Was Fadak Muhammads (pbuh) Property ?

Fadak was alloted to the Prophet (pbuh&hf), because it had been acquired by treaty. The inhabitants, according to the treaty, were to remain there while giving up half of their lands and half the produce.

Sunni references:

  • Tabari, vol IX p 196 [The Last years of the Prophet English version]
  • Futuhal Buldan p 42
  • Tarekhe Khamees vol 2 p 64
  • Tarikhe Kamil (Ibn Atheer) vol 2 p 85
  • Seerah by Ibn Hisham vol 3 p 48
  • at Tarikh, Ibn Khuldun, vol 2 part 2

The historian and the geographical scholar Ahmad ibn Yahya al Baladhuri writes Fadak was the personal property of the Prophet (PBUH&HF) as the Muslims had not used their horses or camels for it.

  • Futuhul Baldan, vol 1 p33

Umar ibn al Khattab himself regarded Fadak as the unshared property of the Holy Prophet when he declared:

The property of Banu an Nadir was among that which Allah has bestowed on His Messenger; against them neither horses nor camles were pricked but they belonged to the Messenger of Allah especially.

Sunni references:

  • Sahih Bukhari, vol 4 p 46, vol 7 82; vol 9 p 121-22
  • Sahih Muslim, vol 5 p 151
  • Sunan Abi Daood. vol 3 p 139-41
  • Sunan Nasai, vol 7 p 132
  • Musnad of Ahmad Hanbal, vol p 25, 48, 60, 208
  • Sunan al Kubra (al Bayhaqi), vol 6 p 296-99

Did the Prophet (pbuh) present the land to Fatima (as) ?

The Prophet in his life time with the instructions from Allah the almighty presented this Land to Hadhrat Fatimah (AS), as is found in the Commentary of the respected Sunni Scholar, Jalaluddin al-Suyuti. Here is the historical background for the Land of Fadak, and after that is the text for the Tafseer for the Verse 26 Chapter XVII.

Imam Ali (AS) was sent to Fadak, a Jewish town not far from Khaibar to take it. But, before the use of any force, the inhabitants tendered their submission, ceding half of their property to the prophet. When the Angel Gabriel revealed to the Prophet the Divine Command as in the Verse 26 of Chapter XVII (17)

"And give unto one who is of Kin (to thee) that which is due" [17:26]

and the Prophet asked as to who was meant as "being of Kin". the Angel named Janabe Fatimah (AS) and told the Prophet to give Fadak to her (AS) as the Income from Fadak belonged wholly to him on account of its being ceded to him without the use of force. the Prophet (PBUH) accordingly bestowed upon Janabe Fatimah (AS) his estate of Fadak for the substinence of herself and her children.

With reference to the above Quranic Verse, many Sunni commentators have written that:

when the Verse was revealed, the Holy Prophet (PBUH) asked the Angel Gabriel: "Who are the Kinsmen and what is their due?" The Angel Gibrael replied "Give Fadak to Fatimah for it is her due, and whatever is due to Allah and the Prophet (PBUH) out of Fadak, that also belongs to her, so entrust to her also."

[ The above is narrated through al Bazzar, Abu Yala, Ibn Abi Hatim, Ibn Marduwayh and others from Abu Said al Khudri and through Ibn Marduwayh from Abdullah ibn al Abbas for the above verse ]

Sunni references:

  • Tafsir Durr al-Mansur, v4, p177
  • Kanz al-Ummal, v2, p158
  • Sawaiq al Muhriqah Chapter 15 p 21-22
  • Rozatul Safaa vol 2 p 135
  • Sharah e Muwaqif p 735
  • Tareekh Ahmadi p45
  • Ruh al ma'ani, vol 15 p 62

It leaves no room for us to believe that the Land of Fadak was not the personal belonging of Hadhrat Fatimah (AS)!

Historians also write that Certainly, Abu Bakr snatched Fadak from Fatimah (as)

Sunni references:

  • Sharah, vol 16 p 219
  • Wafa al Wafa (as Samhudi), vol 3 p1000
  • Sawaiq al Muhriqah, p 32

Khalid> Therefore Fatimah demanded this property and she presented Ali and Khalid> Ume-Yamin as a witness in the court of Abu Bakr. But he refused to Khalid> accept this witnesses and did not allocate the property to her.

