This is our refutation of infamous Shiawebsite “Shiapen.com” which was formerly known as Answering-Ansar.org; the name of this website was changed because the lies and deception of it were exposed to such an extent that, they had to revise its stuff and come up with a new name. This article is a refutation to Shiapen’s article “Fadak: Chapter Four: Abu Bakr’s rejection of witnesses’ testimony”.
Argument 1:
Shiapen stated:
[Quote]
Abu Bakr sought witnesses that were produced but their testimonies were refused on different grounds
[End Quote]
Answer:
The incident of witnesses being sought by Abubakr(ra), itself is fabricated and fictitious; this cannot be proven from any authentic report from the books of Ahlesunnah.
Sayyida Fatima(ra) never brought any witnesses, and if she had truly owned a land as gigantic as Fadak, she’d have at least more than 10 people in addition to documents and workers, unless we’re living in a jungle of course. This story is based on some fabricated and fictitious reports as usual, which were quoted by Shiapen to support their false claims.
The renowned Sunni scholar Hammad bin Ishaq (d.267 hijri) said in his expert research on the topic of inheritance in his book “Tarikat al-Nabi”:
فَأَمَّا مَا يَحْكِيهِ قَوْمٌ أَنَّ فَاطِمَةَ عَلَيْهَا السَّلامُ طَلَبَتْ فَدَكَ، وَذَكَرَتْ أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ أَقْطَعَهَا إِيَّاهَا، وَشَهِدَ لَهَا عَلِيٌّ عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ، فَلَمْ يَقْبَلْ أَبُو بَكْرٍ شَهَادَتَهُ لأَنَّهُ زَوْجُهَا، فَهَذَا أَمْرٌ لا أَصْلَ لَهُ وَلا تَثْبُتُ بِهِ رِوَايَةٌ
Hammad ibn Ishaq said: “As for what some people narrated about Fatimah(ra) asking for Fadak and saying that the Messenger of Allah(saw) had gifted it to her, and ‘Ali (ra) testifying to that but Abu Bakr (ra) not accepting his testimony because he was her husband, this is something that has no basis, and no report could ever be proven concerning that; rather it is fabricated and has no proof.”(Also refer; Minhaj al-Sunnah vol 4, page 236-237).
Shiapen can obviously try, but we assure them Insha’Allah they will fail in bringing even one authentic report about this myth.
Another thing is, Shiapen quotes various unreliable narrations. Each narration stating something different, one says that the witnesses were `Ali and Umm Ayman, the other says it was Umm Ayman and Rabah the servant of Rasul-Allah (saw), the third says it’s Asma’ bint `Umays, Umm Ayman and `Ali. Shiapen thinks all of these different names mean that Fatimah brought several witnesses, the reality of the situation is all these fabricated reports show that the liars who made them up weren’t very smart, since this is inconsistency.
Argument 2:
Argument of another Shiawebsite RTS:
[Quote]
Abu Bakr requesting Fatima to provide sufficient Witnesses
RTS quote narrations that are similar to the following:
Narrated Al-Mada’ini from Sa’eed ibn Khalid, servant of Khuza’a from Musa ibn Uqba who said: Faatima (s.a) entered upon Aboo Bakr when he was paid allegiance, she said: “Umm Ayman and Rabah bear witness for me that the Messenger of Allah (saw) gave me the Fadak.” Aboo Bakr said: “By Allah (swt)! There is no one more dear to me than your father, I wished the Judgment Day had happened in the day that he passed away, I prefer A’isha to encounter poverty rather than your poverty, do you think I give every red and black their rights and I oppress you, while you are the daughter of the Messenger of Allah (saw)? This wealth is for the Muslims. Your father used to appoint people over it and spent it for charity. I will do with it what your father did. Faatima (s.a) said: “By Allah (swt)! I will not speak to you!” He said: “By Allah (swt)! I will not leave speaking with you.” She said: “By Allah (swt)! I will pray to Allah (swt) against you.” He said: “But I will pray to Allah (swt) for you.”
Source: Ansaab Al-Ashraaf. Vol. 10, Pg. # 79.
[End Quote]
Answer:
Shiawebsite RTS provide several narrations that suggest that Abu Bakr requested witnesses, then attempted to worm their way out of it by asking for more witnesses. However, as we all know in the authentic report in Saheeh Al-Bukhari and other famous Sunni works, none of this happened. Abu Bakr simply rejected Fatima’s claim by providing the narration that the Prophet(saw) said that he will not have any inheritors
In response to the narrations provided by RTS we say:
First Narration:
First narration in Ansaab Al-Ashraaf. Vol. 10, Pg. # 79, from Musa bin Uqba: Weak due to Sa’eed bin Khalid who was weakened by Al-Bukhari, Abu Zur’ah, Abu Hatim, Ibn Hibban, and Al-Daraqutni. See his biography in Tahtheeb Al-Tahtheeb. Hence this is unreliable and rejected.
Second narration:
Second narration in Al-Saqifah Wa Fadak. Pg. # 104 by Ahmad bin Abd Al-Azeed Al-Jawhari: The narration is weak since it comes through the path of Hisham Al-Kalbi and his father. Both were accused of fabricating narrations. See their biographies in Mizan Al-I’itidal. Hence this is unreliable and rejected.
Third narration:
Third narration by Al-Balathuri in Futuh Al-Buldan. Pg. # 43: Weak due to the anonymity of Ja’wana, and also weak due to disconnection. Hence this is unreliable and rejected.
Fourth narration:
Fourth narration by Al-Balathuri in Futuh Al-Buldan. Pg. # 43.: Weak due to the anonymity of Rawh, and “a man”, and disconnection. Hence this is unreliable and rejected.
Fifth narration:
Fifth narration by Al-Fakhr Al-Razi in Tafsir Al-Razi. Vol. 29, Pg. # 285.: Weak due to absence of chain. A report without a chain is like a body without a head, because any liar can attribute a fabrication to anyone. Hence this is unreliable and rejected.
Sixth narration:
Sixth narration by Al-Hamawi in Mu’jam Al-Buldaan. Vol. 4, Pg. # 238 – 240.: Weak due to absence of chain. A report without a chain is like a body without a head, because any liar can attribute a fabrication to anyone. Hence this is unreliable and rejected.
Seventh narration:
Seventh narration by Al-Mohib Al-Tabari in Riyadh Al-Nadhira. Vol. 1, Pg. # 42.: Weak due to absence of chain. A report without a chain is like a body without a head, because any liar can attribute a fabrication to anyone. Hence this is unreliable and rejected.
Eighth narration:
Eighth narration by Ibn Shabbah in Tarikh Madinah of ibn Shabbah. Vol. 1, Pg. # 192 – 193: The chain includes Al-Numairi bin Hassaan, who is anonymous. Plus, the hadith is disconnected. Hence this is unreliable and rejected.
Ninth narration:
Ninth narration by Al-Sarkhasi in Al-Mabsout. Vol. 16, Pg. # 123 – 124: Weak due to absence of chain.
If it is questioned that why did some Sunni scholars use this incident, to derive a fiqh ruling that “bearing witness of husband for his wife is acceptable”, then the answer is that; It is a known thing that, scholars of jurisprudence(fiqh) sometimes used to rely on weak and unproven reports to derive a fiqh ruling, in absence of any authentic report to support that ruling. For example: In the Shafii madhhab Ibn al-Qayyim has related that weak hadith is superior to qiyas(analogy) according to Imam al-Shafi’i. (A’alamal Mawqieen, 1:32)
Moreover, the opinion that a husband can witness for his wife, seemed reasonable to some scholars, as it didn’t contradict any law of shari’ah. Hence in that case, even if they found a proof for their opinion from an unreliable and unproven incident, yet they used it to back their opinion, but this in no way means that the baseless and fictitious incident becomes reliable.
Imam Ibn Taymiyah in Minhaj al Sunnah, Volume 4 page 125 states:
“On a husband’s testimony there exist two views of scholars, there are two narrations from Ahmad, one of which says that it is not acceptable, and it’s the opinion of Abu Hanifa, Malik, Laith bin Saad, Awzai, Ishaq and others while it is acceptable according to Sha’afi, Abi Sawar, Ibn Mazazir and others”.
Hence, we find that most of the major fiqh scholars didn’t accept the testimony of a husband for his wife, one of the reasons was because there wasn’t any reliable report to form this ruling. Which implies that, they never considered the baseless and fictitious incident where Ai(ra) testified for his wife(ra) to be authentic or reliable. So, if some of the scholar used this baseless incident to form a ruling, that doesn’t make the baseless incident true, because as already explained, scholars of fiqh used to derive rulings from unreliable and unproven reports, if there was nothing that opposed that concept, since they considered it better than opinion based on speculation.
Tenth narration:
Tenth narration by Ibn Hazm in Al-Muhallah. Pg. # 1571.: Weak due to absence of chain. A report without a chain is like a body without a head, because any liar can attribute a fabrication to anyone. Hence this is unreliable and rejected.
Interestingly, the baseless and unproven reports used by Shias, contradict other reports which says the opposite:
Here is a weak report where we find that Abubakr(ra) didn’t demand witnesses from Fatima(ra) saying she was reliable and trusted in his sight.
We read in al-Tarikah with its chain from Anas that Abu Bakr(ra) told Fatimah(ra):
أَنْتِ عِنْدِي مُصَدَّقَةٌ أَمِينَةٌ، فَإِنْ كَانَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ عَهِدَ إِلَيْكِ فِي ذَلِكَ عَهْدًا، أَوْ وَعَدَكِ مِنْهُ وَعْدًا أَوْجَبَهُ لَكُمْ صَدَّقْتُكِ، وَسَلَّمْتُهُ إِلَيْكِ، قَالَتْ فَاطِمَةُ عَلَيْهَا السَّلامُ: لَمْ يَكُنْ مِنْ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ فِي ذَلِكَ إِلَيَّ شَيْءٌ إِلا مَا أنزل اللَّهُ تَبَارَكَ وَتَعَالَى فِيهِ مِنَ الْقُرْآنِ
[Abu Bakr told her: “You are reliable and trusted in my sight, if Rasul-Allah (saw) had promised you anything concerning this, I would believe you and hand it to you.” Fatimah replied: “The messenger (saw) never said anything, it is only what is written in the Qur’an.”]
Comment: In other words she is only relying on the laws of inheritance in the Qur’an, there was no promise or gifts. Nor did Abubakr(ra) ask for any witnesses, He said, he would believe her if she affirms that it was given to her by Prophet(saw).
Moreover, here is the “Hasan” report up to `Umar bin `Abdul-`Aziz, which states that Fatimah(ra) asked for the land and was denied it by the Prophet (saw). In Sunan abu Dawud we read:
حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ الْجَرَّاحِ، حَدَّثَنَا جَرِيرٌ، عَنْ الْمُغِيرَةِ، قَالَ: جَمَعَ عُمَرُ بْنُ عَبْدِ الْعَزِيزِ بَنِي مَرْوَانَ حِينَ اسْتُخْلِفَ، فَقَالَ: إِنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ كَانَتْ لَهُ فَدَكُ فَكَانَ يُنْفِقُ مِنْهَا وَيَعُودُ مِنْهَا عَلَى صَغِيرِ بَنِي هَاشِمٍ وَيُزَوِّجُ مِنْهَا أَيِّمَهُمْ، وَإِنَّ فَاطِمَةَ سَأَلَتْهُ أَنْ يَجْعَلَهَا لَهَا فَأَبَى فَكَانَتْ كَذَلِكَ فِي حَيَاةِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ حَتَّى مَضَى لِسَبِيلِهِ، فَلَمَّا أَنْ وُلِّيَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ عَمِلَ فِيهَا بِمَا عَمِلَ النَّبِيُّ فِي حَيَاتِهِ حَتَّى مَضَى لِسَبِيلِهِ، فَلَمَّا أَنْ وُلِّيَ عُمَرُ عَمِلَ فِيهَا بِمِثْلِ مَا عَمِلَا حَتَّىمَضَى لِسَبِيلِهِ
