Introduction
Qāḍī Abū Yūsuf, the famous student of Abū Ḥanīfa (d. 150) who went on to become the chief judge of the Abbasid empire, has a small section in his important work Kitāb al-Kharāj where he collects historical reports concerning the distribution of the six portions of khums as mentioned in the relevant verse of Sūrat al-Anfāl (8:41).
What is noteworthy is that Abū Yūsuf goes out of his way to center the narrative proposed by Ibn ʿAbbās (the ancestor of the Abbasids) and the Alids (such as al-Bāqir and al-Ḥasan b. Muḥammad b. al-Ḥanafiyya) in which the early Caliphs are portrayed as having broken away from the precedent set by the Prophet when it came to apportioning khums. Abū Yūsuf’s candour can be explained by the fact that he wrote the work at the request of the Caliph Hārūn al-Rashīd (d. 193), who as an aggrieved party to the dispute himself (being a Hashimite), would have welcomed this being put on the record.
What follows is a break-down of pertinent reports in the order in which Abū Yūsuf cites them [see https://shamela.ws/book/26333/30]
Analysing the Reports
1. Abū Yūsuf begins by quoting Ibn ʿAbbās (d. 68) as saying:
وَأَمَّا الْخُمُسُ الَّذِي يَخْرُجُ مِنَ الْغَنِيمَةِ فَإِنَّ مُحَمَّدَ بْنَ السَّائِبِ الْكَلْبِيِّ حَدَّثَنِي عَنْ أَبِي صَالِحٍ عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ عَبَّاسٍ أَنَّ الْخُمُسَ كَانَ فِي عَهْدِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ عَلَى خَمْسَةِ أَسْهُمٍ: لِلَّهِ وَلِلرَّسُولِ سَهْمٌ، وَلِذِي الْقُرْبَى سهم، ولليتامى والمساكن وَابْن السَّبِيل ثَلَاثَة أسْهم ثُمَّ قَسَّمَهُ أَبُو بَكْرٍ وَعُمَرُ وَعُثْمَانُ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى عَنْهُمْ عَلَى ثَلاثَةِ أَسْهُمٍ، وَسَقَطَ سَهْمُ الرَّسُول وَسَهْم ذِي القربي وَقسم على الثَّلَاثَة الْبَاقِيَة، ثُمَّ قَسَّمَهُ عَلِيُّ بْنُ أَبِي طَالِبٍ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ عَلَى مَا قَسَّمَهُ عَلَيْهِ أَبُو بَكْرٍ وَعُمَرُ وَعُثْمَانُ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى عَنْهُمْ
The khums which was in the time of the Messenger of Allah was divided into five portions: Allah and His Messenger was one portion, for the relatives another portion, for the orphans, poor, and stranded travellers a portion each.
Then Abū Bakr, ʿUmar, and ʿUthmān divided it into three portions. The portion of the Messenger and the portion of the relatives were (both) dropped and it was distributed to the remaining three (i.e. orphans, poor, and stranded travellers).
Then ʿAli b. Abī Ṭalib divided it as it was divided by Abū Bakr, ʿUmar, and ʿUthmān.
The Messenger of Allah would, in his own lifetime, use the portion of Allah and that of His Messenger as he saw fit, and distribute the portion of the relatives among the Banū Hāshim and the Banū Muṭṭalib [see for e.g: https://sunnah.com/abudawud:2980]
One could perhaps justify dropping the portion of the Messenger after he had passed away, but what justification is there for dropping the portion of the relatives?
What do we make of ʿAli following the policy of the previous Caliphs in this? Does this mean that he agreed with it?
