Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
GoodOne456

The Anger Of Fatimah A.s. Explained By A Sunni

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Salam Alaykum,

Now I'm not looking for a serious debate or anything but I want to know what the Shia Scholars and or people have to say about this article.

http://islamqa.info/en/43458

If possible can you help me understand or refute the main obvious argument with refrences if possible.

Wa Salam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not able to anwser your link in full but according to my own understanding and abbility I will deal with the first part of the anwser in the link you gave us. 

If the hadith wherein it is stated that Imam Ali a.s. wanted to marry the daughter of Abu Jahl which is pure slander (not only towards Imam Ali but to to Rasulullah s.a.w. as well) and made up but let's accept it for the sake of argument then still it is clear that after the incident they stayed husband and wife and everything appeared back to normal untill her death. So they reconcilled. 

In the case with Abu Bakr it is well known from Sahih Bukhari that she a.s. did not talk with Abu Bakr untill her death so it is obvious that she died in a state of anger with Abu Bakr without a form of forgiveness or reconcilliation. 

There are ofcourse apologists who want even to deny this fact but I still haven't heard a clear and sincere explanation about the ignorance about the location of the grave of Fatima-Zahra a.s. 



  Edited by Iskandarovich

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not able to anwser your link in full but according to my own understanding and abbility I will deal with the first part of the anwser in the link you gave us.

If the hadith wherein it is stated that Imam Ali a.s. wanted to marry the daughter of Abu Jahl which is pure slander (not only towards Imam Ali but to to Rasulullah s.a.w. as well) and made up but let's accept it for the sake of argument then still it is clear that after the incident they stayed husband and wife and everything appeared back to normal untill her death. So they reconcilled.

In the case with Abu Bakr it is well known from Sahih Bukhari that she a.s. did not talk with Abu Bakr untill her death so it is obvious that she died in a state of anger with Abu Bakr without a form of forgiveness or reconcilliation.

There are ofcourse apologists who want even to deny this fact but I still haven't heard a clear and sincere explanation about the ignorance about the location of the grave of Fatima-Zahra a.s.

Salam that is an interesting point that you made about Fatimah AS not foriving Abu Bakr. InshaAllah I will try to watch the video you posted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The article seems to act like that hadith in Sahih Muslim is the only hadith that says "Fatima is a part of me etc." and that it is that hadith which Shi'a rely on.

 

First of all, that is not the only hadith where that statement is attributed to the Prophet either in Sunni or Shi'a sources and the only reason Shi'a use that one is because it's in Sahih Muslim and thus is one Sunnis or Wahabis are more likely to accept, it doesn't mean Shi'a agree on its general content. The author doesn't seem to know how argumentative discourse works. Plus, even if we accept that hadith, Imam Ali (as) didn't do anything haram according to the hadith and the Prophet (pbuh) merely mentioned that what makes Fatima angry makes him angry as a general rule, but one could accept this hadith and the principle of the saying while perhaps arguing at the same time that Lady Fatima (as) being slightly peeved at Imam Ali (as) is very different from refusing to ever speak with someone, forbidding them from attending her funeral and even cursing them which is what many hadith say was the extent of Lady Fatima's anger at Abu Bakr and Umar.

 

 

http://www.duas.org/fatimasa40hadith.htm

 

The saying is repeated in numerous collections with different wording and within different contexts. Whether or not one agrees that the hadith mentioned by the articles is authentic and relates events accurately, there is a large consensus among classical Sunni scholars that the Prophet (pbuh) at one or more points in his lifetime said the statement in some form.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I partly agree with the article and partly disagree. I agree with the author that to use the Hadith "whoever angers Fatimah (as) angers me" to condemn Abu Bakr (ra) is pretty specious. Especially if we take into consideration the historical context of the Hadith. But the author seems to want to imply that Fatima (as) was not infallible and that she was incorrect. And this I completely disagree.

