Volume 4, Book 51, Number 2 :
Narrated by Amr bin Al-Harith (radiallaahu `anhu) (the brother of the wife of Allah’s Apostle, Juwaira bint Al-Harith)
When Allah’s Apostle (sallallaahu `alayhi wasallam) died, he did not leave any Dirham or Dinar (i.e. money), a slave or a slave woman or anything else except his white mule, his arms and a piece of land which he had given in charity.
Volume 4, Book 51, Number 3 :
Narrated by Talha bin Musarrif
I asked ‘Abdullah bin Abu Aufa (radiallaahu `anhu), “Did the Prophet (sallallaahu `alayhi wasallam) make a will?” He replied, “No,” I asked him, “How is it then that the making of a will has been enjoined on people, (or that they are ordered to make a will)?” He replied, “The Prophet (sallallaahu `alayhi wasallam) bequeathed Allah’s Book (i.e. Quran).”
Volume 4, Book 51, Number 4 :
Narrated by Al-Aswad
In the presence of ‘Aisha (radiallaahu `anhaa) some people mentioned that the Prophet (sallallaahu `alayhi wasallam) had appointed ‘Ali (radiallaahu `anhu) by will as his successor. ‘Aisha (radiallaahu `anhaa) said, “When did he appoint him by will? Verily when he died he was resting against my chest (or said: in my lap) and he asked for a wash-basin and then collapsed while in that state, and I could not even perceive that he had died, so when did he appoint him by will?”
The determining of the Prophet’s debt and fulfillment of his promises
During the time approaching his demise, the Prophet came to the mosque, and asked the people whether there was anyone who had anything owed to them from the Prophet. Following the Prophet’s insistence in asking this question, someone stood up and claimed that they were owed 3 dirham. This was paid immediately to him. Again, during this time, the Prophet asked his wife Aisha about what happened to the 7 dirham (in some hadith 6 dirham, in others 9 dirham) that he left in her care. Upon this, she immediately got the money and handed it over to the Prophet. The Prophet then distributed 5 dirham to 5 needy families from the Helpers (Ansar) and gave the remainder of the money to his wives to spend.
Even though the Prophet paid all of his debts before he died, Abu Bakr, who took the leadership of Muslims after him, saw himself as responsible for paying the debts and fulfilling all the pledges of the Prophet. The pledges of the Prophet were no different (in the importance that he gave to them) to his debts. The Prophet’s Companion Jabir explains one of the Pledges that the Prophet made to him as follows:
The Prophet said to me, “I will give you so much (the Prophet pointed thrice with his hands) when funds of Bahrain will come to me.” But the Prophet died before the money reached him. (When it came) Abu Bakr ordered an announcer to announce that whoever had a money claim on the Prophet or was promised to be given something, should come to Abu Bakr. I went to Abu Bakr and told him that the Prophet had promised to give me so much. On that Abu Bakr gave me three handfuls (of money). [Bukhari, “Gifts,” 17.]
Properties left by the Prophet and their distribution
It was not difficult to divide the property of the Prophet because he did not have so much in assets. When he passed away, nothing more than some blocks of land and the house in which he resided, in terms of assets, existed.
Based on the information given by Ibn Sa’d, it was not known what happened to the flocks of camel and sheep known to belong to the Prophet. Ibn Sa’d names the slaves and concubines belonging to the Prophet – either donated or gained through war – and narrates that they were all manumitted prior to his illness.
As for the way in which the Prophet’s inheritance was managed, his livestock and some of his personal belongings were bequeathed to Ali’s family. His mantle, sword and ring remained state property.
Following the Prophet’s demise, his heirs – first and foremost his daughter Fatima – appealed to Abu Bakr to divide his belongings and land. They were reminded of God’s Messenger saying to them, “Our (Apostles’) property should not be inherited, and whatever we leave, is to be spent in charity.” Accordingly, all the land belonging to him was given to the State. Fatima, evidently unaware of such a command, insisted on receiving her share of the land in the areas of Khaybar, Fadak, and Banu Nadir.
Another saying of the Prophet regarding his inheritance is as follows, as narrated by Abu Huraira:
God’s Messenger said, “Not even a single Dinar of my property should be distributed (after my death to my inheritors, but whatever I leave excluding the provision for my wives and my servants, should be spent in charity.” [Bukhari, “Laws of Inheritance,” 33; “Jihad,” 202.]