Khalid> But this story is no where in the authentic Hadith, However Bala- Khalid> dhuri and Ibn-Saad has Concerning the claim that You have made, that the above story is no where to be found in the hadith books, I would like you to refer to these books, that are termed as authentic and reliable by the Sunni scholars that contains the very event that you have had mentioned.

  • Commentary of the Quran by Fakhr al-Din al-Razi , v8, p125 (Under the Tafseer of Surah Hashr) - Sawaiq al-Muhriqah by Ibn Hajar Haythmi, p21

Fatimah (as) raised a voice when Fadak was stolen from her, protesting to Abu Bakr, she said:

You have taken over possesion of Fadak although the Prophet had gifted it to me during his life time.

On this Abu Bakr asked her to produce witnesses of the gift. Consequently, Imam Ali (as) and Umm Ayman gave evidence on her favor. (Umm Ayman was the freed bond maid and the dry nurse for the Holy Prophet (PBUH&HF), She was the mother of Usamah ibn Zayd ibn al Harith. The Holy Prophet usted to say Umm Ayman is my mother after my mother. The Holy Prophet (PBUH&HF) also bore witness that she is among the people of paradise.

Sunni references:

  • al Mustadrak, vol 4 p 63
  • History of Tabari, vol 3 p 3460
  • al Istiab, vol 4 p 1793
  • Usud al Ghabah, vol 5 p 567
  • Tabaqat, vol 8 p 192
  • al Isabah, vol 4 p 432

But this evidence was held in-admissible by Abu Bakr and Fatimah's (as) claim was rejected as being based on false statement. About this Baladhuri writes:

Fatimah (as) said to Abu Bakr: The Messenger of Allah had apportioned Fadak to me. Therefore give it to me. Then he asked for another witness than Umm Ayman, saying: O daughter of the Prophet, you know that evidence is not admissible except by two men or one man and two women.

Besides, them, Imam Hasan (as) and Imam Hussain (as) gave evidence in support of Fatimah (as), but their evidence was also rejected; on the ground that the evidence of the offspring and minors was not acceptable in favour of their parents. Then Rabah the slave of the Holy Prophet (PBUH&HF) was also produced as a witness in support of the claim of Fatimah but he was rejected too.

Sunni references:

  • Futuhul Buldan, vol 1 p 35
  • at Tarikh, Yaqubi, vol 3 p 195
  • Muruj ad Dhahab, al Masudi, vol 3 p 237
  • al Awail, Abu Hilal al Askari, p 209
  • Wafa al Wafa, vol 3 p 99-1001
  • Mujam al Buldan, Yaqut al Hamawai, vol 4 p 239
  • Sharah, Ibn al Hadid, vol 16, p 216, 219-220, 274
  • al Muhalla, Ibn HAzm, vol 6 p 507
  • as Sirah al halabiyah, vol 3 p 261
  • at Tafsir, al Fakr ad Din al Razi, vol 29 p 284

copied it. But there is a lot of contradiction in their statements. Ibn-Saad narrates that Fatimah had not heard this directly from RasulAllah , but from Ume-Yamin and that is why she presented her as a witness. On the other hand Baladhuri says that Fatimah claimed that her father had given her Fadak oasis. Whatever ! Now let us look at the legal aspect of this issue.

Legally, it could be either RasulAllahOs deed of gift (Hiba) or his will. If it was a gift, it should have been given to Fatimah in his lifetime. But this was not the case as we all know. If we call it a will, then this violates the Quranic Inheritance Law, Talking about the very hadith that Abu Bakr had sited to support his decision that has been mentioned in many books, that goes as follows It is narrated on the authority of Urwa Ibn Zubair who narrated from Aisha that she informed him that Fatima, the daughter of the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) sent some one to Abu Bakr to demand from him her share of the legacy left by left by the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) from what Allah had bestowed upon him at Medina and Fadak and what was left from 1/5 th of the income from Khaibar. Abu Bakr said that: the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said:

We (prophets) do not have any heirs; what we leave behind is to be given in charity.

The household of the Messenger of Allah will live on the income of these Properties, but, by Allah I will not change the charity of the Messenger of Allah from the condition in which it was in his own time. I will do the same with it as the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) himself used to do.

So Abu Bakr refused to hand over any thing from it to Fatimah who got angry with Abu Bakr for this reason. She forsook him and did not talk to him untill the end of her life. She lived for six months after the death of the Messenger of Allah (PBUH). When she died her husband Ali Ibn Abu Talib buried her at night. he did not inform Abu Baker about her death and offered the funeral prayer over her himself ......

  • Sahih Muslim, English version, v3, Chapter DCCXIX, p956, Tradition #4352

Now let us analyze the statement that Abu Bakr stated:

We (prophets) do not have any heirs; what we leave behind is to be given in charity.

and the word heir means: "One who inherits * or * is legally entitled to inherit the property" (the American Dictionary - 2nd College Edition p324). Now, the very first statement goes against the facts since, historically it is admitted the holy Prophet (PBUH) received inheritance from his father as as follows Abdullah Ibn Abdul Muttalib left to Umme Aiman a legacy of five (5) dust coloured camels and a small flock of sheep, which was inherited by the Prophet of Allah.

Sunni references:

  • Tabaqat Ibn Sad - Part I p39
  • Siratun Nabi by Moulana Shibli Noumani, v1, p122
  • Fath al Bari vol 3 p 360-361 (Mentions a house from Hashim, a sword, some goats and five (5) camels).
  • Seerah al Halabiyah vol 1 p 56
  • Ansab al Ashraf v 1 p 96

When the first part of the tradition is proved wrong, then how can the second part that is "What we leave behind is to be given in charity", be true as well! This very statement also clearly violates the Verses that are stated in the Holy Quran, that are as follows:

"And Solomon (Sulaymaan) inherited from David." (Quran 27:16)

While both Sulaymaan and David were prophets and very wealthy. they were kings at their era. Allah , Exalted, also says:

"(Zakariya prayed to Allah by saying) ... Grant me a son from yourself, who inherits from me and inherit from the children of Jacob, and make him, O' my Lord, the one with whom you are well- pleased." (Quran: 19:5-6).

These are examples that Prophets left inheritances, and as might you have seen that they seem to contradict the hadith that was narrated by Abu Bakr.

The traditon mentioned by Abu Bakr is fabricated otherwise it would not contradict Quran. It would also be very helpful to cite an incident, where Imam Ali (AS) had quoted the verses of the Quran, the same as the ones cited above. The incident runs as follows:

It is reported by Jafar that Fatimah came to Abu Bakr to demand her inheritance. Ibn Abbas also came to demand his inheritance, Ali ibn Talib also came with him. Abu Bakr said that the Prophet of Allah (PBUH) had said: "We do not make any heir to inherit our property, what we leave is charity, and the support that he gave them is now my responsibility."

Ali said: "Prophet Sulayman was the heir of Prophet Da'ud. Prophet Zakariya prayed to Allah: `Bestow upon me a son, who is heir to me and the family of Yaqoub.'"

Abu Bakr said: "The matter of the Prophet's legacy is as it is. By Allah ! You know it as I do."

Ali said: "And see what the Book of Allah is saying."

  • Sunni reference: Tabaqat Ibn Sad, v4, p121-122

This report proves that the descendants of Muhammad did not regard the tradition, put forward by Abu Bakr in response to Fatima's claim for the inheritance, as true rather they refuted it through the verses of the Quran which they say that Allah has made the prophets heirs to one another.

Apart from Will or Gift, as discussed above, if we just examine the witnesses presented in the court of Abu-Bakr when Fatimah demanded this property, we will find that this again violates the Islamic witness Laws. Fatimah presented (if my brother Ali believes that it was true) one male/and or one woman in her claim.

As per the Quranic Laws, more witnesses were required. One man or Two women. I am sure brother Ali will not change the entire divine law just because of the personalities involved.

There are also many instances when Abu Bakr never asked for any witness when people made claim to the promise of the Prophet (PBUH). I would as usual rely on the authentic sources of hadith for my Sunni brethren and sisters:

Sahih al-Bukahri Hadith 3.848 (page 525)

Narrated Muhamamd Ibn Ali:

Jabir Ibn Abdullah said: `When the Prophet (PBUH) died, Abu Bakr received some property from al-Ala al-Hadrami. Abu Bakr said to the people, ' whoever has a money claim on the Prophet (PBUH) or was promised something by him , should come to us, (so that we may pay him right). ' Jabir added: `I said (to Abu Bakr), Allah's Apsotle (PBUH) promised me that he would give me this much, and this much, and this much (spreading his hands three times). Jabir added, ' Abu Bakr counted for me and handed me five hundred (500) gold pieces, and then five hundred, and then five hundred.

Sunni references:

  • Sahih, Muslim, vol 7 p 75-76
  • Sahih, al Tirmizi, vol 5 p 129
  • Musnad, Ahmad Hanbal, vol 3 p 307-308
  • Tabaqat, Ibn Sa'ad, vol 2 part 2 p 88-89

In the annotations of this tradition, Ibn Hajar Asqalani and Ahmad al Ayni al Hanafi have written:

This tradition leads to the conclusion that the evidence of one just companion can also be admitted as full evidence though it may be in his own favor, because Abu Bakr did not ask Jabir to produce any witnes in proff of his claim.

Sunni references:

  • Fath al Bari, vol 5 p 380 (Ibn Hajar Asqalani)

  • Umdatul Qari, vol 12 p 121 (al Hanafi)

It it was lawful to allow property to Jabir on the basis of good impression;

without calling for witness or evidence, then what stopped allowing Fatimha's claim on the basis of similar good impression? If good impression could exist in the case of Jabir to such an effect that he would not benefit by speaking a lie, then why should there not be the good belief about Fatimah (as) that she would not attribute a false saying to the Prophet (PBUH&HF) just for a piece of land.

Firstly, her admitted truthfulness and honesty was enough for holding her truthful in her claim and evidence of Imam Ali (as) and Umm Ayman in her favor was also available besides her other evidences. It has been said that the claim could not be decided in favor of Fatimah (as) on the basis of two witnesses because the Holy Quran lays down the principle of evidence that: [ 2 : 282 ]

... then call witness two witnesses from among your men and if there not be two men, then (take) a man and two women...

If this principal is universal and general then it shoudl be taken into regard on every occasion, but one some occasion it is found not to have been followed; for example when an Arab had a dispute with the Prophet (PBUH&HF) about a camel,

Khuzaymah ibn Thabit al Ansari gave evidence in favour of the Prophet (PBUH&HF), and this one evidence was deemed to be equal to two, because there was no doubt in the honesty and the truthfulness of the individual in whose favor the evidence was led. It was for this reason that the Holy Prophet (PBUH&HF) granted him the title of Dhush Shahadatayn (one whose evidence is equivalent to the evidence of two witnesses)

Sunni references:

  • al Bukhari, vol 4 p 24, vol 6 p 146
  • Sunan of Abu Dawood, vol 3 p 308
  • Suna of an Nasai, vol 7 p 302
  • Musnad of Ahmad Hanbal, vol 5 p 188-89. 216, vol 2 p 448
  • Usudul Ghaba, vol 2 p 114
  • al Isabah, vol 2 p 425-26

Consequently, neither was the generality of the verse about the evidence affected by this action nor was it deemed to be against the cannons of evidence. So, if here in view of the Prophet's (PBUH&HF) truthfulness, one evidence in his favor was deemed to be equal to two, then could not the evidence of Ali and Umm Ayman be regarded enough for Fatima in view of moral greatness and truthfulness?

Also there is a tradition mentioned by more than twelve companions that The Messenger of Allah (PBUH&HF) used to decide cases on the strength of one witness and the taking oath.

It has been explained by some companions of the Prophet (PBUH&HF) and 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 Uthman

Sunni references:

  • Sahih, Muslim, vol 5 p 128
  • Sunan, Abu Dawood, vol 3 p 308-309
  • Sahih, Tirmidhi, vol 3 627-29
  • Sunan, Ibn Majah, vol 2 p 793
  • Musnad, Ahmad Hanbal, vol 1 p 248, 315, 323, vol 3 p 305
  • al Muwatta, Malik, vol 2 p 721-25
  • Sunan, al Bayhaqi, vol 10 p 167-176
  • Suna, ad Darqutani, vol 4 p 212-215
  • Majma az Zawaid, vol 4 p 202
  • Kanz al Ummal, vol 7 p 13

Now brother Khalid, a few points

  • Why did Abu Bakr not call upon witnesses at the time of his giving away the gold pieces that was in accordance with the promise of the Holy Prophet (PBUH). Why did he take their statement for granted that the Prophet (PBUH) had made a promise?

  • On the contrary when Fatimah, the daughter of the Prophet whom he called the Chief of the women of the Worlds, made a claim for Fadak, then witnesses were called upon to appear before the caliph and one some pretext or other their evidence was rejected!

Most important, I would like to ask brother Ali, that after all Ali (RAA), himself became Caliph after Usman. Why he did not grant this property to Fatimah as the inheritance of RasulAllah? Question is how come Ali (RAA), in his caliph ship, deprived of its rightful owners. If it is ok to call Abu-Bakr or Omar as oppressors, then all those who did not grant this property to Fatima, should also be declared Oppressors. Makes sense or not. Measuring rod should be the same for everyone!

According to the following traditions from Sahih al-Bukhari, Umar, during his reign, gave the property to Imam Ali (AS) and Abbas. So there was nothing for Imam Ali to retake when he became Caliph. However, the tradition implies that Umar gave Fadak to Imam Ali to manage it, and spend its revenues for the sake of Allah. The tradition also confirms that Imam Ali overpowered Abbas and took over the land (after he became Caliph), and the Imam Hasanin herited the land, till it was usurped again (by Umayad). Here is the tradition:

Sahih Bukhari Hadith: 5.367

'Umar said to 'Ali and 'Abbas: "... I kept this property in my possession for the first two years of my rule (i.e. Caliphate and I used to dispose of it in the same wa as Allah's Apostle and Abu Bakr used to do; and Allah knows that I have been sincere, pious, rightly guided an the follower of the right (in this matte Later on both of you (i.e. 'Ali and Abbas) came to me, and the claim of you both was one and the same, O 'Abbas! You also came to me. 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, ... this property was in the hands of Ali who took it from 'Abbas and overpowered him. Then it came in the hands of Hasan Ibn 'Ali, then in the hands of Husain Ibn 'Ali, and then in the hands of Ali Ibn Husain and Hasan Ibn Hasan, and each of the last two used to manage it in turn, then it came in the hands of Zaid Ibn Hasan, and it was truly the Sadaqa of Allah's Apostle."

I am not sure (according to Shia) if Muawiyah usurped the Fadak at the time of Imam Hasan and Imam Husain or not. Nevertheless it was usurped shortly after. See also tradition 4.326. As we see in the above tradition, if Imam Ali believed that this is charity, he wouldn't ask for his share from Umar, nor would he drive Abbas out of the land.

The following traditions clearly mention that Imam Ali claimed the land. Do you think Imam Ali who lived with Prophet, who was the first man who embraced Islam, and was the most knowledgeable companion, did not know what the rule of Allah is?

Sahih Bukhari Hadith: 8.720

Narrated Malik Ibn Aus:

'Umar said to 'Ali and 'Abbas: "... Then I took charge of this property for two years during which I managed it as Allah's Apostle and Abu Bakr did. Then you both ('Ali and 'Abbas) came to talk to me, bearing the same claim and presenting the same case.

(O 'Abbas!) You came to me asking for your share from the property of your nephew, and this man (Ali) came to me, asking for the share of his wife from the property of her father. I said, 'If you both wish, I will give that to you on that condition (i.e. that you would follow the way of the Prophet and Abu Bakr and as I (Umar) have done in managing it).' ... If you are unable to manage it, then return it to me, and I will be sufficient to manage it on your behalf.' "

Sahih Bukhari Hadith: 9.408

Narrated Malik Ibn Aus An-Nasri:

... Then he (Umar) turned to 'Ali and 'Abbas and said, "You both claim that Abu Bakr did so-and-so in managing the property, but Allah knows that Abu Bakr was honest, righteous, intelligent, and a follower of what is right in managing it. Then Allah took Abu Bakr unto Him, 'I said: I am the successor of Allah's Apostle and Abu Bakr.' So I took over the property for two years and managed it in the same way as Allah's Apostle, and Abu Bakr used to do.

Then you both ('Ali and 'Abbas) came to me and asked for the same thing! (O 'Abbas!) You came to me to ask me for your share from nephew's property; and this ('Ali) came to me asking for his wives share from her father's property, and I said to you both, 'If you wish, I will place it in your custody on condition that you both will manage it in the same way as Allah's Apostle and Abu Bakr did and as I have been doing since I took charge of managing it;

My brother Ali, when quoting RasulAllahs Hadith concerning Fatimah whosoever hurts her, hurts me, is perhaps not aware of the background of this hadith. Here is when and how it became necessary for RasulAllah to say this.

It is narrated by Imam Zain- Ul- Abaideen Ali Ibn Hussain and Abu-Mulaika through Miswar Ibn Muhazma and further endorsed by Abdullah Ibn Zubair. Bokhari, Muslim, Abu-Daood, Ibn-e-Maja, Trinddi and Hakim have all narrated this in their various book. Anyhow the story is: After the conquer of Mecca, when the family of Abu- Jahl embraced Islam, Ali wanted to to marry Abu-Jahl's daughter named Jamila (some say Auora and some say her name was Jewaira). ...

Fatimah came to know the intentions of Ali and went to RasulAllah and said. Upon this RasulAllah delivered this sermon: OBani Hasham Ibn Mughaira wants to marry his daughter to Ali and has asked my permission. I don't approve it. I don't approve it.

I don't approve it. Abu Talib's son can divorce my daughter and marry his daughter. My daughter is my piece. Whatever is unpleasant to her is unpleasant to me and whoever will give her pain will give me pain ... But please note that it was perfectly halal for Ali to do so and that is why he thought of it.

After all RasulAllah himself had many marriages and that is why RasulAllah never said that it is Haram. He only disliked the idea for reasons of Abu-Jahls old enmity of Islam. This family embraced Islam after the Conquer of Mecca and it was too early to tell if they had a change of heart or it was only to get into RasulAllah's house.

The above story that you have cited is considered weak, because of its narrator, Miswar Ibn Muhazma, and as usual I shall cite Sunni references to prove my point. This person that you have mentioned, i.e., Miswar Ibn Muhazma, was related to Abdul Rahman Ibn Auf, and he was born 2 (two) years after the Hijrah and he came to Medina in the end of the Eight (8th) Year of the Hijrah. The Sunni hadith Scholar, Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani states as follows Born in Mecca two (2) years after the Hijrah, and he came to Medina with his father in the end of the month of Zhilhajjah for the year 8th (eight) hijri.

Sunni reference: Tahdhib al-Tahdhib, v10, p151

Now a few points, this would make Miswar only 6 (six) years old and according to the standard set by the hadith scientists, any hadith that is narrated by a child (minor) is not to be accepted. I am not saying this on the basis of my knowledge, infact I am borrowing words from the mouth of great Sunni Scholar and Historian from India ' Maulana Shibli Numani '. In his volumnious work on the Seerah of the Prophet, where he scrutinizes the nature of the reports (hadiths) and the status of the narrator, he writes:

For instance a commonly debated question is this: Is it necessary to impose the age limit for narrators?

Furthermore he also states the belief held by Imam Shafi'i that 'He is inclined not to accept a narration referring to the experience of a minor.'

Sunni reference: Siratun Nabi (The Life of the Prophet) by Shibli Numani English Edition , p55

Furthermore it also reminds me of the saying from the lady (Jewaira) at the time of the conquest of Mecca, when Bilal gave the call of the Prayer from the House of Allah (The Kaabah)

God has saved my father from hearing the unpleasent voice of Bilal in the Kaabah !

How do you expect me to believe that Imam Ali (AS) would offer his hand to an un-believer?

In the end, would be very unfair not to look at the arguments presented by the Sunnis in favor of their First Caliph, Abu Bakr. In the footnote of Sahih Muslim, the commentator writes:

It was a sort of a misgiving on the part of the Hadrat Fatimah that Hadrat Abu Bakr was reluctant to give the due share of her part of her great father. Noble Abu Bakr could not conceive of that. He had intense love and affection for the family of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) but he was not yielding to her demand since he found it against the verdict of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) in regards to the legacy of the Prophets as we find in a hadith!

  • Footnote of Sahih Muslim, v3, p958 (English), footnote number 2235

How can it be a misgiving on the part of the Chief of the Women in Paradise when Her highness was bestowed by the Prophet (PBUH&HF) himself the title of al-Siddiqah? How can the commentator accuse her of a misgiving when She was also known as The Splendid One, The Chaste and The Pure One? How can any Muslim accuse Her of a misgiving with the facts in mind that the Quran talks about her in the following Verses

* The Verse of Purity (Chapter 33 Verse 33)

* The Verse of Imprecation (Mubihala Chapter 3 Verse 61)

How can we take it for fact that what Abu Bakr stated was a hadith of the Holy Prophet (PBUH&HF) when the statement is in direct contradiction with not only Historical facts, Interpreatations of the Sunni Commentators, but also with the Quranic injunctions?