2. Tijani’s condemnation of Abu Bakr on the issue of Fadak

BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents

 

2. Tijani’s condemnation of Abu Bakr on the issue of Fadak

 

Tijani’s rant against Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu is far from over. This time the charge against Abu Bakr is that he caused grief to the daughter of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. Tijani opens his arguments with the following statements:

 

I also recall the chain of events that took place after the death of the Messenger of Allah, and the hurt and lack of recognition that afflicted his daughter al Zahra. The Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said, “Fatimah is part of me, he who angers her angers me.”

Fatimah said to Abu Bakr and Umar: I ask you in the name of Allah – the Most High – did you not hear the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam saying, “The satisfaction of Fatimah is my satisfaction, and the anger of Fatimah is my anger, he who loves my daughter Fatimah loves me, and he who satisfies Fatimah satisfies me, and he who angers Fatimah angers me?” They said, “Yes, we heard it from the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.” Then she said, “Therefore, I testify before Allah and the angels that you have angered me and did not please me, and if I meet the Prophet I will complain to him about you.”

Let us leave this tragic story for the time being, but Ibn Qutaybah, who is considered to be one of the great Sunni scholars, and was an expert in many disciplines and wrote many books on Qur’anic commentary. Hadith Linguistics, grammar and history might well have been converted to Shiism, as somebody I know once claimed when I showed him Ibn Qutaybah’s book “History of the Caliphs.”

This is the type of propaganda that some of our scholars use when they lose the argument. Similarly al Tabari was a Shi’ite, and al Nisa’i, who wrote a book about the various aspects of Imam Ali, was a Shiite, and Taha Hussain, a contemporary scholar who wrote “Al Fitnah al Kubra” and other facts, was also a Shi’ite!

The fact is that all of these were not Shiites, and when they talked about the Shia, they said all sorts of dishonourable things about them, and they defended the fairness of the Companions with all their might.[1]

 

Refuting Tijani’s condemnation of Abu Bakr on the issue of Fadak

In the preamble to this discussion Tijani has cautiously cloaked his allegations in a smokescreen of deliberate misdirection and embellished them with a series of straw man arguments. This strategy is aimed at keeping one busy with secondary discussions thereby distracting one from focusing on the fallacy in the primary argument. The esteemed reader would have noticed that in his opening comments on this issue Tijani has asserted the following:

  • Abu Bakr’s position on the issue of Fadak was unjustified
  • The hadith ‘Fatimah is a part of me…’ is connected to Fadak
  • Abu Bakr and ‘Umar acted in their own interests and were well aware of the hurt they caused to Fatimah by denying her inheritance
  • Ibn Qutaybah is a celebrated authority whose opinions are unquestionably accepted
  • Ibn Qutaybah accepts a version of events that is similar to the views promoted by the Shia
  • The narration from Ibn Qutaybah is credible and worthy of acceptance
  • To avoid dealing with problematic views, Sunni’s conveniently resort to the strategy of disowning their own scholars who hold views which align with the Shia
  • Many Sunni scholars support the Shia narrative of what transpired regarding the inheritance of Fadak
 

Some of the points Tijani raised in the preamble will resurface with greater detail later on in his discussion. Our comments on these allegations will not necessarily follow the sequence above. Instead, our responses will address the arguments that Tijani raises in support of his allegations as they appear in his discussion.

There are a few questions that one ought to keep in mind. When did the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam say, “Fatimah is a part of me. I am hurt by what hurts her”? To whom was this said? Is this an unrestricted criterion of judgement?

 

Ibn Qutaybah

The narration which serves as the foundation upon which Tijani’s argument lies is the one which speaks of Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha complaining about Abu Bakr and ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma. He transmitted it from the book al Imamah wa al Siyasah. This book is known by an alternate name, Tarikh al Khulafa’, and is attributed to Ibn Qutaybah. The onus is upon Tijani to prove the reliability of this narration since there is no isnad for it; nor is it found in any of the reliable books of hadith. As far as we are concerned it has absolutely no academic value, and is by no means reliable since there is no objective way of establishing how it was transmitted.

Before proceeding we need to establish the credentials of Ibn Qutaybah and the status of his book al Imamah wa al Siyasiyah, or Tarikh al Khulafa’.

‘Abdullah ibn Muslim ibn Qutaybah, Abu Muhammad al Dinawari (213-276) was born in Kufah, Iraq, and lived in the East. He served as a judge in Dinawar. He was considered a polymath who wrote on diverse topics including tafsir, fiqh, hadith, grammar, history, theology and philosophy. He was well-known for his contributions to Arabic literature as well as his work on reconciling conflicting hadith titled Ta’wil Mukhtalif al Hadith.

Opinions regarding him varied in the subjects of hadith and theology. Al Dhahabi said:

The man is not an authority in hadith even though he is an accomplished scholar who was grounded in diverse disciplines and skilled at important subjects.[2]

 

Ibn Qutaybah has a respected position amongst the scholars. He is, according to them, from the Ahlus Sunnah and reliable in his knowledge and his din.

Al Silafi says, “Ibn Qutaybah was of the reliable scholars and of the Ahlus Sunnah.”

Ibn Hazm says, “He was reliable in his din and his knowledge.”

Ibn Taymiyyah says, “Ibn Qutaybah was of those who subscribed to Ahmed, and Ishaq, and the supporters of the famous schools of the Ahlus Sunnah.”[3]

 

Al Imamah wa al Siyasah

There remains the issue of the book al Imamah wa al Siyasah, or Tarikh al Khulafa’; what is its status and is it correctly ascribed to Ibn Qutaybah?

If the book is proven to be spuriously ascribed to Ibn Qutaybah the entire argument of Tijani collapses since this narration is at the heart of his argument. If the book is falsely ascribed to ibn Qutaybah it stands to reason that it has been authored by an anonymous author. If we have no idea about who the author of this book is, it is absolutely certain that the material in the book cannot be relied upon. Therefore, every argument that is supported by this narration is to be disregarded.

Ibn Qutaybah was a renowned scholar and many scholars have compiled biographical notes about him, as well as an index of his works. None of Ibn Qutaybah’s biographers have mentioned the book al Imamah wa al Siyasah among his works. The only books attributed to him in the subject of history are Kitab al Maarif and Tarikh Ibn Qutaybah.[4]

Ibn Qutaybah is not known to have travelled; in fact he never left Baghdad except for Dinawar.[5]There are passages in the book al Imamah wa al Siyasah which are inconsistent with all his other works. These passages infer that he travelled to Damascus and transmitted from its scholars. How is it possible for him to have transmitted from the scholars of Damascus when he had restricted himself to the East? Why is there no indication of these details in all his other works?

The content of al Imamah wa al Siyasah contradicts many accepted facts; even details Ibn Qutaybah himself attests to. We present the following example of a contradiction of fact; he mentions under the section titled, ‘‘Ali’s refusal to give Abu Bakr his pledge’:

 

Then ‘Ali was brought to Abu Bakr saying, “I am the slave of Allah and the brother of His Messenger!” When it was said to him, “Give your pledge to Abu Bakr,” he replied, “I have more right to this matter (the position of Caliphate). I will not give my pledge. It is more appropriate that you give your pledge to me!”[6]

 

Besides these, the book al Imamah wa al Siyasah contains an abundance of clear historical mistakes. For example, he speaks of Abu al ‘Abbas and al Saffah as if they were two separate individuals; whereas Abu al ‘Abbas al Saffah is one person. He also makes Harun al Rashid the direct successor of al Mahdi. Also, he asserts that Harun al Rashid entrusted the Caliphate to his son al Ma’mun (first) and after him to his (other) son al Amin. When we review Ibn Qutaybah’s Kitabal Maarif he provides us with accurate accounts about al Saffah and Harun al Rashid, contradicting what the author of al Imamah wa al Siyasah stated.[7] The factual and historical contradictions in al Imamah wa al Siyasah with Ibn Qutaybah’s other works are too obvious to ignore.

The methodology and style of the author of al Imamah wa al Siyasah is completely inconsistent with that of Ibn Qutaybah in his other books. Ibn Qutaybah is famous for lengthy introductions wherein he outlines his methodology and the purpose behind the compilation; whereas the introduction to al Imamah wa al Siyasah does not exceed three lines. We have not seen this in any of Ibn Qutaybah’s other works.[8]

What is also noticeable from the book al Imamah wa al Siyasah is that the author does not pay much attention to structure and flow of ideas in his writing. He mentions a narration, then another, then returns later to complete the first. This haphazard, jumbled style is inconsistent with Ibn Qutaybah’s other works which are distinguished by their excellent structure and flow.

From the book one gets the impression that the author is relating the conquest of Andalus directly from some contemporaries as it was occurring. It is well-known that the conquest of Andalus occurred during the year 92 A.H, close to 120 years before the birth of Ibn Qutaybah.

The narrations in al Imamah wa al Siyasah show Ibn Qutaybah to have directly transmitted from Ibn Abi Layla. Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al Rahman ibn Abi Layla was a famous jurist and judge in Kufah, who died in the year 148 A.H; whereas Ibn Qutaybah was only born in the year 213 A.H. How is it possible for him to have heard hadith from a teacher who passed away 65 years before he, Ibn Qutaybah, was born?[9]

Ibn Qutaybah’s teachers, whom he usually transmits from in all his other works, are completely absent throughout al Imamah wa al Siyasah.[10] Furthermore, the author of al Imamah wa al Siyasah narrates from transmitters whom Ibn Qutaybah has never narrated from in any of his other books, such as Abu Maryam and Ibn ‘Ufayr.[11] The author of al Imamah wa al Siyasah narrates from two senior scholars of Egypt. Ibn Qutaybah never visited Egypt and never took knowledge from any of its scholars.

If one considers all these inconsistencies, flaws, and contradictions, it becomes increasingly evident that the book al Imamah wa al Siyasah is indeed a forgery and falsely ascribed to Ibn Qutaybah. Even the Orientalists examined the origins of this book and they all came to the same conclusion; that it is impossible to ascribe it to Ibn Qutaybah.[12]

 

Sunni’s denouncing their scholars

Tijani claims to have experienced a tendency with the Ahlus Sunnah, whenever they are presented with a problematic statement of one of their own scholars, from which they have no escape, they simply claim the scholar was a Shia.

Tijani indirectly gives the impression that his arguments are so convincing that he is nearly invincible in a debate scenario. He could have saved the Shia scholars a great deal of grief and spared the rise of Sunni-Shia sectarian violence.

The life of Ihsan Ilahi Zahir, who was brutally assassinated by the Shia, could have been spared if Tijani had intervened. Incapable of responding to his arguments, the Shia resorted to assasination. An explosive device was placed beneath the stage he was speaking from and sadly he was killed in the blast in 1987.

Similarly, when Ahmed al Kasrawi, originally a Shia, stood up to refute their false claims with proofs and evidences in defense of the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah[13] the Shia had him shot. He did, however, recover after undergoing an operation. After his recovery, they raised a complaint to him and he was invited to verify the matter. However, at the last of those meetings in the year 1324 A.H he was shot once more, and attacked with a dagger. He died shortly thereafter with more than twenty nine wounds found on his body.[14]

Let us return to Tijani’s statement:

This is the type of propaganda that some of our scholars use when they lose the argument. Similarly al Tabari was a Shi’ite, and al Nisa’i, who wrote a book about the various aspects of Imam Ali, was a Shiite …

 

Our comment:

I would like to pause for a moment and reflect on this statement of Tijani. When he says ‘our scholars’, is he saying this as a Sunni or a Shia? If he says it as a Shia I would have to agree with him on two counts.

