Latest Entries »

 

The Answering-Ansar team has proposed two notions here:

1.      No Shī`ī author ever claimed that all the narrations compiled in his book “were correct and Sahih.”

2.      None among the Shī`ī scholars of narrations and jurisprudence testified that any specific Shī`ī text containing narrations “were all acceptable and Sahih.”

The following revealing set of facts will show the readers that both these claims are actually lies forwarded by the Answering-Ansar team to deceive Muslims.

Introduction of the Four Books

Before moving on with the facts, readers should know that the most authoritative compilations after the Qur’ān, according to Ithnā’ `Asharī Shī`īs, are what they call al-Kutub al-Arba`a [“The Four Books”]. These four compilations are:

1.      al-Kāfī fī `Ilm al-Ĥadīth of Abū Ja`far al-Kulaynī (d. 329)

2.      Man lā Yaĥđuruh al-Faqīh of Ibn Bābawayh al-Şadūq al-Qummī (d. 381)

3.      Tahdhīb al-Aĥkām fī Sharĥ al-Muqni`a of Abū Ja`far al-Ţūsī (d. 460)

4.      al-Istibşār fī mā Ikhtalaf min al-Akhbār of Abū Ja`far al-Ţūsī (d. 460)

Grand Āyat Allāh al-Sayyid Ĥusayn Baĥr al-`Ulūm (d. 1422) writes about these four books in his introduction to Talkhīs al-Shāfī of Abū Ja`far al-Ţūsī:

إن الإجتهاد لدى الشيعة مرتكز على الكتب الأربعة الكافي للكليني ومن لا يحضره الفقيه للصدوق والتهذيب والاستبصار للطوسي وهي من الأصول المسلمة كالصحاح الستة لدى العامة

“Verily, scholarly endeavour, according to the Shī`a, is dependant on the Four Books: al-Kāfī of al-Kulaynī, Man lā Yaĥđuruh al-Faqīh al-Şadūq, al-Tahdhīb and al-Istibşār of al-Ţūsī. These are from the accepted principle books that are as the Six Şiĥāĥ are according to the Commoners.”

  • Talkhīs al-Shāfī {Introduction}, of al-Sayyid Ĥusayn Baĥr al-`Ulūm (d. 1422), page 29 [Najaf]

Let us now proceed:

al-Kulaynī (d. 329) and al-Kāfī

al-Kāfī fī `Ilm al-Ĥadīth of the major Shī`ī scholar Abū Ja`far al-Kulaynī is the most authoritative and renowned compilation of the Four Books. The author of this work, al-Kulaynī, believed that all the narrations in his work are authentic and correct, and that is the reason why he actually compiled it.

In the introduction of al-Kāfī, he explicitly said:

وقلت إنك تحب أن يكون عندك كتاب كاف يجمع فيه من جميع فنون علم الدين ما يكتفي به المتعلم ويرجع إليه المسترشد ويأخذ منه من يريد علم الدين والعمل به بالآثار الصحيحة عن الصادقين عليهم السلام والسنن القائمة التي عليها العمل وبها يؤدي فرض الله عز وجل وسنة نبيه صلى الله عليه وآله وقلت لو كان ذلك رجوت أن يكون ذلك سببا يتدارك الله تعالى بمعونته وتوفيقه إخواننا وأهل ملتنا ويقبل بهم إلى مراشدهم

“Verily, you solemnly wished that you possess a book which is sufficient, brings together the entire Islamic sciences of the knowledge of religion within it, wholly satisfies the needs of the student, acts as a reference for the seekers of guidance, and would be used by those who want to attain the knowledge of religion and practice upon it by deriving correct [şaĥīĥ] narrations of the truthful ones (as) and the upright and acted upon traditions from it—through which the compulsory duties of Allāh, the Powerful and Exalted, and the tradition of His Prophet (saws) can be fulfilled.

 

And you said: ‘If that happens, I can hope that (the book) would be a means through which Allāh will rectify our brothers and people of our religious community through his support and grace, and take them closer to their salvation.’”

  • al-Kāfī, of Abū Ja`far al-Kulaynī (d. 329), volume 1, page 8 [Tehran]

Following this, he said:

وقد يسر الله وله الحمد تأليف ما سألت وأرجو أن يكون بحيث توخيت

“Allāh, all praise to him, has facilitated the compilation of what you requested. I hope that (this book) will be in accordance with the wishes you had in mind.”

  • al-Kāfī, of Abū Ja`far al-Kulaynī (d. 329), volume 1, page 9 [Tehran]

This is an explicit confirmation from al-Kulaynī that the reason he compiled al-Kāfī was so he can provide Shī`īs with a book of authentic narrations that is sufficient for them—i.e. his book only contained correct reports according to him.

The contemporary Shī`ī scholar Āyat Allāh Muĥammad Mahdī al-Āşifī writes about al-Kulaynī while discussing al-Kāfī in his epistle Tarīkh Fiqh Ahl al-Bayt:

وقد جمع رحمه الله في موسوعته هذه ما صح لديه من أحاديث الأئمة الهداة عليهم السلام

“He—may Allāh have mercy on him—has collected what he found authentic from the narrations of the guiding Imāms (as) in this encyclopedia of his.”

  • Riyāđ al-Masā’il fī Bayān Aĥkām al-Shar` wa al-Dalā’il, of al-Sayyid `Alī al-Ţabāţabā’ī (d. 1231), volume 1, page 31 [Qum] – Tarīkh Fiqh Ahl al-Bayt included in the introduction.

Furthermore, Āyat Allāh Abū Ţālib al-Tajlīl al-Tabrīzī, author of the famous booklet translated as ‘Spurious Arguments about the Shia, confirms this declaration of al-Kulaynī in the introduction to his book known as Mu`jam al-Maĥāsin wa al-Masāwī.

He writes about al-Kulaynī and his al-Kāfī:

وقد صرح في مقدمته بصحة أحاديثه حيث قال وقلت تحب أن يكون عندك كتاب يأخذ منه من يريد علم الدين والعمل به بالآثار الصحيحة عن الصادقين عليهم السلام . . . . إلى أن قال وقد يسر الله وله الحمد تأليف ما سألت وأرجو أن يكون بحيث توخيت

“He has declared the authenticity of its narrations in his introduction, when he said: ‘Verily, you solemnly wished that you possess a book would be used by those who want to attain the knowledge of religion and practice upon it by deriving correct [şaĥīĥ] narrations of the truthful ones (as)…’ to: ‘Allāh, all praise to him, has facilitated the compilation of what you requested. I hope that (this book) will be in accordance with the wishes you had in mind.’”

  • Mu`jam al-Maĥāsin wa al-Masāmī, of Abū Ţālib al-Tabrīzī, page 17 [Qum]

This declaration of al-Kulaynī was so influential in history that it even led a group of Ithnā’ `Asharī Shī`ī scholars to use it as an argument for their belief in the immaculacy of the contents of al-Kāfī. Among them is al-Ĥurr al-`Āmilī (d. 1104), a major Shī`ī scholar of that group and an expert in the field of narrations, who staunchly believed in the correctness of all the narrations in al-Kāfī.

He states about the declaration of al-Kulaynī cited above:

وهو صريح أيضا في الشهادة بصحة أحاديث كتابه لوجوه منها قوله بالآثار الصحيحة ومعلوم أنه لم يذكر فيه قاعدة يميز بها الصحيح عن غيره لو كان فيه غير صحيح ولا كان اصطلاح المتأخرين موجودا في زمانه قطعا كما يأتي فعلم أن كل ما فيه صحيح باصطلاح القدماء بمعنى الثابت عن المعصوم بالقرائن القطعية أو التواتر

“This is also an explicit declaration of authenticity of the narrations in his book due to various points.

 

One of these points is: His statement: ‘Authentic narrations.’ It is well-known that neither did he mention a rule that distinguishes the rigorously authentic [şaĥīĥ] narration from the other categories in (the book), even if there is a non-şaĥīĥ narration in it, nor were the terminologies of the later scholars absolutely present during his time, as it will be further explained.

 

Thus, it is known that all the narrations in it are correct [şaĥīĥ] by the terminology of the early scholars, with the meaning of being proven from the infallible on the basis of categorical indications or consecutiveness.”

  • Khātimat Tafşīl Wasā’il al-Shī`a ilá Taĥşīl Masā’il al-Sharī`a, of al-Ĥurr al-`Āmilī (d. 1104), volume 30, page 196 [Qum]

Note: What al-Ĥurr means by “the terminology of later scholars” are the terminologies introduced with the categorization of narrations, in terms of their authenticity, that was not invented until the end of the 7th Islamic century. Before this categorization, the early Ithnā’ `Asharī scholars viewed the narrations to be either şaĥīĥ or not şaĥīĥ. This will be further elaborated in this writing.

Opposing the view of this group of Ithnā’ `Asharī scholars, al-Sayyid Muĥammad al-Mujāhid al-Ţabāţabā’ī (d. 1242) replied to this argument in the following words:

إن إخبار الكليني بصحة ما دونه في الكافي كما يمكن أن يكون باعتبار علمه بها وقطعه بصدورها عن الأئمة عليهم السلام فيجوز الاعتماد عليها والحال هذه كسائر أخبار العدول كذلك يمكن أن يكون باعتبار اجتهاده وظهورها عنده ولو بالدليل الظني فلا يجوز إذن الاعتماد عليه فإن ظن المجتهد لا يكون حجة على مثله كما هو الظاهر من الأصحاب بل ومن العقلاء وحيث لا ترجيح للاحتمال الأول وجب التوقف به لأن الشك في الشرط يوجب الشك في المشروط فيلزم التوقف

“Indeed, the testimony of al-Kulaynī concerning the authenticity of (the narrations) he has recorded in al-Kāfī, just as it is possible that it is in consideration of his knowledge and certainty of their issuance from the Imāms (as), in which case it is permissible to depend upon them and its status will be the same as of all the reports of just individuals, it is (also) possible that it is in consideration of his independent judgment [ijtihād] and their appearance to him on the basis of conjectural proof. In this case it is impermissible to depend upon them, for the conjecture of a scholar capable of independent judgment [mujtahid] is not proof for those of the same stature, as it is obvious from other scholars, in fact, even from those with intellect.

 

And when there is no preference for the first possibility, it is incumbent to desist from holding on it because doubt about the condition necessitates doubt about what the condition is applied upon. Therefore, desistance is incumbent.”

  • Mafātīĥ al-Uşūl, of al-Sayyid Muĥammad al-Ţabāţabā’ī (d. 1242), page 332 [Tehran]

Whereas Grand Āyat Allāh Ĥusayn `Alī al-Muntažarī leaves out al-Ţabāţabā’ī’s analogical justifications and puts it in simple words:

واعتقاد الكليني بصحة الرواية ليس من الحجج الشرعية إذ ليس هو معصوما عندنا

“The belief of al-Kulaynī about the correctness of traditions is not a legal proof because he is not an infallible according to us!”

  • Dirāsāt fī al-Makāsib al-Muĥarrama, of Ĥusayn `Alī al-Muntažarī, volume 3, page 123 [Tehran]

So in a nutshell, between the occurrence of inter-Ithnā’ `Asharī disputes on whether al-Kāfī is entirely correct or not, the fact remains that al-Kulaynī himself declared, and thus believed in, the authenticity of the narrations found in his book.

Ibn Bābawayh (d.381) and Man lā Yaĥđuruh al-Faqīh

Abū Ja`far ibn Bābawayh al-Qummī, the famous Shī`ī scholar known as al-Shaykh al-Şadūq, also believed that all the narrations he has recorded in his compilation Man lā Yaĥđuruh al-Faqīh are all authentic and correct. In fact, just as al-Kulaynī, he has himself declared their authenticity while mentioning the reason why he compiled the work.

Ibn Bābawayh explicitly mentions in the introduction to Man lā Yaĥđuruh al-Faqīh that he has compiled this work on narrations because another Shī`ī scholar of his era, Sharaf al-Dīn Ni`ma, requested him to author a condensed work dealing with jurisprudence, Islamic laws and the permitted and prohibited.

He writes:

وصنفت له هذا الكتاب بحذف الأسانيد لئلا تكثر طرقه وإن كثرت فوائده ولم أقصد فيه قصد المصنفين في إيراد جميع ما رووه بل قصدت إلى إيراد ما أفتي به وأحكم بصحته وأعتقد فيه أنه حجة فيما بيني وبين ربي تقدس ذكره وتعالت قدرته

“I have compiled this book for him without chains of transmission, so that its transmissions should not be too many while its benefits are abundant. I did not intend to present all of what they have narrated, as authors usually do; rather I intended to present that by which I give legal opinions and rule to be authentic [aĥkum bi şiĥĥatih], and believe that it is proof [ĥujja] between me and my Lord, exalted is His power.”

  • Man lā Yaĥđuruh al-Faqīh, of Ibn Bābawayh al-Qummī (d. 381), volume 1, page 2-3 [Qum]

These words of Ibn Bābawayh are extremely obvious and show that he believed that all the narrations in his book are authentic and correct.

Contemporary Shī`ī scholar and intellectual, Dr. `Abd al-Hādī al-Fađlī, writes after quoting these words of Ibn Bābawayh:

ونصه هذا واضح وصريح في أنه يعتقد بصحة ما في كتابه ويراه حجة بينه وبين الله تعالى

“This explicit statement of his is clear and unequivocal in showing that he believes in the authenticity of what is in his book, and views it to be proof between himself and Allāh the Exalted.”

  • Uşūl al-Ĥadīth, of `Abd al-Hādī al-Fađlī, page 217 [Beirut]

This is further confirmed by al-Tabrīzī, who states about Ibn Bābawayh and his book:

وقد صرح لصحة أحاديثه بقوله في مقدمته قصدت إلى إيراد ما أفتي به وأحكم بصحته وأعتقد فيه أنه حجة فيما بيني وبين ربي

“He has declared the authenticity of its narrations in his introduction,with his statement: ‘I intended to present that by which I give legal opinions and rule to be authentic [aĥkum bi şiĥĥatih], and believe that it is a proof [ĥujja] between me and my Lord.’”

  • Mu`jam al-Maĥāsin wa al-Masāmī, of Abū Ţālib al-Tabrīzī, page 17 [Qum]

Another thing worthy of mention here is what is mentioned in the transcribed lectures of the contemporary Grand Āyat Allāh `Alī al-Sīstānī about Ibn Bābawayh and his book:

إنه قدس سره قد شهد في مقدمة كتابه بصحة جميع ما رواه فيه حيث قال ولم أقصد فيه قصد المصنفين في إيراد جميع ما رووه بل قصدت إلى إيراد ما أفتي به وأحكم بصحته وأعتقد فيه إنه حجة فيما بيني وبين ربي تقدس ذكره وتعالت قدرته

“Verily, he—may Allāh sanctify his secret—has certified the authenticity of all that he has narrated in it, in the introduction, when he said: ‘I did not intend to present all of what they have narrated, as authors usually do; rather I intended to present that by which I give legal opinions and rule to be authentic [aĥkum bi şiĥĥatih], and believe that it is proof [ĥujja] between me and my Lord, sacred is His mention and exalted is His power.’”

  • Qā`ida lā Đarar wa lā Đirār, of `Alī al-Sīstānī, page 87 [Qum]

As it is obvious from Ibn Bābawayh’s own words, the reason why he removed the chains of transmission from Man lā Yaĥđuruh al-Faqīh is because he did not want to present any narration that was not authentic or proof [ĥujja] according to him, like other scholars usually did in their compilations. And since Ibn Bābawayh was one of the early Ithnā’ `Asharī scholars and there were no terminologies of the later scholars during his time, it can easily be understood from his authentication that he viewed the narrations to be şaĥīĥ.

However, in case the Answering-Ansar team customarily rejects all manners taught by the Ahl al-Bayt (ra) to impolitely accuse other “cults” of misinterpreting Ibn Bābawayh’s words, let us cite a few more statements of Shī`ī Ithnā’ `Asharī scholars who have acknowledged his view.

The major Shī`ī scholar Bahā’ al-Dīn al-`Āmilī (d. 1034), who was admired as the “teacher of all” by even the top scholar-marionettes of the Safavids, states in his Mashriq al-Shamsayn:

وقد جرى رئيس المحدثين ثقة الإسلام محمد بن بابويه قدس الله روحه على متعارف المتقدمة في إطلاق الصحيح على ما يركن إليه ويعتمد عليه فحكم بصحة جميع ما أورده من الأحاديث في كتاب من لا يحضره الفقيه

“The head of the scholars of narrations [muĥaddithīn], the trustworthy of Islam, Muĥammad ibn Bābawayh—may Allāh sanctify his soul—has taken the traditional course of the early scholars in terming the relied and depended upon (narrations) as ‘şaĥīĥ. Thus, he has ruled the correctness of all the narrations he has mentioned in the book Man lā Yaĥđuruh al-Faqīh.”

  • Mashriq al-Shamsayn wa Iksīr al-Sa`ādatayn, of Bahā’ al-Dīn al-`Āmilī (d. 1034), page 269-270 [Qum]

Another Shī`ī scholar of high stature and author of over a hundred texts, Muĥammad Muĥsin al-Fayđ al-Kāshānī (d. 1091), also writes something fairly close in his voluminous al-Wāfī:

وقد جرى صاحبا كتابي الكافي والفقيه على متعارف المتقدمين في اطلاق الصحيح على ما يركن اليه ويعتمد عليه فحكما بصحة جميع ما أورداه في كتابيهما من الأحاديث وإن لم يكن كثير منه صحيحا على مصطلح المتأخرين

“The authors of the two books, al-Kāfī and al-Faqīh, have taken the traditional course of the early scholars in terming the relied and depended upon (narrations) as ‘şaĥīĥ. Thus, they have ruled the correctness of all the narrations they have mentioned in their books, even though many of them are not şaĥīĥ according to the terminology of the later scholars.”

These quotes sufficiently demonstrate that like al-Kulaynī, Ibn Bābawayh too declared the authenticity of the narrations found in his book in the introduction, while being on the course of the early Shī`ī Ithnā’ `Asharī scholars.

al-Ţūsī (d. 460) and his Tahdhīb and al-Istibşār

This just leaves the last two of the Four Books. Our respected Shī`ī brothers may find this hard to assimilate, but al-Ţūsī also confirmed the authenticity of these compilations of his.

al-Fayđ al-Kāshānī states in al-Wāfī:

أن مدار الأحكام الشرعية اليوم على هذه الأصول الأربعة وهي المشهود عليها بالصحة من مصنفها

“These four key books are the pivot of legal rulings today, and they are testified as correct by their compilers.”

