Shiite Narration: Fadak includes Africa, Aden, Armenia and Samarqand!

 بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

In the Name of Allah, the Rahman, the Merciful

سبوح قدوس رب الملائكة والروح

Holy, Holy, Lord of the Angels and the Spirit

يا نبي سلام عليك

Peace be upon you, O Prophet

The Islamic doctrine that Prophets of God do not leave behind an inheritance of material wealth but rather an inheritance of knowledge is questioned and challenged by the Shiites, especially in relation to the problem of Fadak.

They cite the Ayah of the Holy Quran in which is the supplication of the Prophet Zechariah:

فَہَبۡ لِیۡ مِنۡ لَّدُنۡکَ وَلِیًّا

یَّرِثُنِیۡ وَیَرِثُ مِنۡ اٰلِ یَعۡقُوۡبَ

Grant me a successor from Yourself

To inherit from me and to inherit from the House of Jacob

(Surah 19, Ayah 5 & 6)

Concerning this Ayah, a Hadith is attributed to the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him:

رحمَ اللهُ أَخِي زكريَّا ما كان عليهِ من ورَثَةِ مالِهِ حينَ يقولُ هَبْ لِي مِنْ لَدُنْكَ وَلِيًّا يَرِثُنِي وَيَرِثُ مِنْ آلِ يَعْقُوبَ

May Allah have mercy on my brother Zechariah, for he was in charge of his inheritance of wealth when he said, “Grant me from Yourself an heir who will inherit me and inherit from the House of Jacob.” (Tafsir al-Tabari, v.15, p.459)

But this narration is mursal, as al-Hasan al-Basri, may Allah have mercy on him, is narrating directly from the Prophet, peace be upon him, without any mention of the Sahabi in the sanad. Furthermore, this narration does not actually say that Yahya, peace be upon him, or anyone else inherited wealth from Zechariah, peace be upon him, but only that the latter made the prayer mentioned in the Quran (Surah 19:5-6) while he possessed an inheritance of wealth. Subsequent narrations brought out by Ibn Jarir al-Tabari from the Prophet, peace be upon him, which are also marasil, do not have the word “his wealth” (Tafsir al-Tabari, v.15, p.460):

Nor does it make any sense for Zechariah, a righteous Prophet and Priest, to pray fervently to Allah merely for someone to inherit his material wealth. Rather, the Sunni interpretation is sounder that he prayed for someone to inherit him in Prophethood and knowledge, as has been mentioned by al-Hasan al-Basri, Mujahid bin Jabr and al-Suddi, may Allah have mercy on them.

According to a Shiite narration, the third Abbasid ruler al-Mahdi once asked the seventh Imam Musa al-Kazim, may Allah have mercy on him, about the boundaries of Fadak:

 

فقال له المهدي يا أبا الحسن حدها لي فقال حد منها جبل احد وحد منها عريش مصر وحد منها سيف البحر وحد منها دومة الجندل فقال له كل هذا

قال نعم يا أمير المؤمنين هذا كله إن هذا كله مما لم يوجف على أهله رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله بخيل ولا ركاب فقال كثير وأنظر فيه

Al-Mahdi said to him, “O Abul-Hasan, define its boundaries for me.” He replied, “One boundary is Mount Uhud, another is Arish of Egypt, another is the coast, and another is Dumat al-Jandal.” Al-Mahdi asked, “All of these?” He said, “Yes, O Commander of the Faithful, all of these. All of this was not conquered by the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) with horses or camels.” Al-Mahdi said, “That is a lot. I will look into it.” (Usul al-Kafi, Manshurat al-Fajr, Beirut, Lebanon, v.1, p.349)

Incidentally, according to this narration Imam Musa al-Kazim addressed the Abbasid ruler al-Mahdi as “Amir ul-Muminin” which nullifies the Imamiyyah doctrine that only the Twelve Imams are commanders of the faithful.

The Twelver Shiites must therefore accept that Fadak was not the relatively small oasis north of Medina, but is in fact the entire territory between Mount Uhud to the south, Arish in Egypt to the west, Dumat al-Jandal to the north and some coast to the east. Some Shiite polemicists argue that the boundaries of Fadak as demarcated by the seventh Imam Musa al-Kazim merely uses the name Fadak figuratively to describe the right of Ahl al-Bayt to a much larger domain. But this explanation is insufficient since the narration has Imam Musa saying:

كله مما لم يوجف على أهله رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله بخيل ولا ركاب

“All of this was not conquered with cavalry and camel during the time of the Messenger of Allah, blessing upon his and his family.”

