inheritance of wealth undoubtedly. It showed that some prophets bequeathed while the tradition of Abu Bakr determined that all the prophets did not bequeath. The Quranic verse and Abu Bakr’s tradition were contradicted and whatever contradicted[1] the holy Quran must be null. We were not to exclude Zachariah from the rest of the prophets because the tradition of Abu Bakr did not accept such exclusion or differentiate between Zachariah and the others. If prophethood required not bequeathing so all the prophets would not bequeath. We do not think that the prophethood of Zachariah had a special aspect that made him bequeath rather than the rest of the prophets. What was the guilt of Zachariah, or what was his virtue that gave him this excellence? Then why do we have to burden the word (prophets) mentioned in the tradition with more than its actual meaning? In any case it is just an interpretation so why do we interpret the tradition as the Prophet’s patrimony was not to be inherited and then to be obliged to say that Prophet Muhammad (s) meant by (the prophets) other than Zachariah? Let us take the other interpretation to understand the tradition as that the prophets had nothing of value to bequeath and so we will keep the truth that the wording of the tradition refers to. If the tradition actually had the meaning that Abu Bakr intended to show, it would contradict the holy Quran and then it must be brushed aside. The matter had no any way to consider the tradition as [1] Prophet Muhammad (s) said: “Whatever contradicts the Book of Allah, you are to brush aside,… or to leave aside…” Refer to Ussool al-Kafi by al-Kulayni, vol.1 p.55 and ar-Radd ala Siyer al-Awza’ei by Yousuf al-Ansari p.25. legal evidence about the subject of bequeathing and so the caliph did not have any answer to defend himself against his opponent, who protested with the previous Quranic verse, and no one of his companions succeeded in defending him. It was so because they realized that the tradition, which justified the rulers’ situation, contradicted the Quranic verse. It could not be possible to justify the caliph’s situation by saying that he chose one of the contradicted forms of the tradition and carried it out as some Muslim jurisprudents thought, because whatever contradicted the holy Quran would definitely be null. The matter of donation It was the dispute between the caliph and Fatima (s) when she argued that the Prophet (s) had donated Fadak to her. Imam Ali and Umm Aymen witnessed of that but the caliph refused Fatima’s claim[1] and was not satisfied with these two witnesses and asked her to bring two men or a man and two women as witnesses. 1. The first thing that we would blame Abu Bakr for was his situation in this case as a ruler in spite of that his caliphate did not gain the legal quality until that day at least.[2] But now we do not want to study this blame because such argument will take us to wider horizons. 2. The second note about the subject is that if Fadak was with Fatima, then she would not have to have any evidence. There were two things about this [1] Sharh Nahjul Balagha, vol.16 p.216. [2] After ten days of the caliphate that yet the Hashimites and some of the great companions did not pay homage to Abu Bakr to be the legal caliph. Refer to at-Tabari’s Tareekh, vol.2 p.233. note: First: in whose possession Fadak was? Was it really in Fatima’s possession? We could understand that from the letter of Imam Ali to Othman bin Hunayf: “Yes, Fadak (only) was in our possession away from all what were under the heaven but some people became stingy with it and others turned away from it”.[1] This means that Fadak was in the Prophet’s family’s possession. This was confirmed by the traditions of the Shia. The meaning of Imam Ali’s speech showed that Fadak was in Imam Ali and Fatima’s possession and it could not be interpreted as it was in the Prophet’s possession; first because the Prophet’s possession meant the Prophet’s family’s possession and second because the Prophet had his own properties other than Fadak. Second: was possession as evidence of ownership? Yes, the Muslims agreed on this unanimously.[2] If it was not so, the social system of the human life would be disordered. Someone might object by saying that if Fadak was in Fatima’s possession, so why she did not protest with this evidence. It would suffice for her than to claim it was donated to her and to protest with the Quranic verses of the inheritance. In the documents of the Shia about this case there was an answer to this objection for they mentioned the protest of the Prophet’s family against the caliph by means of the very evidence but we did not want to [1] Sharh Nahjul Balagha, vol.16 p.208. [2] Refer to al-Qawa’id al-Fiqhiyya by Hassan al-Bajnawardi, vol.1 p.113, al-Muhalla by ibn Hazm, vol.9 p.436, al-Muhaththab by ash-Shirazi ash-Safi’ee, vol.2 p.312, al-Furooq by al-Qirafi al-Maliki, vol.4 p.78 and Tahreer al-Majalla by sheikh Muammad Hussayn Kashif al-Ghita’, vol.4 p.150. study the case in the light of something of that. But we should notice that Fadak was a very wide land and was not like small properties, whose possession would be known easily. If we supposed that