ATTACK ON THE HOUSE OF JANABE ZAHRA (SA). - VIEWS OF SHIA SCHOLARS

 

Introduction

The Shi’a scholars have all spoken on this incident, and the Ijma’ of Shi’a on a matter reveals that it is from the Ahlul Bayt, just as in the case of reciting BIsmallah loudly or Hayy ‘Ala Khayr al ‘Amal in the call to prayer. Even if one doesn’t grant that the ijma of the Shia scholars is enough to prove that Ahlul Bayt (AS) believed in Fatimiyya, what this ijma would at the very least prove is that the belief in Fatimiyya is early

The words of Imami Scholars themselves:

1. al-Sayyid al-Himyari (d.173H)

al-Sayyid al-Himyari has a poem in which he states:

"She was beaten and her right was usurped. And then they let her taste the pain of injuries and wounds.

May that hand be cut who hit her And the hand of those who are content with that and follow him.

May Allah not forgive him and or make him safe of the fear of the Day of Resurrection" 

Siraat Al Mustaqeem V3 Page 13

2. al-Barqi (d.245 H)

al-Barqi within the same page is narrated to say

"They collected firewood to burn the house And lit it

even though there were children in it

And in the house there was not except the purified ones

Of women and the truthful one and the grandsons (of the Prophet (saw))

I do not say that they did treachery, they rather disbelieved And disbelief is

less than burning the children (of the Prophet (saw))

And whatever of their tyranny and wrongdoing they did Will be two chains around their necks in Hellfire"

Siraat Al Mustaqeem V3 Page 13

3. Muhammad b. Abi Zaynab al-Nu’mani (d.360H)

“They did wrong to Fatima, the infallible Prophet’s daughter, to a degree that she (as) recommended in her will to be buried secretly at night and that none of her father’s umma was to offer the prayer (prayer for the dead) for her except those few ones she had mentioned. If there was no calamity in the history of Islam bringing shame and disgrace other than the calamity of Fatima (as) until she left to the better world angry with her father’s umma leaving her bitter will that no one was to attend her burial except very few loyal companions, it would be sufficient evidence for the ignorant and for those, whose hearts were sealed, to see what a great sin they had committed when they wronged Fatima, her husband and her sons (peace be upon them) and when they preferred the oppressors to the Prophet’s family, who were the elite of Allah”

Al Ghaybatal Nu'mani

4. Sheikh al-Saduq (d.381H)

Sheikh al-Saduq narrates: “We were told by Abu Abdillah, Hussain bin Ahmad bin Muhammed bin Ahmad al-Ishnani al-Darimi, the Jurist, the Just, in Balkh, that he said: I was told by my father, that he said: We were told by Muhammed bin Ammar, that he said: We were told by Musa bin Isma’il, that he said: We were told by Hammad bin Salama, from Muhammed bin Ishaq, from Muhammed bin Ibrahim al-Taimi, from Salama, from Abu’l-Tufail, from Ali bin Abi Talib, peace be upon him, that the Messenger of Allah, Allah’s blessings be upon him and his Family, said: O Ali, indeed, for you is a treasure in Paradise, and you are its Man with Two Horns. Do not follow one look by another look in prayer, for indeed, the first is (permitted) for you, whereas the other is not (permitted) for you.”

Sheikh al-Saduq then comments the following:”Moreover, I have heard some teachers mention that this treasure is his son, Mohsin, peace be upon him, and he was the miscarried fetus who was dropped by Fatima, peace be upon her, when she was squeezed between the two doors.”

Maanil al akhbaar

5. Ibn al-Junayd al-Iskafi (4th century Hijri)

Of the compiled works of Abu ʿAlī, Muḥammad b. Aḥmad al-Iskāfī- famously known as Ibn al-Junayd (d. 4th Century) is a book that is entitled “al-Ẓulāmah li-Fāṭima ʿalayhā al-salām” (The Oppression towards Fāṭima, upon her be peace.)

Translation by The Purified Truth/Originally from Ahmed al-Toufaili. Mu'jam al Rijal.

6. Sheikh al-Mufid (d.413H)

“Among the Shī ̔a, there are those who mention that Fāṭima, the blessing of Allāh be on her, after the Prophet had a miscarriage with a son, whom the Prophet, may Allāh bless Him and His Family, had (already) named during her pregnancy as Muḥsin. According to this group there were twenty-eight children of the Commander of the Faithful, the blessing and peace of Allāh be on him. Allāh knows and judges best.”

