had given it to her in any sound report with an uninterrupted chain, or that any witness testified on her behalf. Had that occurred, it would have been reported, for this was a legal dispute and a public matter over which the Muslim community differed and which it discussed widely. Yet no Muslim ever said, ‘I witnessed the Prophet—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—give it to Fātimah,’ or, ‘I heard Fātimah claim it,’ until al-Buhturī ibn Hassān came along, ascribing to Zayd something whose basis and originator are unknown to us.

The report of Fadl ibn Marzūq, from al-Buhturī, from Zayd, is not among the reports known to the scholars. The author of the book ought to have refrained from some of this meaningless material. The report was lent plausibility by Zayd’s statement:

‘Had it been up to me, I would have ruled as Abū Bakr ruled.’

None of this can reliably be attributed to either Abū Bakr or Fātimah, even if no one had contradicted it, no debate had taken place concerning it, and no contrary report had been transmitted—so how much less so when such a report has indeed been transmitted? A basic principle of the school is that if a hadith is authentically established from the Messenger of Allah—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—and Abū Bakr then expressed a contrary view, his position is treated as analogous to what occurred with him in the case of the grandmother: whenever the report reached him, he adopted it.

Even if this report were established, it would contain no proof, for Fātimah did not say:

‘I will swear an oath alongside my witness,’ only to be prevented from doing so.

Nor did Abū Bakr say:

‘I do not accept an oath together with one witness.’

They said:

This report is erroneous, because Usāmah ibn Zayd narrates from al-Zuhrī, from Mālik ibn Aws ibn al-Hadathān (1), who said (2): Among the arguments Umar advanced was his statement: ‘There were