2. Abū Yūsuf quotes Ibn Isḥāq (the author of the famous biography of the Prophet) who reports the following exchange he had with Muḥammad al-Bāqir (d. 114):
قَالَ: وَأَخْبَرَنِي مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ إِسْحَاقَ عَنْ أَبِي جَعْفَرٍ قَالَ قُلْتُ لَهُ: مَا كَانَ رَأْي عَليّ رَضِي الله عَنهُ فِي الْخُمُسِ؟ قَالَ: كَانَ رَأْيُهُ فِيهِ رَأْيُ أَهْلِ بَيْتِهِ؛ وَلَكِنَّهُ كَرِهَ أَنْ يُخَالِفَ أَبَا بَكْرٍ وَعُمَرَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمَا
I said to him: “What was ʿAli’s opinion concerning khums?”
He (i.e. al-Bāqir) replied: “His opinion was the same as his ahl al-bayt but he did not want to go against Abū Bakr and ʿUmar”
Al-Bāqir notes that ʿAli did not agree with the policy of his predecessors on khums but made no moves to change it.
Reports in the Imāmī corpus have al-Bāqir explain that ʿAli, whose Caliphate was not universally accepted and who was engaged in a civil-war, did not feel that he had the power to overturn some of the Caliphal precedents that had taken root in the intervening years.
3. Abū Yūsuf includes an interesting correspondence between Najda the Khārijite and Ibn ʿAbbās on this subject.
قَالَ: وَحَدَّثَنِي مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ إِسْحَاقَ عَنِ الزُّهْرِيِّ أَنَّ نَجْدَةَ كَتَبَ إِلَى ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى عَنْهُمَا يَسْأَلُهُ عَنْ سَهْمِ ذَوِي الْقُرْبَى: لِمَنْ هُوَ؟ فَكَتَبَ إِلَيْهِ ابْنُ عَبَّاسٍ: كَتَبْتَ إِلَيَّ تَسْأَلُنِي عَنْ سَهْمِ ذَوِي الْقُرْبَى، لِمَنْ هُوَ، وَهُوَ لَنَا، وَإِنَّ عُمَرُ بْنُ الْخَطَّابِ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ دَعَانَا إِلَى أَنْ يُنْكِحَ مِنْهُ أَيِّمَنَا، وَيُقْضِي مِنْهُ عَنْ مُغْرِمِنَا، وَيُخْدِمُ مِنْهُ عَائِلَتَنَا. فَأَبَيْنَا إِلا أَنْ يُسَلِّمَهُ لَنَا، وَأَبَى ذَلِكَ عَلَيْنَا
Najda wrote to Ibn ʿAbbās asking him about the portion of the relatives – to whom does it belong?
Ibn ʿAbbās wrote back to him: “You have written to me asking me about the portion of the relatives – to whom does it belong? It belongs to us. ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb had proposed to us that he would marry-off from it those unmarried among us, pay-back from it the debts of those in debt among us, and spend from it on our families, but we refused unless he hands that over to us and he (i.e. ʿUmar) rejected that”
This report reveals that what was really at stake was control over the portion. ʿUmar wanted an accommodation with the Banū Hashim where control of the portion remained in his hands albeit he would use it for the welfare of the Banū Hāshim. The Banū Hāshim refused and wanted him to give them total control over it to dispense with as they saw fit.
Then I found that this same report was also transmitted by Abū Jaʿfar al-Bāqir who must have seen the contents as supporting his own position [https://sunnah.com/nasai:4134].
4. Abū Yūsuf quotes al-Ḥasan b. Muḥammad b. al-Ḥanafiyya (d. c. 100):
قَالَ: وَحَدَّثَنِي قَيْسُ بْنُ مُسْلِمٍ عَنِ الْحَسَنِ بْنِ مُحَمَّد ابْن الْحَنَفِيَّةِ قَالَ: اخْتَلَفَ النَّاسُ بَعْدَ وَفَاةِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فِي هَذَيْنِ السَّهْمَيْنِ: سهم الرَّسُول عَلَيْهِ الصَّلَاة وَالسَّلَام، وَسَهْمِ ذَوِي الْقُرْبَى؛ فَقَالَ قَوْمٌ: سَهْمُ الرَّسُولِ لِلْخَلِيفَةِ مِنْ بَعْدِهِ، وَقَالَ آخَرُونَ: سَهْمُ ذَوِي الْقُرْبَى لقرابة الرَّسُول عَلَيْهِ الصَّلَاة وَالسَّلَام، وَقَالَتْ طَائِفَةٌ: سَهْمُ ذَوِي الْقُرْبَى لِقَرَابَةِ الْخَلِيفَةِ مِنْ بَعْدِهِ؛ فَأَجْمَعُوا عَلَى أَنْ جَعَلُوا هَذَيْنِ السَّهْمَيْنِ فِي الْكِرَاع وَالسِّلاحِ
The people differed after the death of the Messenger of Allah regarding these two portions: The portion of the Messenger and the portion of the relatives.