 

Shia propaganda tactics

Firstly, in our interactions with the Shia we have noticed their propaganda strategy wherein they give the innocent target the impression that so many Sunni scholars were actually Shia, or became Shia. These are some of the very names that they use, “Did you know that al Nasa’i was a Shia? Did you know that ‘Abd al Razzaq was a Shia? One of the first scholars to compile a textbook on the sciences of hadith, al Hakim al Naysapuri, was a Shia…”

Secondly, when the Sunni’s quote from reliable books of the Shia, the Shia desperately denounce their own scholars when they are at a loss for answers. Due to the length of this section, and it not being the core argument, I will merely present one such example where the Shia denounce their own scholars due to their inability to answer the incriminating evidence found in his book. Take the case of Ibn Abi al Hadid al Mada’ini[15], the author of Sharh Nahj al Balaghah. When the Shia are presented with quotations from his book the most convenient exit strategy is to say, “He was a Sunni.” How are they going to explain away the glowing praise for him by numerous Shia scholars; the likes of al Khawansari[16] and al Majlisi?[17] Not only did they praise him, but they acknowledged him as a committed Shia with excessive attachment to the Noble household.

 

Meaning of Shia

Getting back to my original comment; when Tijani says ‘our scholars’ does he refer to Sunni scholars? Unfortunately this description lacks credibility. Perhaps it is necessary to clarify something which is oftentimes confusing to many, be they from Ahlus Sunnah or the Shia.

The term Shia lexically means a group or partisans. Technically it refers to those who aligned themselves with ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib radiya Llahu ‘anhu and considered themselves his partisans. The term Shia, however, is very comprehensive and covers a broad spectrum of applications. On one end of the spectrum it refers to one with an extra attachment to ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu; whereas the other end includes those who deify him. The term Shia, therefore, is very encompassing and the common feature in all described with Tashayyu[18] is their attachment to ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib radiya Llahu ‘anhu.

On the other hand there is another term used frequently, Rafidah. Lexically, it is the plural of the word Rafidi, which means one who rejects or abandons. Technically it refers to an extreme brand within the spectrum of Shia where the status of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu cannot be accepted without rejecting Abu Bakr and ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma. Therefore every Rafidi is a Shia, but not every Shia is necessarily a Rafidi.

The Twelver Shia, also called Imamiyyah or Jafariyyah, are considered Rafidah[19]. However, due to this brand of Shi’ism being the largest in number and the most politicised since the Safavid invasion in Persia; and due to the proselytizing in the wake of the 1979 Iranian Revolution; the term Shia evolved and is almost exclusively associated with this brand of extreme Shi’ism.

Hence we find people often applying the restricted modern application of this term to the comprehensive usage of it in the classical period of Islamic history. Therefore, a person called a Shia in former times might have been someone who fought alongside ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu against Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu, or favoured ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu over Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu during the Fitnah, but this person would condemn the beliefs which later formed into Twelver Shi’ism.

If one is able to distinguish the diverse usage of this term, it will clarify much of the confusion that has resulted out of applying a modern conventional usage of a term to interpret a history where that term has been applied comprehensively.

Hassan ibn Musa al Nawbakhti, a theologian of the Twelver Shia said that cursing Abu Bakr and ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma was not found amongst the early partisans of ‘Ali and that the first person to spread cursing was the Jew, ‘Abdullah ibn Saba’. He says:

He was amongst those who spread cursing of Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthman, and the rest of the Sahabah and dissociation from them.[20]

 

Sadly this dishonest strategy of exploiting the public’s confusion in this matter has been employed by many Shia scholars and preachers before Tijani. I would like to remind the reader once again about Tijani’s pledge of objectivity and impartiality.

 

Were al Tabari and al Nasa’i Shia?

The list of Sunni scholars who are said to be Shia is very long. Tijani has alluded to al Tabari and al Nasa’i. There might have been a few isolated statements by these scholars which might have resulted in some scholars claiming that they had a tinge of Tashayyu in them.

Let us take the case of al Nasa’i. Al Nasai said to his student:

 

When I entered Damascus I found many people who were against ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu, so I wrote ‘Khasa’is Ali’ (on the Virtues of ‘Ali) hoping that Allah will guide them through this book.

Then I (al Nasa’i) was asked, “Why don’t you write on the virtues of Muawiyah ra (specifically, as he already collected ahadith with praise of Sahabah in general which include Muawiyah)?”

He replied, “What should I write for him? Should I write the hadith which states: ‘May Allah not fill his belly.’?”[21]

 

At first glance this might be interpreted as a very slight form of Shi’ism.

What will we say when we see what al Nasa’i had to say about Muawiyah? When questioned about specific authentic ahadith, al Nasa’i had nothing to offer. However, when considering the status of companionship in Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu this is what al Nasa’i had to say:

 

Indeed Islam is like a home with a door. The door of Islam is the Companions. So whoever causes harm to the Companions in essence wishes to cause harm to Islam just as one who knocks at the door intends to enter that home. As for those who seek out Muawiyah, they only want to get to the Companions.[22]

 

Compare this to the belief of those who condemn Abu Bakr for carrying out the instruction of Allah’s Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam in regards to Fadak!

As for Taha Hussain, I have no reason to comment since his writings indicate that he held heretical beliefs. By no definition is he considered from the Ahlus Sunnah. It serves no purpose to bring up a twentieth century literary critic, who was not remotely considered from the fraternity of Sunni scholarship; unless the motive is to mislead an innocent reader by employing ancient Shia propaganda strategies.

 

Tijani goes on to say:

 

Let us return to the incident mentioned by Ibn Qutaybah in which Fatimah allegedly was angered by Abu Bakr and Umar. If I doubt the authenticity of that story, then I could not doubt the authenticity of al Bukhari’s book, which we consider to be the most correct book after the Book of Allah. As we have committed ourselves to the fact that it is correct, then the Shiites have the right to use it in their protestation against us and force us to keep to our commitment, as is only fair for sensible people. In his book, al Bukhari writes in a chapter entitled “The virtues of the relatives of the Messenger of Allah” the following: The Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said, “Fatimah is part of me, and whoever angers her angers me.” Also in a chapter about “The Khaybar Raid” he wrote: According to Aishah, Fatimah- may Allah’s peace be upon her – daughter of the Prophet, sent a message to Abu Bakr asking him for her share of the inheritance of the Messenger of Allah, but he refused to pay Fatimah anything of it. Fatimah became so angry at Abu Bakr that she left him and never spoke to him before her death.

The final result is one, al Bukhari mentioned it briefly and Ibn Qutaybah talked about it in some detail, and that is: the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam is angry when Fatimah is angry, and he is satisfied when Fatimah is satisfied, and that she died while she was still angry with Abu Bakr and Umar.

If al Bukhari said: She died while she was still angry at Abu Bakr, and did not speak to him before she died, then the end result is quite clear. If Fatimah is “the leading lady among all the ladies” as al Bukhari declared in the section al Isti’dhan, and if Fatimah is the only lady in this nation whom Allah kept clean and pure, then her anger could not be but just, therefore Allah and His Messenger get angry for her anger. Because of that Abu Bakr said, “May Allah – the Most High – save me from His anger and Fatimah’s anger.” Then he cried very bitterly when she said, “By Allah, I will curse you in every prayer that I do.” He came out crying and said, “I do not need your pledge of allegiance and discharge me from my duties.”… Furthermore, before she died, she asked to be buried secretly, and at night, so that none of them could be present at her funeral.[23]

 

Our comment:

Tijani has linked the narration attributed to Ibn Qutaybah with the narrations found in al Bukhari. He argues for the condemnation of Abu Bakr based on the hadith where the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam says, “I am hurt by what hurts her…” He also insinuates that withholding the distribution of the Prophet’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam wealth after his demise is a crime worthy of rebuke. He stresses on the point of Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha departing from this world whilst she was still angry with Abu Bakr and refused to speak to him until her death.

 

Hadith of causing harm to Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha

Previously we had suggested that the reader reflect when this hadith was mentioned, in what context and about whom. If we ignore the context then the hadith is subject to wanton interpretation, and misleading application. Let us examine the context in which the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said these words.

Al Bukhari narrates:

 

عن المسور بن مخرمة قال سمعت رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم يقول وهو على المنبر أن بني هشام بن المغيرة استأذنوا في أن ينكحوا ابنتهم علي بن أبي طالب فلا آذن ثم لا آذن ثم لا آذن إلا أن يريد ابن أبي طالب أن يطلق ابنتي وينكح ابنتهم فأنما هي بضعة مني يريبني ما أرابها ويؤذيني ما أذاها

Miswar ibn Makhrimah radiya Llahu ‘anhu said, “I heard the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam saying while on the minbar, ‘Indeed, Banu Hisham ibn al Mughirah sought permission (from me) to marry their daughter to ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib. I do not grant them permission! I do not grant them permission! I do not grant them permission! Except if ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib divorces my daughter and marries their daughter. She is a part of me, what alarms her alarms me and what hurts her hurts me.”[24]

 

Muslim also narrates this hadith with the same wording from Miswar ibn Makhrimah in his Sahih.[25]

It appears that this hadith was said in rebuke of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu. The corollary to Tijani’s arguments against Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu is that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu deserves the same level of criticism since he hurt her by seeking the hand of the daughter of Abu Jahl. If hurting Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha is a sin, is ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu still infallible? Was ‘Ali acting on the instruction of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam or was it a personal interest that he pursued? Was ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu accorded the latitude of repentance? If ‘Ali could repent from a proposal, which was a personal matter which caused harm to Fatimah, surely Abu Bakr is in a greater position for repentance since he did not act in his personal interest but in fulfilment of the command of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.

Objectivity and impartiality demand equal treatment in this matter. Whatever reason is given to exonerate ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu applies even greater to Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu since he had nothing to gain from his actions.

 

Hadith of ‘Aisha

If Tijani even bothered to refer to Sahih al Bukhari and find this hadith then he sacrificed all claims to objectivity when he chose only to present the portion of it which he believed served his purpose. If he did not refer to the original text in Sahih al Bukhari but relied on what he read in the books of the Shia, then he has disappointed us by breeching our trust and going against his pledge to us.

Here I am obliged to transmit the hadith of ‘Aisha radiya Llahu ‘anha in its entirety so that it may become clear to the objective reader, who seeks the truth.

