TwelverShia.net Forum
Sunni Shia Discussion Forum => Quran-Tafseer => Topic started by: Husayn on May 05, 2016, 05:23:52 AM
-
I know this has been done to death. But I wanted to write a quick post highlighting (once again) how ridiculously bad the Shia explanation is. It is so bad that I guarantee you every Shi'i who knows Arabic and reads the Qur'an secretly admits that it's a horrible explanation (I myself did).
Verse:
وَقَرۡنَ فِى بُيُوتِكُنَّ وَلَا تَبَرَّجۡنَ تَبَرُّجَ ٱلۡجَـٰهِلِيَّةِ ٱلۡأُولَىٰۖ وَأَقِمۡنَ ٱلصَّلَوٰةَ وَءَاتِينَ ٱلزَّڪَوٰةَ وَأَطِعۡنَ ٱللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُۚ ۥۤ إِنَّمَا يُرِيدُ ٱللَّهُ لِيُذۡهِبَ عَنڪُمُ ٱلرِّجۡسَ أَهۡلَ ٱلۡبَيۡتِ وَيُطَهِّرَكُمۡ تَطۡهِيرً۬ا
And stay quietly in your houses, and make not a dazzling display, like that of the former Times of Ignorance; and establish regular Prayer, and give regular Charity; and obey Allah and His Messenger. And Allah only wishes to remove all abomination from you, ye Members of the Family, and to make you pure and spotless.
Shi'a Explanation: The verse shifts from feminine to masculine (highlighted in red). This means it can't possible be referring to the Prophet (saws)'s wives, because they are females.
The average Shi'i eats this explanation up without questioning. The more knowledgeable Shi'i probablly gets a pain in his gut when using this to "refute" Ahlul Sunnah.
Quick rebuttal 1:
وَٱمۡرَأَتُهُ ۥ قَآٮِٕمَةٌ۬ فَضَحِكَتۡ فَبَشَّرۡنَـٰهَا بِإِسۡحَـٰقَ وَمِن وَرَآءِ إِسۡحَـٰقَ يَعۡقُوبَ
قَالَتۡ يَـٰوَيۡلَتَىٰٓ ءَأَلِدُ وَأَنَا۟ عَجُوزٌ۬ وَهَـٰذَا بَعۡلِى شَيۡخًاۖ إِنَّ هَـٰذَا لَشَىۡءٌ عَجِيبٌ۬
قَالُوٓاْ أَتَعۡجَبِينَ مِنۡ أَمۡرِ ٱللَّهِۖ رَحۡمَتُ ٱللَّهِ وَبَرَكَـٰتُهُ ۥ عَلَيۡكُمۡ أَهۡلَ ٱلۡبَيۡتِۚ إِنَّهُ ۥ حَمِيدٌ۬ مَّجِيدٌ۬
And his wife was standing (there), and she laughed: but We gave her glad tidings of Isaac, and after him of Jacob. (71)
She said: "Alas for me! Shall I bear a child, seeing I am an old woman, and my husband here is an old man? That would indeed be a wonderful thing!" (72)
They said: "Dost thou wonder at Allah's decree? The grace of Allah and His blessings on you, O ye people of the house! for He is indeed worthy of all praise, full of all glory!"
Angel comes to Ibrahim (as)'s wife and informs her she's having children. She freaks out, the Angel reprimands her and refers to her as "Ahlul Bayt".
Quick rebuttal 2:
وَحَرَّمۡنَا عَلَيۡهِ ٱلۡمَرَاضِعَ مِن قَبۡلُ فَقَالَتۡ هَلۡ أَدُلُّكُمۡ عَلَىٰٓ أَهۡلِ بَيۡتٍ۬ يَكۡفُلُونَهُ ۥ لَڪُمۡ وَهُمۡ لَهُ ۥ نَـٰصِحُونَ
فَرَدَدۡنَـٰهُ إِلَىٰٓ أُمِّهِۦ كَىۡ تَقَرَّ عَيۡنُهَا وَلَا تَحۡزَنَ وَلِتَعۡلَمَ أَنَّ وَعۡدَ ٱللَّهِ حَقٌّ۬ وَلَـٰكِنَّ أَڪۡثَرَهُمۡ لَا يَعۡلَمُونَ
And We ordained that he refused suck at first, until (his sister came up and) said: "Shall I point out to you the people of a house that will nourish and bring him up for you and be sincerely attached to him?"… (12)
Thus did We restore him to his mother that her eye might be comforted, that she might not grieve and that she might know that the promise of Allah is true: but most of them do not understand. (13)
Moussa (as)'s sister says to Pharoah's people that she'll find a "people of a house" (Ahli Baytin) to take care of Moussa (as). Very next verse states he was returned to his mother. Once again, Ahlul Bayt is used to refer to a female.
Quick rebuttal 3:
وَهَلۡ أَتَٮٰكَ حَدِيثُ مُوسَىٰٓ
إِذۡ رَءَا نَارً۬ا فَقَالَ لِأَهۡلِهِ ٱمۡكُثُوٓاْ إِنِّىٓ ءَانَسۡتُ نَارً۬ا لَّعَلِّىٓ ءَاتِيكُم مِّنۡہَا بِقَبَسٍ أَوۡ أَجِدُ عَلَى ٱلنَّارِ هُدً۬ى
Has the story of Moses reached thee? (9)
Behold, he saw a fire: so he said to his family "Tarry ye; I perceive a fire; perhaps I can bring you some burning brand therefrom or find some guidance at the fire." (10)
Moussa (as) sees a fire and tells his "Ahl" to stay behind while he explores. Who was with Moussa (as)? His wife ofcourse. Again, the male "Ahl" is used to refer to a female.
To Shias: Your scholars laugh at you with these explanations, they themselves know that they are pathetically bad, but they count on your ignorance to get away with it.
-
Mashallah. Where has this acadrmic zeal come from? You've been quiet for a while.
-
Quick rebuttal 2:
وَحَرَّمۡنَا عَلَيۡهِ ٱلۡمَرَاضِعَ مِن قَبۡلُ فَقَالَتۡ هَلۡ أَدُلُّكُمۡ عَلَىٰٓ أَهۡلِ بَيۡتٍ۬ يَكۡفُلُونَهُ ۥ لَڪُمۡ وَهُمۡ لَهُ ۥ نَـٰصِحُونَ
فَرَدَدۡنَـٰهُ إِلَىٰٓ أُمِّهِۦ كَىۡ تَقَرَّ عَيۡنُهَا وَلَا تَحۡزَنَ وَلِتَعۡلَمَ أَنَّ وَعۡدَ ٱللَّهِ حَقٌّ۬ وَلَـٰكِنَّ أَڪۡثَرَهُمۡ لَا يَعۡلَمُونَ
And We ordained that he refused suck at first, until (his sister came up and) said: "Shall I point out to you the people of a house that will nourish and bring him up for you and be sincerely attached to him?"… (12)
Thus did We restore him to his mother that her eye might be comforted, that she might not grieve and that she might know that the promise of Allah is true: but most of them do not understand. (13)
Moussa (as)'s sister says to Pharoah's people that she'll find a "people of a house" (Ahli Baytin) to take care of Moussa (as). Very next verse states he was returned to his mother. Once again, Ahlul Bayt is used to refer to a female.
I have a question why did Nabi Musa (a.s) sister say to the people of Fira'wn people of the house instead of woman or wet-nurse? It seems strange to call one person as people. And why would she say people of the house. What was the significance of the house? It would be much better if she would had said people of Hebrew origin or people of Abraham etc.
-
I likie.
-
I have a question why did Nabi Musa (a.s) sister say to the people of Fira'wn people of the house instead of woman or wet-nurse?
In Arabic, when one hears "Ahlul Bayt", he immediately thinks of women. It is a term which is almost exclusively used to refer to women. So saying "Ahlul Bayt" is like saying "women" or "woman".
-
I have a question why did Nabi Musa (a.s) sister say to the people of Fira'wn people of the house instead of woman or wet-nurse?
In Arabic, when one hears "Ahlul Bayt", he immediately thinks of women. It is a term which is almost exclusively used to refer to women. So saying "Ahlul Bayt" is like saying "women" or "woman".
So your saying that Nabi Musa (a.s) sister spoke Arabic to the people of Firaw'n and people of Firaw'n also understood Arabic as by her saying People of the House they (people of Firaw'n) understood it to mean "woman" like normal Arabs would do?
-
Anyone interested in this topic should read these articles too:
Why did KUM(Masculine plural) come in 33:33 instead of KUNNA(feminine plural)?
https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2010/10/07/ahlahlebayt-a-collective-noun-and-its-usage/
Usage of word Ahl/Ahlebayt in Quran
https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2010/10/06/usage-of-word-ahlahlebayt-in-quran/
-
I have a question why did Nabi Musa (a.s) sister say to the people of Fira'wn people of the house instead of woman or wet-nurse?
In Arabic, when one hears "Ahlul Bayt", he immediately thinks of women. It is a term which is almost exclusively used to refer to women. So saying "Ahlul Bayt" is like saying "women" or "woman".
So your saying that Nabi Musa (a.s) sister spoke Arabic to the people of Firaw'n and people of Firaw'n also understood Arabic as by her saying People of the House they (people of Firaw'n) understood it to mean "woman" like normal Arabs would do?
I am saying that the Qur'an is in Arabic, and that it is full of Arabic terms, so the Arabs, to whom it was revealed, could understand it.
When they read that Musa (as)'s sister said to Pharoah's people "I'll find an Ahlul Bayt", they understood it as "I'll find some women of a house".
-
In addition, regarding the self-imposed and invented myth that a wife can be called Ahl only if she has children, don't forget about this verse:
وَاسْتَبَقَا الْبَابَ وَقَدَّتْ قَمِيصَهُ مِن دُبُرٍ وَأَلْفَيَا سَيّدَهَا لَدَي الْبَابِ قَالَتْ مَا جَزَآءُ مَنْ أَرَادَ بِاَهْلِكَ سُوءاً إِلآَّ أَن يُسْجَنَ أَوْ عَذَابٌ أَلِيمٌ
25. “And they both raced to the door and she tore his shirt form the back. They both found her husband by the door. She said: ‘What is the punishment for him who intends evil to your wife (to your Ahl) save he be imprisoned or a painful chastisement?’”
This could not refer to anything but the wife of al Aziz. It is regarding Zulaykha and I keep bumping into statements that she was childless in different tafaseer and other books.
The commentators of "An Enlightening Commentary into the Light of the Holy Qur'an" at al-islam.org seem to have no issue with it and even claims that that is one of the reasons why she wanted to seduce prophet Yusuf in the first place:
Other factors also helped to inflame Zulaykha’s burning desire for him.
On the one hand, she was childless and lived a luxurious and aristocratic life, and on the other hand, she had no domestic conflicts or problems in her life which left her with ample time to engage in fantasy and plan schemes.
Maybe it will be hard to confirm but if somebody knows anything about it especially from shia sources, please do share. That would bury this myth deeper into the ground.
-
I am saying that the Qur'an is in Arabic, and that it is full of Arabic terms, so the Arabs, to whom it was revealed, could understand it.
When they read that Musa (as)'s sister said to Pharoah's people "I'll find an Ahlul Bayt", they understood it as "I'll find some women of a house".
Some women of a house.. which house?
If there was a man instead of Nabi Musa's (as) sister then it would make sense that he is referring to his wife by saying Ahlul Bayt. The arabic word "Ahl" means "People" in English language e.g. Ahlul Kahf (People of the Cave), Ahlul Qurra (People of the Town), Ahlul Medina (People of the City), Ahlul Kitab (People of the Book), etc.
However when it is applied to a man for e.g. when a man says "My Ahl" then the man is referring to his wife and children if the man has children or to his wife if the man is childless. The word Ahl does include man's children and is not restricted to wife alone.
In the case of Hadhrat Ibrahim (a.s) and Hadhrat Sarah (s.a) their son Hadhrat Ishaq (a.s) and grandson Hadhrat Yaqub (a.s) are also included in term "Ahlul Bayt." Hadhrat Ishaq (a.s) and Hadhrat Yaqub (a.s) are also part of Ahlul Bayt of Ibrahim (a.s).
-
No they're not included since they weren't born. (Ishaq and Ya`qoub)
Ijtaba, what are you debating exactly? Is it just debate for the sake of debate or do you have a point?
-
I am saying that the Qur'an is in Arabic, and that it is full of Arabic terms, so the Arabs, to whom it was revealed, could understand it.
When they read that Musa (as)'s sister said to Pharoah's people "I'll find an Ahlul Bayt", they understood it as "I'll find some women of a house".
Some women of a house.. which house?
If there was a man instead of Nabi Musa's (as) sister then it would make sense that he is referring to his wife by saying Ahlul Bayt. The arabic word "Ahl" means "People" in English language e.g. Ahlul Kahf (People of the Cave), Ahlul Qurra (People of the Town), Ahlul Medina (People of the City), Ahlul Kitab (People of the Book), etc.
Example 2:
وَحَرَّمْنَا عَلَيْهِ الْمَرَاضِعَ مِن قَبْلُ فَقَالَتْ هَلْ أَدُلُّكُمْ عَلَى أَهْلِ بَيْتٍ يَكْفُلُونَهُ لَكُمْ وَهُمْ لَهُ نَاصِحُونَ
And we ordained that he refused suck at first, until (His sister came up and) said: “Shall I point out to you the people of a house(ahli bayt) that will nourish and bring him up for you and be sincerely attached to him?”.(28:12)
Even in the verse above the mother of Moses(as) is termed as ahlebayt, not because she was mother of a prophet, but because she was the wife of Imran. And some people like shia scholar aqa pooya mahdi whose tafseer is refered by popular shia website al-islam.org have completely misunderstood this verse, they think that here mother of Moses(as) was termed ahlebayt because she was mother of a prophet, no this is wrong understanding because, the statements which the sister of Moses(as) made , were to the soldiers of firawn , if the sister of Moses(as) was addressing the lady with term ahlebayt because she was mother of Moses(as), then the people there would surely would have questioned her that who is the mother of his child and why did she put the baby in the river and then everything would have been messed up.
Similar is said by a different shia tafseer:
(The agents of Pharaoh became happy by that statement and began going with her toward that lady. Moses’ sister, who showed herself as an unacquainted person and a stranger, informed the mother of the matter.) (The Light of The Holy Qur’an by Ayatullah Sayyid Kamal Faghih Imani and A Group of Muslim Scholars, under explanation of verse 20:40)
And if people use their common sense then they can understand this verse easily that, in no way the sister of Moses(as) was signifying any relation between the child and mother of Moses(as), had she done so, she would have been in deep trouble. But infact she addressed mother of Moses(as) with “ahlebayt” because of being the wife of a person(Imran).
Its is possible that after reading convincing response to the illogical arguments raised by them, the shia might try to take a U-turn with their theories , they might say that in this verse a complete household is being addressed, not just a single lady. So to such arguments we answer from the Quran itself . Because the best way is to explain the Quran is through the Quran. For, what the Quran alludes to at one place is explained at the other, and what it says in brief on one occasion is elaborated upon at the other.
Quran says: See how We repeat the verses that they may understand.” (6:65)
“And certainly We have repeated for mankind in this Quran, every kind of similitude, but the majority of mankind do not consent to aught but denying.” (17:89)
Its clear from quran that there was no need for a complete household, But just a single woman who could nurse the child. So why would sister of Moses(as) refer to a complete household? Moreover another verse of quran is more clear to solve the confusion that was it a complete household addressed by sister of moses(as) or just a single lady with the term “ahlebayt” ?
Your sister went to them and said, “May I show you “someone” who will nurse this child?”(sarwar shia translator, 20:40)
Even explained similarly by shia commentators:She told the men of Pharaoh whether she introduced a “woman” to them who was able to nurse the baby. The verse continues saying: (“…’Shall I direct you to one who will nurse him?’ …”) Maybe, she added that this “woman” had a pure milk so that she was sure that the child would accept it. (The Light of The Holy Qur’an by Ayatullah Sayyid Kamal Faghih Imani and A Group of Muslim Scholars, under explanation of verse 20:40) )
From popular Shia website, Al-Islam.org, which contains the authentic Shia Tafseer of Pooya/M.A. Ali. :When it was picked by Firawn’s family and they seemed to love the child, she appeared before them and promised to bring a good “wet–nurse” for the child.(pooya ali, tafseer al islam.org 20:40)
Similar is said in another shia tafseer i.e Tafseer namuna vol 7, page 359
Even sunni commentators explain the same:
she then said, “Shall I show you “someone” who will take care of him?”. Her offer was accepted and so she brought [them] his “mother” and he took to her breasts.(tafseer jalalayn 20:40)
She meant , “Shall I guide you to “someone” who can nurse him for you for a fee” So she took him and they went with her to his real mother.(tafseer ibn katheer, 20:40)
Quran itself answers such misunderstandings , where it clears that sister of moses(as) referred to single women “someone”… the Qur’an is its own best commentary . As we proceed with the study of the Book, we find how true this is. A careful comparison and collation of passages from the Qur’an removes many difficulties.
And moreover if for an instance for sake of argument we agree that it was a complete household addressed, even then no one can deny that fact that, mother of Moses(as) was included in it, and not because of being the mother of the child, as we explained why, but because being the wife of Imran.
https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2010/10/06/usage-of-word-ahlahlebayt-in-quran/
In the case of Hadhrat Ibrahim (a.s) and Hadhrat Sarah (s.a) their son Hadhrat Ishaq (a.s) and grandson Hadhrat Yaqub (a.s) are also included in term "Ahlul Bayt." Hadhrat Ishaq (a.s) and Hadhrat Yaqub (a.s) are also part of Ahlul Bayt of Ibrahim (a.s).
Example 5:
قَالُواْ أَتَعْجَبِينَ مِنْ أَمْرِ اللّهِ رَحْمَتُ اللّهِ وَبَرَكَاتُهُ عَلَيْكُمْ أَهْلَ الْبَيْتِ إِنَّهُ حَمِيدٌ مَّجِيدٌ
She said: O wonder! shall I bear a son when I am an extremely old woman and this my husband an extremely old man? Most surely this is a wonderful thing. They said: Do you wonder at Allah’s bidding? The mercy of Allah and His blessings are on you, O people of the house(ahlebayt), surely He is Praised, Glorious.(11:72-73)
In this verse too, wife of hz ibrahim(as) is addressed as ahlebayt, And she was addressed because of being wife of hz ibrahim(as), As explained by quran itself in another chapter:
فَرَاغَ إِلَىٰ أَهْلِهِ فَجَاءَ بِعِجْلٍ سَمِينٍ
He went quietly to his wife(ahlihi) and returned to his guests with a fat, roasted calf.(51:26, sarwar shia translator)) .
-
No they're not included since they weren't born. (Ishaq and Ya`qoub)
Ijtaba, what are you debating exactly? Is it just debate for the sake of debate or do you have a point?
I am not debating nor do I want to prove a point. I just didn't understand how could "Ahlul Bayt" refer to wife in the case of Nabi Musa (a.s) sister. If Nabi Musa (a.s) sister had said "Ahlul Bayt of Imran (a.s)" then it would had made more sense that she is referring to wife of Imran (a.s).
Are Nabi Ishaq (a.s), Nabi Yaqub (a.s) (when they were born) not included in Ahlul Bayt of Ibrahim (a.s)? Are Hadhrat Hajra (s.a) and Nabi Ismael (a.s) not part of Ahlul Bayt of Ibrahim (a.s)?
-
I am not debating nor do I want to prove a point. I just didn't understand how could "Ahlul Bayt" refer to wife in the case of Nabi Musa (a.s) sister. If Nabi Musa (a.s) sister had said "Ahlul Bayt of Imran (a.s)" then it would had made more sense that she is referring to wife of Imran (a.s).
Is the confusion maybe the fact that it's not Ahl al Bayt, as in a defined household, "people of the household", but Ahl Bayt, an undefined household, people of a household?
She was basically saying, shall I point you to "some" household/wife and not "the" household/wife as if they knew what she was talking about. Otherwise, I don't understand where the confusion comes from.
-
Sahih Muslim
Book Of Merits of Ali Ibn Abi Talib (as)
Hadith 5920
Yazid b. Hayyan reported, I went along with Husain b. Sabra and 'Umar b. Muslim to Zaid b. Arqam and, as we sat by his side, Husain said to him: Zaid. you have been able to acquire a great virtue that you saw Allaah's Messenger (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) listened to his talk, fought by his side in (different) battles, offered prayer behind me. Zaid, you have in fact earned a great virtue. Zaid, narrate to us what you heard from Allaah's Messenger (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam). He said: I have grown old and have almost spent my age and I have forgotten some of the things which I remembered in connection with Allaah's Messenger (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam), so accept whatever I narrate to you, and which I do not narrate do not compel me to do that. He then said: One day Allaah's Messenger (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) stood up to deliver sermon at a watering place known as Khumm situated between Mecca and Medina. He praised Allaah, extolled Him and delivered the sermon and. exhorted (us) and said: Now to our purpose. O people, I am a human being. I am about to receive a messenger (the angel of death) from my Lord and I, in response to Allaah's call, (would bid good-bye to you), but I am leaving among you two weighty things: the one being the Book of Allaah in which there is right guidance and light, so hold fast to the Book of Allaah and adhere to it. He exhorted (us) (to hold fast) to the Book of Allaah and then said: The second are the members of my household I remind you (of your duties) to the members of my family. He (Husain) said to Zaid: Who are the members of his household? Aren't his wives the members of his family? Thereupon he said: His wives are the members of his family (but here) the members of his family are those for whom acceptance of Zakat is forbidden. And he said: Who are they? Thereupon he said: 'Ali and the offspring of 'Ali, 'Aqil and the offspring of 'Aqil and the offspring of Ja'far and the offspring of 'Abbas. Husain said: These are those for whom the acceptance of Zakat is forbidden. Zaid said: Yes.
There is a distinction between the wives and the blood relatives according to Sahih Muslim
-
But both were considered Ahlulbayt. That is the wives as well as blood relatives. In the case of Hadeeth Thaqalayn, what Zaid(RA) meant was the blood relatives, who should be taken care of after Prophet(SAWS), since they weren't eligilbe to receive charity.
-
But both were considered Ahlulbayt. That is the wives as well as blood relatives. In the case of Hadeeth Thaqalayn, what Zaid(RA) meant was the blood relatives, who should be taken care of after Prophet(SAWS), since they weren't eligilbe to receive charity.
If they weren't supposed to take from charity then how come Abu Bakr said that the family of the prophet could eat from the land of Fadak if it was truly charity ? Was he not aware of this hadith ? He also said that he's doing things in accordance with the prophet's (sawa) saying, so did he lie or not ?
-
Stop trying to sidetrack the topic.
You cannot hide your shame - the Shia explanation of verse 33:33 is a joke, and it is refuted by multiple verses of the Qur'an.
-
If they weren't supposed to take from charity then how come Abu Bakr said that the family of the prophet could eat from the land of Fadak if it was truly charity ? Was he not aware of this hadith ? He also said that he's doing things in accordance with the prophet's (sawa) saying, so did he lie or not ?
Fadak was made a Waqf, he (saw) said "My family may eat from it". What's your issue? You disagree with the Prophet (saw)?
The Waqf he (saw) left had two purposes A- Feeding his family B- A charity to the needy. Please research before making accusations.
As Hysayn said, stop trying to side track with weak diversions.
-
Listen, brother. In sahih muslim it clearly says that abu bakr claimed that the prophet (sawa) said, whatever we leave is to be given in charity and whatever we have is also charity. If the property belonged to Prophet Muhamnad (sawa) even as waqf then who should take care of it's endowment, his immediate family or Abu Bakr ?
In every hadith it says it was to be given in sadaqa and Ahlul Bayt (as) can't eat from sadaqa, so why did Abu Bakr offer it to them and why did Prophet Muhammad (sawa) eat from it when fadak was being maintained by him ?
-
Witness how he's jumping to another topic.
Let me answer you, the Prophet (saw) said according to the narrations, what he leaves is to be given in charity except the provisions of his wives and payment to his workers, then he said "My family may eat from this land."
So his family is not eating from charity that's offered to them by other people, they are eating from what The Prophet's (saw) land produced. If the Prophet (saw) gave al-Hasan a tomato, can al-Hasan eat it or not? Of course he can, that's not charity. So the Prophet (saw) left a piece of land, he told them whatever this produces goes to charity but a portion is reserved to my family if they need it. That my friend is not counted as them eating from charity.
As for who gets to control these lands, Banu Hashim believed they should be in control, Abu Bakr believed the lands should remain under the control of the leader who succeeds the Prophet (saw). This leader may place any Hashemite in charge if he pleases but the Hashemite doesn't really own the land. I agree with Abu Bakr.
-
In no hadith has Abu Bakr said that " Prophet said that my family can eat from it as well." Abu Bakr himself made that claim that they can eat from it as well if they wish to do so.
Secondly, when he said in the hadith " Whatever we leave is to be given in charity " doesn't that mean that it has become charity by default since the prophet (sawa) has passed and no longer gets to decide that they may eat from it ?
Do you have any ahadith regarding the endowments of the prophet (sawa) being left with Abu Bakr or that the " leader " gets to decide what happens to his land since it wasn't under anyone's control other than Prophet Muhammad (sawa) himself when he was alive ? Did he ever point to anyone who would take care of his matters after him ?
No one is trying to change subjects or jumping here and there. These questions arise when you give people hallway answers and expect them to believe it.
Not your average, Shia lol.
-
Argument 35:
Shiapen stated:The fact that Sadaqa is haraam on Banu Hashim is proof that the Hadeeth ‘Our property will not be inherited, whatever we leave is Sadaqah’ is false
To understand this argument one needs to analyse the significance of Abu Bakr’s words as set out in Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 57, Number 60 reads as follows:
Narrated ‘Aisha:
Fatima sent somebody to Abu Bakr asking him to give her inheritance from the Prophet from what Allah had given to His Apostle through Fai (i.e. booty gained without fighting). She asked for the Sadaqa (i.e. wealth assigned for charitable purposes) of the Prophetat Medina, and Fadak, and what remained of the Khumus (i.e., one-fifth) of the Khaibar booty. Abu Bakr said, “Allah’s Apostle said,’We (Prophets), our property is not inherited, and whatever we leave is Sadaqa, but Muhammad’s Family can eat from this property, i.e.Allah’s property, but they have no right to take more than the food they need.’
Abu Bakr is claiming that all the Prophet (s) left converts into Sadaqa, and the Ahl’ul bayt (as) are entitled to get their share of this Sadaqa. How can this Hadeeth be Saheeh when Sadaqa is haraam on the family of Maula ‘Ali (as)?
If the Shias read the same hadeeth with proper understanding then they will get the answer for this question. It wasn’t Abubakr(ra) who invented the view as the Shia are claiming, rather it was the command of the Prophet(Saw), which Abubakr(ra) quoted. So it was Prophet(Saw) who allowed his family to take sustenance from that property. This will be clear by reading another hadeeth, where Ayesha(ra) clarifies the same thing.
Urwa narrated that Ayesha(ra) said: Prophet used to say: Our property is not inherited, but whatever we leave is to be given in charity(sadaqa)? The Prophet mentioned that regarding himself. He added: ‘The family of Muhammad can take their sustenance from this property. (Sahi bukhari 5.367)
So the correct understanding of hadeeth is that, Property is left by Prophet(saw) is to be given in charity but sustenance of prophet’s family is exempted from being given in charity(sadaqa) or to be considered sadaqa..
Moreover, Sadaqah is a word used to describe many things, this land was referred to as Sadaqah but it is technically a Waqf, the man who sets up the land as Waqf is the one to decide who it is for, he can either make it for all Muslims, or just for certain families like how Fatimah made her property a Waqf only for bani Hashim and bani `Abdul-Muttalib, `Ali on the other hand made some of his property as Waqf for all Muslims.
Imam al-Baqillani writes in “Manaqib al-A’immah” chapter thirty six page 609:
[What he left behind from money of Fay’ is called “Sadaqah” in here meaning a gift from Allah to the Muslims and a Rukhsah(dispensation) for them to take from it what they require to prepare for war (…until he said…) and Rasul-Allah (saw) called the Rukhsah a Sadaqah such as when he said concerning the verse {There is no blame upon you for shortening the prayer, [especially] if you fear that those who disbelieve may disrupt [or attack] you.} He (saw) said: “It is a Sadaqah given to you by Allah so accept his Sadaqah.” meaning a gift and a Rukhsah and a blessing from Allah. Also Allah says: {Give us full measure and be charitable(Tasaddaq) to us. Indeed, Allah rewards the charitable.} The word used is Tasaddaq from Sadaqah and what is meant is gift us and bless us.]
If the Prophet (saw) gave his family food and provisions from the land of Fay’ or what was later known as the Sadaqat of Rasul-Allah (saw), this doesn’t mean they’re eating from the money of Sadaqah, rather this is a right given by Allah to his Prophet (saw), that he can benefit from this land as long as he is alive and feed his family, and even after him, so what they received from it is not a part of the Sadaqah, it is a right given to the Prophet (saw).
Therefore, the sustenance of Prophet’s(saw) family is not charity(sadaqa) and Abubakr(ra) didn’t violate the sunnah but rather he affirmed the Sunnah and the commands of Prophet(saw).
Taken from
https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2014/09/11/8-sunni-answers-to-shiapens-article-on-fadak-and-inheritance-of-prophetsaw-chapter-eight/
-
Do you have any ahadith regarding the endowments of the prophet (sawa) being left with Abu Bakr or that the " leader " gets to decide what happens to his land since it wasn't under anyone's control other than Prophet Muhammad (sawa) himself when he was alive ? Did he ever point to anyone who would take care of his matters after him ?
Do you mean reports like these?
(1). Property of the Prophet(saw), after him belongs to the leader after him.
Sunni Hadeeth:
We read in “Ithaf al-Khayarah al-Maharah” by al-Bouwaysiri, that
وَقَالَ أَبُو يَعْلَى الْمُوصِلِيُّ حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنُ صَالِحٍ ، حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ فُضَيْلٍ ، عَنِ الْوَلِيدِ بْنِ جُمَيْعٍ ، عَنْ أَبِي الطُّفَيْلِ ، قَالَ : جَاءَتْ فَاطِمَةُ إِلَى أَبِي بَكْرٍ ، فَقَالَتْ : يَا خَلِيفَةَ رَسُولِ الله صَلَّى الله عَلَيه وسَلَّم ، أَنْتَ وَرِثت رَسُولِ الله أَمْ أَهْلُهُ ؟ قَالَ : بَلْ أَهْلُهُ قَالَتْ : فَمَا بَالُ سَهْمِ رَسُولِ الله صَلَّى الله عَلَيه وسَلَّم ؟ قَالَ : إِنِّي سَمِعْتُ رَسُولَ الله صَلَّى الله عَلَيه وسَلَّم ، يَقُولُ : إِذَا أَطْعَمَ الله , عَزَّ وَجَلَّ , نَبِيًّا طُعْمَةً ، ثُمَّ قَبَضَهُ جَعَلَهُ لِلَّذِي يَقُومُ بَعْدَهُ فَرَأَيْتُ أَنْ أَرُدَّهُ عَلَى الْمِسْلِمِينَ ، فَقَالَتْ : أَنْتَ وَرَسُولُ الله أَعْلَمُ.
Abu Ya`la al-Mousili said: `Abdul-Rahman bin Salih said: Muhammad bin Fudayl said, from al-Walid bin Jumay` (bin `Abdullah), from abi al-Tufayl that he said: Fatima came to Abu Bakr and said: “O successor of Rassul-Allah (SAWS), did you inherit the messenger of Allah or his family?” He said: “His family.” She asked: “Then what of the share of the messenger (SAWS)?” He replied: “I heard the messenger of Allah (SAWS) say: “If Allah the majestic and great gave a prophet a blessing then took his soul, it becomes for the one who took his place after him.” So I decided that I should distribute it among the Muslims.” Fatima told him: “You and the messenger of Allah know best.”
