Now let us come back to our original point. Was it proper to reject
the statements of Ali and Fatima and deprive them of their right,
but accept Jabir's claim without any hesitation although he was
only an ordinary Muslim?
Hafiz: It can never be accepted
that the Caliph of the Holy Prophet, who was extremely close to
the Holy Prophet, would be inclined to usurp Fadak. Certainly
Fadak was of no use to the Caliph, who had the entire Baitu'l-Mal
(public treasury) of the Muslims under his control.
Well-Wisher: It is quite plain
that he did not need it. But the political group of that time
considered it necessary to ruin the holy family of the Holy Prophet.
They subjected these purified ones to all kinds of worries, afflictions,
and poverty, so that they could not think of caliphate. Worldly
men do whatever is necessary to make themselves prosper in this
These politicians realized that if the grand family had control
over worldly wealth, people would certainly incline towards them.
Political considerations drove them to usurp Fadak and to close
all their avenues of financial means.
Among the things banned for them was the khums, on which so much
stress has been laid in the Holy Qur'an. Since Allah had forbidden
charity for the Holy Prophet and his descendants, the door of
khums was opened to them. He says in the Holy Qur'an, ch.8, Anfal
(The Spoils of War) "And know that whatever thing you gain,
a fifth of it is for Allah and for the Messenger and for the near
of kin and the orphans and the wayfarer." (8:41)
This provision was made so that the progeny of the Holy Prophet
might live in peace and might not need the help of their community.
But soon after the demise of the Holy Prophet, they were deprived
of this privilege also. Caliph Abu Bakr denied this right of the
Ahle Bait and said that khums should be used for war materials.
The Prophet's family were thus made helpless from all sides.
Imam Shafi'i Muhammad Bin Idris tells about it in his Kitabu'l-Umm,
p. 69: "The descendants of the Holy Prophet for whom Allah
has apportioned khums in place of charity, cannot be given any
share, great or small, out of the compulsory charities. It is
forbidden for them to accept it. Those who deliberately give compulsory
charity to them will not be absolved from their responsibilities.
By denying the right of khums to them, charity, which is forbidden
to them, will not become lawful.
Even during the caliphate of Umar Bin Khattab, the progeny of
the Holy Prophet were deprived of their rightful claim on the
grounds that the amount of khums was so large that it could not
be given to the near relations of the Holy Prophet. It was decided
that the money should be used for military expenditures. They
are deprived of this right to this day.
Hafiz: Imam Shafi'i says that
khums should be divided in five parts: one part goes to the Holy
Prophet, which is used for the expenses and needs of the Muslims,
the second part is for his near relatives and the remaining three
parts are for orphans, the needy, and travelers.
Well-Wisher: Commentators in
general agree that in the days of the Holy Prophet this verse
was revealed for the help of the descendants and near relatives
of the Holy Prophet. Khums was used for their expenses. According
to Shia law, in obedience to the practice adopted by the Prophet's
family and by the Holy Imams and also in conformity with the meaning
of the holy verse cited above, khums is divided into six parts.
The three parts meant for Allah, the Holy Prophet and his nearest
relatives go to the Imam and, in his ghaiba (occultation), to
his representative, a mujtahid. He is a just and expert jurist,
who spends the money for the benefit of the Muslims, according
to his own discretion. The remaining three parts are apportioned
to orphans, the needy and the pure followers of the Holy Prophet.
But after the demise of the Holy Prophet, this right was denied
his descendants. Your own prominent ulema, like Jalalu'd-din Suyuti,
in his Durru'l-Mansur, vol. III; Tabari, Imam Tha'labi in his
Tafsir-e-Kashfu'l- Bayan, Jarullah Zamakhshari in his Kashshaf,
Qushachi in his Sharh-e-Tajrid, Nisa'i in his Kitab-e-Alfiy, and
others unanimously acknowledge the fact that this innovation was
introduced by clever politicians after the demise of the Holy
Hafiz: You think that a mujtahid
has the right to exercise his discretion. Didn't Caliphs Abu Bakr
and Umar exercise their judgment and try to help the Muslims?
Well-Wisher: Of course a mujtahid
has the right to form a judgment, but he may not overturn a clear
ordinance. Do you prefer the opinion of Caliphs Abu Bakr and Umar
to that of the Qur'anic verse in question and to the practice
of the Holy Prophet? Please be just and tell us whether they had
some particular motives behind all this. A man with common sense
would be led to believe that these were not ordinary affairs,
but they aimed at making the family of the Holy Prophet helpless.