 

‏عن ‏‏عائشة ‏أن‏ ‏فاطمة بنت رسول الله ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم‏ ‏أرسلت إلى ‏ ‏أبي بكر الصديق ‏تسأله ميراثها من رسول الله ‏‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏‏مما ‏أفاء‏ ‏الله عليه ‏‏بالمدينة ‏‏وفدك‏ ‏وما بقي من‏ ‏خمس‏ ‏خيبر فقال‏ ‏أبو بكر‏ ‏إن رسول الله ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم‏ ‏قال ‏لا نورث ما تركنا صدقة إنما يأكل آل ‏محمد ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏في هذا المال وإني والله لا أغير شيئا من صدقة رسول الله ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم‏ ‏عن حالها التي كانت عليها في عهد رسول الله‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏‏ولأعملن فيها بما عمل به رسول الله ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏فأبى ‏أبو بكر ‏أن يدفع إلى ‏فاطمة ‏شيئا‏ ‏فوجدت ‏‏فاطمة ‏على ‏أبي بكر ‏في ذلك قال فهجرته فلم تكلمه حتى توفيت وعاشت بعد رسول الله ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ستة أشهر فلما توفيت دفنها زوجها ‏علي بن أبي طالب ‏ليلا ولم ‏يؤذن ‏بها ‏أبا بكر ‏وصلى عليها ‏علي‏ ‏وكان ‏لعلي ‏من الناس وجهة حياة‏ ‏فاطمة ‏فلما توفيت استنكر ‏علي‏ ‏وجوه الناس فالتمس مصالحة ‏أبي بكر ‏ومبايعته ولم يكن بايع تلك الأشهر فأرسل إلى ‏أبي بكر ‏أن ائتنا ولا يأتنا معك أحد كراهية محضر‏ ‏عمر بن الخطاب ‏‏فقال ‏عمر ‏‏لأبي بكر ‏‏والله لا تدخل عليهم وحدك فقال ‏‏أبو بكر ‏‏وما عساهم أن يفعلوا بي إني والله لآتينهم فدخل عليهم ‏أبو بكر‏ ‏فتشهد ‏علي بن أبي طالب‏ ‏ثم قال إنا قد عرفنا يا ‏أبا بكر‏ ‏فضيلتك وما أعطاك الله ولم ‏ننفس ‏عليك خيرا ساقه الله إليك ولكنك ‏ ‏استبددت‏ ‏علينا بالأمر وكنا نحن نرى لنا حقا لقرابتنا من رسول الله ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏فلم يزل يكلم‏ ‏أبا بكر ‏حتى ‏‏فاضت ‏عينا‏ ‏أبي بكر ‏‏فلما تكلم ‏‏أبو بكر ‏قال والذي نفسي بيده لقرابة رسول الله ‏‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏أحب إلي أن أصل من قرابتي وأما الذي شجر بيني وبينكم من هذه الأموال فإني لم آل فيها عن الحق ولم أترك أمرا رأيت رسول الله ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏‏يصنعه فيها إلا صنعته فقال ‏ ‏علي‏ ‏لأبي بكر‏ ‏موعدك العشية للبيعة فلما صلى ‏أبو بكر ‏‏صلاة الظهر رقي على المنبر فتشهد وذكر شأن ‏ ‏علي ‏‏وتخلفه عن البيعة وعذره بالذي اعتذر إليه ثم استغفر وتشهد ‏ ‏علي بن أبي طالب ‏‏فعظم حق ‏أبي بكر ‏وأنه لم يحمله على الذي صنع ‏نفاسة ‏ ‏على ‏أبي بكر ‏ولا إنكارا للذي فضله الله به ولكنا كنا نرى لنا في الأمر نصيبا فاستبد علينا به ‏ ‏فوجدنا ‏في أنفسنا فسر بذلك المسلمون وقالوا أصبت فكان المسلمون إلى‏ ‏علي ‏قريبا حين راجع الأمر المعروف

‘Aisha narrates that Fatimah, the daughter of the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, sent someone to Abu Bakr to ask him for her share of the Messenger’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam estate from what Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala gave him in Madinah, and Fadak, and what was left from the fifth of the income (annually received) from Khaybar.

Abu Bakr said, “The Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said, ‘We, the Prophets, do not have any heirs; what we leave behind is given in charity. The household of the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam will eat from this wealth (revenue generated from properties).’ By Allah, I will not alter the charity of the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam from the condition it was in during his time. I will do the same with it as the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam used to do.”

Abu Bakr, therefore, refused to hand over anything to Fatimah, who became upset with him for this reason.

He (the narrator) said, “She avoided him and did not talk to him until the end of her life. She lived for six months after the death of the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. When she died, her husband, ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib, buried her during the night and did not inform Abu Bakr and offered the funeral prayer over her himself.

During the lifetime of Fatimah, ‘Ali received (special) regard from the people. After she died, he sensed disaffection in the faces of the people towards him. He, therefore, sought to make peace with Abu Bakr and offer his allegiance to him. He had not yet (publicly) given his allegiance to him as khalifah during the previous months. He sent for Abu Bakr to come and see him and to come alone not wanting the presence of ‘Umar (at this meeting). ‘Umar said (to Abu Bakr), ‘Do not go alone,’ but Abu Bakr replied, ‘What do you think they will do to me? I am going to them!’

Abu Bakr went to them and ‘Ali testified to the oneness of Allah and said, ‘Indeed, we know your virtue and what Allah has given you and we were not jealous of any good which Allah has steered in your direction. However, you acted independently on the matter (of Caliphate) and surprised us and we thought ourselves worthy of a portion (an opinion) in the matter on account of our relationship with the Messenger of Allah.’

(‘Ali spoke) until tears flowed from Abu Bakr. When Abu Bakr spoke he said, ‘By the One Who has control of my life, to maintain good ties with the relatives of the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam is more beloved to me than maintaining good ties with my own relatives. As for what has transpired between you and me concerning this wealth, (Fadak and the inheritance of the Messenger), I have not deviated from the right course and I have not given up doing what the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam used to do with it.’

‘Ali then said to Abu Bakr, ‘I will meet you this afternoon for the (public) pledge of allegiance.’ (Later that afternoon) when Abu Bakr had completed his Zuhr Salah he ascended the minbar, read the tashahhud, extolled ‘Ali’s virtues and mentioned the excuse ‘Ali gave him for delaying his pledge and sought Allah’s forgiveness. (Then) ‘Ali read the tashahhud, highlighted the right of Abu Bakr and told (the people) that it was not jealousy of Abu Bakr or denial of what Allah preferred him with that caused him to do what he did (referring to postponement of his pledge). Rather, (he said), “We felt that we had a portion in this matter but it was taken despite us (without our consultation) and for that reason we were upset.” The Muslims were pleased with that (his speech and explanation) and said, “You have done the right thing.” The Muslims felt closer to ‘Ali after he took that position.[26]

 

Muslim also narrates this hadith in his Sahih from ‘Aisha radiya Llahu ‘anha with the same wording.[27]

Let us consider some of the details covered by this narration.

It is evident from this narration that the monetary rights of the Ahlul Bayt were fulfilled by Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu from the alms of Madinah Munawwarah, the income of Fadak, and the booty of Khaybar during his Caliphate. However, these assets were not handed over to them and distributed in the form of inheritance due to the edict of the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.

Furthermore, it is also understood that Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu did not use his own discretion in fulfilling their monetary rights and hence did not expropriate their rights. Rather, he fulfilled them exactly as the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam did when he was alive.

This narration also establishes that he gave preference to the Ahlul Bayt in (maintaining relations with them, being loyal to them and fulfilling their rights) over himself and his family.

Another point to be noted is that there was no objection from ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu to Abu Bakr’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu policy regarding the wealth left behind by the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam; nor in the manner in which the wealth was been administered.

The Rafidah are known to deny ‘Ali’s pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr. Since Tijani has ‘committed’ to accept this narration he has to acknowledge that the pledge of allegiance took place indeed.

As for Abu Bakr not giving Fatimah the inheritance, these are the reasons:

The Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said:

مَا نُورَثُ مَا تَرَكْنَا صَدَقَةٌ

We are not inherited from. What we leave behind is a charity

 

Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthman, ‘Ali, Talhah, Zubair, Sa’d, ‘Abd al Rahman ibn ‘Awf, ‘Abbas, Abu Hurairah and the wives of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam all narrate this hadith. The transmission of this hadith is established in the Sihah and the Masanid. There is, therefore, without doubt, an Ijma (consensus) of the Sahabah upon it (the implication of this hadith). Abu Bakr practising upon the bequest of the Messenger cannot be blameworthy.

There are also other authentic ahadith which support this fact. Al Bukhari narrates in his Sahih from Abu Hurairah radiya Llahu ‘anhu that the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said:

لا يقتسم ورثتي دينارا ما تركت بعد نفقة نسائي ومؤونة عاملي فهو صدقة

My heirs will not share a dinar. What I leave behind, after the expenses of my wives and the salaries of my workers, is a charity. [28]

 

Abu Dawood narrates in his Sunan in a portion of the hadith of Abu Darda’ radiya Llahu ‘anhu that the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said:

وإن العلماء ورثة الأنبياء وإن الأنبياء لم يورثوا دينارا ولا درهما ورثوا العلم فمن أخذه أخذ بحظ وافر

And indeed the scholars are the heirs of the Prophets’, and the Prophets’ did not leave behind a dinar or a dirham, rather they left behind knowledge; so whoever takes it has taken a huge portion.[29]

 

How can a person be censured for acting on the hadith of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam?

This last hadith is not exclusively found in the books of Ahlus Sunnah. The celebrated Shia scholar al Kulayni quotes it in al Usul min al Kafi.

Al Kulayni narrates in his Usul, in the chapter concerning the reward of the alim (the learned scholar) and the mutaallim (the student) — from ‘Ali ibn Ibrahim — from his father — from Hammad ibn ‘Isa — from al Qaddah — from Abu ‘Abdullah (al Sadiq), he said:

 

The Messenger said, “Whoever treads a path seeking in it knowledge, Allah takes him on a path to Jannat. Indeed the angels lower their wings for the student of knowledge out of satisfaction with him and the inhabitants of the heaven and earth, even the fish in the ocean, pray for the forgiveness for the student of knowledge. The superiority of the ‘alim over the abid (worshipper) is like the superiority of the moon—on the night of the full moon—over all of the stars. Indeed, the scholars are the heirs of the Prophets’ and the Prophets’ did not leave behind a dinar or a dirham but they left behind knowledge. The one who takes therefrom has taken a great portion.”[30]

 

Did Abu Bakr intend to harm Fatimah?

Abu Bakr did not claim this wealth for himself or for his family. He was not of the beneficiaries of this charity. The consequence of withholding the distribution of this inheritance included his daughter, ‘Aisha radiya Llahu ‘anha. Likewise he did not distribute it among any of the wives of the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. If Abu Bakr denied the right of Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha then he was indiscriminate since he gave nothing to his own daughter.

Al Bukhari and Muslim narrate from ‘Urwah—from ‘Aisha radiya Llahu ‘anha that after the Prophet’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam demise his wives considered sending ‘Uthman to Abu Bakr to ask for their inheritance. Then ‘Aisha radiya Llahu ‘anha said, did the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam not say:

مَا نُورَثُ مَا تَرَكْنَا صَدَقَةٌ

We are not inherited from. What we leave behind is a charity.[31]

 

Abu Bakr gave ‘Ali and his family control of the wealth which the Prophet left behind and ‘Umar did the same. If they intended to cause harm, why hand over the administration of the revenue from these properties to the Prophet’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam family?

Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu ensured Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha of her financial security. Abu Hurairah radiya Llahu ‘anhu narrates:

 

جات فاطمة إلى ابي بكر فقالت من يرثك ؟ قال أهلي وولدي قالت فما لي لا أرث ابي ؟ فقال ابو بكر سمعت رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم يقول لا نورث ولكني أعول من كان رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم يعوله وأنفق على من كان رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم ينفق عليه

Fatimah came to Abu Bakr and said, “Who will inherit from you?” He said, “My family and my children.” She said, “Why is it then that I do not inherit from my father?” Abu Bakr replied, “I heard the Messenger saying, ‘We are not inherited from’, but I will support those whom the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam used to support, and I will spend upon those whom the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam spent upon.”[32]

 

Abu Bakr is among those who spent his wealth during the lifetime of the Prophet, is it conceivable that he would harm the Prophet’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam daughter by withholding her wealth?

Ibn ‘Abbas and Abu Hurairah radiya Llahu ‘anhuma narrate that the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said, “No one’s wealth has benefited as Abu Bakr’s wealth has benefited me.”[33]

Abu Hurairah radiya Llahu ‘anhu reported Allah’s Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam as saying:

 

If anyone contributes a pair of anything for the sake of Allah, he would be invited to enter Paradise (with these words), “O servant of Allah, it is good (for you).” Those who engage in prayer will be invited to enter by the gate of prayer; those who take part in Jihad will be invited to enter by the gate of Jihad; those who give charity will be invited to enter by the gate of charity; and those who observe fast will be invited to enter by the gate al Rayyan.

