Imam Ali (as) believed Abu Bakr to be a liar
- Anonymous
- Jun 19
- 9 min read
Updated: 21 hours ago
Introduction
After Abu Bakr’s death, Imam Ali (as) and al-‘Abbas went to ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab to request Fadak once again. This request creates a major problem for Sunnis: it shows that either they did not believe in Abu Bakr’s ruling, or they rejected the Prophet’s (saw) command. If it is the former, then it contradicts fundamental Sunni beliefs; but if it is the latter, then they are accusing Imam Ali (as) of disbelief or open transgression.
This report is recorded in many sources, most famously in Sahih Muslim 1757c:
When the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) passed away, Abu Bakr said: “I am the successor of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ)." Both of you came to demand your shares from the property (left behind by the Messenger of Allah). (Referring to Hadrat 'Abbas), he said: You demanded your share from the property of your nephew, and he (referring to 'Ali) demanded a share on behalf of his wife from the property of her father. Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) had said:" We do not have any heirs; what we leave behind is (to be given in) charity." So both of you thought him to be a liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest. And Allah knows that he was true, virtuous, well-guided and a follower of truth. When Abu Bakr passed away and (I have become) the successor of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) and Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with him), you thought me to be a liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest.
Here, Umar himself admits that their view aligned with the former position mentioned earlier, that in their eyes, Abu Bakr was a liar and an oppressor, and so was ‘Umar himself.
This incident has also been recorded in the following sources:
Both al-Bukhari and Ahmad b. Hanbal were evidently afraid by the implications of this hadith, and as is well-known, both were willing to alter or censor narrations to protect their theological positions. Seeing this hadith as problematic, they deliberately omitted the parts that exposed the Sahaba abusing each other. Specifically, both versions cut out the portion where Abu Bakr & Umar are described as treacherous and liars by Imam Ali (as). Instead, they stop at: تزعمان أن أبا بكر فيها كذا (“You both claim that Abu Bakr did such-and-such”).
The so-called ‘honesty’ and ‘reliability’ of al-Bukhari and Ahmad b. Hanbal becomes painfully apparent when one actually compares their versions of narrations with how those same reports appear in other sources. Ibn Hajar al-’Asqalani comments on this in Fath al-Bari, Vol. 9, pg. 373 - 374:
رِوَايَةِ مُسْلِمٍ مِنَ الزِّيَادَةِ فَجِئْتُمَا تَطْلُبُ مِيرَاثَكَ من بن أَخِيكَ وَيَطْلُبُ هَذَا مِيرَاثَ امْرَأَتِهِ مِنْ أَبِيهَا فَقَالَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ لَا نُورَثُ مَا تَرَكْنَا صَدَقَة فرأيتماه كَاذِبًا آثِمًا غَادِرًا خَائِنًا
And Muslim narrates it with an addition, “Both of you came to demand your shares from the property (left behind by the Messenger of Allah). You (Abbas) demanded your share from the property of your nephew, and he ('Ali) demanded a share on behalf of his wife from the property of her father. Abu Bakr said: The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) had said:" We do not have any heirs; what we leave behind is (to be given in) charity." So both of you thought him to be a liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest.
Umadat al-Qari Vol 25, pg. 64 also clarifies what al-Bukhari was trying to censor:
قَوْله: كَذَا وَكَذَا أَي: لَيْسَ محقّاً وَلَا فَاعِلا بِالْحَقِّ
His saying: ‘Such-and-such’ means: (Abu Bakr) was not on the truth nor acting justly.
Likewise in Irshad Sari Sharh Sahih Bukhari Vol 15, pg. 264:
وفي رواية مسلم فجئتما تطلب أنت ميراثك من ابن أخيك ويطلب هذا ميراث امرأته من أبيها فقال أبو بكر، قال رسول الله: "لا نورث ما تركنا صدقة" فرأيتماه كاذبًا آثمًا غادرًا خائنًا وكأن الزهري كان يحدّث به تارة فيصرح وتارة يكني
Umar said that Abbas and ‘Ali both deemed the usurpation of Fadak to be a sinful, treacherous deceit. This has been narrated by the Hadith scholar Zuhri, on some occasions he provides a commentary to the words of Umar and on others he gives a mere hint.
This hadith clearly proves that Imam Ali (as) believed Abu Bakr and Umar were hypocrites; Sahih al-Bukhari 34:
The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "Whoever has the following four (characteristics) will be a pure hypocrite and whoever has one of the following four characteristics will have one characteristic of hypocrisy unless and until he gives it up.
Whenever he is entrusted, he betrays.
Whenever he speaks, he tells a lie.
Whenever he makes a covenant, he proves treacherous.
Whenever he quarrels, he behaves in a very imprudent, evil and insulting manner."