Kitab Al Irshad Vol 1 Page 355 & Refer to al-Qadhi Abul Jabbar statement on al-Mufid and other Shi’a scholars doing ‘Aza on Fatima AS and claiming Umar led to Fatima’s AS miscarriage

7. Al-Sharif al-Murtadha (d.436H)

“And this narration where Sayyida Fatima AS says: “O’ ibn al-Khattab would you burn my door on me? And he says yes” is a narration that the Shi’a have transmitted with many chains”

Al Shafi

8. Abu al-Salah al-Halabi (d.447H)

"And among the issues that slanders the righteousness of the first three (usurpers) i.e Aboo Bakr, Umar and Uthman, are: Their aim over the house of Ahlulbayt (a.s) of their Prophet (saw) by disrespecting and persecution and hurting their status and refraining from respecting it as it is expected. Among the slanders is also them leaving all those who did not pay allegiance, but they intended to persecute Alee (a.s) due to him abstaining from giving allegiance, by speaking evil to him and exaggeration in threatening him, and bringing of firewood to burn his house, and attacking him with their men without his permission (to enter his house) and dragging him by holding his garment and terrifying his wife and his daughters and his women and his supporters of Bani Hashim and others, forcing them out of their houses and holding swords upon them and threatening him to killing if he does not pay allegiance. But they didn't do things like this with Sa'd ibn Ubada and Khabbab ibn Al-Munzir and others who refrained and delayed their allegiance, until they died or after a long time they paid allegiance.”

Taqrib al Ma'arif

9. Muhamamd b. Ali al-Karajiki (d.449H)

“And he (Umar) claimed that the best creation of Allah (swt) was delusional in his words, and he (Umar) struck Fatima (as) the daughter of the Prophet (sawa), and brought wood to burn her house with those who are in it”

Al Ta'ajub min 'aghlaat Al 'Amma fi Mas'alat Al Imama

10. Sheikh al-Tusi (d.460H)

“And what he was criticised for is their beating Fatima (sa) who is reported as having been beaten with whips. What is famous and what is the consensus among the Shi’as is that ‘’Umar (ibn al-Khattab) hit her on her stomach till she miscarried, and the child whom she miscarried was named Muhsin. Such a narrative is quite famous among them. Add to this their desire to set her house on fire when people sought refuge with her and refused to swear the oath of allegiance to him (to Abu Bakr). Nobody denies this narrative because we have explained the narrative as reported by the Sunnis through al-Balathiri and others. Shi’as provide more details, and they do not differ in this regard” (Translation from al-Islam)

Takhlis al Shafi

The Lady of Paradise in the grip of misfortunes and grief

The Lady of Paradise in the grip of misfortunes and grief

      

On the day,when the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) expired, there was not a single minor or major who was not overtaken by grief. Everybody was sob­bing and weeping. Friends, relatives and kinsmen all were grief stricken and crying. There was a thick pall of gloom everywhere. But the most shocked personality on the face of earth was the daughter of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.).

A week had elapsed since the death of the Prophet yet, she (s.a.) was continuously and profusely crying and grieving. She had confined herself in her house.

On the eighth day, she could not control her emotions, and broke down sobbing. The ladies around came out hearing her laments to console her. Janabe Siddiqa Tahera (s.a.) had extinguished all lamps of her house, and was sitting in darkness to avoid recognition. Janabe Siddiqa Tahera (s.a.) overwhelmed with grief addressed her father (s.a.w.a.) as follows :

O’ Father!

O’ Messenger of Allah!

O’ Mohammed Mustafa!

O’ Abul Qasim!

O’ The anchor and shelter of orphans!

Who is there to hear the complaints of your dear daughter who is on the verge of death and who is there to do justice to her.

So saying,
she started to wear her dress in the same manner as the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) used to wear. Her gait of walking was exactly similar to the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.). Her dress was long enveloping her feet and her vision was blurred due to continuous downpour of tears. She was unable to find her path through them. However, she reached to the sacred grave of her father (s.a.w.a.). When she caught sight of the place from where the call of prayer (Azaan) used to be sounded, she swooned and passed out. Women who were there rushed up to her and applied wat er to her face. She then regained conscious­ness and sat up, and again began to cry saying the following:

Father! my strength is failing me;

I have lost my stamina and bearing;

Enemies are torturing me;

I am being eaten away insidiously by sorrow and grief,

Father! I am lonely;

My personal affairs are causing concern to me;

Father! My voice is being subdued by brute force;

My back is broken;

An upheaval has taken place in my life;

The world has become a living hell;

O’ Father! After you, there is no one who could offer me solace and to stand by me in these trying times;

I am crying for you, but there is no one who could sympathize with me and stop me from crying;

In the present state of my physical weakness, there is no one to look towards
to;

O’ Father! After you, the place of descendence of Qur’an, and arrival of Jibraeel and Michael looks deserted and abandoned.

