top of page

Fadak Series V: Refuting Famous Objections

Writer: Anonymous
Anonymous
Jun 11, 2025
23 min read

Updated: Jun 14

In this article we will address the four major objections Sunnis always bring up in the debates regarding Fadak and respond to them individually.

Objection 1: Imam ‘Ali (AS) did not return Fadak

When our opponents are confronted with the overwhelming evidence which we have presented regarding the issue of Fadak, they resort to asking why ‘Ali (AS) did not return Fadak to Fatima’s heirs. While this is a valid question, our opponents will be disappointed to find that this question in fact backfires on them, as not only do we the Shia have a response, but the response only further proves the Shia position regarding Abu Bakr and ‘Umar.

A crime going unpunished does not prove that the crime did not take place

Before we begin presenting source based responses, we would like to remind our readers of the simple fact that simply because a crime has not been punished or compensated, does not mean that the crime did not take place. To solidify this point, we shall now quote a few examples.

We read in Sahih al-Bukhari 4905: 

Narrated Jabir bin ‘Abdullah: We were in a Ghazwa and a man from the emigrants kicked an Ansari man. The Ansari man said, “O the Ansar [help]!” and the emigrant said. “O the emigrants [help]!".

Allah’s Apostle heard that and said, “What is this call for, which is characteristic of the period of ignorance?” They said, “O Allah’s Apostle! A man from the emigrants kicked one of the Ansar.” Allah’s Apostle said, “Leave it, as is a detestable thing.”

‘Abdullah bin Ubai heard that and said, ‘Have the (the emigrants) done so? By Allah, if we return Medina, surely, the more honorable will expel therefrom the meaner.” When this statement reached the Prophet. ‘Umar got up and said, “O Allah’s Apostle! Let me chop off the head of this hypocrite!”

The Prophet said “Leave him, lest the people say that Muhammad kills his companions.” The Ansar were then more in number than the emigrants when the latter came to Medina, but later on the emigrant increased.

We see in this tradition that a man clearly insulted the Prophet (SAW), but the Prophet did not punish him. By the logic of our opponents, the Prophet (SAW) not punishing him would mean that he did not commit a crime at all. This is of course unacceptable, rather the Prophet (SAW) had his reasons for refraining from punishing him, namely that such an action would have caused division and discord at a time when the Prophet (SAW) simply could not afford it.

We also read in Sahih al-Bukhari 5809:

Narrated Anas bin Malik: Once I was walking with Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) and he was wearing a Najram Burd with thick margin. A bedouin followed him and pulled his Burd so violently that I noticed the side of the shoulder of Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) affected by the margin of the Burd because of that violent pull. The Bedouin said, "O Muhammad! Give me some of Allah's wealth which is with you." Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) turned and looked at him, and smiling, 'he ordered that he be given something.

We see this man physically harmed the Prophet (SAW), but the Prophet (SAW) did not punish him, choosing instead patience and forbearance. Furthermore, by asking this question our opponents have already conceded defeat, as by asking why ‘Ali did not return Fadak they have acknowledged that Fadak needed to be returned in the first place.

Imam ‘Ali not returning Fadak does not prove that he agreed with Abu Bakr and ‘Umar’s verdict

As we have previously shown, ‘Ali (AS) testified in favor of Fatima (AS), and after her martyrdom, he continued to press ‘Umar for Fadak. This clearly indicates that ‘Ali (AS) believed Fadak rightfully belonged to Fatima (AS) and her heirs.

Just as the Prophet (SAW) had his reasoning for not implementing certain rulings, ‘Ali (AS) also had his reasons for not undoing what Abu Bakr had done and this is confirmed in the books of our opponents by none other than Imam Muhammad al-Baqir (AS).

Sufyan b. ‘Uyaynah narrated from Muhammad b. Ishaq, who said:

I asked Abu Ja‘far Muhammad b. ‘Ali (AS): “What did ‘Ali (AS) do regarding the khums?”

He said: “He followed the path of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar in it, and he disliked that he should act in a way contrary to them. And this indicates that he actually held a view in it different from their view, but he followed them.”

