OBJECTIONS AGAINST HAZRAT FATEMAH ZAHRA (SA) AND THEIR REPLIES - OBJECTION NO 10 Part 2

CONTINUED FROM PART 1 ...                                                                           

D. Naming as Uthman

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?

OBJECTIONS AGAINST HAZRAT FATEMAH ZAHRA (SA) AND THEIR REPLIES - OBJECTION NO 10 Part 1

Objection 10: If rivalry existed, why Ali (a) named his sons Umar, Abu Bakr and Uthman?

Pattern of Objection

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?

Logical reply

A. Absence of restricting the name to a particular person

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.

B. Naming as Abu Bakr

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.

OBJECTIONS AGAINST HAZRAT FATEMAH ZAHRA (SA) AND THEIR REPLIES - OBJECTION NO 9

Objection 9 : How did the modesty of Ali (a) allow that Fatima  should go behind the door?

Explanation

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?

Logical reply

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]

The Crying For Imam Hussain (as) Reaches Lady Fatima (s.a.) and Supports Her in Her Lamentation

It is narrated in the book "Kamil uz Ziyarat " Chapter 26 Tradition no 6 : 'The Entire Creation of Allah criedon Imam Husain (a.s.)'

Imam Sadiq (a.s.) said: O Zurarah! The sky rained blood for forty days and the earth became dark for forty days and the sun was eclipsed and turned red for forty days; the mountains were torn into pieces and dispersed and the seas gushed out and the angels wept for forty days over His Eminence (a.s.). And none of our ladies of Ahle Bayt (a.s.) dyed their hair, applied oil or Surma and combed their hair until the head of Ubaidullah bin Ziyad was sent to us; and even after that we continued to weep over him.

Whenever my grandfather remembered Imam Husain (a.s.), he would weep so much that his tears moistened his beard and everyone around him also began weeping. Angels near the grave of Imam Husain (a.s.) cry over him so much that every angel in the sky and in heavens cries in sympathy.

When the soul of Imam Husain (a.s.) left his body, Hell protested in such a way that the earth almost split apart.

When the filthy souls of Ubaidullah bin Ziyad and Yazid bin Muawiyah left their bodies, Hell roared so intensely that but for Allah containing it, using its dedicated keepers, it would have burnt everyone on earth with its outburst. And if hellfire were permitted, it would not have left anything without swallowing it. But it is restrained by shackles and controlled by orders. Hell became violent and uncontrollable more than once, until Jibraeel went to it and pacified it with his wings.

The Hell cries and laments over Husain (a.s.) and its fire blazes on his killers. If it was not for the presence of Divine Proofs of Allah on the earth, it would have destroyed the earth and overturned everything on it. But earthquakes will increase only when Qiyamat is near.

There are no eyes and tears loved more by Allah than the eyes of those who cry and shed tears over Imam Husain (a.s.). And there is none who cries but that his crying reaches Lady Fatima (s.a.) and he supports her in her lamentation, and his crying also reaches the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.s.) and in this way he fulfills our rights.

HAZRAT FATEMAH ZAHRA (SA) AND IMAM HUSSAIN (AS)

It is written in the book Kamiluz Ziyarat ( chp 26 tdn no 7) :

Abu Basir says: I was speaking with Imam Sadiq (a.s.) when one of his sons entered. Imam (a.s.) said: ‘May Allah bless you’; and then embraced and kissed him.

Then he (as) said: ‘May Allah degrade those who dishonored you. May Allah avenge those who oppressed you. May Allah disappoint those who deserted you. May Allah curse those who slain you. May Allah be your guardian, protector and helper. Prophets, truthful ones, martyrs, angels of the heavens and our ladies have been weeping on you’.

Then Imam (a.s.) began to weep and said: ‘Abu Basir, when I look at the children of Imam Husain (a.s.), grief overcomes me when I remember what was meted out to them and to their father.’

