Portraying Contradiction Differently

 

Someone has indicated another way of contradiction among the narrations referring to as “mushaf Fatima” saying, “There are two narrations saying that it is in the handwriting of Ali (A.S.) and deals with what the angel told al-Zahra’ (A.S.) but the other narrations do not give such an indication, and these refer to what is permissible and what is prohibitive and to Fa tima’s will; so, one of them only has to be preferred over the other.”

We say that we have already commented on what the man has said in this regard, and let us add here our comment on his latest statement, that is, that one of them only has to be accepted in preference over the other, by saying that his statement suggests that both narrations contradict each other. This cannot be accepted at all. One of them has to be eliminated while the other accepted according to the norms of preference. Such argument is not acceptable because:

 

FIRST: The existence of two narratives indicating that the handwriting was that of Ali (A.S.) does not mean that the other, which is silent about this issue, denies it. It simply did not deal with it because it dealt with other fronts where there was no need to obligate anyone to mention the name of the one who wrote or the one who dictated.

If there are two narrations, both declaring that Ali (A.S.) was the one who wrote the mushaf, is there even one single narration declaring that Fatima (A.S.) was the one who wrote and authored it?! So, why emphasize that “mushaf Fatima” was in her own handwriting although this contradicts the conclusion that it was handwritten by Ali, pace be upon him?!

 

SECOND: We do not know how there can be any contradiction among the narrations some of which have stated that the writer of the mushaf is Ali (A.S.) while the others state that what Ali (A.S.) wrote contained what was permissible and prohibitive, then other narrations have stated that in this mushaf there is the will of Fatima (A.S.)! So, the fact that both latest categories of narrations do not name Ali (A.S.) as the writer, should they both be looked upon as contradicting those saying that Ali (A.S.) was the one who wrote the mushaf?! Where is the contradiction?! How can one be the opposite of the other?!

 

THIRD: When we reviewed the narrations, we found the one by Hammad ibn `Othman saying that “mushaf Fatima” does not contain anything about what is permissible and what is prohibitive. Then we reviewed that of al-Husain ibn Abul `Ala’ and found the reference to people needing such text was not relevant to “mushaf Fatima” but to the cipher. The outcome of this review is that reference to what is permissible and what is prohibitive is in neither the cipher nor the mushaf. Then we reviewed al-Khath`ami’s narration and found it discussing Fatima’s book, not “mushaf Fatima.” We have already stated that she (A.S.) had other writings besides the mushaf.

What we have mentioned regarding the difference in the objectives behind noorrating certain particulars is, in some of its aspects, similar to transmitting the events that took place to al-Zahra’ (A.S.); so, we find out that some of them threatened to burn the house...

Another noorrator transmits how the firewood was gathered...

A third transmits how a fire torch was brought...

A fourth transmits the burning of the door and the igniting of the fire...

A fifth transmits breaking the door and entering the house by force...

A sixth transmits how al-Zahra’ (A.S.) was squeezed between the door and the wall, and how she miscarried...

A seventh transmits how she was slapped on her cheek, or how she was hit on her hand, or on her forehead, or on her back, or on her wrist, till the mark looked like a bracelet...

An eight transmits how her rib was broken...

A ninth transmits that `Omer [ibn al-Khattab] hit her...

A tenth transmits how al-Mugharah, too, hit her...

An eleventh transmits how Qunfath hit her by order of his master, `Omer...

A twelfth transmits how Khalid ibn al-Walad hit her..., etc.

 

None of these transmissions belies the others. Each transmits a piece of fact of what took place either because there was a reason for transmitting it or because this is what became certain to the transmitter as having taken place, or due to a political circumstance, etc., and there is nothing odd in all of this.

Yet the differences among the particulars of transmission does not harm the fact that the even did, indeed, take place; rather, it underscores it. If many do not pay attention to small details, then it is a fact that Fatima (A.S.) was, indeed, hit. And the transmitters differed regarding who the hitter was with the open possibility that they all may have taken part in such a horrible and abominable act. The matters got mixed up during the melee.

Such is the case regarding “mushaf Fatima,” peace of Allah be upon her, with one exception: The reason why there is a variety of transmission of what took place is mostly rendered to political, sectarian or other inclinations. As regarding Fatima’s mushaf, the reason is to clarify something relevant to the status of al-Zahra’ (A.S.) or to the significance of the mushaf attributed to her and to its authenticity, or something like that.

But we could not at all confirm the motives behind “mushaf Fatima” containing juristic injunctions, nor could we understand the reasons or the justifications for many issues stated in this regard and in other numerous and diverse issues.