< Previous Part: Those those that testified for Fatima (as)
Next Part: Prophetic Inheritance in the Qur'an >
After Fatima (as)'s claims were denied, that she was gifted Fadak by her father, and her evidence was put aside, she resorted to her second argument: inheritance. Fatima (as) argued that she was entitled to her right of inheritance, and so Abu Bakr should return the land he had taken possession of, as it was not rightfully his but rather hers. However, when presenting this argument, Abu Bakr dismissed it by narrating a hadith from Rasulullah (saw) that nobody from Bani Hashim had heard of before. In this article, we will discuss Fatima's claims in the light of shari'a and how she was legally entitled to Fadak. Then, we will examine the strangeness surrounding Abu Bakr's hadith.
The Ruling of Fay'
In Islamic jurisprudence, there is a concept referred to as Ghanimat & Fay, both which are entitled to Rasulullah (saw). As for the difference between them, one can refer to Fakhr al-Razi who explains in his Tafsir al-Kabir Vol. 15, pg. 247:
وهو أن الغنيمة ما أتعبتم أنفسكم في تحصيلها وأوجفتم عليها الخيل والركاب بخلاف الفيء فإنكم ما تحملتم في تحصيله تعبا
The spoils of war (ghanimah) are those that you exerted effort to acquire, using horses and camels in the process. In contrast, the fay is something you did not endure effort to obtain.
This concept is proven from the Qur’an in Surat al-Hashr 59:6:
وَمَآ أَفَآءَ ٱللَّهُ عَلَىٰ رَسُولِهِۦ مِنْهُمْ فَمَآ أَوْجَفْتُمْ عَلَيْهِ مِنْ خَيْلٍۢ وَلَا رِكَابٍۢ وَلَـٰكِنَّ ٱللَّهَ يُسَلِّطُ رُسُلَهُۥ عَلَىٰ مَن يَشَآءُ ۚ وَٱللَّهُ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ شَىْءٍۢ قَدِيرٌۭ
And what Allah restored [of property] to His Messenger from them - you did not spur for it [in an expedition] any horses or camels, but Allah gives His messengers power over whom He wills, and Allah is over all things competent.
As we read, the verse affirms that property of Fay (فيء) is land acquired not through battles, and the Prophet (saw) has ownership of such a land. Now the land of Fadak was a property of Fay, and this is because no battle was fought to conquer Fadak as mentioned earlier, rather it was given as a result of a peace treaty with the Jews.
All Islamic historians affirm that the Prophet (saw) acquired Fadak through non-violent means, but rather through negotiations made by the Jews at Khaybar, for example Al-Tabari in Tarikh al-Tabari. Vol. 8, pg. 127 (Arabic):
The Messenger of God besieged the people of Khaybar in their two fortresses of al-Watīh and al-Sulālim. Finally, when they were certain that they would perish, they asked him to banish them and spare their lives, which he did. The Messenger of God had already taken all the property-al-Shiqq, Națāh, al-Katībah, and all their fortresses-except what belonged to those two fortresses. When the people of Fadak heard of what they had done, they sent word to the Messenger of God, asking him to banish them and spare their lives, and they would leave him their property; and he did so. Among the men who mediated between them and the Messenger of God in the matter was Muhayyişah b. Mas'ūd, a member of the Banū Harithah. When the people of Khaybar surrendered on these terms, they asked the Messenger of God to employ them on the properties for a half share. They said, "We know more about them than you and are better cultivators of them." So the Messenger of God made peace with them for a half share, provided that "if we want to make you leave, we may." The people of Fadak made peace with him on similar terms. Khaybar became the booty (fay') of the Muslims; Fadak belonged exclusively to the Messenger of God, because the Muslims had not attacked its people with horses or camels.
The same was recorded by:
Al-Nawawi in his Sharh Sahih Muslim. Vol. 12, pg. 118 - 119.
Al-Dhahabi in Tarikh al-Islam. Vol. 1, pg. 441 - 442.
