Chapter Nine: Sayyida Fatima (as)’s response to the confiscation of Fadak
The sermon of Sayyida Fatima (as)
We read in Sharh Nahaj ul Balagha by Ibn Abi al Hadeed, Volume 4 page 108, printed Beirut:
“When Sayyida Fatima discovered that Abu Bakr intended on confiscating Fadak, she wrapped a cloth around her head, gathered some women from her tribe and went to Abu Bakr. At that time the Muhajireen and Ansar were summoned, a purdah was made between Fatima and the Sahaba. The daughter of the Prophet sad in a distressed manner, that led to the Sahaba crying. After a short pause she praised Allah, sent Salaam on her father the Prophet and said:
“All things on the earth and sky seeks a Waseela to Allah, the Waseela for the people to reach Allah (swt) are us, and Allah’s select people amongst creations are us”
And then she introduced herself:
“I am Fatima the daughter of Rasul and said ‘That which was bestowed to me has been taken, O Abu Bakr, if you are the inheritor of your father, and I am not my father’s inheritor you adopted a wrong means’. Then she said to the Muhajireen and Ansar requesting help, ‘O Bani Queela the inheritance of my father has been annexed from me, before your very eyes. You are listening to my words why are you lax with regards to helping me? Why do you not support my right?’”
Abu Bakr’s denial of Khums and Fadak incurred the anger of Sayyida Fatima (as)
- Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 53, Number 325, Book /of Khums
- Sahih Muslim, Volume 3 page 72, Hukm al Fay
- Sahih Ibn Hibban, Volume 11 pages 152-154
- Izalat ul Khifa, Volume 2 page 112
- Sunan al Kabeer, Volume 6 page 301 Kitab Fay
- Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Volume 1 page 167
- Kanz al Ummal, Volume 3 page 129 , Kitab Khilafath ma al Imara
- Wafa al Wafa, Volume 3 page 995 Talib Fatima min Abu Bakr
- Hadhrat Umar Faruq (ra) by M H Haykal page 101
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.
We read in Musnad Ibn Hanbal:
Ayesha narrates that once Fatima (ra) sent her servant to Abu Bakr to stake her claim to the Khums of the Holy Prophet (s) in Madina, Fadak and Khaiber. Abu Bakr said: ‘Allah’s Apostle said: ‘We (Prophets), our property is not inherited, and whatever we leave is Sadaqa, but Muhammad’s progeny can eat from this property’ now I SWEAR THAT this is what I have observed Prophet (s) DOING, I will not abandon it, but will observe WHAT the PROPHET DID’. So it is that Abu Bakr gave Fatima nothing, as a result of which lady Fatima got hurt. Abu Bakr said: ‘I swear by the one who holds my life! I love to show compassion towards the relatives of the Prophet (s) more than to my own relatives but with regards to this difference of opinion that we have in relation to this possession, I cannot divert from the truth; I shall not divert from that which I had saw the prophet doing’.
We read in Kanz ul Ummal:
“Sayyida Fatima became upset at Abu Bakr and continued assuming that attitude until she died” .
Sunan al Kabeer:
“Fatima became angry at Abu Bakr, and never spoke to Abu Bakr until she died”
Wafa al Wafa:
“Abu Bakr denied Fatima her right and she became angry never speaking to Abu Bakr until she died”.
Sahih Ibn Hibban:
“Fatima (ra) approached Abu Bakr asking him for her inheritance from what Allah (swt) bestowed upon his Prophet (s) and Fatima (ra) sought the alms of Rasulullah (s) in Madinah and also Fadak and remaining khums of Khaibar. Ayesha narrates that Abu Bakr said: ‘The family of Muhammad (s) can only eat from this money nothing else and I shall not divert an iota from the practice of the Porphet (s)’…..Abu Bakr refused to give Fatima any of it so Fatima was angry and disappointed with Abu Bakr and she never spoke to him until she died. Fatima (ra) survived the Prophet (s) by six months, when she died Ali (ra) buried her at night forbade Abu Bakr from attending her burial, When Fatima (ra) passed away people’s views altered about Ali (ra) that disappointed him he hence sought to heal the rift with Abu Bakr and pay allegiance to him and he had not paying allegiance during these months… .”
