Umar compelled Abu Bakr to reverse his decision on Fadak.

 Muslims in general claim that Fadak was never a matter for debate and discussion since in their view – Prophets neither inherit nor leave behind any inheritance, all their property and wealth is for the common Muslims.

Although this is the widely touted position of the supporters of companions and wives, we know that this was not the real reason for denying Fadak to Aal Muhammad (a.s.).

The real reason was rather simple when you research history.

Abu Bakr willing to hand over Fadak

For all the lengthy discussions and debates on Fadak, it comes as no surprise that the matter of Fadak was resolved in Hazrat Fatima Zahra’s (s.a.) favour initially.

When Abu Bakr demanded that Hazrat Fatima Zahra (s.a.) advance witnesses in support of her claim over it, she (s.a.) produced Umme Ayman – the one guaranteed with Paradise by the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) – and Ameerul Momineen (a.s.).

Abu Bakr was satisfied with the witnesses and wrote a letter handing over Fadak to Hazrat Fatima Zahra (s.a.).

Umar walked in at the time and on seeing the document made enquiries about it. Abu Bakr briefed him about the situation. Umar immediately yanked the letter and tore it to pieces dismissing the witness of Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) and Umme Ayman.

• Tafseer al-Qummi (r.a.) under Surah Rum (30): Verse 38
• Al-Ehtejaaj vol. 1 p. 90
• Bait al Ahzaan p. 144-145

Also refer regarding Fatima Zahra’s (s.a.) right over Fadak from Quran:

• Shawaahed al-Tanzeel under under Surah Rum (30): Verse 38
• Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah vol. 16 p. 220

Even if the skeptics dismiss this incident, there can be no denying the strong arm tactics employed by Umar to control the government from the backseat. And it’s not like we see this side of Umar only during the reign of Abu Bakr. Umar was abrasive and obnoxious even in the presence of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) himself.

Whether one considers the Hudaybiyyah truce or when the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) seemingly offered funeral prayers for the hypocrite or regarding the prisoners of Badr or on numerous other occasions, we regularly see Umar confronting the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) as if he (Umar) was the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and Prophet (s.a.w.a.) was a companion. We even see a ‘report’ in the books of Ahle Tasannun justifying Umar’s behavior by claiming the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) said that had there been a prophet after him it would have been Umar (Allah forbid)!

So if Umar can use strong arm tactics and interfere in prophethood, why should it surprise anyone if he does the same in caliphate?

Also there are many incidents in the books of the Ahle Tasannun that show Umar reversed the decision of Abu Bakr quite brazenly and impulsively.

Consider this incident –

Once a group of the ones inclined towards Islam (al-Mu’allafah Qulubuhum under Surah Tauba (9): Verse 60) came to Umar and showed him a document in which Abu Bakr had ordered for them to receive their rightful shares from the alms.

Umar refused it, tore Abu Bakr’s document into pieces, spat on it, and threw it at their faces.

Having been infuriated, they returned to Abu Bakr and asked – Which one of you is the caliph (ruler)? Is it he or you?’

Abu Bakr answered – He is, if he wants!

• Fazail al-Sahabah vol 1 p. 292 by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal

• Tafsir al-Manaar vol. 10 p. 496 by Rasheed Riza – ideological founder of the Muslim Brotherhood

• Kanz al-Ummal vol. 3 p. 914 trad. 9,151, vol. 12 p. 546 trad. 35,738

• Tarikh al-Dimishq vol. 9 p. 196 trad. 797

• Al-Iktifa bima Tadammanahu min Maghazi Rasool Allah wa al-Thalathah al-Khulafa vol. 3 p. 90

There are many such incidents and the Muslims justify it and document it among the virtues of Umar as Ahmed Ibn Hanbal has done in Fazail al-Sahabah! The book of Al-Farooq by Shibli Nomani is replete with such ‘virtues’ including torching the house of Fatima Zahra (s.a.).

Therefore then, why should it surprise the Muslims that Umar compelled Abu Bakr to reverse his decision on Fadak.

A most absurd defense of the Shaikhain in the attack on Fatima Zahra’s (s.a.) house and Our Reply

 Certain Ahle Tasannun scholars have dismissed reports of an attack on Hazrat Fatima Zahra’s (s.a.) house by offering vague and absurd reasons in defense of the companions. Their primary objective is to portray the companions as paragons of virtue and decency (Adalat-e-Sahabah) at all cost, even in the face of irrefutable reports to the contrary.

