Response to: “Heirs of the Holy Prophet and Their Right Upon the Property of the Holy Prophet”
Article being answered:
https://www.twelvershia.net/2016/04/16/response-to-heirs-of-holy-prophet-and-their-right-upon-on-the-property-of-holy-prophet-asws/
The article tries to weaken the narration where Sayyidah Fatimah asked Abu Bakr:
“Did you inherit the Messenger of Allah, or did his family?”
And Abu Bakr replied:
“No, rather his family.”
The article’s strategy is simple:
1. Quote Ibn Kathir’s criticism of the wording.
2. Blame al-Walid ibn Jumay‘.
3. Claim the report contradicts other Sunni narrations.
4. Pretend Fatimah accepted Abu Bakr’s answer.
5. Ignore Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, where Fatimah remained angry and did not speak to Abu Bakr until death.
This is cherry-picking.
The report may have debated wording, but it is not worthless. And even if someone disputes this specific wording, the historical core of the Fadak/inheritance dispute is established in Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim.
==============================
1. The Abu Tufayl report exists in Sunni sources
Arabic:
حدثنا عبد الله بن محمد بن أبي شيبة قال عبد الله وسمعته من عبد الله بن أبي شيبة قال حدثنا محمد بن فضيل عن الوليد بن جميع عن أبي الطفيل قال:
لما قبض رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أرسلت فاطمة إلى أبي بكر:
أنت ورثت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أم أهله؟
قال: فقال: لا، بل أهله.
قالت: فأين سهم رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم؟
قال: فقال أبو بكر:
إني سمعت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يقول:
إن الله عز وجل إذا أطعم نبيا طعمة ثم قبضه جعله للذي يقوم من بعده.
فرأيت أن أرده على المسلمين.
فقالت:
فأنت وما سمعت من رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أعلم.
English:
Abu Tufayl said:
“When the Messenger of Allah ﷺ passed away, Fatimah sent to Abu Bakr:
‘Did you inherit the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, or did his family?’
He said:
‘No, rather his family.’
She said:
‘Then where is the share of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ?’
Abu Bakr said:
‘I heard the Messenger of Allah ﷺ say: When Allah gives a Prophet a grant, then takes him, He gives it to the one who stands after him. So I decided to return it to the Muslims.’
She said:
‘You and what you heard from the Messenger of Allah ﷺ know best.’”
Reference:
Musnad Ahmad, Musnad Abi Bakr, report 14.
Online source:
https://www.islamweb.net/ar/library/content/6/14/
Point:
The article acts as if this report can be thrown away with one sentence.
But this is not a Shia book.
This is Musnad Ahmad.
The wording clearly preserves Abu Bakr’s answer:
لا، بل أهله
“No, rather his family.”
That is exactly why the report is uncomfortable for the anti-Shia argument.
==============================
2. Sunan Abi Dawud also preserves the shorter version
Arabic:
حدثنا عثمان بن أبي شيبة، حدثنا محمد بن الفضيل، عن الوليد بن جميع، عن أبي الطفيل، قال:
جاءت فاطمة رضي الله عنها إلى أبي بكر رضي الله عنه تطلب ميراثها من النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم.
قال: فقال أبو بكر رضي الله عنه:
سمعت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يقول:
إن الله عز وجل إذا أطعم نبيا طعمة فهي للذي يقوم من بعده.
English:
Abu Tufayl said:
“Fatimah came to Abu Bakr seeking her inheritance from the Prophet ﷺ.
Abu Bakr said:
‘I heard the Messenger of Allah ﷺ say: When Allah gives a Prophet a grant, then it belongs to the one who stands after him.’”
Reference:
Sunan Abi Dawud, Hadith 2973.
Online source:
https://www.islamweb.net/ar/library/content/4/2582/
Point:
Even in the shorter Sunni version, the fact remains:
Fatimah came seeking her inheritance.
So the dispute was real.
It was not a Shia invention.
==============================
3. al-Albani graded the Abu Dawud version Hasan
Dorar lists this report and gives al-Albani’s ruling:
Arabic:
الراوي: أبو بكر الصديق
المحدث: الألباني
المصدر: صحيح أبي داود
الصفحة أو الرقم: 2973
خلاصة حكم المحدث: حسن
English:
Narrator: Abu Bakr al-Siddiq.
