Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'FATEMAH'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Main Forums
    • Ramadhan 1440/2019
    • Guest Forum
    • Theology and General Religion
    • Personalities in Islam
    • Prophets and Ahlul-Bayt
    • Jurisprudence/Laws
    • Politics/Current Events
    • Social/Family/Personal Issues
    • Science/Tech/Economics
    • Education/Careers
    • Medicine/Health/Fitness
    • Off-Topic
    • Poetry and Art
    • Polls
    • Shia/Sunni Dialogue
    • Christianity/Judaism Dialogue
    • Atheism/Philosophy/Others
    • Research into Other Sects
    • Arabic / العَرَبِية
    • Farsi / فارسی
    • Urdu / اُردُو‎
    • Other languages [French / français, Spanish / español, Chinese / 汉语, Hindi / हिन्दी, etc.. ]
    • North/Central/South America
    • Europe
    • Asia, Middle East, Africa
    • Australia and Others
    • Site Tech Support/Feedback
    • Site FAQs
  • The Hadith Club's Topics
  • Food Club's Topics
  • Sports Club's Topics
  • Reverts to Islam's Topics
  • Travel Club's Topics
  • Mental Health/Psych Club's Topics
  • Arts, Crafts, DIY Club's Topics
  • The Premier League Club's Topics
  • Quit Smoking's Topics

Blogs

There are no results to display.

There are no results to display.


Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Facebook


Website URL


Yahoo


Skype


Location


Religion


Mood


Favorite Subjects

Found 51 results

  1. 8TH SHAWWAL -1345 AH / April 21, 1925 - DESTRUCTION OF THE GRAVES IN JANNATUL BAQI MEDINA AND JANNATUL MUALLAH MAKKAH On 8th Shawwal, Wednesday, in the year 1345 AH (April 21, 1925), mausoleums in Jannatul al-Baqi (Madina) were demolished by King Ibn Saud. JANNAT UL BAQI AFTER DEMOLITION ORIGINAL JANNAT UL BAQI In the same year (1925), he also demolished the tombs of holy personages at Jannat al-Mualla (Makkah) where the Holy Prophet (s)'s mother, wife, grandfather and other ancestors are buried. JANNAT UL MUALLA AFTER DESTRUCTION JANNAT UL MUALLAH BEFORE 1925 Destruction of sacred sites in Hijaz by the Saudi Wahhabis continues even today. According to some scholars what is happening in Hijaz is actually a conspiracy plotted by the Jews against Islam, under the guise of Tawheed. The idea is to eradicate the Islamic legacy and heritage and to systematically remove all its vestiges so that in the days to come, Muslims will have no affiliation with their religious history CLICK HERE TO READ MORE
  2. 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 – FOR MORE ARTICLES CLICK HERE 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. Some of them suggested that in order to increase divine blessings, every scholar in the gathering should narrate a tradition from the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) so that the gathering is illuminated through it. Those present there were are renowned traditionalists (Haafiz-e-hadees), a title conferred on those who have memorized at least a hundred thousand traditions. They started narrating traditions one by one until it was Allamah Amini’s (r.a.) turn. Allamah Amini (r.a.) said – My condition for narrating the tradition is that when I have narrated the same, each one should confirm whether he considers this tradition authentic or not. All those present agreed. Thus Allamah Amini (r.a.) narrated the famous tradition of the Holy Prophet of Islam (s.a.w.a.): قال رسول الله (صلوات الله علیه و آله ) : من مات و لم یعرف امام زمانه مات میته جاهلیه ‘One who dies without recognising the Imam of his time dies the death of ignorance.’ Thereafter he asked each and every person to testify the authenticity of the tradition. Everyone testified that the tradition was indeed authentic. Then Allamah Amini (r.a.) said: Now that you all accept this tradition, I have a question for each one of you: Did Fatima Zahra (s.a.) recognise the Imam of her time or not? And if she did, who was the Imam of Fatima Zahra (s.a.)? All the scholars present fell silent for a long time, with their heads bowed down. And since they didn’t have any reply, they began leaving the assembly one by one. Clearly they were in a fix. If they claim – she didn’t recognize (her Imam), then they are saying Fatima Zahra (s.a.) left the world in a state of disbelief (Allah forbid), and it is impossible that the Chief of all Women of the Worlds dies a disbeliever (Allah forbid)! If they say she did recognize (her Imam), then they have to find another Imam for her in place of Abu Bakr, since Bukhari (the most prominent scholar of Ahle Tasannun) says: ماتت و هي ساخته عليهما Fatima (s.a.) left the world in a state of intense anger at Abu Bakr (and Umar – as the narration says علیهما i.e. both of them) Since the Ahle Tasannun scholars were cornered and had no option but to testify to the legitimacy and leadership Ali b. Abi Talib (a.s.), they left the assembly with their heads hanging in shame.
  3. salam 26 MERSIYAS ON JANABE FATEMAH ZAHRA (SA)- CLICK HERE
  4. The infallible Imams (a.s.) were consumed with grief over the untold difficulties and afflictions heaped on Fatima Zahra (s.a.), the Holy Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) beloved daughter, by the pseudo-caliphs.Shaikh Abbas al-Qummi (r.a.) says: The sufferings of Fatima Zahra (s.a.) were more painful to her infallible sons (a.s.), the Imams (a.s.), than the wounds of swords and knives; and her pain was more scorching to them (a.s.) than fire. It was decreed for them (by Allah the High) to observe dissimulation (taqiyyah) and thus, they could not reveal the sufferings of Fatima Zahra (s.a.). Thus, when the name of Fatima (s.a.) was taken in their presence, their hearts would turn sorrowful and anyone with intellect could observe its effect on their noble visages. (Bait Al-Ahzaan, p. 136)This grief was a defining feature of their Imamat and made itself evident in two ways – weeping over her (tawalla) and cursing her tormentors (tabarra). 1. Imam Muhammad b. Ali al-Jawad’s (a.s.) grief 2. Imam Muhammad b. Ali al-Baqir’s (a.s.) grief 3. Imam Jafar al-Sadiq’s (a.s.) grief The following incidents illustrate this point to some extent. Back to Top1. Imam Muhammad b. Ali al-Jawad’s (a.s.) griefZakariyya Ibn Adam narrates:One day, I was in the presence of Imam Ali Reza (a.s.) when his son, Imam Muhammad al-Jawad (a.s.), who was less than four years old, was brought to him. As he came in, he (a.s.) struck his palms on the ground, raised his head towards the heavens and remained engrossed in deep thought for a long time.Seeing this, Imam Reza (a.s.) (asked him) – May I be your ransom! What are you thinking about?Imam Jawad (a.s.) replied: I am engrossed in thought regarding the sufferings that befell my mother, Fatima (s.a.). By Allah! I will bring out those two men (Shaikhain) from their graves and burn them and then scatter their ashes into the seas.Hearing this, Imam Reza (a.s.) asked his son to be brought closer to him, kissed him (a.s.) on his forehead and remarked, ‘May my parents be your ransom! You are worthy for this affair (Imamat).’Mustadrak Wasaail al-Shia vol. 1 p. 123Dalaail al-Imaamah p. 212Ithbaat al-Wasiyyah p. 218Madinah al-Ma’ajiz, vol. 7 p. 325Behaar al-Anwaar vol. 50 p. 59Back to Top2. Imam Muhammad b. Ali al-Baqir’s (a.s.) griefIt is related that whenever Imam Muhammad Baqir (a.s.) was afflicted with fever, he (a.s.) would treat the fever by keeping cloth pieces immersed in cold water on his body and call out loudly O Fatima, the daughter of Muhammad! that his voice could be heard from the entrance of the house.Rauzah al-Kafi, p. 87Behaar al-Anwaar, vol. 62 p. 102Bait al-Ahzaan fi Masaaeb Sayyidah al-Niswaan (s.a.), p. 135In explanation of this tradition, Allamah Majlisi (r.a.) says that Imam Baqir (a.s.) desired that by invoking the sacred name of Fatima (s.a.), he would ward off fever.Shaikh Abbas al-Qummi (r.a.) says: I strongly believe that fever could afflict the sacred body of the Imam (a.s.) due to the sufferings of his mother Fatima (s.a.) which were lying concealed in his (a.s.) sacred heart. He (a.s.) would cleanse the heat of the fever with water through the remembrance of his mother Fatima (s.a.) and her sufferings. This is similar to an afflicted person who tries to lessen his sorrows through sighs and deep breaths.Bait al-Ahzaan, p. 136Back to Top3. Imam Jafar al-Sadiq’s (a.s.) griefIt is related that Imam Sadiq (a.s.) asked al-Sakuni whom Allah the High had blessed with a daughter: ‘What name have you chosen for her?’He replied: ‘Fatima.’On hearing (just the mention of Fatima), Imam Sadiq (a.s.) exclaimed sorrowfully: ‘Alas! Alas!’ Saying this, he (a.s.) placed his hand upon his forehead and sat down, grieving….Thereafter, Imam (a.s.) advised, “Now that you have named her Fatima, never abuse her, curse her or beat her. (i.e. out of reverence for Fatima (s.a.) and possibly also because she had to face all this at the hands of her enemies.).”Al-Kafi, vol. 6 p. 48-49Tahzeeb al-Ahkaam, vol. 8 p. 112Bait al-Ahzaan, p. 136No wonder that Imam Sadiq (a.s.) unfailingly cursed, naming four men and four women after every obligatory prayer, for how they had treated Fatima Zahra (s.a.).Al-Kafi, vol. 3, p. 342Tahzeeb al-Ahkaam, vol. 2 p. 321The list of the infallible guides (a.s.) moved by Fatima’s (s.a.) plight is merely illustrative. The incidents are numerous and involve the highest personalities like the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and Ameerul Momineen (a.s.).
  5. WHY CELEBRATE EID E ZAHRA (SA) Al-Sayed ibn Tawoos writes in the book, 'Zawaa'id al-Fawaa'id' that Ibn Abi Alaa Al-Hamadani al-Waasiti and Yahya ibn Mohammad bin Huwaij Al-Baghdadi said: We were quarreling about ibn Al-Khattab (Omar) and we became uncertain about him, so we travelled to Ahmad bin Isaac al-Qummi (Imam Hassan Al-Askari's companion) in Qum. We knocked on his door, and a young Iraqi girl opened. We asked to see Ahmad bin Isaac, to which she replied, "He is busy with his festival (eid), for it is a day of celebration" I said, "Praise be to Allah! The Shia festivals are four; Al-Fitr, Al-Ad'ha, Al-Ghadeer and Jomaa". She said, "Ahmad bin Isaac narrates from his master Abul Hassan, Ali bin Mohammad Al-Askari, that this day is a day of Eid, and it is in fact the most blessed of Eids for Ahlul Bayt and their followers" We then told her to inform him of our presence and seek permission for us to enter. Ahmad bin Isaac came to greet us dressed in a loincloth and perfumed with musk. We criticized his action, to which he replied, "Don’t worry, for I have just done ritual ghusl for Day of Eid”. We said, “Is it a day of Eid?” He replied in the affirmative. It was the 9th of Rabi al-Awwal. He invited us in and when we were seated he said, “I went to visit my Master Abu al-Hassan in Samarra on the same day as this, 9th Rabi al-Awwal. He instructed all his servants to wear new clothes, and he was burning scented wood an incense pot. I said to him, “May our fathers and mothers be a sacrifice for you! O son of the Messenger of Allah! has a day of celebration been renewed for Ahlul Bayt today?” He said, “Is there a more sacred day for Ahlul bayt than this day, 9th Rabi Al-Awwal? My father narrated to me that, on this day Huthaifa bin Al-Yamani went to visit my grandfather, the Messenger of Allah (saw) . Huthaifa said, “I saw Ameerul Moumineen and his children eating with the Prophet (saw). The Prophet (saw) was looking at their faces, smiling and saying to Al-Hassan and Al-Hussain, ‘Eat! Eat! enjoy the blessings and felicities of this day!, for it is the day that Allah will destroy His enemy, and the enemy of your grandfather; It is the day Allah will accept the deeds of your followers and lovers; It is the day the Divine words of Allah will be realized, ‘See, yonder are their dwellings empty and in ruins because they did wrong’ (27:52) It is the day the pharaoh of Ahlul bayt will be annihilated, their oppressor and the usurper of their rights; It is the day Allah will proceed to what they have done of deeds, and He will render them as scattered floating dust’. I said, “O Messenger of Allah! Is there from amongst your nation and companions, he who will violate these sanctities?” The Prophet said, “Yes Huthaifa, A tyrant from amongst the hypocrites. He will rule over them in a swaggering dictatorial manner and use deceit amongst my Ummah. He will bar the people from following the path of Allah and distort His Book and change my Sunnah. He will usurp my children’s inheritance and appoint himself as an authority. He will have the audacity to attack his Imam after me and will seize the people’s wealth in a way not prescribed and will squander it disobediently. He will belie me and belie my brother and vizier. His will enviously appropriate my daughter’s rights. She will invoke God, and He will answer her prayers on a day like this”. Huthaifa said, “O Messenger of Allah, invoke Allah to destroy him in your life time” The Messenger of Allah said, “Huthaifa, I loathe challenging the decree of Allah, although I have asked Allah to give virtue to the day on which he perishes over all days, so that it becomes a practice observed by my loved ones and followers of my Ahlul bayt. Whereupon Allah, the Exalted, revealed to me saying, “O Mohammad! You and your Ahlul Bayt will be afflicted with worldly calamities and adversities, also the oppression of the hypocrites and usurpers from amongst My servants whom you counseled, only to be betrayed by them. You were sincere towards them, yet they deceived you; you showed them kindness and they drove you away.. I will, by My power and might, open 1000 doors of hellfire from the lowest pits of hell and cast therein those who usurp the rights of your brother Ali. I will make an example of that hypocrite on the Day of Judgment, and like the pharaohs of all the prophets and the enemies of the religion, I will gather them and their companions in the Hellfire and therein they will abide eternally. O Mohammad! Your vicegerent and companion will suffer much affliction from this pharaoh and usurper who will have the audacity to alter My words. He will associate with me a partner and avert people from My path. He will erect himself as the Golden Cow of your ummah and disbelieve in me. I have commanded My angels in the seven heavens, your Shia and adorers to celebrate the day I annihilated him on. And I have ordered My angels to praise Me and seek forgiveness for your Shia and adorers. O Mohammad! And I have asked the Honorable Scribes (Al-Kiraam Al-Kaatibeen) to lift the Pen on that day and not to write any of my creations errors in honor of you and your vicegerent. O Mohammad! I have made that day a day of eid for you and your Ahlul Bayt and their followers and Shia. I vow by My Glory and Magnificence that I will favor the one who celebrates that day with the rewards of the (angels) surrounding (the throne), and I will give him permission to intercede for close kin, and I will increase his wealth. And I will free, every year, on that day, thousands of your Shia, adorers and followers from the fires of hell and recompense their striving, forgive their sins and accept their deeds. Huthaifa said, “the Prophet then stood and entered the house of Um Salama, and I left with no doubts in my mind about the second (omar). And I saw him after the death of the Prophet facilitate evil, disbelieve and apostatize, embark on the seat of authority (caliphate), manipulate the Quran, burn the House of Revelation (Fatima’s), innovate in the sunnah, reject the testimony of Ameerul Moumineen, belie Fatima - the daughter of the Messenger, usurp Fadak from her, satisfy the Jews, Christians and Majoos, and annoyed the apple of the Moustafa’s eye – never ever satisfying her. He changed the traditions and lay the groundwork for the killing of Ameerul Moumineen. He manifested injustice, prohibited what Allah had made permissible and made permissible what Allah had prohibited, slapped the face of Al-Zakiyya (Fatima), and oppressively and offensively ascended the pulpit of the Prophet, slandered Ameerul moumineen and opposed and nullified his opinion”. Huthaifa said, “Allah answered the prayers of my master (Imam Ali) in relation to this hypocrite, and he was killed at the hands of (Abu Lulu) he who killed him, may Allah have mercy on his soul”. Huthaifa continues, “I visited Ameerul Moumineen to pass on my felicities when that munafiq was killed and he said, ‘O Huthaifa, do you remember that day when you visited the Messenger of Allah when his grandchildren and I were eating with him and he pointed out to you the excellence of this day’” I said, “Yes, dear brother of the Messenger of Allah” He then said, “By Allah! Today is that day – the day Allah satisfied the children of the Messenger, and I am aware of many names for this day” I asked, “O Prince of the Faithful, I would love to hear from you the names for this day – 9th rabi al-awwal” The Imam said, “It is the day of respite, the day of relief from distress and agony, it is a second Ghadir, it is the removal of burden, it is the day of favoritism and the lifting of the pen, the day of hady (gift) and aqiqa, the day of blessing, the day of vengeance. It is the Great Eid of Allah and the day supplications are answered, the day of great standing, the day of turning back, the day of provision, the day erected walls are demolished, the day of regret for the oppressors, the day of victory for the Shia, the day worries are expelled, the day of triumph, the day of submission the day of power, the day of pardon, the day of jubilance for the Shia, the day of reflection, the day of great charity, the second Fitr, the day of Allah’s path, the day of contentment, the day of Eid for Ahlul Bayt, the day of victory for Bani Israel, the day Allah accepted the deeds of the Shia, the day of providing sadaqah, the day of asking for an increase, the day the hypocrite is killed, the day of reckoning, the day of Ahlul Bayt’s cheerfulness, the day that is witnessed, the day the oppressor will bite his hands, the day misguidance will be demolished, the day of accomplishment, the day of witnessing, the day of pardon for the faithful, the day of (ALMUSTATAAB), the day the authority of the munafiq departs, the day of settlement, the day the faithful relaxes, the day of Mubahila, the day of boasting, the day of thankfulness, the day victory for the oppressed, the day of visitation, the day of love, the day innovations are exposed, the day of piety, the day of exhortation, the day of worship, the day of Islam…” Huthaifa said, “I got up and left Ameerul Moumineen, saying to myself, ‘If I do not succeed in achieving rewards for deeds other than those rewarded for this day, I would be satisfied” Mohammad bin Abi Al-alaa and Yahya bin jareeh said, “Each of us got up and kissed the forehead of Isaac and said, ‘Praised be the Lord for not taking our souls before honoring us with this blessed day – and we left his place and celebrated that day, and it is the Eid of the Shia” ( REF : Beharul Anwar v95 pg 351)