As such, the Prophet’s wives would be entitled to receive the allowance he determined for them during his life, for the rest of their lives. Intended by his ‘servants’ is without doubt those looking after his property and managing its income and the employees and workers working on his lands which were not given to others to manage.
As for the rooms in which the Prophet’s wives resided, he bequeathed these to them. They were to live in these rooms and once his wives passed away, the rooms, like the Prophet’s land, were to be included among his charity.
In this way the Prophet, who had prohibited the appropriation of all kinds of income obtained from the Muslims to both himself and his relatives, left behind the property either donated to him or acquired as war spoils to the State, as charity for the Muslim community. In so doing, the Prophet used his spiritual and material authority not in the way of hoarding wealth for himself and his family, but purely and solely for the purpose of bringing all Muslims a happiness which encompassed their lives in both this world and the next.
The inheritance of the rights owned by the Prophet
The Prophet Muhammad has many attributes, the chief of which are undoubtedly his being a Prophet of God and Head of State. The Last Prophet would, for all eternity, have no heir in Prophethood. In this respect, the handing down and bequest of the rights he had by virtue of his being a Prophet of God is inconceivable. After him, only those who the people elected and pledged allegiance to would assume the position of Head of State. With respect to the rights he had that were associated with his role as Head of State, these would be transferred to Heads of State succeeding him. At this point, we will not discuss all these rights, but make mention of only those pertaining to economics, from the perspective of the legal Schools of Thought.
The Hanafis – on the basis of the practices of the Rightly Guided Caliphs (the four Caliphs succeeding the Prophet) – claim that the share belonging to the Prophet and his relatives are null and void with his demise. In their view, the Prophet Muhammad held these rights not by virtue of his being Head of State, but by virtue of his being a Prophet. As for Imam Shafii, he is of the opinion that the share belonging to the Prophet is transferred to the Caliphs who would succeed him as Head of State after his demise. According to him, just as the Prophet had particular expenses in the way of giving gifts to visiting delegations and ambassadors, the caliphs too, had the same need. As far as Shafii is concerned, Heads of State have an adequate share in this right because, like the Prophet, they dedicate themselves to the service of society. In actual fact, Shafii is of the view that the share falling to the Prophet from spoils of war and booty is transferred to the caliphs, not as personal assets or rights, but purely for use in the way of public good. We glean this from and clearly see this in both his own work and that of Mawardi.
However, as can be understood from Kasani (d. 587), Shafii is of the view that the Head of state also can personally benefit from these rights. Like Shafii, there are others scholars who confer this right, to be used for the benefit of society, to the Head of State. The Hanbalis hold the view that the share belonging to the Prophet can be used for public good and the benefit of society, public service as well as investment.
Taken from LastProphet.info
Hadith no. 2156 (below) is a repeat. Read it here.
Volume 3, Book 43, Number 659:
Aisha (radiallaahu `anhaa) said that she hung a curtain decorated with pictures (of animates) on a cupboard. The Prophet (sallallaahu `alayhi wasallam) tore that curtain and she turned it into two cushions which remained in the house for the Prophet (sallallaahu `alayhi wasallam) to sit on.
Volume 3, Book 43, Number 660:
Narrated ‘Abdullah bin ‘Amr bin Al-‘As (radiallaahu `anhu):
I heard the Prophet (sallallaahu `alayhi wasallam) saying, “Whoever is killed while protecting his property then he is a martyr.”
The Muslim is obliged to defend himself and his family from any aggressor. He should ward him off with the slightest means, but if the assailant cannot be warded off except by killing, then it is permissible for the one who is being attacked to kill him, and he is not subject to retaliation (qisaas) and he does not have to pay any blood money (diyah) or offer any expiation (kafaarah), because sharee’ah has given him permission to kill in this case, and the slain aggressor is threatened with Hell, whereas the victim of aggression, if he is killed, is a martyr (shaheed) in sha Allaah. It makes no difference whether the aggressor is a Muslim or a kaafir.
It was narrated that Abu Hurayrah (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: A man came to the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and said: O Messenger of Allaah, what do you think if a man comes wanting to take my property? He said: “Do not give him your property.” He said: What if he fights me? He said: “Fight him.” He said: What if he kills me? He said: “Then you will be a martyr.” He said: What if I kill him? He said: “He will be in Hell.” Narrated by Muslim (140).
