Who is Truthful ??Umar & Abu Bakr OR Janabe Fatima(as)

The two Caliphs were the cause of displeasure to the only daughter of Holy Prophet(s.a.w).They snatched her only source of livelihood and rejected her plea for her property of Fadak.

Janabe Fatima was angry with them till she met her death!!

Here is a brief account of the dispute between Abu Bakr and Janabe Fatima(as) regarding Fadak

Note : Readers should read without any bias and prejudice and should bear in mind that all the references in this post are from authentic Sunni sources.

This article is a reply to those people(e.g. Dr. Tahir Qadri, Irfan Shah, Moulana Ishaaq etc etc) who defend Abu Bakr and Umar and support their views with baseless arguments.It is a reply to all those videos and articles on internet regarding dispute of Fadak.

Fadak was a green fertile village near Medina in the Hijaz region, and it also had a fortress called ash-Shumrukh.

(Mu’jam al-Buldan, Vol. 4, p. 238; Mu’jam Masta’jam, al-Bakri, Vol. 3, p. 1015; Al-Rawd al-Mi’tar, al-Himyari, p. 437; Wafa’ al-Wafa’, Vol. 4, p. 1280). 

Fadak belonged to the Jews. In the year 7 A.H., its ownership went from the Jews to the Prophet (..) under the terms of a peace settlement. The reason for this settlement was that after the fall of Khaybar, the Jews realized the real power of the Muslims, their martial aspirations were lowered. Noting that the Prophet (..) had spared the lives of some Jews who sought his protection, the Jews also sent a message of peace to the Prophet (..) and expressed their desire that Fadak should be taken from them so that their area should not be turned into a battlefield. Consequently, the Prophet (..) accepted their request and granted them amnesty. This land became his personal property wherein no one else had any right or claim, nor could there be any interest because the Muslims had a share only in those properties which they acquired as booty after jihad, whereas property acquired without jihad is called fay’ and only the Prophet (..) was entitled to it. No other person has a share in it. Thus, Allah says the following: “And whatever Allah bestows on His Messenger from them, you did not stir any horse or a camel towards it, but Allah grants authority to whomsoever of His Messengers He pleases; and Allah over all things is all-Powerful” (Holy Quran, 59: 6).
No one has ever disputed the fact that Fadak was secured without battle. It was, therefore, the Prophet’s personal property to which no one else was entitled. The Historians write:.
“Fadak was personal to the Prophet (..) as the Muslims did not use their horses or camels to acquire it” 

(Tarikh, al-Tabari, Vol. 1, pp. 1582-583, 1589; Al-Kamil, Ibn al-Athir, Vol. 2, pp. 224-225; As-Sira, Ibn Hisham, Vol. 3, p. 368; Tarikh, Ibn Khaldun, Vol. 2, part 2, p. 40; Tarikh al-Khamis, ad-Diyar-Bakri, Vol. 2, p. 58; Al-Sira al-Halabiyya, Vol. 3, p. 50).

The historian and geographical scholar, Ahmed ibn Yahya al- Baladhiri (d. 279/892), writes the following: “Fadak was the personal property of the Prophet (..) as the Muslims had not used their horses nor camels for its acquisition” (Fath al-Buldan, Vol. 1, p. 33).

Umar ibn al-Khattab had himself regarded Fadak as the unshared property of the Holy Prophet (..) when he declared the following: “The property of Banu an-Nadir was among that which Allah bestowed on His Messenger. Against them [its original Jewish owners], neither horses nor camels were stirred. It belonged to the Messenger of Allah specifically”

(Sahih, al-Bukhari, Vol. 4, p. 46; Vol. 7, p. 82; Vol. 9, pp. 121-122 Sahih, Muslim, Vol. 5, p. 151; Al-Sunan, Abu Dawud, Vol. 3, pp. 139-141; Al- Sunan, al-Nisa’i, Vol. 7, p. 132; Al-Musnad, Ahmed ibn Hanbal, Vol. 1, pp. 25, 48, 60, 208; Al-Sunan al-Kubra, al-Bayhayqi, Vol. 6, pp. 296- 299).

