Sunday 4 December 2016
Why did Prophet [PBUH] give “Fadak” to Hadrat “Fatimah” [AS] not his other daughters!?
ID: 438 Publish Date: 06 October 2016 - 17:05 Count Views: 92
Question & Answer » Fatima Zahra
Why did Prophet [PBUH] give “Fadak” to Hadrat “Fatimah” [AS] not his other daughters!?

Summary of this program:

Fadak”, exclusive property of prophet [PBUH], Sunni resources!

فکان خیبر فیئا للمسلمین وکانت فدک خالصة لرسول الله صلی الله علیه وآله لأنهم لم یجلبوا علیها بخیل و لا رکاب

Kheibar” is the region that Muslims conquered it without bloodshed. “Fadak” was prophet [PBUH]’s property because Muslims didn’t haste on horse to get “Kheibar”.

History of Tabari, “Tabari”, v 2, p 138

Mr. “Zahabi” says such sentence in the book “History of Islam” v 2, p 422:

«لأن المسلمین لم یجلبوا علیها بخیل و لا رکاب»

Mr.”Zahabi” hasn’t found fault with its document or implication and this issue is written in some other books {footnote} such as: “sirah Ibn Hisham”, “al-bedayyah and al—nahayyah” and “Futooh al-Baldan”.

Mr.”Baghvi” says:

و کانت فدک خالصة لرسول الله

Fadak” was prophet [PBUH]’s exclusive property.

Tafsir al-Baghvi, v 4, p 197

Why did prophet [PBUH] give “Fadak” just to Hadrat “Fatimah” [AS]!?

الناس مسلطون علی أموالهم

People dominate their own properties.

Al-Mabsoot, “Al-Sheikh Tusi”, v 3, p 272

First response: prophet [PBUH]’s deeds follow divine revelation. 

اتَّبِعْ ما أُوحِی إِلَیک مِنْ رَبِّک

Therefore, follow what has been revealed to you from your Lord there is no god except Him, and avoid the idolaters.

Sura AL-ANAAM, verse 106

Prophet [PBUH] said:

إنی لا أقول فی الغضب و الرضا إلا حقا

Indeed, I say the truth, whether I’m angry or happy.

Fath al-Bari description of Sahih Bukhari, “Asqalani al-Safi’i”, v 8, p 133

Second response: submission to prophet [PBUH] is the sign of faith! Holy “Quran” says in this regard:

وَ ما کانَ لِمُؤْمِنٍ وَ لا مُؤْمِنَةٍ إِذا قَضَی اللَّهُ وَ رَسُولُهُ أَمْراً أَنْ یکونَ لَهُمُ الْخِیرَةُ مِنْ أَمْرِهِم

It is not for any believer man or woman to have the choice in the affair when a matter is decreed by Allah and His Prophet, Whosoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger strays into clear error.

Sura AL-AHZAB, verse 36

Third response: objecting to prophet [PBUH] is a hypocritical trait.

Those who protest to prophet [PBUH]’s bounty and deeds, not only they have a hypocritical trait but what they do is against Holy “Quran”. I ask you to pay attention, it’s written in the book “Sahih Bukhari” Hadith No. 2981 which is related to the battle of “Hunain”:

One of hypocrites said impolitely:

والله إِنَّ هذه الْقِسْمَةَ ما عُدِلَ فيها وما أُرِيدَ بها وَجْهُ اللَّهِ فقلت والله لَأُخْبِرَنَّ النبي فَأَتَيْتُهُ فَأَخْبَرْتُهُ

Swear to god justice was not observed in this divisionand god’s satisfactory wasn’t considered. I said: I’ll report it to prophet [PBUH], I did so,

Prophet [PBUH] said:

فَمَنْ يَعْدِلُ إذا لم يَعْدِلْ الله وَرَسُولُهُ “

If god and his prophet don’t do the justice, who else can do so.

Fourth response: other than “Fadak”, prophet [PBUH] has given other properties to some certain guys!

«کانت بنو النضیر خالصة لرسول الله»:  «فقسمها بین المهاجرین «و لم یعط أحدا من الأنصار منها شیئا، إلا سهل بن حنیف وسماک بن خرشة أبا دجانة فإنهما کانا محتاجین فأعطاهما»

The properties of “Bani Nasir” belonged to prophet [PBUH], he divided has divided all of them amongst “Migrants”. He didn’t give anything to “Ansar” {companions}, unless “Sahl bin Hanif” and “Sammak bin Kharasha” because they were needy.

Al-Seir al-Kabir, “Al-Sheibani” v 2, p 608

Details of this program:

Presenter:

Greetings to all dear and vulnerable viewers of “Velayat” channel, I wish the best for you.

Hello dear master Ayatollah “Qazvini”.

Ayatollah “Qazvini”:

Hello to you and all respectable viewers.

Presenter:

Thank you for your presence in this program. One of doubts that is discussed in Wahhabi evil channels is the matter of “Fadak”, we decided to ask question from dear master about doubts made by Wahhabism in this regard.

They say “Fadak” was part of “public treasury” and Hadrat “Fatimah” [AS] had no right about it.

We want to know if “Fadak” was prophet [PBUH]’s personal property or it was part of part of public treasury.

Ayatollah “Qazvini”:

As for matter of “Fadak”, we talked about it last year during 12 sessions but it remained unfinished and many people asked to resume this discussion.

At first I’ll talk about Doubts that they made about “Fadak” then I’ll deal with the fate of “Fadak”.

As for this matter that if “Fadak” was prophet [PBUH] property or public treasury, God almighty says in sura AL-HASHR, verse 6:

وَ ما أَفاءَ اللَّهُ عَلی رَسُولِهِ مِنْهُمْ فَما أَوْجَفْتُمْ عَلَیهِ مِنْ خَیلٍ وَ لا رِکاب

And whatever spoils of war Allah has given to His Messenger from them, you hastened on neither horse nor camel against them.

It says: what you get at war by fighting, blood shedding and, it’ll be for public, but if Muslims get property without campaign via reconciliation, it’ll be for prophet’s property, and he can keep it or give it to others.

It’s written in the book “Tabari History” {Sunni resource}  v 2, p 138:

«فکان خیبر فیئا للمسلمین وکانت فدک خالصة لرسول الله صلی الله علیه وآله لأنهم لم یجلبوا علیها بخیل و لا رکاب»

Muslims conquered “Kheibar” without shedding blood, it was prophet [PBUH]’s property because Muslims didn’t hate on horse taking it.

Mr. “Maverdi Shafi’i” says:

«و صارت فدک خالصة لرسول الله لأنه أخذها بلا إيجاف خيل ولا ركاب فکانت فیئا له»

Fadak” became prophet [PBUH]’s property because he took it without campaign and it’s just for prophet [PBUH].

Al-Havi al-Kabir, v 14, p 55

 Mr. “Ala al-din Kashani” a famous “Hanbali” scholar, says:

«كانت فَدَكُ خَالِصَةً لِرَسُولِ اللَّهِ إذْ كانت لم يُوجِفْ عليها الصَّحَابَةُ رضي اللَّهُ عَنْهُمْ من خَيْلٍ وَلَا رِكَابٍ»

Fadak” was just for prophet [PBUH], because companions didn’t fight to take it.

Then he says people of “Kheibar” went to prophet [PBUH] asking him to spare their lives in exchange for giving “Fadak” to prophet, he accepted and compromised with them.

The book “Amval” belongs to “Abu Ubaid”, a Sunni famous book even older than “Tbari History”. He says:

«ما أفاء اللّه علی رسوله من المشرکین، مما لم یوجف المسلمون علیه بخیل لا رکاب، وهی فدک وأموال بنی النضیر، فإنهم صالحوا رسول اللّه (صلی الله علیه وآله وسلم) علی أموالهم وأرضیهم بلا قتال کان منهم ولا سفر تجشمه المسلمون إلیهم»

What god gave to prophet [PBUH] from hypocrites’ properties, Properties that Muslims took them without fighting such as: “Fadak” and properties of “Bani Nasir”, they compromised with prophet without any war.

a-amval, “Ghasim bin salam”, v 1, p 14

«فدک و هی مما لم یوجف علیه بخیل و لا رکاب فکانت خالصة لرسول الله»

Fadak” is a property that no horse or camel hastened on against it, so it just belongs to prophet [PBUH].

Mu’jam al-Baldan, “Abu Abdullah”, v 4, p 238

It’s quite clear that “Fadak” was given to prophet [PBUH] without campaign. It’s a summery of Sunni resources. I think everything is clear and neither of these guys find fault with this narrative claiming that it’s invalid or “Fadak” was for all Muslims.

Presenter:

Master, how great you proved that “Fadak” was just for prophet [PBUH], you began from Holy “Quran” verses and then you told us many narratives from Sunni resources proving that “Fadak” belonged to prophet [PBUH] and any one can do what he likes to do with his properties.

Dear Master! Some ignorant guys say: assuming that it was just for prophet [PBUH], why did he give it just to Hadrat “Fatimah” [AS] not his other daughters?

Ayatollah “Qazvini”:

As for your question, apparently this event happened at the end of Prophet [PBUH]’s life and one or two of his daughters died, prophet [PBUH] had a son name [Ibrahim] that he died in “Median” either, even if he were alive, this property is prophet [PBUH]’s personal property, when someone is alive can give all his properties to one his children, he/she can even give it to anyone else other than his children, he can dedicate anything that he/she has as well.

«الناس مسلطون علی أموالهم»

People dominate their properties.

Al-Mabsut- Sheikh Tusi, v 3, p 272

So we if we say that why prophet [PBUH] gave “Fadak” to Hadrat “Fatimah” [AS] no his other daughters, it means that we’re interfering in Prophet [PBUH]’s action.

First response:

prophet [PBUH]’s deeds follow divine revelation. Holy “Quran” says:

اتَّبِعْ ما أُوحِی إِلَیک مِنْ رَبِّک

Therefore, follow what has been revealed to you from your Lord there is no god except Him, and avoid the idolaters.

Prophet [PBUH] himself says as well:

«إِنْ أَتَّبِعُ إِلاَّ ما یوحی إِلَی»

I follow only that which is revealed to me. 

Sura AL-ANAAM, verse 50

He says: what I do is what I was revealed.

«وَ ما ینْطِقُ عَنِ الْهَوی إِنْ هُوَ إِلاَّ وَحْی یوحی»

nor does he speak out of desire, Indeed it is not except a Revelation which is revealed.