Shia Hadeeth:
Similarly, In Al-Kafi we read:
علي بن إبراهيه، عن أبيه، عن ابن أبي عنير، عن حفص بن البختري، عن أبي عبد الله عليه السلاو قال:
الأىفال ما له يوجف عليه بخيل ولا ركاب، أو قوو صالحوا، أو قوو أعطوا بأيديهه، وكل أرض خربة
وبطون الأودية فهو لرسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله وهو للاماو من بعده يضعه حيث يشاء
Abu ‘Abdallah (a.s.) 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(leader) after the the Messenger of Allah. The Imam(leader) will spend them as he may consider proper.”(Al Kafi, Chapter The Fay’, al-Anfal, al-Khums, its rules and the properties subject to al-Khums, page 186).[Majlisi in Mirat al Uqul vol 6, page 255 graded it as Hasan(good)]
Esteemed Shia scholar Al-Kulayni(author of Al-Kafi) who is considered Thiqatul Islam by Shias, said:
وأما الانفال فليس هذه سبيلها كان للرسول عليه السلام خاصة وكانت فدك لرسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله خاصة، لانه صلى الله عليه وآله فتحها وأمير المؤمنين عليه السلام، لم يكن معهما أحد فزال عنها اسم الفئ ولزمها اسم الانفال وكذلك الآجام(2) والمعادن والبحار والمفاوز هي للامام خاصة
The case of al-Anfal is different. It belongs to the Messenger only. Of such properties was Fadak that belonged to the Messenger of Allah only. It is because he and Amir al-Mu’minin (a.s.) conquered it and there no one else took part. The name al-Fay’ therefore does not apply to it. Al-Anfal applies to it. Similar to al-Anfal are such properties as the marshes, mines, oceans and the wilderness. They all belong to Imam(leader) exclusively.(Al-Kafi, Chapter 130, The Fay’, al-Anfal, al-Khums, its rules and the properties subject to al-Khums).
Comment: Thus from Sunni and Shia hadeeth we find that after Prophet(saw) the property given to Prophet, will belong to the successor of Prophet, the leader of Muslims. Since Abubakr(ra) became the Imam(Leader) after Prophet(saw), the property that was granted by Allah to Prophet(saw), became the property of the Leader(i.e Abubakr). And it was upon Abubakr(ra) to manage it in the best possible charitable activities.
Note: Shia scholar Sayyid Sa’eed Akhtar Rizvi states in his book: [Imamate, The Vicegerency of the Prophet] :
[The word Al-Khilafah means ‘to succeed’ and al-khalifah means ‘the successor’. In Islamic terminology al-khilafah and al-khalifah practically signify the same meanings as al-ima’mah and al-ima’m repectively.]
Taken from
https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2014/09/11/1-sunni-answers-to-shiapens-article-on-fadak-and-inheritance-of-prophetsaw-chapter-one/
-
Do you have any ahadith regarding the endowments of the prophet (sawa) being left with Abu Bakr or that the " leader " gets to decide what happens to his land since it wasn't under anyone's control other than Prophet Muhammad (sawa) himself when he was alive ? Did he ever point to anyone who would take care of his matters after him ?
Do you mean reports like these?
(1). Property of the Prophet(saw), after him belongs to the leader after him.
Sunni Hadeeth:
We read in “Ithaf al-Khayarah al-Maharah” by al-Bouwaysiri, that
وَقَالَ أَبُو يَعْلَى الْمُوصِلِيُّ حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنُ صَالِحٍ ، حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ فُضَيْلٍ ، عَنِ الْوَلِيدِ بْنِ جُمَيْعٍ ، عَنْ أَبِي الطُّفَيْلِ ، قَالَ : جَاءَتْ فَاطِمَةُ إِلَى أَبِي بَكْرٍ ، فَقَالَتْ : يَا خَلِيفَةَ رَسُولِ الله صَلَّى الله عَلَيه وسَلَّم ، أَنْتَ وَرِثت رَسُولِ الله أَمْ أَهْلُهُ ؟ قَالَ : بَلْ أَهْلُهُ قَالَتْ : فَمَا بَالُ سَهْمِ رَسُولِ الله صَلَّى الله عَلَيه وسَلَّم ؟ قَالَ : إِنِّي سَمِعْتُ رَسُولَ الله صَلَّى الله عَلَيه وسَلَّم ، يَقُولُ : إِذَا أَطْعَمَ الله , عَزَّ وَجَلَّ , نَبِيًّا طُعْمَةً ، ثُمَّ قَبَضَهُ جَعَلَهُ لِلَّذِي يَقُومُ بَعْدَهُ فَرَأَيْتُ أَنْ أَرُدَّهُ عَلَى الْمِسْلِمِينَ ، فَقَالَتْ : أَنْتَ وَرَسُولُ الله أَعْلَمُ.
Abu Ya`la al-Mousili said: `Abdul-Rahman bin Salih said: Muhammad bin Fudayl said, from al-Walid bin Jumay` (bin `Abdullah), from abi al-Tufayl that he said: Fatima came to Abu Bakr and said: “O successor of Rassul-Allah (SAWS), did you inherit the messenger of Allah or his family?” He said: “His family.” She asked: “Then what of the share of the messenger (SAWS)?” He replied: “I heard the messenger of Allah (SAWS) say: “If Allah the majestic and great gave a prophet a blessing then took his soul, it becomes for the one who took his place after him.” So I decided that I should distribute it among the Muslims.” Fatima told him: “You and the messenger of Allah know best.”
Shia Hadeeth:
Similarly, In Al-Kafi we read:
علي بن إبراهيه، عن أبيه، عن ابن أبي عنير، عن حفص بن البختري، عن أبي عبد الله عليه السلاو قال:
الأىفال ما له يوجف عليه بخيل ولا ركاب، أو قوو صالحوا، أو قوو أعطوا بأيديهه، وكل أرض خربة
وبطون الأودية فهو لرسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله وهو للاماو من بعده يضعه حيث يشاء
Abu ‘Abdallah (a.s.) 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(leader) after the the Messenger of Allah. The Imam(leader) will spend them as he may consider proper.”(Al Kafi, Chapter The Fay’, al-Anfal, al-Khums, its rules and the properties subject to al-Khums, page 186).[Majlisi in Mirat al Uqul vol 6, page 255 graded it as Hasan(good)]
Esteemed Shia scholar Al-Kulayni(author of Al-Kafi) who is considered Thiqatul Islam by Shias, said:
وأما الانفال فليس هذه سبيلها كان للرسول عليه السلام خاصة وكانت فدك لرسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله خاصة، لانه صلى الله عليه وآله فتحها وأمير المؤمنين عليه السلام، لم يكن معهما أحد فزال عنها اسم الفئ ولزمها اسم الانفال وكذلك الآجام(2) والمعادن والبحار والمفاوز هي للامام خاصة
The case of al-Anfal is different. It belongs to the Messenger only. Of such properties was Fadak that belonged to the Messenger of Allah only. It is because he and Amir al-Mu’minin (a.s.) conquered it and there no one else took part. The name al-Fay’ therefore does not apply to it. Al-Anfal applies to it. Similar to al-Anfal are such properties as the marshes, mines, oceans and the wilderness. They all belong to Imam(leader) exclusively.(Al-Kafi, Chapter 130, The Fay’, al-Anfal, al-Khums, its rules and the properties subject to al-Khums).
Comment: Thus from Sunni and Shia hadeeth we find that after Prophet(saw) the property given to Prophet, will belong to the successor of Prophet, the leader of Muslims. Since Abubakr(ra) became the Imam(Leader) after Prophet(saw), the property that was granted by Allah to Prophet(saw), became the property of the Leader(i.e Abubakr). And it was upon Abubakr(ra) to manage it in the best possible charitable activities.
Note: Shia scholar Sayyid Sa’eed Akhtar Rizvi states in his book: [Imamate, The Vicegerency of the Prophet] :
[The word Al-Khilafah means ‘to succeed’ and al-khalifah means ‘the successor’. In Islamic terminology al-khilafah and al-khalifah practically signify the same meanings as al-ima’mah and al-ima’m repectively.]
Taken from
https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2014/09/11/1-sunni-answers-to-shiapens-article-on-fadak-and-inheritance-of-prophetsaw-chapter-one/
Two things, brother. The first being the sunni hadith you provided were Bibi Fatima (sa) supposedly agreed with Abu Bakr is false and you know it as well. I present to you just one hadith where this conversation between Abu Bakr and Bibi Fatima (sa) didn't go as the abovementioned hadith depicts;
Volume 4, Book 53, Number 325:
Narrated 'Aisha:
(mother of the believers) After the death of Allah 's Apostle Fatima the daughter of Allah's Apostle asked Abu Bakr As-Siddiq to give her, her share of inheritance from what Allah's Apostle had left of the Fai (i.e. booty gained without fighting) which Allah had given him. Abu Bakr said to her, "Allah's Apostle said, 'Our property will not be inherited, whatever we (i.e. prophets) leave is Sadaqa (to be used for charity)." Fatima, the daughter of Allah's Apostle got angry and stopped speaking to Abu Bakr, and continued assuming that attitude till she died. Fatima remained alive for six months after the death of Allah's Apostle.
She used to ask Abu Bakr for her share from the property of Allah's Apostle which he left at Khaibar, and Fadak, and his property at Medina (devoted for charity). Abu Bakr refused to give her that property and said, "I will not leave anything Allah's Apostle used to do, because I am afraid that if I left something from the Prophet's tradition, then I would go astray." (Later on) Umar gave the Prophet's property (of Sadaqa) at Medina to 'Ali and 'Abbas, but he withheld the properties of Khaibar and Fadak in his custody and said, "These two properties are the Sadaqa which Allah's Apostle used to use for his expenditures and urgent needs. Now their management is to be entrusted to the ruler." (Az-Zuhrl said, "They have been managed in this way till today.")
Second; You should know that by now that Shia books have never considered them to be Imams and they have always been refered to as " Shaykhain " never Imams in any Shia books. And, as far as the maintainance and upkeep of the land being trusted to an Imam would referer to the 12 Imams the first of the being Ali (as). Also, the hadith I provided from Bukhari clearly states that Umar gave away some property(which was also sadaqa ) to Ali (as) and Abbas but he kept the the one from Khayber and Fadak which according to the Shia narration Ali (as) had more right to. Now, which one of these do you accept:
A- They were all sadaqa and should've been dealt with in the manner that Prophet Muhammad (sawa) asked them to ( Supposedly ).
B- Umar went astray by going against what Abu Bakr said about using it for charity and giving it away to a person who is not supposed to eat from charity at all ?
-
Two things, brother. The first being the sunni hadith you provided were Bibi Fatima (sa) supposedly agreed with Abu Bakr is false and you know it as well. I present to you just one hadith where this conversation between Abu Bakr and Bibi Fatima (sa) didn't go as the abovementioned hadith depicts;
Volume 4, Book 53, Number 325:
Narrated 'Aisha:
(mother of the believers) After the death of Allah 's Apostle Fatima the daughter of Allah's Apostle asked Abu Bakr As-Siddiq to give her, her share of inheritance from what Allah's Apostle had left of the Fai (i.e. booty gained without fighting) which Allah had given him. Abu Bakr said to her, "Allah's Apostle said, 'Our property will not be inherited, whatever we (i.e. prophets) leave is Sadaqa (to be used for charity)." Fatima, the daughter of Allah's Apostle got angry and stopped speaking to Abu Bakr, and continued assuming that attitude till she died. Fatima remained alive for six months after the death of Allah's Apostle.
She used to ask Abu Bakr for her share from the property of Allah's Apostle which he left at Khaibar, and Fadak, and his property at Medina (devoted for charity). Abu Bakr refused to give her that property and said, "I will not leave anything Allah's Apostle used to do, because I am afraid that if I left something from the Prophet's tradition, then I would go astray." (Later on) Umar gave the Prophet's property (of Sadaqa) at Medina to 'Ali and 'Abbas, but he withheld the properties of Khaibar and Fadak in his custody and said, "These two properties are the Sadaqa which Allah's Apostle used to use for his expenditures and urgent needs. Now their management is to be entrusted to the ruler." (Az-Zuhrl said, "They have been managed in this way till today.")
It is not false, brother. It is an authentic Shia hadeeth. We have solid academic answers for these doubts of yours. Refer to the answers of Argument 23 , Argument 24 and Argument 25 in this article:
https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2014/09/11/10-sunni-answers-to-shiapens-article-on-fadak-and-inheritance-of-prophetsaw-chapter-ten/
Second; You should know that by now that Shia books have never considered them to be Imams and they have always been refered to as " Shaykhain " never Imams in any Shia books. And, as far as the maintainance and upkeep of the land being trusted to an Imam would referer to the 12 Imams the first of the being Ali (as).
Brother, what you failed to realize is that, Fadak, was not inherited by Fatima(RA). As per your own authentic SHia hadeeth and as per your great Kulayni. So from where did you built the hoax of, Fadak belonging to Fatima(RA) whiich Abu bakr usurped? And yes the Shia hadeeth uses the word Imam which is synonym of Caliph, as per admission of your own Scholar. And since Abubakr was chosen as the Imam/Caliph of the Muslims[Muhajireen and Ansar], hence he had the right to deal with those properties. Whether you agree or disagree.
Also, the hadith I provided from Bukhari clearly states that Umar gave away some property(which was also sadaqa ) to Ali (as) and Abbas but he kept the the one from Khayber and Fadak which according to the Shia narration Ali (as) had more right to. Now, which one of these do you accept:
A- They were all sadaqa and should've been dealt with in the manner that Prophet Muhammad (sawa) asked them to ( Supposedly ).
B- Umar went astray by going against what Abu Bakr said about using it for charity and giving it away to a person who is not supposed to eat from charity at all ?
No, Umar(RA) didn't go astray because Umar(RA) didn't make Ali(RA) or Abbas(RA) owners of that property, rather he made them, guardians or Trustees of that. And the Imam/Caliph has the right to deal them as he likes, So he has the right to make Guardian whom he wishes. For details refer to the answers of Argument 6, Argument 7 and Argument 8 in this article:
https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2014/09/11/8-sunni-answers-to-shiapens-article-on-fadak-and-inheritance-of-prophetsaw-chapter-eight/
-
Two things, brother. The first being the sunni hadith you provided were Bibi Fatima (sa) supposedly agreed with Abu Bakr is false and you know it as well. I present to you just one hadith where this conversation between Abu Bakr and Bibi Fatima (sa) didn't go as the abovementioned hadith depicts;
Volume 4, Book 53, Number 325:
Narrated 'Aisha:
(mother of the believers) After the death of Allah 's Apostle Fatima the daughter of Allah's Apostle asked Abu Bakr As-Siddiq to give her, her share of inheritance from what Allah's Apostle had left of the Fai (i.e. booty gained without fighting) which Allah had given him. Abu Bakr said to her, "Allah's Apostle said, 'Our property will not be inherited, whatever we (i.e. prophets) leave is Sadaqa (to be used for charity)." Fatima, the daughter of Allah's Apostle got angry and stopped speaking to Abu Bakr, and continued assuming that attitude till she died. Fatima remained alive for six months after the death of Allah's Apostle.
She used to ask Abu Bakr for her share from the property of Allah's Apostle which he left at Khaibar, and Fadak, and his property at Medina (devoted for charity). Abu Bakr refused to give her that property and said, "I will not leave anything Allah's Apostle used to do, because I am afraid that if I left something from the Prophet's tradition, then I would go astray." (Later on) Umar gave the Prophet's property (of Sadaqa) at Medina to 'Ali and 'Abbas, but he withheld the properties of Khaibar and Fadak in his custody and said, "These two properties are the Sadaqa which Allah's Apostle used to use for his expenditures and urgent needs. Now their management is to be entrusted to the ruler." (Az-Zuhrl said, "They have been managed in this way till today.")
It is not false, brother. It is an authentic Shia hadeeth. We have solid academic answers for these doubts of yours. Refer to the answers of Argument 23 , Argument 24 and Argument 25 in this article:
https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2014/09/11/10-sunni-answers-to-shiapens-article-on-fadak-and-inheritance-of-prophetsaw-chapter-ten/
Second; You should know that by now that Shia books have never considered them to be Imams and they have always been refered to as " Shaykhain " never Imams in any Shia books. And, as far as the maintainance and upkeep of the land being trusted to an Imam would referer to the 12 Imams the first of the being Ali (as).
Brother, what you failed to realize is that, Fadak, was not inherited by Fatima(RA). As per your own authentic SHia hadeeth and as per your great Kulayni. So from where did you built the hoax of, Fadak belonging to Fatima(RA) whiich Abu bakr usurped? And yes the Shia hadeeth uses the word Imam which is synonym of Caliph, as per admission of your own Scholar. And since Abubakr was chosen as the Imam/Caliph of the Muslims[Muhajireen and Ansar], hence he had the right to deal with those properties. Whether you agree or disagree.
Also, the hadith I provided from Bukhari clearly states that Umar gave away some property(which was also sadaqa ) to Ali (as) and Abbas but he kept the the one from Khayber and Fadak which according to the Shia narration Ali (as) had more right to. Now, which one of these do you accept:
A- They were all sadaqa and should've been dealt with in the manner that Prophet Muhammad (sawa) asked them to ( Supposedly ).
B- Umar went astray by going against what Abu Bakr said about using it for charity and giving it away to a person who is not supposed to eat from charity at all ?
No, Umar(RA) didn't go astray because Umar(RA) didn't make Ali(RA) or Abbas(RA) owners of that property, rather he made them, guardians or Trustees of that. And the Imam/Caliph has the right to deal them as he likes, So he has the right to make Guardian whom he wishes. For details refer to the answers of Argument 6, Argument 7 and Argument 8 in this article:
https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2014/09/11/8-sunni-answers-to-shiapens-article-on-fadak-and-inheritance-of-prophetsaw-chapter-eight/
Here's the thing; It is well established that Abu Bakr said that " We Prophets don't inherit. " Even though they've made a claim where Ali (as) supposedly accepted the saying of abu bakr regarding prophets don't inherit, I present to you this hadith:
It is reported by Zuhri that this tradition was narrated to him by Malik b. Aus who said:
Umar b. al-Khattab sent for me and I came to him when the day had advanced. I found him in his house sitting on his bare bed-stead, reclining on a leather pillow. He said (to me): Malik, some people of your tribe have hastened to me (with a request for help). I have ordered a little money for them. Take it and distribute it among them. I said: I wish you had ordered somebody else to do this job. He said: Malik, take it (and do what you have been told). At this moment (his man-servant) Yarfa' came in and said: Commander of the Faithful, what do you say about Uthman, Abd al-Rabman b. 'Auf, Zubair and Sa'd (who have come to seek an audience with you)? He said: Yes, and permitted them. so they entered. Then he (Yarfa') came again and said: What do you say about 'Ali and Abbas (who are present at the door)? He said: Yes, and permitted them to enter. Abbas said: Commander of the Faithful, decide (the dispute) between me and this sinful, treacherous, dishonest liar. The people (who were present) also said: Yes. Commander of the Faithful, do decide (the dispute) and have mercy on them. Malik b. Aus said: I could well imagine that they had sent them in advance for this purpose (by 'Ali and Abbas). 'Umar said: Wait and be patient. I adjure you by Allah by Whose order the heavens and the earth are sustained, don't you know that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said:" We (prophets) do not have any heirs; what we leave behind is (to be given in) charity"? They said: Yes. Then he turned to Abbas and 'Ali and said: I adjure you both by Allah by Whose order the heavens and earth are sustained, don't you know that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said:" We do not have any heirs; what we leave behind is (to be given in) charity"? They (too) said: Yes. (Then) Umar said: Allah, the Glorious and Exalted, had done to His Messenger (ﷺ) a special favour that He has not done to anyone else except him. He quoted the Qur'anic verse:" What Allah has bestowed upon His Apostle from (the properties) of the people of township is for Allah and His Messenger". The narrator said: I do not know whether he also recited the previous verse or not. Umar continued: The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) distrbuted among you the properties abandoned by Banu Nadir. By Allah, he never preferred himself over you and never appropriated anything to your exclusion. (After a fair distribution in this way) this property was left over. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) would meet from its income his annual expenditure, and what remained would be deposited in the Bait-ul-Mal. (Continuing further) he said: I adjure you by Allah by Whose order the heavens and the earth are sustained. Do you know this? They said: Yes. Then he adjured Abbas and 'All as he had adjured the other persons and asked: Do you both know this? They said: Yes. He said: When the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) passed away, Abu Bakr said:" I am the successor of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ)." 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. And Allah knows that I am true, virtuous, well-guided and a follower of truth. I became the guardian of this property. Then you as well as he came to me. Both of you have come and your purpose is identical. You said: Entrust the property to us. I said: If you wish that I should entrust it to you, it will be on the condition that both of you will undertake to abide by a pledge made with Allah that you will use it in the same way as the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) used it. So both of you got it. He said: Wasn't it like this? They said: Yes. He said: Then you have (again) come to me with the request that I should adjudge between you. No, by Allah. I will not give any other judgment except this until the arrival of the Doomsday. If you are unable to hold the property on this condition, return it to me.
وَحَدَّثَنِي عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ أَسْمَاءَ الضُّبَعِيُّ، حَدَّثَنَا جُوَيْرِيَةُ، عَنْ مَالِكٍ، عَنِ الزُّهْرِيِّ، أَنَّ مَالِكَ بْنَ أَوْسٍ، حَدَّثَهُ قَالَ أَرْسَلَ إِلَىَّ عُمَرُ بْنُ الْخَطَّابِ فَجِئْتُهُ حِينَ تَعَالَى النَّهَارُ - قَالَ - فَوَجَدْتُهُ فِي بَيْتِهِ جَالِسًا عَلَى سَرِيرٍ مُفْضِيًا إِلَى رِمَالِهِ مُتَّكِئًا عَلَى وِسَادَةٍ مِنْ أَدَمٍ . فَقَالَ لِي يَا مَالُ إِنَّهُ قَدْ دَفَّ أَهْلُ أَبْيَاتٍ مِنْ قَوْمِكَ وَقَدْ أَمَرْتُ فِيهِمْ بِرَضْخٍ فَخُذْهُ فَاقْسِمْهُ بَيْنَهُمْ - قَالَ - قُلْتُ لَوْ أَمَرْتَ بِهَذَا غَيْرِي قَالَ خُذْهُ يَا مَالُ . قَالَ فَجَاءَ يَرْفَا فَقَالَ هَلْ لَكَ يَا أَمِيرَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ فِي عُثْمَانَ وَعَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنِ عَوْفٍ وَالزُّبَيْرِ وَسَعْدٍ فَقَالَ عُمَرُ نَعَمْ . فَأَذِنَ لَهُمْ فَدَخَلُوا ثُمَّ جَاءَ . فَقَالَ هَلْ لَكَ فِي عَبَّاسٍ وَعَلِيٍّ قَالَ نَعَمْ . فَأَذِنَ لَهُمَا فَقَالَ عَبَّاسٌ يَا أَمِيرَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ اقْضِ بَيْنِي وَبَيْنَ هَذَا الْكَاذِبِ الآثِمِ الْغَادِرِ الْخَائِنِ . فَقَالَ الْقَوْمُ أَجَلْ يَا أَمِيرَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ فَاقْضِ بَيْنَهُمْ وَأَرِحْهُمْ . فَقَالَ مَالِكُ بْنُ أَوْسٍ يُخَيَّلُ إِلَىَّ أَنَّهُمْ قَدْ كَانُوا قَدَّمُوهُمْ لِذَلِكَ - فَقَالَ عُمَرُ اتَّئِدَا أَنْشُدُكُمْ بِاللَّهِ الَّذِي بِإِذْنِهِ تَقُومُ السَّمَاءُ وَالأَرْضُ أَتَعْلَمُونَ أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ " لاَ نُورَثُ مَا تَرَكْنَا صَدَقَةٌ " . قَالُوا نَعَمْ . ثُمَّ أَقْبَلَ عَلَى الْعَبَّاسِ وَعَلِيٍّ فَقَالَ أَنْشُدُكُمَا بِاللَّهِ الَّذِي بِإِذْنِهِ تَقُومُ السَّمَاءُ وَالأَرْضُ أَتَعْلَمَانِ أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ " لاَ نُورَثُ مَا تَرَكْنَاهُ صَدَقَةٌ " . قَالاَ نَعَمْ . فَقَالَ عُمَرُ إِنَّ اللَّهَ جَلَّ وَعَزَّ كَانَ خَصَّ رَسُولَهُ صلى الله عليه وسلم بِخَاصَّةٍ لَمْ يُخَصِّصْ بِهَا أَحَدًا غَيْرَهُ قَالَ { مَا أَفَاءَ اللَّهُ عَلَى رَسُولِهِ مِنْ أَهْلِ الْقُرَى فَلِلَّهِ وَلِلرَّسُولِ} مَا أَدْرِي هَلْ قَرَأَ الآيَةَ الَّتِي قَبْلَهَا أَمْ لاَ . قَالَ فَقَسَمَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم بَيْنَكُمْ أَمْوَالَ بَنِي النَّضِيرِ فَوَاللَّهِ مَا اسْتَأْثَرَ عَلَيْكُمْ وَلاَ أَخَذَهَا دُونَكُمْ حَتَّى بَقِيَ هَذَا الْمَالُ فَكَانَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم يَأْخُذُ مِنْهُ نَفَقَةَ سَنَةٍ ثُمَّ يَجْعَلُ مَا بَقِيَ أُسْوَةَ الْمَالِ . ثُمَّ قَالَ أَنْشُدُكُمْ بِاللَّهِ الَّذِي بِإِذْنِهِ تَقُومُ السَّمَاءُ وَالأَرْضُ أَتَعْلَمُونَ ذَلِكَ قَالُوا نَعَمْ . ثُمَّ نَشَدَ عَبَّاسًا وَعَلِيًّا بِمِثْلِ مَا نَشَدَ بِهِ الْقَوْمَ أَتَعْلَمَانِ ذَلِكَ قَالاَ نَعَمْ . قَالَ فَلَمَّا تُوُفِّيَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ أَنَا وَلِيُّ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَجِئْتُمَا تَطْلُبُ مِيرَاثَكَ مِنَ ابْنِ أَخِيكَ وَيَطْلُبُ هَذَا مِيرَاثَ امْرَأَتِهِ مِنْ أَبِيهَا فَقَالَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم " مَا نُورَثُ مَا تَرَكْنَا صَدَقَةٌ " . فَرَأَيْتُمَاهُ كَاذِبًا آثِمًا غَادِرًا خَائِنًا وَاللَّهُ يَعْلَمُ إِنَّهُ لَصَادِقٌ بَارٌّ رَاشِدٌ تَابِعٌ لِلْحَقِّ ثُمَّ تُوُفِّيَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ وَأَنَا وَلِيُّ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم وَوَلِيُّ أَبِي بَكْرٍ فَرَأَيْتُمَانِي كَاذِبًا آثِمًا غَادِرًا خَائِنًا وَاللَّهُ يَعْلَمُ إِنِّي لَصَادِقٌ بَارٌّ رَاشِدٌ تَابِعٌ لِلْحَقِّ فَوَلِيتُهَا ثُمَّ جِئْتَنِي أَنْتَ وَهَذَا وَأَنْتُمَا جَمِيعٌ وَأَمْرُكُمَا وَاحِدٌ فَقُلْتُمَا ادْفَعْهَا إِلَيْنَا فَقُلْتُ إِنْ شِئْتُمْ دَفَعْتُهَا إِلَيْكُمَا عَلَى أَنَّ عَلَيْكُمَا عَهْدَ اللَّهِ أَنْ تَعْمَلاَ فِيهَا بِالَّذِي كَانَ يَعْمَلُ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَأَخَذْتُمَاهَا بِذَلِكَ قَالَ أَكَذَلِكَ قَالاَ نَعَمْ . قَالَ ثُمَّ جِئْتُمَانِي لأَقْضِيَ بَيْنَكُمَا وَلاَ وَاللَّهِ لاَ أَقْضِي بَيْنَكُمَا بِغَيْرِ ذَلِكَ حَتَّى تَقُومَ السَّاعَةُ فَإِنْ عَجَزْتُمَا عَنْهَا فَرُدَّاهَا إِلَىَّ .
Reference : Sahih Muslim 1757 c
In-book reference : Book 32, Hadith 58
USC-MSA web (English) reference : Book 19, Hadith 4349
(deprecated numbering scheme)
As ypu can see, the hadith clearly states that Ali (as) and Abbas (ra) both considered Abu Bakr to be a liar and trecherous when he made this claim. Neither did Ali (as) say at that time that the prophet said such a thing.
We look at Quran for looking for prophets and their inheritance;
“Solomon was thankful to his Lord for these blessing bestowed on him: ‘And Solomon was David’s Heir. And he said ‘O mankind! We have been taught the language of birds, and have been given (abundance) all things. This surely is evidence favour” [Surah Saba Verse 12]
The only one thing I would like to ask you is why did Imam Ali (as) not stop his wife Bibi Fatima (sa) from asking for fadak if he had truly heard this hadith before and the hadith of Muslim says otherwise. Why would Bibi Fatima (sa) go to ask Abu Bakr for Fadak if they were never meant to have it ?
Does this leave us to assume that Bibi Fatima (sa) was hungry for a piece of land and had no knowledge of the hadith of her father ? Also, it wasn't Aisha that stopped the other wives that asked for their inheritance, it was her and hafsa who went to Uthman to ask for their share and Uthman sent them back by saying " Wasn't it you two who testified against fatima (sa) when she asked for her share by agreeing with Abu Bakr's statement " according to Kitab Sulaym Ibn Qays.
-
Here's the thing; It is well established that Abu Bakr said that " We Prophets don't inherit. " Even though they've made a claim where Ali (as) supposedly accepted the saying of abu bakr regarding prophets don't inherit, I present to you this hadith:
It is reported by Zuhri that this tradition was narrated to him by Malik b. Aus who said:
Umar b. al-Khattab sent for me and I came to him when the day had advanced. I found him in his house sitting on his bare bed-stead, reclining on a leather pillow. He said (to me): Malik, some people of your tribe have hastened to me (with a request for help). I have ordered a little money for them. Take it and distribute it among them. I said: I wish you had ordered somebody else to do this job. He said: Malik, take it (and do what you have been told). At this moment (his man-servant) Yarfa' came in and said: Commander of the Faithful, what do you say about Uthman, Abd al-Rabman b. 'Auf, Zubair and Sa'd (who have come to seek an audience with you)? He said: Yes, and permitted them. so they entered. Then he (Yarfa') came again and said: What do you say about 'Ali and Abbas (who are present at the door)? He said: Yes, and permitted them to enter. Abbas said: Commander of the Faithful, decide (the dispute) between me and this sinful, treacherous, dishonest liar. The people (who were present) also said: Yes. Commander of the Faithful, do decide (the dispute) and have mercy on them. Malik b. Aus said: I could well imagine that they had sent them in advance for this purpose (by 'Ali and Abbas). 'Umar said: Wait and be patient. I adjure you by Allah by Whose order the heavens and the earth are sustained, don't you know that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said:" We (prophets) do not have any heirs; what we leave behind is (to be given in) charity"? They said: Yes. Then he turned to Abbas and 'Ali and said: I adjure you both by Allah by Whose order the heavens and earth are sustained, don't you know that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said:" We do not have any heirs; what we leave behind is (to be given in) charity"? They (too) said: Yes. (Then) Umar said: Allah, the Glorious and Exalted, had done to His Messenger (ﷺ) a special favour that He has not done to anyone else except him. He quoted the Qur'anic verse:" What Allah has bestowed upon His Apostle from (the properties) of the people of township is for Allah and His Messenger". The narrator said: I do not know whether he also recited the previous verse or not. Umar continued: The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) distrbuted among you the properties abandoned by Banu Nadir. By Allah, he never preferred himself over you and never appropriated anything to your exclusion. (After a fair distribution in this way) this property was left over. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) would meet from its income his annual expenditure, and what remained would be deposited in the Bait-ul-Mal. (Continuing further) he said: I adjure you by Allah by Whose order the heavens and the earth are sustained. Do you know this? They said: Yes. Then he adjured Abbas and 'All as he had adjured the other persons and asked: Do you both know this? They said: Yes. He said: When the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) passed away, Abu Bakr said:" I am the successor of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ)." 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. And Allah knows that I am true, virtuous, well-guided and a follower of truth. I became the guardian of this property. Then you as well as he came to me. Both of you have come and your purpose is identical. You said: Entrust the property to us. I said: If you wish that I should entrust it to you, it will be on the condition that both of you will undertake to abide by a pledge made with Allah that you will use it in the same way as the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) used it. So both of you got it. He said: Wasn't it like this? They said: Yes. He said: Then you have (again) come to me with the request that I should adjudge between you. No, by Allah. I will not give any other judgment except this until the arrival of the Doomsday. If you are unable to hold the property on this condition, return it to me.
وَحَدَّثَنِي عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ أَسْمَاءَ الضُّبَعِيُّ، حَدَّثَنَا جُوَيْرِيَةُ، عَنْ مَالِكٍ، عَنِ الزُّهْرِيِّ، أَنَّ مَالِكَ بْنَ أَوْسٍ، حَدَّثَهُ قَالَ أَرْسَلَ إِلَىَّ عُمَرُ بْنُ الْخَطَّابِ فَجِئْتُهُ حِينَ تَعَالَى النَّهَارُ - قَالَ - فَوَجَدْتُهُ فِي بَيْتِهِ جَالِسًا عَلَى سَرِيرٍ مُفْضِيًا إِلَى رِمَالِهِ مُتَّكِئًا عَلَى وِسَادَةٍ مِنْ أَدَمٍ . فَقَالَ لِي يَا مَالُ إِنَّهُ قَدْ دَفَّ أَهْلُ أَبْيَاتٍ مِنْ قَوْمِكَ وَقَدْ أَمَرْتُ فِيهِمْ بِرَضْخٍ فَخُذْهُ فَاقْسِمْهُ بَيْنَهُمْ - قَالَ - قُلْتُ لَوْ أَمَرْتَ بِهَذَا غَيْرِي قَالَ خُذْهُ يَا مَالُ . قَالَ فَجَاءَ يَرْفَا فَقَالَ هَلْ لَكَ يَا أَمِيرَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ فِي عُثْمَانَ وَعَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنِ عَوْفٍ وَالزُّبَيْرِ وَسَعْدٍ فَقَالَ عُمَرُ نَعَمْ . فَأَذِنَ لَهُمْ فَدَخَلُوا ثُمَّ جَاءَ . فَقَالَ هَلْ لَكَ فِي عَبَّاسٍ وَعَلِيٍّ قَالَ نَعَمْ . فَأَذِنَ لَهُمَا فَقَالَ عَبَّاسٌ يَا أَمِيرَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ اقْضِ بَيْنِي وَبَيْنَ هَذَا الْكَاذِبِ الآثِمِ الْغَادِرِ الْخَائِنِ . فَقَالَ الْقَوْمُ أَجَلْ يَا أَمِيرَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ فَاقْضِ بَيْنَهُمْ وَأَرِحْهُمْ . فَقَالَ مَالِكُ بْنُ أَوْسٍ يُخَيَّلُ إِلَىَّ أَنَّهُمْ قَدْ كَانُوا قَدَّمُوهُمْ لِذَلِكَ - فَقَالَ عُمَرُ اتَّئِدَا أَنْشُدُكُمْ بِاللَّهِ الَّذِي بِإِذْنِهِ تَقُومُ السَّمَاءُ وَالأَرْضُ أَتَعْلَمُونَ أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ " لاَ نُورَثُ مَا تَرَكْنَا صَدَقَةٌ " . قَالُوا نَعَمْ . ثُمَّ أَقْبَلَ عَلَى الْعَبَّاسِ وَعَلِيٍّ فَقَالَ أَنْشُدُكُمَا بِاللَّهِ الَّذِي بِإِذْنِهِ تَقُومُ السَّمَاءُ وَالأَرْضُ أَتَعْلَمَانِ أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ " لاَ نُورَثُ مَا تَرَكْنَاهُ صَدَقَةٌ " . قَالاَ نَعَمْ . فَقَالَ عُمَرُ إِنَّ اللَّهَ جَلَّ وَعَزَّ كَانَ خَصَّ رَسُولَهُ صلى الله عليه وسلم بِخَاصَّةٍ لَمْ يُخَصِّصْ بِهَا أَحَدًا غَيْرَهُ قَالَ { مَا أَفَاءَ اللَّهُ عَلَى رَسُولِهِ مِنْ أَهْلِ الْقُرَى فَلِلَّهِ وَلِلرَّسُولِ} مَا أَدْرِي هَلْ قَرَأَ الآيَةَ الَّتِي قَبْلَهَا أَمْ لاَ . قَالَ فَقَسَمَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم بَيْنَكُمْ أَمْوَالَ بَنِي النَّضِيرِ فَوَاللَّهِ مَا اسْتَأْثَرَ عَلَيْكُمْ وَلاَ أَخَذَهَا دُونَكُمْ حَتَّى بَقِيَ هَذَا الْمَالُ فَكَانَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم يَأْخُذُ مِنْهُ نَفَقَةَ سَنَةٍ ثُمَّ يَجْعَلُ مَا بَقِيَ أُسْوَةَ الْمَالِ . ثُمَّ قَالَ أَنْشُدُكُمْ بِاللَّهِ الَّذِي بِإِذْنِهِ تَقُومُ السَّمَاءُ وَالأَرْضُ أَتَعْلَمُونَ ذَلِكَ قَالُوا نَعَمْ . ثُمَّ نَشَدَ عَبَّاسًا وَعَلِيًّا بِمِثْلِ مَا نَشَدَ بِهِ الْقَوْمَ أَتَعْلَمَانِ ذَلِكَ قَالاَ نَعَمْ . قَالَ فَلَمَّا تُوُفِّيَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ أَنَا وَلِيُّ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَجِئْتُمَا تَطْلُبُ مِيرَاثَكَ مِنَ ابْنِ أَخِيكَ وَيَطْلُبُ هَذَا مِيرَاثَ امْرَأَتِهِ مِنْ أَبِيهَا فَقَالَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم " مَا نُورَثُ مَا تَرَكْنَا صَدَقَةٌ " . فَرَأَيْتُمَاهُ كَاذِبًا آثِمًا غَادِرًا خَائِنًا وَاللَّهُ يَعْلَمُ إِنَّهُ لَصَادِقٌ بَارٌّ رَاشِدٌ تَابِعٌ لِلْحَقِّ ثُمَّ تُوُفِّيَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ وَأَنَا وَلِيُّ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم وَوَلِيُّ أَبِي بَكْرٍ فَرَأَيْتُمَانِي كَاذِبًا آثِمًا غَادِرًا خَائِنًا وَاللَّهُ يَعْلَمُ إِنِّي لَصَادِقٌ بَارٌّ رَاشِدٌ تَابِعٌ لِلْحَقِّ فَوَلِيتُهَا ثُمَّ جِئْتَنِي أَنْتَ وَهَذَا وَأَنْتُمَا جَمِيعٌ وَأَمْرُكُمَا وَاحِدٌ فَقُلْتُمَا ادْفَعْهَا إِلَيْنَا فَقُلْتُ إِنْ شِئْتُمْ دَفَعْتُهَا إِلَيْكُمَا عَلَى أَنَّ عَلَيْكُمَا عَهْدَ اللَّهِ أَنْ تَعْمَلاَ فِيهَا بِالَّذِي كَانَ يَعْمَلُ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَأَخَذْتُمَاهَا بِذَلِكَ قَالَ أَكَذَلِكَ قَالاَ نَعَمْ . قَالَ ثُمَّ جِئْتُمَانِي لأَقْضِيَ بَيْنَكُمَا وَلاَ وَاللَّهِ لاَ أَقْضِي بَيْنَكُمَا بِغَيْرِ ذَلِكَ حَتَّى تَقُومَ السَّاعَةُ فَإِنْ عَجَزْتُمَا عَنْهَا فَرُدَّاهَا إِلَىَّ .
Reference : Sahih Muslim 1757 c
In-book reference : Book 32, Hadith 58
USC-MSA web (English) reference : Book 19, Hadith 4349
(deprecated numbering scheme)
As ypu can see, the hadith clearly states that Ali (as) and Abbas (ra) both considered Abu Bakr to be a liar and trecherous when he made this claim. Neither did Ali (as) say at that time that the prophet said such a thing.
Explanation:
As we can see, Abbas started off calling Ali to be a “liar, sinful, treacherous, and dishonest” and then Omar used same terms(liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest). Notice, the argument wasn’t beween Abubakr and Ali nor between Umar and Ali, rather Umar was the one who was to judge between Ali and Abbas. In this case, Umar(ra) was just assuming an argument, for sake of argument, infact Ali and Abbas, didn’t deem nor utter a word against Abubakr nor Umar, and they both affirmed the hadeeth of Prophet(saw), regarding inheritance. Hence the correct understanding of this issue is that, Al-Abbas, started off by using those words to describe Ali, since they were disputing over the charity, what they shall be the guardian of and how to distribute it, so they wanted the property to be divided between them, but this would have appeared to people as, it is inheritance, which would be against the condition on which Umar entrusted them the property. Hence we read in Tarikh Al-Islam:
Narrated Al-Zuhri saying: Narrated to me Al-A’raj that he heard Abu Huraira saying: I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) saying: “By the One in whose hand is my soul, my heirs do not divide anything of what I leave behind, what we leave is charity.” So this charity was in the hands of Ali(ra) that he overcame Al-Abbas in it, and their dispute was on that, so Umar refused to divide it between them, until Abbas left it and Ali(ra) overcame it. (Tarikh Al-Islam. Vol. 3, Pg. 27).
قَالَ أَبُو دَاوُدَ أَرَادَ أَنْ لاَ يُوقِعَ عَلَيْهِ اسْمَ قَسْمٍ .
Abu Dawud said: He (‘Umar) intended that the name of division should not apply to it.(Sunan Abu Dawud).
So Umar was trying to make a point that, they shouldn’t be fighting over it nor ask for its division since it isn’t their property. Hence, in response to their dispute, Omar is implying that if Al-Abbas’s descriptions of Ali are correct, then Abu Bakr and Umar are to be described as such, because Abubakr(ra) and Umar(ra) never gave them that property as inheriance but rather Umar just entrusted them over it, on the condition of managing it in same way as Prophet(saw) used to manage it. And both Ali and Abbas agreed over this condition and even they affirmed the hadeeth of Prophet(saw) not leaving inheritance. But since they disputed over the property, and want to divide the entrusted property, it would appear to people as inheritance, so Umar had to remind them that, they shouldn’t be fighting over it nor ask for it to be divided, since it isn’t their property nor inheritance, which is why Umar said, what is being misinterpreted by Shiapen.
As for what al-`Abbas said to `Ali, those are the words of a father to a son. al-`Abbas said it indicating `Ali, because he was in the position of a son with him. He wanted to make him retract what he thought was a mistake.
Moreover, Umar did not approve of Abbas’s words against Ali; Umar took the correct view that people can get in arguments and make honest mistakes and nobody should simply jump to strong personal attacks like Abbas did against Ali, calling him a “liar, sinful, treacherous, and dishonest.” Therefore, Umar repeated the words of Abbas verbatim in order to prove a point, Umar was just making use of rhetoric. The problem is that these Shia propagandists have no hold of Arabic Balagha. If they did, they would know that direct translation in English would not give the proper understanding. This is an example of, (reductio ad absurdum; Latin: “reduction to the absurd”) also known as an apagogical argument, which is a type of logical argument where one assumes a claim for the sake of argument, derives an absurd or ridiculous outcome, and then concludes that the original assumption must have been wrong as it led to an absurd result.
We would like to give an example just to enrich the mind: A mother and father who had told their two sons that the capitol of France was Paris. A few days later, the two sons get in an argument over the capitol of France. One brother says the capitol is Berlin, whereas the other says the capitol is London. When they go to their father to arbitrate over this matter, one brother says about the other: “Father, can you settle this dispute of mine with my idiot brother who thinks the capitol of France is Berlin?” The father is not appalled at the fact that his two little sons forgot the capitol of France; this is a mistake that anybody can make. But what he is appalled at is the language used by this son, calling his brother an “idiot.” The father then says: “So you thought of Mom as an idiot when she said that Paris was the capitol of France, and you thought I was an idiot when I said that too?” By saying this, the father is trying to dissuade the son from jumping to conclusions about his brother’s character, because in such a process, he would also believe his mother and father to be idiots as well.
Hence, Umar was simply repeating the words of Abbas verbatim. How can the Shias ignore this “coincidence” especially in light of Arabic Balagha? It is obvious from this that Umar was proving a point, and his words should thus be analyzed in this context. Another important observation is that the Shia propagandists will say that it was Ali who called Abu Bakr and Umar to be a “liar, sinful, treacherous, and dishonest.” But the reality is that, it was merely Umar who said that Abbas was implying this. There is a significant point.
What further proves our point is that `Ali’s words to Abu Bakr are documented after the incident regarding the demand of inheritance, in Sahih al-Bukhari:
إِنَّا قَدْ عَرَفْنَا فَضْلَكَ، وَمَا أَعْطَاكَ، اللَّهُ وَلَمْ نَنْفَسْ عَلَيْكَ خَيْرًا سَاقَهُ اللَّهُ إِلَيْكَ، وَلَكِنَّكَ اسْتَبْدَدْتَ عَلَيْنَا بِالأَمْرِ
[O Abu Bakr, we know well your superiority and what Allah has given you, and we are not jealous of the goodness that Allah has bestowed upon you, but you did not consult us.]
Secondly, it is unthinkable that either Al-Abbas or Ali thought of Abu Bakr or Omar in such manner. This is because both caliphs were approached by both men, who were seeking justice. It is not logical for someone to seek justice from someone that they saw as a liar, sinful, treacherous, and dishonest.
Thirdly, notice the hadeeth that how Abbas(ra) referred to ‘Umar(ra) as “Ameer-ul-mu’mineen(leader of the believers)!” This proves that ‘Umar was a legitimate Khaleefah, contrary to shi’aa lies and propaganda.
Fourthly, 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 to be entrusted to him and al-`Abbas asked for his nephew’s part to be entrusted to him, but `Umar said what we read in Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari.
Umar said: I said: If you wish that I should entrust it to you, it will be on the condition that both of you will undertake to abide by a pledge made with Allah that you will use it in the same way as the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) used it. (Sahih Muslim Book 019, Number 4349)
Umar said: I said to you both, ‘If you wish, I will place it in your custody on condition that you both will manage it in the same way as Allah’s Apostle and Abu Bakr did and as I have been doing since I took charge of managing it; otherwise, do not speak to me anymore about it.’ Then you both said, ‘Give it to us on that (condition).’ So I gave it to you on that condition…”I beseech you both by Allah, didn’t I give you all that property on that condition?” They said, “Yes.” (Sahih Bukhari Vol. 9, Book 92, Hadith 408)
Al-`Abbas and `Ali then disputed about the charity what they shall be the guardian of and how to distribute it’, it appears as if al-`Abbas was angry at `Ali so much that he called him names, so they both went to `Umar asking him to decide between them by dividing the entrusted property. `Umar refused to give any other judgment and told them to return it if they’re unable to manage it.
He 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.].
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.
Thus, it is clear that both Abbas and Ali understood that although the produce of the land goes to charity, yet they viewed that, they can still manage the share which they would have got as inheritance, by being its trustees, and eat from it, since the Prophet (saw) said: “The family of Muhammad may eat from it.” To them being in control of this Waqf did not pose any contradiction to the prophetic narration.
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, he reminded them the hadeeth because both of them were disputing over the property and wanted to divide the entrusted property, which would have appeared to people as, inheritance, So Umar reminded them that, they shouldn’t ask for it, since it isn’t their property nor inheritance, hence Umar(ra) mentioned the hadeeth and asked their view on it. And both of them in the same narration affirmed it to be a hadeeth of Prophet(saw).
Lastly, both knew 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.
IMPORTANTLY: One of the strongest facts which supports our view is that, when Ali(ra) became Caliph, he never over rule the decision of Abubakr(ra) and Umar(ra), and supposedly didn’t implement on the rule of Quran, by giving the share of inheritance to the remaining heirs of Prophet(saw). Like wives of Prophet(saw) and children of Abbas(ra), etc, though Ali(ra) was a person who would go to any extent in following Quran and Sunnah. Thus, this clearly proves that Ali(ra) accepted the hadeeth narrated by Abubakr(ra).
Taken from
https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2014/09/11/8-sunni-answers-to-shiapens-article-on-fadak-and-inheritance-of-prophetsaw-chapter-eight/
We look at Quran for looking for prophets and their inheritance;
“Solomon was thankful to his Lord for these blessing bestowed on him: ‘And Solomon was David’s Heir. And he said ‘O mankind! We have been taught the language of birds, and have been given (abundance) all things. This surely is evidence favour” [Surah Saba Verse 12]
The fact the Sulaiman(AS) alone is mentioned as the sole heir, is a clear proof that, this verse is not talking about heir due to relation, but a political heir, because Dawud(AS) had other children as well. So this is about a political heir, similar to what the hadeeth of al-Kafi states that, Imam after Prophet(SAWS) would take over the lands etc.
For details and a thorough refutation of shia arguments, refer this article:
https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2014/09/11/7-sunni-answers-to-shiapens-article-on-fadak-and-inheritance-of-prophetsaw-chapter-seven-2/
The only one thing I would like to ask you is why did Imam Ali (as) not stop his wife Bibi Fatima (sa) from asking for fadak if he had truly heard this hadith before and the hadith of Muslim says otherwise. Why would Bibi Fatima (sa) go to ask Abu Bakr for Fadak if they were never meant to have it ?
Does this leave us to assume that Bibi Fatima (sa) was hungry for a piece of land and had no knowledge of the hadith of her father ?
They didn't know the hadeeth, but when Abu bakr(RA) narrated it they accepted it, and When Umar(RA) question them, they affirmed it. As for why did Fatima(RA) go to ABubakr(RA) to ask Fadak, then brother, your own Authentic hadeeth of Al-Kafi answers it, that Fadak was NOT inherited by Fatima(RA), it belonged to the Imam after Prophet(SAWS). SO obviously as per AUTHENTIC SHia hadeeth, Fatima(RA) was wrong in asking Fadak. For your satisfaction see this again.
In Al-Kafi we read:
علي بن إبراهيه، عن أبيه، عن ابن أبي عنير، عن حفص بن البختري، عن أبي عبد الله عليه السلاو قال:
الأىفال ما له يوجف عليه بخيل ولا ركاب، أو قوو صالحوا، أو قوو أعطوا بأيديهه، وكل أرض خربة
وبطون الأودية فهو لرسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله وهو للاماو من بعده يضعه حيث يشاء
Abu ‘Abdallah (a.s.) 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(leader) after the the Messenger of Allah. The Imam(leader) will spend them as he may consider proper.”(Al Kafi, Chapter The Fay’, al-Anfal, al-Khums, its rules and the properties subject to al-Khums, page 186).[Majlisi in Mirat al Uqul vol 6, page 255 graded it as Hasan(good)]
Esteemed Shia scholar Al-Kulayni(author of Al-Kafi) who is considered Thiqatul Islam by Shias, said:
وأما الانفال فليس هذه سبيلها كان للرسول عليه السلام خاصة وكانت فدك لرسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله خاصة، لانه صلى الله عليه وآله فتحها وأمير المؤمنين عليه السلام، لم يكن معهما أحد فزال عنها اسم الفئ ولزمها اسم الانفال وكذلك الآجام(2) والمعادن والبحار والمفاوز هي للامام خاصة
The case of al-Anfal is different. It belongs to the Messenger only. Of such properties was Fadak that belonged to the Messenger of Allah only. It is because he and Amir al-Mu’minin (a.s.) conquered it and there no one else took part. The name al-Fay’ therefore does not apply to it. Al-Anfal applies to it. Similar to al-Anfal are such properties as the marshes, mines, oceans and the wilderness. They all belong to Imam(leader) exclusively.(Al-Kafi, Chapter 130, The Fay’, al-Anfal, al-Khums, its rules and the properties subject to al-Khums).
Also, it wasn't Aisha that stopped the other wives that asked for their inheritance, it was her and hafsa who went to Uthman to ask for their share and Uthman sent them back by saying " Wasn't it you two who testified against fatima (sa) when she asked for her share by agreeing with Abu Bakr's statement " according to Kitab Sulaym Ibn Qays.
Kitab Sulaym ibn Qays is a fabricated book. It has no academic value.
-
Who are you trying to fool, brother ? Read the hadith carefully. It clears says that both Abbas (ra) and Ali (as) thought abu bakr to be a liar when he said " Prophets don't inherit " perhaps your copy pasted arguments are too easy to write without even reading anything. In both scenarios it was Ali (as) and Abbas (ra) suspecting Abu Bakr and Umar to be liars. Not the other way around lol.
-
Who are you trying to fool, brother ? Read the hadith carefully. It clears says that both Abbas (ra) and Ali (as) thought abu bakr to be a liar when he said " Prophets don't inherit " perhaps your copy pasted arguments are too easy to write without even reading anything. In both scenarios it was Ali (as) and Abbas (ra) suspecting Abu Bakr and Umar to be liars. Not the other way around lol.
Brother you are making a fool of yourself, we aren't making you. If you read the hadeeth in context then you will understand that, Umar(RA) was just using the SAME WORDS WHICH ABBAS(RA) USED FOR ALI(RA), to disapprove the argument of Abbas. If you didn't get it, then probably you need to improve your comprehension understanding skills.
-
Who are you trying to fool, brother ? Read the hadith carefully. It clears says that both Abbas (ra) and Ali (as) thought abu bakr to be a liar when he said " Prophets don't inherit " perhaps your copy pasted arguments are too easy to write without even reading anything. In both scenarios it was Ali (as) and Abbas (ra) suspecting Abu Bakr and Umar to be liars. Not the other way around lol.
Brother you are making a fool of yourself, we aren't making you. If you read the hadeeth in context then you will understand that, Umar(RA) was just using the SAME WORDS WHICH ABBAS(RA) USED FOR ALI(RA), to disapprove the argument of Abbas. If you didn't get it, then probably you need to improve your comprehension understanding skills.
Go on brother. Point out the exact part where they're considering Ali (as) to be a liar.
-
Here's the thing; It is well established that Abu Bakr said that " We Prophets don't inherit. " Even though they've made a claim where Ali (as) supposedly accepted the saying of abu bakr regarding prophets don't inherit, I present to you this hadith:
It is reported by Zuhri that this tradition was narrated to him by Malik b. Aus who said:
Umar b. al-Khattab sent for me and I came to him when the day had advanced. I found him in his house sitting on his bare bed-stead, reclining on a leather pillow. He said (to me): Malik, some people of your tribe have hastened to me (with a request for help). I have ordered a little money for them. Take it and distribute it among them. I said: I wish you had ordered somebody else to do this job. He said: Malik, take it (and do what you have been told). At this moment (his man-servant) Yarfa' came in and said: Commander of the Faithful, what do you say about Uthman, Abd al-Rabman b. 'Auf, Zubair and Sa'd (who have come to seek an audience with you)? He said: Yes, and permitted them. so they entered. Then he (Yarfa') came again and said: What do you say about 'Ali and Abbas (who are present at the door)? He said: Yes, and permitted them to enter. Abbas said: Commander of the Faithful, decide (the dispute) between me and this sinful, treacherous, dishonest liar. The people (who were present) also said: Yes. Commander of the Faithful, do decide (the dispute) and have mercy on them. Malik b. Aus said: I could well imagine that they had sent them in advance for this purpose (by 'Ali and Abbas). 'Umar said: Wait and be patient. I adjure you by Allah by Whose order the heavens and the earth are sustained, don't you know that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said:" We (prophets) do not have any heirs; what we leave behind is (to be given in) charity"? They said: Yes. Then he turned to Abbas and 'Ali and said: I adjure you both by Allah by Whose order the heavens and earth are sustained, don't you know that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said:" We do not have any heirs; what we leave behind is (to be given in) charity"? They (too) said: Yes. (Then) Umar said: Allah, the Glorious and Exalted, had done to His Messenger (ﷺ) a special favour that He has not done to anyone else except him. He quoted the Qur'anic verse:" What Allah has bestowed upon His Apostle from (the properties) of the people of township is for Allah and His Messenger". The narrator said: I do not know whether he also recited the previous verse or not. Umar continued: The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) distrbuted among you the properties abandoned by Banu Nadir. By Allah, he never preferred himself over you and never appropriated anything to your exclusion. (After a fair distribution in this way) this property was left over. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) would meet from its income his annual expenditure, and what remained would be deposited in the Bait-ul-Mal. (Continuing further) he said: I adjure you by Allah by Whose order the heavens and the earth are sustained. Do you know this? They said: Yes. Then he adjured Abbas and 'All as he had adjured the other persons and asked: Do you both know this? They said: Yes. He said: When the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) passed away, Abu Bakr said:" I am the successor of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ)." 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. And Allah knows that I am true, virtuous, well-guided and a follower of truth. I became the guardian of this property. Then you as well as he came to me. Both of you have come and your purpose is identical. You said: Entrust the property to us. I said: If you wish that I should entrust it to you, it will be on the condition that both of you will undertake to abide by a pledge made with Allah that you will use it in the same way as the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) used it. So both of you got it. He said: Wasn't it like this? They said: Yes. He said: Then you have (again) come to me with the request that I should adjudge between you. No, by Allah. I will not give any other judgment except this until the arrival of the Doomsday. If you are unable to hold the property on this condition, return it to me.
وَحَدَّثَنِي عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ أَسْمَاءَ الضُّبَعِيُّ، حَدَّثَنَا جُوَيْرِيَةُ، عَنْ مَالِكٍ، عَنِ الزُّهْرِيِّ، أَنَّ مَالِكَ بْنَ أَوْسٍ، حَدَّثَهُ قَالَ أَرْسَلَ إِلَىَّ عُمَرُ بْنُ الْخَطَّابِ فَجِئْتُهُ حِينَ تَعَالَى النَّهَارُ - قَالَ - فَوَجَدْتُهُ فِي بَيْتِهِ جَالِسًا عَلَى سَرِيرٍ مُفْضِيًا إِلَى رِمَالِهِ مُتَّكِئًا عَلَى وِسَادَةٍ مِنْ أَدَمٍ . فَقَالَ لِي يَا مَالُ إِنَّهُ قَدْ دَفَّ أَهْلُ أَبْيَاتٍ مِنْ قَوْمِكَ وَقَدْ أَمَرْتُ فِيهِمْ بِرَضْخٍ فَخُذْهُ فَاقْسِمْهُ بَيْنَهُمْ - قَالَ - قُلْتُ لَوْ أَمَرْتَ بِهَذَا غَيْرِي قَالَ خُذْهُ يَا مَالُ . قَالَ فَجَاءَ يَرْفَا فَقَالَ هَلْ لَكَ يَا أَمِيرَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ فِي عُثْمَانَ وَعَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنِ عَوْفٍ وَالزُّبَيْرِ وَسَعْدٍ فَقَالَ عُمَرُ نَعَمْ . فَأَذِنَ لَهُمْ فَدَخَلُوا ثُمَّ جَاءَ . فَقَالَ هَلْ لَكَ فِي عَبَّاسٍ وَعَلِيٍّ قَالَ نَعَمْ . فَأَذِنَ لَهُمَا فَقَالَ عَبَّاسٌ يَا أَمِيرَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ اقْضِ بَيْنِي وَبَيْنَ هَذَا الْكَاذِبِ الآثِمِ الْغَادِرِ الْخَائِنِ . فَقَالَ الْقَوْمُ أَجَلْ يَا أَمِيرَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ فَاقْضِ بَيْنَهُمْ وَأَرِحْهُمْ . فَقَالَ مَالِكُ بْنُ أَوْسٍ يُخَيَّلُ إِلَىَّ أَنَّهُمْ قَدْ كَانُوا قَدَّمُوهُمْ لِذَلِكَ - فَقَالَ عُمَرُ اتَّئِدَا أَنْشُدُكُمْ بِاللَّهِ الَّذِي بِإِذْنِهِ تَقُومُ السَّمَاءُ وَالأَرْضُ أَتَعْلَمُونَ أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ " لاَ نُورَثُ مَا تَرَكْنَا صَدَقَةٌ " . قَالُوا نَعَمْ . ثُمَّ أَقْبَلَ عَلَى الْعَبَّاسِ وَعَلِيٍّ فَقَالَ أَنْشُدُكُمَا بِاللَّهِ الَّذِي بِإِذْنِهِ تَقُومُ السَّمَاءُ وَالأَرْضُ أَتَعْلَمَانِ أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ " لاَ نُورَثُ مَا تَرَكْنَاهُ صَدَقَةٌ " . قَالاَ نَعَمْ . فَقَالَ عُمَرُ إِنَّ اللَّهَ جَلَّ وَعَزَّ كَانَ خَصَّ رَسُولَهُ صلى الله عليه وسلم بِخَاصَّةٍ لَمْ يُخَصِّصْ بِهَا أَحَدًا غَيْرَهُ قَالَ { مَا أَفَاءَ اللَّهُ عَلَى رَسُولِهِ مِنْ أَهْلِ الْقُرَى فَلِلَّهِ وَلِلرَّسُولِ} مَا أَدْرِي هَلْ قَرَأَ الآيَةَ الَّتِي قَبْلَهَا أَمْ لاَ . قَالَ فَقَسَمَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم بَيْنَكُمْ أَمْوَالَ بَنِي النَّضِيرِ فَوَاللَّهِ مَا اسْتَأْثَرَ عَلَيْكُمْ وَلاَ أَخَذَهَا دُونَكُمْ حَتَّى بَقِيَ هَذَا الْمَالُ فَكَانَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم يَأْخُذُ مِنْهُ نَفَقَةَ سَنَةٍ ثُمَّ يَجْعَلُ مَا بَقِيَ أُسْوَةَ الْمَالِ . ثُمَّ قَالَ أَنْشُدُكُمْ بِاللَّهِ الَّذِي بِإِذْنِهِ تَقُومُ السَّمَاءُ وَالأَرْضُ أَتَعْلَمُونَ ذَلِكَ قَالُوا نَعَمْ . ثُمَّ نَشَدَ عَبَّاسًا وَعَلِيًّا بِمِثْلِ مَا نَشَدَ بِهِ الْقَوْمَ أَتَعْلَمَانِ ذَلِكَ قَالاَ نَعَمْ . قَالَ فَلَمَّا تُوُفِّيَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ أَنَا وَلِيُّ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَجِئْتُمَا تَطْلُبُ مِيرَاثَكَ مِنَ ابْنِ أَخِيكَ وَيَطْلُبُ هَذَا مِيرَاثَ امْرَأَتِهِ مِنْ أَبِيهَا فَقَالَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم " مَا نُورَثُ مَا تَرَكْنَا صَدَقَةٌ " . فَرَأَيْتُمَاهُ كَاذِبًا آثِمًا غَادِرًا خَائِنًا وَاللَّهُ يَعْلَمُ إِنَّهُ لَصَادِقٌ بَارٌّ رَاشِدٌ تَابِعٌ لِلْحَقِّ ثُمَّ تُوُفِّيَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ وَأَنَا وَلِيُّ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم وَوَلِيُّ أَبِي بَكْرٍ فَرَأَيْتُمَانِي كَاذِبًا آثِمًا غَادِرًا خَائِنًا وَاللَّهُ يَعْلَمُ إِنِّي لَصَادِقٌ بَارٌّ رَاشِدٌ تَابِعٌ لِلْحَقِّ فَوَلِيتُهَا ثُمَّ جِئْتَنِي أَنْتَ وَهَذَا وَأَنْتُمَا جَمِيعٌ وَأَمْرُكُمَا وَاحِدٌ فَقُلْتُمَا ادْفَعْهَا إِلَيْنَا فَقُلْتُ إِنْ شِئْتُمْ دَفَعْتُهَا إِلَيْكُمَا عَلَى أَنَّ عَلَيْكُمَا عَهْدَ اللَّهِ أَنْ تَعْمَلاَ فِيهَا بِالَّذِي كَانَ يَعْمَلُ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَأَخَذْتُمَاهَا بِذَلِكَ قَالَ أَكَذَلِكَ قَالاَ نَعَمْ . قَالَ ثُمَّ جِئْتُمَانِي لأَقْضِيَ بَيْنَكُمَا وَلاَ وَاللَّهِ لاَ أَقْضِي بَيْنَكُمَا بِغَيْرِ ذَلِكَ حَتَّى تَقُومَ السَّاعَةُ فَإِنْ عَجَزْتُمَا عَنْهَا فَرُدَّاهَا إِلَىَّ .
