As for a professional and academic review of this narration in order to determine its veracity, it will be discussed shortly. To begin with, there is no doubt about the falsity of this narration simply on account of the dubious ‘Ammar ‘Ali expressing that it is found in authentic Sunni traditions. What could discredit this report more than the fact that ‘Ammar ‘Ali makes reference to it? This is because ‘Ammar ‘Ali’s credibility and merit in transmitting reports is well-known. Consequently, the reality of his reports about Sayyidah Ruqayyah and Sayyidah Umm Kulthum; the daughters of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam as well as about Umm Kulthum—daughter of Sayyidah Fatimah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam—has passed earlier on. His zeal and determination to defend the Shia view made him discredit Shia scholars and authentic Shia references. His desire to establish an accusation against the Ahlus Sunnah brought out the worst in him and if he had no fear of Allah whilst doing this, he could have at least felt ashamed of people and at least be concerned about putting his reputation at stake. But alas, the wonder of Taqiyyah, it settles both problems at once.
Nevertheless, it is necessary to highlight the status of this narration for those who are in anticipation of such clarification, so that the position of the Ahlus Sunnah is evident and the deviation of the Shia is established. Before proceeding with that, ‘Ammar ‘Ali could have a grievance as we have disgraced him by some of these remarks, but would we ever do such a thing? Your religion is deception through and through, and if our response exposes your steadfastness upon deception then you should be thankful for that.
Firstly, books are written by people and just as people are honest or dishonest, wise or foolish, books would also be the same. Consequently, irreligious people have authored many books, contaminated them with their poisonous ideology and they have attributed these works to men of great learning and integrity.
Similarly, many books were neither written for public review nor intended for educational benefit to the masses. Instead, they were written as personal manuscripts so that the author may review the narrations and investigate the reports thoroughly before presenting a final script. Some of these personal manuscripts were passed on to people without the due process being completed.
Other books are extremely rare and very hard to come by. They are actually considered to be lost or non-existent. It has happened that irreligious people came upon these ‘lost’ works and then contaminated it before presenting it to people. At times, when disputing with the Ahlus Sunnah, they attribute reports to such works in order to silence the Ahlus Sunnah. This has been a trick of the Shia throughout the ages. It is therefore imperative for the Sunni scholar to ascertain the narrations they quote and verify the source.
Firstly, presenting facts to the reader should be the primary motive of the author rather than gathering tales and fictitious events, the purpose of which is to entertain or amuse. If leisure-reading, thrilling and amusing the reader is the objective, then these types of books ought to be in the possession of each and every person.
The author must not be biased to anyone nor have any prejudice. His integrity in relating events must be so evident that there should be no reason to doubt what he says or writes.
In addition to having integrity, credibility and truthfulness, the author must have complete or satisfactory acquaintance with the subject or branch of knowledge his book relates to. He should not be like the proverbial “half-baked Molvi”, who is a threat to one’s iman, or the quack who poses a threat to one’s life.
Along with the above conditions, the book should be renowned throughout the ages and it should be passed on to us in every generation by people who meet the above criteria. If we do not stipulate this condition, then it demands that we accept the Old and New Testament just as we accept the Qur’an, since they are equally classified as the books of Allah. Could that ever be possible?
In the case of hadith compilations, there is an added condition which is of fundamental importance; the author must undertake commitment to record only that which is authentic and genuine. This is similar to the manner in which the compilers of the six canonical collections of hadith have undertaken to record only that which is legitimate and authentic. It is for this very reason that these six collections are often referred to as Sihah Sittah.
However, if the document is but a manuscript in which the author has recorded all the records which were available to him at that time with the intention of sifting them out later and retaining only that which is highly-authentic—as Imam al Bukhari and Imam Muslim have done—or recording the weak and fabricated reports too along with its classification—as Imam Tirmidhi has done—but for some unforeseen circumstance he was unable to realise his objective, then such a document cannot be accepted verbatim without scrutiny.
On this basis it would not be inappropriate to say that no author has produced the final script of his work in an instant. Consequently, it is credibly reported that Imam al Bukhari gathered his Sahih from 600 000 ahadith that were available to him. In fact, Hafiz ‘Abdur Razzaq reports that Imam al Bukhari compiled his manuscript for Sahih Bukhari three times.
