Showing posts with label Fathimah. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fathimah. Show all posts

What ever has been mentioned with regards to this incident in the Saheehul Bukhari, Musnad Ahmad, Kanzul Ummal, Albidayah wan Nihaayah, Alkaamil Li ibni Atheer, Seeratun Nabawi Li ibni Hisham and Tareekhul Islaam Lith Thahabi, boils down to the fact that, after the demise of Rasoolullah (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam), Abubakar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) and Umar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) and the majority of the Ansaar and the Muhajireen were busy with the burial arrangements. On the other hand a few Ansaar Sahabah (Radhiallaahu Anhum) gathered with Saad Bin Ubaadah (Radhiallaahu Anhu) at Saqeefa Bani Saaidah. Their intention was to appoint Saad Bin Ubaadah (Radhiallaahu Anhu) as the Khalifah. Had this materialised without the mutual consent of the Akaabir Sahabah (Radhiallaahu Anhum) and the Muhajireen Sahabah (Radhiallaahu Anhum) it would have been very inappropriate. Seeing this one Sahabi immediately headed for the house of Rasoolullah (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) and asked Umar (Radhiallaahu Anhu), who was at the time busy with the burial arrangements, to step outside the house. At first Umar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) refused to come out due to his engrossment, but when the Sahabi hurried him and informed him of the importance, Umar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) came outside and the Sahabi informed him of the gathering of the Ansaar. On hearing this Umar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) immediately called Abubakar (Radhiallaahu Anhu), who was also busy with the burial arrangements and refused to come out. When Umar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) informed him of the importance of the issue, he immediately headed for Saqeefa Bani Saaidah together with Umar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) and Abu Ubaidah ibnul Jarrah (Radhiallaahu Anhu).

This makes it very clear that Abubakar (Radhiallaahu Anhu)and Umar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) did not take any initial steps in trying to attain the Khilaafat; rather, they were busy in the burial arrangements. Another Sahabi had come and informed Umar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) regarding the gathering of the Ansaar.

From this incident one can understand the importance of Umar (Radhiallaahu Anhu). Also, Abubakar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) did not go to Saqeefa Bani Saaidah alone; rather he took Umar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) and Abu Ubaidah ibnul Jarrah (Radhiallaahu Anhu) with him (these three Sahabah are from amongst the ‘Ashara Mubash shararah i.e. the ten companions who were given glad-tidings of Jannah in this world by Nabi (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam)). Apparently Abubakar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) did not take Ali (Radhiallaahu Anhu) and Zubair (Radhiallaahu Anhu) with him because they were the immediate relatives of Nabi (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) and it was more appropriate for them to remain engaged in the burial arrangements. It has been mentioned in a Hadith that after Ali (Radhiallaahu Anhu) delivered Nabi (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) into the Raudhah Mubarak he said: “A person’s family and relatives are the ones responsible for arranging his burial.” (Sunan Abu Dawood, Vol. 2, Page 102)

