< Previous Part: Ali believes Abu Bakr is a liar
Next Part: Fadak was returned to Bani Hashim >
Instead of directly addressing the issues related to Abu Bakr's arguments, our opponents often deflect by focusing on trivial arguments that divert attention away from Abu Bakr and, subhan’Allah, repeatedly shift blame onto Ali (as) as if he must always conform to their standards and expectations. In every debated event involving Ali (as), Sunnis somehow manage to redirect criticism toward his actions.
Instead of addressing Umar's actions during the calamity of thursday, they question Ali's actions. Instead of holding Aisha or Muawiyah accountable for their rebellions, they question Ali's responses. Instead of criticising Umar for his outrage at Hudaybiyyah, they try to critique Ali by his inability to cross out the title of Rasulullah (saw). Instead of questioning Abu Bakr's immediate claim to khilafah, they question why Ali did not immediately contest it.
Subhan'Allah, why does the matter always revolve around how Ali (as) 's actions and never around why he was treated the way he was? In what world must he conform to their expectations? By not reclaiming Fadak, did Ali somehow refute his own wife's claim to Fadak? Did he contradict himself by requesting for Fadak under Umar's time, and then no longer seeking it during his time? What do the proponents of Abu Bakr intend to accomplish by this argument?
It is without a doubt that Ali (as) viewed that the confiscation of Fadak from him was an oppression as he himself says in Nahjul Balagha, letter 45:
بَلَى! كَانَتْ في أَيْدِينَا فَدَكٌ مِنْ كلِّ مَا أَظَلَّتْهُ السَّماءُ، فَشَحَّتْ عَلَيْهَا نُفُوسُ قَوْمٍ، وَسَخَتْ عَنْهَا نُفُوسُ قَوْمٍ آخَرِينَ، وَنِعْمَ الْحَكَمُ اللهُ. وَمَا أَصْنَعُ بِفَدَك وَغَيْرِ فَدَكٍ، وَالنَّفْسُ مَظَانُّهَا فِي غَدٍ جَدَثٌ، تَنْقَطِعُ فِي ظُلْمَتِهِ آثَارُهَا، وَتَغِيبُ أَخْبَارُهَا، وَحُفْرَةٌ لَوْ زِيدَ فِي فُسْحَتِهَا، وَأَوْسَعَتْ يَدَا حَافِرِهَا، لَأَضْغَطَهَا الْحَجَرُ وَالْمَدَرُ، وَسَدَّ فُرَجَهَا التُّرَابُ الْمُتَرَاكِمُ،
Of course, all that we had in our possession under this sky was Fadak, but a group of people felt greedy for it and the other party withheld themselves from it. Allāh is, after all, the best arbiter. What shall I do: Fadak, or no Fadak, while tomorrow this body is to go into the grave in whose darkness its traces will be destroyed and (even) news of it will disappear. It is a pit that, even if its width is widened or the hands of the digger make it broad and open, the stones and clods of clay will narrow it and the falling earth will close its apperture.
This can also be found in Sunni books, such as Tadhkirat al-Hamdawiyya. Vol. 1, pg. 98 - 99 by Ibn Hamdoon. Now we will address the accusation of Ali (as) 'oppressing' his sons by not giving them Fadak as the caliph as some of our opponents have claimed.
Reason 1: To Maintain Unity
We read in Kitab al-Kafi. Vol. 8, Ch. 21, H. 1:
The Caliphs before me intentionally practiced such acts in which they went against Rasulullah (s). They broke the promises (which they made with the Prophet) and changed the Sunnah. If (today) I ask people to leave all these things (innovations) and restore things back to the way they were at the time of Rasulullah (s), my army shall rebel and abandon me, and I shall be left alone. All that shall remain turning to me shall be those Shi’a who recognise my virtues and rank… If I return Fadak to the heirs of Fatima (as)... and if I deny the (unjust) distribution of Fadak, and start giving the shares to everyone equally …. and restore the condition of Khums of the Prophet (s)... and give the fatwa for Mut’ah being Halaal, and start saying 5 Takbirs at funeral, and make it obligatory upon people to recite “Bismillah” loudly during Salat …… and ask people to follow the Quranic and Sunnah way of giving Talaq, and ask people to give all the Sadaqat, and to restore the way of ablution, ghusl and Salah to their original forms and time… and ask people to return to Qur’an and Sunnah, then all people will abandon me (and I will be left alone). I ordered people that they should only gather for Fardh (obligatory) prayers during Ramadan, and told them that congregation (Jamah) in Nafl (i.e. Tarawih) is a Bidah (innovation) then all of these people started shouting that Sunnah of Umar has been changed.
