A most absurd defense of the Shaikhain in the attack on Fatima Zahra’s (s.a.) house and Our Reply

 Certain Ahle Tasannun scholars have dismissed reports of an attack on Hazrat Fatima Zahra’s (s.a.) house by offering vague and absurd reasons in defense of the companions. Their primary objective is to portray the companions as paragons of virtue and decency (Adalat-e-Sahabah) at all cost, even in the face of irrefutable reports to the contrary.

We analyze over here the weak defense mounted by scholars like Ibn Abil Hadid and Shah Abdul Aziz Dehalwi to clear the names of the companions behind the attack on Hazrat Fatima Zahra (s.a.).

Ibn Abil Hadid asserts: As for the recording (by the Shias) of the attack on the house of Fatima (s.a.) and gathering wood to burn it down, then it’s on the authority of a sole narrator (Khabarun Wahidun) and cannot be deemed reliable for the companions, rather it cannot be deemed reliable for any Muslim who is considered just.  (Sharh Nahjil Balaghah v 12 p 289)

Likewise Shah Abdul Aziz Dehalwi records: In my view the Shias consider the companions lower than the soldiers of Prophet Sulaiman (a.s.) who in the company of the prophet were attentive to basic details like avoiding the ants in the path (Surah Naml (27): 18), but the Shias consider the senior companions who accompanied the greatest Prophet (s.a.w.a.) everywhere to be so ruthless as to harass the mourning daughter, son-in-law and the orphan grandsons of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and burn their house down… (Tohfah Ithna Ashariyyah)

Reply

First and foremost by making such a strong defense for the companions Ibn Abil Hadid has put to rest all doubts of being a Shia. Some from the Ahle Tasannun continue to claim he was a Shia despite loads of comments of this nature where he has squarely defended the companions and rejected categorical beliefs of the Shias and denied the excellence of the Ahle Bait (a.s.).

Coming to his statement on the attack – we fail to understand how someone who has compiled a 20 volume commentary on the Nahjul Balaghah can give a clean chit to the companions and all ‘just’ Muslims, in clear contravention of the Holy Quran and the Sunnah.

When Allah hasn’t given a clean chit to the companions and wives and Muslims, who is Ibn Abil Hadid to do so?

The Holy Quran is replete with verses criticizing the companions for one misdeed after another, some so serious that they take the companions out of the realm of Islam.

For the sake of brevity we cite a few verses and historical incidents to show that the companions were prone to making grievous errors. And to absolve them of the attack on Hazrat Fatima Zahra’s (s.a.) house on the so-called theory of justice and decency (adalat) is plain ignorance, if not denial.

Ayatullah Sayyid Abul Qasim al-Khoei (r.a.) on the attack on Lady Fatima Zahra’s (s.a.) house

 There is a view based on the text / words of the Grand Marja Ayatullah Sayyid Abul Qasim Khoei (r.a.) that he did not verify as true, the attack on Lady Fatima Zahra’s (s.a.) house.

View of Ayatullah Sayyid al-Khoei (r.a.) on the subject

After examining the perspective of Sayyid al-Khoei (may Allah elevate his status), we observe that he did not question the authenticity of this matter although this issue substantiates the religious aspect within its absolute necessities, rather than reviewing the historical aspect from chain (sanad) point of view.

Therefore, when Ayatollah Sayyid al-Khoei (may Allah have mercy on him) was directly asked about this incident in his book ‘Sirat al-Najah,’ he responded as follows:

Question 98: Some orators, preachers, and a few authors mention incidents about Umar breaking the ribs of Lady Fatima Zahra (s.a.). In your opinion, are these narrations accurate?

Ayatollah Sayyid al-Khoei (may Allah have mercy on him):  This matter is well-known and widely acknowledged and Allah knows best.

Ayatollah Sayyid al-Khoei (may Allah have mercy on him) also very clearly expressed his opinion in this regard,  just like he has mentioned his opinion in his book ‘Fiqh al-Shia’ v 3 p 126, where he discussed the positions of the first and second rulers towards the Ahle Bait (a.s.), and he commented on the outcome of that as follows:  
‘From here, it can be inferred that the early usurpers of the rights of Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) are not considered as openly hostile to the Ahle Bait (a.s.), but rather they disputed them in their seeking position of caliphate and public leadership.’

