Fadak
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
For years the shi’ah have attempted to score points against Abu Baker (ر) using the incident of Fadak as an excuse.
They say that Abu Baker (ر) angered Fatemah (ع). And according to Sunni literature angering Fatemah equates to angering the Prophet ﷺ.
This cheap argument can easily be refuted with the following points:
① First of all, if Fatemah (ع) got upset at Abu Baker (ر) for simply obeying the command of the Prophet ﷺ when he stated that Prophets leave no inheritance, then that’s not the fault of Abu Baker (ر) and we don’t believe that Fatemah (ع) was infallible which means that she was prone to making mistakes just as much as Abu Baker (ر) was prone to making mistakes.
The anger of Fatemah(s.a) only upsets or hurts the Prophet ﷺ when she is on the correct side and the person who made her angry is on the wrong. So this argument which the shi’ah use is absolutely dumb and childish because Abu Baker (ر) merely obeyed the Prophet ﷺ’s command!
Famous Shi’ah Rabbi, Muhammad Ibn Ya’qub al-Kulayni, Narrated the following Words Attributed to the Prophet ﷺ
❝The prophets did not leave any Dirham or Dinar (wealth) as their inheritance but they did leave knowledge as their inheritance.❞
[al-Kafi, vol. 1, p. 83, h. 1]
The narration above has been declared authentic by:
❐ al-Majlissi (the 1st) in Rawdat-ul-Muttaqin, vol. 12, p. 161 and in vol. 12, p. 158.
❐ al-Majlissi (the 2nd) in Mir’at al-‘Uqul, vol. 1, p. 111.
❐ al-Khomeini in al-Hukumah al-Islamiyah, p. 93.
② Second, if the shi’ah are so confident in rejecting Abu Baker (ر) for “angering” Fatemah (ع) then will they have the confidence to reject ‘Ali Ibn Abu Taleb (ع) who also angered Fatemah as mentioned in an authentic chain from ‘Ayn-ul-Hayat, by al-Majlissi, vol. 2, p. 310???
According to the narration above, a female servant was given to ‘Ali (ر). When Fatemah (ع) entered the house she found ‘Ali (ر) laying on her lap. So she got upset at him and went to Prophet Muhammah ﷺ to complain about what she saw!
And will the shi’ah have the same confidence in rejecting their own notable scholar known as ‘Allama al-Hilly who angered the Mahdi as mentioned by al-Istirabadi in his al-Fawa’id al-Madaniya, p. 91 ???
The Claim that Fatemah (ع) Passed away Angry at Abu Baker (ر) is the Most Absurd Myth Which the Shi’ah Never Seize to Repeat
In fact, it has been established through a narration, with a fair and acceptable chain, that Abu Baker (ر) seeked permission to enter Fatemah’s house.
After ‘Ali gave him permission to enter he spoke to Fatemah and satisfied her until she left this world being pleased with him.
This is narration can be found in Seyar A’lam a-Nubala, by a-Dhahabi, vol. 2, p. 121.
Imam Ibn Kathir also mentioned this hadith and commented:
هذا إسناد جيد قوي.
❝This chain is good and strong.❞
[al-Bidayah wa Nihayah, by Ibn Kathir, vol. 5, p. 289]
Imam al-Bayhaqi also mentioned the narration and authenticated it saying:
هذا مرسل حسن بإسناد صحيح.
❝This (hadith) is murassal hassan with an authentic chain.❞
[a-Sunan al-Kubra, by al-Bayhaqi, vol. 6, p. 491]
Imam Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani said about this hadith:
وإن كان مرسلا فإسناده إلى الشعبي صحيح.
❝And even if it was mursal, its chain up to a-Sha’bi us authentic.❞
[Fath-ul-Bari, by Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani, vol. 6, p. 202]
The shi’ah will argue that the chain of this narration is disconnected between ‘Ali (ر) and a-Sha’bi which therefore makes the hadith unreliable and weak.
To this we say that some marassil can be accepted depending on the narrator.
In this case, the marassil of a-Sha’bi are acceptable according to some of the scholars of hadith!’
Imam a-Dhahabi said:
كمراسيل مجاهد، وإبراهيم، والشعبي. فهو مرسل جيد لا بأس به، يقبله قوم ويرده آخرون
❝Like the marassil of Mujahid, Ibrahim, and a-Sha’bi. is a good murssal, no harm in it. Some accept it and others reject it.❞
[al-Mawqidha, by a-Dhahabi, p. 40]
Imam al-‘Ijli said:
مرسل الشعبي صحيح لا يكاد يرسل إلا صحيحا.
❝The mursal of a-Sha’bi is authentic. He does not do irssal except that it’s authentic.❞
-
Ma’rifat a-Thuqat, by al-‘Ijli, vol. 2, p. 12.
-
Tadkirat al-Huffadh, by a-Dhahabi, vol. 1, p. 79.
The Shi’ah Have a Counter Argument in Which They Say that Imam Ibn al-Qayim al-Jawziyah Rejected the Disconnected Chains of a-Sha’bi
Dr. Jamal Ibn Muhammad a-Sayyid said in his “Ibn al-Qayim wa Khidmatih, vol. 1, p. 414:
فغاية مراسيل الشعبي أنه مختلف فيها…
❝The most that can be said about the marassil of a-Sha’bi is that it is differed upon…❞
…وإن كان ظاهر كلام الأئمة احتمالها، ولم أقف على تسمية من حكم بردها كما ذهب إليه ابن القيم…
❝…and if the apparent statement of the scholars is accepting it, and I haven’t come across someone who ruled by rejecting it as Ibn al-Qayim did…❞
…وإن كان الذهبي أشار إلى جماعة قالت بردها - فهي إلى القبول أقرب منها إلى الرد، والله أعلم.
❝…and even though a-Dhahabi pointed to a group that rejected it (i.e. the marassil of a-Zuhri), accepting it is closer (to the truth) then rejecting it, and Allah knows best.❞
There’s no clear authentic report where Fatima (as) says that she is angry at Abu Bakr and ‘Umar (ra).
The hadith about her stating that ‘Ali (ra) along with others have testified in her favor is false as stated by Hamad Ibn Ishaq Ibn Isma’il in his “Tarikat a-Nabi, p. 86.”
In a hadith with an authentic chain, Fatima (ra) addresses Abu Bakr (ra) as: “Khalifah of Allah’s Messenger ﷺ” which means she acknowledged him as a caliph…
And when he told her about her not being able to inherit Fadak, she replied: “You and Allah’s Messenger know best.”
[Musnad Abu Ya’la, vol. 12, p. 119]
Conclusion
✎ Abu Baker (ر) did not oppress Fatemah (ع) in the case of Fadak.
✎ Fatemah (ع) died being pleased with Abu Baker.