Wahabis have said in one of their objections:
According to reports of Shia, Lady Zahra (r), after returning
from the Masjid and after delivering the sermon, became infuriated at Ali (r)
that you are sitting like this and they have usurped your and my right.
But do you Shia not believe that Fatima
is infallible? Can one infallible pass a remark on another infallible?
The actual report against which the Wahabis have objected is as
follows:
When Lady Zahra (s) returned to her house after protesting before
the people of Medina ,
she addressed Amirul Momineen (a): O son of Abu Talib, peace be on you. People
are sitting in the corner like a child in the womb with the limbs withdrawn and
like accused persons. This son of Abu Qahafa [Abu Bakr] has snatched away the
gift of my father and the means of simple livelihood of my children. He [Abu
Bakr] tried to be inimical to me and I found him the most severe enemy; till
the Ansar failed to render their support to me…Alas if I had died before this seclusion
and [apparent] insult. The Almighty Allah would excuse you on my behalf as you
kept injustices away from me in a number of instances and supported me…[1]
In reply to this report, we say: Apart from the fact that this
report is having incomplete chain of narrators, Allamah Majlisi (a.r.) and
other Shia scholars have given replies to this objection, some which we shall
mention below:
Allamah Majlisi (r) [died 1111 A.H.], in his book, Biharul
Anwar, has replied to this doubt as follows:
In fact, the caustic remark of Lady Zahra (s) aimed to highlight
the evil acts of the regime and explain to others what oppression the usurpers
have wrought.
In many instances, when man wants to explain something to someone,
he makes him a target of anger and addresses him in fury, whereas his aim is
not to be angry upon him. This behavior was customary in speech. Like a ruler,
who sees some people engrossed in some act against him, in order to express his
displeasure at them, he displays anger at some of his officials, while he knows
that they had not been deficient in this regard. However, he wanted to, through
this expression of anger to highlight to everyone the vileness of those people.
Another example is that when Prophet Musa (a) returned from Mt. Tur
“O Harun! what prevented you, when
you saw them going astray, so that you did not follow me?”
Harun said: O son of my mother! seize me not by my beard
nor by my head; surely I was afraid lest you should say: You have caused a
division among the children of Israel
Lady Zahra (s) also wanted through this to highlight the enormity
of the oppression that had befallen her husband…so that the people of that time
and those who were to come later should understand what oppression has befallen
Ahle Bayt (a).[3]
Thus, on the basis of the justification that the Late Allamah
Majlisi has presented regarding this report: it was not accusation anger and
fury in this case, on the contrary, it was the uppermost limit of anguish of
the respected daughter of the Messenger of Allah (s) over the oppression
wrought on her honorable husband, so that history may record this matter.
In fact, by these statements, Lady Fatima Zahra (s) made some
facts absolutely clear, so that they may be recorded in history and get noticed
by coming generations. The Lady addressed Amirul Momineen (a) and said:
Son of Abu Qahafa [Abu Bakr] has snatched away the gift of my
father and the means of simple livelihood of my children.
In this statement, Lady Fatima (s) has hinted at three
fundamental points:
The phrase of ‘my father’s gift’ proves that Fadak was the gift
of the Holy Prophet (s) to Lady Fatima Zahra (s), which senior Ahle Sunnat
scholars, like Tabari (d. 310 A.H.) and Dhahabi (d. 748 A.H.) have also clearly
mentioned; that Fadak was the personal property of the Holy Prophet (s) and he
had gifted it to Lady Fatima Zahra (s):
Khyber was the public property of all Muslims, but Fadak belonged
only to the Messenger of Allah (s) as it was not obtained through fighting.[4]
Jalaluddin Suyuti (d. 911 A.H.) writes:
Bazzar, Abu Yala, Ibne Abi Hatim and Ibne Marduya have narrated
from Abu Saeed Khudri: When the verse of:
وَآتِ
ذَا الْقُرْبَىٰ حَقَّهُ
“And give to the near of kin his due…” (Surah Isra 17:26)
…was revealed, the Messenger of Allah (s) called Fatima and gifted Fadak to her.[5]
The phrase of ‘livelihood of my children’ shows that Fadak was
the sole source of income for the family of Lady Fatima Zahra (s), and Amirul
Momineen (a) has also mentioned this in his letter to Uthman bin Hunayf:
Yes, from all that on which the sky has shaded, only Fadak was
under our control, but people were miserly about it and other generous people
ignored it.[6]
3. Usurping the right of Fatima (s)
The phrase of ‘This son of Abu Qahafa [Abu Bakr] has snatched…’
proves that Abu Bakr had usurped the confirmed rights of Lady Fatima Zahra (s).
