The Issue of Fedek:
A rebuttal to common lies propagated
against Ahl al-Sunnah regarding Ahlul-Bayt
Schismatic statement:
“One of them was hearing Hadhrat Ali, Hadhrat Hasan, Hadhrat Husayn and Salman Farisi as witnesses for the case of (the date orchard called) Fedek, and then seizing the orchard from Hadhrat Fatimah az-Zahra, discrediting the testimonies given by the Ahlul-Bayt.”These remarks are intended to attack Hadhrat Abu Bakr, Radhi Allahu Ta’ala Anhu, as has been the way of Shi’ism for centuries. Below, we shall provide a clear and concise refutation to such a horrible nonsense that has been put forth by those who have separated from the Ummah of Sayyidina Rasul-e-Akram, Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam. Note: comments of the adherents of Shi’ism are in blue.
When a Nabi (Alayhis-Salaam) passes away, the property he leaves behind is not inherited by anybody. This fact is written in Shi’i literature as well. It would have been irrational to make a will on uninheritable property. Consequently, it would be wrong to say that his lordship, Sayyidina Rasulullah, Sallallahu Alayhi wa Sallam, bequeathed the orchard, called Fedek, to Sayyidah Fatima-tuz-Zahra (Alayhas-Salaam). For Rasulullah, Sallallahu Alayhi wa Sallam, would not have done something which would have been wrong. It is stated in a Hadith ash-Sharif, “What we leave behind is to become alms.” The so-called allegation of a will could not be true in spite of this Hadith ash-Sharif. If there had been such a will and Hadhrat Abu Bakr had not heard about it, he would have been held excusable unless it had been proven by testimony. If there had been such a will and Hadhrat Ali (Karramallah wajhu) had known about it, it would have been necessary and permissible for him to fulfill it during his khulafa. However, he followed the example of Hadhrat Abu Bakr (Radhi Allahu ta’ala Anhu) and dealt the property out to poor, destitute and stranded people. If it should be maintained that he dealt out his share, then why did he deprive the Sahibayn wa Syedayn, al-Imam al-Hasan and al-Imam al-Husayn Radhi Allahu Ta’ala Anhuma of the property they were to inherit from their blessed mother (may millions of Salaams be upon her)?
Shi’ah answer this question in four different ways:
1. “Members of the Ahlul-Bayt will not resume property usurped from them. As a matter of fact, when Rasulullah, Sallallahu Alayhi wa Sallam, conquered Mecca, he did not take his home back from the Meccans who had usurped it from him.”
This answer is not sound. Hadhrat Khalif ‘Umar bin Abdul-’Aziz (Radhi Allahu Anhu), during his khulafa, gave the orchard called Fedek to Hadhrat al-Imam Sayyid Muhammad al-Baqir (Radhi Allahu Anhu), who accepted it, so that it was possessed by the Ahlul-Bayt A’immah until it was seized by Abbasid Khalifas. Then, in 203 Hijra, Khalifa Ma’mun wrote to his official, Qusam bin Ja’far and thus the orchard was given again to one of the Sayyid Imams, namely to al-Imam Ali Rida, and upon his death the same year, it was given to Yahya, a grandson of Zayd, who was the grandson of Sayyidina al-Husayn (Radhi Allahu Ta’ala Anhu). This person should not be mistaken for his namesake, Zayd, who was Hadhrat Sayyidah Nafisa’s grandfather and at the same time Hadhrat Sayyidina al-Hasan’s son. The orchard was usurped again by Khalifa Mutawakkil, who was Mamun’s grandson. Later on Mu’tadid gave it back again. If members of the Ahlul-Bayt (Radhi Allahu Ta’ala Anhum Ajma’een) would not take back their usurped property, then why did these Imams (who were members of the Ahlul-Bayt) take the orchard back? By the same token, it is asserted that Hadhrat Abu Bakr (Radhi Allahu Ta’ala Anhu) usurped the office of Khalifa which belonged to Hadhrat Ali (Radhi Allahu Ta’ala Anhu) by rights. Why did Hadhrat Ali (Radhi Allahu Ta’ala Anhu) accept this “usurped” right later? Furthermore, why did Hadhrat al-Husayn (Radhi Allahu Ta’ala Anhu) try to win his usurped right of Khalifah back from Yazid so earnestly that he attained the gardens of martyrdom in the end?
2. “Hadrat Ali imitated Hadhrat Fatimah ‘radi-allahu anhuma’ and did not accept any share from Fedek.”
This answer makes no sense. Why did the Ahlul-Bayt A’immah (Radhi Allahu Ta’ala Anhum Ajma’een) who accepted Fedek (afterwards) not imitate Sayyidah Fatimah az-Zahra (Millions of Sallams upon her)? If it was a fard to imitate her, why did they ignore this fard, bearing in mind that their belief regarding the Ahlul-Bayt A’immah are without error and contradiction. If it was supererogatory (Wajib) and not fard, then why did Hadhrat Ali (Karamallahu wajhu) do this supererogatory act at the cost of omitting an act that was fard? Hadhrat Ali would never omit a fard act. For it is fard to give everyone his or her due. Moreover, it might be reasonable to imitate someone’s optional behavior. If this behavior is a result of coercion, then it should not be imitated. If Hadhrat Sayyidah Fatimah’s (Radhi Allahu Ta’ala Anha) not utilizing Fedek was due to someone else’s oppression, then she had to waive her right because she had no other way. In this case it would have been senseless to imitate her.
3. “Hadrat Ali (radi-allahu ta’ala) had witnessed Fedek’s being bequeathed to Hadhrat Fatimah. In order to show that this witnessing was done for Allah’s sake and not for worldly advantages, he did not accept any advantage from Fedek.”
Those who knew about Hadhrat Ali’s witnessing and those who rejected it were dead by the time he became Khalif. Furthermore, some Ahlul-Bayt Imams’ accepting the orchard named Fedek made the group called Khariji consider that Hadhrat Ali might have done this witnessing in order to obtain advantages for his children. In fact, in matters concerning real estates, such as fields, houses, vineyards and orchards, one thinks of one’s children’s advantages rather than one’s own. Perhaps, Hadhrat Ali might have advised his children not to utilize Fedek, lest his witnessing be tarnished. And his children might have refused Fedek both to imitate Hadhrat Fatimah and to fulfill this secret advice. Such is Ulama’s comments on the matter.
4. “Hadrat Ali’s not accepting the orchard called Fedek was intended for Taqiyya. Taqiyya is necessary for Shi’ah.”
Taqiyya means to lie and Shi’ah believe it is fard to lie, especially to those of the Ummah of Sayyidina Rasul-e-Akram, Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam, known as Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jama’ah. This statement of theirs is untenable. For, according to the adherents of Shi’ism, “when an Imam takes the battlefield and begins to fight it is haram for him to do Taqiyya. It was for this reason that Hadhrat Husayn did not do Taqiyya.” To say that Hadhrat Ali (Radhi Allahu Ta’ala Anhu) did Taqiyya during the period of his Khalifat would mean to say that he committed haraam. Astaghfirullahal-Azeem.
Ahmad Jawdat Pasha al-Lofji writes in his Qisas-e-Ambiya:
“Rasulullah Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam devoted his date orchard named Fadak in Haybar to the pious foundation and dictated how it was to be utilized. He advised in his will that income from the orchard should be given to foreign ambassadors, to visitors, guests and travelers. Hadhrat Abu Bakr, Radhi Allahu ‘Anhu implemented this will during his Khalifat. When Fatimah, Radhi Allahu asked for it as (she thought it was) a share for her from the inheritance (her holy father had left behind), he said: I heard the Messenger of Allah say, ‘No one can inherit (property) from us [Ambiya]. Whatever we leave behind us is alms.’ I can never change something established by Rasulullah. Otherwise, I fear I may deviate into an erroneous way. When Hadhrat Fatimah wanted to know who his (Hadhrat Abu Bakr’s) inheritors were, he replied: My wife and children are. Then she asked: Why am I not my father’s inheritor, then? The Khalifah’s answer was: I heard your father, the Messenger of Allah say, ‘No one can be our inheritors.’ Therefore you cannot be his inheritor. However, I am his Khalifa. Whoever he used to give when he was alive, I shall give. It is my duty to give you whatever you need, provide aid in your matters, and serve you. Upon thism Hadhrat Fatimah was quiet and never talked about inheritance again.”Ibne Mutahhir Hilli, a famous Shi’i clergyman (who was educated by Ahlus-Sunnah 'Ulema), states in his book, Minhaj al-Karamah, “When Fatimah said to Abu Bakr that Fedek had been bequeathed to her, Abu Bakr wrote an answer asking for witnesses. When no witnesses were produced he dismissed the case.” If this report is correct, the case of Fedek, like any other case pertaining to inheritance, gifting or bequeathing, lapses from Hadhrat Abu Bakr (Radhi Allahu Ta’ala Anhu). So, there is no reason for blaming Hadhrat Abu Bakr even from their own books in addition to the actions taken by the Ahlul-Bayt A’immah.