We read in Hadhrat Umar Faruq (ra):
“It is a proven fact that during the final stage of her life, the daughter of Holy Prophet Fatima (ra) died in a state of anger at Abu Bakr (ra). Now was this anger due to her being denied the inheritance of her father by Abu Bakr or was it because she deemed her husband to be more worthy of being the Khalifa than Abu Bakr? There is a difference of opinion on this, but one thing is unequivocally proven that Umar concurred with Abu Bakr that whatever the Poprhet leaves is Sadaqa no one inherits it, and it was without a doubt this advice of Umar that caused the anger of Fatima (ra)”
Hadhrat Umar Faruq (ra) by M H Haykal page 101
Muhadith Shah Waliullah Dehalwi writes in his authority work Izalat ul Khifa:
“Fatima (ra) became angry with Abu Bakr and left him and never conversed with him again until she died”
Izalat ul Khifa, Volume 2 page 112
It should be pointed out that Abu Bakr was not alone in making Fatima Zahra (sa) angry he was joined by his sidekick Umar. We read in Sunan Tirmidhi:
… حَدَّثَنَا بِذَلِكَ، عَلِيُّ بْنُ عِيسَى الْبَغْدَادِيُّ قَالَ حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الْوَهَّابِ بْنُ عَطَاءٍ، حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عَمْرٍو، عَنْ أَبِي سَلَمَةَ، عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ، أَنَّ فَاطِمَةَ، جَاءَتْ أَبَا بَكْرٍ وَعُمَرَ رضى الله عنهما تَسْأَلُ مِيرَاثَهَا مِنْ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَقَالاَ سَمِعْنَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم يَقُولُ ” إِنِّي لاَ أُورَثُ ” . قَالَتْ وَاللَّهِ لاَ أُكَلِّمُكُمَا أَبَدًا . فَمَاتَتْ وَلاَ تُكَلِّمُهُمَا..
Narrated Abu Hurairah: ‘Fatima came to Abu Bakr and Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both) to ask them about her inheritance from the Messenger of Allah (saws). They said: “We heard the Messenger of Allah (saws) say: ‘I am not inherited from.’” So she said: ‘By Allah! I will never talk to you two again.’ So she died having not talked to them.”
Defenders of the Shaykhayn have made an attempt to read more than what is actually narrated in the abovementioned episode and made the following interpretation, which would, to each unbiased mind, be crystal clear as putting words in one’s mouth:
‘Ali bin ‘Eisa said: “The meaning of not speaking to you two is: ‘Never again regarding this inheritance, because you two are truthful.’”
Readers can now better understand how desperate the defenders of Shaykhayn are!
Sayyida Fatima (as) was so angry at Abu Bakr’s confiscation that she refused to reply to his Salaams
Ibn Qutaybah in al Imamah wa al Siyasa page 13 records that:
“Hadhrat Umar said to Abu Bakr we have angered Fatima let us go to her and seek her forgiveness. They both went to the house and asked permission to enter. Sayyida Fatima did not grant them this permission. They then went to ‘Ali and spoke to him, he allowed them to enter the house. When they sat before Fatima she turned her face away from them, they said Salaams to her but she did not deem them worthy enough to merit a reply”.
Sayyida Fatima (as) said that she would complain about the Shaykhayn before Rasulullah (s) and would curse them in every Salat
Ibn Qutaybah in al Imamah wa al Siyasa page 14 records that:
“Fatima said ‘When I meet my father the Prophet (s), then I shall complain about the both of you (Abu Bakr and Umar), and said to Abu Bakr ‘By Allah I shall curse you after every Salat”.
Al-Imamah wa al-Siyasa, Vol. 1, Page 14
Ibn Katheer’s disrespect of Sayyida Fatima (as)
This Nasibi writes in al Bidaya wa al Nihaya Volume 5 page 289
“If Sayyida Fatima became angry then so what, she was an ordinary woman, from the children of Adam, her anger is just like the common children of Adam”.
Not all the children of Adam are the same; some are superior to others as is the case with Sayyida Fatima (as). We read in Tafseer Mazhari Volume 2 page 48, Surah Aal-e-Imran:
“The Hadeeth in Bukhari wherein Rasulullah (s) said Fatima is a part of my body proves that Fatima was superior to the men and women of the world, and Imam Malik said ‘I don’t know of anyone superior to Fatima az-Zahra”.
Sayyida Fatima (as) is no doubt from the loins of Adam, but her anger and distress is on par with the anger and distress of Allah (swt) and his Prophet (s).
Ayesha was also from the loins of Adam, yet Ahl’ul Sunnah deem her to be the beloved of Rasulullah (s), reflected by the fact the Umar gave her greater stipends than any other woman.
The Reviving Islam Team’s disrespect of Sayyida Fatima (as)
The Nasibi contributors of ‘Reviving Islam’ have actually entertained the notion that Sayyida Fatima (as) was stubborn and greedy, and have sought to discredit her by saying:
Faatimah (alayhas salaam) didn’t get what she wanted and because of that she was upset. May Allah shed His immense mercy upon her and make her of rafeeq Al ‘Alaa aameen.
There was no proof that she should have had the land of fadak. She produced no proof to Abu Bakr As Siddeeq. Aliy and Al ‘Abbas agreed with the decision of Abu Bakr. Abu Bakr judged this situation by the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger. It is possible that Faatimah (alayhas salaam) did not know that the Nabi forbade monetary inheritance and that when she heard it from Abu Bakr, it upset her for not getting what she had hoped for. So if it is true that she died angry with Abu Bakr (radhiya Allahu ‘Anhu), then indeed that is between her and Allah. For her anger against him was not based upon proof.