Similarly, the famous Shī`ī Ithnā’ `Asharī scholar Yūsuf al-Baĥrānī (d. 1186) also states while objecting about the opposing group of scholars from his own Ithnā’ `Asharī school:

أن التوثيق والجرح الذي بنوا عليه تنويع الأخبار إنما أخذوه من كلام القدماء وكذلك الأخبار التي رويت في أحوال الرواة من المدح والذم إنما أخذوها عنهم فإذا اعتمدوا عليهم في مثل ذلك فكيف لا يعتمدون عليهم في تصحيح ما صححوه من الأخبار واعتمدوه وضمنوا صحته كما صرح به جملة منهم كما لا يخفى على من لاحظ ديباجتي الكافي والفقيه وكلام الشيخ في العدة وكتابي الأخبار

“The narrator commendation and condemnation, on which the categorization of reports was based, is obtained from the statements of the early scholars. Similarly, the reports that are related concerning the conditions of narrators in terms of praise and dispraise are (also) obtained from them.

 

If they have relied upon them [i.e. the early scholars] concerning a matter such as that, how is it that they do not rely upon them concerning the authenticity of the reports that they deemed correct, relied upon and ensured to be authentic as a score of them have (even) explicitly declared—something not hidden to he who has observed the introductions of al-Kāfī and al-Faqīh, and the words of al-Shaykh [al-Ţūsī] in al-`Udda and the two books of reports [i.e. Tahdhīb and al-Istibşār].”

  • al-Ĥadā’iq al-Nāđira fī Aĥkām al-`Itrat al-Ţāhira, of Yūsuf al-Baĥrānī (d. 1186), volume 1, page 16 [Qum]

These strong words of Shī`ī Ithnā’ `Asharī scholars, that were only uncovered due to the fiery disputes that occurred between them concerning the categorization of narrations in terms of their authenticity, make the stance of the author of the four most authoritative books of narrations very clear—i.e. they viewed the narrations in their works to be authentic and correct.

However, it should be noted here that no one is arguing that what was considered a şaĥīĥ or correct narration among these four scholars is equivalent to what is defined as “şaĥīĥ” according to the Shī`ī scholars today, for it is a known fact that the categorization of narrations followed by the majority of Shī`ī Ithnā’ `Asharīs today was not introduced until long after these four individuals and thus, as quoted from al-Ĥurr al-`Āmilī and Bahā’ al-Dīn, they were on the traditional course of Shī`ī scholars concerning the categorization of narrations—i.e. it is either şaĥīĥ and not şaĥīĥ.

That being said, it has been evidently shown that these four scholars believed the narrations in their books to be correct or as they believed, “şaĥīĥ.” And what is being demonstrated here is their own view of the narrations in their books, not how Shī`ī scholars, who took the other course, understand them.

The Akhbārī and Uşūlī Dispute

Interestingly, this very same dispute about the categorization of narrations in itself shows that the Answering-Ansar team has not been truthful in relaying information about Shī`ī scholars.

Answering-Ansar says:

Quoting Answering-Ansar:
Similarly none amongst the Shia Muhaditheen and jurists testified to any specific Shia book containing hadiths that were all acceptable and Sahih.
Who believes the Quran has been a victim of Tahreef?, page 4

The abovementioned quotes are sufficient in showing that this statement is an obvious lie. Nonetheless, let us quote a few more Shī`ī Ithnā’ `Asharī scholars as an elaboration of this issue so this lie of Answering-Ansar becomes much more clear to the readers.

Dr. `Abd al-Hādī al-Fađlī writes under the heading ‘The Authentication of the Narrations in the Four Books’ in his Uşūl al-Ĥadīth:

يراد بالتصحيح هنا اعتداد جميع ما في الكتب الأربعة من أحاديث رويت عن أهل البيت عليهم السلام معتبرة ومقطوعا بصدورها عن الأئمة والمسألة هذه وقعت موقع الخلاف بين علمائنا وطال البحث فيها وطال معه النقاش حولها

“What is meant by ‘authentication’ here is considering all the narrations that are related from the Ahl al-Bayt in the Four Books, to be reliable and certainly issued from the Imāms.

 

There has occurred a dispute between our scholars concerning this issue. Discussions lengthened concerning it, and so did the argumentations.”

  • Uşūl al-Ĥadīth, of `Abd al-Hādī al-Fađlī, page 210 [Beirut]

This dispute about authentication and categorization of narrations has occurred between two groups of Shī`ī Ithnā’ `Asharī scholars. These two groups are known as:

1.      The Akhbārīs

2.      The Uşūlīs

The late introduction of categorizing narrations with four different terminologies in terms of their authenticity and inauthenticity, led the Akhbārī group of Ithnā’ `Asharī scholars to continue following the course early Ithnā’ `Asharī scholars adhered to before its invention.

Shī`ī scholar and researcher, al-Sayyid Muĥyī al-Dīn al-Mūsawī al-Ghurayfī (d. 1412) explains this in his work approved by Grand Āyat Allāh Abū al-Qāsim al-Khū’ī, Qawā`id al-Ĥadīth:

وقد شجب الأخباريون تنويع الحديث وعدوه من البدع التي يحرم العمل بها وبسطوا البحث في إبطاله وإثبات صحة جميع أخبار كتبنا الأربعة بل جميع الأخبار التي نقلوها عن الكتب المعتبرة لأنها محفوفة بقرائن تفيد الوثوق بصدورها عن المعصوم عليه السلام

 

“The Akhbārīs have disapproved of the categorization of narrations, and counted it among innovations that are forbidden to be practiced! They elaborated the discussion in nullification of it and establishing the authenticity of all the reports in our Four Books, rather all the reports that were copied from authoritative books, for they are enclosed with evidences that assist the certainty of their issuance from the infallible (as).”

  • Qawā`id al-Ĥadīth, of al-Sayyid Muĥyī al-Dīn al-Ghurayfī, page 16-17 [Najaf]

To sum up, the Akhbārīs reject the categorization, considering it unorthodox, and believe that all the narrations in the Four Books are correct and authentic. And as they remain on the course of the early Ithnā’ `Asharī scholars who believed a narration can either be ‘şaĥīĥ’ or not şaĥīĥ, their view of the authenticity of narrations is that they are all şaĥīĥ.

Āyat Allāh Murtađá Muţahharī (d. 1407) states about the Akhbārī group of scholars:

أنهم يزعمون أن جميع الأخبار الواردة في الكتب الأربعة وهي الكافي ومن لا يحضره الفقيه والتهذيب والاستبصار أخبار صحيحة ومعتبرة بل وقطعية الصدور

“They claim that all the reports in the Four Books—which are al-Kāfī, Man lā Yaĥđuruh al-Faqīh, al-Tahdhīb and al-Istibşār—are şaĥīĥ and reliable, in fact, certainly issued (from the infallibles).”

  • al-Tajdīd wa al-Ijtihād fī al-Islām, of Murtađá Muţahharī (d. 1407), page 86 [Beirut]

Similarly, Grand Āyat Allāh al-Sayyid Muĥsin al-Amīn al-`Āmilī (d. 1371) also writes in his magnum opus, A`yān al-Shī`a:

فزعم الأخباريون أن اخبار الكتب الأربعة كلها صحيحة

“The Akhbārīs claimed that all of the reports in the Four Books are şaĥīĥ.”

  • A`yān al-Shī`a, of al-Sayyid Muĥsin al-Amīn (d. 1371), volume 3, page 223 [Beirut]

While the contemporary expert Āyat Allāh Muĥammad Bāqir al-Īrawānī even mentions this is as the actual reason behind their rejection of the categorization:

وسبب إنكار الأخباريين لهذا التقسيم أن جميع اخبار الكتب الأربعة صحيحة ويجب العمل بها بنظرهم

“The reason behind the rejection of this categorization of narrations by the Akhbārīs is: According to their view, all the reports in the Four Books are şaĥīĥ and it is necessary to practice upon them.”

  • Durūs Tamhīdiyya fī al-Qawā`id al-Rijāliyya, of Muĥammad Bāqir al-Īrawānī, page 49 [Beirut]

This group of Shī`ī Ithnā’ `Asharī scholars, that considers all the narrations in the Four Books to be şaĥīĥ, includes renowned figures who marked their names as major scholars of narrations [muĥaddithūn] and jurisprudence [fuqahā’] among them. In fact, their works are viewed to be a part of the most authoritative texts by Ithnā’ `Asharī scholars even today. To name a few:

1.     Muĥammad Amīn al-Astarābādī (d. 1036): The foremost opponent of the categorization of narrations and author of an epistle upholding the belief in the correctness of all the narrations in the Four Books, al-Fawā’id al-Madaniyya. He was a scholar of narrations and a jurist, and authored several texts such as commentaries on al-Istibşār and al-Tahdhīb, and epistles on jurisprudence.

2.     al-Khalīl ibn al-Ghāzī al-Qazwīnī (d. 1089): A scholar of narrations and jurisprudence, and author of several texts such as a commentary on al-Ţusī’s al-`Udda and the most famous and great commentary of al-Kāfī ever written in the Persian language, al-Şāfī. Shī`ī biographers mention that he was staunchly against the categorization of narrations, and believed all the narrations in al-Kāfī are authenticated by the last Imām himself and it is obligatory to practice upon them.

3.     al-Sayyid Hāshim al-Baĥrānī (d. 1107): He was an expert scholar of narrations, a jurist and a commentator of the Holy Qur’ān. He authored around forty texts, which include the voluminous Ghāyat al-Marām wa Ĥujjat al-Khişām fī Ta`yīn al-Imām min Ţarīq al-Khāss wa al-`Āmm and a commentary entitled al-Burhān fī Tafsīr al-Qur’ān. His works have been revered by Shī`ī scholars ever since they were compiled.

al-Ĥurr al-`Āmilī (d. 1104) and Wasā’il al-Shī`a

One of these scholars, as mentioned earlier, is Muĥammad ibn al-Ĥasan al-Ĥurr al-`Āmilī.

Āyat Allāh `Abbās al-Qummī (d. 1359), who was a renowned Shī`ī scholar and biographer, has written under the biography of al-Ĥurr:

محمد بن الحسن بن علي المشغري شيخ المحدثين وأفضل المتبحرين العالم الفقيه النبيه المحدث المتبحر الورع الثقة الجليل أبو المكارم والفضائل صاحب المصنفات المفيدة منها الوسائل الذي من على المسلمين بتأليف هذا الجامع الذي هو كالبحر لا يساجل

“Muĥammad ibn al-Ĥasan ibn `Alī al-Mashgharī, the master of the scholars of narrations [muĥaddithīn], the best of the foremost experts in religion, the knowledgeable, the renowned jurist [faqīh], the profound scholar of narrations [muĥaddith], the pious, the trustworthy, the venerable, the father of noble traits and virtues, and author of several beneficial works; one of which is the Wasā’il, a work that he has compiled as a bestowment upon the Muslims, a compilation that is like the ocean that can not be contested.”

  • al-Kuná wa al-Alqāb, of `Abbās al-`Qummī (d. 1359), volume 2, page 176 [Tehran]

This al-Ĥurr al-`Āmilī is one of those Akhbārī scholars who strictly opposed the categorization of narrations and believed in the authenticity of all the narrations found the Four Books of the Shī`a Imāmiyya Ithnā’ `Ashariyya. He has extensively argued in favour of this position of his in the same compilation mentioned by `Abbās al-Qummī as “the ocean that can not be contested,” Wasā’il al-Shī`a.

al-Īrawānī says:

وقد قام الحر العاملي في وسائله بتجميع القرائن على ذلك أي صحة جميع ما في الكتب الأربعة فكانت ٢٢ قرينة

“In his Wasā’il, al-Ĥurr al-`Āmilī has gathered the evidences indicating that—meaning, the authenticity of whatever is in the Four Books—and they are (a total of) twenty two evidences.”

  • Durūs Tamhīdiyya fī al-Qawā`id al-Rijāliyya, of Muĥammad Bāqir al-Īrawānī, page 49 [Beirut]

As a matter of fact, he did not just stop at simply viewing other works of narrations to be entirely correct, but he also believed that his own compiled work, Wasā’il al-Shī`a, contained only authentic and correct narrations.

al-Ghurayfī writes while mentioning how the Akhbārīs have argued against the categorization:

استدل عليه الشيخ محمد بن الحسن الحر باثنين وعشرين وجها في الفائدة التاسعة التي عقدها لاثبات صحة أحاديث جميع الكتب التي جمع منها كتابه وسائل الشيعة وحكم بوجوب العمل بها أجمع

Shaykh Muĥammad ibn al-Ĥasan al-Ĥurr deduced twenty two points, under the eighth useful lesson, for establishing the authenticity of the narrations found in all the books, that he collected in his book Wasā’il al-Shī`a, and he (also) ruled the obligation of practicing upon all of them.”

  • Qawā`id al-Ĥadīth, of al-Sayyid Muĥyī al-Dīn al-Ghurayfī, page 17 [Najaf]

Uşūlīs Who Counted the Four Books as Completely Authentic

Additionally, there have also been notable scholars from the Uşūlī group who believed that all the narrations found in the Four Books, and particularly al-Kāfī, are authentic and correct.

This is why Āyat Allāh Bāqir al-Īrawānī is affected to state after mentioning the Akhbārī view on narrations:

ولعل هذا الرأي هو المعروف بين الاخباريين بل ولربما يظهر اختياره من بعض الاصوليين

“This is perhaps the opinion which is known among the Akhbārīs, and it sometimes appears to be chosen by a few Usūlīs as well.”

  • Durūs Tamhīdiyya fī al-Qawā`id al-Rijāliyya, of Muĥammad Bāqir al-Īrawānī, page 100 [Beirut]

Among contemporaries, are the late Grand Āyat Allāh al-Sayyid Muĥammad Şādiq al-Şadr (d. 1419), after whom the Sadr City suburb of Baghdad is named, and the renowned scholar and propagandist, author of al-Murāja`āt, Āyat Allāh al-Sayyid `Abd al-Ĥusayn al-Mūsawī (d. 1377).

`Abd al-Ĥusayn al-Mūsawī writes while representing the Shī`ī Ithnā’ `Asharī sect in his alleged dialogue with one of the Grand Imāms of al-Azhar, Salīm al-Bishrī (d. 1335):

نبغ من أصحاب الصادق جم غفير وعدد كثير كانوا أئمة هدى ومصابيح دجى وبحار علم ونجوم هداية والذين دونت أسماؤهم وأحوالهم في كتب التراجم منهم أربعة آلاف رجل من العراق والحجاز وفارس وسوريا وهم أولو مصنفات مشهورة لدى علماء الإمامية ومن جملتها الأصول الأربعة مئة وهي كما ذكرناه سابقا أربع مئة مصنف لأربع مئة مصنف كتبت من فتاوى الصادق عليه السلام على عهده فكان عليها مدار العلم والعمل من بعده حتى لخصها جماعة من أعلام الأمة وسفراء الأئمة في كتب خاصة تسهيلا للطالب وتقريبا على المتناول وأحسن ما جمع منها الكتب الأربعة التي هي مرجع الإمامية في أصولهم وفروعهم من الصدر الأول إلى هذا الزمان وهي الكافي والتهذيب والاستبصار ومن لا يحضره الفقيه وهي متواترة ومضامينها مقطوع بصحتها والكافي أقدمها وأعظمها وأحسنها وأتقنها

“A great portion and large number from the companions of al-Şādiq (as) achieved ultimate wisdom. They became leaders [imāms] of right path, lanterns in darkness, oceans of knowledge, and stars of guidance. Among those, who have their names and conditions recorded in biographical texts, are four thousand men from Iraq, the Ĥijāz, Persia, and Syria. They are authors of famous works, which include the four hundred Uşūls of the Imāmīs.

 

These (Uşūls)—as we mentioned earlier—are four hundred compilations authored by four hundred authors, which were written during the time of al-Şādiq (as) and contained his verdicts. They were the axis of knowledge and practice after him, to such an extent that a group of eminent scholars of this nation and ambassadors of the Imāms rendered them into books as a facilitation and summarization for the seeker and deriver of knowledge.

 

The best of what was compiled from the (Uşūls) are the Four Books, which are sources for the Imāmīs in referring to their roots and branches of religion, from their earliest period to this era.  These are: al-Kāfī, al-Tahdhīb, al-Istibşār and Man lā Yaĥđuruh al-Faqīh. They are transmitted consecutively and their contents are undoubtedly authentic, and al-Kāfī is the oldest, the greatest, the best and the most accurate among them.

  • al-Murāja`āt, of `Abd al-Ĥusayn al-Mūsawī (d. 1377), page 419 [Beirut]

On the other hand, Grand Āyat Allāh Muĥammad Şādiq al-Şadr even went to the extent of explicitly stating in his book entitled al-Shī`a:

أن الشيعة وإن كانت مجمعة على اعتبار الكتب الأربعة وقائلة بصحة كل ما فيها من روايات غير أنها لا تطلق عليها اسم الصحاح كما فعل ذلك إخوانهم أهل السنة

“The Shī`a, even though they are unanimous upon the reliability of the Four Books and believe in the authenticity of all the narrations in them, do not name them ‘Şiĥāĥ’ as their Ahl al-Sunna brothers did.”

  • al-Shī`a, of Muĥammad Şādiq al-Şadr (d. 1419), page 127 [Tehran]

And last but not least, a scholar before these two individuals who also held that all the narrations in al-Kāfī are correct, was one of the renowned Shī`ī jurisprudents of his time, Grand Āyat Allāh al-Mīrzā Muĥammad Ĥusayn al-Nā’īnī (d. 1355). His belief in the correctness of the narrations in al-Kāfī reached such a degree that he declared checking their chains of transmission to be a waste of time.

