Fadak, A Gift or and Inheritance Options

[Dayyanah]

salaams
i hear all different stories about fadak. can anyone please tell me every thing related to fadak. The Sunni school of thought say that it was an inheritance where as the Shia say that its a gift. where did this confusion begin?

[Killed Bill]

The Sunni's believe that Prophets do not leave inheritance and that Fatima's claim of Fadak being hers was wrong

The Shia's do not accept this and believe that it was her right to have the land

[Dayyanah]

yes i understand that but i want to know why the Sunnis believe that she did not have the right of Fadak.

[Kalaam]

Bismillah
First of all, the shias claim that fadak was inherited to Fatima (may Allah be pleased with her). When that claim is refuted, than they claim that fadak was gifted to her.

Both claims are wrong, and their shifting from one allegation to another allegation is enough to prove that they are wrong.

Our claim is that Fadak was neither inherited nor gifted, the Prophet (peace be upon him) himself said:

“We do not leave inheritance. What we leave behind is charity.” (Sahih Muslim, Kitab al-Jihad was-Siyar, no. 49)

“We, the Prophets, do not leave heirs.” (Musnad Ahmad, vol. 2 p. 462)

This is confirmed in Shia Hadith as well. Let us examine Shia Hadith in Al-Kafi, the most reliable of the four Shia books of Hadith, on the same matter:

“The Prophets do not leave dinars and dirhams as inheritance, but what they leave is knowledge.” (al-Kafi, vol. 1 p. 42)

This hadith has been authenticated by ayatulla khomeini, in his book , al-Hukumat al-Islamiyyah, p. 133, published by Markaz Baqiyyat Allah al-A’zam, Beirut


Than they say that fadak was gifted. That is also wrong.

The clear thing is that both shias and sunnis agree that Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) didn't return fadak during his own rule (see ilalul sharaie by shaikh sadooq, there is a complete chapter with the heading, why Ali didn't return fadak during his own rule). The shias give the excuse that he did so in order to maintain peace and unity between Muslims. Now suppose the shias are correct, than we ask them that if Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) didn't restore fadak in order to maintain peace and unity ,for the sake of argument, than why do they make noise over it? Isn't it better to ignore the issue like Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) "supposedly" ignored the issue of Fadak, just like he wanted peace and unity , shouldn't the shias also , who claim to be his followers, agree with him , and ignore the issue of fadak?

The thing is, the shias have no interest whether the fadak was given to Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) or not, they simply want to accuse the companions of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) somehow and to degrade them on such charges.

[Killed Bill]

“The Prophets do not leave dinars and dirhams as inheritance, but what they leave is knowledge.” (al-Kafi, vol. 1 p. 42)

This hadith has been authenticated by ayatulla khomeini, in his book , al-Hukumat al-Islamiyyah, p. 133, published by Markaz Baqiyyat Allah al-A’zam, Beirut

I do not believe Khomeini has actually authenticated this hadith.

The clear thing is that both shias and sunnis agree that Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) didn't return fadak during his own rule (see ilalul sharaie by shaikh sadooq, there is a complete chapter with the heading, why Ali didn't return fadak during his own rule). The shias give the excuse that he did so in order to maintain peace and unity between Muslims. Now suppose the shias are correct, than we ask them that if Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) didn't restore fadak in order to maintain peace and unity ,for the sake of argument, than why do they make noise over it? Isn't it better to ignore the issue like Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) "supposedly" ignored the issue of Fadak, just like he wanted peace and unity , shouldn't the shias also , who claim to be his followers, agree with him , and ignore the issue of fadak?

Look at the historical context of this situation. Uthman was just murdered, and Aisha was gathering Muslims in order to kill and overthrow Ali . Do you think it is a wise decision, at this crucial moment in the Islamic split for Ali to take back fadak? What would the people think and how could his enemies use this against him? Look the Caliph is now in power and he is taking things which do not belong to him! He only ruled for 5 years, and most of which he was forced to fight other Muslims. It is not possible

And if that was the case, then why was Fadak returned to the Ahlulbayt during the Caliphate of Umar ibn Abdul Aziz?

The matter of fact is that Abu Bakr unjustly acted in this situation which caused the grief of Fatima , and we are both aware of the punishment of the one that does so.

[Kalaam]

I do not believe Khomeini has actually authenticated this hadith.