We leave it to the readers to decide what they think was the view of Ali, the one with whom the truth is always found, in regards to Abu Bakr. Even al-Shawkani, in his commentary of this hadith, says the following in Nayl al-Awtar, Vol. 6, pg. 93:
وَلِذَلِكَ نَسَبَ عُمَرُ إلَى عَلِيٍّ وَعَبَّاسٍ أَنَّهُمَا كَانَا يَعْتَقِدَانِ ظُلْمَ مَنْ خَالَفَهُمَا كَمَا وَقَعَ فِي صَحِيحِ الْبُخَارِيِّ وَغَيْرِهِ
Therefore, Umar attributed to Ali and Abbas that they saw whoever disagreed with them as oppressive as mentioned in Sahih Bukhari and other sources.
Objection 1: Al-Abbas' accusations of Ali
If someone comes forward and objects by pointing out that this narration also reports that al-’Abbas called Imam Ali a liar, sinful and treacherous, within the same hadith, we respond by explaining this hadith through the words of the great theologian and polemicist, Hisham b. al-Hakam (RA), as recorded in Ibn Qutayba’s Ta’wil Mukhtalif al-Hadith, pg. 126:
وَقَالَ لَهُ رَجُلٌ: يَا أَبَا مُحَمَّدٍ، هَلْ تَعْلَمُ أَنَّ عَلِيًّا خَاصَمَ الْعَبَّاسَ فِي فَدَكَ إِلَى أَبِي بَكْرٍ؟ قَالَ: نَعَمْ. قَالَ: فَأَيُّهُمَا كَانَ الظَّالِمُ؟ قَالَ: لم يكن فيهمَا ظَالِم قَالَ: سُبْحَانَ اللَّهِ، وَكَيْفَ يَكُونُ هَذَا؟ قَالَ: هُمَا كَالْمَلَكَيْنِ الْمُخْتَصِمَيْنِ إِلَى دَاوُدَ عليه السلام، لَمْ يَكُنْ فِيهِمَا ظَالِمٌ، إِنَّمَا أَرَادَا أَنْ يُعَرِّفَاهُ خَطَأَهُ وَظُلْمَهُ. كَذَلِكَ أَرَادَ هَذَانِ، أَنْ يُعَرِّفَا أَبَا بَكْرٍ خَطَأَهُ وَظُلْمَه
A man asked him (i.e. Hisham b. Al Hakam): "O Aba Mohammad, do you know that Ali litigated with Abbas about Fadak to Abu Bakr?" he said: "Yes" the man said: "which one of the two was the oppressor?" he said: "neither of them was an oppressor." the man said: "Subhanallah! how could this be?" he said: "they both were like the two angels who litigated to Dawud (AS), none of them was an oppressor, they both(i.e. the two angels) wanted to make him(i.e. Dawud a.s) realized his mistake and oppression, likewise these two wanted to make Abu Bakr know his mistake and oppression."
This debate can also be read in 'Uyun al-Akhbar. Vol. 2 pg. 166 by al-Dinawari and al-Iqd al-Farid, Vol. 2, pg. 251 - 252.
Thus, Hisham's argument, in essence, is that neither al-Abbas nor Ali saw each other as unjust or oppressive; rather, they claimed this to highlight the wrongdoing of Abu Bakr & Umar, just as the angels did in the story of the Dawud (as), as recorded in the Qur'an:
إِذْ دَخَلُوا عَلَىٰ دَاوُودَ فَفَزِعَ مِنْهُمْ ۖ قَالُوا لَا تَخَفْ ۖ خَصْمَانِ بَغَىٰ بَعْضُنَا عَلَىٰ بَعْضٍ فَاحْكُم بَيْنَنَا بِالْحَقِّ وَلَا تُشْطِطْ وَاهْدِنَا إِلَىٰ سَوَاءِ الصِّرَاطِ - إِنَّ هَٰذَا أَخِي لَهُ تِسْعٌ وَتِسْعُونَ نَعْجَةً وَلِيَ نَعْجَةٌ وَاحِدَةٌ فَقَالَ أَكْفِلْنِيهَا وَعَزَّنِي فِي الْخِطَابِ - قَالَ لَقَدْ ظَلَمَكَ بِسُؤَالِ نَعْجَتِكَ إِلَىٰ نِعَاجِهِ ۖ وَإِنَّ كَثِيرًا مِّنَ الْخُلَطَاءِ لَيَبْغِي بَعْضُهُمْ عَلَىٰ بَعْضٍ إِلَّا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ وَقَلِيلٌ مَّا هُمْ ۗ وَظَنَّ دَاوُودُ أَنَّمَا فَتَنَّاهُ فَاسْتَغْفَرَ رَبَّهُ وَخَرَّ رَاكِعًا وَأَنَابَ -
When they entered upon David and he was alarmed by them. They said, "Fear not. [We are] two adversaries, one of whom has wronged the other, so judge between us with truth and do not exceed [it] and guide us to the sound path. Indeed this, my brother, has ninety-nine ewes (i.e. female sheeps), and I have one ewe; so he said, 'Entrust her to me,' and he overpowered me in speech." [David] said, "He has certainly wronged you in demanding your ewe [in addition] to his ewes. And indeed, many associates oppress one another, except for those who believe and do righteous deeds - and few are they." And David became certain that We had tried him, and he asked forgiveness of his Lord and fell down bowing [in prostration] and turned in repentance [to Allah ]. [38:22-24]
In this story, Allah (swt) sent two angels disguised as humans to Nabi Dawud (as) in a dream. They pretended to have a dispute so that he could judge between them, even though angels cannot actually wrong one another. One of them said: “My brother has 99 sheep, and I have only one. He asked me to give him my only sheep.” Dawud (as) immediately judged that this was unfair, saying it was wrong for someone with many to take from someone who has so little. However, this judgment was a mistake because Dawud (as) made his decision without asking for the full context or any details behind why the request was made. Allah (swt) did this to test and teach Dawud about the laws of judgment. The key point here is that the angels weren’t really in conflict, they only posed the scenario to make Dawud pass a judgment. This is similar to the case of Ali and al-‘Abbas when they came to Umar to ask him to judge between them. They wanted Umar to make a judgement.