‘Abu Basir, Fatima (s.a.) weeps and laments over Husain (a.s.) as a result of which Hell sighs so intensely, that if the keepers of Hell who also hear her voice did not prepare themselves to restrain it, it would burn all the inhabitants of the earth with its blazing fires and sparking fumes. So the keepers restrain it and hold its doors tightly closed as long as Fatima (s.a.) laments. Because they fear for the inhabitants of the earth. But Hell is not pacified until Fatima’s lamentation ends.’

‘Abu Basir, the seas almost split apart and collide with each other. There is a dedicated angel for every drop of water and they prevent every drop from boiling with their wings; keeping it together because of their fear for this world and everything in it. The angels remain in fear and cry for her crying. And they pray to Allah and beseech Him, after which the inhabitants of the Arsh and those around it beg Allah.’

visit the blog  http://theziyaratofashurah.wordpress.com/

‘Then their voices are raised in glorification of Allah, all because of their fear for the people of the earth. Even if one of their voices reached the earth, all the inhabitants would swoon, mountains would crumble and the earth would shake with its inhabitants.’

Abu Basir said, “May I be sacrificed on you! It is really a serious matter.”

Imam (a.s.) said, “That which you have not heard is greater. Abu Basir! Don’t you want to be of those who support Lady Fatima (s.a.)?”

When I heard this, I cried so much that I could not speak nor could the Imam (a.s.) do, because he was crying so intensely. Then he went to his prayer room and began to recite a supplication.

So I left the Imam in that state. I could not eat or sleep that night. The following morning, I was fasting and was in extreme fear when I went to Imam (a.s.). I heaved as sigh of relief when I saw that he had calmed down; and I praised and glorified Allah, because no chastisement or calamity had befallen me.

SHORT MOVIE ABOUT OPPRESSIONS ON HAZRAT FATEMAH ZAHRA (SA)

Here is a nice and short movie about the oppressions committed against Hazrat Fatemah Zahra (sa) begining from saqifah till the snatching of Fadak and her silent burial.

يارب محمد عجل فرج آل محمد

 يارب محمد أحفظ غيبة أبنه محمد

 يارب محمـــد أنتقم لأبنه محمـــد

"O Lord of Muhammad! Hasten the reappearance of the progeny of Muhammad. 

O Lord of Muhammad! Protect the occultation of Muhammad. 

O Lord of Muhammad! Hasten the revenge of daughter of Muhammad.”

OBJECTIONS AGAINST HAZRAT FATEMAH ZAHRA (SA) AND THEIR REPLIES - OBJECTION NO 8

Objection 8: Is it allowed for an infallible like Hazrat Fatima  Zahra (sa) to pray for death?

Explanation

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![1]

Does a wish for death by an infallible like Lady Fatima Zahra (s) not create a doubt?

Logical reply

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.[2]

---

[1] The complete text of this report was mentioned in the above objection.

[2] 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.

OBJECTIONS AGAINST HAZRAT FATEMAH ZAHRA (SA) AND THEIR REPLIES - OBJECTION NO 7

Objection 7: Lady Zahra (s) also objected to Ali (a) 

Explanation

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 Fatima is infallible? Can one infallible pass a remark on another infallible?

Rational reply

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 Medina, 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…[1]

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:

A. Reply of Allamah Majlisi (discussion of the evil deeds of Abu Bakr)

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 Mt. Tur 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: 

“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 Israel and not waited for my word.”[2]

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).[3]

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.

OBJECTIONS AGAINST HAZRAT FATEMAH ZAHRA (SA) AND THEIR REPLIES - OBJECTION NO 6

Objection 6: If Fatima (s) was attacked, why Bani Hashim did not defend her 

Explanation

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?

Rational reply

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.

Role of Bani Aslam tribe in opposing Bani Hashim and strengthening of Abu Bakr’s regime

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 Medina 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 Medina 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.[1]

OBJECTIONS AGAINST HAZRAT FATEMAH ZAHRA (SA) AND THEIR REPLIES - OBJECTION NO 5 PART 2

Objection 5: If Fatima (s) was attacked why Ali (a) did not defend her? 

