Abū Bakr:

“Allah and His Messenger have spoken the truth, and you have spoken the truth. You are entitled to the fay’ revenues. Yet my knowledge of how this is to be interpreted does not go so far as to permit me to hand this entire share over to you in full. You are entitled to as much of the fay’ revenue (1) as will suffice you.”

This shows that Abū Bakr accepted her statement. How, then, could he reject it when it was supported by one male witness and one woman? Yet he grasps at every argument he can find] (2).

The Third Point:

It may be said: If the Prophet—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—could be inherited from, the opposing parties in this dispute would be his wives and his uncle. According to the Book of Allah, the Sunnah of His Messenger—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—and the consensus of the Muslims, the testimony of a single woman or a single man would not be admissible against them. If he could not be inherited from, the opposing party would be the Muslim community; likewise, by Muslim consensus, the testimony of a single woman or a single man—or of one man and one woman—would not be admissible against them.

A judgment may, however, be rendered in [such a case] (3) on the basis of testimony (4) together with the claimant’s oath, according to the jurists of the Hijaz and [the jurists among the adherents of] hadith (5). Scholars have two well-known opinions concerning the admissibility of a husband’s testimony in favor of his wife. These are also the two reported positions of Ahmad.

According to the first (6), it is inadmissible. This is the position of Abū Hanīfah, Mālik, al-Layth ibn Sa‘d, al-Awzā‘ī, Ishāq, and others.

According to the second, it is admissible. This is the position of al-Shāfi‘ī, Abū Thawr, Ibn al-Mundhir, and others (7). Accordingly (8), even if this account were assumed to be authentic (9), it would not be permissible for the ruler to adjudicate