< Previous Part: Did the Prophet (saw) leave inheritance?
Next Part: Abu Bakr's confession >
A popular misconception that is spread about the Shi'a is that within their own sources it is proven that Fatima (as) does not inherit or is not entitled to Fadak. Such an accusation is based on multiple proofs, such as hadiths narrated by the Ahl al-Bayt (as) that appear "similar" to Abu Bakr's hadith. Other accusations stem from misconceptions of Fiqh, where some believe that in Shi'ism women do not inherit. We will tackle these accusations in this argument and shed light on the reality of these matters.
Establishing Fatima's inheritance in Shi'i sources
It is mutawatir that in Shi'i sources Fatima (as) inherits Fadak from the Prophet (saw). This tawatur is proven by both explicit textual sources (nass) and corroborative evidence (qara'in). For example, consider the following reliable tradition:
عَنْ زُرَارَةَ عَنْ أَبِي جَعْفَرٍ قَالَ وَرِثَ عَلِيٌّ عِلْمَ رَسُولِ اللهِ ﷺ وَوَرِثَتْ فَاطِمَةُ (عَلَيْهِا السَّلام) تَرِكَتَهُ.
Zurara narrated that Abi Ja’far (al-Baqir) (as) said: ‘Ali inherited the knowledge of Allah’s messenger and Fatima inherited his property.’
The property of the Prophet (saw) is in regard to Fadak, and confirms her right of inheritance that was discarded by Abu Bakr. We find this also being reiterated during the burial of Fatima (as) by Imam Ali (as) in al-Kafi, Vol. 1, Ch. 114, H. # 3:
فَبِعَيْنِ الله تُدْفَنُ ابْنَتُكَ سِرّاً وَتُهْضَمُ حَقَّهَا وَتُمْنَعُ إِرْثَهَا
By the Eyes of Allah, your daughter is buried in secrecy, her rights are taken away unjustly, her inheritance withheld.
There are many textual sources that clearly state this, but corroborative evidence supporting this claim also exists, such as the fact that the later Imams took Fadak "back," indicating their admission that it belonged to them in the first place, through the inheritance they would've gotten from their grandmother, Fatima (as). Moreover, the anger of Fatima, as proven from both Shi'i and Sunni sources, further illustrates the right of Fatima's inheritance, as she is infallible (ma'sooma) and would not have gotten angry about that which she is not entitled to.
This makes the matter very clear and leaves no doubt about the fact that Fatima (as) is the inheritor of Fadak. What, then, makes our opponents cast doubt on this? The following evidence will be examined to clarify this.
Are Scholars the Heirs of Prophets?
In a famously recorded narration in al-Kafi and other reports, we read as follows:
“And the scholars are the heirs of the Prophets, and the Prophets did not leave behind dinars or dirhams as inheritance, but left knowledge…”. (Al-Kafi, Book 1, Ch. 4, H. # 1)
When the advocates of Abu Bakr read this hadith, they laugh in joy, thinking that this is the same hadith that Abu Bakr reported, corroborating the truthfulness of his saying. However, to their unfortunate realization of the truth regarding this narration, it turns out this report has nothing to do with either Abu Bakr's hadith or Fadak entirely.
Before we examine this report, however, we want to first bring up an important point raised by Sayyid Mohammad Baqir al-Sadr (may God sanctify his soul). When we study a matter that involves Islamic laws, we must bring sufficient evidence in support of our viewpoint. In Usul al-Fiqh, such evidence would be called nass (نص) where the proofs for a ruling are clear. On the other hand, vague proofs are those where multiple valid interpretations are present, and they're called mujmal (مُجْمَلُ).
Both Sunnis & Shias hold this principle in fiqh, and for reference just go back to the student of Ibn Taymiyyah, Najm al-Din al-Tufi al-Hanbali, who explains in his Sharh Mukhtasar al-Rawdha, Vol. 1, pg. 553:
وَوَجْهُ انْحِصَارِ الْكَلَامِ فِي النَّصِّ وَالظَّاهِرِ وَالْمُجْمَلِ: هُوَ أَنَّ اللَّفْظَ إِمَّا أَنْ يَحْتَمِلَ مَعْنًى وَاحِدًا فَقَطْ، أَوْ يَحْتَمِلَ أَكْثَرَ مِنْ مَعْنًى وَاحِدٍ، وَالْأَوَّلُ النَّصُّ،وَالثَّانِي: إِمَّا أَنْ يَتَرَجَّحَ فِي أَحَدِ مَعْنَيَيْهِ أَوْ مَعَانِيهِ، وَهُوَ الظَّاهِرُ، أَوْ لَا يَتَرَجَّحَ، وَهُوَ الْمُجْمَلُ.
The interpretation of speech confinement lies in textual evidence (nass), apparent evidence (dhahir), and general evidence (mujmal). Language can either carry a single meaning or multiple meanings. In the former case, it is textual (nass). In the latter, it either leans towards one meaning - which would make it the apparent (dhahir) - or remains undecided (i.e. both are equally valid), and that is the general (mujmal).
This means that when hadiths are studied, their interpretations are categorized in the 3 ways stated above, where either their meaning is clear (making it nass), likely to be one meaning (making it the dhahir), or vague (making it mujmal).
We find that this tradition in no way clearly shows the negation of Prophetic inheritance, nor leans towards it, and that is because it can hold several other interpretations that are equally valid.
Now that this has been understood, the hadith can be explained through the following ways;
This hadith highlights that the Prophet’s did not come to earth to accumulate vast amounts of wealth, but rather leave knowledge for the people. It’s as if a scholar were to die and a newspaper would say, “He didn’t leave behind wealth, but rather knowledge for the Ummah”. This doesn’t negate his daughters’ ability to inherit, but praises him for his legacy of knowledge.
The hadith speaks in regards to the scholars, who are inheritors in a metaphorical sense, for if it were to be literal it would mean scholars have the same knowledge as Prophets. The biological inheritors of prophets, which includes the offspring of the Prophet, inherit wealth as proven from the Qur’an. No hadith indicates this category of inheritors are void of wealth as inheritance.
This hadith does not even mention land or property, so has no relation to Fadak. This also contradicts the hadith of Abu Bakr which says everything left behind is for charity, while this hadith says prophets have nothing left behind.
Al-Shaykh al-Kulayni puts this report in his Fadha’il al-’Ilm (The Virtue of Knowledge), in the Chapter of "The reward for scholars seeking knowledge". This shows us that he did not understand this hadith as related to Prophetic inheritance, but rather a figure of speech (or a metaphor) relating to scholars accumulating the main thing prophets left behind for the Ummah, which is knowledge.
This hadith is also found in Sunni books such as Jami’ at-Tirmidhi 2682 and Sunan Ibn Majah 223, and Sunan Abi Dawud 364 who have all put this in a different chapter to Abu Bakr’s hadith, and rather they put in the books relating to knowledge. Ibn Abdul Barr also put this narration in his Jami' al-Bayan, Vol. 1, pg. 160, Hadith # 169 whom he dedicated it primarily to the benefit of knowledge and its importance.
None of them have understood this narration as relevant to prophetic inheritance, but all put them in chapters relating to the virtue of knowledge showing they understood it just as Kulayni did.
This is why Shaheed al-Sadr says in his Fadak Fil Tarikh, pg. 116 - 118:
وليسوا مصادر للثروة بمعناها المصطلح عليه في عرف الناس، ولا بالساعين وراء نفائسها. ولماذا لا يكون قوله: (إنا معاشر الأنبياء لا نورث ذهبا ولا فضة ولا أرضا ولا عقارا ولا دار ا) كناية عن هذا المعنى؟ لأن توريثهم لهذه الأشياء إنما يكون بحيازتهم لها، وتركهم إياها بعد موتهم وهم منصرفون عنها، لا يحسبون لها حسابا ولا يقيمون لها وزنا ليحصلوا على شئ منها. فما هو تحت اللفظ نفي التوريث لعدم وجود التركة كما إذا قلنا: إن الفقراء لا يورثون، لا أنهم يختصون عن سائر الناس بحكم يقتضي بعدم جريان أحكام الإرث على تركاتهم. والهدف الأصلي من الكلام بيان جلال الأنبياء. وهذا الأسلوب من البيان مما يتفق مع الأساليب النبوية الرائعة التي تطفح بالمعاني الكبار وتزخر بأسماها في موجاتها اللفظية القصيرة.
فالمفهوم من جملة: أن الأنبياء يورثون، أنهم يحصلون على الأموال ويجعلونها تركة من بعدهم، وإذا نفي التوريث عنهم، كان مدلول هذا النفي أنهم لا يهيؤون للإرث شرطه الأخير، ولا يسعون وراء الأموال ليتركوها بعد وفاتهم لورثتهم.
They are not sources of wealth in the sense understood by people, nor are they those who seek after material riches. Why would His statement, "We, the community of prophets, do not inherit gold, silver, land, property, or houses," then be a metaphor for this meaning? Their inheritance of such things is only through their temporary possession, and they leave them behind after their death, not considering them or assigning them any value in order to acquire something from them. Thus, the literal meaning of the statement is the denial of inheritance because there is no estate to inherit, just as when we say, "The poor do not inherit," meaning they have no inheritance to pass on, not that they are excluded from the laws of inheritance. The main purpose of this statement is to emphasize the grandeur of the prophets. This style of expression is in line with the magnificent prophetic methods, overflowing with great meanings and rich with the highest concepts in their brief, impactful words.
The implication of the phrase "the prophets inherit" is that they acquire wealth and leave it as inheritance for those after them. However, when inheritance is denied to them, it signifies that they do not prepare the final condition for inheritance, nor do they seek wealth to leave it behind for their heirs after their death.
This is echoed in other sharhs of this hadith such as in Sharh Usul al-Kafi, Vol. 2, pg. 26 by al-Mazandari (علا الله مقامه):
(وذاك أن الأنبياء لم يورثوا درهما ولا دينارا) هذا ينافي ظاهرا ما دل من الآيات والروايات على إيراثهم. والجواب: أن المراد أن الأنبياء لم يكن من شأنهم وعاداتهم جمع الأموال والأسباب كما هو شأن أبناء الدنيا، وهذا لا ينافي إيراثهم ما كان في أيديهم من الضروريات كالمساكن والمركوب والملبوس ونحوها، أو المراد أن الأنبياء من حيث إنهم أنبياء لم يورثوا ذلك يعني أن إيراث النبوة ومقتضاها ليس ذلك.
"That is because the prophets did not inherit a penny or a dinar”: This seemingly contradicts what is indicated by the verses and narrations about their inheritance. The response is that what is meant is that it was not the custom of the prophets to accumulate wealth and material possessions like worldly people do. This does not contradict the fact that they inherited necessities such as homes, transportation, clothing, and the like. Alternatively, what is meant is that the purpose of prophethood was not such inheritance (i.e. worldly items).
And likewise in Mir'at al-Uqool, Vol. 1, pg. 103 - 104 by Allama al-Majlisi (طيب الله أثاره)
قوله عليهالسلام العلماء ورثة الأنبياء : أي يرثون منهم العلوم والمعارف والحكم ، إذ هذه عمدة ما يتمتعون به في دنياهم ، ولذا علله بقوله : إن الأنبياء لم يورثوا درهما ولا دينارا ، أي لم يكن عمدة ما يحصلون في دنياهم وينتفع الناس به منهم في حياتهم وبعد وفاتهم الدينار والدرهم ، ولا ينافي أن يرث وارثهم الجسماني منهم ما يبقى بعدهم من الأموال الدنيوية ، أو يقال وارثهم من حيث النبوة المختصة بهم العلماء فلا ينافي ذلك كون وارثهم من جهة الأنساب الجسمانية يرث أموالهم الظاهرة
"The prophets did not inherit a penny or a dinar," meaning that material wealth was not the main focus of their worldly affairs, and people did not benefit from them in their lives and after their passing through worldly wealth. However, it does not contradict the fact that their physical heirs may inherit material wealth from them that remains after their passing. Alternatively, it can be said that the scholars inherit from them in terms of the specialized knowledge of prophethood, which does not contradict the inheritance of their material wealth by their physical heirs.
In another hadith by the Imam (as), he explains in Qurb al-Isnad, pg. 99 by al-Himyari (رضوان الله عليه):
عن حنان بن سدير قال: سأل صدقة بن مسلم أبا عبد الله عليه السلام - وأنا عنده - فقال: من الشاهد على فاطمة بأنها لا ترث أباها؟ً فقال: شهدت عليها عائشة وحفصة ورجل من العرب يقال له: أوس بن الحدثان، من بني نضر. شهدوا عند أبي بكر بأن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله قال: لا أورث. فمنعوا فاطمة عليها السلام ميراثها من أبيها صلى الله عليه وآله
From Hanan Ibn Sadir who said: Sadaqah Ibn Muslim asked Imam al-Sadiq (as): "Who bears witness that Fatimah does not inherit from her father?". He replied, "Aisha, Hafsah, and a man from the Arabs named Aws Ibn Hadithan from the tribe of Banu Nadir. They bore witness before Abu Bakr that Rasulullah (saw) said, ‘I do not leave inheritance.’ So they prevented Fatima (as) from inheriting from her father.”
Imam al-Sadiq (as) here explains that Abu Bakr used this hadith as proof for denying Fatima's inheritance, showing it is unrelated to the hadith he narrates in the other report, as that one was not used by anyone to show that she couldn’t inherit. Abu Bakr would have also used this hadith as proof against Fatima (as), but he never did, showing he himself also did not see it as proof against her inheriting wealth.
Another proof that shows they’re not the same is that the tradition does not elaborate on where the wealth of prophets goes, so are we to assume it goes up to heaven or something? The hadith of Abu Bakr supposedly proves their inheritance goes to charity; this hadith makes no mention of that. There is no proof it would go to charity, and using Abu Bakr’s hadith would be circular: Abu Bakr’s hadith that their property goes to sadaqa is proven by this hadith, and it refers to property going to sadaqa because of Abu Bakr’s hadith. That is a circular argument and thus invalid.
Does the hadith support Wilayat al-Faqih?
Some Sunnis have made the argument that Ayatullah Khomeini has used this hadith in support of Wilayat al-Faqih and therefore argue that it applies to Abu Bakr as well. However, Ayatullah Khomeini says in his Al-Hukuma al-Islamiyýah, pg. 145:
“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”
Khomeini’s criticism of Abu Bakr’s usurpation serves as the clearest proof that he did not understand the tradition in the fraudulent manner that Sunnis try to suggest. Scholars have correctly interpreted the hadith to mean that the property of prophethood is only knowledge (not dinars and dirhams). This means the so-called ‘inheritance’ the prophets have left for the Ummah was not something tangible such as wealth, but rather knowledge, which is to be accumulated by the knowledgeable ones. This is the 'inheritance' they leave behind for their Ummah, but their biological offspring still inherit from them. This is apparent, even if the hadith itself does not suggest this.
This is because in Arabic, it is common that when making exceptions you do not mention all the groups that fit this exception, because it dramatizes and emphasises the importance of that particular group. That isn't to say they are the exclusive exception though, but rather an emphasis on their importance. For example, the Qur'an says in Surah Fatir 35:28:
وَمِنَ النَّاسِ وَالدَّوَابِّ وَالْأَنْعَامِ مُخْتَلِفٌ أَلْوَانُهُ كَذَٰلِكَ ۗ إِنَّمَا يَخْشَى اللَّهَ مِنْ عِبَادِهِ الْعُلَمَاءُ ۗ إِنَّ اللَّهَ عَزِيزٌ غَفُو
And of men and moving living creatures and cattle, in like manner of various colours. It is only those who have knowledge among His slaves that fear Allah. Verily, Allah is All Mighty, Oft Forgiving.
In this verse, God says that the only ones that can fear Allah are the knowledgeable ones, but does that mean one cannot fear Allah if they do not posses knowledge? Here’s another example from Surah al-Baqarah 2:173:
إِنَّمَا حَرَّمَ عَلَيْكُمُ الْمَيْتَةَ وَالدَّمَ وَلَحْمَ الْخِنزِيرِ وَمَا أُهِلَّ بِهِ لِغَيْرِ اللَّهِ
He has only forbidden to you dead animals, blood, the flesh of swine, and that which has been dedicated to other than Allah .
With the verse containing the words only, should we therefore conclude that only pork and blood is haram to us, everything else such as corpses, feces, urine and semen is fine? Another example in Surah al-Kahf 18:110:
قُلْ إِنَّمَا أَنَا بَشَرٌ مِّثْلُكُمْ يُوحَىٰ إِلَيَّ أَنَّمَا إِلَٰهُكُمْ إِلَٰهٌ وَاحِدٌ
Say: “I am but a man like yourselves, the only inspiration has come to m is that your God is one God.
Should we conclude on the basis of this verse that only the message of monotheism has come through revelation, and that all other matters were not revealed by revelation?
The obvious answer to these objections is no, this is not the case. These are instances where a group is mentioned as having an exception, not because they are the only exclusive ones, but to highlight their significance. Similarly, the hadith does not state "except their children inherit," but it is clear from other evidence that children do, in fact, inherit, regardless of whether the hadith specifically mentions it or not.
Do women inherit in Shi'a Fiqh?
Some ignorant people have gone around spreading that in Shi’a fiqh a woman does not inherit land or fixed property. This comes from a lie that is being spread around regarding the meanings of certain hadiths. For example, in Tahdhib al-Ahkam, Vol. 9, pg. 345, Hadith # 113 there is a tradition stating;
عن أبي عبد الله عليه السلام قال: سألته عن النساء ما لهن من الميراث؟ قال: لهن قيمة الطوب والبناء والخشب والقصب، فأما الأرض والعقارات فلا ميراث لهن فيه
'I only know this from Maysarah who reported from Abu Abdillah (as) that he said: I asked him about women, what is their share of inheritance?' He said: 'They have the value of bricks, construction, wood, and reeds. As for land and property, they have no inheritance in them.'
Several other hadiths & sources say similar things. However, these jahils have no understanding of the Arabic language, because nowhere in these hadiths does it mention the word بنت (daughter). Rather, the hadith states نساء (woman). That is referring to a widow, not a daughter.
In summary, as we will demonstrate, in Shi’a fiqh, a wife does not inherit property from her husband, while a daughter does inherit from her father. This is because a widow may remarry and take her late husband's property with her, which could then be inherited by the children from her new marriage, potentially leading to the inheritance of a man’s property going to descendants who are not his own. Furthermore, the current children of the deceased would be deprived of some of their inheritance, as it would need to be shared with a new family.
This same tradition, with full context can be read in Hurr al-’Amili’s Wasa’il al-Shi'a, Vol. 20, pg. 652 - 653:
3 - وعنهم عن سهل، عن علي بن الحكم، عن أبان الأحمر قال: لا أعلمه إلا عن ميسر بياع الزطي، عن أبي عبد الله عليه السلام قال: سألته عن النساء ما لهن من الميراث؟ قال: لهن قيمة الطوب والبناء والخشب والقصب، فأما الأرض والعقارات فلا ميراث لهن فيه قال: قلت: فالبنات (1)؟ قال: البنات (2) لهن نصيبهن (منه) (3) قال: قلت: كيف صار ذا ولهذه الثمن ولهذه الربع مسمى؟ قال: لأن المرأة ليس لها نسب ترث به وإنما هي دخيل عليهم إنما صار هذا كذا لئلا تتزوج المرأة فيجئ زوجها أو ولدها من قوم آخرين فيزاحم قوما آخرين في عقارهم. ورواه الشيخ باسناده عن سهل بن زياد نحوه (4) وكذا الذي قبله. ورواه الصدوق باسناده عن علي بن الحكم، عن أبان الأحمر، عن ميسر، عن أبي عبد الله (عليه السلام) نحوه إلا أنه قال: فالثياب (5). ورواه في (العلل) عن أبيه، عن محمد بن أبي القاسم ماجيلويه عن محمد بن عيسى، عن علي بن الحكم، عن أبان، عن ميسر مثله، وقال فيه: فالثياب (6).
Maysarah: I asked Abu Abdullah (as) about what a woman inherits. The Imam replied: ‘They will get the value of the bricks, the building, the wood and the bamboo. As for the land and the fixed property, they will get no inheritance from that’. Maysarah said: ‘What about daughters?’ He (as) replied: 'The daughters shall inherit.’ Maysarah said: ‘How come they (widows) don’t inherit (land or building) although their share is 1/8 of the inheritance and the (daughters’) share is 1/4 ?’ He replied: ‘Because she is not a blood relative to inherit but she is a relative in law. And this (widow not inheriting land) is because that woman might marry again and bring her husband or her sons from another husband (in the land/house) which would cause rivalry with others living in their house.’
These traditions can be found in:
In Man La Yahdhural Faqih, Vol. 4, pg. 261, al-Saduq records a hadith declared sahih by Ayatullah Sadiq al-Rohani (RH) in Fiqh al-Sadiq, Vol. 37, pg. 29:
ومنها: صحيح البزنطي، عن الإمام الباقر عليه السلام: «عن رجل هلك وترك ابنته وعمه؟ فقال له: المال للإبنة. قلت: رجل مات وترك ابنة له وأخاً، أو قال ابن أخيه؟ قال: فسكت طويلاً، ثم قال: المال للإبنة»
Al-Bazanti narrated that he said: ‘I asked Abu Ja’far al-Thani (as) and said: ‘May I be sacrificed for you, what if a man died and left a daughter and uncles?’. He replied: ‘The property is for the daughter.’
We also read This tradition with another sahih chain per al-’Allama al-Majlisi in Al-Kafi, Vol. 7, Book 2, Ch. 12, H. #5.
عَنْ زُرَارَةَ عَنْ أَبِي جَعْفَرٍ (عَلَيْهِ السَّلام) فِي رَجُلٍ مَاتَ وَتَرَكَ ابْنَتَهُ وَأُخْتَهُ لأبِيهِ وَأُمِّهِ قَالَ الْمَالُ لِلابْنَةِ وَلَيْسَ لِلأخْتِ مِنَ الأبِ وَالأمِّ شَيْءٌ.
Zurara narrated that Abi Jafar (as) was asked about a man who died and left a daughter, sister and mother. He replied: ‘The daughter will inherit the whole property, the sister and mother have no share in it.’
Although there remains no need for further discussion after unveiling the cunningness committed by the Nasibi author, for the sake of discussion, we should point out that all the Shi’a Mujtahideen from the 1st century until the present are unanimous on the point that these ahadith refer to the inheritance of a ‘widow,’ not of a daughter (who has the right to all the things, including land and fixed property).
The Shi’a maraji' have on the basis of the verse 4:11 drawn up rules on inheritance. We read in the Risala of Ayatollah Lankarani’s Tawdih-al-Masail:
2886. If out of the first group, there is only one heir of the deceased (for example, father or mother or only one son or only one daughter), he/she inherits the entire estate, and if there are several daughters or sons, the estate is divided equally and if there is one daughter and one son, the estate should be divided to 3 parts, two parts for the son and one part for the daughter. And if there are more than one son and daughter, the estate is divided among them in such a way that each son gets twice the share of each daughter.
Similar we read in Ayatullah al-Sistani’s Islamic Laws:
2748: If out of the first group, there is only one heir of the deceased (for example, father or mother or only one son or only one daughter) he/she inherits the entire estate, and, if there are more than one sons or daughters, the estate is divided among them in such a way, that each son gets twice the share of each daughter.
< Previous Part: Did the Prophet (saw) leave inheritance?
Next Part: Abu Bakr's confession >
Commentaires