Chapter Thirteen: The Shi’a position on Abu Bakr


Abu Bakr’s admission of his mistakes on his death bed

As proof we shall cite:

  1. Tareekh Tabari Volume 2 page 24
  2. Kanz al Khitab al Khilafath ma al Maar Volume 3 page 135
  3. Al Imama wa al Siyasa Volume 1 page 18, Dhikr Wafaath Abu Bakr
  4. Murujh al Dhahab Volume 2 page 308 Dhikr Khilafath Abu Bakr
  5. Iqd al Fareed, Dhikr Wafaath Abu Bakr Volume 2 page 208

We read in Tabari:

Abu Bakr said ‘I did three things that I now regret, they are:

  1. That I failed to show respect towards the house of Fatima
  2. I did not burn Fajaf Salmah
  3. At Saqifa I transferred Khilafath to Abu Ubaydah or Umar

There are three things that I wish I had done:

  1. When Asheesh bin Qays was brought before me as prisoner I should have had him killed
  2. When I sent Khalid bin Waleed to the Land of the Kuffar I should have turned him in the direction of Zay Qasa
  3. When sending Khalid to Syria I should have sent Umar to Iraq

I regret that I did not get clarification from Rasulullah (s) on three matters:

  1. Whether the Ansar had a share in the Khilafath
  2. Who would succeed him (s) as Khalifa
  3. The inheritance of an aunt and nephew
    Tareekh al-Tabari, Vol. 2, Page 619

These five esteemed Sunni scholars noted Abu Bakr’s admission of his mistakes, so why do his modern day champions go mad when we accuse Abu Bakr of making a mistake on the Fadak issue? This is of course unpalatable for the followers of Abu Bakr, and their modern day advocate Al Khider tries his best to muddy the waters and present both parties as correct…

Al Khider’s efforts to water the entire dispute down to a mere ‘difference’ of opinion, founded on proof

We would ask that our readers think about these opening comments of Al Khider. As yourselves, are they Logical or Illogical? stated:

“The difference between the Khaleefah Abu Bakr and Sayyidah Fatimah was an acceptable difference in which either side had an opinion founded on proof.”


How can the opinion of both be founded on proof when there was a total contradiction between the two? The only conceivable fact is that ones opinion was based upon proof and ones opinion upon conjecture for the simple reason being that if something is based upon proof it is an evidence and confirmation of truth and truth does not contradict another truth, hence, the logic is ludicrous.

No man with a rational mind can accept the fact that both Abu Bakr and Hadhrat Fatima (as) were right in their claims, for the following reasons:

Imam Ali said: “When there are two differing calls, then one is towards misguidance”

  • If Hadhrat Fatima (as) was wrong in claiming her right, then why did she become ANGRY with Abu Bakr, and did not forgive him till she died? •
  • Were not six months long enough to inquire about the Hadeeth (“We Prophets do not leave inheritance…”) whether if it was genuine or not? Could a sane person really imagine that Hadhrat Fatima’s anger was based on assumption for the whole period of 6 months?
  • Had Hadhrat Fatima (as) been unaware of the Hadeeth quoted by Abu Bakr, then surely there were still many companions living, to be approached and questioned about the matter, but guess what? Abu Bakr was the only person who knew about it, hence she passed away while being angry with Abu Bakr.
  • Was not Imam Ali (as), who was very well versed with the teachings of the Holy Qur’an, there to inform his wife, Hadhrat Fatima, that what Abu Bakr claims is authentic and not to dispute with him? Nay! The results were opposite! Imam Ali (as) himself went to Abu Bakr with the same claim. •… Omar said: “You have come to me with the same claim”… “You said Abu Bakr was so and so…” (Sahih Bukhari Hadeeth: 5.367) Why did Imam Ali (as) and Hadhrat Abbas, go to Omar with the same claim, when Abu Bakr must have given them the same answer? And what does this sentence apply: “You said Abu Bakr was so and so” Does Omar mean to say that Imam Ali (as) and Hadhrat Abbas disbelieved in his words? Certainly they did! Otherwise why would they go to the next Caliph for the same claim?