My view is that both Shias and Sunnis are suffering from the narrow constraints of a dogmatic theology. One side finds it difficult to accept the infallibility of Fatima (as) and the other side finds it difficult not to condemn Abu Bakr (ra). Fatimah (as) was right and so was Abu Bakr (ra). Both of them stood up for the Truth whom each saw in their own respective ways. The aspect of Truth Abu Bakr "manifested" was that he was meticulous in establishing justice and the law. Fatimah (as) manifested the truth of wilaya and love and a close attachment to the Prophet (S) (in a word, she manifested "loving-mercy"). Somehow that aspect needed to be manifested and it could only be manifested in the face of a manifestation of justice (which Abu Bakr (ra) represented). Regardless of what any Hadith says, the decisive point is that Abu Bakr (ra) had no intention of angering Fatimah (as). And I don't believe for a second that Fatimah (as) used to curse Abu Bakr (ra). These are simply fabricated hadith and in any case can't even be used as an argument.

Thank you

Ethereal

Masalama

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Prophet (saw) stated that whoever angers Fatima (sa) angers him, because Fatima's (sa) anger is the manifestation of the anger of God. It's quite something else to be astray (1:7) and quite something else to be those who God's wrath is upon (1:7). It was as if Rasool (saw) said this to distinguish the path of those who God's wrath is upon (Abu Baker) and those who God has bestowed his favors upon (Fatima and her family).

 

Consequently, we may love those astray, but not those who's God's wrath is upon as stated in Quran.

Edited by StrugglingForTheLight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was as if Rasool (saw) said this to distinguish the path of those who God's wrath is upon (Abu Baker) and those who God has bestowed his favors upon (Fatima and her family).

The anger of Fatimah (as) was exactly as you are saying, a divine anger. But to say that this divine or holy anger of Fatimah (as) was personal is blasphemous towards God and towards Fatimah (as).

Your "as if" assumption is not supported by the historical context of the Hadith. Such an assumption only exists in the brain of a Shia polemicist who understands nothing more than polemics when reading anything! The whole religion becomes nothing but a way to prove Ahlul Bayt and Wilaya. And we are supposed to think this is a religion? I think Shias need to grow up and smell the coffee.

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But your "as if" assumption is not supported by the historical context of the Hadith. Such an assumption only exists in the brain of a Shia polemicist who understands nothing more than polemics when reading anything! The whole religion becomes nothing but a way to prove Ahlul Bayt and Wilaya. I think Shias need to grow up and smell the coffee.

The religion has always been proving an Ahlulbayt and Wilayah. Nuh's family, Ibrahim's family, Musa's and Harun's family, Dawod's family, Imran's family. If not a family, then surely a group of chosen ones who are tied together in one cause. 

 

God's way of exalting and using his chosen ones is the central praise theme of how God proves his religion. 

 

"Peace be upon the family of Yaseen". Perhaps "Yaseen" is used because every Messenger is a "Yaseen" and all their families are exalted chosen above, and this is God's way, and thereby he emphasizes on Mohammad's (saw) family by way of universal wisdom of using chosen families in the past. Elyas (as) being a Yaseen, is also stated peace is upon him by the same verse, and by wider meaning, also means the family of Mohammad (saw).

 

When Isa (as) curses the disbelievers or Dawood (as), or when Musa (as) after seeing Firon and his chiefs misguide people prays that they won't believe until they see the greatest punishment, are manifesting God's wrath.

 

To think anything different of Fatima (as) is to belittle her exalted status, and can get God's wrath itself as those who belittled Mariam (as) and spoke evil of her.

 

The whole path of God and how to be grateful to the message has been made love of the family of Mohammad (saw) (42:23, 25:57).

 

Consequently, affirming their noble station and role and clinging to it and loving it, is the way to be grateful to God perfecting the religion and the message of Mohammad (saw).

 

They are so important that Salah without blessing them is void and recognizing who they are is essential part of Salah, just as testifying to Messenger of Mohammad (saw) has been linked to praising and testifying to God's greatness, the family of Mohammad (saw) have been connected to Mohammad (saw), such that the way to bless Mohammad (saw) includes blessing his exalted family.

 

Consequently, the Quran is about proving the Wilayah of Mohammad (saw), and it does so by manifesting an eternal praise of God in the way he would chose divine chosen ones in groups, as chosen families, and tie their cause together.  See Suratal Auli-Imran for example in how it emphasizing to follow Mohammad (saw) and then to manifests the eternal praise of God's way in choosing exalted ones like Adam, Nuh, and as well, the family of Ibrahim, and the family of Imran. then emphasizes they are offspring of one another, and then shows how Mariam (as) was specially chosen in such a family, to be followed by Isa (as). Then also shows Yahya (as) inheriting Zakariya (as).

