Re: The Truth About the Land of Fadak
And same Suyuti also recorded in the preface of his book that he has gathered hadiths which have “aala” chain.
That is no reason for its rejection. This is one of the objections raised by the Nasibi scholors to deny Syeda Fatimas right to the land of fadak is that Sura Isra (also known as Sura Bani Israel) is a Makkan Sura which incorporates the verse on giving close relatives their rights.Whereas Fadak was acquired in Madina. How is it that an incident that took place in Madina, is referred to in a Makkan verse?
Reply One
The present Qur’an was arranged during Uthman’s era, he didn’t arrange verses according to their revelation. As there is no specific proof (by any tradition) that this verse was revealed in Makka, it cannot be claimed as a Makkan verse.
Reply Two - Some verses were revealed in Makka as well as in Madina
There are several verses, which were revealed twice. Fakhrudeen Radhi for example stated that Surah Fateha descended in Makka and Madina. Similarly Ibn Hajar al Makki in “Sawaiqh-e-Muhriqa”, page 102 writes:
"Akrama Khariji claimed that verse of “Muwaddah” was revealed in Makka, but the great scholar of Tafseer Ibne Abbas said that it was revealed in Madina.
Comment
Ibn Hajr is in effect stating that if the position of Ibn Abbas is correct, then this verse was revealed twice. We shall likewise advance that the verse of ‘Dhul Qurba’ was revealed twice.
Reply Three - The Qur’an contains Madani verses in Makkan Surah’s
It is important to highlight here the legal position of the Quranic verses when it is to be decided whether a sura is Makkan or Madini.
While determining whether a quranic sura is makkan or madani it is seen whether it was revealed before the hijra or after it. If a sura has been revealed before hijra it is designated makkan no matter where the holy prophet was at the time of revelation. On the other hand if the sura is revealed after the hijra,it is considered madani no matter where the holy prophet was at the time of its revelation. However a problem arose with some quranic Suras whose revelation started in Makka (before Hijra) but which were completed after the Hijra (in Madina). To deal with such a situation, the unanimous agreement among the sunni scholors is that such Sura is to be considered Makkan as its revelation started before Hijra even though some of its portion has been revealed after Hijra. Acting on this accepted principle we can very safely say without any contradiction that the verse of quraba in Sura Isra had been revealed in Madina though the sura was first revealed before Hijra in Makka.
Umdah’ thul Qari fi Sharh Sahih al Bukhari is an esteemed Sunni work. In its Volume 9, p202 we are told:
“These three Sunni scholars Maqatil, Qalabi and Ibn Abbas said that Surah Taghbun was a Makki Sura containing Madani verses.”
The same position with regard to another Quranic verse is highlighted in the authority work of Ahl’ul Sunnah “Asbabul Nazool”, p280 where it is written:
“Sura Shura is a Makki Surah but verse of “Muwaddat” is a Madani verse.”
We shall accordingly advance that Sura Isra was a Makkan Surah that included “Dhul Qurba” a Madani verse.
Reply Four - The merits of Ayesha
In authority work of Ahl’ul Sunnah, “Lababul Naqool”, p 137, Sura Isra, it is written:
“Once the Prophet (s) asked Ayesha to spend all that they had. Ayesha replied then nothing would be left for them. After that this verse was revealed “Wala taj’al”. Allamah Suyuti writes that this verse is Madani”
Comment
The Verse of “Dhul Qurba” is 26th verse of Sura Isra. And the above mentioned verse “Wala taj’al” is 29th verse of Sura Isra. Since this verse showed the merits of Ayesha and proves that Ayesha was in the house of the Prophet (s) in Madina, the Nasibis accepted that this verse (in a Makkan Sura) was Madani not Makki.
We appeal to justice, when it comes to the rank of Ayesha it can be accepted that some verses of a Makkan Surah were revealed in Madina, but when it comes to Fatima Zahra (as) her right is denied solely on the basis that the Surah is Makki, so the verse of “Dhul Qurba” could not have been revealed in Madina! Is this not a clear contradiction?
Reply Five
Even if we accept for the sake of argument that the verse ordering the prophet(s) to give his relatives their rights is a makkan verse and not madani this still does not negate Syeda Fatima’s claim to the land of Fadak. We as muslims believe that the Quaran is a book whose every Aya is valid and applicable till the day of judgement. If a verse is reavealed in Makka, does it lose its validity when the Prophet moves to madina? Of course any command by Allah to His Prophet holds good wherever the Prophet is and the Prophet is under an obligation to act upon it. If the Prophet gifted Fadak to his daughter in Madina, this was no doubt an implementatation of the will of Allah.