Fatima (s) was initially angry at Abu Bakr and Umar, she reconciled during her final days !!!????

Objection 1: If Fatima (s) was initially angry at Abu Bakr and Umar, she reconciled during her final days

Reply : It is natural that if Wahabis admit that Lady Fatima Zahra (s) had become angry and infuriated at Abu Bakr and Umar and she passed away in that same condition, the legality of origin and foundation of their Caliphate will come under question, as it proves that the only daughter of the Prophet, and the most superior lady of the two worlds, leader of ladies of Paradise had opposed their Caliphate and according to authentic and correct traditional reports, which have come in their own most authentic books, pleasure of Fatima is pleasure of the Prophet and her anger is anger of the Prophet, therefore, they have tried to conceal this fact and fabricated traditions saying:

Suppose we accept that Fatima (r) was infuriated at Abu Bakr and Umar for a period of time and she turned away from the two of then, but as Baihaqi and others have narrated, Abu Bakr and Umar during the final days of Lady Fatima (s) came to meet her and sought her pardon, because it is mentioned in traditional reports that:

When Fatima became indisposed, Abu Bakr came to her to seek her pardon and asked for permission to meet her. Ali (a) asked Fatima (s): Abu Bakr is asking permission to meet you. Fatima (s) said: Do you allow him to enter? Ali (a) replied: Yes. So Lady Fatima (s) accorded permission. Abu Bakr entered and sought the forgiveness of Fatima (s). Abu Bakr said: By God, I have not left home, life, property, wealth and relatives, except for the pleasure of God, Messenger and you, family of Prophet. It was at this time that Fatima (s) became reconciled to Abu Bakr.

( Reference : Al-Itiqad wal Hidaya Ilaa Sabeelar Rishad Alaa Madhhabus Salaf wa As-habul Hadith, Vol. 1, Pg. 354, Ahmad bin al-Husain Baihaqi (d. 458 A.H.), Edited: Ahmad Isamul Katib; Darul Afaqul Jadida – Beirut, First edition, 1401 A.H. )

Rational reply

A. Report is Mursal (with incomplete chain) and the narrator is inimical to Ahle Bayt (Nasibi)

In reply, we say:

Firstly: As mentioned in the first part of this book, Wahabis have raised doubts about the chain of narrators of Balazari and Tabari regarding martyrdom of Lady Zahra (s) and considered it unacceptable, because it was Mursal; but now they are themselves arguing through a Mursal and false report, because Shobi was a companion of companions (Tabii) and therefore, he could not have witnessed this incident himself.

Also: Perhaps the objection maker has resorted to the reply that we used in the report of Balazari and Tabari from their own principles of the science of narrators and we said Mursal traditions of companion of companions (Tabii) is proof for Ahle Sunnat and has turned the same reply against us; in reply, we say: Suppose the Mursal reports of Tabii is acceptable, even then we cannot accept the report of Shobi, because he was among the enemies of Amirul Momineen (a) a Nasibi person; that is why reports of such a person, and that too against Ahle Bayt (a) cannot be accepted. With regard to the enmity of Shobi to Amirul Momineen (a), Balazari and Abu Hamid Ghazzali have quoted from Shobi himself: 

I met Hajjaj with some people in the city of Basra. Some Qaris (reciters of Quran) of Medina from the descendants of emigrants and helpers, including Abu Salma bin Abdur Rahman bin Auf, were also present there. Hajjaj was in conversation with them, when he mentioned Ali Ibne Abi Talib and spoke ill of him, we also spoke ill of Ali (a) in order to please Hajjaj and to remain secure from his mischief…

( Reference: Ansabul Ashraf, Vol. 4, Pg. 315, Ahmad bin Yahya bin Jabir Balazari (d. 279 A.H.); Ihya Uloomiddin, Vol. 2, Pg. 346, Muhammad bin Muhammad Abu Hamid Ghazzali (d. 505 A.H.), Darul Marifah – Beirut. )

Can the reports of Nasibis and enemies of Amirul Momineen (a) be decisive proofs for us?

B. Displeasure of Fatima (s) with Abu Bakr in the most authentic Ahle Sunnat books :

The objection maker has no choice but to accept the original anger and displeasure of Fatima (s) with Abu Bakr, because this fact is even mentioned by Bukhari in his book. Is the report of Bukhari having precedence or the report of Baihaqi? And that also when the report of Baihaqi is from a Nasibi person and enemy of Amirul Momineen (a) and he has not witnessed the incident personally. Bukhari says in his Sahih:

Fatima (s), daughter of the Messenger of Allah (s) became angry and displeased with Abu Bakr and this anger continued till she passed away from the world ( Reference: Al Jamius Sahih al-Mukhtasar (Sahih Bukhari), Vol. 3, Pg. 1126, Chapter of the obligation of Khums, Tradition 2926, Muhammad bin Ismail Abu Abdullah Bukhari Jofi (d. 256 A.H.), Edited: Dr. Mustafa Deebal Bagha, Dar Ibne Kathir, Yamama – Beirut, 3^rd edition, 1407 A.H. - 1987 )

He has also mentioned in his book:

Fatima (s) became furious at Abu Bakr and did not speak to him till she passed away.

( Ref: Al Jamius Sahih al-Mukhtasar (Sahih Bukhari), Vol. 4, Pg. 1549, Tradition 3998, Kitabul Maghazi, Chapter of the Battle of Khyber, Muhammad bin Ismail Abu Abdullah Bukhari Jofi (d. 256 A.H.), Edited: Dr. Mustafa Deebal Bagha, Dar Ibne Kathir, Yamama – Beirut, 3^rd edition, 1407 A.H. - 1987 )

In another place, he has mentioned the following report:

Fatima (s) turned away from Abu Bakr and did not speak to him till she passed away.

(Ref : Al Jamius Sahih al-Mukhtasar (Sahih Bukhari), Vol. 6, Pg. 2474, Tradition 6346, Kitabul Faraid, Chapter of saying of the Prophet: We do not inherit, whatever we leave Sadaqah, Muhammad bin Ismail Abu Abdullah Bukhari Jofi (d. 256 A.H.), Edited: Dr. Mustafa Deebal Bagha, Dar Ibne Kathir, Yamama – Beirut, 3^rd edition, 1407 A.H. - 1987 ) 

It is mentioned in the report of Ibne Qutaibah Dainawari that when the two of them came to visit her, Fatima Zahra (s) did not accord permission to enter and they became helpless. They sought the mediation of Amirul Momineen (a) and when Amirul Momineen (a) mentioned this to Lady Zahra (s), she said:

Ali dear, this house belongs to you; you are authorized to permit anyone you like to enter.

Amirul Momineen (a), in order to exhaust proof and that the two of them should not put up excuse later on that we wanted to apologize to Fatima (s), but Ali did not allow, he allowed them to come in.

When the two of them sought forgiveness, Lady Fatima Zahra (s) did not forgive; on the contrary, she made them confess as follows: I adjure you in the name of Allah; have you two not heard the Messenger of Allah (s) say: Fatima’s pleasure is my pleasure and her displeasure is my displeasure; one who considers my daughter, Fatima dear and accords respect to her has considered me dear and accorded respect to me. And one who pleases her has pleased me. And one who makes Fatima angry has displeased me. Those two admitted having heard that. Yes, we heard this from the Messenger of Allah (s). Lady Fatima (s) said: Thus, I hold Allah and His angels as witness that you two have harassed me and made me infuriated. I will complain about you to my father when I meet him. [Lady Zahra (s) did not remain content with this and she further said]: By Allah, I will pray against you after every ritual prayer.

(Ref : Al-Imamah was Siyasah, Vol. 1, Pg. 17, Chapter of How the allegiance of Ali (a) took place, Al-Dainawari, Abu Muhammad Abdullah bin Muslim Ibne Qutaibah (d. 276 A.H.), Edited: Khalil Mansur, Darul Kutubul Ilmiya, Beirut, 1418 A.H. – 1997 A.D. )

In these circumstances how can it be believed that Martyred Truthful Lady became reconciled to them? Is the report of Bukhari superior or the report of Baihaqi? And also when the report of Baihaqi is from a Nasibi person and one who is inimical to Amirul Momineen (a); and he had also not witnessed that event directly?

Moreover, it is also mentioned that: If Lady Fatima Zahra (s) had become reconciled to them, why did she make a will that she must be buried during the night and none of those who had oppressed her should be informed about her funeral and funeral prayers. Bukhari has narrated in his Sahih:

Lady Fatima (s) lived for six months after the passing away of the Messenger of Allah (s) and when she passed away, her husband, Ali (a) buried her at night and did not inform Abu Bakr and recited her funeral prayers himself.

( Ref : Al Jamius Sahih al-Mukhtasar (Sahih Bukhari), Vol. 4, Pg. 1549, Tradition 3998, Kitabul Maghazi, Chapter of the Battle of Khyber, Muhammad bin Ismail Abu Abdullah Bukhari Jofi (d. 256 A.H.), Edited: Dr. Mustafa Deebal Bagha, Dar Ibne Kathir, Yamama – Beirut, 3^rd edition, 1407 A.H. - 1987)

Ibne Qutaibah Dainawari writes in Tawil Mukhtaliful Hadith:

Fatima demanded from Abu Bakr the inheritance of her father and when Abu Bakr refused, she swore that she would never speak to him again and she made a will that she should be buried at night so that Abu Bakr may not attend her funeral.

( Ref: Tawil Mukhtaliful Hadith, Vol. 1, Pg. 300, Abu Muhammad Abdullah bin Muslim Ibne Qutaibah Al-Dainawari, (d. 276 A.H.), Edited: Muhammad Zuhri al-Najjar, Darul Jeel, Beirut, 1393, 1972)

And Abdur Razzaq Sanani writes:

It is narrated from Hasan bin Muhammad that he said: Fatima, daughter of the Prophet was buried at night so that Abu Bakr may not pray her funeral prayers, because there was enmity between them.

( Ref : Musannaf Abdur Razzaq, Vol. 3, Pg. 521, tradition 6554, Abu Bakr Abdur Razzaq bin Hamam Sanani (d. 211), Darul Nashr Maktabul Islami, Beirut – 1403, Second edition, Edited: Habibur Rahman Azmi)

And he further continues:

A similar report is narrated from Hasan bin Muhammad with the difference that in it is mentioned that: Fatima made will to be buried at night.[3]

( Ref : Al-Musannaf, Vol. 3, Pg. 521, tradition 6555, Abu Bakr Abdur Razzaq bin Hamam Sanani (d. 211), Darul Nashr Maktabul Islami, Beirut – 1403, Second edition, Edited: Habibur Rahman Azmi )

In addition to what is mentioned above, we say: Repentance is only beneficial and useful when it is accompanied with regret from the depth of the heart of man and when he also makes amends of what has passed; in such a way that the one who is repenting should restore the rights of the opposite party, whether from the rights of Allah or rights of people.

Now, our question is: If, according to the claim of the objection maker, Abu Bakr was really regretful of his past actions, did he take any step to restore Fadak to Lady Fatima Zahra (s) to prove his sincere regrets?

Categories: English