The Shia scholars claim that after Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam gifted Fadak to Sayyidah Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha, he wrote a document to this effect and handed the land to her. However, they have failed to produce a single sahih narration to support their claim. They have just claimed it; and that is it.
‘Alam al Huda states in al Shafi that Qadi ‘Abdul Jabbar’s denial of the fact that Fadak was in her possession is not supported by any proof. And it is correct to say that if Fadak was in her possession, it would be understood to be her property. It is established through many chains that after the verse of Surah Bani Isra’il was revealed, Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam gave her Fadak. However, we did not come across any proof substantiating that it was taken out of her possession. Therefore, it cannot be denied without proof.
However, he failed to present any text from our books that proves that Fadak was in fact in her possession, she had appointed an administrator over it, and she would receive the income of Fadak.
Dildar ‘Ali presented only a rational argument instead of a textual one in ‘Imad al Islam. He says:
المسئلة الثانية أن فدك كانت في يد فاطمة يدل عليه إطباق الإمامية و رواياتهم كما مرت و أيضا يدل عليه أنك قد عرفت أن روايات العامة و الإمامية تدل أن النبي كان مأمورا بإعطاء فاطمة فدك و كان واجبا عليه أن يرفع يده عنها و يجعلها تحت يد فاطمة وعقد الهبة بدون تسليم فدك لها لا يصح و لا يخرج رسول الله عما في ذمته من أداء أمر الله تعالى و أيضا يدل عليه ما مر من عبارة علمائهم المسطور في الطرائف و أيضا يدل على كون فدك في يد فاطمة أنه استشهد أبو بكر فاطمة على ما ادعته من النحلة فلو لم يكن في يدها لكان الاستشهاد عبثا لأنه معلوم أن الهبة بدون القبض كلا هبة فح كان كافيا لأبي بكر أن يقول إنك و إن كنت صادقة في ذلك لكنك تعلمين أن الهبة بدون القبض لا تفيد بل كان هذا أولى لأن في الاستشهاد من بنت رسول الله و رد شهادة امرأتين من أهل الجنة قباحة لا تقدر أحد على إخفائها
Second Mas’alah: Fadak was in Fatimah’s possession. The declaration of the Imamiyyah and their narrations which have passed are proof to this. What also attests to this is that you are well aware that the narrations of the Sunni and Shia indicate to the fact that the Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam was instructed to gift Fadak to Fatimah. Following this, it was compulsory for him to remove his possession from it and give it into Fatimah’s possession. The gift transaction without handing Fadak over to her is not correct and Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam would not have then fulfilled the directive of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala.
Moreover, the texts of their ‘Ulama’ written in al Tara’if is proof to this. Another evidence to prove that Fadak was in Fatimah’s possession is that Abu Bakr asked Fatimah to present witnesses for the gift claim she made. Had it not been in her possession, asking her to present witnesses would have been futile because it is common knowledge that a gift without taking possession of it is like no gift. In such a case, it would have been sufficient for Abu Bakr to say, “Although, you are truthful in your claim, however you are aware that a gift without taking physical possession of the item is not complete.” In fact, this would have been more appropriate since asking Rasulullah’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam daughter for witnesses and rejecting the testimony of two women from Jannat is so detestable that no one is able to conceal it.
The author indicated towards al Tara’if. However, we have the book in front of us at the moment but find no narration of ours proving that Sayyidah Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha had possession of Fadak. Had there been any such narration, the author would have reported it. If anyone is in doubt, let him study al Tara’if and present a narration therefrom.
Dildar ‘Ali’s failure to report a narration shows that he could not locate one. Had he found any narration – whether sahih or da’if, original or fabricated – he would not have spared it.
Regarding his analogy that if she did not take possession, the gift transaction would not be complete since taking possession is necessary, this is based on the narration that states that Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam gifted her Fadak after the revelation of the verse in Surah Bani Isra’il. We have destroyed this foundation, so the analogical building he constructed upon it also falls to the ground.
She being asked to present witnesses supports our stance because had Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam really gifted her Fadak, she would have been in possession of the same. Moreover, the land would have had income worth 24000 gold coins and would have remained in her possession for 3 to 4 years. She would have had her administrators looking after it and would have received the income. This is such an affair which cannot be hidden. Therefore, there would be no reason to ask for witnesses in the first place. Had Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu sought this, then an adequate answer would be:
القبض دليل الملك
Possession is proof of ownership.
It would have been very easy for her to then show the Muhajirin and Ansar the oppression of the khalifah of the time. She would have said, “Until yesterday, I had full possession of this land and received the income. He snatched it away from me and asks me to present witnesses. Is there any greater witness than physical possession? And was this matter a secret?”
Had she said this, the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum would have been affected and would have understood the oppression and tyranny of the khalifah of the time. If hypothetically we agree that they were hell bent on harming her and participating in the oppression, then she would have a strong case against them. Not presenting this despite having such a huge testimony, not highlighting her possession over the land, and not displaying her administration is sufficient proof that she did not have possession over the land in the first place. When there is no possession, then the gift was not complete. Now claiming it was gifted is of no value.
Let us study all the Shia books that have been mentioned previously and see what proof they have furnished for this claim.
The gist of what al Shafi contains in answer to al Mughni is that Sayyidah Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha was right, and the one who prevented her and asked her to present witnesses was wrong. This is due to the fact that she is infallible, hence independent from presenting witnesses. Her claim is sufficient. He then presented the verse of the Qur’an which states:
إِنَّمَا يُرِيْدُ اللّٰهُ لِيُذْهِبَ عَنْكُمُ الرِّجْسَ أَهْلَ الْبَيْتِ
Allah intends only to remove from you the impurity [of sin], O people of the [Prophet’s] household.
He then goes on a rant about Sayyidina Khuzaimah dhu al shahadatayn (the Sahabi whose individual testimony is considered as two) and gets emotional asking if Sayyidah Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha was more insignificant than him, and was there any doubt of her speaking anything but the truth. However, he failed miserably at bringing any sahih narration to prove that she made such a claim and witnesses were sought from her. Nonetheless, he brought two baseless narrations without referencing them. We can declare with almost certainly, that they are Shia narrations.
The first narration states:
و قد روي أن أبا بكر لما شهد لها أمير المؤمنين كتب بتسليم فدك أليها فاعترض عمر قضيته فخرق ما كتبه روى إبراهيم بن محمد الثقفي عن إبراهيم بن ميمون قال حدثنا عيسى بن عبد الله بن محمد بن عمر بن علي بن ابي طالب عن أبيه عن جده علي قال جاءت فاطمة إلى أبي بكر و قالت إن أبي أعطاني فدك و علي يشهد و أم أيمن قال ما كنت لتقولي إلا الحق نعم قد أعطاك أبوك و دعا بصحيفة من أديم فكتب لها فيها فخرجت فلقيت عمر قال من أين جئت يا فاطمة قالت من عند أبي بكر أخبرته أن رسول الله أعطاني فدكا و علي يشهد و أم أيمن فأعطانيها و كتبها لي فأخذ عمر منها الكتاب ثم رجع إلى أبي بكر فقال أعطيت فاطمة فدكا و كتبت بها لها قال نعم قال عمر علي يجر إلى نفعه و أم أيمن امرأة و بصق في الصحيفة و محاها و قد روي هذا المعنى من وجوه مختلفة من أراد الوقوف عليها و استقصائها أخذها من مواضعها و ليس لهم أن يقولوا أنها أخبار آحاد إن كانت كذلك فأقل أحوالها أن يوجب الظن و يمنع من القطع على خلاف معناها
It is reported that when Amir al Mu’minin gave testimony in the presence of Abu Bakr, he wrote that Fadak be handed over to her. ‘Umar objected to his decision and tore up what he wrote.
Accordingly, Ibrahim ibn Muhammad al Thaqafi narrates from Ibrahim ibn Maymun who says that ‘Isa ibn ‘Abdullah ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Umar ibn ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib narrated to them from his father from his grandfather ‘Ali:
Fatimah came to Abu Bakr and said, “Indeed, my father gifted me Fadak. ‘Ali and Umm Ayman will bear witness to this.”
He said, “It is only appropriate for you to speak nothing but the truth. Yes, indeed your father gave it to you.”
He then called for a leather document and recorded it in her name.
She left and met ‘Umar en route who asked, “Where have you come from O Fatimah?”
She replied, “From Abu Bakr. I informed him that Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam gave me Fadak and ‘Ali and Umm Ayman gave testimony. Thus, he gave it to me and recorded it in my name.”
‘Umar took the document from her and went to Abu Bakr and asked, “You gave Fatimah Fadak and documented for her?”
He replied in the affirmative.
‘Umar objected, “‘Ali is drawing benefit for himself and Umm Ayman is a woman.” He then spat into the document and erased it.
This subject has been reported from many different angles. Whoever desires to study them and encompass them should check them up at their places.
They cannot say that they are simply akhbar ahad. Even if this be the case, the least it does is that it necessitates al zann (strong thought) and prevents al qat’ (conviction) of its opposing meaning.
The second narration is regarding Sayyidina ‘Umar ibn ‘Abdul ‘Aziz returning Fadak. It goes as follows:
وقد روى محمد بن زكريا الغلابي عن شيوخه عن أبي المقدام هشام بن زياد مولى آل عثمان قال لما ولى عمر بن عبد العزيز فرد فدك على ولد فاطمة و كتب إلى واليه على المدينة أبي بكر عمر بن حزم يأمره بذلك فكتب إليه أن فاطمة قد ولدت في آل عثمان و آل فلان و آل فلان فكتب إليه أما بعد فإني لو كنت كتبت إليك أمرك ان تذبح شاة لسألتني جماء أو قرناء أو كتبت إليه أن تذبح بقرة لسألتني ما لونها فإذا ورد عليك كتابي هذا فاقسمها بين ولد فاطمة من علي قال أبو المقدام فنقمت بنو أمية ذلك على عمر بن عبد العزيز و عاتبوه فيه و قالوا له هجنت فعل الشيخين و خرج إليه عمر بن عبس في جماعة من أهل الكوفة فلما عاتبوه على فعله قال إنكم جهلتم و علمت و نسيتم و ذكرت أن أبا بكر محمد بن عمرو بن حزم حدثني عن أبيه عن جده أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم قال فاطمة بضعة مني ليسخطني ما يسخطها و يرضني ما يرضيها و إن فدك كانت صافية على عهد أبي بكر و عمر ثم صار أمرها إلى مروان فوهبها لأبي عبد العزيز فورثتها أنا و إخوتي فسألتهم أن يبيعوني حصتهم منها فمنهم من باعني و منهم من وهب لي حتى استحقها فرأيت أن أردها على ولد فاطمة فقالوا إن أبيت إلا هذا فامسك الأصل و اقسم الغلة ففعل
Muhammad ibn Zakariyya al Ghulabi reports from his shuyukh from Abu al Miqdam Hisham ibn Ziyad the freed slave of the family of ‘Uthman who narrates, “When ‘Umar ibn ‘Abdul ‘Aziz assumed the position of khalifah, he returned Fadak to the children of Fatimah and wrote to his governor over Madinah Abu Bakr ‘Umar ibn Hazm instructing him accordingly.”
The governor wrote to him that Fatimah has children in the family of ‘Uthman, the family of so and so and so and so.
So ‘Umar wrote to him:
After praising Allah, had I written to you commanding you to slaughter a sheep, you would have certainly asked me whether it should be horned or not. Or had I written to you asking you to slaughter a cow, you would have asked me regarding its colour. When this letter of mine reaches you, distribute it [Fadak] among the children of Fatimah from ‘Ali.
