< Previous Part: The Significance of Fatima's Anger
Next Part: Ali believes Abu Bakr was a liar >
Al-Shaykh al-Mufid (علا الله مقامه) was famously known as the head of the Imamiyah and one of the strongest opponents of Ahlus Sunnah, being praised by both allies and foes for his intelligence, memorisation and scholarly ethics. He is indeed one of our most noble scholars and used to be a destructive force against the Sunnis. He has contributed a significant amount to the Fadak dispute, changing even the opinions of sunni scholars.
The debate begins with a Sunni scholar, known as ‘Abu Ali Ibn Shadhan’ against al-Shaykh al-Mufid in regards to the hadith of Abu Bakr. We read as following in al-Suyuti’s Tanwir al-Hawalik, pg. 715:
وَقد أَخْبرنِي القَاضِي أَبُو جَعْفَر السماني أَن أَبَا عَليّ بن شَاذان وَكَانَ من أهل الْعلم بِهَذَا الشان إِلَّا أَنه لم يكن قَرَأَ عَرَبِيَّة فناظر يَوْمًا فِي هَذِه المسئلة أَبَا عبد الله بن الْمعلم وَكَانَ إِمَام الامامية وَكَانَ مَعَ ذَلِك من أهل الْعلم بِالْعَرَبِيَّةِ فاستدل بن شادان على أَن الْأَنْبِيَاء لَا يورثون بِحَدِيث إِنَّا معاشر الْأَنْبِيَاء لَا نورث مَا تركنَا صَدَقَة
فَقَالَ لَهُ بن الْمعلم أما مَا ذكرت من هَذَا الحَدِيث فَإِنَّمَا هُوَ صَدَقَة نصب على الْحَال فَيَقْتَضِي ذَلِك أَن مَا تَركه النَّبِي صلى الله عليه وسلم على وَجه الصَّدَقَة لَا يُورث عَنهُ وَنحن لَا نمْنَع هَذَا وَإِنَّمَا نمْنَع ذَلِك فِيمَا تَركه على غير هَذَا الْوَجْه
وَاعْتمد هَذِه النُّكْتَة الْعَرَبيَّة لما علم أَن بن شَاذان لَا يعرف هَذَا الشَّأْن وَلَا يفرق بَين الْحَال وَغَيره
The Qadhi, Abu Ja’far al-Samani informed me that Abu Ali Ibn Shadhan, who was knowledgeable about this topic despite not being fluent in Arabic, once debated Shaykh al-Mufid, who was an imam of the Imamiyyah sect and was proficient in Arabic. Despite this, Ibn Shadhan argued that the prophets do not inherit based on the hadith "We, group of prophets, do not inherit, what we leave behind is charity."
Al-Mufid responded to him saying: “As for this hadith you have mentioned, the word ‘sadaqa’ in this sentence is the accusative, so it would mean that what the Prophet left behind as charity is not inherited, and we do not dispute this. Rather, our objection is inheritance in cases where the Prophet left something behind for reasons besides charity.”
He relied on this argument regarding the Arabic language when he learned Ibn Shadhan was not familiar with this and was not able to distinguish between the different grammars.
The argument of al-Mufid is essentially that this hadith of Abu Bakr has the word ‘Sadaqa’ as either the nominative or accusative in the sentence, which would change its meaning from “We are not inherited, what we leave behind is for charity”, to “We are not inherited from what we leave behind as charity”. This means that what the Prophet's have left behind as charity is not inherited. Now it is upon the proponent of Abu Bakr to prove whether the ‘sadaqa’ here is accusative or nominative if they aim to prove Prophets do not leave behind inheritance.
As such, this hadith is completely unclear and cannot serve as valid proof for the negation of al-Zahraa (as)’s access to Fadak. Abu Bakr failed to provide sufficient evidence for the legal ruling he tried to employ on her, and it was rather vague. It also lacked any testimonial evidence as mentioned earlier as only Abu Bakr knew it.
Such a view has been expressed by Sunni scholars as well, and this was mentioned by al-Sarkhasi in al-Mabsut, Vol. 12, pg. 29:
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 scholars, may Allah have mercy on them, used the saying of the Prophet ﷺ: 'We, group of prophets, do not leave inheritance; whatever we leave is charity.' They interpreted it to mean that what we leave as charity does not become inheritance for us. The intended meaning is not that the wealth of the prophets ﷺ is not inheritable, as Allah Almighty said, 'And Solomon inherited David' and 'So grant me from Yourself an heir who will inherit from me and inherit [also] from the family of Jacob.' It is inconceivable that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ would speak contrary to revelation.
Abu Ali Ibn Shadhan in the debate replies that Fatima (as) did not mention this before Abu Bakr, and she was more noble in the Arabic language. This reply however is inadequate and Shaheed al-Sadr goes on to explain why:
Firstly because the critical situation of Fatima (s) in those difficult times did not let her debate these minute arguments because Abu Bakr was determined to not accept any argument and execute these decisions as quickly as possible. Hence she did not bother to bring forth more witnesses when Abu Bakr demanded more, knowing it would not ever be sufficient. This is especially made clear when the Qur’anic proofs were brought to him he had nothing more to say but: “It is so.” Hence, it is clear that making such an argument would have been futile.
We read in Ibn Sa’ad’s Tabaqat al-Kubra. Vol. 2, pg. 241:
أَخْبَرَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عُمَرَ. حَدَّثَنِي هِشَامُ بْنُ سَعْدٍ عَنْ عَبَّاسِ بْنِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ مَعْبَدٍ عَنْ جَعْفَرٍ قَالَ: جَاءَتْ فَاطِمَةُ إِلَى أَبِي بَكْرٍ تَطْلُبُ مِيرَاثَهَا. وَجَاءَ الْعَبَّاسُ بْنُ عبد المطلب بطلب مِيرَاثَهُ. وَجَاءَ مَعَهُمَا عَلِيُّ. فَقَالَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ: قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ: لا نُورَثُ. مَا تَرَكْنَا صَدَقَةٌ. وَمَا كَانَ النَّبِيُّ يَعُولُ فَعَلَيَّ. فَقَالَ علي: وَرِثَ سُلَيْمانُ داوُدَ وقال زكرياء يَرِثُنِي وَيَرِثُ مِنْ آلِ يَعْقُوبَ. قَالَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ: هُوَ هَكَذَا وَأَنْتَ وَاللَّهِ تَعْلَمُ مِثْلَمَا أَعْلَمُ. فَقَالَ عَلِيٌّ: هَذَا كِتَابُ اللَّهِ يَنْطِقُ! فَسَكَتُوا وَانْصَرَفُوا]
Ibn Sa’ad reports that Ja’far b. Muhammad (AS) narrates: “Fatima came to Abu Bakr and demanded her share in the inheritance. Al-Abbas b. ‘Abd al-Muttalib came to him and demanded his share in the inheritance, and ‘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 inherited Dawud}; (27:16) and Zakariya said: He may be my heir and the heir of the children of Ya’qub.’ (19:6) 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 quiet and retired.”
Moreover, Fatima (as) continuously, alongside Ali (as), sought Fadak as her property and was angered by the fact that it never returned to her. This shows she didn’t believe in this hadith in the first place or the hadith’s interpretation led by Abu Bakr, otherwise she would’ve submitted to it unless one wants to say she didn’t care for the Holy Prophet (saw).
This is something even Sunnis must acknowledge she would’ve submitted to the hadith if it is as Abu Bakr said. Even Ibn Hajar al-’Asqalani concedes this in his Fath al-Bari, Vol. 9, pg. 363:
وَأَمَّا سَبَبُ غَضَبِهَا مَعَ احْتِجَاجِ أَبِي بَكْرٍ بِالْحَدِيثِ الْمَذْكُورِ فَلِاعْتِقَادِهَا تَأْوِيلَ الْحَدِيثِ عَلَى خِلَافِ مَا تَمَسَّكَ بِهِ أَبُو بَكْرٍ، وَكَأَنَّهَا اعْتَقدت تَخْصِيصَ الْعُمُومِ فِي قَوْلِهِ: لَا نُورَثُ، وَرَأَتْ أَنَّ مَنَافِعَ مَا خَلَّفَهُ مِنْ أَرض وَعَقَارٍ لَا يَمْتَنِعُ أَنْ تُورَثَ عَنْهُ، وَتَمَسَّكَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ بِالْعُمُومِ، وَاخْتَلَفَا فِي أَمْرٍ مُحْتَمِلٍ لِلتَّأْوِيلِ، فَلَمَّا صَمَم على ذَلِكَ انْقَطَعَتْ عَنْ الِاجْتِمَاعِ بِهِ لِذَلِكَ.
As for the reason for her anger alongside Abu Bakr's citing of the mentioned hadith, it is because she believed in interpreting the hadith differently from what Abu Bakr adhered to. It is as if she believed in the specific application of the general statement "We do not leave inheritance" and saw that the benefits of the land and property he left behind could still be inherited from. Abu Bakr, on the other hand, adhered to the general interpretation. They disagreed on a matter open to interpretation, and when he insisted on his stance, she cut away from the consensus (ijtima’) from him because of that.
Now is Abu Bakr’s opinion valid? No. That is because when two interpretations of a hadith exist, and one contradicts the Qur’an while the other does not, then Abu Bakr would have no right to take the one that contradicts it. Prophets inheriting wealth and leaving inheritance as wealth is known in the Qur’an in the story of Sulaiman (as), Zakariyyah (as) and even others such as Adam (as). Now the proof of this was brought before Abu Bakr, and so were the witnesses to testify alongside her. This all clearly testifies to the insincerity of Abu Bakr and the illegitimacy of his argument, and no amount of ijtihad can justify contradicting clear nass (textual proofs).
Now some may have an objection, that it is known that all people are not inherited from what they leave behind as charity, so why did the Prophet (saw) make this specific about the Anbiya? Al-Shaykh al-Mufid responds to this in the summarized manner:
The understanding of the hadith is “Whatever anbiya leave for sadaqa, is not inherited”. This is because this aligns with the Qur’an more than the other. What corresponds to the apparent meaning of the Quran takes precedence over what contradicts it. If they object that this applies to everyone and so has no rational benefit to specify prophets, we respond that sometimes specifying individuals for a particular task implies they are more deserving of acting upon its meaning, even if it's general for all. For example:
“You’re only a warner to those who fear it” (79:45) - although he (the Prophet) is a warner to all of mankind.
"The mosques of Allah are only maintained by those who believe in Allah and the Last Day and establish prayer" (9:18) - even though the disbelievers may also maintain them, contrary to this description.
"The believers are only those who, when Allah is mentioned, their hearts become fearful" (8:2) - even though among the disbelievers there are those whose hearts tremble when Allah is mentioned, and among the believers there are those who hear the mention of Allah while being delighted with His blessings or preoccupied with permissible matters, so they are not affected by fear at that moment, nor do they experience it.
Or in the proverb: “We Muslims do not remain silent in times of oppression”, even though some muslims may remain silent at such times and this is not a unique trait of muslims alone, for christians or even atheist (political) groups can argue the same for themselves.
We all know there is rational meaning in these statements/verses and benefits come from stating them, despite it not being necessarily unique for said group or applicable to the general masses. Therefore, the Prophets in particular have a greater right to not have what they gave in Sadaqa to be inherited by their relatives, and that may perhaps be because their relatives have a special ruling that they cannot receive Sadaqa. So the sadaqa left behind by the Prophets, cannot be inherited by their family especially, because of this unique ruling of not getting sadaqa.
< Previous Part: The Significance of Fatima's Anger
Next Part: Ali believes Abu Bakr was a liar >
Komentar