Chapter Six: Rules of inheritance in the Qur’an


Upon becoming Khalifa Abu Bakr quickly moved to annex the legal right of Sayyida Fatima (as). Abu Bakr refused to entertain her claim that the land had been gifted to her, by her father (s) during his lifetime. If a person receives possessions (by whatever means) they can claim them by any means they choose appropriate. Hence Sayyida Fatima (as) also sought to claim Fadak by another claim, namely that Fadak, the properties of Madina and the lands of Khayber were the personal possessions of her father that she as his daughter and Waris could legally inherit from him (s). Abu Bakr also rejected this claim on the rationale that he heard the Prophet (s) say ‘Our property will not be inherited, whatever we (i.e. prophets) leave is Sadaqah (to be used for charity)’. Sayyida Fatima (as) rejected this argument and the decision angered to the extent that she never spoke on good terms to the Khalifa again.

The Qur’an confirms that a daughter inherits from her father

Proof One

With regard to inheritance, the verse of Surah Nisa 004.007 reads:

From what is left by parents and those nearest related there is a share for men and a share for women, whether the property be small or large,a determinate share.
Al-Qur’an, Surah an-Nisa, Ayah 7, translated by Yusufali

The verse proves that a daughter is the Waris (heir) of her father. In accordance with this verse, Sayyida Fatima (s) inherited from her father. This verse is sufficient to destroy the claim in the article Fedak:

It would have been irrational to make a will on uninheritable property. Consequently, it would be wrong to say that his lordship, Sayyidina Rasulullah, Sallallahu Alayhi wa Sallam, bequeathed the orchard, called Fedek, to Sayyidah Fatima-tuz-Zahra (Alayhas-Salaam). For Rasulullah, Sallallahu Alayhi wa Sallam, would not have done something which would have been wrong.

Reply One

The verse that we have cited proves that everyone is the heir of someone, hence the Prophet (s) leaving material possessions such as Fadak for his daughter was in conformity with what is stipulated in the Qur’an, so how can this author assert that Rasulullah (s) acting in such a manner would be wrong?

Reply Two

We know that Fadak was bequeathed to Sayyida Fatima (as) and this is attested to in the books of Ahl’ul Sunnah. Hence denying her this right was a clear injustice, and in violation to the Qur’an. One who commits injustice can never be deemed rightly guided, this is clear from Surah al Maida 005.045:

And if any fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (No better than) wrongdoers.
Al-Qur’an, Surah 5, Ayah 45, translated by Yusufali

Proof Two

The verse on inheritance in Surah Nisa 004.011 reads:

Allah (thus) directs you as regards your Children’s (Inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females: if only daughters, two or more, their share is two-thirds of the inheritance; if only one, her share is a half.
Al-Qur’an, Surah an-Nisa, Ayah 11, translated by Yusufali

In this verse, Allah (swt) has laid out rules for Muslims with regard to inheritance, making it clear that all children inherit from their parents. Rasulullah (s) is also subject to this order that would make Sayyida Fatima (as) was his Waris. Denying her this right was an injustice. Sayyida Fatima (as) and the Qur’an were Thaqlayn; hence rejecting both is an act so severe that the perpetrator shall not even smell the fragrance of Paradise.

Proof Three

We read in Surah Nisa 004.033:

To (benefit) every one, We have appointed shares and heirs to property left by parents and relatives. To those, also, to whom your right hand was pledged, give their due portion. For truly Allah is witness to all things.
Al-Qur’an, Surah an-Nisa, Ayah 33, translated by Yusufali

Allah (s) has made EVERY ONE the Waris of someone. This verse clearly incorporates Rasulullah (s), he inherits from his parents, and his offspring inherit from him (s). Hence issuing a ruling that contradicts this verse is rejecting an order of Allah (swt) and constitutes Kufr as is clear from Surah Maida verse 44:

If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) Unbelievers.
Al-Qur’an, Surah 5, Ayah 44, translated by Yusufali

Proof Four

We read in Surah Ahzab 033.006:

…Blood relations among each other have closer personal ties in the Decree of Allah than (the Brotherhood of) Believers and Muhajirs
Al-Qur’an, Surah 33, Ayah 6, translated by Yusufali

The verse of the Qur’an places this order on all blood relations and the children of Rasulullah (s) fall within blood relations. An order that seeks to exempt the blood relations of Rasulullah (s) is an injustice against Rasulullah (s), and one who opposes the Qur’an is a Fasiq, as declared by Allah (swt) in Surah al Maida 005.04:

Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel.
Al-Qur’an, Surah 5, Ayah 4, translated by Yusufali

Denying the daughter of Rasulullah (s) her inheritance would be against the Justice of Allah (swt)

We read in Tafseer Ibn Katheer Part 4, ‘Surah Nisa 004.011 ‘ Allah (thus) directs you as regards your Children’s (Inheritance)’:

The verse means that on the issue of children Allah (swt) is Just. During the era of Jahiliyya all possessions would go to the male, females would go empty handed. Allah (swt) therefore apportioned them their right.

In light of this commentary, denying the daughter of the Prophet(s) her right of inheritance was against the Justice of Allah (swt).

Denying the daughter of Rasulullah (s) her inheritance rights is a practise of Jahiliyya

We read in Tafseer al Kabeer Volume 3 page 153 ‘Surah Nisa 004.011 ‘ Allah (thus) directs you as regards your Children’s (Inheritance)’:

“During the period of Jahiliyya people would inherit via two means….
No.1 is missing
(2) Nasab (Family tree) – Women and underage children were not accepted as Waris, rather only male relatives were accepted as Waris who participated in battle and received a share of the booty”

Sunni scholar and English translator of Sahih Muslim, provides the following introduction to the ‘Kitab al-Fara’id’ (the book pertaining to the rules of inheritance):

“…The law of inheritance in Islam is based upon five main considerations:
In the pre-Islamic world and even in modern societies the law of inheritance has so many evils in it, which may be summed up in the following points:

* Women had been completely denied the share of inheritance. They were rather regarded as part of the property of the deceased and, therefore, their right to property by inheritance was out of question.
Islam introduced so many reforms in the laws of inheritance which can be succinctly summed up as follows.

* It made the female, who had been previously thought a chattel, the co-sharer with the male and thus not only restored her dignity, but safeguarded her social and economic rights”.

Islam put an end to this discriminatory practice, and Abu Bakr resurrected it by denying Sayyida Fatima (as) her inheritance rights.

The advocates of Abu Bakr such as Ibn Taymiyah and Shah Abdul Aziz have argued that these verses of inheritance are of general applicability to the Muslim Ummah, not the Prophet (s). To respond to such an excuse we shall rely on the words of Allah (swt) in Surah Az-Zukhruf 043.044:

The (Qur’an) is indeed the message, for thee and for thy people; and soon shall ye (all) be brought to account.
Al-Qur’an, Surah 43, Ayah 44, translated by Yusufali

This verse makes it clear that the Ummah and Rasulullah (s) are subject to the Qur’anic rulings, and unless an exemption can be established, the obligation that Rasulullah (s) left inheritance for his daughter is established. He had to act upon this order.

We have proven that Sayyida Fatima (as) was the Waris of Rasulullah (s) through verses of the Qur’an. The verse ’To (benefit) every one’ prevents any excuse that the verse did not apply to Rasulullah (s). The verse addresses him(s) in exactly the same way as the other three verses include him(s).

Worthy of note is the fact that we read in Ahl’ul Sunnah’s esteemed work Tafseer Ruh al Ma’ani Part 4, under the commentary of Surah Nisa 004.011 ‘Allah (thus) directs you as regards your Children’s (Inheritance) ‘:

“With regards to this verse one viewpoint is that it refers to all Believers another is it refers to all those with off spring”

Rasulullah (s) is included amongst the Believers and those with children hence he is included on both counts, as are the rest of the believers.

After Rasulullah (s) those with a correct understanding of the Qur’an are the Ahl’ul bayt (as) and they did not state that the verse Surah Nisa 004.011 ‘Allah (thus) directs you as regards your Children’s (Inheritance)’ excludes Rasulullah (s). Anyone asserting an opposing view is a munafiq, for he holds an opinion that contradicts the Thaqlayn – the Qur’an and Itrat of Rasulullah (s).

