Then Fatemah (s.a.) replied, "Fadak is a property that my father gifted to me and I have evidences for it". Abu Bakr replied, "Then go and bring those witnesses". Fatemah (s.a.) brought Umm Ayman and Ali (a.s.) to Abu Bakr as her witnesses. Abu Bakr asked Umm Ayman, "Did you hear anything from the Prophet (s.a.w.s.) regarding Fatemah (s.a.)"? Umm Ayman and Ali (a.s.) said, "We heard the Prophet (s.a.w.s.) say that Fatemah (s.a.) is the Mistress of the women of Paradise", then Umm Ayman said, "Then the one who is the Mistress of the women of Paradise will not claim anything that is not her property, while I myself am a woman from among the women of Paradise (as related by the Prophet). Then I shall not say that I have heard from the Prophet of Allah (s.a.w.s.) anything that I have not heard from him". Umar said, "Leave aside these words, thensay now what witness do you bear regarding Fatemah (s.a.)"? Umm Ayman
replied, "I was seated in the house of Fatemah (s.a.) while the Prophet of Allah (s.a.w.s.) was present there too. At that momentJibra'eel descended and said, O Muhammad (s.a.w.s.) ! Arise and come with me, that Allah (s.w.t.) has commanded me to draw the boundary of Fadak with my wings. The Prophet of Allah (s.a.w.s.) arose and went with Jibra'eel and returned after an hour and Fatemah (s.a.) asked him, O Father ! Where did you go ? The Prophet (s.a.w.s.) replied that Jibra'eel marked Fadak for me with his wings and drew its boundaries. Fatemah (s.a.) said, that O Father ! I worry about economic necessities after you, then make Fadak an insurance against these necessities for me. The Prophet (s.a.w.s.) replied that, I give this property under your possession and Fatemah (s.a.) spent from it. The Prophet of Allah (s.a.w.s.) told me to be a witness and told Imam Ali (a.s.) to be so". Umar said, "You are a woman and we do not accept the witness of a woman, and as for the witness of Ali (a.s.), he is prompted to do so for his own benefit".[226] Hearing this, Fatemah (s.a.)
[226] It is strange that when other claims of this nature came before Abu Bakr, he allowed them in favour of the claimant merely on the basis of the claim, and the claimant was neither asked to furnish proof of his claim nor to produce witnesses. In this connection, Imam Bukhari writes: It is related from Jabir bin Abdullah al Ansari that he said, that the Prophet of Allah (s.a.w.s.) had told me that when the booty from Bahrain would arrive he would allow me such and such out of it, but the booty did not reach till the Prophet (s.a.w.s.)'s death. When it arrived in the days of Abu Bakr, I went to him and told him that the Prophet (s.a.w.s.) had promised to give me such and such property out of the booty from Bahrain, whereupon he gave me all that. (Saheeh, Vol. 2, part 27, Pg190). In the annotations of this tradition, Ibn Hajar Asqalani has written: This tradition leads to the conclusion that the evidence of one just companion can also be admitted as full evidence eventhough it may be in his own favour, because Abu Bakr did not ask Jabir to produce any witness or proof for his claim. Then if it was lawful to allow property to Jabir on the basis of good impression without calling for witness or evidence, then what stopped allowing Sayyedah Fatemah (s.a.)'s claim on the basis of similar good impression. Firstly her admitted truthfulness and honesty was enough for holding her truthful in her claim, and besides the evidence of Ali (a.s.) and Umm Ayman in her favour was also available. It has been said that the claim could not be decided in favour of Sayyedah Fatemah (s.a.) on the basis of these two witnesses because Qur'an lays down the principle of evidence that, "Then call to witness two witnesses from among you men andif there not be two men, then (take) a man and two women." (Surah al Baqarah : 282). If this principle is universaland general, then it should be taken into regard on every occasion, but on some occasion it is not found to have been followed. Consequently, neither the generality of the verse about evidence was hit by this action nor was it deemed to be against the canons of evidence. So if here, in view of the Prophet (s.a.w.s.)'struthfulness, one evidence in his favour was deemed to be equal to two, then could not the evidence of Ali and Umm Ayman be regarded enough for Sayyedah Fatemah (s.a.) in view of her moral greatness and truthfulness ? Besides, this verse does not show that there can be no other way of establishing a claim other than these two ways. In this connection Shaheed al Salis Sayyed Nurullah Shustari has written in Ehqaqul Haq, Chapter of Mataen: "The view of the objector that inspite of the evidence of Umm