‘Ammar ‘Ali also says that when Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu wrote the document then Sayyidina ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu tore it up. Was he aware of the false allegation when he wrote it, because there is no reference to this in any of the references of the Ahlus Sunnah? If this fact is being reported from their books then the first response to this is silence, as it is the best reply to a fool.
This is really a unique debate where the opponent is contesting what is a figment of his own imagination and it has no presence in any trusted resource. We need to ask him if Minhaj al Kiramah is a Sunni book and if Sheikh Ibn Mutahhar was a Sunni? Or was he the son of Sayyidina Abu Bakr or Sayyidina ‘Umar’s maternal aunt on account of whom he omitted the fact that ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu tore up the document.
‘Ammar ‘Ali is but a novice in the field of Shia deception and forgery. Sheikh Ibn Mutahhar is one of the experts and leaders in this field, whatever skill is to be found in ‘Ammar ‘Ali is ten times more in him. However, it is true that some students excel their teachers. So, whilst Sheikh Ibn Mutahhar had some sense, ‘Ammar ‘Ali is bereft of sense altogether.
‘Ammar ‘Ali may have one more contention because Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu gave Sayyidina Jabir radiya Llahu ‘anhu wealth without requesting him to provide witnesses for his claim. Conversely, he dismissed Fatimah’s radiya Llahu ‘anha claim despite credible witnesses.
Firstly, if this narration even appears as a valid narration in Sunni resources, then it was possible for those who lack understanding and insight to find a reason for objection. It will be known shortly whether this narration even exists in Sunni references and whether it is a concocted report or not. Assuming that it does not feature in Sunni references, making an objection out of this only establishes their hindsight.
If this is the manner in which objections can be levelled against the Ahlus Sunnah then tomorrow the distorted texts of the Old and New Testaments, or the Granth of the Sikhs could likewise establish great claims against the Ahlus Sunnah. The Shia would not have much of a problem with it because they have the ability to assimilate with each of these deviant groups. Had I not been apprehensive of prolonging this discussion, I would have clarified how the Shia resemble a giraffe. This peculiar animal has an unusual resemblance to a camel, buffalo and a cheetah.
Nevertheless, assuming that this narration does appear in one or two odd resources from the lengthy list cited by ‘Ammar ‘Ali, it has no relevance since those are unknown resources anyway. Secondly, they may have found their way into those references after the Shia tampered with it. The readers will realise this shortly.
We have clarified the reasons why witnesses were requested from Sayyidah Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha. Therefore, the incident of giving wealth to Jabir radiya Llahu ‘anhu upon his oath—which was ultimately intended for him—without him satisfying the requirements of testimony cannot be likened to the incident of satisfying the claim of Sayyidah Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha without witnesses, as this could result in usurping the wealth of the needy, the destitute, and the wayfarer.
Although we have dealt with this elaborately, we are dealing with people who lack a sense of balance and fairness, so we are compelled to highlight the facts once again. Therefore, the Shia and Ahlus Sunnah are unanimous that Fadak remained under the sole administration of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam till the end of his life. When Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu knew that the material possessions of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam become Waqf after his demise and he also knew that a gift is incomplete without the beneficiary being given control over it, then his request for witnesses surely could not be for the sake of ascertaining if she had ownership of Fadak or not. Therefore, it is incorrect for any fool to claim that her claim was rejected despite credible witnesses whereas Sayyidina Jabir’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu claim was satisfied without witnesses.
The only logical explanation for requesting her to provide witnesses would be to determine if there was any indication from the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam on account of which Fadak could be given to her. Now is this gesture favouring Sayyidina Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha or is it an insult to her and humiliation for her? The truth is evident for those who have understanding.
‘Ammar ‘Ali’s thinking, however, is flawed. He views the action of Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu regarding Sayyidah Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha negatively and implicates him for agreeing to the request of Sayyidina Jabir radiya Llahu ‘anhu.
Since there was a possibility that Sayyidina Jabir’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu claim was correct because every claim cannot be false—and the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam did make a commitment to him, Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu in his capacity as the deputy of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam was obliged to honour that commitment. If he did not oblige, it could have been seen as a failure to fulfil a commitment on the part of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. To avert this, it was incumbent to oblige.
However, no blame could come directly upon the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam since the wealth of Bahrain had not arrived. Since the position of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam is loftiest, it was unbecoming to allow this shortfall to remain. Therefore, when the wealth of Bahrain arrived and Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu was discharging any unsettled obligations of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, he settled the matter of Jabir radiya Llahu ‘anhu because it is not necessary that such a commitment was made to him in the presence of others. Intelligent people understand that this was inevitable to avoid any tarnish being attributed to the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.
If the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam did not commit to him and he made a false claim, then too it is inconsequential in the final equation since the wealth of Bahrain had to be distributed among the Sahabah anyway. The situation of Fadak was different; handing it over would constitute disobedience to the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam as he retained control over it till the end of his life and it had to be dispensed as Sadaqah on the basis of his words, “whatever we leave behind is to be disposed off as charity.” We have committed to shed light on this hadith and the time is very near when we will deal with it, Allah willing.
Therefore, Fadak had become Waqf property and there was no possibility of anyone inheriting anything from it. If anyone inherited, it would be disregarding the above hadith of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. However, ‘Ammar ‘Ali and his cohorts consider honouring the commitment of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and fulfilling his pledge something scornful and reprehensive.
When Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu succeeded the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and the wealth of Bahrain arrived, he made announcements inviting those whom the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam had unfulfilled commitments to, or those whom he had promised to receive their dues. This resulted in Sayyidina Jabir radiya Llahu ‘anhu receiving 1500 coins. This gesture of Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu highlights his devotion to the Ahlul Bayt and proves that he had no intentions of supressing anyone’s dues. If he was so concerned about any possible commitments of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam that he liberally gave those who claimed, why would he then seek to withhold what was due to the soul who was dearest to the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.
Even if he withheld Fadak, then what did he gain from it. He neither used it for himself nor his family. Instead, he continued dispensing its revenue to the Ahlul Bayt and to the recipients stipulated for it. It seems foolish then to withhold someone’s dues without gaining anything from it other than perpetual criticism in this world and torment in the hereafter. Being so intelligent, did he not know how to usurp something and make it worthwhile. After all, his intelligence cannot be disputed even by the Shia.
Instead, the fact that Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu understood the difference between the claim of Sayyidina Jabir radiya Llahu ‘anhu and the claim to Fadak proves what a genius he was. The claim of the Shia of the gifting of Fadak is opposed by the hadith, “what we leave behind is charity”, whilst the claim of Sayyidina Jabir radiya Llahu ‘anhu cannot be countered by any hadith. Similarly, there was no verse governing its revenue. Rather, it was either khums or ‘ushr or some other tax, which Sayyidina Jabir radiya Llahu ‘anhu was fully entitled to.
It is also clear to those who have intelligence that witnesses are usually summoned when there is a need to settle a contention or when any matter requires justification. When two people are disputing a matter, witnesses are sought to dispel the contention. Therefore, if a claim is made and there are no legal or logical grounds for contesting it, and especially if it is made by a true Muslim, then does the hadith not demand positive thoughts of every Muslim? If the Shia do not have intellect, let them borrow some for a moment and reflect on this. It is for these enemies of intelligence that the Qur’an proclaims:
Then will you not use reason?
Therefore, if witnesses were not sought from Sayyidina Jabir radiya Llahu ‘anhu and witnesses were demanded from Sayyidah Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha, according to the Shia allegation, then this establishes the great insight and wisdom of Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu and his strict compliance to the teachings of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. If these two matters, wisdom and following the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam are to be criticised, then ‘Ammar ‘Ali is correct in condemning him. If this is criticism, then we would praise him by saying that so and so is a donkey, a complete fool, steeped in immorality and vice, a liar and fraudster of a kind, etc.
If virtue is vice and vice is virtue, we would be compelled to sing the praises of ‘Ammar ‘Ali. But kindly do accept it from us in prose as we cannot render it in a poem.
Subhan Allah! The audacity to level criticisms against the most senior Sahabah and then deceive simple people by that. Consider the contents of his correspondence. He writes the following to Mir Nadir ‘Ali:
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 the Prophet 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 the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.
You have stated that you were not convinced about the Shia stance of Fadak being oppressively withheld from Fatimah 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 Fatimah al Zahra radiya Llahu ‘anha was not credible despite her presenting witnesses.
So, I request them to present my response to ‘Ammar ‘Ali and let him know that unfortunately the Ahlus Sunnah scholars could not verify what he has written since his claims are baseless. Ahlus Sunnah scholars are not in the business of making wrong into right like their opponents do. Instead, they can rectify a wrong and make it known to the followers of ‘Ammar ‘Ali that his claims are wrong and that is why he has requested verification. The Ahlus Sunnah are steadfast on the right path, so if guidance is your quest, grab the opportunity.
It is time to expose the reality of ‘Ammar ‘Ali, who utters nonsense and makes ignorant remarks. Despite such glaring evidence and testimony, he still maintains that Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu usurped Fadak and that a devout soul like Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu was an oppressor. Even if he did not boast other merits, this single incident—as they claim—is sufficient to prove his merit. It proves his intelligence too and that despite knowing that he may be criticised for that, he remained steadfast on the command of Allah. When he did not profit from Fadak in any way, why would he be interested in usurping it?
Similarly, the fact that he may have sought witnesses from Sayyidah Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha and not from Sayyidina Jabir radiya Llahu ‘anhu makes another statement about justice and close ties. Consequently, those who have a very strong sense of justice are usually more stringent in applying the rules with their own, but they may be lenient to others. Therefore, Sayyidina Abu Bark’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu not considering Sayyidah Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha establishes his genuine love for the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.
When avoiding favouritism to one’s own and being lenient with others is a praiseworthy trait, then it was more incumbent upon him not to favour the family of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, but apply the law correctly. So Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu remained steadfast and did not bother about criticism.
So, look at how they have twisted events. Despite being irreligious, they level claims of irreligiousness to those who are devout, and these followers of Ibn Saba’ consider the devoted Sahabah to be enemies of the Ahlul Bayt. If those who have trespassed the limits—in loving the Ahlul Bayt—are considered greater than those who are devoted and loyal to them, and instead are actually considered their enemies, then this would be like saying that Christians love Nabi ‘Isa ‘alayh al Salam and that Nabi Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and his followers hate Nabi ‘Isa ‘alayh al Salam.
It is worth considering that one who is an extremist in his love is not necessarily in love with what he claims. Instead, he is love with his perceptions. Consequently, the Christians claim to love Nabi ‘Isa ‘alayh al Salam but they do not love him in reality, because what they are in love with is actually him being the son of God, which he is not.
Hence, the Shia have this perception (and they are fanatical on this basis). In reality, they are bereft of love for the Imams of the Ahlul Bayt. If they consider the Ahlus Sunnah to be the enemies of the Ahlul Bayt, then this is just like the Christians considering the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and his Ummah enemies of Nabi ‘Isa ‘alayh al Salam.
The true enemies of the Ahlul Bayt are those who do not regard Sayyidah Ruqayyah and Sayyidah Umm Kulthum radiya Llahu ‘anhuma as the daughters of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam despite the Book of Allah, the words of Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu, and the narrations of al Kulayni and others affirming this.
Similarly, they consider Sayyidah Aisha radiya Llahu ‘anha—the beloved wife of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and one who has been praised by Allah in Surah al Nur, and the other wives of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam—regarding whom it is proclaimed:
and his wives are [in the position of] their mothers.
as well as Sayyidina ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhu—the honourable uncle of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, Sayyidina Zubair radiya Llahu ‘anhu—who is the son of the Prophet’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam paternal aunt (i.e. his cousin) and who enjoys other familial ties with him as well, Mus’ab ibn Zubair—the son-in-law of Sayyidina Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhu, Sayyidina ‘Umar—who is the son-in-law of Sayyidah Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha, Sayyidina Zaid—the son of Imam Zayn al ‘Abidin, and many other close relatives of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam who all qualify to be part of his ‘itrah (family) and Ahlul Bayt as non-believers, renegades and enemies of Islam.
The details pertaining to most of the above has passed in this book. Nevertheless, they shamelessly claim that the Sahabah were enemies of the Ahlul Bayt. If Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu had enmity towards Sayyidah Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha then none among the Ahlus Sunnah would have had anything to do with him. Or as is the case of the Khawarij—had the Ahlus Sunnah been like them—they would have never revered Sayyidah Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha. Instead, they would have done as the Shia do, Allah forbid, and adopted Tabarri (disassociation) from the senior Sahabah.
Now consider, is it still correct for you to lament the religiousness of the Ahlus Sunnah—in the light of your false claims—or is it the Shia that are lamentable. More so ‘Ammar ‘Ali, whose hatred for the Sahabah leaves no consideration for the rights of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. In fact, he has disregarded the testimony of Allah and the statements of the righteous Imams. He brands whoever he sees among the Ahlul Bayt as disbelievers and renegades on account of any inclination to the glorious Sahabah.
Luckily for the insensible scapegoat of Taqiyyah, otherwise Sayyidina ‘Ali, Hassan Hussain, Zayn al ‘Abidin, Imam Jafar, and Imam al Baqir also would have not been spared from the title of kufr. Have these souls not praised the senior Sahabah lavishly? As for Sayyidina ‘Ali, Hassan and Hussain, they played a dominant role in supporting the Sahabah and the three Khalifas. Then they wish to know from us the difference between seeking testimony from Sayyidah Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha and releasing Sayyidina Jabir radiya Llahu ‘anhu from this obligation.
If they classify the support and praises of Sayyidina ‘Ali, Hassan, and Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhum and the other Imams as Taqiyyah, why not consider the support of Sayyidina ‘Umar and Sayyidina ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhuma also as Taqiyyah. Or if the statements and actions of Sayyidina ‘Umar, Sayyidina ‘Abbas, and Sayyidina Zaid al Shahid are free from hypocrisy and deceit—or Taqiyyah—then why not consider the statements of Sayyidina ‘Ali, Hassan and Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhum, and the rest of the Imams free from hypocrisy and double-standards?
Similarly, they should be told that we can agree that Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu did not accept the testimony of Sayyidina ‘Ali and Sayyidah Umm Ayman radiya Llahu ‘anhuma as he was compelled to follow the command of the Qur’an stipulating two male witnesses or two females and one male. But why did they reject the testimony of Allah regarding multiple daughters of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and the testimony of Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu too in this regard. They cannot even say that the testimony of Allah and ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu falls short of the requirement for testimony as far as numbers is concerned because the testimony of Allah and ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu surpasses the requirement of two males or two females and a male. So why should the testimony of ‘Ali and Umm Ayman be valid but the testimony of Allah and ‘Ali invalid?