[`Abdullah that Jareer told him that al-Mugheerah said: `Umar bin `Abdul-`Aziz gathered the children of Marwan when he received Khilafah, he said: “Rasul-Allah (saw) had Fadak, he used to spend from it on the little ones of bani Hashim and marry-off their bachelors, and Fatimah had asked him to grant her it during the life of Rasul-Allah (saw) so he refused and died, then Abu Bakr became in charge so he used it as Rasul-Allah (saw) did until he died, then `Umar…]
At the end he says:
فَرَأَيْتُ أَمْرًا مَنَعَهُ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ فَاطِمَةَ عَلَيْهَا السَّلَام لَيْسَ لِي بِحَقٍّ وَأَنَا أُشْهِدُكُمْ أَنِّي قَدْ رَدَدْتُهَا عَلَى مَا كَانَتْ يَعْنِي عَلَى عَهْدِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ
[So I saw a matter that Rasul-Allah (saw) prevented Fatimah, I have no right (to give it to you) so I ask you to bear witness that I have returned it to the way it was during the messenger’s (saw) time.]
Another narration is from `Umar bin `Abdul-`Aziz by abu al-Barqan in Baladhuri’s book, it is similar to the one above, it denies that the messenger (saw) gave the land to Fatima(ra):
إن فدك كانت مما أفاء اللَّه عَلَى رسوله ولم يوجف المسلمون عَلَيْهِ بخيل ولا ركاب، فسألته إياها فاطمة رحمها اللَّه تعالى، فقال: ما كان لك أن تسأليني، وما كان لي أن أعطيك، فكان يضع ما يأتيه منها في أبناء السبيل
[Fadak was from what Allah gave as a Fay’ to his messenger (saw) without riding to battle, so Fatimah asked him for it and he (saw) said: “It is not your right to ask me nor is it my right to offer it to you.” He (saw) spent from it on the stranded travellers…]
Next narration is that of Ja`far bin Muhammad al-Ansari in the book of Tabaqat ibn Sa`d, it is a long one but confirms what we previously read, it says:
كانت فدك صفيا لرسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فكانت لابن السبيل وسألته ابنته فدك أن يهبها لها فأبى رسول الله ذلك عليها
[Fadak was purely the property of Rasul-Allah (saw) so he made it for the stranded travellers, then his daughter asked him for Fadak to grant it to her but he (saw) refused…]
Similarly, we read in Sharah Nahjul Balagha of Shia Mutazili Ibn Abil Hadeed:
قال أبو بكر وحدثنا أبو زيد قال : حدثنا عمرو بن مرزوق ، عن شعبة ، عن عمرو أبن مرة ، عن أبى البخترى قال : قال لها أبو بكر لما طلبت فدك : بأبى أنت وأمى ! أنت عندي الصادقة الامينة ، إن كان رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم عهد إليك في ذلك عهدا أو وعدك به وعدا ، صدقتك ، وسلمت إليك فقالت : لم يعهد إلى في ذلك بشئ ولكن الله تعالى يقول : (يوصيكم الله في أولادكم) (2) ، فقال : أشهد لقد سمعت (3) رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يقول : (إنا معاشر الانبياء لا نورث)
Al-Jawhari reports from Abu Zaid [Umar bin Shabbah the author of Tareekh al-Madinah] from ‘Amr bin Marzooq from Shu’bah from ‘Amr bin Murrah from Abu al-Bakhtari: Abu Bakr said to her(Fatima) when she demanded the Fadak, “May my father and mother be sacrificed for you! You are truthful and trustworthy near me. If the Messenger of Allah (saw) provided you something (of Fadak) or had promised you something I will affirm it and will handle it to you.” She replied, “The Messenger of Allah did not entrusted me anything regarding it but Allah the Exalted has said (Allah commands you regarding your children).” He said, “I bear witness that I heard him saying (we are the group of Prophets we do not inherit).” (Sharah Nahjul balagha,Ibn Abil Hadeed , vol 16, no. 228).
