ভূমিকা

Shiavault - a Vault of Shia Islamic Books Hazrat Zahra (s.a) and the Heart - Rending Episode of Fadak Part Five: One Historical Trial Just as we have said, during the Prophet’s life time, Fadak was turned over to Fatimah Zahra (p.b.u.h.) after the revelation of the verse: This is a matter not only reported by shi’ite commentators, but also reported by a group of sunni scholars from the words of the famous companion of the Prophet (p.b.u.h.) of which its documents have been previously spoken of.

After the Prophet’s death the government of that time laid hands on it and threw out Fatimah’s representatives. This is a matter which has been reported by the famous sunni scholar “Ibn Hajar” in the book , and by “Samhoody” in and also Ibn Abil Hadid in .

For the attainment of what was rightly hers, the lady of Islam (p.b.u.h.) brought up two points; First by declaring it as the prophet’s gift to her, and the other was as her inheritance (when the matter of it being the Prophet’s gift was seen an unacceptable). First of all, the lady of Islam invited the commander of the faithful, Ali (p.b.u.h.) and Umm Emen to go to the first caliph as witnesses.

But the caliph did not accept these with-nesses using the excuse that witnesses for the proof of a litigation must be two men. Then by claiming a tradition of the prophet (p.b.u.h.)which was supposed to have said: “We prophets leave no inheritance and everything that remains after us will be for alms”; He also refrained from accepting the proposal of it being inheritance.

This even though in a brief study becomes evident that in this action of theirs, the ruling usurping government is guilty of ten big mistakes. These are brought up as a list below, even though their explanations need much more discussion. Fatimah (p.b.u.h.) was meaning that the laud of Fadak was in her possession, and according to the views of all Islamic laws and the existent laws among the intelligent people of the world; witnesses are never required of a .

This is of course unless reasons are adduced that the property, or his/her possession of it, is void. For example, if someone lives in a particular house and claims ownership of it, so long as no reasons are adduced that deny his ownership, it cannot be taken from him. There is no necessity for him to produce witnesses for his ownership, because possession itself (either by himself or his representatives) is his best proof for ownership.