Even if we accept—for the sake of ‘Ammar ‘Ali—that there were four testimonies along with that of Hassan and Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhuma, then although this still does not fulfil the requirement, we would ask them that when the Book of Allah and the statements of the glorious Imams are profuse in the praise of the Sahabah, then why do they reject this testimony? This treatise has recorded the praises of the Sahabah from at least four Imams. So, besides the testimony of Allah, this is adequate testimony. Why has it been rejected? If this is not the worst scenario of rejecting credible testimony than what is?
How lamentable is the religiousness of the Shia? In venting their hatred for the Sahabah, they have not considered Allah, his Messenger and the illustrious Imams too. Above all, they taunt the Ahlus Sunnah. What foolishness!
‘Ammar ‘Ali and his followers criticise Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu, whose merit is expressed by Allah and the illustrious Imams. If this is not Kufr, then what is kufr? If this is not enmity for the Ahlul Bayt, then what is?
The details of the above statement occur in this book and there is no need to repeat it. The respected reader can review it at its relevant place in the book.
They have criticised and condemned Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu on the basis of a baseless and fabricated narration, which has no place in any authentic Sunni reference as it states that Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu did not accept her claim without witnesses and when she did furnish witnesses, he rejected it. However, this narration—considering it valid—does not indicate that he considered the testimony false or that he suspected them of lies. Instead, his decision was governed by the Qur’anic law and he could not satisfy Sayyidah Fatimah’s radiya Llahu ‘anha request.
They condemn him on this basis and ignore the verses of the Qur’an in his favour as well as the testimony and praise of the illustrious Imams, which has been transmitted by credible narrators to them. And in the case of narrations the narration of a sole credible female narrator is also acceptable; there is no need for the required amount for testimony or for the narration to meet the criteria of Tawatur.
Nevertheless, we have dedicated much time to this issue and although I can elaborate upon it more significantly, this much suffices those who have understanding and who are fair and balanced. Even if the narration of the gifting of Fadak and the narration of seeking witnesses are legitimate reports, then too Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu is pure from any criticism of any kind and he is completely innocent. In addition to this, the narration of Minhaj al Kiramah by Ibn Mutahhar al Hilli expresses that he did not die with the crime of usurping Fadak recorded against him. As for not seeking witnesses from Sayyidina Jabir radiya Llahu ‘anhu, this matter has been dealt with more than adequately.
In addition to this, Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu was not infallible. He was after all a mujtahid and just like the Prophets could err in Ijtihad a non-Nabi can also err. Consider the error in the Ijtihad of Nabi Dawood ‘alayh al Salam and the correct Ijtihad of Nabi Sulaiman ‘alayh al Salam as recorded in Surah al Ambiya’. On this basis, the Shia could excuse him for his Ijtihad. Perhaps he erred in seeking testimony from Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha or he erred in excusing Sayyidina Jabir radiya Llahu ‘anhu. Considering that he has been praised by Allah and the Imams, it demands that he not be criticised.
If this does not satisfy them and he cannot be excused, then the narration of Minhaj al Kiramah seals the matter. It states that when Sayyidah Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha admonished him he rectified his error and handed it over to her. Now everyone knows that one who repents from a sin after receiving admonishment is purified from his sin and it is deleted from his records. Therefore, he is not guilty and he cannot be punished. Even if he failed to repent, the verses in his favour establish that Allah has forgiven him.
However, the Ahlus Sunnah have no problem attributing an error to Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu, as they consider him on the rank of a Wali, not on the rank of a Nabi. It is the Shia who have a serious problem. They ought to review the following words of Zayn al ‘Abidin, which appear in Sahifah al Kamilah. If the Imams are infallible and above the clutches of Shaitan, consider what Zayn al ‘Abidin rahimahu Llah says:
قد ملك الشيطان عناني في سوء الظن و ضعف اليقين و اني اشكوا سوء مجاورته لي و طاعة نفسي له
Shaitan has taken control of my reins and led me to unbecoming thoughts and weak conviction and I complain to you of his evil association with me and my succumbing to him.
Now consider that the Imam cannot lie. The Shia would become disbelievers if they consider an Imam a liar. Nonetheless, he admits to succumbing to the promptings of Shaitan and unlike Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu there is no verse guaranteeing his entry into Paradise. (The Shia consider him ma’sum (infallible), and we consider him to be mahfuz (protected). Similarly, the expressions ‘unbecoming thoughts’, ‘weak conviction’ and ‘succumbing to him’ cannot be disposed as ijtihadi errors, as the nature of the acknowledgement admits to grave errors.