Umar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) mentioned in detail during his Khilaafat that Abubakar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) went to Saqeefa Bani Saaidah in order to inform and explain to the Ansaar. He did not know that in the interim he would have the responsibility of appointing a Khalifah. This is also the reason why he did not take Ali (Radhiallaahu Anhu) with him. When these three Sahabah reached Saqeefa Bani Saaidah they saw that the Ansaar were in a very emotional state and were about to appoint Sa’ad bin Ubaadah (Radhiallaahu Anhu) as the Khalifah. This was under no circumstances correct or appropriate. Besides the Muhajireen, none of the Ansaar would have been happy to take Bay’at on the hands of Sa’ad bin Ubaadah (Radhiallaahu Anhu) and there was also a great fear that there would have been a revolt. Umar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) has also indicated to this in his detailed sermon which is mentioned in Bukhari. For this reason Abubakar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) stepped forward and explained to them with great wisdom that the Khalifah should be from amongst the Quraish because the entire Arab world respects them. After this Abubakar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) raised the hands of Umar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) and Abu Ubaidah ibnul Jarrah (Radhiallaahu Anhu) in front of the congregation and requested them to take Bay’at on the hands of either of the two. The Ansaar did not agree to this but they demanded that there should be an Ameer from amongst the Ansaar as well as the Muhajireen which was also inappropriate. How could it be possible that there be two different rulers in one country at the same time? On this occasion Umar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) said: “Two swords can not be gathered in one sheath.” When Umar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) saw that the differences were not settling and the arguing was not coming to an end and the fear of a revolt was becoming imminent, he made Abubakar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) ascend the pulpit and declared that he is taking Bay’at on the hands of Abubakar (Radhiallaahu Anhu). Before Umar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) could take Bay’at, an Ansaari Sahabi took Bay’at on the hands of Abubakar (Radhiallaahu Anhu). On seeing this all the Muhajireen and Ansaar that were present also took Bay’at on the hands of Abubakar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) except Sa’ad bin Ubaadah (Radhiallaahu Anhu). When proving that Abubakar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) is worthy of Khilaafat, Umar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) mentioned that “Nabi (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) forwarded Abubakar to lead the Salaat during his lifetime and he is one of the Thaani ul Ithnain i.e. the companion of Nabi (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) in the cave. How can Umar become the Khalifah while he is present?” Abu Ubaidah ibnul Jarrah (Radhiallaahu Anhu) said the same thing. Zaid bin Thaabit (Radhiallaahu Anhu), who was an Ansaari Sahabi, also said the same thing and expounded the virtues and the importance of the Muhajireen to the Ansaar. In this manner, those Ansaar who wanted to appoint Sa’ad bin Ubaadah (Radhiallaahu Anhu) as the Khalifah, also willingly took the Bay’at on the hands of Abubakar (Radhiallaahu Anhu).

This gathering was a coincidence. The Ansaar were the cause of this gathering. Abubakar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) and Umar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) did not gather them in order to attain the Khilaafat; rather they were forced to go to Saqeefa Bani Saaidah in order to avert an uprising. If this method was not adopted and these three Sahabah came away from Saqeefa Bani Saaidah, one group of the Ansaar would have chosen a Khalifah from amongst them as they were in a great emotional state and were not prepared to delay the appointment of a Khalifah. If at that time an Ansaar Sahabi was appointed as the Khalifah in the absence of the senior Sahabah there was a great possibility that the Arabs would have rejected him and disunion and bloodshed would have broke out immediately after the demise of Rasoolullah (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam). This is exactly what a Sahabi indicated towards while admonishing the Ansaar Sahabah that: “You were the first to support and assist Islam so do not be the first ones to finish it i.e. by quarrelling and fighting amongst yourselves.”

Now one should ponder that upto this point what did Abubakar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) and Umar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) do wrong. They did not claim nor did they demand Khilaafat for themselves, rather after explaining to the Ansaar, Abubakar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) proposed Umar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) and Abu Ubaidah ibnul Jarrah (Radhiallaahu Anhu) to be appointed as the Khalifah and Umar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) proposed Abubakar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) to be the Khalifah and all the present Muhaajir and Ansaar Sahabah accepted the proposal of Umar (Radhiallaahu Anhu). It is not proven from any authentic text that Abubakar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) and Umar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) has conspired to do something and gathered the Ansaar at Saqeefa Bani Saaidah and their going there was part of the conspiracy. If anybody claims this then they should bring forth their proofs. This is also the reason why Umar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) had termed this Khilaafat as a coincidence during his Khilaafat because they had no idea in their mind nor was it pre-planned. Ali (Radhiallaahu Anhu) and other Muhaajir Sahabah did not take part in this Bay’at because they were engaged in the burial arrangements of Rasoolullah (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) and apparently they did not even know what transpired outside of the house. One cannot say that Ali (Radhiallaahu Anhu) and other Muhaajir Sahabah’s failure to take the Bay’at was because they disagreed with it, rather this is the reason why those Sahabah who were not present at the time of the Bay’at were not taunted. A general Majlis took place the following day in the Masjid-un-Nabawi for everybody to take the Bay’at so that nobody could raise any objection to Abubakar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) being the Khalifah and that he did this in secret. It is also incorrect to level accusations against Abubakar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) and Umar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) of not calling Ali (Radhiallaahu Anhu) and other Sahabah to Saqeefa Bani Saaidah because when they left the home of Rasoolullah (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) they did not know what was going to happen, neither did they go there with the intention of obtaining the Khilaafat themselves. Whatever happened at Saqeefa Bani Saaidah was a coincidence and unexpected.

