Archive for the 'FADAK, Fatimah & Abu Bakr' Category
Did the events of Karbala actually take place, and if so why do we not mention this event and the massacre in our Khutbas?Published October 17, 2013 Ashura & Muharram of the Karbalaites , FADAK, Fatimah & Abu Bakr 4 Comments
by Muhammad Al-Khider
FADAK is a hamlet in Hijaz that used to be inhabited by a group of Jews. After Rasulullah had accomplished the conquest of Khaybar, Allah cast fear into the hearts of those Jews.They therefore conclude a treaty with Rasulullah in terms of which Fadak was ceded to him. Thus, not having been conquered by force of arms, it became the personal property of Rasulullah .
The difference between the Khalifah Abu Bakr and Sayyidah Fatimah was an acceptable difference in which either side had an opinion founded on proof. However, sensitivity towards the person of Sayyiduna Abu Bakr has led some people to view the issue out of its proper perspective, with the result that an anthill was transformed into a mountain.
The Ahl Al-Bayt never accused Abu Bakr of having usurped Fatimah’s right, some even sided with him word for wordPublished June 2, 2013 Ahl Al-Bayt = ASWJ , Defence of Companions (general) , FADAK, Fatimah & Abu Bakr
I’d like to share with small observation from the book of one of the top shia shaykhs known as Mufid. In his book “Risala hawla hadith Nahnu Muasharul Anbiya la Nuwarith” (page 4), thk: Malik al-Mahmudi, al-Mufid said: Continue reading ‘The ignorance of Al-Mufid and Muhaqiq about their own books! (FADAK related)’
By brother Farid:
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. Continue reading ‘Inheritance in the Qur’an (Fadak related)’
Shaykh of shias al-Murtada in his book “ash-Shafi fil Imama” (4/92) said:
ان الامر لما انتهى الى امير المؤمنين عليه السلام – اي علي رضي الله عنه – ترك فدك على ماكانت عليه – أي في عهد ابي بكر وعمر رضوان الله عليهما – ولم يجعلها ميراثا ولد فاطمة عليها السلام
When ruling passed to commander of faithful, alaihi salam (meaning Ali), he left Fadak in the same place it was upon (during the time of Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman), and he didn’t make it inheritance to the children of Fatima..
Few interesting reports from “Fadhail as-sahaba” of Daraqutni. Darul Majid Asiriya.
#74 via double chain one till ibn Abi Umar and second till Uqba ibn Mukaram, both of them reported from Sufyan, which narrated from Jafar ibn Muhammad as-Sadiq, which reported that his father Muhammad al-Baqir said: “Family (Ali) of Abu Bakr in the time of prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) was called family (Ali) of Muhammad”.
#75 via chain till Sarij ibn an-Noman which reported from Sufyan ibn Ueyna, which reported from Jafar ibn Muhammad words as above.
#76 via chain till Musadat ibn al-Yasa which reported from Jafar ibn Muhammad, which narrated from his father words as above.
#77 via chain till Hasan ibn Salih, which heard Abdullah ibn al-Hasan saying: Abu Bakr presented to Ali mother of Muhammad (ibn al-Hanafiyah)
#62 via chain from Jafar ibn Muhammad: “Sons of Fatima (alaiha salam) agreed in saying best from what is possible to say regarding Abu Bakr and Umar”.
#57, 59 from Abu Khalid al-Ahmar: I asked Abdullah ibn al-Hasan about Abu Bakr and Umar, he said: Sallallahu alaihima. And don’t salli upon those who don’t salli upon them”.
#53 via chain till Urwa ibn Abdullah al-Jufi, which said: I said to Abu Jafar (al-Baqir): You called Abu Bakr – as-Siddiq?” He answered: “Messenger of Allah (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) called him as-Siddiq. And may Allah doesn’t testify words of the one who didn’t name him as-Siddiq in this world and hereafter”.