It is therefore established that the scholars of hadith had manuscripts from which their final works were prepared. Let us assume that Imam al Bukhari left behind his collection of 600 000 ahadith without having an opportunity to scan and review it, would anyone consider it reliable and valid? It is obvious that he scanned it because he did not regard all of it to be beyond a trace of doubt. When he felt this way about it, how could we compel ourselves to accept it simply because it was gathered by the leader of all scholars of hadith from then till the end of time?
Therefore, if anyone comes across a hadith document of this nature—irrespective of who it was gathered by—it would be common sense that such a document has no relevance if the author did not accomplish the task of gathering the authentic narrations only and/or classifying the status of the narrations.
‘Ammar ‘Ali on the other hand—the erudite scholar of hadith that he is—must be excluded from the list of those whom common sense appeals to as is clearly evident from his letter. But is not silence the best reply to a fool?
Nevertheless, this condition is of fundamental importance and many people have been deceived by reference to unauthentic works of highly-acknowledged scholars of Islam.
If there is serious conflict between narrations and there is no possibility of reconciliation, then preference must be given to one by assessing the narrators of each report. If preference is not given to one over the other, then the Shia and Ahlus Sunnah would both consider their collections of narrations credible and this is simply not possible. Consequently, al Kulayni states the Qur’an initially comprised of 17 000 verses, all of which were removed with the exception of that which remains in the scripts of the Qur’an today. In contrast to this, the credible Ibn Babuwayh states that the Qur’an is only that which is preserved till this day. Obviously both reports cannot be valid and both reports can also not be dismissed; one has to be preferred over the other.
Having established this, it must be known that the particular narration which ‘Ammar ‘Ali refers to, i.e. the Fadak report, and all other narrations supposedly from Sunni references, which the Shia use as evidence against the Ahlus Sunnah, are not valid references. The credibility of a person is questionable if even one lie is established against him and ‘Ammar ‘Ali’s deception has been discovered and exposed repeatedly. Subsequently the readers are aware of his remarks concerning the marriage of Umm Kulthum bint Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha, as well as his refutation of the biological association of Sayyidah Ruqayyah and Sayyidah Umm Kulthum with the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. It is not necessary to repeat this as we have dealt with it more than once.
Nevertheless, ‘Ammar ‘Ali has discredited many Shia reports and he has made numerous allegations in his letter to Mir Nadir ‘Ali. In addition to this, he has audaciously undertaken to forward credible references for the contents of his letter, if and when such references may be required. Besides discrediting his own references, little does he know that the credible works of the Sunni scholars whom he has referred to, refutes the reports which he ascribes to them. This matter will be presented shortly.
Let us assume that these reports are found in some works of Sunni scholars, then too these works are so rare and hard to find like the eggs of the Dodo bird. Forget memorising and retaining these works, the Ahlus Sunnah have not even had the opportunity of seeing them ever. If these narrations supposedly exist in these works then just as how some Jews hypocritically adopted Christianity and then tampered with the Bible by adding that which makes no sense at all to it, a man from their progeny, ‘Abdullah ibn Saba’, who was as crooked and deviant as them have always looked for opportunities to distort the din of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and to destroy the teachings of Islam. Since the majority of the scholars of Christianity were not blessed to commit the Bible to memory and most of them were not diligent in preserving it, these distortions took root and the face of Christianity remains distorted forever.
The situation of the Qur’an is distinctly different; millions of the Ahlus Sunnah have committed each letter of the Qur’an to memory and thousands of scholars of hadith have strived diligently to protect the words and purport of the six canonical collections of hadith and many other hadith texts, thereby making it impossible for irreligious people to add or subtract anything from it. In fact, the abundance of huffaz of the Qur’an and the multitudes of scholars of hadith is a distinguishing factor and a criterion of truth and falsehood between the Ahlus Sunnah and the Shia. Based on this elaborate endeavour, it has become impossible for them to alter anything from the Qur’an and the credible and reputable hadith references throughout the ages. Despite all their attempts and wishes, the promise of Allah that states:
إِنَّا نَحْنُ نَزَّلْنَا الذِّكْرَ وَإِنَّا لَهُ لَحَافِظُوْنَ
Indeed, it is We who sent down the Qur’an and indeed, We will be its guardian.
