calls himself a Sayyid and then beats the drum
of the man who usurped his mothers inheritance rights! We ask our readers wouldnt you get touchy
if someone usurped your inheritance rights? Would you deem the usurping of your legal right to be a
minor matter? Maula Ali (as) clearly did not deem this to be a minor matter as we have already
proven, he deemed Abu Bakrs usurpation of Fadak as proof that he was aliar, treacherous, sinful and
dishonest.
FADA K
Preface
Conclusion
Shia Pen Newsletter

2 0 11 2 01 2 S HI A P E N
Formerly known as:

Answering-Ansar.org
2002 - 2010
MISCELLANEOUS
About Us
Contact Us
Newsletter
Privacy Policy
S T AT E M E N T
TERMS & CONDITIONS
Terms & Conditions
HOME
COMPREHENSIVE
CONCISE
DECEPTION
FIQH
QUESTIONS
NASIBI
Chapter Eleven: Relations between

Sayyida Fatima (as) and Maula Ali
(as)
As part of their efforts to mock the Ahlul bayt (as) so as to defend Abu Bakr, the Nawasib have sought
to point out that if Sayyida Fatima (as)s anger is on par with that of Rasulullah (s) then Shia books
highlight her anger at Ali (as). Their logic is simple if the anger Sayyida Fatima (as) do not harm the
status of Imam Ali (as)s then the same rationale applies to Abu Bakr. This is a powerful weapon
used by the followers of Muawiya to silence the Shia. Just consider these comments of
Ahlebayt.com:
) was angry at Abu Bakr (
) in the incident of Fadak, but
The Shia say that Fatima (
) at the same time?
what about their own narrations that say that she was also angry at Ali (
) made Fatima (
) angry on more than one
Thus, based on the simple fact that Ali (
occassion, we arrive at the following conclusions:1) The Prophets saying whoever disturbs her,
) but the Shia use it only for Abu Bakr (
;) if this
disturbs me is addressed to Ali (
) before Abu
statement involved punishment from Allah then it would certainly befall Ali (
) .2) There are other incidents (narrated by the well-reknowned Al-Majlisi, Al-Tusi, AlBakr (
) angered Fatima (
) . What is the
Erbali, and others) that occurred in which Ali (
) , then we could
Shia response to this anger? Whatever response they use to defend Ali (
) .
use the same response to defend Abu Bakr (
Since Ibn al Hashimi is seen as the expert in this field, we have decided to dedicate this chapter to
exposing his falsehood by proving that Maula Ali (as) and Sayyida Fatima (as) were the shining
examples of the perfect couple, always supporting one another, their marital lives were an example for
us.
Before we launch into analysing the traditions that Ibn al Hashimi cited we feel it apt to cite the way
that Allah (swt) praises this marriage.
We read in the Holy Quran:
He has let free the two bodies of flowing water, meeting together:
Between them is a Barrier which they do not transgress:
Then which of the favours of your Lord will ye deny?
Out of them come Pearls and Coral:
Comment
The two rivers of chastity and purity are Ali (as) and Fatima (as). The barrier between them is the Holy
Prophet (s) and pearl and coral are Hassan (as) and Husayn (as).
This is confirmed by the following esteemed Sunni works:
1.
Tafseer Dur al Manthur, Volume 6 page 143
2.
Tadhkiratul Khawwas al Ummah, page 134
3.
Yanabi al Muwaddah, page 118 Chapter 39
4.
Shawahid al-Tanzil by Hasakani, Volume 2 page 285
5.
Tafsir al-Thalabi, Volume 9 page 181
Dur al Manthur:
According to Ibn Abbas the two rivers mean Ali and Fatima. The barrier means the Holy
Prophet and the pearl and coral mean Hasan and Husayn
Yanabi al Muwaddah:
The companions and the Imams in exegesis of this verse say that Fatima and Ali are two deep
rivers of the secrets of nature, rivers that do not overstep each other and the barrier between
them is the Holy Prophet and the pearls and corals extracted from them are Hasan and
Husayn.
Deobandi scholar Shah Rafiudeen translated the words as follows:
They do not contravene each other.
Allah (swt) has decreed that Ali (as) and Fatima (as) are two rivers of chastity who never transgress
each other. Therefore strife between them is impossible or else God forbid the report of the Quran is
false. If an incident is found in any book that indicates that strife between the two existed, it contradicts
the Quran and is therefore false. Let us now look at the traditions that our opponents regularly cite
against us.
Four false incidents cited by the Nawasib

First Incident
Some Nasibi authors in their works have used the following tradition to highlight a quarrel between Ali
bin Abi Talib (as) and Fatima Zahra (as):
Ibn Abdrabu al-Andalusi in his book al-Aqd, from Abdullah bin al-Zubair from Muawyia bin Abi
Sufyan who said: I said: Oh Allahs messenger, you went away sad and returned happy?
He replied: Oh Muawyia, why should I not feel happy when I have achieved a reconciliation
between the two, that are the most honorable creatures of Allah.
Bihar al-Anwar, Volume 43 page 42
Reply
As the Shia scholar Shaykh Baqir Majlisi recorded this tradition in his book Bihar al-Anwar, the
Nawasib have grasped an opportunity to cast doubts on the esteemed merits of the revered couple.
The reality is this tradition is of no use for use to them, since the primary source of the tradition as
cited by Shaykh Majlisi is the famed Sunni book Al-Aqd al-Farid by Allamah Ibn Abdrabu al-Andalusi.
Moreover the narrator of the tradition is the notorious enemy of Ahulbayt (as) whose parentage is
usually attributed to Sufiyan. It is therefore not surprising that Shaykh Baqir Majlisi cited the comments
of Shaykh Seduq about this tradition that the filthy Nawasib conveniently fail to mention:
:
Ibn Babweh (Seduq) said: This is unreliable
If the question is raised as to why Majlisi would cite a false narration, then we should point out that
there is no prohibition on citing traditions from other Sects (beliefs). Allah (swt) has also mentioned
the beliefs of the Kuffar and Munafiqeen in the Holy Quran.
Second Incident
This is one a favourite reference of Nawasib particularly those belonging to Sipah Sahabah who cite it
to prove to their nave masses that the Shia blaspheme Ali bin Abi Talib (as). Ibn al-Hashimi uses the
very tradition in his Fadak article to prove that Ali bin Abi Talib (as) angered Fatima Zahra (as) and
that his caliph Abu Bakr should not be singled out. Ibn al-Hashiimi first quotes the Arabic of the
tradition from Bihar al-Anwar and then presents the English translation:
.Translation: Al-Qummi and Al-Majlisi narrated on the authority of Abu Thar: I migrated with Jafar ibn
Abi Talib to Abyssynia. A slave girl worth 4,000 dirhams was given to Jafar as a gift. When we came to
Medinah he gave it to Ali as a gift that she may serve him. Ali kept her in Fatimas house. One day
Fatima entered and saw that his head was in the girls lap. She said: O Abu Al-Hasan! Have you done
it!? He said: O daughter of Muhammad! I have done nothing, so what is it that you want? She said:
Do you allow me to go to my fathers house? He said: I will allow you. So she wore her Jilbab and
went to the Prophet.
(source: Ibn Babaveh Al-Qummis Elal Al-Sharae, p.163; it is also narrated in Bihar Al-Anwar, pp.4344, Chapter on How her life with Ali was)
Reply One
The complete chain of narration is:
My father narrated from Saad bin Abdullah from al-Hassan bin Arafa from Wakee from
Muhammad bin Israel from Abu Saleh on the authority of Abu Dharr:
Only the Nawasib could have attributed such a thing to Ali bin Abi Talib (as) which is why we see that
two of the narrators in the chain namely Hassan bin Arafa and Wakee bin al-Jarah are famed Sunni
figures whose work and biographies can easily be found in Sunni books, neither have been
authenticated by Shia scholars. Rather than expecting the Shia to react to this narration, Ibn al
Hashimi should know that its two of his own ancestors who actually narrated such a thing. Moreover,
the narration is of no value to us since another narrator in the chain namely Abu Saleh is completely
unknown (Majhul Alain). The narration becomes even more unreliable when we see that there is
an unknown (Majhul al-Haal) Shia narrator in the chain namely Muhammad bin Israel as stated by
Allamah Jawaheri in Al-Mufid min Mujam al-Rijal, page 499.
With all these grave defects in the chain, Ibn al Hashimi has failed to embarrass the Shia. Although
this should suffice to water down Ibn al Hashimis attempts to malign Imam Ali bin Abi Talib (as) but for
the sake of argument, let us see some historical aspects that prove the tradition is fabrica.
Reply Two
It is sad to see the intellectual deficiency of this Ibn al Hashimi, who comments on the tradition as
follows:
) because she saw his head in the lap of a slave girl that was given
she was angry with Ali (
to him as a gift. She even left him for awhile and went to her fathers house, which is something that
females do when they are upset with their husbands or they are facing marital problems.
Notice how he is blaming Ali (as) with regard to this incident. As the truth of the whole incident
depends on the testimony of Abu Dhar we should highlight the fact that he never migrated to
Abyssinia, hence the entire episode has been falsely attributed to Abu Dharr. As proof we shall rely on
the following classical Sunni works:
1.
al-Isaba, Volume 7 page 105
2.
Asad al-Ghaba, Volume 5 page 186
3.
Mashaher Ulama al-Amsar by Ibn Haban, page 30
4.
Siar alam al-Nubala, Volume 2 page 46
5.
al-Istiab, Volume 4 page 1652
We read in Siar alam al-Nubala:
He was the fifth person that converted to Islam, then he returned back to his homeland upon
the instruction of the Prophet (s) and then when the Prophet migrated, Abu Dhar migrated
along with Him
We read in al-Istiab:

He converted to Islam after four persons, hence he was the fifth, then he returned to his
homeland and lived there until the Prophet (s) migrated to Madina
Both of the above mentioned texts explicitly state that Hadhrat Abu Dharr (ra) returned to his tribe after
embracing Islam and stayed there. Then the battles of Badr, Uhud and Khandaq took place after
which he migrated to Madina.
The onus is therefore on these Nasibi to prove that Abu Dharr migrated to Abyssinia, no such
evidence exists, and the entire event is a lie. Not only Sunni but Shia books likewise, do not mention
any thing about his migration to Abyssinia. One only needs to consult authoritative texts such as:
1. Al-Tabaqat by Burqi, page 29
2. Rijal Tusi, page 32
3. Al-Ikmal by Khatib Tabrizi, page 59
4. Mustadrakat Ilm al-Rijal by Shahroodi, v2 p240
5. Mujam al-Rijal by Khoei, v5, p138
Reply Three
The incident quotes Abu Dharr as saying that he and Jafar bin Abi Talib came to Madina together.
Jafar came to Madina following the conquest of Khyber that took place in the 7th Hijra whilst Abu
Dharr arrived there after the battle of trench that was fought in the 5th Hijra. The conclusion arrived at
is that Abu Dharr had reached Madina long before Jafar. Abu Dharr never went to Abyssinia nor did
he return from there. This serves as further proof that the tradition is a fabrication.
Incident Three
Translation: It is narrated on the authority of Abu Abdullah Jafar Al-Sadiq: A miserable of the
miserables came to Fatima, the daughter of the Messenger of Allah, and said to her: Did you not
know that Ali proposed to marry (Khataba) the daughter of Abu Jahl? She said: Is it true what you
say? He said three times: What I say is true. Jealousy entered into her (heart) to an extent she could
not control, for Allah has ordained that women be jealous and that men perform Jihad, and He has
made the reward of the patient (woman) similar to that of the Murabit and Muhajir in the way of
Allah.He said: And Fatimas anguish became severe and she remained thinking about it until night
timeshe moved to her fathers residence. Ali came to his residence and did not see Fatima and his
anguish increased and became great on him, even though he did not know what happened, and he
was ashamed to call her from her fathers house so he went to the Masjid and prayed as much as
Allah willed, and he collected some of the sand in the Masjid and laid on it.When the Prophet saw how
sad and anguished Fatima was, he poured water over himself and wore his clothes and entered the
Masjid. He kept praying, making Rukoo and Sujood, and after every time he completed two Raka he
made Dua that Allah remove what Fatima had of sadness and anguish because he left her turning
over and breathing heavily. When the Prophet saw that she could not sleep and could not rest he said:
O daughter, rise! So she rose and the Prophet carried Al-Hassan and she carried Al-Hussain and
took hold of Umm Kulthooms hand until they reached Ali (AS) while he was sleeping.
The Prophet put his foot on Ali, pinched him, and said: Rise Abu Turab! You have disturbed many a
resting person. Call for me Abu Bakr from his house and Umar from his Majlis and Talha. So Ali went
and got them from their houses and they gathered around the Messenger of Allah.
The Messenger of Allah then said: O Ali! Do you not know that Fatima is a piece of me and I am from
her. Whoever disturbs her, disturbs me and whoever disturbs me has disturbed Allah, and whoever
disturbs her after my death then as if he has disturbed her in my lifetime and whoever disturbed her in
my lifetime then as if he has disturbed her after my death.
(source: Ibn Babveh Al Qummis Elal Al-Sharae, pp.185-186, Al-Najaf Print; also narrated in Majlisi
Bihar 43/201-202)
This story is not only narrated by the Shia founding father Al-Qummi, but it is also narrated by AlMajlisi in his book Jala Al-Eoyon. There are not many scholars of the Shia considered more
authoratative than Al-Qummi and Al-Majlisi, and both narrate this story.
It was actually Ali (r) who had angered Fatima (r), and consequently, the Prophet (s) chastised him by
saying that whoever angers Fatima (r) angers him.
Screenshot from Ibn al-Hashimis article
Reply One
The complete chain of narration is:
Ali bin Ahmad narrated from Abu al-Abbas Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Yahya from Amro bin
Abi al-Miqdam and Ziyad bin Abdullah on the authority of Abu Abdullah Jafar Al-Sadiq:
Several defects are evident in the chain of narration that renders it a useless and in fact rejected
tradition. Firstly, one of the narrators Ali bin Ahmad bin Matil is unknown (Al-Mufid min Mujam al-Rijal,
page 384). Secondly, a narrator Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Yahya has not been authenticated by Shia
scholars, see:
1. Kitab Ejara, by Al-Khoei, Volume 1 page 51
2. Rijal ibn Dawoud, page 45
3. Zakhirat al-Maad, Volume 1 page 305
4. Sharh Arwa Wuthqa, Volume 1 page 464
5. Muhadrat fi Usool al-Fiqh, Volume 4 page 334
Last but not the least, FIVE narrators are missing in the chain between Ahmad bin Muhammad bin
Yahya and Amro bin Abi al-Miqdam that means the chain is disconnected.
Reply Two
Ibn al Hashimi also employed the same type of dishonesty as was employed by his first Caliph. In his
feeble attempt to protect his first caliph from the wrath mentioned in the Prophetic Hadith about Fatima
Zahra (as) i.e. Fatima is a piece of me and I am from her. Whoever disturbs her, disturbs me
and whoever disturbs me has disturbed Allah the author has tried to prove that these words were
spoken for Ali bin Abi Talib (as) since He (as) wanted to marry the daughter of Abu Jahal but Ibn al
Hashimi did not cite the remainder of the tradition that makes it clear that Ali bin Abi Talib (as) did not
have any such intention and it was a lie attributed to him (as) by the dishonest ancestors of Ibn alHashimi & Co. The tradition he cited ends in this manner:
The Messenger of Allah then said: O Ali! Do you not know that Fatima is a piece of me and I
am from her? Whoever disturbs her, disturbs me and whoever disturbs me has disturbed
Allah, and whoever disturbs her after my death then as if he has disturbed her in my lifetime
and whoever disturbed her in my lifetime then it is as if he has disturbed her after my death.
Ali said: Oh Allahs messenger, yes. The Prophet said: Then why you did so? Ali said: By
the one who sent you as Prophet, what you heard about me is not true and I never thought
about that. The Prophet said: You have spoken the truth. Then Fatima smiled until her smile
was visible.
Reply Three
As we stated earlier, the false news about Ali bin Abi Talib (as) was spread by his (as) enemies that
happened to be the ancestors of the present day Nawasib such as Ansar.org, Sipah-e-Sahabha
(hcy.com) and Ibn al-Hashimi & Co. Up till now, we have proved that Ali bin Abi Talib (as) never had
any such intention, let us also present the testimony of Imam Jafar Sadiq (as) who asserted it was a
baseless rumour spread by the Nawasib (hypocrites). Shaykh Seduq records in Amali, page 165:
Imam Jafar al-Sadiq said: .Didnt they claim that the Master of the believers was seeking
(worldly) life and government and he preferred fitna over peace, and he shed the blood of the
Muslims without basis, and if he (Ali) was carrying benefit they would not ask Khalid bin alWalid to assassinate him? Didnt they claim that he (Ali) wanted to marry Abu Jahls daughter
over Fatima and then Allahs messenger complained of him to the Muslims on the pulpit and
said: Ali wants to marry the daughter of Allahs enemy over the daughter of Allahs Prophet,
surely Fatima is part of me, whoever hurts her hurts me, whoever made her happy made me
happy, whoever disturbs her disturbs me. (Imam Jafar continues) Oh Alqamah how strange
are the claims of the people about Ali !.
Reply Four
At the end we should point also out that the alleged story of Ali bin Abi Talib (as) intending to mary the
daughter of Abu Jahl is not considered authentic by the ulema of Ahle Sunnah. Modern day Sunni
scholar Shaykh Hassan Saqaf in his book Majmo Rasael al-Saqqaf, Volume 2 page 738 stated on
this alleged story:
!! .
It is an odd tradition and some scholars reject it!! because it is narrated by Musawar bin
Makhrama who was deviated from Sayedna Ali.
Another angle from which Sunni scholars rejected the cited story is:

In Sahih Muslim recorded his (Musawars) tradition about Alis proposal to Abu Jahls
daughter, he said: I heard the prophet (s) addressing to the people while I was adult. There is
a problem in accepting the hadith because the historians never disagreed about his
(Musawars) birth which was after the migration while the story of Alis proposal is about six or
seven years after Musawars birth, thus how come he was an adult?.
The fourth incident

We read the following, as narrated by Al-Majlisis Haqq-ul-Yaqeen as well as in Al-Tusis Amali:When

Fatima asked for Fadak from Abu Bakr and he refused to give it to her, she returned full of anger that
could not be described and she was sick; and she was angry with Ali because he refused to help her.
(Al-Majlisis Haqq-ul-Yaqeen, pp.203-204; also recorded in Al-Tusis Amali, p.295)
This has also been recorded by Tabrisi in Ihtijaj. Whilst these scholars recorded this tradition, the
primary source of this tradition is Manaqib al-Abi Talib by Ibn Shehr Ashub. Ibn al Hashimi sought to
ultra condense the text for his Sunni followers, the complete narration is as follows:
When Syeda Zahra came back, she complained to Ali (as) about Abu Bakrs treatment in these
words: O Son Of Abu Talib! you are hiding your self as a child is hidden in its mothers womb.
You are sitting at home like the one who is not liked by anyone. Abu Bakr Ibne Qahafa is
depriving me of the land which was given to me by my father. He has stood openly against me.
Mahajreen and Ansar are not helping me. You have weakened yourself since the time you
abandoned your sword. I wish i had died before seeing this day
Reply One
The Nasibi attempt to malign Ali bin Abi Talib (as) has failed again since the tradition has NO chain of
narration, let alone a weak one. We should remind the present day Nawasib about the principle of
debates pointed out by their filthy Imam Ibn Tamiyah in his authority work Minhaj al-Sunnah, Volume 8
page 41:

.
At least what the arguer must do is mention the chains of narration to know the authenticity
of the tradition, but only mentioning what drawing an inference from what is written in books
is unacceptable.
Whilst there is no room for discussion on this baseless tradition, for the sake of discussion we would
like reply to the Nawasib questioning how individuals that the Shias deem infallible (Masum) may
quarrel with on another.
Reply Two Tensions between Nabi Musa (as) and the Angel of
Death
We read in Sahih Muslim Book 030, Number 5851, Bab Fadail Musa:
Abu Hurraira reported that the Angel of Death was sent to Moses (peace be upon him) to
inform of his Lords summons. When he came, he (Moses) boxed him and his eye was knocked
out. He (the Angel of Death) came back to the Lord and said: You sent me to a servant who did
not want to die. Allah restored his eye to its proper place (and revived his eyesight), and then
said: Go back to him and tell him that if he wants life he must place his hand on the back of an
ox, and he would be granted as many years of life as the number of hair covered by his hand.
He (Moses) said: My Lord what would happen then He said: Then you must court death. He
said: Let it be now. And he supplicated Allah to bring him close to the sacred land. Thereupon
Allahs Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: If I were there, I would have shown you his
grave beside the road at the red mound.
This has also been reported in Sahih al Bukhari Book 23 Volume 2, Book 23, Number 423, Book of
Funerals.
Comment
This tradition has been narrated by Abu Hurraira and is places the Ahlul Sunnah in a dilemma. This is
because both Hadhrat Musa (as) and the Angel of Death are infallible and here we see one infallible
slapping the other so hard that the other loses his eye.
Esteemed Imam of Ahlul Sunnah Nawawi in his Sharh Muslim, said:
,
It is possible that Allah allowed Musa to slap him (the angel of death) and perhaps this was a
test for the one who was being slapped. Allah tests His creation in any way He likes
We deem Hadhrat Ali (as) and Hadhrat Fatima (as) to be Masum. When Fatima (as) was deprived of
the land of Fadak she (according to the Ahlul Sunnah) addressed Ali (as) in anger. Now we say IF
there is any element of anger in the words of Fatima (as), she might have been given permission for
such an address (just as Musa was allowed to slap the angel). Similarly Ali (as) was to be tested for
his patience by listening to the angry discourse of Fatima (as) (just as the patience of the Angel was
tested by Musa (as)s slap). In the same way that the dignity and honour of Musa and Israel remain
intact after this encounter, so do the dignity and honour of Ali (as) and Fatima (as) after this
discussion. As far as Abu Bakr is concerned, he is not Masum even in the eyes of Ahl ul Sunnah. So
when Sayyida Fatima (as) was angry at him, it is evident that Abu Bakr was in the wrong. We need no
explanation to understand his conduct.
Reply Three The incident of Musa (as) and Khider (as)

We read in Surah Kahf verse 71:
So they twain set out till, when they were in the ship, he made a hole therein. (Moses) said:
Hast thou made a hole therein to drown the folk thereof? Thou verily hast done a dreadful
thing.
Al-Quran, Surah Kahf, Ayah 71, translated by Pickthal
Let us see how the classical Sunni Ulema have translated the words Imr
You are doing a dreadful act
Tafseer khazan Volume 4 page 182
Musa said have you killed an innocent person who had killed no one? verily you have
committed a thing Nukr MUNKAR act [prohibited, evil, dreadful thing]
Tafseer by Ashraf Ali Thanvi
(Verily, you have committed a evil thing.) About Ìmr, Mujahid said: An evil thing. Qatadah
said, An astounding thing. At this point, reminding him of the previously-agreed condition,
Al-Khidr said.
http://www.Tafseer.com/default.asp?sid=18&tid=30635
Fakhrudeen Razi defined Nukr as:
worse (more evil) and this is a reference to the killing of the child which is worse then
piercing the boat because the boat can be repaired
Comment
Both Musa (as) and Khidr (as) are Masum Prophets. One Masum is addressing the other in anger.
Since there is always some wisdom in the words and actions of a Masum, a Muslim after reading
these verses does not question them and Musa (as)s harsh words do not undermine the dignity of the
two prophets.
Reply Four The quarrel between two angels

We read in Sura Sad (Ayat 22):
When they entered in upon Dawood (David), he was terrified of them. They said, fear not! We
are two litigants one of whom has wronged the other, therefore judge between us with truth
and treat us not with injustice and guide us to the right way
Al-Quran, Surah Sad, Ayah 22, translated by Yusufali
In 1927 Sunni publishers in Delhi, combined the Tafseers of two Sunni scholars, Shah Rafiudeen and
Ashraf Ali Thanvi in the marginal notes of page 640 we read:
some translators narrate a story here the major part of which has its origin in Judaism.
However there is no tradition of the Holy Prophet which makes it obligatory for us to believe in
it. Therefore it is recommended to confine oneself to the mere recitation of this incident with
the belief that only Allah knows of its wisdom as we know that the Holy Quran and all its
topics are truth
The holy Quran has testified to the fact that the two angels came to Hadhrat Dawood (as) after a
quarrel. This raises a question as to how Angels quarrel when they are Masum? The Ahl ul Sunnah
have resolved this problem by declaring that since the Quran is the truth as is everything contained
within it we should suffice to a mere reading of these verses and not say anything undermining the
dignity of Prophet Dawood and two angels. By the same token, Sayyida Zahra (as) and Ali (as) are
Masum and their piety is certain. If the Ahlul Sunnah fail to understand any words spoken by either of
them, they should suffice to mere reading of these words and not say anything against their honour
just as they have abstained from saying anything against the honour of Dawood (as) and the two
angels. As far as Abu Bakr is concerned, no Quranic verse or Prophetic tradition testifies to his piety
and purity. He is neither an Imam / Prophet, Angel nor Saint. So when he deprived Fatima (as) of the
land of Fadak, he was in the wrong. Since he is not a Masum we do not need any reason to justify his
act.
The blasphemy of Mullah Muradabadi

In a book called Naseeath ai Shia (page 439), a Nasibi author namely Muradabadi states having cited
the above tradition:
these words of Fatima imply harshness of her tone and this bitterness was not removed till
end and their living together after this was for the sake of married life and her illness.
Reply
The marriage of Maula Ali (as) and Sayyida Fatima (as) was via the Wahy of Allah (swt)
As evidence we shall cite the following esteemed Sunni works:
1.
Tabaqat Ibn Sad Volume 8 page 19 (chapter Dhikr Fatima)
2.
Riyadh al Nadira(chapter Dhikr Tazweej ai Fatima) Volume page 188
3.
Sharh Fiqh Akbar(chapter Dhikr Aulad e Rasul)page 190
4.
Zakhair al Uqba page 30 [printed in Cairo]
We read in Tabaqat:
Abu Bakr asked the Holy Prophet for Fatimas hand in marriage. The prophet replied that he
was waiting for Allahs command regarding Fatimas marriage
Riyadh al Nadira:
Afsar bin Malik narrates that he was with the Holy Prophet (s) when there he received a
revelation. The Prophet (s) said that Jibrael has brought Allahs command that I marry Fatima
to Ali Ibne Abi Talib
Sharh Fiqh Akbar:
The marriage of Sayyida Zahra with Ali took place in 3rd Hijra and this was by the command
and Wahy (revelation) of Allah
Dr Tahir al Qadri in Al Durratul Baydha fee Manaqib Fatima al Zahra (as) page 77 records this
Hadeeth:
Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Masud narrates that the Prophet (s) said Allah has ordered me to marry
Fatima to Ali.
Qadri copied this narration from the following esteemed Sunni works.
1. al Muhajjim al Kabeer by Tabrani Volume 1 page 154
2. al Muhajjim al Kabeer by Tabrani Volume 22 page 407
3. Majmaa al Zawaad Volume 9 page page 204 the author Yashmi said the chain is Thiqah
4. Al Kashaf al Haseeyath Volume 1 page 174
5. Kanz al Ummal traditions 32979-32891
6. Kanz al Ummal Volume 13 Hadeeth 682
7. Tadkhirathul Khawwas page 276, narrated from Buraidha
8. Al Bayan al Tahreef Volume 1 page 174, who took this narration from Ibn Asakir and Khatteb
Baghdadi
9. Fayz al Qadeer Volume 2 page 215
Comment
The above references are sufficient proof of the fact that Fatima (as) was married to Ali (as) by the
command of Allah (swt).Thus it is impossible that any action of Ali (as) caused her grief. Otherwise
questions would be raised on Allahs decision that he married his beloved Prophets daughter to a
person who caused her sorrow.
Two marriages have been arranged by Allah (swt):
A) Adam (as) and Hawa (as)

