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 wa’l-Siyar)
  3. Sunan Abu Dawood, Book 19, Tribute, Spoils, and Rulership (Kitab Al-Kharaj, Wal-Fai’ Wal-Imarah) 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 Numani’s vigorous argument that Abu Bakr as the Khalifa of Rasulullah (s) in effect became his Waris is unacceptable. If he was an Heir then he was an Heir who inherited the Government. One should remember that during his lifetime (s) and after that, there was no such thing as State owned land. The lands of Khayber were immediately distributed amongst the people.The scholars of Islam formulated this concept(of state owned land) much later .Anything that came into the possession of the Government was automatically distributed amongst the Muslims, there was not even a system of set stipends for the army, it was seen as a single unit, their participation in Jihad was compulsory, distribution of stipends would occur when the army were gathered together. A more formal system of a Stipends Register was developed by Umar, and it was at that time that the need to the concept of State Ownership dawned on the Government, yet even then land was not included as part of State ownership. In any case what is certain is that during the lifetime of Rasulullah (s) there was no such thing as State owned land so as to make it legitimate for Abu Bakr to take RasulAllah’s(s) land alongwith the Khilafat.

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 Bakr’s)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 Prophet’s portion?’ Abu Bakr said: I heard the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) say: If Allah, Most High, gives a Prophet some means of sustenance that goes to his successor”.

We appeal to justice. These three references prove that Sayyida Fatima (as) asked for her inheritance rights and Abu Bakr contradicted himself by claiming to be RasulAllah’s Waris on one occasion and saying that the children were his Waris on another. 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 Khalifa’s two replies clearly contradicted ten verses of the Qur’an and that his decision serves as proof that he had unlawfully usurped land that was the legal entitlement of Sayyida Fatima (as).

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

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 Bakr’s words:

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

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

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 Qur’an 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. Prophet’s 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 Qur’an, the support from Al Khider and Co continues unabated.

The Khalifa’s first and second response contradict the Qur’an 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 Ahl’ul 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 ‘Prophet’s leave no inheritance’ to be a brilliant correct one. Let us analyse these words and see how true Abu Bakr’s 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 wa’l-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 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”.

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 so-and-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 Ahl’ul 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 Ma’bud, the commentary of Abu Dawud, we read:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 didn’t have? It was Umar who had it and did not give it. If there was any dispute, it was Ali (as) and Abbas on one side and Umar and his supporters on the other.
The bottom line is that both Ali and Abbas were demanding their share from the inheritance of the Holy Prophet (s) as stated by Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani in the commentary of the tradition:

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

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

Moreover we read:

 وأما قول عمر جئتني يا عباس تسألني نصيبك من بن أخيك فإنما عبر بذلك لبيان قسمة الميراث

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 Bakr’s decision to usurp Fadak on the basis that Prophet’s leave no inheritance, Hadhrat ‘Ali (as) deemed him to be a 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 Umar’s comments proves that he held this position. Umar’s 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 Bakr’s 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 Ahl’ul Sunnah’s authority work Tafseer Mazhari Part 12, Volume 5 page 14, commentary of Surah Hud:

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

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

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

We read in 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 Sa’adi as a gift.

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

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

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

Comment

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

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 ‘A’ishah, 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 ‘A’ishah. 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 Ahl’ul 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 Prophet’s 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 didn’t ask for their share of their inheritance. Al Khider is a blatant liar for seeking to suggest that they had not done so. As evidence we shall rely on the following esteemed Sunni works:

  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? Don’t you know that the Prophet used to say: Our property is not inherited, but whatever we leave is to be given in charity?”

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

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

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

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

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

The same fact has also been accepted by Abu Bakr’s advocate Ibn al Hashimi in his article ‘Fadak, Part VII: Charity is Good’ states:

It is reported that Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) also asked her father Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) to give her inheritance and Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) refused on the basis of the fact that Prophets do not give inheritance.

