Praise be to Allaah.
narrated from Jaabir ibn ‘Abd-Allaah that a man said: “O Messenger of
Allaah, I have wealth and children, but my father wants to take all my
wealth.” He said, “You and your wealth are for your father.”
(Narrated by Ibn Maajah, 2291; Ibn Hibbaan in his Saheeh,
2/142 from the hadeeth of Jaabir, and 2922; Ahmad, 6902 from the hadeeth
of ‘Abd-Allaah ibn ‘Amr).
report has other isnaads and corroborating reports which make it saheeh.
al-Baari, 5/211; Nasb
laam in the hadeeth (li
in li abeeka – for your
father) does not mean possession, rather it means permission.
in the hadeeth does not mean possession at all… If we say that it means
permission, then the hadeeth makes sense, otherwise it does not have any
of the things which indicate that it does not mean possession is the fact
that the son’s children, wife and mother can inherit from him. If his
wealth were the property of his father, no one would be able to take his
property except the father.
it was not proven. When Allaah decreed that a father could inherit from
his son, He made him (the father) like other heirs. He may even have a
smaller share than many other heirs, which proves that the son is the
owner of his own wealth, not the father.
permission is not absolute. It is subject to four conditions.
Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allaah preserve him) said:
This hadeeth is not da’eef (weak) because it has corroborating reports. What this means is that if he (the son) has wealth, the father has the right to enjoy that wealth and to take whatever he wants from it, but this is subject to certain conditions:
first condition: that by taking it he does not cause harm to his son. If
it does cause harm – such as taking his cover with which he protects
himself from the cold, or he takes his food with which he wards off hunger
–it is not permissible for the father to do this.
second condition: it should not be something that the son needs. If the
son has a concubine whom he sleeps with, it is not permissible for the
father to take her, because his son needs her. Similarly, if the son has a
car which he needs for getting about, and he does not have enough cash to
buy a replacement, then the father does not have the right to take it
under any circumstances.
third condition: he should not take the wealth from one of his sons in
order to give it to another, because this creates enmity between the sons
and because it means preferring one of the children over another, if the
second son is not in need. If he is in need, then the father’s giving
something to the one who is in need and not to the ones who are not in
need, does not mean that he is preferring one child over another; on the
contrary, it is obligatory for him to do this.
the case, the hadeeth is something which the scholars refer to and use as
evidence. But there are conditions attached, as we have mentioned. The
father does not have the right to take one son’s wealth and give it to
Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid