• Misyar Marriage

    is carried out via the normal contractual procedure, with the specificity that the husband and wife give up several rights by their own free will...

  • Taraveeh a Biad'ah

    Nawafil prayers are not allowed with Jama'at except salatul-istisqa' (the salat for praying to Allah to send rain)..

  • Umar attacks Fatima (s.)

    Umar ordered Qunfuz to bring a whip and strike Janabe Zahra (s.a.) with it.

  • The lineage of Umar

    And we summarize the lineage of Omar Bin Al Khattab as follows:

  • Before accepting Islam

    Umar who had not accepted Islam by that time would beat her mercilessly until he was tired. He would then say

Wednesday, May 23, 2018

جب حضرت علی علیہ السّلام ( ظاھری طور پر ) خلیفہؑ بنے تو ۔۔۔۔

1 - شیعہؑ کا کلمہؑ اور اذان جاری کیوں نہیں کروائ ؟
2 - ( نماز ) تراویح کیوں ختم نہیں کروائ ؟
3 - مسجدیں بنوائیں ، امام باڑے کیوں نہیں بنواۓ ؟
4 - مُتعہ کو جاری کیوُں نہیں کیا ؟
5 - باغ فِدک کو بی بی فاطمہؑ ( سلام اللہ علیہا ) اور حسنین کریمین ( علیہم السّلام ) کو واپس کیوں نہیں کیا ؟

یہ کُل 5 سوال ھیں 

اور آئیۓ آج آپکو پتا چلے گا کہ ان سوالوں کا جواب کسی مولوی یا مجتہد نے نہیں بلکہ خود مولا علی علیہم السّلام نے دیۓ ھیں ۔
کیونکہ یہ تمام سوال نۓ نہیں ھیں ۔۔
1436 سال سے نسل اُمیّہ و مروان و بنوُ عباس یہی سوال کرتی آئ ھے ۔۔ !!

سرکا جناب باب العلم علیہم السّلام سے جب یہی سوال پوچھے گۓ تو آپ علیہ السّلام منبر کوفہؑ پر تشریف لے گۓ اور ایک بلیغ خطبہؑ ارشاد فرمایا ۔۔ اسکے اقتباس درج کر رھا ھوں ۔۔
.
( حوالہؑ : کتاب الاحتجاج ۔۔ جلد نمبر 1 )
( حولہؑ : کتاب نہج الاسرار ۔۔ جلد نمبر 1 )
( حوالہؑ : کتاب فضائل امیرالمومنین ابن عقده کوفی (333 )
( حوالہؑ : علل الشرائع شیخ صدوق ( 381 )
(حوالہؑ : کفایه الاثر خزاز قمی ( 400 )
( حوالہؑ : احتجاج طبرسی ( 548 )
( حوالہؑ : مناقب آل ابی طالب ابن شهر آشوب ( 588 )
( حوالہؑ : الروضه فی فضائل امیر المومنین شاذان ابن جبرئیل قمی (660)
۔
خطبہؑ بعنوان :
معاویہ سے جنگ کرنے اور ابوبکر و عمر سے جنگ نا کرنے کا سبب :

جنگ نہروان ( خوارجین سے جنگ ) سے فارغ ھونے کے بعد سرکار جناب امیر المُومنین علیہم السّلام ایک محفل میں کچھ ارشاد فرما رھے تھے کہ " اشعث " نے سوال کردیا ۔
جسکے جواب میں سرکار جناب امیرالمومنین علیہ السّلام نے فرمایا :
" اے اشعث ۔۔۔
توُ نے اپنی بات تو کہہ دی اب اسکا جواب بھی سُن اور اسکو یاد رکھ ۔۔
اور حُجّت کو اپنا شُعار بنا لے کہ ۔۔
میرا یہ اقتدار ( خلافت ظاھری ) چھ پیغمبروں
کی طرح ھے ۔۔
1 - نوُح علیہ السّلام
2 - لوُط علیہ السّلام
3 - ابراھیم علیہ السّلام
4 - مُوسیٰ علیہ السّلام
5 - ھاروُن علیہ السّلام
6 - مُحمّد صلی اللہ علیہ وآلہ وسلم

نوُح علیہ السّلام کی تاسئ کی جیسا انہوں نے کہا :

" فَدَعَا رَبَّهُ أَنِّي مَغْلُوبٌ فَانتَصِرْ " (سورۃ القمر ۔۔ آئیت نمبر 10)
ترجمہؑ :
اے میرے ربّ میں مغلوُب ھوگیا میری نصُرت فرما "
۔
اب اگر تمُ یہ کہو کہ اُنہوں نے بلا وجہ ایسا کہا تو تم نے کُفر کیا اور اگر کہو کہ اُنکی اُمت نے اُنکے ساتھ حالات ایسے بنا دیۓ تھے تو پھر تمہارے نبی ﷺ کا وصی ( علی علیہ السّلام ) نوح سے زیادہ مجبوُر تھا ۔
۔
لوُط علیہ السّلام کی تاسئ کی جیسا کہ اُنہوں نے کہا :

" لو أن لي بكم قوة أو آوي إلى ركن شديد " ( سورۃ ھوُد ۔۔ آئیت نمبر 80 )
ترجمہؑ :
" کاش تم سے بچنے کی مجھ میں قوّت ھوتی یا میں کسی زبردست پناہ میں جاکر بیٹھ جاتا "
۔
اب اگر تمُ یہ کہو کہ اُنہوں نے بلا کسی خوف کے یہ کہا تو تمُ نے کُفر کیا اور اگر تمُ یہ کہو کہ اُنکی قوم نے انکے ساتھ یہ حال کیا کہ وہ تنہا رہ گۓ تو تمہارے نبی ﷺ کا یہ وصی اُس سے زیادہ مجبوُر تھا ۔
۔
ابراھیم علیہ السّلام کی تاسئ کی جیسا کہ اُنہوں نے کہا :

" وَأَعْتَزِلُکُمْ وَمَا تَدْعُونَ مِن دُونِ اللَّهِ " ۔۔ سورۃ مریم ۔۔ آئیت نمبر 49 )
ترجمہؑ :
میں تم سے اور جن جن کو تم اللہ کے سوا پُکارتے ھو علیحدہ ھوتا ھوُں
۔
اب اگر تمُ کہو کہ ابراھیم علیہ السّلام بنا کسی وجہؑ کے اپنی قوم سے الگ ھوگۓ تو تم نے کفر کیا اور اگر کہو کہ انکی قوم نے انکو ایسا مجبوُر کیا تو تمہارے نبی ﷺ کا وصی اس سے زیادہ مجبوُر ھے ۔
۔
موُسیٰ علیہ السّلام کی تاسئ کی جیسا کہ اُنہوں نے کہا :
" فَفَرَرْتُ مِنکُمْ لَمَّا خِفْتُکُم " ۔۔۔۔ ( سورۃ الشعراؑ ۔۔ آئیت نمبر 21 )
ترجمہؑ :
میں تم سے ڈرا تو میں خود ھی تمُ سے بھاگ گیا تھا
۔
اب اگر تمُ کہو کہ اُنہوں نے بلا کسی خوف کے قوم کو چھوڑا تو تمُ نے کُفر کیا اور اگر کہو کہ واقعی قوم اُنکی جان کے درپے ھوگئ تھی اسلیۓ وہ وھاں سے چلے گۓ تو تمہارے نبی ﷺ کا وصی اُن سے زیادہ مجبوُر تھا
۔
ھاروُن علیہ السّلام کی تاسئ کی جیسا کہ اُنہوں نے کہا :

