Oh so much written while I was away, where to start.
Brother, in you response it clearly say that Abbas was accusing Ali (as) and had also done the same at the time of Abu Bakr and Umar. Umar interviened by saying " You though him ( Abu Bakr ) to be a liar and trecherous." Same thing has taken place here meaning it was Abbas who wanted the land for himself, not Ali (as). He made the claim and Ali (as) didn't contest him in front of Abu Bakr and neither did he stop himslef from talking back to Abbas.
That just goes to prove that they neither believed the shaykhain to be truthful and neither did they agree to what he said in regarda to hearing the hadith of Prophet Muhammad (sawa).
Let me break it for you, the first time `Abbas and Fatimah went to ask for inheritance. They were reminded of the prophetic report so they went back and never asked for inheritance again but they still asked to be placed in charge of the properties. They returned to `Umar and he handed them a part of that property, then they differed on how to manage it and both went to `Umar to judge between them so that each one may be in charge of his own part.
`Abbas and `Ali were both fighting over it, it wasn't only from `Abbas's side, `Ali was talking back to him but the narration never declares what `Ali said only what `Abbas said "Judge between me and this liar, traitor, sinner!" This is the only time these words were uttered and it was from `Abbas towards `Ali. `Umar in order to defend `Ali used a rhetorical argument basically telling `Abbas that you both acted as if Abu Bakr was a traitor and a sinner when he made his judgement concerning the land, and you both acted like I was a traitor and a sinner when I judged, so by Allah I won't change my judgement. This is because `Abbas and `Ali had great respect for Abu Bakr and `Umar and would never call them that, so by doing so `Umar had placed both on the spot especially al-`Abbas who called `Ali names simply because he differed with him in judgement.
As for you claiming they didn't view the Shaykhayn to be truthful, the Hadith does not imply this, it clearly implies that they differed in their understanding of the Hadith simply because they were pleased to be in charge of the Sadaqat. If they found them to be liars they wouldn't be seeking their judgement and opinions on the matter. If you thought a guy was a traitor, a sinner and a liar you wouldn't go and ask him to be a judge between you and your cousin in a family matter.
I add, both `Ali and `Abbas admitted to hearing the Hadith of the Prophet (saw) when `Umar asked. The biggest evidence that they never accused anyone of lying.
Both of you came to demand your shares from the property (left behind by the Messenger of Allah). (Referring to Hadrat 'Abbas), he said: You demanded your share from the property of your nephew, and he (referring to 'Ali) demanded a share on behalf of his wife from the property of her father. Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) had said:" We do not have any heirs; what we leave behind is (to be given in) charity." So both of you thought him to be a liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest. And Allah knows that he was true, virtuous, well-guided and a follower of truth. When Abu Bakr passed away and (I have become) the successor of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) and Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with him), you thought me to be a liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest.
I do not believe based on my research that `Ali went to ask for inheritance nor was he entitled for any inheritance in the beginning, he simply accompanied his wife so she may ask Abu Bakr herself and see his answer. Later in the narration, `Umar says "You both returned to me, your word was one, this one asking for his share from his nephew and the other was asking for his wife's share from her father."
We interpret this, that al-`Abbas and `Ali, each was asking to be in charge of this land. They believed they had a right to do so since they insisted on their opinion that the land must be under their supervision even if they don't own it. `Ali was asking to be in charge through his wife's share and `Abbas through his own share. At this point they weren't asking for ownership and upon this basis `Umar gave it to them and placed some conditions as well.
Now the narration above confused you because it is flipped, I believe the narrators flipped a section and this is why it caused confusion. The correct version of the narration is ordered like this:
Abu Bakr said, 'I am the successor of Allah's Apostle so, Abu Bakr took over that property and managed it in the same way as Allah's Apostle used to do, and Allah knows that he was true, pious and rightlyguided, and he was a follower of what was right. Then Allah took Abu Bakr unto Him and I became Abu Bakr's successor, and I kept that property in my possession for the first two years of my Caliphate, managing it in the same way as Allah's Apostle used to do and as Abu Bakr used to do, and Allah knows that I have been true, pious, rightly guided, and a follower of what is right. Then you both came to talk to me, united upon the same word, `Abbas, came to me asking for his share from his nephew's property, and this man, i.e. `Ali, came to me asking for his wife's share from her father's property.It is only during `Umar's time where `Ali came to ask through his wife's share not in Abu Bakr's time. None of the authentic narrations state that `Ali was asking for anything at the time of Abu Bakr's reign since Fatimah was alive. All narrations stated that it was al-`Abbas and Fatimah that went and `Ali may or may not have accompanied them, Fatimah was the one speaking and `Ali had no role (Which shows that either he knew they weren't entitled for any inheritance or that he wasn't even present).
