Allah (swt) declares in Surah Naml 027.016:
And Solomon was David’s heir. He said: “O ye people! We have been taught the speech of birds, and on us has been bestowed (a little) of all things: this is indeed Grace manifest (from Allah.)”
Al-Qur’an, Surah 27, Ayah 16, translated by Yusufali
The verse is clear proof that Suleiman (as) the son of a Prophet inherited from his father,hence the claim that the Prophet’s leave no inheritance for their children is a blatant lie. Sayyida Fatima (as) inherited her Prophet father, in exactly the same way that Suleiman (as) inherited from his Prophet father. Any ruling rejecting her entitlement to her father’s inheritance, contradicts the Qur’an.
In Ansar.Org’s masterpiece ‘Fadak Area Between Abu Baker and Fatima’, the author Muhammad Al-Khider provides the following explanation to this verse:
The same is applicable to the argument in which the verse “And Sulayman inherited Dawud” (an-Naml:16) is used as proof that the Ambiya do leave a material inheritance. The inheritance in this case was not of material possessions. Rather, it was of prophethood, wisdom and knowledge.
As evidence we shall rely on the following authentic Sunni sources wherein it is mentioned that Sulayman (as) inherited Kingdom and knowledge. Notice how they are two seperate things. If the defenders of Abu Bakr are to interpret Kingdom as meaning Prophetic knowledge – there would be no need to also use the word Kingdom. The Sunni scholars have distinguished the two by mentioning both forms of inheritance. Kingdom is a tangible asset, so refers to all material possessions that make up that kingdom. Knowledge is non tangible and it has been bestowed upon Sulayman as the Prophetic successor to his father.
We read in Tafseer Kashaf:
“Waris refers to Kingdom and Prophethood”
Tafseer Khazan:
“Allah’s statement {And Solomon was David’s heir} means (he inherited) prophethood, knowledge and kingdom.”
Tafseer Durre Manthur:
“Sulayman inherited both Kingdom and knowledge”
Dur al-Manthur fi Tafseer al-Mathur, Vol. 5, page 193
Allamah Nisaburi records in Tafseer Gharaib al-Quran:
“Allah’s statement {And Solomon was David’s heir}, al-Hassan said: ‘It is material possessions, because Prophethood is a gift”
We read in Tafseer al-Bahar al-Muheet by Abi Hayan:
al-Hassan said: ‘Inherited material possessions because Prophethood is a gift’
We have cited 12 authentic Sunni sources that Prophet Dawood (as) inherited the worldly possessions of his father, similarly Sayyida Fatima (as) was also the Waris of her father Rasulullah (s). Denying her this inheritance right was a clear violation of the Qur’an. Whilst the above are classical sources it is also worth noting that the Saudi published Holy Quran – ‘English translation of the meanings and the commentary’ (published by the King Fahd Holy Quran Printing Complex), provides the following commentary of the verse:
“The point is that Solomon not only inherited his father’s kingdom but his spiritual insight and the prophetic office, which do not necessarily go from father to son”
Saudi published Holy Quran , page 1093
We read in Surah Sa’d verses 30-31:
To David We gave Solomon (for a son),how excellent in Our service! Ever did he turn (to Us)!
Behold, there were brought before him, at eventide coursers of the highest breeding, and swift of foot;
Al-Qur’an, Surah Sa’d, Ayah 30 & 31, translated by Yusufali
These horses were inheritance, and as proof we shall cite the following classical Sunni sources:
We read in Tafseer Gharaib al-Quran:
“It has been said: ‘He inherited them (horses) from his father and his father had obtained them as a booty from Amaliqs.”
We read in al-Tashil le Uloom al-Tanzil by Abu Abdillah Ibn al-Jezi al-Ghernati (d. 741 H):
“The majority said that Sulayman (as) brought for him horses he inherit them from his father”
We read in Tafseer al-Nasafi:
“It has been said that he inherited them from his father and his father had obtained them from Amaliqa (as war booty)”
We read in Zad al-Masir by Imam of Salafies Abu al-Faraj al-Jawzi (d. 597 H):
The third: ‘That he inherited them from his father David’
Imam Qurtubi records in his Tafseer:
“Maqatil said that Solomon inherited 1000 horses from his father”
Shaykh Kamaluddin Muhammad bin Musa Damiri (742-808 H) records in Hayaat al Haywan:
“The majority of scholars say that those horses were inherited”
We read in Tafseer Baydhawi:
‘It has been said that his father obtained them (as war booty) from Amaliq then he (Solomon) inherited them’
We read in Tafseer al-Muharer al-Wajiz by Abu Mhammad ibn Attya al-Maharebi (d. 546):
“The majority of people state that those horses were inherited”
These 23 sources prove that Sulayman inherited the material possessions of his father and this included one thousand horses, this verse proves that the verse ‘And Sulayman inherited Dawud’ refers to the inheritance of material possessions not knowledge.
Whilst this should serve as sufficient proof to destroy this Nasibi’s claim, it is also important that we highlight one of their claims that al Khider made…
Ansar.org:
The inheritance in this case was not of material possessions. Rather, it was of prophethood, wisdom and knowledge.
We read in Surah Maryam 019.030 the following about Esau (as):
He said: “I am indeed a servant of Allah: He hath given me revelation and made me a prophet;
Al-Qur’an, Surah Maryam, Ayah 30, translated by Yusufali
Similarly, Allah (swt) praises Yahya in these words in Surah Maryam 019.012:
(To his son came the command): “O Yahya! take hold of the Book with might”: and We gave him Wisdom even as a youth,
Al-Qur’an, Surah Maryam, Ayah 12, translated by Yusufali
The stories of Prophet Esau (as) and Prophet Yahya (as) serve as clear proof that Prophet’s attain the rank of Prophethood from the time of birth.
We read in Surah Anbiya 021.079:
To Solomon We inspired the (right) understanding of the matter: to each (of them) We gave Judgment and Knowledge;
Al-Qur’an, Surah 21, Ayah 79, translated by Yusufali
We read in Surah Naml 027.015:
We gave (in the past) knowledge to David and Solomon: And they both said: “Praise be to Allah, Who has favoured us above many of his servants who believe!”
Al-Qur’an, Surah 27, Ayah 15, translated by Yusufali
These verses do not prove that Dawood (as) possessed knowledge first and that his son Sulayman (as) later inherited it after his death. Prophets are Prophets from birth and hold this excelled office from the time they come in this world along with all the attributes such as knowledge etc. As Sulayman (as) was born during the lifetime of his father, he attained Prophethood during his father’s lifetime. Inheritance is something which is attained after death, this is an agreed fact. This verse therefore clearly proves that inheritance in this verse does not mean Prophethood rather it refers to material possessions.
The 16th Ayah of Surah Naml points to the fact that Prophet Sulayman was already a Prophet, had knowledge and used to pass judgements during the lifetime of his father, how can it be said that the inheritance which he received, was of Prophethood, wisdom and knowledge?
To Solomon We inspired the (right) understanding of the matter: to each (of them) We gave Judgement and Knowledge; it was Our power that made the hills and the birds celebrate Our praises, with David: it was We Who did (all these things).
Al-Qur’an, Surah 21, Ayah 79, translated by Yusufali
The 15th verse of Sura Naml (which falls before Ayah 16th), also makes it clear that Knowledge was already given to Sulayman (as) again how can it be accepted that the inheritance which Prophet Sulayman received was to do with Knowledge and Wisdom only?
We gave (in the past) knowledge to David and Solomon: And they both said: “Praise be to Allah, Who has favoured us above many of his servants who believe!”
Al-Qur’an, Surah 21, Ayah 15, translated by Yusufali
Sayyida Fatima (as) inherited her father’s worldly possessions in exactly the same manner that Prophet Sulayman (as) inherited from his father Dawood (as). The claim of Sayyida Fatima (as) was in line with the Qur’anic verse “And Sulayman inherited Dawud”. Abu Bakr’s rejection of her claim, despite this verse is proof that Abu Bakr’s decision was in contradiction to this Qur’anic ruling.
Al-Khider offers the following Batil Qiyas to this verse:
It is well known that Dawud ‘alayhis salam had 100 wives and 300 concubines. He had numerous children from these wives and concubines. If this verse is assumed to speak of the inheritance of material possessions, why is Sulayman mentioned as the sole heir?
It is a generally accepted rule that proof is required when someone advances a claim that contradicts an established law. It is a general rule that the land belonging to someone is distributed amongst his legal heirs. When Al Khider is stating that some individuals do not benefit from this general principle, the onus then falls upon him to prove ‘why’ this is the case. Our claim is that according to the common laws of Shari’ah, Sulayman (as) became the Waris of his father Dawood (as), and this precedent is proven from the Law (as set out in the Qur’an). Al Khider is advancing a claim that is against the established law, namely that Sulayman (as) was not the Waris of Dawood (as), hence the onus is upon Al Khider to prove Sulayman’s status as not being the heir when the Qur’an proves his position as a heir.
Why has al Khider relied on a Jewish tradition that presents Dawud as having 400 women to have sex with? Can anyone imagine a pious Nabi of Allah, Dawud (s) having 100 wives and 300 concubines [i.e. a total of 400 women for having sex]?
The assertion of al Khider is a blatant lie; we read in Ahl’ul Sunnah’s work Sharh ibn al Hadeed Volume 4 page 126 that the claim that Sulayman (s) had sons other than Dawood (s) is a Jewish claim. Reports that they were alive at the time that Dawood (as) died are not reliable.
Inheritance is the legal right of surviving relatives; al Khider claims that in the case of that left by Dawood (as):
The inheritance in this case was not of material possessions. Rather, it was of prophethood, wisdom and knowledge.
This leaves us with a very simple question, if Prophethood is left as inheritance then why did only Prophet Sulayman (as) inherit it, and none of the other sons of Dawood (as) that Al Khider cites? When someone dies, his material possessions are distributed to the heirs, but the station of Prophethood is not such a thing that can be distributed. If Prophethood could be transferred via such a simple matter, then it would have definitely been distributed amongst the children of Adam (as), yet we know that only Sheesh (as) attained this position. This fact clearly demonstrates that Prophethood in not inherited, rather it is in accordance with the will of Allah (swt). If Prophethood was inherited rather than getting appointed by Allah then that would mean that the disobedient son of Nuh (as) would have inherited Prophethood from his father when he died! Prophethood is not some joke concept that anyone can just get when a Prophet (s) dies, one which executors can distribute when they feel like it.
Sunni Turkish scholar Professor Nureddin Uzongolu makes a crucial point in this respect in his Book, ‘History of the Prophets’ page 164, Chapter ‘Solomon’:
“Solomon was thankful to his Lord for these blessing bestowed on him: ‘And Solomon was David’s Heir. And he said ‘O mankind! We have been taught the language of birds, and have been given (abundance) all things. This surely is evidence favour” [Surah Saba Verse 12]
Here the point in the above verse is that Solomon not only inherited his father’s kingdom, but his spiritual insight and the prophetic office, which do not necessarily pass from father to son”
Even if we accept that they were alive, then this bares no relevance, for Allah (swt) states in Surah Baqarah 2:251:
So they put them to flight by Allah’s permission. And Dawood slew Jalut, and Allah gave him kingdom and wisdom, and taught him of what He pleased.
