< Previous Part: Fatima's Anger and Boycott of Abu Bakr
Next Part: Coming soon >
In the previous part, we have discussed Fatima's anger and boycott against Abu Bakr for the crimes he had committed against her. She demanded that he has no entry to her Janazah, and remained unwilling to initiate any talk with him until her death. We have analysed several objections raised against Fatima's anger to Abu Bakr, where the advocates of Abu Bakr have insisted that Fatima (as) was not angry at Fatima, but rather it was a mere misunderstanding that was resolved. This delusion is entirely baseless, and could not be further from the truth as demonstrated beforehand.
However, some of Abu Bakr's advocates have conceaded to her anger, and accepted that she was displeased with him until her death. They argue that there is no issue with this belief, and rather claim that Fatima's anger held no significance or importance as she was not justified to be angry. They come up with various level of excuses, but ultimately conclude that it does not change a thing for Fatima (as) to be angry or not.
For instance, Ibn Kathir says in his al-Bidaya wa al-Nihaya. Vol. 8 pg. 195:
فَتَعَتَّبَتْ عَلَيْهِ بِسَبَبِ ذَلِكَ وَهِيَ امْرَأَةٌ مِنْ بَنِي آدَمَ، تَأْسَفُ كَمَا يَأْسَفُونَ
So she (i.e. Fatima) reapproached him (Abu Bakr) because she is a woman from the children of Adam, feeling upset just as anyone feels upset.
According to Ibn Kathir, Fatima (as) is just like anyone else, if she were angry or not, it doesn't change anything about the situation, for who is she to have her anger to be emphasised as so important? How disturbing it is see the advocates of Abu Bakr speak about Lady Zahraa (as) in such way? She is the mistress of the women of Paradise, does such a person's anger about being oppressed serve no value?
Take another instance of disturbing excuses that the Sunnis bring, such as Ibn Uthaymin who claims Fatima had become insane and 'lost clarity' in his At-Ta'liq 'ala Sahih Muslim Vol. 9, pg. 78:
الشيخ : اللهم اعف عنها، وإلا فأبو بكر ما استند إلى رأي، وإنما استند إلى نص، وكان عليها أن تقبل قول النبي صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ : ( إنا لَا نُورَثُ مَا تَرَكْنَا فَهُوَ صَدَقَة )، لكن كما قلت لكم قبل قليل، عند المخاصمة لا يبقى للإنسان عقل يُدرك به ما يقول، أو يفعل، أو يتصرّف فيه، فنسأل الله أن يعفو عنها عن هجرها لخليفة رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم.
"O Allah, pardon her. Abu Bakr did not rely on personal opinion; he acted based on explicit textual evidence. She should have accepted the Prophet's ﷺ statement: 'We, the Prophets, do not leave inheritance; what we leave behind is charity.' However, as I mentioned earlier, in moments of dispute, a person can lose the clarity of thought needed to fully understand their words, actions, or decisions. Therefore, we ask Allah to forgive her for her estrangement from the Caliph of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ."
Thus, we believed it was necessary to address this claim as its separate part, because such a viewpoint is simply unacceptable to argue.
Problem 1: Unlawfulness to ignore a muslim
It is impermissible according to the shari'a to ignore a muslim for the time period that Fatima (as) had done so, as evident by a report in Sahih al-Bukhari 6077:
Allah’s Apostle said: “It is not lawful for a man to desert his brother Muslim for more than three nights. (It is unlawful for them that) when they meet, one of them turns his face away from the other, and the other turns his face from the former, and the better of the two will be the one who greets the other first.”.
Ibn Hajar al-’Asqalani comments on this in his Fath al-Bari, Vol. 18 pg. 468:
قَالَ بن عَبْدِ الْبَرِّ أَجْمَعُوا عَلَى أَنَّهُ لَا يَجُوزُ الْهِجْرَانُ فَوْقَ ثَلَاثٍ إِلَّا لِمَنْ خَافَ مِنْ مُكَالَمَتِهِ مَا يُفْسِدُ عَلَيْهِ دِينَهُ
Ibn Abd al-Barr narrates that there is an ijma amongst the scholars, that it is not permissible to stay aloof from a Muslim for more than three days, failure to do so means that one is ignoring the Deen.
Sayyida Fatima (as) certainly did not concur with this ijma (consensus) and one can clearly see the low estimation that she held of Abu Bakr. Such was the anger of Fatima (as) with regards to the treatment that was meted out to her. For the Sunnis however, accusing Fatima (as) of this sin is not of a problem!
