Did Abu Bakr (Radhiyallahu Anhu) Deny Faatimah (Radhiyallahu Anha) her Inheritance??

[Majlisul Ulama]

Shiahs accuse Hadhrat Abu Bakr  (radhiyallahu anhu) of depriving  Hadhrat Faatimah (radhiyallahu  anha) her inheritance. On this  issue Shiahs claim:

(a) In order to deprive Hadhrat  Faatimah (radhiyallahu anha) of  her inheritance, he gave  preference to his own statement,  viz. “I heard Rasulullah (sallallahu  alayhi wasallam) say: ’We are of  the group of the Ambiyaa. We do  not inherit from anyone nor does  anyone inherit from us.’”

(b) Abu Bakr’s (radhiyallahu anhu)  claim is (according to Shiahs) in  conflict with the Qur’aan which says: “Allah, commands you  regarding your children. For a  male is a share of two females.”

This Aayat in its generality brings  Ambiyaa and non-Ambiyaa  within its scope.

(c) Abu Bakr’s (radhiyallahu anhu)  action also conflicts with the  Qur`aanic Aayat: Sulaimaan also  inherited from Dawud.”

The Qur`aan also says: “Grant me from Your side an heir who will  inherit from me and inherit from  the progeny of Ya`qub.”

Thus, it is clear that the children  of Ambiyaa do inherit, i.e.  according to the Shiah claim.


This Shi`i claim and arguments  are baseless for the following reasons:

(1)  Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu) refusing to  comply with Hadhrat Faatimah’s (radhiyallahu anhu) request for  inheritance was on account of  the directive of Rasulullah  (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and not because of any hatred for  Hadhrat Faatimah (radhiyallahu  anha) as alleged by Shiahs. If  Hadhrat Faatimah (radhiyallahu  anha) had to inherit, it would  follow that the wives of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi  wasallam) were also heirs. Among  the Holy Wives, was Hadhrat  Aishah (radhiyallahu anha), the  daughter of Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu). All  of them were blocked from  inheriting. In terms of Shiah logic,it would have to be said that  Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu) maliciously deprived all the  wives of Rasulullah (sallallahu  alayhi wasallam) including his  own daughter, Aishah  (radhiyallahu anha) of inheritance. But this is ridiculous and has no  substantiation. But Shiahs are  silent on the issue of “depriving”  Hadhrat Aishah (radhiuallahu anha) and the other wives of  inheritance to which they would  be entitled if Hadhrat Faatimah’s (radhiyallahu anha) inheritance is  conceded. If inheritance for  Hadhrat Faatimah (radhiyallahu anha) had to be conceded, then  almost half of Rasulullah’s (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) estate  would have been the inheritance  of Hadhrat Abbaas (radhiyallahu anhu), the paternal uncle. From  the very inception of the  Khilaafat, Hadhrat Abbaas (radhiyallahu anhu) was Hadhrat  Abu Bakr’s (radhiyallahu anhu) advisor and close companion. How can it be accepted that  Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu) had deprived him too of  inheritance? The claim that  Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu  anhu) had relied only on his own  statement is a pure lie. According  to the books of Hadith, the  Hadith of Hadhrat Abu Bakr  (radhiyallahu anhu) is
supported by the narrations of  Huzaifah Bin Yamaan, Zubair Bin  Awwaam, Abu Darda, Abu Hurairah Abbaas, Ali, Uthmaan,  Abdur Rahmaan Bin Auf and  Sa`d Bin Abi Waqqaas (radhiyallahu anhum), all senior Sahaabah. Bukhaari narrated  from Maalik Bin Uwais Bin Hadhthaan Nasri that Umar  Bin  Khattaab stated in the presence  of the Sahaabah among whom  were Ali, Abbaas, Uthmaan,  Abdur Rahmaan Bin Auf, Zubair Bin Awwaam and Sa`d Bin Abi  Waqqaas : “I give you an oath by  Allah, He with whose command  the heaven and earth operate!  Are you aware that Rasulullah  (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:     ‘We (i.e. the Ambiyaa) have no  heirs. Whatever (assets) we leave  are Sadaqah.”  They (the  Sahaabah) said: “O Allah! Yes, so  it is.”  Then he (Umar) addressing  Ali and Abbaas, said: “I give both  of you an oath by Allah do you  know that Rasulullah (sallallahu  alayhi wasallam) said so??”

