Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
hesham102001

Who Is Truthful ?umar & Abu Bakr Or Janabe Fatima

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Ugly gin why you want to tell ugly lies. Have you not read your sahih hadith that Imam Ali (as) called Abu Bakr and Umar thieves, liars, and more ugly words for robbing Fadak you just need to read your sahih books.

Didn't Hazrath Abbas ra also say same thing to Ali ra too? From the same SAHIH Hadith?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question is pretty much a valid one. When did Imam Ali (as) agree with him? He was a witness to the fact that Fadak belonged to Bibi Fatema (s).

 

AbuBakr quoted words which no one except him had heard and more importantly words which directly contradict the verses of Holy Quran. Can you bring a verse which agrees with those words you are talking about?

 

So Abubakr fabricated that narration?

Such injustice, suffering, emotional trauma, insult, embarrassment, etc. <fill in anything else you can think>.

 

And the Lion of Allah didn't do anything about this happening to his wife - the only daughter of the Prophet?

 

Let me guess, the lion was helpless, taqiyah, didn't do anything for unity sake, forced to stay quiet, etc? Please tell me why Imam Ali didn't do anything, and you can google to splash irrelevant hadiths from odd sources, we can dissect them using common sense. 

 

(salam)

Brother the same people who 'stole Fadak' gave other lands to Ali.  (ra) :)

Edited by Abul Hussain Hassani

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.)

Fadak was part of Fay'ie , a land that was taken from the enemies after a war. The land thus is part of khums that is in the hand of prophet Muhamad , he gave it to Fatimah.

When prophet died, the authority transferred to Abu bakr including the authority over the Muslims treasury, Abu bakr rejected syeda Fatimah claim that the land was given to her by the prophet, he asked for witnesses, she brought her husband with others, Abu bakr rejected their testimonies as well.

Then Syda Fatimah said that the land is a possisions of the prophet then so I demand my share, Abu bakr made up the sole Hadith that prophet do not leave inheritance .

Basically the case is the words of syeda Fatimah vs the words of Abu bakr

It is nice to point out that Umm almo'minin aysha demanded her share from the prophet inheritance laters .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fadak was part of Fay'ie , a land that was taken from the enemies after a war. The land thus is part of khums that is in the hand of prophet Muhamad , he gave it to Fatimah.

When prophet died, the authority transferred to Abu bakr including the authority over the Muslims treasury, Abu bakr rejected syeda Fatimah claim that the land was given to her by the prophet, he asked for witnesses, she brought her husband with others, Abu bakr rejected their testimonies as well.

Then Syda Fatimah said that the land is a possisions of the prophet then so I demand my share, Abu bakr made up the sole Hadith that prophet do not leave inheritance .

Basically the case is the words of syeda Fatimah vs the words of Abu bakr

It is nice to point out that Umm almo'minin aysha demanded her share from the prophet inheritance laters .

 

(salam)

 

That is false. Fadak was never given to Fatima (ra) during the lifetime of the Prophet (saw). And this story of witnesses is made up and false. 

 

Abubakr made up the Hadith? That is false because the same narration, authenticated by Shia scholars, is also present in al-Kafi.

Edited by Abul Hussain Hassani

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Such injustice, suffering, emotional trauma, insult, embarrassment, etc. <fill in anything else you can think>.

 

And the Lion of Allah didn't do anything about this happening to his wife - the only daughter of the Prophet?

 

Let me guess, the lion was helpless, taqiyah, didn't do anything for unity sake, forced to stay quiet, etc? Please tell me why Imam Ali didn't do anything, and you can google to splash irrelevant hadiths from odd sources, we can dissect them using common sense. 

 

“Umar asked for fire and set the door on fire. He then pushed the door and went in. Fatima (as) confronted Umar and shouted: ‘Ya Abata! Ya RasulAllah! (Oh father! Oh messenger of Allah!).’ Umar raised his sword while it was in its sheath and hit Fatima (as) on her side. She cried: ‘Ya Aabta! (Oh father).’ Umar raised his whip and hit Fatima’s (as) arm with it. She (as) wailed: ‘Ya RasulAllah! (Oh messenger of Allah!) How evil are Abu-Bakr and Umar (acting) after you have left!’

Ali (as) jumped up and grabbed Umar by the collar while pulling him by force. He then threw him on the floor and hit him on the nose and neck, wanting to kill him. However, He (as) remembered the order of the messenger of Allah (s) and his will and said: ‘O son of Sahhak! I swear by the one who gave Muhammad (s) high stature by assigning him as a Prophet, if it was not because of what Allah had destined, and the covenant between the Prophet (s) and me, you would have known that you couldn’t enter my house!’” (Sulaim b. Qays, The book of Sulaim, p.568)

 

 

“Umar got angry and set fire to the door of Ali’s (as) House and entered. Fatima (as) confronted Umar and cried: ‘Ya Aabta! Ya RasulAllah! (Oh father, Oh Messenger of Allah).’ Umar raised his sword while it was in its sheath and hit Fatima (as) on her blessed side and then raised his whip and struck her arm. She cried again: ‘Ya Abta!’ (By seeing this) Ali (as) grabbed Umar by his collar and forcefully threw him to the floor then hit him on the nose and neck.”