His student, Grand Āyat Allāh al-Sayyid Abū al-Qāsim al-Khū’ī (d. 1412) writes:

وقد ذكر غير واحد من الاعلام أن روايات الكافي كلها صحيحة ولا مجال لرمي شئ منها بضعف سندها وسمعت شيخنا الأستاذ الشيخ محمد حسين النائيني قدس سره في مجلس بحثه يقول إن المناقشة في إسناد روايات الكافي حرفة العاجز

More than one of the eminent scholars have mentioned that all the narrations of al-Kāfī are şaĥīĥ, and there is no room for putting away anything from it due to its weak chain of transmission. I heard our master and teacher Shaykh Muĥammad Ĥusayn al-Nā’īnī—may Allāh sanctify his secret—say in one of his gatherings of discussion: ‘Verily, arguing about the chains of transmission of the narrations in al-Kāfī is the vocation of an incompetent!’”

  • Mu`jam Rijāl al-Ĥadīth wa Tafşīl Ţabaqāt al-Ruwāt, of Abū al-Qāsim al-Khū’ī (d. 1412), volume 1, page 81 [Qum]

It becomes crystal clear from all the quotes cited above that a prominent amount of Shī`ī scholars consider all the narrations in the Four Books authentic and şaĥīĥ. Specially the narrations found in the most authoritative of the four, al-Kāfī.

Yet the Answering-Ansar team chose to deceptively say:

Quoting Answering-Ansar:
Similarly none amongst the Shia Muhaditheen and jurists testified to any specific Shia book containing hadiths that were all acceptable and Sahih.
Who believes the Quran has been a victim of Tahreef?, page 4

al-Qummī (d. 307) and his Tafsīr

A celebrated Shī`ī scholar of this era, Āyat Allāh al-Sayyid `Alī al-Shahrastānī, reveals in his book studying the recording of narrations:

“`Ali ibn Ibrahim al-Qummiy, the compiler of the famous book of Tafsir that carries his name, has confirmed the authenticity of the Hadiths that he recorded in his book by bearing out that these Hadiths have been reported by trustworthy narrators from the Holy Imams.”

  • Man` Tadwīn al-Ĥadīth Asbāb wa Natā’ij, of al-Sayyid `Alī al-Shahrastānī, page 546 [Qum]
  • The Prohibition of Recording the Hadith: Causes and Effects (English), of Sayyid Ali al-Shahristaniy, page 510 [Qum]

As it is evident, `Alī ibn Ibrāhīm al-Qummī, who was a major scholar and teacher of al-Kulaynī, also confirmed that the narrations in his Commentary of the Holy Qur’ān are authentic. This, consequently, means that he himself also believed that the narrations in his work are authentic.

al-Ĥillī (d. 726), al-Ĥasan al-`Āmilī (d. 1011) and Compilation of Authentic Narrations

Ibn Muţahhar al-Ĥillī, a major Ithnā’ `Asharī scholar who is recognized as a reformer of his era among them, even compiled works of narrations in which he collected only authentic narrations. One in which he collected only rigorously authentic [şaĥīĥ] and fairly authentic [ĥasan] narrations, and another in which he collected only şaĥīĥ narrations.

According to his own work Khulāsat al-Aqwāl, he named these two compilations:

1.     al-Durr wa al-Marjān fī al-Aĥādīth al-Şiĥāĥ wa al-Ĥisān [“Pearls and Corals: Şaĥīĥ and Ĥasan Narrations”]

2.     al-Nahj al-Wađđāĥ fī al-Aĥādīth al-Şiĥāĥ [“The Articulate Method: Şaĥīĥ Narrations”]

These compilations of narrations are unanimously counted as al-Ĥillī’s books and as it is obvious from the titles, al-Ĥillī believed all the narrations in it are sound and acceptable.

The compilations of al-Ĥillī influenced another famous Shī`ī scholar, al-Ĥasan ibn Zayn al-Dīn al-`Āmilī, and lead him to also author a compilation of narrations from the Four Books that were authentic and acceptable. He titled this work Muntaqá al-Jumān fī al-Aĥādīth al-Şiĥāĥ wa al-Ĥisān [“Selected Pearls: Şaĥīĥ and Ĥasan Narrations”]

Āyat Allāh Āqā Buzurg al-Ţihrānī (d. 1389) writes about this when discussing the first work of al-Ĥillī in his biographical lexicon of Shī`ī texts, al-Dharī`a:

وقد اقتفى اثره سميه الشيخ حسن بن زين الدين الشهيد صاحب المعالم المتوفى ١٠١١ وصنف كتابه منتقى الجمان في الأحاديث الصحاح والحسان وسيأتي في النون كتاب آخر للعلامة الحلي في هذا الموضوع اسمه النهج الوضاح في الأحاديث الصحاح

“The namesake Shaykh Ĥasan ibn Zayn al-Dīn al-Shahīd (d. 1011), the author of al-Ma`ālim, has followed his [i.e. al-Ĥillī’s] track and authored his book Muntaqá al-Jumān fī al-Aĥādīth al-Şiĥāĥ wa al-Ĥisān.

 

Soon, another book of al-`Allāma al-Ĥillī on this subject will be mentioned under the letter ‘nūn. Its title is: al-Nahj al-Wađđāĥ fī al-Aĥādīth al-Şiĥāĥ.”

  • al-Dharī`a ilá Taşānīf al-Shī`a, of Āqā Buzurg al-Ţihrānī (d. 1389), volume 8, page 87 [Beirut]

This work is retained by contemporary Shī`ī Ithnā’ `Asharī scholars, unlike the two works of al-Ĥillī, and used by them as an authoritative work of reference.

Furthermore, not only did Ĥasan claim that the narrations in his compilation are authentic and acceptable; he also believed that the entire contents of the Four Books are authentic.

al-Shahrastānī states:

“Shaykh Hasan, in his books entitled Muntaqa al-Juman and al-Ma`alim, has stated that the Hadiths mentioned in the four most reliable Shi`ite reference books of Hadith (al-Kutub al-Arba`ah) and their likes are substantiated by proofs as they were, without any distortion, quoted from the al-Usul as well as the fundamental books the authenticity of which have been unanimously confirmed by the scholars.”

  • Man` Tadwīn al-Ĥadīth Asbāb wa Natā’ij, of al-Sayyid `Alī al-Shahrastānī, page 545-546 [Qum]
  • The Prohibition of Recording the Hadith: Causes and Effects (English), of Sayyid Ali al-Shahristaniy, page 509-510 [Qum]

al-Kaf`amī (d. 905) and al-Mişbāĥ

Texts on narrations and commentaries aside, even compilations of supplications have been confirmed to be entirely authentic by some Shī`ī scholars. Taqī al-Dīn al-Kaf`amī, a well-known and respected Shī`ī Ithnā’ `Asharī scholar, has compiled a book of narrated supplications that is famously known as al-Mişbāĥ.

Āyat Allāh al-Sayyid Ja`far Murtađá al-`Āmilī writes about it while citing it as a proof for his arguments:

ما ذكره الشيخ الكفعمي المتوفي سنة ٩٠٥ ه‍ ق في كتابه المصباح الذي جمعه من حوالي مئتين وأربعين كتابا وقال إنه جمعه من كتب معتمد على صحتها مأمور بالتمسك بوثقى عروتها ولا يغيرها كر العصرين ولا مر الملوين كتب كمثل الشمس يكتب ضوؤها ومحلها فوق الرفيع الأرفع

“10: What is mentioned by Shaykh al-Kaf`ami (d. 905) in his book titled al-Mişbāĥ which he compiled from about two hundred and forty books. He said that he compiled it ‘from books the authenticity of which is reliable and upholding them mandated, and this cannot be altered by the evil efforts of time or by the endeavour of those with twisted minds. Books, like the sun, whose light—is written above the most high of the height.’”

  • Ma’sāt al-Zahrā’ Shubhāt wa Rudūd, of al-Sayyid Ja`far Murtađá al-`Āmilī, volume 2, page 44 [Beirut]

Şaĥīĥ al-Kāfī

The Answering-Ansar team has said:

Quoting Answering-Ansar:
No Shia author ever claimed that all of the hadiths compiled in his book were correct and Sahih.
Who believes the Quran has been a victim of Tahreef?, page 4

Unfortunately, truth is at odds with Answering-Ansar today.

Ibn Bābawayh, al-Ĥurr al-`Āmilī and other scholars’ claim that all the narrations compiled in their works are correct and şaĥīĥ is already showed above. But to cap it all off, let us share one last work of a recognized Shī`ī scholar and author who “claimed that all of the hadiths compiled in his book were correct and Sahih.”

The contemporary Shī`ī scholar Muĥammad Bāqir al-Bahbūdī has compiled an entire work entitled Şaĥīĥ al-Kāfī. al-Bahbūdī has claimed to have collected only rigorously authentic [şaĥīĥ] narrations of al-Kāfī in this compilation, and accordingly, he has named it “Şaĥīĥ.”

To begin with, it should be known that al-Bahbūdī is not a typical graduate of some Shī`ī institution, rather he is a reputed and praised scholar of today.

Grand Āyat Allāh al-Sayyid Shihāb al-Dīn al-Mar`ashī (d. 1411) attributes the following words to al-Bahbūdī in his introduction to a work revised and edited by the latter, al-Şirāţ al-Mustaqīm of `Alī ibn Yūnus al-Bayāđī (d. 877):

وقام العالم الفاضل الموفق لإحياء الزبر الدينية الاقا محمد باقر البهبودي شكر الله مساعيه ووفر معاليه بتصحيحه وتنقيحه بالمراجعة إلى النسخ العديدة

“The brilliant scholar, who was victorious in reviving the religious scriptures, Master Muĥammad Bāqir al-Bahbūdī—may Allāh appreciate his efforts and increase his loftiness—came forth with its correction and critical revision by referring to several manuscripts.”

  • al-Şirāţ al-Mustaqīm ilá Mustaĥiqqī al-Taqdīm, of `Alī ibn Yūnus al-Bayāđī (d. 877), volume 1, page 4 [Tehran]

This al-Bahbūdī is the one mentioned by the Āyat Allāh al-Sayyid Murtađá al-`Askarī (d. 1428) in the following words:

وقد ألف أحد الباحثين في عصرنا صحيح الكافي اعتبر من مجموع ١٦١٢١ حديثا من أحاديث الكافي ٣٣٢٨ حديثا صحيحا وترك ١١٦٩٣ حديثا منها لم يراها حسب اجتهاده صحيحة

“One of the researchers of our time has compiled ‘Şaĥīĥ al-Kāfī. He counted 3328 narrations from the 16121 narrations of al-Kāfī as şāĥīĥ, and left 11693 narrations that he did not view to be şaĥīĥ according to his judgement.”

  • Ma`ālim al-Madrasatayn, of al-Sayyid Murtađá al-`Askarī (d. 1428), volume 3, page 282 [Beirut]

The existence of this compilation not only exposes Answering-Ansar’s lie, but also shows the dubiousness of the argument reiterated by the Shī`ī propagandists of today:

“According to us, only the Qur’ān is şaĥīĥ. We do not call any book ‘şaĥīĥ’ other than the Qur’ān as the Sunnīs do with Şaĥīĥ al-Bukhārī.”

Any unbiased individual can see that Şaĥīĥ al-Kāfī is not very different from Şaĥīĥ al-Bukhārī. The authors both compiled their respected works with the intention of solely collecting narrations that were rigorously authentic [şaĥīĥ] according to them. The only difference is that what Shī`ī scholars are trying to do today, was done centuries ago by Sunnīs.

Neither do Sunnīs believe that Şaĥīĥ al-Bukhārī is şaĥīĥ as the Qur’ān is, nor do they intent to raise the rank of Şaĥīĥ al-Bukhārī as high as the Qur’ān. Rather, what they mean by calling it “Şaĥīĥ” is exactly what al-Bahbūdī meant when calling his compilation “Şaĥīĥ.” So if the Shī`īs are unable to unanimously agree upon a certain criterion of judging narrations, are the Ahl al-Sunna wa al-Jamā`a to be accused of elevating a book to the position of the Holy Qur’ān for simply agreeing upon the authenticity of the narrations in a book called “Şaĥīĥ”?

Conclusion – Facts that Prove the Lies of Answering-Ansar

In conclusion, the abovementioned study of both early and contemporary Shī`ī Ithnā’ `Asharī texts reveals the following facts about their scholars:

1.      Abū Ja`far al-Kulaynī believed and confirmed that all the narrations in his compilation are correct.

2.      Ibn Bābawayh al-Qummī believed and confirmed that all the narrations in his compilation are correct.

3.      Abū Ja`far al-Ţūsī confirmed in his works such as al-`Udda, as mentioned by al-Baĥrānī, that all the narrations in his two compilations are authentic and acceptable.

4.      Many prominent and eminent Shī`ī scholars claim that all the narrations in the Four Books, and particularly al-Kāfī, are şaĥīĥ.

5.      al-Ĥurr al-`Āmilī, a scholar of narrations [muĥaddith] and jurist [faqīh], claimed that all of the narrations compiled in his book are şaĥīĥ and thus it is obligatory to practice upon them.

6.      `Alī ibn Ibrāhīm al-Qummī confirmed the authenticity of all the narrations in his Tafsīr.

7.      Ibn Muţahhar al-Ĥillī compiled two works in which he claimed to have collected only authentic narrations. One containing only şaĥīĥ narrations and another containing both şaĥīĥ and ĥasan.

8.      al-Ĥasan al-`Āmilī, the author of al-Ma`ālim, followed al-Ĥillī and also compiled a work in which he collected only authentic and acceptable narrations.

9.      Taqī al-Dīn al-Kaf`amī testified to the authenticity of the entire contents of his book.

10.  Muĥammad Bāqir al-Bahbūdī claimed that all the narrations in his book Şaĥīĥ al-Kāfī are şaĥīĥ.

In light of the facts above, we have the following statement of the Answering-Ansar team:

Quoting Answering-Ansar:
First Point: No one amongst the Shia ulema claimed his hadith book as 100 % correct
Those people who after reading some traditions in the hadith books written by Shia Ulema criticize Shia of Ali [as] are fact fanatics that have abandoned all aspects of justice since no Shia author ever claimed that all of the hadiths compiled in his book were correct and Sahih. Similarly none amongst the Shia Muhaditheen and jurists testified to any specific Shia book containing hadiths that were all acceptable and Sahih.
Who believes the Quran has been a victim of Tahreef?, page 4

Now, it is up to the readers to decide whether what Answering-Ansar has said is a lie or not.

Readers should also know that this lengthy discussion could have been successfully dealt by proving the mere existence of Şaĥīĥ al-Kāfī. After all, al-Bahbūdī is a Shī`ī scholar and author who compiled a book declaring that all the narrations in it are şaĥīĥ, while Answering-Ansar blatantly lies by saying “no one among the Shia ulema” did such a thing.

However, several Shī`ī Ithnā’ `Asharī texts have been cited for readers to realize that this not a simple a matter related to a single text, rather a prominent amount of Shī`ī scholars have been believing and declaring the authenticity of all the narrations in particular texts, to the extent that a group of major Ithnā’ `Asharī scholars even denied the late categorization of narrations to uphold their belief that all the narrations in the “Four Books” are şaĥīĥ.

Thus, it was not just shown that Answering-Ansar has simply lied because there are contemporary Shī`ī scholars who have testified to the authenticity of the narrations in their books, but that the Answering-Ansar team is deceptively trying to keep people in the dark about how many Shī`ī scholars have been viewing their texts throughout history, by lying.

A Few Points to Note

Lastly, a few points about the quote of the Answering-Ansar team should also be noted here:

  • They have mentioned a Shī`ī scholar by the name of:

محمد جواد معتية

“Muhammad Jawwad Ma`tiya.”

Poor plagiarism. The late scholar’s actual name is:

محمد جواد مغنية

Muĥammad Jawād Mughniyya.

Had the Answering-Ansar team known the scholar they are copying information about, they would not have confused the diacritical points and made this ignorant mistake.

  • One of the categories of Shī`ī narrations is mentioned as “Mawthiq,” whereas the actual word is “muwaththaq” [authenticated]. Mawthiq refers to a covenant or a contract, not to mention that it is morphologically incorrect to use it for a narration. This clearly shows how much knowledge of the Arabic language and their own narrations is possessed by the pinnacles behind Answering-Ansar.

Our advice to the Answering-Ansar team is that they should pick up a few Arabic text books for beginners before they discuss the sensitive issue of distortion of the Holy Qur’ān, a book of eloquent Arabic.