Reference : Sahih Muslim 1757 c
In-book reference : Book 32, Hadith 58
USC-MSA web (English) reference : Book 19, Hadith 4349
(deprecated numbering scheme)
See the red part in the hadeeth you cite, those are the words of Abbas, when Abbas(Ra) & Ali(RA), approached Ameer ul Momineen Umar(RA) to solve a dispute between him and Ali(RA). And people also asked Ameer ul Momineen Umar(RA) to solve it between them.
-
Alright, brother. My bad. But, the hadith still stands to prove that the first time Abbas made a claim for inheritance, he was the one who asked on behalf of Ali (as) and both of them thought of him being a trecherous liar ( Abu Bakr ) and then same in the khilafat of Umar. Then again it's Abbas that has come with the dispute, meaning that it was him who wanted the split, not Ali (as). Had it been Ali (as) then Abbas would've told him the supposed lie Ali (as) told in order to take the land or the property for himself. There has been no mention of such lie that he's claiming.
Second, why is it that Ali (as) kept quiet and didn't say a word ? He wasn't a child and neither was he affraid of Abbas. Why hasn't he said anything in this hadith other than " Yes " or " No ". There are no arguments that were presented other than an accusation. And, a supposed fight over the land.
-
Alright, brother. My bad. But, the hadith still stands to prove that the first time Abbas made a claim for inheritance, he was the one who asked on behalf of Ali (as) and both of them thought of him being a trecherous liar ( Abu Bakr ) and then same in the khilafat of Umar. Then again it's Abbas that has come with the dispute, meaning that it was him who wanted the split, not Ali (as). Had it been Ali (as) then Abbas would've told him the supposed lie Ali (as) told in order to take the land or the property for himself. There has been no mention of such lie that he's claiming.
That's why i said, improve your comprehension undrstanding skills and read the explanation i gave, it covers all yours doubts. Read it properly.
Second, why is it that Ali (as) kept quiet and didn't say a word ? He wasn't a child and neither was he affraid of Abbas. Why hasn't he said anything in this hadith other than " Yes " or " No ". There are no arguments that were presented other than an accusation. And, a supposed fight over the land.
Because, Abbas was his uncle. So its called respect. You might find elders getting aggressive on us, they say things which they really don't mean, but we don't argue back to them. That's called respect.
-
Alright, brother. My bad. But, the hadith still stands to prove that the first time Abbas made a claim for inheritance, he was the one who asked on behalf of Ali (as) and both of them thought of him being a trecherous liar ( Abu Bakr ) and then same in the khilafat of Umar. Then again it's Abbas that has come with the dispute, meaning that it was him who wanted the split, not Ali (as). Had it been Ali (as) then Abbas would've told him the supposed lie Ali (as) told in order to take the land or the property for himself. There has been no mention of such lie that he's claiming.
That's why i said, improve your comprehension undrstanding skills and read the explanation i gave, it covers all yours doubts. Read it properly.
Second, why is it that Ali (as) kept quiet and didn't say a word ? He wasn't a child and neither was he affraid of Abbas. Why hasn't he said anything in this hadith other than " Yes " or " No ". There are no arguments that were presented other than an accusation. And, a supposed fight over the land.
Because, Abbas was his uncle. So its called respect. You might find elders getting aggressive on us, they say things which they really don't mean, but we don't argue back to them. That's called respect.
If Ali (as) had respect for Abbas, why did they not solve the dispute amongst themselves ? You do accept there was a dispute, so, why should Ali (as) become quiet when he's infront of Umar yet he chooses to speak his mind in front of Abbas ? Secondly, waa the accusation of Abbas correct the first time around that we take him seriously this time ? He said similar things in regarda to both Abu Bakr amd Umar. Why do we neglect that part and only consider this to be true ?
I understand you have hadith which is supposedly solving a dispute between Ali (as) and Abbas yet no one is talking about the opinions of Abu Bakr and the response of Abbas and Ali (as) in regards to it.
-
Alright, brother. My bad. But, the hadith still stands to prove that the first time Abbas made a claim for inheritance, he was the one who asked on behalf of Ali (as) and both of them thought of him being a trecherous liar ( Abu Bakr ) and then same in the khilafat of Umar. Then again it's Abbas that has come with the dispute, meaning that it was him who wanted the split, not Ali (as). Had it been Ali (as) then Abbas would've told him the supposed lie Ali (as) told in order to take the land or the property for himself. There has been no mention of such lie that he's claiming.
That's why i said, improve your comprehension undrstanding skills and read the explanation i gave, it covers all yours doubts. Read it properly.
Second, why is it that Ali (as) kept quiet and didn't say a word ? He wasn't a child and neither was he affraid of Abbas. Why hasn't he said anything in this hadith other than " Yes " or " No ". There are no arguments that were presented other than an accusation. And, a supposed fight over the land.
Because, Abbas was his uncle. So its called respect. You might find elders getting aggressive on us, they say things which they really don't mean, but we don't argue back to them. That's called respect.
If Ali (as) had respect for Abbas, why did they not solve the dispute amongst themselves ? You do accept there was a dispute, so, why should Ali (as) become quiet when he's infront of Umar yet he chooses to speak his mind in front of Abbas ? Secondly, waa the accusation of Abbas correct the first time around that we take him seriously this time ? He said similar things in regarda to both Abu Bakr amd Umar. Why do we neglect that part and only consider this to be true ?
Man!! Please read the hadeeth in your mother tongue, if its urdu, read the urdu translation, Abbas(RA) never said such thing for Abubakr(RA) or Umar(RA). I can help you understand an issue, but if you can't grasp english properly then I'm helpless. What I provided you was a plain and clear explanation in English, yet you bring up arguments which apparently show that either you didn't read a word of it or you don't understand english properly.
As for why Didn't Ali and Abbas solve the dispute, if Ali(RA) respected Abbas(RA), then that was a legal issue, hence it was best sorted out infront of the legal authority. And I believe you are quite young and have no experience of worldly or legal affairs.
-
Alright, brother. My bad. But, the hadith still stands to prove that the first time Abbas made a claim for inheritance, he was the one who asked on behalf of Ali (as) and both of them thought of him being a trecherous liar ( Abu Bakr ) and then same in the khilafat of Umar. Then again it's Abbas that has come with the dispute, meaning that it was him who wanted the split, not Ali (as). Had it been Ali (as) then Abbas would've told him the supposed lie Ali (as) told in order to take the land or the property for himself. There has been no mention of such lie that he's claiming.
That's why i said, improve your comprehension undrstanding skills and read the explanation i gave, it covers all yours doubts. Read it properly.
Second, why is it that Ali (as) kept quiet and didn't say a word ? He wasn't a child and neither was he affraid of Abbas. Why hasn't he said anything in this hadith other than " Yes " or " No ". There are no arguments that were presented other than an accusation. And, a supposed fight over the land.
Because, Abbas was his uncle. So its called respect. You might find elders getting aggressive on us, they say things which they really don't mean, but we don't argue back to them. That's called respect.
If Ali (as) had respect for Abbas, why did they not solve the dispute amongst themselves ? You do accept there was a dispute, so, why should Ali (as) become quiet when he's infront of Umar yet he chooses to speak his mind in front of Abbas ? Secondly, waa the accusation of Abbas correct the first time around that we take him seriously this time ? He said similar things in regarda to both Abu Bakr amd Umar. Why do we neglect that part and only consider this to be true ?
Man!! Please read the hadeeth in your mother tongue, if its urdu, read the urdu translation, Abbas(RA) never said such thing for Abubakr(RA) or Umar(RA). I can help you understand an issue, but if you can't grasp english properly then I'm helpless. What I provided you was a plain and clear explanation in English, yet you bring up arguments which apparently show that either you didn't read a word of it or you don't understand english properly.
As for why Didn't Ali and Abbas solve the dispute, if Ali(RA) respected Abbas(RA), then that was a legal issue, hence it was best sorted out infront of the legal authority. And I believe you are quite young and have no experience of worldly or legal affairs.
What is the meaning of this, brother ?
" 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.
-
Alright, brother. My bad. But, the hadith still stands to prove that the first time Abbas made a claim for inheritance, he was the one who asked on behalf of Ali (as) and both of them thought of him being a trecherous liar ( Abu Bakr ) and then same in the khilafat of Umar. Then again it's Abbas that has come with the dispute, meaning that it was him who wanted the split, not Ali (as). Had it been Ali (as) then Abbas would've told him the supposed lie Ali (as) told in order to take the land or the property for himself. There has been no mention of such lie that he's claiming.
That's why i said, improve your comprehension undrstanding skills and read the explanation i gave, it covers all yours doubts. Read it properly.
Second, why is it that Ali (as) kept quiet and didn't say a word ? He wasn't a child and neither was he affraid of Abbas. Why hasn't he said anything in this hadith other than " Yes " or " No ". There are no arguments that were presented other than an accusation. And, a supposed fight over the land.
Because, Abbas was his uncle. So its called respect. You might find elders getting aggressive on us, they say things which they really don't mean, but we don't argue back to them. That's called respect.
If Ali (as) had respect for Abbas, why did they not solve the dispute amongst themselves ? You do accept there was a dispute, so, why should Ali (as) become quiet when he's infront of Umar yet he chooses to speak his mind in front of Abbas ? Secondly, waa the accusation of Abbas correct the first time around that we take him seriously this time ? He said similar things in regarda to both Abu Bakr amd Umar. Why do we neglect that part and only consider this to be true ?
Man!! Please read the hadeeth in your mother tongue, if its urdu, read the urdu translation, Abbas(RA) never said such thing for Abubakr(RA) or Umar(RA). I can help you understand an issue, but if you can't grasp english properly then I'm helpless. What I provided you was a plain and clear explanation in English, yet you bring up arguments which apparently show that either you didn't read a word of it or you don't understand english properly.
As for why Didn't Ali and Abbas solve the dispute, if Ali(RA) respected Abbas(RA), then that was a legal issue, hence it was best sorted out infront of the legal authority. And I believe you are quite young and have no experience of worldly or legal affairs.
What is the meaning of this, brother ?
" 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.
Brother, You know you are quoting it OUT OF CONTEXT. So how will you understand a hadeeth quoting it OUT OF CONTEXT?
For understanding it WITH CONTEXT READ THIS, IF YOU HAVE AN ISSUE IN THIS EXPLNATION THEN PLEASE LET ME KNOW:
Explanation:
As we can see, Abbas started off calling Ali to be a “liar, sinful, treacherous, and dishonest” and then Omar used same terms(liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest). Notice, the argument wasn’t beween Abubakr and Ali nor between Umar and Ali, rather Umar was the one who was to judge between Ali and Abbas. In this case, Umar(ra) was just assuming an argument, for sake of argument, infact Ali and Abbas, didn’t deem nor utter a word against Abubakr nor Umar, and they both affirmed the hadeeth of Prophet(saw), regarding inheritance. Hence the correct understanding of this issue is that, Al-Abbas, started off by using those words to describe Ali, since they were disputing over the charity, what they shall be the guardian of and how to distribute it, so they wanted the property to be divided between them, but this would have appeared to people as, it is inheritance, which would be against the condition on which Umar entrusted them the property. Hence we read in Tarikh Al-Islam:
Narrated Al-Zuhri saying: Narrated to me Al-A’raj that he heard Abu Huraira saying: I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) saying: “By the One in whose hand is my soul, my heirs do not divide anything of what I leave behind, what we leave is charity.” So this charity was in the hands of Ali(ra) that he overcame Al-Abbas in it, and their dispute was on that, so Umar refused to divide it between them, until Abbas left it and Ali(ra) overcame it. (Tarikh Al-Islam. Vol. 3, Pg. 27).
قَالَ أَبُو دَاوُدَ أَرَادَ أَنْ لاَ يُوقِعَ عَلَيْهِ اسْمَ قَسْمٍ .
Abu Dawud said: He (‘Umar) intended that the name of division should not apply to it.(Sunan Abu Dawud).
So Umar was trying to make a point that, they shouldn’t be fighting over it nor ask for its division since it isn’t their property. Hence, in response to their dispute, Omar is implying that if Al-Abbas’s descriptions of Ali are correct, then Abu Bakr and Umar are to be described as such, because Abubakr(ra) and Umar(ra) never gave them that property as inheriance but rather Umar just entrusted them over it, on the condition of managing it in same way as Prophet(saw) used to manage it. And both Ali and Abbas agreed over this condition and even they affirmed the hadeeth of Prophet(saw) not leaving inheritance. But since they disputed over the property, and want to divide the entrusted property, it would appear to people as inheritance, so Umar had to remind them that, they shouldn’t be fighting over it nor ask for it to be divided, since it isn’t their property nor inheritance, which is why Umar said, what is being misinterpreted by Shiapen.
As for what al-`Abbas said to `Ali, those are the words of a father to a son. al-`Abbas said it indicating `Ali, because he was in the position of a son with him. He wanted to make him retract what he thought was a mistake.
Moreover, Umar did not approve of Abbas’s words against Ali; Umar took the correct view that people can get in arguments and make honest mistakes and nobody should simply jump to strong personal attacks like Abbas did against Ali, calling him a “liar, sinful, treacherous, and dishonest.” Therefore, Umar repeated the words of Abbas verbatim in order to prove a point, Umar was just making use of rhetoric. The problem is that these Shia propagandists have no hold of Arabic Balagha. If they did, they would know that direct translation in English would not give the proper understanding. This is an example of, (reductio ad absurdum; Latin: “reduction to the absurd”) also known as an apagogical argument, which is a type of logical argument where one assumes a claim for the sake of argument, derives an absurd or ridiculous outcome, and then concludes that the original assumption must have been wrong as it led to an absurd result.
We would like to give an example just to enrich the mind: A mother and father who had told their two sons that the capitol of France was Paris. A few days later, the two sons get in an argument over the capitol of France. One brother says the capitol is Berlin, whereas the other says the capitol is London. When they go to their father to arbitrate over this matter, one brother says about the other: “Father, can you settle this dispute of mine with my idiot brother who thinks the capitol of France is Berlin?” The father is not appalled at the fact that his two little sons forgot the capitol of France; this is a mistake that anybody can make. But what he is appalled at is the language used by this son, calling his brother an “idiot.” The father then says: “So you thought of Mom as an idiot when she said that Paris was the capitol of France, and you thought I was an idiot when I said that too?” By saying this, the father is trying to dissuade the son from jumping to conclusions about his brother’s character, because in such a process, he would also believe his mother and father to be idiots as well.
Hence, Umar was simply repeating the words of Abbas verbatim. How can the Shias ignore this “coincidence” especially in light of Arabic Balagha? It is obvious from this that Umar was proving a point, and his words should thus be analyzed in this context. Another important observation is that the Shia propagandists will say that it was Ali who called Abu Bakr and Umar to be a “liar, sinful, treacherous, and dishonest.” But the reality is that, it was merely Umar who said that Abbas was implying this. There is a significant point.
What further proves our point is that `Ali’s words to Abu Bakr are documented after the incident regarding the demand of inheritance, in Sahih al-Bukhari:
إِنَّا قَدْ عَرَفْنَا فَضْلَكَ، وَمَا أَعْطَاكَ، اللَّهُ وَلَمْ نَنْفَسْ عَلَيْكَ خَيْرًا سَاقَهُ اللَّهُ إِلَيْكَ، وَلَكِنَّكَ اسْتَبْدَدْتَ عَلَيْنَا بِالأَمْرِ
[O Abu Bakr, we know well your superiority and what Allah has given you, and we are not jealous of the goodness that Allah has bestowed upon you, but you did not consult us.]
Secondly, it is unthinkable that either Al-Abbas or Ali thought of Abu Bakr or Omar in such manner. This is because both caliphs were approached by both men, who were seeking justice. It is not logical for someone to seek justice from someone that they saw as a liar, sinful, treacherous, and dishonest.
Thirdly, notice the hadeeth that how Abbas(ra) referred to ‘Umar(ra) as “Ameer-ul-mu’mineen(leader of the believers)!” This proves that ‘Umar was a legitimate Khaleefah, contrary to shi’aa lies and propaganda.
Fourthly, 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 to be entrusted to him and al-`Abbas asked for his nephew’s part to be entrusted to him, but `Umar said what we read in Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari.
Umar said: I said: If you wish that I should entrust it to you, it will be on the condition that both of you will undertake to abide by a pledge made with Allah that you will use it in the same way as the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) used it. (Sahih Muslim Book 019, Number 4349)
Umar said: I said to you both, ‘If you wish, I will place it in your custody on condition that you both will manage it in the same way as Allah’s Apostle and Abu Bakr did and as I have been doing since I took charge of managing it; otherwise, do not speak to me anymore about it.’ Then you both said, ‘Give it to us on that (condition).’ So I gave it to you on that condition…”I beseech you both by Allah, didn’t I give you all that property on that condition?” They said, “Yes.” (Sahih Bukhari Vol. 9, Book 92, Hadith 408)
Al-`Abbas and `Ali then disputed about the charity what they shall be the guardian of and how to distribute it’, it appears as if al-`Abbas was angry at `Ali so much that he called him names, so they both went to `Umar asking him to decide between them by dividing the entrusted property. `Umar refused to give any other judgment and told them to return it if they’re unable to manage it.
He 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.].
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.
Thus, it is clear that both Abbas and Ali understood that although the produce of the land goes to charity, yet they viewed that, they can still manage the share which they would have got as inheritance, by being its trustees, and eat from it, since the Prophet (saw) said: “The family of Muhammad may eat from it.” To them being in control of this Waqf did not pose any contradiction to the prophetic narration.
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, he reminded them the hadeeth because both of them were disputing over the property and wanted to divide the entrusted property, which would have appeared to people as, inheritance, So Umar reminded them that, they shouldn’t ask for it, since it isn’t their property nor inheritance, hence Umar(ra) mentioned the hadeeth and asked their view on it. And both of them in the same narration affirmed it to be a hadeeth of Prophet(saw).
Lastly, both knew 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.
IMPORTANTLY: One of the strongest facts which supports our view is that, when Ali(ra) became Caliph, he never over rule the decision of Abubakr(ra) and Umar(ra), and supposedly didn’t implement on the rule of Quran, by giving the share of inheritance to the remaining heirs of Prophet(saw). Like wives of Prophet(saw) and children of Abbas(ra), etc, though Ali(ra) was a person who would go to any extent in following Quran and Sunnah. Thus, this clearly proves that Ali(ra) accepted the hadeeth narrated by Abubakr(ra).
-
Alright, brother. My bad. But, the hadith still stands to prove that the first time Abbas made a claim for inheritance, he was the one who asked on behalf of Ali (as) and both of them thought of him being a trecherous liar ( Abu Bakr ) and then same in the khilafat of Umar. Then again it's Abbas that has come with the dispute, meaning that it was him who wanted the split, not Ali (as). Had it been Ali (as) then Abbas would've told him the supposed lie Ali (as) told in order to take the land or the property for himself. There has been no mention of such lie that he's claiming.
That's why i said, improve your comprehension undrstanding skills and read the explanation i gave, it covers all yours doubts. Read it properly.
Second, why is it that Ali (as) kept quiet and didn't say a word ? He wasn't a child and neither was he affraid of Abbas. Why hasn't he said anything in this hadith other than " Yes " or " No ". There are no arguments that were presented other than an accusation. And, a supposed fight over the land.
Because, Abbas was his uncle. So its called respect. You might find elders getting aggressive on us, they say things which they really don't mean, but we don't argue back to them. That's called respect.
If Ali (as) had respect for Abbas, why did they not solve the dispute amongst themselves ? You do accept there was a dispute, so, why should Ali (as) become quiet when he's infront of Umar yet he chooses to speak his mind in front of Abbas ? Secondly, waa the accusation of Abbas correct the first time around that we take him seriously this time ? He said similar things in regarda to both Abu Bakr amd Umar. Why do we neglect that part and only consider this to be true ?
Man!! Please read the hadeeth in your mother tongue, if its urdu, read the urdu translation, Abbas(RA) never said such thing for Abubakr(RA) or Umar(RA). I can help you understand an issue, but if you can't grasp english properly then I'm helpless. What I provided you was a plain and clear explanation in English, yet you bring up arguments which apparently show that either you didn't read a word of it or you don't understand english properly.
As for why Didn't Ali and Abbas solve the dispute, if Ali(RA) respected Abbas(RA), then that was a legal issue, hence it was best sorted out infront of the legal authority. And I believe you are quite young and have no experience of worldly or legal affairs.
What is the meaning of this, brother ?
" 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.
Brother, You know you are quoting it OUT OF CONTEXT. So how will you understand a hadeeth quoting it OUT OF CONTEXT?
For understanding it WITH CONTEXT READ THIS, IF YOU HAVE AN ISSUE IN THIS EXPLNATION THEN PLEASE LET ME KNOW:
Explanation:
As we can see, Abbas started off calling Ali to be a “liar, sinful, treacherous, and dishonest” and then Omar used same terms(liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest). Notice, the argument wasn’t beween Abubakr and Ali nor between Umar and Ali, rather Umar was the one who was to judge between Ali and Abbas. In this case, Umar(ra) was just assuming an argument, for sake of argument, infact Ali and Abbas, didn’t deem nor utter a word against Abubakr nor Umar, and they both affirmed the hadeeth of Prophet(saw), regarding inheritance. Hence the correct understanding of this issue is that, Al-Abbas, started off by using those words to describe Ali, since they were disputing over the charity, what they shall be the guardian of and how to distribute it, so they wanted the property to be divided between them, but this would have appeared to people as, it is inheritance, which would be against the condition on which Umar entrusted them the property. Hence we read in Tarikh Al-Islam:
Narrated Al-Zuhri saying: Narrated to me Al-A’raj that he heard Abu Huraira saying: I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) saying: “By the One in whose hand is my soul, my heirs do not divide anything of what I leave behind, what we leave is charity.” So this charity was in the hands of Ali(ra) that he overcame Al-Abbas in it, and their dispute was on that, so Umar refused to divide it between them, until Abbas left it and Ali(ra) overcame it. (Tarikh Al-Islam. Vol. 3, Pg. 27).
قَالَ أَبُو دَاوُدَ أَرَادَ أَنْ لاَ يُوقِعَ عَلَيْهِ اسْمَ قَسْمٍ .
Abu Dawud said: He (‘Umar) intended that the name of division should not apply to it.(Sunan Abu Dawud).
So Umar was trying to make a point that, they shouldn’t be fighting over it nor ask for its division since it isn’t their property. Hence, in response to their dispute, Omar is implying that if Al-Abbas’s descriptions of Ali are correct, then Abu Bakr and Umar are to be described as such, because Abubakr(ra) and Umar(ra) never gave them that property as inheriance but rather Umar just entrusted them over it, on the condition of managing it in same way as Prophet(saw) used to manage it. And both Ali and Abbas agreed over this condition and even they affirmed the hadeeth of Prophet(saw) not leaving inheritance. But since they disputed over the property, and want to divide the entrusted property, it would appear to people as inheritance, so Umar had to remind them that, they shouldn’t be fighting over it nor ask for it to be divided, since it isn’t their property nor inheritance, which is why Umar said, what is being misinterpreted by Shiapen.
As for what al-`Abbas said to `Ali, those are the words of a father to a son. al-`Abbas said it indicating `Ali, because he was in the position of a son with him. He wanted to make him retract what he thought was a mistake.
Moreover, Umar did not approve of Abbas’s words against Ali; Umar took the correct view that people can get in arguments and make honest mistakes and nobody should simply jump to strong personal attacks like Abbas did against Ali, calling him a “liar, sinful, treacherous, and dishonest.” Therefore, Umar repeated the words of Abbas verbatim in order to prove a point, Umar was just making use of rhetoric. The problem is that these Shia propagandists have no hold of Arabic Balagha. If they did, they would know that direct translation in English would not give the proper understanding. This is an example of, (reductio ad absurdum; Latin: “reduction to the absurd”) also known as an apagogical argument, which is a type of logical argument where one assumes a claim for the sake of argument, derives an absurd or ridiculous outcome, and then concludes that the original assumption must have been wrong as it led to an absurd result.
We would like to give an example just to enrich the mind: A mother and father who had told their two sons that the capitol of France was Paris. A few days later, the two sons get in an argument over the capitol of France. One brother says the capitol is Berlin, whereas the other says the capitol is London. When they go to their father to arbitrate over this matter, one brother says about the other: “Father, can you settle this dispute of mine with my idiot brother who thinks the capitol of France is Berlin?” The father is not appalled at the fact that his two little sons forgot the capitol of France; this is a mistake that anybody can make. But what he is appalled at is the language used by this son, calling his brother an “idiot.” The father then says: “So you thought of Mom as an idiot when she said that Paris was the capitol of France, and you thought I was an idiot when I said that too?” By saying this, the father is trying to dissuade the son from jumping to conclusions about his brother’s character, because in such a process, he would also believe his mother and father to be idiots as well.
Hence, Umar was simply repeating the words of Abbas verbatim. How can the Shias ignore this “coincidence” especially in light of Arabic Balagha? It is obvious from this that Umar was proving a point, and his words should thus be analyzed in this context. Another important observation is that the Shia propagandists will say that it was Ali who called Abu Bakr and Umar to be a “liar, sinful, treacherous, and dishonest.” But the reality is that, it was merely Umar who said that Abbas was implying this. There is a significant point.
What further proves our point is that `Ali’s words to Abu Bakr are documented after the incident regarding the demand of inheritance, in Sahih al-Bukhari:
إِنَّا قَدْ عَرَفْنَا فَضْلَكَ، وَمَا أَعْطَاكَ، اللَّهُ وَلَمْ نَنْفَسْ عَلَيْكَ خَيْرًا سَاقَهُ اللَّهُ إِلَيْكَ، وَلَكِنَّكَ اسْتَبْدَدْتَ عَلَيْنَا بِالأَمْرِ
[O Abu Bakr, we know well your superiority and what Allah has given you, and we are not jealous of the goodness that Allah has bestowed upon you, but you did not consult us.]
Secondly, it is unthinkable that either Al-Abbas or Ali thought of Abu Bakr or Omar in such manner. This is because both caliphs were approached by both men, who were seeking justice. It is not logical for someone to seek justice from someone that they saw as a liar, sinful, treacherous, and dishonest.
Thirdly, notice the hadeeth that how Abbas(ra) referred to ‘Umar(ra) as “Ameer-ul-mu’mineen(leader of the believers)!” This proves that ‘Umar was a legitimate Khaleefah, contrary to shi’aa lies and propaganda.
Fourthly, 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 to be entrusted to him and al-`Abbas asked for his nephew’s part to be entrusted to him, but `Umar said what we read in Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari.
Umar said: I said: If you wish that I should entrust it to you, it will be on the condition that both of you will undertake to abide by a pledge made with Allah that you will use it in the same way as the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) used it. (Sahih Muslim Book 019, Number 4349)
Umar said: I said to you both, ‘If you wish, I will place it in your custody on condition that you both will manage it in the same way as Allah’s Apostle and Abu Bakr did and as I have been doing since I took charge of managing it; otherwise, do not speak to me anymore about it.’ Then you both said, ‘Give it to us on that (condition).’ So I gave it to you on that condition…”I beseech you both by Allah, didn’t I give you all that property on that condition?” They said, “Yes.” (Sahih Bukhari Vol. 9, Book 92, Hadith 408)
Al-`Abbas and `Ali then disputed about the charity what they shall be the guardian of and how to distribute it’, it appears as if al-`Abbas was angry at `Ali so much that he called him names, so they both went to `Umar asking him to decide between them by dividing the entrusted property. `Umar refused to give any other judgment and told them to return it if they’re unable to manage it.
He 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.].
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.
Thus, it is clear that both Abbas and Ali understood that although the produce of the land goes to charity, yet they viewed that, they can still manage the share which they would have got as inheritance, by being its trustees, and eat from it, since the Prophet (saw) said: “The family of Muhammad may eat from it.” To them being in control of this Waqf did not pose any contradiction to the prophetic narration.
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, he reminded them the hadeeth because both of them were disputing over the property and wanted to divide the entrusted property, which would have appeared to people as, inheritance, So Umar reminded them that, they shouldn’t ask for it, since it isn’t their property nor inheritance, hence Umar(ra) mentioned the hadeeth and asked their view on it. And both of them in the same narration affirmed it to be a hadeeth of Prophet(saw).
Lastly, both knew 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.
IMPORTANTLY: One of the strongest facts which supports our view is that, when Ali(ra) became Caliph, he never over rule the decision of Abubakr(ra) and Umar(ra), and supposedly didn’t implement on the rule of Quran, by giving the share of inheritance to the remaining heirs of Prophet(saw). Like wives of Prophet(saw) and children of Abbas(ra), etc, though Ali(ra) was a person who would go to any extent in following Quran and Sunnah. Thus, this clearly proves that Ali(ra) accepted the hadeeth narrated by Abubakr(ra).
I've read that brother. And, this is doing exactly what you're accusing me of; taking things out of context and starting off at the accusation of Abbas. You said they were calling Ali (as) that and then you said he didn't call the shaykhain that. It's clear as day that they didn't agree with the statement of Abu Bakr, so much so, that even Umar had to mention it.
-
In no hadith has Abu Bakr said that " Prophet said that my family can eat from it as well." Abu Bakr himself made that claim that they can eat from it as well if they wish to do so.
Secondly, when he said in the hadith " Whatever we leave is to be given in charity " doesn't that mean that it has become charity by default since the prophet (sawa) has passed and no longer gets to decide that they may eat from it ?
Do you have any ahadith regarding the endowments of the prophet (sawa) being left with Abu Bakr or that the " leader " gets to decide what happens to his land since it wasn't under anyone's control other than Prophet Muhammad (sawa) himself when he was alive ? Did he ever point to anyone who would take care of his matters after him ?
No one is trying to change subjects or jumping here and there. These questions arise when you give people hallway answers and expect them to believe it.
Not your average, Shia lol.
Actually you are an average Shia because you're wrong, the Prophet (saw) did say "إنما يأكل آل محمد في هذا المال"
If you haven't done sufficient research that's not our problem. Refer to the Hadith of Ma`mar from al-Zuhri from `Urwah from `A'ishah in Bukhari and the Hadith of `Uqayl from Zuhri from `Urwah from `A'ishah in abu Ya`la.
So that first point of yours is dropped.
Your second point makes no sense, the land was made a Waqf and the man who makes it a Waqf gets to decide what it is used for and nobody may alter that after him.
Your third point doesn't require a Hadith, the Prophet (saw) was in charge of distributing the charities from his land when he was alive, after he dies the man who takes his place assumes this responsibility. It was also specifically mentioned in some narrations that the one in charge afterwards may assume this responsibility. There's absolutely no reason why those lands would go to his family members since they are no longer his possessions the moment he turned them into a Waqf, therefore they go to the government that makes sure the matter is fulfilled as the Prophet (saw) requested. It was a habit of the Muslims that Zakat goes to the man in charge and he divides it.
