Most Recent Fadak Discussion on ShiaChat

[muslim720]

Salaam alaykum wa rahmatullah,
Before the topic is closed or deleted, I would like to save my most recent back-and-forth because I think I have them on the ropes.

To expose their ignorance, I gave them a breakdown of how Fay is to be distributed.

Without wasting any more time on entertaining those who cannot grasp the difference between "gift" and "inheritance", it is time to shed some light on the distribution of Fay.  Before I do so, I would like to quote the Qur'an regarding Ghaneemah.  Comparing the Ghaneemah and Fay would clarify the matter for those who have some understanding.

 

"And know that out of all the booty that ye may acquire (in war), a fifth share is assigned to God,- and to the Apostle, and to near relatives, orphans, the needy, and the wayfarer,- if ye do believe in God and in the revelation We sent down to Our servant on the Day of Testing,- the Day of the meeting of the two forces. For God hath power over all things."  (Surah Al-Anfal verse 41)

 

Four-fifths would go to those who took part in the war, meaning, four-fifths would be distributed among soldiers and they would keep whatever was assigned to them as their personal property.  The remaining fifth would be further divided into five parts and given to the aforementioned group.

 

Now, on to Fay:

"What God has bestowed on His Apostle (and taken away) from the people of the townships,- belongs to God,- to His Apostle and to kindred and orphans, the needy and the wayfarer; In order that it may not (merely) make a circuit between the wealthy among you. So take what the Apostle assigns to you, and deny yourselves that which he withholds from you. And fear God; for God is strict in Punishment."  (Surah Al-Hashr verse 7)

 

Leaving the technicalities aside for a minute, looking at both verses at a glance, one would almost think that the distribution is nearly identical with the same groups of people receiving from Fay.  The only difference, to the unlearned brain, is that the groups mentioned would receive a larger share from Fay (since four-fifths of it does not go to the soldiers) and this is where I will expose the ignorance of those who cry for Fadak.  In due time, it will be clear as to why there are narrations and commentaries referring to Fadak (which was Fay) to have "exclusively belonged to the Prophet [saw]" and that "no one else had a share in it".

 

The four-fifths that went to soldiers from Ghaneemah would remain with the Prophet [saw] in the case of Fay.  Allow me to say it differently because people here have not yet been able to comment on the distribution of Fay but they have already passed a verdict on Fay, its ownership and gifting.  Four-fifths of Fay would remain exclusively with the Prophet [saw] and the remaining fifth would be further divided into many parts and the beneficiaries (recipients) are named in Surah Al-Hashr.  Therefore, it is mentioned in various reports that Fadak (among other properties which were all Fay) belonged "exclusively to the Prophet [saw]" and that "no one else had a share in it".  Of course no one else had a share in it because their share was from the remaining fifth.

 

The Prophet [saw] used this four-fifths for the benefits of the Ummah (emergencies, war preparations, et cetera).  There is a sahih narration regarding this from Umar [ra] who says that Fadak "belonged exclusively to the Prophet [saw]."  He further adds that the Prophet [saw] would take a year's worth of sustenance for his family and spend the rest for military purposes.  Of course the Muslims were not in a constant state of war so the distribution of the four-fifths was exclusively the responsibility of the Prophet [saw].  When there was not an emergency or the nation was not under threat, the Prophet [saw] would set aside a year's worth of sustenance for his family.

 

So far so good!  In order to keep this as short as possible, without quoting narrations, we now know the distribution of Fay, the Sunnah of the Prophet [saw] when it came to four-fifths of Fay and why Fadak, in certain narrations and commentaries, has been said to belonged "exclusively to the Prophet [saw]" and that "no one else had a share in it".  Therefore, we now have an understanding of Fay in the light of Qur'an and Sunnah.

 

For those who can think clearly, the idea that Fadak was gifted to Fatima [ra] should now sound far more ridiculous than it being her inheritance because the former stance, that it was a gift, makes no sense whatsoever.

 

If the Prophet [saw] gifted Fadak to Fatima [ra], or the four-fifths of Fay in his possession, how was he preparing the nation for wars, emergencies and catastrophes?  And if the Prophet [saw] was still carrying out the public service while only transferring ownership to Fatima [ra], as Herz has reasoned, then what was the purpose of this gift?  A gift that is given to you so that you can give it to others is not a gift.  It serves no purpose.

 

To drive this point home, in the light of Herz's line of thinking that Fatima [ra] was the owner of Fadak who would continue to use the land for public service, allow me to quote Imam Ali [ra] from Nahjul Balagha, letter 45:

"Verily, under the sky we had only Fadak as our personal property but we were deprived of it, it tempted them, they took it by force and we had to bear the wrench patiently and cheerfully, the best judge is the Lord Almighty."

 

That, to me, sounds like the plea of someone deprived of his own personal right.  If Imam Ali [ra] considered Fadak to be the personal property of his family, as mentioned in Nahjul Balagha, then there is no room for public service.  Someone may ask why and the answer is simple.  Abu Bakr [ra] maintained Fadak, and all of Fay, exactly like the Prophet [saw].  In fact, there is a narration that after Abu Bakr [ra] assured Fatima [ra] that he would maintain Fadak like the Prophet [saw] used to, she became happy and was no longer angry with him.  So if Imam Ali [ra] wanted Fadak for public service, then his statement found in Nahjul Balagha is a lie invented upon him.

 

Furthermore, it is a favorite of Shia brothers to say that the Ahlul Bayt [ra] were rendered helpless when Fadak was usurped.  In other words, if Fadak would have remained with Imam Ali [ra], he would have successfully opposed the "tyranny" of Abu Bakr [ra] and the rest.  Clearly, Imam Ali [ra] did not have public service on mind.  Or, brother Herz is pulling facts out of thin air.

 

Staying on the topic of gift, verse 10 of Surah Al-Hashr declares Tabi'een to have a share in Fay.

 

"And those who came after them say: "Our Lord! Forgive us, and our brethren who came before us into the Faith, and leave not, in our hearts, rancour (or sense of injury) against those who have believed. Our Lord! Thou art indeed Full of Kindness, Most Merciful."

 

If Fatima [ra] was the one to have received Fadak as gift, how were the Tabi'een able to receive their share?  Help me here.  Either I believe your words and disregard the Qur'an or I believe the Qur'an.

 

As for ownership, I cannot stress this enough and brothers are running around with their eyes shut and fingers jammed in their ears but verse 7 of Surah Al-Hashr clearly forbids anyone having ownership rights over Fay.  Since Fay does not have exclusive owners, the Qur'an stresses its wealth to be distributed evenly "In order that it may not (merely) make a circuit between the wealthy among you".

 

Al-Islam.org also states the same and says, "Such property is to be totally falls into the disposal of the head of the Muslim community which will be distributed amongst Muslims based on Divine Injunctions and his discretion."  After the Prophet [saw], that "head of the Muslim community" was Abu Bakr as-Siddique [ra].

 

Al-Islam.org further mentions, "In like manner, when the preceding Verse is saying that all such property belongs to Allah's Messenger (S) it does not intend to say that the Noble Prophet (S) uses the same for his own benefit, but since he is the head of the Islamic state and he is particularly the protector and guardian of the rights of the needy, he uses the same to their benefits."  Therefore, as the Prophet [saw] was the protector and guardian of the rights of the needy, he was also the protector and guardian of Fay.

 

As the protector and guardian of the rights of needy, is gifting Fadak to Fatima [ra] an act of guarding the rights of the needy or an injustice to the needy?

 

Al-Islam.org clarifies, "The blessed Verse reflects a fundamental principle of Islamic economy according to which despite respecting private ownership, the property is not supposed to be at the disposal of a limited number of people."

 

Then, after stating the truth, Al-Islam.org goes on a sudden self-refuting rampage by claiming that Fadak was the personal property of Rasulullah [saw] and mentions that Umar [ra] said that Fadak belonged exclusively to the Prophet [saw].  However, I have clarified that the four-fifths which remained in possession of the Prophet [saw], since he was the head of the Muslim community, was at his disposal but not under his sole personal ownership.  Here is the link: http://www.al-islam....ashr-chapter-59

 

The information I have shared comes (mainly) from the hours of explanation by Dr. Tahir ul Qadri, may Allah lengthen his life and bless him.  Furthermore, I took this issue to Sheikh Tarek ElGawhary (may Allah lengthen his life and bless him), a brother whom I know personally.  I confirmed the distribution of Fay with him and he agreed with every bit of it, as mentioned by Dr. Tahir ul Qadri.

 

I did not stop there.  I asked him if Fatima [ra] could inherit the four-fifths of Fay which "exclusively belonged" to the Prophet [saw].  Without a second's worth of hesitation, he replied, "Prophets [asws] do not leave inheritance, they leave knowledge."  I never bothered to ask him if it was gifted to Fatima [ra] because the verses used to support this claim are both Meccan verses.  Lastly, it does not make sense for a property in which even Tabi'een had a share to be gifted to Fatima [ra].  Unless of course there are those who are willing to reject the Qur'an in order to maintain Fatima's [ra] supposed infallibility.