It is only Allah (swt) who gives success, and blessings and peace be upon the Seal of the Prophets, his Pure Progeny and his Noble Companions

♦        ♦        ♦

_______________________________________________________________

Works Cited

Shī`ī texts:

1.       al-Kāfī

Abu Ja`far al-Kulayni (d. 329)

Dar al-Kutub al-Islamiyya

Tehran, Iran

2.       Riyāđ al-Masā’il fī Bayān Aĥkām al-Shar` wa al-Dalā’il

al-Sayyid `Alī al-Ţabāţabā’ī (d. 1231)

Muassasat al-Nashr al-Islami

Qum, Iran

3.       Mu`jam al-Maĥāsin wa al-Masāmī

Abū Ţālib al-Tabrīzī

Muassasat al-Nashr al-Islami

Qum, Iran

4.       Khātimat Tafşīl Wasā’il al-Shī`a ilá Taĥşīl Masā’il al-Sharī`a

al-Ĥurr al-`Āmilī (d. 1104)

Muassasat Al al-Bayt li Ihya al-Turath

Qum, Iran

5.       Mafātīĥ al-Uşūl

al-Sayyid Muĥammad al-Ţabāţabā’ī (d. 1242)

Offset Lithograph

Tehran, Iran

6.       Dirāsāt fī al-Makāsib al-Muĥarrama

Ĥusayn `Alī al-Muntažarī

Intisharat Siyayi

Tehran, Iran

7.       Man lā Yaĥđuruh al-Faqīh

Ibn Bābawayh al-Qummī (d. 381)

Muassasat al-Nashr al-Islami

Qum, Iran

8.       Man lā Yaĥđuruh al-Faqīh

Ibn Bābawayh al-Qummī (d. 381)

al-Matba`at al-Ja`fariyya

Lucknow, India

9.       Uşūl al-Ĥadīth

`Abd al-Hādī al-Fađlī

Muassasat Umm al-Qura

Beirut, Lebanon

10.    Qā`ida lā Đarar wa lā Đirār

`Alī al-Sīstānī

Matba`at Mahr

Qum, Iran

11.    Mashriq al-Shamsayn wa Iksīr al-Sa`ādatayn

Bahā’ al-Dīn al-`Āmilī (d. 1034)

Maktabat Basirati

Qum, Iran

12.    al-Wāfī

al-Fayđ al-Kāshānī (d. 1091)

Maktabat al-Imam Amir al-Mu’minin Ali al-Amma

Esfahan, Iran

13.    al-Ĥadā’iq al-Nāđira fī Aĥkām al-`Itrat al-Ţāhira

Yūsuf al-Baĥrānī (d. 1186)

Muassasat al-Nashr al-Islami

Qum, Iran

14.    al-Ĥadā’iq al-Nāđira fī Aĥkām al-`Itrat al-Ţāhira

Yūsuf al-Baĥrānī (d. 1186)

1315 Print

Iran

15.    Qawā`id al-Ĥadīth

al-Sayyid Muĥyī al-Dīn al-Ghurayfī

Matba`at al-Adab

Najaf, Iraq

16.    Talkhīs al-Shāfī

Abū Ja`far al-Ţūsī (d. 460)

Matba`at al-Adab

Najaf, Iraq

17.    al-Tajdīd wa al-Ijtihād fī al-Islām

Murtađá Muţahharī (d. 1407)

Dar al-Adwa

Beirut, Lebanon

18.    A`yān al-Shī`a

al-Sayyid Muĥsin al-Amīn (d. 1371)

Dar al-Ta`aruf

Beirut, Lebanon

19.    Durūs Tamhīdiyya fī al-Qawā`id al-Rijāliyya

Muĥammad Bāqir al-Īrawānī

Dar al-Jawadayn

Beirut, Lebanon

20.    al-Kuná wa al-Alqāb

`Abbās al-`Qummī (d. 1359)

Maktabat al-Sadr

Tehran, Iran

21.    al-Murāja`āt

`Abd al-Ĥusayn al-Mūsawī (d. 1377)

al-Jam`iyyat al-Islamiyya

Beirut, Lebanon

22.    al-Shī`a

Muĥammad Şādiq al-Şadr (d. 1419)

Tehran, Iran

23.    Mu`jam Rijāl al-Ĥadīth wa Tafşīl Ţabaqāt al-Ruwāt

Abū al-Qāsim al-Khū’ī (d. 1412)

Markaz Nashr al-Thaqafat al-Islamiyya

Qum, Iran

24.    Man` Tadwīn al-Ĥadīth Asbāb wa Natā’ij

al-Sayyid `Alī al-Shahrastānī

Markaz al-Abhath al-Aqaidiyya

Qum, Iran

25.    The Prohibition of Recording the Hadith: Causes and Effects (English)

Sayyid Ali al-Shahristaniy

Ansariyan Publications

Qum, Iran

26.    al-Dharī`a ilá Taşānīf al-Shī`a

Āqā Buzurg al-Ţihrānī (d. 1389)

Dar al-Adwa

Beirut, Lebanon

27.    Ma’sāt al-Zahrā’ Shubhāt wa Rudūd

al-Sayyid Ja`far Murtađá al-`Āmilī

Dar al-Sira

Beirut, Lebanon

28.    al-Şirāţ al-Mustaqīm ilá Mustaĥiqqī al-Taqdīm

`Alī ibn Yūnus al-Bayāđī (d. 877)

Matba`at al-Haydari

Tehran, Iran

29.    Ma`ālim al-Madrasatayn

al-Sayyid Murtađá al-`Askarī (d. 1428)

Muassasat al-Nu`man

Beirut, Lebanon

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

 

Taken from our brothers at gift2shias…

There is a lot being said on the issue of Shi`i-Sunni unity these days. The view amid discussions on this issue has become such that our Shi`i friends are seen as the reconcilers and tolerant ones, who have always seeked unity and respect between the two groups, and the Sunnis — or “Wahhabis” if they’re up-front — have always censured and hated them, and still continue to do so. In this context, I just thought of letting our brothers and sisters know that how, through whatever little reading I have done of books by the Ithna’ `Asharis [i.e., the vast majority of Shi`is today] books, I have found our `ulama labelled as Nasibis at every corner by the scholars of the same Shi`is who say that they want to unite with us today.

I will now list a few of those `ulama who I read were labelled as Nasibis by Ithna’ `Ashari scholars for brothers to see how the Sunni `ulama — our elders and predecessors who taught us all that the din of Muhammad (as) that we know — have been deemed and labelled as the worst of human beings.

I am neither opposing it nor accepting unity in this thread. So I would advise all brothers from being judgemental of me. I’m just relaying information, and if anyone disagrees, he has all right to voice his/her difference of opinion and provide evidence to prove those opinions. The conclusion is for the brothers and sisters to reach.

I have divided this short writing into two sections:

[I] The definition and status of a “Nasibi” according to Ithna’ `Asharis.

[II] Sunni `ulama labelled as Nasibis by Ithna’ `Asharis.

I hope Allah tabaraka wa ta`ala accepts this little effort of mine and that He allows all brothers and sisters to benefit from it.

[I] Definition and Status of a “Nasibi” per Ithna’ `Asharis

Ithna’ `Ashari scholars have never been hesitant in expressing about the Nasibis and who they are.

al-`Allama al-Hilli says in Nihayat al-Ahkam [1:274]:

والخوارج والغلاة والناصب ، وهو الذي يتظاهر بعداوة أهل البيت ( عليهم السلام ) أنجاس

“The Kharijis, Ghulat and the Nasibi, who is who demonstrates enmity for Ahl al-Bayt `alayhim al-salam, are impure individuals.”

When al-Shahid al-Awwal mentions the dog and its “brothers” in his Alfiyya on fiqh, al-Muhaqqiq al-Karaki comments upon it in it — per his Rasa’il [3:215]:

قوله : وأخواه . أي : الخنزير ، والكافر بأنواعه حتى الخوارج ، والغلاة ، والنواصب ، والمجسمة بالحقية

“His saying: ‘Its brothers…’ meaning, the swine, and all types of kafirs, even the Kharijis, Ghulat, Nasibis and Mujassima in the true sense.”

Muhammad Baqir al-Majlisi says in commentary of a narration in Mir’at al-`Uqul [24:211] where the word “Nasibi” was used for a man:

إن كان المراد بالناصب، المبغض المعاند لأهل البيت عليهم السلام كما هو الأظهر فهو كافر، ودمه هدر

“If by ‘Nasibi’ it was meant the hater and enemy of the Ahl al-Bayt `alayhim al-salam, which is most obvious, then he is a kafir and his blood is to be spilled unavailingly.”

Ni`matullah al-Jaza’iri says about a “Nasibi” in al-Anwar al-Nu`maniyya [2:306]:

الذي ورد في الأخبار أنه نجس وأنه شر من اليهودي والنصراني والمجوسي، وأنه كافر نجس بإجماع علماء الشيعة الإمامية رضوان الله عليهم ، فالذي ذهب إليه أكثر الأصحاب هو أن المراد به من نصب العداوة لآل بيت محمد (ص)

“What is reported is that he is worse than the Jew, Christian and the Magian; and he is an impure kafir by the unanimity of the scholars of Shi`a Imamiyya ridwanullahi `alayhim; and what the majority of scholars have opined is that what is meant by nasb [i.e., the trait that makes one Nasibi] is enmity for the progeny of Muhammad sallallahu `alayhi wasallam.”

Ayatollah al-Sayyid Murtada al-`Askari says in Ma`alim al-Madrasatayn [1:81] that “Nasibi” according to them is:

كل من يبغض الأئمة من أهل البيت عليهم السلام

“Everyone who hates the Imams of Ahl al-Bayt.”

Grand Ayatollah al-Sayyid Bashir al-Najafi describes him in one of his answers as:

الناصبي هو الذي يظهر العداء لأحد المعصومين ابتداءً من الرسول الأعظم صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم ، إلى الإمام المنتظر والزهراء عليهم السلام وأما السب فاجتنبه ، ويجوز لك أن تلعنه بينك وبين ربك ، وتلعن من لا يلعنه ، ولكن فليكن ذلك بينك وبين الله لتحظى بالأجر على البراءة من أعداء الله ورسوله وأعداء ذريته لعنهم الله

“Nasibi is he who makes (his) enmity for anyone of the infallibles obvious, starting from the greatest Messenger sallalahu `alayhi wasallam to the awaited Imam and al-Zahra’ `alayhim al-salam. As for insulting him, then take precaution; and it is permissible for you that you curse him between you and your Lord, and that you curse whoever doesn’t curse him, but that will be between you and Allah because you are receiving reward over disassociation from the enemies of Allah, His Messenger and the enemies of his projeny la`anahum allah.”

So according to Ithna’ `Ashari scholars, a Nasibi is one who hates the progeny of Muhammad (as), and he is kafir, impure [najis], worse than Jews, Christians and Magians; deserves curse [la`na] and resembles dogs and pigs, and his blood should be spilled.

[II] Sunni `Ulama Labeled “Nasibi” by Ithna’ `Ashari Scholars

The following is a list of some of our `ulama that have been labeled as Nasibis by Ithna’ `Ashari scholars. I will list them one by one and then cite/quote Ithna’ `Ashari scholars as evidence.

[1] Imam al-Sha`bi

Grand Ayatollah Hasan al-Lawasani mentions him in Nur al-Afham [2:34] as:

وعامر الشعبي الناصبي المنحرف عن أمير المؤمنين ( عليه السلام

“…and `Amir al-Sha`bi, the Nasibi, perverted about Amir al-Mu’minin…”

[2] Imam Malik

Muhammad al-Tijani says in The Shi`a are Real Ahl al-Sunna (Arabic [103]):

ومما سبق نفهم بأن الإمام مالكا كان من النواصب

“From the above text we can understand that Imam Malik was a Nasibi…”

[3] Imam al-Shafi`i

al-Muhaqqiq al-Bahrani has written poetry against Imam al-Shafi`i. He starts it with:

كذبت في دعواك يا شافعي * فلعنة الله على الكاذب

“You lied in your claim, O Shafi`i! and the curse of Allah is upon the liar.”

After a couple of lines, he says:

فالشرع والتوحيد في معزل * عن معشر النصاب يا ناصبي

“Shari`a and tawhid is in a different place, from the group of Nasibis, O Nasibi!”

[4] Imam Ahmad

al-Kash-shi says about him — per al-Arba`in [652] by al-Shirazi:

هو من أولاد ذي الثدية ، جاهل ، شديد النصب

“He is from the offsprings of Dhul Thudayya; an ignorant, extreme in nasb…”

[5] Imam Ibn Ma`in

Grand Ayatollah al-Mar`ashi says in Sharh Ihqaq al-Haq [7:398]:

وكذا الكلام في يحيى بن معين ، فإنه كان أمويا ناصبيا

“The same speech goes for Yahya ibn Ma`in, for he was an Umayyad Nasibi…”

[6] Imam Abu Dawud

Shaykh Baqir al-Mahmudi refers to him in the hashiya of Jawahir al-Matalib [151] as:

وهو عبد الله بن سليمان بن الأشعث الناصبي

“He is `Abdullah ibn Sulayman ibn al-Ash`at the Nasibi…”

[7] Imam Ibn Hibban

Ayatollah Taqi al-Tustari refers to his opinion in Qamus al-Rijal [9:283] as:

قول ابن حبان الناصبي

“…The saying of Ibn Hibban the Nasibi…”

Grand Ayatollah Muhsin al-Amin mentions it as:

قول ابن حبان الناصبي المعروف

“…Saying of the known Nasibi Ibn Hibban…”

[8] Imam al-Daraqutni

Ayatollah `Ali al-Namazi says about him in Mustadrakat [8:514]:

وكان ناصبيا

“He was a Nasibi.”

[9] Imam Abu Bakr al-Baqillani

Shaykh Muhsin al-Mu`allim counts him in his list of Nasibis in his book al-Nasb wa al-Nawasib [459], and then mentions reasons why he is supposedly a Nasibi.

[10] Abu Hayyan al-Tawhidi

Ayatollah al-Sayyid Murtada al-`Amili says in al-Sahih min Sirat al-Nabi [5:278]

ومن الأمور الطريفة هنا : أن أبا حيان التوحيدي – الناصبي المعروف – يروي

“Among the strange points here is that Abu Hayyan al-Tawhidi, the known Nasibi, narrates…”

[11] al-Khatib al-Baghdadi

Taqi al-Tustari says in the Qamus al-Rijal [9:390]:

ولا عبرة بقول الخطيب الناصبي

“… And no importance is to be given to the opinion of the Nasibi al-Khatib.”

And quotes him as [9:555]:

وفي تاريخ بغداد للخطيب الناصبي

“It is in Tarikh Baghdad by the Nasibi al-Khatib…”

[12] Imam al-Ghazali

al-Muqaddas al-Ardabili says — per Tara’if al-Maqal [1:122] — while mentioning the Imam’s alleged discussion with al-Sayyid al-Murtada ibn al-Da`i al-Hasani:

السيد المرتضى الذي جرت له المباحثة مع الغزالي الناصبي هو ابن الداعي الحسني

“The Sayyid Murtada, between whom and the Nasibi al-Ghazali the conversation took place, is Ibn al-Da`i al-Hasani.”

Sulayman al-Mahuzi says in al-Arba`in [379] when referring to al-Ghazali:

والعجب من هذا الناصب كيف

“…And it is astonishing how this Nasibi…”

[13] Imam Ibn al-Jawzi

Ayatollah Taqi al-Tustari mentions him in Qamus al-Rijal [11:599] as:

ابن الجوزي هو ” عبد الرحمن بن علي الناصبي “

“Ibn al-Jawzi: He is `Abdul Rahman ibn `Ali, the Nasibi…”

[14] Imam al-Fakhr al-Razi

Muhammad Baqir al-Majlisi mentions Imam al-Razi as a Nasibi in several of his works. In Bihar al-Anwar [35:384], he quotes him as:

وأفحش من ذلك ما ذكره الرازي الناصبي حيث قال

“And more indecent than that is what was mentioned by the Nasibi al-Razi when he said…”

Sulayman al-Mahuzi says in al-Arba`in [64] after quoting him:

العجب من قول هذا الناصب كيف

“The amazing thing from the saying of this Nasibi is that how…”

Ni`matullah al-Jaza’iri also refers to him in Nur al-Barahin [2:228] as:

حتى أن الناصبي فخر الرازي ذكر في خاتمة كتاب المحصل

“…to the extent that the Nasibi Fakhr al-Razi mentioned in the end of the book al-Muhassal…”

After this, al-Jaza’iri quotes another thing and says:

وهذا الكلام صريح في كفر هذين الرجلين الرازي وابن جرير

“This expression is explicit in the kufr of these two men, al-Razi and (Sulayman) ibn Jarir…”

[15] Imam al-Dhahabi

al-Shahid al-Thalith Nurullah al-Shustri in his refutation of Ibn Hajar al-Haythami, refers to al-Dhahabi in al-Sawarim al-Muhriqa [198] as:

وأما ما نقله عن الذهبي الناصبي ذهب الله بنوره

“As for what he has copied from the Nasibi al-Dhahabi, may Allah take the nur away from him…”

Muhsin al-Amin says in A`yan al-Shi`a [3:294]:

ذكره الذهبي الناصبي في ميزانه

“He was mentioned by the Nasibi al-Dhahabi in his Mizan…”

And Ayatollah `Ali al-Korani quotes him in Ma`rifat Allah as:

قال الذهبي الناصبي في ميزان الإعتدال

“The Nasibi al-Dhahabi said in Mizan al-I`tidal…”

[16] Ibn Kathir

Ayatollah Muhiyy al-Din al-Mamaqani says in the hashiya of Tanqih al-Maqal [5:175]:

وفي البداية والنهاية للناصبي ابن كثير

“It is in al-Bidaya wa al-Nihaya by the Nasibi Ibn Kathir…”

Shaykh Baqir al-Mahmudi says in his hashiya of Shawahid al-Tanzil [2:192]

كذا رواه الناصبي المحترف ابن كثير

“And it was reported similarly by the professional Nasibi Ibn Kathir…”

Shaykh Muhsin al-Mu`allim also labels him as a Nasibi in al-Nasb wa al-Nawasib [283]

[17] al-Iyji

al-Mahuzi says in al-Arba`in [284] about the author of al-Mawaqif, al-Iyji:

اعترض القاضي الناصب في المواقف

“The Nasibi Qadi objected in al-Mawaqif…”

He later says in the same book [289]:

أن القاضي المتعصب الناصب في المواقف أورد هذا الخبر

“…That the bigot Nasibi Qadi documented this report in al-Mawaqif…”

[18] Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalani

Ayatollah Taqi al-Tustari says about a narrator in Qamus al-Rijal [9:286]:

وثقه ابن حجر الناصبي

“…He was declared trustworthy by the Nasibi Ibn Hajar…”

[19] Hafiz al-Suyuti

Sulayman al-Majuzi says in al-Arba`in [390], about al-Suyuti’s interpretation:

وعلى كل حال فتأويل هذا الناصب الجاهل

“In any case, the interpretation of this ignorant Nasibi…”

[20] Shaykh Ibn Hajar al-Haythami

Ni`matullah al-Jaza’iri says in Nur al-Barahin [2:158]:

ولما نظر ابن حجر الناصبي إلى أن هذا الخبر يستلزم

“When Ibn Hajar the Nasibi viewed that this report necessitates…”

al-Qadi Nurullah al-Shustari mentions him in al-Sawarim al-Muhriqa [268] as:

هذا الشيخ المتعصب الجامد الناصبي

“This prejudiced, arrogant and Nasibi Shaykh…”

al-Sayyid Hasan Aal al-Mujaddid al-Shirazi says in al-Nisal al-Khariqa — per Turathuna [50/239] — after quoting Ibn Hajar:

فهل يستجيز هذا الناصب أن يقول في كتابه

“So does this Nasibi ask for permission when he says in his book…”

The reason why Ibn Hajar got fame as a “Nasibi” among them is his refutation of them known as al-Sawa`iq al-Muhriqa, even though he filled his book with countless virtues of Ahl al-Bayt which are oft-quoted by Ithna’ `Asharis. Muhsin al-Mu`allim counts him as a Nasibi in al-Nasb wa al-Nawasib [279] and Mirza `Ali Muhammad Khan even named his refutation of Ibn Hajar’s al-Sawa`iq: “al-Shuhub al-Thawaqib fi Tard al-Shaytan al-Nasib” (“The Shooting Stars in Repelling the Nasibi Devil”)!