We analyze over here the weak defense mounted by scholars like Ibn Abil Hadid and Shah Abdul Aziz Dehalwi to clear the names of the companions behind the attack on Hazrat Fatima Zahra (s.a.).

Ibn Abil Hadid asserts: As for the recording (by the Shias) of the attack on the house of Fatima (s.a.) and gathering wood to burn it down, then it’s on the authority of a sole narrator (Khabarun Wahidun) and cannot be deemed reliable for the companions, rather it cannot be deemed reliable for any Muslim who is considered just.  (Sharh Nahjil Balaghah v 12 p 289)

Likewise Shah Abdul Aziz Dehalwi records: In my view the Shias consider the companions lower than the soldiers of Prophet Sulaiman (a.s.) who in the company of the prophet were attentive to basic details like avoiding the ants in the path (Surah Naml (27): 18), but the Shias consider the senior companions who accompanied the greatest Prophet (s.a.w.a.) everywhere to be so ruthless as to harass the mourning daughter, son-in-law and the orphan grandsons of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and burn their house down… (Tohfah Ithna Ashariyyah)

Reply

First and foremost by making such a strong defense for the companions Ibn Abil Hadid has put to rest all doubts of being a Shia. Some from the Ahle Tasannun continue to claim he was a Shia despite loads of comments of this nature where he has squarely defended the companions and rejected categorical beliefs of the Shias and denied the excellence of the Ahle Bait (a.s.).

Coming to his statement on the attack – we fail to understand how someone who has compiled a 20 volume commentary on the Nahjul Balaghah can give a clean chit to the companions and all ‘just’ Muslims, in clear contravention of the Holy Quran and the Sunnah.

When Allah hasn’t given a clean chit to the companions and wives and Muslims, who is Ibn Abil Hadid to do so?

The Holy Quran is replete with verses criticizing the companions for one misdeed after another, some so serious that they take the companions out of the realm of Islam.

For the sake of brevity we cite a few verses and historical incidents to show that the companions were prone to making grievous errors. And to absolve them of the attack on Hazrat Fatima Zahra’s (s.a.) house on the so-called theory of justice and decency (adalat) is plain ignorance, if not denial.

How Ibn Taymiyyah justifies attack on Lady Fatima Zahra’s (s.a.) house?

 Muslims in general are in denial on the attack on Lady Fatima Zahra’s (s.a.) house post-martyrdom of Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.).

They need only refer to the views of Ibn Taymiyyah – the founder of modern day Salafism – on the subject.

Ibn Taymiyyah not only confirms the attack but defends the actions of the rulers by advancing a rather ‘imaginative’ rational for the attack.

He claims:

He (second one) barged into the house (of Fatima (s.a.)) to see if there was something from Allah’s money to distribute it or give it to those who deserved it!

• Minhaaj al-Sunnah, vol. 8 p. 291

    

Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) did not take back Fadak for two reasons

 The skeptics claim that Ali (a.s.) should have taken back Fadak if it was indeed the property of Hazrat Fatima Zahra (s.a.). By leaving Fadak as it is, Ali (a.s.) has admitted that the property did not belong to Hazrat Fatima Zahra (s.a.).

The hollowness of such claims are exposed in many reports on Fadak, two of which are documented here.

a. Reward and punishment for the oppressed and oppressor

Imam Sadiq (a.s.) informs us why Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) did not take back Fadak on assuming caliphate.

He narrates: Ali (a.s.) did not take it back because the oppressor and the oppressed (Hazrat Fatima Zahra s.a.) had already set forth towards Allah, the Almighty. Allah had rewarded the oppressed (for patience) and had punished the oppressor (for usurping). Then Ali (a.s.) did not wish to take back something for which Allah had already punished the oppressor and had rewarded the oppressed.

• Elal al-Sharae p 155 under Chapter of ‘Why Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) left Fadak as it is on assuming caliphate’
• Awalim al-Uloom v 11 p 766

b. Ali (a.s.) would have reversed the judgements of the incompetent rulers

The past rulers were incompetent and did not have the requisite knowledge to rule the Muslims. If Ali (a.s) had it his way, he would have reversed many of their judgements as he declares in a lengthy sermon:Most certainly, if I order:
-the Maqam-e-Ibrahim to be restored to the very place in which the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) had put

-and give Fadak back to the inheritors of Fatima (s.a.)…(then Imam (a.s.) goes on to list a whole lot of blunders and innovations of the past rulers).
the people will abandon me (and rebel against me).

