Reply to Tahirul Qadri about Burning the Door of the House of Hazrat Fatemah Zahra (sa)

An excellent video on the reply by Maulana Shahansha Hussain Naqvi  to Tahirul Qadri who objected that No Zulm has been done by the Kholafa on Hazrat Zahra (sa)

The Video is in 3 parts . Please click below to watch all the parts

WATCH ON YOU TUBE HERE

PART I

PART II

PART III

"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 !!!"

The Takfir of Umar by Hazrat Fatema Zahra (sa)

This is what  Hazrat Fatema, peace be upon her, said when they wanted to take
Fadak from her:

“O’ People, haven’t you heard from the Prophet, peace be upon him and his family, that
he said: Indeed, my daughter Fatima is the Chief Mistress of Women in Paradise?’
They said: ‘By God, yes. We have heard that from the Prophet, peace be upon him and
his family.’

She said: ‘Then is it logical for the Chief Mistress of Women in Paradise to claim
something which is false and doesn’t belong to her?! If four people bear witnessed that I
committed an obscenity or two people claimed I stole, would you believe them over me?’

Abu Bakr stayed silent, Umar responded: ‘Yes, and we would apply the appropriate
punishment.’

She said: ‘You liar! If you do so, then you are on a religion other than the religion of
Muhammad, peace be upon him and his family. If someone asks the Chief Mistress of
Women in Paradise for witnesses or tries to apply punishment on her is an accursed
individual, a disbeliever in what Allah has sent down upon Muhammad, peace be upon
him and his family. Those whom Allah has protected them from impurity and purified
them a thorough purification are not needed to be asked for witnesses, because they are
infallible from every error, purified from every sin. Tell me O’ Umar about this verse. If a
group of people witnessed that those individuals referred to in that verse committed
polytheism, or disbelief, or obscenity; would the Muslims disassociate from them and
apply punishment?’

Umar said: ‘Yes, they and the rest of the people are equal.’

She said: ‘You liar and disbeliever! How are they equal to the rest of the people? Those
individuals referred in that verse were purified by God and made infallible. Whomever
provides a testimony against them, has attributed lies to Allah and His Prophet.”


Fatimat al-Zahraa Bahjat Qalb al-Mustafa, page 307

Why Fatima Zahra (s.a.) preceded Ali (a.s.) in answering the oppressors during the attack

When the oppressors attacked the house of Hazrat Fatima Zahra (s.a.), they found themselves

confronting her (s.a.), rather than Ameerul Momineen, who was their real target.

The oppressor even mocked Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) by addressing Hazrat Fatima Zahra (s.a.):

What is wrong with your cousin? Why did he send you to answer the door as he sat behind the curtain?

She (s.a.) countered: It is your own oppression, you wretch that has forced me to come out thus and has bound you, as also every misguided deviator, with the argument (of personally answering the door).

• Behaar al-Anwaar v 30 p 293
• Awaalim al-Uloom v 11 part 2 p 605

By preceding Ameerul Momineen (a.s.), Hazrat Fatima Zahra (s.a.) wanted to signal to Muslims of all time the sheer oppression and deviation of the party that attacked her, despite her position as the daughter of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and the Chief of all Women of Paradise.

When the oppressor learnt that it was Hazrat Fatima Zahra (s.a.) and NOT Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) behind the door, he should have withdrawn. But by forcibly entering the house even after this, he exposed his deep hatred for the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and his infallible progeny, which he had kept concealed all along.

Fadak belonged to Hazrat Fatima Zahra (s.a.) based on Islamic laws

The Shaikhain refused to grant Fadak to Hazrat Fatima Zahra (s.a.) on one pretext or the other. They  rejected her own witness as also the witnesses of her infallible husband Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) and even Umm Ayman – whose honesty was beyond reproach having been assured Paradise by the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.).
In the absence of witnesses or rather in the absence of ‘credible’ witnesses, Hazrat Fatima Zahra’s (s.a.) claim on Fadak was rejected.

Over here we do not wish to delve on the infallible personalities (a.s.) and their status near Allah and the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and how the rulers made a blunder by ignoring this reality which was evident even to a Muslim child.