Argument 3:
Shiapen stated:
[Quote]
Prominent Sunni scholars not only affirmed that testimonies of witnesses were rejected but they too have supported such rejection by Abu Bakr
The testimony of Imam Shareef Jarjani that witnesses were produced before Abu Bakar who rejected their testimonies
The testimony of Ibn Hajjar Makki that witnesses were produced before Abu Bakar rejected their testimonies
The testimony of Imam Fakhruddin al-Razi that witnesses were produced before Abu Bakar who rejected their testimonies
The testimony of Allamah Halabi that witnesses were produced before Abu Bakar who rejected their testimony
[End Quote]
Answer:
These scholars tried to explain the reports regarding witnesses produced by Fatima(ra), because these scholars may not have thoroughly researched certain reports and just accept them for their popularity or because they’re in a famous book. They collected narrations found in those books and then tried to reconcile and explain them, not realizing that those reports were unreliable and baseless.
The way to answer this point is as follows: Certain scholars researched the matter and know for a fact the narrations of witnesses as well as those of Fatimah claiming Fadak to be a gift are all weak lies. Other scholars may read these narrations in certain books and accept them as they accept any historical narration without doing any research but they’d give a proper explanation for such reports and never draw evil conclusions from them like Shias do.
The scholars of Hadeeth science have weakened the reports regarding Fatima(ra) producing witnesses as these were narrated from unknown narrators or extremely weak and unreliable narrators and have serious defects in their chains.
That is why we read, the renowned scholar Hammad bin Ishaq (d.267 hijri) said in his expert research on the topic of inheritance in his book “Tarikat al-Nabi”:
“As for what some people narrated about Fatimah(ra) asking for Fadak and saying that the Messenger of Allah(saw) had gifted it to her, and ‘Ali (ra) testifying to that but Abu Bakr (ra) not accepting his testimony because he was her husband, this is something that has no basis, and no report could ever be proven concerning that; rather it is fabricated and has no proof.”(Also refer; Minhaj al-Sunnah vol 4, page 236-237).
So, if certain scholars tried to explain the scenario which is unproven, then regardless of their explanation being correct or wrong, that scenario itself would remain baseless and unproven.
If, the Shiapen tries to reject our response, then we would like to remind them that, many of their esteemed Shia Scholars too tried to explain several Shia hadeeth, which actually were weak according to Shia standards, for example Shia Shiekh Tusi in (Tahdeeb al-Ahkam) explains a shia narration by saying that it was narrated under Taqiyyah(dissimulation), but the Shias argue that the report which Tusi explained was weak, so his explanation doesn’t make the report correct. Similarly, we would like to question Shiapen that, if Shia scholar’s explanation to weak report won’t make the report correct, then how could the explanation by Sunni scholars for baseless incident make that incident authentic?
Similar, argument can be raised even regarding the explanations of Shia scholars over the narrations about tahreef of Quran, we can also quote certain Shia scholars who believed in the corruption of the Qur’an because of the gigantic number of reports in their books, we would like to ask Shiapen, are they going to believe that, tahreef of Quran is an established Shia belief, since several esteemed Shia scholars explained the narrations about tahreef of Quran? If the answer is, ‘No’, then, we would like to advice Shiapen that, ‘People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones’.