Nahj al Balaghah—a Shia collection of the speeches of Sayyidina ‘Ali—has similar admissions. In fact, the Qur’an ascribes Khata’ (errors) to some of the Prophets. The incidents of Nabi Adam ‘alayh al Salam and Nabi Yunus ‘alayh al Salam are well-known. So, the error of mishandling the issue of Fadak, or usurping it as the Shia claim is a trivial offence as Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu was fallible unlike the above personalities.
O most benevolent Allah, you are aware of my deepest admiration and greatest reverence for Imam Zayn al ‘Abidin, the illustrious Ahlul Bayt and the Prophets. You are aware that my words are being recorded here on the basis of the principle which states that relating kufr does not constitute kufr, nor render the one who has related it as a kafir.
‘Ammar ‘Ali states the following as he continues:
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 the Prophet 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 Qur’an, 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.
‘Ammar ‘Ali has had his say; now he should give us a hearing too. The early Shia scholars criticise and curse Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu for not giving Fadak as inheritance to Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha. However, when they heard the response to their allegation from the Ahlus Sunnah, then those who came later on fabricated the narration of Sayyidah Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anhu receiving Fadak as a gift. They made great attempts to succeed with this dubious narration and even managed to admit it into some unpopular Sunni references. They also appeared in the garb of Sunni scholars of hadith and managed to transmit it to unwary seekers of hadith. However, the trick failed because the signs of falsehood were glaring from this narration. The game was over for the fraudsters as they were sniffed out and the books which they managed to admit this narration into were unpopular resources. In addition to the narration failing them, the truth that liars have a weak memory proved itself as they failed to realise that a gift or Hibah is incomplete and inconclusive if the beneficiary does not get control and possession. Similarly, a claim cannot be established by the testimony of one male and one female and two children.
Nevertheless, their plot failed miserably and Allah and His Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam were on the side of Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu. Consequently, Allah stipulates two males or two females and one male for establishing any claim and the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam retained administration of Fadak till the end of his life.
The Shia were bent on leading themselves to destruction so they fabricated a narration stating that Fatimah was entitled to Fadak because the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam had a made a bequest to this effect. But they forgot that a bequest is only valid in wealth that can be inherited and there is no question of inheriting the Prophet’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam material possessions.
The Shia were faced with a predicament now. They had no basis to condemn Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu and at the same time they had to fuel these allegations in order to appease their masses and to continue soliciting money and other benefits from them. If they lost hold of their masses how else would they receive a haram share from the wealth of the deceased and enjoy Niyaz and offerings? The latter generations picked up the old allegations of their predecessors, gave it a new touch and kept the criticism and reviling of Sahabah aflame.
‘Ammar ‘Ali has done precisely the same in his letter to Mir Nadir. But he was a foolish thief and did not even know how to present the case correctly. Therefore, he says that ‘Ali and Umm Ayman bore witness and he adds Hassan and Hussain to the drama. He also makes claims of Hibah and inheritance at the same time, and also implicates ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu for tearing the document up. Nevertheless, he has made great attempts to give credibility to his falsehood but it seems as if he has not come up against his match from the Ahlus Sunnah as yet. If he had had an encounter with a learned Sunni, he would have forgotten all his ludicrous claims.
All praise belongs to Allah, the Ahlus Sunnah are on firm, unshakeable foundations. Why would it not be so firm when it is nothing but the truth? Let alone the great scholars among the Ahlus Sunnah, this humble soul can also strike deadly blows at the Shia and some of it has passed in the pages before you. Nevertheless, let us asses his claims and deal with it bit by bit. He says:
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.
Honourable sir, a truthful and honest person acknowledges what is correct and we do not refute the fact that Sayyidah Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha did make a claim to receive the inheritance of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. If we were concealing something, we would have erased this narration from our books. The fact that we acknowledge and document that she claimed inheritance is enough to convince those who are just that the narration of gifting Fadak to her is baseless. [Since we document and do not deny,] we are not like ‘Ammar ‘Ali who refutes the records of Nahj al Balaghah and the al Kafi of al Kulayni which establish that Ruqayyah and Umm Kulthum radiya Llahu ‘anhuma were the daughters of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.
However, the claim that this hadith contradicts the Qur’an is untrue. Those who are intelligent already understand by this statement the level of proficiency that the Shia have as far as the Qur’an is concerned. For a people who have no connection with the Book of Allah, how would they know what conforms to it and what contradicts it? But since we have to spell it out for them, let us commence by saying that this hadith does not contradict the Qur’an in any way. Not only does it conform to the Qur’an, it embraces the Qur’an.
But in order to understand this fully let us elaborate on the objection of it contradicting the Qur’an in such a manner that would make the Shia and their scholars grateful to us for it. After elaborating on the claim, we will respond adequately so that they may be shamed.