Father! People have turned their eyes from me and all doors were closed on me. Father!
After you I hate this world, But as long as I would be breathing, I will go on crying for you;

Father! My love towards you knows no bounds, and my sorrow will be immense.

Then she started reciting an elegy, as under:

For you my sorrow is always with me. By Allah, I say that my heart is full of your love.
Day after day, my sorrow goes on increasing. O’ Father! I will be forever sorrowful for you. The sad event of your death is very shocking to me. A heart which willy nilly accepts a solace, is indeed an enduring and a patient heart.

Destruction of Jannatul Baqi - The oppression on Janabe fatima (sa) continues till today

ON THE SAD OCCASION OF THE DESTRUCTION OF THE GRAVES OF JANNATUL BAQI BY THE WAHABIS

( 8TH SHAWWAL -1345 AH / April 21, 1925)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HISTORY OF THE CEMETERY OF JANNAT AL-BAQI

WHERE IMAM HASAN B. ALI (2ND IMAM), IMAM ALI B. AL-HUSAYN (4TH IMAM), IMAM MUHAMMAD B. ALI (5TH IMAM), & IMAM JA'FAR B. MUHAMMAD (6TH IMAM), PEACE BE UPON THEM, ARE BURIED

---

On 8th Shawwal, Wednesday, in the year 1345 AH (April 21, 1925), mausoleums in Jannatul al-Baqi (Madina) were demolished by King Ibn Saud.

In the same year (1925), he also demolished the tombs of holy personages at Jannat al-Mualla (Makkah) where the Holy Prophet (s)'s mother, wife, grandfather and other ancestors are buried.

Destruction of sacred sites in Hijaz by the Saudi Wahhabis continues even today. According to some scholars what is happening in Hijaz is actually a conspiracy plotted by the Jews against Islam, under the guise of Tawheed. The idea is to eradicate the Islamic legacy and heritage and to systematically remove all its vestiges so that in the days to come, Muslims will have no affiliation with their religious history.

---

The Origins of Al-Baqi

Literally "al-Baqi" means a tree garden. It is also known as "Jannat al-Baqi" due to its sanctity, since in it are buried many of our Prophet's relatives and companions.

The first companion buried in al-Baqi was Uthman b. Madhoon who died on the 3rd of Sha'ban in the 3rd year of Hijrah. The Prophet (s) ordered certain trees to be felled, and in its midst, he buried his dear companion, placing two stones over the grave.

On the following years, the Prophet's son Ibrahim, who died in infancy and over whom the Prophet (s) wept bitterly, was also buried there. The people of Madina then began to use that site for the burial of their own dead, because the Prophet (s) used to greet those who were buried in al-Baqi by saying, "Peace be upon you, O abode of the faithful! God willing, we should soon join you. O' Allah, forgive the fellows of al-Baqi".

The site of the burial ground at al-Baqi was gradually extended. Nearly seven thousand companions of the Holy Prophet (s) were buried there, not to mention those of the Ahlul Bayt (a). Imam Hasan b. Ali (a), Imam Ali b. al-Husayn (a), Imam Muhammad al-Baqir (a), and Imam Ja'far al-Sadiq (a) were all buried there.

Among other relatives of the Prophet (s) who were buried at al-Baqi are: his aunts Safiya and Aatika, and his aunt Fatima bint al-Asad, the mother of Imam Ali (a). The third caliph Uthman was buried outside al-Baqi, but with later extensions, his grave was included in the area. In later years, great Muslim scholars like Malik bin Anas and many others, were buried there too. Thus, did al-Baqi become a well-known place of great historic significance to all Muslims.

Al-Baqi as viewed by historians

Umar bin Jubair describes al-Baqi as he saw it during his travel to Madina, saying "Al-Baqi is situated to the east of Madina. You enter it through the gate known as the gate of al-Baqi. As you enter, the first grave you see on your left is that of Safiya, the Prophet's aunt, and further still is the grave of Malik bin Anas, the Imam of Madina. On his grave is raised a small dome. In front of it is the grave of Ibrahim son of our Prophet (s) with a white dome over it, and next to it on the right is the grave of Abdul-Rahman son of Umar bin al-Khattab, popularly known as Abu Shahma, whose father had kept punishing him till death overtook him. Facing it are the graves of Aqeel bin Abi Talib and Abdullah bin Ja'far al-Tayyar. There, facing those graves is a small shrine containing the graves of the Prophet's wives, following by a shrine of Abbas bin Abdul Muttalib.