Edited by StrugglingForTheLight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The religion has always been proving an Ahlulbayt and Wilayah. Nuh's family, Ibrahim's family, Musa's and Harun's family, Dawod's family, Imran's family. If not a family, then surely a group of chosen ones who are tied together in one cause. 

 

God's way of exalting and using his chosen ones is the central praise theme of how God proves his religion. 

 

"Peace be upon the family of Yaseen". Perhaps "Yaseen" is used because every Messenger is a "Yaseen" and all their families are exalted chosen above, and this is God's way, and thereby he emphasizes on Mohammad's (saw) family by way of universal wisdom of using chosen families in the past. Elyas (as) being a Yaseen, is also stated peace is upon him by the same verse, and by wider meaning, also means the family of Mohammad (saw).

 

When Isa (as) curses the disbelievers or Dawood (as), or when Musa (as) after seeing Firon and his chiefs misguide people prays that they won't believe until they see the greatest punishment, are manifesting God's wrath.

 

To think anything different of Fatima (as) is to belittle her exalted status, and can get God's wrath itself as those who belittled Mariam (as) and spoke evil of her.

 

The whole path of God and how to be grateful to the message has been made love of the family of Mohammad (saw) (42:23, 25:57).

 

Consequently, affirming their noble station and role and clinging to it and loving it, is the way to be grateful to God perfecting the religion and the message of Mohammad (saw).

 

They are so important that Salah without blessing them is void and recognizing who they are is essential part of Salah, just as testifying to Messenger of Mohammad (saw) has been linked to praising and testifying to God's greatness, the family of Mohammad (saw) have been connected to Mohammad (saw), such that the way to bless Mohammad (saw) includes blessing his exalted family.

 

Consequently, the Quran is about proving the Wilayah of Mohammad (saw), and it does so by manifesting an eternal praise of God in the way he would chose divine chosen ones in groups, as chosen families, and tie their cause together.

I am not arguing against Wiilaya and loving Ahlul Bayt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not arguing against Wiilaya and loving Ahlul Bayt.

So why do you assume the words of Rasool (saw) would not be about proving the exalted status of Fatima (as) and showing her wrath is a manifestation of who's God's wrath is upon (1:7).

 

Do you think Rasool (saw) was speaking some irrelevant thing about Fatima (as) like Sunnis do, or do you think Rasool (saw) was saying it to emphasize on the straight path and remind people of the dangers of opposing the chosen ones, as it angers Allah, and that their anger is the divine anger. Consequently, who Fatima (as) is angry upon, should be who we all are angry upon, as God's wrath is surely on them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ethereal

First they (Ahlulbayt a.s.) were attacked and then the property of Fatima-Zahra a.s. was confiscated. 

Do you think that the only daughter and child of the Prophet of Allah s.a.w. wouldn't know her rights or wouldn't be informed about the rules and restrictions of the Prophet's s.a.w. inheritance or ask for something that is totally not hers? 

May Allah guide and protect you ..

And who was Abu Bakr? He wasn't even a caliph by the authority of Allah but just because of a spontaneous, yet premeditated action AKA pseudo-election at Saqifah were opponents were beaten till blood. 

Edited by Iskandarovich

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So why do you assume the words of Rasool (saw) would not be about proving the exalted status of Fatima (as) and showing her wrath is a manifestation of who's God's wrath is upon (1:7).

 

Do you think Rasool (saw) was speaking some irrelevant thing about Fatima (as) like Sunnis do, or do you think Rasool (saw) was saying it to emphasize on the straight path and remind people of the dangers of opposing the chosen ones, as it angers Allah, and that their anger is the divine anger. Consequently, who Fatima (as) is angry upon, should be who we all are angry upon, as God's wrath is surely on them.

