Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
Ethics

Prophets Do Leave Inheritance [Quran]

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

I did some research on my own to see if the matter of inheriting things through prophets A.S is proved through the quran. This is what I found.

 

For those who believe the Prophet's do not leave inheritance of things, have not clearly understood the quran. I will give an example [Quran 19:6] :

 

 

يَرِثُنِي وَيَرِثُ مِنْ آلِ يَعْقُوبَ ۖ وَاجْعَلْهُ رَبِّ رَضِيًّا

 

 

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 ali 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 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".

 

To prove this further, go to this website in which breaks down each wording of the verse: http://corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=19&verse=6

 

Then you will see two usages of the word "yarithunī" and "wayarithu". Again, why the two usages are repeated if it is only meant for inheriting knowledge and prophet hood? It cannot be, for there is no need to repeat it, IF it were not talking about inheritance of personal belongings. Besides, Zacharriya A.S was already a decedent of the family of Yaqub, so the inheritance of knowledge/prophet hood would be given through " the family of Yaqub", there was no need to use yarithunī. Therefore, it is proven it was used in relation to the inheritance of his belongings. To further prove this, by clicking on the first verb's usages throughout the quran, we can see it is used for inheritance of the belongings. This is just one example, to further prove my point, the verse implies inheritance of things, and not knowledge. We therefore know there is no way 4:12 refers to inheriting knowledge for it speaks about inheritance (of personal belongings) between family, men, women, and children.

 

Chapter (4) sūrat l-nisāa (The Women) (4:12:53) yūrathu :(whose wealth) is to be inherited

 

وَإِنْ كَانَ رَجُلٌ يُورَثُ كَلَالَةً أَوِ امْرَأَةٌ وَلَهُ أَخٌ أَوْ أُخْتٌ فَلِكُلِّ وَاحِدٍ مِنْهُمَا السُّدُسُ

 

 

 

Another Quranic [27:16] example of the usage of the same verb:

 

وَوَرِثَ سُلَيْمَانُ دَاوُودَ ۖ وَقَالَ يَا أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ عُلِّمْنَا مَنْطِقَ الطَّيْرِ وَأُوتِينَا مِنْ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ ۖ إِنَّ هَٰذَا لَهُوَ الْفَضْلُ الْمُبِينُ

 

[shakir 27:16] And Sulaiman was Dawood's heir, and he said: O men! we have been taught the language of birds, and we have been given all things; most surely this is manifest grace.

 

According to the Quranic dictionary, the term shayin is being used, which means thing. This term is separate from "language of birds". The previous verse also speaks of giving knowledge to them, which we know Allah has given the power to inherit knowledge to each prophet that comes along. Therefore, there is no need to repeat "inheriting" knowledge again. Which is why these two verses are separately talking about what was given to Sulaiman A.S. What is therefore established is that Sulaiman inherited knowledge from Dawood (27:15), the language of the birds, and all his things ( ie Kingdom).

 

Therefore, it is proven Prophets do leave inheritance. Surely Fatima A.S was deprived of her right, that the messenger of Allah gave her. Abu Bakr was wrong to challenge the daughter of the prophet, who surely knew the interpretation of the Quran, for NONE OTHER than Muhammad A.S was her teacher, and she would truly know her own rights and belongings. There is no way, Muhammad A.S, would teach her to lie or take the rights of the poor. It is illogical. It was her and Ali A.S that gave everything they had to the needy!

 

 

Just in case, Quranic evidence is not enough for you, and you believe Fatima A.S was lying and cheating out the needy of their right astagfirullah:

 

Fadak was a piece of land that had come in possession of the Prophet (p.b.u.h) without waging a war. In the seventh century, the people of that place had handed it over to the Muslims fearing reprisal. As it was given voluntarily, this land automatically became the personal property of the Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h), and had nothing to do with the government. The fact was accepted by many commentators and historians. For reference, we are quoting a few names: Bilazaris ‘Futuh al-Bildaan’;  Shaykh Shahabudin Hamui in ‘Mojam al-Bildaan’ under the word ‘Fadak’;  Mohammad Ibn Jurair Tabari in his ‘Tarikh al-Umam wal Molook’, vol.3, p. 14; Ibn Atheer in ‘Al-Kaamil’, vol.3, p.221; Ibn Abil Hadeed in ‘Sharh-e-Nahjul Balagha’, vol. 16, p.210

 

All the Sunni commentators while explaining the 28th verse of Surah Bani Israel state that the Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h) had gifted Fadak to Janabe Fatima Zahra (p.b.u.h). Thus, automatically it becomes the personal property of Hazrat Fatima Zahra (p.b.u.h). Just to prove our point, the following books may be referred to: Suyooti’s ‘Durrul Mansoor’, vol. 5, p.273; Hakim-e-Haskani’s ‘Shawaahed ut-Tanzeel’, vol. 1, p.240. Both these authors have quoted from Abu Saeed Khudri and Ibn Abbas. Also, the following learned men have explained and confessed that the Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h) has gifted Fadak to Fatima Zahra (p.b.u.h): Qazi Abdul Jabbar Motazali, Yaqoote Hammui, Ibn Abil Hadeed, Abdul Fattah Abdul Maqsood-e-Misri, etc…

 

12 Questions Concerning Fadaq

 

(wasalam)

Edited by PureEthics

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes they leave even Quran says Allah has made shares of inheritance for every one there is no exceptions for prophets sunni tafasir dur manthur said salman a.s inherited kingdoms fom his father Dawud a.s

 

and further dur manthur said yahiya a.s asked Allah for his heir, heir of his material inheritance

 

Rasul sas also got camels in inheritance sunni book al tabqat ibn saad 

 

ayesha inheited cloths of Rasul sas this is in sahih bukhari and there are many more proofs of prophetic material and knowledge inheritance....from ahl sunnah works

 

and when prophet sas was on death bed umar said Quran is sufficient for us means they donot need ahadiths so i welcome any sunni to prove this fact that prophets a.s donot leave inheritance from Quran...

 

the things which are haraam are already prohibited by Allah....but there is no exceptions for prophets a.s for being not inherited or heired by some one...but Allah says 

 

Surah Nisa 004.033:

To (benefit) every one, We have appointed shares and heirs to property left by parents and relatives. To those, also, to whom your right hand was pledged, give their due portion. For truly Allah is witness to all things. 
Al-Qur’an, Surah an-Nisa, Ayah 33, translated by Yusufali

 

and everyone includes prophets a.s too

Edited by BrockLesnar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surah Nisa 004.033:

To (benefit) every one, We have appointed shares and heirs to property left by parents and relatives. To those, also, to whom your right hand was pledged, give their due portion. For truly Allah is witness to all things. 

Al-Qur’an, Surah an-Nisa, Ayah 33, translated by Yusufali

 

and everyone includes prophets a.s too

 

You are very right dear brother. No hadith can contradict the word of Allah. Clearly if it was tantamount to disobedience of Allah, Allah would have excluded His prophet's from this verse explicitly. Clearly Muhammad A.S was a human, and this verse encompasses all of mankind.

 

(wasalam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We also see in the example of Fatima Zahra (as), that the Prophets did leave inheritance. When the Prophet Muhammad (as) died, the Muslims stole Fadak, a piece of land that the Prophet (as) left his daughter Fatima (as) in honor of Khadija (as). Fatima Zahra did not stay silent at the injustice and she said, "You tell me I cannot inherit? Solmon inherited from David did he not? Yahya inherited from Zachariah, did he not?" And she continued to recite all the verses from the Quran that applied to inheritance to prove her claim. And they were about to return Fadak back to her, when someone intervened and said, "If you give Fadak back to her, then you will also have to recognize the caliphate of Ali." Unfortunately, they rejected Zahra's   (as) claim and usurped Fadak, and denied Ali (as) his right to be Caliphate.

 

Oh Pure Ethics you did mention Fadak! Sorry I didn't see it before.

Edited by BabyDoll

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Inheritance in the verses you posted is not concerning materials, land or money. its concerning prophet hood and knowledge.

 

Tafsir Ibn Kathir

 

And verily, I fear Mawali after me, 
Mujahid, Qatadah and As-Suddi, all said, 
"In saying the word Mawali, he (Zakariyya) 
meant his succeeding relatives.'' 
 
and my wife is barren. So give me from Yourself an heir. 
Who shall inherit me, 
The reason for his fear was that he was afraid that the 
generation that would succeed him would be a wicked 
generation. Thus, he asked Allah for a son who would be 
a Prophet after him, who would guide them with his 
Prophethood and that which was revealed to him. 
In response to this I would like to point out that; 
• he was not afraid of them inheriting his wealth. 
For a Prophet is too great in status, and too lofty 
in esteem to become remorseful over his wealth 
in this fashion. A Prophet would not disdain to 
leave his wealth to his successive relatives, and 
thus ask to have a son who would receive his 
 
inheritance instead of them. This is one angle of 
argument. 
• The second argument is that Allah did not 
mention that he (Zakariyya) was wealthy. On the 
contrary, he was a carpenter who ate from the 
earnings of his own hand. This type of person 
usually does not have a mass of wealth. 
Amassing wealth is not something normal for 
Prophets, for verily, they are the most 
abstentious in matters of this worldly life. 
• The third argument is that it is confirmed in the 
Two Sahihs, in more than one narration, that the 
Messenger of Allah said,
 
We (the Prophets) do not leave behind 
inheritance (of wealth). Whatever we leave 
behind, then it is charity. 
In a narration recorded by At-Tirmidhi with 
an authentic chain of narrations, he said, 
We, Prophets do not leave behind 
inheritance (of wealth). 
Therefore, the meaning in these Hadiths restricts 
the meaning of Zakariyya's statement,
(So give me from yourself an heir. Who 
shall inherit me, 
inheritance of Prophethood. 
For this reason Allah said, 
and inherit (also) the posterity of Yaqub. 
This is similar to Allah's statement,
 
And Suleiman inherited from Dawud. (27:16) 
This means that he inherited Prophethood from 
him. If this had meant wealth, he would not have 
been singled with it among his other brothers. 
There also would have been no important benefit 
in mentioning it if it was referring to wealth. It is 
already well-known and established in all of the 
previous laws and divinely revealed creeds, that 
the son inherits the wealth of his father. 
Therefore, if this was not referring to a specific 
type of inheritance, then Allah would not have 
mentioned it. 
All of this is supported and affirmed by what is in the 
authentic Hadith: 
We Prophets do not leave behind any inheritance 
(of wealth). Whatever we leave behind, then it is 
charity. 
Mujahid said concerning his statement(Who shall inherit me, and inherit (also) the 
posterity of Yaqub). 
"His inheritance was knowledge, and Zakariyya 
was one of the descendants of Yaqub." 
Hushaym said, that Ismail bin Abi Khalid informed us 
that Abu Salih commented about the Ayah:(who shall inherit me, and inherit (also) the 
posterity of Yaqub), 
"He would be a Prophet like his forefathers were 
Prophets.'' 
 
Both the books of the Muslims and the Shiite agree that Prophets do not leave behind any material related items, money nor land.
 

A. Al-Kulayni narrates in al-Kafi: Abu Abdillah (Imam Jafar as-Sadiq) says that Rasulullah sallallahualayhi wa-alihi wasallam said:..And the Ulama are the heirs of the Ambiya; and theAmbiya(Prophets) did not leave dinars and dirhams as inheritance; but they left knowledge.Therefore whosoever takes knowledge has taken a great portion.  (Shia book, al-Kafi, vol. 1 p. 42, Regarding the authenticity of this hadith, Allamah Muhammad Baqir Maglisi states in his commentary on al-Kafi, entitled Mirat al-Uqul:[This] hadith has two chains of narration. The first is majhul [contains an unknown narrator], and thesecond is hasan or muwaththaq. [Together] they do not fall short of being sahih. (Mirat al-Uqul, vol. 1 p. 11]

 

B. Khomeini writes under the heading Sahihat al-Qaddah (the authentic narration of al-Qaddah):Ali ibn Ibrahim narrates from his father, from Hammad ibn Isa, on the authority of [Abdullah ibn Maymun] al-Qaddah that Abu Abdillah [imam Jafar as-Sadiq] alayhis salam said: Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wa-alihi wasallam said: Whoever walks a path seeking therein knowledge, Allah will lead him on a road to Jannah… And the Ulama are the heirs of the Ambiya; and the Ambiya(Prophets) did not leave dinars and dirhams as inheritance; but they left knowledge. Therefore whosoever takes knowledge has taken a great portion. (Shia book, al-Kafi, Kitab Fadl al-Ilm, Bab Sifat al-Ilm wa-Fadlihi, hadith no. 2)
To this narration Khomeini appends the following remark:
The narrators of this tradition are all reliable and trustworthy. The father of Ali ibn Ibrahim [namely Ibrahim ibn Hashim] is not only reliable; he is one of the most reliable and trustworthy narrators. (al-Hukumat al-Islamiyyah, p. 133, published by Markaz Baqiyyat Allah al-Azam, Beirut)

 

C. Thereafter Khomeini points to another narration to the same effect that is recorded in al-Kafi with a weak chain of narration, and comments as follows:
This narration has been narrated with a slight difference to the same effect through another chain of narration that is weak, meaning that the chain is authentic up to Abul Bakhtari, but Abul Bakhtari himself is weak. That narration is as follows:
[it is narrated] from Muhammad ibn Yahya, from Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Isa, from Muhammad ibn Khalid, from Abul Bakhtari, that Abu Abdillah [imam Jafar as-Sadiq] Alayhis salam said: Verily the Ulama are the heirs of the Ambiya. That is because the Ambiya do not leave dirhams or dinars as inheritance, but they leave their words. (Shia book, al-Hukumat al-Islamiyyah, p. 133)

 

 

I am not going to comment any further because of simply this . If you still dispute the matter after this. Then you would have shown proven just how realible your ahadith, Muhaditeen and scholars are, and why this religion you follow is not a religion of order and methodology rather it is a religion of emotions, cherry picking and contradiction.

 

 

Edited by RationalDeen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Inheritance in the verses you posted is not concerning materials, land or money. its concerning prophet hood and knowledge.

 

 

 

Oh my dear brother, how ignorant can one be? The quran is an infallible book! No hadith can contradict it. Sure, you can bring interpretations supporting your theology, but no hadith can challenge the strategically inputted grammar of the holy Quran. Again, if prophets cannot, are not allowed to give inheritance then it must be clearly shown from the holy quran. After all, Muhammad A.S is the walking talking quran. Sharia is applied to prophets as it is to mankind, for they are part of mankind! I will try and answer your points as much as I can, but concerning your tafsir, I do not need to refute it, for it is not proof on me, I am a shia. So bringing forth as an argument is futile, unless it logically speaks of the way the quranic verse is presented, like I have given so. Which in fact, you have not addressed. So ignoring my argument, while just posting your point of view, is not refuting my case at all.

 

 

he was not afraid of them inheriting his wealth. 

For a Prophet is too great in status, and too lofty 
in esteem to become remorseful over his wealth 
in this fashion. A Prophet would not disdain to 
leave his wealth to his successive relatives, and 
thus ask to have a son who would receive his 
 
inheritance instead of them. This is one angle of 
argument.

 

No where is it implied he is afraid of them inheriting his wealth. Therefore your point is moot.

 

 

The second argument is that Allah did not 

mention that he (Zakariyya) was wealthy. On the 
contrary, he was a carpenter who ate from the 
earnings of his own hand. This type of person 
usually does not have a mass of wealth. 
Amassing wealth is not something normal for 
Prophets, for verily, they are the most 
abstentious in matters of this worldly life. 

 

Who said the jest of the argument is in relation to wealth. Wealth is not the only thing that can be inherited. If you disagree then prove so from the quran.

 

 

The third argument is that it is confirmed in the 

Two Sahihs, in more than one narration, that the 
Messenger of Allah said,
 
We (the Prophets) do not leave behind 
inheritance (of wealth). Whatever we leave 
behind, then it is charity. 
In a narration recorded by At-Tirmidhi with 
an authentic chain of narrations, he said, 
We, Prophets do not leave behind 
inheritance (of wealth). 

 

I have addressed the flaw in this hadith. Again, it goes against the holy quran, which proves it is false, and the tradition quoted to deprive Bibi Fatimah 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".

 

 

And Suleiman inherited from Dawud. (27:16)

 

I have also refuted this claim above. This verse speaks of three parts of his inheirtance: Knowledge (which comes with prophethood), Language of the birds, and Dawud's possessions.

 

By the way there are countless sunni sources that agree with the shias and prove prophets leave inheritance:

 

http://www.shiapen.com/comprehensive/fadak/inheritance-previous-prophets.html

 

Next you try and use our (shia) hadith books against is, which is quite futile if you have not studied this matter further. I see you have copy and pasted this from anti-shia, hateful websites. Good to know your akhlaq as a fellow muslim -__- . Anyway, to make this argument short and demolish all your misinformation you use from our books, you have misinterpreted the hadith, and even if it were to mention such a thing, we shia do not accept ANY hadith that goes against the quran. Hadith CANNOT abrogate the holy quran. Therefore your argument is invalid, and disproved.

 

 

Al-Kulayni narrates in al-Kafi: Abu Abdillah (Imam Jafar as-Sadiq) says that Rasulullah sallallahualayhi wa-alihi wasallam said:..And the Ulama are the heirs of the Ambiya; and theAmbiya(Prophets) did not leave dinars and dirhams as inheritance; but they left knowledge.Therefore whosoever takes knowledge has taken a great portion.

 

Khomeini writes under the heading Sahihat al-Qaddah (the authentic narration of al-Qaddah):Ali ibn Ibrahim narrates from his father, from Hammad ibn Isa, on the authority of [Abdullah ibn Maymun] al-Qaddah that Abu Abdillah [imam Jafar as-Sadiq] alayhis salam said: Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wa-alihi wasallam said: Whoever walks a path seeking therein knowledge, Allah will lead him on a road to Jannah… And the Ulama are the heirs of the Ambiya; and the Ambiya(Prophets) did not leave dinars and dirhams as inheritance; but they left knowledge. Therefore whosoever takes knowledge has taken a great portion. (Shia book, al-Kafi, Kitab Fadl al-Ilm, Bab Sifat al-Ilm wa-Fadlihi, hadith no. 2)

 

This narration has been narrated with a slight difference to the same effect through another chain of narration that is weak, meaning that the chain is authentic up to Abul Bakhtari, but Abul Bakhtari himself is weak. That narration is as follows:

[it is narrated] from Muhammad ibn Yahya, from Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Isa, from Muhammad ibn Khalid, from Abul Bakhtari, that Abu Abdillah [imam Jafar as-Sadiq] Alayhis salam said: Verily the Ulama are the heirs of the Ambiya. That is because the Ambiya do not leave dirhams or dinars as inheritance, but they leave their words. (Shia book, al-Hukumat al-Islamiyyah, p. 133)

 

 

There is absolutely nothing wrong with these hadith. If you can understand english you will see, that first and foremost, Ulema (scholars) are not biological heirs of the prophets. We are talking about biological inheritance from father to children. It is clear and makes sense that the ulema who get their knowledge from our prophets and imams, are what they have inherited from them. That is what the Prophets left for the ones who will become scholars for this religion. Prophets did not leave money for the scholars of Islam, it wouldnt make any sense. What help would money give to scholars? It is knowledge that they need and did receive.

 

Now let me give you some proof from our books that establish prophets do leave inheritance:

 

Umar ibn Aban said: ‘I asked Abu Abdullah (as) about what the people talk about, that he (the prophet) submit a stamped will to Umm Salama. He (Imam Jaffar) said: ‘When Allah’s messenger (s) died, he inherited to Ali (as) His knowledge, weapon and so. Then it remained with al-Hassan, then with al-Hussain’. I said: ‘Then it reamined with Ali bin al-Hussain then with his son then with you?’ He (imam Jaffar) said: ‘Yes’.

Allamah Majlesi declared it Sahih in Mirat al-Uqool, Volume 3 page 48

 

In another Hadith in Furu Al-Kafi

 

علي بن إبراهيم، عن أبيه، عن ابن أبي عمير، عن جميل بن دراج، عن زرارة، عن أبي جعفر عليه السلام قال: ورث علي عليه السلام علم رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله وورثت فاطمة عليها السلام تركته

 

Imam Al-Baqir (as) says that Imam Ali (as) inherited the knowledge of the Prophet and Syeda Fatima inherited his property.

 

Furu Al-Kafi volume 7 page 86

 

Allama Majlisi in Mir'at Al-Uqul volume 23 page 132 says this hadith is hasan

 

The Hadith following the one above on the same page also states the mirath that syeda fatima (as) was able to inherit was the house of the Prophet and the goods of it:

 

أحمد بن محمد، عن علي بن الحسن، عن علي بن أسباط، عن الحسن بن علي ابن عبد الملك حيدر، عن حمزة بن حمران قال: قلت لأبي عبد الله عليه السلام: من ورث رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله؟ فقال: فاطمة عليها السلام وورثته متاع البيت والخرثي وكل ما كان له

 

There are also narrations claiming Fadak as a gift in our books:

 

5 - علي بن محمد بن عبدالله، عن بعض أصحابنا أظنه السياري، عن علي بن أسباط قال: لما ورد أبوالحسن موسى عليه السلام على المهدي رآه يرد المظالم فقال: يا أمير المؤمنين ما بال مظلمتنا لا ترد؟ فقال له: وما ذاك يا ابا الحسن؟ قال: إن الله تبارك وتعالى لما فتح على نبيه صلى الله عليه وآله فدك وما والاها، لم يوجف عليه بخيل ولا ركاب فأنزل الله على نبيه صلى الله عليه وآله " وآت ذا القربى حقه " فلم يدر رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله من هم، فراجع في ذلك جبرئيل وراجع جبرئيل عليه السلام ربه فأوحى الله إليه أن ادفع فدك إلى فاطمة عليها السلام، فدعاها رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله فقال لها: يا فاطمة إن الله أمرني أن أدفع إليك فدك، فقالت: قد قبلت يا رسول الله من الله ومنك.

 

Al-Kafi volume 1 page 543

-Thanks to brother Ibn Al Ja'abi

 

(wasalam)

Edited by PureEthics

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Just more copy-pasted nonsense. If you're here just to Ctrl-V and not to discuss the points you're pasting, then you're wasting your time and ours.

 

Oh my dear brother, how ignorant can one be? The quran is an infallible book! No hadith can contradict it. Sure, you can bring interpretations supporting your theology, but no hadith can challenge the strategically inputted grammar of the holy Quran. Again, if prophets cannot, are not allowed to give inheritance then it must be clearly shown from the holy quran. After all, Muhammad A.S is the walking talking quran. Sharia is applied to prophets as it is to mankind, for they are part of mankind! I will try and answer your points as much as I can, but concerning your tafsir, I do not need to refute it, for it is not proof on me, I am a shia. So bringing forth as an argument is futile, unless it logically speaks of the way the quranic verse is presented, like I have given so. Which in fact, you have not addressed. So ignoring my argument, while just posting your point of view, is not refuting my case at all.

 

 

No where is it implied he is afraid of them inheriting his wealth. Therefore your point is moot.

 

 

Who said the jest of the argument is in relation to wealth. Wealth is not the only thing that can be inherited. If you disagree then prove so from the quran.

 

 

I have addressed the flaw in this hadith. Again, it goes against the holy quran, which proves it is false, and the tradition quoted to deprive Bibi Fatimah 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".

 

 

I have also refuted this claim above. This verse speaks of three parts of his inheirtance: Knowledge (which comes with prophethood), Language of the birds, and Dawud's possessions.

 

By the way there are countless sunni sources that agree with the shias and prove prophets leave inheritance:

 

http://www.shiapen.com/comprehensive/fadak/inheritance-previous-prophets.html

 

Next you try and use our (shia) hadith books against is, which is quite futile if you have not studied this matter further. I see you have copy and pasted this from anti-shia, hateful websites. Good to know your akhlaq as a fellow muslim -__- . Anyway, to make this argument short and demolish all your misinformation you use from our books, you have misinterpreted the hadith, and even if it were to mention such a thing, we shia do not accept ANY hadith that goes against the quran. Hadith CANNOT abrogate the holy quran. Therefore your argument is invalid, and disproved.

 

 

 

There is absolutely nothing wrong with these hadith. If you can understand english you will see, that first and foremost, Ulema (scholars) are not biological heirs of the prophets. We are talking about biological inheritance from father to children. It is clear and makes sense that the ulema who get their knowledge from our prophets and imams, are what they have inherited from them. That is what the Prophets left for the ones who will become scholars for this religion. Prophets did not leave money for the scholars of Islam, it wouldnt make any sense. What help would money give to scholars? It is knowledge that they need and did receive.

 

Now let me give you some proof from our books that establish prophets do leave inheritance:

 

Umar ibn Aban said: ‘I asked Abu Abdullah (as) about what the people talk about, that he (the prophet) submit a stamped will to Umm Salama. He (Imam Jaffar) said: ‘When Allah’s messenger (s) died, he inherited to Ali (as) His knowledge, weapon and so. Then it remained with al-Hassan, then with al-Hussain’. I said: ‘Then it reamined with Ali bin al-Hussain then with his son then with you?’ He (imam Jaffar) said: ‘Yes’.

Allamah Majlesi declared it Sahih in Mirat al-Uqool, Volume 3 page 48

 

In another Hadith in Furu Al-Kafi

 

علي بن إبراهيم، عن أبيه، عن ابن أبي عمير، عن جميل بن دراج، عن زرارة، عن أبي جعفر عليه السلام قال: ورث علي عليه السلام علم رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله وورثت فاطمة عليها السلام تركته

 

Imam Al-Baqir (as) says that Imam Ali (as) inherited the knowledge of the Prophet and Syeda Fatima inherited his property.

 

Furu Al-Kafi volume 7 page 86

 

Allama Majlisi in Mir'at Al-Uqul volume 23 page 132 says this hadith is hasan

 

The Hadith following the one above on the same page also states the mirath that syeda fatima (as) was able to inherit was the house of the Prophet and the goods of it:

 

أحمد بن محمد، عن علي بن الحسن، عن علي بن أسباط، عن الحسن بن علي ابن عبد الملك حيدر، عن حمزة بن حمران قال: قلت لأبي عبد الله عليه السلام: من ورث رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله؟ فقال: فاطمة عليها السلام وورثته متاع البيت والخرثي وكل ما كان له

 

There are also narrations claiming Fadak as a gift in our books:

 

5 - علي بن محمد بن عبدالله، عن بعض أصحابنا أظنه السياري، عن علي بن أسباط قال: لما ورد أبوالحسن موسى عليه السلام على المهدي رآه يرد المظالم فقال: يا أمير المؤمنين ما بال مظلمتنا لا ترد؟ فقال له: وما ذاك يا ابا الحسن؟ قال: إن الله تبارك وتعالى لما فتح على نبيه صلى الله عليه وآله فدك وما والاها، لم يوجف عليه بخيل ولا ركاب فأنزل الله على نبيه صلى الله عليه وآله " وآت ذا القربى حقه " فلم يدر رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله من هم، فراجع في ذلك جبرئيل وراجع جبرئيل عليه السلام ربه فأوحى الله إليه أن ادفع فدك إلى فاطمة عليها السلام، فدعاها رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله فقال لها: يا فاطمة إن الله أمرني أن أدفع إليك فدك، فقالت: قد قبلت يا رسول الله من الله ومنك.

 

Al-Kafi volume 1 page 543

-Thanks to brother Ibn Al Ja'abi

 

(wasalam)

-The verses in the Quran, talks about inheritance of knowledge and prophet-hood not material possession, land nor money. As addressed in the tafsir "f this had meant wealth, he would not have been singled with it among his other brothers." This is proven from the context of each verse. Sulayman was Dawud's heir in Prophet-hood. As for Zachariah he wanted a son to inherit prophet-hood this was the reason he was worried for his people (19:5) and this is why he said " inherit from the family of Jacob".

Jaafar said Ali inherited weapons from Muhammad. He did not say the Prophet allowed this. If anything this shows Ali was ignorant of the matter just as Fatima. A similar argument can be made against the second narration you posted.

-The other ahadith i posted are direct from the Prophet. Where he made it clear the only thing prophets leave behind is knowledge.

 

Besides

 

In al-Kafi al-Kulayni has included a chapter entitled “Women do not inherit land”. In this chapter he narrates a hadith from Imam Muhammad al-Baqir, “Women do not inherit anything of land or fixed property.” (al-Kafi, vol. 7 p. 127, Kitab al-Mawarith, hadith no. 1)

 

Al-Tusi in Tahdhib al-Ahkam, and al-Majlisi in Bihar al-Anwar have narrated from Maysarah that he asked Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq 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.” (Tahdhib al-Ahkam, vol. 9 p. 299; Bihar al-Anwar, vol. 104 p. 351)

 

Al-Tusi records in Tahdhib al-Ahkam and al-Istibsar from Muhammad ibn Muslim that Imam Muhammad al-Baqir said: “A woman will not inherit anything of land and fixed property.” (Tahdhib al-Ahkam, vol. 9 p. 298; al-Istibsar, vol. 4 p. 152)

 

He also records from ‘Abd al-Malik ibn A‘yan that either Imam Muhammad al-Baqir or Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq said: “Women will have nothing of houses or land.” (Tahdhib al-Ahkam, vol. 9 p. 299; Bihar al-Anwar, vol. 104 p. 351)

 

 

^ Just more copy-pasted nonsense. If you're here just to Ctrl-V and not to discuss the points you're pasting, then you're wasting your time and ours.

Whaa ?  :mellow:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

In al-Kafi al-Kulayni has included a chapter entitled “Women do not inherit land”. In this chapter he narrates a hadith from Imam Muhammad al-Baqir, “Women do not inherit anything of land or fixed property.” (al-Kafi, vol. 7 p. 127, Kitab al-Mawarith, hadith no. 1)

 

Al-Tusi in Tahdhib al-Ahkam, and al-Majlisi in Bihar al-Anwar have narrated from Maysarah that he asked Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq 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.” (Tahdhib al-Ahkam, vol. 9 p. 299; Bihar al-Anwar, vol. 104 p. 351)

 

Al-Tusi records in Tahdhib al-Ahkam and al-Istibsar from Muhammad ibn Muslim that Imam Muhammad al-Baqir said: “A woman will not inherit anything of land and fixed property.” (Tahdhib al-Ahkam, vol. 9 p. 298; al-Istibsar, vol. 4 p. 152)

 

He also records from ‘Abd al-Malik ibn A‘yan that either Imam Muhammad al-Baqir or Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq said: “Women will have nothing of houses or land.” (Tahdhib al-Ahkam, vol. 9 p. 299; Bihar al-Anwar, vol. 104 p. 351)

 

 

 

 

More copy and paste from Shia hating websites? They have mistranslated the hadith, and they have cut off parts of it to suit their agenda. This makes you look very bad dear brother. I am telling you no hadith can go against the quran but you keep foolishly copy and pasting falsely translated hadith...

 

Maysarah: I he 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 (widow) 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 relative in law. And this (widow not inheriting land) is because that woman might marry again and bring her husband or her sons from other husband (in the land/house) which would cause rivalry with others living in their house.’

 Wasail al-Shia, Volume 26 pages 206-207

 

The same Hadith is also recorded in Al- Kafi, Volume 7 page 130, Tahdib al-Ahkam, Volume 9 page 299 and Al-Istibsar, Volume 4 page 153. It has also been recorded with a different chain in Ilal al-Sharai, Volume 2 page 471 and Min la Yahdruhu al-Faqih, Volume 4 page 347 and the reviser of the book Min la Yahdruhu al-Faqih, Sheikh Ali Akbar Ghafari declared this tradition as Sahih in the footnote.

 

Moreover we read the following tradition in Min la Yahdruhu al-Faqih, Volume 4 page 261 that has been declared Sahih by Sayyed Rohani in Fiqh al-Sadiq, Volume 24 page 253:

Zurara narrated that Abi Jaffar (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 has no share in it.’

This tradition is also been recorded with another chain in al-Kafi, Volume 7 page 87 and has been declared Sahih by Allamah Majleii in Mirat al-Uqool, Volume 23 page 133.

 

On the same page of Min la Yahdruhu al-Faqih we read another tradition that has also been declared Sahih by Sayyed Rohani:

(Qasim bin Hussain) al-Bezanti narrated that he said: ‘I asked the second Abi Jaffar (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.’

 

(wasalam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More copy and paste from Shia hating websites? They have mistranslated the hadith, and they have cut off parts of it to suit their agenda. This makes you look very bad dear brother. I am telling you no hadith can go against the quran but you keep foolishly copy and pasting falsely translated hadith...

 

Maysarah: I he 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 (widow) 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 relative in law. And this (widow not inheriting land) is because that woman might marry again and bring her husband or her sons from other husband (in the land/house) which would cause rivalry with others living in their house.’

 Wasail al-Shia, Volume 26 pages 206-207

 

The same Hadith is also recorded in Al- Kafi, Volume 7 page 130, Tahdib al-Ahkam, Volume 9 page 299 and Al-Istibsar, Volume 4 page 153. It has also been recorded with a different chain in Ilal al-Sharai, Volume 2 page 471 and Min la Yahdruhu al-Faqih, Volume 4 page 347 and the reviser of the book Min la Yahdruhu al-Faqih, Sheikh Ali Akbar Ghafari declared this tradition as Sahih in the footnote.

 

Moreover we read the following tradition in Min la Yahdruhu al-Faqih, Volume 4 page 261 that has been declared Sahih by Sayyed Rohani in Fiqh al-Sadiq, Volume 24 page 253:

Zurara narrated that Abi Jaffar (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 has no share in it.’

This tradition is also been recorded with another chain in al-Kafi, Volume 7 page 87 and has been declared Sahih by Allamah Majleii in Mirat al-Uqool, Volume 23 page 133.

 

On the same page of Min la Yahdruhu al-Faqih we read another tradition that has also been declared Sahih by Sayyed Rohani:

(Qasim bin Hussain) al-Bezanti narrated that he said: ‘I asked the second Abi Jaffar (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.’

 

(wasalam)

 

-The narrations i posted are not mistranslated.

-The ones you posted are not the same as the ones i posted. However they do give a clearer picture.

 

Here is the one i posted

  أبا جعفر عليه السلام يقول: إن النساء لا يرثن من رباع الارض شيئا ولكن لهن قيمة الطوب والخشب، قال: فقلت له: إن الناس لا يأخذون بهذا، فقال: إذا وليناهم ضربناهم بالسوط فإن انتهوا وإلا ضربناهم عليه بالسيف   

 

http://www.yasoob.com/books/htm1/m012/09/no0985.html p 129-130

 

By Baqir not Saddiq.

 

Besides i posted those narrations as a simply bonus. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Besides

 

In al-Kafi al-Kulayni has included a chapter entitled “Women do not inherit land”. In this chapter he narrates a hadith from Imam Muhammad al-Baqir, “Women do not inherit anything of land or fixed property.” (al-Kafi, vol. 7 p. 127, Kitab al-Mawarith, hadith no. 1)

 

Al-Tusi in Tahdhib al-Ahkam, and al-Majlisi in Bihar al-Anwar have narrated from Maysarah that he asked Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq 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.” (Tahdhib al-Ahkam, vol. 9 p. 299; Bihar al-Anwar, vol. 104 p. 351)

 

Al-Tusi records in Tahdhib al-Ahkam and al-Istibsar from Muhammad ibn Muslim that Imam Muhammad al-Baqir said: “A woman will not inherit anything of land and fixed property.” (Tahdhib al-Ahkam, vol. 9 p. 298; al-Istibsar, vol. 4 p. 152)

 

He also records from ‘Abd al-Malik ibn A‘yan that either Imam Muhammad al-Baqir or Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq said: “Women will have nothing of houses or land.” (Tahdhib al-Ahkam, vol. 9 p. 299; Bihar al-Anwar, vol. 104 p. 351)

 

A pseudo-philosopher copy pasting from Nasibi websites committing the straw man logical fallacy...the people who end up on this site just amaze me. Anyways, if you actually study our fiqhi hadiths you'll see the word imra'at/al-mar'a is synonymous to wife (and if you know Arabic you'd know Nisa' is the plural of Imra'at/Al-Mar'a). In fact if you actually open up Tahdhib Al-Ahkam to the chapter the three hadiths that the tahdhibayn are found in (the one in Al-Istibsar is the same one from Tahdhib Al-Ahkam) you'll find them quoted in the chapter "Bab Mirath Al-Azwaj". The Ulama also know the word Imra'at to be wife and have given fatawa accordingly:

 

 

A wife does not inherit anything from the land of a house or a garden or a farm, or from any other land, nor does she inherit from the proceeds of such lands. She does not also inherit from that which stands on that land, like the house and the trees, but she inherits from their proceeds. The same rule applies to the trees and crops and buildings standing on the land of a garden, and on agricultural land, or on any other lands.

 

http://www.sistani.org/english/book/48/2387/

 

Insha'Allah you actually know what you're talking about next time.

 

wa assalamu ala man itba'a al-huda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ibn al-Ja’abi

 

A pseudo-philosopher copy pasting from Nasibi websites committing the straw man logical fallacy.

 

It seems like you have no idea what a straw man fallacy is.

 

Anyways, if you actually study our fiqhi hadiths you'll see the word imra'at/al-mar'a is synonymous to wife

 

I never said anything to the contrary. I simply brought the narrations here to see what our shia friends say about them. I never said based on these a daughter cannot inherit. If i wanted to, then i would have put my comments below, just as i did with the ahadith of prophets not leaving behind inheritance.

 

It is very sad to see how fast some of our shiite friends jump to conclusion. When they saw what they thought was an error on my part, they got too excited and ignored my actual response.

 

-The verses in the Quran, talks about inheritance of knowledge and prophet-hood not material possession, land nor money. As addressed in the tafsir "f this had meant wealth, he would not have been singled with it among his other brothers." This is proven from the context of each verse. Sulayman was Dawud's heir in Prophet-hood. As for Zachariah he wanted a son to inherit prophet-hood this was the reason he was worried for his people (19:5) and this is why he said " inherit from the family of Jacob".

- Jaafar said Ali inherited weapons from Muhammad. He did not say the Prophet allowed this. If anything this shows Ali was ignorant of the matter just as Fatima. A similar argument can be made against the second narration you posted.

-The other ahadith i posted are direct from the Prophet. Where he made it clear the only thing prophets leave behind is knowledge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...