Objection

Based on the above perspective, it is inferred (by some) that Ayatullah Sayyid al-Khoei (may Allah have mercy on him) disregards the narratives, including the issue of the attack on the house of Lady Fatima Zahra (s.a.), breaking of her ribs, burning her door, causing the miscarriage, and striking Lady Fatima (s.a.) and slapping her, after he decided that there is no clear evidence of open hostility by the usurpers of the rights of Ahle Bait (a.s.).

After reaching the conclusion that none of these actions have any basis, meaning there is no act that directly implicates those who wrongfully seized power, and considering the lack of consensus and agreement on these matters in Ayatollah al-Khoei’s opinion, they do not hold any specific stance or theory concerning the first and second caliphs being the wrongdoers aside from their clear stance on being opposed to the Ahle Bait (a.s.).

Reply

Ayatollah Sayyid al-Khoei (May Allah elevate his status) in his book “Sirat al-Najah” does not indicate that the attack on house of Lady Fatima (s.a.) did not occur. This is due to the following reasons:

1. Firstly, he indeed said, “That is well-known,” and did not deny the attack on the house.

2. The absence of a sound chain of narration (sanad) for a report does not necessarily mean it is false, especially when the event in question is well-known and recognized, as indicated by Sayyid al-Khoei (may Allah elevate his status).

3. He, (may Allah have mercy on him), was specifically questioned about the incident of “breaking the rib“. He was not questioned, nor did he address the related issues viz. Lady Fatima (s.a.) being struck, the miscarriage, her cheek being slapped, her eyes reddened, her house being set on fire, her being whipped, and the injury on her shoulder, as described in some narrations. So, one cannot conclude that he denied these events.

4. His statement (may his soul rest in peace), ‘That (event) is well-known and recognized’, presents us with two possibilities.
   1. It could mean that he sees the chain of narration as incomplete, or
   2. it could mean that he considers the chain to be reliable but chooses not to bring up a matter to provoke those who would be angered by such a declaration, especially during the reign of the oppressive Nasibi ruler, who sought to annihilate the Shia and Shi’ism. The ruler was always looking for opportunities to target them under any pretext.

5. It can be supported that the latter is the case because throughout his honorable and lengthy life, he never made any reference to any controversy regarding the events that befell Lady Fatima (s.a.).

In conclusion:

1. Ayatullah Sayyid al-Khoei (may Allah elevate his status) knows that the weakness in the chain of narration does not allow him to issue a verdict on the falsehood of its content. Rather, it obligates him to seek clear evidence before he denies the event, which is not possible merely on the weakness of the chain – assuming that the chain is indeed weak. We have already seen that there is nothing in his words that indicates that as well.

2. As for what is attributed to him (Ayatollah al-Khoie) that he does not see Umar as a Nasibi, this also does not support the assertion that he denies what happened to Lady Fatima (s.a.). His intention, (may his soul be sanctified), is that these individuals did indeed commit what they did, driven by their desire for power and authority. However, they still claimed to love the Ahle Bait (a.s.) and argued to the people that their actions were not driven by hatred for them but rather by anger and concern for the welfare of the Ummah (community). They then professed remorse for their actions and pretended that they sought to gain the forgiveness of Lady Fatima (s.a.).

3. These Sahabah in the lifetime of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) were accepted by him (s.a.w.a.) as Muslims merely on recitation of the Shahadatain (dual testimony). The Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) did not inquire further, although in his heart (as informed by Allah) he (s.a.w.a.) knew their intentions.

4. It appears Ayatullah Sayyid al-Khoei (may Allah elevate his status) has adopted a similar stand and has taken their claim of love for the Ahle Bait (a.s.) at face value and not branded them as Nasibi although he (may Allah elevate his status), knew their intentions.

5. This means that his words, may God have mercy on him, are about their outward display and declaration. This does not imply that he denies the breaking of the rib, the physical abuse, or the miscarriage. Instead, it means that if they claimed to regret their actions and professed love for Lady Fatima al-Zahra (s.a.), it is not appropriate to label them as Nasibis, as Nasibis are those who openly express hatred and animosity.

6. Also, just like commenting openly on the attack on Lady Fatima’s (s.a.) house could have sparked sectarian tension, making adverse observations against Umar could have had the same devastating effect on Muslim society. This could be another reason why Ayatullah Sayyid al-Khoei (may Allah elevate his status) took a non-confrontational stand on the subject.

(Extracted from ‘Mokhtasar Mofeed’ (A Useful Summary) by Sayyid Jafar Murtaza al-Amili (Questions and Answers about Religion and Faith) (Ninth Collection), Center Islamic, First Edition 1324, 2004 Question No. 500.)

Did Abubakr Pray the Namaz e Janaza of Hazrat Fatemah (sa) - Objection and its Reply

An excellent video on the reply to the objection that Abubakr prayed the Namaz e Janaza of Hazrat Zahra (sa)

WATCH ON YOU TUBE HERE

"YA RABBA MOHAMMED AJJIL FARAJA AALE MOHAMMED 

YA RABBA MOHAMMED EHFAZ GHAIBATA MOHAMMED 

YA RABBA MOHAMMED INTAQIM LE IBNATE MOHAMMED (SAWA)"

'YA RABBAZ ZAHRA 

BE HAQQE ZAHRA 

ISHFE SADRIL ZEHRA 

BE ZUHOORIL HUJJAH "

"O ALLAH HASTEN THE REAPPEARENCE OF IMAM E ZAMANA (ATFS) BY THE HAQ OF JANABE ZAHRA AND FOR THE CONTENT OF THE HEART OF JANABE ZAHRA !!!"

OBJECTIONS AGAINST HAZRAT FATEMAH ZAHRA (SA) AND THEIR REPLIES - OBJECTION NO 16 PART 2

Objection 16 : Did the Messenger of 

Allah (s) possess sonography facility? 

CONTINUED FROM PART 1 ...

Polemical reply

In the same way, this statement of Abu Shawarib Wahabi can be studied in polemical reply in two parts:

A. Was Abu Bakr having sonography facility?

Wahabis have considered this as an excellence of Abu Bakr and have no doubt in it.

Pay attention to the following text mentioned in sources approved by Wahabis:

Malik has narrated in Muwattah from Ayesha that she said:

Abu Bakr gifted his orchard having twenty date trees to Ayesha and when his end approached, he said to her: My daughter, by God, nothing after my death that you are having is more valuable to me and nothing is harder for me than your poverty. You have received twenty date trees from me that if from them you raise other trees also it would be for you and today all my properties are there for my successors; that is your two brothers and two sisters. You must distribute them according to the Book of Allah. Ayesha said: Father, I don’t have more than one sister and she is Asma. Who is the other sister? Abu Bakr said: Kharija (my slave girl) is pregnant with another daughter whom I can see.[1]

And also in many other sources, the same matter is mentioned. Now, we put the same question to Abu Shawarib Wahabi: Is Abu Bakr having sonography facility that he has given this information?

B. Is the giving of information of unseen by Umar bin Khattab not astounding?

Secondly, with regard to some companions, they have narrated that they even spoke to angels and gave information of unseen. Were those companions able to give information of unseen, but the Messenger of Allah (s) could not give information about Mohsin and his martyrdom? Why Wahabis scholars don’t have any objection against the conveying of information of unseen by other companions?

A- For example:

The Holy Prophet (s) said: In the past nations, there were persons who gave information of the unseen and if there is such a person in my Ummah, it is Umar. As if revelation comes to him and the Almighty Allah and the angels speak to him and it is narrated that Abu Bakr said: It came to my mind that the child that Asma was supposed to give birth to would be a daughter and if does not happen, the inspiration would be useless.[2]

Like the report mentioned above there are innumerable reports with same subject matter in authentic books of Ahle Sunnat. For example it is mentioned in Sahih Muslim as follows:

Ayesha has narrated from the Holy Prophet (s) that he said:

In the past nations there were persons who gave information of the unseen and if there is such a person in my Ummah, it is Umar.[3]

B- Story of the call of Umar from Medina and it being heard by Muslim fighters in Fasa Shiraz is a well known story, which is mentioned in numerous books accepted by Wahabis and such is the popularity of this incident that it is also mentioned in books of grammar, but we would quote it from the book of Al-Bidaya wan Nihaya of Ibne Kathir Damishqi Wahabi:

Sariya bin Zaneem went on an expedition to Shiraz and launched an attack, but the soldiers of Fars and Kurd arrayed their ranks against him and a large number of them surrounded the Muslims. That night Umar saw their battle and their number in dream and became apprehensive of their consequences; that what they will do in the wilderness the following day. And there was a mountain in that place that if the Muslims take its support they would only have to be cautious from one side. The following day Umar summoned everyone to the Masjid and spoke to the people and informed them of what he had seen; then he called out to them from that same spot: O Sariya bin Zaneem, the mountain, the mountain. Then he turned to the people and said: The Almighty Allah is having soldiers who might perhaps convey this information to them. Muslims present in that battle did what Umar had said and the Almighty Allah also granted victory to them over the enemies and they conquered that city.[4]

There are many other sources approved and accepted by Wahabis, which contain the text of the same incident.[5]

C. Story of River Nile accepting the order of Umar, which Fakhre Raazi has mentioned in his Tafsir:

It is narrated that during the period of ignorance the flow of River Nile in Egypt used to stop every year once and it did not restart till a beautiful female child was not thrown into it. After the advent of Islam, Amr Aas mentioned this matter to Umar and Umar wrote on a slab: O flow of Nile, if you flow by the power of Allah, continue to flow and if you are flowing with your own power, we are not in need of you. After this slab was thrown into the Nile, it restarted and never stopped again.[6]

D- Story of earthquake in Medina and fear of the whip of Umar, which is mentioned by Fakhre Raazi:

An earthquake started in Medina. Umar hit the earth with his whip and said: O earth, take it easy by the permission of Allah, and the earth fell quiet and after that no earthquake ever occurred in Medina.[7]

E- Story of fire accepting the order of Umar:

There was a fire in some houses of Medina. Umar wrote as follows on a slab: O fire, stop by the command of Allah, and threw in into the fire and the fire was extinguished.[8]

There are many other instances also, which are mentioned in Ahle Sunnat sources among merits of companions and none are objected to. So it is necessary to ask Abu Shawarib Wahabi: Why have you not raised objection against any of them?

---

[1] Muwattah Imam Malik, Vol. 2, Pg. 752. No. 1438, Malik bin Anas Abu Abdullah Asbahi (d. 179 A.H.), Dar Ahya Turathul Arabi, Egypt, Edited: Muhammad Fawad Abdul Baqi.

[2] Qawatiul Adla fil Usul, Vol. 2, Pg. 349, Abul Muzaffar Mansur bin Muhammad bin Abdul Jabbar Samani (d. 489 A.H.), Darul Kutub Ilmiya, Beirut, 1418 A.H. - 1997 A.D. Edited: Muhammad Hasan Ismail Shafei.

[3] Sahih Muslim, Vol. 4, Pg. 1864, Tr. no. 2398, Bk. 44, Fadhailus Sahaba, Chap. 1, Baab min Fadhail Abu Bakr, Muslim bin Hajjaj Abul Husain Qashiri Nishapuri (d. 261 A.H.), Edited: Muhammad Fawad Abdul Baqi, Darul Ahya Turath Arabi, Beirut.

[4] Al-Bidaya wan Nihaya, Vol. 7, Pg. 130, Ismail bin Umar bin Kathir Qarashi, Abul Fida (d. 774 A.H.), Maktabal Marif, Beirut.

[5] Al-Mughni, Abdullah bin Qudama, Vol. 10, Pg. 552 – Al-Sharh Kabir, Abdur Rahman bin Qudama, Vol. 10, Pg. 387 – Faizul Qadeer Sharh Jamiul Sagheer, Al-Manawi, Vol. 4, Pg. 664 – Tafsir Raazi, Vol. 21, Pg. 87 – Daqaiqut Tafseer, Ibne Taymiyyah, Vol. 2, Pg. 140 – Usudul Ghaba, Ibne Athir, Vol. 2, Pg. 244 – Al-Isabah, Ibne Hajar, Vol. 3, Pg. 5 & 6 – Tarikh Yaqubi, Vol. 2, Pg. 156 – Al-Kamil Fit Tarikh, Ibne Athir, Vol. 3, Pg. 42-43 – Tarikhul Islam, Dhahabi, Vol. 1, Pg. 384 – Tarikh Ibne Khaldun, Vol. 1, Pg. 110, Tajul Uroos, Zubaidi, Vol. 16, Pg. 327

[6] Tafsir Kabir (Mafatihul Ghaib), Vol. 21, Pg. 74, Fakhruddin Muhammad bin Umar Tamimi Raazi Shafei (d. 604 A.H.), Darul Kutubul Ilmiya, Beirut, 1421 A.H. – 2000 A.D., First edition.

