The Shaikhain refused to grant Fadak to Hazrat Fatima Zahra (s.a.) on one pretext or the other. They rejected her own witness as also the witnesses of her infallible husband Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) and even Umm Ayman – whose honesty was beyond reproach having been assured Paradise by the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.).In the absence of witnesses or rather in the absence of ‘credible’ witnesses, Hazrat Fatima Zahra’s (s.a.) claim on Fadak was rejected.
Over here we do not wish to delve on the infallible personalities (a.s.) and their status near Allah and the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and how the rulers made a blunder by ignoring this reality which was evident even to a Muslim child.
We only wish to draw the attention of the reader to the irregularities in the stand of the Shaikhain vis-à-vis Fadak, one of which we have exposed over here.
Granting the claimant her right based on swearing
Even if Fatima Zahra’s (s.a.) witnesses were found wanting, Fadak should have been granted to her based on a simple swearing.
It is strange that when other claims came before Abu Bakr, he allowed them in favour of the claimant merely on the basis of the claim while the claimant was neither asked to furnish any proof of claim, nor to produce witnesses.
In this connection, Bukhari documents:
‘It is related from Jabir Ibn Abdullah Ansari that he said – The Prophet of Allah (s.a.w.a.) had told me that when the spoils of war from Bahrain would arrive, he would allow me such and such out of it, but the spoils of war did not reach us until after the Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) demise (martyrdom). It arrived in the days of (the government) of Abu Bakr, so I went to him and told him that the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) had promised to give me such and such property out of the spoils of war from Bahrain, whereupon he gave me all of what (was promised to me).’
- Sahih al-Bukhari vol 2, part 27, p 190
In the interpretation of this tradition, Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani records:
‘This tradition leads us to the conclusion that the evidence of one just companion can also be admitted as full evidence, even though it may be in his own favour, because Abu Bakr did not ask Jabir to produce any witness or proof for his claim.’
Thus, if it was lawful to grant property to Jabir on the basis of a good impression (of him and his Islam) without calling for witnesses or any evidence, then what stopped the ruler from allowing Fatima Zahra’s (s.a.) claim on the basis of a similar good impression?
Firstly, her known truthfulness and honesty was enough for holding her sincere in her claim, in addition to the witnessing of Ali (a.s.) and Umm Ayman in her favour.