Ayman the requirement of evidence remains incomplete, is wrong on the grounds that from certain traditions it is seen that it is lawful to give a decision on the basis of one witness and it does not necessarily mean that the injunction of the Qur’an has been violated, because this verse means that a decision can be given on the strength of the evidence of two men or one men and two women, and that their evidence is enough. From this it does not appear that if there is some other ground besides evidence ofwitnesses, that would be unacceptable and that verdict cannot be given on its basis, unless it is argued that this is the only sense of the verse. But since very sense is not a final argument, this sense can be brushed aside, particularly because the tradition clearly points to a contrary sense and ignoring the sense does not necessarily mean violation of the verse. Secondly, the verse allows a choice between the evidence of two men or of one man and two women. If by virtue of the tradition, a third choice is added, namely that the verdict can be passed by means of another evidence as well, then how does it necessitate that the Qur’anic verse should stand violated. In this connection, Mulla Ali Muttaqi writes: "The Prophet of Allah (s.a.w.s.), Abu Bakr and Umar used to decide cases on the strength of one witness and swearing by Qur'an." When decisions were passed on the strength of one witness and swearing, then even if in Abu Bakr's view the requirement of evidence was incomplete, he should have asked her to swear and he could pass the judgement in her favour. But here the veryobject was to tarnish the truthfulness of Sayyedah Fatemah (s.a.) so that in future the question of her testimony should not arise”.
of good impression without calling for witness or evidence, then what stopped allowing Sayyedah Fatemah (s.a.)'s claim on the basisof similar good impression. Firstly her admitted truthfulness and honesty was enough for holding her truthful in her claim, and besides the evidence of Ali (a.s.) and Umm Ayman in her favour was also available. It has been said that the claim could not be decided in favour of Sayyedah Fatemah (s.a.) on the basis of these two witnesses because Qur'an lays down the principle of evidence that, "Then call to witness two witnesses from among you men and if there not be two men, then (take) a man and two women." (Surah al Baqarah : 282). If this principle is universal and general, then it should be taken intoregard on every occasion, but on some occasion it is not found to have been followed. Consequently, neither the generality of theverse about evidence was hit by this action nor was it deemed to be against the canons of evidence. So if here, in view of the Prophet (s.a.w.s.)'s truthfulness, one evidence in his favour was deemed to be equal to two, then could not the evidence of Ali and Umm Ayman be regarded enough for Sayyedah Fatemah (s.a.) in view of her moral greatness and truthfulness ? Besides, thisverse does not show that there can be no other way of establishing a claim other than these two ways. In this connection Shaheed al Salis Sayyed Nurullah Shustari has written in Ehqaqul Haq, Chapter of Mataen: "The view of the objector that inspite of the evidence of Umm Ayman the requirement of evidence remains incomplete, is wrong on the grounds that from certain traditions it is seen that it is lawful to give a decision on the basis of one witness and it does not necessarily mean that the injunction of the Qur’an has been violated, because this verse means that a decision can be given on the strength of the evidence of two men or one men and two women, and that their evidence is enough. From this it does not appear that if there is some other ground besides evidence of witnesses, that would be unacceptable and that verdict cannot be given on its basis, unless it is argued that this is the only sense of the verse. But since very sense is not a final argument, this sense can be brushed aside, particularly because the tradition clearly points to a contrary sense and ignoring the sense does not necessarily mean violation of the verse. Secondly, the verse allows a choice between the evidence of two men or of one man and two
arose in a fit of rage, and turning towards Allah (s.w.t.), said, "O Allah ! These two men have oppressed the daughter of your Prophet (s.a.w.s.) and usurped her rights, then punish them severely", saying this they returned back from Abu Bakr.
Imam Ali (a.s.) then mounted Fatemah (s.a.) upon a mount, on which was spread a frilled cloth. He went alongwith Fatemah (s.a.) for forty mornings at the doors of the Emigrants and Ansar and invited them for assistance and aid.