Fatimah Vs. Abu Bakr

[کیش]

I never heard of that before... can you explain ?

My son,

Here you go:

http://www.religionfacts.com/chinese_religion/practices/ancestor_worship.htm

[Breshna]

^^^

Another...blind..follower...

Abu Bakr and Fatimah were not humans? They didn't eat, sleep, die like me and you? Where they Prophets?


Your committing blashphemy like Shias: when they raise Ali and his sons in a high matter.

Do you worship your elders and ancestors like the Chinese?

Fatimah (RA) was the...Prophet (SA) daughter.

Abu Bakr (RA) was the...Prophet (SA) Khalifah....and Father in..law.

They were...humans.

Only...they were...purer...

than.....ME and YOU!

Before...you start spitting...out...

words...like Blasphemy.

Learn to...respect....

No i don't worship...my Ancestors.

I do...say their...names with respect.

When...you write...certain names.

Write them with...respect.

I asked...you in my..previous...post.

Do you...call your elders...

by their Names?

[Afghanistan2010]

^^^

Another...blind..follower...

Abu Bakr and Fatimah were not humans? They didn't eat, sleep, die like me and you? Where they Prophets?


Your committing blashphemy like Shias: when they raise Ali and his sons in a high matter.

Do you worship your elders and ancestors like the Chinese?

Oh everyone is a blind follower,
and when you rely on scientific facts and scientists than you are following them blindly too ?....

[کیش]

Bump up.

I would like to continue this discussion with educational folks like BarakzaiAbdali. Obviously Shamlwar doesn't have a clue in this issue, and his ignorance in Islamic history caused my other informative thread (Saqifa conference) to be deleted.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Let's take it back to where the split into sects has dilapidated Islam

Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 53, Number 325:

Narrated 'Aisha:

(mother of the believers) After the death of Allah 's Apostle Fatima the daughter of Allah's Apostle asked Abu Bakr As-Siddiq to give her, her share of inheritance from what Allah's Apostle had left of the Fai (i.e. booty gained without fighting) which Allah had given him. Abu Bakr said to her, "Allah's Apostle said, 'Our property will not be inherited, whatever we (i.e. prophets) leave is Sadaqa (to be used for charity)." Fatima, the daughter of Allah's Apostle got angry and stopped speaking to Abu Bakr, and continued assuming that attitude till she died. Fatima remained alive for six months after the death of Allah's Apostle.

She used to ask Abu Bakr for her share from the property of Allah's Apostle which he left at Khaibar, and Fadak, and his property at Medina (devoted for charity). Abu Bakr refused to give her that property and said, "I will not leave anything Allah's Apostle used to do, because I am afraid that if I left something from the Prophet's tradition, then I would go astray." (Later on) Umar gave the Prophet's property (of Sadaqa) at Medina to 'Ali and 'Abbas, but he withheld the properties of Khaibar and Fadak in his custody and said, "These two properties are the Sadaqa which Allah's Apostle used to use for his expenditures and urgent needs. Now their management is to be entrusted to the ruler." (Az-Zuhrl said, "They have been managed in this way till today.")


If she knew that the messenger(saws) had forbid that she should inherit anything from him why ask for it and get angry at a pious man trying to obey Allah and his Rasool?

The Prophet did not really leave any kind of inheritance:

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 160:
Narrated 'Amr bin Al-Harith:
The Prophet did not leave behind him after his death, anything except his arms, his white mule, and a piece of land at Khaibar which he left to be given in charity .


So why would Fatima(Ra) be angry all the way up until her lord causes her soul to depart unto him, when forgiveness is better? Why did Ali wait until Fatimah to die to recognize Abu Bakr as the Caliph?

{42:40.} The guerdon of an ill-deed is an ill the like thereof. But whosoever pardoneth and amendeth, his wage is the affair of Allah. Lo! He loveth not wrong-doers.

[41:34] The good deed and the evil deed are not alike. Repel the evil deed with one which is better, then lo! he, between whom and thee there was enmity (will become) as though he was a bosom friend.

Put simply she was a human being and many of the hadith point to the very challenging conditions and poverty her and Ali lived under.

Perhaps she had specific views on inheritance from the Prophet that conflicted with Abu Bakr's.

In any case, the approach that should be taken is to honor each of their opinions when interpreting codified Islamic laws.

If anything an analysis of their reasoning would only rich the corpus of how to interpret inheritance laws.

