Shocking and outrageous justifications by the opponents concerning the attack on the house of the Hazrat Fatemah Zahra (sa), by the second caliph

  

1️⃣ Qadi Abdul Jabbar:

Threatening to burn the house of Fatimah was the legitimate right of Umar ibn Khattab, and there was no problem in it!

He states: Whatever has been mentioned regarding Umar and the burning of the house of Lady Zahra — if it is correct — does not invalidate or criticise Umar in any way, because he had the right to threaten those who refused to pledge allegiance in opposition to the Muslims.

📚 Al-Mughni fi Abwab al-Tawhid wa al-Adl – al-Imamah, vol. 20, p. …

2️⃣ Ibn Taymiyyah:

The attack on the house of Fatimah was to ensure that no public property was hidden inside it!

He writes: The most that can be said in this matter is that Abu Bakr suddenly entered the house of [Fatimah] to see whether any of the wealth of Allah — which was meant to be distributed among the people — was present there, so that he could return it to its rightful recipient.

📚 Minhaj al-Sunnah al-Nabawiyyah, vol. 8, p. 291

3️⃣ Abdul Aziz Dehlawi:

The house of Lady Zahra had become a gathering place for corrupt individuals, and in such a situation, observing courtesy was not necessary!

He argues: If the Noble Prophet (s.a.w.a) threatened to burn the houses of those who abandoned the congregational prayer — which is among the emphasised Sunnahs — then why should it be impermissible to threaten burning the houses in such a case of corruption, whose spark could endanger the entire Muslim community and the whole religion? If the Prophet (s.a.w.a) entered the house of Lady Zahra because of decorative curtains and pictures, and did not leave until they were removed — and even entered the House of Allah for the same reason — then if Umar ibn Khattab, due to the presence of corrupters in that house, and the planning of seditious schemes there, threatened to burn it, what sin could be held against him?

At most, it can be said that observing etiquette did not suit this form of threat. However, evident it becomes that in such grave matters, no one observes courtesy — as proven by the act of Amir with Ayesha the Siddiqah, who was undoubtedly the beloved wife of the Messenger (s.a.w.a), the mother of the believers, and worthy of veneration by all creation. Therefore, anything done by Umar in accordance with the act of the Ma'sum should not become a subject of criticism and reproach.

📚 Tuhfa Ithna Ashariyyah – Nasihat al-Mu'minin wa Fazihat al-Shayatin, p. 593

Shocking and outrageous justifications by Shibli Nu'mani concerning the attack on the house of the Hazrat Zahra (sa), by the second caliph

 Shibli Nu'mani:

By threatening to burn the house of Fatimah, Umar choked the sedition of Bani Hashim in its cradle!

He writes: Only Bani Hashim continued to insist on their claim; therefore, they would gather in the house of Lady Fatimah to consult among themselves. Umar intended to force Bani Hashim to pledge allegiance, but they refused to bow their heads before anyone except Ali — radiyallāhu ‘anhu. From the perspective of Dirayah Hadith, such conduct from Umar — known for sharp temperament — is not unexpected. Indeed, the actions he undertook in that highly sensitive period, with urgency and intensity, may have involved some excess; however, it must be understood that such sternness was meant to suppress sedition and uproot it. Had the conspiracies of Bani Hashim continued then, the structure of the Muslim community would have collapsed, and the civil wars that later occurred between Ali — karramallāhu wajhah — and Muawiyah would have taken place in that very era.

📚 Sirat al-Faruq, p. 62

Shocking and outrageous justifications by Qadi Abdul Jabbar concerning the attack on the house of the Hazrat Zahra (sa), by the second caliph

 Threatening to burn the house of Fatimah was the legitimate right of Umar ibn Khattab, and there was no problem in it!

He states: Whatever has been mentioned regarding Umar and the burning of the house of Lady Zahra — if it is correct — does not invalidate or criticise Umar in any way, because he had the right to threaten those who refused to pledge allegiance in opposition to the Muslims.

📚 Al-Mughni fi Abwab al-Tawhid wa al-Adl – al-Imamah, vol. 20, p. …

Shocking and outrageous justifications by Abdul Aziz Dehlawi concerning the attack on the house of the Hazrat Zahra (sa), by the second caliph

 Abdul Aziz Dehlawi:

The house of Lady Zahra had become a gathering place for corrupt individuals, and in such a situation, observing courtesy was not necessary!

He argues: If the Noble Prophet (s.a.w.a) threatened to burn the houses of those who abandoned the congregational prayer — which is among the emphasised Sunnahs — then why should it be impermissible to threaten burning the houses in such a case of corruption, whose spark could endanger the entire Muslim community and the whole religion? If the Prophet (s.a.w.a) entered the house of Lady Zahra because of decorative curtains and pictures, and did not leave until they were removed — and even entered the House of Allah for the same reason — then if Umar ibn Khattab, due to the presence of corrupters in that house, and the planning of seditious schemes there, threatened to burn it, what sin could be held against him?

