D&amp;D Theology&#x27;s &quot;Ask About Islam&quot; Thread Mk. IV

Original post by SaintSoldier

So you get rewarded for using traditional medicine (eg cupping) instead of modern medicine?

For an illness, you should use the right, remedy.

[INDENT]Usamah ibn Shuraik narrated: "I came to the Prophet, peace be upon him, and found him with his companions. They were calm and serene as if there were birds over their heads. I greeted them and sat down. Then some bedouins came from various places. They asked him: 'O Allah's Messenger! Should we seek medical treatment for our illnesses?' He replied: 'Yes, you should seek medical treatment, because Allah, the Exalted, has let no disease exist without providing for its cure, except for one ailment, namely, old age'." (Reported by Ahmad and the six sunnan. Tirmidhi considers it a sound hadith.)

Anas ibn Mas'ud reported that the Prophet, peace be upon him, said: "Verily, Allah has not let any malady occur without providing its remedy. Therefore seek medical treatment for your illnesses.'' ( Nasa'i, Ibn Majah, and al-Hakim.)

Jabir narrated that the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, said: "There is a cure for every disease. Whenever an illness is treated with its right remedy, it will, by Allah's permission, be cured." (Muslim)

[/INDENT]

Reply 882

sophia_

16

A friend of mine who has taken an interest in Islam has asked me about a verse. I have forgotten which Surah which has been annoying me, but I know the jist of what it was and what he wanted to know.

It was one about it being okay to renounce your religion to save your life if in your heart you still had faith within Islam. Or words to that effect within the translation.

He was confused by it as he thought that under any circumstances, even those which are life threatening, maintaining your belief in God was a must.

I did not know how to advise him about this verse at all or its actual true meaning.

Anybody able to help?

Reply 883

In2deep

14

Original post by sophia_

A friend of mine who has taken an interest in Islam has asked me about a verse. I have forgotten which Surah which has been annoying me, but I know the jist of what it was and what he wanted to know.

It was one about it being okay to renounce your religion to save your life if in your heart you still had faith within Islam. Or words to that effect within the translation.

He was confused by it as he thought that under any circumstances, even those which are life threatening, maintaining your belief in God was a must.

I did not know how to advise him about this verse at all or its actual true meaning.

Anybody able to help?

" Any one who, after accepting faith in Allah, utters Unbelief,- except under compulsion, his heart remaining firm in Faith - but such as open their breast to Unbelief, on them is Wrath from Allah, and theirs will be a dreadful Penalty." [16:106 Surah An-Nahl]

The penalty for the one who willingly disbelieves is well known and the sin is mentioned many times in the Quraan. But, alhamdullilah, not everyone who utters disbelief is treated the same, there is an exception. When ones life is at risk or is being tortured then he has the option to claim he is no longer a Muslim, those who are holding him would not know what the heart holds and hence it would ease the suffering. Of course, if one wishes to remain steadfast then that is also allowed and more rewarding, just like Bilal (ra) did when he was being tortured and surely those who die in this state have died as a shaheed [martyr].

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 884

sophia_

16

Original post by In2deep

" Any one who, after accepting faith in Allah, utters Unbelief,- except under compulsion, his heart remaining firm in Faith - but such as open their breast to Unbelief, on them is Wrath from Allah, and theirs will be a dreadful Penalty." [16:106 Surah An-Nahl]

The penalty for the one who willingly disbelieves is well known and the sin is mentioned many times in the Quraan. But, alhamdullilah, not everyone who utters disbelief is treated the same, there is an exception. When ones life is at risk or is being tortured then he has the option to claim he is no longer a Muslim, those who are holding him would not know what the heart holds and hence it would ease the suffering. Of course, if one wishes to remain steadfast then that is also allowed and more rewarding, just like Bilal (ra) did when he was being tortured and surely those who die in this state have died as a shaheed [martyr].

This is what I sort of thought but did not want to say without some sort of confirmation. Thank you very much, for the actual verse as well.

Reply 885

Original post by sophia_

A friend of mine who has taken an interest in Islam has asked me about a verse. I have forgotten which Surah which has been annoying me, but I know the jist of what it was and what he wanted to know.

It was one about it being okay to renounce your religion to save your life if in your heart you still had faith within Islam. Or words to that effect within the translation.

He was confused by it as he thought that under any circumstances, even those which are life threatening, maintaining your belief in God was a must.

I did not know how to advise him about this verse at all or its actual true meaning.

Anybody able to help?

The verse you are talking about is;

[INDENT]

[/INDENT]

[INDENT]

Whoever disbelieves in Allah after his belief... except for one who is forced [to renounce his religion] while his heart is secure in faith. But those who [willingly] open their breasts to disbelief, upon them is wrath from Allah , and for them is a great punishment; [Quran 16:106]
[/INDENT]

It is basically saying that if you are being tortured to death, and in order to stop your torturers you "denounced Islam", then it would be permissible to do so. And there is no sin upon you, as your belief in Islam in your heart is sufficient to Allah(swt). (though keep in mind it would not be obligatory, and it is stated it would be preferable if the person remained steadfast on his belief (publically), however if they did not do so, then there's no blame on them whatsoever).

And the reason Allah(swt) makes this permissible is because Islam is a burdon-free, easy religion, that does not wish to make things hard upon the believers. It can understand real life situations where one must do things that are not in accordance to Islam, due to force. As long as the person is a Muslim in the heart, he/she is free from sin.

Ibn Kathir(ra) explains this verse well -

﴿إِلاَّ مَنْ أُكْرِهَ وَقَلْبُهُ مُطْمَئِنٌّ بِالإِيمَـنِ﴾

[INDENT](except one who was forced while his heart is at peace with the faith) This is an exception in the case of one who utters statements of disbelief and verbally agrees with the Mushrikin because he is forced to do so by the beatings and abuse to which he is subjected, but his heart refuses to accept what he is saying, and he is, in reality, at peace with his faith in Allah and His Messenger . The scholars agreed that if a person is forced into disbelief, it is permissible for him to either go along with them in the interests of self-preservation, or to refuse, as Bilal did when they were inflicting all sorts of torture on him, even placing a huge rock on his chest in the intense heat and telling him to admit others as partners with Allah. He refused, saying, "Alone, Alone.'' And he said, "By Allah, if I knew any word more annoying to you than this, I would say it.'' May Allah be pleased with him. Similarly, when the Liar Musaylimah asked Habib bin Zayd Al-Ansari, "Do you bear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah'' He said, "Yes.'' Then Musaylimah asked, "Do you bear witness that I am the messenger of Allah'' Habib said, "I do not hear you.'' Musaylimah kept cutting him, piece by piece, but he remained steadfast insisting on his words. It is better and preferable for the Muslim to remain steadfast in his religion, even if that leads to him being killed, as was mentioned by Al-Hafiz Ibn `Asakir in his biography of `Abdullah bin Hudhafah Al-Sahmi, one of the Companions. He said that he was taken prisoner by the Romans, who brought him to their king. The king said, "Become a Christian, and I will give you a share of my kingdom and my daughter in marriage.'' `Abdullah said: "If you were to give me all that you possess and all that Arabs possess to make me give up the religion of Muhammad even for an instant, I would not do it.'' The king said, "Then I will kill you.'' `Abdullah said, "It is up to you.'' The king gave orders that he should be crucified, and commanded his archers to shoot near his hands and feet while ordering him to become a Christian, but he still refused. Then the king gave orders that he should be brought down, and that a big vessel made of copper be brought and heated up. Then, while `Abdullah was watching, one of the Muslim prisoners was brought out and thrown into it, until all that was left of him was scorched bones. The king ordered him to become a Christian, but he still refused. Then he ordered that `Abdullah be thrown into the vessel, and he was brought back to the pulley to be thrown in. `Abdullah wept, and the king hoped that he would respond to him, so he called him, but `Abdullah said, "I only weep because I have only one soul with which to be thrown into this vessel at this moment for the sake of Allah; I wish that I had as many souls as there are hairs on my body with which I could undergo this torture for the sake of Allah.'' According to some reports, the king imprisoned him and deprived him of food and drink for several days, then he sent him wine and pork, and he did not come near them. Then the king called him and asked him, "What stopped you from eating'' `Abdullah said, "It is permissible for me ﴿under these circumstances﴾, but I did not want to give you the opportunity to gloat.'' The king said to him, "Kiss my head and I will let you go.'' `Abdullah said, "And will you release all the Muslim prisoners with me'' The king said, "Yes.'' So `Abdullah kissed his head and he released him and all the other Muslim prisoners he was holding. When he came back, `Umar bin Al-Khattab said, "Every Muslim should kiss the head of `Abdullah bin Hudhafah, and I will be the first to do so.'' And he stood up and kissed his head. May Allah be pleased with them both.
[/INDENT]