Hadith scholar: al-Albani.
Source: Sahih Abi Dawud.
Page/number: 2973.
Ruling: Hasan.
Reference:
Dorar:
https://dorar.net/hadith/sharh/85371
Point:
The article wants the reader to think this narration is simply rejected.
But al-Albani graded the Abu Dawud version:
حسن
“Hasan.”
So this is not a worthless report.
It is a Sunni report graded Hasan by a major Sunni hadith scholar.
==============================
4. Abd al-Haqq al-Ishbili also treated its chain as authentic
Dorar also lists the same report under Abd al-Haqq al-Ishbili:
Arabic:
خلاصة حكم المحدث: [أشار في المقدمة أنه صحيح الإسناد]
English:
“Summary of the hadith scholar’s ruling: He indicated in the introduction that it is authentic in chain.”
Reference:
Abd al-Haqq al-Ishbili, al-Ahkam al-Shar‘iyyah al-Sughra, p. 497.
Dorar:
https://dorar.net/hadith/sharh/85371
Point:
Again, this is not “Shia propaganda.”
Sunni hadith grading sources themselves preserve serious authentication/acceptance of the report’s chain.
==============================
5. The narrator al-Walid ibn Jumay‘ is not a rejected narrator
The article blames everything on al-Walid ibn Jumay‘.
But Sunni rijal does not treat al-Walid as a discarded liar.
Arabic rijal statements:
قال أحمد، وأبو داود: ليس به بأس.
وقال ابن معين، والعجلي: ثقة.
وقال أبو زرعة: لا بأس به.
وقال أبو حاتم: صالح الحديث.
وقال ابن حجر: صدوق يهم، ورمي بالتشيع.
English:
Ahmad and Abu Dawud said:
“There is no problem with him.”
Ibn Ma‘in and al-‘Ijli said:
“Trustworthy.”
Abu Zur‘ah said:
“No problem with him.”
Abu Hatim said:
“Sound in hadith.”
Ibn Hajar said:
“Truthful, makes mistakes, and was accused of tashayyu‘.”
Reference:
Shamela narrator entry for al-Walid ibn Abd Allah ibn Jumay‘.
https://shamela.ws/narrator/6815
Point:
The article’s logic is dishonest.
It presents al-Walid as if he is a worthless narrator.
But Sunni rijal says:
ثقة
trustworthy,
لا بأس به
no problem with him,
صالح الحديث
sound in hadith,
صدوق يهم
truthful but sometimes mistaken.
That means his report can be Hasan.
That is exactly why al-Albani graded the Abu Dawud version Hasan.
Accusing a narrator of tashayyu‘ does not automatically destroy his narration, especially when major Sunni critics still accepted him.
==============================
6. Yes, Ibn Kathir objected to some wording — but that does not erase the report
Ibn Kathir said the wording has:
غرابة ونكارة
“strangeness and objectionability.”
Fine.
We should be fair and admit that some wording is debated.
But the article abuses Ibn Kathir’s comment.
Ibn Kathir’s criticism does not erase the report from Sunni sources.
It does not erase Abu Dawud’s version.
It does not erase al-Albani’s Hasan grading.
It does not erase Abd al-Haqq al-Ishbili’s indication of authentic chain.
It does not turn al-Walid ibn Jumay‘ into a liar.
So the balanced conclusion is:
The exact wording “No, rather his family” is debated by some Sunni scholars, but the report is not worthless, and the historical core is established by stronger Sunni sources.
==============================
7. The article’s biggest lie: “Fatimah accepted Abu Bakr’s claim”
The article says Fatimah accepted Abu Bakr’s claim because the report ends with:
Arabic:
فأنت وما سمعت من رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أعلم.
English:
“You and what you heard from the Messenger of Allah ﷺ know best.”
This is weak and selective.
Because Sahih al-Bukhari says the opposite.
Arabic:
فأبى أبو بكر أن يدفع إلى فاطمة منها شيئا، فوجدت فاطمة على أبي بكر في ذلك، فهجرته، فلم تكلمه حتى توفيت.
فلما توفيت، دفنها زوجها علي ليلا، ولم يؤذن بها أبا بكر، وصلى عليها.
ولم يكن يبايع تلك الأشهر.
English:
“Abu Bakr refused to give Fatimah anything from it. So Fatimah became angry with Abu Bakr over that, abandoned him, and did not speak to him until she died.
When she died, her husband Ali buried her at night, did not inform Abu Bakr, and prayed over her.
Ali had not given allegiance during those months.”
Reference:
Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith 4240/4241.
Online source:
https://sunnah.com/bukhari:4240
Point:
If Fatimah accepted Abu Bakr’s answer, why did Bukhari say:
She became angry?
She abandoned him?
She did not speak to him until death?
Ali buried her at night?
Abu Bakr was not informed?
Ali did not give bay‘ah during those months?
The article’s “Fatimah accepted” argument is destroyed by Sahih Bukhari itself.
==============================
8. Sahih Muslim confirms the same reality
Arabic:
فأبى أبو بكر أن يدفع إلى فاطمة شيئا، فوجدت فاطمة على أبي بكر في ذلك، قال: فهجرته، فلم تكلمه حتى توفيت.
فلما توفيت، دفنها زوجها علي بن أبي طالب ليلا، ولم يؤذن بها أبا بكر، وصلى عليها علي.
ولم يكن بايع تلك الأشهر.
English:
“Abu Bakr refused to give anything to Fatimah. Fatimah became upset with Abu Bakr over that. She abandoned him and did not speak to him until she died.
When she died, her husband Ali ibn Abi Talib buried her at night. He did not inform Abu Bakr about her, and Ali prayed over her.
Ali had not given allegiance during those months.”
Reference:
Sahih Muslim, Hadith 1759a.
Online source:
https://sunnah.com/muslim:1759a
Point:
So this is not only Bukhari.
Muslim also confirms the same historical wound.
Fatimah did not accept the matter peacefully.
She died while not speaking to Abu Bakr.
That is the strongest Sunni evidence against the article’s whitewashing.
==============================
9. The “contradiction” is the Sunni problem, not the Shia problem
The article says:
“This report contradicts other narrations because Abu Bakr says the Prophet’s family inherits him.”
Exactly.
That is the point.
The Sunni material itself preserves tensions:
In one report, Abu Bakr says:
لا، بل أهله
“No, rather his family.”
In another report, he says:
نحن معاشر الأنبياء لا نورث
“We, the Prophets, are not inherited from.”
In Sahih Bukhari/Muslim, Fatimah rejects the outcome and remains angry until death.
So do not blame Shias for noticing contradictions inside Sunni reports.
The problem is not Shia polemics.
The problem is Abu Bakr’s handling of the Prophet’s property.
==============================
10. Fatimah’s argument was Qur’anic, not emotional
In the Fadak sermon, Fatimah argued from the Qur’an.
Arabic:
يا بن أبي قحافة، أفي كتاب الله أن ترث أباك ولا أرث أبي؟
أفعلى عمد تركتم كتاب الله ونبذتموه وراء ظهوركم؟
إذ يقول:
وَوَرِثَ سُلَيْمَانُ دَاوُودَ
وقال فيما اقتص من خبر يحيى بن زكريا إذ قال:
فَهَبْ لِي مِنْ لَدُنْكَ وَلِيًّا، يَرِثُنِي وَيَرِثُ مِنْ آلِ يَعْقُوبَ
وقال:
وَأُولُو الْأَرْحَامِ بَعْضُهُمْ أَوْلَى بِبَعْضٍ فِي كِتَابِ اللَّهِ
وقال:
يُوصِيكُمُ اللَّهُ فِي أَوْلَادِكُمْ
English:
“O son of Abu Quhafah, is it in the Book of Allah that you inherit your father but I do not inherit my father?
Have you deliberately abandoned the Book of Allah and thrown it behind your backs?
When it says:
‘Sulayman inherited Dawud.’
And when it narrates from Yahya ibn Zakariyya:
‘Grant me from Yourself an heir, who will inherit from me and from the family of Ya‘qub.’
And Allah says:
‘Blood relatives are closer to one another in the Book of Allah.’
And He says:
‘Allah commands you concerning your children.’”
Reference:
Fadak sermon, Shia sources preserving the protest of Fatimah.
Online source:
https://ns1.almerja.com/more.php?idm=124287
Point:
This is the legal heart of the Shia argument.
Fatimah did not merely say:
“Give me property.”
She argued from Qur’anic inheritance.
She cited:
Sulayman inheriting Dawud.
Zakariyya asking for an heir.
Blood relatives having priority.
The Qur’anic law of inheritance.
So a solitary report claimed by Abu Bakr is being used to override Qur’anic inheritance principles and the claim of the Prophet’s daughter.
That is exactly why the issue is serious.
==============================
11. Fadak was not ordinary public war booty
Sunni historical material also records that Fadak was fay’, property gained without cavalry or battle.
Arabic:
عن الزهري في قول الله تعالى:
فَمَا أَوْجَفْتُمْ عَلَيْهِ مِنْ خَيْلٍ وَلَا رِكَابٍ
قال:
هذه قرى عربية لرسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم، فدك وكذا وكذا.
English:
From al-Zuhri regarding Allah’s saying:
“You did not spur against it any horses or camels,”
he said:
“These were Arab villages belonging to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ: Fadak and others.”
Reference:
al-Baladhuri, Futuh al-Buldan, section on Fadak.
Online source:
https://usul.ai/ur/t/futuh-buldan/38
Point:
This is important.
Fadak was fay’.
It was not normal battlefield booty shared like ordinary spoils.
It was connected directly to the Prophet’s disposal.
That is why Fatimah’s claim over it was legally serious.
==============================
12. Even the “more acceptable” version quoted by the article helps Fatimah’s argument
The article mentions another version where Fatimah asks Abu Bakr:
Arabic:
من يرثك إذا مت؟
قال: ولدي وأهلي.
قالت: فما لنا لا نرث النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم؟
English:
“Who will inherit you when you die?”
He said:
“My children and my family.”
She said:
“Then why do we not inherit the Prophet ﷺ?”
Point:
Even this version supports the Shia argument.
Fatimah’s reasoning is devastating:
If your children and family inherit you, why does the Prophet’s daughter not inherit the Prophet?
The article calls this version “more acceptable,” but it still preserves Fatimah’s protest.
So either way, the article cannot escape the core issue.
==============================
Final response
The article fails for several reasons.
First:
The Abu Tufayl report is not a Shia fabrication. It exists in Sunni sources such as Musnad Ahmad and Sunan Abi Dawud.
Second:
The Abu Dawud version was graded Hasan by al-Albani.
Third:
Abd al-Haqq al-Ishbili indicated the chain is authentic in his work.
Fourth:
al-Walid ibn Jumay‘ is not a rejected narrator. Sunni rijal includes praise for him: Ibn Ma‘in and al-‘Ijli called him trustworthy, Ahmad and Abu Dawud said there is no problem with him, Abu Hatim said he is sound in hadith, and Ibn Hajar said he is truthful though he makes mistakes.
Fifth:
Ibn Kathir’s objection to some wording does not erase the report. It only means the exact wording is debated.
Sixth:
The article’s claim that Fatimah accepted Abu Bakr’s answer is destroyed by Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, which say she became angry, abandoned Abu Bakr, did not speak to him until death, and Ali buried her at night without informing Abu Bakr.
Seventh:
Fatimah’s argument was Qur’anic. She cited the inheritance of Sulayman from Dawud, the prayer of Zakariyya for an heir, the priority of blood relatives, and the general inheritance law.
Eighth:
Fadak was fay’, not ordinary war booty. Sunni historical sources record it as property connected to the Prophet’s disposal.
So the real conclusion is simple:
Even if some wording of the Abu Tufayl report is debated, the historical core remains established:
Fatimah demanded her right.
Abu Bakr refused.
Fatimah became angry.
She did not speak to him until death.
Ali buried her at night.
Abu Bakr was not informed.
And the Qur’anic argument of Fatimah remains unanswered.
The article is not a refutation.
It is damage control.
Did Lady Fatimah Accept Abu Bakr's Decision on Fadak?
Primary Category :
Secondary Category :
Loading comments...