We only wish to draw the attention of the reader to the irregularities in the stand of the Shaikhain vis-à-vis Fadak, one of which we have exposed over here.

Granting the claimant her right based on swearing

Even if Fatima Zahra’s (s.a.) witnesses were found wanting, Fadak should have been granted to her based on a simple swearing.

It is strange that when other claims came before Abu Bakr, he allowed them in favour of the claimant merely on the basis of the claim while the claimant was neither asked to furnish any proof of claim, nor to produce witnesses.

In this connection, Bukhari documents:

‘It is related from Jabir Ibn Abdullah Ansari that he said – The Prophet of Allah (s.a.w.a.) had told me that when the spoils of war from Bahrain would arrive, he would allow me such and such out of it, but the spoils of war did not reach us until after the Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) demise (martyrdom). It arrived in the days of (the government) of Abu Bakr, so I went to him and told him that the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) had promised to give me such and such property out of the spoils of war from Bahrain, whereupon he gave me all of what (was promised to me).’

• Sahih al-Bukhari vol 2, part 27, p 190

In the interpretation of this tradition, Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani records:

‘This tradition leads us to the conclusion that the evidence of one just companion can also be admitted as full evidence, even though it may be in his own favour, because Abu Bakr did not ask Jabir to produce any witness or proof for his claim.’

Thus, if it was lawful to grant property to Jabir on the basis of a good impression (of him and his Islam) without calling for witnesses or any evidence, then what stopped the ruler from allowing Fatima Zahra’s (s.a.) claim on the basis of a similar good impression?

Firstly, her known truthfulness and honesty was enough for holding her sincere in her claim, in addition to the witnessing of Ali (a.s.) and Umm Ayman in her favour.

Abu Bakr’s claim of consensus (ijmaa) on Fadak is pointless

The topic of Fadak and the bigger debate on the inheritance of divine Prophets (a.s.) is among the key and earliest distinguishing points between the Shias and others.

The majority claims that Hazrat Fatima Zahra (s.a.) – the Holy Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) daughter – had no right to Fadak because Allah’s Prophets (a.s.) do not leave behind inheritance.

To bolster their claim, they resort to the age-old formula of consensus (ijmaa) – meaning that the so-called Muslim majority and companions supported Abu Bakr in his claim that divine Prophets (a.s.) do not leave behind inheritance. This supposed consensus against Hazrat Fatima Zahra (s.a.) proves that Abu Bakr was right and Hazrat Fatima (s.a.) had no claim over Fadak.

Reply

There are many aspects to this debate and there are several ways to prove that Abu Bakr was mistaken like on many other occasions in his life, a fact already been established by scholars of both sects; thereby establishing Hazrat Fatima’s (s.a.) indisputable claim to Fadak.

We adopt another approach to this debate as suggested by a well-known Muslim scholar to prove that the argument of consensus of Abu Bakr is nullified by a similar argument in Hazrat Fatima’s (s.a.) favour.

Al-Jaahiz’s stand on the dispute over Fadak

Abu Usman al-Jaahiz, a well-known teacher and thinker of the Ahle Tasannun quotes Sayyid al-Murtaza Alam al-Hoda (r.a.):

The people (companions) presume that the veracity of the so-called tradition of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) narrated by the two men, meaning Abu Bakr and Umar that – ‘We the Prophets do not leave anything as inheritance’, can be established on the basis that when this was attributed to the Prophet (s.a.w.a.), the Muslims did not refute it – rather they accepted it.

But I (Jaahiz) say to those men who think likewise that if the veracity of this ‘tradition’ is proved because the people accept it (thereby signifying consensus), then the people did not even object against the claim and the protest of Ali (a.s.) and Fatima (s.a.), and this should also be a proof of their (Ali a.s. and Fatima’s s.a.) truthfulness.

No one objected to them, nor said that they were lying, even though the dispute and discussion between Fatima (s.a.) and Abu Bakr was prolonged.

Their enmity reached to an extent that Fatima (s.a.) willed that Abu Bakr should not even participate in her funeral prayers.

When Fatima (s.a.) approached Abu Bakr to claim her right, she demanded – When you die, who will inherit you?