I do think Abu Bakr comes out commendable in this circumstance. The logical questions that follow his decision that validate this is:

1) If had intrigues or a power grab in mind he would have immediately tried to silence the issue by doling out some of the property to these supposed shiite adversaries (nonexistent in my opinion) silenced as a tribal leader might in times of turmoil and conflict.

2) He sent two messages with this move: A) He would honor meritocracy above hereditary rights B) He would put imminent domain interests of the Muslim peoples first, second, and third versus creating an unnecessary monarchy out of the Prophets household

Fatimah Zahra comes out of this discussion being very human and ought also be commended for demonstrating the ability to safely put a case forward to the executive branch without any intermediary. It appears that she was able to test her case multiple times. She ought to be honored for ensuring the Caliph is a responsive and considerate individual who has to supply reasoning for his decisions and answer directly to the people.

[کیش]

Once again, a lovely response by Dr. Abdali. Hopefully one day we could discuss early Islamic history over chai and my favorite, namak para.

Back to issue,

Don't you think Umar Ibn al-Khattab should have been giving some sort of punishment for barging through someone else house uninvited. Isn't that a sin; not to walk into a persons house without being invited in?

Also, threating to burn down Ali's house with his family inside. That is a horrible threat.

Not to mention that Umar's action caused a miscarriage, when he slammed open the door. and some historians believe the injuries she occurred was a cause of her death

Another disclaimer:

I'm not ignorantly bashing the companions of Islam. This is recorded history. I'm also not a Shia.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

You are a zindeeq a rafidi doing taqiyyah

[کیش]

And you are an uneducated baffon. Who has never read a book in his whole life, what's your point?

You might as well support Muawiya, Hind, and Jalaluddin Haqqani. Oh wait, you do.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Once again, a lovely response by Dr. Abdali. Hopefully one day we could discuss early Islamic history over chai and my favorite, namak para.

Back to issue,

Don't you think Umar Ibn al-Khattab should have been giving some sort of punishment for barging through someone else house uninvited. Isn't that a sin; not to walk into a persons house without being invited in?

Also, threating to burn down Ali's house with his family inside. That is a horrible threat.

Not to mention that Umar's action caused a miscarriage, when he slammed open the door. and some historians believe the injuries she occurred was a cause of her death

Another disclaimer:

I'm not ignorantly bashing the companions of Islam. This is recorded history. I'm also not a Shia.

I have read a few of these sources. Many people refer to Tabari, but also forget that the same Tabari was a master historian who also included stories of apocrypha that many, even orientalists have dismissed, including the famed Satanic verses.

I truly think a disaster was avoided when the proposed ansaar caliphate was soundly rejected by both local ansaar (Zaid ibn Thabit) and and Quraysh tribal members like Omar and Uthman.

The Arabs still lived in a tribal society and Mecca was a prominent seat of leadership. They had both men from mecca and meritorious men amongst them like Umar and Abu Bakr to choose from. This move would not only unit the Peninsula, but also maintain internal unity in the chosen capital, Medina. The schism between Aws and Khazraj was only 10 years healed for instance. If Medina split internally along tribal lines, uniting the peninsula and winning against the tribes on the periphery was out of the question.

In Sahih Muslim we find the following hadith that validates Umar's extreme defensive posturing:

"It has been narrated on the authority of Aba Sa'id al-Khudri that the Messenger of Allaah (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) said: When oath of allegiance has been taken for two caliphs, kill the one for whom the oath was taken later."

The Tabari text is as follows in the quote from Al Farooq by Shibli:

" The learned Tabari in his Tarikh Kabir has narrated a tradition to the effect that Omar standing at the door of Fatima's house, exclaimed : " O daughter of the Prophet ! I swear by God that we love you best of all, but if your house
continues any longer to be a rendezvous for con-spiring men in this manner I will set fire to it on account of these men."

Full text of "Al Farooq - English - By Shaykh Allamah Shibli Nomani (r.a)"

Shibli writes:
"The authority of this tradition is doubtful as we have not been able to glean particulars regarding its narrators..."

In the ... he says he still thinks the event occurred because of Umar's fiery nature. In summary, he guesses it happened.

Shiite sources online have misrepresented Shibli in claiming he backed the miscarriage claim. Luckily, now that the text is available online and translated to us all, we see the lack of veracity of their claims.

Irrespective of that though, we can look at the story in Kanzal Ummal, a text that sought to expand upon Suyuti's work and no mention is made of Umar sandwiching Fatima between a door and the wall.

That particular comes from a shiite source, rendering it partial, and I dont really feel out of order saying that since they themselves proclaim that their name is the "Party of Ali" or at times the "party of ahle Bayth" Parties are by their nature partisian.

The source is:
Kitab Sulaym b. Qays al-Hilali, endorsed by Shiite Imams.

The story was embellished subsequently with the back of the door having a nail affixed to it that went into Fatimah Zahra's belly etc.

I can tell you as a physician, though not as an OB/Gyn specialist, that it is highly unlikely that

A) A nail pierced her abdomen and that all she suffered was a miscarriage without some subsequent RAPID escalation to septic shock unless the nail were sterile. We are after all talking about piercing the abdominal cavity.

B) The Abdomen and the uterus are not one in the same though the uterus occupies a large portion of the traditional abdominal region. Once again, piercing the uterus is no small matter, with a nail especially. In that era that might have rendered her sterile.

If it were blunt injury, perhaps. But once again, women miscarry every day and its far fetched to link her subsequent passing to the miscarriage event without any syndrome in between.

So In summary, I think Omar should really be commended by stabilizing the situation. He was like the trauma surgeon in the room. Where it not for his actions, the subsequent conflicts between Muwayiah and Ali (though in a different form) might have come even earlier, not allowing the nascent religion to have its bedrock forged. Never would there have been a chance for Abu Bakr to solidify the state and deny renegade tribes a chance to chip away at these attempts to undo the gains of the Prophet's era. Never would there have been a chance to put to rest the apostate false prophets (like Musaylamah) one by one, dispatched by Khalid bin Walid's and other's strong hands. Never would there have been the chance for Omar to demonstrate that the Caliph answers to the people, time and time again in his rule. Never would Uthman have had the opportunity to further codify and dessiminate our constitution, the Quran.

In fact, Shibli writes of the same matters in the link I provided in his classic biography of Omar. He indicates that the Ansaar council acknowledged its inability to unify all of Arabia in its personage and that ansaar present yielded to Abu Bakr (once again including the famed scribe Zaid).

So no, I think Omar is worthy of even more esteem than this. His example showed cool headedness under difficult circumstances and leadership when it was needed most.

Ali can also be commended for his approach of giving a voice to Banu Hashim and understanding the predicament as well. After all, it was almost as if Umar's trajectory and Ali's were like two trains passing in the might. Each responded to the Ansaar council meeting differently.

Ali gave a voice and refuge to people in his home (they congregated initially not because of Abu Bakr but because of hearing about the ansaar meeting), but Omar realized opposing camps like this would not be the solution. There had to be a consensus candidate and there had to be one quick.

In Abu Bakr, meritocracy was born, but in a way that made sense for Arabia at the time.

[کیش]

Abu Bakr did make a wonderful caliph, no doubt about it. He won the Riddah wars, and united Arabia.

Umar also made a splendid Caliph. His victorious effort to gain land in Sham and Iraq made islam headway for the rest of the world.



But my problem with Abu Bakr and Umar was not listening to the Prophet on his death bed. The Nabi asked for a paper and pen so he could write down something which would not cause Fitna after his death. Ali went forth to grant him is final wish, but the former two didn't let the Prophet write whatever he wanted to be written. The Prophet was right though, fitna did occur in his Ummah immediately after his passing.

Uthman was a brilliant scholar to write down the real words of the Quran, and burned ones that could have been fabricated.

My problem with Uthman was his loyalty to his tribe. Both Abu Bakr and Umar made it Important that no tribe will be superior to another. Uthman was a kind hearted mind and let his family take the best out of him by granting them government positions while not spreading leadership to people who deserved it more than some of the Umayyads.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

Your problem is nifaaq.

[Mujib]

Why waste our time in Ramadan arguing an issue that has been argued thousands of times? If one has serious questions, one can address them to a scholar.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

Why waste our time in Ramadan arguing an issue that has been argued thousands of times? If one has serious questions, one can address them to a scholar.

This no debate. This is a smear campaign by a rafido zindeeq.

[کیش]

1) this issue has not been discussed "a thousand times" it barely gets discussed because nobody, even people who claim are scholars, have the will to discuss the first 60 years of Islam after the Prophet

2) so what it's Ramadan.

3) cursing at me for speaking the truth is blasphemy. Enjoy piling up sin, cause all im doing is educating while the cursing scholars are trying to keep Muslims ignorant.

4) they are close to hundreds of sects in Islam, when there shouldn't be but 1. Isn't it a Muslims job to disband them? Or should we stay hush-hush because no one wants to discuss controversial issues?

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

The sahaba were harsh against people of misguidance. They insulted them. I am following their footsteps. You are following abdullah ibn saba al yahoodi. You deserve maltreatment.