Sura AL-NAJM, verse 3

Any work that Prophet [PBUH] does whether about changing Quran verses or about tradition, all of them are based on revelation, he was even asked:

O messenger of god! Sometimes you get angry or happy, is what you say in the mood of anger part of revelation? Prophet [PBUH] said: I always say the truth whether I’m angry or not.

Prophet [PBUH] was asked about “joking”: some time we see that you’re joking is your joking part revelation or not? Prophet [PBUH] said:

«إنی لا أقول فی الغضب و الرضا إلا حقا»

Indeed, I say the truth whether I’m angry or happy.

Fath al-Bari description of Sahih Bukhari, “Asqalani” v 8, p 133

Mr. “Eini” says in his book:

«إنی لا أقول فی الغضب والرضا إلا حقاً»

Indeed, I say the truth whether I’m angry or happy.

Umdah al-ghari description of Sahih Bukhari- “Ahmad al-Eini”- v 18, p 62

Those who say that prophet [PBUH]’s infallibility is about revelation, it shows that they’ve known Prophet [PBUH], such prophet is good for Wahhabis not people.

Ahmad bin Hanbal” quotes a narrative that one of companions named “Abdullah bin Amr al-‘As” who would write all prophet [PBUH]’s talks. Some of people from “Quraysh” tribe objected saying when prophet [PBUH] is angry and says some thing, you stop writing. He went to prophet [PBUH] and said: O messenger of god! Some protest me that why I write anything that you say: Prophet [PBUH] said:

« اكْتُبْ فوالذي نفسي بيده ما خَرَجَ منه الا حقا»

Swear by the god whose my life is in his hands, what I say is truth.

Musnad Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal- v 2, p 192

“Ahmad bin Hanbal” quotes from some of companions: O prophet! Sometimes you joke with us either, prophet said

«قال بَعْضُ أَصْحَابِهِ فَإِنَّكَ تُدَاعِبُنَا يا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ فقال إني لاَ أَقُولُ إِلاَّ حَقًّا»

…. Prophet said: I just say the truth.

Musnad Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal- “al-Sheibani”- v 2, p 240

Even prophet [PBUH]’s joke was truth and legitimate and his anger was anger of truth. These things are quite clear.

Second response: surrendering to prophet [PBUH] is the sign of faith!

Holy Quran says in this regard:

وَ ما کانَ لِمُؤْمِنٍ وَ لا مُؤْمِنَةٍ إِذا قَضَی اللَّهُ وَ رَسُولُهُ أَمْراً أَنْ یکونَ لَهُمُ الْخِیرَةُ مِنْ أَمْرِهِم

It is not for any believer man or woman to have the choice in the affair when a matter is decreed by Allah and His Prophet. Whosoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger strays into clear error.

Sura AL-AHZAB, verse 36

we understand of this verse that we have no will and authority against the will of god and prophet.

فَلا وَ رَبِّک لا یؤْمِنُونَ حَتَّی یحَکمُوک فیما شَجَرَ بَینَهُمْ ثُمَّ لا یجِدُوا فی أَنْفُسِهِمْ حَرَجاً مِمَّا قَضَیتَ وَ یسَلِّمُوا تَسْلیما

But no, by your Lord, they will not believe you until they make you the judge regarding the disagreement between them, then, they will not find in themselves any discomfort concerning your verdict, and will surrender to you in full submission.

Sura AL-NISA, verse 65

Third responseobjecting to prophet [PBUH] is hypocritical trait!

Those who protest to prophet [PBUH] bounty and deeds is not only a hypocritical trait but it’s against Holy Quran, and a Muslim shouldn’t do so.

It’s written in the book “Sahih Bukhari” Hadith No. 2981that is related to the battle of “Hunayn”:

After war, prophet [PBUH] gave to some guys more spoils, he gave “Aghra’ bin Habes” 100 camels, he gave 100 camels to “Ayinah” and some of Arab Nobles, it was “public treasury” not personal property, one of hypocrites said impolitely:

«والله إِنَّ هذه الْقِسْمَةَ ما عُدِلَ فيها وما أُرِيدَ بها وَجْهُ اللَّهِ فقلت والله لَأُخْبِرَنَّ النبي فَأَتَيْتُهُ فَأَخْبَرْتُهُ... »

Swear to god, justice wasn’t observed in this division, and god’s satisfactory wasn’t considered either, I said: I’ll report it to prophet, I went and told him.

I don’t know how these guys can understand even more than prophet about god’s satisfactory, and god would have been satisfied if prophet had given these guys more, narrator says: I said to prophet, he said:

« فَمَنْ يَعْدِلُ إذا لم يَعْدِلْ الله وَرَسُولُهُ »« رَحِمَ الله مُوسَى قد أُوذِيَ بِأَكْثَرَ من هذا فَصَبَرَ»

Who will observe justice if god and his prophet don’t do so. God bless “Muses” who was bothered more than it but tolerated.

It’s obvious that prophet [PBUH] got upset of what had happened.

Wahahbis who say that why prophet donated it, it was belong to all Muslims, prophet had other children too and things like that, they should pay attention to this narrative and adjust themselves to it and know that their place on the day of resurrection is where mentioned by Holy Quran:

«فِی الدَّرْک الْأَسْفَلِ مِنَ النَّار»

The hypocrites will be in the lowest place of the Fire, you will not find a helper for them.

