That Fatimah came to Abu Bakr and 'Umar may Allah be pleased with them both, to ask them about her inheritance from the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ). They said: "We heard the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) say: 'I am not inherited from.'" So she said: 'By Allah! I will never talk to you two again.' So she died having not talked to them."
'Ali bin 'Eisa said: "The meaning of not speaking to you two is: 'Never again regarding this inheritance, because you two are truthful.'"
The Book on Military Expeditions
Jami' at-Tirmidhi - Hadith 1609
Contextual Analysis
This narration from Jami' at-Tirmidhi concerns the inheritance of Lady Fatimah, daughter of the Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ), from her father. The incident occurred shortly after the Prophet's passing when Fatimah approached Abu Bakr and 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with them) to inquire about her share of inheritance.
Scholarly Commentary
The statement "I am not inherited from" indicates that prophets leave no material inheritance, as their wealth is considered public trust for the Muslim community. This ruling preserves the prophetic mission from being associated with worldly gains.
Abu Bakr and 'Umar's adherence to this principle demonstrates their strict commitment to following the Prophet's teachings, even when facing difficult personal circumstances.
Interpretation of Fatimah's Response
As clarified by 'Ali bin 'Eisa, Fatimah's statement about not speaking to them referred specifically to the matter of inheritance, not a complete severance of relations. This interpretation maintains the integrity of all companions involved and acknowledges their mutual truthfulness.
The scholars explain that Fatimah's position stemmed from her initial understanding that general inheritance rules applied, while Abu Bakr and 'Umar acted upon specific prophetic instruction.
Legal and Spiritual Implications
This hadith establishes the important legal principle that prophets' possessions are not inherited in the conventional manner. Their legacy is spiritual and guidance-based rather than material.
The incident also illustrates how righteous companions could disagree while maintaining mutual respect and commitment to truth.