Abu Bakr replied – My family and my children.

Fatima (s.a.) responded – How is it that we should not inherit from the Prophet (s.a.w.a.), but your children inherit from you?

When Abu Bakr prevented Fatima (s.a.) from claiming her father’s inheritance and started making excuses and when Fatima (s.a.) witnessed his cruelty and saw her own helplessness and loneliness, she rebuked Abu Bakr: By Allah! I will invoke Allah’s curse on you.

Abu Bakr – By Allah! I will invoke Allah for your well-being.

Fatima (s.a.) – By Allah! I will never speak with you from now on

Abu Bakr – By Allah! I will never be away from you.

Therefore, if the ‘truthfulness’ of Abu Bakr deprived Hazrat Fatima (s.a.) from her father’s inheritance can be established on the grounds that the companions did not protest against him, then it can be said that Hazrat Fatima (s.a.) was also truthful in her claim (since no one protested against her either).

The least that was necessary for the Muslims was that if Hazrat Fatima (s.a) was unaware (of the rule of Islam), then they should have explained it to her, and if she had forgotten, then they should have reminded her. If her talks were baseless (we seek refuge in Allah!) or she was going astray or severing relations, then they should have rectified her by protesting.

Thus, it can be concluded that if no one protested against those two men, and no one even protested against Hazrat Fatima (s.a.) – then the two parties are at par in opposing each other and no one can argue on the basis of consensus in favour of Abu Bakr (because Fatima (s.a.) can likewise claim consensus for her stand!).

In this matter, we should refer to the original rules of inheritance and ordinances of Allah (in the Holy Quran) regarding the matter of inheritance, and this is the best mode to follow.

• Al-Shafi v. 1 p. 233 of Sayyid al-Murtaza (r.a.)
• Bait al-Ahzan pp. 165-167

Clearly, even the earliest scholars of the Ahle Tasannun were of the view that the consensus on Fadak was not a strong argument in Abu Bakr’s favour. Given that consensus can be claimed by both parties, the only way to break this deadlock is with the Holy Quran’s ordinance on inheritance. Hazrat Fatima Zahra (s.a.) herself has laid out plainly in the Sermon on Fadak that the Holy Quran has categorically stated that fathers leave inheritance for their children and even divine Prophets like Prophet Dawood (a.s.) and Prophet Zakariyya (a.s.) left inheritance for their progenies.

Take lesson, O people of intellect!

ABUBAKR WAS NEVER POLITE WITH HAZRAT ZEHRA (SA)

Among the myths that have gained currency in the books of the Ahle Tasannun is that Abu Bakr was extremely courteous and polite in his interaction with Hazrat Fatima Zahra (s.a.) over the matter of Fadak. He is portrayed as calm and dignified even as Hazrat Fatima Zahra (s.a.) was vehemently staking her claim to Fadak.

Reply

We do not wish to discuss the merits of the argument over Fadak at this stage since it’s undeniably established in the Holy Quran that all Muslims inherit and that goes for divine Prophets (a.s.) too. Even Abu Bakr had no reply to the Quranic verses advanced by Hazrat Fatima Zahra (s.a.) to back her claim for Fadak.

The rather lame attempt by the rulers of advancing the so-called report – ‘We Prophets do no leave any inheritance nor do we inherit’ flies in the face of proofs and witnesses advanced by Hazrat Fatima Zahra (s.a.). Although supporters of the two Shaikhs have devoted much time and effort in explaining Abu Bakr’s stand, it does not count at this stage. The arguments should have been advanced by Abu Bakr in front of Fatima Zahra (s.a.) in the mosque in the presence of the so-called Muslims.

Advancing one peculiar, rarely heard of tradition to counter several Quranic verses and reliable witnesses is itself evidence of the failure of the administration to defend its bogus claim on Fadak.

At this stage, we are particularly interested in evaluating the so-called courteousness and politeness of the first ruler.

View of the Ahle Tasannun on Abu Bakr’s politeness

Rather than give the Shiite viewpoint on Abu Bakr, we quote a renowned Ahle Tasannun scholar on the subject.

