When Fadak came back to haunt Ayesha

In the dispute over Fadak, the rulers very conveniently presented a forged tradition to the effect that 
prophets do not leave behind any inheritance – everything they leave behind is for the nation.

Among the witnesses of the forged tradition was Ayesha and Hafsa, along with Malik Ibn Aws, a Bedouin.

Usman reminds Ayesha of her false testimony

It is related by Tabari and Thaqafi in their respective history compilations:

During the tenure of Usman, Ayesha approached him and demanded:

Grant me (the pension) bestowed upon me by my father Abu Bakr and then by Umar.

Usman retorted: I have found nothing in the Book and the Sunnah to back this grant. Rather your father and Umar granted it to you on a whim, but I will not do so.

She demanded: Grant me my inheritance from Allah’s Messenger (s.a.w.a.)?

Usman shot back: Didn’t Fatima (s.a.) approach you to seek her inheritance from Allah’s Messenger (s.a.w.a.)? But you testified along with Malik Ibn Aws al-Basri (al-Nazri) that – ‘Surely the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) did not leave inheritance. In this way you usurped the right Fatima (s.a.) sought from you.’

I will not grant you (the inheritance).

Tabari reports further – Usman said – Weren’t you (Ayesha) the one, along with the Bedouin who used to perform ablutions with his own urine, to testify near your father that the prophets do not leave anything as inheritance?

• Bait al-Ahzan p 167
• Behaar al-Anwaar v 31 p 295
• Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah v 16 p 220 (Ahle Tasannun) with variation
• Al-Amaali of Shaikh Mufeed (r.a.) p 25 with variation
• Kashf al-Ghummah v 1 p 479 with variation

Clearly Ayesha by claiming inheritance of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) rejected her own previous testimony. Even to a person like Usman, the contradiction in her stand was obvious, as was the motive behind her false testimony – to deprive Hazrat Fatima Zahra (s.a.) of her inheritance.

OBJECTIONS AGAINST HAZRAT FATEMAH ZAHRA (SA) AND THEIR REPLIES - OBJECTION NO 10 Part 2

CONTINUED FROM PART 1 ...                                                                           

D. Naming as Uthman

Firstly: As was hinted before also, it is not necessary that only these persons were having those names and it was not due to attachment to them, because naming as Uthman was not after the third Caliph or due to attachment with him, on the contrary, His Eminence himself clarified that it was due to attachment with Uthman bin Mazun and not Uthman bin Affan, the third Ahle Sunnat Caliph.

I named my son on the name of my brother, Uthman bin Mazun.[1]

Furthermore, Ibne Hajar Asqalani has mentioned the names of twenty-six persons from the companions of the Prophet who were named as Uthman. How can it be said that Amirul Momineen (a) named one of his sons Uthman due to his attachment to Uthman bin Affan, the third Ahle Sunnat Caliph?

OBJECTIONS AGAINST HAZRAT FATEMAH ZAHRA (SA) AND THEIR REPLIES - OBJECTION NO 10 Part 1

Objection 10: If rivalry existed, why Ali (a) named his sons Umar, Abu Bakr and Uthman?

Pattern of Objection

Shia claim that the first and second Caliphs attacked the house of Fatima (r) whereas we know that Ali (a) named some of his issues after the Caliphs. This shows that the Caliphs are exonerated from these allegations. Does anyone name his children on his enemies?

Logical reply

A. Absence of restricting the name to a particular person

Names are never related to any particular person. In the same way, names like Umar, Abu Bakr and Uthman were not limited to these persons and numerous other people were also named as such.

That is why names like Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman were common names and numerous persons during the time of the Prophet were known by these names.

Thus, overlooking the replies that follow, it cannot be said that selection of these names was due to attachment and friendly relations between His Eminence and the Caliphs, because it is possible that His Eminence had attachment with other people having the same names.

B. Naming as Abu Bakr

Especially with regard to naming one of the sons of Amirul Momineen (a) on the name of Abu Bakr; if it was as some have claimed, Abu Bakr was an agnomen (Kunniyat) and not a name, His Eminence should have named his son after one of the real names of Abu Bakr: That is Abdul Kaaba, Ateeq, Abdullah or his other names (with attention to differences, which exist with regard to his names) and he would not chosen his Kunniyat.

Another point is that: What attention to the fact that Abu Bakr is a Kunniyat and not a name, and Kunniyat is chosen by a person himself according to the circumstances of his life and it is not selected by the father of that person. From this aspect, if we say that Amirul Momineen (a) named one of his sons as Abu Bakr it would be a false and baseless statement.

Finally: According to a report the real name of this son, whose Kunniyat was Abu Bakr, was Abdullah and he was martyred at Kerbala aged twenty-five years. Since his real name was Abdullah and from the aspect that he had a son named Bakr they referred to him as Abu Bakr.

Abul Faraj Isfahani writes:

Abdullah bin Ali was twenty-five years of age when he was martyred in Kerbala.[1]

On the basis of this, the birth of Abdullah occurred during the early period of the Caliphate of His Eminence, Ali (a) and the Imam during that period severely condemned the Caliphs preceding him. This is another proof of the absence of relation between these names with that, which is publicized by the objection makers.