Al Khider’s failed efforts to explain away the dispute as a mere difference amongst Mujtahids

Al Khider then seeks to compare the dispute those that arise between Mujtahids:

While setting out an example of two of the Maraji’ of the Shi’ah, he say: “… The position of both disputants would then be viewed with equal respect and appreciation, in consideration of the fact that both persons base their claims upon textual evidence and proof, albeit that one of the two opinions would ultimately take precedence over the other.”


Comparing the above example with the case of Abu Bakr and Hadhrat Fatima (as) is like comparing apples to oranges because:

  • The Maraja’s of the Shi’a wouldn’t contradict one another when the Qur’an is clear on a certain matter; however Abu Bakr was refuted by Hadhrat Fatima (as) with many ayahs of the Holy Qur’an which he went clearly against.
  • If the Shi’a Maraja’s both base their claims upon textual evidences and proofs then there will not be a dispute between the two because their claims will be based upon the interpretation of the Imams of Ahlulbayt and the Imams of Ahlulbayt do not contradict one another like the 4 Imams of the Ahl Al Sunnah do.
  • When there is no clear textual evidence from the Qur’an and Hadeeths that’s when ijtihad comes in. It’s very rare that the Shi’a Maraja differ in their Fatwas nor do they totally oppose one another. The case of Fadak was not a case of Ijtihad because the laws for Inheritance and gifts are clearly mentioned in the Qur’an and Hadiths, hence again his reasoning is unacceptable.


Al Khider’s suggestion that the Shi’a Judge Abu Bakr according to sentiment rather than fact

Having tried his best to water the matter down, Al Khider then seeks to whip up hatred towards the Shi’a. We would ask those with open minds to mull over these words are they Fair or Dishonest? stated:

However, when it comes to Abu Bakr and Fatimah there is a complete change of attitude. To the Shi’ah Abu Bakr is the enemy, and for as long as he be the enemy he will be considered evil incarnate, and error is inseparable from any of his judgements. Thus it is that sentiments have become the standard by which matters such as this are judged”


Does this Nasibi know what sentiment means? Sentiment could mean emotion, feeling, view, etc, but it is true that we judge by emotions? As we have already demonstrated, there are many verses of the Holy Qur’an used by the Shi’a, as evidence which go against the character of Abu Bakr, let alone the anger of Hadhrat Fatima (as). Then how can he say that sentiments have become the standard by which matters as this are judged? Let us now analyse this difference of opinion, a difference that involved the confiscation of land, the denial of inheritance, and a position so severe that that claimant never spoke to the ‘Mujtahid’ again. All these defences have no bearing on reality. The bottom line is this:

  • Rasulullah (s) gave Fadak to Sayyida Fatima (as) during her lifetime
  • Abu Bakr unlawfully usurped her land as he deemed it to be the property of the Prophet (s)
  • Sayyida Fatima (as) then claimed that as heir of her father’s Estate
  • Abu Bakr rejected her claim by concocting a tradition that contradicted the Qur’an and logic.
  • Abu Bakr dismissed the witness testimony of Sayyida Fatima (as), her husband, their sons, Umm Ayman and Rabah
  • Sayyida Fatima (as) was so outraged she never spoke to him again, and ordered that he not attend her funeral.

This is the reality so let us see how Allah (swt) and his Prophet (s) judge such a person:

Allah (swt)’s verdict on those that usurp inheritance

We read in Sahih Muslim The Book of Transactions (Kitab Al-Buyu`) – ‘It is forbidden to seize land and other things without legitimate right’.

Book 010, Number 3920:

Sa’id b. Zaid b. ‘Amr b. Nufail (Allah be pleased with them) reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: He who wrongly took a span of land, Allah shall make him carry around his neck seven earths.

