The aim of this blog is to remove whatever doubts that may have entered some people’s minds regarding denial of any violence against Hazrat Fatima Zahra (s.a.) at her home, or against Hazrat Ali (a.s.) at the house of Janabe Fatima Zahra(s.a.).
Authentic references have been provided in the fond hope of a definitive conclusion and the eradication of all doubts Inshallah.

Search This Blog

Thursday, December 27, 2012

Abu Bakr accepted claims without witnesses but for Hazrat Fatima (sa) he objected

When Abu Bakr felt like it, he would accept a claim without the need for witnesses

As proof we have relied on the following esteemed Sunni works:
  1. Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 48, Number 848: Book of Witnesses
  2. Sahih Muslim, Volume 2 page 291
  3. Sahih al Tirmidhi, vol 5 p 129
  4. Sunan al Kabeera, Volume 6 page 302
  5. Musnad Ahmad Hanbal, vol 3 p 307-308
  6. Tabaqat Ibn Sa’ad, vol 2 part 2 p 88-89
  7. Riyadh al Nadira, Volume 1 page 227
  8. Tareekh ul Khulafa, page 69 Fadail fi Abu Bakr
We read in Sahih Bukhari:
Narrated Muhammad bin Ali:
Jabir bin Abdullah said, “When the Prophet died, Abu Bakr received some property from Al-Ala bin Al-Hadrami. Abu Bakr said to the people, “Whoever has a money claim on the Prophet, or was promised something by him, should come to us (so that we may pay him his right).” Jabir added, “I said (to Abu Bakr), Allah’s Apostle promised me that he would give me this much, and this much, and this much (spreading his hands three times).” Jabir added, “Abu Bakr counted for me and handed me five-hundred (gold pieces), and then five-hundred, and then five-hundred.”


All that it took was the word of Jabir that Rasulullah (s) owed him money; no witnesses were presented to corroborate his evidence. Abu Bakr’s opinion was that the money should be returned to Jabir, without the need for witnesses, he didn’t say anything that contradicted the Qur’an, yet when Sayyida Fatima (as) claimed that the land of Fadak was bequeathed to her as inheritance, he refused to grant her the land, on the premise that her words were questionable and the stipulated witnesses required to give evidence were not met.
If Jabir made a claim from the treasury, then by the same token Fadak also did not belong to Abu Bakr’s ancestors, rather it belonged to Sayyida Fatimah al Zahra (as), but the Khaleefa said that the land belonged to Muslims. If Jabir can receive monies from the Muslim treasury without the need of witnesses, then by the same token the Khaleefa could have also given Sayyida Fatima land from the Muslim treasury.
The narration informs us that Abu Bakr made the declaration at the time of the Hajj for people to come forward and make their claims in relation to whatever had been promised to them by Rasulullah (s). We ask those with brains, was Sayyida Fatima (as) a liar who presented false witnesses to substantiate her claim? Sayyida Fatima’s (as) testimony is false. The testimony of Imam Ali (as), and his two sons are also false, yet an ordinary companion’s claim without any witness corroboration is acceptable and he can attain property from the State treasury so as to prove the correctness of his claim.

Wednesday, December 19, 2012

Abu Bakr’s should have accepted H. Fatimas claim without demanding witnesses

Sayyida Fatima was ‘Siddiqah’

Sayyida Fatima (as) was clear and firm in her claim, namely that Rasulullah (s) had given Fadak to her, and that she was entitled to her Share from Khayber and outskirts of Madina as Khums. She had a legal right to the property of Rasulullah (s).
Sayyida Fatima was convinced about the correctness of her opinion and did not believe that her truthfulness would be challenged. When witnesses were demanded she verified the truthfulness of her claim by producing the testimonies of Imam Ali (as), Imam Hassan (as), Imam Husayn (as), Umm Ayman, and Rabah the Servant of Rasulullah (s).
Why didn’t Abu Bakr accept the claim of Sayyida Fatima (as) in the first instance? Why did he ask for witness corroboration? If the court believes in the witness testimony, or that given by the claimant, then judgement can be passed. Additional witnesses are required to confirm the truthfulness of a claim, to convince a Judge. If a thing is truthful, then it remains true whether you have one witness or ten witnesses. The witness of a credible witness followed by many witnesses who are not as strong in no way weakens a case if the first witness’s credibility is proven. The Ulema of Islam have set conditions on the number of witnesses in general circumstances which refers to specific situations, but this does not apply where the Ruler has direct knowledge on a matter. Let us cite an example:
I am a Judge and I witness a man robbing another man, no other witnesses are present. Will I apply the Islamic penalty or shall I state ‘I demand two witnesses to verify what I saw’.Failure to do shall lead to me to dismiss the case’.
Witnesses are summoned as a matter of clarity, to arrive at a correct judgement. If a Judge does not have clear direct knowledge on matter then he can utilise reliance on witness testimony. Hadhrat Abu Bakr should have accepted Fatima’s belief in the correctness of her claim – after all Sunnis Fiqh stipulates that the testimony of one just Sahaba is all that is needed (Fathul Bari Volume 9 page 44). That is a general rule, but Sayyida Fatima (as)’s is far above that of any Sahaba, we read in Ahl’ul Sunnah’s authority work ‘Riyadh al Nadira’ Volume 3 page 220, Dhikr Fadail ‘Ali:
Rasulullah (s) said to ‘Ali ‘You have three virtues not possessed by anyone else
1. You have a father in law like me.
2. You have received my truthful daughter as your wife
3. You have received pious sons such as Hasan and Husayn

