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

Who Killed Bibi Fatima (a.s)

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Basic Members

Asalaam Alaikum

I am a new shia muslim, i have head that days after the prohpet(pbuh) passed away Abu bakr and omar broke down the house of bibi fatima and slammed the door on her because they were looking for imam ali (as) my question is why couldnt the imam protect her? and why would they do such a thing to the prophets daugher? After the prophet clearly said that whoever hurts Fatima hurts me and whoever hurts me hurts Allah

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

(salam)

here are some things from ayatollah fadlullah's book on the matter, as you should know we do not have sahih proof on how she was killed or who did that. but we know certain people who wanted them to pledge to them threatened to burn down the house.

1- The attack on her house

Historians, one of whom is Ibn Qutaybah in al-Imamah wal Siyasah, said that - after the death of the Prophet and al-Saqeefah episode - men came with wood to burn down the house of Ali and Fatimah (as), to threaten them and those whom they considered as opposition, who had gathered at the house of Ali (as). Some said to the leader of the assault: 'O man! In the house is Fatimah!'; and Fatimah was the person whom the Muslims agreed to love and respect, and whose position they agreed to acknowledge, because she was the only daughter that the Prophet (sawa) left when he died, and because she was part of him - what made her angry made him angry and what harmed her harmed him... So, how come you come with fire to burn her house?

But, he replied with his famous statement: 'Even though!'

We regard this as one of the most dangerous utterances, because it means that there are no sacred entities in this house, and so there is nothing to prevent it being burned with its people inside!

This utterance points to the mindset of the people, and what they were prepared to do. However, had they opened the door to dialogue through nice words, they would have found Ali the man of dialogue, as he had always been throughout his life, even after he became a caliph; and they would have found Fatimah a woman of dialogue, because the Qur'an, to which Fatimah above all others adhered most closely to, was the book of dialogue. However, those people had already passed the stage of dialogue by the time they gathered the wood to burn the house of al-Zahra (as). So when in reply to 'In the house is Fatimah', that man said 'Even though!' this represented the ugliest form of injustice to which Fatimah (as) was subjected.

2- Other grievances

There were other events in which she suffered, but they have not always been substantiated fully beyond doubt. Those include the actual burning of the house, the breaking of her rib, the miscarriage, the slapping of her cheek, and the beating of her and others. These are recorded in narrations that may have question marks raised against them, either in their actual text (matn) or in the chain of narrators (sanad), as is the case with many historical narrations.

Therefore, we have raised some queries, as have been raised by some scholars in the past (may Allah be satisfied with them) such as Sheikh al-Mufeed[20] who seems to question the miscarriage issue, even the existence of the pregnancy - although we disagree with him on the latter. However, we do not deny that these events may have taken place - as Sheikh Muhammad Husain Kashif al-Ghita' has done regarding beating her and slapping her cheek[21] because denying requires as much proof as accepting. At any rate, what is definite is that the numerous narrations attain the level of mutawatir as a whole, confirm that there was an assault on her if only by exposing her house, attacking it and threatening to burn it - and this alone should be sufficient to prove the degree of crime which took place. It was a crime that continued to haunt those who committed it, and this was why the first caliph declared as he was dying: 'I wish I had not exposed the house of Fatimah, even if it had declared war on me.'[22]

Q9 - Fatimah's rib: what is your true position regarding this matter?

A - Any one who claims that I have said that Fatimah's rib was not broken is a liar!

Some people have been talking this nonsense for more than five years.[7] Here, I have this to say to you, to clarify the matter: to start with, I reiterate that I did not say that Fatimah's rib was not broken, and everyone who claims that I did is a liar. I merely regarded it as unlikely; I raised a question mark on the basis of historical analysis. I said: 'I do not react positively with this because the Muslims' love for Fatimah (as) had been greater than their love for Ali, and greater than their love for al-Hasan and al-Husain, and greater than that their love for the Messenger of Allah (sawa). I said that it was unlikely that anyone would commit such an act, but conceded that bad intentions were plotted - not to establish the innocence of anyone, but in fear of agitating Islamic public opinion.

There were many narrations: some said that they entered the house, while others said they did not. Hence, I said: 'I see that to be unlikely and I do not react positively to the word itself'. The world roared and heavens fell on earth, and words began to be fabricated and spread in some quarters!

This reaction has still not abated in more than one place, and leaflets are being distributed around the world. It is as if the dangers confronting the Muslims and all the injustice that we live in have become nothing, and all that matters is this historical issue!

In fact, this is a symptom of the backwardness which is being practised by many in our Islamic arena. This problem still festers among those who do not care about the dangers which confront Islam, and that the problem is still alive means that we are not addressing the major issues on the proper level of awareness.

all from http://www.al-islam....timahrolemodel/

to be able to ask why on such matters we would first need to have proof of an event more then what we have, we do not know what the cause of her death was and it is better since we do not have sahih proof on what it's cayuse was to wait til Allah sends al mahdi (a.s.) with proof and clarity on the matter, so many things come up into these matters and we have no proof on who did it or what happened to her, and we just do not know. as you know in life many possibility may arise to cause someone affliction of death, Allah knows best if it was someone breaking her rib or not, many people will go along with fabricated hadiths and say she was killed this way and by this person. but this is not a smart move as to be sure your speaking truth and believing truth you must be sure it is truth, taking weak things as truth may turn out to be wrong or may turn out to be right it is better not to ask when you have no proof to meet you on the question rather then to take non sahih hadiths as sahih. it is better just to refrain all together trust in Allah he knows it well.