The implication is that according to this narration attributed to Imam Musa al-Kazim, Fadak really does compose all the territory demarcated, including Arish which is in the north of the Sinai Peninsula, in modern-day Egypt. In other words, all of that territory supposedly came into the possession of the Prophet, peace be upon him, as Fay—territory and wealth that is captured without combat. Yet, all historians are agreed that Arish in Egypt was never captured during the time of the Prophet, peace be upon him, rather the Muslims took possession of it during the Caliphate of Umar al-Faruq, may Allah be pleased with him.

Another Shiite narration, in which the fifth Abbasid ruler, Harun al-Rashid, offers to hand over Fadak to Imam Musa, has the latter demarcating its boundaries, extending them from Aden in Yemen in the south, Armenia in the north, Africa in the west and Samarqand in the east!

ان هارون الرشيد كان يقول لموسى بن جعفر

خذ فدكا حتى أردها إليك فيأبى حتى ألح عليه فقال لا آخذها إلا بحدودها قال وما حدودها قال ان حددتها لم تردها قال بحق جدك إلا فعلت قال اما الحد الأول فعدن فتغير وجه الرشيد وقال أيها قال والحد الثاني سمرقند فأربد وجهه والحد الثالث إفريقية فاسود وجهه وقال هيه قال والرابع سيف البحر مما يلي الجزر وأرمينية قال الرشيد فلم يبق لنا شئ فتحول إلى مجلسي قال موسى قد أعلمتك انني إن حددتها لم تردها فعند ذلك عزم على قتله

Harun al-Rashid said to Musa bin Jafar, “Take Fadak, I will return it to you.” But he refused until al-Rashid persisted. Then Musa said, “I will only take it with its boundaries.” Harun asked, “And what are its boundaries?” Musa replied, “If I define them, you will not return it.” Harun said, “By the right of your grandfather, I will do it.” Musa said, “The first boundary is Aden.” Al-Rashid’s face changed, and said, “What?!” “The second boundary is Samarqand.” Al-Rashid's face darkened, and he said, “The third boundary is Africa.” Al-Rashid’s face turned black, and he said, “Ah!”, (Musa) said, “And the fourth is the coast towards the islands and Armenia.” Al-Rashid said, “Then we have nothing left” and turned to his council. Musa said, “I told you that if I define its boundaries, you will not return it.” At that point, al-Rashid resolved to kill him. (Manaqib Al Abi Talib, Dar al-Adwa, v.4, p.346)

Since the Shiites love to debate the problem of Fadak, this ancient land dispute, Sunni Muslims who engage them ought to make as a precondition for any such debate or discussion the demarcation of the actual boundaries of Fadak. Is it merely an oasis in the north of Arabia, or it is a massive territory extending from Africa to Samarqand, and from Armenia to Aden?

Exposing the Antichrist Shakil bin Hanif

 بِسۡمِ اللّٰہِ الرَّحۡمٰنِ الرَّحِیۡمِ

In the Name of Allah, the Rahman, the Merciful

سُبحانَ ذي الجبَروتِ والمَلَكوتِ والكِبرياء والعَظَمة

يا نبي سلام عليك

Yet another antichrist has appeared in India, pretending to be the Mahdi and Messiah. Shakil bin Hanif of Darbhanga, Bihar, in following the same pattern as those antichrists and false prophets who appeared before him, namely the like of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian and Sayyid Muhammad of Jaunpur, is hardly original in his narrative or argumentation.

Shakil bin Hanif

Like the Qadianis, Shakil bin Hanif and his deluded followers quote a Hadith:

وَلاَ الْمَهْدِيُّ إِلاَّ عِيسَى ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ

“There is no Mahdi except Jesus son of Mary”

(Sunan Ibn Maja, #4039)

and argue on its basis that the coming Mahdi and Messiah are in reality one individual not two. This Hadith is weak and by no means can be said to be the words of the Holy Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, with any degree of certainty. If, for the sake of argument, we accept this Hadith it still does not justify the claim of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad or Shakil bin Hanif that Jesus’s second coming is fulfilled in the person of an Imam of this Umma, namely, the Mahdi. Rather, it would be the opposite proposition, that there is no actual Mahdi to come from this Umma, but that such a role is fulfilled by Jesus son of Mary, the Israelite Prophet, in his second coming.

Shakil bin Hanif has done practically nothing to justify claiming such a lofty and critical role as being the Mahdi. He is simply one of many people who have the audacity to say they are something big but in reality their entire lives after the audacious announcement is spent merely in sophistry and polemics rather than doing anything practical in fulfilling the role they have assumed.

Shakil bin Hanif is even less impressive in his resume than those other notorious antichrists and false prophets that preceded him. He has left little in the way of writing or any other material to justify his claim or outline his teaching and mission. He remains aloof from the public, like a hermit, and there is very little production from him and his followers despite being in the age of social media. Yet, the figure of the expected Mahdi is meant to be an Imam of the Muslims, and one would expect him to be accessible, visible, and active in his ministry.

What little he has produced in the way of expounding upon his claim is a small booklet concerning the prophecies about the Mahdi, found in the Ahadith. One of those prophecies is that the name of the Mahdi and his father shall match the name of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, and his father:

اسْمُهُ اسْمِيَ وَاسْمُ أَبِيهِ اسْمَ أَبِي

“His name is my name and his father’s name is my father’s name”

(Sunan Abi Dawud)

However, Shakil son of Hanif is obviously not Muhammad son of Abdullah. Shakil bin Hanif says that it is common in India for Muslims to have the first name Muhammad or Ahmad in addition to another name by which they are called and known. Hence, he says his first name is Muhammad, but presents no official documentation to verify this. At any rate, it is clear that his father’s name is not Abdullah and this should surely disqualify him from being the Mahdi.

Shakil bin Hanif argues it is not necessary that in this prophecy the Prophet’s father refers to his biological father Abdullah, but instead could refer to his ancestor the Patriarch Abraham, peace be upon him. He explains that according to the Quran, Abraham is called both Khalil and Hanif, and therefore:

پس ظاہر ہے کہ مہدی علیہ السلام کے باپ کا نام خلیل یا حنیف  بھی ہو سکتا ہے۔

“The name of the Mahdi’s, peace be upon him, father could also be Khalil or Hanif.” (Mahdi ki Amad ki Peshengoiyan, p.43)

It should be evident to any reasonable person how far-fetched this attempt at mental gymnastics really is. Even if one were to accept the idea that perhaps by father the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, meant one of his ancestors, such as Ibrahim, but to go further than that and argue that even the name Ibrahim is not necessary for the father but rather an attributive name of Ibrahim, such as Khalil or Hanif, will do to fulfill the prophecy is simply ludicrous.

Shakil bin Hanif has made the prophecies about the Mahdi a mere plaything that can be easily manipulated by any individual with minimum effort to yield a result that identifies him as its fulfillment through sophistry and far-fetched interpretations.

The purpose of a prophecy about a coming figure is to obviously assist the people in identifying that person plainly. If such prophecies are actually riddles that can be so easily manipulated to identify virtually any person as its fulfillment then they become bereft of objective value and are rendered useless.

Another principal prophecy concerning the Mahdi is that he shall be from the bloodline of the Holy Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. The narrations make clear he shall be a descendant of the Prophet through the progeny of his daughter Fatima, peace be upon her. However, Shakil bin Hanif is not a Sayyid, meaning not from the caste that is descended from the Prophet, peace be upon him. In order to sidestep this apparently major problem for him, Shakil bin Hanif argues:

ہر شخص کے پاس  اب سے لیکر چودہ سو سال پیشتر زمانے کا نسب نامہ موجود نہیں ہوتا ہے اسلئے یہ کہا جاسکتا ہے کہ مہدیؑ کو اس بنیاد پر نہیں پہچانا جاسکتا ہے۔

“Not every person has a record of genealogy going back fourteen hundred years. For this reason it may be said that the Mahdi can’t really be identified on this basis.” (Ibid, p.46)

Firstly, those that are Sayyids, descendants of the Prophet, peace be upon him, have absolutely preserved their lineage and records of genealogy. Virtually all Sayyids today can produce their record of genealogy proving they are descendants of the Prophet, peace be upon him. Those unable to produce their genealogy or present it to the scholars for verification will legally not be considered Sayyids as per the Sharia.

Secondly, Shakil bin Hanif has rendered the prophecy about the Mahdi being a descendant of the Prophet, peace be upon him, meaningless since he says that after fourteen hundred years no one can prove their genealogy therefore it is useless to identify the true Mahdi based on his lineage! It should be obvious to any sane individual how grave the absurdity of Shakil bin Hanif’s statement is. In effect, he is not only indirectly accusing the Prophet, peace be upon him, of making a useless prophecy that could never be independently verified, but that Allah, Knower of the Unseen, could not anticipate that the Mahdi’s genealogy would be rendered uncertain since the his arrival would be delayed by over fourteen centuries! These are the lame excuses and far-fetched mental gymnastics of the antichrist Shakil bin Hanif to deceive naive and simple minded folk since he has nothing substantive to justify his claim to being the Mahdi.

However, admittedly, one of the more cunning and intelligent arguments of Shakil bin Hanif, which truly makes it fitting for him to be described as a dajjal, is his raising the doubt about prophecies concerning the Prophets, particularly the Messiah Jesus and the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon them.

Shakil bin Hanif argues that if the signs to identify the Mahdi have to be plain and straightforward to leave no room for ambiguity, then what do we make of the prophecies concerning the Messiah and how can we justify our belief that Jesus fulfills them without ambiguity? On the surface, this is a clever and serious objection.

But the truth is that prophecies about the Messiah, whom we believe were fulfilled in Jesus, and the prophecy of the Prophet like Moses, whom we believe is the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, are somewhat different than prophecies concerning the Mahdi or the second coming of Jesus. Prophets are primarily recognized and affirmed because they produce a heavenly Sign, such as a miracle, or speak a prophesy that is fulfilled in their lifetime. The same is not mentioned with regard to the Mahdi, who is not a Prophet, nor the second coming of Jesus. Therefore, the standard for recognizing a Prophets who came in history and for recognizing the Mahdi who is to come in the future are not the same.

Even so, the objection of Shakil bin Hanif that Jesus did not plainly and explicitly fulfill the prophecies concerning the Messiah does not have merit. Shakil bin Hanif says:

یہ بات صاف لفظوں میں کہیں لکھی نہ تھی کہ وہ بغیر باپ کے یعنی کنواری مریم کے بطن سے پیدا ہوگا اور نہ ہی کسی کے گمان میں پہلے سے یہ بات تھی۔

“It was not written anywhere in clear words that he would be born without a father, that is, from the womb of the Virgin Mary, nor did anyone prior to it ever imagine such a thing.” (Ibid, p.47)

This is simply untrue, and exposes the ignorance of Shakil bin Hanif. The Prophet Isaiah prophesied:

“Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” (Isaiah 7:14)

In the Septuagint, the Greek word used is parthenos, which means virgin.

Another claim by Shakil bin Hanif:

اسی طرح یہ بھی واضح الفاظ میں کہیں نہ تھا کہ وہ بیت اللحم میں پیدا ہوگا

“Similarly, it was not worded explicitly that he would be born in Bethlehem.” (Mahdi ki Amad ki Peshengoiyan, p.47)

This too is false, and exposes either the ignorance or treachery of Shakil bin Hanif, for the Prophet Micah prophesied:

“But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” (Micah 5:2)

So the Bible certainly contains prophecies about the virgin birth and the birthplace of the Messiah as being Bethlehem.

Shakil bin Hanif has raised other objections, such as that the Messianic prophecy is concerning the “Son of David” whereas Jesus, born of the Virgin Mary, cannot be said to be a descendant of David, at least not patrilineally. Admittedly, this is a strong point. From an Islamic perspective, Jesus is merely called Messiah in the Quran. He is not necessarily the Davidic Messiah, at least as far as the Quran is concerned. The Dead Sea Scrolls mention two Messiahs, the Priestly Messiah (Messiah of Aaron) and the Davidic Messiah (Messiah of David). The Quran teaches that Jesus and Mary, being relatives of the Priest and Prophet Zechariah, are therefore descended from the Family of Amram. So I am inclined to believe, as a Muslim, that Jesus is actually the Priestly Messiah.

But Shakil bin Hanif rationalizes that God intentionally makes prophecies for the identification of a Prophet somewhat ambiguous so as to supply the unbelievers with some excuse to reject him:

پس سنت الٰہیہ یہی ہے کہ جب نبی کی معرفت کوئی پیشنگوئی کرائی جاتی ہے تو اسمیں کچھ جھول چھوڑ دی جاتی ہیں یعنی کچھ باتیں تو تمثیلوں میں کہی جاتی ہیں کچھ راز میں رکھی جاتی ہیں اور کچھ ایسی ہی ہوتی ہیں کہ جو واقعات کے صدور کے وقت نہ ماننے والوں کے لئے بہانے کا سبب بن جاتی ہیں

پیشینگوئیوں کو صاف صاف بیان نہ کئے جانے اور اسمیں کچھ جھول رکھے جانے کی اصل وجہ یہ ہے کہ اچھے اور برے لوگوں میں فرق پیدا ہو جائے اور متواضع لوگ متکبر لوگوں سے جدا ہو جائیں۔

“So, it is the Sunnah of Allah that when a prophecy is made through the Prophet, some gaps are left in it, that is, some things are said in parables, some are kept secret, and some are such that they become an excuse for those who do not believe in it when the events occur.

The real reason for not explaining the prophecies clearly and leaving some gaps in it is so that a distinction is made between good and bad people and that the humble people are separated from the arrogant.” (Mahdi ki Amad ki Peshengoiyan, pp.49, 53)

In principle, what Shakil bin Hanif has said is essentially true. But his deception is in appealing to this principle to justify his blatant manipulation of the prophecies concerning the Mahdi whereby they become meaningless and a mere plaything in the hand of any individual who seeks to make them mean whatever he wishes.

And Allah and His Apostle know best!