See screenshot of Ibn al Hashimi’s 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 father’s 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 father’s claim, two witnesses were required, and in fact two separate witnesses after all according to Ahl’ul 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 wouldn’t 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 Ahl’ul Sunnah to accept:

Option 1: Ayesha believed the Hadeeth to be correct and still wanted a share of the Prophet’s 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 Prophet’s 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 father’s position then why also make a stake for the inheritance? Logic dictates that you don’t 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 Judge’s 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 ‘A’ishah

Ibn al Hashimi also adds this emotional rant:

Additionally, if it was really to be inherited by the family of the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم), then Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) would have given the rightful share of it to Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) but he did not. So why aren’t the Shia grieving for Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) like they do for Fatima (رضّى الله عنها)? And what about the other eligible relatives of the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم)? Why is it that the Shia do not argue on behalf of these people for Fadak? It is reported that Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) also asked her father Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) to give her inheritance and Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) refused on the basis of the fact that Prophets do not give inheritance. Why aren’t the Shia crying over Aisha’s loss (رضّى الله عنها)?

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 widow’s pension for life? Contemplate the words of Abu Hurraira in Sahih Bukhari Volume 8, Book 80, Number 721:

Allah’s 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 widow’s pension was sufficient to compensate them for the revocation of their husband’s inheritance. On a wider level Khilafath remained in her household and unlike Sayyida Fatima (as) she was also entitled to inherit her father’s 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 Mu’awiyah offered me 100,000 for it but I give it to both of you as a gift”.

Consider this carefully. Rasulullah (s) left no inheritance for her, which in effect meant that she had to live on a very basic standard of living, with a very basic staple diet. This being the case, how did she attain possession of land valued at 100,000 dirhams? What Islamic Law gave her entitlement to such rich land? The rich fortunes for Ayesha did not just end there, we see that Mu’awiya also lavished her with money and gifts.  Ibn Kathir narrates in Al-Bidaya Wa Al-Nihaya. Volume 11 page 443:

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

Ayesha’s 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:

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

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

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 don’t 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 Bakr’s 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 Sadaqah’ is 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 wife’s 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 wife’s 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 Qur’anic 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 Allah’s 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 today’s 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:

 اے پیغمبر (مسلمانوں سے کہہ دو کہ) جب تم عورتوں کو طلاق دینے لگو تو عدت کے شروع میں طلاق دو اور عدت کا شمار رکھو۔ اور خدا سے جو تمہارا پروردگار ہے ڈرو۔ (نہ تو تم ہی) ان کو (ایام عدت میں) ان کے گھروں سے نکالو اور نہ وہ (خود ہی) نکلیں۔ ہاں اگر وہ صریح بےحیائی کریں (تو نکال دینا چاہیئے) اور یہ خدا کی حدیں ہیں۔ جو خدا کی حدوں سے تجاوز کرے گا وہ اپنے آپ پر ظلم کرے گا۔ (اے طلاق دینے والے) تجھے کیا معلوم شاید خدا اس کے بعد کوئی (رجعت کی) سبیل پیدا کردے

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 Ma’arif al-Quran by Mufti Muhammad Shafi, Volume 8 page 473. In fact, Ibn Kathir states:

خوطب النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم أولاً تشريفاً وتكريماً، ثم خاطب الأمة تبعاً

“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 Salafi’s namely Shaykh Saleh bin Fozan  stated in one of his edicts:

هذا خطاب للنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ولأمته، وخاطب النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم تشريفاً له ثم وجه الخطاب له ولأمته

 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 Shafi’i Uthmani further explains this point in Ma’arif 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  یا ایھاالنبی 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   یا ایھا الرسول  is used.  

And the word  یا ایھاالنبی 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); إِذَا طَلَّقْتُمُ ٱلنِّسَآءَ ; 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 (جملہ مخذوف ) to the verse, and done its explanation like this  یا ایھا النبی قل للمومنین ازا طلقتم النساء [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 wife’s 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 wife’s 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: 

أي ليس للزوج أن يخرجها من مسكن النكاح ما دامت في العدّة،

 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 Ma’arif al-Quran, Volume 8 page 840:

 In this the word  بُيُوتِهِنَّ  , 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:

لا تُخْرِجُوهُنَّ مِن بُيُوتِهِنَّ} [سورة الطلاق: آية1]، هذا فيه نهي من الله سبحانه وتعالى أن تُخرج المطلقة الرجعية من بيت الزوجيةقبل نهاية عدتها، ففي مشروعية اعتداد المطلقة الرجعية في بيت الزوجية وأن لا تخرج منه، لأنها زوجة لها حكم الزوجات ولعل مطلقها أن يراجعها وتكون الفرصة مهيأة للرجعة التي يرغب فيها الشارع فيها مصلحة

{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 Qur’an 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 woman’s 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 husband’s 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 (صلى الله عليه وسلم)! 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 (husband’s) 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 Khaleefa’s inheriting the ring of the Prophet is proof that the Hadeeth ‘Our property will not be inherited, whatever we leave is Sadaqah’ is false

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

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

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 didn’t 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. Isn’t it funny the Khaleefa’s 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 Bakr’s duty to distribute this to the needy not horde it for himself and then make it some system of lineal succession! Why didn’t 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 wa’l-Zinah) Book 024, Number 5149 as follows:

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

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

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

These traditions prove that Ayesha had possession of the very garments that were worn by Rasulullah (s) when he died. Ayesha’s 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 Ahl’ul Sunnah count wives as Ahl’ul bayt (s) and Rasulullah (s) said that Sadaqah is haraam on the Ahl’ul 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 – Ayesha’s inheriting land from Rasulullah (s) is proof that the Hadeeth ‘Our property will not be inherited, whatever we leave is Sadaqah’ is false

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

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

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

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

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

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

Umar would not need to have asked for permission to be buried in the Muslim graveyard, and he also acknowledges this, stating if Ayesha rejects his request ‘then take me to the grave-yard of the Muslims’. The Hadith that Abu Bakr cited would mean that all that the Prophet owned became Sadaqah for the poor, so why did Umar not seek the permission of the Muslims, after all he was essentially going to be buried on land that they owned? The fact that Umar asked for the express permission of Ayesha proves that this plot belonged to her, and she admits this saying ‘I had the idea of having this place for myself’. According to Ahl’ul Sunnah, Rasulullah (s) was buried at the very place where he died and this was in the house of Ayesha which belonged to Rasulullah (s). Rasulullah (s) was not buried in the Muslims graveyard he was buried in his own land. Ayesha had reserved her burial place next to Rasulullah (s), and this could ‘only’ have been done if she had inherited this space from Rasulullah (s). If she was not the inheritor (owner) of this plot then why did Umar seek her permission to be buried there? This was land that was privately owned and it was distinct from the Muslim graveyard which is why he turned to Ayesha, Waris of that land to seek permission to be buried there. If Prophets leave no inheritance then why did Ayesha inherit this plot of land from Rasulullah (s)?

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 Allah’s Apostle which he left at Khaibar, and Fadak, and his property at Medina (devoted for charity). Abu Bakr refused to give her that property and said, “I will not leave anything Allah’s Apostle used to do, because I am afraid that if I left something from the Prophet’s tradition, then I would go astray.” (Later on) Umar gave the Prophet’s property (of 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 Allah’s 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:

Allah (thus) directs you as regards your Children’s (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. 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.
Al-Qur’an, Surah an-Nisa, Ayah 11, translated by Yusufali

Sayyida Fatimah was entitled to half of the Prophet’s 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.
Al-Qur’an, Surah an-Nisa, Ayah 12, translated by Yusufali

The instructions of the Qur’an are clear and unambiguous, with regard to 1/2, 1/4th and 1/8th of the deceased’s 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 Qur’anic 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 Prophet’s 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 can’t 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 Prophet’s Hadeeth and as such against the Holy Qur’an. And if Hadhrat Abu Bakr was wrong, then who will pay for the wrong of confiscation?