" یابْنَ أُمَّ إِنَّ الْقَوْمَ اسْتَضْعَفُونِی وَکَادُواْ یَقْتُلُونَنِی " ( سورۃ الاعراف آئیت 151 )
ترجمہ :
" اے میرے ماں جاۓ ، تحقیق کہ قوم نے مجھے ( تیرے بعد ) ضعیف سمجھا اور قریب تھا کہ مجھے قتل کردیتے "
۔
اب اگر تم کہو کہ انہوں نے بلاوجہ ایسا کہا اور گئو سالہ کی پرستش سے بنا کسی وجہ کے نہیں روکا تو تم نے کُفر کیا اور اگر کہو کہ اُن کو مجبوُر اور کمزور کردیا گیا تھا تو تمہارے نبی ﷺ کا وصی اس سے زیادہ مجبوُر تھا ۔
۔
مُحمّد ﷺ کی تاسئ کی جب انہوں نے ھجرت کی :
اور جاتے ھوۓ مجھے اپنے بستر پر سُلا کر گۓ ۔۔
اب اگر تُم کہو کہ اُنہوں نے بلا کسی وجہ کے ھجرت کی تو تُم نے کُفر کیا اور اگر کہو کہ اُنکو مجبوُر کردیا گیا تھا تو تمہارے نبی ﷺ کا یہ وصی اُن سے زیادہ مجبوُر تھا ۔

کچھ اندازہ ھوُا ؟؟
کتنا مجبوُر کردیا گیا تھا میرا مولا علی علیہ السّلام ؟
کُچھ سمجھ میں آیا کہ کیوُں جو بدعتیں دین میں داخل ھوُئیں اُنکو بند نہیں کیا میرے مولا علی علیہ السّلام نے ؟؟
ان چھ انبیاؑ میں سے چار اولوالعزم پیغمبر ھیں ۔۔
جو جو وجوھات ان آیات میں ان سب کی اپنی اپنی قوم سے علیحدگی کی بنی وہ تمام وجوھات اکیلۓ میرے مولا علی علیہ السّلام کو روکے ھوۓ تھیں ۔۔
۔
اب ایک اور سرکار جناب امیر علیہ السّلام کا خطبہؑ سُنو ۔۔
اور یاد رکھنا ۔۔ کہ کیوں سرکار نے تلوار نہیں اُٹھائ اور بپہت کُچھ برداشت کیا ۔۔
چاھے وہ گلے میں رسّی ڈال کر حرامیوں کا میرے مولا کو کھینچنا ھو
چاھے وہ دروازے کو آگ لگانا ھو
چاھے وہ میری مخدومہؑ کونین سلام اللہ علیہا کا پہلوُ شکستہ کرنا ھو
چاھے وہ فدک کا حق غصب کرنا ھو
چاھے وہ خلافت کا حق چھیننا ھو
اس سب پر خاموشی کی سب سے بڑی وجہ ۔۔۔

حوالہؑ :
کتاب : استیعاب عبد البرجلد ا صفحہ۱۸۳طبع حیدر آباد
۔
حضرت علیؑ فرماتے ہیں کہ میں نے لوگوں سے یہ کہہ دیا تھا کہ دیکھو رسول اللہ کا انتقال ہو چکا ہے اور خلافت کے بارے میں مجھ سے کوئی نزاع نہ کرے کیوں کہ ہم ہی ا س کے وارث ہیں ۔لیکن قوم نے میرے کہنے کی پرواہ نہیں کی ۔
" خدا کی قسم اگر دین میں تفرقہ پڑ جانے اور عہد کفر کے پلٹ آنے کا اندیشہ نہ ہوتا تومیں ان کی ساری کاروائیاں پلٹ دیتا ۔"
۔
(2) حوالہؑ :
کتاب : معالم التنزیل صفحہ۴۱۲ ، صفحہ۴۱۴،
کتاب : احیاء العلوم جلد۴ صفحہ ۸۸ سیرت محمدیہ صفحہ۳۵۶
کتاب : تفسیر کبیر جلد۴ صفحہ۶۸۶
کتاب : تاریخ خمیس جلد۲ صفحہ ۱۱۳۹
کتاب : سیرت جلبیہ صفحہ۳۵۶
کتاب : شواہد النبوت اور فتح الباری
۔
" میں ہے کہ آنحضرت نے حضرت عائشہ سے فرمایا کہ ۔۔۔۔
" اے عائشہ ”لوَ لاَ حدَ ثَانِ قَومُک بالکَفرِ لَفَعلتُ “
ترجمہؑ
اگر تیری قوم تازی کفر سے مسلمان نہ ہوئی ہوتی تو میں اس کے ساتھ وہ کرتا جو کرنا چاہیے تھا۔
۔
اور اب مجھے یہ بتانے کی ضرورت تو ھے نہیں کہ " جنگ بدر سے خیبر و خندق تک " پورا عرب گواہ ھے کہ کس کی تلوار سینوں کو چیرتی رھی اور گردنوں کو کاٹتی رھی ؟؟
بڑے بڑے " بہادروں " کو پہاڑوں پر بکری کی طرح اچھلتے دیکھا ھے
بڑے بڑے " بہادروں " کو جو ھنٹر ھاتھ میں لیۓ گھوما کرتے تھے تاریخ نے کوئ ایک نام بھی محفوظ نہیں کیا جو انکے ھاتھوں قتل ھوا ھو کسی بھی جنگ میں ؟؟
( یہ چیلنج بھی ھے کہ دکھاؤ اگر کوئ نام مل جاۓ ؟ )
مکہّ و مدینہ کے بسنے والے نا تو عمرو بن عبدود کا مارے جانا بھولے تھے اور نا ھی خیبر کا دروازہ اکھاڑے جانا ۔۔
جنگ خندق میں عمرو بن عبدود نے جب گستاخی کی اور مولا علی علیہ السّلام کے چہرہ مبارک پر لعاب دھن پھینکا تو آپ علیہ السّلام اُس کی چھاتی سے نیچے اُتر آۓ جس پر وہ جو بہُت زیادہ " غصّیلہ " تھا وہ بے اختیار بولا بھی تھا ۔۔۔" یا رسول اللہ یہ دیکھیۓ علی علیہ السّلام نے کیا کیا ؟ اتنا اچھا موقع گنوا دیا ۔۔ اس پر تو قابوُ پالینا ھی بڑا کام تھا ۔۔ "
قتل عمرو بن عبدود کے بعد جب مولا علیہ السّلام سے پوچھا گیا تو آپ نے فرمایا ۔۔
اگر اس وقت میں اسے قتل کردیتا تو میرا ذاتی غصّہ شامل ھوجاتا
( جبکہ میں تو " یدّ اللہ " ھوں اسلیۓ لڑتا ھی صرف اللہ اور اسکے رسول اور اسکے دین کیلیۓ ھوں )
ھاں یہ ضرور پتا چل گیا تھا کہ " یہ محمّد وآل محمّد ﷺ اپنا حق چھن جانے پر نہیں بولتے لیکن اگر اسلام و دین پر کچھ بن جاۓ تو پھر یہ اُٹھ کھڑے ھوتے ھیں "
تو بس اُنہوں نے طے کرلیا کہ ۔۔۔
" کہ دین کی بنیادوں کو فی الحال چھیڑو نہیں اور ان کو چھوڑو نہیں "
چنانچہ جن " چڑی ماروں " کی ٹانگیں کانپتی تھیں مولا علی علیہ السّلام کو آتے دیکھ کر ۔۔
" انکی ھمّت اتنی بڑھ گئ کی گلے میں رسّی ڈال کر کھینچتے رھے "
۔
(3) حوالہؑ :
کتاب : تاریخ اعثم کوفی ۸۳ طبع بمبئی