CONTINUED FROM PART 1 ......

Polemical replies to the doubt

A. Why Prophet Lut (a) did not put up defense?

One who has raised the above doubt and said: Why Ali (a) did not stage an uprising? Or how his modesty permitted him to watch such a treatment being meted out to his wife; should reply to the same objection regarding Prophet Lut (a):

The wife of Prophet Lut (a) was a disbeliever, the community of Lut (a) was sinful; the disbelievers forced themselves into the house of Lut (a) and saw handsome youths there. They expressed their satantic desires with regard to those youths. Prophet Lut (a) said: Fear Allah; if you refrain from this vile deed, I will marry my daughters to you.

Now, a number of questions arise at this point, which the doubt raisers should reply:

Why Prophet Lut (a) was not ashamed of the evil behavior of his disbelieving community, why he did not take to arms and attack them? On the contrary, he suggested to them that he was ready to give his daughters in marriage to them. Can – God forbid – Prophet Lut (a) be blamed from shamelessness?

Pay attention to the translation of the verse of Quran in this regard:

وَلَمَّا جَاءتْ رُسُلُنَا لُوطًا سِيءَ بِهِمْ وَضَاقَ بِهِمْ ذَرْعًا وَقَالَ هَـذَا يَوْمٌ عَصِيبٌ {77} وَجَاءهُ قَوْمُهُ يُهْرَعُونَ إِلَيْهِ وَمِن قَبْلُ كَانُواْ يَعْمَلُونَ السَّيِّئَاتِ قَالَ يَا قَوْمِ هَـؤُلاء بَنَاتِي هُنَّ أَطْهَرُ لَكُمْ فَاتَّقُواْ اللّهَ…

“And when Our messengers came to Lut, he was grieved for them, and he lacked strength to protect them, and said: This is a hard day. And his people came to him, (as if) rushed on towards him, and already they did evil deeds. He said: O my people! these are my daughters- they are purer for you, so guard against (the punishment of) Allah…” (Surah Hud 77-78)

B. Why the Holy Prophet (s) did not confront during the thirteen years of his stay in Mecca?

If not staging an uprising by Amirul Momineen (a) is an occasion for some questions, why with regard to not staging an uprising by the Holy Prophet (s) in Mecca for thirteen years is not having any objection?

Did the Messenger of Allah (s) not witness tortures and unlimited oppressions on Muslims in Mecca? Amirul Momineen (a), by this same argument did not show any reaction that the Messenger of Allah (s) at the time of killing of Sumayyah, mother of Ammar Yasir at the hands of the idolaters and his confrontation with them did not show any reaction.

Ibne Hajar Asqalani has written in Isabah:

Sumayyah binte Khabbat…mother of Ammar Yasir is the seventh to embrace Islam. Abu Jahl harassed her and stabbed her in the lower abdomen with a spear till she achieved martyrdom. She was the first female martyr in Islam and since she had embraced Islam and did not give it up, the family of Bani Mughira tortured and harassed her till she was martyred. The Messenger of Allah (s) witnessed the scene of torture of Ammar and his parents in Mecca and said: O family of Yasir, be patient, as Paradise is promised to you.[1]

Since the Messenger of Allah (s) was seeing that idolaters like Abu Jahl were harassing Muslim ladies, he did not display any reaction to it and also ordered them to be absolute patient in all this.

Was the Messenger of Allah (s) not the most modest and valiant person of the world? Thus, why he did not defend the Muslim ladies? Why he did not take up the sword to strike off the head of Abu Jahl?

Whatever replies the Wahabis give with regard to the absence of staging uprising by the Holy Prophet (s), we will give the same reply to the topic of Amirul Momineen (a) not staging an uprising.

OBJECTIONS AGAINST HAZRAT FATEMAH ZAHRA (SA) AND THEIR REPLIES - OBJECTION NO 5 PART 1

Objection 5: If Fatima (s) was attacked why Ali (a) did not defend her?

