Qazi Nurullah Shustari RA rebuts the justification of Umar's urgency for l securities NG Ali (as) pledge

 In many of the Sunni / Nasibi scholars records on attack on the house of J Zahra s a, they cited Umar sense of urgency in securing pledge of Ali a s / Bani Hashim and stifling dissent and fitna out of concern for the Islamic nation.

Qazi Nurullah Shustari RA rebuts the justification of Umar's defenders thus- 

And I wonder what the urgency was that they could not wait till the burial of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.). While in the state of illness, the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) kept asking for pen and paper so that regarding this very matter of selection of Imam he could write down some clear instructions, but the companions declared, ‘Quran is sufficient’.

And the purpose of gathering in Saqifa was nothing but seeking (worldly) leadership, because it is not clear how after the Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) departure they suddenly became so vigilant for the appointment of an Imam for the protection of religion and how they showed such haste.

That is why all this seems a deception, because until yesterday when the enemies were challenging them in Badr, Uhud and Hunain they were sluggish and showed no vigilance in defending the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and Islam.

And then they fled from the battlefield of Ahzab when Amr Ibn Abd Wudd challenged them with their names and titles, but they remained silent and did not dare answer him and thus they failed to abide by their covenants (to Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.)).

And on the Day of (Battle with) Marhab (in Khaibar), they could not face him in battle and all of them fled in a most disgusting manner and on all these occasions they never rose to help Islam in its need, rather they fled from battle (after battle) to save their lives, then how did they get so vigilant about reformation in Islam after the Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) demise?!

Clearly, the rush towards Saqifa was nothing but greed for power and position and for seeking the world and out of envy for Aal Muhummad (s.a.w.a.) and that became a reason for all of them going out from the fold of Islam.

Al-Sawarim al-Muhriqah fi Naqd Al-Sawaiq al-Muhriqah p 188-192

Infallibility of Hazrat Fatima (s.a.) guaranteed by Allah the Almighty, challenged by the pseudo-Caliphs

Among the biggest and possibly the most unforgivable blunders of the usurpers of Caliphate was to cast aspersions on the infallibility (ismat) of Hazrat Fatima Zahra (s.a.), the daughter of our Great Prophet (s.a.w.a.). They managed to do this by summarily rejecting her right to the property of Fadak, first as a gift and next even as inheritance. No consideration was given to her status and her relationship with the Noble Prophet (s.a.w.a.). Worst, no thought was given to her position in the eyes of Allah the Almighty and as espoused by the Majestic Quran. In doing this, the pseudo-caliphs only succeeded in bringing about their own destruction in this world and the Hereafter.

In a confrontation with the pseudo-caliphs, Ameerul Momineen Ali Ibn Abi Talib (a.s.) goes on to show how their folly in rejecting the demands of Hazrat Fatima (s.a.) with respect to Fadak, had taken all of them outside the pale of Islam. They showed themselves unfit even to pass basic judgments related to Islamic jurisprudence. This calls into question how they came to occupy the divine seat of caliphate. Indeed Hazrat Fatima Zahra (s.a.) has exposed the pseudo-caliphs who only got to caliphate with help from others like them who bore intense animosity and hatred against the Holy Prophet’s progeny (a.s.) combined with an overwhelming greed for the world.

Ameerul Momineen Ali Ibn Abi Talib (a.s.) confronts the caliphs

In a lengthy tradition Imam Sadiq (a.s.) narrates: …..the next day, surrounded by the Muhaajireen (immigrants) and the Ansaar (helpers), Ameerul Momineen Ali (a.s.) approached Abu Bakr in the Mosque of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.). 

He (a.s.) demanded – Why did you forbid Fatima (s.a.) from claiming the inheritance she received from her father, the Prophet of Allah (s.a.w.a.), which he (s.a.w.a.) had handed over to Fatima (s.a.) during his (s.a.w.a.) lifetime?