Abu al Miqdam reports further, “The Banu Umayyah were resentful towards ‘Umar ibn ‘Abdul ‘Aziz because of this and condemned him for it. They said, ‘You have run down the action of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar.’”
‘Umar ibn ‘Abs came to him with a group from Kufah. When they rebuked him for his action, he said, “You are ignorant while I have knowledge. You have forgotten while I remember. Indeed, Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn ‘Amr ibn Hazm reported to me from his father from his grandfather that Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said, ‘Fatimah is a part of me. What displeases her displeases me and what pleases her pleases me.’ Certainly, Fadak was undisturbed in the era of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar. Then it fell into the hands of Marwan who gifted it to my father ‘Abdul ‘Aziz. Subsequently, I and my brothers inherited it. I asked them to sell to me their respective shares. Some sold it to me while others gave it to me until I became the sole owner of it. And I feel that I should return it to the children of Fatimah.”
They said, “If you wish to do nothing but this, then keep the land and distribute the produce.” He acceded to their request.
The author of Talkhis al Shafi has recorded these very narrations. However, he failed to reference them which suggests that he did not find it in any Sunni book. After quoting these two narrations, he writes the incident of Ma’mun returning Fadak to the progeny of Fatimah, again without any reference:
و مما يدل على صحة دعويها النحل و إن ذلك كان معروفا شائعا ما كان من عمر بن عبد العزيز من رد فدك على ولدها لما تبين أن الحق كان معها و كذلك فعل المأمون فإنه نصب لها وكيلا لأبي بكر و جس للقضاء وحكم لها بذلك و لو لم يكن الأمر معروفا معلوما لما فعلوا ذلك مع موضعهم من الخلافة و سلطانهم الذي أرادوا حفظ قلوب الرعية و ان لا يفعلوها يوي إلى تنفيرهم و ليس لأحد أن ينكر ذلك يدفعه لأن الأمر في ذلك أظهر من أن يخفى
One of the indications of the correctness of her gift claim and that this was well known among the people is that ‘Umar ibn ‘Abdul ‘Aziz returned Fadak to her children after it became apparent that she was upon the truth. Similarly, the action of Ma’mun who appointed for her a lawyer and a lawyer for Abu Bakr and then sat to pass judgement and passed judgement in her favour. Had the matter not been common knowledge among them, they would not have done this. Due to their position as khalifah and their kingdom, they intended to win the hearts of their subordinates and had they not done so, it would have led to people despising them. No one can deny this fact for it is akin to concealing the sun in broad daylight.
‘Allamah Hilli quoted the following narration of al Waqidi in Kashf al Haqq:
و روى الواقدي و غيره من نقلة الأخبار عندهم و ذكروه في الأخبار الصحيحة أن النبي لما افتتح خيبر اصطفى قرى من قرى اليهود فنزل جبريل بهذه الآية و آت ذا القربى حقه فقال محمد و من ذوي القربى و ما حقه قال فاطمة فدفع إليها فدك و العوالي فاستغلتها حتى توفي أبوها عليه الصلوة و السلام فلما بويع أبو بكر منعها و كلمته في ردها إليها و قالت إنهما لي فأبي دفعها إلي فقال أبو بكر فلا أمنعك ما دفع إليك أبوك فأراد أن يكتب لها كتابا فاستوقفه عمر بن الخطاب و قال إنها امرأة فطالبها بالبينة على ما ادعته فأمرها أبو بكر فجاءت بأم أيمن و أسماء بنت عميس مع علي فشهدوا بذلك فكتب لها أبو بكر فبلغ ذلك عمر فأخذ الصحيفة فمحاها فحلفت أن لا تكلمهما وماتت و هي ساخطة عليهما
Al Waqidi and other narrators of ahadith among the Sunni have reported in sahih narrations that when the Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam conquered Khaybar, he selected few villages of the Jews from himself. Just then Jibril descended with the verse: And give the relative his right. Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam asked, “Who is the relative and what is his right?”
He explained, “Fatimah.”
Thus, he gave her Fadak and the ‘awali (top villages) of the area. She continued receiving the produce from these lands until her father salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam passed away. When allegiance was taken at the hands of Abu Bakr, he prevented her from it. She spoke to him regarding him returning it to her and said, “It belongs to me. My father gave it to me.”
Hearing this Abu Bakr said, “I will not prevent you from something your father gave you.”
He thus intended writing for her a document, but ‘Umar ibn al Khattab prevented him saying, “She is only a woman so ask her to furnish proof over what she claimed.”
Abu Bakr instructed her accordingly. She thus brought Umm Ayman and Asma’ bint ‘Umays with ‘Ali who gave testimony in her favour. Abu Bakr then wrote for her a document. News of this reached ‘Umar who took the document and erased it. She then swore that she will not speak to them and passed away angry with them.
The second narration he records is of Ma’mun, without any isnad or source:
جمع المأمون ألف نفس من الفقهاء و تناظروا و أدى بحثهم إلى رد فدك على العلويين من ولدها فرد عليهم
Al Ma’mun gathered 1000 Fuqaha’ who debated the issue. They came to the conclusion that Fadak be returned to Fatimah’s children from ‘Ali. Al Ma’mun practiced accordingly.
The third narration is as follows:
Abu Hilal al ‘Askari reports in Akhbar al Awa’il that the first to return Fadak to Fatimah’s heirs was ‘Umar ibn ‘Abdul ‘Aziz.
‘Allamah Fadl ibn Rawzbahan writes in his book Ibtal al Batil, a refutation of Kashf al Haqq, that the following answer be given to these baseless fairy tales:
و أما دعوى فاطمة رضي الله عنها فلم يصح في الصحاح و يذكرونها نقلة الأخبار من أرباب التواريخ ومجرد نقلهم لا يصير سببا للقدح في الخلفاء
With regards to Fatimah’s radiya Llahu ‘anha claim, it does not feature in the al Sihah al Sittah. On the contrary, the historians have mentioned it. Their mere citing the narration cannot be used to indict the khulafaʾ.
In answer to this, al Shustari presents no sahih narration with a chian of narration, but suffices on quoting two baseless statements. One statement appears in Mujam al Buldan in relation to Fadak:
و هي التي قالت فاطمة رضي الله عنها إن رسول الله نحلتها فقال أبو بكر أريد بذلك شهودا لها قصة
Fadak is the same land regarding which Sayyidah Fatimah claimed that Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam gifted it to her and Abu Bakr replied, “I need witnesses for this.” There is a lengthy incident attached to it.
The second is the incident of ‘Umar ibn ‘Abdul ‘Aziz and al Ma’mun returning Fadak. Nonetheless, there is no reference for the incident nor any isnad. Briefly, it is written therein:
لما ولي عمر بن عبد العزيز الخلافة كتب إلى عامله بالمدينة يامره برد فدك إلى ولد فاطمة رضي الله عنها فكانت في أيديهم أيام عمر بن عبد العزيز فلما ولي يزيد بن عبد الملك قبضها فلم يزل في أيدي بني أمية حتى ولي أبو العباس السفاح الخلافة فدفعها إلى الحسن بن الحسن بن علي بن أبي طالب فكان هو القيم عليها يفرقها في بني علي بن أبي طالب فلما ولي منصور و خرج عليه بنو الحسن قبضها عنهم فلما ولي المهدي بن المنصور الخلافة أعاده عليهم ثم قبضها موسى الهادي و من بعده إلى أيام المأمون فجاء بنو علي فطالبها فأمر أن يسجل لهم بها فكتب السجل و قرأ على المأمون فقام و عبل و أنشد شعرا صبح وجه الزمان قد ضحكا برد مأمون هاشما فدكا و في فدك اختلاف كثير في أمرها بعد النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم من رواة أخبروها بحسب الأهواء و شدة
When ‘Umar ibn ‘Abdul ‘Aziz assumed the position of Caliphate, he wrote to his governor over Madinah commanding him to return Fadak to the children of Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha. Consequently, it remained in their possession for the era of ‘Umar ibn ‘Abdul ‘Aziz. When Yazid ibn ‘Abdul Malik became khalifah, he took control over it and it thereafter remained in the hands of the Banu Umayyah until Abu al ‘Abbas al Saffah undertook the Caliphate. He gave it to Hassan ibn al Hassan ibn ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib. He remained the administrator and would distribute its produce among the children of ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib. When Mansur became khalifah and the sons of Hassan rebelled against him, he snatched it from them. Thereafter, when Mahdi ibn al Mansur became khalifah, he returned it to them. Then Musa al Hadi took possession of it and those after him thereafter, until the era of al Ma’mun. The sons of ‘Ali came to him claiming it. He ordered that a document be written it their name and this was carried out. It was read out to al Ma’mun, who stood up after hearing it and sang this couplet:
The face of time has smiled
At Ma’mun’s return of Fadak to Hashim
There is much ikhtilaf with regards to Fadak after the Nabi’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam demise due to narrators reporting according to their inclinations, prejudice, and extremism.
He quotes another narration from Tarikh al Khulafa’ of Jalal al Din al Suyuti which briefly explains ‘Umar ibn ‘Abdul ‘Aziz’s incident. He writes:
و أيضا يناقض ذلك ما رواه الشيخ جلال الدين السيوطي الشافعي في تاريخ الخلفاء من أن فدكا كان بعد ذلك حيوة أبي بكر و عمر ثم اقتطعها مروان … عمر بن عبد العزيز قد رد فدكا إلى بني هاشم و روي أيضا أنه ردها إلى أولاد فاطمة
What Jalal al Din al Suyuti al Shafi’i records in Tarikh al Khulafa’ is opposed to this, i.e. that Fadak remained intact in the life of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar. Then Marwan divided it … ‘Umar ibn ‘Abdul ‘Aziz thereafter returned Fadak to the Banu Hashim. It is reported in a narration that he returned it to the progeny of Fatimah.
Although, al Shustari brings no narration besides the above one, yet he writes at one place:
و أما دعوى النحلة فقد مر نقلا عن كتاب المعجم و قد روي من عدة طرق من طريق غيرها أيضا
Concerning the gift claim, it has been cited from the book al Mujam. It has been narrated through many chains besides the above as well.
He asserts at yet another place:
و أما دعوی فاطمۃ فدکا أشہر من أن یطلب صحتہا فی کتب الصحاح إذ قد عم خبرہا العلماء و الجہال و السادۃ الأتباع الرؤوس الأذناب و قد مثل بہ مثل ذلک بخمس مائۃ سنۃ بعض حکماء الشعراء بقولہ ملک بخشا یندہ در حمان میمون خدمتت جون خلافت بی علی بودہ ست و بی زہرا فدک و أما م ذکرہ من أن مجرد نقل أہل التواریخ لا یصیر حجۃ و سپا للقدح فی الخلفاء ففیہ ما اشتمل علیہ کتب التواریخ من جملۃ العلوم النقلیۃ فیثبت بما ثبت بہ غیرہ من الأمور النقلیۃ و قد تقرر فی الأصول أن خبر العدل الواحد فی النقلیات فیثبت بہ و إذا بلغ إلی حد الشہرۃ و التواتر المعنوی استغنی عن التعدیل و المنصف لم یتمسک ہنا بمجرد روایۃ الواقدی بل صرح بغیرہ أشار إلی کثرۃ الأخبار المحکوم علیہا بالصحۃ عند الخصم و أیدہ بما روی من مناظرۃ ألف نفس من الفقہاء أیام المأمون فی ذلک و أکملہ بالحدیثین المروین عن سید الحفاظ أہل السنۃ و صدر أئمتہم و لیس علیہ إلا تصحیح النقلان أنکر الناصب وجودہ و إلا فلیترک شغبہ و جحودہ
Fatimah’s claim over Fadak is more famous than seeking its authenticity in the Sihah. The incident has reached the ‘Ulama’, ignorant, leaders, followers, heads, and subordinates. Some wise poets have composed a couplet about it 500 years ago.
