Moreover, it should remain clear that in all your three referred cases, it would not be very accurate to say that the directive of the Prophet (pbuh) or the opinion of Hadhrat Ali رضي الله عنه or that of Hadhrat Omar رضي الله عنه was such and such. The most that can be said is that the three narratives contain the directive ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh) or an opinion ascribed to Hadhrat Ali رضي الله عنه or Hadhrat Omar رضي الله عنه, respectively. The chance that the words ascribed to these authorities may not have been accurately narrated can, obviously, not be ruled out. After all, how can we overlook the chance that any one or more of the narrators may have been mistaken in reporting or ascribing these sayings to the respective authorities.[/quote]
Its ironic that the through this whole "fatwa" the "scholar" does not present a shred of daleel to prove his own understanding of the laws of inheritance, other than "this is my understanding" or "in my opinion...", and yet goes on to criticize the hadith quoted by the questioner. While the fuqahaa use this and similar ahadith to formulate the laws of inheritance, this "scholar" bases the laws on "his own understanding". Regarding the narrator criticism he does thereafter, I find it slightly amusing. He does not even understand the laws of Inheritance properly, so I cannot believe that he would be trustworthy as a researcher of hadith narrators.
In the second case of Mimbariyya, the "scholars" incorrect distribution is due to his aversion and rejection of the law of 'awl. About the law of 'awl, he says:
The "scholar" wrote:
The doctrine of Awl, if you would look closely at it is, in effect, a recognition and acceptance of the idea that there is an error in the stipulation of shares in the Qur'an[/quote]
So for 1400 years the sahaabah and the fuqahaa have actually been affirming an error in the Qur'an? The law of 'awl, as already explained in previous posts,
is accepted unanimously across all madhabs and all scholars. The "scholars" logic is faulty and has no basis. He is willing to reject the narrations (which all the 'ulama accept) regarding 'awl while not presenting a single piece of evidence for his own rules, other than
"this would imply a mistake in the Qur'an".
As for case 3, the following is the "scholars" basis for the ruling:[quote] Yes. The basis, as you have yourself pointed out is Al-Nisaa 4: 176.
Thats it. No explanation, nothing. I've read the verse, and I've read its tafseer, but I still can't for the life of me figure out how the "scholar" used it to come up with his fictitious rule.
And in refutation of the four madhabs he writes: [quote]However, in my opinion, this distribution seems to be in clear contradiction to the directive of Al-Nisaa 4: 176. Therefore, in view of Al-Nisaa 4: 176, I think the stated opinion of the respected jurists is not very accurate.
has stated that differences of opinion are a blessing to his 'ummah, so to say that ikhtilaaf negates the divinity of inheritance laws is a blasphemy not only against inheritance laws, but against all of fiqh, the traditional 'ulama and Rasulullah 