B) Ali (as) and Fatima (as)
Discord never took place between either couple. Their pious lives are an example for the Ummah.
The Ahlul Sunnah have come up with all manner of lame excuse to defend Abu Bakr. When it dawned
on them that they would lose in every case, they came up with an accusation that even Muawiya (the
greatest enemy of Ali (as)) could not think of.
Some more Shia traditions that make Nawasib

estatic
We deem it an appropriate place to discuss some other Shia traditions which though not concerned
with the relationship between Ali bin Abi Talib (as) and Fatima Zahra (sa) are often quoted by the
Nawasib such as Sipah e Sahaba (kr-hcy.com) in order to make the Shias embarrassed.
Tradition One
Shaykh Baqar Majlisi has recorded in Bihar al-Anwar, Volume 40 page 2 and some other of his books:
(Ali said): I traveled with Allahs messenger (s) and He did not have any servant other than
me, He did not have more than one blanket and Ayesha was with Him. The Prophet (s) was
sleeping between me and Ayesha and we were under one blanket, when He got up for the night
prayer, He made a line by His hand along the middle of the blanket between me and Ayesha
until the blanket touched the mattress which was under us
Nawasib belonging to www.allaahuakbar.net also quoted:
Ali Ibn Abi Talib said that he once slept with the prophet Muhammad p.b.u.h and his wife Ayesha in
one bed, and under one cover, then the prophet woke up to pray, and left them together [Ali and
Ayesha] in the same bed, under the same cover (Bihaar al-Anwar vol. 40, p. 2)
Reply One
We should point out that the najis Nawasib are not going to get any benefit from this tradition since the
chain of narration contains a narrator namely Aban bin Abi Ayash who is not only weak and worthless
according to Shia and Sunni scholars alike. Among Shia scholars, he has been declared weak by
Shaykh Tusi said (Rijal Tusi, page 126), Ibn Ghadaeri (Rijal ibn Ghadaeri, page 36) and by Shaykh
Baqar Majlisi himself (Rijal Majlisi, page 141) whilst Allamah Heli declared him extremely
weak (Khulasat al-Aqwal, page 325).
Among the Sunni scholars, he has been declared Matruk by Dhahabi (Al-Kashif, Volume 1 page
207), Ibn Hajar Asqalani (Taqrib al-Tahdib, Volume 1 page 51) and Nasiruddin Albaani (Silsila Dhaifa,
Volume 5 page 128).
Reply Two
The intention of Nawasib by advancing this (weak) Shia tradition before the masses is to portray Shias
as shameless individuals who believe that the Holy Prophet (s) would allow an outsider male to get
into the same bed sheet being used by him (s) and his wife. The reality is that it is the filthy Nasibi cult
itself that holds such an absurd belief. We read the following tradition in Mustadrak al-Hakim, Volume
3 page 410 that has been declared Sahih by both Imam Hakim and Imam Dhahabi:
Al-Zubair said: Once Holy Prophet (s) called me in a cold night, hence I went to Him and He
was with some of his women under a blanket, then he placed me with them under the blanket
and we became three persons
Mustadrak al-Hakim, Volume 3 page 410 Tradition 5564
Now let us read another impudent account recorded in Musnad Ishaq bin Rahweh, Volume 4 page
343 which has been declared Sahih by Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani in Al-Matalib al-Alyia, Volume 4 page
229 while Dr. Abdulghafor bin Abdulhaq al-Buluchi, the margin writer of the book Musnad Ishaq bin
Rahweh stated that the narrators of this tradition are Thiqah:
Urwa narrated from his father that the Holy Prophet (s) sent al-Zubair and another man during
the night of Ahzab (battle) and said to them: Go and spy. They returned when the Holy
Prophet (s) was under a blanket with Um Salama, He (the prophet) wrapped them under the
blanket, the Prophet (s) therefore clung to Um Salamah.
Musnad Ishaq bin Rahweh, Volume 4 page 343 Tradition 1777
Tradition Two
Nawasib quote:
Ironically we find the Mulla Baqir slanders Ali, Fatima and the Prophet in such disgusting ways: It was
narrated that [Imam] Ja`far Ibn Muhamad said : The prophet Muhammad p.b.u.h used to put his face
between the breasts of [his daughter] Fatima before going to sleep (Bihaar al-Anwar, vol. 43, p. 78)
Screenshot from www.allaahuakbar.net
Reply One
This tradition recorded in Bihar al-Anwar does not have any chain of narration and Arbali in his book
Kashf al-Ghuma, Volume 2 page 95 quoted this tradition from a Sunni book written by Abu Ishaq al-
Thalabi and the same can also be found in another Sunni book Maqtal al-Hussain, Volume 1 page
108 authored by Ibn Amhed al-Khawarzami, therefore we understand that it is basically a Sunni
tradition which was copied down by Shaykh Majlisi in his book.
Reply Two
Having proved that the cited tradition has no connection with Shia beliefs, let us now cite a
blasphemous incident recorded by a scholar equally loved by Salafies and Deobandies namely Shah
Ismaeel Shaheed Dehalwi in his famed work Siraat e Mustaqeem, page 315:
One of my elders saw in a dream the great saint, Hazrat Ali, and the leader of all women,
Hazrat Fatimah (RA). Thus, Hazrat Ali gave a bath to my elder with his own blessed hands and
cleansed the body of my elder like a father cleanses the body of his son, and Hazrat Fatimah
Zahra dressed him in fine clothes with her blessed hands .
Siraat e Mustaqeem, page 315
This is not the only disrespect shown by the Nawasib towards Fatima Zahra (sa) but in Malfuzat
Hakeem al-Ummat, Volume 8 page 37, we read the following statement of Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi
who in Deobandi world is known as The Physician of the Muslims [Hakeem al-ummat] and Reformer
of the Nation [Mujaddid al-Millat]:
Once I was very ill and I am extremely afraid of dying. I saw Hazrat Fatima (RA) in a dream
and she embraced me to her chest and I got well.
FADA K
Preface
Conclusion
Shia Pen Newsletter
2 0 11 2 01 2 S HI A P E N
Formerly known as:

Answering-Ansar.org
2002 - 2010
MISCELLANEOUS
About Us
Contact Us
Newsletter
Privacy Policy
S T AT E M E N T
TERMS & CONDITIONS
Terms & Conditions
HOME
COMPREHENSIVE
CONCISE
DECEPTION
FIQH
QUESTIONS
NASIBI
Chapter Twelve: Further injustices

perpetrated against Sayyida Fatima
(as)
Tragically the usurpation of Fadak was not the only injustice that Sayyida Fatima (as) suffered at the
hands of the Shaykhayn. This chapter shall set out two further injustices.
First Injustice The usurpation of Khums

The right of Banu Hashim to Khums has been proven from the
Quran
Allah (swt) says:
Know that whatever of a thing you acquire, a fifth of it is for Allah, for the Messenger, for the
near relative, and the orphans and the needy and the wayfarer
The Ahle Sunnah have acknowledged that Qurba in this verse refers to Banu Hashim. Suyuti in his
commentary of this verse, in Tafseer Durre Manthur, Volume 4 page 69 stated:
Jubair bin Mutem [ra] narrated: Allahs Messenger gave the share of the kinsmen to Bani
Hashim and Bani Abdulmutalib
Similarly we read in Aysar al-Tafasir by Abu Bakr al-Jazaeri, Volume 2 page 604:
Kinsmen means the close relatives of Allahs Messenger and they are Banu Hashim and this
is the opinion of Malik, while Shafiyee and Ahmad added Bani al-Mutalib
We read in Al-Tafir al-Muyasar by Ayedh al-Qarni, page 222:
The share of Allahs Messengers kinsmen goes to Bani Hashim and Bani al-Mutalib
Sunni scholars have also acknowledged that the reference to orphans and needy in this verse refers
to the orphans and needy from Banu Hashim. As proof we have relied on the following Sunni sources:
1.
Tafseer Gharaib al Quran, page 6
2.
Tafseer Fatah ul Qadeer Volume 2 page 449
We read in Fatah al Qadeer:

: } { : : :

It has been narrated from Zain al-Abdeen Ali bin al-Hussain that he said: The khums is for us.
They said to him: But Allah says {the orphans, the needy and the wayfarer}. He (Zain alAbdeen) replied: Our orphans, needy and wayfarer.
Abu Bakr prohibited giving a portion of Khums to

the orphans and needy from Banu Hashim
As proof we realy on Tafsir al-Kashaf, Volume 1 page 459:

It has been narrated that Abu Bakr [ra] prohibited giving Banu Hashim Khums.
Similarly we read in Tafseer Ruh al-Maani, Volume 2 page 11:

It has been narrated that Abu Bakr [ra] prohibited giving Banu Hashim Khums.
Abu Bakr stopped giving Khums to the orphans and needy of Banu Hashim in violation to the Sunnah
of Rasulullah (s), Sayyida Fatima (as) was angered at Abu Bakrs denial of Khums in the same way
she was upset at his confiscating the land of Fadak. She made a claim before Abu Bakr as a needy
close relative of Rasulullah (s) and Abu Bakr rejected this. We read in Kanz al Ummal, Volume 5 page
580 Tradition 14108:
Um Haani bin Abi Talib narrated that Fatima went to Abu Bakr asking him for the share of
kinsmen, thus Abu Bakr replied: I heard Allahs messenger (pbuh) saying: The share of
kinsmen is for them only during my life time not after my death.
This blanket prohibition on Khums has also been acknowledged by Shaykh of the Salafis Nasiruddin
al-Albaani in his Sahih Sunnan Abu Dawoud Volume 2 page 576 recorded the following Sahih
narration:
Jubayr ibn Mutim narrated that he and Uthman ibn Affan went to the Messenger of Allah to
complain about his method of distributing Khums, only between Banu Hashim and Banu
Abdul Mutalib. I (Jubayr) said: O Messenger of Allah, why do you give from the Khums to
Banu Hashim and Banu Abdul Mutalib and you give us nothing while we are equal with them in
being related to you? The Messenger of Allah replied Only the Banu Hashim and Banu
AbdulMutalib are equal in relationship with me!
Jubayr said: He never gave any share of the Khums to Banu Abd Shams and Banu Nawfil as
he did to Banu Hashim and Banu AbdulMutalib. Abubakr used to distribute Khums in this
manner too, except that he did not give the close relatives of the Messenger of Allah what the
Messenger of Allah used to give to them. Umar and Uthman used to give him some of it
however.
These references evidence Abu Bakrs willingness to depart from the Sunnah of the Prophet (s) by
dispossessing the near relatives of the Prophet (s) of their right to Khums. What gave Abu Bakr the
right to discriminate against the blood relatives of the Prophet (s) in such a manner?
Umar also prohibited giving Banu Hashim any

Khums
1.
Sunan Abu Dawood, Tribute, Spoils, and Rulership (Kitab Al-Kharaj, Wal-Fai Wal-Imarah)
Book 19, Number 2976:
2.
Sahih Muslim Bab Ghazwa thal Nisa ma al Rijjal Volume 2 page 104
We read in Sunan Abu Dawood:

Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas:
Yazid ibn Hurmuz said that when Najdah al-Haruri performed hajj during the rule of Ibn azZubayr, he sent someone to Ibn Abbas to ask him about the portion of the relatives (in the
fifth). He asked: For whom do you think? Ibn Abbas replied: For the relatives of the Apostle of
Allah (peace_be_upon_him). The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) divided it among
them. Umar presented it to us but we found it less than our right. We, therefore returned it to
him and refused to accept it.
The comments of Allamah Shibli Numani are indeed worthy of note in this regard. He states in his
classical work al Farooq Volume 2 page 277:
It is said of Omar that he did not at all hold the relatives of the Holy Prophet to be entitled to
any share in the Fifth and never gave any member of the Prophets family any share in it. Of
the founders of the schools of law, Imam Abu Hanifa too, did not believe that the near of kin
had any right to the Fifth.
After this, Numani fails in his passionate defence of his role models actions, although here is not the
place to refute each and every point, what we are seeking to prove is that Umar blatantly changed the
Sunnah of Rasulullah (s) in this regards, for we have the admission of Numani in al Farooq Volume 2
page 279:
1. From among the near of kin, the Holy Prophet used to give shares only to the Hashemite
and the Muttlabalites. Ta Bani Naufal and Bani Abd Shams, though they were included in the
near of kin he never gave anything, though they demanded it
If the edicts of the Quran are applicable until the Day of Judgement, then how can the share of
Rasulullah (s) and his decendants become invalid after him, when this command is still in the Holy
Quran? This is just a further example of the lengths that the Shaykhayn went to financially cripple the
Ahlul Bayt (as). The prejudicial manner in which they were treated becomes all the more clear from
the next two examples
Second injustice The assault on the home of