ملک بخشا یندہ در حمان میمون خدمتت جون خلافت بی علی بودہ ست و بی زہرا فدک
With regards to his claim that the historians simply narrating it cannot be used as proof to indict the Khulafa’. The response to this is that if the books of history contain traditional facts which are established in other books then they will be authentic. It has been determined in the principles that the khabar (information) of one just person in traditional matters is established and when it has reached the level of shuhrah and al tawatur al ma’nawi (the meaning of which is mutawatir) it is independent of any authentication. Al Hilli has not only relied on al Waqidi’s narration as proof. In fact, he has clearly mentioned others as well. He has also indicated to an abundance of narrations which have been categorised as authentic by the opposition. What supports this is the narration of the debate of 1000 Fuqaha’ in the era of al Ma’mun. And to top it all are the two narrations of Sayed al Huffaz of the Ahlus Sunnah and their Sadr al A’immah . It only devolves upon al Hilli to authenticate the narration if the opposition denies. Otherwise, the opposition should abandon his rejection.
Although, al Shustari claims that al Hilli has provided the reference to other narrations, we have not found any narration is Kashf al Haqq except the ones we narrated. Nor has al Shustari presented any narration or isnad. He sufficed on claiming that it is mash-hur. Both the books printed in Iran are existent. Whoever wishes may study them.
Similarly, despite al Hilli showing off his proficient writing skills and his mastery in literature, he failed miserably at presenting a single sahih narration or a reliable isnad to prove the claim to Fadak’s gift in al Tara’if. He speaks about Fadak from page 67 to page 80 in the Mumbai print of the book, but there is no narration besides the incident of al Ma’mun and ‘Umar ibn ‘Abdul ‘Aziz. He sufficed on few expletives and displayed his proficiency with the pen which manages to cause misgivings in the hearts of the unwary. He claims that although Sayyidah Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha was infallible and Sayyidina ‘Ali and Sayyidah Umm Ayman radiya Llahu ‘anhuma gave testimony in her favour, Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu labelled them as liars and thought that they wished to usurp the rights of the Muslims for their own personal gain. People who hear this would become perturbed and reservations towards Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu would develop in their hearts.
The truth is that the claim was not made, nor were witnesses demanded, nor was anything rejected. These are all lies and fairy tales. Those ‘Ulama’ of the Ahlus Sunnah who answered these claims, answered them in a hypothetical sense.
The Shia’s clamour and uproar is all a hoax. It was mandatory for them to present a sahih narration as their basis from our books. Then they could have uttered and written whatever drivel they wished to. All this commotion over a baseless fairy-tale is ludicrous to say the least.
While quoting the incident of al Ma’mun in al Tara’if, he writes:
It is amazing and astonishing that although they appreciated the piety, honour, and grandeur of Fatimah bint Rasulillah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, yet they oppressed her in many different ways and trampled upon her and her father’s honour. Despite them believing her to be the Queen of Jannat, they harmed and hurt her in various ways. Accordingly, the historians have narrated a lengthy address which was written and read out in the season of Hajj at the command of the ‘Abbasi khalifah al Ma’mun. The author of Tarikh ‘Abbasi has recorded it and the Roman Faqih and author of history has indicated towards it while discussing the happenings of the year 212 A.H.
The incident goes as follows:
The children of Sayyidina Hassan and Sayyidina Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhuma claimed the cessation of their possession in front of the Khalifah al Ma’mun by asserting that Fadak and the ‘awali belonged to their mother Fatimah bint Muhammad radiya Llahu ‘anha. But Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu snatched it away from her and they now demand justice and an end to the oppression. Al Ma’mun gathered 200 ‘Ulama’ from al Hijaz and Iraq and emphasised upon them to observe honesty and to follow the truth. He explained to them the case of the heirs of Sayyidah Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha and asked them if they knew any sahih hadith in that regard. Many ‘Ulama’ quoted the narration of Bishr ibn al Walid, al Waqidi, and Bishr ibn Ghiyath with an isnad to Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam that when Khaybar was conquered, Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam selected few villages of the Jews for himself. Just then, Sayyidina Jibril ‘alayh al Salam descended with the verse And give the relative his right. Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam enquired as to who the relative was and what his right was. Jibril explained that it was Fatimah, so Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam gave her Fadak and thereafter ‘awali which remained in her sole possession until the demise of her father. When Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu was elected as khalifah, he told her that he cannot prevent her from something her father gifted her and wanted to write a documents for her. However, ‘Umar told Abu Bakr that she is a woman and he should demand witnesses from her. Accordingly, Abu Bakr asked her to present witnesses. Fatimah presented Sayyidah Umm Ayman, Asma’ bint ‘Umays, and ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhum. ‘Umar heard of this so he came to Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu who explained that they all gave witness in her favour so he wrote a document for her. ‘Umar snatched the document away clarifying that she is a woman and Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu is her husband who wishes to procure benefit for himself. And the testimony of two female witnesses without a man is not valid. Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu sent this information to Sayyidah Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha. She swore on oath, “By Allah besides whom they is no deity. They have presented a worthy testimony.”
Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu said, “Probably, you are truthful, but present more witnesses who do not desire personal gain.”
She retorted, “Did you not hear my father declaring Asma’ bint ‘Umays and Umm Ayman women of Jannat?”
They agreed. She said, “Then will women of Jannat give false testimony?”
She became upset and went home. She would scream to her father, “My father informed me that I will be the first to meet him. I swear by Allah that I will complain to him of this.”
She then fell ill and bequeathed to Sayyidina ‘Ali not to allow Abu Bakr and ‘Umar to join in her Salat al Janazah. She ignored them and did not speak to them until she passed away. ‘Ali and ‘Abbas buried her at night.
In that very gathering and on that very day, al Ma’mun returned Fadak to the heirs of Fatimah.
On the second day, he summoned a thousand Fuqaha’ and explained to them the situation and cautioned them to fear Allah. They debated the issue and were divided into two groups. One group said that the husband desires personal benefit so his testimony is not accepted. Nonetheless, Sayyidah Fatimah’s oath established her claim with the witness of two women. The second group said that they do not regard a ruling to be compulsory upon an oath coupled with a testimony. Nevertheless, the testimony of a husband is permissible. They do not regard him to be procuring benefit for himself, hence his testimony together with the two women’s testimony established her claim. In short, although they differed in their approach they reached the same conclusion, i.e. Fatimah is entitled to Fadak and ‘awali.
Al Ma’mun then asked them to mention the virtues of Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu. They quoted an abundance of virtues which are mentioned in Ma’mun’s letter. He then asked them about Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha and they mentioned many statements of her father in her favour. He then enquired from them about Sayyidah Umm Ayman and Sayyidah Asma’ bint ‘Umays radiya Llahu ‘anhuma and they presented a narration of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam confirming that they are among the dwellers of Jannat. Al Ma’mun then said, “Is it fathomable or believable that Sayyidina ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib radiya Llahu ‘anhu despite his abstinence and righteousness would give false testimony in favour of Sayyidina Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha whereas Allah and His Messenger attest to their superiority? Is it possible for them, keeping in mind their knowledge and excellence, to be prepared to give testimony for something that had no knowledge of? It is conceivable for Sayyidah Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha considering her infallibility, worship, and being the Queen of the women of the universe, or the Queen of the women of Jannat which you have just narrated to claim something not hers swearing on oath: ‘there is no deity but Allah,’ thereby harming the Muslims? It is perceivable for Umm Ayman and Asma’ bint ‘Umays to give false testimony despite them being women of Jannat? Undoubtedly, criticising Fatimah is criticising the Book of Allah and heretism in Din. This can never be correct.”
He then mentioned to them a hadith stating that after the demise of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu announced that whoever Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam owes anything or whomsoever Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam promised anything should approach him. Many people came to him and claimed and he fulfilled all their demands without seeking any witness. Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu also made a similar announcement and Jarir ibn ‘Abdullah came and claimed a promise which was fulfilled without demanding any witnesses. Then Sayyidina Jabir ibn ‘Abdullah radiya Llahu ‘anhuma claimed that Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam promised him a third of the wealth from Bahrain and Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu fulfilled this when the wealth from Bahrain came. Whereas both of them presented no witnesses.
‘Abdul Mahmud says that Humaidi has mentioned this hadith in al Jam’ Bayn al Sahihayn, the ninth hadith of Muslim, in the Musnad of Jabir. Sayyidina Jabir radiya Llahu ‘anhu reports, “I counted them and they were 500.” Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu told him to take an equal amount more.
‘Abdul Mahmud says that it is written in al Ma’mun’s letter that he was extremely astonished at this hadith and exclaimed, “Was Fatimah and her witnesses not even equal to Jarir and Jabir ibn ‘Abdullah?”
Al Ma’mun then emphasised that this letter be written and read out in the season of Hajj in front of all the people. He then gave Fadak and ‘awali into the possession of Muhammad ibn Yahya al Hussain ibn ‘Ali ibn al Hussain ibn ‘Ali ibn al Hassan ibn ‘Ali ibn al Hassan ibn ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib so he may administer it and divide its produce among the heirs of Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha.
The incident of ‘Umar ibn ‘Abdul ‘Aziz returning Fadak is recorded in Akhbar al Awa’il of Abu Hilal al ‘Askari just as it appears in Kashf al Haqq.
In Bihar al Anwar, there is no reliable narration quoted from our books.
Similarly, Dildar ‘Ali presented no narration with an authentic isnad. The only thing mentioned in ‘Imad al Islam is the incident of al Ma’mun and his returning of Fadak which he quoted verbatim from al Tara’if. He writes in the first mas’alah of the fourth fa’idah:
و قال السيد علي بن طاؤس في الطرائف و من الطرائف العجيبة
Al Sayed ibn Ta’us says in al Tara’if, “And one of the amazing incidents …”
A little further, he quotes the narration of Hafiz Ibn Shabbah from al Sawa’iq al Muhriqah and Jawahir al ‘Aqdayn:
المسئة الثالثة هل فاطمة ادعت النحلة أم لا يدل على صحة وقوع تلك الدعوى ما في الباب الثاني من الصواعق المحرقة و في الأدب السابع من الذكر الخامس عشر من القسم الثاني من جواهر العقدين للسيد سهمودي أخرج الحافظ ابن شبه عن النمير بن الحسان قال قلت لزيد بن علي هو أخو الباقر و أنا أريد أن أهجن أمر أبي بكر إن أبا بكر انتزع من فاطمة رضي الله عنها فدك فقال إن أبا بكر كان رجلا رحيما و كان يكره أن يغير شيئا تركه رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم فأتته فاطمة فقالت إن رسول الله أعطاني فدك فقال هل لك على هذا بينة فجاءت بعلي فشهد لها ثم جاءت بأم أيمن فقالت أليس تشهد أني من أهل الجنة قال بلى قالت فأشهد أن النبي أعطاها فدك فقال أبو بكر لرجل و امرأة تستحقينها إلى آخر القصة
Mas’alah 3: Did Fatimah claim a gift or not. What appears in the second chapter of al Sawa’iq al Muhriqah and the seventh adab of dhikr fifteen of the second section of Jawahir al ‘Aqdayn of Sayed Sahmudi which Hafiz Ibn Shabbah has recorded from Numair ibn al Hassan who narrates:
I said to Zaid ibn ‘Ali, the brother of al Baqir and I was intending to disparage Abu Bakr, “Indeed Abu Bakr snatched Fadak from Fatimah.”