We see here that al-Shafi’i understood this hadith to indicate that ‘Ali (AS) did not change a ruling implemented by Abu Bakr and ‘Umar even though he disagreed with it. This is also the case with Fadak, as we have clear evidence that ‘Ali (AS) disagreed with their ruling regarding it, but did not change it. Imam Baqir (AS) said that this was due to the fact that ‘Ali (AS) did not want to act contrary to them, and we shall shed further light on why ‘Ali (AS) was wary of this issue.

‘Ali was following the sunnah and avoiding Fitna

The Prophet (SAW) his own house stolen by the pagans of Quraysh, but he did not go out of his way to reclaim it. we read in Sahih Muslim 1351 and Sahih al-Bukhari 4282, 4283

Usama bin Zaid said during the Conquest (of Mecca), "O Allah's Messenger (ﷺ)! Where will we encamp tomorrow?" The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "But has `Aqil left for us any house to lodge in?"

He then added, "No believer will inherit an infidel's property, and no infidel will inherit the property of a believer." Az- Zuhri was asked, "Who inherited Abu Talib?" Az-Zuhri replied, "Aqil and Talib inherited him."

Just as the Prophet (SAW) did not take back his house back after it was stolen, Imam ‘Ali (AS) followed his sunnah and did not take back Fadak after it was stolen. In fact, this very reason has been cited by some of the Imams of the Ahl al-Bayt (AS).

Ahmad b. ‘Ali b. Ibrahim b. Hashim narrated to us, saying: My father narrated to me, from his father Ibrahim b. Hashim, from Muhammad b. Abi ‘Umayr, from Ibrahim al-Karkhi, who said:

I asked Abu ‘Abdillah (AS) and said to him: “For what reason did ‘Ali b. Abi Talib (AS) leave Fadak when he assumed authority over the people?”

So he said: “In emulation of the Messenger of Allah (SAW). When he conquered Mecca, ‘Aqil b. Abi Talib had sold his house. It was said to him: ‘O Messenger of Allah, will you not return to your house?’

He replied: ‘Did ‘Aqil leave us any house?’ We are a household that does not reclaim anything that is taken from us unjustly. For that reason, he did not reclaim Fadak when he assumed authority.”

This report is also found in Uyun Akhbar al-Ridha, Vol. 1, Ch. 2, H. 31.

We shall also present another example of the Prophet (SAW) read in Sahih al-Bukhari 126:

Ibn Az-Zubair said to me, “Aisha used to tell you secretly a number of things. What did she tell you about the Kaaba?” I replied, “She told me that once the Prophet said, ‘O ‘Aisha! H

ad not your people been still close to the pre-Islamic period of ignorance (infidelity)! I would have dismantled the Ka’ba and would have made two doors in it; one for entrance and the other for exit.” Later on Ibn Az-Zubair did the same.

Similar traditions can be read in Sahih al-Bukhari 1586 and Sahih Muslim 1333a.

ِAl-’Ayni in his commentary on this tradition transmitted the following in Umdatul Qari Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari Vol 1 pg. 307 - 308:

Ibn Battal said: “In it (this tradition) is evidence that a small aspect of commanding what is right may sometimes be left aside if one fears that it would become a cause of discord among people who reject it.”

Al-’Ayni further records on Umdatul Qari Vol 1 pg. 308

“People’s souls like to be guided according to what they are comfortable and familiar with in the religion of Allah, apart from the obligatory duties.”

Similarly, al-Nawawi commented on the variant transmitted in Sahih Muslim in Sharh Muslim Vol 9 pg. 128:

“And in this hadith is evidence for foundational legal principles. Among them: when benefits conflict with one another, or when a benefit conflicts with a harm, and it is impossible to combine achieving the benefit while avoiding the harm, then priority is given to what is more important.

This is because the Prophet (SAW) explained that demolishing the Ka‘bah and restoring it to the foundations of Ibrahim (AS) was a benefit, but it conflicted with a greater harm — namely, the fear of causing turmoil among some people who had only recently accepted Islam. That was because of the great reverence they held for the Ka‘bah, so they would have viewed altering it as something tremendous. Therefore, the Prophet (SAW) left it as it was.”

Here we see that according to the Sunni scholars, the Prophet (SAW) refrained from rebuilding the Ka’aba in order to avoid civil strife. This proves that it is acceptable for the Imam to delay or refrain from implementing a ruling if it would entail more harm than good. We shall now prove that Imam ‘Ali (AS) did not take back Fadak for the same reason.

This can clearly be seen in Imam ‘Ali’s own words al-Kafi, Vol 15, p. 152 - 160, Hadith # 21 [14836]:

‘Ali b. Ibrahim, from his father, from Hammad b. ‘Isa, from Ibrahim b. ‘Umar al-Yamani, from Aban b. Abi ‘Ayyash, from Sulaym b. Qays al-Hilali that Amir al-Mu’minin (AS) delivered a sermon. He praised Allah and extolled Him, then sent blessings upon the Prophet (SAW)... until he said:

He turned his face toward the people around him — among them members of his household, his close companions, and his Shi‘a — and said: “The rulers before me carried out actions in which they opposed the Messenger of Allah (SAW) deliberately, breaking his covenant and altering his Sunnah. If I were to compel the people to abandon those practices, and restore matters to their proper places and to what they had been during the time of the Messenger of Allah (SAW), my army would disperse from around me until I would remain alone, or with only a small number of my Shi‘a — those who know my merit and the obligation of my Imamate from the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (SAW).”

Then he (AS) mentioned matters that those who ruled before him had changed, until he said: “And if I were to return Fadak to the heirs of Fatimah (AS)… [Had I done so] then they would surely scatter away from me..

By Allah, I commanded the people not to gather in the month of Ramadan except for an obligatory prayer, and I informed them that their gathering for non-obligated prayers was a bid‘ah. Then some of the people in my army who fought alongside me cried out: ‘O people of Islam! The Sunnah of ‘Umar has been changed! He forbids us from performing voluntary prayers in the month of Ramadan!’

I truly feared that they would revolt in one section of my camp because of what I have suffered from this Ummah — of division, obedience to the leaders of misguidance, and the callers to the Fire...”

This report highlights how Imam ‘Ali wanted to undo many of the innovations that the previous rulers instituted, but was unable to do so. Imam ‘Ali (AS) knew that to challenge the rulings of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar would essentially destroy his state, as the majority of the people around him did not view his leadership as authoritative enough to disagree with the precedents of the rulers that came before him. 

For the duration of his caliphate Imam ‘Ali (AS) was forced to contend with multiple powerful opponents, namely ‘Aisha and her allies, Mu’awiya and his allies, and the Kharijites. Had he taken Fadak back by force then this act would have created widespread opposition.

As an example, he cited what happened when he tried to stop the people of Kufa from praying Taraweeh. Al-Tusi reported in Tahdhib al-Ahkam Vol 3 pg. 77, Hadith # 227:

‘Ali b. al-Hasan b. Faddal, from Ahmad b. al-Hasan, from ‘Umar b. Sa‘id al-Mada’ini, from Musaddaq b. Sadaqah, from ‘Ammar, from Abu ‘Abdillah (AS) who said:

When the Commander of the Faithful (AS) came to Kufa, he ordered Hasan b. ‘Ali (AS) to call out among the people: “There is no prayer in the month of Ramadan in the mosques in congregation.”:

So al-Hasan b. ‘Ali (AS) called out to the people as the Commander of the Faithful had ordered him. When the people heard the words of Hasan b. ‘Ali, they cried out: “O Umar! O Umar!”

When Hasan returned to the Commander of the Faithful (AS) he said: “What is this cry?”

He replied: “O Commander of the Faithful, the people are crying: O Umar! O Umar!”

So the Commander of the Faithful (AS) said: “Tell them to pray.”

(Al-Sheikh al-Tusi commented:) So Amir al-Mu’minin (AS) also, when he objected, objected to the gathering itself and did not object to the prayer itself. Then when he saw that the matter would lead to disorder against him and that the people would fall into fitnah, he permitted it and instructed them to pray according to their customary practice. All of this is clear, praise be to Allah.