وَاللَّهُ مُتِمُّ نُوْرِهِ وَلَوْ كَرِهَ الْكَافِرُوْنَ
Allah will perfect His light, although the disbelievers dislike it.
Serves as a guarantee for the protection and preservation of the Qur’an and hadith.
Defeated but not deterred in any way, they then decided to tamper with unpopular and seldom heard of references of the Ahlus Sunnah, and they have contaminated them so deceptively that let alone the laity, a few Ahlus Sunnah scholars also fell victim to these schemes. The report of Fadak and others which ‘Ammar ‘Ali records in his letter are some examples.
However, the Ahlus Sunnah has always found within its ranks scholars who are classified as Muhaqqiqin [erudite research scholars], may Allah reward them abundantly. They saw through the plot and by the grace and mercy of Allah, and alerted the Ummah about it. They saw the signs of falsehood and dubiousness in these reports and taught us how to distinguish between truth and falsehood. Consequently, when we read the refutation of these reports, this will become evident.
Nevertheless, the trickery of these cunning Shia scholars was successful as far as these unpopular, scantly available references are concerned. This is why the scholars of the Ahlus Sunnah deal with such references in the same manner in which a Muslim would deal with the available Old and New Testament. Accordingly, the narrations of these references are verified against the narrations which are recorded in the six canonical collections of hadith, and that which conforms is readily accepted; that which is in conflict is simply rejected. Besides that which corresponds and those which conflict, the remainder of its narrations are judged against logical evidence. If it is in conflict with logical evidence, it would be rejected. If not, it is neither accepted nor rejected. Therefore, narrations which are found exclusively in these unpopular books also do not qualify for practice; instead they are neither accepted nor rejected, as is the case with reports found in the Old and New testaments.
So, if the Shia are not convinced about these references’ lack of credibility—simply because the authors subscribe to the creed of the Ahlus Sunnah—then the Shia must also maintain that just like the Qur’an, the Old and New Testament must also be considered authentic; simply because it is the Book of Allah too. And (based on their premise) if they do not consider the Old and New Testaments to be authentic, then (Allah forbid) it implies that they have no reliance and confidence in Allah! Well, the Shia would not bother much about this grave allegation since Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala really does not enjoy any credibility in their eyes. Consequently, they have no faith in the All-Encompassing Knowledge and Decisions of Allah and this leads them to hatching the doctrine of Badaʼ (to account for lapses and mistakes). May the curse of Allah be upon this belief.
Nevertheless, the Ahlus Sunnah have no conviction in the contents of those references which are unpopular and rare, especially when the enmity of the Shia is taken into consideration along with the repeated instances of deception perpetrated by leading Shia scholars. Therefore, these references of the Ahlus Sunnah have been subjected to distortion just like the fate of the Old and New Testaments.
If some simple-minded reader feels that I am making a baseless claim then they may believe what they prefer to believe, but they cannot hold the same view about the great luminaries of Islam. So they should consider what Shah ‘Abdul ‘Aziz rahimahu Llah—who knows more about Shia doctrine then the Shia themselves—writes in the second chapter of the section on the “Deception and Schemes of the Shia”, in his Tuhfah Ithna ‘Ashariyyah. We will reproduce the entire quotation verbatim for purposes of precision.
The thirty-second scheme
It has been a great endeavour of Shia scholars to include lies and to subject the works of the Ahlus Sunnah to distortion, especially the texts of Tafsir and unpopular and hard-to-come-by hadith references, thereby supporting the Shia creed and dealing mighty blows at the roots of the Ahlus Sunnah. Consequently, they have inserted the report relating to gifting of the Fadak Estate in some of the Tafsir texts by recording it under the exegesis of the verse (And give the Dhu al Qurba their right). They record this incident as follows: When the above verse was revealed, the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam called Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha and gave Fadak over to her.
But as it is commonly said that a liar has very poor memory, they failed to take note that this verse is a Makki verse and there was no existence of the Fadak Estate in the Makkan period of the Prophet’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam life. Similarly, the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam ought to have made an endowment for the traveller and the destitute too, so that he would have complied with the injunction contained in this verse. Their fabricated report reflects poor forgery too since they ought to have said:
He gifted Fadak to her
He gave her Fadak
Nevertheless, there are numerous examples of such distortion in the texts of Tafsir and Sirah, and the average—simple minded—Ahlus Sunnah scholar is really shaken to the core when he comes across them.