It must be stated though that ‘Ammar ‘Ali is fighting on the strength of others weapons; he has repeated whatever he has gained from here and there. He ought to have gathered the facts and presented his claim in a systematic fashion. Blurting established facts is surely not the art of debate. We could have simply responded by refuting all his claims and countering it with Sunni beliefs, without even bothering with the proofs and evidences for Sunni beliefs. What would his response have been then? We would not respond in this manner, but we could have used the response of the Khawarij or the Nasibi for them. Consequently, we could have said that all the narrations about the merits of the Imams and the right to being Imam along with all those narrations which forms the foundation of Shia belief are but baseless, fabricated reports. What would ‘Ammar ‘Ali do then besides remain silent and backing off?
But look at our kindness and fairness that we have undertaken to elaborate on the objection and state it in full and then respond to it.
The Shia have made great attempts to reject the hadith—which is ‘solely’ transmitted by Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu—by asserting that it is in conflict with the Qur’an. They say that if a hadith contradicts the Qur’an, even though it has profuse transmission, it has to be rejected according to the Sunni principles of hadith. In this case, the transmission is by one sole narrator so it is even more incumbent to discard this hadith.
Consequently, they assert it to be in conflict with the Qur’an due to the following: Firstly, the following verse establishes the right of inheritance for offspring and it stipulates two shares for male offspring and one share for female offspring.
يُوصِيْكُمُ اللَّهُ فِيْ أَوْلَادِكُمْ لِلذَّكَرِ مِثْلُ حَظِّ الْأُنْثَيَيْنِ
Allah instructs you all concerning your children: for the male, what is equal to the share of two females.
Therefore, just as the rules of Salah, Hajj, Zakat, and other matters apply to the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, the laws of inheritance apply to him as well. Therefore, the claim that the Prophet’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam wealth cannot be inherited is in conflict with this verse.
Secondly, the hadith of Abu Bakr is in conflict with the following two verses as well:
فَهَبْ لِيْ مِنْ لَدُنْكَ وَلِيًّا يَرِثُنِيْ وَيَرِثُ مِنْ آلِ يَعْقُوْبَ
So, give me from Yourself an heir, who will inherit me and inherit from the family of Yaqub.
وَوَرِثَ سُلَيْمَانُ دَاوُوْدَ
And Sulaiman inherited Dawood.
These two verses establish inheriting from Prophets. The second of the two verses say that Nabi Sulaiman ‘alayh al Salam inherited from Nabi Dawood ‘alayh al Salam. The first verse records the prayer of Nabi Zakariyya ‘alayh al Salam. He said: “So give me from Yourself an heir, who will inherit me and inherit from the family of Yaqub…”
Thus, the second verse is explicit and it says that Nabi Sulaiman ‘alayh al Salam inherited from Nabi Dawood ‘alayh al Salam. This establishes inheritance from a Nabi. The first verse is not explicit but it expresses the words of a Nabi regarding inheritance and he surely knew better than anyone else about the prayer he was making. Similarly, he was not reprimanded for his prayer like Nabi Nuh ‘alayh al Salam. In fact, he received glad-tidings of the acceptance of his prayer and he was not admonished at all.
Nonetheless, these verses essentially establish inheritance from the Prophets. Therefore, how could the statement of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, “our estate is not inherited,” be correct? According to some versions of this hadith, he said:
We do not inherit.
This also seems incorrect as Nabi Sulaiman ‘alayh al Salam inherited from Nabi Dawood ‘alayh al Salam and Nabi Yahya ‘alayh al Salam was to inherit from Nabi Zakariyya ‘alayh al Salam.
So, this is the elaboration of the allegation of contradicting the Qur’an which we have recorded in full, such as cannot be possibly articulated by any Shia scholar.
Consider our response to this, which is soothing to the ears and pleasing to the soul. Our response will dispel all notions of this hadith even being in apparent conflict with the Qur’an let alone actual conflict. Before digesting the response, it is essential to clarify some preliminary issues.
Firstly, there is no doubt about the entire Qur’an being the word of Allah, from beginning to end. This is why it is known as Kalam Allah. However, just like messages and correspondence of human beings, the nature of the address in the Qur’an is of two types. Let us consider human correspondence and then understand this in the context of the Qur’an. Consider how a person writes a letter to another, or despatches his messages to another person via an emissary. In both cases, the wording is that of the writer or sender, but the emissary is just the intermediary for conveying that letter or message. If we apply this to the Qur’an, the majority of it is like this. Allah’s address is either to the entire ummah or specifically to the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam or to both. Sometimes the address is directed to a specific group. There is no need to illustrate this with an example but lest the Shia fail to get the message, the following examples illustrate this:
يَا عِبَادِ فَاتَّقُوْنِ
O My servants, then fear Me.
يَا أَيُّهَا الرَّسُوْلُ
يَا أَيُّهَا النَّبِيُّ
يَا بَنِيْ إِسْرَائِيْلَ اذْكُرُوْا نِعْمَتِيَ الَّتِيْ أَنْعَمْتُ عَلَيْكُمْ
O Bani Isra’il, remember My favour which I have bestowed upon you.