We would further remind our readers that at the time of Imam ‘Ali (AS) taking power, the land of Fadak was in the hands of none other than Marwan b. al-Hakam (LA). We read in al-Ma'rifa wal Tarikh, Vol 1, pg. 587:

Hisham b. 'Ammar narrated to us, Yahya b. Hamzah narrated to us, Sulayman narrated to me:

'Umar looked into his estates and tore up their records except for my estate of Khaybar and al-Suwayda. So 'Umar asked: From where did Khaybar belong to his father?

It was said: It was fay' belonging to the Messenger of Allah SAW, and the Messenger of Allah SAW left it as fay' for the Muslims. Then when 'Uthman b. 'Affan was in authority, he gave it to Marwan b. al-Hakam, and Marwan gave it to 'Abd al-'Aziz, the father of 'Umar, and 'Abd al-'Aziz gave it to 'Umar. So he tore up its record and said: I am leaving it where the Messenger of Allah (SAW) left it. And it reached me that it was Fadak.

We also read in Ibn Qutayba's Kitab al-Ma'arif pg. 195:

And Marwan granted Fadak away, even though it had been the charity endowment of the Messenger of Allah (SAW).

We ask our readers to consider carefully; Imam ‘Ali’s adversaries had managed to rally forces against him through the accusation that he killed ‘Uthman, which was something he was completely innocent of. We read in Musannaf Ibn Abi Shayba Vol. 21, pg 442, Hadith # 40512:

Aswar b. Amir said: Jarir b. Hazim narrated to us from Ibn Sirin, who said:

"I did not know that ‘Ali was accused in the killing of Uthman until he was given the pledge of allegiance (and when he was given the pledge), the people accused him."

If a false accusation caused this much trouble for Imam ‘Ali (AS), then imagine the opposition that would have mustered if Imam ‘Ali had taken Fadak from Marwan? Had he done so, the only way he could have justified it is by directly accusing Abu Bakr and ‘Umar of stealing it, which would have turned many of his supporters against him.

Objection 2: Fatima dying angry with Abu Bakr is an addition by al-Zuhri

One of the most popular arguments that our opponents will argue is that the part of the Hadith that the Shi’a use to prove that Fatima (AS) died angry with Abu Bakr is not authentic and is simply an addition by Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri, who was born after the events, making this report disconnected and therefore weak. They then refer to a report from al-Sha’bi who states that Fatima (AS) forgave Abu Bakr before she passed away.

Fatima dying angry with Abu Bakr is not from al-Zuhri’s commentary

In response to this, we refer to al-Bayhaqi’s commentary as quoted by Ibn Hajar al-’Asqalani in Fath al-Bari, Vol. 12, pg. 438:

Al-Bayhaqi has pointed to that part of hadith which says: "And she lived for..." to the end of the hadith is Idraaj, and this is in Muslim through another chain from Al-Zuhri and has mentioned the hadith and has said at the end of it: I said to Al- Zuhri: "How long did Fatima (sa) live after the Prophet (saw)?" He said: "Six months!" And has attributed it to the narration of Muslim, and such a thing is not in Muslim and in Muslim it is connected (mawsul) like it is in Al-Bukhari, and Allah (swt) knows best.

As we can see, Ibn Hajar pointed out that the idraaj of al-Zuhri does not occur until the part where it says “And she lived for…”, and this comes after the mentioning of her anger with Abu Bakr, which means this is the statement of Aisha not al-Zuhri. This is evident from the version in Musnad Ahmad b. Hanbal, Vol 1 pg. 204 - 205, Hadith # 25 which reads:

Abu Bakr said to her that Rasulullah (SAW) said, 'We do not leave inheritance, what we leave behind is charity.’ Fatima (AS) became angry and ignored Abu Bakr, and did not stop ignoring him until she passed away. 

He (i.e. al-Zuhri) said: She lived after the Prophet for 6 months.

So the statement of her anger is not from al-Zuhri, but rather the statements of ‘Aisha as Zuhri’s statements come after the expression of her anger. 

This is further evidenced in another version of this hadith in Musnad Abi Bakr, pg. 74 - 77, Hadith # 38 by al-Marwazi which says:

She (i.e. Aisha) said: Fatima boycotted him. She did not speak to him until she passed away. Ali buried her at night, and did not allow Abu Bakr to attend.