If someone were to ask, what is the evidence for this claim, we’d tell them to look at the narration itself. As we read, a group of people said:
فَقَالَ الرَّهْطُ عُثْمَانُ وَأَصْحَابُهُ يَا أَمِيرَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ اقْضِ بَيْنَهُمَا وَأَرِحْ أَحَدَهُمَا مِنَ الآخَرِ
`Uthman and his companions said, "O Chief of the Believers! Judge between them and relieve one from the other."
Is it possible for a group of people to all say the exact same thing at the same time by coincidence? For example, when you walk into a room and everyone shouts, “Happy Birthday, Mr. Fulan,” it’s clear they coordinated it in advance, there’s no way they all randomly said the same thing at once. Likewise here, the fact that multiple people said the same phrase to ‘Umar at once shows that it was planned in advance by Ali and al-‘Abbas. They instructed them to say it so that ‘Umar would recognise the seriousness of their case. When multiple people approach you about a dispute, you’re more likely to pay attention and take action. Therefore, Ali and al-Abbas didn’t actually view each other as that, but they did view Abu Bakr like that.
Objection 2: They didn’t seek inheritance
Another argument made is that they weren’t seeking inheritance but rather intended to acquire the land in order to distribute it as sadaqa. A truly pathetic argument and truly powerful evidence that Sunnis can’t address this problem, as they have to go and make up the most absurd of arguments that even Sunni scholars themselves have placed doubt on. In short we reply with the following:
If Abu Bakr was already going to distribute the ‘sadaqa’, then there was no need for them to acquire it to do the same thing, unless they had an agenda of abusing their positions for personal benefits.
If the issue was not about inheritance, there would have been no reason for Umar to bring up the hadith ‘Prophets do not leave inheritance’.
They originally went to Abu Bakr with the claim of inheritance and the narrations of when they went to Umar show that they made the same claim with him as well.
If Ali (as) considered Fadak to be sadaqa, then why did he over-power Abbas and take the entire estate of Fadak from him?
The hadith is Sahih al-Bukhari 6728 clearly says:
Then I took charge of this property for two years during which I managed it as Allah’s Apostle and Abu Bakr did. Then you both (‘Ali and ‘Abbas) came to talk to me, bearing the same claim and presenting the same case. (O ‘Abbas!) You came to me asking for your share from the property of your nephew, and this man (Ali) came to me, asking for the share of his wife from the property of her father.
They were seeking to get their share of the property and made the same claim of inheritance that they had previously made to Abu Bakr.
Ibn Hajar al-’Asqalani in the commentary of the tradition says in Fath al-Bari, Vol 7 pg. 375:
فقال إسماعيل القاضي فيما رواه الدارقطني من طريقه لم يكن في الميراث إنما تنازعا في ولاية الصدقة وفي صرفها كيف تصرف كذا قال لكن في رواية النسائي وعمر بن شبة من طريق أبي البختري ما يدل على إنهما أرادا أن يقسم بينهما على سبيل الميراث
Daraqutni narrated that Ismail al-Qazi said: ‘They were not disputing about the inheritance, but they were disputing about the charity what they shall be the guardian of and how to distribute it’ That is what he (Qazi Ismail) said, but according to the narration of Nisai and Umar b. Shaba from Abi al-Bakhtri, it is evident that they were disputing about the division of inheritance.
Conclusion
Therefore, we conclude that Ali (as) and Al-Abbas did not believe in Abu Bakr's hadith, but rather saw him as a liar and oppressor, and that the land rightfully belonged to them alone. In the next article, we will discuss the reason why Ali (as) did not reclaim Fadak after becoming caliph.
Salam....ur refutation stuff is amazing, but it would be better if shia Central team would have a discord server, some sort of library .....where all this stuff is posted also, it would be great benefit for our community.