< Previous Part: Shaykh Mufid's Grammatical argument
Next Part: Why did Ali not reclaim Fadak? >
After Abu Bakr's death, Ali and al-Abbas go to Umar b. al-Khattab requesting for Fadak once more. This request creates major problems for the Sunnis, because it shows that either they did not believe in Abu Bakr or they rejected the Prophet's command. In the former, this contrasts with fundamental Sunni belief, but with the latter they accuse them of disbelief or transgression.
This report is recorded in many sources, most famously 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 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.
Here, Umar himself admits that the view they possessed was the former mentioned earlier, that Abu Bakr was in their eyes a liar and oppressor.
This has also become recorded in:
Both Bukhari and Ahmad Ibn Hanbal feared the implications of this hadith, and as we know them both they were very much in favor of changing hadiths for the interest of their beliefs. Since they saw it as problematic, they decided to cut out the parts that showed the Sahaba to abuse each other. Both versions cut out the part of them being attributed to calling Abu Bakr treacherous, liar etc… They stop at تزعمان أن أبا بكر فيها كذا (You both claim Abu Bakr did so-and-so).
The ‘honesty’ and ‘reliability’ of al-Bukhari and Ahmad b. Hanbal is very apparent when someone actually goes through to compare what they narrate in their books and how it’s narrated in others. Ibn Hajar al-’Asqalani comments on this in Fath al-Bari, Vol. 9, pg. 373 - 374:
رِوَايَةِ مُسْلِمٍ مِنَ الزِّيَادَةِ فَجِئْتُمَا تَطْلُبُ مِيرَاثَكَ من بن أَخِيكَ وَيَطْلُبُ هَذَا مِيرَاثَ امْرَأَتِهِ مِنْ أَبِيهَا فَقَالَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ لَا نُورَثُ مَا تَرَكْنَا صَدَقَة فرأيتماه كَاذِبًا آثِمًا غَادِرًا خَائِنًا
And Muslim narrates it with an addition, “Both of you came to demand your shares from the property (left behind by the Messenger of Allah). You (Abbas) demanded your share from the property of your nephew, and he ('Ali) demanded a share on behalf of his wife from the property of her father. Abu Bakr 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.
Umadat al-Qari Vol 25, pg. 64 also clarifies what al-Bukhari was trying to censor:
قَوْله: كَذَا وَكَذَا أَي: لَيْسَ محقّاً وَلَا فَاعِلا بِالْحَقِّ
His saying: ‘Such-and-such’ means: (Abu Bakr) was not on the truth nor acting justly.
Likewise in Irshad Sari Sharh Sahih Bukhari Vol 15, pg. 264:
وفي رواية مسلم فجئتما تطلب أنت ميراثك من ابن أخيك ويطلب هذا ميراث امرأته من أبيها فقال أبو بكر، قال رسول الله: "لا نورث ما تركنا صدقة" فرأيتماه كاذبًا آثمًا غادرًا خائنًا وكأن الزهري كان يحدّث به تارة فيصرح وتارة يكني
Umar said that Abbas and ‘Ali both deemed the usurpation of Fadak to be a sinful, treacherous deceit. This has been narrated by the Hadith scholar Zuhri, on some occasions he provides a commentary to the words of Umar and on others he gives a mere hint.
This hadith clearly proves that Ali believed Abu Bakr and Umar were hypocrites; Sahih al-Bukhari 34:
The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "Whoever has the following four (characteristics) will be a pure hypocrite and whoever has one of the following four characteristics will have one characteristic of hypocrisy unless and until he gives it up.
Whenever he is entrusted, he betrays.
Whenever he speaks, he tells a lie.
Whenever he makes a covenant, he proves treacherous.
Whenever he quarrels, he behaves in a very imprudent, evil and insulting manner."
We leave it to the readers to decide what they think the view of Ali, the one with whom truth is always with, was in regards to Abu Bakr. Even al-Shawkani in his commentary of this hadith says the following in Nayl al-Awtar, Vol. 6, pg. 93:
وَلِذَلِكَ نَسَبَ عُمَرُ إلَى عَلِيٍّ وَعَبَّاسٍ أَنَّهُمَا كَانَا يَعْتَقِدَانِ ظُلْمَ مَنْ خَالَفَهُمَا كَمَا وَقَعَ فِي صَحِيحِ الْبُخَارِيِّ وَغَيْرِهِ
Therefore, Umar attributed to Ali and Abbas that they saw whoever disagreed with them as oppressive as mentioned in Sahih Bukhari and other sources.