Al-Qur’an, Surah 2, Ayah 251
It was the kingdom of Dawood, which was inherited by Sulayman. About other sons of Dawood, only Allah (swt) knows how many existed but NO tradition suggests that they received nothing. They may have received a share, but the Kingdom was bestowed on Sulayman (as). It should be pointed out that a King has two types of land, a King’s personal property that is distributed amongst his heirs, and Sovereign Land that goes solely to the person occupying his Seat. Prophet Sulayman (as) inherited both, he had his share with his brothers from King Dawood’s personal property and had exclusive inheritance over Sovereign Land. This is like the other kingdoms in which the Crown Prince receives kingdom along with his father’s personal property while other princes also get their share.
Allah (swt) says in Surah Sad 38:30:
To David We gave Solomon (for a son),- How excellent in Our service! Ever did he turn (to Us)!
Al-Qur’an, Surah 38, Ayah 30, translated by Yusufali
According al Khider, Allah (swt) bestowed other sons on Dawood so why did He (swt) only refer to Sulayman (as) in this verse? Can Al Khider and his Nasibi cronies offer an explanation or do they also question Allah for failing to mention them? (after all they are in the habit of questioning everything) In the same way that reference to Sulayman (as) in this verse does not negate the existence of other sons, likewise the verse of inheritance wherein only Sulayman is referred to, does not deny the other brothers their inheritance.
We read in Surah Anaam verses 83-84:
That was the reasoning about Us, which We gave to Abraham (to use) against his people: We raise whom We will, degree after degree: for thy Lord is full of wisdom and knowledge. We gave him Isaac and Jacob: all (three) guided: and before him, We guided Noah, and among his progeny, David, Solomon, Job, Joseph, Moses, and Aaron: thus do We reward those who do good
Al-Qur’an, Surah 83, Ayah 84, translated by Yusufali
In this verse Allah (swt) counts the progeny of Prophet Ibraheem (as) as David, Solomon, Job, Joseph, Moses, and Aaron, what about all the other children in the progeny of Ibraheem (as), why are they not mentioned here? Just as the reference to David, Solomon, Job, Joseph, Moses, and Aaron in this verse does not negate the existence of the other progeny of Ibraheem (as), so the verse of inheritance wherein only Sulayman is referred to does not deny the other brothers their inheritance.
Ansar.org:
If this verse is assumed to speak of material inheritance there does not remain much sense for it being mentioned in the Qur’an, since it is then reduced to an ordinary and trivial matter. “Material inheritance is not something laudable, neither to Dawud nor to Sulayman ‘alayhimas salam. Even a Jew or Christian inherits the material possessions of his father. The purpose of this verse is to extol the excellence of Sulayman and to make mention of that which was granted specifically to him. Inheriting material possessions is an ordinary and trivial matter that is common to everyone, like eating, drinking and burying the dead. This is not the kind of thing that would be mentioned about the Ambiya, since it is simply inconsequential. Only such things would be related about the Ambiya which carry lessons or benefit. Things like ‘He died, and his son inherited his property,’ or ‘They buried him,’ or ‘They ate and drank slept’ is not the kind of information that would be conveyed in the stories of the Qur’an.” (Mukhtasar Minhaj as-Sunnah, vol. 1 p. 240, with minor adjustments)
Who is this Nasibi to decide what is sensible enough to be in the Qur’an? Many trivial matters are in the Qur’an, and yet al Khider’s absurd logic would argue that nothing trivial should appear in the Qur’an. Allah (swt) knew that amongst the Ummah of Muhammad (s) unjust men would come who would seek to deny to the Prophet’s daughter her inheritance, hence Allah (swt) especially for lying Nasibi’s such as Muhammad al Khider of Ansar.org, made the specific reference to Prophet Sulayman (as) inheriting from his father.
We read in Surah Naml 027.016:
And Solomon was David’s heir. He said: “O ye people! We have been taught the speech of birds, and on us has been bestowed (a little) of all things: this is indeed Grace manifest (from Allah.)”
Al-Qur’an, Surah 27, Ayah 16, translated by Yusufali
We should point out that Mr. Yusuf Ali has made tahreef in translating this verse.The verse says that Allah (swt) bestowed ALL things on Prophet Sulayman as the heir of Dawood (as) but Yusuf Ali adds the word ‘a little’ that is no where to be found in the Arabic. Pickthal’s translation is much closer to the actual Arabic:
And Solomon was David’s heir. And he said: O mankind! Lo! we have been taught the language of birds, and have been given (abundance) of all things. This surely is evident favour
Translated by Pickthal
The Qur’an is not just restricted to Tarawih recitals during Ramadhan, rather it resolves all disputes. Inspection needs to be given to the words ‘wa theena min kul shay’. Its literal meaning is Allah had granted us all things in the world, and all things clearly includes the material possessions of Dawood, and Prophet Sulayman (as) counted these worldly possession as a bounty from Allah (swt). If Prophet Sulayman (as) was exempt from his father’s material possessions, then he would not have counted this as a bounty from Allah (swt). Think logically, no person would deem his being denied to his father’s material possessions to be a bounty from Allah (swt), rather such exclusion is due to the wrath of Allah (swt) that is meted out on children who murder their father or become an apostate. This is a punishment from Allah (swt) not a bounty.
Allah deemed children’s inheritance of their Prophet father’s possession to be a bounty from Allah (swt), as is proven from the episode of Dawood (as), whose property was inherited by Sulayman (as). Sadly when it came to the era of our Prophet Muhammad (s) this bounty was usurped by Abu Bakr. Rasulullah (s) had only one daughter, and there is no doubt that a daughter is a Mercy from Allah (swt). Sadly Abu Bakr failed to live up to his famed kindness and counted Rasulullah’s Estate of Fadak as belonging to the Ummah, and hence denied the daughter of Rasulullah (s) her inheritance right.
When the Qur’an is a witness to the fact that a Prophet’s son inherited from him and Sayyida Fatima (as) made a similar claim, denying her that right contradicted this Qur’anic verse.
We challenge Al Khider and Co to present even a single authentic report proving that the Kingdom of Dawood (as) was distributed among the poor of his nation as Sadaqah after his death.
If you are unable to produce a single authentic Proof to this effect then we challenge you to produce a weak tradition demonstrating that the kingdom of Dawood (as) had been distributed amongst the needy after his death.
If you cannot produce a weak tradition,(then we challenge you further to produce a single report (from a Sunni / Shi’a sources, Christian or Jewish source), that shows that property of even a single Prophet (out of 1,24,000 prophets) was distributed amongst the poor as Sadaqah when they died.
In Surah Maryam 019.004-6, Allah (swt) refers to the supplication of Prophet Zakariya:
Saying: My Lord! Lo! the bones of me wax feeble and my head is shining with grey hair, and I have never been unblest in prayer to Thee, my Lord. Lo! I fear my kinsfolk after me, since my wife is barren. Oh, give me from Thy presence a successor. Who shall inherit of me and inherit (also) of the house of Jacob. And make him, my Lord, acceptable (unto Thee).
Al-Qur’an, Surah 19, Ayah 4-6, translated by Pickthal
The wife of Zakariya (as), Umme Kalthum bint Imran was also his niece and the desire to have children exizts in all humans. Zakariya (as) therefore made a supplication that he be given offspring who shall spend his material possessions in pious manner.
The verse proves that Prophets do indeed leave inheritance, and Prophet Zakariya (as) asked that Allah (swt) grant him a child to inherit his material possessions. Al Khider of course finds this fact unpalatable and explains away the verse as follows:
The word al-irth (inheritance) does not refer to material possessions exclusively. It is also used to denote knowledge, prophethood or sovereignty. Examples of such usage are found in Surah Fatir:32, where Allah says: “Thereafter We gave the Book as inheritance (awrathna) to such of Our servants as We have chosen”; and in Surah al-Mu’minun:10-11, where Allah says: “Those are the Inheritors (al-warithun) who will inherit Paradise.”
Some people are so filled with their enmity of the Ahl’ul bayt (as) that any verse that establishes their legal rights, is automatically misinterpreted in such a false way to ensure that those rights are denied to them.This type of attitude is only on account of their blind love for the Sahaba, Sayyida Fatima (as) never committed any wrong against any Muslim. al-irth (inheritance) is a term that is commonly associated with material possessions. To the common Arab when someone use the term al-irth is it is clear that he is referring to material possessions. If someone dies and people are told he left irth, all will understand that the term means material possessions. It is a term that is unambiguous. It is not a term associated with knowledge and possessions. If someone seeks to refer to al-irth (inheritance) as something different he shall seek to clarify his words by explaining exactly what he means by al-irth – that way people can be made aware of the what he means when he says inheritance.
Interestingly Allah (swt) does exactly the same, when He (swt) uses al-irth for something other than material possessions, He (swt) makes it clear exactly what is being inherited in that very same verse thus removing any doubts over the meaning of the verse.
The interesting thing is Al Khider, the very verses that al Khider cites corroborates our stance. Allow us to cite his comments once more only this time we shall highlight the key words, wherein Allah (swt) clarifies the meaning of inheritance in the context of the same verse:
The word al-irth (inheritance) does not refer to material possessions exclusively. It is also used to denote knowledge, prophethood or sovereignty. Examples of such usage are found in Surah Fatir:32, where Allah says: “Thereafter We gave the Book as inheritance (awrathna) to such of Our servants as We have chosen”; and in Surah al-Mu’minun:10-11, where Allah says: “Those are the Inheritors (al-warithun) who will inherit Paradise.”
The aforementioned hadith which states that “the Ambiya do not leave dinars and dirhams as inheritance, but they leave knowledge” explicitly negates the possibility of the Ambiya leaving a material legacy as inheritance. This alone is sufficient proof.
Look carefully at both verses cited by al Khider. These verses demonstrate that when Allah (swt) diverges from the traditional understanding of al-irth as in material possessions, He clarifies exactly what that person inherits, to ensure that people are not left ignorant assuming the term refers to material possessions. Allah (swt) could have simply said al irth and left it at that, but He (swt) wanted people to be sure that al-irth here had nothing to do with material possessions. This can also be proven from the verse of Surah Muminnon wherein it is made clear (in the preceding verses) that the believers that are trustworthy and observe prayers will receive Paradise as inheritance.
Those who faithfully observe their trusts and their covenants;
And who (strictly) guard their prayers;-
These will be the heirs,
Who will inherit Paradise: they will dwell therein (for ever).
Al-Qur’an, Surah 23, Ayah 8- 10
Again to ensure that normal people are not confused into assuming that individuals will permanently reside in their material possessions, He (swt) clarifies that inheritance means Paradise in the context of this verse.
Whilst not cited by al-Khider let us show another verse as proof:
We did aforetime give Moses the (Book of) Guidance, and We gave the book in inheritance to the Children of Israel
Al-Qur’an, Surah 40, Ayah 53
Again Allah (swt) makes it clear that the term ‘waawrathna’ refers not to material possessions, and does so by highlighting that thing which the Childern of Israel inherited, the Book of Guidance.
Exactly the same can be deduced from the Hadith that al-Khider cited, but produced only partially here:
The aforementioned hadith which states that “the Ambiya do not leave dinars and dirhams as inheritance, but they leave knowledge” explicitly negates the possibility of the Ambiya leaving a material legacy as inheritance. This alone is sufficient proof.
The Hadith is cited in its entirety by al Khider elsewhere and is as follows:
Al-Kulayni narrates in al-Kafi:
Abu ‘Abdillah (Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq) says that Rasulullah said: “… And the ‘Ulama are the heirs of the Ambiya; and the Ambiya did not leave dinars and dirhams as inheritance; but they left knowledge. Therefore whosoever takes knowledge has taken a great portion.” (al-Kafi, vol. 1 p. 42)
Note: We have again underlined the words that clarify exactly what the Ulema have attained as inheritance.