Explanation

Among the most important doubts, which Wahabis propagate to instigate the feelings of people with an aim to deny attack on the house of revelation is that if such an attack ever took place, why Amirul Momineen (a) did not defend his wife? Was he not the victorious lion of Allah and the most valiant person of his time? Ali, who was the victorious lion of Allah and who possessed the enemy-routing sword and a hand with which he raised the gate of Fort Khyber, how even after having so much strength he saw his spouse being beaten up in his presence, but did not display any reaction? And…

Rational reply

Throughout history, Shia scholars have given various replies to this objection, which we shall briefly state in few points as follows:

A. Amirul Momineen (a) defended

Amirul Momineen (a), in the first stage and when his house took the shape of confrontation, displayed severe reaction and confronted the attackers, including Umar. He seized his collar, threw him down and fisted his neck and face; but since the Imam was commanded patience, he refrained from continuing the dispute and according to the command of the Messenger of Allah (s), he observed patience.

Amirul Momineen (a) in fact, wanted Umar and his other companions to understand that if he had not been ordered to observe patience and if the order of the Almighty Allah had been to the contrary, no one would have dared to attack the house of Fatima (s) and give way to their imagination; but the Imam, like always, was obedient to the command of the Almighty Allah.

Sulaym bin Qays Hilali, a sincere companion of Amirul Momineen (a), has written regarding this:

Umar asked for fire and ignited it at the door of the house and the door broke. He opened it and entered. Lady Zahra (s) came to him and screamed: O father, O Messenger of Allah (s)! Umar raised the sword while it was in its cover and hit at the side of Fatima. Fatima called out again: O father! Umar raised the whip and hit at the side of Fatima. She called out again: O Messenger of Allah (s)! See how Abu Bakr and Umar are behaving with your survivors! Ali (a) stood up all of a sudden and seized the collar of Umar and pulled him down so hard that he fell down. Then he fisted him at his nose and neck and wanted to eliminate him, but he remembered the statement of the Prophet and the bequest he had made to him and he stood up and said: O son of Sahhak, by the one who sent Muhammad as a Prophet, if divine will and covenant of the Prophet had not been there on my neck, you would have known that you would not have been able to enter my house.[1]

In the same way, Alusi, the well known Wahabi commentator, quoting Shia sources has narrated this report:

Umar became infuriated and burnt down the door of the house of Ali (a) and entered the house. Fatima (s) came to Umar and screamed: O my father, O Messenger of Allah (s)! Umar raised the sword while it was in its cover and hit at the side of Fatima. Then Umar raised the whip and hit at the side of Fatima. Fatima called out again: O father! Seeing this, Ali (a) suddenly arose and seized Umar’s collar, jerked it hard and threw him down and hit at his nose and neck.[2]

OBJECTIONS AGAINST HAZRAT FATEMAH ZAHRA (SA) AND THEIR REPLIES - OBJECTION NO 4 PART 2

CONTINUED FROM PART 1........ 
Objection 4: Report of ‘Fatima is a part of me’ was regarding proposal of Ali (a) to the daughter of Abu Jahl



D. Miswar bin Makhrama is the sole witness of this incident

It is interesting that among all those companions only this six year old child heard the Prophet and quoted him. It is not clear why the rest of the companions of the Prophet while being present in the Majid did not hear this story and did not narrate it?

E. Refuting this fiction through the verses of Quran

In addition to the very difficult problems that are mentioned above, when this tradition is posed before the criterion of the Holy Quran, it is found wanting in that case also. It becomes clear that it is in no way compatible to the teachings of Quran; because Quran has clearly issued permission for men to practice polygamy and it has declared:

فَانكِحُواْ مَا طَابَ لَكُم مِّنَ النِّسَاء مَثْنَى وَثُلاَثَ وَرُبَاعَ

“…then marry such women as seem good to you, two and three and four.” (Surah Nisa 4:3)

And we see that the Messenger of Allah (s) has followed this practice; also in fact he was the practical demonstration of this divine command, whereas the topic of the report of Miswar bin Makhrama is that the Messenger of Allah (s) has considered it unlawful for Ali (a), his son-in-law to choose a second wife.

