«

»

طباعة الخبر

  0 10435  

The Land of Fadak



The Land of Fadak

 

By Sheikh

 

Abdul Rahman Dimashqiah

 


 

PART 1

 

            All praises are due to Allah and may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon to His Prophet Muhammad and his family including his companions.

            Today’s subject is mainly about the Land of Fadak. The book of Bukhari had indicated that after the death of the prophet (saw), Fatima went to Abu Bakr seeking about the Land of Fadak. Abu Bakr (ra) had told her that it belonged to the Muslims after the prophet’s death because of what the prophet had said that the prophets had not left anything to be inherited except knowledge. What they had left behind was for all Muslims. They kept behind them neither dirham nor dinar to be inherited, that was the name of the currency at that time. So, Fatima found something in their heart and she decided not to talk to him, while people said that she decided not to talk to him at all. But the fact was that there were other narrations indicating that she did not talk about this matter any more. And that is what we should be thinking of Fatima, that after he quoted the hadith of the prophet (saw) to her, she did not talk to him about this matter anymore.

The Muslims did not really rejoice deporting the Jews and gaining the Land of Fadak until there existed another problem made by the Shi’a that it had caused a problem even until today, so the Jews had felt so happy for somebody had caused a division of the Muslims specifically because of the land that had been taken from the Jews.

The Shi’a Madhab had given the image of Ahlul Bayt that they were selfish, that they wanted the land, which they didn’t care about the division of the Ummah but that they needed the land no matter what it cost. Even if it led to the division of the Ummah for centuries and centuries, it didn’t matter for them, the land should be taken. However, the families of the prophet have not been like that. As a matter of fact, that was slandering the family of Ahlul Bayt. It was not to praise or to remind people about the rights of Ahlul Bayt. Also it had shown that the companions had been selfish. They had not cared about inserting the book of God twisting the meanings of the book of God for the benefit or favor of their personal interest.

Nevertheless, those are not the companions that Allah (sw) had mentioned in the Qur’an! Especially the one who dedicated all of his life, dedicated his money, and dedicated his family, his property, for the sake of Allah and his messenger, and that was Abu Bakr (ra) whom Allah talked about him in the Qur’an, quoting the prophet saying, “la tahzan inallahumma ana” – do not grieve, Allah is with us. The term “with us” means by His support.

Sadly, the Shi’a had not truly completed their quote. They did not reveal that there was another narration particularly when Abu Bakr came to Fatima (ra) before his death and she allowed him to come and she was pleased with him before her death. They did not mention it. That was narrated by Azur An-Khudrat for Al-bayhakhi authentically. Now, if that means that Fatima decided not to talk to him at all, the question is: “Isn’t it mentioned in your books and the book of Al-Khafi that the Muslims should not boycott his brother believer?” And whoever does that for more than three days, he is threatened.

So, in the book Al-Khafi 2nd volume verse 230, it says clearly, that among the attributes of a believer, he should not boycott his Muslim brother. In relation to this, it was clarified by Ali (ra) that he asked the prophet (saw) when the prophet established brotherhoods between the companions then Ali said, “You left me.” The prophet said; “No I have left you for my soul, you are my brother and you are my inheritor.” Ali (ra) said, “What do I inherit from you, oh messenger of Allah?”  The prophet said, “You inherit from me what the prophets had inherited and that’s the book of the Lord and the Sunnah of their prophet.” This was mentioned by Al-Ahmadi for Assadu page 346, |Tafsir Al-Mizan for Attabata’bai, the book Al-Arba’in for Al-Mahu’zi.

 It’s very clear that the said inheritance was the three books. “What do I inherit from you oh prophet?” The prophet replied and said to Ali, “You inherit from me what people inherited from the prophets before- the Book and the Sunnah.” He didn’t say the land, he didn’t say the real state but he said the Book and the Sunnah. This narration had proven that Abu Bakar was the most knowledgeable one and the person who sticked mostly to the orders of the prophet (saw) even if it’s against himself and his family or even the family of the prophet (saw) because Abu Bakr quoted the hadith of the prophet (saw).

The Shi’a may ask: “Didn’t Fatima know that the prophet had said it?” Verily, Fatima had known about the hadith of the prophet. In here, it could be implied that there is a difference between the Sunnah and the Shi’a. The Sunnah believe that Fatima is a human being. It’s not necessary even if she is the daughter of rasulullah that she should be knowledgeable every single detail about what he said. Assuming that she knows everything, now, if that is the case, it is going into a matter of factually criticizing Fatima and this is evident that the Shi’a criticize Fatima by bringing the issue of Fadak. Why? They affirm that she knows everything, while she knows this hadith which is authentic not only by the Sunnah but by the Shia’a. The hadith emphasized that the prophets had left neither dinar nor dirham but they left a’lim – knowledge. That hadith has been authenticated in Al-Khalif by Al-Madrisi authenticated by Al-Humeini, by Al-Ruwani and by many other scholars such as An-Narati.

