AN IMPORTANT QUESTION TO OUR SUNNI BROTHERS

The historical records relate that Fatima al-Zahra (a.s.), the daughter of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.), was angry with the two shaykhs (i.e. Abu Bakr and `Umar) until she died. For this very reason she requested her husband, Ali ibn Abi Talib (a.s.), to bury her in secret, permitting only a few of the very close companions of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) such as Salman al-Farsi and Abu Tharr to know of her burial. She also asked Imam Ali to conceal her grave, as a form of protest. The reasons for this protestation can be explained as follows:
1- `Umar's and his followers attacked the house of Imam Ali (a.s.) and set it on fire. This was done in order to force Imam Ali and his adherents to give allegiance to Abu Bakr.
2- Abu Bakr's and `Umar's refusal to give back to Fatima her inheritance (from her father).
3- Also because she considered Ali as the legal successor and vicegerent of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.).
Historians have narrated that, when `Umar ibn al-Khattab brought some wood in order to set Imam Ali's (a.s.) house on fire, he was told that Fatima, the daughter of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.), is inside the house too! He replied: LET IT BE!!! Then he kindled the fire and began to set fire to the house of the daughter of the Holy Prophet! "O son of Khattab! Are you really going to set our house on fire?" Fatima (a.s.) asked. `Umar replied, "Sure! Unless you agree on what the whole ummah had agreed upon." The daughter of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) said, "I do not remember a people that have done worse than yours... You have left the Holy Prophet's body lying among us, while, at the same time, you were busy in electing a caliph among yourselves, without consulting us or asking our opinion. You have plainly misappropriated our right."
Then `Umar and muhajirin proceeded in burning the house!

EID E ZEHRA (SA) MUBARAK

فقال أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام يا أبا بكر تقرء كتاب الله؟ قال: نعم. قال: أخبرني عن قول الله عز وجل:" إنما يريد الله ليذهب عنكم الرجس أهل البيت ويطهركم تطهيرا " فيمن زلت فينا أم في غيرنا؟ قال: بل فيكم، قال: فلو أن شهودا شهدوا على فاطمة بنت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله بفاحشة ما كنت صانعا بها؟ قال كنت أقيم عليها الحد، كما أقيمه على نساء المسلمين، قال: إذن كنت عند الله من الكافرين، قال: ولم قال: لأنك رددت شهادة الله لها بالطهارة، وقبلت شهادة الناس عليها، كما رددت حكم الله وحكم رسوله

Imam Ali(as): O' Abu Bakr. Have you read the book of Allah(swt)?

Abu Bakr(la): Yes.

Imam Ali(as): The verse " God desires to keep only the uncleanness away from you O'People of the Family and purifies you a thorough purification"  has been send down in our praise or in the praise of others?

Abu Bakr(la): Yes, in Your praise.

Imam Ali(as): If a witness, witnesses against Janabe Fatima(sa) regarding a bad thing, what will you do in that case?

Abu Bakr(la): I will apply the Islamic Had on her(sa) just like its done for other muslim women.

Imam Ali(as): In that case you will be among the Kaafir in the sight of Allah(swt).

Abu Bakr(la): No.

Imam Ali(as): Because in this case you rejected the declaration of Allah(swt) regarding the Purity of Janabe Fatima(sa) , accepting the declaration of the common people which is like rejecting the order of Allah (swt) and order of Messenger of Allah (saww).

[Source: Ihtijaaj-e-Tabarisi Vol 1 , Pg: 122-123]

1st Rabiul avval -martydom of Janabe Mohsin ibne Ali (as)

Al-Ishnani quotes his grandfather quoting Muhammed ibn `Ammar quoting Masa ibn Isma`il quoting Hammad ibn Salamah quoting Aba al-Tufayl quoting Ali ibn Abi Talib (A.S.) saying that the Messenger of Allah (A.S.) said to him, “O Ali (A.S.)! There is a treasure for you in Paradise, and you are Thul-Qarnain (Double-horns) of this nation, so do not follow your eyes while performing the prayers.” Al-Saduq has said, “I have heard some mentors saying this treasure is his son al-Muhassan, the one whom Fatima (A.S.) miscarried when she was squeezed between both doors.” He cites evidence from a narration saying that Muhassan will be at the gate of Paradise. He will be told to enter, but he will refuse saying, “No! I shall not enter till both my parents enter first.”

Al-Majlisi, Bihar al-Anwar, Vol. 39, pp. 41-42. Ma`ani al-Akhbar, pp. 205-07

Ahl’ul Sunnah believe that the testimony of the Sahaba without witnesses but Abubakr rejected Hazrat Fatima Zahra testimony

In the annotations of this tradition, Imam Badruddin al A’ini in Umdatul Qari said:

وقال بعضهم وفيه قبول خبر الواحد العدل من الصحابة ولو جر ذلك نفعا لنفسه لأن أبا بكر لم يلتمس من جابر شاهدا على صحة دعواه

“Some (scholars) said that according to it (the tradition) the evidence of one just companion is accepted although it may be in his own favour, because Abu Bakr did not ask Jabir to produce any witness to prove his claim.”
 Umadat ul Qari, Volume 12 page 121

Comment

Subhanallah! If Jabir’s claim is acceptable without witnesses due to his station of being a Just Companion, then Sayyida Fatima (as) in addition to the rank of Sahaba and Just, had also attained the rank of purity and infallibility, and hence her exceptional testimony should have been accepted without question, yet Abu Bakr’s heart was not willing to concede to her claim, he considered her claim to be of lesser value than that of an ordinary Sahabi.
We also read in Umadat ul Qari, Volume 12 page 120:
“I say: By not seeking additional witnesses to back up Jabir’s claim was an adherence the principles of the Qur’an and Sunnah, since in the Qur’an Allah (swt) says that you are the Khayr ul Ummah (Best of Ummah’s), an wasat Ummah (Just Ummah) – if Jabir is not counted in the best and most just of Ummah’s then who is? He acted on a Hadeeth in this way, Rasulullah (s) said ‘Whoever intentionally attributes a lie to me shall enter Hell’ hence whilst the comments of a normal Muslim cannot be relied upon, it cannot be that a Sahabi would attribute lies to the Prophet (s). If this problem arose today it would be unacceptable without proof.”
 Umadat ul Qari, Volume 12 page 121
We should also highlight the fact that we read in Ahle Sunnah’s authority work Al Alam al Moqeen page 36:
“The truth is when you have just one witness; a ruling should be based on their truthfulness. It is established that the Prophet (s) ruled on the Abu Qathada’s killing a Pagan, on the basis of sole testimony, and rewarded him his armour on this basis, he did not even ask for the clear testimony of Abu Qatada, rather the testimony of a single witness was deemed acceptable”.

Comment

We appeal to justice – It’s hard to believe that a Sahaba neigh a common run of Muslim would ever attribute a false utterance to Rasulullah (s) which is why Jabir’s testimony was accepted by Abu Bakr without the need for witnesses. Then we have Sayyida Fatima (as) superior in rank than other Muslims, including the Sahaba, a woman in whose honour Allah (swt) sent down the verse of purity, who has been given the title of Sayyida tul-Nisa’ ul-Jannah [Leader of the Women of Paradise]. We cannot believe that this pure and truthful woman would attribute a false statement to her father Rasulullah (s). It was incumbent on Abu Bakr to immediately accept the claim that had been made by Sayyida Fatima (as).

Why didn’t Abu Bakr allow the Muslims to rule on the matter of Fadak?

If Abu Bakr was not the claimant then he should have referred the matter to those he deemed parties to the action. He was of the opinion that the entire Estate of Fadak belonged to all the Muslims, so he should have placed the matter into the hands of the Muslims.If they upheld the opinion of Sayyida Fatima (as) there would have been no need for summoning witnesses.This is what is in line with Islamic Fiqh. This entire matter was based on Fiqh, so why did he ignore the other claimants in the matter? Abu Bakr should have said, ‘Look Fadak is land that all Muslims should benefit from’ but the reality is he deemed Fadak to be the personal property of the Prophet (s), which is why he brought it under his own control. There is not a single narration from the books of Ahl’ul Sunnah that would suggest that the land of Fadak had been distributed amongst the Muslims. Of interest is the fact that Umar also held such a viewpoint, when it came to ruling on Muslim lands:
In Volume 2 page 51 of Hayatus Sahaba under the Chapter ‘The practice of seeking advice of the elite by Hadrat Abu Bakr (r)’ we read a narration transmitted by Ibn Abu Shaibah in Tarikh by al Bukhari, Ibn Asakir, Baihaqi and Yaqoob bin Sufyan:
“Ubaida reports ‘Aina bin Hasan and Aqra bin Habis approached Hadrat Abu Bakr (rad) and said ‘O Caliph of the Messenger of Allah!” There is some fallow land in out area. If you deem it considerable, give us the land so that we can cultivate it to earn our livelihood. He donated it to them and wrote a decree in support thereof.

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