OBJECTION OF TAHIRUL QADRI ON FADAK AND ITS REPLY

Dr. Tahir Qadri said in one of his video on youtube that Abu Bakr was right in denying Fadak to Fatima because What Prophet(s.a.w) left are all charity and Hazrat Fatima was (nauzobillah) unaware of this hadith and thus she claimed FADAK.

He cited one hadith from shia book to prove his point:

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)

  

Our Reply:

 Extracted from : http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/fadak/en/chap7.php

1.

When the Nasibis 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:

1. the spritual inheritors of prophets, are their successors and the learned scholars since they inherit the knowledge of prophets,
2. material posessions that are inherited by the biological progeny of Prophets.

  Pertaining to the traditions cited by the Nasibi author,

• 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 as mentioned in the Shia tradition we cited above.

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.

 

2.

The Nasibi in many ways destroys his entire argument by posing this brain teaser:

Ansar.org states:

"…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 these particular Hadith 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. The Hadith is informing us of exactly what the Ulema receive as inheritance from Prophets. It is making clear that the Ulema are not the waris of the material possessions of the Prophets; rather the only thing that they inherit is the knowledge of Prophets. If these Ulema were also the waris of the material possessions of the Prophet (s) then that would constitute clear injustice for the surviving relatives – the Hadith therefore makes it clear that the only thing that scholars inherit from Prophets are their knowledge. Such an interpretation is in complete conformity with the principle of Islamic laws of inheritance that are set out in the Quran, the Ulema of tne Ummah have no right inherit the dinars / dirhams of Prophets, rather all that they have entitlement to is their knowledge, since the Waris of dinars / dirhams are the surviving relatives.

 

3.

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 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.

 

4.

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). As for the tradition dealing with the personal life and personal properties of Prophets, we have already cited a Shia tradition which will unveil the usual deception that is committed by the Nawasib.

 

5.

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.

6- Analysing the words in the tradition

1. "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?
   
2. 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.
   
3. 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.

 

7.

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.

 

8.

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.

 

9.

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, under the heading ’Chapter on the reward for the scholars and those who seek knowledge’ and hence further strengthens our argument that the complier Shaykh Kulayni also understood the Hadeeth to refer specifically to the inheritance of knowledge, nothing else. If Kulaini understood this Hadeeth to mean that Prophets leave no materials inheritance as an absolute rule then he would have placed this Hadeeth in the chapter that discusses the inheritance of the Prophet (s). He did not and the fact that in the same book Shaykh Kulaini has a chapter called ‘Progeny’s inheritance’ that contains the Hadeeth we previously mentioned, namely:

Zurara narrated that Abi Jaffar (as) said: ‘Ali inherited the knowledge of Allah's messenger and Fatima inherited his property.’

The inserting of these two distinctive Hadeeth under their relevant Chapter headings corroborates our assertion that Shaykh Kulaini (and others) recognised the Prophet left spiritual inheritance for scholars and material inheritance for his progeny.

 

10.

Al Khider so as to prove his point has sought to suggest that the opening words in the tradition Verily the 'Ulama are the heirs of the Ambiya' are Kalima Hasr (an exclusive attribute) i.e. the realm of Prophetic inheritance is the exclusive domain of the Ulema. The Nasibi is of course seeking to suggest that the Prophet (s) left nothing save his knowledge that went solely to the Ulema. The unusual thing is that Nasibi of this ilk reject the notion that the verse that descended in relation to the Wilaya of Maula ‘Ali (as) “Your (real) friends are (no less than) Allah, His Messenger, and the (fellowship of) believers,- those who establish regular prayers and regular charity, and they bow down humbly (in worship)” is not Kalima Hasr to Ansar.Org, despite the acceptance of the Sunni Ulema over the reason for its descent, rather it incorporates all believers. It is truly amazing how the goalposts change when it comes to issues relating to the praise of the Ahl’ul bayt! Unfortunately his attempt to deem this as an exclusive attribute falls apart when we read these verses:

And so amongst men and crawling creatures and cattle, are they of various colours. Those truly fear Allah, among His Servants, who have knowledge: for Allah is Exalted in Might, Oft-Forgiving.
Al-Qur'an, Surah Fathir, Ayah 28, translated by Yusufali

The actual Arabic of 'who have knowledge' in this verse is 'Ulema'. Should we therefore conclude that no one other than the Ulema possess a fear of Allah? Can you only attain this state when you attain the rank of a scholar? The vast bulk of us cannot even think about attaining this esteemed rank, does that mean than none of the millions of Muslims fear Allah, save the Ulema?

The Believers are but a single Brotherhood: So make peace and reconciliation between your two (contending) brothers; and fear Allah, that ye may receive Mercy.
Al-Qur'an, Surah Hujuraath, Ayah 10, translated by Yusufali

If we literally accept this verse as we read it then we have to say that the bond of brotherhood is the exclusive domain of Muslims. Is this really the case? Do the Kuffar not have a close bond of friends that they can call a brotherhood?

We also read as follows in Surah Baqarah:

“He hath forbidden you only carrion and blood and swine flesh and that which hath been immolated to any other than Allah”
Al-Qur'an, Surah Baqarah, Ayah 173, translated by Yusufali

With the verse containing the words only, should we therefore concluded that only pork and blood is haraam to us, everything else such as coprses, faeces, urine and semen is halal?

We read in Surah al Kahf verse 110:

Say: "I am but a man like yourselves, (but) the inspiration has come to me, that your Allah is one Allah.

Should we conclude on the basis of this verse that other the declaration of Tauheed via revelation, all other matters wer not revealed by revelation?

If Al Khider is seeking to suggest that Prophetic inheritance takes the shape of knowledge not material possessions, and the Ulema are the sole beneficiaries of this inheritance then we shall say the exclusive attribute in this Hadeeth links solely to what the Ulema can receive from the Prophet (s). The Hadeeth states that if the Ulema attain anything from the Prophet (s) as inheritance it is his knowledge, this is not the case with the family of the Prophet (s) they can inherit both his material possessions and his knowledge.

 

11.

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).