It is proven from few narrations that after the incident of Saqeefa Bani Saaidah, Abubakar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) and Umar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) returned to Rasoolullah (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam)’s house to in order to assist with the burial arrangements. On the following day Abubakar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) sat on the pulpit in the Masjid-un-Nabawi and Umar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) stood in front of the Sahabah and said a few words and also excused himself for what he had said on hearing of the demise of Rasoolullah (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam). He further said that: “Rasoolullah (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) has passed away and you have the Qur’an with you.” Umar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) then pointed towards Abubakar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) and mentioned his virtues and that he was Rasoolullah (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam)’s companion in the cave and that he is more worthy of Khilaafat than anybody else and everybody should take Bay’at on his hands. All the Sahabah present in the Masjid took Bay’at on the hands of Abubakar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) and this was known as the general Bay’at. At the time of this Bay’at two very important and famous Sahabah, i.e. Ali (Radhiallaahu Anhu) and Zubair (Radhiallaahu Anhu) were not present. This was very confusing. Abubakar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) enquired of their whereabouts. A few Sahabah of the Ansaar stood up and called Ali (Radhiallaahu Anhu) and Zubair (Radhiallaahu Anhu) to the Masjid. When these two Sahabah (Radhiallaahu Anhu) arrived at the Masjid Abubakar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) asked Ali (Radhiallaahu Anhu): “Why haven’t you taken Bay’at inspite of you being the cousin and son in-law of Rasoolullah (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam)? Do you wish to cause disunity amongst the Muslims?” On hearing this Ali (Radhiallaahu Anhu) excused himself and took Bay’at on the hands of Abubakar (Radhiallaahu Anhu). Then Abubakar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) asked Zubair (Radhiallaahu Anhu) the same question and also asked him that: “Inspite of being the cousin of Rasoolullah (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) and a Hawaari, do you wish to create disunity amongst the Muslims?” He too excused himself and took Bay’at on the hands of Abubakar (Radhiallaahu Anhu).

As far as what has been mentioned in a few narrations that Ali (R.A.) and Zubair (R.A.) gathered at the house of Fatima (R.A.) and Umar (R.A) went there and threatened them, I would like to say that apparently after the burial of Rasoolullah (S.A.W.) and before the general Bay’at in the Masjid, Ali (R.A.) and Zubair (R.A.) and a few Muhajireen Sahabah gathered at the house of Fatima (R.A.) and thought that because the general Bay’at had not yet been taken, we should appoint Ali (R.A.) as the Khalifah. They discussed this matter amongst themselves and Zubair (R.A.) also announced that he will back Ali (R.A.) with his sword. On the other hand many of the Muhajireen and Ansaar had already taken Bay’at on the hands of Abubakar (R.A.) at Saqeefa Bani Saaidah, now if another Khalifah had to be appointed, there was a great fear of revolt and the Ansaar would again have demanded that an Ameer be appointed from amongst them. Therefore, in order to suppress this revolt Umar (R.A) went to Fatima (R.A.)’s house and at that time Ali (R.A.) and Zubair (R.A.) were not present. It has been stated in Kanzul Ummal that Umar (R.A) told Fatima (R.A.) that: “O the daughter of Rasoolullah (S.A.W.), nobody from amongst the people is more beloved to me than your father and nobody is more beloved to me than you after your father. I have received the bad news that these people are gathering in your house and conspiring against the Khilaafat of Abubakar. If they do not stop conspiring then by Allah! I will burn their homes.” On saying this Umar (R.A) left and when Ali (R.A.) and Zubair (R.A.) arrived at the house of Fatima (R.A.), Fatima (R.A.) said to them: “Do you know that Umar came to see me and he has taken an oath that if you conspire against the Khilaafat of Abubakar he will burn your homes? By Allah! Umar will most definitely fulfil his oath. Therefore leave my house with the intention of dropping your opinions and thoughts and do not return with the same object.” Ali (R.A.) and Zubair (R.A.) left the house and did not gather there again until they took Bay’at on the hands of Abubakar (R.A.). (Kanzul Ummal, Vol. 5, Page 651)

From this narration of Kanzul Ummal a few points have become clear and evident:

When Umar (R.A) arrived at Fatima (R.A.)’s house Ali (R.A.) and Zubair (R.A.) were not present, therefore neither did Umar (R.A) meet them nor did a fight or quarrel break out.

