Discussion on Fidak

The Garden of Fidak - one of the key issues for shia sect

some of most common questions regarding fidak by SHIAS and its answers :

Why was Fidak not Given ?

Hadith on the topic of Prophets and inheritance. Prophet Muhammad (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) said:

“We do not leave inheritance. What we leave behind is charity.”

(Sahih Muslim, Kitab al-Jihad was-Siyar, no. 49)

“We, the Prophets, do not leave heirs.”

(Musnad Ahmad, vol. 2 p. 462)

This is confirmed in Shia Hadith as well. Shia Hadith in Al-Kafi, the most reliable of the four Shia books of Hadith, on the same matter:

“The Prophets did not leave dinars and dirhams as inheritance, but they left knowledge.”

(al-Kafi, vol. 1 p. 42)

This Shia Hadith in Al-Kafi has two separate narrations, and is considered Sahih by the Shia.

“The narrators of this tradition are all reliable and trustworthy. The father of ‘Ali ibn Ibrahim [namely Ibrahim ibn Hashim] is not only reliable, [but in fact] he is one of the most reliable and trustworthy narrators.”

(source: Khomeini, al-Hukumat al-Islamiyyah, p. 133, published by Markaz Baqiyyat Allah al-A’zam, Beirut)

the Shia admit that the Quran dictates that if a person becomes poor, then he becomes eligible for Zakat.

This is a right of an individual based in the Quran.

And yet, the Hadith tells us that the Prophet’s family is not permitted to take Zakat; even if he becomes poor, a member of the Prophet’s family could not ask for Zakat.

This fact is accepted by the Shia. If the Prophet’s family could not recieve Zakat, then why are we surprised when they are also not allowed to recieve inheritance from the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم)?

Both rules come from the Hadith.

And here this hadis does not CONTRADICT Quran.

the knowledge of law is gained after getting all facts combined .

Question 2

Fidak was actually asked as KHUMS or some wud say it was a GIFT hence it wont go against the above hadis

Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) never sought Fadak as a gift: in every single narration about this incident, Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) spoke about her inheritance.

It was immediately after the Prophet’s death that Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) came to claim Fadak, and if it had been a gift during the lifetime of the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم), then it would have already been in her possession at the time of the Prophet’s death, and there would have been no reason to go to Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) for it

Timeline :

when did Khaibar Happen : 629 CE

this was when the garden of Fadak was acquired

what happend after that ?

629 again : first attack of Islam against an Arab-Christian outpost of the Byzantine

630 Conquest of Mecca

630 The Battle of Hunayn

631 Expedition to Tabuk

632 last days when order is given to Usama to head north and attack the Syrian province of the Byzantine Empire

632 - the final /Toughest hour came upon Asiquee rasool

so it was Approximately 3 years and it was for Inheritance.

why was Fadak abandoned till 3 years ???

the distribution was done after Khaiber , it was with prophet peace be upon him as per Distribution then and what was with prophet peace be upon him that was asked as INHERITANCE.

Question 3

why would bibi pak as daughter of nabi pak saaww and shazadi khatija as would ask for something she doesnt have the right and when not received she cesed to talk but coz fidaq was her right and it was khumas also right of her and aal e nabi pak saaww

She raziallhutalaanhu asked a question and received a reply that Prophets do not leave inheritance .

now if we follow the same line of Arguments like shias that After that Dialogue if she(leader ) did not argue then why are Followers arguing ?

and If she had kept quiet after knowing ISLAM the way she did , was it not the BEST APPROACH which was done by her ?- accepeted the judgement

The immed next Question would be SHE WAS ANGRY - hence the decison has to be Wrong

her actions say she was upset, it does not say the Judgement was WRONG . its HUMAN to get upset

remember When Angel of Death came to Musa Alihissalam to take his life , which is a TASK assigned to him, Musa alihissalam Slapped the Angel of death such that his EYES came off.

Now Its not in the capacity(Impossible) of Angels to do anything wrong, they do only what is Told by Allah

SO then if Angels cant do anything wrong , WHY DID Musa Alihissalam got Angry ??

and not Just ANGRY he Slapped such that his eyes came off ..

So because Musa Alihissalam got Angry can we say ANGEL did WRONG !!!! - which is ABSURD because as per defination of Angels they cannot do anything wrong

ANOTHER Question to SHIAS WHY did Maula Ali not get it.

When Ali (رضّى الله عنه) became Caliph, he did not revoke the decision of Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) on the propety of Fadak. What stopped Ali (رضّى الله عنه) from doing this? So why are the Shia against Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) when Ali (رضّى الله عنه) upheld the decision?

Case 1:

In fact, the scholar Sayyid Murtada (known as ‘Alam al-Huda) narrates in his book on Imamah entitled ash-Shafi, that when Ali (رضّى الله عنه) became the Caliph he was approached about returning Fadak. Ali’s reply (رضّى الله عنه) was:

“I am ashamed before Allah to overturn something that was prohibited by Abu Bakr and continued by Umar.”

(al-Murtada, ash-Shafi fil-Imamah, p. 231; and Ibn Abil Hadid, Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, vol. 4)

Shias answer , SHE LEFT IT for Allah to JUDGE ,

WHICH shia scolars dont agree to what you say and contradictory to the ABOVE shia reference itself.

if they say that this writer was not SHIA or belongs to some sect of shia which they dont belong to hence its not a valid Argument for them

this still has one VALID POINT : if she left it for ALLAH to JUDGE why is entire SHIA community becoming JUDGE on this issue ?

CASE 2:

Shia narrations also show that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) approached Umar (رضّى الله عنه) and asked him to return Fadak to Fatima’s heirs, including Hasan (رضّى الله عنه) and Hussain (رضّى الله عنه). Thus, according to the Shia, Fadak was still a monumental issue and the land should be returned to the progeny of Fatima (رضّى الله عنها).

AND EVEN TODAY u dont see them fail to Discuss FIDAQ at length,

SO now considering 2nd case : if that was still an issue and not AS SAID that it was left to ALLAH , why DID MAULA ALI NOT TAKE IT. ?

why did IMAM HASSAN not take it?

REGARDING GETTING UPSET:

there are instances in SHIA records it self that she was at times upset at Maula ali also, but we dont judge anything on that basis , cause its an HOUSE HOLD matter and we have no right to interfear. i dont want to write those things here and dont force me to.

we Consider ACTS of Khufae rashedeen as Shariaat so it was their and Maula Ali's and Imam Hassans ACT that proves that there was nothing wrong in that JUDGEMENT.

Question 4

It is not possible that she did not know that Prophets dont leave inheritance except knowledge

once when prophet asked what s Best for woman to the collection of Sahaba raziallhutalaajmaeen, maul ali went and asked Fatima tuzzuhra raziallhutalaanha she replied that no one sees her and she sees no stranger , this reply was told to prophet peace be upon him and he acknoledged that she understood it the best.

SO HERE MAULA ALI did ask inspite of being Bab-UL-ILM

It was as simple as , she went for what she considered to be her Inheritance right, when she was reminded she returned , and SHIAS made issue out of it.

for a Piece of land she wud be upset with him for all her Life , YE martaba samjee hai aap Ale Rasool ka ?

and considering shias Argument : before she asked her inheritance she was not UPSET WHICH also says she DID noT OBJECT HIS CALIPHATE which is now shia religion

Fadak or Caliphate ?

which is HIGH priority ??

Maula Alis bieng 1st Caliphate , as per SHIAS if that is not accepted nothing is of any value .

SO when the BIGGEST HAQ was already taken , she shud have not been speaking to him for THat reason , instead of a piece of LAND .Yet we see entire shia books(Historians ) recording She was upset due to FIDAK !!!

When Fatima asked for Fadak from Abu Bakr and he refused to give it to her, she returned full of anger that could not be described and she was sick; and she was angry with Maula Ali because he refused to help her.

(Al-Majlisi’s Haqq-ul-Yaqeen, pp.203-204; also recorded in Al-Tusi’s Amali, p.295)

Question 5 :Quran Does talk about Prophets peace be upon them inheriting Property

Sura - 27 The Ant (Al-Naml)

Naml 15 - 19

15. And We bestowed great knowledge to Daud and Sulaiman, and both said, 'all praise to Allah Who has excelled us over many of their believing bondmen'.

16. And Sulaiman became the successor of Daud and said, O people, 'We have been taught the language of birds, and we have been bestowed of everything. Undoubtedly, this indeed is a manifest grace.

17. And there were gathered for Sulaiman his armies amongst jinns and men and birds, then they were hold back.

18. Until when they came to the valley of the ants, and said, 'O ants, enter your houses; lest Sulaiman and his armies may crush you unknowingly.

19. There upon he smilingly laughed at her works, and said, 'O my Lord, grant me guidance that I may be grateful for Your favour which You have bestowed upon me and my parents and that I may do such good works as would please You and admit me out of Your Mercy among Your those bondmen who deserve Your proximity.

FAVOUR : in all SECTS means Rehmat of ALLAH which is on both mother and father

in no Sect it means PROPERTY , or indicates PROPHECY

Dawood Alihissalam is Father

Sulaiman alihissalm is SON

Here what is spoken about , Knowledge if u quote the previous Ayat which mentioned the context

and hence it was mentioned that he was a Successor of Dawood Alihissalam in knowledge,

otherwise if it was wealth Son anyway gets his father Property, what is an honour in getting fathers property.

It is the position of Knowledge which is BESTOWED - which means give, especially as an honor or reward;

In this verse, Allah is clearly talking about Sulaiman (عليه السلام) inheriting the knowledge of Dawud (عليه السلام). It has absolutely nothing to do with material possessions! Before and after the part about Prophet Sulaiman (عليه السلام) being Prophet Dawud’s heir (عليه السلام), we see that the Quran is talking about the special knowledge of the Prophets, especially the specific gift these Prophets were given in regards to understanding the speech of animals. The same can be said of the verses that the Shia propagandists use in regards to Prophet Zakariyyah (عليه السلام) who asked Allah in the Quran to grant him a son to become his successor.

It is obvious to all that these Quranic verses refer to the inheritance of the title of Prophethood, and has nothing to do with materal possessions. Allah uses the word “al-irth” in the Quran which does not refer to material possessions in the verses cited by the Shia. It is used to denote knowledge, Prophethood, or sovereignity. Examples of such usage are found in Surah Fatir in the Quran, in which Allah says:

“Therefore We gave the Book as inheritance (awrathna) to such of Our servants as We have chosen” (Quran, Surah Fatir)

As well as in Surah al-Mu’minoon, Allah says:

“Those are the Inheritors (al-warithun) who will inherit Paradise.” (Quran, Surah al-Mu’minoon)

Is Allah really talking about material possessions when he talks about these people? Truly this would be a ludicrous assumption.

What wealth did he have ???

it is well-known that Prophet Zakariyyah (عليه السلام) was a poor man who earned his living as a carpenter. What wealth could he possibly have had that would prompt him to request an heir from Allah? In fact, it was a general rule with the Prophets that they did not hoard anything beyond their need, and they spent any surplus in charity.

As for the case of Prophet Dawud (عليه السلام), it is well-known that he had 100 wives and 300 concubines. He had numerous children from these wives and concubines. If this verse is assumed to speak of the inheritance of material possessions, then why is Prophet Sulaiman (عليه السلام) mentioned as the sole inheritor? This proves that the Quran is not talking about material possessions but rather knowledge.

Ilm is to be inherited, it just dosent come by virtue of bieng a BLOOD relative, it has to be given or accuired , other wise there was no need of telling he gets that as inheritance which means from father he the Son will carry out misson further.

and this was given by Allah as stated We bestowed great knowledge

Sulaiman became the successor of Daud and said, O people, 'We have been taught the language of birds....

after becoming Successor he also says about that Succession ...O people, 'We have been taught the language of birds.....

no property or wealth is talked about

Now say a scholar , who knows hes relatives are NOT SAFE , and has no one to trust upon

WHAT will happen to the knowledge after HIM ????

will it not Go with him? is that nothing to get Afraid of ?

Now what will u fear to loose , QURAn and HADIS or FIDAK ?

and would a person who is Carpenter by profession and Prophet by STATUS what would be be afraid of Knowledge of Deen or Wealth ?

Otherwise, Prophet Dawud (عليه السلام) denied inheritance to his other children, and this would violate the Shia rhetoric which state that people cannot deny inheritance to the children of Prophets.

then this still does not answer why the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) has stated in Hadith that Prophets do not leave behind inheritance.

Again, this Hadith has been stated in Al-Kafi and is considered Sahih

In AL Kafi - sunnis dont tag hadis as SAHI , but its SHIAS who said its Sahi hadis

Zachariah prayed, "Lord, do not leave me alone without offspring, although you are the best heir" (21:89). this means he was referring to his PROPERTY as inheritance as per SHIAS

Now you see here Heir what it means ?:

http://www.answers.com/topic/heir?cat=biz-fin

1. A person who inherits or is entitled by law or by the terms of a will to inherit the estate of another.

2. A person who succeeds or is in line to succeed to a hereditary rank, title, or office.

3. One who receives or is expected to receive a heritage, as of ideas, from a predecessor.

now even Dictionary Does not say Hier always means inheriting estate

which is your KEY Defence here , that asking inheritance refers to Property.

So if as per Dictionary it does not only mean Property.

we see Hadis : it says Prophets leave knowlede as inheritance and NOT Wealth and property.

Now i dont understand why are you Turning a BIND eye towards Hadis, inspite of it

1. bieng Accepted by SHIAS,

2. and Shia school of thot infact goes futher and says any

women wont inherit any thing in property

Waris is different from Wirasat

to prove your point , u have to Prove that Wirasat of Ambiya includes Wealth.

some thing is inherited . Wiraasat does exist but of Knowledge

Wirasat as a WHOLE is not rejected , what is said if they only inherit Knowledge.

“Women do not inherit land.” In this chapter, he narrates a Hadith from Imam Muhammad al-Baqir:

“Women do not inherit anything of land or fixed property.”

(al-Kafi, vol. 7 p. 127, Kitab al-Mawarith, hadith no. 1)

This is narration is attributed to Imam Baqar , and is listed in Foundation books of Shiaism in 9th century , this was even before Najul balagha was compiled.

He asked Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq about what a woman inherits. The Imam replied:

“They will get the value of the bricks, the building, the wood and the bamboo. As for the land and the fixed property, they will get no inheritance from that.”

(Tahdhib al-Ahkam, vol. 9 p. 299; Bihar al-Anwar, vol. 104 p. 351)

Imam Muhammad al-Baqir said:

“A woman will not inherit anything of land and fixed property.”

(Tahdhib al-Ahkam, vol. 9 p. 298; al-Istibsar, vol. 4 p. 152)

Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq said:

“Women will have nothing of houses or land.”

(Tahdhib al-Ahkam, vol. 9 p. 299; Bihar al-Anwar, vol. 104 p. 351)