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.

THE INCIDENT OF THE DOOR AND JANABE ZAHRA (SA) FROM SHAI AND SUNNI BOOKS

SALAMUN ALAIKUM

PLEASE FIND BELOW LINK FOR THE EXCELLENT BOOK REGARDING THE FALLING OF THE DOOR ON HAZRAT FATEMAH ZAHRA (SA) FROM SHIA AND SUNNI SOURCES

THE BOOK HAS ORIGINAL SCANNED REFERENCES

THE INCIDENT OF THE DOOR ON HAZRAT SAYYEDA (SA)

THE BOOK IS IN URDU 

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.”

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.

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).

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 )

Report of Ibne Taymiyyah, founder of Wahabism (728 A.H.) about the attack on the house of revelation and martyrdom of Lady Zahra (sa)

 Ibne Taymiyyah Harrani, leader of Wahabism, has hinted about the incident of attack on the house of revelation and he says in Minhajus Sunnah:

Umar bin Khattab surrounded the house of Fatima to see if anything from the Public Treasury was kept there; that he may distribute it among deserving people.[1]

The fact is that the incident of attack of house of Lady Fatima (s) in the view of Ibne Taymiyyah was a proven thing and which cannot be denied, even though he tried to justify it and give it an unacceptable form, which is not concealed from any sane person, but even he cannot deny its factuality.

---

[1] Minhajus Sunnatun Nabawiya, Vol. 7, Pg. 90, Ahmad bin Abdul Halim bin Taymiyyah Abul Abbas Harrani (d. 728 A.H.), Edited: Dr. Muhammad Rishad Salim, Mausisa Qurtuba, First edition, 1406 A.H.

Who is the Imam of Fatima Zahra (s.a.)?

So-called Muslims like Ibn Taymiyyah claim that – Allah forbid – Fatima Zahra (s.a.) was wrong in her

claim over Fadak. At any rate, she should not have severed all communication from Abu Bakr and Umar. They were the rulers (haakim) of the time and she should have been cordial with them.

Reply

There is an interesting incident on the subject. At the end, readers can easily conclude whether Fatima Zahra (s.a.) was right or wrong and the message she sent across generations of Muslims by refusing to communicate with Abu Bakr and Umar. Being an infallible, there was complete wisdom in her stand that frustrates Muslims till date when they are called upon to answer the question –

Who is the Imam of Fatima Zahra (s.a.)?

Allamah Amini (r.a.) corners Muslim scholars

Some Saudi Salafi scholars invited Allamah Amini (r.a.) – the author of the Al-Ghadeer, arguably the most decisive book on the event of Ghadeer – for dinner. However Allamah Amini (r.a.) turned down their invitation. They insisted that Allmah Amini (r.a.) accompany them. On insistence, Allmah Amini (r.a.) acceded to their request. However, he put a condition that there would be no discussion or debate over dinner. They agreed. After dinner, a Salafi scholar in the assembly (there were around 70-80 of them) attempted to initiate a discussion. However, Allamah Amini (r.a.) refused to be drawn into a debate.

Report of Imamul Harmain Juwaini (730 A.H.) about the attack on the house of revelation and martyrdom of Lady Zahra (sa)

Juwaini’s position according to Ahle Sunnat:                                                                    

Dhahabi has mentioned his teacher, Juwaini as follows:

“Juwaini is Imam, leader, extraordinary and perfect traditionist, pride of Islam and an honest and righteous person.

Tadkirah Huffaz, Vol. 4, Pg. 1, No, 1. Teachers of the author of Tadkirah, Abu Abdullah Shamsuddin Muhammad Dhahabi (d. 748 A.H.), Darul Kutub Ilmiya, Beirut, First edition.

In the same way, he says in another place:

He is the Imam of traditional reports and traditions, uniquely perfect, source of pride for Islam, chief of religion, Ibrahim bin Muhammad bin Mobad bin Hamya Khorasani Juwaini…according to traditional reports and available books of traditions, he is having much importance. He had a nice voice, elegant face, he is awesome and religious.

Tadkiratul Huffaz, Vol. 4, Pg. 1, No. 24, Abu Abdullah Shamsuddin Muhammad Dhahabi (d. 748 A.H.), Darul Kutub Ilmiya, Beirut, First edition.

