The Truth About the Land of Fadak

[BOY-NICE]

Re: The Truth About the Land of Fadak

@Ibn Sadique

BOY-NICE You were dismissive of the above statement of Hz. Ali (ra) * for obvious reasons known to all, saying that ash-Shafi written by Sayyid al-Murtada is not a principle book.

Do you really know the pedigree of Sayyid al-Murtada among the Shia? Guess not.

There is always time to learn, check the following:

No one objected against Sayed Mutaza. Its not Sayed Murtuza rather its the text which is unacceptable.

The text cited bu al Murtada has not been verified by an Shi’a Hadeeth scholar, and to quote the comments of our Shah Abdul Aziz in Taufa Ithna Ashari, Chapter 9 page 266 Muthaeen Abu Bakr:

**In the eyes of Ahl as-Sunnah, only those hadith are reliable that appear in the authoritative texts of hadith scholars.

The tradition claims that Imam Ali (as) was ashamed before Allah to overturn something that was prohibited by Abu Bakr and continued by 'Umar.

This conflicts with the most authentic Ahadeeth in Sunni literature that presents an entirely different scenario. Sahih al Bukhari informs us that Abu Bakr prohibited Fadak by using the Hadeeth of “No heirs of Prophet” while Mawla Ali (as) was not convinced with it and deemed Abu Bakr to be a lair.

Not only during the life of Abu Bakr, but also after his death (i.e. in the time of Umar’s reign) Maula Ali (as) tried his utmost to get his share of Fadak back. Mawla Ali (as) and Abbas went to Umar and demanded the right of Fadak.

Sahih Muslim Book 019, Number 4349 and 4350 demonstrates that Hadhrat 'Ali (as) was in no way ashamed to overturn Abu Bakr’s decision, on the contrary he (as) deemed the Khalifa’s confiscation of Fadak as proof of him being a liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest.

If Maula Ali (as) was really ashamed of overturning something that was prohibited by Abu Bakr, why would he make a claim before Abu Bakr in the first place?

Ibn Abi al-Hadid, in Sharh Nahj al-balaghah, narrates a story which is indicative of the high position of this lady of great virtue. **The story goes that one night al-Shaykh al-Mufid dreamed that Fatimah (as), the Prophet’s daughter, came to his place in Karkh bringing her two young sons,al- Hasan (as) and al-Husayn (as), and asked that he take up the task of teaching them. Al-Mufid awoke amazed at the dream. The next morning Fatimah, mother of al-Sayyid al-Murtada and al-Sayyid al-Radi, came to his mosque surrounded by her servants, bringing her two small sons, asking that he teach them. **Al-Sayyid al Radi in his elegy on her death paid rich tributes to her virtue, piety, religiosity, courage and other qualities of the heart and the mind. She died in the month of Dhu al-Hijjah 385/995.

http://www.holynajaf.net/eng/html/n…lifelineage.htm[/color]/

And your point is ?
Hadid was a Mutazali and there is no clue of him being Shia

Wrong again. Mutazilah are not from Ahlul Sunnah!

Well thats not my headache my point is that Hadid was not a shia.

BTW those that deem Abu Bakr to be the rightful Khalifa are split into two groups Ashari or the Mutazzalite and Ibn al Hadeed was of the Mutazzalite Sect. Ibn Taymeeya the beloved of the Nasibis infact counted the Mutazzalite as Sunni’s. He stated as follows in Minhaj as Sunnah Volume 1 page 89:

“The claim of the Shi’a Ulema that all groups of Ahl’ul Sunnah seek to prove the Khilafat of the first three Khalifas on Qiyas is false, since the Ahl’ul Sunnah are split into numerous sects such as the Mutazzalite, Fiqh Baghdhawiya, Dhareeya, and individuals such as Dawood, Ibn Hazm and others did not prove their Imamate’s by relying on Qiyas”

---