Re: The Truth About the Land of Fadak
From Shia point of view, He [s] loved his only biological child i.e Fatima Zahra [sa].
Re: The Truth About the Land of Fadak
based on inauthentic reports replete with weak narrators such as Ali ibn Abbas al Azraq, Ibrahim ibn Muhammad ibn Maymun and Atiyya al Awfi…
al Dhahabi said the report was “batil” (see his Mizan al Itidal 3/p.134/#5872)
which you obviously haven’t read
al Suyuti merely references the hadith to various works without citing any chains of transmission or commenting on authenticity
which points out two of the three weak narrators named above and cites al Dhahabi’s view that the report is “batil”
where the author, al Alusi, rejects the validity of the report citing as evidence that the surah is Makkan whilst Fadak came into the Prophet’s (saw) possession after the hijra (Ibn Kathir says likewise in his commentary on the same verse)
see above
Re: The Truth About the Land of Fadak
OK I see that you have left his three daughters out; any chance he (saw) had any sons? I mean ‘biologically’, of course.
Re: The Truth About the Land of Fadak
^
so zainab, ruqayya, um-kalthoum were not biological children???
were they manufactured synthetically???
Re: The Truth About the Land of Fadak
Fatima Zahra [sa] was the only child of Holy Prophet [s] who survived. He[s] had sons before Fatima [as] who had died . Ume Kulthoom, Ruqqiyah and Zainab were not the biological daughters of Holy Prophet[s] rather they were adopted children. They were children of Hazrat Khadija [as] from her first husband or of her sister Haala. Both versions are found in history. When Prophet [s] married Khadija [as] , he adopted those three children.
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.
Re: The Truth About the Land of Fadak
Excelent refutation BOY-NICE!!
Nice try to derive the attentions of readers from the truth revealed.
Is’nt this your usual way of denying every tradation that shia bring.
A Cry Wolf, I would say 
armughal:
**biological **[bi·o’log·i·cal || -kl]
Adjective
- pertaining to biology or to life and living things
(synonym) biologic
(pertainym) biology
2. of parents and children; related by blood; “biological child”
And I thoght my english was bad. hmm :-/
Re: The Truth About the Land of Fadak
every student of hadith knows of al Suyuti’s leniency in collecting hadith… he said something similar about his al Jami al Saghir yet the work contains even spurious hadith
duh!? YOU referred to Ruh Al-Ma’ani as evidence that the Prophet (saw) gave Fadak to Fatimah (r) after verse 17:26 was revealed… yet the same work actually rejects your conclusion… and now you come back refuting the very work you yourself referenced… how ridiculous
in case you missed it, it isn’t the only reason… your aforementioned hadith is based on inauthentic reports replete with weak narrators such as Ali ibn Abbas al Azraq, Ibrahim ibn Muhammad ibn Maymun and Atiyya al Awfi…
al Dhahabi said the report was “batil” (see his Mizan al Itidal 3/p.134/#5872)
so thanks for the instant copy-and-paste reply… but no cake for you
Re: The Truth About the Land of Fadak
How unfortunate, He did not only miss the Funeral of Rasulallah (s) but also his (s) beloved daughter’s (a).
Why he cried so bitterly?? Perhaps he did’nt forget what Rasulallah (s) said about her daughter Fatima (as):
“Fatima is a part of me, and he who makes her angry, makes me angry.”
Sahih al Bukhari Volume 5 hadith 61
This hadith makes it clear that Sayyida Fatima (as)'s anger is on par with the anger of Rasulullah (s). This is all the more significant when we recognize that one who incurs the wrath of Rasulullah (s) also incurs the wrath of Allah (swt), and Allah (swt) makes it clear in Surah Fateha that we should steer clear of those that incur the wrath of Allah (swt).
edit: This post is saved and uploaded to another server for record and future references**
Comments of Nawasib like Dahabi and Ibn Kathir contain no value for us.
My point was same that Suyuti and Alusi did record this hadith without advancing authentic and logical refutation.
Not only this but we can also read in the books, the text which Holy Prophet[s] had written for Fatima Zahra [as] .
"Jibrael (as) came to Prophet Muhammad (s) and told him that Allah (swt) had ordered that he give the “Dhul Qurba” (close relatives) their rights. Rasulullah (s) asked who was meant from “Dhul Qurba” and what is meant from “Right”.
Jibrael (as) replied that “Dhul Qurba” refers to Fatima Zahra (r), and from right it is meant the property of “Fadak”.
The Prophet (s) called Fatima and presented Fadak to her giving her a written paper about it. This is the same written paper which was presented to Abu Bakr after the death of Rasool Allah (saww) by Fatima Zahra (as) and she said that it was the same written paper which the Prophet (s) wrote for her, Hasan and Husayn"
- Ruzatul Safa as quoted in Tashdheed-ul-Mathaeen page 102
- Ma’arij-ul-Nabuwwah, part 4, chapter 10, page 228
- Habeeb-us-Siyaar vol 1, Dhikr of Ghazwa-e-Khayber
The contents of the written paper
In Fatawa Azizi, page 165, (published Karachi) al Muhaddith Shah Abdul Aziz sets out the contents of the written document:
Muhammad bin Abdullah bin Abdul Muttalib bin Hashim bin Abd Manaf has given this piece of land, whose premises are known, to his daughter Fatima Zahra. And after her, this land is entrusted to her children. And anyone who denies it after hearing it, then it’s sin is on his head. And Allah is “Sami” and “Aleem”.
Even if Nawasib deny their own sources about Prophet[s] gifting Fadak to Fatima Zahra [sa] , no one on earth can deny the fact that Fatima Zahra [sa] had the possession of that land when Prophet [s] died, caliph of ahlesunnah snatched that land from her, brought a fabricated and anti-Quran hadith, Fatima [as] the leader of all women in paradise died angry with Abu Bakar and asked that they shall not be allowed to attend her funeral.
Re: The Truth About the Land of Fadak
^ so zer01 are you going to apply that same hadith to Ali (r) as only a couple of pages later in the same Sahih al Bukhari we see the report...
Ali demanded the hand of the daughter of Abu Jahl. Fatima heard of this and went to Allah's Apostle saying, "Your people think that you do not become angry for the sake of your daughters as 'Ali is now going to marry the daughter of Abu Jahl. "On that Allah's Apostle got up and after his recitation of Tashah-hud. I heard him saying, "To proceed, I married one of my daughters to Abu Al-'As bin Al-Rabi' and he proved truthful in whatever he said to me. No doubt, Fatima is a part of me, I hate to see her being troubled. By Allah, the daughter of Allah's Apostle and the daughter of Allah's enemy cannot be the wives of one man." So 'Ali gave up that engagement.
Re: The Truth About the Land of Fadak
and here we have typical shi-ite hypocrisy in selectively relying on sunni sources… even when the same sunni sources point out the weakness of their (shi-ite) arguments… how laughable… and by the way, al Alusi didn’t accept the hadith
Re: The Truth About the Land of Fadak
LOL, I knew its coming. easy to refute!
The above story that you have cited is considered weak, because of its narrator, Miswar Ibn Muhazma, and as usual I shall cite Sunni references to prove my point.
This person, i.e., Miswar Ibn Muhazma, was related to Abdul Rahman Ibn Auf, and he was born 2 (two) years after the Hijrah and he came to Medina in the end of the Eight (8th) Year of the Hijrah. The Sunni hadith Scholar, Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani states as follows
Born in Mecca two (2) years after the Hijrah, and he came to Medina with his father in the end of the month of Zhilhajjah for the year 8th (eight) hijri.
Sunni reference: Tahdhib al-Tahdhib, v10, p151
Now a few points, this would make Miswar only 6 (six) years old and according to the standard set by the hadith scientists, any hadith that is narrated by a child (minor) is not to be accepted. I am not saying this on the basis of my knowledge, infact I am borrowing words from the mouth of great Sunni Scholar and Historian from India ’ Maulana Shibli Numani '. In his volumnious work on the Seerah of the Prophet, where he scrutinizes the nature of the reports (hadiths) and the status of the narrator, he writes:
For instance a commonly debated question is this: Is it necessary to impose the age limit for narrators?
