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.

Search This Blog

Friday, December 20, 2013


CONTINUED FROM PART 1 ...                                                                           
Firstly: As was hinted before also, it is not necessary that only these persons were having those names and it was not due to attachment to them, because naming as Uthman was not after the third Caliph or due to attachment with him, on the contrary, His Eminence himself clarified that it was due to attachment with Uthman bin Mazun and not Uthman bin Affan, the third Ahle Sunnat Caliph.
I named my son on the name of my brother, Uthman bin Mazun.[1]
Furthermore, Ibne Hajar Asqalani has mentioned the names of twenty-six persons from the companions of the Prophet who were named as Uthman. How can it be said that Amirul Momineen (a) named one of his sons Uthman due to his attachment to Uthman bin Affan, the third Ahle Sunnat Caliph?

Friday, December 13, 2013


Shia claim that the first and second Caliphs attacked the house of Fatima (r) whereas we know that Ali (a) named some of his issues after the Caliphs. This shows that the Caliphs are exonerated from these allegations. Does anyone name his children on his enemies?

Names are never related to any particular person. In the same way, names like Umar, Abu Bakr and Uthman were not limited to these persons and numerous other people were also named as such.
That is why names like Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman were common names and numerous persons during the time of the Prophet were known by these names.

Thus, overlooking the replies that follow, it cannot be said that selection of these names was due to attachment and friendly relations between His Eminence and the Caliphs, because it is possible that His Eminence had attachment with other people having the same names.

Especially with regard to naming one of the sons of Amirul Momineen (a) on the name of Abu Bakr; if it was as some have claimed, Abu Bakr was an agnomen (Kunniyat) and not a name, His Eminence should have named his son after one of the real names of Abu Bakr: That is Abdul Kaaba, Ateeq, Abdullah or his other names (with attention to differences, which exist with regard to his names) and he would not chosen his Kunniyat.

Another point is that: What attention to the fact that Abu Bakr is a Kunniyat and not a name, and Kunniyat is chosen by a person himself according to the circumstances of his life and it is not selected by the father of that person. From this aspect, if we say that Amirul Momineen (a) named one of his sons as Abu Bakr it would be a false and baseless statement.

Finally: According to a report the real name of this son, whose Kunniyat was Abu Bakr, was Abdullah and he was martyred at Kerbala aged twenty-five years. Since his real name was Abdullah and from the aspect that he had a son named Bakr they referred to him as Abu Bakr.

Abul Faraj Isfahani writes:
Abdullah bin Ali was twenty-five years of age when he was martyred in Kerbala.[1]
On the basis of this, the birth of Abdullah occurred during the early period of the Caliphate of His Eminence, Ali (a) and the Imam during that period severely condemned the Caliphs preceding him. This is another proof of the absence of relation between these names with that, which is publicized by the objection makers.

Wednesday, December 4, 2013


Among the objections that Wahabis have expressed is:
How can it be believed that in spite of the fact that Ali (a) was present in the house, his wife Fatima should go to the door and such an accident should take place? Why Ali (a) himself or another person from those present in the house did not step forward to open the door? Can it be justified logically that Ali (a) should send Fatima to the door when strangers were present behind it?

A. The door was open and Fatima went to the open door in order to close it upon the persons who were besieging the house

As opposed to today’s custom, when in towns usually the doors are kept closed all the time and only opened when someone knocks from outside, during those days, like it is customary in many villages even today that the doors usually remain open all day and only those who have sought permission can enter.
On the same basis, it is concluded from some traditional reports that at the time of the occurrence of his incident the door was open and Lady Fatima Zahra (s) was near it; and on seeing the attackers heading for her house she went behind the door and closed it upon them.

The Late Ayyashi, Shaykh Mufeed and others have written:
The narrator states that Umar said: Get up, let us go to Ali. Abu Bakr, Uthman, Khalid bin Walid, Mughira bin Shoba, Abu Ubaidah Jarrah, Saalim the freed slave of Abu Huzaifah, Qunfadh and I stood up with them. When we came near the house, Fatima saw us and that is why she closed the door on our faces. Fatima was certain that Umar will not enter without permission. Umar kicked and broke the door, which was made of date trunks. He and his companions entered the house and shouted ‘God is the greatest’ upon their success. They brought Ali (a) out of the house.[1]

In the report of Sulaym, it is also mentioned:
Umar came to the door of Ali and Fatima. Fatima was seated behind the door. Her head was tied and her body had turned frail and weak due to the loss of her father. Umar knocked at the door and said: Son of Abu Talib, open the door. Fatima said: Umar, what do you want from us? Leave us alone in the calamity that has befallen us. Umar said: Open the door, otherwise I would burn down the house. Fatima asked: Do you not fear the Almighty Allah that we are present in the house? Umar did not retreat and he called for fire and set the door afire.[2]