Yaqut Hamuyi (d. 626 A.H.), in Mojamul Buldan, after
explaining the geography of Fadak has written:
This Fadak is the same, about which Lady Fatima (s) said that the
Holy Prophet (s) had gifted it to her.[7]
In Tarikh Medina, Ibne Shibba (d. 262 A.H.) has narrated
from Numairi, son of Hassan that he said to Zaid bin Ali:
I wanted to condemn the act of Abu Bakr that he had usurped the
right of Fatima (s)… Fatima Zahra (s) came to
Abu Bakr and said: The Messenger of Allah (s) gave Fadak to me. Abu Bakr said:
Can you support your claim with an eyewitness? Fatima
(s) brought Ali (a) and he testified. After that she brought Umme Aiman as a
witness. She said to Abu Bakr: Do you not testify that I am from the folks of Paradise ? Abu Bakr replied: Yes. Umme Aiman said: I
testify that the Holy Prophet (s) gifted Fadak to Fatima Zahra (s). Abu Bakr
said in reply to Fatima (s): Do you want to
obtain your right on the basis of the testimony of a man and a woman?[8]
When Lady Fatima Zahra (s) perceived that Abu Bakr was not at all
prepared to accept that Fadak was the personal property of the Prophet, she
demanded it from him as an inheritance of her father. This time Abu Bakr
attributed a false tradition to the Messenger of Allah (s). That he (s) had
said: We are the congregation of prophets, we do not leave any inheritance and everything
left by us is charity (Sadaqah).
The proof of the falsity of this statement is that:
Firstly, this tradition is openly in contravention of the clear
verses of Quran, which talk of Prophet Sulaiman (a) inheriting from Prophet
Dawood (a):
وَوَرِثَ
سُلَيْمَانُ دَاوُودَ
“And Sulaiman was Dawood’s heir…”[9]
Secondly: A group of Ahle Sunnat scholars, like Dhahabi considers
this report false. They have narrated the following from some Ahle Sunnat
scholars:
Ibne Adi has narrated from Abda: I asked Ibne Kharash: What type
of tradition: ‘What we leave is charity’, is? He replied: It is false, since
Malik bin Aws has been accused of lying.[10]
Thirdly: Lady Fatima Zahra (s) was enraged at the attitude of Abu
Bakr and was furious at him and till her last moments she did not speak to him.
Bukhari narrates that:
Fourth: Imam Ali (a) also, after the martyrdom of Lady Zahra (s)
and the death of Abu Bakr, during Caliphate of Umar, raised the issue and
Bukhari has narrated the statement of Umar bin Khattab as follows:
(O Abbas!) You came to me asking for your share from the property
of your nephew, and this man (Ali) came to me, asking for the share of his wife
from the property of her father.[12]
Fifthly: If the prophets did not leave any inheritance and all
their property is charity why Umar returned it to successors of the Prophet
against the view of Abu Bakr? Why Uthman handed it over to Marwan against the
view of Abu Bakr and Umar?
Why according to the evidence of history, the raising of the
issue by Amirul Momineen (a) bore fruits and according to the clarification of
Bukhari, Umar was compelled to restore the properties of the Messenger of Allah
(s)?
Umar bin Khattab restored the Prophet’s property (of Sadaqah) at Medina to Ali and Abbas.[13]
Yaqut Hamuyi has also written:
During the period of Umar bin Khattab, for expansion of
boundaries of Muslim kingdom and welfare of Muslims, the jurisprudence of Umar
bin Khattab adjudged that Fadak should be returned to the successors of the
Prophet.[14]
However, after him, when Uthman succeeded to Caliphate he transferred
the ownership of Fadak to his favorite son-in-law, Marwan bin Hakam. Abul Fida
has mentioned in his Tarikh:
Uthman gifted Fadak to Marwan and this Fadak was the endowment of
the Holy Prophet (s), which Fatima had demanded
from Abu Bakr.[15]
The fabricated report of Abu Bakr: “We, prophets do not leave
inheritance,” can be rebutted with other replies also, but I have refrained
from stating them all here for the sake of brevity.
[1] Al-Ihtijaj,
Vol. 1, Pg. 145, Abu Mansur Ahmad bin Ali bin Abu Talib Tabarsi (d. 548 A.H.),
Edited with notes: Sayyid Muhammad Baqir Khorasan, Darun Noman Lit Taba-a wan
Nashr – Najaf Ashraf, 1386 A.H. 1966 A.D.