Abu Bakr said, “O Messenger of Allah, is it necessary that a person be invited through only one of these gates? Will anyone be invited to enter by all those gates?”

The Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said, “Yes, and I hope you will be one of them.”

 

It must be known that Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu loved the family of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam dearly and respected them. It is for this reason that he said:

والله لقرابة رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم أحب الي أن أصل من قرابتي

By Allah! To maintain a good relationship with the family of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam is more beloved to me than to maintain a good relationship with my own family.[34]

 

ارقبوا محمدا صلى الله عليه و سلم في أهل بيته

Honour Muhammad through his family.[35]

 

Now, after presenting the reasons for Abu Bakr’s position, is it acceptable to attack him, accuse him of harming and angering Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha, and oppressing her of her right? I leave it to the fair and objective reader to decide.

 

Relationship between Abu Bakr and Fatimah

It would be prudent to clarify a few points which might linger in the mind of the esteemed reader concerning Fatimah’s radiya Llahu ‘anha anger towards Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu over the inheritance, and her burial at night.

The scholars of the Ahlus Sunnah confirm that the position which is in line with the dictates of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam is the one taken by Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu. Therefore, they have sought out plausible explanations for her reactions which are in line with the lofty status of Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha.

Bear in mind that Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha in no way resembles the Munafiqin about whom Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala says:

 

وَمِنْهُمْ مَنْ يَّلْمِزُكَ فِي الصَّدَقَاتِ فَإِنْ أُعْطُوْا مِنْهَا رَضُوْا وَإِنْ لَمْ يُعْطَوْا مِنْهَا إِذَا هُمْ يَسْخَطُوْنَ (58) وَلَوْ أَنَّهُمْ رَضُوْا مَا اٰتَاهُمُ اللّٰهُ وَرَسُوْلُهُ وَقَالُوْا حَسْبُنَا اللّٰهُ سَيُؤْتِيْنَا اللّٰهُ مِنْ فَضْلِه وَرَسُوْلُه إِنَّا إِلَى اللّٰهِ رَاغِبُوْنَ

And among them are some who criticise you concerning the [distribution of] charities. If they are given from them, they approve; but if they are not given from them, at once they become angry. If only they had been satisfied with what Allah and His Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam gave them and said, “Sufficient for us is Allah; Allah will give us of His bounty, and [so will] His Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam; indeed, we are desirous toward Allah,” [it would have been better for them].[36]

 

As a matter of fact, those who insist that she was upset because of not receiving her wealth are inadvertently likening her to the Munafiqin who became angry when they were not given wealth even when it was Allah’s command.

There are two approaches by which the scholars have clarified this issue. The first approach is based on the methods of the Fuqaha’. This is how they deal with this objection:

 

Despite Abu Bakr’s argument based on the hadith (as his proof), it was because she understood the hadith differently to Abu Bakr. It is as if she believed that there was an exception to the rule when it came to the Prophet’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam statement, “We are not inherited from,” and that there was no harm in inheriting from the land and property which Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam left behind, whereas Abu Bakr held on to the general meaning of the hadith. They therefore differed in a matter which allows for difference in interpretation. When he Abu Bakr persisted in his position, she avoided him.[37]

 

Imam al Nawawi says in Sharh Sahih Muslim:

 

As for what he mentioned about Fatimah’s avoidance of Abu Bakr, it refers to her withdrawing from meeting him and it is not the forbidden hijran which refers to not greeting the person and turning away from him in a gathering.

His words in the hadith, “She did not speak to him,” means she did not speak to him concerning this matter, or because of her withdrawal she did not request anything from him and was not compelled to meet him and speak to him. It has not been narrated that they met and she did not greet him and did not speak to him.[38]

 

The alternate method is in keeping with the method of the Muhaddithin. In this particular issue it appears that the method of the Muhaddithin seems more likely.

The scholars have listed all the narrations from ‘Aisha radiya Llahu ‘anha and compared the various versions of the hadith. They have concluded that the expressions Ghadab (anger), Wajd (disillusionment), Hijran (avoidance) and Adam al Takallum (not wanting to talk), are not part of the actual narration. Instead it is the assumption of the narrator who, in his narration had added his understanding of the situation. If one goes back to the narration, the entire episode of anger and not speaking to Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu appears after the words, ‘He said’[39]. Upon investigation it became evident which narrator was most likely responsible for providing his understanding of events while narrating this hadith. It appears to be Imam Muhammad ibn Muslim ibn Shihab al Zuhri.

It is stated regarding al Zuhri, that he had a habit of explaining the hadith wherein he would add explanatory notes or his opinions to the hadith. At times he would add these notes by means of words and phrases that would make them distinct from the actual hadith and at times without doing so.

If we take either the interpretation on the method of the Fuqaha’ or the hadith-based explanation, there is evidence to suggest the anger was not permanent, nor was it merely for the sake of wealth. This is further supported by what is related by Imam Ahmed in his Musnad with an interrupted chain:

Jafar ibn ‘Amr ibn Umayyah said, “Fatimah entered upon Abu Bakr and said, ‘The Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam told me that I will be the first of his household to meet him.’”[40]

 

Al Bayhaqi narrates from Sha’bi:

Abu Bakr visited Fatimah and ‘Ali said to her, “It is Abu Bakr seeking permission to see you.”

She said to him, “Would you like me to grant him permission?”

He replied, “Yes,” and she permitted him to enter.

Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu entered and spoke to her until she was pleased.

 

Even if this hadith is mursal (ends with the Tabi’i) its sanad leading to Sha’bi is authentic and with it the confusion concerning Fatimah’s avoidance of Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu is resolved.[41]

 

Al Suyuti says:

The mursalat (plural of mursal) of Sha’bi are authentic according to the leaders in knowledge of hadith criticism. ‘Ijli says, “The mursal of Sha’bi is authentic. When he narrates a mursal hadith it is almost always authentic.”[42]

 

Tijani’s citation of the narration falsely ascribed to Ibn Qutaybah in the book Tarikh al Khulafa’ is clearly a lie and forgery. This narration, which includes the statement of Abu Bakr, reads, “I seek refuge by Allah from his anger and your anger, O Fatimah,” then Abu Bakr’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu crying until he nearly died and his statement, “I do not need your pledge. Discharge me from my pledge (office).” By comparing this narration with the other narrations we have further advanced our earlier argument. It is also proof that Tijani’s linking the narration ascribed to Ibn Qutaybah with the narration in al Bukhari is flawed since the disparity between the two narrations is too great to be ignored.

Thus we come to see the fallacy in this statement of his:

 

The final result is one, al Bukhari mentioned it briefly and Ibn Qutaybah talked about it in some detail, and that is: the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam is angry when Fatimah is angry, and he is satisfied when Fatimah is satisfied, and that she died while she was still angry with Abu Bakr and Umar.

 

Then Tijani says:

 

Many of our historians and scholars admit that Fatimah – may Allah’s peace be upon her – challenged Abu Bakr in many cases such as the donations, the inheritance and the shares of the relatives, but her challenge was dismissed, and she died angry at him. However, our scholars seem to pass over these incidents without having the will to talk about them in some detail, so that they could as usual, preserve the integrity of Abu Bakr. One of the strange things that I have read regarding this subject, is what one of the writers said after he had mentioned the incident in some detail: God forbid that Fatimah should claim something that does not rightly belong to her, and God forbid that Abu Bakr denied her rights.

The writer thought that through this weak reasoning, he would be able to solve the problem and convince the researchers. He appears to be saying something similar to the following: God forbid that the Holy Qur’an should say anything but the truth, and God forbid that the sons of Israel should worship the calf. We have been plagued with scholars who say things that they cannot comprehend, and believe in the object and its antithesis, simultaneously. The point is that Fatimah claimed and Abu Bakr dismissed her claim, so she was either a liar – God forbid – or Abu Bakr treated her unjustly. There could be no third solution for the case, as some of our scholars would wish.[43]

 

Our comment:

Tijani is being dishonest when he accuses the scholars of the Ahlus Sunnah of overlooking the issue of Fadak. If anything, our comments in the previous paragraphs indicate the abundance of literature on this topic. Ibn Taymiyyah clarified this matter in his invaluable work, Minhaj al Sunnah al Nabawiyyah[44]. Likewise, Ibn Hajar explained the meaning of the hadith in his commentary of al Bukhari, Fath al Bari. Al Nawawi, also explained this hadith in his commentary on Sahih Muslim, as mentioned previously. Let us not forget the book Tuhfah al Ithna al Ashariyyah of Shah ‘Abd al ‘Aziz al Dehlawi and its abridged version by Mahmud Shukri al Alusi. Other scholars who have commented on the subject include Mubarakpuri and the martyr, Ihsan Ilahi Zahir.[45]

For a moment let us forget the scholars of the Ahlus Sunnah. Let us see what the ‘infallible’ Imams had to say. Ibn Abi al Hadid the Shia commentator of Nahj al Balaghah[46] writes:

 

Kathir al Nawa’ states that he asked Imam Muhammad al Baqir, “May my life be sacrificed upon you please tell me, ‘Did Abu Bakr and ‘Umar usurp your rights?’”

Imam Muhammad al Baqir replied, “I take an oath in that being who has revealed the glorious Qur’an upon his slave they have not usurped our rights not even to the extent of a mustard seed.”

I further inquired, “Should I love them or disassociate myself from them?”

Imam Muhammad al Baqir said, “Love them in this world and in the Hereafter. I am responsible if you happen to incur harm because of loving them.”

He then said, “May Allah curse Mughirah and Bannan for ascribing such lies to us, the Ahlul Bayt.”[47]

  1. This statement of Imam Muhammad al Baqir proves that Abu Bakr did not oppress the Ahlul Bayt.
  2. Abu Bakr and ‘Umar fulfilled all the rights of the Ahlul Bayt and had not usurped any of them.
  3. Imam Muhammad al Baqir encouraged love and veneration for Abu Bakr and ‘Umar.
  4. The narrations portraying them to be oppressors and usurpers are fabrications of the likes of Mughirah ibn Sa’id and Bannan, confounded liars
 

Ibn Abi al Hadid cites the following narration in Sharh Nahj al Balaghah:

Zaid ibn ‘Ali ibn al Hussain said, “By Allah, if I were given the option of administering these funds I would adopt the same method as Abu Bakr.”[48]

 

Ibn Abi al Hadid stated further in Sharh Nahj al Balaghah:

Abu Bakr would grant them enough to satisfy their needs from the revenue of Fadak and would distribute the rest among the poor. ‘Umar had done the same after him, and so had ‘Uthman and ‘Ali.[49]

 

Tijani’s reasoning for the infallibility of Fatimah

 

Logical reasoning and traditional proofs prevent the Mistress of Ladies from being accused of lying, due to the confirmation of her father (s) in his saying: “Fatimah is a part of me, and whoever hurts her hurts me.” Hence, intuitively, whoever lies does not deserve this kind of statement (of honour) by the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. Therefore, the saying itself is a clear indication of her infallibility. The purification verse from the Holy Qur’an is another indication of her infallibility, and it was revealed in her honour and the honour of her husband and her two sons, as Aishah herself testified. Hence, there is nothing left for sensible people but to accept the fact that she was unjustly treated, and that she was easy to be branded a liar by somebody who was willing to let her burn unless the remaining people in her house came out to vote for him.

Because of all of that, she – may Allah’s peace be upon her – refused entry to Abu Bakr and Umar when they asked her permission. Even when Ali allowed them to enter, she turned her face to the wall and refused to look at them.

