Who Said to `Omer, “But FATIMA (A.S.) is Inside...”?

 

Someone says that those who objected to `Omer, when he threatened to set the house of al-Zahra’ (A.S.) to fire, were the same individuals whom he had brought with him to assault her house, so they said to him, “But Fatima (A.S.) is inside!" And he said to them, “So what?!”

Their objection is evidence that they loved al-Zahra’ (A.S.), venerated and respected her, because it means that “The daughter of the Messenger of Allah (A.S.) was inside the house; so, how could we enter her house by force, scare and terrorize her?”

It has already been stated that the individual says that the assailants brought by `Omer had hearts that were full of love for al-Zahra’ (A.S.), so how can we imagine that they would attack her?!

Before answering this question, let us keep in mind two issues mentioned by someone:

The first is that those who objected to `Omer are the same individuals whom he had brought to attack the house where revelation had descended.

The second is that their objection reflects the status al-Zahra’ (A.S.) enjoyed in their hearts.

We would like to answer both points by saying:

 

FIRST: Who said that those who objected to `Omer’s order were the same assailants? And what is the evidence for that, if any? Fatima’s house was located inside the Prophet’s Mosque itself, and people used to frequent the Mosque and be present thereat most of the time. When they assaulted the house of al-Zahra’ (A.S.), “... people assembled to watch, and the streets of Medina were full of men”^[1]. So, why could those who objected to the assailants not be among those assembling men who gathered to watch what was going on or some of the good believers who were present at the Mosque of the Prophet (A.S.)? That would make more sense, for it appears that the assailants did not consider any value for the house, or for those inside it, or even to the Mosque or to the grave of the Messenger of Allah (A.S.) which was also inside the house of al-Zahra’ (A.S.).

 

SECOND: If we suppose that some men among the assailants said it, it is evident that they did not respect al-Zahra’ (A.S.), nor did they venerate her. Such a protest could have been prompted by their fear of the consequences of committing something as serious as that... If people accepted their conduct to attack Ali (A.S.), since he was the sensitive nucleus of the opposition to their schemes and to their ambitions to take over the government, and if they excused them because Ali (A.S.) had killed their fathers and sons and brothers while defending the Cause of Allah (A.S.), al-Zahra’ (A.S.) did not do any such deeds. So, attacking her house with the intention to burn it, the only daughter of the Messenger of Allah (A.S.) that she was, the one who was well known as such throughout the entire Islamic world, could not have been justified at all by the public, and it could have turned things against them if it appeared that al-Zahra’ (A.S.) had been killed as a result.

 

THIRD: The assailants attacked al-Zahra’ (A.S.) by beating her and through other means, causing her to miscarry. Nobody among the assailants, nor among others who did what they did, objected to it. Had they been afraid of `Omer, were they afraid of Qunfath, or of al-Mugharah ibn Shu`bah, or of their likes?!