Like the Quranic verses cited by al-Khider, since al irth is normally associated with material possession, the Prophet (as) clarifies this by explaining exactly what the Ulema inherit, that way there is no confusion, a believer can understand that the Ulema have inherited the knowledge of Prophets, not their material possessions.
Now with the points we have just made in mind let, us look at the verse:
Wainnee khiftu almawaliYa min waraee wakanati imraatee AAaqiran fahab lee min ladunka Yarithunee waYarithu min ali YaAAqooba waijAAalhu rabbi radiyYan waliyYan
Oh, give me from Thy presence a successor. Who shall inherit of me and inherit (also) of the house of Jacob.
In this verse Allah (swt) uses the word waYarithu (that comes from the root word al-irth) and provides no further clarification on what that means. One is therefore entitled to assume that it means the inheritance of material possessions as is the commonly understood of al-irth. If Allah (swt) intended this to mean the inheritance of knowledge or Prophethood, then He (swt) would have clarified this matter in the same may that He (swt) did in those verses where al-irth refers to the inheritance of the Book or Paradise. If the verse meant knowledge or Prophethood, then Allah (swt) would have cited the supplication as follows:
Oh, give me from Thy presence a successor. Who shall inherit the Book, and Prophethood and inherit (also) of the house of Jacob.
The very fact that Allah (swt) did not clarify the meaning of al-irth as He (swt) had done with those verses proves that it means material possessions and nothing else.
Let us first cite the transliteration of the words of the verse under discussion:
“Yarithunee wayarithu min ali yaAAqooba…”
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/transliteration/019.html
“Who shall inherit of me and inherit (also) of the house of Jacob…”
Al-Qur’an, Surah 19, Ayah 6, translated by Pickthal
As evidence, we shall rely on the following esteemed Sunni sources:
وهذا اختيار ابن جرير في تفسيره
“This (opinion) has been adopted by Ibn Jareer in his commentary”.
Now to directly quote Tabari, we read:
وقوله: (يَرِثُنِي وَيَرِثُ مِنْ آلِ يَعْقُوبَ) يقول: يرثني من بعد وفاتي مالي، ويرث من آل يعقوب النبوة، وذلك أن زكريا كان من ولد يعقوب. وبنحو الذي قلنا في ذلك قال أهل التأويل.
His statement ‘{Who should inherit me and inherit from the children of Yaqoub}’ that is to say ’inherit my material possessions after my death and inherit Prophethood from children of Yaqub’ and that is because Zakariya is Yaqub’s descendant and this is the opinion of the commentators of Quran.
We read in Tafseer al-Thawri:
يَرِثُنِي الْمَالَ وَيَرِثُ مِنْ آلِ يعقوب النبوة
‘Inherit my material possessions/property and inherit Prophethood from the children of Yaqub’
We read in Tafseer Durr al-Manthur:
Al-Faryabi narrated from ibn Abbas that he said: ‘Zakaria wasn’t able to have a child, therefore he asked his God and said: ‘{Who should inherit me and inherit from the children of Yaqub}’ inherit my material possessions and inherit Prophethood from children of Yaqub.’
Dur al-Manthur fi Tafseer al-Mathur, Vol. 2, Page 467
Ibn Adil states in al-Lubab fi Uloom al-Kitab:
واختلفُوا ما المرادُ بالميراثِ، فقال ابنُ عبَّاس، والحسنُ، والضحاك: وراثةُ المالِ في الموضعين
There are varied opinions about the meaning of inheritance, Ibn Abbas,Hassan and Dahak said that it’s the inheritance of material possessions.
Tafseer Kabeer:
The third: ‘Inherit material possessions and inherit Prophethood from children of Yaqub, this is the statement of Sidi, Mujahid, Sh’ubi and also narrated by Ibn Abbas, al-Hassan and Dahak.’
Gharaib al Qur’an:
‘Narrated from Ibn Abbas, al-Hassan and Dahak that it means inheriting material possessions.’
Qurtubi also counted Qatada among the list of those who believed that it refers to material possessions. We read in Tafseer Qurtubi:
قال ابن عباس ومجاهد وقتادة خاف أن يرثوا ماله وأن ترثه الكلاله فأشفق أن يرثه غير الولد
Ibn Abbas, Mujahid and Qutada stated that it is to inherit his material possessions he disliked to be inherited by his relatives and not by his son.
Since these six personalities mentioned by Imam Fakhruddin Razi are considered authority figures in the eyes of the Ahle Sunnah, their testimonies shall suffice to silence all those who defend the tradition coined by Abu Bakr i.e. Prophets do not leave inheritance! In fact, a group of scholars of Ahle Sunnah did indeed concur with what has been stated by these prominent Sahaba and Tabayeen. We read in Tafseer Samani:
The answer: There are various opinions about the meaning of inheritance, according to Ibn Abbas it means the inheritance of material possessions and a group (of scholars) agreed with him.
وفي المراد بهذا الميراث أربعة أقوال : أحدها: يَرِثني مالي، ويرث من آل يعقوب النبوَّة، رواه عكرمة عن ابن عباس، وبه قال أبو صالح
There are four meanings of inheritance in this, one of it is to inherit my material possessions and inherit Prophethood from Jaccob’s house, this has been narrated by Akrma from Ibn Abbas and that is what has been adopted by Abu Saleh.
We have proven from the above mentioned Sunni sources that Prophet Zakariya (as) was praying for a child to inherit his worldly possessions.
“Yarithunee wayarithu min ali yaAAqooba…”
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/transliteration/019.html
“Who shall inherit of me and inherit (also) of the house of Jacob…”
Al-Qur’an, Surah 19, Ayah 6, translated by Pickthal
Had Prophet Zakariyya (as) merely supplicated for a Waris as in a Prophet that would inherit his knowledge there would have been no need for him to add in the above words and inherit (also) of the house of Jacob. This dua connects his desire for a Waris like the house of Jacob. Al Khider logic would therefore suggest that Zakariyya (as) wanted a Waris to inherit his knowledge and Prophetic Office as was the case with the ‘house of Jacob’. This argument falls flat on its face since Prophethood and knowledge were not inherited by all of the sons of Prophet Yaqub (as)! If they did attain these stations why did they throw Prophet Yusuf down the well (s), and lie to their father that he had been eaten by a wolf? If they had Prophetic knowledge they would have been aware that Allah (swt) had made it haraam for animals to eat the flesh of Prophets. They can cause harm to Prophets, this proves that the linked supplication ‘Who shall inherit of me and inherit (also) of the house of Jacob’ related to the inheritance of material possessions not Prophethood.
We shall now prove this through textual evidence from the following authentic Sunni sources:
Ahmad bin Mustafa al-Muraaghi (d. 1317 H) records in Tafseer Muraaghi:
“A son who shall inherit the kingdom of Bani Mathan”
Shaykh Muhammad bin Muhammad al-Ma’adi Abu Saud (d. 951 H) records in Tafseer Abi Saud:
‘Zakaria was the head of Rabbis [Priest], that day he wanted a child to inherit his Priesthood and inherit from children of Mathan their kingdom.’
We read in Ruh al Ma’ani:
‘Inherit from children of Mathan their kingdom’
Tafseer Kashaf:
‘Inherit the kingdom from the children of Yaqub’
We have cited four authentic sources to prove that the words of Allah (swt) “Yarithunee wayarithu min ali yaAAqooba” refer to the inheritance of worldly possessions. If this Nasibi still diagrees allow us to present a question for him to ponder over:
If Yarithunee means knowledge then could he elaborate what type of knowledge is this?
If these Nawasib put aside the enmity of Fatima (as) they would soon understand that this verse has nothing whatsoever to do with the inheritance of knowledge. In Ahl’ul Sunnah’s authority work ‘Tafseer Fatah ul Qadeer’ the author in his commentary of this verse lists the different categories of people who were the Heirs of Zakariya and also pointed out the fact that a group of scholars of Ahe Sunnah indeed believed that Zakariya (as) wished for an heir to inherit his material possessions:
واختلفوا في وجه المخافة من زكرياء لمواليه من بعده فقيل خاف أن يرثوا ماله وأراد أن يرثه ولده فطلب من الله سبحانه أن يرزقه ولدا
“They (scholars) disagreed in the meaning of of Zakaryia’s fear of his relatives, some said that he feared that they would inherit his property and he wished to have a son to inherit him, thus he asked Allah to grant him a son”.
Fatah ul Qadeer, Vol. 3, Page 398
We have conclusively proven that the words of the verse “Who shall inherit of me” (Yarithunee) refer to the inheritance material possessions. We shall now evidence logically that “Who shall inherit of me” (Yarithunee) refers to material possessions, as in tangible assets and for this we shall analyse the previous part of the verse. If we analyse the words of Prophet Zakariya (as) ‘Now I fear (what) my relatives (and colleagues) (will do) after me’, the following points come to ones mind:
Relevantly, Al-Qurtubi in his Tafsir, Volume 11 page 81 quoted Imam Nahas according to whom scholars have advanced three possible interpretations of the prayer of Zakriya and confirmed that according to scholars, it is not impossible to believe that Zakariya actually meant someone to inherit is material possessions. We read:
وأما وراثة المال فلا يمتنع
Their statement that inheriting material possessions is not impossible.
Khider’s suggestion that it would be inappropriate for a Prophet (s) to pray for someone to inherit his material possessions
Al Khider uses Qiyas in his effort to deny Sayyida Fatima (as) her inheritance rights. In his commentary of this verse he states:
It is not fit or proper for a pious man to ask Allah for an heir to inherit his possessions. How can it then be found acceptable that a noble prophet like Zakariyya ‘alayhis salam asked Allah for a son to inherit his wealth? What Zakariyyah ‘alayhis salam really asked for was a son who would bear aloft the standard of Prophethood after him, and in whom the legacy of the progeny of Ya’qub would continue.
Ibn al Hashimi the ‘copy and paste King’ has stated the same, in almost identical words in his masterpiece ‘The Quran Does Not Say Prophets Give Inheritance’
Screenshot from Ibn al Hashimi’s article
On the one hand Nasibi such as al Khider in accordance with the comments of their Salaf Ulema like Ibn Taymeeya and Ibn Katheer believe that Prophets are humans just like us and on the other side they believe that for such men to pray for someone to inherit their possessions is improper and impious. Taking Afriki’s moralistic approach on board let us see his proper and pious depictions of Rasulullah (s), in his Madhab, namely that he would:
Now Al Khider if you deem it fit, proper and pious for Rasulullah (s) to behave in such a manner then why the revulsion to a Prophet praying for someone to inherit his material possessions? Let us not forget that Prophet Sulayman (as) had thanked Allah (swt) for being bestowed with worldly Kingdom, and Prophet Yusuf (as) asked the Kaafir Pharaoh to appoint him as the State Treasurer. If the acts of these two Prophets do not constitute improper conduct on their part, then the du’a of Prophet Zakariya (as) that someone inherits his possessions also does not constitute conduct unbecoming of a Prophet.
We would like to challenge the assertion of al Khider, would it be impious for a religious man to:
Wealth can lead to destruction if used inappropriately and it can be a blessing if used by the methods explained by Allah. Hence there are many lawful reasons for a person to ask Allah for an heir to inherit his possessions.
Example: If a pious person is showered with Allah’s grace and he fears that his possessions will go to waste or used in prohibited things by going to his relatives then can’t this person ask Allah for an heir to inherit his possessions and to spend it appropriately?
Let’s cite another example:
“Al Khider is pious man, and has dedicated his life to serving religious causes, through writing articles. He is married but has no children. Apart from his principle home he also has a property (that he has rented out) and land that is rich in agriculture. He donates a vast bulk of the profits made from these material possessions to support Dawah activities such as purchasing books, printing pamphlets, supporting a Website. The only close relatives he has are his nephews. Unlike al Khider they are not interested in religion; they live for tomorrow, spending their time indulging in gambling, sins of the flesh and alcohol. They are just waiting in anticipation, hoping that Al Khider dies quickly so that they can take control of both properties, turning one into a Pub, the other into a brothel”
Faced with such a bleak future, would it be impious for Al Khider to pray for a child to inherit / administer his material possessions, thus ensuring that that they were not used for sinful purposes, whilst at the same time providing protection for his elderly wife?
Leaving material inheritance has clear advantages, as is commented on the article ‘Inheritance in Islam’ that can be located at this Deobandi site.
http://www.islamsa.org.za/library/pamphlets/inheritance_in_islam.htm – Cached
“If one is righteous and keeps his financial matters clean, the barakah of his wealth is enjoyed by generations after him. The Quraan relates the event of Khidhar alaihis salaam putting a wall right on the objection of Moosa alaihis salaam that the people of that town did not host them. Khidhar alaihis salaam should not have served them especially without renumeration. Khidhar alaihis salaam explained that the inheritance of some orphans was buried there and had to be protected because their parents were righteous”.
Consider this Nasibi’s interpretation of this verse:
It is not fit or proper for a pious man to ask Allah for an heir to inherit his possessions. How can it then be found acceptable that a noble prophet like Zakariyya ‘alayhis salam asked Allah for a son to inherit his wealth? What Zakariyyah ‘alayhis salam really asked for was a son who would bear aloft the standard of Prophethood after him, and in whom the legacy of the progeny of Ya’qub would continue.
When it came to the inheritance of Sulayman Al Khider claimed:
The inheritance in this case was not of material possessions. Rather, it was of prophethood, wisdom and knowledge.
If Prophethood is inherited, and Zakariyya (as) prayed for one to inherit Prophethood, not material possessions, we will be forced to accept that Prophet Zakariyya committed a sin by making this du’a. Al Khider logic is that standard of Prophethood goes to the surviving relatives via inheritance which in this case would have been the nephews of Zakariyya (as). Why then, would Prophet Zakariyya (as) make a du’a that they be kept aloof from this station, why was he opposing Allah (swt)’s desire that they inherit Prophethood after him? Why was Zakariyya (as) unhappy that his inheritance of Prophethood was going to his nephews? Rather than act in such a jealous manner, should he not have simply accepted the will of Allah (swt)? If we accept al Khider logic that Prophethood transfers as inheritance then we have to accept that Zakariyya (as) was a sinner who through jealously wanted to ensure Prophethood remained in his loins. He should have willingly accepted that the ‘standard of Prophethood’ was to be passed on to his nephews by virtue of inheritance. The al Khider interpretation of this verse paints the picture of a deeply envious man, who rather than accept that Prophethood would be inherited by his nephews, was opposed to it who wanted to confine Prophethood to his immediate family. Then we also need to question the character of Prophet Zakariyya (as) under the second portion of the Du’a “so give me an heir as from Thyself,- (One that) will (truly) represent me, and represent the posterity of Jacob; and make him, O my Lord! one with whom Thou art well-pleased!”
If Prophet Zakariyya was making a supplication that his son inherit the station of Prophet as was the case with the descendants of Yaqoob (as) he would have no need to then conclude with these words “and make him, O my Lord! one with whom Thou art well-pleased!” since Allah (swt) is automatically pleased with one He (swt) appoints as a Prophet, so what was the sense in Prophet Zakariyya praying that he be given a son who (according al Khider logic) will inherit his Prophethood AND Allah (swt) will be pleased with him.
We would ask our readers to ponder over the supplication of Prophet Zakariyya (as) in this verse:
Now I fear (what) my relatives (and colleagues) (will do) after me: but my wife is barren: so give me an heir as from Thyself,-
The supplication of Zakariyya (as) was made as he feared his relatives becoming his heirs. Al Khider is suggesting that he (as) was supplicating for heir as in Prophet. This would mean that Prophet Zakariyya (as) was fearful of that his nephews would inherit Prophethood after him! How is that possible, when we know that they were not of good character? Allah (swt) does not just pick anyone for the position of Prophethood, this is a divine rank give to those blessed woth perfection, it is not just inherited as like property to the surviving relative. If we are to accept al-Khider’s understanding then we will have to accept that he feared his nephews of ill character would inherit Prophethood after him! Is that logical?
What greater proof can there be that al Khider is a liar than the fact he has actually contradicted his position in another of his written articles. Here he said that his Nasibi position on the du’a of Zakariyya (as) was as follows:
What Zakariyyah ‘alayhis salam really asked for was a son who would bear aloft the standard of Prophethood after him, and in whom the legacy of the progeny of Ya’qub would continue.
al Khider is informing his faithful readers that Prophet Zakariyya (as) was praying that he have a son who will succeed him as a Prophet. Curiously the very same Nasibi author in his article ‘Imamate’ states:
Allah speaks of the prayer of His exemplary worshippers:
(They are) those who say: Our Lord, grant us the coolness of (our) eyes in our wives and children, and make us leaders of the pious. (al-Furqan : 74)
This verse speaks of normal people who do not belong to a special class like the Ambiya’, asking Allah to make them imams, in the sense of paragons of virtue, whose example others would strive to emulate. It is very obvious that it cannot refer to a group of “divinely appointed Imams”, for the reason that the Imams’ elevation to the rank of Imamah is not on account of their prayers. Since their appointment, like that of the Ambiya’, is supposedly divine in origin, it not attainable by any amount of exertion or devotion.
In this article Al Khider is stating that the divine station of Prophethood cannot be attained via supplication! If anything it serves to prove the lengths that these Nawasib will go to deny Sayyida Zahra (as) her inheritance rights. One author, one website two contradicting arguments! Let us just compare the two contradictions side by side:
| Al Khider’s article on Fadak | Al Khider’s article on Imamate |
| What Zakariyyah ‘alayhis salam really asked for was a son who would bear aloft the standard of Prophethood after him, and in whom the legacy of the progeny of Ya’qub would continue. | Since their appointment, like that of the Ambiya’, is supposedly divine in origin, it not attainable by any amount of exertion or devotion. |
Clearly al Khider you cannot have your cake and eat it. You can’t on the one hand believe that Prophethood cannot be attained via prayer and then also believe that Prophet Zakariyya (as) prayed that a Prophet son inherit him. That would be in the normal world, but clearly the world of the Nasibi is very different, disparaging Shiaism is the key, even if it means exposing yourself as a contradictory hypocrite!
Prophet Zakariya (as) also had reasons for asking Allah to grant him an heir to inherit him and His family.
It is well know that Zakariyya ‘alayhis salam was a poor man who earned his living as a carpenter. What wealth could he have had that would prompt him to request an heir from Allah? In fact, it was a general rule with the Ambiya that they did not hoard anything beyond their need, and that they spent any surplus in charity.
We would like al Khider to inform us which time machine he had got into that enabled him to confidently conclude the meagre livelihood of Prophet Zakariya? Al Khider has sought to assess the skilled trade of carpentry in this day and age to that time. Wage structure throughout the ages has been linked to demand. In this age of post modernity the lucrative professions are linked to those in business, sports or professional in the IT, legal or medical profession. Carpentry has become redundant due to the development of machine technology. This was not the case during the time of Zakariyya (as). People during that time would make money through the management of agricultural land, rearing livestock and through skilled trades such as carpentry. This was not an era when people could purchase furniture through shopping retailers, or via the internet. Items such as chairs, table, beds etc were made by hand, through skilled carpenters, such as Prophet Zakariyya (as). Carpentry during that time was hence a recognised skilled trade where people could have a livelihood, due to the demand for furniture! It is therefore baseless for al Khider to assume that Zakariyya (as) was living below the poverty line because he was a poorly paid trade. Al Khider has no means to know what Prophet Zakariya had or did not have. He had an elderly wife, a job, a house, perhaps land and it was his fear that his relatives would seize these material possessions and trample on the rights of his elderly wife that lead him to make this Du’a.
Allah (swt) states in Surah Nur 024.015:
Behold, ye received it on your tongues, and said out of your mouths things of which ye had no knowledge; and ye thought it to be a light matter, while it was most serious in the sight of Allah.
Al-Qur’an, Surah 24, Ayah 15, translated by Yusufali
It is amusing that the great Imam of the Deobandis Mahmud Ahmad Rizvi in his article “Bagh Fadak” made the claim that during the Fadak dispute Abu Bakr presented all his own possessions to Syeda Fatima(s) and offered her to take whatever she wished. We would like to ask how this is possible, when Abu Bakr was a mere pauper, who had given all his possessions in the way of Allah (swt)?
We read in Surah Aal-e-Imran 003.038:
There did Zakariya pray to his Lord, saying: “O my Lord! Grant unto me from Thee a progeny that is pure: for Thou art He who heareth prayer!
Al-Qur’an, Surah 3, Ayah 38, translated by Yusufali
Similarly we read in Surah Anbiya verse 89:
And (remember) Zakariya, when he cried to his Lord: “O my Lord! leave me not without offspring, though thou art the best of inheritors.”
Al-Qur’an, Surah al-Anbiya, Ayah 89, translated by Yusufali
Zakariya (as) prayed for a helper and someone to inherit his worldly possessions, and as proof we shall rely on the following Sunni sources:
We read in Tafseer Gharaib al Quran::
“Differences have arisen amongst the Tafseer scholars as to whether he prayed for a son to be his Waris, or whether he prayed for a successor, whether it was a son or someone else. The first viewpoint is more likely as it is supported by Aal-e-Imran “O my Lord! Grant unto me from Thee a progeny that is pure’ this verse in Surah Anbiya also confirms this O my Lord! leave me not without offspring, though thou art the best of inheritors.”
We read in Tafseer Khazan:
“The intention of Hadhrat Zakariya was that Allah (swt) may not leave him in a situation where he has no son as helper, and grant him an inheritor”
We read in Tafseer Kabeer:
“Like, to have someone who amuses him and supports him in religious and worldly matters and to take His place after His death”
The Following narration, informs us of the conversation between Imam Ali (as) and Abu Bakr during the Fadak dispute. We are quoting Ibn Sad’s Tabaqat Al-Kabeer, Vol-11, p393, by S. Moinul Haq:
English translation:
Muhammad Ibn Umar informed us; (he said): Hisham Ibn Sa’d related to me on the authority of Abbas Ibn ‘Abd Allah Ibn Ma’bad, he on the authority of Ja’ffar; he said: Fatima came to Abu Bakr and demanded her share in the inheritance. Al-Abbas Ibn Abd al-Muttalib came to him and demanded his share in the inheritance. Ali came with them. Thereupon Abu Bakr said: The Apostle of Allah said: We leave no inheritance, what we leave behind us is sadaqah. I shall make provisions for those for whom the Prophet had made. On this Ali said: Sulayman (Solomon) inherited Dawud (David); and Zakariya said: He may be my heir and the heir of the children of Ya’qub. Abu Bakr said: This is as this is. By Allah! You know it as I know. Thereupon Ali said: This is the book of Allah that speaks. Then they became quite and retired.
Tabaqat Ibn Sa’ad, Vol. 2, Page 393
During the Fadak dispute Hadhrat ‘Ali (as) cited the verses of inheritance relating to Sulayman (as) and Zakariya (as) saying ‘This is the book of Allah that speaks’ and Abu Bakr offered no explanation as to the meaning of these verses or interpreted them in reply as alkhider has done. What can be deduced from Abu Bakr’s silence? Imam ‘Ali (as) clearly viewed these verses as a proof that Prophets leave material possession as inheritance for he was relying on these verses to prove that Sayyida Fatima (as) could inherit her father’s land. The learned al Khider claims that these verses have nothing to do with the inheritance of material possessions, but refer to the inheritance of knowledge. Will al Khider go on record and declare that his knowledge of the Qur’an was superior to that of Imam ‘Ali (as)? This would indeed be deeply impressive when we have the testimonies of Rasulullah (s) and the Sahaba confirming that none surpassed Hadhrat ‘Ali (as) with regards to knowledge of the Qur’an:
“Uns bin Malik narrates ‘Ali had the greatest knowledge of whatever had been revealed by Allah (swt)”
Manaqib Sayyidina ‘Ali page 16 by A’ini
“Shaybi narrates ‘All that has been revealed by Allah (swt) is contained between these two covers, and no one possesses greater knowledge of it than ‘Ali”
Durre Simtayn page 128, by Muhammad bin Yusuf Zarandi
Umar ibn al Khattab narrates ‘The Prophet said to ‘Ali, You possess the greatest knowledge of the verses of Allah (swt)
Rabeh al Muttalib page 139
“Rasulullah (s) said ‘Ali possesses the greatest knowledge of the Qur’an and Sunnah”
al Imama wa al Siyasa page 103
In light of these traditions is it believable that an individual who exceeded all in knowledge of the Qur’an was completely ignorant of the true meaning behind the verses of Prophetic inheritance?
If we are to accept al Khider’s understanding of these verses then we are left with three options:
Option One: Imam ‘Ali (as) was completely ignorant in relation to his understanding of this verse, and it came to later day adherents of Mu’awiya such as Ibn Taymeeya and Ibn Katheer to clarify the truth.
Option Two: Imam ‘Ali fully concurred with Al Khider about the meaning of the verse, but still decided to present the verses as evidence as a deceptive means of gaining property for his wife.
Option Three: Imam ‘Ali (as) cited the verses BECAUSE they were proof that Prophets leave behind material possession as inheritance.
Clearly neither of the first two options are acceptable.We are not prepared to accept that Imam ‘Ali (as), whom Rasulullah (s) declared as the gate of the city of knowledge failed to comprehend the true meaning of these verses, and it thankfully took Nasibi such as Ibn Taymeeya, Ibn Katheer and Al Khider to set the record straight. Option two is even less palatable, our Imam (as) would never misinterpret a verse for personal gain. The only acceptable option is the third one that our Imam (as) presented the verse because he deemed it as proof that the Prophets leave material possessions that is inherited. Whose understanding of the Qur’an has greater value Hadhrat ‘Ali (as) or al-Khider of Ansar.org?
We would also like to ask al Khider and his cohorts as to why Abu Bakr failed to refute the verses presented? If the verses mean inheritance of knowledge and Prophethood as al Khider has advanced then why did not Abu Bakr clarify his understanding of these verses during the Fadak dispute? The Ahl’ul Sunnah often advance that Abu Bakr was the most knowledgeable from amongst the Sahaba so why did he maintain his silence here? If he felt that Imam ‘Ali (as)’s understanding of these two verses was incorrect then why did he not seek to correct him by pointing out that the verses refer to the inheritance of knowledge and not material possessions? If Khaleefa Abu Bakr had even the slightest knowledge of the Quran, he would have never have bothered citing this Hadeeth, evidenced by the fact that he was lost for words when Maula ‘Ali (as) cited them. Clearly if Abu Bakr wanted to produce such a Hadeeth the better approach would have been for the Khaleefa to take up some classes at a local Arabic Madrassa, since he would have been able to coin a Hadeeth in a much simpler manner.
The advocates of Abu Bakr claim that the verses refer to the inheritance of knowledge but Abu Bakr failed to say anything of the sort during the Fadak dispute, rather his only response was that he heard the Prophet say ‘whatever we (i.e. prophets) leave is Sadaqah’. Why are these advocates explaining the verse in this manner, when their client Abu Bakr failed to do so? Can we conclude that the knowledge of Ibn Taymeeya, Ibn Katheer and al-Khider with regard to the meaning of this verse was greater than that of Abu Bakr?
It is strange that our opponents always paint a happy and concrete picture to portray a unanimous opinion in their sect that the verse under discussion does not talk about material possessions and prophets’ material possessions can never be inherited. But to place a blemish on such a portrait we would like to present words of Imam Sarkhasi, who in his authority work al-Mabsoot, Volume 12 page 29 stated:
واستدل بعض مشايخنا رحمهم الله بقوله عليه الصلاة والسلام إنا معاشر الأنبياء لا نورث ما تركناه صدقة فقالوا معناه ما تركنا صدقة لا يورث ذلك عنا وليس المراد أن أموال الأنبياء عليهم الصلاة والسلام لا تورث وقد قال الله تعالى وورث سليمان داود وقال تعالى فهب لي من لدنك وليا يرثني ويرث من آل يعقوب فحاشا أن يتكلم رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم بخلاف المنزل
Some of our Sheikhs may Allah’s mercy be upon them have commented on his (Prophet’s) statement “we prophets do not leave inheritance whatever we leave is for charity” and said that it means, whatever they leave for charity can’t be inherited but it doesn’t mean that prophets’ property cannot be inherited, Allah has said {And Solomon was David’s heir} and the Almighty (swt) said {therefore grant me from Thyself an heir Who should inherit me and inherit from the children of Yaqoub} so God forbids that Holy Prophet (s) opposed Quran in his (aforementioned) statement.
Although Sarkhasi himself didn’t concur with the opinion of his early Sheikhs and upheld the interpretation of the verses that are usually made by our opponents but our objective behind citing this reference is to only highlight the fact that there have prevailed in the ranks of the Sunni clergy, Imams who did believe that the verses under discussion talk about material possessions.
Surah Baqarah 002.248 reads:
And (further) their Prophet said to them: “A Sign of His authority is that there shall come to you the Ark of the covenant, with (an assurance) therein of security from your Lord, and the relics left by the family of Moses and the family of Aaron, carried by angels. In this is a symbol for you if ye indeed have faith.”
Al-Qur’an, Surah 2, Ayah 248, translated by Yusufali
These relics reached the hands of Hadhrat Adam (as) and his descendants and as proof we shall rely on the following esteemed Sunni works:
Tafseer Kabeer:
“The historians narrate that Allah (swt) sent some relics to Adam (as) which contained pictures of the Prophets, and these relics were inherited by the children of Adam, to the point that they reached Hadhrat Yaqoob (as)”
Tafseer al-Kabeer, Vol. 2, Page 506 & 507
We read in Tafseer Thalabi:
It was with Adam till he died, then it was with Sheeth, then the progeny of Adam inherited it till it reached to Ibrahim, when Ibrahim died it was with Ismaeel, because he was is his elder son, then when Ismaeel died, it was with his son Kedar, then Isaac’s progeny disputed with him about it and said: ‘Prophethood has gone from you and you have no other than this single light (the light of Muhammad) hence give us the covenant’, thus Kedar rejected to submit it to them and said: ‘It’s a legacy from my father and I would never give it to any one….’
Qurtubi, in his commentary of this verse states:
This Covenant was sent by Allah (swt) to Prophet Adam (as), and it remained with him until it reached Prophet Yaqoob (as), after which it remained with Bani-Israel, and they kept overcoming their opposing armies due to the blessings of this chest, until they disobeyed Allah (swt), and were defeated by Amaliqans, who took the chest from them.
Did no paupers exist during the period of Hadhrat Adam (as) till Hadhrat Yaqoob (as)? If the possessions of Prophets are Sadaqah for the Ummah, then why were these relics not distributed as Sadaqah when these prophets died?
Complimenting these Tafsirs is this narrative from the History of Tabari Volume 3 pages 125-126:
“Elisha was made a Porphet among the Israelites. He remained among them for as long as God wished them to be; then He took him to Himself. People followed each other in succession among them with sins increasing whilse the Ark was among them. Within it was Sakinah and a remainder of what the people of Moses and Aaron had left. It was handed down as an inheritance from one generation to another”
History of Tabari, Volume 3 pages 125-126
We read in Holy Quran :
[Yusufali 12:77] They said: “If he steals, there was a brother of his who did steal before (him).”…
Allamah Qadhi Thanaullah Panee Patee in commentary of above mentioned verse explains as to why the brothers of Yusuf (as) said “If he steals, there was a brother of his who did steal before (him)…”. Qadhi writes:
Muhammad bin Isaac narrates from Mujahid that following the death of Yusuf’s mother, he (as) started living with his paternal aunt (Bint Isaac), she loved him a great deal, and it was she who nourished him, when he grew older, Hadhrat Yaqub (as) started loving him deeply and requested his sister: “Sister! Now han over Yusuf to me, as his absence from my sight for even a moment has become unbearable for me.” Hadhrat Yaqub’s (as)’s sister deemed this impossible, whereas Hadhrat Yaqub(as) said that he could not leave Yusuf (as). His sister asked that she be allowed to keep Yusuf for a few more days, as Allah might grant her patience in regards to him. Hadhrat Yaqub (as) agreed to this. Hadhrat Isaac (as)’s strap (cloth worn around the waist) was to be inherited by the eldest child, being elder than Hadhrat Yaqub (as), his sister had inherited that strap and it was in her possession. She tied this strap around Hadhrat Yusuf’s (as) waist, underneath his clothes and then proclaimed that Hadhrat Isaac’s (as)’s strap had gone missing and that family members be searched. All the household were checked and the strap was recovered from Hadhrat Yusuf (as), hence Hadhrat Yaqub’s (as) sister proclaimed that from now on Yusuf (as) was to live with her. Hadhrat Yaqub (as) replied that if he had indeed done such an act, he should remain with her (Under the Shari’ah of Hadhrat Isaac (as) the owner of an appropriated belonging owned the thief as well), through this planning she kept Hadhrat Yusuf (as) till her death.
Tafseer Mazhari, Volume 6 Page 121
We can see that the inheritance of Prophet Isaac (as) was not distributed as charity rather his daughter inherited his belongings. If the daughter of Prophet Isaac (as) was entitled to inherit him then why not the daughter of the Holy Prophet (s) ? There are many traditions in the books of our opponents, that demonstrate that the children of the Prophet (s) inherited from them. And there is not even a single Report (either Authentic or Weak), which shows that child of any prophet was refused for inheritance except incident of Abu Bakr. It’s our challenge to these nasabis to produce such evidence, from even one report.
We read in Holy Quran:
[Shakir 12:93] Take this my shirt and cast it on my father’s face, he will (again) be able to see, and come to me with all your families.
Qadhi Thanaullah under the commentary of above mentioned verse writes in Tafseer Mazhari, Volume 6, Page 135-136, published by Daar ul Isha`t Karachi:
“…Take this shirt of mine and spread it over my father’s face, this would make his vision come back”, or it means that his father would return to him being able to see. Hasan said that Hadhrat Yusuf (as) might have been told by Allah Almighty, that is why he said that his father would be able to see, he couldn’t have said such a thing without being informed by Allah. Mujahid says that Hadhrat Jibrael(as) had conveyed Allah’s order to Hadhrat Yusuf (as) to send his shirt to Hadhrat Yaqub (as). This shirt belonged to Hadhrat Ibrahim (as), when he was about to be thrown into the fire, his clothes were taken off, then Hadhrat Jibrael (as) had brought a silk shirt for him from the heaven, the shirt remained with Hadhrat Ibrahim (as), after his death the shirt was inherited by Hadhrat Isaac (as) and it went to Hadhrat Yaqub (as) afterwards.”
Tafseer Mazhari, Volume 6, pages 135-136
Need we to comment any more? If Prophet’s leave no inheritance then how did the shirt of Ibrahim transfer through two generations of Prophets? Were these two Prophet’s so ignorant of the Shari’ah that they did not even know that this shirt had to be distributed to the poor and needy? Did not even a single poor destitute man exist during the era of Isaac (as) and Yaqub (as) who was entitled to this shirt?
As we shall demonstrate later not only Sunni books, but the Old and New Testament depict the Inheritance of Earlier Prophets.
Ansar.org:
In fact, it was a general rule with the Ambiya that they did not hoard anything beyond their need, and that they spent any surplus in charity.
Al Khider has very confidently advanced this as a ‘fact’ and ‘general rule’, could he therefore cite us a single verse in the Qur’an or authentic Hadeeth literature whereby Prophet’s were ordered not to live beyond their need and spend their surplus in charity? Prophet Dawood (as) and Prophet Sulayman both had Kingdoms with all the perks that come with this position, e.g. Palaces, land, money etc.Was such a royal lifestyle not beyond their need? We have already mentioned that Prophet Sulayman (as) had 1000 horses in his possession, was such lavishness not beyond his need?
The Bible provides a detailed insight into the lives of Prophets and their properties. It is strange that there is not even a single clue to substantiate Abu Bakr’s claim (i.e. the properties of all the prophets from Adam (as) till Muhammad (s) were distributed as Sadaqah and that their children received no share).
On the contrary we see at various points that when Prophets die their properties do not become charitable donations but are inherited by their offspring. It seems that throughout the history of mankind, Abu Bakr stands alone with his claim that prophets’ children don’t inherit them. No one from amongst Muslims confirmed the correctness of his claim, no one else narrated this from the Prophet, and no such evidence can be deduced from the Bible either.
Now let us quote some of the incidents from Bible, which clearly prove that children of earlier prophets also inherited from them.
Ansar.org:
It is well known that Dawud ‘alayhis salam had 100 wives and 300 concubines. He had numerous children from these wives and concubines.
It is indeed unfortunate that Al Khider chose to attribute Jewish fable to Prophet Dawud (as). He did have several wives and concubines but this is ridiculous to exceed their number to 400 in total. Even Bible also doesn’t support this assertion.
Al-Khider wants to prove that Dawud (as) had hundreds of sons which is also wrong. according to Bible, he had 6 sons while he was in Hebron.
2 Samuel 3:2-5 says:
Two Sons were born to David in Hebron:
His firstborn was Amnon the son of Ahinoam of Jezreel;
his second, Kileab the son of Abigail the widow of Nabal of Carmel;
the third, Absalom the son of Maacah daughter of Talmai king of Geshur;
the fourth, Adonijah the son of Haggith;
the fifth, Shephatiah the son of Abital;
and the sixth, Ithream the son of David’s wife Eglah.
And in Jerusalem, again he got 13 children.
1 Chronicle 14:4 reads:
These are the names of the children born to him there (Jerusalem): Shammua, Shobab, Nathan, Solomon, Ibhar, Elishua, Elpelet, Nogah, Nepheg, Japhia, Elishama, Beeliada and Eliphelet.
Moreover, also see “2 Samuel 5″ (which claims 11 children in Jerusalem). This makes total children of Dawud (as) around 17 to 19. This tallies with the tradition of the Shi’a Imams in Minhajus Sadiqeen (presented earlier) which also tells that there were 19 children of Dawud (as).
According to Bible, the Kingdom of Dawud (as) was not left as Sadaqah, but it was the same Kingdom which was inherited by Sulayman (as). We will prove it later, but first we will tell the whole story behind this Kingdom which shows that none of the children of Dawud (as) considered this inheritance to be the Sadaqah for poor.
“1 Kings 1″ tells that when David (as) got older, one of his sons Adonijah conspired and tried to occupy the Kingdom. Let us see what Bible is saying:
And Adonijah slew sheep and oxen and fat cattle by the stone of Zoheleth, which is by Enrogel, and called all his brethren the king’s sons, and all the men of Judah the king’s servants: 10 But Nathan the prophet, and Benaiah, and the mighty men, and Solomon his brother, he called not. 11 Wherefore Nathan spake unto Bathsheba the mother of Solomon, saying, Hast thou not heard that Adonijah the son of Haggith doth reign, and David our lord knoweth it not?
… And Bathsheba said unto him, My lord, thou swearest by the LORD thy God unto thine handmaid, saying, Assuredly Solomon thy son shall reign after me, and he shall sit upon my throne. 18 And now, behold, Adonijah reigneth; and now, my lord the king, thou knowest it not:
…And king David said, Call me Zadok the priest, and Nathan the prophet, and Benaiah the son of Jehoiada. And they came before the king. 33 The king also said unto them, Take with you the servants of your lord, and cause Solomon my son to ride upon mine own mule, and bring him down to Gihon: 34 And let Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet anoint him there king over Israel: and blow ye with the trumpet, and say, God save king Solomon. 35 Then ye shall come up after him, that he may come and sit upon my throne; for he shall be king in my stead: and I have appointed him to be the ruler over Israel and Judah.
Hence Solomon (as) became the heir of Dawood’s (as) kingdom and it refutes the claim by Mr. Al-Khider that Qur’an was talking about Solomon (as) as heir to David (as) only in terms of Knowledge and Prophethood.
In the next chapter of 1 Kings, Adonijah tells the mother of Solomon (as), that whole Bani Israel was looking at him to inherit the Crown. This also shows that Bani Israel never deemed that Prophet’s property is a Sadaqah, but always believed it to be distributed only among the family of Prophets according to the rules of earlier Sharias.
It is Interesting to see the following verses of Bible which confirms that Solomon’s son also inherited the same kingdom from Solomon (as):
2 Chronicles 9:31:
And Solomon slept with his fathers, and was buried in the city of David his father; and Rehobo’am his son reigned in his stead.
2 Chronicles 10:1:
Rehobo’am went to Shechem, for all Israel had come to Shechem to make him king.
The chapter 10 of Book of Chronicles 2 tells that Rehoboam was not a prophet but a fallible person. And he was not chosen by Allah, but by people as the inheritor of kingdom of Solomon (as).
Bible also confirms that Inheritance of Jacob (as) was also given to his descendants, instead of being divided amongst the poor as charity.
Book of Joshua 24:32:
The bones of Joseph which the people of Israel brought up from Egypt were buried at Shechem, in the portion of ground which Jacob bought from the sons of Hamor the father of Shechem for a hundred pieces of money; it became an inheritance of the descendants of Joseph.
In other places in Bible, we find the whole history of this Land of Shechem and why Prophet Joseph’s(s) bones were brought to this place after his death.
“Genesis 34″ give full details how Jacob (as) came to this land of Shechem, and how he bought it and why he had to leave it later.
And before Joseph died (at the age of 110), he made a ‘will’ that his bones must be brought to this Promised Land. This whole incident can be found in Genesis 50.
Genesis 50:24-25:
Joseph said to his brothers: “I am about to die. God will surely take care of you and lead you out of this land to the land that he promised on oath to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Then, putting the sons of Israel under oath, he continued, “When God thus takes care of you, you must bring my bones up with you from this place.”
“Genesis 49″ tells us that Abraham (as) bought a property from Hittite. After his death, this property was not distributed as charity, but remained in the hands of his descendants.
Genesis 49:29-33:
The Death of Jacob
Then he gave them these instructions: “I am about to be gathered to my people. Bury me with my fathers in the cave in the field of Ephron the Hittite, 30 the cave in the field of Machpelah, near Mamre in Canaan, which Abraham bought as a burial place from Ephron the Hittite, along with the field. 31 There Abraham and his wife Sarah were buried, there Isaac and his wife Rebekah were buried, and there I buried Leah. 32 The field and the cave in it were bought from the Hittites.”
When Jacob had finished giving instructions to his sons, he drew his feet up into the bed, breathed his last and was gathered to his people.
Job 42:15:
And in all the land there were no women so fair as Job’s daughters; and their father gave them inheritance among their brothers.
Genesis 15:2:
Later the LORD spoke to Abram in a vision, “Abram, don’t be afraid! I will protect you and reward you greatly.” But Abram answered, “LORD All-Powerful, you have given me everything I could ask for, except children. And when I die, Eliezer of Damascus will get all I own. You have not given me any children, and this servant of mine will inherit everything.” The LORD replied, “No, he won’t! You will have a son of your own, and everything you have will be his.” Then the LORD took Abram outside and said, “Look at the sky and see if you can count the stars. That’s how many descendants you will have.” Abram believed the LORD, and the LORD was pleased with him.
The Qur’an also refers to similar Dua by Zakariya (as) when he prayed to Allah Almighty for a child, who may inherit from him, while he feared that all his possessions would go to his relatives.
In brief, we have showed from the Qur’an that Sulayman (as) inherited from Dawud (as), and Zakariyyah (as) prayed for a child who inherit him, and showed Ahadeeth from Aima of Ahle-Bait (as), and also showed Ahadeeth from Sunni books that sons of earlier Prophets inherited from them. Now it’s challenge for our opponents to show us a single Quranic verse, or Hadeeth or even from Bible that properties of all the Prophets from Adam (as) till Muhammad (s) had been distributed as charity among the poor.
The case of Bible is some what like Ahadeeth, which are not 100% authentic, but people added a lot in them according to their wishes. Similarly Bible went through a lot of corruption. But still there are a lot of things in Bible, which you will find completely in accordance with Qur’an and authentic Ahadeeth of Rasool Allah (saw).
We will not go in details about Bible here, but we must keep the following facts in mind:
Applying the principle established by Ibn Taymeeya to the Biblical references, we can that these narrations in no way conflict with the Law of Allah (swt) as set out in the Qur’an, wherein we learn that Prophets Dawood (as) and Zakariya (as) left inheritance – on the contrary they corroborate these verses. It is therefore perfectly acceptable to cite Biblical references to Prophetic inheritance.
The author of Fedak had made this bold claim:
When a Nabi (Alayhis-Salaam) passes away, the property he leaves behind is not inherited by anybody. This fact is written in Shi’i literature as well.
This claim is a shameless lie and complete failure of the author to cite any source points to the fact that he is merely regurgitating the vomit of his Nasibi Shaykh’s without actually looking in to the matter. Alhamdulilah, unlike the tradition coined by Abu Bakr, in Shia fiqh the progeny of prophets are not believed to have been derpived of their natural and religious right of inheriting from their father. The following tradition shall pose a big slap to the ugly face of those Nawasib who try to bring Shia school equal to theirs in this regard:
Zurara narrated that Abi Jaffar (as) said: ‘Ali inherited the knowledge of Allah’s messenger and Fatima inherited his property.’
1. Al-Kafi, Volume 7 page 86
2. Basair al-Darajat, page 314
3. Tahdib al-Ahkam, Volume 9 page 277
4. Min la Yahdrahu al-Faqih, Volume 4 page 261
5. Manaqib al Abi Talib, Volume 2 page 26
6. Allamah Majlisi declared it Hasan in Mirat al-Uqool, Volume 23 page 32
The tradition in first part is talking the inheritence of Holy Prphet (s) in respect of knowledge which goes to his successor and scholars while in the second part the tradition is talking about the inheritence of Holy Prophet (s) that goes to his biological progeny, yet the najis Nawasib take the first part of the tradition in their attempt to prove that Shias also believed the fabrcicated concepted coined by Abu Bakar according to whch the progeny of all prophets are kept deprvied from the natural and relgious right of inheriting the material possessions.
Whilst the unamed author was so lazy that he had not bothered to bring forth any evidence, al Khider brings his devastating evidence, but contradicts himself as follows:
The fact of the matter is that the hadith “We, the Prophets do not leave heirs” is authentic by both the Ahl as-Sunnah and the Shi’ah. Why is it then that Abu Bakr is condemned for appropriating an authentic statement of Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wa-alihi wasallam, and that he be accused of fabricating the hadith in order to dispossess Fatimah of Fadak?
Just look at how this Nasibi contradicts himself:
How can the Shi’as accept the Hadeeth to be ‘Sahih’ and then accuse Abu Bakr of fabricating it? Al Khider has yet again exposed himself as a liar.
Al-Kulayni narrates in al-Kafi:
Abu ‘Abdillah (Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq) says that Rasulullah said: “… And the ‘Ulama are the heirs of the Ambiya; and the Ambiya did not leave dinars and dirhams as inheritance; but they left knowledge. Therefore whosoever takes knowledge has taken a great portion.” (al-Kafi, vol. 1 p. 42)
Regarding the authenticity of this Hadeeth, ‘Allamah Muhammad Baqir Majlisi states in his commentary on al-Kafi, entitled Mir’at al-’Uqul:[This] Hadeeth has two chains of narration. The first is majhul [contains an unknown narrator], and the second is hasan or muwaththaq. [Together] they do not fall short of being Sahih. (Mir’at al-’Uqul, vol. 1 p. 111)It is then a fact that this Hadeeth is reliable. Why do the ‘ulama of the Shi’ah refrain from using it, despite the fact that it so well-known in their ranks?
The strange thing here is that the Hadeeth is authentic enough for Khomeini to utilise it as evidence of the validity of his monumental political theory of Wilayat al-Faqih (the Rule of the Jurisprudent). He writes under the heading “Saheehat al-Qaddah” (the authentic narration of al-Qaddah):
‘Ali ibn Ibrahim narrates from his father, from Hammad ibn ‘Isa, on the authority of ['Abdullah ibn Maymun] al-Qaddah that Abu ‘Abdillah [Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq] ‘alayhis salam said: Rasulullah ‘alayhi wa-alihi wasallam said: “Whoever walks a path seeking therein knowledge, Allah will lead him on a road to Jannah… And the ‘Ulama are the heirs of the Ambiya; and the Ambiya did not leave dinars and dirhams as inheritance; but they left knowledge. Therefore whosoever takes knowledge has taken a great portion.” (al-Kafi, Kitab Fadl al-’Ilm, Bab Sifat al-’Ilm wa-Fadlihi, Hadeeth no. 2)
To this narration Khomeini appends the following remark:The narrators of this tradition are all reliable and trustworthy. The father of ‘Ali ibn Ibrahim [namely Ibrahim ibn Hashim] is not only reliable; he is one of the most reliable and trustworthy narrators. (al-Hukumat al-Islamiyyah, p. 133, published by Markaz Baqiyyat Allah al-A’zam, Beirut)
Thereafter Khomeini points to another narration to the same effect that is recorded in al-Kafi with a weak chain of narration, and comments as follows:
This narration has been narrated with a slight difference to the same effect through another chain of narration that is weak, meaning that the chain is authentic up to Abul Bakhtari, but Abul Bakhtari himself is weak. That narration is as follows:
[It is narrated] from Muhammad ibn Yahya, from Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Isa, from Muhammad ibn Khalid, from Abul Bakhtari, that Abu ‘Abdillah [Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq] ‘alayhis salam said: “Verily the ‘Ulama are the heirs of the Ambiya. That is because the Ambiya do not leave dirhams or dinars as inheritance, but they leave their words.” . (al-Hukumat al-Islamiyyah, p. 133)
It might be concluded from the above that the Hadeeth which states that “the Ambiya do not leave dinars and dirhams as inheritance, but they leave knowledge” is authentic in one of its two chains of narration, as attested to by Khomeini, and before him by Majlisi. Why should an authentically narrated statement of Rasulullah be spurned when it is a matter of consensus that there can be no Ijtihad when a Nass (text) exists? Again, why does this Hadeeth qualify to be used in support of Wilayat al-Faqih, but not for the issue of Fadak? Is this issue being judged subjectively?
When the Nawasib find this Hadeeth, they dance with joy as if it is the festival of Eid but as we pointed out earlier, wherever the Shia text mentions the inheritance of prophets, it does from two perspectives:
If our opponents insist on placing an emphasis on this part of Hadith i.e. “Ambiya did not leave dinars and dirhams as inheritance” are they trying to say that the Dinar or Dirham any prophet had in his possession would automatically vanished when he took his last breath? Remember that our opponents here cannot come up with the answer that the possessions that remained were distributed forthwith as Saqda because this ‘distribution as Sadqa’ theory does not exist in the Shia school, rather it was the brain child of Abu Bakar and his supporters.
The traditions al-Khidr relied on are talking about the first aspect only and thus it provided an an opening for the Nawasib to to commit dishonesty and present them as an orthodox belief of the Shia. Pertaining to the traditions cited by the Nasibi author,
In the same way that the Hadeeth refers to the Ulema as the figurative sons of Prophets and Prophets as their figurative fathers; knowledge is also a figurative possession. The entire Hadeeth is along the line of figurative terms, hence the term Waris can also be understood in a figurative manner – the Ulema attain some of the knowledge possessed by Prophets. The Waris Hadeeth cited by Abu Bakr in Sahih al Bukhari that preceded the claim of Sayyida Fatima (as), did not refer to the inheritance of knowledge but referred to the inheritance of possessions as mentioned in the Shia tradition we cited above.
The Fadak dispute was in relation to a portion that had been set aside by Allah (swt) for Rasulullah (s). Abu Bakr’s response that Prophet’s leave no inheritance did not refer to knowledge, hence this proves that the Hadeeth in al Kafi that the Ulema are the Heirs of the Prophets Knowledge is a figurative term, it can not be advanced to prove that the Ahl’ul bayt (as) were prohibited from inheriting the Prophet’s worldly possessions.
The Nasibi in many ways destroys his entire argument by posing this brain teaser:
“…Why does this hadith qualify to be used in support of Wilayat al-Faqih, but not for the issue of Fadak?
The very fact that Ulema have used this Hadeeth to support the concept of State rule and nothing else is proof that these particular Hadith of al Kafi is not addressing the children of the Prophet (s). The Ulema have correctly interpreted the Hadeeth to mean that the Property of Prophethood is only Knowledge (not Dinars and Dirhams) and it is this property that Prophets leave as inheritance for their Ummah (not Dinars and Dirhams). The heirs of this knowledge are Ulema (People with knowledge). The above narration is not talking about the inheritance of a material thing, i.e. a personal property or a land but it’s talking about the knowledge of Prophets, which is inherited by the scholars of Islam. The Hadith is informing us of exactly what the Ulema receive as inheritance from Prophets. It is making clear that the Ulema are not the waris of the material possessions of the Prophets; rather the only thing that they inherit is the knowledge of Prophets. If these Ulema were also the waris of the material possessions of the Prophet (s) then that would constitute clear injustice for the surviving relatives – the Hadith therefore makes it clear that the only thing that scholars inherit from Prophets are their knowledge. Such an interpretation is in complete conformity with the principle of Islamic laws of inheritance that are set out in the Quran, the Ulema of tne Ummah have no right inherit the dinars / dirhams of Prophets, rather all that they have entitlement to is their knowledge, since the Waris of dinars / dirhams are the surviving relatives.
These particular Hadith mentions scholars not family. The tradition is stressing that Prophet’s did not come on the earth to horde vast amounts of wealth for the scholars that succeeded them, the only riches they left for the Ulema was their inheritance of knowledge.
The above Hadeeth is clear in its own context that the Prophets did not leave any of their material belongings for the scholars but what they left’ for them’ was knowledge but THERE IS NO hadith in Shia text that would suggest that biological children of prophets are prohibited from inheriting the material possessions of their father and whatever they leave is to be distributed as Sadqa.
“If Muhammad Al-Khider was a great scholar of Islam and I happen to be a student of his, I would inherit from him the knowledge which he has but I would not inherit his material belongings that is where his family comes in.”
The laws of inheriting divine knowledge are very different from inheriting Material Possessions. Hence the Hadeeth of Knowledge cannot be used to justify the actions of Abu Bakr against Fatima Al- Zahra (as) because the Material Inheritance is connected to the family and is quite different from the inheritance of knowledge which is not connected to the family alone.
These particular traditions do not address the personal life and personal properties of Prophets (in which some of them were kings and some of them were poor), but address the inheritance of Prophethood (in which all the prophets got knowledge). As for the tradition dealing with the personal life and personal properties of Prophets, we have already cited a Shia tradition which will unveil the usual deception that is committed by the Nawasib and as we said earlier, there is NOT A SINGLE hadith in Shia books that would tell us that biological children of prophets are deprived of their right of inheriting material possessions of their father and whatever their father leave behind is to be distributed as Sadqa.
When someone is dying it is common for his relatives to keep a check on his material possessions, such as land, business, property etc. What this Hadeeth is stressing is that Prophet’s leave something of greater valuable than these tangible assets, what they leave is their manners, teachings, and way of life. When someone wishes to emphasize something of importance they will do so by highlighting / prioritizing that matter above all others. The Prophet (s) in this Hadeeth was saying that Prophets should not be measured in terms of their wealth (the way people tend to measure others); they should be measured subject to their permanent legacy [knowledge] that they transfer on to the Ulema.
The tradition is telling adherents to concentrate on their teachings rather than their personal possessions. Let us cite an example:
“A religious scholar has lived a simplistic lifestyle at the local Mosque. He spends his time teaching students about issues such as Islamic Fiqh and writing books. At the time of his death the only savings that he has are £100 in the local bank. If it is commented that the Scholar ‘Left no money, rather what left as inheritance was his knowledge that his students have inherited’ – This statement does NOT mean that he died penniless, he left something but that was an issue that was only of relevance to the legal heirs, what was of greater importance was his eternal legacy the knowledge that he had conveyed to his students and placed in writing that his faithful students had inherited”.
Similarly in this Hadeeth the tradition is stating that monetary inheritance of Prophets is an irrelevant issue, as this is a matter that is only relevant to legal Heirs – the only thing that followers need to know are the teachings that they leave behind that all the Ummah can benefit from with the Ulema at the helm.
If this Nasibi is suggesting that that Prophets only leave knowledge as inheritance not material possessions we will say that this only refers to what they leave for the Ulema, The tradition is basically informing then Ulema of the inheritance that the Prophet (s) has left for them, Prophetic knowledge. They only the heirs of knowledge not material possessions – yet the Prophet’s children inherit knowledge and the worldly possessions of Prophets.
Material possessions are inherited after someone dies whilst knowledge can be obtained during one’s lifetime; hence a tradition that proves the inheritance of knowledge does not disprove the inheritance of material possessions.
If the tradition proved that Prophets leave no material possessions then this should have appeared in the Chapter of Inheritance, it does not it appears in the Chapter of Ilm in Usool al-Kafi, under the heading ’Chapter on the reward for the scholars and those who seek knowledge’ and hence further strengthens our argument that the compiler Shaykh Kulayni also understood the Hadeeth to refer specifically to the inheritance of knowledge, nothing else. If Kulaini understood this Hadeeth to mean that Prophets leave no materials inheritance as an absolute rule then he would have placed this Hadeeth in the chapter that discusses the inheritance of the Prophet (s). He did not and the fact that in the same book Shaykh Kulaini has a chapter called ‘Progeny’s inheritance’ that contains the Hadeeth we previously mentioned, namely:
Zurara narrated that Abi Jaffar (as) said: ‘Ali inherited the knowledge of Allah’s messenger and Fatima inherited his property.’
The inserting of these two distinctive Hadeeth under their relevant Chapter headings corroborates our assertion that Shaykh Kulaini (and others) recognized the Prophet left spiritual inheritance for scholars and material inheritance for his progeny.
Al Khider so as to prove his point has sought to suggest that the opening words in the tradition Verily the ‘Ulama are the heirs of the Ambiya’ are Kalima Hasr (an exclusive attribute) i.e. the realm of Prophetic inheritance is the exclusive domain of the Ulema. The Nasibi is of course seeking to suggest that the Prophet (s) left nothing save his knowledge that went solely to the Ulema. The unusual thing is that Nasibi of this ilk reject the notion that the verse that descended in relation to the Wilaya of Maula ‘Ali (as) “Your (real) friends are (no less than) Allah, His Messenger, and the (fellowship of) believers,- those who establish regular prayers and regular charity, and they bow down humbly (in worship)” is not Kalima Hasr to Ansar.Org, despite the acceptance of the Sunni Ulema over the reason for its descent, rather it incorporates all believers. It is truly amazing how the goalposts change when it comes to issues relating to the praise of the Ahl’ul bayt! Unfortunately his attempt to deem this as an exclusive attribute falls apart when we read these verses:
And so amongst men and crawling creatures and cattle, are they of various colours. Those truly fear Allah, among His Servants, who have knowledge: for Allah is Exalted in Might, Oft-Forgiving.
Al-Qur’an, Surah Fathir, Ayah 28, translated by Yusufali
The actual Arabic of ‘who have knowledge’ in this verse is ‘Ulema’. Should we therefore conclude that no one other than the Ulema possess a fear of Allah? Can you only attain this state when you attain the rank of a scholar? The vast bulk of us cannot even think about attaining this esteemed rank, does that mean than none of the millions of Muslims fear Allah, save the Ulema?
The Believers are but a single Brotherhood: So make peace and reconciliation between your two (contending) brothers; and fear Allah, that ye may receive Mercy.
Al-Qur’an, Surah Hujuraath, Ayah 10, translated by Yusufali
If we literally accept this verse as we read it then we have to say that the bond of brotherhood is the exclusive domain of Muslims. Is this really the case? Do the Kuffar not have a close bond of friends that they can call a brotherhood?
We also read as follows in Surah Baqarah:
“He hath forbidden you only carrion and blood and swine flesh and that which hath been immolated to any other than Allah”
Al-Qur’an, Surah Baqarah, Ayah 173, translated by Yusufali
With the verse containing the words only, should we therefore concluded that only pork and blood is haraam to us, everything else such as coprses, faeces, urine and semen is halal?
We read in Surah al Kahf verse 110:
Say: “I am but a man like yourselves, (but) the inspiration has come to me, that your Allah is one Allah.
Should we conclude on the basis of this verse that other the declaration of Tauheed via revelation, all other matters wer not revealed by revelation?
If Al Khider is seeking to suggest that Prophetic inheritance takes the shape of knowledge not material possessions, and the Ulema are the sole beneficiaries of this inheritance then we shall say the exclusive attribute in this Hadeeth links solely to what the Ulema can receive from the Prophet (s). The Hadeeth states that if the Ulema attain anything from the Prophet (s) as inheritance it is his knowledge, this is not the case with the family of the Prophet (s) they can inherit both his material possessions and his knowledge.
The tradition does not elaborate on where these Dinars / Dirhams go after a Prophet (s) dies! Are we to assume that these Dinars / Dirhams disappear into the Heavens, or are they buried with the Prophet (s)? Clearly they have to go somewhere and that somewhere is the heirs of the Prophet (s) – spiritual inheritance namely knowledge – goes to the Ulema as the tradition alludes to, but Dinar / Dirhams have no nexus with the Ulema, these material items need to be left somewhere, and they are, they are left with the legal heirs of a Prophets estate, namely his heir Sayyida Fatima (as).
Ibn al Hashimi sought to suggest the Hadith is identical to the one that Abu Bakr cited in the Fadak dispute:
This is the general approach taken by such anti-Sunni websites such as “Answering-Ansar.” They will say that this Hadith in Al-Kafi is not referring to the laws of inheritance for relatives but rather has a symbolic meaning that scholars take the place of Prophets.
Let us even accept this fallacious assertion, or any other explanation the Shia give. The fact of the matter is that the Shia are accusing Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) of fabricating the Hadith. They even say that Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) accused him of this. Regardless of the interpretation of this Hadith, the fact is that it at least exists and thus the Shia claims that it is fabricated are simply false. If they claim that Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) cursed Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) and said that he was a fabricator, liar, and all sorts of other things, then in reality the evidence from the Shia’s own Al-Kafi would prove Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) wrong! (On the other hand, the Ahlus Sunnah holds the view that Fatima [رضّى الله عنها] made a sincere mistake, and nothing more.)
We remind the reader that–according to the Shia–Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) never claimed that Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) was interpreting the Hadith in the wrong manner, but rather she was claiming that he fabricated it completely! If it was a mere difference in interpretation, then we could say that they both had their individual Ijtihad on the matter, and the Shariah law states that the Ijtihad of the Caliph takes priority. But the Shia’s main issue is not simply that Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) made an incorrect Ijtihad, but rather that he fabricated the Hadith entirely. Whereas the Shia can certainly always argue senselessly about interpretations of the Hadith, they have absolutely no basis for the claim that the Hadith was fabricated. This claim is rejected on the basis of Al-Kafi, much to the chagrin of the Shia.
At no point does the Hadith state that inheritance left by Prophets is Sadaqah (charity) for the poor people of the Ummah (as Abu Bakr claimed). The wording ‘What we leave behind is charity’ found in Sunni collections is an interpolation. Ibn al Hashimi would like his Sunni readership to believe that this Hadith mirrors the one cited by Abu Bakr but the reality is that it does not in any way support the position of Abu Bakr. The Hadith (according to Ibn al Hashimi’s interpretation) would suggest that the Prophets leave absolutely nothing, save their knowledge, but the Hadith that Abu Bakr advanced ‘What we leave behind is charity’ – would suggest that Prophets do leave something behind, after all they have to leave something for it to be handed over as Sadaqah when they die! The two Hadith do not in any way compliment one another as ibn al Hashimi is suggesting, rather they contradict one another.Moreover one wonders how this Hadith mirrors the recital, when Abu Hurraira offers us an exemption clause in his recollection of the same tradition. We read Sahih Bukhari, Book of inheritance Volume 8, Book 80, Number 721:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah’s Apostle said, “Not even a single Dinar of my property should be distributed (after my deaths to my inheritors, but whatever I leave excluding the provision for my wives and my servants, should be spent in charity.”
Ibn al Hashimi we suggest you inspect this tradition closely. Just like that cited by Abu Bakr, you deem it Sahih and in fact will deem it as the same as that cited by Abu Bakr, save the exemption. The entitlement of the wives and servants of the Prophet to a salary destroys all attempts of Ibn al Hashimi to get the Shia to recognise the Usool al-Kafi tradition as the same as that presented by Abu Bakr in Fadak. Ibn al Hashimi wants us to accept that Prophets do not leave any Dinar or Dirham for anyone. The Hadeeth narrated by Abu Huraira does not concur with this, after all the Prophet (s) leaves a sufficient amount of Dinars and Dirhams to ensure that his Servants and nine wives obtain a regular salary. You cannot rely on the Usool al-Kafi Hadeeth as proof that Prophets leave no Dinars and Dirhams and also accept this narration of Abu Huraira that informs us that they do! The fact that Abu Huraira and Abu Bakr are unable to agree on the degree of material possessions the Prophet (s) further strengthen our stance that this was concocted following the death of the Prophet (s).
Ayatollah Khomeini also mentions that in his Hukumat al-Islamiyah, chapter 3, saying:
“In certain cases, the phrase: “What we leave behind is charity” has been added to the tradition, but it does not truly belong there. Found only in Sunni versions of the tradition, it has been added for political reasons”
This reference was Ayatullah Khomeini’s criticism of Abu Bakr for usurping the land of Fadak from Sayyida Fatima (as) for what he deemed ‘political considerations’. Of interest Haq Nawaz Jhangvi of Sipah Sahaba, Pakistan, in his article attacks Ayatullah Khomeini for these comments:
AGAIN DWELLING ON THE LAW OF INHERITANCE STATED IN THE QUR’AN KHOMENI HAS WRITTEN IN HIS BOOK THAT ACCORDING TO QUR’AN HADHRAT FATIMA WAS ENTITLED TO HER SHARE OF INHERITANCE IN THE PROPERTY (FADAK GARDEN) LEFT BY RASUL-ALLAH (SAW) BUT ABU BAKR IN CLEAR VIOLATION OF THE QUR’ANIC INJUNCTION DEPRIVED HER FROM IT AND INSTEAD PRESENTED THE CONCOCTED HADITH MENTIONED ABOVE.
Clearly he could not have held such a position if he believed that Shi’a literature proves that Rasulullah (s) left no inheritance for his daughter! It’s quite clear that both Ayatullah Khomeini and Kulayni interpreted this Hadith in terms of the role of the Ulema inheriting knowledge and nothing else, it had nothing to do with the inheritance that the Prophet (s) left his daughter. No Shi’a would ever be able to understand a Hadith that would in effect render Sayyida Fatima (as) to be a liar, although the Ahl’ul Sunnah have no diddficulty with such a notion.
Khomeini’s criticism of Abu Bakr’s usurpation of criticism serves as the clearest proof that he did not understand the tradition in the fraudulent manner that Al Khider has sought to suggest!
The Nawasib should know that when any of our Imams narrate a hadith of the Prophet (s) the chain lnks from the preceding Imams, through to Imam Ali (as) and then the Prophet (s). Imam Ali (as) would have heard this hadith from the Prophet (s). If it was identical to the one that Abu Bakr cited, then why did Imam Ali (as) support the claim of his wife during the Fadak dispute? Both Sunni and Shia traditions confirm that he supported the claim of his wife, so how could he if we accept Ibn al Hashimi’s claim that the Hadith that Abu Bakr produced mirrored that in al Kafi? The very fact that Ali (as) supported his wife in the Fadak claim proves that the Hadith does not negate the right of Sayyida Zahra (as).
Morover if the Hadith is the same as that Abu Bakr cited why did the later Imams accept Fadak when it was given to them by the Caliphs of their time? When Abu Bakr (according to Ibn al Hashimi) dispossessed their mother of land due to a hadith that also believed in, how were they then now accepting that annexed land? Were they dishonestly claiming land when they knew the Prophet (s) did not leave as inheritance? As Shi’a this doesnt even come into the equation, since we deem our Imams to be Masum. The fact that they accepted the same land that Abu Bakr usurped by citing the Hadith proves that they rejected the alleged Hadith he quoted and did not deem the Usul al Kafi tradition Dinar / Dirhams traditions as evidence that the Prophet (s) left nothing to his legal heirs. The action of Maula Ali (as) in supporting the claim of his wife and the Imams accepting Fadak during their eras proves that the al-Kafi tradition is not the same as that produced by Abu Bakr to dispossess Sayyida Zahra (as).