(Al-Aloosi, Tafsir Rooh al-Ma’ani, vol. 3, p.124)

 

Sayyid al-Radi (the author of Nahj al-Balagha) narrates in his book Khasa’is al-A’imma from Imam al-Kazim (as), that he asked his father Imam al-Sadiq (as): “What happened after the Prophet (s) gained consciousness?” Imam al-Sadiq (as) had answered:

“The women entered while crying and wailing. The Muhajirin and Ansar gathered behind the door and screamed with grief. Suddenly the Prophet (s) asked: ‘Where is Ali?’ Ali (as) came forward and entered. Ali (as) said: ‘I entered and hugged the Prophet (s).’ He said to me: ‘My Brother… these people will leave me and they will be busy with their affairs. The example of you is like the Ka’ba which Allah has made a sign so that people would come to it from deep valleys and faraway places, but the Ka’ba does not go to those places. I swear by Him who has sent me (as a Prophet), I warned them of great punishments after I informed each one of those men about your rights and I committed them to obey you and they all answered (positively)

and submitted to you, but I definitely know they will act the opposite of what they have pledged. Once I leave this world and you have acted upon my will and placed my body in the grave, stay in your House until you compile the Holy Quran... Have patience regarding what will befall on you and her (Fatima) (as) until you meet me.’”

Al-Radi, Khasa’is al-A’imma, p. 73

Al-Majlesi, Bihar al-Anwar, vol. 22, p. 474

 

Sulaim b. Qays also narrates:

“The Prophet (s) then looked at Fatima (as), her husband and her two sons and said: ‘O Salman! I hold Allah as witness that I am at war with those who are at war with them, and have peace with those who are at peace with them. They will be in heaven with me.’ Then the Prophet (s) turned towards Ali (as) and said: ‘O Ali! Soon after me you will be troubled by the Quraish and their unity and tyranny against you. If you find supporters, then rise in jihad against them and with your followers fight with those who oppose you. If you do not find supporters, then pause and be patient. Do not destroy yourself by your own hands. Your position with respect to me is like that of Aaron (Harun) to Moses (Musa). Aaron (Harun) is a good example for you. He said to his brother Moses: ‘The people considered me weak and nearly killed me (Quran 7:150).’”

Sulaim b. Qays, The book of Sulaim, p.569

 

Regarding this matter Imam Ali (as) says himself:

“Then I began to wonder whether I should rise against them without supporters or endure the blinding darkness in which the grownups become weak and the young become old and the true believer is tormented till he meets Allah (on his death). I found that enduring these was wiser. So I adopted patience although I felt as if ‘there was dirt in the eye and suffocation in the throat’*. I watched my inheritance being looted...”

*Used to show extreme hardship or torment

Sayyid al-Radi, Nahj al-Balagha, Sermon No. 3

 

 

Why didn’t the Prophet (s) defend Summaya and the other Women of Islam?

The way Imam Ali (as) reacted was exactly like how the Prophet had reacted in the beginnings of Islam when Muslims were weak and had no means of defending themselves.

Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani writes:

“Summaya the daughter of Khabbat was the Mother of Ammar b. Yasir. She was the seventh person who accepted Islam. Abu-Jahl tortured her and

repeatedly stabbed her below her abdomen until she was martyred. She was the first martyr lady of Islam… The tribe of Bani-Mughayra tortured her because she had become Muslim and was not willing to give it up. The Messenger of Allah would pass by Ammar, his mother and his father (Yasir) while they were being tortured in a place near Mecca and would say to them: ‘O family of Yasir! Be patient for our meeting place is Paradise.’”

Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, Al-Isaaba Fi Tamyeez Al-Sahaba, vol. 7, p. 712

 

Why didn’t the Prophet (s) interfere and show any reaction when Umar b. Khattab would torture the women of Islam and would beat them up for accepting Islam? Why didn’t he stop him because of these actions:

Ibn Hisham in Sirat al-Nabawiyya writes:

“Abu-Bakr came across a Muslim slave girl who belonged to Bani-Muammil who were (people) from the tribe of Uday b. Ka’b. Umar was beating her so that she would renounce Islam and it was in those days that Umar was still a polytheist (mushrik). He beat her up until he became tired! and said: ‘I have an excuse for not beating you, it is because I am tired!!!’ The slave said in return: ‘May Allah treat you the same way.’”

Al-Humayri, al-Seerat al-Nabawiyya, vol. 2, p. 161

Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Fada’il al-Sahaba, vol. 1, p. 120

Al-Kala’i, al-Iktifa Bima Tadammunahu Min Maghazi Rasool Allah Wal Thalathat al-Khulafa’, vol. 1, p. 238

Al-Ansari al-Tilmisani, al-Juwhara Fi Nasab al-Nabi Wa As’habihi al-Ashara, vol. 1, p. 244

Al-Tabari, Ahmad, al-Riyad al-Nadira Fi Manaqib al-Ashara, vol. 2, p. 24

Al-Nuwayri, Nihayat al-Arb Fi Funoon al-Adab, vol. 16, p. 162

 

Arabic+References are provided in the article:

 

http://www.valiasr-aj.com/fa/page.php?bank=question&id=6015

 

For English:

http://valiasr-aj-english.weebly.com/qa.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

That is false. Fadak was never given to Fatima (ra) during the lifetime of the Prophet (saw). And this story of witnesses is made up and false.