Had Imam Ali (as) restored Fadak by force to himself, these people would have reacted with open opposition, and spread rumours and hatred against the Imam (as). It was due to this difficult situation that Imam Ali chose not to raise the Fadak matter, to avoid the propaganda. The people had become accustomed to the rule of Abu Bakr and Umar, with all the new innovations brought such as the change of the number of takbirs in the funeral prayer and introduction of tarawih. To change any of this, would oppose the way they ruled and the people did not accept that, hence when Ali (as) tried to stop the people from doing tarawih they cried out for the 'sunnah of Umar' changing!
This sort of reasoning can be located in the Sunni books too, namely in Sahih al-Bukhari 3707:
Narrated Ubaida: Ali said (to the people of 'Iraq), "Judge as you used to judge, for I hate differences (and I do my best ) till the people unite as one group, or I die as my companions have died."
This best explains why Imam Ali (as) refused to take remedial action to take back Fadak, his fear of further division, that would only weaken his support base further.
Rasulullah (saw) employed similar reasoning
This sort of reasoning was similarly employed by the Prophet (saw), for example we read in Sahih al-Bukhari 126:
Ibn Az-Zubair said to me, ‘Aisha used to tell you secretly a number of things. What did she tell you about the Kaaba?’. I replied, ‘She told me that once the Prophet said, ‘O ‘Aisha! Had not your people been still close to the pre-Islamic period of ignorance (infidelity)! I would have dismantled the Ka’ba and would have made two doors in it; one for entrance and the other for exit.” Later on Ibn Az-Zubair did the same.
The Prophet (s) was also supposed to redesign Kaaba, hence he says “Had not your people been…”, but he chose not to on account of fearing the reaction of his companions. Therefore, an act can be disabandoned in fear of fitna, and hence he did not take hold of Fadak to return it to his children.
In commentary to above, al-’Ayni supports our argument in Umdat al-Qari, Vol. 1 pg. 307 - 308:
قال ابن بطال: فيه أنه قد يترك يسير من الأمر بالمعروف إذا خشي منه أن يكون سبباً بفتنة قوم ينكرونه
Ibn Batal said: It is possible to abandon ‘enjoining the good’ if there is a fear of fitna from the people who would deny it.
Therefore, what Ali (as) did was permissible per their own fiqh and views, as him not returning Fadak to his children (Amr bil Ma’roof) was abandoned in fear of fitna being incited.
Reason 2: Fadak was in the hands of Marwan (la)
We read in Mirqat Sharh Mishkat, Vol. 7 pg. 598:
أي في زمن عثمان رضي الله تعالى عنهم، والمعنى جعلها قطيعة لنفسه وتوابعه، والقطيعة الطائفة من أرض الخراج يقطعها السلطان من يريد ومروان هو مروان بن الحكم جد عمر بن عبد العزيز ولد على عهد رسول الله ﷺ ولم ير النبي ﷺ لأن النبي ﷺ نفى أباه إلى الطائف، فلم يزل بها حتى ولي عثمان رضي الله عنه فرده إلى المدينة فقدمها وابنه معه ثم صارت أي الولاية أو فدك لعمر بن عبد العزيز
Then Marwan during Uthman’s time made it his personal property and his retinue, the ruler has the right to grant a piece of land to whoever he wants and Marwan is Marwan ibn al-Hakam the grand father of Umar b. Abd al-Aziz, he was born during Allah’s messenger time but he didn’t see the prophet, because the prophet had exiled his father to Taeif and he remained there till Uthman became the ruler, hence he (Uthman) brought him (al-Hakam) back to Madina with his son (Marwan), after that Fadak was transferred to Umar b. Abdulaziz.
This was also stated by the historian, Ibn Abd Rabbah in his Al-Iqd al-Farid, Vol 5 pg. 36 (that Fadak went to Marwan) and al-Suyuti in Tarikh Khulafa, pg. 184.
The Imam (as) could not expect Marwan (la) to return Fadak, as he would oppose him or say he is taking away his right that was bestowed to him by Uthman. Going to war over Fadak had no meaning, as it would further cause disunity while the Imam was busy dealing with other wars, hence justifying his withdrawal from Fadak.
Reason 3: The oppressed does not return his own right
Shaykh al-Saduq (ra) records in his ‘Ilal al-Shara’i. Vol. 1, pg. 300 - 301:
حدثنا علي بن أحمد بن محمد الدقاق قال: حدثني محمد بن أبي عبد الله الكوفي عن موسى بن عمران النخعي عن عمه الحسين بن يزيد النوفلي، عن علي بن سالم عن أبيه، عن أبي بصير عن أبي عبد الله " ع " قال: قلت له لم لم يأخذ أمير المؤمنين " ع " فدك لما ولى الناس ولأي علة تركها؟ فقال: لان الظالم والمظلوم كانا قدما على الله عز وجل، وأثاب الله المظلوم، وعاقب الظالم. فكره ان يسترجع شيئا قد عاقب الله عليه غاصبه وأثاب عليه المغصوب.
From Abi Basir, from Imam al-Sadiq (as) who said: I asked him, "Why did Amir al-Mu'minin (as) not reclaim Fadak when he assumed leadership of the people, and for what reason did he leave it?" He said: "Because the oppressor and the oppressed had already approached Allah, and Allah rewarded the oppressed and punished the oppressor. Therefore, he disliked reclaiming something that Allah had punished the usurper for and rewarded the oppressed."
حدثنا أحمد بن علي بن إبراهيم بن هاشم رحمه الله قال حدثنا أبي، عن أبيه إبراهيم بن هاشم، عن محمد بن أبي عمير، عن إبراهيم الكرخي قال: سألت أبا عبد الله " ع " فقلت له لأي علة ترك علي بن أبي طالب " ع " فدك لما ولى الناس فقال: للاقتداء برسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله لما فتح مكة وقد باع عقيل بن أبي طالب داره فقيل له يا رسول الله ألا ترجع إلى دارك؟ فقال صلى الله عليه وآله وهل ترك عقيل لنا دارا إنا أهل بيت لا نسترجع شيئا يؤخذ منا ظلما. فلذلك لم يسترجع فدك لما ولى.
From Ibrahim al-Karkhi who said: I asked Imam al-Sadiq (as), and I said to him: "For what reason did Ali ibn Abi Talib (as) not reclaim Fadak when he assumed leadership of the people?" He said: "To emulate the Prophet Muhammad (saw) when he conquered Mecca, Aqeel ibn Abi Talib had sold his house, and it was said to him: O Messenger of Allah, why don't you return to your house? He (as) said, 'Did Aqeel leave us a house? We are a household that does not reclaim anything taken from us unjustly. Therefore, he did not reclaim Fadak when he assumed leadership.'"
حدثنا أحمد بن الحسن القطان قال: حدثنا أحمد بن سعيد الهمداني قال حدثنا علي بن الحسن بن علي بن فضال عن أبيه عن أبي الحسن " ع قال: سألته عن أمير المؤمنين لم لم يسترجع فدكا لما ولى الناس؟ فقال: لأنا أهل بيت لا نأخذ حقوقنا ممن ظلمنا الا هو ونحن أولياء المؤمنين إنما نحكم لهم ونأخذ حقوقهم ممن ظلمهم ولا نأخذ لأنفسنا.
Imam al-Hasan (as) said: I asked Amir al-Mu'minin (as) why he did not reclaim Fadak when he assumed leadership of the people? He said: “Because we the Ahlul Bayt do not take our rights from those who have wronged us, except Him (Allah). And we are the Awliya of the Momineen, we rule for them and take (and return) their rights from those that wronged them, and we do not take it for ourselves.” (This report is also found in Uyun Akhbar al-Ridha, Vol. 1, Ch. 2, H. 31).
This means that the Ahlulbayt (as) do not fight back for what they fought against, this is because as an oppressed person whose right was taken away, you are not obligated to fight back for this right. Rather, it is onto the oppressed to return back what they had taken.
Even al-Nawawi says that the dhalim (oppressor) is the one that should return the property, and it is not the oppressed party’s responsibility to take it back; we read in his Kitab al-Majmu, Vol. 14, pg. 227:
فإن كان المغصوب باقياً لزمه رده
If the wrongly taken property still exists, he should return it back.
It is the oppressor that is responsible to return the right of the oppressed, not that the oppressed forcefully mandates it himself back.
Some Sunnis counter-argue that Fadak was given back to the Ahlul-Bayt (as) like in the case of Umar b. Abd al-Aziz, the Imams (as) accepted this and took it in. However, this argument is based on the incompetence of our opponents, unable to read hadiths properly. The hadith says the Ahlul-Bayt (as) won’t take back from those who took it from them (لا نأخذ حقوقنا ممن ظلمنا), this means they won’t go out of their way to seek the property and take it for themselves. However, this is not the same when their oppressors recognise their mistakes and return their rights to them, in that scenario the Imam isn’t [forcefully] taking back his right, but instead being [willingly] given by his oppressor his right back.