However, this accusation melts down from the viewpoint that Fatima (sa) was in the wrong, and hence her anger was not jusitifed. On the contrary, Fatima presented a compelling case with enough evidence to support her claims, while Abu Bakr did not.
She and her husband brought evidence, testimonies as well as Quranic proof (of other Prophets). She also made Abu Bakr himself admit she was a rightful heir.
Neither Ali nor al-’Abbas accepted the hadith of Abu Bakr, rather they deemed him a ‘liar, treacherous, sinful and dishonest’, and likewise did Fatima.
Abu Bakr was the one who failed to bring proof, as his hadith was ahad and unheard of by any of the relatives of the Prophet.
Abu Bakr did not even have a right to ask for evidence since he isn’t the wasi of the Prophet but Ali was.
Therefore, if Fatima (as) had ignored Abu Bakr for all this time, she had not conradicted this ruling nor committed a sin, and that is because she was in the wrong & oppressed. Her rejection of him was in the matter of the sins he had committed against her, and so she made him pay a price by boycotting him to the extent she did.
Problem 2: Has Fatima (as) died a death of Jahilliya (ignorance)?
It is famously recorded in both Shi'a and Sunni texts that whoever departs from the allegiance of the Amir (ruler), who maintains the main body of the muslims, will die a death of Jahiliyya (ignorance). Such a death means he dies as a non-muslim, upon disbelief and is a reference to pre-islamic ignorance.
For instance, it is recorded in Sahih Muslim 1848a:
It has been narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: One who defected from obedience (to the Amir) and separated from the main body of the Muslims-if he died in that state-would die the death of one belonging to the days of Jahiliyya (i.e. would not die as a Muslim)
In another wording, it is recorded with a reliable chain in Musnad Ahmad b. Hanbal, Vol. 11, pg. 188:
حدثنا أسود بن عامر، أنا أبو بكر، عن عاصم، عن أبي صالح، عن معاوية، قال: قال رسول الله: “من مات بغير إمام مات ميتة جاهلية.”
Aswad ibn ‘Amir narrated to us, Abu Bakr narrated from ‘Asim, from Abu Salih, from Mu‘awiyah, who said: The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: “Whoever dies without an Imam dies the death of ignorance.”
The same can be found in Mustadrak al-Hakim, Vol. 1, pg. 150 authenticated by al-Dhahabi. It was also recorded in Sahih Ibn Hibban, Vol. 10, pg. 434 with a reliable chain, and likewise in Kitab al-Sunnah, pg. 502, Hadith 1057 by Ibn Abi 'Asim.
Now Sunnis may try to argue that a woman does not pledge allegiance (bay'ah) and hence is excluded from this hadith, but this is not true at all. Women do give bay’ah to their Imam, just not through the same way as men because they can’t touch each other; rather it is through dipping their hands in water with the Imam. This evidently confirmed in both the Qur'an & Sunnah, such as in Surah Al-Mumtahanah 60:12:
يَٰٓأَيُّهَا ٱلنَّبِىُّ إِذَا جَآءَكَ ٱلْمُؤْمِنَٰتُ يُبَايِعْنَكَ عَلَى أن لَّا يُشْرِكْنَ بِٱللَّهِ شَيْـًٔا وَلَا يَسْرقْن وَلَا يَزْنِينَ وَلَا يَقْتُلْنَ أَوْلَٰدَهنّ وَلا يَأْتِينَ بِبُهْتَٰنٍ يَفْتَرِينَهُۥ بينَ أَيْدِيهِنَّ وَأَرْجُلِهِنَّ وَلَا يَعْصِينك فِى مَعرُوفٍۙ فَبَايِعْهُنَّ وَٱسْتَغْفِرْ لَهنَ ٱللَّه إِن ٱلله غفور رحيم
Prophet, when believing women come and pledge to you that they will not ascribe any partner to God, nor steal, nor commit adultery, nor kill their children, nor lie about who has fathered their children, nor disobey you in any righteous thing, then you should accept their pledge of allegiance and pray to God to forgive them: God is most forgiving and merciful.
It is also recorded in Sahih al-Bukhari 7214 that women used to pledge allegiance to him:
The Prophet (ﷺ) used to take the Pledge of allegiance from the women by words only after reciting this Holy Verse:--(60.12) "..that they will not associate anything in worship with Allah." (60.12) And the hand of Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) did not touch any woman's hand except the hand of that woman his right hand possessed. (i.e. his captives or his lady slaves).
It was also recorded in Sunan Abu Dawud 2941:
The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) never touched the hand of woman, but he received the oath of allegiance from her. When he received the oath of allegiance from her, she gave it to him, and he said: Go, I have received your oath of allegiance.
Therefore, this response is rendered as invalid. Fatima (as) rejected the Amir (or Imam) of her time, refusing to pledge to Abu Bakr out of anger against him for taking away her rights. Therefore, she would have died a death of Jahilliya, but how can the lady of Heaven die such a death? It is apparent in this contradiction that either Fatima is not a lady of Heaven, or Abu Bakr was not the rightful Amir (ruler). In either case, it disproves the fundamental beliefs of the Sunnis.
Problem 3: Fatima's Anger is the Anger of Allah
Allah says in the Qur’an in Ash-Shura 42:23:
قُل لَّآ أَسۡـَٔلُكُمۡ عَلَيۡهِ أَجۡرًا إِلَّا ٱلۡمَوَدَّةَ فِى ٱلۡقُرۡبَىٰۗ
Say: I do not ask of you any reward for it but love for my near relatives.
While Sunnis disagree what the meaning of this verse is, we can affirm with no doubt that the Ahl al-Bayt (as) viewed this as about themselves, and despite the disagreements there were, major Tabi’een such Sa’eed b. Jubayr also affirmed it.
In Tafsir al-Tabari, Vol. 20, pg. 498 - 499 we read a narration of Imam Zayn al-’Abideen (as):
عن أبي الدَّيْلَمِ قال: لمَّا جِئ بعليٍّ بن الحسينِ أسيرًا، فأُقيم على دَرَج دمشقَ، قام رجلٌ من أهلِ الشامِ فقال: الحمدُ للهِ الذي قتَلكم واسْتَأْصَلَكم، وقطَع قَرْنَ الفتنةِ. فقال له عليُّ بنُ الحسينِ: أقرَأْتَ القرآنَ؟ قال: نعم. قال: أقرأْتَ "آلَ حم"؟ قال: قرأتُ القرآنَ ولم أقْرَأْ "آل حم؟!. قال: ما قرَأْتَ: ﴿قُلْ لَا أَسْأَلُكُمْ عَلَيْهِ أَجْرًا إِلَّا الْمَوَدَّةَ فِي الْقُرْبَى﴾؟ قال: وإنكم لأنتم هم؟ قال: نعم
Abu al-Daylami said: When Ali ibn al-Husayn was brought as a captive and was stationed on a platform in Damascus, a man from the people of Sham stood up and said: “Praise be to Allah who killed you and exterminated you, and cut off the horn of fitna." Ali ibn al-Husayn said to him: "Have you read the Quran?". He said: "Yes." Ali asked: "Have you read, 'Alif Lam Haa Mim'?". The man replied: "I have read the Quran but not 'Alif Lam Haa Mim'." Ali asked: "Have you not read, ‘Say: I do not ask of you for it any payment except [for] love of [my] relatives’?.” The man said: “Are you from them?.” He (Ali) said: “Yes.”
The Ahl al-Bayt (as) saw that this verse is about them, and so love for them is obligatory upon all muslims. Abu Bakr’s upsetting of Fatima (as) is thus unique, and directly contradictory to the commands of Allah (swt). This is also reiterated in Mirkat al-Mafatih Vol. 11 pg. 292:
أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ - صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ - قَالَ: " «فَاطِمَةُ بَضْعَةٌ مِنِّي، فَمَنْ أَغْضَبَهَا أَغْضَبَنِي» ". وَفِي رِوَايَةٍ: " يُرِيبُنِي مَا أَرَابَهَا، وَيُؤْذِينِي مَا أَذَاهَا ". مُتَّفَقٌ عَلَيْهِ. قَالَ الْإِمَامُ مَالِكٌ: وَلَا أُفَضِّلُ أَحَدًا عَلَى بَضْعَةِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ
Rasulullah (saw) said: "Indeed Fatimah is a part of me, and what angers her angers me, and what upsets her upsets me."
Imam Malik said, “And I do not favor anyone over the part (i.e. Fatima) of Rasulullah (saw).”
Therefore, this anger is very significant as it means Allah is angry and this is something all muslims seek refuge from everytime we read Surah Fatiha 1:7:
صِرَٰطَ ٱلَّذِينَ أَنۡعَمۡتَ عَلَيۡهِمۡ غَيۡرِ ٱلۡمَغۡضُوبِ عَلَيۡهِمۡ وَلَا ٱلضَّآلِّينَ
The path of those upon whom You have bestowed favor, not of those who have earned [Your] anger or of those who are astray.
Did Fatima become Angry at Ali (as)?
As part of their efforts to protect Abu Bakr, the Sunnis have objected to the anger of Fatima (as) and argued that she was once angry at Ali (as), thus just as her anger does not defame Ali neither does it for Abu Bakr. We will analyze the truthfulness behind this claim in a concise manner. Before we embark, we must mention that reports that the Sunnis transmit in regards to Fatima's anger over Ali are by no means authoritative on us, and so we will only analyse what has been transmitted by the Shi'a since it carries authority in this argument. Thus, if our readers want to know about the story of Ali marrying Abi Jahl's daughter, we would redirect them to our article dedicated for this.
First Hadith: It is recorded in Manaqib Ibn Shahrashub, quoted in Bihar al-Anwar, Vol 43 pg. 42 by al-'Allama al-Majlisi:
مناقب ابن شهرآشوب: ابن عبد ربه الأندلسي في العقد عن عبد الله بن الزبيرفي خبر عن معاوية بن أبي سفيان قال: دخل الحسن بن علي على جده (صلى الله عليه وآله) وهو يتعثر بذيله فأسر إلى النبي (صلى الله عليه وآله) سرا فرأيته وقد تغير لونه، ثم قام النبي (صلى الله عليه وآله) حتى أتى منزل فاطمة فأخذ بيدها فهزها إليه هزا قويا ثم قال: يا فاطمة إياك وغضب علي فإن الله يغضب لغضبه ويرضى لرضاه، ثم جاء علي فأخذ النبي (صلى الله عليه وآله) بيده ثم هزها إليه هزا خفيفا ثم قال: يا أبا الحسن إياك وغضب فاطمة فإن الملائكة تغضب لغضبها وترضى لرضاها، فقلت: يا رسول الله مضيت مذعورا وقد رجعت مسرورا، فقال: يا معاوية كيف لا أسر وقد أصلحت بين اثنين هما أكرم الخلق على الله.
The virtues of Ibn Shahr Ashub: Ibn Abdrabbih Al-Andalusi, in Al-'Iqd, narrates from Abdullah b. Al-Zubair in a report about Muawiyah b. Abi Sufyan. He said:
"Al-Hasan b. Ali entered upon his grandfather (saw) while stumbling on his garment. He whispered something to the Prophet (saw) secretly, and I saw the color of the Prophet's face change. Then the Prophet stood and went to Fatimah's house. He took her hand and shook it strongly toward him and said: 'O Fatimah, beware of angering Ali, for Allah becomes angry at his anger and pleased at his pleasure.' Then Ali came, and the Prophet (saw) took his hand and shook it gently toward him, saying: 'O Abu Al-Hasan, beware of angering Fatimah, for the angels become angry at her anger and pleased at her pleasure.' I then said: 'O Messenger of Allah, I was in a state of fear, but I have returned with joy.' He replied: 'O Muawiyah, how could I not be pleased when I have reconciled between two of the most honored beings to Allah?'"
Here, a quarrel occurred between Ali (as) and Fatima (as) to which Mu’awiya solved by reconciling the two. This narration is quoted in a Shi’a text (Manaqib Ibn Shahr), but quoted from a Sunni book. The author himself states that the source of this text was from al-Iqd al-Farid of Ibn Abd Rabbah, a famous Sunni historian known for his disconnected chains, and he narrates this from Abdullah b. Zubayr without a chain, making it unreliable from both perspectives.
Hence, in the text below it al-Majlisi quotes:
قال ابن بابويه: هذا غير معتمد
Ibn Babaway (Shaykh al-Saduq) said: This is unreliable.
If the question is raised as to why it was cited when it’s a false narration, then we should point out that there is no prohibition on citing traditions from other sect. Allah (swt) has also mentioned the beliefs of the Kuffar and Munafiqeen in the Holy Qur’an. It is not true that an author believes in everything he compiles in a book unless he has specifically said so.
Second Hadith: In another report recorded in 'Illal al-Shara'i by al-Saduq, it reads that Abu Dharr migrated to Abyssina with Ja’far at-Tayyar and gave a slave-girl to him to which he gave to Ali (as) as a gift. When Fatima (as) saw his (Ali’s) head on her (the slave-girl’s) lap, she got jealous and left the house out of frustration. Thus, the Sunnis show thatf Fatima got angry at Ali!
In response to this dubious report, we argue that it is fabricated. This is because the chain of narration is very unreliable, which in facts quotes Sunni narrators in the chain such as Waki' & Abu Saleh. Aside from that, the content of the report is historically innaccurate as Abu Dharr never migrated to Abyssinia. For instance, Ibn Abd al-Barr says in his al-Isti’ab, pg. 800:
أسلم بعد أربعة فكان خامسا ثم انصرف الى بلاد قومه فأقام بها حتى قدم النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم المدينة
He converted to Islam after four persons, hence he was the fifth, then he returned to his homeland and lived there until the Prophet (s) migrated to Madina.
