Fadak Series Part IV: Ali and Fatima's stance on Abu Bakr
Updated: Jun 14
As we have shown, Abu Bakr first rejected Fatima’s claim as well as her witnesses then proceeded to fabricate a hadith to prevent Fatima from claiming Fadak as inheritance. In this article, we shall highlight Fatima’s response to Abu Bakr’s oppression in order to highlight to our readers the inconsistency of our opponents who insist that Abu Bakr and Fatima (AS) as well as ‘Ali (AS) were all the best of friends.
Fatima caught Abu Bakr Contradicting Himself
Fatima (AS) certainly knew that Abu Bakr was lying about the hadith which he supposedly heard from the Prophet (SAW). She even managed to get him to contradict himself, revealing his fabrication.
We read in a reliable tradition in Musnad Ahmad b. Hanbal Vol 1 pg. 171 - 172, Hadith # 14:
‘Abd Allah b. Muhammad b. Abi Shaybah narrated to us — and I heard it from ‘Abd Allah b. Abi Shaybah — who said: Muhammad b. Fudayl narrated to us, from al-Walid b. Jumay, from Abu al-Tufayl, who said:
When the Messenger of Allah (SAW) passed away, Fatimah sent to Abu Bakr asking: “Did you inherit the Messenger of Allah (SAW), or did his family inherit him?”
ِAbu Bakr replied: “No, rather his family inherited him.”
Fatima then asked: “Then where is the share of the Messenger of Allah (SAW)?”
Abu Bakr replied: “I heard the Messenger of Allah (SAW) say: ‘Indeed, when Allah grants a Prophet some provision, then takes him in death, He assigns it to the one who takes charge after him.’ So I considered that I should return it to the Muslims.”
She then said: ‘You and what you heard from the Messenger of Allah (SAW) know best.’”
Abu Bakr contradicted himself here, as previously he had said that the Prophet had no inheritors, then he acknowledged that the Prophet’s family are his inheritors. Ibn Hajar al-'Asqalani commented in Fath al-Bari Vol 9, pg. 362 - 363:
“Moreover, there is an objectionable phrase in it, which is Abu Bakr's statement: ‘Rather, his family;’ as it contradicts the authentic hadith: that the Prophet does not leave inheritance.”
This affirms that the two traditions are contradictory, and that Abu Bakr contradicted himself.
Some of our opponents may try to argue that the ending implies that Fatima (AS) accepted Abu Bakr’s hadith. However, this is a misreading of the statement. The phrase merely conveys that Abu Bakr himself is responsible for whatever claim he is making; after all, she was debating someone she viewed as unwilling to uphold justice, and her frustration is evident. Otherwise, we would be forced to accept the absurd conclusion that Fatima (AS) suddenly believed Abu Bakr after exposing the contradiction in his own words.
Furthermore, the last part is an interpolation as the word اعلم (i.e. you know best) is not original. We would refer to early sources quoting Ahmad’s Musnad and not having this word as opposed to what the editions today say. The earlier sources that mention this narration are:
al-Bidayah Wa al-Nihaya, Vol 8, pg. 195 by Ibn Kathir
Tarikh al-Islam, Vol. 3, pg. 23 by al-Dhahabi
Umdat al-Qari, Vol. 15, pg. 28 - 29 by al-’Ayni
Fath al-Bari, Vol. 9, pg. 362 by Ibn Hajar al-’Asqalani
All these scholars have quoted the hadith of Ahmad b. Hanbal and none of them have narrated it with the word أعلم, so this means it is an addition to the hadith due to our versions today. So the original wording is: "You and what you heard from the Messenger of Allah (SAW)."
Which would be her being astounded at what he claimed. In fact, the scholars from our opponents realize how this Hadith exposes Abu Bakr, and reject that part in an attempt to save Abu Bakr, and simply assuming the truthfulness of Abu Bakr’s narration.
Fatima died angry with Abu Bakr
Fatima (AS) died angry with Abu Bakr, and requested that ‘Ali (AS) bury her at night to prevent Abu Bakr from attending her funeral prayer. From this fact, we can conclude that Fatima (AS) did not believe Abu Bakr to be truthful (Siddiq), but instead a fabricator.
Fatima dying angry with Abu Bakr is explicitly found in multiple authentic narrations. For example, al-Bukhari reported in Sahih al-Bukhari 4240, 4241:
Narrated `Aisha: Fatima the daughter of the Prophet (saw) sent someone to Abu Bakr, asking for her inheritance of what Allah's Messenger (saw) had left of the property bestowed on him by Allah from the Fai in Medina, and Fadak, and what remained of the Khumus of the Khaibar booty.
On that, Abu Bakr said, "Allah's Messenger (saw) said, "Our property is not inherited. Whatever we leave, is Sadaqa, but the family of Muhammad can eat of this property.' By Allah, I will not make any change in the state of the Sadaqa of Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) and will leave it as it was during the lifetime of Allah's Messenger (saw), and will dispose of it as Allah's Messenger (saw) used to do."
So Abu Bakr refused to give anything of that to Fatima. So she became angry with Abu Bakr and kept away from him, and did not talk to him till she died. She remained alive for six months after the death of the Prophet. When she died, her husband `Ali, buried her at night without informing Abu Bakr and he said the funeral prayer by himself.
Here, we see clearly and explicitly that Fatima (AS) died angry with Abu Bakr. We remind our opponents of the Prophet’s words regarding deserting one’s fellow Muslim as recorded in Sahih al-Bukhari 6077:
Allah’s Apostle said: “It is not lawful for a man to desert his brother Muslim for more than three nights. (It is unlawful for them that) when they meet, one of them turns his face away from the other, and the other turns his face from the former, and the better of the two will be the one who greets the other first.”.
Ibn Hajar al-’Asqalani commented in Fath al-Bari, Vol. 18 pg. 468:
Ibn Abd al-Barr narrates that there is an ijma amongst the scholars, that it is not permissible to stay aloof from a Muslim for more than three days, failure to do so means that one is ignoring the Deen.
Thus we ask our opponents; How can you affirm the truthfulness of Abu Bakr if Fatima (AS) died angry with him regarding this issue? Would you have us believe that Fatima (AS) was angry that Abu Bakr deprived her of property that was not properly hers? We seek refuge in Allah from ignorance!
The anger of Fatima is Allah's anger
We read in Sahih al-Bukhari 3767:
Narrated Al-Miswar bin Makhrama: Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said, "Fatima is a part of me, and whoever makes her angry, makes me angry."
Our opponents will no doubt try to claim that the Prophet (SAW) said this due to Imam ‘Ali (AS) trying to marry the daughter of Abu Jahl. This is not a valid response, as these are their traditions and hold no weight with us. We recommend our readers to read our aticle on this topic "Did Ali want to marry Abu Jahl's daughter?"
Ibn Hajar highlighted some of the implications of this tradition in Fath al-Bari Vol 11, pg. 201:
“His statement: ‘Whoever angers her angers me.’
al-Suhayli used this as evidence that whoever insults her has committed disbelief.
Its reasoning is that she becomes angered by whoever insults her, and he equated her anger with his own anger, and whoever angers him, peace and blessings be upon him, commits disbelief.”
ِAl-’Ayni also recorded in his Umdatul Qari Vol 16 pg. 344:
And al-Bayhaqi used it as evidence that whoever insults her has committed disbelief.
The clear conclusion derived from this tradition is that harming or angering Fatima (AS) is equivalent to harming or angering the Prophet (SAW), and just as harming the Prophet (SAW) is haram, meaning harming Fatima (AS) is likewise haraam. Some Sunni scholars even deduced from these narrations that insulting Sayyida Fatima (as) constitutes kufr, just as insulting the Prophet (SAW) does.
Did Fatima believe Abu Bakr was truthful?
Our opponents believe that Abu Bakr is a truthful man, and that the Prophet (SAW) praised him with many high praises, to the point that they have made it a central tenet of their creed to affirm that Abu Bakr was the best of this Ummah after the Prophet (SAW).
However, it is interesting to note that Fatima (AS) did not believe Abu Bakr was truthful as evidenced by the fact that she died angry with him. Would this make her an innovator?
Given that Fatima (AS) believed Abu Bakr to be a liar, it is impossible for her to have accepted the alleged virtues of Abu Bakr which our opponents affirms, much less his caliphate. It is ridiculous to believe that Fatima (AS) knew the supposed virtues of Abu Bakr and still persisted in her anger until her demise.