Furthermore, before she died, she asked to be buried secretly, and at night, so that none of them could be present at her funeral, and to this day, the grave of the Prophet’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam daughter is unknown.

I would like to ask why our scholars remain silent about these facts, and are reluctant to look into them, or even to mention them. They give us the impression that the Companions are like angels, infallible and sinless.[50]

 

Refuting Tijani’s reasoning for the infallibility of Fatimah

Tijani’s claims are beginning to evolve. His condemnation of Abu Bakr is no longer limited to linking the issue of Fadak with the hadith of hurting Fatimah. The abundance of ahadith supporting the position of Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu are too many to deny. Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha, therefore, has to be elevated to a status by virtue of which anyone who disagrees with her must be in error. It is absolutely necessary for her to be proven infallible. Otherwise, how is Tijani going to deal with the mutawatir (mass transmitted) ahadith on the Prophets not being inherited? What answer has he produced to the fact that all the Khalifas subsequent to Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu, including ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu, made no changes to the manner in which the assets were being administered, and revenue being distributed? How is he going to deal with the statements of al Baqir and Zaid ibn ‘Ali which endorse the actions of Abu Bakr?

Tijani’s objectivity, which amounts to defending a preconceived idea; despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, demands that Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha be infallible. His attempt to prove her infallibility is based on the following sequence:

  • It is impossible for her to lie. Here he is insinuating that the position taken by the Ahlus Sunnah necessitates that she was a liar.
  • It was impossible for her to lie because of the hadith stating that hurting Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha causes hurt to the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.
  • This hadith, therefore proves, that she is infallible.
  • Her infallibility is also proven from ‘The verse of Purification’.

True to the fish-and-chips tradition of free salt, pepper, and a napkin; Tijani has thrown in a few free red herrings from his own side.

  • Abu Bakr threatened to burn down the house of Fatimah.
  • She refused him entry. When he entered she turned her face away from him in protest.
  • She requested to be buried at night so that they could not attend her funeral.
  • Scholars from the Ahlus Sunnah refuse to discuss this issue.
  • The Companions of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam are portrayed as angels by the Ahlus Sunnah, despite their alleged oppression on the ‘infallible’ daughter of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.

Our responses will not follow the exact sequence above. However, we aim to pay attention to the core allegations. Some of the objections raised by Tijani have already been adequately dealt with and his repetition of the same argument does not make it free from fallacy.

The Ahlus Sunnah have never said that Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha was a liar. If it is a crime to question the position of Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha on any matter of Fiqh, and the accusation is that one accuses her of lying, what will be said about a hadith narrated by Jafar ibn Muhammad (al Sadiq) who relates from his father Muhammad ibn ‘Ali (al Baqir), who said:

 

We came to Jabir and asked him about the Hajj of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. He told us that the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said, “Had I known when I set out what I know now, I would not have brought the Hady (sacrificial animals) with me and I would have made it ‘Umrah. Whoever does not have a Hady with him, let him remove Ihram and make it ‘Umrah,”

‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu, came from Yemen with Hady and the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam brought Hady from al Madinah. Fatimah had put on a dyed garment and applied kohl to her eyes, and he (‘Ali) said, “I went to the Prophet to complain about that and enquire (whether he permitted her to do so) I said, ‘O Messenger of Allah, Fatimah had put on a dyed garment and applied kohl to her eyes, and she said, the Messenger of Allah told me to do that.’ He said, ‘She is telling the truth, she is telling the truth, I told her to do that.’”[51]

 

If it was impossible for her to lie, why did ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu have to clarify the matter with the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam? The Ahlus Sunnah do not claim that it was impossible for her to lie. No doubt it was possible, but it was her fear of Allah and her scrupulousness that prevented her from ever stating a mistruth.

 

Hadith of hurting Fatimah and infallibility

Logical reasoning and traditional proofs prevent the Mistress of Ladies from being accused of lying, due to the confirmation of her father (s) in his saying: “Fatimah is a part of me, and whoever hurts her hurts me.” Hence, intuitively, whoever lies does not deserve this kind of statement (of honour) by the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. Therefore, the saying itself is a clear indication of her infallibility.

 

Let us take a moment to reflect on Tijani’s argument for the infallibility of Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha. It is impossible for Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha to lie because the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said, “Fatimah is a part of me, I am hurt by what hurts her.” Since she does not lie, she must be infallible. Is there any relationship between it being impossible to lie and the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam saying “Fatimah is a part of me…”? How does this lead to infallibility? Honestly, does the esteemed reader see any logical reasoning in this?

If Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha were infallible, why is it that the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam made her the example for carrying out prescribed punishments? It is an indictment on the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam that he use an example of an individual who is infallible since he salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam would be describing an impossible scenario.

‘Aisha radiya Llahu ‘anha narrates:

 

The Quraysh were very concerned about the case of a woman from the Makhzum tribe who had committed theft. They wondered who should intercede for her with the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. It was suggested that Usamah ibn Zaid intercede due to the Prophet’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam love for him. Usamah spoke to him about that matter and the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said to him, “Do you intercede when one of the legal punishments ordained by Allah has been violated?” Then he got up and addressed the people saying, “The nations before you were ruined because when a noble person amongst them committed theft, they would leave him, but if a weak person amongst them committed theft, they would execute the legal punishment on him. By Allah, if Fatimah, the daughter of Muhammad, were to commit the theft, I would have cut off her hand!”[52]

 

We would expect much more convincing evidence to argue the case of infallibility.

If ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu is infallible, as Tijani is going to argue later, how does one reconcile the fact that an ‘infallible’ caused hurt to another ‘infallible’ when he proposed for the daughter of Abu Jahl. The pain that the first ‘infallible’ caused to the second ‘infallible’ resulted in the undisputed infallible, the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, to be upset. The case for infallibility is definitely not in this hadith.

 

Tijani and the verse of purification

Tijani says:

The purification is another proof of her infallibility as it was revealed concerning her and her husband and her two sons, as Aishah herself testifies

 

Our response:

The verse of purification that he is referring to appears in Surah al Ahzab. In this verse Allah speaks about removing the impurity, and purification of Ahlul Bayt. The expression Ahlul Bayt is comprehensive. The context of the verses reveals to us that the Quranic address is towards the wives of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. Tijani claims that this verse applies exclusively to ‘Ali, Fatimah, Hassan and Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhum. Let us study the verse in question, along with the verses which precede it and those which follow it. Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala says:

 

يَا نِسَاءَ النَّبِيِّ مَنْ يَّأْتِ مِنْكُنَّ بِفَاحِشَةٍ مُّبَيِّنَةٍ يُّضَاعَفْ لَهَا الْعَذَابُ ضِعْفَيْنِ وَكَانَ ذَلِكَ عَلَى اللّٰهِ يَسِيْرًا وَمَنْ يَّقْنُتْ مِنْكُنَّ لِلّٰهِ وَرَسُوْلِهوَتَعْمَلْ صَالِحًا نُؤْتِهَا أَجْرَهَا مَرَّتَيْنِ وَأَعْتَدْنَا لَهَا رِزْقًا كَرِيْمًا يَا نِسَاءَ النَّبِيِّ لَسْتُنَّ كَأَحَدٍ مِّنَ النِّسَاءِ إِنِ اتَّقَيْتُنَّ فَلَا تَخْضَعْنَ بِالْقَوْلِ فَيَطْمَعَ الَّذِيْ فِيْ قَلْبِهمَرَضٌ وَقُلْنَ قَوْلًا مَعْرُوْفًا . وَقَرْنَ فِيْ بُيُوْتِكُنَّ وَلَا تَبَرَّجْنَ تَبَرُّجَ الْجَاهِلِيَّةِ الْأُوْلٰى وَأَقِمْنَ الصَّلَاةَ وَآتِيْنَ الزَّكَاةَ وَأَطِعْنَ اللّٰهَ وَرَسُوْلَهإِنَّمَا يُرِيدُ اللّٰهُ لِيُذْهِبَ عَنْكُمُ الرِّجْسَ أَهْلَ الْبَيْتِ وَيُطَهِّرَكُمْ تَطْهِيْرًا وَاذْكُرْنَ مَا يُتْلٰى فِيْ بُيُوْتِكُنَّ مِنْ آيَاتِ اللّٰهِ وَالْحِكْمَةِ إِنَّ اللّٰهَ كَانَ لَطِيْفًا خَبِيْرًا

O wives of the Prophet, whoever of you should commit a clear immorality—for her the punishment would be doubled two fold, and ever is that, for Allah, easy. And whoever of you devoutly obeys Allah and His Messenger and does righteousness—We will give her reward twice; and We have prepared for her a noble provision. O wives of the Prophet, you are not like anyone among women. If you fear Allah, then do not be soft in speech [to men] lest he in whose heart is disease should covet, but speak with appropriate speech and abide in your houses and do not display yourselves as [was] the display of the former times of ignorance. And establish salah and give zakat and obey Allah and His Messenger. Allah intends only to remove from you the impurity [of sin], O people of the [Prophet’s] household, and to purify you with [extensive] purification. And remember what is recited in your houses of the verses of Allah and wisdom. Indeed, Allah is ever Subtle and Acquainted [with all things].[53]

 

The verse is clearly addressing the Prophet’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam wives. The instruction, the prohibition, the promise and the threat is directed at them. That being said, we do not restrict these verses to the Prophet’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam wives. We believe that the entire Ahlul Bayt is included on account of the general nature of the verse. ‘Ali, Fatimah, Hassan, and Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhum are included by virtue of the Prophet’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam supplication for them.

The term Ahlul Bayt certainly applies to the wife of a person, and there is no indication from the Arabic language, nor from the Prophetic usage of this term that excludes the wives.

Al Bukhari narrates in his Sahih from ‘Abd al Rahman ibn Abi Layla, he said:

 

سألنا رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم فقلنا يا رسول الله كيف الصلاة عليكم أهل البيت فإن الله قد علمنا كيف نسلم عليكم؟ قال ( قولوا اللهم صل على محمد وعلى آل محمد كما صليت على إبراهيم وعلى آل إبراهيم إنك حميد مجيد اللهم بارك على محمد وعلى آل محمد كما باركت على إبراهيم وعلى آل إبراهيم إنك حميد مجيد

We asked the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, “Allah has taught us how to say salam upon you, O Messenger of Allah, but how do we say the salat (singular of salawat) upon you and your household?”

The Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said, “Say, ‘O Allah send salat upon Muhammad and the family of Muhammad as you sent salat upon Ibrahim and the family of Ibrahim, indeed You are Praiseworthy, Honourable. O Allah bless Muhammad and the family of Muhammad as you blessed Ibrahim and the family of Ibrahim, indeed you are Praiseworthy, Honourable.’”[54]

 

There is no doubt that the ‘Ahlul Bayt’ intended (in the above hadith) are his wives and his progeny as is clarified in the hadith narrated in Sahih al Bukhari from ‘Amr ibn Salim al Zuraqi, who related that the Sahabah said:

 

يا رسول الله كيف نصلي عليك؟ فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم قولوا اللهم صل على محمد وأزواجه وذريته كما صليت على إبراهيم وبارك على محمد وأزواجه وذريته كما باركت على آل إبراهيم إنك حميد مجيد

“O Messenger of Allah, how do we send salat upon you?”

The Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said, “Say, ‘O Allah, send salat upon Muhammad and his wives and his progeny as you sent salat upon Ibrahim and bless Muhammad and his wives and his progeny as you blessed Ibrahim, indeed you are Praiseworthy, Honourable.’”[55]

 

It is narrated in a lengthier hadith related by Anas in al Bukhari:

 

فخرج النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم فانطلق إلى حجرة عائشة فقال السلام عليكم أهل البيت ورحمة الله فقالت وعليك السلام ورحمة الله فتقرى حجر نسائه كلهن يقول لهن كما يقول لعائشة

The Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam came out (one day) and went to ‘Aisha’s room and said, “Greetings upon you, Ahlul Bayt, and the mercy of Allah.”

She replied, “And upon you greetings and the mercy of Allah…”

He then went to all of his wives and said to them what he said to ‘Aisha.[56]

 

Who constitute the Ahlul Bayt? Muslim narrates in his Sahih from Yazid ibn Hayyan that the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said:

 

وأهل بيتى أذكركم الله فى أهل بيتى أذكركم الله فى أهل بيتى أذكركم الله فى أهل بيتى.فقال له حصين ومن أهل بيته يا زيد أليس نساؤه من أهل بيته قال نساؤه من أهل بيته ولكن أهل بيته من حرم الصدقة بعده قال ومن هم قال هم آل على وآل عقيل وآل جعفر وآل عباس قال كل هؤلاء حرم الصدقة قال نعم

(The Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said,) “And my household, I remind you about my household, I remind about you my household, I remind you about my household.”

Hussain (the narrator transmitting the hadith from the Sahabi) enquired, “Who makes up his household, O Zaid (Ibn Arqam, the Sahabi narrating the hadith)? Are his wives not part of his household?”

Zaid radiya Llahu ‘anhu said, “His wives are from his household. However, his household are (also) those persons whom the sadaqah (charity) is prohibited upon after him.”

Hussain asked, “Who are they?”

Zaid replied, “The family of ‘Ali, the family of ‘Aqil, the family of Jafar and the family of ‘Abbas.”

Hussain asked, “Is the charity forbidden for all of them?”

Zaid replied: “Yes.”[57]

 

Lexically, the word ‘Ahl’ includes wives. Al Fayruzabadi says:

 

Ahl al Amr (lit. people of the matter) refers to its governors, in relation to the house it refers to its inhabitants, in relation to a madh-hab it refers to those who ascribe to it. For the (ordinary) man his wife is like his family, for the Prophet it is his wives his daughters, his son in law, ‘Ali…[58]

 

Ibn Manzur says:

 

Ahlul Bayt refers to the inhabitants of the house, the family of the man, and the closest people to him. The Ahlul Bayt of the Prophet refers to his wives, his daughters, and his son in law, ‘Ali… it has been said that it refers to the wives of the Prophet…[59]

 

Similarly, the usage of the word “ahl” in the Qur’an applies to the wives. Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala says:

 

إِذْ قَالَ مُوْسٰى لِأَهْلِه إِنِّيْ اٰنَسْتُ نَارًا سَاٰتِيْكُمْ مِّنْهَا بِخَبَرٍ

[Mention] when (Prophet) Musa said to his family [his wife], “Indeed, I have perceived a fire. I will bring you from there information.”[60]

 

قَالَتْ مَا جَزَاءُ مَنْ أَرَادَ بِأَهْلِكَ سُوءًا إِلَّا أَنْ يُسْجَنَ…

She said, “What is the recompense of one who intended evil for your Ahl (wife) but that he is imprisoned…”[61]

 

The person making the above statement is Zulaykha, the wife of the ‘Aziz, according to all of the mufassirin. Also, Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala says:

 

فَأَنْجَيْنَاهُ وَأَهْلَهُ إِلَّا امْرَأَتَهُ

So we saved him and his family, except for his wife.[62]

 

The word illa (except) is a device of exception (adat al istithna) which means his wife was part of his family but was excluded for the reason that is known by all.

Even the Shia Quranic commentaries indicate that the word “Ahl” refers to the wives.

‘Ali al Qummi says in his commentary of the words (of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala):

 

فَلَمَّا قَضٰى مُوْسَى الْأَجَلَ وَسَارَ بِأَهْلِه

And when (Prophet) Musa had completed the term and was traveling with his family.[63]

When the year came to an end (Prophet) Musa ‘alayh al Salam took his wife, and Shu’ayb provided provisions for him, and he took his livestock… Shu’ayb said to him, “Go! Allah has selected you.” He then drove his livestock and left (Madyan) heading for Egypt. When he reached a desert strip of land, his family with him, an intense coldness, and darkness and wind came over them and the darkness covered them. Musa ‘alayh al Salam saw a fire that had become apparent as Allah says, “And when Musa had completed the term and was traveling with his family…”[64]

 

Abu ‘Ali al Tabarsi says in the commentary of Allah’s subhanahu wa ta ‘ala words:

 

إِذْ قَالَ مُوْسٰى لِأَهْلِه

[Mention] when Musa said to his family.

This is concerning Musa when he said to his family, his wife, the daughter of Shu’ayb.[65]
 

He (al Tabarsi) repeats at his commentary of the words:

 

إِذْ رَأٰى نَارًا فَقَالَ لِأَهْلِهِ امْكُثُوْا

When he saw a fire and said to his family, “Stay here…”[66]

His statement, “to his family,” she is the daughter of Shu’ayb. He married her in Madyan…[67]

 

If we take all of this into consideration the term Ahlul Bayt includes the wives. There is nothing in the verse that proves the infallibility of Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha or anyone else, for the following reasons:

Firstly, the hadith of ‘Aisha radiya Llahu ‘anha that Tijani alluded to, in which she said:

 

خرج النبى صلى الله عليه وسلم غداة وعليه مرط مرحل من شعر أسود فجاء الحسن بن على فأدخله ثم جاء الحسين فدخل معه ثم جاءت فاطمة فأدخلها ثم جاء على فأدخله ثم قال إِنَّمَا يُرِيدُ اللّٰهُ لِيُذْهِبَ عَنْكُمُ الرِّجْسَ أَهْلَ الْبَيْتِ وَيُطَهِّرَكُمْ تَطْهِيرًا

The Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam came out wearing a blanket made of black hair with patterns on it. Hassan came and he entered him under it. Thereafter, Hussain came and he entered him under it. Then Fatimah came and he entered her into it and ‘Ali came and he entered him into it as well and said, “Allah intends only to remove from you the impurity [of sin], O people of the [Prophet’s] household, and to purify you with [extensive] purification.”[68]

 

The hadith is clearly a supplication from the Messenger for Allah to remove impurity from them and to purify them. If they were infallible, what was the point of the supplication? On the other hand, if they were in need of purification and the removal of impurity what claim do they have to infallibility?

Allah addresses the participants at Badr, reminding them that He removed impurity from them as well.

 

إِذْ يُغَشِّيْكُمُ النُّعَاسَ أَمَنَةً مِّنْهُ وَيُنَزِّلُ عَلَيْكُمْ مِنَ السَّمَاءِ مَاءً لِيُطَهِّرَكُمْ بِهِ وَيُذْهِبَ عَنْكُمْ رِجْزَ الشَّيْطَانِ وَلِيَرْبِطَ عَلىٰ قُلُوبِكُمْ وَيُثَبِّتَ بِهِ الْأَقْدَامَ

[Remember] when He overwhelmed you with drowsiness [giving] security from Him and sent down upon you from the sky, rain by which to purify you and remove from you the evil [suggestions] of Satan and to make steadfast your hearts and plant firmly thereby your feet.[69]

 

Allah purified the believers in general when He said:

 

مَا يُرِيدُ اللّٰهُ لِيَجْعَلَ عَلَيْكُمْ مِنْ حَرَجٍ وَّلَكِنْ يُّرِيْدُ لِيُطَهِّرَكُمْ وَلِيُتِمَّ نِعْمَتَه عَلَيْكُمْ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَشْكُرُوْنَ

Allah does not intend to make difficulty for you, but He intends to purify you and complete His favour upon you that you may be grateful. [70]

 

Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala informs us in the above verse that He intends to purify His slaves and complete His favour upon them as a mercy from Him. He does not mention anything about making them infallible. This verse is similar to the previous one with no difference (in meaning).

What is there to indicate that Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha was infallible? The verse of ‘Purification’ is general and applies to the wives of the Prophet, and the rest of the Ahlul Bayt. The hadith indicates that the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam supplicated for the purification of Hassan, Hussain, ‘Ali, and Fatimah. If they were primarily intended by the verse what need was there of the Prophet to supplicate for their purification? The concept of purification does not entail infallibility since the participants of Badr were purified, as are the rest of the believers.

 

Tijani’s emotional outburst

Tijani’s deficit of convincing evidence has compelled him to tread the path of emotion. He believes that fabricated narrations which are loaded with emotion will win the sympathy of the reader. He has the forged book ascribed to ibn Qutaybah as collateral. He draws attention away from the liabilities in his reasoning and suggests they focus on the brutality of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma. Little does he realize that this fabricated narration portrays ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu as a defenseless coward; such is the nature of forgeries!

Tijani says:

 

Hence, there is nothing left for sensible people but to accept the fact that she was unjustly treated, and that she was easy to be branded a liar by somebody who was willing to let her burn unless the remaining people in her house came out to vote for him.

Because of all of that, she – may Allah’s peace be upon her – refused entry to Abu Bakr and Umar when they asked her permission. Even when Ali allowed them to enter, she turned her face to the wall and refused to look at them.

 

Our comment:

On the contrary, there is nothing left for sensible people but to accept that Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu treated her with kindness. The two narratives paint diametrically opposite portraits of Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu.

This is a narration from Sahih al Bukhari which portrays a kind and just Abu Bakr:

 

والله لقرابة رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم أحب الي أن أصل من قرابتي

By Allah! To maintain a good relationship with the family of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam is more beloved to me than to maintain a good relationship with my own family.[71]

 

The other is a narration in a book falsely attributed to Ibn Qutaybah and portrays a brutal Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu.

Which of the two is more accurate in its description of Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu; and which is most consistent with this statement of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, “No one’s wealth has benefited as Abu Bakr’s wealth has benefited me.”?[72]

As for the allegation of coercion in pledging allegiance, let us read what Abu Nadrah relates:

 

When the people gathered around Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu (to pledge their allegiance to him) he said, “I do not see ‘Ali?” Some men amongst the Ansar went to call ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and when he arrived Abu Bakr said to him, “O ‘Ali, the cousin of the Messenger and his son in law?”

‘Ali replied, “There is no objection O khalifah of the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, extend your hand.”

Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu extended his hand and ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu pledged his allegiance. Then Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu said, “Why is it that I do not see Zubair?” Some men amongst the Ansar went to call him and Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu said to him, “I said (to myself) the cousin of the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and his disciple (hawari)?”

Zubair replied, “There is no objection, O khalifah of the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, extend your hand,” and he pledged his allegiance to Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu.[73]

 

This is an authentic accepted narration. Compare it to what has been ascribed to Ibn Qutaybah. If they had any objection to his Caliphate they would have made this public. Zubair radiya Llahu ‘anhu was martyred at Jamal, his concerns were no secret. ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu was present at Jamal and Siffin, if he had any objection it would have been made public. This is the brave and courageous ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu that the Ahlus Sunnah know.

 

The burial of Fatimah

The matter of her requesting to be buried secretly during the night so that neither Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu nor ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu would attend her Salat al Janazah is indeed strange. Is this mentioned in the narrations; or is it the imagination of ‘objective’ minds that will spare no trouble in condemning Abu Bakr?

Tijani references the hadith to al Sahih al Bukhari. The narration, however, reads quite differently:

 

فوجدت فاطمة على أبي بكر في ذلك فهجرته فلم تكلمه حتى توفيت وعاشت بعد النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم ستة أشهر فلما توفيت دفنها زوجها علي ليلا ولم يؤذن بها أبا بكر

Fatimah became angry with Abu Bakr concerning that and avoided him and did not speak to him until she passed away. She lived for six months after the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. When she died her husband, ‘Ali, buried her during the night and did not inform Abu Bakr.