[7] Tafsir Kabir (Mafatihul Ghaib), Vol. 21, Pg. 75, Fakhruddin Muhammad bin Umar Tamimi Raazi Shafei (d. 604 A.H.), Darul Kutubul Ilmiya, Beirut, 1421 A.H. – 2000 A.D., First edition.

[8] Tafsir Kabir (Mafatihul Ghaib), Vol. 21, Pg. 75, Fakhruddin Muhammad bin Umar Tamimi Raazi Shafei (d. 604 A.H.), Darul Kutubul Ilmiya, Beirut, 1421 A.H. – 2000 A.D., First edition.

OBJECTIONS AGAINST HAZRAT FATEMAH ZAHRA (SA) AND THEIR REPLIES - OBJECTION NO 16 PART 1

Objection 16 : Did the Messenger of Allah (s) possess sonography facility?

Pattern of objection

Among the Wahabi satellite networks, the most active against Shia, is the most popular of them in the world having broadcasting center in London and named as Al-Mustaqila, which has in recent years, unleashed widespread propaganda against Shia.

This network, before the arrival of ‘Days of Fatima’ in 1386 solar year, for a long time and through widespread propaganda in form of subtitles, day and night, in all their programs, laid great emphasis on this topic. They announced: This year we shall invite a group of religious experts to once and for all prove false the claim of Shia regarding the martyrdom of Fatima, daughter of the Messenger of Allah (s). These claims would be refuted and we will prove that Shia do not even have a single authentic report to prove their stance. In this way we will put an end to the annual Azadari ceremonies during ‘Days of Fatima’.

Some days before announcing its program, this network announced: If from the Shia one can represent them to defend the claim of Shia about the martyrdom of Lady Fatima (s), we welcome him to take part in these programs and arrange debates.

Senior Shia personalities were informed of this, because this network was instigating the religious sentiments of Shia and Sunni and creating differences in Muslim society. Initially they did not pay attention and overlooked the poisonous publicity of this network; but when this network brought a scholar-looking man disguised as a Shia to make false attributions to Shia, it was from this point that some supreme jurists (Maraja Taqlid) and senior personalities of religious seminaries of Qom, including His Eminence, Ayatullah Uzma Makarim Shirazi, decided to depute Ayatullah Dr, Husaini Qazwini to this network and inform its viewers about the true beliefs of Shia and also participate in this debate to neutralize the recent conspiracy of Wahabis in creating controversy between Shia and Sunni and present the traditional reports proving the martyrdom of Lady Fatima Zahra (s) in that program before all the Muslims of the world.

The objections mentioned in that programs with perfect impudence and audacity, regarding the martyrdom of Lady Zahra (s), were in fact not objections, but audacity and insult to the holy being of the Holy Prophet (s). It was nonsensical talk, which came from a Wahabi participant in this debate, named Abu Shawarib from Egypt:

This Mohsin, which Shia say that the Messenger of Allah (s) named as Mohsin and who was martyred during the attack on the house of Fatima. How the Prophet came to know about the birth of this child years before the event and he named him Mohsin? Did anyone inform him about it or that the Prophet was having facility of sonography that he saw this child in the womb and also named him as Mohsin.

Below we present some replies of our respected teacher Ayatullah Dr, Husaini Qazwini, which were set forth in this program:

Did Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) defend Fatima Zahra (s.a.) when she was attacked?

Some Muslims claim that Ameerul Momineen – Ali Ibn Abi Talib (a.s.) did not defend the Holy Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) daughter, Hazrat Fatima Zahra (s.a.) when she was attacked. Being a brave and chivalrous person demanded that he should have defended her honour.

Reply

1. Truth is with Ali and turns with Ali
2. Ameerul Momineen Ali b. Abi Talib’s (a.s.) protest
3. Controlled Retaliation
4. Choice between two options
5. Similarity with Past Divine Prophets (a.s.)
6. Usman Ibn Affaan does not defend his wife

Back to TopTruth is with Ali and turns with Ali

It is apparent from the tone and tenor that such a question can only be raised out of hostility to Ali b. Abi Talib (a.s.) and his Shias. The question is explicitly framed in a bid to trap the Shias. If they say that Ali b. Abi Talib (a.s.) defended Hazrat Fatima (s.a.) – these Muslims reply – but he was advised patience by the Prophet (s.a.w.a.). If he did not defend her, then it means he was not brave enough and all the stories about his bravery are nothing but fables. Or, in order to prove the innocence of their leaders, they suggest that the attack did not take place at all (which is the real motive behind such a question).

Our primary response to such objections against Ali b. Abi Talib (a.s.) is that he (a.s.) can do no wrong. He is right under both conditions – whether he defends Hazrat Fatimah (s.a.) or not. For, the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) declared in no uncertain words that,

‘Ali is with the truth (haqq) and the truth is with Ali. O Allah! Turn the truth wherever Ali turns.’

The authenticity and reliability of this tradition is accepted by all Muslims. So, none can question any action of Ali b. AbiTalib (a.s.) even if apparently it seems strange and unacceptable to them. Just as no Muslim can question Allah the Almighty about his order to the angels to prostrate to Prophet Adam (a.s.), although it is apparently in violation of the basic tenets of monotheism. Can anyone teach divine monotheism to Allah? Likewise, can anyone teach the truth to Ameerul Momineen Ali b. Abi Talib (a.s.)?

OBJECTIONS AGAINST HAZRAT FATEMAH ZAHRA (SA) AND THEIR REPLIES - OBJECTION NO 13

Objection 13: Umar only threatened and did nothing else

Explanation

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.

OBJECTIONS AGAINST HAZRAT FATEMAH ZAHRA (SA) AND THEIR REPLIES - OBJECTION NO 12

Objection 12: Houses of Mecca and Medina were not having doors 

Explanation

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…”[1]

So they conclude: How it is possible for Fatima 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.

Logical reply

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 doors.

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.[2]

A. Clarification of Quran that houses should have doors and doors should have lock and key

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.

OBJECTIONS AGAINST HAZRAT FATEMAH ZAHRA (SA) AND THEIR REPLIES - OBJECTION NO 11

Objection 11: Why before year 71 the term of martyrdom was not present in the calendar?

Pattern of objection

Wahabis have stated in one of their objections as follows:

In 1371 A.H., after nearly 1400 years, the Majlis Shura Islamic (Iranian Parliament) suddenly discovered an important secret: that Lady Fatima Zahra (s) did not die a natural death, on the contrary, she was martyred. It was this point that members of the parliament announced that now the word of martyrdom would be mentioned instead of demise and declared a holiday on this day and through this step they rendered the greatest blow to the unity of Islam.

Logical reply

In reply to this weak and baseless objection, it is necessary to pay attention to two important points:

A. Demise: It is a common word for natural death and martyrdom

Demise is a word, which includes natural death and martyrdom.

This topic is also found in instances like the martyrdom of Amirul Momineen (a), Imam Husain (a), Ja’far Tayyar (a), His Eminence, Hamza, chief of the martyrs and also with regard to the second and third Ahle Sunnat Caliphs.

Whereas no one has claimed regarding Amirul Momineen (a), Imam Husain (a), Ja’far Tayyar and His Eminence, Hamza, chief of the martyrs that they died a natural death.

B. Using the special word of ‘demise’ in the martyrdom of Amirul Momineen (a)

In a large number of Shia and Sunni traditional sources, it is seen that the word of ‘demise; is used in connection with the martyrdom of Amirul Momineen (a). For example:

Imam Husain (a), after the passing away of his father, lived with his brother, Imam Hasan (a) for ten years and another ten years after that.[1]

Is the implication of the above statement that Amirul Momineen (a) was not martyred by the sword? And that he died in his bed?

Although the same topic is found in Ahle Sunnat traditional reports, but due to its importance in Shia books we are content only to mention it.

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]