(wasalam)

Edited by theunknownpreacher
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

(salam),

^ That was not his question, whether it happened or not. :dry:

From what I know, Ali (as) had made a promise to the Prophet (pbuh) that he will not unsheathe his sword, no matter what they do after the Prophet's (pbuh) demise. He will maintain unity in the Ummah, and not fight for his right. Otherwise,

As for why would they do, is because the hunger of status, money and fame, makes one blind.

wa (salam)

Edited by Basim Ali
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Basic Members

(salam),

^ That was not his question, whether it happened or not. :dry:

From what I know, Ali (as) had made a promise to the Prophet (pbuh) that he will not unsheathe his sword, no matter what they do after the Prophet's (pbuh) demise. He will maintain unity in the Ummah, and not fight for his right. Otherwise,

As for why would they do, is because the hunger of status, money and fame, makes one blind.

wa (salam)

Did the prophet ask him not to fight to expose the opression and there intentions? Because i find it very hard to believe that the man who lifted the gates of Khayber would not do anything while his wife was being mocked and beaten. I am aware that leter on they handcuffed him and dragged him on the street to humiliate LAdy Fatimah as and imam ali as...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

(salam),

^ The Prophet's (pbuh) decision could have many reasons (hidden and apparent). One of the apparent ones is the one you stated. Another one is, so that the Ummah does not divide, and the very basics of religion are not destroyed.

wa (salam)

Edited by Basim Ali
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
  • Basic Members

Salam.

The first thing is why they broke down the door of the house?

This is because they wanted to get Imam Ali (a.s) out from his house to the house of the caliph so that Imam Ali would give him his allegiance.

Then why he could not protect his wife is due to may reasons. One mainly being, that he had told the prophet (pbuh) he would be patient after him.

Why they would do this to the prophets daughter?

This too has many reasons. Mainly is that they were jealous of the position of Imam Ali and also they wanted him to give into they're caliphate ruling.

Allah (SWT) knows best then on the happenings then.

W.A

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Actually you ALL managed to forget the most important point,

Imaam Ali (as) was compiling the Qur'aan along with the tafsir from his sahifah which was dictated to him by RasulAllah (pbuh) himself,

that is why he didn't leave his home in the first place.

Thus Fatimah (SA) was protecting him (as) as his duty to the Qur'aan

was more important than the safety of either of them.

Was-Salaam

Edited by JawzofDETH
Link to post
Share on other sites
Asalaam Alaikum

I am a new shia muslim, i have head that days after the prohpet(pbuh) passed away Abu bakr and omar broke down the house of bibi fatima and slammed the door on her because they were looking for imam ali my question is why couldnt the imam protect her? and why would they do such a thing to the prophets daugher? After the prophet clearly said that whoever hurts Fatima hurts me and whoever hurts me hurts Allah

Wa Alaykum As Salam,

First I would like to welcome you as a new brother/sister in the path of Ahlulbayt. May Allah's light continue to be a source of pure guidance for you. What you have heard about the first two khaliphas is absolutely true, and it is mentioned in hundreds of sources. And just to note the brother who has quoted Fadhlullah in his doubts on this murder, has stated that Shaikh Al-Mufeed (ra) has raised doubts on this incident. This is untrue, he has never denied this incident, and if you wish I can provide you a full analysis of that claim with refutation by Ayatullah Murtaza Amili.

You bring up an excellent question, that troubles many people, not only your self. Why would these two (and those with them) take these actions, and why did Imam Ali (as) not go to battle for the sake of his wife, children and home?

To understand this you have to understand the situation of the attack. The first two had already conspired to steal the khilaphat of Imam (as), as a shia you are obviously already aware of that fact. However it was not only them who wanted this political power. The tribes that quickly gave their allegiance to them wanted to secure power and positions for them selves, and had no interest in acting on justice. However the larger population was not fully aware of the situation. Most of them gave their bayat to these two thinking that they were legitimate heirs of the prophet. Had Imam Ali (as) drew his sword and killed them (which he could have easily done) he would of thrown the entire nation in to a civil war. Don't forget that in order to stop civil war Imam Hassan (as) even went as far as signing a peace treaty with Muwaiya.

Also it is not that Imam Ali (as) stood and watched and did absolutely nothing. As soon as the criminals set fire to and broke down the door, causing the miscarriage and eventual death of Fatima Zahra (as). Imam Ali (as) charged like a lion and caused all of the cowards to scatter, he grabbed the second Khalipha by the neck and slammed him down to the ground and he told him by god if I had not taken that oath from the Prophet (pbuh) (the oath being not to take his sword on these people - in order to prevent civil war) I would kill you right now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

You need to search

You need to search

You need to search

You need to search

You need to search

And

You need to search

The truth yourself along with the help and prayers to Allah.......You need to read Quran first of all in detail & try to understand it

Then move ahead in search of truth and visit different forums and see what opinions both sects keep "Sunni and shia"(2 major sects)And then reach to a conclusion..........................

May Allah guide all....!!

Don't be misguided.No one in this world can guide except Allah....Truth is hard to find but once reached and accessed give peace of mind.......Now who is standing on truth ,u need to find....

PS: Welcome to islam first if you weren't muslim before.....