Fadak was in Fatima’s possession and it was undertaken by her agent, who managed it, so who would know this other than the agent? We knew well that Fadak was not near Medina so that the people of Medina would know about its affairs or the person, who managed it. It was at a distance of some days from Medina and it was a Jewish village. [1] It was not in the Islamic environment to be known among the Muslims that it was in Fatima’s possession. Fatima thought if she claimed her possession of Fadak that the caliph would ask her for evidence as he asked her about the donation as long as he-in her opinion-was controlled by a prevailing power of his tendency that did not make him confess anything. It was easy for the (whale) on that day to swallow Fatima’s agent of Fadak and anyone else, who knew the truth, as it swallowed Abu Sa’eed al-Khidri and prevented him from telling the truth of the donation of Fadak whereas he told of it after that as it was mentioned in the Sunni and Shia books, or it was easy for the jinn to kill as they killed Sa’d bin Obada and relieved the caliph Omar[2] from him, or to accuse anyone of being apostate if he refused to give the zakat to the caliph as those, who refused to give the zakat of the Muslims to the [1] Refer to Futooh al-Buldan by al-Balathari, p.42-43. [2] The tradition showed clearly that Omar sent a messenger to kill Sa’d if he did not pay homage (to Omar) and when Sa’d refused to pay homage, the messenger killed him. (They claimed that the jinn had killed him). Refer to al-Iqd al-Fareed by ibn Abd Rabbih, vol.4 p.247. caliph Abu Bakr, were accused.[1] 3. Let us leave this argument aside to get to the basic matter, which is: did Abu Bakr believe in the infallibility of Fatima and the verse of purification, which purified the Prophet’s family, among which was Fatima, from any sin or not? We do not want to discuss in details the concept of infallibility or to prove it for Fatima by the verse of purification because the books of the Shia about the virtues of the Prophet’s family suffice the task. We do not doubt that the caliph was aware of that because his daughter Aa’isha herself often narrated that the verse of purification concerned Fatima, her husband and her two sons[2] as it was declared by the Sunni and Shia books of Hadith. Whenever the Prophet (s) went to the mosque to offer the Fajr[3] prayer, after the revelation of this verse, he passed by Fatima’s house and called out: “O people of the house, it is the (time for) prayer. (Allah only desires to keep away the uncleanness from you, O people of the House! and to purify you a (thorough) purifying. Quran 33:33)” He kept on that for six months.[4] So why did Abu Bakr ask Fatima for evidence? Did the claim, whose truthfulness was certified, need evidence? Those, who objected to Abu Bakr, said: “Evidence is needed to confirm the truthfulness of the claimant, but being certain (of the claimant’s truthfulness) is firmer (than the evidence). If it is necessary to judge for the one, who has true [1] As in the story of Malik bin Nuwayra. Refer to at-Tabari’s Tareekh, vol.2 p.273 and the edited one, vol.2 p.28. [2] Muslim’s Sahih, vol.3 p.331, al-Mustadrak, vol.3 p.159 and at-Taj aj-Jami’ lil Ussool by Mansoor Ali Nassif, vol.3 p.333. [3] The dawn. [4] Ahmad’s Musnad, vol.3 p.295, al-Mustadrak, vol.3 p.172. evidence, it must be judged for the one, whose truthfulness is known by the judge.” There is a weakness in this justification because the comparison did not occur between the evidence and the certainty of the judge in addition to the actual reality, but it considered the effect of each of them on the judge and the result was that knowledge was to be firmer than the evidence because certainty was firmer than supposition. The comparison had to regard the nearest of the two to the truth that was to be regarded in every dispute. The knowledge of the judge, in this kind of comparison, was not to be preferred to the evidence because a judge might mistake as evidence might mistake. Both of them were equal in the regard of falling into error. But there was something in the matter that the researchers ignored. It was impossible for the caliph’s knowledge about Fatima’s truthfulness[1] to be but the truth because the reason behind his knowledge of her truthfulness was not of those reasons that might lead to errors or mistakes but it was the holy Quran, which declared her infallibility.[2] In the light of this quality of knowing Fatima’s truthfulness, we could determine that the evidence, even if it was the legal proof, on which the judgment would depend, might fall into error. But the knowledge that could never fall into error, because of the witness of Allah, was worthier to be relied on when judging. [1] Refer to Abu Bakr’s saying about the truthfulness of Fatima in Sharh Nahjul Balagha, vol.16 p.216. [2] As in the verse: (Allah only desires to keep away the uncleanness from you, O people of the House! and to purify you a (thorough) purifying) 33:33.Refer to al-Mustadrak, vol.3 p.160-161 and Muslim’s Sahih, vol.5 p.37.
Posted on: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 11:05:13 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015