Pages

Tuesday, February 26, 2013

OBJECTIONS AGAINST FADAK AND THEIR REPLIES -3

OBJECTION : 

Fadak was only a village, in which there were some date trees. How did it become a city?



REPLY : 


In Ahl’ul Sunnah’s authority work Dairat-ul-Ma’arifa, Volume 7 page 135 it is written:
“Fadak is the name of a ‘Qarya’ near Khayber.”
The term ‘Qarya’ according to Ahl’ul Sunnah’s authority work “Al-Qamoos”, chapter “Bab ul Wa’a Waliya” is as follows:
“In all respects, ‘Qarya’ means ‘Masar Jameh’.
In Ahl’ul Sunnah’s esteemed work Tafseer Ibn Katheer, Urdu edition, v1, page1 18 under the Tafseer of following Quranic verse:
And remember We said: Enter this Town ‘Qarya’, and eat of the plenty therein as ye wish;
Al-Qur’an, Surah 2, Ayah 58, translated by Yusufali
Ibn Katheer in his commentary of this verse states that:
“Qarya means Bait ul Muqaddas”
Now people with rational minds should recognise that Bait-ul-Muqaddas was not a village, but it was the first Qibla, and in the same way that the second Qibla is situated in a city, the first Qibla was also situated in a city.
The question no doubt comes to mind, ‘Why is there a dispute in the meanings of “Qarya”?
Our response is that the defenders of the Sahaba want to prove that Fadak was not a large property hence taking a small piece of land was not such a contentious issue. They should of course accept the orders of the Qur’an, where we are told that:
And oppression is the biggest evil.

Why was it named Fadak?

We read in the esteemed Sunni works, Maujam-ul-Buldan, Volume 14 page 240 and Wafa-ul-Wafa, Volume 4 page 1281:
“This city was named Fadak, while the son of Adam (as) Ham first came to this place and he put the foundation of this city”.

What was the value of property of Fadak?

Fourteen centuries have passed since the advent of Islam and historians, either due to their genuine inability or enmity towards Ahl’ulBayt, have never described it fully. That’s why it is difficult to estimate the true value of this property. Nevertheless, we shall provide some historical facts, which will help to understand the income generated from this land.

The income from Fadak

In the authority work of Ahl’ul Sunnah, Sunan Abu Dawud, Volume 3 page 144 it is written:
قال ابو داود : ولى عمر بن عبدالعزيز الخلافة وغلته أربعون ألف دينار
Abu Dawood said: ‘When Umar bin Abdul-Aziz became Caliph, the income (from the property of Fadak) was 40,000 Dinars.’

The land of Fadak and income from its dates

It is written in Sharh of Nahaj ul Balagha by  Ibn Abi Al-Hadeed, Volume 4 page 108:
“Umar expelled the Jews from Fadak. And the value of the land along with its dates was 50,000 Dirhams.”

Blessings that came from the Dates of Fadak

Ibn Abi Al-Hadeed in Sharh Nahj ul Balagha wrote in v4, p108:
“There were eleven fruit trees in Fadak, that Rasulullah (s) planted with his own hands. The children of Fatima used to present them to Hajj pilgrims and they would give them Dinars and Dirhams for this service.”

Did Imam Ridha (as) exaggerate over the size of Fadak?

The brilliant scholarly Imam from Ansar.Org Muhammad al Khider presents this devastating proof as evidence that the Shi’as exaggerate over the size of Fadak:
Al-Kulayni narrates in al-Kafi:
Abul Hasan [Imam 'Ali ar-Rida] came to [the 'Abbasid Khaleefah] al-Mahdi and saw him redressing grievances and returning property to its owners that was unrightfully appropriated). He [Imam Rida] asked, “What about our grievance? Why is it not returned?” Al-Mahdi asked. “And what might that be, Abul Hasan?” He replied, “When Allah granted his Prophet the conquest of Fadak…” Al-Mahdi asked, “Abul Hasan, describe to me the extent of this property.” He [Imam Rida] replied, “One side of it is Mount Uhud. Another side is al-’Arish in Egypt. Another side is the coastline. Another side is Dawmat al-Jandal.” (al-Kafi, Bab al-Fay’ wal-Anfal, vol. 1 p. 543; also Bihar al-Anwar, vol. 48 p. 156)
How can a piece of land in Khaybar possibly fit this description? Is this the extent to which people will allow themselves to be duped and deceived?

Reply

This is a figurative term in the same way that the Ahl’ul Sunnah often claim that Umar spread Islam throughout the world, whilst in reality he did not even conquer the entire Asian Sub Continent. The need for such usage was because the Imam (as) was seeking to point out that Fadak was not the only thing that was usurped from the rightful heirs, there was also their legal entitlement to the rule of Islamic State. It is a matter of fact that the nascent Islamic State was stabilized via the financial benefits that had been gained from the lands of Khayber, that Sayyida Fatima (as) made a claim to. Prior to the conquest of Makka the Muslims did not had enough food to satiate their stomachs, the situation changed after this conquest and to this effect we read in Sahih al Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 548, Chapter Military Expeditions led by the Prophet (s) (Al-Maghaazi):
Narrated Ibn Umar:
We did not eat our fill except after we had conquered Khaibar.
The Estates of Fadak and Khayber created financial stability for the Islamic State, and the Imam (as) was pointing out this significant fact through this figurative term.