The Prophet (S) did not say that in order so that in the future, a group who will call themselves "Shias", can use that as a way to back up their dogmatic claim that Abu Bakr (ra) was wrong! The statement is not there to "prove" anyone's dogmatic claim! It is simply a way of expressing the closeness the Prophet (S) has with Fatimah (as) such that there is an inward identity between them. The historical context of the Hadith should tell us that just as we should not condemn Imam Ali (as) we should also not condemn Abu Bakr (ra).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The story of Fatima (sa) getting angry at Imam Ali [as] to me is only a story people who do not like their exalted station would believe. I caution you to take caution of the noble verses:

 

 

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا لَا تَكُونُوا كَالَّذِينَ آذَوْا مُوسَىٰ فَبَرَّأَهُ اللَّهُ مِمَّا قَالُوا ۚ وَكَانَ عِنْدَ اللَّهِ وَجِيهًا {69}

[shakir 33:69] O you who believe! be not like those who spoke evil things of Musa, but Allah cleared him of what they said, and he was worthy of regard with Allah.

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا اتَّقُوا اللَّهَ وَقُولُوا قَوْلًا سَدِيدًا {70}

[shakir 33:70] O you who believe! be careful of (your duty to) Allah and speak the right word,

 

 

This is in the same Surah where God has revealed the exalted station of Ahlulbayt, that he desires to keep nothing away from them except the uncleanness, blessing them with all blessings on Prophets and creation, and accepting all blessings upon them while purifying them a thorough purification, and tell us to bless them like Allah and his Angels bless them.

 

You want to attribute that story to Ali, be my guest, I would rather not be like the people who spoke evil of Musa while Musa was a worthy regard with God.

 

And I seek refuge in God from believing Fatima would be angry at a person trying to act on justice.

Edited by StrugglingForTheLight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The story of Fatima (sa) getting angry at Imam Ali [as] to me is only a story people who do not like their exalted station would believe. I caution you to take caution of the noble verses:

 

This is in the same Surah where God has revealed the exalted station of Ahlulbayt, that he desires to keep nothing away from them except the uncleanness, blessing them with all blessings on Prophets and creation, and accepting all blessings upon them while purifying them a thorough purification, and tell us to bless them like Allah and his Angels bless them.

 

You want to attribute that story to Ali, be my guest, I would rather not be like the people who spoke evil of Musa while Musa was a worthy regard with God.

 

And I seek refuge in God from believing Fatima would be angry at a person trying to act on justice.

Salam,

 

Your argumnet is very weak! This is a hadith which was revealed in a specific context where Imam Ali (as) proposed to the daughter of Abu Jahal.  And there are many other hadith to back this up as well.  Refer to this:  http://twelvershia.net/2013/05/16/the-prophet-saws-only-gets-angry-for-fatima-ra/

 

Now about your claim that I have imputed evil to Imam Ali (as).  I am NOT doing that!.  This is because Imam Ali (as) did nothing WRONG since he listened to the Prophet (S)!  I think you have this very superficial image of their lives.  Superficial because you think there is absolutely no "natural tension" whatsoever that can exist in their lives.  In this life there is always going to be somce kind of tension and hardship between individuals no matter how close.  The drama can also sometimes be seen as part of the beauty of life.  Can you imagine a married life wherein no tension whatsoever exists between a wife and her husband?  Does that even sound realistic?  Of course not.  It isnt normal and it shouldnt be.  I think Shias tend to have a highly superficial concept of "infallability".  I don't blame them as I myself tend to be that way (and this tendency is natural and good for Shias).  But we should keep in mind its limitations. 

 

Ma'salama

Ethereal

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You neglect the most important thing which is ..

 

Fatima-Zahra a.s. died in a state of anger wirh Abu Bakr. 

Apart from the fact that you connect the words of Fatima's anger to an incident in their marriage (which you believe to be true), these words can also be used in general and in specific in the case with Abu Bakr.

She a.s. didn't speak with Abu Bakr till her death and she a.s. didn't want Abu Bakr to know where grave lies to give her the last honour. 

Isn't this a kind of clear evidence?

Do you really believe a person like Fatima-Zahra a.s. would make such a big fuss about what some people believe to be a futile thing with consequenses as such that the entire Ummah would not be able to know where she is buried until today?