Not only that the sunnah say that it’s authentic, so the Shi’a and the Sunnah agreed that the hadith is authentic. Hence it exists a problem, not against the Sunnah but the problem is against the Shia’a. Because if the Shi’a believed that she knew about this hadith, which is authentic as it was previously said that it means she came to seek something which she knows that it doesn’t belong to her, it is not legal for her.

So, now, who is slandering Fatima, the Sunnah or the Shi’a? When they say that Fatima knew this hadith, she was not unaware of the hadith at the same time she came and she sought her “rights.” It is not her rights according to the hadith.

The Shi’a have been contradicting themselves by saying that this land of Fadak was given as a gift by the prophet (saw) to Fatima. Al-Madrisi said this narration gave to Fatima as a gift is considerable but the challenging question is: “How come they are considerable?”

 

 

PART 2

 

            Is it considerable that Fatima (ra) was given the Land of Fadak as a gift apart from her sisters Zainab and Umm Kulthoom whom we know that the land was given at the 7th year after Hijra?

The land of Fadak was gained at the 7th year after Hijra. Zainab died at the 8th year of Hijra, Umm Kulthoom died at the 9th year of Hijra. So, how come the prophet (saw) after he had taken the land, he gave it to Fatima apart from her sisters? Is this fair? If it’s a gift, how come that Fatima comes and says that I am the inheritor of the prophet? If it was given to her as a gift that means it belongs to her long before the prophet died. So, how do they claim that after the prophet had died she came and said, “I am the inheritor?” That means a clear contradiction!

Didn’t the Shia state in their book Al-Khafi that the woman should not inherit anything of lands or houses, or real state is not for woman? That is what we find in the book of Al-Khafi volume 7, page 127 and it was authenticated by Al-Mahdi that means this narration is correct. It’s authentic according to the book Mir-atil-aqul volume 23 page 188. So, woman should not inherit lands. Woman should not inherit real states. So, didn’t Fatima know about that as well?

So, there are two narrations about Fatima did not know about. The Shi’a declared that Fatima got angry against Abu Bakr and the prophet said that what angers Fatima angers the prophet and what angers the prophet angers Allah. However, didn’t she get angry with Ali (ra) when he wanted to marry the daughter of Abu Jahal and Fatima went to the prophet and told him that Ali is going to marry the daughter of Abu Jahal and she was angry with Ali? So, Ali was under the anger of the Almighty as well. It could be implied that Fatima got angry with Abu Bakr because of what he did. Nevertheless, Abu Bakr had obeyed Allah and his messenger, and the Qur’an states that the real believers are those who submit to the command of Allah and the command of the prophet. So, are they giving Fatima to Abu Bakr to disobey the prophet just to please Fatima? Is this the religion they know?

Also, the Shi’a mentioned that trying to solve the problem of marrying the daughter of Abu Jahal, Al-Hu’i came and said, “What Ali is about to do is not prohibited.” So, there is no real consideration for the anger of Fatima. He mentioned it in the book Al-Madhani the explanation of Al-Arwa page 364, Al-Hu’i who is telling that even Fatima got angry with Ali; it doesn’t matter because what he was doing was right.  Also what Abu Bakr was doing was right.

The Shi’a had taken a portion of the book and left a portion of the book. Nonetheless, they ignore that. Verily, every son and every daughter should inherit the father normally, but there must be an exemption. The prophets are exempted from that in order to combine the two evidences because the two quotations, authentic reports do not contradict each other. So, how could those two authentic narrations be reconciled? We say, normally, every son inherits the father but regarding the messenger or the prophets they could not inherit even a tiny portion because the prophet made exceptional by saying that the prophets do not leave anything to be inherited except knowledge. Moreover, Allah said; “Wa nuhan idnadha min khadru fastajadnalahu fanadjaynahu ahlahu minal karbil adheema”– Nuh had called upon Allah before then Allah replied his call and He saved him and his family from the great tragedy. Another verse: “Watadananu halfala wa almal mujibun wanadjaynahu ahlahu minal karbal adheem“ – is similar to the first one, that Allah saved him and his family. However, there are other verses making it clear that He saved his family except his wife. If somebody comes and says that we believe that the wife of Prophet Noah/Nuh (as) was saved and he quotes these evidences, those two verses, and we say to him you should not ignore the other verses that mention the exception and the exception is not here, we can know the exception from the other verses. And that is what we say also to the Shi’a when they quote for example, “waurita Sulayman wa Da’wud” – and Sulayman inherited his father Da’wud and they say, well, “lidhakani likadhdhihi uththaya’in – for the male is a double of two females to be inherited. They quote these verses but they ignore what the prophet mentioned that the prophet should not be inherited such a report that the Shi’a and the Sunnah declared, testified and certified that these are authentic. This is not the way how they deal with the “Dalil” – with the divine texts of the Book and the Sunnah. They should bring both and try to combine them, to reconcile between them, but not to ignore the second one which they declared it as authentic. That’s not fair. This is not how the scholars deal with the matter.

