‘Ammar ‘Ali’s letter
Respected Mir sahib
I have received your letter and read its contents. You have stated that you are not convinced about the Shia stance pertaining to the estate of Fadak being oppressively withheld from Sayyidah Fatimatuz Zahra radiya Llahu `anha. The actual reason for your misgivings is that you have not come into contact with a proficient scholar as yet. If you were to have met me and heard the accurate explanation from me, you would have realised that the Ahlus Sunnah are in grave error, holding on to the wrong view and deceiving people about the actual state of affairs.
As for the three issues which you have referred to on behalf of ‘Abdul Haqq, the summary of this is as follows:
Firstly, the issue regarding the marriage of Rasulullah’s salla Llahu `alayhi wa sallam daughters; this question is irrelevant because Sayyidah Fatimatuz Zahra radiya Llahu `anha was the only daughter of Rasulullah salla Llahu `alayhi wa sallam, and she was wed to ‘Ali radiya Llahu `anhu. As for the remaining two daughters whom the Ahlus Sunnah ascribe to Rasulullah salla Llahu `alayhi wa sallam, they were actually the daughters of Khadijah’s radiya Llahu `anha previous husband. Their names are Ruqayyah and Umm Kulthum. Ibn Hajar, who is a muhaddith of the Ahlus Sunnah, records in al Isabah that one of these two were married to ‘Utbah, the son of Abu Lahab, and the other was married to Abu al ’As Ibn al Rabi’’, and both these men were disbelievers. They then married ‘Uthman. However, despite Islam gaining authority and dominance they remained in wedlock to disbelievers and Rasulullah salla Llahu `alayhi wa sallam did not even bother to terminate their relationships with these disbelievers, so what if they were wed to ‘Uthman thereafter?
As for ‘Uthman, he was a believer and far better than those disbelievers whom they were initially attached to. However, ‘Uthman is responsible for such innovations after the demise of Rasulullah salla Llahu `alayhi wa sallam that Aisha said the following regarding him:
أقتلوا نعثلا ، لعن الله نعثلا ، أقتلوا حراق المصاحف
Kill this long-bearded one! Curse be upon the long-bearded one! Kill the one who has burnt the copies of the Qur’an.
His innovations reached such proportions that it compelled the Sahaba to murder him. These reports are accurately recorded in the books of the Ahlus Sunnah and if you require a reference for them, I will despatch it to you.
Nevertheless, even if we were to assume that these two were the daughters of Rasulullah salla Llahu `alayhi wa sallam, then we would certainly have some reports highlighting their merit just as how the merit of Sayyidah Fatimatuz Zahra radiya Llahu `anha is recorded in the books of the Ahlus Sunnah, as well as in the books of the Shia. Consider the following in regard to Sayyidah Fatimatuz Zahra radiya Llahu `anha:
سيدة نساء العالمين
Queen of the women of the universe.
سيدة نساء أهل الجنة
Queen of the women of Jannat.
الفاطمة بضعة مني
Fatimah is a portion of me.
If these two were indeed the daughters of Rasulullah salla Llahu `alayhi wa sallam, there certainly would have been reports about their status and significance, but this is not the case.
As for the second issue, you have stated that ‘Ali radiya Llahu `anhu fought many battles against Aisha, therefore if the three companions Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and ‘Uthman usurped the Fadak Estate, why did ‘Ali radiya Llahu `anhu not wage jihad against them? This issue is also incorrect because ‘Ali radiya Llahu `anhu did not fight many battles with Aisha. He only fought one battle in which he was victorious and this is also recorded in the books of the Ahlus Sunnah. As for usurping the Fadak Estate, this does not necessitate jihad since jihad is a holy war; not a war for wealth and worldly possessions. Therefore, the prophetsʼ and the Imams only wage jihad for the upliftment of din, not for worldly pursuits.
Similarly, when did ‘Ali radiya Llahu `anhu ever have supporters with whom he could have waged jihad? Consequently, jihad is only mandatory when one has a reasonable group of supporters. This is why jihad was not ordained upon Rasulullah salla Llahu `alayhi wa sallam in the Makkan period. When he migrated from Makkah on account of fear of the disbelievers and relocated to Madinah, he waged war with the help of the Ansar. However, as long as he remained in Makkah, he was overwhelmed even though he had a handful of supporters. ‘Ali radiya Llahu `anhu was one of these faithful supporters but he was also helpless. Ultimately, they all left Makkah in fear. ‘Ali radiya Llahu `anhu faced similar circumstances during the reign of the three Khalifas and he was unable to wage jihad. However, when he had considerable support, he waged war against Aisha and against Muawiyah.
As for the third issue, it relates to the marriage of ‘Ali’s radiya Llahu `anhu daughters. The answer to this is that ‘Ali radiya Llahu `anhu had two daughters from his marriage to Sayyidah Fatimatuz Zahra radiya Llahu `anha. Zainab, the elder of the two, who was married to ‘Abdullah ibn Jafar al Tayyar and the younger, Umm Kulthum, who was married to Muhammad ibn Jafar al Tayyar. This is briefly the answer to your question, and had you requested more details on the issue, it would have been dispatched.
