An-Naml (The Ant)

16. “And Solomon inherited David and he said: ‘O people! We have been taught the language of the birds, and we have been granted of everything; verily this is the manifest favour’.”

The purpose of the Arabic word /waria/ in this verse is to inherit both wealth and government, not the knowledge and prophethood, because prophethood is not something to be inherited, and the knowledge of prophets is not heritable either since it is not something to be acquired.

In this verse, at first it points to inheriting Solomon from his father David.

It says:

“And Solomon inherited David…”

Here, commentators have some different ideas as for the meaning of heritage and that what that is:

Some believe that it is only the heritage of knowledge because, according to their own thought, prophets do not leave any heritage of their own properties.

Some others have mentioned inheritance is confined to property and government, because this word recalls that concept to the mind, before anything else.

And same commentators have rendered it into the language of speaking with the birds.

But regarding to the fact that the verse is general and, in the later Qur’anic sentences the words are also about both knowledge and all other merits, there is no reason to limit the concept of the verse.

Thus, Solomon had been the heir of all merits of his father.

The traditions narrated from Ahl-ul-Bayt (as) have reasoned to this verse before those who said that prophets do not leave any heritage and laid emphasis on the tradition which says:

“We prophets do not leave any heritage”.

They have reasoned that since the said tradition contrasts to the Book of Allah, it is invalid.

We read in a tradition narrated from Ahl-ul-Bayt (as) that when ’Abubakr decided to take Fadak from Fatimah (as) she (as) heard of that decision and came to ’Abubakr and said:

“Is there any thing in the Book of Allah that you inherit from your father but I do not inherit from my father? This is a wonderful thing!

Have you forgotten the Book of Allah and put it behind you when it says:

‘And Solomon inherited David’?”7”

Then the Qur’an in this verse adds:

“…and he said: ‘O people! We have been taught the language of the birds, and we have been granted of everything; verily this is the manifest favour’.”

Some claim that the application of ‘language and speaking’ for non-human beings is not correct save as metaphor; but if a non-human being also utters some sounds and words which are meaningful and indicate some matters, there is no evidence not to call it ‘speaking’, since ‘speech’ is often any words that communicate a truth and a concept.

Of course, we do not want to say that those special sounds that sometimes some animals produce because of anger, wrath, or pleasure and consent, or as the result of pain, or as a sign of affection unto their children are called language.

No, these are some sounds that they bring forth out of their mouth at the time of a special mood. But, as we see in the verses of the Qur’an, Solomon communicates some matters with hoopoe and he (as) sends a message by the hoopoe and then he asks its answer from this bird.

This shows that besides the sounds that they produce because of their moods, animals can speak in some particular conditions by the command of Allah. Another clear example is the explanation about the speech of the ant which will be mentioned later concerning the future verses of this Surah.

Of course, the vast concept of /nutq/ (speech) has been used in the Qur’an which, indeed, states the spirit and conclusion of it, and it is ‘the statement of what is in mind’, whether it is done by means of words and speech; or through other means, like the verse which says:

“This is Our Book that speaks against you with justice…”1

But we do not need to render the word /nutq/ in connection with the speech of Solomon and the birds into this sense; because according to the apparent of the above verses, Solomon was able to understand the special words that birds used for transferring their matters and he could speak with them.

Contrast to the limitations that some commentators have cited for the Qur’anic sentence:

“…we have been granted of every thing…”,

it has a vast meaning and it concludes all physical and spiritual means which were necessary for the formation of that Divine government and, basically, without it this statement will be imperfect.

By the way, Allah has given some special knowledge to some particular persons and He has mentioned them in the Qur’an:

1- Adam had the knowledge of all things:

“And He taught Adam all the names…”2

2- Khidr knew the inward knowledge and interpretation (so that Moses could be his student:

“…‘Shall I follow you that you teach me right conduct…”3

3- Yusuf was taught the knowledge of interpretation of dreams:

“…this is of what my Lord has taught me…”4

4- David was taught by Allah the knowledge of making the coat of mail:

“And We taught him the art of making the coat of mail…”5

5- Solomon knew the language of birds:

“…We have been taught the language of the birds…”6

6- ’Asif Burkhiya (Solomon’s assistant) had the knowledge by which he could bring the royal throne (of the Queen of Sheba) from one country to another country:

“One with whom was some knowledge (of a part) of the (Divine) Book said…”7

7- Talut knew the knowledge of army:

“…‘Verily Allah has chosen him over you, and He has increased him abundantly in knowledge and stature…”8

8- The holy Prophet (S) and other prophets had the knowledge of Unseen:

“…so He does not reveal His secrets to any,” “Except to whom He chooses as an apostle…”9

It is for this reason that it has been said that the prophets’ knowledge is ‘an intuitive knowledge’ and it is bestowed on them through inspiration by Allah.

Some Points

1- The Relation Between Religion and Politics

Contrast to what some short sighted persons think, religion is not only a collection of advice or affairs concerning to the private and personal life. Religion is a collection of some general and common laws of life and common programs which conclude the whole life of men and social issues in particular.

The appointment of prophets to their missions is for the settlement of justice and equity.¹

Religion is for breaking the chains of captivity of men and providing the freedom of human beings.²

Religion is the cause of securing the oppressed from the grips of oppressors and tyrants, and putting an end to the course of their sovereignty.

Finally, religion is a collection of education, and training men along the path of purification and making them complete.³

It is evident that earning these great aims without having a government is impossible. Who can establish justice with mere ethical recommendations so that he stops the domination of the oppressors over the oppressed?

Who can break and take the chains of captivity from the hands and feet of those who are afflicted in it without being supported by a power?

In a society where the means of spreading culture and propagation are in the hands of the vicious and mischief-makers, who can settle the correct principles of education, and foster the morals in the hearts?

That is why we say that ‘religion’ and ‘politics’ are two inseparable elements. If religion separates from politics it totally loses its arm of execution, and if politics separates from religion it will be changed into a destructive element which moves along the path of its interests.

If the Prophet of Islam (S) succeeded to spread this Divine religion quickly in the world, it was because, at the first opportunity, he started to form a government and by means of the Islamic government he pursued the divine aims.

Some other divine prophets who could do like that and succeeded, were able to spread the Divine call better, while some others of them who were in difficulties and the conditions did not let them to form a government, did not succeed to progress very much.

2- The Divine Government and its Means

It is interesting that in the life story of Solomon and David we clearly see that they succeeded to quickly root out the effects of polytheism and idolatry and to establish a government whose main means, according to the concerning verses, was knowledge and awareness in various fields.

It was a system that Allah’s Name was at the top of its programs. This system used to apply all the eligible powers and used even the ability of a bird for reaching its aims.

It was a system that could control all devils and dominated over the oppressors.

And, finally, it was a system which had both enough military force and elements of information, and some persons who had sufficient awareness and skill in different fields, and it had gathered all of these elements under the camp of belief and Monotheism.

3- The Birds’ Speech

In the above verse and the verses which will come later in the story of hoopoe and Solomon, the birds’ speech and the kind of their sense and understanding are referred to explicitly.

No doubt that birds, like other animals, in different circumstances make some various sounds that, with careful observation, we can recognize their states and situations by the kind of that sound and say which sound indicates to their anger, which one to their content, which sound is the reason of their hunger, and which one shows their whining.

We can understand with which sound the animal calls its children and with which sound it warns them of coming a horrible event. This part of the birds’ sound contains no doubt and all of us are, more or less, acquainted with it.

But the holy verses of this Surah apparently intend to say something beyond this matter. They talk about a kind of animal speaking in a secret way which carries some more minute subjects in it. They talk about understanding and a debate between birds and a human being.

This meaning is surprising for some persons, but regarding to the various matters that the scientists have written in their books and the personal observation, and experiences that some other persons had concerning birds, it is not so surprising.

We know some matters even more surprising than this in relation with the talent of animals, and birds in particular.

Some of them are so skilful in making houses and nests for them that they exceed our engineers.

Some of birds possess so much exact information about their future offspring and their needs and difficulties and they act so minutely concerning their salvation that is surprising for all of us.

Their foresight about the circumstance of weather, even from some months before, their awareness of earthquakes before they occur and even before that our seismographs record the slightest quakes are well known.

The training with which some animals are trained in our time, and the extraordinary jobs they do and many people have seen them in many circuses all denote to their wonderful intelligence. The marvelous acts of ‘ants’ and their wonderful civilization; the marvels of the life of bees and their amazing finding the traces are famous.

The recognition of the emigrating birds, which sometimes pave the distance between North Pole and South Pole, and their awareness of the circumstances of the ways along this extraordinary long traveling are wonderful.

The amazing information about Salmon-trout, when they emigrate in groups in deep sees, are generally some subjects that scientifically are certain and are reasons for the existence of an important stage of apprehension, or instinct, or whatever we may call, in these animals.

The existence of some extraordinary senses in animals, such as the system of radar in a bat, very strong sense of smell in some insects, the extraordinary extensive power of sight in some birds, and so on, are also some other evidences for the fact that they are not weaker than us in anything.

Keeping these things in mind, it does not seem wonderful that they have a special speech, too, and can speak with the person who is aware of the method of their talking.

In the verses of the Qur’an, there are also some different points which refer to this meaning.

For example, Surah Al-’An‘am, No. 6, verse 38 says:

“And there is no creature (that walks) on the earth nor a bird that flies with its two wings, but they are communities the like of you…”

In Islamic narrations there are a lot of traditions which refer to the animals’ speech and that of the birds, and even for each of them there have been cited some popular statements whose explanation is very long.

Imam Sadiq (as) in a narration said that Imam Amir-ul-Mu’minin Ali (as) once told Ibn-‘Abbas:

“Verily Allah taught us the birds’ speech as He taught Solomon, son of David, as well as the speech of every living creature in the land and sea.”13

4- The Explanation of a Tradition

There has been recorded a tradition in some different books of Sunnites from the Prophet of Islam (S) which denotes:

“We prophets do not leave any heritage, and whatever we leave must be used as alms (in the way of Allah).”

Sometimes this very tradition has been cited in a form that its first sentence is omitted, like this:

“Whatever we leave must be used as alms (in the way of Allah).”

The document of this tradition in those books is often ended to Abubakr who took the rein of Muslims’ affairs after the Prophet (S), and when Hadrat Fatimah (as) or some other wives of the Prophet (S) demanded Abubakr their inheritance, relying upon this narration, he did not give them any inheritance.

This tradition is recorded by ‘Muslim’ in his Sahih, Vol. 3, P. 13790, by Bukhari, in Kitab-ul-Fara’id, chapter 8, P. 185, and some others have recorded it in their own books.

It is worthy to note that in the latter document, through a tradition narrated by ‘Ayishah, we read as follows:

“(After the death of the Prophet (S)), Fatimah and ‘Abbas came to ’Abubakr and demanded their heritage remained from the Prophet (S). At that time they demanded their land in ‘Fadak’ and their share ‘remained from Kheybar’.

’Abubakr said:

‘I heard from the Messenger of Allah who said:

‘We do not leave any heritage, and whatever we leave is alms’.’

When Fatimah heard this statement she angrily left ’Abubakr and she never spoke with him, even for one word, until the end of her life.”14

This tradition, of course, from different dimensions is objectionable and can be investigated, but what can be said in short here is as follows:

1- This tradition is not consistent with the verses of the text of the Qur’an, and according to the laws and principles we have, every tradition which does not adapt to ‘the Book of Allah’ is invalid and it cannot be taken as the tradition originated from the Prophet (S) or other immaculate ones (as).

In the above-mentioned holy verse, we read that Solomon inheritance David, and the apparent of the verse is general and it concludes properties, too.

Concerning Yahya and Zechariah we read in the Qur’an:

“(One that) shall be my inheritor and the inheritor of the posterity of Jacob…”15

Especially in respect to Zechariah, many commentators have emphasized on financial aspects.

Moreover, the apparent of the verses about inheritance in the Qur’an is general and envelops all. Maybe, it was for the same reason that Qurtabi, the famous Sunnite Commentator, had to take the tradition as the strong verb and the most, not as a general one.

He has said that: this is like the sentence that Arabs say:

“We community of Arabs are the most hospital ones among people, (while it is not a general ordinance).”16

But it is clear that this statement nullifies the value of this tradition, because if we take this excuse for the case of Solomon and Yahya, other aspects that are concluded in it are not certain either.

2- The above mentioned tradition is in contrast with other narrations which show that ’Abubakr decided to return Fadak to Fatimah, but some others hindered it, as it is cited in Sirah Halabi:

“Fatimah, the Prophet’s daughter, came to ’Abubakr while he was on the pulpit.

She said:

“O ’Abubakr! Is the matter in the Book of Allah that your daughter inherits from you but I do not inherit from my father?”

’Abubakr wept and shed tears. Then he came down of the pulpit, and wrote a later indicating that Fadak was turned back to Fatimah (as).

At this time ‘Umar entered and said:

“What is this?”

’Abubakr said:

“I wrote a letter to return the inheritance of Fatimah from her father to her.’

‘Umar said:

“If you do this, where from do you obtain the expenditure of the fight with the enemies, now that Arabs have stood against you?” Then ‘Umar caught the letter and tore it.”17

How could there be an explicit prohibition issued by the Prophet (S) and Abubakr would dare to oppose it? And why did ‘Umar rely upon the needs of fight and did not rely on Prophet’s tradition?