 

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

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

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

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

  1. If the Hadeeth (Prophets leave no inheritance) was true why did Umar violate the actions of Rasulullah (s) and hand this property of Rasulullah (s) over to ‘Ali and Abbas?
  2. If Imam ‘Ali and Abbas weren’t entitled to this property (due to the Hadeeth) why did they accept it?
  3. Abu Bakr said that all that the Prophet leaves becomes Sadaqa upon his death. The tradition says ‘Umar gave the Prophet’s property (of Sadaqa) at Medina to ‘Ali and ‘Abbas’ If this is true, how could ‘Ali (as) and Abbas accept this property when Sadaqa is haraam on the family of ‘Ali (as) and Abbas (ra)? Were Umar, ‘Ali (as) and Abbas ignorant of the ruling?
  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, Umar’s 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 Ahl’ul Sunnah count as Rightly Guided Khaleefas – are the Ahl’ul Sunnah content with that? This would be an unpalatable proposition, but you can’t 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, Umar’s 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. Umar’s 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. Tareekh’ul Khulafa by al Hafidh Jalaladeen Suyuti page 178;
2. al-Isti’ab, by Ibn Abd al-Barr, v3, page 39;
3. al-Tabaqat, by Ibn Sa’d, v2, page 338

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

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

Comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani in Taqreeb al-Tahdeeb has declared Abdurazzq al-Sanani as ‘Thiqa Hafiz’, Mu’amar 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 Sa’eed 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 inherited, whatever we (i.e. prophets) leave is Sadaqah (to be used for charity)’ is further proof that it is false

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

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

Comment

The role of a Wasi is an administrative one, to pay off any debts and oversee the transition of the deceased’s 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 Tareekh’ul 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 Ahl’ul Sunnah’s 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 Shari’ah 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 inherited, whatever we (i.e. prophets) leave is 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. Sahih Muslim, Volume 3 page 72, Hukm al Fay
  3. Izala tul Khifa, Part 2 Volume 3 page 109
  4. Sunan al Kabeera, Volume 6 page 301 Kitab Fay

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

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

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, 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):

“Allah’s Apostle said, “Fatima is a part of me, and he who makes her angry, makes me angry.”

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-Qur’an, Surah Ale Imran, Ayah 38, translated by Yusufali

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

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

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

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

Qadri took this Hadeeth from the following esteemed Sunni works:

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

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

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

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

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

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 Bakr’s words as set out in Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 57, Number 60 reads as follows:

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

Abu Bakr is claiming that all the Prophet (s) left converts into Sadaqa, and the Ahl’ul bayt (as) are entitled to get their share of this Sadaqa. How can this Hadeeth be Saheeh when Sadaqa is haraam on the family of Maula ‘Ali (as)? 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.Don’t 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 Ahl’ul bayt (as) are we then saying that Khaleefa Abu Bakr was prepared to satiate the stomachs of the Ahl’ul bayt (as) with haraam food?
  3. Were the family of Maula ‘Ali (as) so ignorant of the Shari’ah 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 Ahl’ul 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 Shi’a 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 zakât to the progeny of Hadrat Fâtimah radiallahu anha, the progeny of Hadrat Ali radiallahu anhu, Hadrat Abbas radiallahu anhu, Hadrat Ja’far radiallahu anhu, Hadrat Aqeel radiallahu anhu, Hadrat Hârith 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 Ahl’ul 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 Sayyid’s, by relying on the Hadeeth cited by Abu Bakr?