Wednesday, December 12, 2012


Abu Bakr refuted witnesses that were produced and their testimonies were refused on different grounds

We read in Futuh al Buldan, page 35:
Malik bin Jawuna narrates from his father that Fatima said to Abu Bakr: ‘Rasulullah (s) bestowed Fadak to me, so return it.’ Ali testified in her favour, Abu Bakr asked for another witness, and Umm Ayman testified in support of Fatima. Upon this, Abu Bakr said: ‘O daughter of Rasulullah (s), such testimony is unacceptable unless you have two males or one male and two females, upon hearing this Fatima left.’
We also read:
Jafar bin Muhammad said that Fatima said to Abu Bakr: ‘Return Fadak to me as it was given to me by Rasulullah (s)’. Abu Bakr demanded witnesses. Umm Ayman and Rabah the Servant of Rasulullah (s) testified in support of her claim. He said that such testimonies were unacceptable unless presented by one man and two women.
We also read:
Umm Hani states that Fatima daughter of Rasulullah (s) appeared before the Court of Abu Bakr and asked: ‘When you die who shall inherit you?’ He replied: ‘My family and descendants’. Fatima said: ‘What is your stance when you seize the inheritance of the Prophet (s) and do not give it to us?’ He said: ‘Oh daughter of Allah’s messenger, I did not seize your father’s gold and silver and this or that.’ Fatima then said: ‘Give us our share of Khayber, Fadak is our exclusive property’. He [Abu Bakr] replied: ‘Oh daughter of Rasulullah (s), I heard the Prophet (s) say that (Fadak) is a pillar that Allah (swt) has provided for me as a source of earnings during my life time, verily when I die, distribute this amongst the Muslims!.’
We read in Wafa al Wafa, Volume 3 page 999 Bab Sadaqat un Nabi:
“Fadak was that land that Hadhrat Fatima claimed Rasulullah (s) had given to me. Abu Bakr demanded witnesses. ‘Ali and Umm Ayman testified. The Khaleefa replied ‘Only the testimony of a man and two women are acceptable”.

Thursday, December 6, 2012



Ibne Mutahhir Hilli, a famous Shi’i clergyman (who was educated by Ahlus-Sunnah ‘Ulema), states in his book, Minhaj al-Karamah, “When Fatimah said to Abu Bakr that Fedek had been bequeathed to her, Abu Bakr wrote an answer asking for witnesses. When no witnesses were produced he dismissed the case.” If this report is correct, the case of Fedek, like any other case pertaining to inheritance, gifting or bequeathing, lapses from Hadhrat Abu Bakr (Radhi Allahu Ta’ala Anhu). So, there is no reason for blaming Hadhrat Abu Bakr even from their own books in addition to the actions taken by the Ahlul-Bayt A’immah.

The Nasibi author failed to provide details such as the topic name or the volume and page numbers of the reference he claimed. We will therefore not comment on it until the author or his Nasibi colleagues prove the existence of any such narration. On the contrary, Allamah Hilli in his book Nahaj al-Hak, page 537 records:

فجاءت بأم أيمن وأسماء بنت عميس مع علي عليه السلام فشهدوا بذلك

“She brought Umm Ayman, Asma bint Umays with Ali (as) and they testified for her.”

Similarly we read in another Shia text namely Tafseer al-Qumi, Volume 2 page 155:

حدثني أبي عن ابن ابي عمير عن عثمان بن عيسى وحماد بن عثمان عن أبي عبدالله عليه السلام قال:….قالت فأشهد أن الله أوحى إلى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله “وآت ذا القربى حقه” فجعل فدك لفاطمة

My Father narrated from Ibn Abi Umayr from Uthman bin Isa and Hamaad bin Uthman that Abu Abdullah said: ‘…. she (Um Ayman) said: ‘I testify that Allah revealed to Allah’s apostle ‘{And give to the near of kin his due} thus he (s) gave Fadak to Fatima’.

The alleged narration cited by the Nasibi author contradicts all the major Sunni and Shi’a sources that confirm that witnesses were produced, and this was even acknowledged by a die hard Sunni scholar such as Ibn Hajr al Makki. We also know from Sunni and Shi’a sources that the Fadak dispute did NOT occur via written correspondence between the parties, it was face to face and there is a complete unanimity on this point with Ahl’ul Sunnah’s greatest masterpiece Sahih Bukhari confirming it. This comment is not in line with what has been acknowledged in Sunni and Shi’a works and is therefore without foundation.

Saturday, November 10, 2012

The consequences of Umar's actions against Hazrat Zahra (sa)

It is indeed unfortunate that this violent act of Umar set a precedent for future khalifa's, namely that a khalifa should secure bayya at all costs, and by whatever means he wishes albeit through intimidation, threats and violence. If threats could be made to the daughter of Rasulullah (s) then threats could be made to anyone. This is why the Salaf Imams / Khalifas that followed deemed Umar's actions as a model of best practice; a precedent had been set namely that it was lawful for duress to be used to secure compliance.

That is why we had the fasiq 6th Imam of Ahl'ul Sunnah Yazeed seeking to secure the bayya of Imam Husayn (as) who could point to Umar's actions as proof of the correctness of such an approach - namely that it was perfectly okay to terrorise Ahl'ul bayt to get your way. It is indeed tragic that the fire that Umar brought to the house of Sayyida Fatima (s) set a chilling precedent, and left a trail that lit the tents belonging to Sayyida Fatima's daughters on the 10th of Muharram.