He said, “Certainly, Abu Bakr was a merciful man. He disliked changing anything Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam had left. Fatimah came to him and said, ‘Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam gave me Fadak.’
He said, ‘Do you have any proof for this?’
She brought ‘Ali who testified for her. She then brought Umm Ayman who said, ‘Do you not testify that I am from the dwellers of Jannat?’
He replied in the affirmative. ‘So I testify that the Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam gave her Fadak.’
Upon this Abu Bakr exclaimed, ‘Can a claim be established with the testimony of one man and one woman?’” until the end of the incident.
The author did not mention the rest of the incident. It goes as follows:
Zaid ibn ‘Ali declared, “By Allah, had this matter been presented to me, I would have passed the same judgement as Abu Bakr.”
و في الفصل الخامس من الباب الأول من كتاب الصواعق المحرقة و دعواها أنه نحلها فدكا لم تأت عليها إلا بعلي و أم أيمن فلم يكمل نصاب البينة على أن في قبول الشهادة الزوج لزوجته خلافا بين العلماء و عدم حكمه بشاهد و يمين إما لعله لكونه ممن لا يراه كالكثيرين من العلماء أو إنها لم تطلب الحلف مع من شهد لهما و زعمهم أن الحسن و الحسين و أم كلثوم شهدوا لها باطل على أن شهادة الفرع و الصغيرة غير مقبولة
It appears in section five of chapter two of al Sawa’iq al Muhriqah:
Fatimah’s claim that Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam gave her Fadak; since she only presented ‘Ali and Umm Ayman as witnesses, the quota was not fulfilled. Another aspect is that there is a difference of opinion between the ‘Ulama’ regarding acceptance of a husband’s testimony in favour of his wife. And his inability to pass judgement on one witness coupled with an oath either because he does not agree to it like majority of ‘Ulama’ or she did not take an oath with their testimonies. Their belief that Hassan, Hussain, and Umm Kulthum testified on her behalf is erroneous since the testimony of a descendant and an immature person is unacceptable.
و في المقصد الرابع من المرصد الرابع من المواقف السادس من شرح الواقف فإن قيل ادعت فاطمة أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم نحلها فدكا و شهد علي و الحسن و الحسين و أم كلثوم و الصحيح أم أيمن فرد أبو بكر شهادتهم قلنا أما الحسن و الحسين و أم كلثوم فلقصورهما نصاب البينة
In maqsad 4 of marsad 4 of mawqaf 6 of Sharh al Waqif it appears:
If the objection is raised that Fatimah claimed that Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam gifted Fadak to her and ‘Ali, Hassan, Hussain, and Umm Kulthum gave testimony as well as Umm Ayman in the authentic version which was rejected by Abu Bakr. We will answer by saying that Hassan, Hussain, and Umm Kulthum’s testimony did not meet the desired quota.
This is all that Dildar ‘Ali could write. The Shia also claim that Sayyidah Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha told Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu that sufficient evidence of her ownership is that Fadak was in her possession. We hoped that ‘Imad al Islam, a voluminous and comprehensive book of this nature would have at least contained one narration from our books to prove these claims. But unfortunately, this was not the case. This shows that he could not locate even a da’if hadith or an unreliable narration from our books just to save face.
Thereafter, the only hope left was that Ta’n al Rimah would contain such a narration. However, it is remorseful indeed that our hope turned into despair after studying the book. The author sufficed on quoting the very same incidents that his predecessors and father had written, or providing reference to some of those statements. Besides this, he could not furnish a single sahih narration with a reliable isnad to prove his claim. It is owing to this, that this book is considered by those who share his ideologies as “an unanswerable book.” Nevertheless, among the narrations and statements the author quoted from the books of his predecessors and the fresh statements that he made, one is the narration of Numair ibn Hassan which relates the incident of Zaid being asked about Fadak. He writes:
ابن حجر در باب ثانی صواعق محرقہ و سید سہمودی در جواہر العقدین از حافظ ابن شبہ روایت کردہ و اللفظ للأخیر عن النمیر بن حسان قال قلت لزید بن علی و أنا أرید أن أہجن أبا بکر الخ
Ibn Hajar in chapter 2 of al Sawa’iq al Muhriqah and Sayed Sahmudi in Jawahir al ‘Aqdayn report from Hafiz Ibn Shabbah and the wording is of Sahmudi’s from Numair ibn al Hassan who narrates: “I said to Zaid ibn ‘Ali, the brother of al Baqir and I was intending to disparage the action of Abu Bakr …”
After quoting the exact words of ‘Imad al Islam, the author says:
این روایت صریح ست دریں کہ جناب سیدہ نزد ابی بکر آمدہ دعوی ہبہ فرمودہ و او گواہ و شاہد طلب نمود و جناب باب مدینۃ العلم و نفس رسول و ام ایمن کہ بنا بر حدیث متفق علیہ نبوی مبشر بہشت و بد و ابو بکر نیز بآن اقرار نمود اداۓ شہادت کردند پس او قبول نہ کرد و گفت از گواہی یک مرد و یک زن حق نمی شود انتہی
This narration clearly states that Fatimah claimed the gifting of Fadak in the presence of Abu Bakr who demanded witnesses. ‘Ali and Umm Ayman – who are according to the ahadith dwellers of Jannat – gave testimony, yet Abu Bakr did not accept it saying that a claim is not established by the testimony of one man and one woman.
The author quotes another narration from Sharh Nahj al Balaghah of Ibn Abi al Hadid from Abu Bakr al Jawhari:
و ایضا ابو بکر جوہری کہ کنیت شریفش شاہد عدل نصب و تسں اوست روایت کردہ
قالت فاطمة رضي الله عنها إن أم أيمن تشهد أن رسول الله أعطاني فدك فقال لها يا بنت رسول الله و الله ما خلق الله خلقا أحب إلي من رسول الله أبيك و لوددت أن السماء تقع على الأرض يوم مات أبوك إلى أن قال إن هذا لما لم يكن للنبي إنما كان مال من أموال المسلمين يحمل به الرجال و ينفقه في سبيل الله فلما توفي رسول الله وليته كما كان يوليه قالت و الله لا كلمتك أبدا قال لا هجرتك أبدا قالت والله لأدعون الله عليك قال و الله لا دعوت الله لك فلما حضرتها الوفاة أوصت أن لا يصلي عليها فدفنت ليلا انتهى على مما نقله ابن أبي الحديد
Abu Bakr al Jawhari whose agnomen is proof of him being Sunni and Nasibi reports:
Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha said, “Umm Ayman testifies that Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam gave me Fadak.”
He said, “O daughter of the Messenger of Allah! By Allah, Allah did not create a creation more beloved to me that the Messenger of Allah your father. I desired that the sky fall upon the earth the day your father passed on …
This land did not belong to the Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam but was instead part of the wealth of the Muslims used to buy conveyances for the warriors and spent in the path of Allah. When Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam passed away, I was made administrator over it just as he was.”
She said, “By Allah, I will never speak to you ever.”
He retorted, “I will never stop speaking to you.”
She said, “By Allah, I will invoke the curse of Allah upon you.”
He retorted, “By Allah, I will never supplicate for you.”
When death approached her, she bequeathed that he should not perform Salat al Janazah upon her. Hence, she was buried at night.
This has been reported from Ibn Abi al Hadid.
The third narration Mujtahid brings is the incident of ‘Umar ibn ‘Abdul ‘Aziz which he quotes from Akhbar al Awa’il, Mujam al Buldan, and Sharh Nahj al Balaghah. He quotes the very same thing his father Dildar ‘Ali and al Shustari mentioned.
The fourth narration is of al Ma’mun as appears in al Tara’if. The only difference is that it is the Persian translation.
The fifth narration is taken from Ma’arij al Nubuwwah which appears in ‘Imad al Islam wherein mention is made that Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam wrote a document for Sayyidah Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha and this was furnished in front of Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu. He writes:
و أیضا در روضۃ الصفا و ہم در کتاب معارج النبوت کہ مشہور بسیر ملا معین ہروی است از مقصد اقصی نقل کردہ کہ بعضے می گوید الخ
Furthermore, it has been reported in Rawdat al Safa and the book Ma’arij al Nubuwwah which is famously known as Siyar Mulla Mu’in Harawi quoting from Maqsad Aqsa that some have said …
He then quotes the very same words that appear in ‘Imad al Islam.
The sixth narration is from al Milal wa al Nihal of Shaharastani:
شہرستانی در ملل و نحل گفتہ
الخلاف الثالث في أمر فدك و التوارث عن النبي و دعوى فاطمة رضي الله عنها على نبينا و عليها السلام وراثه تارة و تمليكا أخرى حتى دفعت عن ذلك بالرواية المشهورة عن النبي نحن سائر الأنبياء لا نورث ما تركناه صدقة
The third difference is regarding Fadak, inheriting from the Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, and Fatimah’s claim – may peace be upon our Nabi and her – over inheritance once and possession at another juncture until it was rejected with the mash-hur narration from the Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, “We all the Prophets are not inherited from, whatever we leave behind is sadaqah.”
Seventh narration, he provides reference to Mawaqif and Sharh Mawaqif and quotes the very same words from ‘Imad al Islam.
At number eight, he brought the sanad of Nihayat al ‘Uqul and quoted verbatim what ‘Imad al Islam contains in answer to this book.
الفائدة الرابعة فيما يتعلق بنحلة النبي قال الرازي مجيبا عما ذكر من قبل الإمامية ثانيا منعها فدكا بأنه لو وجب عليه تصديقها في هذه الدعوى لكان ذلك المال ما يذكرونه من وجوب عصمتها و قد سبق الكلام عليه أو للبينة لكن البينة الرعية ما كانت حاصلة لا يقال فيلزم أن تكون طالبة عن ذلك من غير بينة و ذلك لا يليق بها لأنا نقول لعلها كانت تذهب إلى أن الحكم بالشاهد الواحد و اليمين جائز كما ذهب إليه بعضهم و أن أبا بكر ما كان يذهب إلى ذلك
Fourth fa’idah which concerns the Nabi’s gift. Al Razi says answering what the Imamiyyah say: “Secondly, he denied her Fadak. Had it been mandatory upon him to believe her in this claim, then it would have been either due to her infallibility (which they believe in) and the discussion over this has passed, or due to her proof. However, the full quota was not reached.
It would not be said that she claimed something without proof since this is not befitting for her personality. Rather we would say that perhaps her opinion was that passing judgement upon one witness coupled with an oath is permissible as some have opted for. On the other hand, Abu Bakr held a different view.