• Al-Kafi v 8 p 58-63 under Sermon of Ameerul Momineen (a.s.)

Clearly, by not taking back Fadak. Ali (a.s.) wished for the chain of divine reward and punishment (for the oppressed and oppressor) to continue unbroken. Also, he (a.s.) was wary of a rebellion in his forces that he inherited from the incompetent rulers.

Nahjul Balagha affirms attack on Lady Fatima’s (s.a.) house and Fadak ownership

 There are some who doubt the attack on Lady Fatima Zahra’s (s.a.) house by the rulers for seeking Ali’s (a.s.) allegiance. The ownership of Fadak is another contentious issue with the skeptics claiming that the Ahle Bait (a.s.) could not claim it as prophets do not leave behind inheritance.

While there are many reliable Muslim sources that confirm the Shiite viewpoint on both issues (attack on the house and Fadak ownership), let us turn to Nahjul Balagha for guidance.

Nahjul Balagha is an invaluable book mainly for its contents which are verified as correct by a majority of Muslims, so they should have no problem in accepting its views on both the issues.

1. Attack on Lady Fatima Zahra’s (s.a.) house

The attack on house of Lady Fatima Zahra (s.a.) and Ali (a.s.) being dragged out for allegiance was common knowledge among the Muslims and enemies of Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) gloated over this incident.

Ali (a.s.) replies to Muawiyah’s letter:
You have written that I was dragged like a camel with a nose string to swear allegiance (to Abu Bakr at Saqifah). By Allah, you had intended to revile me, but you have praised me, and to humiliate me but have yourself been humiliated. What humiliation does it mean for a Muslim to be the victim of oppression so long as he does not entertain any doubt in his religion, nor any misgiving in his firm belief!

• Letter 28 of Nahj al-Balagha: In reply to Muawiya, and it is one of his most elegant writings

Three points are notable from the extract of this letter:

1. The house of Lady Fatima (s.a.) was ambushed by the rulers of the day for purpose of seeking allegiance of Ali (a.s.).
2. This fact was common knowledge among the Muslims and even Muawiyah sitting in Sham (Syria) was aware of it and wrote letters to Ali (a.s.) seeking to humiliate him through this incident.
3. Ali (a.s.) saw himself as a victim of oppression, meaning he saw the rulers (‘caliphs’) as oppressors. So, there is no question about Ali (a.s.) being satisfied with the rulers. All advice and assistance extended by Ali (a.s.) to the rulers was owing to his innate purity and sincerity in dealing with the creatures – good or bad. It was like Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) being ‘Ameen’ (trustworthy) even with the infidels of Mecca. It is like Allah sustaining Satan and His prophets.

2. Fadak ownership

 Fadak belonged to Ahle Bait (a.s.) and the rulers usurped it out of greed.

Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) in his letter to Usman Ibn Hunaif al-Ansari, the Basra governor:

…all that we had in our possession under this sky was Fadak, but a group of people felt greedy for it and the other party withheld themselves from it.

Nahj al-Balagha – Letter 45: To Usman Ibn Hunaif al-Ansari

Three points are clear from this extract of the letter:

1. Ali (a.s.) claimed title of the Fadak property in clear terms, so whether or not he reclaimed it, he (a.s.) still maintained that they were the owners.
2. He maintained that the rulers usurped it out of greed. In his eyes the rulers were usurpers so those who claim that Ali (a.s.) had high opinion about the rulers are making groundless claims.
3. The Ahle Bait (a.s.) consistently claimed that Fadak belonged to them. While the government kept changing their stance in response to circumstances.

First the rulers demanded witnesses from Lady Fatima Zahra (s.a.) to prove that Fadak was gifted to her by Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.).

When she produced iron clad witnesses like Umm Ayman (r.a.), who was promised Paradise, and Ali (a.s.), the distributor of Paradise and Hasanain (s.a.), the Chief of Youths of Paradise, they changed their stand. They claimed that Fadak could not have been gifted in the first place as prophets do not leave behind inheritance, whatever they leave behind is for all Muslims.

Later the third ruler gifted Fadak to Marwan, usurping it from the Muslims, who were supposedly the owners. Meaning the third ruler rejected the stand of the previous two rulers that prophets do not leave behind inheritance, all their property is for the Muslims.

So, from the two groups – Ahle Bait (a.s.) were not only truthful but also consistent which is the mark of a truthful person, while the rulers kept shifting stands which is the mark of a dishonest person.