A group said: “The portion of the Messenger is for the Caliph” Others said: “The portion of the relatives is for the relatives of the Messenger” A large group said: “The portion of the relatives is for the relatives of the Caliph”.
Then they agreed with each other to use these two portions for (supplying) horses and weapons (for the conquest).
This report reveals the underlying tension when it came to these two portions. The idea that the portion of the Messenger should go to the successor of the Messenger (i.e. the Caliph) seems straightforward enough, but if so then the relatives should be those of the Caliph as some indeed argued, yet this seemed a stretch for the relatives of the Messenger were still alive, but if they deserve this then perhaps they also deserve the portion of the Messenger, which leads to an uncomfortable thought: If they deserve to inherit the portion of the Messenger then perhaps they also deserve to inherit his position and authority in the umma! This would not do! The simple solution was to declare that Prophets do not leave behind any inheritance, abolish both portions and use it for something else altogether!
5. The last quotation Abū Yūsuf includes is from the Kufan authority ʿAṭāʾ b. al-Sāʾib (d. c. 136) who notes:
قَالَ: وَحَدَّثَنِي عَطَاءُ بْنُ السَّائِبِ أَنَّ عُمَرَ بْنَ عَبْدِ الْعَزِيزِ بَعَثَ بِسَهْمِ الرَّسُولِ وَسَهْمِ ذَوِي الْقُرْبَى إِلَى بني هَاشم
ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz sent the portion of the Messenger and the portion of the relatives to the Banū Hāshim.
It seems that ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz (d. 101) had become convinced that the early Caliphs were mistaken in contravening the original Prophetic precedent when it came to khums. He sought to correct this by handing over the portion of the relatives to the Banū Hāshim, and he even went a step further when considering the portion of the Messenger theirs by right of inheritance.
6. Finally, Abū Yūsuf relays the opinion of his own teacher and associates:
قَالَ أَبُو يُوسُف: وَكَانَ أَبُو حَنِيفَةَ رَحِمَهُ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى وَأَكَثْرُ فُقَهَائِنَا يَرَوْنَ أَنْ يُقَسِّمَهُ الْخَلِيفَةُ عَلَى مَا قَسَّمَهُ عَلَيْهِ أَبُو بَكْرٍ وَعُمَرُ وَعُثْمَانُ وَعَلِيٌّ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى عَنْهُمْ
Abū Ḥanīfa, may Allah the Exalted have mercy on him, and most of our jurists opine that the Caliph apportions it in the way it was apportioned by Abū Bakr, ʿUmar, ʿUthmān, and ʿAlī.
The irony here is that whatever objection Ibn ʿAbbās and the Alids may have had and which Abū Yūsuf duly records, the standard position of the circle around Abū Ḥanīfa was to follow the precedent set by the early Caliphs in which the two portions are dropped.
Conclusion
These reports preserved by Abū Yūsuf confirm that there was long-standing dissent from the Banū Hāshim when it came to the distribution of khums. While the Sunni corpus preserves a few statements from al-Bāqir noting a disparity between the prevailing way in which khums was being allocated when compared to the Prophetic precedent, the sensitive nature of the topic (it was seen as infringement on Caliphal authority) means that one does not find in this corpus any of the Twelver Imams laying out their own preference for how khums should be divided in any detail or making a claim for it. It is only when we turn to the Imāmī corpus that we begin to fill-in this blank.
Shiitic Studies 