It was narrated that Sa’eed ibn Zayd (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “The one who is killed defending his wealth is a martyr, the one who is killed defending his family is a martyr, the one who is killed defending his religion is a martyr, and the one who is killed defending his life is a martyr.” Narrated by al-Tirmidhi (1421), al-Nasaa’i (4095), Abu Dawood (4772); classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Irwa’ al-Ghaleel (708).
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:
The Sunnah and scholarly consensus are agreed that if a Muslim assailant cannot be warded off except by killing him, then he may be killed, even if the wealth that he wants to take is a small amount, as the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said in the saheeh hadeeth: “The one who is killed defending his wealth is a martyr, the one who is killed defending his life is a martyr, and the one who is killed defending his womenfolk is a martyr…” Fighting off an assailant is established in the Sunnah and by scholarly consensus. End quote.
Majmoo’ al-Fataawa (28/540, 541).
In al-Rawd al-Murabbi’ (p. 677) it says:
If a person or one of his womenfolk, such as his mother, daughter, sister or wife, is attacked, or his property, whether a slave or an animal, is attacked, then he has the right to defend that by the least means that he thinks will ward off the attack. If he is able to ward it off with the least means then it is haraam for him to do more than that because there is no need for it.
If he cannot ward off the attacker except by killing him, then he may do that, i.e., kill the assailant, and he is not liable for that, because he killed him to ward off his evil. End quote.
Shaykh Saalih al-Fawzaan (may Allaah preserve him) said:
The one who is attacked by someone who wants to kill him or attack his womenfolk such as his mother, daughter, sister or wife and violate their honour, or is attacked by someone who wants to take or destroy his property, has the right to defend himself against that, whether the attacker is a human or an animal. He should ward it off with the least that he thinks most likely will be able to ward it off, because if he is not allowed to defend himself that will lead to destruction and harm against himself or his womenfolk or his wealth, and because if he did not do that, people would overpower one another. If he cannot ward off the assailant except by killing him, then he has the right to do that, and he is not liable, because he killed him in order to ward off his evil. If the victim is killed then he is a martyr because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “If a person’s wealth is sought unlawfully and he fights and is killed, then he is a martyr.” Narrated by Muslim and others from Abu Hurayrah (may Allaah be pleased with him). And he said: A man came and said: O Messenger of Allaah, what do you think if a man comes wanting to take my property? … and he narrated the hadeeth quoted above.
Al-Mulakhkhas al-Fiqhi (2/443).
The person who is attacked should not hasten to kill the assailant until after he has exhausted other means of warding him off, such as reminding him of Allaah, scaring him and threatening him, seeking help from other people, or seeking the help of the police. But he may hasten to kill him if he fears that the aggressor is about to kill him.
It was narrated from Qaboos ibn Mukhaariq that his father said: A man came to the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and said: What if a man comes to me wanting to take my wealth? He said: “Remind him of Allaah.” He said: What is he pays no heed? He said: “Seek help against him from those who are around you of the Muslims.” He said: What if there are no Muslims around me? He said: “Then seek help against him from the ruler.” He said: What if the ruler is faraway from me? He said: Then fight him to defend your wealth, until you become one of the martyrs in the Hereafter or you protect your wealth.” Narrated by al-Nasaa’i (4081) and classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh al-Nasaa’i.
This applies if it is proven that he killed him in self-defence with evidence such as the testimony of witnesses, or if the heirs of the slain person believe that he killed him in self-defence, or if there is strong circumstantial evidence to indicate that, such as if the slain person was known for evil and corruption, and he threatened to kill him – for example – in front of other people and so on.
Shaykh Muhammad ibn Ibraaheem (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:
If this person admits to killing him and claims that he did it in self-defence but the heir of the slain person does not believe him, then qisaas (retaliation) must be carried out. It says in al-Insaaf: this is our view, and the view of our companions. But if the slain person was known for aggression and evildoing, and there is circumstantial evidence that points to what the killer is saying, then it says in al-Insaaf: it says in al-Furoo’: No qisaas is required if he is known for evildoing. I say: This is the correct view, and circumstantial evidence should be taken into account. End quote.
Majmoo’ Fataawa Ibn Ibraaheem (11/255, 256)
Taken from IslamQA
Volume 3, Book 34, Number 415 :
Narrated by Jabir (radiallaahu `anhu)
Allah’s Apostle (sallallaahu `alayhi wasallam) gave pre-emption (to the partner) in every joint property, but if the boundaries of the property were demarcated or the ways and streets were fixed, then there was no pre-emption.