Abubakr made up the Hadith? That is false because the same narration, authenticated by Shia scholars, is also present in al-Kafi.

I think there is s Hadith or 2 in your books that narrate that when the 26th verse of the Israa chapter was revealed, prophet gave Fadak to Fatimsh , the narrator of the Hadith is Abu said alkhudri.

The Hadith in Alkafi dose not say that prophets do not leave inheritance behind them at all, the Shia Hadith say that the prophets leave inheritance that is not in money form but in the form of knowledge , prophetic knowledge , which qualifies Syda Fatimah to be the successor of the prophet on the khums money.

The wordings of Abu bakr Hadith contradicts the clear quranic verses that spoke about Solomon and David , Zakaria and Yahia etc.

Else, what do you think was the issue between Syda Fatimah and Abu Bakr?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salaam alaykum to my dear brothers,

Been a while since I was here last.  I got busy with things and then ShiaChat went down. 

 

As far as this historical fact is concerned, let us not forget that Imam Ali [ra] never reclaimed Fadak for Hassanain [ra].  In fact, Imam Ali [ra] said, "I am ashamed before Allah to overturn something that was prohibited by Abu Bakr and continued by Umar".  (al-Murtada, ash-Shafi fil-Imamah, p. 231 and Ibn Abil Hadid, Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, vol. 4) 

 

In other narrations, from our Shia brothers, I have read that Fatima [ra] was upset with Imam Ali [ra] over this matter.

 

Nevertheless, the bigger question we need to ask is how much does this issue - irrespective of which way you cut it - affect our aqeedah and a'amal?  If such arguments are done just for the sake of argument, then you are not following Rasulullah [saw].  Sure, we must respond to falsehood but this discussion, along with many others, just cannot be put to rest.

 

So, how has the matter of Fadak, knowing that Imam Ali [ra] never claimed it for his children nor reclaimed it (if it was given as gift to his wife), made us better in our aqeedah and a'amal?  How has it strengthened, or weakened, our aqeedah when it has turned Muslims against those who were the closest of the Companions [ra] of Rasulullah [saw]? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salaam alaykum to my dear brothers,

Been a while since I was here last. I got busy with things and then ShiaChat went down.

As far as this historical fact is concerned, let us not forget that Imam Ali [ra] never reclaimed Fadak for Hassanain [ra]. In fact, Imam Ali [ra] said, "I am ashamed before Allah to overturn something that was prohibited by Abu Bakr and continued by Umar". (al-Murtada, ash-Shafi fil-Imamah, p. 231 and Ibn Abil Hadid, Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, vol. 4)

In other narrations, from our Shia brothers, I have read that Fatima [ra] was upset with Imam Ali [ra] over this matter.

Nevertheless, the bigger question we need to ask is how much does this issue - irrespective of which way you cut it - affect our aqeedah and a'amal? If such arguments are done just for the sake of argument, then you are not following Rasulullah [saw]. Sure, we must respond to falsehood but this discussion, along with many others, just cannot be put to rest.

So, how has the matter of Fadak, knowing that Imam Ali [ra] never claimed it for his children nor reclaimed it (if it was given as gift to his wife), made us better in our aqeedah and a'amal? How has it strengthened, or weakened, our aqeedah when it has turned Muslims against those who were the closest of the Companions [ra] of Rasulullah [saw]?

What sort of history books do you read?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What sort of history books do you read?

 

The sort of history books you cannot account for because you proudly display the following verse (which was delivered to the Prophet [saw] for him to say), "Say: 'If you love God, follow me, and God will love you, and forgive you your sins; God is All-forgiving, All-compassionate' " and then you attack those whom he [saw] loved.  He [saw] said, "follow me" but you say (about his closest Companions) that which he [saw] never said about them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The sort of history books you cannot account for because you proudly display the following verse (which was delivered to the Prophet [saw] for him to say), "Say: 'If you love God, follow me, and God will love you, and forgive you your sins; God is All-forgiving, All-compassionate' " and then you attack those whom he [saw] loved. He [saw] said, "follow me" but you say (about his closest Companions) that which he [saw] never said about them.

Make a list with titles and authors please

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there is s Hadith or 2 in your books that narrate that when the 26th verse of the Israa chapter was revealed, prophet gave Fadak to Fatimsh , the narrator of the Hadith is Abu said alkhudri.

The Hadith in Alkafi dose not say that prophets do not leave inheritance behind them at all, the Shia Hadith say that the prophets leave inheritance that is not in money form but in the form of knowledge , prophetic knowledge , which qualifies Syda Fatimah to be the successor of the prophet on the khums money.

The wordings of Abu bakr Hadith contradicts the clear quranic verses that spoke about Solomon and David , Zakaria and Yahia etc.

Else, what do you think was the issue between Syda Fatimah and Abu Bakr?

 

(salam)

The narration doesn't contradict the verses of Quran. Those verses talk about inheriting the Prophethood, wisdom etc not money. 