Knowing that Fadak was a land of Fay is crucial, as the next verse, also states that some of the share (of fay land) was for his family:
مَّآ أَفَآءَ ٱللَّهُ عَلَىٰ رَسُولِهِۦ مِنْ أَهْلِ ٱلْقُرَىٰ فَلِلَّهِ وَلِلرَّسُولِ وَلِذِى ٱلْقُرْبَىٰ وَٱلْيَتَـٰمَىٰ وَٱلْمَسَـٰكِينِ وَٱبْنِ ٱلسَّبِيلِ كَىْ لَا يَكُونَ دُولَةًۢ بَيْنَ ٱلْأَغْنِيَآءِ مِنكُمْ ۚ وَمَآ ءَاتَىٰكُمُ ٱلرَّسُولُ فَخُذُوهُ وَمَا نَهَىٰكُمْ عَنْهُ فَٱنتَهُوا۟ ۚ وَٱتَّقُوا۟ ٱللَّهَ ۖ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ شَدِيدُ ٱلْعِقَابِ
And what Allah restored to His Messenger from the people of the towns - it is for Allah and for the Messenger and for [his] near relatives and orphans and the [stranded] traveler - so that it will not be a perpetual distribution among the rich from among you. And whatever the Messenger has given you - take; and what he has forbidden you - refrain from. And fear Allah; indeed, Allah is severe in penalty.
The Sunni exegetes have differed on which land is referred to in this incident. Some have argued it was the property of Banu Nadhir, but this view has been criticized because the Muslims fought against them multiple times. The stronger opinion is that this was regarding Fadak, as no fighting occurred for it. Fakhruddin al-Razi mentions this in Tafsir al-Kabir, Vol.15, pg. 247:
أن هذا الْآيَةَ مَا نَزَلَتْ فِي قُرَى بَنِي النَّضِيرِ لِأَنَّهُمْ أَوْجَفُوا عَلَيْهِمْ بِالْخَيْلِ وَالرِّكَابِ وَحَاصَرَهُمْ رَسُولُ اللَّه صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ وَالْمُسْلِمُونَ بَلْ هُوَ فِي فَدَكَ
This verse was revealed with regard to Fadak, which the Prophet (saw) acquired as it was conquered without any fighting.
Regardless of this, the fact remains that a share of the property of Fadak belongs to the Ahl al-Bayt (as) according to the shar’ia, based on rules laid out in the Qur’an. This also means that the Ahl al-Bayt, including Fatima bint Muhammad (sa), were actively using Fadak for their own needs during the time of the Holy Prophet (saw). ‘Umar himself affirmed this in Sahih al-Bukhari 7305:
So that property was totally meant for Allah's Messenger (ﷺ), yet he did not collect it and ignore you, nor did he withhold it with your exclusion, but he gave it to you and distributed it among you till this much of it was left behind, and the Prophet, used to spend of this as the yearly expenditures of his family and then take what remained of it and spent it as he did with (other) Allah's wealth.
However, upon his death, Abu Bakr argued that Fatima (as)'s entitlement to Fadak was invalidated by a hadith he alone had heard from the Holy Prophet (saw). This famous hadith states: “We Prophets are not inherited; what we leave behind is left for Sadaqa.” Fatima (as), Ali (as), and al-‘Abbas objected to this hadith by refusing to accept Fadak as the property of the Islamic State. Instead, they continuously claimed it as their rightful inheritance. This also indicates that they were completely unaware of Abu Bakr’s hadith, raising suspicions about its authenticity. It is troubling that a matter concerning the Prophet’s family was unknown to them, yet known to someone with no direct connection to this land.
Abu Bakr knew, but the Ahl al-Bayt did not?
It is truly disturbing that Rasulullah (saw) informed Abu Bakr about the fate of his own property, yet, for some inexplicable reason, chose not to inform his own family that they would be deprived of it after his death. The Ahl al-Bayt had rightfully enjoyed their rights to Fadak for all these years, only for it to be suddenly taken from them, with no mention or explanation from the Prophet (saw).
Imagine a scenario where your neighbor comes to you after your father's death and informs you that your father made a will leaving your home to him, and that you and your family must vacate because the house is now his. Would you accept such a thing, even if he is considered truthful? Neither you, nor your siblings, nor your mother, grandparents, or anyone else in your household was informed of this except for you. No one would accept losing their home just like that. Yet, they criticize Fatima (as) for becoming angry when the same thing happened to her—her land was forcefully taken, based on a report that no one in her family was informed about!