We read in Sunan Tirmidhi Hadeeth 3078:

Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) said, “If anyone deprives an heir of his inheritance, Allah will deprive him of his inheritance in Paradise on the Day of Resurrection.”

Ibn Majah transmitted it, and Bayhaqi transmitted it in Shu’ab al-Iman on the authority of Abu Hurrayra.

We read in Surah al Fajr verse 19:

And ye devour inheritance all with greed.
Al-Qur’an, Surah al-Fajr, Ayah 19, translated by Yusufali

The verse condemns those that take advantage of other people’s inheritance. No one, not even the Sahaba are exempt from this verse. If the Nasibi defence mechanism kicks in, namely that this verse was Madani and that people were unaware of rules on inheritance at the time, then such advocates should know that these rulings date back to Abrahamic Laws. As is proven from Tafseer Ruh al Ma’ani Part 30 page 127:

“Underage Arab children and women could not inherit from their parents. The people would usurp their share until the Shari’ah of Ibrahim and Ismail made it clear that women and children were heirs to inheritance”

This shall suffice to refute the excuse that the Surah is Makkan whilst the verse is Madani.

The verdict of the Prophet (s) with regards to those that attribute lies to him

We read this Hadeeth in Ibn Majah that has been authenticated by Shaikh Albaani in Sahih Sunan Ibn Majah vol.1, p.7, no.12.
Abdullah Ibn Masoud (radhi allahu anhu) reported on the authority of his father, that Allah’s Messenger (sallallahu alaihi wa-sallam) said: “He, who deliberately attributes a lie to me, let him take his seat in the Hell-Fire.”


We would ask that our readers ponder and think over the seriousness of Abu Bakr’s actions during the Fadak dispute. Not only did her usurp the legal rights of Sayyida Zahra (as) he sought to justify his decision by falsely attributing a lie to the Prophet (s). The fact that the Sunni scholars agree that he was the sole individual that was aware of it, clearly proves that it had been coined by him. This Hadeeth was a clear fabrication, Sayyida Zahra never agreed to it and Maula Ali (as) deemed Abu Bakr’s citing it as proof of him being a liar. We leave it to our readers to decide the eternal abode of Abu Bakr in light of this Hadeeth.

Rasulullah (s) told Abu Dharr that his Fai property would be usurped after him

As evidence we shall rely on the following esteemed Sunni sources:

  1. Murqat Sharh Mishqat, Kitab al Imara page 5 and in the Chapter al Qadha al Fasl al Shay Volume 5 page 224
  2. Kanz al Ummal Volume 4 page 50

“Abu Dharr narrates that Rasulullah (s) asked me ‘What will you do when the Imams after me shall take this property of Fai as their own? Abu Dharr said ‘I swear by He who made you a Prophet, I shall raise my sword and declare war until I take it back’. Rasulullah (s) said .I shall give you a better option, be patient until you meet me’.
Mishkat al-Masabih, Page 322

Ahl’ul Sunnah do not deny the truthfulness of Abu Dharr, he died in 32 Hijri during the reign of Uthman – he passed through the reigns of three Khalifas, Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman, and Rasulullah asked ‘What will you do when the Imams after me shall take this property of Fai as their own?’

If Rasulullah (s) was referring to the Imams that followed the death of Abu Dharr then it would be meaningless, since Rasulullah (s) issued instructions as to how to respond when witnessing this usurpation during his life time. So which Imams was Rasulullah (s) referring to? It was the same Imam who on the basis of a concocted Hadeeth ‘Our property will not be inherited, whatever we (i.e. prophets) leave is Sadaqah (to be used for charity)’, justified the usurpation of the property of Fai from Sayyida Fatima (as) and this will be addressed on the Day of Judgement, which is why Rasulullah (s) told Abu Dharr to remain patient and not fight.