Consequently, the first verse is an example of a general address (to all Allah’s servants), the second and third is a specific address to the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and the last is an address to the Bani Isra’il to remember the favours of Allah upon them. Nevertheless, in all the above instances, the wording and the meaning is from Allah; it is not relating anyone else’s words.
The second example of human correspondence is like the case of a person who is ignorant of a certain language and he cannot convey his message personally. Therefore, a scribe converts his message into words and presents it on his behalf. In this instance, the message would be considered to be from the one who is ignorant of that language, though the words are not written by him.
Or take the scenario of a person who is directed by a lawyer to make certain remarks in a specific manner, the words emit from the person but they are actually the words of the lawyer.
In a similar manner, there are certain instances in the Qur’an, which have been revealed by Allah, but it is understood that the reader of the Qur’an is expressing those words by himself. Consider the wording and meanings of the chapters commonly referred to as the four ‘Qul’s’. All other verses where ‘Qul’ (say) or ‘Qulu’ (all of you say) are other examples of this. In all these instances the content which follows ‘Qul’ gives the impression that the speaker is the one who is addressing Allah with those words [yet the words have been inspired and revealed by Allah). In the case of Surah al Falaq for example, the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam is directed to say: “I seek refuge…”
However, when telling someone what to say it is imperative to tell them, “Say the following,” but when handing a document for them to read, the command, “Say” would not feature. In the same way, certain verses in the Qur’an are formulated in a manner that indicates that the person is addressing Allah with those words, or it is formulated in a way that gives the impression that the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam is addressing (human beings on behalf of Allah.) In some cases, ‘qul’ or ‘qulu’ does not appear, but it can be likened to the document a lawyer gives the client with which he represents himself with; the instruction, ‘Say’ does not feature in it.
Surah al Fatihah is a primary example of this, especially from
إِيَّاكَ نَعْبُدُ وَإِيَّاكَ نَسْتَعِيْنُ
onwards, which means:
It is You we worship and You we ask for help. Guide us to the straight path, the path of those upon whom You have bestowed favour, not of those who have evoked [Your] anger or of those who are astray.
It is very obvious that Allah has formulated this text and handed it over to the servant so that he could express himself in that manner before his Rabb. It is impossible for it to be the prayer of Allah as He does not pray to anyone or seek guidance and assistance.
Having established the above, it should be noted that the verse in question:
يُوْصِيْكُمُ اللَّهُ فِيْ أَوْلَادِكُمْ لِلذَّكَرِ مِثْلُ حَظِّ الْأُنْثَيَيْنِ
Allah instructs you all concerning your children: for the male, what is equal to the share of two females.
and in fact، the entire surah, has been revealed similar to Surah al Fatihah. Allah has formulated the entire surah and handed it over to the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam so that he could give instruction to people using the word of Allah, instead of his own words. The proof that this has been formulated on behalf of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam is the word Yusikum Allah (Allah instructs you all). Consequently, Allah does not say:
يَا عِبَادِيْ اُوْصِيْكُمْ
O My servants, I instruct you.
Had this been Allah’s direct address to his servants, he would have said the above. Nevertheless, the manner in which it is phrased proves that the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam is the speaker (on behalf of Allah) and that his followers are being addressed by him. He is educating them about the laws of inheritance using the text formulated by Allah for this purpose. This is just like the clerk of the court reading out the judgement of the judge to the claimant or defendant and informing them of the judgment given in their respective case.
Therefore, since Allah does not say, “O My servants, I instruct you,” it establishes that the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam is proclaiming the message just as is the case with Surah al Fatihah, where it is understood that each and every person standing in prayer or reciting it is expressing its contents.
Similarly, when the clerk reads out the judgement, it is understood that the judgement is not directed to him (i.e. the clerk). In the same way, the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam should be considered to be excluded from the proclamation being made to his followers. Consequently, the hadith, “What we leave behind is charity,” has been expressed to highlight his exclusion from that proclamation. This is why this hadith is actually the Tafsir of this verse. The confounded Shia misunderstand it to be a distortion of the verse and claim that there is contradiction between the Qur’an and hadith. They are ignorant, but they blame Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu.
Therefore, the Qur’anic verse and the hadith are in perfect harmony. In fact, the hadith serves as the Tafsir of the verse, which is the case with all the ahadith of the Ahlus Sunnah for that matter.
Sometimes a ruler has an announcer proclaiming a new rule and it is understood from the nature of events that the one who is making the proclamation is also governed by that particular rule. Therefore, certain commands such as Salah, Zakat, and Hajj are sometimes expressed in a tone, which according to the previous explanation demands the Prophet’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam exclusion, but these apply to him as well on account of some other factors.
Nevertheless, since it has been established from this verse that the law of inheritance does not apply to the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, there was a possibility that some would fail to make the distinction and equate this to the commands of Salah, Fasting, and Hajj. Therefore, the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam uttered the following statement:
We the Prophets are not inherited from, whatever we leave behind is charity.