It is responses like this that demonstrate the type of hatred that these Nawasib harbour in their hearts towards Sayyida Fatima (as). We have already advanced evidence that refutes the last paragraph, proving:
- She produced evidence, her own testimony, supporting witness testimony and the Qur’an
- Maula Ali and Ibn Abbas did not accept the Hadith rather they deemed Abu Bakr’s using it as evidence of him being a ‘liar, treacherous, sinful and dishonest’.
- Abu Bakr failed to judge this situation by the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger.
- That it is illogical that the Prophet (s) would fail to tell Sayyida Fatima (as) about a matter that was consequential to her alone.
- from authentic Sunni sources that previous prophets did leave inheritance which was inherited by their respective heirs.
What we have issue with here is with the comment of this Nasibi:
Faatimah (alayhas salaam) didn’t get what she wanted and because of that she was upset. May Allah shed His immense mercy upon her and make her of rafeeq Al ‘Alaa aameen… So if it is true that she died angry with Abu Bakr (radhiya Allahu ‘Anhu), then indeed that is between her and Allah. For her anger against him was not based upon proof.
Not only are these Nawasib seeking to compare Sayyida Zahra (as) to some child that gets upset when she doesn’t get what she wants, they are so shameless that they are praying that a woman, whom Allah (swt) has purified all physical / spiritual impurity be made a “rafeeq Al ‘Alaa aameen”. Was she not already Rafeeq ul Alameen, or is she dependent on the plea of a band of Nawasib? These Nasabis are asking that Allah (swt) shower his mercy on the ‘Leader of the women of paradise’ (May Allah (swt) forgive us).
Sayyida Fatima (as) left a will that Abu Bakr be prevented from attending her funeral
We read in Sharh Ibn al Hadeed Volume 4 page 136 Chapter Khutbah Bayan Fadak:
“Hadhrat Fatima’s anger was such that she left a will stipulating that Abu Bakr not attend her funeral prayers”
This is a very painful reference for the followers of Abu Bakr to accept hence his advocates have presented a revised version of events, led by Imam of Sipah-e-Sahaba namely Haq Nawaz Jhangvi:
THERE WAS SUCH A LOVE AND AFFECTION BETWEEN HADHRAT ABU BAKR (R.A) AND HADHRAT ALI (R.A) THAT THE LATTER GOT THE FUNERAL PRAYER OF HADHRAT FATIMAH (R.A) LED BY HADHRAT ABU BAKR (R.A). HADHRAT ABU BAKR (R.A) ON THIS OCCASION ASKED HADHRATALI (R.A) TO LEAD THE FUNERAL PRAYER HIMSELF BUT WHEN HADHRAT ALI (R.A) INSISTED, HADHRAT ABU BAKR (R.A) ASKED HIM WHETHER HE WILL STAND AS A WITNESS BEFORE ALLAH THAT ABU BAKR LED THE FUNERAL PRAYER OF HADHRAT FATIMAH (R.A), ALI REPLIED IN THE AFFIRMITIVE. THEREUPON HADHRAT ABU BAKR (R.A) SAID: THIS WILL SUFFICE FOR MY SALVATION.
Ibn al Hashimi states:
Furthermore, although Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) did not attend the burial of Fatima (رضّى الله عنها), Ali (رضّى الله عنه) asked Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه)–on the basis that he was Caliph–to conduct the Janaazah prayer. Consequently, Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) performed the Janaazah prayer. It is stated in the book Fasl ul-Hitab:
“Upon Hadhrat Ali’s request, Hadhrat Abu Bakr became the imam and conducted the namaz (of Janaazah) for her with four takbirs.”
Thus, it cannot be said that Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) had said that Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) should not lead the Janaazah, since Ali (رضّى الله عنه) is the one who asked Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) to do it in the first place!
Reply One – Sahih Bukhari destroys this false claim
The single narration in Sahih Bukhari makes this claim baseless! We have already cited the fact that (according to Ahl’ul Sunnah’s most authentic work) Imam ‘Ali (as) led the funeral prayer over her, and did not inform Abu Bakr about it. When a book that the Ahl’ul Sunnah deem most authentic after the Qur’an has this narration then any narrations pleading otherwise have no value!
Reply Two – Maula Ali prevented Abu Bakr from participating in the funeral prayer
We read in Ahl’ul Sunnah’s esteemed work Tabari, vol IX p 196 [The Events of the Year 11, English version:
Abu Salih al Dirari- Abd al Razzaq b. Hammam- Mamar- al Zuhri - Urwah- Aishah: Fatimah and al Abbas came to Abu Bakr demanding their [share of] inheritance of the Messenger of God. They were demanding the Messenger of God’s land in Fadak and his share of Khaybar ['s tribute]. Abu Bakr replied, “I have heard the Messenger of God say: ‘Our [i.e the prophet's property] cannot be inherited and whatever we leave behinds is alms [i.e to be given in charity]. The family of Muhammad will eat from it. ‘ By God, I will not abandon a course which I saw the Messenger of God practicing, but will continue doing it accordingly.” Fatimah shunned him and did not speak to him about it until she died. Ali buried her at night and did not permit Abu Bakr to attend [her burial].