They (Ali and Abbaas) said: “O Allah! Yes!”

Besides all these evidences of the  Ahlus Sunnah, even Shiah recordsconfirm that the Ambiyaa do not leave any estates to be inherited  by their relatives. The following  appears in Al-Kaafi, one of the most authentic books according  to the Shiahs: “Abul Bakhtari  narrates from Abi Abdullah Ja`far  Bin Muhammad Saadiq who said:  ’Verily, the Ulama are the heirs of the Ambiyaa. i.e. the Ambiyaa do  not leave inheritance.”

In one version it appears: “They  do not inherit Dinars and  Dirhams. Verily, they leave the  inheritance of their Ahaadith.  Thus, whoever takes a share of it,  has indeed taken a great Share.” In this narration of the Shiahs the term appears. This word, evenaccording to Shiahs, emphasises  the restrictive meaning, i.e.  “Only”. The sentence thus means: The Ambiyaa leave only the  inheritance of their Ahaadith  (and nothing else).

Furthermore, Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu) heard  the Hadith directly from  Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), without the medium  of an intermediary. Hence,  assuming that he was the only  one who had heard the Hadith,  then too, following its directive  would be incumbent on him. But  as the situation stands, he was  corroborated by numerous senior  Sahaabah. For people of  knowledge, it will prove beneficial to remember the  following principle: The  categorisation of Hadith into  Mutawaatir and non-Mutawaatir  classes applies to those who did not acquire the Ahaadith directly  from Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi  wasallam). It does not concern those who had heard the  Ahaadith directly from the  blessed lips of Rasulullah  (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). This  principle is unanimously accepted  by both Sunni‘s and Shiahs.

Thus, a person who heard the  Hadith directly from Rasulullah  (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is  under compulsion to act  according to its directive. For him  it has greater significance than  even the Mutawaatir category.  Hence, Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu  anhu) had no need to search for  corroboration from any other sources. The Shiah claim of  Hadhrat Abu Bakr’s (radhiyallahu  anhu) narration being in conflict  with the Qur`aan is baseless and  false. The pronoun (your) in the  first Aayat (stated above) refers  to the Ummah. It is not an  address directed to Rasulullah  (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), while  the Hadith negating inheritance  of the Ambiyaa is a specific  address directed to the Ambiyaa.  It should not be viewed as  Mukhassis (i.e. a factor which  excludes members from a  general order this is a rule relating to Usool).

Even if it is accepted to be a  Mukhassis, there is no conflict  with the Aayat because  exceptions to this very Aayat has  been made in several respects,  e.g. the Kaafir children of Muslim  parents are excluded from inheriting; similarly are murderers,and slaves.

Furthermore, according to Shiahs  their “infallible” Imaams have  prohibited some heirs from  inheriting certain items of their  (Imaam’s) estates, e.g. sword,  Qur`aan, ring and bodily  garments. These items were excluded from the Shi`i law of  inheritance and reserved for the  new Imaam (i.e. the son of the  deceased Imaam). Now, while the  Shiahs assert the invalidity of  making exceptions to the  Qur`aanic Aayat in so far as Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu) is concerned, they  themselves are guilty of making  similar exceptions.

Of great significance is the  attitude and direction adopted  by Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) regarding the estate of  Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) when he donned the  mantle of the Khilaafat. When he became Khalifah and the estate  devolved to his custody, he  excluded Hadhrat Abbaas (radhiyallahu anhu), his children  and the wives of Rasulullah  (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) from inheriting in the estate of Nabi-e Kareem (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). This is clear and glittering proof for the validity of Hadhrat  Abu Bakr’s (radhiyallahu anhu)  action based on the Hadith he  had acquired directly from  Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

If Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu)  had not concurred with Abu Bakr  (radhiyallahu anhu) and if he was of the opinion that the latter had  erred in his decision, he (Ali)  would most certainly have  rescinded the decision when he assumed the Mantle of Khilaafat.