" میں حضرت علیؑ کی وہ تقریر موجود ہے جو آپ نے خلافت عثمان کے موقع پر فرمائی ہے۔ ہم اس کا ترجمہ اعثم کوفی اردو طبع دہلی کے صفحہ۱۱۳ سے نقل کرتے ہیں۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔
۔
" خدا ئے جلیل کی قسم ......
اگر محمد رسول اللہ ﷺ ہم سے عہد نہ لے لیتے اور ہم کو اس امر سے مطلع نہ کر چکے ہوتے جو ہونے والا تھا تو میں اپنا حق کبھی نہ چھوڑتا ۔ اوراپنا حق کسی شخص کو نہ لینے دیتا ۔ اپنے حق کے حاصل کرنے کے لیے اس قدر کوشش بلیغ کرتا کہ حصول مطلب سے پہلے معرض ہلاکت میں پڑنے کا بھی خیال نہ کرتا ۔ "
.
اب کچھ سمجھ میں آئ ؟؟
یہ وہ جواب ھیں جو مولا علی علیہ السّلام نے از خود ارشاد فرماۓ اور مجھے پورا یقین ھے کہ آپ میں سے اکثر نے یہ پڑھنا تو دور کی بات سُنے بھی نہیں ھونگے !!
اور اب باری ھے میرے تبصرے کی ۔۔۔
تو اب دل پر ھاتھ رکھو اور جواب سُنو ۔۔۔
ابوُ جہل کی جاھل اولادو ۔۔ !!
۔
پہلے اور دوسرے سوال کا جواب :

اسلیۓ بند دوبارہ شروع نہیں کروایا کہ " جو پروانے اپنی شمع رسالت ﷺ کا جنازہ چھوڑ کر تین دن واپس نہیں آۓ وہ کیا یہ بات مانتے ؟؟ جنہوں نے نبی ﷺ کا لحاظ نہیں کیا وہ علی علیہ السّلام کا کیا کرتے ؟؟
۔
تیسرا سوال :

پہلی بات تو یہ کہ اس وقت تک واقعہؑ کربلا ھوا ھی کب تھا جاھل ؟؟
دوسری بات یہ کہ پہلا امام بارگاہ " بیت الحزن " کے نام سے شمع رسالت کے پروانوں نے " رسول اللہ ﷺ کی بیٹی کو بنا کر دیا تھا جنت البقیع میں " ۔۔۔
کیونکہ اس وقت بھی تمہارے باپ دادا کو رسول اللہ ﷺ کی بیٹی کا رونا ۔۔۔ پسند نہیں تھا ۔۔
جہاں تک بات ھے رونے کی ۔۔۔
تو کیا بھول گۓ کہ رونے کیلۓ جگہ کی قید نہیں ھوتی ؟؟
" کسی کو غار میں رونا آگیا تھا ۔۔ یاد نہیں کیا ؟ "
۔
چوتھا سوال :

مُتعہ کو جاری تو تب کرتے جب اُنہوں نے وہ بند کیا ھو ؟
اُن کے پیروکار تو " کسی کی بہن کے مُتعہ کرنے کی خبر کے بعد بند کرنے کے فیصلے کو اور فیصلہ کرنے والے کو مانتے ھی نہیں "
اسلیۓ مولا علی علیہ السّلام کے پیروکاروں میں وہ بمطابق حکم قرآن و رسول ﷺ جاری تھا اور ھے ۔
۔
پانچواں سوال :

باغ فِدک ۔۔
کو اسلیۓ واپس نہیں لیا مولا علی علیہ السّلام نے کیونکہ اس کی وارث مخدومہؑ عالیہ سیّدہ فاطمہؑ سلام اللہ علیہا تب دنیا سے پردہ کرچُکی تھیں ۔۔
اور ظاھر ھے جب دعویدار ھی نا ھو تو کس طرح واپس لیتے ؟؟
۔
یہ تو تھے تمہارے سوالوں کے جواب ۔۔۔ اب میرے کچھ سوال ھیں تمہارے انہی سوالوں کے جواب میں ۔۔
اگر واقعی حق پر ھو تو دو اسکا جواب ۔۔
میں بھی تو دیکھوں کہ " شیعہ نے تو چیلنج کا جواب دے دیا "
اب شیعہ کے چیلنج کا جواب کون دے گا ۔۔۔ !!
۔
سوال نمبر ایک :

رسوُل اللہ ﷺ کے جنازے میں " بڑے ستارے " کیوں نہیں تھے ؟
۔
سوال نمبر دو :

" الصّلوٰۃ خیراً من النوم " رسول اللہ ﷺ کے دور میں جزو اذان نہیں تھا نا ھی خلیفہؑ اؤّل کے دور میں تو پھر اس کو اذان کا جزو بنانے کی بدعت کیوں کیگئ ؟؟
۔
سوال نمبر تین :

نماز تراویح نا عہد رسالت ﷺ میں پڑھی گئ اور نا ھی خلیفہ اوّل کے دور میں ۔۔ تو پھر یہ بدعت کیوں اپنائ گئ ؟؟
۔
سوال نمبر چار :

قرآن نے کہا " نبی کی بیبیو گھروں میں قرار پکڑو "
تو پھر نبی کی جو بی بی گھر سے باھر نکلی اور صرف باھر نہیں نکلی بلکہ لشکر کی سربراہ بھی بن کر میدان میں آئ اس کے بارے میں کیا کہتے ھو ؟؟
اور اگر وہ ٹھیک تھا تو پھر آج عورت کی حکمرانی پر فتوے کیوں لگاتے ھو ؟
۔
سوال نمبر پانچ :

مُتعہ ۔۔۔ کو قرآن کی آئیت اور رسوُل اللہ ﷺ کی حدیث نے حلال کیا تھا
خلیفہؑ اوّل کے دور میں بھی حلال ھی تھا
پھر قرآن و حدیث کیخلاف اسکو بند کرکے زناؑ سے بچنے کا راستہ بند کرنے کا اختیار کس نے دیا تھا بند کرنے والے کو ؟؟
کیونکہ اسکے علاوہ اور کوئ طریقہ ھے ھی نہیں ایک شادی شدہ مرد کیلیۓ جو گھر سے دور ھو کہ وہ حرام کاری سے بچ سکے ۔
۔
سوال نمبر چھ :