1. Umar (R.A) associated with Fatima (R.A.) in a very respectful manner and also mentioned to her that she was more beloved to him than his own children.
2. Umar (R.A) did not threaten Fatima (R.A.) in any way.
3. When Umar (R.A) left Fatima (R.A.)’s house, both Fatima (R.A.) and her home were sound and intact. No harm was afflicted on either of them. Later when Ali (R.A.) arrived Fatima (R.A.) did not complain of Umar (R.A) behaving in a disrespectful manner, rather she advised him not to oppose Umar (R.A) and not to conspire against the Khilaafat of Abubakar (R.A.) in her house in future.
4. Ali (R.A.) and Zubair (R.A.) took Bay’at on the hands of Abubakar (R.A.) without any coercion.

The accusations that have been levelled against Umar (R.A) that he broke down the door of Ali (R.A.)’s house and approached Ali (R.A.) and Fatima (R.A.) in a disrespectful manner and due to this Fatima (R.A.) suffered a miscarriage is totally false and a mere fabrication. In reality those who levelled this accusation are disgracing and Ali (R.A.) and Fatima (R.A.) and also making a mockery of Islam. Was Ali (R.A.) so cowardly that he could not defend his house nor avenge his wife?! When Ali (R.A.) became Khalifah why did he not take revenge nor claim the blood money from the family of Umar (R.A) for the child that he had lost?! The ones who narrate these types of narrations are in actual fact the enemies of Islam. They portray the Sahabah (R.A.) in front of the Kuffar in such a fallacious manner that they were thirsty for governance, they had no legal system, the strong used to suppress the weak, to speak the truth was a crime, the oppressors were not punished, lies were spoken in order to please rulers, just as the hypocrites they too had hatred in their hearts for their rulers. Can your heart accept such accusations and nonsense? Could the senior Sahabah behaved in such a manner? Were such Sahabah not capable of demolishing great empires such as that of Qaisar and Kisra with scanty ammunitions and means? Will Allah Ta’ala assist such oppressors?

The claim that Fatima (R.A.) had a miscarriage is a mere fabrication. It has been mentioned in an authentic book of history, i.e. Albidayah wan Nihaayah, that during the lifetime of Rasoolullah (S.A.W.), Fatima (R.A.) gave birth to a third son by the name of Muhassin and that this child passed away in his childhood. This is why the majority of the historians mentioned only two sons of Fatima (R.A.).

The reason why Umar (R.A) reacted staunchly with those who opposed the Khilaafat after Abubakar (R.A.) was appointed as the Khalifah was because Rasoolullah (S.A.W.) has said: “If anybody else claims Khilaafat after a Khalifah has been chosen from amongst the Muslims, then he should be killed no matter who he may be.” (Sahih Muslim)

After the general Bay’at took place Abubakar (R.A.) said: “I never intended to be a Khalifah nor did I demand it. If you are not pleased with this Bay’at then I will step down and you can appoint someone else as the Khalifah.” Majority of the Muhajireen, especially Ali (R.A.) refused this offer and said: “No, you (Abubakar) are more worthy of the Khilaafat than anybody else. Rasoolullah (S.A.W.) forwarded you in such an important issue such as Salaat so how can we pull you back.” When Ali (R.A.) and Zubair (R.A.) were asked why did they not take the Bay’at in the beginning? They replied that the reason was because they were consulted on the issue. It has been narrated in the Shiite book “Ihtijaaj Tabrasi” that Ali (R.A.) took Bay’at on the hands of Abubakar (R.A.) and also performed Salaat behind him. Ali (R.A.) announced during his Khilaafat that Rasoolullah (S.A.W.) did not bequest us to appoint the Khalifah and neither did he take a pledge from us. If I had a pledge then I would have never allowed Abubakar (R.A.) to climb the Mimbar of Rasoolullah (S.A.W.) but in reality Abubakar (R.A.) was worthy of Khilaafat. Rasoolullah (S.A.W.) also forwarded him, we supported him and worked with him, and after his demise we assisted Umar (R.A) and Uthmaan (R.A.)