Al Kanturi has claimed in Tash’id al Mata’in that he presented proofs from 25 books in response to Tuhfah Ithna ‘Ashariyyah. He says:
اما آنچہ گفتہ جواب ازیں طعن آنکہ دعوی ہبہ از حضرت زہرا و شہادت دادن حضرت علی و أم ایمن یا حسنین علی اختلاف الروایات در کتب اہل سنت اصلا موجود نیست از مفتریات شیعہ است در مقام الزام اہل سنت آوردن و جواب آن طلب یدن کمال سفاہست ست پس مردود ست بانکہ انکار وجود ایں دعوی و شہادت در کتب اہل سنت ناشی از کمال عناد و عصبیت ست زیراکہ ایں دعوی در کتب کثیرہ از کتب معتمدہ و اسفار معتبر ایشاں مذکور ست مثل تصانیف عمر بن شبہ و مجد مؤرخ و ابو بکر جوہری و مغنی قاضی القضاۃ و ملل و نحل شہرستانی و کتاب الموافقۃ ابن سمان و معجم البلدان یاقوت حموی و محلی ابن حزم و نہایۃ العقول وا تفسیر کبیر مسمی بمفاتیح الغیب و ریاض النضرۃ و کتاب الاکتفا و فصل الخطاب و مواقف و شرح مواقف وجواہر العقدین و وفاء الوفا و خلاصۃ الوفا ہرسہ از سید سہمودی و حاشیۃ صلاح الدین رومی بر شرح عقائد نسفی از تفتازانی و صواعق محرقۃ و براہین قاطعۃ و مقصد اقصی و معارج النبوۃ و حبیب السیر و روضۃ الصفا و در بسیارے ازیں کتب وقوع ایں شہادت ہم بریں دعوی مذکور ست
The claim of the author of Tuhfah Ithna ‘Ashariyyah that Sayyidah Fatimah’s claim over Fadak and the subsequent testimony of ‘Ali, Hassan, Hussain, and Umm Ayman radiya Llahu ‘anhum that Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam gifted her Fadak is non-existent in Sunni books and these are all fabrications of the Shia and to cite these as proof against the Ahlus Sunnah and to demand a response from them is utter foolishness and ignorance on the part of the Shia. However, this declaration of Dehlawi’s is unacceptable. To reject the presence of this claim and testimony in Sunni books is nothing but the result of antagonism and prejudice. The reality is that this claim is found in majority of the reliable books and history books of the Ahlus Sunnah. Take for example the following books, majority of which contain the claim as well as the testimony. The books of ‘Umar ibn Shabbah, Majd the historian, Abu Bakr al Jawhari, al Mughni of Qadi al Qudah, al Milal wa al Nihal of Shaharastani, Kitab al Muwafaqah of Ibn Samman, Mujam al Buldan of Yaqut Himawi, Muhalla of Ibn Hazm, Nihayat al ‘Uqul, al Tafsir al Kabir known as Mafatih al Ghayb, Riyad al Nadirah, Kitab al Iktifa, Fasl al Khitab, Mawaqif, Sharh Mawaqif, Jawahir al ‘Aqdayn, Wafa’ al Wafa, Khulasat al Wafa – all three belong to Sayed Sahmudi, Hashiyat Salah al Din Rumi on Sharh ‘Aqa’id Nasafi of al Taftazani, al Sawa’iq al Muhriqah, Barahin Qati’ah, Maqsad Aqsa, Ma’arij al Nubuwwah, Habib al Siyar, and Rawdat al Safa.
He then presents the text of each of these books. Although he has written the names of 25 books, not one book contains a sahih narration with a proper isnad. Majority of the books are the very same ones quoted from in ‘Imad al Islam and Ta’n al Rimah and the very same texts have been produced. The other books do not contain any narration. They have no worth. He has just listed names. He does not mention any book of ‘Umar ibn Shabbah, nor quotes any text therefrom. He quotes the very same narration Jawahir al ‘Aqdayn has reported from ‘Umar ibn Shabbah. He quotes this from Sahmudi’s book Wafa’ al Wafa bi Akhbar Dar al Mustafa which is evident from studying pages 130 and 231 of Tash’id al Mata’in. This is the narration of Zaid being questioned about Fadak. The same narration appears in Sharh Nahj al Balaghah of Ibn Abi al Hadid from Abu Bakr al Jawhari. Moreover, he does not mention any specific book of Majd the historian nor quotes any of his texts. He does quote from Wafa’ al Wafa the following however:
ذكر المجد في ترجمة فدك ما تقتضى أن الذي دفعه عمر إلى علي و عباس و وقعت الخصومة فيه هو فدك فإنه قال فيها و هي التي كانت فاطمة رضي الله عنها ادعت أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم أعطاها فقال أبو بكر أريد بذلك شهودا شهد لها علي فطلب لها شاهد آخر فشهدت لها أم أيمن فقال علمت يا بضعة رسول الله إنه لا يجوز إلا بشهادة رجل و امرأتين فانصرفت ثم أدى اجتهاد عمر إلى ردها لما ولي و فتحت الفتوح و كان علي يقول إن النبي جعلها في حياته لفاطمة رضي الله عنها و كان العباس يأبى ذلك فكانا يختصمان إلى عمر فيأبى أن يحكم بينهما يقول أنتما أعرف بشانكما
Majd has written in the history of Fadak that the land ‘Umar gave to ‘Ali and ‘Abbas and regarding which a dispute arose was Fadak. He said regarding it that it is the same land Fatimah claimed that Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam had gifted her. Abu Bakr said, “I want witnesses for this.”
Consequently, ‘Ali testified for her. Another witness was demanded so Umm Ayman testified for her.
He then said, “O daughter of the Messenger of Allah, it is not permissible except with the testimony of one man and two women.” So she left.
Thereafter, ‘Umar’s ijtihad led him to returning it after the conquests were made. ‘Ali would say that the Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam gave it to Fatimah during his lifetime while ‘Abbas would deny this. Thus, they both brought their case to ‘Umar who denied passing judgement between them saying, “You are more cognisant of your affair.”
Although he takes the name of al Muwafaqah of Ibn Samman, he quotes the text of Muhammad Parsa from Fasl al Khitab:
و قال أي ابن سمان في كتاب الموافقة في ذكر فاطمة و أبي بكر جاءت فاطمة رضي الله عنها إلى أبي بكر فقال أعطني فدك فإن رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم وهبها لي فقال صدقت يا بنت رسول الله و لكني رأيت رسول الله يقسمها فيعطي الفقراء و المساكين و ابن السبيل بعد أن يعطيكم منها قوتكم فما تصنعين بها قالت أفعل فيها كما كان يفعل أبي رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم
Ibn Samman has said in Kitab al Muwafaqah while discussing Fatimah and Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhuma. “Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha came to Abu Bakr and said, ‘Give me Fadak for indeed Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam gave it to me as a gift.’
He said, ‘You have spoken the truth, O daughter of the Messenger of Allah. However, I saw Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam distributing it and giving it to the poor, needy, and travellers after giving you your sustenance. So what will you do with it?’
‘I will do the exact thing my father Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam did,’ she replied.
He quotes the following text from the footnotes of Salah al Din Rumi on Sharh al ‘Aqa’id:
و من منع الإرث و فدك بالنحلة وقع بين فاطمة رضي الله عنها و أبي بكر بغض و تشاجر و لم تتكلم مع مدة حياتها
And due to preventing inheritance and Fadak as a gift, hatred and argumentation developed between Fatimah and Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhuma. And she did not speak to him for as long as she lived.
He says that Imam Fakhr al Din al Razi states in al Tafsir al Kabir:
فلما مات صلى الله عليه و سلم ادعت فاطمة رضي الله عنها أنه صلى الله عليه و سلم كان نحلها فدك فقال أبو بكر أنت أعز الناس علي فقراء و أحبهم إلي غنى لكني لا أعرف صحة قولك و لا يجوز أن أحكم بذلك فشهد لها أم أيمن و مولى رسول الله فطلب منها أبو بكر الشاهد الذي يجوز قبول شهادته في الشرع فلم يكن فأجرى أبو بكر ذلك على ما كان يجريه رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم و ينفق منه على ما كان ينفق عليه رسول الله و يجعل ما يبقى في السلاح و الكراع
When Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam passed away, Fatimah claimed that he had gifted Fadak to her. Abu Bakr said, “I dislike most your poverty and desire most your affluence. However, I do not know the authenticity of your claim and it is not permissible for me to pass judgement upon it.”
So Umm Ayman and Rasulullah’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam freed slave gave testimony. Abu Bakr then demanded from her a witness whose testimony is acceptable in the Shari’ah but there was none. So Abu Bakr managed it as Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam managed it and spent from it just as Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam spent from it and spent the rest on weapons and arsenals.
He quotes the same narration of Zaid ibn ‘Ali from Kitab al Iktifa’ of Ibrahim ibn ‘Abdullah Yemeni Shafi’i which is reported from Ibn Shabbah in other books.
He quotes the following narration from Muhalla of Ibn Hazm Andalusi:
روي أن علي بن أبي طالب شهد لفاطمة عند أبي بكر الصديق رضي الله عنه و معه أم أيمن فقال أبو بكر لو شهد معك رجل أو امرأة أخرى لقضيت بها ذلك
It is reported that ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib testified for Fatimah in the presence of Abu Bakr al Siddiq radiya Llahu ‘anhum together with Umm Ayman. Abu Bakr commented, “If only another man or woman testified with you, I would have decreed it in your favour.”
The narration of Muhibb al Tabari from Riyad al Nadirah:
و عن عبد الله بن ابي بكر بن عمر بن حزم عن أبيه قال جاءت فاطمة رضي الله عنها إلى أبي بكر فقالت أعطني فدك فإن رسول الله وهبها لي قال صدقت يا بنت رسول الله و لكني رأيت رسول الله يقسمها فيعطي الفقراء و المساكين و ابن السبيل بعد أن يعطيكم منها قوتكم فما تصنعين بها إلخ
It is reported from ‘Abdullah ibn Abi Bakr ibn ‘Umar ibn Hazm from his father who says: “Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha came to Abu Bakr and said, ‘Give me Fadak for indeed Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam gave it to me as a gift.’
He said, ‘You have spoken the truth, O daughter of the Messenger of Allah. However, I saw Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam distributing it and giving it to the poor, needy, and travellers after giving you your sustenance. So what will you do with it?’”
He then quoted the statement of Zaid ibn ‘Ali from the same book.
He quotes a narration from Tabaqat al Kubra:
أخبرنا محمد بن عمر ثنا هشام بن سعد عن زيد بن أسلم عن أبيه قالت (فاطمة) جائتني أم أيمن فأخبرتني أنه أعطاني فدكا
Muhammad ibn ‘Umar informed us saying that Hisham ibn Sa’d narrated to them from Zaid ibn Aslam from his father who said, “Fatimah said, ‘Umm Ayman came to me and informed me that he gave me Fadak.’”
There is no new narration in the books Lam’at al Bayda’, Bahr al Jawahir, Nasikh al Tawarikh, and Kifayat al Muwahhidin worthy of mentioning despite these books discussing the Fadak issue in great detail.
Despite our exhaustive efforts, we could not locate any other narration. All the narrations and statements which we have gathered above boil down to three.
Category 1: The narrators’ names are recorded in accordance to hadith principles
Category 2: Historical incidents without any isnad, as is the practice of the historians
Category 3: This claim was mentioned by the way in answer to an objection or in relation to some aspect
Nonetheless, we have mentioned in the fourth muqaddamah of this book that only those narrations may be presented in such discussions which meet the required principles of ahadith and whose authenticity is established after examination and applying the principles founded by both parties. However, those statements or incidents which are recorded in history books or any other books for which no reference is mentioned nor is any isnad attached are not worthy of being considered in such contentious discussions notwithstanding the authors being men of great status and popularity.