The grave of Hasan bin Ali (a), situated near the gate to it's right hand, has an elevated dome over it. His head lies at the feet of Abbas bin Abdul Muttalib, and both graves are raised high above the ground, their walls are panelled with yellow plates and studded with beautiful star-shaped nails. This is how the grave of Ibrahim, son of the Prophet (s) has also been adorned. Behind the shrine of Abbas there is the house attributed to Fatima, daughter of our Prophet (s), known as "Bayt al-Ahzaan" (the house of grief) because it is the house she used to frequent in order to mourn the death of her father, the chosen one, peace be upon him. At the farthest end of al-Baqi is the grave of the caliph Uthman, with a small dome over it, and there, next to it, is the grave of Fatima bint Asad, mother of Ali b. Abi Talib (a)"

After a century and a half, the famous traveller Ibn Batuta came to describe al-Baqi in a way which does not in any way differ from the description given by Ibn Jubair. He adds saying, "At al-Baqi are the graves of numerous Muhajirin and Ansar and many companions of the Prophet (s), except that most of their names are unknown."

Thus, over the centuries, al-Baqi remained a sacred site with renovations being carried out as and when needed till the Wahhabis rose to power in the early nineteenth century. The latter desecrated the tombs and demonstrated disrespect to the martyrs and the companions of the Prophet (s) buried there. Muslims who disagreed with them were branded as "infidels" and were subsequently killed.

The First Destruction of Al-Baqi

The Wahhabis believed that visiting the graves and the shrines of the Prophets, the Imams, or the saints was a form of idolatry and totally un-Islamic. Those who did not conform with their belief were killed and their property was confiscated. Since their first invasion of Iraq, and till nowadays, in fact, the Wahhabis, as well as other rulers of the Gulf States, having been carrying out massacres from which no Muslim who disagreed with them was spared. Obviously, the rest of the Islamic World viewed those graves with deep reverence. Had it not been so, the two caliphs Abu Bakr and Umar would not have expressed their desire for burial near the grave of the Prophet (s).

From 1205 AH to 1217 AH, the Wahhabis made several attempts to gain a foothold in Hijaz but failed. Finally, in 1217 AH, they somehow emerged victorious in Taif where they spilled the innocent blood of Muslims. In 1218 AH, they entered Makkah and destroyed all sacred places and domes there, including the one which served as a canopy over the well of Zamzam.

In 1221, the Wahhabis entered Madina to desecrate al-Baqi as well as every mosque they came across. An attempt was even made to demolish the Prophet's tomb, but for one reason or another, the idea was abandoned. In subsequent years, Muslims from Iraq, Syria, and Egypt were refused entry into Makkah for Hajj. King Al-Saud set a pre-condition that those who wished to perform the pilgrimage would have to accept Wahhabism or else be branded as non-Muslims, becoming ineligible for entry into the Haram.

Al-Baqi was razed to the ground, with no sign of any grave or tomb whatsoever. But the Saudis were still not quite satisfied with doing all of that. Their king ordered three black attendants at the Prophet's shrine to show him where the treasure of valuable gifts were stored. The Wahhabis plundered the treasure for their own use.

Thousands of Muslims fled Makkah and Madina in a bid to save their lives and escape from the mounting pressure and persecution at the hands of the Wahhabis. Muslims from all over the world denounced this Saudi savagery and exhorted the Caliphate of the Ottoman Empire to save the sacred shrines from total destruction. Then, as it is known, Muhammad Ali Basha attacked Hijaz and, with the support of local tribes, managed to restore law and order in Madina and Makkah, dislodging the Al-Saud clansmen. The entire Muslim world celebrated this victory with great fanfare and rejoicing. In Cairo, the celebrations continued for five days. No doubt, the joy was due to the fact that pilgrims were once more allowed freely to go for Hajj, and the sacred shrines were once again restored.

In 1818 AD, the Ottaman Caliph Abdul Majid and his successors, Caliphs Abdul Hamid and Mohammed, carried out the reconstruction of all sacred places, restoring the Islamic heritage at all important sites. In 1848 and 1860 AD, further renovations were made at the expense of nearly seven hundred thousand pounds, most of which came from the donations collected at the Prophet's tomb.

The second plunder by the Wahhabis

The Ottoman Empire had added to the splendor of Madina and Makkah by building religious structures of great beauty and architectural value. Richard Burton, who visited the holy shrines in 1853 AD disguised as an Afghan Muslim and adopting the Muslim name Abdullah, speaks of Madina boasting 55 mosques and holy shrines. Another English adventurer who visited Madina in 1877-1878 AD describes it as a small beautiful city resembling Istanbul. He writes about its white walls, golden slender minarets and green fields.

1924 AD Wahhabis entered Hijaz for a second time and carried out another merciless plunder and massacre. People in streets were killed. Houses were razed to the ground. Women and children too were not spared.

Awn bin Hashim (Shairf of Makkah) writes: "Before me, a valley appeared to have been paved with corpses, dried blood staining everywhere all around. There was hardly a tree which didn't have one or two dead bodies near its roots."

1925 Madina surrendered to the Wahhabi onslaught. All Islamic heritage were destroyed. The only shrine that remained intact was that of the Holy Prophet (s).

Ibn Jabhan says: "We know that the tomb standing on the Prophet's grave is against our principles, and to have his grave in a mosque is an abominable sin."

Tombs of Hamza and other martyrs were demolished at Uhud. The Prophet's mosque was bombarded. On protest by Muslims, assurances were given by Ibn Saud that it will be restored but the promise was never fulfilled. A promise was given that Hijaz will have an Islamic multinational government. This was also abandoned.

1925 AD Jannat al-Mu'alla, the sacred cemetery at Makkah was destroyed alongwith the house where the Holy Prophet (s) was born. Since then, this day is a day of mourning for all Muslims.

Is it not strange that the Wahhabis find it offensive to have the tombs, shrines and other places of importance preserved, while the remains of their Saudi kings are being guarded at the expense of millions of dollars? 

Protests

1926, protest gatherings were held by shocked Muslims all over the world. Resolutions were passed and a statement outlining the crimes perpetrated by Wahhabis was issued and included the following:

1. The destruction and desecration of the holy places i.e. the birth place of the Holy Prophet [s], the graves of Banu Hashim in Makkah and in Jannat al-Baqi (Madinah), the refusal of the Wahhabis to allow Muslims to recite Ziyarah or Surah al-Fatiha at those graves.
2. The destruction of the places of worship i.e. Masjid Hamza, Masjid Abu Rasheed, in addition to the tombs of Imams and Sahaba (Prophet's companions).
3. Interference in the performance of Hajj rituals.
4. Forcing the Muslims to follow the Wahhabis innovations and to abandon their own ways according to the guidance of the Imams they follow.
5. The massacre of sayyids in Taif, Madina, Ahsa, and Qatif.
6. The demolition of the grave of the Imams at al-Baqi which deeply offended and grieved all Shias.

Protests were lodged by Muslims in Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Indonesia, and Turkey. All of them condemn the Saudi Wahhabis for their barbaric acts. Some scholars wrote tracts and books to tell the world the fact that what was happening in Hijaz was actually a conspiracy plotted by the Jews against Islam, under the guise of Tawheed. The idea was to eradicate the Islamic legacy and heritage and to systematically remove all its vestiges so that in the days to come, Muslims will have no affiliation with their religious history.

A partial list of the demolished graves and shrines

• Al-Mualla graveyard in Makkah which includes the grave of Sayyida Khadija bint Khuwailid (a), wife of the Prophet (s), the grave of Amina bint Wahab, mother of the Prophet (s), the grave of Abu Talib, father of Imam Ali (a), and the grave of Abdul Muttalib, grandfather of the Prophet (s)
• The grave of Hawa (Eve) in Jeddah
• The grave of the father of the Prophet (s) in Madina
• The house of sorrows (bayt al-Ahzan) of Sayyida Fatima (a) in Madina
• The Salman al-Farsi mosque in Madina
• The Raj'at ash-Shams mosque in Madina
• The house of the Prophet (s) in Madina, where he lived after migrating from Makkah
• The house of Imam Ja'far al-Sadiq (a) in Madina
• The complex (mahhalla) of Banu Hashim in Madina
• The house of Imam Ali (a) where Imam Hasan (a) and Imam Husayn (a) were born
• The house of Hamza and the graves of the martyrs of Uhud (a)

 

 

Fadak: Was Abu Bakr merely implementing the will of Rasulullah (sawa)?

The author of ‘The Issue of Fedek: A rebuttal to common lies propagated against Ahl al-Sunnah regarding Ahlul-Bayt’ makes this curious unfounded claim in his article, namely that Abu Bakr used the land in exactly the same manner that Rasulullah (s) wished.

 Ahmad Jawdat Pasha al-Lofji writes in his Qisas-e-Ambiya:

“Rasulullah Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam devoted his date orchard named Fadak in Khaybar to the pious foundation and dictated how it was to be utilized. He advised in his will that income from the orchard should be given to foreign ambassadors, to visitors, guests and travellers. Hadhrat Abu Bakr, Radhi Allahu ‘Anhu implemented this will during his Khaleefat”.

Reply One

The author’s assertion that Khayber and Fadak were used for supporting guests, travellers and ambassadors is a complete lie. Let us see how Fadak and Khayber was utilised by Rasulullah.We read in Sahih Muslim, Bab ul Fai Book 019, Number 4347:

It has been narrated on the authority of Umar, who said: The properties abandoned by Banu Nadir were the ones which Allah bestowed upon His Apostle for which no expedition was undertaken either with cavalry or camelry. These properties were particularly meant for the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him). He would meet the annual expenditure of his family from the income thereof, and would spend what remained for purchasing horses and weapons as preparation for Jihad.