Abu Bakr:  Fadak is from the spoils of war and is associated with all Muslims. Thus, if Fatima brings witnesses that the Prophet of Allah had given it to her as her (own personal) property, we will give it to her, otherwise she has no claim over it.

Ameerul Momineen (a.s.): O Abu Bakr! You have judged against the orders of Allah regarding us among the Muslims.

Abu Bakr: It is not so.

Ameerul Momineen (a.s.): If a property is in the possession of another Muslim and is under his control and I was to claim that it is my property, from whom will you ask for two witnesses?

Abu Bakr: I will demand two witnesses from you to support your claim (that the property is yours and not the property of the other Muslim).

Then Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) demanded: Then why do you ask for two witnesses from Fatima (s.a.) regarding a property that was already under her possession, and it was very much under her possession during the lifetime of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and even after his death? Why do you not ask the Muslims to produce two witnesses on their claim in the same way that you ask me to produce witnesses when I claim the property under the possession of someone else?

Hearing this Abu Bakr could not offer any reply and remained silent.

Umar interjected: O Ali! Keep aside these talks for we do not have the capability to refute your claims. If you bring just witnesses, then we will accept your claim; if not, Fadak is the property of all the Muslims and you and Fatima have no claim on it.

SHAHADAT OF HAZRAT MOHSIN IBNE ALI (AS) - IST RABBI UL AWWAL

HEART RENDERING  MASAEB OF  HAZRAT FATEMAH ZAHRA AND HAZRAT MOHSIN IBNE ALI  BY SHEKH YASSER HABIB IN ARABIC WITH ENGLISH SUBTITLES 

" O ALLAH FOR THE SAKE OF JANABE ZAHRA (SA) , HASTEN THE APPEARENCE OF IMAM MAHDI (ATFS) ".

THE HISTORIC SERMON OF GHADEER E KHUM OF THE HOLY PROPHET (SAWS)

PROPHET'S HISTORIC GHADlR SERMON

There is a humble translation of the Prophet's historic Ghadir Khumm sermon. The reader can review the original Arabic text included in this book.

All Praise is due to Allah Who is Exalted in His Unity, Near in His Uniqueness, Sublime in His Authority, Magnanimous in His Dominance. He knows everything; He subdues all creation through His might and evidence. He is Praised always and forever, Glorified and has no end. He begins and He repeats, and to Him every matter is referred.

Allah is the Creator of everything; He dominates with His power the earth and the heavens. Holy, He is, and Praised, the Lord of the angels and of the spirits. His favours overwhelm whatever He creates, and He is the Mighty over whatever He initiates. He observes all eyes while no eye can observe Him. He is Generous, Clement, Patient. His mercy encompasses everything, and so is His giving. He never rushes His revenge, nor does He hasten the retribution they deserve. He comprehends what the breast conceals and what the conscience hides. No inner I thought can be concealed from Him, nor does He confuse one with another. He encompasses everything, dominates everything, and subdues everything. Nothing is like Him. He initiates the creation from nothing; He is everlasting, living, sustaining in the truth; there is no god but He, the Omnipotent, the Wise One.

He is greater than can be conceived by visions, while He conceives all visions, the Eternal, the Knowing. None can describe Him by seeing Him, nor can anyone find out how He is, be it by his intellect or by a spoken word except through what leads to Him, the Sublime, the Mighty that He is.

I testify that He is Allah, the One Who has filled time with His Holiness, the One Whose Light overwhelms eternity, Who effects His will without consulting anyone; there is no partner with Him in His decisions, nor is He assisted in running His affairs. He shaped what He made without following a preexisting model, and He created whatever He created without receiving help from anyone, nor did doing so exhaust Him nor frustrated His designs. He created, and so it was, and He initiated, and it became visible. So He is Allah, the One and Only God, the One Who does whatever He does extremely well. He is the Just One Who never oppresses, the most Holy to Whom all affairs are referred.