Edited by Abul Hussain Hassani

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Abubakr fabricated that narration?

 

What a silly question? As if you do not know the answer to it.

 

Yes, a clear fabrication contradicting the Quranic verses. If you disagree bring a verse where it is mentioned that kin of the Prophets do not inherit but everyone else has the right to inheritance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a silly question? As if you do not know the answer to it.

 

Yes, a clear fabrication contradicting the Quranic verses. If you disagree bring a verse where it is mentioned that kin of the Prophets do not inherit but everyone else has the right to inheritance?

 

So what about the narration authenticated by Shia scholars in al-Kafi? Is that also a fabrication?

 

I haven't seen any verse that say Prophets left money as inheritence? If you know any please share. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what about the narration authenticated by Shia scholars in al-Kafi? Is that also a fabrication?

 

I haven't seen any verse that say Prophets left money as inheritence? If you know any please share. 

 

(salam)

can you please provide that narration from al-kafi? 

 

Jazak Allah al khair

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

can you please provide that narration from al-kafi? 

 

Jazak Allah al khair

 

(wasalam)

 

Abi Abdullah (as) said: The Prophet (pbuh) said, “The scholars are the inheritors of the prophets, and the prophets did not leave a dinar or a dirham, but they left knowledge…" (al-Kafi, vol. 1 p. 42) authenticated by Majlisi in Mira’at Al-Uqool (1/111). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

(wasalam)

 

Abi Abdullah (as) said: The Prophet (pbuh) said, “The scholars are the inheritors of the prophets, and the prophets did not leave a dinar or a dirham, but they left knowledge…" (al-Kafi, vol. 1 p. 42) authenticated by Majlisi in Mira’at Al-Uqool (1/111). 

 

 

I cant find it in my volume. Do you have a better reference? I checked page 42 and searched for the words but no find.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Ugly gin why you want to tell ugly lies. Have you not read your sahih hadith that Imam Ali  (as) called Abu Bakr and Umar thieves, liars, and more ugly words for robbing Fadak you just need to read your sahih books.

 

And the same Imam Ali gave allegiance, participated in "their" government, and helped Abu Bakr and Umar.

 

That makes sense  :wacko:

 

Sulaim b. Qays, The book of Sulaim, p.568

Sulaim b. Qays, The book of Sulaim, p.569

 

Old news...

 

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/19950-kitab-sulaim-bin-qais/page-5

Edited by Ugly Jinn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I cant find it in my volume. Do you have a better reference? I checked page 42 and searched for the words but no find.

(salam)

 

Check this link: http://www.holybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/Al-Kafi.pdf

 

Similar narration: 

 

H 45, Ch. 2, h 2

Muhammad ibn Yahya has narrated from Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Isa from Muhammad
ibn Khalid from abu al-Bakhtari from abu ‘Abdallah (a.s.) who has said the following.
"The scholars are the heirs of the prophets because the prophets did not leave any Dirham or
Dinar, (units of money) as their legacy. What they left was certain pieces of their statements.
Those who acquired anything of these pieces of their statements they have certainly gained a
large share. You must be very careful, when acquiring such knowledge, to see from what
kinds of people you receive them. Among us (the Ahlul Bayt, family of the holy Prophet s.a.)
after every one there comes a just person who removes (and exposes) the forgeries of the
exaggerators from it (knowledge), the infiltrated materials of the fallacious ones and the
interpretations of the ignorant ones."
Edited by Abul Hussain Hassani

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

And the same Imam Ali gave allegiance, participated in "their" government, and helped Abu Bakr and Umar.

 

That makes sense  :wacko:

 

 

Old news...

 

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/19950-kitab-sulaim-bin-qais/page-5

 

 

Yea umm I hate to tell you but some e-rijalist's , who God knows what their faiths are, dont carry weight. Nice try though :)

 

Keeeep Tryyying :D

 

You do realize where I got that article from, right?

 

http://www.velayattv.com/fa/index.php

 

The guy on the far right, he could have become a marja, but he choose to be a representative and he is a top shia rijalist in Iran. Not only that but he literally knows every single sunni source by the heart.

 

(salam)

 

Check this link: http://www.holybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/Al-Kafi.pdf

 

Similar narration: 

 

H 45, Ch. 2, h 2

Muhammad ibn Yahya has narrated from Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Isa from Muhammad
ibn Khalid from abu al-Bakhtari from abu ‘Abdallah (a.s.) who has said the following.
"The scholars are the heirs of the prophets because the prophets did not leave any Dirham or
Dinar, (units of money) as their legacy. What they left was certain pieces of their statements.
Those who acquired anything of these pieces of their statements they have certainly gained a
large share. You must be very careful, when acquiring such knowledge, to see from what
kinds of people you receive them. Among us (the Ahlul Bayt, family of the holy Prophet s.a.)
after every one there comes a just person who removes (and exposes) the forgeries of the
exaggerators from it (knowledge), the infiltrated materials of the fallacious ones and the
interpretations of the ignorant ones."

 

 

 

So where does it say they cant? Or that they cannot give inheritance?

 

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Side comment on why Imam Ali A.S didnt take back fadak.