As for the issue of Fadak, it demands a lengthy response but I would suffice with a summary of it. If you are fair and unbiased then this will suffice. Similarly, this response is in accordance with that which is recorded in the books of the Ahlus Sunnah; anyone who doubts this is free to check this response against their original references and then determine whether they are guilty of oppression or not.
Consequently, Jalal al din al Suyuti in al Durr al Manthur, ‘Ali Muttaqi in Kanz al ’Ummal, Abu ‘Ali Mowsuli and the author of Madarij al Nubuwwah and many other scholars of the Ahlus Sunnah state that when the following verse was revealed, Rasulullah salla Llahu `alayhi wa sallam asked Jibril `alayh al-Salam, who the “Dhu al Qurba” refers to and what was their right:
وآت ذا القربي حقه
Upon which Jibril `alayh al-Salam said that the “Dhu al Qurba” refers to Fatimah, and that Fadak was her right. Consequently, Rasulullah salla Llahu `alayhi wa sallam assigned Fadak to Fatimah. The reports which these scholars record establishes that Rasulullah salla Llahu `alayhi wa sallam gave Fadak to Fatimah and that it belonged solely to her.
When Rasulullah salla Llahu `alayhi wa sallam left this world and Abu Bakr succeeded him, he took Fadak away forcefully and deprived her of any rights to it. Is this not usurpation? Consider the following, Tarikh al ’Abbas, which is a credible Sunni reference states that when the progeny of Hassan and Hussain claimed the Fadak estate from the Caliph Ma’mun al Rashid, then he gathered two hundred scholars of the Ahlus Sunnah and instructed them to explain the true nature of affairs regarding Fadak. These scholars transmitted on the authority of Waqidi and Bashir ibn Walid that the afore-mentioned verse was revealed after the Conquest of Khaybar, and Rasulullah salla Llahu `alayhi wa sallam asked Jibril `alayh al-Salam who was referred to by the term “Dhu al Qurba” and what were their rights. Jibril `alayh al-Salam informed him that Fatimah was his closest relative and Fadak was her sole right. Rasulullah salla Llahu `alayhi wa sallam then gave Fadak to her, which Abu Bakr snatched away when he became the khalifah. When Fatimah radiya Llahu `anha disputed this matter and claimed what was rightfully her inheritance, Abu Bakr apologized and intended to write a document restoring her rights upon it. Upon this, ‘Umar said that Fatimah radiya Llahu `anha should be asked to present witnesses who could testify that Rasulullah salla Llahu `alayhi wa sallam had given Fadak to her. Fatimah radiya Llahu `anha then presented ‘Ali radiya Llahu `anhu, Umm Ayman radiya Llahu `anha, who has a righteous woman, as well as Hassan radiya Llahu `anhu and Hussain radiya Llahu `anhu as witnesses and they testified in her favour. Abu Bakr then wrote out the document and restored it to her but ‘Umar snatched the document and tore it to pieces. He objected that since ‘Ali radiya Llahu `anhu was Fatimah’s radiya Llahu `anha husband, his testimony in her favour was not valid. Abu Bakr agreed with this view.
This incident of Fatimah radiya Llahu `anha asking for Fadak and presenting ‘Ali radiya Llahu `anhu, Umm Ayman radiya Llahu `anha and her two sons as witnesses, and Abu Bakr’s ultimate rejection is recorded in many books of the Ahlus Sunnah, such as Sawa’iq al Muhriqah, Fasl al Khitab, Mu’’jam al Buldan, Riyad al Nadirah, Kanz al ’Ummal, the Tarikh of al Hakim, Jam’ al Jawami’, Sharah Mawaqif, Nihayat al ’Uqul and many other books.
Therefore, Abu Bakr considered Fatimah radiya Llahu `anha and her witnesses as liars. However, when others made claims, he accepted their word without asking them to present witnesses and handed over what they were claiming.
Consequently, Sahih al-Bukhari reports that Jabir went to Abu Bakr and told him that Rasulullah salla Llahu `alayhi wa sallam had promised him a considerable sum of money from the revenue of Bahrain but he departed from this world before it came. Jabir said that since the revenue of Bahrain had arrived in the era of Abu Bakr, he now asks him to honour the promise of Rasulullah salla Llahu `alayhi wa sallam. Jabir relates that Abu Bakr gave him three handfuls of wealth without asking him to produce any witness to the words of Rasulullah salla Llahu `alayhi wa sallam.
Fath al Bari, which is a commentary of Sahih al-Bukhari, records the reason for Abu Bakr giving the wealth without asking for any testimony. It states that Abu Bakr felt that it was impossible for a Sahabi such as Jabir to make a false claim against Rasulullah salla Llahu `alayhi wa sallam. If Jabir was a doubtful character, then who could ever be considered truthful thereafter? Therefore, Abu Bakr did not ask him to produce any witness.
