Fadak and Inheritance Q&A


fadakFadak and the Prophetic Inheritance QA

Peace be upon our dear readers, this is PART III of our research on Fadak and the prophetic inheritance, in this piece we will answer some of the common questions asked regarding our topic, and we will address a lot of misconceptions as well as objections raised by opponents whether they be scholars or internet bloggers. This Q & A will be updated with new information and edited whenever necessary to address new questions and add more information if required, questions will be posed randomly and without a certain order.

We have previously concluded in our research that there are two positions for Ahlul-Sunnah on the matter of prophetic inheritance, in this article we shall adopt the popular opinion that all prophets peace be upon them do not leave a Dinar or Dirham, meaning whatever they own which is of any worth is not inherited by their children but spent on the people. Otherwise, if we were to adopt the other position then many of the questions in this Q & A do not require an answer nor would they conflict with our opinions, so for the benefit we will obviously choose the popular belief of Ahlul-Sunnah that has been made clear by the scholarly opinions found in PART II.

(Click here for the first two parts)

In the name of Allah we begin,


  • 1. Can the narration of a single man (khabar ahad) restrict qur’anic meaning?
  • 2. Why did the wives inherit the land of khaybar?
  • 3. Why did the wives get to keep their houses?
  • 4. Isn’t inheriting the kingdom proof that prophets leave money as inheritance?
  • 5. Did sulayman inherit a thousand horses from his father?
  • 6. Can prophet-hood be inherited?
  • 7. Does the fact that only sulayman was mentioned as heir mean anything?
  • 8. Does the verse {and we were given from all things} mean he inherited money?
  • 9. Are there narrations proving that prophets never offered an inheritance of money?
  • 10. Did dawud have other children than sulayman?
  • 11. What significance do the words {and inherits from the house of ya`qoub} have?
  • 12. What kind of knowledge would be left as inheritance?
  • 13. Did zakariya fear his prophet-hood would be stolen?
  • 14. Do these words {make him, o my lord! One with whom thou art well-pleased!} Make no sense if asking for a successor in other than money?
  • 15. Can prophet-hood be attained by du`a’?
  • 16. Did `ali or fatimah ever use the verses of sulayman and yahya to prove that prophets leave inheritance?
  • 17. The terms “mawali” & “waliya” in the verse of zakariya, do scholars agree on its meaning?
  • 18. Is asking the lord to send a prophet to the people rude?
  • 19. What did yahya receive from zakariya?
  • 20. How did the shia imams explain the two verses according to authentic shia narrations?
  • 21. Did prophet adam (as) give inheritance?
  • 22. Did prophet ishaq (as) leave inheritance?
  • 23. Do prophets live a luxurious lavish lifestyle?
  • 24. Prophets inherit in the bible and other religious books?
  • 25. The prophet (saw) gave fadak to fatimah?
  • 26. Did fatimah bring two witnesses to prove fadak belongs to her?
  • 27. What was the fay’ of the jews in madinah used for? What was the fay’ of khaybar used for including fadak? What was the rest of the land of khaybar taken by force used for?
  • 28. What about the hadith of abu dharr that says leaders will monopolize the wealth from the fay’?
  • 29. Were there any servants to be inherited by the household?
  • 30. What were fatimah and al-`abbas asking abu bakr for?
  • 31. What were al-`abbas and `ali asking `umar for?
  • 32. Did `ali, al-`abbas and fatimah understand the hadith of the prophet (saw) as abu bakr did?
  • 33. Did abu bakr and `umar agree with the household on how khums is spent?
  • 34. In conclusion, is fatimah entitled to receive anything from fadak?
  • 35. Is the fay’ supposed to be under the control of abu bakr and he divides it?
  • 36. What is the opinion on the narration where fatimah replies to abu bakr with “you know best”?
  • 37. Anything that prophets leave as charity cannot be inherited?
  • 38. Did `ali accuse abu bakr of being dishonest and treacherous?
  • 39. Is the anger of fatimah in this case dangerous?
  • 40. Mursal al-sha`bi is it rejected or accepted?
  • 41. Did the prophet (saw) give some lands as gifts to certain men, if so why did abu bakr not confiscate them?
  • 42. Did the three caliphs inherit the prophet’s (saw) ring?
  • 43. The prophet’s (saw) clothes were inherited?
  • 44. What did the prophet (saw) leave behind?
  • 45. How can ahlul-bayt eat from sadaqah?
  • 46. Did prophet muhammad (saw) inherit?
  • 47. Did the messenger (saw) wish for his family wealth?
  • 48. How do you explain the verses of fay’ in surat al-hashr?
  • 49. Why was fatimah angry?
  • 50. Is not writing a wasiyyah(will) a mistake on the part of prophet muhammad (saw)?
  • 51. Was abu bakr more knowledgeable about the prophet (saw) than his daughter?
  • 52. Did abu bakr fulfill the prophet’s (saw) promises?
  • 53. Why do the shia find it objectionable that prophets have an exceptional ruling of inheritance?
  • 54. Did `Ali ask Abu Bakr for inheritance or was he silent on this?


The argument of the opponent is that a single report by a single companion cannot be taken as evidence to restrict the meaning of “inheritance” in the Qur’anic verse.

The famous Qur’anic Mufassir Mahmoud bin `Abdullah al-Husayni al-Alusi (d.1270) said in his Tafseer:

إن تخصيص القرآن بخبر الآحاد جائز على الصحيح وبجوازه قال الأئمة الأربعة ، ويدل على جوازه أن الصحابة رضي الله تعالى عنهم خصصوا به من غير نكير فكان إجماعاً

[Restricting Qur’anic meaning with the Ahad narration is permissible in the correct opinion and permitted by the four Imams, what proves its permissibility is that the Sahabah (ra) have restricted the meanings of verses with it without objections so it is by consensus.]

Although in reality the narration of the prophet not leaving behind inheritance was narrated by several companions other than Abu Bakr, such as `Umar and abu al-Darda’ and abu Hurayrah and Hudhayfah and others, in either case this argument falls.


This refers to the narration in which `Umar expels the Jews out of some areas of Khaybar then divides the lands and gives the wives Two options: Guaranteeing the same amount of Khums they regularly got on a yearly basis Or Offering them from the land what is estimated to produce that amount.

In Tareekh al-Madinah we read in the authentic narration of `Abdullah ibn `Umar:

وَيَأْخُذُ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ الْخُمُسَ، وَكَانَ النَّبِيُّ أَطْعَمَ كُلَّ امْرَأَةٍ مِنْ أَزْوَاجِهِ مِنَ الْخُمُسِ: مِائَةَ وَسْقٍ تَمْرًا، وَعِشْرِينَ وَسْقًا شَعِيرًا

[The messenger (saw) used to take the Khums and used to feed each of his wives from this Khums: a hundred Wasaq of dates and twenty Wasaq of barely.]

In Sahih Muslim:

[Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) handed over the land of Khaybar (on the condition) of the share of produce of fruits and harvest, and he also gave to his wives every year one hundred Wasq: eighty Wasq of dates and twenty Wasqs of barley. When ‘Umar became the caliph he distributed the (lands and trees) of Khaybar, and gave option to the wives of Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) to earmark for themselves the land and water or stick to the Wasq (that they got) every year. They differed in this matter. Some of them opted for land and water, and some of them opted for Wasq every year. `A’ishah and Hafsah were among those who opted for land and water.]

This land was not inherited, Khaybar was split into two parts, one part was taken by force and other parts taken without violence, the part in question here is the one taken by force which is why the wives received from its Khums according to the narrations, this also shows that the wives are from Ahlul-Bayt since they also receive from the Khums of the close relatives.

Nor did even his wives get much, the messenger (saw) would barely give them what is enough for the year, `A’ishah narrates in Bukhari and Muslim:

توفي رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم وما في بيتي شيء يأكله ذو كبد إلا شطر شعير في رف لي فأكلت منه حتى طال علي فكلته ففني

[Messenger of Allah (saw) died when my house was void of any edible thing except for a small quantity of barley I had on a shelf and from which I kept eating it for a long time. Then when I measured what was left of it, it soon finished.]

The Jews working these lands broke the law, so `Umar kicked them out of it into al-Sham, then he told the Muslims who took part in the battle of Khaybar to follow him as he will divide this now empty land between them, and so all those people the Prophet (saw) usually spent on from the riches of this land, they all received a share of the land like the mothers of believers did, and also all the fighters such as al-Zubayr and `Ali received parts of this land since they fought to conquer it.

It says in the books of Islamic economy or the books of “Amwal” as they are called in Arabic concerning this incident in a long narration:

ثُمَّ كَانَ الَّذِي يَلِيهِ سَهْمُ بَنِي سَاعِدَةَ، ثُمَّ كَانَ الَّذِي يَلِيهِ سَهْمُ بَنِي النَّجَّارِ، ثُمَّ كَانَ الَّذِي يَلِيهِ سَهْمُ عَلِيِّ بْنِ أَبِي طَالِبٍ، رضي الله عنه

[…Then the share of bani Sa`idhah, then the share after that was for bani al-Najjar, then was the share of `Ali ibn abi Talib…]

It lists the names of the men and tribes who received parts of this land as it was divided.

To conclude, this is not an inheritance to begin with, and Fatimah (ra) was dead at the time, but her husband `Ali received his rightful share from it.


Fatimah got to keep her house after the Prophet (saw) died although her and `Ali never bought it, they had no money at all and `Ali couldn’t even afford a dowry, Abu Bakr never took her house away, nor did he take the houses of the mothers of believers away.

This point can be answered in three distinct ways:

1- It is because the Prophet (saw) and his wives are all emigrants, they’re not residents of Madinah, so when he (saw) came and resided there, he built for his wives and his daughters houses, these houses are for them, it is their property, this is why they weren’t counted as inheritance, as one cannot inherit his own property. In other words he gave each of them a house to live in.

2- It is because the ruling for the wives of the Prophet (saw) is different from other women, as you know a woman when her husband dies can remarry, the mothers of believers cannot, they’re to be his wives forever, thus when he died they entered a period of `Iddah. `Iddah is the period a woman spends after her husband dies in which she cannot remarry, as for the mothers of believers, they can never remarry, so there is nowhere for them to go, and so they get to stay in these houses, similar to what is stated in this verse:

{(In the case of) those of you who are about to die and leave behind them wives, they should bequeath unto their wives a provision for the year without turning them out, but if they go out (of their own accord) there is no sin for you in that which they do of themselves within their rights. Allah is Mighty, Wise.}[2:240]

This is why their relatives never inherited the houses as stated by ibn `Abdul-Barr in al-Tamheed:

[Their houses were not inherited from them by their heirs, if they were owned by them they should have but they left it and it is proof that they were only their houses during their lives.

When they had died, these houses were all used as part of the expansion of the mosque to benefit all Muslims, just like their Nafaqat(provisions) from what Rasul-Allah (saw) left behind, they were all spent on the Muslims after they passed away.]

3- The Prophet (saw) said in the narration “except the Nafaqah(provision) of my wives and workers(servants), everything I leave behind is alms to be given as charity.” So they said that his wives have no one to spend on them after his death, since they cannot remarry, and so the houses they got to keep during their lives were counted as a part of their Nafaqah.


This of course is referring to the inheritance of Sulayman from Dawud. The answer is of course No; this is not the regular inheritance of a son from his father, when the scholars say “Sulayman inherited kingdom.” This means that he inherited the position of king, and this is what kingship means, or that he inherited his kingdom, meaning the authority to rule over his father’s kingdom, in other words he inherited his leadership and authority to rule over his father’s domain.

Imam ibn Qutaybah explains what is meant by the word “Mulkahu” or “al-Mulk”, he explains what is intended by “inherited the kingdom” he says: “The meaning of Kingdom (al-Mulk) is: Authority, judgment and Politics, not the money.”

Shaykh al-Mawardi wrote in his Tafseer: “Only Sulayman was mentioned as heir because he inherited prophet-hood and kingdom, if it were that of money then all his sons would be equal in this.”

Meaning the scholars are differentiating between kingdom and the inheritance of money which is forbidden for prophets, Sulayman was only placed in charge of his father’s kingdom as he was the next ruler, and the ruler is in charge of all fortresses, soldiers and lands by default, this is what is meant by inherited here. He also inherited his knowledge which he learned and his prophet-hood in which he succeeded him as religious leader, all of this being metaphorical.

The same way `Umar succeeded Abu Bakr as leader, he automatically inherited Abu Bakr’s army and treasury and war horses and the Prophet’s (saw) seal or ring and the lands of Waqf or Fay’ so he can be the one to divide their produce.

Al-Tha`labi write in his Tafseer: “Inherited his prophet-hood and kingdom without the rest of his children, and Dawud (as) had nineteen sons.”

His point is that this isn’t normal inheritance, it is not a son who inherited his father’s money or a piece of land owned by his father, but rather it is a position of authority and politics that he acquired or inherited metaphorically after his father’s passing.

`Abdul-Haqq ibn `Atiyyah al-Andalusi wrote: “Dawud was from Bani Isra’eel and he was a king, {And Sulayman inherited Dawud} his kingdom and rank and prophet-hood, meaning these things were transferred to him after his father’s death so they were referred to as inheritance metaphorically. The reality of (the word) inheritance is (normally) that of money, but prophets do not leave their money as inheritance because he (saw) said: ‘We prophets leave no inheritance, what we leave behind is charity.’”

Ibn al-Jawzi wrote: “Inherited his prophet-hood and knowledge and kingdom; Dawud had nineteen sons but this was especially for Sulayman, had it been an inheritance of money then all his children would be equal in this.”

Ibn al-`Arabi said: “If it were an inheritance of money it should have been split between them but Allah preferred Sulayman with the inheritance of Dawud’s wisdom and prophet-hood, and a kingdom that no one after him had.”

Ibn Katheer said: “Meaning: In kingdom and prophet-hood, not an inheritance of money, if it were that of money then Sulayman would not be specified from among all his brothers, Dawud had one hundred wives but what was intended is inheritance of kingdom and prophet-hood.”

Abu Bakr was the successor of Rasul-Allah (saw) in leadership, and leadership dictates that all lands, armies, castles and assets be transferred under his direct control, this is metaphorical inheritance just like the case of Sulayman and Dawud, it is not real inheritance nor do the laws of inheritance in Islam Christianity or Judaism apply to it. We can say only metaphorically that Abu Bakr inherited Rasul-Allah (saw), but he never really inherited him, he just assumed control of all things Rasul-Allah (saw) ruled over, the same is the case for Sulayman and Dawud but since Dawud was a king and he ruled over a kingdom, then scholars said he inherited his kingdom, prophet-hood and knowledge.

Dawud as a king of a rich kingdom, he spent all his money on the people and never saved a fortune to give as inheritance for his children nor vast rich lands, Dawud peace be upon him used the lands just like Rasul-Allah (saw) used them, he took his family’s provision for a year, he takes what is barely enough to sustain them, then the rest is all spent on the believers. Dawud even went further than this, he wouldn’t even touch the wealth of the kingdom as he knew it belonged to the people, he only spent on himself from his own personal work.

We read in the authentic narration of al-Miqdam ibn Ma`di Karib:

إِنَّ نَبِيَّ اللَّهِ دَاوُدَ كَانَ يَأْكُلُ مِنْ كَسْبِ يَدَيْهِ

[Rasul-Allah (saw) said: “Nobody has ever eaten a better meal than that which one has earned by WORKING with one’s own hands. The Prophet of Allah, Dawud used to eat from the earnings of his manual labor.”]

In conclusion, this is a transfer of authority, all that was controlled by one leader, goes to his successor that comes after him, this in Arabic is called inheritance metaphorically and this is what is meant by scholars when they say “inherited his kingdom.”


Just as stated above, he inherited the kingdom as a ruler thus the horses and camels and places of worship and farms were all under his control, in this sense he inherited them metaphorically as was previously explained.

This news however originates from an early unreliable source called Tafseer Muqatil who died 150 hijri, and it is a baseless story that has no support from Qur’an, Hadith or the sayings of the companions.

What proves that it is fabricated, is that we have a narration from a much earlier reliable source, in Tafseer al-Tabari, we have a “Hasan” narration from Sufiyan al-Thawri from his father Masrouq from Ibrahim al-Taymi who died in 92 hijri, he says:

كانت عشرين فرساً ذات أجنـحة

[They were twenty winged horses.]

In the same book with an authentic chain to `Abdul-Rahman ibn Zayd who died in 182 hijri, he said that it was Shaytan who brought these horses out from the depth of the sea for him.

Also supported by the authentic narration in Sahih ibn Hibban:

قُلْتُ: فَرَسٌ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ، قَالَ: ” فَرَسٌ مِنْ رِقَاعٍ لَهُ جَنَاحٌ؟ ! ” قَالَتْ: فَقُلْتُ: أَلَمْ يَكُنْ لِسُلَيْمَانَ بْنِ دَاوُدَ خَيْلٌ لَهَا أَجْنِحَةٌ؟ فَضَحِكَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ

Where Rasul-Allah (saw) comes into `A’ishah’s room while she played with toys, among them was horses, so when he asked her: “A toy horse with wings?” she said: “Didn’t Sulayman bin Dawud have horses with wings?” And Rasul-Allah (saw) laughed.


Yes it can be inherited metaphorically; Imam al-Maturidi explains the meaning of “inherit” in the language of Arabs by saying:

[The people of interpretation say: He inherited the prophet-hood and wisdom, and the Warith(inheritor) means: The one who remains after the other perishes.]

This means that if Dawud was a prophet and he perished and his son remained after him as the prophet, he has inherited him linguistically. In other words he inherits him as the leader and prophet of his people.

I add, that the vast majority of the Imams of Tafseer and language said that prophet-hood is inherited, please revise PART II of this research to read their statements.

Some said that prophet-hood can’t be inherited since all prophets are born as prophets, this is incorrect of course as anyone who reads the life of prophet Muhammad (saw) or Ibrahim (as) knows for a fact that revelation did not reach them until later in their lives, on the other hand prophets such as `Isa (as) were born with the revelation and the prophet-hood.

Imam al-Shawkani writes in Irshad al-Fuhoul regarding protection from sins:

ذهب الأكثر من أهل العلم إلى عصمة الأنبياء بعد النبوة من الكبائر

[Most people of knowledge believe that the prophets are protected from big sins only after their prophet-hood.]

This is clear that most people of knowledge believe that they are not born prophets rather they become so after revelation.

However, even if it is since childhood, still we can linguistically say it is inherited in a metaphoric way simply since one became a prophet after the other and was born of him then the first perished and the son remained.


Many scholars said that the fact that only Sulayman was mentioned as an heir to Dawud, this is because his inheritance was that of kingship and prophet-hood, if it were a regular inheritance of money then all other sons should have been mentioned. This argument is correct and logical, however it can also be argued that the only reason Sulayman was mentioned is simply because it was his story and the emphasis was on him, not his brothers.


It is not possible to understand literally that he received all things in the universe, it only means that he was blessed by Allah with many great things such as the speech of birds and the kingdom and the prophet-hood, this is only restricted to the good things as well, not the evil things or bad things, so not everything.

Al-Fakhr al-Razi explains:

فالمراد كثرة ما أوتي

“What is meant here is that he received many things.”

Ibn Juzay al-Gharnati says:

والمراد بهذا اللفظ التكثير كقولك فلان يقصده كل أحد

“What is meant by this expression is to show a great number (of things), such as when you say: Everyone seeks this man’s advice.”

Shia scholar al-Tusi explains it in al-Tibyan:

لفظه لفظ العموم، والمراد به الخصوص لأنه لم يؤت أشياء كثيرة

“This text is a general statement but what is intended is specific things because he (Sulayman) never actually acquired many things.”

In brief, this shows that he acquired a good number of things but not all things or even most things.

As a king he most probably controlled much wealth but not because he inherited it directly, rather because the moment he became a king the kingdom normally produced much wealth. When he says {We were given from all things} this is not tied to inheritance by any linguistic proof, it can be that God gave him things at the end of his life which he never got at the beginning of his reign as king nor from inheritance. This is talking about the good things he received from Allah most high such as the speech of birds, which only comes from Allah.

Abu Bakr inherited the leadership from our master Muhammad (saw), he then had control of lands that produced wealth, and this does not mean Abu Bakr received money as an inheritance from Rasul-Allah (saw) just as a son would from his father.

Again the folks raising these questions are always oblivious to the fact that linguistically prophet-hood, knowledge and kingdom can be inherited and that this inheritance is metaphorical, not the traditional lawful inheritance between father and children which is governed by law.

The example of this:

{And We caused the Children of Isra’eel to inherit the Scripture}

This doesn’t mean that each of them got a page; rather this inheritance is metaphorical as any linguist would admit, thus we say the inheritance of Yahya and Sulayman both are also metaphorical. Refer to the introduction of PART I of our research for more on this.


It was authentically narrated from Abu Bakr that he said: The Prophet (saw) said: “We the prophets are not inherited, what we leave behind is spent in charity.”

It was also authentically narrated from abu al-Darda’, that he (saw) said: “Scholars are heirs of prophets, the prophets never left a Dinar nor a Dirham, their inheritance was knowledge.”

This means that whether the prophets were kings or poor shepherds, they took only their bare subsistence and offered the rest in charity. Nothing else is expected from those who desire the after-life.


There is almost a consensus among scholars -at least those of Tafseer- that he has many children, in fact in Hadith it is mentioned that he had so many children that not one moment of the day would pass unless one of them is mentioning Allah (swt).

In Mustadrak al-Hakim we read from the Hadith of Abu Bakr Isma`eel bin Muhammad bin Isma`eel al-Faqih who is a Thiqah according to al-Khalili in al-Irshad, he said in a Hasan Hadith to ibn `Abbas:

عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمَا، قَالَ: مَا أَصَابَ دَاوُدَ مَا أَصَابَهُ بَعْدَ الْقَدَرِ إِلا مِنْ عُجْبٍ عَجِبَ بِهِ مِنْ نَفْسِهِ، وَذَلِكَ أَنَّهُ قَالَ: يَا رَبِّ مَا مِنْ سَاعَةٍ مِنْ لَيْلٍ وَلا نَهَارٍ إِلا وَعَابِدٍ مِنْ آلِ دَاوُدَ يعَبْدُكَ يُصَلِّي لَكَ، أَوْ يُسَبِّحُ، أَوْ يُكَبِّرُ وَذَكَرَ أَشْيَاءَ، فَكَرِهَ اللَّهُ ذَلِكَ، فَقَالَ: يَا دَاوُدُ، إِنَّ ذَلِكَ لَمْ يَكُنْ إِلا بِي، فَلَوْلا عَوْنِي مَا قَوِيتَ عَلَيْهِ وَجَلالِي لأَكِلَنَّكَ إِلَى نَفْسِكَ يَوْمًا، قَالَ: يَا رَبِّ، فَأَخْبِرْنِي بِهِ فَأَصَابَتْهُ الْفِتْنَةُ ذَلِكَ الْيَوْمِ

[Dawud said: “O Lord, not an hour passes in the day or the night unless a slave from the house of Dawud worships you in prayer, or praises you, or glorifies you.”]

حَدَّثَنَا عَفَّانُ، قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا جَعْفَرُ بْنُ سُلَيْمَانَ، عَنْ ثَابِتٍ الْبُنَانِيِّ، قَالَ: ” بَلَغَنَا أَنَّ دَاوُدَ نَبِيَّ اللَّهِ جَزَّأَ الصَّلَاةَ عَلَى بُيُوتِهِ عَلَى نِسَائِهِ وَوَلَدِهِ، فَلَمْ تَكُنْ تَأْتِي سَاعَةٌ مِنَ اللَّيْلِ وَالنَّهَارِ إلَّا وَإِنْسَانٌ قَائِمٌ مِنْ آلِ دَاوُدَ يُصَلِّي، فَعَمَّتُهُمْ هَذِهِ الْآيَةُ اعْمَلُوا آلَ دَاوُدَ شُكْرًا وَقَلِيلٌ مِنْ عِبَادِيَ الشَّكُورُ “

We also read in a Sahih Hadith to Thabit al-Banani (41-127) that the Prophet Dawud (as) divided prayer between his houses, wives and sons, so that no hour would come unless a person from Dawud’s family stood praying.

حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ يَحْيَى، ثنا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ الصَّلْتِ، قَالَ: سَمِعْتُ شَرِيكًا، يَقُولُ: عَنِ السُّدِّيِّ، إِنْ شَاءَ اللَّهُ فِي قَوْلِهِ: ” اعْمَلُوا آلَ دَاوُدَ شُكْرًا قَالَ: لَمْ يَكُنْ يَنْفَكُّ مِنْهُمْ مُصَلٍّ

Also in a good narration from Shareek that al-Suddy (d.127) regarding this verse {Give thanks, O family of Dawood! and very few of My servants are grateful.} He said: “One of them would always be in prayer.”

أَخْبَرَنَا أَبُو الْقَاسِمِ الْخَرَقِيِّ، أنا أَحْمَدُ بْنُ سَلْمَانَ، نا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ أَبِي الدُّنْيَا، نا عَلِيُّ بْنُ الْجَعْدِ، أَخْبَرَنِي مُزَاحِمُ بْنُ زُفَرَ، عَنْ مِسْعَرٍ، قَالَ: ” لَمَّا قِيلَ لَهُمُ اعْمَلُوا آلَ دَاوُدَ شُكْرًا لَمْ يَأْتِ عَلَى الْقَوْمِ سَاعَةٌ إِلا وَمِنْهُمْ مُصَلٍّ

Also in a Hasan Hadith to Mis`ar ibn Kidam (d.153) about the same verse, he says: “Not an hour came upon those folks except that they were in prayer.”

قَالَ وُهَيْبُ بْنُ الْوَرْدِ: ” كَانَ دَاوُدُ النَّبِيُّ عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ قَدْ جَعَلَ اللَّيْلَ عَلَيْهِ وَعَلَى أَهْلِ بَيْتِهِ دُوَلا، لا تَمْرُ بِهِمْ سَاعَةٌ مِنْ لَيْلٍ إِلا وَفِي بَيْتِ اللَّهِ سَاجِدٌ أَوْ ذَاكِرٌ

Also in al-Hilyah it was narrated by ibn Khunays from Wahib bin al-Ward (d.153), that Dawud (as) divided the night between himself and his household, not an hour passes unless there is someone up in worship from among them.

These narrations show that he had quite a large household.

We also read in the Shia book al-Kafi the following.

وَ كَانَ لِدَاوُدَ ( عليه السلام ) أَوْلَادٌ عِدَّةٌ وَ فِيهِمْ غُلَامٌ كَانَتْ أُمُّهُ عِنْدَ دَاوُدَ وَ كَانَ لَهَا مُحِبّاً

[abu `Abdillah (as) said: Dawud (as) had several children, from them a boy whose mother he used to love.]


Zakariya’s son is not entitled to inherit the material possessions of the entire family of Ya`qoub, they died long ago and their possessions were distributed to countless descendants and according to laws of inheritance he can only inherit from his own fathers not the whole family of Ya`qoub. We ask the following question: Was the house of Ya`qoub famous for anything so that Allah may mention them?

Yes they were, the house of Ya`qoub was a house of prophet-hood and wisdom, having a rightly guided prophet among them is what set them apart and made them unique, thus the meaning here is that his son carried on the prophet-hood and knowledge of this blessed man Ya`qoub.

Al-Harrasi mentioned in his Tafseer: [What proves our point is that he combined his inheritance with that of the family of Ya`qoub when he said {Inherits me and inherits from the family of Ya`qoub} although it is known that his son is not entitled to inherit (wealth) from them.]

Concluding that this is an inheritance of prophet-hood and religious leadership, otherwise he wouldn’t have mentioned the house of Ya`qoub which is a house of prophet-hood.


The knowledge which is beneficial for mankind such as knowledge of the scriptures and the religious laws and the interpretations and wisdom, a prophet who spent his life preaching the message of monotheism would only be comforted and pleased if he saw with his own eyes a successor from himself to uphold his religion and continue his message after his death.

This knowledge can be transmitted through memory or books or tablets, it is this type of inheritance that prophets can offer humanity, not matters that make us more attached to this world.

Zakariya feared his relatives and followers would alter his teachings and sell his books for worldly gains then all knowledge he bestowed upon them would be lost, he knew they were not prepared for the ending of prophet-hood so he asked his Lord to bless him with a successor to keep his religion alive.


No Zakariya feared his religion would be lost if left to those people so he wished for another prophet to succeed him in guiding his people and to inherit his knowledge.

There is also a minor opinion which states that he feared the prophet-hood would be transmitted from his progeny to that of his paternal relatives.

Similar to how Ibrahim (as) asked his Lord if there would be pious leaders from his progeny.

If the opponent says: “It is natural to fear having material possessions being usurped. Zakariya (as) had some material possessions and as he had no offspring these possessions would have fallen into the hands of his nephews, who were not pious individuals.  Zakariya (as) feared that his nephews would invest these possessions in bad things.”

We say, Zakariya could have easily spent these possessions on charity for the cause of Allah which would raise his rank in the sight of Allah, no need to ask for an heir, or he could have asked Allah to guide his relatives so they may be good and again no need for a son, as for him fearing that his son would not be wealthy, he could have easily asked Allah to make his son wealthy and no need for this inheritance. As for being fearful of the money going to his relatives, this is actually un-natural as prophets do not care for wealth or money and they don’t collect it just like our Prophet (saw) passed away without leaving any fortune behind.

Praise be to God, our nation had a prophet, and through him we were able to experience the conduct of other prophets and we were able to observe their ways, if Muhammad ibn `Abdullah (saw) cared so much for money that he collected it then bestowed it on his children before his death, then we would not find it strange if Zakariya bin Mathan (as) did the same.

Prophets advised us humans to leave inheritance for our children; Allah however prohibited prophets from leaving inheritance so that humans may not start to doubt their intentions when they see them benefitting from their claims of prophet-hood to accumulate wealth and give as much as they can to their children. If the opponent wants clear proof, we remind them of the Sadaqah, charity given to the poor as per-Qur’anic text, yet Allah prohibited the prophetic household from receiving any of it.