Interestingly, we read in an authentic narration as per al-Majlisi from Shia book al-Kafi:
مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ يَحْيَى عَنْ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ مُحَمَّدٍ عَنْ أَبِي الْحَسَنِ الثَّانِي ( عليه السلام ) قَالَ سَأَلْتُهُ عَنِ الْحِيطَانِ السَّبْعَةِ الَّتِي كَانَتْ مِيرَاثَ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ ( صلى الله عليه وآله ) لِفَاطِمَةَ ( عليها السلام ) فَقَالَ لَا إِنَّمَا كَانَتْ وَقْفاً وَ كَانَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ ( صلى الله عليه وآله ) يَأْخُذُ إِلَيْهِ مِنْهَا مَا يُنْفِقُ عَلَى أَضْيَافِهِ وَ التَّابِعَةُ يَلْزَمُهُ فِيهَا فَلَمَّا قُبِضَ جَاءَ الْعَبَّاسُ يُخَاصِمُ فَاطِمَةَ ( عليها السلام ) فِيهَا فَشَهِدَ عَلِيٌّ ( عليه السلام ) وَ غَيْرُهُ أَنَّهَا وَقْفٌ عَلَى فَاطِمَةَ
[From abu al-Hasan (as) I asked him about the seven gardens which were the inheritance from the prophet (saw) to Fatimah, he replied: “They’re not an inheritance, they’re a Waqf (…until he said…) When the messenger (saw) passed away, al-`Abbas came and disputed with Fatimah (over the land) so `Ali and others testified that the lands were a Waqf for Fatimah.]
In other words, they mean Prophet(saw) gave it to Fatimah as gift, then al-`Abbas came to them and had a dispute with them because he thought he had a share in the land from inheritance since he never heard of Fadak being a gift. Based on their own reports the Prophet’s uncle al-`Abbas never knew that the land was a gift, is there a need for us to say more?
Argument 4:
Shiapen stated:
[Quote]
Sayyida Fatima was ‘Siddiqah’ hence it was Abu Bakr’s duty to accept her claim without demanding witnesses
Sayyida Fatima (as) was clear and firm in her claim, namely that Rasulullah (s) had given Fadak to her, and that she was entitled to her Share from Khayber and outskirts of Madina as Khums. She had a legal right to the property of Rasulullah (s).
Sayyida Fatima was convinced about the correctness of her opinion and did not believe that her truthfulness would be challenged. When witnesses were demanded she verified the truthfulness of her claim by producing the testimonies of Imam Ali (as), Imam Hassan (as), Imam Husayn (as), Umm Ayman, and Rabah the Servant of Rasulullah (s).
Why didn’t Abu Bakr accept the claim of Sayyida Fatima (as) in the first instance? Why did he ask for witness corroboration?
[End Quote]
Answer:
Though the incident that Abubakr(ra) demanded witnesses itself is false and fictitious, yet we would like to shut the mouth of opponents, by presenting similar incidents which raise the same questions for certain individuals like they raised for Abubakr(ra).
(i). Here is an incident from Shia book al-Kafi 7/47 (Majlisi graded it SAHIH):
مجلسي صحيح23/80
محمد بن يحيى، عن أحمد بن محمد، عن أبى الحسن الثانى عليه السلام قال: سألته عن الحيطان السبعة التى كانت ميراث رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله لفاطمة عليهما السلام فقال: لا إنما كانت وقفا وكان رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله يأخذ اليه منها ماينفق على أضيافه والتابعة(2) يلزمه فيها، فلما قبض جاء العباس يخاصم فاطمة عليها السلام فيها فشهد علي عليه السلام وغيره أنها وقف على فاطمة عليها السلام وهى الدلال، والعواف، والحسنى والصافية وما لام ابراهيم والميثب والبرقة
Muhammad ibn Ahmad narrates that I asked Imam Abul Hasan al thani about the seven gardens which were the Prophet’s inheritance for Fatima. He said : No, they were given to Fatima (i.e waqaf) and the Prophet (s) would take as much as he would need , and when he died, Abbas came and quarrelled with Fatima regarding these gardens, so Ali and others gave witness that they were dedicated (i.e waqf) for Fatima. And these seven gardens are 1. dalaal 2. aoof 3. hasni 4. saafiya 5.maalaami ibrahim 6. maseeb 7. Barqa.( al-Kafi 7/47)
Comment: If for sake of argument we accept the Shia argument, then according to the same argument, Abbas(ra) made a huge blunder. The allegation can be on Abbas as well; didn’t he know that Fatima is Siddiqa (i.e truthful)? He even quarrelled with her, and Fatima had to bring witnesses to prove her claim. How will the Shia defend him then , if they believe that Abu Bakr should have accepted her claim because she is Siddiqa (i.e truthful), then shouldn’t have Abbas(ra) accepted the same? The question is, if Shias say Fatima made a claim, Abu Bakr should have at once accepted it without wasting a moment, so shouldn’t Abbas have avoided quarrelling with her and accepted her claim without having her bringing witnesses?