The English translator of this edition of Tabari Ismail Poonawalla in the footnote of this narration cites three other Sunni sources wherein these facts can be found.
- Tabaqat of Ibne Sad, vol VIII p 29,
- Yaqubi History, vol II p 117,
- Masudi in his Tanbih, p 250
Rauzatul Ahbaab, page 434 states that:
“Upon the death of Fatimah [ra], ‘Ali read her Funeral prayers. Some narrations state that they were read by Ibn Abbas [ra]. The next day Abu Bakr Siddique, Umar ibn al Farooq and other elderly Sahaba issued a complaint to ‘Ali that he had not informed them about the funeral, so that they could have been participants. He ['Ali] stated that he had acted in accordance with the wishes of Fatima.
In Wafa al Wafa page 94 the author states that Abu Bakr was aware of the death of Fatima:
“…But he desired that the reasons behind ‘Ali hiding the matter be fulfilled”.
Reply Three – The Sunni Muhadatheen have themselves discredited narrations wherein Abu Bakr led the funeral prayers of Sayyida Fatima (as)
Imam Ibn Hajr Asqalani one of Ahl’ul Sunnah’s greatest Hadeeth scholars wrote in al-Isaba, Volume 8 page 58, Dhikr Fatima Binte Muhammad:
Waqidi narrated from Shu’abi that Abu Bakr prayed on Fatima but that (tradition) is weak and disconnected. And some unreliable narrators narrated from Malik from Jaffar bin Muhammad from his father the same. But Darqutni and Ibn Uday discredited it.
al-Isaba, Volume 8 page 58 Translation 11583
The Founder of Sipah-e-Sahaba also produces this devastating proof that Sayyida Fatima (as) was happy with Abu Bakr, namely:
IT IS ALSO STATED IN ANOTHER SHIA BOOK (P. 73) THAT DURING THE ILLNESS OF HADHRAT FATIMAH (R.A), ASMA, WIFE OF HADHRAT ABU BAKR USED TO ATTEND HER AND AFTER HER DEATH GAVE HER THE LAST BATH.
A similar comment can also at the ahlelbayt.com site:
She instructed Asma (رضّى الله عنها) to give her body ghusl after death and besides Ali (رضّى الله عنه) no one else should be present. This was the reason for the secrecy surrounding her burial. It should also be noted that Asma (رضّى الله عنها) was the wife of Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه), which serves as another evidence that Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) resolved her issue with Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) before her death.
Both Bawasib are of course suggesting that if Sayyida Fatima (as) was angry at Abu Bakr, then why was his wife a participant in her funeral arrangements?
It is not necessary that the character of a husband and wife be the same. Hadhrath Nuh (as) and Hadhrath Lut (as) were both Prophets but their wives did not share their beliefs, on the contrary they were enemies of Allah (swt), condemned in the Qur’an. Rasulullah (s), loved Hadhrat ‘Ali (as) and Sayyida Fatima (as), whilst Ayesha wife of the Prophet (s) bore enmity towards them. By the same example Asma binte Umays wife of Abu Bakr, loved the Ahl’ul bayt (as), whilst Abu Bakr bore enmity towards them. In the same way that Rasulullah (s) was unable to change the attitude of Ayesha, Abu Bakr was also unable to change the attitude of Asma.
Reply Two – Asma binte Umays physically prevented Ayesha from participating in Sayyida Fatima (as)’s funeral rites and even rejected Abu Bakr’s attempts to intercede for her
As evidence we shall rely on the following esteemed Sunni works:
- al-Istiab, Volume 2 page 114, Fatima bint Muhammad
- Jadhab al Kaloob al Dayaar al Mehboob page 219, Dhikr Kabar Fatima binte Muhammad
- Wafa al Wafa ba Khabar Dhar Mustafai Volume 3 page 504
- Kanz al Ummal, Volume 13 page 686 Tradition 37756
- Tareekh Khamess Volume 1 page 277 Dhikr Fatima bine Rasulullah (s)
- Asad’ul Ghaba, Volume 7 page 262, The letter ‘Fa’
- Zakhair al-Uqbah, page 53
We read in al Istiab:
“When she (Fatima) died, Ayesha arrived with the intention of coming in, but Asma said to her: ‘Don’t enter’. Ayesha complained to Abu Bakr that: ‘This woman has prevented me from entering upon the Prophet’s daughter’. Abu Bakr then personally asked Asma: ‘Why do you prevent the wife of the Prophet (s) from, entering?’ She replied: ‘She (Lady Fatima) had issued a directive prevented any on to enter upon her.”
al-Istiab, Volume 2 page 114
These references prove that Sayyida Fatima (as) was angry at both Abu Bakr and Ayesha, those that Sayyida Fatima (as) are angry at cannot be the most beloved of Rasulullah (s).
Rasulullah (s) said that you cannot be angry at a Muslim for more than three days
We read in Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 53, Number 325:
… Fatima, the daughter of Allah’s Apostle got angry and stopped speaking to Abu Bakr, and continued assuming that attitude till she died. Fatima remained alive for six months after the death of Allah’s Apostle.