This makes sense since the moment you hand the lands to the family they will begin to fight over them, as was the case between `Ali and al-`Abbas.
-
Two things, brother. The first being the sunni hadith you provided were Bibi Fatima (sa) supposedly agreed with Abu Bakr is false and you know it as well. I present to you just one hadith where this conversation between Abu Bakr and Bibi Fatima (sa) didn't go as the abovementioned hadith depicts;
Volume 4, Book 53, Number 325:
Narrated 'Aisha:
(mother of the believers) After the death of Allah 's Apostle Fatima the daughter of Allah's Apostle asked Abu Bakr As-Siddiq to give her, her share of inheritance from what Allah's Apostle had left of the Fai (i.e. booty gained without fighting) which Allah had given him. Abu Bakr said to her, "Allah's Apostle said, 'Our property will not be inherited, whatever we (i.e. prophets) leave is Sadaqa (to be used for charity)." Fatima, the daughter of Allah's Apostle got angry and stopped speaking to Abu Bakr, and continued assuming that attitude till she died. Fatima remained alive for six months after the death of Allah's Apostle.
A- They were all sadaqa and should've been dealt with in the manner that Prophet Muhammad (sawa) asked them to ( Supposedly ).
B- Umar went astray by going against what Abu Bakr said about using it for charity and giving it away to a person who is not supposed to eat from charity at all ?
The main reason you're doing so poorly in this debate is because you wrote "Ya Ali Madad" in your signature, notice how no success is reaching you.
So again you're wrong about the narration being "False", it is indeed true and she did say it according to the authentic report. That doesn't mean she wasn't angry still. She said it out of politeness as she knows that Abu Bakr wouldn't lie but at the same time she's upset that the land was taken away from her family and children as well as the authority.
Abu Bakr dealt with the Sadaqah of the Prophet (saw) the same way the Prophet (saw) himself dealt with it.
As for `Umar, he never gave them those lands, he just placed them in charge of it as `Ummal instead of appointing a government official to do so.
-
Your lack of success continues because of your silly profile pic "BULB" which means "bar Umar lanat beshumar" further showing you're an average typical Shia.
You wrote:
As ypu can see, the hadith clearly states that Ali (as) and Abbas (ra) both considered Abu Bakr to be a liar and trecherous when he made this claim. Neither did Ali (as) say at that time that the prophet said such a thing.
Well `Ali is a greedy sinner according to your understanding because he admitted that the Prophet (saw) said so then he went and said that the man was a traitor for using the land the same way the Prophet (saw) did. So according to your understanding `Ali is a greedy fraud who's trying to take money out of people's mouth to feed himself.
Now listen to the understanding of Ahlul-Sunnah:
http://twelvershia.net/2013/11/14/response-to-maula-ali-as-considered-abu-bakr-and-umar-to-be-the-accursed-ones/
When `Umar said "You viewed him as a traitor and sinner" he didn't mean that they actually said that, he means they both acted in a way as if Abu Bakr was wrong in his judgement, even though they both knew he was right. `Ali later admits to Abu Bakr being right after he renews his pledge to him.
You wrote:
We look at Quran for looking for prophets and their inheritance;
“Solomon was thankful to his Lord for these blessing bestowed on him: ‘And Solomon was David’s Heir. And he said ‘O mankind! We have been taught the language of birds, and have been given (abundance) all things. This surely is evidence favour” [Surah Saba Verse 12]
That's assuming you hold the opinion that the narration is stating all prophets do not leave behind inheritance and this is false in my opinion, the narration was only referring to our Prophet (saw).
I add, if you hold the other view then that still works as the inheritance in the verse was not that of wealth rather another one as your own Imams state:
أَحْمَدُ بْنُ إِدْرِيسَ عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عَبْدِ الْجَبَّارِ عَنْ صَفْوَانَ بْنِ يَحْيَى عَنْ شُعَيْبٍ الْحَدَّادِ عَنْ ضُرَيْسٍ الْكُنَاسِيِّ قَالَ كُنْتُ عِنْدَ أَبِي عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ( عليه السلام ) وَ عِنْدَهُ أَبُو بَصِيرٍ فَقَالَ أَبُو عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ( عليه السلام ) إِنَّ دَاوُدَ وَرِثَ عِلْمَ الْأَنْبِيَاءِ وَ إِنَّ سُلَيْمَانَ وَرِثَ دَاوُدَ وَ إِنَّ مُحَمَّداً ( صلى الله عليه وآله ) وَرِثَ سُلَيْمَانَ وَ إِنَّا وَرِثْنَا مُحَمَّداً ( صلى الله عليه وآله ) وَ إِنَّ عِنْدَنَا صُحُفَ إِبْرَاهِيمَ وَ أَلْوَاحَ مُوسَى
[Ahmad bin Idris, from Muhammad bin `Abdul-Jabbar, from Safwan bin Yahya, from Shu`ayb al-Haddad, from Durays al-Kanasi that he said: I was with abu `Abdillah (as) and with him was abu Basir, so abu `Abdullah (as) said: “Dawud inherited the knowledge of the prophets, and Sulayman inherited Dawud, and Muhammad (saw) inherited Sulayman, and we inherited Muhammad (saw), and we have the Mushaf of Ibrahim and the tablets of Musa…]
You said:
The only one thing I would like to ask you is why did Imam Ali (as) not stop his wife Bibi Fatima (sa) from asking for fadak if he had truly heard this hadith before and the hadith of Muslim says otherwise. Why would Bibi Fatima (sa) go to ask Abu Bakr for Fadak if they were never meant to have it ?
Maybe she wasn't convinced by `Ali's words and wanted to hear it from Abu Bakr's mouth OR they simply thought they get to keep the lands but they'd use them for charity OR `Ali hadn't even discussed the matter with her as everything happened very quickly since this event happened right after Abu Bakr was given a public Bay`ah.
You wrote:
Does this leave us to assume that Bibi Fatima (sa) was hungry for a piece of land and had no knowledge of the hadith of her father ? Also, it wasn't Aisha that stopped the other wives that asked for their inheritance, it was her and hafsa who went to Uthman to ask for their share and Uthman sent them back by saying " Wasn't it you two who testified against fatima (sa) when she asked for her share by agreeing with Abu Bakr's statement " according to Kitab Sulaym Ibn Qays.
Don't quote a random forged book that appeared out of nowhere in the hands of Ibn Udhaynah who attributed it to a dead man who took it secretly from another man right before his death. The story of this book alone is enough to flush it down the drain.
-
Your lack of success continues because of your silly profile pic "BULB" which means "bar Umar lanat beshumar" further showing you're an average typical Shia.
You wrote:
As ypu can see, the hadith clearly states that Ali (as) and Abbas (ra) both considered Abu Bakr to be a liar and trecherous when he made this claim. Neither did Ali (as) say at that time that the prophet said such a thing.
Well `Ali is a greedy sinner according to your understanding because he admitted that the Prophet (saw) said so then he went and said that the man was a traitor for using the land the same way the Prophet (saw) did. So according to your understanding `Ali is a greedy fraud who's trying to take money out of people's mouth to feed himself.
Lolololololol. Did I hit a soft spot. Was he lying the first time he called Abu Bakr a liar and also the accusation came from Abbas ? Why won't you believe Abbas the first time but soon as he starts to call Ali (as) a liar, you're all agreeing with him ? Umar said it. He said that both of them though Abu Bakr and Umar during their " succession." Come on guys. I thought you could do better.
Now listen to the understanding of Ahlul-Sunnah:
http://twelvershia.net/2013/11/14/response-to-maula-ali-as-considered-abu-bakr-and-umar-to-be-the-accursed-ones/
When `Umar said "You viewed him as a traitor and sinner" he didn't mean that they actually said that, he means they both acted in a way as if Abu Bakr was wrong in his judgement, even though they both knew he was right. `Ali later admits to Abu Bakr being right after he renews his pledge to him.
Then why should we take Abbas seriously this time around ? Because he's speaking against Ali (as) and the nasibi in you just wants to see that ?
You wrote:
We look at Quran for looking for prophets and their inheritance;
“Solomon was thankful to his Lord for these blessing bestowed on him: ‘And Solomon was David’s Heir. And he said ‘O mankind! We have been taught the language of birds, and have been given (abundance) all things. This surely is evidence favour” [Surah Saba Verse 12]
That's assuming you hold the opinion that the narration is stating all prophets do not leave behind inheritance and this is false in my opinion, the narration was only referring to our Prophet (saw).
I add, if you hold the other view then that still works as the inheritance in the verse was not that of wealth rather another one as your own Imams state:
أَحْمَدُ بْنُ إِدْرِيسَ عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عَبْدِ الْجَبَّارِ عَنْ صَفْوَانَ بْنِ يَحْيَى عَنْ شُعَيْبٍ الْحَدَّادِ عَنْ ضُرَيْسٍ الْكُنَاسِيِّ قَالَ كُنْتُ عِنْدَ أَبِي عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ( عليه السلام ) وَ عِنْدَهُ أَبُو بَصِيرٍ فَقَالَ أَبُو عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ( عليه السلام ) إِنَّ دَاوُدَ وَرِثَ عِلْمَ الْأَنْبِيَاءِ وَ إِنَّ سُلَيْمَانَ وَرِثَ دَاوُدَ وَ إِنَّ مُحَمَّداً ( صلى الله عليه وآله ) وَرِثَ سُلَيْمَانَ وَ إِنَّا وَرِثْنَا مُحَمَّداً ( صلى الله عليه وآله ) وَ إِنَّ عِنْدَنَا صُحُفَ إِبْرَاهِيمَ وَ أَلْوَاحَ مُوسَى
[Ahmad bin Idris, from Muhammad bin `Abdul-Jabbar, from Safwan bin Yahya, from Shu`ayb al-Haddad, from Durays al-Kanasi that he said: I was with abu `Abdillah (as) and with him was abu Basir, so abu `Abdullah (as) said: “Dawud inherited the knowledge of the prophets, and Sulayman inherited Dawud, and Muhammad (saw) inherited Sulayman, and we inherited Muhammad (saw), and we have the Mushaf of Ibrahim and the tablets of Musa…]
All of a sudden you believe in Shia narrations of the Imams inheriting the knowledge of Prophet Muhammad (sawa) yet you have scholars that are giving you the fiqh opinions of just hearing the words of the Imams ?
You said:
The only one thing I would like to ask you is why did Imam Ali (as) not stop his wife Bibi Fatima (sa) from asking for fadak if he had truly heard this hadith before and the hadith of Muslim says otherwise. Why would Bibi Fatima (sa) go to ask Abu Bakr for Fadak if they were never meant to have it ?
Maybe she wasn't convinced by `Ali's words and wanted to hear it from Abu Bakr's mouth OR they simply thought they get to keep the lands but they'd use them for charity OR `Ali hadn't even discussed the matter with her as everything happened very quickly since this event happened right after Abu Bakr was given a public Bay`ah.
Another assumption.. Why did she not ask him for her inheritance when they showed up to her house to get the bayah of Ali (as) where Umar had his nose broken ?
You wrote:
Does this leave us to assume that Bibi Fatima (sa) was hungry for a piece of land and had no knowledge of the hadith of her father ? Also, it wasn't Aisha that stopped the other wives that asked for their inheritance, it was her and hafsa who went to Uthman to ask for their share and Uthman sent them back by saying " Wasn't it you two who testified against fatima (sa) when she asked for her share by agreeing with Abu Bakr's statement " according to Kitab Sulaym Ibn Qays.
Don't quote a random forged book that appeared out of nowhere in the hands of Ibn Udhaynah who attributed it to a dead man who took it secretly from another man right before his death. The story of this book alone is enough to flush it down the drain.
Perhaps it is forged for you. The copy I have has been carefully looked over and has been written with correct ahadith from neumerous copies of it that survived. The ahadith have been cited in a number of major Shia books and of course that doesn't matter to you.
Ya Ali (as) Madad.
-
Lolololololol. Did I hit a soft spot. Was he lying the first time he called Abu Bakr a liar and also the accusation came from Abbas ? Why won't you believe Abbas the first time but soon as he starts to call Ali (as) a liar, you're all agreeing with him ? Umar said it. He said that both of them though Abu Bakr and Umar during their " succession." Come on guys. I thought you could do better.
I just explained it to you, refer to my earlier post as well as the link I provided. I clearly reconciled whereas you made `Ali look like a greedy liar, shame on you, how can you call yourself a Shia?
All of a sudden you believe in Shia narrations of the Imams inheriting the knowledge of Prophet Muhammad (sawa) yet you have scholars that are giving you the fiqh opinions of just hearing the words of the Imams ?
I don't believe in them but they're binding upon you and they agree with the position of many Sunni scholars who said the inheritance was that of knowledge and position.
Another assumption.. Why did she not ask him for her inheritance when they showed up to her house to get the bayah of Ali (as) where Umar had his nose broken ?
Your Persian overlords are the ones who had their noses broken. `Umar married `Ali's daughter and `Ali named his son `Umar as a reward for him and also appointed his son `Abdullah as governor. `Ali must really love `Umar no?
Perhaps it is forged for you. The copy I have has been carefully looked over and has been written with correct ahadith from neumerous copies of it that survived. The ahadith have been cited in a number of major Shia books and of course that doesn't matter to you.
That's why some of your own scholars cast doubt on it. It's a failed book by an unknown author that suddenly appeared in the hands of `Umar bin Udhaynah the Rafidi Shaykh, this Rafidi attributed it to ibn abi `Ayyash who was dead so there was no way to verify this, and ibn abi `Ayyash supposedly said he received it from Sulaym in secret before his death and nobody knew about it. The book is shady and not worth a cent.
Ya Ali (as) Madad.
Ya Allah madad. As you can see Allah is granting me success, `Ali isn't granting you anything.
-
Which success are you talking about ? You haven't answered anything ? You present a Shia hadith and when you're questioned on it, you go ahead and deny it. You presented a hadith where an Imam (as) is saying that he inherited the knowledge of Prophet Muhammad (sawa) yet you forget that there have been no mentions made about any materialistic possession. Yes, I'm aware of the Al Kafi narrations as well that the scholars are the hiers of The Prophet (sawa) and also the Imams (asws). Where does it mention any materialistic possession ? The book is not worth a cent to you because you're in denial lol. Such a strawman argument you've concocted, especially the one where Ali (as) named his son after Umar hahahahahaha.
Ya Ali (as) Madad.
-
Your Persian overlords are the ones who had their noses broken. `Umar married `Ali's daughter and `Ali named his son `Umar as a reward for him and also appointed his son `Abdullah as governor. `Ali must really love `Umar no?
The silly habit of nasibis and their worries with Iran. Why can't Shia be from any other country ?
-
I've answered everything bro, you seem to be in denial. Once you succeed in writing anything that makes sense I'll return to refute those too. Take your time and try to think of something intelligent.
Laughing it out won't make your failure look better.
:)
-
I've answered everything bro, you seem to be in denial. Once you succeed in writing anything that makes sense I'll return to refute those too. Take your time and try to think of something intelligent.
Laughing it out won't make your failure look better.
:)
Lol when you get an answer for my questions, do come back.
-
Lol when you get an answer for my questions, do come back.
Lol and when you have a new question which isn't already answered in this thread, do come back.
-
Lol and when you have a new question which isn't already answered in this thread, do come back.
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).
-
I've read that brother. And, this is doing exactly what you're accusing me of; taking things out of context and starting off at the accusation of Abbas.
It is because in that incident, it was Abbas(RA) who FIRST used those words for Ali(RA). THEN Umar(RA) used it as an ASSUMPTION. So obviously the one who used FIRST should be discussed first, that is inline with the context. Makes sense now?
You said they were calling Ali (as) that
I didn't say, "THEY" were calling Ali(RA), I said ONLY Abbas(RA) said those words. So again you misunderstood, even after reading everything as you claim. Great.
and then you said he didn't call the shaykhain that.
Yes, he didn't. Nowhere will you find, Ali(RA) SAID or Abbas SAID, rather those words are of Umar(RA) who said, YOU BOTH THOUGHT.... , so see its an assumption of Umar(RA), why he said that? Then as I said earlier refer the context, which you deliberately avoid. It was because Abbas(RA) FIRST USED IT FOR ALI(RA), so Umar(RA) was making use of rhetoric.
Umar did not approve of Abbas’s words against Ali; Umar took the correct view that people can get in arguments and make honest mistakes and nobody should simply jump to strong personal attacks like Abbas did against Ali, calling him a “liar, sinful, treacherous, and dishonest.” Therefore, Umar repeated the words of Abbas verbatim in order to prove a point, Umar was just making use of rhetoric. This is an example of, (reductio ad absurdum; Latin: “reduction to the absurd”) also known as an apagogical argument, which is a type of logical argument where one assumes a claim for the sake of argument, derives an absurd or ridiculous outcome, and then concludes that the original assumption must have been wrong as it led to an absurd result.
We would like to give an example just to enrich the mind: A mother and father who had told their two sons that the capitol of France was Paris. A few days later, the two sons get in an argument over the capitol of France. One brother says the capitol is Berlin, whereas the other says the capitol is London. When they go to their father to arbitrate over this matter, one brother says about the other: “Father, can you settle this dispute of mine with my idiot brother who thinks the capitol of France is Berlin?” The father is not appalled at the fact that his two little sons forgot the capitol of France; this is a mistake that anybody can make. But what he is appalled at is the language used by this son, calling his brother an “idiot.” The father then says: “So you thought of Mom as an idiot when she said that Paris was the capitol of France, and you thought I was an idiot when I said that too?” By saying this, the father is trying to dissuade the son from jumping to conclusions about his brother’s character, because in such a process, he would also believe his mother and father to be idiots as well.
Hence, Umar was simply repeating the words of Abbas verbatim. How can the Shias ignore this “coincidence” especially in light of Arabic Balagha? It is obvious from this that Umar was proving a point, and his words should thus be analyzed in this context. Another important observation is that the Shia propagandists will say that it was Ali who called Abu Bakr and Umar to be a “liar, sinful, treacherous, and dishonest.” But the reality is that, it was merely Umar who said that Abbas was implying this. There is a significant point.
It's clear as day that they didn't agree with the statement of Abu Bakr, so much so, that even Umar had to mention it.
Well the apparent wording of Ali(RA) and Abbas(RA) shows they believed in the hadeeth reported by Abu bakr(RA), unless you bring the Shia master excuse of Taqiyyah. The most dumbest one though.
This is from the same hadeeth you quoted:
Then he(Umar) turned to abbas and ‘ali and said: I adjure you both by Allah by Whose order the heavens and earth are sustained, don’t you know that the messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said:” We do not have any heirs; what we leave behind is (to be given in) charity”? They (too) said: Yes.
So Again, you proved what I said earlier, you either didn't read the hadeeth or you don't understand english properly.
-
I didn't say, "THEY" were calling Ali(RA), I said ONLY Abbas(RA) said those words. So again you misunderstood, even after reading everything as you claim. Great.
and then you said he didn't call the shaykhain that.
Yes, he didn't. Nowhere will you find, Ali(RA) SAID or Abbas SAID, rather those words are of Umar(RA) who said, YOU BOTH THOUGHT.... , so see its an assumption of Umar(RA), why he said that? Then as I said earlier refer the context, which you deliberately avoid. It was because Abbas(RA) FIRST USED IT FOR ALI(RA), so Umar(RA) was making use of rhetoric
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 didn't say, "THEY" were calling Ali(RA), I said ONLY Abbas(RA) said those words. So again you misunderstood, even after reading everything as you claim. Great.
and then you said he didn't call the shaykhain that.
Yes, he didn't. Nowhere will you find, Ali(RA) SAID or Abbas SAID, rather those words are of Umar(RA) who said, YOU BOTH THOUGHT.... , so see its an assumption of Umar(RA), why he said that? Then as I said earlier refer the context, which you deliberately avoid. It was because Abbas(RA) FIRST USED IT FOR ALI(RA), so Umar(RA) was making use of rhetoric
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 don't remember if this is the forth time or fifth time, I advice you to read the context, but seems you are determined not to. Anyways let us see, with what claim did they approach Umar(RA), did they go to ask it as owners or trustees.
Umar said: Both of you have come and your purpose is identical. You said: Entrust the property to us. I said: If you wish that I should entrust it to you, it will be on the condition that both of you will undertake to abide by a pledge made with Allah that you will use it in the same way as the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) used it. (Sahih Muslim Book 019, Number 4349)
Umar said: I said: If you wish that I should entrust it to you, it will be on the condition that both of you will undertake to abide by a pledge made with Allah that you will use it in the same way as the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) used it. (Sahih Muslim Book 019, Number 4349)
So what the words of Umar(RA) mean is that`Ali asked for his wife’s part to be entrusted to him and al-`Abbas asked for his nephew’s part to be entrusted to him.
It is clear that both Abbas and Ali understood that although the produce of the land goes to charity, yet they viewed that, they can still manage the share which they would have got as inheritance, by being its trustees, and eat from it, since the Prophet (saw) said: “The family of Muhammad may eat from it.” To them being in control of this Waqf did not pose any contradiction to the prophetic narration.
So they went to Umar(RA) to be entrusted with that property, they didn't demand it has their own property. Got the point? So read it in context, and stop picking statement from here and there.
-
I don't remember if this is the forth time or fifth time, I advice you to read the context, but seems you are determined not to. Anyways let us see, with what claim did they approach Umar(RA), did they go to ask it as owners or trustees.
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.
Who here is " both of you " ? Who is the true, virtuous and well guided ?
-
Who here is " both of you " ? Who is the true, virtuous and well guided ?
Everything has been answered and clarified with solid evidences, but you have started running in circle, since you are too arrogant to accept that you are wrong in your argument.
-
Everything has been answered and clarified with solid evidences, but you have started running in circle, since you are too arrogant to accept that you are wrong in your argument.
Are you kidding me ? It's you that's going in circles and trying to avoid the question. Your " Response " starts in the middle of the hadith where Abbas is calling Ali (as) a liar. 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.
-
Everything has been answered and clarified with solid evidences, but you have started running in circle, since you are too arrogant to accept that you are wrong in your argument.
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. Clearly in your eyes Ali (as) was a liar even in the eyes of his family. Abbas is another example. He wouldn't need to go asking Abu Bakr for his share if he actually thought them to be honest and went there even after knowing the hadith beforehand.
-
This is typical of the deviant sects.
Nitpicking and petty arguments over nothing.
Keep in mind - this rafidi doesn't actually care about anything in Sahih al-Bukhari - except the ahadith that his sect can twist for their own purposes.
We can simply show him:
Volume 5, Book 57, Number 20
Narrated by Muhammad bin Al-Hanafiya
I asked my father ('Ali bin Abi Talib), "Who are the best people after Allah's Apostle ?" He said, "Abu Bakr." I asked, "Who then?" He said, "Then 'Umar. " I was afraid he would say "Uthman, so I said, "Then you?" He said, "I am only an ordinary person.
This rafidi will then reject the hadith based on his own whims and desires - typical of the deviant sects.
The issue, when you get right down to it, is they see the Seerah and Tarikh through a microscope. They concentrate on singular events whose meaning they can corrupt with their deviancy - while ignoring the rest of it which refutes their satanic religion.
-
This is typical of the deviant sects.
Nitpicking and petty arguments over nothing.
Keep in mind - this rafidi doesn't actually care about anything in Sahih al-Bukhari - except the ahadith that his sect can twist for their own purposes.
We can simply show him:
Volume 5, Book 57, Number 20
Narrated by Muhammad bin Al-Hanafiya
I asked my father ('Ali bin Abi Talib), "Who are the best people after Allah's Apostle ?" He said, "Abu Bakr." I asked, "Who then?" He said, "Then 'Umar. " I was afraid he would say "Uthman, so I said, "Then you?" He said, "I am only an ordinary person.
This rafidi will then reject the hadith based on his own whims and desires - typical of the deviant sects.
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 ?
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 ?
4:11:
"Allah enjoins you about [the share of inheritance of] your children: A male's share shall equal that of two females -- in case there are only daughters, more than two shall have two-thirds of what has been left behind. And if there be only one daughter, her share shall be half -- and if the deceased has children, the parents shall inherit a sixth each, and if he has no children and the parents are his heirs then his mother shall receive a third, and if he has brothers and sisters then the mother's share is the same one-sixth. [These shares shall be distributed] after carrying out any will made by the deceased or payment of any debt owed by him (the deceased). You know not who among your children and your parents are nearest to you in benefit. This is the law of Allah. Indeed Allah is wise, all knowing."
4:176:
"They ask you. Say: Allah enjoins you about your kalalah heirs that if a man dies childless and he has only a sister, she shall inherit half of what he leaves; and if she dies childless, then her brother shall be her heir; and if their are two sisters, they shall inherit two-thirds of what he [or she] leaves. If there are many brothers and sisters, the share of each male should be that of two females. Allah makes [His commands] clear to you, so that you do not err. Allah has knowledge of all things."
Does this not apply to Prophet Muhammad (sawa):
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 ?
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 ?
Volume 4, Book 51, Number 10 :
Narrated by Ibn 'Abbas
The custom (in old days) was that the property of the deceased would be inherited by his offspring; as for the parents (of the deceased), they would inherit by the will of the deceased. Then Allah cancelled from that custom whatever He wished and fixed for the male double the amount inherited by the female, and for each parent a sixth (of the whole legacy) and for the wife an eighth or a fourth and for the husband a half or a fourth.
If we are to follow the example of Prophet Muhammad (sawa) and he said advised people to give the inheritance of the deceased to the children, how is that these don't apply to him ? If they don't apply to him then the charity rule doesn't apply to him either since it was his exclusive property and he was eating from it during his lifetime and didn't give it all away while he was alive. It's funny that not even his wives knew of the hadith yet somehow abu bakr and umar & co managed to hear it and none of the prophets children or wives except for aisha heard it.
-
Please advise me why 'Ali (ra) insulted Abu Bakr (ra) when he was supposedly doing taqiyyah out of fear for his life?
And why did he insult Abu Bakr (ra) infront of 'Umar (ra), the guy that killed his wife and burned his house?
Why didn't the cold-blooded murderer 'Umar (ra) just execute him then and there? Why did he even leave him alive?
And he's insulting Abu Bakr (ra) in the court of the bloody thirsty tyrant Caliph 'Umar (ra)?
Wasn't he told to be patient and keep his mouth shut (as per your rafidi fabrications)?
-
Please advise me why 'Ali (ra) insulted Abu Bakr (ra) when he was supposedly doing taqiyyah out of fear for his life?
Is killing and insulting the same thing ? Could Abu Bakr be dethroned if he was insulted ? Why is that you ignore that part of the hadith yet take everything else ? 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.
And why did he insult Abu Bakr (ra) infront of 'Umar (ra), the guy that killed his wife and burned his house?
Ali (as) broke his nose the first time this guy showed up to his door.
Why didn't the cold-blooded murderer 'Umar (ra) just execute him then and there? Why did he even leave him alive?
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.
And he's insulting Abu Bakr (ra) in the court of the bloody thirsty tyrant Caliph 'Umar (ra)?
As per nasibi narrations, yes.
Wasn't he told to be patient and keep his mouth shut (as per your rafidi fabrications)?
Refer to the answer above and reply to the questions posed, not in this post but the one above, that's if you even read it.
-
Everything has been answered and clarified with solid evidences, but you have started running in circle, since you are too arrogant to accept that you are wrong in your argument.
Are you kidding me ? It's you that's going in circles and trying to avoid the question. Your " Response " starts in the middle of the hadith where Abbas is calling Ali (as) a liar. 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 you were taught before, the part where Abbas(RA) calls Ali(RA) a liar and dishonest person COMES BEFORE the part where Umar(RA) said you both thought Abu Bakr(RA) to be liar and dishonest person. SO you see its you who have jumped to the later part cutting off the part BEFORE IT, thus this is your dishonesty or arrogance since you are too afraid of facts.
Let me quote you again regarding the understanding of these statements:
Umar did not approve of Abbas’s words against Ali; Umar took the correct view that people can get in arguments and make honest mistakes and nobody should simply jump to strong personal attacks like Abbas did against Ali, calling him a “liar, sinful, treacherous, and dishonest.” Therefore, Umar repeated the words of Abbas verbatim in order to prove a point, Umar was just making use of rhetoric. This is an example of, (reductio ad absurdum; Latin: “reduction to the absurd”) also known as an apagogical argument, which is a type of logical argument where one assumes a claim for the sake of argument, derives an absurd or ridiculous outcome, and then concludes that the original assumption must have been wrong as it led to an absurd result.
We would like to give an example just to enrich the mind: A mother and father who had told their two sons that the capitol of France was Paris. A few days later, the two sons get in an argument over the capitol of France. One brother says the capitol is Berlin, whereas the other says the capitol is London. When they go to their father to arbitrate over this matter, one brother says about the other: “Father, can you settle this dispute of mine with my idiot brother who thinks the capitol of France is Berlin?” The father is not appalled at the fact that his two little sons forgot the capitol of France; this is a mistake that anybody can make. But what he is appalled at is the language used by this son, calling his brother an “idiot.” The father then says: “So you thought of Mom as an idiot when she said that Paris was the capitol of France, and you thought I was an idiot when I said that too?” By saying this, the father is trying to dissuade the son from jumping to conclusions about his brother’s character, because in such a process, he would also believe his mother and father to be idiots as well.
Hence, Umar was simply repeating the words of Abbas verbatim. How can the Shias ignore this “coincidence” especially in light of Arabic Balagha? It is obvious from this that Umar was proving a point, and his words should thus be analyzed in this context. Another important observation is that the Shia propagandists will say that it was Ali who called Abu Bakr and Umar to be a “liar, sinful, treacherous, and dishonest.” But the reality is that, it was merely Umar who said that Abbas was implying this. There is a significant point.
As for the land being " Waqf " how come the only people that knew of this were Umar and Abu Bakr ?
There were others too, but ofcourse, you will say, how come these people. So we have no cure for a disease called stupidity.
From Abu Hurairah(ra) in Sahih Muslim:
وَحَدَّثَنِي ابْنُ أَبِي خَلَفٍ، حَدَّثَنَا زَكَرِيَّاءُ بْنُ عَدِيٍّ، أَخْبَرَنَا ابْنُ الْمُبَارَكِ، عَنْ يُونُسَ، عَنِ الزُّهْرِيِّ، عَنِ الأَعْرَجِ، عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ، عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ “ لاَ نُورَثُ مَا تَرَكْنَا صَدَقَةٌ ” .
From Hudhayfah(ra) in AL-BAZZAR:
حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو كَامِلٍ، وَالنَّضْرُ بْنُ طَاهِرٍ، قَالا: أَخْبَرَنَا الْفُضَيْلُ بْنُ سُلَيْمَانَ،قَالَ: أَخْبَرَنَا أَبُو مَالِكٍ، عَنْ رِبْعِيٍّ، عَنْ حُذَيْفَةَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ، قَالَ: قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ: ” لا نُوَرَّثُ مَا تَرَكْنَا صَدَقَةٌ “، هَذَا الْكَلامُ لا نَعْلَمُ يُرْوَى عَنْ حُذَيْفَةَ إِلا مِنْ هَذَا الْوَجْهِ، وَلا رَوَاهُ عَنْ أَبِي مَالِكٍ إِلا الْفُضَيْلُ بْنُ سُلَيْمَانَ
From Aishah(ra) in Sahih Bukhari.
حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ مَسْلَمَةَ، عَنْ مَالِكٍ، عَنِ ابْنِ شِهَابٍ، عَنْ عُرْوَةَ، عَنْ عَائِشَةَ ـ رضى الله عنها أَنَّ أَزْوَاجَ، النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم حِينَ تُوُفِّيَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم أَرَدْنَ أَنْ يَبْعَثْنَ عُثْمَانَ إِلَى أَبِي بَكْرٍ يَسْأَلْنَهُ مِيرَاثَهُنَّ. فَقَالَتْ عَائِشَةُ أَلَيْسَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم “ لاَ نُورَثُ مَا تَرَكْنَا صَدَقَةٌ
Don't tell me that Abbas and Ali (as) weren't familiar with this hadith.
Why? Were they Prophets on whom shariah was revealed? There are a number of incidents regarding which Ali(RA) didn't know the rulings. But when he was informed he accepted it, same as in the case here, the both accepted the hadeeth.
-
Please advise me why 'Ali (ra) insulted Abu Bakr (ra) when he was supposedly doing taqiyyah out of fear for his life?
Is killing and insulting the same thing ? Could Abu Bakr be dethroned if he was insulted ? Why is that you ignore that part of the hadith yet take everything else ? 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.
And why did he insult Abu Bakr (ra) infront of 'Umar (ra), the guy that killed his wife and burned his house?
Ali (as) broke his nose the first time this guy showed up to his door.
Why didn't the cold-blooded murderer 'Umar (ra) just execute him then and there? Why did he even leave him alive?
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.
And he's insulting Abu Bakr (ra) in the court of the bloody thirsty tyrant Caliph 'Umar (ra)?
As per nasibi narrations, yes.
Wasn't he told to be patient and keep his mouth shut (as per your rafidi fabrications)?
Refer to the answer above and reply to the questions posed, not in this post but the one above, that's if you even read it.
Subhan Allah!
Look, now the rafidi wants to probe deeper into the "meaning" and "context" of a hadith - when it suites him.
Meanwhile - he ignores any explanation that contradicts his established religious view.
The mark of deviancy.
-
As you were taught before, the part where Abbas(RA) calls Ali(RA) a liar and dishonest person COMES BEFORE the part where Umar(RA) said you both thought Abu Bakr(RA) to be liar and dishonest person. SO you see its you who have jumped to the later part cutting off the part BEFORE IT, thus this is your dishonesty or arrogance since you are too afraid of facts.
Finally you say something about that accusation! Brother, was this the first time the went to ask for their shares (i.e Abbas and Ali (as) ) ? How can it be that in one narration you showed me, where Bibi Fatima (sa) supposedly agreed with the word of tyrant 1 ( i.e Abu Bakr ) yet she didn't believe her own husband if he had already made her aware of this ? We have narrations about Bibi Fatima (sa) that state she died angry or upset with Abu Bakr yet we have no narrations stating the same regarding Ali (as) ? If she believed Abu Bakr then why does it say in Bukhari and Muslim that she died angry with ABU BAKR ALONE even though she supposedly believed him and accepted his response to her asking for her share ?
Let me quote you again regarding the understanding of these statements:
Umar did not approve of Abbas’s words against Ali; Umar took the correct view that people can get in arguments and make honest mistakes and nobody should simply jump to strong personal attacks like Abbas did against Ali, calling him a “liar, sinful, treacherous, and dishonest.” Therefore, Umar repeated the words of Abbas verbatim in order to prove a point, Umar was just making use of rhetoric. This is an example of, (reductio ad absurdum; Latin: “reduction to the absurd”) also known as an apagogical argument, which is a type of logical argument where one assumes a claim for the sake of argument, derives an absurd or ridiculous outcome, and then concludes that the original assumption must have been wrong as it led to an absurd result.
No where does it say that the first time they didn't say that Abu Bakr was a liar when he claimed such a statement has been made by Prophet Muhammad (sawa). It is clear by your own admition that such an exchange of words did take place between Abbas and Ali (as).
We would like to give an example just to enrich the mind: A mother and father who had told their two sons that the capitol of France was Paris. A few days later, the two sons get in an argument over the capitol of France. One brother says the capitol is Berlin, whereas the other says the capitol is London. When they go to their father to arbitrate over this matter, one brother says about the other: “Father, can you settle this dispute of mine with my idiot brother who thinks the capitol of France is Berlin?” The father is not appalled at the fact that his two little sons forgot the capitol of France; this is a mistake that anybody can make. But what he is appalled at is the language used by this son, calling his brother an “idiot.” The father then says: “So you thought of Mom as an idiot when she said that Paris was the capitol of France, and you thought I was an idiot when I said that too?” By saying this, the father is trying to dissuade the son from jumping to conclusions about his brother’s character, because in such a process, he would also believe his mother and father to be idiots as well.
One word; Irrelevant. In this hilarious analogy, the mother and father have told both of their sons the same thing, yet, the still considered eachother to be wrong. In the case of Abbas and Ali (as) this does not apply since they weren't told of such a hadith. Had they been informed, they wouldn't come to ask for their share. It's possible to say that one might've forgotten and is claiming the wrong thing but not that the one who said the wrong thing is also agreeing with the one that supposedly remembered the correct thing. Try again.
Hence, Umar was simply repeating the words of Abbas verbatim. How can the Shias ignore this “coincidence” especially in light of Arabic Balagha? It is obvious from this that Umar was proving a point, and his words should thus be analyzed in this context. Another important observation is that the Shia propagandists will say that it was Ali who called Abu Bakr and Umar to be a “liar, sinful, treacherous, and dishonest.” But the reality is that, it was merely Umar who said that Abbas was implying this. There is a significant point.
Look above.
As for the land being " Waqf " how come the only people that knew of this were Umar and Abu Bakr ?
There were others too, but ofcourse, you will say, how come these people. So we have no cure for a disease called stupidity.
From Abu Hurairah(ra) in Sahih Muslim:
وَحَدَّثَنِي ابْنُ أَبِي خَلَفٍ، حَدَّثَنَا زَكَرِيَّاءُ بْنُ عَدِيٍّ، أَخْبَرَنَا ابْنُ الْمُبَارَكِ، عَنْ يُونُسَ، عَنِ الزُّهْرِيِّ، عَنِ الأَعْرَجِ، عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ، عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ “ لاَ نُورَثُ مَا تَرَكْنَا صَدَقَةٌ ” .
From Hudhayfah(ra) in AL-BAZZAR:
حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو كَامِلٍ، وَالنَّضْرُ بْنُ طَاهِرٍ، قَالا: أَخْبَرَنَا الْفُضَيْلُ بْنُ سُلَيْمَانَ،قَالَ: أَخْبَرَنَا أَبُو مَالِكٍ، عَنْ رِبْعِيٍّ، عَنْ حُذَيْفَةَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ، قَالَ: قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ: ” لا نُوَرَّثُ مَا تَرَكْنَا صَدَقَةٌ “، هَذَا الْكَلامُ لا نَعْلَمُ يُرْوَى عَنْ حُذَيْفَةَ إِلا مِنْ هَذَا الْوَجْهِ، وَلا رَوَاهُ عَنْ أَبِي مَالِكٍ إِلا الْفُضَيْلُ بْنُ سُلَيْمَانَ
From Aishah(ra) in Sahih Bukhari.
حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ مَسْلَمَةَ، عَنْ مَالِكٍ، عَنِ ابْنِ شِهَابٍ، عَنْ عُرْوَةَ، عَنْ عَائِشَةَ ـ رضى الله عنها أَنَّ أَزْوَاجَ، النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم حِينَ تُوُفِّيَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم أَرَدْنَ أَنْ يَبْعَثْنَ عُثْمَانَ إِلَى أَبِي بَكْرٍ يَسْأَلْنَهُ مِيرَاثَهُنَّ. فَقَالَتْ عَائِشَةُ أَلَيْسَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم “ لاَ نُورَثُ مَا تَرَكْنَا صَدَقَةٌ.
English please. It is known that Aisha and Hafsa both went to ask for their share as Why? Were they Prophets on whom shariah was revealed? There are a number of incidents regarding which Ali(RA) didn't know the rulings. But when he was informed he accepted it, same as in the case here, the both accepted the hadeeth.
I would've believed you if I had not heard the narrations where Ali (as) has been called the best of judges and the walking and talking Qur'an.
-
Subhan Allah!
Look, now the rafidi wants to probe deeper into the "meaning" and "context" of a hadith - when it suites him.
Meanwhile - he ignores any explanation that contradicts his established religious view.
The mark of deviancy.
This is not a friday khutba. I don't take anything you tell me without questioning it. As for my questions I asked you, you still haven't answered them. Your explaination is weak and holds no value. There's nothing worthy in your explaination. The brother above you has replied with the same reply at least three times without any explainations for my questions. QIYAS TO THE MAX.
-
We would like to give an example just to enrich the mind: A mother and father who had told their two sons that the capitol of France was Paris. A few days later, the two sons get in an argument over the capitol of France. One brother says the capitol is Berlin, whereas the other says the capitol is London. When they go to their father to arbitrate over this matter, one brother says about the other: “Father, can you settle this dispute of mine with my idiot brother who thinks the capitol of France is Berlin?” The father is not appalled at the fact that his two little sons forgot the capitol of France; this is a mistake that anybody can make. But what he is appalled at is the language used by this son, calling his brother an “idiot.” The father then says: “So you thought of Mom as an idiot when she said that Paris was the capitol of France, and you thought I was an idiot when I said that too?” By saying this, the father is trying to dissuade the son from jumping to conclusions about his brother’s character, because in such a process, he would also believe his mother and father to be idiots as well.
You're still explaining the exchange of words between Ali (as) and Abbas. Not the one where BOTH OF THEM called Abu Bakr a liar after hearing his claim regarding the hadith of inheritance.
-
Subhan Allah!
Look, now the rafidi wants to probe deeper into the "meaning" and "context" of a hadith - when it suites him.
Meanwhile - he ignores any explanation that contradicts his established religious view.
The mark of deviancy.
This is not a friday khutba. I don't take anything you tell me without questioning it. As for my questions I asked you, you still haven't answered them. Your explaination is weak and holds no value. There's nothing worthy in your explaination. The brother above you has replied with the same reply at least three times without any explainations for my questions. QIYAS TO THE MAX.
As an ex-rafidi, I know your mentality very well.
There is absolutely no point in explaining anything to you - I commend the other brothers for their patience. It is, however, futile, especially with someone who is openly proud of being a rafidi.
A better approach, I believe, is to simply point out the glaring contradictions in your religion built of legos. I say legos, because you deviants simply re-arrange the pieces whenever it suites you.
You claim:
'Ali (ra) openly insulted Abu Bakr (ra) in the court of the Caliph. He insulted him infront of 'Umar (ra), a tyrannical murderer according to your sect. He did this over Fadak. Over money and property.
You further claim:
Please advise me why 'Ali (ra) insulted Abu Bakr (ra) when he was supposedly doing taqiyyah out of fear for his life?
Is killing and insulting the same thing ? Could Abu Bakr be dethroned if he was insulted ?
So the simple question is:
Why, ya rafidi, did he not insult him over his Khilafa, if 'Ali (ra) supposedly had no fear, and insults aren't going to threaten the "usurpers"? Why all the effort for Fadak?
Your religion is a religion of contradictions.
-
Finally you say something about that accusation! Brother, was this the first time the went to ask for their shares (i.e Abbas and Ali (as) ) ? How can it be that in one narration you showed me, where Bibi Fatima (sa) supposedly agreed with the word of tyrant 1 ( i.e Abu Bakr ) yet she didn't believe her own husband if he had already made her aware of this ?
I explained you in Post#52 , that this They both went WITH A DIFFERENT REQUEST to Umar(RA). They went to ask him that their shares which they would have got as inheritance, should be ENTRUSTED to them. It means just went to ask Umar(RA) that they should be made trustees over their respective share. So its with a different request, its not asking to be granted the shares as owners, rather as trustees. See this Post#52
http://forum.twelvershia.net/quran-tafseer/verse-3333-gender-change-from-feminine-to-masculine/msg11139/#msg11139
We have narrations about Bibi Fatima (sa) that state she died angry or upset with Abu Bakr yet we have no narrations stating the same regarding Ali (as) ? If she believed Abu Bakr then why does it say in Bukhari and Muslim that she died angry with ABU BAKR ALONE even though she supposedly believed him and accepted his response to her asking for her share ?
That is the idraaj of narrator Zuhri. And his Mursal reports are unacceptable. See one example:
حدثنا أبو صالح الضراري، قال: حدثنا عبد الرزاق بن همام، عن معمر، عن الزهري، عن عروة، عن عائشة، أن فاطمة والعباس أتيا أبا بكر يطلبان ميراثهما من رسول الله ص، وهما حينئذ يطلبان أرضه من فدك، وسهمه من خيبر، فقال لهما أبو بكر: أما انى سمعت رسول الله يقول: [لا نورث، ما تركنا فهو صدقة، إنما يأكل آل محمد في هذا المال] وإني والله لا أدع أمرا رأيت رسول الله يصنعه إلا صنعته قال: فهجرته فاطمة فلم تكلمه في ذلك حتى ماتت، فدفنها علي ليلا، ولم يؤذن بها أبا بكر وكان لعلي وجه من الناس حياة فاطمة، فلما توفيت فاطمة انصرفت وجوه الناس عن علي، فمكثت فاطمة ستة أشهر بعد رسول الله ص، ثم توفيت. قال معمر: فقال رجل للزهري: أفلم يبايعه علي ستة أشهر! قال: لا، ولا أحد من بني هاشم، حتى بايعه علي قال لا، ولا أحد من بني هاشم
‘Aishah (said): Fatimah and al-Abbas came to Abu Bakr demanding their share of inheritance of the Messenger of God. They were demanding the Messenger of God’s land in Fadak and his share of Khaybar’s tribute. Abu Bakr replied, “I have heard the Messenger of God say, “Our, i.e. the prophets’ property cannot be inherited and whatever we leave behind is alms to be given in charity. The family of Muhammad will eat from it. By God, I will not abandon a course which I saw the Messenger of god practicing, but will continue it accordingly. He said: Fatimah shunned him and did not speak to him about it until she died. Ali buried her at night and did not permit Abu Bakr to attend her burial. While Fatimah was alive, Ali held respect among the people. After she died their attention turned away form him. Ma’mar: A man asked al-Zuhri, “Did Ali not give his oath of allegiance for six months?” He said: “No, nor anyone of the Banu Hashim until Ali rendered his,”.(Tarikh al-tabari, Dar al-Turath, Beirut, 1387 A.H. vol.3 pp.207-208))
For details on this issue refer this link:
https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2014/09/11/10-sunni-answers-to-shiapens-article-on-fadak-and-inheritance-of-prophetsaw-chapter-ten/
No where does it say that the first time they didn't say that Abu Bakr was a liar when he claimed such a statement has been made by Prophet Muhammad (sawa). It is clear by your own admition that such an exchange of words did take place between Abbas and Ali (as).
Where does it say that they said that to Abubakr(RA)? I believe you are bringing false claims out of nowhere, just to discredit the explanation given, regarding Umar(RA) using the rhetoric. Because if they SAID to Abubakr that he was liar, as you claim, then the explanation about Umar(RA) using it as rhetoric is wrong. But if you have no proof that they said so, then the explanation that Umar(RA) was using it as rhetoric is accurate, because Umar(RA) uses the word, YOU THOUGHT, he didn't say, you said. See the difference.
One word; Irrelevant. In this hilarious analogy, the mother and father have told both of their sons the same thing, yet, the still considered eachother to be wrong. In the case of Abbas and Ali (as) this does not apply since they weren't told of such a hadith. Had they been informed, they wouldn't come to ask for their share.
They didn't come to ask it as the owners, but they wanted to entrusted over their shares. See the explanation I gave above, along with the link of Post #52, which clearly shows that you are running in circles. Everything has been answered, as i told before.
From Abu Hurairah(ra) in Sahih Muslim:
وَحَدَّثَنِي ابْنُ أَبِي خَلَفٍ، حَدَّثَنَا زَكَرِيَّاءُ بْنُ عَدِيٍّ، أَخْبَرَنَا ابْنُ الْمُبَارَكِ، عَنْ يُونُسَ، عَنِ الزُّهْرِيِّ، عَنِ الأَعْرَجِ، عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ، عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ “ لاَ نُورَثُ مَا تَرَكْنَا صَدَقَةٌ ” .
From Hudhayfah(ra) in AL-BAZZAR:
حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو كَامِلٍ، وَالنَّضْرُ بْنُ طَاهِرٍ، قَالا: أَخْبَرَنَا الْفُضَيْلُ بْنُ سُلَيْمَانَ،قَالَ: أَخْبَرَنَا أَبُو مَالِكٍ، عَنْ رِبْعِيٍّ، عَنْ حُذَيْفَةَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ، قَالَ: قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ: ” لا نُوَرَّثُ مَا تَرَكْنَا صَدَقَةٌ “، هَذَا الْكَلامُ لا نَعْلَمُ يُرْوَى عَنْ حُذَيْفَةَ إِلا مِنْ هَذَا الْوَجْهِ، وَلا رَوَاهُ عَنْ أَبِي مَالِكٍ إِلا الْفُضَيْلُ بْنُ سُلَيْمَانَ
From Aishah(ra) in Sahih Bukhari.
حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ مَسْلَمَةَ، عَنْ مَالِكٍ، عَنِ ابْنِ شِهَابٍ، عَنْ عُرْوَةَ، عَنْ عَائِشَةَ ـ رضى الله عنها أَنَّ أَزْوَاجَ، النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم حِينَ تُوُفِّيَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم أَرَدْنَ أَنْ يَبْعَثْنَ عُثْمَانَ إِلَى أَبِي بَكْرٍ يَسْأَلْنَهُ مِيرَاثَهُنَّ. فَقَالَتْ عَائِشَةُ أَلَيْسَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم “ لاَ نُورَثُ مَا تَرَكْنَا صَدَقَةٌ.
English please. It is known that Aisha and Hafsa both went to ask for their share as
From Abu Hurairah(ra) in Sahih Muslim: Prophet(SAWS) said: “We offer no inheritance, all we leave behind is charity.”
from Hudhayfah(ra) in AL-BAZZAR: Rasool Allah(SAWS) said: “We offer no inheritance, all we leave is charity.”
From Aishah(ra) in Sahih Bukhari.
حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ مَسْلَمَةَ، عَنْ مَالِكٍ، عَنِ ابْنِ شِهَابٍ، عَنْ عُرْوَةَ، عَنْ عَائِشَةَ ـ رضى الله عنها أَنَّ أَزْوَاجَ، النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم حِينَ تُوُفِّيَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم أَرَدْنَ أَنْ يَبْعَثْنَ عُثْمَانَ إِلَى أَبِي بَكْرٍ يَسْأَلْنَهُ مِيرَاثَهُنَّ. فَقَالَتْ عَائِشَةُ أَلَيْسَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم “ لاَ نُورَثُ مَا تَرَكْنَا صَدَقَةٌ
`Aisha said, “When Allah’s Messenger(saw) died, his wives intended to send `Uthman to Abu Bakr asking him for their share of the inheritance.” Then `Aisha said to them, “Didn’t Allah’s Messenger(saw) say, ‘Our (Apostles’) property is not to be inherited, and whatever we leave is to be spent in charity?'(Sahih Bukhari Vol. 8, Book 80, Hadith 722)
I would've believed you if I had not heard the narrations where Ali (as) has been called the best of judges and the walking and talking Qur'an.
Best Judge doesn't mean a Prophet nor does it mean infallible. A judge basically listens to the case of two parties and makes a Judgement. So it has nothing to do with not knowing a hadeeth.
-
So the simple question is:
Why, ya rafidi, did he not insult him over his Khilafa, if 'Ali (ra) supposedly had no fear, and insults aren't going to threaten the "usurpers"? Why all the effort for Fadak?
Your religion is a religion of contradictions.
Ex shia ? MashaAllah brother. If all Shia were like you then we would say that even the people of kufa were Shia lol. Did you forget the insult of Imam Ali (as) upon the khilafa of Abu Bakr when he denied going to him to give bayah ? Don't turn around and say that " Why did he not do it to Umar " ? Same applies when he had his nose broken. That was enough for Umar lol.
-
So the simple question is:
Why, ya rafidi, did he not insult him over his Khilafa, if 'Ali (ra) supposedly had no fear, and insults aren't going to threaten the "usurpers"? Why all the effort for Fadak?
Your religion is a religion of contradictions.
Ex shia ? MashaAllah brother. If all Shia were like you then we would say that even the people of kufa were Shia lol. Did you forget the insult of Imam Ali (as) upon the khilafa of Abu Bakr when he denied going to him to give bayah ? Don't turn around and say that " Why did he not do it to Umar " ? Same applies when he had his nose broken. That was enough for Umar lol.
Lol, as one brother rightly said, Actually It was Umar(AS) who broke the nose of persian empire. And Ali(AS) honored Umar(AS) in his life time and even after his death.
(i). Ali(AS) married his daughter to Umar(AS).
(ii). Named his son after Umar bin Khattab(AS).
(iii). He said this on the death bed of Umar(AS).
`Ali says:
لله بلادُ فُلاَن، فَلَقَدْ قَوَّمَ الاْوَدَ، وَدَاوَى الْعَمَدَ، وَأَقَامَ السُّنَّةَ، وَخَلَّفَ الْفِتْنَةَ! ذَهَبَ نَقِيَّ الثَّوْبِ، قَلِيلَ الْعَيْبِ، أَصَابَ خَيْرَهَا، وَسَبَقَ شَرَّهَا، أَدَّى إِلَى اللهِ طَاعَتَهُ، وَاتَّقَاهُ بِحَقِّهِ، رَحَلَ وَتَرَكَهُمْ فِي طُرُق مَتَشَعِّبَة، لاَ يَهْتَدِي بِهَا الضَّالُّ، وَلاَ يَسْتَيْقِنُ الْمُهْتَدِي.
[May Allah reward such and such man, he straightened the curve, cured the disease, abandoned mischief, and established the Sunnah. He departed (from this world) with untarnished clothes and little shortcomings. He achieved the goodness (of this world) and remained safe from its evils. He offered Allah’s obedience and feared Him as He deserved. He went away and left the people in dividing ways wherein the misled cannot obtain guidance and the guided cannot attain certainty.] {Nahjul Balagha Sermon 227}
Ibn abi al-Hadid says in Sharh Nahj-ul-Balaghah 12/3: “The one meant here is `Umar bin al-Khattab, I have found the original copy of Nahjul Balagha in abi al-Hasan al-Radi’s own handwriting and he wrote “`Umar” under the word “such and such”.”
He also writes: “I asked the head of the order of Ahlul-Bayt, abu Ja`far Yahya bin abi Zayd al-`Alawi (about this matter) and he said: “`Umar bin al-Khattab”, I told him: “Would the chief of believers praise him this much!?” He replied: “Yes.””
Furthermore, he said in 2/4: “If the chief of believers admitted that he departed with untarnished clothes and that he obeyed Allah and feared him, then this is the utmost praise.”
We also found it in an even earlier source, Tarikh al-Madinah by Ibn Shubah al-Numayri [died. 262 AH], He writes on 2/91:
حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عَبَّادِ بْنِ عَبَّادٍ، قال: حَدَّثَنَا غَسَّانُ بْنُ عَبْدِ الْحَمِيدِ، قَالَ: بَلَغَنَا أَنَّ عَبْدَ اللَّهِ بْنَ مَالِكِ بْنِ عُيَيْنَةَ الأَزْدِيَّ حَلِيفَ بَنِي الْمُطَّلِبِ، قَالَ: لَمَّا انْصَرَفْنَا مَعَ عَلِيٍّ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ مِنْ جِنَازَةِ عُمَرَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ دَخَلَ فَاغْتَسَلَ، ثُمَّ خَرَجَ إِلَيْنَا فَصَمَتَ سَاعَةً، ثُمَّ قَالَ: ” لِلَّهِ بَلاءُ نَادِبَةِ عُمَرَ لَقَدْ صَدَقَتِ ابْنَةُ أَبِي حَثْمَةَ حِينَ، قَالَتْ: وَاعُمَرَاهُ، أَقَامَ الأَوَدَ وَأَبْدَأَ الْعَهْدَ، وَاعُمَرَاهُ، ذَهَبَ نَقِيَّ الثَّوْبِ، قَلِيلَ الْعَيْبِ، وَاعُمَرَاهُ أَقَامَ السُّنَّةَ وَخَلَّفَ الْفِتْنَةَ “، ثُمَّ قَالَ: ” وَاللَّهِ مَا دَرَتْ هَذَا وَلَكِنَّهَا قُوِّلَتْهُ وَصَدَقَتْ، وَاللَّهِ لَقَدْ أَصَابَ عُمَرُ خَيْرَهَا وَخَلَّفَ شَرَّهَا، وَلَقَدْ نَظَرَ لَهُ صَاحِبُهُ فَسَارَ عَلَى الطَّرِيقَةِ مَا اسْتَقَامَتْ، وَرَحَلَ الرَّكْبُ، وَتَرَكَهُمْ فِي طُرُقٍ مُتَشَعِّبَةٍ لا يَدْرِي الضَّالُّ وَلا يَسْتَيْقِنُ الْمُهْتَدِي
[We were told by Muhammad bin `Abbad bin `Abbad, he said: Ghassan bin `Abdul-Hamid told us, he said: It has reached us that `Abdullah bin Malik bin `Uyaynah al-Azdi the ally of banu al-Muttalib said: When we left with `Ali may Allah be pleased with him from `Umar’s funeral, he entered his house and bathed and came out, he remained silent for a while then said: “May Allah reward the woman who grieved for `Umar’s passing, the daughter of Abu Hathmah spoke the truth when she said: O `Umar! He straightened the curve and fulfilled the oath. O `Umar! He departed (from this world) with untarnished clothes and little shortcomings. O `Umar! He established the Sunnah and abandoned mischief.” He then said: “By Allah, she didn’t know these matters but she was taught to say them and she spoke the truth. By Allah, he achieved the goodness (of this world) and remained safe from its evils; he had looked at his companion and followed the path wherever it was straight, the rider left them in dividing ways wherein the misled cannot obtain guidance and the guided cannot attain certainty.”]
-
Your religion is a religion of contradictions.
[/quote]l
Lol, as one brother rightly said, Actually It was Umar(AS) who broke the nose of persian empire. And Ali(AS) honored Umar(AS) in his life time and even after his death.
(i). Ali(AS) married his daughter to Umar(AS).
(ii). Named his son after Umar bin Khattab(AS).
(iii). He said this on the death bed of Umar(AS).
`Ali says:
لله بلادُ فُلاَن، فَلَقَدْ قَوَّمَ الاْوَدَ، وَدَاوَى الْعَمَدَ، وَأَقَامَ السُّنَّةَ، وَخَلَّفَ الْفِتْنَةَ! ذَهَبَ نَقِيَّ الثَّوْبِ، قَلِيلَ الْعَيْبِ، أَصَابَ خَيْرَهَا، وَسَبَقَ شَرَّهَا، أَدَّى إِلَى اللهِ طَاعَتَهُ، وَاتَّقَاهُ بِحَقِّهِ، رَحَلَ وَتَرَكَهُمْ فِي طُرُق مَتَشَعِّبَة، لاَ يَهْتَدِي بِهَا الضَّالُّ، وَلاَ يَسْتَيْقِنُ الْمُهْتَدِي.
[May Allah reward such and such man, he straightened the curve, cured the disease, abandoned mischief, and established the Sunnah. He departed (from this world) with untarnished clothes and little shortcomings. He achieved the goodness (of this world) and remained safe from its evils. He offered Allah’s obedience and feared Him as He deserved. He went away and left the people in dividing ways wherein the misled cannot obtain guidance and the guided cannot attain certainty.] {Nahjul Balagha Sermon 227}
Ibn abi al-Hadid says in Sharh Nahj-ul-Balaghah 12/3: “The one meant here is `Umar bin al-Khattab, I have found the original copy of Nahjul Balagha in abi al-Hasan al-Radi’s own handwriting and he wrote “`Umar” under the word “such and such”.”
He also writes: “I asked the head of the order of Ahlul-Bayt, abu Ja`far Yahya bin abi Zayd al-`Alawi (about this matter) and he said: “`Umar bin al-Khattab”, I told him: “Would the chief of believers praise him this much!?” He replied: “Yes.””
Furthermore, he said in 2/4: “If the chief of believers admitted that he departed with untarnished clothes and that he obeyed Allah and feared him, then this is the utmost praise.”
We also found it in an even earlier source, Tarikh al-Madinah by Ibn Shubah al-Numayri [died. 262 AH], He writes on 2/91:
حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عَبَّادِ بْنِ عَبَّادٍ، قال: حَدَّثَنَا غَسَّانُ بْنُ عَبْدِ الْحَمِيدِ، قَالَ: بَلَغَنَا أَنَّ عَبْدَ اللَّهِ بْنَ مَالِكِ بْنِ عُيَيْنَةَ الأَزْدِيَّ حَلِيفَ بَنِي الْمُطَّلِبِ، قَالَ: لَمَّا انْصَرَفْنَا مَعَ عَلِيٍّ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ مِنْ جِنَازَةِ عُمَرَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ دَخَلَ فَاغْتَسَلَ، ثُمَّ خَرَجَ إِلَيْنَا فَصَمَتَ سَاعَةً، ثُمَّ قَالَ: ” لِلَّهِ بَلاءُ نَادِبَةِ عُمَرَ لَقَدْ صَدَقَتِ ابْنَةُ أَبِي حَثْمَةَ حِينَ، قَالَتْ: وَاعُمَرَاهُ، أَقَامَ الأَوَدَ وَأَبْدَأَ الْعَهْدَ، وَاعُمَرَاهُ، ذَهَبَ نَقِيَّ الثَّوْبِ، قَلِيلَ الْعَيْبِ، وَاعُمَرَاهُ أَقَامَ السُّنَّةَ وَخَلَّفَ الْفِتْنَةَ “، ثُمَّ قَالَ: ” وَاللَّهِ مَا دَرَتْ هَذَا وَلَكِنَّهَا قُوِّلَتْهُ وَصَدَقَتْ، وَاللَّهِ لَقَدْ أَصَابَ عُمَرُ خَيْرَهَا وَخَلَّفَ شَرَّهَا، وَلَقَدْ نَظَرَ لَهُ صَاحِبُهُ فَسَارَ عَلَى الطَّرِيقَةِ مَا اسْتَقَامَتْ، وَرَحَلَ الرَّكْبُ، وَتَرَكَهُمْ فِي طُرُقٍ مُتَشَعِّبَةٍ لا يَدْرِي الضَّالُّ وَلا يَسْتَيْقِنُ الْمُهْتَدِي
[We were told by Muhammad bin `Abbad bin `Abbad, he said: Ghassan bin `Abdul-Hamid told us, he said: It has reached us that `Abdullah bin Malik bin `Uyaynah al-Azdi the ally of banu al-Muttalib said: When we left with `Ali may Allah be pleased with him from `Umar’s funeral, he entered his house and bathed and came out, he remained silent for a while then said: “May Allah reward the woman who grieved for `Umar’s passing, the daughter of Abu Hathmah spoke the truth when she said: O `Umar! He straightened the curve and fulfilled the oath. O `Umar! He departed (from this world) with untarnished clothes and little shortcomings. O `Umar! He established the Sunnah and abandoned mischief.” He then said: “By Allah, she didn’t know these matters but she was taught to say them and she spoke the truth. By Allah, he achieved the goodness (of this world) and remained safe from its evils; he had looked at his companion and followed the path wherever it was straight, the rider left them in dividing ways wherein the misled cannot obtain guidance and the guided cannot attain certainty.”]
"It is related from al-Mughirah ibn Shu`bah that when Caliph `Umar died Ibnah Abi Hathmah said crying. "Oh `Umar, you were the man who straightened the curve, removed ills, destroyed mischief, revived the sunnah, remained chaste and departed without entangling in evils.' (According to at-Tabari) al-Mughirah related that "When `Umar was buried I came to `Ali and I wanted to hear something from him about `Umar. So, on my arrival Amir al-mu'minin came out in this state that was wrapped in one cloth after bathing and was jerking the hair of his head and beard and he had no doubt that the Caliphate would come to him. On this occasion he said, "May Allah have mercy on `Umar." Ibnah Abi Hathmah has correctly said that he enjoyed the good of the Caliphate and remained safe from its evils. By Allah, she did not say it herself but was made to say so." (at-Tabari, vol. 1, p. 2763; Ibn Abi'l-Hadid, vol. 12, p. 5; Ibn Kathir, vol. 7, p. 140)
Sermon 227: May Allah reward such and such man….