[21] Shah Waliullah al-Dehlawi

Ayatollah `Ali al-Milani says in Nafahat al-Azhar [19:415] while mentioning Waliullah’s son `Abdul `Aziz:

قد شبه ( الدهلوي ) انشعاب السلاسل من أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام إلى الشعب المختلفة…خلافا لوالده صاحب قرة العينين ، وغيره من النواصب

“al-Dehlawi likened the branching of the silsilas of Amir al-Mu’minin `alayhis salam to to different branches… as opposed to his father, the author of Qurrat al-`Aynayn, and other Nasibis…”

[22] Shah `Abdul `Aziz al-Dehlawi

Mirza `Abdullah Efendi al-Isfahani refers to him in Riyad al-`Ulama as — per Khatimat al-Mustadrak [2:175] by al-Nuri:

عبد العزيز الناصبي الدهلوي ذكر في التحفة

“…The Nasibi`Abdul `Aziz mentioned in the Tuhfa…”

Ayatollah `Ali al-Milani mentions in Nafahat al-Azhar [4:271] that some of the top Ithna’ `Ashari scholars said in reply to Shah `Abdul `Aziz:

أما ما ذكره هذا الناصبي عن النواصب

“As for what was mentioned about the Nasibis by this Nasibi…”

[23] Mahmud Shukri al-Alusi

Shaykh al-Sayyid Baqir al-Hujja wrote a refutation of his attacks on Ithna’ `Ashari creed and named it: “al-Sahm al-Thaqib fi Radd Ma Laffaqahu al-Nasib” (“The Shooting Arrow in Refutation of What Was Fabricated by the Nasibi”)

This is a little what I collected in a quick research; I’m sure that if one attempts to research futher then a lot more can be found, in fact, a whole booklet can be compiled showing how our scholars have been labeled as “Nasibis” by Ithna’ `Ashari scholars. For now, I think the above should be enough in showing the “other” side of the picture for those who promote Shi`a-Sunni unity.

[23] Abul Qasim an-Naysaburi.

Zaynutdin Al-Amuli in his “as-Sirat al-Mustagim” ( 2/183) said:

و عد أبو القاسم الحسين بن حبيب و هو من شيوخ الناصبية في كتاب التنزيل

And added Abul Qasim al-Husayn ibn Hubayb and he was from shuyukh of nawasib in his book “at-Tanzil”.

والحمد لله

  • Bias of the Shia

The Shia is clearly biased against Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه). Let us imagine that it was not Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) but rather Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) in her place, and that it was Ali (رضّى الله عنه) in the place of Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه). Then, the Shia would be talking about how ungrateful, whimsical, and rebellious Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) was being against the Caliph of the Ummah! They would say that Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) was greedy for wanting Fadak for herself instead of giving it to charity and the poor. Indeed, to the Shia, it is not the events that matter, but rather whom they are about. Ali (رضّى الله عنه) and Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) are always right, and Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) and Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) are always wrong. Simply switch a few names around, and suddenly, the Shia will switch arguments on the issue. To the Shia, Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) is wrong for going against the Caliph on the issue of Qisaas against Uthman’s murderers (a right granted by Shariah); and yet, paradoxically, Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) is right for going against the Caliph on an issue where she is wrong and the Shariah denies her the right she seeks (i.e. Fadak).

The Shia is clearly biased: indeed, the Shia believe that Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) is infallible and incapable of sin or mistake; to the Shia, she is perfect. This belief of the Shia is Shirk, because only Allah is perfect. How can the issue of Fadak–or any issue for that matter–be judged fairly when we assume that one party is always right? This is not a fair analysis of the event. No matter what Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) or Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) did, the Shia would twist the events in some way or the other to make sure that it was Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) who was in the wrong. Had it been Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) who gave the Prophet’s land to Aisha (رضّى الله عنها)–and had it been Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) who was against this–then it would be the Shia who would condemn Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) for violating the Hadith about Prophets not giving inheritance.

In any case, the Shia cannot deny that either Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) the “infallible” is wrong or Prophet Muhammad (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) the “infallible” is wrong, since their own Shia Hadith in al-Kafi contradicts Fatima (رضّى الله عنها). The words of Prophet Muhammad (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) as recorded by the Shia are 100% at variance with the words of Fatima (رضّى الله عنها). So how can the Shia exaggerate and say that anyone is above mistake, since two of their so-called infallibles are in disagreement?

  • Conclusion

In conclusion, Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) made a sincere mistake, and Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) was upholding the words of the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم), according to both Sunni and Shia Hadith. The Shia propagandists will go in circles when they argue about Fadak, but we advise our readers to continually remind them of two points, both which they cannot refute:

1. There is a Sahih Hadith in Al-Kafi, the Shia book of Hadith:

“The Prophets did not leave dinars and dirhams as inheritance, but they left knowledge.” (al-Kafi, vol. 1 p. 42)

There is no way around this Hadith for the Shia, and again, we urge our readers to continually bring any arguments about Fadak back to this point. The Shia propagandist will endeavor to drag the conversation away from this fact, but the reader must remind him again and again that the Shia Hadith also confirms that Prophets do not inherit.

2. Ali (رضّى الله عنه) did not return Fadak, but rather he continued to use Fadak in the exact same manner as Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) did. All of the Shia counter-arguments to this are of an obviously weak nature. If Ali (رضّى الله عنه) used Fadak as a Waqf, then there is nothing wrong in Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) doing this as well.

These two facts completely nullify the Shia accusations against Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه), which are nothing but slanderous lies.

This twelve part series on Fadak was paraphrased by Ibn al-Hashimi from an article by Muhammad al-Khider.

The Shia version of history is always simplistic; it is completely black and white, with no shades in between. The Shia propagandists demand us to “pick” either Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) or Fatima (رضّى الله عنها). Why must we pick between the two? If our parents get in an argument, should we be forced to “pick” between the two? In the argument between our parents, it may be that our father is correct and our mother is incorrect. But this does not mean that we stop loving our mother! We simply disagree on one issue.

The Shia propagandists will then try saying that the Ahlus Sunnah is accusing Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) of lying or this and that. We do not say that she lied at all! In fact, what we say is that if the Shia accounts of history are correct, then she was lying by accusing Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) of so many things. (And this is how we know that the Shia versions are false.) We do not believe in these exaggerated Ghullat accounts of history. Instead, we say that Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) simply did not know that the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) said such-and-such, or maybe her interpretation of such-and-such was different. Between telling a lie and telling the truth there are many other stages. One of them is called “making a mistake.” And all human beings–even Prophets–make mistakes.

Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) and Umar (رضّى الله عنه) got in arguments with each other. But they were the best of friends, and are known as the Shaikhayn. So too did Ali (رضّى الله عنه) and Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) get in arguments. Do the Shia really think that a single married couple has ever gotten away without even a single argument? This would be living in some strange alternate universe to think otherwise! And we actually know of at least one argument between Ali (رضّى الله عنه) and Fatima (رضّى الله عنها), namely when Ali (رضّى الله عنه) planned on marrying another wife other than Fatima (رضّى الله عنها). Both Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) and the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) were upset at Ali (رضّى الله عنه) for this. But the reality is that neither Ali (رضّى الله عنه) nor Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) nor the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) were wrong about the issue. They simply had different opinions and preferences. Nobody would say to pick between Ali (رضّى الله عنه) and Fatima (رضّى الله عنها).

In any case, we cannot understand why we must pick between Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) and Fatima (رضّى الله عنها); we do not see why we have to call one or the other a liar. Is it not possible that one of the two simply made a mistake, and this was the cause of the argument? Unlike the Shia, the Ahlus Sunnah does not have Ghullat tendencies and we do not say that one of the parties involved was infallible and the other pure evil.

As for the Ahlus Sunnah–and this cannot be stressed enough–we consider it Makrouh (detestable) to criticize Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) for no reason. The Shia will raise their children on stories about how evil Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) was, and the bad things that Umar (رضّى الله عنه) did. The Shia children will hear about the accounts of Umar (رضّى الله عنه) murdering Fatima (رضّى الله عنها), and of Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) stealing Fadak. But the Ahlus Sunnah does not ever mention the story of Fadak in its own circles, nor does it trumpet the mistake of Fatima (رضّى الله عنها). In fact, the only time we discuss Fadak is when we argue with the Shia because they force our hand by condemning Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه). Otherwise, the Ahlus Sunnah does not like to bring up arguments that ended 1400 years ago and have absolutely no relevance to our faith! And worst yet, we are talking about people who are not even alive to defend themselves; we cannot possibly look into the hearts and minds of these people and judge them.

And who are we to judge them when both Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) and Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) have done more for Islam in one day than we shall do in our entire lifetime? Nobody on this earth is on par with these two great heroes of Islam. Instead of wasting our precious time arguing about their faults, shouldn’t we work on removing our own faults and worrying about our ownselves? Should we not worry about our fate on the Day of Judgment? Surely on that Day, nobody will ask us “does Fadak belong to Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) or Fatima (رضّى الله عنها)?”

Furthermore, before the Shia condemns Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه), he should ask himself if in his heart he has even a “shadow of doubt” about Abu Bakr’s “guilt” (رضّى الله عنه). Do the Shia not see all the other differing accounts of Abu Bakr’s actions (رضّى الله عنه)? What if one of the alternate accounts of Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) is correct? Then what? Surely it is a possibility! Therefore, there is at least a shred of doubt and we should not condemn Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) lest we wrongfully accuse him of something. This holds true for anyone, and this is why we should leave the judging upto Allah.

The truth is that the issue of Fadak has absolutely no religious significance. It was a mere legal dispute. Fadak does not change the doctrine of Islam; it does not affect our prayers, our fasts, our Zakat, our Hajj, or anything else for that matter. The truth is that Fadak has no relevance to anything in our lives; in fact, it doesn’t even have relevance to any non-religious aspect of our lives! Neither of the two parties involved–neither Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) nor Fatima (رضّى الله عنها)–commited any sin in the legal dispute of Fadak. If two people reached a different answer in a math problem, do we say that one of them is sinning? No, we simply say that one of them is mistaken.

In regards to Fatima (رضّى الله عنها), she is revered by the Ahlus Sunnah. It is narrated in our authentic Hadith that she is the chief of the women in Paradise. Any mainstream Muslim who talks ill of her is considered deviant. We do not like to discuss her mistakes (which were few and far in between), and it is only the Shia who forces us to do so because the Shia culture is one obsessed with finding faults (in the Sahabah, the Prophet’s wives, and anyone else they can get their hands on). They engage us in such dirty disputes and debates. We notice that the Shia is always busy sending “Laanat” on so many different people; surely, the Shia should lighten his heart and refrain from sending “Laanat” on everything that walks but rather to ask for Allah’s Mercy.

The Shia is obsessed with saying that the Ahlus Sunnah insults and hates the Ahlel Bayt. In reality, it is the Shia who insult the House of Muhammad (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) including his wives and three of his lovely daughters. (The Shia even go to the extent of insulting the Ahlel Bayt by denying that the Prophet [صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم] had four daughters!)

We find the following Shia Hadith in Al-Kafi, the most reliable of the four Shia books of Hadith:

“The Prophets did not leave dinars and dirhams as inheritance, but they left knowledge.” (al-Kafi, vol. 1 p. 42)

This Shia Hadith in Al-Kafi has two separate narrations, and is considered Sahih by the Shia. The authenticity is confirmed by Ayatollah Khomeini, who used this Hadith to prove his claim of Wilayat al-Faqih. Khomeini said about the Hadith:

“The narrators of this tradition are all reliable and trustworthy. The father of ‘Ali ibn Ibrahim [namely Ibrahim ibn Hashim] is not only reliable, [but in fact] he is one of the most reliable and trustworthy narrators.” (Khomeini, al-Hukumat al-Islamiyyah, p. 133, published by Markaz Baqiyyat Allah al-A’zam, Beirut)

When the Shia propagandist is reminded that the Hadith about Prophets not inheriting is in their own Al-Kafi, he will resort to two measures. Either he will change the topic and discuss the other more tertiary aspects of Fadak, or he will make feeble attempts at rationalizing the Hadith. The Shia will say that the Ahlus Sunnah is twisting this Hadith. This is the general approach taken by such anti-Sunni websites such as “Answering-Ansar.” They will say that this Hadith in Al-Kafi is not referring to the laws of inheritance for relatives but rather has a symbolic meaning that scholars take the place of Prophets.

Let us even accept this fallacious assertion, or any other explanation the Shia give. The fact of the matter is that the Shia are accusing Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) of fabricating the Hadith. They even say that Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) accused him of this. Regardless of the interpretation of this Hadith, the fact is that it at least exists and thus the Shia claims that it is fabricated are simply false. If they claim that Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) cursed Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) and said that he was a fabricator, liar, and all sorts of other things, then in reality the evidence from the Shia’s own Al-Kafi would prove Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) wrong! (On the other hand, the Ahlus Sunnah holds the view that Fatima [رضّى الله عنها] made a sincere mistake, and nothing more.)

We remind the reader that–according to the Shia–Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) never claimed that Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) was interpreting the Hadith in the wrong manner, but rather she was claiming that he fabricated it completely! If it was a mere difference in interpretation, then we could say that they both had their individual Ijtihad on the matter, and the Shariah law states that the Ijtihad of the Caliph takes priority. But the Shia’s main issue is not simply that Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) made an incorrect Ijtihad, but rather that he fabricated the Hadith entirely. Whereas the Shia can certainly always argue senselessly about interpretations of the Hadith, they have absolutely no basis for the claim that the Hadith was fabricated. This claim is rejected on the basis of Al-Kafi, much to the chagrin of the Shia.

Thus, if the reader finds himself debating a Shia propagandist who simply demands that we are interpreting the Shia Hadith in the wrong manner, then force him to accept that Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) was wrong to question Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) regarding the existence of the Hadith which is in the Shia’s own Al-Kafi. It is a no way out situation for the Shia propagandist, who will then resort to switching gears and focusing on other aspects of Fadak…anything other than having to talk about the Hadith in their own Al-Kafi.

The Shia propagandists will sometimes claim that Umar (رضّى الله عنه) overturned Abu Bakr’s decision (رضّى الله عنه) and gave Fadak back to Ali (رضّى الله عنه). They will use this as “proof” that Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) was wrong, implying that “look, even your Umar gave Fadak back.” This is a blatant lie. Umar (رضّى الله عنه) upheld Abu Bakr’s decision (رضّى الله عنه), and Umar (رضّى الله عنه) repeated the Prophet’s Hadith that Prophets do not leave behind inheritance. Ali (رضّى الله عنه) and Abbas (رضّى الله عنه) approached Umar (رضّى الله عنه) in regards to Fadak, and Umar (رضّى الله عنه) allowed them to take control of Fadak as “trustees”–not as “inheritors.” As trustees, Ali (رضّى الله عنه) and Abbas (رضّى الله عنه) would be responsible for doling out the charity funds derived from Fadak. As such, the two would be continuing in the steps of the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم), Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه), and Umar (رضّى الله عنه), all of whom were trustees who distributed the revenue from Fadak as charity.

We find proof of this from Sahih Bukhari narrated by Malik bin Aus:

Umar said: “Allah’s Apostle used to spend the yearly expenses of his family out of this property and used to keep the rest of its revenue to be spent on Allah’s Cause. Allah’s Apostle kept on doing this during all his lifetime. I ask you by Allah do you know this?”

They [Ali and Abbas] replied in the affirmative.

Umar then said to Ali and Abbas: “I ask you by Allah, do you know this?”

Umar added: “When Allah had taken His Prophet unto Him, Abu Bakr said, ‘I am the successor of Allah’s Apostle so, Abu Bakr took over that property and managed it in the same way as Allah’s Apostle used to do, and Allah knows that he was true, pious and rightly-guided, and he was a follower of what was right.

“Then Allah took Abu Bakr unto Him and I became Abu Bakr’s successor, and I kept that property in my possession for the first two years of my Caliphate, managing it in the same way as Allah’s Apostle used to do and as Abu Bakr used to do, and Allah knows that I have been true, pious, rightly guided, and a follower of what is right.

“Now you both (Ali and Abbas) came to talk to me, bearing the same claim and presenting the same case; you, Abbas, came to me asking for your share from your nephew’s property, and this man (Ali) came to me asking for his wife’s share from her father’s property. I told you both that Allah’s Apostle said, ‘Our (prophets’) properties are not to be inherited, but what we leave is Sadaqah (to be used for charity).’

“When I thought it right that I should hand over this property to you, I said to you, ‘I am ready to hand over this property to you if you wish, on the condition that you would take Allah’s Pledge and Convention that you would manage it in the same way as Allah’s Apostle used to, and as Abu Bakr used to do, and as I have done since I was in charge of it.’

“So, both of you (Ali and Abbas) said (to me), ‘Hand it over to us,’ and on that condition I handed it over to you. So, I ask you by Allah, did I hand it over to them on this condition?”

The group said, “Yes.”

Then Umar faced Ali and Abbas saying, “I ask you by Allah, did I hand it over to you on this condition?”

They said, “Yes.”

He said, “Do you want now to give a different decision? By Allah, by Whose Leave both the Heaven and the Earth exist, I will never give any decision other than that (I have already given). And if you are unable to manage it, then return it to me, and I will do the job on your behalf.”

(source: Sahih Bukhari,
http://www.searchtruth.com/book_display.php?book=53&translator=1)

Umar (رضّى الله عنه) thus made Ali (رضّى الله عنه) and Abbas (رضّى الله عنه) trustees of Fadak on the condition that they accept that they are not the owners of it, nor the inheritors of it. In fact, Umar (رضّى الله عنه) said in the above Hadith that if there is even a bit of doubt on this matter, then they should return Fadak to Umar (رضّى الله عنه) who can act as its trustee instead. The fact that Umar (رضّى الله عنه) made Ali (رضّى الله عنه) and Abbas (رضّى الله عنه) the trustees of Fadak was a compromise of immense wisdom. Umar (رضّى الله عنه) gauranteed the goodwill of Ali (رضّى الله عنه) and Abbas (رضّى الله عنه), but also Umar (رضّى الله عنه) remained strict on following the Shariah and doing with Fadak what Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) had done as well.

