Sayyid Murtada (known as ‘Alam al-Huda) narrates in his book on Imamah entitled ash-Shafi, that when ‘Ali became the khalifah he was approached about returning Fadak. His reply was: “I am ashamed before Allah to overturn something that was prohibited by Abu Bakr and continued by ‘Umar.” (al-Murtada, ash-Shafi fil-Imamah, p. 231; and Ibn Abil Hadid, Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, vol. 4

Reply One

We should point out that Ibn al Hadeed’s reference is of no use to us since Ibn al Hadeed was a Mutazzalite scholar not Shi’a. The text cited bu al Murtada has not been veified 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?

Both Ahadith confirm the fact that when Hadhrat Umar continued to follow the practice of Hadhrat Abu Bakr, Mawla Ali (as) also of thought him as a ‘lair, dishonest, treacherous and sinful’.

There is therefore no question of Maula ‘Ali (as) being ashamed of reclaiming something that had been prohibited by Abu Bakr and Umar.

Reply Two

Al Khider wants to suggest that Maula ‘Ali (as) was ashamed of changing the status quo set by Abu Bakr and questions why he failed to take remedial steps to claim back Fadak, yet according to Ahl’ul Sunnah’s most authentic work Sahih al Bukhari Hadhrat Umar entrusted Mawla Ali (as) and Hadhrat Abbas to take care of property of Fadak in accordance with the conditions set by Abu Bakr. Whilst we reject such a notion, we here seek to present the Sunni historical perspective, which differs from the Shi’a point of view. We will give Shi’a point of view about this afterwards.

According to Sahih Bukhari, Maula Ali (s) and Hadhrat Abbas didn’t care for these conditions and disputed with each other. Later on Maula Ali (as) overpowered Hadhrat Abbas and took the full control of Fadak.

Note: We are only representing the Authentic Sunni Point of View on this historical incident, which differs from Shi’a point of view. We will give Shi’a point of view about this later on.

Why is Al Khider seeking to rely on a tradition suggesting Maula Ali (as)’s desire not to restore Fadak to its rightful heirs?

We now present the tradition from Sahih al Bukhari that confirms that Mawla Ali (as) disputed with Hadhrat Abbas over Fadak and later on overpowered him.

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 367:

Narrated Malik bin Aus Al-Hadathan An-Nasri,

…Then ‘Umar turned towards ‘Ali and ‘Abbas and said, …So I kept this property in my possession for the first two years of my rule (i.e. Caliphate) and I used to dispose it of in the same way as Allah’s Apostle and Abu Bakr used to do; and Allah knows that I have been sincere, pious, rightly guided and the follower of the right (in this matter.Later on both of you (i.e. ‘Ali and Abbas) came to me, O ‘Abbas! You also came to me and the claim of you both was one and the same.So I told you both that Allah’s Apostle said, “Our property is not inherited, but whatever we leave is to be given in charity.’ Then when I thought that I should better hand over this property to you both or the condition that you will promise and pledge before Allah that you will dispose it off in the same way as Allah’s Apostle and Abu Bakr did and as I have done since the beginning of my caliphate or else you should not speak to me (about it).’ So, both of you said to me, ‘Hand it over to us on this condition.’ And on this condition I handed it over to you. Do you want me now to give a decision other than that (decision)? By Allah, with Whose Permission both the sky and the earth stand fast, I will never give any decision other than that (decision) till the Last Hour is established. But if you are unable to manage it (i.e. that property), then return it to me, and I will manage on your behalf.” The sub-narrator said,…………..So, this property (of Sadaqah) was in the hands of Ali who withheld it from ‘Abbas and overpowered him. Then it came in the hands of Hasan bin ‘Ali, then in the hands of Hussain bin ‘Ali, and then in the hands of Ali bin Hussain and Hasan bin Hasan, and each of the last two used to manage it in turn, then it came in the hands of Zaid bin Hasan, and it was truly the Sadaqah of Allah’s Apostle .”

Readers can also consult traditions on this subject: Sahih Bukhari Hadeeth: 9.408, 8.720 4:326.