About a companion who passed away from this world before the occurrence of troubles.
ومن كلام له (عليه السلام)
يريد به بعض أصحابه
May Allah reward such and such man 1 who straightened the curve, cured the disease, abandoned mischief and established the sunnah. He departed (from this world) with untarnished clothes and little shortcomings. He achieved good (of this world) and remained safe from its evils. He offered Allah's obedience and feared Him as He deserved. He went away and left the people in dividing ways wherein the misled cannot obtain guidance and the guided cannot attain certainty.
لله بلادُ فُلاَن، فَلَقَدْ قَوَّمَ الاْوَدَ، وَدَاوَى الْعَمَدَ، وَأَقَامَ السُّنَّةَ، وَخَلَّفَ الْفِتْنَةَ! ذَهَبَ نَقِيَّ الثَّوْبِ، قَلِيلَ الْعَيْبِ، أَصَابَ خَيْرَهَا، وَسَبَقَ شَرَّهَا، أَدَّى إِلَى اللهِ طَاعَتَهُ، وَاتَّقَاهُ بِحَقِّهِ، رَحَلَ وَتَرَكَهُمْ فِي طُرُق مَتَشَعِّبَة، لاَ يَهْتَدِي بِهَا الضَّالُّ، وَلاَ يَسْتَيْقِنُ الْمُهْتَدِي.
Alternative Sources for Sermon 227
(1) Al-Rawandi, al-Da`awat;
(2) al-Tabari, Ta'rikh, V, 47;
(3) see also the commentaries of Ibn Abi al-Hadid, III, 92 and Ibn Maytham al-Bahrani, IV, 97.
1. Ibn Abi'l-Hadid has written (in Sharh Nahjul Balaghah, vol. 14, pp. 3-4) that the reference here is to the second Caliph `Umar, and that these sentences have been uttered in his praise as indicated by the word '`Umar' written under the word 'such and such' in as-Sayyid ar-Radi's own hand in the manuscript of Nahjul Balaghah written by him. This is Ibn Abi'l-Hadid's statement, but it is to be seen that if as-Sayyid ar-Radi had written the word '`Umar' by way of explanation it should have existed, as other explanations by him have remained, in those versions which have been copied from his manuscript. Even now there exists in al-Musil (Iraq) university the oldest copy of Nahjul Balaghah written by the famous calligraphist Yaqut al-Musta`simi; but no one has afforded any clue to this explanation of as-Sayyid ar-Radi. Even if the view of Ibn Abi'l-Hadid is accepted it would be deemed to represent the personal opinion of as-Sayyid ar-Radi which may serve as a supplementary argument in support of an original argument but this personal view cannot be assigned any regular importance.
It is strange that two and a half centuries after as-Sayyid ar-Radi namely in the seventh century A.H., Ibn Abi'l Hadid makes the statement that the reference here is to Caliph `Umar and that as-Sayyid ar-Radi himself had so indicated, as a result of which some other annotators also followed the same line, but the contemporaries of as-Sayyid ar-Radi who wrote about Nahjul Balaghah have given no such indication in their writings although as contemporaries they should have had better information about as-Sayyid Ar-Radi's writing. Thus, al-`Allamah `Ali ibn Nasir who was a contemporary of as-Sayyid ar-Radi and wrote an annotation of Nahjul Balaghah under the name of A`lam Nahjul Balaghah writes in connection with this sermon:
Amir al-mu'minin has praised one of his own companions for his good conduct. He had died before the troubles that arose after the death of the Prophet of Allah.
This is supported by the annotations of Nahjul Balaghah written by al-`Allamah Qutbu'd-Din ar-Rawandi (d. 573 A.H.). Ibn Abi'l-Hadid (vol. 14, p. 4) and Ibn Maytham al-Bahrani (in Sharh Nahjul Balaghah, vol. 4, p. 97) have quoted his following view.
By this Amir al-mu'minin refers to one of his own companions who died before the mischief and disruption that occurred following the death of the Prophet of Allah.
Al-`Allamah al-Hajj al-Mirza Habibu'llah al-Khu'i is of the opinion that the person is Malik ibn al-Harith al-Ashtar on the ground that after the assassination of Malik the situation of the Muslim community was such as Amir al-mu'minin explains in this sermon.
al-Khu'i adds that:
Amir al-mu'minin has praised Malik repeatedly such as in his letter to the people of Egypt sent through Malik when he was made the governor of that place, and like his utterances when the news of Malik's assassination reached him, he said: "Malik! who is Malik? If Malik was a stone, he was hard and solid; if he was a rock, he was a great rock which had no parallel. Women have become barren to give birth to such as Malik." Amir al-mu'minin had even expressed in some of his utterances that, "Malik was to me as I was to the Holy Prophet." Therefore, one who possesses such a position certainly deserves such attributes and even beyond that. (Sharh Nahjul Balaghah, vol. 14, pp. 374-375)
If these words had been about Caliph `Umar and there was some trustworthiness about it Ibn Abi'l-Hadid would have recorded the authority or tradition and it would have existed in history and been known among the people. But here nothing is found to prove the statement except a few self-concocted events. Thus about the pronouns in the words "khayraha" and "sharraha" he takes them to refer to the caliphate and writes that these words can apply only to one who enjoys power and authority because without authority it is impossible to establish the sunnah or prevent innovation.
-
See the explanation I gave above, along with the link of Post #52, which clearly shows that you are running in circles. Everything has been answered, as i told before.
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.
Who here is " both of you " ? Who is the true, virtuous and well guided ?
-
See the explanation I gave above, along with the link of Post #52, which clearly shows that you are running in circles. Everything has been answered, as i told before.
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.
Who here is " both of you " ? Who is the true, virtuous and well guided ?
The readers can see, how this guy is running in circles. See post# 53 , He asked the same question even though he was answered before. Then when he insisted , I answered him again in post #61 see this link http://forum.twelvershia.net/quran-tafseer/verse-3333-gender-change-from-feminine-to-masculine/msg11203/#msg11203
Further clarified his counter argument in post #67 see here: http://forum.twelvershia.net/quran-tafseer/verse-3333-gender-change-from-feminine-to-masculine/msg11210/#msg11210
Now what he does again is that, ask the same question which he asked in post #53. So, its apparent the guy has completely lost it and just running circles.
Readers are wise enough to judge.
-
Who here is " both of you " ? Who is the true, virtuous and well guided ?
Brother just answer those two questions please.
-
Your religion is a religion of contradictions.
l
No at all! Rather its your cult which is bases everything on assumptions and guesswork, contrary to established facts.
The claim that the sermon of Nahjul Balagha is referring to Malik al Ashtar is nothing but a guesswork of biased Shia scholars, who didn't have the guts to accept that it was regarding Umar(RA). If you don't accept the testimony of a Mutazili Shia Ibn Abil Hadeed, over the guesswork of your scholars, then its your choice.
But there is another clear evidence from another source which is earlier than Nahjul Balagha. Since the compiler of Nahjul Balagha , Sharif Razi was born in 359AH, where as the source we have which explicitly states, without leaving any room for you, and its author died in 262 AH. So more than 100 years before the compilation of Nahjul Balagha, we had reports which clearly stated that it was regarding Umar(AS).
And the sermon in Nahjul Balagha having the "AMBIGUOUS WORDING OF SUCH AND SUCH MAN" is a clear proof of foul play by Shias.
Look again the source complied more than 100 years before Nahjul balagha, Tarikh al-Madinah by Ibn Shubah al-Numayri [died. 262 AH], He writes on 2/91:
حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عَبَّادِ بْنِ عَبَّادٍ، قال: حَدَّثَنَا غَسَّانُ بْنُ عَبْدِ الْحَمِيدِ، قَالَ: بَلَغَنَا أَنَّ عَبْدَ اللَّهِ بْنَ مَالِكِ بْنِ عُيَيْنَةَ الأَزْدِيَّ حَلِيفَ بَنِي الْمُطَّلِبِ، قَالَ: لَمَّا انْصَرَفْنَا مَعَ عَلِيٍّ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ مِنْ جِنَازَةِ عُمَرَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ دَخَلَ فَاغْتَسَلَ، ثُمَّ خَرَجَ إِلَيْنَا فَصَمَتَ سَاعَةً، ثُمَّ قَالَ: ” لِلَّهِ بَلاءُ نَادِبَةِ عُمَرَ لَقَدْ صَدَقَتِ ابْنَةُ أَبِي حَثْمَةَ حِينَ، قَالَتْ: وَاعُمَرَاهُ، أَقَامَ الأَوَدَ وَأَبْدَأَ الْعَهْدَ، وَاعُمَرَاهُ، ذَهَبَ نَقِيَّ الثَّوْبِ، قَلِيلَ الْعَيْبِ، وَاعُمَرَاهُ أَقَامَ السُّنَّةَ وَخَلَّفَ الْفِتْنَةَ “، ثُمَّ قَالَ: ” وَاللَّهِ مَا دَرَتْ هَذَا وَلَكِنَّهَا قُوِّلَتْهُ وَصَدَقَتْ، وَاللَّهِ لَقَدْ أَصَابَ عُمَرُ خَيْرَهَا وَخَلَّفَ شَرَّهَا، وَلَقَدْ نَظَرَ لَهُ صَاحِبُهُ فَسَارَ عَلَى الطَّرِيقَةِ مَا اسْتَقَامَتْ، وَرَحَلَ الرَّكْبُ، وَتَرَكَهُمْ فِي طُرُقٍ مُتَشَعِّبَةٍ لا يَدْرِي الضَّالُّ وَلا يَسْتَيْقِنُ الْمُهْتَدِي
[We were told by Muhammad bin `Abbad bin `Abbad, he said: Ghassan bin `Abdul-Hamid told us, he said: It has reached us that `Abdullah bin Malik bin `Uyaynah al-Azdi the ally of banu al-Muttalib said: When we left with `Ali may Allah be pleased with him from `Umar’s funeral, he entered his house and bathed and came out, he remained silent for a while then said: “May Allah reward the woman who grieved for `Umar’s passing, the daughter of Abu Hathmah spoke the truth when she said: O `Umar! He straightened the curve and fulfilled the oath. O `Umar! He departed (from this world) with untarnished clothes and little shortcomings. O `Umar! He established the Sunnah and abandoned mischief.” He then said: “By Allah, she didn’t know these matters but she was taught to say them and she spoke the truth. By Allah, he achieved the goodness (of this world) and remained safe from its evils; he had looked at his companion and followed the path wherever it was straight, the rider left them in dividing ways wherein the misled cannot obtain guidance and the guided cannot attain certainty.”]
-
Who here is " both of you " ? Who is the true, virtuous and well guided ?
Brother just answer those two questions please.
If you can't make out that, then you are totally dumb. And you need to take up some comprehension understanding classes of English. As for its explanation, then it has been answered. Refer post #72 .
-
Your religion is a religion of contradictions.
l
No at all! Rather its your cult which is bases everything on assumptions and guesswork, contrary to established facts.
The claim that the sermon of Nahjul Balagha is referring to Malik al Ashtar is nothing but a guesswork of biased Shia scholars, who didn't have the guts to accept that it was regarding Umar(RA). If you don't accept the testimony of a Mutazili Shia Ibn Abil Hadeed, over the guesswork of your scholars, then its your choice.
But there is another clear evidence from another source which is earlier than Nahjul Balagha. Since the compiler of Nahjul Balagha , Sharif Razi was born in 359AH, where as the source we have which explicitly states, without leaving any room for you, and its author died in 262 AH. So more than 100 years before the compilation of Nahjul Balagha, we had reports which clearly stated that it was regarding Umar(AS).
And the sermon in Nahjul Balagha having the "AMBIGUOUS WORDING OF SUCH AND SUCH MAN" is a clear proof of foul play by Shias.
Look again the source complied more than 100 years before Nahjul balagha, Tarikh al-Madinah by Ibn Shubah al-Numayri [died. 262 AH], He writes on 2/91:
حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عَبَّادِ بْنِ عَبَّادٍ، قال: حَدَّثَنَا غَسَّانُ بْنُ عَبْدِ الْحَمِيدِ، قَالَ: بَلَغَنَا أَنَّ عَبْدَ اللَّهِ بْنَ مَالِكِ بْنِ عُيَيْنَةَ الأَزْدِيَّ حَلِيفَ بَنِي الْمُطَّلِبِ، قَالَ: لَمَّا انْصَرَفْنَا مَعَ عَلِيٍّ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ مِنْ جِنَازَةِ عُمَرَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ دَخَلَ فَاغْتَسَلَ، ثُمَّ خَرَجَ إِلَيْنَا فَصَمَتَ سَاعَةً، ثُمَّ قَالَ: ” لِلَّهِ بَلاءُ نَادِبَةِ عُمَرَ لَقَدْ صَدَقَتِ ابْنَةُ أَبِي حَثْمَةَ حِينَ، قَالَتْ: وَاعُمَرَاهُ، أَقَامَ الأَوَدَ وَأَبْدَأَ الْعَهْدَ، وَاعُمَرَاهُ، ذَهَبَ نَقِيَّ الثَّوْبِ، قَلِيلَ الْعَيْبِ، وَاعُمَرَاهُ أَقَامَ السُّنَّةَ وَخَلَّفَ الْفِتْنَةَ “، ثُمَّ قَالَ: ” وَاللَّهِ مَا دَرَتْ هَذَا وَلَكِنَّهَا قُوِّلَتْهُ وَصَدَقَتْ، وَاللَّهِ لَقَدْ أَصَابَ عُمَرُ خَيْرَهَا وَخَلَّفَ شَرَّهَا، وَلَقَدْ نَظَرَ لَهُ صَاحِبُهُ فَسَارَ عَلَى الطَّرِيقَةِ مَا اسْتَقَامَتْ، وَرَحَلَ الرَّكْبُ، وَتَرَكَهُمْ فِي طُرُقٍ مُتَشَعِّبَةٍ لا يَدْرِي الضَّالُّ وَلا يَسْتَيْقِنُ الْمُهْتَدِي
[We were told by Muhammad bin `Abbad bin `Abbad, he said: Ghassan bin `Abdul-Hamid told us, he said: It has reached us that `Abdullah bin Malik bin `Uyaynah al-Azdi the ally of banu al-Muttalib said: When we left with `Ali may Allah be pleased with him from `Umar’s funeral, he entered his house and bathed and came out, he remained silent for a while then said: “May Allah reward the woman who grieved for `Umar’s passing, the daughter of Abu Hathmah spoke the truth when she said: O `Umar! He straightened the curve and fulfilled the oath. O `Umar! He departed (from this world) with untarnished clothes and little shortcomings. O `Umar! He established the Sunnah and abandoned mischief.” He then said: “By Allah, she didn’t know these matters but she was taught to say them and she spoke the truth. By Allah, he achieved the goodness (of this world) and remained safe from its evils; he had looked at his companion and followed the path wherever it was straight, the rider left them in dividing ways wherein the misled cannot obtain guidance and the guided cannot attain certainty.”]
Lol it was your mate who wrote that..secondly, your claim of this being Umar has been answered to. Look up. Or, did you ignore that ?
-
Your religion is a religion of contradictions.
l
No at all! Rather its your cult which is bases everything on assumptions and guesswork, contrary to established facts.
The claim that the sermon of Nahjul Balagha is referring to Malik al Ashtar is nothing but a guesswork of biased Shia scholars, who didn't have the guts to accept that it was regarding Umar(RA). If you don't accept the testimony of a Mutazili Shia Ibn Abil Hadeed, over the guesswork of your scholars, then its your choice.
But there is another clear evidence from another source which is earlier than Nahjul Balagha. Since the compiler of Nahjul Balagha , Sharif Razi was born in 359AH, where as the source we have which explicitly states, without leaving any room for you, and its author died in 262 AH. So more than 100 years before the compilation of Nahjul Balagha, we had reports which clearly stated that it was regarding Umar(AS).
And the sermon in Nahjul Balagha having the "AMBIGUOUS WORDING OF SUCH AND SUCH MAN" is a clear proof of foul play by Shias.
Look again the source complied more than 100 years before Nahjul balagha, Tarikh al-Madinah by Ibn Shubah al-Numayri [died. 262 AH], He writes on 2/91:
حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عَبَّادِ بْنِ عَبَّادٍ، قال: حَدَّثَنَا غَسَّانُ بْنُ عَبْدِ الْحَمِيدِ، قَالَ: بَلَغَنَا أَنَّ عَبْدَ اللَّهِ بْنَ مَالِكِ بْنِ عُيَيْنَةَ الأَزْدِيَّ حَلِيفَ بَنِي الْمُطَّلِبِ، قَالَ: لَمَّا انْصَرَفْنَا مَعَ عَلِيٍّ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ مِنْ جِنَازَةِ عُمَرَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ دَخَلَ فَاغْتَسَلَ، ثُمَّ خَرَجَ إِلَيْنَا فَصَمَتَ سَاعَةً، ثُمَّ قَالَ: ” لِلَّهِ بَلاءُ نَادِبَةِ عُمَرَ لَقَدْ صَدَقَتِ ابْنَةُ أَبِي حَثْمَةَ حِينَ، قَالَتْ: وَاعُمَرَاهُ، أَقَامَ الأَوَدَ وَأَبْدَأَ الْعَهْدَ، وَاعُمَرَاهُ، ذَهَبَ نَقِيَّ الثَّوْبِ، قَلِيلَ الْعَيْبِ، وَاعُمَرَاهُ أَقَامَ السُّنَّةَ وَخَلَّفَ الْفِتْنَةَ “، ثُمَّ قَالَ: ” وَاللَّهِ مَا دَرَتْ هَذَا وَلَكِنَّهَا قُوِّلَتْهُ وَصَدَقَتْ، وَاللَّهِ لَقَدْ أَصَابَ عُمَرُ خَيْرَهَا وَخَلَّفَ شَرَّهَا، وَلَقَدْ نَظَرَ لَهُ صَاحِبُهُ فَسَارَ عَلَى الطَّرِيقَةِ مَا اسْتَقَامَتْ، وَرَحَلَ الرَّكْبُ، وَتَرَكَهُمْ فِي طُرُقٍ مُتَشَعِّبَةٍ لا يَدْرِي الضَّالُّ وَلا يَسْتَيْقِنُ الْمُهْتَدِي
[We were told by Muhammad bin `Abbad bin `Abbad, he said: Ghassan bin `Abdul-Hamid told us, he said: It has reached us that `Abdullah bin Malik bin `Uyaynah al-Azdi the ally of banu al-Muttalib said: When we left with `Ali may Allah be pleased with him from `Umar’s funeral, he entered his house and bathed and came out, he remained silent for a while then said: “May Allah reward the woman who grieved for `Umar’s passing, the daughter of Abu Hathmah spoke the truth when she said: O `Umar! He straightened the curve and fulfilled the oath. O `Umar! He departed (from this world) with untarnished clothes and little shortcomings. O `Umar! He established the Sunnah and abandoned mischief.” He then said: “By Allah, she didn’t know these matters but she was taught to say them and she spoke the truth. By Allah, he achieved the goodness (of this world) and remained safe from its evils; he had looked at his companion and followed the path wherever it was straight, the rider left them in dividing ways wherein the misled cannot obtain guidance and the guided cannot attain certainty.”]
Look at reply 70.
-
Your religion is a religion of contradictions.
l
No at all! Rather its your cult which is bases everything on assumptions and guesswork, contrary to established facts.
The claim that the sermon of Nahjul Balagha is referring to Malik al Ashtar is nothing but a guesswork of biased Shia scholars, who didn't have the guts to accept that it was regarding Umar(RA). If you don't accept the testimony of a Mutazili Shia Ibn Abil Hadeed, over the guesswork of your scholars, then its your choice.
But there is another clear evidence from another source which is earlier than Nahjul Balagha. Since the compiler of Nahjul Balagha , Sharif Razi was born in 359AH, where as the source we have which explicitly states, without leaving any room for you, and its author died in 262 AH. So more than 100 years before the compilation of Nahjul Balagha, we had reports which clearly stated that it was regarding Umar(AS).
And the sermon in Nahjul Balagha having the "AMBIGUOUS WORDING OF SUCH AND SUCH MAN" is a clear proof of foul play by Shias.
Look again the source complied more than 100 years before Nahjul balagha, Tarikh al-Madinah by Ibn Shubah al-Numayri [died. 262 AH], He writes on 2/91:
حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عَبَّادِ بْنِ عَبَّادٍ، قال: حَدَّثَنَا غَسَّانُ بْنُ عَبْدِ الْحَمِيدِ، قَالَ: بَلَغَنَا أَنَّ عَبْدَ اللَّهِ بْنَ مَالِكِ بْنِ عُيَيْنَةَ الأَزْدِيَّ حَلِيفَ بَنِي الْمُطَّلِبِ، قَالَ: لَمَّا انْصَرَفْنَا مَعَ عَلِيٍّ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ مِنْ جِنَازَةِ عُمَرَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ دَخَلَ فَاغْتَسَلَ، ثُمَّ خَرَجَ إِلَيْنَا فَصَمَتَ سَاعَةً، ثُمَّ قَالَ: ” لِلَّهِ بَلاءُ نَادِبَةِ عُمَرَ لَقَدْ صَدَقَتِ ابْنَةُ أَبِي حَثْمَةَ حِينَ، قَالَتْ: وَاعُمَرَاهُ، أَقَامَ الأَوَدَ وَأَبْدَأَ الْعَهْدَ، وَاعُمَرَاهُ، ذَهَبَ نَقِيَّ الثَّوْبِ، قَلِيلَ الْعَيْبِ، وَاعُمَرَاهُ أَقَامَ السُّنَّةَ وَخَلَّفَ الْفِتْنَةَ “، ثُمَّ قَالَ: ” وَاللَّهِ مَا دَرَتْ هَذَا وَلَكِنَّهَا قُوِّلَتْهُ وَصَدَقَتْ، وَاللَّهِ لَقَدْ أَصَابَ عُمَرُ خَيْرَهَا وَخَلَّفَ شَرَّهَا، وَلَقَدْ نَظَرَ لَهُ صَاحِبُهُ فَسَارَ عَلَى الطَّرِيقَةِ مَا اسْتَقَامَتْ، وَرَحَلَ الرَّكْبُ، وَتَرَكَهُمْ فِي طُرُقٍ مُتَشَعِّبَةٍ لا يَدْرِي الضَّالُّ وَلا يَسْتَيْقِنُ الْمُهْتَدِي
[We were told by Muhammad bin `Abbad bin `Abbad, he said: Ghassan bin `Abdul-Hamid told us, he said: It has reached us that `Abdullah bin Malik bin `Uyaynah al-Azdi the ally of banu al-Muttalib said: When we left with `Ali may Allah be pleased with him from `Umar’s funeral, he entered his house and bathed and came out, he remained silent for a while then said: “May Allah reward the woman who grieved for `Umar’s passing, the daughter of Abu Hathmah spoke the truth when she said: O `Umar! He straightened the curve and fulfilled the oath. O `Umar! He departed (from this world) with untarnished clothes and little shortcomings. O `Umar! He established the Sunnah and abandoned mischief.” He then said: “By Allah, she didn’t know these matters but she was taught to say them and she spoke the truth. By Allah, he achieved the goodness (of this world) and remained safe from its evils; he had looked at his companion and followed the path wherever it was straight, the rider left them in dividing ways wherein the misled cannot obtain guidance and the guided cannot attain certainty.”]
Look at reply 70.
It is a reply to post#70 since it had no sound argument, what all it has are views of Shia scholars, which are just assumptions and hold no weight, when they are countered with established facts.
(i). More than a 100 year old source than Nahjul balagha clearly mentioning name of Umar.
(ii). Foul play in Nahjul balagha by making the sermon ambiguous. I.e SUCH AND SUCH person.
(iii). Ibn Hadid who was neither Sunni or a Twelver Shia, that is a neutral source, testifying that it was regarding Umar(RA).
-
If you can't make out that, then you are totally dumb. And you need to take up some comprehension understanding classes of English. As for its explanation, then it has been answered. Refer post #72 .
I already have done that, brother. But, you're having trouble answering that question. You keep bringing up the part where Umar is telling them that he made them the trustee of the land and they both had their issue resolved by Umar. But, you keep dodging the question on why did Ali(as) and Abbas both thought Abu Bakr to a liar. Please, not the argument of resolving the disagreement between Ali (as) and Abbas, please. Lololol. :)
-
If you can't make out that, then you are totally dumb. And you need to take up some comprehension understanding classes of English. As for its explanation, then it has been answered. Refer post #72 .
I already have done that, brother. But, you're having trouble answering that question. You keep bringing up the part where Umar is telling them that he made them the trustee of the land and they both had their issue resolved by Umar. But, you keep dodging the question on why did Ali(as) and Abbas both thought Abu Bakr to a liar. Please, not the argument of resolving the disagreement between Ali (as) and Abbas, please. Lololol. :)
Anyone who reads the discussion can see that, I did address these points in a satisfactory manner. Alhamdulillah. And you missed the gist of the issue, I bring the wordings of Umar(RA) inorder to show you that, THEY BOTH CAME to Umar(RA) with a different request, that is they wanted to be ENTRUSTED OVER THEIR SHARES. They didn't ask ownership. So learn the difference between being a trustee and a owner. Again for the the rhetoric which Umar(RA) used, due to Abbas(RA) first USING the wording against Ali(RA), then read the previous explanation given
-
The claim that the sermon of Nahjul Balagha is referring to Malik al Ashtar is nothing but a guesswork of biased Shia scholars, who didn't have the guts to accept that it was regarding Umar(RA). If you don't accept the testimony of a Mutazili Shia Ibn Abil Hadeed, over the guesswork
You rely on a mutazilli to say the truth ? The Shia guesswork is far more reliable for me that mutazilli lies.
And the sermon in Nahjul Balagha having the "AMBIGUOUS WORDING OF SUCH AND SUCH MAN" is a clear proof of foul play by Shias.
Look again the source complied more than 100 years before Nahjul balagha, Tarikh al-Madinah by Ibn Shubah al-Numayri [died. 262 AH], He writes on 2/91:
حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عَبَّادِ بْنِ عَبَّادٍ، قال: حَدَّثَنَا غَسَّانُ بْنُ عَبْدِ الْحَمِيدِ، قَالَ: بَلَغَنَا أَنَّ عَبْدَ اللَّهِ بْنَ مَالِكِ بْنِ عُيَيْنَةَ الأَزْدِيَّ حَلِيفَ بَنِي الْمُطَّلِبِ، قَالَ: لَمَّا انْصَرَفْنَا مَعَ عَلِيٍّ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ مِنْ جِنَازَةِ عُمَرَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ دَخَلَ فَاغْتَسَلَ، ثُمَّ خَرَجَ إِلَيْنَا فَصَمَتَ سَاعَةً، ثُمَّ قَالَ: ” لِلَّهِ بَلاءُ نَادِبَةِ عُمَرَ لَقَدْ صَدَقَتِ ابْنَةُ أَبِي حَثْمَةَ حِينَ، قَالَتْ: وَاعُمَرَاهُ، أَقَامَ الأَوَدَ وَأَبْدَأَ الْعَهْدَ، وَاعُمَرَاهُ، ذَهَبَ نَقِيَّ الثَّوْبِ، قَلِيلَ الْعَيْبِ، وَاعُمَرَاهُ أَقَامَ السُّنَّةَ وَخَلَّفَ الْفِتْنَةَ “، ثُمَّ قَالَ: ” وَاللَّهِ مَا دَرَتْ هَذَا وَلَكِنَّهَا قُوِّلَتْهُ وَصَدَقَتْ، وَاللَّهِ لَقَدْ أَصَابَ عُمَرُ خَيْرَهَا وَخَلَّفَ شَرَّهَا، وَلَقَدْ نَظَرَ لَهُ صَاحِبُهُ فَسَارَ عَلَى الطَّرِيقَةِ مَا اسْتَقَامَتْ، وَرَحَلَ الرَّكْبُ، وَتَرَكَهُمْ فِي طُرُقٍ مُتَشَعِّبَةٍ لا يَدْرِي الضَّالُّ وَلا يَسْتَيْقِنُ الْمُهْتَدِي
[We were told by Muhammad bin `Abbad bin `Abbad, he said: Ghassan bin `Abdul-Hamid told us, he said: It has reached us that `Abdullah bin Malik bin `Uyaynah al-Azdi the ally of banu al-Muttalib said: When we left with `Ali may Allah be pleased with him from `Umar’s funeral, he entered his house and bathed and came out, he remained silent for a while then said: “May Allah reward the woman who grieved for `Umar’s passing, the daughter of Abu Hathmah spoke the truth when she said: O `Umar! He straightened the curve and fulfilled the oath. O `Umar! He departed (from this world) with untarnished clothes and little shortcomings. O `Umar! He established the Sunnah and abandoned mischief.” He then said: “By Allah, she didn’t know these matters but she was taught to say them and she spoke the truth. By Allah, he achieved the goodness (of this world) and remained safe from its evils; he had looked at his companion and followed the path wherever it was straight, the rider left them in dividing ways wherein the misled cannot obtain guidance and the guided cannot attain certainty.”]
Look at reply 70.
It is a reply to post#70 since it had no sound argument, what all it has are views of Shia scholars, which are just assumptions and hold no weight, when they are countered with established facts.
(i). More than a 100 year old source than Nahjul balagha clearly mentioning name of Umar.
(ii). Foul play in Nahjul balagha by making the sermon ambiguous. I.e SUCH AND SUCH person.
(iii). Ibn Hadid who was neither Sunni or a Twelver Shia, that is a neutral source, testifying that it was regarding Umar(RA).
"It is related from al-Mughirah ibn Shu`bah that when Caliph `Umar died Ibnah Abi Hathmah said crying. "Oh `Umar, you were the man who straightened the curve, removed ills, destroyed mischief, revived the sunnah, remained chaste and departed without entangling in evils.' (According to at-Tabari) al-Mughirah related that "When `Umar was buried I came to `Ali and I wanted to hear something from him about `Umar. So, on my arrival Amir al-mu'minin came out in this state that was wrapped in one cloth after bathing and was jerking the hair of his head and beard and he had no doubt that the Caliphate would come to him. On this occasion he said, "May Allah have mercy on `Umar." Ibnah Abi Hathmah has correctly said that he enjoyed the good of the Caliphate and remained safe from its evils. By Allah, she did not say it herself but was made to say so." (at-Tabari, vol. 1, p. 2763; Ibn Abi'l-Hadid, vol. 12, p. 5; Ibn Kathir, vol. 7, p. 140)
Identical, isn't it ?
-
If you can't make out that, then you are totally dumb. And you need to take up some comprehension understanding classes of English. As for its explanation, then it has been answered. Refer post #72 .
I already have done that, brother. But, you're having trouble answering that question. You keep bringing up the part where Umar is telling them that he made them the trustee of the land and they both had their issue resolved by Umar. But, you keep dodging the question on why did Ali(as) and Abbas both thought Abu Bakr to a liar. Please, not the argument of resolving the disagreement between Ali (as) and Abbas, please. Lololol. :)
Anyone who reads the discussion can see that, I did address these points in a satisfactory manner. Alhamdulillah. And you missed the gist of the issue, I bring the wordings of Umar(RA) inorder to show you that, THEY BOTH CAME to Umar(RA) with a different request, that is they wanted to be ENTRUSTED OVER THEIR SHARES. They didn't ask ownership. So learn the difference between being a trustee and a owner. Again for the the rhetoric which Umar(RA) used, due to Abbas(RA) first USING the wording against Ali(RA), then read the previous explanation given
Umar said when Abu Bakr said " The prophets don't inherit " you both thought him to be a liar but he was well guided. Brother, for the last time, don't start where you want to. Just name the one who was a liar and the one who was well guided.