During the Caliphate of Uthman, Marwan (رضّى الله عنه) was made trustee of Fadak and it was he who distributed the revenue as charity. When Ali (رضّى الله عنه) assumed power, he did not reclaim Fadak for himself nor did he give it to his sons, Hasan (رضّى الله عنه) and Hussain (رضّى الله عنه). Thereby, Ali (رضّى الله عنه) maintained the position of Fadak as a charity, and he continued to allow Marwan (رضّى الله عنه) to be its trustee.

The Shia will claim that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) was under Taqiyyah during his Caliphate and this is the reason he did not return Fadak. They say that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) could not restore Fadak to Hasan (رضّى الله عنه) and Hussain (رضّى الله عنه) simply because if he did this, then the people would conspire against him and rebel. In the words of one Shia propagandist,

“So many people at the time rejected the Imamah of Ali. If they didn’t accept his rule, then how would they accept the controversial reconfiscation of Fadak? In fact, it would strengthen the views of those who opposed his Caliphate. Had Imam Ali (as) restored Fadak by force, these people would have reacted in open opposition and spread Fitnah and hatred against Imam Ali. These people would say that Ali was abusing his power as Caliph to give favors to his relatives [i.e. Hasan and Hussain].”

There is no real way to respond to this since it is based on nothing but assumptions. One could easily claim that this is the same reason that Uthman (رضّى الله عنه) did not return Fadak to Fatima’s sons. Perhaps he too did not want to return Fadak because it would damage his image; people would say that he abused his power as Caliph to favor people who were related to him. This would cause people to rebel against him. Actually, during the time of Uthman (رضّى الله عنه), there was a lot of civil strife and people were ready to revolt against Uthman (رضّى الله عنه). Had he given Fadak back to Fatima’s sons, then people would have reacted against him with force, and this would have created Fitnah and hatred against Caliph Uthman (رضّى الله عنه).

On what basis can the Shia claim that their fairy-tale (about Ali [رضّى الله عنه] doing Taqiyyah) is any different than the above fairy-tale and scenario we gave (i.e. about Uthman [رضّى الله عنه] also doing Taqiyyah)? We see that when we play the game of the Shia with history, the sky is the limit!

Perhaps, to extend this example, Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) was also doing Taqiyyah! He was the grandfather-in-law of Fatima (رضّى الله عنها). Perhaps, Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) did not want the people to think that the Caliph was not using nepotism and favoring his relatives. One could even claim that Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) was doing Taqiyyah by pretending to be mad at Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه).

The truth is that Taqiyyah is a useless way to look at history. No matter what the facts are on the ground, the Shia can always claim Taqiyyah. The facts are that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) did not return Fadak to Fatima’s sons, and nothing prevented him from doing so. He did not even make them trustees of Fadak, like how Umar (رضّى الله عنه) made Ali (رضّى الله عنه) and Abbas (رضّى الله عنه) trustees of Fadak. In fact, one could argue that Umar (رضّى الله عنه) was the first one to “return” Fadak to Ahlel Bayt and Ali (رضّى الله عنه) didn’t even do this. So shouldn’t the Shia believe Umar (رضّى الله عنه) to be the “good guy” and Ali (رضّى الله عنه) to be the “bad guy”? Umar (رضّى الله عنه) made the Ahlel Bayt the trustees of Fadak while it was a Waqf; Ali (رضّى الله عنه) didn’t even do this!

Such hypothetical scenarios show that the Shia versions of history are nothing but fairy-tales based in double standards.

When Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) was Caliph, then the Shia curse him for not returning Fadak.

When Umar (رضّى الله عنه) was Caliph, then the Shia do not love him even though he appointed Abbas (رضّى الله عنه) and Ali (رضّى الله عنه) as the trustees of Fadak.

When Uthman (رضّى الله عنه) was Caliph, then the Shia curse him for failing to return Fadak to Hasan (رضّى الله عنه) and Hussain (رضّى الله عنه).

When Ali (رضّى الله عنه) was Caliph, then the Shia say that he was doing Taqiyyah and that’s why he didn’t return Fadak.

When Muawiyyah (رضّى الله عنه) was Caliph, then the Shia curse him for not returning Fadak.

When Hasan (رضّى الله عنه) was Caliph, then the Shia say that he didn’t return Fadak again because he was doing Taqiyyah and didn’t want people to accuse him of abusing power.

Do we notice a pattern? All of the above people did the same action [i.e. not return Fadak] but all the people that the Shia love are excused [using Taqiyyah as an excuse], but the people the Shia hate are accused of being tyrants. This is the epitome of intellectual dishonesty. All of the above individuals should be kept to the same standard and judged by their actions.

The Shia are being unjust bigots and supremacists. They believe that the Ahlel Bayt are not to be held to the same standard as other people. This is not unlike white supremacists who lock up blacks for crimes but do not lock up whites for the same crimes; instead, they make up excuses for white criminals and thus exonerate them. A black man will rob a bank and the whites will lock him up. But if a white guy robs a bank, then the white supremacists will make all sorts of fanciful excuses like the bank was owned by evil people who had stolen money and the white man was simply returning the money to the poor, or perhaps he was using Taqiyyah. Thus, people of white wombs are excused, and those born to other wombs are punished for the same crimes.

Likewise, the Shia excuse all those who were born to the wombs of Ahlel Bayt; in fact, the Shia say that they are infallible and cannot commit mistakes. Meanwhile, the people of born of a different wombs, such as the the lineage of Abu Sufyan, they are all cursed and wrong and guilty always.

Is this justice?

Is this consistency?

Why the double standard?

If the Shia are going to hate Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) for not returning Fadak, then they should also hate Ali (رضّى الله عنه) and Hasan (رضّى الله عنه) for not returning Fadak during their respective Caliphates. And then these Shia should simply love Umar (رضّى الله عنه) since he did something that neither Ali (رضّى الله عنه) nor Hasan (رضّى الله عنه) did [i.e. return Fadak].

The truth is that the Shia poured over our Sahih books of Hadith looking for anything they could use against the first three Caliphs. They found a Hadith about how Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) was angry at Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) and they said “aha!” They accepted the story of Fadak since it fit in their paradigm. Fadak may not even have been a part of Shi’ism prior to this discovery in Sahih Bukhari, but then suddenly it became a central part of Shi’ism since it helps their cause so much. It doesn’t matter to the Shia who narrates the Hadith, its Isnad, or anything. It becomes Sahih simply because it supports Shi’ism. [In fact, the Shia base the story of Fadak and Fatima’s anger [رضّى الله عنها] upon a Hadith narrated by Aisha [رضّى الله عنها], whom they call a liar and a fabricator. However, because Aisha [رضّى الله عنها] narrates a Hadith which supports the Shia cause, suddenly her word becomes golden.]

So it was that the Shia were so happy and jumping with joy when they found this Hadith against Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه). However, they failed to realize that they were also destroying their whole religion if they accepted the story of Fadak. They didn’t realize that their own Ali (رضّى الله عنه) and Hasan (رضّى الله عنه) did not give Fadak to Fatima’s descendants either. Thus, if any fault is to be put on the shoulders of Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه), equal fault should be placed on the shoulders of Ali (رضّى الله عنه) and Hasan (رضّى الله عنه).

We notice the same phenomenon with other stories that the Shia love to quote. For example, the Shia poured over our Sahih Hadith books and found a Hadith about Umar (رضّى الله عنه) and the incident of the paper and pen. So then the Shia invented the story about how this was when the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) was going to appoint Ali (رضّى الله عنه) as successor. The Shia propagandists will then trumpet this Hadith about the paper and pen, only because to them it makes Umar (رضّى الله عنه) look evil. In fact, if the Ahlus Sunnah had Sunni Hadith that said Umar (رضّى الله عنه) was the devil who even oppressed Allah, then the Shia would even accept this Hadith! Anything so long as it makes the three Caliphs look bad, no matter if acceptance of this Hadith would destroy the fundamentals of their faith in the process. Indeed, the incident of the paper and the pen destroys the faith of Shi’ism because the Shia claim that it was Ghadeer Khumm in which the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) appointed Ali (رضّى الله عنه)! In the incident of the paper and the pen, the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) said that he had something new to write, so how could it be the appointment of Ali (رضّى الله عنه) if he was already appointed at Ghadeer Khumm? Suddenly, the pillar of Shi’ism–namely that Ghadeer Khumm proves that we must follow Ali (رضّى الله عنه)–falls down.

That’s OK to the Shia who is content with any story so long as it makes the three Caliphs look bad. If there was a Hadith about anything bad about the three Caliphs, then it becomes Sahih automatically to the Shia, no matter who narrated it. Ronald McDonald or Mickey Mouse could narrate a Hadith, and as long as it made the three Caliphs look bad, the Shia will consider it Sahih!

In conclusion, Ali (رضّى الله عنه) and Hasan (رضّى الله عنه) did not return Fadak; therefore, neither Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه), Umar (رضّى الله عنه), Uthman (رضّى الله عنه), nor Muawiyyah (رضّى الله عنه) can be condemned by the Shia.

  • Prophets Do Not Give Inheritance

The Shia propagandists will try to give examples from the Quran to prove that Prophets actually do give inheritance. This is all in an attempt to undermine the words of Prophet Muhammad (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) who clearly said that Prophets do not give material possessions as inheritance. This is recorded in a Sahih narration in Al-Kafi, the most reliable of the Shia books of Hadith:

“The Prophets did not leave dinars and dirhams as inheritance, but they left knowledge.” (al-Kafi, vol. 1 p. 42)

It is sad that in an attempt to “win” a debate, the Shia will try to prove the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) wrong as a consequence.

The Shia propagandists will quote Verse 27:16 in which the Quran says: “And Sulaiman was Dawud’s heir.” The Shia tactfully do not quote the entire verse, nor the preceding verse. Allah says:

“We gave (in the past) knowledge to Dawud and Sulaiman, and they both said: ‘Praise be to Allah, Who has favored us above many of his servants who believe!’ And Sulaiman was Dawud’s heir. He said: ‘O you people! We have been taught the speech of birds, and on us has been bestowed (a little) of all things: this is indeed Grace manifest (from Allah).’” (Quran, 27:15-16)

In this verse, Allah is clearly talking about Sulaiman (عليه السلام) inheriting the knowledge of Dawud (عليه السلام). It has absolutely nothing to do with material possessions! Before and after the part about Prophet Sulaiman (عليه السلام) being Prophet Dawud’s heir (عليه السلام), we see that the Quran is talking about the special knowledge of the Prophets, especially the specific gift these Prophets were given in regards to understanding the speech of animals. The same can be said of the verses that the Shia propagandists use in regards to Prophet Zakariyyah (عليه السلام) who asked Allah in the Quran to grant him a son to become his successor.

It is obvious to all that these Quranic verses refer to the inheritance of the title of Prophethood, and has nothing to do with materal possessions. Allah uses the word “al-irth” in the Quran which does not refer to material possessions in the verses cited by the Shia. It is used to denote knowledge, Prophethood, or sovereignity. Examples of such usage are found in Surah Fatir in the Quran, in which Allah says:

“Therefore We gave the Book as inheritance (awrathna) to such of Our servants as We have chosen” (Quran, Surah Fatir)

As well as in Surah al-Mu’minoon, Allah says:

“Those are the Inheritors (al-warithun) who will inherit Paradise.” (Quran, Surah al-Mu’minoon)

Is Allah really talking about material possessions when he talks about these people? Truly this would be a ludicrous assumption.

It would not be fitting for a pious man such as Prophet Zakariyyah (عليه السلام) to be asking Allah to grant him an heir who will inherit material possessions. This would be superficial. Instead, the reality is that Prophet Zakariyyah (عليه السلام) asked for a son who would bear aloft the standard of Prophethood after him, and in whom the legacy of the progeny of Prophet Yaqoob (عليه السلام) would continue.

Indeed, it is well-known that Prophet Zakariyyah (عليه السلام) was a poor man who earned his living as a carpenter. What wealth could he possibly have had that would prompt him to request an heir from Allah? In fact, it was a general rule with the Prophets that they did not hoard anything beyond their need, and they spent any surplus in charity.

As for the case of Prophet Dawud (عليه السلام), it is well-known that he had 100 wives and 300 concubines. He had numerous children from these wives and concubines. If this verse is assumed to speak of the inheritance of material possessions, then why is Prophet Sulaiman (عليه السلام) mentioned as the sole inheritor? This proves that the Quran is not talking about material possessions but rather knowledge. Otherwise, Prophet Dawud (عليه السلام) denied inheritance to his other children, and this would violate the Shia rhetoric which state that people cannot deny inheritance to the children of Prophets.

If these Quranic verses are assumed to speak of material inheritance, it does not make much sense that it is being mentioned in the Quran, since it is then reduced to an ordinary and trivial matter. “Material inheritance is not something laudable, neither to Dawud (عليه السلام) nor to Sulaiman (عليه السلام). Even a Jew or Christian inherits the material possessions of his father. The purpose of this verse is to extol the excellence of Sulaiman (عليه السلام) and to make mention of that which was granted specifically to him. Inheriting material possessions is an ordinary and trivial matter that is common to everyone, like eating, drinking, and burying the dead. This is not the kind of thing that would be mentioned about the Prophets, since it is simply inconsequential. Only such things would be related about the Prophets which carry lessons or benefit. Things like ‘he died, and his son inherited his property’, or ‘they buried him’, or ‘they ate, drank, and slept’ is not the kind of information that would be conveyed in the stories of the Quran.” (Mukhtasar Minhaj as-Sunnah, Volume 1, p.240, with minor adjustments) It is thus obvious that the Quran is talking about inheriting the loftiness of Prophethood, much like the Quran talks about who amongst the believers will inherit the lofty position of Paradise.

In any case, all of these verses in the Quran must be interpreted in the light of the Hadith which states that “Prophets do not leave dinars or dirhams as inheritance, but they leave knowledge.” This Hadith explicitly negates the possibility that the Prophets in the Quran were leaving material possessions as inheritance, but rather were talking about knowledge. This along is sufficient proof to reject the Shia manipulation of these Quranic verses.

Even if the Shia live in the delusional world that Prophets leave behind inheritance, then this still does not answer why the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) has stated in Hadith that Prophets do not leave behind inheritance. Again, this Hadith has been stated in Al-Kafi and is considered Sahih. The Shia say that Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) accused Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) of fabricating the Hadith, but we find that this Hadith exists! If there is a discrepancy between the Quran and the Prophetic Sahih sayings, then we must state that this is an accusation against the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم): are the Shia really saying that the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) incorrectly stated that Prophets do not inherit?

  • Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) Gave Fadak as Charity

The Shia will make it sound as if Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) took Fadak and made it his own. Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) did not take a cent from Fadak, but rather he made it part of the Waqf for the benefit of the Ummah and the emerging Muslim state. Fadak became charity, and contrary to what the Shia insinuate, Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) did not buy a new car using the money from Fadak. In fact, Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) was known to have dedicated most of his wealth to the Islamic cause. He lived the life of a pauper, and was known for his ascetism. Prior to his conversion to Islam, Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) was a very wealthy man; after his conversion, he dedicated this wealth to Islam and consequently lived a meager life. In the Shia Makarem Shirazi, we find:

“ABUBAKR was an influential wealthy man, and made us of his influence and wealth for improving Islam.”

(source: Makarem Shirazi,
http://www.makaremshirazi.org/books/english/TAFSIR3/01.html#_Lnk7)

  • Abu Bakr’s Dilemma (رضّى الله عنه)

Admittedly, Fatima was the Prophet’s daughter, and Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) felt horrible that he had earned her displeasure by the ruling on Fadak. Some would think that perhaps Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) should have shown lenience on the matter. However, this would have set a horrible precedent if the first Caliph of the Ummah willfully violated the Shariah of the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم), who clearly said that Prophets do not leave behind inheritance. To adjust the rules for close family or friends would have shown nepotism. Indeed, it does not matter how high the status of an individual is in a just state: he/she will have to adhere to the law of the land, and exceptions cannot be granted based upon rank. Otherwise, an injust state would be created in which the high class get away with things, and meanwhile the lower class faces stricter implementation of law. Thus, it can be seen that Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) must have been under immense stress from the general public who would have been angered if the Shariah was abandoned for those of a high rank such as Fatima (رضّى الله عنها). Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) was held accountable to many poor people who would recieve aid from the charity money obtained from Fadak.

  • Further Arguments

Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) made a sincere mistake and she did not realize that she does not get inheritance from the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم). Nobody, not Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) nor Ali (رضّى الله عنه), could place the words of Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) above those of Prophet Muhammad (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) which categorically forbade inheritance for Prophets.

Additionally, if it was really to be inherited by the family of the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم), then Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) would have given the rightful share of it to Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) but he did not. So why aren’t the Shia grieving for Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) like they do for Fatima (رضّى الله عنها)? And what about the other eligible relatives of the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم)? Why is it that the Shia do not argue on behalf of these people for Fadak? It is reported that Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) also asked her father Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) to give her inheritance and Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) refused on the basis of the fact that Prophets do not give inheritance. Why aren’t the Shia crying over Aisha’s loss (رضّى الله عنها)?

Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) did a very noble thing by donating Fadak to charity, as was the command of the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم). The Shia try to villify Abu Bakr, but what was Abu Bakr’s only “crime” other than helping the poor? If the Shia want to make this a competition between Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) and Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه), then let us remember that the former wanted it for her own personal usage, whereas Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) wanted it to be given as charity for the benefit of the Muslim Ummah. The Shia should stop focusing on the issue of Fadak, because it was a sincere mistake of Fatima’s (رضّى الله عنها); the Ahlus Sunnah does not discuss Fadak in its own circles for this very reason, out of reverence for Fatima (رضّى الله عنها). The Shia meanwhile force our hand and make us continually prove that Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) was in the wrong, in order that we may exonerate Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) from wrong doing. We ask Allah Almighty to accept Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) and Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) into the Highest Ranks of Paradise.

The Shia propagandists will argue for hours claiming that Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) denied Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) her inheritance. Unfortunately for the Shia, the Sunni position on Fadak is a “slam-dunk” because of the fact that the Shia’s own Hadith declares that Prophets do not leave inheritance, thereby completely nullifying the Shia position on the matter. As the Shia often do when they lose an argument, they completely change their position in order to assume a position that will allow them to win said argument. In the case of Fadak, the Shia will suddenly claim that Fadak was not given to Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) as an inheritance, but rather as a gift (”hiba”) from the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم).