Sura AL-NISA, verse 145

Narrative is written in the book “Sahih Bukhari” about “Abu Saed Khederi”. He quotes that we were with prophet that one the companions of prophet said:

«يا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ اعْدِلْ فقال وَيْلَكَ وَمَنْ يَعْدِلُ إذا لم أَعْدِلْ قد خِبْتَ وَخَسِرْتَ إن لم أَكُنْ أَعْدِلُ فقال عُمَرُ يا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ ائْذَنْ لي فيه فَأَضْرِبَ عُنُقَهُ»

O prophet, observe justice. Prophet said: who is going to observe justice on the earth if I don’t do so? With such behavior you got miserable and loss. “Umar” said: O prophet, let me cut his head out.

Look, second caliph deserves him to die and wants to cut his head out. Those who protest that why prophet [PBUH] gave “Fadak” to Hadrat “Fatimah” not anyone else, if “Umar” were alive he would cut their head out!!

Then prophet [PBUH] said:

«دَعْهُ فإن له أَصْحَابًا يَحْقِرُ أحدكم صَلَاتَهُ مع صَلَاتِهِمْ وَصِيَامَهُ مع صِيَامِهِمْ يقرؤون الْقُرْآنَ لَا يُجَاوِزُ تَرَاقِيَهُمْ يَمْرُقُونَ من الدِّينِ كما يَمْرُقُ السَّهْمُ من الرَّمِيَّةِ »

let him go! He has companions whom you guys underestimate your praying and fasting compare to them. They recite Holy Quran but they can’t understand anything. They will be out of religion as arrow is shot from the bowstring.

Al-Jame’ al-Sahih, “Bukhari”, v 3, p 1321

He says: they’re some guys like Wahhabis who say long prayers beside “Kaaba” and pray while shedding fake tear and recite Quran but understand nothing of it.

Prophet [PBUH]’s prediction from the advent of “Wahhabism” evil sect.

These guys say prayer while you underestimate your prayer compare to them and they fast while you underestimate you fasting compare to them and recite Quran but understand nothing from it. They’ll go out of religion and these are “Wahhabism” traits.

As for “Najd” and “Khawarij” that will come in Apocalypse:

«بارک لنا فی شامنا»

«وفی نجدنا»

« هُنَاكَ الزَّلَازِلُ وَالْفِتَنُ وَبِهَا يَطْلُعُ قَرْنُ الشَّيْطَانِ»

Seditions will arise from there, and evil’s horns will come out from “Najd”.

Al-Jame’ al-Sahih, “Bukhari”, v 3, p 1321

Like “Muhammad bin Abdulwahhab” and his followers who jeopardize the security of both Islamic and non-Islamic, they commit a lot of crimes inhuman crimes in “Yemen” that even European countries authorities who would sell weapon to devil “Saudi Arabia” say that we should stop selling weapon to them.

They killed more than 27000 to 30000 innocent people that some of them were civilian! They even bombed wheat and flour stores as well as mosques and hospitals, after one year they’ve just found out that these guys are war criminals and one of them has said in quite shamelessness, if we don’t sell weapon to “Saudi Arabia” our fiscal market is thrived.

Shame on “Wahhabis” who thrive the market of Islam enemies by buying their weapons, international entities are silent as usual and don’t dear to protest.

Fourth response: prophet [PBUH] has given other properties other than “Fadak” to certain guys:

Fourth point is that prophet [PBUH] gave properties to others, why don’t these guys say anything here? Why don’t they object? But about “Fadak” garden that prophet [PBUH] gave it to Hadrat Fatimah [AS] they make fuss out of it.

Mr. “Muhammad bin Hasan Sheybani” the student of “Abu Hanifah” says in the book “Seir al-Kabir” v 2, p 608”:

«کانت بنو النضیر خالصة لرسول الله» «فقسمها بین المهاجرین» «و لم یعط أحدا من الأنصار منها شیئا، إلا سهل بن حنیف وسماک بن خرشة أبا دجانة فإنهما کانا محتاجین فأعطاهما»

Translation is available above.

Prophet [PBUH] gave “Fadak” garden to Hadrat “Fatima” [AS]. In here wahabbis make uproar that why he’s given it to Hadrat “Fatima” [AS] not others! Why don’t they say anything about “Abu al-Nazir” properties that prophet [PBUH] gave to “Migrants”, but about “Fadak” garden they say nonsense. What difference does it make?

Sarakhsi” says quotes in foot note what “Sheybani” said in:

«فما أوجفتم علیه من خیل و لا رکاب فإنهم ما فتحوا بنی النضیر عنوة وقهراً» «وإنما صالحوا رسول الله علی أن لهم ما حملت الإبل، وإلا الحلقة» «و ما سوی ذلک فهو لرسول الله (صلی الله علیه و آله)»

Warriors hadn’t been dispatched to that aria and “Bani Nazir” region wasn’t conquered by war, they had compromised with prophet [PBUH] to get camel pastures and prophet [PBUH] gets rest of properties.

Seir al-Kabir” al-Sheybani- v 2, p 608

Mr. “Bukhari” says:

«لما فتح رسول الله (صلی الله علیه و آله) بنی النضیر» «و کانت للنبی (صلی الله علیه و آله) خاصة» «فقسمها بین المهاجرین فأعطی رجلین من الأنصار سهل بن حنیف وأبا دجانة»

Great history, “Bukari Ju’fi” v 4, p 315

Mr. “ibn Kathir Damascus” has said this issue in his interpretation that prophet [PBUH] gave properties to “Migrants” and some of needy companions [Ansar].

Conclusion of our discussion is that “Fadak” belonged to prophet [PBUH] and he liked to give to Hadrat “Fatimah” [AS] as he gave “Bani Nazir” properties to “Migrants” and some needy “Ansar”.

Furthermore, prophet [PBUH] follows revelation and what he does is based on revelation and protesting to prophet [PBUH] is a hypocritical trait.

Holy Quran says to all Muslims:

 و یسلموا تسلیما

And real Muslim must be surrendered, if separate being surrender from Islam nothing will left from Islam.

Presenter:

You’re watching program “Habl al-Matin” from “Velayat” global network. We’re talking about “Fadak” garden. Dear master! Another point is that if it’s written in Sunni resources that prophet [PBUH] gave “Fadak” to Hadrat“Fatimah” [AS]? Is its document available in Sunni books?

Ayatollah “Qazvini”:

Not only one document but tens of document are available in Sunni books.

“Abu Ya’li” says in his book:

«قال لما نزلت هذه الآية «وَ آتِ ذَا الْقُرْبی حَقَّه» دعا النبي فاطمة وأعطاها فدك »

“Abu Saed Khederi” has said that when this verse was sent down, prophet called upon Hadrat “Fatimah” and donated “Fadak” to her.

Musnad abi Ya’li- v 2, p 334

And “Belazeri” says in the book “futooh al-baldan” v 1, p 35 that Hadrat “Fatimah” [AS] went to “Abu-Bakr”:

«إن رسول الله (صلی الله علیه وسلم) جعل لی فدک فاعطنی إیاها»

Prophet [PBUH] has given “Fadak” to me and made it mine, give it back to me.

Then commander of faithful and others testified that prophet [PBUH] has given “Fadak” to Hadrat “Fatimah” but unfortunately “Abu-Bakr” didn’t accept the truth.

Mr. “Suyuti” mentions to this issue that when verse was sent down:

«دعا رسول الله (صلی الله علیه وسلم) فاطمة فأعطاها فدک»

Prophet Muhammad [PBUH] gave “Fadak” to “Fatimah” [AS].

Al-durr al-Mathur- “Suyuti”- v 5, p 273

Then he says that “Fadak” was a village in “Hijaz” two days away from “Medina” and says that “Ibn Kathir” has found fault with it that we’ll answer him.

But Mr. “Suyuti” himself hasn’t found any fault with this narrative; he says: “Abu Ya’li”, “Abi Hatam” and “Ibn Marduy” have said that prophet [PBUH] gave “Fadak” to Hadrat “Fatimah” [AS].

Mr. “Suyuti” hasn’t made any remark and when he doesn’t accept a narrative he says: “it’s invalid” like this one in the book “durr al-Manthur”:

«أخرج الطبرانی فی الأوسط بسند ضعیف»؛ «البزار فی مسنده بسند فیه قیس بن الربیع وهو ضعیف»؛ «طبرانی بسند ضعیف»؛ «عبد بن حمید بسند ضعیف»؛ «دار قطنی بیهقی بسند ضعیف» و...

In above text he mentions to “Invalid” document, but about the matter of “Fadak” he says:

 “و أخرج البزار أبو یعلی ابن أبی حاتم

He doesn’t say that narrative is invalid that show that document is valid. If its document were invalid he would mention it.

Allamah “Shukani” who’s confirmed by Wahhabis, says in the book “Fath al-Ghadir”:

“Bazar”, “Abu Ya’li”, “Ibn abi Hatam” quote from “Abu Saed Khederi” that when this verse was sent down:

وآت ذا القربی حقه”…

Give to the near of kin, the needy and the destitute traveler their rights and do not squander,

Sura AL-ISRA, verse 26

Prophet [PBUH] gave “Fadak” to Hadrat “Fatimah” [AS], he quotes from “Ibn Abbas”:

«لما نزلت (وآت ذا القربی حقه) أقطع رسول الله (صلی الله علیه و آله) فاطمة فدک»

When this verse was sent down {و آت ذا القربی حقه} prophet Muhammad [PBUH] gave “Fadak” to Hadrat “Fatimah” [AS] in certain way.

In certain way means “six dung document”, then he says what “Ibn Kathir” has said that as I said I’ll answer it.

In the footnote, they quote from “ibn Kathir” that prophet didn’t give “Fadak” to Hadrat “Fatimah” [AS] and It’s been made by “Rafezi” guys. it means that “Abu Saed Khederiry”, “Ibn Marduyah”, “Ibn Abi Hatam” and “Abuya’li” who said that prophet [PBUH] has given “Fadak” to Hadrat “Fatimah” [AS], all of them are “Rafezi”.

If “Rafezi” guys have so much influence to write such narratives in Sunni books, well we should admire them and thus we can’t rely on Sunni books. Any narrative you say, we’ll say:

حکم الامثال فی ما یجوز و فی ما لا یجوز صیان

How do we know that “Rafezi” guys have not faked and published these narratives that you say!?

As for the matter of “إقطاع", there are several things that must be paid attention, certain decree means that prophet or ruler gives a property to someone in certain way.

Mr. “Ahmad abd al-Aziz Amirah” has written a book in this regard named:

هل الإقطاع یفید التملک؟

Does “giving something to someone in certain way” bring ownership?

He says: if ruler gives a piece of field to someone whether it’s farm land or for living,

هل یملک هذا الشخص الأرض بمجرد الإقطاع فیجوز له التصرف بها بالبیع و نحوه

Can that person who was given field by prophet or ruler in certain way sell that field? Or no ruler can take it back, or that person who was given field by ruler should revive it farming and planting tree?

He says: some believe that even ruler can’t take that field back and it’ll belong to the one who was given field by ruler.

Then he says a narrative that prophet [PBUH] gave a piece of field to “Zubair” and it shows the legitimacy of this act; and no one says why prophet did so but about “Fadak” that was given to Hadrat “Fatimah” [AS] by prophet, Whhabis say why he did so?

“Umar bin Harir” says: prophet Muhammad [PBUH] gave me a home in certain way {six dung document}, then he explains what Sahaba {companions} did, “Abu-Bakr” himself gave something to another guy in certain way just like prophet [PBUH],”Umar” gave properties to some people, as well as “Utman” and commander of faithful [AS], then concludes and says:

أن الملک یثبت بمجرد الإقطاع

It means: As soon as prophet or ruler gives piece of field to someone, he’ll be its owner and it’s not necessary that he revives it.

They say: prophet [PBUH] has given it to her and “Abu-Bakr” who was leader of Muslims wanted to take it back:

لا یجوز لولی الأمر إرجاع

Even if he {ruler} himself gives it he can’t take it back; furthermore, prophet gave it her, that’s got nothing to do with “Abu-Bakr”.

It means if it’s from “public treasury” you can’t take it back while it was prophet [PBUH]’s property and could give it to anyone he likes.

He quotes from “Abd al-Rahman ‘Awf” that prophet gave piece of field and second caliph {Umar} came to and said: you can sell it, some guys bought it and “Uthman” didn’t protest to “Zubair” that why you sold the field given to you in certain way.

Then he says: first opinion that as soon as ruler gives piece of field to someone he will be its owner and it’s not necessary that he people that field and ruler can’t take it back either, this opinion is well-known amongst scholars.

Mr. ”Beihaghi”  says in the book “sunan al-Kubra” v 6, p 301, Hadith 12516: “Fatimah” [AS] wen t to “Abu-Bakr” and said: give “Fadak” to me but he didn’t accept and said: I want to do what prophet would do.

Then he says when “Uthman” became caliph:

«اقطعها مروان»

He gave “Fadak” to “Marvan”.

When “Umar bin abd al-Aziz” took the control said:

«فرأیت أمرا منعه رسول الله (صلی الله علیه و آله و سلم) فاطمة»«لیس لی بحق»«و انا أشهدکم»«انی قد رددتها علی ما کانت علی عهد رسول الله (صلی الله علیه و آله و سلم)»

What prophet [PBUH] has given to “Fatimah” [AS] is not my due and I can’t seize it. And I want all of you to be witness that I take it back to its real owner.

It means that after 80 to 90 years that others used “Fadak”, “Umar bin abd al-Aziz” says: No. it’s been usurped and I don’t get it and I’ll take it back to the offspring of Hadrat “Fatimah” [AS].

But “Ibn Kathir Damascene” says:

«وهذا الحديث مشكل لو صح إسناده لأن الآية مكية وفدك إنما فتحت مع خيبر سنة سبع من الهجرة فكيف يلتئم هذا مع هذا فهو إذا حديث منكر و الأشبه أنه من وضع الرافضة والله أعلم»

The hadith of giving “Fadak” to “Fatimah”, if even its document is valid, accepting it is difficult. Because this verse: «وآت ذا القربى حقه» was sent down in “Mecca” but “Fadak” was conquered along with “Kheibar” seven years after prophet [PBUH]’s departure to “Medina”. How could it be possible? So this Hadith has been faked by “Rafezi” guys. However, god knows better.

Tafsir of great Quran, “Ibn Kathir Damascene”, v 3, p 37

God willing I’ll respond him in the next session, and will prove that “Ibn Kathir” could bear this fact that’s why he’s found such weird fault with this Hadith.

Presenter:

Thank you Dear master; so it was proved that “Fadak” was prophet [PBUH]’s personal property and what he does is based on revelation:

وَ ما ینْطِقُ عَنِ الْهَوی إِنْ هُوَ إِلاَّ وَحْی یوحی

And this fact that prophet [PBUH] gave “Fadak” to Hadrat “Fatimah” is available in Sunni books, as Master told us.

Viewers’ contact:

Viewer: {Muhammad-Sunni}:

Hello to Ayatollah “Qazvini” and respectable presenter. I’m a Sunni adolescent.

It’s been while that I’m searching in this field, comparing narratives written in our books and your books and after reading your narratives I concluded that we’re being lied  by our scholars in the name of theism, thank god for doing me favor watching “Velayat” network.