Hajjaj bin Yusuf adopted similar methods of intimidation to quell opponents, and indeed this 'legitimate approach' continues until today. (Hajjaj bin Yusuf committed purges and genocide of men just like Vlad the Impaler (Dracula) did in Europe, women and children were killed, human beings insanely tortured though this is forbidden in Islam, killing hundreds of thousands of Muslims down to babies. He is applauded by many Sunnis today as he did some work on the grammar of the Qur'an! Oh yes, that forgives all, doesn't it! He was just a boy having a tantrum!). If today the masses complain of oppression and intimidation by their rulers they should know that their rulers' actions are perfectly lawful since they are adhering to the Sunnah of the Shaykhain.

The Arab world has been ruled by many terrorists who they have hailed as heroes and years later they have glorified them with romantic fairytales�history is, after all, written by victors, and the victors in this context were the Nasibis. You may applaud them, as some Nasibis have, but whatever you feel inside, terrorism is against the laws of Allah (sawt) and His Prophet, and the terrorist burns in Hell where Allah (sawt) will terrorise him.

Now we can see where Hajjaj, Saddam and Usama bin Ladin get their bad habits. There are some Muslims in this day and age who applaud terrorists who kill innocent women and children. There are others who don't like to condemn them, even though deep down they know it's wrong, simply because they get a kick out of getting their own back against their persecutors. There are others who will cover up their actions. And so it is with the Nawasib and their ugly past.

Thursday, November 1, 2012



It is narrated in a Hadith e Qudsi, that Allah (twt) said:
لو اجتمع الناس كلهم على ولاية علي ما خلقت النار
“If people would gather on the wilayat of Ali (as), I wouldn’t create the Fire”.
( Ref : Biharul Anwar  Vol 39 Pg 247 ) 

Why do Shias celebrate Eid-e- Ghadeer? 

A question that the general Muslims often pose to the Shias – Why do Shias celebrate Ghadeer? What is so significant about the event that merits such pomp and splendor?
18th Zilhajj is the great day which the Shias consider as Eid-e-Ghadeer and celebrate by creating an atmosphere of extreme elation. Some people begin their preparations well in advance for this joyous occasion. The effort and hard work of innumerable researchers and scholars are devoted to this event.
An Objection
An objection is often raised as to why so much physical and mental effort is lavished on this event. If similar effort and hard work is instead invested in ironing out flaws related to education and society, it will be more beneficial for Muslims. After all, which social problem has been solved by the annual celebration of Ghadeer? What good has it done to the community by persistently confirming the successorship and absolute mastership of Ameerul Momineen Ali b. Abi Talib (a.s.)? Is it not better that we find a remedy to the various problems plaguing Muslims and let bygones be bygones?
This is not a new objection. The enemies of the Shia Isna Ashariah have made an issue out of this for several generations. Not surprisingly, the enemies have raised the objection keeping in mind the Shiite ideology. In this regard, they have learnt the tricks from the enemies of Islam because when the enemies of Islam and the Majestic Quran raise objections against Islam, they use similar tactics. For example, they say that why do we spend so much effort and wealth on religious customs such as prayers, fasting, recitation of Quran, etc. instead of spending it on economic growth and advancement of the community. Honestly speaking, by visiting the House of Allah every year and by persistently establishing the veracity of Quran and Islam, which of the ever-increasing problems and tribulations of the community has been resolved?

Tuesday, October 30, 2012

The Political Factors for the Usurpation of Fadak

By: Ayatullah Makarem Shirazi
The story of Fadak is one of the most heart-rending and tumultuous stories in the life of Fatimah the Lady of Islam (s.a.) in particular, and the family of the Prophet (s.a.w) in general, and in the history of Islam in a widespread and disseminating way. It is mingled with political conspiracies and many ups and downs and is a hatchway for the unravelling of a part of the important mysteries surrounding the early scene of Islam’s history.
However, first, before beginning this discussion, it is necessary to know what Fadak was and where it was located?
“Fadak”, as many of the historians and writers have written, was a flourishing, fertile village in the land of “Hejaz” near Khaibar, being two or three days journey from Medina, Some have reported this distance as 140 Kilometers, and in which there was a bubbling spring and many date palms[11] and after Khaibar it was known as the stronghold of the Jews in Hejaz.

As to how Fadak, this pleasant, prosperous village, was transferred to the Holy Prophet (S), it is well known that after the messenger of God (S) returned from the conquest of Khaibar God placed fear and panic in the hearts of the inhabitants of Fadak who were of the headstrong Jews. They sent a representative to the Prophet (S) and made to him a proposition of peace. In return for their transferral of half of Fadak to the Holy Prophet (S), he accepted and signed the peace treaty.
As such, Fadak became the public domain of the Prophet (s.a.w) because according to an explicit Quranic verse, something that is obtained by the Muslims without war is the exclusive right of the Prophet (S) and unlike spoils of war is not divided.[12] In this way the Prophet (S) took Fadak and spent its earnings on the fatigued wayfarers «أبناءالسبيل»and the like.
This has been mentioned by Tabri «الطبري»in his book of history and Ibn Alalthir «ابن الأثير» in is book Alkamil «الكامل» and others in their own books.
Also, Tabari in his book and Ibn Alathir in the book “Kamel” made a reference to this.[13] It was also mentioned by many historians confirming that the Prophet (S) during his own lifetime granted Fadak to the Lady of Islam Fatimah Zahra (s.a.).[14]

Strong evidence of this transferral is that many commentators, including the famous Sunni commentator Jalal-Al-Din Suyyuti in the commentary book (Dar-Al-Mansour) under the Quranic Verse; «وآتذاالقربىحقه» (give the near of kin their due), has quoted from “Abu Sa’id Khadri” that, because this verse was descended, the Apostle of God (S) asked for Fatimah and granted Fadak to her. The words of this tradition are as follows: عن أبي سعيد الخدري رضي الله عنه قال: لما نزلت على النبي صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم.الآية (فآت ذا القربى حقه) دعا النبي صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم فاطمة عليها السلام فأعطاها فدك فقال: هذالك ولعقبك من بعدك.
When the word of God was revealed saying that; “O’ Prophet! Give your near of kin their due”, the Apostle of God (S) granted Fadak to Fatimah (s.a.).