The fact that a different rule applies to the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam is not peculiar to the case of inheritance. There are many other matters that are exclusively for the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. Consider the opening verses of Surah al Muzzammil and the following verse which make Tahajjud Salah mandatory upon the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam according to the majority view. However, Tahajjud Salah is not obligatory upon the ummah.
Similarly, fasting continuously without iftar was lawful for the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam but prohibited for the Ummah. If a woman offered herself for marriage to the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, without the obligation of dowry, then it was permissible for him to accept her in marriage; but it is not permissible for the Ummah. Similarly, the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam was excused from giving equal time to all his spouses but he maintained this throughout his life. The rest of the Ummah is bound to be equal in this regard.
Muslim men are permitted to have four wives, which appears at the beginning of this very surah. Consequently, the Ahlus Sunnah and Shia maintain that men can have four wives, not more. However, the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam is excluded from this.
It seems that the reason for his exclusion from this command is the very same matter which we have already established and that is the tone in this surah is not a direct command from Allah, but a command given to the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam to relay to the Ummah.
Similarly, the admonition in the opening verse of this surah should also be considered to be from the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. The verse is as follows:
یٰاَیُّهَا النَّاسُ اتَّقُوْا رَبَّكُمُ الَّذِیْ خَلَقَكُمْ مِّنْ نَّفْسٍ وَّاحِدَةٍ
O mankind, fear your Rabb, who created you from one soul.
Had this been a direct statement and address from Allah, it would have read as follows:
یٰاَیُّهَا النَّاسُ اتَّقُوْانِيْ فَاِنِّيْ رَبَّكُمُ الَّذِیْ خَلَقَكُمْ
O mankind, fear Me, for verily I am your Rabb who created you…
Therefore, (from the opening verse), the address is from the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam to the rest of the ummah. This is why the command of inheritance would be applicable to the Ummah. Consider when a nurse or care giver directs the patient to take medication or avoid certain foods because of the doctor’s instruction, then those regulations do not apply to the caregiver too. The Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam is also in the position of the caregiver for his Ummah and he has relayed the instructions of Allah—who is the Curer—to us. Consequently, the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam relayed the contents of this surah and he was exempted from its regulations.
If any command is directed to the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam then it is just like the doctor making a reference to something of relevance to the caregiver whilst giving instructions about the patient’s prescription.
Therefore, we have established that the commands from the beginning of this surah till the end of the section on inheritance is expressed in relation to the Ummah. If the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam is also intended in any command, then it is established by an external factor. And if not the entire surah, then surely till the end of the laws of inheritance, the text has been expressed in a manner that allows the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam to convey it (as opposed to a direct injunction from Allah).
The exclusion of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam or certain rules being relaxed for him is a matter which has parallels in our mundane worldly affairs. Therefore, a military officer has certain privileges which a common soldier cannot have. Therefore, just as the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam is exempted from the law stipulating four wives only, the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam is not addressed by this law of inheritance. This implies that there is no conflict between the Qur’an and the hadith; instead they complement each other.
Rather, conflict and contradiction is that which stems from certain Shia reports stating that some of the Imams denied and deprived the other heirs from some of the belongings of their father and kept it to themselves, such as the sword, the ring, the copy of the Qur’an and some garments. These narrations are recorded in Shia references and the Ahlus Sunnah have no record of these issues. So, on what basis was the inheritance denied or kept exclusively when the Qur’an stipulates the law of inheritance in Yusikum Allah (Allah instructs you all)?
Nevertheless, even if the hadith of Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu is incorrect or fabricated, its contents are accurate and correct. The law expressed in that hadith would still apply to Fadak and other material possessions of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and they would not be inherited. It is no longer necessary for us to record evidences why this hadith is authentic, nor is it necessary to establish harmony between the hadith and the Qur’an.
But considering the fact that defending the chosen servants of Allah by defeating their enemies and silencing them would result in securing the favour of Allah, His Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, and Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu—who is the greatest among the Auliya’—we will oblige and record another reason why there is conformity between the hadith and the Qur’an. We would also give a response to the remaining verses which would be of benefit to those who are balanced and unbiased. We would then express why this hadith is authentic and list the factors necessitating its authenticity, which is an issue contended by the Shia.
 Surah Ambiya’: 67.
 Surah al Ahzab: 6.
 The word tawatur (recurrence) is a mode of transmitting ahadith. Recurrence obtains when a hadith is narrated through so many channels and by so many people that collusion upon forgery is deemed inconceivable (because of the assumption that such a large number of transmitters cannot find ways to conspire amongst themselves); knowledge engendered by this type is considered certain.
 Surah al Nisa’: 11.
 Surah Maryam: 5, 6.
 Surah al Naml: 16.
 Surah al Zumar: 16.
 Surah al Ma’idah: 67.
 Surah al Ahzab: 59.
 Surah al Baqarah: 40.
 Surah al Nisa’: 11.
 Surah al Nisa’: 1.