Moreover, the definition is this, the prophet said: “The prophets had left neither dirham nor dinar (the old currency) to be inherited.” That makes it clear that materialistic inheritance has nothing to do with the case of the prophets. The only thing to be inherited is knowledge. And as a matter of fact, this case is against the Christians and against those who do not believe to the prophet, saying to them; “Look the prophet is truthful in his claim of prophethood!” Because if he is claiming prophethood for a life’s benefit and objective, why he has to come out of his way and saying that the prophets should not leave any money for his family.

Ironically the Shi’a narrated in their books that Harun al-Rashid came to the 7th Imam, perhaps Abdullah is his name, and he asked him, “What are the limits of Fadak?” He said, “You can’t do it.” He said, “Why?” He said, “It’s too big.” “ Ok, tell me, what are the limits of Fadak?” He said, “The first limit is Aden in Yemen and the second limit is in Samarkand – (Eastern Europe, something close to Russia) and the third limit is Africa and the fourth limit is Armenia. This was mentioned by Al-Madrisi in his book Mihadun Anwar: Volume 48, page 144.      This case is somewhat similar to the claim of the Jews that God said to them, “The land that is for you O, Israel, is from Nile until the River Furat in Iraq, which is your land, the land that God wants for you.”

 

 

 

 

PART 3

 

            Is it really true that the Shi’a give ——- to Abu Bakr not to obey the prophet but to obey Fatima?

What about Omar? Taking the land of Fadak, he said that a part of the Land of Fadak should be given to the leader of the Muslims.” And they said, “Look, Omar is seeking some money from the land of Fadak.” But this is not true for the prophet (saw) said, “My heirs should not be taking the portion of my inheritance not even one dinar, they should not be taking anything after the “Nafaka” – the spending of my wives, that means, the outcome of the land of Fadak can be used also for the provision of his wives because they don’t have any other provision except that, “wama u-taamili” and also the one who works for my land should be given because of his efforts, so, except for those two things, unless for those two things nothing should be given.” This is narrated by Bukhari.

 

The doubts that the Shi’a bring for example is that they think that Fatima who is the master of woman in paradise had made a mistake and she did not give Bay’ah to Abu Bakr and she died as the death of Jahaliyya, because she did not give him Bay’ah. But according to the book Najil Balama that Al-Muhajirun and  An-Nansar, the Muhajiriya, the Sahabi woman should be going to the leader and give them their vote or their voice, it doesn’t mentioned that, even the wives of the prophet Muhammad (saw) did not come to Abu Bakr and tell him,” We give you our Bay’ah.” The question is, what about Ali? If Abu Bakr did not give the land of Fadak to Fatima, Omar did not give the land of Fadak to Fatima, Uthman did not give the land of Fadak to Fatima. What about Ali when he became the khalifa, why did he not give the Land of Fadak to the children of Fatima, why didn’t he do so? The Shi’a quoted in their books, that “may Allah be pleased with Omar bin Abdul Aziz that he gave Land of Fadak to the children of Fatima after it had been taken away.” That’s not true, first Omar bin Abdul Aziz did not gave it to the children of Fatima. He returned the system of dealing with Fadak according to what the prophet and Abu Bakr and Omar and Uthman were dealing with. Because after that, it should be remembered that Marwan, the great grandson during the Addawran Al-Muawwiya, had taken it for himself Omar bin Abdul Aziz returned it. He did not return it to the family of the prophet, but he returned it to the same way that it had been dealt with. They had taken a portion of it for Al-Akhi to enable those who have no means of marriage to support them, and other means of benefiting them. But why do they praise him? Is it because they think that he gave back the land of Fadak to the family of the prophet? But what about Ali, what did he do by the way? He did not give it to them. Why did their books not mention anything about Ali, did he give the land or not?

