Articles  >  Sahabah  >  Fadak: Part XII, Conclusion

Fadak: Part XII, Conclusion




  • Bias of the Shia
The Shia is clearly biased against Abu Bakr (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡). Let us imagine that it was not Fatima (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡ุง) but rather Aisha (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡ุง) in her place, and that it was Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) in the place of Abu Bakr (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡). Then, the Shia would be talking about how ungrateful, whimsical, and rebellious Aisha (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡ุง) was being against the Caliph of the Ummah! They would say that Aisha (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡ุง) was greedy for wanting Fadak for herself instead of giving it to charity and the poor. Indeed, to the Shia, it is not the events that matter, but rather whom they are about. Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) and Fatima (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡ุง) are always right, and Abu Bakr (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) and Aisha (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡ุง) are always wrong. Simply switch a few names around, and suddenly, the Shia will switch arguments on the issue. To the Shia, Aisha (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡ุง) is wrong for going against the Caliph on the issue of Qisaas against Uthman’s murderers (a right granted by Shariah); and yet, paradoxically, Fatima (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡ุง) is right for going against the Caliph on an issue where she is wrong and the Shariah denies her the right she seeks (i.e. Fadak).

The Shia is clearly biased: indeed, the Shia believe that Fatima (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡ุง) is infallible and incapable of sin or mistake; to the Shia, she is perfect. This belief of the Shia is Shirk, because only Allah is perfect. How can the issue of Fadak–or any issue for that matter–be judged fairly when we assume that one party is always right? This is not a fair analysis of the event. No matter what Abu Bakr (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) or Fatima (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡ุง) did, the Shia would twist the events in some way or the other to make sure that it was Abu Bakr (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) who was in the wrong. Had it been Abu Bakr (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) who gave the Prophet’s land to Aisha (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡ุง)–and had it been Fatima (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡ุง) who was against this–then it would be the Shia who would condemn Abu Bakr (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) for violating the Hadith about Prophets not giving inheritance.

In any case, the Shia cannot deny that either Fatima (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡ุง) the “infallible” is wrong or Prophet Muhammad (ุตู„ู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู„ูŠู‡ ูˆุขู„ู‡ ูˆุณู„ู‘ู…) the “infallible” is wrong, since their own Shia Hadith in al-Kafi contradicts Fatima (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡ุง). The words of Prophet Muhammad (ุตู„ู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู„ูŠู‡ ูˆุขู„ู‡ ูˆุณู„ู‘ู…) as recorded by the Shia are 100% at variance with the words of Fatima (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡ุง). So how can the Shia exaggerate and say that anyone is above mistake, since two of their so-called infallibles are in disagreement?

  • Conclusion

In conclusion, Fatima (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡ุง) made a sincere mistake, and Abu Bakr (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) was upholding the words of the Prophet (ุตู„ู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู„ูŠู‡ ูˆุขู„ู‡ ูˆุณู„ู‘ู…), according to both Sunni and Shia Hadith. The Shia propagandists will go in circles when they argue about Fadak, but we advise our readers to continually remind them of two points, both which they cannot refute:

1. There is a Sahih Hadith in Al-Kafi, the Shia book of Hadith:

โ€œThe Prophets did not leave dinars and dirhams as inheritance, but they left knowledge.” (al-Kafi, vol. 1 p. 42)

There is no way around this Hadith for the Shia, and again, we urge our readers to continually bring any arguments about Fadak back to this point. The Shia propagandist will endeavor to drag the conversation away from this fact, but the reader must remind him again and again that the Shia Hadith also confirms that Prophets do not inherit.

2. Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) did not return Fadak, but rather he continued to use Fadak in the exact same manner as Abu Bakr (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) did. All of the Shia counter-arguments to this are of an obviously weak nature. If Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) used Fadak as a Waqf, then there is nothing wrong in Abu Bakr (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) doing this as well.

These two facts completely nullify the Shia accusations against Abu Bakr (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡), which are nothing but slanderous lies.

This twelve part series on Fadak was paraphrased by Ibn al-Hashimi from an article by Muhammad al-Khider.

« Return to the main Articles page or the Sahabah subsection.