TwelverShia.net Forum

Most Recent Fadak Discussion on ShiaChat

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Hani

Re: Most Recent Fadak Discussion on ShiaChat
« Reply #100 on: July 30, 2015, 09:59:54 PM »
Your comments on Fadak.


Fadak is a part of Khaybar, but Khaybar contains a lot more than just Fadak, other parts of Khaybar were also Fay' and some were taken as Ghaneemah.


I quoted to you this:


((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.]))


The word Sawaafi means what he purely possessed on his own as it comes from the word Safi. This is the property Allah gave to his Prophet (saw) alone, it was especially for him and they are the lands taken after the Jews were chased out of Madinah.


Banu al-Nadeer are ONE of the many Jewish clans in the Arabian peninsula, Khaybar was a large land divided between MANY Jewish clans. All I am saying is, banu al-Nadeer were not the clan of Fadak, so when `Ali and `Abbas ask for guardianship of the Prophet's (saw) purely possessed lands of banu al-Nadeer, they're talking about what this Jewish clan owned in Madinah. Fadak is a completely different land and this would have been quite clear if you spent a short time researching as the narrations and the early scholars always make distinctions between Fadak and the property of banu al-Nadeer since they're two different things.


For example:



In Tareekh al-Madinah by ibn Shubah we read in the narration of `Umar ibn al-Khattab:


[The messenger (saw) acquired (the Fay’) from Khaybar and Fadak and banu al-Nadeer. As for Banu al-Nadeer it was saved for his urgent needs, as for Fadak it was for the stranded travelers, and as for Khaybar it was divided into three: Two thirds for the Muslims and a third for his family then what remained of it would be returned on the poor Mouhajireen.]


The link you gave me contains this sentence, read it carefully:


وكذلك أهل فدك من اليهود


Meaning the Jewish people of Fadak then followed suit, so they also surrendered peacefully after they heard about what happened to the other clans.


This is written in other sources:



In Tareekh ibn Shubah from the report of Husayl al-Ashja`i:


[That the Prophet (saw) made peace with the people of Fadak, and then made peace with the people of Wateeh and Sulalim from the lands of Khaybar, so all of these became in his possession purely, as for Kateebah it was from the Khums and it was near Wateeh and Sulalim so they were all combined into one land, and were from what the Prophet (saw) left as a Sadaqah and what fed his wives.]


You will find more details on how the people of Fadak surrendered in the books of history and islamic-economy.
عَلامَةُ أَهْلِ الْبِدَعِ الْوَقِيعَةُ فِي أَهْلِ الأَثَرِ. وَعَلامَةُ الْجَهْمِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُشَبِّهَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الْقَدَرِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُجَبِّرَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الزَّنَادِقَةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ الأَثَرِ حَشْوِيَّةً

Religion = simple & clear

Hani

Re: Most Recent Fadak Discussion on ShiaChat
« Reply #101 on: July 30, 2015, 10:26:15 PM »
I forgot this bit

Quote
He says "I will give it to you if you promise to do with it what the prophet saw did with it"

meaning I'm not going to give you ownership of the land, only administration.

This is after he reminded them of the Prophetic narration that they agreed to hearing, which is the biggest evidence they weren't asking for inheritance at this point. I add, nor did they treat the land as personal property after they were allowed to manage it. `Umar said the above because he knew that it was his duty to manage this land just as Abu Bakr did and the Prophet (saw) before them, he knew that it was his own neck on the line on judgement day if he hands it to someone who doesn't manage it in the prophetic way, so he made them both promise (and he trusted them) that they would manage it upon prophetic guidance.
عَلامَةُ أَهْلِ الْبِدَعِ الْوَقِيعَةُ فِي أَهْلِ الأَثَرِ. وَعَلامَةُ الْجَهْمِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُشَبِّهَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الْقَدَرِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُجَبِّرَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الزَّنَادِقَةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ الأَثَرِ حَشْوِيَّةً

Religion = simple & clear

Hani

Re: Most Recent Fadak Discussion on ShiaChat
« Reply #102 on: July 30, 2015, 10:57:02 PM »

I'm sorry I confused your Abu hatims, that must make me a person who doesn't have shame,is unjust and impious.



When your mistakes are in this pathetic format:


Quote
Or does Timrizi's manuscripts have the "added" phrase as well? Lol
This hadith is reported all over your books with "Ali is the best judge" now you're going to tell us that "oops the manscrupt just happen to not have this phrase"


Quote
Also look at the way he talks about Abu hatim ibn hibban "The expert" Lol, he just told me not long ago that "Ibn hibban strengthens majaheel".
So hes an expert when you like??


Then Yes, you've little shame and piety. Make no mistake, we keep our respect to those who deserve it.
عَلامَةُ أَهْلِ الْبِدَعِ الْوَقِيعَةُ فِي أَهْلِ الأَثَرِ. وَعَلامَةُ الْجَهْمِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُشَبِّهَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الْقَدَرِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُجَبِّرَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الزَّنَادِقَةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ الأَثَرِ حَشْوِيَّةً

Religion = simple & clear

Farid

Re: Most Recent Fadak Discussion on ShiaChat
« Reply #103 on: July 31, 2015, 12:42:02 AM »
Brother Herz. I do not understand the reason behind the holier than thou attitude. Please watch your tone.

Response to your attempt at quoting. You quoted this from Mustadrak Al-Hakim:

Quote
Heres chapter 27 of Marifat al ulum by al hakim

النَّوْعُ الثَّامِنُ مِنْ هَذَا الْعِلْمُ , مَعْرِفَةُ الْمَرَاسِيلِ الْمُخْتَلَفِ فِي الاحْتِجَاجِ بِهَا , وَهَذَا النَّوْعُ مِنْ عِلْمِ الْحَدِيثِ صَعْبٌ , قَلَّ مَا يَهْتَدِي إِلَيْهِ إِلا الْمُتَبَحِّرُ فِي هَذَا الْعِلْمِ , فَإِنَّ مَشَايِخَ الْحَدِيثِ لَمْ يَخْتَلِفُوا فِي أَنَّ الْحَدِيثَ الْمُرْسَلَ هُوَ الَّذِي يَرْوِيهِ الْمُحَدِّثُ بَأَسَانِيدَ مُتَّصِلَةٍ إِلَي التَّابِعِيِّ ، فَيَقُولُ التَّابِعِيُّ : قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهُ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ , وَأَكْثَرُ مَا تُرْوَى الْمَرَاسِيلُ مِنْ أَهْلِ الْمَدِينَةِ عَنْ سَعِيدِ بْنِ الْمُسَيِّبِ , وَمِنْ أَهْلِ مَكَّةَ عَنْ عَطَاءِ بْنِ أَبِي رَبَاحٍ , وَمِنْ أَهْلِ مِصْرَ عَنْ سَعِيدِ بْنِ أَبِي هِلالٍ , وَمِنْ أَهْلِ الشَّامِ عَنْ مَكْحُولٍ الدِّمَشْقِيِّ , وَمِنْ أَهْلِ الْبَصْرَةِ عَنِ الْحَسَنِ بْنِ أَبِي الْحَسَنِ , وَمِنْ أَهْلِ الْكُوفَةِ عَنْ إِبْرَاهِيمَ بْنِ يَزِيدَ النَّخَعِيِّ , وَقَدْ يُرْوَى الْحَدِيثُ بَعْدَ الْحَدِيثِ عَنْ غَيْرِهِمْ مِنَ التَّابِعِينَ , إِلا أَنَّ الْغَلَبَةَ لِرِوَايَاتِهِمْ ، وَأَصَحَّهَا مَرَاسِيلُ سَعِيدُ بْنُ الْمُسَيِّبِ , وَالدَّلِيلُ عَلَيْهِ أَنَّ سَعِيدًا مِنْ أَوْلادِ الصَّحَابَةِ , فَإِنَّ أَبَاهُ الْمُسَيِّبَ بْنَ حَزْنٍ مِنْ أَصْحَابِ الشَّجَرَةِ وَبَيْعَةِ الرِّضْوَانِ , وَقَدْ أَدْرَكَ سَعِيدٌ عُمَرَ وَعُثْمَانَ وَعَلِيًّا وَطَلْحَةَ وَالزُّبَيْرَ إِلَى آخِرِ الْعَشْرَةِ , وَلَيْسَ فِي جَمَاعَةِ التَّابِعِينَ مَنْ أَدْرَكَهُمْ ، وَسَمِعَ مِنْهُمْ غَيْرُ سَعِيدٍ وَقَيْسِ بْنِ أَبِي حَازِمٍ , ثُمَّ مَعَ هَذَا فَإِنَّهُ فَقِيهُ أَهْلِ الْحِجَازِ وَمُفْتِيهِمْ ، وَأَوَّلُ فُقَهَاءِ السَّبْعَةِ الَّذِينَ يَعُدُّ مَالِكُ بْنُ أَنَسٍ إِجْمَاعَهُمْ إِجْمَاعَ كَافَّةِ النَّاسِ.

أَبَا عَبَّاسٍ مُحَمَّدَ بْنَ يَعْقُوبَ ، يَقُولُ : سَمِعْتُ الْعَبَّاسَ الدُّورِيَّ ، يَقُولُ : سَمِعْتُ يَحْيَى بْنَ مَعِينٍ ، يَقُولُ : " أَصَحُّ الْمَرَاسِيلِ مَرَاسِيلُ سَعِيدِ بْنِ الْمُسَيِّبِ ، وَأَيْضًا فَقَدْ تَأَمَّلَ الأَئِمَّةُ الْمُتَقَدِّمُونَ مَرَاسِيلَهُ ، فَوَجَدُوهَا بِأَسَانِيدَ صَحِيحَةٍ ، وَهَذِهِ الشَّرَائِطُ لَمْ تُوجَدْ فِي مَرَاسِيلِ غَيْرِهِ ، فَهَذِهِ صِفَةُ الْمَرَاسِيلِ عِنْدَ أَهْلِ الْحَدِيثِ ".

أَبُو الْعَبَّاسِ مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ يَعْقُوبَ ، حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ حَنْبَلَ ، قَالَ : وَجَدْتُ بِخَطِّ أَبِي ، ثنا الْحَسَنُ بْنُ عِيسَى مَوْلَى ابْنِ الْمُبَارَكِ ، قَالَ " حَدَّثْتُ ابْنَ الْمُبَارَكِ بِحَدِيثٍ لأَبِي بَكْرِ بْنِ عَيَّاشٍ ، عَنْ عَاصِمٍ ، عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ ، قَالَ : حَسَنٌ.

فَقُلْتُ لابْنِ الْمُبَارَكِ : إِنَّهُ لَيْسَ عَنْهُ إِسْنَادٌ.

فَقَالَ : إِنَّ عَاصِمًا يَحْتَمِلُ لَهُ أَنْ يَقُولَ : قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ ".

قَالَ : فَغَدَوْتُ إِلَى أَبِي بَكْرٍ ، فَإِذَا ابْنُ الْمُبَارَكِ قَدْ سَبَقَنِي إِلَيْهِ وَهُوَ إِلَى جَنْبِهِ فَظَنَنْتُهُ قَدْ سَأَلَهُ عَنْهُ.

قَالَ الْحَكَمُ : فَأَمَّا مَشَايِخَ أَهْلِ الْكُوفَةِ فَكُلُّ مَنْ أَرْسَلَ الْحَدِيثِ عَنِ التَّابِعِينَ وَأَتْبَاعِ التَّابِعِينَ وَمَنْ بَعْدَهُمْ مِنَ الْعُلَمَاءِ فَإِنَّهُ عِنْدَهُمْ مُرْسَلٌ مُحْتَجٌّ بِهِ ، وَلَيْسَ كَذَلِكَ عِنْدَنَا ، فَإِنَّ مُرْسَلُ أَتْبَاعِ التَّابِعِينَ عِنْدَنَا مُعْضَلٌ ، وَسَيَأْتِي ذِكْرُهُ وَشَرْحُهُ بَعْدَ هَذَا إِنْ شَاءَ اللَّهُ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ.


I just read it, it doesn't even talk about Abi qilaaba.

ذكر النوع السابع والعشرين من علوم الحديث هذا النوع منه معرفة علل الحديث ، وهو علم برأسه غير الصحيح ، والسقيم ، والجرح والتعديل

حدثنا أبو العباس محمد بن يعقوب ، حدثنا العباس بن محمد الدوري قال : ثنا قبيصة بن عقبة ، عن سفيان ، عن خالد الحذاء أو عاصم ، عن أبي قلابة ، عن أنس قال : قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم : « أرحم أمتي أبو بكر وأشدهم في دين الله عمر ، وأصدقهم حياء عثمان وأقرأهم أبي بن كعب ، وأعلمهم بالحلال والحرام معاذ بن جبل ، وإن لكل أمة أمينا ، وإن أمين هذه الأمة أبو عبيدة » قال أبو عبد الله : وهذا من نوع آخر علته ، فلو صح بإسناده لأخرج في الصحيح ، إنما روى خالد الحذاء ، عن أبي قلابة أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال : « أرحم أمتي » ، مرسلا وأسند ، ووصل : « إن لكل أمة أمينا ، وأبوعبيدة أمين هذه الأمة » هكذا رواه البصريون الحفاظ ، عن خالد الحذاء ، وعاصم جميعا ، وأسقط المرسل من الحديث وخرج المتصل بذكر أبي عبيدة في الصحيحين والجنس الثالث من علل الحديث


Then you said:

Quote
Bayhaqis book

11862 [ ص: 210 ] باب ترجيح قول زيد بن ثابت على قول غيره من الصحابة - رضي الله عنهم أجمعين - في علم الفرائض .

