Sunni Hadeeth: The Prophet gave Fadak as a gift to Fatima? (another Shia excuse)

Hadeeth: Prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) gave fadak as gift to Fatima (r.a).

It was narrated from Abu Saeed al-Hudri that after Allah revealed verse (surah al-Isra, 26 )“And give to the near of kin his due and (to) the needy and the wayfarer, and do not squander wastefully”, prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) called Fatima (r.a) and gave her land of Fadak as a present.

This hadeeth is pure lie upon our beloved prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam).

First of all we should notice that this verse revealed in Mecca, and Fadak become a land of Moslems only after hijra (see commentary of ibn Kathir). Second, if that happen, then why did she come to Abu Bakr, and asked him about property, which was already in her possession?

These two points are enough reason to reject this narration, as a pure lie. But in addition to that we would examine chain of this hadeeth.

Ibn Adi in “Kamil fi duafa” (5/190) narrated it from Abu Saeed via chain: Narrated to me al-Qasim ib Zakariya, which said: narrated to me Abbad ibn Yaqub, which said: narrated to me Ali ibn Abis from Fudayl ibn Marzuq from ‘Atiyyah from Abu Saeed al-Hudri.

This chain is good example of shia way of transmission.

1) Abbad ibn Yaqub Koofe. Shia. Abu Hatim and Ibn Khuzayma said he’s thiqat. Ibn Adi said: “And Abbad ibn Yaqub, known from people of Kofa, and in him quluw in at-tashayu, and he narrated ahadeth, which were rejected from him, in praise of ahlalbayt, and harm of others”. It was reported that he use to say: “Allah is just, to let Talha and Zubayr enter the heaven”. And it was narrated that he use to abuse Uthman (Mizzi “Tahzib al-kamal” 14/#3104). Ibn Hibban said: “He was caller to rafd, and along with that narrated manakir from famous people, deserve to be abandoned”. Dhahabi said that he was from qulatu shia, and from the head of innovations, but saduq in his narrations. (“Mizanul itidal” 2/379/#4149). Hatib mentioned that ibn Khuzayma stopped narrating from Abbad in the end (“Tahzib at-tahzib” 5/#183). Ibn Jawzi included Abbad in his book on weak and abandoned narrators, and cited there opinion of scholars (“Duafa wal matrukin” 2/p77).

2) Ali ibn Abis. Ibn Maeen said he’s nothing. Juzajani, Azdi, Nasai said he’s weak. Ibn Hibban said he made terrible mistakes, and deserve to be abandoned. (“Mizanul itidal” 3/134/#5872). Ibn Jawzi included him in “Duafa wal matrukin” (2/p195) and noticed that Sade and others said he’s weak. Saji said he had manakir (“Tahzib at-tahzib”7/#571). Ibn Adi said that his ahadeth to be recorded, along with his weakness (“Kamil fi duafa” 5/#1347). Dhahabi in “Kashaf” (#3934) noticed his weakness. Ibn Hajar said he’s weak in “Taqrib” (#4757)

3) Fudayl ibn Marzuq. His personality is a matter of disagreement between scholars. bn Maeen, Sufyan ibn Ueyna said he’s thiqat. And it was narrated that ibn Maeen weakened him (see also ibn Shahin “Tarih asma thiqat” #1122). Nasai said he’s weak, same opinion shared Uthman ibn Saeed. Dhahabi in “Mizan” said: “Abu Abdullah al-Hakim said: “Fudayl ibn Marzuq isn’t from conditions of sahih, it’s pity that Moslem narrated from him in Sahih”. Ibn Hibban said: “His ahadeth are extremely munkar, and he was from those who erred upon truthful (when narrated from them), and he narrated FABRICATIONS FROM ATIYYAH (Here he also narrating from ‘Atiyyah). I (Dhahabi) say: ATIYYAH IS MORE WEAK THAN HIM (And he said he’s thiqat in “Kashaf” #4492). Ibn Adi said: “If his ahadeth would be in line with ahadeth of truthful, he can me relied on in such cases”. (See “Mizanul itidal” 3/362/# 6772). Ibn Abu Hatim narrated from his father, that he said about ibn Marzuq: “He was saduq, salihul-hadeeth, erred a lot, his ahadeth to be recorded”, I (ibn Abu Hatim) asked: “He’s to be rely on”? He said: “No” (“Jarh wa tadil” 7/#423). Ibn Jawzi included him in “Duafa wal matrukin” (3/p9) and said: “Yahya said: “Thiqat”, and once said: “Weak”. Ar-Razi said: “Not to be rely on”. Ibn Hibban said: “Erred upon thiqat, and narrated from ‘Atiyyah  fabrications”.

Abu Bakr ibn Athram narrated that when Imam Ahmad was asked about ibn Marzuq, he answered: “I don’t know anything except good about him” (“Sualat Abu Bakr ibn Athram li Ahmad ibn Hanbal” p 166/#239).

4) Last problem of this chain is ‘Atiyyah h ibn Sad al-Awfe al-Koofe. Scholars of Islam almost agreed upon his weakness.  Dhahabi, Abu Hatim, Nasai, Ahmad said he’s weak (“Mizanul itidal” 3/79/#5667). He was also weakned by Sufyan Thawri and Ibn Adi (“Tahzib al-kamal” 20/#3956).  Heythami in “Majmau zawaid” #11125 said Atiyyah weak, abandoned.

Shaykh Muhammad Albani in his book on tawasul discussed ‘Atiyyah : “‘Atiyyah is weak as declared by an -Nawawee in al-Adhkaar, Ibn Taimiyyah in al-Qaa’idatul-Jaliyyah and adh-Dhahabee in al-Meezaan; indeed in ad-Du’afaa (88/1) he says: “They are agreed upon his weakness.” Also by al-Haafidh al-Haithamee in various places in Majma’uz-Zawaa’id from them (5/236). He is also mentioned by Aboo Bakr ibn al-Muhibb al-Ba’labakee in ad-Du’afaa wal-Matrookeen, and by al-Boosayree as will follow. Likewise al-Haafidh Ibn Hajr says of him: “Truthful but makes many mistakes; he was a Sbee’ee mudallis.” So he clarifies this narrator’s weakness and it is due to two things: (i) The weakness of his memory as shown by his saying: “He makes many mistakes.” This is like his saying about him in Tabaqaatul-Mudalliseen: “weak in hadeeth” Even more clear is his saying about him in “Talkbeesul-Habeer (p.24l, Indian edn.) whilst discussing another hadeeth: “It contains ‘Atiyyah ibn Sa’eed al-‘Awfee and he is weak.” (ii) His tadlees. However al-Haafidh should have explained the type of tadlees which he performed, since tadlees with the scholars of hadeeth is of many types, the most well-known of which are:

(a)      That a narrator reports a narration from someone he met when in fact he did not directly hear that narration from him, or that he narrated something from a contemporary whom he did not actually meet, giving the impression that he heard it from him. For example by saying ‘From so and so’ or ‘so and so said.’

(b)     That the narrator calls his Shaikh by an unfamiliar name or title, different to the name by which he is commonly known in order to hide his true identity. The scholars have clearly stated that this is something forbidden if his Shaikh was an unreliable narrator, and he does this to hide his identity or to give the impression that he was a different reliable narrator with the same name or title.103 This is known as tadleesusb-Shuyookh.

So in conclusion we say that ‘Atiyyah used to narrate from Aboo Sa’eed al – Khudree, radiyallaahu ‘anhu, then when he died he used to sit with one of the great liars well known for lying about hadeeth, who was al-Kalbee. Then ‘Atiyyah used to narrate from him, but when doing so would call him ‘Aboo Sa’eed’ to give the impression to those listening that he had heard these narrations from Aboo Sa’eed al-Khudree! This to me in itself would be enough to destroy the credibility of ‘Atiyyah, so how about when we have in addition to it his weak memory! Therefore I would have been pleased for al -Haafidh to clarify the fact that it was this evil type of tadlees which ‘Atiyyah was guilty of, even if only by an indication as he does in Tabaqaatul-Mudalliseen by his saying:

“Well-known for evil tadlees” as has preceded. It is as if al-Haafidh forgot or erred, or something else, as humans are prone to make mistakes some – times, since he says about this hadeeth that in one narration ‘Atiyyah says:

“Aboo Sa’eed narrated to me,” and he himself says about this: “Therefore through this we know that we are safe from ‘Atiyyahs tadlees,” as Ibn ‘Alaan narrated from him, and some modern day authors follow him blindly in that. I say: This declaration that he heard it from him would only be of use if his tadlees were of the first type, but the tadlees of ‘Atiyyah is of the second and worse type and will not be cured by this statement since he still said “Aboo Sa’eed narrated to me” which is exactly the evil type of tadlees which he is known for.104 So from what has preceded it will be clear that ‘Atiyyah is weak due to his poor memory and evil tadlees, so this hadeeth of his is weak. As for the declaration of al-Haafidh that it is hasan, which has beguiled some people who have no knowledge, then it is founded upon inadvertence. So be aware and do not be amongst those who are unaware. In the hadeeth there are other weaknesses which I have spoken about in the aforementioned book, so there is no need to repeat them since whoever wishes can refer to that.

As for the understanding of some people today that the saying of al-Haafidh Ibn Hajr in at-Taqreeb amounts to declaration of the reliability of ‘Atiyyah, then this is something which is not correct at all. I also asked Shaikh Ahmad ibn as- Haafidh upon this saying after our explanation of the type of tadlees which ‘Atiyyah is guilty of, then this person is biased and following his desires. This is the case with one who quoted this saying of al-Haafidh, using it as a reply to my declaration of the weakness of the hadeeth. I say that he is biased since I know that he is aware of the type of tadlees committed here and which is spoken of by me; this is because he is replying to these words of mine about this hadeeth.  However he feigns ignorance of that fact and doesn’t say a single word in reply to it. Rather he pretends that the tadlees was of the first kind which can be removed by a narration where it is clearly stated that a narrator heard it directly from his Shaikh. Will the readers excuse me if I say:

Do such people not themselves deserve to be placed amongst those guilty of tadlees like ‘Atiyyah?!

Siddeeq when I met him in the Zaahiriyyah Library in Damascus about thi s understanding and he too found it very strange. For when the mistakes of a narrator become many his reliability is destroyed, as opposed to one whose mistakes are few. The first of these is weak whereas the second is hasan in hadeeth. This is why al-Haafidh in Sharhun-Nukhbah says, that one whose mistakes are many is the partner of one whose memory is poor, and he declares the ahaadeeth of both of them to be rejected, so refer back to that along with the footnotes of Shaikh ‘Alee al-Qaaree (pp.!21&130).  These people have been deceived by what they report from al -Haafidh that he said in Takbreejul-Adhkaar. “The weakness of ‘Atiyyah is due to his being a Shee’ee, and due to the fact that it is said that he committed tadlees; apart from this he is acceptable. “ So these people, due to their paucity of knowledge or their lack of knowledge, do not have the courage to explain their view that the scholars do indeed make mistakes. Rather they quote their words as if they are secure from any error or slip whatsoever, especially if their words agree with what they desire, such as is the case with this quote. Since it is clear here that these words run contrary to the saying of al-Haafidh in at-Taqreeb where he shows that ‘Atiyyah is weak due to two reasons:

(i) Being a Shee’ee, which is not always a cause of weakness in the correct saying, and (ii) Tadlees which is a weakness that can be removed as will follow. However he seemed to weaken this reason by saying: “It is said…” Whereas in at-Taqreeb he definitely stated that he is a mudallis, just as he declares him to be a shee’ee. Therefore al-Haafidh himself also says of him in Tabaqaatul-Mudalliseen (p. 18): “A well known  taabi’ee , weak in memory and well-known for evil tadlees!’ and he mentions him in the fourth level about whom he says: “Those about whom there is agreement then none of their hadeeth are acceptable unless they state clearly that they heard it directly. This is due to their frequency in reporting by means of tadlees from weak and unknown narrators, such as Baqiyyah ibn al-Waleed.”

He mentions this in his introduction. So both of these are clear statements from al-Haafidh himself which prove that he erred in the sentence in question when casting doubt upon the status of ‘Atiyyah as a mudallis. This is one way in which there is contradiction between this saying and what is found in at- Taqreeb. Then a further way in which there is contradiction is that in the sentence  in question he fails to describe him with what is another cause of his weakness, as has preceded from him in the quote from Sharhun-Nukhbab,and that is his saying in at-Taqreeb: “He makes many mistakes.” All of this shows us that al-Haafidh, rahimahullaah, was not aided by his memory at the instance of his commenting upon this hadeeth. He therefore fell into this shortcoming which is witnessed to by his words in the other books which have more right to be depended upon. This is because in those books he quotes directly from the sources and abridges what they say, as opposed to what he does inTakhreejul-Adhkaar. (end of quote from shaykh Albani)

One thought on “Sunni Hadeeth: The Prophet gave Fadak as a gift to Fatima? (another Shia excuse)

Comments are closed.