حضرت عمر بن عبدالعزیز ( رح ) نے باغ فِدک
" اولاد فاطمہؑ سلام اللہ علیہا " کو یہ کہہ کر واپس کر دیا تھا کہ ۔۔۔۔۔
" یہ تمہارا حق تھا اور پہلے اس معاملے میں فیصلہ کرنے والے سے اجتہادی غلطی ھوئ " ۔۔
اب یہ بتاؤ کہ ان دونوں میں سے کون صحیح تھا ؟؟
خلیفہؑ اوّل یا پھر عمر بن عبدالعزیز ؟؟؟
۔
اب مجھے دیکھنا ھے کہ ان سوالوں کے کیا جواب دیتے ھو ۔۔
منتظر ھوں
( حجّت تمام ھوئ ۔۔۔ الحمد للہ رمی

Monday, April 23, 2018

Real Face of Hazrat Umar|| Gustakh Kon? || Shia Kafir Kyun


Monday, March 26, 2018

Research on Sahih Al-Bukhari


Wednesday, January 31, 2018

Did Imam Ali name his sons after the first three Caliphs ??

Some Muslims create an impression that Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) Ali b. Abi Talib (a.s.) was pleased with the companions particularly the Shaikhain and accepted their caliphate without any reservations and he was never under any duress or compulsion.
As proof they advance some tame arguments like Ali (a.s.) naming his sons after the caliphs shows his love and admiration for them.

Reply:

The names of some of the sons of Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) coincided with the names of the previous caliphs. But only a very prejudiced and misinformed student of history would claim that this denotes affection of Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) for the caliphs.
Our first question to these Muslims – is the name of the caliph the very first instance in the history of Islam of an infant being named such. For e.g. was Umar b. Khattab the first person to be named as Umar? If not they what leads these Muslims to believe that Ali b. Abi Talib (a.s.) named his son after Umar. It is established historically that these names were such that they were already commonly used in Arab culture. If someone named his son with one of these names it is because these names were acceptable in the culture at that time. It is a fallacy to assume (leave alone assert) that someone was named after someone.
It is only when Islam and Shiasm spread to other lands and cultures over a period of time and the followers of Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) in these foreign lands heard the names of the caliphs in a negative light of being the usurpers of the right of Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) that the names of these caliphs became culturally unacceptable in the Shia society. For them these names did not represent Arab culture but instead represented negative icons.
Several Imams (a.s.) also named their daughters after Ayesha. Does this mean that the Imams (a.s.) were pleased with her while the most biased and weakest of historical reports are unanimous that she waged a six-day battle against Ali b. Abi Talib (a.s.) leading to the death of thousands of Muslims in Islam’s first ever civil war in Jamal?
Obviously, the answer lies in the practice of the time when the Imams (a.s.) refrained from doing anything to expose themselves and their Shias to the wrath of the despotic rulers of Bani Umayyah and Bani Abbas. For the same reason, Imams (a.s.) have also openly rebuked some of their chosen companions to spare them (companions) of the caliphs’ wrath. This rebuke cannot be taken as a sign that Imams (a.s.) were displeased with the companions just like naming the children after companions and wives cannot be taken as a sign that Imams (a.s.) were pleased with them.
That is also, why we find so many companions and their fathers with names like Umar (Mufazzal b. Umar), Ziyaad (Kumayl b. Ziyaad), Muawiyah (Muawiyah b. Wahhab).

Why don’t Shias follow their Imams in naming their children?

These Muslims taunt the Shias for ignoring the Sunnah (practice) of their Imams in naming their children. They demand that like their Imams, Shias must also name their children after the caliphs.
There is a manifold answer to this question.
1. As explained it is evident that names were given for reasons other than affection for companions and wives. It was clearly to ward off tyranny and oppression from the caliphs of the time. Since the Shias today do not witness the same tyranny and oppression from the kings and caliphs they do not name their children after the caliphs and companions. When the Shias do witness tyranny and oppression they name them after the caliphs. This is in fact preferable as commanded by the Imams (a.s.) since safeguarding one’s life is necessary when a situation does not call for jihad.
2. Shias prefer to name their children after an infallible rather than the son of an infallible unless the son was also an infallible. This is because intellect demands that we emulate the infallible right down to his name.
3. Shias believe as also affirmed by Sunni reports that the names of the infallibles were chosen by Allah Himself. According to Hadith-e-Lauh (Tradition of the Tablet) which is also recorded by Sunni scholars like Hammuee in Faraed al-Simtain (chapter 2 pg 137-139), Allah Himself chose the names of Imams and their titles. So if Allah chooses Jafar it does not mean Allah has chosen based on some Jafar who existed in history, unless He Himself specifies it. Likewise, when Ali b. Abi Talib (a.s.) selects the name Umar or Abu Bakr it does not mean that it is based on some historical figure unless Ali (a.s.) specifically mentions it as he has done in the case of Uthman b. Mazoon.
4. Rather than worry about why Shias don’t emulate their Imams in naming their children, Muslims should focus on why they don’t emulate the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and name their children Hasan and Husain, instead of naming them after the companions. There are widely reported Sunni traditions that Imam Hasan (a.s.) and Imam Husain (a.s.) were named by the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) himself based on Allah’s command. Hasan and Husain are Arabic derivations of the words Shabar and Shubair respectively who were the sons of Hazrat Haroon (a.s.), who were also named by Allah.

Why don’t Shias name their children after Yazid

Some Muslims insist on the names argument and demand that if culturally acceptable names were given why don’t we find names like Yazeed, Muawiyah, Ziyad and Abu Jahl and Abu Lahab, etc.
Reply:
1. Among Arabs, we find that Yazeed was commonly used by Shias even after the incident of Karbala because for them it represented a culturally acceptable name and was not exclusively identified with the villain Yazeed who mercilessly martyred Imam Husain (a.s.) and his companions and imprisoned the members of the holy Ahlul Bait (a.s.).

From Shia books of Rijaal (brief biographies of narrators of traditions) like: Rijaal-e-Toosi, Rijaal-e-Barqi, Rijaal-e-Kashi, Mojam al-Rijaal al-Hadith of Ayatullah Sayed Abul Qasem al-Khui (r.a.), we find numerous examples of die-hard Shias and enemies of Bani Ummayah named Yazeed.[i]
2. Likewise, we have seen companions and their fathers named after Yazid, Muawiyah and Ziyaad like Mufazzal b. Umar and Muawiyah b. Wahab (both amongst the closest companions of the Imam Jafar Sadiq (a.s.)) and Kumayl b. Ziyaad among the closest companions of Ameerul Momineen (a.s.). Likewise Shias were named Hisham like Hisham b. Hakam (close companion of Imam Sadiq (a.s.)) and it is obvious that they were not named based on Hisham b. Abdul Malik – the one who poisoned Imam Ali b. Husain (a.s.) Zainul Abedeen. These are a few examples from the many in the books of Rijaal (narrators of traditions).
3. Shias are not interested in naming their children after Abu Jahl and Abu Lahab but these Muslims can do so.

