بسم الله الرحمن الرحیم
Tag Archives: fatima
Ayatollah Khomeini on Fatima & the finality of Prophethood.
Ayatollah Khomeini says, after the demise of the Prophet (saw), Fatima used to receive revelation through angel Jibraeel and Ali would write down the revelation for her. (He was Katibe Wahi for Fatima). He also says that angel Jibareel would tell Fatima about the future events.
Facebook link: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=654637464605954
بسم الله الرحمن الرحیم
Fadak is the name of a village situated near Khayber at a distance of 140 km from Madinah, where the Jews resided. The Prophet (S) conquered the place after the battle of Khayber without any battle on the agreement that half of the produce would be given to the Muslims. Therefore, it would be treated as ‘Fai’. Fai includes every such property of the unbelievers which the Prophet (S) seized without any battle. It is mentioned clearly in the Holy Quran:
And what Allah restored [of property] to His Messenger from them – you did not spur for it [in an expedition] any horses or camels, but Allah gives His messengers power over whom He wills, and Allah is over all things competent. And what Allah restored to His Messenger from the people of the towns – it is for Allah and for the Messenger and for [his] near relatives and orphans and the [stranded] traveler – so that it will not be a perpetual distribution among the rich from among you. And whatever the Messenger has given you – take; and what he has forbidden you – refrain from. And fear Allah ; indeed, Allah is severe in penalty.
Hence, Fadak was to be treated as Fai.
The Inheritance of the Prophets According to the Authentic Narrations:
The Sunnis believe that the Prophets don’t inherit wealth, their inheritance is knowledge. And this is what Abu Bakr, Umar, Ali, Uthman, Zubair, Saeed ibn Waqas, Abbas and Ibn Awf believed, according to the narration in Sahih Bukhari:
Umar said “Wait I beseech you, by Allah, by Whose permission both the Heaven and the earth stand fast! Do you know that Allah’s apostle said ‘We (Prophets) our properties are not to be inherited, and whatever we leave is to be spent on charity, and he said it about himself”? They said “He did say it”. Umar then turned towards Ali and Abbas and said, “I beseech you both by Allah! Do you know that Allah’s apostle said this?” They replied in the affirmative.
Similarly we read in the Sahih narration in al-Kafi that Imam Jafar said that the Prophet (S) said:
“Truly the scholars are the heirs of Prophets, the Prophets bequeathed not a single Dinar or Dirham, instead they bequeathed knowledge, and whoever acquires it has indeed acquired a generous portion of their legacy”.
The grand Shia scholar Ayatullah Khomeini says regarding the authenticity of this narration:
“The narrators in the chain of transmission of this tradition are all trustworthy, in fact Ibrahim ibn Hashim, the father of Ali ibn Ibrahim, is not moderately trustworthy but outstandingly so.”
This tradition has been authenticated by Mulla Baqir Majlisi as well.
This Shia authentic tradition clearly supports the Sunni view that the Prophet don’t inherit wealth, rather they inherit knowledge only.
The Inheritance of the Prophets in the Holy Quran:
While trying to refute the Sunnis, the Shias try to argue from a few verses of the Holy Quran that the Prophets do inherit their wealth. We will discuss these verses one by one.
1. Allah instructs you concerning your children: for the male, what is equal to the share of two females.
This verse states the general rule, but the inheritance of the Prophets is a particular case regarding which Sunnis say that there is exception. Even Shias themselves claim that there are certain exceptions to the general rule laid down in this verse. According to Shias, wife can’t inherit land, though this is not mentioned in this verse. Secondly, according to Shias, a Kafir can’t inerit from a Muslim. And the Shias base these opinions on the basis of their own traditions attributed to their Imams. Similarly, we base our opinion on Prophetic traditions.
2. And Solomon inherited David. 
This verse doesn’t mention the inheritance of wealth. Only inheritance is mentioned here, and we know that inheritance can be of different types besides wealth. For example, the inheritance of knowledge, the inheritance of book, the inheritance of wisdom and the inheritance of kingdom etc. In this verse, the type of inheritance is not mentioned. Our view is that this verse can’t be regarding the inheritance of wealth, and there are few reasons. David had 19 sons, and only one son i.e Solomon has been mentioned here. This means that it refers to a particular type of inheritance which the other sons didn’t receive. And that is the inheritance of knowledge and wisdom. It can also refer to the inheritance of prophethood and kingdom. Someone may say that prophethood is not inherited. That is true, but it can be said in a metaphorical way. For example, wisdom is not necessarily inherited, but if a child is wise like his father, it can be said that the child inherited wisdom from his father.
3. [This is] a mention of the mercy of your Lord to His servant Zechariah. When he called to his Lord a private supplication. He said, “My Lord, indeed my bones have weakened, and my head has filled with white, and never have I been in my supplication to You, my Lord, unhappy. And indeed, I fear the successors after me, and my wife has been barren, so give me from Yourself an heir. Who will inherit me and inherit from the family of Jacob. And make him, my Lord, pleasing [to You].”
In this verse as well, it is not mentioned which sort of inheritance is meant here. But since it includes the inheritance of the posterity of Yaqub (as) as well, hence we can understand that this can’t mean the inheritance of wealth. Because no one inherits wealth from a whole posterity. Hence it can only refer to knowledge, wisdom and prophethood.
Was Fadak a Gift?
Fadak was definitely not a gift and there is no authentic Sunni narration which shows that Fadak was a gift. Rather it is against the authentic narrations according to which Fatima (ra) asked Fadak as inheritance from her father, and not as a gift. Almost all of these traditions include a weak narrator ‘Atiyah al-Awfi’ who is weak according to the majority of scholars. Moreover, how can the Prophet gift a whole piece of land to his daughter, when he didn’t allow a golden necklace to his daughter saying:
“O Fatima (ra)! Will not the people say that Fatima, the daughter of Muhammad (S) is dressed in the attire of the oppressors?”
Similarly, in another Shia tradition, Fatima requested a servant from her father, which Prophet (S) didn’t give to her, and instead taught her a supplication.
This clearly shows that the Prophet (S) didn’t gave worldly objects to his daughter. So how could he gave a huge piece of land to his daughter?
Ali (ra) never returned Fadak to the Children of Fatima (ra)
This is a historical fact that Ali (ra) never returned Fadak to the Children of Fatima (ra) and it clearly shows that he agreed with the view of Abu Bakr (ra). In order to answer this, Shias fabricated a tradition and attributed it to their Imam, according to which Imam Jafar said :
Ali (ra) followed in the footsteps of Prophet (S). When he conquered Makkah, he found out that Aqeel (the brother of Ali) has sold his house, so he was asked, ‘O Prophet (S), why don’t you take your house back? So he said, “Has Aqeel left any house for us?” And we belong to the household who never take anything back that is taken from us unjustly. So that is why Ali (ra) didn’t take Fadak back.
Now this is a very wrong excuse, because Caliphate was also snatched from the Imams. Because when Fadak was purportedly snatched from Fatima, she herself went to the caliph to take it back. Why would she go and ask that Fadak be given to her, if it was snatched unjustly, and if ahlelbayt don’t take back what is unjustly snatched from them? Moreover, the 12th Imam will fight to restore his caliphate, wasn’t caliphate snatched from the ahlelbayt according to the Shias? And most importantly, if Abu Bakr had oppressed Fatima by snatching Fadak as the Shias say, then didn’t Aqeel also oppress the Prophet (S) by selling his home without his permission? Why don’t Shias accuse Aqeel of the same crime, and declare him a tyrant?
Was Fatima (ra) angry upon Abu Bakr (ra) throughout her life?
Fatima (ra) wasn’t angry at Abu Bakr (ra) throughout her life. These are the words of Zuhri, which are mentioned in Sahih Bukhari, and not the words of Ayesha (ra). The evidence is that before these words, the pronoun change from feminine to masculine, which indicate that these words are not the words of a female, but a male. Similarly the words that Abu Bakr (ra) didn’t participate in her funeral also belong to this category. Hence, even if these words are present in Sahih Bukhari, they are the view of a narrator, and not a companion. And the views of a narrator who didn’t witness these events can’t make these statements as facts, even if they are in Sahih Bukhari.
Moreover, this also negates the high status of Lady Fatima (ra). Why would she become angry at someone for her entire life just because of a piece of land? And why would she not allow anyone to her funeral due to it, while her father was the most merciful upon the Ummah, so much so that he forgave a person like Wahshi, who had killed his dearest uncle, i.e Hamzah? We can’t expect it from her daughter that she would get angry at someone for her entire life just because of a piece of land.
And all praises belong to Allah!
Written by Kalaam
 Surah Hashr 59:6-7
 Sahih Bukhari, Hadith # 3756
 Al-Kafi, Vol. 1, p. 42
 Islamic Government, by Ayatullah Khomeini
 Surah Nisa, Verse 11
 Surah 27, Verse 16
 Surah Maryam 19:2-6
 Uyun akhbar al-Reza Vol. 2, p. 57
 Ilal al-Shara’ie, Vol. 2, p. 288
 Ilal al-Shara’ie, Vol. 1, p. 155
In the name of Allah,
We present our readers with our first research concerning the matter of prophetic inheritance, hopefully we can follow it up with more research in the future if Allah permits.
Our research is composed of three parts, we introduce each one briefly:
PART I, In it we address the matter of prophetic narrations related to the inheritance of prophets, was it only our Prophet (saw) who never left inheritance or did all prophets never leave behind inheritance? How do we explain the different texts of these narrations?
PART II, In it we go through all of the earliest sources of Qur’anic interpretation and we see the opinions of the scholars of Islam, what was their understanding and what side did they lean towards? Then we summarize all the opinions in the clearest way Allah permits.
PART III, In it we go through the opponent’s arguments and objections, a research cannot be complete if we do not look at the arguments from the other side, we benefit from the points raised and answer them all based on the knowledge we acquired thanks to our in depth reading and the understanding given to us by Allah.
Click here to read more on twelvershia.net website.
Topic related to the infallibility from the books of Ahlul-Sunnah and possibly the Shia, al-Sadiq Ja`far reports from his father Muhammad bin `Ali in Sahih Muslim the following narration:
وقدم عليٌّ من اليمنِ ببُدنِ النبيِّ صلَّى اللهُ عليه وسلَّمَ . فوجد فاطمةَ رضي اللهُ عنها ممن حلَّ . ولبست ثيابًا صبيغًا . واكتحلَت . فأنكر ذلك عليها . فقالت : إنَّ أبي أمرني بهذا . قال : فكان عليٌّ يقول بالعراقِ : فذهبتُ إلى رسولِ اللهِ صلَّى اللهُ عليه وسلَّمَ مُحَرِّشًا على فاطمةَ . للذي صنعت . مُستفتيًا رسولَ اللهِ صلَّى اللهُ عليه وسلَّمَ فيما ذكرتْ عنه . فأخبرتُه أني أنكرت ُذلك عليها . فقال : صدقتْ صدقت ْ.
[…(In a long narration he says)…`Ali came from the Yemen with the sacrificial animals for the Prophet (May peace be upon him) and found Fatimah (Allah be pleased with her) to be one among those who had put-off Ihram and had put on dyed clothes and had applied antimony. He (`Ali) showed disapproval to it, whereupon she said: My father has commanded me to do this. He (the narrator) said that `Ali used to say in `Iraq: I went to the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) showing annoyance at Fatimah for what she had done, and asked the (verdict) of Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) regarding what she had narrated from him, and told him that I was angry with her, whereupon he said: She has told the truth, she has told the truth.]
Now this is in Shia books as well and InshaAllah we will write the Shia chains of narration to see if it is authentic based on their standards or not.
This narration is found in the Shia main four books.
محمد بن علي بن محبوب عن يعقوب بن يزيد عن ابن أبي عمير عن معاوية بن عمار عن أبي عبد الله عليه السلام ومحمد بن الحسين وعلي بن السندي والعباس كلهم عن صفوان عن معاوية بن عمار عن أبي عبد الله عليه السلام
Narrates it in al-Tahdheeb and al-Amali, his chains are as follows:
1- Muhammad bin `Ali bin Mahboub, from Ya`qoub bin Yazid, from ibn abi `Umayr, from Mu`awiyah bin `Ammar, from abi `Abdillah (as)…
2- Muhammad bin Husayn, and `Ali bin al-Sindi, and al-`Abbas, all of them, from Safwan, from Mu`awiyah bin `Ammar, from abi `Abdillah (as)…
عَلِيُّ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ عَنْ أَبِيه ومُحَمَّدُ بْنُ يَحْيَى عَنْ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ مُحَمَّدٍ جَمِيعاً عَنِ ابْنِ أَبِي عُمَيْرٍ عَنْ حَمَّادٍ عَنِ الْحَلَبِيِّ عَنْ أَبِي عَبْدِ اللَّه
عن عَلِيُّ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ عَنْ أَبِيه ومُحَمَّدُ بْنُ إِسْمَاعِيلَ عَنِ الْفَضْلِ بْنِ شَاذَانَ جَمِيعاً عَنِ ابْنِ أَبِي عُمَيْرٍ عَنْ مُعَاوِيَةَ بْنِ عَمَّارٍ عَنْ أَبِي عَبْدِ اللَّه
Narrates it in al-Kafi with these chains:
1- `Ali bin Ibrahim, from his father, and Muhammad bin Yahya, from Ahmad bin Muhammad, all of them, from ibn abi `Umayr, from Hamad, from al-Halabi, from abi `Abdillah (as)…
2- `Ali bin Ibrahim, from his father, and Muhammad bin Isma`eel, from al-Fadl bin Shadhan, all of them, from ibn abi `Umayr, from Mu`awiyah bin `Ammar, from abi `Abdillah (as)…
أبي رحمه الله قال حدثنا سعد بن عبد الله عن أحمد بن محمد بن عيسى عن محمد بن عمير عن حماد عن الحلبي عن أبي عبد الله عليه السلام
Narrated it in al-Fqih and al-`Ilal with the following chain:
1- My father (rah) said: Sa`d bin `Abdullah told us, from Ahmad bin Muhammad bin `Isa, from Muhammad bin `Umayr, from Hamad, from al-Halabi, from abu `Abdillah (as)…
By Hani Original Article: http://islamic-forum.net/index.php?showtopic=20608 Posted by 13S2010
Written by Farid Posted by 13S2010
بسم الله الرحمن الرحیم
Bismillah alrahman alraheem,
The follow is some material from a very useful book called Difa’an ‘an Al-Aal wal As’haab (p. 260). It goes without saying that this was originally in Arabic, but it was so useful to me, that I could not help but translate some of the content. I will be skipping some parts due to the length, so those that know Arabic should return to the original.
Even though the differences between Abu Bakr and Fatima (raa) was one in which both parties saw themselves as correct, it was the sensitivity of some in regards to Abu Bakr causes them to look at things differently, which is the problem for it will be used for the sake of the condemnation of Al-Siddique.
If we were to switch the characters in the story (Abu Bakr and Fatima) to two fuqaha or two marji’s then both would have their status without any such condemnation or accusation due to intentions, and we’d look at both with respect and appreciation since both have evidences for their arguments, even though one has the stronger evidence. However, the case here is different. Abu Bakr is an enemy to some, and since that is the case, then all evil is from him, and all his opinions are mistakes, and that is how (they) measure these issues. (They) measure with emotions that cannot be used to settle between any two people, so how can that be used when studying Islamic history and shari’ah?!
The objective person will not be led by emotions, but to truth wherever it may be. He will stand, and reflect, to put the dots on the letters, for Fadak is one of two things: It is either the inheritance of the Prophet (pbuh) to Fatima, or a gift that he gave her on Khaibar…
[Author goes on to quote narration.]
As for the authenticity (of the narration of “the prophets do not leave an inheritance”) among Ahlul Sunnah is known and doesn’t need clarification, and as for the Shias, then here it is:
Al-Kulayni narrated in Al-Kafi from Abi Abdullah, he said: The Prophet (pbuh) said, “The scholars are the inheritors of the prophets, and the prophets did not leave a dinar or a dirham, but they left knowledge…
[Author quotes Al-Majlisi’s authentication from Mira’at Al-Uqool (1/111) and Khomaini’s reliance on the hadith in Al-Hukooma Al-Islamiya (93).]
The usage of the evidence that Allah said about Zakariya, “Oh, give me from Thy presence a successor, Who shall inherit of me and inherit (also) of the house of Jacob.” (Maryam 5-6) is a strange one that lacks the logic from all the necessary aspects for the following reasons.
Firstly: It does not fit a pious man to ask Allah for a son to inherit his money, so how can we expect this meaning to be attributed to the Prophet Zakariya (as) in that he would ask Allah for a son to inherit his money?! Rather, the pious ask for offspring that will benefit them on the day of judgement, so Zakariya wanted Allah to give him a son that would carry on the prophethood after him, and inherit the old glory of the Aal of Yaqoub in prophethood.
Secondly: It is known that Zakariya was a poor carpenter, so what kind of money did he have that made him ask Allah to grant him a son for the sake of monetary inheritance?! Rather, prophets, by default, don’t save up, but spend their money for the sake of good.
Thirdly: The word al-irth, isn’t specific to money, but it is used for knowledge, prophethood, kingship, and others, like when Allah says, “Then We gave the Scripture as inheritance unto those whom We elected of Our bondmen.” (Fatir 32) And when Allah says, “These are the heirs, who will inherit paradise. There they will abide.” (Al-Mu’minoon 10-11)
Fourthly: The narration “The scholars are the inheritors of the prophets, and the prophets did not leave a dinar or a dirham, but they left knowledge,” is clear that denying that they left money as an inheritance, and this (argument) alone is sufficient.
Similarly, this is the case when Allah says, “And Solomon was David’s heir,” (Al-Naml 16) for Sulaiman (as) didn’t inherit the money of Dawud (as), but rather, his prophethood, his wisdom, and his knowledge, which is derived from these two reasons:
Firstly: Dawud (as) is famous for have a hundred wives and three hundred concubines, and he had many children. So, how is it possible that only Sulaiman inherited from him?! So, specifically mentioning Sulaiman (as) alone is not correct. (I, Farid, say: The opinion that Dawud had other children is agreed upon by both Muslim and non-Muslim scholars. Refer to Al-Bidaya wal Nihaya by Ibn Katheer and 1 Chronicles – chapter 3.)
Secondly: If it was matter of inheriting money, then it wouldn’t be useful for it to be mentioned in the book of Allah. For it is natural for a son to receive the inheritance of his father, and receiving it isn’t a form of praise, nor to Dawud or Sulaiman (as), for even Jews and Christians leave inheritances, so what does Sulaiman gain by being singled out in this verse?! Furthermore, the verse is in context of praise for Sulaiman (as) and what Allah has specified for him in merit, and the inheritance of money is something normal that all people share like eating, drinking, the burying of the dead, and that which is like that isn’t narrated about the prophets, for it is useless, but that which is narrated is that what includes a moral and a benefit. The words of one who says, “He died and his son received his inheritance,” is like saying, “and they buried him,” or “they ate, drank, and slept,” and other things that shouldn’t be including among the stories of the Qur’an.
By Farid Posted by 13S2010
This argument was initially made around a year ago, but I don’t think that many people here are aware of it, so I decided to share it with you all.
The following hadith is from Al-Kafi:
بَابُ صَوْمِ الْحَائِضِ وَالْمُسْتَحَاضَةِ
أَبُو عَلِيٍّ الْأَشْعَرِيُّ عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عَبْدِ الْجَبَّارِ عَنْ عَلِيِّ بْنِ مَهْزِيَارَ قَالَ كَتَبْتُ إِلَيْهِ ( عليه السلام ) امْرَأَةٌ طَهُرَتْ مِنْ حَيْضِهَا أَوْمِنْ دَمِ نِفَاسِهَا فِي أَوَّلِ يَوْمٍ مِنْ شَهْرِ رَمَضَانَ ثُمَّ اسْتَحَاضَتْ فَصَلَّتْ وَصَامَتْ شَهْرَ رَمَضَانَ كُلَّهُ مِنْ غَيْرِ أَنْتَعْمَلَ مَا تَعْمَلُ الْمُسْتَحَاضَةُ مِنَ الْغُسْلِ لِكُلِّ صَلَاتَيْنِ فَهَلْ يَجُوزُ صَوْمُهَا وَ صَلَاتُهَا أَمْ لَا فَكَتَبَ ( عليه السلام ) تَقْضِي صَوْمَهَا وَ لَا تَقْضِي صَلَاتَهَا إِنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ (صلى الله عليه وآله ) كَانَ يَأْمُرُ فَاطِمَةَ صَلَوَاتُ اللَّهِ عَلَيْهَا وَ الْمُؤْمِنَاتِ مِنْ نِسَائِهِ بِذَلِكَ ـ
Translation by brother Hani: Abu ‘Ali al-Asha’ari from Muhammad ibn ‘Abdul-Jabbar from ‘Ali ibn Mehzayar: I wrote to him(Imam) may peace be upon him: A woman was purified from her Haydh(bleeding in Menstruation) on the first day of the month of Ramadhan then she had Istihadah(False Menstruation) and she fasted and prayed during the entire month of Ramadhan without doing Ghusl(purifying her body) before every prayer so are her prayers and her fasting accepted? He peace be upon him wrote back: She must repeat her Siyam(Fasting) but not her Salat(prayer), the Prophet SAWS used to order Fatima peace be upon her and the believing women to do this.
I say: Most Shias here are aware that the common Shia view is that Fatima (as) does not menstruate. The chain is authentic according to Shia standards so this misconception should be rejected. Al-Tusi in Tahtheeb Al-Ahkaam records this narration as well.
Now, pay attention to this bit:
أبى رحمه الله قال حدثنا سعد بن عبدالله قال حدثنا احمد بن ادريس عن محمد بن احمد عن محمد بن عبدالجبار عن علي بن مهزيار قال: كنت اليه امرأة طهرت من حيضها او من دم نفاسها في اول يوم من شهر رمضان ثم استحاضت فصلت وصامت شهر رمضان كله من غيرأن تعمل كما تعمله المستحاضة من الغسل لكل صلاتين هل يجوز صومها وصلاتها ام لا؟ فكتب تقضي صومها ولا تقضى صلاتها لان رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله كان يأمر المؤمنات من نسائه بذلك.
This is the exact same hadith, but from Ilal Al-Shara’i’i by Al-Saduq instead. The only difference is that at the end of the hadith, we find that the name of Fatima was removed. Al-Saduq, in his other book Man la yahtharhu al-faqeeh ended up with the same narration.
In conclusion, we are left with three possibilities:
1) Al-Saduq tampered with the hadith
2) Al-Saduq’s father tampered with the hadith
3) Sa’ad bin Abdullah, one of the greatest Shia narrators of his time, tampered with the hadith
I ask the Shias of this board to do the honourable thing and AVOID derailing the thread. If you have other arguments that are non-related, then please create another thread for them. Thank you.