In this narration, it is clear ‘Aisha is the one speaking, for it uses قالت which is feminine as opposed to قال, hence it cannot al-Zuhri speaking.

Even then, Ibn Hajar affirms that the report is in fact connected in both Bukhari and Muslim, (mawsul) and not disconnected, thus this claim is rendered null and void.

Other reports confirm that Fatima died angry with Abu Bakr

In addition to the tradition of ‘Aisha, there are multiple other chains from narrators without al-Zuhri that confirm Fatima dying angry at Abu Bakr, such as in Jami` at-Tirmidhi 1609:

Narrated Abu Hurairah: That Fatimah came to Abu Bakr and 'Umar may Allah be pleased with them both, to ask them about her inheritance from the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ). They said: "We heard the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) say: 'I am not inherited from.'" So she said: 'By Allah! I will never talk to you two again.' So she died having not talked to them."

'Ali b. 'Eisa said: "The meaning of not speaking to you two is: 'Never again regarding this inheritance, because you two are truthful.'"

The explanation of ‘Ali b. ‘Isa is not sound because it contradicts what Fatima (AS) clearly said. It is no more than a desperate attempt to dismiss the clear disagreement between Fatima (AS) and Abu Bakr.

Even Ibn Hajar al-'Asqalani admits the oddity of this argument in Fath al-Bari, Vol. 9, pg. 362 - 363:

Similarly, Imam Tirmidhi also reported from some of his scholars that the meaning of Fatima's statement to Abu Bakr and Umar, "I will not speak to you," refers to the issue of inheritance. Al-Shashi followed up by stating that the indication of her statement, "She became angry," implies that she refrained from speaking altogether, which clearly indicates her ignoring him.

So, what is in the authentic hadith regarding her clearly ignoring him should not be contradicted, nor does it indicate approval of that action.

Another report aiding our point is recorded by al-Baladhuri in Ansab al-Ashraf, Vol. 10, pg. 79:

“Al-Mada’ini narrated from Sa‘id b. Khalid, the client of Khuza‘ah, from Musa b. ‘Uqbah, who said:”

“Fatimah entered upon Abu Bakr after allegiance had been pledged to him and said: ‘Umm Ayman and Ribah testify for me that the Messenger of Allah (SAW) gave Fadak to me.’

He replied: ‘By Allah, Allah created no one more beloved to me than your father. I wished that the Day of Resurrection had come on the day he died. And for A’ishah to become poor is more beloved to me than for you to become poor. Do you think I would give the rights of the black and the red to others while wronging you, when you are the daughter of the Messenger of Allah (SAW)? This wealth belonged only to the Muslims. Your father used to equip riders from it and spend from it in the path of Allah, and I will manage it in the same way your father managed it.’

Fatima said: ‘By Allah, I will never speak to you!’

Abu Bakr said: ‘By Allah, I will never abandon you.’

Fatima said: ‘By Allah, I will certainly supplicate to Allah against you!’

Abu Bakr said: ‘I will certainly supplicate to Allah for you.’”

Her statements of not speaking to him and praying against him, clearly show that she is very angry at him. 

Furthermore, we have an authentic chain to the grandson of ‘Ali (AS) confirming that Fatima (AS) died angry in Musannaf Abd al-Razzaq, Vol. 4, pg. 240, Hadith # 6757 - 6759:

Abd al-Razzaq narrated from Ibn Jurayj and Amr b. Dinar that Hasan b. Muhammad informed him that:

Fatimah, the daughter of the Prophet (saw), was buried at night. He said that Ali fled with her from Abu Bakr to pray over her, there was a dispute between them. 

Abd al-Razzaq narrated from Ibn Uyaynah from Amr b. Dinar from Hasan b. Muhammad, similar to the above except that he said: "She entrusted him with that." 

Abd al-Razzaq narrated from Ma'mar from Urwah from Aisha that Ali buried Fatima at night and Abu Bakr did not lead the funeral prayer for her.

So we have authentic reports of a companion, a famous historian and even an authentic chain to the grandson of ‘Ali (AS) confirming her anger, consequently her anger is proven regardless of the weak objections which our opponents may bring.