There is a very important message in it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam,

 

Your argumnet is very weak! This is a hadith which was revealed in a specific context where Imam Ali (as) proposed to the daughter of Abu Jahal.  And there are many other hadith to back this up as well.  Refer to this:  http://twelvershia.net/2013/05/16/the-prophet-saws-only-gets-angry-for-fatima-ra/

 

Now about your claim that I have imputed evil to Imam Ali (as).  I am NOT doing that!.  This is because Imam Ali (as) did nothing WRONG since he listened to the Prophet (S)!  I think you have this very superficial image of their lives.  Superficial because you think there is absolutely no "natural tension" whatsoever that can exist in their lives.  In this life there is always going to be somce kind of tension and hardship between individuals no matter how close.  The drama can also sometimes be seen as part of the beauty of life.  Can you imagine a married life wherein no tension whatsoever exists between a wife and her husband?  Does that even sound realistic?  Of course not.  It isnt normal and it shouldnt be.  I think Shias tend to have a highly superficial concept of "infallability".  I don't blame them as I myself tend to be that way (and this tendency is natural and good for Shias).  But we should keep in mind its limitations. 

 

Ma'salama

Ethereal

 

Why would Imam Ali (as) want to supposedly marry another women, when he had best of all women in entire creation?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They clearly do not understand the status of Bibi Fatima (sa) They believe she was an ordinary women! How misguided they are!

 

  • Al-Siddiqah (The Honest One)
  • Al-Mubarakah (The Blessed One)
  • At-Taherah (The Virtuous)
  • Az-Zakiyah (The Chaste)
  • Ar-Radhiah (The Satisfied or Gratified One)
  • Al-Mardhiah (Who well-pleases Allah)
  • Az-Zahra (The Splendid One/ Lady of Light)
  • Al-Batoul (The Chaste and Pure One)
  • Al-Adhra (The Virgin or the Chaste)
  • Al-Muhaddathah (Who spoken by Angels)
  • Syedatun Nisa al-Alamin (Leader of the women of the worlds)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems clear to you because you are just deluding yourselves with your sentiments and baseless assumptions. There is always the other side of the story:

1) Hammad narrate from Ibrahim Nakhi that Hz. Abu Bakr[ra] lead salah-e-Janaza of Bibi Fatima Bint Muhammad[ra] with four Takbeers [ Tabqaat(Ibn Saad) Vol 8, Page 16]

2) 4) When Hz. Fatima[ra] died Hz. Abu Bakr[ra] and Hz. Umar[ra] came, Hz. Abu Bakr[ra] asked Hz. Ali[ra] to lead prayer, Hz.Ali[ra] declined and said in presence of Khalifa of RasoolAllah[saw] how can I.

[ Ali Mutaqi Al Nahdi author of Kanzal Amaal Vol 6 page 318, narrated through Khatib from Baqir]

3) Sayyidina Abu Hurayrah (ra) reported that Sayyidiah Fatimah (ra) came to Sayyidina Abu Bakr (ra) and asked, “Who will inherit you?” He said, “My wife and my children.”

She asked, “Then, what is with me that I do not inherit my father?” So, Abu Bakr (SAW) said, “I had heard Allah’s Messenger (SAW) say : 'We are not inherited'. But, I will support whom Allah’s Messenger.i used to support and I will provide whom he used to provide.”

4) Bukhari :: Book 59 :: Volume 5 :: Hadith 368

Narrated ‘Aisha: Fatima and Al’Abbas came to Abu Bakr, claiming their inheritance of the Prophet’s land of Fadak and his share from Khaibar. Abu Bakr said, ”I heard the Prophet(saw) saying, ‘Our property is not inherited, and whatever we leave is to be given in charity. But the family of Muhammad can take their sustenance from this property.’ By Allah, I would love to do good to the Kith and kin of Allah’s Apostle rather than to my own Kith and kin.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

To suggest that the dispute between Lady Fatimah and Abu Bakr was one where both sides were defending their version of the truth, with both being correct acccording to their view is highly inaccurate. We cannot approach history with preconceived beliefs and thus interpret any historical incidence in light of such beliefs. So we cannot assume that they must be both be true - given a preconceived notion that both are highly righteous characters - and therefore any dispute between them must be well-intentioned. This is quite a dogmatic position and does not really fit into a highly complex historical picture after the Prophet, which saw the disputes arise at an alarming rate which suggests desires, whims, hypocrisy and other spiritual deficiencies all played a role in such conflicts, as is natural in human history.
 