Sayyida Fatima (as)
Sunni and Shia sources evidence how soon after the death of her father (s), the home of Sayyida
Fatima (as) was attacked by Umar, to secure bayya for Abu Bakr. Difficult to digest certain Nasibi
elements have set about denying the tragedy altogether, Ansar.Org are unsurprisingly at the forefront
of such an approach:
The incidents as mentioned by these unscrupulous narrators-of Umar ibn al-Khattab threatening to
burn down the house of Fatimah with her and her family inside
of Umar ordering the door of the house to be broken, with Fatimah being wounded and losing her
unborn child in the process, and six months later dying from that same injury
and of her husband, the valiant Ali being dragged out of his house like a common criminal to give his
oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr
all of these have to the Shii mind become undisputable and incontestible facts of history, no matter
how spurious their origin, or how blatantly they clash with authentic historical facts.
The above is an example of the Pinocchio factor in Nasibi thought. By using impassioned words that
stress the them (Shias) and us (the Nawasib) the impression is deliberately created that such
forceful Nasibi rhetoric MUST in fact be correct and could not possibly be proceeding from a flawed
premise i.e. that the persecution of Fatima (as) is not testified to by great Sunni sources.
The methodology used to ascertain facts when

investigating a criminal offence
When the police are conducting an investigation there are five crucial questions that they will ask
themselves:
1.
Does this report have any foundation to merit an investigation?
2.
Has a crime been committed?
3.
Is there an identifiable victim and perpetrator?
4.
Do we have any eye witness testimony to the event?
5.
Is the eye witness a man of truth?
If the answer to all the above is yes, then the next question they will ask themselves is whether there
exists any supporting evidence is available to support the original report? This supporting evidence
does not necessarily need to be as strong, the police already have a firm grounding to take forward a
prosecution, and supporting materials might merely confirm what the main eye witness has stated.
There might be conflicting accounts about the character of these witnesses, but the fact of the matter
is they are merely confirming what the main witness saw; their testimony provides grounds with which
to charge the suspect. Thereafter the main eye witness will form part of the prosecution case in court.
The other witnesses will also give evidence, there character might be attacked in cross examination
by Counsel for the defendant, but the crucial thing is they are supporting the account of the main eye
witness that places the defendant at the crime scene and identifies him as committing the offence for
whih he has been summoned before court.
If we want to truly assess the tragedy that befell Sayyida Fatima (as) one needs to look at the episode
in two parts.
Part One - The conduct of Umar outside the home of Sayyida Fatima (as)
Part Two - The subsequent raid on the home of Sayyida Fatima (as)
Part One The conduct of Umar outside the home

of Sayyida Fatima (as)
When it comes to Umars conduct at the home of Sayyida Fatima (as), do we have any documentary
evidence that highlights his conduct? The answer is yes, accounts of his conduct on that fateful day
can be located in the following books:
1.
Musnaf of Imam Ibn Abi Shebah, Volume 7 page 432 Tradition 37045
2.
al Imama wa al Siyasa pages 18-30 Dhikr Bayya Abu Bakr
3.
Tareekh Abul Fida Volume 1 page 156 Dhikr bayya Abu Bakr
4.
History of al-Tabari, Volume 9 page 187
5.
al-Istiab, by Ibn Abd al-Barr Volume 1 page 246 Dhikr Abdullah in Abi Quhafa
6.
Sharh ibn al Hadeed Volume 1 page 157
7.
Al Mihal wa al Nihal Volume 1 page 77, Dhikr Nizameeya
8.
Muruj adh-Dhahab by Abd al-Hasan Ali ibn al-Husayn al Masudi Volume 3 page 198
9.
Izalat ul Khifa by Muhaddith Shah Waliyullah Dehlavi Volume 2 page 226 (Urdu translation,
Quran Mehal publishers, Karachi)
10.
Tareekh Kamil by Ibn Atheer Volume 11 page 113
11.
Tareekh Ahmadi by Ahmad Husayn Khan pages 111-112
12.
Tauhfa Ithna Ashari, by al Muhaddith Shah Abdul Aziz Dehlavi page 292 Dhikr Muthain Umar
13.
Al Murthada by Hafidh Abdul Rahman al Hanafi page 45 (Amritsar edition)
14.
Kanz al Ummal, Volume 2 page 184 (Egypt).
15.
Tahqeeq Mubashraab Sunni page 110 by Maulana Waheedudin Khan al Hanafi
16.
Ansar Ashraf, by al-Baladhuri, v1, pp 582-586
17.
Tareekh Yaqubi, v2, p116
18.
Qurat al-Aynayn fi Tafdhil al-Shaykhayn by Shah Waliyullah Dehlavi, page 88
19.
al Faruq, Volume 1 page 92 Dhikr Saqeefa Bani Saada
20.
Ruh al Mustafai Volume 3 page 36
21.
Iqd al Fareed, Volume 3 page 273
Having provided a list of the above references, let us now build up a prosecution case, by asking two
questions:
First Question: Are there any authentic Sunni

references that highlight Umars actions at the
home of Sayyida Fatima (as)?
The answer is there are. We read in Musnaf of Imam Ibn Abi Shebah, Volume 7 page 432 Tradition
37045:
Narrated Muhammad bin Bashir from Ubaidllah bin Umar from Zaid bin Aslam that his father
Aslam said: When the homage (baya) went to Abu Bakr after the Messenger of Allah, Ali and
Zubair were entering into the house of Fatima to consult her and revise their issue, so when
Umar came to know about that, he went to Fatima and said : Oh daughter of Messenger of
Allah, no one is dearest to us more than your father and no one dearest to us after your father
than you, I swear by Allah, if these people gathered in your house then nothing will prevent me
from giving order to burn the house and those who are inside.
So when Umar left, they (Ali and Zubair) came , so she (Fatima) said to them: Do you know that
Umar came here and swear by Allah to burn the house if you gather here, I swear by God that he
(Umar) will execute his oath, so please leave wisely and take a decision and dont gather here again.
So they left her and didnt gather there till they give baya to Abu Bakr.
All the narrators are authentic as they are the narrators of Sahih Bukhari & Sahih
Muslim. Muhammad bin Bashir: Imam Al-Dhahabi said: Thabt (Al-Kaashif, v2 p159), Imam Ibn
Hajar Asqalani said: Thiqa (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v2 p58). Ubaidllah bin Umar: Al-Dhahabi
said: Thabt (Al-Kaashif, v1 p685), Ibn Hajar Asqalani said: Thiqa Thabt (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1
p637). Zaid bin Aslam: Al-Dhahabi said: Hujja (Siar alam alnubala, v5 p316), Imam Ibn Hajar
Asqalani said: Thiqa (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1 p326). Aslam al-Qurashi (the slave of Umar): AlDhahabi said: Faqih, Imam (Siar alam alnubala, v4 p98), Ibn Hajar Asqalani said: Thiqa (Taqrib alTahdib, v1 p88).
It is worth noting the observation made in Qeraa fi kutub al-Aqaed, by Farhan Hassan al-Maliki, page
52
However Alis party was smaller (in number) during the reign of Umar than the reign of Abu
Bakr al-Sidiq due to his abandoning Ali on account of his breaking into Fatimas home during
Abu Bakrs reign, and forcing some sahaba that were with Ali to give bayya to Abu Bakr, thus
the memory of this dispute that is proven via authentic chains was deemed a painful
memory which they did not like to recollect
What is even more interesting is the commentary of the margin writer who states:
I thought that the story of breaking into (Fatimas house) was just a lie , until I discovered
reliable chains of narrations for it, such as what is been recorded by Ibn Abi Shebah in the
Musanaf, anyhow neither is (the story) an exaggeration in the manner that the extremist Shia
claim nor can it be denied as is the approach of the extremist Hanbalis.
So we have a Sahih chain evidencing Umars conduct outside the day in question, and a modern day
Sunni scholar citing the same book as proof that the incident did indeed occur.
This episode can also be found in al-Bayana Izalatul Khifa, Volume 2 page 29 wherein Al-Muhaddith
Shah Waliyullah Dehlavi states that the chain is Sahih according to the criterion of authenticity that
had been set by the two Shaykhs (Bukhari and Muslim). We yet again see Umar issuing the threat to
set fire to the home of Lady Fatim (as) if bayya is not given to Abu Bakr.
Comment
This reference places Umar squarely at the scene, it shows that he was acting in the capacity of an
agent for the newly installed Khalifah and evidences his use of threats to set fire to the home of
Fatima (as). It evidences the complete disregard that he had for the beloved daughter of the Prophet
(s).
Second Question: Are there any secondary Sunni

references that support this authentic one?
The answer is yes. Other Sunni sources might not be as authentic in terms of chains as Musnaf but
they should in no way be discounted for they place Umar at the crime scene and evidence his conduct
on that fateful day. Crucially they corroborate the authentic Musnaf tradition.
First Supporting Reference al Imama wa al Siyasa

Let us begin with Abu Muhammad Abdullah bin Muslim bin Qutaybah (d. 276 Hijri) who in his famous
book al Imama wa al Siyasa pages 18-28 states as follows:
Abu Bakr was after group of people who failed to give bayya and gathered with Ali, he sent
Umar in their direction. He (Umar) called them to come out from the house of Ali, but they
refused to come out. Thus (Umar) asked (his men) to bring wood, then he said: I swear by He
who controls the life of Umar, if you people do not come out of the house I shall set fire to it,
and everyone inside shall perish. Some people said: O Abu Hafs (Umar), Fatima is also in this
house. Umar replied, I do not care Then the people came out from the house and gave bayya
except Ali.
Al-Imama Walsiyasa Page 12
Second Supporting Reference Tareekh Abul Fida

Sunni historian Abul Fida in his discussion on the attack on the house of Fatima (as) recorded the
event, in a very low key / cautious tone, but as a scholar of integrity and honesty he has refused to
cover up history and has still acknowledged that the event did indeed take place and Umar threatened
to burn Fatima (sa) alive:
. :
: :
Then Abu Bakr sent Umar bin Khattab to Ali and his companions with the objective that those
people gathered in the house of Fatima come out, and that if anyone objects to coming out
then you should fight them. Then Umar approached with fire in his hands to set the house
ablaze. At this point Fatima approached and said: O son of Khattab, would do you dare? Do
you wish to set my home on fire? Umar said: Yes, unless if you give bayya to Abu Bakr and
enter into that which the majority of the Ummah have agreed to.
Tareekh Abul Fida [Arabic], page 235
Tareekh Abul Fida, Urdu translation by Maulana Karremud Deen al Hanafi, pages 177-179
Comment
Again this reference is not at variance with the previous two. It again evidences Umar making threats
to set fire to the home, if Ali (as) did not give bayya, the only difference is this reference mentions him
carrying fire, that shows that he meant business. There is no contradiction here it merely
demonstrates that Umar came equipped with the tools to carry out the threat if his demands were not
met.
Third Supporting Reference Iqd al Fareed

Ibn Abd Rabbah in his book Iqd al Fareed, Volume 3 page 273 states:
.
: . :
: .
Those who fell behind giving the bayya of Abu Bakr were Abbas, Zubayr and Sad bin Ubada,
amongst whom Ali, Abbas and Zubayr were sitting in the house of Fatima. At that time Abu
Bakr sent Umar ibn al-Khattab with the order that you remove those gathered in the house of
Fatima, and if they refuse to come out then fight them. Umar brought fire to the house of
Fatima, then Fatima met him and said: O Ibn Khattab have you arrived in order to set my home
on fire?. He (Umar) replied: Yes, unless if you people give bayya to Abu Bakr as others have
done.
Al Iqd al Fareed, Volume 3 page 273
comment
We are sure that Umar did not simply go to the home of Sayyida Fatima (as) of his own accord. He
was clearly carrying out instructions, and this reference confirms that he was acting on the orders of
Abu Bakr. Like Abul Fida it confirms Umar came equipped with fire, thus evidencing his willingness to
take extreme measures to carry through his desire that bayya be given to Abu Bakr. Like the previous
references this confirms that the motive was to secure bayya for Abu Bakr, so it corroborates the
previous texts.
Fourth Supporting Reference Tareekh Tabari

The most renowned Sunni historian Ibn Jareer al Tabari also recorded this event. We read in al Tabari
(English translation), Volume 9 page 187:
Ibn Humayd Jarir Mughirah Ziyad b. Kulayb:Umar Ibn al-Khattab came to the house of Ali.
Talha and Zubair and some of the immigrants were also in the house. Umar cried out: By God,
either you come out to render the oath of allegiance, or I will set the house on fire. al-Zubair
came out with his sword drawn. As he stumbled (upon something), the sword fell from his
hand so they jumped over him and seized him.
History of al-Tabari, Volume 9 page 187
The academic and authoritative translator Ismail Poonawalla, in the footnotes of this event (same
page), provides us with an interesting background to this event:
Although the timing is not clear, it seems that Ali and his group came to know about Saqifa
after what had happened there. At this point, his supporters gathered in Fatimahs house. Abu
Bakr and Umar, fully aware of Alis claims and fearing a serious threat from his supporters,
summoned him to the mosque to swear the oath of allegiance. Ali refused, and so the house
was surrounded by an armed band led by Abu Bakr and Umar, who threatened to set it on fire
if Ali and his supporters refused to come out and swear allegiance to Abu Bakr. The scene
grew violent and Fatimah was furious.
Ansab Ashraf, by al-Baladhuri in his, v1, pp 582-586;
Tareekh Yaqubi, v2, p116;
al-Imamah wal-Siyasah, by Ibn Qutaybah, v1, pp 19-20
Lest also attach the original text of Tarikh Tabari [Arabic], Volume 2 page 443 The events of 11 Hijri
Tareekh Tabari [Arabic], Volume 2 page 443
Comment
Just like the previous references Tabari highlights threats issued outside the home of Sayyida Fatima
(as) if bayya is not administered to Abu Bakr. It is in complete conformity with the authentic tradition of
Ibn Abi Shaybah. Whilst Ibn Abu Shaybahs narrative takes events from the threats to bayya, the
reaction of Ibn Zubayr and his being seized upon should not be deemed a contradiction. This merely
adds more flesh to the bones of the narrative of Ibn Abu Shaybah. It would not be illogical to believe
that the threats courted the sort of reaction made by Ibn Zubayr, but the fact of the matter is Umar
came with back up ready to apprehend anyone that took issue with his threats.
Bringing these references together