[muslim720]

Abu-Jafar Herz responded with the following points.  Please visit the link for his entire post, post # 92:  http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235031127-the-clear-refutation-of-fadak/page-4#entry2824283

1.  The request of Fadak from Fatima from the aspect of it being inheritance was a concession for the sake of argument with the people who denied her testimony and the testimony of those who made witness for her that she was indeed gifted, so the issue of Fadak with the people was about the property of Rasullalh (saw), so it was as if zahra said to them “ If you do not accept Fadak as a gift then consider it as an inheritance that was given to me by the prophet (saw), so they answered her that that prophets do not give inheritance”.

 
2.  Surah Al Hashr has nothing to do with ghaneema, fai is not cut into 4/5, fai belongs solely to the messenger. This is your first error. Fadak also was the exclusive property of the messenger.

3.  Ok so far so good, thank you for admitting that Fadak was the personal property of the messenger which he was ordered to use for the poor. Very well.

 

4.  You agreed that Fadak was the exclusive property of the messenger.

 

5.  We agree that personal property may be done with as the owner wishes.

 

6.  If Fadak is gifted to Fatima (a.s) she may do as she wants with it.

 

7. Fatima (a.s) intent for the land was exactly the same as the intent as her father, this is why the land was still used for the poor.

 

8.  So the "management" of Fadak was for Fatima (a.s) not for Abu bakr.

 

9.  By logical necessity, the prophet (saw.) may give fadak to whoever he wishes.

 
10.  May god forgive you, are you that blind and deluded to think that Imam Ali (a.s) plea for Fadak was because of his own personal well being or for the well being of the state?

 
11.  Ya Jahil, Imam Ali (a.s) didn't want Fadak for his own personal amusement, he wanted Fadak out of the hands of Abu Bakr for the betterment of the state and for his leadership to be consolidated, not because he wanted to buy a bigger house and have farm land.

 

12.  This person just admitted that Fai is the personal property of Rasulallah, now he is trying to bring another verse completely irrelevant to Fadak or anything to do with wealth or inheritance, etc. to make it seem that everyone has a share of Fadak.

 
13.  That verse has absolutely nothing to do with Fadak, nor Fai, nor Ghaneema.

 

14.  And you just admitted that Fadak is the personal property of the Messenger (saw.)

 

15.  Why would the tabieen have rights over someone else's personal property?

 

16.  Imam al nawawi says the following in his famous sharh:
 
وكذلك نصف أرض فدك صالح أهلها بعد فتح خيبر على نصف أرضها وكان خالصا له وكذلك ثلث أرض وادي القرى أخذه في الصلح حين صالح أهلها اليهود وكذلك حصنان من حصون خيبر…. فكانت هذه كلها ملكا لرسول الله خاصة لا حق فيها أحد غيره
 
“Half the Land of Fadak, which was given by the Jews following the peace treaty, was purely the property of Rasool Allah (s). Similarly, one third of the Valley of Qura which was given by the Jews after the peace treaty and two forts of Khayber…all these were the exclusive properties of the Prophet (s) and no one else had a share of it”.
 
Imam Ibn Habban also testified that:
 
فكانت فدك لرسول الله خالصة
“Fadak was an exclusive property of Allah’s Apostle”

 

 

17.  Gifting Fadak to Fatima (a.s) did not hurt the poor, since she would of used Fadak for the poor.

 

18.  Also I don't see how Al-Islam is a proof that using, they are not Scholars but just writers, I also can write on Al-Islam if I wanted to so can anyone else.

And here is my response:

1.  Your evidence supporting your claim are both Meccan verses.  If I am repeating the same question it is not because I do not read.  It is because you have not accounted for your lie.  I will remind you, for the third time, that you quoted a narration which would make it clear that Surah Al-Israa verse 26 was revealed in Madina.  So far, you have only paid lip service to this claim without any proof.

2.  Really, then what is the difference between the two?  If four-fifths were not to stay with the Prophet [saw], why separate rules for Ghaneemah and Fay?  I know you will be quick to deny this, as is the habit of those who explain Fadak from a Shia perspective, but Fay differs from Ghaneemah in two aspects:

i)  Both are divided in five parts.  The fifth portion for Ghaneemah is divided according to Surah Al-Anfal verse 41 while four-fifths go to the soldiers.  The fifth portion of Fay is divided according to Surah Al Hashr, verses 7 through 10 while four-fifths of it remain with the Prophet [saw] or the head of the Muslim community.

ii)  Ghaneemah, once given away, becomes personal property.  Fay has beneficiaries not personal owners.  The fact regarding Fay has been made clear using the commentary listed on Al-Islam.org.

3.  Where did I say that?  I said four-fifths of Fay were to remain with the Prophet [saw], and then transferred to the head of the Muslim community, and they were the guardians of this property.

4.  As the guardian of the property, it was exclusively up to him when it came to its use.  When appropriate, the Prophet [saw] would take a year's worth of sustenance for his family and use the rest for military preparations.  Now ponder over this point.  The Prophet [saw] gifted Fadak to Fatima [ra] and then he would go ask her for a year's sustenance for his wives [ra].  Does this make sense?  Do you see what you are making out the Holy Prophet [saw] to be?

5.  Sure but Al-Islam.org refutes you in your understanding of Fay mentioned in Surah Al-Hashr.  Al-Islam.org clearly makes a distinction between personal property and assuming guardianship of Fay.  They then contradict themselves by stating that Fadak was gifted to Fatima [ra] after Surah Al-Israa verse 26 was revealed.  But the verse was revealed in Mecca.  Then again, the fact that Al-Islam.org, after distinguishing personal property from assuming guardianship of Fay, says that Fadak was gifted to Fatima [ra] is a contradiction in of itself.  To support it with a weak and inaccurate narration shows extreme desperation on their, and your, part.

6.  There is no question of gift.  Fatima [ra] was not the head of the Muslim community to assume the guardianship of the land of Fadak.  Furthermore, Fay is not to have individual, or an elite group of, owner(s).  It was under the exclusive control and management of the Prophet [saw] and he used it for certain purposes.  Abu Bakr [ra] maintained the same practice.  As such, the Prophet [saw] upheld the Qur'an and Abu Bakr [ra] followed the Prophet [saw] in upholding the Qur'an and thereby, he maintained the Sunnah as well.

7.  Abu Bakr [ra] maintained status quo and as the leader of the Muslim community, Fay had to go to him, including Fadak.  If public service was what Fatima [ra] desired, then she should have been happy with Abu Bakr [ra].  And indeed that is what we find in a narration.  But putting that aside for a minute, what good is a gift if you are to distribute it among others?  And if public service was what Fatima [ra] wished for, then what difference does it make if Abu Bakr [ra] distributes it or anyone else as long as the Qur'anic and Prophetic guidelines were followed?  How is it an injustice to Fatima [ra] if the recipients received their share according to the Qur'an and Sunnah?  Unless you believe that Fatima [ra] would have used Fadak for her personal gains, there is no reason to beat this dead horse any more.

8.  Wrong on two counts!  One, Fay goes to the leader of Muslims, as agreed by Al-Islam.org, and Fatima [ra] was never the head of Muslim community.  Two, in your other post, you said that Fadak was gifted to Fatima [ra] while its management was for Imam Ali [ra].  Now the management was for Fatima [ra] too?

Too many switcheroos!

9.  The Qur'an forbids Fay from having individual owner(s) or making a circuit among a few.  By the logic of Qur'an, Fadak cannot be gifted to Fatima [ra].  How would the Tabi'een then receive from something gifted to Fatima [ra]?

10.  In fact his plea was not for his own well being.  I have read that letter and its context.  I just wanted you to admit that his plea was for the well being of the Muslims.  Now it is for you to prove that Abu Bakr [ra] did not use Fadak for the well being of Muslims.  Otherwise, you have no point because if Imam Ali [ra] hoped for the well being of the community, then Abu Bakr [ra] brought no changes in the Prophetic way of managing Fadak.  He maintained the practice of the Holy Prophet [saw].

11.  Why?  Tell us how Abu Bakr [ra] deviated from the Qur'an and Sunnah in regards to Fadak?  Did he sell it and use the money for himself?  You have no point unless you establish his deviance.  On the contrary, numerous sahih hadiths mention that Abu Bakr [ra] maintained Fadak exactly as the Prophet [saw] did.  Imam Ali [ra] and Abbas [ra] agreed to this fact too.