Ibn al Hashimi’s claim that prophets (as a general rule) leave no inheritance in the Quran

In his article Fadak, Part III: Ahlus Sunnah is Not Abandoning the Quran, Ibn al Hashimi offers a number of curious arguments to ‘prove’ that our Prophet (s) is exempt from the Quranic verses of inheritance, as were (according to him) past Prophets:

The Shia propagandists will argue that Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) went against the Quranic rules of inheritance, but these rules of inheritance do not apply to Prophets as clearly mentioned by the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) in both Sunni and Shia Hadith. The very fact that such Hadith exist in the Shia canon makes impotent the Shia attack on the personality of Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه). In Al-Kafi, the most reliable of the Shia books of Hadith, we find the following Sahih narration:
“The Prophets did not leave dinars and dirhams as inheritance, but they left knowledge.” (al-Kafi, vol. 1 p. 42)

Reply – The Quran and Sunni Imams confirm that prophets do leave inheritance

Whilst Ibn al Hashimi is advancing this distinction, is it not amazing that none of the Sahaba that Ibn al Hashimi venerates, save Abu Bakar believed that Prophets were exempt from inheritance! As for the Shia Hadith that Ibn al Hashimi cited, we shall address it thoroughly in another chapter, at this point suffice it to say that the Nasibi has chosen to cite the Hadith out of context, as the Hadith relates to the knowledge of Prophetic inheritance for his successors (Imams) and scholars NOT the material possessions that heirs are entitled to. Fatima Zahra being (as) was the inheritor of His (s) material possessions as His (s) daughter and this is also mentioned in Shia Hadith at the relevant place in the books.

We should also point out that the Quran itself proves that Prophets do leave inheritance (see Surah 27, Ayah 16 & Surah 19, Ayah 4-6) so the argument that Prophets are exempt from inheritance holds no water. In later chapters, we shall cite the views of esteemed Sunni Imams in terms of religious knowledge which includes Ibn Abbas, Hasan, Shu’bi, Dahak and others who testified in their commentaries that the above cited verses conformed that prophets did leave inheritance. Thus Ibn al-Hashimi’s notion that the rules of inheritance mentioned in the Quran do not apply to Prophets becomes null and void.

Ibn al Hashimi’s claim that the Shia Imams (as) did not distribute all of their belongings via inheritance

Ibn al Hashimi states:

(The Shia propagandists may resort to dogmatic rhetoric declaring the supermacy of the Quran and accusing the Sunnis of straying away from it by making exceptions to the laws of inheritance. Unfortunately for the Shia, their own Infallible Imams have made exceptions to the rules of inheritance that would make any Shia accusations against the Sunnis to be simply hypocritical and sanctimonious. For example, the Shia Infallible Imams have prohibited some heirs from inheriting certain items of their estates, including the Dhul Fiqar (Ali’s sword [رضّى الله عنه]), the Quran, the Prophet’s ring, and his bodily garments. These items were excluded from the Quranic laws of inheritance and reserved for the new Imam, instead of being properly distributed amongst the other children and eligible heirs. Hence, Imams had a different system of inheritance, so why is it surprising for the Shia that the Prophets also have their own system of inheritance distinct from non-Prophets?

Reply One – Our grounds for rejecting the tradition coined by Abu Bakar

If the Shia, as the author stated accuse the Sunnis of straying away from the Quran by making exceptions to the laws of inheritance, then it is strictly because:

  • At the time of the dispute of Fadak appeared, no one knew about the Prophet being exempt from the laws of inheritance save Abu Bakar.
  • The Sahaba opposed the alleged notion coined by Abu Bakar i.e. prophets do not leave inheritance and whatever they leave is Sadaqa.
  • The infallible Fatima Zahra (as) who is the mistress of the women of paradise, whose dust cannot cited in the same breath as Abu Bakr, rejected the tradition.
  • The Quran proves that Prophets do leave inheritance.
  • Sunni jurists testified the previous prophets left inheritance .

In light of these brief facts, no rational minded individual is going to believe that Prophets have their own system of inheritance distinct from non-Prophets! No one would have doubted that the Prophets have their own system of inheritance distinct from non-Prophets, had the above cited facts been absent. Ibn al-Hashimi’s efforts at comparing the inheritance system of Imams (as) to the alleged system of inheritance of Prophets is indeed a feeble attempt.

Reply Two – The Imams (as) receiving a ring, sword and other related items

The author has lied when he sought to prove that according to the Shia, the Imams of Ahlulbayt (as) have a separate system of inheritance. The Imams attaining a ring, sword and other related items is not according to any special law but according to a general law namely Habwa which is not exclusive to the Imams but is applicable to anyone. Let us explain the concept of Habwa from Minhaj al-Salihin by Sayyed Khoei, Volume 2 page 412:

يحبى الولد الذكر الأكبر وجوبا مجانا بثياب بدن الميت وخاتمه وسيفه ومصحفه

The elder son is given the Habwa for free that is the cloth, the ring, the sword and the Quran of the dead.

On next page, we read:

إذا أوصى الميت بتمام الحبوة أو ببعضها لغير المحبو نفذت وصيته

‘If the deceased person had made a will that the whole Habwa is to be given or some of it to someone other than the elder son, then his will is legal.’

Thus, whenever the elder son of an Imam is going to be his successor, the items Ibn al-Hashimi cited are received by him due to Habwa. When the successor is not the elder son, the will issued the previous Imam (father) shall be applicable. As for Ali bin Abi Talib (as), the Holy Prophet (s) granted such items to him (as) due him being his (s) true successor. We read in Al-Kafi, Volume 1 page 235:

Umar ibn Aban said: ‘I asked Abu Abdullah (as) about what the people talk about, that he (the prophet) submit a stamped will to Umm Salama. He (Imam Jaffar) said: ‘When Allah’s messenger (s) died, he inherited to Ali (as) His knowledge, weapon and so. Then it remained with al-Hassan, then with al-Hussain’. I said: ‘Then it reamined with Ali bin al-Hussain then with his son then with you?’ He (imam Jaffar) said: ‘Yes’.
Allamah Majlesi declared it Sahih in Mirat al-Uqool, Volume 3 page 48

Defence of Ibn al Hashimi that equates Sayyida Fatima (as)’s prohibition on inheritance to that of a kaafir

Ibn al Hashimi states:

The Shia will argue that the Quranic verses on inheritance pertain to Prophets and non-Prophets alike, and that these rules are all-inclusive without exception. This argument is weakened by the fact that the Shia Ulema themselves make exceptions in the rules of inheritance. For example, the Quran declares that children inherit wealth from their parents. However, the Shia Ulema (as well as the Sunni Ulema) make an exception to this general rule: Kaffir children do not inherit from their Muslim parents. Hence, not everyone is encompassed in the Quranic verse regarding inheritance; it is the general rule for the average person, but there are exceptions for special cases (and Prophets are one such exception).

The team seek to suggest that Sayyida Zahra (as) had no entitlement to inheritance since she was exempt from such a right. The reason for excluding a kaafir and murderer from inheritance is clear and understandable but Ibn al Hasihmi fails to provide any grounds for why the children of the Prophet(s) should not inherit from him. Ibn al Hashimi has committed a major blasphemy against the Ahl’ul bayt (as). No doubt kaafirs and murderers fall outside this verse, but they are being penalised for committing a major sin! Let’s give an example:

“A man has two daughters, if one either apostatizes or kills him, she is not entitled to her father’s inheritance. The other daughter who neither murdered her father nor became an apostate will still be entitled to inherit her father’s possessions”.

To argue that the daughter of Rasulullah’s example was like that of a Kaafir daughter is amazing and is a rejection of the concept of inheritance. Whilst there is proven evidence that a father’s murderer and Kaafir children are not included in inheritance, the same is not the case with the family of the Prophet (s). A murderess and Kaafir offspring fall outside the verse as they are being punished, what act did Sayyida Fatima (as) commit that led to Allah (swt) to punishing her by ruling that she could not inherit from her father?

Ibn al Hasihmi’s claim that the Prophet (s) was exempt from the verses of inheritance

Ibn al Hashimi states:

The Quran gives the general rule, and then the Hadith give the details and exceptions to this rule. For example, the Quran says that men can only marry upto four wives. And yet, we find in Hadith that the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) was exempted from this ruling and he married more than four. Thus, the rules of Hadith grant an exception to the Prophets, and their rules are different than the rules of ordinary people as mentioned in the Quran. Any time a Shia propagandist attempts to assert that we are going against the Quran, we remind them that Prophets in general have different rules in certain matters; otherwise, are the Shia accusing the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) of going against the Quran by marrying more than four women? If the rule about marrying four women can be different for Prophets, then similarly we see no problem in the rules of inheritance also being different for Prophets. The analogy is perfect, and completely negates the Shia claims.

Reply One – Allah (swt) has specified those things that that were exclusive to the Prophet (s) in the Quran

Allah (swt) mentions those matters specific to Muhammad (s) in the Quran itself. If the verses of inheritance did not apply to him (s), Allah (swt) would have likewise specified this fact. Let us cite the exclusive matters:

O ye who believe! Raise not your voices above the voice of the Prophet, nor speak aloud to him in talk, as ye may speak aloud to one another, lest your deeds become vain and ye perceive not.
Al-Qur’an, Surah 49, Ayah 2, translated by Yusufali

Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but (he is) the Messenger of Allah, and the Seal of the Prophets: and Allah has full knowledge of all things.
Al-Qur’an, Surah 33, Ayah 40, translated by Yusufali

O ye of Faith! Say not (to the Messenger) words of ambiguous import, but words of respect; and hearken (to him): To those without Faith is a grievous punishment.
Al-Qur’an, Surah 2, Ayah 104, translated by Yusufali

O Ye who believe! Put not yourselves forward before Allah and His Messenger; but fear Allah: for Allah is He Who hears and knows all things.
Al-Qur’an, Surah 49, Ayah 1, translated by Yusufali

Those who shout out to thee from without the inner apartments – most of them lack understanding.
Al-Qur’an, Surah 49, Ayah 4, translated by Yusufali

The Prophet is closer to the Believers than their own selves, and his wives are their mothers. Blood-relations among each other have closer personal ties, in the Decree of Allah. Than (the Brotherhood of) Believers and Muhajirs: nevertheless do ye what is just to your closest friends: such is the writing in the Decree (of Allah).
Al-Qur’an, Surah 33, Ayah 6, translated by Yusufali

In the same way that these verses mentioned the distinction, specific to the Prophet (s), Allah (swt) would have likewise made clear that the Prophet (s) was exempt from the verses of inheritance. So ibn al Hashimi was he? The answer is no, Allah (swt) has mentioned in His book that past Prophets left inheritance! The onus is therefore on Ibn al Hashimi to corroborate his claim and cite the Quranic verse wherein Allah (swt) makes it clear that Prophets leave no inheritance. If Ibn al Hashimi can show us such a Quranic verse, proving explicitly that the Prophet was exempt from the verses of inheritance, we shall leave our madhab!

If he argues that Hadith could work in this regard, then our point of view will be that a Ahad tradition cannot be used when it is contradicting Quran and we know that the alleged Hadith ‘Prophets do not leave inheritance and what they leave is Sadqah’ has been declared a ‘Ahad’ narration by the Sunni Imams. Moreover, Ayesha’s testimony that Abu Bakar was the only person to bring this Hadith forward and on the top of that, the opposition of this alleged Hadith by the heir of Holy Prophet and other Sahabah also negates any opportunity for Ibn al Hashimi to cite this fabricated tradition to prove that the Prophet (s) was exempt from the Quranic verses of inheritance.

Reply Two – The double standards of Nawasib

Ibn al Hashimi states:

The Quran gives the general rule, and then the Hadith give the details and exceptions to this rule.

And when we advance the very notion in terms of proving the station of Imamate, these same Nawasib (with Ibn al Hashimi at the forefront) adamantly demand that we produce explicit verses from the Holy Quran proving the Imamate of Ahlulbayt (as) Imams. Nevertheless, these two issues are not equivalent in terms of authenticity since the alleged rule of Prophets being exempt from the verses of inheritance is based on an alleged Hadith of which Abu Bakar was the sole narrator that was rejected by the Sahabah.

Ibn al Hashimi’s questioning why no verse exists prohibiting the Ahl’ul bayt (as) from Zakat

Ibn al Hashimi states:

Furthermore, the Shia admit that the Quran dictates that if a person becomes poor, then he becomes eligible for Zakat. This is a right of an individual based in the Quran. And yet, the Hadith tells us that the Prophet’s family is not permitted to take Zakat; even if he becomes poor, a member of the Prophet’s family could not ask for Zakat. This fact is accepted by the Shia. If the Prophet’s family could not recieve Zakat, then why are we surprised when they are also not allowed to recieve inheritance from the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم)? Both rules come from the Hadith, which modify the general rule in the Quran.

Reply One – There is a difference between receiving inheritance and Zakat

Since the Prophet’s family are not entitled to receive Zakat, the author asks why we are surprised when they are likewise prohibited from receiving inheritance. The analogy doesn’t hold up because one is entitled to receive Zakat only when he is or becomes poor. It could be received from outsiders, those who can afford it, whilst the concept of inheritance is totally different, since a person attains ownership of his deceased fathers possessions whether he is rich or poor, it is not received from outsiders. Inheritance involves the family unit exclusively.

Reply Two – Unlike the case of the Prophet’s inheritance, no one objected the Prophet’s family’s non-entitlement to Zakat

The author has got carried away by comparing the Prophet’s family’s non entitlement to Zakat and their (alleged) non entitlement to inheritance, when the reality is that no one ever raised objections to their prohibition on Zakat, whilst the Sahabah comprising of the immediate family members of the Prophet (s) including Fatima Zahra (sa) and Ali bin Abi Talib (as) had no knowledge of any such (alleged) rule, and vigorously opposed this unrealistic stance.

Reply Three – The legal right of Khums has been given to the Ahl’ul bayt (as)

If the Ahl’ul bayt (as) are exempt from Zakat entitlement, it does not in any way mean that they are unprotected from the pangs of hunger or poverty. They have a specific legal right to Khums, and with regards to that Allah (swt) sent down this verse:

Allah (swt) says:

And know that out of all the booty that ye may acquire (in war), a fifth share is assigned to Allah,- and to the Messenger, and to near relatives, orphans, the needy, and the wayfarer…
Al-Qur’an, Surah 8, Ayah 41, translated by Yusufali

Notice how this entitlement has a verse relating to it. If the Ahl’ul bayt (as) were prevented from receiving Zakat, Allah (swt) revealed a verse making it clear what they were entitled to. This in effect makes the law clear. If (as Ibn al Hashimi claimed) Prophets leave no inheritance, can he cite the verse that exempts them and informs us that all they own shall be given away as Sadaqah? Rather than any verse showing such an exemption, the Quran confirms that they do inherit.

And Solomon was David’s heir. He said: “O ye people! We have been taught the speech of birds, and on us has been bestowed (a little) of all things: this is indeed Grace manifest (from Allah.)”
Al-Qur’an, Surah 27, Ayah 16, translated by Yusufali

In Surah Maryam 019.004-6, Allah (swt) refers to the supplication of Prophet Zakariya:

Praying: “O my Lord! infirm indeed are my bones, and the hair of my head doth glisten with grey: but never am I unblest, O my Lord, in my prayer to Thee! Now I fear (what) my relatives (and colleagues) (will do) after me: but my wife is barren: so give me an heir as from Thyself,- (One that) will (truly) represent me, and represent the posterity of Jacob; and make him, O my Lord! one with whom Thou art well-pleased!”
Al-Qur’an, Surah 19, Ayah 4 – 6, translated by Yusufali

This leaves Ibn al Hashimi’s entire argument dead and buried.

Al Khider’s false claim that daughters have no rights of inheritance under Shi’a Fiqh

Al Khidr states:

A Woman’s Inheritance

A more astounding revelation-of which many people happen to be uninformed-is the fact that in the Fiqh of the Imami Shi’ah a woman does noty inherit land or fixed property. How is it that the Shi’ah accept it for Sayyidah Fatimah radiyallahu ‘anha to inherit Fadak, when their own jurisprudence does not allow the succession of a woman to land or fixed property?

* In al-Kafi al-Kulayni has included a chapter entitled “Women do not inherit land”. In this chapter he narrates a hadith from Imam Muhammad al-Baqir, “Women do not inherit anything of land or fixed property.” (al-Kafi, vol. 7 p. 127, Kitab al-Mawarith, hadith no. 1)

* Al-Tusi in Tahdhib al-Ahkam, and al-Majlisi in Bihar al-Anwar have narrated from Maysarah that he asked Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq about what a woman inherits. The Imam replied: “They will get the value of the bricks, the building, the wood and the bamboo. As for the land and the fixed property, they will get no inheritance from that.” (Tahdhib al-Ahkam, vol. 9 p. 299; Bihar al-Anwar, vol. 104 p. 351)

* Al-Tusi records in Tahdhib al-Ahkam and al-Istibsar from Muhammad ibn Muslim that Imam Muhammad al-Baqir said: “A woman will not inherit anything of land and fixed property.” (Tahdhib al-Ahkam, vol. 9 p. 298; al-Istibsar, vol. 4 p. 152)

* He also records from ‘Abd al-Malik ibn A’yan that either Imam Muhammad al-Baqir or Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq said: “Women will have nothing of houses or land.” (Tahdhib al-Ahkam, vol. 9 p. 299; Bihar al-Anwar, vol. 104 p. 351)

Interestingly, this reference so overjoyed the Nawasib, that the literary successors of Ansar.Org such as Deobandi Mufti Desai and Ibn al Hasihmi of also became party to this deception and quoted this text verbatim, without looking at the original source!

 Screenshot No.1 of Ibn al-Hashimi’s article copy pasting Al-Khidr’s article from
 Screenshot No.2 of Ibn al-Hashimi’s article copy pasting Al-Khidr’s article from
 Screenshot No.1 of Mufti Ibrahim Desai’s answer wherein he copy pasted Al-Khidr’s article from
 Screenshot No.2 of Mufti Ibrahim Desai’s answer wherein he copy pasted Al-Khidr’s article from

Reply One

The methodology of reference citation utilised by this Nasibi author confirms that he is indeed a true adherent of Abu Bakr who dealt with his opponents through deceit. Whilst the claim is that a woman does not inherit land or property under Shi’a Fiqh it is worth noting that word ‘daughter’ is not present in any of these Shia traditions. These texts refer to the inheritance of a ‘woman’ that is referring to a ‘widow’ not a ‘daughter’ despite this the filthy followers of Muawiyah tried to prove that woman in any case does not inherit in Shia fiqh. We would like to know what prevented the Nasibi author from quoting the remaining part of the second tradition? The answer is simple, had he done so, his entire argument would have been destroyed, since the tradition clearly stipulates that a daughter inherits from her father and this is explained in a logical manner. Let us present the complete tradition that shall suffice in exposing the dishonesty employed by this Nasibi:

Maysarah: I he asked Abu Abdullah (as) about what a woman inherits. The Imam replied: ‘They will get the value of the bricks, the building, the wood and the bamboo. As for the land and the fixed property, they will get no inheritance from that’. Maysarah said: ‘What about daughters?’ He (as) replied: The daughters shall inherit.’ Maysarah said: ‘How come they (widow) don’t inherit (land or building) although their share is 1/8 of the inheritance and the (daughters’) share is 1/4 ?’ He replied: ‘Because she is not a blood relative to inherit but she is relative in law. And this (widow not inheriting land) is because that woman might marry again and bring her husband or her sons from other husband (in the land/house) which would cause rivalry with others living in their house.’
 Wasail al-Shia, Volume 26 pages 206-207

The same Hadith is also recorded in Al- Kafi, Volume 7 page 130, Tahdib al-Ahkam, Volume 9 page 299 and Al-Istibsar, Volume 4 page 153. It has also been recorded with a different chain in Ilal al-Sharai, Volume 2 page 471 and Min la Yahdruhu al-Faqih, Volume 4 page 347 and the reviser of the book Min la Yahdruhu al-Faqih, Sheikh Ali Akbar Ghafari declared this tradition as Sahih in the footnote.

Moreover we read the following tradition in Min la Yahdruhu al-Faqih, Volume 4 page 261 that has been declared Sahih by Sayyed Rohani in Fiqh al-Sadiq, Volume 24 page 253:

Zurara narrated that Abi Jaffar (as) was asked about a man who died and left a daughter, sister and mother. He replied: ‘The daughter will inherit the whole property, the sister and mother has no share in it.’
This tradition is also been recorded with another chain in al-Kafi, Volume 7 page 87 and has been declared Sahih by Allamah Majleii in Mirat al-Uqool, Volume 23 page 133.

On the same page of Min la Yahdruhu al-Faqih we read another tradition that has also been declared Sahih by Sayyed Rohani:

(Qasim bin Hussain) al-Bezanti narrated that he said: ‘I asked the second Abi Jaffar (as) and said: ‘May I be sacrificed for you, what if a man died and left a daughter and uncles’. He replied: ‘The property is for the daughter.’

Now that our readers can see the complete text, we hope they can appreciate how dishonest Al Khider, Ibn al Hashimi and Mufti Desai are. Of these three, one would have assumed that Mufti Desai would have been more careful in his approach! Whilst Al Khider is a nobody and are comprised of hyperactive Nasibi adolescents, when it comes to Imam Desai, he is a Grand Mufti of the Deobandis, one would have expected him to have been more careful, after all his followers are entitled to assume that when a Mufti speaks he does so on the basis of textual proof not concocted hearsay evidence! If this Mufti is so lacklustre that he cites texts without independently consulting the original source what credibility should his followers give to anything that he states?

Reply Two

Although there remains no need for further discussion after unveiling the cunningness committed by the Nasibi author, for the sake of discussion we should point out that all the Shi’a Mujtahideen from 1st the century until the present, are unanimous on the point that these Ahadeeth refer to the Inheritance of ‘widow’ not of a daughter (who has right to all the things including land and fixed property).

Despite this, want to spread and propagate confusion, so that their ideas can get support. As we have mentioned Allah (swt) sets out a daughters right to inheritance in the Qur’an as follows:

“God (thus) directs you as regards your Children’s (Inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females: if only daughters, two or more, their share is two-thirds of the inheritance; if only one, her share is a half. For parents, a sixth share of the inheritance to each, if the deceased left children; if no children, and the parents are the (only) heirs, the mother has a third; if the deceased Left brothers (or sisters) the mother has a sixth. (The distribution in all cases (‘s) after the payment of legacies and debts. Ye know not whether your parents or your children are nearest to you in benefit. These are settled portions ordained by God; and God is All knowing, All wise.”
Al-Qur’an, Surah 4, Ayah 11

The Shi’a Ulema have on the basis of this verse drawn up rules on inheritance. We read in the Resalah of Tawdhih-al-Masael by Grand Ayatullah. Fazel Lankarani:

2886. If out of the first group, there is only one heir of the deceased (for example, father or mother or only one son or only one daughter), he/she inherits the entire estate, and if there are several daughters or sons, the estate is divided equally and if there is one daughter and one son, the estate should be divided to 3 parts, two parts for the son and one part for the daughter. And if, there are more than one son and daughter, the estate is divided among them in such away that each son gets twice the share of each daughter.

Similar we read in Grand Ayatullah Seestani’s ‘Islamic Laws’:

1. The first group consists of the dead person’s parents and children, and in the absence of children, the grand children, however low, and among them whoever is nearer to the dead person inherits his property. And as long as even a single person from this group is present, people belonging to the second group do not inherit.

2. The second group consists of paternal grandfather, paternal grandmother, and sisters, brothers, and in the absence of sisters and brothers their children, whoever from among them is nearer to the dead person, will inherit from him. And as long as even one person from this group is present, people belonging to the third group do not inherit.

3. The third group consists of paternal uncles and paternal aunts and maternal uncles and maternal aunts, and their descendants. And as long as even one person from the paternal uncles and paternal aunts and maternal uncles and maternal aunts of the dead person is present, their children do not inherit.

However, if the paternal step uncle and the son of the real paternal uncle are present, the son of the dead person’s real paternal uncle will inherit from him to the exclusion of the paternal step uncle. But if there are several paternal uncles and several paternal cousins, or if the widow is alive, then this rule is not without Ishkal.

He then states:

2740:If out of the first group, there is only one heir of the deceased (for example, father or mother or only one son or only one daughter) he/she inherits the entire estate, and, if there are more than one sons or daughters, the estate is divided among them in such a way, that each son gets twice the share of each daughter.


Shia Pen Newsletter

Subscribe to our newsletter to receive regular updates on our new publications.
Shia Pen uses the "Google Groups" system for its newsletters. Subcribe Now →