Re: The Truth About the Land of Fadak
Also
Reply One
When the Ahl’ul Sunnah find this Hadeeth they dance with joy as if it is the Festival of Eid. There are three facts that cannot be called into doubt:
- Ulema are not the actual son of Porphets
- Prophets are not their actual fathers
- Knowledge is not an actual possession that can be distributed.
In the same way that the Hadeeth refers to the Ulema as the figurative sons of Prophets and Prophets as their figurative fathers; knowledge is also a figurative possession. The entire Hadeeth is along the line of figurative terms, hence the term Waris can also be understood in a figurative manner - the Ulema attain some of the knowledge possessed by Prophets. The Waris Hadeeth cited by Abu Bakr in Sahih al Bukhari that preceded the claim of Sayyida Fatima (as), did not refer to the inheritance of knowledge but referred to the inheritance of possessions.
The Fadak dispute was in relation to a portion that had been set aside by Allah (swt) for Rasulullah (s). Abu Bakr’s response that Prophet’s leave no inheritance did not refer to knowledge, hence this proves that the Hadeeth in al Kafi that the Ulema are the Heirs of the Prophets Knowledge is a figurative term, it can not be advanced to prove that the Ahl’ul bayt (as) were prohibited from inheriting the Prophet’s worldly possessions.
Reply Two
The Nasibi often ask at this point
"…Why does this hadith qualify to be used in support of Wilayat al-Faqih, but not for the issue of Fadak?
The very fact that Ulema have used this Hadeeth to support the concept of State rule and nothing else is proof that the Hadeeth of al Kafi is not addressing the children of the Prophet (s). The Ulema have correctly interpreted the Hadeeth to mean that the Property of Prophethood is only Knowledge (not Dinars and Dirhams) and it is this property that Prophets leave as inheritance for their Ummah (not Dinars and Dirhams). The heirs of this knowledge are Ulema (People with knowledge). The above narration is not talking about the inheritance of a material thing, i.e. a personal property or a land but it’s talking about the knowledge of Prophets, which is inherited by the scholars of Islam.
Reply Three
The Hadeeth 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 was knowledge.
“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.”
The laws of inheriting divine knowledge are very different from inheriting Material Possessions. Hence the Hadeeth of Knowledge cannot be used to justify the actions of Abu Bakr against Fatima Al- Zahra (as) because the Material Inheritance is connected to the family and is quite different from the inheritance of knowledge which is not connected to the family alone.
Reply Four
The tradition does not address the personal life and personal properties of Prophets (in which some of them were kings and some of them were poor), but it is dealing with the inheritance of Prophethood (in which all the prophets got knowledge).
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 emphasise something of importance they will do so by highlighting / prioritising 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”.
Similarly in this Hadeeth the tradition is stating that monetary inheritance of Prophets is an irrelevant issue, as this is a matter that is only relevant to legal Heirs - the only thing that followers need to know are the teachings that they leave behind that all the Ummah can benefit from with the Ulema at the helm.
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.
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.
Reply Nine
If the tradition proved that Prophets leave no material possessions then this should have appeared in the Chapter of Inheritance, it does not it appears in the Chapter of Ilm in Usool al-Kafi, and hence further strengthens our argument that the complier Kulayni also understood the Hadeeth to refer specifically to the inheritance of knowledge, nothing else.