12.  Once again, where did I admit that Fadak was the personal property of Rasulullah [saw]?

13.  Wow, seriously?  Let us read Surah Al-Hashr verse 7, 8, 9 and 10.

"What God has bestowed on His Apostle (and taken away) from the people of the townships,- belongs to God,- to His Apostle and to kindred and orphans, the needy and the wayfarer; In order that it may not (merely) make a circuit between the wealthy among you. So take what the Apostle assigns to you, and deny yourselves that which he withholds from you. And fear God; for God is strict in Punishment.

(Some part is due) to the indigent Muhajirs, those who were expelled from their homes and their property, while seeking Grace from God and (His) Good Pleasure, and aiding God and His Apostle: such are indeed the sincere ones:-

But those who before them, had homes (in Medina) and had adopted the Faith,- show their affection to such as came to them for refuge, and entertain no desire in their hearts for things given to the (latter), but give them preference over themselves, even though poverty was their (own lot). And those saved from the covetousness of their own souls,- they are the ones that achieve prosperity.

And those who came after them say: "Our Lord! Forgive us, and our brethren who came before us into the Faith, and leave not, in our hearts, rancour (or sense of injury) against those who have believed. Our Lord! Thou art indeed Full of Kindness, Most Merciful."

Who are the groups mentioned as recipients of Fay in verses 8, 9 and 10?  Muhajir, Ansar and Tabi'een respectively.  Still want to lie and claim that it has nothing to do with Fay?  And Fadak is Fay.

14.  For the third time, where did I make such a claim?

15.  Do you not believe in the Qur'an?  Or can you not read?  Or are you playing dumb because you have been so badly refuted?  Told you none of you on this website even knew how Fay is to distributed.  You opened this thread without quoting anything regarding Fay from Surah Al-Hashr.  Starting to think you did not even know that Fay was outlined in the Qur'an, along with its distribution.

16.  I have already explained the reason behind the statements, "exclusively belonged to the Prophet [saw]" and "no one else had a share in it".  Because four-fifths of Fay remained in possession of the Prophet [saw], in other words, he had guardianship over them (as agreed upon by Al-Islam.org as well), it was purely and exclusively for the Prophet [saw] to distribute it however he wanted.

But let me complete the picture for you by first posting the Sharh and then a narration from Abu Dawood:

"Half the Land of Fadak, which was given by Jews after the peace treaty, was purely the property of Rasool Allah (s).  Similarly, 1/3rd of the Valley of Qari and 2 castles of Khaybar were the exclusive property of the Prophet (s) and no one else had a share of it.

The Apostle of Allah received three things exclusively to himself: Banu an-Nadir, Khaybar and Fadak.  The Banu an-Nadir property was kept for his emergent needs, Fadak for travellers, and Khaybar was divided by the Apostle of Allah into three sections: two for Muslims, and one as a contribution for his family.  If anything remained after making the contribution of his family, he divided it among the poor Emigrants."

Does not say Fadak was gifted, does it?

17.  Abu Bakr [ra] did with Fadak what the Prophet [saw] used to do with it.  So none of the needy or poor were short-changed.  In fact, as the leader of the Muslims, Fay, and therefore Fadak, had to go to him.  And it did.  Quit whining, will ya?

18.  Though a very weak source, Wikipedia says this regarding Al-Islam.org, "Since its launch, Al-islam.org has proven to be one of the most authentic sources of Islamic information, and is notable for being the top site in Yahoo!'s list of Shia sites by popularity".  In fact, they have been quoted by many universities.

But I will let you have this point.  Still, the fact that three Shias (just a random number) give three different answers regarding the same matter is suspicious in of itself.  Compare this with our approach.  If you ask ten Sunni Muslims who know regarding Fadak, ten out of ten will quote, "Prophets [asws] do not leave inheritance".  But you, "it was inheritance", "no wait, it was a gift which was usurped so she reclaimed it as inheritance", "it was gifted to Fatima [ra] when Qur'an 17:26 was revealed", "no, wait, it was gifted when Qur'an 30:38 was revealed".  On and on and on!

 

[muslim720]

He had a side response where he made the following claims.  See post # 93: http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235031127-the-clear-refutation-of-fadak/page-4#entry2824283

1.  Yahya Ibn maeen clearly gave Atiya tawtheeq along with many other hadith scholars, thus this hadith is authentic

2.  Is Imam Ali (a.s) the best judge on earth after the messenger or not?
And is it likely that the best Islamic judge on earth would make a mistake on simple inheritance laws and persist on this mistake for years?
 
3.  If any Sunni can answer these two questions I will request the mods to close my thread and delete it.

Here is my response:

1.  Fine, the chain is authentic and Attiya is Seduq.  But having a sahih chain does not automatically confer the title of sahih upon the narration.  The point that still remains is that Surah Al-Israa verse 26 was revealed in Mecca.  Therefore, it does not support your lie but shows your ignorance.

2.  Fine!  I will let you have this one too.  He was the best judge.  Did he take Fadak during his leadership?  He did not, for whatever reason.  So since he was the best judge and seeing that he dropped the matter, shouldn't you drop it too?

3.  Delete it?  hahaha, already looking for an escape route.

[Aba AbdAllah]

Good job brother Muslim 720

Also notice the intellectual fraud by Abu Jafar Hertz. He interprets Shia narrations in such a way that it turns the meaning of narration upside down.   

When you said:

    In Tafsir Saafi Imam Jafar  (as) has been quoted as saying that "Fai is that property.... which is for Allah and His Messenger (saw) and after him for one who is incharge" 
     
    In al-Kafi Imam Jafar  (as) says that after prophet such property goes to imam who can use it as per his wishes.

Knowing the fact that a very important Shia claim was endangered. Abu Jafar Hertz came up with this flimsy response.

100 percent correct. Imam Ali (a.s) was to manage the gift of Fatima, since he is her husband and her Imam.

Notice that if something is gifted, then the owner looses authority to dictate what is to be done with it. It's upto the gift receiver to use the way they want. But this narration apparently shows that it was not gifted.

Moreover, also notice that, the Shia narration doesn't mention Fatima(r.a) as one of the owners,  it just mentions Prophet Mohammad(pbuh) then the Imam after him. Wiping off any chance of Fatima(r.a) being one of the owners.

Also, the Shia narration mentions that, it BELONG to the Imam after Prophet Mohammad(Pbuh) and He will use it as the way he likes, which again clearly shows that the Fatima(r.a) was not one of the owner.

Abu ‘Abdallah said:”Al-Anfal is such property for the acquisition of which no camels or horses are use and no armed expeditions are undertaken. It is the property that may come as a result of negotiated settlement or certain people would give with their own hands, may come from a barren land or from inside the valleys. Such properties belong to the Messenger of Allah and it will belong to the Imam after the the Messenger of Allah. The Imam will spend them as he may consider proper. (Kafi).

[Aba AbdAllah]

Also the link  you posted brought forth a point about grammar of the verse, which should could have used.

The pronoun in the words of verse(17:26) that is { حَقَّهُ}( ḥaqqahu) is 3rd person MASCULINE singular pronoun not a FEMININE pronoun. It literally translates as (his due){ So give to the kinsman HIS due}, if this verse was revealed so that Prophet(saw) gives certain due to Fatima(ra) then the pronoun should have been FEMININE(i.e Her) not MASCULINE(i.e His).

[muslim720]

Also the link  you posted brought forth a point about grammar of the verse, which should could have used.

The pronoun in the words of verse(17:26) that is { حَقَّهُ}( ḥaqqahu) is 3rd person MASCULINE singular pronoun not a FEMININE pronoun. It literally translates as (his due){ So give to the kinsman HIS due}, if this verse was revealed so that Prophet(saw) gives certain due to Fatima(ra) then the pronoun should have been FEMININE(i.e Her) not MASCULINE(i.e His).

JazakAllah khair for sharing this.  While I had read everything else you mentioned in the other post, I took note of this point.

Right now, they are in retreat mode in ShiaChat.  As a member, I used to have three stars.  I have been downgraded to two.  Most likely, they will delete the topic.  I wanted to preserve my key responses here so that it is an easy copy-paste from here on out.

[Aba AbdAllah]

I see that they even quoted Muajam buldan and riyadh al nadira to claim that Fadak was owned by Fatima(r.a) during the life of Mohammad(pbuh). The quotes have been dealt here:
https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2014/09/11/3-sunni-answers-to-shiapens-article-on-fadak-and-inheritance-of-prophetsaw-chapter-three/

Also you may quote those reports which state that Mohammad(pbuh) denied the request of Fatima(r.a) to grant her Fadak, so that you may bring back the OP to the academic style of discussion where its important to make claims on authentic reports not unreliable or baseless stories.