During the reign of Muhammad Shah, there were two affluent Shia in Delhi. They would write beautiful scripts of the six canonical collections of hadith, Mishkat and Tafsir books, including therein reports which support the Shia creed. They would then commission lavish book-binding with gold and silver decorative work done upon the cover and then sell these books at a measly price to an unsuspecting customer.
Agha Ibrahim ibn ‘Ali Shah—one of the noted Safavid rulers—employed this very same scheme in Isfahan during his era. However, his scheme did not prove to be effective because the popular references of the Ahlus Sunnah are so easily and excessively available that such distortions cannot gain acceptance. As for unpopular references, the Ahlus Sunnah accord no credibility to it at all. This is why (with limited exception of narrations that pertain to advices and admonitions) the Muhaqqiqin scholars reject any reference or citation from unpopular Ahlus Sunnah references. In fact, they would deal with it like the scriptures of previous prophets of Allah, which cannot be used as a basis for any action or belief.
If out of consideration for ‘Ammar ‘Ali we were to overlook this and spare him and his ‘illustrious’ elders from the crime of distorting Ahlus Sunnah references it would still be of no avail. (The treachery is still glaring and evident). This is because the references which he refers to in his letter, are some which no Sunni scholar has ever heard of, and there is reference made to some Ahlus Sunnah scholars without anybody being able to verify their association to the Ahlus Sunnah. Consider his reference to Tarikh Al ‘Abbas; not a single Ahlus Sunnah scholar may have heard about it. Instead, these are those references regarding which Shah ‘Abdul ‘Aziz rahimahu Llah writes:
The twenty-first scheme
They sometimes attribute a scholarly work to a scholar of the Ahlus Sunnah and fill it with reports criticising the Sahabah as well as fabricated reports that strike at the roots of the creed of the Ahlus Sunnah.
Therefore, if a reference of this nature really does exist (i.e. Tarikh Al ‘Abbas) then it is but the handiwork of a cunning Shia scholar.
Similarly, some of the Ahlus Sunnah references he refers to are compilations of Ahlus Sunnah scholars who lacked proficiency in the science of hadith or the science of Tarikh. Therefore, they were unable to distinguish and ascertain truth from falsehood. A reference of this nature is Ma’arij al Nubuwwah. Yes, if he were to record a quotation from Madarij al Nubuwwah instead, it would have been a different matter altogether, but what would ‘Ammar ‘Ali find of use in a reputable book such as Madarij al Nubuwwah?
Some of the references which ‘Ammar ‘Ali has referred to have been compiled by those who had complete proficiency and vast knowledge of hadith like ‘Allamah Jalal al Din al Suyuti. However, the specific compilation which he refers to is not one of those books wherein Jalal al Din undertook to gather only that which is authentic and accurate. Instead, the scholars of Islam are aware that he collected all kinds of reports therein as the name Jam’ al Jawami’ itself suggests.
As for his Tafsir al Durr al Manthur, he gathered baseless reports therein too, with the intention of distinguishing between authentic and baseless reports. The same applies to the Mawdu’at of Ibn al Jawzi. Although these two compilations contain all kinds of reports, they do not appear without a classification. The very purpose for gathering and classifying these reports is to avoid a situation where some wretched deceiver, like ‘Ammar ‘Ali, may utilise such reports to misguide simple-minded Muslims. This was also the practice of the former scholars of hadith like Imam Abu Dawood and Imam al Tirmidhi; they classified reports and expressed the weakness contained in some.