( أخبرنا ) أبو الحسين بن بشران العدل ببغداد ، أنا أبو جعفر محمد بن عمرو بن البختري الرزاز ، ثنا حنبل بن إسحاق ، ثنا قبيصة بن عقبة ، ثنا سفيان بن سعيد ، عن خالد ، وعاصم ، عن أبي قلابة ، عن أنس بن مالك ، قال : قال رسول الله - صلى الله عليه وسلم : " أرحم أمتي أبو بكر ، وأشدهم في دين الله عمر ، وأصدقهم حياء عثمان ، وأفرضهم زيد ، وأقرؤهم أبي ، وأعلمهم بالحلال والحرام معاذ ، وإن لكل أمة أمينا ، وأمين هذه الأمة أبو عبيدة بن الجراح " .

وكذلك رواه قطبة بن العلاء ، عن سفيان ، عن خالد الحذاء ، عن أبي قلابة ، عن أنس موصولا .

وكذلك رواه وهيب بن خالد ، وعبد الوهاب بن عبد المجيد الثقفي ، عن خالد الحذاء موصولا .

He says that the chain with qutba ibn 3la2, from sufyan from khalid from Abi qilaaba from Anas is connected.

He also says again that the chain with waheeb ibn khaalid and abdul wahaab from khalid is connected.

Bayhayi is disgareeing with you, he is saying that Abi qilaaba from Anas is not disconnected.

Al-Bayhaqi says a couple of sentences after:

ورواه بشر بن المفضل واسمعيل ابن علية ومحمد بن أبى عدى عن خالد الحذاء عن أبى قلابة عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم مرسلا لقوله في أبى عبيدة فانهم وصلوه في آخره فجعلوه عن انس بن مالك عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم وكل هؤلاء الرواة ثقات اثبات والله اعلم

This shows that he disagrees with the connected hadith and that the disconnected hadith is the correct variation.

Please get off your high horse. Allah yahdeek.

Abu-jafar herz

Re: Most Recent Fadak Discussion on ShiaChat
« Reply #104 on: July 31, 2015, 01:16:31 AM »
First.


Quote
((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.]))


Sawafi MEANS PROPERTIES OR LAND, IT DOESN'T MEAN "PURE POSSESSIONS".

صَوافي: ( اسم )
الصَّوافِي : الأملاك ، والأرضُ مات أهلها ولا وَارثَ لها

Possessions/properties, or land whose people has died and no one has inherited/taken it.

They were asking for the properties of banu nadeer.

Secondly.

Can you give me a commentary from your scholars who say that they weren't returning asking for Fadak?

Thirdly.

They were asking for Fadak, however even if they were only asking for the gardens of Medina left by Banu Nadeer, this is 100 percent irrelevant as Imam Ali [as] is still asking for the land that Fatima [as] asked for, proving that he didn't agree with Abu bakr's position.

Lastly.

They were not asking for only the produce of the land, they were for the land itself, however let us say that they were asking for the proceedings of the land,this still proves that Imam Ali [as] disagreed with Abu bakr's position and ruling towards Fatima who denied her the proceedings on the basis that prophet do not inherit. If Imam Ali [as] agreed with Abu bakr's ruling on this hadith, he would not be at Umar's door step causing umar to repeat abu bakr's position.

So either way, if you want to say "they are only asking for the proceedings of the land", then Imam Ali [as] still rejected Abu Bakr's understanding of the hadith he used, since Abu bakr denied fatima the same request.

« Last Edit: July 31, 2015, 02:09:57 AM by Abu-jafar herz »

Hani

Re: Most Recent Fadak Discussion on ShiaChat
« Reply #105 on: July 31, 2015, 02:29:36 AM »
I was teaching you some Arabic, the definition you gave is exactly what I'm saying, "Amlaak" The Mulk is the full possession, in our case the Sawaafi or Safayaa, so don't google weak definitions from commercial websites!!

Here's what Lisan al-`Arab says so that you know where I got the "pure" from:

الصَّفْوُ والصَّفَاءُ ، مَمْدودٌ : نَقِيضُ الكَدَرِ ، صفَا الشيءُ والشَّرابُ يَصْفُو صَفاءً وصُفُوًّا ، وصَفْوُهُ وصَفْوَتُه وصِفْوَتُه وصُفْوَتُه : ما صَفَا منه ، وصَفَّيْتُه أَنَا تَصْفِيَةً . وصَفْوَةُ كُلِّ شيءٍ : خالِصُهُ من صَفْوَة المالِ وصَفْوَةِ الإخَاء . الكسائي : هو صُفْوَةُ المَاءِ وصِفْوَةُ الماءِ ، وكذلك المالُ . وقال أَبو عبيدة : يقال له صَفْوَةُ مالِي وصِفْوَةُ مالِي وصُفْوَة مالِي ، فإذا نَزَعُوا الهاءَ قالوا له صَفْوُ مالِي ، بالفتح لا غير . وفي حديث عَوفِ بن مالك : لَهُمْ صِفْوَةُ أَمْرِهِمْ ؛ الصِّفْوةُ ، بالكَسْرِ : خِيارُ الشيء وخُلاصَتُه وما صَفَا منه ، فإذا حذفت الهاء فتحت الصاد ، وهو صَفْوُ الإهالَة لا غيرُ . والصَّفاءُ : مَصْدَرُ الشيءِ الصافي . وإذا أَخَذَ صَفْوَ ماءٍ من غدِيرٍ قال : اسْتَصْفَيْتُ صَفْوَةً . وصَفَوْتُ القِدْرَ إذا أَخَذْتَ صَفْوَتَها . والمِصْفَاةُ : الرَّاووُقُ . وفي الإناءِ صِفْوَةٌ مِن مَاءٍ أَوْ خَمْرٍ أَي قَلِيلٌ . وصَفَا الجَوُّ : لم  تكن فيه لُطْخَةُ غَيْمٍ . ويومٌ صافٍ وصَفْوانُ إذا كان صَافِيَ الشَّمْس لا غَيْمَ فيه ولا كَدَرَ وهو شدِيدُ البَرْدِ . وقولُ أَبي فَقْعَسٍ في صِفَةِ كَلإٍ : خَضِعٌ مَضِغٌ صافٍ رَتِعٌ ؛ أَراد أَنَّه نَقِيُّ من الأَغْثَاءِ والنَّبْتِ الذي لا خَيْرَ فيه ، فإذا كان ذلك فهو من هذا الباب ، وقد يكون صَافٍ مقلوبًا من صائِفٍ أَي أَنه نَبْتٌ صَيْفِيٌّ فقُلِبَ ، فإذا كان هذا فليس من هذا الباب وإنما هو من باب ص ي ف . أَبو عبيد : الصَّفِيُّ من الغنيمة ما اخْتارَه الرئيس من المَغْنَمِ واصْطَفاه لنَفْسِه قبلَ القسْمَةِ منْ فَرسٍ أَو سيفٍ أَو غيره ، وهو الصَّفيَّةُ أَيضًا ، وجَمْعُه صَفايا
وفي الحديث : إنْ أَعْطَيْتُمُ الخُمُس وسهمَ النبي ، صلى الله عليه وسلم ، والصَّفِيَّ فأَنْتُم آمِنُونَ ؛ قال  الشعبي : الصفيّ عِلْقٌ تَخَيَّرَهُ رسولُ الله ، صلى الله عليه وسلم ، منَ المَغْنم ، كانَ منه صَفِيَّةُ بنتُ حُيَيٍّ ؛ ومنه حديث عائشة : كانت صَفِيَّةُ من الصَّفَايا ، تَعْني صَفِيَّة بنْتَ حُيَيٍّ كانتْ من غَنيمَةِ خَيْبَرَ . واسْتَصْفَيْتُ الشيء إذا اسْتَخْلَصْتَه . ومن قرأَ : فاذكُروا اسمَ اللهِ عَلَيْها صَوافِيَ ، بالياء ، فَتفسيرهُ أَنَّها خالصَة لله تعالى يذْهَب بها إلى جمع صافية ؛ ومنه قيل للضِّيَاع التي يَسْتَخْلِصُها السلطانُ لخاصته : الصَّوَافِي . وفي حديث عليّ والعباس ، رضي الله عنهما : أَنهما دَخَلا على عمر ، رضي الله عنه ، وهُما يَخْتَصِمان في الصَّوافِي التي أَفاءَ اللهُ على رسولِه ، صلى الله عليه وسلم ، من أَموال بَني النَّضِير ؛ الصَّوافِي : الأَمْلاكُ والأَرض التي جَلا عَنْها أَهْلُها أَو ماتُوا ولا وارِثَ لَها ، واحدتها صافِيَةٌ . واسْتَصْفَى صَفْوَ الشيء : أَخَذَه . وصَفَا الشيءَ : أَخَذَ صَفْوَه

Meaning after the Jews left it it became purely his.
عَلامَةُ أَهْلِ الْبِدَعِ الْوَقِيعَةُ فِي أَهْلِ الأَثَرِ. وَعَلامَةُ الْجَهْمِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُشَبِّهَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الْقَدَرِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُجَبِّرَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الزَّنَادِقَةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ الأَثَرِ حَشْوِيَّةً

Religion = simple & clear

Hani

Re: Most Recent Fadak Discussion on ShiaChat
« Reply #106 on: July 31, 2015, 02:31:51 AM »
Man this thread is a waste of time, the readers got the full picture by now and further details can be found in my reseach. No need to continue so you now have our permission to go celerate at SC and say you defeated us with your divine arguments (even though this thread is ur public humiliation literally, you couldn't even find Farid's quotes even after he gave you the book and chapter names).
عَلامَةُ أَهْلِ الْبِدَعِ الْوَقِيعَةُ فِي أَهْلِ الأَثَرِ. وَعَلامَةُ الْجَهْمِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُشَبِّهَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الْقَدَرِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُجَبِّرَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الزَّنَادِقَةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ الأَثَرِ حَشْوِيَّةً

Religion = simple & clear

Hani

Re: Most Recent Fadak Discussion on ShiaChat
« Reply #107 on: August 01, 2015, 03:45:44 AM »
Salam,

I wish to apologize for the brothers since I suddenly locked this thread, I was upset at the silliness of the Saba'i Shiite, he already made loads of mistakes (Most of which he doesn't admit) since he never opened a book yet he acts as if he's some infallible saint who knows what he's talking about. I judged it as a waste of time after 100 posts as we proved our point and he obviously will never submit. I did however pin it as it contained much benefits and clarifications as well as showing the complete ignorance of the Saba'i.

I had declared this thread locked here:
http://forum.twelvershia.net/general-sunni-vs-shia/moved-most-recent-fadak-discussion-on-shiachat/msg7524/#new

I also answered one of his dumb questions in that same thread above.

There is also another very minor clarification I made about the translation of Sawaafi as "pure possessions" instead of just "possessions" here:
http://forum.twelvershia.net/sahabah-ahlulbayt/fadak-and-hani-a-story-of-love-and-betrayal/msg7523/#new

I don't even know why this Jahil is wasting our time with how to best translate Sawaafi since the addition of the word "pure" makes not much difference other than eloquence.

Anyway this is now opened again for further questions (if any of you have any) and I have moved it to the "Sahabah & Ahlul-Bayt" section instead of the general section.

Enjoy,

 ; )
عَلامَةُ أَهْلِ الْبِدَعِ الْوَقِيعَةُ فِي أَهْلِ الأَثَرِ. وَعَلامَةُ الْجَهْمِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُشَبِّهَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الْقَدَرِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُجَبِّرَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الزَّنَادِقَةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ الأَثَرِ حَشْوِيَّةً

Religion = simple & clear

Abu-jafar herz

Re: Most Recent Fadak Discussion on ShiaChat
« Reply #108 on: August 01, 2015, 05:06:37 AM »
Quote
Oh and let me fix your translation of this Arabic sentence:

Quote
As sawafi : Amlaak (which means properties), and the land which there does remain its people or die without an inheritor of it'.

الصَّوافِي : الأَمْلاكُ والأَرض التي جَلا عَنْها أَهْلُها أَو ماتُوا ولا وارِثَ لَها

[Al-Sawaafee: The properties/possessions and the land whose owners were exiled/expelled or they passed away without heirs.]

This describes banu al-Nadeer who were kicked out of Madinah and left their properties behind.

No actually allow me to fix your translation, when I first translated the sentence I wrote :

Possessions/properties, or land whose people has died and no one has inherited/taken it.

So obviously I wasn't writing does but doesn't, but you locked the thread before I could edit the typo, I even explained what lisan al arab meant : They were describing Fadak as a land where there is no inheritor, not "pure possessions" as you put it. So the definition i gave you isn't from google its from Lisan al arab.


Moving on, allow me to educate you on Arabic.

الصَّوافِي : الأَمْلاكُ والأَرض التي جَلا عَنْها أَهْلُها أَو ماتُوا ولا وارِثَ لَها

If you want to be literal, as you are trying to be, the literal translation is

"As-Sawafi, properties and the land which its people have evacuated it or they died and there is no inheritor of it(their land)".


جَلا عن : خَرَجَ مِنْ
clear out of ; depart from ; evacuate ; go away from ; leave ; move out of ; pull out of ; quit ; vacate ; withdraw from

You translated it as : [Al-Sawaafee: The properties/possessions and the land whose owners were exiled/expelled or they passed away without heirs.]



It doesn't say that they were exiled or expelled, it says that they left.

Do you want some more Arabic education? No problem.

As-Sawafi in your quote was referring to land ya [EDIT OF FILTHY SHIA LANGUAGE], since sawafi refers to a land which there is no inheritor not because it is "pure possession" .

The point is, Ali [as] was asking Umar for the land from banu nadeer not "the pure possesions" as your illiterate self put.

When I translate Arabic texts on forums many times I skim through and translate quikcly, sometimes I miss a part or two but my goal is to quickly get the general meaning/understanding out. However your problem is, is that you mistranslate things and build your argument on it, you're like an illiterate farmer from trablos who opened a website attacking Shia and he doesn't know how to use a dictionary, billah 3layk just close your webstie down and save us from your "research".

As-Sawafi in the quote is referring to LANDS/PROPERTIES, not "pure possession". If you honestly think that the hadith you translated comes out to "pure possession" then hang yourself, no one can help you.

I'm not arrogant nor am I ignorant, I actually only responded to you firmly because you were insulting my madhab and religion before I even stepped on this forum, including calling me impious and evil. Regarding my mistake with Timirzi then actually it wasn't my mistake,the website gave me the book title as Timirzi with the hadith being Ibn majah, if you want I'll give you a picture of exactly what I mean.

Don't try to score cheap points, especially if you have no reason to.

« Last Edit: August 01, 2015, 05:38:28 AM by Hani »

Hani

Re: Most Recent Fadak Discussion on ShiaChat
« Reply #109 on: August 01, 2015, 05:38:55 AM »
Herz banned for wasting time with nonsense and using filthy language.
عَلامَةُ أَهْلِ الْبِدَعِ الْوَقِيعَةُ فِي أَهْلِ الأَثَرِ. وَعَلامَةُ الْجَهْمِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُشَبِّهَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الْقَدَرِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُجَبِّرَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الزَّنَادِقَةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ الأَثَرِ حَشْوِيَّةً

Religion = simple & clear

Hani

Re: Most Recent Fadak Discussion on ShiaChat
« Reply #110 on: August 01, 2015, 09:28:35 AM »
For those wondering why this thread was closed, AbuJay Herz left us the best example in his above post. Here is what he wrote:

Quote
No actually allow me to fix your translation, when I first translated the sentence I wrote :

Possessions/properties, or land whose people has died and no one has inherited/taken it.

So obviously I wasn't writing does but doesn't, but you locked the thread before I could edit the typo, I even explained what lisan al arab meant : They were describing Fadak as a land where there is no inheritor, not "pure possessions" as you put it. So the definition i gave you isn't from google its from Lisan al arab.


Moving on, allow me to educate you on Arabic.

الصَّوافِي : الأَمْلاكُ والأَرض التي جَلا عَنْها أَهْلُها أَو ماتُوا ولا وارِثَ لَها

If you want to be literal, as you are trying to be, the literal translation is

"As-Sawafi, properties and the land which its people have evacuated it or they died and there is no inheritor of it(their land)".


جَلا عن : خَرَجَ مِنْ
clear out of ; depart from ; evacuate ; go away from ; leave ; move out of ; pull out of ; quit ; vacate ; withdraw from

You translated it as : [Al-Sawaafee: The properties/possessions and the land whose owners were exiled/expelled or they passed away without heirs.]



It doesn't say that they were exiled or expelled, it says that they left.

Do you want some more Arabic education? No problem.

As-Sawafi in your quote was referring to land ya [EDIT OF FILTHY SHIA LANGUAGE], since sawafi refers to a land which there is no inheritor not because it is "pure possession" .

The point is, Ali [as] was asking Umar for the land from banu nadeer not "the pure possesions" as your illiterate self put.

When I translate Arabic texts on forums many times I skim through and translate quikcly, sometimes I miss a part or two but my goal is to quickly get the general meaning/understanding out. However your problem is, is that you mistranslate things and build your argument on it, you're like an illiterate farmer from trablos who opened a website attacking Shia and he doesn't know how to use a dictionary, billah 3layk just close your webstie down and save us from your "research".

As-Sawafi in the quote is referring to LANDS/PROPERTIES, not "pure possession". If you honestly think that the hadith you translated comes out to "pure possession" then hang yourself, no one can help you.

I'm not arrogant nor am I ignorant, I actually only responded to you firmly because you were insulting my madhab and religion before I even stepped on this forum, including calling me impious and evil. Regarding my mistake with Timirzi then actually it wasn't my mistake,the website gave me the book title as Timirzi with the hadith being Ibn majah, if you want I'll give you a picture of exactly what I mean.

Don't try to score cheap points, especially if you have no reason to.

Do you guys see this entire paragraph above? Well at first you must think the guy has something important to say, but after you read the entire thing you discover that it's completely devoid of any content, it serves no purpose other than making this thread longer and wasting people's valuable time.

Then he talks about "scoring cheap points" by exposing his Jahl and ignorance. For instance one of his shameful mistakes which he was forced to admit was attributing something to al-Tirmidhi which wasn't even there, he says:

Quote
Regarding my mistake with Timirzi then actually it wasn't my mistake,the website gave me the book title as Timirzi

Do you think that exposing your ignorance in this example is "scoring cheap points"? Well guess what, it's not, because the false attribution you made was quite the serious one and it could have made the outcome of the entire Hadithi research different!! So highlighting your ignorance isn't just about scoring cheap points, rather it exposes your falsehood and proves our point when we say you havn't researched anything nor are you even qualified for research.

But if you want to see who's after the cheap stuff, then this last post of yours is the biggest example of how cheap you are. This entire long thing you wrote is because you wanted me to translate the word Sawaafi to "properties" instead of "possessions".