(wasalam)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wa Alaykum As Salam,

First I would like to welcome you as a new brother/sister in the path of Ahlulbayt. May Allah's light continue to be a source of pure guidance for you. What you have heard about the first two khaliphas is absolutely true, and it is mentioned in hundreds of sources. And just to note the brother who has quoted Fadhlullah in his doubts on this murder, has stated that Shaikh Al-Mufeed (ra) has raised doubts on this incident. This is untrue, he has never denied this incident, and if you wish I can provide you a full analysis of that claim with refutation by Ayatullah Murtaza Amili.

You bring up an excellent question, that troubles many people, not only your self. Why would these two (and those with them) take these actions, and why did Imam Ali (as) not go to battle for the sake of his wife, children and home?

To understand this you have to understand the situation of the attack. The first two had already conspired to steal the khilaphat of Imam (as), as a shia you are obviously already aware of that fact. However it was not only them who wanted this political power. The tribes that quickly gave their allegiance to them wanted to secure power and positions for them selves, and had no interest in acting on justice. However the larger population was not fully aware of the situation. Most of them gave their bayat to these two thinking that they were legitimate heirs of the prophet. Had Imam Ali (as) drew his sword and killed them (which he could have easily done) he would of thrown the entire nation in to a civil war. Don't forget that in order to stop civil war Imam Hassan (as) even went as far as signing a peace treaty with Muwaiya.

Also it is not that Imam Ali (as) stood and watched and did absolutely nothing. As soon as the criminals set fire to and broke down the door, causing the miscarriage and eventual death of Fatima Zahra (as). Imam Ali (as) charged like a lion and caused all of the cowards to scatter, he grabbed the second Khalipha by the neck and slammed him down to the ground and he told him by god if I had not taken that oath from the Prophet (pbuh) (the oath being not to take his sword on these people - in order to prevent civil war) I would kill you right now.

I have been looking for an answer to the same questions the OP had for a long time, so long I can't even remember. Brother, rest assured, I will pray for you in all my prayers, for you have finally put my heart at ease over this sensitive matter (that why Ali (as) didn't rip the Shaykhayn's hearts out as they critically and fatally wounded his beloved wife (as) ).

I would also appreciate it if you could provide some ahadith, particularly ones pertaining to when Ali (as) grabbed Omar by the neck.

Thank you

(wasalam)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Umar refused to return. He asked fire to be brought and he set the door on fire, then he pushed it and entered. Lady Fatimah came in front and scrambled loudly: "O Father, O Prophet of Allah."

Umar raised his sword with the shield and hit her on the side. She screamed: "O Father". He then lifted a whip and hit her on the hand and she cried: "O prophet of Allah, Abu Bakr and Umar have acted very badly after you."

Hadhrat Ali rushed, held him by the neck and pushed him away and Umar fell down and hurt his neck and nose. Hadhrat Ali intended to kill him. He remembered what the Holy Prophet had said and he said, "By him who gave Muahmmad the status of Prophethood, O son of Sahak, if the Book from Allah had not been revealed and if the Holy Prophet had not taken a promise from me before then you would have known you could have never entered my house."

Link

Link to post
Share on other sites

^^

What Shaikh al-Mufid Intended to Say in His Book Titled Al-Irshad

Someone says that Shaikh al-Mufid, may Allah sanctify his resting place, has said the following: “There are among the Shi`as those who say that Fatima, peace and blessings of Allah be upon her, miscarried a boy after the demise of the Prophet (A.S.) whom the Messenger of Allah (A.S.) named, when he was in his mother’s womb, as `Muhassan.’ So, according to this sect, the children of the Commander of the Faithful (A.S.) are twenty-eight in number, and Allah knows best.”[1]

Sayyid al-Aman has cited this statement by Shaikh al-Mufid in his book titled A`yan Al-Shi`ah, and so did al-Majlisi in his book titled Bihar al-Anwar as well as others.

If Shaikh al-Tusi was transmitting the consensus of the Shi`as that `Omer hit Fatima’s stomach till she miscarried Muhassan, and the narrative is famous among them,[2] Shaikh al-Mufid, then, contradicts al-Tusi, his contemporary and professor, and his statement gives the impression that he basically does not adopt the notion of such a miscarriage.

The answer to the above is as follows:

FIRST: The said statement does not indicate that al-Mufid contradicted al-Tusi in this regard because the word “Shi`a” used to be applied during al-Mufid’s time to many sects such as the Zaidis, Isma`alites, Imamites and others, actually even the Mu`tazilites who used to rule Baghdad and who permitted the commemoration of `ashara’ in the well known way since then. The opponents of the Shi`as used to call the latter “Rafidis.”

Al-Nawbakhti, in his book titled Firaq al-Shi`a, al-Ash`ari in his book titled Al-Maqalat wal Firaq, and Shaikh al-Mufid himself in Al-Fusal al-Mukhtara, have all discussed this issue; so, whoever wishes to see the details should refer to them and to other books dealing with schisms and sects. The honorable `allama al-Mazandarani al-Khawajoo’i has rebutted those who claimed that the word “Shi`a” was applied particularly to those who believed in Ali’s Imamate even if he does not believe in other Imams saying, “This is strange and is indicative of the limited knowledge of one’s research. There is an indication in many narratives that the Zaidis, Waqfis and their likes were also called Shi`as.”[3]

Imam al-Sadiq, peace be upon him, is quoted as having said, “`Omer ibn Yazid talked about the Shi`as in detail,” adding, “`There will be among the Shi`as after us those who are worse than the Nasibis.’ I said, `May I be your sacrifice! Don’t they claim that they love you and dissociate themselves from your enemy?’ He said, `Yes..., etc.’”[4]

Al-Mufid here does not want to attribute the narrative of al-Muhassan’s miscarriage to all the Shi`as in the general sense but rather to the Imamites in particular. He, may Allah have mercy on him, may have chosen the term “sect” after that to identify a sect from among the Shi`as that narrates the same, not all the sects labelled as “Shi`as.”