He would have restored the  property to those who were  allegedly the rightful heirs. But  he did nothing of the sort. He  upheld what Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu) had decided  and instituted.

Let us now discuss the verse: “And Sulaimaan inherited from  Dawud.”

The Hadith pertaining to  inheritance in relation to the  Ambiyaa has already been  discussed. The Hadith explicitly  and emphatically negates  inheritance for the Ambiyaa.  Authoritative Shiah accounts  accept this fact as has already  been shown. Clearly, therefore,  this Aayat pertains to something  else. It does not have a literal  meaning. It refers to the  inheritance of Ilm and Nubuwwat as the Hadith states, not to the inheritance of tangible wealth  and property.

The Shi`i authority, Kulaini  narrates that Abu Abdullah  narrated:

“Verily, Sulaimaan inherited from  Daawud, and Muhammad  (sallallahu alayhi wasallam)  inherited Sulaimaan.”

This Shi`i exposition of the  relevant Aayat makes it  abundantly clear that the  meaning is inheritance of Nubuwwat, which Sulaimaan  (alayhisalaam) inherited from  Dawud (alayhisalaam).

Hadhrat Daawud (alayhissalaam)  had 19 sons. However, the Qur`aan describes only Hadhrat Sulaimaan (alayhisalaam) as the  heir of Daawud (alayhisalaam). If  the Aayat literally referred to inheritance of gold, silver and  tangible assets, it would not have  been restricted to Sulaimaan  (alayhisalaam) since all sons inherit equally. Thus, intelligence  confirms that the Aayat does  not refer to inheritance of  tangible assets. The inheritance  of Nubuwwat was restricted to  Sulaimaan (alayhissalaam).

Furthermore, it is common  knowledge that every son inheritsin his father’s estate. If the  meaning of the Aayat was  tangible assets, the statement  would have been superfluous  because the son being an heir is a known fact. But, it is  unimaginable that the Qur`aan the Word of Allah contains superfluous statements. This  further confirms that inheritance  in the context of the Aayat does  not refer to tangible assets or an estate of gold, silver, etc.

The Aayat pertaining to  Sulaimaan (alayhissalaam) lauds  the inheritance he had gained. If  this inheritance referred to gold  and silver, what is its peculiarity  and speciality? Why would the  Qur`aan laud an inheritance in  which every person on earth  participates which is common to  all men and women? This further reinforces the claim that the  inheritance in the context of the  Aayat is the inheritance of Nubuwwat.

Elsewhere, the Qur`aan Majeed  states:

“Then We made those whom We chose from Our servants to inherit the Kitaab…”

This Aayat explicitly indicates the  meaning of inheritance in  relation to the chosen servants  of Allah Ta’ala. Thus, “inheritance”  used in the Qur`aan does not  always mean the inheritance of  tangible wealth.

Regarding the verse: “He will  inherit from me and inherit from  the children of Ya`qub”, the  meaning is self- evident. Hadhrat  Zakariyya (alayhissalaam) was  supplicating for a son who would  be the Nabi after him. If the  meaning was inheritance of  tangible wealth, it will follow that  the tangible assets of the “Aal of Ya’qub” were still intact and un-distributed. But, this is absurd  since there was a span of 2,000  years between Ya`qub (alayhis  salaam) and Zakariyya (alayhis  salaam). From this lop-sided  logic of the Shiahs the conclusion is that Yahyaa  (alayhissalaam) – Hadhrat  Zakariyya’s (alayhissalaam) son – was the heir to the tangible  wealth and assets of the entire  Bani Israeel. The stupidity of this argument fallaciously raised on the basis of the Qur`aanic Aayat  is extreme.

Every person of even slight  intelligence will readily  understand that Nabi Zakariyya  (alayhissalaam) in his oldage had  supplicated for a son to succeed  him as the next Nabi. He did not  ask for a son for the purpose of  passing on the inheritance of  physical wealth – gold and silver.  Such supplication is not in  conformity with the lofty office  of Nubuwwat.