Can Al Khider explain why he does not ascribe to what his most authentic Hadeeth scholar Imam Bukhari has recorded? Once you accept that which has been authentically transmitted to you (according to your standards), then why are you (al Khider) producing a weak Hadeeth suggesting that Imam ‘Ali (as) was ashamed of doing things which Abu Bakr prohibited?

As far as the Shi’a point of view is concerned, we believe that the sub-transmitter of Bukhari’s Hadeeth made some mistake in giving the correct account.

The facts are as follows:

For two years in Umar’s reign, both Mawla Ali (as) and Hadhrat Abbas came to Umar and demanded their right of Fadak (while they never accepted the fake Hadeeth by Abu Bakr).

Umar restored Fadak to them on condition that they maintain it as Abu Bakr had done. But they didn’t observe this condition and wanted to take possession of Fadak.

After some time, Maula Ali (as) overpowered Hadhrat Abbas and took control of whole Fadak property (while he considered Fadak to be the right of Fatima Zahra (Salam Allah Alaiha). This dispute reached a level where both Hadhrat Abbas and Hazrat Ali(as) went to Umar to settle this dispute between them (while Abas was also of view that he had a share and Abu Bakr only lied upon Rasool (saww) by fabricating a Hadeeth).

Umar told them that they cannot maintain the property while they disputed over possession. So, he placed it under his custody. This matches with history, it remained in the hands of the state proven by the fact that when Uthman succeeded Umar as Khalifa, the kind generous Khalifa who looked out for the needs of his poor relatives gave the entire Estate of Fadak to Marwan bin Al-Hakam.

One needs to be aware that Mawla Ali (as) and Abbas approached Umar on two occasions.

First Occasion: Umar entrusted them the entire Estate of Fadak.

Second Occasion: Umar restored Fadak back to his custody (on account of the dispute between Ali (as) and Abbas).

Clearly, the sub-transmitter of Bukhari’s Hadeeth seems to have made a mistake by thinking that Mawla Ali (as) overpowered Abbas after they went to Umar the second time.

The overpowering had occurred before the second incident, prior to Abbas’s going to Umar. Following the second incident (after Umar took Fadak back), there was no property left for Maula Ali (as) to overpower Abbas.

Reply Three

The tradition suggests that Maula ‘Ali (as) was ashamed to do anything that would contravene a decision of Abu Bakr. If this was even remotely true, then there would have been no reason to for him to reject the offer of Khilafath (the third time) on the condition that he adhered to the Qur’an, Sunnah and to the practices of Abu Bakr and Umar! Whilst agreeing to the Qur’an and Sunnah he (as) refused to adhere to the practices of Abu Bakr and Umar. This fact can be located in the following esteemed works of Ahl’ul Sunnah:

Al Bidayah wa al Nihaya Volume 7 page 146

Sharh Fiqh Akbar page 66 “Fadail Naas badh ai Rasulullah”

Iqd al Fareed Volume 2 page 213

Tareekh Abu Fida Volume 1 page 166 Dhikr Maqaathil Umar

Tareekh Khamees Volume 2 page 255

Tareekh Tabari Volume 14 pages 158-159

Tareekh Kamil Volume 3 page 35 Dhikr Shura

If Hadhrat ‘Ali (as) was ‘ashamed’ to contravene Abu Bakr’s rulings then he would have accepted this condition whole heartedly. What would be the reason for Imam ‘Ali (as) refusing to abide by the decision of a Khalifa whose rulings he was too ashamed to change? The refusal of Imam ‘Ali (as) to accept this condition serves as the greatest proof that he wanted to distance himself from their Bidah rulings. The fact that this rejection by Maula ‘Ali (as) of the so called hadeeth cited by Abu Bakr is replete in Sunni books of Tareekh and Fiqh leaves no doubt that it is fabricated, and this clear proof makes the narration cited by al Khider as completely baseless.

So ‘Why’ didn’t Khalifa ‘Ali (as) take Fadak back?

After these great responses, the author of the article Fedek arrives at the following conclusion:

un named author states:

Conclusion with common sense…

Hadhrat Abu’l-Barakat Abdullah Suwaydi al-Baghdadi writes in his Hujaj-e-Qatiya:

“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 Khaleefah 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 Khaleefahs concerning the date orchard is a plain evidence for the fact that it had not been taken by force by Abu Bakr.”