Did Fatima die a death of Jahiliyya?
Our opponents must either admit that Abu Bakr was not the rightful Imam of the Muslims after Muhammad (SAW) or they must admit that per their theology Fatima (AS) died a death of Jahiliyya.
Abu Ya'la informed us, he said: Muhammad b. Yazid b. Rifa'ah narrated to us, he said: Abu Bakr b. 'Ayyash narrated to us, from 'Asim b. Abi al-Najud, from Abu Salih,
from Mu'awiya, who said: The Messenger of Allah SAW said: “Whoever dies without having an Imam dies a death of Jahiliyyah.”
This tradition can also be found in the following sources:
We ask our readers to pay close attention to the commentary of Ibn Hibban
Abu Hatim (Ibn Hibban) said: His statement (SAW), “dies a death of Jahiliyyah,” means: whoever dies without believing that he has an Imam who calls the people to the obedience of Allah, such that the establishment of Islam in times of events and crises depends upon him, while being content to submit to one who does not possess the description we have mentioned, dies a death of Jahiliyyah.
Here Ibn Hibban clearly states that this hadith indicates that whoever dies without believing in an Imam who establishes Islam dies a death of Jahiliyya. We ask our opponents to kindly clear up the following two questions:
Did Fatima (AS) die believing in such an Imam?
If so, who was her Imam?
As for us the Shia, we absolutely affirm without any doubt that Fatima (AS) died knowing exactly who her Imam was, and that Imam was none other than her husband Imam ‘Ali (AS).
Did Fatima forgive Abu Bakr?
Some of our opponents may object by claiming that Fatima (AS) died pleased with Abu Bakr and that the part of the hadith we cited is not authentic but a later addition of al-Zuhri. We refute both in the objections in this article "Did Fatima forgive Abu Bakr".
Sunni Scholarly remarks on Fatima
We remind our readers that our opponents have for centuries claimed that the Shia are no more pretenders and charlatans and that they, the Ahl al-Sunnah, are the true lovers of the Ahl al-Bayt. We would like to show our readers the level of respect the Sunni scholars have afforded Fatima (AS) when it came for them to explain her position towards Abu Bakr.
Ibn Taymiyyah says in Minhaj al-Sunnah, Vol. 4, pg. 245 - 246:
Has Allah not condemned the hypocrites about whom He said:
And among them are those who criticize you concerning the charities. If they are given from them, they are pleased, but if they are not given from them, they become angry. And if only they had been satisfied with what Allah and His Messenger gave them and said: “Allah is sufficient for us. Allah will give us from His bounty, and so will His Messenger. Indeed, we are desirous toward Allah. (Surat al-Tawbah 9:58–59)?
So Allah mentioned a people who were pleased if they were given, and became angry if they were not given, and He condemned them for that. Therefore, whoever praises Fatima with something that resembles these people, would that not be a criticism and disparagement of her?
May Allah fight the Rafidah. He has done justice to the Ahl al-Bayt against them, for they have attached to them such defects and disgrace as are not hidden from anyone possessing sight.
Here Ibn Taymiyya has explicitly compared Fatima (AS) to the hypocrites by alluding to the fact that she became upset at Abu Bakr when she was not given Fadak. We ask Allah to deal with him and anyone who affirms such slander against Fatima (AS).
Ibn Kathir says in his al-Bidaya wa al-Nihaya. Vol. 8 pg. 195:
So she reproached him because of that, and she was a woman from the children of Adam, upset as all people become upset. She was not obligated with infallibility despite the existence of the explicit statement of the Messenger of Allah (SAW) and despite Abu Bakr al-Siddiq’s opposition. We have also narrated from Abu Bakr that he sought Fatima’s pleasure and treated her gently before her death, and she became pleased.
Like his teacher, Ibn Kathir also resorted to downplaying Fatima’s anger, comparing her to any other woman. We kindly ask our opponents to simply be honest: Why do you claim to love Fatima more than the Shia when your scholars claim she is just like any other woman?
We also see this same sentiment echoed by the more contemporary Ibn Uthaymeen, as he says in his at-Ta'liq 'ala Sahih Muslim Vol 9, pg. 78:
O Allah, pardon her. Abu Bakr did not rely on personal opinion; he acted based on explicit textual evidence. She should have accepted the Prophet's ﷺ statement: 'We, the Prophets, do not leave inheritance; what we leave behind is charity.' However, as I mentioned earlier, in moments of dispute, a person can lose the clarity of thought needed to fully understand their words, actions, or decisions. Therefore, we ask Allah to forgive her for her estrangement from the Caliph of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ."
The Stance of Ali on Abu Bakr and ‘Umar
Furthermore we have the stance of Imam ‘Ali (AS) on this matter from authentic traditions in our opponent’s corpus which indicate that he believed Abu Bakr and ‘Umar were unjust in their their ruling and that the hadith Abu Bakr attributed to the Prophet (SAW) was a blatant lie.
In this section we will be discussing the hadith, demonstrating the two angles above, as well as refuting some objections of our opponents.
Sinful treacherous sinful liars
We read in Sahih Muslim 1757c:
Umar said: When the Messenger of Allah (saw) passed away, Abu Bakr said: “I am the successor of the Messenger of Allah (saw)." Both of you came to demand your shares from the property. You (Abbas) 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 said: The Messenger of Allah (saw) had said:" We do not have any heirs; what we leave behind is 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…
Note that ‘Ali (AS) refers to Abu Bakr as a liar. We ask our readers to ponder, what did ‘Ali (AS) mean by this? What was the lie that Abu Bakr told? Clearly he was alluding to Abu Bakr’s fabricated tradition which further highlights that ‘Ali (AS) considered Abu Bakr a man bound for hellfire.
Al-Shawkani in explaining this hadith says in Nayl al-Awtar, Vol. 11, pg. 390:
“And because of that, Umar b. al-Khattab attributed to Ali b. Abi Talib and al-Abbas b. Abd al-Muttalib that they believed those who disagreed with them had wronged them, as occurred in Sahih al-Bukhari and other sources.”
This has also become recorded in:
It was also recorded in Sahih al-Bukhari, but he censored it in multiple occasions:
Sahih al-Bukhari 3094 where he removed the phrase entirely.
Sahih al-Bukhari 4033, 4034 where he replaced the phrase with (Then `Umar turned towards `Ali and `Abbas and said, "You both remember that Abu Bakr disposed of it in the way you have described and Allah knows that, in that matter…)
Sahih al-Bukhari 5358 where he replaced it with (You both claim that Abu Bakr was so-and-so!)
Sahih al-Bukhari 6728, where he removed it entirely.
Sahih al-Bukhari 7305 where he replaced it with (Then he turned to `Ali and `Abbas and said, "You both claim that Abu Bakr did so-and-so in managing the property,)
We ask our readers to note the censorship, as both Bukhari and Ahmad b. Hanbal feared the implications of this hadith, and as we know them both they were very much in favor of changing hadiths for the interest of their beliefs.
Since they saw it as problematic, they decided to cut out the parts that showed the Sahaba to abuse each other. Both versions cut out the part of them being attributed to calling Abu Bakr treacherous, liar etc… They stop at تزعمان أن أبا بكر فيها كذا (You both claim Abu Bakr did so-and-so).
The following scholars affirmed that these offending phrases were censored:
Ibn Hajar al-'Asqalani in Fath al-Bari, Vol. 9, pg. 373 - 374:
Al-Ayni in Umadat al-Qari Vol 25, pg. 64
Al-Qastalani in Irshad al-Sari Vol 15, pg. 264
This hadith clearly proves that ‘Ali (AS) believed Abu Bakr and Umar were hypocrites as the exact characteristics which ‘Ali believed them to hold are the characteristics of a hypocrite as stated by the Prophet (SAW) in 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 for themselves if they follow ‘Ali (AS) or not. Do they dissociate from Abu and as ‘Ali (AS) did, or they praise them and claim to somehow both love them and ‘Ali? We seek refuge in Allah from English.
Objection 1: Umar used an argumentative point against Ali
This hadith clearly shows that Imam ʿAli (AS) regarded Abu Bakr and ʿUmar as hypocrites, since the negative qualities mentioned in the narration are attributed to them.