We have several issues with the reasoning that Abu Bakr provided regarding the taking of the land of Fadak from Lady Fatimah.

The first issue:

This narration which he claims to have heard from the Prophet (s) is only narrated by him. How can it be possible that something quite important and significant such as this can only be heard by one companion and no body else. This is notwithstanding the fact that the Quran and other narrations from the sunnah indicate the exact opposite of what Abu Bakr had claimed to have heard. In light of this, such reasoning does seem quite hollow with deeper reasons for refusing to return the land a more likely option.

The second issue:

How is it possible that Lady Fatimah and Imam Ali were not aware of this?! Surely as they are some of the closest people to the Prophet, and the land is directly related to them, the issue of ownership after this would have been clarified to them. Is it possible they were ignorant of such an important ruling!? Or is it possible they were aware of such a ruling and decided to be greedy and still seek ownership of what rightfully belonged to muslims?!

The third issue:

If it was the case that both were well-intentioned, this does not explain the reason why Lady Fatimah refuses to speak to them until she passes away. Where are the traits of forgiveness and mercy to those who do wrong, never mind those who intend to do good but may be mistaken!? 

The fourth issue:

Why is it, that as per authentic narrations, the first two caliphs intended to attack the house of Lady Fatimah, if the inhabitants did not pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr and give him ba'yah. These are all indicators that the dispute over Fadak was symbolic of a far greater dispute, one that was to split to the muslim ummah for centuries to come. It was not merely over a piece of land, but over the legitimacy of he who claimed successor-ship of the Prophet. How is it possible that Lady Fatimah disputes with the legitimate successor of the Prophet (s) when he has provided his ruling over such an issue?! Is it not the trait of true believer to submit to such truth!?

The fifth issue:

It is obvious to anyone who has read the story of Fadak throughout the Islamic Period that later Caliphs, in the Ummayad dynasty and Abbasid Dynasty endeavoured to return the land of Fadak to descendants of Lady Fatimah, only for others to later retake it. This clearly shows that the ruling powers did not view this land as belonging to the muslims, but rather a private ownership that belonged to the holy family and should have been never been taken from them.


We cannot interpret history so naively just to to save people we hold dearly. Rather we must look at a holistic picture of events and grant them the most logical and reasonable explanations in light of a number of indicators, far from our emotion and desires. And God knows best. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

 

Shia records confirm that Hadrat Fatima (radhiallahu anha) became pleased with Hadrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu).

 

Ibn-i-Mitham writes in the context of interpreting Nahj-ul-Balaga: “Abu Bakr said to Fatima: Whatever belonged to your father, belongs to you as well. The Messenger of Allah kept something apart out of his personal share (fadak) and distributed the rest of it in the name of Allah. By Allah, I’ll do with you what he used to do with you. Fatima was pleased to hear these words, a confirmation of the Prophetic practice” { Ibn-i-Mitham al-Buhrani, Sharh Nahj-ul-Balaga, Vol.5, P. 107,109 , Tehran }

 

” إن أبا بكر قال لها : إن لك ما لأبيك ، كان رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله يأخذ من فدك قوتكم ، ويقسم الباقي ويحمل منه في سبيل الله ، ولك على الله أن أصنع بها كما كان يصنع ، فرضيت بذلك وأخذت العهد عليه به

 

The Imaamiyyah 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 Rasulullah! You have spoken the truth in what you have claimed, but I saw Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) 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, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) 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 Ahl-e-Bait) expenses there from and distribute the balance to the Fuqaraa, Masaakeen and wayfarers.”

 

Comment: This narration is also in other books of the Imaamiyyah Shias. It confirms that Hadrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) believed that Hadrat Fatima (radhiallahu anha) was truthful in her claim, but the practice of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) convinced him that ownership was not given to Hadrat Fatima (radhiallahu anha). The accusation against Hadrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) is therefore pure slander.

 

Some knowledgeable Shia can comment on the reliability of the above. 

 

You neglect the most important thing which is ..

 

Fatima-Zahra a.s. died in a state of anger wirh Abu Bakr. 