This is why Ali (as) did not rebel for the caliphate, but remained patient when his right was taken away and then accepted it when it was given back to him after ‘Uthman.
Was Ali (as) ashamed to reclaim Fadak?
Some Sunnis have either mistakenly or deliberately misquoted Sharif al-Murtadha (RH) when referencing his statement in his renowned work Al-Shafi Fil Imamah. When Ali was asked about reclaiming Fadak, he records in his work al-Shafi, Vol. 4, pg. 76:
قال: فلما وصل الأمر إلى علي بن أبي طالب عليه السلام كلم في رد فدك، فقال: إني لأستحي من الله أن أرد شيئا منع منه أبو بكر وأمضاه عمر.
He said: "I am ashamed before Allah to overturn something that was prohibited by Abu Bakr and continued by Umar."
However, this reference is not from a Shi'a source. Sharif al-Murtadha quoted this passage because he is debating with a Sunni Mu'tazili scholar known as Qadhi Abd al-Jabbar, and so used sources from his opponents to prove his points. For instance, a few pages earlier in pg. 69 - 70 records a tradition that is quite lengthy and contains incidents regarding Fadak, but beforehand states:
فقد روى أكثر الرواة الذين لا يتهمون بتشيع ولا عصبية فيه من كلامها
The majority of these narrators are neither accused of Shiaism nor have fanatics narrated her statements.
Hence, Sharif al-Murtadha is quoted this passage from the sources of his opponents, and not from any chain of transmission that holds Shi'a narrators within it.
Secondly, according to the Sunni corpus, Ali (as) alongside al-Abbas demanded the right of Fadak and then were entrusted to manage this property by Umar. Later, they disputed and Ali (as) gained full control of it. This tradition can be found in Sahih al-Bukhari 4033:
So, this property (of Sadaqa) was in the hands of `Ali who withheld it from `Abbas and overpowered him. Then it came in the hands of Hasan b. `Ali, then in the hands of Husain b. `Ali, and then in the hands of `Ali b. Hussain and Hasan b. Hasan, and each of the last two used to manage it in turn, then it came in the hands of Zaid b. Hasan, and it was truly the Sadaqa of Allah's Apostle .
There is therefore no question that Imam Ali (as) was not ashamed of reclaiming something that had been prohibited by Abu Bakr and Umar.
Thirdly, if Ali (as) was truly ashamed about overturning Abu Bakr’s decision, then why did he refuse the caliphate for such a long time and impose his own terms when it was offered to him? When Ali (as) was approached to accept the caliphate, he was asked to follow the rules of Abu Bakr and Umar, but he immediately declined. Why would he do that if he was willing to follow their decisions? The answer is clear—he did not wish to follow their rules, and that is why he refused.
For reference, we cite Ibn Shabbah's Tarikh al-Madinah al-Munawwarah, Vol. 2, pg. 85:
ودعا عليا، فقال: عليك عهد الله وميثاقه لتعملن بكتاب الله وسنة رسوله وسيرة الخليفتين من بعده؟ قال: أرجو أن أفعل وأعمل بمبلغ علمي وطاقتي، ودعا عثمان فقال له مثل ما قال لعلي، قال: نعم، فبايعه، [فقال علي: حبوته حبو دهر، ليس هذا أول يوم تظاهرتم فيه علينا، فصبر جميل والله المستعان على ما تصفون، والله ما وليت عثمان إلا ليرد الأمر إليك، والله كل يوم هو في شأن،
He called Ali and said: "Do you pledge by the covenant of God and His pact to act according to the Book of God, the Sunnah of His Messenger, and the path of the two caliphs after him?" Ali said: "I hope to do so and act to the extent of my knowledge and ability." Then he called Uthman and said to him what he had said to Ali. Uthman said: "Yes," and he pledged allegiance to him. [Ali said: "You have favored him for ages. This is not the first day you have conspired against us. So, patience is beautiful, and God is the helper regarding what you describe. By God, you only appointed Uthman to return the matter to you. By God, every day is in a different state."]
For more sources, refer to:
< Previous Part: Ali believes Abu Bakr is a liar
Next Part: Fadak was returned to Bani Hashim >
Comments