The Shi’a claimed that Fatima had decided not to let anyone know about her place of death or her burial. So, that Abu Bakr was not told Falam yu da Abu Bakr – it means –falamyuda – and they may twist the meaning by saying that he was no allowed to know, which is not true. And nobody knew her sepulcher – her place of burial until today, fine that’s better. It’s better for the Shi’a because otherwise they’re going to be worshipping Fatima. Didn’t they say that Fatima is a sort of divine? Al-Khumeini in his book Minzaratul Marratil Al-Islam had said, “She is a human being and she has a sort of divinity at the same time.” Don’t they say in Arabic “hadhihi Fatima tubintu ahsan akbara tah’minullahhutan abat” –  Fatima, the mother of Ali, she was pregnant with the eternal divine. Those people are ready to worship the family of the prophet. Thank God, they do not know where Ali was buried; they do not know where Fatima was buried. That’s better because those people used to make circles/tawaf around the graves and they’re asking apart from Allah. We do not allow Christians to say, “O, Jesus” and we do not allow anyone to say, “O Hussein, O Ali, and O Muhammad.” Why is it allowed to the Christians to say, “O Jesus but it is allowed for us to say, “O Muhammad, O Hussein, and O Ali.” That’s not fair?

Again, we say, that the claim of the Shia is not good for them if they but know, Fatima-the way they claimed the Land of Fadak, it caused many bad consequences. One, it leads to criticism of the trustworthiness of the companions of the prophet whom Allah praised in His book – the Qur’an. We will not going to believe to just anyone, something against them while Allah mentioned in the Qur’an, He praised the companions and He praised Abu Bakr.

 

 

PART 4

 

            Indeed, there are necessary evil consequences for the concept of the Shi’a: (1) We criticize the trustworthiness and credibility of those who had been praised by Allah and the Qur’an, that is specifically the Sahaba. Amazingly, only three of the Sahaba remained Muslims after the prophet’s death according to the Shia’a and the others, they became kafir. And good this will be to the opponents of Islam by saying to them, “You claimed that this book was written, compiled and collected by those companions who became kafir. So, we have the right not to believe in your book, because the Shi’a say that those companions, doubted the credibility of the companions will lead doubts to the books they collected.”

(2) Doubting the credibility of the prophet who gave the Land of Fadak as a gift to Fatima apart from her other sisters. (3) That Fatima came to seek something which she knows doesn’t belong to her. (4) That Ali was a partner in oppressing Fatima beside from Abu Bakar, Omar and Uthman. Why? Because he did not gave the Land of Fadak to the children, to the sons and daughters of Fatima when he became the khalifa. (5) That Fatima is ready to cut her relationship with people because of worldly objective materials. (6) That Fatima does not know that what Sulayman inherited from his father was knowledge and prophethood, noting here, that Da’wud had many other sons. So, why God has to mention only Sulayman had inherited Da’wud, why only, apart from his other brothers, that was mentioned in the book Al-Khafi that Jaafar Sadrik said, “that Da’wud had many children” so, why only Sulayman was mentioned in the Qur’an? That is, they believe that God is not fair as well? This makes it clear that God is not talking about money, and what is the value, what is the benefit, what is the point of mentioning in the Qur’an, revealing to the prophet verses to tell us that Solomon/Sulayman inherited the money and the property of his father. It does that make sense. Also, quoting Zachariya, he said, “wa inni fittun mawali Nura iwaqani tumra ti’athiran fah’dimka athiran waliyya irithun yu’itun ya akhi Yaqub” – I have fears, I have concerns about what should be inherited after me, so grant me O, Allah a son who will be inheriting me and will be inheriting from the family of Yaqub. When he talks about the family of Yaqub, he’s talking about generations before him, is he talking about the inheritance of money from the family of Yaqub? Look how those people are changing and twisting the meaning of the Qur’an and really, the prophets of God are very concerned that they need someone that will inherit them. In fact, Zachariya was a poor man, why he was so mush concerned and worried about who should be inheriting him? Because he was not talking about property of money, what he was talking about was who will inherit the knowledge of the prophets and prophethood and God granted Zachariya a son whose name was Yahya and he was a prophet and that proves that what Zachariya meant was prophethood to be inherited, the knowledge that someone after him and that was his son.

Thus, those kind people have been bringing  bad or evil consequences. I have clarified these and I hope that it will be beneficial to the Muslims because I think that it’s very important for our non-Arabic speaking brothers to understand these facts that had not been clarified before.

 

وصلة دائمة لهذا المحتوى : http://www.dimashqiah.com/ar/4440.html

أضف تعليق

لن يتم نشر عنوان بريدك الإلكتروني. الحقول الإلزامية مشار إليها بـ *