If Nasabi point out that Abu Bakr had sought forgiveness from Sayyida Fatima (as) then we will say that this was nothing more than a political gesture, if he was really sincere then he should have returned the land that he had usurped from Sayyida Fatima (as) he failed to do so, and will therefore be answerable before Allah (swt) about this in the next world when all injustices perpetuated shall be heard and perpetrators punished accordingly. The modern day Champion of the Salafi movement Abu Ameenah Bilal Philips sets out the conditions for repentance, in his ‘Tafseer Soorah al Hujuraat’ page 97-98:

“If the crime involved the rights of others, the fourth condition requires that the repentant rectify the situation by receiving the punishment or seeking forgiveness of others if slander was involved and returning stolen goods if property was involved [Muhammad as Siddeeqee, Daleel al Faaliheen (Egypt: al Halabee Press, 1971) volume 1 pp 78-80]. If the property has been usurped or damaged the repentant should use his or her own resources to replace it. This remains as a debt on the sinner until such time as it is paid in full or its owner releases him or her from the obligation. The Prophet (s) taught that Allaah does not pardon sins involving the rights of other humans. If these rights are not pardoned by their owners in this life, they may be demanded during the Final Judgement and paid in the form of righteous deeds subtracted from the scales of the sinner. The Prophet (s) once asked his companions if they knew who a truly bankrupt person was and they replied it was one who did not have any dirhams nor deenars. He then informed them that it was one who came before Allaah with his good deeds on the day of judgement, after having cursed and hit people and stolen their property in this life. Those whom he had abused would demand their rights, and good deeds would be taken from his scale to fulfil their rights until his good deeds run out. Then bad deeds would be taken from their scales and put on his scales until all of their rights were paid back in full. Following that he would be thrown into the Hellfire. [Sahih Muslim (Eng tr) Volume 4 page 1441 Hadith number 6655].
Tafseer Soorah al Hujuraat, Page 97-98

Abu Bakr failed to meet the desire of Sayyida Fatima (as)

Sunni scholar Dr Tahir ul Qadri in his book on the virtues of Sayyida Fatima (as) ‘Al Durr’athul Baydh fee Manaqib Fatima al Zahra (as)’ page 56 records this Hadeeth.

Miswar narrates that Rasulullah (s) said ‘Verily Fatima is my … I desire whatever she desires, and whatever pains her, pains me’

Qadri narrated this tradition from the following esteemed Sunni works:

  1. al Mustadrak al Hakim Volume 3 page 168
  2. Musnad Ahman ibn Hanbal Volume 4 page 332
  3. Fadail as Sahaba by Ibn Hanbal Volume 2 page 765
  4. Al Had wa’l Mushaanee by Shaybaanee Volume 5 page 362
  5. Muhimm al Kabeer by Tabrani Volume 20 page 28
  6. Muhimm al Zawaad Volume 9 page 203
  7. Hilayathul Awliyaa by Abu Naeem Volume 3 page 206
  8. Seera al Alam al Nada bu Dhahabi Volume 2 page 132
  9. Fathul Baree bu Ibn Hajr Asqalani Volume 9 page 329
  10. Tafseer ibn Katheer Volume 3 page 257

Al Duratul Baydha fi Manaqib Fatima al-Zahra (as), Page 56

On the next page (57-58) Qadri records this narration recorded by Sakhawi in Ishtajlab ir-Taqaa al-Gharf Bahib Aqrabaa ar-Rasool Wadhawi ash-Sharaf, pages 96-97:

Sad bin Abi Qurshee narrates that Hadhrath Abdullah bin Hasan bin Hasan bin Ali bin Abi Talib who had not yet attained puberty approached Umar bin Abdul Aziz in relation to a matter. Umar suspended his gathering heard the matter and fulfilled his need. He then squeezed his stomach in such a manner that he began to feel pain, with that he said to him ‘Remember this on the Day of Judgement at the time of intercession’. When he left the people asked why he dedicated such time to this child. He replied ‘I heard a Hadeeth from a Thiqah narrator who said ‘I heard the Prophet (s) sayd ‘Fatima is a part of my body I desire whatever she desires’.

