He did not accept the Ansaar for this purpose. This is recorded in Madaarij, Ma-aarij and other books of history.

The aforementioned reason for the cancellation of the order is stated in Ma-aalim, Zaahidi, Baidhaawi, Sharh Tajreed, Sharh Mawaaqif, Sawaaiq-e-Muhriqah, commentaries of Mishkaat and in other Kitaabs of the Ahlus Sunnah.

It is significant that in spite of the cancellation, Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) assisted Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) in discharging the duty of proclaiming Surah Baraa-ah to the Hajj crowd, and so did Hadhrat Abu Hurairah (radhiallahu anhu). The following narration of Ibn Abbaas (radhiallahu anhu) appears in Tirmizi:

“Ali would announce (Surah Baraa-ah). When he became tired, Abu Bakr would rise and announce.”

In one narration it appears:

“When his (Ali’s) voice became hoarse, Abu Hurairah would stand and announce.”

Thus, Hadhrat Ali’s (radhiallahu anhu) task was simply to make an announcement - to repeatedly proclaim to the people the new revelation. In this simple but physically taxing effort other Sahaabah too assisted Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu).

Even if it is assumed that Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) was dismissed from executing the task of making the announcement, it does not follow that the dismissal was on account of inability or defect. The dismissal can be a consequence of some particular reason unrelated to ability.

Amr Bin Abi Salmah (radhiallahu anhu) was an ardent supporter of Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu). He was a man of ability, a great aabid and zaahid. When Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) dismissed him from the governorship of Bahrain, he (Ali) wrote in a letter to Amr:

“I have appointed Nu`maan Bin Ajlaan Zurqi as the Governor of Bahrain. I have removed you without any criticism for you and there is no blame on you. You had beautifully discharged (the affairs of) the governorship and you have fulfilled the trust. Therefore, return (knowing that I have) not thought ill (of you) nor (have I) criticism and accusation (against you) nor (do I attribute) sin (to you).”

This is recorded in authentic books and in the most authentic book of Shi`ism, namely Nahjul Balaaghah. It is an established fact that Amr Bin Abi Salmah, a Sahaabi, was superior to Nu`maan Bin Abi Ajlaan Zurqi, who was not a Sahaabi. Nevertheless, Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) for some specific reason dismissed him and replaced him with another capable, albeit inferior person.

The Shi`i argument thus is devoid of substance, its motivation being pure malice and hatred for Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu).

12. HADHRAT ABU BAKR REFUSED TO GIVE HADHRAT FAATIMAH’S INHERITANCE

Shiahs accuse Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) of depriving Hadhrat Faatimah (radhiallahu anha) of her inheritance. On this issue Shiahs claim:

(a) In order to deprive Hadhrat Faatimah (radhiallahu anha) of her inheritance, he gave preference to his own statement, viz.

“I heard Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) say:’We are of the group of the Ambiyaa. We do not inherit from anyone nor does anyone inherit from us.’”

(b) Abu Bakr’s (radhiallahu anhu) claim is (according to Shiahs) in conflict with the Qur`aan which says:

“Allah, commands you regarding your children. For a male is a share of two females.”

This Aayat in its generality brings Ambiyaa and non-Ambiyaa within its scope,

(c) Abu Bakr’s (radhiallahu anhu) action also conflicts with the Qur`aanic Aayat:

“ Sulaimaan also inherited from Daaud.”

The Qur`aan also says:

“Grant me from Your side an heir who will inherit from meand inherit from the progeny of Ya`qub.”

Thus, it is clear that the children of Ambiyaa do inherit, i.e. according to the Shiah claim.

RESPONSE

This Shi`i claim and arguments are baseless for the following reasons:

(1) Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) refusing to comply with Hadhrat Faatimah’s (radhiallahu anha) request for inheritance was on account of the directive of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and not because of any hatred for Hadhrat Faatimah (radhiallahu anha) as alleged by Shiahs. If Hadhrat Faatimah (radhiallahu anha) had to inherit, it would follow that the wives of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) were also heirs. Among the Holy Wives, was Hadhrat Aishah (radhiallahu anha), the daughter of Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu). All of them were blocked from inheriting. In terms of Shiah logic, it would have to be said that Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) maliciously deprived all the wives of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) including his own daughter, Aishah (radhiallahu anha) of inheritance. But this is ridiculous and has no substantiation. But Shiahs are silent on the issue of “depriving” Hadhrat Aishah (radhiallahu anha) and the other wives of inheritance to which they would be entitled if Hadhrat Faatimah’s (radhiallahu anha) inheritance is conceded.

If inheritance for Hadhrat Faatimah (radhiallahu anha) had to be conceded, then almost half of Rasulullah’s (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) estate would have been the inheritance of Hadhrat Abbaas (radhiallahu anhu), the paternal uncle. From the very inception of the Khilaafat, Hadhrat Abbaas (radhiallahu anhu) was Hadhrat Abu Bakr’s (radhiallahu anhu) adviser and close companion. How can it be accepted that Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) had deprived him too of inheritance?

The claim that Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) had relied only on his own statement is a pure lie. According to the books of Hadith, the Hadith of Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) is supported by the narrations of Huzaifah Bin Yamaan, Zubair Bin Awwaam, Abu Darda, Abu Hurairah, Abbaas, Ali, Uthmaan, Abdur Rahmaan Bin Auf and Sa`ad Bin Abi Waqqaas (radhiallahu anhum), all senior Sahaabah.

Bukhaari narrated from Maalik Bin Uwais Bin Hadhthaan Nasri that Umar Bin Khattaab stated in the presence of the Sahaabah among whom were Ali, Abbaas, Uthmaan, Abdur Rahmaan Bin Auf, Zubair Bin Awwaam and Sa`ad Bin Abi Waqqaas :

“I give you an oath by Allah, He with whose command the heaven and earth operate! Are you aware that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:

‘ We (i.e. the Ambiyaa) have no heirs. Whatever (assets) we leave are Sadaqah.”

They (the Sahaabah) said:

“O Allah! Yes, so it is.”

Then he ( Umar) addressing Ali and Abbaas, said:

“ I give both of you an oath by Allah do you know that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said so?”

They (Ali and Abbaas) said:

“ O Allah! Yes!”

Besides all these evidences of the Ahlus Sunnah, even Shiah records confirm that the Ambiyaa do not leave any estates to be inherited by their relatives. The following appears in Al-Kaafi, one of the most authentic books according to the Shiahs:

“Abul Bakhtari narrates from Abi Abdullah Ja`far Bin Muhammad Saadiq who said : ’Verily, the Ulama are the heirs of the Ambiyaa. -i.e. the Ambiyaa do not leave inheritance.”

In one version it appears:

“They do not inherit Dinars and Dirhams. Verily, they leave the inheritance of their Ahaadith. Thus, whoever takes a share of it, has indeed taken a great Share.”

In this narration of the Shiahs the term appears. This word, even according to Shiahs, emphasises the restrictive meaning, i.e. “Only”.

The sentence thus means:

The Ambiyaa leave only the inheritance of their Ahaadith (and nothing else).

Furthermore, Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) heard the Hadith directly from Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), without the medium of an intermediary. Hence, assuming that he was the only one who had heard the Hadith, then too, following its directive would be incumbent on him. But as the situation stands, he was corroborated by numerous senior Sahaabah.

For people of knowledge, it will prove beneficial to remember the following principle:

The categorisation of Hadith into Mutawaatir and non-Mutawaatir classes applies to those who did not acquire the Ahaadith directly from Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). It does not concern those who had heard the Ahaadith directly from the blessed lips of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). This principle is unanimously accepted by both Sunni‘s and Shiahs.

Thus, a person who heard the Hadith directly from Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is under compulsion to act according to its directive. For him it has greater significance than even the Mutawaatir category. Hence, Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) had no need to search for corroboration from any other sources.

The Shiah claim of Hadhrat Abu Bakr’s (radhiallahu anhu) narration being in conflict with the Qur`aan is baseless and false. The pronoun (your) in the first Aayat (stated above) refers to the Ummah. It is not an address directed to Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), while the Hadith negating inheritance of the Ambiyaa is a specific address directed to the Ambiyaa. It should not be viewed as Mukhassis (i.e. a factor which excludes members from a general order-this is a rule relating to Usool).

Even if it is accepted to be a Mukhassis, there is no conflict with the Aayat because exceptions to this very Aayat has been made in several respects, e.g. the Kaafir children of Muslim parents are excluded from inheriting; similarly are murderers, and slaves.

Furthermore, according to Shiahs their “infallible” Imaams have prohibited some heirs from inheriting certain items of their (Imaam’s) estates, e.g. sword, Qur`aan, ring and bodily garments. These items were excluded from the Shi`i law of inheritance and reserved for the new Imaam (i.e. the son of the deceased Imaam).

Now, while the Shiahs assert the invalidity of making exceptions to the Qur`aanic Aayat in so far as Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) is concerned, they themselves are guilty of making similar exceptions.

Of great significance is the attitude and direction adopted by Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) regarding the estate of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) when he donned the mantle of the Khilaafat.

When he became Khalifah and the estate devolved to his custody, he excluded Hadhrat Abbaas (radhiallahu anhu), his children and the wives of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) from inheriting in the estate of Nabi-e-Kareem (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). This is clear and glittering proof for the validity of Hadhrat Abu Bakr’s (radhiallahu anhu) action based on the Hadith he had acquired directly from Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

If Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) had not concurred with Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) and if he was of the opinion that the latter had erred in his decision, he (Ali) would most certainly have rescinded the decision when he assumed the Mantle of Khilaafat.

He would have restored the property to those who were allegedly the rightful heirs. But he did nothing of the sort. He upheld what Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) had decided and instituted.

Let us now discuss the verse:

“And Sulaimaan inherited from Dawud.”

The Hadith pertaining to inheritance in relation to the Ambiyaa has already been discussed. The Hadith explicitly and emphatically negates inheritance for the Ambiyaa. Authoritative Shiah accounts accept this fact as has already been shown. Clearly, therefore, this Aayat pertains to something else. It does not have a literal meaning. It refers to the inheritance of Ilm and Nubuwwat as the Hadith states, not to the inheritance of tangible wealth and property.

The Shi`i authority, Kulaini narrates that Abu Abdullah narrated:

“Verily, Sulaimaan inherited from Daawud, and Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) inherited from Sulaimaan.”

This Shi`i exposition of the relevant Aayat makes it abundantly clear that the meaning is inheritance of Nubuwwat, which Sulaimaan (alayhi salaam) inherited from Daawud (alayhi salaam).

Hadhrat Daawud (alayhis salaam) had 19 sons. However, the Qur`aan describes only Hadhrat Sulaimaan (alayhis salaam) as the heir of Daawud (alayhis salaam). If the Aayat literally referred to inheritance of gold, silver and tangible assets, it would not have been restricted to Sulaimaan (alayhis salaam) since all sons inherit equally. Thus, intelligence confirms that the Aayat does not refer to inheritance of tangible assets. The inheritance of Nubuwwat was restricted to Sulaimaan (alayhis salaam).

Furthermore, it is common knowledge that every son inherits in his father’s estate. If the meaning of the Aayat was tangible assets, the statement would have been superfluous because the son being an heir is a known fact. But, it is unimaginable that the Qur`aan-the Word of Allah - contains superfluous statements. This further confirms that inheritance in the context of the Aayat does not refer to tangible assets or an estate of gold, silver, etc.

The Aayat pertaining to Sulaimaan (alayhis salaam) lauds the inheritance he had gained. If this inheritance referred to gold and silver, what is its peculiarity and speciality? Why would the Qur`aan laud an inheritance in which every person on earth participates-which is common to all men and women? This further reinforces the claim that the inheritance in the context of the Aayat is the inheritance of Nubuwwat.

Elsewhere, the Qur`aan Majeed states:

“Then We made those whom We chose from Our servants to inherit the Kitaab...”

This Aayat explicitly indicates the meaning of inheritance in relation to the chosen servants of Allah Ta`ala. Thus, “inheritance” used in the Qur`aan does not always mean the inheritance of tangible wealth.

Regarding the verse:

“ He will inherit from me and inherit from the children of Ya`qub”,

the meaning is self-evident. Hadhrat Zakariyya (alayhis salaam) was supplicating for a son who would be the Nabi after him.

If the meaning was inheritance of tangible wealth, it will follow that the tangible assets of the “Aal of Ya`qub” were still intact and un-distributed. But, this is absurd since there was a span of 2,000 years between Ya`qub (alayhis salaam) and Zakariyya (alayhis salaam). From this lop-sided logic of the Shiahs the conclusion is that Yahyaa (alayhis salaam) - Hadhrat Zakariyya’s (alayhis salaam) son - was the heir to the tangible wealth and assets of the entire Bani Israeel. The stupidity of this argument fallaciously raised on the basis of the Qur`aanic Aayat is extreme.

Every person of even slight intelligence will readily understand that Nabi Zakariyya (alayhis salaam) in his old-age had supplicated for a son to succeed him as the next Nabi. He did not ask for a son for the purpose of passing on the inheritance of physical wealth - gold and silver. Such supplication is not in conformity with the lofty office of Nubuwwat.

Should someone aver that the Wives (Azwaaj-e-Muttahharaat) inherited from Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) the rooms which were their respective homes, We shall respond that this argument is baseless. The rooms/homes were not acquired by the Azwaaj-e-Muttahharaat by way of inheritance. They were the owners of their respective homes during the lifetime of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

Some Shiahs argue that if the law of inheritance did not apply to Rasulullah’s (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) estate, then why were the sword, etc. of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) given to Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu)? Indeed, the reasoning of Shiahs is surprising. Far from proving inheritance, the contrary is confirmed. If the law of inheritance was applicable, then in terms of the Shariah, Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) would not be Rasulullah’s (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) heir. His heirs would have been Hadhrat Faatimah, the Azwaaj-e-Muttahharaat and the paternal uncle, Hadhrat Abbaas (radhiallahu anhum).

The assets of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) after his demise were in the category of Waqf. The Khalifah was entitled to distribute such assets according to his discretion. In the opinion of the first Khalifah, these items would serve a better purpose in the possession of Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu), hence ownership of the sword, etc. was given to him.

Similarly, some of Rasulullah’s (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) assets were given to Zubair Bin Awwaam (radhiallahu anhu), the paternal cousin of Rasulullah (salaam alayhi wasallam). Even Muhammad Bin Muslimah Ansaari (radhiallahu anhu) received some of the assets. This further proves that the distribution of Rasulullah’s (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) assets was not by way of inheritance. None of the recipients were heirs in terms of the Shariah’s law of inheritance.

13. ABU BAKR USURPED THE ORCHARD OF FADAK

Shiahs claim that during his lifetime Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) made a gift of Fadak to Hadhrat Faatimah (radhiallahu anha). However, after his demise, the Orchard was denied to Hadhrat Faatimah (radhiallahu anha) who had even produced Hadhrat Ali and Umm-e-Aiman (radhiallahu anhuma) to testify in her favour. But Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) rejected her claim. She departed from him in great annoyance and anger.

There is no basis for this accusation in any books of the Ahlus Sunnah. Shiahs should therefore not expect the Ahlus Sunnah to accept such fabrications. Regarding this matter, the following narration appears in Abu Daawud:

“ When Umar Bin Abdul Azeez (rahmatullah alayh) became the Khalifah, he assembled the people of Banu Marwaan and said: ‘Verily, Fadak belonged to Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). He would spend from it. From it he would give to the minor children of Banu Haashim and from it he would spend for the marriage of widows. Faatimah (radhiallahu anha) had asked him to give the Orchard to her, but he declined. This position remained during the lifetime of Rasulullah (sallallahu alaih wasallam) until he finally departed. When Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) became the Khalifah, he handled Fadak as Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had acted during his lifetime. After Abu Bakr departed, Umar became Khalifah. He handled it as his two predecessors had acted until he finally departed. Thereafter, Marwaan took custody of it (i.e. he it took it into his ownership). Then it came to Umar Bin Abdul Azeez. I reflected that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had refused to give it to Faatimah (radhiallahu anha). Hence, I have no right to it. I make you witness that I have returned it to the state in which it was during the time of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), Abu Bakr and Umar (radhiallahu anhuma).”

It is thus conclusively established that Fadak was never gifted to Hadhrat Faatimah (radhiallahu anha).

14. FADAK WAS BEQUEATHED TO FAATIMAH

According to both Sunnis and Shiahs, hibah (gift) is valid only if possession of the gifted item is taken. All sources agree that until the end, Fadak was in Rasulullah’s (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) possession. He utilised it and its income according to his discretion.

When Shiahs realised that their claim of Fadak having been gifted to Faatimah (radhiallahu anha) is not valid even in terms of their own jurisprudence, some of their scholars then fabricated the claim that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had made wasiyyat (bequeathed) Fadak to Hadhrat Faatimah (radhiallahu anha).

This claim is also baseless. There is no evidence for this claim in the books of the Ahlus Sunnah nor in any authoritative book of the Shiahs.

According to Sunnis and Shiahs, Wasiyyat (bequest) is the sister of Meeraath (inheritance). A bequest is valid in such wealth (assets) in which inheritance is valid. When inheritance is not valid in the estate of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), it follows that wasiyyat too is not valid.

Furthermore, since Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had declared:

“Whatever we leave behind is Sadaqah ”,

The wasiyyat argument has no validity. It is simply another legless and desperate attempt of Shiahs to prove what cannot be proven in anyway whatever.

If for a moment it is accepted that wasiyyat was made and it is valid, then what prevented Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) from rectifying the position during his Khilaafat? In fact, he continued to utilise the income of Fadak in the same way as his predecessors had done. According to the wasiyyat argument of the Shiahs, it follows that Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu), their first “infallible” Imaam, had deprived Hadhrat Hasan, Hadhrat Hussein and their sisters from their rightful inheritance, viz. Fadak, the “property” of the mother, Hadhrat Faatimah ( radhiallahu anha) according to the Shiahs.

Shiahs have tried to respond to this charge and argument of the Ahlus Sunnah in four ways as follows:

(1) The Ahl-e-Bait do not take back usurped property. In support it is said that after the conquest of Makkah, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) did not the take his usurped house from the usurper.

This argument falls flat because Hadhrat Umar Bin Abdul Azeez (rahmatullah alaih) had handed Fadak to Imaam Baaqir (rahmatullah alaih) who was the “infallible” Imaam of the Shiahs. He accepted it. Thereafter it went into the custody of the Abbaasi Khulafa. In 220 A.H., the Abbaasi Khalifah, Ma`moon instructed his governor, Qusham Bin Ja`far to hand over Fadak to the children of Faatimah (radhiallahu anha). Imaam Ali (the Imaam of the time) accepted it.

Then the Abbaasi Khalifah, Mutawakkil repossessed Fadak. The Abbaasi Khalifah, Mu`tahid once again returned it. Muktafi, the Abbaasi Khalifah, then repossessed it, only to be returned by Muqtadir.

Qaadhi Nurullah has explained the episode of Fadak in detail in Majaalisul Mu`mineen. The falsity of the Shiah assertion is thus manifest.

Also, why did Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) attempt to retrieve his shield from the Jew who had usurped it? Yet Shiahs claim that the Ahl-e-Bait do not retake usurped property!

(2) In not taking back Fadak, Shiahs say that Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) followed in the footsteps of Hadhrat Faatimah ( radhiallahu anha). Since she did not derive benefit from it, he too refused to acquire its benefit. This argument too is baseless.

Others whom the Shiahs consider to be their infallible Imaams, had derived benefit from Fadak. Why did they not deem it necessary to follow in the footsteps of Hadhrat Faatimah (radhiallahu anhu)?

Let Shiahs answer: Was it compulsory to follow Hadhrat Faatimah’s action or not? If it was Fardh (compulsory), then the other Imaams who had taken Fadak and its benefits were guilty of abandoning a Fardh. Why did they do this? Yet they are supposed to be infallible.

If following Faatimah (radhiallahu anha) in this matter was optional (not Fardh), then it follows that Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) abandoned an obligatory Shar`i demand for the sake of an optional act. It is Fardh to restore the right (Haqq) of the rightful owners. But, in terms of Shi`i logic, Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) failed in the execution of this obligatory demand.

The argument of the Shiahs is indeed stupid. According to them, Fadak was usurped and denied to Hadhrat Faatimah (radhiallahu anha). Thus, she had no option in the matter. She did not voluntarily refuse acceptance of the benefits of Fadak. How can Hadhrat Ali’s abstention be argued on the basis of something which was not in the control of Hadhrat Faatimah (radhiallahu anha)?

(3) Shiahs say that the testimony of Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) in favour of Hadhrat Faatimah (radhiallahu anha) was not for personal gain, but was for the sake of Allah Ta`ala.

Firstly, it has already been mentioned that the story of Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) testifying is a Shiah fabrication.

Secondly, according to Shiahs, the orchard of Fadak was usurped, hence the need for Hadhrat Faatimah, Hadhrat Ali and Umm-e-Aiman (radhiallahu anhum) to testify. Now if we accept this fabrication as being the truth, why did Hadhrat Ali and Hadhrat Faatimah attempt to repossess usurped property? According to Shiahs, the Ahl-e-Bait do not take what has been usurped. They Shiahs indeed trip and fall all over the show in the contradictions which their fabrications breed.

Thirdly, why did Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) not advise his offspring to refrain from acquiring the benefits of Fadak to ensure that they too follow him in his decision to follow Hadhrat Faatimah (radhiallahu anha)? History records that the “infallible” Imaams did not follow Hadhrat Faatimah’s example allegedly followed by Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu). In so doing, they violated the wishes and Sunnah of Hadhrat Faatimah and Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhuma).

(4) In a desperate attempt to save the skin of their credibility, Shiahs claim that the action of Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) was based on Taqiyah (the Shi`i principle of holy hypocrisy). But, they have forgotten their own law in this regard. According to Shi`ism when an Imaam emerges for war then Taqiyah is Haraam. Hence, according to them Imaam Hasan and Imaam Hussein (radhiallahu anhuma) did not adopt Taqiyah. Rather, they sacrificed themselves and were martyred.

Therefore, if Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) during his Khilaafat had adopted Taqiyah, it will follow that he was guilty of having perpetrated a Haraam act. This slander is the logical conclusion of Shi`i arguments. It is furthermore, not compatible with infallibility.

To crown all the Shi`i conflict, self-contradictions and confusion we have the following explicit confession, of Sheikh Ibn Muttahhir Hilli in the kitaab ‘Minhaajul Karaamat’:

“ Verily, when Faatimah admonished Abu Bakr regarding Fadak, he wrote to her a letter and returned Fadak to her.”

This claim of Hilli clinches the Shi`i cases regarding the issue.

15. HADHRAT FAATIMAH’S ATTITUDE TOWARDS HADHRAT ABU BAKR

At this juncture it is appropriate to discuss Hadhrat Faatimah’s attitude which had developed in consequence of her claim of inheritance.

Initially, Hadhrat Faatimah (radhiallahu anha) was annoyed on this issue. Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) had to abide by the directive of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) of which Hadhrat Faatimah was unaware. Shiahs endeavour to capitalise on her feelings to convey the idea that because she was wronged, she had directed that Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) should not attend her Janaaza and that she remained angry with him until her demise.

Insha-Allah, these fictitious claims and accusations of the Shiah will be dispelled with solid arguments.

Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) was not motivated by ill-feeling or malice for Hadhrat Faatimah (radhiallahu anha) in the dispute regarding inheritance. In fact, placating her, he frequently said:

“By Allah! Oh daughter of Rasulullah(sallallahu alayhi wasallam)! Kindness to the relatives of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is more beloved to me than my kindness with my own relatives.”

According to both Sunni and Shiah narrations, Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) was greatly saddened by the developments and by Hadhrat Faatimah’s displeasure. He went to great lengths to please her while remaining firm on the Shariah. He went to her home, stood at her door in the midday sun and asked Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) to be his intercessor in his sincere attempt to placate and please Hadhrat Faatimah (radhiallahu anha). Ultimately she became pleased with him and accepted his decision. These narrations appear in Madaarijun Nubuwwah, Kitaabul Wafaa, Baihaqi and in the commentaries of Mishkaat (all authoritative Kitaabs of the Ahlus Sunnah).

Kitaabul Muwaafiqah narrates that Anaani said:

“ Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) came to the door of Faatimah (radhiallahu anha) in the midday sun and said: ‘I shall not leave from here as long as the daughter of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) remains displeased with me. Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) came to Faatimah (radhiallahu anha) and giving her an oath urged her to become pleased. Then she became pleased (with Hadhrat Abu Bakr).”

Shiah records also confirm that Hadhrat Faatimah (radhiallahu anha) became pleased with Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu). The Imaamiyyah Shiah author of Hujjaajus Saalikeen states:

“Verily, when Abu Bakr saw that Faatimah 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.’ Faatimah said: ‘ By Allah! You should most certainly do so.’ Abu Bakr said: ‘ By Allah! I shall most certainly do so.’ Faatimah said: ‘ O Allah! Be witness.’ Thus, she became pleased with this and she took a pledge from Abu Bakr. Abu Bakr would give them ( Faatimah and others of the Ahl-e-Bait) expenses therefrom and distribute the balance to the Fuqaraa, Masaakeen and wayfarers.”

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

Regarding the claim that Hadhrat Faatimah (radhiallahu anha) was averse to Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) attending her Janaazah, is also baseless. She was buried secretly during the night by Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) in accordance with her wish. She was a Lady of extreme modesty and shame. She dreaded any ghair-mahram viewing her body even after death. According to authentic narrations she said during her last illness that she felt ashamed that her body be borne after death among ghair-mahrams without Purdah. In response, Asmaa Bint Amees (radhiallahu anha) explained that she had seen in Abyssinia that the body was concealed with date-branches. Hadhrat Faatimah (radhiallahu anha) requested her to prepare such a receptacle in her presence. This she did.