Skeptics can raise any number of questions on these issues but surely they can no longer question the validity of these events after these irrefutable proofs from a most widely acknowledged book like Nahjul Balagha.

Second Caliph quite capable of attacking Lady Fatima (s.a.) according to Muslim scholars

 The Muslim majority is aghast at suggestions that their beloved leaders / Sahabah could have attacked the house of Lady Fatima Zahra (s.a.), the Holy Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) beloved daughter. They dismiss the attack as Shiite fabrication.

This is the view of the common Muslim masses enamoured by their rulers and indoctrinated with the belief that the Sahabah are just (adil) and can do no wrong.

However, let us turn to better informed Muslim scholars and review their opinion of their beloved leader. We present two references.

1. Shibli Nomani – the renowned Indian Salafi scholar writes:

The learned Tabari in his Tarikh al-Kabir has narrated a tradition to the effect that Umar, standing at the door of Fatima’s (s.a.) house, exclaimed ‘O daughter of the Prophet! I swear by God that we love you best of all but if your house continues any longer to be a rendezvous for conspiracy I will set fire to it on account of this.

The authority of this tradition is doubtful having not been able to glean particulars regarding its narrators, but there is no reason to deny the occurrence of this incident in the light of rationalization. Umar was a man of hot and irrational temper and such an act would not have been inconsistent with his nature.

• Al-Farooq v 1 p 92

Shibli Nomani does not have time or inclination to investigate further the attack on Lady Fatima Zahra’s (s.a.) house. Nonetheless he does not reject the possibility of the attack. This is because after writing twenty volumes of Al-Farooq he knows his subject well and understands that such an attack would have been consistent with his nature.

2. Ibn Abil Hadid while recording the Battle of Jamal and the roles of Ayesha and Ali (a.s.) writes:

What she did with Ameerul Momineen Ali (a.s.), if she had done the same with Umar and had spread rebellion against him among the people, he would, after securing victory over her, have killed her, and cut her into pieces, but Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) was very forbearing and large-hearted.

• Sharh Nahj al-Balagha v 17 p 254

It is notable that Ibn Abil Hadid could simply have concluded that Ali (a.s.) was most forbearing and forgiving, which was innate to his nature. But he does not stop there. He finds it necessary to highlight Ali’s (a.s.) magnanimous nature by comparing it to another ruler and concludes that the latter was so harsh that he would have slaughtered Ayesha into pieces. The obvious point for Muslims to consider is – if he could have slaughtered the Holy Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) wife, why is it surprising if he is found guilty of attacking the Holy Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) daughter?!

Ayatullah Sayyid Abul Qasim al-Khoei (r.a.) on the attack on Lady Fatima Zahra’s (s.a.) house

 There is a view based on the text / words of the Grand Marja Ayatullah Sayyid Abul Qasim Khoei (r.a.) that he did not verify as true, the attack on Lady Fatima Zahra’s (s.a.) house.

View of Ayatullah Sayyid al-Khoei (r.a.) on the subject

After examining the perspective of Sayyid al-Khoei (may Allah elevate his status), we observe that he did not question the authenticity of this matter although this issue substantiates the religious aspect within its absolute necessities, rather than reviewing the historical aspect from chain (sanad) point of view.

Therefore, when Ayatollah Sayyid al-Khoei (may Allah have mercy on him) was directly asked about this incident in his book ‘Sirat al-Najah,’ he responded as follows:

Question 98: Some orators, preachers, and a few authors mention incidents about Umar breaking the ribs of Lady Fatima Zahra (s.a.). In your opinion, are these narrations accurate?

Ayatollah Sayyid al-Khoei (may Allah have mercy on him):  This matter is well-known and widely acknowledged and Allah knows best.

Ayatollah Sayyid al-Khoei (may Allah have mercy on him) also very clearly expressed his opinion in this regard,  just like he has mentioned his opinion in his book ‘Fiqh al-Shia’ v 3 p 126, where he discussed the positions of the first and second rulers towards the Ahle Bait (a.s.), and he commented on the outcome of that as follows:  
‘From here, it can be inferred that the early usurpers of the rights of Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) are not considered as openly hostile to the Ahle Bait (a.s.), but rather they disputed them in their seeking position of caliphate and public leadership.’

