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.



Search This Blog

Tuesday, June 23, 2015

Report of Shamsuddin Dhahabi (748 A.H.) and Ibne Hajar Asqalani (852 A.H.) about the attack on the house of revelation and martyrdom of Lady Zahra (sa)

Ibne Hajar Asqalani in Lisanul Mizan and Dhahabi in Mizanul Etedal have written that: 

Umar hit on the belly of Fatima and caused the miscarriage of Mohsin.[1]

But Ibne Hajar has rejected this report, because of the presence of Ibne Abi Daram in its chain of narrators on the pretext that he is Rafidi (Shia); whereas Dhahabi instead in his book of Seer Aalamun Nubla has called him Imam, Hafiz and learned…[2] 

And in another place, he said regarding him:
Among his qualities was that he was a memorizer of traditional reports and was cognizant of traditions and the only defect he had was that he had Shii beliefs.[3]

And in another place he says:
Muhammad bin Hammad Hafiz has said regarding him: He was a person having correct beliefs throughout his life.[4]


In the same way, Dhahabi has mentioned in Mizanul Etedal:   
He, throughout his life had correct and firm beliefs.[5]

Later on Dhahabi condemns him for being a Rafidi (Shia) and for narrating this report and some other reports in condemnation of Caliphs and called him names, like: old man, deviated and licentious person[6], but can being a Shia lead to loss of integrity in a person to narrate a tradition? What logic and reasoning permits us to leave aside the reports of a person and to declare them as invalid only because of the fact that he is a Shia?

If Shiaism is a criterion for acceptance or rejection of traditions, Ahle Sunnat should draw a line of invalidity on a large number of traditional reports in their six canonical books (Sihah Sitta), because the authors of Sihah Sitta have often narrated traditions from Shia (Rafidi according to them). Some of their names are mentioned in the footnote.[7]

How is it possible to believe that a person earned the titles of Imam, Hafiz and learned; and all his life he remains steadfast on faith, has strong memory and cognition of religious concepts, and his reports are of the rank that all scholars have consensus on them, but at the same time he is also called deviated and sinner? Can terms and qualities like Imam, Hafiz, learned and cognitive be mentioned together with words like: old man, deviated and licentious person?

Yes, it is because of bigotry beyond limits, an illogical defense of the school of Caliphs and effort to defend their honor that a great personality like Dhahabi is compelled to make these hypocritical statements in his book.

It is possible that they might reply that only being a Rafidi (Shia) is not the reason for the reporter to be condemned, on the contrary, it is being an extremist in being a Rafidi.[8]

Wednesday, June 10, 2015

Report of Abu Walid Muhammad bin Shahna Hanafi (817 A.H.) about the attack on the house of revelation and martyrdom of Lady Zahra (sa)

Abu Walid Muhammad bin Shahna has narrated as follows: 
Umar came to the house of Ali (a) to burn him with those who were in his company. Fatima (s) confronted Umar. Umar said to Fatima: Enter that into which the Ummah has entered (allegiance of Abu Bakr)…[1]



[1] Rauzatul Manazir fee Akhbaril Awail wa Awakhir (Margins of Kamil Ibne Athir), Vol. 11, Pg. 113, (Published Halabi, Afandi, Year 1301)