[muslim720]

I see that they even quoted Muajam buldan and riyadh al nadira to claim that Fadak was owned by Fatima(r.a) during the life of Mohammad(pbuh). The quotes have been dealt here:
https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2014/09/11/3-sunni-answers-to-shiapens-article-on-fadak-and-inheritance-of-prophetsaw-chapter-three/

Also you may quote those reports which state that Mohammad(pbuh) denied the request of Fatima(r.a) to grant her Fadak, so that you may bring back the OP to the academic style of discussion where its important to make claims on authentic reports not unreliable or baseless stories.

The articles, to refute the lies of ShiaPen, on youpuncturedtheark are gold.  I thought instead of quoting narration after another, it is best to show them that they do not even understand the distribution of Fay.  Once I did that, statements like Fadak "belonged exclusively to the Prophet [saw]" and "no one else had a share in it" started making sense because four-fifths of Fay would remain in possession (guardianship) of the Prophet [saw].

[Hani]

review my research here and ask if you have any questions especially the Q&A:
http://twelvershia.net/detailed-research-on-prophetic-inheritance/

I'll try to read your discussion tomorrow.

[Hani]

I can't believe you're bothering with a guy who still thinks `Atiyyah al-`Awfi's narrations are relied upon.

He quotes Ibn Hajar saying:

[صدوق يخطىء كثيرا وكان شيعيا مدلسا
(Honest, made a lot of mistakes and was a shii Mudallas).]

And he's happy with the word "honest" little does he know that the following part "makes a lot of mistakes" is enough to weaken all his reports. I add, that many times Ibn Hajar describes narrators as "Saduq" when they're not.

How about when `Atiyyah narrated this report where the Prophet (saw) says that Abu Bakr and `Umar are from the greatest of the dwellers of heaven and they're like shining planets?

إِنَّ أَهْلَ عِلِّيِّينَ لَيَرَاهُمْ مَنْ أَسْفَلُ مِنْهُمْ، كَمَا تَرَوْنَ الْكَوْكَبَ الدُّرِّيَّ فِي أُفُقِ السَّمَاءِ، وَإِنَّ أَبَا بَكْرٍ وَعُمَرَ مِنْهُمْ وَأَنْعِمَا

`Atiyyah suddenly is weak here ofcourse.

The fact that he's quoting this chain and claiming "authentic" shows deep bias and proves that he isn't qualified to even research:

قرأت على الحسين بن يزيد الطحان ، حدثنا : سعيد بن خثيم ، عن فضيل ، عن عطية ، عن أبي سعيد

The chain which claims that this land was gifted to Fatimah is composed of the following men:

Husayn
Sa`eed
Fudayl
`Atiyyah

All four men were Koufan and therefore Shiite in their beliefs. This on its own would be enough to cast doubt on the content of whatever they're going to narrate about Fadak.

Since abuJay is accepting of Ibn Hajar's opinions suddenly, let's rely on Ibn Hajar to see what he says about these four men.

Husayn: Ibn Hajar doesn't even mention him, the only opinion I spotted was abu Hatim's in al-Tahdheeb who said "Layyin" meaning "His narration has weakness(softness)."

Sa`eed: Truthful, said to be Shia, has mistakes.

Fudayl: Truthful, makes errors, said to be Shia.

`Atiyyah: Truthful, makes a lot of mistakes, he was a Shia who did Tadlees.

So abuJay's "authentic chain" about a matter related to banu Hashim is composed of four Koufan Shiites narrating what supports their innovation. A man who has weakness in his narrations reporting from a man who has mistakes in his narrations, who in turn narrates from a man who makes errors in narrating, who finally relates this story from a man who makes plenty of mistakes in his reports.

I'd feel ashamed if this were a chain I relied upon to prove my fragile beliefs but shame is a rare commodity it seems.

(Yes, the chain is terrible).

[muslim720]

Salaam alaykum,
Things have hit rock bottom ever since he said that we are discussing "Fadak which is not Fay".  As for the report by Attiya, he quoted it to prove that the verse (Surah Al-Israa verse 26) was revealed in Madina.  He said, something to the effect, that it will prove (as in leave no doubt) that it was revealed in Madina.  The narration makes no mention of where it was revealed.  The verse occurs in a Meccan surah and is widely accepted to have been revealed in Mecca.  Therefore, Fadak had not even entered the picture when the verse was revealed, hence, there is no way the Prophet [saw] could have gifted Fadak to Fatima [ra] before the migration and Khaybar.

They are in shambles.

[Khalifa]

Why should we accept Fadak as a gift through a weak or unreliable narration when we have authentic narrations from most authentic books (Bukhari & Muslim) that Fatima R.a asked about Fadak as an Inheritance Instead of Gift. 

[Hani]

Let me answer his childish question:

[If Imam Ali (a.s) is the best Islamic judge on earth including being better in judgement than ibn abi quhafa,  umar, and uthman and one of the most knowledgeable person who has ever lived. Then is it likely or unlikely that he would err on a simple inheritance law presented to him and persist on this opinion for years and years?]

I can also say, based on the same narrator `Atiyyah whom you consider reliable (And a better chain than the one you provided), that the Prophet (saw) described Abu Bakr as being from the dwellers of the greatest positions of heaven, and that all other believers will look up to his bright shining light on that day as if looking at a glowing star. In this case, how can a man who is from the greatest creations of Allah be a cheater and a liar who selfishly took Fadak to satisfy his greed and oppress Aal-Muhammad (saw)? He can't have done what you said as it does not befit a man with his description.

Secondly, you talk about `Ali being a good judge. Well having the Prophet (saw) describe someone as a great judge or even make Du`a' for someone to be a good judge, in that he's able to settle disputes between individuals; this does not mean he's infallible, that he makes no mistakes nor does it mean that he's all knowing and can't miss certain details or fall into error as is human nature. So if `Ali never knew something or had forgotten something, this does not make him a bad judge and therefore there is no conflict. This weak understanding of yours is similar to one who finds a report where the Prophet (saw) asks Allah to guide someone and assumes the person's infallibility afterwards, if he (saw) asked Allah to make Ibn `Abbas knowledgeable this doesn't make Ibn `Abbas all-knowing and infallible in his verdicts, if he (saw) asked Allah to bless Ibn Mas`oud this doesn't mean that the man is sinless for the rest of his life and so on and so forth...

Finally, you said `Ali stuck to his opinion about inheritance, I say this isn't necessarily true as based on my research they weren't asking for Fadak nor was he asking for it as inheritance rather he was asking to be in control of the gardens of Madinah and to manage them due to his position from the Prophet's (saw) daughter while al-`Abbas was asking for the same due to his position from the Prophet (saw) and they kept fighting over who would manage it until `Abbas decided to drop the matter in `Uthman's reign.

This is quite clear if you read their conversation in Bukhari and Muslims when `Umar discussed with both men who would manage the land, he did not execute the laws of inheritance otherwise the split would have been very different, furthermore he told them to return it to him in case they failed to manage it properly, in other words they weren't discussing inheritance as `Ali and `Abbas clearly agreed to the prophetic narration with regards to inheritance.

Here's the text of what I wrote in my research with regards to this:

WHAT WERE AL-`ABBAS AND `ALI ASKING `UMAR FOR?
`Ali and al-`Abbas, when they came to `Umar, they were not asking for Fadak or Khaybar, they just asked for control of the Sadaqat of Madinah from the property of banu al-Nadeer(Jews) and Mukhayreeq as they believed they were at least entitled to do so.
We read in the books of Sunan:
عَلِيًّا، وَالْعَبَّاسَ رضي الله عنهما يختصمان فيما أفاء الله على رَسُولِ اللَّهِ مِنْ أَمْوَالِ بَنِي النَّضِير
[`Ali and al-`Abbas both disputed over what Allah has given as Fay’ to his messenger from the property of banu al-Nadeer.]
هُمَا يَخْتَصِمَانِ فِي الصَّوَافِي الَّتِي أَفَاءَ اللَّهُ عَلَى رَسُولِهِ مِنْ أَمْوَالِ بَنِي النَّضِير
[And they were disputing regarding the pure possessions that Allah granted as Fay’ to his messenger (saw) from bani al-Nadeer.]
Two years into his Khilafah, `Umar ibn al-Khattab out of good will towards them entrusted the Sadaqat of Madinah to both men since they were the heads of Ahlul-Bayt, he never gave it to them as inheritance, but just appointed them over it to care for it and benefit from it and to distribute its produce as the Prophet (saw) and Abu Bakr did before.
`Ali asked for his wife’s part and al-`Abbas asked for his nephew’s part, so `Umar reminded them of the Prophet’s (saw) Hadith, then said what we read in al-Bukhari:
قُلْتُ: إِنْ شِئْتُمَا دَفَعْتُهُ إِلَيْكُمَا عَلَى أَنَّ عَلَيْكُمَا عَهْدَ اللَّهِ وَمِيثَاقَهُ، لَتَعْمَلَانِ فِيهِ بِمَا عَمِلَ فِيهِ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ وَأَبُو بَكْرٍ وَمَا عَمِلْتُ فِيهِ مُنْذُ وَلِيتُ وَإِلَّا فَلَا تُكَلِّمَانِي، فَقُلْتُمَا ادْفَعْهُ إِلَيْنَا بِذَلِكَ، فَدَفَعْتُهُ إِلَيْكُمَا
[If you two wish, I hand it to you but you give me an oath by Allah to use it as the messenger of Allah (saw) and Abu Bakr used it and like I used it since I was given authority, otherwise never mention it to me ever again. Then you both said: “We accept, give it to us.” And I did.]
Al-`Abbas and `Ali later had a fight over how the money the land produces is divided, it appears as if al-`Abbas was angry at `Ali so much that he called him names, `Abbas might have thought `Ali took more than his need or that he used the money without consulting him, so they both went to `Umar asking him to divide it between them or to rule for one of them against the other.
`Umar refused to give any other judgment and told them to return it if they’re unable to manage it.
He also said:
فَإِنْ عَجَزْتُمَا عَنْهُ فَادْفَعَا إِلَيَّ فَأَنَا أَكْفِيكُمَاهُ
[If you are unable to run this land, then return it to me and I shall save you the effort.]
It was later written that `Uthman ibn `Affan during his Khilafah convinced al-`Abbas to hand the entire land to `Ali and it remained with his children for many years.
In another narration from Musnad Ahmad, it says that ibn `Abbas convinced his father during the Khilafah of `Uthman to allow `Ali to control it on his own:
فلما استخلف عثمان اختصما إليه، فسكت عثمان ونكس رأسه. قال ابن عباس: فخشيت أن يأخذه أبي، فضربت بيدي بين كتفي العباس، فقلت: يا أبت أقسمت عليك إلا سلّمته
[When `Uthman received Khilafah, they both came and disputed in front of him and asked him to settle the matter, but he remained silent and lowered his head. Ibn `Abbas said: So I feared that he would take it (meaning the land) back from them, so I patted my hand on al-`Abbas’ chest and said: “O father, by Allah just hand it to him (meaning to `Ali).”]
As for the Fay’ of the lands of Khaybar including Fadak, `Umar held on to them and kept them well managed and properly taken care of as the Prophet (saw) used them for the urgent needs of the nation.
A question may be asked, does this mean that since both went to `Umar each man asking for his part, and that `Umar reminded them of the narration, does it mean that they reject the prophet’s (saw) narration? As clarified above the answer is NO, they themselves in the same narration declare they heard the messenger (saw) say so, and both know full well that `Umar was present when Abu Bakr made his ruling and agreed with him, this can only mean -as is apparent from the narration- that they only asked to control it, each claiming he has the right to do so through their closeness to the Prophet (saw), `Ali through his wife and al-`Abbas being his paternal uncle.

[Hani]

AbuJay says about `Ali being the best judge:

[Let's go back to my intro post.
حَدَّثَنَا عَلِيُّ بْنُ عَبْدِ الْعَزِيزِ قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا أَحْمَدُ بْنُ يُونُسَ قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا سَلَّامٌ قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا زَيْدٌ الْعَمِّيُّ، عَنْ أَبِي الصِّدِّيقِ النَّاجِي، عَنْ أَبِي سَعِيدٍ الْخُدْرِيِّ قَالَ: قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ: " أَرْحَمُ هَذِهِ الْأُمَّةِ بِهَا أَبُو بَكْرٍ، وَأَقْوَاهُمْ فِي دِينِ اللَّهِ عُمَرُ، وَأَفْرَضُهُمْ زَيْدُ بْنُ ثَابِتٍ، وَأَقْضَاهُمْ عَلِيُّ بْنُ أَبِي طَالِبٍ
قَالَ التِّرْمِذِيّ : هَذَا حَدِيث حسن صَحِيح . وَقَالَ الْحَاكِم : إِسْنَاده صَحِيح عَلَى شَرط الشَّيْخَيْنِ
The prophet said “The most merciful of my ummah is Abu Bakr, the most steadfast on the religion is Umar, the most  sincere is Zayd Ibn Thaabit, and the best judge among them is Ali”.
Tirimizi said :Hasan Sahih. Haakim said: Sahih on the conditions of bukhari and muslim.]

The part about `Ali being the best judge is a weak addition and is not contained in the original narration, Muhammad Moin already proved this without a doubt in the past forum while refuting Toyib's book, so NO the Prophet (saw) never said this.
Link: http://islamic-forum.net/index.php?showtopic=20491


Here is what Moin said and I copy:



I'll be touching few points for now.


1. It starts with the discussion on Hadeeth al-Qadha. Toyib quotes this hadith from Ibn Majah and also the authentication of scholars. I say: This hadith with the addition of "the best judge among you is 'Ali" is not present in Ibn Maja's manuscripts as stated by Shaykh Arnaut in Tahqeeq of Ibn Majah (1/107). He also said: This is present in published version and the Sharh of As-Sindi. I say: The addition is obviously a mistake. Many scholars have copied this hadith without this addition. Even Shaykh Al-Albani when discussed the hadith of Ibn Majah in his "As-Saheeha" he did not show any indication of the addition. Hafiz Ibn Abdul Hadi has a treatise on the hadith "the most knowledgeable about Faraidh is Zaid bin Thabit" which is a part of this tradition. He quoted this hadith even from Ibn Majah but did not mention this addition. Hafiz Sakhawi discussed the hadith al-Qadha in Al-Maqasid al-Hasanah but did not reference Ibn Majah as its source. There could be many proof for this. But this is enough.



2. Toyib (pg.6) quoted this hadith i.e. "The best judge among you is Ali" from Majma' az-Zawaid as a tradition of Jabir bin Abdullah, and that Al-Haythami said that it was reported by At-Tabrani in Al-Mu'jam al-Kabeer and declered it Hasan. Toyib made a remark that this hadith had gone missing after the time of Al-Haytami the autheor of As-Sawa'iq al-Muharrqah. I say: this hadith was never present in Al-Awsat, rather it is in Al-Mu'jam as-Sagheer (556). Hafiz Al-Haythami did a mistake when he attributed it to Al-Awsat and who was coppied by Faqih Al-Haytami. Otherwise he has attributed it to both As-Saghir and Al-Awsat. In any case Mindal bin Ali in Isnad is weak.



Mindal bin Ali is weak. While reading the treatise of Ibn Abdul Hadi in his Majmo ar-Rasail (pg. 64-65) i found that he said: The burden of this hadith is on Muhammad bin Al-Waleed who was Ibn Aban al-Qalanisi al-Baghdadi mawla of Bani Hashim and he was a liar. Hafiz Ibn 'Adi said: He would fabricate hadith, and would attribute it to prophet (sallallahu 'alaihi wa sallam), and also steal (narrations), and mix up Isnad..... till all the Jarh.
So even if Al-Haythami called it Hasan it is not actually Hasan. These kind of mistakes are many in the book of Hafiz Haythami.



Alot of scholars consider this hadith to be Mursal of Abu Qilabah. Among them Hafiz Daarqutni, Khateeb, Ibn Abdul Barr, Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Abdul Hadi. Al-Albani also retracted his authentication as mentioned by Mashhoor Hasan. Only the part which says "Abu Ubaidah is the Ameen of this Ummah" is connected all other things were declared to be Mursal. This also seems to be the view of Bukhari as he has only reported the part which speak of Abu Ubaydah in his sahih from this sanad of Khalid from Abu Qilabah from Anas. And Allah knows best.


FARID SAYS:



What supports this fact is that Al-Haythami himself in Majma’a Al-Bahrain fi Zawa’id Al-Mu’jamain 6/418 mentions this narration via a single chain that is the same chain that exists in the modern version of Al-Mu’jam Al-Sagheer. He does not include another chain.


Furthermore, Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani, in Al-Talkhees Al-Habeer, mentions the path of Jabir that Al-Haythami has quoted and indicated clearly that Al-Tabarani mentioned it in Al-Mu’jam Al-Sagheer. He makes no mention of it being in Al-Mu’jam Al-Awsat. More importantly, Ibn Hajar died in the year 852 AH, and is therefore a predecessor of Ibn Hajar Al-Haytami, which means that the non-existence of the narration in Al-Mu’jam Al-Awsat has been established before Ibn Hajar Al-Haytami.