Rasulullah (saw) used to share Ilm al-Ghayb (i.e. knowledge of the unseen) to Fatima (as), such as in Sahih Muslim 2450c:
And when he died I again asked her and she said that he (the Holy Prophet) told her: Gabriel used to recite the Qur'an to me once a year and for this year it was twice and so I perceived that my death had drawn near, and that I (Fatima) would be the first amongst the members of his family who would meet him (in the Hereafter). He shall be my good forerunner and it made me weep. He again talked to me secretly (saying): Aren't you pleased that you should be the sovereign amongst the believing women or the head of women of this Ummah? And this made me laugh.
The Prophet (saw) informed Fatima (as) of unseen knowledge, that she will be the first amongst his household to join him in death, but failed to inform her that her entitlement to Fadak would be gone? He knew she would die early on, but did not take into account the problems that would occur due to his neglection of explaining these issues to Fatima (as)?
In fact, A’isha herself critiqued such a reasoning as she says in Sahih al-Bukhari 4612:
Whoever says that Muhammad concealed part of what was revealed to him, is a liar, for Allah says:-- "O Apostle (Muhammad)! Proclaim (the Message) which has been sent down to you from your Lord." (5.67)
Therefore, we ask the reader to ponder upon this: How could the Prophet (saw) conceal the rules of inheritance, something divinely inspired to him by Allah, from his own family, when the matter directly affects them, and not Abu Bakr?
Sadaqa is prohibted for the Ahl al-Bayt
This becomes even more concerning when we consider the unique rulings regarding the Ahl al-Bayt, such as their prohibition from taking sadaqah. The Prophet (saw) was particularly cautious in informing his family about this prohibition to ensure they adhered to it. Therefore, the lack of communication regarding the loss of Fadak becomes even more troubling. To elaborate, the following is recorded in Sahih Muslim 1069a:
"The Prophet (saw) saw Al-Hassan ibn Ali (as) taking a date from the dates dedicated to charity and put it in his mouth. The Prophet (saw) said: "Throw it, throw it, verily charity is not Halal for us."
We see how careful the Prophet (saw) was in abstaining his family from taking charity, for it was prohibted upon them. How could it be the case that he did not inform them to stop using Fadak after he passes away, knowing it would turn into sadaqa once he dies? And why would Abu Bakr, the one who has no relations to this property, be the only one to be aware of this?
Khums is obligotary for the Ahl al-Bayt
Since sadaqa is prohibed for the Ahl al-Bayt (as), Allah has opened another pathway for them to collect wealth, and that is through khums. This is a 1/5 of the war booty's wealth, and the Qur'an mentions this in Surah Anfal 8:41:
وَاعلَموا أَنَّما غَنِمتُم مِن شَيءٍ فَأَنَّ لِلَّهِ خُمُسَهُ وَلِلرَّسولِ وَلِذِي القُربىٰ وَاليَتامىٰ وَالمَساكينِ وَابنِ السَّبيلِ
And know that anything you obtain of war booty - then indeed, for Allah is one fifth of it and for the Messenger and for [his] near relatives and the orphans, the needy, and the [stranded] traveler.
In Tafsir al-Tabari. Vol. 11, pg. 193 - 194 it mentions Mujahid, Ibn Abbas, and Ibn Jurayj to hold the opinion that 'the near relatives' (al-Qurba) refers to the Ahl al-Bayt (as). It is also recorded that Imam Zayn al-'Abideen (as) said:
عن [أبي الديلمِ] قال: قال علىُّ بنُ الحسينِ رحمةُ اللَّهِ عليه لرجلٍ مِن أهلِ الشأْمِ: أما قرَأْتَ فى "الأنفال": ﴿وَاعْلَمُوا أَنَّمَا غَنِمْتُمْ مِنْ شَيْءٍ فَأَنَّ لِلَّهِ خُمسه وَلِلرسولِ﴾ الآيةَ؟ قال: نعم. قال: فإنكم لأنتم هم؟ قال: نعم.