One should ponder that if Ali (R.A.) had a pledge then he would have most definitely mentioned it during his Khilaafat when there was no fear of anybody reprimanding him or threatening him. Had Abubakar (R.A.) or Umar (R.A) oppressed him any way, he would have also mentioned it but he did not mention anything of that sort.

We have elaborated in detail on the Khilaafat of Abubakar (R.A.). One should accept that which is authentic and that which also suits the nature of the Sahabah Kiraam and Islam. Those narrations which portray false pictures of the Sahabah and Islam will not be accepted because those who opposed Islam while portraying themselves as Muslims fabricate such false narrations and spread them in such a manner that causes disunion amongst the Muslims and also that they may disperse into groups and start baying for each others blood. Not everything mentioned in the history books are authentic and you should not bother arguing with the Shiites, rather you should worry about being a practical Muslim. Also, you should mention the Sahabah in a respectful manner and do not have hatred and prejudice for any Sahabi and inculcate love for all the Sahabah. To love them is a sign of Imaan and to oppose them and hate them is a sign of hypocrisy.

If any Shiite keeps bothering you then you should ask him that: “Was Ali (R.A.) brave or cowardly? If he was brave, then why did he conceal the truth? What prevented him from disclosing the truth during the Khilaafat? If according to your belief (Shiite) Ali (R.A.) had any bequest regarding Khilaafat and governmental issues but he was not able to express them openly, then how did you find out about it? Where is this bequest of his and in which Kitaab is it to be found? Why don’t you prove it from authentic sources.”

References:

Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 2, Page 1009, 1072.
Fathul Baari, Vol. 12, Page 145, Hadith no. 6830, Vol. 13, Page 208, Hadith no. 7219
Musnad Ahmad ibni Hambal, Vol. 1, Page 55, Hadith 133, Page 121, Hadith 391
Kanzul Ummal, Vol. 5, Page 635, 643-657, Hadith no. 14131-14156
Raudhul Unuf, Sharah Seerah ibni Hisham, Vol. 4, Page 260
Albidayah wan Nihaayah, Vol. 5, Page 245-252, Vol. 6, Page 301-303, Vol. 7, Page 331
Alkaamil fit Taarikh li ibni Atheer, Vol. 2, Page 189-194
Taarikh ul Islam lith Thahabi, Page 5-14, Page 639-642
Hum Sunni kiyun Hain, Page 233-248
Shia ke Hazaar Sawaal ka Jawaab, Page 291
‘Abaqaat of Allamah Khalid Mahmood


FADAK is a hamlet in Hijaz that used to be inhabited by a group of Jews. After Rasoolullaah sallallahu‘alayhiwa-alihiwasallam had accomplished the conquest of Khaybar, Allah cast fear into the hearts of those Jews. They therefore conclude a treaty with Rasoolullaah sallallahu‘alayhiwa-alihiwasallam in terms of which Fadak was ceded to him. Thus, not having been conquered by force of arms, it became the personal property of Rasoolullaah sallallahu‘alayhiwa-alihiwasallam.
The difference between the Khalifah Abu Bakr and Sayyidah Fatimah was an acceptable difference in which either side had an opinion founded on proof. However, sensitivity towards the person of Sayyiduna Abu Bakr has led some people to view the issue out of its proper perspective, with the result that an anthill was transformed into a mountain.

To illustrate this with an example: if we had to substitute the two sides in this dispute—Sayyiduna Abu Bakr and Sayyidah Fatimah—with two Shi‘i jurisprudents, or two of the Maraji‘ of the Shi‘ah, each side would be seen to retain the dignity of his position, and no vehement criticism would be directed at either side. 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.