MUHAMMAD MOIN SAID:



3. On pg.4 he quotes another tradition which is the same tradition of Anas and it contains the word "And the best judge among you is Ali". He quotes it from Zawaid Ibn Hibban which was compiled by Al-Haythami. This is present in that book but the additional wording is not present in the actual book by Ibn Hibban from where the Zawaid were compiled. So most probably it is a mistake in copying. Few points will make it more clear:
In the published Ibn Hibban (which is actually the tarteeb done by Ibn Balban al-Farisi from the original book) Imam Ibn Hibban has made coment on the hadith and said that these description were made with the hazaf of "min". He repeats the wording by adding min to each description of companions mentioned in the narration, but did not mention the addition regarding Ali. Here is what he said under hadith no. (7131):


قَالَ أَبُو حَاتِمٍ: هَذِهِ أَلْفَاظٌ أُطْلِقَتْ بِحَذْفِ الْـ "مِنْ" مِنْهَا يُرِيدُ بِقَوْلِهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ: "أَرْحَمُ أَمَّتِي" أَيْ: مِنْ أَرْحَمِ أُمَّتِي وَكَذَلِكَ قَوْلُهُ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ: "وَأَشَدُّهُمْ فِي أَمْرِ اللَّهِ" يُرِيدُ: مِنْ أَشَدِّهِمْ ومن أصدقهم حياء ومن أقرأهم لِكِتَابِ اللَّهِ وَمِنْ أَفْرَضِهِمْ وَمِنْ أَعْلَمِهِمْ بِالْحَلَالِ وَالْحَرَامِ يُرِيدُ أَنَّ هَؤُلَاءِ مِنْ جَمَاعَةٍ فِيهِمْ تِلْكَ الْفَضِيلَةُ وَهَذَا كَقَوْلِهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ لِلْأَنْصَارِ: "أَنْتُمْ أَحَبُّ النَّاسِ إِلَيَّ", يُرِيدُ مِنْ أَحَبِّ النَّاسِ مِنْ جَمَاعَةٍ أُحِبُّهُمْ وَهُمْ فيهم


Secondly, Ali Muttaqi Al-Hindi quotes this hadith in Kanzul 'Ummal and reference Ibn Hibban as one of its source but did not mention the part regarding Ali being best Judge, although he did listed this wording in the hadith of Jabir and Abu Sa'eed. If this wording had been there in Ibn HIbban then Ali Muttaqi would have quoted it in Kanz.
Thirdly, a lot of scholars have done takhrrej on this hadith of Ali being best judge but they do not mention the hadith of Abu Qilabah from Anas as its source neither in the book of Ibn Hibban nor in any book of Hadith. ALthough they do mention other hadith like that of Jabir and Abu Sa'eed and others.
Fourthly, the hadith of Abdul Wahhab Ath-Thaqafi from Khalid from Abu Qilabah from Anas has been narrated by many scholars like Tirmidhi and others but they do not mention this Isnad.


All these factors indicates that the part of the narration under discussion was never in Sahih of Ibn HIbban, rather it is a mistake by the author of Mawarid az-Zamaan or the copyist. And Allah knows best.



4. On page 7 he has quoted the narration of Ibn 'Umar from Sahih Jami as-Saghir along with the authentication of Shaykh Al-Albani. Firstly I must say that in some of the abridged books of Shaykh Al-Albani the way of ruling on hadith is weird according to me. In Sahih al-Jami he ruled on the hadith of Ibn 'Umar that it is authentic while in As-Saheehah (3/224) he pointed out the weakness in the hadith of Ibn 'uMar, although he declared the hadith as a whole authentic. And in Sahiha the part which he declared to be authentic based on support does not contain the portion under discussion, i.e. Ali is the best judge. So basically in Sahih al-Jami' he declared the hadith as whole to be authentic due to various Shawahid but the portion "the best judge among them is Ali" has been declared weak by him in As-Sahiha. So what is explained and clear should be given priority over that which is unexplained and unclear.
Note: - Shaykh Albani finally ruled out the whole hadith to be weak as said previously. Link: http://kulalsalafiyeen.com/vb/showthread.php?t=9730


After the discussion on the ruling of Shaykh Albani let us get back to the analysis of Isnad. Now Toyib has quoted the narration of Ibn 'Umar. It was related by Ibn Adi in Al-Kamil under the entry of Kawthar bin Hakeem. Kawthar relates it from Nafi' from Ibn 'Umar.
Ibn Abdul Hadi said: This narration is Batil in this form and the burden is on Kawthar, for scholars have weakened him and abandoned him. ABdullah bin Imam Ahmad said: Kawthar is nothing. His narrations are falsehood... More than one people have narrated from Ibn Ma'een that he said: Kawthar was nothing. Abu Hatim and Abu Zur'ah said: He was weak in hadith... Bukhari and Darqutni said: Munkar al-Hadith...till all criticism.


There is another route for it. Abu Ya'la has narrated it. It contains Muhammad bin Harith al-Harithi and Muhammad bin Abdur-Rahman al-Bilmani both of whom were unreliable as described by Hafiz Ibn Abdul Hadi in his Juz.



Summarizing the evidences given by Toyib to prove the authenticity of the hadith al-Qadha:
1. Hadith of Abu Qilabah from Anas: The part regarding Ali does not exist in it. Relying on a mistake Toyib wasted his time proving the isnad authentic.
2. Hadith of Jabir: It contains Muhammad bin Waleed who was highly unreliable.
3. Hadith of Ibn 'Umar: It contain several weak narrators the weakness of whom are to such extant that they cannot be taken for support.

Next time I will inshaALlah discuss some other routes which Toyib did not bring.


The hadith of Al-Qadha has also been reported as a hadith of Abu Mihjan ath-Thaqafi. It contains Abu Sa'eed al-Baqqal. Hafiz Ibn Abdul Hadi said in his treatise: Abu Sa'eed al-Baqqal's name is Sa'eed bin Mirzban. Scholars have weakned him with different rulings... Ibn Abi Maryam and Abbas Ad-Duri narrate from Ibn Ma'een that he said. "He is nothing." Ibn Abi Maryam adds in his report, "His narrations are not to be written." Al-Falas said, "He was Da'eef al-Hadith, Matrook al-Hadith." While Abu Zur'ah said, "He was slightly weak in hadith and a mudallis." He was asked, "Was he truthful?" He said, "yes, he did not lie." Abu Hatim said, "His narrations are not to be taken as Hujjah." Bukhari said, "Munkar al-Hadith." Nasai said, "weak" and another time he said, "He was not reliable and his reports are not to be written."


Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani said: he did not meet Abu Mihjan. [Al-Isabah (7/299)] I say: he died after 140 AH. This is something interesting about Al-Baqqal and probably that is what Abdullah bin Mubarak indicated in a report. Ibn Mubarak was asked regarding him that did he know him. He replied: Yes by Allah I know him. He is the person of very high Isnad. I narrated to him from Abdul Kareem AL-Jazari from Ziyad bin Abi Maryam from Abdullah bin Mughaffal from Ibn Mas'ud that the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu 'alaihi wa sallam) said, "Feeling regret is repentence". So he dropped me, Abdul Kareem and Ziyad and narrates from Abdullah bin Mughaffal. {juz of Ibn Abdul Hadi]



Another report which Ibn Abil Fawaris narrates in his Amali which ineterestingly also contain the praise of Muawiyah bin Abi Sufyan (ra). It contain a liar and two weak narrators. Liar is 'Amr bin Subuh, and the two weak narrators are Basheer bin Zadhaan and Abdur-Raheem bin Waqid as described by Ibn Abdul Hadi.


There is a Mursal tradition of Hasan Basari which also contain the word on Ali being best Judge. It was recorded by Ibn Abdul Barr in Al-Istai'ab and Ibn Abdul hadi attributes it to Al-Hulwani. this is mursal and Maraseel of Hasan Basari are considered worse kind of Maraseel as he narrates from all kind of narrators.


However the part "The best judge among us is Ali" is proven as a statement of Umar bin Khattab (ra) as reported by Bukhari and others. Toyib was trying to falsify Ibn Taymiyyah's statement while Ibn Taymiyyah was referring to this report as a saying of the Prophet (sallallahu 'alaihi wa sallam). Otherwise Ibn taymiyyah has himself affirmed it as a statement of Umar.