[Abu al-Dilam] said: Ali ibn al-Husayn (as) said to a man from the people of Sham: "Have you not read the verse in Surah Al-Anfal {8:41}? He said: "Yes, are you from them?". He (Ali) said: "Yes."
This is also evident from the Prophet’s own actions, as he would give those tribes their khums as read in Sunan Abi Dawud 2980:
Narrated Jubair b. Mu'tim: On the day of Khaibar the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) divided the portion to his relatives among the Banu Hashim and Banu 'Abd al-Muttalib, and omitted Banu Nawfal and Banu 'Abd Shams. So I and 'Uthman b. 'Affan went to the Prophet (ﷺ) and we said: Messenger of Allah, these are Banu Hashim whose superiority we do not deny because if the position in which Allah has placed you in relation to them ; but tell us about Banu 'Abd al-Muttalib to whom you have given something while omitting us though our relationship is the same as theirs. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: There is no distinction between us and Banu 'Abd al-Muttalib in pre-Islamic days and in Islam. We and they are one, and he (ﷺ) intertwined his fingers.
This was also recorded in Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah. Vol 18, pg. 468, Hadith # 35692 with a hasan (reliable) chain. As we can see in the above, Rasulullah (saw) would distribute the khums ONLY to his relatives of Banu Hashim and Mutalib, as this was their exclusive right that Allah (swt) has given them in the Qur’an. Otherwise why would he exclude Bani Nawfal and Abd Shams? It is because only his family are entitled to this war booty, since they are prohibited from sadaqa. This is why Ibn Abbas writes as recorded in Sunan an-Nasai' 4134:
Najdah wrote to Ibn 'Abbas and asked him about the share of the relatives (of the Messenger of Allah), to whom should it be given?" Yazid b. Hurmuz said:"I wrote down the letter of Ibn 'Abbas to Najdah in which he said; You have written asking me about the share of the relatives (of the Messenger of Allah), to whom should it be given? It is for us, the members of the household (Ahl Al-Bait). 'Umar used to offer to help the single among us (to get married), and to give some to our poor and to pay off the debts of our debtors. We insisted that he should given it to us, but he refused, and we left it at that.
This is also why the best mufassir of the Sunnis (per Ibn Taymiyyah), al-Tabari concludes the correct opinion about this verse is that it’s about those clans in Tafsir al-Tabari. Vol. 11, pg. 196. Similarly in al-Jazaeri’s Aysar al-Tafasir, Vol. 2, pg. 310 we read:
المراد بذي القربى : قرابة رسول الله ﷺ ، وهم بنو هاشم ، وهو مذهب مالك ، وزاد الشافعي وأحمد: بني المطلب لأن بني هاشم وبني المطلب شيء واحد
The meaning of ‘al-Qurba’ is: The relatives of Rasulullah (saw), and they are Banu Hashim per Malik’s opinion. Al-Shafi’i and Ahmad added Banu Muttalib because Bani Hashim and Banu Muttalib are one thing.
Now, it is evident that the Qur’anic command is that the relatives get their share of war booty - the khums. However, Abu Bakr did not adhere to this rule and kept this away from them. Yet when it came to giving out the khums, we find it of no surprise that Abu Bakr refused to hand out khums to the relatives of Rasulullah (saw). So much so that when al-Sayyida Zahraa (as) approached him for it, he said as recorded in Sunan an-Nasa'i 4141:
It was narrated from 'Aishah that: Fatimah sent word to Abu Bakr asking for her inheritance from the Prophet, from his charity and what was left of the Khumus of Khaibar. Abu Bakar said: "The Messenger of Allah said: 'We are not inherited from."'
Is this not contradicting the Qur’an? And why did the Qur’an not make it clear that this will change post the death of the Prophet (saw), or atleast the Prophet himself? Fatima (as) was only entitled to the khums during his lifetime, but after his death she needs to find another source of income? Her khums, land and inheritance were her whole incomes. Abu Bakr maliciously intended to starve Bani Hashim and force them to oblige with his orders.