I say, how absurd the religiosity of the Ahlus Sunnah is! They have no regard for Fatimah radiya Llahu `anha, who is the apple of Rasulullah’s salla Llahu `alayhi wa sallam eye, yet they have such high regard for a lowly companion like Jabir. They consider Jabir credible and refrain from branding him a liar whilst Fatimah radiya Llahu `anha is not and she is compelled to present witnesses who are then dishonoured and discredited. They say that ‘Ali radiya Llahu `anhu is the husband and his testimony may have a motive. Therefore, they consider ‘Ali radiya Llahu `anhu to be a liar whereas he too is a Sahabi, but unfortunately he is less than Jabir. As for Hassan radiya Llahu `anhu and Hussain radiya Llahu `anhu, they are her sons and their testimony may also have a motive. This leaves Umm Ayman all alone and the testimony of a single woman falls short of the minimum requirement.
Now you decide whether this is injustice and oppression or not? If this is not usurpation, then what is? Similarly, is this classified as hatred for the Ahlul Bayt or love? Is this what the rights of Rasulullah salla Llahu `alayhi wa sallam demand? The truth of the matter is that the Ahlus Sunnah have such enmity for the Ahlul Bayt that it makes them overlook the rights of Rasulullah salla Llahu `alayhi wa sallam.
You have stated that you were not convinced about the Shia stance of Fadak being oppressively withheld from Ftimah radiya Llahu `anha. Now, I ask you to record the response of the Ahlus Sunnah in the light of what I have written. Ask them why Jabir was considered truthful and Sayyidah Ftimatuz Zahra radiya Llahu `anha was not credible despite her presenting witnesses. Similarly, when she realised that Abu Bakr had considered her claim false and she asked for it to be given to her as inheritance instead then Abu Bakr fabricated a hadith which is in conflict with the Noble Qur’an itself. He said that he heard Rasulullah salla Llahu `alayhi wa sallam saying that the material possessions of the prophets should be disposed off as charity and none of it would be for their heirs. In addition to this narration contradicting the Quran, the prophet of Allah neither informed his daughter or any of his wives that his wealth would be disposed off in charity and they would have nothing of it, so they should not lay claims to it. How could the messenger of Allah conceal this divine injunction from those concerned and reveal it to a stranger who has no one else to verify this report.
Despite all of this, Fatimah radiya Llahu `anha once again came to Abu Bakr whilst he was on the pulpit and said to him: “How strange is it that your daughter will have a share of your inheritance but I have no share of my fathers’ wealth?” Upon this, Abu Bakr descended from the pulpit and wrote the document restoring her ownership. However, ‘Umar came along and enquired about the document once again. He tore the document and disputed Abu Bakr’s decision. He said that they were preoccupied with wars against the Arabs and this was no time for such an issue. Sibt ibn al Jouzi records this narration in his Sirah.
Waqidi, who is a muhaddith of the Ahlus Sunnah as well as Burhan al din al Halbi state in their reports that Fatimah radiya Llahu `anha came to Abu Bakr and laid a claim to Fadak saying that her father had given it to her. Abu Bakr wrote a document handing Fadak over to her. As she was on her way back, she comes upon ‘Umar and he enquired about the document she had with her. ‘Umar then snatched the document and tore it to pieces.
If someone were to say that Abu Bakr is surely not at fault since he had written the document then we would say that being the khalifah, he was not subjected to ‘Umar in any way and he should have opposed him and reprimanded him. However, he agreed with ‘Umar and never took any decision without consulting ‘Umar first.
Similarly, if ‘Ali radiya Llahu `anhu and the rest of the Sahaba believed the fabricated narration of Abu Bakr regarding the inheritance of the prophets then why did ‘Ali radiya Llahu `anhu and ‘Abbas radiya Llahu `anhu raise this issue once again with ‘Umar during his reign as the khalifah? On that occasion, ‘Umar told them that they considered Abu Bakr to be a liar, a cheat, a deceiver and a transgressor and they harboured the very same thoughts about him, but he would do nothing more than what Abu Bakr had done about the matter. This narration is recorded in Sahih al Muslim.
The Musnad of Ahmed records that this matter was raised once again with ‘Uthman during his reign. Therefore, if Abu Bakr was truthful, they would never have claimed Fadak from him. This establishes that Abu Bakr forged the narration and he usurped Fadak from Fatimah radiya Llahu `anha due to his hatred for the Ahlul Bayt. Similarly, ‘Umar highlighted to ‘Ali radiya Llahu `anhu and Abbas radiya Llahu `anhu that they considered Abu Bakr to be a fraud and a liar and they have the same sentiments for him. So when ‘Ali radiya Llahu `anhu considers them to be liars and cheats, then we will do the same. This is the true narrative regarding the Fadak Estate.
Sahih al Bukhari adds that when Abu Bakr refused to hand over Fadak then Fatimah radiya Llahu `anha became angry and refused to speak to him ever again. Similarly Sahih al Muslim records that when she was leaving this world, Fatimah radiya Llahu `anha made a bequest that Abu Bakr and ‘Umar should not attend her funeral ceremony.Back to top