What is noteworthy is that he, may Allah have mercy on him, did not say, “Some Shi`as narrate a tradition...,” but he rather said, “Among the Shi`as are those who state that Fatima, peace of Allah be upon her, miscarried after the demise of the Prophet (A.S.)..., etc.” He, may Allah be merciful to him, did not point out to one hadith or more, nor did he point out to the size of the sect that says so from among the Shi`as in as far as their number is concerned. Rather, he pointed out to the fact that it is accurate to call them a “sect” when he said, “According to what this sect says..., etc.”

Shaikh al-Tusi, may Allah have mercy on him, is called the sect’s Mentor, meaning the sect of the Imamites, not of all the Shi`as.

SECOND: The time during which al-Mufid, may Allah have mercy on him, lived was very precarious and one of the harshest of all centuries in the history of the Shi`as of Ahl al-Bayt (A.S.). Dissensions broke out anew every year on the anniversary of Al-Ghadir and particularly on the occasion of `ashara’ when the Shi`as commemorated events which their opponents, from among the fanatical Hanbalites of Baghdad, could not tolerate. Those opponents, therefore, used to assault them and many calamities and catastrophes as well as massacres resulted as we explained in the first part of our book titled Sira` al-Hurriyya fa `Asr al-Mufid. In some years, they set fire to the homes of the Shi`as in the Karkh area, killing eighteen thousand or, according to Ibn Khaldan, twenty thousand children, youths and women.

He, may Allah have mercy on him, wanted to deal with the issues wisely and be precise. He aspired to write his book titled Al-Irshad, which he wrote near the close of his life, as a book containing, in addition to precision and scholarly honesty, historical accounts accepted by everyone, so that everyone would benefit from it. He did not want it to be anything but defining an event by its details, away from sectarianism. He even transcends the sectarian limitations and fanaticism in order to make it a book for all people.

It is for this reason that he did not mention in it noteworthy provocative and sensitive issues. He even did not include anything about the details of the incident of the saqifa or anything relevant to swearing the oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr[5]. It seems that he did not include the said incident in the realm of his balanced policies which contemplated upon the circumstances and environments and dealt with them realistically, with responsibility and awareness.

As regarding Shaikh al-Tusi, he had a book to defend specifically Imamite Shi`as because Al-Shafi contains the rebuttal by Sayyid al-Murtada to what the Mu`tazilite judge `Abd al-Jabbar had stated, so al-Tusi, may Allah have mercy on him, summarized it. Al-Tusi, then, like Sayyid al-Murtada, had written a book as an Imamite defending his sect, proving its validity. He wanted to get to the defining line that separated him from others. But Shaikh al-Mufid wanted his book, Al-Irshad, to transcend such lines to be a book of chronicles for everyone who could take a look at it and benefit from it without feeling any embarrassment or being charged.

If the Imamites are the only ones with such consensus, rather than all others from among Shi`a sects, such as the Isma`alites, Zaidis, etc., it is not then right that al-Mufid should attribute it to non-Imamite sects which have no consensus in its regard.

It is noteworthy that al-Mufid, may Allah have mercy on him, avoided stirring fanaticism on one hand, and on the other he tried to point out to a very sensitive issue in a very indirect and clever way, proving the existence of a stillborn whom the Prophet (A.S.) named “Muhassan,” leaving to the reader the task to research the fate of that boy...

THIRD: The claim that al-Mufid contradicts al-Tusi in this regard will be dealt with when we answer the following question and prove that he did not contradict him at all but agreed with him; so, there is no need to rush it now.

FOURTH: Shaikh al-Tusi was a student of al-Mufid, and al-Mufid, may Allah have mercy on him, was the Number One man among the Shi`as then; so, it is not conceivable that al-Tusi should claim that there was a consensus among the Shi`as in such emphasis, decisiveness and clarity then contradict his professor and the greatest man among the Shi`as! At least, he was supposed to tell us that his professor contradicted such consensus, or that his professor denied the existence of such a consensus!

Could al-Tusi have decided a consensus which his professor openly denied and rejected then say that only some Shi`as make such a claim?! Or was al-Tusi not familiar with his professor’s view?! Or did he arbitrarily claim such a consensus without verifying it first?! Any of these hypotheses cannot be accepted. This emphasizes al-Mufid’s objective in what he stated in Al-Irshad to be just what we have indicated above, and he did not at all intend it to contradict or reject the consensus which al-Tusi discusses.

[1]Al-Mufid, Al-Irshad, Vol. 1, p. 355 (edition published by the al al-Bayt for the revival of the legacy of Beirut, Lebanon, in 1416 A.H.).

[2]Al-Shafi, Talkhis, Vol. 3, p. 156.

[3]Al-Shafi, Talkhis, Vol. 3, p. 156.

[4]Ibid.