I further testify that He is Allah before Whom everything is humbled, to Whose Greatness everything is humiliated, and to Whose Dignity everything submits. He is the King of every domain and the One Who places planets in their orbits. He controls the movements of the sun and of the moon, each circles till a certain time. He makes the night follow the day and the day follow the night, seeking it incessantly. He splits the spine of every stubborn tyrant and annihilates every mighty devil.

Never has there been any opponent opposing Him nor a peer assisting Him. He is Independent; He never begets nor is He begotten, and none can ever be His equal. He is One God, the Glorified Lord. His will is done; His word is the law. He knows, so He takes account. He causes death and gives life. He makes some poor and others rich. He causes some to smile and others to cry .He brings some nearer to Him while distancing others from Him. He withholds and He gives. The domain belongs to Him and so is all the Praise. In His hand is all goodness, and He can do anything at all.

He lets the night cover the day and the day cover the night; there is no god but He, the Sublime, the oft-Forgiving One. He responds to the supplication; He gives generously; He computes the breath; He is the Lord of the jinns and of mankind, the One Whom nothing confuses, nor is He annoyed by those who cry for His help, nor is He fed-up by those who persist. He safeguards the righteous against sinning, and He enables the winners to win. He is the Master of the faithful, the Lord of the Worlds Who deserves the appreciation of all those whom He created and is praised no matter what.

I praise Him and always thank Him for the ease He brings me and for the constriction, in hardship and in prosperity, and I believe in Him, in His angels, in His Books and messengers. I listen to His Command and I obey, and I initiate the doing of whatever pleases Him, and I submit to His decree hoping to acquire obedience to Him and fear of His penalty, for He is Allah against Whose designs nobody should feel secure, nor should anyone ever fear His "oppression."

I testify, even against my own soul, that I am His servant, and I bear witness that he is my Lord. I convey what He reveals to me, being cautious lest I should not do it, so a catastrophe from Him would befall upon me, one which none can keep away, no matter how great his design may be and how sincere his friendship. There is no god but He, for He has informed me that if I do not convey what He has just revealed to me in honor of' Ali in truth, I will not have conveyed His Message at all, and He, the Praised and the Exalted One, has guaranteed for me to protect me from the (evil) people, and He is Allah, the One Who suffices, the Sublime. He has just revealed to me the following (verse):

Why Abubakr Denied Fadak - The Hidden Motive

The famous Sunni scholar Ibn Abil-Hadid Mu’tazali has 

said about his discourse with a fellow Sunni scholar concerning the truthfulness of the Prophet’s daughter: 

“I asked Ali Ibn Fareqi, a distinguished teacher of Madrassat-al-Gharbiyya of Baghdad: "Was Fatema truthful in making the claim ?" (regarding her patrimony of the orchard of Fadak, which the Caliph had seized on the pretext that Prophets do not leave inheritance – despite the explicit words of the Qur’an that Solomon inherited David)

He answered: "Yes!"

I said: "Did Abu Bakr know that she was a truthful lady?"

Again he answered: "Yes."

I then asked: "Then why did the Caliph not give back to her that which she was entitled to?"

At that moment the teacher smiled and said with great dignity: 

"If he had accepted her word on that day and had returned Fadak to her on account of her being a truthful lady and without asking for any witnesses, she could very well use this position for the benefit of her husband on the following day by saying, “my husband, Ali is entitled to the caliphate.” And then the Caliph would have been obliged to surrender the caliphate to Ali on account of his having acknowledged her to be a truthful lady. However, in order to obviate any such claim or dispute he deprived her of her undisputed right!"

Reference : Sharh-i Nahjul Balaghah by Ibn Abil Hadid, page 284.

OBJECTIONS AGAINST HAZRAT FATEMAH ZAHRA (SA) AND THEIR REPLIES - OBJECTION NO 14

Objection 14: Ali (a) conceded his right; why you Shia do not concede it?