It is also proven, in the accepted way, that the Prophet (..) had in his lifetime given this land (Fadak) to Fatima (..) as a gift. It is narrated through al-Bazzar, Abu Ya`li, Ibn Abu Hatim, Ibn Mardawayh and others
from Abu Sa’id al-Khudri and through Ibn Mardawayh from Abdullah ibn Abbas that when the verse: “And give to the near of kin his due...” (Holy Quran, 17: 26) was revealed, the Holy Prophet (..) called Fatima (..) and gave her Fadak as a gift” 

(Al-Durr al-Manthur, al-Sayyuti, vol, 4, p. 177; Majma’ al-Zawa’id, al-Haythami, vol, 7, p. 46; Kanz al-Ummal, al- Muttaqi al-Hindi, Vol. 3, p. 439; Ruh al-Ma’ani, al-Alusi, Vol. 15, p. 62).

When Abu Bakr assumed power then, in view of reaping some benefits for his government, he turned Fatima (..) out of Fadak and took it from her possession. Thus, the historians write: “Certainly, Abu Bakr snatched Fadak from Fatima (..) 

(Sharh Nahjul-Balagha, Ibn Abul-Hadid, Vol. 16, p. 219; Wafa’ul-Wafa’, as-Samhudi, Vol. 3, p. 1000; Al-Sawa’iq al-Muhriqa, Ibn Hajar, p. 32).

Fatima (..) raised her objection against such an injustice. Protesting to Abu Bakr, she said, “You have taken over the possession of Fadak although the Prophet (..) had given it to me as a gift during his lifetime.” To this, Abu Bakr asked her to produce a witness for the gift. Consequently, Imam Ali ibn Abu Talib (..) and Umm Ayman testified in her favor. Umm Ayman was the freed bondmaid and the dry nurse of the Holy Prophet (..). She was the mother of Usamah ibn Zayd ibn al- Harithah. The Holy Prophet (..) used to say, “Umm Ayman is my mother after my own mother” 

[Al-Mustadrak, Vol. 4, p. 63; al-Tabari, Vol. 3, p. 3460; Al-Isti`ab, Vol. 4, p. 1793; Usd al-Ghaba, Vol. 5, p. 567.]

 The Holy Prophet (..) testified that she is among the people of Paradise (Ibn Sa`d, Vol. 8, p. 192; Al-Isaba, Vol. 4, p. 432). But this testimony was held inadmissible by Abu Bakr, and Fatima’s claim was rejected as being based on a false statement. About this, al-Baladhiri writes the following:
“Fatima (..) said to Abu Bakr, ‘The Messenger of Allah had appropriated Fadak to me. Therefore, give it to me.’ He asked her for a witness other than Umm Ayman, saying, ‘O daughter of the Prophet (..)! You know
that testimony is not admissible except by two men or one man and two women.”

After these facts, there remains no possibility of denying that Fadak was the personal property of the Prophet (..) and that he had completed its gifting to her by handing over possession in his own lifetime. But Abu Bakr took over its possession and dislodged her from it. In this regard, he rejected the testimony of Ali and Umm Ayman on the ground that the requirement of testimony was not completed when only one man and one woman testify. Besides them, Imam Hassan and Imam Hussain (..), too, testified in support for Fatima (..), but their testimony, too, was rejected on the ground that the testimony of the offspring and “minors” was not acceptable in favor of their parents. Then Rabah, slave of the Holy Prophet (..), was also produced as a witness in support for the claim of Fatima (..), bringing the number of witnesses to five. But the testimony of the virtuous Rabah, too, was rejected 

(Fath al-Buldan, al- Baladhiri, Vol. 1, p. 35; Tarikh, al-Ya`qubi, Vol. 3, p. 195; Muruj al- Dhahab, al-Mas`udi, Vol. 3, p. 237; Al-Awa’il, Abu Hilal al-Askari, p. 209; Wafa’ al-Wafa’, Vol. 3, pp. 999, 1000-1001; Mu’jam al-Buldan, Yaqut al-Hamawi, Vol. 4, p. 239; Sharh, Ibn Abul-Hadid, Vol. 16, pp. 216, 219-220, 274; Al-Muhalla, Ibn Hazm, Vol. 6, p. 507; Al-Sira al- Halabiyya, Vol. 3, p. 361; At-Tafsir, al-Fakhr ar-Radi, Vol. 29, p. 284).