Every single authoratative narrative, both on the Sunni and Shia side, affirms that Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) approached Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) seeking Fadak as her inheritance. The term “inheritance” is always used, and never “gift.” Even the Shia books accuse Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) of denying Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) her inheritance. This is the primary accusation of the Shia, not of stealing a gift. Indeed, an integral part of the Shia accusation is that Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) fabricated a Hadith in regards to Prophets not leaving behind inheritance. Even a cursory glance of Shia websites shows that the recurring theme is that Fadak was an inheritance denied. The authoratative Shia website, Al-Islam.org, declares:

“Umar was the most harsh person in keeping Fatima (as) from Fadak and her inheritance as he himself confessed.”

(Al-Islam.org, http://www.al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter4/9.html)

If Fadak was bestowed upon Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) as a gift, then why did she claim it as her inheritance and not say anything about a gift? We see narration after narration in which Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) talks to Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) about inheritance; if it was a gift, then why would she mention inheritance at all? And let us dwell on the timing of the issue: it was immediately after the Prophet’s death (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) that Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) came to claim Fadak. If it had been a gift during the lifetime of the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم), then it would have already been in her possession at the time of the Prophet’s death (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) and there would have been no reason to go to Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) for it.

Some Shia propagandists will then claim that the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) gifted Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) Fadak as inheritance that she would assume after his death. Do the Shia not realize that this is accusing the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) of commiting a Haram act? Both the Sunni and Shia jurists do not allow a man to “gift” inheritance upon his death. If this was possible, then a man could simply “gift” all his inheritance to the son, and thereby completely deny inheritance to the daughter. In fact, one could “gift” inheritance to whomever he pleases! The entire Islamic laws of inheritance would become nothing short of a joke. Indeed, once a person dies, the property must be doled out according to the portions ascribed in the Islamic laws of inheritance. (In the case of Prophets, the only portion–according to the Shariah–is to charity.)

Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) never sought Fadak as a gift: in every single narration about this incident, Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) spoke about her inheritance. It was immediately after the Prophet’s death that Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) came to claim Fadak, and if it had been a gift during the lifetime of the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم), then it would have already been in her possession at the time of the Prophet’s death, and there would have been no reason to go to Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) for it. It is impossible that the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) gifted Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) the property as inheritance that she would assume after his death, since this would be a violation of the Quranic rules about inheritance, in which one cannot simply gift things to whomever one wants. Could not then a father gift all of his inheritance to one son to the exclusion of his daughters? Indeed, a little thought into the matter quickly leads us to the conclusion that the Shia argument holds no weight.

The Shia propagandists will then do what they always do: quote strange, obscure, and weak narrations claiming that these are “authoratative Sunni sources.” The truth of the matter is that all of these reports that are so-called “Sunni reports” are of a dubious character and cannot be used to prove that Fadak was a gift. We have seen “Answering-Ansar” and other anti-Sunni sites use reports from someone named “Fudayl ibn Marzooq” and yet we find that he is not a Sunni authority but rather he is considered a liar and a fabricator by the Ahlus Sunnah! And there are even other reports and quotes on Shia websites that are from books that our scholars have never even heard of, and are no doubt outright falsifications.

The Shia propagandists will twist words and events in order to improve their arguments in the debate with the Ahlus Sunnah. Let us even accept the fallacious assertion of the Shia that Fadak was a gift. The Shia still cannot explain why Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) wrongfully said that Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) lied and fabricated Hadith about Prophets not giving inheritance.

(On the other hand, the Ahlus Sunnah holds the view that Fatima [رضّى الله عنها] made a sincere mistake, and nothing more. Neither does the Ahlus Sunnah accept the exaggerated tales of Fatima [رضّى الله عنها] cursing Abu Bakr [رضّى الله عنه] and other such things.)

We have proven that this Hadith (about Prophets not giving inheritance) exists even in the Shia literature and it is considered Sahih. At minimum, the Shia must admit that if the Shia version of history is correct, then Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) was horribly wrong for accusing Abu Bakr of fabricating the Hadith (which is in Al-Kafi).

This completely negates the Shia views on everything, since a central tenet of the Shia doctrine is that Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) was infallible. If she was truly infallible, then why doesn’t she know a Hadith that we have even proved from the Shia Al-Kafi? Thus, if the reader finds himself in a debate with a Shia propagandist who demands that Fadak was a gift, then we urge the reader to place the onus on the Shia: do not see the need to even prove that Fadak was not a gift, but rather repeatedly ask why Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) wrongfully claimed that this Hadith does not exist, even though it appears in Al-Kafi and is considered Sahih even by Ayatollah Khomeini. No matter if Fadak was an inheritance or a gift, one thing that can be proven is that if Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) accused Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) of fabricating Hadith, then she was wrong.

  • Ali (رضّى الله عنه) angered Fatima (رضّى الله عنها)

The Shia will also bring up the following Hadith to condemn Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه), wherein the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) said:

“Fatima is a part of me, and he who makes her angry, makes me angry.”

There is a great irony in the Shia mentioning this Hadith. What they don’t know is the context of this Hadith. Once the Shia is made aware of the context of this Hadith, he is shocked and will then realize that he has shot himself in the foot by bringing up this Hadith. The Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) addressed the above statement (”…he who makes her angry, makes me angry”) to Ali (رضّى الله عنه) who had angered Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) in a very famous incident. This incident is narrated by the esteemed founding father of Shia theology, Ibn Babaveh Al-Qummi, better known as Al-Sadooq. In his book, Al-Sadooq relayed the following narration on the authority of Imam Jafar as-Sadiq. This narration is also available on Al-Shia.com:

Al-Shia.com says

Majlisi “Bihar” 43/201-202
إنه جاء شقي من الاشقياء إلى فاطمة بنت محمد صلى الله عليه واله فقال لها : أما علمت أن عليا قد خطب بنت أبي جهل فقالت : حقاما تقول : فقال : حقا ما أقول – ثلاث مرات – فدخلها من الغيرة ما لا تملك نفسها وذلك أن الله تبارك وتعالى كتب على النساء غيرة وكتب على الرجال جهادا .
وجعل للمحتسبة الصابرة منهن من الاجر ما جعل للمرابط المهاجر في سبيل الله .
قال : فاشتد غم فاطمة عليها السلام من ذلك ، وبقيت متفكرة هي حتى أمست وجاء الليل حملت الحسن على عاتقها الايمن والحسين على عاتقها الايسر وأخذت بيد ام الكثوم اليسرى بيدها اليمنى ثم تحولت إلى حجرة أبيها فجاء علي عليه السلام فدخل في حجرته فلم ير فاطمة عليها السلام فاشتد لذلك غمه وعظم عليه ، ولم يعلم القصة
ماهي فاستحيى أن يدعوها من منزل أبيها فخرج إلى المسجد فصلى فيه ماشاء الله ثم جمع شيئا من كثيب المسجد واتكا عليه .
فلما رأى النبي صلى الله عليه واله ما بفاطمة من الحزن أفاض عليه الماء ثم لبس ثوبه ودخل المسجد ، فلم يزل يصلي بين راكع وساجد وكلما صلى ركعتين دعا الله أن يذهب ما بفاطمة من الحزن والغم وذلك أنه خرج من عندها وهي تتقلب وتتنفس الصعداء فلما رآها النبي صلى الله عليه وآله أنها لا يهنئها النوم ، وليس لها قرار قال لها : قومي يابنية فقامت فحمل النبي صلى الله عليه واله الحسن وحملت فاطمة الحسين وأخذت بيد ام الكثوم فانتهى إلى علي عليه السلام وهو نائم فوضع النبي رجله على رجل علي فغمزه وقال : قم ياأبا تراب ، فكم ساكن أزعجة ، ادع لي أباكبر من داره وعمر من مجلسه وطلحة .
فخرج علي عليه السلام فاستخر جهما من منزلهما ، واجتموا عندرسول الله فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه واله : يا علي أما علمت أن فاطمة بضعة مني وأنا منها ، فمن آذاها فقد آذاني [ ومن آذاني فقد آذي الله ] ( 1 ) ومن آذاها بعد موتى كان كمن آذاها في حياتي ، ومن آذاها في حياتي كان كمن آذاها بعد موتى

source: http://www.al-shia.com/html/ara/books/behar/behar43/a21.html

Translation: It is narrated on the authority of Abu Abdullah Jafar Al-Sadiq: A miserable of the miserables came to Fatima, the daughter of the Messenger of Allah, and said to her: “Did you not know that Ali proposed to marry (Khataba) the daughter of Abu Jahl?” She said: “Is it true what you say? He said three times: “What I say is true.” Jealousy entered into her (heart) to an extent she could not control, for Allah has ordained that women be jealous and that men perform Jihad, and He has made the reward of the patient (woman) similar to that of the Murabit and Muhajir in the way of Allah.

He said: And Fatima’s anguish became severe and she remained thinking about it until night time…she moved to her father’s residence. Ali came to his residence and did not see Fatima and his anguish increased and became great on him, even though he did not know what happened, and he was ashamed to call her from her father’s house so he went to the Masjid and prayed as much as Allah willed, and he collected some of the sand in the Masjid and laid on it.

When the Prophet saw how sad and anguished Fatima was, he poured water over himself and wore his clothes and entered the Masjid. He kept praying, making Rukoo and Sujood, and after every time he completed two Raka he made Du’a that Allah remove what Fatima had of sadness and anguish because he left her turning over and breathing heavily. When the Prophet saw that she could not sleep and could not rest he said: “O daughter, rise!” So she rose and the Prophet carried Al-Hassan and she carried Al-Hussain and took hold of Umm Kulthoom’s hand until they reached Ali (AS) while he was sleeping.

The Prophet put his foot on Ali, pinched him, and said: “Rise Abu Turab! You have disturbed many a resting person. Call for me Abu Bakr from his house and Umar from his Majlis and Talha.” So Ali went and got them from their houses and they gathered around the Messenger of Allah.

The Messenger of Allah then said: “O Ali! Do you not know that Fatima is a piece of me and I am from her. Whoever disturbs her, disturbs me and whoever disturbs me has disturbed Allah, and whoever disturbs her after my death then as if he has disturbed her in my lifetime and whoever disturbed her in my lifetime then as if he has disturbed her after my death.”

(source: Ibn Babveh Al Qummi’s “Elal Al-Sharae’”, pp.185-186, Al-Najaf Print; also narrated in Majlisi “Bihar” 43/201-202)

This story is not only narrated by the Shia founding father Al-Qummi, but it is also narrated by Al-Majlisi in his book Jala Al-Eoyon. There are not many scholars of the Shia considered more authoratative than Al-Qummi and Al-Majlisi, and both narrate this story.

It was actually Ali (رضّى الله عنه) who had angered Fatima (رضّى الله عنها), and consequently, the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) chastised him by saying that whoever angers Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) angers him. According to the Shia narration above, the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) even “put his foot on Ali” and “pinched him.” Not only this, but the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) rounded up some of the Sahabah in order to publically chastise Ali (رضّى الله عنه) on the matter. Hence, if the Shia would like to condemn Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) for angering Fatima (رضّى الله عنها), then what about this incident in which Ali (رضّى الله عنه) does so? In fact, the very statement that the silly Shia use against us is in fact the same statement that was used by the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) as a chastisement of Ali (رضّى الله عنه)!

And this was not the only time that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) angered Fatima (رضّى الله عنها). According to Shia sources, we see several other instances. On one occassion, she was angry with Ali (رضّى الله عنه) because she saw his head in the lap of a slave girl that was given to him as a gift. She even left him for awhile and went to her father’s house, which is something that females do when they are upset with their husbands or they are facing marital problems. This narration is available on the YaZahra.com, a reputable Shia website:

YaZahra.net says

Majlisi “Biharul anwar” 43/147
عن أبي ذر رحمة الله عليه قال : كنت أنا وجعفر بن أبي طالب مهاجرين إلى بلاد الحبشة ( 1 ) فاهديت لجعفر جارية قيمتها أربعة آلاف درهم ، فلما قدمنا المدينة أهداها لعلي عليه السلام تخدمه ، فجعلها علي في منزل فاطمة .
فدخلت فاطمة عليها السلام يوما فنظرت إلى رأس علي عليه السلام في حجر الجارية فقالت : يا أبا الحسن فعلتها ، فقال : لا والله يا بنت محمد ما فعلت شيئا فما الذي تريدين ؟ قالت تأذن لي في المصير إلى منزل أبي رسول الله صلى الله عليه واله فقال لها : قد أذنت لك .
فتجللت بجلالها ، وتبرقعت ببرقعها

source: http://www.yazahra.net/ara/html/4/behar43/a15.html

Translation: Al-Qummi and Al-Majlisi narrated on the authority of Abu Thar: I migrated with Jafar ibn Abi Talib to Abyssynia. A slave girl worth 4,000 dirhams was given to Jafar as a gift. When we came to Medinah he gave it to Ali as a gift that she may serve him. Ali kept her in Fatima’s house. One day Fatima entered and saw that his head was in the girl’s lap. She said: “O Abu Al-Hasan! Have you done it!?” He said: “O daughter of Muhammad! I have done nothing, so what is it that you want?” She said: “Do you allow me to go to my father’s house?” He said: “I will allow you.” So she wore her Jilbab and went to the Prophet.

(source: Ibn Babaveh Al-Qummi’s “Elal Al-Sharae’”, p.163; it is also narrated in Bihar Al-Anwar, pp.43-44, Chapter on “How her life with Ali was”)

Yasoob.com is another well-known Shia website, and it too has these narrations in which Fatima is angered by Ali.

Yasoob.com says

Shaikh Saduk “Elal esh sharae” p 185-186
انه جاء شقي من الاشقياء إلى فاطمة بنت رسول الله (ص) فقال لها: أما علمت ان عليا قد خطب بنت أبى جهل فقالت: حقاما تقول؟ فقال: حقا ما أقول ثلاث مرات فدخلها من الغيرة مالاتملك نفسها وذلك ان الله تبارك وتعالى كتب على النساء غيرة وكتب على الرجال جهادا وجعل للمحتسبة الصابرة منهن من الاجر ما جعل للمرابط المهاجر في سبيل الله، قال: فاشتد غم فاطمة من ذلك وبقيت متفكرة هي حتى أمست وجاء الليل حملت الحسن على عاتقها الايمن والحسين على عاتقها الايسر وأخذت بيد أم كلثوم اليسرى بيدها اليمنى ثم تحولت إلى حجرة أبيها فجاء علي فدخل حجرته فلم ير فاطمة فاشتد لذلك غمه وعظم عليه ولم يعلم القصة ماهي فاستحى ان يدعوها من منزل أبيها فخرج إلى المسجد يصلي فيه ما شاء الله ثم جمع شيئا من كثيب المسجد واتكى عليه، فلما رأى النبي صلى الله عليه وآله ما بفاطمة من الحزن أفاض عليها من الماء ثم لبس ثوبه ودخل المسجد فلم يزل يصلي بين راكع وساجد وكلما صلى ركعتين دعاالله ان يذهب ما بفاطمة من الحزن والغم وذلك انه خرج من عندها وهى تتقلب وتتنفس الصعداء فلما رآها النبي صلى الله عليه وآله انها لا
يهنيها النوم وليس لها قرار قال لها قومي يا بنية فقامت فحمل النبي صلى الله عليه وآله الحسن وحملت فاطمة الحسين واخذت بيد أم كلثوم فانتهى إلى علي ” ع ” وهو نايم فوضع النبي صلى الله عليه وآله رجله على رجل علي فغمزه وقال قم يا أبا تراب فكم ساكن ازعجته ادع لي أبا بكر من داره وعمر من مجلسه وطلحة فخرج علي فاستخرجهما من منزلهما واجتمعوا عند رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله يا علي أما علمت ان فاطمة بضعة منى وانا منها فمن آذاها فقد آذانى من آذانى فقد آذى الله ومن آذاها بعد موتى كان كمن آذاها في حياتي ومن آذاها في حياتي كان كمن آذاها بعد موتى،

source: http://www.yasoob.com/books/htm1/m012/09/no0995.html

Yasoob.com says

Shayh Saduk “Ilal esh sharai”
عن ابى ذر رحمه الله عليه قال: كنت أنا وجعفر بن ابى طالب مهاجرين إلى بلاد الحبشة فاهديت لجعفر جارية قيمتها أربعة آلاف درهم فلما قدمنا المدينة اهداها لعلي ” ع ” تخدمه فجعلها علي ” ع ” في منزل فاطمة فدخلت فاطمة عليها السلام يوما فنظرت إلى رأس علي عليه السلام في حجر الجارية فقالت يا ابا الحسن فعلتها فقال لا والله يا بنت محمد ما فعلت شيئا فما الذي تريدين؟ قالت تأذن لي في المصير إلى منزل ابى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله فقال لها قد أذنت لك فتجلببت بجلبابها

source: http://www.yasoob.com/books/htm1/m012/09/no0995.html

The Shia say that Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) was angry at Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) in the incident of Fadak, but what about their own narrations that say that she was also angry at Ali (رضّى الله عنه) at the same time? We read the following, as narrated by Al-Majlisi’s Haqq-ul-Yaqeen as well as in Al-Tusi’s Amali:

“When Fatima asked for Fadak from Abu Bakr and he refused to give it to her, she returned full of anger that could not be described and she was sick; and she was angry with Ali because he refused to help her.” (Al-Majlisi’s Haqq-ul-Yaqeen, pp.203-204; also recorded in Al-Tusi’s Amali, p.295)

Thus, based on the simple fact that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) made Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) angry on more than one occassion, we arrive at the following conclusions:

1) The Prophet’s saying “whoever disturbs her, disturbs me” is addressed to Ali (رضّى الله عنه) but the Shia use it only for Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه); if this statement involved punishment from Allah then it would certainly befall Ali (رضّى الله عنه) before Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه).

2) There are other incidents (narrated by the well-reknowned Al-Majlisi, Al-Tusi, Al-Erbali, and others) that occurred in which Ali (رضّى الله عنه) angered Fatima (رضّى الله عنها). What is the Shia response to this anger? Whatever response they use to defend Ali (رضّى الله عنه), then we could use the same response to defend Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه).

