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.
Wednesday, February 26, 2014
One of the objections of the Wahabis is as follows:
The ultimate point mentioned in the report is that Lady Zahra (r) was threatened by Umar; and with a threat, which was for the welfare of Islam and Muslim society.
In none of the reports is there clarification that this threat was put into practice; and if issuing a threat is a crime then the threat of the Messenger of Allah (s) to those who opposed participation in congregational prayers would also be a crime, as it is narrated from the Messenger of Allah (s) that he said:
“By Him in Whose Hands my life is, I was about to order for collecting fire wood and then order someone to pronounce the Adhan for the prayer and then order someone to lead the people in prayer and then I would go from behind and burn the houses of men who did not present themselves for the (compulsory congregational) prayer. By Him in Whose Hands my life is, if anyone of you had known that he would receive a bone covered with meat or two (small) pieces of meat present in between two ribs, he would come for `Isha’ prayer.”
No sane person would conclude anything more than that the Messenger of Allah (s) only threatened those who opposed congregational prayer and he only aimed to announce the importance of congregational prayer. Thus, Umar also issued a threat and to consider it more than this is unjust and a consequence of bias.
Tuesday, February 11, 2014
Objection 12: Houses of
Mecca and Medina
were not having doors
Of all the doubts, which are spread by Wahabism and regretfully by some people who do not have the necessary knowledge of history it is repeated that originally during the early period of Islam, houses in Mecca and Medina did not have wooden doors like today and people used only curtains or mats in order to screen the house from strangers and unrelated persons. Some of them, in order to prove their claim, use reasoning through traditional reports:
“It is narrated from Ali (r) that he said: And we are Ahle Bayt of Muhammad. Our houses neither have roof nor door…”
So they conclude: How it is possible for
to come between the door and the wall? Thus, the issue of burning of the door
of Fatima and crushing her between the wall
and the half-burnt door is false.
By study of the reports present in books of Shia and Sunni it can be concluded that during the period of the Messenger of Allah (s) houses in
Medina were having wooden
To prove the point, it is possible to reason through numerous evidences and those interested in details may refer to detailed books on this subject.
While numerous verses of the Holy Quran have clarified the existence of doors for houses, how can we deny the existence of doors in the early period of Islam? For example the following verse:
وَلَيْسَ الْبِرُّ بِأَنْ تَأْتُوا الْبُيُوتَ مِنْ ظُهُورِهَا وَلَٰكِنَّ الْبِرَّ مَنِ اتَّقَىٰ وَأْتُوا الْبُيُوتَ مِنْ أَبْوَابِهَا
“…and it is not righteousness that you should enter the houses at their backs, but righteousness is this that one should guard (against evil); and go into the houses by their doors.” (Surah Baqarah 2:189)
In the above verse, the existence of door in the house is clarified.