Here is an online reference to the book of Imam Khomeini

"Imam as-Sadiq (‘a) relates that the Prophet (s)
said: “For whomever travels a path in search of knowledge, God opens up a path to paradise, and the angels lower their wings before him as a sign of their being well pleased [or God’s being well pleased]. All that is in the heavens and on earth, even the fish in the ocean, seeks forgiveness for him. The superiority of the learned man over the mere worshipper is like that of the full moon over the stars. Truly the scholars are the heirs of prophets (‘a); the prophets bequeathed not a single dinar or dirham; instead they bequeathed knowledge, and whoever acquires it has indeed acquired a generous portion of their legacy.” [87]
The links in the chain of transmission of this tradition are all trustworthy; in fact, Ibrahim ibn Hashim, father of ‘Ali ibn Ibrahim, is not moderately trustworthy but outstandingly so."

http://shiamultimedia.com/books/english/Ay...0Government.pdf

The page Number is 74

Look at the historical context of this situation. Uthman was just murdered, and Aisha was gathering Muslims in order to kill and overthrow Ali AS.gif. Do you think it is a wise decision, at this crucial moment in the Islamic split for Ali AS.gif to take back fadak? What would the people think and how could his enemies use this against him? Look the Caliph is now in power and he is taking things which do not belong to him! He only ruled for 5 years, and most of which he was forced to fight other Muslims. It is not possible

And if that was the case, then why was Fadak returned to the Ahlulbayt during the Caliphate of Umar ibn Abdul Aziz?

The matter of fact is that Abu Bakr unjustly acted in this situation which caused the grief of Fatima AS.gif, and we are both aware of the punishment of the one that does so.

Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) was herself attacked by the partisans of Ali , which lead to the war , when she was returning after negotiations with Ali so as to punish the murderers of Uthman whose killers were present in the army of Ali , who when they found that they are going to be punished, attacked Aisha and the people who had come for negotiations at night time, after the attack, Ali and Aisha both reconciled when they understood the reality.

The question is , if Ali could fight with Muawiyah for not giving him allegiance before the punishment of the murderers of Uthman , than why could not he fight for fadak also? The simple logic disproves all the excuses. And your saying that what would the people think, I say nothing worse than when Ali attacked Muawiyah . You are presenting excuses which are against the logic, if Ali can go to war for confirming that everybody pay allegiance to him, why can't he transfer a single piece of land back to the ahlel bayt?
As far as your saying about Umar bin Abdul Aziz is concerned, he returned fadak to ahlel bayt in the same way just like Umar ibn al-Khattāb did, that is , they returned fadak to ahlelbayt to manage it, they didn't return fadak to ahlelbayt so as to transfer the property.
There is a long hadith in Sahih Bukhari which testifies that Umar ibn- al-khattab also returned fadak to ahlelbayt so that they can manage it , in the way the Prophet (peace be upon him) and Abubakr did.

Sahih Bukhari
... "Then 'Umar faced 'Ali and Abbas saying, "I ask you by Allah, did I hand it over to you on this condition?" They said, "Yes. " He said, " Do you want now to give a different decision? By Allah, by Whose Leave both the Heaven and the Earth exist, I will never give any decision other than that (I have already given). And if you are unable to manage it, then return it to me, and I will do the job on your behalf."
http://www.searchtruth.com/book_display.ph...mp;translator=1

The matter of fact is that Abu Bakr unjustly acted in this situation which caused the grief of Fatima AS.gif, and we are both aware of the punishment of the one that does so.

There are many narrations in the shia books which says that Ali's acts caused the grief of Fatima, you should first answer them before accusing Abu Bakr, also the punishment thereto, as far as Abu Bakr is concerned, as I proved, what he said was correct, that the Prophet (peace be upon him) himself said:

“We do not leave inheritance. What we leave behind is charity.” (Sahih Muslim)

Food for thought
When Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) was Caliph, then the Shia curse him for not returning Fadak.

When Umar (رضّى الله عنه) was Caliph, then the Shia do not love him even though he appointed Abbas (رضّى الله عنه) and Ali (رضّى الله عنه) as the trustees of Fadak.

When Uthman (رضّى الله عنه) was Caliph, then the Shia curse him for failing to return Fadak to Hasan (رضّى الله عنه) and Hussain (رضّى الله عنه).

When Ali (رضّى الله عنه) was Caliph, then the Shia say that he was doing Taqiyyah and that’s why he didn’t return Fadak.

When Muawiyyah (رضّى الله عنه) was Caliph, then the Shia curse him for not returning Fadak.

When Hasan (رضّى الله عنه) was Caliph, then the Shia say that he didn’t return Fadak again because he was doing Taqiyyah and didn’t want people to accuse him of abusing power.

Do we notice a pattern? All of the above people did the same action [i.e. not return Fadak] but all the people that the Shia love are excused [using Taqiyyah as an excuse], but the people the Shia hate are accused of being tyrants. This is the epitome of intellectual dishonesty. All of the above individuals should be kept to the same standard and judged by their actions.

This post has been edited by Kalaam: Sep 28 2010, 10:54 PM

[Killed Bill]

You, alike your followers, have a rather disturbing pattern of missing "obvious" things when reading a text. You do not enjoy reading much further do you?

This is what the Imam actually says (if you had read on)

Anyone acquainted with the traditions that relate to the status of the Imams (‘a) and the rank accorded them by the Most Noble Messenger (s) will immediately realize that it is not the Imams but the scholars of the community who are intended in this tradition...

To conclude, then, it is obvious that the ‘ulama-the scholars-are intended here.

Why did you not post the full hadith instead of giving it out of context? That is dirty.

This hadith has nothing to do with family members, it is speaking of which the scholars are the heirs of the knowledge left behind. The scholars do not received anything but knowledge from the Prophets. This hadith is strictly in mention of scholars, not family members.

The question is , if Ali ra.gif could fight with Muawiyah ra.gif for not giving him allegiance before the punishment of the murderers of Uthman ra.gif, than why could not he fight for fadak also? The simple logic disproves all the excuses. And your saying that what would the people think, I say nothing worse than when Ali ra.gif attacked Muawiyah ra.gif. You are presenting excuses which are against the logic, if Ali can go to war for confirming that everybody pay allegiance to him, why can't he transfer a single piece of land back to the ahlel bayt?

Fadak, as a land, was no important of the Ahlulbayt. They do not care for wordily treasures or rewards. The issue of Fadak was that it was their right to have it, that is the reason Hazrat Fatima was upset. She was denied the right of what her father had left her. Ali did not desire the land, nor did he want it. There was no need to take it back.

Your comparison with his war against Muawiytah and Fadak makes no sense. Ali did not fight Muawiyah because he did not pay allegiance to him, is this what your scholars preach to you?

Nawawi states,

"This Hadeeth proves principles of Ahkam. When two issues conflict with one another, when a problem that carries benefit conflicts with another carries harm and it is not possible to do the good and abandon the harmful altogether, then one should start with the most important. Rasulullah saw a benefit in reconstructing the Ka'aba and build it as it was during the time of Ibrahim. He (s) also feared Fitnah from the new Muslims, who would glorify the Ka'aba and believed that reconstructing it was some thing horrible, therefore he (s) chose not to reconstruct the Ka'aba".

To conclude, it was firstly not necessary to regain Fadak, secondly to do so, would have caused even more problems. A newly appointed Caliph does not go around taking land for himself.

As far as your saying about Umar bin Abdul Aziz is concerned, he returned fadak to ahlel bayt in the same way just like Umar ibn al-Khattāb did, that is , they returned fadak to ahlelbayt to manage it, they didn't return fadak to ahlelbayt so as to transfer the property.
There is a long hadith in Sahih Bukhari which testifies that Umar ibn- al-khattab also returned fadak to ahlelbayt so that they can manage it , in the way the Prophet (peace be upon him) and Abubakr ra.gif did.

You just shot yourself in the foot here. If the option of giving the land TO the family was available, then why was it not given to Fatima ?

Surely the hadith "Whoever hurts Fatima, has hurt me" is known by Abu Bakr? When he had the option to provide her with what she wanted, then why didnt he? Did not not care about her feelings?

Do we notice a pattern? All of the above people did the same action [i.e. not return Fadak] but all the people that the Shia love are excused [using Taqiyyah as an excuse], but the people the Shia hate are accused of being tyrants. This is the epitome of intellectual dishonesty. All of the above individuals should be kept to the same standard and judged by their actions.

Do you not see the pattern? What fool would, under his rocky leadership, regain such an important piece of land for himself? You must be a seriously stupid leader to do so. The other 3 could have done so because they were not the ones claiming it was their right. And Ali has never upset Fatima . This is just a lie made up by those who wish to bring down his rightful position.

The rightful leaders would (Umar ibn Abdal Aziz) would return it to what they believed was truly theirs.

The Ahlulbayt had no concern with the wealth of the land, the land was simply a cry for the oppression they were faced, the rights they were denied and the freedom that had been taken from them. Peace and blessings be upon the Ahlulbayt.

[Kalaam]

You, alike your followers, have a rather disturbing pattern of missing "obvious" things when reading a text. You do not enjoy reading much further do you?

This is what the Imam actually says (if you had read on)

QUOTE
Anyone acquainted with the traditions that relate to the status of the Imams (‘a) and the rank accorded them by the Most Noble Messenger (s) will immediately realize that it is not the Imams but the scholars of the community who are intended in this tradition...

To conclude, then, it is obvious that the ‘ulama-the scholars-are intended here.


Why did you not post the full hadith instead of giving it out of context? That is dirty.

This hadith has nothing to do with family members, it is speaking of which the scholars are the heirs of the knowledge left behind. The scholars do not received anything but knowledge from the Prophets. This hadith is strictly in mention of scholars, not family members.

For your kind information, I indeed posted the full hadith. And I don't care about your Imam's interpretation of it, why didn't you say this first when I presented the hadith? Now you are trying to hide behind his interpretation of it after reading from the book, while first you were rejecting my statement when I said that Ayatulla khomeini has classified this hadith as authentic, the Prophet (peace be upon him) didn't say that Imams can be his inheritors but Scholars are the inheritors of his knowledge only.
We will debate on the sayings of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), if you provide your scholars' interpretation of every hadith, than of course they will interpret it according to their own religion, lets look at the words of the Prophet (peace be upon him) as present in your hadith books.

"Imam as-Sadiq (‘a) relates that the Prophet (s)
said: “For whomever travels a path in search of knowledge, God opens up a path to paradise, and the angels lower their wings before him as a sign of their being well pleased [or God’s being well pleased]. All that is in the heavens and on earth, even the fish in the ocean, seeks forgiveness for him. The superiority of the learned man over the mere worshipper is like that of the full moon over the stars. Truly the scholars are the heirs of prophets (‘a); the prophets bequeathed not a single dinar or dirham; instead they bequeathed knowledge, and whoever acquires it has indeed acquired a generous portion of their legacy.”

where does it say that Imams can be the heirs of dinar and dirham (wealth) but the scholars are the the heir of knowledge only? How can I accept such an interpretation of your Imam? This hadith doesn't say anything like that.

and you obviously ignored the facts that Ali and Hasan didn't restore Fadak during their own rule.

[Killed Bill]

I believe I have already addressed those. Let Dayyanah decide what she wants to believe now.

[Dayyanah]

Br. Kalaam, it seems that you are misinformed.
This post is rather long but informative so i would advise you to read it very carefully.
I did a lot of research (and that's why i could not post this earlier) and I have come to this conclusion that the Shias have always been right about this issue, and I am not being biased.

I am going to lay down all the information that I have collected and then you can tell me from an intellectual point of view whether the Caliphs were wrong to confiscate Fadak from Fatimah or not.

Fadak was a piece of land rich and fertile near Madina which was given to the Prophet after the battle of Khaibar according to the peace treaty signed between them.

Note: it was not war booty, it belonged to the Prophet.
“Half of the Land of Fadak, which was given by the Jews following the peace treaty, was purely the property of Rasool Allah (s).”
Nawawi in Sharh Sahih Muslim, Volume 2, p92

At this point, this verse of Surah Israel was revealed.

[17:27] And give thou to the kinsman his due, and to the poor and the wayfarer, and squander not thy wealth extravagantly.

Prophet gifted Fadak to Fatimah .
Imam Suyuti reports:

"Abu Saeed al Khudri and Abdullah Ibn Abbas narrate that when the verse relating to giving rights to kindred was revealed, the Prophet called Fatima Zahra (a) and gifted the land of Fadak to her."

Tafseer Dur al-Manthur v4, p177

When verse 17:26 was revealed the Prophet declared: “O Fatimah, Fadak is yours”

Al-Muttaqi al-Hindi, Kanz ummal Vol 2 p 108


If you want to ask why the poor were not given then I’ll tell you why.
Fatimah had never kept anything for herself. She used Fadak to feed every hungry person and gave what came from it as charity.

Before Fadak was usurped from Fatimah , she ruled it for 4 years with the presence of the Prophet. After the Prophet's death, the "caliphs" snatched it from her and this conversation took place.

"When the Prophet died, Abu Bakr took Fadak from Fatimah; she went to him and said "Restore the land of Fadak to me, as my father the Prophet (s) gave it to me".

Sunni reference: Riyadh al Nadira Volume, 4 page 231

Abu Bakr responded by saying:

“I don't know if you are telling the truth”

Fakhr al-Din al-Razi, Tafseer Kabeer, Volume 8 page 125

Fatimah (a) brought Imam Ali (a) and others to testify for her as he asked for witnesses and yet Abu Bakr rejected their testimony.

Prophet Muhammad (s) said:

“Ali is with the truth and the truth is with Ali, and they shall never separate from one another till they reach me at the Pool (al-Kawthar) on the Day of Judgment”

Al-Haithami Majma vol 7, p 235. Kanz al-Ummal, vol 6, p 157. al-Razi's Tafsir Vol 1, p 111. Al-Muttaqi al-Hindi, Kanz al-Ummal, Vol. 5, p. 30. Ibn Asakir, Tarikh, Vol. 3, p. 119, Vol. 3.

I understand that maybe, giving the benefit of doubt, Abu Bakr had something against all those people who testified for Fatimah . What right did he have to question the daughter of the Prophet when he knew her status in the eyes of Allah and the Prophet? He knew she could never tell a lie, how dare he stand up to her and doubt her words?


He accepted a similar claim by Jabir ibn Abdullah al-Ansari ®.

Quoting Sahih al-Bukhari:

Jabir bin Abdullah said, "When the Prophet died, Abu Bakr received some property from Al-Ala bin Al-Hadrami. Abu Bakr said to the people, "Whoever has a money claim on the Prophet, or was promised something by him, should come to us (so that we may pay him his right)."

Jabir added, "I said (to Abu Bakr), Allah's Apostle promised me that he would give me this much, and this much, and this much." Jabir added, "Abu Bakr counted for me and handed me five-hundred (gold pieces), and then five-hundred, and then five-hundred."

Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 48, Number 848

Why did Abu Bakr accept the claim of Jabir without asking for a single witness?
Why did he reject the testimony of Ahlulbayt regarding Fadak?
Why did Abu Bakr have double standards?
Why did he usurp Fadak from Fatimah (a)?

If Abu Bakr was stating that Fadak did not belong to Fatimah how come he had no proof.

(how does this sound, "that shirt you are wearing at the moment belongs to my brother. give it to me. Your grandfather bought it for you and he told me to take it when he dies so give it to me unless you can prove it’s yours". If I took you to court with that argument, don't you think the judge and the jury will laugh their heads off at me? Well, that’s unless I bribe them)

Does this mean that they trusted the word of the companion of the Prophet but not the Prophet's blood line?

Since he refused to accept that it was a gift from her father, She said that her father had passed away so they should consider it as inheritance and give it to her.
Note: she said consider it as inheritance (even thought it was a gift)

He refused this also saying that Prophets do not leave behind inheritance.
1. How come only he knew about this Hadith?
2. If, this is true, the wives and the children of the prophets are supposed to starve to death? Or beg for food?
3. So why did the other Prophets leave behind inheritance?

The famous Imam Qurtubi says:
“Sulayman inherited one thousand horses from his father”

Tafseer Qurtubi, Volume 15 page 192


“Hadhrat Jibrael (a) 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, page 135-136

The Quran says,
‏
[19:6] ‘And I fear my relations after me, and my wife is barren. Grant me, therefore, a successor from Thyself,

[19:7] ‘That he may be heir to me and to the House of Jacob. And make him, my Lord, well-pleasing to Thee.’

Fadak was given to Fatimah because

1. She was the only Immigrant who never received a share of the war booty. (war booty was divided into 5, one for the prophet and the rest was divided amongst the Ansar and the Muhajir where the Muhajir were given a larger amount because they left their possession in Makkah.)

2. Her mother was the wealthiest woman in Arabia, if her wealth was not used for Islam, then she would have inherited all her wealth. (which was possible even according to Sunnis because she was not a prophet.)

3. Fadak was being used to feed hundreds of people which means it was charity and if she was not handling it in the right way, the Prophet would have corrected her in his lifetime.

4. Hasan and Husayn did not restore Fadak to themselves when they had ruler ship because they never had ruler ship. When Hasan was ruler, the ruler was Muawiya. to stop war, he signed a treaty with him that after Muawiya dies, Hasan will became the leader and if Hasan has already met death, than Husayn will be the ruler. Unfortunately, Hasan died and Muawiya ruled and passed the ruler ship to his son Yazid who in his first year asked for pledge from Husayn and that's how the battle of Karbala came to existence.

HASAN and HUSAYN where NEVER given power

And finally, I should tell you that please I have said this once and I will say it again, Al-Kafi from Sheikh Al-Kulayni is not 100% authentic and I have at least 5 logical evidences stating that. There are some Ahadith in it that are authentic but not all and if it is against the Quran than it is totally fabricated, which it is in this case.


One more thing, i asked a friend (Br. Imran Versi) to help me with the work and all credit goes to him, i have done almost nothing, it is all his work.

This post has been edited by Dayyanah: Oct 7 2010, 03:40 AM

[Kalaam]

And finally, I should tell you that please I have said this once and I will say it again, Al-Kafi from Sheikh Al-Kulayni is not 100% authentic and I have at least 5 logical evidences stating that. There are some Ahadith in it that are authentic but not all and if it is against the Quran than it is totally fabricated, which it is in this case.


One more thing, i asked a friend (Br. Imran Versi) to help me with the work and all credit goes to him, i have done almost nothing, it is all his work.

I am actually busy these days, till two weeks or more perhaps, I would just want to tell you few things, just as you say that Al Kafi is not 100 % authentic, simply i can reject the references you gave, because they are also not 100 % authentic, look this is not the proper way. I have already proved in my previous post that that particular hadith is authentic, Imam Khomeini also said this.

Hence, you can not reject that hadith on the basis that Al Kafi is not 100% authentic, that particular hadith is authentic whatever the case.
And as far as your this post is concerned, I will give you the answer later.

[Killed Bill]

I am actually busy these days, till two weeks or more perhaps, I would just want to tell you few things, just as you say that Al Kafi is not 100 % authentic, simply i can reject the references you gave, because they are also not 100 % authentic, look this is not the proper way. I have already proved in my previous post that that particular hadith is authentic, Imam Khomeini also said this.

Hence, you can not reject that hadith on the basis that Al Kafi is not 100% authentic, that particular hadith is authentic whatever the case.
And as far as your this post is concerned, I will give you the answer later.

You havent done anything of the sort, you took one half sentence out in a completely different hadith to try to make out that Khomeini said it. It was truly a pathetic attempt, even when you provided the link, all I had to to was read the paragraph under it which he explains it himself

[Dayyanah]

i think it is you people that call you books sahih.it is not us who gave it that name. in case you do not know, sahih means authentic. we do not call our books sahih kafi or any of those nonsense

and, im still waiting for your reply

[Bar Haq]

‏

[19:6] ‘And I fear my relations after me, and my wife is barren. Grant me, therefore, a successor from Thyself,

[19:7] ‘That he may be heir to me and to the House of Jacob. And make him, my Lord, well-pleasing to Thee.’

AOAWRABH:


Absolutely correct, after the revelation of above two mentioned verses, no one should have argued with BB Fatima tu Zahra (s.a.), about Wirasat; that is, Inheritance of Nabee


Not sure what other books Sahi or Ghalat written by Humans refer to such incidents, but let's examine once again The Book, in which there's no doubt; that is, Al Quran:

[Shakir 19:5] And surely I fear my cousins after me, and my wife is barren, therefore grant me from Thyself an heir,

يَرِثُنِي وَيَرِثُ مِنْ آلِ يَعْقُوبَ ۖ وَاجْعَلْهُ رَبِّ رَضِيًّا {6}
[Shakir 19:6] Who should inherit me and inherit from the children of Yaqoub, and make him, my Lord, one in whom Thou art well pleased.

يَا زَكَرِيَّا إِنَّا نُبَشِّرُكَ بِغُلَامٍ اسْمُهُ يَحْيَىٰ لَمْ نَجْعَلْ لَهُ مِنْ قَبْلُ سَمِيًّا {7}
[Shakir 19:7] O Zakariya! surely We give you good news of a boy whose name shall be Yahya: We have not made before anyone his equal.


I leave you all with the following commentary of Agha Pooya on the subject:


In the light of verses 5 and 6 the statement of Abu Bakr should be treated as an instantaneous excuse, he thought of, to deprive Bibi Fatimah(s.a.) from the lawful inheritance, her father left for her, otherwise the words of Allah become vague and meaningless. In reply she quoted these verses to prove that he had reported a false tradition because when the Quran has used the word "warith" the Holy Prophet could not say that which the caliph reported. The mention of these verses by her means that the word "warith" refers to all that which a messenger of Allah leaves as inheritance. She was the daughter of the Holy Prophet (tutored and educated by him from the day she was able to talk and understand) to whom the Quran was revealed, and she was the wife of Ali ibn abi Talib(a.s.) whose authority on the Quran stands established in view of several traditions as he knew the hidden and the manifest meanings of every word of the Quran. Therefore her understanding of the Quran must be preferred over those who never had been credited with even a cursory knowledge of the book of Allah.


Aqa Mahdi Puya says:


These verses prove that the prophets of Allah inherit and leave inheritance. To interpret "Warith" as reference to knowledge and wisdom only is a deviation from the real, direct and plain meaning of this word, without any external or internal evidence. If inheritance of personal belongings is excluded, the repetition of the verb becomes meaningless because Zakariyya himself was a descendant of Yaqub, who inherited the prophethood and wisdom of his ancestors, and his son would do the same if Allah so willed as He chooses whomsoever He wills as His messenger (An-am: 124), therefore Zakariyya said: "inherit me and inherit ali Yaqub". Zakariyya is referring to his belongings and the belongings of the posterity of Yaqub separately. The first verb refers to the inheritance of his property which Zakariyya thought would be appropriated by his relatives if he remained childless; and the second verb refers to the prophethood, he wanted for Yahya, for which there was no need to fear that it would be taken by any one. Verse 16 of An Nahl confirms that which has been explained here.


No doubt the prophets of Allah did not give any importance to the material possessions and laid emphasis on the knowledge and wisdom, but it does not mean that they did not possess property or did not leave what they had as inheritance to their next to kin. The tradition quoted to deprive Bibi Fatimah(s.a.) of her lawful inheritance was tampered with by the narrator for political reasons. He omitted a clause indicating that they leave knowledge as inheritance, and added a clause, which is not correct from the grammatical point of view, unless it is an objective clause subordinate to the principal clause "We the group of prophets", and the word be read as "sadaqtan", the second object to the verb "taraknahu ", but he read the clause as co-ordinative and conjunctive, and read "sadaqtan" as the predicate to the word "ma", which according to the recitation means "whatever", whereas according to the correct recitation "ma " means "that which".

[Kalaam]

You havent done anything of the sort, you took one half sentence out in a completely different hadith to try to make out that Khomeini said it. It was truly a pathetic attempt, even when you provided the link, all I had to to was read the paragraph under it which he explains it himself

I am concerned with Khomeini's authentication of the hadith.
I have no concern with how Khomeini interprets it. definitely he will interpret the hadith according to his own beliefs. It was actually funny how you said it was unauthentic and than I proved you how the hadith is authentic and than you changed your stance after reading Khomeini's interpretation of the hadith.

i think it is you people that call you books sahih.it is not us who gave it that name. in case you do not know, sahih means authentic. we do not call our books sahih kafi or any of those nonsense

and, im still waiting for your reply

actually it is lack of knowledge on your part, we call the six books sahah (plural of sahih) because they contain more authentic ahadith.
Regarding the first two books, Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari, we have a difference of opinion whether they are totally sahih or not. Ibn Hajar , a great scholar, regarded few ahadith in them , daeef (weak). So this is not that it is a must that we should believe all of the ahadith in Sahih Muslim and Bukhari to be sahih. There is actually difference of opinion among scholars. Shah Waliullah actually preferred Muwatta of Imam Malik to Sahih Bukhari and Muslim.
But after Bukhari and Muslim, there is not even difference of opinion that the others don't contain weak or unauthentic ahadith.

But these six books , which are called sahih, you mentioned perhaps in one or two references in your post , all others were other than these, and the rest we do not even call sahih.

And for your kind info, there is actually a sahih kafi too, which is considered by some of the shia scholars , a collection of authentic hadith of kafi, the top most shia hadith book.
but even your scholars differ whether all of its ahadith are sahih or not.
http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?/t...-sahih-al-kafi/


I will reply your post after reading the books. I can refute some of your points right now, but I would like to give you the answer at one time.

This post has been edited by Kalaam: Oct 12 2010, 01:51 AM

[Bar Haq]

actually it is lack of knowledge on your part, we call the six books sahah (plural of sahih) because they contain more authentic books.
Regarding the first two books, Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari, we have a difference of opinion whether they are totally sahih or not. Ibn Hajar , a great scholar, regarded few ahadith in them , daeef (weak). So this is not that it is a must that we should believe all of the ahadith in Sahih Muslim and Bukhari to be sahih. There is actually difference of opinion among scholars. Shah Waliullah actually preferred Muwatta of Imam Malik to Sahih Bukhari and Muslim.
But after Bukhari and Muslim, there is not even difference of opinion that the others don't contain weak or unauthentic ahadith.

But these six books , which are called sahih, you mentioned perhaps in one or two references in your post , all others were other than these, and the rest we do not even call sahih.

And for your kind info, there is actually a sahih kafi too, which is considered by some of the shia scholars , a collection of authentic hadith of kafi, the top most shia hadith book.
but even your scholars differ whether all of its ahadith are sahih or not.
http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?/t...-sahih-al-kafi/

Brother -- I am bewildered -- let me extract your statements in short pieces to reflect what you wrote and try to guague who are these "WE" that you have been referring ?


- we call the six books sahah
- we have a difference of opinion whether they are totally sahih or not
- is not that it is a must that we should believe all of the ahadith in Sahih Muslim and
Bukhari to be sahih.
- and the rest we do not even call sahih.


1st: "We" call the six book Sahah
2nd: "We" have a difference of opinion on their being Sahih or Not
3rd: Not a must that "We" should believe in all of the ahadith in Sahih Muslim or Bukhari
4th: Rest "We" do not even call Sahih

????? Where on earth these Weees live? And why are these Weees creating so much confusion -- by calling something Sahih, and the sametime calling it Wrong?

It's good that scholars have done research in the past, but which research work is not prone to errors, so why are we giving such books a sacred status, while they were just a part of research work carried out by the then scholars, who perhaps travelled miles and miles to collate information -- meantime, in todays world, we can do the same work on a click of mouse?

Brother my question(s):

1. Who are you ?
2. Who are WE, that you have been referring?
3. Who doesn't fall in your "We" category?


Please clarify, it would make it easier for other readers to understand the background you are coming from?

[Kalaam]

Brother -- I am bewildered -- let me extract your statements in short pieces to reflect what you wrote and try to guague who are these "WE" that you have been referring ?


- we call the six books sahah
- we have a difference of opinion whether they are totally sahih or not
- is not that it is a must that we should believe all of the ahadith in Sahih Muslim and
Bukhari to be sahih.
- and the rest we do not even call sahih.


1st: "We" call the six book Sahah
2nd: "We" have a difference of opinion on their being Sahih or Not
3rd: Not a must that "We" should believe in all of the ahadith in Sahih Muslim or Bukhari
4th: Rest "We" do not even call Sahih

????? Where on earth these Weees live? And why are these Weees creating so much confusion -- by calling something Sahih, and the sametime calling it Wrong?

It's good that scholars have done research in the past, but which research work is not prone to errors, so why are we giving such books a sacred status, while they were just a part of research work carried out by the then scholars, who perhaps travelled miles and miles to collate information -- meantime, in todays world, we can do the same work on a click of mouse?

Brother my question(s):

1. Who are you ?
2. Who are WE, that you have been referring?
3. Who doesn't fall in your "We" category?


Please clarify, it would make it easier for other readers to understand the background you are coming from?

I wish there were some quality arguments from shias.
Your first hadith book was named "al kafi" by your infallible imam , not even an infallible scholar or ayatulla but by an infallible imam, which in English means "Enough" but just like you consider that not enough, rather according to your scholars, three fourth of al kafi is unauthentic, simply bycalling the six books sahih, it doesn't mean that we consider every thing in them to be authentic, rather the thing is, they contain more authentic hadith than other hadith books, that is why they are called sahah (plural of sahih)

And we means we , the Sunnis.

[Bar Haq]

[quote
I wish there were some quality arguments from shias.
Your first hadith book was named "al kafi" by your infallible imam , not even an infallible scholar or ayatulla but by an infallible imam, which in English means "Enough" but just like you consider that not enough, rather according to your scholars, three fourth of al kafi is unauthentic, simply bycalling the six books sahih, it doesn't mean that we consider every thing in them to be authentic, rather the thing is, they contain more authentic hadith than other hadith books, that is why they are called sahah (plural of sahih)

And we means we , the Sunnis.
[/quote]


If you are referring that Shia Scholars also not consider Al Kafi Authentic, and equally Sunnis do not consider Sahih Setha completely authentic, then what is the argument that you are trying to put forward..

This is exactly, what I have been arguing that no book is La Raib, other than Quran,
and accordingly the verses of chapter 19th posted on the discussion on Wirasat, you have still remain silent -- just like historians have narrated that the first caliph became silent when BB Fatima Tu Zahra (s.a.) quoted the same verses.

So coming back to the topic of discussion --
Fadak belonged to the daughter of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), and history has widely quoted that the first caliph was not justified with a given verdict that BB Fatima Tu Zahra (s.a.) can not claim a right upon this piece of land under the ordinance of inheritance.

[Killed Bill]

I am concerned with Khomeini's authentication of the hadith.
I have no concern with how Khomeini interprets it. definitely he will interpret the hadith according to his own beliefs. It was actually funny how you said it was unauthentic and than I proved you how the hadith is authentic and than you changed your stance after reading Khomeini's interpretation of the hadith.

What a worthless attempt

It is funny how you only gave me this,

“The Prophets do not leave dinars and dirhams as inheritance, but what they leave is knowledge.”

Whereas the actual thing says this,

‘The scholars are the heirs of the prophets, for although the prophets bequeathed not a single
dinar or dirham, they bequeathed their sayings and traditions. Whoever, then, acquires a
portion of their traditions has indeed acquired a generous portion of their legacy. Therefore,
see from whom you may acquire this knowledge, for among us, the Family of the Prophet,
there are in each generation just and honest people who will repel those who distort and
exaggerate, those who initiate false practices, and those who offer foolish interpretations [that
is, they will purify and protect religion from the influence of such biased and ignorant people
and others like them].’”

Your method of interpretation has no worth, as you yourself. You cannot use an authenticated and explained hadith and do the explanation of yourself. Would you call it fair if I looked through the authentic Sunni hadiths and explain it MYself?

It is not possible to debate with someone who does not understand anything about arguments. You use too many fallacies and contradict yourself too often

[Kalaam]

What a worthless attempt

It is funny how you only gave me this,

QUOTE
“The Prophets do not leave dinars and dirhams as inheritance, but what they leave is knowledge.”


Whereas the actual thing says this,

QUOTE
‘The scholars are the heirs of the prophets, for although the prophets bequeathed not a single dinar or dirham, they bequeathed their sayings and traditions. Whoever, then, acquires a portion of their traditions has indeed acquired a generous portion of their legacy. Therefore, see from whom you may acquire this knowledge, for among us, the Family of the Prophet, there are in each generation just and honest people who will repel those who distort and exaggerate, those who initiate false practices, and those who offer foolish interpretations [that
is, they will purify and protect religion from the influence of such biased and ignorant people and others like them].’”


Your method of interpretation has no worth, as you yourself. You cannot use an authenticated and explained hadith and do the explanation of yourself. Would you call it fair if I looked through the authentic Sunni hadiths and explain it MYself?

It is not possible to debate with someone who does not understand anything about arguments. You use too many fallacies and contradict yourself too often

Don't forget, I gave you both of them. The funny attempt was your saying

I do not believe Khomeini has actually authenticated this hadith.

while you knew nothing at all about it.

Come on, your arguments are becoming more and more ridiculous, now regarding your underlined text, why don't you agree to our interpretation of the hadith of 12 caliphs in sahih Muslim then? Rather your all scholars take our hadith and interpret them to us in their own way while trying to convince us, kindly inform them this is a wrong method to preach.

If we have to interpret our ahadith in our own way, and you have to interpret your hadith in your own way, than the whole concept of debating is destroyed. Why disagree with Abu Bakr's interpretation of the hadith? Why not simply accept that he was right to interpret in his own way? Why do you criticize him then? Where is your logic? If you think that your imam khomeini's interpretation of the hadith is the final word on the universe, than why is it wrong for me to say that the first Khalifah Abu Bakr 's interpretation of the hadith was correct?
Rather read the hadith again

"Imam as-Sadiq (‘a) relates that the Prophet (s)
said: “For whomever travels a path in search of knowledge, God opens up a path to paradise, and the angels lower their wings before him as a sign of their being well pleased [or God’s being well pleased]. All that is in the heavens and on earth, even the fish in the ocean, seeks forgiveness for him. The superiority of the learned man over the mere worshipper is like that of the full moon over the stars. Truly the scholars are the heirs of prophets (‘a); the prophets bequeathed not a single dinar or dirham; instead they bequeathed knowledge, and whoever acquires it has indeed acquired a generous portion of their legacy.”


From where does it say that though the Prophets bequeath dinar or dirham (i.e wealth) they only bequeathed knowledge to the scholars? Man you are totally twisting the hadith in the footsteps of your imam. Anyhow, if you want to hold so tight to the interpretation of your imam, than your choice. Everyone can decide what does this hadith means.