  6. 'May the eye not be cool that does not cry over Mohsin b. Ali' Mufazzal b. Umar (r.a.) in a lengthy tradition from Imam Jafar Sadiq (a.s.) relates - وَ يَأْتِي مُحَسِّنٌ تَحْمِلُهُ خَدِيجَةُ بِنْتُ خُوَيْلِدٍ وَ فَاطِمَةُ بِنْتُ أَسَدٍ أُمُّ أَمِيرِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ ع وَ هُنَّ صَارِخَاتٌ وَ أُمُّهُ فَاطِمَةُ تَقُولُ‏ هذا يَوْمُكُمُ الَّذِي كُنْتُمْ تُوعَدُونَ‏ الْيَوْمَ‏ تَجِدُ كُلُّ نَفْسٍ ما عَمِلَتْ مِنْ خَيْرٍ مُحْضَراً وَ ما عَمِلَتْ مِنْ سُوءٍ تَوَدُّ لَوْ أَنَّ بَيْنَها وَ بَيْنَهُ أَمَداً بَعِيداً On the Day of Resurrection, Khadijah b. Khuwailid and Fatima b. Asad, the mother of Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) will come forth carrying Muhassin (Mohsin). They will be shrieking while his (Mohsin’s) mother – Fatima (s.a.), will be reciting the verse, “This is your Day, which you were promised.”- Ambiya (21): 103 (and the verse) (Remember) The Day (of Judgement) when every soul shall find present whatever it has wrought of good; and whatever it has wrought of evil, it will wish that the distance between it and himself was wide.” Ale Imran (2): 30). قَالَ فَبَكَى الصَّادِقُ ع حَتَّى اخْضَلَّتْ لِحْيَتُهُ بِالدُّمُوعِ ثُمَّ قَالَ لَا قَرَّتْ عَيْنٌ لَا تَبْكِي عِنْدَ هَذَا الذِّكْرِ قَالَ وَ بَكَى الْمُفَضَّلُ بُكَاءً طَوِيلًاHe (Mufazzal) said: At this Imam Sadiq (a.s.) wept till his beard was soaked with his tears. Then he (a.s.) said: May the eye not be cool that does not cry over this remembrance (of Mohsin). And Mufazzal wept for long. VISIT OPPRESSIONS UPON JANABE ZAHRA (SA) ثُمَّ قَالَ يَا مَوْلَايَ مَا فِي الدُّمُوعِ يَا مَوْلَايَ فَقَالَ مَا لَا يُحْصَى إِذَا كَانَ مِنْ مُحِقٍّ ثُمَّ قَالَ الْمُفَضَّلُ يَا مَوْلَايَ مَا تَقُولُ فِي قَوْلِهِ تَعَالَى‏ وَ إِذَا الْمَوْؤُدَةُ سُئِلَتْ بِأَيِّ ذَنْبٍ قُتِلَتْ‏ قَالَ يَا مُفَضَّلُ وَ الْمَوْؤُدَةُ وَ اللَّهِ مُحَسِّنٌ لِأَنَّهُ مِنَّا لَا غَيْرُ فَمَنْ قَالَ غَيْرَ هَذَا فَكَذِّبُوهُThen he (Mufazzal) said: O my master how many tears O my master? Then he (a.s.) said: They cannot be numbered for the one worthy of them. Then Mufazzal said: O my master what do you say about the verse – “And when the female infant buried alive is asked, for what sin she was killed.” (Takweer (81):8-9). He (a.s.) said: O Mufazzal the female infant buried alive is Mohsin, by Allah, because he is from us and he is none other, if someone claims he is someone else then he has denied him. قَالَ الْمُفَضَّلُ يَا مَوْلَايَ ثُمَّ مَا ذَا قَالَ الصَّادِقُ ع تَقُومُ فَاطِمَةُ بِنْتُ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ ص فَتَقُولُ اللَّهُمَّ أَنْجِزْ وَعْدَكَ وَ مَوْعِدَكَ لِي فِيمَنْ ظَلَمَنِي وَ غَصَبَنِي وَ ضَرَبَنِي و جَزَعَنِي بِكُلِّ أَوْلَادِي فَتَبْكِيهَا مَلَائِكَةُ السَّمَاوَاتِ السَّبْعِ وَ حَمَلَةُ الْعَرْشِ وَ سُكَّانُ الْهَوَاءِ وَ مَنْ فِي الدُّنْيَا وَ مَنْ تَحْتَ أَطْبَاقِ الثَّرَى صَائِحِينَ صَارِخِينَ إِلَى اللَّهِ تَعَالَى فَلَا يَبْقَى أَحَدٌ مِمَّنْ قَاتَلَنَا وَ ظَلَمَنَا وَ رَضِيَ بِمَا جَرَى عَلَيْنَا إِلَّا قُتِلَ فِي ذَلِكَ الْيَوْمِ أَلْفَ قَتْلَةMufazzal said: O my master then what? Imam Sadiq (a.s.): Fatima (s.a.), daughter of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) will rise and she will say: O Allah fulfill Your Promise and Undertaking concerning me regarding the one who oppressed me, usurped from me, struck me, made me restless regarding all my children. Then all angels of the seven heavens and carriers of the Arsh, residents of the atmosphere and all in the world and under the layers of the soil will weep for her with their wailing and shrieking addressed to Allah, the High. Then none will survive from our killers and oppressors and those who were satisfied with what transpired with us except that he will be killed on that day a thousand killings. (Behaar al-Anwaar vol 53 pg 23-24)
  7. Abu Basir! Don’t you want to be of those who support Lady Fatima (s.a.)?” It is written in the book Kamiluz Ziyarat ( chp 26 tdn no 7) : Abu Basir says: I was speaking with Imam Sadiq (a.s.) when one of his sons entered. Imam (a.s.) said: ‘May Allah bless you’; and then embraced and kissed him. Then he (as) said: ‘May Allah degrade those who dishonored you. May Allah avenge those who oppressed you. May Allah disappoint those who deserted you. May Allah curse those who slain you. May Allah be your guardian, protector and helper. Prophets, truthful ones, martyrs, angels of the heavens and our ladies have been weeping on you’. Then Imam (a.s.) began to weep and said: ‘Abu Basir, when I look at the children of Imam Husain (a.s.), grief overcomes me when I remember what was meted out to them and to their father.’ ‘Abu Basir, Fatima (s.a.) weeps and laments over Husain (a.s.) as a result of which Hell sighs so intensely, that if the keepers of Hell who also hear her voice did not prepare themselves to restrain it, it would burn all the inhabitants of the earth with its blazing fires and sparking fumes. So the keepers restrain it and hold its doors tightly closed as long as Fatima (s.a.) laments. Because they fear for the inhabitants of the earth. But Hell is not pacified until Fatima’s lamentation ends.’ ‘Abu Basir, the seas almost split apart and collide with each other. There is a dedicated angel for every drop of water and they prevent every drop from boiling with their wings; keeping it together because of their fear for this world and everything in it. The angels remain in fear and cry for her crying. And they pray to Allah and beseech Him, after which the inhabitants of the Arsh and those around it beg Allah.’ ‘Then their voices are raised in glorification of Allah, all because of their fear for the people of the earth. Even if one of their voices reached the earth, all the inhabitants would swoon, mountains would crumble and the earth would shake with its inhabitants.’ Abu Basir said, “May I be sacrificed on you! It is really a serious matter.” Imam (a.s.) said, “That which you have not heard is greater. Abu Basir! Don’t you want to be of those who support Lady Fatima (s.a.)?” When I heard this, I cried so much that I could not speak nor could the Imam (a.s.) do, because he was crying so intensely. Then he went to his prayer room and began to recite a supplication. So I left the Imam in that state. I could not eat or sleep that night. The following morning, I was fasting and was in extreme fear when I went to Imam (a.s.). I heaved as sigh of relief when I saw that he had calmed down; and I praised and glorified Allah, because no chastisement or calamity had befallen me. visit the blog http://theziyaratofashurah.wordpress.com/
  8. Objection 6: 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 ® 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. VISIT OPPRESSIONS UPON JANABE ZAHRA (SA) FOR MORE 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. C. Naming as Umar With regard to naming of a son of Amirul Momineen (a) as Umar: 1- Firstly: One of the habits of Umar was that he used to change the names of people. Thus, according to historians, he changed the names of many people. Balazari has written in Ansabul Ashraf: Umar bin Khattab named the son of Ali after himself.[2] In the same way, Dhahabi has written in Seer Alaamun Nubla: A son was born to Ali (a) during the period of Umar bin Khattab and the latter named the child after his own name.[3] For further emphasis, I would present the example of three other persons, whose names were changed by Umar: A- Ibrahim bin Harith Abdur Rahman bin Harith was named by his father as Ibrahim, whose name Umar changed to Abdur Rahman.[4] B- Ajda Abi Masruq Umar bin Khattab changed the name of Ajda bin Malik to Abdur Rahman.[5] C- Thalaba bin Saad The name of Mualla was Thalaba; Umar changed it to Mualla.[6] 2- Supposing we don’t accept the previous statement as was also mentioned in the beginning, can it be said that this naming was due to the attachment of Amirul Momineen (a) to Umar bin Khattab and only his name was Umar? Ibne Hajar has mentioned in Isabah, ‘Chapter of those named as Umar’, twenty-one persons among companions of the Prophet who were named as Umar.[7] How and according to which evidence was this naming due to the attachment to Umar bin Khattab? [1] Maqatilut Talibiyyin, Vol. 1, Pg. 22, Abul Faraj Ali bin Husain Isfahani (d. 356). [2] Ansabul Ashraf, Vol. 1, Pg. 297, Ahmad bin Yahya bin Jabir Balazari (d. 279 A.H.). [3] Seer Aalamun Nubla, Vol. 4, Pg. 134, Shamsuddin Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Uthman bin Qaimaz Dhahabi, Abu Abdullah, (d. 748), Mausisatur Risala, Beirut, 1413, Ninth edition, Edited: Shuaib Arnaut, Muhammad Naeem Arqasusi. [4] Al-Isabah fee Tamizus Sahaba, Vol. 5, Pg. 29, Ahmad bin Ali bin Hajar Abul Fazl Asqalani Shafei, Edited: Ali Muhammad Bajawi, Darul Jeel – Beirut, First edition, 1412 – 1992. [5] Al-Isabah fee Tamizus Sahaba, Vol. 1, Pg. 186, No. 425, Ahmad bin Ali bin Hajar Abul Fazl Asqalani Shafei, Edited: Ali Muhammad Bajawi, Darul Jeel – Beirut, First edition, 1412 – 1992. [6] Al-Ansab, Vol. 1, Pg. 250, Abul Manzar Salma bin Muslim bin Ibrahim Sahari Autabi (d. 511 A.H.) [7] Al-Isabah fee Tamizus Sahaba, Vol. 4, Pg. 587-597, Ahmad bin Ali bin Hajar Abul Fazl Asqalani Shafei (d. 854), Edited: Ali Muhammad Bajawi, Darul Jeel – Beirut, First edition, 1412 – 1992.
  9. 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? ExplanationAmong 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. Fatimawas 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] FOR MORE ARTICLES VISIT HERE B. Expectation of Lady Zahra (s) that the besiegers would seek permission to enter the house On the other hand Lady Fatima Zahra (s) was sure that Umar and the people accompanying him would not enter the house without permission according to the commands of Quran and Islamic laws, because the commands of Quran on all Muslims are as such. يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا لَا تَدْخُلُوا بُيُوتًا غَيْرَ بُيُوتِكُمْ حَتَّىٰ تَسْتَأْنِسُوا وَتُسَلِّمُوا عَلَىٰ أَهْلِهَا ۚ ذَٰلِكُمْ خَيْرٌ لَكُمْ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَذَكَّرُونَ ﴿٢٧﴾ فَإِنْ لَمْ تَجِدُوا فِيهَا أَحَدًا فَلَا تَدْخُلُوهَا حَتَّىٰ يُؤْذَنَ لَكُمْ ۖ وَإِنْ قِيلَ لَكُمُ ارْجِعُوا فَارْجِعُوا ۖ هُوَ أَزْكَىٰ لَكُمْ ۚ وَاللَّهُ بِمَا تَعْمَلُونَ عَلِيمٌ ﴿٢٨﴾“O you who believe! Do not enter houses other than your own houses until you have asked permission and saluted their inmates; this is better for you, that you may be mindful. But if you do not find anyone therein, then do not enter them until permission is given to you; and if it is said to you: Go back, then go back; this is purer for you; and Allah is Cognizant of what you do.” (Surah Nur 24:27-28) In addition to the fact that the house of divine prophets is having special position, it is necessary to accord more respect to them, as the Holy Quran has advised this especially: يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا لَا تَدْخُلُوا بُيُوتَ النَّبِيِّ إِلَّا أَنْ يُؤْذَنَ لَكُمْ“O you who believe! do not enter the houses of the Prophet unless permission is given to you…” (Surah Ahzab 33:53) Without any doubt, the house of Lady Fatima Zahra (s) is also considered as the house of the Prophet as clarified in numerous commentaries of Ahle Sunnat scholars. Famous Ahle Sunnat commentators, like Suyuti and others in the commentary of the 36th verse of Surah Nur[3] have narrated from the Messenger of Allah (s) that the house of Ali and Zahra (s) is considered to be the most excellent of the houses of the prophets.[4] In addition to this, it was expected that with attention to the status of Lady Zahra (s) and respect of the Holy Prophet (s) in the view of Muslims of the early period of Islam, the besiegers on seeing that lady would feel ashamed and not barge into the house and go away from there as some persons did on hearing the voice of Lady Zahra (s). Ibne Qutaibah Dainawari writes:Umar came to the house of Fatima with a group of people. Fatima, on hearing the voice of the crowd wailed in a loud voice: O Messenger of Allah (s)! After you what all we had to suffer at the hands of the sons of Khattab (Umar) and Abu Qahafa (Abu Bakr)?! Some people were moved by Fatima’s wailing and left the place weeping, but Umar remained there with other persons.[5] Therefore, this objection returns to the shamelessness of the attackers, who did not respect the sanctity of that house and its occupants and it does not in any way harm the character of Lady Fatima Zahra (s) and Amirul Momineen Ali Ibne Abi Talib (a). Polemical reply A. How the Prophet allowed his wives to open door for strangers? A glance at the practice of the Prophet (s) in this matter is the best rebuttal to the objection makers; because a number of instances are mentioned in books of Shia and Sunni that His Eminence permitted his wives to open the door for strangers. 1- Umme Salma and opening of the door for Ali (a):The Messenger of Allah (s) emerged from the chambers of Zainab binte Jahash and entered the room of Umme Salma since that day it was turn for him to stay at her place. Not much time passed that Ali (a) knocked at the door softly. The Messenger of Allah (s) woke up. Umme Salma did not reply. The Prophet said: Get up and open the door…[6] 2- Ayesha and opening of the door at the command of the Messenger of Allah (s):Amirul Momineen (a) says: I recited the Morning Prayers with the Messenger of Allah (s) and came out of the Masjid with him. His Eminence said: I am going to the house of Ayesha. I also came to Fatima and we all enjoyed the company of Hasan and Husain. After that I went to the house of Ayesha and knocked at the door. She asked: Who’s there? I replied: Ali. She said: The Prophet is asleep. I returned to my house and (after sometime) again came to her place and knocked. She asked: Who’s there? I replied: Ali. She said: The Prophet is busy. I could not remain patient anymore and I knocked the third time. Ayesha asked: Who’s there? I replied: Ali. I heard the voice of the Messenger of Allah (s) saying: Ayesha, open the door. Ayesha opened the door and I entered…[7] B. Why the Prophet allowed Umar and Ayesha to sit at the same table? According to reports having correct chain of narrators, which Wahabis have mentioned in most of their books, the Messenger of Allah (s) allowed Umar bin Khattab to sit with Ayesha on the same dinner table and they have even narrated that when they were eating from the same plate, the hand of Ayesha touched against Umar’s.Ibne Abi Shaybah in Musannaf, Bukhari in Adabul Mufarrad, Ibne Abi Hatim, Ibne Kathir and others have mentioned in their commentaries that:The Messenger of Allah (s) was having his dinner with Ayesha when Umar entered. His Eminence invited him to join them. Umar came forward and his hand was in the dish when it touched Ayesha’s hand. Umar said: Oh, if the Prophet had observed Hijab for his wives from me, no eye would have seen them.[8] [1] Tafsir Ayyashi, Vol. 2, Pg. 67, Abi Nadhar, Muhammad bin Masud bin Ayyash Salmi Samarqandi, alias Ayyashi (d. 323 A.H.); Researched, edited and referenced by Sayyid Hashim Rasooli Hamallati, Maktaba Ilmiya Islamiya, Tehran.Al-Ikhtisaas, Muhammad bin Muhammad bin Noman, Ibne Muallim Abi Abdullah Akbari Baghdadi Shaykh Mufeed (d. 413 A.H.), Edited: Ali Akbar Ghaffari, Sayyid Mahmud Zarandi, Darul Mufeed Lit Taba wan Nashar wa Tauzih, Beirut, Second Edition, 1414 - 1993.Biharul Anwar, Vol. 28, Pg. 227, Muhammad Baqir Majlisi (d. 1111 A.H.), Edited: Muhammad Baqir Bahbudi, Mausasul Wafa – Beirut – Lebanon, Second corrected edition, 1403 – 1983 A.D.[2] Kitab Sulaym bin Qays Hilali, Pg. 864, Sulaym bin Qays Hilali (d. 80 A.H.), Edited: Muhammad Baqir Ansari, Intisharat Hadi - Qom, First edition, 1405 A.H.[3] فِي بُيُوتٍ أَذِنَ اللَّهُ أَنْ تُرْفَعَ وَيُذْكَرَ فِيهَا اسْمُهُ يُسَبِّحُ لَهُ فِيهَا بِالْغُدُوِّ وَالْآصَالِ ﴿٣٦﴾“In houses which Allah has permitted to be exalted and that His name may be remembered in them; there glorify Him therein in the mornings and the evenings.”[4] Ibne Marduya has narrated from Ansar bin Malik and Buraidah that he said: The Messenger of Allah (s) recited this verse: “In houses which Allah has permitted to be exalted and that His name may be remembered in them; there glorify Him therein in the mornings and the evenings.” A man stood up and asked: Which house is this, O Messenger of Allah (s)? He replied: Houses of the prophets. Abu Bakr stood up and asked: O Messenger of Allah (s), is the house of Ali and Fatima from these houses. He replied: Yes, and more excellent than them.Ad-Durrul Manthur, Vol. 6, Pg. 203, Abdur Rahman bin Kamaal Jalaluddin Suyuti (d. 911 A.H.), Darul Fikr, Beirut – 1993.Al-Kashf wal Bayan (Tafsir Thalabi), Vol. 7, Pg. 107, Abu Ishaq Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Ibrahim Thalabi Nishapuri (d. 427 A.H. – 1035 A.D.), Darul Ahya Turath Arabi, Beirut, Lebanon, 1422 A.H. – 2002 A.D. First edition, Edited: Al-Imam Abu Muhammad bin Ashur, Reference and research: Ustad Nazir Saadi.Al-Jawahirul Ahsan fee Tafseeru Quran (Tafsir Thaalabi), Vol. 7, Pg. 107, Abdur Rahman bin Muhammad bin Makhluf Thaalabi (d. 875), Mausasal Aalami Lil Matbuat, Beirut.Ruhul Maani fee Tafsirul Quranil Azeem wa Saba Mathani, Vol. 18, Pg. 74, Allamah Abul Fadhl Shahabuddin Sayyid Mahmud Alusi Baghdadi, (d. 1270 A.H.), Darul Ahya Turath Arabi, Beirut.[5] Al-Imamah was Siyasah, Vol. 1, Pg. 16, Abu Muhammad Abdullah bin Muslim Ibne Qutaibah Dainawari (d.276 A.H.), Edited: Khalil al-Mansur, Darul Kutub Ilmiya, Beirut, 1418 A.H. – 1997 A.D. Edited: Shiri, Vol. 1, Pg. 38, Edited: Zaini, Vol. 1, Pg. 24[6] Tarikh Medina Damishq wa Zikr Fadhlaha wa Tasmiya man Halha minal Amail, Vol. 42, Pg. 470, Abul Qasim Ali bin Hasan Ibne Hibtullah bin Abdullah Shafei, (d. 571 A.H.), Darul Fikr, Beirut, 1995, Edited: Mohibbuddin Abi Saeed Umar bin Ghrama Umari;At-Tadween fee Akhbari Qazween, Vol. 1, Pg. 89, Abdul Karim bin Muhammad Raafi-i Qazwini (d. 623 A.H.), Darul Kutubul Ilmiya, Beirut, Edited: Azizullah Attari, 1987 A.H.[7] Al-Ihtijaj, Vol. 1, Pg. 292 & 293, Abu Mansur Ahmad bin Ali bin Abu Talib Tabarsi (d. 548 A.H.), Edited with notes: Sayyid Muhammad Baqir Khorasan, Darun Noman Lit Taba-a wan Nashr – Najaf Ashraf, 1386 A.H. 1966 A.D.[8] Fathul Bari Sharh Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 8, Pg. 531, Abul Fadhl Ahmad bin Ali bin Hajar Asqalani Shafei (d. 852 A.H.), Darul Marifa, Beirut – 1379, Edited: Muhibuddin Khatib.The above report is also mentioned in reliable Ahle Sunnat sources.