Objection 1: Al-Abbas' accusations of Ali
If someone wants to object by saying this narration says al-’Abbas also called Ali a liar, sinful and treacherous in the same hadith, then we explain this hadith through the words of the great theologian and polemicist, Hisham b. al-Hakam (RA) from Ibn Qutayba’s Ta’wil Mukhtalif al-Hadith, pg. 126:
وَقَالَ لَهُ رَجُلٌ: يَا أَبَا مُحَمَّدٍ، هَلْ تَعْلَمُ أَنَّ عَلِيًّا خَاصَمَ الْعَبَّاسَ فِي فَدَكَ إِلَى أَبِي بَكْرٍ؟ قَالَ: نَعَمْ. قَالَ: فَأَيُّهُمَا كَانَ الظَّالِمُ؟ قَالَ: لم يكن فيهمَا ظَالِم قَالَ: سُبْحَانَ اللَّهِ، وَكَيْفَ يَكُونُ هَذَا؟ قَالَ: هُمَا كَالْمَلَكَيْنِ الْمُخْتَصِمَيْنِ إِلَى دَاوُدَ عليه السلام، لَمْ يَكُنْ فِيهِمَا ظَالِمٌ، إِنَّمَا أَرَادَا أَنْ يُعَرِّفَاهُ خَطَأَهُ وَظُلْمَهُ. كَذَلِكَ أَرَادَ هَذَانِ، أَنْ يُعَرِّفَا أَبَا بَكْرٍ خَطَأَهُ وَظُلْمَه
A man asked him (i.e. Hisham b. Al Hakam): "O Aba Mohammad, do you know that Ali litigated with Abbas about Fadak to Abu Bakr?" he said: "Yes" the man said: "which one of the two was the oppressor?" he said: "neither of them was an oppressor." the man said: "Subhanallah! how could this be?" he said: "they both were like the two angels who litigated to Dawud (AS), none of them was an oppressor, they both(i.e. the two angels) wanted to make him(i.e. Dawud a.s) realized his mistake and oppression, likewise these two wanted to make Abu Bakr know his mistake and oppression."
This debate can also be read in 'Uyun al-Akhbar. Vol. 2 pg. 166 by al-Dinawari and al-Iqd al-Farid, Vol. 2, pg. 251 - 252.
Thus, Hisham's argument in essence is that neither Abbas nor Ali saw each other as injust or oppressive, they claimed this to highlight the mistake of Abu Bakr & Umar, just as the Angels did in the story of the Dawud (as) recorded in the Qur'an:
إِذْ دَخَلُوا عَلَىٰ دَاوُودَ فَفَزِعَ مِنْهُمْ ۖ قَالُوا لَا تَخَفْ ۖ خَصْمَانِ بَغَىٰ بَعْضُنَا عَلَىٰ بَعْضٍ فَاحْكُم بَيْنَنَا بِالْحَقِّ وَلَا تُشْطِطْ وَاهْدِنَا إِلَىٰ سَوَاءِ الصِّرَاطِ - إِنَّ هَٰذَا أَخِي لَهُ تِسْعٌ وَتِسْعُونَ نَعْجَةً وَلِيَ نَعْجَةٌ وَاحِدَةٌ فَقَالَ أَكْفِلْنِيهَا وَعَزَّنِي فِي الْخِطَابِ - قَالَ لَقَدْ ظَلَمَكَ بِسُؤَالِ نَعْجَتِكَ إِلَىٰ نِعَاجِهِ ۖ وَإِنَّ كَثِيرًا مِّنَ الْخُلَطَاءِ لَيَبْغِي بَعْضُهُمْ عَلَىٰ بَعْضٍ إِلَّا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ وَقَلِيلٌ مَّا هُمْ ۗ وَظَنَّ دَاوُودُ أَنَّمَا فَتَنَّاهُ فَاسْتَغْفَرَ رَبَّهُ وَخَرَّ رَاكِعًا وَأَنَابَ -
When they entered upon David and he was alarmed by them. They said, "Fear not. [We are] two adversaries, one of whom has wronged the other, so judge between us with truth and do not exceed [it] and guide us to the sound path. Indeed this, my brother, has ninety-nine ewes (i.e. female sheeps), and I have one ewe; so he said, 'Entrust her to me,' and he overpowered me in speech." [David] said, "He has certainly wronged you in demanding your ewe [in addition] to his ewes. And indeed, many associates oppress one another, except for those who believe and do righteous deeds - and few are they." And David became certain that We had tried him, and he asked forgiveness of his Lord and fell down bowing [in prostration] and turned in repentance [to Allah ]. [38:22-24]
In this story, God sent two Angels who were disguised as humans to David in a dream, so that he may judge between them because of the wronging one side had done to the other (though that was not in reality the case as Angels cannot wrong one another), and they said: One has 99 female sheeps while his brother has only one. The former asked his brother for his only sheep, so David ruled that this was injust, as he had only one while you had many. However, this was an error in his judgement because He did not know or ask about the context or the details of why this request was made. Allah (swt) had done this to test and teach Dawud (as) about the laws of Judgement. The point here is that there were two angels claiming one has wronged the other, even though that was not the case. Rather, they wanted to make Dawud choose a judgement, and the case of Ali & al-'Abbas follows in this explanation- that they wanted Umar to make a judgement.