[5]Al-Mufid, Al-Irshad, Vol. 1, p. 189 (published by the al al-Bayt (A) Foundation)

Al-Mufid Did Not Mention What al-Tusi Mentioned

Someone says, “If Shaikh al-Tusi transmits the consensus of the Shi`as regarding the beating and the miscarriage suffered by al-Zahra’ (A.S.), then Shaikh al-Mufid is the man who was adamant in his rebuttal of those who disagreed with him in his sect contemporary to al-Tusi, and he did not mention anything in his books, other than in Al-Ikhtisas, where there is doubt cast about its attribution to him, about the issue of breaking her rib or anything else said in this regard at all.”

Then he adds saying, “I have traced the references cited in his (al-Mufid’s) books and which discuss al-Zahra’ (A.S.) and could not find any tradition regarding breaking the rib, the miscarriage, or things like that..., and I do not know if my investigation is precise (enough).”

In respond to this statement, we would like, first and foremost, to record the following observation:

This same individual insists on making a reference to the breaking of the rib although he rebuts what al-Tusi said by citing al-Mufid’s first statement proving that he undertook the task of denying everything which al-Tusi stated regarding beating al-Zahra’ (A.S.) and her miscarrying Muhassan. Al-Tusi did not discuss breaking the rib when he decided the said consensus and his report that many traditions support each other in its regard; so, what is the justification of cramming the issue of breaking the rib in this regard?!

Having stated such an observation, we would like to say that Shaikh al-Mufid did, indeed, discuss the oppression suffered by al-Zahra’ (A.S.) and much of what she had to undergo in his books.

In the field of discussing what the same individual said about this issue, I would like to state the following:

FIRST: I could not understand what is meant by the issues referred to by this speaker with the use of the phrase “things like that” which he adds to the issue of breaking her rib. Does he mean beating her (A.S.) or her miscarriage, or burning her house till the fire consumed the door’s wood?!

SECOND: Since al-Mufid did not mention any of these things in his books, if we say that this is true at all, it does not mean that he denied that it took place. Remaining silent and not mentioning something does not prove basically denying it. Rather, we have said that the report of al-Tusi, student of al-Mufid, regarding the consensus, and his taking it for granted, proves that his professor was on the top of the list of those who advocated it and were enthusiastic about it. It cannot be true that Shaikh al-Tusi should thus mention this issue in such an emphasis, with firmness, and with complete clarity, if one of his professors, whom nobody, those who agree or disagree with him, doubts his in-depth knowledge of these issues, contradicts others in this issue and denies that there was a fundamental consensus.

But if this professor, namely al-Mufid, says that very few made such a claim, the issue, i.e. the claim of consensus, becomes a lot more complicated because al-Tusi’s claim regarding the consensus becomes an open proof of lying and false attribution to the dignitaries of the sect and its symbols, and al-Tusi is much, much greater than anyone can level such a charge against him.

THIRD: When al-Mufid wants to address the Shi`as and write a book about this sect, he never hesitates to openly declare the details of what the truthful Lady, al-Zahra’ (A.S.), had to undergo. He narrates in his book titled Al-Ikhtisas from `Abdullah ibn Sinan who cites Imam al-Sadiq (A.S.) saying the following:

Abu Bakr wrote a title of her ownership of Fadak, so she went out and the title was in her hand. `Omer [ibn al-Khattab] met her. He said to her, “What is this piece of paper which you are holding, O Daughter of Muhammed?” She said, “A title written for me by Abu Bakr whereby he restored my ownership of Fadak.” He said, “Give it to me.” She refused to give it to him, so he kicked her with his foot, and she was big with Muhassan, causing her to miscarry. Then he slapped her. It is as though I can see an earring in her ear being broken. Then he took the title and tore it to pieces. She left, and she remained sick for seventy-five days because of `Omer thus beating her, following which incident she died.[1]

He, may Allah have mercy on him, has also narrated in the same book, I mean Al-Ikhtisas, another incident stating that the “second caliph” kicked her house door with his foot, breaking it, then he kicked Fatima (A.S.) with his foot, causing her to miscarry Muhassan.[2]

He has also narrated another tradition at the end of the same book wherein he quotes Aba `Abdullah (A.S.) as saying, “... and [God condemns] the killer of the Commander of the Faithful, the killer of Fatima, the killer of al-Muhassan, the killer of al-Hasan, and the killer of al-Husain..., etc.”[3]

As regarding the accuracy of attributing the book titled Al-Ikhtisas to Shaikh al-Mufid, we have stated in a query to follow that doubting the accuracy of attributing it to Shaikh al-Mufid is out of question in the absence of an acceptable or a reasonable justification. We also said that it appears that al-Mufid chose this part of the book from Al-Ikhtisas by Ibn `Imran; thereupon, his choice of this tradition in particular, may Allah have mercy on him, is due to a merit which he saw and which caused him to prefer it over others.

FOURTH: Shaikh al-Mufid, may Allah have mercy on him, discussed what al-Zahra’ (A.S.) had to go through in more than one place in his other books as well. So, notice the following:

1. Al-Kanji al-Shafi`i has cited Shaikh al-Mufid, may Allah have mercy on him, saying that the latter added to what is narrated by the mass of others the following: Fatima (A.S.) miscarried a boy after the demise of the Prophet (A.S.), one who had been named by the Messenger of Allah (A.S.) as Muhassan. This is something which is not reported by transmitters with the exception of Ibn Qutaybah.”[4]

Al-Kanji, then, attributes to specifically al-Mufid, may Allah have mercy on him, the claim that al-Muhassan was miscarried, apparently with the intention to point out to what he, may Allah have mercy on him, stated in Al-Irshad. There is a strong possibility that he had pointed out to what Al-Ikhtisas has stated. But we would like to say the following to al-Kanji in this regard: A simple review of the transmitted texts will demonstrate that many, besides Ibn Qutaybah, had also transmitted the same, and we will, Insha-Allah, mention many of such texts in the parts of this book.