Umar said that the land was given to support his family and for weapons, al Lofji claims that it was to meet the expenditure of foreign ambassadors, visitors, guests and travellers.Now the reader has to decide whose words are to be relied upon Umar or those of al Lofji?

Reply Two

If Abu Bakr was merely implementing the ‘will’ of Rasulullah (s) then how did he have possession of it and not his descendants? If one consults Sahih Bukhari, we see that Ayesha provides a detailed description of the final days of the Prophet (s), and yet she furnishes no evidence of Abu Bakr being within close proximity of the Prophet (s) during that time, rather she informs us:

‘When Allah’s Apostle fell sick with the fatal illness and when the time of prayer became due and Adhan was pronounced, he said, ‘Tell Abu Bakr to lead the people in prayer’

Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 11, Number 633

We would also like some clarity, who is to be in possession of the will after the death of the deceased,his legal heirs or the khalifa of the time? Moreover if this Will ever existed then why wasn’t this presented as evidence during the Fadak dispute? Why do we not find any Sunni sources proving that Abu Bakr produced this will, or made reference to the will of the Prophet (s)? This Nasibi Mullah has attributed something to Abu Bakr that he never himself claimed. At no time did Abu Bakr say that he was implementing the will of Rasulullah (s). We challenge this unnamed author to produce any Sunni text containing copy of this will with these conditions? How did Abu Bakr get sight of it? Abu Bakr would only have had sight of the will if he was the trustee or the beneficiary. He was neither. Maula Ali (as) was the Wasi, and Sayyida Zahra (as) was the beneficiary – so how does Abu Bakr come into the equation? No one would have greater knowledge on this supposed will than these two individuals, so Can the Ahl’ul Sunnah produce a single source wherein Imam ‘Ali (as) and Sayyida Zahra (as) referred to Prophet (s) stipulating this order under his will?

In any case this whole discussion should be (in Sunni eyes) an irrelevant issue since their principle book would have us believe that Rasulullah (s) left no will whatsoever. This is what we read in Sahih Bukhari:

Narrated Talha bin Musarrif:

I asked ‘Abdullah bin Abu Aufa, “Did the Prophet make a will?” He replied, “No,” I asked him, “How is it then that the making of a will has been enjoined on people, (or that they are ordered to make a will)?” He replied, “The Prophet bequeathed Allah’s Book (i.e. Quran).”

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 51, Number 3

The unnamed author claims that Abu Bakr was implementing the will of the Prophet (s), Muhammad bin Ismaeel Bukhari recorded that the Prophet (s) left no will, we leave it to our readers to decided on which of these two is lying.

Reply Three

The claim that Abu Bakr that income from the orchard should be given to foreign ambassadors, to visitors, guests and travellers is destroyed by the very Hadith he cited to deny Sayyida Fatima (as) her inheritance rights. The Nasibi suggested:

Ahmad Jawdat Pasha al-Lofji writes in his Qisas-e-Ambiya:

“… He advised in his will that income from the orchard should be given to foreign ambassadors, to visitors, guests and travellers. Hadhrat Abu Bakr, Radhi Allahu ‘Anhu implemented this will during his Khaleefat”.

The supposed Hadith that Abu Bakr cited, ‘Our property will not be inherited, whatever we (i.e. prophets) leave is Sadaqah (to be used for charity) ” would make the ability to implement this will impossible, since the entire contents of the orchard would not be Abu Bakar’s to distribute. It would be in the possession of the poor and needy – it would have been their right as Sadaqa, and it would be their discretion to decide on how they disposed of the income of Fadak, since (according to the Hadith of Abu Bakr) they were the beneficiaries of the Estate of Muhammad (s), it was them to decide where this went not Abu Bakr.

The means via which Sayyida Fatima (as) acquired Fadak

Allah declares in the Holy Qur’an:

And render to the kindred their due rights, as (also) to those in want, and to the wayfarer: But squander not (your wealth) in the manner of a spendthrift.