Should someone aver that the  Wives (Azwaaj-e-Muttahharaat)  inherited from Rasulullah  (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) the  rooms which were their  respective homes, We shall respond that this argument is baseless. The rooms/homes were  not acquired by the Azwaaj-e-Muttahharaat by way of inheritance. They were the  owners of their respective homes  during the lifetime of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

Some Shiahs argue that if the  law of inheritance did not apply  to Rasulullah’s (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) estate, then why were  the sword, etc. of Rasulullah  (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) given  to Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu)? Indeed, the reasoning of  Shiahs is surprising. Far from  proving inheritance, the contrary  is confirmed. If the law of  inheritance was applicable, then  in terms of the Shariah, Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) would not  be Rasulullah’s (sallallahu alayhi  wasallam) heir. His heirs would  have been Hadhrat Faatimah, the  Azwaaj-e-Muttahharaat and the  paternal uncle, Hadhrat Abbaas  (radhiyallahu anhum). 

The assets of Rasulullah  (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) after  his demise were in the category  of Waqf.

The Khalifah was entitled to  distribute such assets according  to his discretion. In the opinion  of the first Khalifah, these items  would serve a better purpose in  the possession of Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu), hence  ownership of the sword, etc. was  given to him.

Similarly, some of Rasulullah’s  (sallallahu alayhi wasallam)  assets were given to Zubair Bin  Awwaam (radhiyallahu anhu), the  paternal cousin of Rasulullah  (salaam alayhi wasallam). Even  Muhammad Bin Muslimah  Ansaari (radhiyallahu anhu) received some of the assets. This  further proves that the distribution of Rasulullah’s  (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) assetswas not by way of inheritance.  None of the recipients were heirs  in terms of the Shariah’s law of  inheritance.


Shiahs claim that during his  lifetime Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) made a gift of  Fadak to Hadhrat Faatimah ( radhiyallahu anha) However, after his demise, the Orchard was  denied to Hadhrat Faatimah (radhiyallahu anha) who had  even produced Hadhrat Ali and  Umme-Aiman (radhiyallahu anhuma) to testify in her favor. But Hadhrat Abu Bakr ( radhiyallahu anhu) rejected her  claim. She departed from him in great annoyance and anger.

There is no basis for this  accusation in any books of the  Ahlus Sunnah. Shiahs should  therefore not expect the Ahlus  Sunnah to accept such  fabrications. Regarding this matter, the following narration appears in Abu Dawud:

“ When Umar Bin Abdul Azeez  (rahmatullah alayh) became the  Khalifah, he assembled the  people of Banu Marwaan and  said: ‘Verily, Fadak belonged to Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi  wasallam). He would spend from it. From it he would give to the  minor children of Banu Haashim  and from it he would spend for the marriage of widows.  Faatimah (radhiyallahu anha) had  asked him to give the Orchard to her, but he declined. This  position remained during the  lifetime of Rasulullah (sallallahu alaihi wasallam) until he finally departed. When Abu Bakr ( radhiyallahu anhu) became the  Khalifah, he handled Fadak as  Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi  wasallam) had acted during his  lifetime. After Abu Bakr departed,  Umar became Khalifah. He  handled it as his two  predecessors had acted until he finally departed. Thereafter,  Marwaan took custody of it (i.e.  he it took it into his ownership).  Then it came to Umar Bin Abdul  Azeez. I reflected that Rasulullah  (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had  refused to give it to Faatimah ( radhiyallahu anha). Hence, I have no right to it. I make you witness  that I have returned it to the  state in which it was during the  time of Rasulullah (sallallahu  alayhi wasallam), Abu Bakr and  Umar (radhiyallahu anhum).” It is  thus conclusively established  that Fadak was never gifted to  Hadhrat Faatimah (radhiyallahu anha).


According to both Sunnis and  Shiahs, hibah (gift) is valid only  if possession of the gifted item is taken. All sources agree that until  the end, Fadak was in  Rasulullah’s (sallallahu alayhi  wasallam) possession. He utilised  it and its income according to his  discretion.

When Shiahs realised that their  claim of Fadak having been  gifted to Faatimah (radhiyallahu  anha) is not valid even in terms  of their own jurisprudence, some  of their scholars then fabricated  the claim that Rasulullah  (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had  made wasiyyat (bequeathed)  Fadak to Hadhrat Faatimah (radhiyallahu anha). This claim is also baseless. There  is no evidence for this claim in  the books of the Ahlus Sunnah  nor in any authoritative book of  the Shiahs. According to Sunnis  and Shiahs, Wasiyyat (bequest) is the sister of Meeraath (inheritance). A bequest is valid  in such wealth (assets) in which  inheritance is valid. When inheritance is not valid in the  estate of Rasulullah (sallallahu  alayhi wasallam), it follows that  wasiyyat too is not valid. Furthermore, since Rasulullah  (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had  declared:

“Whatever  we  leave  behind  is  Sadaqah”,

The wasiyyat argument has no  validity. It is simply another  legless and desperate attempt of  Shiahs to prove what cannot be  proven in anyway whatever. If for  a moment it is accepted that  wasiyyat was made and it is valid,  then what prevented Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) from  rectifying the position during his  Khilaafat? In fact, he continued to utilise the income of Fadak in  the same way as his predecessors  had done. According to the wasiyyat argument of the Shiahs,  it follows that Hadhrat Ali ( radhiyallahu anhu), their first “infallible” Imaam, had deprived  Hadhrat Hasan, Hadhrat Hussein  and their sisters from their  rightful inheritance, viz. Fadak,  the “property” of the mother,  Hadhrat Faatimah (radhiyallahu  anha) according to the Shiahs. Shiahs have tried to respond to  this charge and argument of the  Ahlus Sunnah in four ways as follows:

(1)  The Ahle-Bait do not take  back usurped property. In  support it is said that after the  conquest of Makkah, Rasulullah  (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) did  not the take his usurped house  from the usurper. This argument  falls flat because Hadhrat Umar  Bin Abdul Azeez (rahmatullah  alaih) had handed Fadak to  Imaam Baaqir (rahmatullah alaih)  who was the “infallible” Imaam of  the Shiahs. He accepted it.  Thereafter it went into the  custody of the Abbaasi Khulafa.  In 220 A.H., the Abbaasi Khalifah,  Ma`moon instructed his governor, Qusham Bin Ja`far to  hand over Fadak to the children  of Faatimah (radhiyallahu anha).  Imaam Ali (the Imaam of the  time) accepted it.

Then the Abbaasi Khalifah,  Mutawakkil re-possessed Fadak.  The Abbaasi Khalifah, Mu`tahid  once again returned it. Muktafi,  the Abbaasi Khalifah, then  re-possessed it, only to be returned  by Muqtadir.

Qaadhi Nurullah has explained  the episode of Fadak in detail in  Majaalisul Mu`mineen. The falsity  of the Shiah assertion is thus  manifest. Also, why did Hadhrat  Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) attempt  to retrieve his shield from the  Jew who had usurped it? Yet  Shiahs claim that the Ahle-Bait  do not retake usurped property!

(2)  In not taking back Fadak,  Shiahs say that Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) followed in  the footsteps of Hadhrat  Faatimah (radhiyallahu anha). Since she did not derive benefit  from it, he too refused to acquire  its benefit. This argument too is  baseless. Others whom the  Shiahs consider to be their  infallible Imaams, had derived  benefit from Fadak. Why did they not deem it necessary to follow  in the footsteps of Hadhrat Faatimah (radhiyallahu anhu)?

Let Shiahs answer: Was it  compulsory to follow Hadhrat  Faatimah’s action or not? If it  was Fardh (compulsory), then  the other Imaams who had taken  Fadak and its benefits were guilty of abandoning a Fardh. Why did  they do this? Yet they are  supposed to be infallible. If  following Faatimah (radhiyallahu anha) in this matter was optional (not Fardh), then it follows that Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) abandoned an obligatory Shar`i  demand for the sake of an  optional act. It is Fardh to restore  the right (Haqq) of the rightful owners. But, in terms of Shi`i  logic, Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) failed in the execution of  this obligatory demand. The  argument of the Shiahs is indeed  stupid. According to them, Fadak  was usurped and denied to Hadhrat Faatimah (radhiyallahu anha). Thus, she had no option in  the matter. She did not  voluntarily refuse acceptance of  the benefits of Fadak. How can  Hadhrat Ali’s abstention be argued on the basis of something which was not in the control of  Hadhrat Faatimah (radhiyallahu  anha)?

