Chapter Fourteen: Conclusion


May the Peace and Blessings be upon Muhammad and Ale Muhammad. We thank Hadhrat Fatima Al- Zahra (as) for removing the layers of darkness from our eyes and the obstacles from our path and for spreading the light for us in darkness, by going and speaking against such actions which were contradictory to the Holy Qur’an and Sunnah. And through her actions it became clearer to us that, if the property of the Holy Prophet (s) could be confiscated, if the most beloved to the Holy Prophet, Hadhrat Fatima al-Zahra (as), could be deprived of her rights, by the Companions of the Holy Prophet (saww) then surely it is reasonable to accept that Imam Ali (as) too was deprived of his Leadership in Islam.

Allamah Sadr’adeen al-Hanafi in Riwaya al-Mustafa pages 36-37 (published Ahmad Kanpur) despite his being Sunni uttered the truth when he exposed the ruthless motive of Abu Bakr:

“We have proven that Abu Bakr took Fadak from Fatima without any basis. The grounds was a mere excuse based on political consideration that had the objective of lowering the esteem of Banu Hashim in people’s eyes, make them dependent on others so that the people’s hearts can focus towards us”

Whether readers agree with this assertion, is up to them but we have tried to present to our readers is the fact that the Ahle Sunnah have advanced all manner of excuse to defend Abu Bakr’s injustice and ‘explain’ the anger of Sayyida Fatima (as), and the comments of Salafi scholar Waheed uz-Zaman are particularly notable, in his footnote to the tradition in Saheeh al Bukhari he states.

“Hadhrat Abu Bakr heard this hadeeth himself from the Prophet(s), therefore how could he go against his(s)’s saying? And Hadhrat Fatima(s) became angry with him because she did not have the knowledge of this hadeeth.”
 Tayseer ul-Bari Sharh Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 4, Page 243

What exactly was Sayyida Fatima (as) angry at? Was she angry because Abu Bakr told her something she didn’t want to hear? Why would she be angered at Abu Bakr, whose only wrongdoing was to convey something allegedly relayed to him by her father? We are left with two options.

Option One: She was angry at her father. This clearly makes no sense, moreover why would she have taken this anger out on Abu Bakr, boycotting him and insisting he not attend her funeral prayers? All this anger just because poor Abu Bakr told her the Hadeeth of her deceased father?

Option Two: She was angry at Khalifa Abu Bakr, because she did not believe the veracity of the Hadeeth that Abu Bakr had advanced. Saheeh al Bukhari certainly points to this, and if so why? Would she be angry at Abu Bakr for telling her the truth? What would be the basis for to hold such a grudge if she believed the word of Abu Bakr?

We have presented all the details of the Fadak dispute to our readers and hence it is now time to make the decision who was right and who was wrong in the is decision? There are only two conclusions available for readers to choose:

Conclusion One: Sayyida Fatima (as) whether through ignorance, forgetfulness or deviousness made a claim to her father’s inheritance. Abu Bakr correctly pointed out that Prophets leave no inheritance. Rather than thank Abu Bakr for clarifying the matter, she bore malice towards him for telling the truth and kept aloof from him for the rest of her short life. By doing so she committed a grave sin (since you are only permitted to be angry with a fellow Muslim for a maximum of three days) and she died the death of Jahilyya since you refused to recognise Abu Bakr as the Imam of her time.

Conclusion Two: Sayyida Fatima (as) was perfectly right with her claim to her father’s inheritance. Rather than give it Abu Bakr fabricated a tradition to justify the unlawful / unjust usurpation of Fadak, Sayyida Fatima (as) reacted by never speaking to Abu Bakr again, she did not recognise him as the Imam of her time, and did not even want him to participate in her funeral.

We now leave to our readers to decide which of these conclusions they wish to choose.

We would like to conclude this discussion with the comments of the Salafi Sects favourite son Bilal Philips also merit application here. He said in his ‘Tafseer Soorah al Hujuraat’ page 47:

“Allaah and his Prophet (s) have laid down form rules for down treatment of disagreements which occur among Muslims. Some of the rules cover the correct method by which differences should be cleared up while others deal with the manner in which those involved should conduct themselves during and after arguments. For example, it is obvious that differences of opinion can only be satisfactorily resolved if a common set of ground rules is agreed on by the parties involved. Consequently, Allaah has clearly defined the ground rules in His statement, “And if you disagree about anything you should refer it to Allaah and his Messenger, if you believe in Allaah and the Last Day” (Soorah an Nisa (4):59). After the death of the Prophet (s), this verse can only be applied by using the Qur’an and the Sunnah as the basis if all decisions. It is also important that the solution should not be accepted begrudgingly or merely in words, or else ill feelings will remain and unconsciously manifest themselves in actions at a later time. Hence Allah linked the divine solution with Eemaan,true belief. Since the solution is if divine origin, it must be accepted if one truly believes in Allaah and his last Prophet Muhummad (s). This fact was emphasized by Allaah in the following verse, “By Allah, they do not truly believe until they make you (O Muhammad) the judge in between them, without finding within themselves any resistance to your decisions but accepting the completely”.
 Tafseer Soorah al Hujuraat, Page 47

Now questions need to be asked:

  1. Was Sayyida Fatima (as) aware that the criteria for resolving disputes were the Qur’an and Sunnah?
  2. If she was aware then why did she hold a grudge against Abu Bakr for ruling on the basis of the Sunnah of her father?

Yet again we are faced with two options:

Option One: She accepted that Abu Bakr had heard these words from her father but was bitter because she wanted him to avoid these words and rule in her favour.

Option Two: She rejected the saying that Abu Bakr attributed to her father because it contradicted the behest of her father and the Book of Allah (swt).

If we accept Option one this in effect places Sayyida Fatima (as) in the category as one with a deficient Iman, whose grudge was because a ruling of her father (s) went against her vested interest.

If we accept Option two then we will have to accept that Sayyida Fatima (as)’s grudge against Abu Bakr was justified, for he had issued a ruling that contradicted the Qur’an and Sunnah, worse he fabricated a Hadeeth to justify his decision.


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 →