Al-Qur’an, Surah 17, Ayah 26, translated by Yusufali

Note:

Allah who owns every thing has provided a means for His servants to acquire some of these things. Land e.g that is acquired without fighting is Fay and the Prophet (s) is it’s sole owner. He could give it to whoever he pleased, either as a gift, or by any other mode. Accordingly, when this verse was revealed he (s) gave the land of Fadak to Fatima Zahra (as) under the order of Allah. This is proven from the following authority works of Ahl’ul Sunnah:

• Tafseer Durre Manthur v4, p177
• Kanzul Ummal, v2, p158
• Lababul Naqool, p137, Sura Isra
• Tafseer Mazhari, in Tafseer of above mentioned verse
• Tafseer Ruh Al-Ma’ani
• Jam’e Asbab al-Nazul, Surah 17 verse 26 by Shiekh Khalid

In the Tafseer of above mentioned verse we read:

“Abu Saeed al Khudri and Abdullah Ibn Abbas narrate that when the verse relating to giving rights to kindred was revealed, the Prophet called Fatima Zahra (as) and gifted the land of Fadak to her”.

Tafseer Dur al-Manthur, Vol. 4, page 177

Also see:

Jam’e Asbab al-Nuzul by Sheikh Khalid Abdurehman Makki (published in Karachi)

The deceitful Nawasib in their hatred for Sayyida Fatima Zahra (sa) often make feeble attempts to create doubts over the authenticity of the chain of this narration because of a narrator Atya al-Aufi by citing the criticism levelled at him by some people. What they never present is the authentication of Atya al-Aufi by some the famed Sunni scholars. For example Muhammad al-Nuhamisi in the foot note of Shaykh Taqiuddin Ahmad bin Ali bin Abdulqadir al-Moqrizi’s (d. 845 H) famed book Emta al-Asma, Volume 13 pag 16 stated: ‘According to me his hadith is not less than the grade of Hasan’. Ibn Hajar records that Imam Tirmidhi considered his hadith as Hasan (Nataj al-Afkar, v2 p414). Imam Ibn Hajar himself declared him ‘Seduq’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1 p678). Imam Yahyah bin Moin said: ‘Nothing bad about him’ (Tarikh ibn Moin by al-Daqaq, p27) while Sunni scholar Mahmood Saeed Mamdoh said in his book Rafe al-Manara, page 163: ‘Yahya bin Moin declared that about whom he said ‘nothing bad about him’, it means that he is Thiqah.’ Imam Muhammad Ibn Saad said: ‘Thiqah’ (Tabaqat al Kubra, v6 p304). Allamah Umar bin Shaheen included him in the book of Thiqah narrators (Asma al-Thuqat, p172). Mahmoud Saeed Mamdouh rightly states in his book: ‘We conclude that Atya al-Aufi are authenticated by Yahya bin Saeed al-Qatan, ibn Saad, ibn Moin, al-Tirmidhi, al-Bazar, ibn Shaheen and some others.’ (Rafe al-Manara, p173). And most relevantly, on p144 of the same book, we read: ‘It is settled in the science of Hadith that if there is praise and criticism about a narrator and the reason for the criticism is unknown then (criticism) must be rejected and shall not be relied on and the praise about the narrator must be accepted. This is the correct (act) and that is what the scholars follow.’

Common objection raised by Abu Bakr’s defenders

One of the objections raised by the Sunni scholars to deny Sayyida Fatima’s right to the land of Fadak is that Sura Isra (also known as Sura Bani Israel) is a Makkan Sura which incorporates the verse on giving close relatives their rights, whereas Fadak was acquired in Madina. How is it that an incident that took place in Madina, is referred to in a Makkan verse?

Reply One

The present Qur’an was arranged during Uthman’s era, he didn’t arrange verses according to their revelation. As there is no specific proof (by any tradition) that this verse was revealed in Makka, it cannot be claimed as a Makkan verse.

Reply Two - Some verses were revealed in Makka as well as in Madina

There are several verses, which were revealed twice. Fakhrudeen Radhi for example stated that Surah Fateha descended in Makka and Madina. Similarly Ibn Hajar al Makki in Sawaiqh Muhriqa, page 102 writes:

“Akrama Khariji claimed that verse of ‘Muwaddah’ was revealed in Makka, but the great scholar of Tafseer Ibne Abbas said that it was revealed in Madina.

Comment

Ibn Hajr is in effect stating that if the position of Ibn Abbas is correct, then this verse was revealed twice. We shall likewise advance that the verse of ‘Dhul Qurba’ was revealed twice.

Reply Three - The Quran contains Madani verses in Makkan Surah’s

It is important to highlight here the legal position of the Quranic verses when it is to be decided whether a sura is Makkan or Madini.

While determining whether a Qur’anic Sura is Makkan or Madani it is seen whether it was revealed before the Hijra or after it. If a Sura has been revealed before Hijra it is designated Makkan no matter where the Holy Prophet was at the time of revelation. On the other hand if the Sura is revealed after the Hijra, it is considered Madani no matter where the Holy Prophet was at the time of its revelation. However a problem arose with some Qur’anic Suras whose revelation started in Makka (before Hijra) but which were completed after the Hijra (in Madina). To deal with such a situation, the unanimous agreement among the Sunni scholars is that such a Sura is to be considered Makkan as its revelation started before Hijra even though some of its portion has been revealed after Hijra. Acting on this accepted principle we can very safely say without any contradiction that the verse of Quraba in Sura Isra had been revealed in Madina though the Sura was first revealed before Hijra in Makka.