If someone were to ask, what is the evidence for this claim, we’d tell them to look at the narration itself. As we read, a group of people said:
فَقَالَ الرَّهْطُ عُثْمَانُ وَأَصْحَابُهُ يَا أَمِيرَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ اقْضِ بَيْنَهُمَا وَأَرِحْ أَحَدَهُمَا مِنَ الآخَرِ
`Uthman and his companions said, "O Chief of the Believers! Judge between them and relieve one from the other."
Is it possible that a group of people all collectively said the same thing at the same time? When you walk in a room and everyone shouts “Happy Birthday Mr Fulan” collectively, you know they all told each other to say this as they cannot have all coincidentally said the same thing at once by accident. Likewise here, the fact that multiple people at once all say the same phrase to ‘Umar, shows that this was planned by Ali & al-’Abbas beforehand, and that they actually told them to say this in order for ‘Umar to recognise their case. This is because if you were to see two people at a conflict and people are asking you to resolve it, it’s more likely it would be addressed if that occurs. Therefore, they didn’t actually view each other as that, but they did view Abu Bakr like that.
Objection 2: They didn’t seek inheritance
Another argument made is that they weren’t seeking inheritance but rather aimed to distribute the land as sadaqa after acquiring it. A truly pathetic argument and truly powerful evidence that Sunnis can’t address this problem, as they have to go and make up the most absurd of arguments that even Sunni scholars themselves have placed doubt on. In short we reply with the following:
If Abu Bakr was already going to distribute the ‘sadaqa’, then there was no need for them to acquire it to do it, unless they had an agenda of abusing their positions for personal benefits.
If the issue was not about inheritance, there would have been no reason for Umar to bring up the hadith ‘Prophets do not leave inheritance’.
They originally went to Abu Bakr in a claim of inheritance and the narrations of when they went to Umar tell us they claimed the same thing.
If Ali (as) considered Fadak to be Sadaqa then why did he over-power Abbas and take the entire estate of Fadak from him?
The hadith is Sahih al-Bukhari 6728 clearly says:
Then I took charge of this property for two years during which I managed it as Allah’s Apostle and Abu Bakr did. Then you both (‘Ali and ‘Abbas) came to talk to me, bearing the same claim and presenting the same case. (O ‘Abbas!) You came to me asking for your share from the property of your nephew, and this man (Ali) came to me, asking for the share of his wife from the property of her father.
They were aiming to get their share of the property and made the same claim as they made with Abu Bakr which was inheritance.
Ibn Hajar al-’Asqalani in the commentary of the tradition says in Fath al-Bari, Vol 7 pg. 375:
فقال إسماعيل القاضي فيما رواه الدارقطني من طريقه لم يكن في الميراث إنما تنازعا في ولاية الصدقة وفي صرفها كيف تصرف كذا قال لكن في رواية النسائي وعمر بن شبة من طريق أبي البختري ما يدل على إنهما أرادا أن يقسم بينهما على سبيل الميراث
Daraqutni narrated that Ismail al-Qazi said: ‘They were not disputing about the inheritance, but they were disputing about the charity what they shall be the guardian of and how to distribute it’ That is what he (Qazi Ismail) said, but according to the narration of Nisai and Umar b. Shaba from Abi al-Bakhtri, it is evident that they were disputing about the division of inheritance.
Therefore, we conclude that Ali (as) and Al-Abbas did not believe in Abu Bakr's hadith, but rather saw him as a liar and oppressor, and that the land truly belonged to them alone. In the next article, we will discuss the reason why Ali (as) did not reclaim Fadak after becoming caliph.
< Previous Part: Shaykh Mufid's Grammatical argument
Next Part: Coming soon >
Comments