2. Shaikh al-Mufid has stated in his book titled Al-Muqanna`a, which deals with Shi`i fiqh, and also in the book titled Al-Mazar, a particular ziyara of the truthful one and the pure, which states that she (A.S.) is a martyr. In it, we read the following: “Peace be upon you, the batal, the pure martyr.”[5] What was the reason behind her martyrdom other than what those folks put her through? Was she (A.S.) martyred because of an ailment that afflicted her? Or did she have an accident such as falling from her house’s rooftop?! Or was she anonymously assassinated?! Texts will be cited which al-Mufid, may Allah have mercy on him, recorded as they fit in the section dedicated to texts by the will of Allah.

3. Al-Mufid, may Allah sanctify him, recorded the attempts to set the house of al-Zahra’ (A.S.) to fire in his book titled Al-Amali from al-Ji`abi from al-`Abbas ibn al-Mugharah from Ahmed ibn Mansar al-Ramadi from Sa`ad ibn `Afar from Ibn Laha`ah from Khalid ibn Yazid from Aba Hilal from Marwan ibn `Othman saying, “When people swore the oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr, Ali (A.S.), together with al-Zubayr and al-Miqdad, remained at the house of Fatima (A.S.) and refused to get out (to swear it). `Omer ibn al-Khattab said, `Set the house on fire.’ Al-Zubayr came out with his sword unsheathed... Ali ibn Aba Talib (A.S.) came out and was met by Thabit ibn Qais ibn Shammas who asked him, `What are you going to do, O Father of al-Hasan?’ He said, `They wanted to set my house to fire while Abu Bakr is sitting on the pulpit as people swear the oath of allegiance to him, and he is neither defending us nor finding fault with the assault...’ Thabit said to him, `My hand shall never part from yours till I am killed defending you.’ They all went out and returned to Medina. Fatima was standing at her door. There was nobody inside her house at the moment. She said, `I have never seen people whose presence is worse than yours. You abandoned the corpse of the Messenger of Allah (A.S.) inside the coffin lying in front of us and settled your own affair among you without granting us any authority, then you did what you did, safeguarding no right for us.’”[6]

This tradition is quite clear in its indication that an attempt was made to enter her house by force and that they assaulted its residents because Ali (A.S.) said, “... while Abu Bakr is sitting on the pulpit as people swear the oath of allegiance to him, and he is neither defending us nor finding fault with the assault...’ There was an assault going on which needed to be stopped and an oppression which needed to be denounced. Also, the sentence saying “They wanted to set my house to fire” implies that they did make such an attempt such as gathering firewood, especially when he described how Abu Bakr was “... neither defending us nor finding fault with the assault,” that is, he neither objected to, nor did he stop, what they wanted to do, i.e. burning his house. So, the issue was not merely an empty threat. This is supported by his saying “... They wanted...” instead of saying “They threatened to set my house to fire.”

This narrative is clearly indicative of the house which they were going to assault was inside the Mosque facing the pulpit of the Messenger of Allah (A.S.) where Abu Bakr was sitting to receive the oath of allegiance after he had returned from the saqifa accompanied by his supporters who were escorting him to the Mosque and who were forcing people to swear the oath of allegiance to him. What was going on did go on before his very eyes; he neither stopped it nor even denounced it.

It is quite obvious that the grave of the Messenger of Allah (A.S.) was at the house of Fatima (A.S.), not at the house of `a’isha, as we investigated and verified[7]. They neither respected the sanctity of the grave, nor that of the Mosque, nor that of the house, nor that of al-Zahra’ (A.S.)...

4. Al-Mufid has also said the following in his book titled Al-Jamal: “When people from Bana Hashim and others assembled at Fatima’s house to demonstrate their objection to the authority of Abu Bakr and to show their differences with him, `Omer ibn al-Khattab sent Qunfath and said to him, `Get them out of the house. If they do not get out, collect firewood at its door and tell them that if they do not get out to swear the oath of allegiance, you will set the house to fire.’ Then he (`Omer) went with a group of men which included al-Mughirah ibn Shu`bah al-Thaqafi and Salim slave of Aba Huthayfah till they reached the door of Ali, peace be upon him. He (`Omer) called out: `O Fatima daughter of the Messenger of Allah! Get those who have sought shelter in your house out so that they may swear the oath of allegiance and join the Muslims in what they have agreed upon, otherwise, by Allah, I shall set them all to fire!’”[8] This narrative is quite famous. What he (al-Mufid), may Allah have mercy on him, has written in his book titled Al-Irshad what we have already quoted above, so there is no need to quote it again here.

[1]Al-Mufid, Al-Ikhtisas, p. 185. Al-Majlisi, Bihar al-Anwar, Vol. 29, p. 192.

[2]Refer to Al-Ikhtisas, p. 344 and Bihar al-Anwar, Vol. 29, pp. 192 and Vol. 28, p. 227 and Vol. 7, p. 270.