Umar vs. Umar

1. Even if we assume that names were granted based on caliphs, it does not mean anything. Names do not determine one’s choices; ultimately a person’s actions determine whether he is affectionate or unaffectionate towards the caliphs. It is reported Umar b. Abdul Aziz was from Umar b. Khattab’s lineage and obviously named after him. But his actions do not indicate that he was happy with his ‘role model’ particularly on returning Fadak which Umar b. Khattab withheld from Fatima – the Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) daughter. If indeed Umar II was named after Umar b. Khattab then he would have shown affection towards Umar by following his footsteps.
2. Likewise, if Ali b. Abi Talib (a.s.) named his son Usman after Usman b. Affan, then Usman b. Ali in Karbala should have refrained from fighting with Yazid since he was Usman b. Affan’s grandson. Or at the very least a general announcement should have been made before the Battle of Karbala that all those named after the caliphs should forcibly be evicted from the battle so as to not shed the blood of innocent!
Thus, it is established that just because the names of two people happen to be the same as they were from the same culture, it does not mean that one was named after another or his father loved the former.
Also, since the narrations of traditions were banned immediately after the martyrdom of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.), it is very difficult to know today that for each son of Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) whose name is common with some caliph, who actually he was named after. But some traditions do give us an indication (but not towards any caliph).

It is narrated from Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) that he said regarding the naming of his son, Uthman: I have named him after my brother Uthman bin Mazoon[ii].[who was an eminent companion of the Holy Prophet(s.a.w.a.) and is buried in the graveyard of Baqi]
However, there are no traditions indicating that Ali b. Abi Talib (a.s.) named his sons after the Shaikhain.
For other names, also possibilities exist that Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) has based them on some respectable companion (instead of the caliphs).

How Shias benefited from these names

The names of some of the sons of Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) being common with those of some caliphs created an alibi for Shias later on to escape from difficult situations in the long and heart-rending history of oppression unleashed upon them by his (a.s.) opponents. Hence, we find instances when Shias were cornered by the enemies of Ameerul Momineen (a.s.). They would have surely been killed, but they escaped a sure death by praising these sons of Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) which the enemies misunderstood to be the praise of the Caliphs. The Shias were thus able to practice ‘Taqiyyah’ (dissimulation) without resorting to any untrue statement. Over the years, it resulted in protection of the lives, wealth and progeny of many Shias.
According to the aforementioned details, now in this present age after the passage of fourteen centuries, we can conclude that names cannot be the criterion for relations between two sides. Other grounds should be searched to find the reason of enmity or friendship.

Did Hazrat Fatima Zahra’s (s.a.) house have a door?

Introduction

1. Doors in the Holy Quran
2. Doors in the Sunnah
3. Door of the Ahle Bait (a.s.) 
4. Abu Bakr’s biggest regret
5. Reply to the report on Ameerul Momineen (a.s.)

Of all the doubts created by some so-called Muslims including those who accept the Ahle Bait’s (a.s.) virtues is that the house of Fatima Zahra (s.a.) did not have a door.
They claim houses in the early period of Islam did not have wooden doors; instead the residents fixed curtains or mats as doors. Some, in order to prove their claim, advance certain traditions like:
It is narrated by Ali b. Abi Talib (a.s.): And we are Ahle Bait of Muhammad. Our houses neither have roofs nor doors…
They claim – since the house had no door, how is it possible for Fatima Zahra (s.a.) to be crushed between the door and the wall?

Doors in the Holy Quran

It is misleading to suggest that houses of the time did not have roofs and doors. The Holy Quran clearly states that houses have doors and they should be locked.

a) The following verse states that houses have doors:

وَلَيْسَ الْبِرُّ بِأَنْ تَأْتُوا الْبُيُوتَ مِنْ ظُهُورِهَا وَلَٰكِنَّ الْبِرَّ مَنِ اتَّقَىٰ وَأْتُوا الْبُيُوتَ مِنْ أَبْوَابِهَا
“…and it is not righteousness that you should enter the houses at their backs, but righteousness is this that one should guard (against evil); and go into the houses by their doors.” (Surah Baqarah (2):189)


b) This verse states that doors have keys:

…مِنْ بُيُوتِكُمْ أَوْ بُيُوتِ آبَائِكُمْ…أَوْ مَا مَلَكْتُمْ مَفَاتِحَهُ أَوْ صَدِيقِكُمْ ۚ لَيْسَ عَلَيْكُمْ جُنَاحٌ أَنْ تَأْكُلُوا جَمِيعًا أَوْ أَشْتَاتًا
“…from your houses, or your fathers’ houses… or what you possess the keys of, or your friends’ (houses). It is no sin in you that you eat together or separately.” (Surah Nur (24):61)
This implies doors were of wood/iron or a solid material which could be opened with a key. This rules out curtains or mats as these so-called Muslims claim.

Doors in the Sunnah

a. Houses of Muslims had doors

Traditions clearly like the one mentioned below, talk of unlocking the door with keys and this shows that houses and rooms of that period had doors:
Dukain b. Saeed Muzni: I went to the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and requested him for food. The Prophet (s.a.w.a.) said to Umar: Go and give food to them. Umar took us to the room upstairs; then he removed the key from his waist band and opened the door.
• Sunan-e-Abi Dawood, vol. 2 p. 527 H. 5,240
The well-known Salafi of our era – Shaikh Naasiruddin al-Albani – in his Sahih wa Zaeef Sunan Abi Dawood, H. 5,238 has validated this tradition as authentic.
Likewise Muslim has recorded in his Sahih that houses had doors during the early period of Islam. For instance, in a report Abu Hamid says: The Prophet (s.a.w.a.) commanded us to place containers of water in a corner and latch the doors at night.
• Sahih-e-Muslim vol 3 p. 1,593, H. 2,010

b. Door of the Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) house

Ibn Kathir Dimishqi – Ibn Taymiyyah’s leading student, quoting from Hasan Basri, says regarding the door of the Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) house: Rooms of the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) were constructed by fastening branches of juniper tree together with thick hair. It is mentioned in Tarikh Bukhari that the door of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) was knocked with finger tips and nails and this proves that there was no ring for knocking.
• Al-Bidaayah wa al-Nihaayah vol. 3 p. 221
Knocking with finger tips indicates that doors were of a hard material and not mat as these Muslims claim.

c. Door of Ameerul Momineen’s (a.s.) house

Numerous reports by scholars of both sects have documented the famous incident – closing of doors into the mosque by divine command excepting the doors of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and Ameerul Momineen Ali Ibn Abi Talib (a.s).
If houses did not have proper doors that could be opened and closed, such a divine command would be meaningless, which cannot be expected from Allah, the All-Wise.
So those who reject the presence of a door are in effect accusing Allah of being Unwise (we seek refuge in Allah).
Also, there are other traditions that show that the house of Hazrat Fatima Zahra (s.a.) and Ameerul Momineen Ali Ibn Abi Talib (a.s.) had a door.
For instance, in the description of the marriage of Hazrat Fatima Zahra (s.a.) with Ameerul Momineen (a.s.), it is mentioned: The Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) summoned Ali b. Abi Talib (a.s.) and recited the same rituals and supplications for Ali (a.s.) that he (s.a.w.a.) had recited for Fatima Zahra (s.a.)…after these supplications the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) rose and closed the door.
• Al-Musannaf vol. 5 p. 489 by Abu Bakr Abdul Razzaq b. Hamam Sanani (exp. 211 A.H.) – teacher of Bukhari and Muslim

d. Door of Ayesha’s house

Bukhari has written that the door of Ayesha’s house was made of wood of juniper or teak.
• Al-Adab al-Mufarrad, vol. 1 p. 272

Door of the Ahle Bait (a.s.)