Ayatollah “Qazvini”! We the people of Afghanistan aren’t at fault this our scholars’ fault. God says in sura AL-BAGHARA, verse 159:

إِنَّ الَّذینَ یکتُمُونَ ما أَنْزَلْنا مِنَ الْبَیناتِ وَ الْهُدی مِنْ بَعْدِ ما بَینَّاهُ لِلنَّاسِ فِی الْکتابِ أُولئِک یلْعَنُهُمُ اللَّهُ وَ یلْعَنُهُمُ اللاَّعِنُون

Those who hide the clear verses and the guidance We have sent down after We have clarified them in the Book for the people shall be cursed by Allah and cursed by the cursers,

Why our scholars hide the truths? For instance, several years ago there was magnificent debate in “Peshawar” province amongst “Afghanistan” Sunni scholars and someone named “Sultan al-Vae’zin”, in their debate Sunni scholars crossed lines and wanted to end the debate without result but Sheikh “Navab” who was amongst Sunni elders didn’t let it to happen saying that the truth must be clarified because you would say to us that “Shiites” are “Rafezi” and “pagan”; it must be proved. When truth was clarified in the debate, we found out that Sunni scholars were lying and they were beaten, and Shiite was right and many of “Peshawar” Sunni scholars became Shiite.

After reading such debates I understand that Shiites are right but our scholars hide the truth because they don’t want people to become Shiite. They pervert people for their own interests, why do they not remove people’s doubt? We people aren’t at fault and our scholars must be blamed.

It’s written in the book “Yanabi’ al-Mawaddah” which is about “Mahdism” and Sunnis deny it:

«المهدی طاووس أهل الجنة»

Hadrat “Mahdi” is the peacock of people of paradise.

Thank goodness, it’s been while that I’m searching and compare all the sentences and understand them, so what would we believe if these issues written in our books are really lie?  What is clear is that Former scholars have said the facts to us but current scholars don’t say them to us.

Presenter:

Thank you Mr. “Muhammadi” for your great information, God willing that you get to real result during your researches. Bye.

Ayatollah “Qazvini”:

Our dear friend said that some scholars hid the truth, this is what has happened in the past either, “Muawiyyah” sent a letter to commander of faithful [AS] and said: “I’m “Muawiyyah” the son of “Abu Sufyan” and….”Ali” [AS] said to his servant to write letter, commander of faithful [AS] said in that letter:

محمدٌ النبی أخی و سهری و حمزة سید الشهداء

In this letter Commander of faithful [AS] has said his parentage and records in Islam. When “Muawiyyah” read the letter:

«فقال معاویة أخفوا هذا الکتاب»«لا یقرأه أهل الشام فیمیلون إلی ابن أبی طالب»

Muawiyyah” said: hide this letter. If people read this letter and poems of “Ali”, all of them will join him.

History of Damascus- Ibn Asaker, v 42, P 521

«قال معاویة أخفوا هذا الکتاب لا یقرؤه أهل الشام فیمیلوا إلی ابن أبی طالب»

Mu’jam al-Udaba’- “Yaqut Hamudi”, v 14, p 48

This even has happened during the History too. And Holy “Quran” says:

إِنَّ الَّذینَ یکتُمُونَ ما أَنْزَلْنا مِنَ الْبَیناتِ وَ الْهُدی مِنْ بَعْدِ ما بَینَّاهُ لِلنَّاسِ فِی الْکتابِ أُولئِک یلْعَنُهُمُ اللَّهُ وَ یلْعَنُهُمُ اللاَّعِنُون

Those who hide the clear verses and the guidance We have sent down after We have clarified them in the Book for the people shall be cursed by Allah and cursed by the cursers, 

Sura AL-BAGHARA, verse 159

Hiding the facts will be followed by the curse of Allah, “Wahhabis” not only they hide the truth but they ridicule it too.

Presenter:

Viewer: {Mr. Ahmadi-Sunni}:

Hello, I want to say to Ayatollah “Qazvini” that if a lady dies, her husband and children will inherit or others?

Regardless all these discussions about “Fadak”, I want to know whether these fields could be considered as inheritance for commander of faithful [AS], Imam “Hasan” and Imam “Hussein” [AS] or not?

Ayatollah “Qazvini”:

One-fourth of properties belong to commander of faithful [AS] and rest of them is for his children.

Viewer:

What you say true. How is that “Ali” [AS] tries a Jewish at court because of an armor but he didn’t demand his inheritance at the time of his own rein?

Ayatollah “Qazvini”:

My dear brother, commander of faithful [AS] took the control after 25 years, people had accustomed to former caliphs, when commander of faithful [AS] said: “Taravih” prayer has been innovated {such thing doesn’t exist in the religion}, people objected to him and said commander of faithful [AS] is destroying the sirah {manner} of “Umar”.

It’s written in Shiite with valid documents that he says: if I wanted to take “Fadak” back and remove all innovations which had been made during this period and get everything back to the time of prophet [PBUH]:

« لَتَفَرَّقَ عَنِّي جُنْدِي حَتَّى أَبْقَى وَحْدِي‏»

All troops would disperse and I’d remain alone.

Al-Kafi- v 8, p 59

This is what commander of faithful [AS] has said, available in the book “Al-Kafi” and it’s document is 100% valid. Commander of faithful [AS] says: before me, caliphs have done works and changed prophet [PBUH]’s tradition. If I force people to stop doing such works even those who fight alongside me will disperse or just a few Shiites who got my “Imamate” from Quran and tradition will remain with me!!