Reply One

We read in the esteemed Shi’a work Rudhutul Kafi, Sermon of Al-Fatan wa Al-Bidah, page 59, published in Iran:

“The Caliphs before me intentionally practiced such acts in which they went against Rasool Allah (saww). They broke the promises (which they made with Rasool) and changed the Sunnah of Rasool Allah (saww). If (today) I ask people to leave all these things (innovations) and restore things back to the way they were at the time of Rasulullah (s), my army shall rebel and abandon me, and I shall be left alone. All that shall remain turning to me shall be those Shi’a who recognise my virtues and rank.

Then he further explained by giving some examples that: “If I return Fadak to the heirs of Fatima (as), and if I order to restore the “SA’a” (a unit for measuring wheat) of Rasool Allah (s). And if I return the properties, which were given by Rasool (s) to their original owners, and deny the decisions which were based on injustice (and tyranny), and snatch the women who were illegally taken by some people and return them to their husbands, and if I deny the (unjust) distribution of Fadak, and start giving the shares to every one equally (as were originally given by Rasool (s), but earlier caliphs started giving according to status), ?. and restore the condition of Khums of Rasool (saww), and to bring Masjid-e-Nabi to it’s original position, and to make “Mash alal Khaffin” haram, and to issue punishment (“Had”) for drinking “Nabeedh” (alcohol made out of barley), and give the fatwa for Mut’ah being Halaal, and start saying 5 Takbirs at funeral, and make it obligatory upon people to recite “Bismillah” loudly during Salat …… and ask people to follow the Quranic and Sunnah way of giving Talaq, and ask people to give all the Sadaqat, and to restore the way of abulation, ghusal and Salah to it’s original form and time, and give back the fidya (which was unjustly taken) to Ahl-e-Najran, and return the slave girls of Ahle Faras, and ask people to return to Qur’an and Sunnah of Rasool (s), then all people will abandon me (and I will be left alone). I ordered people that they should only gather for Fardh (obligatory) prayers during Ramadhan, and told them that congregation (Jamah) in Nafal (i.e. Tarawih) is a Bidah (innovation) then all of these people started shouting that Sunnah of Hadhrat Umar has been changed.”

Comment

Thanks to the efforts of the early Khalifas, the Estate of Fadak had ultimately reached the hands of evil characters. Had Imam ‘Ali (as) the Khalifa restored Fadak by force, these people would have reacted with open opposition, and spread rumours / Fitnah and hatred against the Imam (as). It was due to this difficult situation that Hadhrat ‘Ali (as) chose not to raise the Fadak matter, to avoid the propaganda, namely ‘the moment Hadhrat ‘Ali (as) came to power he annexed the land belonging to his political opponents’. Fadak was in the hands of Banu Umayyad, sworn enemies of Hadhrat ‘Ali (as), and he knew that they would never return Fadak of their own accord.Any attempt to take the land would have lead to vocal opposition, they would have raised a hue and cry towards Hadhrat ‘Ali (as) stating:

‘You are taking land that was bestowed to us by the slain third Khalifa Uthman Ibn Affan’, and on becoming the Khalifa you have perpetuated injustice against us’.

Aware of the potential ramifications of claiming Fadak back, Hadhrat ‘Ali (as) restrained from any physical aggression to wrest Fadak back, but condemned the usurpers through his eloquent sermon.

Reply Two – The situation for Imam ‘Ali (as)made it impossible for him to take back Fadak

