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.
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.