There are  many reports that clearly state that the Ahle Bait’s (a.s.) house had a door.
We list two well-known instances over here.
a. The Prophet (s.a.w.a.) halts at the Ahle Bait’s door
انس بن مالك: ان رسول‏ اللّه صلّى اللّه عليه و آله كان يمر بباب فاطمة إذا خرج إلى صلاة الفجر و يقول:الصلاة يا أهل بيتي انما يريد اللّه، الآية.
Anas b. Malik – the slave of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) relates – The Prophet (s.a.w.a.) used to pass by the door of Fatima (s.a.) at the time of the morning prayers and announce – Salutations (on you) O my Ahle Bait (a.s.) – Allah only desires to keep away the uncleanness from you, O people of the House! and to purify you a (thorough) purifying.
  • Al-Ehtejaaj vol 2 pg 515
b. The poor, orphan and the captive halt at the door 
Regarding the 8th verse of Surah Insaan (76), there are reports that on three successive days, the needy one, the orphan and the captive halted at the door of Ameerul Momineen (a.s.).
ا إِذْ وَقَفَ عَلَى الْبَابِ مِسْكِينٌ‏ وَ قَالَ: السَّلَامُ عَلَيْكُمْ يَا أَهْلَ بَيْتِ مُحَمَّدٍ، مِسْكِينٌ مِنْ مَسَاكِينِ الْمُسْلِمِينَ أَطْعِمُونِي أَطْعَمْكُمُ اللَّهُ مِنْ طَعَامِ الْجَنَّةوَقَفَ عَلَى الْبَابِ سَائِلٌ وَ قَالَ: السَّلَامُ عَلَيْكُمْ يَا أَهْلَ بَيْتِ مُحَمَّد
When the needy one halted at the door and said – Salutations on you O Ahle Bait of Muhammad, a needy one from the needy Muslims. Feed me, Allah will feed you from the food of Paradise. The beggar halted at the door and said – Salutations on you O Ahle Bait of Muhammad…
  • Zaad al-Maad pg 227 of Allamah Majlisi (r.a.)
Reports carrying the same gist have been documented in:
  • Noor al-Saqalain under exegesis of Surah Insaan
  • Taa’weel al-Ayah al-Zahirah fi Fadhail al-Itrah al-Tahirah by Ali Astarabadi
Note the reports very clearly identifying the door of the Ahle Bait’s (a.s.) house. If there was no door, the word (عَلَى الْبَابِ) – meaning ‘at the door’ would not have been mentioned.

Abu Bakr’s biggest regret

Authentic reports from the opponents have been recorded that when Abu Bakr was lying on his death bed, Abd al-Rahman Ibn Awf visited him. After inquiring about his well-being, Ibn Awf questioned the reason for the disconcertment writ large on the face of Abu Bakr. He replied, “I am distressed for nine reasons: Three things which I did I should not have done; three things which I did not do, I should have done and three things I did not ask the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.), I should have asked.” Of these, the first thing which he mentioned was, “I should not have exposed the house of Fatima (s.a.) even if they had locked the door to wage a war against me.
(Kitaab al-Amwaal by Abu Ubaid al-Qasim Ibn Sallaam al-Khuzaaee exp. 224 A.H., p. 524, H. 351; Tarikh Tabari, vol. 2, p. 619, vol. 3, p. 430; Zahabi in Seyar Alaam al-Nubalaa, vol. 28, p. 17 in the biography of Abu Bakr and again Zahabi in Tarikh al-Islam, vol. 3, p. 118; Ibn Abdo Rabbeh Aandlusi in Eqd al-Fareed, vol. 1, p. 29 and p. 51; al-Tabaraani in al-Mojam al-Kabeer, vol. 1 p. 62; Zia al-Maqdesi in al-Ahaadees al-Mukhtaarah, H. No. 12 (beneath it, he writes that Haazaa hadisun hasanun an Abi Bakr); Ibn Abi al-Hadeed in Sharh Nahj, vol. 6, p. 51 and vol. 20, p. 24; Suyuti in Musnad-o-Fatemah (s.a.), p. 34 and numerous other references.)
So, you see, the culprit himself is confessing to the crime and the presence of the door but his cohorts are trying to exonerate him from the same! Unfortunately, today some of these cohorts are those who claim to be from the followers of the Ahle Bait (a.s.) and are even leading prayers of the Shias! May Allah save us from the evils of the last era!

Reply to the report on Ameerul Momineen (a.s.)

As for the tradition advanced as proof of houses lacking doors, readers should know it is a lengthy tradition, not related in any way to houses and doors. On the contrary, it is about the condition of the Ahle Bait (a.s.) and their simple lifestyle that did not allow them to wear lavish clothes and live in palatial houses like other wealthy Arabs. The tradition is actually about the virtues of Ali b. Abi Talib (a.s.) vis-à-vis other Muslims. These so-called Muslims have conveniently extracted a portion with malafide intention of denying the attack on the house of Hazrat Fatima Zahra (s.a.)!
Let us first look at the tradition in context to understand this better. Being a lengthy tradition, we have extracted the portion relevant to our discussion.
Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) says: “…the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) was very sympathetic with the people. He (s.a.w.a.) fed them and pleased them just as soon as they approached Islam and were about to run away from it. He (s.a.w.a.) gave them clothing, carpets and beds even though we ourselves as the members of the household lived in homes without roofs and doors. The walls of our homes were made of date palm branches and leaves. We neither had any carpets nor any blankets. Several of us shared one dress and took turns to pray with it. We remained hungry around the clock. The Prophet (s.a.w.a.) even gave away the one-fifth levy (khums) that was our divinely-ordained right to others and assisted the wealthy Arabs with it…”
Any unbiased reader will conclude that the tradition is actually related to the virtues of the Ahle Bait (a.s.) and their simple lifestyle that did not permit them to live lavishly.
But those with mischievous motives derive the meaning to suit their objectives which is to reject the virtues of Ahle Bait (a.s.).
Can one imagine a house for the daughter of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) without a door and ceiling allowing passersby to catch a glance at the inmates of the house? Will the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) permit such a thing for his daughter – the chief of all women of Paradise – whose hijab and modesty in this world and on the Day of Judgment is without any parallel? Also, if we have to accept such a house for Fatima Zahra (s.a.), then we have to accept the same for the Holy Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) houses, since the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) is a greater model than the Ahle Bait (a.s.). Can the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and his wives live in such houses?
It is obvious from the context of the tradition that the houses of the Ahle Bait (a.s.) lacked the structure and amenities of other Muslims. Their houses had doors and roofs and walls, however, they were the bare minimum for survival and not as well constructed as other companions. Just like their clothing was the bare minimum for prayers and other obligatory duties and not for ostentation.
Again, this tradition only ends up showing the virtues of the Ahle Bait (a.s.) vis-à-vis other companions, so bringing up this tradition has only backfired on those who attempt to reject the virtues of the Ahle Bait (a.s.).
For those with mischievous intentions there is no shortage of such conveniently extracted excerpts.