Similarly this was affirmed in:
Al-Isaba, Vol 7 pg. 105 - 107 by Ibn Hajar al-’Asqalani
Usud al-Ghaba, pg. 1316 by Ibn al-Athir
Mashaher Ulama al-Amsar, pg. 18 by Ibn Hibban
Siyar A'lam al-Nubala, Vol 2 pg. 46 by al-Dhahabi
Abu Dharr (ra) returned to his tribe after embracing Islam and stayed there. Then the battles of Badr, Uhud and Khandaq took place after which he migrated to Madina, but he never left to go to Abyssinia and this has not been recorded anywhere; neither from Sunni nor Shi’a texts and for Shi’a sources one can refer back to the Shi’a biographical dictionaries:
Al-Tabaqat, pg. 25 by al-Barqi
Rijal al-Tusi, pg. 32 - 59 by al-Tusi
Al-Ikmal. pg. 59 by al-Tabrizi
Mustadrakat Ilm al-Rijal, pg. 63 by al-Shahruhdi
Mujam al-Rijal, Vol. 5, pg. 138 - 139 by al-Khu’i
Finally, Ja’far at-Tayyar came to Medina following Khaybar (7th Hijra) whilst Abu Dharr was there at Khandaq (5th Hijra), so Abu Dharr reached Medina 2 years before Ja’far which put together puts the nail in the coffin that this report is undoubtedly a fabrication.
Third Hadith: In a tradition recorded in Amali al-Tusi pg. 683 - 684, Majlis 38, Hadith # 8/1455, it reads that Fatima (as) became angry with Abi Bakr for not returning Fadak and also at Ali (as) for not helping her! This has also been recorded by Tabrisi in his al-Ihtijaj Vol. 1, pg. 280 - 282:
لما انصرفت فاطمة (عليها السلام) من عند أبي بكر، أقبلت على أمير المؤمنين (عليه السلام) فقالت: يا بن أبي طالب، اشتملت مشيمة الجنين، وقعدت حجرة الظنين (2)، نقضت قادمة الأجدل (3)، فخانك (4) ريش الأعزل، هذا ابن أبي قحافة قد ابتزني نحيلة أبي وبليغة () ابني، والله لقد أجد في ظلامتي، وألد في خصامي، حتى منعتني قيلة (6) نصرها، والمهاجرة وصلها، وغضت الجماعة دوني طرفها، فلا مانع ولا دافع، خرجت والله كاظمة، وعدت راغمة، فليتني ولا خيار لي مت قبل ذلتي، وتوفيت قبل منيتي، عذيري فيك الله حاميا، ومنك عاديا (7)، ويلاه في كل شارق، ويلاه مات المعتمد ووهن العضد، شكواي إلى ربي، وعدواي (8) إلى أبي، اللهم أنت أشد قوة.
When Fatimah (as) departed from Abu Bakr, she approached Amir al-Mu'minin (as) and said: "O son of Abu Talib, you have wrapped yourself in the cloak of a fetus and sat idle like the accused. You have overturned the advancing hawk, and the feathers of the weak have failed you. This is the son of Abu Quhafah who has snatched from me the inheritance of my father and the legacy of my sons. By Allah, he has intensified my oppression and been severe in his enmity, until Qaylah (the tribe) withheld her support from me, and the Muhajirun severed their connection with me, and the group turned their eyes away from me. Thus, there is neither a defender nor a protector. By Allah, I have departed in sorrow and returned in humiliation. Would that I had died before my humiliation and departed before my death. My grievance is with Allah as my protector, and against you as my adversary. Woe unto me at every dawn, woe unto me; the one relied upon has died, and the support has weakened. My complaint is to my Lord, and my enemy is to my father. O Allah, You are the strongest in power."
However, we would simply point out that two of the narrators, namely Muhammed b. Ali b. Mufadhal al-Kufi, who is Maj'hul/unknown, and only narrates this tradition in all of our books as well as Muhammed b. Ali b. Mu'amar al-Kufi, is also Majlhul. Thus, the report is Majhul, and cannot be advanced as proof.
Thus, we conclude that Ali (as) never angered Fatima (as), and for whomsever dies with the wrath of Fatima upon him, dies a death of Allah's wrath upon him.
< Previous Part: Fatima's Anger and Boycott of Abu Bakr
Next Part: Coming soon >
コメント