Comment

The very fact that Sadaqa is haraam on Ahl’ul 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 Ahl’ul Sunnah cannot have their cake and eat it. You cannot believe that Sadaqa is haraam on Ahl’ul bayt (as), and also believe Abu Bakr’s 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 Zayn’ul Abideen (as)’s possession of the sword belonging to the Prophet (s) is proof that the Hadeeth ‘Our property will not be inherited, whatever we leave is Sadaqah’ is false

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

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

The fact that Imam Zayn’ul Abideen (as) possessed the sword belonging to Rasulullah (s) could only have been attained if it had been passed on to him by his ancestors. In the tradition, it is clear from the words of Al-Miswar ‘Will you give me the sword of Allah’s Apostle’ – that this was the personal possession of the Prophet (s). If the Prophet left no inheritance then the Ahl’ul 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 Sayyid’s, is it believable that the Ahl’ul bayt kept hold of items which the Shari’ah 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 Du’a of Prophet Zakariya (as) proves that the Hadeeth ‘Our property will not be inherited, whatever we (i.e. prophets) leave is Sadaqah’ is false

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

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

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

Comment

We have already proven that the fear of Prophet (s) of his relatives squandering his possessions led him to make this supplication. If Prophet’s leave no inheritance then this supplication would be pointless.Why make a du’a 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 du’a 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 Shari’ah places a condition that he make a ‘Wasiyya’ (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 Misri’s 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 Ahl’ul 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 Allah’s Book (i.e. Qur’an).”

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 Qur’an applied and Sayyida Fatima (as) was entitled to half of her father’s 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):

Mus’ab b. Sa’d reported on the authority of his father. I was ailing. I sent message to Allah’s 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 Allah’s 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 Fara’id, (the shares prescribed in the Qur’an) 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 Ahl’ul Sunnah believe that the Prophet (s) never left one. Even with such a legally binding will, Rasulullah (s) said only one-third of the deceased’s 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 Kareem’udeen
  5. 5. Tafseer Zia ul Quran by Peer Muhammad Karam Shah, Surah Maryam commentary

We read in Qurut al Aunain:

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

We read in Aftaab:

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

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

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

Rasulullah (s) inherited livestock belonging to his father

We read in the following Sunni books:

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

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

Rasulullah (s) inherited a sword from his father

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

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

We read in Zaad:

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

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

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

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

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

  1. al Bidaya wa al Nihaya, Volume 5 page 325 Dhikr Umm
  2. Dalail al Nubuwwa, page 1221
  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 Bakr’s advocates that Rasulullah (s) did not inherit from anyone. Sayyida Fatima (as) was the rightful heir of her father’s property, Abu Bakr’s 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 Qur’an 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 Ahl’ul 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 David’s 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.htmCached

If the Hadeeth and Benadir’s 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 don’t 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 Prophet’s 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-Qur’an, 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 Prophet’s 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 Prophet’s 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 relative’s 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) Prophet’s 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 Ahl’ul bayt (as) and the Ahl’ul Sunnah include the wives as Ahl’ul 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 Sa’d 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 Allah’s 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 Allah’s 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 Sa’d not to do! He (s) told Sa’d 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 Prophet’s 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 father’s 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 Imran’s 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 father’s 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, don’t 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 Prophet’s leave no inheritance, rather their belongings go to the Ummah, then surely some reference to such an act (mass distribution of Prophet’s 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 Ahl’ul Sunnah, but cannot be evidenced in the Torah, Gospels, Psalms or the Qur’an? We also cannot find any historical reference that a dead Prophet’s 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 Bakr’s 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 Bakr’s 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 shi’a articles. One such classic titled “Shias and Sunnis” published in july 2000, can be located online at:
http://www.islamicvoice.com/july.2000/dialogue.htmCached