At this stage, the question arises that when Fatima’s possession of Fadak is admitted, as Imam Ali ibn Abu Talib (..) also clarifies in this letter by saying, “We had Fadak in our possession,” what was the meaning of asking Fatima (..) to produce testimony in support for her claim since the onus of proof does not lie on the person with the claim of ownership? The onus of proof lies on the person filing a counter claim, an objection, because possession itself constitutes a proof. As such, it was Abu Bakr who was required to produce a proof to the lawfulness of his own taking the contested land from its owner. In the case, if he is unable to do so, Fatima’s possession will mean an testimony of her lawful ownership. As such, it will be wrong to ask her to produce some more proof or testimony on her own.
It is strange that when other claims of this nature came before Abu Bakr, he arbitrated them in favor of the claimant merely on the basis of the claim: The claimant is neither asked to provide proof of his claim nor to produce witnesses. Why did Abu Bakr apply a different standard in the case of “Sayyidatu Nisaa’ al-‘Aalameen”? Did he hold the daughter of the Prophet (..) as a liar? Or did he have other political objectives in mind when he treated her with such injustice? In this regard, the traditionists write the following: “It is related from Jabir ibn `Abdillah al- Ansari that he said that the Messenger of Allah (..) had said that when the booty from Bahrain arrived, he would allow him such-and-such of it, but the booty did not arrive till the Prophet’s death. When it arrived during the days of Abu Bakr, he went to the latter to claim it. Abu Bakr
made the announcement that whoever had a claim against the Messenger of Allah or against whomsoever he had made a promise should come for his claim. So, I went to him and told him that the Prophet (..) had  promised to give me such-and- such property out of the booty from Bahrain whereupon he gave me all of that” 

(Sahih, al-Bukhari, Vol. 3, pp. 119, 209, 236; Vol. 4, p. 110; Vol. 5, p. 218; Sahih, Muslim, Vol. 7, pp. 75-76; Al-Jami’ al-Sahih, al-Tirmidhi, Vol. 5, p. 129; Al-Musnad, Ahmed ibn Hanbal, Vol. 3, pp. 307-308; Al-Tabaqat al-Kubra, Ibn Sa`d, Vol. 2, part 2, pp.88-89).

In the annotations of this tradition, Shihabud-Din Ahmed ibn Ali (Ibn Hajar) al-Asqalani ash-Shafi’i (773/1372-852/1449) and Badrud-Din Mahmud ibn Ahmed al-Ayni al-Hanafi (762/1361-855/1451) have written the following: “This tradition leads to the conclusion that the testimony of one equitable companion can be admitted as full testimony [equal to two or more] even though it may be in his own personal favor because Abu Bakr did not ask Jabir to produce any [other] witness to prove his claim.

(Fath al-Bari fi Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 5, p. 380; Umdatul-Qari fi Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 12, p. 121).

If it is lawful to grant property to Jabir on the basis of good impression about him without calling for witness or testimony anyone at all, then what stopped allowing Fatima’s claim on the basis of similar good impressions? Or was Abu Bakr ’s impression of the Head of the Women of Mankind not good at all? If good impression could exist in the case of Jabir to such an extent that he would not benefit by speaking a lie, then why should there not be the good belief about Fatima (..) that she would not attribute a false saying to the Prophet (..) just for a piece of land? Firstly, her admitted truthfulness and honesty was enough for holding her truthful in her claim. Moreover, the testimony of Ali and Umm Ayman in her favor was also available besides other evidences. It has been said that the claim could not be decided in favor of Fatima (..) on the basis of these two witnesses because the Holy Quran lays down the principle of testimony that: “... .then call to witness two witnesses from among your men and if there not be two men, then a man and two men”
(Holy Quran, 2: 282).
If this principle is universal and general, then it should be taken into regard on every occasion, not selectively. But on some occasions, it is found not to have been followed at all. For example, when an Arab had a dispute with the Prophet (..) about a camel, Khuzaymah ibn Thabit al- Ansari gave testimony in favor of the Prophet (..), and this one single witness was deemed to be equal to two because there was no doubt in the honesty and truthfulness of this individual in whose favor the testimony was led. It was for this reason that the Holy Prophet (..) granted him the title of “Dhul-Shahadatayn” (i.e. one whose testimony is equivalent to that of two) 

(al-Bukhari, Vol. 4, p. 24; Vol. 6, p. 146; Abu Dawud, Vol. 3, p. 308; al-Nisa’i, Vol. 7, p. 302; Ahmed ibn Hanbal, Vol. 5, pp. 188, 189, 216; Al-Isti`ab, Vol. 2, p. 448; Usd al-Ghaba, Vol. 2, p. 114; Al-Isaba, Vol. 1, pp. 425-426; Al-Musannaf, as-Sanani, Vol. 8, pp. 366-368).

Consequently, neither was the generality of the verse about testimony affected by this action, nor was it deemed to be against the cannons of testimony. So, if here, in view of the Prophet’s truthfulness, one testimony in his favor was deemed to be equal to two, then could not the testimony of Ali and Umm Ayman be regarded sufficient Fatima (..) in view of her moral greatness and truthfulness? Besides, this verse does not show that there can be no other way of establishing a claim other than these two methods. In this regard, judge Nurullah al-Mar’ashi at-Tustari (956/1549-1019/1610) has written the following in Ihqaq-al-Haqq, chapter on al-Mata’in: “The view of the contention that Umm Ayman’s testimony remained incomplete is wrong on the grounds that from certain traditions, it is seen that it is lawful to give a decision on the basis of one single witness, and it does not necessarily mean that the injunction of the Holy Quran has been violated because this verse means that a decision can be given on the strength of the testimony of two men or one man and two women and that their testimony is enough. From this, it does not appear that if there are some other grounds besides the testimony of witnesses that are unacceptable and that verdict cannot be given on its basis, unless it is argued that this is the only meaning for this verse. But since every meaning is not a final argument, this notion can be brushed aside, particularly because the tradition clearly points to a contrary notion and ignoring the notion does not necessarily mean violating the verse. Secondly, the verse allows a choice between the testimony of two men or that of one man and two women. If, by virtue of the tradition, a third choice is added, namely that a verdict can be passed by means of other testimony as well, then how does it necessitate that the Quranic verse should stand violated?!”
In any case, from this reply, it is clear that a claimant is not obligated to produce the testimony of two men or that of one man and two women in support for the claim. This is so because if there is one witness and the claimant swears an oath, he can then be taken to have legitimacy in his claim and a decision can be given in his favor. In this regard, it has been narrated by more than twelve companions of the Holy Prophet (..) that the Messenger of Allah (..) used to decide cases on the strength of one single witness and the taking of an oath.
It has been explained by some companions of the Prophet (..) and by some scholars of jurisprudence that this decision is specially related to rights, property and transactions, and this decision was practiced by the three caliphs: Abu Bakr, `Umar and Othman 

(Muslim, Vol. 5, p. 128; Abu Daw..d, Vol. 3, pp. 308-309; al-Tirmidhi, Vol. 3, pp. 627-629; Ibn Majah, Vol. 2, p. 793; Ahmed ibn Hanbal, Vol. 1, pp. 248, 315, 323; Vol. 3, p. 305; Vol. 5, p. 285; Malik ibn Anas, Al-Muwatta’, Vol. 2, pp. 721-725; al-Bayhaqi, Al-Sunan al-Kubra, Vol. 10, pp. 167- 176; Al-Sunan, al-Dar Qutni, Vol. 4, pp. 212-215; Majma’az-Zawa’id, Vol. 4, p. 202; Kanz al-`Ummal, Vol. 7, p. 13).

When decisions were issued based on the strength of one witness and one oath, then even if in Abu Bakr’s view the requirement of testimony was incomplete, he should have asked her to swear an oath then give a decision in her favor. But here the very objective was to tarnish the image of truthfulness of Fatima (..) so that in the future the question of her testimony should not arise.
However, when Fatima’s claim was rejected in this manner and Fadak was not accepted as the Prophet’s gift to her, she claimed it on the basis of inheritance saying: “If you do not agree that the Prophet (..) had gifted it to me, you cannot at least deny that Fadak and the revenues of Khaybar as well as the lands around Medina were the Prophet’s personal properties and I am his only heir.” Yet she was deprived of her inheritance on the basis of a tradition related by Abu Bakr himself that the Holy Prophet (..) said, “We, prophets, have no successors, and whatever we leave behind constitutes charity” 

 (al-Bukhari, Vol. 4, p. 96; Vol. 5, pp. 25-26, 115, 117; Vol. 8, p. 185; Muslim, Vol. 5, pp. 153-155; al-Tirmidhi, Vol. 4, pp. 157-158; Abu Dawud, Vol. 3, pp. 142-143; al-Nisa’i, Vol. 7, p. 132; Ahmed ibn Hanbal, Vol. 1, pp. 4, 6, 9, 10; al-Bayhaqi, Vol. 6, p. 300; Ibn Sa`d, Vol. 2, part 2, pp. 86-87; al-Tabari, Vol. 1, p. 1825; Tarikh al-Khamis, Vol. 2, pp. 173-174).

Besides Abu Bakr, nobody else had any knowledge of this statement which was presented to the public as a tradition of the Prophet (..), nor had anyone from among the companions heard it at all. Who is the truthful one, Fatima (..) or Abu Bakr?  

Thus, Jalalu’d-Din `Abd ar- Rahman ibn Abu Bakr al-Sayyuti ash-Shafi’i (849/1445-911/1505) and Shihabud-Din Ahmed ibn Muhammad (Ibn Hajar) al-Haytami ash-Shafi’i (909/1504-974/1567) have written the following: “After the death of the Prophet (..), there was a difference of opinion about inheritance and no one had any information in this matter. Then, Abu Bakr said that he had heard the Messenger of Allah saying, ‘We, prophets, leave no successors, and whatever we leave behind constitutes charity’” 

(Tarikh al-Khulafa’, p.73; Al-Sawa’iq al-Muhriqa, p. 19).

The mind refuses to believe that the Prophet (..) should not tell those individuals who could be deemed as his successors that they would not inherit and inform a third party that did not have even the most remote kinship to him, that there would be no heir/successor to him. Is not Abu Bakr considered as a “successor” of the Prophet (..) by many people?! Is there no contradiction here?! Then this story was made public only when the issue of Fadak was raised in the court of Abu Bakr who himself constituted the contesting party! In such circumstances, how can his presenting in his own support a tradition which no one else at all had ever heard be deemed permissible?  

If it is argued that this tradition should be relied upon in view of the greatness of the status of Abu Bakr, then why can Fatima’s claim to the said gift not be relied upon because of her honesty and truthfulness, more so when the testimony of Imam Ali ibn Abu Talib (..) and that of Umm Ayman, as well as of others as well, was also in her favor? 

If necessity was felt to call more witnesses in her case, then testimony can also be called for regarding this alleged unheard-of “tradition”, particularly since this “tradition” contradicted the general instructions of the Holy Quran relevant to the issue of succession and inheritance. How can a tradition which is weak in the manner of its relating and altered and the authenticity of which is questioned on the basis of facts to the contrary be deemed to specify a generality of the Quranic injunction on inheritance/succession because the question of the inheritance of the prophets is clearly mentioned in the Holy Quran. 

 In this regard, Allah says the following: “... And Solomon inherited David”
(Holy Quran, 27: 16). 

So, prophets do leave heirs/successors...
At another place, the following is stated by prophet Zakariyya:
“... Grant me from Yourself an heir who shall inherit me and inherit the family of Jacob” 

(Holy Quran, 19: 5-6). 

So, prophets do leave heirs/successors...
In these verses, succession refers to inheriting estates, etc. To take it in its figurative meaning of succession in prophetic knowledge would not only be absurd but also against established facts because knowledge and Prophethood are not objects of succession, nor do they possess the quality of transmission through inheritance, for in that case, all the descendants of the prophets would have been prophets. There is no sense in making a distinction that the progeny of some prophets may inherit Prophethood while others should remain deprived of it. It is strange that the theory of transmission of Prophethood through inheritance is propagated by those who have always laid the objection against the Shias that they regard the Imamate and the caliphate as an objective of inheritance and confined to one family only. Would not Prophethood become an objective of inheritance by taking succession in this verse to mean succession to the Prophethood?

If, in Abu Bakr’s view, by virtue of this tradition, there could be no successor of the Prophet (..), then where was this tradition when a document had been written admitting Fatima’s claim for succession?

Thus, Nurud-Din Ali ibn Ibrahim al-Halabi ash-Shafi’i (975/1567- 1044/1635) quotes Shamsu’d-Din Yusuf (Sibt ibn al-Jawzi) al-Hanafi (581/1185-654/1256) narrating the following: “Abu Bakr was on the pulpit when Fatima (..) came to him and said, ‘O Abu Bakr! The Holy Quran should allow your daughter to inherit you, yet I am not to inherit my father!’ Abu Bakr started weeping and descended from the pulpit.
Then he wrote her a statement about Fadak. At that time, Umar arrived and inquired what the written sheet was all about. Abu Bakr replied, ‘It is a document which I have written for Fatima (..) about the inheritance from her father.’ Umar said, ‘What will you spend on the Muslims while the Arabs are waging war against you, as you see?’ Then Umar took the document and tore it to pieces”  

(Al-Sira al-Halabiyya, Vol. 3, pp. 361- 362).

Every sensible person who takes note of this behavior can easily reach the conclusion that this tradition is concocted and wrong. It was fabricated only to secure possession of Fadak and other inheritances.
Consequently, Fatima (..) refused to accept it and expressed her anger in this way: She made a will about Abu Bakr and `Umar that the two should not participate in her funeral prayers. Aisha narrated the following:
“Fatima (..), the daughter of the Holy Prophet (..), sent for Abu Bakr (after he became caliph following the death of the Holy Prophet (..) claiming from him her inheritance left for her by the Messenger of Allah from what Allah had bestowed (specifically) upon him in Medina and Fadak and what was left from the fifth (khums) of the income from Khaybar. Abu Bakr refused to hand over anything from it to Fatima (..).
Then, Fatima (..) became angry with Abu Bakr and forsook him and did not talk to him till the end of her life. When she died, her husband, Ali ibn Abu Talib, buried her at night. He did not inform Abu Bakr about herdeath and performed the funeral prayers for her personally”

(al-Bukhari, Vol. 5, p. 177; Vol. 8, p. 185; Muslim, Vol. 5, pp. 153-155; al-Bayhaqi, Vol. 4, p. 29; Vol. 6, pp. 300-301; Ibn Sa`d, Vol. 2, part 2, p. 86; Ahmed ibn Hanbal, Vol. 1, p. 9; al-Tabari, Vol. 1, p. 1825; Ibn Kathir, Tarikh, Vol. 5, pp. 285-286; Ibn Abul-Hadid, Vol. 6, p. 46 and Wafa’ al- Wafa’,Vol. 3, p. 995).

In this regard, Umm Ja`far, the daughter of Muhammad ibn Ja`far, narrated the following about the request of Fatima (..), who was nearing her death, to Asma’ daughter of `Umays: “When I die, I want you and Ali to wash me and do not allow anyone to go into my house.”
When she died, Aisha came to enter, but Asma’ said to her, “Do not enter.” Aisha complained to Abu Bakr (her father) saying, “This Khath’amiyya (woman from the tribe of Kath’am) intervenes between us and the daughter of the Messenger of Allah (..).” Abu Bakr came out, stood at the door and said, “O Asma’! What makes you prevent the wives of the Prophet (..) from entering to see the daughter of the Messenger of Allah?” Asma’ replied, “She had herself ordered me not to allow anyone to enter.” Abu Bakr said, “Do what she has ordered you”

(Hilyat al- Awliya’, Vol. 2, p. 43; Al-Sunan al-Kubra, Vol. 3, p. 396; Vol. 4, p. 334;Ansab al-Ashraf, Vol. 1, p. 405; Al-Isti`ab, Vol. 4, pp. 1897-1898; Usd al-Ghaba, Vol. 5, p. 524; Al-Isaba, Vol. 4, pp. 378-379).

Fatima (..) had also made a request to Imam Ali ibn Abu Talib (..) that she must be buried at night, that no one should come to her, that Abu Bakr and Umar should not be notified about her death and burial, and that
Abu Bakr should not be allowed to perform the funeral prayer for her.
When she died, Ali washed and buried her in the dark of the night without notifying Abu Bakr and Umar. So, these two were not aware of her burial.
Muhammad ibn Umar al-Waqidi (130/747-207/823) said the following: “It has been proven to us that Ali (..) performed her funeral prayers and buried her at night accompanied by al-Abbas (ibn Abdul- Muttalib) and (his son) al-Fadl and did not notify anyone.” It was for this reason that the burial place of Fatima (..) is hidden and is unknown, none alive is sure about it

(Al-Mustadrak, Vol. 3, pp. 162-163; Al-Musannaf, Vol. 4, p. 141; Ansab al-Ashraf, Vol. 1, pp. 402, 405; Al-Isti`ab, Vol. 4, p. 1898; Usd al-Ghaba, Vol. 5, pp. 524-525; Al- Isaba, Vol. 4, pp. 379-380; al-Tabari, Vol. 3, pp. 2435-2436; Ibn Sa`d, Vol. 8, pp. 19-20; Wafa’ al-Wafa’, Vol. 3, pp. 901-902, 904, 905; Ibn Abul-Hadid, Vol. 16, pp. 279-281).

To attribute this displeasure of Fatima (..) to sentiments and thereby to lower its importance does not prompt a correct sentiment: If this displeasure had been the result of sentiments, Imam Ali ibn Abu Talib (..) would have stopped her from this out-of-place displeasure, but there is no historical record showing that Imam Ali ibn Abu Talib (..) took this displeasure to be as such. Besides, how could her displeasure be the result of personal feelings or sentiments since her pleasure or displeasure always agree with Allah’s will? The Prophet’s following saying is a proof of this: “O Fatima (..)! Surely Allah is angered when you are angered and is pleased when you are pleased”

(Al-Mustadrak, Vol. 3, p. 153; Usd al-Ghaba, Vol. 5, p. 522; Al-Isaba, Vol. 4, p. 366; Tahthib al- Tahthib, Vol. 12, p. 441; Al-Khasa’is al-Kubra, Vol. 2, p. 265; Kanz al- Ummal, Vol. 13, p. 96; Vol. 16, p. 280; Majma’ al-Zawa’id, Vol. 9, p. 203). 

Dear Muslims, it is a matter of Shame that we dont know the exact grave of our Prophet(sa.w.) beloved daughter Janabe Fatima(a.s). Why  she was not buried beside her father?
All these things pinches us and it indicate that there was something seriously wrong between Ahlul Bayt and so called great sahabas(i.e. Umar and Abu Bakr)