#50 with chain till Fudayl ibn Marzuq which reported that Zayd ibn Ali in Husayn said: “As for me, if I would be on the place of Abu Bakr I would do the same what he did in the matter of Fadak”.
#48 via double chain till Zayd ibn Ali which said: “Baraat from Abu Bakr and Umar (is) baraat from Ali, may Allah be pleased with them”.
#41 with chain till ibn Abdullah as-Sairafi which said: I asked Abu Jafar (al-Baqir): What do you say about Abu Bakr and Umar?” He said: “By Allah I befriend with them and ask forgiveness for them and I didn’t met anyone from ahlalbayt except he would befriend with them”.
Athar: Abu Bakr said ‘I did three things that I now regret, they are: That I failed to show respect towards the house of Fatima…….
Famous Rafidi AA site wrote following:
Abu Bakr said ‘I did three things that I now regret, they are: That I failed to show respect towards the house of Fatima. I did not burn Fajaf Salmah. At Saqifa I transferred Khilafath to Abu Ubaydah or Umar. There are three things that I wish I had done: When Asheesh bin Qays was brought before me as prisoner I should have had him killed. When I sent Khalid bin Waleed to the Land of the Kuffar I should have turned him in the direction of Zay Qasa. When sending Khalid to Syria I should have sent Umar to Iraq. I regret that I did not get clarification from Rasulullah (s) on three matters: Whether the Ansar had a share in the Khilafath. Who would succeed him (s) as Khalifa.The inheritance of an aunt and nephew
However chain of this athar isn’t authentic, so these regrets of Abu Bakr aren’t proved, and most likely it’s pure fabrication.
It was narrated by Al-Aqele (or al-Uqayli) in “Duafa al-kabir” (3/420, shamela), ibn Asakir in his history (30/422), Tabarani in “Mojam al-kabir”, Tabari in history (2/619) via chain that contains Alwan ibn Dawud al-Bajli.
Bukhari and Abu Saeed ibn Yunus said about him: “Munkar al-hadith”. Al-Uqayli said: “He has ahadeth that couldn’t be relied upon, and which are not known except by him” (“Mizanul itidal” 3/108/#5763). Al-Heythami in “Majmau zawaid” (№9030) said that it was narrated by Tabarani, and in the chain Alwan ibn Dawud, and he’s weak.
And bonus another lie of AA site revealed.
These rawafidh said:
As proof we shall cite:
- Tareekh Tabari Volume 2 page 24
- Kanz al Khitab al Khilafath ma al Maar Volume 3 page 135
- Al Imama wa al Siyasa Volume 1 page 18, Dhikr Wafaath Abu Bakr
- Murujh al Dhahab Volume 2 page 308 Dhikr Khilafath Abu Bakr
- Iqd al Fareed, Dhikr Wafaath Abu Bakr Volume 2 page 20
And few sentences after they wrote:
These five esteemed Sunni scholars noted Abu Bakr’s admission of his mistakes, so why do his modern day champions go mad when we accuse Abu Bakr of making a mistake on the Fadak issue? This is of course unpalatable for the followers of Abu Bakr, and their modern day advocate Al Khider tries his best to muddy the waters and present both parties as correct…
And by Allah they lied! Masoode author of “Muruj az-zahab” was known shia scholar, and not sunni one.
Hadeeth: Prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) gave fadak as gift to Fatima (r.a).
It was narrated from Abu Saeed al-Hudri that after Allah revealed verse (surah al-Isra, 26 )“And give to the near of kin his due and (to) the needy and the wayfarer, and do not squander wastefully”, prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) called Fatima (r.a) and gave her land of Fadak as a present.
This hadeeth is pure lie upon our beloved prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam).
First of all we should notice that this verse revealed in Mecca, and Fadak become a land of Moslems only after hijra (see commentary of ibn Kathir). Second, if that happen, then why did she come to Abu Bakr, and asked him about property, which was already in her possession?
These two points are enough reason to reject this narration, as a pure lie. But in addition to that we would examine chain of this hadeeth.
Ibn Adi in “Kamil fi duafa” (5/190) narrated it from Abu Saeed via chain: Narrated to me al-Qasim ib Zakariya, which said: narrated to me Abbad ibn Yaqub, which said: narrated to me Ali ibn Abis from Fudayl ibn Marzuq from ‘Atiyyah from Abu Saeed al-Hudri.
This chain is good example of shia way of transmission.
1) Abbad ibn Yaqub Koofe. Shia. Abu Hatim and Ibn Khuzayma said he’s thiqat. Ibn Adi said: “And Abbad ibn Yaqub, known from people of Kofa, and in him quluw in at-tashayu, and he narrated ahadeth, which were rejected from him, in praise of ahlalbayt, and harm of others”. It was reported that he use to say: “Allah is just, to let Talha and Zubayr enter the heaven”. And it was narrated that he use to abuse Uthman (Mizzi “Tahzib al-kamal” 14/#3104). Ibn Hibban said: “He was caller to rafd, and along with that narrated manakir from famous people, deserve to be abandoned”. Dhahabi said that he was from qulatu shia, and from the head of innovations, but saduq in his narrations. (“Mizanul itidal” 2/379/#4149). Hatib mentioned that ibn Khuzayma stopped narrating from Abbad in the end (“Tahzib at-tahzib” 5/#183). Ibn Jawzi included Abbad in his book on weak and abandoned narrators, and cited there opinion of scholars (“Duafa wal matrukin” 2/p77).
2) Ali ibn Abis. Ibn Maeen said he’s nothing. Juzajani, Azdi, Nasai said he’s weak. Ibn Hibban said he made terrible mistakes, and deserve to be abandoned. (“Mizanul itidal” 3/134/#5872). Ibn Jawzi included him in “Duafa wal matrukin” (2/p195) and noticed that Sade and others said he’s weak. Saji said he had manakir (“Tahzib at-tahzib”7/#571). Ibn Adi said that his ahadeth to be recorded, along with his weakness (“Kamil fi duafa” 5/#1347). Dhahabi in “Kashaf” (#3934) noticed his weakness. Ibn Hajar said he’s weak in “Taqrib” (#4757)
3) Fudayl ibn Marzuq. His personality is a matter of disagreement between scholars. bn Maeen, Sufyan ibn Ueyna said he’s thiqat. And it was narrated that ibn Maeen weakened him (see also ibn Shahin “Tarih asma thiqat” #1122). Nasai said he’s weak, same opinion shared Uthman ibn Saeed. Dhahabi in “Mizan” said: “Abu Abdullah al-Hakim said: “Fudayl ibn Marzuq isn’t from conditions of sahih, it’s pity that Moslem narrated from him in Sahih”. Ibn Hibban said: “His ahadeth are extremely munkar, and he was from those who erred upon truthful (when narrated from them), and he narrated FABRICATIONS FROM ATIYYAH (Here he also narrating from ‘Atiyyah). I (Dhahabi) say: ATIYYAH IS MORE WEAK THAN HIM (And he said he’s thiqat in “Kashaf” #4492). Ibn Adi said: “If his ahadeth would be in line with ahadeth of truthful, he can me relied on in such cases”. (See “Mizanul itidal” 3/362/# 6772). Ibn Abu Hatim narrated from his father, that he said about ibn Marzuq: “He was saduq, salihul-hadeeth, erred a lot, his ahadeth to be recorded”, I (ibn Abu Hatim) asked: “He’s to be rely on”? He said: “No” (“Jarh wa tadil” 7/#423). Ibn Jawzi included him in “Duafa wal matrukin” (3/p9) and said: “Yahya said: “Thiqat”, and once said: “Weak”. Ar-Razi said: “Not to be rely on”. Ibn Hibban said: “Erred upon thiqat, and narrated from ‘Atiyyah fabrications”.
Abu Bakr ibn Athram narrated that when Imam Ahmad was asked about ibn Marzuq, he answered: “I don’t know anything except good about him” (“Sualat Abu Bakr ibn Athram li Ahmad ibn Hanbal” p 166/#239).
4) Last problem of this chain is ‘Atiyyah h ibn Sad al-Awfe al-Koofe. Scholars of Islam almost agreed upon his weakness. Dhahabi, Abu Hatim, Nasai, Ahmad said he’s weak (“Mizanul itidal” 3/79/#5667). He was also weakned by Sufyan Thawri and Ibn Adi (“Tahzib al-kamal” 20/#3956). Heythami in “Majmau zawaid” #11125 said Atiyyah weak, abandoned.
Shaykh Muhammad Albani in his book on tawasul discussed ‘Atiyyah : “‘Atiyyah is weak as declared by an -Nawawee in al-Adhkaar, Ibn Taimiyyah in al-Qaa’idatul-Jaliyyah and adh-Dhahabee in al-Meezaan; indeed in ad-Du’afaa (88/1) he says: “They are agreed upon his weakness.” Also by al-Haafidh al-Haithamee in various places in Majma’uz-Zawaa’id from them (5/236). He is also mentioned by Aboo Bakr ibn al-Muhibb al-Ba’labakee in ad-Du’afaa wal-Matrookeen, and by al-Boosayree as will follow. Likewise al-Haafidh Ibn Hajr says of him: “Truthful but makes many mistakes; he was a Sbee’ee mudallis.” So he clarifies this narrator’s weakness and it is due to two things: (i) The weakness of his memory as shown by his saying: “He makes many mistakes.” This is like his saying about him in Tabaqaatul-Mudalliseen: “weak in hadeeth” Even more clear is his saying about him in “Talkbeesul-Habeer (p.24l, Indian edn.) whilst discussing another hadeeth: “It contains ‘Atiyyah ibn Sa’eed al-‘Awfee and he is weak.” (ii) His tadlees. However al-Haafidh should have explained the type of tadlees which he performed, since tadlees with the scholars of hadeeth is of many types, the most well-known of which are:
(a) That a narrator reports a narration from someone he met when in fact he did not directly hear that narration from him, or that he narrated something from a contemporary whom he did not actually meet, giving the impression that he heard it from him. For example by saying ‘From so and so’ or ‘so and so said.’
(b) That the narrator calls his Shaikh by an unfamiliar name or title, different to the name by which he is commonly known in order to hide his true identity. The scholars have clearly stated that this is something forbidden if his Shaikh was an unreliable narrator, and he does this to hide his identity or to give the impression that he was a different reliable narrator with the same name or title.103 This is known as tadleesusb-Shuyookh.
So in conclusion we say that ‘Atiyyah used to narrate from Aboo Sa’eed al – Khudree, radiyallaahu ‘anhu, then when he died he used to sit with one of the great liars well known for lying about hadeeth, who was al-Kalbee. Then ‘Atiyyah used to narrate from him, but when doing so would call him ‘Aboo Sa’eed’ to give the impression to those listening that he had heard these narrations from Aboo Sa’eed al-Khudree! This to me in itself would be enough to destroy the credibility of ‘Atiyyah, so how about when we have in addition to it his weak memory! Therefore I would have been pleased for al -Haafidh to clarify the fact that it was this evil type of tadlees which ‘Atiyyah was guilty of, even if only by an indication as he does in Tabaqaatul-Mudalliseen by his saying:
“Well-known for evil tadlees” as has preceded. It is as if al-Haafidh forgot or erred, or something else, as humans are prone to make mistakes some – times, since he says about this hadeeth that in one narration ‘Atiyyah says:
“Aboo Sa’eed narrated to me,” and he himself says about this: “Therefore through this we know that we are safe from ‘Atiyyahs tadlees,” as Ibn ‘Alaan narrated from him, and some modern day authors follow him blindly in that. I say: This declaration that he heard it from him would only be of use if his tadlees were of the first type, but the tadlees of ‘Atiyyah is of the second and worse type and will not be cured by this statement since he still said “Aboo Sa’eed narrated to me” which is exactly the evil type of tadlees which he is known for.104 So from what has preceded it will be clear that ‘Atiyyah is weak due to his poor memory and evil tadlees, so this hadeeth of his is weak. As for the declaration of al-Haafidh that it is hasan, which has beguiled some people who have no knowledge, then it is founded upon inadvertence. So be aware and do not be amongst those who are unaware. In the hadeeth there are other weaknesses which I have spoken about in the aforementioned book, so there is no need to repeat them since whoever wishes can refer to that.
As for the understanding of some people today that the saying of al-Haafidh Ibn Hajr in at-Taqreeb amounts to declaration of the reliability of ‘Atiyyah, then this is something which is not correct at all. I also asked Shaikh Ahmad ibn as- Haafidh upon this saying after our explanation of the type of tadlees which ‘Atiyyah is guilty of, then this person is biased and following his desires. This is the case with one who quoted this saying of al-Haafidh, using it as a reply to my declaration of the weakness of the hadeeth. I say that he is biased since I know that he is aware of the type of tadlees committed here and which is spoken of by me; this is because he is replying to these words of mine about this hadeeth. However he feigns ignorance of that fact and doesn’t say a single word in reply to it. Rather he pretends that the tadlees was of the first kind which can be removed by a narration where it is clearly stated that a narrator heard it directly from his Shaikh. Will the readers excuse me if I say:
Do such people not themselves deserve to be placed amongst those guilty of tadlees like ‘Atiyyah?!
Siddeeq when I met him in the Zaahiriyyah Library in Damascus about thi s understanding and he too found it very strange. For when the mistakes of a narrator become many his reliability is destroyed, as opposed to one whose mistakes are few. The first of these is weak whereas the second is hasan in hadeeth. This is why al-Haafidh in Sharhun-Nukhbah says, that one whose mistakes are many is the partner of one whose memory is poor, and he declares the ahaadeeth of both of them to be rejected, so refer back to that along with the footnotes of Shaikh ‘Alee al-Qaaree (pp.!21&130). These people have been deceived by what they report from al -Haafidh that he said in Takbreejul-Adhkaar. “The weakness of ‘Atiyyah is due to his being a Shee’ee, and due to the fact that it is said that he committed tadlees; apart from this he is acceptable. “ So these people, due to their paucity of knowledge or their lack of knowledge, do not have the courage to explain their view that the scholars do indeed make mistakes. Rather they quote their words as if they are secure from any error or slip whatsoever, especially if their words agree with what they desire, such as is the case with this quote. Since it is clear here that these words run contrary to the saying of al-Haafidh in at-Taqreeb where he shows that ‘Atiyyah is weak due to two reasons:
(i) Being a Shee’ee, which is not always a cause of weakness in the correct saying, and (ii) Tadlees which is a weakness that can be removed as will follow. However he seemed to weaken this reason by saying: “It is said…” Whereas in at-Taqreeb he definitely stated that he is a mudallis, just as he declares him to be a shee’ee. Therefore al-Haafidh himself also says of him in Tabaqaatul-Mudalliseen (p. 18): “A well known taabi’ee , weak in memory and well-known for evil tadlees!’ and he mentions him in the fourth level about whom he says: “Those about whom there is agreement then none of their hadeeth are acceptable unless they state clearly that they heard it directly. This is due to their frequency in reporting by means of tadlees from weak and unknown narrators, such as Baqiyyah ibn al-Waleed.”
He mentions this in his introduction. So both of these are clear statements from al-Haafidh himself which prove that he erred in the sentence in question when casting doubt upon the status of ‘Atiyyah as a mudallis. This is one way in which there is contradiction between this saying and what is found in at- Taqreeb. Then a further way in which there is contradiction is that in the sentence in question he fails to describe him with what is another cause of his weakness, as has preceded from him in the quote from Sharhun-Nukhbab,and that is his saying in at-Taqreeb: “He makes many mistakes.” All of this shows us that al-Haafidh, rahimahullaah, was not aided by his memory at the instance of his commenting upon this hadeeth. He therefore fell into this shortcoming which is witnessed to by his words in the other books which have more right to be depended upon. This is because in those books he quotes directly from the sources and abridges what they say, as opposed to what he does inTakhreejul-Adhkaar. (end of quote from shaykh Albani)
Salam alaikum, in one from our previous posts, we have already talked about Fadak in details.
In their attempt to make any base for their position, shias trying to find a proof in the verses of Quran.
And usually, they are bringing this one.
“And Sulaiman inherited Dawood…” Naml 27 : 16(Part)
First of all we should see these verses in context.
[27:15] And certainly We gave knowledge to Dawood and Sulaiman, and they both said: Praise be to Allah, Who has made us to excel many of His believing servants. [27:16] And Sulaiman was Dawood’s heir, and he said: O men! we have been taught the language of birds, and we have been given all things; most surely this is manifest grace. Continue reading ‘Doubt: Shia arguments from the Qur’an in relation to inhertance (FADAK)’
Regarding narration, that there is no inheritance from prophets.
Kattani in “Nazmul mutanaseera min al hadeethal mutawateera” (272) wrote:
“Narration that no one inherits from prophets, everything that they leave behind is for charity
Suyooti in “Azhar” reported it via:
4) Sad ibn Abi Vaqas
6) Abu Bakr.
7) Abdurrahman ibn Auf.
8. Zubayr ibn Awam.
9) Abu Hurayra.
13) ibn Abbas.
13 sahaba in total
8 from “Ashara mubashara” reported this narration. So this hadeeth is close to “Who will lie upon me
Ibn Hajar in “Amaliya Muhraja ala muhtasaru ibnul Hajeeb al Asli” said: “This narration, is authetic and mutawateer”.”..
Imam Jalal ad-deen as-Suyote in “al-Azhar al-mutanasera minal hadith al-mutawatera” said:
“Hadith #100: We are not to be inherited, whatever we left is for charity”.
1) Shaykhan narrated it from Umar, Uthman, Ali, Sad ibn Abu Waqqas, Al-Abbas.
2) Moslem narrated it from Abu Bakr as-Siddiq, Aburrahman ibn Auf, Zubayr ibn Awwam, Abu Hurayra.
3) Abu Dawud narrated from Aisha.
4) Nasai from Talha.
5) Tabarani from Huzayfa and ibn Abbas”.
“al-Azhar al-mutanasera minal hadith al-mutawatera” p 273, #100, makabatul Islami.
Muhammad Kulayni narrated in “Kafi” vol 1, p 32:
Muhammad ibn Yahya has narrated from Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Isa from Muhammad ibn Khalid from abu al-Bakhtari from abu Abdallah (a.s.) who has said the following.”The scholars are the heirs of the prophets because the prophets did not leave any Dirham or Dinar, (units of money) as their legacy. What they left was certain pieces of their statements.Those who acquired anything of these pieces of their statements they have certainly gained a large share. You must be very careful, when acquiring such knowledge, to see from what kinds of people you receive them. Among us (the Ahlul Bayt, family of the holy Prophet s.a.) after every one there comes a just person who removes (and exposes) the forgeries of the exaggerators from it (knowledge), the infiltrated materials of the fallacious ones and the interpretations of the ignorant ones.”
Regarding the authenticity of this hadith, Allamah Muhammad Baqir Majlisi states in his commentary on al-Kafi, entitled Mirâat al-Uqul:
[This] hadith 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. (Mirâat al-˜Uqul, vol. 1 p. 111)
And here scan from Khomaynis book, where he also autheticated this narration.
“Muhammad ibn al-Hassan and Ali ibn Muhammad has narrated from Sahl ibn Ziyad and Muhammad ibn Yahya from Ahmad ibn Muhammad, all from Jafar ibn Muhammad al-Ashâari from ‘Abdullah ibn Maymun al-Qaddah and Ali ibn Ibrahim from his father from Hammad ibn Isa from al-Qaddah from abu Abdallah (a.s.) who has said the following. “The holy Prophet has said, If one sets out on a journey to seek knowledge Allah will lead him to the way that would take him to paradise. The angels will stretch their wings for the pleasure of the seeker of knowledge and all that is in the heavens and earth even the whales in the oceans will ask forgiveness for him (from Allah). The excellence of the scholar over other people is like that of the moon over other stars during a full-moon night. The scholars are the heirs of the prophets. The prophets did not leave any Dirham or Dinar (wealth) as their legacy but they did leave knowledge as their legacy. Whoever acquires a share from such legacy has gained a very large share.
Some other shia ahadeth about this issue:
So these Ahadith of shia Imams collectively do testify to the Hadith reported by Abu Bakr [ra].
Ibn Babawaih, p. 58:
9- “…….Abdullah b. Maymoun, narrated al-Sadiq Ja’far b. Muhammad from his father, from his forefathers saying: The Messenger [saw] said: …….. Verily scholars are the heirs of the prophets, for prophets did not leave behind (as an inheritance) neither a Dinar nor a Dirham, rather they left knowledge as an inheritance…..”
It is obvious for those who hold a bit of rationalism that he [saw] meant to say, the Prophet have no heirs to inherit wealth from them, what they leave behind is knowledge, and whoever picks knowledge is like the actual heir who inherits Dinars & Dirhams.
Al-Ikhtisaas of al-Mufeed, p. 4
” …. narrated Abul-Bukhturi, from al-Sadiq saying: Scholars are the heirs of Prophets, that’s because Scholars did not leave behind for inheritance neither a Dirham nor a Dinar, rather they left for inheritance Ahadith of their sayings….”
Apparently Abu Abdullah (r.a) has erred here, because some scholars do leave behind some wealth for inheritance, unless it was a slip of a tongue or an error by the copiers.
al-Mahaasin of al-Barqi, vol.1, pp 421-422
“….Abul-Hasan said: The Meseenger [salallahu alayhi wa salam] brought them what should be sufficient for them during his era, and what should be sufficient for them after him: The Book of Allah, and the Sunnah of His Prophet”
So clearly the distortion is in misunderstanding. The Ahadith are explicitly stating the Prophets leave no money or its worth for inheritance, but they do leave a knowledge, whoever picks it is actually an inheritor of the prophet.
The above ahadith do support the Hadith reported by Abu Bakr [ra] as well as his cause for keeping Fadak as a property for the State. Sure, had Abu Bakr[RA] or Omar [ra] inherited Fadak for their ownselves, charges would have a merit, but they managed it as a Sadaqah fi sabeelillah, and so did Ali [ra] when he became a Caliph.
Al-Kulaini states in his al-Kafi: “That the Imams know the times of their deaths, and that they only die if they so wish”. And we find al-Majlisi – in his ‘Bihar al-Anwar’ – mentioning a hadith which says: “None of the Imams died a natural death; each of them was either killed or poisoned”.
Now, if the Imam knows the unseen (ghaib), as purported by al-Kulaini and al-Hurr al-’Amili, he would definitely know which food or drink he was given, and if it happened to be poisoned, he would know and decline to eat or drink it. But if he goes on to eat or drink it, knowing fully that it was poisoned, then he must be seen as committing suicide, and the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wa alihi wa sallam has expressly stated that whoever kills himself will be in the Hell fire. Would the Shi’ites, then, accept this fate for their Imams?