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.”[1]
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.
In reply, we say that the analogy of this report to numerous
reports on the subject of attacking the house of revelation is defective;
because there is no similarity between the threat to burn down the house of
Lady Zahra (s) and threats of the Messenger of Allah (s) to the opponents of
congregational prayers mentioned in the above reports, because:
First of all, this report is mentioned in non-Shia sources, hence
it cannot be a proof for us;
Secondly, the purport of the report, which is used in the
argumentation of Wahabis is unacceptable; because it is unlikely from the good
ethical behavior of the Prophet that he should threaten burning down houses of
people for recommended acts. Using threats of burning down houses for a
recommended act is not compatible with the spirit of the original Shariat;
Thirdly: In reports of threat of Umar to burn down the house of
revelation according to the report of Tabari and Ibne Abi Shaybah, Umar swore
that if the persons gathered in the house of Amirul Momineen (a) do not come to
pay allegiance, I would burn down the house with its occupants. Clarification
and emphasis of Lady Zahra (s) in putting the threat into practice by Umar is
itself testimony to the definite intention of Umar to burn down the house of
revelation.[2]
On the other hand it is definite that Amirul Momineen (a) did not
pay any heed to the threats of Umar and he did not present himself for
allegiance[3]
and this is another proof with reference to the absence of allegiance of Amirul
Momineen (a) that Umar must definitely have put his threat of burning the house
into practice.
Further evidence was report of Balazari that was previously
narrated through correct authorities and in that report it is clearly explained
that the house of revelation was indeed burnt down by Umar.[4]
Fourthly: As mentioned previously, swearing of Umar that he would
burn down the house with its occupants was definite since he swore and then put
into practice the purport of the oath thus proving the stand of Shia for if he
had not fulfilled that oath it would have been obligatory on him to pay the
penalty for breaking of an oath, while the fact is that no report, even a weak
one exists that Umar gave Kaffara (penalty) for breaking his oath.
Fifthly: Umar put his threat into practice; because Abu Bakr who
had issued the orders of burning down the house of revelation in his last days
expressed regret at the cruelty of this act.[5]
Sixthly: Masudi Shafei in his book, Kitab Asbatul Wasiyya has
clarified that Umar put the house on fire.[6]
Seventhly: Even if the supposition of the Wahabis is accepted and
we say that Umar only threatened, the same threat is sufficient enough to put a
question mark over the Caliphate of the three Caliphs, because it proves that Lady
Zahra (s), Amirul Momineen (a), Bani Hashim and some companions of the Prophet
were opposed to the Caliphate of Abu Bakr and this issue also puts a question
mark on the fiction of consensus on the allegiance of Abu Bakr.
[1] Sahih
Bukhari, Vol. 1, Page. 231, Tr. 2865; Kitab al-Jama-a wal Imamah, Baab
Wujub Salatil Jama-a, …
[2] By
Allah, gathering of these people will not prevent the burning down of this
house. When Umar went away, Ali (a) and Zubair returned to the house. The
respected daughter of the Prophet said to Ali and Zubair: Umar came to me and
swore that if you again hold a meeting here, he would burn down the house on
you; by Allah he would indeed do what he has sworn.
Al-Kitabul Musannaf fil
Ahadith wal Aathaar, Vol. 7, Pg. 432, Tr. 37045, Kitabul Maghazi, Baab Maa
Jaa fil Khilafah Abu Bakr wal Seerah fil Ridda, Abu Bakr Abdullah bin Muhammad
Ibne Abi Shabah Kufi (d. 235 A.H.), Edited: Kamaal Yusuf Alhut; Maktabe Rushd,
Riyadh, First edition, 1409 A.H.
[3]
Muhammad bin Ismail Bukhari writes:
Fatima, the daughter of
Allah’s Apostle got angry and stopped speaking to Abu Bakr, and continued that
attitude till she died. Fatima remained alive
for six months after the death of Allah’s Apostle…`Ali had not given the oath
of allegiance (to Abu Bakr) during those (six) months.
Al-Jami as-Sahih
al-Mukhtasar (Sahih Bukhari), Vol. 4, Pg. 1549, Tr. no. 3998, Kitabul
Maghazi, Baab Ghuzwa Khaibar, Muhammad bin Ismail Abu Abdullah Bukhari Jofi (d.
256 A.H.), Edited: Dr. Mustafa Dibul Bagha, Daar Ibne Kathir, Yamama, Beirut, 3rd
edition, 1407 – 1987.
Sahih Muslim, Vol.
3, Pg. 1380, Tr. no. 1759, Kitabul Jihad was Sayr, Baab Qaulan Nabi Laa
Nooritha, Muslim bin Hajjaj Abul Husain Qashiri Nishapuri (d. 261 A.H.),
Edited: Muhammad Fawad Abdul Baqi, Darul Ahya Turath Arabi, Beirut.
[4]
Since Ali (a) did not pay allegiance to Abu Bakr, Umar came to the house of Fatima with fire (a burning torch). Fatima
came behind the door and asked: Fatima came
behind the door of the house and called: O son of Khattab, do you want to burn
down the door of my house? Umar replied: Yes.
Ansabul Ashraf, Vol.
1, Pg. 252, Ahmad bin Yahya bin Jabir Balazari (d. 279 A.H.).
[5] I
do not regret anything in the world, except three things, which I did and three
things, which I did not do and three things, which I wish I had asked the
Messenger of Allah (s): I wish I had not trespassed against the house of Fatima
even though it might have been closed up for fighting…
Tarikh Tabari, Vol.
2, Pg. 353, Abu Ja’far Muhammad bin Jarir Tabari, (d. 310 A.H.), Darul Kutub
al-Ilmiyya, Beirut .
Tarikh al-Islam wa
Wafyatul Mashahir wal Aalaam, Vol. 3, Pg. 118, Shamsuddin Muhammad bin
Ahmad bin Uthman Dhahabi, (d. 748 A.H.), Darul Kitab al-Arabi, Lebanon, Beirut,
1407 A.H. – 1987 A.D. First edition, Edited: Dr. Umar Abdus Salam Tadmiri;
[6]
…so they headed to the house of Ali and besieged it and set his house on fire
and brought him out of the house forcibly. They crushed the chief of the ladies
(Fatima) between the wall and the door causing the miscarriage of Mohsin, her
unborn child.
Asbatul Wasiyya, Pg.
143, Abul Hasan Ali bin Husain bin Ali Masudi (d. 346 A.H.).