 

Abu Basir says: “I asked Imam Sadiq (as) why Imam Ali (as) didn’t repossess Fadak after he came to power. The imam (as) answered: “Because both the oppressed [Lady Fatimah (as)] and oppressor [those who deprived her of Fadak] had both died and Allah (swt) had punished the oppressor and rewarded the oppressed by then, and Ali ibn Abitaleb didn’t like the idea of returning a property in which its usurper had been punished and the one usurped from had been rewarded already.”[10]

 

 

Ibn Ibrahim Karakhi says: “I asked Imam Sadiq (as) about why Imam Ali (as) didn’t return Fadak after becoming khalifah. He answered: “When the prophet (pbuh) conquered Mekkah, he was asked if he would return to his homeland.  He said: Aqil has sold my house. The people asked: Why don’t you take it back? He answered: We belong to a household that doesn’t take back what has been wrongfully taken from them; Imam Ali (as) did the same in order to have followed the prophet (pbuh) [in not taking back what rightfully belonged to him].[11]

 

 

A person asked Imam Kadhim (as) the same question; the imam answered: “Our household [the progeny of the prophet (pbuh)] whose guardian is Allah (swt); He is the one who makes sure what belongs to us comes back to us, and we are the guardians of the people and make sure what belongs to them returns to them, but we don’t take back what belongs to us.”[12]

 

Indepth response: http://www.islamquest.net/en/archive/question/fa4214

Edited by PureEthics

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what about the narration authenticated by Shia scholars in al-Kafi? Is that also a fabrication?

 

I haven't seen any verse that say Prophets left money as inheritence? If you know any please share. 

 

A very poor response, I asked you to present a Quranic verse where it is mentioned that everyone except the Prophets can leave inheritance. Instead you now counter question me. Why don't you agree that you have no verse to back your claim? Why do you always have to beat around the bush?

 

 

What you are seeing in Kafi is totally a different narration in a completely different context. Many people have already refuted this illogical copy paste. Whilst it is clear that the hadith is talking from a knowledge perspective and not materialistic perspective. A simple answer to your wild attempt is to look at the section under which the narration is mentioned. This narration is under ’Chapter on the reward for the scholars and those who seek knowledge’ and not under the Chapter of Inheritance. The chapter ‘Progeny’s inheritance’ of the same book contains this hadith:

 

Zurara narrated that Abi Jaffar (as) said: ‘Ali inherited the knowledge of Allah’s messenger and Fatima inherited his property.’

 

 

Let's keep the narrations on the back seat for a moment, can you please let me know if Abu Bakr replied by presenting any Quranic verses when Bibi Fatima (s) presented so many Quranic verses to support her claim?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(wasalam)

Abi Abdullah (as) said: The Prophet (pbuh) said, “The scholars are the inheritors of the prophets, and the prophets did not leave a dinar or a dirham, but they left knowledge…" (al-Kafi, vol. 1 p. 42) authenticated by Majlisi in Mira’at Al-Uqool (1/111).

Salam abul hassan hussaini,

Classic work ,

But I m afraid to tell that now u will be confronted by more problems because I m anticipating that either it will now be found that there is something wrong with the chain of narration or Hadith against this Hadith will be mentioned to make it weak but nevertheless ......... May u live long (AMEEN), and Allah SWT increase ur knowledge by leaps and bounds.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam abul hassan hussaini,

Classic work ,

But I m afraid to tell that now u will be confronted by more problems because I m anticipating that either it will now be found that there is something wrong with the chain of narration or Hadith against this Hadith will be mentioned to make it weak but nevertheless ......... May u live long (AMEEN), and Allah SWT increase ur knowledge by leaps and bounds.....

 

Rightt.... :dry:

 

Because our rijal system is baseless : Click Here - The Failure & Bias of Sunni Rijal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so...

if prophets only left knowledge behind them, how come that prophet Solomon inherited the kingdom of prophet David?

If prophets may inherent knowledge and kingdom-ship, how come that Fatimah was denied that right of inheritance and her knowledge was rejected? isn't her knowledge the knowledge of our prophet as per the hadiths and Quranic verses?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May Allah [swt] forgive me for uttering this filth but if "stealing" Fadak was a crime against Fatima [sa] committed by Abu Bakr [ra] then Imam Ali [ra], by not reclaiming Fadak when he had the chance to do so (during his own Khilaafat), makes him (Ali [ra]) an accomplice in this crime and just as guilty (as Abu Bakr [ra]).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May Allah [swt] forgive me for uttering this filth but if "stealing" Fadak was a crime against Fatima [sa] committed by Abu Bakr [ra] then Imam Ali [ra], by not reclaiming Fadak when he had the chance to do so (during his own Khilaafat), makes him (Ali [ra]) an accomplice in this crime and just as guilty (as Abu Bakr [ra]).

 

 

So what your saying is

 

Someone steals and takes your land + you dont take back what has been stolen from you

 

 

= You stealing your own land and being guilty for it ?? o_O How the heck does that make any sense?

 

Do you not understand the magnanimity of these words? Of course you dont. You cant tell the difference between justice and injustice, so how can you even understand this.

