No I understand all their beliefs ( well not really everyday I read something on this forum that leaves me gobsmacked ) lets say their core beliefs about the Ahle bayt, Ali, the Imam etc etc
But what I don't understand how its crept into the core belief system. How and And everything regarding it. Didn't you just read by the reply by Pilot2020 that all my good deeds will be wasted ll my zakat, prayers, hajj etc etc if I don't believe in this Fadak situation.
To him his entire akhira depends on it while to me its not even very significant. And to be really honest. The first time I even heard or maybe paid any attention to this fandak thing was here on this forum. Because that it did not even exist for me!
So one of us is on a very deviated path here, where in once case its a matter of eternal damnation while for the other he doesn't even know it exists!
For sunnis, Islam was completed at Hajja tul widah with the ayah "This day I have perfected for you your religion and completed My favor upon you and have approved for you Islam as religion."
For shias, real Islam 'begins' at Ghadeer khumm after hajja tul wida. They say that after returning from Hajja tul wida all muslims except ahle bait (and I guess few others) turned into murtad (apostate). They believe in a chain of Imams (right guided leader) starting from Ali RA (jiska mein mola uska Ali mola) and ending with Imam Mahdi. The Imam will guide muslims of the particular era about what to do and how to pratice islam. There is no evidence for these beliefs from Quran or Sahih hadeeth but Shias call sunnis muslim (incomplete faith) but call themselves momin (complete faith).
As for fandak, there was a dispute because
1) Fatimah RA believed that she should get the right of the garden through inheritance as she was the daughter of Muhammad SAW
2) Abu Bakr RA believed that Prophets do not leave inheritance but all their property goes into public trust for all muslims to benefit instead of just the Ahle bait.
On the face of it Fatimah RA was correct because she had Quranic verses in support of her claims. If Quran says one thing and hadith says another thing, we go with Quranic verse. This is a well known rule in fiqh.
However, shias create a big conspiracy theory out of this and say Abu Bakr RA and Umar RA conspired against Alhe Bait and usurped their inheritance. This doesn't make any sense because both Abu Bakr and Umar lived a very simple life as Caliphs. Also by the time Umar RA was caliph muslims were defeating the mighty romans and persians. There was plenty of money going around and if Umar RA wanted wealth for himself he had far bigger fish to fry than garden like fadak which was worth 50,000 dinars.
This was clearly an administrative decision rather than a religious one. Maybe Abu Bakr RA made a mistake. But even if he committed a sin, it doesn't negate his services to Islam. I believe he was just trying to be just. He did not want to appear to give preferential treatment to Ahle Bait over other muslims. This doesnt mean he has hatred for Ahle Bait.
Abu bakr did not put the garden of fadak in his own use rather it was put into a trust for all muslims to benefit. This indicates that Abu bakr had no intention of usurping inheritance as claimed by shias.
I suggest shias to forget about this idea of masoomen and study Islam with an open mind. They will come to conclusion there was no conspiracy against Ahle Bait. It was individual, administrative decisions made by muslim caliphs at that time. Decision can be wrong, but it has to be followed. Ahle Bait and Ali RA followed the decisions of Abu Bakr, Umar and Usman and were also close to govt affairs.
These are undeniable facts which Shia try to rationalize by giving illogical excuses. Instead they should simply follow the example of Ali RA and Ahle bait and accept Abu bakr, Umar and Usman as good muslims and caliphs of Islam.