Juwaini,  says that the Messenger of Allah (s) remarked:

When I see Fatima (s) I am reminded of the tragedies that are to befall her after my passing away. As if I can see with my own eyes, that disrespect has entered her house, her sanctity is destroyed, her right has been usurped, she is deprived of her inheritance, her side is broken and her unborn son is killed in the womb, she wails: O Muhammada, but no one comes for her rescue…Fatima would be my first family member to join me after being aggrieved and oppressed and after being martyred.[2]

Report of Juwaini proves that the house of Lady Fatima Zahra (s) became the target of attack, her sanctity was trespassed, her rights were usurped and her side was broken and so on…

---

[2] Faraidus Simtain, Vol. 2, Pg. 345 & 35

Hazrat Mohsin Ibn Ali (a.s.): A Victim of Oppression and Terrorism

Introduction                                                  

The demise of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) triggered a chain of events that caught the Muslims unawares. They accepted these events as if that was the most natural thing to do and remained unmindful of the far-reaching consequences of their submission.

One such incident that stands out in the aftermath of the Holy Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) demise is the siege on Fatimah’s (s.a.) house and the eventual attack that claimed two lives in its wake, one of them being Fatimah (s.a.) herself. The other one being the martyrdom of Mohsin b. Ali (a.s.), which is the subject of this article.

1. Unbelievably true
2. Timing of the attack
3. Who is Mohsin b. Ali (a.s.)
4. Documentary evidence of Mohsin b. Ali’s (a.s.) Martyrdom
5. Permissibility of Killing the One Who Oppressed Fatimah (s.a.)
6. Bibliography of References Documenting Mohsin b. Ali’s (a.s.) Martyrdom
7. Conclusion

Unbelievably true

Mohsin b. Ali’s (a.s.) martyrdom is so unsettling and even incredible that it has been denied by many Muslims.

When one comes to think of it, indeed the incident is unbelievably true. Not just the martyrdom of Mohsin b. Ali (a.s.), the entire chain of incidents, the oppressors and oppressed ones, everything about the attack on Fatimah’s (s.a.) house is unbelievable.

It is unbelievable that a hair on Fatimah’s (s.a.) would be harmed let alone being inflicted with a fatal body blow. Especially when the Muslims were served a crystal clear warning by the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) in this regard when he informed them that Fatimah’s displeasure was the cause of his displeasure and his displeasure was the cause of Allah’s displeasure and incurring Allah’s displeasure would drive one to Hell.

It is unbelievable that Ali b. Abi Talib (a.s.) who was anointed Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) publicly by the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) on divine command less than three months before his (s.a.w.a.) demise in Ghadeer-e-Khumm and was the unanimous choice of Allah and His Messenger (s.a.w.a.) as highlighted by every notable incident in Islam’s history should be subjugated by individuals who could not even compare to the dust of his horse’s hooves which incidentally Allah swears by in Surah Aadiyaat.

It is unbelievable that the perpetrators of this crime were none other than the so-called companions of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and his so-called successors who claimed proximity and brotherhood with the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and after whose names the Muslims invoke Allah’s satisfaction and mercy.

It is unbelievable that the atrocities meted out to Fatimah (s.a.) would eventually claim her life inducing Ali (a.s.) to declare that she was like a flower nipped in the bud and confessing to the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) his helplessness in safeguarding the Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) trust. All this within a few days of the Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) demise and revelation of the Verse of Purification (Surah Ahzaab (33): 33) and Incident of the Cloak testified to by all the Muslims as being related to Fatimah (s.a.) along with her husband and sons.

It is unbelievable that Fatimah (s.a.) willed her burial to be carried out in the dead of the night deeming the companions in question unfit to attend her funeral and in this way categorically refuting their claim to caliphate and so-called proximity to her father (s.a.w.a.) and inflicting a slap so hard on her oppressors that its reverberations will always be felt by her oppressors and their partisans.

Finally it is unbelievable that the struggle launched by a few individuals for worldly power and status would mercilessly uproot the existence of a six-month unborn infant from the comfort of his mother’s womb.

