more perfect than Fātima’s. If he is to be censured for his grief, then Fātima is more deserving of such censure. Otherwise, Abu Bakr has a stronger claim not to be censured for grieving over the Prophet—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—than others who grieved over him after his death.

If it is said, “Abu Bakr grieved only for himself, fearing that the unbelievers would kill him,” the reply is: “This contradicts your claim that he was the Prophet’s enemy and that the Prophet had taken him along lest his undertaking become known.”

It may also be answered: “This is disproved by what is known through mass-transmitted reports about Abu Bakr’s conduct toward the Prophet—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—and by what Allah has made obligatory upon the believers.”

Then we say: Suppose that he grieved both for himself and for the Prophet—may Allah bless him and grant him peace. Does he deserve to be reviled for that? Even supposing that he grieved out of fear that his enemy would kill him, this would not warrant such abuse.

Furthermore, even supposing that this was a sin, he had not restrained himself from it, but when the Prophet forbade it, he desisted. Allah Most High forbade the prophets many things, and they desisted from them; they were not censured for what they had done before the prohibition.

Moreover, these people relate accounts of ‘Alī and Fātima’s anguish and grief over losing the property of Fadak and other inherited property which imply that the person displaying such grief grieves only over the loss of worldly things. Yet Allah Most High says:

“So that you may not grieve over what has escaped you, nor exult over what He has given you.” [Surah al-Hadīd: 23]

He thus called upon people not to grieve over the worldly things they had missed. It is well known that grief over worldly matters is more deserving of prohibition than grief over matters of religion.