Abu Usman al-Jaahiz the celebrated Ahle Tasannun scholar himself first poses the question of Abu Bakr’s politeness and then goes on to answer this query.

ABUBAKR WAS NEVER POLITE WITH HAZRAT ZEHRA (SA)

Among the myths that have gained currency in the books of the Ahle Tasannun is that Abu Bakr was extremely courteous and polite in his interaction with Hazrat Fatima Zahra (s.a.) over the matter of Fadak. He is portrayed as calm and dignified even as Hazrat Fatima Zahra (s.a.) was vehemently staking her claim to Fadak.

Reply

We do not wish to discuss the merits of the argument over Fadak at this stage since it’s undeniably established in the Holy Quran that all Muslims inherit and that goes for divine Prophets (a.s.) too. Even Abu Bakr had no reply to the Quranic verses advanced by Hazrat Fatima Zahra (s.a.) to back her claim for Fadak.

The rather lame attempt by the rulers of advancing the so-called report – ‘We Prophets do no leave any inheritance nor do we inherit’ flies in the face of proofs and witnesses advanced by Hazrat Fatima Zahra (s.a.). Although supporters of the two Shaikhs have devoted much time and effort in explaining Abu Bakr’s stand, it does not count at this stage. The arguments should have been advanced by Abu Bakr in front of Fatima Zahra (s.a.) in the mosque in the presence of the so-called Muslims.

Advancing one peculiar, rarely heard of tradition to counter several Quranic verses and reliable witnesses is itself evidence of the failure of the administration to defend its bogus claim on Fadak.

At this stage, we are particularly interested in evaluating the so-called courteousness and politeness of the first ruler.

View of the Ahle Tasannun on Abu Bakr’s politeness

Rather than give the Shiite viewpoint on Abu Bakr, we quote a renowned Ahle Tasannun scholar on the subject.

Abu Usman al-Jaahiz the celebrated Ahle Tasannun scholar himself first poses the question of Abu Bakr’s politeness and then goes on to answer this query.

Why Abu Bakr discontinued Ummul Momineen Umm Salmah’s (r.a.) pension ?

The matter of Fatima Zahra’s (s.a.) inheritance usually stirs a raging debate between the Shias and their opponents, who maintain that Fatima Zahra (s.a.) did not have the right to inheritance. The Shias of Ahle Bait (a.s.) are of the view that the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) did in fact leave behind as a gift or in the least as inheritance the property of Fadak for his only daughter whom he (s.a.w.a.) held in high regard.

Reply

This debate has many answers leading us to conclude categorically that Fadak was the property of Fatima Zahra (s.a.) in the Holy Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) very life time.

Over here we bring one such argument advanced by Ummul Momineen Umm Salmah (r.a.) in support of Fatima Zahra (s.a.).

It is documented in Al-Durr al-Nazeem by Jamaaluddeen Yusuf Ibn Haatim – the jurist of Syria – that when Ummul Momineen Umm Salmah (r.a.)  was informed about Abu Bakr’s dismissive response to Fatima (s.a.) regarding Fadak she remarked:

Is it right that a person like Fatima (s.a.) should be addressed with such words? By Allah! Fatima (s.a.) is a human fairy, the soul for the soul (of Prophet s.a.w.a.), raised in pious laps, fed with the hands of angels, grown in the laps of immaculate ones, with the best upbringing and with the nourishment of the best nourisher.
Can you imagine that the Prophet of Allah (s.a.w.a.) would deprive her from her inheritance and would not even care to inform her about it?!
This is while Allah had instructed His Prophet (s.a.w.a.) – ‘And warn your nearest relations.’ (Surah Shoara (26): 214).
Would he (s.a.w.a.) not have warned her (s.a.) that she would not receive any inheritance? And would she (s.a.) oppose him (s.a.w.a.) and stake a claim to her inheritance?!
This is while she (s.a.) is the best of the women, the mother of the masters of the youth (of Paradise) and (more than) an equal to Maryam, the daughter of Imran? The message of Allah (s.a.w.a.) concluded with her father and I swear by Allah that the Prophet of Allah (s.a.w.) shielded Fatima (s.a.) against heat and cold and would make his right hand her pillow and his left one her blanket, gently. (Know that) you are being observed by the Prophet of Allah (s.a.w.a.). And towards Allah is your return. Woe betide you.
Very soon you will learn the truth.
It was in the same year that Umm Salmah’s (r.a.) pension was withdrawn by Abu Bakr.

Shaikhain’s apology did not meet the standards set by the Majestic Quran (a.s.)

Introduction

Some Muslims claim that the Shaikhain – the first and second pseudo-caliphs – expressed remorse after attacking Hazrat Zahra’s (s.a.) house and usurping Fadak.

They maintain that the apology should have been accepted by Fatima Zahra (a.s.). By not accepting the apology, Hazrat Zahra (a.s.) has been unreasonable (we seek refuge in Allah!) and some Muslims go as far as to allege that she was by nature short-tempered and took offense at the slightest provocation. To prove their point by hook or by crook, these so-called Muslims even fabricate incidents, which paid historians have recorded in their chronicles.

Reply

1. Apology exposes Shaikhain’s blunder
2. Hazrat Fatima Zahra (s.a.) is chief of all women of Paradise
3. Allah also rejects apology (a.s.)
3. Shaikhain’s apology did not meet the standards set by the Majestic Quran (a.s.)

1. Apology exposes Shaikhain’s blunder

By defending the Shaikhain for seeking forgiveness, these Muslims have admitted that the Shaikhain were at fault. For if they were not at fault, then why the apology?

This means that Hazrat Fatima Zahra (s.a.) was right on the matter of Fadak and the Shaikhain were wrong.

It also means that the Shaikhain were wrong on the matter of caliphate. The argument of consensus (ijmaa) on the matter of caliphate is nullified with the apology of the Shaikhain.

Shaikhain’s apology shows that there was no consensus at all, neither on caliphate nor Fadak.

Abu Bakr confesses to hurting Hazrat Fatima (s.a.)

It has been established in the preceding pages beyond a shadow of doubt that the caliph’s cohorts initially laid siege to Hazrat Faatemah’s (s.a.) house to intimidate the inmates and when that did not have the desired effect, they attacked the house by setting it aflame. In this way, the hooligans violated the sanctity of the house and that of its inmates about whom the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) had made innumerable recommendations, some of which have been outlined in the initial chapters. The attack and ensuing violation are established facts and none can raise any doubts whatsoever.

Even Ibne Taiymiyyah did not find anything objectionable as far as the veracity of the chain of incidents is concerned.

If there are still some people who doubt the attacks then they are worse than Ibne Taymiyyah who at least accepts their occurrence. And if some of the deniers include Shiahs, then it is a matter of regret how they can consider themselves as lovers of Ahle Bait (s.a.w.a.) while denying the wrongdoing of the Ahle Bait’s oppressors, a fact accepted by the Shiahs of the oppressors (i.e. Sunnis and Wahhabis)!

The attack was considered with such alacrity and ferocity that it makes one wonder what they were expecting to find over there. Were they expecting to find some wealth or property of Allah that had been embezzled by the inmates through recovery of which they sought proximity of Allah and His Prophet (s.a.w.a.)?![1]

Indeed, it was clear very soon to the oppressors the extent of their wrongdoing. That is why it is narrated that when Abu Bakr’s death was imminent, he confessed:

‘I do not feel remorse over any worldly affair save three actions which I regret performing. Likewise, I feel remorse over three actions which I abandoned while it would have been better if I had performed them. I wish I had sought the answers from the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) for three questions…’

This narration is very important although we will only elaborate on the portion that is relevant in this discussion.

وددت انی لم اکشف بیت فاطمہ عن شئی و ان کانوا قد غلقوہ علی الحرب وددت انی کنت سالت رسول اللہ لمن ھٰذا الامر فلا ینازعہ احد

“I wish I had not forced Faatemah to open her house, even if it had been locked for battle.

I wish I had asked the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) about the identity of his successor so I would not oppose him on any matter.”

Report of Hasan bin Farhan Maliki (modern scholar) about the attack on the house of revelation and martyrdom of Lady Zahra (sa)

Dr. Hasan bin Farhan Maliki, teacher and researcher of education, training, development and practice, has written in this regard:

Supporters of Ali (a), during allegiance to Umar were less than those who supported him (Ali) during allegiance of Abu Bakr; as in the beginning of Abu Bakr’s Caliphate they had besieged the house of Fatima as some companions were against paying allegiance to Abu Bakr. This claim is proved through correct authorities.[1]

Then he writes in its margin:

In the beginning I was of the view that the story of attack was false and incorrect, but after referring and research I found confirmed referential authorities of the same and one of those references is the statement of Ibne Abi Shaybah in Al-Musannaf; after that this tragic incident is proved through correct references.[2]

---

[1] Qaratu fee Kutubul Aqaid Al-Madhhabul Hanbali Namuzajjan, Pg. 52, Chapter of Will of Abu Bakr appointing Umar to Caliphate and the stance of Muslim towards it; Al-Maliki, Hasan bin Farhan, Markazul Darasatul Tarikhiya Amman – Jordan, First edition, 1421 A.H. – 2000 A.D.

[2] Qaratu fee Kutubul Aqaid Al-Madhhabul Hanbali Namuzajjan, Pg. 52, Chapter of Will of Abu Bakr appointing Umar to Caliphate and the stance of Muslim towards it; Al-Maliki, Hasan bin Farhan, Markazul Darasatul Tarikhiya, Amman – Jordan, First edition, 1421 A.H. – 2000 A.D.

Report of Abdul Fatah Abdul Maqsood (modern scholar) about the attack on the house of revelation and martyrdom of Lady Zahra (sa

Abdul Fatah Abdul Maqsood (born 1912 A.D. in Alexandria, Egypt) was an intellectual of the Sunni faith and a prominent Egyptian writer who has composed eloquent and expressive Arabic verses in excess and is the author of a large number of books like, Abna Ana Maa ar Rasul, Yaum Kiyum Uthman, Saleebiya Ilal Abad, Az-Zahra Umme Abiha, Al Imam Ali Ibne Abi Talib, As-Saqifah wal Khilafah and so on…

His greatest and most important book is Al-Imam Ali Ibne Abi Talib in nine volumes, which he wrote in a period of thirty years, which by insight and close examination has opened new doors of research in the analytic history of Islam and has removed many doubts.

This well informed and well known Egyptian intellectual has mentioned the incident of attack on the house of revelation in two places in his book:

Umar said: By God in whose hands is the life of Umar, if you do not come out of the house I would burn it down along with its occupants. Some religious persons and who respected the sanctity of the Holy Prophet (s) and his descendants, said: O Aba Hafas, Fatima is present in this house, but he replied without concern: Let her be! Umar came forward and knocked at the door, then he hit it with his fists and kicked it till he entered it forcibly…scream of lady Zahra arose from the house…that wail was a resonation for call of help, which the daughter of the Prophet called out and she said: Father, O the Messenger of Allah (s)…Fatima, through her wails, wanted to inform her father who had passed away about the oppression of one of his companions. Perhaps the disobedience of the stretched neck of carelessness of these companions would be exposed, that its forcibility would be gone, and the severity of the act and tough stance would be destroyed. She hoped that a lightning would engulf him immediately. When the people returned and Umar wanted to flee from the scream of Lady Zahra (s) like a desert deer, Ali (a) due to the severity of emotions clasped the handle of the sword as if his anger was swallowed by it.[1]

Report of Umar Reza Kahala (modern scholar) about the attack on the house of revelation and martyrdom of Lady Zahra (sa)

Umar Reza Kahala is among the famous Arab contemporary Ahle Sunnat scholars, writers, researchers and biographers (died 1408 A.H.). 

He writes in his Elamun Nisa quoting authorities that:

Abu Bakr sent Umar in pursuit of some who had refused to pay allegiance to him – like Abbas, Zubair and Saad bin Ubadah – who had taken refuge in the house of Fatima with Ali Ibne Abi Talib (a); Umar came and told them to come out. They were in the house and they refused to come out. Umar asked for firewood and said: By Allah, in whose hands is my life, if you don’t come out to give allegiance, I will burn it down along with its occupants. He was told: O Aba Hafas (agnomen of Umar), Fatima is present in this house. He replied: Even if Fatima is present there (I will burn it down).[1]

---

[1] Elamun Nisa, Vol. 4, Pg. 114, Fifth edition, Beirut – 1404 A.H. Section of letter ‘F’; Fatima binte Muhammad (s).