Under that same verse another tradition is narrated from “Ibn Abbas” which contains the same information.

Tuesday, October 23, 2012

Debate between Shaikh Bahai and a Sunni scholar

During his journey to Egypt Shaikh Bahai got acquainted with a Sunni scholar who was antagonistic towards the Ahle Bait (a.s). Given the environment of Egypt and its hostility towards Shias and the Ahle Bait (a.s.), this was not altogether surprising and it only made the Shaikh careful about protecting his own identity as a Shia.
The Sunni scholar got close to Shaikh Bahai and among other subjects they discussed the Shias, who the Sunni scholar referred to as Raafizis (deniers of the Sunni caliphs). Shaikh Bahai, who for all practical purposes posed as a person following the Sunnah (Sunni) used to tell the Sunni scholar that in Mecca he had opportunities of interacting with the Shia Raafizis. On this the Sunni scholar told him that the faith of the Raafizis was absolutely wrong and that they didn’t have any proof for the veracity of their beliefs. He asked Shaikh Bahai if he was able to convince any of the Raafizis.
Shaikh Bahai informed him that he tried hard to convince them, but in the end they would pose a question to him that overturned all his arguments. The Sunni scholar asked in surprise that being such a learned scholar why he wasn’t able to suitably answer their question. To this Shaikh Bahai replied:
During our debates they would challenge that in Sahih-e-Bukhari there is a tradition where the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) had said:
Fatima (s.a.) is a part of me, one who troubles her has troubled me!

Friday, October 12, 2012


Dr. Tahir Qadri said in one of his video on youtube that Abu Bakr was right in denying Fadak to Fatima because What Prophet(s.a.w) left are all charity and Hazrat Fatima was (nauzobillah) unaware of this hadith and thus she claimed FADAK.
He cited one hadith from shia book to prove his point:
Al-Kulayni narrates in al-Kafi:
Abu 'Abdillah (Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq) says that Rasulullah said: "... And the 'Ulama are the heirs of the Ambiya; and the Ambiya did not leave dinars and dirhams as inheritance; but they left knowledge. Therefore whosoever takes knowledge has taken a great portion." (al-Kafi, vol. 1 p. 42)
Our Reply:

 Extracted from : http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/fadak/en/chap7.php


When the Nasibis find this Hadeeth, they dance with joy as if it is the festival of Eid but as we pointed out earlier, wherever the Shia text mentions the inheritance of prophets, it does from two perspectives:
  1. the spritual inheritors of prophets, are their successors and the learned scholars since they inherit the knowledge of prophets,
  2. material posessions that are inherited by the biological progeny of Prophets.

  Pertaining to the traditions cited by the Nasibi author,

  • Ulema are not the actual son of Porphets
  • Prophets are not their actual fathers
  • Knowledge is not an actual possession that can be distributed.

In the same way that the Hadeeth refers to the Ulema as the figurative sons of Prophets and Prophets as their figurative fathers; knowledge is also a figurative possession. The entire Hadeeth is along the line of figurative terms, hence the term Waris can also be understood in a figurative manner - the Ulema attain some of the knowledge possessed by Prophets. The Waris Hadeeth cited by Abu Bakr in Sahih al Bukhari that preceded the claim of Sayyida Fatima (as), did not refer to the inheritance of knowledge but referred to the inheritance of possessions as mentioned in the Shia tradition we cited above.

The Fadak dispute was in relation to a portion that had been set aside by Allah (swt) for Rasulullah (s). Abu Bakr's response that Prophet's leave no inheritance did not refer to knowledge, hence this proves that the Hadeeth in al Kafi that the Ulema are the Heirs of the Prophets Knowledge is a figurative term, it can not be advanced to prove that the Ahl'ul bayt (as) were prohibited from inheriting the Prophet's worldly possessions.

Friday, October 5, 2012

Some Questions to our Sunni Brothers

Note: Kindly read it carefully and ponder over it without any bias and prejudice.Every Muslim must independently investigate the truth and should not rely on the ideas and saying of others.

History testifies that when Hadhrath Muhammad (saaws) declared his Prophethood (saaws), the Quraysh1 subjected the Bani Hashim to a boycott. Hadhrath Abu Talib (as) took the tribe to an area called Shib Abi Talib where they remained for three years, suffering from immense hardship. Where were Hadhrath Abu Bakr and Hadhrath Umar during that period? They were in Makkah so why did they not help the Holy Prophet (saaws)? If they were unable to join the Prophet (saaws) at the Shib Abi Talib is there any evidence that they provided any type of support (food etc), breaching the agreement that the Quraysh boycott all food / business transactions with Bani Hashim?


