Abu Bakr accepted claims without witnesses but for Hazrat Fatima (sa) he objected

When Abu Bakr felt like it, he would accept a claim without the need for witnesses

As proof we have relied on the following esteemed Sunni works:

1. Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 48, Number 848: Book of Witnesses
2. Sahih Muslim, Volume 2 page 291
3. Sahih al Tirmidhi, vol 5 p 129
4. Sunan al Kabeera, Volume 6 page 302
5. Musnad Ahmad Hanbal, vol 3 p 307-308
6. Tabaqat Ibn Sa’ad, vol 2 part 2 p 88-89
7. Riyadh al Nadira, Volume 1 page 227
8. Tareekh ul Khulafa, page 69 Fadail fi Abu Bakr

We read in Sahih Bukhari:
Narrated Muhammad bin Ali:
Jabir bin Abdullah said, “When the Prophet died, Abu Bakr received some property from Al-Ala bin Al-Hadrami. Abu Bakr said to the people, “Whoever has a money claim on the Prophet, or was promised something by him, should come to us (so that we may pay him his right).” Jabir added, “I said (to Abu Bakr), Allah’s Apostle promised me that he would give me this much, and this much, and this much (spreading his hands three times).” Jabir added, “Abu Bakr counted for me and handed me five-hundred (gold pieces), and then five-hundred, and then five-hundred.”

Comment

All that it took was the word of Jabir that Rasulullah (s) owed him money; no witnesses were presented to corroborate his evidence. Abu Bakr’s opinion was that the money should be returned to Jabir, without the need for witnesses, he didn’t say anything that contradicted the Qur’an, yet when Sayyida Fatima (as) claimed that the land of Fadak was bequeathed to her as inheritance, he refused to grant her the land, on the premise that her words were questionable and the stipulated witnesses required to give evidence were not met.
If Jabir made a claim from the treasury, then by the same token Fadak also did not belong to Abu Bakr’s ancestors, rather it belonged to Sayyida Fatimah al Zahra (as), but the Khaleefa said that the land belonged to Muslims. If Jabir can receive monies from the Muslim treasury without the need of witnesses, then by the same token the Khaleefa could have also given Sayyida Fatima land from the Muslim treasury.
The narration informs us that Abu Bakr made the declaration at the time of the Hajj for people to come forward and make their claims in relation to whatever had been promised to them by Rasulullah (s). We ask those with brains, was Sayyida Fatima (as) a liar who presented false witnesses to substantiate her claim? Sayyida Fatima’s (as) testimony is false. The testimony of Imam Ali (as), and his two sons are also false, yet an ordinary companion’s claim without any witness corroboration is acceptable and he can attain property from the State treasury so as to prove the correctness of his claim.

Abu Bakr’s should have accepted H. Fatimas claim without demanding witnesses

Sayyida Fatima was ‘Siddiqah’

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? If the court believes in the witness testimony, or that given by the claimant, then judgement can be passed. Additional witnesses are required to confirm the truthfulness of a claim, to convince a Judge. If a thing is truthful, then it remains true whether you have one witness or ten witnesses. The witness of a credible witness followed by many witnesses who are not as strong in no way weakens a case if the first witness’s credibility is proven. The Ulema of Islam have set conditions on the number of witnesses in general circumstances which refers to specific situations, but this does not apply where the Ruler has direct knowledge on a matter. Let us cite an example:

I am a Judge and I witness a man robbing another man, no other witnesses are present. Will I apply the Islamic penalty or shall I state ‘I demand two witnesses to verify what I saw’.Failure to do shall lead to me to dismiss the case’.

Witnesses are summoned as a matter of clarity, to arrive at a correct judgement. If a Judge does not have clear direct knowledge on matter then he can utilise reliance on witness testimony. Hadhrat Abu Bakr should have accepted Fatima’s belief in the correctness of her claim – after all Sunnis Fiqh stipulates that the testimony of one just Sahaba is all that is needed (Fathul Bari Volume 9 page 44). That is a general rule, but Sayyida Fatima (as)’s is far above that of any Sahaba, we read in Ahl’ul Sunnah’s authority work ‘Riyadh al Nadira’ Volume 3 page 220, Dhikr Fadail ‘Ali:

Rasulullah (s) said to ‘Ali ‘You have three virtues not possessed by anyone else
1. You have a father in law like me.
2. You have received my truthful daughter as your wife
3. You have received pious sons such as Hasan and Husayn

OBJECTIONS AGAINST FADAK AND THEIR REPLIES -2

Abu Bakr refuted witnesses that were produced and their testimonies were refused on different grounds

We read in Futuh al Buldan, page 35:

Malik bin Jawuna narrates from his father that Fatima said to Abu Bakr: ‘Rasulullah (s) bestowed Fadak to me, so return it.’ Ali testified in her favour, Abu Bakr asked for another witness, and Umm Ayman testified in support of Fatima. Upon this, Abu Bakr said: ‘O daughter of Rasulullah (s), such testimony is unacceptable unless you have two males or one male and two females, upon hearing this Fatima left.’