Can the Messenger of Allah (s) make something, which the Almighty Allah has allowed, to be unlawful?

Also, there are many other fundamental doubts, like:

1. Juwairiya had not accepted Islam till that time.

2. Juwairiya considered her father, a prophet.

3. Juwairiya was inimical to Amirul Momineen (a) as he had eliminated her father.

For the sake of brevity, we abstain from going into details.

Now, with reference to the deep malice of Juwairiya to the killer of her father and other points, which are mentioned about her, can it be imagined that she would have liked to become the wife of the killer of her father or that Amirul Momineen (a) would have liked to propose to a woman like Juwairiya?

OBJECTIONS AGAINST HAZRAT FATEMAH ZAHRA (SA) AND THEIR REPLIES - OBJECTION NO 4 PART 1

Objection 4: Report of ‘Fatima is a part of me’ was regarding proposal of Ali (a) to the daughter of Abu Jahl

In one of their objections, the Wahabis have mentioned:

We have numerous authentic traditional reports, which mention the proposal of Ali (r) to Juwairiya, Abu Jahl’s daughter, which say that when Fatima (r) was yet alive, Ali (r) sent a proposal to Abu Jahl’s daughter. When Fatima came to know about this, she was extremely distraught and the Holy Prophet (s) also, after coming to know about it, came to the Masjid and said: “Fatima is a part of me; one, who has hurt her, has in fact hurt me.”

In spite of these traditional reports, why do the Shia try to use this report as condemnation of Abu Bakr and Umar, whereas the Prophet was himself infuriated and displeased with his son-in-law – Ali Ibne Abi Talib (a) – may Allah honor his countenance – and he mentioned the captioned tradition?

Rational reply :

The true source of the fiction of the marriage proposal of Amirul Momineen (a) to Abu Jahl’s daughter, Juwairiya, is the traditional report, which Muhammad bin Ismail Bukhari has mentioned in a number of places in his Sahih. First, we would quote the original version and then analyze it:

That when they (caravan of Ahle Bayt) reached Medina after returning from (captivity in Shaam with) Yazid bin Muawiyah after the martyrdom of Husain bin Ali (may Allah bestow His Mercy upon him), Al-Miswar bin Makhrama met him and asked, “Do you have any need you may order me to satisfy?” Ali said, “No.” Al-Miswar asked, “Will you give me the sword of Allah’s Apostle for I am afraid that people may take it from you by force? By Allah, if you give it to me, they will never be able to take it till I die. [till Makhrama said in the due course] When Ali bin Abi Talib asked for the hand of Abi Jahl’s daughter to be his wife besides Fatima, I heard Allah’s Apostle on his pulpit delivering a sermon in this connection before the people, and I had then attained puberty. Allah’s Apostle said: Fatima is from me, and I am afraid she will be subjected to trials in her religion (because of jealousy). The Prophet then mentioned one of his sons-in-law from the tribe of Abu Shams, and praised him as a good son-in-law, saying: Whatever he said was the truth, and he promised me and fulfilled his promise. I do not make a legal thing illegal, nor do I make an illegal thing legal, but by Allah, the daughter of Allah’s Apostle and the daughter of the enemy of Allah, (i.e. Abu Jahl) can never get together (as the wives of one man).”[1]

Bukhari has written, on another occasion in his book:

Narrated Al-Miswar bin Makhrama: Ali asked for the hand of Abu Jahl’s daughter. Fatima heard of this and went to Allah’s Apostle saying, “Your people think that you do not become angry for the sake of your daughters as Ali is now going to marry Abu Jahl’s daughter. “On that Allah’s Apostle got up and after his recitation of Tashahud. I heard him saying, “Then after! I married one of my daughters to Abul Aas bin Rabi (the husband of Zainab, the daughter of Prophet) before Islam and he proved truthful in whatever he said to me. No doubt, Fatima is a part of me; I hate to see her being troubled. By Allah, the daughter of Allah’s Apostle and the daughter of Allah’s enemy cannot be wives of one man.” So Ali gave up that engagement.[2]

Although other traditional reports also exist in this regard in Ahle Sunnat books of traditions, but since Bukhari is considered to be the most important traditional book of Ahle Sunnat, we have analyzed the reports of this book. Without any doubt, if the suggestions of these reports are clarified the implication of the rest of them would also become clear.