Hadhrath Fatima Zahra (sa) died 6 months after her father (saaws), Hadhrath Abu Bakr died two and a half years later and Hadhrath Umar in 24 Hijri. Despite their later deaths how is it that they attained burial sites next to the Prophet (saaws) and not Hadhrath Fatima (as)? Did she request that she be buried away from her father? If so, why? Or did the Muslims prevent her burial?
(see Sahih al Bukhari Arabic - English Vol 5 hadith number 546).


Amongst the companions Hadhrath Abu Bakr is viewed as the most superior on account of his closeness to the Holy Prophet (saaws). If this is indeed the case then why did the Holy Prophet (saaws) not select him to be his brother when he (saaws) divided the companions in to pairs on the Day of Brotherhood? Rather, the Prophet (saaws) chose Hadhrath Ali (as) saying "You are my brother in this world and the next", so on what basis is Hadhrath Abu Bakr closer?
See The History of the Khalifahs who took the right way, by Jalaladeen Suyuti, English translation by Abdassamad Clarke p177, (Taha publishers)


The books of Ahlul' Sunnah are replete with traditions narrated by Hadhrath Ayesha, Abu Hurraira and Abdullah Ibne Umar. Their narration's; far exceed those relayed by Hadhrath Ali (as), Hadhrath Fatima (sa), Hadhrath Hassan (as) and Hadhrath Hussain (as). Why is this the case? When the Prophet (saaws) declared "I am the City of Knowledge and Ali is it's Gate", did Hadhrath Ali (as) benefit less from the company of the Prophet (saaws) than these individuals?

Thursday, September 27, 2012

Fadak: the property of Hadrat Fatima Zahra (SA)

Fadak is a controversial issue that has since the death of Rasulullah (s) created an open wound between the Sunni and Shi'a schools of thought. 

The best summary exists from Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 53, Number 325:
Narrated Ayesha(mother of the believers),'After the death of Allah's Apostle Fatima,the daughter of Allah's Apostle asked Abu Bakr As-Siddiq to give her the share of inheritance from what Allah's Apostle had left of the Fai (i.e. booty gained without fighting)which Allah had given him. Abu Bakr said to her, "the holy prophet(saww) had said, 'Our property will not be inherited, whatever we (i.e. prophets) leave is Sadaqah (to be used for charity)." Fatima, the daughter of Allah's Apostle got angry and stopped speaking to Abu Bakr, and continued assuming that attitude till she died. Fatima remained alive for six months after the death of the Holy prophet(saww).
The scholors of Ahle Sunnah have fought tirelessly to uphold the decision of Abu Bakr as correct. The reason that they do so is because so much hangs on upholding Abu Bakr's stance. After all if he is proven wrong then they will have to admit that the Khalifa coined a tradition to justify the usurpation of Fadak from Sayyida Fatima (as). 
The matter would not just end there it will raise more serious issues such as:
1. The Justice of the Sahaba - If the 'best friend' of the Prophet (s) could behave in such an unjust manner what can we expect of the other Sahaba?
2. If Abu Bakr ruled in such an unjust manner then how can he be deemed the rightly guided Khalifa of the Prophet (s)?
3. If hatred for Abu Bakr is a sin then why did Sayyida Fatima (as) hate Abu Bakr until her dying day?

Wednesday, September 12, 2012

Who is Truthful ??Umar & Abu Bakr OR Janabe Fatima(as)

Who is Truthful ??Umar & Abu Bakr OR Janabe Fatima(as)

The two Caliphs were the cause of displeasure to the only daughter of Holy Prophet(s.a.w).They snatched her only source of livelihood and rejected her plea for her property of Fadak.

Janabe Fatima was angry with them till she met her death!!

Here is a brief account of the dispute between Abu Bakr and Janabe Fatima(as) regarding Fadak

Note : Readers should read without any bias and prejudice and should bear in mind that all the references in this post are from authentic Sunni sources.

This article is a reply to those people(e.g. Dr. Tahir Qadri, Irfan Shah, Moulana Ishaaq etc etc) who defend Abu Bakr and Umar and support their views with baseless arguments.It is a reply to all those videos and articles on internet regarding dispute of Fadak.

Fadak was a green fertile village near Medina in the Hijaz region, and it also had a fortress called ash-Shumrukh.
(Mu’jam al-Buldan, Vol. 4, p. 238; Mu’jam Masta’jam, al-Bakri, Vol. 3, p. 1015; Al-Rawd al-Mi’tar, al-Himyari, p. 437; Wafa’ al-Wafa’, Vol. 4, p. 1280). 