We also read:

Jafar bin Muhammad said that Fatima said to Abu Bakr: ‘Return Fadak to me as it was given to me by Rasulullah (s)’. Abu Bakr demanded witnesses. Umm Ayman and Rabah the Servant of Rasulullah (s) testified in support of her claim. He said that such testimonies were unacceptable unless presented by one man and two women.

We also read:

Umm Hani states that Fatima daughter of Rasulullah (s) appeared before the Court of Abu Bakr and asked: ‘When you die who shall inherit you?’ He replied: ‘My family and descendants’. Fatima said: ‘What is your stance when you seize the inheritance of the Prophet (s) and do not give it to us?’ He said: ‘Oh daughter of Allah’s messenger, I did not seize your father’s gold and silver and this or that.’ Fatima then said: ‘Give us our share of Khayber, Fadak is our exclusive property’. He [Abu Bakr] replied: ‘Oh daughter of Rasulullah (s), I heard the Prophet (s) say that (Fadak) is a pillar that Allah (swt) has provided for me as a source of earnings during my life time, verily when I die, distribute this amongst the Muslims!.’

We read in Wafa al Wafa, Volume 3 page 999 Bab Sadaqat un Nabi:

“Fadak was that land that Hadhrat Fatima claimed Rasulullah (s) had given to me. Abu Bakr demanded witnesses. ‘Ali and Umm Ayman testified. The Khaleefa replied ‘Only the testimony of a man and two women are acceptable”.

OBJECTIONS AGAINST FADAK AND THEIR REPLIES -1

OBJECTION : 

Ibne Mutahhir Hilli, a famous Shi’i clergyman (who was educated by Ahlus-Sunnah ‘Ulema), states in his book, Minhaj al-Karamah, “When Fatimah said to Abu Bakr that Fedek had been bequeathed to her, Abu Bakr wrote an answer asking for witnesses. When no witnesses were produced he dismissed the case.” If this report is correct, the case of Fedek, like any other case pertaining to inheritance, gifting or bequeathing, lapses from Hadhrat Abu Bakr (Radhi Allahu Ta’ala Anhu). So, there is no reason for blaming Hadhrat Abu Bakr even from their own books in addition to the actions taken by the Ahlul-Bayt A’immah.

REPLY : 
 
The Nasibi author failed to provide details such as the topic name or the volume and page numbers of the reference he claimed. We will therefore not comment on it until the author or his Nasibi colleagues prove the existence of any such narration. On the contrary, Allamah Hilli in his book Nahaj al-Hak, page 537 records:

فجاءت بأم أيمن وأسماء بنت عميس مع علي عليه السلام فشهدوا بذلك

“She brought Umm Ayman, Asma bint Umays with Ali (as) and they testified for her.”

Similarly we read in another Shia text namely Tafseer al-Qumi, Volume 2 page 155:

حدثني أبي عن ابن ابي عمير عن عثمان بن عيسى وحماد بن عثمان عن أبي عبدالله عليه السلام قال:….قالت فأشهد أن الله أوحى إلى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله “وآت ذا القربى حقه” فجعل فدك لفاطمة

My Father narrated from Ibn Abi Umayr from Uthman bin Isa and Hamaad bin Uthman that Abu Abdullah said: ‘…. she (Um Ayman) said: ‘I testify that Allah revealed to Allah’s apostle ‘{And give to the near of kin his due} thus he (s) gave Fadak to Fatima’.

The alleged narration cited by the Nasibi author contradicts all the major Sunni and Shi’a sources that confirm that witnesses were produced, and this was even acknowledged by a die hard Sunni scholar such as Ibn Hajr al Makki. We also know from Sunni and Shi’a sources that the Fadak dispute did NOT occur via written correspondence between the parties, it was face to face and there is a complete unanimity on this point with Ahl’ul Sunnah’s greatest masterpiece Sahih Bukhari confirming it. This comment is not in line with what has been acknowledged in Sunni and Shi’a works and is therefore without foundation.