In response, some argue that ʿUmar was not actually saying that ʿAli (AS) and al-ʿAbbas held this view of himself and Abu Bakr. Rather, they interpret his words as an argumentative point (ilzām): If al-ʿAbbas truly believed that ʿAli (AS) was dishonest, sinful, treacherous, and deceitful, then consistency would require him to hold the same opinion of Abu Bakr and ʿUmar as well.
This attempt to explain the hadith is absurd for several reasons. Firstly, ʿUmar is not defending ʿAli (AS), he is merely recounting the dispute between the Hashemites and Abu Bakr. So where is the basis for recounting it as an ilzām?
Second, an ilzām would ordinarily require a conditional argument, such as: "If you believe this about ʿAli, then you must also believe it about Abu Bakr and me," yet the hadith contains no such conditional language. Instead, ʿUmar directly attributes a belief to both ʿAli (AS) and al-ʿAbbas.
Lastly, the more reliable versions of the narration explicitly state that ʿAli (AS) and al-ʿAbbas considered Abu Bakr to have acted unjustly and wrongly in this matter.
We read in Yunus b. Yazid al-Ayli’s Tarikh al-Medina, Vol 1, pg. 126 - 128, Report # 563, as well as Ma’mar’s transmission of the report in Musannaf Abd al-Razzaq Vol 6, pg. 109 - 111, Hadith # 10639:
Then he (the Prophet) passed away, and Abu Bakr said: ‘I am the guardian of the Messenger of Allah.’ He managed it in the same way that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ had managed it while both of you were still alive”, then he turned to ʿAli and al-ʿAbbas, “and you both claimed that Abu Bakr was unjust and sinful concerning it. Yet, Allah knows that he was truthful, righteous, rightly guided, and a follower of the truth.
Then Allah caused Abu Bakr, may Allah be pleased with him, to die, and I said: ‘I am the person most entitled to succeed the Messenger of Allah and Abu Bakr.’ So I took charge of it for two years of my caliphate, administering it in the same way that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ had administered it and as Abu Bakr had administered it.”
Then he turned to ʿAli and al-ʿAbbas and said: “And you both claim that I am unjust and sinful concerning it, while Allah knows that I am truthful, righteous, rightly guided, and a follower of the truth.
Consequently, the more authentic version of the report is that ‘Ali (AS) and ‘Abbas explicitly accused Abu Bakr and ‘Umar of oppression on this matter, rather than presenting a mere rhetorical ilzām.
Objection 2: ‘Ali and al-Abbas did not seek inheritance
Another argument made is that ‘Ali (AS) and ‘Abbas were not seeking inheritance but rather aimed to distribute the land as sadaqa after acquiring it. In short we reply with the following:
If Abu Bakr and Umar were distributing the sadaqa, then there was no need for them to acquire it to do it, unless they had an agenda of abusing their positions for personal benefits.
If they were not seeking inheritance, there would have been no reason for ‘Umar to bring up the hadith ‘Prophets do not leave inheritance’.
‘Ali (AS) and ‘Abbas initially went to Abu Bakr with a claim of inheritance, then they went to Umar with the same claim. Why are we interpreting the latter differently to the former, if they hold the same statements? The hadith is Sahih al-Bukhari 6728 clearly says:
Then I (Umar) 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 aiming to get their share of the property and made the same claim as they made with Abu Bakr which was inheritance. Ibn Hajar al-’Asqalani agrees with this interpretation in Fath al-Bari, Vol 7 pg. 375:
As for the later dispute that ʿAlī and al-ʿAbbās brought before ʿUmar, Ismāʿīl al-Qāḍī, as quoted by al-Dāraquṭnī, argued that it was not a dispute over inheritance. Rather, he maintained that they were disagreeing over who would administer the charitable property and how its revenues should be spent.
However, reports recorded by al-Nasāʾī and ʿUmar b. Shabbah through Abū al-Bakhtarī suggest that they wanted the property to be divided between them as an inheritance.
In the report's wording, ʿUmar says: “Now you have come to me disputing again. This one says, ‘I want my share from my nephew,’ and this one says, ‘I want my share from my wife.’ By Allah, I will not judge between you except according to the previous arrangement,” meaning that he would only deal with it on the basis that it had been entrusted to them for administration, not ownership.
Objection 3: The Hadith indicates al-’Abbas believed ‘Ali was a hypocrite
A common objection that our opponents bring is that this Hadith which we the Shi’a cite also states that al-Abbas thought that ‘Ali (AS) was liar, sinful and treacherous. They then asked how can we the Shia use this hadith as evidence when we reject part of its content?
We respond by saying: When we quote a Hadith to refute our opponents, it does not mean we accept it wholesale, but simply that we argued for a particular point, and that point is demonstrated by a hadith they accept.
Ibn Hazm this simple concept in his al-Fasl fi al-Milal wal-ahwa wal-Nihal, Vol 4, pg. 159:
There is no point in our using our narrations as proof against them, because they do not consider them authentic. Likewise, there is no point in their using their narrations as proof against us, because we do not consider them authentic.
Rather, opponents should only argue against one another using what the person being argued against accepts as authentic, regardless of whether the one presenting the argument believes in it or not. For whoever accepts something as true is bound to uphold its implications.
Furthermore, the major Sunni scholar Ibn Qutayba also transmitted an answer to this same issue in his 'Uyun al-Akhbar. Vol 2 pg. 166:
“A man from the people of theological debate narrated to me: Hisham b. al-Hakam entered upon one of the Abbasid governors. A man said to the Abbasid official: ‘I can force Hisham to admit that Ali b. Abi Talib was a wrongdoer.’
So he said to him: ‘If you do that, you will receive such-and-such.’
The man then said: ‘O Abu Muhammad, did you not know that Ali disputed with al-Abbas b. Abd al-Muttalib before Abu Bakr?’
He replied: ‘Yes.’
The man asked: ‘So which of the two was wronging the other?’
Hisham hesitated and thought: ‘If I say al-Abbas, I fear the Abbasid; and if I say Ali, I contradict my own doctrine.’
Then he said: ‘Neither of them was a wrongdoer.’
The man said: ‘Can two people dispute over a matter while both are entirely correct?’
He replied: ‘Yes. The two angels disputed before Dawud, and neither of them was a wrongdoer. They only intended to alert him to his injustice. Likewise, these two disputed before Abu Bakr in order to make him recognize his injustice.’
So the man was silenced, and the caliph ordered that a gift be given to Hisham.”
This debate can also be read in Ibn Qutayba’s Ta’wil Mukhtalif al-Hadith, pg. 98 - 99 and al-Iqd al-Farid, Vol. 2, pg. 251 - 252.
So we can see that disputing does not necessarily mean that they believed the other party was wrong. Now, if somebody asks why al-Abbas called ‘Ali (AS) a liar sinful treacherous, we say al-Abbas could have done this to prompt ‘Umar to judge this dispute so that his injustice can be shown.
In any case, it is not our responsibility to patch up issues in our opponent’s Hadith traditions.
Thus, Hisham's argument, in essence, is that neither al-Abbas nor ‘Ali (AS) saw each other as unjust or oppressive; rather, they litigated against one another 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 in Surat Sad 38:22-24.
In this story, Allah (swt) sent two angels disguised as humans to Dawud (AS) in a dream, who pretended to have a dispute to test his judgement skills. The argument was that one brother has ninety nine sheep, and the other has only one. When the one with 99 sheep asked the other for their only sheep, Dawud hastened to say the request was unjust.
However, Allah informed him of this mistake in judgement since he does not know the context behind the request. The key point here is that the angels were not really in conflict, they only posed the scenario to make Dawud realise his mistake of prematurely passing judgement without investigating the matter. This is similar to the case of Ali and al-‘Abbas.
If someone were to ask, what is the evidence for Hisham’s argument, we would point them to the narration itself, where a group of people say:
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 is clear they coordinated this surprise in advance, as there is no way they all randomly decided to say the same thing at once. Hence, the objective of this litigation was to show that Abu Bakr and Umar were oppressive judgments, as planned by Ali and al-Abbas.
Furthermore, this case proves our position that ‘Ali viewed Abu Bakr and Umar as hypocrites, because he would not have sought inheritance from ‘Umar if he believed in the Hadith of the Prophet (SAW) narrated by Abu Bakr that denies his and his wife’s inheritance. The fact that he still pursued this inheritance regardless, binds us to two possibilities: Either Ali rejected the Prophetic hadith, or he regarded Abu Bakr as a liar.
Amazing! Thank you team JazakAllah Khair for this pheonmenal series!🤲❤️
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.