The end of this reference makes it clear that Sayyida Fatima (as) finished ALL relations with these individuals, she wanted nothing to do with them, and never spoke to them again while she remained alive. Nasibis often suggest that good cordial relations were resumed soon after the Fadak dispute though one wonders how this could be the case when Ayesha in the Sahih of Bukhari testifies to the fact the Leader of the Women of Paradise NEVER spoke to Abu Bakr again.
Ibn al Hashmi stated:
The Shia keep saying that Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) carried a grudge “her whole life,” as if that was a very long time and thus somehow indicative of Abu Bakr’s grave mistake (رضّى الله عنه). Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) only lived six months after the Prophet’s death! So even if Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) made Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) angry, her anger couldn’t have lasted more than a few months. This is not such a big deal, nor is it a long time. Perhaps she died so suddenly, within the span of a few months, that she did not get a chance to cool down; had she lived longer, then she would no doubt have let her anger subside. Who does not get into arguments with their siblings or other family members? Surely, a brother getting in an argument with a sister for a few months is not unheard of. But obviously the Shia are super human beings and they do not ever get into arguments with family members.
Sayyida Fatima did not speak to Abu Bakr for the last six months of her life and this is significant since it is also stipulated in Sahih Bukhari Bab al Adab, Volume 8, Book 73, Number 100:
“Narrated Abu Aiyub Al-Ansari:
Allah’s Apostle said, “It is not lawful for a man to desert his brother Muslim for more than three nights. (It is unlawful for them that) when they meet, one of them turns his face away from the other, and the other turns his face from the former, and the better of the two will be the one who greets the other first.”.
Ibn Hajr Asqalani in Fathul Bari Volume 5 page 571, in his commentary of this Hadeeth said:
“Ibn Barr narrates that there is an ijma amongst the scholars, that it is not permissible to stay aloof from a Muslim for more than three days, failure to do so means that one is ignoring the Deen”
Sayyida Fatima (as) certainly did not concur with this ijma and one can clearly see the low estimation that she held of Abu Bakr. Such was the anger of Sayyida Fatima (as) with regards to the treatment that was meted out to her, she never spoke to Abu Bakr for the last six months of her life, and when Abu Bakr sought forgiveness (as we cited in al Imama wa al Siyasa) she turned her face away.
Deobandi scholar Ashraf Ali Thanvi in his famed book of Fatawas ‘Behishthi Zewaar’ under the Book of Etiquette and Manners, cites a more explicit version of the Hadeeth of separation:
64. Rasûlullâh sallallâhu ‘alayhi wa sallam said: “It is not permissible for a Muslim to stop talking with his fellow Muslim for more than three days. The person who stops talking for more than three days and passes away in such a state (i.e. before he can reconcile) will enter jahannam.”
http://www.alinaam.org.za/bahishti/DEEDS.htm – Cached
We would like to ask the Ahl’ul Sunnah about what their Fatwa is on Sayyida Fatima (as). Was she ignorant of the Hadeeth of her father? Or did she blatantly disregard the word of her father? Her anger at Abu Bakr went far beyond three days, how do you reconcile this with the fact that (according to this Hadeeth) one whose separation through anger of a fellow Muslim exceeds three days shall go to Hell?
Nawasib have sought to portray Sayyida Fatima (as) as dying the death of Jahilyah [Naudhobillah]
We read in Sahih Muslim Book 020, Number 4555:
It has been narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: One who defected from obedience (to the Amir) and separated from the main body of the Muslims-if he died in that state-would die the death of one belonging to the days of Jahiliyya (i.e. would not die as a Muslim)
We also read in Sahih Muslim Book 020, Number 4562:
…..One who withdraws his band from obedience (to the Amir) will find no argument (in his defence) when he stands before Allah on the Day of Judgment, and one who dies without having bound himself by an oath of allegiance (to an Amir) will die the death of one belonging to the days of Jahillyya.
There is a similar narration in Sahih Muslim Book 020, Number 4560.
This tradition can also be found in the Sunni and Shi’a texts with the words “one who doesn’t recognize the Imam…”
Sharh Fiqh Akbar, by Mulla Ali Qari, p 175 (publishers Muhammad Saeed and son, Qur’an Muhall, Karachi
The term ‘recognize’ is used as it is not physically possible for each and every believer on the earth to approach the Imam of his time and give bayah, women are prohibited from doing so. The meaning of bayah is same in both sects. Here bayah is not just the limited to the formal procedure of placing one’s hand into the hand of the Khalifa but it calls for the complete obedience and submission to the Imam and any opposition to the Imam will make all the deeds done by the person void to the extent that s/he will die the death of Jahilyah. Of relevance is this Hadeeth:
…Allah’s Apostle said, “There will be three types of people whom Allah will neither speak to them on the Day of Resurrection nor will purify them from sins, and they will have a painful punishment:(2) a man who gives a pledge of allegiance to an Imam (ruler) and gives it only for worldly benefits, if the Imam gives him what he wants, he abides by his pledge, otherwise he does not fulfill his pledge
Sahih Bukhari 9:319
We have already proven that Sayyida Fatima (as) didn’t accept the decision of Abu Bakr (the Imam of her time according to Ahl’ul Sunnah).Not only this, but she died angry with him and Abu Bakr was not allowed to attend her funeral prayers.