  10. Building Mosques Over Graves - ON THE SAD OCCASION OF THE DESTRUCTION OF THE GRAVES OF JANNATUL BAQI BY THE WAHABIS ( 8TH SHAWWAL -1345 AH / April 21, 1925) Pre-Islamic instances of mosques built over graves:The following list is merely indicative and should not be treated as exhaustive:1. Prophet Dawood (a.s.) in Quds, Israel2. Prophet Ibrahim (a.s.) in Hebron, Israel3. Prophet Is’haaq (a.s.) in Hebron4. Prophet Yaqoob (a.s.) in Hebron5. Prophet Yusuf (a.s.) in HebronAll these graves were elevated structures of stones and remained in this condition even after the spread of Islam in Quds. (Kashf al-Irteyaab, pg 306)Even Ibn Taimiyyah admits that the structure over Prophet Ibrahim’s (a.s.) grave existed when Islam reached Hebron and in the very presence of companions, none of whom raised any objection. Only thing is the door to the mausoleum (of Prophet Ibrahim (a.s.)) remained closed till 400 AH. (Majma’ al-Fataawaa of Ibn Taimiyyah vol 27 pg 141) FOR MORE ARTICLES CLICK HERE list of some instances to prove the point that building graves is as old as Islam itself:1. Existence of the structure i.e. Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) chamber inside which he (s.a.w.a.) lies buried. (Akhbaar al-Madinah vol. 1 pg 81)Initially the Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) room where he lies buried did not have walls. It was Umar b. Khattab who first constructed walls around it and gave it the shape of a structure. (Wafaa al-Wafaa be Ikhtiyaar al-Mustafa, vol. 2 pg 521)In fact, constructing and re-constructing walls around the Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) grave was an ongoing effort with Ayesha, Abdullah b. Zubair (during his brief reign in Medina) and Mutawakkil, among others.2. Constructing a mosque over the grave of Hazrat Hamzah (a.s.). (Ibid)3. Grave of Ibrahim – son of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) in the house of Muhammad b. Ali b. Zaid. (Ibid)4. Building a structure over the grave of Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) in the year 372 AH. (Sair-o- Aalam-e-Nobala vol 1 pg 251)5. Building a structure over the grave of Zubair in the year 386 AH. (Al-Muntazim, vol. 14 pg 377)6. Building a structure over the grave of Sa’d b. Maaz in the second century. (Sair-o-Aalam-e-Nobala vol. 13 pg 285)7. Embellishing the grave of Imam Bukhari – compiler of Sahih-e-Bukhari in 256 AH. (Al-Tabaqaat al-Shaafiyyah al-Kubra, vol. 2 pg 234)8. Abbaside Emperor Haroon al-Rashid constructed a dome over the tomb of Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) during his reign in the second century. (Sair-o-Aalam-e-Nobala vol. 16 pg 251)If leveling graves to the earth was ever mandated in Islam we can be certain that Haroon al-Rashid would definitely have done it given his animosity with the Ahle Bait (a.s.) of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and his role in the murder of the Prophet’s grandson – Imam Moosa b. Jafar al-Kazim (a.s.). On the contrary, we find that he has constructed a dome as a mark of respect for someone who he did not particularly love.9. The respected companion of the Prophet (a.s.) – Hazrat Salman-e-Muhammadi (r.a.) passed away in 36 AH. Khateeb-e-Baghdadi writes about his tomb – His grave is present even today near the palace of Kasra in Madaaen, Iraq. It is well-known heritage site and has a structure over it. (Taarikh-e-Baghdadi, vol. 1 pg 163)10. Regarding Talhah b. Abdullah – who died while fighting the caliph of his time, Ibne Batutah writes in his journal, “His grave is at the entrance of the city and over the grave is a dome and a mosque.” (Safarnaameh Ibn Batutah, vol. 1 pg 208)When this is the respect accorded by the Muslims to the grave of a companion who died on falsehood, graves of those like the Imams of the Ahle Bait (a.s.) who were martyred on truth and were in fact Imams of truth, deserve even more embellishment, veneration and respect.11. Muhammad b. Idris al-Shaafei – Imam Shaafei, one of the four jurists of the Sunni school, passed away in 204 AH. Zahabi writes, “The entire city collectively constructed a dome over his grave.” (Duwal al-Islam pg 344) Building mosques over graves is advocated by Sihaah-e-Sittah (the six compendiums of traditions regarded as highly reliable by the Ahle Tasannun)While these Muslims are quick to advance traditions from Sahih-e-Bukhari and Sahih-e-Muslim that suit their motive to brand accepted Islamic practices as apostasy, they appear oblivious to the scores of other traditions that reject their contention.1. Umar’s grave has a structureBukhari narrates in his Sahih in the Book of Janaaiz:When Umar was stabbed, he sent his son Abdullah with a message to Ayesha to – ask her – If I can be buried with my two companions i.e. in her room, next to the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and Abu Bakr.Ayesha replied: I wanted the spot for myself, but I will prefer him (Umar) to myself today.It had been her custom that if a man from among the companions requested her for that spot, she would always refuse. She herself gave the following instructions before her death: Bury me with my lady-friends (the wives of the Prophet in al-Baqi but do not bury me with the Prophet in the house, for I dislike to be held in reverence).Ibn Umar came back with the news whereupon Umar said: Nothing in the world was more important to me than that resting-place. (Sahih-e-Bukhari, Book of Janaaiz)2. Elevation of gravesAbu Bakr b. Ayyaash narrates that Sufyan al-Tammar told me that he had seen the grave of the Prophet elevated and convex. (Sahih-e-Bukhari, vol. 2 book 23, tradition 473)It is established that the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) placed a rock on top of Usman b. Maz’un’s (r.a.) grave. (Sunan-e- Abi Dawud, Al-Bayhaqi in al-Kubra, vol. 3, pg 412)The detailed report states that the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) asked a man to place a rock on top of Usman b. Maz`un’s grave; when he was unable to move it, he rolled up his sleeves and helped him till the whiteness of his arms was visible. Usman b. Maz`un was the first of the migrants buried in Baqi. Ibrahim, the Holy Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) son, was buried next to him.Kharijah b. Zaid states: I can see myself when we were young men in the time of Usman (b. Affaan). The strongest one of us in high jump was he who could jump over the grave of Usman b. Maz`un and clear it. (Sahih-e-Bukhari in Chapter: (Placing) a stalk on top of the grave; Ibn Hajar in Fath al-Baari vol. 3 pg 256 of 1959 ed., Al-Bukhari in his Al-Tarikh al-Saghir vol. 1 pg 42)These references are clear evidences for raising the grave and elevating it above the surface of the earth.Al-Shawkaani, a leading Salafi scholar, admitted that the Salaf built up the graves high as proved from above references.Ibn Hibban (in his Sahih-e-Ibn Hibban) who according to many Sunni scholars ranks as the most reliable scholar after Bukhari and Muslim has documented his visitation (Ziyaarah) to the tomb of Imam Ali b. Moosa al-Reza (a.s.) in Mashshad, Iran:I have done ziyaarah of his tomb many times, during my stay at Tus. Whenever I got into any difficulty I went to the grave of Imam Ali b. Moosa al-Raza (s.a.) and asked Allah for the fulfillment of my need. Every time I was answered and my difficulty was removed. This is such a reality that I found it to be true no matter how many times I did it. May Allah grant us death in the true love for Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and his blessed Ahle Bait! (Ibn Abi Haatim al-Raazi, Kitab al-Theqah, vol. 8 pg 457, tradition 14,411) Interpretation of traditions that prohibit building of gravesIt is clear from the Holy Quran and the Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) Sunnah and actions of the righteous ancestors that building of graves is permitted and even recommended in case of esteemed personalities. Then, how does one reconcile the apparent prohibition in some traditions?The answer is simple for those who understand the tone and tenor of such traditions. Many scholars have explained it in their works – only if these so-called Muslims would have referred to these books. Perhaps, they have referred but chose to hide the truth!Both the Ibne Hajars (Haythami and Asqalaani) among other scholars have advanced a rationale for such traditions, which is so plain that even a Muslim child will understand it.Ibn Hajar al-Haythami, who had no love lost for the Shias, in his al-Zawaajir an Iqtiraf al-Kabaair elaborates on the tradition under question that the prohibition for building graves is if the prayer is performed towards or on the grave and this is only if one prays so close to it that if while praying the prayer of those attentive (looking down), the grave would be within one’s sight. (Al-Zawaajir an Iqtiraf al-Kabaair)This was the method of the prayers of Jews and Christians and hence the prohibition. No one in the history of Islam took this tradition as proof of prohibition for the building of tombs/shrines over righteous Muslims as Muslims do not worship in this manner.Likewise, Ibn Hajar al-Asqalaani states: In view of the fact that the Jews and Christians were taking the graves of their Prophets (a.s.) as their Qiblah for the purpose of respect, and were paying attention towards them at the time of their prayers, their graves took the position of idols. Hence, Muslims have been forbidden from this action. However, if someone constructs a mosque near the grave of a pious person for the purpose of seeking blessing (tabarruk) and not for prostration or paying attention towards them, he will never be included in this prohibition (as mentioned in Surah Kahf (18): Verse 21) (Ibn Hajr al-Asqalani, Fath al-Baari vol. 3 pg 208)
  11. Objection 6: If Fatima (s) was attacked, why Bani Hashim did not defend her ExplanationWahabis, 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 Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã laid down their lives for its sake. In case we accept the attack on the house of Fatima ®, 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 replyWith 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 Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã 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. FOR MORE ARTICLES VISIT OPPRESSIONS UPON JANABE ZAHRA (SA) Role of Bani Aslam tribe in opposing Bani Hashim and strengthening of Abu Bakr’s regimeWhile Amirul Momineen Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã 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 Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã 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 Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã and wanted to reduce it to ashes.Tabari in his Tarikh, Mawardi Shafei in Hawiul Kabir and Abdul Wahab Nuwairi inNihayatul 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] Reason of absence of defense of Bani Hashim and Ansar according to the view of Amirul Momineen Úáíå ÇáÓáÇãAmirul Momineen Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã has mentioned the absence of defense by the companions (except Bani Hashim, companions and Ansar) in some of his sermons:O my Allah! I beseech Thee to take revenge on the Quraish and those who are assisting them, for they have cut asunder my kinship and overturned my cup and have joined together to contest a right to which I was entitled more than anyone else. They said to me: “If you get your right, it will be just, but if you are denied the right, that too will be just. Endure it with sadness or kill yourself in grief.” I looked around, but found no one to shield me, protect me or help me except the members of my family. I refrained from flinging them into death and therefore, closed my eyes despite the dust, kept swallowing saliva despite (the suffocation of) grief and endured pangs of anger, although it was more bitter than colocynth and more grievous than the bite of knives.[2]Ibne Abil Hadid says in Sharh Nahjul Balagha:Amirul Momineen Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã, after the incident of Saqifah expressed anguish and demanded his right; he sought help and protested; because they did not come to him and pay allegiance to him. He said facing the tomb of the Messenger of Allah (s):ابْنَ أُمَّ إِنَّ الْقَوْمَ اسْتَضْعَفُونِي وَكَادُوا يَقْتُلُونَنِي“Son of my mother! surely the people reckoned me weak and had well-nigh slain me…” (Surah Araaf 7:150)[3] There are numerous other instances as well, but we have not quoted them all here for the sake of brevity. Polemical reply according to Wahabi sourcesOn the basis of sources acceptable to Wahabis, Bani Hashim and other Ansar, by not defending Lady Fatima (s), have in fact obeyed the directions of the Messenger of Allah (s), because Wahabis in order to prove the legality of the Caliphate of the Caliphs have narrated in their books that the Messenger of Allah (s) ordered his companions that they should, at all cost, obey the Caliphs after him; even if they do not enforce the practice of the Messenger of Allah (s), seize and usurp the property of people and instead of guiding the people, encourage them to follow the path of deviation.Muslim Nishapuri has, in the report of Huzaifah bin Yaman, mentioned that the Messenger of Allah (s) said:There will be leaders, who will not be led by my guidance and who will not adopt my ways? There will be among them men who will have the hearts of devils in the bodies of human beings. I said: What should I do, O Messenger of Allah, if I (happen) to live in that time? He replied: You will listen to the Amir and carry out his orders; even if your back is flogged and your wealth is snatched, you should listen and obey.[4] On the basis of this, because of their sources, Wahabis are compelled to accept that the absence of defense of Bani Hashim and other companions was in accordance to the command of the Messenger of Allah (s) and the common good of the Islamic society. [1] Tarikh Tabari, Vol. 2, Pg. 244, Abu Ja’far Muhammad bin Jarir Tabari (d. 310 A.H.), Darul Kutub al-Ilmiyya – Beirut.Al-Hawi al-Kabir, Vol. 14, Pg. 99, Ali bin Muhammad bin Habib Mawardi Basri Shafei (d. 450 A.H.), Edited: Shaykh Ali Muhammad Maooz – Shaykh Adil Ahmad Abdul Majud, Darul Kutubul Ilmiya – Beirut – Lebanon, First edition, 1419 A.H. and 1999 A.D.Nihayatul Arab fee Funoonal Adab, Vol. 19, Pg. 21, Shahabuddin Ahmad bin Abdul Wahab Nuwairi (d. 733 A.H.), Edited: Mufeed Qamhiya and Co., Darul Kutubul Ilmiya – Beirut – Lebanon, First edition, 1424 A.H. and 2004 A.D.[2] Nahjul Balagha, Muhammad Abduh, Vol. 2, Pg. 202, Sermon 217, - Al-Imamah was Siyasah, Ibne Qutaibah, Vol. 1, Pg. 134 – Majmaul Amthal, Ahmad bin Muhammad Maidani Nishapuri (d. 528), Vol. 2, Pg. 282 – Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Ibne Abil Hadid, Vol. 6, Pg. 95 & Vol. 11, Pg. 109.[3] Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Vol. 11, Pg. 65, Abu Hamid Izzuddin bin Hibatullah bin Muhammad bin Muhammad Ibne Abil Hadid Madaini Mutazali (d. 655 A.H.), Edited: Muhammad Abdul Karim Namri, Darul Kutubul Ilmiya, Beirut / Lebanon, First Edition, 1418 A.H. – 1998 A.D.[4] Sahih Muslim, Vol. 3, Pg. 1486, Tr. 1847, Kitabul Imarah, Chapter of ‘Instruction to stick to the main body of Muslims in the time of trials and warning against those inviting people to disbelief’, Muslim bin Hajjaj Abul Hasan Qashiri Nishapuri (d. 261 A.H.), Edited: Muhammad Fawad al-Baqi, Darul Ahyaul Turathul Arabi, Beirut.
  12. On the occasion of the wiladat of Hazrat Fatemah Zahra ( Sa) -20 JAMADI UL AKHAR 1435 AH , we desire to convey our deespest love and happiness to the Holy Prophet (sawa) , Hazrat Ali (as) and all the Aimma (ams ) specially Imam e Zamana (atfs) and to all the Momeneen. May we all live and die on the wilayat of Hazrat Zahra (sa) and may Allah hasten the reappearance of her last son for her sake . يارب محمد عجل فرج آل محمد يارب محمد أحفظ غيبة أبنه محمد يارب محمـــد أنتقم لأبنه محمـــد
  13. OBJECTIONS AGAINST HAZRAT FATEMAH ZAHRA (SA) AND THEIR REPLIES - OBJECTION NO 5 PART 1 Objection 5: If Fatima (s) was attacked why Ali Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã 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 Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã 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 Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã defended Amirul Momineen Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã, 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 Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã 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 Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã, 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 Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã 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 Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã 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 Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã suddenly arose and seized Umar’s collar, jerked it hard and threw him down and hit at his nose and neck.[2] http://oppressionsuponjanabezahra.blogspot.in/ B. Ali Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã surrendered only due to the bequest of the Holy Prophet (s) Throughout his life, Amirul Momineen Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã was obedient to the commands of the Almighty Allah and only divine orders made him react; and prejudice, anger and selfish motives never made him act in response. His Eminence was commanded by the Almighty Allah and the Holy Prophet (s) to observe patience and forbearance before great calamities and it was according to this command that he was not supposed to take up arms. The Late Raziuddin Musawi in his book, Khasaisul Aaimma has written: Imam Kazim Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã says that he asked his father, Imam Sadiq Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã: What happened after the Messenger of Allah (s) swooned? My father replied: Ladies entered and started wailing. Muhajireen and Ansar gathered and expressed sorrow and grief. Ali Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã said: Suddenly they called me; I entered and threw myself on the body of the Messenger of Allah (s). He said: My brother, these people would abandon me and become engrossed in their worldly activities, but all this should not prevent you from attending to me. Your simile in my Ummah is like the simile of Kaaba that the Almighty Allah has made it a sign so that they may come to it from far off places…when I am no more and when you have concluded what I have willed you to do and you have placed my body in my grave, sit at home and compile the Quran as I have ordered, on the basis of obligatory acts, laws and sequence of revelation. I advise you to observe patience in what befalls you and Fatima at the hands of these people. Make patience your habit till you meet me.[3] Yes, at one time the command of the Almighty Allah was that enemies should not get sleep due to the fear of his Zulfiqar and at another time the command was that this same Zulfiqar should remain in its case so that the foundations of Islam remain safe and the enemies of Islam should despair of destroying it. C. Shortage of strength and power to stage an uprising On a number of occasions, Amirul Momineen Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã has considered lack of sufficient power as one of the reasons for his not having staged an uprising. The Imam has clarified in the third sermon of Nahjul Balagha: Then I began to think whether I should assault or endure calmly the blinding darkness of tribulations wherein the grown up are made feeble and the young grow old and the true believer acts under strain till he meets Allah (on his death). I found that endurance thereon was wiser. So I adopted patience, although there was p.ricking in the eye and suffocation (of mortification) in the throat. I watched the plundering of my inheritance…[4] Imam Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã says in sermon 217: I looked around, but found no one to shield me, protect me or help me, except the members of my family. I refrained from flinging them into death and therefore, closed my eyes despite the dust, kept swallowing saliva despite (the suffocation of) grief and endured pangs of anger, although it was more bitter than colocynth and more grievous than the bite of knives.[5] On another occasion the Imam pointed to thirty sheep that were grazing and said: By Allah, if I had as many supporters, I would have definitely staged an uprising.[6] Or another occasion, it is mentioned that when 360 persons pledged allegiance to the Imam, he said: Meet me tomorrow at such and such place with your heads shaved, but except for five: Abu Zar, Huzaifah, Miqdad, Ammar and Salman, no one appeared.[7] Perhaps some might judge this wrongly and say: Amirul Momineen Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã, who was the conqueror of the Battle of Badr, Uhad, Khyber, Hunain and Khandaq etc. Why he did not stage an uprising all alone? Why did he not display his feats again? We reply: There is no basis to say that Amirul Momineen Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã should act in contravention of practice of the Holy Prophet (s) and the divine prophets. It is mentioned in a report that Amirul Momineen Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã said: The Prophet advised me that if I don’t get supporters, I should restrain myself and secure my blood and that of my family members and followers.[8] D. Avoiding division among Muslims and destruction of Islam Among the reasonings based on statements and explanations of the Imam Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã it was to avoid division in the ranks of Muslims and destruction of Islam. In some reports of Amirul Momineen Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã, it is mentioned that: By Allah, if I had not feared divisions in the ranks of Muslims, their reverting to infidelity and destruction of religion, I would have definitely confronted my opponent in a way they had never seen.[9] The same point is mentioned by Ibne Abde Barr, a prominent Ahle Sunnat scholar in his book of Istiab under the biography of Rufaa bin Rafe, quoting from Amirul Momineen Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã.[10] E. Possibility of martyrdom of Lady Zahra (s) and her sons if Amirul Momineen Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã had confronted Security of women and children are among the natural and common matters in all human beings; but it is clear that if one comes to know that the aim of the enemy in confronting his ladies is only to instigate him to react so that his most important aim is fulfilled, he would keep himself under control and never do anything, which will allow the enemy to achieve his aim. The aim of the attackers on the house of revelation was that Amirul Momineen Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã should be provoked to react and through this they may prove that a person like him is prepared to use the sword to remove a large number of people for getting worldly rulership. And also if Amirul Momineen Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã had reacted and had been defeated by them, it was possible that Lady Fatima Zahra (s) and the sons would have been killed in this confrontation and the progeny of Imamate would have been cut off. Then enemies would have publicized that Ali Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã sacrificed his wife and children in pursuit of worldly rule and it was in fact the reason of their killing; as they said regarding Ammar Yasir, the loyal companion of Amirul Momineen Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã. F. Amirul Momineen Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã chose the best option Circumstances dictated that Amirul Momineen Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã should either defend the foundation of Islam and give up his right or that a small group should attack him and he should repel them by sword and in exchange the enemies of Islam and hypocrites may take advantage of the opportunity to destroy the foundation of Islam, but through this sacrifice, Imam Ali Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã secured the religion of Islam forever and rendered the enemies of Islam hopeless. Imam Ali Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã has said in the third sermon of Nahjul Balagha: Then I began to think whether I should assault or endure calmly the blinding darkness of tribulations wherein the grown up are made feeble and the young grow old and the true believer acts under strain till he meets Allah (on his death). I found that endurance thereon was wiser. So I adopted patience, although there was p.ricking in the eye and suffocation (of mortification) in the throat. I watched the plundering of my inheritance…[11] CONTINUED IN PART 2...... [1] Kitab Sulaym bin Qays Hilali, Pg. 568, Sulaym bin Qays Hilali (d. 80 A.H.), Intisharat Hadi - Qom, First edition, 1405 A.H. [2] Ruhul Maani fee Tafsirul Quranil Azeem wa Saba Mathani, Vol. 3, Pg. 124, Allamah Abul Fadhl Shahabuddin Sayyid Mahmud Alusi Baghdadi (d. 1270 A.H.), Darul Ahya Turath Arabi, Beirut. [3] Khasaisul Aaimma Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã, Pg. 73, Abul Hasan Muhammad bin Husain bin Musa Musawi Baghdadi, Sharif Razi (d. 406 A.H.), Edited and compiled by Dr. Muhammad Hadi Amini, Majmaul Bahuth Islamiya Astana Rizvia Muqaddisa, Mashad – Iran, 1406 A.H. Biharul Anwar, Vol. 22, Pg. 484, Muhammad Baqir Majlisi (d. 1111 A.H.), Edited: Muhammad Baqir Bahbudi, Mausasul Wafa – Beirut – Lebanon, Second corrected edition, 1403 – 1983 A.D. [4] Nahjul Balagha, Sermons of Imam Ali Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã, Sermon 3, Vol. 1, Pg. 31 [5] Nahjul Balagha, Sermons of Imam Ali Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã, Sermon 217, Vol. 1, Pg. 31 [6] The narrator says: The Imam came out of the Masjid and came to a walled compound in which there were thirty sheep. He said: By Allah, if I had as many supporters, who had been well wishers for Allah and His Messenger, I would have indeed removed the son of the fly snapper from his throne. Al-Kafi, Shaykh Kulaini, Vol. 8, Pg. 32 [7] At dusk 360 persons pledged allegiance of death to Amirul Momineen Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã (that they would support him till the end of their lives) Imam Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã said to them: Come besides Ahjaar Zayt (a place on the outskirts of Medina) tomorrow morning (and mentioned shaving of the heads as a sign of loyalty). Amirul Momineen Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã himself got himself tonsured, but the following day, except for Abu Zar, Miqdad, Huzaifah bin Yaman, Ammar bin Yasir and Salman, no one appeared. Ali Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã raised his hands to the sky and said: O Allah, these people have humiliated me as Bani Israel insulted Harun… Al-Kafi, Shaykh Kulaini, Vol. 8, Pg. 33 [8] Mustadrakul Wasail, Mirza Noori, Vol. 11, Pg. 75 – Misbahul Balagha(Mustadrak Nahjul Balagha), Mir Jahani, Vol. 3, Pg. 6 – Kitab Sulaym bin Qays, Edited: Muhammad Baqir Ansari, Pg, 304 – Al-Mohtazar, Hasan bin Sulaiman Hilli, Pg. 111- Hilyatul Abrar, Sayyid Hashim Bahraini, Vol. 2, Pg. 64 – Jami Ahadithus Shia, Sayyid Burujardi, Vol. 13, Pg. 41 – Al-Ghaibat, Shaykh Tusi, Pg. 193 – Al-Ihtijaj, Shaykh Tabarsi, Vol. 1, Pg. 280. [9] Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Vol. 1, Pg. 184, Abu Hamid Izuddin bin Hibatullah bin Muhammad bin Muhammad bin Abil Hadid Madaini (d. 655 A.H.), Darul Kutubul Ilmiya, Beirut / Lebanon 1418 A.H. – 1998 A.D. First edition, Edited: Muhammad Abdul Karim Namri. [10] Al-Istiab fee Marifatul Ashab, Vol. 2, Pg. 497, Yusuf bin Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Abde Barr (d. 463), Darul Jeel, Beirut, 1412, First edition, Edited: Ali Muhammad Bajawi. [11] Nahjul Balagha, Sermons of Imam Ali Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã, Sermon 3, Vol. 1, Pg. 31
  14. PLEASE CLICK BELOW FOR 24 MERSIYAS ON HAZRAT FATEMAH ZAHRA (SA) http://oppressionsuponjanabezahra.blogspot.in/p/media.html
  15. 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 replyThroughout history, Shia scholars have given various replies to this objection, which we shall briefly state in few points as follows: A. Amirul Momineen (a) defendedAmirul 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] CLICK HERE FOR MORE ARTICLES B. Ali (a) surrendered only due to the bequest of the Holy Prophet (s)Throughout his life, Amirul Momineen (a) was obedient to the commands of the Almighty Allah and only divine orders made him react; and prejudice, anger and selfish motives never made him act in response.His Eminence was commanded by the Almighty Allah and the Holy Prophet (s) to observe patience and forbearance before great calamities and it was according to this command that he was not supposed to take up arms.The Late Raziuddin Musawi in his book, Khasaisul Aaimma has written:Imam Kazim (a) says that he asked his father, Imam Sadiq (a): What happened after the Messenger of Allah (s) swooned? My father replied: Ladies entered and started wailing. Muhajireen and Ansar gathered and expressed sorrow and grief. Ali (a) said: Suddenly they called me; I entered and threw myself on the body of the Messenger of Allah (s). He said: My brother, these people would abandon me and become engrossed in their worldly activities, but all this should not prevent you from attending to me. Your simile in my Ummah is like the simile of Kaaba that the Almighty Allah has made it a sign so that they may come to it from far off places…when I am no more and when you have concluded what I have willed you to do and you have placed my body in my grave, sit at home and compile the Quran as I have ordered, on the basis of obligatory acts, laws and sequence of revelation. I advise you to observe patience in what befalls you and Fatima at the hands of these people. Make patience your habit till you meet me.[3]Yes, at one time the command of the Almighty Allah was that enemies should not get sleep due to the fear of his Zulfiqar and at another time the command was that this same Zulfiqar should remain in its case so that the foundations of Islam remain safe and the enemies of Islam should despair of destroying it. C. Shortage of strength and power to stage an uprisingOn a number of occasions, Amirul Momineen (a) has considered lack of sufficient power as one of the reasons for his not having staged an uprising. The Imam has clarified in the third sermon of Nahjul Balagha:Then I began to think whether I should assault or endure calmly the blinding darkness of tribulations wherein the grown up are made feeble and the young grow old and the true believer acts under strain till he meets Allah (on his death). I found that endurance thereon was wiser. So I adopted patience, although there was [Edited Out]ing in the eye and suffocation (of mortification) in the throat. I watched the plundering of my inheritance…[4]Imam (a) says in sermon 217:I looked around, but found no one to shield me, protect me or help me, except the members of my family. I refrained from flinging them into death and therefore, closed my eyes despite the dust, kept swallowing saliva despite (the suffocation of) grief and endured pangs of anger, although it was more bitter than colocynth and more grievous than the bite of knives.[5]On another occasion the Imam pointed to thirty sheep that were grazing and said:By Allah, if I had as many supporters, I would have definitely staged an uprising.[6]Or another occasion, it is mentioned that when 360 persons pledged allegiance to the Imam, he said: Meet me tomorrow at such and such place with your heads shaved, but except for five: Abu Zar, Huzaifah, Miqdad, Ammar and Salman, no one appeared.[7]Perhaps some might judge this wrongly and say: Amirul Momineen (a), who was the conqueror of the Battle of Badr, Uhad, Khyber, Hunain and Khandaq etc. Why he did not stage an uprising all alone? Why did he not display his feats again?We reply: There is no basis to say that Amirul Momineen (a) should act in contravention of practice of the Holy Prophet (s) and the divine prophets. It is mentioned in a report that Amirul Momineen (a) said:The Prophet advised me that if I don’t get supporters, I should restrain myself and secure my blood and that of my family members and followers.[8] D. Avoiding division among Muslims and destruction of IslamAmong the reasonings based on statements and explanations of the Imam (a) it was to avoid division in the ranks of Muslims and destruction of Islam. In some reports of Amirul Momineen (a), it is mentioned that:By Allah, if I had not feared divisions in the ranks of Muslims, their reverting to infidelity and destruction of religion, I would have definitely confronted my opponent in a way they had never seen.[9]The same point is mentioned by Ibne Abde Barr, a prominent Ahle Sunnat scholar in his book of Istiab under the biography of Rufaa bin Rafe, quoting from Amirul Momineen (a).[10] E. Possibility of martyrdom of Lady Zahra (s) and her sons if Amirul Momineen (a) had confrontedSecurity of women and children are among the natural and common matters in all human beings; but it is clear that if one comes to know that the aim of the enemy in confronting his ladies is only to instigate him to react so that his most important aim is fulfilled, he would keep himself under control and never do anything, which will allow the enemy to achieve his aim.The aim of the attackers on the house of revelation was that Amirul Momineen (a) should be provoked to react and through this they may prove that a person like him is prepared to use the sword to remove a large number of people for getting worldly rulership.And also if Amirul Momineen (a) had reacted and had been defeated by them, it was possible that Lady Fatima Zahra (s) and the sons would have been killed in this confrontation and the progeny of Imamate would have been cut off. Then enemies would have publicized that Ali (a) sacrificed his wife and children in pursuit of worldly rule and it was in fact the reason of their killing; as they said regarding Ammar Yasir, the loyal companion of Amirul Momineen (a). F. Amirul Momineen (a) chose the best optionCircumstances dictated that Amirul Momineen (a) should either defend the foundation of Islam and give up his right or that a small group should attack him and he should repel them by sword and in exchange the enemies of Islam and hypocrites may take advantage of the opportunity to destroy the foundation of Islam, but through this sacrifice, Imam Ali (a) secured the religion of Islam forever and rendered the enemies of Islam hopeless.Imam Ali (a) has said in the third sermon of Nahjul Balagha:Then I began to think whether I should assault or endure calmly the blinding darkness of tribulations wherein the grown up are made feeble and the young grow old and the true believer acts under strain till he meets Allah (on his death). I found that endurance thereon was wiser. So I adopted patience, although there was [Edited Out]ing in the eye and suffocation (of mortification) in the throat. I watched the plundering of my inheritance…[11] CONTINUED IN PART 2...... [1] Kitab Sulaym bin Qays Hilali, Pg. 568, Sulaym bin Qays Hilali (d. 80 A.H.), Intisharat Hadi - Qom, First edition, 1405 A.H.[2] Ruhul Maani fee Tafsirul Quranil Azeem wa Saba Mathani, Vol. 3, Pg. 124, Allamah Abul Fadhl Shahabuddin Sayyid Mahmud Alusi Baghdadi (d. 1270 A.H.), Darul Ahya Turath Arabi, Beirut.[3] Khasaisul Aaimma (a), Pg. 73, Abul Hasan Muhammad bin Husain bin Musa Musawi Baghdadi, Sharif Razi (d. 406 A.H.), Edited and compiled by Dr. Muhammad Hadi Amini, Majmaul Bahuth Islamiya Astana Rizvia Muqaddisa, Mashad – Iran, 1406 A.H.Biharul Anwar, Vol. 22, Pg. 484, Muhammad Baqir Majlisi (d. 1111 A.H.), Edited: Muhammad Baqir Bahbudi, Mausasul Wafa – Beirut – Lebanon, Second corrected edition, 1403 – 1983 A.D.[4] Nahjul Balagha, Sermons of Imam Ali (a), Sermon 3, Vol. 1, Pg. 31[5] Nahjul Balagha, Sermons of Imam Ali (a), Sermon 217, Vol. 1, Pg. 31[6] The narrator says: The Imam came out of the Masjid and came to a walled compound in which there were thirty sheep. He said: By Allah, if I had as many supporters, who had been well wishers for Allah and His Messenger, I would have indeed removed the son of the fly snapper from his throne.Al-Kafi, Shaykh Kulaini, Vol. 8, Pg. 32[7] At dusk 360 persons pledged allegiance of death to Amirul Momineen (a) (that they would support him till the end of their lives) Imam (a) said to them: Come besides Ahjaar Zayt (a place on the outskirts of Medina) tomorrow morning (and mentioned shaving of the heads as a sign of loyalty). Amirul Momineen (a) himself got himself tonsured, but the following day, except for Abu Zar, Miqdad, Huzaifah bin Yaman, Ammar bin Yasir and Salman, no one appeared. Ali (a) raised his hands to the sky and said: O Allah, these people have humiliated me as Bani Israel insulted Harun…Al-Kafi, Shaykh Kulaini, Vol. 8, Pg. 33[8] Mustadrakul Wasail, Mirza Noori, Vol. 11, Pg. 75 – Misbahul Balagha(Mustadrak Nahjul Balagha), Mir Jahani, Vol. 3, Pg. 6 – Kitab Sulaym bin Qays, Edited: Muhammad Baqir Ansari, Pg, 304 – Al-Mohtazar, Hasan bin Sulaiman Hilli, Pg. 111- Hilyatul Abrar, Sayyid Hashim Bahraini, Vol. 2, Pg. 64 – Jami Ahadithus Shia, Sayyid Burujardi, Vol. 13, Pg. 41 – Al-Ghaibat, Shaykh Tusi, Pg. 193 – Al-Ihtijaj, Shaykh Tabarsi, Vol. 1, Pg. 280.[9] Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Vol. 1, Pg. 184, Abu Hamid Izuddin bin Hibatullah bin Muhammad bin Muhammad bin Abil Hadid Madaini (d. 655 A.H.), Darul Kutubul Ilmiya, Beirut / Lebanon 1418 A.H. – 1998 A.D. First edition, Edited: Muhammad Abdul Karim Namri.[10] Al-Istiab fee Marifatul Ashab, Vol. 2, Pg. 497, Yusuf bin Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Abde Barr (d. 463), Darul Jeel, Beirut, 1412, First edition, Edited: Ali Muhammad Bajawi.[11] Nahjul Balagha, Sermons of Imam Ali (a), Sermon 3, Vol. 1, Pg. 31
  16. "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."
  17. The debate of Ayatollah Ghazvini with AbdulMajid Muradzehi, regrading the martyrdom of Lady Fatima (sa) CLICK HERE FOR THE DEBATE BETWEEN AYATULLAH GHAZVINI (SHIA SCHOLAR ) AND ABDUL MAJID MURADZEHI (SUNNI SCHOLAR ) REGARDING THE MARTYDOM OF LADY FATEMAH ZAHRA (SA) PERSAIN LINK FOR THE SAME DEBATE http://oppressionsuponjanabezahra.blogspot.in/
  18. Abu Bakr refuted witnesses that were produced and their testimonies were refused on different grounds We read in Futuh al Buldan, page 35: Malik bin Jawuna narrates from his father that Fatima said to Abu Bakr: ‘Rasulullah (s) bestowed Fadak to me, so return it.’ Ali testified in her favour, Abu Bakr asked for another witness, and Umm Ayman testified in support of Fatima. Upon this, Abu Bakr said: ‘O daughter of Rasulullah (s), such testimony is unacceptable unless you have two males or one male and two females, upon hearing this Fatima left.’ We also read: Jafar bin Muhammad said that Fatima said to Abu Bakr: ‘Return Fadak to me as it was given to me by Rasulullah (s)’. Abu Bakr demanded witnesses. Umm Ayman and Rabah the Servant of Rasulullah (s) testified in support of her claim. He said that such testimonies were unacceptable unless presented by one man and two women. We also read: Umm Hani states that Fatima daughter of Rasulullah (s) appeared before the Court of Abu Bakr and asked: ‘When you die who shall inherit you?’ He replied: ‘My family and descendants’. Fatima said: ‘What is your stance when you seize the inheritance of the Prophet (s) and do not give it to us?’ He said: ‘Oh daughter of Allah’s messenger, I did not seize your father’s gold and silver and this or that.’ Fatima then said: ‘Give us our share of Khayber, Fadak is our exclusive property’. He [Abu Bakr] replied: ‘Oh daughter of Rasulullah (s), I heard the Prophet (s) say that (Fadak) is a pillar that Allah (swt) has provided for me as a source of earnings during my life time, verily when I die, distribute this amongst the Muslims!.’ We read in Wafa al Wafa, Volume 3 page 999 Bab Sadaqat un Nabi: “Fadak was that land that Hadhrat Fatima claimed Rasulullah (s) had given to me. Abu Bakr demanded witnesses. ‘Ali and Umm Ayman testified. The Khaleefa replied ‘Only the testimony of a man and two women are acceptable”.
  19. Who is Truthful ??Umar & Abu Bakr OR Janabe Fatima(as) The two Caliphs were the cause of displeasure to the only daughter of Holy Prophet(s.a.w).They snatched her only source of livelihood and rejected her plea for her property of Fadak. Janabe Fatima was angry with them till she met her death!! Here is a brief account of the dispute between Abu Bakr and Janabe Fatima(as) regarding Fadak Note : Readers should read without any bias and prejudice and should bear in mind that all the references in this post are from authentic Sunni sources. This article is a reply to those people(e.g. Dr. Tahir Qadri, Irfan Shah, Moulana Ishaaq etc etc) who defend Abu Bakr and Umar and support their views with baseless arguments.It is a reply to all those videos and articles on internet regarding dispute of Fadak. Fadak was a green fertile village near Medina in the Hijaz region, and it also had a fortress called ash-Shumrukh. (Mu’jam al-Buldan, Vol. 4, p. 238; Mu’jam Masta’jam, al-Bakri, Vol. 3, p. 1015; Al-Rawd al-Mi’tar, al-Himyari, p. 437; Wafa’ al-Wafa’, Vol. 4, p. 1280). FADAK AND HAZRAT ZAHRA (SA) : CLICK HEREFadak belonged to the Jews. In the year 7 A.H., its ownership went from the Jews to the Prophet (..) under the terms of a peace settlement. The reason for this settlement was that after the fall of Khaybar, the Jews realized the real power of the Muslims, their martial aspirations were lowered. Noting that the Prophet (..) had spared the lives of some Jews who sought his protection, the Jews also sent a message of peace to the Prophet (..) and expressed their desire that Fadak should be taken from them so that their area should not be turned into a battlefield. Consequently, the Prophet (..) accepted their request and granted them amnesty. This land became his personal property wherein no one else had any right or claim, nor could there be any interest because the Muslims had a share only in those properties which they acquired as booty after jihad, whereas property acquired without jihad is called fay’ and only the Prophet (..) was entitled to it. No other person has a share in it. Thus, Allah says the following: “And whatever Allah bestows on His Messenger from them, you did not stir any horse or a camel towards it, but Allah grants authority to whomsoever of His Messengers He pleases; and Allah over all things is all-Powerful” (Holy Quran, 59: 6). No one has ever disputed the fact that Fadak was secured without battle. It was, therefore, the Prophet’s personal property to which no one else was entitled. The Historians write:. “Fadak was personal to the Prophet (..) as the Muslims did not use their horses or camels to acquire it” (Tarikh, al-Tabari, Vol. 1, pp. 1582-583, 1589; Al-Kamil, Ibn al-Athir, Vol. 2, pp. 224-225; As-Sira, Ibn Hisham, Vol. 3, p. 368; Tarikh, Ibn Khaldun, Vol. 2, part 2, p. 40; Tarikh al-Khamis, ad-Diyar-Bakri, Vol. 2, p. 58; Al-Sira al-Halabiyya, Vol. 3, p. 50). The historian and geographical scholar, Ahmed ibn Yahya al- Baladhiri (d. 279/892), writes the following: “Fadak was the personal property of the Prophet (..) as the Muslims had not used their horses nor camels for its acquisition” (Fath al-Buldan, Vol. 1, p. 33). Umar ibn al-Khattab had himself regarded Fadak as the unshared property of the Holy Prophet (..) when he declared the following: “The property of Banu an-Nadir was among that which Allah bestowed on His Messenger. Against them [its original Jewish owners], neither horses nor camels were stirred. It belonged to the Messenger of Allah specifically” (Sahih, al-Bukhari, Vol. 4, p. 46; Vol. 7, p. 82; Vol. 9, pp. 121-122 Sahih, Muslim, Vol. 5, p. 151; Al-Sunan, Abu Dawud, Vol. 3, pp. 139-141; Al- Sunan, al-Nisa’i, Vol. 7, p. 132; Al-Musnad, Ahmed ibn Hanbal, Vol. 1, pp. 25, 48, 60, 208; Al-Sunan al-Kubra, al-Bayhayqi, Vol. 6, pp. 296- 299). It is also proven, in the accepted way, that the Prophet (..) had in his lifetime given this land (Fadak) to Fatima (..) as a gift. It is narrated through al-Bazzar, Abu Ya`li, Ibn Abu Hatim, Ibn Mardawayh and others from Abu Sa’id al-Khudri and through Ibn Mardawayh from Abdullah ibn Abbas that when the verse: “And give to the near of kin his due...” (Holy Quran, 17: 26) was revealed, the Holy Prophet (..) called Fatima (..) and gave her Fadak as a gift” (Al-Durr al-Manthur, al-Sayyuti, vol, 4, p. 177; Majma’ al-Zawa’id, al-Haythami, vol, 7, p. 46; Kanz al-Ummal, al- Muttaqi al-Hindi, Vol. 3, p. 439; Ruh al-Ma’ani, al-Alusi, Vol. 15, p. 62). When Abu Bakr assumed power then, in view of reaping some benefits for his government, he turned Fatima (..) out of Fadak and took it from her possession. Thus, the historians write: “Certainly, Abu Bakr snatched Fadak from Fatima (..) (Sharh Nahjul-Balagha, Ibn Abul-Hadid, Vol. 16, p. 219; Wafa’ul-Wafa’, as-Samhudi, Vol. 3, p. 1000; Al-Sawa’iq al-Muhriqa, Ibn Hajar, p. 32). Fatima (..) raised her objection against such an injustice. Protesting to Abu Bakr, she said, “You have taken over the possession of Fadak although the Prophet (..) had given it to me as a gift during his lifetime.” To this, Abu Bakr asked her to produce a witness for the gift. Consequently, Imam Ali ibn Abu Talib (..) and Umm Ayman testified in her favor. Umm Ayman was the freed bondmaid and the dry nurse of the Holy Prophet (..). She was the mother of Usamah ibn Zayd ibn al- Harithah. The Holy Prophet (..) used to say, “Umm Ayman is my mother after my own mother” [Al-Mustadrak, Vol. 4, p. 63; al-Tabari, Vol. 3, p. 3460; Al-Isti`ab, Vol. 4, p. 1793; Usd al-Ghaba, Vol. 5, p. 567.]The Holy Prophet (..) testified that she is among the people of Paradise (Ibn Sa`d, Vol. 8, p. 192; Al-Isaba, Vol. 4, p. 432). But this testimony was held inadmissible by Abu Bakr, and Fatima’s claim was rejected as being based on a false statement. About this, al-Baladhiri writes the following: “Fatima (..) said to Abu Bakr, ‘The Messenger of Allah had appropriated Fadak to me. Therefore, give it to me.’ He asked her for a witness other than Umm Ayman, saying, ‘O daughter of the Prophet (..)! You know that testimony is not admissible except by two men or one man and two women.” After these facts, there remains no possibility of denying that Fadak was the personal property of the Prophet (..) and that he had completed its gifting to her by handing over possession in his own lifetime. But Abu Bakr took over its possession and dislodged her from it. In this regard, he rejected the testimony of Ali and Umm Ayman on the ground that the requirement of testimony was not completed when only one man and one woman testify. Besides them, Imam Hassan and Imam Hussain (..), too, testified in support for Fatima (..), but their testimony, too, was rejected on the ground that the testimony of the offspring and “minors” was not acceptable in favor of their parents. Then Rabah, slave of the Holy Prophet (..), was also produced as a witness in support for the claim of Fatima (..), bringing the number of witnesses to five. But the testimony of the virtuous Rabah, too, was rejected (Fath al-Buldan, al- Baladhiri, Vol. 1, p. 35; Tarikh, al-Ya`qubi, Vol. 3, p. 195; Muruj al- Dhahab, al-Mas`udi, Vol. 3, p. 237; Al-Awa’il, Abu Hilal al-Askari, p. 209; Wafa’ al-Wafa’, Vol. 3, pp. 999, 1000-1001; Mu’jam al-Buldan, Yaqut al-Hamawi, Vol. 4, p. 239; Sharh, Ibn Abul-Hadid, Vol. 16, pp. 216, 219-220, 274; Al-Muhalla, Ibn Hazm, Vol. 6, p. 507; Al-Sira al- Halabiyya, Vol. 3, p. 361; At-Tafsir, al-Fakhr ar-Radi, Vol. 29, p. 284). At this stage, the question arises that when Fatima’s possession of Fadak is admitted, as Imam Ali ibn Abu Talib (..) also clarifies in this letter by saying, “We had Fadak in our possession,” what was the meaning of asking Fatima (..) to produce testimony in support for her claim since the onus of proof does not lie on the person with the claim of ownership? The onus of proof lies on the person filing a counter claim, an objection, because possession itself constitutes a proof. As such, it was Abu Bakr who was required to produce a proof to the lawfulness of his own taking the contested land from its owner. In the case, if he is unable to do so, Fatima’s possession will mean an testimony of her lawful ownership. As such, it will be wrong to ask her to produce some more proof or testimony on her own. It is strange that when other claims of this nature came before Abu Bakr, he arbitrated them in favor of the claimant merely on the basis of the claim: The claimant is neither asked to provide proof of his claim nor to produce witnesses. Why did Abu Bakr apply a different standard in the case of “Sayyidatu Nisaa’ al-‘Aalameen”? Did he hold the daughter of the Prophet (..) as a liar? Or did he have other political objectives in mind when he treated her with such injustice? In this regard, the traditionists write the following: “It is related from Jabir ibn `Abdillah al- Ansari that he said that the Messenger of Allah (..) had said that when the booty from Bahrain arrived, he would allow him such-and-such of it, but the booty did not arrive till the Prophet’s death. When it arrived during the days of Abu Bakr, he went to the latter to claim it. Abu Bakr made the announcement that whoever had a claim against the Messenger of Allah or against whomsoever he had made a promise should come for his claim. So, I went to him and told him that the Prophet (..) had promised to give me such-and- such property out of the booty from Bahrain whereupon he gave me all of that” (Sahih, al-Bukhari, Vol. 3, pp. 119, 209, 236; Vol. 4, p. 110; Vol. 5, p. 218; Sahih, Muslim, Vol. 7, pp. 75-76; Al-Jami’ al-Sahih, al-Tirmidhi, Vol. 5, p. 129; Al-Musnad, Ahmed ibn Hanbal, Vol. 3, pp. 307-308; Al-Tabaqat al-Kubra, Ibn Sa`d, Vol. 2, part 2, pp.88-89). In the annotations of this tradition, Shihabud-Din Ahmed ibn Ali (Ibn Hajar) al-Asqalani ash-Shafi’i (773/1372-852/1449) and Badrud-Din Mahmud ibn Ahmed al-Ayni al-Hanafi (762/1361-855/1451) have written the following: “This tradition leads to the conclusion that the testimony of one equitable companion can be admitted as full testimony [equal to two or more] even though it may be in his own personal favor because Abu Bakr did not ask Jabir to produce any [other] witness to prove his claim. (Fath al-Bari fi Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 5, p. 380; Umdatul-Qari fi Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 12, p. 121). If it is lawful to grant property to Jabir on the basis of good impression about him without calling for witness or testimony anyone at all, then what stopped allowing Fatima’s claim on the basis of similar good impressions? Or was Abu Bakr ’s impression of the Head of the Women of Mankind not good at all? If good impression could exist in the case of Jabir to such an extent that he would not benefit by speaking a lie, then why should there not be the good belief about Fatima (..) that she would not attribute a false saying to the Prophet (..) just for a piece of land? Firstly, her admitted truthfulness and honesty was enough for holding her truthful in her claim. Moreover, the testimony of Ali and Umm Ayman in her favor was also available besides other evidences. It has been said that the claim could not be decided in favor of Fatima (..) on the basis of these two witnesses because the Holy Quran lays down the principle of testimony that: “... .then call to witness two witnesses from among your men and if there not be two men, then a man and two men” (Holy Quran, 2: 282). If this principle is universal and general, then it should be taken into regard on every occasion, not selectively. But on some occasions, it is found not to have been followed at all. For example, when an Arab had a dispute with the Prophet (..) about a camel, Khuzaymah ibn Thabit al- Ansari gave testimony in favor of the Prophet (..), and this one single witness was deemed to be equal to two because there was no doubt in the honesty and truthfulness of this individual in whose favor the testimony was led. It was for this reason that the Holy Prophet (..) granted him the title of “Dhul-Shahadatayn” (i.e. one whose testimony is equivalent to that of two) (al-Bukhari, Vol. 4, p. 24; Vol. 6, p. 146; Abu Dawud, Vol. 3, p. 308; al-Nisa’i, Vol. 7, p. 302; Ahmed ibn Hanbal, Vol. 5, pp. 188, 189, 216; Al-Isti`ab, Vol. 2, p. 448; Usd al-Ghaba, Vol. 2, p. 114; Al-Isaba, Vol. 1, pp. 425-426; Al-Musannaf, as-Sanani, Vol. 8, pp. 366-368). Consequently, neither was the generality of the verse about testimony affected by this action, nor was it deemed to be against the cannons of testimony. So, if here, in view of the Prophet’s truthfulness, one testimony in his favor was deemed to be equal to two, then could not the testimony of Ali and Umm Ayman be regarded sufficient Fatima (..) in view of her moral greatness and truthfulness? Besides, this verse does not show that there can be no other way of establishing a claim other than these two methods. In this regard, judge Nurullah al-Mar’ashi at-Tustari (956/1549-1019/1610) has written the following in Ihqaq-al-Haqq, chapter on al-Mata’in: “The view of the contention that Umm Ayman’s testimony remained incomplete is wrong on the grounds that from certain traditions, it is seen that it is lawful to give a decision on the basis of one single witness, and it does not necessarily mean that the injunction of the Holy Quran has been violated because this verse means that a decision can be given on the strength of the testimony of two men or one man and two women and that their testimony is enough. From this, it does not appear that if there are some other grounds besides the testimony of witnesses that are unacceptable and that verdict cannot be given on its basis, unless it is argued that this is the only meaning for this verse. But since every meaning is not a final argument, this notion can be brushed aside, particularly because the tradition clearly points to a contrary notion and ignoring the notion does not necessarily mean violating the verse. Secondly, the verse allows a choice between the testimony of two men or that of one man and two women. If, by virtue of the tradition, a third choice is added, namely that a verdict can be passed by means of other testimony as well, then how does it necessitate that the Quranic verse should stand violated?!” In any case, from this reply, it is clear that a claimant is not obligated to produce the testimony of two men or that of one man and two women in support for the claim. This is so because if there is one witness and the claimant swears an oath, he can then be taken to have legitimacy in his claim and a decision can be given in his favor. In this regard, it has been narrated by more than twelve companions of the Holy Prophet (..) that the Messenger of Allah (..) used to decide cases on the strength of one single witness and the taking of an oath. It has been explained by some companions of the Prophet (..) and by some scholars of jurisprudence that this decision is specially related to rights, property and transactions, and this decision was practiced by the three caliphs: Abu Bakr, `Umar and Othman (Muslim, Vol. 5, p. 128; Abu Daw..d, Vol. 3, pp. 308-309; al-Tirmidhi, Vol. 3, pp. 627-629; Ibn Majah, Vol. 2, p. 793; Ahmed ibn Hanbal, Vol. 1, pp. 248, 315, 323; Vol. 3, p. 305; Vol. 5, p. 285; Malik ibn Anas, Al-Muwatta’, Vol. 2, pp. 721-725; al-Bayhaqi, Al-Sunan al-Kubra, Vol. 10, pp. 167- 176; Al-Sunan, al-Dar Qutni, Vol. 4, pp. 212-215; Majma’az-Zawa’id, Vol. 4, p. 202; Kanz al-`Ummal, Vol. 7, p. 13). When decisions were issued based on the strength of one witness and one oath, then even if in Abu Bakr’s view the requirement of testimony was incomplete, he should have asked her to swear an oath then give a decision in her favor. But here the very objective was to tarnish the image of truthfulness of Fatima (..) so that in the future the question of her testimony should not arise. However, when Fatima’s claim was rejected in this manner and Fadak was not accepted as the Prophet’s gift to her, she claimed it on the basis of inheritance saying: “If you do not agree that the Prophet (..) had gifted it to me, you cannot at least deny that Fadak and the revenues of Khaybar as well as the lands around Medina were the Prophet’s personal properties and I am his only heir.” Yet she was deprived of her inheritance on the basis of a tradition related by Abu Bakr himself that the Holy Prophet (..) said, “We, prophets, have no successors, and whatever we leave behind constitutes charity” (al-Bukhari, Vol. 4, p. 96; Vol. 5, pp. 25-26, 115, 117; Vol. 8, p. 185; Muslim, Vol. 5, pp. 153-155; al-Tirmidhi, Vol. 4, pp. 157-158; Abu Dawud, Vol. 3, pp. 142-143; al-Nisa’i, Vol. 7, p. 132; Ahmed ibn Hanbal, Vol. 1, pp. 4, 6, 9, 10; al-Bayhaqi, Vol. 6, p. 300; Ibn Sa`d, Vol. 2, part 2, pp. 86-87; al-Tabari, Vol. 1, p. 1825; Tarikh al-Khamis, Vol. 2, pp. 173-174). Besides Abu Bakr, nobody else had any knowledge of this statement which was presented to the public as a tradition of the Prophet (..), nor had anyone from among the companions heard it at all. Who is the truthful one, Fatima (..) or Abu Bakr? Thus, Jalalu’d-Din `Abd ar- Rahman ibn Abu Bakr al-Sayyuti ash-Shafi’i (849/1445-911/1505) and Shihabud-Din Ahmed ibn Muhammad (Ibn Hajar) al-Haytami ash-Shafi’i (909/1504-974/1567) have written the following: “After the death of the Prophet (..), there was a difference of opinion about inheritance and no one had any information in this matter. Then, Abu Bakr said that he had heard the Messenger of Allah saying, ‘We, prophets, leave no successors, and whatever we leave behind constitutes charity’” (Tarikh al-Khulafa’, p.73; Al-Sawa’iq al-Muhriqa, p. 19). The mind refuses to believe that the Prophet (..) should not tell those individuals who could be deemed as his successors that they would not inherit and inform a third party that did not have even the most remote kinship to him, that there would be no heir/successor to him. Is not Abu Bakr considered as a “successor” of the Prophet (..) by many people?! Is there no contradiction here?! Then this story was made public only when the issue of Fadak was raised in the court of Abu Bakr who himself constituted the contesting party! In such circumstances, how can his presenting in his own support a tradition which no one else at all had ever heard be deemed permissible? If it is argued that this tradition should be relied upon in view of the greatness of the status of Abu Bakr, then why can Fatima’s claim to the said gift not be relied upon because of her honesty and truthfulness, more so when the testimony of Imam Ali ibn Abu Talib (..) and that of Umm Ayman, as well as of others as well, was also in her favor? If necessity was felt to call more witnesses in her case, then testimony can also be called for regarding this alleged unheard-of “tradition”, particularly since this “tradition” contradicted the general instructions of the Holy Quran relevant to the issue of succession and inheritance. How can a tradition which is weak in the manner of its relating and altered and the authenticity of which is questioned on the basis of facts to the contrary be deemed to specify a generality of the Quranic injunction on inheritance/succession because the question of the inheritance of the prophets is clearly mentioned in the Holy Quran. In this regard, Allah says the following: “... And Solomon inherited David” (Holy Quran, 27: 16). So, prophets do leave heirs/successors... At another place, the following is stated by prophet Zakariyya: “... Grant me from Yourself an heir who shall inherit me and inherit the family of Jacob” (Holy Quran, 19: 5-6). So, prophets do leave heirs/successors... In these verses, succession refers to inheriting estates, etc. To take it in its figurative meaning of succession in prophetic knowledge would not only be absurd but also against established facts because knowledge and Prophethood are not objects of succession, nor do they possess the quality of transmission through inheritance, for in that case, all the descendants of the prophets would have been prophets. There is no sense in making a distinction that the progeny of some prophets may inherit Prophethood while others should remain deprived of it. It is strange that the theory of transmission of Prophethood through inheritance is propagated by those who have always laid the objection against the Shias that they regard the Imamate and the caliphate as an objective of inheritance and confined to one family only. Would not Prophethood become an objective of inheritance by taking succession in this verse to mean succession to the Prophethood? If, in Abu Bakr’s view, by virtue of this tradition, there could be no successor of the Prophet (..), then where was this tradition when a document had been written admitting Fatima’s claim for succession? Thus, Nurud-Din Ali ibn Ibrahim al-Halabi ash-Shafi’i (975/1567- 1044/1635) quotes Shamsu’d-Din Yusuf (Sibt ibn al-Jawzi) al-Hanafi (581/1185-654/1256) narrating the following: “Abu Bakr was on the pulpit when Fatima (..) came to him and said, ‘O Abu Bakr! The Holy Quran should allow your daughter to inherit you, yet I am not to inherit my father!’ Abu Bakr started weeping and descended from the pulpit. Then he wrote her a statement about Fadak. At that time, Umar arrived and inquired what the written sheet was all about. Abu Bakr replied, ‘It is a document which I have written for Fatima (..) about the inheritance from her father.’ Umar said, ‘What will you spend on the Muslims while the Arabs are waging war against you, as you see?’ Then Umar took the document and tore it to pieces” (Al-Sira al-Halabiyya, Vol. 3, pp. 361- 362). Every sensible person who takes note of this behavior can easily reach the conclusion that this tradition is concocted and wrong. It was fabricated only to secure possession of Fadak and other inheritances. Consequently, Fatima (..) refused to accept it and expressed her anger in this way: She made a will about Abu Bakr and `Umar that the two should not participate in her funeral prayers. Aisha narrated the following: “Fatima (..), the daughter of the Holy Prophet (..), sent for Abu Bakr (after he became caliph following the death of the Holy Prophet (..) claiming from him her inheritance left for her by the Messenger of Allah from what Allah had bestowed (specifically) upon him in Medina and Fadak and what was left from the fifth (khums) of the income from Khaybar. Abu Bakr refused to hand over anything from it to Fatima (..). Then, Fatima (..) became angry with Abu Bakr and forsook him and did not talk to him till the end of her life. When she died, her husband, Ali ibn Abu Talib, buried her at night. He did not inform Abu Bakr about herdeath and performed the funeral prayers for her personally” (al-Bukhari, Vol. 5, p. 177; Vol. 8, p. 185; Muslim, Vol. 5, pp. 153-155; al-Bayhaqi, Vol. 4, p. 29; Vol. 6, pp. 300-301; Ibn Sa`d, Vol. 2, part 2, p. 86; Ahmed ibn Hanbal, Vol. 1, p. 9; al-Tabari, Vol. 1, p. 1825; Ibn Kathir, Tarikh, Vol. 5, pp. 285-286; Ibn Abul-Hadid, Vol. 6, p. 46 and Wafa’ al- Wafa’,Vol. 3, p. 995). In this regard, Umm Ja`far, the daughter of Muhammad ibn Ja`far, narrated the following about the request of Fatima (..), who was nearing her death, to Asma’ daughter of `Umays: “When I die, I want you and Ali to wash me and do not allow anyone to go into my house.” When she died, Aisha came to enter, but Asma’ said to her, “Do not enter.” Aisha complained to Abu Bakr (her father) saying, “This Khath’amiyya (woman from the tribe of Kath’am) intervenes between us and the daughter of the Messenger of Allah (..).” Abu Bakr came out, stood at the door and said, “O Asma’! What makes you prevent the wives of the Prophet (..) from entering to see the daughter of the Messenger of Allah?” Asma’ replied, “She had herself ordered me not to allow anyone to enter.” Abu Bakr said, “Do what she has ordered you” (Hilyat al- Awliya’, Vol. 2, p. 43; Al-Sunan al-Kubra, Vol. 3, p. 396; Vol. 4, p. 334;Ansab al-Ashraf, Vol. 1, p. 405; Al-Isti`ab, Vol. 4, pp. 1897-1898; Usd al-Ghaba, Vol. 5, p. 524; Al-Isaba, Vol. 4, pp. 378-379).Fatima (..) had also made a request to Imam Ali ibn Abu Talib (..) that she must be buried at night, that no one should come to her, that Abu Bakr and Umar should not be notified about her death and burial, and that Abu Bakr should not be allowed to perform the funeral prayer for her. When she died, Ali washed and buried her in the dark of the night without notifying Abu Bakr and Umar. So, these two were not aware of her burial. Muhammad ibn Umar al-Waqidi (130/747-207/823) said the following: “It has been proven to us that Ali (..) performed her funeral prayers and buried her at night accompanied by al-Abbas (ibn Abdul- Muttalib) and (his son) al-Fadl and did not notify anyone.” It was for this reason that the burial place of Fatima (..) is hidden and is unknown, none alive is sure about it (Al-Mustadrak, Vol. 3, pp. 162-163; Al-Musannaf, Vol. 4, p. 141; Ansab al-Ashraf, Vol. 1, pp. 402, 405; Al-Isti`ab, Vol. 4, p. 1898; Usd al-Ghaba, Vol. 5, pp. 524-525; Al- Isaba, Vol. 4, pp. 379-380; al-Tabari, Vol. 3, pp. 2435-2436; Ibn Sa`d, Vol. 8, pp. 19-20; Wafa’ al-Wafa’, Vol. 3, pp. 901-902, 904, 905; Ibn Abul-Hadid, Vol. 16, pp. 279-281). To attribute this displeasure of Fatima (..) to sentiments and thereby to lower its importance does not prompt a correct sentiment: If this displeasure had been the result of sentiments, Imam Ali ibn Abu Talib (..) would have stopped her from this out-of-place displeasure, but there is no historical record showing that Imam Ali ibn Abu Talib (..) took this displeasure to be as such. Besides, how could her displeasure be the result of personal feelings or sentiments since her pleasure or displeasure always agree with Allah’s will? The Prophet’s following saying is a proof of this: “O Fatima (..)! Surely Allah is angered when you are angered and is pleased when you are pleased” (Al-Mustadrak, Vol. 3, p. 153; Usd al-Ghaba, Vol. 5, p. 522; Al-Isaba, Vol. 4, p. 366; Tahthib al- Tahthib, Vol. 12, p. 441; Al-Khasa’is al-Kubra, Vol. 2, p. 265; Kanz al- Ummal, Vol. 13, p. 96; Vol. 16, p. 280; Majma’ al-Zawa’id, Vol. 9, p. 203). Dear Muslims, it is a matter of Shame that we dont know the exact grave of our Prophet(sa.w.) beloved daughter Janabe Fatima(a.s). Why she was not buried beside her father? All these things pinches us and it indicate that there was something seriously wrong between Ahlul Bayt and so called great sahabas(i.e. Umar and Abu Bakr)
  20. WHY CELEBRATE EID E ZAHRA (SA) Al-Sayed ibn Tawoos writes in the book, 'Zawaa'id al-Fawaa'id' that Ibn Abi Alaa Al-Hamadani al-Waasiti and Yahya ibn Mohammad bin Huwaij Al-Baghdadi said: We were quarreling about ibn Al-Khattab (Omar) and we became uncertain about him, so we travelled to Ahmad bin Isaac al-Qummi (Imam Hassan Al-Askari's companion) in Qum. We knocked on his door, and a young Iraqi girl opened. We asked to see Ahmad bin Isaac, to which she replied, "He is busy with his festival (eid), for it is a day of celebration" I said, "Praise be to Allah! The Shia festivals are four; Al-Fitr, Al-Ad'ha, Al-Ghadeer and Jomaa". She said, "Ahmad bin Isaac narrates from his master Abul Hassan, Ali bin Mohammad Al-Askari, that this day is a day of Eid, and it is in fact the most blessed of Eids for Ahlul Bayt and their followers" We then told her to inform him of our presence and seek permission for us to enter. FOR MORE ARTICLES CLICK HERE Ahmad bin Isaac came to greet us dressed in a loincloth and perfumed with musk. We criticized his action, to which he replied, "Don’t worry, for I have just done ritual ghusl for Day of Eid”. We said, “Is it a day of Eid?” He replied in the affirmative. It was the 9th of Rabi al-Awwal. He invited us in and when we were seated he said, “I went to visit my Master Abu al-Hassan in Samarra on the same day as this, 9th Rabi al-Awwal. He instructed all his servants to wear new clothes, and he was burning scented wood an incense pot. I said to him, “May our fathers and mothers be a sacrifice for you! O son of the Messenger of Allah! has a day of celebration been renewed for Ahlul Bayt today?” He said, “Is there a more sacred day for Ahlul bayt than this day, 9th Rabi Al-Awwal? My father narrated to me that, on this day Huthaifa bin Al-Yamani went to visit my grandfather, the Messenger of Allah (saw) . Huthaifa said, “I saw Ameerul Moumineen and his children eating with the Prophet (saw). The Prophet (saw) was looking at their faces, smiling and saying to Al-Hassan and Al-Hussain, ‘Eat! Eat! enjoy the blessings and felicities of this day!, for it is the day that Allah will destroy His enemy, and the enemy of your grandfather; It is the day Allah will accept the deeds of your followers and lovers; It is the day the Divine words of Allah will be realized, ‘See, yonder are their dwellings empty and in ruins because they did wrong’ (27:52) It is the day the pharaoh of Ahlul bayt will be annihilated, their oppressor and the usurper of their rights; It is the day Allah will proceed to what they have done of deeds, and He will render them as scattered floating dust’. I said, “O Messenger of Allah! Is there from amongst your nation and companions, he who will violate these sanctities?” The Prophet said, “Yes Huthaifa, A tyrant from amongst the hypocrites. He will rule over them in a swaggering dictatorial manner and use deceit amongst my Ummah. He will bar the people from following the path of Allah and distort His Book and change my Sunnah. He will usurp my children’s inheritance and appoint himself as an authority. He will have the audacity to attack his Imam after me and will seize the people’s wealth in a way not prescribed and will squander it disobediently. He will belie me and belie my brother and vizier. His will enviously appropriate my daughter’s rights. She will invoke God, and He will answer her prayers on a day like this”. Huthaifa said, “O Messenger of Allah, invoke Allah to destroy him in your life time” The Messenger of Allah said, “Huthaifa, I loathe challenging the decree of Allah, although I have asked Allah to give virtue to the day on which he perishes over all days, so that it becomes a practice observed by my loved ones and followers of my Ahlul bayt. Whereupon Allah, the Exalted, revealed to me saying, “O Mohammad! You and your Ahlul Bayt will be afflicted with worldly calamities and adversities, also the oppression of the hypocrites and usurpers from amongst My servants whom you counseled, only to be betrayed by them. You were sincere towards them, yet they deceived you; you showed them kindness and they drove you away.. I will, by My power and might, open 1000 doors of hellfire from the lowest pits of hell and cast therein those who usurp the rights of your brother Ali. I will make an example of that hypocrite on the Day of Judgment, and like the pharaohs of all the prophets and the enemies of the religion, I will gather them and their companions in the Hellfire and therein they will abide eternally. O Mohammad! Your vicegerent and companion will suffer much affliction from this pharaoh and usurper who will have the audacity to alter My words. He will associate with me a partner and avert people from My path. He will erect himself as the Golden Cow of your ummah and disbelieve in me. I have commanded My angels in the seven heavens, your Shia and adorers to celebrate the day I annihilated him on. And I have ordered My angels to praise Me and seek forgiveness for your Shia and adorers. O Mohammad! And I have asked the Honorable Scribes (Al-Kiraam Al-Kaatibeen) to lift the Pen on that day and not to write any of my creations errors in honor of you and your vicegerent. O Mohammad! I have made that day a day of eid for you and your Ahlul Bayt and their followers and Shia. I vow by My Glory and Magnificence that I will favor the one who celebrates that day with the rewards of the (angels) surrounding (the throne), and I will give him permission to intercede for close kin, and I will increase his wealth. And I will free, every year, on that day, thousands of your Shia, adorers and followers from the fires of hell and recompense their striving, forgive their sins and accept their deeds. Huthaifa said, “the Prophet then stood and entered the house of Um Salama, and I left with no doubts in my mind about the second (omar). And I saw him after the death of the Prophet facilitate evil, disbelieve and apostatize, embark on the seat of authority (caliphate), manipulate the Quran, burn the House of Revelation (Fatima’s), innovate in the sunnah, reject the testimony of Ameerul Moumineen, belie Fatima - the daughter of the Messenger, usurp Fadak from her, satisfy the Jews, Christians and Majoos, and annoyed the apple of the Moustafa’s eye – never ever satisfying her. He changed the traditions and lay the groundwork for the killing of Ameerul Moumineen. He manifested injustice, prohibited what Allah had made permissible and made permissible what Allah had prohibited, slapped the face of Al-Zakiyya (Fatima), and oppressively and offensively ascended the pulpit of the Prophet, slandered Ameerul moumineen and opposed and nullified his opinion”. Huthaifa said, “Allah answered the prayers of my master (Imam Ali) in relation to this hypocrite, and he was killed at the hands of (Abu Lulu) he who killed him, may Allah have mercy on his soul”. Huthaifa continues, “I visited Ameerul Moumineen to pass on my felicities when that munafiq was killed and he said, ‘O Huthaifa, do you remember that day when you visited the Messenger of Allah when his grandchildren and I were eating with him and he pointed out to you the excellence of this day’” I said, “Yes, dear brother of the Messenger of Allah” He then said, “By Allah! Today is that day – the day Allah satisfied the children of the Messenger, and I am aware of many names for this day” I asked, “O Prince of the Faithful, I would love to hear from you the names for this day – 9th rabi al-awwal” The Imam said, “It is the day of respite, the day of relief from distress and agony, it is a second Ghadir, it is the removal of burden, it is the day of favoritism and the lifting of the pen, the day of hady (gift) and aqiqa, the day of blessing, the day of vengeance. It is the Great Eid of Allah and the day supplications are answered, the day of great standing, the day of turning back, the day of provision, the day erected walls are demolished, the day of regret for the oppressors, the day of victory for the Shia, the day worries are expelled, the day of triumph, the day of submission the day of power, the day of pardon, the day of jubilance for the Shia, the day of reflection, the day of great charity, the second Fitr, the day of Allah’s path, the day of contentment, the day of Eid for Ahlul Bayt, the day of victory for Bani Israel, the day Allah accepted the deeds of the Shia, the day of providing sadaqah, the day of asking for an increase, the day the hypocrite is killed, the day of reckoning, the day of Ahlul Bayt’s cheerfulness, the day that is witnessed, the day the oppressor will bite his hands, the day misguidance will be demolished, the day of accomplishment, the day of witnessing, the day of pardon for the faithful, the day of (ALMUSTATAAB), the day the authority of the munafiq departs, the day of settlement, the day the faithful relaxes, the day of Mubahila, the day of boasting, the day of thankfulness, the day victory for the oppressed, the day of visitation, the day of love, the day innovations are exposed, the day of piety, the day of exhortation, the day of worship, the day of Islam…” Huthaifa said, “I got up and left Ameerul Moumineen, saying to myself, ‘If I do not succeed in achieving rewards for deeds other than those rewarded for this day, I would be satisfied” Mohammad bin Abi Al-alaa and Yahya bin jareeh said, “Each of us got up and kissed the forehead of Isaac and said, ‘Praised be the Lord for not taking our souls before honoring us with this blessed day – and we left his place and celebrated that day, and it is the Eid of the Shia” ( REF : Beharul Anwar v95 pg 351)
  21. Who Is Mohsin Ibn Ali (a.s.)? ( QURANIC AND HISTORICAL EVIDENCES) Mohsin Ibn Ali (a.s.) is the third son of Ali (a.s.) and Fatimah (s.a.) after Hasan (a.s.) and Husain (a.s.). He is also referred to as Mushabbar which is also the name of Prophet Haroon Ibn Imran’s (a.s.) third son. He was no more than six months fetus at the time of the attack. (Al-Hidaayat al-Kubra, p. 407, Behaar al-Anwaar, vol. 53 p. 19) Mohsin Ibn Ali (a.s.) was the least involved in the business of politics and machinations which the attack on Fatimah’s (a.s.) was all about. He was not concerned with anything that transpired on that day and no one who had any grouse with Ali (a.s.) and Fatimah (s.a.) had an argument against Mohsin Ibn Ali (a.s.). Even those who debate about the infallibility of Ali (a.s.) and Fatimah (s.a.) fall silent when the infallibility of an unborn child is raised because they have no answer. Therefore, although the entire attack on Fatimah’s (s.a.) house was illegitimate, the attack on Mohsin Ibn Ali (a.s.) in many ways was the most illegitimate part of the attack. http://oppressionsuponjanabezahra.blogspot.com/ Just like this vicious attack laid the foundation of another murderous attack 50 years later in Karbala, it is perhaps Mohsin Ibn Ali’s (a.s.) martyrdom to safeguard the infallibility of his parents (a.s.) that inspired his nephew Ali Ibn Husain (al-Asghar) to wage a battle against the enemies in Karbala to safeguard the infallibility of his father Imam Husain Ibn Ali (a.s.). Imam Husain (a.s.), of course, is unique among the oppressed ones as he is the only one present on the scenes of both the attacks – one on his parents and brother and the second on his children, nephews and another brother. It is perhaps the powerful influence of Mohsin Ibn Ali’s (a.s.) martyrdom that has led some Muslims to deny his death in the attack, attributing it to other causes. This is clearly a campaign based on misinformation or lack of information that is similar to the campaign to deny the attack on Fatimah’s (s.a.) house altogether. The attack on Fatimah’s (s.a.) house has no justification whatsoever and therefore the only way out is to deny it altogether. Of course, the biggest blow to the deniers is the martyrdom of Fatimah (s.a.) and Mohsin Ibn Ali (a.s.) in the aftermath of the attack. It is widely documented that both (a.s.) were martyred as a result of the attack; Mohsin Ibn Ali (a.s.) instantly and Fatimah (s.a.) a few days later. Documentary evidence of Mohsin Ibn Ali’s (a.s.) Martyrdom There are several well-documented narrations to establish Mohsin Ibn Ali’s (a.s.) martyrdom from the attack on Fatimah’s (s.a.) house. Those interested in seeking the truth of the matter should not be surprised to find scores of scholars and historians from across eras and predispositions (Shia and Sunni) record the martyrdom of Mohsin Ibn Ali (a.s.) in a manner that puts the issue beyond doubt. A) Mohsin Ibn Ali’s (a.s.) Martyrdom in the Holy Quran Since the first place to look for evidence of a belief or concept is in the Noble Quran, we must turn to this divine book for evidence of Mohsin Ibn Ali’s (a.s.) martyrdom. And evidence of this event appears in the 8th and 9th verses of Surah Takweer (81): ‘And when the female infant buried alive is asked, for what sin she was killed.’ Mufazzal Ibn Umar, the respected companion and special deputy of Imam Sadiq asked Imam (as) – What is your opinion about these verses? Imam (a.s.) informed: “O Mufazzal, by Allah, ‘Maudato’ (i.e. infant) in this verse means Mohsin and surely he is from us and not others. Those who claim otherwise are lying. Then Imam (a.s.) elaborated (on the events on the Day of Resurrection) – Fatimah, the daughter of the Allah’s Messenger will supplicate – O Allah fulfill Your Promise and Your Pledge with me with regards to those who oppressed me, usurped my rights, struck me and distressed me with regards to all my children. On hearing this, all the angels inhabiting the seven heavens, the carriers of the Throne and all those residing in space and the inhabitants of the earth and under the layers of the earth will lament and wail in front of Allah. Then, none will remain from those who oppressed us and killed us and those who were pleased at our oppression except that he will be killed.” (Behaar al-Anwaar, vol. 53 pp. 23-24) B) Mohsin Ibn Ali’s (a.s.) Martyrdom in Supplications Apart from the Holy Quran, supplications of the infallible guides (a.s.) are reliable sources of beliefs and concepts. The martyrdom of Mohsin Ibn Ali (a.s.) finds mention even in supplications. In the renowned Supplication of Sanamay-e-Quraish, we implore Allah to curse the oppressors (of Ahle Bait a.s.) for every fetus that they have destroyed. (Misbaah al-Mutahajjiid by Shaykh Taqi Al-Deen Ibraheem al-Kaf’ami (r.a.) p. 731) Over here, the reference to the oppressors who attacked Fatimah’s (s.a.) house resulting in Mohsin Ibn Ali’s (a.s.) martyrdom is obvious. C) Mohsin Ibn Ali’s (a.s.) Martyrdom from Sunnah and History 1. Allamah Muhammad Baqer Majlisi (r.a.) records in Behaar al-Anwaar vol. 43 p. 171 on the authority of Abu Baseer who relates from Imam Jafar Sadiq (a.s.), ‘Fatimah’s (s.a.) death resulted from being pierced by the sword which claimed (the unborn) Mohsin’s life. The perpetrator of this crime was Qunfuz, who was acting on his master Umar’s explicit command…’ 2. Ibn Shahr Aashob al-Sarvi al-Mazandarani in vol. 3 p. 132 records from Al-Maarif of Ibne Qutaybah al-Dainoori (reputed Sunni historian) – “The following were Fatimah’s children – Hasan, Husain, Zainab, Umme Kulsum and Mohsin Ibn Ali who was killed by Qunfuz Adawi (i.e. from Bani Adi, the same tribe as Umar Ibn Khattaab).” 3. Masoodi records in Isbaat al-Wilaayah p. 142 – “They attacked Fatimah’s (s.a.) house. They crushed the Chief of All Women behind the door so violently that it resulted in the miscarriage of Mohsin.” 4. Muhammad al-Shahrastaani reports in Al-Milal wa al-Nehal vol. 1 p. 57 (Beirut Edition) – “Umar struck Fatimah violently in the abdomen (on the Day of Allegiance) so much so that she fell on her abdomen (resulting in the infant’s death).” 5. Abu Abdillah Shams al-Deen al-Zahabi records in Mizaan al-Etedaal vol. 1 p. 139 – “Undoubtedly Umar kicked Fatimah so much so that it led to Mohsin’s miscarriage.” 6. Allamah Khalil Ibn Aybak al-Safadi in Al-Waafi be al-Wafiyyaat vol. 6 p. 17 records – “The Motazelah sect is of the view that on the Day of Allegiance Umar undoubtedly struck Fatimah so much so that Mohsin was killed.” 7. Abdul Qadir al-Tamimi al-Baghdadi in Al-Farq bain al-Faraaq p. 107 records on the same lines as above. 8. Sadr al-Deen Ibraheem Ibn Sa’d al-Deen Muhmmad al-Hammuee in Al-Faraaed al-Simtain vol. 2 p. 35 records on the authority of Ibne Abbas who heard the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) prophesize – ‘…it is as if I see grief and anxiety entering my daughter’s house, her respect being violated, her rights being usurped, her inheritance being denied to her, her unborn being miscarried and (in this moment of distress) she will call out – O Muhammad, but no one replies to her pleas.’ Bibliography of References Documenting Mohsin Ibn Ali’s (a.s.) Martyrdom Mohsin Ibn Ali (a.s.) martyrdom has been recorded by the following scholars/historians: I) Sunni Sources 1. Al-Milal wa al-Nehal vol. 1 p. 57 (Beirut Edition) by Muhammad al-Shahrastaani exp. 548 AH 2. Mizaan al-E’tedaal vol. 1 p. 139 by Abu Abdillah Shams al-Deen al-Zahabi exp. 748 AH 3. Al-Waafi be al-Wafiyyaat vol. 6 p. 17 by Allamah Khalil Ibn Aybak al-Safadi exp. 746 AH 4. Al-Farq bain al-Feraq p. 107 by Abdul Qadir al-Tamimi al-Baghdadi exp. 429 AH 5. Al-Faraaed al-Simtain vol. 2 p. 35 Sadr al-Deen Ibraheem Ibn Sa’d al-Deen Muhmmad al-Hammuee exp. 732 AH 6. Sharhe Nahjul Balagha vol. 4 p. 192 (Beirut Edition) by Ibne Abil Hadeed Motazali exp. 656 AH 7. Kitaabo Dalaael al-Imamah by Abu Ja’far Muhammad Ibn Jurair al-Tabari exp. 310 AH II) Shia Sources 1. Al-Manaaqeb by Ibn Shahr Aashob al-Sarvi al-Mazandarani (exp. 583 AH) vol. 3 p. 132 from Al-Maarif of Ibne Qutaybah al-Dainoori (Ahle Sunnah) 2. Isbaat al-Wilaayah by Masoodi (exp. 346 AH) p. 142 3. Al-Amaali by Shaykh al-Saduq (exp. 381 AH) p. 99 4. Bashaarah al-Mustafa le Shiah al-Murtaza p. 197 by Abu Ja’far Muhammad Ibn Abu al-Qaasim al-Tabari (sixth century scholar) 5. Iqbaal al-A’maal p. 625 by Sayyed Ibn Taawoos (exp. 664 AH) 6. Irshaad al-Quloob p. 295 by Abu Muhammad al-Hasan Ibn Abi al-Hasan Muhammad Dailami 7. Jalaa al-Uyoon vol. 1 p. 184 by Allamah Muhammad Baqer Majlisi (exp. 1111 AH) 8. Misbaah al-Kaf’ami p. 522 by Shaykh Taqi Al-Deen Ibraheem al-Kaf’ami (exp. 905 AH) 9. Al-Muhtazar p. 109 by Husain Ibn Sulayman al-Hilli, a student of al-Shaheed al-Awwal 10. Al-Kaamil p. 309 by Shaykh Bahaai (exp. 1031 AH) 11. Hadiqah al-Shia p. 265 by Ahmed Ibn Muhammad famous as Muqaddas-e-Ardebili (exp. 993 AH) 12. Ma’ani al-Akhbaar p. 205 by Shaykh al-Saduq (exp. 381 AH) 13. Ilme Yaqeen p. 686 14. Rawzah al-Muttaqeen vol. 5 p. 342 15. Behaar al-Anwaar vol. 43 p. 171 by Allamah Muhammad Baqer Majlisi (exp. 1111 AH) 16. Isbaat al-Hudaat vol. 2 p. 337 by Shaikh al-Hurr al-Aameli (exp. 1104 AH) Conclusion An unbiased view of the various references from the Majestic Quran, the Prophet’s Sunnah and history recorded by scholars and historians across eras and sects (viz. Sunni and Shia) should make it obvious to those seeking the truth that Mohsin Ibn Ali (a.s.) was martyred by the mob that attacked Fatimah’s (a.s.) house only a few days after the Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) demise.