(3)  Shiahs say that the  testimony of Hadhrat Ali  (radhiyallahu anhu) in favour of  Hadhrat Faatimah (radhiyallahu  anha) was not for personal gain,  but was for the sake of Allah  Ta`ala. Firstly, it has already been  mentioned that the story of  Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu)  testifying is a Shiah fabrication.

Secondly, according to Shiahs,  the orchard of Fadak was  usurped, hence the need for  Hadhrat Faatimah, Hadhrat  Ali  and Umme-Aiman (radhiyallahu  anhum) to testify. Now if we  accept this fabrication as being the truth, why did Hadhrat Ali  and Hadhrat Faatimah attempt  to re-possess usurped  property?  According to Shiahs, the  Ahle-Bait do not take what has been  usurped. They Shiahs indeed trip  and fall all over the show in the  contradictions which their fabrications breed. Thirdly, why  did Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) advise his offspring to  refrain from acquiring the benefits of Fadak to ensure that  they too follow him in his decision to follow Hadhrat  Faatimah (radhiyallahu anha)? History records that the “infallible” Imaams did not follow  Hadhrat Faatimah’s example  allegedly followed by Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu). In so doing, they violated the wishes and  Sunnah of Hadhrat Faatimah and  Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu  anhuma).

(4)  In a desperate attempt to  save the skin of their credibility,  Shiahs claim that the action of  Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) was based on Taqiyah (the Shi`i  principle of holy hypocrisy). But,  they have forgotten their own  law in this regard. According to  Shi`ism when an Imaam emerges  for war then Taqiyah is Haraam. Hence, according to them Imaam  Hasan and Imaam Hussein ( radhiyallahu anhuma) did not  adopt Taqiyah. Rather, they  sacrificed themselves and were  martyred. Therefore, if Hadhrat  Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) during his  Khilaafat had adopted Taqiyah, it  will follow that he was guilty of  having perpetrated a Haraam  act. This slander is the logical  conclusion of Shi`i arguments. It  is furthermore, not compatible  with infallibility. To crown all the  Shi`i conflict, self-contradictions  and confusion we have the  following explicit confession, of Sheikh Ibn Muttahhir Hilli in the  kitaab ‘Minhaajul Karaamat’:

“ Verily, when Faatimah  admonished Abu Bakr regarding  Fadak, he wrote to her a letter  and returned Fadak to her.” This  claim of Hilli clinches the Shi`i  cases regarding the issue.


At this juncture it is  appropriate  to discuss Hadhrat Faatimah’s  attitude which had developed in consequence of her claim of  inheritance. Initially, Hadhrat  Faatimah (radhiyallahu anha) was  annoyed on this issue. Hadhrat  Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu) had  to abide by the directive of  Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) of which Hadhrat  Faatimah was unaware. Shiahs  endeavour to capitalise on her feelings to convey the idea because she was wronged, she  had directed that Hadhrat Abu  Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu) should not attend her Janaaza and that  she remained angry with him  until her demise. Insha Allah,  these fictitious claims and  accusations of the Shiah will be  dispelled with solid arguments.

Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu) was not motivated by ill-feeling or malice for Hadhrat Faatimah (radhiyallahu anha) in  the dispute regarding inheritance.In fact, placating her, he  frequently said: “By Allah!, Oh  daughter of Rasulullah (sallallahu  alayhi wasallam)! Kindness to the relatives of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is more beloved  to me than my kindness with my  own relatives.”

According to both Sunni and  Shiah narrations, Hadhrat Abu  Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu) was  greatly by the developments and  by Hadhrat Faatimah’s  displeasure. He went to great  lengths to please her while remaining firm on the Shariah.  He went to her home, stood at  her door in the midday sun and  asked Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu  anhu) to be his intercessor in his  sincere attempt to placate and  please Hadhrat Faatimah ( radhiyallahu anha). Ultimately  she became pleased with him and accepted his decision. These narrations appear in Madaarijun  Nubuwwah, Kitaabul Wafaa, Baihaqi and in the commentaries of  Mishkaat (all authoritative  Kitaabs of the Ahlus Sunnah). Kitaabul Muwaafiqah narrates  that Anaani said:

“Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu) came to the door of Faatimah (radhiyallahu anha) said: ‘I shall in the midday sun and said: ‘I shall not leave from here as long as  the daughter of Rasulullah  (sallallahu alayhi wasallam)  remains displeased with me.  Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu)  came to Faatimah (radhiyallahu anha) and giving her an oath  urged her to become pleased.  Then she became pleased (with Hadhrat Abu Bakr).”

Shiah records also confirm that  Hadhrat Faatimah (radhiyallahu  anha) became pleased with  Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu  anhu). The Imaamiyyah Shiah  author of Hujjaajus Saalikeen  states:

“Verily, when Abu Bakr saw that  Faatimah was annoyed with him,  shunned him and did not speak  to him after this on the issue of  Fadak,  he  was  much  aggrieved  on account of this. He resolved  to please her. He went to her  and said: ‘Oh daughter of  Rasulullah! You have spoken the  truth in what you have claimed,  but I saw Rasulullah (sallallahu  alayhi wasallam) distributing it  (i.e. the income of Fadak). He  would give it to the Fuqaraa,  Masaakeen and way-farers after  he gave your expenses and expenses of the workers.’ She  then said: ’Do with it as my father, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had done.’ Abu Bakr  said:’ I take an oath by Allah for  you! It is incumbent on me to do with it what your father used do  with it.’ Faatimah said: ‘By Allah!  You should most certainly do so.’

Abu Bakr said: “By Allah! I shall  most certainly do so.’ Faatimah  said: ‘O Allah! Be witness.’ Thus she became pleased with this  and she took a pledge from Abu  Bakr. Abu Bakr would give them  (Faatimah and others of the Ahle- Bait) expenses therefrom and  distribute the balance to the  Fuqaraa, Masaakeen and wayfarers.”

This narration is also in other  books of the Imaamiyyah Shiahs.  It confirms that Hadhrat Abu  Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu) believed  that Hadhrat Faatimah (radhiyallahu anha) was truthful in her  claim, but the practice of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) convinced him that ownership was not given to Hadhrat Faatimah (radhiyallahu anha). The accusation against Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu) is therefore pure slander.

Regarding the claim that Hadhrat Faatimah (radhiyallahu anha) was averse to Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu) attending her Janaazah, is also baseless. She was buried secretly during the night by Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) in accordance with her wish. She was a Lady of extreme modesty and shame. She dreaded any ghair-mahram viewing her body even after death. According to authentic narrations she said during her last illness that she felt ashamed that her body be borne after death among ghair-mahrams without Purdah. In response, Asmaa Bint Amees (radhiyallahu anha) explained that she had seen in Abyssinia that the body was concealed with date-branches. Hadhrat Faatimah (radhiyallahu anha) requested her to prepare such a receptacle in her presence. This she did. When Hadhrat Faatimah (radhiyallahu anha) saw the purdah, she became delighted and smiled. This was the first occasion she had smiled since the demise of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). She instructed Asmaa to give her body ghusl after death and besides Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) no one else should be present. This was the reason for the secrecy surrounding her burial. When Hadhrat Abu Bakr, Hadhrat Umar and other Sahaabah (radhiyallahu anhum) complained the next day of not having been informed, Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) explained that it was Hadhrat Faatimah’s wish that no ghair-mahram should look at her Janaazah, and that she should be buried at night.

According to another narration, although Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu) was not present at the burial, hein fact led the Janaazah Salaat with the consent of Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu).

It is not conceivable that Hadhrat Faatimah (radhiyallahu anha) had not wanted Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu) to perform her Janaaza Salaat because she was aware that just six months prior to her death Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had ordered with great emphasis that Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu) should lead the Salaat. She was aware of this command of her father. Thus, the circumstances surrounding her burial are unrelated to her earlier dispute with Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu).


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s