 

"Our household [the progeny of the prophet (pbuh)] whose guardian is Allah ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì; He is the one who makes sure what belongs to us comes back to us, and we are the guardians of the people and make sure what belongs to them returns to them, but we don’t take back what belongs to us."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what your saying is

 

Someone steals and takes your land + you dont take back what has been stolen from you

 

 

= You stealing your own land and being guilty for it ?? o_O How the heck does that make any sense?

 

Do you not understand the magnanimity of these words? Of course you dont. You cant tell the difference between justice and injustice, so how can you even understand this.

 

PureEthics, interesting point!  What I am saying is that Imam Ali [ra] upheld Abu Bakr's [ra] decision.  If what the latter did was wrong, then the former will be judged by the same judgement.  Obviously such simple logic evades you because you are out to damage the reputation of those whom Prophet [saw] loved.  If you can justify that - that is, if you can come to terms with labeling some of the most eminent Sahaba [ra] as usurpers - then you can justify just about anything.  At that point, logic and ethics - ironically what you claim to have in pure form - take the backseat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PureEthics, interesting point!  What I am saying is that Imam Ali [ra] upheld Abu Bakr's [ra] decision.  If what the latter did was wrong, then the former will be judged by the same judgement.  Obviously such simple logic evades you because you are out to damage the reputation of those whom Prophet [saw] loved.  If you can justify that - that is, if you can come to terms with labeling some of the most eminent Sahaba [ra] as usurpers - then you can justify just about anything.  At that point, logic and ethics - ironically what you claim to have in pure form - take the backseat.

 

 If I steal your laptop and you have a chance to get it back and you dont because you are bound by justice and integrity, that makes you just as bad? Are you serious? It just shows that the person who stole it is a ignorant tyrant not bound by any mercy, justice, and integrity. What are you even trying to imply, it doesnt make any sense at all! Its your likes who totally ignore the rules bound by Allah's system. You enjoin good and evil, you put enemies on the same list with the loved ones of Allah. Instead of understanding that Allah's religion is bound by His commands, you end up choosing mankinds senseless ways of dictatorship and overrulling Allah's sharia. Who is closing to the prophet other than his blood and flesh? Truth is clear from error.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A very poor response, I asked you to present a Quranic verse where it is mentioned that everyone except the Prophets can leave inheritance. Instead you now counter question me. Why don't you agree that you have no verse to back your claim? Why do you always have to beat around the bush?

(salam)

I told you I am not aware of any verse but If know then please share. 

 

 

 

What you are seeing in Kafi is totally a different narration in a completely different context. Many people have already refuted this illogical copy paste. Whilst it is clear that the hadith is talking from a knowledge perspective and not materialistic perspective. A simple answer to your wild attempt is to look at the section under which the narration is mentioned. This narration is under ’Chapter on the reward for the scholars and those who seek knowledge’ and not under the Chapter of Inheritance. The chapter ‘Progeny’s inheritance’ of the same book contains this hadith:

 

Zurara narrated that Abi Jaffar  (as) said: ‘Ali inherited the knowledge of Allah’s messenger and Fatima inherited his property.’

 

 

It doesn't matter under which chapter it is because it clearly says "Prophets do not leave dinar or dirham as inheritance (the arabic word یورثو or یورثة is used which means inheritance), what they leave as inheritance is their statements".

 

Now that you found another narration that contradicts the narration I quoted which is authenticated by Shia scholars, you need provide evidence that what you quoted is authenticated by your scholars.

 

 

 

Let's keep the narrations on the back seat for a moment, can you please let me know if Abu Bakr replied by presenting any Quranic verses when Bibi Fatima (s) presented so many Quranic verses to support her claim?

 

First of all She didn't quote any verses, these are later fabricated by liars just like they fabricated the Khutba Fadakia.

 

She went to ask for Fadak which belonged to the Prophet (saw) who never gave it to anyone during his life. Abubakr quoted the words of the Prophets (as) who said "We Prophets do not leave any inheritance, what we leave is charity (Sahih Muslim) So Abubakr acted on the Sunnah of the Prophet (saw). Abubakr in the same narration says "but the Family of the Prophet (saw) can take their provisions from it". 

 

This narration is also narrated by many other companions including Ali so it is not a fabrication of Abubakr.  

PureEthics, interesting point!  What I am saying is that Imam Ali [ra] upheld Abu Bakr's [ra] decision.  If what the latter did was wrong, then the former will be judged by the same judgement.  Obviously such simple logic evades you because you are out to damage the reputation of those whom Prophet [saw] loved.  If you can justify that - that is, if you can come to terms with labeling some of the most eminent Sahaba [ra] as usurpers - then you can justify just about anything.  At that point, logic and ethics - ironically what you claim to have in pure form - take the backseat.

 

(salam)

 

What is more funny is these same people who 'stole' Fadak gave other lands to Ali and whenever they wanted to distribute some wealth they would first start with Ali and Ahlulbayt before themselves.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

I told you I am not aware of any verse but If know then please share. 

 

 

 

 

It doesn't matter under which chapter it is because it clearly says "Prophets do not leave dinar or dirham as inheritance (the arabic word یورثو or یورثة is used which means inheritance), what they leave as inheritance is their statements".