From page 8 onwards Toyib talks about statements of Sahaba regarding Ali (ra) being the best judge. He goes on discussing the Isnad of statement of Umar in length while giving the reference of Sahih Bukhari would have been sufficient for it. He also quoted a similar statement of Ibn Mas'ud then tried to portray as though these statements necessitate superiority of Ali (ra) over other Sahaba.
I say: Ibn Taymiyyah has discussed this in detail and the rafidhi, considering his work to be a refutation of Ibn Taymiyyah, should have dealt with it. In short the Qadha here is referring to resolving disputes of people. Basically Qadha is related to two types of issues: First when two parties are in fight like when a group claim something on the other group. So this need analysis based on witnesses and other things. Second is when two groups do not oppose each but they only want to know the islamic ruling regarding what they deserve or what not like their share in inheritance etc. So it is the first type which is said regarding Ali (ra) and this is not a criteria to be the best as compared to others otherwise if we count Qadha of the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu 'alaahii wa sallam) then it would not even reach ten judgement as compared to his ruling regarding Halal and Haram which is the basis of the religion. Related to this is a narration narrated by Umm al-Mumineen Umm Salamah (ra) that the Prophet (sallallahu 'alaihi wa sallam) said, "You people present your case to me and some of you may be more eloquent in presenting his argument. So if I give someone's right to another because of the latter's presentation of the case then I am really giving him a peice of fire; so he should not take it." [Agreed upon]
This was the argument presented by Ibn Taymiyyah. Besides, as Toyib has also quoted the statement of Ibn Mas'ud that we used to say that the best Judge among people of Madinah is Ali. The isnad is good but it weakens the argumet of shi'i more than it strengthen it. It is well known that Abdullah bin Mas'ud used to consider other Khulafa superior than Ali. In fact he said explicitly that Uthman (ra) was the best of them after the death of 'Umar (ra). Ibn Mas'ud's love for Umar is well famous. For example: Ibn Abi Shaibah and Tabrani relates through Zaidah from Abdul Malik bin Umair fro Zaid bin Wahb that Ibn Mas'ud said, "Umar was the most knowledgeable of us about Allah, the most learned of us regarding the book of Allah and most knowledgeable regarding the religion of Allah." It is also authentically proven as reported by Ibn Abi Shaibah, Tabrani in Al-Kabeer and Hakim that Abdullah used to say, "I really think that if the knowledge of Umar is placed in one side of the balance and knowledge of all the living people in the other side then the side of Umar will proved to be weighty." A'amash considered it an exaggresion and compalined to Ibrahim Nakh'i to which Ibrahim said, "What are you so shocked about. Abdullah has said even greater statement about Umar. He has said "I believe has gone with the nine out of ten parts of knowledge." Ibn Mas'ud also said as reported by Tabrani, Ibn Abi Shaibah: Whenever I see Umar it appears as though there is an angel between his eyes to guide or correct him."
This is regarding Umar, as for Uthman then it has been reported by Ahmad in Fadhail, Ibn Sa'd, Fasawi, Tabrani, Ibn Battah in Al-Ibanah al-Kubrah and others that Ibn Mas'ud said among his companions, "We the companions of Muhammad gathered and selected over us the best of us (i.e. Uthman)." This is also authentically proven.
So if being the best judge would necessitate being the best as a whole then Ibn Mas'ud would not be considering Umar and Uthman as best of all. They knew what they were speaking of unlike Rawafidh who misrepresent any statement they feel going against them.
Similarly if being the best of judge would mean the best of all in all then why Umar did not indicated only to Ali (ra) during his last time. Rather he selected six people. A person at his death bed would hardly speak lie. And if really wanted to hide facts he would have totally avoided Ali as he avoided his brother-in-law Sa'eed bin Zaid and no one would have objected to that great Caliph.


Note:- Some variant of the hadith of Ibn Masud regarding Ali being the best judge has the wording: We used to say the best of people of Madinah was Ali. It has been reported in Fadhail as-Sahabah of Ahmad and Musnad Bazzar. I say: There seems to be some mistake and the actual "aqdha ahlal madina" has been changed to "Afadhala ahlal madina". It could have been done by either some narrator who has some weakness or it is a mistake of a copyist. The former seems to be the case with Fadhaill as-Sahaba while the latter with Bazzar. And Allah knows best. I have some detail regarding it but it is irrelevant here. Some people like Mahmud Sa'eed Mamduh, in Ghayat at-Tabjeel, use it to show that Ibn Mas'ud considered Ali to be best of all the companions including Abu Bakr and Umar, that is why I notified it.



As it was my personal observation it could have been doubted but recently I found Ibn Abdul Barr also considered it a mistake while the wording "Aqdha ahl al-Madinah" to be correct. It is in Al-Istidhkar (14/242) under Kitab al-Jihad

[Hani]

Secondly, this report about `Ali being the best of judges is an argument against abuJay, since the same report shows that others were equal if not superior to `Ali in matters of Halal and Haram and inheritance such as Mu`adh and Zayd. Add on top that the narration says that Abu Bakr is "the most merciful man towards my nation" so how can the most merciful man be an oppressive tyrant!?

Here's the full text from al-Hakim whom BuJay quoted:

إِنَّ أَرْأَفَ أُمَّتِي بِهَا أَبُو بَكْرٍ، وَإِنَّ أَصْلَبَهَا فِي أَمْرِ اللَّهِ عُمَرَ، وَإِنَّ أَشَدَّهَا حَيَاءً عُثْمَانُ، وَإِنَّ أَقْرَأَهَا أُبَيُّ بْنُ كَعْبٍ، وَإِنَّ أَفْرَضَهَا زَيْدُ بْنُ ثَابِتٍ، وَإِنَّ أَقْضَاهَا عَلِيُّ بْنُ أَبِي طَالِبٍ، وَإِنَّ أَعْلَمَهَا بِالْحَلالِ وَالْحَرَامِ مُعَاذُ بْنُ جَبَلٍ، وَإِنَّ أَصْدَقَهَا لَهْجَةً أَبُو ذَرٍّ، وَإِنَّ أَمِينَ هَذِهِ الأُمَّةِ أَبُو عُبَيْدَةَ بْنُ الْجَرَّاحِ، وَإِنَّ حَبْرَ هَذِهِ الأُمَّةِ لِعَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ عَبَّاسٍ

[muslim720]

Secondly, this report about `Ali being the best of judges is an argument against abuJay, since the same report shows that others were equal if not superior to `Ali in matters of Halal and Haram and inheritance such as Mu`adh and Zayd. Add on top that the narration says that Abu Bakr is "the most merciful man towards my nation" so how can the most merciful man be an oppressive tyrant!?

I touched this point but since these people deny the Qur'an, how can we expect them to follow our narration?

As of now, I have been suspended till tomorrow because I had to show a scumbag his worth.  Tomorrow I will share your points with him.

[Hani]

I just read the first post in the SC thread which is abuJay's little weak piece in which he claims to provide all the answers, fact is his research is terrible and not up to standard, it's basically a poor man's version of my research. I don't intend to brag but he clearly didn't do much reading on the subject and his methodology is one of the worst and most biased of methods. In fact if he just read my piece it would have saved him a lot of time and maybe even enlightened him as I went through all early Tafseer books and graded every single report that is even remotely related to the subject:
http://twelvershia.net/detailed-research-on-prophetic-inheritance/

As of now, I have been suspended till tomorrow because I had to show a scumbag his worth.  Tomorrow I will share your points with him.

Don't share my points, give him a link to my entire research and let him read and be educated on this matter before he plays hero.

Refer to my conclusion as to what can Fatimah get from this land:

IN CONCLUSION, IS FATIMAH ENTITLED TO RECEIVE ANYTHING FROM FADAK?
Let us sum this up as well and be very clear, there can only be two cases:
1-      If the Prophet (saw) had turned this land into a Waqf for the people during his own life, as mentioned in the books of Amwal and Hadith, this means that this land no longer belongs to him, he (saw) only manages how its produce is divided since he is the leader and nothing more, and after him his successor does this job. In this case she doesn’t get anything from it since it’s no longer an inheritance.
2-      If the Prophet (saw) never made it a Waqf, it remains a Fay’ as it was and it remains in his possession, he divides from it and gives to the people as its owner and when he dies his successor in authority continues working this land and using it the same way the Prophet (saw) used it, as a Khalifah must succeed him (saw) in his economic policies and follow his example. In this case she also doesn’t get it as his possessions (saw) are not inherited.
What she gets is what the Khalifah gives, Abu Bakr says that Rasul-Allah (saw) permitted his family to eat from this land and so he will continue feeding them as if he (saw) was still alive.
Another question would be: Did Abu Bakr leave the prophetic-household (including his daughter) to starve? Did he leave them in poverty?
Let me just say this, there are authentic narrations regarding the written will of `Ali ibn abi Talib in the books of Ahlul-Sunnah and in the books of the Shia, such as volume seven from al-Kafi, I’d recommend all our readers to check them out and see if they were left in poverty or not; just read about the lands they bequeathed and the number of slaves and female servants and water wells and the rest. This can also be seen in the book Tareekh al-Madinah by ibn Shubah under the chapter of Sadaqat `Ali ibn abi Talib and it mentions a lot more detail as it was copied from Hasan bin Zayd bin Hasan bin `Ali ibn abi Talib’s letter.
I add, the Prophet (saw) himself left his family in poverty, he preferred poverty for them, and in the Sahih narration from Bilal ibn Rabah, he was talking about how the Prophet (saw) was in debt because he spent his money on the people, then finally he received some money and asked Bilal to pay his debts as well as Bilal’s:
قَالَ: ” فَفَضَلَ شَيْءٌ؟ ، قُلْتُ: نَعَمْ، قَالَ: ” انْظُرْ أَنْ تُرِيحَنِيَ مِنْهَا، فَإِنِّي لَسْتُ دَاخِلا عَلَى أَحَدٍ مِنْ أَهْلِي حَتَّى تُرِيحَنِي مِنْهُ
[The Prophet (saw) asked Bilal: “Anything left from the money?” Bilal said: “Yes.” He (saw) said: “Make sure you relieve me from (possessing) it, I won’t enter the house of any of my wives (for the night) until you do.”]
As the reader can see, the Prophet (saw) paid his debts but never kept any of the money that remained, he wouldn’t even go home and sleep unless he made sure Bilal got rid of this money.
Why does the Prophet (saw) do this? Allah answers:
{The example of those who spend their wealth in the way of Allah is like a seed [of grain] which grows seven spikes; in each spike is a hundred grains. And Allah multiplies [His reward] for whom He wills.} [2:261]

[Abu-jafar herz]

pwned.