When Hadhrat Faatimah (radhiallahu anha) saw the purdah, she became delighted and smiled. This was the first occasion she had smiled since the demise of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

She instructed Asmaa to give her body ghusl after death and besides Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) no one else should be present. This was the reason for the secrecy surrounding her burial.

When Hadhrat Abu Bakr, Hadhrat Umar and other Sahaabah (radhiallahu anhum) complained the next day of not having been informed, Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) explained that it was Hadhrat Faatimah’s wish that no ghair-mahram should look at her Janaazah, and that she should be buried at night.

According to another narration, although Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) was not present at the burial, he in fact led the Janaazah Salaat with the consent of Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu).

It is not conceivable that Hadhrat Faatimah (radhiallahu anha) had not wanted Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) to perform her Janaaza Salaat because she was aware that just six months prior to her death Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had ordered with great emphasis that Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) should lead the Salaat.

She was aware of this command of her father.

Thus, the circumstances surrounding her burial are unrelated to her earlier dispute with Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu).

16. ABU BAKR WAS UNAWARE OF SOME SHAR`I RULES

Shiahs claim that since Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) was unaware of some Shar`i rules, he was not fit to be Khalifah. They present 3 so-called proofs as evidence for Abu Bakr’s so-called unawareness of Shar`i Masaa`il.

(1) He ordered that the left hand of a thief be severed whereas the Shariah has commanded severance of the right-hand.

In response to this claim, it should be said that on two occasions Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) had ordered severance of the left hand. Once when the thief had committed theft the third time. Mishkaat records the narration of Jaabir (radhiallahu anhu) as appearing in Nisaai and Abu Daaud:

“A thief was brought to Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). He said: ’Cut off (his right-hand).’ Thus, it was cut. Then he was brought a second time.Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: ‘Cut off (his left foot).’ Thus, it was cut. Then he was brought the third time. Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: ‘Cut off (his left hand).’ Thus, it was cut. Thereafter, he was brought the fourth time. Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said : Cut off (his right foot).’ Thus, it was cut.”

Imaam Baghawi (rahmatullah alayh) narrates in Sharhus Sunnah that Abu Hurairah (radhiallahu anhu) narrated that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:“If a man steals, cut off his hand. If he steals again cut off his foot. If he steals again cut off his hand and if he steals again, cut off his foot.”

Imaam Baghawi expounding the laws pertaining to severance of limbs for theft, says:

“The Ulamaunanimously say that on the first occasion the right-hand of the thief will be cut. If he steals the second time, his left foot will be severed.

The Ulama differ regarding the third occasion. If he steals the third time, the majority say that the left hand should be cut.....

This has been narrated from Abu Bakr. It is the view of Qataadah. Imaam Maalik, Shaafi and Ishaaq Bin Rahway also have adopted this view.”

The second occasion when Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) had ordered the cutting of the left hand was a thief whose right-hand and right foot were already severed. According to most Ulama the left hand of such a person should be severed. This incident is narrated in Muatta-e-Maalik.

From the aforegoing explanation the deviation, deception and distortion of the facts by Shiahs should be manifest. They grabbed the word “left” and isolated it from the context and circumstances of the incidents.

(2) They claim that Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) ordered that a homosexual be set alight and burnt out whereas Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) forbade burning living creatures.

Firstly, the narration of Abu Zarr (radhiallahu anhu) reporting this episode is dhaeef (weak). It, therefore, cannot be cited against Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu).

Secondly, the Saheeh (authentic) narration of Abu Zarr (radhiallahu anhu) regarding this episode is as follows:

“Verily, he (Abu Bakr) ordered that his (the homosexual’s)neck be smitten. Thereafter, he ordered him (i.e. the body to be burnt), hence it was burnt.”

It is clear now that the dead body was burnt, not a living person.

Furthermore, Murtadha, a high-ranking Shi`i authority whose title is Alamul Hudaa (Standard of Guidance) has testified to the authenticity of this latter Hadith and to the invalidity of the former one. Thus, the narration which mentions burning of a live person is not acceptable to both Sunnis and Shiahs. There is, therefore, no substance in this Shi`i “proof”.