Apart from all this, Allah has declared Ali the witness of the
Holy Prophet. He says in the Qur'an "Is he then who has with
him clear proof from his Lord, and a witness from Him...a guide
and a mercy?" (11:17)
Hafiz: So far as my knowledge
goes "who has a clear proof from his Lord" means the
Holy Prophet and "a witness" means the Holy Qur'an.
Why do you claim that here "witness" means Ali?
Well-Wisher: I don't express
my personal opinion about Qur'anic verses. What we have known
from the progeny of the Holy Prophet is that "witness"
here means Ali. The ulema and the commentators have held the same
view. Your celebrated ulema have recorded about thirty hadith
in support of this. For instance, Imam Abu Ishaq Tha'labi reports
three hadith in Tafsir; Jalalu'd-din Suyuti reports in his Durru'l-Mansur
from Ibn Mardawiyya, Ibn Abi Hatim, and Abu Nu'aim; Ibrahim Bin
Muhammad Hamwaini reports in his Fara'idu's-Simtain from three
sources; Sulayman Balkhi Hanafi reports in his Yanabiu'l-Mawadda
from Tha'labi, Hamwaini, Khawarizmi, Abu Nu'aim, Waqidi and Ibn
Abdullah Ansari and others; Hafiz Abu Nu'aim Ispahani reports
from three different sources; Ibn Maghazili Faqih Shafi'i, Ibn
Abi'l-Hadid Mu'tazali, Ibn Muhammad Bin Yusuf Ganji Shafi'i (see
his book Kifayatu't-Talib, ch. 62) and others of your ulema report
with slight difference in wording that "witness" in
this verse means Ali Bin Abi Talib. Khatib Khawarizmi writes in
his Manaqib that people asked Ibn Abbas what was meant by "witness."
He said: "This refers to Ali, who bore witness to the Holy
Prophet." So, according to these testimonies of your own
reliable books, it was incumbent on the community to accept the
evidence of Ali. Allah Himself has called him a witness of the
Prophet. Just as the Holy Prophet acknowledged the distinctive
quality of Khazima Bin Thabit and characterized his evidence equivalent
to two Muslims and bestowed on him the title of Dhu'sh-Shahadatain,
Allah Almighty also has expressed in this verse the exalted position
of Ali and has identified him as a "witness" for the
Holy Prophet. One wonders on what religious principle these people
decided to reject the testimony of Ali.
Can you accept their judgment that Ali Bin Abi Talib, who was
most averse to temporal wealth and whose conduct and character
were acknowledged by friends and foes alike, was a worldly man?
Even harsher words were used against him, which I cannot utter.
They are all recorded in your own books.
So using the words "his personal interest was involved in
the case," they tried to convince people that it was possible
for Ali to give false evidence for the benefit of his wife and
children. (May Allah excuse my words!) How strange that although
Allah has identified him as a reliable witness, these cunning
people rejected his testimony.
Even though the Qur'an identifies Ali's truthfulness, he suffered
because of the accusations of the politicians. He said in his
Shiqshiqayya Sermon: "I endured great pain. It was as though
I were being pricked in the eye and strangled." These words
amply prove the Holy Imam's extreme suffering. He said: "I
swear by Allah that the son of Abu Talib is more fond of death
than a suckling is of his mother's breast." When the accursed
Abdu'r-Rahman Ibn Muljim Muradi struck his head with a poisoned
sword, he said: "By the Lord of the Ka'ba, I am victorious."
Gentlemen, what happened should not have happened. But today it
is not proper for sagacious ulema like you to cause further trouble
to the dearly loved one of Allah and His Prophet and create misunderstanding
among uninformed people. You are well aware that tormenting Ali
Bin Abi Talib is really tormenting the Holy Prophet of Allah.
Imam Ahmad Bin Hanbal in his Musnad, Imam Tha'labi in his Tafsir and
Sheikhu'l-Islam Hamwaini in his Fara'id have reported that the
Holy Prophet said: "He who oppresses Ali, oppresses me. O
people, whoever oppresses Ali shall rise on the Day of Judgment
as a Jew or Christian."