Did Imam Ali(a.s.) defend Fatima Zahra (s.a.) when she was attacked?

Some Muslims claim that Ameerul Momineen – Ali Ibn Abi Talib (a.s.) did not defend the Holy Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) daughter, Hazrat Fatima Zahra (s.a.) when she was attacked. Being a brave and chivalrous person demanded that he should have defended her honour.

Reply

1. Truth is with Ali and turns with Ali
2. Ameerul Momineen Ali b. Abi Talib’s (a.s.) protest
3. Controlled Retaliation
4. Choice between two options
5. Similarity with Past Divine Prophets (a.s.)
6. Usman Ibn Affaan does not defend his wife

Truth is with Ali and turns with Ali

It is apparent from the tone and tenor that such a question can only be raised out of hostility to Ali b. Abi Talib (a.s.) and his Shias. The question is explicitly framed in a bid to trap the Shias. If they say that Ali b. Abi Talib (a.s.) defended Hazrat Fatima (s.a.) – these Muslims reply – but he was advised patience by the Prophet (s.a.w.a.). If he did not defend her, then it means he was not brave enough and all the stories about his bravery are nothing but fables. Or, in order to prove the innocence of their leaders, they suggest that the attack did not take place at all (which is the real motive behind such a question).
Our primary response to such objections against Ali b. Abi Talib (a.s.) is that he (a.s.) can do no wrong. He is right under both conditions – whether he defends Hazrat Fatimah (s.a.) or not. For, the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) declared in no uncertain words that,
Ali is with the truth (haqq) and the truth is with Ali. O Allah! Turn the truth wherever Ali turns.
The authenticity and reliability of this tradition is accepted by all Muslims. So, none can question any action of Ali b. AbiTalib (a.s.) even if apparently it seems strange and unacceptable to them. Just as no Muslim can question Allah the Almighty about his order to the angels to prostrate to Prophet Adam (a.s.), although it is apparently in violation of the basic tenets of monotheism. Can anyone teach divine monotheism to Allah? Likewise, can anyone teach the truth to Ameerul Momineen Ali b. Abi Talib (a.s.)?

Ameerul Momineen Ali b. Abi Talib’s (a.s.) protest

Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) did defend Fatima Zahra (s.a.) from the attackers to show them that he can retaliate and has the power to do so. He warded off Umar Ibn Khattaab and overpowered him. Had he not retaliated, there was the strong likelihood that they might have gone further and killed Hazrat Fatima Zahra (s.a.). Umar had already threatened that he did not care if the house is razed with all its inmates! Hence, premeditated murder could not be ruled out.
But since Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) was bound by the Holy Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) will to observe patience come what may if he did not get the required number of helpers and supporters – he (a.s.) never drew his sword. He (a.s.) once said, “If I just had men sincere to Allah – Mighty and Majestic be He – and His Messenger (s.a.w.a.) equal to the number of these sheep (which were thirty), I would have deposed the son of the eater of flies (referring to Abu Bakr as the profession of both of his parents was to ward off the flies from the dining cloth of Abdullah Ibn Jud’aan al-Taimi. The remuneration for their efforts was not in cash but to either eat the remnants or the flies that they killed. Hence, he (a.s.) called him by this agnomen).”
(Al-Kafi, vol. 8, p. 31, H. 5 The Sermon of Taalootiyyah)    
He (a.s.) did what was necessary to complete the argument else later generations would have said – why didn’t Ali (a.s.) at least put up a token resistance so we would know that he (a.s.) was upset with the state of affairs.
He (a.s.) stopped short of killing Umar when he knew that he would be violating the Holy Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) will.
Ali b. Abi Talib (a.s.) cannot be blamed for his intention like Prophet Yusuf (a.s.) as the Holy Quran says,
And certainly she made for him, and he would have made for her; was it not that he had seen the manifest evidence of his Lord…
  • Kitab-o-Sulaim b. Qais al-Hilali, p. 568 of Sulaim b. Qais al-Hilali (exp. 80 A.H.)
  • Ruh al-Ma’ani fee Tafsir al-Quran al-Azeem vol. 3, p. 124 of Sayyid Mahmud Alusi Baghdadi (exp. 1270 A.H.)
  • Khasais al-Aimmah p.73, Abul Hasan Muhammad b. Husain b. Moosa al-Moosawi al-Baghdadi, Sharif Razi (exp. 406 A.H.), edited and compiled by Dr. Muhammad Hadi Amini

Controlled Retaliation

Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) did not retaliate against the attackers like he did against the infidels of Badr and Ohod because he feared that such retaliation would lead to division among the Muslims and he would be held responsible. This is like the silence of Prophet Haroon (a.s.) when the Bani Israel worshipped the calf, thereby indulging in polytheism and idol-worship.
  • Al-Isteeaab fee Marifah al-As’haab, vol. 2, p. 497, Yusuf b. Abdullah b. Muhammad b. Abd al-Birr (exp. 463)
  • Sharh-o-Nahj al-Balaaghah, vol. 1, p. 184, Abu Hamid Izzuddin b. Hibatullah b. Muhammad b. Muhammad b. Abil Hadid al-Madaaeni al-Motazeli (exp. 655 A.H.) 

Choice between two options

Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) faced two options when his house was attacked crushing the beloved daughter of the Holy Prophet, Hazrat Fatima Zahra (s.a.)– either to retaliate, leading to divisions among Muslims or suffer oppression and save Islam from destruction. He (a.s.) chose the latter, which was in the best interests of Islam.
He narrates in the third sermon (of Shiqshiqiyyah) of Nahj al-Balaaghah:
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 pricking in my eye and suffocation (of mortification) in my throat.

Similarity with Past Divine Prophets (a.s.)

Patience under extreme tribulation was not new to Islam or the creeds of the previous divine Prophets (a.s.), who exhibited patience and tolerance under great difficulties and oppressions, leading to questions like the ones raised by these Muslims – why didn’t those Prophets (a.s.) retaliate against the oppressors?
Imam Ali b. Abi Talib (a.s.) was asked – Why didn’t you fight Abu Bakr and Umar while you fought Talha, Zubair and Muawiya?
He (a.s.) replied – Certainly there is for me an example in six Prophets and from among them is Nuh when he said:
…Indeed, I am overpowered, so help. (Surah Qamar (54): 10)
  • Tafseer Noor al-Saqalain under Surah Qamar: Verse 10 narrating from al-Ehtejaaj of Shaikh Abu Mansoor Ahmad Ibn Ali al-Tabarsi (r.a.)
Prophet Lut’s (a.s.) house was also attacked and the assailants threatened to abduct the handsome youths (angels) if he did not hand them over. Hazrat Lut (a.s.) pleaded with them telling them to marry the daughters of his nation instead?
Why didn’t Prophet Lut (a.s.) defend his household members from the assailants with retaliation instead of showing patience? Ameerul Momineen Ali b. Abi Talib (a.s.) dealt with the assailants likewise with patience rather than open retaliation.