Careful studying the above-mentioned narration shows that the Prophet’s prohibition was not in contemplation, the important thing, here, was the political issues of the time.

These are the things that remind one the statement of Ibn-’Abil-Hadid Mu‘tazily who said:

“I asked my teacher, Ali-ibn-Fariqi,

‘Was Fatimah (as) right in her claim?’

He answered:

‘Yes.’

I said:

‘Why did not ’Abubakr give Fadak to her while he counted her a truthful one?’

My teacher smiled with a very meaningful smile and expressed a beautiful smooth statement, though he did not customarily joke.

He said:

“If today he gave Fadak to her, she would come the following day and claimed the caliphate for her husband, and she would unsettle him of his position, and he had neither any excuse to say nor any thing to agree with.”18

3- A Famous Tradition from the Prophet (S)

In many books of great sects of Islam, there is recorded a famous tradition which says:

“The scholars are the heirs of the prophets.”19

It is also narrated from the Prophet (S) who said:

“Verily the prophets did not leave any Dinar nor Dirham (drachma) as heritage.”20

It seems from these two traditions that the main aim has been to make it clear that the capital and the honour of the Divine prophets had been their knowledge.

The most important thing that they left behind was the issue of guidance, and those who earned some larger share from this knowledge are the essential heirs of prophets, without that they seek for the properties remained from the prophets.

Later this tradition has been paraphrased and has been misused by corruption in transmission, and probably the Arabic phrase /mataraknahu sadaqatun/ (whatever we leave must be used as alms (in the way of Allah)), which had been understood from some narrations, has been added to it.

To shorten our discussion, we conclude this statement with an explanation from Fakhr-i-Razi, the famous commentator of Sunnites, who has cited about Surah An-Nisa’, No. 4, verse 11.

He says that one of the allotments that has been set for this verse (the verse of children’s heritage) is what is the majority of the jurisprudents of Sunnites believe and it indicates that prophets (as) do not leave any thing as heritage, while Shi‘ite have (generally) opposed this matter.

It has been narrated that when Fatimah (as) demanded her heritage, they deprived her from it attaching to the Prophet’s tradition which says:

“We prophets do not leave any heritage, and whatever we leave must he used as alms (in the way of Allah)” At this time Fatimah (as) reasoned to the generality of the above mentioned verse (the verse of children’s heritage) as if she wanted to point to this fact that the whole Qur’an cannot be appropriated with a single narration.”

Then, Fakhr-i-Razi adds:

“Shi‘ites say that supposing that allotment of the Qur’an be permissible with a single narration, it is not permissible here because of following three reasons:

1. This contrasts the explicit text of the Qur’an which says that Zechariah asked Allah to give him a child who could inherit from him and the posterity of Jacob. And also the Qur’an says that Solomon inherited from David.

These verses cannot be rendered into the heritage of ‘knowledge’ and ‘religion’, since this is a kind of figurative heredity and these prophets taught knowledge and religion to their children, not that they took it from themselves and transferred it to them. The real heritage is considered only in wealth (that it be taken from one and be given to another).

2. Another matter is that how is it possible that ’Abubakr could be aware of this subject, which he did not need, but Fatimah (as), Abbas, and Ali (as), who were of the greatest virtuous and knowledgeable ones and were dealing with the issue of the Prophet’s heritage, were not aware of it?

How could it be possible that the Prophet (S) taught this tradition to the one who did not need it and restrained it from the one who needed it?

3. The Arabic phrase /ma taraknahu sadaqah/ (whatever we leave must be used as alms (in the way of Allah) is next to the Arabic phrase /la nuwarri/ which means: the properties we have set apart for the purpose of alms do not come inside the circle of heritage, not other than that…”

Then, Fakhr-i-Razi gives a short answer to the above-mentioned known reasoning and says:

“After speaking with Abubakr, Fatimah (as) became content with that speaking. Besides, the consensus has reached to this that the word of Abubakr is right.”21

But it is clear that the answer of Fakhr-i-Razi is not sufficient for the abovementioned reasoning, because, as was narrated from the Sunnite famous sources, Fatimah (as) not only was not contented but she was so angry that she did not speak even for a word with Abubakr until the end of her life.

Moreover, how could there be a consensus upon this subject while Ali, Fatimah (as) and Abbas, who had been trained in the center of revelation, had opposed it?