The Prophet (s) and all four caliphs would issue rulings based on the testimony of one person

We read in Ahl’ul Sunnah’s authority work Kanz al Ummal:

“Ali bin Abi Talib narrates that Allah’s messenger, Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman would rule upon the witness testimony of one person and the oath of the claimant “.
 Kanz al Ummal, Volume 7 page 23 Tradition 17786

Similarly we read in Sunnan al-Darqutni, Volume 10 page 338:

Ali (ra) narrates that Allah’s messenger would rule upon the witness testimony of one person and the oath of the claimant. (Darqutni said) Ali would issue rulings in this manner in Iraq.
 Sunnan al-Darqutni, Volume 10 page 338 Tradition 4540

We read in Sunan ibn Majah:

Ibn Abbas narrates that Rasulullah (s) ruled on the basis of the testimony of a single witness and (a claimant’s) oath.
 Sunan ibn Majah, Volume 2 page 793 Hadith 2370

We read in Sunan Abu Dawud, The Office of the Judge (Kitab Al-Aqdiyah) Book 24, Number 360:

Narrated Abu Hurayrah:
The Prophet (peace be upon him) gave a decision on the basis of an oath and a single witness.

We read in Muwatta Imam Malik, Book of Judgements Book 36, Number 36.4.5:

Yahya said, “Malik said from Jafar ibn Muhammad from his father that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, pronounced judgement on the basis of an oath with one witness.”

Of interest is the fact that Ibn Taymiyah al Nasibi in Minhajj al Sunnah, Volume 4 page 125 also stated:

نعم يحكم في مثل ذلك بشهادة ويمين الطالب عند فقهاء الحجاز وفقهاء أصحاب الحديث

“Yes it can be ruled by the testimony of sole witness and the claimer’s oath according to the scholars of Hijaz and Ahlul Hadith”.

Imam Mawardi records in his authority work al-Ensaf, Volume 12 page 84:

حيث قلنا : يقبل شاهد واحد ويمين المدعي

We say: ‘The testimony of one witness and oath of the claimant is acceptable’

Comment

The land of Fadak was bestowed by Rasulullah (s) upon his beloved daughter Sayyida Fatima Zahra (as). Abu Bakr should have adopted his famous kind heartedness in this dispute, and if he wanted to uphold legal principles he could have asked Sayyida Fatima (as) to swear on oath that the property had been bequeathed to her, [as there was an absence of witnesses] and on this basis restored Fadak back to her. Worthy of note is the fact that Imam Malik in his Muwatta,Book of Judgements Section: Judgement Based on Oaths with One Witness, having cited the fact that the Prophet would pass judgement on the basis of the oath and testimony of a single witness, comments:

“The precedent of the sunna in judging by an oath with one witness is that if the plaintiff takes an oath with his testimony, he is confirmed in his right. If he draws back and refuses to take an oath, the defendant is made to take an oath. If the defendent takes an oath, the claim against him is dropped. If he refuses to take an oath, the claim is confirmed against him.”

Malik said, “This procedure pertains to property cases in particular”.

This was a property dispute and all that Khalifa Abu Bakr needed to do was take the sole testimony of Sayyida Fatima (as)(on oath) so as to confirm the truthfulness of her claim.

Sadly, Abu Bakr did not adhere to this principle, his objective was to make the Ahl’ul bayt (as) as weak as possible. Abu Bakr’s behaviour in the Fadak dispute proves that the Hadeeth ‘the most merciful in this Ummah is Abu Bakr’ is a fabrication – for he afforded harsh treatment to the daughter of the Prophet (s). If he (the supposed best friend of the Prophet) was so unjust what could be expected from the rest of the Ummah? Sayyida Fatima (as) was shocked by this treatment, she had not envisaged such a response which is why she initially presented her case without witnesses. When Abu Bakr refused to entertain her claim, she brought forth several witnesses who were:

1. Imam Ali (as)
2. Imam Hassan (as)
3. Imam Husayn (as)
4. The servant of Rasulullah(s) Rabah
5. The maid of Rasulullah (s) Umm Ayman.

Hence the advocates can present as many excuses as they like.If there were not sufficient witnesses, it was still fine as Rasulullah (s) and the three Khalifas ruled on the testimony and oath of one person. If the stipulated number of witnesses had been satisfied then Abu Bakr had to rule in their favour. This was the case here as Imam Ali (as) and Rabah were both men and the testimony of two male witnesses satisfy legal criteria. Despite this Abu Bakr struck out the claim of Lady Fatima (as).

At this point it is most appropriate to analyse the comments of Bilal Philips in ‘Tafseer Soorah al Hujuraat’ page 63:

In his analysis of verse 6 of this Surah ‘O Believers if an unrighteous person comes to you with information, you should verify it’wherein Allah (swt) warned Muslims against accepting the word of the Fasiq Waleed bin Utbah, Philips comments:

“It should be noted that based on this verse Islamic scholars have unanimously ruled that the testimony of one who is known to be unrighteous should be rejected as evidence in court unless verified. If his testimony can be confirmed it is obligatory to do so and if it cannot be confirmed it should flatly be rejected. The converse also holds true. The testimony of a just righteous person does not require verification except in special cases identified by the Qur’an or the Sunnah”.
 Tafseer Soorah al Hujuraat, Page 63

Perhaps Dr Philips could contribute to this debate and offer his valuable input as to whether he believes that the Leader of the Women of Paradise was a just and righteous person whose testimony required no further verification? If he does, then can he offer any explanation as to why her sole testimony was deemed as unacceptable in the Fadak case? Philips has dedicated his life to exposing the dangers of Shi’aism to the unsuspecting Sunni public, and has made it his mission to highlight the degrading / humiliating portrayal of the Sahaba from Shi’a works. Perhaps he could shed some light on the degrading / humiliating treatment that Abu Bakr afforded Sayyida Fatima (as), whose witness credibility was graded to be on par with that of a Fasiq (transgressor), to the point that the Khaleefa said blatantly ‘I don’t know if you are telling the truth’ [Tafseer al Kabeer, Volume 10 page 506]? We then see her humiliation compounded yet further when the witnesses she produces are also rejected! Were Maula ‘Ali, Rabah, Umm Ayman, Hasan, Husayn also Fasiq’s who had jointly conspired to secure land for Sayyida Fatima (as) that she had no legal right to?

We would like to ask Philips:

How would you feel if you walked into a Shariah Court lodging a petition to land, and the Judge despite knowing your esteemed rank and knowledge challenged the truthfulness of your claim and demanded witnesses. How would the Judge’s demand make you feel? Would you not feel humiliated by such a comment?

Let’s change scenarios, imagine that you are a Judge and Hadhrat Ayesha makes a petition to you for land that her father Abu Bakr left her. Would you contemplate demanding that she bring witnesses to corroborate her claim? Don’t you think it would be an insult to her if you told her to go and get witnesses? If so, why do you not have the same viewpoint when it comes to the treatment of Sayyida Fatima (as)?