Now the Nawasib have two options.
Option One: Fatima (as) died the death of Jahilyah (naudobillah).
Option Two: Fatima (as) didn’t consider Abu Bakr the legitimate Imam of that time.
If the answer Option Two, then who was her Imam? And why do Nasabis apply the term ‘Deviated Sect’ to those that reject the caliphate of their Rightly Guided Khalifas?
Nawasib deem Ahl’ul bayt (as) Rafidhis
The Nawasib call Shia as Rafidhis or rejecters / dissenters because we reject the Khilafath of Abu Bakr & Co. They also misinform their believers that the Shia Sect was founded by Abdullah Ibn Saba. We have already proved that Maula Ali (as) and Fatima (as) were not happy and never accepted the decision of Abu Bakr and not only this, but she died angry with him and insisted that he be prevented from attending her funeral prayers. Based on these facts,
a. Were Sayyida Fatima (as) and Maula Ali (as) rafidhis? (They would fall within the definition of Rafidhi that Nawasib give)
b. If they were not Rafidhi then the Shi`a are the true followers of Ahl’ ul bayt (as) and not Abdullah Ibn Saba.
Rather than return Fadak to its rightful heirs, Abu Bakr swore at the Ahl’ul Bayt (as)
We read in Sharh Ibn al Hadeed Khutbah page Fadak Volume 4 page 110:
Ahmad bin Abdul Aziz narrates that Sayyida Fatima appeared before the Court of Abu Bakr, and after the ruling on Fadak she gave a sermon wherein she made reference to her family lineage, and highlighted the injustice of the Shaykhayn with an one heart, When the Sermon finished and those present were moved by her words, Abu Bakr got on the pulpit immediately and said ‘People what is wrong with you! You raise your ears to everything based on Truth and Falsehood [Ali] is like a fox whose witness is his tail [Fatimah] he wishes to reawaken Fitnah (Khilafat), and seeks the support of women, the majority of whom are fornicators’. Abu Bakr said to the Ansar I have heard and refuted and analysed the words of the stupid.
(Ibn al Hadeed) says I asked this from Abu Jafar Yahya bin Abi Zaid Basree and he said ‘Abu Bakr was referring to ‘Ali by these words.
We appeal to justice, a man that uses such filthy language against Sayyida Fatima (as), has no right to be referred to as the Khalifa of Rasulullah (s), it is not appropriate for a leader to use such language in his court before an ordinary member of the public and here Abu Bakr sought it fit to attribute such terms to Fatima (as) daughter of the Prophet (s).
We are of course fully aware that some Nasibi will seek to negate this reference by alleging that Ibn al Hadeed was a Shi’a. Those that deem Abu Bakr to be the rightful Khalifa are split into two groups Ashari or the Mutazzalite and Ibn al Hadeed was of the Mutazzalite Sect. Ibn Taymeeya the beloved of the Nasibis infact counted the Mutazzalite as Sunni’s. He stated as follows in Minhaj as Sunnah:
“The claim (of the Shi’a Ulema) that all the groups of Ahl’ul Sunnah seek to prove the Khilafat of the first three caliphs on Qiyas (conjecture) is false because there are sects that don’t rely on Qiyas such as the Mutazzalite of Baghdad, and the Dhareeya such as Dawoud and ibn Hazm and others and sects of Ahlluhadith and Sufia”
Minhaj as Sunnah, Volume 3 page 401
Swearing at Hadhrat ‘Ali and Sayyida Fatima (as) is on par with swearing at Rasulullah (s)
As evidence we have relied on the following esteemed Sunni works:
- Mustadrak al Hakim, Volume 3 page 121, Bab Manaqib ‘Ali
- Tareekh ul Khulafa page 173 Bab Fadail ‘Ali
- Riyadh al Nadira Volume 3 page 157
- Kanz al Ummal Volume 6 page 152 Fadail, min Qism al Kaul
- al Bidayah wa al Nihaya Volume 7 page 355
- Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v6, p33
- Ya Nabi al Muwaddah page 48
- Sawaiqh al Muhriqa page 74 Hadeeth Sa min ashra
- Nur al Absar page 80, Bab Manaqib ‘Ali
We read in Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal:
“Whoever curses (or verbally abuses) Ali, he has, in fact, cursed me, and whoever has cursed me, he has cursed Allah, and whoever has cursed Allah, then Allah will throw him into he Hell-fire.”
Along this line let us here the testimony of Umm’ul Momineen Salma (ra) in al Mustadrak:
Abdullah bin Manzila narrates I went to Umme Salama and she said ‘Someone is cursing the Prophet whilst sitting on his pulpit, before your very eyes. I said ‘God forbid’ She said ‘I heard the Prophet (s) say whoever swears al ‘Ali, swears at me’.