Even the Sahaba recognised this contradiction, such as Jubayr b. Mut’im in Sunan Abi Dawud 2978 saying:
Jubayr said: He (the Prophet) never gave any share of the Khums to Banu Abd Shams and Banu Nawfil as he did (give) to Banu Hashim and Banu Abdul-Mutalib. Abu Bakr used to distribute Khums in this manner too, except that he did not give the close relatives of the Messenger of Allah what the Messenger of Allah used to give to them. Umar and Uthman used to give him some of it, however.
So here we see that this was only Abu Bakr’s opinion, subhanallah! Is the khums only available to them during the time of the Messenger (s) or after him as well? If it’s only during his time, then why did the other caliphs give them their khums? If it’s after his time too, then why didn’t Abu Bakr give them their due right? This contradiction between the caliphs shows their dishonesty, insincerity and oppression against Ale Muhammad (saw). Therefore, whatever view the Ahlulbayt had on Abu Bakr, it was undoubtedly justified no matter how harsh they may sound.
Abu Bakr knew, but the Prophet's wives didn't?
The next question one would pose is, were the wives of the Prophet (saw) also aware of this? Sahih al-Bukhari 6730 reads:
Aisha said, "When Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) 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 (ﷺ) say, 'Our (Apostles') property is not to be inherited, and whatever we leave is to be spent in charity?'".
In fact, ‘Aisha herself admits that after the Prophet’s death the people were unsure about what to do with his inheritance, having never heard of this hadith of Abu Bakr as read in al-Suyuti’s Tarikh al-Khulafa, pg. 59 - 60:
‘They disagreed about his inheritance and could find no one with knowledge on that point, then Abu Bakr said, ‘I heard the Messenger of Allah may Allah grant him peace, saying ‘We the company of the Prophets, we are not inherited from. What we leave is Sadaqah’.
The source was quoted from Tarikh Dimashq, Vol. 30, p. 311 and Ibn Hajar al-Haythami also records it in Sawaiq al-Muhriqah, pg. 118 - 119.
It is difficult to comprehend that none of the relatives of the Prophet (saw), not his daughter, not his son-in-law, al-’Abbas nor his wives were aware of this unique ruling despite it solely affecting them and someone unrelated to this ruling did know about it.
In the example given above, we all know that the neighbor just wants to steal the property and is exploiting his ‘trustworthy’ reputation to justify usurping their right. So why is it that Abu Bakr isn’t held to this same standard, where he clearly is saying something that he alone could not possibly have known. Where is the tawatur for this hadith?
‘Umar, on the other hand contradicted Abu Bakr and decided to give them their inheritance later on as read in Sahih al-Bukhari 2328:
The Prophet (ﷺ) concluded a contract with the people of Khaibar to utilize the land on the condition that half the products of fruits or vegetation would be their share. The Prophet (ﷺ) used to give his wives one hundred Wasqs each, eighty Wasqs of dates and twenty Wasqs of barley. (When `Umar became the Caliph) he gave the wives of the Prophet (ﷺ) the option of either having the land and water as their shares, or carrying on the previous practice. Some of them chose the land and some chose the Wasqs, and `Aisha chose the land.
Why do we see Umar dividing it between the wives of the Prophet (saw)? How is it that Aisha here does not mention it being charity, but rather cheerfully chooses to be given the land? And if it was the inheritance of the Prophet (saw), how come the daughter of the Prophet (saw) was denied anything from the property while the wives were granted their shares?
Fakhr al-Razi acknowledged the validity of this objection, but failed to refute it.
According to Fakhr al-Din al-Razi, the answer to the issue above was that Fatima (as) was pleased with the words of Abu Bakr, and there was a consensus upon his correctness, rendering the question void. We read in his Tafsir al-Kabir Vol. 5, pg. 171, regarding verse (4:11) An-Nisaa':
أن المحتاج إلى معرفة هذه المسألة ما كان إلا فاطمة وعلي والعباس وهؤلاء كانوا من أكابر الزهاد والعلماء وأهل الدين، وأما أبو بكر فإنه ما كان محتاجاً إلى معرفة هذه المسألة البتة، لأنه ما كان يخطر بباله أن يرث من الرسول عليه الصلاة والسلام فكيف يليق بالرسول عليه الصلاة والسلام أن يبلغ هذه المسألة إلى من لا حاجة به إليها ولا يبلغها إلى من له إلى معرفتها أشد الحاجة. والجواب: أن فاطمة عليها السلام رضيت بقول أبي بكر بعد هذه المناظرة، وانعقد الإجماع على صحة ما ذهب إليه أبو بكر فسقط هذا السؤال والله أعلم.