Incidents that took place 1300 years ago cannot be authenticated merely by analogy nor can conviction be placed on someone’s mere statement. They are merely akhbar (information) and can be true or false. To prove them true, it is necessary for the complete isnad to be attached, from the first narrator right until the source. Thereafter, the narrators need to be reliable and trustworthy. If the isnad is attached, but a narrator is unknown, or had wayward ideologies and is suspected of fabricating something to support his ideology, or doubts too much, or has a weak memory; then his narration will not reach the level of authenticity. And if any narrator is a liar or fabricates ahadith, then the narration will be labelled a fabrication. And if the isnad is broken – a link or more is missing – then this narration is discarded as well.
We declare: Not one narration or incident from all the narrations, incidents, and statements the distinguished Shia authors have quoted to prove the point under discussion meets the requirements of authenticity (i.e. the isnad is attached and the narrators are reliable). All of them without exception are unworthy of being considered.
Those narrations which we have included in the first category are 6.
Only these six narrations have an isnad – whether broken or unbroken.
We will now analyse the worth of each narration. We will prove that none of them are worthy of consideration. Their fictitious nature is a certainty.
Firstly, we cannot ascertain from which book of al Shafi this was taken and the reality is that it is a Shia narration. Nonetheless, if we hypothetically agree that it is taken from a Sunni source then too it is not worthy of considering.
Ibrahim ibn Maymun al Kufi is the next narrator. We have discussed him previously. He was among the renowned Shia. It appears in Muntaha al Maqal fi Asma’ al Rijal of the Shia that he was relied upon by Imam Jafar al Sadiq rahimahu Llah and all Shia agree that he was reliable.
و من كتاب ميزان الاعتدال أنه من أجلاء الشيعة روى عن علي بن عابس انتهى و لعله بن ميمون
It appears in Mizan al I’tidal that he is reckoned among the high ranking Shia. He reports from ‘Ali ibn ‘Abis. Probably he is Ibn Maymun.
إبراهيم بن ميمون الكوفي صدوق و يأتي في ترجمة عبد الله بن مسكان أن إبراهيم هذا حمل جواب مسائل عبد الله عن أبي عبد الله فيظهر أن الإمام كان يعتمد فهو معتمد عليه وفاقا للجمع
Ibrahim ibn Maymun al Kufi is truthful. It appears in the biography of ‘Abdullah ibn Miskan that Ibrahim would convey the answer from Abu ‘Abdullah to the question of ‘Abdullah. This shows that the Imam had reliance upon him. Therefore, he is reliable by consensus.
Back to top
Can anyone doubt that this is a Shia narration? Can anyone claim it to be a Sunni narration notwithstanding the fact that one narrator is one of the great Shia luminaries regarding whom it is mentioned?
وهو معتمد عليه وفاقا للجمع
He is reliable by consensus of all Shia.
Back to top
When this is the condition of the narrators then although no one has declared such ahadith da’if or unauthentic, then too how can they be accepted as authentic and how can they be used as proof?
If we hypothetically agree that this hadith is sahih, then too it does not prove that Sayyidah Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha claimed Fadak as a gift. Yes, it can be inferred that what Sheikhayn radiya Llahu ‘anhuma did was incorrect. Following this, al Sayed al Murtada did not mention this incident as one of the strong evidences to prove the gifting of Fadak.
Qadi ‘Abdul Jabbar says in al Mughni:
فأما فعل عمر بن عبد العزيز فلم يثبت أنه رده على سبيل النحل بل عمل في ذلك ما فعله عمر بن الخطاب بأن أقره في يد أمير المؤمنين ليصرف غلاتها في الموضوع الذي كان يجعلها رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم فيه فقام بذلك مدة ثم ردها إلى عمر في آخر سنيه و كذلك فعل عمر بن عبد العزيز و لو ثبت أنه فعل بخلاف ما فعله السلف لكان هو المحجوج بقولهم و فعلهم و أحد ما يقوي ما ذكرناه أن الأمر لما انتهى إلى أمير المؤمنين ترك فدك على ما كانت و لم يجعلها ميراثا لفاطمة
Regarding ‘Umar ibn ‘Abdul ‘Aziz’s action; it does uphold that he returned it due to it being a gift. Rather, he administered it the way ‘Umar ibn al Khattab did, who kept it in the possession of Amir al Mu’minin (‘Ali) so that he may distribute its produce the same way Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam would do. It remained like this for a period until he returned it to ‘Umar towards the ending of his term. Similar was the practice of ‘Umar ibn ‘Abdul ‘Aziz. If it is established that he acted contrary to the predecessors, his action would not be proof against their statements and actions. One aspect that supports what we have mentioned is that when Fadak fell into the control of Amir al Mu’minin ‘Ali, he left it the way it was and did not give it as inheritance to Fatimah.
‘Alam al Huda responds to this by saying:
فأما إنكاره أن يكون عمر بن عبد العزيز رد فدكا على وجه النحل ثم أدعاه أنه فعل في ذلك بمثل ما فعله عمر بن الخطاب من إقرارها في يد أمير المؤمنين ليصرف غلاتها في جهاتها فأول ما فيه إنا لا نحتج عليه بفعل عمر بن عبد العزيز على وجه وقع لأن فعله ليس بحجة و لو أردنا الاحتجاج بهذا الجنس من الحجج لذكرنا فعل المأمون فإنه رد فدك بعد أن جلس مجلسا مشهورا حكم فيه بين خصمين نصيبهما أحدهما لفاطمة و الآخر لأبي بكر و ردها بعد قيام الحجة و وضوح الأمر و مع ذلك أنه أنكر من فعل عمر بن عبد العزيز ما هو معروف مشهور بلا خلاف بين أهل النقل فيه و قد روي محمد بن زكريا الغلابي عن شيوخه عن أبي المقدام هشام بن زيد
His denial of the fact that ‘Umar ibn ‘Abdul ‘Aziz returned Fadak since it was gifted then his claim that he enforced the practice of ‘Umar ibn al Khattab by giving it to Amir al Mu’minin to distribute its produce to the rightful recipients; firstly, we do not use ‘Umar ibn ‘Abdul ‘Aziz’s action as proof against him in any way since his action is not proof. Had we intended to use such proofs, we would have mentioned the action of al Ma’mun for he returned Fadak after a famous gathering was held in which judgement was passed between two adversaries, one in favour of Fatimah and the other in favour of Abu Bakr. He returned it after sufficient evidence was found and the matter was clarified. Together with this, he rejected the action of ‘Umar ibn ‘Abdul ‘Aziz which is famous and well-known among the narrators. Muhammad ibn Zakariyya al Ghulabi has narrated from his Shuyukh from Abu al Miqdam Hisham ibn Ziyad…
The incident of ‘Umar ibn ‘Abdul ‘Aziz has been quoted in Akhbar al Awa’il, Mujam al Buldan, Sharh Nahj al Balaghah, Ta’n al Rimah, and Tash’id al Mata’in. The gist of all these narrations is that he gave Fadak of the family of Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha. It does not say anywhere that she claimed that Fadak was gifted to her in the presence of Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu. Therefore, all these narrations are worthless, and do not reach the object.
In fact, the opposite is established as Shah ‘Abdul ‘Aziz has reported from Mishkat, the narration of Abu Dawood:
‘Umar ibn ‘Abdul ‘Aziz gathered the family of Marwan and said, “How can I be deserving of the land from which Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam prevented Fatimah? I make you witnesses that I will return it to the very same condition it was in during the era of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, Abu Bakr, and ‘Umar.”
The original narration is quoted in Tuhfah. Whoever wishes should refer to it.
This narration asserts that al Ma’mun gathered a thousand ‘Ulama’ and instructed them to debate the Fadak issue. At the end, he wrote a letter which was read out during the Hajj season. This entire narration is a fabrication of the Shia. The condition of al Waqidi and Bishr ibn Ghiyath has passed. The former was among the fabricators, while the latter was among the heretics.
Dildar ‘Ali and Mujtahid Sayed Muhammad quoted this narration from al Tara’if in their respective books. It is disgusting for such Mujtahids to relate the ahadith of fabricators and heretics to prove their ideologies and claim that they are sahih narrations of the Ahlus Sunnah. The only reason for this is that they could not trace a single sahih narration, so they presented these fabrications which the liars and heretics have concocted to undermine Islam. Sometimes they present a reference, sometimes a book’s name or sometimes a history book. But, their lies can never be concealed. No matter how they camouflage it, its true colours shine out.
Only two narrators are mentioned, viz. ‘Umar ibn Shabbah and Numair ibn Hassan. The rest of the isnad is discarded. Either Sahmudi discarded the names or the Mujtahidin displayed laxity in narrating them. Nevertheless, after investigation it became apparent that the original source of this narration is Sharh Nahj al Balaghah of Ibn Abi al Hadid who took it from Saqifah wa Fadak of Abu Bakr Ahmed ibn ‘Abdul ‘Aziz al Jawhari. The original text is as follows:
قال أبو بكر أخبرنا أبو زيد قال ثنا محمد بن عبد الله بن الزبير قال ثنا فضيل بن مرزوق قال ثنا البختري بن حسان قال قلت لزيد بن علي و أنا أريد أن أهجن أمر أبي بكر إن أبا بكر انتزع فدك من فاطمة رضي الله عنها فقال إن أبا بكر إلخ
Abu Bakr says, Abu Zaid informed us saying, Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullah ibn al Zubair narrated to us saying, Fudayl ibn Marzuq narrated to us saying, al Bukhtari (most probably Numair) ibn al Hassan narrated to us saying, “I said to Zaid ibn ‘Ali, and I intended to disparage the action of Abu Bakr, ‘Indeed, Abu Bakr snatched Fadak from Fatimah.’ He said, ‘Certainly, Abu Bakr …”
The rest of the narration is just as quoted from ‘Imad al Islam above, not forgetting the portion that he conveniently discarded which we reproduced.
The following points should be considered:
Firstly, Ibn Abi al Hadid is the narrator who is Mu’tazili and Shia, although the Shia consider him one of the ‘ulama’ of the Ahlus Sunnah. Their plot is to deceive the unwary into thinking this so that misgivings develop in their hearts after reading his narrations. Nonetheless, he being Mu’tazili is so apparent that it cannot be denied. His book Sharh Nahj al Balaghah is sufficient proof of him being Shia, or at least having Shia ideologies.
Secondly, Ibn Abi al Hadid quoted it from Saqifah wa Fadak of Abu Bakr Ahmed ibn ‘Abdul ‘Aziz al Jawhari. Whether this book is actually al Jawhari’s or not is questionable. Is there any book with this name in existence first of all is uncertain. No reputable scholar besides Ibn Abi al Hadid has taken this book’s name nor has this name been referenced to in any famous book. So how can the narration of such an unknown book be considered? We are totally perplexed by the presentation of this narration since Dildar ‘Ali vented his anger at Shah for quoting from Mihjaj al Salikin:
تا حال نام ایں کتاب بگوش کسے از شیعیاں نر سیدہ و بکتاب مجہول کہ مصنف آں نیز مجہول است احتجاج و استدلال نتواں نمود چہ مستبعد است کہ نام کتاب را خودش بدروغ ساختہ باشد پس در مقابہل آں اگر کسے بگوید کہ در اعوجاج الہالکین شخصے از مردم بخارا نوشہ کہ ابو بکر اعتراف بکفر خود کرد می تواں گفت و بالفرض اگر کتابے مسمی بایں اسم از کتب شیعہ بودہ باشد و ایں روایت دراں مندرج پس از کجا معلوم شد کہ نقل از کتب اہل سنت نکردہ باشد و ایں ناصب خواجہ او نادیدہ یا دیدہ و دانستہ عذر و فریب تاسیا بامامیہ الغادرین ںمودہ باشند
Until now, the name of this book has not reached the ear of any Shia. It is improper to furnish an unheard of book – whose author is unknown – as proof. And it is very possible that he concocted some name. If someone says in response to this vile deception that al Bukhari wrote a book I’wijaj al Halikin wherein Abu Bakr acknowledged his kufr, it will be correct. And if hypothetically Mihjaj al Salikin is a Shia book which contains this narration then too how can it be believed with full conviction that he has not taken it from Sunni sources? Yet their master, knowingly or unknowingly, convicts the Shia of deception.