Of interest is In Sharh Mishkat Volume 11 page 345, esteemed Hanafi scholar Mullah Ali Qari states:
‘Imam Ahmad narrates from the Prophet(s) “Whoever curses Ali, he has, in fact, cursed me, and whoever curses me, has cursed Allah.”, this Hadeeth means that cursing Hadhrat ‘Ali is Kufr’.
Abu Bakr swore at Sayyida Fatima (as) and Hadhrat ‘Ali (as) and also usurped the legal right of these esteemed figures, and these are major sins. What is the point in having a Khalifa that Rasulullah (s) shall not even wish to look at on the Day of Judgement? When Sayyida Zaynab (as) appeared before Yazid as a prisoner in Sham (Syria), even he never subjected her to the type of swear words that Abu Bakr exposed Hadhrat Fatima (as) to.
One who swears at Hadhrat ‘Ali (as) and Sayyida Fatima (as) has failed to pay the ‘wage’ of Prophethood
Allah (swt) says in Surah ash Shura:
Say: “No reward do I ask of you for this except the love of those near of kin.”
Al-Qur’an, Surah 42, Ayah 23, translated by Yusufali
Allah (swt) has made it incumbent upon al Muslims to love the close relatives of Rasulullah (s) and the Sunni scholars are in agreement that the verse refers to loving Imam ‘Ali (as), Sayyida Fatima (as) and their children. As evidence we shall cite the following esteemed Sunni works:
- Hilayat al Awliya page 201 Volume 3 the verse of Muwaddat
- Tafseer Durre Manthur page 7 Volume 5, the verse of Muwaddat
- Tafseer Kashaf Volume 2 page 239 the verse of Muwaddat
- Tafseer Kabeer Volume 7 page 309 the verse of Muwaddat
- Tafseer Mazhari Volume 8 page 320
- Tafseer Ruh al Ma’ani Part 25 the verse of Muwaddat page 31
- Tafseer Gharaib al Qur’an Part 25 the verse of Muwaddat page 28
- Tafseer Fathul Qadeer Volume 4 page 522 the verse of Muwaddat
- Tafseer Jauhar page 129
- Tafseer Khazan Volume 6 page 104 the verse of Muwaddat
- Mustadrak al Hakim Volume 3 page 172
- Sawaiq al Muhriqa page 101, Bab al Hadi al Ashr Sadl Awal
- Ya Nabi al Muwaddah Bab Saneeh wa Salehsoon page 106
- Ausag al Ghaneen page 104 Bab al Saneeh
- Usdul Ghaba page 367 Volume 5
- Kanz al-`ummal page 217 Volume 1
Jalaluddin Suyuti in Tafseer Durre Manthur under the commentary of this verse records the following:
Abdullah Ibne Abbas narrates ‘When this verse descended the people asked who are these close relatives whose love had been made compulsory?’ Rasulullah said they are ‘Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Husayn’.
Gharaib al Qur’an comments on the verse as follows:
Sad bin Jayr narrates after the descent of this verse Rasulullah (s) was asked ‘who are your kinfolk who are these close relatives whose love had been made compulsory?’ Rasulullah said they are ‘Ali, Fatima, and their sons’. The commentator then added ‘Verily there is no doubt that that this verse descended with regards to the Ahl’ul Bayt (as) as a matter of pride and superior rank
Let us now read a further reference from Tafseer Durre Manthur that is also in Tafseer Ruh al Ma’ani:
‘When Imam ‘Ali al-Sajdah bin Hussain (as) was imprisoned in Damascus, a Syrian man expressed his joy in his presence. The Imam (as) asked ‘Have you not read the verse of Muwaddat in the Qur’an? He replied ‘Yes, does the kinfolk whose love is compulsory refer to you?’ He [the Imam] replied ‘yes’.
We read in Tafseer Mazhari:
Allah (swt) issued an order to his Prophet (s) to convey the ruling that his Ummah love his Ahl’ul bayt, this refers to Imam ‘Ali and the Imams from his children, who are the poles of Wilayath (Mastership], which is why Rasulullah (s) said in praise of ‘Ali ‘I am the City of Knowledge and ‘Ali is its Gate’.
We read in Sawaiqh al Muhriqa:
Abdullah Ibne Abbas narrates ‘When this verse descended the people asked who are these close relatives whose love had been made compulsory?’ Rasulullah said they are ‘Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Husayn’. One narrator in this chain was an extremist [Ghali] Shi’a yet this is still true. Hadhrat ‘Ali said a verse in Surah Shuara descended in our honour and every believer is required to act upon it, he then recited the verse ‘Say: “No reward do I ask of you for this except the love of those near of kin.”
Allah (swt) had made love of Sayyida Fatima, Imam ‘Ali (as) and their children compulsory in the Holy Qur’an, hence Abu Bakr’s swearing at them is a clear breach of this Qur’anic verse and the Sunnah of Muhammad (s). One who breaches the edicts of the Qur’an and Sunnah has no right to occupy the throne of Rasulullah (s).