 

Is there any mention in this report that Fatimah bequeathed that she be buried at night so that Abu Bakr and ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma not be present at the Salat al Janazah?

Once again, the esteemed reader will be reminded of our discussion on the explanations of al Zuhri when narrating hadith. This narration is part of the lengthy narration by ‘Aisha radiya Llahu ‘anha which is transmitted by al Zuhri. It seems increasingly likely that this is al Zuhri’s assumption of what occurred.[74]

If the relations were soured between the Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu and the household of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu; how is it that Asma’ bint ‘Umays radiya Llahu ‘anha, the wife of Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu, was involved in the nursing of Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha during her final illness? The relationship was not limited to extended periods of nursing, but it included Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha requesting Asma’ to prepare a canopy over her bier so that the shape of her body would not be exposed during burial. Asma’ participated in washing the blessed body of Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha after her passing, as well as shrouding her. Does this speak of any animosity between Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu and the family of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu?

For the sake of fairness I will quote Shia narrations on this issue.

Abu Jafar al Tusi writes in his Amali:

‘Ali used to nurse her and Asma’ bint ‘Umays would constantly help him in seeing to her.[75]

 

Al Majlisi writes in Jila’ al Uyun:

 

‘Ali had carried out her bequest, he had himself paid attention to her nursing and Asma’ bint ‘Umays had helped him in seeing to her… Sheikh al Tusi has narrated with a reliable chain of transmission that the first bier to ever be made in Islam was the bier of Fatimah. The reason that prompted this was that when the sickness that claimed her life befell her she said to Asma’ bint ‘Umays, “O Asma’! I have become very weak and sickly and I am beginning to lose a lot of weight, is there anything that you can make for me that will cover my body from it being seen by men (after I pass away)?” She said, “I noticed the people of Abyssinia doing something during my stay there, I can do the very same for you as well if you want.” Fatimah replied in the positive. She subsequently brought planks of wood and placed them on the floor, then she asked for branches of date palms to be brought and placed them on top of those planks and thereafter covered it (the bier that she made) with material (forming a canopy like covering over the bier). She said to Fatimah, “This is what I have seen them doing in Abyssinia.” Fatimah said, “Can you make something similar to this for me as well and cover my body from the gazes of men falling upon it, Allah may save your body from the fire of Jahannam?”[76]

 

Tijani’s predisposed hatred for the Sahabah

Tijani cannot tolerate favourable mention of the Sahabah. He is enraged by the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum.

Why our scholars remain silent about these facts, and are reluctant to look into them, or even to mention them. They give us the impression that the Companions are like angels, infallible and sinless.

 

Our response:

We do not say anything more than what Allah says about them in the Qur’an:

 

كُنْتُمْ خَيْرَ أُمَّةٍ أُخْرِجَتْ لِلنَّاسِ تَأْمُرُوْنَ بِالْمَعْرُوْفِ وَتَنْهَوْنَ عَنِ الْمُنْكَرِ وَتُؤْمِنُوْنَ بِاللّٰهِ

You are the best nation produced [as an example] for mankind. You enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong and believe in Allah.[77]

 

مُحَمَّدٌ رَّسُوْلُ اللّٰهِ وَالَّذِيْنَ مَعَهٗ أَشِدَّاءُ عَلَى الْكُفَّارِ رُحَمَاءُ بَيْنَهُمْ تَرَاهُمْ رُكَّعًا سُجَّدًا يَّبْتَغُوْنَ فَضْلًا مِّنَ اللّٰهِ وَرِضْوَانًا سِيْمَاهُمْ فِيْ وُجُوْهِهِمْ مِنْ أَثَرِ السُّجُوْدِ ذٰلِكَ مَثَلُهُمْ فِي التَّوْرَاةِ وَمَثَلُهُمْ فِي الْإِنْجِيْلِ كَزَرْعٍ أَخْرَجَ شَطْأَهٗ فَآزَرَهٗ فَاسْتَغْلَظَ فَاسْتَوَى عَلٰى سُوْقِهٗ يُعْجِبُ الزُّرَّاعَ لِيَغِيْظَ بِهِمُ الْكُفَّارَ وَعَدَ اللّٰهُ الَّذِيْنَ آمَنُوْا وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ مِنْهُمْ مَّغْفِرَةً وَّأَجْرًا عَظِيْمًا

Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah; and those with him are forceful against the disbelievers, merciful among themselves. You see them bowing and prostrating [in prayer], seeking bounty from Allah and [His] pleasure. Their mark [i.e. sign] is on their faces [i.e. foreheads] from the trace of prostration. That is their description in the Torah. And their description in the Injil is as a plant which produces its offshoots and strengthens them so they grow firm and stand upon their stalks delighting the sowers – so that He [i.e. Allah] may enrage by them the disbelievers. Allah has promised those who believe and do righteous deeds among them forgiveness and a great reward.[78]

 

وَالَّذِيْنَ آمَنُوْا وَهَاجَرُوْا وَجَاهَدُوْا فِيْ سَبِيْلِ اللّٰهِ وَالَّذِيْنَ آوَوْا وَنَصَرُوْا أُولئِكَ هُمُ الْمُؤْمِنُوْنَ حَقًّا لَهُمْ مَغْفِرَةٌ وَّرِزْقٌ كَرِيْمٌ

But those who have believed and emigrated and fought in the cause of Allah and those who gave shelter and aided—it is they who are the believers, truly. For them is forgiveness and noble provision.[79]

 

لٰكِنِ الرَّسُوْلُ وَالَّذِيْنَ آمَنُوْا مَعَهٗ جَاهَدُوْا بِأَمْوَالِهِمْ وَأَنْفُسِهِمْ وَأُولئِكَ لَهُمُ الْخَيْرَاتُ وَأُولئِكَ هُمُ الْمُفْلِحُوْنَ

But the Messenger and those who believed with him fought with their wealth and their lives. Those will have [all that is] good and it is those who are the successful. [80]

 

يٰا أَيُّهَا النَّبِيُّ حَسْبُكَ اللّٰهُ وَمَنِ اتَّبَعَكَ مِنَ الْمُؤْمِنِيْنَ

O Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, sufficient for you is Allah and for whoever follows you of the believers.[81]

 

This is not what we say about the Sahabah, rather it is what the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam says:

 

يأتي على الناس زمان فيغزو فئام من الناس، فيقولون فيكم من صاحب رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فيقولون نعم‏‏ فيفتح لهم‏‏ ثم يأتي على الناس زمان فيغزو فئام من الناس، فيقال هل فيكم من صاحب أصحاب رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فيقولون نعم.فيفتح لهم، ثم يأتي على الناس زمان فيغزو فئام من الناس، فيقال هل فيكم من صاحب من صاحب أصحاب رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فيقولون نعم‏.فيفتح لهم

A time will come when crowds of people will fight in the path of Allah and they will say, “Are there amongst you those who accompanied the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam?” They will reply, “Yes,” and victory will be granted to them. Then a time will come when crowds of people will fight in the path of Allah and it will be asked, “Are there amongst you those who accompanied those who accompanied the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam?” They will reply, “Yes,” and victory will be granted to them. Then a time will come and it will be asked, “Are there amongst you those who accompanied those who accompanied the Companions of the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam?” They will reply, “Yes,” and they will be granted victory.[82]

 

لا تسبوا أصحابي فلو أن أحدكم أنفق مثل أحد ذهبا ما بلغ مد أحدهم ولا نصيفه

Do not curse my Sahabah! Indeed, if you were to spend the equivalent of Uhud in gold it would not compare to the mudd[83] of one of them, or even half of that.

 

If we defend the Companions of Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam it is because we seek to defend the dignity of Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. How could a smear campaign against the Companions of Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam not be an indictment on him? He has alerted us to this reality:

الرجل على دين خليله فلينظر أحدكم من يخالل

A man is upon the religion of his close friend. Therefore, be careful who you befriend.[84]

 

ولو كنت متخذا من أمتي خليلا لاتخذت، أبا بكر ولكن أخي وصاحبي

If I were to take a close friend I would take Abu Bakr but (he is) my brother and my Sahabi.[85]

 

The Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam remained amongst his Sahabah for a significant period of time. Did his words contradict his actions? Was his effect on mankind so dismal that the entire generation of his Companions deserted his religion immediately after his passing?

A campaign of disparagement against the Sahabah is an insult to Allah. How can one take an offensive attitude with the Sahabah after Allah praised them in the Qur’an in this manner:

 

لَقَدْ رَضِيَ اللّٰهُ عَنِ الْمُؤْمِنِيْنَ إِذْ يُبَايِعُوْنَكَ تَحْتَ الشَّجَرَةِ فَعَلِمَ مَا فِيْ قُلُوْبِهِمْ فَأَنْزَلَ السَّكِيْنَةَ عَلَيْهِمْ وَأَثَابَهُمْ فَتْحًا قَرِيْبًا.وَمَغَانِمَ كَثِيْرَةً يَأْخُذُوْنَهَا وَكَانَ اللّٰهُ عَزِيْزًا حَكِيْمًا

Certainly was Allah pleased with the believers when they pledged allegiance to you, [O Muhammad], under the tree, and He knew what was in their hearts, so He sent down tranquillity upon them and rewarded them with an imminent conquest. And much war booty which they will take. And ever is Allah Exalted in Might and Wise.[86]

 

وَالسَّابِقُوْنَ الْأَوَّلُوْنَ مِنَ الْمُهَاجِرِيْنَ وَالْأَنْصَارِ وَالَّذِيْنَ اتَّبَعُوْهُمْ بِإِحْسَانٍ رَّضِيَ اللّٰهُ عَنْهُمْ وَرَضُوْا عَنْهوَأَعَدَّ لَهُمْ جَنَّاتٍ تَجْرِيْ تَحْتَهَا الْأَنْهَارُ خَالِدِيْنَ فِيْهَا أَبَدًا ذَلِكَ الْفَوْزُ الْعَظِيْمُ

The forerunners from the Muhajirin and Ansar and those who follow them in [all] good deeds, well-pleased is Allah with them, as are they with Him. He has prepared for them, gardens under which rivers flow to dwell therein forever; that is the supreme felicity.[87]

 

Here is the statement of Muhsin al Mulk Muhammad Mahdi ‘Ali, formerly a Shia Mujtahid, whom Allah had truly guided. His journey to guidance from the Rafidi faith was a result of a deep and critical study of the status of the Sahabah as portrayed in the Qur’an versus the Shia Rafidi portrayal of Sahabah. He said:

 

The reality is that what the Shia believe concerning the noble Sahabah results in directing suspicion towards the Prophet and stirring doubts about Islam in the hearts of those who study its doctrines. That is because the one who believes concerning those who believed in the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam that they were untruthful in their belief and were unbelievers in their hearts (may Allah protect us), to the extent that they turned apostate directly after the Prophet’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam demise; such a person is unable to believe in the nubuwwah of Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. That is because if the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam had been truthful in his nubuwwah his teachings would have been effective and he would have found some who believed in him from the depths of their hearts. Also, he would have found amongst the number of people who believed (in him) a few hundreds who remained steadfast upon iman. If the Sahabah were deficient in their iman and Islam, as they (the Rafidah) claim, then who was affected with the guidance of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and what was the number of those who benefitted from his nubuwwah? If the Sahabah, besides a few, were munafiqin murtaddin (may Allah protect us) then who submitted to Islam and who benefitted from the teachings of the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and his nurturing?[88]

 