Furthermore he also states the belief held by Imam Shafi’i that
‘He is inclined not to accept a narration referring to the experience of a minor.’
Sunni reference:
Siratun Nabi (The Life of the Prophet) by Shibli Numani English Edition , p55
Furthermore it also reminds me of the saying from the lady (Jewaira) at the time of the conquest of Mecca, when Bilal gave the call of the Prayer from the House of Allah (The Kaabah)
God has saved my father from hearing the unpleasent voice of Bilal inthe Kaabah !
How do you expect me to believe that Imam Ali (AS) would offer his hand to an un-believer?
Only a nasibi would claim such absurd things about Ali (as).
This post is saved and uploaded to another server for record and future references
Re: The Truth About the Land of Fadak
Re: The Truth About the Land of Fadak
your stupidity obviously knows no limits… here’s what you said to me in an earlier reply just a few moments ago…
zero1: “based on inauthentic reports, weak, narrators unreliable, weak, forged, fabricated blah blah!! Is’nt this your usual way of denying every tradation that shia bring.”
LOL!
Oh, and by the way, the hadith you yourself proudly quoted earlier…
“Fatima is a part of me, and he who makes her angry, makes me angry.”
Sahih al Bukhari Volume 5 hadith 61
… contains the very same narrator (Miswar) you are now choosing to criticise… yet more shi-ite hypocrisy
Re: The Truth About the Land of Fadak
Yeah LOL indeed, But did I do it habitually??
Ok, so what?? If only Allah have given you some Aql the read this:
This 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 spiritual attainment.”
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.
Moreover:
“Fatima is part of me; what makes her angry, makes me angry”.
Transmitted by Al-Bukhari on the authority of Al-Masur ibn Makrama, The Concise Comprehensive Book of Sound Hadith (Sahih al-Jame’ as-Sagheer) and its supplement (4188).]
“Fatima is part of me, what makes me sad, makes her sad, and what pleases me, pleases her”.
Transmitted by Ahmad, Al-Tabrany and Al-Hakim on the authority of Al-Masur as well. Ibid. (4189). See Ahmad 4/323,332; Al Tabrany 20/25; Al-Hakim 3/158 who amended its authority which was approved by Al-Zahaby.]
“`surely my daughter is part of me; I fear what frightens her, and I am harmed by what harms her”.
Transmitted by all the six. See The Concise Book of Traditions (Mukhtassar As-Sunna)by Al-Munzery, Hadith (1987).]
Re: The Truth About the Land of Fadak
^ so you no longer want to criticize Miswar because it exposes your double standards. LOL!
yes, we know that, but YOU are the one who rejected one of the narrators (Miswar) in the isnad from Sahih al Bukhari that you yourself referenced!.. have you forgotten already 
and by the way, the report about Ali (r) and the proposal to Abu Jahl’s daughter isn’t just reported by Miswar… it is cited through musnad and mursal chains…
– from Ibn Abbas by al Tabarani in Mu’jam al Kabir (11808), in Mu’jam al Awsat (5475) and in Mu’jam al Saghir (805)
– from Abd Allah ibn al Zubayr by al Tirmidhi in his Sunan (3964) and al Tabarani in Mu’jam al Kabir (17639)
– from Ibn Abi Malayka by Abd al Razzaq in his Musannaf (12844)
– from Amir al Sha’bi by Ibn Aby Shayba in his Musannaf (31685) and by Ahmad ibn Hanbal in Fada’il al Sahaba (1283)
– from Amr ibn Dinar by Abd al Razzaq in his Musannaf (12841)
Re: The Truth About the Land of Fadak
And i m still unable to understand whats the point about that particular hadith ? Was it only to deviate from the topic by gupguppy ?
Re: The Truth About the Land of Fadak
^ ask zer01... he's the specialist at deviating threads
by the way BOY-NICE... i thought it was hilarious when you earlier cited Ruh al Ma'ani in support of your argument and then ended up refuting the same reference! :-)
Re: The Truth About the Land of Fadak
well it was your camp from where off-topic question suddenly began coming