Let us for arguments sake accept Abu Bakr heard the Prophet (s) say Prophet’s leave no inheritance, rather than hurt the feelings of Sayyida Fatima (as) could the Khalifa not have used another option and granted her the land? According to the Ahl’ul Sunnah the Khalifa has the power to do whatever he chooses. As is commented by Egyptian scholar Mahmud Abu Riyya in ‘Risalath al Islam’ page 518:
“It is permissible for the Khalifa to do whatsoever he chooses’
We had also cited earlier from Hayatus Sahaba Volume 2 page 51 that Abu Bakr used his famed kindness to donate Muslim lands to two Sahaba. So why did Abu Bakr not seek to pay back the wage of Prophethood by granting Fadak to Sayyida Fatima (as)?
The testimony of Rasulullah (s) that the Sahaba bore hatred in their hearts towards Imam ‘Ali (as)
As evidence we shall rely on the following esteemed Sunni sources:
- Izalat ul Khifa, Volume 1 page 487
- Kanz al Ummal, Volume 6 page 408 min Qism al Fayl
- Riyadh al Nadira, Volume 3 page 234
- Nur al Absar, page 79, Bab Manaqib Ali
- Tareekh Baghdad, Volume 12 page 398, Dhikr Fayz ibn Wasiq
- Tadhkirat Khawwas al Ummah, page 27
- Musnad Abi Y’ala, Volume 1 page 437
- Musnad al-Bazar, Volume 1 page 422
- Mu’ajam al-Kabir, by Tabarani, Volume 11 page 61
- Al-Kamil, by Ibn Uday, Volume 7 page 173
- Tarikh Damishq, Volume 42 page 322
We read in these books:
Ali bin Abi Talib narrated: ‘While I was walking with Allah’s messenger (s) through the streets of Madina, we saw a garden and I said: ‘Oh Allah’s messenger, what a beautiful garden’. Allah’s messenger (s) said: ‘A better garden is awaiting for you in Paradise’. Then we passed through another one, thus I said: ‘Oh Allah’s messenger, what a beautiful garden’. Allah’s messenger said: ‘A better garden awaits you in Paradise’. We passed through seven gardens and about each of them I said: ‘What a beautiful garden’ and Allah’s messenger said to me ‘A better garden awaits you in Paradise’. Then when the streets became empty, Allah’s messenger (s) embraced me and began to cry profusely’. I asked: ‘O messenger of Allah, why are you crying?’ He said: ‘The hearts of the people bear hatred towards you that shall open up after my death’. I said: ‘Oh Allah’s messenger will my faith be safe?’ He (the prophet) said: ‘Yes your faith will be safe’.
We have proved from an esteemed Sunni source that Rasulullah (s) acknowledged that the hearts of the Sahaba towards his true rightful Khalifa Imam Ali (as) were not pure. This hatred shone after the death of Rasulullah (s) the opponents of Imam Ali (as) headed by Abu Bakr, Umar and Abu Ubaydah sought it fit to squabble over the Khilafat whilst the funeral arrangements of Rasulullah (s) were being prepared by the other grieving Muslims. Abu Bakr then sought to legitimise his illegal right via public bayya, when Imam Ali (as) and his supporters refused to enter into this bayya Abu Bakr sent his Vizier Umar to force bayya, Umar even threatened to burn down Sayyida Fatima (as)’s home in the process [with her family in it].
If these actions were not sufficient to prove Abu Bakr’s hatred of Hadhrat Ali (as) then came the next stage in Abu Bakr’s plan, financially crippling Imam ‘Ali (as) so that he would be unable to have the financial clout to mount a campaign against Abu Bakr, that came via the usurpation of Fadak justified by concocting a false Hadeeth to maintain such an illegal act. The incorrect ruling on Fadak left Sayyida Fatima (as) so distraught that she would curse Abu Bakr after every Salat. Her will was that Abu Bakr not be present at her funeral as a result of which Imam ‘Ali (as) buried her secretly at night. She died in a state of displeasure towards Abu Bakr. Abu Bakr’s treatment of Imam ‘Ali (as) and Sayyida Fatima (as) compliments the words of Rasulullah (s) that hatred towards Imam ‘Ali (as) by the Sahaba would appear after his death, that hatred was lead by Abu Bakr.
- General facts on Fadak
- The claim of Sayyida Fatima (as)
- Abu Bakr’s rejection of witnesses’ testimony
- Imam Ali (as)’s position on Fadak
- Rules of inheritance in the Qur’an
- Analysing the judgement of Abu Bakr
- The inheritance of previous prophets
- Sayyida Fatima (as)’s response to the confiscation of Fadak
- Refuting the defences of Abu Bakr’s advocates
- Relations between Sayyida Fatima (as) and Maula Ali (as)
- Further injustices perpetrated against Sayyida Fatima (as)
- The Shi’a position on Abu Bakr
- No public Twitter messages.