Sayed Muhammad has quoted the declaration of ‘Alam al Huda in Ta’n al Rimah regarding the proposal to Abu Jahl’s daughter:
هذه الخبر باطل موضوع غير معروف و لا ثابت عند أهل النقل و إنما ذكره الكريسي طاعنا به على أمير المؤمنين و معارضا بذكره لبعض شيعة من الأخبار في أعدائه و هيهات أن يشبه الحق بالباطل
و بعد ازاں کلامے کہ فرمودہ است محصل آن ایں ست کہ امری دیگر دریں روایت نبودہ باشد پس ہمیں راوی آں کرابیسی است و او معلن بعد اوت اہل بیت و ناصبی شیعی بودہ کافی ست در توہین و تکذیب آں
This narration is false and fabricated. It is not known nor established by the narrators. Only al Kuraysi has mentioned it using it to criticise Amir al Mu’minin and to oppose some Shia Akhbaris among his enemies. It is impossible for the truth to resemble falsehood.
The gist of what has been mentioned thereafter is that there is nothing else in those narrations. It is the same narrator Karabisi who is criticised due to hatred and enmity for the Ahlul Bayt. He being Shia Nasibi is sufficient for his falsification and humiliation.
We hope that the Shia will understand what these two Mujtahids have declared. They have only voiced our sentiments. Hopefully, the Shia will listen to it from the deep recesses of their hearts and accept it. No one should doubt the fallaciousness of such narrations.
Thirdly, al Jawhari says that he heard it from Abu Zaid which is the agnomen of ‘Umar ibn Shabbah as stated in al Taqrib:
عمر بن شبه بن عبيدة بن زيد النميري أبو زيد
‘Umar ibn Shabbah ibn ‘Ubaidah ibn Zaid al Numairi Abu Zaid.
Although ‘Umar ibn Shabbah is one of the reliable narrators, however what proof is there that in reality what Ibn Abi al Hadid has attributed to ‘Umar ibn Shabbah via al Jawhari is free from concoction?
In Tadhkirat al Huffaz of al Dhahabi, where there is mention of the names of those who heard narrations from ‘Umar ibn Shabbah, we do not find al Jawhari’s name among his famous students. The following appears:
عمر بن شبه بن عبيدة الحافظ العلامة الأخباري أبو زيد النميري البصري صاحب التصانيف عن يوسف بن عطية إلى قوله و عند ابن ماجة و ابن صاعد المحاملي و محمد بن أحمد الأثرم و محمد بن مخلد و خلق
‘Umar ibn Shabbah ibn ‘Ubaidah, the Hafiz, ‘Allamah, and Akhbari, Abu Zaid al Numairi al Basri. Author of many books. He narrated from Yusuf ibn ‘Attiyah… and Ibn Majah, Ibn Sa’id, al Muhamili, Muhammad ibn Ahmed al Athram, Muhammad ibn Mukhallad, and others have reported from him.
So probably al Jawhari was his student, however he is not among his famous students. Due to this, we have not seen any exclusive biography of al Jawhari’s in any book. Nevertheless, Abu al Farj al Isfahani, author of al Aghani, has reported from him. In fact, he is the only narrator to narrate from al Jawhari from ‘Umar ibn Shabbah. But to regard him among the famous muhaddithin and Imams is totally erroneous. Abu al Farj al Isfahani was a Shia, and although he was from the Zaidiyyah the Shia scholars have included him among their fraternity. Accordingly, Mirza Muhammad Baqir, contemporary of Haji Zayn al ‘Abidin al Musawi who is titled Zubdat al Mujtahidin (cream of the Mujtahidin) and Hujjat al Islam wa al Muslimin (Proof of Islam and the Muslims) has written the following:
علي بن الحسين أبو الفرج إصفهاني صاحب كتاب الأغاني ذكره مولانا العلامة الحلي في الخلاصة في القسم الثاني فقال إنه شيعي زيدي و أورده صاحب الأمائل أيضا في أعد علماء الشيعة و كان عالما روى عن كثير من العلماء و كان شيعيا خبيرا بالأغاني و الآثار و الأحاديث المشهورة و المغازي انتهى و كان اشتهار تشيعه بين جماعة من أصحابنا من جهته مدناة مذهب الشيعة مع الزيدية و مشاركتهما في القول بأن الإمامة غير خارجة عن الفاطمية
‘Ali ibn al Hussain Abu al Farj Isfahani, author of the book al Aghani. ‘Allamah al Hilli has mentioned him in al Khulasah in the second category saying, “He is a Shia Zaidi.”
The author of al Ama’il has also reckoned him among the Shia scholars, “He was a scholar who reported from many ‘ulama’. He was a Shia who was cognisant of aghani (tunes), traditions, famous ahadith, and maghazi (wars).”
He being Shia was well known by a large group of our scholars due to him being very close to the Shia creed despite him being Zaidiyyah. They both shared the belief that Imamah is not omitted from al Fatimiyyah.
Fourthly, Abu Zaid narrated it from Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullah ibn Zubair who is a Shia.
Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullah ibn Zubair
He narrates from Fudayl ibn Marzuq who is a staunch Shia as clarified earlier.
He narrates from Numair ibn Hassan.
There seems to be a mistake here, whether by publisher or narrator. He is written as Numair ibn Hassan in ‘Imad al Islam and Ta’n al Rimah, and al Bukhtari ibn Hassan in Sharh Nahj al Balaghah. However, we could not locate any of the two in al Taqrib, al Tahdhib, Tahdhib al Tahdhib, or Mizan al I’tidal.
Nevertheless, even if all the narrators are reliable and truthful, the presence of Fudayl ibn Marzuq alone is sufficient to label it a Shia narration. Even if one narrator is a liar, or accused of the same, or has warped ideologies then his entire narration is regarded as false.
Besides the above, the last narrator – whether Numair or al Bukhtari ibn Hassan – seems to be a staunch Shia and enemy of the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum. This is clear from his statement, “I intended to disparage Abu Bakr’s action.” He used the word ahjanu which comes from tahjin, the meaning of which as provided in Muntaha al ‘Arab as:
زشت و عیب ناک گردانیدن
To insult, or condemn.
And in Qamus:
الهجنة من الكلام ما يعيبه و الهجين اللئيم و التهجين التقبيح
Al hajnah in reference to speech is to disparage. Al hajin is a wicked and evil person. And al tahjin is to insult, offend.
The narrators are ‘Abdullah ibn Abu Bakr ibn ‘Amr ibn Hazm from his father.
This narration has neither any head nor tail as there is no mention from whom ‘Abdullah’s father heard it. Such narrations are not taken into consideration. Until the entire isnad with all narrators are not attached, a narration is unreliable.
Muhammad ibn ‘Umar from Hisham ibn Sa’d from Zaid ibn Aslam from his father.
Muhammad ibn ‘Umar is al Waqidi. And we are well aware of his condition in the sight of the muhaddithin. He was a fabricator and his narrations are unreliable.
Al Dhahabi writes:
لم أسق ترجمته ههنا لاتفاقهم على ترك حديثه
I did not mention his biography here since they are unanimous on discarding his ahadith.
Back to top
We are now complete with a thorough analysis of the first category of narrations. We have proven that the narrators and unreliable and some are liars. The following declaration of Shah ‘Abdul ‘Aziz fits them aptly:
خبر غير صحيح چوں گوزشتراست
The hadith is not sahih and worthless.
Regarding the other categories, we do not have to write much since we explained in great detail in the fourth muqaddamah that someone’s opinion, or analogy, or mention of the incident is not sufficient to prove its authenticity notwithstanding him to be a proficient in any science, a renowned ‘alim, a distinguished personality, or a master of any field. The incident needs to have an unbroken sahih sanad to be regarded as true. Even if a thousand scholars mention an incident, either by mistake or unawareness, which implies that they agree with it, then too this will not be sufficient to prove its authenticity. We will just say that the scholar did not investigate the narration and wrote it down. Especially when it comes to the polemicists who take pleasure in responding to objections and using analogic and rational proofs in abundance together with hypothetical situations deceiving the reader into believing that the narration is sahih. The unwary then use such narrations to indict others. This is the condition of the statement of the Shia scholars in this regard.
For an isnad to be broken, is sufficient to show its unauthenticity.
Nevertheless, we will discuss these statements for our respected readers so that the narrators’ unawareness, ignorance, inconsideration, or they not being experts in the science of hadith is determined. It is for the above reasons that such narrations get included in books which presents an opportunity for the Imamiyyah to throw the masses into deception.
We have quoted all the narrations above, from al Shafi to Ta’n al Rimah. A gist of all the narrations will follow:
Let us scrutinise these narrations. Firstly al Waqidi does not need further introduction. Everyone understands by now that his narration is false. One will be stunned by someone narrating from him.
The incident of Mujam al Buldan we have discussed in great detail while discussing the narration in al Tara’if. We disclosed the reality of al Ma’mun’s return of Fadak to the extent that no one remains in doubt.
The narration of Tarikh al Khulafa’ is as follows:
و عن مغيرة قال جمع عمر حين استخلف بني مروان فقال إن رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم كانت له فدك ينفق منها و يعول منها على صغيرة بني هاشم و يزوج منها أيمهم و أن فاطمة سألته أن يجعلها لها فأبى فكانت كذلك حيوة أبي بكر ثم عمر ثم قطعها مروان ثم صارت لعمر بن عبد العزيز فرأيت أمرا منعه رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم فاطمة فليس لي بحق و إني أشهدكم أني قد ردتها على ما كانت على عهد رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم
Mughirah narrates, “‘Umar gathered the sons of Marwan after he assumed the post of khalifah and addressed them saying, ‘Fadak was in the control of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. He would spend from there, use the money to take care of the young of the Banu Hashim, and get their unmarried married. Fatimah asked him to give it to her but he refused. Thus it remained like this in the era of Abu Bakr, and then ‘Umar. Thereafter Marwan divided it. Finally, it fell into the hands of ‘Umar ibn ‘Abdul ‘Aziz. I considered just how can I have ownership over something Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam prevented Fatimah from. I make you witness that I have returned it to the same state it was in the period of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.’”
This is the only narration regarding Fadak in the above book, and this narration makes it crystal clear that Sayyidah Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha asked for Fadak but Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam did not give it. And Sheikhayn radiya Llahu ‘anhuma spent its produce in the same manner Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam spent it. This totally debunks the gifting of Fadak and the subsequent claim. Therefore, the only thing that can be said is that to use such a narration as proof is against the status of the scholars. In fact, it does not behove the shameful to perpetrate such indecencies. Besides, al Suyuti has not taken up responsibility to mention only authentic narrations and to categorise narrations. So only a cognisant expert from the men of truth is able to discern which narrations are authentic and which narrations may be used as proof.
Dildar ‘Ali has conveniently omitted the narrator above al Jawhari so that the inspector cannot find out the reality of the narration. However, by going back to the source Sharh Nahj al Balaghah it became apparent that the narrator is Hisham ibn Muhammad al Kalbi who relates from his father. The text goes as follows:
قال أبو بكر و روى هشام بن محمد عن أبيه قال قالت فاطمة لأبي بكر إن أم أيمن تشهد إلخ
Abu Bakr says, “Hisham ibn Muhammad narrates from his father who reports, ‘Fatimah said to Abu Bakr: Umm Ayman testifies …”
Hisham ibn Muhammad is well known by the title al Kalbi and his father is also called by the same title. Both father and son were stanch Shias, liars, and unreliable. We have dealt with his father’s condition Abu Hisham al Kalbi earlier. Just as Zurarah, and Ahwal’s narrations are not considered by the Ahlus Sunnah, similarly, Hisham ibn Muhammad and Abu Hisham al Kalbi’s narrations are not accepted.
We have quoted the complete narration of Zaid ibn ‘Ali which is alluded to in al Sawa’iq al Muhriqah above. At another place, he is reported to have stated that the quota for witnesses has not been fulfilled. Here, the author did not discuss the technicalities of the narration itself but answered it hypothetically, which is the practice of the mutakallimin. He neither authenticated it, nor rejected it. In other words, he did not scrutinise the narration but just answered the narration which implies that such a claim was made. However, this does not prove the narration to be sahih. The authentication of a hadith rests upon the muhaddithin. And we have already satisfactorily proven the fallacy of this narration.
Quoting from al Milal wa al Nihal and Mawaqif does nothing but increases the volume of the book. Firstly, al Shaharastani did not quote any narration. He just wrote that the third ikhtilaf is with regards to Fadak, Rasulullah’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam inheritance, and Fatimah’s claim sometimes of inheritance and sometime of ownership. In Arabic:
تارة وراثة و تمليكا أخرى
Sometimes of inheritance and at other times of ownership
That’s all he said. This does not prove the authenticity of any narration. In fact, the words tamlikan ukhra has various implications since the ikhtilaf is with regards to inheritance, i.e. whether Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam is inherited from. Whether a person has ownership over his possessions or not was not an issue of discussion. Therefore, these words tamlikan ukhra are superfluous here. Moreover, the proof furnished:
حتى دفعت عن ذلك بالرواية المشهورة
This has been refuted by the famous narration.
alludes to the hadith:
نحن معاشر الأنبياء …
We the fraternity of Prophets …
And this hadith deals with inheritance, not gifting or ownership.
Furthermore, it should have been also included that this claim was not accepted since the quota was not met.
Nonetheless, every intelligent person will understand that these words are superfluous. Besides the above, al Shaharastani is a chameleon when it comes to ‘aqidah. Ibn Taymiyyah writes:
بل يميل الشهرستاني كثيرا إلى أشياء من أمورهم بل يذكر أحيانا أشياء من كلام الإسماعيلية منهم بوجه و لهذا التهمة قال بعض الناس بأنه من الإسماعيلية و قد يقال هو مع الشيعة بوجه و مع أصحاب الأشعري بوجه و بالجملة فالشهرستاني يظهر الميل إلى الشيعة و لا يحتج به إلا من هو جاهل و إن هذا الرجل الشهرستاني كان له بالشيعة المام و اتصال و إنه دخل في أهوائهم بما ذكره في هذا الكتاب بعني الملل و النحل
Al Shaharastani leans much to their ideologies. In fact, he quotes extensively from the Ismailiyyah sect. Due to this, some have regarded him as one of them. It is said that he is with the Shia in some aspects and with the Ash’aris in other aspects. In short, al Shaharastani shows Shia tendencies. Thus, no one will use him as proof besides an ignorant person. Moreover, he had a connection and relationship with the Shia. What he has mentioned in this book al Milal wa al Nihal shows that he was affected by their ideologies.
The wording of Mawaqif and Sharh Mawaqif depict the weakness of this stance. He begins with the words qila (it is said) and every elementary student knows that this word is used either to show a weak view or in a hypothetical sense.
In addition, undoubtedly the authors of these books are Ahlus Sunnah mutakallimin. However, their statements are not relied upon in the field of hadith. Their rank among the Sunni is like Nasir al Din al Tusi’s rank among the Shia. No Shia will believe the statements of Nasir al Din al Tusi unless it is supported by a hadith, despite him being such a celebrated Philosopher, Logician, and master of ‘aqidah.
It appears in Sharh Mawaqif:
و الصحيح أم أيمن
The correct version is Umm Ayman.
No one should be misled into thinking that he has authenticated the narration by asserting this. All he is trying to say is that the narration is supposed to have the name Umm Ayman instead of Umm Kulthum. He thus clarifies this point immediately after quoting Umm Kulthum’s name.
This strengthens our standpoint since it is learnt from here, that the author of Mawaqif was unaware as to whether the Shia wrote Umm Ayman or Umm Kulthum. Since the author of Sharh Mawaqif was a Shia who turned Sunni, he was fully aware of the narrations so he picked up this mistake immediately and rectified it. This does not mean that he authenticated the narration. Nonetheless, if for argument’s sake we agree that he did authenticate it, then too we will say that he has erred. These aspects are not rational or logical. They deal with ahadith, hence the principles and protocol of hadith authentication have to be followed. And if they are not, then they are worthless.
The same can be said about Imam al Razi’s quoting it in Nihayat al ‘Uqul and al Tafsir al Kabir. He simply gave an answer to the objection without investigating the claim itself and without ascertaining whether this narration is a Shia or Sunni one. By providing such an answer, it does not follow that he believes in the authenticity of the narration. Following this, he did not discuss the narration itself in his Tafsir. He was a Logician and Philosopher. Their general practice is to answer the objection as it comes. He is not among those muhaqqiqin and muhaddithin whose statements hold weight in the field of hadith. Consider this fact, by him answering the narration, the most that can be said is that he did not reject it. And we have already clarified that the declaration of some ‘alim is not relied upon no matter how celebrated or excellent he may be. It is necessary to investigate the worth of the narrators of the hadith to ascertain its value. Only if all the narrators are reliable and not criticised, then the narration will be considered. It will then be determined whether it is a khabar wahid, or mash-hur and does not contradict other sahih reliable ahadith. And this is the work of the muhaqqiqin and experts in this field. Quoting some texts from some ‘ulama’ does not establish any claim.
If any Shia has to object by saying that when the declarations and statements of such celebrated and eminent scholars of the Ahlus Sunnah are not considered, then the door to debate is shut. The answer to every objection will be that he is not a master or expert in hadith. Or if he is, he has erred by accepting a weak narration. Whoever has this objection should read the fourth muqaddamah of this book and will find a satisfactory answer.
We have now dealt with all the narrations the Shia quote from Sunni sources to prove their claim and we have revealed their unauthenticity. We will now quote the various Shia narrations in this regard which contain an abundance of contradictions and inconsistencies, enough to discredit them.
 Al Mufradat fi Gharib al Qur’an pg. 28.
 Al Shafi pg. 235.
 Al Shafi pg. 236.
 Talkhis al Shafi pg. 409.
 Ihqaq al Haqq pg. 148.
 و ذكر أبو هلال العسكري في كتاب أخبار الأوائل أن أول من رد فدك على ورثة فاطمة عمر بن عبد العزيز و كان معاوية قطعها لمروان بن الحكم و عمر بن عثمان و يزيد ابنه ثلاثا ثم غصبت فردها عليهم المهدي ثم غصبت فردها عليهم المأمون ثم قال عن أبي هلال ثم غصبت فردها عليهم الواثق ثم غصبت فردها عليهم المستنصر المعتمد ثم غصبت فردها المعتضد ثم غصبت فردها الراضي مع أن أبا بكر أعطى جابر بن عبد الله عطية ادعاها على رسول الله من غير بينة و حضر جابر بن عبد الله و ذكر أن النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم وعده أن يحثوا له ثلاث حثيات من مال البحرين فأعطاها ذلك و لم يطالبه البينة مع أن العدة لا يجب الوفاء بها و الهبة للولد مع التصرف توجب التمليك فأقل المراتب أنه كان تجري فاطمة مجراهما
Abu Hilal al ‘Askari mentioned in Akhbar al Awa’il that the first to return Fadak to Fatimah’s heirs was ‘Umar ibn ‘Abdul ‘Aziz. Muawiyah had divided it into thirds between Marwan ibn al Hakam, ‘Umar ibn ‘Uthman, and Yazid his son. It was then usurped and then returned to them by al Mahdi. It was then usurped and returned to them by al Ma’mun. Then it was usurped and retuned to them by al Wathiq, and then by al Mustansir al Mu’tamid, then by al Mu’tadid and then by al Radi.
Despite the fact that Abu Bakr gave Jabir ibn ‘Abdullah after he claimed without any proof that Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam promised him three handfuls from the wealth of Bahrain. He gave him the same without asking him to provide any proof despite the fact that it is not mandatory to fulfil a promise. On the other hand, a gift to the child and administration demands ownership. The least is that Fatimah should have been treated the same as them.
 Mujam al Buldan pg. 112; Ihqaq al Haq pg. 112.
 Ihqaq al Haqq pg. 112.
 Al Shustari has erred when quoting the above narration. The actual text of Tarikh al Khulafa’ is that ‘Umar ibn ‘Abdul ‘Aziz said:
After the demise of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, the orchard of Fadak remained under the supervision of Sheikhayn (Sayyidina Abu Bakr and ‘Umar). O people, bear witness that just as the ownership of this orchard was in the blessed era of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, it will now remain the ownership of all the Muslims. (Mutarjam Tarikh al Khulafa’ – Iqbal Ahmed.)
 Ihqaq al Haqq pg. 112.
 The report of Sayed al Huffaz recorded in Ihqaq al Haqq is not concerning the claim of Fadak but rather the gifting of Fadak as we have mentioned previously. Similarly, Sadr al A’immah’s narration is concerning the gifting of Fadak. Accordingly, the two narrations are as follows:
و قد روى سيد الحفاظ ابن مردوية بإسناده إلى أبي سعيد قال لما نزلت و آت ذا القربى حقه دعا رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم فاطمة فأعطاها فدك
Sayed al Huffaz Ibn Mardawayh has reported via his isnad to Abu Sa’id who says: “When the verse And give the relative his right was revealed, Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam summoned Fatimah and gave her Fadak.”
و قد روى صدر الأئمة أخطب خوارزم الموفق بن أحمد المكي قال و مما سمعت في معاوية بإسنادي عن ابن عباس قال قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم يا علي إن الله زوجك فاطمة و جعل صداقها الأرض فمن مشى عليها مبغضا لها مشى حراما
Sadr al A’immah Akhtab Khawarizm al Muwaffaq ibn Ahmed al Makki reports, “From among the narrations I heard concerning Muawiyah is via my isnad from Ibn ‘Abbas who narrates that Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said, ‘O ‘Ali! Indeed Allah has married Fatimah to you and has made her dowry the earth. Hence, whoever walks on it harbouring hatred for her, his walking is haram.
 ‘Imad al Islam.
 Mizan al I’tidal.
 Mizan al I’tidal.
 Mizan al I’tidal.
 Al Shafi pg. 234.
 Al Shafi pg. 236.
 Al Sawarim pg. 52.
 Ta’n al Rimah pg. 39.
 Rawdat al Jannat fi Ahwal al ‘Ulama’ wa al Sadat pg. 47.
 Mizan al I’tidal.
 Mizan al I’tidal.
 Al Taqrib.
 Al Tahdhib.
 Tarikh al Khulafa’ pg. 57; Matba’ Muhammadi Lahore 1304 A.H.
 Minhaj al Sunnah.Back to top