It is mentioned as follows in this objection of Wahabis:

If according to the claim of Shia, rightfulness was with Ali (a), Ali himself conceded it; now, why you Shia do not concede it like Ali (a)?

Logical reply

This objection can be studied from two angles:

1- Amirul Momineen (a) conceding his right.

2- Followers of Ali (a) and defenders of the school of Ahle Bayt (a) should have remained silent and must not have defended their rightful religion and beliefs.

Amirul Momineen (a) and the Caliphate of the Caliphs

Stance of Amirul Momineen (a) to the Caliphs is clearly mentioned and identified in history in numerous discussions; even though the initial usurpation of Caliphate was through efforts to erase, distort and conceal the facts, but despite this, through the miracle of Ahle Bayt (a), numerous facts yet remain in the books of opponents and have reached us.[1]

Traditional sources and historical records are replete with the protests and objections of Amirul Momineen Imam Ali (a) addressed to the nominees of Saqifah.

Muslim has narrated in his Sahih:

Umar bin Khattab addressed Abbas and Amirul Momineen Ali (a) and said:

When the Messenger of Allah (peace be on him) passed away, Abu Bakr said: “I am the successor of the Messenger of Allah (peace be on him).” Both of you came to demand your shares from the property (left behind by the Messenger of Allah). (Referring to His Eminence, Abbas), he said: You demanded your share from the property of your nephew, and he (referring to Ali) demanded a share on behalf of his wife from the property of her father. Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allah (peace be on him) had said: “We do not have any heirs; what we leave behind is (to be given in) charity.” So both of you thought him to be a liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest. And Allah knows that he was true, virtuous, well-guided and a follower of truth. When Abu Bakr passed away and (I have become) the successor of the Messenger of Allah (peace be on him) and Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with him), you thought me to be a liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest…[2]

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 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.

The Holy Prophet (sawa) was Informed About The Oppression During Meraj

"As for your daughter, she will be oppressed and deprived, and the rights which you gave her will be usurped. She will be beaten while she is pregnant, her sanctity will be breached, and her house will be entered without permission. Then she will be humiliated and disrespected. She will find no protector, she will suffer from a miscarriage because she will be beaten, and she will die as a result of that beating."

Hammad ibn Usman narrates from Imam Jafar Sadiq (as):Abu Abdillah [Imam Sadiq (as)] said:

When the Prophet (saww) was taken to the heavens on his journey (at night), he was told, "Verily Allah, the Blessed and the Exalted, will test you with three afflictions to see how patient you will be."

The Prophet (saww) replied, "I submit to Your command, O Lord. And I have no power to stay patient except through You. What are the three tests?"

He was told, "The first (test) is hunger and giving preference to the needy over yourself and your family."

The Prophet (saww); replied, "I have accepted, O Lord. I am pleased (with Your Will) and I submit to it, and I seek success and patience with You."

He was told:
The second (test) is that you will be belied and you will be in extreme fear (for your life). You should spend your wealth, your blood, and your soul fighting against the people of disbelief, you should remain patient when you will be harassed by the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and you should remain patient when you will be hurt and wounded in battles.

The Prophet (saww) replied, "I have accepted, O Lord. I am pleased (with Your Will) and I submit to it, and I seek success and patience with You."

He was told, "The third test is that your family will be killed after you. As for your brother, 'Ali, your nation will slander and rebuke him, they will be violent with him, they will deprive him and usurp his rights, they will oppress him, and finally they will kill him."

The Prophet (saww) replied, "I have accepted, O Lord. And I am pleased (with Your Will), and I seek success and patience with You."

He was told: As for your daughter, she will be oppressed and deprived, and the rights which you gave her will be usurped. She will be beaten while she is pregnant, her sanctity will be breached, and her house will be entered without permission. Then she will be humiliated and disrespected. She will find no protector, she will suffer from a miscarriage because she will be beaten, and she will die as a result of that beating.

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]

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]