Apart from the fact that you connect the words of Fatima's anger to an incident in their marriage (which you believe to be true), these words can also be used in general and in specific in the case with Abu Bakr.

She a.s. didn't speak with Abu Bakr till her death and she a.s. didn't want Abu Bakr to know where grave lies to give her the last honour. 

Isn't this a kind of clear evidence?

Do you really believe a person like Fatima-Zahra a.s. would make such a big fuss about what some people believe to be a futile thing with consequenses as such that the entire Ummah would not be able to know where she is buried until today?

There is a very important message in it. 

 

Dear brother please read this to know the relationship between Abubakr and the Ahlulbayt. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wanted to share a very useful link to an excellent article but the admins have warned me few times before about linking to that 'nasibi' website (I was even temporarily banned for posting a link).

 

PM me if you want the link. 

Edited by Abul Hussain Hassani

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shaykh Seduq records in Amali, ( امالي الصدوق) page 165:

 

Imam Jafar al-Sadiq said: ‘….Didn’t they claim that the Master of the believers was seeking (worldly) life and government and he preferred fitna over peace, and he shed the blood of the Muslims without basis, and if he (Ali) was carrying benefit they would not ask Khalid bin al-Walid to assassinate him? Didn’t they claim that he (Ali) wanted to marry Abu Jahl’s daughter over Fatima and then Allah’s messenger complained of him to the Muslims on the pulpit and said: ‘Ali wants to marry the daughter of Allah’s enemy over the daughter of Allah’s Prophet, surely Fatima is part of me, whoever hurts her hurts me, whoever made her happy made me happy, whoever disturbs her disturbs me.’ (Imam Jafar continues) Oh Alqamah how strange are the claims of the people about Ali !’. 

 

 

 
يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا لَا تَكُونُوا كَالَّذِينَ آذَوْا مُوسَىٰ فَبَرَّأَهُ اللَّهُ مِمَّا قَالُوا ۚ وَكَانَ عِنْدَ اللَّهِ وَجِيهًا {69}

[shakir 33:69] O you who believe! be not like those who spoke evil things of Musa, but Allah cleared him of what they said, and he was worthy of regard with Allah.

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا اتَّقُوا اللَّهَ وَقُولُوا قَوْلًا سَدِيدًا {70}

[shakir 33:70] O you who believe! be careful of (your duty to) Allah and speak the right word,

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of ahaadith, a lot of claims, tiring long texts but ..



Three things we know for sure:



1) There was disagreement between Lady Fatima a.s. and Abu Bakr

2) She was buried at night by Imam Ali a.s. 

3) We don't know where her a.s. burial place is



Now do the math and decide for yourself ..

Edited by Iskandarovich

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Bismillah)

(Salam) Infinite Ascension

Inshallah you are doing well. Good to hear from you. :)

I don't think I am approaching history with preconceived ideas from only one side of the camp. I am trying to view history from both sides as best I can. I try my best to see both sides of the story. And I am not convinced by most of the points or reasons you have given because the concerns you have can be easily explained away without having to impute deceitfulness and hypocrisy to Abu Bakr As-Sideeq (ra) (astaghfirullah). I understand why you have the concerns you have but you do not need to have them as I feel they do not necessarily compromise the elevated, special, and unique status of the Ahlul Bayt (as). Also Shias are not allowed to say such things about Abu Bakr (ra) given the recent fatwa by Khameini. It "practically" forbids Shias to "defend" and "argue" for their dogmatic positions because their arguments inevitably lead to maligning the character of the first three caliphs. So any Shia who argues for his position (especially on a public forum like this) is technically committing a sin!

The first issue:

This narration which he claims to have heard from the Prophet (s) is only narrated by him. How can it be possible that something quite important and significant such as this can only be heard by one companion and no body else. This is notwithstanding the fact that the Quran and other narrations from the sunnah indicate the exact opposite of what Abu Bakr had claimed to have heard. In light of this, such reasoning does seem quite hollow with deeper reasons for refusing to return the land a more likely option.

To whom is it significant and important? And in what way is it significant and important? Is it significant and important to everyone? If so, is it significant and important to everyone in the same way? Something which is important and significant does not logially imply that it should be narrated by many people! It can very well be argued that it was only necessary for Abu Bakr to know that Hadith as he, being the rightful caliph after the Prophet (S), was destined to handle such affairs.