The ones who were in need of knowing this matter were none other than Fatima, Ali, and al-Abbas. These individuals were among the most devout ascetics, scholars, and people of piety. As for Abu Bakr, he had no need to know this matter at all, as it never occurred to him that he would inherit from the Prophet (saw). So how could it be appropriate for the Prophet to convey this matter to someone who had no need for it, while not conveying it to those who had the most urgent need to know it?
The response: Fatima, (as) accepted Abu Bakr’s statement after this debate, and consensus was established on the correctness of Abu Bakr’s stance. Thus, this question is no longer valid, and Allah knows best.
It is evident that the response Fakhr al-Razi provides to this objection lacks a solid foundation, as the evidence clearly demonstrates that Fatima (sa) was not pleased with Abu Bakr in any way. She was angry with him, refused to speak to him, and- as a form of protest- did not allow him to attend her funeral. More details on this will be presented later. Despite this, he fails to address the core question: how did no one else know?
The Conclusion
To conclude this discussion, we must arrive at a rational explanation for this unusual phenomenon. Only a few possibilities remain open to us, and they are as follows:
The Prophet did indeed inform them about it, but the Chief of women of Paradise and the Commander of believers insisted on receiving haram property that wasn’t rightfully theirs, and so cared more about this dunya than Allah (swt) and His Messenger (saw). They thus in amount committed kufr by rejecting the hadith of Rasulullah (saw) for their own worldly gains.
They believed they were above the shari’a and this hadith did not apply to them, and saw that they were an exception to this hadith.
They collectively became insane and delirious, unable to control their emotions due to a striking sickness that overtook them just as it did with Rasulullah (saw) according to Umar Ibn al-Khattab.
This was an explanation offered by Ibn Uthaymin, as he says in his At-Ta'liq 'ala Sahih Muslim Vol. 9, pg. 78:
الشيخ : اللهم اعف عنها، وإلا فأبو بكر ما استند إلى رأي، وإنما استند إلى نص، وكان عليها أن تقبل قول النبي صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ : ( إنا لَا نُورَثُ مَا تَرَكْنَا فَهُوَ صَدَقَة )، لكن كما قلت لكم قبل قليل، عند المخاصمة لا يبقى للإنسان عقل يُدرك به ما يقول، أو يفعل، أو يتصرّف فيه، فنسأل الله أن يعفو عنها عن هجرها لخليفة رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم.
"O Allah, pardon her. Abu Bakr did not rely on personal opinion; he acted based on explicit textual evidence. She should have accepted the Prophet's ﷺ statement: 'We, the Prophets, do not leave inheritance; what we leave behind is charity.' However, as I mentioned earlier, in moments of dispute, a person can lose the clarity of thought needed to fully understand their words, actions, or decisions. Therefore, we ask Allah to forgive her for her estrangement from the Caliph of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ."
They believed Abu Bakr was a liar who fabricated this hadith! (This was argued by Umar himself)
We welcome our opponents to enlighten us with other possibilities for this. However, they’ll find that these are the only options and the answer to this issue cannot be except the last one. That is because even after Abu Bakr cited this hadith, both Ali & Fatima (as) kept pursuing their inheritance rights. This begs the question: Why did they continue to seek it if the hadith stated they’re not entitled to it? Why is Ali asking for Fadak during Umar’s caliphate? Does he doubt Abu Bakr’s hadith?
This is why ‘Umar himself affirmed Ali’s position as the following in Sahih Muslim 1757c:
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 (Abu Bakr) to be a liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest. And Allah knows that he was true, virtuous, well-guided and a follower of truth.
This is even evident with later members of Ahl al-Bayt, such as Imam al-Baqir (as) and Imam al-Ridha (as) who would later accept Fadak showing their disbelief in Abu Bakr’s hadith, which we shall cover in the next part.
< Previous Part: Those those that testified for Fatima (as)
Next Part: Prophetic Inheritance in the Qur'an >
1 comentário