The income of Fadak was used for military purposes

We read in Ahl’ul Sunnah’s esteemed work Insanul Ayun fi Seerah al Halabiyah,Volume 3, p487-488, Chapter “The death of the Prophet (s)”
“Umar was angry with Abu Bakr and said, “If you give Fadak back to Fatima, where the expenses for army and defence will come from for at present all the Arabs are fighting against you. He then took the papers of Fadak from Fatima (as), and tore them into shreds”.
 Insanul Ayun fi Seerah al Halabbiyah, Vol. 3, Page 487 & 488
As we have shown, the historical facts are clear that Fadak was property from which not only one family could live easily, but which could help maintain the entire army. Tragically, the State usurped it so that its political opponents, the family of the Prophet (s), would be weakened thus preventing any attempts to oppose them.

THIS ARTICLE IS TAKEN FROM 
http://en.shiapen.com/comprehensive/fadak.html

Tuesday, February 19, 2013

Abu Bakr usurped the land of Fadak and Fatima Zahra (as) asked him for her Right


As evidence we have relied on the following esteemed Sunni works:
  1. Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 53, Number 325 and Volume 5, Hadeeth number 546, pp 381-383
  2. Sahih Muslim, Volume 2 page 72, Chapter ‘Prophets leave no inheritance
  3. Sunan Abu Dawood Book 19, Tribute, Spoils, and Rulership (Kitab Al-Kharaj, Wal-Fai’ Wal-Imarah) Number 2967:
  4. Sunan al Kabeera Volume, 6 page 30 (published in Hyderabad)
  5. Riyadh al Nadira Volume, 4 page 231 (Baghdad publishers)
  6. Sawaiqh al Muhriqa, page 21 Bab Muthaeen Abu Bakr
  7. Maujam-ul-Buldan, Volume 3 page 312, Dhikr Fadak
  8. Tafseer Kabeer, Volume 8 page 125 Ayat Fay
  9. Kanz al Ummal, Volume 3 page 129, Kitab al Khilafat ma al Imara
  10. al Milal wa al Nihal, Volume 1 page 18
  11. al Bidayah wa al Nihaya, Volume 5 page 245
  12. Tareekh Tabari, Volume 4 page 1825
  13. Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Volume 1 page 158
  14. Tareekh Khamees, Volume 2 page 174
  15. Futuh al Buldan, page 35
  16. Wafa al Wafa, page 995
  17. Tabaqat Ibn Sa’d (Book of the Major Classes, d. 852 AD.), Volume 2, page 392 translated by S. Moinul Haq assisted by H.K. Ghazanfar M.A.
  18. Naseem al Riyadh, Sharh Shifa Qadhi Khan Volume 3 page 414

Wednesday, February 6, 2013

The Prophet (s) and all four caliphs would issue rulings based on the testimony of one person


We read in Ahl’ul Sunnah’s authority work Kanz al Ummal:
“Ali bin Abi Talib narrates that Allah’s messenger, Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman would rule upon the witness testimony of one person and the oath of the claimant “.
 Kanz al Ummal, Volume 7 page 23 Tradition 17786
Similarly we read in Sunnan al-Darqutni, Volume 10 page 338:
Ali (ra) narrates that Allah’s messenger would rule upon the witness testimony of one person and the oath of the claimant. (Darqutni said) Ali would issue rulings in this manner in Iraq.
 Sunnan al-Darqutni, Volume 10 page 338 Tradition 4540
We read in Sunan ibn Majah:
Ibn Abbas narrates that Rasulullah (s) ruled on the basis of the testimony of a single witness and (a claimant’s) oath.
 Sunan ibn Majah, Volume 2 page 793 Hadith 2370
We read in Sunan Abu Dawud, The Office of the Judge (Kitab Al-Aqdiyah) Book 24, Number 360:
Narrated Abu Hurayrah:
The Prophet (peace be upon him) gave a decision on the basis of an oath and a single witness.
We read in Muwatta Imam Malik, Book of Judgements Book 36, Number 36.4.5:
Yahya said, “Malik said from Jafar ibn Muhammad from his father that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, pronounced judgement on the basis of an oath with one witness.”
Of interest is the fact that Ibn Taymiyah al Nasibi in Minhajj al Sunnah, Volume 4 page 125 also stated:
نعم يحكم في مثل ذلك بشهادة ويمين الطالب عند فقهاء الحجاز وفقهاء أصحاب الحديث
“Yes it can be ruled by the testimony of sole witness and the claimer’s oath according to the scholars of Hijaz and Ahlul Hadith”.
Imam Mawardi records in his authority work al-Ensaf, Volume 12 page 84:
حيث قلنا : يقبل شاهد واحد ويمين المدعي
We say: ‘The testimony of one witness and oath of the claimant is acceptable’