No one will respect and appreciate a political leader who lives in luxury and gathers wealth for himself and his children like they’ll respect one who lives in poverty like his people and offers them his wealth. This is the truth as can be seen in today’s leaders, which is why the opinion of those who say all prophets can’t leave an inheritance of money is not illogical rather it makes perfect sense.

DO THESE WORDS {Make him, O my Lord! one with whom Thou art well-pleased!} MAKE NO SENSE IF ASKING FOR A SUCCESSOR IN OTHER THAN MONEY?

Opponents argue that this part of the verse would make no sense if Zakariya was asking for a prophet to succeed him, because Allah is pleased with prophets by default so no need to say this.

First of all when Zakariya told Allah to make him “Radiya” not just “Mardiya” this means that he wishes for his Lord to be well pleased with Yahya more than any other man who preceded him, and it is true as Allah sent him a son that does not sin, and in the Prophet’s (saw) narration he says that no son of Adam has never sinned except Yahya.

Fakhr al-Razi says in his Tafseer:

أن المراد واجعله رضياً من الأنبياء وذلك لأن كلهم مرضيون فالرضي منهم مفضل على جملتهم فائق لهم في كثير من أمورهم

[What is meant by asking Allah to make him a well pleasing prophet, although Allah is pleased with all of them yet still the one whom He is well pleased with is preferred over the rest, exceeding them in many ways.]

We also can respond, that Allah (swt) when talking about Prophet Isma`eel (as), says:

{And he used to enjoin on his people prayer and Zakah and was to his Lord pleasing.}

We can say half this verse makes no sense, as it is only logical for Allah to be pleased with Isma`eel (as) since he is one of his prophets, why would Allah not be pleased with him?

Or this verse in which Ibrahim (as) and Isma`eel (as) both said:

{Our Lord, and make us Muslims [in submission] to You and from our descendants a Muslim nation [in submission] to You. And show us our rites and accept our repentance. Indeed, You are the Accepting of repentance, the Merciful.}

We can argue that they are asking Allah to make them Muslims while they’re already Muslims, or that they are asking him to accept their repentance and it is known that a prophet’s repentance is accepted.

What is actually meant is keep us on this state and make us from those submit to you the best submission.


The opponents argue that prophet-hood cannot be attained by mere supplication, thus Zakariya can’t have asked God to grant him a prophet from his progeny as this would mean that Zakariya opposed God’s decision of who must be a prophet.

We say in response, it is not un-natural to believe that Zakariya asked his Lord for a son to succeed him in prophet-hood. Zakariya being the pious prophet that he is, wished for Allah to grant him a successor to amuse him and support him and carry on his teachings, he also asked God to honor him and favor him by keeping the prophet-hood within his lineage.

The problem with the opponent’s argument is that it is not written anywhere that a man cannot ask God to grant him a pious son and honor him by making his son a great prophet, rather this is liked and the only reason we never do it today is because Muhammad (saw) is the seal of prophets.

The second problem is that it does not mean that he opposes God’s decision, as God never told him of his decision, but he had the right to ask his Lord for this great favor and the answer was up to Allah. Otherwise we can say that God decided to not grant Zakariya a son and by asking his Lord for one he has opposed his Lord’s decision, does this make sense to the opponent?

Similar to the verse of Ibrahim (as) in the Qur’an:

{And [mention, O Muhammad], when Abraham was tried by his Lord with commands and he fulfilled them. [Allah] said, “Indeed, I will make you a leader for the people.” [Abraham] said, “And of my descendants?” [Allah] said, “My covenant does not include the wrongdoers.”}

Shia scholar al-Tabrasi says in his Tafseer:

أي واجعل من ذريتي من وُشح بالإمامة ويوشح بهذه الكرامة

[Meaning, and make from my progeny ones that are granted Imamah and granted this virtue.]

Shia scholar al-Tusi said similarly in al-Tibyan:

معناه واجعل من ذريتي من يؤتم به، ويقتدى به على قول الربيع وأكثر المفسرين

[Meaning, and make from my progeny ones that are leaders, who are followed as an example, according to the saying of al-Rabi` and the majority of scholars of Tafseer.]

Tabataba’i said:

فإن إبراهيم عليه السلام إنما كان سأل الإِمامة لبعض ذريته لا لجميعهم

[For Ibrahim peace be upon him had only asked for some of his progeny to become Imams, not all of them.]

So if according to them, one can ask his Lord to make him an Imam, when Imamah is greater than prophet-hood, then Zakariya’s request isn’t at all odd.


The opponents would like us to believe that `Ali and Fatimah have used such verses to counter the argument of Abu Bakr, the reality of the matter is that this is a baseless claim and the authentic detailed narration have never ever mentioned that `Ali or any of his household used such an argument against the Caliph, this is because they understood it the same way we do.

The opponents would resort to quoting fabricated narrations to prove their point, they quote this narration from Tabaqat ibn Sa`d, which shows that `Ali said what they claim he said to Abu Bakr and told him “This is the book of Allah speaking!”:

أَخْبَرَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عُمَرَ، حَدَّثَنِي هِشَامُ بْنُ سَعْدٍ، عَنْ عَبَّاسِ بْنِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ مَعْبَدٍ، عَنْ جَعْفَرٍ، قَالَ: جَاءَتْ فَاطِمَةُ إِلَى أَبِي بَكْرٍ تَطْلُبُ مِيرَاثَهَا وَجَاءَ الْعَبَّاسُ بْنُ عَبْدِ الْمُطَّلِبِ يَطْلُبُ مِيرَاثَهُ وَجَاءَ مَعَهُمَا عَلِيُّ، فَقَالَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ: قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ: ” لا نُورَثُ، مَا تَرَكْنَا صَدَقَةٌ “، وَمَا كَانَ النَّبِيُّ يَعُولُ فَعَلَيَّ، فَقَالَ عَلِيٌّ: وَرِثَ سُلَيْمَانُ دَاودَ، وَقَالَ زَكَرِيَّا: يَرِثُنِي وَيَرِثُ مِنْ آلِ يَعْقُوبَ، قَالَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ: هُوَ هَكَذَا وَأَنْتَ وَاللَّهِ تَعْلَمُ مِثْلَمَا أَعْلَمُ، فَقَالَ عَلِيٌّ: هَذَا كِتَابُ اللَّهِ يَنْطِقُ ! فَسَكَتُوا وَانْصَرَفُوا

This narration is extremely weak for several reasons:

-The first narrator is Muhammad bin `Umar al-Waqidi the historian, a man accused of fabricating narrations.

-The second narrator is Hisham ibn Sa`d al-Qurashy, he makes much mistakes that his narrations aren’t accepted without support.

-Then `Abbas bin Ma`bad is Thiqah, but he narrates this narration from Ja`far, and this Ja`far is unknown.

-The unknown Ja`far narrates from Fatimah and `Ali which shows a great gap in the chain, meaning it is disconnected.

-This narration opposes the most authentic of detailed narrations as there was no mention of such an argument in them.


When checking the English translations of the verse in Surat Mariyam, we read:

{And indeed, I fear the successors after me, and my wife has been barren, so give me from Yourself an heir} [Saheeh International]

{Lo! I fear my kinsfolk after me, since my wife is barren. Oh, give me from Thy presence a successor} [Pickthall]

{Now I fear (what) my relatives (and colleagues) (will do) after me: but my wife is barren: so give me an heir as from Thyself} [Yusuf `Ali]

Although the majority would translate it as kinsfolk or relatives, yet there is a difference on what the word Mawali means in this verse.

Al-Fakhr al-Razi sums up the strongest opinions by saying:

والمختار أن المراد من الموالي الذين يخلفون بعده إما في السياسة أو في المال الذي كان له أو في القيام بأمر الدين

“What is chosen (by scholars) is that the Mawali here means either those who succeed him in political leadership, or those who succeed him in his money, or those who succeed him in upholding the religion.”

It is also important to point that even those who chose the opinion that Mawali here means the relatives or cousins, many of them said: “He feared his relatives would corrupt his religion.” So it is not a rule that if one were to choose this explanation then this means he believes it is an inheritance of money, for if he died like most kings and rulers of those times, the next in line to rule will be the closest to him in blood relation, a paternal relative. Zakariya did not see his cousins as qualified God fearing candidates for this position.

In other words in the language of Arabs, this verse can simply mean: “I am afraid of those who will receive the leadership of Bani Isra’eel after me and my wife is barren so I have no one to succeed me, so grant me an heir to inherit from me my position of religious authority and inherit from the house of Ya`qoub the prophet-hood.”

Also notice that he never specifically said “grant me a son”, rather he wished for anyone to succeed him although he himself wished to have a son, this is why God fulfilled his best expectations. If they were to say “My wife is barren” proves that he is asking for a son, one can explain this simply as: O Lord, I need to someone to succeed me and I have no one, not even a son since my wife is barren, so grant me a successor.

There is another verse in the book of Allah which is also relevant, Allah says:

{And [mention] Zechariah, when he called to his Lord, “My Lord, do not leave me alone, while you are the best of inheritors.”}

This could also either mean that he is speaking of a son to amuse him and support him and inherit from him what can be inherited from responsibility and knowledge, or that he simply needs a man to support and succeed him as for referring to Allah as “the best of inheritors” it can also be understood that all matters are returned to Allah and he is pleased with his decision as some books state, or that even if Zakariya dies with no successor or son, then Allah is still present and who better to inherit this entire matter than Allah? Meaning: Who better to be in charge of the affairs after me than Allah?

In addition, what further proves that what he meant by successor was not specifically a son, is that he himself was shocked that God would grant him a son:

{He said, ‘My Lord! How shall I have a son, when my wife is barren, and I am already advanced in age!?’}

Meaning, when he asked for a Wali, or a close one to succeed him and support him, he asked for a helper because he knew he couldn’t have a son to help him since his wife was barren, otherwise he would’ve asked for a son, then Allah did this great favor for him and told him that this for him is easy.


Some might argue that it is none of Zakariya’s business to ask Allah to send a messenger or prophet, as it shows that he has no trust in Allah and that he thinks Allah is irresponsible towards his own religion?

We seek refuge in Allah from such arguments, yet we respond by saying that this assumption is incorrect, rather it shows that Zakariya is worried for the fate of his people and wished to be comforted by seeing a man succeed him in teaching them the message. Although his wife is barren, he could have easily went and married another just as Ibrahim (as) did when Sarah was barren, yet he had great trust in his Lord that he turned to no one but Allah and his Lord fulfilled his best wishes by granting him a successor, a son and an heir to prophet-hood.

It is also from the habit of prophets to ask Allah to send his messengers to guide the people, such as when Ibrahim said:

{“Our Lord! send amongst them a Messenger of their own, who shall rehearse Thy Signs to them and instruct them in scripture and wisdom, and sanctify them: For Thou art the Exalted in Might, the Wise.”}


To prove through the Qur’anic context that what Yahya received was authority and knowledge, we quote what Allah told Yahya in the next verse:

{O Yahya hold fast to the scripture with determination and we have given him the (authority of) judgment while still a boy} [19:12]

From the verse we see Yahya was given the scripture, meaning the mastery of its teachings and the wisdom to guide others through it, Yahya was also given when still a boy the ability to rule between people and judge.

Also if Zakariya was so worried about the inheritance of money from the family of Ya`qoub then why would Allah grant him a son that couldn’t have kids such as Yahya? And Yahya was never married, so does this mean all wealth from Zakariya and the family of Ya`qoub was lost? Not at all, for Yahya ruled and spread the message then died without a son but was succeeded by `Isa (as).


Even in the books of the Shia, we find narrations where their infallible leaders also explicitly declare that this inheritance wasn’t materialistic.

We have previously mentioned some of this in the first part of our research:

أَحْمَدُ بْنُ إِدْرِيسَ عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عَبْدِ الْجَبَّارِ عَنْ صَفْوَانَ بْنِ يَحْيَى عَنْ شُعَيْبٍ الْحَدَّادِ عَنْ ضُرَيْسٍ الْكُنَاسِيِّ قَالَ كُنْتُ عِنْدَ أَبِي عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ( عليه السلام ) وَ عِنْدَهُ أَبُو بَصِيرٍ فَقَالَ أَبُو عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ( عليه السلام ) إِنَّ دَاوُدَ وَرِثَ عِلْمَ الْأَنْبِيَاءِ وَ إِنَّ سُلَيْمَانَ وَرِثَ دَاوُدَ وَ إِنَّ مُحَمَّداً ( صلى الله عليه وآله ) وَرِثَ سُلَيْمَانَ وَ إِنَّا وَرِثْنَا مُحَمَّداً ( صلى الله عليه وآله ) وَ إِنَّ عِنْدَنَا صُحُفَ إِبْرَاهِيمَ وَ أَلْوَاحَ مُوسَى

[Ahmad bin Idris, from Muhammad bin `Abdul-Jabbar, from Safwan bin Yahya, from Shu`ayb al-Haddad, from Durays al-Kanasi that he said: I was with abu `Abdillah (as) and with him was abu Basir, so abu `Abdullah (as) said: “Dawud inherited the knowledge of the prophets, and Sulayman inherited Dawud, and Muhammad (saw) inherited Sulayman, and we inherited Muhammad (saw), and we have the Mushaf of Ibrahim and the tablets of Musa…]

Source: al-Kafi by al-Kulayni, volume 1 page 225. al-Majlisi declared its authenticity in Mir’aat-ul-`Uqool 3/20.

عِدَّةٌ مِنْ أَصْحَابِنَا عَنْ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عِيسَى عَنِ ابْنِ مَحْبُوبٍ عَنْ هِشَامِ بْنِ سَالِمٍ عَنْ يَزِيدَ الْكُنَاسِيِّ قَالَ سَأَلْتُ أَبَا جَعْفَرٍ … كَانَ زَكَرِيَّا الْحُجَّةَ لِلَّهِ عَزَّ وَ جَلَّ عَلَى النَّاسِ بَعْدَ صَمْتِ عِيسَى بِسَنَتَيْنِ ثُمَّ مَاتَ زَكَرِيَّا فَوَرِثَهُ ابْنُهُ يَحْيَى الْكِتَابَ وَ الْحِكْمَةَ وَ هُوَ صَبِيٌّ صَغِيرٌ أَ مَا تَسْمَعُ لِقَوْلِهِ عَزَّ وَ جَلَّ يا يَحْيى خُذِ الْكِتابَ بِقُوَّةٍ وَ آتَيْناهُ الْحُكْمَ صَبِيًّا

[Some of our companions, from Ahmad bin Muhammad bin `Isa, from ibn Mahboub, from Hisham bin Salim, from Yazid al-Kanasi, he said: I asked abu `Abdillah (as) … Zakariyyah was Allah’s proof on the people, two years after `Isa’s silence, then he died so his son Yahya inherited his book and his wisdom while still young, have you not heard Allah’s words {O Yahya hold on to the book firmly, and we have granted him the judgement while still young}…]

Source: al-Kafi by al-Kulayni, volume 1 page 382. al-Majlisi declared its authenticity in Mir’aat-ul-`Uqool 4/246.


The opponents quote this verse:

{And their prophet said to them, “Indeed, a sign of his kingship is that the chest will come to you in which is assurance from your Lord and a remnant of what the family of Moses and the family of Aaron had left, carried by the angels. Indeed in that is a sign for you, if you are believers.”}

The first thing one will notice, is that the verse has nothing to do with Adam (as) apparently nor anything to do with inheritance, rather if one reads it he understands that some chest will appear in a mystical way carried by the angels and this chest is a sign that Talut’s kingship over them is correct.

Bani Isra`eel who were quite corrupt at the time disliked this and said:

{How can he have kingship over us while we are more worthy of kingship than him and he has not been given any measure of wealth?}

Observe that these simpletons were proud and thought they were superior because they had more money, but money does not matter for prophets it only concerns those whose hearts are attached to the worldly life, Allah has given Talut something more valuable than money, he gave him knowledge of religion and this is what a true ruler requires:

{Indeed, Allah has chosen him over you and has increased him abundantly in knowledge and stature. And Allah gives His sovereignty to whom He wills.}

Where does Prophet Adam (as) come into the picture?

Well the scholars of interpretation, based on what they heard from narrations and opinions, they had several opinions regarding this mysterious chest:

Some said what was in the chest was what is left by the house of Harun and the house of Musa from scripture and religious texts.

Some said in it were the tablets and the stick of Musa and his clothes and some parts of the Torah.

Some said there was tranquility and calmness in the chest, a mysterious thing which no one knows.

Some said glad tidings from the books of Musa and Harun and past prophets of their victory over their opponents.

Some said that inside were pictures of prophets that Allah sent to Adam, then his children inherited it and it was passed from prophet to prophet.

In addition to several other opinions…

Obviously the opponent chose the one with Adam in it because it has the word “inherited”, not knowing that this is not an argument, simply because this is a special case, it is not the forbidden inheritance which is that of money and lands, it is technically an inheritance of knowledge since it only contains pictures with the identity of all prophets.

Even if it had something else in it, this opinion would still be invalid, as this is a metaphorical inheritance not a true inheritance, this is a case of Allah sending down special relics for the prophets, and each prophet transfers the relics to the one after him without applying the legal laws of inheritance on the box’s contents as instructed by Allah.

This is similar to the ring, swords and shoes of Prophet Muhammad (saw), they are not inherited, rather transmitted from Caliph to Caliph even if they’re unrelated until they ended up in Topi Kapi palace today in Turkey. Each Caliph inherits them from his predecessor in a metaphorical way and they belong to all Muslims.

We read in Tafseer al-Tabari a narration authentically attributed to Imam ibn Jurayj (76-150), he says that ibn `Abbas used to say that this Ark or chest contained the remains of the broken tablets of Musa.

 وكان موسى حين ألقـى الألواح تكسرت، ورفع منها، فنزل، فجمع ما بقـي، فجعله فـي ذلك التابوت

[And Musa when he threw the tablets they broke, so he climbed down and collected what remained and placed it in that chest.]

Ibn Jurayj narrates it then from Ya`la bin Muslim from Ibn Jubayr from ibn `Abbas that only a sixth of these tablets remains in the chest. In This same narration he mentions that it was a chest from Adam and whether this is the saying of Ibn Jurayj or ibn `Abbas, it shows that it is an inheritance of knowledge and scripture, not that of wealth and lands.

Also in the same book in a Sahih Hadith of Humayd and bin Buzay` both from Bishr from Dawud from `Ikrimah from ibn `Abbas regarding its contents, he said:

رضاض الألواح

[The broken pieces of the tablets.]

This was also narrated by Ya`qoub from Khalid from ibn `Ulayyah from `Ikrimah and also from other chains all to ibn `Abbas.

In another authentic narration it adds: “broken pieces of the tablet and the stick of Musa.”

These objects are not to be inherited, like the belongings of our Prophet (saw), they are transmitted from Khalifah to Khalifah, not to be divided among the heirs rather transmitted from prophet to prophet.

Proof is that Musa never gave this chest to his son, he gave it to the next prophet Yusha` bin Nun, in al-Tabari as well we read in an authentic Hadith from Bishr from Yazid from Sa`eed from Qatadah (61-117) that:

كان موسى تركه عند فتاه يوشع بن نون

[Musa had left it (the chest) with Yusha` bin Nun.]

Either way, it is not the forbidden inheritance of wealth and money, rather this is to keep these blessed relics in the hands of believers throughout the ages.


The opponents quote this verse:

{They said: “If he steals, there was a brother of his who did steal before (him).”}

They say what was stolen is the waist belt of Ishaq (as) that was inherited by his eldest daughter. This is according to a narration of Muhammad bin Ishaq from Moujahid.

When we check Tafseer al-Tabari we find this narration and this is its chain:

حدثنا ابن حميد، قال: ثنا سلـمة عن ابن إسحاق، عن عبد الله بن أبـي نـجيح، عن مـجاهد أبـي الـحجاج

The issue here is that Muhammad ibn Humayd is Matrouk, his narrations are rejected, as for Salamah bin al-Fadl his narrations are only acceptable with support, and there is no support for him in this narration, in addition Ibn Ishaq is a Mudallis and he never declared hearing. Thus it is extremely weak.

We find another chain for it in Tafseer ibn abi Hatim which goes like this:

حَدَّثَنَا عَلِيُّ بْنُ الْحُسَيْنِ، ثنا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عِيسَى، ثنا سَلَمَةُ، عَنِ ابْنِ إِسْحَاقَ، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ أَبِي نَجِيحٍ، عَنْ مُجَاهِدٍ

It also has Salamah bin al-Fadl and Muhammad bin Ishaq with the same weakness as before.

On the other hand, we read a different story in al-Tabari from Sa`eed ibn Jubayr that he said:

سَرَقَ يُوسُفُ صَنَمًا لِجَدِّهِ أَبِي أُمِّهِ، كَسَرَهُ وَأَلْقَاهُ فِي الطَّرِيقِ، فَكَانَ إِخْوَتُهُ يَعِيبُونَهُ بِذَلِكَ

[Yusuf stole an idol for his father’s father; he broke it and threw it on the road, his brothers used to reproach him for this.]

We also read the same from Qatadah, in an authentic narration from Ibn Tawr from Ma`mar from him that he said:

سَرَقَ صَنَمًا لِجَدِّهِ أَبِي أُمِّهِ

[He stole an idol from his grandfather from his mother’s side.]

Also we read in an authentic narration from ibn Jurayj:

كانت أم يوسف أمرت يوسف يسرق صنـماً لـخاله يعبده

[Yusuf’s mother was a Muslim and she ordered him to steal an idol belonging to his maternal-uncle who worshipped it.]

In other words the strongest narrations mention that he stole a stone idol from a relative from his mother’s side, as for the long story of his aunt’s inheritance, it is weak.


A question is posed; do prophets of God lead rich luxurious lives or simple modest lives?

A person would say: Some prophets were kings, isn’t this proof? Well not really, a king is in control of many things, this doesn’t mean he’ll eat an entire camel and throw the excess food away like today’s leaders.

`Umar ibn al-Khattab as the leader of the Islamic nation and the successor of the Prophet’s (saw) successor, he ruled a vast rich land, yet he barely ate any meat and wore only old clothes although he could have gotten everything he ever wanted.

Ibn al-Mubarak reports in his book, from al-Thawri, from Sulayman bin Mihran from Khaythamah (d.80 hijri) with an authentic chain about Sulayman bin Dawud (as) that he said:

كُلُّ الْعَيْشِ قَدْ جَرَّبْنَاهُ، لَيِّنُهُ وَشَدِيدُهُ، فَوَجَدْنَا يَكْفِي مِنْهُ أَدْنَاهُ

[We have experienced both good and harsh life, and we found that what suffices from it is only what barely sustains us.]

Meaning Sulayman and Dawud both went through hard times and easy times, yet they agreed that the modest humble lifestyle is what suffices.

Which isn’t too strange since Allah says in his book:

{And [they are] those who, when they spend, do so not excessively or sparingly but are ever, between that, [justly] moderate}

This means that prophets and righteous believers did not spend anything beyond their needs, at the same time they were not miserly treasure collectors.

ثنا أَبُو بَكْرِ بْنُ مَالِكٍ، قَالَ: ثنا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ حَنْبَلٍ، قَالَ: حَدَّثَنِي عَلِيُّ بْنُ مُسْلِمٍ، قَالَ: ثنا سَيَّارٌ، قَالَ: ثنا جَعْفَرٌ، قَالَ: ثنا أَبُو عِمْرَانَ الْجَوْنِيُّ، قَالَ: ” مَرَّ سُلَيْمَانُ بْنُ دَاوُدَ عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ فِي مَوْكِبِهِ وَالطَّيْرُ تُظِلُّهُ وَالإِنْسُ وَالْجِنُّ عَنْ يَمِينِهِ وَعَنْ شِمَالِهِ، فَمَرَّ بِعَابِدٍ مِنْ عُبَّادِ بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ، فَقَالَ: وَاللَّهِ يَا ابْنَ دَاوُدَ، آتَاكَ اللَّهُ مُلْكًا عَظِيمًا فَسَمِعَ سُلَيْمَانُ كَلامَهُ، فقال: ” لَتَسْبِيحَةٌ فِي صَحِيفَةٍ أَفْضَلُ مِمَّا أُوتِي ابْنُ دَاوُدَ، إِنَّ مَا أُوتِي ابْنُ دَاوُدَ يَذْهَبُ وَالتَّسْبِيحَةُ تَبْقَى “، قَالَ: وَكَانَ نَبِيُّ اللَّهِ سُلَيْمَانُ بْنُ دَاوُدَ عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ يُطْعِمُ الْمَجْذُومِينَ وَالْيَتَامَى النَّقِيَّ وَيَأْكُلُ الشَّعِيرَ، وَلَمْ يَدَعْ يَوْمَ مَاتَ دِينَارًا وَلا دِرْهَمًا

Also in al-Hilyah in a Hasan Hadith from al-Asbahani, that Ahmad bin Ja`far bin Hamdan bin Malik, from ibn Ahmad bin Hanbal, from `Ali bin Muslim al-Tusi, from Sayyar bin Hatim, from Ja`far bin Sulayman, from `Abdul-Malik bin Habib abu `Imran al-Jouni (d.128), that he said in a long Hadith:

[…The Prophet of Allah Sulayman bin Dawud (as) used to feed fresh food to the lepers and orphans while he ate food from the lowest quality, and the day he died he never left a Dinar or Dirham.]

Also in an authentic narration in al-Tirmithy, and Ibn abi al-Duniya’s books, al-Miqdam narrates that Rasul-Allah (saw) said:

مَا مَلأَ ابْنُ آدَمَ وِعَاءً شَرًّا مِنْ بَطْنِهِ، حَسْبُ ابْنِ آدَمَ أُكُلاتٌ يُقِمْنَ صُلْبَهُ، فَإِنْ كَانَ لا مَحَالَةَ فَثُلُثٌ طَعَامٌ، وَثُلُثٌ شَرَابٌ، وَثُلُثٌ نَفَسٌ

[No man fills a container worse than his stomach. A few morsels that keep his back upright are sufficient for him. If he has to, then he should keep one-third for food, one-third for drink and one-third for his breathing.]

It is also common knowledge that Rasul-Allah (saw) was the leader of a large nation and although they started out in poverty yet Allah (swt) bestowed upon them later from the wealth of the pagans and that of the Jews what could make them live the wealthy life until death, yet we read in a Sahih Hadith in al-Bukhari:

خرج رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم من الدنيا ولم يشبع من خبز الشعير

[The prophet (saw) left the world without having eaten his fill with barley bread.]

He (saw) also said in the Sahih of ibn `Abbas:

اطَّلَعْتُ فِي الْجَنَّةِ، فَرَأَيْتُ أَكْثَرَ أَهْلِهَا الْمَسَاكِينَ

[I looked into heaven and saw that most of its dwellers were the poor.]

And in the Sahih of the companion `Abdullah ibn al-Shikheer, that the Prophet (saw) commented on the verse {Competition in [worldly] increase diverts you – Until you visit the graveyards.} [102:1-2]

He (saw) said:

لَيْسَ لَكَ مِنْ مَالِكِ إِلا مَا تَصَدَّقْتَ فَأَمْضَيْتَ أَوْ لَبِسْتَ فَأَبْلَيْتَ أَوْ أَكَلْتَ فَأَفْنَيْتَ

[None of your money is truly yours except what you offer in charity, what you wear then wear-out, and what you eat and consume.]

Meaning the only useful money is what you eat and keeps you alive, and what you use to cover your body until it gets worn out or torn, and what you pass on to others who are needy as charity. He did not mention that you horde wealth to give to your son as inheritance!

And in Sahih Muslim from Ameer al-Mu’mineen `Umar that he said:

لقد رأيت رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم يظل اليوم يلتوي ما يجد من الدقل ما يملأ به بطنه

[I saw that the Messenger of Allah (saw) would pass his days in hunger and could not get even degraded dates to fill his stomach.]

May Allah have mercy on our Prophet he was the poorest in this world and the richest in the after-life.

Based on this, the argument is invalid.


Although the opponents disliked the use of the bible and other books when it came to show that Dawud had many children, yet they like to use it to prove that prophets inherit; sadly the bible holds absolutely no weight in Islam. No biblical verse may contradict any Qur’an or Hadith.


To sum up the matter for those who do not wish to waste their time, the answer is: No, he never gave her that land according to any respectable narration in the popular reliable books.

The opponents will quote from random sources several texts that mention this, these texts are all weak if not completely chainless in a lot of cases, they are also contradicted by texts that say it wasn’t a gift.

We’ll try to go through the opponent’s chosen texts to illustrate this with ease Insha’Allah.

The first thing we read in our opponent’s argument is this text:

((“Umar was angry with Abu Bakr and said, “If you give Fadak back to Fatima, where the expenses for army and defence will come from for at present all the Arabs are fighting against you. He then took the papers of Fadak from Fatima (as), and tore them into shreds”.

 Insanul Ayun fi Seerah al Halabbiyah, Vol. 3, Page 487 & 488.))

Al-Seerah al-Halabiyyah whose author `Ali al-Halabi was born in 975 and died in 1044 hijri quotes a couple of texts related to Fadak, obviously from them is that Fatimah was pleased with Abu Bakr. However, you will see our opponents skipping a lot of what doesn’t agree with their desires and this is their way.

When we found the text that the opponents quoted we were terribly disappointed, we knew for a fact it would be chainless since the author is very late but not only this, it turns out these are not his words:

وفى كلام سبط ابن الجوزى رحمه الله أنه رضي الله تعالى عنه كتب لها بفدك ودخل عليه عمررضى الله تعالى عنه فقال ما هذا فقال كتاب كتبته فاطمه بميراثها من ابيها فقال مماذا تنفق على المسلمين وقد حار بتك العرب كما ترى ثم احذ عمر الكتاب فشقه

He was simply quoting Sibt ibn al-Jawzi who died 654 hijri, whom al-Dhahabi described in al-Meezan as unreliable Rafidhi.

Next the opponents quote us this master-piece:

((“Abu Saeed al Khudri and Abdullah Ibn Abbas narrate that when the verse relating to giving rights to kindred was revealed, the Prophet called Fatima Zahra (as) and gifted the land of Fadak to her”.

 Tafseer Dur al-Manthur, Vol. 4, page 177))

The opponent himself admits that in its chain is the narrator `Atiyyah al-`Awfi who narrates from abu Sa`eed , then the opponents claim `Atiyyah is not weak, although there is a consensus on his weakness and this matter is settled for anyone who has the slightest knowledge in the science of narrators and their conditions. When we searched other books for a chain for this Hadith, turns out the narration also has Husayn bin Yazid who leans towards weakness, then in it are also Sa`eed and Fudayl, two Shia narrators who are Saduq and some weakened them, overall a weak unacceptable narration.

As far as Tafseer al-Durr al-Manthour, its author died in the 10th century hijri so obviously there will be no chains involved, he quoted this narration from ibn Mardawayn from ibn `Abbas also without chain so it’s rejected.

I say: If the opponents claim that ibn `Abbas and abu Sa`eed are both narrating this, then why do they also claim that Fatimah couldn’t bring any witnesses except Umm Ayman and `Ali?

Next they quote:

((Similarly Hakim Haskani al-Hanafi also records in Shawahid al-Tanzeel, Volume 1 page 570:

أخبرنا عقيل بن الحسين قال: أخبرنا علي بن الحسين قال: حدثنا محمد بن عبيد الله قال: حدثنا أبو مروان عبد الملك بن مروان قاضي مدينة الرسول بها سنة سبع وأربعين وثلاث مائة قال: حدثنا عبد الله بن منيع ، قال: حدثنا آدم قال: حدثنا سفيان عن واصل الأحدب عن عطاء: عن ابن عباس قال: لما أنزل الله: (وآت ذا القربى حقه) دعا رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله فاطمة وأعطاها فدكا وذلك لصلة القرابة.

Aqeel bin al-Hussain from Ali bin al-Hussain from Muhammad bin Ubaidullah from Abu Marwan Abdulmalik bin Marwan the judge of Madina from Abdullah bin Manee from Adam from Sufyan from Wasel al-Ahdab from Atta from ibn Abbas saying: ‘When Allah revealed ‘{And give to the near of kin his due}’ Allah’s Apostle (s) called Fatima and gave her Fadak because she was the near of kin’.))

The author of the above book is obviously a Shia, although not a Rafidhi and their scholar Aqa Buzruq al-Tehrani listed him among the Shia authors in al-Dharee`ah ila Tasaneef al-Shi`ah. On top of it is written in the introduction of the Shia Tafseer Furat al-Kufi that al-Hasakani in his book mainly quotes from Tafseer Furat, meaning the contents of his book are Shia contents. The chain of this narration is weak anyway since we don’t know who this Adam who narrates from al-Thawri is nor who ibn Munay` is.

The opponents then quote their own book, Tafseer al-Qummi to prove that Fatimah owned Fadak, we do not understand why they do this since whenever we quote this book to prove that Shia believe in the corruption of the Qur’an, they object and say this book is unreliable.

The opponent then quotes:

((“The 6th dispute concerned Fadak and the inheritance of Rasulullah (s). Sayyida Fatima deemed it her land, and the claim of Fatima to its ownership”

 Al-Milal wa al-Nihal, page 13))

This is not a narration, simply al-Shahrastani mentioning some of the early historical differences that arose regardless of their authenticity, since some narrations mention Fadak as inheritance and others mention that it was a gift the author says in the correctly translated text:

في أمر فدك والتوارث عن النبي عليه الصلاة و السلام ودعوى فاطمة عليها السلام وراثة تارة وتمليكا أخرى حتى دفعت عن ذلك بالرواية المشهورة عن النبي

[The matter of Fadak and the inheritance from the Prophet (saw) also Fatimah’s claim that it is inheritance at one point and that it was from her possessions at another, and then she was stopped from getting it because of the popular narration from the Prophet (saw).]

The opponents then quote:

((“When the Prophet died, Abu Bakr took Fadak from Fatima, she went to him and said: ‘Give the land of Fadak to me, as my father the Prophet (s) gave it to me’….”

 Riyadh al Nadira, Volume 1 page 89))

This narration is weak without even looking since the author al-Muhibb al-Tabari died 694 hijri and never included a single chain in his book.

To further investigate however, we tried finding this narration in other books and we only found it in Baladhuri’s book and this man is unreliable so everything in his book cannot be used as evidence. Out of the kindness of our hearts we will present our opponents with its chain as a gift:

وَحَدَّثَنِي رَوْحٌ الْكَرَابِيسِيُّ، قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا زَيْدُ بْنُ الْحُبَابِ، قَالَ: أَخْبَرَنَا خَالِدُ بْنُ طَهْمَانَ، عَنْ رَجُلٍ حَسِبَهُ رَوْحٌ جَعْفَرَ بْنَ مُحَمَّدٍ، أَنَّ فَاطِمَةَ

The issues with this chain are as follows:

1- Ruh al-Karabisi, we do not know who he is. 2- Khalid bin Tahman is a Shia who was weakened by some, he’s Saduq at best. 3- Khalid never mentions the name of his Shaykh, Ruh assumes it’s al-Sadiq.

This one is dismissed as well and cannot be used as evidence.

The opponents then quote Yaqout al-Hamawi’s Mu`jam al-Buldan and his narrations are without chain, however he is quoting them from Baladhuri’s book and this guy is an unreliable historian, so when we go to his book we find a narration with this chain:

وَحَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ مَيْمُونٍ الْمُكْتِبُ، قَالَ: أَخْبَرَنَا الْفُضَيْلُ بْنُ عَيَّاضٍ، عَنْ مَالِكِ بْنِ جَعْوَنَةَ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، قَالَ: قَالَتْ فَاطِمَةُ لأَبِي بَكْرٍ

Baladhuri’s Shaykh is `Abdullah bin Maymoun al-Muktib, we do not know who he is and the author only narrates this one narration from him. The same goes for Malik bin Ja`wanah who isn’t exactly known, so this narration is dismissed like those before it.

The final quotation by our opponents is a sly one, they quote from al-Hamawi’s Mu`jam this:

((Moreover, we read in Majmal Buldan, Volume 3 page 312:

فكان علي يقول: إن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم جعلها في حياته لفاطمة

Ali used to say: ‘The prophet (s) granted it to Fatima during His life’.))

When in reality, if we go to that book we read:

والعباس بن عبد المطلب يتنازعان فيها فكان علي يقول إن النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم جعلها في حياته لفاطمة وكان العباس يأبى ذلك ويقول هي ملك لرسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم وأنا وارثه فكانا يتخاصمان إلى عمر رضي الله عنه فيأبى أن يحكم بينهما ويقول أنتما أعرف بشأنكما أما أنا فقد سلمتها إليكما فاقتصدا فيما

[`Ali and al-`Abbas were fighting over it, `Ali used to say that the prophet (saw) gave it to Fatimah during his life and `Abbas would deny this and say it was owned by the messenger (saw) and he should inherit it. They disputed in front of `Umar may Allah be pleased with him so he would judge by saying: “You two know better about your issue, as for me I have given to you so use its wealth moderately.”]

No wonder Fatimah was only able to get two witnesses in the fabricated narrations, it’s because in other fabricated narrations like this one even the Prophet’s (saw) uncle never knew Fadak belonged to her, also since when did `Umar even give them Fadak? He never did, he only placed them in charge of the Sadaqat of Madinah.

In conclusion, not one correct reliable proof from our opponents to prove that Fadak was a gift, any other narrations they bring will also be just as weak if not weaker than the above so do not be alarmed if they do.

If we had wished to quote weak narrations, we could quote narrations that prove that Fadak wasn’t a gift, for example in al-Tarikah we read with its chain from Anas that Abu Bakr told Fatimah:

أَنْتِ عِنْدِي مُصَدَّقَةٌ أَمِينَةٌ، فَإِنْ كَانَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ عَهِدَ إِلَيْكِ فِي ذَلِكَ عَهْدًا، أَوْ وَعَدَكِ مِنْهُ وَعْدًا أَوْجَبَهُ لَكُمْ صَدَّقْتُكِ، وَسَلَّمْتُهُ إِلَيْكِ، قَالَتْ فَاطِمَةُ عَلَيْهَا السَّلامُ: لَمْ يَكُنْ مِنْ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ فِي ذَلِكَ إِلَيَّ شَيْءٌ إِلا مَا أنزل اللَّهُ تَبَارَكَ وَتَعَالَى فِيهِ مِنَ الْقُرْآنِ

[Abu Bakr told her: “You are reliable and trusted in my sight, if Rasul-Allah (saw) had promised you anything concerning this, I would believe you and hand it to you.” Fatimah replied: “The messenger (saw) never said anything, it is only what is written in the Qur’an.”]

In other words she is only relying on the laws of inheritance in the Qur’an, there was no promise or gifts.

The only authentic early narration in this regard is the “Hasan” one up to `Umar bin `Abdul-`Aziz, which states that Fatimah asked for the land and was denied it by the Prophet (saw). In Sunan abu Dawud we read:

حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ الْجَرَّاحِ، حَدَّثَنَا جَرِيرٌ، عَنْ الْمُغِيرَةِ، قَالَ: جَمَعَ عُمَرُ بْنُ عَبْدِ الْعَزِيزِ بَنِي مَرْوَانَ حِينَ اسْتُخْلِفَ، فَقَالَ: إِنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ كَانَتْ لَهُ فَدَكُ فَكَانَ يُنْفِقُ مِنْهَا وَيَعُودُ مِنْهَا عَلَى صَغِيرِ بَنِي هَاشِمٍ وَيُزَوِّجُ مِنْهَا أَيِّمَهُمْ، وَإِنَّ فَاطِمَةَ سَأَلَتْهُ أَنْ يَجْعَلَهَا لَهَا فَأَبَى فَكَانَتْ كَذَلِكَ فِي حَيَاةِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ حَتَّى مَضَى لِسَبِيلِهِ، فَلَمَّا أَنْ وُلِّيَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ عَمِلَ فِيهَا بِمَا عَمِلَ النَّبِيُّ فِي حَيَاتِهِ حَتَّى مَضَى لِسَبِيلِهِ، فَلَمَّا أَنْ وُلِّيَ عُمَرُ عَمِلَ فِيهَا بِمِثْلِ مَا عَمِلَا حَتَّىمَضَى لِسَبِيلِهِ

[`Abdullah that Jareer told him that al-Mugheerah said: `Umar bin `Abdul-`Aziz gathered the children of Marwan when he received Khilafah, he said: “Rasul-Allah (saw) had Fadak, he used to spend from it on the little ones of bani Hashim and marry-off their bachelors, and Fatimah had asked him to grant her it during the life of Rasul-Allah (saw) so he refused and died, then Abu Bakr became in charge so he used it as Rasul-Allah (saw) did until he died, then `Umar…]

At the end he says:

فَرَأَيْتُ أَمْرًا مَنَعَهُ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ فَاطِمَةَ عَلَيْهَا السَّلَام لَيْسَ لِي بِحَقٍّ وَأَنَا أُشْهِدُكُمْ أَنِّي قَدْ رَدَدْتُهَا عَلَى مَا كَانَتْ يَعْنِي عَلَى عَهْدِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ

[So I saw a matter that Rasul-Allah (saw) prevented Fatimah, I have no right (to give it to you) so I ask you to bear witness that I have returned it to the way it was during the messenger’s (saw) time.]

How ironic that the best chain in the matter refutes this argument to begin with.

The second narration from `Umar bin `Abdul-`Aziz by abu al-Barqan in Baladhuri’s book, it is similar to the one above it in that it denies that the messenger (saw) gave the land to her:

إن فدك كانت مما أفاء اللَّه عَلَى رسوله ولم يوجف المسلمون عَلَيْهِ بخيل ولا ركاب، فسألته إياها فاطمة رحمها اللَّه تعالى، فقال: ما كان لك أن تسأليني، وما كان لي أن أعطيك، فكان يضع ما يأتيه منها في أبناء السبيل

[Fadak was from what Allah gave as a Fay’ to his messenger (saw) without riding to battle, so Fatimah asked him for it and he (saw) said: “It is not your right to ask me nor is it my right to offer it to you.” He (saw) spent from it on the stranded travellers…]

In the end of it we read:

فاستجمعتها، وما كان لي من مال أحب إلي منها، فاشهدوا أني قَدْ رددتها إِلَى ما كانت عَلَيْهِ

[So I gathered it all (the property), and I loved it more than all my wealth, so bear witness that I have returned it to the way it was.]

It continues saying that al-Khalifah al-Ma’moun (who was fond of the Shia apparently) wrote to his governor al-Mubarak al-Tabari that: Return the land to the descendants of Hasan and Husayn, then after his death al-Khalifah al-Mutawakkil again returned the land after him to how it was before.

The third narration from al-Kalbi regarding `Umar ibn `Abdul-`Aziz confirms the above, it says:

حدثني إِبْرَاهِيم بْن مُحَمَّد، عن عرعرة، عن عَبْد الرزاق، عن معمر، عَنِ الكلبي، أن بني أمية اصطفوا فدك وغيروا سنة رَسُول اللَّهِ فيها، فلما ولي عُمَر بْن عَبْد الْعَزِيزِ رضي اللَّه عنه ردها إِلَى ما كانت عَلَيْهِ

[al-Kalbi said: Banu Umayyah took Fadak for themselves and changed the Sunnah of the messenger (saw), so when `Umar was given authority he returned it to its previous state.]

The fourth narration is that of Ja`far bin Muhammad al-Ansari in the book of Tabaqat ibn Sa`d, it is a long one but confirms what we previously read, it says:

كانت فدك صفيا لرسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فكانت لابن السبيل وسألته ابنته فدك أن يهبها لها فأبى رسول الله ذلك عليها

[Fadak was purely the property of Rasul-Allah (saw) so he made it for the stranded travellers, then his daughter asked him for Fadak to grant it to her but he (saw) refused…]

ولي عمر بن عبد العزيز الخلافة وما يقوم به وبعياله إلا هي تغل عشرة آلاف دينار في كل سنة وأقل قليلا وأكثر فلما ولي الخلافة سأل عن فدك وفحص عنها فأخبر بما كان من أمرها في عهد رسول الله وأبي بكر وعمر وعثمان حتى كان معاوية قال فكتب عمر إلى أبي بكر بن محمد بن عمرو بن حزم كتابا فيه بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم من عبد الله عمر أمير المؤمنين إلى أبي بكر بن محمد سلام عليك فإني أحمد إليك الله الذي لا إله إلا هو أما بعد فإني نظرت في أمر فدك وفحصت عنه فإذا هو لا يصلح لي ورأيت أن أردها على ما كانت عليه في عهد رسول الله وأبي بكر وعمر وعثمان وأترك ما حدث بعدهم فإذا جاءك كتابي هذا فاقبضها وولها رجلا يقوم فيها بالحق والسلام عليك

[…When `Umar bin `Abdul-`Aziz received the Khilafah, the land of Fadak supported him and his family and brought them 10,000 Dinars yearly, the Khalifah then began to investigate the matter of Fadak and was told of its past and how it was during the time of the messenger (saw) and Abu Bakr and `Umar and `Uthman until the time of Mu`awiyah. `Umar then wrote to Abu Bakr bin Muhammad bin `Amro bin Hazm a book: “In the name of Allah most merciful most glorious, (…until he said…) I have looked into the matter of Fadak and investigated thoroughly, and I found that it is not my right nor that of my children, I saw that I must return it to the way it was in the time of Rasul-Allah (saw) and Abu Bakr and `Umar and `Uthman and ignore all that happened after them. If my book reaches you, take the land and grant authority over it to a man who will use it justly, and peace be upon you.”]

The opponents say: “If it didn’t belong to Fatimah, why would the Khalifah `Umar bin `Abdul-`Aziz return it to her children?” Although in the narrations `Umar bin `Abdul-`Aziz says: “If the messenger (saw) never gave it to Fatimah I can’t give it to Marwan’s children.”


Also so as to not waste the time of our readers, the answer is: No, she never brought any witnesses, and if she had truly owned a land as gigantic as Fadak I think she’d have at least more than two people in addition to documents and workers, unless we’re living in a jungle of course. This story is based on some fabricated reports as usual and quoted by the opponents.

The renowned scholar Hammad bin Ishaq (d.267 hijri) said in his expert research on the topic of inheritance in his book “Tarikat al-Nabi”:

فَأَمَّا مَا يَحْكِيهِ قَوْمٌ أَنَّ فَاطِمَةَ عَلَيْهَا السَّلامُ طَلَبَتْ فَدَكَ، وَذَكَرَتْ أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ أَقْطَعَهَا إِيَّاهَا، وَشَهِدَ لَهَا عَلِيٌّ عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ، فَلَمْ يَقْبَلْ أَبُو بَكْرٍ شَهَادَتَهُ لأَنَّهُ زَوْجُهَا، فَهَذَا أَمْرٌ لا أَصْلَ لَهُ وَلا تَثْبُتُ بِهِ رِوَايَةٌ

[As for what some folks say regarding Fatimah (as) asking for Fadak and claiming that it was a gift and `Ali (as) giving his account as a witness, then Abu Bakr rejected his testimony for he was her husband; this matter is baseless and not established from any reliable narration.]

The opponents can obviously try, but we assure you Insha’Allah they will fail in bringing even one authentic report about this myth.

Another thing is, the opponent quotes various narrations from an unreliable source like Baladhuri whose narrations are rejected simply because of his unreliability as an author. Each narration stating something different, one says that the witnesses were `Ali and Umm Ayman, the other says it was Umm Ayman and Rabah the servant of Rasul-Allah (saw), the third says it’s Asma’ bint `Umays, Umm Ayman and `Ali, the opponent thinks all of these different names mean that Fatimah brought several witnesses, the reality of the situation is all these fabricated reports show that the liars who made them up weren’t very smart, it’s inconsistency.

The opponents next tactic was to resort to quoting scholars who did believe in these weak fabricated reports, everyone knows that the scholars may not have thoroughly researched certain reports and just accept them for their popularity or because they’re in a famous book, we can also quote certain Shia scholars who believed in the corruption of the Qur’an because of the giant number of “Mutawatir reports” we doubt they’d accept this.

The way to answer this point is as follows: Certain scholars researched the matter and know for a fact the narrations of witnesses as well as those of Fatimah claiming Fadak to be a gift are all weak lies. Other scholars may read these narrations in certain books and accept them as they accept any historical narration without doing any research but they’d give a proper explanation for such reports and never draw evil conclusions from them like our opponents do.

We quote an authentic narration according to al-Majlisi from their Shia book al-Kafi:

مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ يَحْيَى عَنْ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ مُحَمَّدٍ عَنْ أَبِي الْحَسَنِ الثَّانِي ( عليه السلام ) قَالَ سَأَلْتُهُ عَنِ الْحِيطَانِ السَّبْعَةِ الَّتِي كَانَتْ مِيرَاثَ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ ( صلى الله عليه وآله ) لِفَاطِمَةَ ( عليها السلام ) فَقَالَ لَا إِنَّمَا كَانَتْ وَقْفاً وَ كَانَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ ( صلى الله عليه وآله ) يَأْخُذُ إِلَيْهِ مِنْهَا مَا يُنْفِقُ عَلَى أَضْيَافِهِ وَ التَّابِعَةُ يَلْزَمُهُ فِيهَا فَلَمَّا قُبِضَ جَاءَ الْعَبَّاسُ يُخَاصِمُ فَاطِمَةَ ( عليها السلام ) فِيهَا فَشَهِدَ عَلِيٌّ ( عليه السلام ) وَ غَيْرُهُ أَنَّهَا وَقْفٌ عَلَى فَاطِمَةَ

[From abu al-Hasan (as) I asked him about the seven gardens which were the inheritance from the prophet (saw) to Fatimah, he replied: “They’re not an inheritance, they’re a Waqf (…until he said…) When the messenger (saw) passed away, al-`Abbas came and disputed with Fatimah (over the land) so `Ali and others testified that the lands were a Waqf for Fatimah.]

In other words, they mean he (saw) gave it to Fatimah as gift, then al-`Abbas came to them and had a dispute with them because he thought he had a share in the land from inheritance since he never heard of Fadak being a gift. Based on their own reports the Prophet’s uncle al-`Abbas never knew that the land was a gift, need we say more?


How did our master (saw) use the lands after he acquired them? An interesting question indeed.

Most people know of the two popular reports, the first one is by Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq, it is apparent from its wording that he mainly used them as Sadaqah, meaning he spent them on his followers , nothing specific was stated so he (saw) could have bought them clothes, food or even horses for battle. Abu Bakr’s report also mentions that his family was and will continue to be fed from the land.

The second most popular narration is that of `Umar bin al-Khattab, when he quotes the verse of Fay’ he tells those who are present how Rasul-Allah (saw) spent it. This narration also says that he (saw) divided the lands between the people and gave it to them until an amount of money remained, he would then take for his family what suffices for a year and spend the rest in the cause of Allah. In another narration it says he used to place the rest in Bayt-ul-Mal, which is the treasury of the Islamic state, yet no conflict here as he can store it there to spend it on the Muslims in charity. In a third version of the text, it says he spent the rest of it in Sadaqah. In a fourth version it says he placed the rest in weapons and war equipment.

All versions do not conflict, it basically says he fed his family and close relatives for the year and spent all the rest in the cause of Allah from feeding the poor to spending on stranded travelers to preparing the Muslim army.

At the end of this narration, it states that `Umar gave them control of this Fay’ he was speaking of, but he never gave them control of Fadak or the lands in Khaybar, `Umar said: “These were Sadaqat for the urgent matters and dire needs of the Prophet (saw), they will be under my control only.”

This last part does show that Fadak might have been kept for some urgent matters and some sudden needs that may arise in which the Muslims would need money or food. However, Khaybar was a huge land, some of it was set as Khums, some was set as Fay’ and some was used based on the contract the Prophet (saw) made with the Jews, so both of these narrations so far do not explain exactly what these lands were for.

In order to find out more, a research is required into the specialized books to find out more detailed narrations and list their content, we begin with al-Tahawi’s book and a Hadith from Imam Malik ibn Anas that his uncle abu Suhayl presented to him an official letter from Caliph `Umar bin `Abdul-`Aziz including some information regarding this money.

This letter is long so we will take only the relevant parts from it, he began by talking about the Fay’ mentioned in Surat al-Hashr verse 6, that it is the special possession of the messenger (saw):

فَكَانَتْ تِلْكَ الأَمْوَالُ خَالِصَةً لِرَسُولِ اللَّهِ لَمْ يَجِبْ فِيهَا خُمُسٌ وَلا مَغْنَمٌ، لِيُوَلِّيَ اللَّهُ وَرَسُولَهُ أَمْرَهُ، وَاخْتَارَ أَهْلَ الْحَاجَةِ بِهَا، السَّابِقَةَ عَلَى مَا يُلْهِمُهُ مِنْ ذَلِكَ، وَيَأْذَنُ لَهُ بِهِ، فَلَمْ يَضُرَّ بِهَا رَسُولُ اللَّهِ وَلَمْ يَخْتَرْهَا لِنَفْسِهِ، وَلا لأَقَارِبِهِ، وَلَمْ يُخَصِّصْ بِهَذَا مِنْهُمْ بِفَرْضٍ وَلا سُهْمَانَ، وَلَكِنْ آثَرَ، بِأَوْسَعِهَا وَأَكْثَرِهَا أَهْلَ الْحَقِّ وَالْقُدُمَةَ، مِنَ الْمُهَاجِرِينَ الَّذِينَ أُخْرِجُوا مِنْ دِيَارِهِمْ وَأَمْوَالِهِمْ، يَبْتَغُونَ فَضْلا مِنَ اللَّهِ وَرِضْوَانًا وَيَنْصُرُونَ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ، أُولَئِكَ هُمُ الصَّادِقُونَ، وَقَسَمَ اللَّهُ طَوَائِفَ مِنْهَا فِي أَهْلِ الْحَاجَةِ مِنَ الأَنْصَارِ، وَحَبَسَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ فَرِيقًا مِنْهَا لِنَائِبَتِهِ وَحَقِّهِ، وَمَا يَعْرُوهُ: أَيْ يَعْرِضُ لَهُ وَيَعْتَرِيهِ، غَيْرُ مُفْتَقِدٍ شَيْئًا مِنْهَا وَلا مُسْتَأْثِرٍ بِهِ، وَلا مُرِيدٍ أَنْ يُؤْتِيهِ أَحَدٌ بَعْدَهُ، فَجَعَلَهُ صَدَقَةً لا يُورَثُ لأَحَدٍ فِيهِ هَادَّةٌ فِي الدُّنْيَا، وَمَحْقَرَةٌ لَهَا وَأَثَرَةٌ لِمَا عِنْدَ اللَّهِ، فَهَذَا الَّذِي لَمْ يُوجَفْ فِيهِ خَيْلٌ وَلا رِكَابٌ

[…{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.} These lands were especially possessed by the messenger (saw) and no Khums was required, it was up to him (saw) to use it as Allah guides and permits him. He (saw) chose to spend it on those with needs and he (saw) never took it for himself nor his relatives, nor did he order that a specific amount be given only to them, instead he specifically gave the vast majority of this land to those who deserve it of the forerunners in Islam, from the Mouhajirun who left their homes and wealth to seek the pleasure of Allah and support his messenger, those are the truthful ones, and Allah made it so that parts of it would be given to the needy from the Ansar. The messenger (saw) would keep from it a part as his share and for the urgent matter and dire needs that may arise as well, but even this part he never kept it only for himself nor did he wish for it to be given to anyone after him, so he made this remaining part a Sadaqah that cannot be inherited, not giving importance for this worldly life and not caring for materialistic gains but seeking what is with Allah. This is as far as what was gained without riding for war…]

Then he quotes the verse 7 from Surat al-Hashr:

{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.}

He says that Allah is the most rich and he has no need for money, rather it is to be spent in his cause, as for the messenger (saw) his share in this was always as the share of any Muslim, as for his near relatives; there was no specific amount allotted to them as some ignorant say, otherwise Allah would have defined it as he defined the specific shares given in inheritance whether the fourth the sixth or the eight, also as the verse clarifies this money if given to any of them should only go to the needy from among them, not the rich ones. He also says that the near relatives are everyone from paternal to maternal uncles and cousins and nephews and all of the relations of the womb and blood fall into this but only those in need may take from it and there is no specific share, even when the Prophet (saw) received from the slaves of war and his daughter asked him to give her one from the Khums he never gave her a servant nor a share, whenever he would give his relatives from food or property or sheep or armor, he (saw) never did so based on a specific amount or share so that we can spend that same exact amount and follow his example.

Muhammad ibn Maslamah is one of those who narrated the above letter, he said:

قَالَ مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ مَسْلَمَةَ: فَقَسَّمَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ أَمْوَالَ بَنِي النَّضِيرِ بَيْنَ الْمُهَاجِرِينَ، وَأَعْطَى مَعَهُمْ أَهْلَ الْخَلَّةِ مِنَ الأَنْصَارِ، وَحَبَسَ فَدَكَ وَالْكَثِيبَةَ، فِيمَا بَلَغَنَا لِلْحَرْبِ وَالسِّلاحِ

[The messenger (saw) divided the money of Bani al-Nadeer between the Mouhajireen and the most beloved to him from the Ansar, he kept Fadak and al-Kateebah for war and weapons from what we heard.]

In Tareekh ibn Shubah we read the similar letter that the ruler of Basarah `Abdul-Malik bin Ayyub al-Numayri showed to Salam bin Sulayman.

حَدَّثَنَا عُبَيْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ مُحَمَّدِ ابْنِ عَائِشَةَ، قال: حَدَّثَنَا سَلامٌ أَبُو الْمُنْذِرِ، قال: حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الْمَلِكِ بْنُ أَيُّوبَ النُّمَيْرِيُّ، وَدَفَعَ إِلَيَّ صَحِيفَةً، زَعَمَ أَنَّهَا رِسَالَةُ عُمَرَ بْنِ عَبْدِ الْعَزِيزِ، كَتَبَ بِهَا إِلَى رَجُلٍ مِنْ قُرَيْشٍ

In Tareekh al-Tabari we read what al-Zuhri said:

قال الزهريّ: فكانت بنو النضير للنبيّ صلى الله عليه وسلم خالصة لم يفتحوها عنوة، بل على صلح، فقسمها النبيّ صلى الله عليه وسلم بين المهاجرين لم يعط الأنصار منها شيئاً، إلا رجلين كان بهما حاجة.

[Banu al-Nadeer’s land was solely for the Prophet (saw) as they never conquered it by force, it was in peace, he (saw) divided it among the Mouhajiroun and never gave anything to the Ansar except for two men in need.]

Make no mistake, there is no contradiction here, these two men from the Ansar were from the closest, so he gave them a share for they were in need.

In the same book we read from Moujahid bin Jabr:

عن مجاهد في قوله { فَمَا أوْجَفْتُمْ عَلَيْهِ مِنْ خَيْلٍ وَلا رِكابٍ } قال: يذكر ربهم أنه نصرهم، وكفاهم بغير كراع، ولا عدّة في قريظة وخيبر، ما أفاء الله على رسوله من قريظة، جعلها لمهاجرة قريش.

[Their Lord mentions that He granted them victory without possession of adequate war equipment against Banu Quraydhah and Khaybar, what Allah granted to his Prophet (saw) from the Fay’ of Quraydhah he gave to the Mouhajirun of Quraysh.]

It is no secret that he made the money for the Mouhajirun, since they were greater in rank and the first to embrace Islam, they also were many in number and lost their wealth and families during the emigration, so by giving them the biggest share of this money they no longer had to rely on the money of the Ansar to survive.

In Tareekh al-Madinah by ibn Shubah we read in the narration of `Umar ibn al-Khattab more detail:

كَانَتْ لِرَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَفَايَا خَيْبَرُ وَفَدَكُ وَبَنُو النَّضِيرِ.فَأَمَّا بَنُو النَّضِيرِ فَكَانَتْ حُبُسًا لِنَوَائِبِهِ، وَأَمَّا فَدَكُ، فَكَانَتْ لأَبْنَاءِ السَّبِيلِ، وَأَمَّا خَيْبَرُ فَجَزَّأَهَا ثَلاثَةَ أَجْزَاءٍ: جُزْئَيْنِ بَيْنَ الْمُسْلِمِينَ، وَجُزْءًا لِنَفَقَةِ أَهْلِهِ، فَمَا فَضَلَ عَنْ نَفَقَةِ أَهْلِهِ رُدَّ عَلَى فُقَرَاءِ الْمُهَاجِرِينَ

[The messenger (saw) acquired (the Fay’) from Khaybar and Fadak and banu al-Nadeer. As for Banu al-Nadeer it was saved for his urgent needs, as for Fadak it was for the stranded travelers, and as for Khaybar (meaning the Khums) it was divided into three: Two thirds for the Muslims and a third for his family then what remained of it would be returned on the poor Mouhajireen.]

According to this, the piece of land left as charity by the Prophet (saw) for the stranded travelers in the narration of Ibn al-Harith in al-Bukhari is Fadak:

إِلَّا بَغْلَتَهُ الْبَيْضَاءَ الَّتِي كَانَ يَرْكَبُهَا، وَسِلَاحَهُ وَأَرْضًا جَعَلَهَا لِابْنِ السَّبِيلِ صَدَقَةً

[(He left nothing behind) except the white mule he rode, his weapon and a land that he offered to the stranded traveler as a charity.]

Muhammad ibn Ishaq narrates from one whom he trusts:

قال ابْنُ إِسْحَاقَ: بَلَغَنِي مِمَّنْ أَثِقُ بِهِ، أَنَّ الْمَقَاسِمَ كَانَتْ عَلَى أَمْوَالِ خَيْبَرَ عَلَى الشِّقِّ وَالنَّطَاةِ فِي أَمْوَالِ الْمُسْلِمِينَ، وَكَانَتِ الْكَتِيبَةُ خُمُسَ اللَّهِ وَسَهْمَ ذَوِي الْقُرْبَى وَالْيَتَامَى وَالْمَسَاكِينِ، وَطُعْمَ أَزْوَاجِ النَّبِيِّ رِجَالٍ مَشَوْا بَيْنَ أَهْلِ فَدَكٍ بِالصُّلْحِ، مِنْهُمْ مُحَيِّصَةُ بْنُ مَسْعُودٍ، أَعْطَاهُ النَّبِيُّ مِنْهَا ثَلاثِينَ وَسْقًا شَعِيرًا وَثَلاثِينَ وَسْقًا تَمْرًا، فَكَانَتِ الْكَتِيبَةُ مِمَّا تَرَكَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ فَصَارَتْ فِي صَدَقَاتِهِ “.قال أَبُو غَسَّانَ: ” وَقَدْ سَمِعْتُ مَنْ يقول: كَانَتْ بِئْرُ غَاضِرَ وَالنَّوْرَسِ مِنْ طُعْمَةِ أَزْوَاجِ  النَّبِيِّ وَهُمَا مِنْ أَمْوَالِ بَنِي قُرَيْظَةَ، بِعَالِيَةِ الْمَدِينَةِ

[What was divided in Khaybar was al-Shiqq and al-Nattah in the money of Muslims, and al-Kateebah was the Khums of Allah and the close relatives and orphans and poor, also used to feed the wives of the Prophet (saw) and those who walked in the peace between the people of Fadak such as Muhaysah ibn Mas`oud he was given thirty Wasaq of barely and thirty Wasaq of dates, thus al-Kateebah was from what was left behind by the messenger (saw) and it became from his Sadaqat.]

Muhammad ibn Yahya abu Ghassan said: “I heard that the well of Ghadir and al-Nawras were from what used to feed the wives of the messenger (saw) and were from the property of Bani Quraydhah in the highlands of Madinah.”

Abu Ghassan who died in 220 Hijri, he also said:

قال أَبُو غَسَّانَ: صَدَقَاتُ النَّبِيِّ الْيَوْمَ فِي يَدِ الْخَلِيفَةِ يُوَلِّي عَلَيْهَا وَيَعْزِلُ عَنْهَا، وَيَقْسِمُ ثَمَرَهَا وَغَلَّتَهَا فِي أَهْلِ الْحَاجَةِ مِنْ أَهْلِ الْمَدِينَةِ عَلَى قَدْرِ مَا يَرَى مَنْ هِيَ فِي يَدِهِ مِنَ الْوُكَلاءِ فِيهَا

[The Sadaqat of the Prophet (saw) today are in the hands of the Khalifah, he appoints on it whomever he wishes to control it and removes from it whomever he wishes, the one controlling it gets to divide its fruits and produce among the people of need in Madinah, he does so as much as he sees fit.]

`Uthman ibn Muhammad al-Akhnasi said regarding the lands in Khaybar:

وَكَانَتْ قُسِمَتْ نِصْفَيْنِ، فَكَانَتِ الشِّقُّ وَنَطَاةُ نِصْفًا، وَكَانَتِ الْوَطِيحُ وَسُلالِمُ وَوَحِيدَةُ نِصْفًا، فَهَذَا النِّصْفُ لِرَسُولِ اللَّهِ وَكَانَ لِلْمُسْلِمِينَ الشِّقُّ وَنَطَاةُ

[It was divided into two halves, al-Shiqq and al-Nattah was a half, as for Wateeh and Sulalim and al-Waheedah were another half, this part was for the Prophet (saw) and the first half was for the Muslims.]

In Tareekh al-Madinah in a strong narration to abu Kaysan Basheer bin Yasar, he says:

لَمَّا أَفَاءَ اللَّهُ عَلَى رَسُولِهِ خَيْبَرَ، قَسَمَهَا عَلَى سِتَّةٍ وَثَلاثِينَ سَهْمًا، جَمَعَ كُلُّ سَهْمٍ مِائَةَ سَهْمٍ، وَعَزَلَ نِصْفَهَا لِنَوَائِبِهِ وَمَا يَنْزِلُ بِهِ، وَقَسَمَ النِّصْفَ الْبَاقِيَ بَيْنَ الْمُسْلِمِينَ، فَمَا قَسَمَ بَيْنَ الْمُسْلِمِينَ الشِّقَّ وَنَطَاةَ وَمَا حِيزَ مَعَهُمَا، وَكَانَ فِيمَا وَقَفَ الْوَطِيحُ وَالْكَتِيبَةُ وَسُلالِمُ وَمَا حِيزَ مَعَهُنَّ، فَلَمَّا صَارَتِ الأَمْوَالُ بِيَدِ النَّبِيِّ وَالْمُسْلِمِينَ، لَمْ يَكُنْ لَهُمْ مِنَ الْعُمَّالِ مَا يَكْفُونَ عَمَلَ الأَرْضِ، فَدَفَعَهَا النَّبِيُّ إِلَى الْيَهُودِ، وَيَعْمَلُونَهَا عَلَى نِصْفِ مَا خَرَجَ مِنْهَا، فَلَمْ يَزَلْ كَذَلِكَ عَلَى عَهْدِ النَّبِيِّ وَأَبِي بَكْرٍ، رضي الله عنه، وَكَثُرَ الْعُمَّالُ فِي أَيْدِي الْمُسْلِمِينَ وَقَوَوْا عَلَى عَمَلِ الأَرْضِ، فَأَجْلَى عُمَرُ، رضي الله عنه، الْيَهُودَ إِلَى الشَّامِ، وَقَسَمَ الْمَالَ بَيْنَ الْمُسْلِمِينَ إِلَى الْيَوْمِ

[When Allah offered the Fay’ of Khaybar to his messenger (saw), he divided it to thirty six shares, each containing a hundred parts, and he kept on the side half of it for his urgent needs and dire matters. He (saw) divided the second half between the Muslims and it is al-Shiqq and al-Nattah and whatever is between, as for what was made a Waqf then it is al-Wateeh, al-Kateebah, Sulalim and whatever was between them. When these lands fell into the hands of the Prophet (saw) and Muslims, they never had enough workers to maintain the lands, so he (saw) offered it to the Jews, they’ll work it and get half of what it produces, and this situation remained as such in the days of the Prophet (saw) and Abu Bakr, later the number of workers increased and they were capable of maintaining it then `Umar exiled the Jews from the peninsula and divided the lands between the Muslims.]

We also read what Yazid bin `Iyad al-Laythi told in the books of history:

أَنْ يَزِيدَ بْنَ عِيَاضٍ، حَدَّثَهُ أَنَّهُ بَلَغَهُ مِنْ شَأْنِ خَيْبَرَ، أَنَّ النَّبِيَّ نَزَلَ فِي وَادِي السُّرَيْرِ الْوَادِي الأَدْنَى، وَبِهِ الشِّقُّ وَالنَّطَاةُ، فَبَرَزَ إِلَيْهِ أَهْلُهَا لِقِتَالِهِ، ثُمَّ إِنَّ اللَّهَ هَزَمَهُمْ، ثُمَّ نَزَلُوا عَلَى حِصْنِ بَنِي نِزَارٍ، فَفَتَحَهُ اللَّهُ بِغَيْرِ صُلْحٍ، وَأَنَّ النَّبِيَّ جَعَلَهُ لأَهْلِ الْحُدَيْبِيَةِ، وَلِخَيْلٍ كَانَتْ مَعَهُ عِشْرِينَ وَمِائَةِ فَرَسٍ، وَلامْرَأَتَيْنِ حَضَرَتَا الْقِتَالَ: امْرَأَةٌ مِنْ بَنِي حَارِثَةَ، يُقَالُ لَهَا: أُمُّ الضَّحَّاكِ بِنْتُ مَسْعُودٍ أُخْتُ حُوَيِّصَةَ وَمُحَيِّصَةَ، وَالأُخْرَى أُخْتُ حُذَيْفَةَ بْنِ الْيَمَانِ، أَعْطَى كُلَّ وَاحِدَةٍ مِثْلَ سَهْمِ رَجُلٍ، وَقَدِمَ عَلَيْهِ هُنَاكَ وَفْدُ الطُّفَيْلِ بْنِ عَمْرٍو الدَّوْسِيِّ، وَفِيهِمْ أَبُو هُرَيْرَةَ، وَذَلِكَ حِينَ هَاجَرُوا، فَزَعَمُوا أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ قال: ” إِنَّ خَيْبَرَ لَمْ تَكُنْ إِلا لِمَنْ شَهِدَ الْحُدَيْبِيَةَ، وَإِنَّ إِخْوَانَكُمْ قَدْ جَاءُوكُمْ، فَإِنْ رَأَيْتُمْ أَنْ تُشْرِكُوهُمْ مَعَكُمْ فَأَشْرِكُوهُمْ “، فقالوا: افْعَلْ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ

He said regarding Khaybar and we sum it up as follows,

That the Prophet (saw) went down to the lower valley which included the areas of Shiqq and al-Nattah, he took them by force, then they kept going until they reached the fortress of bani Nizar and it was also conquered by force, the messenger (saw) then made it to the people who witnessed Hudaybiyah and for a hundred and twenty riders and two women who fought alongside the Muslim army. Later people emigrated and followed them such as al-Tufayl ibn `Amro and Abu Hurayrah, so the Prophet (saw) asked for the opinion of the people of Hudaybiyah if they’d like to include them in their spoils and shares.

For al-Shiqq and al-Nattah were eighteen thousand shares, split between the foot soldiers and riders, as for Waheedah and Sulalim and al-Kateebah and al-Wateeh he also divided them as he did before, giving `Ali a share, and al-`Abbas and `Aqeel one share each, then for his wives they received two shares. After `Umar kicked the Jews out he divided the lands between the fighters who fought to conquer them, and from al-Nattah he gave al-Zubayr the first share and it was al-Khu` and a part of al-Surayr, then the share of bani Bayadah was second, then Usayd was third, then bani al-Harith bin al-Khazraj, then the share of Na`im was divided between bani `Awf and Muzaynah and their allies.

`Umar went down further into al-Shiqq, the first share was given for `Asim bin `Adi and it included the Prophet’s (saw) piece, then the share of `Abdul-Rahman bin `Awf, then bani Sa`idah, then bani al-Najjar, then `Ali ibn abi Talib, then Talhah bin `Ubaydullah and it kept going as such until he gave a share to all the people of Hudaybiyah and they were a thousand four hundred. This was as far as the long narration of Yazid bin `Iyad.

In Tareekh ibn Shubah from the report of Husayl al-Ashja`i:

بَعَثَ يَهُودُ فَدَكٍ إِلَى رَسُولِ اللَّهِ حِينَ افْتَتَحَ خَيْبَرَ: أَعْطِنَا الأَمَانَ مِنْكَ وَهِيَ لَكَ، فَبَعَثَ إِلَيْهِمْ مُحَيِّصَةَ بْنَ حَرَامٍ، فَقَبَضَهَا لِلنَّبِيِّ فَكَانَتْ لَهُ خَاصَّةً، وَصَالَحَهُ أَهْلُ الْوَطِيحِ وَسُلالِمَ مِنْ أَهْلِ خَيْبَرَ عَلَى الْوَطِيحِ وَسُلالِمَ، وَهِيَ مِنْ أَمْوَالِ خَيْبَرَ، فَكَانَتْ لَهُ خَاصَّةً، وَخَرَجَتِ الْكَثِيبَةُ فِي الْخُمُسِ، وَهِيَ مِمَّا يَلِي الْوَطِيحَ وَسُلالِمَ، فَجَمَعَتْ شَيْئًا وَاحِدًا، فَكَانَتْ مِمَّا تَرَكَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ مِنْ صَدَقَاتِهِ، وَفِيمَا أَطْعَمَ أَزْوَاجَهُ “

That the Prophet (saw) made peace with the people of Fadak, and then made peace with the people of Wateeh and Sulalim from the lands of Khaybar, so all of these became in his possession purely, as for Kateebah it was from the Khums and it was near Wateeh and Sulalim so they were all combined into one land, and were from what the Prophet (saw) left as a Sadaqah and what fed his wives.

In an odd narration through ibn Luhay`ah from `Urwah:

أَرَادَتْ فَاطِمَةُ أَبَا بَكْرٍ، رضي الله عنهما، عَلَى فَدَكٍ وَسَهْمِ ذِي الْقُرْبَى، فَأَبَى عَلَيْهَا، وَجَعَلَهُ فِي مَالِ اللَّهِ، وَأَعْطَى فَاطِمَةَ، رضي الله عنها، نَخْلا، يُقَالُ لَهُ: الأَعْوَافُ، مِمَّا كَانَ لِرَسُولِ اللَّهِ

[Fatimah wanted to ask Abu Bakr for Fadak and the share of near relatives but he refused and made it in the cause of Allah, he also gave Fatimah a garden of date trees called al-A`waf which previously belong to Rasul-Allah (saw).]

In conclusion, we see some historical reports on how the messenger (saw) divided this wealth, what is consistent throughout these narrations is that he (saw) never took anything for himself, all that he took he later spent on the believers as well as keeping what barely suffices his family, this is why he (saw) told the believers when he received his share from the Khums:

ثُمَّ دَنَا يَعْنِي النَّبِيَّ مِنْ بَعِيرٍ فَأَخَذَ وَبَرَةً مِنْ سَنَامِهِ ثُمَّ قَالَ: يَا أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ إِنَّهُ لَيْسَ لِي مِنْ هَذَا الْفَيْءِ شَيْءٌ وَلَا هَذَا، وَرَفَعَ أُصْبُعَيْهِ إِلَّا الْخُمُسَ وَالْخُمُسُ مَرْدُودٌ عَلَيْكُمْ

Malik, Ahmad, abu Dawud and al-Nasa’i all report that the messenger of Allah (saw) was talking to the people about the Fay’, he walked up to a mule and with his fingers took one of its hairs then told the people:

[“O people, I do not get anything from this Fay’, not even this -He raised his fingers- I only receive from the Khums, and even that is returned to you.”]

This is true, as even after he acquired those lands he always spent on the people until he had nothing left, we read in the narration of abu Sa`ed al-Khudari in Bukhari:

إن اُناساً من الأنصار سألوا رسول الله (ص) فاعطاهم، ثم سألوه فأعطاهم حتى نفد ما عنده فقال: ما يكون عندي خير فلن أدخره عنكم

[Some men from the Ansar begged Rasul-Allah (saw) so he gave them, then they asked again so he gave them until he spent everything he had, the Prophet (saw) then said to them: “Whatever I own from good things I shan’t keep it away from you.”]

May Allah bless our messenger may peace be upon him always and forever.


أَخْبَرَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ الْفُضَيْلِ، عَنْ مُطَرِّفٍ، عَنْ أَبِي الْجَهْمِ، عَنْ خَالِدِ بْنِ وَهْبَانَ، وَكَانَ ابْنُ خَالَةِ أَبِي ذَرٍّ، عَنْ أَبِي ذَرٍّ، قَالَ: قَالَ النَّبِيُّ : ” يَا أَبَا ذَرٍّ، كَيْفَ أَنْتَ إِذَا كَانَتْ عَلَيْكَ أُمَرَاءُ يَسْتَأْثِرُونَ بِالْفَيْءِ؟ “، قَالَ: قُلْتُ: إِذًا وَالَّذِي بَعَثَكَ بِالْحَقِّ أَضْرِبُ بِسَيْفِي حَتَّى أَلْحَقَ بِهِ، فَقَالَ: ” أَفَلا أَدُلُّكَ عَلَى مَا هُوَ خَيْرٌ مِنْ ذَلِكَ، اصْبِرْ حَتَّى تَلْقَانِي

[Khalid bin Wahban narrated: Abu Dharr narrates that Rasulullah (s) asked me ‘What will you do if the Umara’ after me shall take this property of Fay’ as their own? Abu Dharr said ‘I swear by He who made you a Prophet, I shall raise my sword and declare war until I take it back’. Rasulullah (s) said .I shall give you a better option, be patient until you meet me’]

The opponents say that since abu Dharr died in the time of `Uthman, which means that this Hadith is related to the first three Khulafa’.

We say, there are two main issues with the above argument:

A-     The narration above comes through Khalid bin Wahban, Ibn Hajar says: “Majhool” and al-Dhahabi says: “Majhool.” Meaning he is nobody, we do not know if he is reliable, a liar, a Mudallis, an extremist or if he’s even in the right state of mind. Thus this narration is rejected and so is this argument altogether.

B-     If we were to understand the above the same way our opponents understood it, this contradicts what is authentically narrated from Abu Bakr and `Umar that they used these lands the same way Rasul-Allah (saw) used them, nor did they take them for themselves, nor did they give them to their children as inheritance. We read what Abu Bakr said in Tareekh ibn Shubah:

فقال أَبُو بَكْرٍ، رضي الله عنه: أَنَا وَلِيُّ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ وَقَدْ عَمِلَ فِيهَا بِمَا عَمِلَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ وَأَنْتُمَا حَيَّانِ

[Abu Bakr said: “I am most worthy to closely follow the messenger of Allah (saw)” So he used the lands the same way the messenger (saw) used them and both of you were alive (and witnessed this).]

C-      It is also known through several narrations some of which are authentic, that `Ali ibn abi Talib followed the path of Abu Bakr and `Umar when it came to splitting the Khums and handling the money from these lands, Ishaq ibn Hammad writes in al-Tarikah:

ثُمَّ مَلَكَ الأَمْرَ، فَلَمْ يُخَالِفْ أَفْعَالَهُمْ فِي فَدَكَ، وَسَهْمُ ذَوِي الْقُرْبَى فِي جَمِيعِ أَحْكَامِهِمْ

[Then `Ali recieved authority over this affair, but he never opposed their policy in Fadak, nor when it came to the share of the close relatives.]


We read in Tarikat al-Nabi what Hammad ibn Ishaq reported:

كَتَبَ عُمَرُ بْنُ عَبْدِ الْعَزِيزِ إِلَى أَبِي بَكْرِ بْنِ حَزْمٍ، أَنِ افْحَصْ عَنْ أَسْمَاءِ خَدَمِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ مِنَ الرِّجَالِ وَالنِّسَاءِ وَمَوَالِيهِ، فَكَتَبَ إِلَيْهِ يُخْبِرُهُ

[`Umar bin `Abdul-`Aziz wrote to Abu Bakr bin Hazm, that investigate for me the names of the servants of Rasul-Allah (saw) from men and women and his Mawali, so he wrote to him their news]

And below we quickly sum up what he said concerning the servants,

Umm Ayman Barakah was for The Prophet’s (saw) father so he freed her, Zayd ibn Harithah was owned by Khadeejah who gifted him to the Prophet (saw) and he freed him, Abu Kabshah was in Makkah and he freed him, Anjashah was in al-Sarrah and he freed him, Shuqran is Salih and he owned him then freed him, Safeenah was also owned and freed, Thawban was from Yaman he was bought in Madinah then freed, Yasar was a Nibiyan caught in the conquest of ibn Tha`labah so he freed him, Rabah was dark and he freed him, abu Rafi` was al-`Abbas’s slave, he gifted him to the Prophet (saw) but when he embraced islam he (saw) freed him and his name was Aslam, Fadalah was a Mawla for him (saw) then he left for al-Sham, abu Muwayhibah was from Muzaynah and was freed, Rafi` was a servant of Sa`eed bin al-`Aas who later gifted him to his son then he was gifted to the messenger (saw) and freed, Mid`am was a servant of the Prophet (saw) gifted to him by Rifa`ah ibn Zayd, he witnessed Khaybar and later killed by an arrow, Karkarah was the same.

Others who served him were Anas ibn Malik, Hind and Asma’; Sulma the wife of abu Rafi` said: “We were the servants of the messenger (saw), my name is Sulma, and also there was Khadirah and Radwa were his slaves, so he freed us as well as Maymounah bint Sa`d.”

From this we see that he (saw) freed every single slave acquired in war and every single servant that was gifted to him, and the Prophet (saw) would order Abu Bakr to buy the slaves from the Kouffar just in order to free them. This is why not one was left by the time he (saw) passed away, so may our Lord shower him in blessings and raise his and his companion’s ranks.


Our opponents write:

((Following the death of her father (s), Sayyida Fatima (as) asked Abu Bakr with regards to the inheritance of three things: 1-The Estate of Fadak in Madina that was Fay 2-The Estate of Fadak 3-Khums from the attributes of Khayber))

The above is obviously in no way accurate and shows that most people who open such topics online have done no research whatsoever other than bringing random arguments from Rafidhi forums. This is clear, since based on the above they merged Fadak with Madinah while they are nowhere near each other, they also said that she wished to “inherit” the Khums of Khaybar, and when is Khums ever inherited?

The correct view is, they asked for three things:

1-      The inheritance of the seven gardens which were surrounded by walls and located in and around Madinah, they are: al-Dallal, Barqah, al-A`waf, al-Safiyah, al-Maythib, Husna and Mashrabat Umm Ibrahim. They were left by the Jew Mukhayreeq after Uhud and some belonged to banu al-Nadeer and bani Quraydhah.

2-      Their property from the land of Fadak which was a Fay’ from the land of Khaybar, its people surrendered peacefully when they heard they wouldn’t be harmed and this land became purely his property (saw). Fatimah and al-`Abbas thought it would be divided between the members of the household.

3-      The share of the household from the Khums of what was taken by force from the lands of Khaybar, also possibly anything left from the share of the Prophet (saw), their Khums was mainly taken from the valley of the fort of al-Kateebah while other areas of Khaybar were all given to his soldiers.


`Ali and al-`Abbas, when they came to `Umar, they were not asking for Fadak or Khaybar, they just asked for control of the Sadaqat of Madinah from the property of banu al-Nadeer(Jews) and Mukhayreeq as they believed they were at least entitled to do so.

We read in the books of Sunan:

عَلِيًّا، وَالْعَبَّاسَ رضي الله عنهما يختصمان فيما أفاء الله على رَسُولِ اللَّهِ مِنْ أَمْوَالِ بَنِي النَّضِير

[`Ali and al-`Abbas both disputed over what Allah has given as Fay’ to his messenger from the property of banu al-Nadeer.]

هُمَا يَخْتَصِمَانِ فِي الصَّوَافِي الَّتِي أَفَاءَ اللَّهُ عَلَى رَسُولِهِ مِنْ أَمْوَالِ بَنِي النَّضِير

[And they were disputing regarding the properties/possessions that Allah granted as Fay’ to his messenger (saw) from bani al-Nadeer.]

Two years into his Khilafah, `Umar ibn al-Khattab out of good will towards them entrusted the Sadaqat of Madinah to both men since they were the heads of Ahlul-Bayt, he never gave it to them as inheritance, but just appointed them over it to care for it and benefit from it and to distribute its produce as the Prophet (saw) and Abu Bakr did before.

`Ali asked for his wife’s part and al-`Abbas asked for his nephew’s part, so `Umar reminded them of the Prophet’s (saw) Hadith, then said what we read in al-Bukhari:

قُلْتُ: إِنْ شِئْتُمَا دَفَعْتُهُ إِلَيْكُمَا عَلَى أَنَّ عَلَيْكُمَا عَهْدَ اللَّهِ وَمِيثَاقَهُ، لَتَعْمَلَانِ فِيهِ بِمَا عَمِلَ فِيهِ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ وَأَبُو بَكْرٍ وَمَا عَمِلْتُ فِيهِ مُنْذُ وَلِيتُ وَإِلَّا فَلَا تُكَلِّمَانِي، فَقُلْتُمَا ادْفَعْهُ إِلَيْنَا بِذَلِكَ، فَدَفَعْتُهُ إِلَيْكُمَا

[If you two wish, I hand it to you but you give me an oath by Allah to use it as the messenger of Allah (saw) and Abu Bakr used it and like I used it since I was given authority, otherwise never mention it to me ever again. Then you both said: “We accept, give it to us.” And I did.]

Al-`Abbas and `Ali later had a fight over how the money the land produces is divided, it appears as if al-`Abbas was angry at `Ali so much that he called him names, `Abbas might have thought `Ali took more than his need or that he used the money without consulting him, so they both went to `Umar asking him to divide it between them or to rule for one of them against the other.

We read what al-Daraqutni reported from Imam Isma`eel al-Qadi al-Maliki (199-282AH) in Tuhfat-ul-Ahwadhi Sharh-ul-Jami`:

لم يكن في الميراث إنما تنازعا في ولاية الصدقة وفي صرفها كيف تصرف

[Their dispute was not regarding inheritance, they only fought about controlling the Sadaqah and how it should be divided and spent.]

`Umar refused to give any other judgment and told them to return it if they’re unable to manage it.

He also said:

فَإِنْ عَجَزْتُمَا عَنْهُ فَادْفَعَا إِلَيَّ فَأَنَا أَكْفِيكُمَاهُ

[If you are unable to run this land, then return it to me and I shall save you the effort.]

It was later written that `Uthman ibn `Affan during his Khilafah handed the entire land to `Ali and it remained with his children for many years.

In another narration from Musnad Ahmad, it says that ibn `Abbas convinced his father during the Khilafah of `Uthman to allow `Ali to control it on his own:

فلما استخلف عثمان اختصما إليه، فسكت عثمان ونكس رأسه. قال ابن عباس: فخشيت أن يأخذه أبي، فضربت بيدي بين كتفي العباس، فقلت: يا أبت أقسمت عليك إلا سلّمته

[When `Uthman received Khilafah, they both came and disputed in front of him and asked him to settle the matter, but he remained silent and lowered his head. Ibn `Abbas said: So I feared that he would take it (meaning the land) back from them, so I patted my hand on al-`Abbas’ chest and said: “O father, by Allah just hand it to him (meaning to `Ali).”]

As for the Fay’ of the lands of Khaybar including Fadak, `Umar held on to them and kept them well managed and properly taken care of as the Prophet (saw) used them for the urgent needs of the nation.

A question may be asked, does this mean that since both went to `Umar each man asking for his part, and that `Umar reminded them of the narration, does it mean that they reject the prophet’s (saw) narration? As clarified above the answer is NO, they themselves in the same narration declare they heard the messenger (saw) say so, and both know full well that `Umar was present when Abu Bakr made his ruling and agreed with him, this can only mean -as is apparent from the narration- that they only asked to control it, each claiming he has the right to do so, one through his close tie to the Prophet (saw) from his daughter’s side and the other being his paternal uncle.


`Ali and al-`Abbas both openly declared they heard the messenger (saw) say what he said but what is apparent is that the folks understood that although the produce of the land goes to charity, yet they can still manage it and eat from it, since the Prophet (saw) said: “The family of Muhammad may eat from it.” To them being in control of this Waqf did not pose any contradiction to the prophetic narration.

Abu Bakr on the other hand understood the narration in general and told them that the land cannot be placed under their control, rather he is in charge of it as successor and he replaces the messenger (saw) in controlling and dividing the money.

(It is said in some narration that `Ali was in charge of dividing during Abu Bakr’s time as well, but it seems he was not in control of the land nor in how the money is divided.)

Isn’t feeding the household from lands that purely belonged to the Prophet (saw) the same as inheritance?

Well, No.

Firstly, the laws of inheritance in how money and land is divided were never applied to this; they also do not own it and cannot sell it or use it as they please.

Secondly, it is treated as Waqf and the one to set the Waqf is the one to decide whether this Waqf is for the general population or just for specific families, the only reason the Prophet (saw) said his family may eat from it is so that no one may misunderstand and deprive them from benefitting from the Waqf like all other Muslims.


A similar difference of opinion to the above is the issue related to the fifth of the fifth from the Khums that the household claimed, we summarize it here in a few lines.

It is related to this verse:

{Know that, whatever war-booty you take, the fifth of it is God’s, and the Messenger’s, and the near kinsman’s, and the orphans’, and for the needy, and the traveller, if you believe in God and that We sent down upon Our servant on the day of salvation,. the day the two hosts encountered; and God is powerful over everything;} [8:41]

4/5th of the spoils go for the fighters who take part in the conquest, whereas 1/5th is to be divided among the five categories mentioned in the verse.

Many members from the household believed the 1/5th should be divided into five equal parts between them, this way they get a big share, on the other hand Abu Bakr and `Umar and those who agreed with them said that it doesn’t need to be divided equally but that the ones who need it the most deserve the biggest share.

Abu Bakr told Fatimah in their discussion:

أَنَا أَقْرَأُ مِنَ الْكِتَابِ مثل مَا تَقْرَئِينَ، وَلَمْ يَبْلُغْ عِلْمِي فِيهِ أَنَّ لِذِي قُرْبَى رَسُولِ اللَّهِ هَذَا السَّهْمَ كُلَّهُ يَجْرِي بِجَمَاعَتِهِ عَلَيْهِمْ

[I read from the book of Allah as you do and it did not reach my attention that this entire share (meaning the fifth of the fifth) is entirely spent on the close relatives of the messenger of Allah (saw).]

`Ali later followed the example of Abu Bakr and `Umar in this as stated authentically in Mustadrak al-Hakim from two chains:

حدثنا الشيخ أبو بكر بن إسحاق أنبأ يعقوب بن يوسف القزويني ثنا محمد بن سعيد بن سابق ثنا أبو جعفر الرازي عن مطرف عن عبد الرحمن بن أبي ليلى قال : سمعت عليا رضي الله عنه يقول : ولاني رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم خمس الخمس فوضعته مواضعه حياة رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم و أبي بكر و عمر رضي الله عنهما

[`Abdul-Rahman bin abi Layla said: I heard `Ali may Allah be pleased with him say: “The Prophet (SAWS) charged me with spending the Khums of the Khums, so I spend it the same way it was spent during the days of the messenger (SAWS) and Abu Bakr and `Umar may Allah be pleased with them.”]

Also in the authentic narration in al-Tahawi, that Muhammad ibn Ishaq heard many rumors so he went to ask the grandson of `Ali:

حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ خُزَيْمَةَ قَالَ: ثنا يُوسُفُ بْنُ عَدِيٍّ، قَالَ: ثنا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ الْمُبَارَكِ، عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ إِسْحَاقَ، قَالَ: سَأَلْتُ أَبَا جَعْفَرٍ، فَقُلْتُ: أَرَأَيْتُ عَلِيَّ بْنَ أَبِي طَالِبٍ حَيْثُ وَلِيَ الْعِرَاقَ، وَمَا وَلِيَ مِنْ أُمُورِ النَّاسِ، كَيْفَ صَنَعَ فِي سَهْمِ ذَوِي الْقُرْبَى، قَالَ: ” سَلَكَ بِهِ، وَاللَّهِ، سَبِيلَ أَبِي بَكْرٍ وَعُمَرَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمَا، قُلْتُ: وَكَيْفَ؟ وَأَنْتُمْ تَقُولُونَ مَا تَقُولُونَ؟ قَالَ: إِنَّهُ، وَاللَّهِ، مَا كَانَ أَهْلُهُ يَصْدُرُونَ إِلا عَنْ رَأْيِهِ، قُلْتُ: فَمَا مَنَعَهُ؟ قَالَ: كَرِهَ، وَاللَّهِ، أَنْ يُدَّعَى عَلَيْهِ خِلافُ أَبِي بَكْرٍ وَعُمَرَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ

[Muhammad ibn Ishaq said: I asked aba Ja`far al-Baqir: “You see when `Ali ibn abi Talib ruled `Iraq and was placed in authority over the people? How did he spend the share of thee near relatives?” He replied: “By Allah, he followed the path of Abu Bakr and `Umar may Allah be pleased with them.” I said: “How is this? When you say what you say?” He replied: “His family always followed his opinion.” I said: “What stopped him then?” He said: “By Allah, he detested when people claimed that he opposed Abu Bakr and `Umar may Allah be pleased with them.”]


Let us sum this up as well and be very clear, there can only be two cases:

1-      If the Prophet (saw) had turned this land into a Waqf for the people during his own life, as mentioned in the books of Amwal and Hadith, this means that this land no longer belongs to him, he (saw) only manages how its produce is divided since he is the leader and nothing more, and after him his successor does this job. In this case she doesn’t get anything from it since it’s no longer an inheritance.

2-      If the Prophet (saw) never made it a Waqf, it remains a Fay’ as it was and it remains in his possession, he divides from it and gives to the people as its owner and when he dies his successor in authority continues working this land and using it the same way the Prophet (saw) used it, as a Khalifah must succeed him (saw) in his economic policies and follow his example. In this case she also doesn’t get it as his possessions (saw) are not inherited.

What she gets is what the Khalifah gives, Abu Bakr says that Rasul-Allah (saw) permitted his family to eat from this land and so he will continue feeding them as if he (saw) was still alive.

Another question would be: Did Abu Bakr leave the prophetic-household (including his daughter) to starve? Did he leave them in poverty?

Let me just say this, there are authentic narrations regarding the written will of `Ali ibn abi Talib in the books of Ahlul-Sunnah and in the books of the Shia, such as volume seven from al-Kafi, I’d recommend all our readers to check them out and see if they were left in poverty or not; just read about the lands they bequeathed and the number of slaves and female servants and water wells and the rest. This can also be seen in the book Tareekh al-Madinah by ibn Shubah under the chapter of Sadaqat `Ali ibn abi Talib and it mentions a lot more detail as it was copied from Hasan bin Zayd bin Hasan bin `Ali ibn abi Talib’s letter.

I add, the Prophet (saw) himself left his family in poverty, he preferred poverty for them, and in the Sahih narration from Bilal ibn Rabah, he was talking about how the Prophet (saw) was in debt because he spent his money on the people, then finally he received some money and asked Bilal to pay his debts as well as Bilal’s:

قَالَ: ” فَفَضَلَ شَيْءٌ؟ ، قُلْتُ: نَعَمْ، قَالَ: ” انْظُرْ أَنْ تُرِيحَنِيَ مِنْهَا، فَإِنِّي لَسْتُ دَاخِلا عَلَى أَحَدٍ مِنْ أَهْلِي حَتَّى تُرِيحَنِي مِنْهُ

[The Prophet (saw) asked Bilal: “Anything left from the money?” Bilal said: “Yes.” He (saw) said: “Make sure you relieve me from (possessing) it, I won’t enter the house of any of my wives (for the night) until you do.”]

As the reader can see, the Prophet (saw) paid his debts but never kept any of the money that remained, he wouldn’t even go home and sleep unless he made sure Bilal got rid of this money.

Why does the Prophet (saw) do this? Allah answers:

{The example of those who spend their wealth in the way of Allah is like a seed [of grain] which grows seven spikes; in each spike is a hundred grains. And Allah multiplies [His reward] for whom He wills.} [2:261]


The opponents say that if what the Prophet (saw) leaves is charity, then Abu Bakr cannot be in control, it should be in the hands of the needy and the poor.

This is a weak argument like many others, we do not know if the opponents would wish for us to live in a jungle, but we live in a state governed by Islamic law and justice. This land that the Prophet (saw) -as leader of our nation- used to spend from it on the poor, after him it falls into the hands of his successor Abu Bakr and he is now charged with dividing its produce and spending it on the poor and needy. If the matter was left to the poor and needy to take what they wish from the land without order and justice, they’d kill each other over it.

The same applies to when all the tribes sent their Zakat to the messenger (saw) and he would spend it on the poor for them, it is up to the leader to take care of such matters.

Ibn Sireen says in “al-Amwal” by Ibn Zinjawayh:

كَانَتِ الصَّدَقَةُ تُدْفَعُ إِلَى رَسُولِ اللَّهِ وَإِلَى مَنْ أَمَرَ بِهَا، وَإِلَى أَبِي بَكْرٍ وَإِلَى مَنْ أَمَرَ بِهَا، وَإِلَى عُمَرَ وَإِلَى مَنْ أَمَرَ بِهَا، وَإِلَى عُثْمَانَ وَإِلَى مَنْ أَمَرَ بِهَا، حَتَّى قُتِلَ عُثْمَانُ، ثُمَّ اخْتَلَفُوا، فَمِنْهُمْ مَنِ اخْتَارَ أَنْ يَقْسِمَها، وَمِنْهُمْ مَنِ اخْتَارَ أَنْ يَدْفَعَهَا لِلسُّلْطَانِ

[The Sadaqah was paid to the Prophet (saw) or whomever he appointed, then to Abu Bakr or whomever he appointed, then to `Umar or whomever he appointed, then to `Uthman or whomever he appointed until he was killed, then the people differed, some started to personally pay it to the poor, and others still sent it to the Sultan.]

Also in the authentic narration from `Abdullah ibn `Umar from the same book:

أنا النَّضْرُ بْنُ شُمَيْلٍ، أَخْبَرَنَا ابْنُ عَوْنٍ، عَنْ نَافِعٍ، قَالَ: سَمِعْتُهُ وَكَتَبَ بِهِ إِلَيَّ، قَالَ: قَالَ عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ عُمَرَ ” ادْفَعُوا زَكَاةَ أَمْوَالِكُمْ لِمَنْ وَلاهُ اللَّهُ أَمْرَكُمْ، فَمَنْ بَرَّ فَلِنَفْسِهِ، وَمَنْ أَثِمَ فَعَلَيْهِ

[Pay the Zakat of your money to those whom Allah has placed in charge of you, whoever of them is righteous then it is for himself and whoever of them is corrupt then it is for himself.]


There is a narration with an odd text and acceptable narrators; we quote it from one of its earliest sources, Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal:

حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ أَبِي شَيْبَةَ، وَسَمِعْتُهُ مِنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ أَبِي شَيْبَةَ، قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ فُضَيْلٍ، عَنِ الْوَلِيدِ بْنِ جُمَيْعٍ، عَنْ أَبِي الطُّفَيْلِ، قَالَ: لَمَّا قُبِضَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ أَرْسَلَتْ فَاطِمَةُ إِلَى أَبِي بَكْرٍ: أَنْتَ وَرِثْتَ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ أَمْ أَهْلُهُ؟ قَالَ: فَقَالَ: لَا، بَلْ أَهْلُهُ، قَالَتْ: فَأَيْنَ سَهْمُ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ قَالَ: فَقَالَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ: إِنِّي سَمِعْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ يَقُولُ: ” إِنَّ اللَّهَ إِذَا أَطْعَمَ نَبِيًّا طُعْمَةً، ثُمَّ قَبَضَهُ جَعَلَهُ لِلَّذِي يَقُومُ مِنْ بَعْدِهِ “، فَرَأَيْتُ أَنْ أَرُدَّهُ عَلَى الْمُسْلِمِينَ، قَالَتْ: فَأَنْتَ، وَمَا سَمِعْتَ مِنْ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ أَعْلَمُ

[`Abdullah bin Muhammad ibn abi Shaybah told us, Muhammad ibn Fudayl told us, from al-Waleed bin Jumay`, from abu al-Tufayl that he said: When the messenger of Allah (saw) passed away, Fatimah sent to Abu Bakr that: “Did you inherit the messenger or his family?” He replied: “No, his family did.” She said: “Then where is the share of the messenger (saw)?” Abu Bakr said: “I heard the messenger (saw) say: ‘If Allah gives a prophet some means of sustenance then takes his soul, he hands it to the one to take his place (in authority).’ So I decided to return it to the Muslims.” She said: “You know best what you heard from the messenger (saw).”]

In the same narration from al-`Utarudi from ibn Fudayl it says instead:

قَالَتْ: فَمَا بَالُ الْخُمُسِ

[She said: “So what of the Khums?”] Instead of saying “Share”.

In the narration of Muhammad bin Sa`eed al-Kindi from ibn Fudayl it says at the end of the narration:

فَقَالَتْ: أَنْتَ وَرَسُولُ اللَّهِ أَعْلَمُ

[She said: “You and the messenger of Allah (saw) know best.”]

This narration is mainly a Shia one, Muhammad ibn Fudayl is an extremist Shia who cursed `Uthman, he is Saduq Hasan-ul-Hadith, as for al-Waleed bin Jumay` al-Kufi he is also a Shia and Saduq Hasan-ul-Hadith, then ibn al-Tufayl is a very young Sahabi who is from the Shia of `Ali.

This makes the narration “Hasan” but its text is odd since Abu Bakr never replied to Fatimah with these words rather he replied with: “We offer no inheritance what we leave is Sadaqah, the family of Muhammad (saw) may eat from this money, I would never abandon etc…”

Since this companion was only nine years old when this happened, and since the two Shia narrators of it are “Saduq” in rank and have been criticized by some, and since no one else narrated this odd text from abu al-Tufayl, and since the authentic narrations differ in text, we assume that these narrators narrated the Hadith by meaning and not word for word.

The odd part in the text would be this: Fatimah sent to Abu Bakr that: “Did you inherit the messenger or his family?” He replied: “No, his family did.”

Although it is known that his family never inherited anything so it’s very unlikely that Abu Bakr would say they inherited, also Fatimah never sent to Abu Bakr rather she herself went and spoke to him, and the truth of the matter is that this part is a mistake by the narrator, what was actually said is what is reported in other narrations such as the “Hasan” Hadith from Jami` al-Tirmithy of abu Salamah from abu Hurayrah:

جَاءَتْ فَاطِمَةُ إِلَى أَبِي بَكْرٍ، فَقَالَتْ: مَنْ يَرِثُكَ؟ قَالَ: أَهْلِي وَوَلَدِي قَالَتْ: فَمَا لِي لَا أَرِثُ أَبِي ؟ فَقَالَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ سَمِعْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ يَقُولُ: لَا نُورَثُ

[Fatimah came to Abu Bakr and said: “Who inherits you?” He replied: “My family and children.” She replied: “So why do I not inherit my father?” Abu Bakr replied: “I heard the messenger (saw) say: We offer no inheritance etc…”]

Also in Tareekh al-Madinah we read a similar report that sounds more correct however it is narrated from al-Kalbi from Badham from Umm Hani’:

أَنّ فَاطِمَةَ، رضي الله عنها، قالت لأَبِي بَكْرٍ، رضي الله عنه: مَنْ يَرِثُكَ إِذَا مُتَّ؟ قال: وَلَدِي وَأَهْلِي، قالت: فَمَا لَكَ تَرِثُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ دُونَنَا؟ قال: يَا بِنْتَ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ، مَا وَرِثْتُ أَبَاكِ دَارًا وَلا مَالا وَلا ذَهَبًا وَلا فِضَّةً، قالت: بَلَى، سَهْمُ اللَّهِ الَّذِي جَعَلَهُ لَنَا، وَصَافِيَتُنَا الَّتِي بِفَدَكٍ.فقال أَبُو بَكْرٍ، رضي الله عنه: سَمِعْتُ النَّبِيَّ يقول: إِنَّمَا هِيَ طُعْمَةٌ أَطْعَمَنَا اللَّهُ، فَإِذَا مُتُّ كَانَتْ بَيْنَ الْمُسْلِمِينَ

[That Fatimah told Abu Bakr: “Who inherits you if you die?” He said: “My children and family.” She said: “Why then do you inherit the messenger (saw) without us?” He said: “O daughter of the messenger of Allah (saw), I never inherited from your father a house or wealth neither gold nor silver.” She said: “Yes you did, our share that Allah mentioned for us and the land which was purely owned by us in Fadak.” Abu Bakr replied: “I heard the messenger (saw) say: It is a means of sustenance offered to us by Allah, if I die it becomes (distributed) between the Muslims.”]

In the same book by abu Salamah we read a disconnected report:

قالت: يَا أَبَا بَكْرٍ، أَتَرِثُكَ بَنَاتُكَ وَلا تَرِثُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ بَنَاتُهُ؟ !

[She (Fatimah) said: “O Abu Bakr, your daughters inherit you while the messenger’s (saw) daughters do not inherit him!?”]

Also in the narration of Yazid al-Raqqashi from Anas ibn Malik:

قالت: أَفَلَكَ هُوَ وَلأَقْرِبَائِكَ؟ قال: لا، وَأَنْتِ عِنْدِي أَمِينَةٌ مُصَدَّقَةٌ

[She (Fatimah) said: “Then it is for you and your relatives!?” He replied: “No, and you are trusted and honest in my eyes.”]

And in Tareekh al-Ya`qoubi she says:

أفي (كتاب) الله أن ترث أباك ولا أرث أبي؟

[Is it in the book of Allah that you inherit your father and I do not inherit mine?]

And other reports which prove that the text of the initial narration is a mistake from the narrators.

The last part of the narration is also important as Fatimah’s reply shows her trust in Abu Bakr, she tells him after the narration reached her: “You and the messenger of Allah (saw) know best.”


This question is related to the popular narration: “We offer no inheritance, what we leave is (spent in) charity.”

Most people understand this narration in a certain way. However, a minority of scholars from Ahlul-Sunnah as well as al-Shareef al-Murtada of the Imamiyyah claimed that the Prophet (saw) meant that whatever he leaves behind as a charity cannot be taken by his heirs but they may inherit the rest. It is as if they’re saying that he (saw) left a certain amount as charity but the rest of his belongings are inherited normally like anybody else’s belongings.

So based on their understanding they would translate it as such:

“We do not offer as inheritance what we leave as charity.”

Instead of the usual translation:

“We do not offer inheritance, what we leave is charity.”

This is a minority opinion for a very good reason, it is written in the book of Tabaqat by al-Taqi al-Ghazzi, that the Sunni scholar abu `Ali al-Husayn bin al-Khadir al-Hanafi debated the head of the Rafidhah al-Shareef al-Murtada about it:

وقد ناظر مرة الشريف المرتضى، شيخ الشيعة، وقطعه، في حديث ” ما تركنا صدقة ” ، وقال للمرتضى: إذا جعلت ” ما ” نافية خلا الحديث من فائدة، فإن كل أحد لا يخفى عليه أن الميت يرثه أقرباؤه، ولا تكون تركته صدقته، ولكن لما كان الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم بخلاف المسلمين، بين ذلك، فقال: ” ما تركنا صدقة ”

[He debated once the Shaykh of the Shia al-Shareef al-Murtada and defeated him regarding the Hadith “What we leave is Sadaqah.” He told him: If you explain it as such then the narration would have no benefit, it is not hidden from anyone that the relatives of a dead person inherit him, and his belongings are never given as charity. However, since the messenger of Allah (saw) is unique, he (saw) clarified this and said: “What we leave is Sadaqah.”]

In other words the explanation of this minority group makes no sense, it is as if he (saw) said: “We do not eat what we feed the poor.”  Well obviously nothing informative or beneficial at all can be derived from such a statement.


We previously discussed this matter in an old article here:



We previously discussed this matter in an old article here:



There is an authentic narration up to `Amir al-Sha`bi (20-109) which states that Abu Bakr met Fatimah and tried to please her, since al-Sha`bi never met Fatimah this narration is called a “Mursal”, meaning al-Sha`bi never witnessed this event himself.

The opponents dislike this narration because of its content, so they argue that it should be rejected since the Mursal is categorized as a type of weak narration. How we wish that our opponents applied the sciences of Hadith to every narration they quote against the Muslims, our sad opponents would rely many times on chainless reports by very late historians or even unreliable books and use everything they get their hands on to their advantage, this is a sign of bias and extremism unfortunately.

Let us take the example of a Tabi`ee(follower) who did quite a bit of Irsal, Imam al-Hasan al-Basri we read about his Tadlees in “Tahreer al-Taqreeb” vol.1 pg.270 #1227:

[It is important to clarify, that the Tadlees of al-Hasan is an issue if it is from a Sahabi, it is not an issue if from a Tabi`ee. This condition is important.]

This proves that not all Irsaal is the same, if al-Hasan went and did Irsaal to Abu Bakr is not as if he did so to someone lower than him, if it were all simply rejected then there would be no need for the above statement.

In Siyar al-A`lam 5/86 under the biography of `Ata’ we read the words of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal:

[From among the Maraseel, nothing is weaker than the Mursal of al-Hasan al-Basri and `Ata’ ibn abi Rabah, they took from anyone.]

He doesn’t necessarily mean that one man’s Mursal is graded Sahih while another is graded Da`eef, he means that some Maraseel are much stronger and others are much weaker, that some Maraseel can be accepted while others are un-acceptable.

Another example, in the book “al-Kifayah” by al-Khateeb page 549:

[Yahya ibn Sa`eed al-Qattan said: The Mursal of Malik is more beloved to me than the Mursal of Sufiyan.]

Again, if they were all rejected and weak there’d be no need for such detail.

We give another example which is important, in “Jami` al-Tahseel fi Ahkam al-Maraseel” by Salah-ul-Deen al-`Ala’ee page 89, the author reports that the Imams said regarding the Tabi`ee Sa`eed ibn al-Musayyib:

[They said that Sa`eed ibn al-Musayyib his Maraseel are all Sahih as he only narrates from a reliable big Tabi`ee or a popular Sahabi.]

In the book “al-Kamil fil-Du`afa’” by ibn `Adi vol.3 pg.169 we read:

[Yahya ibn Ma`een said that the Mursal of Ibrahim al-Nakh`ee is Sahih.]

The same was said about the Mursal of `Urwah ibn al-Zubayr and Muhammad ibn Sireen and others. As for Imams such as al-Zuhri or Ibn `Uyaynah, we find that the scholars agree on the weakness of their Maraseel, since they narrate from everyone without investigating their reliability or the authenticity of what they say.

So where does `Amir al-Sha`bi fall into this?

We read in “Ma`rifat al-Thiqaat” by Imam al-`Ijli vol.2 pg.12:

[The Mursal of al-Sha`bi is Sahih he almost never does Irsaal unless it is Sahih.]

Al-Sha`bi being a big follower and early Imam, he had authentic knowledge and knew the companions and their news more than anyone, even more than other companions knew about each other, we read in “al-Tareekh al-Sagheer” of al-Bukhari vol.1 pg.288 that al-Sha`bi said:

[I had met more than five hundred from the companions of the Prophet (saw).]

In “al-Thiqaat” by Ibn Hibban vol.5 pg.186 we read:

[Al-Sha`bi narrated from one hundred and fifty companions of the messenger (saw).]

He lived in the time of `Ali and his children and he narrated from al-Hasan bin `Ali, he also lived and died in Madinah where the companions and household resided.

More importantly, the scholars would be strict on the Maraseel whether it’s a Mursal to a Sahabi or a Tabi`ee in the case of the prophetic narration, this is because they were strict in Islamic rulings and `Aqeedah. On the other hand, the narration of al-Sha`bi we are currently discussing is simply about a minor historical event between Fatimah and Abu Bakr, when it comes to these kinds of Hadith, the strong Mursal of al-Sha`bi is more than acceptable as he might know what the late historians our opponents quote do not, and that he might have heard of this private event that `A’ishah or al-Zuhri might not have known.


Without researching and just from memory we’d say yes he probably offered gifts to certain people, but why does the opponent think that Abu Bakr needs to confiscate them?

If the Prophet (saw) gave someone a gift, this would be common knowledge and it would be this man’s property, no one would take it away from him as they have no right to do so. The Prophet (saw) gave `Ali the sword Dhul-Faqar, this is common knowledge, why would Abu Bakr need to take it away from him?


The opponent thinks he found some valuable piece of information, he says the Prophet’s (saw) ring was inherited by the three Caliphs after him.

They’re mainly talking about the Prophet’s (saw) seal, which he got made in order to use for official documents and state related matters.

First of all, the opponent just used the term “inherited” metaphorically, as Abu Bakr isn’t a son of Rasul-Allah (saw) so he may inherit him; rather inheritance means to transfer this ring from one political leader to his successor after his death, without applying the rules of inheritance on it.

The Prophet’s (saw) money and lands are all distributed among Muslims, his money was distributed before his death while his lands were used to feed Muslims after his death and some say they were given to Muslims before his death all by his orders.

All of these objects like the ring or shoes or turban, are not inherited, rather preserved by the Khalifah for later generations so all Muslims can benefit from their blessings and rejoice by looking at them.

Notice that Abu Bakr never gave the ring to his children, he handed it to the leader after him so it may be used in the affairs of the Muslims as it was used in the time of Rasul-Allah (saw).


The prophet’s (saw) wealth from money and lands were all spent in charity after his passing, but what of his clothes? Clothes won’t bring much price especially old worn out clothes since Rasul-Allah (saw) never dressed himself in anything fancy or expensive nor would he buy new clothes except rarely.

The opponents would like us to believe they were inherited, they quote this narration:

فَقَالَتْ هَذِهِ كَانَتْ عِنْدَ عَائِشَةَ حَتَّى قُبِضَتْ فَلَمَّا قُبِضَتْ قَبَضْتُهَا وَكَانَ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم يَلْبَسُهَا فَنَحْنُ نَغْسِلُهَا لِلْمَرْضَى يُسْتَشْفَى بِهَا

[Asma’ said: This cloak was with `A’ishah until she died, then I took it and Rasul-Allah (saw) used to wear it, so we wash it for the sick seeking its blessing for healing.]

And this one:

دَخَلْتُ عَلَى عَائِشَةَ فَأَخْرَجَتْ إِلَيْنَا إِزَارًا غَلِيظًا مِمَّا يُصْنَعُ بِالْيَمَنِ وَكِسَاءً مِنَ الَّتِي يُسَمُّونَهَا الْمُلَبَّدَةَ – قَالَ – فَأَقْسَمَتْ بِاللَّهِ إِنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم قُبِضَ فِي هَذَيْنِ الثَّوْبَيْنِ

[Abu Burdah said: I visited `A’ishah and she brought out for us the coarse lower garment made in Yemen and clothes made out of Mulabbada cloth, and she swore in the name of Allah that Allah’s Messenger (saw) died in these two clothes.]

`A’ishah herself used to make clothing and give to the Prophet (saw) as mentioned in “Akhlaq al-Nabi” by al-Asbahani:

حَدَّثَنَا عَبَّاسُ بْنُ مُجَاشِعٍ، نَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ أَبِي يَعْقُوبَ، نَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ كَثِيرٍ، نَا هَمَّامٌ، عَنْ قَتَادَةَ، عَنْ مُطَرِّفٍ، عَنْ عَائِشَةَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهَا، أَنَّهَا قَالَتْ: ” صَنَعْتُ لِرَسُولُ اللَّهِ بُرْدَةً سَوْدَاءَ مِنْ صُوفٍ، فَلَبِسَهَا

[`A’ishah said: I made for the messenger of Allah (saw) a black shawl made from wool, so he wore it.]

In Ahmad’s Zuhd:

دَّثَنَا حَجَّاجٌ، عَنِ ابْنِ جُرَيْجٍ، أَخْبَرَنِي إِسْمَاعِيلُ بْنُ أُمَيَّةَ، أَنَّ عَائِشَةَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهَا ” صَنَعَتْ لِلنَّبِيِّ فِرَاشَيْنِ فَأَبَى أَنْ يَضْطَجِعَ إِلا عَلَى وَاحِدٍ

[`A’ishah said: “I made for the Prophet (saw) two beds but he refused to sleep on more than one.”]

Notice that in the first narration she never said: “inherited”, she only said: “was with `A’ishah” nor did the second mention inheritance. This is because it wasn’t inheritance, the Prophet’s (saw) clothing today is kept in a museum but back then there was no such thing, so his clothes would be kept with whoever is alive from the trusted people who were close to him, this includes his family, wives and servants.

Other members of his household also took care of a couple of his possessions, `Amir al-Sha`bi reported that `Ali Zayn al-`Abideen had the Prophet’s (saw) shield:

نَا أَحْمَدُ، نَا إِسْمَاعِيلُ، نَا أَبُو بَكْرٍ، نَا وَكِيعٌ، نَا إِسْرَائِيلُ، عَنْ جَابِرٍ، عَنْ عَامِرٍ، قَالَ: ” أَخْرَجَ لَنَا عَلِيُّ بْنُ الْحُسَيْنِ دِرْعَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ فَإِذَا هِيَ يَمَانِيَةٌ، رَقِيقَةٌ، ذَاتُ زَرَافِينَ، فَإِذَا عُلِّقَتْ بِزَرَافِينِهَا شَمَّرَتْ، وَإِذَا أُرْسِلَتْ مَسَّتِ الأَرْضَ

Also it is authentically narrated from his son Muhammad bin `Ali that he took care of it after his father:

حَدَّثَنَا أَحْمَدُ، نَا إِسْمَاعِيلُ، نَا ابْنُ أَبِي أُوَيْسٍ، حَدَّثَنِي سُلَيْمَانُ بْنُ بِلالٍ، عَنْ جَعْفَرِ بْنِ مُحَمَّدٍ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، قَالَ: كَانَتْ فِي دِرْعِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ حَلْقَتَانِ مِنْ فِضَّةٍ عِنْدَ مَوْضِعِ الثَّنِيِّ وَفِي ظَهْرِهِ حَلْقَتَانِ أَيْضًا، وَقَالَ: لَبِستَهَا فَخَطَبَتِ الأَرْضَ

[Sulayman bin Bilal from Ja`far from his father: There were two rings of silver in the Prophet’s (saw) near the front and two on his back, I wore it and so it dropped to the floor.]

As for the narration of Zayn al-`Abideen keeping the messenger’s (saw) sword, it can’t be included as Dhul-Fiqar was a gift from him (saw) to `Ali, not counted as inheritance.

To make the above clearer and show this wasn’t inheritance we quote:

أَخْرَجَ إِلَيْنَا أَنَسٌ نَعْلَيْنِ جَرْدَاوَيْنِ لَهُمَا قِبَالاَنِ، فَحَدَّثَنِي ثَابِتٌ الْبُنَانِيُّ بَعْدُ عَنْ أَنَسٍ أَنَّهُمَا نَعْلاَ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم

[`Isa bin Tahman said: Anas brought out to us two worn out leather shoes without hair and with pieces of leather straps. Later on Thabit al-Banani told me that Anas said that they were the shoes of the Prophet.]


رَأَيْتُ قَدَحَ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم عِنْدَ أَنَسِ بْنِ مَالِكٍ، وَكَانَ قَدِ انْصَدَعَ فَسَلْسَلَهُ بِفِضَّةٍ قَالَ وَهْوَ قَدَحٌ جَيِّدٌ عَرِيضٌ مِنْ نُضَارٍ‏.‏ قَالَ قَالَ أَنَسٌ لَقَدْ سَقَيْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم فِي هَذَا الْقَدَحِ أَكْثَرَ مِنْ كَذَا وَكَذَا‏.‏ قَالَ وَقَالَ ابْنُ سِيرِينَ إِنَّهُ كَانَ فِيهِ حَلْقَةٌ مِنْ حَدِيدٍ فَأَرَادَ أَنَسٌ أَنْ يَجْعَلَ مَكَانَهَا حَلْقَةً مِنْ ذَهَبٍ أَوْ فِضَّةٍ فَقَالَ لَهُ أَبُو طَلْحَةَ لاَ تُغَيِّرَنَّ شَيْئًا صَنَعَهُ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَتَرَكَهُ

[`Asim al-Ahwal said: I saw the drinking bowl of the Prophet with Anas bin Malik, and it had been broken, and he had mended it with silver plates. That drinking bowl was quite wide and made of Nadar wood, Anas said, “I gave water to the Prophet in that bowl more than so-and-so (for a long period).” Ibn Sireen said: Around that bowl there was an iron ring, and Anas wanted to replace it with a silver or gold ring, but Abu Talha said to him, “Do not change a thing that Allah’s Apostle has made.” So Anas left it as it was.]

Question, did Anas the servant of Rasul-Allah (saw) inherit him? Although he served him for about ten years, a mere servant can in no way inherit, what is to be understood is that they preserved the prophet’s (saw) clothes not inherited them.

Refer to the 7th volume of Jami`-ul-Athar fil-Siyar wa Mawlid al-Mukhtar by abi Nasr for some details about items that were in the possession of `Abdullah bin al-Zubayr and his mother, Hisham bin `Urwah, Fatimah bint `Ubaydullah bin al-`Abbas as well as others. Also read in that same volume some narrations describing how the Prophet (saw) would offer some of his clothes or shoes during his life to some of his Companions.

What the Prophet (saw) left behind was preserved, we read in an authentic narration by Ahmad that `Umar bin `Abdul-`Aziz during his Khilafah, had an entire house full of the prophet’s (saw) possessions:

حَدَّثَنَا هِشَامُ بْنُ سَعِيدٍ، حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ مُهَاجِرٍ، حَدَّثَنِي أَخِي عَمْرُو بْنُ مُهَاجِرٍ قَالَ: كَانَ لِعُمَرَ بْنِ عَبْدِ الْعَزِيزِ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ بَيْتٌ يَخْلُو فِيهِ، فِي ذَلِكَ الْبَيْتِ مَا تَرَكَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ ؛ فَإِذَا سَرِيرٌ مَرْمُولٌ بِشَرِيطٍ، وَقَعْبٌ يُشْرَبُ فِيهِ الْمَاءُ، وَجَرَّةٌ مَكْسُورَةُ الرَّأْسِ يُجْعَلُ فِيهَا الشَّيْءُ، وَوِسَادَةٌ مِنْ أَدَمٍ مَحْشُوَّةٌ بِلِيفٍ، وَقَطِيفَةٌ غَبْرَاءُ كَأَنَّهَا مِنْ هَذِهِ الْقُطُفِ الْجُرْمُقَانِيَّةِ ؛ فِيهَا مِنْ وَسَخِ شَعْرِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ ، ثُمَّ يَقُولُ: ” يَا قُرَيْشُ، هَذَا تُرَاثُ مَنْ أَكْرَمَكُمُ اللَّهُ بِهِ وَأَعَزَّكُمْ، يَخْرُجُ مِنَ الدُّنْيَا عَلَى مَا تَرَوْنَ

[`Amro bin Mouhajir told me: `Umar bin `Abdul-`Aziz had a house which he would spend time in alone, in that house were what the messenger (saw) left behind (…then he lists a couple of objects like a broken jug…) `Umar would tell Quraysh: “This is the man whom Allah honored you and blessed you with, he leaves the world as you see (in poverty).]

Abu al-Shaykh al-Asbahani reports similarly through another chain listing a couple of various objects that were in the room such as his drinking bowl or his leather cushion filled with fibre of date-palms and others.

حَدَّثَنَا حَسَنُ بْنِ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ، نَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ عَبْدِ الْوَهَّابِ، نَا عَلِيُّ بْنُ الْحَسَنِ الْعَسْقَلانِيُّ، نَا يَحْيَى بْنُ حَسَّانَ، عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ مُهَاجِرٍ، قَالَ: ” كَانَ مَتَاعُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ عِنْدَ عُمَرَ بْنِ عَبْدِ الْعَزِيزِ، فِي بَيْتٍ يُنْظَرُ إِلَيْهِ كُلَّ يَوْمٍ قَالَ: وَكَانَ رُبَّمَا اجْتَمَعَتْ إِلَيْهِ قُرَيْشٌ، فَأَدْخَلَهُمْ فِي ذَلِكَ الْبَيْتِ ثُمَّ، اسْتَقْبَلَ ذَلِكَ الْمَتَاعَ، فَيَقُولُ: هَذَا مِيرَاثُ مَنْ أَكْرَمَكُمُ اللَّهُ بِهِ، وَأَعَزَّكُمُ اللَّهُ بِهِ، قَالَ: وَكَانَ سَرِيرًا مَرْمُولا بِشَرِيطٍ، وَمِرْفَقَةٌ مِنْ أَدَمٍ مَحْشُوَّةٌ بِلِيفٍ، وَجَفْنَةٌ، وَقَدَحٌ، وَقَطِيفَةُ صُوفٍ، كَأَنَّهَا جُرْمُقَانِيَّةٌ قَالَ: وَرَحًى وَكِنَانَةٌ فِيهَا أَسْهُمٌ، وَكَانَ فِي الْقَطِيفَةِ أَثَرُ وَسَخِ رَأْسِهِ، فَأُصِيبَ رَجُلٌ، فَطَلَبُوا أَنْ يَغْسِلُوا بَعْضَ ذَلِكَ الْوَسَخِ، فَيُسْعَطَ بِهِ، فَذُكِرَ ذَلِكَ لِعُمَرَ، فَسُعِطَ فَبَرَأَ

[Muhammad bin Mouhajir told me: The belongings of the messenger of Allah (saw) were with `Umar bin `Abdul-`Aziz in a house that he visits daily, and when Quraysh would come he’d let them enter that house and look at them then say (…similar to the above then he’d list some of the objects in the house…)]

The clothes of the Prophet (saw) were even fixed by some of the Khulafa’ and they wore them as he did, we read in a narration from the book “Akhlaq-ul-Nabi”:

أَخْبَرَنَا أَحْمَدُ بْنُ أَبَانَ، حَدَّثَنَا إِسْمَاعِيلُ بْنُ إِسْحَاقَ، حَدَّثَنَا مُعَاذُ بْنُ أَسَدٍ، حَدَّثَنَا ابْنُ الْمُبَارَكِ، حَدَّثَنَا ابْنُ لَهِيعَةَ، عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنِ نَوْفَلٍ، أَنَّهُ حَدَّثَهُ عَنْ عُرْوَةَ بْنِ الزُّبَيْرِ، ” أَنَّ ثَوْبَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ الَّذِي كَانَ يَخْرُجُ فِيهِ إِلَى الْوَفْدِ ثَوْبٌ أَخْضَرُ طُولُهُ أَرْبَعَةُ أَذْرُعٍ، وَعَرْضُهُ ذِرَاعَانِ وَشِبْرٌ، فَهُوَ عِنْدَ الْخُلَفَاءِ قَدْ خَلُقَ، فَبَطَّنُوهُ بِثَوْبٍ يَلْبَسُونَهُ يَوْمَ الْفِطْرِ وَالأَضْحَى

[`Urwah said: The clothes that Rasul-Allah (saw) used to meet the delegations with were green and four cubits in length, their width was two cubits and a little more, it is now with the Caliphs they fixed it up and wear it on the days of `Eid.]

Also in the authentic narration, his (saw) spear was treated the same:

حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدَانُ، نَا أَبُو بَكْرِ بْنُ أَبِي شَيْبَةَ، نَا أَبُو خَالِدٍ، عَنْ عُبَيْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ عُمَرَ، عَنْ نَافِعٍ، عَنِ ابْنِ عُمَرَ، أَن ّالنَّبِيَّ ” كَانَ يُرْكَزُ لَهُ الْحَرْبَةُ، فَتُوضَعُ بَيْنَ يُدَيْهِ، فَيُصَلِّي إِلَيْهَا، وَالنَّاسُ وَرَاءَهُ، وَكَانَ يَفْعَلُ ذَلِكَ فِي السَّفَرِ فَمِنْ ثَمَّ اتَّخَذَهَا الأُمَرَاءُ

[Ibn `Umar said: The Prophet (saw) had a spear and it would be set in the ground in front of him so that he may hold on to it when leading the prayer, this was done during travel then later on the chiefs of the Muslims used it for that same purpose.]

If one asks, why weren’t they sold and given as Sadaqah? I’m sure the Muslims at the time all agreed to preserve them, this way they remain for the entire nation and future generations; none of them had the heart to sell whatever remained from Rasul-Allah’s (saw) clothes or possessions as they held too much value in everyone’s eyes, even the lands he left behind (saw) were always watered and maintained by his successors.

Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq would not go around taking the prophet’s (saw) clothes, his shoes or his turban, he allowed his wives, relatives and servants to keep these things in their possession but they were not to claim ownership of them depriving the nation from their blessing nor were they inherited under the legal Islamic laws. Later Caliphs collected such relics from his family members and close ones so as to not lose track of them and preserve them from loss or damage.

We can also give many secondary legitimate explanations to the above other than the ones we already offered, we can say the Imam of the Muslims sold the Prophet’s (saw) armor to `Ali and `Abbas or he may have granted it to them and in return they’d drop a part of their share from a military conquest, taking its price and offering it as Sadaqah to the believers, in this way they would have bought it and not inherited it, and the price would be spent in charity as instructed. It could also be that the Imam offered them some of the Prophet’s (saw) possessions as a part of their share from the spoils of war, so if he saw that they were in need of clothes he would offer them the clothes of the Prophet (saw) instead of other clothes, this way they are not inherited but received as part of their share as near relatives. It could also be that some possessions ended up with some poor folks or beggars, then the Imam offered a large sum to buy it from them and later gifted it to `Ali and `Abbas as a gift not as inheritance and the household often received gifts. It could also be that some of the Prophet’s (saw) possessions were of no value such as a cup or shoe or stick nor would the nation be able to benefit from them since they fetch no price, so the Imam and the Muslims agreed to grant these objects to the household out of love for them and to honor them.


In Sahih al-Bukhari we read:

عَنْ عَمْرِو بْنِ الْحَارِثِ، خَتَنِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم أَخِي جُوَيْرِيَةَ بِنْتِ الْحَارِثِ قَالَ مَا تَرَكَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم عِنْدَ مَوْتِهِ دِرْهَمًا وَلاَ دِينَارًا وَلاَ عَبْدًا وَلاَ أَمَةً وَلاَ شَيْئًا، إِلاَّ بَغْلَتَهُ الْبَيْضَاءَ وَسِلاَحَهُ وَأَرْضًا جَعَلَهَا صَدَقَةً‏

[Narrated `Amro bin Al-Harith: (The brother of the wife of Allah’s Apostle. Juwayriah bint Al-Harith) When Allah’s Apostle died, he did not leave any Dirham or Dinar (i.e. money), a slave or a slave woman or anything else except his white mule, his arms and a piece of land which he had given in charity.]

Also with a strong supporting chain in Mustadrak al-Hakim:

أَخْبَرَنِي عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ الْحُسَيْنِ الْقَاضِي بِمَرْوَ، ثنا الْحَارِثُ بْنُ مُحَمَّدٍ، ثنا أَبُو النَّضْرِ، ثنا زُهَيْرٌ، ثنا أَبُو إِسْحَاقَ، عَنْ عَمْرِو بْنِ الْحَارِثِ، عَنْ جُوَيْرِيَةَ بِنْتِ الْحَارِثِ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهَا، قَالَتْ: ” وَاللَّهِ مَا تَرَكَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ عِنْدَ مَوْتِهِ دِينَارًا وَلا دِرْهَمًا وَلا عَبْدًا وَلا أَمَةً، إِلا بَغْلَتَهُ وَسِلاحَهُ، وَأَرْضًا تَرَكَهَا صَدَقَةً

[Narrated Juwayriah bint al-Harith: (The mother of believers) By Allah, the messenger of Allah (saw) when he died never left a Dinar nor Dirham, not a slave man or woman, except his (white) mule and a weapon, and a land he left as charity.]

This is an explicit narration that the Prophet (saw) made his lands a Waqf to not be inherited but only for charity. As for his weapon, we will see what was to become of it.

In Sahih Muslim we read:

حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو بَكْرِ بْنُ أَبِي شَيْبَةَ، حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ نُمَيْرٍ، وَأَبُو مُعَاوِيَةَ عَنِ الأَعْمَشِ، ح وَحَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ نُمَيْرٍ، حَدَّثَنَا أَبِي وَأَبُو مُعَاوِيَةَ قَالاَ حَدَّثَنَا الأَعْمَشُ، عَنْ أَبِي وَائِلٍ، عَنْ مَسْرُوقٍ، عَنْ عَائِشَةَ، قَالَتْ مَا تَرَكَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم دِينَارًا وَلاَ دِرْهَمًا وَلاَ شَاةً وَلاَ بَعِيرًا وَلاَ أَوْصَى بِشَىْءٍ

[Narrated `A’ishah: (The mother of believers) Allah’s Messenger (saw) left neither dinar nor dirham (wealth in the form of cash), nor goats (and sheep), nor camels. And he made no will about anything (in regard to his material possessions, as he had none).]

In Musnad abu Dawud with an authentic chain we read:

حَدَّثَنَا شَيْبَانُ، عَنْ عَاصِمِ بْنِ بَهْدَلَةَ، عَنْ زِرِّ بْنِ حُبَيْشٍ، أَنَّ رَجُلا سَأَلَ عَائِشَةَ عَنْ مِيرَاثِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ فَقَالَتْ: لا، وَاللَّهِ ” مَا تَرَكَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ دِينَارًا وَلا دِرْهَمًا وَلا شَاةً وَلا بَعِيرًا وَلا عَبْدًا وَلا أَمَةً

[A man asked `A’ishah about the messenger’s (saw) inheritance, she replied: “No by Allah, the messenger (saw) never left behind a Dinar or Dirham or camel nor goat neither male nor female slave.”]

In Musnad Ahmad from Ibn `Uyaynah in a Sahih Hadith:

حَدَّثَنَا سُفْيَانُ، حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الْعَزِيزِ بْنُ رُفَيْعٍ، قَالَ: دَخَلْتُ أَنَا وَشَدَّادُ بْنُ مَعْقِلٍ عَلَى ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ، فَقَالَ ابْنُ عَبَّاسٍ: ” مَا تَرَكَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ إِلَّا مَا بَيْنَ هَذَيْنِ اللَّوْحَيْنِ، وَدَخَلْنَا عَلَى مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عَلِيٍّ، فَقَالَ: مِثْلَ ذَلِكَ

[`Abdul-`Aziz told us, I entered alongside Shaddad on ibn `Abbas, so he told us: “The messenger (saw) of Allah never left behind anything other than what is between the two covers (Qur’an).” Then we entered on Muhammad ibn `Ali bin abi Talib and he said the same.]

Also in Musnad Ahmad with an authentic chain:

حَدَّثَنَا حَجَّاجٌ، قَالَ: قَالَ مَالِكٌ يَعْنِي ابْنَ مِغْوَلٍ، أَخْبَرَنِي طَلْحَةُ، قَالَ: قُلْتُ لِعَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ أَبِي أَوْفَى: ” أَوَصّى رَسُولُ اللَّهِ قَالَ: لَا، قُلْتُ: فَكَيْفَ أَمَرَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ بِالْوَصِيَّةِ وَلَمْ يُوصِ؟ قَالَ: أَوْصَى بِكِتَابِ اللَّهِ

[Talhah bin Musarrif asked `Abdullah ibn abi Awfa: “Did Allah’s Apostle (saw) write a will (with regards to his material possessions)?” `Abdullah said: “No, he did not.” I said: “How then did he order the believers to write their wills while he didn’t?” `Abdullah said: “His will was the book of Allah.”]

The fact that he (saw) never wrote his will shows that he (saw) had no material possessions worth mentioning, and what better written will is there to leave other than the book of Allah?

In Tabaqat ibn Sa`d with an authentic chain we read:

أَخْبَرَنَا عَفَّانُ بْنُ مُسْلِمٍ، قَالَ: أَخْبَرَنَا ثَابِتٌ أَبُو زَيْدٍ، قَالَ: أَخْبَرَنَا هِلالُ بْنُ خَبَّابٍ، عَنْ عِكْرِمَةَ، عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ، قَالَ: ” مَاتَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ وَمَا تَرَكَ دِينَارًا، وَلا دِرْهَمًا، وَلا عَبْدًا، وَلا أَمَةً، وَلا وَلِيدَةً، وَتَرَكَ دِرْعَهُ رَهْنًا عِنْدَ يَهُوَدِيٍّ بِثَلاثِينَ صَاعًا مِنْ شَعِير

[Narrated `Abdullah ibn `Abbas: (The cousin of Allah’s Apostle) Allah’s Apostle (saw) passed away not leaving a Dinar or Dirham, nor a slave man or woman, he left his armor as mortgage with a Jew for thirty Sa` of barely seeds.]

In Mukhtasar al-Ahkam by al-Tusi with an authentic chain:

نا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ بَشَّارٍ، قَالَ: نا عَبْدُ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنُ مَهْدِيٍّ، نا سُفْيَانُ، عَنِ الأَعْمَشِ، عَنْ إِبْرَاهِيمَ، عَنِ الأَسْوَدِ، عَنْ عَائِشَةَ، أَنَّ النَّبِيَّ، مَاتَ وَدِرْعُهُ رَهْنٌ عِنْدَ يَهُودِيٍّ بِعِشْرِينَ صَاعًا مِنْ طَعَامٍ أَخَذَهُ لأَهْلِهِ

[`A’ishah narrated that the Prophet (saw) died and left his armor as a mortgage with a Jew for twenty Sa` of food for his family.]

Question is, why would he (saw) put his own armor as mortgage to feed his family and buy them 30 Sa` of seeds (which is a small amount) if they were living a rich life from Fadak and the other pieces of land? Could it be that the Prophet (saw) never cared for money and spent the vast majority of wealth on the poor and needy barely leaving anything for himself and his family? Anyone who read his Seerah peace be upon him knows the answer to this.

In Tabaqat ibn Sa`d also with an authentic chain:

أَخْبَرَنَا الْفَضْلُ بْنُ دُكَيْنٍ، وَمُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ الأَسَدِيُّ، قَالا: أَخْبَرَنَا مِسْعَرٌ، عَنْ عَدِيِّ بْنِ ثَابِتٍ، عَنْ عَلِيِّ بْنِ الْحُسَيْنِ، قَالَ: تُوُفِّيَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ وَلَمْ يَدَعْ دِينَارًا، وَلا دِرْهَمًا، وَلا عَبْدًا، وَلا أَمَةً

[Narrated `Ali bin al-Husayn: (The prophet’s great grandson) Allah’s Apostle (saw) passed away not leaving a Dinar or Dirham, nor a slave or slave woman.]

As for his white mule, the only news we have of it is an authentic chain up to Ibn Ishaq who says:

عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ إِسْحَاقَ، عَنْ رَجُلٍ، قَالَ: رَأَيْتُ بَغْلَةَ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ فِي مَنْزِلِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ جَعْفَرٍ، يُجَشُّ أَوْ يُدَقُّ لَهَا الشَّعِيرُ، وَقَدْ ذَهَبَتْ أَسْنَانُهَا

[A man said (to me): I saw the mule of the messenger (saw) in the house of `Abdullah ibn Ja`far al-Tayyar, he was grinding the seeds for it since it lost its teeth.]

Proving that it wasn’t inherited since it’s not in the possession of either `Abbas or `Ali’s children, rather `Abdullah probably volunteered to take care of it and feed it since no one rode it after Rasul-Allah (saw). In a report by the historian al-Waqidi, this mule died in the days of Mu`awiyah.

In Sahih al-Bukhari we read what `Umar said about how the Prophet (saw) gave most of his purely owned land to the people and kept little for himself:

فكانت هذه خالصة لرسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم والله ما احتازها دونكم ولا استأثر بها عليكم قد أعطاكموها وبثها فيكم حتى بقي منها هذا المال فكان رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم ينفق على أهله نفقة سنتهم من هذا المال ثم يأخذ ما بقي فيجعله مجعل مال الله

[`Umar said: “This (land of Fay’) was purely the possession of the messenger (saw), but he never withheld it from you, nor did he control (its wealth) and leave you nothing, rather he gave it all to you (the Muslims) and divided it among you, until only this (amount of) money remained, so he (saw) would take from it the provision of his family for the rest of the year and what remains would be spent in the cause of Allah.”]

In Tareekh al-Madinah by ibn Shubah, we read that the historian al-Waqidi says:

قال الْوَاقِدِيُّ: وَقَفَ النَّبِيُّ الأَعْوَافَ وَبَرْقَةَ وَمِيثَبَ والدلائل وَحُسْنَى وَالصَّافِيَةَ وَمَشْرُبَةَ أُمِّ إِبْرَاهِيمَ سَنَةَ سَبْعٍ مِنَ الْهِجْرَةِ

[The Prophet (saw) has made a Waqf from al-A`waf and Barqah and al-Muthayib and al-Dallal and Husna and al-Safiyah and the Mashrabah, in the year seven Hijri.]

All these narrations support one another, in that Muhammad ibn `Abdillah (saw) had no wealth nor did he spend on his family more than they needed to survive, he (saw) barely made it through the day. By what logic would he give a giant rich piece of land to his family then? Also if he had gifted this giant piece of land to Fatimah as they lie, then why all this poverty? Wouldn’t they have at least one Dinar or one Dirham left in their house for inheritancein addition to the lands?

We should also take into consideration this narration from `Abdullah ibn Mas`oud:

لا تتخذوا الضيعة فترغبوا في الدنيا

[Ibn Mas`oud said: The Prophet (saw) said: “Do not take to the estate, such that you become desirous of the world.”]

The messenger peace be upon him told us not to crave for property lest we should be absorbed in the desire of worldly life.

Al-Mubarakfuri wrote in his book al-Tuhfah while commenting on the above Hadith:

أي فتميلوا إليها عن الأخرى والمراد النهي عن الاشتغال بها وبأمثالها مما يكون مانعا عن القيام بعبادة المولى وعن التوجه كما ينبغي إلى أمور العقبى

 وقال الطيبي المعنى لا تتوغلوا في اتخاذ الضيعة فتلهوا بها عن ذكر الله قال تعالى رجال لا تلهيهم تجارة ولا بيع عن ذكر الله

[Meaning, so that you may not lean towards wordly life; the aim is to forbid us from being carried away while working (the land) in a way that would obstruct us from worshipping the Lord and devoting some time for the matters of the after-life. Al-Tayibi said: The meaning is to not dive deep into the matters of managing the property in a way that distracts from mentioning Allah; Allah the most high says: {Men whom neither commerce nor sale distracts from the remembrance of Allah and performance of prayer and giving of Zakah.}]

A man who keeps no Dirham in his pocket and advises us to not be carried away by managing  lands and property, then he dies and passes his own family a gigantic piece of property!? I add, if he (saw) really cared to offer them inheritance, wouldn’t he at least keep a few Dinras and Dirhams around the house for his heirs?

There is a narration to shed light on this, in the “Hasan” Hadith from Anas we read:

حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عَبْدِ الْكَرِيمِ، نَا أَبُو يُوسُفَ الْقُلُوسِيُّ، نَا قَيْسُ بْنُ حَفْصٍ، نَا جَعْفَرُ بْنُ سُلَيْمَانَ، عَنْ ثَابِتٍ، عَنْ أَنَسٍ، قَالَ: كَانَ النَّبِيُّ لا يَدَّخِرُ شَيْئًا لِغَدٍ

[Anas said: “The Prophet (saw) used to never save anything for his next day.”]

Meaning he relied on Allah completely, if he had money for one day, he would eat from it and spend the rest in the cause of Allah not worrying about how he’s going to eat tomorrow, as for his family he would give them what is barely sufficient for their year after he conquered Kaybar.

Even in his last sickness we read in the Hadith that he (saw) asked his family to give away what remains of his money, then he fell unconscious, when he woke up the first thing he asked about was the money, they told him they never spent it, so he (saw) told them:

مَا ظَنُّ مُحَمَّدٍ لَوْ لَقِيَ رَبَّهُ ، وَهَذِهِ الدَّنَانِيرُ عِنْدَهُ، ثَلاثَ مَرَّاتٍ

[How would Muhammad feel if he met his Lord while (still) in possession of these coins!?]

If we were to give an example from an authentic narration, we’d quote Anas again:

َدَّثَنَا عَبْدَانُ، نَا أَحْمَدُ بْنُ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ يَحْيَى بْنِ سَعِيدٍ، نَا أَبُو نُعَيْمٍ، قَالَ: نَا مُصْعَبٌ، قَالَ: سَمِعْتُ أَنَسَ، قَالَ: أُهْدِيَ إِلَى رَسُولِ اللَّهِ تَمْرٌ، فَجَعَلَ يُهْدِي، وَرَأَيْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ يَأْكُلُ تَمْرًا مَقْعِيًّ مِنَ الْجُوعِ

[Ibn Malik said: The messenger (saw) received as gift (high quality) dates, so he began to give them to the people, then I saw the messenger (saw) eating some bad dates out of hunger.

Keep in mind that in the opponent’s books are lies, such as the authentic narration from al-Kafi that says:

قَالَ تَرَكَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ ( صلى الله عليه وآله ) فِي الْمَتَاعِ سَيْفاً وَ دِرْعاً وَ عَنَزَةً وَ رَحْلًا وَ بَغْلَتَهُ الشَّهْبَاءَ فَوَرِثَ ذَلِكَ كُلَّهُ عَلِيُّ بْنُ أَبِي طَالِبٍ

[He said: The messenger (saw) left as inheritance from his belongings, a sword, armor, a goat, a saddle and his white mule, and `Ali inherited all of it.]

In another authentic narration in al-Kafi:

إِنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ ( صلى الله عليه وآله ) لَمَّا قُبِضَ وَرِثَ عَلِيٌّ ( عليه السلام ) عِلْمَهُ وَ سِلَاحَهُ وَ مَا هُنَاكَ ثُمَّ صَارَ إِلَى الْحَسَنِ ثُمَّ صَارَ إِلَى الْحُسَيْنِ

[The messenger (saw) when he passed away, `Ali inherited his knowledge and weapon and the rest, then it went to Hasan then Husayn.]

How is it that they accuse Abu Bakr of prohibiting them from their inheritance, yet they say `Ali inherited everything left behind although it should have been inherited by Fatimah, al-`Abbas and his wives according to Islamic laws of inheritance? This too, makes no sense.

In conclusion this was the condition of everything that he (saw) left behind, Hammad ibn Ishaq says in his book:

وُقِفَتْ هَذِهِ الأَشْيَاءُ الَّتِي ذَكَرْنَاهَا مِنَ الأَمْوَالِ الَّتِي أَفَاءَهَا اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ، وَالْكِسْوَةِ، وَالْخَيْلِ، وَالْبَغْلَةِ، وَالْحَرْبَةِ، وَمَا ذَكَرْنَا مَعَ ذَلِكَ، بَعْدَ وَفَاتِهِ، عَلَى أَنَّ ذَلِكَ كُلَّهُ صَدَقَةٌ بِقَوْلِهِ: ” مَا تَرَكْنَا فَهُوَ صَدَقَةٌ ” وَكَانَتْ غَلاتُ الضِّيَاعِ تُقْسَمُ فِي سُبُلِ الْخَيْرِ عَلَى مَا كَانَ يَقْسِمُهَا فِي حَيَاتِهِ، وَأَمَّا مَا سِوَى ذَلِكَ مثل الْبَغْلَةِ، وَالْحَرْبَةِ، وَالْكِسْوَةِ، وَالسِّلاحِ، وَالسَّرِيرِ، فَوُقِفَ أَيْضًا تَتَجَمَّلُ بِهِ الأَئِمَّةُ الْمُسْلِمُونَ بَعْدَهُ، وَيَتَبَرَّكُونَ بِهِ كَمَا كَانَ يَتَجَمَّلُ بِهِ، وَكَانَ ذَلِكَ فِي أَيْدِي الأَئِمَّةِ وَاحِدًا بَعْدَ وَاحِدٍ

[His belongings from lands of Fay’ and clothes and horses and his mule and spear and all that we have mentioned were all made into Waqf after his death, all of it was Sadaqah according to what he (saw) instructed: “What we leave behind is Sadaqah.” The produce of the lands were divided in all good causes just as he (saw) divided them in his life, as for the rest such as the mule and the spear and his clothes and weapons and his bed, it was all made a Waqf that the Imams of the Muslims used just as he used, they sought their blessings, and they were in the hands of the Imams one after the other.]


Opponents say that if the Prophet (saw) left his money as Sadaqah, how can Ahlul-Bayt eat from them when Sadaqah is prohibited for them?

Answer is that Sadaqah is a word used to describe many things, this land was referred to as Sadaqah but it is technically a Waqf, the man who sets up the land as Waqf is the one to decide who it is for, he can either make it for all Muslims, or just for certain families like how Fatimah made her property a Waqf only for bani Hashim and bani `Abdul-Muttalib, `Ali on the other hand made some of his property as Waqf for all Muslims.

Imam al-Baqillani writes in “Manaqib al-A’immah” chapter thirty six page 609:

[What he left behind from money of Fay’ is called “Sadaqah” in here  meaning a gift from Allah to the Muslims and a Rukhsah(dispensation) for them to take from it what they require to prepare for war (…until he said…) and Rasul-Allah (saw) called the Rukhsah a Sadaqah such as when he said concerning the verse {There is no blame upon you for shortening the prayer, [especially] if you fear that those who disbelieve may disrupt [or attack] you.} He (saw) said: “It is a Sadaqah given to you by Allah so accept his Sadaqah.” meaning a gift and a Rukhsah and a blessing from Allah. Also Allah says: {Give us full measure and be charitable(Tasaddaq) to us. Indeed, Allah rewards the charitable.} The word used is Tasaddaq from Sadaqah and what is meant is gift us and bless us.]

In addition to this, there is some difference of opinion regarding what type of Sadaqah is prohibited for Ahlul-Bayt, some say all Sadaqat are prohibited, whereas others say only the obligatory Sadaqah is prohibited whereas the voluntary one is permissible, this was reported by al-Shafi`i from Ja`far al-Sadiq:

إِنَّمَا حُرِّمَتْ عَلَيْنَا الصَّدَقَةُ الْمَفْرُوضَةُ

[Only the obligatory Sadaqah was forbidden for us.]

I add, that if the Prophet (saw) gave his family food and provisions from the land of  Fay’ or what was later known as the Sadaqat of Rasul-Allah (saw),  this doesn’t mean they’re eating from the money of Sadaqah, rather this is a right given by Allah to his Prophet (saw), that he can benefit from this land as long as he is alive and feed his family, so what they receive from it is not a part of the Sadaqah, it is a right given to the Prophet (saw) since he is fulfilling his duty in upholding the religion and taking responsibility for the affairs of Allah’s worshipers.

In addition, al-`Abbas and `Ali could both eat from his land since Ameer al-Mu’mineen `Umar appointed them to maintain it and work it, and the ones working the land are allowed by Islamic law to eat from the land and it would no longer be counted as Sadaqah for them, just as Rasul-Allah (saw) ate from the meat of `A’isha’s servant Burayrah when she gifted it to `A’ishah its ruling changed from Sadaqah to gift, he (saw) said:

هو عليها صدقة ولنا هدية

[For her it is a Sadaqah and for us a gift.]


Without bothering ourselves with research, even if he did get anything from his father or mother this does not affect the beliefs of those who believe prophets do not leave inheritance for two reasons:

A-     He wasn’t a prophet at the time of his parent’s death nor was he receiving revelation, so he would not know of this ruling.

B-    The Hadith says prophets do not leave behind inheritance “La Nourath” or in some narrations “La Nourith” both meaning they don’t offer inheritance, not the opposite, and since his parents weren’t prophets they can leave behind anything they wish as any of us would.


Those saying that the messenger (saw) left his folks big rich pieces of land that would turn them into kings, listen to what he (saw) said in the authentic narration of Bukhari:

حَدَّثَنَا ابْنُ عَبْيدَةَ، نَا عَلِيُّ بْنُ حَرْبٍ، نَا ابْنُ فُضَيْلٍ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، عَنْ عُمَارَةَ بْنِ الْقَعْقَاعِ، عَنْ أَبِي زُرْعَةَ، عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ، قَالَ: قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ: ” اللَّهُمَّ اجْعَلْ عَيْشَ آلِ مُحَمَّدٍ قُوتًا “

[Abu Hurayrah said: The messenger (saw) used to say: “O Allah, make the provision of Muhammad’s family only a bare subsistence.”]

He (saw) used the Arabic word “Qoot”, which according to Lisan al-`Arab means an amount in which a person barely survives.

In another version of the narration:

حَدَّثَنَا أَحْمَدُ بْنُ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عُبَيْدَةَ، نَا مُوسَى بْنُ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ الْمَسْرُوقِيُّ، نَا أَبُو أُسَامَةَ، عَنِ الأَعْمَشِ، عَنْ عُمَارَةَ بْنِ الْقَعْقَاعِ، عَنْ أَبِي زُرْعَةَ، عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ، قَالَ: قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ: ” اللَّهُمَّ اجْعَلْ رِزْقَ آلِ مُحَمَّدٍ كَفَافًا

[Abu Hurayrah said: “The messenger (saw) used to say: “O Allah, make the provision of Muhammad’s family Kafaf.”]

Sa`eed bin `Abdul-`Aziz was asked about the meaning of the word “Kafaf” he answered:

سُئِلَ سَعِيدُ بْنُ عَبْدِ الْعَزِيزِ: مَا الْكَفَافُ مِنَ الرِّزْقِ؟ قَالَ: شِبَعُ يَوْمٍ، وَجُوعُ يَوْمٍ

“To eat a day and starve on the next day.”

Both narrations are of a similar meaning and are clear.

Also in “al-Tarikah” by Ishaq we read:

ثنا عَارِمٌ، قَالَ: ثنا ثَابِتُ بْنُ يَزِيدَ، قَالَ: ثنا هِلالُ بْنُ خَبَّابٍ، عَنْ عِكْرِمَةَ، عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ، أَنّ النَّبِيَّ الْتَفَتَ إِلَى أُحُدٍ، فَقَالَ: ” وَالَّذِي نَفْسُ مُحَمَّدٍ بِيَدِهِ، مَا يَسُرُّنِي أَنَّ أُحُدًا تَحَوَّلَ لآلِ مُحَمَّدٍ ذَهَبًا أُنْفِقُهُ فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ، أَمُوتُ يَوْمَ أَمُوتُ وَأَدَعُ مِنْهُ دِينَارَيْنِ، إِلا دِينَارَيْنِ أُعِدُّهُمَا لِدَيْنٍ إِنْ كَانَ “، فَمَاتَ وَمَا تَرَكَ دِينَارًا وَلا دِرْهَمًا، وَلا عَبْدًا وَلا وَلِيدَةً، وَتَرَكَ دِرْعَهُ عِنْدَ يَهُودِيٍّ بِثَلاثِينَ صَاعًا مِنْ شَعِيرٍ، يَعْنِي مَرْهُونَةً عِنْدَهُ

[Ibn `Abbas said: The Prophet (saw) turned to face the mountain of Uhud then said: “By he who holds in his hand the life of Muhammad, I would not be pleased if Uhud turned into gold for the family of Muhammad then I spent it all in the cause of Allah, if I die leaving behind two Dinars unless for a debt.”]

In the authentic report by Ahmad:

حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الصَّمَدِ، حَدَّثَنَا حَمَّادُ بْنُ سَلَمَةَ، حَدَّثَنَا سَعِيدُ بْنُ جُمْهَانَ، عَنْ سَفِينَةَ أَبِي عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ: أَنَّ رَجُلا ضَافَ عَلِيًّا، فَصَنَعَ لَهُ طَعَامًا، فَقَالَتْ فَاطِمَةُ رِضْوَانُ اللَّهِ عَلَيْهَا: لَوْ دَعَوْنَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ فَأَكَلَ مَعَنَا، فَدَعَوْهُ، فَجَاءَ فَوَضَعَ يَدَيْهِ عَلَى عِضَادَتَيِ الْبَابِ، فَرَأَى قِرَامًا فِي نَاحِيَةِ الْبَيْتِ عَلَيْهِ صُورَةٌ، فَرَجَعَ، فَقَالَتْ فَاطِمَةُ: أَلْحَقُهُ فَأَسْأَلُهُ، فَقَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ: ” إِنَّهُ لَيْسَ لِي، أَوْ لِنَبِيٍّ أَنْ يَدْخُلَ بَيْتًا مُزَوَّقًا

[Safeenah the servant of Rasul-Allah (saw) said: A man received `Ali as his guest, he made for him food, so Fatimah said: “I’d wish that the messenger (saw) be with us.” They invited him but as he was stepping into the house he saw near the door a thin patterned cloth with an image, so he (saw) returned. Fatimah said: “Follow him and ask him.” He (saw) replied: “It is nor for me -or for a prophet- to enter a decorated house.”]

In the Sahih from al-Bazzar and Bukhari, is this narration from `Ali ibn abi Talib of when the Prophet (saw) received some servants from the spoils of war:

فَقَالَتْ فَاطِمَةُ: وَأَنَا وَاللَّهِ قَدْ طَحَنْتُ حَتَّى قَرِحَتْ يَدَايَ، فَقَالَ لَهَا: فَاذْهَبِي إِلَى رَسُولِ اللَّهِ فَسَلِيهِ خَادِمًا يَخْدُمُنَا مِنَ السَّبْيِ الَّذِي أُتِيَ بِهِ مِنَ الْخُمُسِ، فَذَهَبَتْ، فَقَالَ لَهَا: ” مَا جَاءَ بِكِ يَا بُنَيَّةُ؟ ” فَاسْتَحْيَتْ أَنْ تَسْأَلَهُ، وَرَجَعَتْ، فَأَخْبَرَتْهُ، فَأَتَاهُمَا رَسُولُ اللَّهِ فَأَخْبَرَهُ عَلِيٌّ الْخَبَرَ، وَسَأَلاهُ الْخَادِمَ، فَقَالَ: ” أَلا أَدُلُّكُمَا عَلَى مَا هُوَ خَيْرٌ لَكُمَا مِنْ خَادِمٍ؟ تُسَبِّحَانِ اللَّهَ إِذَا أَوَيْتُمَا إِلَى فِرَاشِكُمَا ثَلاثًا وَثَلاثِينَ، وَتَحْمِدَانِهِ ثَلاثًا وَثَلاثِينَ، وَتُكَبِّرَانِهِ أَرْبَعًا وَثَلاثِينَ، فَذَلِكَ خَيْرٌ لَكُمَا مِنْ خَادِمٍ

[`Ali said that Fatimah said: “By Allah my hands are full of blisters because of this mill-stone!” `Ali told her: “Go to the messenger (saw) and ask him for a servant from the Khums gained from war.” So she went to him, the Prophet (saw) saw her and said: “What brings you O daughter?” but Fatimah felt shy to ask, she returned home but the messenger (saw) went after her, `Ali then told him the story and asked him for a servant, when the Prophet (saw) heard this, he told them: “Shall I not tell you of a thing which is better for you than a servant? When you (both) go to your beds, say ‘Allahu Akbar’ thirty-four times, and ‘Subhan Allah’ thirty-three times, ‘Alhamdu ‘illah’ thirty-three times, for that is better for you than a servant.”]

In the authentic narration in Musnad Ahmad, Musnad abu Dawud and Sunan al-Nasa’i:

فَقَالَتْ لَهَا فَاطِمَةُ انْظُرِي إِلَى هَذِهِ السِّلْسِلَةِ الَّتِي أَهْدَاهَا إِلَيَّ أَبُو حَسَنٍ قَالَ: وَفِي يَدِهَا سِلْسِلَةٌ مِنْ ذَهَبٍ، فَدَخَلَ النَّبِيُّ فَقَالَ: ” يَا فَاطِمَةُ، بِالْعَدْلِ أَنْ يَقُولَ النَّاسُ: فَاطِمَةُ بِنْتُ مُحَمَّدٍ وَفِي يَدِكِ سِلْسِلَةٌ مِنْ نَارٍ ؟ ! ” ثُمَّ عَذَمَهَا عَذْمًا شَدِيدًا، ثُمَّ خَرَجَ وَلَمْ يَقْعُدْ، فَأَمَرَتْ بِالسِّلْسِلَةِ فَبِيعَتْ، فَاشْتَرَتْ بِثَمَنِهَا عَبْدًا فَأَعْتَقَتْهُ، فَلَمَّا سَمِعَ بِذَلِكَ النَّبِيُّ كَبَّرَ، وَقَالَ: ” الْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ الَّذِي نَجَّى فَاطِمَةَ مِنَ النَّارِ

[Thawban narrated that Fatimah said to bint Hubayrah: “Look at this bracelet that abu al-Hasan gifted me.” In her hand was a bracelet made from gold, so the Prophet (saw) entered and said: “O Fatimah, do you find it just that people call you Fatimah bint Muhammad while in your hand is a bracelet of fire!?” So he gave her a harsh talk and left and never sat down. Fatimah then ordered the bracelet be sold and with its price she freed a slave, when the messenger (saw) heard this he said: “Allah is the greatest, he saved Fatimah from the fire.”]

Also in the authentic narration of ibn `Umar from Hammad bin Ishaq’s book:

أَنّ النَّبِيَّ كَانَ إِذَا خَرَجَ كَانَ آخِرُ عَهْدِهِ فَاطِمَةَ عَلَيْهِمَا السَّلامُ، فَإِذَا رَجَعَ كَانَ أَوَّلُ عَهْدِهِ بِفَاطِمَةَ عَلَيْهِمَا السَّلامُ، فَلَمَّا رَجَعَ مِنْ غَزْوَةِ تَبُوكَ، وَقَدِ اشْتَرَتْ مُقَيْنِعَةً، فَصَبَغَتْهَا بِزَعْفَرَانٍ، وَأَلْقَتْ عَلَى بَابِهَا سِتْرًا، أَوْ أَلْقَتْ فِي بَيْتِهَا بِسَاطًا، فَلَمَّا رَأَى ذَلِكَ النَّبِيُّ رَجَعَ، فَأَتَى الْمَسْجِدَ، فَقَعَدَ فِيهِ، فَأَرْسَلَتْ إِلَى بِلالٍ، فَقَالَ: اذْهَبْ، فَانْظُرْ مَا رَدَّهُ عَنْ بَابِي؟ فَأَتَاهُ فَأَخْبَرَهُ، فَقَالَ: ” إِنِّي رَأَيْتُهَا صَنَعَتْ ثَمَّةَ كَذَا وَكَذَا، فَأَتَاهَا فَأَخْبَرَهَا، فَهَتَكَتِ السِّتْرَ وَكُلَّ شَيْءٍ أَحْدَثَتْهُ، وَأَلْقَتْ مَا عَلَيْهَا، وَلَبِسَتْ أَطْمَارَهَا

[Ibn `Umar said: The Prophet (saw) whenever he traveled or returned from his travels he would always visit Fatimah first, so when he returned from the conquest of Tabuk, she had bought decorations and painted them with saffron and placed a rug in her house, when the Prophet (saw) saw them he turned back and went to the mosque to sit in it. Fatimah sent after Bilal and told him: “Go and see what turned him back from my door?” when he told him this, the Prophet (saw) said: “I saw that she did such and such.” Then Bilal returned and told her this, so she tore off everything, she also took off what she wore and returned to her old clothes.]

Thawban the servant of Rasul-Allah (saw) reports similarly:

وَحَلَّتِ الْحَسَنَ وَالْحُسَيْنَ عَلَيْهِمَا السَّلامُ قُلْبَيْنِ مِنْ فِضَّةٍ، فَقَبَّضَ، وَلَمْ يَدْخُلْ، فَظَنَّتْ أَنَّمَا مَنَعَهُ أَنْ يَدْخُلَ مَا رَأَى، فَهَتَكَتِ السِّتْرَ، وَفَكَّكَتِ الْقُلْبَيْنِ عَنِ الصَّبِيَّيْنِ، فَبَكَيَا، وَقَطَّعَتْهُ بَيْنَهُمَا، فَانْطَلَقَا إِلَى رَسُولِ اللَّهِ وَهُمَا يَبْكِيَانِ، فَأَخَذَهُمَا مِنْهُمَا، فَقَالَ: ” يَا ثَوْبَانُ، اذْهَبْ بِهَذَا إِلَى فُلانٍ، أَوْ إِلَى أَبِي فُلانٍ، قَالَ: أَهْلُ بَيْتٍ بِالْمَدِينَةِ، إِنَّ هَؤُلاءِ أَهْلَ بَيْتِي أَكْرَهُ أَنْ يَأْكُلُوا طَيِّبَاتِهِمْ فِي حَيَاتِهِمُ الدُّنْيَا، يَا ثَوْبَانُ، اشْتَرِ لِفَاطِمَةَ قِلادَةً مِنْ عَصْبٍ وَسِوَارَيْنِ مِنْ عَاجٍ

[Thawban said: Fatimah gave Hasan and Husayn two silver bracelets, so the messenger (saw) never entered her house, she thought that it was caused by what was in her house, so she tore off the curtain and removed her kids bracelets and they began to cry, she then gave them the pieces of cloth and they went to the Prophet (saw) and gave it to him. He (saw) said: “O Thawban, take these to so and so’s households in Madinah, as for these (Fatimah and her family) they are my household, I’d hate for them to eat of the good things of this world. O Thawban, buy Fatimah a necklace made from cheap beads and for the kids bracelets of ivory.”]

As the reader can see, even when he (saw) could grant them from the luxuries of life, he kept them away from these distractions, not because he’s miserly God forbid, but because he wishes them the best rank in the after-life.

In an authentic narration from al-Zuhd by Ahmad:

حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الصَّمَدِ، حَدَّثَنَا أَبَانُ، حَدَّثَنَا قَتَادَةُ، عَنْ أَنَسٍ قَالَ: قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ ذَاتَ يَوْمٍ: ” وَالَّذِي نَفْسُ مُحَمَّدٍ بِيَدِهِ مَا أَمْسَى فِي آلِ مُحَمَّدٍ صَاعٌ مِنْ حَبٍّ، وَلا صَاعٌ مِنْ تَمْرٍ ” وَإِنَّهُمْ يَوْمَئِذٍ لَتِسْعَةُ أَبْيَاتٍ، لَهُ يَوْمَئِذٍ تِسْعُ نِسْوَةٍ

[Anas said: The messenger (saw) said one day: “By he who holds the life of Muhammad in his hand, the family of Muhammad never went to sleep at night having a Sa` of seeds or a Sa` of dates.” And they (his family) were nine houses, he had nine women.]

The “Sa`” is an old Arabian measurement unit of about 2.5 kilograms, if it were the Prophet’s (saw) intention to be wealthy and comfortable he could have simply asked his Lord, but he (saw) decided to live with his family in poverty and never accepted otherwise.

In the authentic report from Ahmad:

حَدَّثَنَا حَجَّاجٌ، أَخْبَرَنَا جَرِيرٌ، حَدَّثَنِي سُلَيْمُ بْنُ عَامِرٍ، عَنْ أَبِي أُمَامَةَ، قَالَ: ” مَا كَانَ يَفْضُلُ مِنْ أَهْلِ بَيْتِ النَّبِيِّ خُبْزُ الشَّعِيرِ

[Abu Umamah al-Bahily said: “There would remain no barely bread from the Prophet’s (saw) household.”]

The narration above shows that their food was only enough for the day, this is of course before Khaybar was opened, after this he (saw) would estimate how much his family needed for the entire year and he would put this amount on the side, giving them from it whenever he felt they needed and spending most of the money and food in charity. Their situation remained the same until his death peace be upon him according to the narrations, they would not be able to fill their stomachs for three consecutive days from hard brown bread.

In a narration where he (saw) was gifted a fancy bed by an Ansari woman, he told `A’ishah:

يَا عَائِشَةُ، رُدِّيهِ، فَوَاللَّهِ لَوْ شِئْتُ لأَجْرَى اللَّهُ مَعِيَ جِبَالَ الذَّهَبِ وَالْفِضَّةِ

[O `A’ishah, return it! By Allah, if I wished then Allah would make me mountains of gold and silver.]

إِنْ شِئْتَ أُعْطِيتَ خَزَائِنَ الأَرْضِ مَا لَمْ يُعْطَهُ أَحَدٌ قَبْلَكَ، وَلا يُعْطَاهُ أَحَدٌ بَعْدَكَ، وَلا يَنْقُصُكَ مِنَ الآخِرَةِ شَيْئًا، قَالَ: اجْمَعُوهُمَا لِي فِي الآخِرَةِ

[Khaythamah reported that it was said to the Prophet (saw): “If you wish, we shall grant you the treasures of the earth and what nobody before received nor will anyone after you receive, and your status in the after-life shall not diminish.” He (saw) replied: “Gather all of this for me only in the after-life.”]

عَرَضَ عَلَيَّ رَبِّي لِيَجْعَلَ لِي بَطْحَاءَ مَكَّةَ ذَهَبًا، فَقُلْتُ: لا يَا رَبِّ، وَلَكِنْ أَشْبَعُ يَوْمًا وَأَجُوعُ يَوْمًا، فَإِذَا جُعْتُ تَضَرَّعْتُ إِلَيْكَ وَذَكَرْتُكَ، وَإِذَا شَبِعْتُ حَمِدْتُكَ وَشَكَرْتُكَ

[Abi Umamah said: The Prophet (saw): My Lord presented to me, that He would fill the valley of Makkah for me in gold. I said: “No O Lord, I prefer to eat one day and starve one day, so that if I starve I raise my hands and mention your name, and if I eat I would be thankful and praise You.”]

These and several other narrations like them prove that he (saw) preferred poverty to wealth as wealth blinds the heart and blocks the mind from the remembrance of Allah, rather it makes one attached to his life and distant from the idea of death and judgment.

A question may be asked in the end, is acquiring wealth forbidden? The simplest answer is NO, the Prophet (saw) even taught some of his companions Du`a to repel poverty, but he also told them of the evils and luxuries of life and told them to not be attached to it, and he (saw) praised poverty and promised the poor a great reward.

The prophet’s (saw) way was as he himself described in the Sahih Hadith of ibn `Abbas:

مَا مَثَلِي وَمَثَلُ الدُّنْيَا إِلا كَرَاكِبٍ سَارَ فِي يَوْمٍ صَائِفٍ، فَاسْتَظَلَّ تَحْتَ شَجَرَةٍ سَاعَةً مِنْ نَهَارٍ، ثُمَّ رَاحَ وَتَرَكَهَا

[The Prophet (saw) said: “I have nothing to do with this world. My relationship with this world is like that of a traveler on a hot summer day, who seeks shade under a tree for an hour, then moves on.”]

There are plenty of reports like the ones we listed and they’re found in most of the books of Hadith, what we mentioned is only a sample.

After all this, does it make sense if he’d hand them a giant rich piece of land enabling them to live like kings? Or is it more logical for men like him to offer these lands to the poor and needy yet allow his family to take what is sufficient to fill their stomachs?

The messenger (saw) himself said in the narration of the companion Ka`b bin `Iyad:

إن لكل أمة فتنة وفتنة أمتي المال

[Verily, there is a Fitnah (trial) for every nation and the trial for my nation is money.]

Who would place someone he loves through this horrible trial?

May Allah bless our beloved prophet Muhammad (saw) and reward him the best reward for advising his nation and guiding them to the path of truth and to salvation by the permission of Allah.


{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. (6)}

Meaning, lands received in peace from Banu al-Nadeer and the Jews of Khaybar and Madinah, these are all placed under the authority of the leader of the Muslims, Rasul-Allah (saw), and he spent it all on the Muslims and kept very little to barely sustain his family.

{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. (7)}

All other towns and lands acquired in the same manner are to be handled in the same way, they are handed to the Rasul (saw), and he distributes them to the groups mentioned and each group is offered what it deserves based on numbers and needs, as Allah says:

{so that it will not be a perpetual distribution among the rich from among you}

It is the leader of the Muslims, Rasul-Allah (saw) who decides how much to give from the produce of the lands to each group, after him his successor or Khalifah distributes the produce according to how he sees fit. The distribution, is the responsibility of the leader and after he distributes no one may complain, this is needed because if the distribution was left to the groups mentioned above, then it is within human nature to be greedy so they may oppress their brothers and divide it unequally, this is why the leader or the judge is the one who is responsible for this.

`Ali bin abi Talib says in his sermon in Nahj-ul-Balagha while speaking to the Khawarij:

وإنه لا بد للناس من أمير بر أو فاجر  يعمل في إمرته المؤمن. ويستمتع فيها الكافر. ويبلغ الله فيها الأجل. ويجمع به الفئ، ويقاتل به العدو وتأمن به السبل ويؤخذ به للضعيف من القوي حتى يستريح به بر ويستراح من فاجر

[The people must have a ruler whether good or bad. The faithful persons perform (good) acts in his rule while the unfaithful enjoys (worldly) benefits in it. During the rule, Allah would carry everything to end. Through the ruler Fay’ is collected, enemy is fought, roadways are protected and the right of the weak is taken from the strong till the virtuous enjoys peace and allowed protection from (the oppression of) the wicked.]

In the books of Ahlul-Sunnah, we find that the origin of this narration is a prophetic-Hadith, we read:

لا بد للناس من إمارة برة أو فاجرة فأما البرة فتعدل في القسم وتقسم فيئكم فيكم بالسوية وأما الفاجرة فيبتلى فيها المؤمن والإمارة الفاجرة خير من الهرج قيل يا رسول الله وما الهرج قال القتل والكذب

`Abdullah ibn Mas`oud said: The oppression of an Imam fifty years is better than one month of Harj, because the Prophet (saw) said: “Definitely the people are in need of the Imarah(rule of an Emir) whether it is good or corrupt, as for the good one it helps divides the Fay’ justly between you, as for the corrupt one it shall be a test for the believer, and the corrupt Imarah is better than al-Harj.” they asked: “What is al-Harj?” he (saw) said: “Lots of Killing and lies.”

source: Tabarani in al-Mu`jam al-Kabeer 12/5577 #10067. Ibn `Asakir in Tareekh Dimashq 98/48890 #25049.

Also in the books of Ahlul-Sunnah, we read from the narration of Layth bin abi Saleem, that he said:

 لا يصلح الناس إلا أمير بر أو فاجر قالوا : يا أمير المؤمنين ، هذا البر فكيف بالفاجر ؟ قال : إن الفاجر يؤمِّن الله عز وجل به السبل ، ويجاهَد به العدو ويُجبى به الفيء ، وتقام به الحدود ، ويحج به البيت ، ويعبد اللهَ فيه المسلمُ آمنا حتى يأتيه أجله

`Ali bin abi Talib said: “The affair of the people will not be right unless with an Emir, a just one or a tyrant.” They said: “A just Emir we understand but a tyrant!?” he replied: “Yes, [at least] through the tyrant Allah makes the roads safe, and he continues Jihad against the enemies, and gathers the Fay’, and executes the laws, and enables the making of Hajj, and the Muslim will worship Allah safely [under his rule] until his time comes.”

source: al-Bayhaqi in Shu`ab al-Iman #7249.

So we understand, that in a nation of law and justice, it is the leader who handles the property of Fay’, the land is placed under his control and he divides the riches of the land among his followers in a way that pleases Allah (swt), so that the matter would not be left to the people of desires who may eat the shares of their brothers. In the time of the Prophet (saw) it was his responsibility and after him whoever succeeds him is tasked with this matter.

The next two verses say:

{For the poor emigrants who were expelled from their homes and their properties, seeking bounty from Allah and [His] approval and supporting Allah and His Messenger, [there is also a share]. Those are the truthful. (8)}

{And [also for] those who were settled in al-Madinah and [adopted] the faith before them. They love those who emigrated to them and find not any want in their breasts of what the emigrants were given but give [them] preference over themselves, even though they are in privation. And whoever is protected from the stinginess of his soul – it is those who will be the successful. (9)}

Meaning, the Mouhajiroun and the Ansar also receive a share from the Fay’, not the rich but only the poor and needy and whoever fits in the above groups. Allah intends to give priority to the poor and needy from the Mouhajiroun and the Ansar, as they sacrificed the most and they were the first forerunners in faith, and this is how it was in the time of the succession of prophet-hood or Khilafat al-Nubuwwah, it was reported from `Umar bin al-Khattab Ameer al-Mu’mineen that he would give priority to the wives and relatives of Rasul-Allah (saw), then after them the Mouhajiroun, then the Ansar, then the rest of the nation.

The next verse says:

{And [there is a share for] those who came after them, saying, “Our Lord, forgive us and our brothers who preceded us in faith and put not in our hearts [any] resentment toward those who have believed. Our Lord, indeed You are Kind and Merciful.” (10)}

According to this verse, the rest of the nation, the new generations who came into this world after the Mouhajiroun and Ansar, they may also benefit from this Fay’ and prosper, except those who curse the people who preceded them in faith.


Assuming she was angry and not just sad as stated in some narrations, we will answer this question by quoting some Shia books.

In al-Amali lil-Saduq pg.555:

باع علي (ع) حديقة له ، ووزع ثمنها كله على الفقراء ، فجاءته فاطمة (ع) غضبى ، وقالت :- أنا جائعة وإبناي جائعان ولا شك أنك مثلنا في الجوع ، لم يكن لنا منه درهم ؟ وأخذت بطرف ثوب علي

[`Ali (as) sold a garden he owned and distributed what he received among the poor and needy, so Fatimah (as) came to him and she was angry, she said: “I am hungry and so are my two sons and I am sure you are as well, have you not left us one Dirham?” And she pulled on `Ali’s clothes.]

Kashf-ul-Ghummah lil-Irbili 2/101:

 شكت فاطمة (عليها السّلام) إلى رسول الله (صلى الله عليه وآله) عليّاً، فقالت: يا رسول الله، ما يدع شيئاً من رزقه إلاّ وزعه بين المساكين

[Fatimah (as) complained to Rasul-Allah (saw) about `Ali (as), she said: “O Rasul-Allah, he never leaves anything from his money unless he gives it away to the poor.”]

Although we do not believe in one word from what is written in the books of the Shia, yet it is correct that `Ali’s family was poor in the time of the Prophet (saw), this is because out of his wisdom our Prophet Muhammad (saw) never offered his family any treasure nor did he wish for them to inherit gold, to keep them detached from the worldly life and so they may not have internal struggles and fight over the wealth he left them. `Ali bin abi Talib would later obtain valuable gifts and lands from what the Khulafa’ offered him and his children, but at the time of the Prophet’s (saw) passing he had nothing, so Fatimah may Allah’s peace be upon her being the mother of two young kids, she was terribly worried about the fate of her family and she wished to obtain any means to provide for them.

Fatimah was not materialistic nor was she greedy for lands and wealth, she only thought that by obtaining a piece of land by Halal means, she would be ensuring her children’s survival. When Abu Bakr told her the reality of the matter the instinct of motherhood that Allah planted in her drove her to react in the way that she did. However, Ahlul-Bayt soon discovered that they were blessed, Rasul-Allah (saw) had left them a true treasure, an entire generation of pious believers surrounding them, a generation that loved Rasul-Allah (saw) and valued his family and placed them above all others, so whenever gifts were to be distributed the prophetic-household would receive the biggest share, and whenever spoils are to be divided they would be given precedence.

This is why when `Ali bin abi Talib passed away we read in his will, that he freed many servants and distributed the lands, we read in the Sahih Hadith in al-Kafi 7/49: that `Ali gave away the lands of Yanbu` as Sadaqah, and he left the lands in the valley of al-Qura for his children, and the land in Daymah, and the land in Udhaynah are all Sadaqaat, and each of these lands contains many servants and he talks about male servants and the mothers of his children (female servants whom he made pregnant), this same narration is also authentic in the books of Ahlul-Sunnah but it seems the Shia altered some small parts of it and we will present the entire text as it appears in al-Kafi:

[‘(I begin) in the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful. ‘This is the will and decision of the servant of Allah about his assets seeking thereby the pleasure of Allah so that He will admit him in the garden (paradise), keep away from him the fire and keep him away from the fire on the day when certain faces will be white and others will be black. The assets that belong to me in Yanba’ which are known to be my assets with its surroundings are endowed as charities as well as the slaves except Rabah, abu Nayzar and Jubayr who are set free and no one has any authority over them. They are my Mawali who will work for five years with the properties from which will be their sustenance, expenses and the expenses of their families. Besides these my properties in Wadi al-Qura’, all of it is of the assets of the children of Fatimah, ‘Alayha al-Salam, and the slaves are charities. My assets in Daymah and its people are charities except Zurayq. For him is what I write for his companions. My assets in ’Udhaynah and its people are charities and al-Fuqayrayn as you know are charities in the way of Allah. My assets that I have mentioned are charities in an obligatory sense, whether I will be living or dead. They will be used in the ways that will please Allah, for the cause of Allah, and for the sake of Allah, and for my relatives from banu Hashim, banu al- Muttalib, the nearer ones and the farther ones. Al-Hassan will supervise these properties. He will use them for his lawful needs and will spend in the sight of Allah, most Majestic, most Glorious, in lawful ways. It is not unlawful for him to do so. If he deems necessary to sell from these assets to pay off debts, he can do so if he will so like. It is not unlawful for him. If he will like he can make them very attractive assets. The children of Ali, their Mawali and assets are under the authority of al-Hassan ibn Ali. If the house of al-Hassan ibn Ali will not be the house of charity and if he will so decide to sell it he can do so. It is not unlawful for him. If he will sell it, he will divide its price in three parts: one third in the way of Allah, one-third for banu Hashim and banu al-Muttalib, and keep one-third in the assets of Ale abu Talib. He will manage it in the sight of Allah as he deems it lawful. If something will happen to al-Hassan and al-Husayn will be living, then al-Husayn ibn Ali will be the person in charge of his task. Al-Husayn will deal with these assets just as al-Hassan had been dealing. He will have for himself what I have written for al-Hassan. On him will also be what was on al-Hassan. For the children of (the two sons of) Fatimah, ‘Alayha al-Salam, of the charities are whatever is for the children of Ali. I have prepared what I have prepared for the two sons of Fatimah, ‘Alayhi al-Salam. It is for the sake of Allah, most Majestic, most Glorious, in the honor of the Messenger of Allah, O Allah, grant compensation to Muhammad and his family worthy of their services to Your cause, and for their greatness, in service of their nobility and pleasure. If something will happen to al-Hassan and al-Husayn, the last one of them will look among the children of Ali. If he will find among them one about whose guidance he is happy as well as his Islam and trustworthiness, he will designate him for the task if he will so wish. If he will not find among them anyone who can make him happy, he will designate someone from Ale abu Talib with whom he will be happy. If he will find all of Ale abu Talib, their elders and people of understanding have passed away, he then will designate a man from banu Hashim. He will place a condition on one to whom he will leave the assets that they must be left on their original basis, only their fruits will be spent as I have commanded, such as, in the way of Allah and for His sake, for the relatives of banu Hashim and banu al-Muttalib, those nearer and those farther. They must not be sold, gifted or inherited. The assets of Muhammad ibn Ali are on his side. It is for the two sons of Fatimah, ‘Alayha al-Salam, to decide about it. My slaves whom I have listed in a small document are free. ‘This is what Ali ibn abu Talib has decided about his assets this morning of the day that he has arrived in Maskin (a place near al-Kufah on the bank of Euphrates) for the sake of Allah, seeking His pleasure, and for the dwelling in the next life. Allah is the support in all conditions. It is not lawful for a Muslim, who believes in Allah and the day to come, to say something about what I have decided about my assets or oppose me in my affairs of the people near or far. ‘Thereafter the mothers of my children with whom I maintain connections, seventeen of whom are mothers of children who are with their children, those of them who are pregnant and those who do not have children. My decision about them, if something happens to me is as follows: Those of them who do not have children and are not pregnant they are free for the sake of Allah, most Majestic, most Glorious. No one will have any authority over them. Those of them who have children or are pregnant must keep their children as their share. If her child will die and she is living she then is free and no one will have any authority on them. This is the decision that Ali has made about his assets this morning when he has arrived in Maskin. It is witnessed by abu Samar ibn Abrahah, Sa‘sa‘h ibn Suhan, Yazid ibn Qays and Hayyaj ibn abu Hayyaj and it is written by Ali ibn abu Talib with his own hand on tenth of Jamadi al-’Ula’, in the year thirty-seven.’”]

As one can see, Ahlul-Bayt were never poor after Rasul-Allah (saw) passed away and they were loved and respected by the believers until a vile Fitnah struck our nation from which no believer was safe whether he was a Hashimi or non-Hashimi. The Hashimites had lands and servants and wealth and `Ali bin abi Talib died leaving behind him a blessed fortune for his children and for the poor and needy.


We read previously that the Will of our messenger (saw) was the book of Allah, and the teachings of Islam. This is sufficient and actually counts as a written Will.

Then comes a second part, we read in Sahih al-Bukhari the Hadith:

ما حق امرئ مسلم ، له شيء يوصي فيه ، يبيت ليلتين ، إلا ووصيته عنده مكتوبة

[“It is the duty of a Muslim who has any matter to entrust not to let two nights pass without writing a will about it.”]

In Islam, the scholars popularly agree that a Will can either be oral, offered to people of trust, or it can be written. A Will may contain several things, such as:

1- Advice and wisdom. (Optional & Recommended)

2- Any debts or trusts that one owes people. (Obligatory)

3- What each of his legitimate heirs are to receive after his death. (Optional & Disliked)

4- A donation for anyone who isn’t entitled to inherit him. (Optional & Conditional)

The advice and wisdom is recommended because it is an act of goodness and he shall be rewarded for it by Allah as it encourages his relatives to do good and avoid evil, this needs not be written and he can say it on his death-bed or even before that as was the Sunnah of Rasul-Allah (saw) who always advised everyone around him.

As for debts, it is recommended to write it because it is a sensitive topic related to people’s rights, one can also offer it orally to people of trust and responsibility. This is obligatory as one may be punished in the after-life for usurping people’s rights even after his death.

He can also write exactly what each of his legitimate heirs are supposed to receive but this is not obligatory, some even dislike it because Rasul-Allah (saw) said in the Hadith of Ibn Majah:

إن الله تعالى قد أعطى كل ذي حق حقة , فلا وصية لوارث

[“Allah most high had given for every person deserving of inheritance his right, so do not address an heir in your Wills.”]

Meaning, that in the Qur’an and the Sunnah Allah had already described how the wealth is to be divided among heirs, you can say that Allah wrote their Will concerning their heirs, this leaves no need for the person himself to do so unless he wishes to calculate it for them if they cannot do it themselves, or maybe in a special case and by agreement of all heirs that some of them would offer their rights to others heirs.

Finally, the donation to the non-heir and according to the Sunnah of Rasul-Allah (saw) one cannot give more than a third of his wealth, as he must leave the rest for the legitimate heirs.

Al-Tabari in his Tafsir and `Abdul-Razzaq in his Musannaf both narrate in the authentic narration from `Urwah from `Ali ibn abi Talib when one of his servants asked him about the Wasiyyah, regarding the verse:

{Prescribed for you when death approaches [any] one of you if he leaves wealth [is that he should make] a bequest(al-Wasiyyah)} [2:180]

دَخَلَ عَلِيٌّ عَلَى مَوْلًى لَهُمْ فِي الْمَوْتِ، وَلَهُ سَبْعُ مِائَةِ دِرْهَمٍ أَوْ سِتُّ مِائَةِ دِرْهَمٍ، فَقَالَ: أَلا أُوصِي؟ فَقَالَ: لا، إِنَّمَا قَالَ اللَّهُ: إِنْ تَرَكَ خَيْرًا، وَلَيْسَ لَكَ كَثِيرُ مَالٍ

[`Ali entered on a servant of his while on his deathbed, he only possessed seven hundred Dirhams or six hundred, he asked: “Should I make a Will?” `Ali replied: “No, He only said: {if he leaves wealth}, and you do not have much.”]

This is what we mean by conditional above, in that it depends on the circumstances of a person and his financial situation.

Since Rasul-Allah (saw) had already spent his entire wealth, he had even less than this old servant and whatever was left was worth nothing, such as his walking stick or his turban, then there was no need for him to announce a Will concerning these matters, neither a written or oral one as he had nothing to bequeath. He (saw) did Will a couple of matters, such as dispatching Usamah’s army, and to care for his household, and to treat the foreign delegations with kindness and many other similar matters.


A Shia will often say as a result of all the above, that “How can Fatimah be wrong?” we remind the readers that for them Fatimah (as) is infallible.

The Shia will put forth the argument, “How can Abu Bakr be more aware than Fatimah about her own father?”

We answer with three simple points,

1- The years spent in the presence of the Prophet (saw):

By consensus of Shia scholars, such as: Kulayni, Saduq, Tabrasi, Majlisi, Irbilee and Ibn Sharh-Ashoub:  Fatimah (as) was born after five years from Bi`thah, making her age 18 when she died.

This opinion is also supported by most contemporary Shia scholars, for instance Shia scholar Mustafa al-Qazwini writes in his book “Invitation to Islam”:

[She set many examples in her social and political life. As a result of the conflict over power after the demise of the Holy Prophet (S), Fatima al-Zahra (peace be upon her) died at the age of 18 years.]

Shia scholar abu Muhammad al-Ordoni writes in his book “Fatima The Gracious” he writes the same:

[Some scholars state that she was born five years after revelation(Bi`thah); while others say that she was born two, or, three years before that; and still others claim that she was born five years before revelation. It should be noted that the first statement was narrated from the Imams of Ahlul-Bayt (as) which a group of Sunni scholars endorsed the same viewpoint.]

Fatimah (as) died after 5-6 months from the Prophet (saw), which means she accompanied him for less than 18 years. If you add to this the fact that Fatimah (as) was not aware nor mature until the age of 8, as is the case with all young children, this means altogether she accompanied her father less than 10 years.

As for Abu Bakr, he accompanied the Prophet (saw), he was very close to him, was his adviser and right hand man throughout all his prophet-hood, which lasted 23 years. It is also stated in all narrations that Abu Bakr and the Prophet (saw) were good friends and companions before the coming of Islam, and this is why Abu Bakr embraced Islam quickly and never questioned it. For how long they knew each other before Islam is not mentioned but if we were to put a minimal amount, it’ d be 5 years at least, this is because Abu Bakr accepted the words of the Prophet (saw) when he declared his prophet-hood, which means he must have had a blind trust in him, this trust can only come after long years of close companionship.

The above leaves us with the following:

-Fatimah (as) accompanied the Prophet (saw) for less than 10 years.

-Abu Bakr accompanied the Prophet (saw) for 28 or more years.

2-A child is not necessarily the most knowledgeable about his father:

This is logical, we find many great scholars who have children, yet these children although religious in many cases, are not as knowledgeable or learned about Islam as their fathers, the other scholars who accompanied their father are more knowledgeable, the students of their father are also more knowledgeable.

The argument put forth by the Shia, that Fatimah (as) had to know more since she is his daughter, this is inaccurate and faulty. A lot of a man’s life long friends know more about his life, his habits, his ideas and his beliefs than his own children. In fact a lot of times, when a man dies, his children would visit their father’s old friends and ask them about their father and his stories and experiences, they would hear things they never heard before.

If your father was a successful architect, and he taught you to love architecture and appreciate it, it doesn’t mean you will know more about architecture than your father’s co-workers and employees who learned under his hand  and experienced working side by side with him on his projects.

Why is this?

Simply because of the time these men spent with each other, the amount of time the Prophet (saw) would spend alongside Abu Bakr during the day was more than the time he would spend with his married daughter.

If your father was a president of a company or a business man, you’ll know this because you’ll almost never get to see him at home, he would spend his day in the company, running the affairs of the employees, checking the company’s strategies and attending the meetings and conferences, and he would travel often and be occupied most of his time because of the big responsibilities on his shoulders.

Imagine a prophet of God, how much more responsibilities does he have? He has to teach the simpletons their religious laws and rulings of Fiqh, he has to tend to the needs of an entire nation, solve their disputes, teach them the fundamentals of monotheism, debate the deviant pagans and provide the divine arguments, plan war strategies and alliances, teach Qur’anic recitation and Tafseer, offer wisdom to people and teach them morals and manners, spend each night at the house of one of his wives, attend meetings with tribal leaders from all over the Arabian peninsula, participate personally in many battles, attend the five daily prayers at the Masjid and pray the voluntary prayers and he used to pray much during the night until he collapsed etc… And who was by his side when he did all of this? His close companion and adviser Abu Bakr, not Fatimah (as) who was in her own house.

We list some examples of this long companionship,

`A’ishah says in Sahih al-Bukhari:

[I always remember both my parents following this religion, nor did a day pass unless Rasul-Allah (saw) visited us in the morning and in the evening. ]

`Ali says to `Umar in Sahih al-Bukhari:

[I always hoped that Allah would keep you with your two companions, for I often heard Rasul-Allah (saw) saying: “I, Abu Bakr and `Umar were somewhere. I, Abu Bakr and `Umar did something. I, Abu Bakr and `Umar set out.” So I hoped that Allah will keep you with both of them.]

`Abdullah bin Sallam said in Muntakhab min Ammarat al-Nubuwwah:

[That Rasul-Allah (saw) used to go with Abu Bakr, they would climb up the mountain and study the Qur’an until night time, then they would come back down and circulate around the house and pray as much as they could.]

`Umar says in Musnad Ahmad:

[Rasul-Allah (saw) used to always spend his evenings with Abu Bakr, they would discuss the affairs of the Muslims throughout the night.]

`Abdul-Rahman son of Abu Bakr said in Sahih Muslim:

[There came to our house some guests. It was a common practice with my father to (go) and talk to Rasul-Allah (saw) during the night.]

So not only does he (saw) spend most of his days with his companion but also many of his nights.

3- It was reported that Fatimah (as) was from the most pious of people and her father (saw) loved her a lot, but it was never reported that she was a scholar nor from the people of knowledge nor did anyone seek to learn any religion from her throughout her life. As opposed to Abu Bakr who was known for his knowledge and deep understanding of prophetic-Sunnah and rulings of Islam, he gave verdicts both during the life of the Prophet (saw) and after his death.

Fatimah’s (as) virtues are all related to her piety and purity and that her father loved her a lot, we list a few as example:

He (saw) said: “I dislike for Fatimah to be hurt, whatever hurts her hurts me.”

He (saw) said: “O Fatimah, you are the first to follow me (to death) from my family.”

He (saw) said: “The most beloved of my family to me is Fatimah.”

These virtues as well as the rest of her merits are well known, as for Abu Bakr we will list some examples for his knowledge,

Abu Sa`eed said in Sahih al-Bukhari:

[It turns out, that the slave was Rasul-Allah (saw) himself and Abu Bakr was the most knowledgeable of us concerning him (saw).]

Qays bin `Asim says in Dala’il al-Nubuwwah:

[Rasul-Allah (saw) ordered him to wash and purify himself with water and a bowl, then to go to Abu Bakr and `Umar that they may teach him the rest of the purification.]

Meaning, that Rasul-Allah (saw) would rely on Abu Bakr in teaching people the religion. The Prophet (saw) also appointed ِAbu Bakr as an Imam for the people, and when asked about the qualities of an Imam he (saw) said like it is reported in Sahih Muslim:

[The one who is most versed in Allah’s Book.]


If the Prophet (saw) had promised anybody anything then Abu Bakr would have delivered during his reign as was popularly reported.

We read the authentic report from Jami`-ul-Tirmidhi by Wahb al-Sawwa’i abu Juhayfah:

رَأَيْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ  أَبْيَضَ قَدْ شَابَ، وَكَانَ الْحَسَنُ بْنُ عَلِيٍّ يُشْبِهُهُ، وَأَمَرَ لَنَا بِثَلَاثَةَ عَشَرَ قَلُوصًا، فَذَهَبْنَا نَقْبِضُهَا فَأَتَانَا مَوْتُهُ فَلَمْ يُعْطُونَا شَيْئًا، فَلَمَّا قَامَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ قَالَ: مَنْ كَانَتْ لَهُ عِنْدَ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ  عِدَةٌ فَلْيَجِئْ، فَقُمْتُ إِلَيْهِ فَأَخْبَرْتُهُ فَأَمَرَ لَنَا بِهَا

[I saw Rasul-Allah (saw) with white grey hairs and al-Hasan bin `Ali resembled him most. He (saw) had promised thirteen young she-camels for us, so we went to get them. When we arrived, news of his death reached us so we weren’t given anything. When Abu Bakr received authority he said: “If there is anyone to whom Rasul-Allah (saw) made a promise, then let him come forth.” I stood to inform him about it, and he ordered that they be given to us.]

Next is Jabir bin `Abdullah al-Ansari who narrated in Sahih al-Bukhari:

قَالَ كَانَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ لِي ‏”‏ لَوْ قَدْ جَاءَنَا مَالُ الْبَحْرَيْنِ قَدْ أَعْطَيْتُكَ هَكَذَا وَهَكَذَا وَهَكَذَا ‏”‏‏.‏ فَلَمَّا قُبِضَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم وَجَاءَ مَالُ الْبَحْرَيْنِ قَالَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ مَنْ كَانَتْ لَهُ عِنْدَ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم عِدَةٌ فَلْيَأْتِنِي‏.‏ فَأَتَيْتُهُ فَقُلْتُ إِنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَدْ كَانَ قَالَ لِي ‏”‏ لَوْ قَدْ جَاءَنَا مَالُ الْبَحْرَيْنِ لأَعْطَيْتُكَ هَكَذَا وَهَكَذَا وَهَكَذَا ‏”‏‏.‏ فَقَالَ لِي احْثُهْ‏.‏ فَحَثَوْتُ حَثْيَةً فَقَالَ لِي عُدَّهَا‏.‏ فَعَدَدْتُهَا فَإِذَا هِيَ خَمْسُمِائَةٍ، فَأَعْطَانِي أَلْفًا وَخَمْسَمِائَةٍ

[Rasul-Allah (saw) had told me: “If the revenue of Bahrayn comes, I will give you this much and this much.” When the Prophet (saw) passed away, the revenue of Bahrayn came and Abu Bakr announced: ” Let whoever was promised something by Rasul-Allah (saw) come to me.” So, I went to Abu Bakr and said: “Rasul-Allah (saw) said to me: ‘If the revenue of Bahrayn came, I would give you this much and this much.” On that Abu Bakr said to me: “Scoop (money) with both your hands.” I scooped money with both my hands and Abu Bakr asked me to count it. I counted it and it was five-hundred so he (Abu Bakr) gave me a one thousand and five hundred instead.]

Also the narration of abu Sa`eed from abu Basheer al-Ansari in Tabaqat ibn Sa`d:

قَالَ: سَمِعْتُ مُنَادِيَ أَبِي بَكْرٍ يُنَادِي بِالْمَدِينَةِ حِينَ قَدِمَ عَلَيْهِ مَالُ الْبَحْرَيْنِ: مَنْ كَانَتْ لَهُ عِدَةٌ عِنْدَ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ فَلْيَأْتِ ! فَيَأْتِيهِ رِجَالٌ فَيُعْطِيَهُمْ، فَجَاءَ أَبُو بَشِيرٍ الْمَازِنِيُّ، فَقَالَ: إِنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ قَالَ: ” يَا أَبَا بَشِيرٍ، إِذَا جَاءَنَا شَيْءٌ فَأْتِنَا “، فَأَعْطَاهُ أَبُو بَكْرٍ حِفْنَتَيْنِ أَوْ ثَلاثًا فَوَجَدَهَا أَلْفًا وَأَرْبَعَمِائَةِ دِرْهَمٍ

[I heard Abu Bakr’s caller calling in al-Madinah when the money from Bahrayn reached us: “Whoever was promised anything by Rasul-Allah (saw), may he come forth!” Some men then went to him and received what they were promised, so Abu Basheer al-Mazini came and said: Rasul-Allah (saw) had told me: “O Aba Basheer, if anything reaches us then come.” Upon hearing this, Abu Bakr gave him two or three hand-fulls (of money) and he found it to be a thousand four hundred Dirhams.]


The opponents will make it sound as if all regular rulings that apply to Muslims must apply to their Prophet (saw) as well. This is a faulty idea since prophets do not necessarily follow the same rulings as everybody else and the researcher will find that there are exceptions in how laws apply to them. For instance, they are buried only where they die unlike us. So they will ask: Why didn’t the Prophet (saw) offer inheritance like everyone else?

This question cannot be taken seriously since the Imams according to Shia narrations do not offer inheritance like everyone else.

We quote the following narration from Fatimah which can be found in the sixteen Usool and in al-Kafi with al-Majlisi’s authentication with these two chains:

عَلِيُّ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ عَنْ أَبِيهِ عَنِ ابْنِ أَبِي نَجْرَانَ عَنْ عَاصِمِ بْنِ حُمَيْدٍ عَنْ أَبِي بَصِيرٍ قَالَ قَالَ أَبُو جَعْفَرٍ ع‏


عَنْهُ عَنْ أَبِيهِ عَنِ ابْنِ أَبِي عُمَيْرٍ عَنْ حَمَّادِ بْنِ عُثْمَانَ عَنْ أَبِي بَصِيرٍ قَالَ: قَالَ أَبُو عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ع أَ لَا أُقْرِئُكَ وَصِيَّةَ فَاطِمَةَ ع قُلْتُ بَلَى قَالَ فَأَخْرَجَ إِلَيَّ صَحِيفَةً هَذَا مَا عَهِدَتْ فَاطِمَةُ بِنْتُ مُحَمَّدٍ ص فِي مَالِهَا إِلَى عَلِيِّ بْنِ أَبِي طَالِبٍ ع وَ إِنْ مَاتَ فَإِلَى الْحَسَنِ وَ إِنْ مَاتَ فَإِلَى الْحُسَيْنِ فَإِنْ مَاتَ الْحُسَيْنُ فَإِلَى الْأَكْبَرِ مِنْ وُلْدِي دُونَ وُلْدِك‏

[Aba `Abdillah (as) said: Would you like to read Fatimah’s (as) will? I said: Yes. He (as) brought it and began reading: “This is what Fatimah bint Muhammad (saw) willed concerning her possessions, she has passed them to `Ali ibn abi Talib (as), after he dies then it may pass to al-Hasan, after he dies it may pass to al-Husayn, if he dies then to the eldest of my own children, not yours etc…]

As the reader can see, the above has nothing to do with the laws of Islamic inheritance. This isn’t how regular Mulims inherit nor should all her money have went to her husband after her death as Allah did not allow it. In this case the Shia will claim that Ahlul-Bayt have an exceptional ruling therefore they must accept that the Prophet (saw) too had an exceptional ruling.


We believe that `Ali did not ask for inheritance from Abu Bakr. Rather, according to all authentic reports it was al-`Abbas and Fatimah who sought Abu Bakr for their inheritance.

Anyone who review the authentic reports realizes that they all declare that al-`Abbas and Fatimah went to ask Abu Bakr for their inheritance, without mentioning `Ali.

However, a claim was made that `Ali did go and ask for inheritance and they shall quote the following text from the Sahihayn, `Umar narrates:

[Both of you (`Ali & `Abbas) came to demand your shares from the property (left behind by the Messenger of Allah). You (O `Abbas) demanded your share from the property of your nephew, and he (referring to `Ali) demanded a share from his wife’s property through her father. Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allah (saw) had said: “We do not have any heirs; what we leave behind is (to be given in) charity.”]

Based on the above it seems like `Ali went and asked for inheritance BUT we believe this is incorrect for the following reasons:

A- The above report is flipped and incorrectly transmitted.

The actual order of this report is as follows:

[I (`Umar) became Abu Bakr’s successor, and I kept that property in my possession for the first two years of my Caliphate, managing it in the same way as Allah’s Apostle (saw) used to do and as Abu Bakr used to do, and Allah knows that I have been true, pious, rightly guided, and a follower of what is right. Then you both came to talk to me, united upon the same word, `Abbas, came to me asking for his share from his nephew’s property, and this man, i.e. `Ali, came to me asking for his wife’s share from her father’s property.]

As the reader can see, the part where `Abbas and `Ali come to ask for their portions is not at the time of Abu Bakr rather at the time of `Umar. This is the correct version of the text and has been narrated by several authentic chains in the Sahihayn from Malik bin Aws:

حَدَّثَنَا سَعِيدُ بْنُ عُفَيْرٍ، قَالَ حَدَّثَنِي اللَّيْثُ، قَالَ حَدَّثَنِي عُقَيْلٌ، عَنِ ابْنِ شِهَابٍ، قَالَ أَخْبَرَنِي مَالِكُ بْنُ أَوْسِ بْنِ الْحَدَثَانِ

حَدَّثَنَا إِسْحَاقُ بْنُ مُحَمَّدٍ الْفَرْوِيُّ، حَدَّثَنَا مَالِكُ بْنُ أَنَسٍ، عَنِ ابْنِ شِهَابٍ، عَنْ مَالِكِ بْنِ أَوْسِ بْنِ الْحَدَثَانِ

حَدَّثَنَا يَحْيَى بْنُ بُكَيْرٍ، حَدَّثَنَا اللَّيْثُ، عَنْ عُقَيْلٍ، عَنِ ابْنِ شِهَابٍ، قَالَ أَخْبَرَنِي مَالِكُ بْنُ أَوْسِ بْنِ الْحَدَثَانِ

حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ يُوسُفَ، حَدَّثَنَا اللَّيْثُ، حَدَّثَنِي عُقَيْلٌ، عَنِ ابْنِ شِهَابٍ، قَالَ أَخْبَرَنِي مَالِكُ بْنُ أَوْسٍ النَّصْرِيُّ

As for the flipped report above it, this was narrated by a single chain only from Malik bin Aws and it is a weaker chain:

وَحَدَّثَنِي عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ أَسْمَاءَ الضُّبَعِيُّ، حَدَّثَنَا جُوَيْرِيَةُ، عَنْ مَالِكٍ، عَنِ الزُّهْرِيِّ، أَنَّ مَالِكَ بْنَ أَوْسٍ

A questioner may ask, why did `Ali and Abbas go to `Umar even though they knew `Umar was in agreement with Abu Bakr and knowing that he was present when the first judgement was made?

Answer is that al-`Abbas and `Ali when they returned to `Umar never asked for inheritance, they asked to be placed in charge of the lands of charity. `Ali through his wife’s portion and `Abbas through his nephew’s portion. Although they accepted they couldn’t own it yet they believed they had a right to keep it under their control due to their relation to the previous owner of the land, they insisted the land must remain with them as a trust from Rasul-Allah (saw). `Umar accepted to give them both what they asked for but placed some conditions on them.

B- We have authentic narrations about this incident and there’s no mention of `Ali at the time.

All authentic reports state it was only al-`Abbas and Fatimah who went to ask for their inheritance. `Ali was not mentioned in those reports as either he wasn’t present or he was silent since he knew they weren’t entiteled to recieve an inheritance.

A questioner may ask, why didn’t `Ali inform Fatimah? The answer is that he may have done so but she found it odd so she insisted on going and verifying if this was accurate OR `Ali never even discussed the matter with her since things happened quickly after the death of the Prophet (saw).

C- `Ali didn’t need to ask for anything after the Prophet (saw) passed away since he wasn’t entiteled to receive anything at the time based on laws of inheritance. `Abbas and Fatimah thought they had a right to it.

Therefore, we have `Ali who we believe never asked for inheritance as he knew the prophetic tradition YET he still asked to be placed in charge of the lands of charity. We have al-`Abbas who thought he had a right to inherit but was soon reminded of the prophetic tradition so he shifted his position to asking to be in charge similarly to `Ali. We have Fatimah who wasn’t familiar with the tradition but when she learned she accepted and told Abu Bakr “You know best what you heard from the Messenger of Allah (saw).”

And in the above is what suffices any intelligent man who is not blinded by sectarian bias and extremism.



  1. your refutations are all bogus and excuses thats most funny thing i found in this u call every person who had property of prophet sas after his death ”its is not inheritance” when your caliph has said whatever and whatever means whatever prophets left has to be gone in charity, other thing i read in ur article is weak weak by doing this stupidity you can call it self proclaimed refutation i am amazed that you didnt even know what is inheritance please read surah nisa verse 33 so you could know what is inheritance you waisted everyone’s time by posting this stupidity your answers are not satisfactory just all excuses and bogus replies lol other thing is donot forget that land you said amro bn harith said land of khayber was a charity and yes it was a charity later on bibi ayesha took land of charity :D you can never hide truth or convince people by your idiotic time waist replies :D

    • Salam `Aleykum,

      I know you’re angry Mr.Shia, please calm down your comment sounds so desperate, as if you’re in denial.

      Also if we could leave you with one benefit, correct your grammar, it’s not “time waist” it’s “waste”.

  2. Amazing question and answer ,,,,,, I have read , searched about this matter but this is amazing ,,,,May Allah Almighy bless you for refuting the black and so called argumnts of majoos

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.