Fadak belonged to the Jews. In the year 7 A.H., its ownership went from the Jews to the Prophet (..) under the terms of a peace settlement. The reason for this settlement was that after the fall of Khaybar, the Jews realized the real power of the Muslims, their martial aspirations were lowered. Noting that the Prophet (..) had spared the lives of some Jews who sought his protection, the Jews also sent a message of peace to the Prophet (..) and expressed their desire that Fadak should be taken from them so that their area should not be turned into a battlefield. Consequently, the Prophet (..) accepted their request and granted them amnesty. This land became his personal property wherein no one else had any right or claim, nor could there be any interest because the Muslims had a share only in those properties which they acquired as booty after jihad, whereas property acquired without jihad is called fay’ and only the Prophet (..) was entitled to it. No other person has a share in it. Thus, Allah says the following: “And whatever Allah bestows on His Messenger from them, you did not stir any horse or a camel towards it, but Allah grants authority to whomsoever of His Messengers He pleases; and Allah over all things is all-Powerful” (Holy Quran, 59: 6).
No one has ever disputed the fact that Fadak was secured without battle. It was, therefore, the Prophet’s personal property to which no one else was entitled. The Historians write:.
“Fadak was personal to the Prophet (..) as the Muslims did not use their horses or camels to acquire it” 
(Tarikh, al-Tabari, Vol. 1, pp. 1582-583, 1589; Al-Kamil, Ibn al-Athir, Vol. 2, pp. 224-225; As-Sira, Ibn Hisham, Vol. 3, p. 368; Tarikh, Ibn Khaldun, Vol. 2, part 2, p. 40; Tarikh al-Khamis, ad-Diyar-Bakri, Vol. 2, p. 58; Al-Sira al-Halabiyya, Vol. 3, p. 50).
The historian and geographical scholar, Ahmed ibn Yahya al- Baladhiri (d. 279/892), writes the following: “Fadak was the personal property of the Prophet (..) as the Muslims had not used their horses nor camels for its acquisition” (Fath al-Buldan, Vol. 1, p. 33).
Umar ibn al-Khattab had himself regarded Fadak as the unshared property of the Holy Prophet (..) when he declared the following: “The property of Banu an-Nadir was among that which Allah bestowed on His Messenger. Against them [its original Jewish owners], neither horses nor camels were stirred. It belonged to the Messenger of Allah specifically”
(Sahih, al-Bukhari, Vol. 4, p. 46; Vol. 7, p. 82; Vol. 9, pp. 121-122 Sahih, Muslim, Vol. 5, p. 151; Al-Sunan, Abu Dawud, Vol. 3, pp. 139-141; Al- Sunan, al-Nisa’i, Vol. 7, p. 132; Al-Musnad, Ahmed ibn Hanbal, Vol. 1, pp. 25, 48, 60, 208; Al-Sunan al-Kubra, al-Bayhayqi, Vol. 6, pp. 296- 299).

Wednesday, September 5, 2012

The matter of donation of Fadak - Part 2

Continued from part 1 .......

So why did Abu Bakr ask Fatima for evidence? Did the claim, whose truthfulness was certified, need evidence?
Those, who objected to Abu Bakr, said: “Evidence is needed to confirm the truthfulness of the claimant, but being certain (of the claimant’s truthfulness) is firmer (than the evidence). If it is necessary to judge for the one, who has true evidence, it must be judged for the one, whose truthfulness is known by the judge.”
There is a weakness in this justification because the comparison did not occur between the evidence and the certainty of the judge in addition to the actual reality, but it considered the effect of each of them on the judge and the result was that knowledge was to be firmer than the evidence because certainty was firmer than supposition. The comparison had to regard the nearest of the two to the truth that was to be regarded in every dispute. The knowledge of the judge, in this kind of comparison, was not to be preferred to the evidence because a judge might mistake as evidence might mistake. Both of them were equal in the regard of falling into error.
But there was something in the matter that the researchers ignored. It was impossible for the caliph’s knowledge about Fatima’s truthfulness[11] to be but the truth because the reason behind his knowledge of her truthfulness was not of those reasons that might lead to errors or mistakes but it was the holy Quran, which declared her infallibility. [12] In the light of this quality of knowing Fatima’s truthfulness, we could determine that the evidence, even if it was the legal proof, on which the judgment would depend, might fall into error. But the knowledge that could never fall into error, because of the witness of Allah, was worthier to be relied on when judging.
In another way we say: if the holy Quran had declared Fatima’s ownership of Fadak, then the matter would not have had any way of doubting or hesitating for any Muslim to judge. It was much clear that declaring the infallibility of Fatima by the holy Quran would strongly confirm her claim about her donation because the infallible would never lie and whenever claiming, the claim was definitely true. There would be no difference between determining the infallibility and determining the donation as related to the case, except that the ownership of Fadak by Fatima (s) was the literary meaning of the second text (the tradition) and the perceived concept of the first text (the verse) via its literary conception.
4. None of the Muslims ever doubted about Fatima’s truthfulness and no one ever accused her of fabricating but the dispute arose between the disputers that whether knowing the truthfulness of the claim would be sufficient evidence for judgment or not. Let us put the verse of purification aside for a moment and suppose that Abu Bakr was like anyone of the other Muslims and then his knowledge of Fatima’s truthfulness did not have the quality we referred to in the previous point but it was as the rest of thoughts, which would be liable to errors and mistakes.
But nevertheless the ruler might judge according to his knowledge[13] or he might depend on the evidence as it was mentioned in the holy Quran. Allah said: (..and that when you judge between people you judge with justice. 4:58) and: (And of those whom We have created are a people who guide with the truth and thereby they do justice. 7:181), which means that they judge with justice.

Wednesday, August 29, 2012

The matter of donation of Fadak - Part 1

It was the dispute between the caliph and Fatima (s) when she argued that the Prophet (s) had donated Fadak to her. Imam Ali and Umm Aymen witnessed of that but the caliph refused Fatima’s claim[1] and was not satisfied with these two witnesses and asked her to bring two men or a man and two women as witnesses.
1. The first thing that we would blame Abu Bakr for was his situation in this case as a ruler in spite of that his caliphate did not gain the legal quality until that day at least. [2] But now we do not want to study this blame because such argument will take us to wider horizons.
2. The second note about the subject is that if Fadak was with Fatima, then she would not have to have any evidence. There were two things about this note:
First: in whose possession Fadak was? Was it really in Fatima’s possession? We could understand that from the letter of Imam Ali to Othman bin Hunayf: “Yes, Fadak (only) was in our possession away from all what were under the heaven but some people became stingy with it and others turned away from it”. [3] This means that Fadak was in the Prophet’s family’s possession. This was confirmed by the traditions of the Shia.
The meaning of Imam Ali’s speech showed that Fadak was in Imam Ali and Fatima’s possession and it could not be interpreted as it was in the Prophet’s possession; first because the Prophet’s possession meant the Prophet’s family’s possession and second because the Prophet had his own properties other than Fadak.