At this point two masa’il occur:
A. The cases of inheritance, gift and will pleaded by Hadhrat Fatimah were found wrong by Hadhrat Abu Bakr, but why did he not prefer to please her by giving her the orchard she demanded? Thus, the problem would have been settled by mutual concession, she would not have been offended, and there would not have been so many rumors.
This matter cost Hadhrat Abu Bakr (Radhi Allahu Ta'ala 'Anhu) very much hard thought and heavy excruciation, and he really did want to solve it in the manner suggested above. If he had chosen to appease Hadhrat Sayyidah Fatimah’s blessed heart by this way, two grave wounds would have gaped in Islam: people would have gossiped about him, saying, for instance, that “The Khalifah shows favoritism in religious affairs. He prefers pleasing his acquaintances to doing justice. He fulfills his friends’ wishes in a case that has been lost. When it comes to workers and peasants, he makes all sorts of difficulty with respect to documents and witnesses before they win a case.” Such gossips, when widespread, would have caused tumults that would last till the end of the world. Moreover, judges and Qadis would have followed the Khalifah’s example, showing indulgence and partiality in their decisions. As for the second wound; if he had donated the orchard of Fedek to Hadhrat Fatimah, he would have made her repossess something of which Allah’s Holy Last Messenger, Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam, had dispossessed his inheritors of by saying that property left from Prophets is alms. He did not do so because he knew about the Hadith ash-Sharif that warned, “A person who takes the alms (he has given before) back is like a dog eating its tale.” He would not commit such a dreadful act deliberately. Aside from these two wounds which the Islamic religion would have suffered, a number of worldly problems would have emerged, too. Hadhrat Abbas and Rasulullah’s blessed wives (alayhimas Salaam) would have sued for their rights, too, each demanding a similar orchard or farm. All these problems would have produced other problems, which in turn would have been too difficult for Hadhrat Abu Bakr to cope with. He therefore risked the grief of having been unable to please our blessed mother, Sayyidah Fatimah az-Zahra (Radhi Allahu Ta'ala 'Anha) than venture upon these various catastrophic adventures. It is stated in a Hadith ash-Sharif, “When a believer confronts a dilemma, let him choose the alternative which seems less unwelcome.” Hadrat Abu Bakr did so. For this alternative was remediable. And it was remedied, too. The other alternative, on the other hand, would have caused incurable wounds. Religious matters would have become complicated.
B. Second masa’il: It is stated in both Ahlus-Sunnah and Shi’i books that this disagreement between Hadhrat Abu Bakr and Hadhrat Fatimah (Radhi Allahu Ta’ala Anhuma) was settled. Yet, why did Sayyidah Fatimah az-Zahra wish that Hadhrat Abu Bakr not attend her funeral? And why did she request in her last will that Hadhrat Ali (Karramallah wajhu) bury her at night (after her return to Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala)?