[Abu-jafar herz]

What research?

You think you do research? Let me show you an example of your research, let us look at your first point.

IN CONCLUSION, IS FATIMAH ENTITLED TO RECEIVE ANYTHING FROM FADAK?
Let us sum this up as well and be very clear, there can only be two cases:
1-      If the Prophet (saw) had turned this land into a Waqf for the people during his own life, as mentioned in the books of Amwal and Hadith, this means that this land no longer belongs to him, he (saw) only manages how its produce is divided since he is the leader and nothing more, and after him his successor does this job. In this case she doesn’t get anything from it since it’s no longer an inheritance.
2-      If the Prophet (saw) never made it a Waqf, it remains a Fay’ as it was and it remains in his possession, he divides from it and gives to the people as its owner and when he dies his successor in authority continues working this land and using it the same way the Prophet (saw) used it, as a Khalifah must succeed him (saw) in his economic policies and follow his example. In this case she also doesn’t get it as his possessions (saw) are not inherited.
What she gets is what the Khalifah gives, Abu Bakr says that Rasul-Allah (saw) permitted his family to eat from this land and so he will continue feeding them as if he (saw) was still alive.
Another question would be: Did Abu Bakr leave the prophetic-household (including his daughter) to starve? Did he leave them in poverty?
Let me just say this, there are authentic narrations regarding the written will of `Ali ibn abi Talib in the books of Ahlul-Sunnah and in the books of the Shia, such as volume seven from al-Kafi, I’d recommend all our readers to check them out and see if they were left in poverty or not; just read about the lands they bequeathed and the number of slaves and female servants and water wells and the rest. This can also be seen in the book Tareekh al-Madinah by ibn Shubah under the chapter of Sadaqat `Ali ibn abi Talib and it mentions a lot more detail as it was copied from Hasan bin Zayd bin Hasan bin `Ali ibn abi Talib’s letter.
I add, the Prophet (saw) himself left his family in poverty, he preferred poverty for them, and in the Sahih narration from Bilal ibn Rabah, he was talking about how the Prophet (saw) was in debt because he spent his money on the people, then finally he received some money and asked Bilal to pay his debts as well as Bilal’s:
قَالَ: ” فَفَضَلَ شَيْءٌ؟ ، قُلْتُ: نَعَمْ، قَالَ: ” انْظُرْ أَنْ تُرِيحَنِيَ مِنْهَا، فَإِنِّي لَسْتُ دَاخِلا عَلَى أَحَدٍ مِنْ أَهْلِي حَتَّى تُرِيحَنِي مِنْهُ
[The Prophet (saw) asked Bilal: “Anything left from the money?” Bilal said: “Yes.” He (saw) said: “Make sure you relieve me from (possessing) it, I won’t enter the house of any of my wives (for the night) until you do.”]
As the reader can see, the Prophet (saw) paid his debts but never kept any of the money that remained, he wouldn’t even go home and sleep unless he made sure Bilal got rid of this money.
Why does the Prophet (saw) do this? Allah answers:
{The example of those who spend their wealth in the way of Allah is like a seed [of grain] which grows seven spikes; in each spike is a hundred grains. And Allah multiplies [His reward] for whom He wills.} [2:261]

The land doesn't belong to him?

Really?

Please translate this for me ...

Sharh from An-nawawi The shaykh who you take your Mutamad rulings from.

وكذلك نصف أرض فدك صالح أهلها بعد فتح خيبر على نصف أرضها وكان خالصا له وكذلك ثلث أرض وادي القرى أخذه في الصلح حين صالح أهلها اليهود وكذلك حصنان من حصون خيبر…. فكانت هذه كلها ملكا لرسول الله خاصة لا حق فيها أحد غيره
 
and this

from ar-razi

{ وَمَآ أَفَآءَ ٱللَّهُ عَلَىٰ رَسُولِهِ مِنْهُمْ فَمَآ أَوْجَفْتُمْ عَلَيْهِ مِنْ خَيْلٍ وَلاَ رِكَابٍ وَلَـٰكِنَّ ٱللَّهَ يُسَلِّطُ رُسُلَهُ عَلَىٰ مَن يَشَآءُ وَٱللَّهُ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ قَدِيرٌ }
ومعنى الآية أن الصحابة طلبوا من الرسول عليه الصلاة والسلام أن يقسم الفيء بينهم كما قسم الغنيمة بينهم، فذكر الله الفرق بين الأمرين، وهو أن الغنيمة ما أتعبتم أنفسكم في تحصيلها وأوجفتم عليها الخيل والركاب بخلاف الفيء فإنكم ما تحملتم في تحصيله تعباً، فكان الأمر فيه مفوضاً إلى الرسول يضعه حيث يشاء.


فصارت تلك القرى والأموال في يد الرسول عليه السلام من غير حرب فكان عليه الصلاة والسلام يأخذ من غلة فدك نفقته ونفقة من يعوله، ويجعل الباقي في السلاح والكراع

and this

Tafseer Ibn katheer

قال تعالى: { فَلِلَّهِ وَلِلرَّسُولِ وَلِذِى ٱلْقُرْبَىٰ وَٱلْيَتَامَىٰ وَٱلْمَسَـٰكِينِ وَٱبْنِ ٱلسَّبِيلِ } إلى آخرها، والتي بعدها، فهذه مصارف أموال الفيء ووجوهه. قال الإمام أحمد: حدثنا سفيان، عن عمرو ومَعْمر، عن الزهري، عن مالك بن أوس بن الحدثان، عن عمر، رضي الله عنه قال: كانت أموال بني النضير مما أفاء الله على رسوله مما لو يوجف المسلمون عليه بخيل ولا ركاب، فكانت لرسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم خالصة،

and this from ibn hibban

فكانت فدك لرسول الله خالصة

[Abu-jafar herz]

Secondly, this report about `Ali being the best of judges is an argument against abuJay, since the same report shows that others were equal if not superior to `Ali in matters of Halal and Haram and inheritance such as Mu`adh and Zayd. Add on top that the narration says that Abu Bakr is "the most merciful man towards my nation" so how can the most merciful man be an oppressive tyrant!?

Here's the full text from al-Hakim whom BuJay quoted:

إِنَّ أَرْأَفَ أُمَّتِي بِهَا أَبُو بَكْرٍ، وَإِنَّ أَصْلَبَهَا فِي أَمْرِ اللَّهِ عُمَرَ، وَإِنَّ أَشَدَّهَا حَيَاءً عُثْمَانُ، وَإِنَّ أَقْرَأَهَا أُبَيُّ بْنُ كَعْبٍ، وَإِنَّ أَفْرَضَهَا زَيْدُ بْنُ ثَابِتٍ، وَإِنَّ أَقْضَاهَا عَلِيُّ بْنُ أَبِي طَالِبٍ، وَإِنَّ أَعْلَمَهَا بِالْحَلالِ وَالْحَرَامِ مُعَاذُ بْنُ جَبَلٍ، وَإِنَّ أَصْدَقَهَا لَهْجَةً أَبُو ذَرٍّ، وَإِنَّ أَمِينَ هَذِهِ الأُمَّةِ أَبُو عُبَيْدَةَ بْنُ الْجَرَّاحِ، وَإِنَّ حَبْرَ هَذِهِ الأُمَّةِ لِعَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ عَبَّاسٍ

Muadh and Zayd are completely irrelevant to the statement "Ali (as) is the best islamic judge on earth".

Just like when Muslims try to prove Muhammad [saw] in the bible, the verses in the bible that says jesus is the son of god is completely irrelevant to us, all that is relevant to us is the point we are trying to prove.

So you bringing me hadith with additions such as "muadh is the best in halal and haram" and " zayd is the best in inheritance laws" is 100 percent irrelevant as the statement "Ali is the best Islamic judge on earth" still holds and stands as a valid statement.

So my question to you is this, Is Ali the best Islamic judge, yes or no?

Do you agree or disagree? Once you agree to this point we will show the knowledge of Imam Ali [as] in your own books.