Tuesday, August 14, 2012

Umar Abused And Oppressed Hazrat Fatemah (sa) While She Was Pregnant - Part 3

Continued from part 2

What type of logic gives us the permission to reject someone simply because of his inclination to Shiaism? If such is the standard, then Ahl Sunna need to dismiss many hadiths in Siha Sitta (the six hadith books) as they contain numerous hadiths from Rafidhis. InshaAllah, we will mention a few examples:
1. ‘AbiduAllah bin Musa:
Dhahabi says about him:
قال ابن مندة كان أحمد بن حنبل يدل الناس على عبيد الله وكان معروفا بالرفض لم يدع أحدا
اسمه معاوية يدخل داره.
Ibn Manda said: Ahmad bin Hanbal would welcome people to his premises, as he was a well-known Rafidhi, but he did not allow anyone by the name of “Muawia” to enter his residence.
الذهبي، شمس الدين محمد بن أحمد بن عثمان، )متوفاي 847 ه(، سير أعلام النبلاء، ج 9، ص 116 ، تحقيق: شعيب
الأرناؤوط، محمد نعيم العرقسوسي، ناشر: مؤسسة الرسالة بيروت، الطبعة: التاسعة، 1412 ه. -
Al Thahabi, Shams Al Deen Muhammad Bin Ahmad Bin Uthmaan (died 748 H), book: Siyar A’laam Al Nubalaa’ (The Lives of the Knowledgeable Nobles), volume 9, page 556, investigated by Shu’ayb Al Arnaa’oot, Muhammad Naeem Al Aariqsoosi, publisher: Mu’assasat Al Risaala (The Message Foundation), Beirut, ninth edition, 1413 H.
He continues to write:
وحديثه في الكتب الستة.
His Hadiths are present in the books of Siha Sitta
Mezi, the author of Tahzib al-kamal, states that all the books of Siha Sitta contain hadiths from Hanbal:
عُبَيد الله بن موسى بن أَبي المختار، واسمه باذام العبيسي، مولاهم أبو محمد الكوفي.
رَوَى عَن: إبراهيم بن إِسماعيل بن مجمع )ق(، وأسامة بن زيد الليثي )م(، واسرائيل بن يونس )خ
م ت س(، وإسماعيل بن أَبي خالد )خ(....
Ubaid Allah Bin Musaa bin Abi Al Mukhtaar, and his name Baathaam Al ‘Ubaisi, Their Chief Abu Muhammad Al Koofi.
Narrated according to: Ibraaheem Bin Ismaaeel Bin Majmaa (in Qazwini), ans Usaama Bin Zaid Al Laithiy (in Muslim), and Israa’eel Bin Yunis (in Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmithi, and Nisa’i), and Ismaaeel Bin Abi Khaalid ()…
المزي، يوسف بن الزكي عبدالرحمن أبو الحجاج )متوفاي 843 ه(، تهذيب الكمال، ج 19 ، ص 164 ، تحقيق د. بشار عواد
معروف، ناشر: مؤسسة الرسالة بيروت، الطبعة: الأولى، 1444 ه 1974 م. – -
Al Mazi, Yusuf Bin Al Zaki Abdul Rahmaan Abu Al Hijaaj (died 742 H), book: Tahtheeb Al Kamaal, Volume 19, page 164. Investigated by Dr. Bashaar Awaad Maaroof, publisher: Mu’assasat Al Risaala (The Message Foundation), Beirut, first edition, 1400 H (1980 AD).
رمزهايى كه در بين پرانتزها گذاشته شده، هر كدام مخفف اسم يكى از نويسندگان صحاح سته
است. )خ( = بخاري؛ )م( = مسلم؛ )ق( = ابن ماجه قزويني؛ )ت( = ترمذى )س( = نسائي.
Each code between brackets represents the name of the authors of the Siha Sitta:
(خ) = Bukhari
(م) = Muslim
(ق) = Ibn Majah Qazwini
(ت) = Trimidhi
(س) = Nisa’i