Usman Ibn Affaan does not defend his wife

These Muslims, who raise many objections against Ali b. Abi Talib (a.s.), must read more about Islamic history to learn how others have reacted under similar circumstances. They will undoubtedly come across the attack on the house of the third pseudo-caliph Usman Ibn Affaan by the Muslims. They must object – why did Usman fail to defend his wife when the Muslims laid siege to his house and attacked him and his wife, cutting of her fingers and striking her teeth?
He was after all their chief with an army. Moreover, he had a cousin like Muawiya b. Abi Sufyan (l.a.), who had an army of his own and could have come in no time to defend Usman in Medina! So the more important question is – Why Muawiya did not defend Usman?

Who is the bigger oppressor – killer of Hazrat Fatima (s.a.) or killer of Imam Husain (a.s.)?

The progeny of Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.a.) have always been victims of oppression and tyranny. This is despite their proximity to the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and the sheer number of clear instructions from Allah the High and the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) to the Muslims to love and respect them (a.s.).
Two personalities from the progeny of Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.a.) in particular who were made targets of untold suffering and afflictions by the oppressors were Hazrat Fatima Zahra (s.a.) and Imam Husain Ibn Ali (a.s.).
The oppressors left no stone unturned in harassing, torturing and finally killing these two infallible personalities (a.s.).
It is worth evaluating who was the bigger tyrant – killer of Fatima Zahra (s.a.) or killer of Imam Husain (a.s.).
We highlight one incident each to underscore who from the two was the bigger tyrant.
Shimr’s cowardice
Muhammad Ibn Jurair al-Tabari records in his history: Shimr Ibn Zil Jawshan advanced until he reached a particular tent of Imam Husain (a.s.), and striking it with his lance said: Bring me fire so that I may burn it along with its inmates!
Hearing this, the women-folk started shrieking and came out of the tents in panic.
Imam Husain (a.s.) called out loudly: O son of Zil Jawshan! Do you ask for fire to be brought so as to burn the tent along with my family? May Allah burn you in the fire (of hell)!
Hameed Ibn Muslim relates: I said to Shimr Ibn Zil Jawshan, ‘Glory be to Allah! This does not befit you. Do you desire to taste the wrath of Allah by killing the children and ladies? By Allah! The commander will be pleased with you by killing the men only.’
Then Shimr asked me as to who I was and I said: I shall not disclose who I am.
I said this, for by Allah, I feared that he would complain about me to the ruler.
Thereafter, Shabath Ibn Rib’ee – may Allah curse him – came to Shimr, whose orders he obeyed more (than any other person), and said: I have not heard a more evil speech from you before, nor have I seen a more degraded situation that you have placed yourself into! Have you now started frightening the women?
Upon hearing this, Shimr relented and retreated.
  • Waaqeah al-Taff by Abu Mikhnaf al-Kufi, p. 229
  • Bait al-Ahzaan by Shaikh Abbas al-Qummi (r.a.), p. 138
In spite of being a foolish, empty-headed and shameless person, Shimr on being restrained by Shabath Ibn Rib’ee yielded to his orders and desisted from burning the tents.
However, the individual (who was more shameless than Shimr), came to the house of Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) and threatened to burn him and his family demanding – By Him in whose hands is my life! You should step out of the house to swear allegiance, failing which I will burn the house upon all of you!
Someone informed him – Fatima the daughter of Allah’s Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and his two sons are also in the house! But I (the author) bear witness that he did not desist, nor was he ashamed but he did what he did (i.e. set the house afire).
  • Al-Ehtejaaj by Shaikh al-Tabrisi (r.a.) vol. 1 p. 105
Also refer books of the Ahle Tasannun regarding the incident:
  • Al-Musannaf, vol. 7, p. 432
  • Minhaaj al-Sunnah, vol. 8, p. 291
  • Mizaan al-Etedaal vol. 1 p. 139
  • Al-Waafi be al-Wafayaat vol. 6 p. 17
  • Al-Farq bain al-Feraq p. 107
  • Al-Isteeaab fi Maarefah Al-As’haab, vol. 3, p. 975
  • Ansaab al-Ashraaf, vol. 1, p. 586
  • Al-Iqd al-Fareed, vol. 5, p. 13
  • Sharh Nahj al-Balaaghah vol. 4 p. 192
  • Al-Mukhtasar fi Akhbaar al-Bashar, vol. 1, p. 156
  • Taarikh al-Umam wa al-Muluk, famous as Tarikh Tabari, vol. 3, p. 202
  • Al-Milal wa al-Nehal, vol. 1, p. 59
  • Kitaab al-Amwaal, p. 131
  • Al-Imaamah wa al-Siyaasah, vol. 1, p. 18
And the oppressors of Fatima (s.a.) turned so audacious that those who fled the battlefields until recently promoted themselves as ‘champions’ overnight as this incident shows:
‘And Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) did not have a helper or defender except what has been narrated about Zubair that when he witnessed the group drag Ali (a.s.) from his house, he unsheathed his sword and called out: O tribe of Bani Abdul Muttalib! Ali (a.s.) is being subject to this while you are alive? Then he fumed at Umar and lifted his sword to strike at him. Then Khalid Ibn Walid hurled a stone at him which caused the sword to fall down. Then Umar picked up his sword and broke it by slamming it against a stone.’
  • Behaar al-Anwaar vol. 28 p. 229
Oppression on Fatima (s.a.) was foundation for Karbala
Another response to the question on who was the bigger tyrant is available in traditions.
Traditions are categorical that the attack on Fatima Zahra’s (s.a.) house laid the foundation for all other atrocities on Aal Muhammad (a.s.) including Karbala.
Mufazzal Ibn Umar (r.a.) asked Imam Sadiq (a.s.): O Son of Allah’s Prophet, which is the day of retaliation (by enemies) that was most difficult for you?
Imam Sadiq (a.s.) – There is no greater difficulty for us than the Day of Karbala even though it was like the Day of Saqifah and the burning down the door on Ali – Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) and Fatima (s.a.) and Hasan (a.s.) and Husain (a.s.) and Zainab (s.a.) and Umm Kulsum (s.a.) and Fizza and the killing of Muhassin (Mohsin) (a.s.) with a kick is greater and more bitter because it laid the foundation for the Day.
  • Hidayah al-Qubra p 417
This and similar traditions clearly prove that the killer of Fatima Zahra (s.a.) was the bigger oppressor and laid the foundation for Karbala
Who is the bigger tyrant?
Based on the arguments, it does not take a genius to judge who was the bigger tyrant.
Shimr, on being rebuked, refrained from burning the tents and oppressing helpless womenfolk and children, at least till the time Imam Husain (a.s.) was alive.
However, the killer of Fatima Zahra (s.a.), showed no remorse or even humanitarianism. Of all women and children, he targeted those from the household of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.). He did not even spare the unborn Mohsin Ibn Ali (a.s.). He was not only personally engaged in burning the house; he even enlisted a mob for the cause, as if it was a great virtue to be performed in congregation!
The intellect judges that the killer of Fatima Zahra (s.a.) was the bigger oppressor. Therefore, it is no wonder that the killer of Fatima Zahra (s.a.) will be the most humiliated and chastised person on the Day of Judgement.

Popular Posts (Last 30 Days)

 
  • Recent Posts

  • Mobile Version

  • Followers