like a group of wealthy people testifying against a man that he had made a charitable bequest to the poor; such testimony would be admissible by consensus.

Fifth:

Even if this report had conferred some benefit upon the Companion who narrated it, his narration would still have been accepted, because it belongs to the category of narration, not testimony (1). When a hadith scholar relates a hadith in connection with a legal dispute between himself and his opponent, his narration of the hadith is accepted (2), because a narration conveys a general ruling that applies both to the narrator and to others. This belongs to the category of reporting, like testimony (3) concerning the sighting of the new moon. Whatever the Prophet—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—commanded applies both to the narrator and to others, as does whatever he prohibited and whatever he permitted (4).

This hadith conveyed a legal ruling (5). It therefore prohibited Abu Bakr’s daughter Aisha—may Allah be pleased with her—from inheriting; prohibited him from purchasing this (6) inheritance from the heirs or accepting it (7) as a gift from them; and required that this property be disbursed through the prescribed channels of charity.

Sixth:

His statement, “Moreover, what they narrated is contradicted by the Quran, for Allah Most High (8)