One needs to look at the situation that Imam ‘Ali (as) faced when coming to power. This was not some simple transition to power. Uthman had been murdered and the people had begged Maula ‘Ali to take helm of the State to prevent matter falling into further anarchy. Imam ‘Ali (as) was surrounded by Fitnah all around, no sooner had Talha and Zubayr given bayya that they broke it, joining Ayesha in a movement against the Khaleefa, whipping up support demanding he hand over the killers of Uthman. Their refusals to abandon their Fitnah lead to the Battle of Jamal. At the same time Mu’awiyah was also taking advantage of the situation, presenting the bloodied shirt of Uthman, and his wife severed fingers throughout Syria he was cooking up a frenzy of agitation towards Imam ‘Ali (as) in Syria that lead to the Battle of Siffeen. Surrounded by opposition / civil strife all around the slightest action that could have been exploited would have been. If Maula ‘Ali (as) took back Fadak, his enemies would have argued that the Khaleefa’s objective in attaining power was to gain personal gain, taking land rather than peace. The Banu Umayya were master tacticians in the field of propaganda and they would have pounced on the slightest glimmer of opportunity, getting people to turn on the Khaleefa. Let us not forget that in his letter to Mu’awiyah as recorded in Nahj ul Balagha the Imam (as) questioned what right he had to accept his authority when:

Verily, those who took the oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman have sworn allegiance to me.

Nasabi love to misinterpret this letter suggesting that Maula ‘Ali (as) endorsing the legitimacy of the three Khaleefas. What he was actually doing was entering into a polemical debate with Mu’awiyah. In Sunni / Shi’a polemics debates are based on one party quoting sources of the opposing camp as proof, and this is exactly what Imam ‘Ali (as) was doing. He (as) was telling Mu’awiya since he believed that legitimacy of a Khaleefa’s rule is based on gaining bayya then he had also come to power on this basis. What Imam ‘Ali (as) was also presenting was the fact that those that had given him bayya were supporters of the first three Khaleefas in other words they were the early remnants of what later developed as Sunni aqeedah! Had Imam ‘Ali (as) taken back Fadak, then those that had given bayya to his predecessors would have attacked him for changing their practises; this would have increased the likelihood of them deserting him and joining the ranks of Mu’awiyah. Maula ‘Ali (as) was in effect walking on egg shells, and of interest are his words recorded in Fathul Bari Volume 3 page 387:

“I shall maintain the type of orders that I had done in the past, until the people gather under a single group, even it means dying like my predecessors, as I do not like differences”.

This best explains why Maula ‘Ali (as) failed take remedial action to take back Fadak, his fear of further division, that would only weaken his support base further.

Reply Three – Hadhrat ‘Ali (as) was merely adhering to the Sunnah of Rasulullah (s)

We read in Sahih al Bukhari, Book of Knowledge Volume 1, Book 3, Number 128:

Narrated Aswad:

Ibn Az-Zubair said to me, “Ayesha used to tell you secretly a number of things. What did she tell you about the Ka’ba?” I replied, “She told me that once the Prophet said, ‘O ‘Ayesha! Had not your people been still close to the pre-Islamic period of ignorance (infidelity)! I would have dismantled the Ka’ba and would have made two doors in it; one for entrance and the other for exit.” Later on Ibn Az-Zubair did the same.

Comment

Was it incumbent on Rasulullah (s) to re-design the Ka’aba, Yes or No? If it was not then why did Rasulullah (s) say ‘Had not your people been still close to the pre-Islamic period of ignorance (infidelity)! I would have dismantled the Ka’ba and would have made two doors in it’. If it was compulsory then why did Rasulullah (s) fail to carry out this religious duty on account of his fear of the reaction by the newly converted Sahaba?

The Hadeeth proves that a fear of Fitnah amongst the people led Rasulullah (s) to abandon an important act. By the same token,Hazrat Ali(as)also din not take hold of Fadak and return it to his children.Since Fadak was in the hands of usurpers, if he moved to take it back forcefully he would have faced fierce resistance, Fitnah and a major backlash which would have been extremely harmful to the nascent Islamic state and religion. Hadhrat ‘Ali (as) therefore adhered to the Sunnah of Rasulullah and maintained silence on the matter for the sake of maslahat.

Reply Four – The wisdom behind not reclaiming Fadak

In his commentary of the above Hadeeth (destruction of the Ka’aba) Allamah Badr’adeen A’ini in his commentary of Sahih al Bukhari Umdah thul Qari Volume 1 page 615, Bab al Ilm makes an interesting comment:

“Ibn Bathil said that the following principle is established from the above Hadeeth, if ‘Amr bil Maroof’ (a good act is carried out), but the fear of Fitnah and anger from the people shall lead to its opposition, then the decision to order such a pious act should be abandoned”

Comment

According to this Sunni principle Hadhrat ‘Ali (as)’s not taking back Fadak was Amr bil Maroof, and if a good act creates a fear of inciting anger and Fitnah amongst the people leading to chaos in the society then it is permissible to abandon its implementation. Based on the facts, Imam ‘Ali (as) was in a difficult situation when it came to getting back Fadak, he knew that doing so would lead to open hatred and opposition from the followers of the first three Khalifas. It was this fear that led Imam ‘Ali (as )to prefer to adhere to the Sunnah of Rasulullah (s) and maintain silence.

Reply Five

Allamah A’ini continues with his commentary of the Ka’aba tradition in Umdah thul Qari Volume 1 page 615, Bab al Ilm:

“The people desired that the Deen be implemented in the manner that they were used to, and that this be adhered to in the same strict manner as the compulsory acts such as Salat, Fasting”

Comment

By the time Hadhrat ‘Ali (as) came to power the Estate of Fadak had been usurped for 45 years. The initial Usurpers had died, but many amongst their subjects had witnessed Fadak as being in the hands of the descendants of Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman. Facing already opposition of Kharjites and many others to his rule, Imam ‘Ali (as) was faced with a difficult situation when it came to dealing with those who had usurped his wife’s land. If he adopted a firm approach and took it back by force then this act would have created widespread Fitnah and opposition.His fear of the nefarious activities of the Banu Umayyad and Ayesha, lead him to steer clear of this matter.

Reply Six

Imam Nawawi says in his commentary of this Hadeeth, in his Sharh Muslim Volume 1 page 429 Bab Naqs al Kibt wa Bana:

“This Hadeeth proves principles of Ahkam. When two issues conflict with one another, when a problem that carries benefit, conflicts with another, support should be given to that option that has wider support. Rasulullah saw a benefit in reconstructing the Ka’aba. He (s) also feared Fitnah from the new Muslims, who carried the risk of them becoming apostates, which is why he abandoned this beneficial matter and chose not to reconstruct the Ka’aba”.

Comment

The restoration of Fadak carried a benefit,but would have created an image that Imam ‘Ali (as) had reclaimed land that had been taken by the earlier Khalifas.He was aware that the current unlawful occupiers would openly resist this and would spread Fitnah throughout the empire, complaining against Imam ‘Ali (as) ‘unjust usurpation’ of the land that had been given to them by the third Khalifa. The owners at that time were sworn enemies of Hadhrat ‘Ali (as). Had Imam ‘Ali (as) forcefully claimed back Fadak at that critical time it would have created a very negative image, and would have been mere fodder for the propaganda machine that was the Banu Umayyad. Hadhrat ‘Ali (as) therefore prefered silence on this matter.

Reply Seven – When Hadhrat ‘Ali became Khalifa, Fadak was in the hands of Marwan

As evidence we are relying on the following esteemed Sunni sources:

Murqat Sharh Mishkat Volume 8 page 106 Bab al Fi Fadail al Thani

Sunan al Kabeera Volume 6 page 301 Kitab al Fi

Wafa al Wafa Volume 3 page 1000 Dhikr Fatima min Abu Bakr Siddique

Sunan Abu Dawood, Kitab al Khazan

We read in Murqat:

“During the reign of Uthman, he through planning bestowed Fadak to Marwan, and made this his personal property”.

By granting the entire estate of Fadak to one man Uthman Ibn Affan contradicted the practises of the Shaykhayn. Hadhrat ‘Ali was faced with the land being in possession of Marwan, who was his enemy in the same way as Iblis was an enemy of Hadhrat Adam (as). Hadhrat ‘Ali (as) was therefore faced with a difficult situation. Marwan would have argued that Fadak had been bestowed to him and if anyone had usurped the land it was the early Khalifas, and he deemed them to be rightful Khalifas, who would decide matters subject to Islamic Shari’ah, he would have then argued:

you have become Khalifa and are committing an injustice towards me, if you are with the truth you should maintain silence as you had done so in the past.

Marwan knew Hadhrat ‘Ali (as) would never wrest Fadak from him.