However, when it comes to Abu Bakr and Fatimah there is a complete change of attitude. To the Shi‘ah 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. Sentiments do not qualify as a standard to judge by even in trivial disputes. What remains then to be said for the use of sentiments as a criterion in the study of history and the formulation of religious precepts from it?

To the unbiased observer—who does not submit to sentiment, but yields only to the Truth, wherever it is might be—this is an issue that must be approached tentatively.

The status of Fadak

The land of Fadak can be only one of two things:

It was either INHERITED by Fatimah from Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wa-alihi wasallam,
or it was a GIFT given to her by Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam on the day of Khaybar.
FADAK AS INHERITANCE

Its status as inheritance is contained in the report documented by al-Bukhaaree, Muslim and others, wherein it is stated that after the demise of Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wa-alihi wasallam, Fatimah came to Abu Bakr requesting her inheritance from the Nabi sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam, from Fadak, his share in Khaybar, and other places. Abu Bakr said: “I heard Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wa-alihi wasallam saying, ‘We do not leave inheritance. What we leave behind is charity.’ ” (Saheeh Muslim, Kitab al-Jihad was-Siyar, no. 49)

The same reported in Musnad Ahmad reads:

We, the Prophets, do not leave heirs. (Musnad Ahmad, vol. 2 p. 462)

Fatimah radiyallahu ‘anha became displeased with Abu Bakr, since she viewed the issue in the general scope of the verse, “Allah directs you in (the matter of the inheritance of) your children: to the male a portion twice the portion of the female.” (Surah an-Nisa:11)

At this point, let us be neutral, and let us forget that the person requesting her inheritance is a personality whom we love and respect because she is the daughter of our Prophet, and that she has that revered position both within our hearts and with Allah. Let us say: The words of Muhammad sallallahu ‘alayhi wa-alihi wasallam takes precedence over the words of anyone else. Therefore, if a hadith like this is authentic, what reason have we to lay blame at the door of Abu Bakr for following the dictates of the hadith and for applying it in practice?

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 Shi‘ah. 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?

With the Ahl as-Sunnah the authenticity of the hadith by the Ahl as-Sunnah is in no need of clarification. The following section clarifies the authenticity of the hadith in the sources of the Shi‘ah and by their standards.

AUTHENTICITY OF THE AHAADEETH

Al-Kulayni narrates in al-Kafi: Abu ‘Abdillah (Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq) says that Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wa-alihi wasallam 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-, vol. 1 p. 42)

Regarding the authenticity of this ahaadeeth, ‘Allamah Muhammad Baqir Majlisi states in his commentary on al-, entitled Mir’at al-‘Uqul: [This] hadith 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 Saheeh. (Mir’at al-‘Uqul, vol. 1 p. 111)

It is then a fact that this hadith is reliable. Why do the ‘ulama of the Shi‘ah refrain from using it, despite the fact that it so well-known in their ranks also ?

The strange thing here is that the ahaadeeth 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 “Sahihat 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 sallallahu ‘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, hadith 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. (al-Hukumat al-Islamiyyah, p. 133, published by Markaz Baqiyyat Allah al-A‘zam, Beirut)

Thereafter Khomeini points to another narration to the same effect that is recorded in al-KAAFI 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 ahaadeeth 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 sallallahu ‘alayhi wa-alihi wasallam be spurned when it is a matter of consensus that there can be no Ijtihad when a Nass (text) exists? Again, why does this ahaadeeth qualify to be used in support of Wilayat al-Faqih, but not for the issue of Fadak? Is this issue being judged subjectively?

THE PRAYER OF ZAKARIYYA

The argument in favour of the Ambiya leaving inheritancthat appropriates as proof the words of Zakariyya ‘alayhis salam in Surah Maryam “Grant me from Your side an heir who will inherit me and inherit the posterity of Ya‘qub” is a pathetic argument that lacks logic in every respect. That is for the following reasons:

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 Ya‘qub would continue.

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.

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-Mu’minun:10-11, where Allah says: “Those are the Inheritors (al-warithun) 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.


SULAYMAN AS THE HEIR OF DAWUD

The same is applicable to the argument in which the verse “And Sulayman inherited Dawud” (an-Naml: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. This is proven by the following two facts:

It is well known that Dawud ‘alayhis salam had 100 wives and 300 concubines. He had numerous 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?

If this verse is assumed to speak of material inheritance there does not remain much sense for it being mentioned in the Qur’an, 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 Qur’an.” (Mukhtasar Minhaj as-Sunnah, vol. 1 p. 240, with minor adjustments)

A WOMAN’S INHERITANCE

A more astounding revelation—of which many people happen to be uninformed—is the fact that in the Fiqh of the Imami Shi‘ah a woman does not inherit land or fixed property. How is it that the Shi‘ah 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- al-Kulayni has included a chapter entitled “Women do not inherit land”. In this chapter he narrates a ahaadeeth 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 Ja‘far as-Saadiq 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 al-Ahkam, vol. 9 p. 298; al-Istibsar, vol. 4 p. 152)

He also records from ‘Abd al-Malik ibn A‘yan that either Imam Muhammad al-Baqir or Imam Ja‘far 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)

In addition, if Fadak had to be inheritance, the wives of Rasulullah sallallahi ‘alayhi wa-alihi wasallam like Aa’ishah, and his daughters like Zaynab and Umm Kulthum would have had a share in it. However, Abu Bakr, for the sake of the ahaadeeth, did not give anything of it to the wives or daughters of Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wa-alihi wasallam, not even to his own daughter Aa’ishah. Why are the wives and the other daughters of Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wa-alihi wasallam not mentioned as parties in the dispute over Fadak, and why is all attention focused only on Sayyidah Fatimah?

FADAK AS A GIFT

All of the above concerns the status of Fadak as inheritance from Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wa-alihi wasallam. On the other hand, if it is maintained that Fadak was a gift from Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wa-alihi wasallam—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 Shi‘ah which state that Sayyidah Fatimah radiyallahu‘anha requested Fadak as her inheritance from Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wa-alihi wasallam. However, even if this claim is assumed to be an authentic, 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 Sa‘d came to Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wa-alihi wasallam, telling him that he had given one of his sons a garden as a gift, and requesting Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wa-alihi wasallam to be witness thereto. Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wa-alihi wasallam 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 sallallahu ‘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 sallallahu ‘alayhi wa-alihi wasallam 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 sallallahu ‘alayhi wa-alihi wasallam would give something to Fatimah but not to his other daughters?

In any event, what is reliably contained in the documented reports is that when Sayyidah Fatimah requested Fadak, she requested it as her inheritance, and not as a gift that was given to her by Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wa-alihi wasallam.

CONCLUSION

It is therefore concluded that Fadak was neither inheritance nor a gift. This was exactly the position of Imam ‘Ali. When he became the Khalifah 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. Why is Abu Bakr execrated for something which was also done by ‘Ali? In fact, 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)

I was on the verge of closing the file on the Fadak issue and a discussion of the various arguments issue when my eye fell on a narration which throws light upon the condition of those who are bent upon finding fault with Abu Bakr, by whichsoever means they can, legitimate or illegitimate.

Al-Kulayni narrates in al-Kafi: Abul Hasan [Imam ‘Ali ar-Rida] came to [the ‘Abbasid khalifah] 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?

[EXPLANATORY NOTE]: Mount Uhud, of course, is in Madeenah. This is given as the south-eastern point. The north-eastern point is stated to be Dawmat al-Jandal, a location close to the Saudi-Jordanian border. Al-‘Arish lies in Egypt, on the edge of the Sinai desert. It is given as the north-western point. The western boundary is stated as the western coastline of the Arabian peninsula. The area described here corresponds roughly to the area lying between latitudes 25 and 30, and longitudes 35 and 40. It is the entire north western quarter of the Arabian peninsula, and is twice as large as modern Jordan.


Our Objectives


Shia.sg was initiated by a group of concerned Muslims who were active in a Facebook group called "Kampung Melayu" which was mainly a platform for Singapore Muslims.


Unfortunately, the Facebook group admitted members from the local Shi'ite community, including their leader, Rosli Hassan.

>> Read more...

Local News about Deviant Shi'a Cult in M'sia


Self-Flagellation Ritual of Muharram


Most Read Articles