Then he says, if get “Maqam Ibrahim” {Sacred stone block, also known as the Station of Ibrahim, by the door of the holy Kaaba in Mecca} back to its main place or take “Fadak” giving it to the heirs of Hadrat “Fatimah” and if I do many other works, people will never accept it from me and say that “Ali ibn Abi Talib” is changing three- caliph tradition.

After Umar’s death, “Abd al-Rahman ‘Awf” says: I said to “Ali”: we’ll swear an allegiance to you provided you live up to “Quran”, prophet [PBUH]’s tradition and the manner of “Abu-Bakr” and “Umar”, commander of faithful [AS] didn’t accept and said: I don’t accept their {Umar-Abu-Bakr} manner {sirah} but I stick to Holy “Quran” and prophet [PBUH]’s tradition, thus he didn’t become caliph.

Viewer:

 As for the book “Al-Kafi”, it’s written there that all people got apostate other than 3,4 or 7 people. I’m really interested in your program and respect Ali [AS] in high regard. At that time they insulted Hadrat “Ali” [AS] and 350 people remained Muslim and rest of them got apostate!

Ayatollah “Qazvini”:

Don’t use of this sentence, we never say they got apostate too.

Viewer:

According to this book all got apostate except 7 guys.

Ayatollah “Qazvini”:

Look my dear brother Mr. “Ahmadi”, this sentence that you say:

ارتد الناس بعد رسول الله صلی الله علیه وآله وسلم إلا ثلاثة و أربع

We’ve already talked about it. The meaning apostate in here is getting apostate from faith not Islam religion. They didn’t accept the guardianship and Imamate of Ali [AS] not that they got apostate.

If it’s written in our book that just 4 to 7 guys remain Muslim, well we have in Sunni books that all the “Arab” got apostate after prophet. This narrative has been quoted from “Ayesha” and it’s not for us:

«و فی حدیث عائشة لما قبض رسول الله (صلی الله علیه وسلم) ارتدت العرب قاطبة أی جمیعهم»

Ayasha” has said that after prophet [PBUH]’s demise all Arabs got apostate.

Viewer:

It means most of them

Ayatollah “Qazvini”:

It means all of them, it’s written in Sunni books such as: «النهایة فی غریب الحدیث» from “Ibn Athir Jazari” and the book “Lesan al-Arab”:

ارتدت العرب قاطبة أی جمیعهم

Viewer:

He’s not said all the “Arab” but he’s said most of them.

Ayatollah “Qazvini”:

 

Mr. “Ahmadi”, this book “Lesan al-arab” is wordbook. This is his own translation, no one has said that “قاطبة “ means “most of them”.

النهایة فی غریب الحدیث: ارتدة العرب قاطبة إی جمیعهم

It’s written in this book “قاطبة “ means “all of them” got apostate. As well in the book: “Gharib al-Hadith” from “Qahtani” and “Al-Bedayah and al-Nahayah” from “Ibn Kathir Damascene Salafi” which has written a narrative from “Ayesha”:

« قالت لما قبض رسول الله ارتدت العرب قاطبة وأشربت النفاق»

When prophet died, all the Arabs got apostate and division overshadowed over all Muslims.

Al-bedayah and al-Nahayah- v 6, p 304

if we’ve said that except 4 or 5 guys all got apostate, well even these 4 or 5 guys are not off the hook in Sunni books, but as I said the meaning of apostate in here is the opposition with the most important Islamic obligations, as “Ibn Kathir” picks such meaning for the word “ارتدت” {apostate} regarding to Hadith” Al Kawthar: river, its pool and springs”.

Presenter:

Thank you for your calling,

Viewer:

Let us finish our discussion. Ayatollah “Qazvini” what you said is true, but why “Ali” [AS] didn’t get his due? All people had got apostate, so “Ali” [AS] must have demanded his due since there was no one to get apostate.

Ayatollah “Qazvini”:

Mr. “Ahmadi”, you answer first. I tell you a new thing to increase your information. “Abu Obeid” Sunni prominent scholar says in his book, p 212:

«لما مات النبی کفر الناس إلاّ خمسة»

When prophet passed away, all people got apostate other than five guys.

Viewer:

I accepted what said.

Ayatollah “Qazvini”:

But we don’t accept this narrative.

Viewer:

Our narratives are valid as well as your narratives. But why did “Ali” [AS] not get the due of Hadrat “Fatimah” [AS] from apostates? Nothing had left of Islam and all except 5 guys had got apostate, so there was no reason that he doesn’t get his due.

How is it that he took a Christian or Jewish to the court and got his own armor from him but he didn’t get his children’s due?

Ayatollah “Qazvini”:

Mr. “Ahmadi”, after conquering “Mecca” Hadrat “Ali” [AS] had more power or prophet [PBUH].

Viewer:

Prophet [PBUH]

Ayatollah “Qazvini”:

That’s right. Why didn’t prophet [PBUH] get his home that “Quraysh” tribe had usurped after migration? I want you to search about it, we’ll be at your service next week.

 END



Share
* Name:
* Email:
* Comment :
* Security code:
  

Latest Articles
Most Comments
Most viewed
Index | Contact us | Archive | Search | Link | List Comments | About us | RSS | Mobile |