The evidence that this is the correct version is because it is narrated through multiple chains in this form:
حَدَّثَنَا سَعِيدُ بْنُ عُفَيْرٍ، قَالَ حَدَّثَنِي اللَّيْثُ، قَالَ حَدَّثَنِي عُقَيْلٌ، عَنِ ابْنِ شِهَابٍ، قَالَ أَخْبَرَنِي مَالِكُ بْنُ أَوْسِ بْنِ الْحَدَثَانِ
حَدَّثَنَا إِسْحَاقُ بْنُ مُحَمَّدٍ الْفَرْوِيُّ، حَدَّثَنَا مَالِكُ بْنُ أَنَسٍ، عَنِ ابْنِ شِهَابٍ، عَنْ مَالِكِ بْنِ أَوْسِ بْنِ الْحَدَثَانِ
حَدَّثَنَا يَحْيَى بْنُ بُكَيْرٍ، حَدَّثَنَا اللَّيْثُ، عَنْ عُقَيْلٍ، عَنِ ابْنِ شِهَابٍ، قَالَ أَخْبَرَنِي مَالِكُ بْنُ أَوْسِ بْنِ الْحَدَثَانِ
حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ يُوسُفَ، حَدَّثَنَا اللَّيْثُ، حَدَّثَنِي عُقَيْلٌ، عَنِ ابْنِ شِهَابٍ، قَالَ أَخْبَرَنِي مَالِكُ بْنُ أَوْسٍ النَّصْرِيُّ
The flipped one you quoted is weaker in terms of narrators and it is weaker since it comes through one chain as far as I can see:
وَحَدَّثَنِي عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ أَسْمَاءَ الضُّبَعِيُّ، حَدَّثَنَا جُوَيْرِيَةُ، عَنْ مَالِكٍ، عَنِ الزُّهْرِيِّ، أَنَّ مَالِكَ بْنَ أَوْسٍ
You have made no mention of why Abbas and Ali (as) thought abu bakr to be a liar and it's evident from reading the hadith that they did that. As for the land being " Waqf " how come the only people that knew of this were Umar and Abu Bakr ? Don't tell me that Abbas and Ali (as) weren't familiar with this hadith. If they were familiar then they wouldn't have gone to ask for their share and if they weren't it's clear from the hadith they disagreed with Abu Bakr.
They never thought he was a liar, based on `Umar's words the Hashemites were not pleased with Abu Bakr's judgement so they acted as if the man was a traitor a sinner. My friend don't forget that in this same narration `Abbas calls `Ali a traitor and a sinner and a liar, therefore we can flip this back and ask you: Why do you trust a man if he's a traitor, a sinner and a liar according to his own uncle!?
Our opinion is that `Ali was familiar with the Hadith, he said so himself, he never asked for inheritance, he only asked to be in charge of it in `Umar's time. `Abbas had heard it and forgotten it so when reminded he accepted but still insisted to be in charge as `Ali did. Fatimah was not familiar with it.
Don't try to tell me that Bibi Fatima (sa) was informed by Ali (as) about this hadith and yet, she still went to Abu Bakr because she didn't believe Ali (as) lol.
That's not necessarily true, we have narrations were `Ali and Fatimah differ or even fight (as is natural). Fatimah never viewed `Ali as the ultimate infallible like you lot claim, if she heard it from him she may have went to further investigate, that doesn't mean she thinks he's a liar. It's also possible she went with al-`Abbas and never discussed the matter with `Ali since this all happened in a hurry after the passing of the Prophet (saw).
You also have in your books that `Ali asked Fatimah why she did something, she told him the Prophet (saw) ordered us, so he went to the Prophet (saw) to complain about what she did and verify if it was true:
فقال : ما هذا يا فاطمة ؟ فقالت :أمرنا بهذا رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله فخرج علي عليه السلام إلى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله مستفتيا محرشا على فاطمة عليها السلام
(Check Tahdheeb-ul-Ahkam and `Ilal-ul-Shara'i`)
Perhaps, you would like to tell me why did Abbas and Ali (as) thought Abu Bakr to be a liar when he declared that the Prophet didn't have any hiers for his materialistic possession ?
They themselves must be liars then when they claimed they heard the Prophet (saw) say so.
That's the level of humility of Ali (as). Don't take it so literally. You must be aware of the election that took place where they had already chosen a leader for themselves ? At hearing this, both Abu and Ummu left the funeral of Prophet Muhammad (sawa) and rushed to the election and told them what they're doing is wrong ? Does that ring a bell ? Care to tell me if people really thought Abu Bakr to be the most deserving then why did the election start in their absence ?
They left a funeral to stop a Fitnah that could have ravaged the entire nation and ended Islam altogether.
Volume 4, Book 51, Number 1 :
Narrated by Abdullah bin Umar
Allah's Apostle said, "It is not permissible for any Muslim who has something to will to stay for two nights without having his last will and testament written and kept ready with him."
Why did he give away whatever he had in charity without even giving anything to his children even if giving one third is too much in charity ?
The Prophet (saw) willed many things before his death, he willed for them to hold on to the book of Allah, he willed for them to treat their women well etc... and he reminded them of the teachings of Islam. This is sufficient and actually counts as a written Will.
Then comes a second part, we read in Sahih al-Bukhari the Hadith:
ما حق امرئ مسلم ، له شيء يوصي فيه ، يبيت ليلتين ، إلا ووصيته عنده مكتوبة
[“It is the duty of a Muslim who has any matter to entrust not to let two nights pass without writing a will about it.”]
In Islam, the scholars popularly agree that a Will can either be oral, offered to people of trust, or it can be written. A Will may contain several things, such as:
1- Advice and wisdom. (Optional & Recommended)
2- Any debts or trusts that one owes people. (Obligatory)
3- What each of his legitimate heirs are to receive after his death. (Optional & Disliked)
4- A donation for anyone who isn’t entitled to inherit him. (Optional & Conditional)
The advice and wisdom is recommended because it is an act of goodness and he shall be rewarded for it by Allah as it encourages his relatives to do good and avoid evil, this needs not be written and he can say it on his death-bed or even before that as was the Sunnah of Rasul-Allah (saw) who always advised everyone around him.
As for debts, it is recommended to write it because it is a sensitive topic related to people’s rights, one can also offer it orally to people of trust and responsibility. This is obligatory as one may be punished in the after-life for usurping people’s rights even after his death.
He can also write exactly what each of his legitimate heirs are supposed to receive but this is not obligatory, some even dislike it because Rasul-Allah (saw) said in the Hadith of Ibn Majah:
إن الله تعالى قد أعطى كل ذي حق حقة , فلا وصية لوارث
[“Allah most high had given for every person deserving of inheritance his right, so do not address an heir in your Wills.”]
Meaning, that in the Qur’an and the Sunnah Allah had already described how the wealth is to be divided among heirs, you can say that Allah wrote their Will concerning their heirs, this leaves no need for the person himself to do so unless he wishes to calculate it for them if they cannot do it themselves, or maybe in a special case and by agreement of all heirs that some of them would offer their rights to others heirs.
Finally, the donation to the non-heir and according to the Sunnah of Rasul-Allah (saw) one cannot give more than a third of his wealth, as he must leave the rest for the legitimate heirs.
Al-Tabari in his Tafsir and `Abdul-Razzaq in his Musannaf both narrate in the authentic narration from `Urwah from `Ali ibn abi Talib when one of his servants asked him about the Wasiyyah, regarding the verse:
{Prescribed for you when death approaches [any] one of you if he leaves wealth [is that he should make] a bequest(al-Wasiyyah)} [2:180]
دَخَلَ عَلِيٌّ عَلَى مَوْلًى لَهُمْ فِي الْمَوْتِ، وَلَهُ سَبْعُ مِائَةِ دِرْهَمٍ أَوْ سِتُّ مِائَةِ دِرْهَمٍ، فَقَالَ: أَلا أُوصِي؟ فَقَالَ: لا، إِنَّمَا قَالَ اللَّهُ: إِنْ تَرَكَ خَيْرًا، وَلَيْسَ لَكَ كَثِيرُ مَالٍ
[`Ali entered on a servant of his while on his deathbed, he only possessed seven hundred Dirhams or six hundred, he asked: “Should I make a Will?” `Ali replied: “No, He only said: {if he leaves wealth}, and you do not have much.”]
This is what we mean by conditional above, in that it depends on the circumstances of a person and his financial situation.
Since Rasul-Allah (saw) had already spent his entire wealth, he had even less than this old servant and whatever was left was worth nothing, such as his walking stick or his turban, then there was no need for him to announce a Will concerning these matters, neither a written or oral one as he had nothing to bequeath. He (saw) did Will a couple of matters, such as dispatching Usamah’s army, and to care for his household, and to treat the foreign delegations with kindness and many other similar matters.
Volume 4, Book 51, Number 5 :
Narrated by Sad bin Abu Waqqas
The Prophet came visiting me while I was (sick) in Mecca, ('Amir the sub-narrator said, and he disliked to die in the land, whence he had already migrated). He (i.e. the Prophet) said, "May Allah bestow His Mercy on Ibn Afra (Sad bin Khaula)." I said, "O Allah's Apostle! May I will all my property (in charity)?" He said, "No." I said, "Then may I will half of it?" He said, "No". I said, "One third?" He said: "Yes, one third, yet even one third is too much. It is better for you to leave your inheritors wealthy than to leave them poor begging others, and whatever you spend for Allah's sake will be considered as a charitable deed even the handful of food you put in your wife's mouth. Allah may lengthen your age so that some people may benefit by you, and some others be harmed by you." At that time Sad had only one daughter.
Why is inheritance is being given such emphasis, yet, when it comes to the Prophet of Allah (swt) you all believe everything he had was to be given in charity, even though you admit that his family was eating from it during his lifetime ?
Because Allah willed that the Prophet (saw) should not leave behind wealth for his relatives BECAUSE HE'S A PROPHET and this may cause doubts in the future about his legitimacy and some may claim he lies in order to acquire wealth for himself and his family.
Imam Ali (as) was told to not contest them for Khilafa if they usurp his rights (as per rafidhi narrations ). Also, he was told that if he could gather enough people then he should fight them, if not, he should save his blood and not make the ummah turn against him by revolting against Abu Bakr since that would throw everything into chaos and Imam Ali (as) would have the same amount of respect that Abu Bakr has in the eyes of us rafidhis.
That's a bit silly, how can they usurp his right if he has already received Bay`ah at Ghadeer like you guys claim? Why would the Muslims give Two Bay`ahs? That's unheard of in Arabia. Why would the Ummah turn against him when you guys claim that Abu Bakr didn't have the support of most people and that he did what he did privately in Saqifah without consulting since the people wouldn't accept him? On the other hand, you also claim that the people all preferred `Ali and united on `Ali as opposed to Abu Bakr. `Ali didn't seem to mind thic chaos when he fought three large armies, people of Jamal, people of Siffin and people of Nahrawan on the othar hand his son let the Imamah go to save the Muslims from this same exact chaos.
Ali (as) broke his nose the first time this guy showed up to his door.
Really? SO he broke Fatimah's ribs with a broken nose? He broke his nose then he let him tie him up with ropes and force him to give Bay`ah?
Umar used to say that had it not been for Ali (as) Umar would be dead and we are all aware that Umar wasn't bright enough to rule the people, hence the appointment of Imam Ali (as) as his and Abu Bakr's advisor.
SO he broke his nose and the other guy killed his infant and wife, then promoted him to level of adviser because he's very dumb and couldn't rule. So let's recap, according to you guys `Umar is a coward and now you're saying he's extremely dumb YET he managed to prevent `Ali from taking authority. Wow `Ali must be pretty dumb and useless himself if his right was usurped by such a dumb coward.
English please. It is known that Aisha and Hafsa both went to ask for their share as
No it's neither known nor true, authentic narrations state that `A'ishah never asked for anything rather she reminded those of them that asked of the Hadith.
94 Replies
19749 Views
June 13, 2016, 12:07:29 PM