  • No obedience In transgression

When the Shia try to condemn Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) by bringing up the Prophet’s words (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) about making Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) angry, we ask these mindless Shia to think of similar Hadith and Quranic exhortations about not making one’s parents angry. The Prophet has said that if a person makes his parents angry, then this will anger Allah. We are told that if we disobey or anger our parents, we disobey and anger Allah. However, what if a parent asks his daughter not to wear the Hijab, and what if he gets angry if she does wear it? Would it then be sinful for the girl to continue wearing Hijab? Of course not! The Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) said:

“There is no obedience in transgression. Verily, obedience is in good deeds [only].” (Sahih Bukhari, Muslim)

We cannot obey another human being above Allah and His Messenger. So how could Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) place the words of Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) above that of the Messenger of Allah (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) who clearly said that Prophets do not leave behind inheritance?

  • Fatima’s anger (رضّى الله عنها) in context

It should be noted that Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) is not God. Her anger does not decide who will go to Paradise and who will not. Not even the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) is God; nor will his anger decide who will go to Paradise and who will not. If the Shia ask us proof of this claim, then we give them the example of Washu who killed the Prophet’s uncle, Hamza (رضّى الله عنه). Washu would later convert to Islam and repent for his crimes; even still, the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) could not help but feel anger when he saw the face of the man who killed his uncle. However, this was only the personal feeling of the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم). It does not mean that Washu would be condemned to Hell-Fire for crimes that he committed prior to his conversion to Islam.

In any case, Fatima’s anger (رضّى الله عنها) is not the factor which decides who goes to Paradise and who burns in Hell-Fire. If Fatima’s anger (رضّى الله عنها) is based on something which is wrong from a Shariah standpoint [i.e. Fadak], then how can this be the reason for Abu Bakr’s condemnation (رضّى الله عنه)? Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) was angry at Ali (رضّى الله عنه) on at least one occassion: Ali (رضّى الله عنه) greatly upset Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) on many occassions, and even there were incidents in which she was so angry that she left Ali’s house (رضّى الله عنه) and went to stay with her father. Do we condemn Ali (رضّى الله عنه) as a Kaffir now?

The truth of the matter is that people–even loved ones–get in arguments. We have yet to see a husband who does not get in arguments with his wife. Siblings fight all the time, and parents get angry at their children. We even have the example of Prophet Musa (عليه السلام) who lost patience with Khidr (عليه السلام), and yet we find that these are amongst the best of people as mentioned in the Quran (and “infallible” according to the Shia). Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) and Umar (رضّى الله عنه) got in arguments, and yet we know that they were best of friends. Likewise, we believe that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) got in arguments with Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) and Umar (رضّى الله عنه). And the Ahlus Sunnah has no issue with this, so why do the Shia suddenly think we would cower at the site of anyone getting in one argument with Fatima (رضّى الله عنها)?

The Shia exploit the Hadith about whoever makes Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) angry makes the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) angry. The Shia believe that the same is true of Ali (رضّى الله عنه), that whoever makes him angry also makes the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) angry. Likewise, the Ahlus Sunnah believes that whoever upsets the Sahabah makes the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) angry. Thus, the Hadith about angering Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) must be taken into the appropriate context and cannot be taken in such simplistic and stark terms.

Furthermore, Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) was the Caliph of the Ummah; this is the highest rank possible, and all the subjects must obey him. As such, he deserved the respect and obedience of his subjects, of which includes Fatima (رضّى الله عنها). As such, if the Shia want to argue that Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) should have been careful about angering Fatima (رضّى الله عنها), an unbiased observer could easily argue that it was Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) who should have been careful of angering the Caliph of the Muslims who by the Shariah was at a rank higher in status than anyone else. If the Shia want to argue that Fatima’s position (رضّى الله عنها) is higher due to the fact that she is leader of the women of Paradise, then we can also say that Aisha’s position (رضّى الله عنها) is higher than that of Ali’s (رضّى الله عنه) based on the fact that she is “Mother of the Believers” as mentioned in the Quran.

Of course, the Ahlus Sunnah does not judge the Companions and relatives of the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم), unlike the Shia slanderers. Hence, we do not criticize Fatima (رضّى الله عنها); we think she made a sincere mistake, and nothing more. The Shia propagandists will now resort to rhetoric and emotional arguments whereby they will ask if it is possible that the daughter of the Prophet–who was raised by him–could possibly not know a Hadith or make such a grievous mistake. By this same logic, one could defend all of the actions of Aisha (رضّى الله عنها), for she was the wife of the Prophet who was married to him at the tender age of six. So if the Shia ask why we say Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) made a mistake, we ask the Shia why they say Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) made mistakes (and even worse according to the Shia).

The reality is that any human being–even the greatest of Muslims–is capable of making mistakes. We reject the concept of infallibility; it is a form of exaggeration and an extension of Shirk, whereby the quality of Allah (i.e. perfection) is given to humans. Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) did not know of the Prophet’s Hadith which forbade inheritance from him. Thus, her demand for Fadak was not based out of sin, but rather out of a sincere mistake; mistakes are made by everyone, even the most pious individuals.

  • Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) reconciled with Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه)

In any case, it was only initially that Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) was angry at Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه). The Shia endeavour to capitalize on her feelings to convey the idea that because she was wronged, she had directed that Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) should not attend her Janaazah and that she remained angry with him until her demise. We do not agree with this narrative, and we believe that Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) eventually became pleased with Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه).

Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) was not motivated by ill-feeling or malice for Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) in the dispute regarding inheritance. In fact, placating her, Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) frequently said:

“By Allah! Oh daughter of Rasool-Allah! Kindness to the relatives of Rasool-Allah is more beloved to me than my kindness with my own relatives.”

According to both Sunni and Shia narrations, Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) was greatly saddened by Fatima’s displeasure (رضّى الله عنها). He went to great lengths to please her while remaining firm on the Shariah. He went to her home, stood at her door in the midday sun and asked Ali (رضّى الله عنه) to be his intercessor in his sincere attempt to placate and please Fatima (رضّى الله عنها). Ultimately, she became pleased with him and accepted his decision. These narrations appear in Madaarijun Nubuwwah, Kitaabul Wafaa, Baihaqi and in the commentaries of Mishkaat.

Kitaabul Muwaafiqah narrates that Anaani said:

“Abu Bakr came to the door of Fatima in the midday sun and said: ‘I shall not leave from here as long as the daughter of Rasool-Allah remains displeased with me. Ali came to Fatima and giving her an oath urged her to become pleased. Then she became pleased (with Abu Bakr).”

Shia records also confirm that Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) became pleased with Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه). The Shia author of Hujjaajus Saalikeen states:

“Verily, when Abu Bakr saw that Fatima was annoyed with him, shunned him and did not speak to him after this on the issue of Fadak, he was much aggrieved on account of this. He resolved to please her. He went to her and said: ‘Oh daughter of Rasool-Allah! You have spoken the truth in what you have claimed, but I saw Rasool-Allah distributing it (i.e. the income of Fadak). He would give it to the Fuqaraa, Masaakeen and wayfarers after he gave your expenses and expenses of the workers.’ She then said: ‘Do with it as my father, Rasool-Allah had done.’ Abu Bakr said: ‘I take an oath by Allah for you! It is incumbent on me to do with it what your father used do with it.’ Fatima said: ‘ By Allah! You should most certainly do so.’ Abu Bakr said: ‘ By Allah! I shall most certainly do so.’ Fatima said: ‘O Allah! Be witness.’ Thus, she became pleased with this and she took a pledge from Abu Bakr. Abu Bakr would give them (Fatima and others of the Ahlel Bayt) expenses therefrom and distribute the balance to the Fuqaraa, Masaakeen and wayfarers.”

In the very reliable narration of Sunan Al-Bayhaqi, we read:

“When Fatima became ill, Abu Bakr came to her and asked for permission to enter. So Ali said, ‘O Fatima, this is Abu Bakr asking for permission to enter.’ She answerd, ‘Do you want me to give him permission?’ He said, ‘Yes.’ So she allowed him (to enter), and he came in seeking her pleasure, so he told her: ‘By Allah, I only left my home and property and my family seeking the pleasure of Allah and His Messenger and you, O Ahlel Bayt.’ So he talked to her until she was pleased with him.” (Sunan Al-Bayhaqi)

This Hadith is narrated by Bayhaqi in al Sunan al Kubra (6:300-301) and Dala’il al-Nubuwwa (7:273-281) who said: “It is narrated with a good (hasan) chain.” Muhibb al Din al-Tabari cited it in al Riyad Al Nadira (2:96-97 #534) and Dhahabi in the Siyar (Ibid). Ibn Kathir states it as Sahih in his Al Bidayah and Ibn Hajar in his Fath Al Bari.

How do we reconcile this Hadith with the Hadith narrated in Sahih Bukhari? This is a commonly used Hadith by the Shia propagandist:

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 54, Number 325:
Narrated by Aisha:

After the death of Allah’s Apostle, Fatima–the daughter of Allah’s Apostle–asked Abu Bakr As-Siddiq to give to her what was her share of inheritance from what Allah’s Apostle had left of the Fai (i.e. booty gained without fighting) which Allah had given him. Abu Bakr said to her, “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘Our property will not be inherited; whatever we (i.e. prophets) leave is Sadaqah (to be used for charity).” Fatima, the daughter of Allah’s Apostle got angry and stopped speaking to Abu Bakr, and continued assuming that attitude until she died. Fatima remained alive for six months after the death of Allah’s Apostle.”

Both this Hadith and the Hadith stated earlier in Bayhaqi have been deemed to be authentic narrations by the Hadith scholars. Therefore, how do we reconcile the two? The explanation is simple: Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) may not have known that Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) had reconciled with Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه). Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) was not present at that moment, so she was unaware of it. This does not mean that the event did not take place. Furthermore–and this point cannot be stressed enough–the Hadith narrated by Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) really means that Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) did not speak to Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) again about the issue of Fadak, not necessarily that she did not speak to him again at all.

Even though Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) was in the right, he nonetheless had the nobility and chivalry to continue trying to please Fatima (رضّى الله عنها), despite the fact that she was in the wrong. The Shia propagandist will oftentimes show narrations that show that Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) regretted his causing Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) to be angry. We find nothing wrong in this, and we give the Shia the example of Ali (رضّى الله عنه) who sought the good pleasure of Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) after the Battle of the Camel. In both situations, Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) and Ali (رضّى الله عنه) were in the right, but they went to seek the good pleasure of the women, both of whom were close to the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم).

Regarding the claim that Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) was averse to Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) attending her burial, this is also baseless. She was buried secretly during the night by Ali (رضّى الله عنه) in accordance with her wish. She was a lady of extreme modesty and shame. She dreaded any ghair-mahram viewing her body even after death. According to authentic narrations she said during her last illness that she felt ashamed that her body be washed after death among ghair-mahrams without Purdah. In response, Asma Bint Amees (رضّى الله عنها) explained that she had seen one woman’s body in Abyssinia whose corpse was concealed with date-branches. Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) requested her to prepare such a purdah in her presence. This she did.

When Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) saw the purdah, she became delighted and smiled. This was the first occasion she had smiled since the demise of the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم). She instructed Asma (رضّى الله عنها) to give her body ghusl after death and besides Ali (رضّى الله عنه) no one else should be present. This was the reason for the secrecy surrounding her burial. It should also be noted that Asma (رضّى الله عنها) was the wife of Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه), which serves as another evidence that Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) resolved her issue with Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) before her death.

(In any case, it is a blessing of Allah that we do not know the site of Fatima’s grave [رضّ الله عنها]. Had we known, the polythiestic Shia would definitely go to her grave and do Shirk like they always do! Allah saved her from this horrible fate, of being worshipped, especially by ghair-mahram men.)

Furthermore, although Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) did not attend the burial of Fatima (رضّى الله عنها), Ali (رضّى الله عنه) asked Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه)–on the basis that he was Caliph–to conduct the Janaazah prayer. Consequently, Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) performed the Janaazah prayer. It is stated in the book Fasl ul-Hitab:

“Upon Hadhrat Ali’s request, Hadhrat Abu Bakr became the imam and conducted the namaz (of Janaazah) for her with four takbirs.”

Thus, it cannot be said that Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) had said that Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) should not lead the Janaazah, since Ali (رضّى الله عنه) is the one who asked Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) to do it in the first place!

  • Three more refutations

The Shia will never agree with us that Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) became pleased with Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه), and they will adamantly claim that Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) was angry with Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) for the rest of her life. They will quote Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) who said that Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) remained angry with Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه). Our response is three-fold.

Firstly:

If Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) remained angry until her death, this does not look bad for Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه), but rather it looks bad for Fatima (رضّى الله عنها). She was clearly in the wrong, and we have cited evidence for this from the Shia’s own Al-Kafi, which clearly stated that Prophets do not leave inheritance. Thus, Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) made an error, and if she never forgave Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه), then she is angry at a man wrongfully. And not just any man–but the Caliph of the Ummah. This makes Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) look whimsical. The Sahabah–including Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه)–used to give half of their wealth, and even more than that, in charity. An unbiased observor could say that if Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) remained adamant in her anger over Fadak being given as charity, then this only makes her look greedy. She should be willing to give this property as charity for the benefit of the emerging Muslim state.

It is for this reason that the Ahlus Sunnah makes excuses for Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) and gives her the benefit of the doubt, citing narrations that show that she indeed did become happy with Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) near the end of her life. Perhaps it was that Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) did not know that Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) became happy with Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) because he did not inform Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) about each and everything (such as when he placated Fatima). We take this opinion since it makes Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) look better, and not to make her look whimsical and greedy like the Shia narrative does. Furthermore, there are many narrations that indicate that this is indeed the case that Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) made good with Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه), so why should we ignore these?

Secondly:

The Shia keep saying that Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) carried a grudge “her whole life,” as if that was a very long time and thus somehow indicative of Abu Bakr’s grave mistake (رضّى الله عنه). Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) only lived six months after the Prophet’s death! So even if Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) made Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) angry, her anger couldn’t have lasted more than a few months. This is not such a big deal, nor is it a long time. Perhaps she died so suddenly, within the span of a few months, that she did not get a chance to cool down; had she lived longer, then she would no doubt have let her anger subside. Who does not get into arguments with their siblings or other family members? Surely, a brother getting in an argument with a sister for a few months is not unheard of. But obviously the Shia are super human beings and they do not ever get into arguments with family members.

Thirdly:

It should be kept in mind that after the Prophet’s death, Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) was a highly emotional and distraught individual, since she loved the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) so much and missed him. Even the Shia say that Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) was never happy for the rest of her life after the death of the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم); the Shia have exaggerated stories about how even Angel Jibraeel (عليه السلام) would comfort Fatima (رضّى الله عنها). So obviously, Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) was in a bad mood, and we cannot lay the entire blame on the shoulders of Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه); indeed, if the Shia want to lay the blame on someone, then lay it on Allah for taking away Fatima’s father. Her melancholy can be attributed to that, and we are not surprised then that she was extra sensitive towards others including the Caliph, who in her eyes, was replacing her father’s position as leader of the Muslims.

However, the most reliable position is that Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) reconciled with Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه). It should be noted that the Shia will oftentimes cite obscure sources and claim that they are “authoratative Sunni sources” or from so-called “reknowned Sunni historians”; nobody can verify these truly strange reports, and thus, we reject them as a basis for discussion on the matter of Fadak. Instead, we rely on the reliable reports which indicate that Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) died happy with Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه).

  • A Similar Hadith for the Sahabah

The Prophet said:

“Allah, Allah! Fear Him with regard to my Sahabah! Do not make them targets after me! Whoever loves them loves them with his love for me; and whoever hates them hates them with his hatred for me. Whoever bears enmity for them, bears enmity for me; and whoever bears enmity for me, bears enmity for Allah. Whoever bears enmity for Allah is about to perish!”

(Narrated from Abdallah ibn Mughaffal by Al-Tirmidhi by Ahmad with three good chains in his Musnad, al-Bukhari in his Tarikh, al-Bayhaqi in Shu`ab al-Iman, and others. Al-Suyuti declared it hasan in his Jami` al-Saghir #1442).

Therefore, if the Shia would insist that Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) is to be criticized for angering Fatima (رضّى الله عنها), then based on this same logic, shouldn’t Fatima be criticized for her angering a Sahabi? Did not the Prophet say “whoever bears enmity for them, bears enmity with me”? Of course, the Ahlus Sunnah does interpret it in this way, but we are simply showing the flaw in the Shia logic. The Prophet praised many people, not only Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) and Ali (رضّى الله عنه) but also other Sahabah; the problem lies in the fact that the Shia stubbornly accept only those narrations in regards to certain people but reject similar Hadith in regards to others. It is only through this skewed interpretation and selective pick-and-choose mentality that the Shia are able to construct an imaginary paradigm pitting one friend of Allah against another.

In another similar Hadith, the Prophet said:

“Whoever loves Umar loves me. Whoever hates Umar hates me.” (At-Tabarani)

Therefore, we see that the Prophet said such words to many people he loved and the honor was not unique to Fatima (رضّى الله عنها). If the Shia propagandists would like to narrowly apply such a Hadith with regards to Fatima (رضّى الله عنها), then their entire paradigm falls apart if they consistently apply similar Hadith directed towards others loved by the Prophet. Indeed, what we see is that the approach of the Shia is overly simplistic and sophomoric. The Prophet’s statement was a general one, meaning simply that we should love the Sahabah, his Ahlel Bayt, etc, and not hate them. If I were to say that you should love your sister or your brother, this is speaking in general terms; no doubt, it is only inevitable–as is the nature of human–to get in a couple arguments or even fights now and then. The Prophet was merely emphacizing his love for these people and urging the people to love them in turn. If one were to criticize Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) and Umar (رضّى الله عنه) for angering Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) over Fadak, then one could easily reply that Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) hated Umar (رضّى الله عنه) over Fadak and the Prophet warned against hating Umar (رضّى الله عنه). Of course, the Ahlus Sunnah does not apply the Hadith in the same myopic way as the Shia does, but we are simply showing how strange the Shia logic seems when applied consistently.

The Prophet also said:

“The Ansar! None loves them except a believer, and none hates them except a hypocrite. Whoever loves them, Allah loves him; and whoever hates them, Allah hates him.”

Once again, this is a general statement only; it cannot be interpreted to mean that no human being on earth can get in a disagreement or fight with any one of the Ansar. Instead, what is meant by the Hadith is that the Prophet has a close affinity and love for the Ansar, and that we should also share this, in general terms. The same is the case with the Hadith in regards to Fatima’s anger. It is something to be taken in general terms and it cannot be applied in the way that the Shia does in order to malign the First Caliph.