If we read these five supporting references alongside the authentic reference of Ibn Abi Shaybah, then
Umars conduct at the home of Sayyida Fatima (as) is proven beyond all reasonable doubt. None of
these references is at variance with another, rather two common facts can be located in all of them,
namely that Umar:
threatened to set fire to the home of Sayyida Fatima (as)
justified his conduct on the basis that Maula Ali (as) and his supporters had failed to give
bayya to Abu Bakr
Part Two The subsequent raid on the home of

Sayyida Fatima (as)
The matter did just not end there. If that was not bad enough we also know that the home of Sayyida
Fatima (as) was raided by the newly formed state. al-Hafiz Diya al-Din Muhammad ibn al-Wahid alMaqdisi (d. 643 H) in his authority work al-Ahadith al-Mukhtarat, Volume 1 page 88 stated:

Abubakr said: I wish I never violated or abandoned the house of Fatima even if she had waged
a war against me. I wish that on the day of Saqifah I had placed the affair (i.e. caliphate) on the
neck of either Abu Ubaydah or Umar so that such would be the Commander of the believers
while I remained his vizier.
The margin writer of al-Ahadith al-Mukhtarat Abdulmalik bin Abdullah bin Duhaish has declared the
tradition as Hasan.
Ibn Tamiyah also admitted that Abu Bakr broke into Lady Fatimas house:

He broke into the house to see if there was some thing of Allahs money to distribute it or give
it to those who deserved it
Minhaj al-Sunnah, Volume 8 page 291
Comment
Whilst the timing of this event is not clear from the Sunni sources our contention is that there is a
nexus between Umars threats and the raid on the house, we after all know that Imam Ali (as) had
refused to come out. The physical raid on the home of Sayyida Fatima (as) wherein according Ibn
Tamiyah illegally held possessions were being hoarded (God Forbid) must have followed on from this
refusal. It is logical that these episodes were interlinked, the event started out with Umar issuing
threats, and ended with the house being raided, possession being taken and Imam Ali (as) being
raided.
Assessing Umars conduct

One Umars conduct violated all modes of decorum
Before conducting an analysis let us begin with the adulation of it by Shams al Hind Allamah Shibli
Numani in al-Faruq Volume 1 page 92, states as follows:
The learned Tabari in his Tareekh Kabir has narrated a tradition to the effect that Umar,
standing at the door of Fatimahs house, exclaimed O daughter of the Prophet! I swear by God
that we love you best of all but if your house continues any longer to be a rendezvous for
conspiracy I will set fire to it on account of this.
The authority of this tradition is doubtful having not been able to glean particulars regarding
its narrators, but there is no reason to deny the occurrence of this incident in the light of
rationalisation. Umar was a man of hot and irrational temper and such an act would not have
been inconsistent with his nature.
Al-Farooq, Volume 1 page 92
Despite his desire to distance himself from the narration his comment there is no reason to deny
the occurrence of this incidentspeaks volumes. These eleven words serve as sufficient proof
coming from who wrote it. This President of the International Umar Fanclub himself acknowledges that
this persecution did indeed take place, and accordingly to Numani was understandable if one
understands Umars short-tempered nature. Should this characteristics count as mitigation for a man
that threatens to set ablaze the home of the pregnant daughter of the Prophet (s) if her husband and
supporters fail to recognize Abu Bakr as the Head of State?
Did Umar not think about the consequences of his actions? He knew Sayyida Fatima (as) was in the
house, if there was any doubt that her (as) remonstrating with him, confirmed this. Despite this he
arrogantly replied to her and made his intention clear that he was willing to kill her and those in the
house if bayya was not given to Abu Bakr. Just imagine a madman like that in your neighborhood
you would warn your wife and kids not to go anywhere near him. His actions would make the national
news headlines PSYCHO THREATENS TO BURN PREGNANT WOMAN AND HER CHILDREN TO
DEATH. Note that even in jihad, it is forbidden to terrorise women and children. So what was this man
doing?
Even if you have a grievance with someone else, including even someone like Afriki, what justification
can there be to threaten to set his house on fire, and that too with them inside, as is clearly the case
from the Sunni sources that we have cited? What lovely Islamic Ahkam did Umar possess?
The references evidence the fact that Maula Ali (as) and Sayyida Fatima (as) were both unhappy with
Abu Bakrs coming to power, Umar was fully aware of this and he deemed Sayyida Fatima (as)s
home to be a house of conspiracy. The true misrepresentation of history is that which is presented by
the Sunni Ulema to the masses. On the one hand these men of truth paint this romantic image of the
four khalifas who were the best of friends who worked together in an atmosphere of love and cooperation, and that Imam Ali (as) deemed Abu Bakr to be the Khalifa of Rasulullah (s) and superior to
him, and yet on the other hand they say that the house of Fatima (as) was where gatherings against
Abu Bakr were taking place, and hence it was incumbent on the State to issue forceful threats to
these insurgents and burn the residence down.
It sounds like something out of the most ruthless rebellions in history. For thats what it was? Abu Bakr
had usurped the Khilafat and was hell-bent on destroying all resistance from the opposition camp,
even to the degree of exceeding the limits set down by Allah and His Prophet (saws) and burning
people to death, even Prophet Muhammad (saws)s daughter. This kind of thing went on in the dark
ages, and it was going on here and being instigated by the founding fathers of Sunni Islam. Its a
dilemma for the Sunnis, not us. We follow Ali (as) and not these individuals. Ali (as) used his strength
to fight the kuffar on the battlefields. That is manhood. These personalities sought to consolidate their
grip on power by quashing the valid stance of their political opponents hence Umars threat to set fire
to the home of the pregnant daughter of the Prophet (s). What models of manhood were these!
Reeling from the death of her father, rather than console the poor woman Umar felt justified in
standing outside her home, and threatening to set her and her family alight if they refused to accept
Abu Bakr as Khalifa.
Two Umars conduct contravened the respect

afforded to the House of Fatima (as)
In Ahlul Sunnahs leading Sunni scholar of Tafseer Durre Manthur Volume 5 page 51, al Hafiz
Jalaladeen Suyuti in Tafseer Durre Manthur, narrates from Ibn Mardewah Anas bin Malik
Buraydah:
Anas bin Malik and Buraydah narrated that Rasulullah (s) recited this verse: and amongst
houses is a house that Allah has ordered to be exalted. A man stood up and asked: O Prophet
of Allah which house is being referred to here? He (s) said: This refers to the houses of
Prophets. Then Abu Bakr stood up and asked: O Rasulullah is this house one of it? The
house of Ali and Fatima. Rasulullah (s) replied Yes, it is one of the best.
It is tragic that a house that Rasulullah (s) had testified to having such a rank, where guidance shone
out from in Paradise, was attacked with Umar threatening to set it on fire! We ask those with open
minds, can there be a more heinous act than that?
Three Umars conduct violated the respect

afforded by the Prophet to Sayyida Fatima (as)
We read in Sunan Abu DaudBook 41, Number 5198:
Narrated Aisha, Ummul Muminin:
I never saw anyone more like the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) in respect of gravity,
calm deportment, pleasant disposition according to al-Hasans version: in respect of talk and
speech. Al-Hasan did not mention gravity, calm deportment, pleasant disposition than
Fatimah, may Allah honour her face. When she came to visit him (the Prophet) he got up to
(welcome) her, took her by the hand, kissed her and made her sit where he was sitting; and
when he went to visit her, she got up to (welcome) him, took him by the hand, kissed him, and
made him sit where she was sitting.
We would urge those that love Ahlul bayt (as) to consider the rank that Rasulullah (s) gave Sayyida
Fatima (as). He (s) would stand up to meet her, and yet Umar threw this respect aside and attacked
Sayyida Fatima (as). This ladys demeanour and personality were as gentle as her fathers was.
Despite his awareness of the exalted rank of Sayyida Fatima (as), he was willing to push this aside
and humiliate her and was prepared to set her home on fire.
Key questions that flow from this event

First question Does this incident not prove the existence of two
factions following the death of the Prophet (s)?
Of course, manner of excuse has been put forward by the Nasibi to defend the actions of Umar.
Numani seems to suggest that this was a necessity as it was incumbent to quash any activities that
were harmful to unity the meetings in the house of Sayyida Fatima (as), were dangerous in that
people were conspiring against Abu Bakr.
We would also like to ask this question:

If the house of Sayyida Fatima (as) had become a meeting point where opposition to Abu Bakr was
being plotted does this mean that rebellion was being planned in the home of Ali (as) and Fatima (as),
in their midst? If the answer is yes this plotting was taking place in their presence then this
alhamdolillah this provides immense support for the Shia since the following points are proven
1.
Sayyida Fatima (as) and Imam Ali (as) did NOT deem Abu Bakr to be the rightful khalifa.
2.
Hadhrat Fatima (as) and Imam Ali (as) deemed Abu Bakr to be a usurper.
3.
Failure to regard Abu Bakr as the rightful khalifa bears no bearing on ones iman, if it did then
the Ahlul bayt (as) would have never indulged in such a sin.
4.
Abu Bakr was prepared to secure the bayya of Ahlul bayt by any means necessary
5.
Sahaba had gathered in the home of Sayyida Fatima (as) plotting to overthrow Abu Bakr.
6.
Ahlul Sunnah aqeedah is that ALL the Sahaba are pious and just, hence the conspiracy
being hatched to remove Abu Bakr was also a just one.
7.
Rasulullah (s) had told his Ummah to follow the Quran and Ahlul bayt (as) as two sources of
guidance after him. The Ahlul bayt (as) had rejected Abu Bakrs khilafat hence their opinion
supercedes Abu Bakrs concerns.
8.
Abu Bakr deemed every method to secure the allegiance to be lawful.
9.
If we for arguments sake accept that Abu Bakrs coming to power was rightful, then that
automatically means those that the Sahaba and Ahlul bayt (as) opposing him were wrong. Was
their mistake in relation to a worldly or religious matter? In case of religion, it is impossible for Ahle
Bait to make a mistake, while Rasool Allah [saww] himself has asked the Ummah to follow the
Thaqalain after him, who will always be on Haq. And if it was a political mistake, then we have to
accept that since the start of new government, there were differences between the policies of
government and of Ahle Bait. Now we have the orders to stick with Ahle Bait , therefore, we come
to conclusion that politics was related to Ahle Bait. And their enemies were on Batil.
10.
Even if we consider that the Khilafah of Abu Bakr was legal, still we have to see if the
government tried to discuss and ask the problem from Ahle Bait before trying to burn them in their
home
Second Question Was a conspiracy being

hatched against Abu Bakr?
Advocate of Umar Shibli Numani suggests that Umars actions were legitimate since the house of
Sayyida Fatima (as) had become a meeting point where discussions were over how to overthrow Abu
Bakr. The reality is the Banu Hashim and their supporters:
did not deem Abu Bakr to be the legitimate khalifa,
were displeased at his appointment
were angered by the way Abu Bakr came to power.
deemed this position to be someone elses right.
If our assertion is incorrect then there is no reason why they failed to give bayya to Abu Bakr forthwith,
and there certainly would not have been a reason for Abu Bakr to instruct Umar to take the necessary
to steps to bring these gatherings to an end.
Not only is our assertion logical, it can also be proven from history that Banu Hashim deemed Ali (as)
to be the legitimate khalifa of Rasulullah (s). Worthy of note is the fact that voices in Saqifa itself also
felt the same way. Their opposition led to them gathering in the home of Imam Ali (as), in order to
discuss what had transpired and what steps needed to be taken to redress the imbalance. Those
involved in these discussions included prominent Sahaba such as Zubayr, all of whom had gathered
to discuss their opposition to Abu Bakrs unlawful Government, they were not prepared to accept that
the destiny of the Ummah had been decided without prior consultation by the Ansar and 3 Muhajireen.
The Sahaba and Ahlul bayt had been kept in the dark over the Saqifa meeting, individuals that had
built the fabric of the Islamic State through their blood, sweat and tears.
Even leading members of the Quraysh such as Abu Sufyan felt that the discussions of a handful of
individuals was a conspiracy, and hence they were voicing their objections, as Rasulullah (s) had
said Speaking the truth before an unjust ruler is the greatest jihad The best fighting (jihad) in
the path of Allah is (to speak) a word of justice to an oppressive ruler [taken from Sunan Abu Daud
Book 37, Number 4330].
The Banu Hashim and their supporters held Abu Bakrs election to be unlawful and assertion is these
meetings were lawful since people were voicing their objections against an unlawfully appointed
khalifa.
Third Question Was it lawful for Abu Bakr to act

in the manner that he did?
Advocates of Abu Bakr claim that Abu Bakr was perfectly within his rights as legitimate khalifa to use
whatever means he had at his disposal to quell insurgency. Whilst this might give comfort to the Ahlul
Sunnah, we should point out that this also supports the Shia argument, namely that:
1.
There was open opposition towards the Ahlul bayt and the Sahaba that sided with them.
2.
The planning that was taking case against Abu Bakr in the house of Sayyida Fatima is clear
proof as to the illegitimacy of Abu Bakrs khilafat.
3.
Banu Hashim and Sahaba did NOT deem Abu Bakr to be the rightful khalifa of Rasulullah (s).
4.
Abu Bakrs khilafat was NOT rightful and was in fact secured via political maneuvering and
treachery. This can be concluded from the words of Rasulullah (s) declared Ali is with the truth
and the truth is with Ali, Ali is with the Quran and the Quran is with Ali Whoever pains Ali,
pains me, Alis enemies are my enemies. Those that opposed Imam Ali (as) and sought to set
his home on fire in order to secure his compliance had opposed the truth, the Quran and had
become enemies of Rasulullah (s) in the process.
5.
There is a famous hadith of Rasulullah (s) Whoever does not recognise his Imam of the
time dies the death of one belonging to the time of jahiliyya. From the attack on the home of
Sayyida Fatima (as) it is clear that Ali (as) and Abu Bakr opposed each other. By failing to
recognize Abu Bakr and not just that, by convening meetings to devise a means to oppose him,
were the Banu Hashim and supporters lead by Ali (as) indulging in Kufr? What is Afrikis reply
here?
The harsh reality is the Ahlul Sunnah can offer no decent answer to this point, particularly when this
destroys the romantic picture that the Sunni Ulema paint of the four rightly guided khalifas working
closely with one another, in an atmosphere of mutual love, understanding and co-operation. If all was
fine and there was a completely smooth transition of power from the Prophet (s) to Abu Bakr, wherein
he gained the unconditional baking of all the Sahabi why did his henchmen conduct a raid on the
home of Sayyida Fatima (as)? Clearly there was some concern for Abu Bakr, that was so serious that
the home of Sayyida Fatima (as) had to be attacked. Let us not forget the previously cited testimony of
Ibn Taymiyya:
He broke into the house to see if there was some thing of Allahs money to distribute it or give
it to those who deserved it
Minhaj al-Sunnah, Volume 8 page 291
His defence of this action, with the words He broke into the house means that entry was gained
without the consent of the homeowner, an act that is a blatant violation of the Sunnah of the Prophet
(s), for we read in al-Muajam al-Kabir by Tabarani, Volume 8 page 104:
Abi Umamah narrated that the Prophet (s) said: whoever testifies that I am the Messenger
of Allah, should never enter on a people in their home without acquiring their consent and
saluting them
It is worthy to note that something so perturbed Abu Bakr that he was willing to violate the sanctity of
the home of Fatima (as), upsetting her and violating the Sunnah of the Prophet (s) at the same time. If
it was not a threat to his coming to power then what else was it?
The Ahlul Sunnah assert that Imam Ali (as) deemed Abu Bakr to be more superior than him, but this
tragic incident destroys this notion for here we have Imam Alis open opposition and Abu Bakrs
attempt to secure acceptance via duress.
The consequences of Umars actions