Objection

Based on the above perspective, it is inferred (by some) that Ayatullah Sayyid al-Khoei (may Allah have mercy on him) disregards the narratives, including the issue of the attack on the house of Lady Fatima Zahra (s.a.), breaking of her ribs, burning her door, causing the miscarriage, and striking Lady Fatima (s.a.) and slapping her, after he decided that there is no clear evidence of open hostility by the usurpers of the rights of Ahle Bait (a.s.).

After reaching the conclusion that none of these actions have any basis, meaning there is no act that directly implicates those who wrongfully seized power, and considering the lack of consensus and agreement on these matters in Ayatollah al-Khoei’s opinion, they do not hold any specific stance or theory concerning the first and second caliphs being the wrongdoers aside from their clear stance on being opposed to the Ahle Bait (a.s.).

Reply

Ayatollah Sayyid al-Khoei (May Allah elevate his status) in his book “Sirat al-Najah” does not indicate that the attack on house of Lady Fatima (s.a.) did not occur. This is due to the following reasons:

1. Firstly, he indeed said, “That is well-known,” and did not deny the attack on the house.

2. The absence of a sound chain of narration (sanad) for a report does not necessarily mean it is false, especially when the event in question is well-known and recognized, as indicated by Sayyid al-Khoei (may Allah elevate his status).

3. He, (may Allah have mercy on him), was specifically questioned about the incident of “breaking the rib“. He was not questioned, nor did he address the related issues viz. Lady Fatima (s.a.) being struck, the miscarriage, her cheek being slapped, her eyes reddened, her house being set on fire, her being whipped, and the injury on her shoulder, as described in some narrations. So, one cannot conclude that he denied these events.

4. His statement (may his soul rest in peace), ‘That (event) is well-known and recognized’, presents us with two possibilities.
   1. It could mean that he sees the chain of narration as incomplete, or
   2. it could mean that he considers the chain to be reliable but chooses not to bring up a matter to provoke those who would be angered by such a declaration, especially during the reign of the oppressive Nasibi ruler, who sought to annihilate the Shia and Shi’ism. The ruler was always looking for opportunities to target them under any pretext.

5. It can be supported that the latter is the case because throughout his honorable and lengthy life, he never made any reference to any controversy regarding the events that befell Lady Fatima (s.a.).

In conclusion:

1. Ayatullah Sayyid al-Khoei (may Allah elevate his status) knows that the weakness in the chain of narration does not allow him to issue a verdict on the falsehood of its content. Rather, it obligates him to seek clear evidence before he denies the event, which is not possible merely on the weakness of the chain – assuming that the chain is indeed weak. We have already seen that there is nothing in his words that indicates that as well.

2. As for what is attributed to him (Ayatollah al-Khoie) that he does not see Umar as a Nasibi, this also does not support the assertion that he denies what happened to Lady Fatima (s.a.). His intention, (may his soul be sanctified), is that these individuals did indeed commit what they did, driven by their desire for power and authority. However, they still claimed to love the Ahle Bait (a.s.) and argued to the people that their actions were not driven by hatred for them but rather by anger and concern for the welfare of the Ummah (community). They then professed remorse for their actions and pretended that they sought to gain the forgiveness of Lady Fatima (s.a.).

3. These Sahabah in the lifetime of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) were accepted by him (s.a.w.a.) as Muslims merely on recitation of the Shahadatain (dual testimony). The Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) did not inquire further, although in his heart (as informed by Allah) he (s.a.w.a.) knew their intentions.

4. It appears Ayatullah Sayyid al-Khoei (may Allah elevate his status) has adopted a similar stand and has taken their claim of love for the Ahle Bait (a.s.) at face value and not branded them as Nasibi although he (may Allah elevate his status), knew their intentions.

5. This means that his words, may God have mercy on him, are about their outward display and declaration. This does not imply that he denies the breaking of the rib, the physical abuse, or the miscarriage. Instead, it means that if they claimed to regret their actions and professed love for Lady Fatima al-Zahra (s.a.), it is not appropriate to label them as Nasibis, as Nasibis are those who openly express hatred and animosity.

6. Also, just like commenting openly on the attack on Lady Fatima’s (s.a.) house could have sparked sectarian tension, making adverse observations against Umar could have had the same devastating effect on Muslim society. This could be another reason why Ayatullah Sayyid al-Khoei (may Allah elevate his status) took a non-confrontational stand on the subject.

(Extracted from ‘Mokhtasar Mofeed’ (A Useful Summary) by Sayyid Jafar Murtaza al-Amili (Questions and Answers about Religion and Faith) (Ninth Collection), Center Islamic, First Edition 1324, 2004 Question No. 500.)