In Umdah’ tul Qari Sharh Sahih Bukhari is an esteemed Sunni work. In its Volume 9 page 202 we are told:

“These three Sunni scholars Maqatil, Qalabi and Ibn Abbas said that Surah Taghbun was a Makki Sura containing Madani verses.”

The same position with regard to another Quranic verse is highlighted in the authority work of Ahl’ul Sunnah Asbabul Nazool, page 280 where it is written:

“Sura Shura is a Makki Surah but verse of “Muwaddat” is a Madani verse.”

We shall accordingly advance that Sura Isra was a Makkan Surah that included “Dhul Qurba” a Madani verse.

Reply Four - The merits of Ayesha

In authority work of Ahl’ul Sunnah, Lababul Naqool, page 137 Sura Isra, it is written:

“Once the Prophet (s) asked Ayesha to spend all that they had. Ayesha replied then nothing would be left for them. After that this verse was revealed “Wala taj’al”. Allamah Suyuti writes that this verse is Madani”

Comment

The Verse of ‘Dhul Qurba’ is 26th verse of Sura Isra. And the above mentioned verse “Wala taj’al” is 29th verse of Sura Isra. Since this verse showed the merits of Ayesha and proves that Ayesha was in the house of the Prophet (s) in Madina, the Nasibis accepted that this verse (in a Makkan Sura) was Madani not Makki.

We appeal to justice, when it comes to the rank of Ayesha it can be accepted that some verses of a Makkan Surah were revealed in Madina, but when it comes to Fatima Zahra (as) her right is denied solely on the basis that the Surah is Makki, so the verse of “Dhul Qurba” could not have been revealed in Madina! Is this not a clear contradiction?

Reply Five

Even if we accept for the sake of argument that the verse ordering the Prophet(s) to give his relatives their rights is a Makkan verse and not Madani this still does not negate Syeda Fatima’s claim to the land of Fadak. We as Muslims believe that the Qur’an is a book whose every Ayah is valid and applicable till the Day of Judgment. If a verse is revealed in Makka, does it lose its validity when the Prophet moves to Madina? Of course any command by Allah to His Prophet holds good wherever the Prophet is and the Prophet is under an obligation to act upon it. If the Prophet gifted Fadak to his daughter in Madina, this was no doubt an implementation of the will of Allah.

The Prophet (s) also gave Fatima Zahra (as) a written instruction about Fadak

Following are the proofs from authority works of Ahl’ul-Sunnah:

• Rauzat ul Safa as quoted in Tashdheed-ul-Mathaeen page 102
• Ma’arij un Nabuwwah, page 321
• Habeeb us Siyaar, vol 1, Dhikr of Ghazwa Khayber

The texts read as follows:

“Jibrael (as) came to Prophet Muhammad (s) and told him that Allah (swt) had ordered that he give the Dhul Qurba (close relatives) their rights. Rasulullah (s) asked who was meant from Dhul Qurba and what is meant from ‘right’. Jibrael (as) replied that Dhul Qurba refers to Fatima Zahra (r), and from ‘right’ it is meant the property of Fadak. The Prophet (s) called Fatima and presented Fadak to her giving her a written paper as a proof. This paper was presented to Abu Bakr (ra) after the death of Rasool Allah (saww) by Fatima and she said that it was the paper which the Prophet (s) wrote for her, Hasan and Husayn”

The contents of the written paper

In Fatawa Azizi, page 165, (published Karachi) al Muhaddith Shah Abdul Aziz sets out the contents of the written document:

Muhammad bin Abdullah bin Abdul Muttalib bin Hashim bin Abd Manaf has given this piece of land, whose premises are known, to his daughter Fatima Zahra. And after her, this land is entrusted to her children. And anyone who denies it after hearing it, then it’s sin is on his head. And Allah is “Sami” and “Aleem”.

Comment

We have proved from 10 Sunni works that the Prophet (s) presented Fadak to Fatima Zahra (as) as a gift by the orders of Allah (swt) and it was in her possession. But the same Shah Abdul Aziz in “Tuhfa Ithna Ashari”, “Shah Wali Ullah” in “Quratul Ain” and Ibn Taymeeya in “Minhaj-us-Sunnah” and their modern day apprentice al Khider in ‘Fadak’ continue to lie by denying this fact. May Allah’s curse be upon these liars!

This article is taken from ANSWERINGANSAR.ORG