-
You rely on a mutazilli to say the truth ?
I have a Sunni report which clearly states that it was for Umar(RA0
The Shia guesswork is far more reliable for me that mutazilli lies.
That's why you guys remain on misguidance. What a pity.
"It is related from al-Mughirah ibn Shu`bah that when Caliph `Umar died Ibnah Abi Hathmah said crying. "Oh `Umar, you were the man who straightened the curve, removed ills, destroyed mischief, revived the sunnah, remained chaste and departed without entangling in evils.' (According to at-Tabari) al-Mughirah related that "When `Umar was buried I came to `Ali and I wanted to hear something from him about `Umar. So, on my arrival Amir al-mu'minin came out in this state that was wrapped in one cloth after bathing and was jerking the hair of his head and beard and he had no doubt that the Caliphate would come to him. On this occasion he said, "May Allah have mercy on `Umar." Ibnah Abi Hathmah has correctly said that he enjoyed the good of the Caliphate and remained safe from its evils. By Allah, she did not say it herself but was made to say so." (at-Tabari, vol. 1, p. 2763; Ibn Abi'l-Hadid, vol. 12, p. 5; Ibn Kathir, vol. 7, p. 140).
Identical, isn't it ?
5+5 = 10
7+3 = 10 .
It doesn't need to be identical, what both sermons show is that these wordings were said, regarding Umar(RA), unless you accuse Ali(RA) of stealing the words of the daughter of Abu Haythama and applying it to Malik al-Ashtar.
In the below report we find the detail that Ali(RA) not just approved the wording of that woman, but used the same to praise Umar(RA).
Look again the source complied more than 100 years before Nahjul balagha, Tarikh al-Madinah by Ibn Shubah al-Numayri [died. 262 AH], He writes on 2/91:
حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عَبَّادِ بْنِ عَبَّادٍ، قال: حَدَّثَنَا غَسَّانُ بْنُ عَبْدِ الْحَمِيدِ، قَالَ: بَلَغَنَا أَنَّ عَبْدَ اللَّهِ بْنَ مَالِكِ بْنِ عُيَيْنَةَ الأَزْدِيَّ حَلِيفَ بَنِي الْمُطَّلِبِ، قَالَ: لَمَّا انْصَرَفْنَا مَعَ عَلِيٍّ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ مِنْ جِنَازَةِ عُمَرَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ دَخَلَ فَاغْتَسَلَ، ثُمَّ خَرَجَ إِلَيْنَا فَصَمَتَ سَاعَةً، ثُمَّ قَالَ: ” لِلَّهِ بَلاءُ نَادِبَةِ عُمَرَ لَقَدْ صَدَقَتِ ابْنَةُ أَبِي حَثْمَةَ حِينَ، قَالَتْ: وَاعُمَرَاهُ، أَقَامَ الأَوَدَ وَأَبْدَأَ الْعَهْدَ، وَاعُمَرَاهُ، ذَهَبَ نَقِيَّ الثَّوْبِ، قَلِيلَ الْعَيْبِ، وَاعُمَرَاهُ أَقَامَ السُّنَّةَ وَخَلَّفَ الْفِتْنَةَ “، ثُمَّ قَالَ: ” وَاللَّهِ مَا دَرَتْ هَذَا وَلَكِنَّهَا قُوِّلَتْهُ وَصَدَقَتْ، وَاللَّهِ لَقَدْ أَصَابَ عُمَرُ خَيْرَهَا وَخَلَّفَ شَرَّهَا، وَلَقَدْ نَظَرَ لَهُ صَاحِبُهُ فَسَارَ عَلَى الطَّرِيقَةِ مَا اسْتَقَامَتْ، وَرَحَلَ الرَّكْبُ، وَتَرَكَهُمْ فِي طُرُقٍ مُتَشَعِّبَةٍ لا يَدْرِي الضَّالُّ وَلا يَسْتَيْقِنُ الْمُهْتَدِي
[We were told by Muhammad bin `Abbad bin `Abbad, he said: Ghassan bin `Abdul-Hamid told us, he said: It has reached us that `Abdullah bin Malik bin `Uyaynah al-Azdi the ally of banu al-Muttalib said: When we left with `Ali may Allah be pleased with him from `Umar’s funeral, he entered his house and bathed and came out, he remained silent for a while then said: “May Allah reward the woman who grieved for `Umar’s passing, the daughter of Abu Hathmah spoke the truth when she said: O `Umar! He straightened the curve and fulfilled the oath. O `Umar! He departed (from this world) with untarnished clothes and little shortcomings. O `Umar! He established the Sunnah and abandoned mischief.” He then said: “By Allah, she didn’t know these matters but she was taught to say them and she spoke the truth. By Allah, he achieved the goodness (of this world) and remained safe from its evils; he had looked at his companion and followed the path wherever it was straight, the rider left them in dividing ways wherein the misled cannot obtain guidance and the guided cannot attain certainty.”]
-
If you can't make out that, then you are totally dumb. And you need to take up some comprehension understanding classes of English. As for its explanation, then it has been answered. Refer post #72 .
I already have done that, brother. But, you're having trouble answering that question. You keep bringing up the part where Umar is telling them that he made them the trustee of the land and they both had their issue resolved by Umar. But, you keep dodging the question on why did Ali(as) and Abbas both thought Abu Bakr to a liar. Please, not the argument of resolving the disagreement between Ali (as) and Abbas, please. Lololol. :)
Anyone who reads the discussion can see that, I did address these points in a satisfactory manner. Alhamdulillah. And you missed the gist of the issue, I bring the wordings of Umar(RA) inorder to show you that, THEY BOTH CAME to Umar(RA) with a different request, that is they wanted to be ENTRUSTED OVER THEIR SHARES. They didn't ask ownership. So learn the difference between being a trustee and a owner. Again for the the rhetoric which Umar(RA) used, due to Abbas(RA) first USING the wording against Ali(RA), then read the previous explanation given
Umar said when Abu Bakr said " The prophets don't inherit " you both thought him to be a liar but he was well guided. Brother, for the last time, don't start where you want to. Just name the one who was a liar and the one who was well guided.
LOL, Grow up, your arguments have already been destroyed. So keep repeating the refuted arguments. Umar(RA) copied those words from Abbas(RA) who said it to Ali(RA). WHy? To defend Ali(RA). How? Read the explanation in previous posts.
I leave this issue for the readers to judge.
-
You rely on a mutazilli to say the truth ?
I have a Sunni report which clearly states that it was for Umar
I don't doubt that. If it wasn't for sunni books, all these people wouldn't be misguided.
"It is related from al-Mughirah ibn Shu`bah that when Caliph `Umar died Ibnah Abi Hathmah said crying. "Oh `Umar, you were the man who straightened the curve, removed ills, destroyed mischief, revived the sunnah, remained chaste and departed without entangling in evils.' (According to at-Tabari) al-Mughirah related that "When `Umar was buried I came to `Ali and I wanted to hear something from him about `Umar. So, on my arrival Amir al-mu'minin came out in this state that was wrapped in one cloth after bathing and was jerking the hair of his head and beard and he had no doubt that the Caliphate would come to him. On this occasion he said, "May Allah have mercy on `Umar." Ibnah Abi Hathmah has correctly said that he enjoyed the good of the Caliphate and remained safe from its evils. By Allah, she did not say it herself but was made to say so." (at-Tabari, vol. 1, p. 2763; Ibn Abi'l-Hadid, vol. 12, p. 5; Ibn Kathir, vol. 7, p. 140).
Identical, isn't it ?
5+5 = 10
7+3 = 10 .
It doesn't need to be identical, what both sermons show is that these wordings were said, regarding Umar(RA), unless you accuse Ali(RA) of stealing the words of the daughter of Abu Haythama and applying it to Malik al-Ashtar.
Why say such and such if there was no problems between Ali (as) and Umar ? The guesswork is far more convincing than the supposed lies of your kind that Ali (as) said that Umar revived the sunnah by innovating the prayers of taraweeh ? Which weren't practiced in the days of Abu Bakr ( Not trying to change the subject ). It is unlikely of Ali (as) to praise an innovator. And, as for who stole the words of whom, the hadith has been merely attributed to Ali (as) while in the other three books it says that Ali (as) didn't say any of that, he merely made the statement that she was made to say it.
-
You rely on a mutazilli to say the truth ?
In this case yes, because he is not alone, there are other supporting evidences.
I don't doubt that. If it wasn't for sunni books, all these people wouldn't be misguided today.
LOL, so you should stop following the current recitation of Quran, since it comes from Sunni sources too.
Or are you saying that people should just follow Shia sources, where we find Imams misguide people due to being Taqiyyah and we really don't know when Imam is in Taqiyyah and when he isn't.
As for the reality of Shia sources, then refer this article:Why Islamic teachings should NEVER be taken from Shia Sources?
https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2013/06/19/why-islamic-teachings-should-never-be-taken-from-shia-sources/
Why say such and such if there was no problems between Ali (as) and Umar ?
LOL, tubelight, what it implies, is that someone tampered the sermon of Nahjul balagha. And this is what Ibn Abil hadeed was trying to say.
The guesswork is far more convincing than the supposed lies of your kind that Ali (as) said that Umar revived the sunnah by innovating the prayers of taraweeh ? Which weren't practiced in the days of Abu Bakr ( Not trying to change the subject ). It is unlikely of Ali (as) to praise an innovator.
I won't mind because your whole madhab is based on guesswork. Because people who believe in the fairy tales of an non existing Imam, then this claim from such people isn't surprising.
As for Taraweeh then it was done for three days by Prophet(SAWS), so when a thing has its origin proven from Prophet(SAWS), it won't be considered an innovation in shariah.
And, as for who stole the words of whom, the hadith has been merely attributed to Ali (as) while in the other three books it says that Ali (as) didn't say any of that, he merely made the statement that she was made to say it.
Lol, if you say those words were said by a woman for Umar(RA), then if you believe that the same words were found in Nahjul balagha said by Ali(RA) for someone, then obviously Ali(RA) took these words from a woman, who used it before ALi(RA). Because Umar(RA) died many years before Malik al-Ashtar.
-
LOL, tubelight, what it implies, is that someone tampered the sermon of Nahjul balagha. And this is what Ibn Abil hadeed was trying to say.
LOL you believe it to be tempered when it comes to the missing name but don't think it might be tempered that the mention of Umar has made it in the book, even though the book was compiled by a rafidhi ?
As for Taraweeh then it was done for three days by Prophet(SAWS), so when a thing has its origin proven from Prophet(SAWS), it won't be considered an innovation in shariah.
He (sawa) prayed alone and not in a congregation. He disliked it when people started gathering behind him to pray so he stopped coming to the mosque. If he wanted to instill that practice, he wouldn't have gone to the mosque alone the first night and quit going after he saw people gathering.
Lol, if you say those words were said by a woman for Umar(RA), then if you believe that the same words were found in Nahjul balagha said by Ali(RA) for someone, then obviously Ali(RA) took these words from a woman, who used it before ALi(RA). Because Umar(RA) died many years before Malik al-Ashtar.
Means the whole narration being there is suspicious since you don't take anything from the rawafid.
-
Oh so much written while I was away, where to start. ;D
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.
-
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.
You're saying this while you're of the belief that Abbas and Ali (as) both knew of the hadith yet they still went back to ask Umar during his reign ? Why wasn't a similar claim made during the reign of Abu Bakr if Abbas and Ali (as) both accepted that the land was sadaqa and they wanted none of it ?
You're telling me that Ali (as) didn't accompany his wife the first time but he went and asked again during the caliphate of Umar
`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
It is clear from this that they both made a claim for it when they went to see Abu Bakr during his reign. Either that or that they didn't agree with his statement regarding the inheritance of Prophet Muhammad (sawa). Had it been they way you're describing it to be, they wouldn't even go to Umar during his reign if they had accepted the words of Abu Bakr.
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.
They became incharge during the reign of Umar and they had the dispute therein. The narrations clearly states that they both thought Abu Bakr to be a liar when he claimed such a thing took place and such statements had been made.
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.
How come they didn't hear it during the caliphate of Abu Bakr and went on to ask for their share ? Let's say Bibi Fatima (sa) didn't hear it but Abbas didn't hear it either ? Please present the speech of Bibi Fatima (sa) at the time she went to ask for her share.
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.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.[/color]
Again, it says they believe him to be a liar the first time they heard it because they contested this matter and you know that they both had not heard what Abu Bakr claimed and neither did they believe it. Had they heard it and accepted it, they would've never gone to ask for it to be entrusted with them during the reign of Umar and it is not even clear in you narrations whether the land Umar " Entrusted " with both of them was Fadak.
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."
This is where you're wrong again brother. If he wasn't there or merely accompanied Bibi Fatima (sa) he wouldn't need to go back and ask Umar to entrust the land's upkeep and maintainance. Meaning the claim was made for the entrustment mainly by Abbas. If Ali (as) didn't want it the first time for his wife, why is he asking for it again aftet her death and the death of Abu Bakr ? Why wasn't such an agreement been made during the caliphate of Abu Bakr ?
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:
Bukhari and Muslim have weak narrations ? Up until you showed up, no one made such a claim. Neither did amyone say it was flipped or otherwise.
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).
Exactly! If he didn't believe they had a right over the ownership then why go back to ask Umar ? If he didn't accompany her then on what do you base the argument that he heard the hadith yet, both Abbas and Ali (as) went back to Umar to ask for the share or authority to look after it. If they had let go of it the first time, why go back after Abu Bakr died and there was no need for it ?
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.
Please point out the weak narrator.
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!?
Again you've pointed out that Hashimites ( Although I don't know whom, since you claimed the only hashimites present were Bibi Fatima (sa) and Abbas who claimed for their share. If he was a liar then why did the uncle even agree to share the duties with a liar ?
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.
He didn't ask for his wife yet he asked for himself ?
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).
Did she ever disagree with anyone to the point that She never spoke to them after their disagreement ? Do we have any hadith stating she died angry with Ali (as) as she did with Abu Bakr ?
They themselves must be liars then when they claimed they heard the Prophet (saw) say so.
According to you they heard it yet they still went back to ask Umar to be entrusted with the management even though they acknowledged that the land was sadaqa and out their hands ?
They left a funeral to stop a Fitnah that could have ravaged the entire nation and ended Islam altogether.
A brother pointed out that Muhajireen and ansar had the right to choose and they already had chosen until Abu Bakr and Umar heard about it and left the funeral, while Ali (as) stayed back and didn't even go after the funeral.
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.
That means we all have a part in his inheritance and bayt al maal belongs to us. You bring the argument that Ahlul Bayt (as) inherited his (sawa) knowledge, so is the knowledge of Prophet (sawa) and his progeny equal ? Are there rules to how knowledge is devided ? Lol.
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.
Allah (swt) willed for Prophet Muhammad (sawa) to give away all his remaining possessions to charity , yet Prophet Muhammad (sawa) told people to give away even 1/3 of their inheritance to charity is too much ?
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.
Refer to sermon 6 of Nahj Al Balagha. By the time of Jamal and Siffeen and Nehrawan, he had enough people to support him so he fought them. Imam Al Hussain (as) didn't let go of the Imamah, he saved his blood by not fighting due to the lack of supporters. The same people that said he has turned an apostate by not fighting the umayyads.
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?
Perhaps you would like to tell me he had his nose broken after he broke the door or before it ? According to rafidhi narrations.
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.
The cowardice of Umar has been narrated in many a history books and hadith alike. Ask yourself if Imam Ali (as) had killed all of them that night, what would've happened to Islam ? Ali (as) would be the same as the two cowards Abu Bakr and Umar in the eyes of the world. Today instead of Abu Bakr and Umar, we would be calling Ali (as) a bloodthirsty, innovator and liar.
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.
Did any other wives say the same thing regarding the hadith ?
-
Quickily relply
You're saying this while you're of the belief that Abbas and Ali (as) both knew of the hadith yet they still went back to ask Umar during his reign ? Why wasn't a similar claim made during the reign of Abu Bakr if Abbas and Ali (as) both accepted that the land was sadaqa and they wanted none of it ?
You're telling me that Ali (as) didn't accompany his wife the first time but he went and asked again during the caliphate of Umar
They went back to ask about being placed in charge of it which is different then what al-`Abbas and Fatimah went to do during Abu Bakr's reign. It's quite admirable that they insisted on this and never dropped what they believe is their legitimate right. (unlike Imamah Ahem!)
They did not wish to ask Abu Bakr about this matter again during his reign so when he passed they went to `Umar and asked to be placed in charge of the Sadaqat, they convinced him so he handed it to them. Then they came back while fighting with each other so `Umar never changed his judgement. Later in `Uthman's reign they had another fight which ended in `Abbas dropping his share.
As for `Ali, either he accompanied them but had no part in the discussion or he never even accompanied them. It's not like they were going anywhere, Fatimah's house is literally inside the Masjid where Abu Bakr sits.
It is clear from this that they both made a claim for it when they went to see Abu Bakr during his reign. Either that or that they didn't agree with his statement regarding the inheritance of Prophet Muhammad (sawa). Had it been they way you're describing it to be, they wouldn't even go to Umar during his reign if they had accepted the words of Abu Bakr.
They did not accept that the lands of Sadaqah be taken away from them nor did they accept Abu Bakr's division of the Khums. It is unclear whether they asked to be simply placed in charge of it during Abu Bakr's reign and were denied or if that was just a matter they thought of in `Umar's reign. What is established is that `Abbas and Fatimah asked for inheritance in Abu Bakr's reign as well as Khums, they were denied this. Then they asked to be in control of the charity properties in `Umar's time. `Ali during his own reign never changed any of this and stuck to what Abu Bakr and `Umar judged.
They became incharge during the reign of Umar and they had the dispute therein. The narrations clearly states that they both thought Abu Bakr to be a liar when he claimed such a thing took place and such statements had been made.
`Umar used the expression "liar traitor etc..." as a rhetorical argument, because al-`Abbas was using those same words to refer to `Ali, none of those words were actually mentioned in Abu Bakr's time. How can they claim he's a liar if they admit the Prophet (saw) said what he said? In fact we know what Fatimah told Abu Bakr word for word, she said: "You know best what you heard from Rasul-Allah (saw)."
An academic analysis of all texts clearly shows what the situation was and what each side had in mind. The children of `Ali all dealt with those lands similarly, they never used them as inheritance but each time they'd appoint one of their own to be in charge of those lands. If you read the tail of the narration it states:
كانت هذه الصدقة بيد علي، منعها علي عباسا فغلبه عليها، ثم كان بيد حسن بن علي، ثم بيد حسين بن علي، ثم بيد علي بن حسين وحسن بن حسن، كلاهما كانا يتداولانها، ثم بيد زيد بن حسن، وهي صدقة رسول الله حقا
[These charities were with `Ali and he prevented al-`Abbas, then in the hands of al-Hasan, then al-Husayn, then in the hand of both `Ali bin Husayn and Hasan bin al-Hasan as they managed it, then in the hand of Zayd bin al-Hasan]
As you can see, they weren't passing laws of inheritance on it, they were just taking care of it generation after generation. If they took it as inheritance it would have been divided between their children instead of being managed by some individuals.
How come they didn't hear it during the caliphate of Abu Bakr and went on to ask for their share ? Let's say Bibi Fatima (sa) didn't hear it but Abbas didn't hear it either ? Please present the speech of Bibi Fatima (sa) at the time she went to ask for her share.
They had heard it during the life of the Prophet (saw), they were only reminded of it. As for Fatimah's words I'd have to go through the narrations to find what she said but here's the main argument:
Umm Hani' bint abi Talib narrated:
[...That Fatimah told Abu Bakr: “Who inherits you if you die?” He said: “My children and family.” She said: “Why then do you inherit the messenger (saw) without us?” He said: “O daughter of the messenger of Allah (saw), I never inherited from your father a house or wealth neither gold nor silver.” She said: “Yes you did, our share that Allah mentioned for us and the land which was purely owned by us in Fadak.”...]
He replies with the report that the Prophet (saw) did not wish to leave inheritance.
They also discussed the Khums, Anas narrated that Fatimah told Abu Bakr that he should know the right that Allah bestowed upon them (The household) from the war booty and she recited verse 41 of Surat-ul-Anfal.
Abu Bakr responded by saying:
[...I read from the book of Allah as you do and it did not reach my attention that this entire share (meaning the fifth of the fifth) is entirely spent on the close relatives of the messenger of Allah (saw)...]
Meaning, he believed that the one in charge may spend as much as he sees fit on the relatives of the Prophet (saw) based on their numbers and need.
and you know that they both had not heard what Abu Bakr claimed and neither did they believe it. Had they heard it and accepted it, they would've never gone to ask for it to be entrusted with them during the reign of Umar and it is not even clear in you narrations whether the land Umar " Entrusted " with both of them was Fadak.
They said they did so I believe them. As for Fadak, they never asked for it, who told you they went to ask `Umar for Fadak? They asked for the property of banu al-Nadeer in Madinah.
If he wasn't there or merely accompanied Bibi Fatima (sa) he wouldn't need to go back and ask Umar to entrust the land's upkeep and maintainance.
He actually could and would and there's nothing wrong with that. He thought he could be in control of it without it opposing the prophetic tradition.
Bukhari and Muslim have weak narrations ? Up until you showed up, no one made such a claim. Neither did amyone say it was flipped or otherwise.
Among scholars of knowledge it's very popular that the Sahihayn have weak chains in them. I'm not saying the narration is weak, I'm saying that version of the narration is weak. The same narration is being narrated five times in the same book, each time by a different narrator. One of these five has flipped the text slightly because he wasn't as good as the others, he was "Saduq" not "Thiqah".
If he didn't believe they had a right over the ownership then why go back to ask Umar ?
He went back to assume control of the charity, not to own it as inheritance. Big difference. If `Ali insisted on it being an inheritance then your argument would be valid, but they asked for it as a trust and they promised to use it as the messenger (saw) did.
Please point out the weak narrator.
There's no weak narrator. There's strong reliable narrators, and one honest narrator who isn't strong. The Shaykh of al-Duba`i in the last report is Saduq whereas the rest are Thiqaat and they narrate it differently. So we assume the four reliable narrators are right and the single less reliable narrator got it wrong and this is common.
Again you've pointed out that Hashimites ( Although I don't know whom, since you claimed the only hashimites present were Bibi Fatima (sa) and Abbas who claimed for their share. If he was a liar then why did the uncle even agree to share the duties with a liar ?
Well they were fighting about it weren't they? He shared it because there's no other way. Our belief as Ahlul-Sunnah is that `Abbas loved and respected `Ali but he said what he said in a moment of anger. Unlike the unrelialistic Shia approach to history that makes mountains from molehills.
He didn't ask for his wife yet he asked for himself ?
He asked for it for himself AFTER she passed away. When she was alive, she asked for inheritance and `Ali asked for nothing. Inheritance would be essentially split between children, wives and uncles, `Ali was a cousin who isn't entitled for anything.
Did she ever disagree with anyone to the point that She never spoke to them after their disagreement ? Do we have any hadith stating she died angry with Ali (as) as she did with Abu Bakr ?
Here's the thing, she did speak to Abu Bakr according to the authentic narration of `Amir al-Sha`bi. He came and spoke to her and she was pleased.
According to you they heard it yet they still went back to ask Umar to be entrusted with the management even though they acknowledged that the land was sadaqa and out their hands ?
They didn't see anything wrong with being placed in charge of the Sadaqah? A Sadaqah is a Sadaqah no matter who divides it and distributes it.
A brother pointed out that Muhajireen and ansar had the right to choose and they already had chosen until Abu Bakr and Umar heard about it and left the funeral, while Ali (as) stayed back and didn't even go after the funeral.
You might wanna elaborate. Abu Bakr and `Umar left right at the beginning, they returned later and attended the rest of the funeral, the Prophet (saw) died on Monday, he was prepared and buried on the evening of Tuesday as I recall. Secondly, nobody was even allowed to enter when the Prophet (saw) was being washed and shrouded, Abu Bakr himself was standing at the door telling people "This is his family's right, leave them in privacy."
A large portion of the Ansar from both the Aws and Khazraj had gathered around Sa`d. They were going to give him a pledge of allegiance if the Mouhajiroun hadn't shown up and intervened.
That means we all have a part in his inheritance and bayt al maal belongs to us. You bring the argument that Ahlul Bayt (as) inherited his (sawa) knowledge, so is the knowledge of Prophet (sawa) and his progeny equal ? Are there rules to how knowledge is devided ? Lol.
I'm not sure I follow what you're saying. It seems you don't exactly understand what is a Wasiyyah (Will) in Islam. Wasiyyah is of many kinds and what you're going for is not what Islam instructed.
Allah (swt) willed for Prophet Muhammad (sawa) to give away all his remaining possessions to charity , yet Prophet Muhammad (sawa) told people to give away even 1/3 of their inheritance to charity is too much ?
Exactly, not only that but his family can't even receive charity. All of this is from Allah's divine wisdom to stop the doubters from claiming the man was after wealth and power. All things that Shia claim are things that would cause anybody to doubt prophet-hood, that he appointed his own son-in-law as leader, he left vast rich lands for his children, he ordered everybody to pay 1/5th of their earning as a divine tax to his family members etc... This would EASILY cause anyone with a sense of intelligence to conclude this man was a fraud.
If you read the Seerah, you'd know that the Prophet (saw) never kept any possessions, he gave all his money away, he kept his family barely alive and offered the lands Muslims acquired in war for charity. That's the man we know and respect.
Refer to sermon 6 of Nahj Al Balagha. By the time of Jamal and Siffeen and Nehrawan, he had enough people to support him so he fought them. Imam Al Hussain (as) didn't let go of the Imamah, he saved his blood by not fighting due to the lack of supporters. The same people that said he has turned an apostate by not fighting the umayyads.
You can't say Hasan didn't have support, `Ali's army which he used to fight is the exact same army al-Hasan had rallied behind him. The moment al-Hasan too charge of his father's army he sought peace with Mu`awiyah and NO it's not to save his own blood, he himself said "I had the skulls of the Arabs in my hand, they'd fight my enemy and make peace with my ally, I left it all for the sake of Allah and so no blood would be shed."
He saved Muslim blood, not his own blood. You people claim Mu`awiyah is an evil tyrant and a liar, how would al-Hasan save his own blood by handing his neck to Mu`awiyah? If you read history you'd know that it's historically established that al-Hasan had a gigantic army who could have easily settled the fight, he just wasn't interested in fighting. Al-Husayn would have followed his father's footsteps, that's his personality and `Ali was right in his war.
PS. please stop quoting al-Nahj, nobody quotes this book, it's chainless and inaccurate, the author only chose those sermons because they sounded good, not because they're authentic or accurate.
Perhaps you would like to tell me he had his nose broken after he broke the door or before it ? According to rafidhi narrations.
You said the moment he stepped near the door `Ali broke his nose. So I ask, did `Umar break Fatimah's rib according to your Iraqi stories after he had his nose broken?
The cowardice of Umar has been narrated in many a history books and hadith alike. Ask yourself if Imam Ali (as) had killed all of them that night, what would've happened to Islam ?
According to the Shia version, if he had killed all of them it would have been great, then he could rule and establish correct "Shia Islam" and we'd all be twelvers.
Ali (as) would be the same as the two cowards Abu Bakr and Umar in the eyes of the world.
So if `Ali killed the two evil tyrants who stole his divine right he'd be a coward? But if he let them rule and destroy Islam and misguide the nation and he gives Bay`ah as Taqiyyah he'd be brave?
I think you got it upside down bro.
Did any other wives say the same thing regarding the hadith ?
It is established that two of his wives knew, `A'ishah and Juwayriyyah. The rest is unclear, it seems a group of his wives did not know that's why they sent `Uthman to ask for inheritance but we don't know who they were.
-
LOL, tubelight, what it implies, is that someone tampered the sermon of Nahjul balagha. And this is what Ibn Abil hadeed was trying to say.
LOL you believe it to be tempered when it comes to the missing name but don't think it might be tempered that the mention of Umar has made it in the book, even though the book was compiled by a rafidhi ?
Yes, I don't because of the reasons mentioned regarding the character of Sharif Al-Razi in the following article:
http://twelvershia.net/2015/12/21/al-radi-distorting-nahj-ul-balaghah/
P.S: It's not tempered its TAMPERED. :p
He (sawa) prayed alone and not in a congregation. He disliked it when people started gathering behind him to pray so he stopped coming to the mosque. If he wanted to instill that practice, he wouldn't have gone to the mosque alone the first night and quit going after he saw people gathering.
Dude you have been fed with false information by your Mullahs. The fact is that Prophet(SAWS) prayed in congregation for THREE NIGHTS. But he didn't come out the fourth night because he feared that this might become a obligatory prayer on the Ummah. Prophet(SAWS) didn't say I disliked congregation. If this was the case then he would have done this in the second night itself or He would have said this after ending the prayer on first day itself that, this was not allowed. Prophet(SAWS) used to be in the forefront when it came to correcting the people.
Here is the evidence from the hadeeth:
Narrated 'Urwa: That he was informed by `Aisha, "Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) went out in the middle of the night and prayed in the mosque and some men prayed behind him. In the morning, the people spoke about it and then a large number of them gathered and prayed behind him (on the second night). In the next morning the people again talked about it and on the third night the mosque was full with a large number of people. Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) came out and the people prayed behind him. On the fourth night the Mosque was overwhelmed with people and could not accommodate them, but the Prophet (ﷺ) came out (only) for the morning prayer. When the morning prayer was finished he recited Tashah-hud and (addressing the people) said, "Amma ba'du, your presence was not hidden from me but I was afraid lest the night prayer (Qiyam) should be enjoined on you and you might not be able to carry it on." So, Allah's Apostle died and the situation remained like that (i.e. people prayed individually). " [Sahih al-Bukhari #2012]
Moreover, the criticism of innovation doesn't suit the people who have filled their Madhab with innovations. Take example of Salat al-Fatima or Salat al-Abbas or Salat al-Ayat. If you don't know what this is, see the example of Shia innovation of Salat al-Ayat
Lol, if you say those words were said by a woman for Umar(RA), then if you believe that the same words were found in Nahjul balagha said by Ali(RA) for someone, then obviously Ali(RA) took these words from a woman, who used it before ALi(RA). Because Umar(RA) died many years before Malik al-Ashtar.
Means the whole narration being there is suspicious since you don't take anything from the rawafid.
I believe that the honest Rafidi, Sharif al-Razi did mention the name of Umar(RA), but the dishonest ones tampered the sermon.
-
Hani, I'd very much love to read this narration.
Umm Hani' bint abi Talib narrated:
[...That Fatimah told Abu Bakr: “Who inherits you if you die?” He said: “My children and family.” She said: “Why then do you inherit the messenger (saw) without us?” He said: “O daughter of the messenger of Allah (saw), I never inherited from your father a house or wealth neither gold nor silver.” She said: “Yes you did, our share that Allah mentioned for us and the land which was purely owned by us in Fadak.”...]
He replies with the report that the Prophet (saw) did not wish to leave inheritance.
They also discussed the Khums, Anas narrated that Fatimah told Abu Bakr that he should know the right that Allah bestowed upon them (The household) from the war booty and she recited verse 41 of Surat-ul-Anfal.
Abu Bakr responded by saying:
[...I read from the book of Allah as you do and it did not reach my attention that this entire share (meaning the fifth of the fifth) is entirely spent on the close relatives of the messenger of Allah (saw)...]
Meaning, he believed that the one in charge may spend as much as he sees fit on the relatives of the Prophet (saw) based on their numbers and need.
If you can share the source, and text, please.
Jazak'Allah.
-
Source is al-Tarikah by Nu`aym bin Hammad.
-
Source is al-Tarikah by Nu`aym bin Hammad.
Jazak'Allah.
Do you mind confirming the entire narration, please? Even if it's Arabic.