At most, it can be said that observing etiquette did not suit this form of threat. However, evident it becomes that in such grave matters, no one observes courtesy — as proven by the act of Amir with Ayesha the Siddiqah, who was undoubtedly the beloved wife of the Messenger (s.a.w.a), the mother of the believers, and worthy of veneration by all creation. Therefore, anything done by Umar in accordance with the act of the Ma'sum should not become a subject of criticism and reproach.

📚 Tuhfa Ithna Ashariyyah – Nasihat al-Mu'minin wa Fazihat al-Shayatin, p. 593

Shocking and outrageous justifications by Ibn Taymiyyah concerning the attack on the house of the Hazrat Zahra (sa), by the second caliph

 Ibn Taymiyyah:

The attack on the house of Fatimah was to ensure that no public property was hidden inside it!

He writes: The most that can be said in this matter is that Abu Bakr suddenly entered the house of [Fatimah] to see whether any of the wealth of Allah — which was meant to be distributed among the people — was present there, so that he could return it to its rightful recipient.

📚 Minhaj al-Sunnah al-Nabawiyyah, vol. 8, p. 291

Umar compelled Abu Bakr to reverse his decision on Fadak.

 Muslims in general claim that Fadak was never a matter for debate and discussion since in their view – Prophets neither inherit nor leave behind any inheritance, all their property and wealth is for the common Muslims.

Although this is the widely touted position of the supporters of companions and wives, we know that this was not the real reason for denying Fadak to Aal Muhammad (a.s.).

The real reason was rather simple when you research history.

Abu Bakr willing to hand over Fadak

For all the lengthy discussions and debates on Fadak, it comes as no surprise that the matter of Fadak was resolved in Hazrat Fatima Zahra’s (s.a.) favour initially.

When Abu Bakr demanded that Hazrat Fatima Zahra (s.a.) advance witnesses in support of her claim over it, she (s.a.) produced Umme Ayman – the one guaranteed with Paradise by the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) – and Ameerul Momineen (a.s.).

Abu Bakr was satisfied with the witnesses and wrote a letter handing over Fadak to Hazrat Fatima Zahra (s.a.).

Umar walked in at the time and on seeing the document made enquiries about it. Abu Bakr briefed him about the situation. Umar immediately yanked the letter and tore it to pieces dismissing the witness of Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) and Umme Ayman.

• Tafseer al-Qummi (r.a.) under Surah Rum (30): Verse 38
• Al-Ehtejaaj vol. 1 p. 90
• Bait al Ahzaan p. 144-145

Also refer regarding Fatima Zahra’s (s.a.) right over Fadak from Quran:

• Shawaahed al-Tanzeel under under Surah Rum (30): Verse 38
• Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah vol. 16 p. 220

Even if the skeptics dismiss this incident, there can be no denying the strong arm tactics employed by Umar to control the government from the backseat. And it’s not like we see this side of Umar only during the reign of Abu Bakr. Umar was abrasive and obnoxious even in the presence of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) himself.

Whether one considers the Hudaybiyyah truce or when the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) seemingly offered funeral prayers for the hypocrite or regarding the prisoners of Badr or on numerous other occasions, we regularly see Umar confronting the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) as if he (Umar) was the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and Prophet (s.a.w.a.) was a companion. We even see a ‘report’ in the books of Ahle Tasannun justifying Umar’s behavior by claiming the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) said that had there been a prophet after him it would have been Umar (Allah forbid)!

So if Umar can use strong arm tactics and interfere in prophethood, why should it surprise anyone if he does the same in caliphate?

Also there are many incidents in the books of the Ahle Tasannun that show Umar reversed the decision of Abu Bakr quite brazenly and impulsively.

Consider this incident –

Once a group of the ones inclined towards Islam (al-Mu’allafah Qulubuhum under Surah Tauba (9): Verse 60) came to Umar and showed him a document in which Abu Bakr had ordered for them to receive their rightful shares from the alms.

Umar refused it, tore Abu Bakr’s document into pieces, spat on it, and threw it at their faces.

Having been infuriated, they returned to Abu Bakr and asked – Which one of you is the caliph (ruler)? Is it he or you?’

Abu Bakr answered – He is, if he wants!

• Fazail al-Sahabah vol 1 p. 292 by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal

• Tafsir al-Manaar vol. 10 p. 496 by Rasheed Riza – ideological founder of the Muslim Brotherhood

• Kanz al-Ummal vol. 3 p. 914 trad. 9,151, vol. 12 p. 546 trad. 35,738

• Tarikh al-Dimishq vol. 9 p. 196 trad. 797

• Al-Iktifa bima Tadammanahu min Maghazi Rasool Allah wa al-Thalathah al-Khulafa vol. 3 p. 90

There are many such incidents and the Muslims justify it and document it among the virtues of Umar as Ahmed Ibn Hanbal has done in Fazail al-Sahabah! The book of Al-Farooq by Shibli Nomani is replete with such ‘virtues’ including torching the house of Fatima Zahra (s.a.).

Therefore then, why should it surprise the Muslims that Umar compelled Abu Bakr to reverse his decision on Fadak.

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

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

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

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

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

Reply

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

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

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

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

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