He then said ‘If Fatima was here then this would have been what she desired, in the way that I had treated her son. They then asked ‘Why did you embrace him in such a manner and say what you did?’. Umar bin Abdul Aziz replied ‘There is not even one person amongst the Banu Hashim who hasn’t been given the rights of intercession, I desire to attain intercession through this boy.
 Al Duratul Baydha fi Manaqib Fatima al-Zahra (sa), Page 57

It is indeed unfortunate that whilst a later Khaleefa who the Sunnis grade as on par with the Rightly Guided Khalifa’s afforded Sayyid’s respect because he felt that this is what Sayyida Fatima (as) and would comply with the Hadeeth of the Prophet (s) the first Khaleefa has a complete disregard to this Hadeeth, and in fact passes a judgement that opposes her desire!

The verdict on those that displease Sayyida Fatima (as)

We read in Sahih al Bukhari Volume 5 Hadeeth 61 the verdict of Rasulullah (s):

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

Modern day Sunni scholar Dr Tahir al Qadri in ‘Al Durr’athul Baydh fee Manaqib Fatima al Zahra (as)’ page 60-61:

Hadhrath ‘Ali [r] narrated that Rasulullah (s) said to Fatima ‘Verily Allah is displeased at your displeasure, and is pleased at your pleasure”
 Al Duratul Baydha fi Manaqib Fatima al-Zahra (sa), Page 60 & 61

Qadri relied on the following esteemed Sunni works for this Hadeeth:

  1. al Mustadrak al Hakim Volume 3 page 167
  2. al Muhajjim by Qadhi Abu Ya’ala page 190
  3. A’la Jaudhoo al Mushanee by Shaybani Volume 5 page 363
  4. al Muhajjim al Kabeer by Tabrani Volume 1 page 108
  5. al Muhajjim al Kabeer by Tabrani Volume 22 page 401
  6. Al Zurryath al Tahir by Dholaby page 120
  7. Al Tadhween fee Akhbar Kadhween Volume 3 page 11
  8. Majmaa al Zawaad Volume 9 page 309
  9. Tadhkirathul Khawaas by Ibn Jauzi page 279
  10. Asadal Ghaba Volume 7 page 219
  11. Tadheeb al Tadheeb by Ibn Jajr Asqalani Volume 12 page 428
  12. Al Isaba Volume 8 page 56-57
  13. Dhukhair al Akba page 82

In this connection let us not forget the words of Allah (swt) in Surah Ahzab verse 57:

Those who annoy Allah and his Apostle Allah has cursed them in this world and in the Hereafter and has prepared for them a humiliating Punishment.
Al-Qur’an, Surah Ahzab, Ayah 57, translated by Yusufali

In the Fadak dispute Abu Bakr caused pain to Fatima (as) and he incurred her anger. One who pains her is on par with causing pain to Rasulullah (s), and such a thing is injustice towards Rasulullah (s) and his descendants, and can never benefit from the intercession of the Prophet (s) for whilst the Qur’an praises the concept of forgiveness there exist some individuals who can never benefit from forgiveness, Allah (swt ) states in Surah Munafiqoon:

It is equal to them whether thou pray for their forgiveness or not. Allah will not forgive them. Truly Allah guides not rebellious transgressors.
Al-Qur’an, Surah 63, Ayah 6, translated by Yusufali

We should also point out that Allah (swt) stipulated to Hadhrat Ibrahim (as) that the Covenant of Imamate would not was to one that is Dhaalim, hence he cannot be the Imam over the Muslims.

The final destination of those that usurped the rights of Sayyida Fatima (as), in the eyes of Rasulullah (s)

We read as follows in the English Translation of Malik’s Muwatta, Book 21: Jihad Book 21, Number 21.14.32:

Yahya related to me from Malik from Abu’n-Nadr, the mawla of Umar ibn Ubaydullah that he had heard that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said over the martyrs of Uhud, “I testify for them.” Abu Bakr as-Siddiq said, “Messenger of Allah! Are we not their brothers? We entered Islam as they entered Islam and we did jihad as they did jihad.” The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, “Yes, but I do not know what you will do after me.” Abu Bakr wept profusely and said, “Are we really going to out-live you!”