(ii). In the second incident we read:
Ja’far b Muhammad reported on the authority of his father, Muhammad b. ‘Ali b. Husain from jabir bin Abdullah: Ali came from the Yemen with the sacrificial animals for the Prophet (May peace be upon him) and found Fatimah (Allah be pleased with her) to be one among those who had put off Ihram and had put on dyed clothes and had applied antimony. He (Hadrat’Ali) showed disapproval to it, whereupon she said: My father has commanded me to do this. He (the narrator) said that ‘Ali used to say in Iraq: I went to the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) showing annoyance at Fatimah for what she had done, and asked the (verdict) of Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) regarding what she had narrated from him, and told him that I was angry with her, whereupon he said: She has told the truth, she has told the truth.(Sahi Muslim, Book 7 ,Number 2803). Similar reports are also found in Shia books, See [al-Amaali, page 602-603] ; [Tahdhib Al-Ahkam, vol 5, page 454-456 : al-Majlisi graded it as “Sahih” in Milaadh al-Akhyaar, vol 8, page 496, #234] ; [al-Kafi, vol 8, page 163-164 : al-Majlisi graded it as “Hasan like Sahih” in Miraat al-Uqool, vol 17, page 110].
Comment: What all arguments Shiapen made on Abubakr(ra) basing them on the fictitious incident, the same arguments and questions would be applied to Ali(ra).
Argument 5:
Shiapen stated several arguments under the following titles:
[Quote]
Abu Bakr’s demanding witnesses is proof that he did not deny her control of the land
Heirs have the right to demand witnesses on matters of inheritance, not a Judge
An Executor administering the deceased’s Estate has the right to initiate inquiry not a Judge
Abu Bakr as Judge had no right to demand witness corroboration
The onus was on Abu Bakr to produce witnesses not Sayyida Fatima (as)
Rather than demand witnesses why didn’t Abu Bakr allow the Muslims to rule on the matter?
Logical proof that an infallible testimony is acceptable without the need for witnesses
The Ahl’ul Sunnah believe that the testimony of the Sahaba without witnesses is acceptable
[End Quote]
Answer:
The incident of Abubakr(ra) demanding witnesses, itself is unproven and fictitious, hence all these and many other assumptions and analogies made by Shiapen using this incident are void.
Infact the whole chapter “Chapter Four: Abu Bakr’s rejection of witnesses’ testimony” is null and void.
Again we would like to quote, the renowned Sunni scholar Hammad bin Ishaq (d.267 hijri) who said in his expert research on the topic of inheritance in his book “Tarikat al-Nabi”:
فَأَمَّا مَا يَحْكِيهِ قَوْمٌ أَنَّ فَاطِمَةَ عَلَيْهَا السَّلامُ طَلَبَتْ فَدَكَ، وَذَكَرَتْ أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ أَقْطَعَهَا إِيَّاهَا، وَشَهِدَ لَهَا عَلِيٌّ عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ، فَلَمْ يَقْبَلْ أَبُو بَكْرٍ شَهَادَتَهُ لأَنَّهُ زَوْجُهَا، فَهَذَا أَمْرٌ لا أَصْلَ لَهُ وَلا تَثْبُتُ بِهِ رِوَايَةٌ
Hammad ibn Ishaq said: “As for what some people narrated about Fatimah(ra) asking for Fadak and saying that the Messenger of Allah(saw) had gifted it to her, and ‘Ali (ra) testifying to that but Abu Bakr (ra) not accepting his testimony because he was her husband, this is something that has no basis, and no report could ever be proven concerning that; rather it is fabricated and has no proof.”(Also refer; Minhaj al-Sunnah vol 4, page 236-237).
In Defense of the Aal & Ashaab 