  22. 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 ExplanationWahabis, 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 ®, 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 replyWith 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. TO READ MORE ARTICLES ON HAZRAT FATEMAH ZAHRA (SA) CLICK HERE Role of Bani Aslam tribe in opposing Bani Hashim and strengthening of Abu Bakr’s regimeWhile 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 inNihayatul 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] Reason of absence of defense of Bani Hashim and Ansar according to the view of Amirul Momineen (a)Amirul Momineen (a) has mentioned the absence of defense by the companions (except Bani Hashim, companions and Ansar) in some of his sermons:O my Allah! I beseech Thee to take revenge on the Quraish and those who are assisting them, for they have cut asunder my kinship and overturned my cup and have joined together to contest a right to which I was entitled more than anyone else. They said to me: “If you get your right, it will be just, but if you are denied the right, that too will be just. Endure it with sadness or kill yourself in grief.” I looked around, but found no one to shield me, protect me or help me except the members of my family. I refrained from flinging them into death and therefore, closed my eyes despite the dust, kept swallowing saliva despite (the suffocation of) grief and endured pangs of anger, although it was more bitter than colocynth and more grievous than the bite of knives.[2]Ibne Abil Hadid says in Sharh Nahjul Balagha:Amirul Momineen (a), after the incident of Saqifah expressed anguish and demanded his right; he sought help and protested; because they did not come to him and pay allegiance to him. He said facing the tomb of the Messenger of Allah (s):ابْنَ أُمَّ إِنَّ الْقَوْمَ اسْتَضْعَفُونِي وَكَادُوا يَقْتُلُونَنِي“Son of my mother! surely the people reckoned me weak and had well-nigh slain me…” (Surah Araaf 7:150)[3] There are numerous other instances as well, but we have not quoted them all here for the sake of brevity. Polemical reply according to Wahabi sourcesOn the basis of sources acceptable to Wahabis, Bani Hashim and other Ansar, by not defending Lady Fatima (s), have in fact obeyed the directions of the Messenger of Allah (s), because Wahabis in order to prove the legality of the Caliphate of the Caliphs have narrated in their books that the Messenger of Allah (s) ordered his companions that they should, at all cost, obey the Caliphs after him; even if they do not enforce the practice of the Messenger of Allah (s), seize and usurp the property of people and instead of guiding the people, encourage them to follow the path of deviation.Muslim Nishapuri has, in the report of Huzaifah bin Yaman, mentioned that the Messenger of Allah (s) said:There will be leaders, who will not be led by my guidance and who will not adopt my ways? There will be among them men who will have the hearts of devils in the bodies of human beings. I said: What should I do, O Messenger of Allah, if I (happen) to live in that time? He replied: You will listen to the Amir and carry out his orders; even if your back is flogged and your wealth is snatched, you should listen and obey.[4] On the basis of this, because of their sources, Wahabis are compelled to accept that the absence of defense of Bani Hashim and other companions was in accordance to the command of the Messenger of Allah (s) and the common good of the Islamic society. [1] Tarikh Tabari, Vol. 2, Pg. 244, Abu Ja’far Muhammad bin Jarir Tabari (d. 310 A.H.), Darul Kutub al-Ilmiyya – Beirut.Al-Hawi al-Kabir, Vol. 14, Pg. 99, Ali bin Muhammad bin Habib Mawardi Basri Shafei (d. 450 A.H.), Edited: Shaykh Ali Muhammad Maooz – Shaykh Adil Ahmad Abdul Majud, Darul Kutubul Ilmiya – Beirut – Lebanon, First edition, 1419 A.H. and 1999 A.D.Nihayatul Arab fee Funoonal Adab, Vol. 19, Pg. 21, Shahabuddin Ahmad bin Abdul Wahab Nuwairi (d. 733 A.H.), Edited: Mufeed Qamhiya and Co., Darul Kutubul Ilmiya – Beirut – Lebanon, First edition, 1424 A.H. and 2004 A.D.[2] Nahjul Balagha, Muhammad Abduh, Vol. 2, Pg. 202, Sermon 217, - Al-Imamah was Siyasah, Ibne Qutaibah, Vol. 1, Pg. 134 – Majmaul Amthal, Ahmad bin Muhammad Maidani Nishapuri (d. 528), Vol. 2, Pg. 282 – Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Ibne Abil Hadid, Vol. 6, Pg. 95 & Vol. 11, Pg. 109.[3] Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Vol. 11, Pg. 65, Abu Hamid Izzuddin bin Hibatullah bin Muhammad bin Muhammad Ibne Abil Hadid Madaini Mutazali (d. 655 A.H.), Edited: Muhammad Abdul Karim Namri, Darul Kutubul Ilmiya, Beirut / Lebanon, First Edition, 1418 A.H. – 1998 A.D.[4] Sahih Muslim, Vol. 3, Pg. 1486, Tr. 1847, Kitabul Imarah, Chapter of ‘Instruction to stick to the main body of Muslims in the time of trials and warning against those inviting people to disbelief’, Muslim bin Hajjaj Abul Hasan Qashiri Nishapuri (d. 261 A.H.), Edited: Muhammad Fawad al-Baqi, Darul Ahyaul Turathul Arabi, Beirut.
  23. Objection 5: If Fatima (s) was attacked why Ali Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã did not defend her? CONTINUED FROM PART 1 ...... Polemical replies to the doubt A. Why Prophet Lut Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã did not put up defense?One who has raised the above doubt and said: Why Ali Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã 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 Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã:The wife of Prophet Lut Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã was a disbeliever, the community of Lut Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã was sinful; the disbelievers forced themselves into the house of Lut Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã and saw handsome youths there. They expressed their satantic desires with regard to those youths. Prophet Lut Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã 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 Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã 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 Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã 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) TO READ MORE ARTICLES ON HAZRAT FATEMAH ZAHRA (SA) CLICK HERE 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 Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã is an occasion for some questions, why with regard to not staging an uprising by the Holy Prophet (s) inMecca 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 Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã, 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 Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã not staging an uprising. C. Why Umar did not defend his wife?Umme Jamil was well known for her wantonness and was the target of accusations by one and all; and that Mughira bin Shoba had committed fornication with her was a well known historical fact.Among the instances about which the Wahabi objection makers should reply is that:On the basis of Wahabis claims, Umme Kulthum, daughter of Amirul Momineen Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã was the wife of Umar. If we believe that this was nothing more than fiction, and the fact is something else; and that except casting numerous doubts on its fabricators it will achieve nothing; that if Allah wills we would also reply to the continuation of this objection – but in case we accept the supposition, the same objection is applicable to why Umar did not defend his wife, Umme Kulthum, which the Wahabis should reply?The matter was that Mughira bin Shoba committed fornication with Umme Jamil and three persons testified as eye-witnesses and if the fourth testimony had been obtained, Mughira would have become eligible for penalty of fornication. During the journey of Hajj, Umar asked Mughira about Umme Jamil, who at that time was his partner in fornication: Are you familiar with her? Mughira with all impudence compared Umme Jamil to Umme Kulthum. And said: Yes, she is Umme Kulthum, your wife. In fact Mughira was extremely insulting to the wife of Umar in this reply and he made allegation of fornication on Umme Kulthum. However Umar did not display any shame at this and he did not show any reaction and defense.Ibne Khallikan in Wafayatul Ayan and Abul Faraj Isfahani in Aghani have written that:During Hajj, Umme Jamil (about whom three persons testified that Mughira has committed fornication with her and because the testimony of the fourth person could not be obtained, she was saved from the penalty of fornication) was in the company of Umar and Mughira was also present in Mecca at that time. Umar asked Mughira: Do you know who this woman is? Mughira replied: Yes, this is Umme Kulthum, the daughter of Ali. Umar said: Are you pretending to be ignorant? By Allah, I think that Abu Bakra didn’t lie about you and whenever I see you, I fear that a stone will drop on my head from the sky.[2]It was when Mughira bin Shoba was an old friend and an official of Umar and was under his control at that time, but despite that Umar did not argue with him at all.Now, with numerous contradictions, which exist on this occasion, whatever justification Wahabis offer, we will give the same reply to the absence of defense of Amirul Momineen Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã for his wife. D. Why Uthman did not defend his wife?Wahabis should also reply to this subject:When the companions of the Messenger of Allah (s) attacked the house of Uthman and cut off the fingers of his wife, Uthman did not defend his wife.Whatever justification Wahabis offer here, we will give the same reply to this matter.Tabari has written in his history:Sawdan bin Humran came forward to attack Uthman, Naila binte Farafisa (Uthman’s wife) threw herself upon him. Sawdan took the sword and cut off her fingers and then hit at the teeth of Uthman’s wife and said: What a great bodyguard he is having! Then he hit Uthman and killed him.[3]Ibne Athir has mentioned the same point in his Al-Kamil fit Tarikh[4] and Ibne Kathir Damishqi Wahabi in Al-Bidaya wan Nihaya.[5]Why Uthman did not defend his wife when he was a man, having modesty and he should have defended his wife? Thus, why did he not show any reaction when he witnessed companions of the Messenger of Allah (s) insulting his wife and confronting her? E. If Amirul Momineen Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã did not defend, he also did not participate in the battles of CaliphsAmirul Momineen Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã was the most valiant person of his time, there is no doubt that he was so brave and daring that his name deprived Arab stalwarts of their sleep; so much so that Umar bin Khattab said:By Allah, if the sword of Ali Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã had not been there, the foundation of Islam would not have become stable.[6]So much so that when all the unfaithful companions of the Messenger of Allah (s) during the Battle of Uhad and Hunain deserted the Prophet and fled from the battlefield, Imam Ali Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã circled the Messenger of Allah (s) like a moth going around the flame, and he defended him, but why Imam Ali Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã did not participate in any of the battles of the Caliphs?One, who during the time of the Messenger of Allah (s) had actively participated in all the battles of Muslims against infidels, Jews…and was at the forefront bearing the standard of Islam before all the stalwarts and crushed one enemy warrior after another, why he was not present in any of the battles during the time of Caliphs?Had he lost his valor, or he did not regard fighting at the side of the Caliphs as Jihad? Or the Caliphs opposed the practice of the Messenger of Allah (s) did not choose to take his help? F. Supposing Amirul Momineen Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã did not defend, does it imply that he was in favor of oppression?With attention to the references and sources of the first part of the book in proving oppression and martyrdom of Lady Zahra (s) and also rational and polemical replies, which were given to reply to this objection, and supposing we accept that Amirul Momineen Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã did not defend his wife, does this statement imply that he overlooked oppression of others and was satisfied with it? [1] Al-Isabah fee Tamizus Sahaba, Vol. 7, Pg. 712, no. 11342, Ahmad bin Ali bin Hajar Abul Fazl Asqalani Shafei, Edited: Ali Muhammad Bajawi, Darul Jeel – Beirut, First edition, 1412 – 1992.[2] Wafayatul Ayan wa Anba Abnaul Zaman, Vol. 6, Pg. 366, Abul Abbas Shamsuddin Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Abu Bakr Ibne Khallikan (d. 681 A.H.), Edited: Ahsan Abbas, Darul Thaqafa – Lebanon.Al-Aghani, Vol. 16, Pg. 109, Abul Faraj Isfahani (d. 356 A.H.), Darul Fikr at-Taba-a wan Nashr, Lebanon, Edited: Ali Mahna and Samir Jabir.[3] Tarikh Tabari, Vol. 2, Pg. 676, Abu Ja’far Muhammad bin Jarir Tabari (d. 310), Darul Kutubul Ilmiya – Beirut.[4] Al-Kamil fit Tarikh, Vol. 3, Pg. 68, Izzuddin bin Athir Abul Hasan Ali bin Muhammad Jazari (d. 630 A.H.), Edited: Abdullah Qadi, Darul Kutubul Ilmiya – Beirut, second edition, 1415 A.H.[5] Al-Bidaya wan Nihaya, Vol. 7, Pg. 188, Ismail bin Umar bin Kathir Abul Fida Qarashi Damishqi (d. 774 A.H.), Maktabul Marif – Beirut.[6] Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Vol. 12, Pg. 51, Egypt Ibne Abil Hadid Madaini Mutazali Abu Hamid Izzuddin bin Hibatullah bin Muhammad bin Muhammad (d. 655 A.H.), Edited: Muhammad Abdul Karim Namri, Darul Kutubul Ilmiya – Beirut / Lebanon, First Edition, 1418 A.H. – 1998 A.D.
  24. CONTINUED FROM PART 1........ Objection 4: Report of ‘Fatima is a part of me’ was regarding proposal of Ali (a) to the daughter of Abu Jahl D. Miswar bin Makhrama is the sole witness of this incident It is interesting that among all those companions only this six year old child heard the Prophet and quoted him. It is not clear why the rest of the companions of the Prophet while being present in the Majid did not hear this story and did not narrate it? E. Refuting this fiction through the verses of QuranIn addition to the very difficult problems that are mentioned above, when this tradition is posed before the criterion of the Holy Quran, it is found wanting in that case also. It becomes clear that it is in no way compatible to the teachings of Quran; because Quran has clearly issued permission for men to practice polygamy and it has declared: فَانكِحُواْ مَا طَابَ لَكُم مِّنَ النِّسَاء مَثْنَى وَثُلاَثَ وَرُبَاعَ“…then marry such women as seem good to you, two and three and four.” (Surah Nisa 4:3) And we see that the Messenger of Allah (s) has followed this practice; also in fact he was the practical demonstration of this divine command, whereas the topic of the report of Miswar bin Makhrama is that the Messenger of Allah (s) has considered it unlawful for Ali (a), his son-in-law to choose a second wife.Can the Messenger of Allah (s) make something, which the Almighty Allah has allowed, to be unlawful?Also, there are many other fundamental doubts, like:1. Juwairiya had not accepted Islam till that time.2. Juwairiya considered her father, a prophet.3. Juwairiya was inimical to Amirul Momineen (a) as he had eliminated her father.For the sake of brevity, we abstain from going into details.Now, with reference to the deep malice of Juwairiya to the killer of her father and other points, which are mentioned about her, can it be imagined that she would have liked to become the wife of the killer of her father or that Amirul Momineen (a) would have liked to propose to a woman like Juwairiya? CLICK HERE FOR MORE ARTICLES Polemical reply: Why Uthman married the daughter of the Prophet and daughter of the enemy of God at the same time?Even if we overlook all the points mentioned above, which were rational rebuttals of Wahabis, and state the polemical reply as well, it should be said:In the report of Bukhari, regarding the proposal of Amirul Momineen (a), it is mentioned that:The Messenger of Allah (s) says: I do not make a legal thing illegal, nor do I make an illegal thing legal, but by Allah, the daughter of Allah’s Apostle and the daughter of the enemy of Allah, (i.e. Abu Jahl) can never get together (as the wives of one man).[1]This is in the condition that the fabricator has forgotten that by fabricating this fiction, before insulting Amirul Momineen (a) he has put Uthman bin Affan, the third Caliph of Ahle Sunnat under question, because he had after marrying the daughters of the Prophet (suppose we accept that they were daughters of Prophet), not once, but a number of times married daughters of the enemies of Allah at the same time.If it was really unlawful to marry daughters of the Prophet and daughters of enemies of Allah, how Uthman bin Affan committed this act a number of times? Did the fabricators of this fiction fulfill the conditions of this fiction? Since Ramla binte Shaybah is one of the wives of Uthman whom he married in Mecca and she was of those who moved to Medina with Uthman. Ibne Abde Barr has written concerning this:Ramla, daughter of Shaybah was of those who moved to Medina with their husband, Uthman.[2]And Shaybah, father of Uthman’s wife was an enemy of the Prophet of Islam (s); he was killed during the Battle of Badr, as Ibne Hajar has written concerning this:Ramla, daughter of Shaybah…her father was killed during the Battle of Badr while he was an idolater.[3]On the other hand, Ramla, at the time of migration to Medina, was the wife of Uthman as Ibne Hajar has mentioned further:Abu Umar has mentioned her account and said: She was an emigrant lady who migrated to Medina with her husband, Uthman.[4]And she was the wife of Uthman till his assassination as Shaibani has written in this regard:Uthman was assassinated while Ramla, daughter of Shaybah, was his wife.[5]If in fact marrying the Prophet’s daughter and daughter of Allah’s enemy had been prohibited, why the Holy Prophet (s) did not prohibit this act? And according to the claims of Ahle Sunnat, the Holy Prophet (s) married his two daughters, one after another, to Uthman?Wahabis would be compelled to either accept that the story of proposing to Abu Jahl’s daughter is basically false or accept that Prophet’s daughters were not married to Uthman or accept that Uthman committed a sinful act and in fact marriage of Prophet’s daughters to Uthman was unlawful and the marriage of Uthman to them was unlawful.In addition to the above doubts, this fiction more than that it should insult the status of Amirul Momineen (a) is insulting to the position of the Messenger of Allah (s), because as mentioned before, polygamy is lawful for all Muslim men subject to special conditions, and they can have four permanent wives at a time, but according to this fiction, the Messenger of Allah (s), in spite of the fact that the Almighty Allah considers him to be the supreme model of good morals, should be so partial to come to the Masjid dragging his cloak on the ground and say with absolute partiality: If Ali wants to marry Abu Jahl’s daughter, he should divorce my daughter!As a result of this, with reference to that which is mentioned so far, it has become very clear that the proposal of Amirul Momineen (a) to Abu Jahl’s daughter is a fiction, which Bani Umayyah have fabricated to make the Caliphs share in crimes; that by fabricating these fictions, they wanted to imply that if Umar and Abu Bakr distressed Fatima Zahra (s), Amirul Momineen (a) has also committed this act. [1] Al-Jami as-Sahih al-Mukhtasar (Sahih Bukhari), Vol. 3, Pg. 1132, Tr. no. 2443, Muhammad bin Ismail Abu Abdullah Bukhari Jofi (d. 256 A.H.), Edited: Dr. Mustafa Dibul Bagha, Daar Ibne Kathir, Yamama – Beirut, 3rdedition, 1407 – 1987.[2] Al-Istiab fee Marifatul Ashab, Vol. 4, Pg. 1846, Yusuf bin Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Abde Barr (d. 463), Darul Jeel, Beirut, 1412, First edition, Edited: Ali Muhammad al-Bajawi.[3] Al-Isabah fee Tamizus Sahaba, Vol. 7, Pg. 654, no. 11186, Ahmad bin Ali bin Hajar Abul Fazl Asqalani Shafei, Edited: Ali Muhammad Bajawi, Darul Jeel – Beirut, First edition, 1412 – 1992.[4] Al-Isabah fee Tamizus Sahaba, Vol. 7, Pg. 654, no. 11186, Ahmad bin Ali bin Hajar Abul Fazl Asqalani Shafei, Edited: Ali Muhammad Bajawi, Darul Jeel – Beirut, First edition, 1412 – 1992.[5] Al-Kamil fit Tarikh, Abul Hasan Ali bin Abil Karam Muhammad bin Muhammad bin Abdul Karim Shaibani (d. 630 A.H.), Vol. 3, Pg. 75, Darul Kutubul Ilmiya – Beirut – 1415 A.H. Second edition, Edited: Abdullah Qadi.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...