Fatima (S.A) and Abu Bakr on Fadak (VIDEO)

WATCH HERE ON YOUTUBE

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.”

The Incident at Fatima's House involving Abu Bakr and Umar (VIDEO)

WATCH ON YOUTUBE

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.”

Report of Panegyric (Qasida) of Muhammad Hafiz Ibrahim (1287 – 1351 A.H.) about the attack on the house of revelation and martyrdom of Lady Zahra (sa)

Hafez Ibrahim (Arabic: حافظ إبراهيم, Ḥafeẓ Ibrāheem‎) (1871-1932) was known as the Poet of the Nile, and sometimes the Poet of the People, as his writings were widely revered by ordinary Egyptians. His poetry was often about subjects with which the majority of Egyptians were familiar, such as poverty and the politics of foreign occupation. He was one of several Egyptian poets that revived Arabic poetry during the latter half of the 19th century. While still using the classical Arabic system of meter and rhyme, these poets wrote to express new ideas and feelings unknown to the classical poets. Hafez is noted for writing poems on political and social commentary. ( Ref : wikipedia)

Muhammad Hafiz Ibrahim, , has a Diwan[1] to his credit, which is published in ten volumes. In his Qasida, famous as ‘Qasida Umariya’ he has considered it to be a matter of pride for Umar to come to Ali’s house and say: If you don’t come out and give allegiance to Abu Bakr, I will burn down the house even if the daughter of the Prophet is inside it.

It is noteworthy that he recited this Qasida on important occasions and the audience not only did not find fault in him, on the contrary, they encouraged him and gifted him medals of pride.

In this Qasida, he says:

And the words spoken by Umar to Ali (a) were: Strange was the respected hearer and what an important speaker?! Umar said to Ali (a): If you don’t give allegiance your house will be burnt down and I will not leave anyone alive in it; even if the daughter of the Prophet is there in it. Except for Abu Hafas (Umar) no one could dare to make this statement before the stalwart of Adnan and his defender.[2]

---

[1] Collected works

[2] Diwan Muhammad Hafiz Ibrahim, Vol. 1, Pg. 82

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]

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)

Report of Safdi (764 A.H.) about the attack on the house of revelation and martyrdom of Lady Zahra (sa)

Salahuddin Khaleel Bin Aybak Al Safdi has mentioned in his book Al-Wafi bil Wafayat : 

On the day of allegiance, Umar hit on the belly of Fatima and caused the miscarriage of Mohsin.[1]

---

[1] Al-Wafi bil Wafayat, Vol. 5, Pg. 347

Report of Abul Fida (732 A.H.) about the attack on the house of revelation and martyrdom of Lady Zahra (sa)

Abu al-Fida (Arabic: أبو الفداء‎; or Abul-Fida' al-Ḥamawi or Abul Fida Ismail Hamvi, fully Abu Al-fida' Isma'il Ibn 'ali ibn Mahmud Al-malik Al-mu'ayyad 'imad Ad-din; also transliterated Abulfeda, Abu Alfida, etc.; November 1273 – October 27, 1331), was a Kurdish^[1]historian, geographer, and local governor of Hamāh.^[2][3] He was a prince of the Ayyubid dynasty and the author of The memoirs of a Syrian prince: Abu'l-Fidāʼ, Sultan of Ḥamāh. The crater Abulfeda on the Moon, is named after him.

( Reference : Wikipedia)

Abul Fida has written in his Tarikh:

Abu Bakr sent Umar to Ali and his companions to bring them out from the house of Fatima and he (Abu Bakr) said: If they resist, confront them. Umar came with some fire to burn the house. Fatima saw him and asked: O son of Khattab, where are you hastening to in this way? Have you come to burn down my house? Umar said: Yes, except if you do that which people have done.

( Tarikh Abul Fida, Vol. 1, Pg. 156, Al-Matba Husainia, Egypt )