In contrast, we find that Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) had ordered a number of people to be burnt alive. Some people who, according to one version were murtads, and according to another version, followers of the Jew, Ibn Sabã, were ordered to be burnt out. In this regard, it appears in Bukhaari:

“Zindiqs (heretics) were brought to Ali. He had them burnt out. When this (news) reached Ibn Abbaas, he commented: ‘ If it was me, I would not have burnt them because Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: ‘ Do not punish with the punishment of Allah (i.e. with fire).’”

On a second occasion, two persons were caught in the act of sodomy. Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) ordered them to be burnt out. In one narration Ibn Abbaas (radhiallahu anhu) said: ‘ Verily, Ali burnt them both.”

Shiahs are silent in regard to this or they simply refuse to accept these authentic narrations out of spite. However, Shareef Murtadha, one of the Shiahs highest authorities says in Tanzeehul Ambiyaa wal Aimmah:

“Verily , Ali burnt out a man who committed sodomy with a boy.”

Thus, Shiahs have no logical reason for criticising Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) even if we assume that he did order the homosexual to be burnt out because his action (or supposed actions) conforms with the action of Hadhrat Ali, the “infallible” Imaam of the Shiahs.

(3) Shiahs claim that since Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) was unaware of the rule pertaining to the inheritance of the grandmother and Kalaalah (a person who has no Usool or Furoo`, i.e no parents etc. and no children etc.), he had to ask others.

This is not a valid criticism. According to the Ahlus Sunnah, the knowledge of all laws, all at once, is not conditional for Khilaafat. The method of the Mujtahid is to follow the Nusoos (Qur`aan and Ahaadith) which have already been compiled while he remains in search of more narrations. If he finds narrational evidence, he issues a fatwa accordingly. In the absence of Nusoos he resorts to Ijtihaad in order to deduct rulings.

During the time of Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) all the Nusoos had not yet been compiled. It was, therefore, necessary to enquire from the various Sahaabah. No single Sahaabi had the knowledge of every Hadith of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). It was, hence imperative to enquire. In this regard, the following appears in Sharhut Tajreed:

“The rule regarding the grandmother and the Kalaalah is not new to the Mujtahideen because they discuss the proofs of the laws, and they ask those who have knowledge in that regard. It is for this reason that Ali retracted his view regarding (the sale of) Ummahaatul Aulaad (a category of slave-women) and adopted the view of Umar. And, this does not detract from his knowledge.”

Even Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) whom Shiahs believe to be their first “infallible” Imaam, asked others regarding Deeni Masaa`il. The aforementioned statement recorded in Sharhut Tajreed mentions Hadhrat Ali’s retraction and acceptance of Hadhrat Umar’s ruling.

When a man of expert knowledge seeks the opinion and counsel of other experts, it does not follow that he is unqualified. Only one entertaining malicious bias-like a Shiah- will absurdly claim that such an expert is unfit and unqualified.

It is an historical fact that all the Ahaadith were not compiled during the time of the Sahaabah. This mammoth task was accomplished only about two centuries later during the age of the Muhadditheen. Furthermore, there is no Sahaabi who was 24 hours of the day, from beginning to end, in the company of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Most of the senior Sahaabah, even Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu), were at times on campaigns, away from Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) for long periods. During their absence, Wahi and Ta`leem by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) would continue. Clearly and understandably, they were deprived during such intervals of many Ahaadith, the knowledge of which they gained from time to time from those who had been present.

The Shiah claim against Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) on this issue is, therefore, puerile and downright stupid.

In fact, it was Hadhrat Abu Bakr’s (radhiallahu anhu) fear for Allah and extreme caution which constrained him to ask others before issuing a fatwa on a Deeni issue.

The baseless accusations of Shiahs are dispelled by even their own books. Shiah scholars narrate:

“Abdullah Bin Bishr narrated: ‘ Verily, Ali asked about a mas`ala. He replied: ‘ I have no knowledge regarding this.’ He then commented: ‘ This has given me satisfaction. I have been asked something about which I have no knowledge.’ Sa`daan Bin Nasr has also narrated this (incident).”

When retraction of a ruling and unawareness of masaa`il are not in conflict with even infallibility, how can these be negatory of Khilaafat? Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu), the supposedly infallible Imaam of the Shiahs had retracted some of his views and he had also professed lack of knowledge of certain masaa`il.

Alhamdulillah! Most of the charges, criticism and accusations Shiahs level against Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu) have been answered. We shall, Insha-Allah, now proceed to refute their malicious attacks against Hadhrat Umar Ibn Khattaab (radhiallahu anhu).