The second issue:

How is it possible that Lady Fatimah and Imam Ali were not aware of this?! Surely as they are some of the closest people to the Prophet, and the land is directly related to them, the issue of ownership after this would have been clarified to them. Is it possible they were ignorant of such an important ruling!? Or is it possible they were aware of such a ruling and decided to be greedy and still seek ownership of what rightfully belonged to muslims?!

Actually no. They (as) may have known it but because of their extremely high spiritual status and esoteric knowledge, they also saw "beyond it" as it were. They were not limited to the exoteric interpretations as others were. They had their reason for arguing what they argued for. And Abu Bakr also had his reasons. The Ahlul Bayt (as) predominantly represented esoterism. Abu Bakr and Umar predominantly represented exoterism. I also have a reason to believe that Abu Bakr knew in what respect Fatima (as) was making her argument but he also knew that he had to fulfill his function (as a representative of the exoteric law). I am reminded of this event when during the time of the Prophet (S) a poet who used to speak ill of him (S) was apprehended by the Sahahba. the Prophet (S) gave a command that the poet's tongue be cut off. To everyone's surprise Imam Ali (as) went to that poet and let him free! The people wondered why he went directly against the command of the Prophet (S) but they were informed that when the Prophet (S) said "cut his tongue" Imam Ali (as) understood a more hidden meaning which is that by letting the man free he would stop maligning and instead start praising the Prophet (S). And that is exactly what happened! You see how there is always this wonderful tension in history between the esoteric and exoteric in the life of the Ahlul Bayt and the community?

The third issue:

If it was the case that both were well-intentioned, this does not explain the reason why Lady Fatimah refuses to speak to them until she passes away. Where are the traits of forgiveness and mercy to those who do wrong, never mind those who intend to do good but may be mistaken!?

This has already been answered. Please refer to posts above.

The fourth issue:

Why is it, that as per authentic narrations, the first two caliphs intended to attack the house of Lady Fatimah, if the inhabitants did not pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr and give him ba'yah. These are all indicators that the dispute over Fadak was symbolic of a far greater dispute, one that was to split to the muslim ummah for centuries to come. It was not merely over a piece of land, but over the legitimacy of he who claimed successor-ship of the Prophet. How is it possible that Lady Fatimah disputes with the legitimate successor of the Prophet (s) when he has provided his ruling over such an issue?! Is it not the trait of true believer to submit to such truth!?

I don't agree that there wasn't any tension and conflict at all. There certainly was. To what extent? We do not know. There is a tendency among Shias to go to the extreme and ignore reports that may show both sides having a reconciliation. At the same time to say there was no tension at all and everything was nice and rosy is also plain ignorance and denial on the part of the Sunni (and this is a negative tendency they might have). At the end of the day each side is defending a dogma! And this is what happens when one is dogmatic. They can't see the other side. Now in the case of Fatima (as), Ali (as) and Abu Bakr , each side was representing an aspect of the Truth. As the Truth, (which stands beyond all oppositions) becomes manifest on the terrestrial plane (save for the lifetime of the Prophet of God (S) as his entire life and message is miraculous) it will necessarily involve tension and conflict. And this is precisely what happens soon after the Messenger (S) passed away.

The fifth issue:

It is obvious to anyone who has read the story of Fadak throughout the Islamic Period that later Caliphs, in the Ummayad dynasty and Abbasid Dynasty endeavoured to return the land of Fadak to descendants of Lady Fatimah, only for others to later retake it. This clearly shows that the ruling powers did not view this land as belonging to the muslims, but rather a private ownership that belonged to the holy family and should have been never been taken from them.

I see all this conflict and opposition as a marvelous sign of that Truth.

We cannot interpret history so naively just to to save people we hold dearly. Rather we must look at a holistic picture of events and grant them the most logical and reasonable explanations in light of a number of indicators, far from our emotion and desires. And God knows best.

And Shias and Sunnis have each failed to do so. I don't find your views holistic. They are marked with a strong emotional and rational bias towards Shiite dogmatic theology. And I really don't think you need that as a Shia. You can do perfectly well without it.

Masalama

Ethereal

Allahu Alim.

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×