You left Fadak and inheritance and abandoned the entire topic (after your ignorance was exposed) and you found it appropriate to waste our time because you wanted us to change this:

Quote
((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.]))

INTO THIS:

Quote
((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 property that Allah granted as Fay’ to his messenger (saw) from bani al-Nadeer.]))

Wow what a difference!! As if by possessions we meant anything else other than the lands and property left behind by those Jews.

So yes, we have every right to close this thread after we answered all the relevant questions you had while you decided to just keep going and waste everyone's time with nothing but whining and ranting like a kid about the most useless and minor of things.
عَلامَةُ أَهْلِ الْبِدَعِ الْوَقِيعَةُ فِي أَهْلِ الأَثَرِ. وَعَلامَةُ الْجَهْمِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُشَبِّهَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الْقَدَرِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُجَبِّرَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الزَّنَادِقَةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ الأَثَرِ حَشْوِيَّةً

Religion = simple & clear

Hani

Re: Most Recent Fadak Discussion on ShiaChat
« Reply #111 on: August 05, 2015, 10:33:52 PM »
First.

Sawafi MEANS PROPERTIES OR LAND, IT DOESN'T MEAN "PURE POSSESSIONS".

صَوافي: ( اسم )
الصَّوافِي : الأملاك ، والأرضُ مات أهلها ولا وَارثَ لها

Possessions/properties, or land whose people has died and no one has inherited/taken it.

They were asking for the properties of banu nadeer.

Secondly.

Can you give me a commentary from your scholars who say that they weren't returning asking for Fadak?

Here's a funny bit, remember how abuJay was bangging our heads about how we shouldn't translate Sawaafi as "possessions" yet if you read the above he himself wrote "Possessions/properties, or land whose people has died..."

Also just for the benefit, here's some additional clarification for what we previously said about what `Ali was asking for. Herz insisted that `Ali was asking for Fadak (because he doesn't know the difference between Fadak and Banu al-Nadeer), here is what `Umar said in the narration of Ibn Hadthan from Sunan abi Dawoud:

كَانَتْ لِرَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ ثَلَاثُ صَفَايَا بَنُو النَّضِيرِ وَخَيْبَرُ وَفَدَكُ ، فَأَمَّا بَنُو النَّضِيرِ فَكَانَتْ حُبُسًا لِنَوَائِبِهِ ، وَأَمَّا فَدَكُ فَكَانَتْ حُبُسًا لِأَبْنَاءِ السَّبِيلِ ، وَأَمَّا خَيْبَرُ فَجَزَّأَهَا رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ ثَلَاثَةَ أَجْزَاءٍ جُزْأَيْنِ بَيْنَ الْمُسْلِمِينَ وَجُزْءًا نَفَقَةً لِأَهْلِهِ فَمَا فَضُلَ عَنْ نَفَقَةِ أَهْلِهِ جَعَلَهُ بَيْنَ فُقَرَاءِ الْمُهَاجِرِينَ

[Rasul-Allah (saw) had three properties/possessions/lands: Banu al-Nadeer, Khaybar and Fadak. As for banu al-Nadeer he kept it for his urgent needs etc...]

Now read the narration where `Ali and `Abbas go to ask `Umar and see what those narrations say:

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 property that Allah granted as Fay’ to his messenger (saw) from bani al-Nadeer.]

In other words, so that no one may be the least bit confused, `ALI NEVER ASKED FOR FADAK AGAIN as the Rafidah claim. This piece of land they obsess over, `Ali never asked for it nor did he attempt to acquire it during his own reign or even give it to Fatimah's progeny.
عَلامَةُ أَهْلِ الْبِدَعِ الْوَقِيعَةُ فِي أَهْلِ الأَثَرِ. وَعَلامَةُ الْجَهْمِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُشَبِّهَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الْقَدَرِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُجَبِّرَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الزَّنَادِقَةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ الأَثَرِ حَشْوِيَّةً

Religion = simple & clear

Aba AbdAllah

Re: Most Recent Fadak Discussion on ShiaChat
« Reply #112 on: August 06, 2015, 12:17:02 AM »
Brother, that guy hertz understood that he is no match for you, that is why he chose to escape.

Ebn Hussein

Re: Most Recent Fadak Discussion on ShiaChat
« Reply #113 on: August 17, 2015, 04:51:03 PM »
And actually the person sinning is you, making a disgraceful website like this creating sectarian hate between Sunnah and Shia, you should be ashamed of yourself. You attack Allah [swt] religion day and night.

Coming from someone whose sect is based on sectarianism and hatred.

That must have been the funniest joke so far on this board. Rafidism = Islam? Attacking Rafidism = Attacking Islam?! What a twisted logic. What Hani set up is a thorn in your throats, which is good to know. Refuting and exposing the people of Bida3 and Zandaqah is pure worship, we worship Allah by refuting your human worshipping dozener sect. Also he said most of Sunni scholars are like Bin Baz etc. although he is very well aware that Salafi scholars are a minority compared to Ash'aris and Maturidis and Atharis. What a dishonest person.

[billah 3layk just close your webstie down and save us from your "research".

Subhanallah who put such a fear in the heart of the Rafidah. No doubt Hani is doing a good job, for if his website wasn''t exposing their Rafidi Deen, then they would care less and not beginning more than once (like Theodor Herzl guy) like a desperate person, asking us to shut the site down.
« Last Edit: August 18, 2015, 03:32:04 AM by Ebn Hussein »
الإمام الشافعي رحمه الله
لم أر أحداً من أهل الأهواء أشهد بالزور من الرافضة! - الخطيب في الكفاية والسوطي.

Imam Al-Shafi3i - may Allah have mercy upon him - said: "I have not seen among the heretics a people more famous for falsehood than the Rafidah." [narrated by Al-Khatib Al-Baghdadi/Al-Kifayah]

Ibn Yahya

Re: Most Recent Fadak Discussion on ShiaChat
« Reply #114 on: August 18, 2015, 05:33:55 PM »
And actually the person sinning is you, making a disgraceful website like this creating sectarian hate between Sunnah and Shia, you should be ashamed of yourself. You attack Allah [swt] religion day and night.

Coming from someone whose sect is based on sectarianism and hatred.

That must have been the funniest joke so far on this board. Rafidism = Islam? Attacking Rafidism = Attacking Islam?! What a twisted logic. What Hani set up is a thorn in your throats, which is good to know. Refuting and exposing the people of Bida3 and Zandaqah is pure worship, we worship Allah by refuting your human worshipping dozener sect. Also he said most of Sunni scholars are like Bin Baz etc. although he is very well aware that Salafi scholars are a minority compared to Ash'aris and Maturidis and Atharis. What a dishonest person.

