Status of AL-ZAHRA’ (A.S.) with the Ansar  and with Her Assailants

 

Someone claims that those who assaulted the house of al-Zahra’ (A.S.) loved and respected her, and that those brought by `Omer had hearts full of love for her; so, how could they have assaulted her?!

Then he seeks evidence from the following:

According to Bihar al-Anwar and many other references, Ali (A.S.) used to take al-Zahra’ (A.S.) around the houses of the Muhajiran and the Ansar so that she might defend his right. She, then, wanted to take advantage of her status and of the respect awarded to her to win their support; so, how could anyone dare to assault her?!

Obviously, such talk is derived from al-Fadl ibn Roozbahan who used to rebut `allama al-Hilli by saying, “The chiefs of the Ansar and senior sahabis were Muslims who were led by their love for the Messenger of Allah (A.S.); so, could it be possible that they remained silent and did not speak to Abu Bakr in this regard? Surely burning the house of the family of the Prophet (A.S.) is not permissible or commendable.”^[1]

The answer is as follows:

 

FIRST: There were three parties in Medina:
 

1. A party which nothing could deter, be it religion or ethics or humane feelings, from harming Ahl al-Bayt (A.S.), even burning their houses or killing them and those who seek refuge with them with the fire.

2. Another party which sympathized a little with the oppressed group which faced all these great calamities, but it preferred to remain safe and was not ready to sacrifice anything for the oppressed, not even for righteousness or for the religion to which they were invited.

All these elements combined, the love, respect, religion, oppression, humanity, could not move it to take a decisive stand against the assailing party aiming at forcing Ali (A.S.) to swear the oath of allegiance to him. Both Ali (A.S.) and al-Zahra’ (A.S.) tried to stir this particular party to action, but they could not; thus was the will of the Messenger of Allah (A.S.) lost.

3. A third party which stood beside al-Zahra’ (A.S.) ready to sacrifice everything precious for the sake of effecting justice and equity and putting an end to injustice when daring and courage were viable. The members of this party was very small; they included Aba Tharr, Salman, al-Miqdad, `Ammar...

Thus, it becomes obvious that there was no indication that the assailants were members of the party that loved al-Zahra’ (A.S.) rather than the third or the second party. We find their actions, assaults and practices, as clear indications that they belonged to the party which did not respect her but did hate her, and they did not hesitate to burn her house with everyone who sought shelter in it. They actually caused all of that to happen when they hit her and caused her to miscarry, so she died a martyr in its aftermath, although they were trying not to openly express such a hatred. Such was their policy. Thus did they placate people so that the public might not lean more to the family of Ali (A.S.) and so that they would be convinced that he and his Ahl al-Bayt (A.S.) were, indeed, oppressed, and that their way was more right.

To sum up, there is no meaning for pointing to the status enjoyed by al-Zahra’ (A.S.) and to the respect which she enjoyed by the members of the second party which liked its skins to remain safe and did not want to enter the arena of struggle. There is no meaning for pointing out to the status of and to the “respect” whereby she was held by the assailing party which did not hesitate to attack al-Zahra’ (A.S.) and confront her with evil and harm.