Wednesday, August 8, 2012

Umar Abused And Oppressed Hazrat Fatemah (sa) While She Was Pregnant - Part 2

Continued from part 1

However, as already mentioned, Dhahabi and Ibn Hajjar have rejected this notion on grounds of its source, Ibn Abi Darim.
احمد بن محمد بن السرى بن يحيى بن أبي دارم المحدث أبو بكر الكوفي الرافضي الكذاب... ثم
في آخر أيامه كان أكثر ما يقرأ عليه المثالب حضرته ورجل يقرأ عليه ان عمر رفس فاطمة حتى أسقطت
During the end of his life, Darim made an effort to shed light on the numerous flaws and misgivings of the Shaikhin. I was in his presence during which I witnessed a man telling him, “Umar kicked Lady Fatima, causing the miscarriage of Muhsin.”
By analyzing the scholarly reputation and character of Ibn Abi Darim, one will come to understand that the only reason for his rejection by the Ahl Sunna is in regards to this hadith. As a matter of fact, prior to this hadith, he was considered as one of the most knowledgeable ulama of the Ahl Sunna. Dhahabi described him as a “leader(Imam), memorizer(Hafiz), and an erudite(Fadhil).”
ابن أبي دارم. الامام الحافظ الفاضل، أبو بكر أحمد بن محمد السري بن يحيى بن السري بن أبي
Ibn Abi Daarim. The virtuous memorizer imam, Abu Bakr Ahmad Bin Muhammad Al Sirriy Bin Yahyaa Bin Al Sirriy Bin Abi Daarim…
He continues as: كان موصوفا بالحفظ والمعرفة إلا أنه يترفض.
His knowledge and character were exceptional, but he was attached to Shiaism.
And he also says: وقال محمد بن حماد الحافظ، كان مستقيم الامر عامة دهره.
Muhammad bin Hammaad Al Haafith said: In his lifetime he was firm in his beliefs.
الذهبي، شمس الدين محمد بن أحمد بن عثمان، )متوفاي 847 ه(، سير أعلام النبلاء، ج 11 ، ص 188  189 ، تحقيق:
شعيب الأرناؤوط، محمد نعيم العرقسوسي، ناشر: مؤسسة الرسالة بيروت، الطبعة: التاسعة، 1412 ه. -
Al Thahabi, Shams Al Deen Muhammad Bin Ahmad Bin Uthmaan (died 748 H), book: Siyar A’laam Al Nubalaa’ (The Lives of the Knowledgeable Nobles), volume 15, page 577-579, investigated by Shu’ayb Al Arnaa’oot, Muhammad Naeem Al Aariqsoosi, publisher: Mu’assasat Al Risaala (The Message Foundation), Beirut, ninth edition, 1413 H.

Wednesday, August 1, 2012

Umar Abused And Oppressed Hazrat Fatemah (sa) While She Was Pregnant - Part 1

The abuse and oppression of a pregnant Lady Fatima at the hands of Umar, as confessed by Ibn Abi Darim
In the book Mizan al-‘Itidal, Allama Sham sul-Deen Dhahabi brands Ibn Abi Darim as a Rafidhi. Dhahabi claims that despite the staunch convictions of Darim, he nonetheless slandered the Shaikhin(Abu Bakr and Umar) during the latter stages of his life, hence dismissing him as a valid narrator.
The original narration:
Alama Sham sul-Deen Dhahabi in Siyar a`lam al-nubala' and Mizan al-'Itidal and Ibn Hajar ‘Asqalani in Lisan al-Mizan narrated from Ibn Abi Darim:
إنّ عمر رفس فاطمة حتّى أسقطت بمحسن.
Umar kicked Hazhrat Fatima, causing the miscarriage of her unborn baby, Muhsin.
، الذهبي، شمس الدين محمد بن أحمد بن عثمان، )متوفاي 847 ه( ميزان الاعتدال في نقد الرجال، ج 1، ص 372
تحقيق: الشيخ علي محمد معوض والشيخ عادل أحمد عبدالموجود، ناشر: دار الكتب العلمية بيروت، الطبعة: الأولى، 1991 م؛ -
Al Thahabi Shams Al Deen Muhammad Bin Ahmad Bin Uthmaan (died 748 H), book: Meezaan Al I’tadaal fi Naqd Al Rijaal (The Scale of Moderation in Criticizing The Men of Narration), volume 1, page 283, investigated by Sheikh Ali Muhammad Mu’awwad and Sheikh Aadel Ahmad Abdul Mawjood, publisher: Daar Al Kutub Al ‘Ilmiyya, Beirut, first edition, 1995;
الذهبي، شمس الدين محمد بن أحمد بن عثمان، )متوفاي 847 ه(، سير أعلام النبلاء، ج 11 ، ص 187 ، تحقيق: شعيب
الأرناؤوط، محمد نعيم العرقسوسي، ناشر: مؤسسة الرسالة بيروت، الطبعة: التاسعة، 1412 ه؛ -
Al Thahabi, Shams Al Deen Muhammad Bin Ahmad Bin Uthmaan (died 748 H), book: Siyar A’laam Al Nubalaa’ (The Lives of the Knowledgeable Nobles), volume 15, page 578, investigated by Shu’ayb Al Arnaa’oot, Muhammad Naeem Al Aariqsoosi, publisher: Mu’assasat Al Risaala (The Message Foundation), Beirut, ninth edition, 1413 H;
العسقلاني الشافعي، أحمد بن علي بن حجر أبو الفضل )متوفاي 713 ه( لسان الميزان، ج 1، ص 367 ، تحقيق: دائرة
المعرف النظامية الهند، ناشر: مؤسسة الأعلمي للمطبوعات بيروت، الطبعة: الثالثة، 1446 ه 1976 م. – - -
Al Asqalaani Al Shaafii, Ahmad Bin Ali Bin Hijr Abu Al Fadil (died 852 H), Lisaan Al Meezaan (The Scale’s Tongue), volume 1, page 268, investigated by Al Maarifa Al Nithaamiyya Center, India, publisher: Mu’assasat Al A’lami Lilmatboo’aat (Al A’lami Foundation for Print), Beirut, third edition, 1406 H (1986 AD);
Dhahabi, Mizan al-'Itidal fi Naqd al-Rijal, Volume 1, Page 283
Dhahabi, Siyar a`lam al-nubala', Volume 15, Page 578
Ibn Hajar Asqalani, Lisan al-Mizan, Volume 1, Page 268