Note – In his efforts to cover up the sins of Abu Bakr, the translator has changed the words of Rasulullah (s). A key word has been omitted, the comment of Rasulullah(s) “Yes, but I do not know what you will do after me.” Should actually read “Yes, but I do not know what ‘bidah’ you will do after me.”

Let us now see the Sunni commentary of the words of Rasulullah (s) “Ishad Ilayhum’, taken from Tanveer al Lohal Sharh Muwatta Imam Malik by Allamah Suyuti Volume 1 page 307:

“Rasulullah said “I testify for them.” As their Iman was correct and they were protected from being ruined and committing sins, they were protected from change and worldly greed”.

In Wafa al Wafa Volume 3 page 931 by Allamah Nurudeen Samoudhi:

“Rasulullah stood next to the martyred bodies and said ‘These are my Sahaba in whose favour I shall testify to on the Day of Judgement’. Abu Bakr said ‘Are we not Sahaba?’ Rasulullah(s) said ‘Yes but I do not know of your deeds after me, it is established that these people left the World empty handed’.

The followers of the Sahaba are fond of citing the esteemed rank of Abu Bakr, but he himself asked Rasulullah (s) to testify to his Iman, his rank bore no benefit, since Rasulullah (s) knew that he would act unjustly towards his beloved daughter, so he flatly refused to testify to his Iman. Allah (swt) does not forgive those that pain Sayyida Fatima (as) and as evidence we shall cite the following esteemed Sunni works:

  1. Sahih al Bukhari Volum8 Hadeeth 578 Bab al Haud
  2. Sahih al Muslim Volume2 page 282 Bab al Haud
  3. Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal Volume 3 page 351 Dhikr Abdullah ibn Abbas
  4. Sunan Nasai Volume 4 page 114 (Delhi); Dhikr al Bas
  5. Mishkaat al Masabih pages 487-488 (Delhi);
  6. Tafseer Kazaan Volume 7 page 451 (Beirut);
  7. Tafseer Fathul Qadeer Volume 6 page 490 (Egypt);
  8. Tafseer Durre Manthur Volume 6 page 400 (Egypt);
  9. Tafseer Ruh al Maani page 244 (Egypt).

Sahih Bukhari, Hadeeth: 8.578:

Narrated ‘Abdullah:
The Prophet said, “I am your predecessor at the Lake-Fount”. ‘Abdullah added: The Prophet said, “I am your predecessor at the Lake-Fount, and some of you will be brought in front of me till I will see them and then they will be taken away from me and I will say, ‘O Lord, my companions!’ It will be said, ‘you do not know what they did after you had left.’

Ummul Momineen Umm Salma (ra) narrates in al Istiab Volume 3 page 390 and Kanz al Ummal Volume 6 page 67 that:

“Amongst my Sahaba are some that I do no wish to look at, and after my death they shall not see me”.

Commenting on this Hadeeth Deobandi scholar Shaykh ul Hadeeth Hadhrat Sarfaraz Khan Safdar states in Izalath al Rahab page 398;

“These are those individuals that recited the Shahada before Rasulullah (s) and after him became murtad (apostates), this includes later generations that became murtad and the people of Bidah”

For further details one can consult Sharh Nawawi Volume 1 page 129.