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 Caliph’s 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 Prophet’s descendants would have been the first to be informed of this by him. Hazrat Ali did not even inform Hazrat Abu Bakar of Hazrat Fatima’s death and he could not attend her funeral. However after his Bai’at, 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 Rasulullah’s 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 (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم), unlike the Shia slanderers. Hence, we do not criticize Fatima (رضّى الله عنها); we think she made 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 Prophet–who was raised by him–could possibly not know a Hadith or make such a grievous mistake. By this same logic, one could defend all of the actions of Aisha (رضّى الله عنها), for she was the wife of the Prophet who was married to him at the tender age of six. So if the Shia ask why we say Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) made a mistake, we ask the Shia why they say Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) made mistakes (and even worse according to the Shia).
The reality is that any human being–even the greatest of Muslims–is capable of making mistakes. We reject the concept of infallibility; it is a form of exaggeration and an extension of Shirk, whereby the quality of Allah (i.e. perfection) is given to humans. Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) did not know of the Prophet’s 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 father’s estate? Think about it. If your father was about to pass away, don’t you think, if you weren’t 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 wasn’t? Does this even make the slightest bit of sense to Abu Bakr’s 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, we’re 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 Shi’a. 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 Prophet’s will. Fatima, however, continued to insist on her right of inheritance either because she was not aware of the Prophet’s will or she considered the Caliph competent to meet her wishes.
http://muslim-canada.org/ali_abubakr.htmlCached

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 father’s Estate. This therefore leaves us with Nadwi’s curious assumption, that she was unaware of her father’s 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? Don’t 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. I’m telling you this so that you won’t waste the time of the Khalifa that succeeds me’

Don’t 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 father’s 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 Muhammad’s 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 Bakr’s 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 Prophet’s intention, Abu Bakr knew the Prophet’s intention but the affected party (the Heir) Sayyida Fatima (as) didn’t know on what condition she would receive the land. Also she didn’t 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 Ahl’ul Sunnah a tradition that contradicts the Qur’an is false

The claim of Sayyida Fatima (as) was supported by the Qur’an.Abu Bakr rejected her claim by advancing an alleged Hadeeth that contradicted10 Qur’anic verses.

Surah Nisa 004.011:

Allah (thus) directs you as regards your Children’s (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.
Al-Qur’an, Surah 4, Ayah 11, translated by Yusufali

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 Qur’an. Any Hadeeth that contradicts the Qur’an 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.
Al-Qur’an, Surah 4, Ayah 7, translated by Yusufali

When a woman is the Waris of her father then Sayyida Fatima (as) was the Waris of her father, Abu Bakr’s 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.
Al-Qur’an, Surah 4, Ayah 33, translated by Yusufali

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
Al-Qur’an, Surah 33, Ayah 6, translated by Yusufali

When the Qur’an 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 Qur’anic evidence of her right to inherit her father’s property, his advancing this Hadeeth was not correct.

Surah Naml 027.016:

And Solomon was David’s heir.
Al-Qur’an, Surah 27, Ayah 16, translated by Yusufali

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-Qur’an, 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 Qur’an.

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 well-pleased!”
Al-Qur’an, Surah 19, Ayah 4 – 6, translated by Yusufali

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-Qur’an, Surah Anbiya, Ayah 89, translated by Yusufali

This verse reminds us of the supplication of Prophet Zakariya (as), if Prophet’s 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!
Al-Qur’an, Surah 3, Ayah 38, translated by Yusufali

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 Qur’anic 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.”
Al-Qur’an, Surah 2, Ayah 248, translated by Yusufali

These relics remained in the family of Yaqoob (as) why were they not given away as Sadaqah?

Sunni and Shi’a agreement

Both Sects are in agreement that any Hadeeth that contradicts the Qur’an should be rejected. The Hadeeth advanced by Abu Bakr ‘Our property will not be inherited, whatever we (i.e. prophets) leave is Sadaqa’ contradicted 10 verses of the Qur’an, hence the Hadeeth could not be advanced as evidence.