The balance of the ‘Sunni’ references which he refers to are so rare that even if he were to claim that all Shia beliefs and practices conform to its contents then too no one should be fooled by such an assertion. People of integrity have a strong conscience but does a liar have any fear? The inconsistencies and deceit in his letter is sufficient testimony to this and such deceit and is the ‘honourable’ tradition and legacy of his religious leaders. Consequently, Shah ‘Abdul ‘Aziz states the following:
The twenty-second scheme
This is the scheme of ascribing reports of criticism against the Sahabah and reports in support of Shia beliefs to references of the Ahlus Sunnah which are rare and non-existent, whereas those books are free of such reports. Since these references are not easily available, reference to them perturbs the common Muslim and they begin to wonder how these inconsistencies could ever be reconciled. However, there is no cause for concern because even if such reports are correctly transmitted from the said references the only need for reconciliation only occurs if the reports are of the same calibre as far as authenticity, popularity, profuse transmission and clarity of purport are concerned. When these criteria cannot be established about these unknown reports then they could not challenge reports which are authentic, well-documented, profusely transmitted and absolutely clear in purport and content.
Added to this is the fact that the Shia only transmit these dubious reports from unavailable references or from references the authors of which have not undertaken to submit only that which is authentic.
Al Irbili—the Shia author of Kashf al Ghummah—and al Hilli—author of al Yaqin—transmit and document a multitude of these dubious reports and then boast a false victory over the Ahlus Sunnah. Ibn Ta’us has filled his compilation with such reports and he feels that he has established heinous allegations against the Ahlus Sunnah.
Nevertheless, when their deceit is clearly established in many ways what can be expected about their transmission from unavailable references? Therefore, one must be convinced that there is no existence of such reports in the said references. If it were to be assumed that it is contained in these references, then it can only be a distortion perpetrated by their cunning scholars. In addition to this, many books were left in their manuscript phase without the authors having an opportunity to prepare the final edition or without them classifying each and every report and clarifying its status.
‘Ammar ‘Ali has also made reference to some books like Tarikh Al ‘Abbas which are unheard of and whose authors are unknown, and he has the audacity to say, “like the Tarikh Al ‘Abbas, which is one of the reliable references of the Ahlus Sunnah.” In addition to this, the report from this particular reference is transmitted on the authority of the notorious Waqidi, whose accurate reports are also viewed with scepticism. I wish to highlight the comments of the Muhaddithin regarding him to put things in perspective. Consequently, Majma’ al Bihar, quotes Imam Nasa’i — who is one of the compilers of the six canonical collections of hadith—as saying that there are four great liars who are known for fabricating hadith. These are: Ibn Abi Yahya in Madinah, Waqidi in Baghdad, Muqatil ibn al Yaman in Khurasan and Muhammad ibn Sa’id in Syria. Sharh al Shifa’ states that there is unanimity about the unreliability of Waqidi. It also quotes Imam Shafi’i as saying that the compilations of Waqidi are baseless. Now ‘Ammar ‘Ali should reflect that when Tarikh Al ‘Abbas is an unknown reference and the quotation from it is transmitted by none other than Waqidi, then how could such facts be used as evidence against the Ahlus Sunnah.
However, if the religion of the Ahlus Sunnah were based on fictitious reports as the Shia creed is, then there would be no harm in accepting such a fallacious report of Waqidi from Tarikh Al ‘Abbas. Nevertheless, citing such a reference to simple-minded unwary and unlearned Sunnis is the height of treachery, deception and shamelessness. The scholars of the Ahlus Sunnah are aware that even if such a reference exists, it must be the handiwork of some deviant Shia.
It does not seem that ‘Ammar ‘Ali has the potential to be so devious. Instead, this must be the mastery of some crooked soul, possessed by the devil. If one has to consider that ‘Ammar ‘Ali has actually attached the title of al Rashid to Ma’mun, then he surely lacks the academic capability to stir such controversy.
Nevertheless, it is really despite his great proficiency that ‘Ammar ‘Ali is still confused about who actually bears the title, al Rashid; Is it Harun or Ma’mun? You are so convinced about the Fadak Estate being unduly withheld from its rightful inheritor that it perhaps surpasses the conviction you have about the oneness of Allah and the Nubuwwah of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. Similarly, you are so fanatical in your opposition to the Ahlus Sunnah that you lose control of yourself.
So is there anyone to restrain ‘Ammar ‘Ali so that we could put all matters into perspective for him and there is much more which he is unaware of. Some of this is as follows….The Fadak Estate was from Fay’
 Muqaddimah Sahih Bukhari – Matba’ Ahmedi – Delhi.
 Surah al Hijr: 9.
 Surah al Saff: 8.Back to top