It is indeed unfortunate that this violent act of Umar set a precedent for future khalifas, namely that a
khalifa should secure bayya at all costs, and by whatever means he wishes albeit through intimidation,
threats and violence. If threats could be made to the daughter of Rasulullah (s) then threats could be
made to anyone. This is why the Salaf Imams / Khalifas that followed deemed Umars actions as a
model of best practice; a precedent had been set namely that it was lawful for duress to be used to
secure compliance.
That is why we had the fasiq 6th Imam of Ahlul Sunnah Yazeed seeking to secure the bayya of Imam
Husayn (as) who could point to Umars actions as proof of the correctness of such an approach
namely that it was perfectly okay to terrorise Ahlul bayt to get your way. It is indeed tragic that the fire
that Umar brought to the house of Sayyida Fatima (s) set a chilling precedent, and left a trail that lit
the tents belonging to Sayyida Fatimas daughters on the 10th of Muharram.
Hajjaj bin Yusuf adopted similar methods of intimidation to quell opponents, and indeed this legitimate
approach continues until today. (Hajjaj bin Yusuf committed purges and genocide of men just like Vlad
the Impaler (Dracula) did in Europe, women and children were killed, human beings insanely tortured
though this is forbidden in Islam, killing hundreds of thousands of Muslims down to babies. He is
applauded by many Sunnis today as he did some work on the grammar of the Quran! Oh yes, that
forgives all, doesnt it! He was just a boy having a tantrum!). If today the masses complain of
oppression and intimidation by their rulers they should know that their rulers actions are perfectly
lawful since they are adhering to the Sunnah of the Shaykhain.
The Arab world has been ruled by many terrorists who they have hailed as heroes and years later they
have glorified them with romantic fairytaleshistory is, after all, written by victors, and the victors in
this context were the Nasibis. You may applaud them, as some Nasibis have, but whatever you feel
inside, terrorism is against the laws of Allah (sawt) and His Prophet, and the terrorist burns in Hell
where Allah (sawt) will terrorise him.
Now we can see where Hajjaj, Saddam and Usama bin Ladin get their bad habits. There are some
Muslims in this day and age who applaud terrorists who kill innocent women and children. There are
others who dont like to condemn them, even though deep down they know its wrong, simply because
they get a kick out of getting their own back against their persecutors. There are others who will cover
up their actions. And so it is with the Nawasib and their ugly past.
FADA K
Preface
Conclusion
Shia Pen Newsletter

2 0 11 2 01 2 S HI A P E N
Formerly known as:

Answering-Ansar.org
2002 - 2010
MISCELLANEOUS
About Us
Contact Us
Newsletter
Privacy Policy
S T AT E M E N T
TERMS & CONDITIONS
Terms & Conditions
HOME
COMPREHENSIVE
CONCISE
DECEPTION
FIQH
QUESTIONS
NASIBI
Chapter Thirteen: The Shia position

on Abu Bakr
Abu Bakrs admission of his mistakes on his death
bed
As proof we shall cite:

1.
Tareekh Tabari Volume 2 page 24
2.
Kanz al Khitab al Khilafath ma al Maar Volume 3 page 135
3.
Al Imama wa al Siyasa Volume 1 page 18, Dhikr Wafaath Abu Bakr
4.
Murujh al Dhahab Volume 2 page 308 Dhikr Khilafath Abu Bakr
5.
Iqd al Fareed, Dhikr Wafaath Abu Bakr Volume 2 page 208
We read in Tabari:
Abu Bakr said I did three things that I now regret, they are:
1.
That I failed to show respect towards the house of Fatima
2.
I did not burn Fajaf Salmah
3.
At Saqifa I transferred Khilafath to Abu Ubaydah or Umar
There are three things that I wish I had done:

1.
When Asheesh bin Qays was brought before me as prisoner I should have had him
killed
2.
When I sent Khalid bin Waleed to the Land of the Kuffar I should have turned him in the
direction of Zay Qasa
3.
When sending Khalid to Syria I should have sent Umar to Iraq
I regret that I did not get clarification from Rasulullah (s) on three matters:
1.
Whether the Ansar had a share in the Khilafath
2.
Who would succeed him (s) as Khalifa
3.
The inheritance of an aunt and nephew

Tareekh al-Tabari, Vol. 2, Page 619
These five esteemed Sunni scholars noted Abu Bakrs admission of his mistakes, so why do his
modern day champions go mad when we accuse Abu Bakr of making a mistake on the Fadak issue?
This is of course unpalatable for the followers of Abu Bakr, and their modern day advocate Al Khider
tries his best to muddy the waters and present both parties as correct
Al Khiders efforts to water the entire dispute down

to a mere difference of opinion, founded on proof
We would ask that our readers think about these opening comments of Al Khider. As yourselves, are
they Logical or Illogical?
Ansar.org stated:
The difference between the Khaleefah Abu Bakr and Sayyidah Fatimah was an acceptable difference
in which either side had an opinion founded on proof.
Reply
How can the opinion of both be founded on proof when there was a total contradiction between the
two? The only conceivable fact is that ones opinion was based upon proof and ones opinion upon
conjecture for the simple reason being that if something is based upon proof it is an evidence and
confirmation of truth and truth does not contradict another truth, hence, the logic is ludicrous.
No man with a rational mind can accept the fact that both Abu Bakr and Hadhrat Fatima (as) were
right in their claims, for the following reasons:
Imam Ali said: When there are two differing calls, then one is towards misguidance
If Hadhrat Fatima (as) was wrong in claiming her right, then why did she become ANGRY with
Abu Bakr, and did not forgive him till she died?
Were not six months long enough to inquire about the Hadeeth (We Prophets do not leave
inheritance) whether if it was genuine or not? Could a sane person really imagine that
Hadhrat Fatimas anger was based on assumption for the whole period of 6 months?
Had Hadhrat Fatima (as) been unaware of the Hadeeth quoted by Abu Bakr, then surely there
were still many companions living, to be approached and questioned about the matter, but guess
what? Abu Bakr was the only person who knew about it, hence she passed away while being
angry with Abu Bakr.
Was not Imam Ali (as), who was very well versed with the teachings of the Holy Quran, there
to inform his wife, Hadhrat Fatima, that what Abu Bakr claims is authentic and not to dispute with
him? Nay! The results were opposite! Imam Ali (as) himself went to Abu Bakr with the same claim.
Omar said: You have come to me with the same claim You said Abu Bakr was so
and so (Sahih Bukhari Hadeeth: 5.367) Why did Imam Ali (as) and Hadhrat Abbas, go to Omar
with the same claim, when Abu Bakr must have given them the same answer? And what does this
sentence apply: You said Abu Bakr was so and so Does Omar mean to say that Imam Ali (as)
and Hadhrat Abbas disbelieved in his words? Certainly they did! Otherwise why would they go
to the next Caliph for the same claim?
Al Khiders failed efforts to explain away the

dispute as a mere difference amongst Mujtahids
Al Khider then seeks to compare the dispute those that arise between Mujtahids:
While setting out an example of two of the Maraji of the Shiah, he say: The position of both
disputants would then be viewed with equal respect and appreciation, in consideration of the fact that
both persons base their claims upon textual evidence and proof, albeit that one of the two opinions
would ultimately take precedence over the other.
Reply
Comparing the above example with the case of Abu Bakr and Hadhrat Fatima (as) is like comparing
apples to oranges because:
The Marajas of the Shia wouldnt contradict one another when the Quran is clear on a
certain matter; however Abu Bakr was refuted by Hadhrat Fatima (as) with many ayahs of the Holy
Quran which he went clearly against.
If the Shia Marajas both base their claims upon textual evidences and proofs then there will
not be a dispute between the two because their claims will be based upon the interpretation of the
Imams of Ahlulbayt and the Imams of Ahlulbayt do not contradict one another like the 4 Imams of
the Ahl Al Sunnah do.
When there is no clear textual evidence from the Quran and Hadeeths thats when ijtihad
comes in. Its very rare that the Shia Maraja differ in their Fatwas nor do they totally oppose one
another. The case of Fadak was not a case of Ijtihad because the laws for Inheritance and gifts
are clearly mentioned in the Quran and Hadiths, hence again his reasoning is unacceptable.
Al Khiders suggestion that the Shia Judge Abu

Bakr according to sentiment rather than fact
Having tried his best to water the matter down, Al Khider then seeks to whip up hatred towards the
Shia. We would ask those with open minds to mull over these words are they Fair or Dishonest?
Ansar.org stated:
However, when it comes to Abu Bakr and Fatimah there is a complete change of attitude. To the
Shiah Abu Bakr is the enemy, and for as long as he be the enemy he will be considered evil
incarnate, and error is inseparable from any of his judgements. Thus it is that sentiments have
become the standard by which matters such as this are judged
Reply
Does this Nasibi know what sentiment means? Sentiment could mean emotion, feeling, view, etc, but
it is true that we judge by emotions? As we have already demonstrated, there are many verses of the
Holy Quran used by the Shia, as evidence which go against the character of Abu Bakr, let alone the
anger of Hadhrat Fatima (as). Then how can he say that sentiments have become the standard by
which matters as this are judged? Let us now analyse this difference of opinion, a difference that
involved the confiscation of land, the denial of inheritance, and a position so severe that that claimant
never spoke to the Mujtahid again. All these defences have no bearing on reality. The bottom line is
this:
Rasulullah (s) gave Fadak to Sayyida Fatima (as) during her lifetime
Abu Bakr unlawfully usurped her land as he deemed it to be the property of the Prophet (s)
Sayyida Fatima (as) then claimed that as heir of her fathers Estate
Abu Bakr rejected her claim by concocting a tradition that contradicted the Quran and logic.
Abu Bakr dismissed the witness testimony of Sayyida Fatima (as), her husband, their sons,
Umm Ayman and Rabah
Sayyida Fatima (as) was so outraged she never spoke to him again, and ordered that he not
attend her funeral.
This is the reality so let us see how Allah (swt) and his Prophet (s) judge such a person:
Allah (swt)s verdict on those that usurp

inheritance
We read in Sahih Muslim The Book of Transactions (Kitab Al-Buyu`) It is forbidden to seize land
and other things without legitimate right.
Book 010, Number 3920:
Said b. Zaid b. Amr b. Nufail (Allah be pleased with them) reported Allahs Messenger (may
peace be upon him) as saying: He who wrongly took a span of land, Allah shall make him carry
around his neck seven earths.
We read in Sunan Tirmidhi Hadeeth 3078:
Allahs Messenger (peace be upon him) said, If anyone deprives an heir of his inheritance,
Allah will deprive him of his inheritance in Paradise on the Day of Resurrection.
Ibn Majah transmitted it, and Bayhaqi transmitted it in Shuab al-Iman on the authority of Abu
Hurrayra.
We read in Surah al Fajr verse 19:
And ye devour inheritance all with greed.
Al-Quran, Surah al-Fajr, Ayah 19, translated by Yusufali
The verse condemns those that take advantage of other peoples inheritance. No one, not even the
Sahaba are exempt from this verse. If the Nasibi defence mechanism kicks in, namely that this verse
was Madani and that people were unaware of rules on inheritance at the time, then such advocates
should know that these rulings date back to Abrahamic Laws. As is proven from Tafseer Ruh al Maani
Part 30 page 127:
Underage Arab children and women could not inherit from their parents. The people would
usurp their share until the Shariah of Ibrahim and Ismail made it clear that women and
children were heirs to inheritance
This shall suffice to refute the excuse that the Surah is Makkan whilst the verse is Madani.
The verdict of the Prophet (s) with regards to those