We the Shi’a bring evidence from the Quran proving the inheritance of the Prophet (s), the Ahl’ul 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 Qur’an? The ruling violated 10 Qur’anic 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 Qur’an

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.
Al-Qur’an, Surah 32, Ayah 22, translated by Yusufali

Open challenge to Ahl’ul Sunnah

The Ahl’ul Sunnah have a habit of challenging the Shi’as to prove Matum, Tatbeer from the Qur’an 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 Qur’an that the inheritors of Prophets are their offspring – now in the spirit of your second Khalifa Umar Ibn al Farooq who said ‘The Qur’an 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 Ahl’ul Sunnah a tradition that ought to have been known to all and sundry, but has only a single narrator is false

 

Observation One

The Qur’an 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 Qur’anic 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’.

Rasulullah’s(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 Shari’ah 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 Ahl’ul 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:

‘A’isha reported that all the wives of Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) had gathered (in her apartment) during the days of his (Prophet’s) last illness and no woman was left behind that Fatima, who walked after the style of Allah’s 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 Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him). I (‘A’isha) 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 Allah’s 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 Allah’s 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 Qur’an 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 (‘A’isha) 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): Arn’t 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 Ahl’ul 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 Ahl’ul 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 Qur’an. Rasulullah (s) can never act against the Qur’an.

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 father’s 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 Ahl’ul 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 Ahl’ul 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 Bakr’s ear, as this would cause Fitnah amongst the Sahaba and Ahl’ul 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 Bakr’s 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 ud’Deen Muradabadi from Pakistan in his glorious attack on the Shi’a, in “Naseeyat ai Shi’a” [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 Shi’a 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 Bakr’s 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 Bakr’s decision in the Fadak dispute contradicted his own method of ruling

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

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

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

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

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
When the Shia try to condemn Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) by bringing up the Prophet’s words (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) about making Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) angry, we ask these mindless Shia to think of similar Hadith and Quranic exhortations about not making one’s 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 (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) 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 (رضّى الله عنه) place the words of Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) above that of the Messenger of Allah (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) 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 Ahl’ul Sunnah it becomes clear that these were just token words that Abu Bakr never himself believed in. The Ahl’ul 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 God’s mercy) as well as afraid (of His wrath) People said: Appoint anyone as your successor. He said: Should I carry the burden of conducting your affairs in my life as well as in my death? (So far as Caliphate is concerned) I wish I could acquit myself (before the Almighty) in a way that there is neither anything to my credit nor anything to my discredit. If I would appoint my successor, (I would because) one better than me did so. (He meant Abu Bakr.) If I would leave You alone, (I would do so because) one better than me, i. e. the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him), did so. ‘Abdullah says: When he mentioned the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) I understood that he would not appoint anyone as Caliph.

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

Abu Bakr prevented the recital of Hadeeth that caused disputes

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

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

The narration informs us that Abu Bakr prohibited the recital of a Hadeeth that’s authenticity was in doubt and caused a dispute. 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 Qur’an 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 Qur’an for guidance on what is halaal and haraam, yet he ruled that the no one could inherit the Prophet’s possessions, in doing so he contradicted ten verses of the Qur’an. Why did Abu Bakr reject the claim brought by the daughter of the Prophet (s), upsetting her and violating the Qur’an in the process?

Abu Bakr’s Hadeeth burning campaign

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

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

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

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

The Ahl’ul 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 Bakr’s advocates mean nothing to us. If chains have been coined then this has been from the Sect who are Saqifites supporters of Abu Bakr’s 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 father’s 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 Qur’an, and anything that contradicts the Qur’an 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 Qur’an and the Qur’an 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 Ahl’ul 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 Qur’an or Sunnah, a reply that has no support of these key sources is to be rejected.

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

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

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

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

Umar’s 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 Qur’an and eye witnesses to support her claim to Khums and Fadak, – Khums is withheld and Fadak is snatched from her! Compare Umar’s ‘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?

 

Shia Pen Newsletter

Subscribe to our newsletter to receive regular updates on our new publications.
Shia Pen uses the "Google Groups" system for its newsletters. Subcribe Now →