Over here, the martyrdom of Mohsin b. Ali (a.s.), the third son of Ali b. Abi Talib (a.s.) and Fatimah (s.a.) after Hasan (a.s.) and Husain (a.s.), has been analyzed in detail. Other events before and after the martyrdom, although very significant from the viewpoint of Ali b. Abi Talib (a.s.) and Fatimah (s.a.) in particular and Muslims in general, are referred to in lesser detail.

Despite claims to the contrary by misinformed and uninformed Muslims, it is well-documented by scores of scholars from both the sects – Ahle Sunnah and Shias, that there was a full-scale attack on Fatimah’s (s.a.) house only a few days after the Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) demise. The objective of the companions who assaulted Fatimah (s.a.) and Ali b. Abi Talib (a.s.) was to extract Ali’s (a.s.) allegiance for Abu Bakr, without which they knew Abu Bakr’s caliphate would lack any form of legitimacy.

Umar's (la) letter to Muawiya (la) regarding the attack on the house of Janabe Zahra (sa)

Umar b. Khattab l.a. wrote a letter to Muaiyah l.a., the contents of which were as follows:  

‘I went to the house of Ali, after having decided with others to bring him out of the house. Fatima came out and I told her, ‘Tell Ali to come out and swear the oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr l.a. for all Muslims have done so.’

Fatima replied that Ali was busy in arranging the Quran.

I said, ’Keep this talk aside, tell Ali to come out or else we will forcefully enter the house and bring him out!’

At that moment, Fatima came and stood with her back towards the door and said, ‘O misled liars! What do you say and what do you want from us?’

I addressed her and she said, ‘What do you want O Umar?’

I replied, ‘Why has your cousin sent you here to reply while he remains seated behind veils?’

Fatima said, ‘Your rebellion has brought me out O Umar and I have ended my proof upon you, and every misled is erroneous.’

I said, ‘Keep these vain and womanish words aside and tell Ali to come out of the house.’

She replied, ‘You are not worthy of love and generosity. Do you make us fear the ‘Party of the Devil’ O Umar? Verily the Party of the Devil are the losers!’ (Surah Mujadilah (58): 19)

Hearing this I said, ‘If Ali does not come out of the house, I will bring fuel and kindle a fire and burn down the house along with its dwellers or I will take Ali to the Masjid for (the oath of) allegiance.’

Then I took the whip (of Qunfudh) and struck Fatima with it and told Khalid b. Walid, ‘Bring firewood’, then again I told her, ‘I will burn down the house!’

Fatima said, ‘O enemy of Allah and enemy of the Prophet of Allah s.a.w.a. and the enemy of the Commander of the Faithful!’

Two hands came out from behind the door to stop me from entering the house, however I pushed back the hands and then pushed the door with force, while striking at her hands with the whip, so that she would let go of the door. She wailed and wept due to the intense pain of the whip and her weeping was such a heart-rendering scream that it was as if my heart was going to melt and I almost retreated. Suddenly, I recalled the envy and avarice which I had towards Ali because he was the one that had shed the blood of the eminent Quraish apostates and thus, I kicked at the door, however she had grasped the door such that it would not open. When I kicked at the door, I heard the cry of Fatima and thought that this cry would topple the entire city of Medina.

In this state Fatima called out, ‘O Father! O Prophet of Allah! How do they treat your beloved and your daughter! O Fizza! Hasten to my aid, for by Allah, the child in my womb has been killed.’

I presumed that Fatima had stood with her back to the wall due to the extreme pain of labour and at this point, I pushed at the door with intense force and the door opened. When I entered therein, Fatima came and stood in front of me (even though she was in immense pain), but my intense anger had overwhelmed me as if a veil was cast before my eyes. In this state, I slapped her on her face, striking her veil, and she fell down to the ground.’”

(This letter is quoted by Allamah Majlisi r.a. in Behaar al-Anwaar in which he says - I have related this letter from Dalail al-Imamah vol. 2 of Emaad al-Deen Tabari r.a. that after the martyrdom of Imam Husain a.s. at Karbala, Abdullah b. Umar l.a. along with a group of people from Medina came to Syria. They protested in front of Yazid l.a. regarding his atrocities at Karbala and in this gathering, Yazid l.a. told Abdullah b. Umar l.a., “Do you wish to see the letter of your father”, saying this he brought forth the letter (quoted in the text) of Umar l.a. which was kept in a case and then he gave it to Abdullah l.a..)