Most of the variants of the tradition have the report connected to ‘Aisha

Al-Zuhri’s idraaj (commentary) are not isolated comments, they are based on existing transmissions made by A’isha herself. This is affirmed by al-Zuhri’s own testimony, where in other variants he attributes these statements to A’isha herself. 

For a list of these examples, refer to this list:

In each of these transmissions, al-Zuhri is directly narrating from A’isha his own commentaries. Thus, ‘Aisha being the one that narrates Fatima’s anger at Abu Bakr is more evidently attested than it being al-Zuhri. 

The inconsistency of our opponents 

We notice that they claim that the anger of Fatima (AS) is simply an addition of a later narrator yet they accept this narrative of Imam ‘Ali (AS) willingly pledging allegiance and praising Abu Bakr, when the speaker is the same! We read in Sahih Muslim 1759a 

[He said:] She forsook him and did not talk to him until the end of her life. She lived for six months after the death of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ). When she died, her husband. 'Ali b. Abu Talib, buried her at night. He did not inform Abu Bakr about her death and offered the funeral prayer over her himself. During the lifetime of Fatima, 'All received (special) regard from the people. After she had died, he felt estrangement in the faces of the people towards him. So he sought to make peace with Abu Bakr and offer his allegiance to him. He had not yet owed allegiance to him as Caliph during these months. [...]

Then 'Ali b. Abu Talib recited the Tashahhud. extolled the merits of Abu Bakr and (said that) his action was not prompted by any jealousy of Abu Bakr on his part or his refusal to accept the high position which Allah had conferred upon him, but we were of the opinion that we should have a share in the government, but the matter had been decided without taking us into confidence, and this displeased us. (Hence the delay in offering allegiance. The Muslims were pleased with this (explanation) and they said: You have done the right thing. The Muslims were (again) favourably inclined to 'Ali since he adopted the proper course of action.

The narrator for both the anger of Fatima (AS) and the bay’ah narrative is the same, so if our opponents wish to weaken the anger they have to weaken the bay’ah narrative that they love so much.

As for the report of al-Sha’abi, we have dedicated an entire article to proving that this man was a liar and a nasibi, which can be read here: Did Fatima forgive Abu Bakr before death?

Objection 3: Scholars heirs of Prophets?

In a famously recorded narration from Al-Kafi, Book 1, Ch. 4, H. # 1, we read as follows: 

“And the scholars are the heirs of the Prophets, and the Prophets did not leave behind dinars or dirhams as inheritance, but left knowledge…”.  

When our opponents find this hadith, they celebrate with joy as if it is the festival of Eid. However, upon analysis we find this Hadith does not serve as evidence for them. 

In the principles of jurisprudence, in order for you to use a Hadith as a proof for a legal ruling, it must be completely unambiguous and decisive in its signification (dalala). Scholars refer to this as nass (نص), which contrasts to indecisive proofs which can be interpreted in many different ways- those are called mujmal (مُجْمَلُ).

Refer back to the student of Ibn Taymiyyah, Najm al-Din al-Tufi’s Sharh Mukhtasar al-Rawdha, Vol. 1, pg. 553:

The interpretation of speech confinement lies in textual (nass), the apparent (dhahir), and general (mujmal). Language can either carry a single meaning or multiple meanings. In the former case, it is textual (nass). In the latter, it either leans towards one meaning - which would make it the apparent (dhahir) - or remains undecided (i.e. both are equally valid), and that is the general (mujmal).

We find that this tradition at hand in no clear way shows the negation of Prophetic inheritance, nor leans towards it, and that is because it can hold several other interpretations. 

The Hadith points to the virtue of knowledge 

Al-Shaykh al-Kulayni puts this report in his Fadha’il al-’Ilm (Virtue of Knowledge) in the Chapter of the reward for scholars seeking knowledge. This shows he does not understand this hadith as related to Prophetic inheritance, but rather a figure of speech (or a metaphor) relating to scholars accumulating the main thing prophets left behind for the Ummah - knowledge.

This hadith is also found in Sunni books such as Jami’ at-Tirmidhi 2682 and Sunan Ibn Majah 223, and Sunan Abi Dawud 364 who have all put this in a different chapter to Abu Bakr’s hadith, rather they put in the books relating to knowledge. 