The answer is as follows: Hadhrat Fatimah’s (upon her be millions of Salaams) wish to be buried at night was a result of her excessive feeling of shame. As a matter of fact, she stated towards her death, “I feel very much shame whenever I remember that when I die they will take me among men without any cover.” In those days it was customary to wrap a dead woman’s corpse in a shroud only, so that the corpse in the shroud would be taken out of the coffin without any cover. Asma bint Umayr relates: “One day I told her that I had seen people interlace date branches like weaving tents in Abyssinia. Hadrat Fatimah said, ‘Let me see you do it.’ When I did it to show her, she liked it very much and smiled. She had never been seen smiling since Rasulullah’s passing away. She made this will to me: ‘When I am dead, you wash me. Let Ali be present too. Do not let anyone else in.’” It was for this reason that Hadhrat Ali (Radhi Allahu Ta’ala Anhu) did not invite anyone to her funeral. According to a narration, after performing the namaz of janaza for her, (Hadhrat Ali), Hadhrat Abbas and a few other members of the Ahlul-Bayt (Radhi Allahu Ta’ala Anhum Ajma’een) buried her at night. According to other narratives, the following day Abu Bakr Siddiq, ‘Umar Faruq and many other Sahabi came to Hadhrat Ali’s (Radhi Allahu Ta’ala Anhum Ajma’een) house to pay a visit of well-wishing. When they knew that Hadhrat Fatimah az-Zahra, the Sayyidah of all women, may Allah bless her, had passed away and had already been buried, they expressed their sorrow, saying, “Why didn’t you send for us so that we could perform the (janaza) namaz for her and help the funeral services?” Hadrat Ali apologized and said that he had done so to carry out her will to be buried at night lest other men should see her. It is stated in the book Fasl ul-Hitab:
Abu Bakr as-Siddiq and ‘Uthman Zinnureyn and Abdur-Rahman bin Awf and Zubayr bin Awwam were in the mosque for night prayer, when (they heard that) Hadhrat Fatimah had passed away some time between evening and night prayers. It was the second day of the blessed month of Ramadan and the following day was Tuesday. She was twenty-four years old and the Messenger of Allah (her blessed, beloved father) had passed away only six months before. Upon Hadhrat Ali’s request, Hadhrat Abu Bakr became the imam and conducted the namaz (of janaza) for her with four takbirs.Hadrat Abu Bakr’s not being present at the burial was for the reasons explained above. If there had been disagreement between them, Hadhrat Abu Bakr would not have conducted the namaz of janaza for her. According to a report, which is written in Shi’i books as well as in Ahlus-Sunnah ones, Hadhrat al-Husayn beckoned to Hadhrat Said bin As, who was Hadhrat Muawiya’s governor in the blessed city of Madinah, to conduct the namaz of janaza for (his elder brother) Imam al-Hasan, and said, “Were it not the sunnat of my grandfather (Sayyidina Rasulullah, sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) that the Amir should conduct the namaz of janaza, I would not let you conduct it.” Hence, Hadhrat Fatimah (Radhi Allahu Ta’ala Anha) did not state in her last will that Hadhrat Abu Bakr should not conduct the namaz for her. If she had made such a will, Hadhrat al-Husayn would not have done something contrary to this will of Hadhrat Fatimah’s. It is obvious that Said bin As was thousands of times lower than Hadhrat Abu Bakr in being an imam. Only six months earlier Hadhrat Fatimah’s superior father, Sayyidina wa Maulana Muhammad, Sallallahu Alayhi wa aalihi Sallam, had appointed Hadhrat Abu Bakr as the Imam (to conduct the namaz in jamaat) in front of all the Muhajireen and Ansar. Hadhrat Fatimah, the most splendid of Ladies, (Radhi Allahu Ta’ala Anha) could not have forgotten this in such a short time as six months.
“Supposing all these evidences are disignored and it is still presumed that the Khalifa Abu Bakr as-Siddiq took the date orchard called Fedek by force; then why did Hadhrat 'Ali (Radhi Allahu Ta'ala 'Anhu) not give the date orchard to Hadhrat al-Hasan and al-Husayn when he became the Khalifah and everything was now in his hands, under his command? Why did he not change what had been done by the three Khalifas previous to him? Hadrat Ali's following the same policy as had been followed by the previous three Khalifahs concerning the date orchard is a plain evidence for the fact that it had not been taken by force by Abu Bakr.”