7. Sunni Answers to Shiapen’s article on Fadak and inheritance of Prophet(saw) – “Chapter Seven”

This is our refutation of infamous Shiawebsite “Shiapen.com” which was formerly known as Answering-Ansar.org; the name of this website was changed because the lies and deception of it were exposed to such an extent that, they had to revise its stuff and come up with a new name. This article is a refutation to Shiapen’s article “Fadak: Chapter Seven: The inheritance of previous prophets”.

Important Clarification: The reason behind the differing opinion between Scholars.

Prophet Muhmmad(saw) said in the popular narration: “We leave behind no inheritance, what remains is charity”, but in the Quran we read of Sulayman(as) inheriting Dawud(as) in Surat al-Naml and we read of Yahya(as) inheriting Zakariya(as) in Surat Mariyam(as); the scholars of Islam stated different opinions regarding these verses; some said “It was an inheritance of prophet-hood and religious authority.” Some said: “It was that of kingdom and political authority.” Others said: “Knowledge and wisdom.”

Shias will say these opinions are not legitimate and inheritance can only refer to money. Is inheritance in Arabic only restricted to money as they say? Are all of these popular opinions adopted by the majority of scholars corrupt? The answer is: No, it isn’t only for money; the Qur’an itself refers to many matters as “inheritance”, we present the proofs from Allah’s noble book, Quran:

{Who will inherit al-Firdaus. They will abide therein eternally.} [Quran 23:11]

Comment: How can they inherit heaven? Did it belong to their fathers? Do the rules of inheritance apply to this case, such as a man gets twice as much as women? The answer is No of course.

Other examples:

{Then we caused to inherit the Book those We have chosen of Our servants; and among them is he who wrongs himself, and among them is he who is moderate, and among them is he who is foremost in good deeds by permission of Allah. That [inheritance] is what is the great bounty.} [Quran 35:32]

{And We had certainly given Moses guidance, and We caused the Children of Israel to inherit the Scripture} [Quran 40:53]

Also in the books of the Shias, such as al-Kafi we read their authentic Hadith as per Majlisi:

فقال أبو عبد الله عليه‌السلام إن داود ورث علم الأنبياء وإن سليمان ورث داود وإن محمدا ورث سليمان وإنا ورثنا محمدا

Abu Abdullah(as) said: Dawud inherited the knowledge of the prophets, and Sulayman inherited Dawud, and Muhammad (saw) inherited Sulayman, and we inherited Muhammad.(Al-Kafi, vol 1, page 225 ; Majlisi said: Sahih in Miraat al-Uqool, vol 3, page 20).

Comment: This narration is explicit in that what Sulayman inherited was the knowledge of Dawud, and Muhammad (saw) inherited this same knowledge.

In another Shia narration, we read:

جُعِلْتُ فِدَاكَ أَخْبِرْنِي عَنِ النَّبِيِّ ( صلى الله عليه وآله ) وَرِثَ النَّبِيِّينَ كُلَّهُمْ قَالَ نَعَمْ قُلْتُ مِنْ لَدُنْ آدَمَ حَتَّى انْتَهَى إِلَى نَفْسِهِ قَالَ مَا بَعَثَ اللَّهُ نَبِيّاً إِلَّا وَ مُحَمَّدٌ ( صلى الله عليه وآله ) أَعْلَمُ مِنْهُ

Tell me may I be sacrificed for you about the prophet (saw), did he inherit all the prophets? He said: “Yes” I said: From Adam until himself? He replied: “Allah did not send a prophet unless Muhammad (saw) is more knowledgeable.”(Al-Kafi)

Comment: Notice how when the Shia Imam heard the word “inherit” he knew full well that in the context of prophet-hood inheritance is that of knowledge.

In another narration from al-Kafi :

قَتَلَ يَزِيدُ حُسَيْناً سَلَبَهُ اللَّهُ مُلْكَهُ فَوَرَّثَهُ آلَ مَرْوَانَ فَلَمَّا قَتَلَ هِشَامٌ زَيْداً سَلَبَهُ اللَّهُ مُلْكَهُ فَوَرَّثَهُ مَرْوَانَ بْنَ مُحَمَّدٍ

Yazid killed Husayn so Allah took his kingdom away and made the family of Marwan inherit it, then when Hisham killed Zayd bin `Ali, Allah took his kingdom and made Marwan bin Muhammad to inherit it.(Al-Kafi)

Comment: Notice that the family of Marwan is not supposed to inherit Yazid, Yazid had closer relatives who were entitled to inherit him, but this is talking of inheriting political authority.

As you can see the use of this word linguistically is not tied to money or material possession. According to these examples and many others found all over the Arabic books, we say that those opinions listed above are all legitimate and logical.

Now the question in anyone’s mind would be: Why did some of the Mufassireen say this was an inheritance of “Money” even though there are narrations which oppose this interpretation?

The answer is: These scholars of Tafseer or “ Mufassireen ” as they are known, they looked at the apparent Qur’anic wording and saw that so and so had inherited so and so, the first thing that pops into anyone’s mind is the regular inheritance of money . They then looked at the Sunnah and saw “We leave no inheritance”, so they simply concluded that the Prophet (saw) was talking only about himself!

Yes, that is true, they thought this Hadith was tied only to the inheritance of the last of prophets Muhammad(saw). Another proof for them to hold this view was the below reports from Sahih Bukhari, where we read:

رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ ‏”‏ لاَ نُورَثُ مَا تَرَكْنَا صَدَقَةٌ ‏”‏‏.‏ يُرِيدُ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم نَفْسَهُ

Allah’s Messenger(saw) said, ‘Our property is not to be inherited, and whatever we leave is to be given in charity,’ and by this Allah’s Messenger(saw) meant himself.(Sahih al-Bukhari 7305)

لنَّبِيَّ صلى الله عليه وسلم كَانَ يَقُولُ ‏”‏ لاَ نُورَثُ، مَا تَرَكْنَا صَدَقَةٌ ـ يُرِيدُ بِذَلِكَ نَفْسَهُ

Prophet used to say: Our property is not inherited, but whatever we leave is to be given in charity? The Prophet(saw) mentioned that regarding himself.(Sahih al-Bukhari 4033, 4034)

So these scholars explained that Prophet(saw) was talking about himself in the plural of respect which is used by leaders and kings , just as Sulayman(as) said in the Qur’an:

{ O people, we have been taught the language of birds, and we have been given from all things. }[27:16]

Or in the Bukhari and Muslim, the Saheehayn, we read that when a man wanted to gift a mule to Rasul – Allah (saw), he returned the gift and told him:

إِنَّهُ لَمْ يَمْنَعْنَا أَنْ نَقْبَلَ مِنْكَ إِلَّا أَنَّا كُنَّا حُرُمًا

Nothing stopped us from accepting your gift except that we were in a state of Ihram.

Or when the delegation of Hawazin came to him (saw) he told them:

إِنَّا لاَ نَدْرِي مَنْ أَذِنَ مِنْكُمْ فِي ذَلِكَ مِمَّنْ لَمْ يَأْذَنْ، فَارْجِعُوا حَتَّى يَرْفَعَ إِلَيْنَا عُرَفَاؤُكُمْ أَمْرَكُمْ

We do not know who amongst you has agreed to this and who has not. You should return and let your leaders inform us of your agreement.

Or when he (saw) got a ring made for himself and said :

إِنَّا اتَّخَذْنَا خَاتَمًا، وَنَقَشْنَا فِيهِ نَقْشًا، فَلاَ يَنْقُشْ عَلَيْهِ أَحَدٌ

We have got a ring made (for ourselves) and we have engraved a certain engraving on it so none of you should get such an engraving on his ring.

Let alone the fact that most scholars refer to themselves in plural in their own books, they would say “As we wrote” or “It has reached us that” or “We were told” etc.

At this point another important question arises, doesn’t a version of the popular narration specifically say: {“We the prophets leave no inheritance.”}. How do they explain it?

The answer is: The word ‘Prophets’ is “Munkar” or rejected addition, since it is a mistake from a narrator and it is not acceptable as opposed to the popular narrations of “We leave no inheritance.”

We can read this in Tafseer Adwa’ al – Bayan li Muhammad al – Ameen al – Shinqiti (d.1393):

وأما ما اشتهر في كتب أهل الأصول وغيرهم بلفظ “نحن معاشر الأنبياء لا نورث” فقد أنكره جماعة من الأئمة

As for what became popular under the following form of text “We the prophets do not leave inheritance” this was rejected by a group of Imams.

Note: Those of our inquisitive readers, who wish to read an academic research on the reports regarding the text of hadeeth “We the prophets do not leave inheritance”, then please refer this link.{Click Here}

The two differing views of Scholars:

The scholars are divided into two groups regarding the interpretation of the hadeeth {“We leave no inheritance”}, One group held the view that, Prophet(saw) was talking about himself like a leader says: “We did this or we did that”. The second group held the view that it was general statement which encompasses all Prophets(as).

We read in al – Nasikh wal – Mansoukh lil – Nahhas (d.338):

وَفِي قَوْلِهِ: ” لَا نُورَثُ ” قَوْلَانِ أَحَدُهُمَا أَنَّهُ يُخْبِرُ عَنْهُ وَحْدَهُ كَمَا يَقُولُ الرَّئِيسُ: فَعَلْنَا وَصَنَعْنَا، وَالْقَوْلُ الْآخَرُ أَنْ يَكُونَ لَا نُورَثُ لِجَمِيعِ الْأَنْبِيَاءِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِمْ، وَأَكْثَرُ أَهْلِ الْعِلْمِ عَلَى هَذَا الْقَوْلِ

Regarding His saying: “We leave no inheritance” are two opinions: One is that he is talking about himself like a leader says: “We did this or we did that.” The second opinion is that it encompasses all prophets (saw) and the majority of the people of knowledge are of this opinion.

We read in Tafseer al – Qurtubi (d.671):

واختلف العلماء في تأويل قوله عليه السلام: ” لا نورث ما تركنا صدقة ” على قولين: أحدهما: وهو الأكثر وعليه الجمهور ـ أن النبيّ صلى الله عليه وسلم لا يورث وما ترك صدقة. والآخر: أن نبينا عليه الصلاة والسلام لم يُورَث؛ لأن الله تعالى خصه بأن جعل ماله كله صدقة زيادة في فضيلته

The scholars differed on the meaning of “We do not leave inheritance, what is left is charity.” There were two opinions: The most popular one is that a prophet is not inherited and what he leaves is charity. The second is that only our Prophet(saw) does not leave behind inheritance as Allah blessed him with this merit to increase his virtue .

Thus it should be clear before the readers that, scholars are divided into two groups over the interpretation of the hadeeth {“We leave no inheritance”}.

View#1 : Prophet(saw) was talking about himself only.

View#2: Prophet(saw) was talking in general which encompasses all Prophets(as).

NOTE: In our refutation to the arguments of Shiapen, we will be responding in accordance to both the views of Scholars, for the benefit of the readers.

Answers to Shiapen’s arguments:

Argument 1:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Qur’anic proof that Prophets leave inheritance to their offsprings

Allah (swt) declares in Surah Naml 027.016:

And Solomon was David’s heir. He said: “O ye people! We have been taught the speech of birds, and on us has been bestowed (a little) of all things: this is indeed Grace manifest (from Allah.)”
Al-Qur’an, Surah 27, Ayah 16, translated by Yusufali

The verse is clear proof that Suleiman (as) the son of a Prophet inherited from his father,hence the claim that the Prophet’s leave no inheritance for their children is a blatant lie. Sayyida Fatima (as) inherited her Prophet father, in exactly the same way that Suleiman (as) inherited from his Prophet father. Any ruling rejecting her entitlement to her father’s inheritance, contradicts the Qur’an.

The books of Ahl’ul Sunnah prove that Prophet Sulayman (as) inherited his father’s worldly possessions

As evidence we shall rely on the following authentic Sunni sources wherein it is mentioned that Sulayman (as) inherited Kingdom and knowledge. Notice how they are two seperate things. If the defenders of Abu Bakr are to interpret Kingdom as meaning Prophetic knowledge – there would be no need to also use the word Kingdom. The Sunni scholars have distinguished the two by mentioning both forms of inheritance. Kingdom is a tangible asset, so refers to all material possessions that make up that kingdom. Knowledge is non tangible and it has been bestowed upon Sulayman as the Prophetic successor to his father.

We read in Tafseer Kashaf:

“Waris refers to Kingdom and Prophethood”
Al-Kashaf, Vol. 3, Page 140

Tafseer Khazan:

قوله تعالى { وورث سليمان داود } يعني نبوته وعلمه، وملكه

“Allah’s statement {And Solomon was David’s heir} means (he inherited) prophethood, knowledge and kingdom.”

Tafseer Durre Manthur:

“Sulayman inherited both Kingdom and knowledge”
Dur al-Manthur fi Tafseer al-Mathur, Vol. 5, page 193

[End Quote]

Answer:

Response as per View#1:

This verse and its Tafseer, as evidence is invalid and irrelevant, because neither the hadeeth nor the judgement of Abubakr(ra) contradicts Quran, since in the hadeeth “We leave no inheritance”, Prophet Muhammad(saw) was talking, about himself not other Prophets(as).

Response as per View#2:

We read in Tafseer Durre Manthur: “Sulayman inherited both Kingdom and knowledge”(Dur al-Manthur, vol 5, page 193).

Sulayman(as) inherited Dawud(as) not as being a son, but rather as being his successor, this is not the regular inheritance of a son from his father. When the scholars say “Sulayman inherited kingdom”, this means that he inherited the position of king, and this is what kingship means, or that he inherited his kingdom, meaning the authority to rule over his father’s kingdom, in other words he inherited leadership and authority to rule over his father’s domain.

Imam ibn Qutaybah explains what is meant by the word “Mulkahu” or “al-Mulk”, he explains what is intended by “inherited the kingdom” he says: “The meaning of Kingdom (al-Mulk) is: Authority, judgment and Politics, not the money.”

Shaykh al-Mawardi wrote in his Tafseer: “Only Sulayman was mentioned as heir because he inherited prophet-hood and kingdom, if it were that of money then all his sons would be equal in this.”

Meaning the scholars are differentiating between inheriting as successor and inheriting as biological heir(Son), Sulayman(as) was only placed in charge of his father’s kingdom as he was the next ruler, and the ruler is in charge of all fortresses, soldiers and lands by default, this is what is meant by inherited here. He also inherited his knowledge which he learned and his prophet-hood in which he succeeded him as religious leader, all of this being metaphorical.

The same way `Umar succeeded Abu Bakr as leader, he automatically inherited Abu Bakr’s army and treasury and war horses and the Prophet’s (saw) seal or ring and the lands of Waqf or Fay’ so he can be the one to divide their produce.

Ahmad bin Muhammad al-Tha`labi (427) writes in his Tafseer:

نبوّته وعلمه وملكه دون سائر أولاده، وكان لداود (عليه السلام) تسعة عشر ابناً

[Inherited his prophet-hood and kingship without the rest of his children, and Dawud (as) had nineteen sons.( TAFSEER AL-KASHF WAL-BAYAN LIL-THA`LABI)

Comment: He is making a point that this isn’t normal inheritance, it is not a biological heir who inherited his father’s money or a piece of land owned by his father, but rather it is the successor or the next ruler who inherited the position of authority and politics that he acquired or inherited metaphorically.

`Abdul-Haqq ibn `Atiyyah al-Andalusi(546) wrote:

و { داود } من بني إسرائيل وكان ملكاً { وورث سليمان } ملكه ومنزلته من النبوءة بمعنى صار إليه ذلك بعد موت أبيه فسمي ميراثاً تجوزاً، وهذا نحن قولهم العلماء ورثة الأنبياء، وحقيقة الميراث في المال والأنبياء لا تورث أموالهم لأن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قال: ” إنا معشر الأنبياء لا نورث ما تركنا صدقة ”

“Dawud was from Bani Isra’eel and he was a king, {And Sulayman inherited Dawud} his kingdom and rank and prophet-hood, meaning these things were transferred to him after his father’s death so they were referred to as inheritance metaphorically. The reality of (the word) inheritance is (normally) that of money, but prophets do not leave their money as inheritance because he (saw) said: ‘We prophets leave no inheritance, what we leave behind is charity.’”( AL-MUHARRAR WAL-WAJEEZ LI-IBN `ATIYYAH).

`Abdul-Rahman bin `Ali ibn al-Jawzi (510-597) said:

أي: ورث نبوَّته وعِلْمه ومُلْكه، وكان لداود تسعة عشر ذكراً، فخصّ سليمان بذلك، ولو كانت وراثة مال لكان جميع أولاده فيها سواء

[Meaning: Inherited his prophet-hood and knowledge and kingdom; Dawud had nineteen sons but this was especially for Sulayman, had it been an inheritance of money then all his children would be equal in this.( TAFSEER ZAD-UL-MAYSIR LI-IBN AL-JAWZI).

Ibn al-`Arabi said:

قاله ابن العربي؛ قال: فلو كانت وراثة مال لانقسمت على العدد؛ فخص الله سليمان بما كان لداود من الحكمة والنبوّة، وزاده من فضله ملكاً لا ينبغي لأحد من بعده

“If it were an inheritance of money it should have been split between them but Allah preferred Sulayman with the inheritance of Dawud’s wisdom and prophet-hood, and a kingdom that no one after him had.”( AL-JAMI` LI-AHKAM AL-QUR’AN LIL-QURTUBI)

Isma`eel ibn `Umar bin Katheer (700-774) said:

أي: في الملك والنبوة، وليس المراد وراثة المال، إذ لو كان كذلك، لم يخص سليمان وحده من بين سائر أولاد داود، فإنه قد كان لداوُد مائة امرأة، ولكن المراد بذلك وراثة الملك والنبوة، فإن الأنبياء لا تورث أموالهم؛ كما أخبر بذلك رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم في قوله: ” نحن معاشر الأنبياء لا نورث، ما تركناه فهو صدقة

Meaning: In kingship and prophet-hood, not an inheritance of money, if it were that of money then Sulayman would not be specified from among all his brothers.(Tafsir ibn Katheer)

This can be understood in a better way by referring following verse of Quran:

{And We desired to bestow a favor upon those who were deemed weak in the land, and to make them the Imams(leaders), and to make them the heirs. (28:5)}

Comment: From this verse we find that, the Leaders can be the heirs.

Similarly we read in a narration from Shia book al – Kafi:

Comment: Notice that the family of Marwan is not supposed to inherit Yazid, Yazid had closer relatives who were entitled to inherit him, but this is talking of inheriting political authority or inheriting as successor.

Also, We find similar example from Shia hadeeth in Al-Kafi, where we find that the leader after Prophet(saw) would inherit his Property, this nowhere mentions that the heirs such as the children of Prophet(saw) or the wives of Prophet(saw) would get a share from it.

In Al-Kafi we read:

علي بن إبراهيم، عن أبيه، عن ابن أبي عمير، عن حفص بن البختري، عن أبي عبد الله عليه السلام قال: الأنفال ما لم يوجف عليه بخيل ولا ركاب، أو قوم صالحوا، أو قوم أعطوا بأيديهم، وكل أرض خربة وبطون الأودية فهو لرسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله وهو للامام من بعده يضعه حيث يشاء.

Abu ‘Abdallah (a.s.) said:”Al-Anfal is such property for the acquisition of which no camels or horses are use and no armed expeditions are undertaken. It is the property that may come as a result of negotiated settlement or certain people would give with their own hands, may come from a barren land or from inside the valleys. Such properties belong to the Messenger of Allah and it will belong to the Imam(leader) after the the Messenger of Allah. The Imam(leader) will spend them as he may consider proper.”(Al Kafi, Chapter The Fay’, al-Anfal, al-Khums, its rules and the properties subject to al-Khums, page 186).[Majlisi in Mirat al Uqul vol 6, page 255 graded it as Hasan(good)].

Esteemed Shia scholar Al-Kulayni who is considered Thiqatul Islam by Shias, said:

وأما الانفال فليس هذه سبيلها كان للرسول عليه السلام خاصة وكانت فدك لرسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله خاصة، لانه صلى الله عليه وآله فتحها وأمير المؤمنين عليه السلام، لم يكن معهما أحد فزال عنها اسم الفئ ولزمها اسم الانفال وكذلك الآجام(2) والمعادن والبحار والمفاوز هي للامام خاصة

The case of al-Anfal is different. It belongs to the Messenger only. Of such properties was Fadak that belonged to the Messenger of Allah only. It is because he and Amir al-Mu’minin (a.s.) conquered it and there no one else took part. The name al-Fay’ therefore does not apply to it. Al-Anfal applies to it. Similar to al-Anfal are such properties as the marshes, mines, oceans and the wilderness. They all belong to Imam(leader) exclusively.(Al-Kafi, Chapter 130, The Fay’, al-Anfal, al-Khums, its rules and the properties subject to al-Khums). [al-kafi vol 1, page 346].

Abu Bakr was the successor of Rasul-Allah(saw) in leadership, and leadership dictates that all lands, armies, castles and assets be transferred under his direct control, this is metaphorical inheritance just like the case of Sulayman and Dawud, it is not real inheritance nor do the laws of inheritance in Islam, Christianity or Judaism apply to it. We can say only metaphorically that Abu Bakr inherited Rasul-Allah (saw), but he never really inherited him, he just assumed control of all things Rasul-Allah (saw) ruled over, the same is the case for Sulayman and Dawud but since Dawud was a king and he ruled over a kingdom, then scholars said he inherited his kingdom, prophet-hood and knowledge.

This is even proven by the following points:

(i). Dawood(as) had other children besides Sulayman(as), and Sulayman(as) couldn’t have been singled out to inherit his kingdom, which indicates that what is meant here is inheriting the Kingdom as successor or leader not as his biological heir(Son).

(ii). There is almost a consensus amongst scholars -at least those of Tafseer- that Dawud(as) had many children. Al-Tha`labi wrote in his Tafseer: “Inherited his prophet-hood and kingdom without the rest of his children, and Dawud (as) had nineteen sons.”

We also read in the Shia book al-Kafi the following.

وَ كَانَ لِدَاوُدَ ( عليه السلام ) أَوْلَادٌ عِدَّةٌ وَ فِيهِمْ غُلَامٌ كَانَتْ أُمُّهُ عِنْدَ دَاوُدَ وَ كَانَ لَهَا مُحِبّاً

Abu `Abdillah (as) said: Dawud (as) had several children, from them a boy whose mother he used to love.

If this verse is assumed to speak of the inheritance as biological heir(Son), then why is Sulayman(as) mentioned as the sole heir? The only plausible answer is that, the Quranic verse refers to Sulayman(as) inheriting from Dawud(as) as leader/successor not as biological heir(Son).

Thus, there remains no doubt in the light of these proofs, that the successor of the King inherits the Kingdom. So Sulayman(as) inherited the position of the king, as being successor or leader after Dawud(as) not because of being biological heir(Son). This was a transfer of authority, all that was controlled by one leader, goes to his successor that comes after him, this in Arabic is called inheritance metaphorically and this is what is meant by scholars when they say “inherited his kingdom”. This has nothing to do with inheriting as biological heir(Son), which invalidates the Shia argument.

Argument 2:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Prophet Sulayman (as) inherited one thousand horses from his father

We read in Tafseer Gharaib al-Quran:

وقيل: ورثها من ابيه وكان أبوه اصابها من العمالقة

“It has been said: ‘He inherited them (horses) from his father and his father had obtained them as a booty from Amaliqs.”

We read in al-Tashil le Uloom al-Tanzil by Abu Abdillah Ibn al-Jezi al-Ghernati (d. 741 H):

فقال الجمهور إن سليمان عليه السلام عرضت عليه خيل كان ورثها عن ابيه

“The majority said that Sulayman (as) brought for him horses he inherit them from his father”

We read in Tafseer al-Nasafi:

وقيل ورثها من أبيه وأصابها أبوه من العمالقة

“It has been said that he inherited them from his father and his father had obtained them from Amaliqa (as war booty)”

[End Quote]

Answer:

Response as per View#1:

Response as per View#2:

As for Sulayman(as) inheriting horses is concerned then it’s Shia misconception, the answer to it is that, those were inherited by Sulayman, as being the Successor or leader over the Kingdom, which the successor or the leader inherits. Thus the horses and camels and places of worship and farms were all under his control, in this sense he inherited them metaphorically. He didn’t inherit them as being a biological heir(Son), but because he was the successor or the next leader. And inheritence of kingdom as successor is different to inheriting as biological heir(Son), where the inheritance is divided between the heirs, but in regards to inheriting the kingdom as successor, then the kingdom goes solely to the successor or the next leader, and there is no sharing between the biological heirs(Sons), as was previously explained.

However we would like to inform our readers that this news originates from an early unreliable source called Tafseer Muqatil whose author died in 150 hijri, and it is a baseless story that has no support from Qur’an, Hadith or the sayings of the companions. The author Muqatil bin Sulayman is Weak, lies in Hadith, is a Mushabbih and takes a lot of his knowledge from Ahlul-Kitab.

What proves that it is fabricated, is that we have a narration from a much earlier reliable source, in Tafseer al-Tabari, we have a “Hasan” narration from Sufiyan al-Thawri from his father Masrouq from Ibrahim al-Taymi who died in 92 hijri, he says:

كانت عشرين فرساً ذات أجنـحة

[They were twenty winged horses.]

In the same book with an authentic chain to `Abdul-Rahman ibn Zayd who died in 182 hijri, he said that it was Shaytan who brought these horses out from the depth of the sea for him.

Also supported by the authentic narration in Sahih ibn Hibban:

قُلْتُ: فَرَسٌ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ، قَالَ: ” فَرَسٌ مِنْ رِقَاعٍ لَهُ جَنَاحٌ؟ ! ” قَالَتْ: فَقُلْتُ: أَلَمْ يَكُنْ لِسُلَيْمَانَ بْنِ دَاوُدَ خَيْلٌ لَهَا أَجْنِحَةٌ؟ فَضَحِكَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ

Where Rasul-Allah(saw) comes into `A’ishah’s room while she played with toys, among them were horses, so when he asked her: “A toy horse with wings?” she said: “Didn’t Sulayman bin Dawud have horses with wings?” And Rasul-Allah (saw) laughed.

Moreover, there exists a difference of opinion regarding the one thousand horses, and one view is that Sulayman(as) got it as war booty.
وروى أن سليمان عليه السلام غزا أهل دمشق ونصيبين فأصاب ألف فرس وقيل ورثها من أبيه وأصابها أبوه من العمالقة
It is narrated that Sulayman fought against the people of Damascus, and Nasibin, and he got one thousand horses (as war booty) and it is said that he inherited it from his father who received it from Amaliqa (as war booty) (Tafsir Nasafi).

Therefore, even this argument of Shiapen turns out to be invalid.

Argument 3:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Al Khider’s false claim that Sulayman (as) inherited Prophethood, Knowledge and Wisdom from his father, not material possessions

Ansar.org:

The inheritance in this case was not of material possessions. Rather, it was of prophethood, wisdom and knowledge.

Reply One – Prophets are Prophets from the time they are born (prophethood is not something to be inherited)

We read in Surah Maryam 019.030 the following about Esau (as):

He said: “I am indeed a servant of Allah: He hath given me revelation and made me a prophet;
Al-Qur’an, Surah Maryam, Ayah 30, translated by Yusufali

Similarly, Allah (swt) praises Yahya in these words in Surah Maryam 019.012:

(To his son came the command): “O Yahya! take hold of the Book with might”: and We gave him Wisdom even as a youth,
Al-Qur’an, Surah Maryam, Ayah 12, translated by Yusufali

The stories of Prophet Esau (as) and Prophet Yahya (as) serve as clear proof that Prophet’s attain the rank of Prophethood from the time of birth.

[End Quote]

Answer:

Response as per View#1:

Response as per View#2:

Though this argument is invalid, because Sulayman(as) inherited Kingdom of Dawud(as) as his successor not as his heir, as already explained in detail in previous response. Yet we would like to answer some claims of Shiapen which we find incorrect.

There is no general rule, that all prophets are Prophets from the time they are born, this even goes against Quran. Anyone who reads the life of prophet Muhammad (saw) or Ibrahim (as) knows for a fact that revelation did not reach them until later in their lives, It is well known fact that Muhammad(saw) was granted Prophethood at the age of 40 years, which refutes this baseless Shia claim; On the other hand prophets such as `Isa (as) were born with the revelation and the prophet-hood, and the case of Isa(as) was unqiue as was his birth.

Esteemed Shia scholar Al-Mufeed said:
إن جميع أنبياء الله – صلوات الله عليهم – معصومون من الكبائر قبل النبوة وبعدها وما يستخف فاعله من الصغائر كلها، وأما ما كان من صغير لا يستخف فاعله فجائز وقوعه منهم قبل النبوة وعلى غير تعمد وممتنع منهم بعدها على كل حال، وهذا مذهب جمهور الإمامية، والمعتزلة بأسرها تخالف فيه.
“All of Allaah’s Prophets are protected against major sins before and after prophethood; and from minor sins that make their doer considered astray. As to the minor sins whose doer is not considered astray, it is possible that they are done by the Prophets before prophethood, as non-deliberate acts, but they do not occur after prophethood in any situation. And this is the madhhab of the majority of Imaamee. And the mu`tazilah people oppose (us) in this.”(Awail al maqalat, page 62)

Comment: The words of Shia Sheikh Al-Mufeed clearly proves that, he believed that not all Prophets are were granted Prophethood from birth.

Imam al-Shawkani writes in Irshad al-Fuhoul regarding protection from sins:

ذهب الأكثر من أهل العلم إلى عصمة الأنبياء بعد النبوة من الكبائر

[Most people of knowledge believe that the prophets are protected from big sins only after their prophet-hood.]

This is clear that most people of knowledge believe that they are not born prophets rather they become so after revelation.

Argument 4:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Reply Two – Sulayman (as) was Prophet at the same time as his father Dawood (as)

[End Quote]

Answer:

Muhammad bin Muhammad al-Maturidi (333) explains the meaning of “inherit” in the language of Arabs by saying:

قال أهل التأويل: ورث النبوة والحكم، والوارث: هو الباقي بعد هلاك الآخر وفنائه

The people of interpretation say: He inherited the prophet-hood and wisdom, and the Warith(inheritor) means: The one who remains after the other perishes.( AL-TA’WEELAT LIL-MATURIDI).

al-Maturidi reports the opinion of the Mufassireen until his time; he also explains what the word inheritor means in the Arabic tongue. This implies that if Dawud was a prophet and he perished and his son remained after him as the prophet, he has inherited him linguistically. In other words he inherits him as the leader and prophet of his people.

Argument 5:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Al Khider’s query as to why Dawood’s other sons are not mentioned in this verse

Al-Khider offers the following Batil Qiyas to this verse:

It is well known that Dawud ‘alayhis salam had 100 wives and 300 concubines. He had numerous children from these wives and concubines. If this verse is assumed to speak of the inheritance of material possessions, why is Sulayman mentioned as the sole heir?

Reply One

It is a generally accepted rule that proof is required when someone advances a claim that contradicts an established law. It is a general rule that the land belonging to someone is distributed amongst his legal heirs. When Al Khider is stating that some individuals do not benefit from this general principle, the onus then falls upon him to prove ‘why’ this is the case. Our claim is that according to the common laws of Shari’ah, Sulayman (as) became the Waris of his father Dawood (as), and this precedent is proven from the Law (as set out in the Qur’an). Al Khider is advancing a claim that is against the established law, namely that Sulayman (as) was not the Waris of Dawood (as), hence the onus is upon Al Khider to prove Sulayman’s status as not being the heir when the Qur’an proves his position as a heir.

[End Quote]

Answer:

This is a dumb argument from Shiapen, which proves that they didn’t have a valid answer for the question posed. As for Sunni view then, as previously explained, the reason other heirs of Dawud(as) didn’t inherit the kingdom is because, this wasn’t normal inheritance, it was not a biological heir who inherited his father’s money or a piece of land owned by his father, but rather it was the successor or the next ruler who inherited the position of authority and politics, that he acquired or inherited metaphorically.

Hence only Sulayman(as) inherited the kingdom from Dawud(as) because, he was the successor of Dawud(as), and kingdom is inherited only by the successor and it is not shared by any other heir.

Ahmad bin Muhammad al-Tha`labi (427) writes in his Tafseer:

نبوّته وعلمه وملكه دون سائر أولاده، وكان لداود (عليه السلام) تسعة عشر ابناً

Inherited his prophet-hood and kingship without the rest of his children, and Dawud (as) had nineteen sons.( TAFSEER AL-KASHF WAL-BAYAN LIL-THA`LABI).

Sulayman bin Ahmad al-Tabarani (260-360) wrote:

أي وَرثَ نُبُوَّتَهُ وعلمَهُ ومُلكَهُ، وذلك أنهُ كان لداودَ تِسْعَةَ عشرَ إبناً ذكراً، فوَرثَ سليمانُ مُلْكَهُ ومجلسَهُ ومقامه ونبوَّته مِن بينهم

[Meaning, he inherited his prophet-hood and knowledge and kingdom. This is because Dawud had nineteen male children, so Sulayman inherited his kingship and position and rank and prophet-hood from among them.( AL-TAFSEER AL-KABIR LIL-TABARANI)

Ibn Qutaybah al-Dinawari (213-276) wrote:

فإنه أراد ورثه الملك والنبوة والعلم، وكلاهما كان نبيا وملكا، والملك: السلطان والحكم والسياسة، لا المال. ولو كان أراد وراثة ماله، ما كان في الخبر فائدة لأن الناس يعلمون أن الأبناء يرثون الآباء أموالهم ولا يعلمون أن كل بن يقوم مقام أبيه في العلم والملك والنبوة

[He (swt) meant that he inherited the kingdom and the prophet-hood and the knowledge, the meaning of Kingship is: Authority, judgement and Politics, not the money. If He (swt) intended the inheritance of his money, this story would be of no value as it is common knowledge that children inherit their fathers’s wealth, but people do not know that a son can take his father’s place in knowledge and kingdom and prophet-hood.( TA’WEEL MUKHTALAF AL-HADITH LI-IBN QUTAYBAH).

Argument 6:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Reply Two

Why has al Khider relied on a Jewish tradition that presents Dawud as having 400 women to have sex with? Can anyone imagine a pious Nabi of Allah, Dawud (s) having 100 wives and 300 concubines [i.e. a total of 400 women for having sex]? (Screen Shot)

[End Quote]

Answer:

There is almost a consensus amongst scholars -at least those of Tafseer- that Dawud(as) had many children. Al-Tha`labi wrote in his Tafseer: “Inherited his prophet-hood and kingdom without the rest of his children, and Dawud (as) had nineteen sons.”

We also read in the Shia book al-Kafi the following.

[abu `Abdillah (as) said: Dawud (as) had several children, from them a boy whose mother he used to love.]

حَدَّثَنَا عَفَّانُ، قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا جَعْفَرُ بْنُ سُلَيْمَانَ، عَنْ ثَابِتٍ الْبُنَانِيِّ، قَالَ: ” بَلَغَنَا أَنَّ دَاوُدَ نَبِيَّ اللَّهِ جَزَّأَ الصَّلَاةَ عَلَى بُيُوتِهِ عَلَى نِسَائِهِ وَوَلَدِهِ، فَلَمْ تَكُنْ تَأْتِي سَاعَةٌ مِنَ اللَّيْلِ وَالنَّهَارِ إلَّا وَإِنْسَانٌ قَائِمٌ مِنْ آلِ دَاوُدَ يُصَلِّي، فَعَمَّتُهُمْ هَذِهِ الْآيَةُ اعْمَلُوا آلَ دَاوُدَ شُكْرًا وَقَلِيلٌ مِنْ عِبَادِيَ الشَّكُورُ “

We also read in a Sahih Hadith to Thabit al-Banani (41-127) that the Prophet Dawud (as) divided prayer between his houses, wives and sons, so that no hour would come unless a person from Dawud’s family stood praying.

Secondly, in regards to the argument of Shiapen which states {“Can anyone imagine a pious Nabi of Allah, Dawud (s) having 100 wives and 300 concubines [i.e. a total of 400 women for having sex]?”} then we suggest Shiapen to refer their own books before attacking others out of ignorance.

There is a Sahih tradition from Imam Baqir(rah) in Shia book Hayat-ul-Qaloob which states:

Prophet Sulayman(as) had a fort, having 1000 rooms made by Jinns for him, and in every room one of his wife used to live. From these 300 were his wives and 700 were concubines. Allah gave him the sexual strength of 40 men. He used to daily visit all of his women and used fulfil their desires.(Majlisi declared chain as Sahih, Hayat-ul-Qaloob vol 1, p. 644) ; [Urdu version scan page]

Comment: Interestingly similar thing is mentioned regarding Sulayman(as) in Shia book, not from Jewish tradition, but from an authentic narration of their infallible Imam. Shiapen is finding it hard to imagine the claim that Dawud(as) had 400 women, but their own authentic report makes a more serious claim that Sulayman(as) had 1000 women; We guess Shiapen will not have any problem in this case, since it was stated by their own Imam.

Argument 7:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Reply Three

The assertion of al Khider is a blatant lie; we read in Ahl’ul Sunnah’s work Sharh ibn al Hadeed Volume 4 page 126 that the claim that Sulayman (s) had sons other than Dawood (s) is a Jewish claim. Reports that they were alive at the time that Dawood (as) died are not reliable.

[End Quote]

Answer:

Firstly, Sharh ibn Abi al-Hadeed is not Ahl us-Sunnah’s work, this is a blatant lie by Shiapen. Ibn Abi al-Hadeed was an extremist(ghali) Shia. And Shiapen deceitfully didn’t mention the full name of the book, because the full name is Sharh Nahul Balagha, and it is known fact that Nahjul Balagha is Shia book.

Secondly, the issue is not about sons of Sulayman(as) as Shiapen stated, but rather regarding the sons of Dawud(as).

Thirdly, as for the claim that, Dawud(as) had other sons is the claim of jews, then here is a Shia hadeeth from al-Kafi, which shatters this argument of Shiapen.

Abu `Abdillah (as) said: Dawud (as) had several children, from them a boy whose mother he used to love.(al-Kafi)

Fourthly, there is almost a consensus amongst scholars -at least those of Tafseer- that Dawud(as) had many children, in fact in Hadith it is mentioned that he had so many children that not one moment of the day would pass unless one of them is mentioning Allah (swt).

In Mustadrak al-Hakim we read from the Hadith of Abu Bakr Isma`eel bin Muhammad bin Isma`eel al-Faqih who is a Thiqah according to al-Khalili in al-Irshad, he said in a Hasan Hadith to ibn `Abbas:

عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمَا، قَالَ: مَا أَصَابَ دَاوُدَ مَا أَصَابَهُ بَعْدَ الْقَدَرِ إِلا مِنْ عُجْبٍ عَجِبَ بِهِ مِنْ نَفْسِهِ، وَذَلِكَ أَنَّهُ قَالَ: يَا رَبِّ مَا مِنْ سَاعَةٍ مِنْ لَيْلٍ وَلا نَهَارٍ إِلا وَعَابِدٍ مِنْ آلِ دَاوُدَ يعَبْدُكَ يُصَلِّي لَكَ، أَوْ يُسَبِّحُ، أَوْ يُكَبِّرُ وَذَكَرَ أَشْيَاءَ، فَكَرِهَ اللَّهُ ذَلِكَ، فَقَالَ: يَا دَاوُدُ، إِنَّ ذَلِكَ لَمْ يَكُنْ إِلا بِي، فَلَوْلا عَوْنِي مَا قَوِيتَ عَلَيْهِ وَجَلالِي لأَكِلَنَّكَ إِلَى نَفْسِكَ يَوْمًا، قَالَ: يَا رَبِّ، فَأَخْبِرْنِي بِهِ فَأَصَابَتْهُ الْفِتْنَةُ ذَلِكَ الْيَوْمِ

[Dawud said: “O Lord, not an hour passes in the day or the night unless a slave from the house of Dawud worships you in prayer, or praises you, or glorifies you.”]

حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ يَحْيَى، ثنا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ الصَّلْتِ، قَالَ: سَمِعْتُ شَرِيكًا، يَقُولُ: عَنِ السُّدِّيِّ، إِنْ شَاءَ اللَّهُ فِي قَوْلِهِ: ” اعْمَلُوا آلَ دَاوُدَ شُكْرًا قَالَ: لَمْ يَكُنْ يَنْفَكُّ مِنْهُمْ مُصَلٍّ

Also in a good narration from Shareek that al-Suddy (d.127) regarding this verse {Give thanks, O family of Dawood! and very few of My servants are grateful.} He said: “One of them would always be in prayer.”

These narrations show that he had quite a large household.

Argument 8:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Reply Four

Inheritance is the legal right of surviving relatives; al Khider claims that in the case of that left by Dawood (as):

The inheritance in this case was not of material possessions. Rather, it was of prophethood, wisdom and knowledge.

This leaves us with a very simple question, if Prophethood is left as inheritance then why did only Prophet Sulayman (as) inherit it, and none of the other sons of Dawood (as) that Al Khider cites? When someone dies, his material possessions are distributed to the heirs, but the station of Prophethood is not such a thing that can be distributed. If Prophethood could be transferred via such a simple matter, then it would have definitely been distributed amongst the children of Adam (as), yet we know that only Sheesh (as) attained this position. This fact clearly demonstrates that Prophethood in not inherited, rather it is in accordance with the will of Allah (swt). If Prophethood was inherited rather than getting appointed by Allah then that would mean that the disobedient son of Nuh (as) would have inherited Prophethood from his father when he died! Prophethood is not some joke concept that anyone can just get when a Prophet (s) dies, one which executors can distribute when they feel like it.

[End Quote]

Answer:

Prophethood can be inherited metaphorically; Imam al-Maturidi explains the meaning of “inherit” in the language of Arabs by saying:

قال أهل التأويل: ورث النبوة والحكم، والوارث: هو الباقي بعد هلاك الآخر وفنائه

[The people of interpretation say: He inherited the prophet-hood and wisdom, and the Warith(inheritor) means: The one who remains after the other perishes.]

This means that if Dawud was a prophet and he perished and his son remained after him as the prophet, he has inherited him linguistically. In other words he inherits him as the leader and prophet of his people.

We would like to add, that the vast majority of the Imams of Tafseer and language said that prophet-hood is inherited.

Shia might counter back with the argument that, prophet-hood can’t be inherited since all prophets are born as prophets, this is incorrect of course as anyone who reads the life of prophet Muhammad (saw) or Ibrahim (as) knows for a fact that revelation did not reach them until later in their lives, on the other hand prophets such as `Isa (as) were born with the revelation and the prophet-hood.

Imam al-Shawkani writes in Irshad al-Fuhoul regarding protection from sins:

ذهب الأكثر من أهل العلم إلى عصمة الأنبياء بعد النبوة من الكبائر

[Most people of knowledge believe that the prophets are protected from big sins only after their prophet-hood.]

This is clear that most people of knowledge believe that they are not born prophets rather they become so after revelation.

However, even if it is since childhood, still we can linguistically say it is inherited in a metaphoric way simply since one became a prophet after the other and was born of him then the first perished and the son remained.

Argument 9:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Reply Five

Even if we accept that they were alive, then this bares no relevance, for Allah (swt) states in Surah Baqarah 2:251:

So they put them to flight by Allah’s permission. And Dawood slew Jalut, and Allah gave him kingdom and wisdom, and taught him of what He pleased.
Al-Qur’an, Surah 2, Ayah 251

It was the kingdom of Dawood, which was inherited by Sulayman. About other sons of Dawood, only Allah (swt) knows how many existed but NO tradition suggests that they received nothing. They may have received a share, but the Kingdom was bestowed on Sulayman (as).

[End Quote]

Answer:

Many scholars said that the reason only Sulayman(as) was mentioned as an heir to Dawud(as), is because his inheritance was that of kingship and prophet-hood, if it were a regular inheritance of money, then all other sons would have been mentioned. This argument is correct and logical.

Argument 10:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Allah (swt) says in Surah Sad 38:30:

To David We gave Solomon (for a son),- How excellent in Our service! Ever did he turn (to Us)!
Al-Qur’an, Surah 38, Ayah 30, translated by Yusufali

According al Khider, Allah (swt) bestowed other sons on Dawood so why did He (swt) only refer to Sulayman (as) in this verse? Can Al Khider and his Nasibi cronies offer an explanation or do they also question Allah for failing to mention them? (after all they are in the habit of questioning everything) In the same way that reference to Sulayman (as) in this verse does not negate the existence of other sons, likewise the verse of inheritance wherein only Sulayman is referred to, does not deny the other brothers their inheritance.

[End Quote]

Answer:

The reason other sons are not mentioned in Quran, because Sulayman(as) didn’t inherit from Dawud(as) as a biological heir(Son), but because of being his successor, hence there is no share for any biological heir(son) in it, as the successor is the sole inheritor of Prophet, regardless being related to the Prophet or not.

If it were a regular inheritance for biological heirs(sons), then all other sons would have been mentioned. But, since Sulayman(as) inherited the kingdom as successor of Dawud(as), not as biological inheritor(son), that is why only Sulayman(as) was mentioned in Quran, and not any other son of Dawud(as).

Argument 11:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Al Khider’s claim that the inheritance of material possessions is a matter too trivial to appear in the Qur’an

Ansar.org:

If this verse is assumed to speak of material inheritance there does not remain much sense for it being mentioned in the Qur’an, since it is then reduced to an ordinary and trivial matter. “Material inheritance is not something laudable, neither to Dawud nor to Sulayman ‘alayhimas salam. Even a Jew or Christian inherits the material possessions of his father. The purpose of this verse is to extol the excellence of Sulayman and to make mention of that which was granted specifically to him. Inheriting material possessions is an ordinary and trivial matter that is common to everyone, like eating, drinking and burying the dead. This is not the kind of thing that would be mentioned about the Ambiya, since it is simply inconsequential. Only such things would be related about the Ambiya which carry lessons or benefit. Things like ‘He died, and his son inherited his property,’ or ‘They buried him,’ or ‘They ate and drank slept’ is not the kind of information that would be conveyed in the stories of the Qur’an.” (Mukhtasar Minhaj as-Sunnah, vol. 1 p. 240, with minor adjustments)

Reply One

Who is this Nasibi to decide what is sensible enough to be in the Qur’an? Many trivial matters are in the Qur’an, and yet al Khider’s absurd logic would argue that nothing trivial should appear in the Qur’an. Allah (swt) knew that amongst the Ummah of Muhammad (s) unjust men would come who would seek to deny to the Prophet’s daughter her inheritance, hence Allah (swt) especially for lying Nasibi’s such as Muhammad al Khider of Ansar.org, made the specific reference to Prophet Sulayman (as) inheriting from his father.

[End Quote]

Answer:

If the reason Allah(swt), mentioned Sulayman(as) inherited Dawud(as) is because Allah(swt) knew that some unjust men would deny the inheritance of Prophet’s daughter; then Allah(swt) could have instead directly mentioned that, Prophet Muhammad(saw) would be inherited by his daughter, if atall this was such an important issue as Shiapen is trying to portray, but nothing as such occurred. And what is more logical is that, if this verse is assumed to speak of inheriting as biological heir(son), then there does not remain much sense for it being mentioned in the Qur’an, since it is then reduced to an ordinary and trivial matter, and even a Jew or Christian inherits the from his father.

Ibn Qutaybah al-Dinawari (213-276) nicely clarifies it, stating:

He (swt) meant that, he(sulayman) inherited the kingdom and the prophet-hood and the knowledge, the meaning of Kingship is: Authority, judgement and Politics, not the money. If He (swt) intended the inheritance of his money, this story would be of no value as it is common knowledge that children inherit their fathers’s wealth, but people do not know that a son can take his father’s place in knowledge and kingdom and prophet-hood.( TA’WEEL MUKHTALAF AL-HADITH LI-IBN QUTAYBAH).

Argument 12:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Reply Two – Denying access to a father’s material possessions does not constitute a bounty from Allah (swt)

And Solomon was David’s heir. And he said: O mankind! Lo! we have been taught the language of birds, and have been given (abundance) of all things. This surely is evident favour
Translated by Pickthal

The Qur’an is not just restricted to Tarawih recitals during Ramadhan, rather it resolves all disputes. Inspection needs to be given to the words ‘wa theena min kul shay’. Its literal meaning is Allah had granted us all things in the world, and all things clearly includes the material possessions of Dawood, and Prophet Sulayman (as) counted these worldly possession as a bounty from Allah (swt). If Prophet Sulayman (as) was exempt from his father’s material possessions, then he would not have counted this as a bounty from Allah (swt). Think logically, no person would deem his being denied to his father’s material possessions to be a bounty from Allah (swt), rather such exclusion is due to the wrath of Allah (swt) that is meted out on children who murder their father or become an apostate. This is a punishment from Allah (swt) not a bounty.

[End Quote]

Answer:

It is not possible to understand literally that Sulayman(as) received all things in the universe, it only means that he was blessed by Allah with many great things such as the speech of birds and the kingdom and the prophet-hood, this is only restricted to the good things as well, not the evil things or bad things, so not everything.

Al-Fakhr al-Razi explains:

فالمراد كثرة ما أوتي

“What is meant here is that he received many things.”

Ibn Juzay al-Gharnati says:

والمراد بهذا اللفظ التكثير كقولك فلان يقصده كل أحد

“What is meant by this expression is to show a great number (of things), such as when you say: Everyone seeks this man’s advice.”

Shia scholar al-Tusi explains it in al-Tibyan:

لفظه لفظ العموم، والمراد به الخصوص لأنه لم يؤت أشياء كثيرة

“This text is a general statement but what is intended is specific things because he (Sulayman) never actually acquired many things.”

In brief, this shows that he acquired a good number of things but not all things or even most things. As a king he most probably controlled much wealth but not because he inherited it directly, rather because the moment he became a king the kingdom normally produced much wealth. When Sulayman(as) says {We were given from all things} this is not tied to inheritance by any linguistic proof, it can be that Allah gave him things at the end of his life which he never got at the beginning of his reign as king nor from inheritance. This is talking about the good things he received from Allah most high such as the speech of birds, which only comes from Allah.

Abu Bakr inherited the leadership from our master Muhammad (saw), he then had control of lands that produced wealth, and this does not mean Abu Bakr received money as an inheritance from Rasul-Allah (saw) just as a son would from his father.

Shiapen raising these questions are always oblivious to the fact that linguistically prophet-hood, knowledge and kingdom can be inherited and that this inheritance is metaphorical, not the traditional lawful inheritance between father and children which is governed by law.

The example of this:

{And We caused the Children of Isra’eel to inherit the Scripture}

This doesn’t mean that each of them got a page; rather this inheritance is metaphorical as any linguist would admit, thus we say the inheritance of Yahya(as) and Sulayman(as) both are also metaphorical.

Secondly, Sulayman(ra) not inheriting Dawud(as) as biological heir(son) doesn’t affect Sulayman(as) in any way and it could never be considered as punishment to those who know the reason behind it, infact it was a favour from Allah. Prophets(as) are not to be inherited by their heirs, this protection is from Allah so that there will be no reason for anyone to criticise them on the grounds that they only sought worldly gains for themselves and their children. If Shiapen wants a clear proof, we remind them of the Sadaqah, charity given to the poor as per-Qur’anic text, yet Allah prohibited the prophetic household from receiving any of it.

No one will respect and appreciate a political leader who lives in luxury and gathers wealth for himself and his children like they’ll respect one who lives in poverty like his people and offers them his wealth. This is the truth as can be seen in today’s leaders, which is why the opinion of those who say all prophets can’t leave an inheritance of money is not illogical rather it makes perfect sense. Hence, the reason behind this shows the care and protection of Allah(swt) for the Prophets(as).

Argument 13:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Prophet Zakariya prayed for someone to inherit his material possessions

In Surah Maryam 019.004-6, Allah (swt) refers to the supplication of Prophet Zakariya:

Saying: My Lord! Lo! the bones of me wax feeble and my head is shining with grey hair, and I have never been unblest in prayer to Thee, my Lord. Lo! I fear my kinsfolk after me, since my wife is barren. Oh, give me from Thy presence a successor. Who shall inherit of me and inherit (also) of the house of Jacob. And make him, my Lord, acceptable (unto Thee).
Al-Qur’an, Surah 19, Ayah 4-6, translated by Pickthal

The wife of Zakariya (as), Umme Kalthum bint Imran was also his niece and the desire to have children exizts in all humans. Zakariya (as) therefore made a supplication that he be given offspring who shall spend his material possessions in pious manner.

The verse proves that Prophets do indeed leave inheritance, and Prophet Zakariya (as) asked that Allah (swt) grant him a child to inherit his material possessions.

[End Quote]

Answer:

Response as per View#1:

Response as per View#2:

We read in Quran:

“And indeed, I fear the successors after me, and my wife has been barren, so give me from Yourself an heir/successor. Who will inherit me and inherit from the family of Jacob. And make him, my Lord, pleasing [to You].” (Maryam 5-6).

In these verses of Quran we see that Zakariya(ra) asked for a successor to inherit him, which implies, to inherit like a successor not as a biological heir. The Mufassireen explained this as inheriting Prophethood as a successor.

Al-Hakim al-Naysaburi (405) states:

حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ إِسْحَاقَ السُّلَمِيُّ، أَنْبَأَ أَحْمَدُ بْنُ نَصْرٍ، ثنا عَمْرُو بْنُ حَمَّادِ بْنِ طَلْحَةَ الْقَنَّادُ، ثنا أَسْبَاطُ بْنُ نَصْرٍ، عَنِ السُّدِّيِّ، عَنْ مُرَّةَ، وَأَبِي مَالِكٍ، عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمَا.وَعَنِ السُّدِّيِّ، عَنْ مُرَّةَ، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ، قَالُوا: ” كَانَ آخِرَ أَنْبِيَاءِ بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ زَكَرِيَا بْنُ أَدْنَ بْنِ مُسْلِمٍ، وَكَانَ مِنْ ذُرِّيَّةِ يَعْقُوبَ، قَالَ: يَرِثُنِي مُلْكِي، وَيَرِثُ مِنْ آلِ يَعْقُوبَ النُّبُوَّةَ

أَخْبَرَنِي مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ إِسْحَاقَ الصَّفَّارُ، ثنا أَحْمَدُ بْنُ نَصْرٍ، ثنا عَمْرُو بْنُ طَلْحَةَ، ثنا أَسْبَاطُ بْنُ نَصْرٍ، عَنِ السُّدِّيِّ، عَنْ أَبِي مَالِكٍ، وَأَبِي صَالِحٍ، عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمَا، وَعَنْ مُرَّةَ الْهَمْدَانِيِّ، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ، قَالَ: ” دَعَا زَكَرِيَّا رَبَّهُ سِرًّا، فَقَالَ: رَبِّ إِنِّي وَهَنَ الْعَظْمُ مِنِّي وَاشْتَعَلَ الرَّأْسُ شَيْبًا وَلَمْ أَكُنْ بِدُعَائِكَ رَبِّ شَقِيًّا، وَإِنِّي خِفْتُ الْمَوَالِيَ مِنْ وَرَائِي، وَهُمُ الْعَصَبَةُ، وَكَانَتِ امْرَأَتِي عَاقِرًا فَهَبْ لِي مِنْ لَدُنْكَ وَلِيًّا يَرِثُنِي، ويَرِثُ نُبُوَّتِي وَيَرِثُ مِنْ آلِ يَعْقُوبَ يَرِثُ نُبُوَّةَ آلِ يَعْقُوبِ وَاجْعَلْهُ رَبِّ رَضِيًّا

from Ibn `Abbas and Ibn Mas`oud: “Zakariya was the final prophet of Bani Isra’eel, he was from the progeny of Ya`qoub, he said: Inherits my kingdom and from the family of Ya`qoub the prophet-hood.”

From Ibn `Abbas and Ibn Mas`oud: “…until he said… So grant me from you a successor to inherit me, and to inherit my prophet-hood and from the family of Ya`qoub their prophet-hood and make him pleasing to you.”( MUSTADRAK AL-SAHEEHAYN LIL-HAKIM)

Al-Hasan al-Basri (21-110) states:

حَدَّثَنَا الْحَسَنُ بْنُ يَحْيَى، قَالَ: أَخْبَرَنَا عَبْدُ الرَّزَّاقِ، قَالَ: أَخْبَرَنَا مَعْمَرٌ، عَنْ قَتَادَةَ، عَنِ الْحَسَنِ، فِي قَوْلِهِ: ” يَرِثُنِي وَيَرِثُ مِنْ آلِ يَعْقُوبَ.قَالَ: نُبُوَّتَهُ وَعِلْمَهُ

His prophet-hood and knowledge. (Tafseer ibn Jarir al-Tabari ) [Grading: Hasan, because al-Hasan bin Yahya or bin abi Yahya al-Sakan al-Basri, he is al-Tabari’s Sheikh, Saduq. This confirms the Hadith in Tafseer `Abdul-Razzaq thus Sahih-li-Ghayrihi].

Qatadah (61-117) states:

حَدَّثَنَا بِشْرٌ، قَالَ: ثنا يَزِيدُ، قَالَ: ثنا سَعِيدٌ، عَنْ قَتَادَةَ، قَوْلَهُ: ” يَرِثُنِي وَيَرِثُ مِنْ آلِ يَعْقُوبَ.قَالَ: كَانَ الْحَسَنُ، يَقُولُ: يَرِثُ نُبُوَّتَهُ وَعِلْمَهُ

al-Hasan al-Basri used to say: “He inherits his prophet-hood and knowledge.” (Tafseer ibn Jarir al-Tabari ) [Grading: Sahih]

Al-Suddy al-Kabeer (127) states:

حَدَّثَنِي مُوسَى، قَالَ: ثنا عَمْرٌو، قَالَ: ثنا أَسْبَاط، عَنِ السُّدِّيّ قَالَ: يَرِثُ نُبُوَّتِي وَنُبُوَّةَ آلِ يَعْقُوبَ

Inherits my prophet-hood and the prophet-hood of the family of Ya`qoub. (Tafseer ibn Jarir al-Tabari) [Grading: Al-Suddy is an expert in Tafseer but weak in narrating, this chain is Sahih].

Sulayman bin Ahmad al-Tabarani (260-360) states:

أي أعطِني مِن عندك ولداً، { يَرِثُنِي }؛ يَرِثُ نبوَّتِي ومكاني { وَيَرِثُ مِنْ آلِ يَعْقُوبَ }؛ العلمَ والنبوَّةَ

[{Inherits me} Meaning inherits my prophet-hood and my position, {And inherits the family of Ya`qoub} Meaning the knowledge and prophet-hood.( AL-TAFSEER AL-KABIR LIL-TABARANI).

Ali al-Kaya al-Harrasi (450-504) states:

فطلب من الله تعالى ولداً يقوم بالدين بعده, فيرثه النبوة, ويرث من آل يعقوب, ولا يجوز أن يهتم بالدعاء هذا الاهتمام, ومراده أن يورثه المال, فإن ذلك مباين لطريقة الأنبياء, ولأنه جمع وراثته إلى وراثة آل يعقوب, ومعلوم أن ولد زكريا لا يرثهم

So he asked Allah most high for a son to take his place in religion, he’d inherit his prophet-hood and he’d inherit from the family of Ya`qoub. It is not permissible that he’d be so desperate in his Du`a’ if his intention was to inherit money, this opposes the way of prophets, also what proves our point is that he combined his inheritance with that of the family of Ya`qoub although it is known that his son is not entiteled to inherit (wealth) from them.( AHKAM AL-QUR’AN LIL-KAYA AL-HARRASI)

Ali bin Ahmad al-Wahidi (468) states:

الذين يلونه فِي النسب، وهم العصبة وبنو العم وورثته، والمعنى أنه خاف تضييع بني عمه الدين، ونبذهم إياه، فسأل ربه وليا يرث نبوته وعلمه، لئلا يضيع الدين، وحمله على هذه المسألة ما شاهد من بني إسرائيل من تبديل الدين، وقتل الأنبياء، وهذا معنى قول عطاء، عن ابن عباس: يريد بالموالي بني إسرائيل، وكانوا يبدلون الدين، ويقتلون الأنبياء

Those who succeed him in kin-ship, they are the `Usbah, the paternal-cousins and inheritors. The meaning is that he feared his paternal-cousins would lose the religion and abandon it, so he asked his Lord for a successor to inherit his prophet-hood and knowledge, so that it may not be lost, he requested this as a result of what he witnessed from Banu Isra’eel, they corrupted the religion and killed the prophets. This is the meaning of the words of `Ata’ who narrated from ibn `Abbas: “He means by Mawali, Banu Isra’eel who used to alter the religion and kill the prophets.”( TAFSEER `ALI BIN AHMAD AL-WAHIDI).

Therefore, even from this verse we find that, Prophet Zakariya(as) prayed for a successor who would inherit him, which means inheriting as a Successor Prophethood not as biological heir. Zakariya being the pious prophet that he is, wished for Allah to grant him a successor to support him and carry on his teachings, he also asked God to honor him and favor him by keeping the prophet-hood within his lineage.

Argument 14:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Interestingly Allah (swt) does exactly the same, when He (swt) uses al-irth for something other than material possessions, He (swt) makes it clear exactly what is being inherited in that very same verse thus removing any doubts over the meaning of the verse.

The interesting thing is Al Khider, the very verses that al Khider cites corroborates our stance. Allow us to cite his comments once more only this time we shall highlight the key words, wherein Allah (swt) clarifies the meaning of inheritance in the context of the same verse:

The word al-irth (inheritance) does not refer to material possessions exclusively. It is also used to denote knowledge, prophethood or sovereignty. Examples of such usage are found in Surah Fatir:32, where Allah says: “Thereafter We gave the Book as inheritance (awrathna) to such of Our servants as We have chosen”; and in Surah al-Mu’minun:10-11, where Allah says: “Those are the Inheritors (al-warithun) who will inherit Paradise.”

The aforementioned hadith which states that “the Ambiya do not leave dinars and dirhams as inheritance, but they leave knowledge” explicitly negates the possibility of the Ambiya leaving a material legacy as inheritance. This alone is sufficient proof.

Look carefully at both verses cited by al Khider. These verses demonstrate that when Allah (swt) diverges from the traditional understanding of al-irth as in material possessions, He clarifies exactly what that person inherits, to ensure that people are not left ignorant assuming the term refers to material possessions.

Now with the points we have just made in mind let, us look at the verse:

Wainnee khiftu almawaliYa min waraee wakanati imraatee AAaqiran fahab lee min ladunka Yarithunee waYarithu min ali YaAAqooba waijAAalhu rabbi radiyYan waliyYan

Oh, give me from Thy presence a successor. Who shall inherit of me and inherit (also) of the house of Jacob.

In this verse Allah (swt) uses the word waYarithu (that comes from the root word al-irth) and provides no further clarification on what that means. One is therefore entitled to assume that it means the inheritance of material possessions as is the commonly understood of al-irth. If Allah (swt) intended this to mean the inheritance of knowledge or Prophethood, then He (swt) would have clarified this matter in the same may that He (swt) did in those verses where al-irth refers to the inheritance of the Book or Paradise. If the verse meant knowledge or Prophethood, then Allah (swt) would have cited the supplication as follows:

Oh, give me from Thy presence a successor. Who shall inherit the Book, and Prophethood and inherit (also) of the house of Jacob.

The very fact that Allah (swt) did not clarify the meaning of al-irth as He (swt) had done with those verses proves that it means material possessions and nothing else.

[End Quote]

Answer:

Shiapen came up with a home-made rule which was based on flawed logic; its incorrectness is exposed from the verse in question itself. We read in Quran:

Yarithunee wayarithu min ali yaAAqooba

Who will inherit me and inherit from the family of Jacob.(Quran 19:6).

Even here Allah(swt) used the words “inherit from the family of Jacob” without specifying what is to be inherited, but this cannot mean to inherit as an“heir” nor to inherit material possession, because Son of Zakariya(as) could not have inherited the material wealth of the family of Yaqoob(as), that could only be inherited by their near relations and not by the Son of Zakariya(as). It is against the law of inheritance for distant relations to receive any part of inheritance in the presence of close relatives.

(i). Ali al-Kaya al-Harrasi (450-504) explains this stating:

(ii).Mufti Mohammad Shafi Uthmani explains the same, stating:

In the verse after (Yarithunee/ Who will inherit me) the addition of the words (wayarithu min ali yaAAqooba/and inherit from the family of Jacob) confirms the view that here material inheritance is not implied because the son of Zakariyyah(i.e Yahya) could not have inherited the material wealth of the family of Yaqoub(as), which could only be inherited by their near relations, not by Yahya(as). It is against the law of inheritance for distant relations to receive any part of inheritance in the presence of close relatives.(Tafseer Maarif ul Quran)

(iii). Sulayman bin Ahmad al-Tabarani (260-360) deduced the same understanding of it, stating:

ولأنه قال (وَيَرِثُ مِنْ آلِ يَعْقُوبَ) ولَم يُرِدْ بذلكَ المالَ

And it’s because he said {And inherits from the family of Ya`qoub} and he did not intend the money when he said this.( AL-TAFSEER AL-KABIR LIL-TABARANI).

Similarly, in another Shia narration, we read:

Muhammad ibn Yahya has narrated from Ahmad ibn abu Zahir or another man from Muhammad ibn Hammad from his brother Ahmad ibn Hammad from Ibrahim from his father who has said the following: “I said to abu al-Hassan al-Thani(as) ‘May Allah take my soul in service for your cause, would you tell me about the Holy Prophet(saaw) who inherited all the prophets.” The Imam(as) said, “Yes, I may do so. I asked, “Did he inherit from Adam up to his-self?” The Imam(as) said, “Of every prophet that Allah sent Prophet Muhammad(saaw) was more knowledgeable.”( Al-Kafi Vol.1 Pg.227)

Comment: Notice how when the Shia Imam heard the word “inherit” he knew full well that in the context of prophet-hood inheritance is that of knowledge.

So, the invalidity and incorrectness of the home-made rule of Shiapen has been proven from same verse of Quran. And the most plausible reason why Allah(swt) didn’t clarify the word “Yarith” as what is being inherited, is because Allah(swt) was quoting the supplication(dua) which Zakariyyah(as) made, and it was without any clarification, hence Allah(swt) quoted it in the same way. If it is asked that why didn’t Zakariya(as) clarify the word “Yarith” in his supplication, then it is because the supplication was directed to Allah(swt), and Zakariyyah(as) knew that there was no need for any clarification, since Allah(swt) was well aware what Zakariyyah(as) intended by it.

Worth noting point was made by Abdul-Haqq ibn `Atiyyah al-Andalusi (546), He states:

الأظهر الأليق { زكرياء } عليه السلام أن يريد وراثة العلم والدين فتكون الوراثة مستعارة، ألا ترى أنه إنما طلب { ولياً } ، ولم يخصص ولداً فبلغه الله أمله على أكمل الوجوه

What is more apparent and fitting for Zakariya peace be upon him is that he meant the inheritance of knowledge and religion and so inheritance is metaphorical. Do you not see that he only wished for a successor but never specified that it must be a son so Allah fulfilled his wishes in the best manner?( AL-MUHARRAR WAL-WAJEEZ LI-IBN `ATIYYAH).

Hence, the Shia claim is wrong and invalid, and the meaning of al-irth in the verse can never mean inheritance of wealth nor does it mean inheriting as biological heir, due to the reasons we gave above.

Argument 15:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

“Who shall inherit of me” (Yarithunee) in this verse means to inherit worldly possessions

We read in Tafseer Maqatil bin Sulayman:

يرثني يرث مالي

‘To inherit me is to inherit my material possessions’

We read in Tafseer Durr al-Manthur:

وأخرج الفريابي، عن ابن عباس قال‏:‏ كان زكريا لا يولد له، فسأل ربه‏؟‏ فقال‏:‏ ‏{‏رب هب لي من لدنك وليا يرثني ويرث من آل يعقوب‏}‏ قال‏:‏ يرثني مالي، ويرث من آل يعقوب النبوة‏.‏

Al-Faryabi narrated from ibn Abbas that he said: ‘Zakaria wasn’t able to have a child, therefore he asked his God and said: ‘{Who should inherit me and inherit from the children of Yaqub}’ inherit my material possessions and inherit Prophethood from children of Yaqub.’
Dur al-Manthur fi Tafseer al-Mathur, Vol. 2, Page 467

Ibn Adil states in al-Lubab fi Uloom al-Kitab:

واختلفُوا ما المرادُ بالميراثِ، فقال ابنُ عبَّاس، والحسنُ، والضحاك: وراثةُ المالِ في الموضعين

There are varied opinions about the meaning of inheritance, Ibn Abbas,Hassan and Dahak said that it’s the inheritance of material possessions.

Tafseer Kabeer:

وثالثها: يرثني المال ويرث من آل يعقوب النبوة وهو قول السدي ومجاهد والشعبي وروي أيضاً عن ابن عباس والحسن والضحاك.

The third: ‘Inherit material possessions and inherit Prophethood from children of Yaqub, this is the statement of Sidi, Mujahid, Sh’ubi and also narrated by Ibn Abbas, al-Hassan and Dahak.’

Gharaib al Qur’an:

فعن ابن عباس والحسن والضحاك: هي وراثة المال

‘Narrated from Ibn Abbas, al-Hassan and Dahak that it means inheriting material possessions.’

Qurtubi also counted Qatada among the list of those who believed that it refers to material possessions. We read in Tafseer Qurtubi:

قال ابن عباس ومجاهد وقتادة خاف أن يرثوا ماله وأن ترثه الكلاله فأشفق أن يرثه غير الولد

Ibn Abbas, Mujahid and Qutada stated that it is to inherit his material possessions he disliked to be inherited by his relatives and not by his son.

Ibn Jauzi states in Zaad al-Masir:

وفي المراد بهذا الميراث أربعة أقوال : أحدها: يَرِثني مالي، ويرث من آل يعقوب النبوَّة، رواه عكرمة عن ابن عباس، وبه قال أبو صالح

There are four meanings of inheritance in this, one of it is to inherit my material possessions and inherit Prophethood from Jaccob’s house, this has been narrated by Akrma from Ibn Abbas and that is what has been adopted by Abu Saleh

[End Quote]

Answer:

Response as per View#1:

Response as per View#2:

There are conflicting opinions from most of the scholars whom Shiapen quoted, because some of the opinions were reported without a chain or with weak chain. Here are few examples:

Al-Hakim al-Naysaburi (405) states:

Al-Hasan al-Basri (21-110) states:

Qatadah (61-117) states:

al-Hasan al-Basri used to say: “He inherits his prophet-hood and knowledge.” (Tafseer ibn Jarir al-Tabari ) [Grading: Sahih]

Al-Suddy al-Kabeer (127) stated:

Inherits my prophet-hood and the prophet-hood of the family of Ya`qoub. (Tafseer ibn Jarir al-Tabari) [Grading: Al-Suddy is an expert in Tafseer but weak in narrating, this chain is Sahih].

Ibn `Asakir al-Dimshaqi (571) stated:

أخبرنا أَبُو الْقَاسِم الْحُسَيْن بْن الْحَسَن بْن مُحَمَّد الأسدي، أَنَا أَبُو الْقَاسِم علي بْن مُحَمَّد بْن علي، أَنَا أَبُو الْحَسَن علي بْن أَحْمَد بْن مُحَمَّد بْن دَاوُد، أَنَا مُحَمَّد بْن عُمَر بْن سُلَيْمَان، حَدَّثَنِي أَحْمَد بْن إِسْمَاعِيل، نا يَحْيَى بْن عبدك الْقَزْوِينِيّ، نا خَلَف بْن عَبْد الرَّحْمَنِ، نا مَالِك، عَنْ زَيْد بْن أسلم: وَيَرِثُ مِنْ آلِ يَعْقُوبَ قَالَ: نبوتهم

Zayd bin Aslam: “Their prophet-hood.”( TAREEKH IBN `ASAKIR)

Ali bin Muhammad al-Mawardi stated in his book the view of `Ata’ bin abi Rabah (27-114):

يرثني النبوة ويرث من آل يعقوب الأخلاق، قاله عطاء

Inherits my prophet-hood and inherits from the family of Ya`qoub the morals, stated by `Ata’.( AL-NUKAT WAL-`UYOUN LIL-MAWARDI).

Therefore, we found that regarding, the inheritance from Zakariya(as), there are conflicting views, for the benefit of readers we would like to summarize all the different and conflicting views(along with their grading), from the forty two(42) expert sources and opinions which were studied.

Summary of Opinions on Surat Mariyam [19:06]

The opinions of Companions and their Followers along with the grading:

`Abdullah ibn Mas`oud (Sahabi): Inherits his kingdom and from the family of Ya`qoub the prophet-hood. (Da`eef/Weak)
`Abdullah ibn Mas`oud (Sahabi): His prophet-hood and from the family of Ya`qoub their prophet-hood. (Da`eef/Weak)
`Abdullah ibn `Abbas (Sahabi): He feared that they would inherit him. (Da`eef/Weak)
`Abdullah ibn `Abbas (Sahabi): Inherits his knowledge and from the family of Ya`qoub the kingship. (chainless)
`Abdullah ibn `Abbas (Sahabi): He means prophet-hood, so he becomes a prophet as his fathers were. (chainless)
`Abdullah ibn `Abbas (Sahabi): Inherits from him and inherits from the family of Ya`qoub the prophet-hood. (chainless)
`Abdullah ibn `Abbas (Sahabi): Inherits his kingdom and from the family of Ya`qoub the prophet-hood. (Da`eef/Weak)
`Abdullah ibn `Abbas (Sahabi): His prophet-hood and from the family of Ya`qoub their prophet-hood. (Da`eef/Weak)
Abu Muslim al-Khawalani (62): Make him a prophet like his fathers were prophets. (Da`eef/Weak)
Badham abu Salih (around 95): Inherits his money, and from the family of Ya`qoub the prophet-hood. (Sahih)
Badham abu Salih (around 95): He becomes a prophet just as his fathers were prophets. (Sahih)
Mujahid bin Jabr (19-102): His knowledge and Zakariya was from the progeny of Ya`qoub. (Sahih)
Mujahid bin Jabr (19-102): Inherits his money and the prophet-hood from the family of Ya`qoub. (unreliable book)
`Amir al-Sha`bi (21-103): Inherits his money and inherits prophet-hood from the family of Ya`qoub. (chainless)
`Ikrimah Mawla ibn `Abbas (20-104): Inherits his money and prophet-hood from the family of Ya`qoub. (chainless)
Al-Dahhak ibn Muzahim (105): Inherits the Sunnah and knowledge. (chainless)
Al-Dahhak ibn Muzahim (105): Inherits his money and prophet-hood from the family of Ya`qoub. (chainless)
Al-Hasan al-Basri (21-110): His prophet-hood and knowledge. (Sahih)
Al-Hasan al-Basri (21-110): His money and from the family of Ya`qoub the prophet-hood and rabbi-hood. (chainless)
`Ata’ bin abi Rabah (27-114): Inherits my prophet-hood and inherits from the family of Ya`qoub the morals. (chainless)
Qatadah bin Di`amah (61-117): al-Hasan al-Basri used to say: “He inherits his prophet-hood and knowledge.” (Sahih)
Qatadah bin Di`amah (61-117): Inherits his money. (chainless)
Isma`eel al-Suddy al-Kabeer (127): Inherits his prophet-hood and the prophet-hood of the family of Ya`qoub. (Sahih)
Isma`eel al-Suddy al-Kabeer (127): Inherit his money. (chainless)
Yahya bin Ya`mur al-Basri (129): Inherits me and inherits from the family of Ya`qoub the prophet-hood. (chainless)
Zayd ibn Aslam al-Qurashy (136): Inherits their prophet-hood. (Da`eef/Weak)
Muqatil bin Sulayman (150): Inherits his money. (unreliable scholar)
Isma`eel bin Ibrahim ibn `Ulayah (110-193): Only Prophet Muhammad (saw) leaves no inheritance. (chainless)
Hisham ibn al-Kalbi (110-204): He means to take my place and rabbi-hood. (chainless)

Scholars who permit prophetic inheritance of material possessions and money:

Muhammad ibn Jareer al-Tabari (224-310) – Makki ibn abi Talib (437).

Scholars who say it is of prophet-hood and knowledge or kingdom and authority:

`Abdul-Rahman bin abi Hatim al-Razi (240-327) – Muhammad bin abi Zamanayn al-Andalusi (324-399) – `Abdullah bin Qutaybah al-Dinawari (213-276) – `Ali bin Ahmad al-Wahidi (468) – Ibrahim al-Sarriy al-Zajjaj (241-311) – Husayn bin Mas`ud al-Baghawi (516) – Abu al-Qasim al-Zamakhshari (467-538) – Nasr bin Muhammad al-Samarqandi (375) – Ahmad bin `Ali al-Jassas (305-370) – Sulayman bin Ahmad al-Tabarani (260-360) – `Abdul-Rahman bin Kaysan al-Asamm (201-279) – Muhammad bin Muhammad al-Maturidi (333) – Ahmad bin Muhammad al-Nahhas (338) – Muhammad bin al-Husayn al-Sulamy (412) – Ibn `Ata’ al-Sufi (???) – Abu al-Harith al-Awlasi al-Sufi (???) – `Abdul-Kareem al-Qushayri (465) – `Ali al-Kaya al-Harrasi (450-504) – `Abdul-Haqq ibn `Atiyyah al-Andalusi (546) – `Abdul-Rahman bin `Ali ibn al-Jawzi (510-597) – Fakhr-ul-Deen al-Razi (606) – Muhyi al-Deen ibn `Arabi (558-638) – Abu `Umar ibn `Abdul-Barr (368-463) – `Abdullah al-Baydawi al-Shirazi (685) – `Abdullah bin Ahmad al-Nasfy (710) – `Ali bin Muhammad al-Khazin (725) – Muhammad ibn Juzay al-Gharnati (693-741) – Abu Hayyan al-Andalusi (754) – Isma`eel ibn `Umar bin Katheer (700-774) – Jalal-ul-Deen al-Mahalli (864) – Jalal-ul-Deen al-Suyuti (911) – Muhammad bin `Ali al-Shawkani (1173-1250).

Scholars who list various opinions without adopting a specific interpretation for the verse:

Yahya bin Salam (240) – `Ali bin Muhammad al-Mawardi (364-450) – Ahmad bin Muhammad al-Tha`labi (427) – Abu Bakr ibn al-Anbari (271-304) – al-`Iz ibn `Abdul-Salam (577-660).

OBSERVATION:

The first thing anyone will notice and the first thing on everyone’s mind is, why there are so many conflicting opinions, the answer is that, the opinions are without chain and the rest are weak narrations. Another observation is that the biggest and most reliable of early followers, such as Moujahid the student of ibn `Abbas, al-Hasan al-Basri and his student Qatadah bin Di`amah, also al-Suddy al-Kabeer have all been authentically reported to have said it was not an inheritance of money, this gives great legitimacy and support to the opinion of any scholar who explains the verses as such.

On the other hand, the early scholars of the followers who mentioned according to authentic reports that the inheritance is of money are Muqatil bin Sulayman and abu Salih Badham, the first is accused of lying and basing a lot of Tafseer on the opinions of Ahlul-Kitab(Jews and Christians), the second leans towards weakness but at least his Tafseer is taken into consideration.

Here is a decisive proof:

We found that regarding, the inheritance from Zakariya(as), there is difference of opinion between scholars; most of them considered it non-material possessions and very few considered it material possessions, but only one view from these is correct. So let us prove before the readers, which is the correct opinion from these differing opinions.

We read in Quran:

Yarithunee wayarithu min ali yaAAqooba

Who will inherit me and inherit from the family of Jacob.(Quran 19:6).

Here the conjuction “wa(And)” denotes that the inheritance from Zakariya(as) and from the family of Yaqoob(Jacob) would be the same. If it was something else, then it must be questioned that why didn’t Zakariya(as) inherit it from the family of Yaqoob? The correct view is that, Zakariya(as) had also inherited the same from family of Yaqoob(as), which is Prophethood, Thus the correct interpretation of the verse, “inherits me and inherits the family of Ya`qub” is that, ‘Inherits my prophet-hood and the prophet-hood of the family of Ya`qub, and he would be a Prophet like his forefathers were Prophets’.

Secondly, as we showed that the inheritance from Zakariya(as) and the family of Jacob(as) would be the same, then it cannot be material inheritance for both, since Yahya(son of Zakariya) couldn’t have inherited the material wealth of the family of Yaqoob(as), which could only be inherited by their near relations and not by Yahya(as). It is against the law of inheritance for distant relations to receive any part of inheritance in the presence of close relatives.

Thus the correct view is that Zakariya(ra) did not mean the inheritance of material possession, this is the reason that, out of around forty two expert sources and opinions , only two said that this inheritance was that of money; showing that the popular opinion held by Ahlul-Sunnah in our days has always been the strongest and wisest of opinions.

Argument 16:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Since these six personalities mentioned by Imam Fakhruddin Razi are considered authority figures in the eyes of the Ahle Sunnah, their testimonies shall suffice to silence all those who defend the tradition coined by Abu Bakr i.e. Prophets do not leave inheritance.

[End Quote]

Answer:

Shiapen jumped to conclusion out of ignorance, without mentioning the understanding of those few scholars who believed that previous Prophets(as) were inherited by their heirs and they left material possessions as inheritance; Because the understanding of those scholars for the hadeeth narrated by Abubakr(ra) or his judgement, didn’t contradict Quran in anyway, as they understood from that hadeeth that Prophet(saw) was talking about himself only, in the plural form. Hence they firmly believed in the authenticity of the hadeeth and also the decision of Abubakr(ra), which makes the baseless claim of Shiapen, null and void.

Makki ibn abi Talib (437) stated:

في هذا لقوله صلى الله عليه وسلم: ” نحن معشر الأنبياء لا نورث، ما تركنا صدقة ” وهذا الحديث يجب أن يكون حكمه مخصوصاً للنبي (صلى الله عليه وسلم)، وأخبر عن نفسه على لفظ الجماعة.

وفي بعض الروايات: ” إِنا معشر الأنبياء لا نورث ما تركنا صدقة ” ويحتمل أن تكون هذه شريعة كانت ونسختها شريعة محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم بمنع وراثته

For his (saw) saying: “We prophets leave no inheritance, what is left is charity.” This narration has to be understood that it is especially for our Prophet (saw) and he spoke of himself in plural. It is also possible that this was a law that was abrogated by the new law of Muhammad (saw) that prohibits him from inheritance.(TAFSEER AL-HIDAYAH LI-MAKKI IBN ABI TALIB).

Fakhr-ul-Deen al-Razi (606) stated:

أما قوله عليه السلام: ” إنا معشر الأنبياء لا نورث ما تركناه صدقة ” فهذا لا يمنع أن يكون خاصاً به

As for the narration “We leave no inheritance” they said it can be that the prophet (saw) is only referring to himself.( AL-TAFSEER AL-KABIR AL-FAKHR-UL-RAZI)

We read in al – Nasikh wal – Mansoukh lil – Nahhas (d.338):

Regarding his saying: “We leave no inheritance” are two opinions: One is that he is talking about himself like a leader says: “We did this or we did that.” The second opinion is that it encompasses all prophets (saw) and the majority of the people of knowledge are of this opinion.

We read in Tafseer al – Qurtubi (d.671):

The reason these scholars of Tafseer or “ Mufassireen” understood the hadeeth in this way and held the opinion that previous Prophets did leave material possession as inheritance is because, they looked at the apparent Qur’anic wording and saw that so and so had inherited so and so, the first thing that pops into anyone’s mind is the regular inheritance of money . They then looked at the Sunnah and saw “We leave no inheritance”, so they simply concluded that the Prophet (saw) was talking only about himself!

Yes, that is true, they thought this Hadith was tied only to the inheritance of the last of prophets Muhammad(saw). And they explained that Prophet(saw) was talking about himself in the plural of respect which is used by leaders and kings , just as Sulayman(as) said in the Qur’an:

{ O people, we have been taught the language of birds, and we have been given from all things. }[27:16]

Or in the Bukhari and Muslim, the Saheehayn, we read that when a man wanted to gift a mule to Rasul – Allah (saw), he returned the gift and told him:

إِنَّهُ لَمْ يَمْنَعْنَا أَنْ نَقْبَلَ مِنْكَ إِلَّا أَنَّا كُنَّا حُرُمًا

Nothing stopped us from accepting your gift except that we were in a state of Ihram.

Or when the delegation of Hawazin came to him (saw) he told them:

We do not know who amongst you has agreed to this and who has not. You should return and let your leaders inform us of your agreement.

Or when he (saw) got a ring made for himself and said :

إِنَّا اتَّخَذْنَا خَاتَمًا، وَنَقَشْنَا فِيهِ نَقْشًا، فَلاَ يَنْقُشْ عَلَيْهِ أَحَدٌ

We have got a ring made (for ourselves) and we have engraved a certain engraving on it so none of you should get such an engraving on his ring.

Though there does exit a version of the popular narration which specifically states: {“We the prophets leave no inheritance.”}. But this was explained as “Munkar” or rejected addition, since it is a mistake from a narrator and it is not acceptable as opposed to the popular narrations of “We leave no inheritance.”

We can read this in Tafseer Adwa’ al – Bayan li Muhammad al – Ameen al – Shinqiti (d.1393):

وأما ما اشتهر في كتب أهل الأصول وغيرهم بلفظ “نحن معاشر الأنبياء لا نورث” فقد أنكره جماعة من الأئمة

As for what became popular under the following form of text “We the prophets do not leave inheritance” this was rejected by a group of Imams.

Thus the claim of Shiapen is null and void, because none of the scholars rejected the hadeeth narrated by Abubakr(ra) or other Sahaba; rather they understood it in a different way, interpreting it to mean exclusively for Prophet Muhammad(saw).

Argument 17:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

It should be pointed out at that although the great Imam of Ahle Sunnah Ibn Jareer Tabari, while making commentary of the verse under discussion, quoted various interpretations including the one that is relied upon by our opponents i.e. it refers to intangible entities such as knowledge, prophethood or sovereignty, but he himself believed that the verse refers to material possession of Zakariya (as) as vouched by Ibn Katheer:

وهذا اختيار ابن جرير في تفسيره

“This (opinion) has been adopted by Ibn Jareer in his commentary”.

Now to directly quote Tabari, we read:

وقوله: (يَرِثُنِي وَيَرِثُ مِنْ آلِ يَعْقُوبَ) يقول: يرثني من بعد وفاتي مالي، ويرث من آل يعقوب النبوة، وذلك أن زكريا كان من ولد يعقوب. وبنحو الذي قلنا في ذلك قال أهل التأويل.

His statement ‘{Who should inherit me and inherit from the children of Yaqoub}’ that is to say ’inherit my material possessions after my death and inherit Prophethood from children of Yaqub’ and that is because Zakariya is Yaqub’s descendant and this is the opinion of the commentators of Quran.

[End Quote]

Answer:

It is true that Imam Tabari held the view that the verse refers to material possession of Zakariyah(as), which doesn’t effects the hadeeth of Prophet(saw) narrated by Abubakr(ra), because he was from those scholars who understood this hadeeth, to be exclusively for Prophet Muhammad(saw), as explained above. However, majority of other Imams of Tafsir, rejected and refuted this view, that material possession was meant in the verse of Quran.

Here are the quotes from those scholars who refuted and rejected the view held by Imam Tabari:

(i). Muhammad bin Muhammad al-Maturidi (333) stated:

قال الحسن: خاف مواليه أن يرثوا ماله، فأما علمه ونبوته فمما لا يورث.

قال أبو بكر الأصم: هذا لا يصح، لا يحتمل أن يخاف زكريا وراثة ماله مواليه؛ فيسأل ربه لذلك الولد ليرثه ماله، ولكن خاف أن يُضَيِّعَ مواليه دينه وسننه من بعده؛ فسأل ربه أن يهب له الولد ليقوم مقامه في حفظ دينه وسننه

al-Hasan said: “He feared his Mawali that they may inherit his money, as for his knowledge and prophet-hood, they cannot be inherited.”

Abu Bakr al-Asamm said: “This is incorrect, it is not possible that Zakariya would fear for the inheritance of his money by his Mawali; and he’d ask his Lord for a son simply to inherit money, rather he feared that his Mawali would lose his religion and traditions after he passes away, so he then asked his Lord to grant him a son to take his place in guarding the religion and Sunan.”( AL-TA’WEELAT LIL-MATURIDI). [Judgement: The saying of al-Hasan is chainless and contradicted by what was authentically narrated from him. Abu Bakr `Abdul-Rahman bin Kaysan al-Asamm (201-279) his narration is authentic as al-Maturidi lived during his time and heard from him]

(ii). Sulayman bin Ahmad al-Tabarani (260-360) stated:

وذهبَ بعضُ المفسِّرين أنَّ معنى قَوْلُهُ تَعَالَى { يَرِثُنِي } أي يرِثُ مالِي، إلاّ أنَّ حملَ الآية على ميراثِ العلم أولَى

Some Mufassireen stated that the meaning of {Inherits me} means money. However, interpreting the verse to mean an inheritance of knowledge is more worthy.(AL-TAFSEER AL-KABIR LIL-TABARANI).

(iii). Ahmad bin `Ali al-Jassas (305-370) stated:

فقد ثبت برواية هذه الجماعة عن النبي ص – أن الأنبياء لا يورثون المال ويدل على أن زكريا لم يرد بقوله يرثني المال إن نبي الله لا يجوز أن يأسف على مصير ماله بعد موته إلى مستحقه وإنه إنما خاف أن يستولي بنو أعمامه على علومه وكتابه فيحرفونها ويستأكلون بها فيفسدون دينه ويصدون الناس عنه

It is established from the narration of this group from the Prophet (saw), that the prophets do not leave inheritance of money, it is proven that Zakariya did not say “To inherit my money”, as it is prohibited for a prophet of God to feel bad for the fate of his money after his death, and he was only afraid that his cousins would take over his knowledge and book so they’d corrupt them and alter them in exchange for worldly gains, thus preventing the people from his path.(AHKAM AL-QUR’AN LIL-JASSAS)

(iv). `Ali bin Ahmad al-Wahidi (468) stated:

قال ابن قتيبة: لم يرد يرثني مالي.وأيّ مال كان لزكريا حتى يسأل الله أن يهب له ولدا يرثه، لقد جل هذا المال إذا وعظم قدره، ونافس عليه منافسة أبناء الدنيا، وإنما كان زكريا نجارا، وكان حبرا، وكلا هذين الأمرين يدل على أنه لا مال له

Ibn Qutaybah said: “It is not found that he said: Inherits my money.” What wealth is this that Zakariya possessed so that he may ask Allah for a son to inherit? It must have been a grand amount then for him to compete for it like the children of this world do. Rather Zakariya was a carpenter and a rabbi and both of these indicate that he had no money. (TAFSEER `ALI BIN AHMAD AL-WAHIDI).

(v). Ali al-Kaya al-Harrasi (450-504) stated:

(vi). Husayn bin Mas`ud al-Baghawi (516) stated:

قال الزجاج: والأَوْلى أن يحمل على ميراث غير المال لأنه يبعد أن يشفق زكريا وهو نبي من الأنبياء أن يرثه بنو عمه ماله

Al-Zajjaj said: “It is more worthy that we understand that this inheritance is not that of money, as it is unlikely that Zakariya a prophet of God, would feel bad for his paternal-cousins inheriting him.”(TAFSEER AL-BAGHAWI).

(vii). Abu al-Qasim al-Zamakhshari (467-538) stated:

والمراد بالإرث إرث الشرع والعلم، لأنّ الأنبياء لا تورّث المال

What is meant by inheritance here is that of religious laws and knowledge, because prophets leave no inheritance of money.(TAFSEER AL-KASHAF LIL-ZAMAKHSHARI).

(viii). `Abdul-Rahman bin `Ali ibn al-Jawzi (510-597) stated:

وفي المراد بهذا الميرث أربعة أقوال.

أحدها: يَرِثني مالي، ويرث من آل يعقوب النبوَّة، رواه عكرمة عن ابن عباس، وبه قال أبو صالح.

والثاني: يَرِثني العِلْم، ويَرِث من آل يعقوب المُلْكَ، فأجابه الله تعالى إِلى وراثة العِلْم دون المُلْك، وهذا مرويّ عن ابن عباس أيضاً.

والثالث: يَرِثني نبوَّتي وعِلْمي، ويَرِث من آل يعقوب النبوَّة أيضاً، قاله الحسن.

والرابع: يَرِثني النبوَّة، ويرث من آل يعقوب الأخلاق، قاله عطاء. قال مجاهد: كان زكريا من ذرية يعقوب، وزعم الكلبي أن آل يعقوب كانوا أخواله، وأنه ليس بيعقوب أبي يوسف. وقال مقاتل: هو يعقوب بن ماثان، وكان يعقوب هذا وعمران ـ أبو مريم ـ أخوين.

والصحيح: أنه لم يُرِد ميراثَ المال لوجوه

What is meant by this inheritance is restricted to four opinions. First one: He inherits my money, and from the family of Ya`qoub the prophet-hood, narrated by `Ikrimah from ibn `Abbas, and this was abu Salih’s opinion. Second one: Inherits my knowledge and from the family of Ya`qoub the kingdom, so Allah granted him the knowledge without the kingdom, also narrated by ibn `Abbas. Third one: Inherits my prophet-hood and knowledge and from the family of Ya`qoub their prophet-hood as well, as al-Hasan said. Fourth one: Inherits my prophet-hood, and the morals of the family of Ya`qoub, as said by `Ata’. (…until he said…) The correct opinion: Is he never intended the inheritance of money for several reasons.(TAFSEER ZAD-UL-MAYSIR LI-IBN AL-JAWZI)

(ix).`Ala’-ul-Deen `Ali bin Muhammad al-Khazin (725) stated:

أي ولياً ذا رشاد، وقيل أراد به يرث مالي ويرث من آل يعقوب النبوة والعلم، وقيل أراد به الحبورة، لأن زكريا كان رأس الأحبار، والأولى أن يحمل على ميراث غير المال لأن الأنبياء لم يرثوا المال وإنما يورثون العلم

Meaning a guided successor, it was said he meant to inherit his money and the prophet-hood and knowledge from the family of Ya`qoub, it was also said he meant rabbi-hood since Zakariya was the head rabbi. It is more worthy to interpret this as the inheritance of anything aside from money, because prophets never gave money as inheritance only knowledge.(LUBAB-UL-TA’WEEL LIL-KHAZIN).

(x). Muhammad bin Ahmad ibn Juzay al-Gharnati (693-741) stated:

قيل: يعني وراثة المال، وقيل: وراثة العلم والنبوة وهو أرجح

It was said: “Meaning inheritance of money.” And it was said: “Inheritance of knowledge and prophet-hood.” This opinion is stronger.(AL-TASHEEL LI-IBN JUZAY).

(xi). Abu Hayyan al-Andalusi (754) stated:

والأظهر اللائق بزكريا من حيث هو معصوم أنه لا يطلب الولد لأجل ما يخلفه من حطام الدنيا

What is apparent and more fitting of Zakariya since he is infallible is that he never asked for a son because of what he left behind from the leftovers of this world.( AL-NAHR LI-ABI HAYYAN AL-ANDALUSI).

(xii). Isma`eel ibn `Umar bin Katheer (700-774) stated:

لا أنه خشي من وراثتهم له ماله، فإن النبي أعظم منزلة وأجل قدراً من أن يشفق على ماله إلى ما هذا حده، وأن يأنف من وراثة عصباته له، ويسأل أن يكون له ولد ليحوز ميراثه دونهم

He(Zakariyyah) did not fear their inheritance of his money, as the prophets are much greater in rank and virtue than to care for the leftovers of this world and to be this upset that their relatives are going to inherit some money not his son.(TAFSEER IBN KATHEER).

(xiii). Muhammad bin `Ali al-Shawkani (1173-1250) stated:

هذا القول أرجح من الأوّل لأن الأنبياء لا يورثون وهم أجلّ من أن يعتنوا بأمور الدنيا، فليس المراد هنا: وراثة المال، بل المراد: وراثة العلم والنبوّة والقيام بأمر الدين

This opinion is stronger than the first, because prophets leave behind no inheritance and are nobler than to care for materialistic matters, this means that it isn’t an inheritance of money but that of knowledge and prophet-hood and religious responsibility.( FATH-UL-QADEER LIL-SHAWKANI).

(xiv). Mufti Mohammad Shafi Uthmani stated:

Here the inheritance does not mean wealth, because in the first place it has not been established that Zakariya(as) had much wealth. Hence, the question as to who would inherit the same, does not rise. Secondly, it is inconsistent with th exalted position of a prophet to concern himself with such matters. (Tafseer Maarif ul Quran).

Argument 18:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Ibn Attya in his book al-Muharer al-Wajiz tried to adopt the usual stance of our opponents that the cited verse refers to the inheritance of knowledge, but not before admitting that:

والأكثر من المفسرين على أنه أراد وراثة المال

The majority of the commentators of Quran tends that it means the inheritance of material possessions.

[End Quote]

Answer:

`Abdul-Haqq ibn `Atiyyah al-Andalusi (546) said: “Most of the Mufassireen are of the opinion that he meant money.” Yet when we look at the list we provided above, we can see that most of the scholars of Tafseer before the death of Ibn `Atiyyah are not of this opinion, in fact an earlier scholar Ibn `Abdul-Barr (368-463) said: “There were two opinions: The most popular one is that a prophet is not inherited and what he leaves is charity.” And even the late Muhammad bin `Ali al-Shawkani (1173-1250) reached the same conclusion we did and said: “This is also the opinion of the majority of Mufassireen, in other words this inheritance is a metaphorical one similar to what he (saw) said: ‘Scholars are heirs of prophets.'”

Why is it then stated otherwise? Well the answer could be that the scholar was relating the majority of opinions in his own land or his own area, sometimes different cities and provinces may have varying opinions in Fiqh or Tafseer, it could also be that they mean the majority of the small un-popular scholars of Tafseer, whereas the big Imams who wrote the books have denied the inheritance of money even if they are smaller in number but their opinions are more weighty, if we take Ibn Jareer al-Tabari (224-310) alone he probably had plenty of students who adopted his opinions throughout the lands because of his fame and name.

Fact remains, out of around forty two expert sources and opinions we gathered for this study, only two said that this inheritance was that of money; showing that the popular opinion held by Ahlul-Sunnah in our days has always been the strongest and wisest of opinions.

Argument 19:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

“Inherit (also) of the house of Jacob” (Yarithunee wayarithu min ali yaAAqooba) also refers to material possessions

“Yarithunee wayarithu min ali yaAAqooba…”

“Who shall inherit of me and inherit (also) of the house of Jacob…”
Al-Qur’an, Surah 19, Ayah 6, translated by Pickthal

Had Prophet Zakariyya (as) merely supplicated for a Waris as in a Prophet that would inherit his knowledge there would have been no need for him to add in the above words and inherit (also) of the house of Jacob. This dua connects his desire for a Waris like the house of Jacob. Al Khider logic would therefore suggest that Zakariyya (as) wanted a Waris to inherit his knowledge and Prophetic Office as was the case with the ‘house of Jacob’. This argument falls flat on its face since Prophethood and knowledge were not inherited by all of the sons of Prophet Yaqub (as)! If they did attain these stations why did they throw Prophet Yusuf down the well (s), and lie to their father that he had been eaten by a wolf? If they had Prophetic knowledge they would have been aware that Allah (swt) had made it haraam for animals to eat the flesh of Prophets. They can cause harm to Prophets, this proves that the linked supplication ‘Who shall inherit of me and inherit (also) of the house of Jacob’ related to the inheritance of material possessions not Prophethood.

[End Quote]

Answer:

This argument by Shiapen is due to their misunderstanding, because as we explained earlier, Zakariya(as) made the supplication for a successor not a biological heir. We read in Quran:

Wa-innee khiftu almawaliya min wara-ee wakanati imraatee AAaqiran fahab lee min ladunka waliyyan

“Lo! I fear my kinsfolk after me, since my wife is barren. Oh, give me from Thy presence a successor”
Al-Qur’an, Surah 19, Ayah 5, translated by Pickthal

Zakariya asked his Lord for a successor to succeed him in prophet-hood. Zakariya being the pious prophet that he is, wished for Allah to grant him a successor to support him and carry on his teachings, he also asked God to honor him and favor him by keeping the prophet-hood within his lineage.

And the Prophethood was never inherited by all of the sons of Prophet Yaqub(as), but only by his successor, who was his son. So the other children of Yaqub(as) has no relevance in this case, since Prophethood was inherited only by successor of Yaqub(as) not by all the biological heirs of Yaqub(as).

Secondly, as we said earlier, the correct view cannot be material inheritance, since the Son of Zakariya could not have inherited the material wealth of the family of Yaqoob(as), which could only be inherited by their near relations and not by Son of Zakariya(as). It is against the law of inheritance for distant relations to receive any part of inheritance in the presence of close relatives.

Ali al-Kaya al-Harrasi (450-504) stated:

ولأنه جمع وراثته إلى وراثة آل يعقوب, ومعلوم أن ولد زكريا لا يرثهم

And what proves our point is that he combined his inheritance with that of the family of Ya`qoub although it is known that his son is not entiteled to inherit (wealth) from them.(AHKAM AL-QUR’AN LIL-KAYA AL-HARRASI).

Mufti Mohammad Shafi Uthmani explains the same, stating:

Zakariya’s son is not entitled to inherit the material possessions of the entire family of Ya`qoub, they died long ago and according to laws of inheritance he can only inherit from his own fathers not the whole family of Ya`qoub. We ask the following question: Was the house of Ya`qoub famous for anything so that Allah may mention them?

Yes they were. The house of Ya`qoub was a house of prophet-hood and wisdom, having a rightly guided prophet among them is what set them apart and made them unique, thus the meaning here is that his son carried on the prophet-hood and knowledge of this blessed man Ya`qoub.

Concluding that this is an inheritance of prophet-hood and religious leadership not material possessions, otherwise he wouldn’t have mentioned the house of Ya`qoub which is a house of prophet-hood.

Argument 20:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Ahmad bin Mustafa al-Muraaghi (d. 1317 H) records in Tafseer Muraaghi:

“A son who shall inherit the kingdom of Bani Mathan”

Shaykh Muhammad bin Muhammad al-Ma’adi Abu Saud (d. 951 H) records in Tafseer Abi Saud:

وكان زكريا رئيس الأحبار يومئذ فأراد أن يرثه ولده حبورته ويرث من بني ماثان ملكهم

‘Zakaria was the head of Rabbis [Priest], that day he wanted a child to inherit his Priesthood and inherit from children of Mathan their kingdom.’

We read in Ruh al Ma’ani:

ويرث من بني ماثان ملكهم

‘Inherit from children of Mathan their kingdom’

Tafseer Kashaf:

ويرث من آل يعقوب الملك

‘Inherit the kingdom from the children of Yaqub’
Al-Kashaf, Vol. 2, Page 503

We have cited four authentic sources to prove that the words of Allah (swt) “Yarithunee wayarithu min ali yaAAqooba” refer to the inheritance of worldly possessions.

[End Quote]

Reply 1:

Scholars are agreed upon the view between that, inheritance from the family of Yaqoob(as) was metaphorical and not material possessions.

Abdul-Haqq ibn `Atiyyah al-Andalusi (546) stated:

وقوله من { آل يعقوب } يريد يرث منهم الحكمة والحبورة والعلم والنبوءة والميراث في هذه كلها استعارة

His saying {And the family of Ya`qoub} means to inherit from them wisdom and rabbi-hood and knowledge and prophet-hood, and the inheritance in all of this is metaphorical.(AL-MUHARRAR WAL-WAJEEZ LI-IBN `ATIYYAH).

From Ibn `Abbas and Ibn Mas`oud who said:

وَيَرِثُ مِنْ آلِ يَعْقُوبَ النُّبُوَّةَ

“from the family of Ya`qoub the prophet-hood.”(MUSTADRAK AL-SAHEEHAYN LIL-HAKIM).

Zayd bin Aslam said: “Their prophet-hood.”(Tafseer ibn Asakir)

Abu Salih (around 95) stated:

وَيَرِثُ مِنْ آلِ يَعْقُوبَ النُّبُوَّةَ

and inherits from the family of Ya`qoub the prophet-hood.(Tafseer Tabari, Grading: Sahih).

Al-Suddy al-Kabeer (127) said:

[Inherits my prophet-hood and the prophet-hood of the family of Ya`qoub.(Tafsir Tabari, Grading: Sahih).

Al-Tabari (224-310) stated:

ويرث من آل يعقوب النبوة، وذلك أن زكريا كَانَ من وَلَدِ يعقوبَ

and inherits from the family of Ya`qoub the prophet-hood, this is because Zakariya was from Ya`qoub’s lineage.(Tafseer Tabari).

Hence we see that the scholars are agreed upon the view that the inheritance from the family of Yaqoob(as) is not material inheritance, since the Son of Zakariya) could not haveinherited the material wealth of the family of Yaqoob(as), which could only be inherited by their near relations and not by Son of Zakariya(as).

Reply 2:

Regarding the opinion of those who said Kingdom from the children of Yaqoob(as), then this means in a metaphorical manner similar to the case of Sulayman(as) inheriting from Dawud(as) the kingdom as a successor not as a biological heir, because the Son of Zakariyyah(as) couldn’t have inherited the kingdom from the children of Yaqoob(as) as a legal heir, because it could only be inherited by their near relations, not by the Son of Zakariyyah(as).

Ali al-Kaya al-Harrasi (450-504) stated:

So he asked Allah most high for a son to take his place in religion, he’d inherit his prophet-hood and he’d inherit from the family of Ya`qoub. It is not permissible that he’d be so desperate in his Dua’ if his intention was to inherit money, this opposes the way of prophets, and what proves our point is that he combined his inheritance with that of the family of Ya`qoub although it is known that his son is not entiteled to inherit (wealth) from them.(AHKAM AL-QUR’AN LIL-KAYA AL-HARRASI).

Mufti Mohammad Shafi Uthmani explains the same, stating:

Therefore, we conclude that this is an inheritance of prophet-hood and religious leadership not material inheritance, nor does it mean inheriting as biological heir, but to inherit as a Successor.

Argument 21:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

“Who shall inherit of me” (Yarithunee) can also logically be proven as material possessions

We have conclusively proven that the words of the verse “Who shall inherit of me” (Yarithunee) refer to the inheritance material possessions. We shall now evidence logically that “Who shall inherit of me” (Yarithunee) refers to material possessions, as in tangible assets and for this we shall analyse the previous part of the verse. If we analyse the words of Prophet Zakariya (as) ‘Now I fear (what) my relatives (and colleagues) (will do) after me’, the following points come to ones mind:

A fear occurs of something that can be stolen such as material possessions, whilst Prophethood is a station that is appointed by Allah (swt), and is hence a position that cannot be taken by force. If Zakariya (as) meant that he feared that his Prophetic knowledge would be taken, namely that after someone may take it by force, it makes no sense, and such an interpretation disrespects the status of a Prophet. Knowledge is not a physical asset that can be identified and subsequently stolen, and Sunni scholar Professor Masud ul Hasan in his book ‘Hadrat ‘Ali Mutada [RAA]’ page 361, narrates that when Maula Ali (as) was quizzed over whether knowledge was superior to wealth, one of his responses included “…Knowledge cannot be stolen, whilst wealth is constantly exposed to the danger of being stolen. Accordingly knowledge is better than wealth”. Prophetic Knowledge comes from Allah (swt) and He gives it to whomsoever He chooses, a Prophet has no right to interfere in such a matter, and appeal for it to be handed to his descendants. Can al Khider produce a single reference where following the death of a Prophet, a Fasiq / Faajir forcefully occupied the station of Prophet?

Worldly possessions are items that can be held by Muslim, Kaafirs, fajirs, fasiqs, hence it is natural to fear having material possessions being usurped. Zakariya (as) had some material possessions and as he had no offspring these possessions would have fallen into the hands of his nephews, who were not pious individuals. Zakariya (as) feared that his nephews would invest these possessions in bad things. That is why Zakariya (as) asked for a Waris who would be pious and would spend these possessions in a manner that would benefit the Deen. This is logical for when offsprings perform good deeds blessings also reach the parents. Zakariya (as) wanted his offspring to spend in the way of Allah (swt) so that the reward / blessings would also reach him.

[End Quote]

Answer:

Shiapen has made a glass house based on a very weak and incorrect view; Zakariya(as) didn’t fear that Prophethood or his knowledge would be stolen by people as Shiapen assumed and then refuted it.

Scholars of Tafseer explained it in the most reasonable and appropriate manner:

(i). Muhammad bin Muhammad al-Maturidi (333) stated:

قال الحسن: خاف مواليه أن يرثوا ماله، فأما علمه ونبوته فمما لا يورث.

al-Hasan said: “He feared his Mawali that they may inherit his money, as for his knowledge and prophet-hood, they cannot be inherited.”

Abu Bakr al-Asamm said: “This is incorrect, it is not possible that Zakariya would fear for the inheritance of his money by his Mawali; and he’d ask his Lord for a son simply to inherit money, rather he feared that his Mawali would lose his religion and traditions after he passes away, so he then asked his Lord to grant him a son to take his place in guarding the religion and Sunan.”( AL-TA’WEELAT LIL-MATURIDI). [Judgement: The saying of al-Hasan is chainless and contradicted by what was authentically narrated from him. Abu Bakr `Abdul-Rahman bin Kaysan al-Asamm (201-279) his narration is authentic as al-Maturidi lived during his time and heard from him]

(ii). Sulayman bin Ahmad al-Tabarani (360) stated:

إنَّما دعاءُ زكريا بالولدِ لِيَلِيَ أمورَ الدِّين بعدَهُ؛ لخوفهِ من بَنِي أعمامهِ أن يبدِّلوا دِيْنَهُ بعدَ وفاته، وخافَ أن يستولُوا على علومهِ وكُتُبهِ فيحرِّفُونَها، ويواكلونَ الناس بها، ويفسدون دِيْنَهُ، ويصدُّون الناسَ عنه.

Zakariya only made a Du`a’ for a child so he can succeed him in matters of religion after him, for fear from his paternal-cousins that they may change his religion after his passing, and he feared that they may take control of his teachings and books then corrupt them, and trade them for worldly possessions thus blocking the people from his religion.(AL-TAFSEER AL-KABIR LIL-TABARANI)

(iii). Ahmad bin `Ali al-Jassas (370):

روي عن مجاهد، وقتادة، وأبي صالح، والسدي: أن الموالي العصبة وهم بنو أعمامه، خافهم على الدين ; لأنهم كانوا شرار بني إسرائيل

[It is narrated from Mujahid and Qatadah and abi Salih and al-Suddy, that the Mawali are his `Usbah(paternal relatives), his cousins. He feared they would corrupt the religion as they were the worst of the children of Isra’eel.( AHKAM AL-QUR’AN LIL-JASSAS).

(iv). Ala’-ul-Deen `Ali bin Muhammad al-Khazin (725) stated:

الأولى أن يحمل على ميراث غير المال لأن الأنبياء لم يرثوا المال وإنما يورثون العلم، ويبعد عن زكريا وهو نبي من الأنبياء أن يشفق على ماله أن يرثه بنو عمه، وإنما خاف أن يضيع بنو عمه دين الله ويغيروا أحكامه، وذلك لما أن شاهد من بني إسرائيل تبديل الدين وقتل الأنبياء. فسأل ربه ولداً صالحاً يأمنه على أمته ويرث نبوته وعلمه لئلا يضيع وهذا قول ابن عباس

It is more worthy to interpret this as the inheritance of anything aside from money, because prophets never gave money as inheritance only knowledge, it is unlikely that a prophet of God such as Zakariya would feel sadness for the fate of his money if his cousins were to inherit it. He only feared that they might lose the religion of Allah and corrupt its laws, this is based on what he had seen from Bani Isra’eel who altered religions and killed prophets. He thus asked his Lord for a righteous son to entrust the nation to him and to inherit his prophet-hood and knowledge so they may not be lost, this is the saying of ibn `Abbas.( LUBAB-UL-TA’WEEL LIL-KHAZIN)

(v). Isma`eel ibn `Umar bin Katheer (774):

أنه خشي أن يتصرفوا من بعده في الناس تصرفاً سيئاً، فسأل الله ولداً يكون نبياً من بعده؛ ليسوسهم بنبوته ما يوحى إليه، فأجيب في ذلك، لا أنه خشي من وراثتهم له ماله، فإن النبي أعظم منزلة وأجل قدراً من أن يشفق على ماله إلى ما هذا حده، وأن يأنف من وراثة عصباته له، ويسأل أن يكون له ولد ليحوز ميراثه دونهم

He feared they (his Mawali) would lead the people in the wrong direction after his death, so he asked Allah for a son to be prophet after him; to politically guide them through his prophet-hood and revelation, and he was granted this. He did not fear their inheritance of his money, as the prophets are much greater in rank and virtue than to care for the leftovers of this world and to be this upset that their relatives are going to inherit some money not his son.(TAFSEER IBN KATHEER)

(vi). Muhammad bin `Ali al-Shawkani (1173-1250):

واختلفوا في وجه المخافة من زكريا لمواليه من بعده، فقيل: خاف أن يرثوا ماله، وأراد أن يرثه ولده، فطلب من الله سبحانه أن يرزقه ولداً. وقال آخرون: إنهم كانوا مهملين لأمر الدين، فخاف أن يضيع الدين بموته. فطلب ولياً يقوم به بعد موته، وهذا القول أرجح من الأوّل لأن الأنبياء لا يورثون وهم أجلّ من أن يعتنوا بأمور الدنيا، فليس المراد هنا: وراثة المال، بل المراد: وراثة العلم والنبوّة والقيام بأمر الدين.

They differed on why he feared his successors, it was said: “He was scared they’d inherit his money, he wished for his son to inherit him so he asked Allah (swt) to grant him a son.” Others said: “They were careless for the religion and he feared they’d cause his religion to be lost, and so he asked for a successor to replace him after his death.” This opinion is stronger than the first, because prophets leave behind no inheritance and are nobler than to care for materialistic matters, this means that it isn’t an inheritance of money but that of knowledge and prophet-hood and religious responsibility.(FATH-UL-QADEER LIL-SHAWKANI).

Therefore, the Shia argument is again destroyed.

Argument 22:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Relevantly, Al-Qurtubi in his Tafsir, Volume 11 page 81 quoted Imam Nahas according to whom scholars have advanced three possible interpretations of the prayer of Zakriya and confirmed that according to scholars, it is not impossible to believe that Zakariya actually meant someone to inherit is material possessions. We read:

وأما وراثة المال فلا يمتنع

Their statement that inheriting material possessions is not impossible.

[End Quote]

Answer:

Al-Nahhas (338) presented three different opinions and said the good one among these is Knowledge and wisdom. Hence we read, al-Nahhas said:

وراثة العلم والحكمة مذهب حسن؛ وفي الحديث ” العلماء ورثة الأنبياء

As for inheriting knowledge and wisdom, this is a good opinion; In the Hadith is “Scholars are heirs of prophets. ( AL-JAMI` LI-AHKAM AL-QUR’AN LIL-QURTUBI).

This view is also supported by authentic Shia hadeeth. We read:

عِدَّةٌ مِنْ أَصْحَابِنَا عَنْ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عِيسَى عَنِ ابْنِ مَحْبُوبٍ عَنْ هِشَامِ بْنِ سَالِمٍ عَنْ يَزِيدَ الْكُنَاسِيِّ قَالَ سَأَلْتُ أَبَا جَعْفَرٍ … كَانَ زَكَرِيَّا الْحُجَّةَ لِلَّهِ عَزَّ وَ جَلَّ عَلَى النَّاسِ بَعْدَ صَمْتِ عِيسَى بِسَنَتَيْنِ ثُمَّ مَاتَ زَكَرِيَّا فَوَرِثَهُ ابْنُهُ يَحْيَى الْكِتَابَ وَ الْحِكْمَةَ وَ هُوَ صَبِيٌّ صَغِيرٌ أَ مَا تَسْمَعُ لِقَوْلِهِ عَزَّ وَ جَلَّ يا يَحْيى خُذِ الْكِتابَ بِقُوَّةٍ وَ آتَيْناهُ الْحُكْمَ صَبِيًّا

[Some of our companions, from Ahmad bin Muhammad bin `Isa, from ibn Mahboub, from Hisham bin Salim, from Yazid al-Kanasi, he said: I asked abu `Abdillah (as) … Zakariyyah was Allah’s proof on the people, two years after `Isa’s silence, then he died so his son Yahya inherited his book and his wisdom while still young, have you not heard Allah’s words {O Yahya hold on to the book firmly, and we have granted him the judgement while still young}…] [Al kafi, vol 1, page 382 ; Like Sahih as per Majlisi in Miraat al-Uqool, vol 4, page 242].

It is narrated in al-kafi vol 1, p 225, Majlisi said it’s saheeh ala dhaher in Miraat al-Uqool, vol 3, page 20:

فَقَالَ أَبُو عَبْدِ الله (عَلَيْهِ السَّلام) إِنَّ دَاوُدَ وَرِثَ عِلْمَ الانْبِيَاءِ وَإِنَّ سُلَيْمَانَ وَرِثَ دَاوُدَ وَإِنَّ مُحَمَّداً (صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَآلِه) وَرِثَ سُلَيْمَانَ وَإِنَّا وَرِثْنَا مُحَمَّداً صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَآلِه

Abu Abdullah(as) said: “Dawud inherited the knowledge of the prophets. Sulayman inherited Dawud. Prophet Muhammad(saw) inherited Sulayman and we inherited Muhammad(saw).

Argument 23:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

On the one hand Nasibi such as al Khider in accordance with the comments of their Salaf Ulema like Ibn Taymeeya and Ibn Katheer believe that Prophets are humans just like us and on the other side they believe that for such men to pray for someone to inherit their possessions is improper and impious.

[End Quote]

Answer:

Imam Ibn Kathir(rah) didn’t mean to say that regarding the dua(prayer) of Zakariya(as), but what he said was in regards to a Prophet fearing inheritance of his money by his relatives.

Isma`eel ibn `Umar bin Katheer (774) said:

Similarly, Abu Bakr al-Asamm(279) said:

“This is incorrect, it is not possible that Zakariya would fear for the inheritance of his money by his Mawali; and he’d ask his Lord for a son simply to inherit money.( AL-TA’WEELAT LIL-MATURIDI).

Ali al-Kaya al-Harrasi (504) made a very intresting and worth pondering point, He stated:

فطلب من الله تعالى ولداً يقوم بالدين بعده, فيرثه النبوة, ويرث من آل يعقوب, ولا يجوز أن يهتم بالدعاء هذا الاهتمام, ومراده أن يورثه المال, فإن ذلك مباين لطريقة الأنبياء

Comment: This means that Zakariya(as) wouldn’t have been so desperate in his dua(prayer) nor would he fear for it, if it was anything relating to inheriting money.

As for Zakariya(as) being fearful of the money going to his relatives, this is actually un-natural as prophets do not care for wealth or money and they don’t collect it just like our Prophet (saw) passed away without leaving any fortune behind.

Argument 24:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

We would like to challenge the assertion of al Khider, would it be impious for a religious man to:

Worry about what will happen to his elderly wife in the eventuality of him dying?

Worry about his material possessions being utilised for immoral / irreligious purposes after his death?

[End Quote]

Answer:

(i). Firstly, this point leaves no room for the belief of Ilm al-ghayb, that the one who is worrying possess knowledge of unseen or future, which is a big blow on Shias who hold such belief. Secondly, in such case the worry mentioned should have been in regards to his wife not his relatives, which is found in the Quran.

(ii). Wealth belongs to Allah, and after his death Zakariya(as) wouldn’t have been questioned over what his relatives did from their share. It can also be said that, Zakariya could have easily spent these possessions on charity for the cause of Allah which would raise his rank in the sight of Allah, no need to ask for an heir, or he could have asked Allah to guide his relatives so they may be good and again no need for a son. Secondly, again if even in this case the worry mentioned should have been in regards to material possessions not his relatives, which is found in the Quran.

Argument 25:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

If Prophethood is inherited, and Zakariyya (as) prayed for one to inherit Prophethood, not material possessions, we will be forced to accept that Prophet Zakariyya committed a sin by making this du’a. Al Khider logic is that standard of Prophethood goes to the surviving relatives via inheritance which in this case would have been the nephews of Zakariyya (as). Why then, would Prophet Zakariyya (as) make a du’a that they be kept aloof from this station, why was he opposing Allah (swt)’s desire that they inherit Prophethood after him? Why was Zakariyya (as) unhappy that his inheritance of Prophethood was going to his nephews? Rather than act in such a jealous manner, should he not have simply accepted the will of Allah (swt)?

[End Quote]

Answer:

Out of their ignorance, Shiapen has made a seriously blasphemous argument; the problem with Shiapen is that, they make wild claims out of ignorance. Actually they haven’t understood, why Zakariya(as) feared, and what was the reason for his fear, thus we would like to educate them inorder to remove their misunderstanding regarding this issue.

(i). Ala’-ul-Deen `Ali bin Muhammad al-Khazin (725) stated:

(ii). Sulayman bin Ahmad al-Tabarani (360) stated:

Therefore, we found that Zakariya(as) didn’t fear that his relatives would inherit Prophethood, as Shiapen assumed; rather the correct view is that, he feared for the religion after him, and for the fate of his people and wished to be comforted by seeing a man succeed him in teaching them the message. Hence he prayed to Allah to grant him a successor who would inherit his Prophethood and the Prophethood from the family of Yaqoob(as), as a successor not as a biological heir. He also asked Allah to honor him and favor him by keeping the prophet-hood within his lineage.

Argument 26:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

We also need to question the character of Prophet Zakariyya (as) under the second portion of the Du’a “so give me an heir as from Thyself,- (One that) will (truly) represent me, and represent the posterity of Jacob; and make him, O my Lord! one with whom Thou art well-pleased!”

If Prophet Zakariyya was making a supplication that his son inherit the station of Prophet as was the case with the descendants of Yaqoob (as) he would have no need to then conclude with these words “and make him, O my Lord! one with whom Thou art well-pleased!” since Allah (swt) is automatically pleased with one He (swt) appoints as a Prophet, so what was the sense in Prophet Zakariyya praying that he be given a son who (according al Khider logic) will inherit his Prophethood AND Allah (swt) will be pleased with him.

[End Quote]

Reply 1:

This argument shows the level of ignorance of Shiapen. The Qur’an is not for placing it on head during the Laylatul Qadr, rather it is a book to read, understand and seek guidance from it. If shias put aside the enmity of Abubakr(ra) and read Quran they would soon realize the stupidity of their arguments.

Hence let us cite few examples from Quran, inorder to enable Shiapen realize their stupidity:

(i). The supplication of Sulayman(as):

My Lord, enable me to become grateful to Your favor that you have bestowed on me and on my parents, and to do good deeds that You like, and admit me, with Your mercy, among Your righteous servants.(Quran: 27:19)

(ii). The supplication of Ibrahim(as) and Ismail(as):

And when Ibrahim and Ismail raised the foundations of the House: Our Lord! accept from us; surely Thou art the Hearing, the Knowing. Our Lord! and make us both submissive to Thee and (raise) from our offspring a nation submitting to Thee, and show us our ways of devotion and turn to us (mercifully), surely Thou art the Oft-returning (to mercy), the Merciful.(Quran 2:127-128)

In these verses of Quran we see that, Prophets made supplications using the words which signifies humbleness, but Shiapen might object the Prophethood of Sulayman(as) claiming if he was already a Prophet then why did he use such words, as Prophehood is granted to those who are righteous servant. Or they might object the Prophethood of Ibrahim(as) or Ismail(as) claiming if they were already Prophets then why would they ask Allah to make them submissive, since Prophethood is granted to those who are submissive. These two examples of Quran, shows how stupid and ignorant the folk from Shiapen are.

Therefore, the answer to the foolish argument by Shiapen is that, Zakariya(as) used those words out of humbleness.

Reply 2:

Fakhr al-Razi says in his Tafseer:

أن المراد واجعله رضياً من الأنبياء وذلك لأن كلهم مرضيون فالرضي منهم مفضل على جملتهم فائق لهم في كثير من أمورهم

[What is meant by asking Allah to make him a well pleasing prophet, although Allah is pleased with all of them yet still the one whom He is well pleased with is preferred over the rest, exceeding them in many ways.]

Argument 27:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Allah (swt) never grants Prophethood to unjust people

We would ask our readers to ponder over the supplication of Prophet Zakariyya (as) in this verse:

Now I fear (what) my relatives (and colleagues) (will do) after me: but my wife is barren: so give me an heir as from Thyself,-

The supplication of Zakariyya (as) was made as he feared his relatives becoming his heirs. Al Khider is suggesting that he (as) was supplicating for heir as in Prophet. This would mean that Prophet Zakariyya (as) was fearful of that his nephews would inherit Prophethood after him! How is that possible, when we know that they were not of good character? Allah (swt) does not just pick anyone for the position of Prophethood, this is a divine rank give to those blessed woth perfection, it is not just inherited as like property to the surviving relative. If we are to accept al-Khider’s understanding then we will have to accept that he feared his nephews of ill character would inherit Prophethood after him! Is that logical?

[End Quote]

Reply 1:

Shiapen is on a wild goose chase, they seem to be ignorant about the correct interpretation of the verse regarding the fear of Zakariya(as). The correct interpretation is that, Zakariya(as) was worried for the fate of his people and wished to be comforted by seeing a man succeed him in teaching them the message.

(i). Ala’-ul-Deen `Ali bin Muhammad al-Khazin (725) stated:

(ii). Sulayman bin Ahmad al-Tabarani (360) stated:

Hence, we find that Zakariya(as) didn’t fear that his relatives would inherit him or his Prophethood, as Shiapen assumed; rather the correct view is that, he feared for the religion after him, hence he prayed to Allah to grant him a successor who would inherit his Prophethood and the Prophethood from the family of Yaqoob(as), as a successor not as a legal or biological heir, he also asked Allah to honor him and favor him by keeping the prophet-hood within his lineage.

Reply 2:

Shiapen tried to argue that prophet-hood cannot be attained by mere supplication, thus Zakariya(as) couldn’t have asked Allah to grant him a prophet from his progeny as this would mean that Zakariya opposed Allah’s decision of who must be a prophet.

We say in response, it is not un-natural to believe that Zakariya(as) asked his Lord for a successor to succeed him in prophet-hood. And asked Allah to honor him and favor him by keeping the prophet-hood within his lineage.

The problem with the Shia argument is that it is not written anywhere that a man cannot ask God to grant him a pious son and honor him by making his son a great prophet, rather this is liked and the only reason Muslims never do it today is because Muhammad(saw) is the seal of prophets.

The second problem is that it does not mean that he opposes Allah’s decision, as Allah(swt) never told him of his decision, but he had the right to ask his Lord for this great favor and the answer was up to Allah. Otherwise we can say that Allah decided to not grant Zakariya(as) a son and by asking his Lord for one he has opposed his Lord’s decision, does this make sense to Shiapen?

Similar to the verse of Ibrahim (as) in the Qur’an:

{And [mention, O Muhammad], when Abraham was tried by his Lord with commands and he fulfilled them. [Allah] said, “Indeed, I will make you a leader for the people.” [Abraham] said, “And of my descendants?” [Allah] said, “My covenant does not include the wrongdoers.”}

Shia scholar al-Tabrasi says in his Tafseer:

أي واجعل من ذريتي من وُشح بالإمامة ويوشح بهذه الكرامة

[Meaning, and make from my progeny ones that are granted Imamah and granted this virtue.]

Shia scholar al-Tusi said similarly in al-Tibyan:

معناه واجعل من ذريتي من يؤتم به، ويقتدى به على قول الربيع وأكثر المفسرين

[Meaning, and make from my progeny ones that are leaders, who are followed as an example, according to the saying of al-Rabi` and the majority of scholars of Tafseer.]

Shia scholar Tabataba’i said:

فإن إبراهيم عليه السلام إنما كان سأل الإِمامة لبعض ذريته لا لجميعهم

[For Ibrahim peace be upon him had only asked for some of his progeny to become Imams, not all of them.]

So if according to them, one can ask his Lord to make him an Imam, when Imamah is greater than prophet-hood according to Shias, then Zakariya’s request isn’t at all odd.

Argument 28:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Al Khider’s guesswork that Prophet Zakariya was too poor to leave any inheritance

Prophet Zakariya (as) also had reasons for asking Allah to grant him an heir to inherit him and His family.

It is well know that Zakariyya ‘alayhis salam was a poor man who earned his living as a carpenter. What wealth could he have had that would prompt him to request an heir from Allah? In fact, it was a general rule with the Ambiya that they did not hoard anything beyond their need, and that they spent any surplus in charity.

Reply One

We would like al Khider to inform us which time machine he had got into that enabled him to confidently conclude the meagre livelihood of Prophet Zakariya? Al Khider has sought to assess the skilled trade of carpentry in this day and age to that time. Wage structure throughout the ages has been linked to demand. In this age of post modernity the lucrative professions are linked to those in business, sports or professional in the IT, legal or medical profession. Carpentry has become redundant due to the development of machine technology. This was not the case during the time of Zakariyya (as). People during that time would make money through the management of agricultural land, rearing livestock and through skilled trades such as carpentry. This was not an era when people could purchase furniture through shopping retailers, or via the internet. Items such as chairs, table, beds etc were made by hand, through skilled carpenters, such as Prophet Zakariyya (as).

[End Quote]

Answer:

The view presented by Al-Khider isn’t something odd; this was brought up by other Imams of Tafseer as well.

(i). Ibn Qutaybah al-Dinawari (213-276) said:

“It is not found that he said: Inherits my money.” What wealth is this that Zakariya possessed so that he may ask Allah for a son to inherit? It must have been a grand amount then for him to compete for it like the children of this world do. Rather Zakariya was a carpenter and a rabbi and both of these indicate that he had no money.(TAFSEER `ALI BIN AHMAD AL-WAHIDI).

(ii). Abdul-Rahman bin `Ali ibn al-Jawzi (510-597) stated:

أنه لم يكن ذا مال. وقد روى أبو هريرة عن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أن زكريا كان نجارا

He(zakariya) was never known for being a man of wealth and money. Abu Hurayrah narrated from the Prophet (saw) that Zakariya was but a carpenter.(TAFSEER ZAD-UL-MAYSIR LI-IBN AL-JAWZI).

(iii). Isma`eel ibn `Umar bin Katheer (700-774) stated:

الثاني أنه لم يذكر أنه كان ذا مال، بل كان نجاراً يأكل من كسب يديه، ومثل هذا لا يجمع مالاً، ولا سيما الأنبياء، فإنهم كانوا أزهد شيء في الدنيا

It was never mentioned that he(zakariya) was a person with money, on the contrary it was mentioned that he was a carpenter who survived from his own hard work and sweat, people like this never gather fortunes especially prophets as they are not attached to the material world. (Tafseer Ibn katheer).

However, Shiapen argued that, Wage structure throughout the ages has been linked to demand. People during that time would make money through skilled trades such as carpentry; In response we say that, the flaw in this argument is that, Shiapen is equating life of a Prophet with the life of a common man or Non-prophet. The life of the Prophets was not like the life of common people, who dedicate most of their time earning money. Whereas, the Prophets dedicate most of their time in inviting people to Allah, teaching the religion, then they dedicate a good portion of time in performing acts of worship, then their time is even spent on their family, as Prophets are those who fulfil all their duties in the best way, and then the remaining small amount of time they use it for making money and to fulfil the basic needs for their family. The best example is that of Prophet Muhammad(saw), who was known to be a shepherd and also a Businessman. But after he was assigned the responsibility of Prophethood, how much time was he able to give to any of these professions?

Hence in the light of these facts , we can say that Zakariya(as) couldn’t have spend most of his time in carpentry to make a good amount of money, like a common carpenter would, but a very small portion of time, through which we was able to fulfil the basic needs of his family.

And on the top of that, Prophets used to spent any surplus money in charity, the best example is of Sulayman(as). We read:

ثنا أَبُو بَكْرِ بْنُ مَالِكٍ، قَالَ: ثنا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ حَنْبَلٍ، قَالَ: حَدَّثَنِي عَلِيُّ بْنُ مُسْلِمٍ، قَالَ: ثنا سَيَّارٌ، قَالَ: ثنا جَعْفَرٌ، قَالَ: ثنا أَبُو عِمْرَانَ الْجَوْنِيُّ، قَالَ: ” مَرَّ سُلَيْمَانُ بْنُ دَاوُدَ عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ فِي مَوْكِبِهِ وَالطَّيْرُ تُظِلُّهُ وَالإِنْسُ وَالْجِنُّ عَنْ يَمِينِهِ وَعَنْ شِمَالِهِ، فَمَرَّ بِعَابِدٍ مِنْ عُبَّادِ بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ، فَقَالَ: وَاللَّهِ يَا ابْنَ دَاوُدَ، آتَاكَ اللَّهُ مُلْكًا عَظِيمًا فَسَمِعَ سُلَيْمَانُ كَلامَهُ، فقال: ” لَتَسْبِيحَةٌ فِي صَحِيفَةٍ أَفْضَلُ مِمَّا أُوتِي ابْنُ دَاوُدَ، إِنَّ مَا أُوتِي ابْنُ دَاوُدَ يَذْهَبُ وَالتَّسْبِيحَةُ تَبْقَى “، قَالَ: وَكَانَ نَبِيُّ اللَّهِ سُلَيْمَانُ بْنُ دَاوُدَ عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ يُطْعِمُ الْمَجْذُومِينَ وَالْيَتَامَى النَّقِيَّ وَيَأْكُلُ الشَّعِيرَ، وَلَمْ يَدَعْ يَوْمَ مَاتَ دِينَارًا وَلا دِرْهَمًا

In al-Hilyah in a Hasan Hadith from al-Asbahani, that Ahmad bin Ja`far bin Hamdan bin Malik, from ibn Ahmad bin Hanbal, from `Ali bin Muslim al-Tusi, from Sayyar bin Hatim, from Ja`far bin Sulayman, from `Abdul-Malik bin Habib abu `Imran al-Jouni (d.128), that he said in a long Hadith: […The Prophet of Allah Sulayman bin Dawud (as) used to feed fresh food to the lepers and orphans while he ate food from the lowest quality, and the day he died he never left a Dinar or Dirham.]

This is similar to our Prophet Muhammad(saw), as in Sahih al-Bukhari we read:

عَنْ عَمْرِو بْنِ الْحَارِثِ، خَتَنِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم أَخِي جُوَيْرِيَةَ بِنْتِ الْحَارِثِ قَالَ مَا تَرَكَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم عِنْدَ مَوْتِهِ دِرْهَمًا وَلاَ دِينَارًا وَلاَ عَبْدًا وَلاَ أَمَةً وَلاَ شَيْئًا، إِلاَّ بَغْلَتَهُ الْبَيْضَاءَ وَسِلاَحَهُ وَأَرْضًا جَعَلَهَا صَدَقَةً‏

Narrated `Amro bin Al-Harith: (The brother of the wife of Allah’s Apostle. Juwayriah bint Al-Harith) When Allah’s Apostle died, he did not leave any Dirham or Dinar (i.e. money), a slave or a slave woman or anything else except his white mule, his arms and a piece of land which he had given in charity.(Sahi Bukhari).

Similarly we even read in Shia hadeeth:

حدثنا أحمد بن زياد بن جعفر الهمداني رضي الله عنه قال حدثنا علي بن إبراهيم بن هاشم عن الريان بن الصلت قال سمعت الرضا عليه السلام يقول ما بعث الله عز وجل نبيا الا بتحريم الخمر وان يقر له بان الله يفعل ما يشاء وأن يكون في تراثه الكندر
Ahmad ibn Ziyad ibn Ja’far al-Hamadani – may God be pleased with him – narrated that Ali ibn Ibrahim ibn Hashem quoted on the authority of his father, on the authority of al-Ryan ibn al-Salt that he had heard Al-Reza (s) say, “All the Prophets which the Honorable the Exalted God sent, forbade wine and confessed that God would do whatever He wills. The Prophets (s) would leave behind ‘al-Kondor (chewing gum) as inheritance (implying that they would leave nothing behind).”[Uyun Akhbar al-Reza, Chapter 30, page 630]

Argument 29:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Zakariya (as) prayed for offspring to inherit his worldly possessions

We read in Surah Aal-e-Imran 003.038:

There did Zakariya pray to his Lord, saying: “O my Lord! Grant unto me from Thee a progeny that is pure: for Thou art He who heareth prayer!
Al-Qur’an, Surah 3, Ayah 38, translated by Yusufali

Similarly we read in Surah Anbiya verse 89:

And (remember) Zakariya, when he cried to his Lord: “O my Lord! leave me not without offspring, though thou art the best of inheritors.”
Al-Qur’an, Surah al-Anbiya, Ayah 89, translated by Yusufali

Zakariya (as) prayed for a helper and someone to inherit his worldly possessions.

We read in Tafseer Gharaib al Quran::

“Differences have arisen amongst the Tafseer scholars as to whether he prayed for a son to be his Waris, or whether he prayed for a successor, whether it was a son or someone else. The first viewpoint is more likely as it is supported by Aal-e-Imran “O my Lord! Grant unto me from Thee a progeny that is pure’ this verse in Surah Anbiya also confirms this O my Lord! leave me not without offspring, though thou art the best of inheritors.”

We read in Tafseer Khazan:

“The intention of Hadhrat Zakariya was that Allah (swt) may not leave him in a situation where he has no son as helper, and grant him an inheritor”

We read in Tafseer Kabeer:

وأحب من يؤنسه ويقويه على أمر دينه ودنياه ويكون قائما مقامه بعد موته

“Like, to have someone who amuses him and supports him in religious and worldly matters and to take His place after His death”

[End Quote]

Answer:

If all the verses are brought together which speak about the prayer of Zakariya(as), the conclusion would be that, Zakariya(as) wished for Allah to grant him a successor to amuse him and support him and carry on his teachings, he also asked God to honor him and favor him by keeping the prophet-hood within his lineage. Lets us quote the same verse which Shiapen quoted from Surah (3) Aale Imran, verse 38 along with the next verse39, to clear this up. We read in Quran:

{There did Zakariya pray to his Lord, saying: “O my Lord! Grant unto me from Thee a progeny that is pure: for Thou art He that heareth prayer! While he was standing in prayer in the chamber, the angels called unto him: “God doth give thee glad tidings of Yahya, witnessing the truth of a Word from God, and (be besides) noble, chaste, and a prophet,- of the (goodly) company of the righteous.”} (Al-Qur’an, Surah 3, Ayah 38-39, translated by Yusufali.)

Comment: If the intention of Zakariya(as) was to have son to inherit his money, then Allah(swt) would have responded to his prayer by saying that Zakariya will have a son, but Allah(swt) responds by saying that his son would be a Prophet, which clearly proves that, he prayed for a successor from his progeny. This can even be proven from the other verse of Quran which says:

Wa-innee khiftu almawaliya min wara-ee wakanati imraatee AAaqiran fahab lee min ladunka waliyyan

“Lo! I fear my kinsfolk after me, since my wife is barren. Oh, give me from Thy presence a successor”
Al-Qur’an, Surah 19, Ayah 5, translated by Pickthal

Secondly, as we said previously, the correct view cannot be material inheritance, since the Son of Zakariya could not have inherited the material wealth of the family of Yaqoob(as), which could only be inherited by their near relations and not by Son of Zakariya(as). It is against the law of inheritance for distant relations to receive any part of inheritance in the presence of close relatives.

Ali al-Kaya al-Harrasi (450-504) stated:

ولأنه جمع وراثته إلى وراثة آل يعقوب, ومعلوم أن ولد زكريا لا يرثهم

WHAT DID YAHYA RECEIVE FROM ZAKARIYA?

To prove through the Qur’anic context that what Yahya(son of Zakariiya) received was authority and knowledge, we quote what Allah told Yahya(as) in the next verse:

{O Yahya hold fast to the scripture with determination and we have given him the (authority of) judgment while still a boy} [19:12]

From the verse we see Yahya(as) was given the scripture, meaning the mastery of its teachings and the wisdom to guide others through it, Yahya(as) was also given when still a boy the ability to rule between people and judge.

Also if Zakariya(as) was so worried about the inheritance of money from the family of Ya`qoub then why would Allah grant him a son who wouldn’t have kids such as Yahya? And Yahya was never married, so does this mean all wealth from Zakariya and the family of Ya`qoub was lost? Not at all, for Yahya ruled and spread the message then died without a son but was succeeded by `Isa (as).

Argument 30:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Why did Imam ‘Ali (as) and Abu Bakr not concur with Al Khider’s understanding of theses verses?

The Following narration, informs us of the conversation between Imam Ali (as) and Abu Bakr during the Fadak dispute. We are quoting Ibn Sad’s Tabaqat Al-Kabeer, Vol-11, p393, by S. Moinul Haq:

English translation:
Muhammad Ibn Umar informed us; (he said): Hisham Ibn Sa’d related to me on the authority of Abbas Ibn ‘Abd Allah Ibn Ma’bad, he on the authority of Ja’ffar; he said: Fatima came to Abu Bakr and demanded her share in the inheritance. Al-Abbas Ibn Abd al-Muttalib came to him and demanded his share in the inheritance. 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 (Solomon) inherited Dawud (David); and Zakariya said: He may be my heir and the heir of the children of Ya’qub. 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 quite and retired.
Tabaqat Ibn Sa’ad, Vol. 2, Page 393

During the Fadak dispute Hadhrat ‘Ali (as) cited the verses of inheritance relating to Sulayman (as) and Zakariya (as) saying ‘This is the book of Allah that speaks’ and Abu Bakr offered no explanation as to the meaning of these verses or interpreted them in reply as alkhider has done. What can be deduced from Abu Bakr’s silence?

[End Quote]

Answer:

This narration is a fabrication and a concoction.

-The first narrator is Muhammad bin `Umar al-Waqidi the historian, a man accused of fabricating narrations.

-Ahmad bin Hanbal said: He is a liar.

-Yahya bin Ma’een said: He used to take the hadith of Ma’amar and attribute it to Yunus; he is not trustworthy.

-Ali bin Al-Madeeni said: Al-Haytham bin Adi is more reliable than Al-Waqidi, and I don’t take hadiths, genealogy, or anything from him.

-Al-Shafi’ee said: All his books are lies.

-Al-Nasa’ee included him as one of the four infamous liars.

-Abu Dawud: I have no doubts that he fabricated hadiths.

-Ishaq bin Rahawaih said: He is a fabricator of narrations.

-Abu Hatim said: He fabricated.

All of the above quotes can be found in the Tahdheebayn (Tahdheeb al-Kamal & Tahdheb al-Tahdheeb).

The truth about Waqidi is that he was a Shiite, as the famous Shia scholar, Ibn Nadeem has quoted in his book “al-Fehrest”

قال ابن النديم: إن الواقدي كان يتشيع، حسن المذهب، يلزم التقية

Ibn Nadeem said : Waqidi was a Shia of good mazhab, and he would practice taqiyah

-The second narrator is Hisham ibn Sa`d al-Qurashy, he makes much mistakes that his narrations aren’t accepted without support.

-Then `Abbas bin Ma`bad is Thiqah, but he narrates this narration from Ja`far, and this Ja`far is unknown.

-The unknown Ja`far narrates from Fatimah and `Ali which shows a great gap in the chain, meaning it is disconnected.

-This narration opposes the most authentic of detailed narrations as there was no mention of such an argument in them.

Argument 31:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

The verses under discussion formed the basis on which the earlier Hanafi Imams believed that the material possessions of Prophets can be inherited

It is strange that our opponents always paint a happy and concrete picture to portray a unanimous opinion in their sect that the verse under discussion does not talk about material possessions and prophets’ material possessions can never be inherited. But to place a blemish on such a portrait we would like to present words of Imam Sarkhasi, who in his authority work al-Mabsoot, Volume 12 page 29 stated:

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 Sheikhs may Allah’s mercy be upon them have commented on his (Prophet’s) statement “we prophets do not leave inheritance whatever we leave is for charity” and said that it means, whatever they leave for charity can’t be inherited but it doesn’t mean that prophets’ property cannot be inherited, Allah has said {And Solomon was David’s heir} and the Almighty (swt) said {therefore grant me from Thyself an heir Who should inherit me and inherit from the children of Yaqoub} so God forbids that Holy Prophet (s) opposed Quran in his (aforementioned) statement.

Although Sarkhasi himself didn’t concur with the opinion of his early Sheikhs and upheld the interpretation of the verses that are usually made by our opponents but our objective behind citing this reference is to only highlight the fact that there have prevailed in the ranks of the Sunni clergy, Imams who did believe that the verses under discussion talk about material possessions.

[End Quote]

Answer:

This question is related to the popular narration: “We offer no inheritance, what we leave is (spent in) charity.”

Most people understand this narration in a certain way. However, a minority of scholars from Ahlul-Sunnah as well as the Shia scholar al-Shareef al-Murtada claimed that the Prophet(saw) meant that whatever he leaves behind as a charity cannot be taken by his heirs but his heirs may inherit the rest. It is as if they’re saying that he(saw) left a certain amount as charity but the rest of his belongings are inherited normally like anybody else’s belongings.

This was an odd and incorrect interpretation of these scholars, that is why it was a minority opinion, which was refuted by Sarkashi himself, as admitted by Shiapen. It is written in the book of Tabaqat by al-Taqi al-Ghazzi, that the Sunni scholar abu `Ali al-Husayn bin al-Khadir al-Hanafi debated one of the biggest Shia scholars, al-Shareef al-Murtada about it:

وقد ناظر مرة الشريف المرتضى، شيخ الشيعة، وقطعه، في حديث ” ما تركنا صدقة ” ، وقال للمرتضى: إذا جعلت ” ما ” نافية خلا الحديث من فائدة، فإن كل أحد لا يخفى عليه أن الميت يرثه أقرباؤه، ولا تكون تركته صدقته، ولكن لما كان الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم بخلاف المسلمين، بين ذلك، فقال: ” ما تركنا صدقة ”

[He debated once the Shaykh of the Shia al-Shareef al-Murtada and defeated him regarding the Hadith “What we leave is charity.” He told him: If you explain it as such then the narration would have no benefit, it is not hidden from anyone that the relatives of a dead person inherit him, and his belongings are never given as charity. However, since the messenger of Allah(saw) is unique, he(saw) clarified this and said: “What we leave is Sadaqah(charity).”]

In other words the odd view of this minority group makes no sense, it is as if he(saw) said: “We do not eat what we feed the poor.” Well obviously nothing informative or beneficial at all can be derived from such a narration.

Argument 32:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

The inheritance left by Hadhrat Adam (as)

Surah Baqarah 002.248 reads:

And (further) their Prophet said to them: “A Sign of His authority is that there shall come to you the Ark of the covenant, with (an assurance) therein of security from your Lord, and the relics left by the family of Moses and the family of Aaron, carried by angels. In this is a symbol for you if ye indeed have faith.”
Al-Qur’an, Surah 2, Ayah 248, translated by Yusufali

These relics reached the hands of Hadhrat Adam (as) and his descendants and as proof we shall rely on the following esteemed Sunni works:

Tafseer Kabeer Volume 2 page 506 & 507

Tafseer Khazan Volume 1 page 216

Tafseer al-Thalabi, Volume 2 page 212

Al Jamah la Hukam Al Qur’an, by Qurtubi 2nd edition, Page 247, Published Beirut

Tafseer Kabeer:

“The historians narrate that Allah (swt) sent some relics to Adam (as) which contained pictures of the Prophets, and these relics were inherited by the children of Adam, to the point that they reached Hadhrat Yaqoob (as)”
Tafseer al-Kabeer, Vol. 2, Page 506 & 507

We read in Tafseer Thalabi:

It was with Adam till he died, then it was with Sheeth, then the progeny of Adam inherited it till it reached to Ibrahim, when Ibrahim died it was with Ismaeel, because he was is his elder son, then when Ismaeel died, it was with his son Kedar, then Isaac’s progeny disputed with him about it and said: ‘Prophethood has gone from you and you have no other than this single light (the light of Muhammad) hence give us the covenant’, thus Kedar rejected to submit it to them and said: ‘It’s a legacy from my father and I would never give it to any one….’

Qurtubi, in his commentary of this verse states:

This Covenant was sent by Allah (swt) to Prophet Adam (as), and it remained with him until it reached Prophet Yaqoob (as), after which it remained with Bani-Israel, and they kept overcoming their opposing armies due to the blessings of this chest, until they disobeyed Allah (swt), and were defeated by Amaliqans, who took the chest from them.

Did no paupers exist during the period of Hadhrat Adam (as) till Hadhrat Yaqoob (as)? If the possessions of Prophets are Sadaqah for the Ummah, then why were these relics not distributed as Sadaqah when these prophets died?

[End Quote]

Answer:

The first thing one will notice is that, the verse(2:248) quoted by Shiapen has nothing to do with Adam(as) apparently nor anything to do with inheritance, rather if one reads it he understands that some chest will appear in a mystical way carried by the angels and this chest is a sign that Talut’s kingship over them is correct.

Bani Isra`eel that were quite corrupt at the time disliked this and said:

{How can he have kingship over us while we are more worthy of kingship than him and he has not been given any measure of wealth?}

Observe that these simpletons were proud and thought they were superior because they had more money, but money does not matter for prophets it only concerns those whose hearts are attached to the worldly life, Allah has given Talut something more valuable than money, he gave him knowledge of religion and this is what a true ruler requires:

{Indeed, Allah has chosen him over you and has increased him abundantly in knowledge and stature. And Allah gives His sovereignty to whom He wills.}

Where does Prophet Adam (as) come into the picture?

Well the scholars of interpretation, based on what they heard from narrations and opinions, they had several opinions regarding this mysterious chest:

Some said what was in the chest was what is left by the house of Harun and the house of Musa from scripture and religious texts.

Some said in it were the tablets and the stick of Musa and his clothes and some parts of the Torah.

Some said there was tranquility and calmness in the chest, a mysterious thing which no one knows.

Some said glad tidings from the books of Musa and Harun and past prophets of their victory over their opponents.

Some said that inside were pictures of prophets that Allah sent to Adam, then his children inherited it and it was passed from prophet to prophet.

In addition to several other opinions…

Obviously Shiapen chose the one with Adam in it because it has the word “inherited”, not knowing that this is not an argument, simply because this is a different case, it is not the forbidden inheritance which is that of money and lands, but relics and it is technically an inheritance of knowledge since it only contains pictures with the identity of all prophets. Also it should be known that the relics or momentos have different rules and the laws of inheritance don’t apply to them, and these are not shared by all the heirs.

Even if it had something else in it, this opinion would still be invalid, as this is a metaphorical inheritance not a true inheritance, this is a case of Allah sending down special relics for the prophets, and each prophet or his successor transfers the relics to the one after him without applying the legal laws of inheritance on the box’s contents as instructed by Allah.

This is similar to the ring, swords and shoes of Prophet Muhammad (saw), they are not inherited, rather transmitted from Caliph to Caliph even if they’re unrelated until they ended up in Topi Kapi palace today in Turkey. Each Caliph inherits them from his predecessor in a metaphorical way and they belong to all Muslims.

We read in Tafseer al-Tabari a narration authentically attributed to Imam ibn Jurayj (76-150), he says that ibn `Abbas used to say that this Ark or chest contained the remains of the broken tablets of Musa.

وكان موسى حين ألقـى الألواح تكسرت، ورفع منها، فنزل، فجمع ما بقـي، فجعله فـي ذلك التابوت

[And Musa when he threw the tablets they broke, so he climbed down and collected what remained and placed it in that chest.]

Ibn Jurayj narrates it then from Ya`la bin Muslim from Ibn Jubayr from ibn `Abbas that only a sixth of these tablets remains in the chest. In this same narration he mentions that it was a chest from Adam and whether this is the saying of Ibn Jurayj or ibn `Abbas, it shows that it is an inheritance of knowledge and scripture, not that of wealth and lands.

Also in the same book in a Sahih Hadith of Humayd and bin Buzay` both from Bishr from Dawud from `Ikrimah from ibn `Abbas regarding its contents, he said:

رضاض الألواح

[The broken pieces of the tablets.]

This was also narrated by Ya`qoub from Khalid from ibn `Ulayyah from `Ikrimah and also from other chains all to ibn `Abbas.

In another authentic narration it adds: “broken pieces of the tablet and the stick of Musa.”

These objects are not to be inherited, like the belongings of our Prophet (saw), they are transmitted from Khalifah to Khalifah, not to be divided among the heirs rather transmitted from prophet to prophet.

Proof is that Musa never gave this chest to his son, he gave it to the next prophet Yusha` bin Nun, in al-Tabari as well we read in an authentic Hadith from Bishr from Yazid from Sa`eed from Qatadah (61-117) that:

كان موسى تركه عند فتاه يوشع بن نون

[Musa had left it (the chest) with Yusha` bin Nun.]

Either way, it is not the forbidden inheritance of wealth and money, rather this is to keep these blessed relics in the hands of believers throughout the ages. And relics or momentos have different rules and the laws of inheritance don’t apply to them, and these are not shared by all the heirs, Moreover these were inherited by the successors of Prophets not because they were biological heirs, but because of being the successors of Prophets, and as we can see, not all the biological heirs inherited them but only the successors of those Prophets individually inherited them.

Hence this cannot be used to argue, that the property of Prophets or wealth is inherited by their biological heirs.

Argument 33:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Prophet Isaac (as)’s daughter inherited his Strap/Belt

We read in Holy Quran :

[Yusufali 12:77] They said: “If he steals, there was a brother of his who did steal before (him).”…

Allamah Qadhi Thanaullah Panee Patee in commentary of above mentioned verse explains as to why the brothers of Yusuf (as) said “If he steals, there was a brother of his who did steal before (him)…”. Qadhi writes:

Muhammad bin Isaac narrates from Mujahid that following the death of Yusuf’s mother, he (as) started living with his paternal aunt (Bint Isaac), she loved him a great deal, and it was she who nourished him, when he grew older, Hadhrat Yaqub (as) started loving him deeply and requested his sister: “Sister! Now han over Yusuf to me, as his absence from my sight for even a moment has become unbearable for me.” Hadhrat Yaqub’s (as)’s sister deemed this impossible, whereas Hadhrat Yaqub(as) said that he could not leave Yusuf (as). His sister asked that she be allowed to keep Yusuf for a few more days, as Allah might grant her patience in regards to him. Hadhrat Yaqub (as) agreed to this. Hadhrat Isaac (as)’s strap (cloth worn around the waist) was to be inherited by the eldest child, being elder than Hadhrat Yaqub (as), his sister had inherited that strap and it was in her possession. She tied this strap around Hadhrat Yusuf’s (as) waist, underneath his clothes and then proclaimed that Hadhrat Isaac’s (as)’s strap had gone missing and that family members be searched. All the household were checked and the strap was recovered from Hadhrat Yusuf (as), hence Hadhrat Yaqub’s (as) sister proclaimed that from now on Yusuf (as) was to live with her. Hadhrat Yaqub (as) replied that if he had indeed done such an act, he should remain with her (Under the Shari’ah of Hadhrat Isaac (as) the owner of an appropriated belonging owned the thief as well), through this planning she kept Hadhrat Yusuf (as) till her death.
Tafseer Mazhari, Volume 6 Page 121

[End Quote]

Reply 1:

Shiapen quote this verse:

{They said: “If he steals, there was a brother of his who did steal before (him).”}

Shiapen says, what was stolen is the waist belt of Ishaq(as) that was inherited by his eldest daughter. This is according to a narration of Muhammad bin Ishaq from Mujahid.

When we check Tafseer al-Tabari we find this narration and this is its chain:

حدثنا ابن حميد، قال: ثنا سلـمة عن ابن إسحاق، عن عبد الله بن أبـي نـجيح، عن مـجاهد أبـي الـحجاج

The problem here is narrator Muhammad ibn Humayd who is Matrouk(abandoned), his narrations are rejected, as for Salamah bin al-Fadl his narrations are only acceptable with support, and there is no support for him in this narration, in addition Ibn Ishaq is a Mudallis and he never declared hearing. Thus it is extremely weak.

We find another chain for it in Tafseer ibn abi Hatim which goes like this:

حَدَّثَنَا عَلِيُّ بْنُ الْحُسَيْنِ، ثنا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عِيسَى، ثنا سَلَمَةُ، عَنِ ابْنِ إِسْحَاقَ، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ أَبِي نَجِيحٍ، عَنْ مُجَاهِدٍ

It also has Salamah bin al-Fadl and Muhammad bin Ishaq with the same weakness as before.

On the other hand, we read a different story in al-Tabari from Sa`eed ibn Jubayr that he said:

سَرَقَ يُوسُفُ صَنَمًا لِجَدِّهِ أَبِي أُمِّهِ، كَسَرَهُ وَأَلْقَاهُ فِي الطَّرِيقِ، فَكَانَ إِخْوَتُهُ يَعِيبُونَهُ بِذَلِكَ

[Yusuf stole an idol for his father’s father; he broke it and threw it on the road, his brothers used to reproach him for this.]

We also read the same from Qatadah, in an authentic narration from Ibn Tawr from Ma`mar from him that he said:

سَرَقَ صَنَمًا لِجَدِّهِ أَبِي أُمِّهِ

[He stole an idol from his grandfather from his mother’s side.]

Also we read in an authentic narration from ibn Jurayj:

كانت أم يوسف أمرت يوسف يسرق صنـماً لـخاله يعبده

[Yusuf’s mother was a Muslim and she ordered him to steal an idol belonging to his maternal-uncle who worshipped it.]

In other words the strongest narrations mention that he stole a stone idol from a relative from his mother’s side, as for the long story of his aunt’s inheritance, it is weak.

Reply 2:

Prophet Isaaq’s(as) strap was a relic and relics or momentos have different rules and the laws of inheritance don’t apply to them, and these are not shared by all the heirs, so these relics were not inherited by all heirs. This is the reason only the eldest daughter Ishaaq(as) got it.

Let us cite a Shia Scholar who explains the concept of Habwa from Minhaj al-Salihin by Sayyed Khoei, Volume 2 page 412:

يحبى الولد الذكر الأكبر وجوبا مجانا بثياب بدن الميت وخاتمه وسيفه ومصحفه

The elder son is given the Habwa for free that is the cloth, the ring, the sword and the Quran of the dead.

Hence this cannot be used to argue, that the property of Prophets or wealth is inherited.

Argument 34:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Prophet Ibrahim (as)’s shirt was inherited by Isaac (as) till it reached Prophet Yaqub (as)

We read in Holy Quran:

[Shakir 12:93] Take this my shirt and cast it on my father’s face, he will (again) be able to see, and come to me with all your families.

Qadhi Thanaullah under the commentary of above mentioned verse writes in Tafseer Mazhari, Volume 6, Page 135-136, published by Daar ul Isha`t Karachi:

“…Take this shirt of mine and spread it over my father’s face, this would make his vision come back”, or it means that his father would return to him being able to see. Hasan said that Hadhrat Yusuf (as) might have been told by Allah Almighty, that is why he said that his father would be able to see, he couldn’t have said such a thing without being informed by Allah. Mujahid says that Hadhrat Jibrael(as) had conveyed Allah’s order to Hadhrat Yusuf (as) to send his shirt to Hadhrat Yaqub (as). This shirt belonged to Hadhrat Ibrahim (as), when he was about to be thrown into the fire, his clothes were taken off, then Hadhrat Jibrael (as) had brought a silk shirt for him from the heaven, the shirt remained with Hadhrat Ibrahim (as), after his death the shirt was inherited by Hadhrat Isaac (as) and it went to Hadhrat Yaqub (as) afterwards.”
Tafseer Mazhari, Volume 6, pages 135-136

[End Quote]

Reply 1:

Even this was a relic, similar to relics of Prophet Muhammad(saw) which weren’t inherited. Relics or momentos have different rules and the laws of inheritance don’t apply to them, and these are not shared by all the heirs, as can be understood from the quote itself, these relics were not inherited by all heirs.

Reply 2:

Shirt was inherited by the successors of Prophets not because they were biological heirs, but because they were the successors of Prophets and as we can see, not all the biological heirs inherited it but only the successors of those Prophets individually inherited it.

Hence this cannot be used to argue, that the property of Prophets or wealth is inherited by their biological heirs.

Argument 35:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Al Khider’s false claim that Prophets never kept anything beyond their need

Ansar.org:

In fact, it was a general rule with the Ambiya that they did not hoard anything beyond their need, and that they spent any surplus in charity.

Reply

Al Khider has very confidently advanced this as a ‘fact’ and ‘general rule’, could he therefore cite us a single verse in the Qur’an or authentic Hadeeth literature whereby Prophet’s were ordered not to live beyond their need and spend their surplus in charity? Prophet Dawood (as) and Prophet Sulayman both had Kingdoms with all the perks that come with this position, e.g. Palaces, land, money etc.Was such a royal lifestyle not beyond their need? We have already mentioned that Prophet Sulayman (as) had 1000 horses in his possession, was such lavishness not beyond his need?

[End Quote]

Answer:

Though there is no verse of Quran where Prophets were ordered not to live beyond their need and spend their surplus in charity, but it’s not wrong to say that, it was their conduct and the way Prophets preferred to lead the life.

Prophets used to spent any surplus money in charity, the best example is of Sulayman(as). We read:

This is similar to our Prophet Muhammad(saw), as in Sahih al-Bukhari we read:

Similarly we even read in Shia hadeeth:

Argument 36:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Biblical Proof that Prophets leave inheritance for their children

The Bible provides a detailed insight into the lives of Prophets and their properties. It is strange that there is not even a single clue to substantiate Abu Bakr’s claim (i.e. the properties of all the prophets from Adam (as) till Muhammad (s) were distributed as Sadaqah and that their children received no share).

On the contrary we see at various points that when Prophets die their properties do not become charitable donations but are inherited by their offspring. It seems that throughout the history of mankind, Abu Bakr stands alone with his claim that prophets’ children don’t inherit them. No one from amongst Muslims confirmed the correctness of his claim, no one else narrated this from the Prophet, and no such evidence can be deduced from the Bible either.

[End Quote]

Answer:

Although the opponents disliked the use of the bible and other books when it came to show that Dawud had many children, yet they like to use it to prove that prophets inherit; sadly the bible holds absolutely no weight in Islam. No biblical verse may contradict any Qur’an or Hadith.

According to Islam, the Bible is corrupted and distorted book which is confirmed by the Quran, it is a Christian myth that the Quran claims the Bible is not corrupt. Although the Torah, Gospel and Psalms were all given by God, which no Muslim denies, however these books did become corrupt over time. And the ORIGINAL Torah, Gospel, and Psalms no longer exist.

Allah(swt) says in Holy Quran:

“There is among them a section who distort the Book with their tongues: (As they read) you would think it is a part of the Book, but it is no part of the Book; and they say, “That is from Allah,” but it is not from Allah: It is they who tell a lie against Allah, and (well) they know it! “ [Surah 3,Ayah 78]

Ibn `Abbas said, “Why do you ask the people of the scripture about anything while your Book (Qur’an) which has been revealed to Allah’s Messenger(saw) is newer and the latest? You read it pure, undistorted and unchanged, and Allah has told you that the people of the scripture (Jews and Christians) changed their scripture and distorted it, and wrote the scripture with their own hands and said, ‘It is from Allah,‘ to sell it for a little gain. Does not the knowledge which has come to you prevent you from asking them about anything? No, by Allah, we have never seen any man from them asking you regarding what has been revealed to you!”(Sahih al-Bukhari 7363).

Now, let us look at what GOD Said in the Bible:

“How can you say, ‘We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us’? But, behold, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie. (From the RSV Bible, Jeremiah 8:8)”

We clearly see that the Jews had so much corrupted the Bible with their man-made cultural laws and fabrications, that they had turned the Bible into a lie! See Also Deuteronomy 31:25-29 where Moses predicted the corruption/tampering of the Law (Bible) after his death. The Book of Moses predicted that the Law (Bible) will get corrupted. The Book of Jeremiah which came years after did indeed confirm this corruption.

The presently available translated versions of Bible are almost innumerous and they contain self-contradictions as well as inter-contradictions among them. Moreover, This corrupted book of Bible not only is filled with historical inconsistencies but also with plenty of absurdities, i.e. Prophets’ sinning : Drunken Noah, Solomon and Paganism, Moses kills women and boys , David kills tens of thousands and many more of such made-up stories, which can be read here.{Click Here}

Regarding the historical discrepancies in Bible’s books and gospels they:

Do contain alterations, fables and man-made injections in them.
Written by mysterious men.
Written by an unknown number of men.
Written in unknown places.
Written in unknown dates.

Summarizing it, The ORIGINAL Torah, Gospel etc no longer exist. Bible on other hand has been corrupted and tampered over the years; rather what we have is Christian’s own invention with their hands. Thus it just cannot be used as evidence in our religious matters or forming religious opinions or verdicts.

Argument 37:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Some incidents from the Bible

Now let us quote some of the incidents from Bible, which clearly prove that children of earlier prophets also inherited from them.

Solomon (as) inherited the Kingdom from David (as)

Al-Khider wants to prove that Dawud (as) had hundreds of sons which is also wrong. according to Bible, he had 6 sons while he was in Hebron.

2 Samuel 3:2-5 says:

Two Sons were born to David in Hebron:
His firstborn was Amnon the son of Ahinoam of Jezreel;
his second, Kileab the son of Abigail the widow of Nabal of Carmel;
the third, Absalom the son of Maacah daughter of Talmai king of Geshur;
the fourth, Adonijah the son of Haggith;
the fifth, Shephatiah the son of Abital;
and the sixth, Ithream the son of David’s wife Eglah.

And in Jerusalem, again he got 13 children.

1 Chronicle 14:4 reads:

These are the names of the children born to him there (Jerusalem): Shammua, Shobab, Nathan, Solomon, Ibhar, Elishua, Elpelet, Nogah, Nepheg, Japhia, Elishama, Beeliada and Eliphelet.

Moreover, also see “2 Samuel 5″ (which claims 11 children in Jerusalem). This makes total children of Dawud (as) around 17 to 19. This tallies with the tradition of the Shi’a Imams in Minhajus Sadiqeen (presented earlier) which also tells that there were 19 children of Dawud (as).

According to Bible, the Kingdom of Dawud (as) was not left as Sadaqah, but it was the same Kingdom which was inherited by Sulayman (as). We will prove it later, but first we will tell the whole story behind this Kingdom which shows that none of the children of Dawud (as) considered this inheritance to be the Sadaqah for poor.

[End Quote]

Answer:

This example actually refutes the Shia argument. As explained earlier, Sulayman(as) inherited the Kingdom as being the successor of Dawud(as) and not because of being the biological heir of Dawud(as), and the successor is the sole inheritor, and the other biological heirs doesn’t get a share from it. What further strengthens our view is that Sulayman(as) inherited Dawud(as) while Dawud(as) was still alive, which implies that he inherited as successor not as biological heir. Moreover, even here we find that out of 17 to 19 children of Dawud(as) only one got the inheritance, proving that the inheritance was metaphorical.

Let us quote a Shia hadeeth for a better understanding, we read in a narration from Shia book al-Kafi:

Comment: Notice that the family of Marwan is not supposed to inherit Yazid, Yazid had closer relatives who were entiteled to inherit him, but this is talking of inheriting political authority.

Secondly, kingdom is not a private property but rather it is state property, hence it won’t be given to poor in charity.

Argument 38:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Adonijah [son of David (as) and elder brother of Solomon (as)] tried to occupy the Kingdom

“1 Kings 1″ tells that when David (as) got older, one of his sons Adonijah conspired and tried to occupy the Kingdom. Let us see what Bible is saying:

And Adonijah slew sheep and oxen and fat cattle by the stone of Zoheleth, which is by Enrogel, and called all his brethren the king’s sons, and all the men of Judah the king’s servants: 10 But Nathan the prophet, and Benaiah, and the mighty men, and Solomon his brother, he called not. 11 Wherefore Nathan spake unto Bathsheba the mother of Solomon, saying, Hast thou not heard that Adonijah the son of Haggith doth reign, and David our lord knoweth it not?

… And Bathsheba said unto him, My lord, thou swearest by the LORD thy God unto thine handmaid, saying, Assuredly Solomon thy son shall reign after me, and he shall sit upon my throne. 18 And now, behold, Adonijah reigneth; and now, my lord the king, thou knowest it not:

…And king David said, Call me Zadok the priest, and Nathan the prophet, and Benaiah the son of Jehoiada. And they came before the king. 33 The king also said unto them, Take with you the servants of your lord, and cause Solomon my son to ride upon mine own mule, and bring him down to Gihon: 34 And let Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet anoint him there king over Israel: and blow ye with the trumpet, and say, God save king Solomon. 35 Then ye shall come up after him, that he may come and sit upon my throne; for he shall be king in my stead: and I have appointed him to be the ruler over Israel and Judah.

Hence Solomon (as) became the heir of Dawood’s (as) kingdom and it refutes the claim by Mr. Al-Khider that Qur’an was talking about Solomon (as) as heir to David (as) only in terms of Knowledge and Prophethood.

[End Quote]

Answer:

The example Shiapen quoted from Bible, actually destroys Shia view because Bible clearly states that, the dispute between Solomon(as) and his elder brother was regarding Kingdom, which implies that it wasn’t shared between the biological heirs of Dawud(as). Rather, the kingdom was inherited by the Sulayman(as) as successor of Dawud(as) or the next King.

Hence we read in Bible, 1 Kings 33-35:

The king said to them, “Take Solomon and my officials down to Gihon Spring. Solomon is to ride on my own mule. There Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet are to anoint him king over Israel. Blow the ram’s horn and shout, ‘Long live King Solomon!’ Then escort him back here, and he will sit on my throne. He will succeed me as king, for I have appointed him to be ruler over Israel and Judah.”

1 Kings 47-48: Also, the royal officials have come to congratulate our lord King David, saying, ‘May your God make Solomon’s name more famous than yours and his throne greater than yours!’ And the king bowed in worship on his bed and said, ‘Praise be to the LORD, the God of Israel, who has allowed my eyes to see a successor on my throne today.’

Argument 39:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Not only Solomon Inherited Dawud (as), but also Rehobo’am (son of Solomon) inherited from his father

It is Interesting to see the following verses of Bible which confirms that Solomon’s son also inherited the same kingdom from Solomon (as):

2 Chronicles 9:31:
And Solomon slept with his fathers, and was buried in the city of David his father; and Rehobo’am his son reigned in his stead.

2 Chronicles 10:1:
Rehobo’am went to Shechem, for all Israel had come to Shechem to make him king.

The chapter 10 of Book of Chronicles 2 tells that Rehoboam was not a prophet but a fallible person. And he was not chosen by Allah, but by people as the inheritor of kingdom of Solomon (as).

[End Quote]

Answer:

Again even in this example we find, that Rehobo’am(son of Solomon) inherited the kingdom as the successor. We read in Bible:

1 Kings 11:43: Then he rested with his ancestors and was buried in the city of David his father. And Rehoboam his son succeeded him as king.

Rehobo’am inherited the kingdom as the successor not as biological heir, since the kingdom was not divided among all the children of Solomon and his wives. Three of Solomon’s children are named: his successor Rechavam, and two daughters named Taphath and Basemath, who married two of Shlomo’s officials, and it is mentioned in Bible that Solomon had 700 wives.

We read in Bible:

1 Kings 4:11: Ben-Abinadab–in Naphoth Dor (he was married to Taphath daughter of Solomon).

1 Kings 4:15: Ahimaaz–in Naphtali (he had married Basemath daughter of Solomon)

1 Kings 11:3: He had 700 wives, who were princesses, and 300 concubines. And his wives turned away his heart.

But, in the example quoted by Shiapen, Rehobo’am is mentioned as the only heir, which proves that he wasn’t a biological heir, but rather a political heir or successor.

Argument 40:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Jacob’s land (as) was given to his Descendants as inheritance (and not given to the poor as Sadaqah)

Bible also confirms that Inheritance of Jacob (as) was also given to his descendants, instead of being divided amongst the poor as charity.

Book of Joshua 24:32:
The bones of Joseph which the people of Israel brought up from Egypt were buried at Shechem, in the portion of ground which Jacob bought from the sons of Hamor the father of Shechem for a hundred pieces of money; it became an inheritance of the descendants of Joseph.

In other places in Bible, we find the whole history of this Land of Shechem and why Prophet Joseph’s(s) bones were brought to this place after his death.

“Genesis 34″ give full details how Jacob (as) came to this land of Shechem, and how he bought it and why he had to leave it later.

And before Joseph died (at the age of 110), he made a ‘will’ that his bones must be brought to this Promised Land. This whole incident can be found in Genesis 50.

Genesis 50:24-25:
Joseph said to his brothers: “I am about to die. God will surely take care of you and lead you out of this land to the land that he promised on oath to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Then, putting the sons of Israel under oath, he continued, “When God thus takes care of you, you must bring my bones up with you from this place.”

[End Quote]

Answer:

Firstly, there is no proof that Joseph got that land as inheritance from Jacob, rather this was the land which was given to Joseph by Jacob, which would be considered as gift not inheritance. We read in Bible:

John 4:5: So he came to a town in Samaria called Sychar, near the plot of ground Jacob had given to his son Joseph.

We read in Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary:

cometh … to—that is, as far as: for He remained at some distance from it.

Sychar—the “Shechem” of the Old Testament, about thirty-four miles from Jerusalem, afterwards called “Neapolis,” and now “Nablous.”

We read in Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible:

Then cometh he to a city of Samaria, which is called Sychar,…. Now called Neapolis (d); the same with “Sichem”, or “Shechem”, as appears from its situation, near to the parcel of ground that Jacob gave to his son Joseph; see Genesis 33:18; and is either the same, only its termination is changed from “em” into “ar”, as Achan into Achar, 1 Chronicles 2:7. Or it is a new name that was given it, and by which it went in the time of Christ; and might be so called, either from “Socher”, which signifies a grave; because here, Joseph and the rest of the patriarchs were buried, Joshua 24:32.

Comment: Therefore, the land in which Joseph was buried was given to Joseph by Jacob, He didn’t inherit it.

Secondly, there appears to be a contradiction in Bible over this issue, since we read in Bible that, Abraham bought that land from sons of Hamor in Shechem, and that was a place were people were buried. We read in Bible:

Acts 7:15-16: So Jacob went to Egypt. He died there, as did our ancestors died. Their bodies were taken to Shechem and buried in the tomb Abraham had bought for a certain price from Hamor’s sons in Shechem.

This shows that, the land was a burial place, which implies it was turned in to a graveyard, and graveyards are waqf, they cannot be inherited by the heirs in a literal sense, where the land is divided between the heirs. So it should be interpreted as gaining possession, which implies descendants of Joseph gained possession of that land as caretakers, inorder to maintain that land. And our interpretation of this verse from Joshua 24:32 is supported by the Bible Version of “Douay–Rheims”. Hence we read:

Douay-Rheims Bible
Joshua 24:32: And the bones of Joseph which the children of Israel had taken out of Egypt, they buried in Sichem, in that part of the field which Jacob had bought of the sons of Hemor the father of Sichem, for a hundred young ewes, and it was in the possession of the sons of Joseph.

Even if the contrary verses from “Acts” regarding Abraham and his descendants being buried in that land are discarded, still it won’t effect our explanation, since Joseph was buried in that land, hence it cannot be inherited in literal sense, nor could it be given to the poor in charity. So it should be interpreted as the descendants of Joseph gained possession of that land as caretakers, inorder to maintain it, which is supported by the version of Douay-Rheims Bible. This is the reason we find that in that land the rest of the patriarchs were buried, which means that place was turned into a burial place or grave yard.

Argument 41:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

A Property of Abraham (as) was maintained by his children and was not distributed as charity

“Genesis 49″ tells us that Abraham (as) bought a property from Hittite. After his death, this property was not distributed as charity, but remained in the hands of his descendants.

Genesis 49:29-33:
The Death of Jacob
Then he gave them these instructions: “I am about to be gathered to my people. Bury me with my fathers in the cave in the field of Ephron the Hittite, 30 the cave in the field of Machpelah, near Mamre in Canaan, which Abraham bought as a burial place from Ephron the Hittite, along with the field. 31 There Abraham and his wife Sarah were buried, there Isaac and his wife Rebekah were buried, and there I buried Leah. 32 The field and the cave in it were bought from the Hittites.”

When Jacob had finished giving instructions to his sons, he drew his feet up into the bed, breathed his last and was gathered to his people.

[End Quote]

Answer:

This land was dedicated for burial, hence we read in Bible:

Genesis 49:30-31: the cave in the field of Machpelah, near Mamre in Canaan, which Abraham bought along with the field as a burial place from Ephron the Hittite. There Abraham and his wife Sarah were buried, there Isaac and his wife Rebekah were buried, and there I buried Leah.

Genesis 50: 13: They carried him to the land of Canaan and buried him in the cave in the field of Machpelah, near Mamre, which Abraham had bought along with the field as a burial place from Ephron the Hittite.

Genesis 23: 20: The field and the cave that is in it were made over to Abraham as property for a burying place by the Hittites.

This implies that, this land was dedicated for a graveyard, and grave yard is considered as Waqf, it is not inherited by the heirs in literal sense and the land is not divided by the heirs. Neither is the land of grave yard distributed in charity to the poor.

We read in Sahih Bukhari: Umar gave it(some land of Khaiber) in charity as an endowment on the condition that would not be sold nor given to anybody as a present and not to be inherited.(Sahih al-Bukhari 2737)

Al-Tirmidhi said: “According to the scholars, it is not permissible to annul a waqf, based on this hadeeth and because it is established in perpetuity and is not to be sold or moved somewhere else unless its benefits cease altogether.

Similarly, we never heard that Fatima(ra) ever made a claim for her share from the graveyard, of Jannatul Baqi nor did the poor Muslims ever claim that Jannatul Baqi belongs to poor people only.

Thus, the land which the verses of Bible mention was dedicated for burial(i.e Waqf), this cannot be inherited in a literal sense by the heirs, nor can it be given in charity to people. But, yes this land can be maintained by the descendants whose ancestors were buried in that land. So that could remain under their possession.

Argument 42:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Prophet Job (as) also gave the share of inheritance to his daughters

Job 42:15:
And in all the land there were no women so fair as Job’s daughters; and their father gave them inheritance among their brothers.

[End Quote]

Answer:

The next verse from ‘Job’, disapproves the claim that Job gave share of inheritance to his children. We read in the next verse:

Job 42:16: After this, Job lived a hundred and forty years; he saw his children and their children to the fourth generation.

Comment: We find that, Job(as) lived 140 years after he gave the mentioned inheritance to his children, But it is a known fact that inheritance only happens after the death of a person and whatever distribution of wealth that takes place when the person is alive then it is considered as Gift.

Therefore, this is one of the examples which shows the errors made by the writers of Bible, and as it agreed by Muslim scholars that, they manipulated its words with additions and omissions as they manipulated its meanings. So the example used by Shiapen is invalid, because it cannot be considered as inheritance since it was given during the lifetime of Job, and it is to be considered as gift, thus the correct wording this verse of Bible should be, “gift” not ‘inheritance’.

Argument 43:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Allah Promised Abraham to give him a son in old age who would inherit him everything

Genesis 15:2:
Later the LORD spoke to Abram in a vision, “Abram, don’t be afraid! I will protect you and reward you greatly.” But Abram answered, “LORD All-Powerful, you have given me everything I could ask for, except children. And when I die, Eliezer of Damascus will get all I own. You have not given me any children, and this servant of mine will inherit everything.” The LORD replied, “No, he won’t! You will have a son of your own, and everything you have will be his.” Then the LORD took Abram outside and said, “Look at the sky and see if you can count the stars. That’s how many descendants you will have.” Abram believed the LORD, and the LORD was pleased with him.

The Qur’an also refers to similar Dua by Zakariya (as) when he prayed to Allah Almighty for a child, who may inherit from him, while he feared that all his possessions would go to his relatives.

[End Quote]

Answer:

The most appropriate explanation of these verses of Bible is that, Abraham prayed for someone from his progeny to inherit him as his successor, because Eliezer of Damascus wasn’t an evil person, so why would Abraham be displeased for this person inheriting him?

Secondly, Abraham said that the servant will inherit him, but he didn’t mention his wife inheriting him which implies that he was talking about successor-ship.

Thirdly and most importantly, God said to Abraham that, everything he owned would belong to that son, for whom he prayed and wished. Here the inheritor is exclusive, whereas we know that Abraham have other children too. Here are the names of Abraham’s children from Bible:

Genesis 16:16: Abram was eighty-six years old when Hagar bore Ishmael to Abram.

Genesis 21:5: Abraham was a hundred years old when his son Isaac was born to him.

Genesis 25:1-2: Abraham had taken another wife, whose name was Keturah. She bore him Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak and Shuah.

So we find that there were 8 sons of Abraham, yet Abraham gave all he had to only one, as we read in Bible.

Genesis 25: 5: Abraham gave all he had to Isaac.

This again proves that, what Abraham meant was regarding inheriting as successor, where the inheritance is not shared between the heirs, but it will belong only to the successor, who will manage it. What further proves our view is that, Abraham gave what all he had to Isaac when he was alive, where as inheritance occurs after death.

Fourthly, as per Bible Abraham prayed for a Son who will inherit him, and God responded him saying that he will have a son who will inherit everything he had, and interestingly the first Son after this prayer born to Abraham was Ishmael, so he should have been the one who would inherit Abraham, however we find that, the younger son Isaac who was born 14 years later, inherited all what Abraham had, which again proves that this was inheriting as successor, otherwise the older son Ishmael born right after the prayer of Abraham, would have inherited him.

Lastly, if Shiapen disagrees with the reasonable explanation we gave, and they hold the opinion that Isaac inherited from Abraham as being biological heir(son), then this report will be rejected as a fabrication and cannot be used as evidence, because Abraham couldn’t be unjust with his other sons by not allowing them share of inheritance, and giving all to Isaac. This story would be considered as a concoction, which was done inorder to support the false view that only Isaac was the true Son of Abraham.

Argument 44:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Do the References from Bible have any Importance?

The case of Bible is some what like Ahadeeth, which are not 100% authentic, but people added a lot in them according to their wishes. Similarly Bible went through a lot of corruption. But still there are a lot of things in Bible, which you will find completely in accordance with Qur’an and authentic Ahadeeth of Rasool Allah (saw).

We will not go in details about Bible here, but we must keep the following facts in mind:

Mostly the changes, that are made in Bible, concerns the part of Beliefs. But the stories about the inheritances of Prophets does not come under Beliefs. So there is very less probability that corruption took place in them.

[End Quote]

Answer:

Shiapen claims that “mostly” the corruption and tampering occurred in Bible are related to part of Beliefs. But mostly doesn’t mean “ALL”, so how can anyone believe in the stories which mention about Prophets being inherited?

Let us cite few examples where we find contradictions in Bible, which proves its corruption, and these aren’t regarding part of beliefs. These were quoted in the famous debate between Dr. Zakir Naik and Dr. William Campbell.

Ex 1 – ‘It is mentioned in Ezra, Ch. No.2, Verse No.1, and Nehemiah, Ch. No.7, Verse No.6, the context that… ‘When the people returned from exile, from Babylon, when king Nebucheldeser of Babylon, when he released the men from Israel, they came back from captivity’ – and the list of the people are given. The list is given in Ezra, Ch. No.2, Verse No.2 to 63, and Nehemiah Ch. No.7, Verse No.7 up to 65; the list is given with the names as well as number of people released. In these 60 Verses there are no less than 18 times – the name is exactly the same but the number is different. There are no less than 18 contradictions in less than 60 Verses, of these two Chapters.

Ex 2 – Further, if we read, in Ezra Ch. No. 2, Verse No. 65, it says…There were 200 singing men and women – Nehemiah Ch. No. 7, Verse No. 67…‘There were 245 singing men and women.’ Were they 200 – or were they 245 singing men and women? Context is the same – A mathematical contradiction.

Ex 3 – It is mentioned in the 2^nd Kings, Ch. No 24, Verse No 8, that…‘Jehoiachin was 18 years old, when he began to reign Jerusalem, and he reigned for 3 months and 10 days. 2^nd Chronicles, Ch. No 36, Verse No 9, says that…‘Jehoiachin was 8 years old when he began to reign and he reigned for 3 months, 10 days. Was Jehoiachin 18 years when he began to reign, or was he 8 years old?

Ex 4 – Further, it is mentioned in the 1^st Kings, Ch. No 7, Verse No 26, that…‘In Solomon’s temple, in his molten sea, he had 2000 baths. In 2^nd Chronicles, Ch. No 4, Verse No 5, he had 3000 baths. Did he have 2000 baths or did he have 3000 baths? –There is a clear-cut mathematical contradiction.

Ex 5 – Furthermore, it is mentioned in the First Kings, Ch. No. 15, Verse No. 33, that… ‘Basha, he died in the 26^th year of reign of Asa.’ And 2^nd Chronicles Ch. No 16, Verse No 1, says that…‘Basha invaded Judah in the 36^th years of the reign of Asa.’ How can Basha invade 10 years after his death? .

Though we have refuted the misunderstanding of Shiapen regarding the verses of Bible, disproving inheritance from Prophets for their biological heirs, yet for sake of argument we would like to raise the question that, How can any objective and rational person use Bible as an evidence to prove a ruling, which is contradicted by authentic ahadeeth of Prophet(saw), even after knowing the fact that Bible was corrupted, distorted, and additions were made to it?

Argument 45:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

There is a term “Tawatur” in Ahadeeth. It means that if any report comes through several different sources, then even if these chains have deficiencies still such report is considered to be authentic. Similar is the case of inheritance of Prophets in Bible. In presence of so many different reports about Prophets’ children getting the share in inheritance, it is unlikely that all these reports have been fabricated and included by people in the Bible.Please also note that the conditions/standards set for a “Muttawatir” report of ahadeeth (sayings of Rasool (s)) is strict, as it concerns the part of our Beliefs. But in case of historical events, these conditions are lenient. And the stories of inheritance in Bible come under these standards.

[End Quote]

Answer:

Deceitful Shiapen, is trying to apply the rules of ahadeeth to Bible, though Bible doesn’t even qualifies the basic criteria of reliability, neither from its chain of transmission nor from its text/content. Bible or its stories can’t even pass the condition of Sahih Hadith, let alone the condition of Tawattur, but desperate Shiapen attempts to support their false belief by misapplication of rules of ahadeeth on Bible.

Perhaps, Shiapen should agree with the idea of Noble Prophets of God, committing Major Sins as mentioned in Bible, since there are many different reports in Bible regarding Prophets of God committing major sins, so these must be Mutawattir too, as per new standard madeup by Shiapen.

The irony is that, Shias rejects Mutawattir reports regarding corruption of Quran in their books, even when tawattur in this regards was acknowledged by their giant scholars, but on the other hand they are advocating for the stories from Bible, that they could be relied upon, even though Muslims unanimously believe that Bible is corrupted.

Anyways, we would like to remind that readers, the examples Shiapen used to prove that Prophets were inherited by their children, have been answered and refuted above. By the help of Allah(swt), we have proven that the examples Shiapen used were regarding inheriting as successor not as biological heir. Thus the illusion that these stories in Bible are Mutawattir is shattered.

Argument 46:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Ibn Tamiyah in his book “al-qaida al-jaleela fit- tawwasali wal-waseela”, with commentary of Dr. Rabi’a bin Hadi ‘Umayr al-Mudkhali, professor in the Islamic University of Madinah al-Munawwara, Page 162, – gives a detailed discussion on the fact that it is acceptable to use a hadith whose authenticity is unknown, as long as the hadith is known not to have been an actual lie. On the same page paragraph 480 Ibn Taymeeya states same principle can be applied to Jewish traditions:“This is like the [situation] of the Isra’iliyyaat [stories related by the Jews]. It is permissible to be narrated as long as we know that it is not a lie, for encouraging or discouraging in what we know that Allah has ordered in our law [shar’] or forbade in our law [shar’].”

[End Quote]

Answer:

The purpose for the usage of Isra’iliyaat stated by Ibn Taymiyyah(rah) is completely different, to the purpose Shiapen is trying to use them. Ibn Taymiyyah allowed the usage of Isra’iliyaat, for encouragement or discouragement in what is known to be the law of Muslims; He didn’t say to use these reports for judging whether laws of Muslims are correct or not.

Infact Ibn Taymiyyah(rah) allows it to use by setting a condition that “as long as we know that it is not a lie” ; So how do we know whether its a lie or not? Simple, if these reports go against Quran or authentic reports of Prophet Muhammad(saw) then these are to considered false. And the examples from Bible which Shiapen misunderstood and used to prove their view, go against the authentic hadeeth of Prophet(saw), thus even according to the condition set by Ibn Taymiyyah(rah), the examples used by Shiapen are invalid and rejected.

Imam Ibn Kathir stated:

A lot of these reports were transmitted from the salaf (pious predecessors), and most of them come from the Israiliyyat, which may have been transmitted in order to be examined [i.e., as opposed to being accepted as is]. Allah knows best about the veracity or otherwise of many of them. Some of them are definitely to be rejected, because they go against the truth which we hold in our hands. In the Quran we have what is sufficient so that we have no need for previous reports, because hardly any of them are free of distortions, with things added or taken away. Many things have been fabricated in them, for they did not have people who had memorized things precisely by heart (huffaz) who could eliminate the distortions created by extremists and fabricators, unlike this ummah (nation) which has its imams (religious leaders), scholars, masters, pious and righteous people, brilliant critics and men of excellent memory who recorded the hadeeths (reports) and classified them, stating whether they were saheeh (sound), hasan (good), da’eef (weak), mawdoo’ (fabricated) or matrook (to be ignored). They identified the fabricators and liars, and those about whom nothing was known, and other kinds of men (i.e., narrators). All of this afforded protection to the Prophet(saw), the seal of the Messengers and the leader of Mankind, so that nothing would be attributed to him falsely and nothing would be transmitted from him that he did not say or do. May Allah be pleased with them and make them pleased [by rewarding them], and make the Paradise of al-Firdaws their eternal abode. (Tafseer al-Quran il-‘Azeem).

Argument 47:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

The misuse of Shi’a traditions to prove that prophets leave no inheritance

The author of Fedak had made this bold claim:

When a Nabi (Alayhis-Salaam) passes away, the property he leaves behind is not inherited by anybody. This fact is written in Shi’i literature as well.

Reply

This claim is a shameless lie and complete failure of the author to cite any source points to the fact that he is merely regurgitating the vomit of his Nasibi Shaykh’s without actually looking in to the matter. Alhamdulilah, unlike the tradition coined by Abu Bakr, in Shia fiqh the progeny of prophets are not believed to have been derpived of their natural and religious right of inheriting from their father. The following tradition shall pose a big slap to the ugly face of those Nawasib who try to bring Shia school equal to theirs in this regard:

Zurara narrated that Abi Jaffar (as) said: ‘Ali inherited the knowledge of Allah’s messenger and Fatima inherited his property.’
1. Al-Kafi, Volume 7 page 86
2. Basair al-Darajat, page 314
3. Tahdib al-Ahkam, Volume 9 page 277
4. Min la Yahdrahu al-Faqih, Volume 4 page 261
5. Manaqib al Abi Talib, Volume 2 page 26
6. Allamah Majlisi declared it Hasan in Mirat al-Uqool, Volume 23 page 32

[End Quote]

Answer:

This hadeeth is apparently concocted because it singles out Fatima(ra) to be the sole inheritor of Prophet’s property and Ali(ra) has been singled out as the spiritual heir of Prophet(saw). Both were sole inheritors of their respective inheritance. This was explained in more detail in another Shia hadeeth, where we read:

5606 وروى أحمد بن محمد بن أبي نصر، عن الحسن بن موسى الحناط عن الفضيل ابن يسار قال: سمعت أبا جعفر (عليه السلام) يقول: ” لا والله ما ورث رسول الله (صلى الله عليه وآله) العباس ولا على (عليه السلام) ولا ورثته إلا فاطمة (عليها السلام) [2]، وما كان أخذ على (عليه السلام) السلاح وغيره إلا لأنه قضى عنه دينه، ثم قال عليه السلام: وأولوا الأرحام بعضهم أولى ببعض في كتاب الله

Shia scholar As-Sadooq narrated with his chain of narration from Abu Ja’far al-Baqir that he said: “No, by Allah, neither al-‘Abbas, nor ‘Ali, nor any of his heirs except Fatimah(ra) inherited from the Messenger of Allah(saw), The only reason why ‘Ali(ra) took the Prophet’s weapon and other things was to pay off his debts. Then He(as) said: “They relatives are nearer to each other according to the Book of God”. (Man la Yahduruhu al–Faqih vol 4, page 261).

So these reports are against the Quranic laws of inheritance, because other close relatives are also counted as heirs, for example wives, etc. And according to the rule set by Shia Imams, that which ever hadeeth contradicts quran, that hadeeth should be rejected. Then these Shia ahadeeth are rejected.

Secondly, this hadeeth excludes Fatima(ra) from the category of the Ulama(learned ones) since for the Ulama there is no wordly inheritance from Prophet(Saw). So will the Shias agree that Fatima(ra) was not from the Ulama(learned ones) but rather was a Seeker of knowledge ?

Hence, we leave the decision on the Shias to decide, whether Fatima(ra) was eligible to receive inheritance from Prophet(saw) or not.

Argument 48:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Al-Kulayni narrates in al-Kafi:
Abu ‘Abdillah (Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq) says that Rasulullah said: “… And the ‘Ulama are the heirs of the Ambiya; and the Ambiya did not leave dinars and dirhams as inheritance; but they left knowledge. Therefore whosoever takes knowledge has taken a great portion.” (al-Kafi, vol. 1 p. 42)
Regarding the authenticity of this Hadeeth, ‘Allamah Muhammad Baqir Majlisi states in his commentary on al-Kafi, entitled Mir’at al-’Uqul:[This] Hadeeth has two chains of narration. The first is majhul [contains an unknown narrator], and the second is hasan or muwaththaq. [Together] they do not fall short of being Sahih. (Mir’at al-’Uqul, vol. 1 p. 111).

Reply One

When the Nawasib find this Hadeeth, they dance with joy as if it is the festival of Eid but as we pointed out earlier, wherever the Shia text mentions the inheritance of prophets, it does from two perspectives:

The spiritual inheritors of prophets – This included their successors and the learned Ulema (scholars) since they inherit the knowledge of prophets NOT Dinars and Dirhams [i.e. material possessions] – Prophets do not leave Dinars and Dirham for this category of heirs /inheritors.

The biological inheritors of prophets – That obviously includes the biological offspring of Prophets that inherit all Dinars and Dirham [i.e. material possessions] and we have cited one such example of this category of heir/inheritor herein above. Unlike our opponents who would have us believe, there exists NO Shia text that has suggested that this category of heir/ inheritors are precluded from the right to inherit material possessions and that whatever is left by their Prophet father is to be distributed as charity. The comparison can therefore never be drawn with the theory coined by Abu Bakar with those that have been mentioned by the Imam in the Hadeeths cited by Nawasib.

[End Quote]

Answer:

When the Shias are reminded that the Hadith about Prophets not inheriting is in their own book Al-Kafi and is authenticated by their esteemed scholars, then they will make feeble attempts at rationalizing the Hadith. The Shias will say that the Sunnis are twisting this Hadith.They will argue that this Hadith in Al-Kafi is not referring to the laws of inheritance for relatives but rather have a symbolic meaning that scholars take the place of Prophets. The answer to this argument is that, the Hadeeth can also be explained in a way such as it, first refers only the Scholars as the heirs of Prophets; then it negates the worldly inheritance from Prophet(saw); So it can be said that, because the Prophets did not leave dinars or dirhams as inheritance and left knowledge that is why only the Scholars are the true inheritors of Prophets.

Secondly, the hadeeth wording, “Prophets did not leave dinars and dirhams as inheritance”, negates the possibility of this kind of inheritance from Prophets for their heirs. Because the words “did not leave…” are the words of negation and they imply that Prophets DIDN’T atall leave worldly possessions as inheritance. This fact is supported by another Shia hadeeth, which states that Imam Al-Reza (s) said, “All the Prophets which the Honorable the Exalted God sent, forbade wine and confessed that God would do whatever He wills. The Prophets (s) would leave behind ‘al-Kondor (chewing gum) as inheritance (implying that they would leave nothing behind).”[Uyun Akhbar al-Reza, Chapter 30, page 630]

Thirdly, Shiapen must ponder over the point that why would Prophet(saw) mention the negation of worldly inheritance(dinar & dirham) if he was only referring to the Scholars, since its known fact that the heirs are the ones who inherit worldly possessions not the Scholars, and most of times the children of Prophets could be Scholars. Yet, Prophet(Saw) specified that Prophets did not leave worldly possessions as inheritance, which clarifies that the only inheritance of Prophets is knowledge and the Scholars are the ones who inherit it.

Argument 49:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

If our opponents insist on placing an emphasis on this part of Hadith i.e. “Ambiya did not leave dinars and dirhams as inheritance” are they trying to say that the Dinar or Dirham any prophet had in his possession would automatically vanished when he took his last breath? Remember that our opponents here cannot come up with the answer that the possessions that remained were distributed forthwith as Saqda because this ‘distribution as Sadqa’ theory does not exist in the Shia school, rather it was the brain child of Abu Bakar and his supporters.

[End Quote]

Answer:

Shiapen is clutching at straws. The actual disagreement between Sunnis and Shias is regarding the issue that, whether Prophet(saw) can be inherited by his biological heirs or not?. But in regards to what will happen to that property is secondary issue, not the primary one. Even the debates which occur between Sunnis and Shias, revolve around the issue that, whether Prophet(saw) can be inherited by his biological heirs or not.

Argument 50:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Reply Three

These particular Hadith mentions scholars not family. The tradition is stressing that Prophet’s did not come on the earth to horde vast amounts of wealth for the scholars that succeeded them, the only riches they left for the Ulema was their inheritance of knowledge.

The above Hadeeth is clear in its own context that the Prophets did not leave any of their material belongings for the scholars but what they left’ for them’ was knowledge but THERE IS NO hadith in Shia text that would suggest that biological children of prophets are prohibited from inheriting the material possessions of their father and whatever they leave is to be distributed as Sadqa.

“If Muhammad Al-Khider was a great scholar of Islam and I happen to be a student of his, I would inherit from him the knowledge which he has but I would not inherit his material belongings that is where his family comes in.”

[End Quote]

Answer:

Shiapen must ponder over the point that why would Prophet(saw) mention the negation of worldly inheritance(dinar & dirham) if he was only referring to the Scholars, since its known fact that the biological heirs are the ones who inherit worldly possessions not the Scholars, and most of times the children of Prophets could be Scholars. Yet, Prophet(Saw) negated worldly possessions as inheritance from Prophets, which clarifies that, the only inheritance of Prophets is knowledge and the Scholars are the ones who inherit it.

And the example Shiapen used, assuming Muhammad Al-Khider as a great scholar, this example is against Shiapen, because this shows that it is something commonly known that the students of a scholar inherits knowledge, not material inheritance. Even during the era of Prophet(saw), there were people who mastered in different fields and they had students, So it was a known fact that the students would only inherit knowledge from their teachers, not worldly inheritance.

Argument 51:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Reply Four

These particular traditions do not address the personal life and personal properties of Prophets (in which some of them were kings and some of them were poor), but address the inheritance of Prophethood (in which all the prophets got knowledge).

[End Quote]

Answer:

Indeed! This tradition does address regarding the personal property of Prophets, this is the reason material possession such as Dinar or Dirham was mentioned.

Secondly, the wording of Shia hadeeth nowhere says, “inheritance of Prophethood”, which would obviously be knowledge; however the tradition is addressing the inheritance of Prophets not the inheritance of Prophethood; and the inheritance of Prophets encompasses their personal property too, that is why the material property as inheritance was negated in the Shia hadeeth.

Thirdly, in regards to the property of Prophets who were kings, then that isn’t relevant to the tradition because Kingdom is kind of state property which goes to the successor and is not divided among the biological heirs.

Argument 52:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Reply Five

When someone is dying it is common for his relatives to keep a check on his material possessions, such as land, business, property etc. What this Hadeeth is stressing is that Prophet’s leave something of greater valuable than these tangible assets, what they leave is their manners, teachings, and way of life.

When someone wishes to emphasize something of importance they will do so by highlighting / prioritizing that matter above all others. The Prophet (s) in this Hadeeth was saying that Prophets should not be measured in terms of their wealth (the way people tend to measure others); they should be measured subject to their permanent legacy [knowledge] that they transfer on to the Ulema.

The tradition is telling adherents to concentrate on their teachings rather than their personal possessions. Let us cite an example:

“A religious scholar has lived a simplistic lifestyle at the local Mosque. He spends his time teaching students about issues such as Islamic Fiqh and writing books. At the time of his death the only savings that he has are £100 in the local bank. If it is commented that the Scholar ‘Left no money, rather what left as inheritance was his knowledge that his students have inherited’ – This statement does NOT mean that he died penniless, he left something but that was an issue that was only of relevance to the legal heirs, what was of greater importance was his eternal legacy the knowledge that he had conveyed to his students and placed in writing that his faithful students had inherited”.

[End Quote]

Answer:

These far-fetched explanations would have been acceptable, if the Shia tradition didn’t contain the wording of negation for material inheritance, i.e. “Prophets did not leave dinars and dirhams as inheritance”, because the words “did not leave…” are the words of negation and they imply that Prophets DIDN’T leave worldly possessions as inheritance.

If Prophet(saw) was emphasizing the most important inheritance he is leaving(i.e knowledge), which was his eternal legacy, then there was no need to negate money as inheritance, he(saw) could have only addressed the inheritance of knowledge by saying this inheritance is much more important compared to the material inheritance ambiya left. There was no need for the negation of material inheritance.

Note: In the example brought by Shiapen, the religious scholar leaves the inheritance of £100, which is a very small amount; they did so, inorder to make their example appear logical. But on contrary according to Shiapen, Prophet(saw) left a huge property as inheritance, so if one substitutes this huge amount with the small amount in the example, then the example they used will no longer sound logical.

Argument 53:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Reply Six – Analysing the words in the tradition

“Verily the ‘Ulema are the heirs of the Ambiya. Although such traditions cannot be used before Shias to prove that prophets do not leave inheritence for their progeny since we already have made it clear from Shia text itself but l the tradition is still advanced as proof that children do not inherit the Prophet’s possessions, then we say that the tradition could also be interpreted to mean that the Ulema do not inherit from their own fathers since they inherit from the Prophets. Should we not also ask ourselves why should the Ulema be the sole inheritors of the Prophets? Does the Islamic Shari’ah allow for such a concept, when children are present, does the Shari’ah allow for them to be ignored and inheritance go to an unconnected party? When this is not logical then is it not against the principles of inheritance to believe that ordinary Ulema are the Heirs of Prophets and their fathers, and yet the Prophet’s actual offspring inherit nothing from their fathers’ as they are penalised for being the surviving children of Prophets? and get nothing?

That is because the Ambiya do not leave dirhams or dinars as inheritance, but they left knowledge. If no one inherits the Dirhams / Dinars of Prophets, it does not mean that if a Prophet owns land that carries financial benefits such as money from the sale of produce, the heirs have no right to inherit such land. Sayyida Fatima (as) did not make a claim for Dinar’s or Dirham, rather she made a claim for her father’s Estate that she was entitled to inherit as his heir. Just consider the example of Prophet Sulayman (as). He inherited the Kingdom of his father. Let us for arguments sake accept that he did not attain any money as inheritance, due to this Hadith, does this negate him inherting the capital asset (kingdom) of his father, whose value was that of Dinars and Dirhams? Based on this very fact, if we for arguments sake agree Prophets leave no Dinars or Dirhams that does not negate them leaving land, as was the case with Fadak.

Therefore whosoever takes knowledge has taken a great portion.” – These words do not prove that Prophet’s leave behind no material possessions. It is clear that is specifying. These words also fail to prove that Prophets leave no inheritance, the words are clear that the family of Prophet’s from the perspective of being scholars, are inheritors of the knowledge of Prophets, and from the perspective of being their descendants they inherit their material possessions.

[End Quote]

Answer:

1 Ans: We have proven that Shia tradition to be false and invalid, which Shiapen is talking about, since it goes against Quran. As for the other silly argument that “if the children of Prophet do not inherit the Prophet’s material possessions, then even the Ulema do not inherit from their own fathers since they inherit from the Prophets”, then we say that these are desperate attempts of Shiapen to some how distract the readers from the clear hadeeth which negates the material inheritance from Prophets. If the children of Prophets are Ulema, then even they would inherit knowledge and not material inheritance, that is why we ask Shias that, do they consider Fatima(ra) from the Ulema(knowledgeable ones) or not? And Ulema will inherit material possessions from their parents if their parents are Non-prophets, because the tradition negates material inheritance from Prophets, not from Non-Prophets.

2 Ans: The connotation of the wordings “did not leave dinars and dirhams as inheritance” is that, even the least form of inheritance wasn’t left, let alone properties which have great economical value. Hence when the least form of inheritance is negated, there is no chance for the possibility of other valuable form of inheritance such as properties. This fact is supported by another Shia hadeeth, which states that Imam Al-Reza (s) said, “All the Prophets which the Honorable the Exalted God sent, forbade wine and confessed that God would do whatever He wills. The Prophets (s) would leave behind ‘al-Kondor (chewing gum) as inheritance (implying that they would leave nothing behind).”[Uyun Akhbar al-Reza, Chapter 30, page 630]

By the way, Sulayman(as) inherited the kingdom in metaphorical way, as a Successor, not as a biological heir. Moreover, Kingdom is a kind of state property not private property.

3 Ans: It seems that Shiapen is seriously mistaken; It’s not the words “Therefore whosoever takes knowledge has taken a great portion” which prove that Prophet’s leave behind no material possessions, Rather it is these words “the Ambiya did not leave dinars and dirhams as inheritance” which prove that Prophet’s don’t leave behind material possessions.

Also the misinterpretation by Shiapen contradicts their previous answer:

Shiapen in this Reply states: [Quote] “the family of Prophet’s from the perspective of being scholars, are inheritors of the knowledge of Prophets, and from the perspective of being their descendants they inherit their material possessions.” [End Quote]

Shiapen in Reply One, stated: [Quote] The spiritual inheritors of prophets – This included their successors and the learned Ulema (scholars) since they inherit the knowledge of prophets NOT Dinars and Dirhams [i.e. material possessions] – Prophets do not leave Dinars and Dirham for this category of heirs /inheritors.[End Quote] {Screen Shot}

This is clear-cut contradiction by Shiapen, first they negated material inheritance from Prophets for scholars, but now they say that, even though the family of Prophet are the scholars, yet they inherit material possessions from Prophet(saw).

How could the family of Prophet’s inherit knowledge due to being scholars, and also inherit material possessions, while according to them, the tradition clearly negates inheritance of material possession for scholars?

Argument 54:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Reply Seven

If this Nasibi is suggesting that that Prophets only leave knowledge as inheritance not material possessions we will say that this only refers to what they leave for the Ulema, The tradition is basically informing then Ulema of the inheritance that the Prophet (s) has left for them, Prophetic knowledge. They only the heirs of knowledge not material possessions – yet the Prophet’s children inherit knowledge and the worldly possessions of Prophets.

[End Quote]

Answer:

Firstly, this reply again contradicts the previous reply of Shiapen. This reveals the confusion Shiapen is having regarding this issue. Shiapen should decide first that, Are the family of Prophet, including Fatima(ra) the Ulema(knowledgeable ones) or not? If they are Ulama then they just cannot inherit material possession from Prophet(saw). So Shiapen should first make up their mind, before giving contradictory answers.

Secondly, the tradition refers only the Scholars as the heirs of Prophets; then it negates the worldly inheritance from Prophet(saw); So in other words the hadeeth states that, because the Prophets did not leave dinars or dirhams as inheritance and only left knowledge that is why Scholars are inheritors of Prophets.

And the hadeeth wording, “Prophets did not leave dinars and dirhams as inheritance”, negates the possibility of this kind of inheritance from Prophets for their heirs. Because the words “did not leave…” are the words of negation and they imply that Prophets DIDN’T atall leave worldly possessions as inheritance.

Prophet(Saw) specified that Prophets did not leave worldly possessions as inheritance, which clarifies that the inheritance of Prophets is knowledge and the Scholars are the ones who inherit it.

Argument 55:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Reply Eight

Material possessions are inherited after someone dies whilst knowledge can be obtained during one’s lifetime; hence a tradition that proves the inheritance of knowledge does not disprove the inheritance of material possessions.

[End Quote]

Answer:

This point is invalid, because it is the tradition which is disproving the inheritance of material possessions. The tradition does both, proves the inheritance of knowledge and also disproves the inheritance of material possessions.

It seems Shiapen ran out of arguments, so they just added anything they could inorder to distract the readers from focusing on the clear text of the hadeeth.

Argument 56:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Reply Eleven

The tradition does not elaborate on where these Dinars / Dirhams go after a Prophet (s) dies! Are we to assume that these Dinars / Dirhams disappear into the Heavens, or are they buried with the Prophet (s)? Clearly they have to go somewhere and that somewhere is the heirs of the Prophet (s) – spiritual inheritance namely knowledge – goes to the Ulema as the tradition alludes to, but Dinar / Dirhams have no nexus with the Ulema, these material items need to be left somewhere, and they are, they are left with the legal heirs of a Prophets estate, namely his heir Sayyida Fatima (as).

[End Quote]

Answer:

This is a good question, but as usual Shiapen ended up giving the wrong answer. We would like to answer this question, in two replies.

Reply 1:

Prophet(saw) passed away without leaving dinar or dirham, So there wasn’t any money for anyone to worry about it.

In Tabaqat ibn Sa`d with an authentic chain we read:

أَخْبَرَنَا عَفَّانُ بْنُ مُسْلِمٍ، قَالَ: أَخْبَرَنَا ثَابِتٌ أَبُو زَيْدٍ، قَالَ: أَخْبَرَنَا هِلالُ بْنُ خَبَّابٍ، عَنْ عِكْرِمَةَ، عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ، قَالَ: ” مَاتَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ وَمَا تَرَكَ دِينَارًا، وَلا دِرْهَمًا، وَلا عَبْدًا، وَلا أَمَةً، وَلا وَلِيدَةً، وَتَرَكَ دِرْعَهُ رَهْنًا عِنْدَ يَهُوَدِيٍّ بِثَلاثِينَ صَاعًا مِنْ شَعِير

[Narrated `Abdullah ibn `Abbas: (The cousin of Allah’s Apostle) Allah’s Apostle (saw) passed away not leaving a Dinar or Dirham, nor a slave man or woman, he left his armor as mortgage with a Jew for thirty Sa` of barely seeds.]

In Tabaqat ibn Sa`d also with an authentic chain:

أَخْبَرَنَا الْفَضْلُ بْنُ دُكَيْنٍ، وَمُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ الأَسَدِيُّ، قَالا: أَخْبَرَنَا مِسْعَرٌ، عَنْ عَدِيِّ بْنِ ثَابِتٍ، عَنْ عَلِيِّ بْنِ الْحُسَيْنِ، قَالَ: تُوُفِّيَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ وَلَمْ يَدَعْ دِينَارًا، وَلا دِرْهَمًا، وَلا عَبْدًا، وَلا أَمَةً

[Narrated `Ali bin al-Husayn: (The prophet’s great grandson) Allah’s Apostle (saw) passed away not leaving a Dinar or Dirham, nor a slave or slave woman.]

Similarly we even read in Shia hadeeth:

Reply 2:

If Shiapen thinks that we missed the property left by Prophet(saw), well then here is the answer to it from Shia tradition. In Al-Kafi we read:

علي بن إبراهيه، عن أبيه، عن ابن أبي عنير، عن حفص بن البختري، عن أبي عبد الله عليه السلاو قال:

الأىفال ما له يوجف عليه بخيل ولا ركاب، أو قوو صالحوا، أو قوو أعطوا بأيديهه، وكل أرض خربة

وبطون الأودية فهو لرسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله وهو للاماو من بعده يضعه حيث يشاء

Esteemed Shia scholar Al-Kulayni(author of Al-Kafi) who is considered Thiqatul Islam by Shias, said:

Therefore, from Shia hadeeth we find that, the property of Prophet(saw) goes to the leader after him, that is his successor, so this isn’t literal inheritance, and there is no mention of biological heirs of Prophet(saw) inheriting it.

Argument 57:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Ibn al Hashimi’s absurd claim that the Usul al Kafi Hadith is the same as that cited by Abu Bakr

At no point does the Hadith state that inheritance left by Prophets is Sadaqah (charity) for the poor people of the Ummah (as Abu Bakr claimed). The wording ‘What we leave behind is charity’ found in Sunni collections is an interpolation. Ibn al Hashimi would like his Sunni readership to believe that this Hadith mirrors the one cited by Abu Bakr but the reality is that it does not in any way support the position of Abu Bakr. The Hadith (according to Ibn al Hashimi’s interpretation) would suggest that the Prophets leave absolutely nothing, save their knowledge, but the Hadith that Abu Bakr advanced ‘What we leave behind is charity’ – would suggest that Prophets do leave something behind, after all they have to leave something for it to be handed over as Sadaqah when they die! The two Hadith do not in any way compliment one another as ibn al Hashimi is suggesting, rather they contradict one another.

[End Quote]

Answer:

As said earlier, the actual disagreement between Sunnis and Shias is regarding the issue that, whether Prophet(saw) can be inherited by his biological heirs, or not?. But, in regards to what will happen to that property is secondary issue, not the primary one. Hence the Shia ahadeeth according to one interpretation, gives the same ruling, that Prophets don’t leave behind material inheritance. We read:

Shia hadeeth states: Rasulullah(saw) said: “…the Ambiya did not leave dinars and dirhams as inheritance…. (al-Kafi, vol. 1 p. 42).

Sunni hadeeth states: Allah’s Messenger(saw) said, “My heirs should not take even a single Dinar (i.e. anything from my property)…(Sahih al-Bukhari 3096)

Readers can see the similarity between these two hadeeth, both of these hadeeth state the same ruling over the primary or main issue of disagreement, regarding the material inheritance of Prophet.

Secondly, asusual Shiapen made-up an argument and refuted it inorder to weaken the answer of Sunnis. They claimed that {“The Hadith would suggest that the Prophets leave absolutely nothing, save their knowledge”}, Our response is that; this isn’t exactly what the Sunni claim, what the Sunnis actually claim is that the Shia hadeeth states that, As inheritance, the Prophets do not leave material possessions, but leave knowledge. This is what the Shia hadeeth states.

We read: Rasulullah(saw) said: “…the Ambiya did not leave dinars and dirhams as inheritance…. (al-Kafi, vol. 1 p. 42).

Therefore, Shiapen have misunderstood the Sunni claim, because Sunnis don’t say that as per Shia hadeeth, Prophets leave behind nothing, but the fact is that, Sunnis say that as per Shia hadeeth, Prophets leave behind nothing AS INHERITANCE of material possession. Hence the argument of Shiapen is invalid and based on their misunderstanding, because none of the Sunni hadeeth says that Prophet left behind anything as inheritance.

Argument 58:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Moreover one wonders how this Hadith mirrors the recital, when Abu Hurraira offers us an exemption clause in his recollection of the same tradition. We read Sahih Bukhari, Book of inheritance Volume 8, Book 80, Number 721:

Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah’s Apostle said, “Not even a single Dinar of my property should be distributed (after my deaths to my inheritors, but whatever I leave excluding the provision for my wives and my servants, should be spent in charity.”

Ibn al Hashimi we suggest you inspect this tradition closely. Just like that cited by Abu Bakr, you deem it Sahih and in fact will deem it as the same as that cited by Abu Bakr, save the exemption. The entitlement of the wives and servants of the Prophet to a salary destroys all attempts of Ibn al Hashimi to get the Shia to recognise the Usool al-Kafi tradition as the same as that presented by Abu Bakr in Fadak. Ibn al Hashimi wants us to accept that Prophets do not leave any Dinar or Dirham for anyone. The Hadeeth narrated by Abu Huraira does not concur with this, after all the Prophet (s) leaves a sufficient amount of Dinars and Dirhams to ensure that his Servants and nine wives obtain a regular salary.

[End Quote]

Answer:

Again the same misunderstanding of Shiapen; the Shia hadeeth rules out, any material possession left as “inheritance”, where as the Sunni hadeeth which mentions the exemption was not of “inheritance” but that was Nafaqah(provision) for wives of Prophet(saw) and his workers(servants); Obviously the servants of Prophet(saw) weren’t his heirs to inherit material possession from him. Hence this argument of Shiapen is based on their misunderstanding, the fact is that none of the Sunni hadeeth says that Prophet(saw) left any material possession as inheritance.

Argument 59:

Another Shiawebsite[RTS] made similar argument stating:

[Quote]

We shall now present some examples of what the Prophet (saw) left behind as inheritance, thus rejecting the interpretation of our opponents in regards to the above narration.

Al-Bukhari:

Narrated Isa bin Tahman: Anas brought out to us two worn out leather shoes without hair and with pieces of leather straps. Later on Thabit Al-Banani told me that Anas said that they were the shoes of the Prophet (saw).

Narrated Abu Burda: A’isha brought out to us a patched wool Len garment, and she said, “(It chanced that) the soul of Allah’s Messenger (saw) was taken away while he was wearing this.” Abu-Burda added, “A’isha brought out to us a thick waist sheet like the ones made by the Yemenites, and also a garment of the type called Al-Mulabbada.”

Source: Saheeh Al-Bukhari. Pg. # 766, H. # 3107 / 3108

Ibn Kathir:

As for the mule, it was grey…and it is said that it lived after him (saw) and it was with Alee ibn Abi Talib (a.s) during his caliphate.

Source: Al-Bidaya Wa An-Nihaya. Vol. 8, Pg. # 381.

[End Quote]

Answer:

We ask the objective reader if this understanding of RTS fits with the idea of inheritance. Why would Anas and A’isha inherit material possessions of the Prophet(saw) instead of more worthy inheritor like Fatima.? The simple answer is that these materials were not inherited by them, also notice that in none of the narrations it was said that, these things were “inherited”, that is because it wasn’t inheritance. Prophet’s (saw) clothing today is kept in a museum but back then there was no such thing, so his clothes would be kept with whoever is alive from the trusted people who were close to him, this includes his family, wives and servants.

Furthermore RTS quotes narrations of the mule of the prophet (saw) being with `Ali, then after `Ali died it was with `Abdullah bin Ja`far, we ask does `Abdullah inherit `Ali? Obviously he doesn’t, `Ali’s children are the ones who are supposed to inherit him, nor do we read anything about a mule being left behind for inheritance in `Ali’s will, neither in Sunni nor Shia books. This all shows that these possessions were not inherited, rather the nation just took care of the prophet’s (saw) belongings until `Umar bin `Abdul-`Aziz collected them in a room for preservation.

Argument 60:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

The Nawasib should know that when any of our Imams narrate a hadith of the Prophet (s) the chain lnks from the preceding Imams, through to Imam Ali (as) and then the Prophet (s). Imam Ali (as) would have heard this hadith from the Prophet (s). If it was identical to the one that Abu Bakr cited, then why did Imam Ali (as) support the claim of his wife during the Fadak dispute?

[End Quote]

Answer:

This is what Ibn al Hashimi was trying to make Shias understand. The Shia hadeeth can be interpreted in either ways, it’s open for interpretation, where one inpertretation is stronger than the other one. So Shias must look at this issue as difference of interpretation between Fatima/Ali and Abubakr, where we can say that they both had their individual Ijtihad on this matter.

If Shias disagree with the explicit authentic Sunni tradition about Prophets not leaving behind material inheritance; then instead of behaving in a bigotic way and accusing Abubakr(ra) of fabricating the Hadith, they can atleast, view the decision of Abubakr(ra) in the light of their own hadeeth, and consider it a difference of opinion based on his own ijtihad(interpretation).

Argument 61:

Shiapen stated:

[Quote]

Morover if the Hadith is the same as that Abu Bakr cited why did the later Imams accept Fadak when it was given to them by the Caliphs of their time? When Abu Bakr (according to Ibn al Hashimi) dispossessed their mother of land due to a hadith that also believed in, how were they then now accepting that annexed land? Were they dishonestly claiming land when they knew the Prophet (s) did not leave as inheritance? As Shi’a this doesnt even come into the equation, since we deem our Imams to be Masum.

[End Quote]

Answer:

It is known fact that Ahlelbayt were entrusted with the charitable endowments of Prophhet(saw), they didn’t inherit it, this was the case during the time of 3 Rightly Guided Caliphs, Umar(ra), Uthman(ra) and Ali(ra). So if one is entrusted certain property, as a trustee, then that doesn’t means that it becomes inheritance. Thus the argument of Shiapen is null and void.

Al-Qurtubi said: “When ‘Ali(ra) became caliph, he did not change its(charity of Prophet) status from the way it had been at the time of Abu Bakr(ra), ‘Umar(ra) and ‘Uthman(ra). He never tried to take possession of it(charity of Prophet) or to take a share of it; rather he managed it in the way it had been managed before. Then it came under the control of Hasan ibn’Ali, then Husayn ibn Ali, then ‘Ali ibn al-Husayn, then al-Husayn ibn al-Hasan, then Zayd ibn al-Husayn, then Abdullah ibn al-Husayn, then the Abbasids got control of it, according to what was stated by Abu Bakr al-Burqani in his Saheeh.” They are senior figures of Ahlalbayt (may Allah he pleased with them) and are held in high esteem by the Shia and their scholars. It is not narrated from any of them that they took possession of it or inherited it or passed it on as an inheritance. If what the Shia say is true, then ‘Ali(ra) or another member of Ahl al-Bayt would have kept it when they got control of it.(Al-Mufhim, vol 3, page 564).

One thought on “7. Sunni Answers to Shiapen’s article on Fadak and inheritance of Prophet(saw) – “Chapter Seven””

Slaves of Allah says:

2016/04/10 at 00:29

Shias have narrated through an authentic chain from Al Saduq that Prophet Sulaiman(AS) had a thousand women, and he was given the sexual strength of forty men. (See Mustadrak Al Wasael 14/295 and Bihar Al Anwar 14/72.)