[3]Al-Mufid, Al-Ikhtisas, p. 344. Kamil al-Ziyarat, p. 327, through another isnad. Al-Majlisi, Bihar al-Anwar, Vol. 7, p. 270 and Vol. 8, p. 213. He also cited al-Saffar’s book titled Basa’ir al-Darajat.

[4]Kifayat al-Talib, p. 413.

[5]Al-Muqanna`a, p. 459. Al-Majlisi, Bihar al-Anwar, Vol. 97, p. 195. Al-Balad al-Aman, p. 198.

[6]Al-Mufid, Al-Amali, pp. 50-59.

[7]Refer to my book titled Dirasat wa Buhath fal Tarikh wal Islam (studies and researches in history and Islam), Vol. 1, p. 169, the research titled “Where was the Prophet buried: at the House of `a’isha or at Fatima’s House?”

[8]Al-Jamal (new edition), pp. 117-18.

The Book Al-Ikhtisas by Shaikh al-Mufid

We have already stated that someone has made casting some doubt about the attribution of the book titled Al-Ikhtisas to Shaikh al-Mufid an excuse for refusing to rely on what he narrates of the oppression to which al-Zahra’ (A.S.) was subjected and to refuse to attribute narrating it to al-Mufid, may Allah have mercy on him.

We say that after having taken into consideration what is said about Al-Ikhtisas by Shaikh al-Mufid, we have found such questions to be unreliable to cast doubt about the accuracy of attributing all of this to such a great man of knowledge. We are here briefly answering some of the issues which were raised about this book, so let us say the following:

1. There are many traditions in the book which start thus: “I was told by Ja`fer ibn al-Husain, the believer..., etc.,” so, some people thought that the book was written by this man!

But, mind you, there are many other traditions in the book which do not start with the name of this man but with the names of others, or they may add other individuals with the use of a conjunction pronoun. So, all of this contradicts the attribution of the book to the said individual.

2. Authors of encyclopedias, such as al-Najjashi’s Rijal, al-Tusi’s Fahrist and Ibn Shahr ashab’s Ma`alim al-`Ulem a’, do not refer to this book as being among those authored by al-Mufid.

The answer to this is that all these compilers did not mention all what al-Mufid had written. Rather, each author listed some of them, and Al-Ikhtisas is one book which they did not list. We will Insha-Allah discuss why they did not list it among his works.

3. The handwritten copies of this book contain a great deal of confusion: The book’s sermon in one copy is found at the end of all its pages in another!

The answer is that the pages of some copies may have become out of order, so the compilers put them together the best that they could.

4. Here is another question: “Muhammed ibn `Abd al-Rahman said..., etc.” “Who is this man?!”

The answer is derived from what the author himself says, as was customary among ancient authors, and not the statement of others who transmitted him, may Allah have mercy on him.

It is possible that this statement was written by some people as explanatory, then the copyists inserted it in the original through an inserious mistake which needs no proving. His choice of al-Mufid rather than anyone else was due to the reference to some of al-Mufid’s mentors in the book. It is said to him: “Just as these were his mentors, they were the mentors of others as well.” But there are in the book others who are not known to be al-Mufid’s mentors, that the book is al-Mufid’s, and that the other possibilities were not taken into consideration, and they are more numerous!

5. The book is formatted more like a collection of narratives most of which deal with the virtues of Ahl al-Bayt, peace be upon them. It does not follow its sequence, according to a logical and harmonious procedure, whereas al-Mufid is characterized by precision and innovation.

We say that this is not a fault in the book. The objective of some authors may be to write collections of narratives or something else. Al-Mufid himself is the writer of the book titled Al-Amali, a modern book which is also formatted like a collection of narratives. Shaikh al-Mufid’s precision and innovation do not have to manifest themselves in his modern books as is obvious. Regardless of this fact, the book is a selection by Shaikh al-Mufid of citations from the book titled Al-Ikhtisas by Ibn `Imran as we shall see.

6. There are researches in the book which are not in sync with al-Mufid’s views in all his books, nor does the general framework of the book itself indicate that it is authored by an intellectual such as Shaikh al-Mufid; rather, it is closer to the writing of a modernist such as Shaikh al-Saduq, for example.

The answer to this is already known from what we have already stated, that is, the objective may have been to safeguard some traditions within a collection of narratives as is the case with Al-Amali, for example, one of which was written by Shaikh al-Mufid. Add to this the possibility that the compilation of these traditions may have taken place before al-Mufid became an imam in tenets, fiq, etc.

The objective behind compiling them may not have been to put them together as a book artistically arranged which people handle and upon which they rely. Add to this the fact that the view relevant to the traditions or to the doctrine does not prohibit the importation of what may contradict it, such as the traditions which may agree therewith. A scholar is characterized by conforming to the rules of the research of hadith when he studies it and to also uphold all the restrictions and follow the procedures adhered to with regard to traditions and to transmitting and selecting them while assuming the role of a traditionist. For this reason, we find the traditionists narrating contradictory incidents in their books despite their adoption and acceptance of a particular group thereof, especially in the area of fiqh, and this can be seen from reviewing the books of al-Kulayni and al-Saduq as well as those of others.

We have seen how a scholar writes assuming the role of a traditionist, as is the case with al-Tusi, may Allah sanctify him, who wrote Al-Nihaya, which is a collection of narratives. A philosopher may write like those who introduce their ideas tot the public, as happened to Shaikh Nasar ad-Din al-Tusi in some of his letters. Or a traditionist may write like a philosopher, as happened to al-Fakhr al-Razi. A sufi may assume the role of a philosopher, as is the case with al-Ghazali, and those like them are quite few.

On the other hand, we say that some views may change as time goes by especially if a scholar holds a view and enjoys an intellectual vitality and treads the path of perfection in his awareness, intellect and knowledge. The degrees of an author’s awareness of certain considerations which he observes as he from time to time writes. Yet we shall mention that the contents of this book are selections by al-Mufid from another book.

7. Another observation is recorded about Al-Ikhtisas which is: the existence of fault or sometimes ambiguity in referring to some pronouns in it, or the existence of a large gap between the pronoun and what it denotes.

This point has been answered by saying that such is not confined only to this book but does exist in various ones such as Al-Kafi, Al-Tahthab and Al-Wasa’il as well.

This issue is rendered to various reasons; among them is that the author may come across a narrative, so he places it somewhere in his book, paying no attention to the necessity of reconsidering the sequence which is supposed to be observed in placing the pronoun and what it denotes between two narratives separated by a new tradition or a new statement.

8. One of their criticism about this book is that its author once quotes from books like those of al-Saduq, or from Basa’ir al-Darajat or from other Shaikhs.

If we discern the Shaikhs (mentors) whom he has quoted, we will find five of them to be mentors of al-Mufid and sixteen others for whom al-Mufid does not quote a single narrative except in his book titled Al-Ikhtisas. On the other hand, there are mentors of al-Mufid who enjoy a distinctive status, while there is not a single narration about them in Al-Ikhtisas, such as al-Ji`abi, Ahmed ibn Muhammed ibn al-Hassan ibn al-Walad, al-Sayrafi, and others.

The answer to this point is that the author of the book is apparently Ibn `Imran who was chosen by al-Mufid who quoted what he liked from him. The book’s sources are, then, the mentors of Ibn `Imran, not those of al-Mufid. There will be more to back this fact by the will of Allah Almighty.

SECOND: It is possible that the author of the book wrote it before he had many mentors. He, may Allah have mercy on him, may have selected all or some of its narratives from the books which he had with him, and there is nothing wrong with that.

THIRD: The (critics) say that some of those quoted by the author of the book are not quoted by al-Mufid in his books. This cannot serve as evidence to deny his authorship of the book. He may in one place quote a mentor who was not quoted by his own other mentors. He may learn from new mentors, so he writes about them then leaves them to take other mentors for reasons varying along the passage of time according to conditions, circumstances and objectives.

Is there among the scholars of hadith anyone who preconditions the narrator to quote in all his book each and every mentor of his from whom he learned during his lengthy scholarly history?!

Having stated all the above, there are many copies of Al-Ikhtisas which are as follows:

1. The copy written from the one by Shaikh al-Hurr[1] which has attributed the writing of the book to Shaikh al-Mufid without any ambiguity about its being written by him. The following had been written on it: The Book of Al-Ikhtisas by Shaikh al-Mufid, Muhammed ibn Muhammed ibn al-Nu`man, selected from Al-Ikhtisas by Ahmed ibn al-Husain ibn `Imran.” At its conclusion, he wrote the following: “This is the complete text of the book Al-Ikhtisas by Shaikh al-Mufid, may Allah sanctify him.”

As regarding the copy of Shaikh al-Hurr himself, it was written on it that it was the property of Shaikh al-Hurr, may Allah have mercy on him, in 1087 A.H. The date of its writing is not known, and it is available at the Library of Ayatullah al-Hakim, may Allah have mercy on him, in Najaf al-Ashraf (Iraq).

2. There is another copy at Library Spah Salar-Tehran with the date of its writing as 1118 A.H. Its scribe has written down saying that the book is abridged from Al-Ikhtisas by Ahmed ibn al-Husain ibn `Imran. This statement is not different from what is written on the copy of Shaikh al-Hurr because what is meant by it is that Al-Ikhtisas itself if Ibn `Imran’s, and this does not contradict its abridged version to be Shaikh al-Mufid’s as well.

3. There is an old copy at the Library of the mausoleum of Imam al-Rida (A.S.) with the date of its writing indicated as 1055 A.H. After several pages, the following statement is written:

“This book is extracted from the book titled Al-Ikhtisas by Aba Ali, Ahmed ibn al-Husain ibn Ahmed ibn `Imran, may Allah have mercy on him.”

This statement, too, does not contradict what is written on the copy of Shaikh al-Hurr himself for the same afore-mentioned reason, that is, Al-Ikhtisas itself is written by Ibn `Imran while its abridged version is Shaikh al-Mufid’s.

It seems that some of the pages of this copy are ahead of or following those of other versions, as it appears from observing it closely, and this happens for many reasons.

So, there is no objection to attributing the printed book, Al-Ikhtisas, which agrees with the first two editions, to Shaikh al-Mufid since he selected its contents from Ibn `Imran’s book, so much so that he sets out to select its precious legacies and jewels of narratives. The testimony to this is the fact that the book titled Al-Fusal al-Mukhtara, which is selections by al-Sharaf al-Radi from the contents of Al-`Uyan wal Mahasin by al-Mufid, is not counted among the works of al-Sharaf. Rather, its attribution to al-Mufid is more obvious and clear and is still counted among his works as is well known.

[1]This copy is available at the sacred mausoleum of Imam al-Rida (A) in the city of Mash-had, Iran, written in either 1085 or 1087 A.H.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...