 

Now that you found another narration that contradicts the narration I quoted which is authenticated by Shia scholars, you need provide evidence that what you quoted is authenticated by your scholars.

 

 

First of all She didn't quote any verses, these are later fabricated by liars just like they fabricated the Khutba Fadakia.

 

She went to ask for Fadak which belonged to the Prophet (saw) who never gave it to anyone during his life. Abubakr quoted the words of the Prophets (as) who said "We Prophets do not leave any inheritance, what we leave is charity (Sahih Muslim) So Abubakr acted on the Sunnah of the Prophet (saw). Abubakr in the same narration says "but the Family of the Prophet (saw) can take their provisions from it". 

 

This narration is also narrated by many other companions including Ali so it is not a fabrication of Abubakr.  

 

So your telling me Prophet Muhammad went against the quran? There is no distinction between men and prophets. Although as a Shia im telling you that your interpretation of our hadiths is incorrect, either way even if you believe it to be so, this quran verse overrides the hadith clearly.

 

From what is left by parents and those nearest related there is a share for men and a share for women, whether the property be small or large,a determinate share.

Al-Qur’an, Surah an-Nisa, Ayah 7, translated by Yusufali

 

 

By the way, here is a bunch of sources from your own books proving the shia position on this. You can call them what ever you want, i dont care. As I have already provided a link that shows the enormous flaws of this one eyed rijal system only to benifit your made up beliefs. These links will be here for those who have integrity.

 

http://www.al-islam.org/shiite-encyclopedia-ahlul-bayt-dilp-team/more-facts-fadak

http://www.al-islam.org/the-message-ayatullah-jafar-subhani/chapter-44-story-fadak

http://www.al-islam.org/shiite-encyclopedia-ahlul-bayt-dilp-team/usurping-land-fadak

http://www.shiapen.com/comprehensive/fadak/claim-sayyida-fatima-as.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PureEthics, interesting point!  What I am saying is that Imam Ali [ra] upheld Abu Bakr's [ra] decision.  If what the latter did was wrong, then the former will be judged by the same judgement.  Obviously such simple logic evades you because you are out to damage the reputation of those whom Prophet [saw] loved.  If you can justify that - that is, if you can come to terms with labeling some of the most eminent Sahaba [ra] as usurpers - then you can justify just about anything.  At that point, logic and ethics - ironically what you claim to have in pure form - take the backseat.

 

 

That is flawed thinking and you know it.  So, someone stole something from you and because you don't take it back it makes you an accomplice?  Now assuming, Abu Bakr (ra) and Umar (ra) used the property as charity then if Imam Ali "took it back" then who will he be taking it back from?  Abu bakr/Umar? Or the poor?  I wonder how that would of gone down in the Ahlul Sunnah books.  I could actually see it now. Someone brings the statement pertaining to the Purity and infalliability of Imam Ali (as) and some sunni comes along and says "how can he be? He 'took' the 'zakat' from the poor!"

 

 

  

(salam)

 

What is more funny is these same people who 'stole' Fadak gave other lands to Ali and whenever they wanted to distribute some wealth they would first start with Ali and Ahlulbayt before themselves.  

 

What is even more funny and 'HaHa' is that you think that if they gave to imam Ali (as)  that undo's the wrong they did to Fatima (as).  I steal from your wife and then after she is dead I give you something (whether it is even of equal or lesser value only Allah, SWT, knows).  That totally reconciles the issue of me stealing from your wife?

 

But regardless, Please prove the following:  The people who 'stole' Fadak, gave lands and other wealth to Ali (as) (If you can prove that they gave the same worth/value of Fadak to Ali (as) that would surely be a +), and that they distributed this wealth to Ali (as) and the ahlulbayt Before! Themselves. An even bigger plus is if you can prove all this through shia books but if the ahlul sunnah books is all you got then that will be sufficient. Thank you.

 

Jazak Allah Al khair

Edited by kbsquare

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

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.)

 

 

(bismillah)

(salam)

This isn't a new topic, however, just to add to the queries list. 

 

undiscovered01, on 17 Dec 2013 - 9:21 PM, said:
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.)

 

So what about the house of Prophet SAWAW where the wives of the Prophet SAWAW were living ???

 

May Allah SWT guide us all. Ameen 

 

1.    What is the shari ruling as quoted by brother in case of Prophets. Any reference from sunni four Imams and plus hadiths other than what had been discussed earlier.

2.    My previous question is still un answered.

 

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May Allah [swt] forgive me for uttering this filth but if "stealing" Fadak was a crime against Fatima [sa] committed by Abu Bakr [ra] then Imam Ali [ra], by not reclaiming Fadak when he had the chance to do so (during his own Khilaafat), makes him (Ali [ra]) an accomplice in this crime and just as guilty (as Abu Bakr [ra]).

 

 

This is one of most "Retarded" statement i have ever come across, how could you  even say this? Imam Ali was an accomplice, do even understand what accomplice is? i guess not. However, you Sunnis will protect the the honour of companions what ever the cost, and  if that means calling the family of Rasulillah criminals thats okay, as long as the integrity of the companions is protected you will dishonour Ahlu Bayt a.s  this is an commom traits of Sunnis!

Edited by power

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is even more funny and 'HaHa' is that you think that if they gave to imam Ali (as)  that undo's the wrong they did to Fatima (as).  I steal from your wife and then after she is dead I give you something (whether it is even of equal or lesser value only Allah, SWT, knows).  That totally reconciles the issue of me stealing from your wife?

 

But regardless, Please prove the following:  The people who 'stole' Fadak, gave lands and other wealth to Ali (as) (If you can prove that they gave the same worth/value of Fadak to Ali (as) that would surely be a +), and that they distributed this wealth to Ali (as) and the ahlulbayt Before! Themselves. An even bigger plus is if you can prove all this through shia books but if the ahlul sunnah books is all you got then that will be sufficient. Thank you.

 

Jazak Allah Al khair

 

(salam)

No brother my point was how can they 'steal' Fadak and be 'oppressors to Ahlulbayt' when they give other lands to Ali and distribute wealth first to Ahlulbayt before themselves. 

 

Musannaf ibn abi Shaybah:

 
Authentic narration narrated by Imam Muhammad al-Baqir ÑÖí Çááøå ÚÜäÜå:
 
حدثنا حفص بن غياث عن جعفر عن أبيه أن عمر أقطع عليا ينبع وأضاف إليها غيرها.
[Hafs bin Ghiyah told us, from Ja`far bin Muhammad al-Sadiq, from his father that `Umar gave away (the land of) Yanbu` to `Ali and then added others(lands) to it.]
 

In Sunan al-Beihaqi al-Kubra:

عن جعفر بن محمد ، عن أبيه : أن علي بن أبي طالب قطع له عمر بن الخطاب – رضي الله عنهما – ينبع ، ثم اشترى علي بن أبي طالب – رضي الله عنه – إلى قطيعة عمر – رضي الله عنه – أشياء فحفر فيها عينا ، فبينا هم يعملون فيها إذ تفجر عليهم مثل عنق الجزور من الماء ، فأتي علي وبشر بذلك

 

[Ja`far bin Muhammad from Muhammad al-baqir that `Umar ibn al-Khattab gave `Ali bin abi Talib - may Allah be pleased with them - the land of Yanbu`, then `Ali bin abi Talib - may Allah be pleased with him - also bought other things on top of it, and he dug a well in it, and while they were digging in it a great amount of water started gushing out from the ground, so `Ali returned and told them the good news.]

 
 
Umar would first distribute wealth among the Ahlulbayt before anybody else (it is narrated by children of Ali) and his own family would be the last to receive it:

 

حَدَّثَنَا زَيْدُ بْنُ الْحُبَابِ، قَالَ: ثنا الْقَاسِمُ بْنُ مَعْنٍ، عَنْ جَعْفَرٍ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، أَنَّ عُمَرَ، أَرَادَ أَنْ يَفْرِضَ لِلنَّاسِ، وَكَانَ رَأْيُهُ خَيْرًا مِنْ رَأْيِهِمْ، فَقَالُوا: ابْدَأْ بِنَفْسِكَ، فَقَالَ: «لَا، فَبَدَأَ بِالْأَقْرَبِ فَالْأَقْرَبِ مِنْ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ،» فَفَرَضَ لِلْعَبَّاسِ ثُمَّ عَلِيٍّ حَتَّى وَالَى بَيْنَ خَمْسِ قَبَائِلَ حَتَّى انْتَهَى إِلَى بَنِي عَدِيِّ بْنِ كَعْبٍ

[Zayd bin al-Hubab told us (Thiqah Imam), al-Qassim bin Ma`n told us (Thiqah Imam Kufi), from Ja`far (al-Sadiq), from his father, that when `Umar wanted to distribute among the people, and he was the best of them in opinion, they said: "Begin with yourself." So he said: "No, I begin with those closest to the Prophet (saw)." So he distributed to al-`Abbas then to `Ali the Khums and continued to do so for every tribe until he ended with bani `Adi bin Ka`b.]

Edited by Abul Hussain Hassani

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Answer for this thread is present in the verses of Holy Quran. Sura Ale Imran ...Verse of Mubahila. Read the verse and then go through the interpretation of it. You will see that there is no match of truthfulness between Fives and rest of the team. When I say Fives, Lady Fatima s.a is among those fives. So any Bakr, Umer or whatever got no value when it comes to see who is truthful against Lady Fatima.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This is one of most "Retarded" statement i have ever come across, how could you  even say this? Imam Ali was an accomplice, do even understand what accomplice is? i guess not. However, you Sunnis will protect the the honour of companions what ever the cost, and  if that means calling the family of Rasulillah criminals thats okay, as long as the integrity of the companions is protected you will dishonour Ahlu Bayt a.s  this is an commom traits of Sunnis!

 

 

That "retarded" statement was something I uttered (for which I sought forgiveness and it was only to open your eyes).  But you believe in such "retardedness."  And I did not make anyone out to be a criminal.  But if you say person A stole the property of person B and person C (when had the power and authority to correct a mistake) did nothing, then you are equating person C with A.  Sorry if this sounds retarded - and it is retarded since it is a lie - then stop believing in, and preaching, it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...