WHY WE CHOOSE THIS TOPIC ?
The aim of this blog is to remove whatever doubts that may have entered some people’s minds regarding denial of any violence against Hazrat Fatima Zahra (s.a.) at her home, or against Hazrat Ali (a.s.) at the house of Janabe Fatima Zahra(s.a.).
Authentic references have been provided in the fond hope of a definitive conclusion and the eradication of all doubts Inshallah.
Tuesday, October 29, 2013
Objection 8: Is it allowed for an infallible like Hazrat Fatima Zahra (sa) to pray for death?
By reading the report, which was mentioned in the previous objection number 7 , it is possible that a doubt may appear in the mind of readers, that the report in which Lady Zahra (s) has addressed Amirul Momineen (a):
Alas, if before this seclusion I was already dead!
Does a wish for death by an infallible like Lady Fatima Zahra (s) not create a doubt?
In reply we say: Allah, the Mighty and Sublime says regarding Lady Maryam (a) in the Holy Quran:
فَأَجَاءَهَا الْمَخَاضُ إِلَىٰ جِذْعِ النَّخْلَةِ قَالَتْ يَا لَيْتَنِي مِتُّ قَبْلَ هَٰذَا وَكُنْتُ نَسْيًا مَنْسِيًّا ﴿٢٣﴾
“And the throes (of childbirth) compelled her to betake herself to the trunk of a palm tree. She said: Oh, would that I had died before this, and had been a thing quite forgotten!” (Surah Maryam 19:23)
Without any doubt, if desire of death in the conditions that Lady Maryam (a) was placed and she saw her honor and position in danger, it is doubtful whether Allah, the Mighty and Sublime refuted her and did not support her through silence.
Lady Zahra (s) was also in similar circumstances; because she had not expected the people, whom her father had saved from polytheism and idolatry and imparted honor and success to, that just within a few days of his passing away, they should forget everything and usurp the property of his daughter.
In these circumstances also, Lady Zahra (s) has expressed the same desire that was mentioned by Lady Maryam (a), so that perhaps she might my have the capacity to witness these severe tragedies; calamities, which according to her own statement, if they had fallen on days, they would have been transformed into dark nights.
 The complete text of this report was mentioned in the above objection.
 Ibne Asakir in Tohfa on the authority of Tahir bin Yahya Husaini through his chains from Amirul Momineen, Ali Ibne Abi Talib (a) that he said:
When the Messenger of Allah (s) was buried,
Fatima came to his holy grave
and taking a handful of dust from the grave put it to her eyes and wept and
recited the following couplets:
It is not surprising that one who smells the dust of the grave of the Prophet and does not perceive another fragrance. Such calamities have befallen me that if they had fallen on days they would have transformed into nights.
Sobolul Huda war Rishad fee Seerat Khairul Ibad, Vol. 12, Pg. 338, Muhammad bin Yusuf Salihi Shami (d. 932 A.H.), Darul Kutub Ilmiya, Beirut, 1414 A.H. First edition, Edited: Adil Ahmad Abdul Maujud & Ali Muhammad Maudh.
Friday, October 18, 2013
Wahabis have said in one of their objections:
According to reports of Shia, Lady Zahra (r), after returning from the Masjid and after delivering the sermon, became infuriated at Ali (r) that you are sitting like this and they have usurped your and my right.
But do you Shia not believe that
is infallible? Can one infallible pass a remark on another infallible?
The actual report against which the Wahabis have objected is as follows:
When Lady Zahra (s) returned to her house after protesting before the people of
she addressed Amirul Momineen (a): O son of Abu Talib, peace be on you. People
are sitting in the corner like a child in the womb with the limbs withdrawn and
like accused persons. This son of Abu Qahafa [Abu Bakr] has snatched away the
gift of my father and the means of simple livelihood of my children. He [Abu
Bakr] tried to be inimical to me and I found him the most severe enemy; till
the Ansar failed to render their support to me…Alas if I had died before this seclusion
and [apparent] insult. The Almighty Allah would excuse you on my behalf as you
kept injustices away from me in a number of instances and supported me…
In reply to this report, we say: Apart from the fact that this report is having incomplete chain of narrators, Allamah Majlisi (a.r.) and other Shia scholars have given replies to this objection, some which we shall mention below:
Allamah Majlisi (r) [died 1111 A.H.], in his book, Biharul Anwar, has replied to this doubt as follows:
In fact, the caustic remark of Lady Zahra (s) aimed to highlight the evil acts of the regime and explain to others what oppression the usurpers have wrought.
In many instances, when man wants to explain something to someone, he makes him a target of anger and addresses him in fury, whereas his aim is not to be angry upon him. This behavior was customary in speech. Like a ruler, who sees some people engrossed in some act against him, in order to express his displeasure at them, he displays anger at some of his officials, while he knows that they had not been deficient in this regard. However, he wanted to, through this expression of anger to highlight to everyone the vileness of those people. Another example is that when Prophet Musa (a) returned from
and found the Jews engrossed in worship of the calf, while he knew that Harun (a)
was not having any shortcoming in this regard, but in spite of that he seized
his beard and said to him in anger: Mt. Tur
“O Harun! what prevented you, when you saw them going astray, so that you did not follow me?”
Harun said: O son of my mother! seize me not by my beard nor by my head; surely I was afraid lest you should say: You have caused a division among the children of
and not waited for my word.” Israel
Lady Zahra (s) also wanted through this to highlight the enormity of the oppression that had befallen her husband…so that the people of that time and those who were to come later should understand what oppression has befallen Ahle Bayt (a).
Thus, on the basis of the justification that the Late Allamah Majlisi has presented regarding this report: it was not accusation anger and fury in this case, on the contrary, it was the uppermost limit of anguish of the respected daughter of the Messenger of Allah (s) over the oppression wrought on her honorable husband, so that history may record this matter.
Saturday, October 5, 2013
Objection 6: If
(s) was attacked, why Bani Hashim did not defend her
Wahabis, in order to deny the attack on the house of revelation, have raised objections like the one mentioned above:
The Holy Prophet (s) was able to train thousands of loyal persons and those devoted to Islam; that they should be present on the path of Allah and defend it; and his Ahle Bayt (a) laid down their lives for its sake. In case we accept the attack on the house of Fatima (r), which the enemies of Islam consider to be true, the question arises that why Bani Hashim witnessed the daughter of the Messenger of Allah (s) being slapped, burning down of the door of the house, killing of the six month old Mohsin…but not once did they utter the least protest? All of them were sincere and loyal Muslims, who had ties of relationship with the Prophet and also had communal ties with him; what happened that they kept absolutely quiet and did not raise any objection?
With attention to many similarities, which exist between the previous doubt and the present one, many replies can also be common, but despite that we will mention some instances.
Firstly, the above statement is having more emotional and provoking words than reasoning and logical proofs, because reports have been recorded in Ahle Sunnat books with correct and proved chains of narrators and we mentioned them in the first part of this book, thus confirming attack on the house of Lady Fatima Zahra (s) and Amirul Momineen (a) and removing all kinds of doubts in this matter.
Moreover, with reference to authentic Ahle Sunnat and Wahabi texts, it can be easily concluded that even if the people of
Medina had wanted to defend, they did not
have any power to take any such steps due to the circumstances that arose there.
While Amirul Momineen (a) was busy with the last rites of the Messenger of Allah (s), Quraish and its leaders: Abu Bakr and Umar usurped his right and through the greed of characters like Abu Sufyan managed to win the loyalties of some people of Quraish. By this description it becomes clear that other tribes did not have the strength to confront Quraish.
Abu Bakr and Umar had gathered in Medina numerous nomad tribes who had embraced Islam at the point of the sword and attracted the attention of new Muslims to their personal gains, as Amirul Momineen (a) in all the battles was the pivot of victory of Islam and they harbored deep animosity with him and the hypocrites took advantage of this same malice.
Thus, taking advantage of the divisions in this group and also the nomadic desert tribes of the outskirts of
surrounded the house of Amirul Momineen (a) and wanted to reduce it to ashes.
Tabari in his Tarikh, Mawardi Shafei in Hawiul Kabir and Abdul Wahab Nuwairi in Nihayatul Arab say:
The Aslam tribe had crowded
in such a way that lanes and by-lanes were overflowing with them so that
allegiance of Abu Bakr may take place. Later, Umar used to say: When I saw the
Aslam tribe, I became sure of victory.