Re: The issue of Fadak
There is an amusing contradiction in your question, either a thing can be secret * or can be infront of people whether handful. And a gift is not done in front of a crowd but if you are aware of the process of gift it is done in front of at least two people. Anyhow, the witnesses were produced to back up her claim but they were not accepted on one pretext or the other.
Now this is a question which is the rift between the two schools. The first and the formost reasons [in collaboration with others] appear for the act of the ruler is the hatred he bored towards Ahlulbayt [as], that was just done to hurt them, prophet [s] had already predicted that after his death, his household was going to face injustice. The second reason was that the amount that was to be received from that huge land was also handsome, the ruler was able to make his government on the basis of that money, making a number of people stand by his side.
Firstly, do you want to say that Allah [swt] has given the highest rank of paradise [for women] to Fatima Zahra [as] yet she can tell a lie? The thing is, that the status granted to her by Allah is itself sufficient to know her truth. Anyhow, this has to do with spritual aspect.
Coming to the practical, she was obviously adhering to the Sharia and it was her opponent who was were not. Who had given right to the ruler to ask witnesses from her? If you are ware of law, then if a property is under the possession of A, and today you stand up to claim your right to that propherty, it is you who will have to bring witnesses not A.
Its answer is quite similar to my answer no 2 above.
You have been too quick to declare Faimta Zahra [as] as ‘no true believer’ just because to save a person who happened to be your caliph but anyhow. It was totally correct on her part to demand her right of inheritance, or you will now say that no one has any right to get his/her share of inheritance??? When the ruler was adamant on one pretext or the other not to usurp the property which was her and to make him embarrassed in front of world, she still have the right to claim the land by way of inheritance. Whats big deal about it? By this way or that way, she was proving that the lad was her and her opponent was committing injustice but depriving of her right.
As for your question why do Shias make big fuss about Fatima Zahra [sa] not getting inheritance, I would in fact like to ask you, that why don’t you make big fuss over the incident which deprived her of the right if you ‘claim’ to love and adhere to Ahlulbayt [as]?
To us, since we adhere to Ahlulbayt [as], it is our duty to share both grief and happiness of Ahlulbayt [as]. When she was tormented to this extent that made her angry and died in the very state of anger, we as followers of Ahlulbayt [as] cant just ignore this incident.
As for your comment on the wives of Prophet [s], I don’t think you are yourself clear on the question but still I would like to inform that you the biased treatment done by the ruler towards Fatima Zahra [sa], same was not done with the wivies of Prophet [s], their houses were not broken into to check if they had any material things left by Prophet [s] while this happened with Fatima Zahra [sa], the wives of Prophet were not deprived of the apartments that were left behind Prophet [s] nor any witness was demanded from them yet this was done when ti came to the right of Fatima Zahra [sa]. Yet you ask us why shall we not ‘make a big fuss’ about the tragedy.
Verses where Quran clearly stated that prophets do leave inheritance are:
And Solomon was David’s heir. He said: “O ye people! We have been taught the speech of birds, and on us has been bestowed (a little) of all things: this is indeed Grace manifest (from Allah.)”
Al-Qur’an, Surah 27, Ayah 16
Saying: My Lord! Lo! the bones of me wax feeble and my head is shining with grey hair, and I have never been unblest in prayer to Thee, my Lord. Lo! I fear my kinsfolk after me, since my wife is barren. Oh, give me from Thy presence a successor. Who shall inherit of me and inherit (also) of the house of Jacob. And make him, my Lord, acceptable (unto Thee).
Al-Qur’an, Surah 19, Ayah 4-6
“And Zakariyya, when he cried to his Lord: ‘O my Lord, leave me not childless, though Thou art the best of inheritors.’ So we responded to him and gave him Yahya.” (21: 89,90)"
And (further) their Prophet said to them: “A Sign of His authority is that there shall come to you the Ark of the covenant, with (an assurance) therein of security from your Lord, and the relics left by the family of Moses and the family of Aaron, carried by angels. In this is a symbol for you if ye indeed have faith.”
Al-Qur’an, Surah 2, Ayah 248
“And Zakariyya, when he cried to his Lord: ‘O my Lord, leave me not childless, though Thou art the best of inheritors.’ So we responded to him and gave him Yahya.” (21: 89,90)
No do not trust me dear, trust on the precise source i.e. Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 48, Number 848: Book of Witnesses, wherein we read that the word of a Jabir that Rasulullah (s) owed him money; no witnesses were presented to corroborate his evidence. Abu Bakr’s opinion was that the money should be returned to Jabir.
Firstly it is not according to ‘my’ belief by according to the testimony of one you hold respected and venerated i.e. Ayesha, and her clear testimony can be read in Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 53, Number 325. So who is insulting her?
And please do not talk about as to who really insults the Ahlulbayt [as] while the principle Hadith books of your school is comprised of some norotious Nasibi and Khariji people, who throughout their lives kept abusing, hurting and hating Ahlulbayt [as] but that again will take us somewhere else.
That is the problem with you people, if a Sahabi does injsutcie to Ahulbayt [as], we the followers of Ahlulbayt [as] should not complaint to that just because ‘will will be a disrespect to a Sahabi’ . O for God sake, what happened to the injustice done to the Ahlulbayt [as]??? From where have you derived this belief on earth? How can a Sahabi hurt Ahlulbayt [as] commit injustice against them yet we do not legitimally comment on the injustice, ‘just because the one who did is Sahabi’??? What kind of rule is this?
And guess what, the verse which is frequently taught to you people so that yo can cite it anytime you confront a Shia, i.e. the verse where in Allah says that he ‘was’ pleased with believers, some of the very Sahaba for whom this verse was revealed later on killed one of your beloved Sahabi after making a huge rebellion, but that si not our topic here. I just mentioned it here to point out the flaw in ‘your line of argument’ by using that verse as a blanket cover on ‘each and every Sahabi’.*