Ibn Abdul Barr also put this narration in his Jami' al-Bayan, Vol. 1, pg. 160, Hadith # 169 whom he dedicated primarily to the benefit of knowledge and its importance. 

None of them have understood this narration as relevant to prophetic inheritance, but all put them in chapters relating to the virtue of knowledge showing they understood it just as Kulayni did.

This is what was explained by al-Mazandari (RH) in Sharh Usul al-Kafi, Vol. 2, pg. 26:

"That is because the prophets did not inherit a penny or a dinar”: This seemingly contradicts what is indicated by the verses and narrations about their inheritance. 

The response is that what is meant is that it was not the custom of the prophets to accumulate wealth and material possessions like worldly people do. This does not contradict the fact that they inherited necessities such as homes, transportation, clothing, and the like. 

Alternatively, what is meant is that the purpose of prophethood was not such inheritance (i.e. worldly items). 

Allama al-Majlesi (RH) echoes this explanation in Mir'at al-Uqul, Vol. 1, pg. 103 - 104. 

Secondly, if we interpret this hadith literally, then it would imply that scholars have the same knowledge as prophets, for it calls them inheritors. Since we know this isn’t the case, then it cannot be proof for Abu Bakr’s Hadith, as it is metaphorical.  

The Hadith does not contain the same wording as Abu Bakr’s 

This hadith does not even mention land or property, so has no relation to Fadak. This also contradicts the hadith of Abu Bakr which says everything left behind is for charity, while this hadith says prophets have nothing left behind. The tradition does not elaborate on where the wealth of prophets go, so are we to assume they go up to heaven or something?

The hadith of Abu Bakr supposedly proves their inheritance goes to charity, this hadith makes no mention of that. There is no proof it would go to charity, and using Abu Bakr’s hadith would be circular; Abu Bakr’s hadith that their property goes to sadaqa is proven by this hadith, and it refers to property going to sadaqa because of Abu Bakr’s hadith. That is a circular argument and so invalid.

The Ahl al-Bayt’s understanding of this Hadith

In another hadith by the Imam (as), he explains in Qurb al-Isnad, pg. 99, Hadith # 335 by al-Himyari (RA):

From Hanan Ibn Sadir who said: Sadaqah Ibn Muslim asked Imam al-Sadiq (AS):

"Who bore witness that Fatimah does not inherit from her father?"

He replied, "Aisha, Hafsah, and a man from the Arabs named Aws b. Hadithan from the tribe of Banu Nadir. They bore witness before Abu Bakr that Rasulullah (SAW) said, ‘I do not leave inheritance.’ So they prevented Fatima (AS) from inheriting from her father.”

Imam al-Sadiq (AS) here explains that Abu Bakr used this hadith as proof for denying Fatima inheritance, which means it is not relevant to our hadith at hand.  

Abu Bakr would have also used that hadith as a proof against Fatima (AS), but he never did, showing he himself also did not see it as a proof against her inheriting wealth. 

Imam Ali (AS) would have also heard about this hadith since the knowledge of later Imams comes from previous Imams. Fatima’s demanding Fadak clearly demonstrates that this hadith has no relation to Abu Bakr’s hadith. 

Objection 4: Women do not inherit in Shia jurisprudence

Objection: A woman in Shi’a jurisprudence does not inherit, so Fatima (AS) has no right to inherit from her father. There are multiple reports which seem to imply this, such as the following from Al-Kafi Vol 7, Book 2, Ch. 27, Hadith. # 1:

Ali ibn Ibrahim has narrated from Muhammad ibn ‘Isa from Yunus from Muhammad ibn Humran from Zurarah from Muhammad ibn Muslim who has narrated the following:

“Abu Ja‘far (AS), has said, ‘Women do not inherit from land and real property anything.’”

Response: This hadith is referring to widows when it says women, not daughters

Nowhere in these hadiths does it mention the word بنت (daughter). Rather, the hadith states نساء (women). That is referring to a widow in this context, not a daughter. 

In Shi’a jurisprudence a woman does not inherit property from her husband, but a daughter does from her father. This is because a widow may marry a new man and take her previous husband’s property with her, then have it inherited to children she has with her new husband resulting in inheritance of a man going to descendants that are not his. Moreover, his descendants would be deprived of some of their inheritance when it needs to be shared with a new family. 