Ibn Hajar Makki on p. 78 of Part II, ch. 9, Tradition 16 from
Sa'd Ibn Abi Waqqas and Muhaddad Bin Yusuf Ganji Shafi'i in his
Kifayatu't-Talib, ch.68, say on proper authority that the Holy
Prophet said: "He who oppresses Ali, verily oppresses me."
I recall another hadith. Permit me to narrate it. To relate a
hadith of the Holy Prophet and to hear it is worship. This hadith
has been recorded by Bukhari in his Sahih; Imam Ahmad Bin Hanbal
in his Musnad; Mir Seyyed Ali Hamadani Shafi'i in Mawaddatu'l-Qurba;
Hafiz Abu Nu'aim Ispahani in Manazala Mina'l-Qur'an fi Ali'; Khatib
Khawarizmi in Manaqib and Ibn Maghazili Shafi'i in his Manaqib
narrate it. Hakim Abu'l-Qasim Haskani also narrates it from Hakam
Abu Abdullah Hafiz, he from Ahmad Bin Muhammad Bin Abi Dawud Hafiz,
he from Ali Bin Ahmad Ajali, he from 'Ibad Bin Yaqub, he from
Artat Bin Habib, he from Abu Khalid Wasti, he from Zaid Bin Ali,
he from his father Ali Bin Husain, he from his father, Husain
Ibn Ali, he from his father Ali Ibn Ali Talib; each of those narrators
said that the Holy Prophet said while holding a hair of his beard:
"O Ali, he who injures a single hair of yours, really injures
me; he who injures me really injures Allah, and he who injures
Allah is cursed by Allah."
Seyyed Abu Bakr Bin Shahabu'd-din Alawi in his Rashfatu's-Sa'adi
min Bahr-e-Faza'il Bani Nabiu'l-Hadi, (printed A'lamiyya Press,
Egypt, 1303 A.H.) ch.IV, p. 60, reports from the Kabir of Tabrani,
Sahih of Bin Habban, and Hakim, on the authority of Amiru'l-Mu'minin,
that the Holy Prophet of Allah said: "May Allah's curse be
upon him who grieves me regarding my progeny."
Gentlemen, consider what happened. The evidence of Ali was rejected
publicly. Fatima's property was confiscated. Fatima felt this
oppressive blow so seriously that she left this world in the prime
of her youth, full of indignation.
Hafiz: It is obvious that in
the beginning Fatima was quite indignant, but when at last she
saw the Caliph's verdict was correct, she was no longer angry.
At last she left this world perfectly satisfied and contented.
Well-Wisher: If what you say
is correct, why do your eminent ulema write just the reverse of
it? For instance, two reliable scholars, Bukhari and Muslim, write
in their Sahih that Fatima rejected Abu Bakr because she was angry.
Because of her displeasure she did not talk to him for the rest
of her life. When she died, her husband, Ali, buried her at night.
He did not allow Abu Bakr to join her funeral and offer prayers
Muhammad Bin Yusuf Ganji Shafi'i has recorded the same report
in his Kifaya, ch.99. Also Abu Muhammad Abdullah Bin Muslim Bin
Qutayba Dinawari in his Imama wa's-Siyasa, p.14, writes that Fatima,
while sick in bed, said to Abu Bakr and Umar: "Let Allah
and the angels be my witnesses that both of you have made me indignant.
When I meet the Holy Prophet, I will certainly complain against
you." The same book also records: "Fatima was indignant
with Abu Bakr and refused to see him for the rest of her life."
Besides these, there are many other such reports and hadith recorded
in your authentic books.
There is a well known hadith narrated by many of your ulema, like
Imam Ahmad Bin Hanbal in Musnad; Sulayman Qanduzi in Yanabiu'l-Mawadda;
Mir Seyyed Ali Hamadani in Mawaddatu'l-Qurba; Ibn Hajar in Sawa'iq,
reporting from Tirmidhi, Hakim and others, with a slight difference
in wording, that the Holy Prophet of Allah repeatedly said: "Fatima
is a part of my body, she is the light of my eyes, she is the
fruit of my heart, she is my soul between my two sides. He who
grieves Fatima grieves me; he who grieves me, grieves Allah; he
who makes her angry, makes me angry; what pains Fatima pains me."
Ibn Hajar Asqalani, in his al-Isaba fi tamyiz as-Sahaba, quotes
from the Sahihs of Bukhari and Muslim that the Holy Prophet of
Allah said: "Fatima is a part of my body; what pains her,
pains me; that which exalts her spiritual attainment exalts my
Muhammad Bin Talha Shafi'i in his Matalibu's-Su'ul; Hafiz Abu
Nu'aim Ispahani in Hilyatu'l-Auliya, vol. II, p.40, and Imam Abdu'r-Rahman
Nisa'i in his Khasa'isu'l-Alawi, report that the Holy Prophet
said: "Verily, Fatima, my daughter, is a part of my body;
what makes her happy, makes me happy; what is painful to her is
painful to me."
Abu'l-Qasim Husain Bin Muhammad (Raghib Ispahani) narrates in
his Mahadhiratu'l-Ubada, vol.II, p. 204, that the Holy Prophet
of Allah said: "Fatima is a part of my body; hence, he who
enrages her, enrages me."
Hafiz Abu Musa Bin Muthanna Basri (died 252 A.H.) in his Mu'ajam;
Ibn Hajar Asqalani in Isaba, vol.IV, p.35; Abu Ya'la Musili in
his Sunan; Tibrani in Mu'ajam; Hakim Nishapuri in Mustadrak, vol.VII,
p. 154; Hafiz Abu Nu'aim Ispahani in Faza'ilu's-Sahaba; Hafiz
Ibn Asakir in Ta'rikh-e-Shami; Sibt Ibn Jauzi in Tadhkira, p.
175; Muhibu'd-din Tabari in Dhakha'ir, p. 39, Ibn Hajar Makki
in Sawa'iq, p. 105 and Abu Irfanu's-Subban in As'afu'r-Raghibin,
p.171, have reported that the Holy Prophet said to his daughter:
"O Fatima, verily, if you are angry, Allah is also angry;
if you are happy, Allah is also happy."
Muhammad Bin Isma'il Bukhari in his Sahih, in the chapter Manaqib
Qarabat-e-Rasulullah, p.71, quotes from Miswar Bin Makhrama who
said that the Holy Prophet said: "Fatima is a part of my
body, so whoever enrages Fatima, verily, enrages me." There
are many such hadith recorded in your authentic books, like Sahih
of Bukhari; Sahih of Muslim; Sunan of Abu Dawud; Tirmidhi; Musnad
of Imam Hanbal; Sawa'iq-e-Ibn Hajar; and Sheikh Sulayman Balkhi's
Yanabiu'l-Mawadda. How would you reconcile these hadith with reports
which say that Fatima did not leave this world angry with those
Sheikh: These hadith are correct,
but it is also reported about Ali that, when he intended to marry
Abu Jahl's daughter, the Prophet of Allah became angry with him
and said: "Whoever grieves Fatima grieves me, and whoever
grieves me is the accursed one of Allah."
Well-Wisher: We should accept
or reject things using common sense and wisdom. Allah says in
the Holy Qur'an: "Therefore give good news to my servants,
those who listen to the word, then follow the best of it; those
are they whom Allah has guided, and those it is who are the men
of understanding." (39:19)
A report was narrated by your elders. Today you support their
words without assessing their merits. I am obliged to give you
a brief reply. First, your own ulema have acknowledged the fact
that Ali was included in the "Verse of Purity" and was
perfectly pure. Second, in the verse of Mubahala, Allah has called
him the "self" of the Holy Prophet, as we have already
discussed on previous nights. We have shown that he was also the
"gate of the knowledge of the Holy Prophet of Allah"
and was fully aware of Qur'anic injunctions and ordinances. He
knew that Allah said in the chapter of Ahzab (the clans) of the
Holy Qur'an: "And it does not behoove you that you should
give trouble to the Messenger of Allah." (33:53)
Since this is true, how could Ali do or say anything that would
annoy the Holy Prophet? And how can one imagine that the embodiment
of virtue i.e., the Holy Prophet, would be displeased with that
exalted personality who was loved by Allah? And would he be displeased
for an act permitted by Allah, as He says in the Holy Qur'an:
"then marry such women who seem good to you, two, or three,
or four"? (4:3)
This order of nika (marriage) is of general significance and is
meant for the whole community as well as for the prophets and
vicegerents. And if we suppose that Amiru'l-Mu'minin had any such
intention, it was permitted for him. The Holy Prophet of Allah
could not resent any permissible act, nor did he use such words.
Every sensible man, after careful consideration, would know that
this report is one of the forged reports of the Bani Umayya. Your
own eminent scholars admit this fact.