We read in Musnad and Nasai:

“Rasulullah (s) said some people from my Ummah will be brought before me and sent to Hell, I will state ‘O Allah! These are my Sahaba’ The reply will be ‘You do not know of the innovations they introduced after you, since you left them they became apostates”

To get a clearer understanding of the words ‘Zaat al Shamil’ in this tradition we shall cite the comments from “Hasheeya Imam al Sindhi bhar Nasai Volume 4 page 118:

“Zaath al Shamil’ means they shall be thrown into Hell”


Those who will be taken away from the Cistern will be those Sahaba that perpetuated injustice against the daughter of the Prophet (s) by preventing her from inheriting her father’s property. Coining a fabricated tradition ‘Our property will not be inherited, whatever we (i.e. prophets) leave is Sadaqah (to be used for charity)’ – led to Imam ‘Ali (as) deeming Abu Bakr ‘a liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest’.

If only those that attack the Shi’a bothered to inspect their books. They accuse the Shi’a of attacking the Sahaba, what can we say of your justice, when Bukhari, Nasai, Muslim and Ibn Hanbal recorded traditions wherein the Sahaba were deemed Murtads, you deem them your Imams. When the innocent Shi’a quote these comments or criticise those that subjected Sayyida Fatima (as) to injustice, then the Fatwas of Takfeer are immediately issued!

Those that were unjust to Sayyida Fatima (as) shall appear on the Day of Judgement devoid of light on their faces

We read in Musnad Ibn Hanbal Volume 12 page 128, (printed Egypt) under the Chapter Musnad Abdullah bin Umro bin Aas:

Abdullah narrates at that time of the sun rising I was sitting next to Rasulullah (s) who said ‘Allah (swt) shall raise a people with a leader on The Day of Judgement whose faces shall shine like the sun. Abu Bakr said ‘O Rasulullah (s) are we those people?’ He replied ‘No these are the poor and the Muhajireen are famous on the Earth’.

The Ahl’ul Sunnah deem Abu Bakr as the most superior amongst the Sahaba, when this great figures face shall not be illuminated on the Day of Judgement, then the situation of the other members of this party who aided injustice against the daughter of the Prophet will dawn upon them. Abu Bakr usurped the legal right of Sayyida Fatima (as) which led to Imam ‘Ali (as) grading the Khalifa as ‘a liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest’. We have proven from Hadeeth that the truth and the Qur’an is with ‘Ali (as), is the Great Truthful one and purified in the Qur’an. Shah Abdul Aziz stated that ‘the Ahl’ul Sunnah deem Hadhrat ‘Ali (as) as protected’, the words of Hadhrat ‘Ali (as) are so damning that they make the Hadeeth presented by Abu Bakr false, and make any virtues he possessed null and void. Anyone that Hadhrat ‘Ali (as) deems a liar is also a liar in the eyes of Allah (swt) and his Prophet (s).

The Qur’an makes it clear that an unjust person cannot be a Khalifa

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

Those that have incurred Allah (swt)’s wrath are Dhaalim and cannot be deemed as Imams

“Ghayr al-Mughdhoobe alayhim wa ladh-Dhualeen”

Every Momin who prays five times a day makes this supplication at least 17 times a day before Allah (swt) ‘Guide us to the Right Path…Allow us to follow the footsteps of those that have not unuttered Your wrath’ we have honestly analysed the Qur’an and Sunnah and have concluded that theses words in Surah Fateha place a prohibition on accepting Abu Bakr as an Imam, since Abu Bakr incurred the wrath of the daughter of Rasulullah (s). Those that believe in the truthfulness of Prophet Muhammad (s), and deem his every word as true, are reminded his words recorded in Sahih al Bukhari Volume 5 Hadeeth 61:

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

This Hadeeth makes it clear that Sayyida Fatima (as)’s anger is on par with the anger of Rasulullah (s). This is all the more significant when we recognize that one who incurs the wrath of Rasulullah (s) also incurs the wrath of Allah (swt), and Allah (swt) makes it clear in Surah Fateha that we should steer clear of those that incur the wrath of Allah (swt). If our opponents believe (as is in Sharh Fiqh Akbar) that the Prophet’s parents and Uncle are Kaafirs and this belief does not make them criminals under the Shari’ah then their should be no objection if we believe that the Father in Law has incurred the Wrath of Allah.


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 →