Another authentic tradition narrated by al-Tusi in Tahdhib al-Ahkam, Vol. 9, pg. 345, Hadith # 113 provides context to the report:

Sahl ibn Ziyad, from ‘Ali ibn al-Hakam, from Aban al-Ahmar—who said: “I know of no other source for this than Maysar, the seller of zuti”—from Abu ‘Abdullah, who said: 

“I asked him about women’s share of inheritance. He said: ‘They are entitled to the value of bricks, building materials, timber and reeds; as for land and property, they have no share in them.’

 I said: I said: ‘What about clothing?’ He said: ‘Clothing is theirs.’ I said: I said: ‘How did it come to be that she is entitled to a quarter and an eighth?’ 

He said: ‘Because a woman has no lineage through which to inherit; she is merely an outsider to them. This is so that a woman does not marry, and her husband or a child from another people comes and competes with a people over their property.’

The tradition evidently shows that this is within the context of widows, and not daughters, as it discusses a woman inheriting from her husband. 

These traditions can be found in:

In Man La Yahdhural Faqih, Vol. 4, pg. 261, al-Saduq records this hadith:

Al-Bazanti narrated that he said: ‘I asked Abu Ja’far al-Thani (AS) and said: ‘May I be sacrificed for you, what if a man died and left a daughter and uncles?’. He replied: ‘The property is for the daughter.’

It declared sahih by Ayatullah Sadiq al-Rohani (RH) in Fiqh al-Sadiq, Vol. 37, pg. 29.

We also read this tradition with another sahih chain per al-’Allama al-Majlisi in Al-Kafi, Vol. 7, Book 2, Ch. 12, Hadith #5.

Zurara narrated that Abi Jafar (AS) was asked about a man who died and left a daughter, sister and mother. He replied: ‘The daughter will inherit the whole property, the sister and mother have no share in it.’

We read in Ayatullah al-Sistani’s (HA) Islamic Laws:

2748: If out of the first group, there is only one heir of the deceased (for example, father or mother or only one son or only one daughter) he/she inherits the entire estate, and, if there are more than one sons or daughters, the estate is divided among them in such a way, that each son gets twice the share of each daughter.

Conclusion

In conclusion, we have demonstrated how Abu Bakr oppressed Fatima (AS) and the Ahlulbayt (AS) concerning Fadak and the Khumms. We also saw how Abu Bakr fabricated a hadith that contradicts the Quran and Ahlulbayt (AS) and how he even contradicted himself. His lie angered Fatima (AS) to the point that she died in that state and was buried at night so he does not pray over her. All of this shows that the correct position regarding this man is the position of the Shia, who completely dissociate from him and his ally ‘Umar.

We refuted the objections that out our opponents bring, like Imam Ali (AS) not giving Fadak back, attempts to weaken reports about the anger of Fatima (AS), their misreading of hadiths from our corpus and the claim that women can not inherit in the Shi’a jurisprudence.

We see then, clear as day, that Abu Bakr had no right to lead the Ummah. We would like to conclude with the following hadith in Al-Kāfi - Hadith 1 - Vol 8, Book 1, Chapter 340  

‘Ali b. Ibrahim from his father from Hanan b. Sadir, and Muhammad b. Yahya from Ahmad b. Muhammad from Muhammad b. Isma’il from Hanan b. Sadir from his father, said:

I asked Abu Ja‘far (AS) about the two, and he said: “O Abu al-Fadl, why do you ask me about those two (Abu Bakr & Umar)? By God, none of us has ever died except in anger at them, and today there is none of us except who is angry at them. The elders among us advise the younger about this: they wronged us, deprived us of our due, and were the first to oppress us. They spread tyranny over us in Islam that will never cease until our Qa’im rises or our spokesperson speaks.

Then he said: By God, if our Qa’im had risen or our spokesperson had spoken, he would have revealed from their affairs what had been hidden, and hidden from their affairs what had been revealed. By God, no calamity or decree occurs among us, the People of the House, except that they initiated its first step. Upon them be the curse of God, the angels, and all people.”

Comments

bottom of page