NEXT ⇒ 3. Tijani’s debates on Abu Bakr 


[1]Then I was guided, p. 113 – 114

[2] Siyar Alam al Nubala’ vol. 13 pg. 300

[3]Kitab al Imamah wa al Siyasah fi Mizan al Tahqiq al ‘Ilmi, ‘Abdullah ‘Ilan, p. 28

[4] Kitab al Imamah wa al Siyasah fi Mizan al Tahqiq al ‘Ilmi, ‘Abdullah ‘Ilan, p. 23

[5]  Op. cit, p. 23

[6]  Ibid, p. 17

[7]  Ibid

[8]  Ibid, p. 24

[9]  Ibid, p. 24

[10]  Ibid, p. 25

[11]  Ibid, 26

[12]  Ibid, p. 22-23

[13]  Refer to his book al Tashayyu’ wa al Shia

[14]  Ibid

[15] Ibn Abi al Hadid al ‘Iraqi: ‘Abd al Hamid ibn Hibat Allah ibn Muhammad ibn Muhammad ibn al Hussain, Abu Hamid, Ibn Abi al Hadid, ‘Izz al Din al Mada’ini; the man of letters, the eloquent poet, the extremist Shia. He is the author of a commentary on Nahj al Balaghah in 20 volumes. He was born at Mada’in in the year 586. Then he went to Baghdad and became one of the poets in the court of the Khalifah. He enjoyed the favour of the wazir Ibn al ‘Alqami, on account of the two of them having literature and Shi’ism in common. al Bidayah wal Nihayah, vol. 9 p. 82

[16] Rawdat al Jannat, vol. 5 pg. 19-20

[17] Bihar al Anwar, vol. 108 pg. 72-73

[18] In general Tashayyu is patronage to ‘Ali, love for him, and preferring him over all the Sahabah after Abu Bakr and ‘Umar.

Abu al Qasim al Balkhi said:

A man asked Sharik ibn ‘Abdullah ibn Abi Namir, “Who is better, Abu Bakr or ‘Ali?”

He replied, “Abu Bakr.”

The questioner said to him, “You say this and you are from amongst the Shia?”

He said, “Yes, a Shia is the one who holds this view. By Allah one day ‘Ali ascended this minbar and said, ‘Indeed, Abu Bakr is the best of this Ummah after the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, then ‘Umar.’ Should we reject his statement? Should we belie him? By Allah he was not a liar.”

See Minhaj al Sunnah, vol. 1, p. 13-14; Refer also to the book Tathbit Dala’il al Nubuwwah, Qadi ‘Abd al Jabbar al Hamdani, vol. 1, p. 549 with the research of Dr. ‘Abd al Karim ‘Uthman, published by Dar al ‘Arabiyyah, Beirut.

[19] Ibn Hajar says in the introduction of his book, Fath al Bari:

Tashayyu is love for ‘Ali and preferring him among the Sahabah. The one who prefers him over Abu Bakr and ‘Umar is extreme in his Tashayyu’ and (sometimes) the term Rafidi is applied to him, otherwise the term Shia will apply. If cursing or explicit hatred is added to that then he is extreme in his Rafd. If he believes in raj’ah then he is even more extreme (in his Rafd).

Ibn Taymiyyah says:

The word Rafidah only became widespread when they abandoned Zaid ibn ‘Ali ibn Hussain during the Caliphate of Hisham… From the time of Zaid’s rebellion the Shia have been split into Rafidah and Zaidiyyah. When he (Zaid) was asked about Abu Bakr and ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma, he prayed for Allah’s mercy upon them. Consequently, they abandoned him and he remarked, “Rafadtumuni (you have forsaken me)” and from that point on they were called the Rafidah because of their abandoning him. The person who did not abandon him of the Shia was called a Zaidi because of his (continued) allegiance to him.

Once Muhammad Taqi Lisan al Mulk, a Shia scholar, said:

When Zaid’s companions came out with him they asked him about Abu Bakr and ‘Umar. He replied, “I have nothing but good to say about them and I heard nothing but good from my family about them.” They then said to him, “You are not our companion (leader),” and abandoned him. Zaid then said, “They abandoned me today,” and from that day they were called the Rafidah…

Zaid prevented them from cursing the Sahabah and when they realised that he was not going to dissociate himself from Sheikhayn, Abu Bakr and ‘Umar, they abandoned him and split from him. After that episode this word was applied to every person who was extreme in the school and permitted the cursing of the Sahabah.

See Nasikh al Tawarikh, vol. 3, p. 590 under the statements of Zayn al ‘Abidin; Also refer to al Shia wa Ahlul Bayt of Ihsan Ilahi Zahir

[20]Firaq al Shia, al Nowbakhti, p. 23

[21] Al Dhahabi, Tadhkirat al Huffaz, vol.2 pg. 194

[22] Al Mizzi , ‘Tahdhib al Kamal’ (1/45): ‘Al Hakim has narrated with his chain to Abu al Hassan ‘Ali ibn Muhammad al Qabisi who said, ‘I heard Abu al Hassan ibn Hilal saying: Abu ‘Abd al Rahman al Nasaʾi was asked about Muawiyah ibn Abi Sufyan, the Companion of the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam…’”

[23]Then I was guided, p. 114-116

[24]  Refer to Sahih al Bukhari, Kitab al Nikah: bab Dhabb al Rajul ‘an Ibnatih fi al Ghayrah wa al Insaf, hadith no. 4932

[25]Sahih Muslim, Kitab Fada’il al Sahabah, bab Fada’il Fatimah, hadith no. 2449

[26]Sahih al Bukhari, Kitab al Maghazi, bab Ghazwah al Khaybar, hadith no. 3997

[27]Sahih Muslim, Kitab al Jihad wa al Siyar, bab Qawl al Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam ‘la nurath’, hadith no. 1759

[28]Sahih al Bukhari, Kitab al Wasaya, hadith no. 2624; And Sahih Muslim, Kitab al Jihad wa al Siyar, hadith no. 1760

[29]Sunan Abi Dawood, Kitab al ‘Ilm, bab Fadl al ‘Ilm, hadith no. 3641; Refer also to Sahih Abi Dawood, hadith no. 3096

[30]Al Usul min al Kafi, al Kulayni, vol. 1, p. 26-27, Kitab Fadl al ‘Ilm

[31]Sahih Muslim, Kitab al Jihad wa al Siyar, hadith no. 1758; Sahih al Bukhari, Kitab al Fara’id, hadith: 6349

[32]Sunan al Tirmidhi, Kitab al Siyar, hadith no. 1608; Refer also to Sahih al Tirmidhi, hadith no. 1310

[33] Sahih al Bukhari, Kitab al Salat, hadith no. 467, Sunan al Tirmidhi, Kitab al Manaqib, hadith no. 4022

[34]Sahih al Bukhari, Kitab al Maghazi, vol. 4, hadith no. 3810

[35]Sahih al Bukhari, Kitab Fada’il al Sahabah, bab Manaqib Qarabah Messenger, hadith no. 3509

[36]  Surah al Tawbah: 58-59

[37]Fath al Bari, vol. 6, p. 233

[38]Muslim with the Sharh, vol. 12, p. 111

[39] Maulana Muhammad Nafi’ writes in his book, Ruhama’ Baynahum pg 90:

Some of the narrations of this incident are emphatic whilst others are not. And by doing a comprehensive study of all of them, I have reached the following conclusions:

  1. Out of the total thirty six narrations, eleven are narrated from other Sahabah besides ‘Aisha radiya Llahu ‘anha. For example, Abu Hurairah, Abu al Tufail, ‘Amir ibn Wathilah, and Umm Hani’ radiya Llahu ‘anhum, etc. Similarly, they are narrated from other narrators besides Ibn Shihab al Zuhri, and in none of them is Fatimah’s  displeasure mentioned.
  2. The remaining twenty-five narrations are narrated by ‘Aisha radiya Llahu ‘anha and through the transmission of Ibn Shihab al Zuhri. They are of two types:
    • Nine of the twenty five narrations make no mention whatsoever of her displeasure.
    • The balance of them, which is sixteen narrations, make mention of her displeasure
  3. Furthermore the narrations indicating her displeasure mention it after the words “he said” and not after the words “she said” which means that the additions to come are not from ‘Aisha radiya Llahu ‘anha rather they are of a narrator who has narrated this incident from her.

[40] Musnad Ahmed, hadith no. 26420

[41]Fath al Bari, vol. 6, p. 233

[42]Musnad Fatimah al Zahra, Jalal al Din al Suyuti

[43]Then I was guided, p. 115

[44]  Refer to Minhaj, vol. 4, p. 193-264

[45]  Here I refer to his book al Shia wa Ahlul Bayt.

[46] Refer to Footnote 15 of this post

[47] Sharh Nahj al Balaghah vol. 4 pg. 113

[48] Ibid

[49] Sharh Nahj al Balaghah vol. 2 pg. 292

[50]Then I was guided, p. 115-116

[51] Sahih Muslim, Kitab al Hajj, Hadith of Jabir on Hajj, hadith no. 1218

[52] Sahih al Bukhari, hadith 6788; Sahih Muslim, hadith 1688 a

[53]  Surah al Ahzab: 30-34

[54]Sahih al Bukhari, Kitab al Ambiya, hadith no. 3190

[55]  Ibid, 3189

[56]  Ibid, 4515

[57]Sahih Muslim, Kitab Fada’il al Sahabah, bab Fada’il ‘Ali, hadith no. 2408

[58]Al Qamus al Muhit, bab al Lam, Fasl al Hamzah, p. 1245

[59]Lisan al ‘Arab, Ibn Manzur, Harf al Lam, p. 290

[60]  Surah Yusuf: 25

[61]  Surah Yusuf: 25

[62]  Surah al Naml: 57

[63]  Surah al Qasas: 29

[64]Tafsir al Qummi,vol. 2, p. 116-117, Surah al Naml

[65]Majma’ al Bayan, vol. 5, p. 168, Surah al Naml

[66]  Surah Taha: 10

[67]Majma’ al Bayan, vol. 4, p. 89, Surah Taha

[68]Sahih Muslim, Kitab Fada’il al Sahabah, hadith no. 2424

[69] Surah al Anfal: 11

[70]  Surah al Ma’idah: 6

[71]Sahih al Bukhari, Kitab al Maghazi, vol. 4, hadith no. 3810

[72] Sahih al Bukhari, Kitab al Salat, hadith no. 467, Sunan al Tirmidhi, Kitab al Manaqib, hadith no. 4022

[73]Kitab al Sunnah, ‘Abdullah ibn Ahmed ibn Hambal, vol. 2, hadith no. 1296; the Muhaqqiq said, “Its sanad is authentic.”

[74] Refer to Earlier Discussion

[75] Amali, vol. 1 pg. 107

[76] Jila’ al Uyun, pg. 172, pg. 175

[77]  Surah Al ‘Imran: 110

[78]  Surah al Fath: 29

[79]  Surah al Anfal: 74

[80]  Surah al Tawbah: 88

[81]  Surah al Anfal: 64

[82] Sahih al Bukhari, Fada’il al Sahabah, hadith no. 3449

[83]  A measurement of volume approximately equal to 750 ml.

[84]Sunan Abi Dawood, Kitab al Adab, hadith no. 4833 vol. 5; Also Sunan al Tirmidhi, Kitab al Zuhd, hadith no. 2378, vol. 4,

[85]Sahih al Bukhari

[86]  Surah al Fath: 17-18

[87]  Surah al Tawbah: 100

[88]Al Ayat al Bayyinat, vol. 1, p. 6-7; see also Suratan Mutadaddatan, Abu al Hassan al Nadwi, p. 55