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 886

I was wondering who led the funeral prayer of the prophet (saw) some say it was many while some say it was Ali(ra)?

Reply 887

Original post by amerzeb

I was wondering who led the funeral prayer of the prophet (saw) some say it was many while some say it was Ali(ra)?

It was done individually, in a unique way. There was no Caliph at the time and the Prophet(pbuh) was in the room from whence he passed away to the Hereafter and the room was not large enough for all Muslims to fit in together. Though scholars have given diverse opinions on what the reason could be.

The Funeral Prayer of the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace)

Following Abu Bakr’s (may Allah be pleased with him) directions, the people did exactly as he outlined. Ibn Abbas narrates:

“… and when they were finished with preparing him on Wednesday (Allah bless him and grant him peace) [for burial], they placed him on his bed, in his house, and the people entered upon the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) in small groups until they had finished; then they let in the women until they finished; then they let in the children, and no one led the people as an imam over the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace)…” [Ibn Majah, Sunan]

Ibn ‘Abbas also narrates:

“When the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) passed away, the men were admitted [into the house of 'Aisha] and they prayed upon him without anyone leading the prayer, individually, then they left, then they admitted the women, and they prayed upon him, then they admitted the children, and they prayed upon him, then they admitted the slaves, and they prayed upon him, individually; no one led them in prayers over the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace).” [al-Bayhaqi, Dalai'il al-Nubuwwah]

Abu ‘Aseeb the Companion (may Allah be pleased with him) said, “I witnessed the funeral prayer on the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace). The people asked, ‘How should we pray on him?’ He (one Companion) said, ‘Enter, all of you, in small groups at a time.’… so they would enter from *this* door and pray, then leave through the other door…” [Ahmad, Musnad]

These hadith, alongside many other transmitted narrations, from Malik, Ahmad, al-Baihaqi, Ibn Abi Shayba and others, and many other accounts in the books of Islamic history, such as Ibn Sa’d, Ibn Hisham, and others, all concur that the funeral prayer of the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) did take place in this unique way.

Even in the books of fiqh, it is reported that “this is a matter upon which there is consensus and no difference of opinion exists.” (Hashiya al-Tahtawi) There were however, differences of opinion and various interpretations over the reasons, details and meanings behind the unique method of the funeral prayer.

Why Was the Funeral Prayer Performed Individually?

Perhaps the most unique aspect of funeral of the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) was that although there was a washing, prayer and burial as the sacred law normally instructs, approximately 30,000 people prayed the funeral prayer individually, with no one acting as the Imam [according to al-Bayjuri's estimate].

Various scholars, in the absence of any clear, well-authenticated statements from source-texts to settle the matter, proposed diverse reasons (and refuted others) as to why it was prayed this way:

(1) One proposed reason is that since there was no imam to lead the Muslim community initially, the Companions decided to start praying individually without an imam. Ibn ‘Abidin, in the margins of his Hashiya, references the author of al-Mabsut as saying that this is because Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with him) was busy with straightening the affairs of the Muslims and quelling potential discord, so he was not able to attend as the Caliph and lead, but when he did finally, he was the last to pray and no one after that prayed the funeral prayer. Ibn ‘Abidin mentions there is disagreement as to when exactly he prayed, in relation to ‘Abbas, who was the next-of-kin.

In isolation, this reasoning paints the funeral prayer method as almost entirely politically-based, while also highlighting the importance of leadership and unity in the Muslim community. Many scholars discounted and refuted this as the sole reason however, because the pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr was given while the ghusl was taking place, so if a was leader was needed, they had one.

(2) Given that the city of Madinah and its environs was home to thousands of Muslims, it would’ve been nearly impossible to gather them all inside or around the house of the Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her), in which at most perhaps 10 people at a time could stand. Also, it would take time for those in outlying areas who naturally wanted to attend the funeral prayer to reach the city. Had one large prayer been performed by the Caliph initially, those who missed out would not have a chance to make a second congregation as the group funeral prayer is prayed only once, with the ruler of the Muslims most deserving to lead it.

(3) In a similar vein, al-Ramli mentions the speculation that (in the absence of the ruler) if the nearest-of-kin (the wali) to the deceased has the right to lead the funeral prayer in normal circumstances, it would have been the Prophet’s (Allah bless him and grant him peace) paternal uncle, al-`Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) who would have had this right. However, it is possible that al-`Abbas did not claim that right fearing that it would mislead the people into believing that he was the new Caliph, which could potentially cause discord and confusion. [al-Ramli, Nihayah al-Muhtaj 'ala al-Minhaj]

(4) One of the stronger proposed reasons explaining the funeral prayer method was that it was part of an explicit decree in the Prophet’s (Allah bless him and grant him peace) final instructions to the community.

Ibn Kathir, in al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah, quotes from al-Bayhaqi and al-Bazzaar, that Ibn Mas’ud (may Allah be pleased with him) said, “Part of the last will and testament of the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) was that he be washed by the men of his family, and that he said, ‘Shroud me in these pieces of cloth, or the Yemeni ones, or the white Egyptian ones,’ and that when they had shrouded him, they should place him on the edge of his grave and then leave him [in 'Aisha's house] till the angels prayed on him, then the men of his family would pray on him, and then the people, individually.”

Ibn Kathir indicated the need for investigation on the degree of authenticity of this narration, but despite this, he considered it in his discussion on the reasoning behind the funeal prayer. He mentions that, “had the report that we have narrated from Ibn Mas’ud been rigorously authenticated, it would have been an explicit, conclusive text on the question, and [the unique method of the funeral prayer] would have been a divinely-ordained form of worship, the true meaning of which the intellect would be unable to encompass [as with all revealed forms of worship].”

Ibn Kathir continues, refuting the opinion that it had to do with leadership:

“And no one can say that [the reasoning behind praying individually] was due to the absence of a leader (imam), because they only began to prepare his body (Allah bless him and grant him peace) after the completion of the oath of fealty to Abu Bakr [as the Caliph] and after his approval (to begin praying the Janazah)…

And some scholars have said that there was no imam leading them only so each person could have a direct prayer upon him (Allah bless him and grant him peace), and so the prayers of the Muslims upon him would repeat time after time, from one person to the next, from each of the Companions - each man, woman and child amongst them – and even each of their bondsmen and bondswomen…

As for al-Suhayli, the gist of what he said was that Allah has definitely informed us that He and His angels send blessings upon him (Allah bless him and grant him peace) [al-Qur'an, 33:56], and He has commanded each Believer to send blessings upon him directly from themselves, and the prayer upon him after his death is seen from this angle… Also, that the angels are [like] imams for us in this. And Allah knows best.” [Ibn Kathir, al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah]

This reasoning supports the view that the most blessings (barakah) for the one praying was when it was without any intermediary leading in between – rather there was an opportunity for each Companion to intimately experience, and be in control of, their last direct interaction with the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) – one can only imagine the emotions they must have felt at the time.

It also allowed lesser-prominent companions, including women, children and slaves who may not have always gotten a chance to be up front and close, to have this special opportunity, emphasizing the importance of each Muslim in his eyes, Allah bless him and grant him peace.

(5) The final, undisputed and greatest reason for the unique funeral prayer is that due to the supreme rank of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) amongst all creation, it was not befitting for anyone of his community to intend to be a leader (imam) over him in his passing. This was the highest form of respect and deference.

Ibn Sa’d reports: ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) said, “Let no one stand over him (Allah bless him and grant him peace) as an imam. He is your leader in life and in death.” So the people would enter in small groups, and pray upon him (Allah bless him and grant him peace) row on row, and there was no leader (imam) for them, while ‘Ali was standing beside the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) saying, “Peace be upon you, Oh Prophet…[and saying a long dua' for him]” while the people were saying, “Amin! Amin!”…[Ibn Sa'd, al-Tabaqat]. Similar supplications and blessings are recorded from Abu Bakr and Omar, together with a group saying “Amin”.

Imam al Shafi’i (may Allah have mercy on him) said regarding the funeral prayer without an imam: “… and that was because of the greatness of the station of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) – may my father and mother be sacrificed for him!- and for the [companions] striving amidst each other [to ensure] that no person be given the position of imam of the prayer upon him.” [al-Shafi'i, Kitab al-Umm]

Imam al-Ramli says al-Shafi’i’s statement about the “striving” not to have an Imam can be explained by the opinion that since the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) did not specify an imam in his lifetime, the Companions were keen to ensure that there would not be one appointed. [al-Ramli, Nihayah al-Muhtaj 'ala al-Minhaj]

‘Ali’s statement (may Allah ennoble his countenance) brings up an interesting point: during the Prophet’s lifetime (Allah bless him and grant him peace), the Companions were afraid and averse to stand in his place and lead him as the imam, so how could one of them decide to assume this role for the final prayer over him? It can be said that none from his Ummah ever began a prayer as an imam with the intention to lead him.

This is why, once or twice during the final sickness, when Abu Bakr was ordered to lead the community in prayers, and the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) found enough strength to join him after it had begun, Abu Bakr stepped back when he realized this, in deference to him. After the prayer, he said, “It is not for the son of Abu Quhafa to lead prayer in front of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace).” [Bukhari, Muslim]

If this was the case with the loftiest man of this comunity after the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace), the Companion of the Cave (may Allah be pleased with him), then a fortiori no one else could be worthy of volunteering themselves as the Imam of the prayer over the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace).

Read more here - http://seekersguidance.org/ans-blog/2010/02/14/the-bathing-funeral-prayer-and-burial-of-the-prophet-allah-bless-him-and-grant-him-peace/

Reply 888

Original post by Perseveranze

It was done individually, in a unique way. There was no Caliph at the time and the Prophet(pbuh) was in the room from whence he passed away to the Hereafter and the room was not large enough for all Muslims to fit in together. Though scholars have given diverse opinions on what the reason could be.

How about the broken rib of fatimah(ra), is this story true or not? And the incident of Fadak?

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 889

Brutal Honesty

What do you think of Salafis and why are they associated with stuff like suicide bombing and promoting terrorism - especially against other Muslims?

Reply 890

harmony_01

Original post by Brutal Honesty

What do you think of Salafis and why are they associated with stuff like suicide bombing and promoting terrorism - especially against other Muslims?

Are they! (My question mark button on my keyboard is broke, so I'm using an exclamation mark instead. :redface:

) This isn't the best source, but as far as I understand from wikipedia, they are not, actually it's a group named Takfiri- supposedly "a violent offshoot of the Salafi movement, yet while Salafism is seen as a form of 'fundamentalist Islam', it is not an inherently violent movement and does not condone terrorism." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takfiri#Takfiris_and_Terrorism

Reply 891

Original post by amerzeb

How about the broken rib of fatimah(ra), is this story true or not? And the incident of Fadak?

This is a Shia myth and completly untrue (how could Umar(ra) hurt the daughter of the Prophet(pbuh), think about it)... It's refuted here - http://islamic-forum.net/index.php?showtopic=15006

Original post by Brutal Honesty

What do you think of Salafis and why are they associated with stuff like suicide bombing and promoting terrorism - especially against other Muslims?

There's nothing wrong with Salafi's, they do not support or are associated with terrorism/suicide bombings.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 892

[QUOTE="Perseveranze;37159549"]This is a Shia myth and completly untrue (how could Umar(ra) hurt the daughter of the Prophet(pbuh), think about it)... It's refuted here - http://islamic-forum.net/index.php?showtopic=15006[/url

what about the fadak, was it a gift from the prophet (pbuh) to his daughter fatimah (ra) or was it a form of inheritence?

Reply 893

Original post by amerzeb

what about the fadak, was it a gift from the prophet (pbuh) to his daughter fatimah (ra) or was it a form of inheritence?

It was neither and it was not given to fatimah(ra). It can't be inheritance because Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) did not leave anyone inheritance -

[INDENT]
Volume 8, Book 80, Number 722:

Narrated 'Urwa:

'Aisha said, "When Allah's Apostle died, his wives intended to send 'Uthman to Abu Bakr asking him for their share of the inheritance." Then 'Aisha said to them, "Didn't Allah's Apostle say, 'Our (Apostles') property is not to be inherited, and whatever we leave is to be spent in charity?'" [/INDENT]

It also can't be a gift because Fatima(ra) never once mentioned "gift" rather she only talked about inheritance. This is even in the fabricated Shia sources. Abu Bakr(ra) could not show favouritism and break the rules of the Shariah, even for family members of the Prophet(pbuh), this is explained further -

[INDENT]Admittedly, Fatima was the Prophet’s daughter, and Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) felt horrible that he had earned her displeasure by the ruling on Fadak. Some would think that perhaps Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) should have shown lenience on the matter. However, this would have set a horrible precedent if the first Caliph of the Ummah willfully violated the Shariah of the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم), who clearly said that Prophets do not leave behind inheritance. To adjust the rules for close family or friends would have shown nepotism. Indeed, it does not matter how high the status of an individual is in a just state: he/she will have to adhere to the law of the land, and exceptions cannot be granted based upon rank. Otherwise, an injust state would be created in which the high class get away with things, and meanwhile the lower class faces stricter implementation of law. Thus, it can be seen that Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) must have been under immense stress from the general public who would have been angered if the Shariah was abandoned for those of a high rank such as Fatima (رضّى الله عنها). Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) was held accountable to many poor people who would recieve aid from the charity money obtained from Fadak.[/INDENT]

Abu Bakr(ra) donated fadak to charity. Someone can correct me if I've missed anything out.

Here's refutations;

Part 1 - http://www.schiiten.com/backup/AhlelBayt.com/www.ahlelbayt.com/articles/sahabah/fadak6.html
Part 2 - http://www.schiiten.com/backup/AhlelBayt.com/www.ahlelbayt.com/articles/sahabah/fadak7.html

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 894

Original post by Perseveranze

It was neither and it was not given to fatimah(ra). It can't be inheritance because Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) did not leave anyone inheritance -

[INDENT]
Volume 8, Book 80, Number 722:

Narrated 'Urwa:

'Aisha said, "When Allah's Apostle died, his wives intended to send 'Uthman to Abu Bakr asking him for their share of the inheritance." Then 'Aisha said to them, "Didn't Allah's Apostle say, 'Our (Apostles') property is not to be inherited, and whatever we leave is to be spent in charity?'" [/INDENT]

It also can't be a gift because Fatima(ra) never once mentioned "gift" rather she only talked about inheritance. This is even in the fabricated Shia sources. Abu Bakr(ra) could not show favouritism and break the rules of the Shariah, even for family members of the Prophet(pbuh), this is explained further -

[INDENT]Admittedly, Fatima was the Prophet’s daughter, and Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) felt horrible that he had earned her displeasure by the ruling on Fadak. Some would think that perhaps Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) should have shown lenience on the matter. However, this would have set a horrible precedent if the first Caliph of the Ummah willfully violated the Shariah of the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم), who clearly said that Prophets do not leave behind inheritance. To adjust the rules for close family or friends would have shown nepotism. Indeed, it does not matter how high the status of an individual is in a just state: he/she will have to adhere to the law of the land, and exceptions cannot be granted based upon rank. Otherwise, an injust state would be created in which the high class get away with things, and meanwhile the lower class faces stricter implementation of law. Thus, it can be seen that Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) must have been under immense stress from the general public who would have been angered if the Shariah was abandoned for those of a high rank such as Fatima (رضّى الله عنها). Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) was held accountable to many poor people who would recieve aid from the charity money obtained from Fadak.[/INDENT]

Abu Bakr(ra) donated fadak to charity. Someone can correct me if I've missed anything out.

Here's refutations;

Part 1 - http://www.schiiten.com/backup/AhlelBayt.com/www.ahlelbayt.com/articles/sahabah/fadak6.html
Part 2 - http://www.schiiten.com/backup/AhlelBayt.com/www.ahlelbayt.com/articles/sahabah/fadak7.html

then the shia give the example about the previous prophets who gave inheritence to their children for example dawood (pbuh) gave his kingdom to sulaiman (pbuh) shouldnt this be taken into consideration?

Reply 895

shady_123

Original post by amerzeb

then the shia give the example about the previous prophets who gave inheritence to their children for example dawood (pbuh) gave his kingdom to sulaiman (pbuh) shouldnt this be taken into consideration?

He didn't inherit from him, he became ruler over the land after him. Becoming ruler after a king is different to inheriting

Reply 896

shady_123

Original post by Perseveranze

Abu Bakr(ra) donated fadak to charity. Someone can correct me if I've missed anything out.

Here's refutations;

The Shia have always been stumped with the Gift/Inheritence issue of Fadak.

If they say it was a gift, we ask them when was it gifted? Why didn't she have it in her possession before the prophet (saws) died? Why did she make no mention of it being a "gift" when she apporached Abu Bakr (ra)? The prophet warned against gifting one of your kids something and not giving something of equal value to the other kids, why didn't the prophet (saws) gift something of the same value to his other daughters?

If they say it's an issue of inheritance, we simply show them the many hadith which are numerous in sunni and shia sources about prophet not leaving behind any inhertence. We can also throw in some Shia fiqh and let them know that according to them - WOMEN CAN'T INHERIT REAL ESTATE.

Also, Sunni and Shia sources both agree that Abu Bakr turned fadak into a farm for crops and gave the profits to the prophets daughter/wives

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 897

Original post by shady_123

He didn't inherit from him, he became ruler over the land after him. Becoming ruler after a king is different to inheriting

Cool.

Reply 898

Original post by amerzeb

then the shia give the example about the previous prophets who gave inheritence to their children for example dawood (pbuh) gave his kingdom to sulaiman (pbuh) shouldnt this be taken into consideration?

Read this -

[INDENT]Let us now discuss the verse:

“And Sulaimaan inherited from Dawud.”

The Hadith pertaining to inheritance in relation to the Ambiyaa has already been discussed. The Hadith explicitly and emphatically negates inheritance for the Ambiyaa. Authoritative Shiah accounts accept this fact as has already been shown. Clearly, therefore, this Aayat pertains to something else. It does not have a literal meaning. It refers to the inheritance of Ilm and Nubuwwat as the Hadith states, not to the inheritance of tangible wealth and property.

The Shi`i authority, Kulaini narrates that Abu Abdullah narrated:

“Verily, Sulaimaan inherited from Daawud, and Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) inherited from Sulaimaan.”

This Shi`i exposition of the relevant Aayat makes it abundantly clear that the meaning is inheritance of Nubuwwat, which Sulaimaan (alayhi salaam) inherited from Daawud (alayhi salaam).

Hadhrat Daawud (alayhis salaam) had 19 sons. However, the Qur`aan describes only Hadhrat Sulaimaan (alayhis salaam) as the heir of Daawud (alayhis salaam). If the Aayat literally referred to inheritance of gold, silver and tangible assets, it would not have been restricted to Sulaimaan (alayhis salaam) since all sons inherit equally. Thus, intelligence confirms that the Aayat does not refer to inheritance of tangible assets. The inheritance of Nubuwwat was restricted to Sulaimaan (alayhis salaam).

Furthermore, it is common knowledge that every son inherits in his father’s estate. If the meaning of the Aayat was tangible assets, the statement would have been superfluous because the son being an heir is a known fact. But, it is unimaginable that the Qur`aan-the Word of Allah - contains superfluous statements. This further confirms that inheritance in the context of the Aayat does not refer to tangible assets or an estate of gold, silver, etc.

The Aayat pertaining to Sulaimaan (alayhis salaam) lauds the inheritance he had gained. If this inheritance referred to gold and silver, what is its peculiarity and speciality? Why would the Qur`aan laud an inheritance in which every person on earth participates-which is common to all men and women? This further reinforces the claim that the inheritance in the context of the Aayat is the inheritance of Nubuwwat.

Elsewhere, the Qur`aan Majeed states:

“Then We made those whom We chose from Our servants to inherit the Kitaab...”

This Aayat explicitly indicates the meaning of inheritance in relation to the chosen servants of Allah Ta`ala. Thus, “inheritance” used in the Qur`aan does not always mean the inheritance of tangible wealth.

Regarding the verse:

“ He will inherit from me and inherit from the children of Ya`qub”,

the meaning is self-evident. Hadhrat Zakariyya (alayhis salaam) was supplicating for a son who would be the Nabi after him.

If the meaning was inheritance of tangible wealth, it will follow that the tangible assets of the “Aal of Ya`qub” were still intact and un-distributed. But, this is absurd since there was a span of 2,000 years between Ya`qub (alayhis salaam) and Zakariyya (alayhis salaam). From this lop-sided logic of the Shiahs the conclusion is that Yahyaa (alayhis salaam) - Hadhrat Zakariyya’s (alayhis salaam) son - was the heir to the tangible wealth and assets of the entire Bani Israeel. The stupidity of this argument fallaciously raised on the basis of the Qur`aanic Aayat is extreme.

Every person of even slight intelligence will readily understand that Nabi Zakariyya (alayhis salaam) in his old-age had supplicated for a son to succeed him as the next Nabi. He did not ask for a son for the purpose of passing on the inheritance of physical wealth - gold and silver. Such supplication is not in conformity with the lofty office of Nubuwwat.

Should someone aver that the Wives (Azwaaj-e-Muttahharaat) inherited from Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) the rooms which were their respective homes, We shall respond that this argument is baseless. The rooms/homes were not acquired by the Azwaaj-e-Muttahharaat by way of inheritance. They were the owners of their respective homes during the lifetime of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

Some Shiahs argue that if the law of inheritance did not apply to Rasulullah’s (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) estate, then why were the sword, etc. of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) given to Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu)? Indeed, the reasoning of Shiahs is surprising. Far from proving inheritance, the contrary is confirmed. If the law of inheritance was applicable, then in terms of the Shariah, Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) would not be Rasulullah’s (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) heir. His heirs would have been Hadhrat Faatimah, the Azwaaj-e-Muttahharaat and the paternal uncle, Hadhrat Abbaas (radhiallahu anhum).

The assets of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) after his demise were in the category of Waqf. The Khalifah was entitled to distribute such assets according to his discretion. In the opinion of the first Khalifah, these items would serve a better purpose in the possession of Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu), hence ownership of the sword, etc. was given to him.

Similarly, some of Rasulullah’s (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) assets were given to Zubair Bin Awwaam (radhiallahu anhu), the paternal cousin of Rasulullah (salaam alayhi wasallam). Even Muhammad Bin Muslimah Ansaari (radhiallahu anhu) received some of the assets. This further proves that the distribution of Rasulullah’s (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) assets was not by way of inheritance. None of the recipients were heirs in terms of the Shariah’s law of inheritance.

Source
[/INDENT]

Reply 899