[2]
Surah Taha 20:94
[3] Biharul
Anwar, Vol. 29, Pg. 234, Muhammad Baqir Majlisi (d. 1111 A.H.) Edited:
Muhammad Baqir Bahbudi, Mausasul Wafa – Beirut
– Lebanon ,
Second corrected edition, 1403 – 1983 A.D.
[4] Tarikh
Tabari, Vol. 2, Pg. 138, Abu Ja’far Muhammad bin Jarir Tabari (d. 310 A.H.),
Darul Kutubul Ilmiyya – Beirut .
Tarikh al-Islam wa
Wafyatul Mashahir wal Aalaam, Vol. 2, Pg. 422, Shamsuddin Muhammad bin
Ahmad bin Uthman Dhahabi, (d. 748 A.H.), Darul Kitab al-Arabi, Lebanon, Beirut,
1407 A.H. – 1987 A.D. First edition, Edited: Dr. Umar Abdus Salam Tadmiri
[5] Durre
Manthur, Vol. 5, Pg. 273, Abdur Rahman bin Abu Bakr Jalaluddin Suyuti (d.
911 A.H.), Darul Fikr – Beirut
– 1993 A.H.
[6] Nahjul
Balagha, Subh Salih, Letter no. 45.
Tadkiratul Hamduniya,
Vol. 1, Pg. 99, Muhammad bin Hasan bin Muhammad bin Ali Ibne Hamdun (d. 608a
A.H.), Edited: Ahsan Abbas, Bakr Abbas, Dar Sadir – Beirut, First edition,
1996.
[7] Mojamul
Buldan, Vol. 4, Pg. 238, Abu Abdullah bin Yaqut bin Abdullah Hamuyi (d. 626
A.H.), Darul Fikr – Beirut .
[8] Tarikhul
Medina Munawwara, Vol. 1, Pg. 124, Tr. 554, Abu Zaid Umar bin Shabatul
Numairi Basri (d. 262 A.H.), Edited: Ali Muhammad Dandal and Yasin Saduddin
Bayan, Darul Kutubal Ilmiya – Beirut – 1417 A.H. – 1996 A.D.
Sawaiqul Mohriqa Alaa
Ahle Rafdh wa Zalaal wa Zandaqa, Vol. 1, Pg. 157, Abul Abbas Ahmad bin
Muhammad bin Ali bin Hajar Haithami (d. 973 A.H.), Edited: Abdur Rahman bin
Abdullah Turki – Kamil Muhammad Kharat, Mausasitur Risala, Lebanon, 1417 A.H. –
1997 A.D.
[9]
Surah Naml 27:16
[10] Seer
Aalamun Nubla, Vol. 14, Pg. 510, Shamsuddin Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Uthman
bin Qaimaz Dhahabi, Abu Abdullah, (d. 748), Mausisatur Risala, Beirut, 1413,
Ninth edition, Edited: Shuaib Arnaut, Muhammad Naeem Arqasusi.
[11] Al-Jami
as-Sahih al-Mukhtasar (Sahih Bukhari), Vol. 3, Pg. 1126, Tr. no. 2926,
Chapter of Khums, Muhammad bin Ismail Bukhari Jofi, Abu Abdullah (d. 256 A.H.),
Edited: Dr. Mustafa Dibul Bagha, Daar Ibne Kathir, Yamama, Beirut , 3rd edition, 1407 – 1987.
[12] Al-Jami
as-Sahih al-Mukhtasar (Sahih Bukhari), Vol. 3, Pg. 1126, Tr. no. 2927,
Chapter of Khums, Muhammad bin Ismail Bukhari Jofi, Abu Abdullah (d. 256 A.H.),
Edited: Dr. Mustafa Dibul Bagha, Daar Ibne Kathir, Yamama, Beirut , 3rd edition, 1407 – 1987.
[13] Al-Jami
as-Sahih al-Mukhtasar (Sahih Bukhari), Vol. 3, Pg. 1126, Tr. no. 2926,
Chapter of Khums, Muhammad bin Ismail Bukhari Jofi, Abu Abdullah (d. 256 A.H.),
Edited: Dr. Mustafa Dibul Bagha, Daar Ibne Kathir, Yamama, Beirut , 3rd edition, 1407 – 1987.
[14] Mojamul
Buldan, Vol. 4, Pg. 239, Abu Abdullah bin Yaqut bin Abdullah Hamuyi (d. 626
A.H.), Darul Fikr – Beirut .
[15] Al-Mukhtasar
fee Akhbaaral Bashar, Vol. 1, Pg. 116, Abul Fida, Imaduddin Ismail bin Ali
(732 A.H.).
Tarikh Ibnul Wardi,
Vol. 1, Pg. 145, Ibnul Wardi Umar bin Muzaffar
