< Previous Part: The value of Fadak Next Part: Coming soon >
In this article, we will discuss the legal entitlement and possession of the Ahl al-Bayt (as) over Fadak, and the mysterious problem behind Abu Bakr's strange hadith.
The Ruling of Fay'
In Islamic jurisprudence, there is a concept referred to as Ghanimat & Fay, both which are entitled to Rasulullah (saw). As for the difference between them, one can refer to Fakhr al-Razi who explains in his Tafsir al-Kabir Vol. 15, pg. 247:
وهو أن الغنيمة ما أتعبتم أنفسكم في تحصيلها وأوجفتم عليها الخيل والركاب بخلاف الفيء فإنكم ما تحملتم في تحصيله تعبا
The spoils of war (ghanimah) are those that you exerted effort to acquire, using horses and camels in the process. In contrast, the fay is something you did not endure effort to obtain.
This concept is proven from the Qur’an in Surat al-Hashr 59:6:
وَمَآ أَفَآءَ ٱللَّهُ عَلَىٰ رَسُولِهِۦ مِنْهُمْ فَمَآ أَوْجَفْتُمْ عَلَيْهِ مِنْ خَيْلٍۢ وَلَا رِكَابٍۢ وَلَـٰكِنَّ ٱللَّهَ يُسَلِّطُ رُسُلَهُۥ عَلَىٰ مَن يَشَآءُ ۚ وَٱللَّهُ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ شَىْءٍۢ قَدِيرٌۭ
And what Allah restored [of property] to His Messenger from them - you did not spur for it [in an expedition] any horses or camels, but Allah gives His messengers power over whom He wills, and Allah is over all things competent.
As we read, the verse affirms that property of Fay (فيء) is land acquired not through battles, and the Prophet (saw) has ownership of such a land. Now the land of Fadak was a property of Fay, and this is because no battle was fought to conquer Fadak as mentioned earlier, rather it was given as a result of a peace treaty with the Jews.
All Islamic historians affirm that the Prophet (saw) acquired Fadak through non-violent means, but rather through negotiations made by the Jews at Khaybar, for example Al-Tabari in Tarikh al-Tabari. Vol. 8, pg. 127 (Arabic):
The Messenger of God besieged the people of Khaybar in their two fortresses of al-Watīh and al-Sulālim. Finally, when they were certain that they would perish, they asked him to banish them and spare their lives, which he did. The Messenger of God had already taken all the property-al-Shiqq, Națāh, al-Katībah, and all their fortresses-except what belonged to those two fortresses. When the people of Fadak heard of what they had done, they sent word to the Messenger of God, asking him to banish them and spare their lives, and they would leave him their property; and he did so. Among the men who mediated between them and the Messenger of God in the matter was Muhayyişah b. Mas'ūd, a member of the Banū Harithah. When the people of Khaybar surrendered on these terms, they asked the Messenger of God to employ them on the properties for a half share. They said, "We know more about them than you and are better cultivators of them." So the Messenger of God made peace with them for a half share, provided that "if we want to make you leave, we may." The people of Fadak made peace with him on similar terms. Khaybar became the booty (fay') of the Muslims; Fadak belonged exclusively to the Messenger of God, because the Muslims had not attacked its people with horses or camels.
The same was recorded by:
Al-Nawawi in his Sharh Sahih Muslim. Vol. 12, pg. 118 - 119.
Al-Dhahabi in Tarikh al-Islam. Vol. 1, pg. 441 - 442.
Knowing that Fadak was a land of Fay is crucial, as the next verse, also states that some of the share (of fay land) was for his family:
مَّآ أَفَآءَ ٱللَّهُ عَلَىٰ رَسُولِهِۦ مِنْ أَهْلِ ٱلْقُرَىٰ فَلِلَّهِ وَلِلرَّسُولِ وَلِذِى ٱلْقُرْبَىٰ وَٱلْيَتَـٰمَىٰ وَٱلْمَسَـٰكِينِ وَٱبْنِ ٱلسَّبِيلِ كَىْ لَا يَكُونَ دُولَةًۢ بَيْنَ ٱلْأَغْنِيَآءِ مِنكُمْ ۚ وَمَآ ءَاتَىٰكُمُ ٱلرَّسُولُ فَخُذُوهُ وَمَا نَهَىٰكُمْ عَنْهُ فَٱنتَهُوا۟ ۚ وَٱتَّقُوا۟ ٱللَّهَ ۖ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ شَدِيدُ ٱلْعِقَابِ
And what Allah restored to His Messenger from the people of the towns - it is for Allah and for the Messenger and for [his] near relatives and orphans and the [stranded] traveler - so that it will not be a perpetual distribution among the rich from among you. And whatever the Messenger has given you - take; and what he has forbidden you - refrain from. And fear Allah; indeed, Allah is severe in penalty.
The Sunni exegetes have differed on what land is referred to in this incident, some have argued it was the property of Banu Nadhir, however that view has been criticized on the basis that Muslims fought against them many times. The stronger opinion is that this was regarding Fadak because no fighting occured for it and Fakhruddin al-Razi mentions this in Tafsir al-Kabir, Vol.15, pg. 247:
أن هذا الْآيَةَ مَا نَزَلَتْ فِي قُرَى بَنِي النَّضِيرِ لِأَنَّهُمْ أَوْجَفُوا عَلَيْهِمْ بِالْخَيْلِ وَالرِّكَابِ وَحَاصَرَهُمْ رَسُولُ اللَّه صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ وَالْمُسْلِمُونَ بَلْ هُوَ فِي فَدَكَ
This verse was revealed with regard to Fadak, which the Prophet (saw) acquired as it was conquered without any fighting.
Regardless of this however, the fact is that a share of the property of Fadak belongs to the Ahl al-Bayt (as) per the shar’ia and that is based on rules laid out in the Qur’an. This also means that the Ahl al-Bayt, such as Fatima bt. Muhammad (sa), were actively using Fadak for their own needs during the time of the Holy Prophet (saw). ‘Umar himself affirmed this in Sahih al-Bukhari 7305:
So that property was totally meant for Allah's Messenger (ﷺ), yet he did not collect it and ignore you, nor did he withhold it with your exclusion, but he gave it to you and distributed it among you till this much of it was left behind, and the Prophet, used to spend of this as the yearly expenditures of his family and then take what remained of it and spent it as he did with (other) Allah's wealth.
However, upon his death, Abu Bakr argued that the entitlement of Fatima (as) to Fadak disappears because of a hadith he alone has heard from the Holy Prophet (saw). That is the famous hadith: “We Prophets are not inherited, what we leave behind is left for Sadaqa”. Fatima (as), Ali (as) and al-’Abbas had objected to this hadith by refusing to acknowledge Fadak as the property of the Islamic State, and rather continuously sought it as their own right. This also means that they were completely unaware of Abu Bakr’s hadith, which brings suspicion on the hadith itself because a matter concerning the Prophet’s family was not known by them, but rather someone to whom this land had no relation to.
Abu Bakr knew, but the Ahl al-Bayt did not?
It is truly disturbing that Rasulullah (saw) informed Abu Bakr about the fate of his own property, yet, for some inexplicable reason, chose not to inform his own family that they would be deprived of it after his death. The Ahl al-Bayt had rightfully enjoyed their rights to Fadak for all these years, only for it to be suddenly taken from them, with no mention or explanation from the Prophet (saw).
Imagine a scenario where your neighbor comes to you after your father's death and informs you that your father made a will leaving your home to him, and that you and your family must vacate because the house is now his. Would you accept such a thing, even if he is considered truthful? Neither you, nor your siblings, nor your mother, grandparents, or anyone else in your household was informed of this except for you. No one would accept losing their home just like that. Yet, they criticize Fatima (as) for becoming angry when the same thing happened to her—her land was forcefully taken, based on a report that no one in her family was informed about!
Rasulullah (saw) used to share Ilm al-Ghayb (i.e. knowledge of the unseen) to Fatima (as), such as in Sahih Muslim 2450c:
And when he died I again asked her and she said that he (the Holy Prophet) told her: Gabriel used to recite the Qur'an to me once a year and for this year it was twice and so I perceived that my death had drawn near, and that I (Fatima) would be the first amongst the members of his family who would meet him (in the Hereafter). He shall be my good forerunner and it made me weep. He again talked to me secretly (saying): Aren't you pleased that you should be the sovereign amongst the believing women or the head of women of this Ummah? And this made me laugh.
The Prophet (saw) informed Fatima (as) of unseen knowledge, that she will be the first amongst his household to join him in death, but failed to inform her that her entitlement to Fadak would be gone? He knew she would die early on, but did not take into account the problems that would occur due to his neglection of explaining these issues to Fatima (AS)?
In fact, A’isha herself critiqued such a reasoning as she says in Sahih al-Bukhari 4612:
Whoever says that Muhammad concealed part of what was revealed to him, is a liar, for Allah says:-- "O Apostle (Muhammad)! Proclaim (the Message) which has been sent down to you from your Lord." (5.67)
Therefore, we ask the reader to ponder upon this: How could the Prophet (saw) conceal the rules of inheritance, something divinely inspired to him by Allah, from his own family, when the matter directly affects them, and not Abu Bakr?
The Special Law for the Ahl al-Bayt
This becomes even more concerning when we consider the unique rulings regarding the Ahl al-Bayt, such as their prohibition from taking sadaqah. The Prophet (saw) was particularly cautious in informing his family about this prohibition to ensure they adhered to it. Therefore, the lack of communication regarding the loss of Fadak becomes even more troubling. To elaborate, the following is recorded in Sahih Muslim 1069a:
"The Prophet (saw) saw Al-Hassan ibn Ali (as) taking a date from the dates dedicated to charity and put it in his mouth. The Prophet (saw) said: "Throw it, throw it, verily charity is not Halal for us."
We see how careful the Prophet (saw) was in abstaining his family from taking charity, for it was prohibted upon them. How could it be the case that he did not inform them to stop using Fadak after he passes away, knowing it would turn into sadaqa once he dies? And why would Abu Bakr, the one who has no relations to this property, be the only one to be aware of this?
Fakhr al-Razi acknowledged the validity of this objection, but failed to refute it.
According to Fakhr al-Din al-Razi, the answer to the issue above was that Fatima (as) was pleased with the words of Abu Bakr, and there was a consensus upon his correctness, rendering the question void. We read in his Tafsir al-Kabir Vol. 5, pg. 171, regarding verse (4:11) An-Nisaa':
أن المحتاج إلى معرفة هذه المسألة ما كان إلا فاطمة وعلي والعباس وهؤلاء كانوا من أكابر الزهاد والعلماء وأهل الدين، وأما أبو بكر فإنه ما كان محتاجاً إلى معرفة هذه المسألة البتة، لأنه ما كان يخطر بباله أن يرث من الرسول عليه الصلاة والسلام فكيف يليق بالرسول عليه الصلاة والسلام أن يبلغ هذه المسألة إلى من لا حاجة به إليها ولا يبلغها إلى من له إلى معرفتها أشد الحاجة. والجواب: أن فاطمة عليها السلام رضيت بقول أبي بكر بعد هذه المناظرة، وانعقد الإجماع على صحة ما ذهب إليه أبو بكر فسقط هذا السؤال والله أعلم.
The ones who were in need of knowing this matter were none other than Fatima, Ali, and al-Abbas. These individuals were among the most devout ascetics, scholars, and people of piety. As for Abu Bakr, he had no need to know this matter at all, as it never occurred to him that he would inherit from the Prophet (saw). So how could it be appropriate for the Prophet to convey this matter to someone who had no need for it, while not conveying it to those who had the most urgent need to know it?
The response: Fatima, (as) accepted Abu Bakr’s statement after this debate, and consensus was established on the correctness of Abu Bakr’s stance. Thus, this question is no longer valid, and Allah knows best.
It is evident that the response Fakhr al-Razi provides to this objection lacks a solid foundation, as the evidence clearly demonstrates that Fatima (sa) was not pleased with Abu Bakr in any way. She was angry with him, refused to speak to him, and- as a form of protest- did not allow him to attend her funeral. More details on this will be presented later. Despite this, he fails to address the core question: how did no one else know?
Abu Bakr knew, but the Prophet's wives didn't?
The next question one would pose is, were the wives of the Prophet (saw) also aware of this? Sahih al-Bukhari 6730 reads:
Aisha said, "When Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) died, his wives intended to send `Uthman to Abu Bakr asking him for their share of the inheritance." Then `Aisha said to them, "Didn't Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) say, 'Our (Apostles') property is not to be inherited, and whatever we leave is to be spent in charity?'".
In fact, ‘Aisha herself admits that after the Prophet’s death the people were unsure about what to do with his inheritance, having never heard of this hadith of Abu Bakr as read in al-Suyuti’s Tarikh al-Khulafa, pg. 59 - 60:
‘They disagreed about his inheritance and could find no one with knowledge on that point, then Abu Bakr said, ‘I heard the Messenger of Allah may Allah grant him peace, saying ‘We the company of the Prophets, we are not inherited from. What we leave is Sadaqah’.
The source was quoted from Tarikh Dimashq, Vol. 30, p. 311 and Ibn Hajar al-Haythami also records it in Sawaiq al-Muhriqah, pg. 118 - 119.
It is difficult to comprehend that none of the relatives of the Prophet (saw), not his daughter, not his son-in-law, al-’Abbas nor his wives were aware of this unique ruling despite it solely affecting them and someone unrelated to this ruling did know about it.
In the example given above, we all know that the neighbor just wants to steal the property and is exploiting his ‘trustworthy’ reputation to justify usurping their right. So why is it that Abu Bakr isn’t held to this same standard, where he clearly is saying something that he alone could not possibly have known. Where is the tawatur for this hadith?
‘Umar, on the other hand contradicted Abu Bakr and decided to give them their inheritance later on as read in Sahih al-Bukhari 2328:
The Prophet (ﷺ) concluded a contract with the people of Khaibar to utilize the land on the condition that half the products of fruits or vegetation would be their share. The Prophet (ﷺ) used to give his wives one hundred Wasqs each, eighty Wasqs of dates and twenty Wasqs of barley. (When `Umar became the Caliph) he gave the wives of the Prophet (ﷺ) the option of either having the land and water as their shares, or carrying on the previous practice. Some of them chose the land and some chose the Wasqs, and `Aisha chose the land.
Why do we see Umar dividing it between the wives of the Prophet (saw)? How is it that Aisha here does not mention it being charity, but rather cheerfully chooses to be given the land? And if it was the inheritance of the Prophet (saw), how come the daughter of the Prophet (saw) was denied anything from the property while the wives were granted their shares?
The Conclusion
To conclude this discussion, we must arrive at a rational explanation for this unusual phenomenon. Only a few possibilities remain open to us, and they are as follows:
The Prophet did indeed inform them about it, but the Chief of women of Paradise and the Commander of believers insisted on receiving haram property that wasn’t rightfully theirs, and so cared more about this dunya than Allah (swt) and His Messenger (saw). They thus in amount committed kufr by rejecting the hadith of Rasulullah (saw) for their own worldly gains.
They believed they were above the shari’a and this hadith did not apply to them, and saw that they were an exception to this hadith.
They collectively became insane and delirious, unable to control their emotions due to a striking sickness that overtook them just as it did with Rasulullah (saw) according to Umar Ibn al-Khattab.
This was an explanation offered by Ibn Uthaymin, as he says in his At-Ta'liq 'ala Sahih Muslim Vol. 9, pg. 78:
الشيخ : اللهم اعف عنها، وإلا فأبو بكر ما استند إلى رأي، وإنما استند إلى نص، وكان عليها أن تقبل قول النبي صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ : ( إنا لَا نُورَثُ مَا تَرَكْنَا فَهُوَ صَدَقَة )، لكن كما قلت لكم قبل قليل، عند المخاصمة لا يبقى للإنسان عقل يُدرك به ما يقول، أو يفعل، أو يتصرّف فيه، فنسأل الله أن يعفو عنها عن هجرها لخليفة رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم.
"O Allah, pardon her. Abu Bakr did not rely on personal opinion; he acted based on explicit textual evidence. She should have accepted the Prophet's ﷺ statement: 'We, the Prophets, do not leave inheritance; what we leave behind is charity.' However, as I mentioned earlier, in moments of dispute, a person can lose the clarity of thought needed to fully understand their words, actions, or decisions. Therefore, we ask Allah to forgive her for her estrangement from the Caliph of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ."
They believed Abu Bakr was a liar who fabricated this hadith! (This was argued by Umar himself)
We welcome our opponents to enlighten us with other possibilities for this. However, they’ll find that these are the only options and the answer to this issue cannot be except the last one. That is because even after Abu Bakr cited this hadith, both Ali & Fatima (as) kept pursuing their inheritance rights. This begs the question: Why did they continue to seek it if the hadith stated they’re not entitled to it? Why is Ali asking for Fadak during Umar’s caliphate? Does he doubt Abu Bakr’s hadith?
This is why ‘Umar himself affirmed Ali’s position as the following in Sahih Muslim 1757c:
When the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) passed away, Abu Bakr said:" I am the successor of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ)." Both of you came to demand your shares from the property (left behind by the Messenger of Allah). (Referring to Hadrat 'Abbas), he said: You demanded your share from the property of your nephew, and he (referring to 'Ali) demanded a share on behalf of his wife from the property of her father. Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) had said:" We do not have any heirs; what we leave behind is (to be given in) charity." So both of you thought him (Abu Bakr) to be a liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest. And Allah knows that he was true, virtuous, well-guided and a follower of truth.
This is even evident with later members of Ahl al-Bayt, such as Imam al-Baqir (as) and Imam al-Ridha (as) who would later accept Fadak showing their disbelief in Abu Bakr’s hadith, which we shall cover in the next part.
< Previous Part: The value of Fadak Next Part: Coming soon >
1 Kommentar