that attribute lies to him
We read this Hadeeth in Ibn Majah that has been authenticated by Shaikh Albaani in Sahih Sunan Ibn
Majah vol.1, p.7, no.12.
Abdullah Ibn Masoud (radhi allahu anhu) reported on the authority of his father, that Allahs
Messenger (sallallahu alaihi wa-sallam) said: He, who deliberately attributes a lie to me, let
him take his seat in the Hell-Fire.
Comment
We would ask that our readers ponder and think over the seriousness of Abu Bakrs actions during the
Fadak dispute. Not only did her usurp the legal rights of Sayyida Zahra (as) he sought to justify his
decision by falsely attributing a lie to the Prophet (s). The fact that the Sunni scholars agree that he
was the sole individual that was aware of it, clearly proves that it had been coined by him. This
Hadeeth was a clear fabrication, Sayyida Zahra never agreed to it and Maula Ali (as) deemed Abu
Bakrs citing it as proof of him being a liar. We leave it to our readers to decide the eternal abode of
Abu Bakr in light of this Hadeeth.
Rasulullah (s) told Abu Dharr that his Fai property

would be usurped after him
As evidence we shall rely on the following esteemed Sunni sources:
1.
Murqat Sharh Mishqat, Kitab al Imara page 5 and in the Chapter al Qadha al Fasl al Shay
Volume 5 page 224
2.
Kanz al Ummal Volume 4 page 50
Abu Dharr narrates that Rasulullah (s) asked me What will you do when the Imams after me
shall take this property of Fai as their own? Abu Dharr said I swear by He who made you a
Prophet, I shall raise my sword and declare war until I take it back. Rasulullah (s) said .I shall
give you a better option, be patient until you meet me.
Mishkat al-Masabih, Page 322
Ahlul Sunnah do not deny the truthfulness of Abu Dharr, he died in 32 Hijri during the reign of Uthman
he passed through the reigns of three Khalifas, Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman, and Rasulullah
asked What will you do when the Imams after me shall take this property of Fai as their own?
If Rasulullah (s) was referring to the Imams that followed the death of Abu Dharr then it would be
meaningless, since Rasulullah (s) issued instructions as to how to respond when witnessing this
usurpation during his life time. So which Imams was Rasulullah (s) referring to? It was the same Imam
who on the basis of a concocted Hadeeth Our property will not be inherited, whatever we (i.e.
prophets) leave is Sadaqah (to be used for charity), justified the usurpation of the property of Fai from
Sayyida Fatima (as) and this will be addressed on the Day of Judgement, which is why Rasulullah (s)
told Abu Dharr to remain patient and not fight.
If Nasabi point out that Abu Bakr had sought forgiveness from Sayyida Fatima (as) then we will say
that this was nothing more than a political gesture, if he was really sincere then he should have
returned the land that he had usurped from Sayyida Fatima (as) he failed to do so, and will therefore
be answerable before Allah (swt) about this in the next world when all injustices perpetuated shall be
heard and perpetrators punished accordingly. The modern day Champion of the Salafi movement Abu
Ameenah Bilal Philips sets out the conditions for repentance, in his Tafseer Soorah al Hujuraat page
97-98:
If the crime involved the rights of others, the fourth condition requires that the repentant
rectify the situation by receiving the punishment or seeking forgiveness of others if slander
was involved and returning stolen goods if property was involved [Muhammad as Siddeeqee,
Daleel al Faaliheen (Egypt: al Halabee Press, 1971) volume 1 pp 78-80]. If the property has
been usurped or damaged the repentant should use his or her own resources to replace it.
This remains as a debt on the sinner until such time as it is paid in full or its owner releases
him or her from the obligation. The Prophet (s) taught that Allaah does not pardon sins
involving the rights of other humans. If these rights are not pardoned by their owners in this
life, they may be demanded during the Final Judgement and paid in the form of righteous
deeds subtracted from the scales of the sinner. The Prophet (s) once asked his companions if
they knew who a truly bankrupt person was and they replied it was one who did not have any
dirhams nor deenars. He then informed them that it was one who came before Allaah with his
good deeds on the day of judgement, after having cursed and hit people and stolen their
property in this life. Those whom he had abused would demand their rights, and good deeds
would be taken from his scale to fulfil their rights until his good deeds run out. Then bad
deeds would be taken from their scales and put on his scales until all of their rights were paid
back in full. Following that he would be thrown into the Hellfire. [Sahih Muslim (Eng tr) Volume
4 page 1441 Hadith number 6655].
Tafseer Soorah al Hujuraat, Page 97-98
Abu Bakr failed to meet the desire of Sayyida

Fatima (as)
Sunni scholar Dr Tahir ul Qadri in his book on the virtues of Sayyida Fatima (as) Al Durrathul Baydh
fee Manaqib Fatima al Zahra (as) page 56 records this Hadeeth.
Miswar narrates that Rasulullah (s) said Verily Fatima is my I desire whatever she desires,
and whatever pains her, pains me
Qadri narrated this tradition from the following esteemed Sunni works:
1.
al Mustadrak al Hakim Volume 3 page 168
2.
Musnad Ahman ibn Hanbal Volume 4 page 332
3.
Fadail as Sahaba by Ibn Hanbal Volume 2 page 765
4.
Al Had wal Mushaanee by Shaybaanee Volume 5 page 362
5.
Muhimm al Kabeer by Tabrani Volume 20 page 28
6.
Muhimm al Zawaad Volume 9 page 203
7.
Hilayathul Awliyaa by Abu Naeem Volume 3 page 206
8.
Seera al Alam al Nada bu Dhahabi Volume 2 page 132
9.
Fathul Baree bu Ibn Hajr Asqalani Volume 9 page 329
10.
Tafseer ibn Katheer Volume 3 page 257
Al Duratul Baydha fi Manaqib Fatima al-Zahra (as), Page 56
On the next page (57-58) Qadri records this narration recorded by Sakhawi in Ishtajlab ir-Taqaa alGharf Bahib Aqrabaa ar-Rasool Wadhawi ash-Sharaf, pages 96-97:
Sad bin Abi Qurshee narrates that Hadhrath Abdullah bin Hasan bin Hasan bin Ali bin Abi Talib
who had not yet attained puberty approached Umar bin Abdul Aziz in relation to a matter. Umar
suspended his gathering heard the matter and fulfilled his need. He then squeezed his
stomach in such a manner that he began to feel pain, with that he said to him Remember this
on the Day of Judgement at the time of intercession. When he left the people asked why he
dedicated such time to this child. He replied I heard a Hadeeth from a Thiqah narrator who
said I heard the Prophet (s) sayd Fatima is a part of my body I desire whatever she desires.
He then said If Fatima was here then this would have been what she desired, in the way that I
had treated her son. They then asked Why did you embrace him in such a manner and say
what you did?. Umar bin Abdul Aziz replied There is not even one person amongst the Banu
Hashim who hasnt been given the rights of intercession, I desire to attain intercession
through this boy.
Al Duratul Baydha fi Manaqib Fatima al-Zahra (sa), Page 57
It is indeed unfortunate that whilst a later Khaleefa who the Sunnis grade as on par with the Rightly
Guided Khalifas afforded Sayyids respect because he felt that this is what Sayyida Fatima (as) and
would comply with the Hadeeth of the Prophet (s) the first Khaleefa has a complete disregard to this
Hadeeth, and in fact passes a judgement that opposes her desire!
The verdict on those that displease Sayyida

Fatima (as)
We read in Sahih al Bukhari Volume 5 Hadeeth 61 the verdict of Rasulullah (s):
Modern day Sunni scholar Dr Tahir al Qadri in Al Durrathul Baydh fee Manaqib Fatima al Zahra (as)
page 60-61:
Hadhrath Ali [r] narrated that Rasulullah (s) said to Fatima Verily Allah is displeased at your
displeasure, and is pleased at your pleasure
Al Duratul Baydha fi Manaqib Fatima al-Zahra (sa), Page 60 & 61
Qadri relied on the following esteemed Sunni works for this Hadeeth:
1.
al Mustadrak al Hakim Volume 3 page 167
2.
al Muhajjim by Qadhi Abu Yaala page 190
3.
Ala Jaudhoo al Mushanee by Shaybani Volume 5 page 363
4.
al Muhajjim al Kabeer by Tabrani Volume 1 page 108
5.
al Muhajjim al Kabeer by Tabrani Volume 22 page 401
6.
Al Zurryath al Tahir by Dholaby page 120
7.
Al Tadhween fee Akhbar Kadhween Volume 3 page 11
8.
Majmaa al Zawaad Volume 9 page 309
9.
Tadhkirathul Khawaas by Ibn Jauzi page 279
10.
Asadal Ghaba Volume 7 page 219
11.
Tadheeb al Tadheeb by Ibn Jajr Asqalani Volume 12 page 428
12.
Al Isaba Volume 8 page 56-57
13.
Dhukhair al Akba page 82
In this connection let us not forget the words of Allah (swt) in Surah Ahzab verse 57:
Those who annoy Allah and his Apostle Allah has cursed them in this world and in the
Hereafter and has prepared for them a humiliating Punishment.
Al-Quran, Surah Ahzab, Ayah 57, translated by Yusufali
In the Fadak dispute Abu Bakr caused pain to Fatima (as) and he incurred her anger. One who pains
her is on par with causing pain to Rasulullah (s), and such a thing is injustice towards Rasulullah (s)
and his descendants, and can never benefit from the intercession of the Prophet (s) for whilst the
Quran praises the concept of forgiveness there exist some individuals who can never benefit from
forgiveness, Allah (swt ) states in Surah Munafiqoon:
It is equal to them whether thou pray for their forgiveness or not. Allah will not forgive them.
Truly Allah guides not rebellious transgressors.
We should also point out that Allah (swt) stipulated to Hadhrat Ibrahim (as) that the Covenant of
Imamate would not was to one that is Dhaalim, hence he cannot be the Imam over the Muslims.
The final destination of those that usurped the

rights of Sayyida Fatima (as), in the eyes of
Rasulullah (s)
We read as follows in the English Translation of Maliks Muwatta, Book 21: Jihad Book 21, Number
21.14.32:
Yahya related to me from Malik from Abun-Nadr, the mawla of Umar ibn Ubaydullah that he
had heard that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said over the
martyrs of Uhud, I testify for them. Abu Bakr as-Siddiq said, Messenger of Allah! Are we not
their brothers? We entered Islam as they entered Islam and we did jihad as they did jihad. The
Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, Yes, but I do not know
what you will do after me. Abu Bakr wept profusely and said, Are we really going to out-live
you!
Note In his efforts to cover up the sins of Abu Bakr, the translator has changed the words of
Rasulullah (s). A key word has been omitted, the comment of Rasulullah(s) Yes, but I do not know
what you will do after me. Should actually read Yes, but I do not know what bidah you will do after
me.
Let us now see the Sunni commentary of the words of Rasulullah (s) Ishad Ilayhum, taken from
Tanveer al Lohal Sharh Muwatta Imam Malik by Allamah Suyuti Volume 1 page 307:
Rasulullah said I testify for them. As their Iman was correct and they were protected from
being ruined and committing sins, they were protected from change and worldly greed.
In Wafa al Wafa Volume 3 page 931 by Allamah Nurudeen Samoudhi:
Rasulullah stood next to the martyred bodies and said These are my Sahaba in whose favour
I shall testify to on the Day of Judgement. Abu Bakr said Are we not Sahaba? Rasulullah(s)
said Yes but I do not know of your deeds after me, it is established that these people left the
World empty handed.
The followers of the Sahaba are fond of citing the esteemed rank of Abu Bakr, but he himself asked
Rasulullah (s) to testify to his Iman, his rank bore no benefit, since Rasulullah (s) knew that he would
act unjustly towards his beloved daughter, so he flatly refused to testify to his Iman. Allah (swt) does
not forgive those that pain Sayyida Fatima (as) and as evidence we shall cite the following esteemed
Sunni works:
1.
Sahih al Bukhari Volum8 Hadeeth 578 Bab al Haud
2.
Sahih al Muslim Volume2 page 282 Bab al Haud
3.
Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal Volume 3 page 351 Dhikr Abdullah ibn Abbas
4.
Sunan Nasai Volume 4 page 114 (Delhi); Dhikr al Bas
5.
Mishkaat al Masabih pages 487-488 (Delhi);
6.
Tafseer Kazaan Volume 7 page 451 (Beirut);
7.
Tafseer Fathul Qadeer Volume 6 page 490 (Egypt);
8.
Tafseer Durre Manthur Volume 6 page 400 (Egypt);
9.
Tafseer Ruh al Maani page 244 (Egypt).
Sahih Bukhari, Hadeeth: 8.578:

Narrated Abdullah:
The Prophet said, I am your predecessor at the Lake-Fount. Abdullah added: The Prophet
said, I am your predecessor at the Lake-Fount, and some of you will be brought in front of me
till I will see them and then they will be taken away from me and I will say, O Lord, my
companions! It will be said, you do not know what they did after you had left.
Ummul Momineen Umm Salma (ra) narrates in al Istiab Volume 3 page 390 and Kanz al Ummal
Volume 6 page 67 that:
Amongst my Sahaba are some that I do no wish to look at, and after my death they shall not
see me.
Commenting on this Hadeeth Deobandi scholar Shaykh ul Hadeeth Hadhrat Sarfaraz Khan Safdar
states in Izalath al Rahab page 398;
These are those individuals that recited the Shahada before Rasulullah (s) and after him
became murtad (apostates), this includes later generations that became murtad and the
people of Bidah
For further details one can consult Sharh Nawawi Volume 1 page 129.
We read in Musnad and Nasai:
Rasulullah (s) said some people from my Ummah will be brought before me and sent to Hell, I
will state O Allah! These are my Sahaba The reply will be You do not know of the innovations
they introduced after you, since you left them they became apostates
To get a clearer understanding of the words Zaat al Shamil in this tradition we shall cite the
comments from Hasheeya Imam al Sindhi bhar Nasai Volume 4 page 118:
Zaath al Shamil means they shall be thrown into Hell
Comment
Those who will be taken away from the Cistern will be those Sahaba that perpetuated injustice against
the daughter of the Prophet (s) by preventing her from inheriting her fathers property. Coining a
fabricated tradition Our property will not be inherited, whatever we (i.e. prophets) leave is Sadaqah (to
be used for charity) led to Imam Ali (as) deeming Abu Bakr a liar, sinful, treacherous and
dishonest.
If only those that attack the Shia bothered to inspect their books. They accuse the Shia of attacking
the Sahaba, what can we say of your justice, when Bukhari, Nasai, Muslim and Ibn Hanbal recorded
traditions wherein the Sahaba were deemed Murtads, you deem them your Imams. When the
innocent Shia quote these comments or criticise those that subjected Sayyida Fatima (as) to injustice,
then the Fatwas of Takfeer are immediately issued!
Those that were unjust to Sayyida Fatima (as)

shall appear on the Day of Judgement devoid of
light on their faces
We read in Musnad Ibn Hanbal Volume 12 page 128, (printed Egypt) under the Chapter Musnad
Abdullah bin Umro bin Aas:
Abdullah narrates at that time of the sun rising I was sitting next to Rasulullah (s) who said
Allah (swt) shall raise a people with a leader on The Day of Judgement whose faces shall
shine like the sun. Abu Bakr said O Rasulullah (s) are we those people? He replied No these
are the poor and the Muhajireen are famous on the Earth.
The Ahlul Sunnah deem Abu Bakr as the most superior amongst the Sahaba, when this great figures
face shall not be illuminated on the Day of Judgement, then the situation of the other members of this
party who aided injustice against the daughter of the Prophet will dawn upon them. Abu Bakr usurped
the legal right of Sayyida Fatima (as) which led to Imam Ali (as) grading the Khalifa as a liar, sinful,
treacherous and dishonest. We have proven from Hadeeth that the truth and the Quran is with Ali
(as), is the Great Truthful one and purified in the Quran. Shah Abdul Aziz stated that the Ahlul
Sunnah deem Hadhrat Ali (as) as protected, the words of Hadhrat Ali (as) are so damning that they
make the Hadeeth presented by Abu Bakr false, and make any virtues he possessed null and void.
Anyone that Hadhrat Ali (as) deems a liar is also a liar in the eyes of Allah (swt) and his Prophet (s).
The Quran makes it clear that an unjust person

cannot be a Khalifa
Whoever committed Kufr was Dhaalim. Whoever did Shirk was a Dhaalim Abu Bakr perpetuated
both acts before embracing Islam, he was a Mushrik and Dhaalim, hence was not entitled to be an
Imam over the Ummah. We have no personal grudge with the three Khalifas we bow in servitude at
the Judgement of the Quran that deems idol worshippers to be Dhaalim and hence are not deserving
of the contract of Imamate. If the world appointed the three as Imams then it is worthy to point out that
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was also appointed as Imam by the people, there is no difference between Abu
Bakr and Mirza since the people appointed them to the Station of Imamate. If man has a right then
you should accept both of them, picking differences is an injustice, Alhamdulilah we the Shia have
rejected both.
Those that have incurred Allah (swt)s wrath are

Dhaalim and cannot be deemed as Imams
Ghayr al-Mughdhoobe alayhim wa ladh-Dhualeen
Every Momin who prays five times a day makes this supplication at least 17 times a day before Allah
(swt) Guide us to the Right PathAllow us to follow the footsteps of those that have not unuttered
Your wrath we have honestly analysed the Quran and Sunnah and have concluded that theses words
in Surah Fateha place a prohibition on accepting Abu Bakr as an Imam, since Abu Bakr incurred the
wrath of the daughter of Rasulullah (s). Those that believe in the truthfulness of Prophet Muhammad
(s), and deem his every word as true, are reminded his words recorded in Sahih al Bukhari Volume 5
Hadeeth 61:
This Hadeeth makes it clear that Sayyida Fatima (as)s anger is on par with the anger of Rasulullah
(s). This is all the more significant when we recognize that one who incurs the wrath of Rasulullah (s)
also incurs the wrath of Allah (swt), and Allah (swt) makes it clear in Surah Fateha that we should
steer clear of those that incur the wrath of Allah (swt). If our opponents believe (as is in Sharh Fiqh
Akbar) that the Prophets parents and Uncle are Kaafirs and this belief does not make them criminals
under the Shariah then their should be no objection if we believe that the Father in Law has incurred
the Wrath of Allah.
FADA K
Preface

Conclusion
Shia Pen Newsletter

2 0 11 2 01 2 S HI A P E N
Formerly known as:

Answering-Ansar.org
2002 - 2010
MISCELLANEOUS
About Us
Contact Us
Newsletter
Privacy Policy
S T AT E M E N T
TERMS & CONDITIONS
Terms & Conditions
HOME
COMPREHENSIVE
CONCISE
DECEPTION
FIQH
QUESTIONS
NASIBI
Chapter Fourteen: Conclusion

May the Peace and Blessings be upon Muhammad and Ale Muhammad. We thank Hadhrat Fatima
Al- Zahra (as) for removing the layers of darkness from our eyes and the obstacles from our path and
for spreading the light for us in darkness, by going and speaking against such actions which were
contradictory to the Holy Quran and Sunnah. And through her actions it became clearer to us that, if
the property of the Holy Prophet (s) could be confiscated, if the most beloved to the Holy Prophet,
Hadhrat Fatima al-Zahra (as), could be deprived of her rights, by the Companions of the Holy Prophet
(saww) then surely it is reasonable to accept that Imam Ali (as) too was deprived of his Leadership in
Islam.
Allamah Sadradeen al-Hanafi in Riwaya al-Mustafa pages 36-37 (published Ahmad Kanpur) despite
his being Sunni uttered the truth when he exposed the ruthless motive of Abu Bakr:
We have proven that Abu Bakr took Fadak from Fatima without any basis. The grounds was a
mere excuse based on political consideration that had the objective of lowering the esteem of
Banu Hashim in peoples eyes, make them dependent on others so that the peoples hearts
can focus towards us
Whether readers agree with this assertion, is up to them but we have tried to present to our readers is
the fact that the Ahle Sunnah have advanced all manner of excuse to defend Abu Bakrs injustice
and explain the anger of Sayyida Fatima (as), and the comments of Salafi scholar Waheed uzZaman are particularly notable, in his footnote to the tradition in Saheeh al Bukhari he states.
Hadhrat Abu Bakr heard this hadeeth himself from the Prophet(s), therefore how could he go
against his(s)s saying? And Hadhrat Fatima(s) became angry with him because she did not
have the knowledge of this hadeeth.
Tayseer ul-Bari Sharh Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 4, Page 243
What exactly was Sayyida Fatima (as) angry at? Was she angry because Abu Bakr told her
something she didnt want to hear? Why would she be angered at Abu Bakr, whose only wrongdoing
was to convey something allegedly relayed to him by her father? We are left with two options.
Option One: She was angry at her father. This clearly makes no sense, moreover why would she
have taken this anger out on Abu Bakr, boycotting him and insisting he not attend her funeral prayers?
All this anger just because poor Abu Bakr told her the Hadeeth of her deceased father?
Option Two: She was angry at Khalifa Abu Bakr, because she did not believe the veracity of the
Hadeeth that Abu Bakr had advanced. Saheeh al Bukhari certainly points to this, and if so why?
Would she be angry at Abu Bakr for telling her the truth? What would be the basis for to hold such a
grudge if she believed the word of Abu Bakr?
We have presented all the details of the Fadak dispute to our readers and hence it is now time to
make the decision who was right and who was wrong in the is decision? There are only two
conclusions available for readers to choose:
Conclusion One: Sayyida Fatima (as) whether through ignorance, forgetfulness or deviousness
made a claim to her fathers inheritance. Abu Bakr correctly pointed out that Prophets leave no
inheritance. Rather than thank Abu Bakr for clarifying the matter, she bore malice towards him for
telling the truth and kept aloof from him for the rest of her short life. By doing so she committed a
grave sin (since you are only permitted to be angry with a fellow Muslim for a maximum of three days)
and she died the death of Jahilyya since you refused to recognise Abu Bakr as the Imam of her time.
Conclusion Two: Sayyida Fatima (as) was perfectly right with her claim to her fathers inheritance.
Rather than give it Abu Bakr fabricated a tradition to justify the unlawful / unjust usurpation of Fadak,
Sayyida Fatima (as) reacted by never speaking to Abu Bakr again, she did not recognise him as the
Imam of her time, and did not even want him to participate in her funeral.
We now leave to our readers to decide which of these conclusions they wish to choose.
We would like to conclude this discussion with the comments of the Salafi Sects favourite son Bilal
Philips also merit application here. He said in his Tafseer Soorah al Hujuraat page 47:
Allaah and his Prophet (s) have laid down form rules for down treatment of disagreements
which occur among Muslims. Some of the rules cover the correct method by which differences
should be cleared up while others deal with the manner in which those involved should
conduct themselves during and after arguments. For example, it is obvious that differences of
opinion can only be satisfactorily resolved if a common set of ground rules is agreed on by the
parties involved. Consequently, Allaah has clearly defined the ground rules in His statement,
And if you disagree about anything you should refer it to Allaah and his Messenger, if you
believe in Allaah and the Last Day (Soorah an Nisa (4):59). After the death of the Prophet (s),
this verse can only be applied by using the Quran and the Sunnah as the basis if all decisions.
It is also important that the solution should not be accepted begrudgingly or merely in words,
or else ill feelings will remain and unconsciously manifest themselves in actions at a later
time. Hence Allah linked the divine solution with Eemaan,true belief. Since the solution is if
divine origin, it must be accepted if one truly believes in Allaah and his last Prophet
Muhummad (s). This fact was emphasized by Allaah in the following verse, By Allah, they do
not truly believe until they make you (O Muhammad) the judge in between them, without
finding within themselves any resistance to your decisions but accepting the completely.
Tafseer Soorah al Hujuraat, Page 47
Now questions need to be asked:
1.
Was Sayyida Fatima (as) aware that the criteria for resolving disputes were the Quran and
Sunnah?
2.
If she was aware then why did she hold a grudge against Abu Bakr for ruling on the basis of
the Sunnah of her father?
Yet again we are faced with two options:

Option One: She accepted that Abu Bakr had heard these words from her father but was bitter
because she wanted him to avoid these words and rule in her favour.
Option Two: She rejected the saying that Abu Bakr attributed to her father because it contradicted the
behest of her father and the Book of Allah (swt).
If we accept Option one this in effect places Sayyida Fatima (as) in the category as one with a
deficient Iman, whose grudge was because a ruling of her father (s) went against her vested interest.
If we accept Option two then we will have to accept that Sayyida Fatima (as)s grudge against Abu
Bakr was justified, for he had issued a ruling that contradicted the Quran and Sunnah, worse he
fabricated a Hadeeth to justify his decision.
FADA K
Preface

Conclusion
Shia Pen Newsletter

2 0 11 2 01 2 S HI A P E N
Formerly known as:

Answering-Ansar.org
2002 - 2010
MISCELLANEOUS
About Us
Contact Us
Newsletter
Privacy Policy
S T AT E M E N T
TERMS & CONDITIONS
Terms & Conditions

Deen

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Deen

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

HOME

Chapter Two: General facts on Fadak

Maujam ul Buldan by Yaqoot Hamawi, v14, p238

Tareekh Khamees, v2, p88

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

Objection raised by Sunni scholors

Why was it named Fadak?

What was the value of property of Fadak?

The income from Fadak

The land of Fadak and income from its dates

Blessings that came from the Dates of Fadak

Did Imam Ridha (as) exaggerate over the size of Fadak?

The income of Fadak was used for military purposes

The status of Fadak under the Shariah

What is the difference between Ghanimah and

Fadak was the Fay Property

Commentaries of the Quran confirm that Fadak

Tafseer Kabeer, Volume 10 page 506

Tafseer Mazhari, p238

Tafseer Ruh Al-Maani, Tafseer Surah Hashr.

Tafseer Muraghi, Tafseer Surah Hashr.

Tafseer Durr-e-Manthur, Tafseer Surah Hashr.

Tafseer Juwahir Tantawi, Tafseer Surah Hashr.

Imam Fakhrudeen Radhi writes in Tafseer Kabeer:

How did the Prophet attain Fadak?

Fatah ul Buldan, p46, by Abi al-Hassan Baladhuri.

Majma ul Baldan, p139, v14

History of Tabari, v3, p1583

Tareekh Kamil, v2, p108, by Ibn Atheer Jazari

Tareekh Khamees, v2, page58, by Husayn Diyar Bakari.

All of the books record the following:

The Prophet (s) owned half of the Fadak

Nawawi in Sharh Sahih Muslim, Volume 12 page 82

Sunan Nasai, v7, p137

Wafa ul Wafa, v4, p1280

Sirat un Nabi by Ibn Hisham, v3, p353

Tareekh Abul Fida, p140, Dhikr Ghazwa Khayber

Al-Thuqat, Volume 2 page 15

Imam Nawawi writes in his Sharh of Sahih Muslim:

Umar also deemed Fadak to be the exclusive

Was Abu Bakr merely implementing the will of

The means via which Sayyida Fatima (as)

Allah declares in the Holy Quran:

Tafseer Durr al Manthur v4, p177

Kanzul Ummal, v2, p158

Lababul Naqool, p137, Sura Isra

Jame Asbab al-Nazul, Surah 17 verse 26 by Shiekh Khalid

Shawahid al-Tanzeel, Volume 1 page 570

In the Tafseer of above mentioned verse we read:

Common objection raised by Abu Bakrs defenders

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

Reply Three The Quran contains Madani verses in Makkan

Reply Four The merits of Ayesha

The Prophet (s) also gave Fatima Zahra (as) a

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

Maarij un Nabuwwah, page 321

Habeeb us Siyaar, vol 1, Dhikr of Ghazwa Khayber

The texts read as follows:

The contents of the written paper

The claim of Sayyida Fatima (as)

No public Twitter messages.

Shia Pen Newsletter

Formerly known as: