Al Nass Wal Ijtihad

4. the Army of Ussama Bin Zayd ==============================

The Prophet (s) had cared much for this army. He ordered his companions to get ready and incited them too much to join this army. He himself mobilized them in order to sharpen their determinations and to awaken their ardors. He let no one of the Muhajireen and Ansar, like Abu Bakr, Umar,[^1] Abu Ubayda, Sa’d and their likes, unless he mobilized him for the army.[^2] This was in Safar, the eleventh year of hijra. The next day the Prophet (s) sent for Ussama and said to him: “Go (with the army) to the place where your father has been killed. Let your horses tread on them (the Romans and the people of Sham). I have appointed you as the emir of this army. Attack the people of Ubna[^3] in the morning. Set fire to them. Hasten to precede the news. If Allah makes you defeat them, do not stay long there. Take some guides with you and send spies and pioneers before you”.

On the twenty-eighth of Safar, the Prophet (s) began to feel ill. He got fever and headache. In the morning of the twenty-ninth he found that his companions (the army) were sluggish. He went to them and

[^1] The historians agreed upon that Abu Bakr and Umar were in this army and they proved that as an irrefutable fact. Refer to at-Tabaqat by ibn Sa’d, At-Tabari’s Tareekh, Ibnul Atheer’s Tareekh, as-Seera ad-Dahlaniyya and others. Al-Halabi mentioned in his Seera, vol.3: “When al-Mahdi (the Abbasid caliph) came to Basra, he met Iyas bin Mo’awiya, who was very clever and intelligent. He was a young boy and behind him there were four hundred of ulama and notable men. Al-Mahdi said: “Woe to these beards! Is not there among them a notable man to be at the head other than this boy?” Then al-Mahdi turned toward the boy and said to him: “How old are you, boy?” The boy said: “O Ameerul Mo'mineen, may Allah make you live long! My old is as the old of Ussama bin Zayd bin Haritha when the Prophet (s) has appointed him as the leader of an army, in which Abu Bakr and Umar were.” Al-Mahdi said: “Come on! May Allah bless you”. Al-Halabi mentioned that Ussama was seventeen years old then.

[^2] Umar often said to Ussama: “The Prophet (s) died and you were the emir over me”. Some historians mentioned this like al-Halabi in his Seera when talking about the army of Ussama.

[^3] It is a village in Syria between Asqalan and ar-Ramla near Mu’ta, where Ja’far bin Abu Talib, Zayd bin Haritha and Abdullah bin Rawaha have been martyred.

(109)

urged them to move. He himself gave the banner to Ussama with his honored hand in order to motivate their zeal and to awaken their determination. Then he said: “Move in the name of Allah and for the sake of Allah! Fight those who have disbelieved in Allah!” Ussama moved with the army. He gave the banner to Burayda. They camped in al-Jurf and they became sluggish there. They did not leave there in spite of the clear orders they had heard from the Prophet (s) ordering them to hasten like his saying “Attack the people of Ubna in the morning…” and “Hasten to precede the news…” and many other orders that they did not obey.

Some of them rejected the leadership of Ussama as they had rejected the leadership of his father before. They criticized him too much and argued too much although they saw that the Prophet (s) himself had appointed him as the leader and had given him the banner of the emirate while he was ill. All that did not prevent them from rejected the leadership of Ussama until the Prophet (s) became very angry.

He went out wrapped with his plush and his head was bandaged suffering from fever and headache.[^1] It was Saturday, the tenth of Rabee’ul Awwal, two days before his death (according to the date mentioned by the Sunni). He ascended the minbar, praised Allah and said (as mentioned by the Sunni and the Shia and by all the Historians): “O people, what is this saying, which I have been informed of, said by some of you criticizing my appointing Ussama as the emir of the army? As you criticize my appointing Ussama as the emir, you have criticized my appointing his father as the emir before. By Allah, he (Ussama’s father) was well-qualified for the emirate and his son after him is well-qualified for it too”.

He urged the people to progress as quickly as they could. They began to farewell him and they went to the camping in al-Jurf. His case (illness) became worse. He kept on saying: “Prepare the army of Ussama…let the army of Ussama move…send the army of Ussama…” He repeated that while they were still inactive. On Sunday, the twelfth of Rabee’ul Awwal Ussama came from his camp to the Prophet (s). The Prophet (s) ordered him by saying: “Move in the morning with the blessing of Allah”. Ussama farewelled the Prophet

[^1] Refer to Ibn Sa’d’s Tabaqat, al-Halabi’s Seera, ad-Dahlani’s Seera and all the books that talked about the army of Ussama.

(110)

(s) and left to his camp and then he returned with Umar and Abu Ubayda. They came to the Prophet (s) while he was about to die. He died on that same day. The army came back to Medina. They determined to cancel sending the army this time. They talked with Abu Bakr about that and insisted on him too much in spite of that they had seen the Prophet (s) caring much for this army and insisting on sending it. They decided to cancel sending the army but the Caliph Abu Bakr was determined and he insisted on sending the army. Then Umar came to Abu Bakr requesting him to depose Ussama and to appoint another one instead of him.

It was not a long time after the anger of the Prophet (s) when they rejected his appointing Ussama as the emir and his going out of his house angrily while he was too ill and his legs were about to fail him and it was not a long time after he had confirmed his orders by swearing, when they decided to turn over everything but the caliph Abu Bakr refused to respond to them to depose Ussama and he refused to cancel sending the army. He got up, caught the beard of Umar[^1] and said: “Your mother may lose you O you ibn al-Khattab! The Prophet (s) has appointed him and you want me to depose him!”

When they sent the army-and they were about not to do-Ussama moved with three thousand warriors, among whom there were one thousand knights.[^2] Some people, whom the Prophet (s) had ordered to join the army, did not join the army. The Prophet (s) had said: “Prepare the army of Ussama! Allah may curse whoever does not join this army!”[^3]

They lagged behind the army at the first and refused to join it finally in order to firm the bases of their policy and to establish its pillars preferring their benefits to obeying the clear orders of the Prophet (s). They thought that their doing would be better to be carried out and worthier to be cared for because the army would not stop if they

[^1] Al-Halabi in his Seera, ad-Dahlani in his Seera, ibn Jareer at-Tabari in his Tareekh, the events of the eleventh year of hijra and other historians. [^2] He attacked the people of Ubna, burnt their houses, cut their palm-trees, made the horses tread on their properties, killed many of them and captured the rest. On that day he killed his father’s killer. No one of the Muslims was killed on that day. [^3] Ash-Shahristani in his book al-Milal wen-Nihal, the fourth introduction. (111)

lagged behind or if they did not join it whereas the caliphate would be turned away from them to others if they went to the battle before the death of the Prophet (s).

The Prophet (s) wanted the capital to be empty of them so that the situation would be clear and safe for Ameerul Mo'mineen Ali bin Abu Talib (s). If they came back after the covenant of the caliphate would have been determined to Ali, they would have no good chance to dispute or disagree then.

The Prophet (s) had appointed Ussama, who was seventeen years old,[^1] as the emir over them in order to degrade the haughty ones, to control the fancy of others and to be safe in the future from the disputing of the competitors if he had appointed one of them as the emir but they realized what the Prophet (s) had planned to, so they rejected the emirate of Ussama and refused to go with him to fight. They did not leave their camping in al-Jurf until the Prophet (s) went to the better world and then they intended to cancel the battle one time and to depose Ussama in another time. At last they did not join the army of Ussama and at the head of them were Abu Bakr and Umar.[^2]

These were five things in the matter of the army of Ussama, which they (the companions) had not obeyed whereas they (these things)

[^1] This was the most certain saying. It was also said that he was 18, 19 or 20 years old but no one had said more than that.

[^2] He was not in the army of ibn Zayd (Ussama) to be led by ibn Zayd nor was he afraid on the day of the cave nor hid himself on the day of al-Fareesh nor was he deposed on the day of Bara’a nor was he led behind in a prayer a young man who has not got a root from Taym bin Murra nor from the evil Abdul Lat an imam of guidance who preferred the others to have his disc of bread and so the red disc of the sun was returned white to him Gabriel competed with him under the garment Composed by ibn Abul Hadeed al-Mu’tazily al-Hanafi (about Imam Ali (s))

(112)

were declared clearly by the prophetic sayings, preferring their fancies and their own ijtihads to the clear traditions of the Prophet (s).

Sheikh Saleem al-Bishri justified the companions’ doing in some of our arguments (muraja’at). He said: “Yes, the Prophet (s) urged them to hasten with the army of Ussama and ordered them many times until he said to Ussama: “Attack the people of Ubna in the morning…” and he did not give him time even to the evening and he said to him: “Hasten…” He did not accept from him except hastening but immediately after that the Prophet (s) became so ill until it was feared for him. Their selves did not allow them to leave him while he was in such a case. They remained in al-Jurf waiting to see how he would become. This was because of their pity for him and their love to him. The aim behind their sluggishness was just waiting for one of two things; either to be delighted if he would restore his health or to win the honor of carrying out his funerals and to establish the affairs of the one, who would rule over them after him. They were excused and would not be blamed for that.

As for rejecting the emirate of Ussama before the death of the Prophet (s) in spite of the clear sayings and orders of the Prophet (s), it was just because Ussama was too young while they were middle-aged and old men and the souls of the middle-aged and old men would refuse-in their natures-to be led by the young and hate to submit to the orders of the youth so their rejecting his emirate was not a heresy but it was due to the human nature”.

And as for their request to depose Ussama after the death of the Prophet (s), some of the ulama justified that in a way that the companions might think it would be permissible if the caliph Abu Bakr would have preferred to depose him due to the general welfare according to their own opinions.

Sheikh Saleem al-Bishri added: “Indeed I do not know any justification that mind may accepts concerning their request to depose Ussama especially after the Prophet (s) has become so angry when they have rejected his appointing Ussama as the emir and he has come out, although he was seriously ill, wrapped with his plush and his head was bandaged because of fever and headache and he

(113)

has reproached them in his speech from above the minbar. It was one of the famous historical events, that has spread everywhere. Justifying their doing, after all that, is something unknown save by Allah.

As for their intention to cancel sending the army after they have seen the Prophet (s) caring too much to send it and insisting on hastening to send it and his many traditions about this matter, it was because of their precautions that the capital of Islam might be overcome by the polytheists after it would be empty of the forces. After the death of the Prophet (s) hypocrisy appeared, the Jews and the Christians became powerful, many tribes apostatized and other tribes refused to pay the zakat. The companions asked our master Abu Bakr as-Siddeeq to prevent Ussama from moving with the army but he refused and said: “By Allah, if I am snatched away by birds, is better to me than to change anything before carrying out the order of the messenger of Allah (s)”. This is what has been mentioned by our ulama about the situation of Abu Bakr but as for the others, they are excused because they have had no intention save their fearing for Islam.

As for when Abu Bakr, Umar and others had abstained from joining the army of Ussama, when it went to fight, it was just to establish the Islamic rule and the Muhammadan state and to save the caliphate, which the religion and its people would not be saved then except with.

We found what you have quoted from ash-Shahristani in his book al-Milal wen-Nihal as mursal and not musnad.[^1] Al-Halabi and ad-Dahlani said in their Seeras: “No tradition has been narrated about the subject at all”. If you, may Allah assist you, have a tradition narrated by the Sunni, please guide me to it and thanks be to you”.

We said when replying to the sheikh: “You have-may Allah keep you safe-acknowledged that those companions have been sluggish in al-Jurf and then they have not joined the army when moving to fight

[^1] Mursal is a tradition narrated without a series of narrators or the narrators are unknown or unreliable. Musnad is a tradition narrated by truthful and reliable narrators.

(114)

although they have been ordered by the Prophet (s) to hasten in doing that. You have acknowledged too that they rejected the emirate of Ussama in spite of the clear sayings and orders of the Prophet (s). You have acknowledged that they have requested Abu Bakr to depose Ussama after the Prophet (s) has been so angry for that and that he has come out wrapped and bandaged because of illness. And then he has reproached them in his speech he made on the minbar that you have said it was a famous historical event. It was the speech, in which the Prophet (s) had declared that Ussama and his father, before him, were well-qualified for the emirate.

You have acknowledged their requesting the caliph to cancel sending the army, which the Prophet (s) has ordered to be sent, although they have seen the Prophet (s) insisting on that and inciting his companions to hasten moving toward Sham and his sayings were too clear and firm.

You have acknowledged that some companions, whom the Prophet (s) has ordered to join the army, had not joined the army. You have acknowledged all these things, which have been mentioned by all the historians, and you have said they (those companions) were excused for doing that. The conclusion of what you have mentioned as a justification for their doings was that they have just preferred the welfare of Islam as they have thought and not according to the sayings and orders of the Prophet (s). We have not said, in this concern, more than this.

In another word, we want to ask: have they offered their worships according to all of the prophetic traditions or not? You have chosen the first and we have chosen the second. Your acknowledgment, now, that they have not acted in these matters according to the prophetic traditions confirms what we have chosen and whether they were excused or not, certainly has nothing to do with the subject of the research.

Since it has been proved that they have preferred the benefit of Islam, concerning the matter of the army of Ussama, by acting according to their own opinions rather than to act according to the

(115)

Prophet’s orders, then why do you not say that they have preferred, in the matter of the caliphate after the Prophet (s), the benefit of Islam according to their own opinions too rather than to follow the prophetic traditions of al-Ghadeer and their likes?!

You have justified the doing of those companions, who have rejected the emirate of Ussama, by saying that they have rejected his emirate because he was too young and they were middle-aged and old men and you have said that the souls of the middle-aged and old men would refuse in their nature to be led by a young man. Then why have you not said the same about those who have not carried out the prophetic traditions of al-Ghadeer that have determined the caliphate of Ali, who was a young man then, over the middle-aged and old men of the companions for they-in the same way-have considered him as too young as they have considered Ussama when the Prophet (s) has appointed him a leader over them in that army? What difference between the emirate of an army and the caliphate is! If their souls-according to their human nature-refused to be led by a young man in an army for a short period of time, they would, no doubt, refuse to be ruled by a young caliph throughout his lifetime and in all the worldly and afterlife affairs!

You have mentioned that “the souls of the middle-aged and old me refuse-according to their human natures-to be led by the young”. It is not probable that you have meant to generalize this criterion because the faithful souls of the sincere old men will never refrain from obeying Allah and His messenger in being led by the young or in anything else. Allah says: “But no! by your Lord! they do not believe (in reality) until they make you a judge of that which has become a matter of disagreement among them, and then do not find any straitness in their hearts as to what you have decided and submit with entire submission. Qur'an, 4:65” and “…and whatever the Messenger gives you, accept it, and from whatever he forbids you, keep back. Qur'an, 59:7” and “And it behooves not a believing man and a believing woman that they should have any choice in their matter when Allah and His Messenger have decided a matter; and whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he surely strays off a manifest straying. Qur'an, 33:36”

(116)

As for the word of ash-Shahristani concerning those, who had refused to join the army of Ussama, it has come in a musnad tradition mentioned by Abu Bakr Ahmad bin Abdul Aziz al-Jawhari in his book Kitab as-Saqeefa. Here I quote the tradition as it has been mentioned:

“Ahmad bin Iss~haq bin Salih narrated from Ahmad bin Yasaar from Sa’eed bin Katheer al-Ansari from his companions that Abdullah bin Abdurrahman had said: “The Prophet (s), during his illness that led to his death, appointed Ussama as the leader of an army, which consisted the most of the Muhajireen and the Ansar, among whom were Abu Bakr, Umar, Abu Ubayda bin al-Jarrah, Abdurrahman bin Owf, Talha and az-Zubayr. He ordered him to attack Mu’ta where his father Zayd had been killed and to invade the valley of Palestine. Ussama lagged and all the army lagged with him.

The Prophet’s health changed between a day and another but he still insisted on carrying out the task of the army of Ussama until Ussama said to him: “O messenger of Allah, may my father and mother die for you! Would you please allow me to stay some days until Allah restores your health?” The Prophet (s) said to him: “Go and set out with the blessing of Allah!” Ussama said: “O messenger of Allah, if I leave while you are still in this case, I will leave and my heart will be full of pain”.

The Prophet (s) said: “Set out with victory and good will!” He said: “O messenger of Allah, I hate to ask the travelers about you”. The Prophet (s) said: “Do what I have ordered you!” Then the Prophet (s) fainted and Ussama left and got ready to set out. When the Prophet (s) regained his consciousness, he asked about Ussama and his army. It was said to him that Ussama and his army had been preparing to move. The Prophet (s) said: “Let the army of Ussama set out. Allah may curse whoever does not join Ussama.” He repeated that many times. Ussama set out with the banner fluttering over his head and the companions around him until he arrived at al-Jurf. He camped there and with him there were Abu Bakr, Umar and most of the Muhajireen and from the Ansar there were Usayd bin Khudhayr, Basheer bin Sa’d and many other notable personalities. Then the messenger of Umm Aymen[^1] came saying to Ussama: “Come back to

[^1] She was the Prophet’s nursemaid.

(117)

Medina! The messenger of Allah is dying”. Ussama immediately came back to Medina and the banner was with him. He came and fixed the banner at the door of the Prophet’s house where the Prophet (s) had died then”. This tradition has been mentioned by several historians like ibn Abul Hadeed al-Mu’tazili in Sharh Nahjol Balagha, vol. 2 p.20, Egypt Edition. 5. The share of those whose hearts are made to incline (to the truth)

Allah, in His holy Book, has assigned a share from the zakat for a certain group of people when saying: “The alms are only for the poor and the needy, and those who collect them, and those whose hearts are to be reconciled, and to free the captives and the debtors, and for the cause of Allah, and (for) the wayfarer; a duty imposed by Allah. Allah is Knower, Wise. Qur'an, 9:60”

The Prophet (s) used to give those people, whose hearts had been reconciled (to the Truth) this share from the zakat. They were different kinds of people. Among them there were notable men of the Arab tribes, whom the Prophet (s) gifted to become Muslims in order to be safe from their dangers and others who had become Muslims but their determinations were weak; therefore the Prophet (s) attracted them by gifting them profusely like Abu Sufyan and his son Mo’awiyya, Uyayna bin Hissn, al-Aqra’ bin Habis and Abbas bin Mirdass, and among them there were those people, who were waiting for their equals of the Arab personalities to become Muslims so that they themselves, then, would become Muslims. The first kind of those people might be those people, whom the Prophet (s) gifted from the sixth of the khums[^1] (fifth), which was his own pure share, and he had prepared some of those people, by gifting them with a part of the zakat, to fight the unbelievers.

Thus was the conduct of the Prophet (s) towards those, whose hearts had been reconciled to Islam, since this verse had been revealed to him until he left to the better world. He had never ordered anyone to

[^1] A type of religious levy, equivalent to one fifth of taxable income.

(118)

annul it after him at all. All the umma has agreed unanimously upon this. When Abu Bakr became the caliph, those people came to receive their shares as it was usual during the time of the Prophet (s). Abu Bakr wrote them a book confirming their right. They took the book to Umar to be signed by him. Umar tore the book and said to them: “We are not in need of you. Allah has strengthen Islam and made us no longer need you. Either you become Muslims or the sword will be between us and you.” They went back to Abu Bakr and said to him: “Are you the caliph or he?” Abu Bakr said: “It is he inshallah” and he agreed to what Umar had done.[^1]

The matter had been settled by the two caliphs, Abu Bakr and Umar, and those, who had adopted their opinion, and they determined to deprive those people, whose hearts had been reconciled to Islam, of their share and turned it from them to the other classes mentioned [^1] Refer to al-Jawhara an-Nayyira ala Mukhtasar al-Qaddoori on Hanafite jurisprudence, vol.1 p.164. Also it has been mentioned by other historians when talking about the qualities of the two caliphs.

How many cases like this one Umar had done! One of them, for example, as mentioned by the historians, was: “Once Uyayna bin Hissn and al-Aqra’ bin Habiss came to Abu Bakr and said to him: “There is a piece of inarable land that has neither plant nor any advantage”. Abu Bakr said: “I see to grant it to you that Allah may make it useful”. Abu Bakr asked the people around him: “What do you say?” They said: “It is ok.” He wrote them a book about that. They took the book to Umar to witness on it. Umar took the book from them, spit on it and erased it.

They became so angry and said to him bad words. Then they came back to Abu Bakr complaining. They said to Abu Bakr: “By Allah, we do not know who the caliph is, you or Umar!” Abu Bakr said: “It is he!” Umar came and stopped before Abu Bakr while he was angry. He said to Abu Bakr: “Tell me about this land that you have granted to these tow ones. Is it yours or it is for the Muslims?” Abu Bakr said: “It is for the Muslims.” Umar said: “So what made you grant it to these two ones?” Abu Bakr said: “I consulted with the people around me.” Umar said: “Did you consult with all the Muslims and get their consent?” Abu Bakr said: “I have said to you before that you are better than me in this matter (the caliphate) but you forced me to it”. Mentioned by ibn Abul Hadeed in Sharh Nahjol Balagha, vol. 12 p.108, al-Asqalani in his Issaba when mentioning the biography of Uyayna and it has mentioned by others.

Would that they had consulted all the Muslims on the day of as-Saqeefa and would that they had waited a little until the Hashemites would have finished the funerals of the Prophet (s) to be able to attend that consultation for they no doubt were the worthiest of that among the umma!

(119)

in the Qur'anic verse. Some virtuous ulama have talked about this subject that it would be better to quote their speech and to test it because it has some advantages. Professor ad-Dawaleebi[^1] said in his book Usool al-Fiqh:[^2] “The ijtihad of Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) on stopping the gift that the Holy Qur'an had determined for the people, whose hearts had been reconciled to Islam, might have been the first of the verdicts that Umar had done according to “the change of benefits due to the change of time” although the Qur’anic text about the subject was still valid and had not been annulled just because he had preferred his own opinion, which had led to his ijtihad.” Let you ponder on what he has said and scrutinize his following speech.

He added: “Allah, the Almighty has assigned, at the beginning of the advent of Islam and when the Muslims were still weak somehow, a gift to be given to some people, whose dangers against the Muslims were feared and whose goodness was expected, to reconcile their hearts to Islam. They were among the groups, whom the Qur'an had mentioned to be gifted from the charities of the treasury. Allah said: (The alms are only for the poor and the needy, and those who collect them, and those whose hearts are to be reconciled, and to free the captives and the debtors, and for the cause of Allah, and (for) the wayfarer). Thus the Holy Qur'an had put those people, whose hearts were reconciled, among the groups of people, who received their shares of the charities, and had assigned for them certain allowances as some countries do nowadays when assigning some expenses from their budgets for the political propaganda.”[^3] He added: “But when

[^1] He is Sheikh Muhammad Ma’roof, the professor in jurisprudence and Roman laws in the College of Laws-Syrian University. [^2] Where he has mentioned examples about changing the verdicts according to the changes of the ages in p.239. [^3] They (the countries) might have learnt this from the Qur’anic verse talking about those, whose hearts have been reconciled to Islam. England, U.S.A. and their likes supply the poor and needy people of the weak countries with food and clothes and reformative projects although these countries are not in need of those weak countries or their peoples but they follow the maxim, which is the aim of the Qur'an out of giving those people to reconcile their hearts.

(120)

Islam became strong and its rule became firm, Umar determined to deprive those people of their gifts, which the Qur'an had assigned for them”. I say: The professor has repeated his saying that Umar had stopped the gift of those people that the Qur'an had determined as a fixed right in a clear verse just to prefer his own opinion and then the professor has justified the doing of the caliph Umar by saying:

“…That did not mean that Umar had annulled a Qur'anic verdict but he had noticed the cause of the text (verse) and not its apparent form and he considered gifting those people as was related to temporary circumstances when Islam was weak yet and to be safe from their evils but when Islam became strong and the circumstances requiring to gift those people were changed then it became obligatory to act according to the cause[^1] of the verse and to stop that gift”.

I say: there is no doubt that the verse talking about gifting those people is absolute and not limited and this is clear in the Qur'an without any disagreement or ambiguity. We are not to limit it to some conditions or to justify it according to something unless there is an authority from Allah or His messenger. It is certain that there is no authority on this concern.[^2]

Then how could we consider gifting those people as being justified according to temporary circumstances of a certain time, when it was to reconcile their hearts to Islam when Islam was still weak and not in other times?

[^1] There was no cause here, on which the verdict relied, that following it would be required by the text (verse). Reconciling those people, whom Allah had assigned this share from the charities for, was not a cause for this legal verdict but it was from among the maxims and benefits that had been noticed in legislating it. The ulama know well that the cause of a certain verdict is something and the maxim, which is the benefit in legislating it, is something else. Have you not seen that the benefit behind the obligatory iddah (a prescribed period, during which a widow or a divorcee may not remarry, beginning from the death of her husband or from the divorce) on the divorced women is to keep the lineages of the fetuses that may be in their mothers’ wombs? In spite of that the iddat of a woman is obligatory even if it becomes certain that she is not pregnant!

[^2] The revelation of the Qur'an at the beginning of Islam and when Islam was still weak was not limited to any restrictions.

(121)

If the Muslims became safe from the evils of those people, whose hearts would be reconciled, in a certain time, their becoming Muslims because of gifting them would not stop. In fact this might increase due to the powerful authority of Islam and this hope would be sufficient to reconcile their hearts by gifting them. The Prophet (s) reconciled many classes of people by giving them gifts; some to be Muslims and consequently their peoples would be Muslims, some had become Muslims but their faith was somehow weak and so the Prophet (s) wanted to strengthen their faith by gifting them and some were gifted in order that the Muslims would be safe from their evils. Let us suppose that we were safe from the dangers of the evil ones; nevertheless this gift should be given to those, whose followers would be Muslims when they themselves became Muslims, or to those, whose weak faith would be strengthen and fixed, imitating, by that, the Prophet (s) and whoever imitated his prophet, surely would be the most beloved one to Allah among His people.

The power of Islam that had defeated the enemies of the Muslims and made them safe from their dangers changed into the opposite situation. The foreigners conquered the Muslims and forced them to flatter the foreigners and to attract their pity by paying them gifts or by other things as it is seen nowadays or it has been seen some time ago. Hence it became clear that annulling the share of those people, whose hearts had been attracted to Islam by being gifted, when Islam had become strong was just due to their being deceived by their state at that time but the Holy Qur'an is from Allah, the Knowing, the Wise.

Now we come back to our research on the absolute text and limiting it to the benefit that changes according to the changes of the different ages and due to that a legal verdict changes. We research on this principle according to its conditions.

We, the Shia, all in all and unanimously do not pay any attention to the benefit in specializing a general verdict or limiting an absolute verdict except if the Sharia has a clear text confirming this regard. If there is no source in the Sharia confirming this matter (specializing a general verdict or limiting an absolute verdict) whether positively or negatively it will have no any value near us. If there is a benefit or

(122)

not it will be the same for us.[^1] This opinion is adopted too by the two sects; the Shafiites and the Hanafites. As for the Hanbalites, although they have taken in their consideration the benefits that have no source in the Sharia, they do not make the benefits stand against the clear texts of the Sharia but they put the benefits after the texts.[^2] Thus they do not limit the clear verse talking about the people, whose hearts have been attracted to Islam by gifts. Then they may be added to the Shia, the Shafiites and the Hanafites in this concern.

The opinion of the Malikites towards the text talking about the people, whose hearts have been reconciled to Islam, is also like the others’, although they have taken the benefits in their consideration and made them oppose the text but they oppose with that the traditions narrated by single narrators (not proved by others) and the traditions that have not been proved definitely and they also oppose, with the benefits, the general verse of the Qur'an, which have not had definite meanings. But as for the texts that have been proved to be true and the ones that have assigned definite meanings like the verse talking about the people, whose hearts have been attracted to Islam by gifts, they do never make the benefits stand against such texts at all[^3] because they are definite in being true and definite in meaning as well.

After all, the principles of jurisprudence according to all these sects do not permit to justify depriving those people of their shares as Professor ad-Dawaleebi has justified it.

If the two caliphs (Abu Bakr and Umar) had not annulled-after the Prophet’s death-the share of that class of people, whose hearts had been reconciled to Islam, and stopped their right, which had been determined by the Holy Qur'an, we could have said that the two caliphs (Abu Bakr and Umar) had not contradicted the Qur'anic verse even if they had not given those people their shares then

[^1] The details of this matter are available in the books of the Shia jurisprudence, which are widespread everywhere. [^2] Ad-Dawaleebi in his book Usool al-Fiqh, p.294. [^3] Usool al-Fiqh by ad-Dawaleebi, p.206.

(123)

because Allah had made those eight classes of people, mentioned in the verse, as the only ones, on whom the charities were to be spent just to limit the spending of the charities to them and not to other than them. The verse had not made it compulsory to spread the charities among all the eight classes mentioned. That is to say: if someone gives all his charity to only one class from among these eight classes, he will act correctly and will not be blamed exactly as if he has spread the charity among the eight classes. This has been agreed upon unanimously by all the Muslims and such they have done after the Prophet (s). So the doing of Abu Bakr and Umar would have been accepted if they had not annulled this right and invalidated it in spite of the clear Qur'anic text, which has been still fixed and not annulled.

Before we end this research, we think that we have to draw the attention of Professor ad-Dawaleebi to review what he has quoted about the Shia[^1] that they believe in the benefits and prefer them to the definite texts. This is no true and no one of the Shia has ever said it. Sulayman at-Touffi was one of the fanatic people, who had been ascribed unjustly to the Shia by the opponents.

The opinion of the Shia in this concern is as what we have mentioned previously. All the Shia have agreed upon this unanimously. Their books are available everywhere. Let the professor refer to them and quote from them directly instead of quoting from the books of Ahmad bin Hanbal (may Allah forgive him).

[^1] p.207, 209 in his book Usool al-Fiqh.

(124)

6. The share of the relatives

It is the share that has been mentioned by this verse: “And know that whatever thing you gain, a fifth[^1] of it is for Allah and for the Messenger and for the near relatives and the orphans and the needy and the wayfarer, if you believe in Allah[^2] and in that which We revealed to Our servant, on the day of distinction, the day on which the two parties met; and Allah has power over all things. Qur'an, 8:41”

The Muslims have agreed unanimously that the Prophet (s) has taken a share of the khums for himself and given another share to his near relatives and he has never changed this matter nor has he ordered any one to change it until he has been invited by Allah to be in the better world. When Abu Bakr became the caliph, he interpreted the verse according to his own thinking and he omitted the share of the Prophet (s) and the share of his relatives after his death.[^3] He prevented the Hashemites from getting their right of the khums and he considered them as same as the orphans, the poor and the wayfarers of the other Muslims.

Fatima (s) sent a messenger to Abu Bakr asking him for her inheritance of what her father (s) had left in Medina and Fadak and what had remained of the khums of Khaybar but Abu Bakr refused to

[^1] The two sheikhs al-Bukhari and Muslim mentioned in their Sahihs (books of Hadith) a tradition narrated by ibn Abbas that the Prophet (s) had said to the delegation of Abdul Qayss when ordering them to believe in Allah, the One and the Only: “Do you know what believing in Allah alone is?” They said: “Allah and His messenger are more aware”. He said: “Witnessing that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, offering the prayers, paying the zakat, fasting in Ramadan and giving the fifth of one’s income”. [^2] The meaning of this conditional phrase is that the khums (fifth) is a legal right that must be paid to the ones mentioned in the verse. The verse said: Do not be greedy for this right and pay it to its deserving ones if you have believed in Allah. [^3] Refer to al-Kashshaf when talking about the verse of the khums. The author mentioned a tradition narrated by ibn Abbas: “The khums is six shares; two shares for Allah and His messenger and a share for the messenger’s relatives…but Abu Bakr made it three shares”. He mentioned the same about Umar and the caliphs after him (except Imam Ali). He mentioned that Abu Bakr had prevented the Hashemites from getting their share of the khums.

(125)

give her anything of that. She became very angry with him. She deserted him and did not talk to him until she died. She lived for six months after the death of the Prophet (s). When she died, her husband Ali (s) buried her at night without letting Abu Bakr know or attend the funerals….[^1]

Muslim mentioned in his Sahih a tradition narrated by Yazeed bin Hurmuz saying: “Najda bin Aamir al-Harawri the Kharijite wrote a letter to ibn Abbas. I was there when ibn Abbas read the letter and when he wrote his reply. Ibn Abbas said: “By Allah, I want just to prevent him from being in error; otherwise I will not write to him even one word.” He wrote to him: “You have asked about the share of the relatives that Allah has mentioned in His Book… and who they are! We have seen that we are the relatives of the Prophet (s) but our people denied that…”[^2]

Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal mentioned this tradition in his Musnad, vol.1 p.294. The tradition has been mentioned in many books of Hadith in true ways and by reliable narrators. What has been mentioned in the tradition expresses the real opinion of Ahlul Bayt (s).

But most of the Sunni imams have adopted the opinion of the two caliphs (Abu Bakr and Umar) without assigning a special share from the khums to the relatives (of the Prophet (s)).

Malik bin Anass had determined that all the khums would be spent according to the opinion of the imam, who would spend it on the benefits of the Muslims as he liked, and there was no shares for the relatives (of the Prophet (s)), the orphans, the poor or the wayfarers at all.

Abu Haneefa and his followers had omitted the share of the Prophet (s) and the share of his relatives and divided them among the orphans, the poor and the wayfarers of the rest of the Muslims where there was no difference, according to their opinion, between the Hashemites and the other Muslims.

[^1] Al-Bukhari’s Sahih, vol.3 p.36, Muslim’s Sahih vol.2 p.72 and mentioned in other places of their Sahihs. [^2] Vol.2 p.105.

(126)

Ash-Shafi’iy had made it five shares; a share for the Prophet (s) to be spent in the same ways that the Prophet (s) had been used to spend on the benefits of the Muslims like supplying the army with horses (equipments), weapons and the likes and a share for the relatives from bani Hashem and bani Abdul Muttalib and not bani Abd Shams and bani Nawfal to be divided in a way that a male would get as double as the share of a female. The rest of the khums was to be divided among the other three classes; the orphans, the poor and the wayfarers.

We , the Shia, divide the khums into six shares;[^1] two for Allah and His messenger, and these two shares besides the share of the relatives (the Prophet’s progeny) are for the (disappeared) imam, who represents the Prophet (s), and the rest three shares are to be given to the orphans, the poor and the wayfarers of the Prophet’s progeny especially where no one of the common people has a right to be given from the khums because Allah has made charities impermissible for the Prophet (s) and his progeny and so He has compensated them for that by giving them the khums. This has been mentioned by at-Tabari when talking about Imam Ali bin al-Husayn as-Sajjad (s) and his son Imam Muhammad bin Ali al-Baqir (s).

Our ulama have agreed unanimously that the khums is obligatory to be deducted from every benefit one gets from business, trade, crafts, agricultural products, cattle and others. It is also obligatory on found (by chance) treasures, minerals, precious things got from the bottom of the sea by diving and other sources of wealth. This is mentioned in our jurisprudence and traditions narrated from the Prophet (s) and the infallible imams. Our evidence in that is he Qur’anic verse (And know that whatever thing you gain, a fifth of it is for Allah and for the Messenger and for the near relatives and the orphans and the needy and the wayfarer). “Gain” includes all that man can make use of. The lexicons have shown this meaning clearly and the point of discussion here is the ijtihad to omit the share of the relatives (of the Prophet) although the verse has confirmed it so clearly.

[^1] Al-Jihad wes-Siyyer, vol.2 p.105.

(127)

7. Bequeathing by the Prophets

Allah has said: “Men shall have a portion of what the parents and the near relatives leave, and women shall have a portion of what the parents and the near relatives leave, whether there is little or much of it; a stated portion. Qur'an, 4:7” and “Allah enjoins you concerning your children: The male shall have the equal of the portion of two females. Qur'an, 4:11” These verses are general in concerning the Prophet (s) and the rest of the peoples equally. They are like the other general verses such as “O you who believe! fasting is prescribed for you, as it was prescribed for those before you… Qur'an, 2:183” and “but whoever among you is sick or on a journey, then (he shall fast) a (like) number of other days. Qur'an, 2:184” and “Forbidden to you is that which dies of itself, and blood, and flesh of swine, and that on which any other name than that of Allah has been invoked, and the strangled (animal) and that beaten to death, and that killed by a fall and that killed by being smitten with the horn, and that which wild beasts have eaten, except what you slaughter… Qur'an, 5:3” and many other verses that concern the legal verdicts, which includes the Prophet (s) and the rest of the peoples with no difference but the orders are addressed to the Prophet (s) to act according to them and to inform the others of them to act according to them too. In this case the verses just show that the Prophet (s) is worthier than the others in keeping to the verdicts.

Allah has said: “…and those who are akin are nearer one to another in the ordinance of Allah. Qur'an, 8:75” In this verse Allah has determined that the right of inheritance is for the relatives of the bequeather. Before the revelation of this verse, bequeathing was among the rights of wilayah (guardianship) in religion, but when Islam and the Muslims became powerful and prevailing, the rights of those, who were among the inheritors previously, were annulled by this verse. The right of inheritance became limited to the relatives of the bequeather; the nearest, the nearer and so on, whether the bequeather was the Prophet (s) or any of the other people according to the apparent meaning of the verse.

Besides these verses, Allah has said when talking about Zachariah: “When he called upon his Lord in secret; he said: My Lord! surely my bones are weakened and my head flares with hoariness, and, my Lord! I have never been unsuccessful in my prayer to Thee, and surely I

(128)

fear my cousins after me, and my wife is barren; therefore grant me from Thyself an heir, who should inherit me and inherit from the children of Yaqoub, and make him, my Lord, one in whom Thou art well pleased. Qur'an, 19:3-6”

Fatima az-Zahra’ (s) and the infallible imams of her progeny have protested with this verse when asking about their extorted inheritance. Definitely this verse shows that the prophets bequeath wealth and properties and the word “inherit” mentioned here refers to inheriting properties and not inheriting knowledge or prophethood. All the Shia ulama have adopted this opinion and said that the word “inheritance” in the language and the Sharia does not refer except to movable wealth and properties and it is not used to refer to other than properties except figuratively and metaphor does never change a certain fact into a metaphor without a clear evidence.

Zachariah has said in his invocation: (and make him, my Lord, one in whom Thou art well pleased). This means: O my Lord, make the one, who will inherit me, pleased near You and make him obedient to Your orders. So if we interpret “inheritance” as inheriting prophethood, then the saying of Zachariah will be nonsense and vain. Do you not think that it is nonsense when someone invokes Allah by saying: “O Allah, send us a prophet and make him sane and well-mannered”? Definitely all the prophets, whom Allah has sent to guide His people, are the highest examples of morals.

What evidences our opinion is that Zachariah (s) has declared that he feared that his cousins might extort his properties after his death when saying: (I fear my cousins after me) so he has invoked Allah to grant him a child to inherit him. Surely he feared his cousins for his properties and not knowledge and prophethood because Prophet Zachariah (s) was aware and did not fear a bit that Allah might entrust someone, who was not qualified, with prophethood nor would Allah make bad people inherit His knowledge and wisdom.

Someone may say that this argument ascribes stinginess to Prophet Zachariah (s).

God forbid! We do never believe so. Wealth is granted (by Allah) to a believer and to a disbeliever, to a good man and to a bad man. Prophet Zachariah (s), because his cousins were bad, feared that they

(129)

would spend his wealth on corruption. This was the wisdom of Prophet Zachariah (s) because supporting corrupt people and assisting them to keep on their bad doings is prohibited by religion and reason. He, who considers this as stinginess, will be unfair. His saying (I fear my cousins after me) means that he fears their immorality and bad doings. So he fears that his cousins may inherit his wealth and spend it on disobedience; therefore he invokes Allah to grant him a good child to spend his wealth on what will please Allah.

In short, we are to interpret “inheritance” in this verse to mean wealth and not prophethood or other things according to the real meaning of the word, which comes to mind, without supposing other meanings for there is no any context referring to prophethood or other things. In fact all the evidences in the verse lead to the real meaning of the word “inherit” and not a figurative meaning.

This is the opinion of the infallible imams (s) about this Qur’anic verse and no doubt that the infallible imams (s) are equal to the Qur'an and they both, the Qur'an and the infallible imams, will not separate until the Day of Resurrection. All people have known what there was between Fatima az-Zahra’ (s), the head lady of the worlds’ women, and Abu Bakr. She had sent a messenger to Abu Bakr asking him for her inheritance of her father’s properties. Abu Bakr said: “The messenger of Allah said: “We (the prophets) do not bequeath. What we leave is to be considered as charity”.[^1] Aa’isha said: “Abu Bakr refused to give Fatima anything of her inheritance and he appropriated all the Prophet’s properties to the treasury; therefore Fatima became very angry with Abu Bakr. She turned away from him and did never talk to him until she died. She lived after the Prophet (s) for six months and when she died, her husband Ali buried her in the night according to her own will[^2] …and Abu Bakr did not attend the funerals…”[^3]

[^1] This tradition has been refuted by Fatima (s) and the infallible imams. Refer to al-Bukhari’s Sahih, chap. The battle of Khaybar. [^2] Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari, vol.8 p.157, al-Qastalani’s Irshad, al-Ansari’s Tuhfa. [^3] Al-Bukhari’s Sahih, vol.3 p.37, Muslim’s Sahih, vol.2 p.72, Ahmad’s Musnad, vol.1 p.6. (130)

Yes! She became very angry…she put on her veil and gown and came, with her maids and some of her fellow-women walking exactly like her father’s gait, to Abu Bakr, who was among a crowd of the Muhajireen, the Ansar and other people. A curtain was put between her and the people. She moaned in a way that all the people began to cry and the meeting shook. She waited until they stopped crying and became quiet. She began her speech with praising Allah and then her eloquence streamed…

She preached the people in the best of speeches As if she talked with the tongue of al-Mustafa[^1]

The sights submitted and the souls surrendered. If politics was not prevailing over the minds at those days, she would turn back the strayed tendencies and bridle the worldly greed, but it was politics that had gone too far with its tendencies without caring for anything.

He, who reads her speech on that day,[^2] will find what there was between her and those people[^3] (the caliph Abu Bakr and his

[^1] Al-Mustafa is one of the Prophet’s surnames; Fatima’s father. [^2] The progeny of Ali and Fatima narrated the speech of Fatima, which she had speechified on that day, one after the other until it reached us. We, the Fatimites, narrate this speech from our fathers and our fathers narrate it from their fathers and so on for all generations until the times of the infallible imams. To see this speech, refer to al-Ihtijaj by at-Tabarsi, Biharul Anwar by al-Majlisi and refer to the Sunni books like as-Saqeefa and Fadak by Abu Bakr Ahmad bin Abdul Aziz al-Jawhari, in which there are many traditions about this speech, some of which are narrated from Zaynab, the daughter of Ali and Fatima (s), Imam Muhammad al-Baqir(s) and Abdullah bin al-Hasan bin al-Hasan. Refer to Sharh Nahjol Balagha, vol. 4 p.78, 93, 94. Zayd bin Ali bin al-Husayn bin Ali bin Abu Talib said: “I have heard the notables of the Talibites narrating this speech from their fathers and teaching it to their children”. [^3] She said to Abu Bakr when he deprived her of her right (inheritance): “O Abu Bakr, if you die, who will inherit you?” He said: “My children and family”. She said: “Then why have you inherited the messenger of Allah instead of his children and family?” He said: “O daughter of the messenger of Allah, I have not done that”. She said: “Yes, you have! You have extorted Fadak, which was the Prophet’s pure property. You have dared to take it from us and you have dared to change what Allah has revealed concerning us.” It has been mentioned in as-Saqeefa and Fadak by Abu Bakr al-Jawhari; refer to Sharh Nahjol Balagha, vol. 4 p.87. Abu Bakr al-Jawhari mentioned in his book a tradition narrated by Abu Salama saying: “When Fatima asked for her inheritance, Abu Bakr said to her: “I have heard the messenger of Allah saying: “A prophet does not bequeath”. But I will sustain whomever the messenger of Allah has

(131)

followers). She quoted many clear verses to evidence her inheritance. They were irrefutable evidences that could never be denied. Among what she had said on that day was this passage: “Have you intendedly turned away from the Book of Allah and left it behind your backs? Allah says in His Book: “And Solomon was David's heir. Qur'an, 27:16” and He says when talking about Prophet Zachariah: “therefore grant me from Thyself an heir, who should inherit me and inherit from the children of Yaqoub, and make him, my Lord, one in whom Thou art well pleased.” He also says: “…and those who are akin are nearer one to another in the ordinance of Allah” and “Allah enjoins you concerning your children; the male shall have the equal of the portion of two females” and “It is prescribed for you, when death approacheth one of you, if he leave wealth, that he bequeath unto parents and near relatives in kindness. (This is) a duty for all those who ward off (evil).

Qur'an, 2:180” Has Allah distinguished you with a verse that He has excluded my father from? Or are you more aware of the special and general verdicts of the Qur'an than my been sustaining and I will spend on whomever he has been spending on”. She said: “O Abu Bakr, do your daughters inherit you whereas the Prophet’s daughters do not inherit him?” He said: “It is so”. Another tradition like this one has been mentioned by Ahmad in his Musnad, vol. 1 p.10. Al-Jawhari mentioned in his book as-Saqeefa and Fadak-as in Sharh Nahjol Balagha, vol. 4 p.81-a tradition narrated by Umm Hani bint Abu Talib: “Fatima said to Abu Bakr: “Who will inherit you when you die?” He said: “My children and family.

” She said: “Then why do you inherit the messenger of Allah instead of us?” He said: “O daughter of the messenger of Allah, your father has not bequeathed anything.” She said: “Yes, he has. It is the share (Fadak) that Allah has given to us and it is in your hand now.” He said: “I have heard the messenger of Allah saying: “It is but nourishment that Allah has granted to us and when I die it will be for the Muslims.” Al-Jawhari mentioned another tradition like this one narrated by Abut Tufayl.

The traditions talking about this speech are so many and especially those, which have been narrated by the infallible imams. She has another speech concerning the caliphate after the Prophet (s). It has been mentioned by al-Jawhari in his book as-Saqeefa and Fadak-as in Sharh Nahjol Balagha, vol. 4 p.87-narrated from Abdullah bin al-Hasan bin al-Hasan that his mother Fatima bint al-Husayn has said: “When Fatima (the daughter of the Prophet) became so badly ill, the women of the Muhajireen and the Ansar gathered around her. They said to her: “O daughter of the messenger of Allah, how have you become now?” she said: “By Allah, I have disliked your world and hated your men…” It is one of the most eloquent speeches among the speeches of Ahlul Bayt (s). It has also been mentioned by Imam Abul Fadhl Ahmad bin Abu Tahir in his book Balaghaatun Nissa’. It has been mentioned by al-Majlisi in Biharul Anwar, at-Tabarsi in al-Ihtijaj and by others.

(132)

father and my cousin (Ali)? Or do you say: “People of two (different) religions do not inherit each other”?

She protested against the caliph and evidenced her protest by quoting the clear Qur’anic verses (of Zachariah and Solomon) that had confirmed bequeathing by the prophets. By Allah, she is more aware of the meaning of the Qur'an than those, who have come a long time after the revelation of the Qur'an and who have distorted the real meaning of inheritance into inheriting wisdom and prophethood instead of wealth and properties. They have just preferred the figurative meaning to the real meaning without any evidence at all to drive the real meaning to another one. This is impermissible. If it was probable, then Abu Bakr or any one of that crowd of the Muhajireen and the Ansar would refute Fatima’s claim on that day.[^1]

She also protested against the caliph, when asking for her inheritance, by referring to the general verses concerning inheritance and especially this general verse “Allah enjoins you concerning your children: The male shall have the equal of the portion of two females… Qur'an, 11:11” She denied his limiting the

[^1] They had not opposed her on that day with this excuse but they had just confiscated her inheritance. Abu Bakr said to her: “O daughter of the messenger of Allah, I swear that Allah has not created anyone more beloved to me than your father. I wished the sky fell over the ground on the day when your father died. By Allah if Aa’isha (Abu Bakr’s daughter) becomes needy is much better to me than to see you being needy. Do you think I give white and red people their rights and I deprive you of your right whereas you are the daughter of the messenger of Allah? This wealth was not for the Prophet (s) but it was among the wealth of the Muslims, with which the Prophet (s) used to spend on the armies and to spend for the sake of Allah and when he died I managed it as he had been managing it.” She said: “By Allah, I will not talk with you for ever.

” He said: “By Allah, I will never desert you at all.” She said: “By Allah, I will invoke Allah against you.” He said: “By Allah, I will invoke Allah for you.” When she was about to die, she recommended that Abu Bakr should not offer the prayer (for the dead) for her. It has been mentioned by Abu Bakr al-Jawhari in his book as-Saqeefa and Fadak as mentioned in Sharh Nahjol Balagha, vol. 4 p.80. You see here that Abu Bakr has not opposed Fatima (s) by refuting her evidence of bequeathing out of the two verses of Prophet David (s) and Prophet Zachariah (s) but he has pretended that the wealth was not the Prophet’s. She was not satisfied with his pretense anyhow for she was more aware of her father’s affairs than the others. We are Allah's and to Him we shall surely return!

(133)

general verdicts without any legal evidence from the Qur'an or the Sunna. She said denyingly: “Has Allah distinguished you with a verse that He has excluded my father from?” She confirmed by this saying that there was no any evidence in the Qur'an that might limit these general verdicts. Then she said: “Or are you more aware of the special and general verdicts of the Qur'an than my father and my cousin (Ali)?” By this saying she confirmed too that there was no any evidence in the Sunna that might limit these general verdicts. In fact she denied any kind of limitation at all because if there was something of that, then the Prophet (s) or his guardian Ali (s), would declare it to her and they would not let her unaware of it because that would be a kind of negligence in informing of the Sharia, dilatoriness in warning, hiding the truth, encouraging ignorance, inciting to ask for the untruth, injuring her dignity and would make her argue and confront and would expose her to enmity and hatred without having the right of what she would ask for. Definitely this is impossible for the prophets and for their guardians.

In short, the Prophet’s love and kindness to his daughter was over any love of the kind fathers towards their dutiful children. He covered her with the shadow of his great mercy, sacrificed himself for her[^1] and delighted greatly when being with her. He tried whatever he could to educate her and to honor her to the utmost. He taught her the knowledge of Allah and the knowledge of His laws. He didn’t spare any effort in that until he made her at the top of every virtue and honor. After that, was it possible for him to conceal such a verdict without letting her know her legal obligation? God forbid! Would he expose her, by this concealment, to all of the troubles she had got after his death because of her inheritance? In fact all the umma faced a bad sedition, which was the consequence of depriving her of her inheritance.

And was her husband, the Prophet’s guardian and spiritual brother, in spite of his abundant knowledge, wisdom, precedence in Islam, [^1] Once the Prophet (s) mentioned his daughter Fatima (s) and said: “Her father may die for her! Her father may die for her!” He repeated that three times. This tradition has been narrated by Ahmad bin Hanbal and others as mentioned by Ibn Hajar in his book as-Sawa’iqul Muhriqa, chzp.11, p.159.

(134)

kinship to the Prophet (s), honor, high position and guardianship, unaware, too, of this tradition “We, the prophets, do not bequeath”? And why the Prophet (s) had concealed that from his spiritual brother, his guardian, the guard of his secrets, the gate of the city of his knowledge, the best judge among his umma; the gate of repentance, the ship of rescue and the safety of the umma from being separated? And why had his uncle al-Abbas and the rest of the Hashemites not heard of this tradition until they were surprised with it after the death of the Prophet (s)? And why had the Prophet’s wives not known about it so that they sent Othman to ask for their inheritance after the Prophet’s death? How had the Prophet (s) dared not to inform his wives of this legal verdict? Definitely the Prophet (s) was not indifferent a bit at all! He used to announce the verdicts of Allah openly. His morals were not so towards his relatives. He was so kind and mindful as he had been ordered by Allah: “And warn your nearest relatives. Qur'an, 26:214”

One word remained for Fatima (s), by which she provoked the zeal of people and excited their anger to the utmost. She said: “Or do you say: “People of two (different) religions do not inherit each other”? She meant that the general verdicts of inheritance were not to be limited according to those people’s own pretenses. The Prophet (s) had said: “People of two (different) religions do not inherit each other”. She wanted to say to them: “You deprive me of my inheritance to say that I am not on my father’s religion and so you will have a legal evidence on that!” We are Allah’s and to Him we shall return!