A. Viewpoint of Ahle Bayt (a) regarding this fiction

Before the analysis of Bukhari, it is appropriate to state the viewpoint of Ahle Bayt (a) regarding this fiction.

Shaykh Saduq (r) has, in his Amali, narrated from Imam Sadiq (a) a detailed report concerning this:

Al-Qama says: I asked Imam Sadiq (a): O son of the Messenger of Allah (s), people (Ahle Sunnat) accuse us (Shia) of committing vile acts; in such a way that it has made us extremely distressed. Imam (a) said: O Al-Qama, man cannot invite the attention of people and bridle their tongues. How can you remain safe from that from which the prophets, messengers and successors had not remained safe? Did they not accuse Yusuf of having intention to commit fornication? Did they not say about Ayyub (a) that he was involved in those calamities due to his sins? Did they not say about Prophet Dawood (a) that he pursued the bird till he glanced at the wife of Uriya for a moment and became infatuated with her; and in order to achieve his aim, he sent the husband of that woman to the battlefront and placed him before the Ark of Covenant till he was killed and after that he married her?... Did they not accuse the Messenger of Allah (s) of being partial to his cousin, Ali (a) and that he spoke under the influence of his selfish desires…and they have said more than this regarding his successors…Did they not allege that the chief of successors, Ali Ibne Abi Talib (a) wanted to marry Abu Jahl’s daughter while having Fatima as a wife? And that the Prophet in the presence of Muslims ascended the pulpit and complained about him saying: O people, Ali wants to bring the daughter of the enemy of God upon the head of the daughter of the Messenger of Allah. Know that Fatima is a part of me; one, who has hurt her, has in fact hurt me and one who has pleased her has in fact pleased me and whoever has infuriated her has in fact made me furious….[3]

Destruction of Jannatul Baqi - The oppression on Janabe fatima (sa) continues till today

OCCASION OF THE DESTRUCTION OF THE GRAVES OF JANNATUL BAQI BY THE WAHABIS

( 8TH SHAWWAL -1345 AH / April 21, 1925)

 ____________________________________________________

 HISTORY OF THE CEMETERY OF JANNAT AL-BAQI

WHERE IMAM HASAN B. ALI (2ND IMAM), IMAM ALI B. AL-HUSAYN (4TH IMAM), IMAM MUHAMMAD B. ALI (5TH IMAM), & IMAM JA'FAR B. MUHAMMAD (6TH IMAM), PEACE BE UPON THEM, ARE BURIED

---

On 8th Shawwal, Wednesday, in the year 1345 AH (April 21, 1925), mausoleums in Jannatul al-Baqi (Madina) were demolished by King Ibn Saud.

In the same year (1925), he also demolished the tombs of holy personages at Jannat al-Mualla (Makkah) where the Holy Prophet (s)'s mother, wife, grandfather and other ancestors are buried.

Destruction of sacred sites in Hijaz by the Saudi Wahhabis continues even today. According to some scholars what is happening in Hijaz is actually a conspiracy plotted by the Jews against Islam, under the guise of Tawheed. The idea is to eradicate the Islamic legacy and heritage and to systematically remove all its vestiges so that in the days to come, Muslims will have no affiliation with their religious history.

CLICK HERE TO READ FURTHER

OBJECTIONS AGAINST HAZRAT FATEMAH ZAHRA (SA) AND THEIR REPLIES - OBJECTION NO 3 PART 2

Objection 3: Arab modesty does not permit oppression on

Fatima (s) - PART 2  CONTINUED .....

4. Quarreling with regard to the wives of the Messenger of Allah (s)

One who, during the lifetime of the Messenger of Allah (s) and in his presence, had been so blatant to scold and harass the wives of the Prophet and had been so adamant that they should remain in veil, till the angel of revelation descended and brought divine revelation opposed to the view of Umar; now, after the passing away of Prophet, what attitude he would have against one who opposed his rule or the rule of Abu Bakr?

Muhammad bin Ismail Bukhari has mentioned three times in his book, on the authority of Ayesha, the story of the coming out of Sauda and that also in the darkness of the night and the angry attitude of Umar towards her and the revelation of the verse:

Sauda (the wife of the Prophet) went out to answer the call of nature after it was made obligatory (for all Muslims ladies) to observe the veil. She was a fat huge lady, and everybody who knew her before could recognize her. So Umar bin Khattab saw her and said, “O Sauda! By Allah, you cannot hide yourself from us, so think of a way by which you should not be recognized on going out.” Sauda returned while Allah’s Apostle was in my house taking his supper and a bone covered with meat was in his hand. She entered and said, “O Allah’s Apostle! I went out to answer the call of nature and Umar said to me so-and-so.” Then Allah inspired him (the Prophet) and when the state of inspiration was over and the bone was still in his hand as he had not put in down, he said (to Sauda), “You (women) have been allowed to go out for your needs.”[1]

Who permitted Umar to raise objections against the ‘mothers of believers’ and behave in such an insulting manner? Except that they were also helpless like other human beings and compelled to leave the house to fulfill some needs and according to the text of tradition it was done on the permission of the Prophet of Islam (s).

5. Does chivalry lead one to be inimical?

It is remarkable that some Ahle Sunnat scholars have narrated this harassment of mother of believers, Sauda at the hands of Umar as one of his excellence.

Alusi, the famous Wahabi commentator of Quran, has written about this:

Shia condemn Umar with regard to that which occurred between him and mother of believers, Sauda; and they consider it to be a defect of Umar and they regard this to be disrespect to the family of the Prophet, insult of his wives and harassment to them: whereas Ahle Sunnat have replied: Supposing the report is true, Umar considered that act good and a cause of blessing.[2]

6. Miscarriage due to fear

Umar bin Khattab, during the period of his Caliphate also, displayed so much enmity to ladies that if he summoned a Muslim lady, she used to be so terrified that she even suffered miscarriage.

Abdur Razzaq Sanani, teacher of Bukhari, has written in his book of Musannaf:

Umar summoned a lady, who was reported to be visited (by men). When that lady heard this, she denied it and wailed: Woe be on me, what do I have to do with Umar? On the way, she experienced labor pains and entered a house and delivered the fetus there. Two cries were heard from the child and then it died.[3]

So clear was this matter in the view of Ahle Sunnat scholars that they have confirmed this in their reliable jurisprudence books. Mohiuddin Nawawi has, in his book of jurisprudence, Al-Majmua, written:

Part: If a woman speaks ill in the presence of the ruler and she makes allegations against him, the ruler may send someone to her to summon her and if that woman suffers a miscarriage due the fear of the ruler; it is obligatory on the ruler to pay the blood money of the aborted child; because it is reported that Umar was informed: there is a woman whom men visit. Umar sent someone to summon that woman. When she heard this, she said: What do I have to do with Umar? On the way, she experienced labor pains due to fear and delivered her fetus. Two cries were heard from the child and then it died…[4]

Also, Ibne Qudama Muqaddasi, the famous jurisprudent of Hanbali sect has written:

If a ruler summons a woman and she has a miscarriage, the ruler is responsible for it. This command is there, because Umar ordered his men to summon a woman about whom it was reported that men visited her. When she came to know about this, she said: O woe, what do I have to do with Umar? On way to Umar she experienced labor pains due to apprehension and delivered her fetus. Two cries were heard from the child and then it died…[5]

The same matter is also mentioned in Kitabul Kafi under the jurisprudence of Ibne Hanbal.[6]