Volume 3, Book 34, Number 416 :
Narrated by Jabir bin Abdullah (radiallaahu `anhu)
Allah’s Apostle (sallallaahu `alayhi wasallam) decided the validity of pre-emption in every joint undivided property, but if the boundaries were well marked or the ways and streets were fixed, then there was no pre-emption.
Volume 3, Book 34, Number 417 :
Narrated by Mussaddad from ‘Abdul Wahid
The same as above but said, “… in every joint undivided thing…” Narrated Hisham from Ma’mar the same as above but said, ” … in every property… “
The word Shuf’ah (preemption) is derived from Shaf’ meaning “to join” [because the property is joined to the shafi’ [pre-emptor]. In the terminology of the Fuqahaa it is the right to take possession of a house and land to prevent the harm of a neighbour e.g. if a man sells his house or land and tells his neighbour or partner about this sale the partner/neighbour has a right to object to the sale. He can take that was sold at the price at which it was sold. The one who has this right, is called a shafi’ [pre- emptor].
‘Shuf’ah’ (pre-emption) is the right someone has on his property or land, etc. According to Shari’ah three types of people have a right of pre-emption: i) a partner in the property who has a share in it, but the other partner sells the property without his consent. So he has the right to appeal against this in the Shari ‘ah Court on the basis of Shuf’ah. ii) Someone who is affected by the selling of a property (though not directly involved in that property) i.e. A neighbour who shares a path or a well, etc. That neighbour has a right of Shuf’ah and can issue a writ. There are no different opinions about i) and ii) above. Finally, iii) The neighbour – if he has separate boundaries for his land/home and no joint rights with the other, the neighbour should still be given priority when you come to selling your property. If the owner doesn’t inform him, he is not allowed to issue a writ for right of pre-emption.
The period or limit of pre-emption is for it to be made immediately after knowing of the dealing. If it is not possible to contact an Islamic Court then at least announce it to responsible members of the community. Otherwise, if delayed considerably, then it is not acceptable.
It is quite clear that the right of shuf’ah has been devised in Islam to adjust and to stabilize partnerships and to eliminate losses and other mischief resulting from partnership of properties, for in many cases, the possession of the property by the new partner inflicts losses on the partner having the right of shuf’ah or serves as the source of a series of conflicts and disagreements due to differences of opinion or it may be that freedom of ownership may have benefits for the one who has the right of shuf’ah without causing any loss for the partner who wants to sell his share. The right of shuf’ah holds good for lands, houses, gardens, and other immovable properties, but it does not apply to movable properties.
Volume 3, Book 34, Number 313:
Narrated Abu Qatada (radiallaahu `anhu):
We set out with Allah’s Apostle (sallallaahu `alayhi wasallam) in the year of Hunain, (the Prophet gave me an armor). I sold that armor and bought a garden in the region of the tribe of Bani Salama and that was the first property I got after embracing Islam.
Once Prophet (sallallaahu `alayhi wasallam) gave the armor to Abu Qatada (radiallaahu `anhu), it became his. He had full rights over it so he could do whatever he wanted with it. He decided to sell it and get some property. This is perfectly permissible in this case.
What are your thoughts on the scenario if the armor he got was a gift and not from war booty? Would it be okay to sell it in order to buy some property like he did? Think about it.
Volume 3, Book 34, Number 282:
Narrated ‘Aisha (radiallaahu `anhaa):
The Prophet (sallallaahu `alayhi wasallam) purchased food grains from a Jew on credit and mortgaged his iron armor to him.
Volume 3, Book 34, Number 283:
Anas (radiallaahu `anhu) went to the Prophet (sallallaahu `alayhi wasallam) with barley bread having some dissolved fat on it. The Prophet (sallallaahu `alayhi wasallam) had mortgaged his armor to a Jew in Medina and took from him some barley for his family. Anas (radiallaahu `anhu) heard him saying, “The household of Muhammad (sallallaahu `alayhi wasallam) did not possess even a single Sa’ of wheat or food grains for the evening meal, although he has nine wives to look after.”
Mortgage: convey (a property) to a creditor as security on a loan.
It is neither the taking out of a loan nor a mortgage which by itself is unlawful or prohibited in Islam; what is unconditionally and specifically prohibited and absolutely unlawful in the Sight of Allah is the ‘interest’ element in the loan or the mortgage.
Thus if one takes out an interest-free mortgage on their house or property, such a transaction would be absolutely lawful in the Sight of Shariah Law.
This is the general and overall ruling. Further details will come in the future inshaAllah.