[billah 3layk just close your webstie down and save us from your "research".

Subhanallah who put such a fear in the heart of the Rafidah. No doubt Hani is doing a good job, for if his website wasn''t exposing their Rafidi Deen, then they would care less and not beginning more than once (like Theodor Herzl guy) like a desperate person, asking us to shut the site down.

wasn't Theodore Herzl that bloke who made zionism?

Hani

Re: Most Recent Fadak Discussion on ShiaChat
« Reply #115 on: August 19, 2015, 06:32:03 AM »
@Ebn Hussein

I also noticed the same, he's literally begging to close the site down.
عَلامَةُ أَهْلِ الْبِدَعِ الْوَقِيعَةُ فِي أَهْلِ الأَثَرِ. وَعَلامَةُ الْجَهْمِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُشَبِّهَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الْقَدَرِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُجَبِّرَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الزَّنَادِقَةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ الأَثَرِ حَشْوِيَّةً

Religion = simple & clear

Hadrami

Re: Most Recent Fadak Discussion on ShiaChat
« Reply #116 on: August 19, 2015, 07:21:23 AM »
@Ebn Hussein

I also noticed the same, he's literally begging to close the site down.

well he begged you to ban him by using foul language. I notice when shia realise they can't refute someone, they use that tactic to get banned and then cried foul about being banned.

It's like them crying takfiri when theyre the biggest takfiri sect around.

Ebn Hussein

Re: Most Recent Fadak Discussion on ShiaChat
« Reply #117 on: August 19, 2015, 06:40:08 PM »
The irony is he started whinning like in Muharram, portraying Hani and this website as secterian project, attacking the Deen of Allah (to him the heretical sect of tomb and human worship is the Deen of Allah!) while his sect is secterianism by definition and the Rafidah have set up endless websites throwing shubuhat at Ahl Al-Sunnah. I was just amused at his desperations and how he literally begged Hani to close down the website.

Again, excellent job Hani, may ALlah reward you, Herzl and other Sabaites know well that this century is the century that has exposed their Sabaite Batiniyyah more than ever in their entire history.
الإمام الشافعي رحمه الله
لم أر أحداً من أهل الأهواء أشهد بالزور من الرافضة! - الخطيب في الكفاية والسوطي.

Imam Al-Shafi3i - may Allah have mercy upon him - said: "I have not seen among the heretics a people more famous for falsehood than the Rafidah." [narrated by Al-Khatib Al-Baghdadi/Al-Kifayah]

Hani

Re: Most Recent Fadak Discussion on ShiaChat
« Reply #118 on: November 08, 2015, 12:40:19 AM »
There is a new thread on SC about Fadak, he has 12 questions, please remind me to refute all of them later bros.

link: http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/234969323-12-questions-concerning-fadak-baagh-e-fidak/

Anybody on SC can post these answers to their questions.
« Last Edit: November 08, 2015, 10:11:36 AM by Hani »
عَلامَةُ أَهْلِ الْبِدَعِ الْوَقِيعَةُ فِي أَهْلِ الأَثَرِ. وَعَلامَةُ الْجَهْمِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُشَبِّهَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الْقَدَرِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُجَبِّرَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الزَّنَادِقَةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ الأَثَرِ حَشْوِيَّةً

Religion = simple & clear

Hani

Re: Most Recent Fadak Discussion on ShiaChat
« Reply #119 on: November 08, 2015, 10:11:01 AM »
My replies in blue:



1. Regarding the claim of Fadak, the claim of Fatima (p.b.u.h) was enough because Janabe Fatima (p.b.u.h) is the main spirit of the verse of Tatheer. She would never talk or utter anything which is not true and correct. Under these circumstances, non-acceptance of her claim tantamounted to casting aspersions on Ayat Tatheer wherein God had certified the purity of the characters of the persons of the Cloak.


We disagree with you that purification meant infallibility and we disagree on who this verse was revealed for. So saying that "We Shia are right because Fatimah (as) can never be wrong" This is a weak lazy argument.


2. Why the witnesses of Hazrat Ali (p.b.u.h) and others were not accepted when the Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h) had repeatedly said, “Wherever Ali (p.b.u.h) goes, Truth goes with him.” Ayat Tatheer was revealed in connection with Hazrat Imam Hasan and Imam Husain (p.b.u.h). Were not these two princes, the leaders of the youths of Paradise? Why the witness of Umme Salma, may God be pleased with her, and Umme Aiman, was not accepted even thought they were among those promised paradise by the Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h)? Whether the Qur’an for giving witness was not complete? No, because the witness of two men and one woman or two women and one man was enough to complete the Qur’an. Were the witnesses not the upholders of justice? Leave alone the question of being upholders of justice, their infallibility personified.


The event of the witnesses is a fabricated story by some Koufans and even if it were Sahih Abu Bakr's judgement would still be sound and if they cannot provide more than two female witnesses to prove that a giant piece of land belongs to them, not even documents, then that makes absolutely no sense and is very suspicious.


3. Before arriving at the decision, the wtinessess of Janabe Fatima (p.b.u.h) were driven out. Why? Whther this act was not to be construed as tyrannical or that of high-handedness?


Because this event never took place.


4. This is an undisputed act of Muslim Law that whoever is in possession of anything, be it a property or anything else, it belongs to the person who is possessing it. He would simply say under the oath that a certain property belongs to him. Moreover, witnesses are required by the party who is claiming and not by the one who is having the property in his possession. Under this law calling for witness does not conform with the requirements of Justice. Thus, calling for witnesses from Fatima Zahra (p.b.u.h) was not right. Her responsibility was to simply say an oath. Presenting witnesses was the duty of the first Caliph. Why then Islamic law was tampered with and circumvented?


Fatimah (as) herself refutes your claim since it's authentically and popularly established that she asked for it as inheritance, she did not claim it to be her possession.


5. On many occasions, the first Caliph had agreed to the problems presented by the companions of Prophet (p.b.u.h) without calling for witnesses. For instance, once Janab Jabir came to the Caliph saying that the Prophet (p.b.u.h) had promised that he would pay him some amount.


The first Caliph paid him one thousand five hundred dirhams without calling for witnesses. Similarly, once Abu Basheer Maazani had said that the Prophet (p.b.u.h) had promised to pray him some amount. The Caliph paid him 1400 dirhams (Sahih Bukhari).


Then what was the reason, that in these cases no witnesses were called for. In some cases only companionship of Prophet (p.b.u.h) was enough for consideration. But, in the case of the Prophet’s daughter why witnesses were required? There were the very persons about whom the verse of Tatheer was revealed.


The fact that Abu Bakr helped the Companions and fulfilled the Prophet's (saw) promises is evidence that he was honest and sincere, thus your claims against him are baseless.


6. When Fadak was not considered as a property of Fatima (p.b.u.h), why then on previous occasion the first Caliph had issued a certificate of property in her favour, when earlier she had represented in the matter? Why then the second Caliph seeing the certificate in the hands of Fatima (p.b.u.h) had torn it into pieces and had spat on it? (Sharh Nahjul Balagha, of Ibn Abil Hadeed vol. 16, p.174; Seera Halbiya, vol. 3, p.362)


When Fadak was not the property of Janabe Fatima (p.b.u.h), why was it given to her in the first instance? And if at all it was hers, why was it usurped?


This is a fabricated story that has no sound chain, it contradicts your above story of witnesses, the source quoted by yourself is a non-Sunni one. As for al-Seerah al-Halabiyyah, it mentions that she asked for it as inheritance and it mentions that Abu Bakr told her the narration and it also mentions that `Umar bin `Abdul-`Aziz returned the land to be a Sadaqah just as it was in the Prophet's (saw) time. Here are the texts:

ولما مات صلى الله عليه وسلم وولى أبو بكر رضى الله عنه الخلافة سألته فاطمة رضى الله عنها أن يجعلها أو نصفها لها فأبى وروى لها أنه صلى الله عليه وسلم قال إنا معاشر الأنبياء لا نورث ما تركناه صدقة أى على المسلمين

فلما صارت الخلافة لعمر بن عبد العزيز رضى اله عنه فقيل له إن مروان اقتطعها أى جعلها أقطاعا له فقال أرأيتم أمرا منعه رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فاطمة أى بقوله صلى الله عليه وسلم لا نورث ما تركناه صدقة ليس لى بحق وإنى أشهدكم أنى قد رددتها على ماكانت على عهد رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أى صدقة على المسلمين

As for your story, it's not a part of the author's words rather he was quoting Sabt-ibn-al-Jawzi who is a rejected deviant:

وفى كلام سبط ابن الجوزى رحمه الله أنه رضي الله تعالى عنه كتب لها بفدك ودخل عليه عمررضى الله تعالى عنه فقال ما هذا فقال كتاب كتبته فاطمه بميراثها من ابيها فقال مماذا تنفق على المسلمين وقد حار بتك العرب كما ترى ثم احذ عمر الكتاب فشقه


7. If the first Caliph was right in the case of Fadak, then why did he repeatedly repent at the time of remembering Fadak? And why he himself was ashamed of his own act?


Where's the evidence that he repented because his decision on Fadak was wrong? Also we can bring authentic evidence that `Ali regretted his wars in Jamal and Siffeen, does this mean he was wrong?


8. The hadith that was quoted by the first Caliph for not conceding Fadak was clearly against the spirit of the Qur’an. In Qur’an, there is reference to the property of Sulaiman, Dawood, ‘Aal-e-Yaqub, Zacharia and Yahya – all of them were prophets and property holders (Surah Naml, verse 16; Surah Mariam, verse 46).


Apart from the above, Janabe Fatima Zahra (p.b.u.h) was infallible, virtue and honest. Why then her statement was not taken as true? The hadith recited by the first Caliph was not conforming with Qur’anic spirit and teachings, and hence, cannot be accepted. Why then was Fatima Zahra (p.b.u.h) deprived and denied her own property?


1-The authentic narration from Abu Bakr does not necessarily state that all prophets do not leave inheritance. (So referring to other prophets serves no purpose).

2-The inheritance in the Qur'an is that of prophet-hood and knowledge and not money. (So it doesn't apply to your situation)


9. If it is true, that the Messenger of Allah had not let any property and if at all there is any, it belongs to the government or to all Muslims, why then the wives of the Prophet (p.b.u.h) specially Abu Bakr’s daughter, Ayesha, were not told to vacate possession of their premises? This was also the property left by the Prophet (p.b.u.h). Whether the denial of the right of property was applicable only to Janabe Fatima Zahra(p.b.u.h)?


Because he (saw) had given them those houses to live in since they cannot remarry after him and several other reasons but this is sufficient.


10. If the property left by the Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h), does not belong to any particular person, then why did Abu Bakr seek permission only from his own daughter, Ayesha, for getting buried besides the Prophet (p.b.u.h)?


If at all the inheritance of property is considered, the wives are not entitled to get a share in it. At the most they can have residential rights. If the property rights are accepted, in the presence of children, a wife’s share is only 1/8th. And in this very 1/8th only, all wives would get equal share. If it is to be distributed among nine wives, the share of each wife would come to 1/72. In this way, Ummul Mo’mineen, Ayesha could give permission only upto her own share. Why other were not approached and consulted?


Because it was her house, she does whatever she wants.


11. If it is accepted that the Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h) did not gift Fadak to Janabe Fatima (p.b.u.h) and that there was no property belonging to the Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h), even then, why were the Ahlul Bayt deprived of the Khums of the Khaibar and the wars? Has Qur’an not ordained to pay Khums to all your relatives (Zul Qurba) (Surah Tawba: 41, Surah Isra: 28)? In regards to booty, the question of inheritance does not arise.


Are you accusing the Prophet (saw) of depriving them of their right? Because you said this Khums was from the Khaybar wars during the life of the Prophet (saw) therefore it was his responsibility (saw) to divide and give each his share.


12. Had the argument and the stand of the Khilafat been right regarding Fadak, then why Omar II, Omar bin Abdul Aziz, Omavi, Saffah, Mehdi and Mamoon Abbasi, had made offers to return Fadak to the progeny of Janabe Fatima (p.b.u.h)?


Just above in the sources you quoted (Seerah Halabiyyah) it says the opposite, that `Umar II returned it as a Sadaqah just as it was, he didn't give it to Fatimah (as).
عَلامَةُ أَهْلِ الْبِدَعِ الْوَقِيعَةُ فِي أَهْلِ الأَثَرِ. وَعَلامَةُ الْجَهْمِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُشَبِّهَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الْقَدَرِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُجَبِّرَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الزَّنَادِقَةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ الأَثَرِ حَشْوِيَّةً

Religion = simple & clear

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
74 Replies
13974 Views
Last post December 28, 2014, 10:51:40 PM
by Hani
16 Replies
4441 Views
Last post March 29, 2015, 02:35:47 PM
by Hani
45 Replies
18644 Views
Last post September 22, 2015, 12:01:45 AM
by Bolani Muslim
0 Replies
985 Views
Last post July 31, 2015, 03:05:01 AM
by Hani