“Ali (A.S.) is a Rebel Who Had to be Subdued”

 

Someone offers a view saying that:

 

1. Those who assembled at the house of al-Zahra’ (A.S.), namely Ali (A.S.) and Bani Hashim, represented the opposition to the new government. The nature of the matter required that when the opposition was assembled to rebel against the caliphate, the rulers had to confront them and subdue them. Their going there, then, was to arrest Ali (A.S.) in order to put an end to the opposition.

 

2. The purpose of the assailants was to arrest Ali (A.S.); as for Fatima (A.S.), they had no business with her because there was a public opinion present then. `Omer’s statement “So what?!” which he gave in answer to those who said to him, “But Fatima (A.S.) is inside!” comes natural. It means: “We have no business with Fatima (A.S.); we only want to put an end to the opposition by arresting Ali (A.S.). So, if al-Zahra’ (A.S.) is present, we do not intend to have anything to do with her; our objective is only to arrest Ali (A.S.).”

 

The answer is:

 

FIRST: We are very surprised to see how Ali (A.S.) is described as a rebel and so are those with him from Bani Hashim as well as others. They are all described as the “opposition”! Since when did the usurpers settle in and establish their authority so that the others could be described as an “opposition”?! The assault on the house of al-Zahra’ (A.S.) took place immediately after Abu Bakr had already returned from Saqifat Bani Sa`ida and went to the Mosque. It is there that Abu Bakr sat on the pulpit on which the Prophet (A.S.) used to sit, and it was then that the assault started. Even after they had held the reins of authority in their hands, is it right or wrong to label the person who has the legitimate right with him, the one against whom the assailants initiated their attack in order to usurp his right and position wherein Allah Almighty placed him and to subdue him with force, coercion, trickery and other illegitimate means, as an “opposition” or a rebel who had to be subdued? Should all of this be done in order to render legitimacy to the oppressive usurper?

 

SECOND: Had all this been “right,” is it right for `Omer to say, “You shall get out or I burn the house and everyone inside it!” They said to him, “But Fatima (A.S.) is inside!” He said, “So what?!” Does this statement mean, “We have no business with Fatima (A.S.); we only want to arrest Ali (A.S.)”? Does this mean that they would save Fatima (A.S.) from being burnt and direct the fire towards Ali (A.S.) rather than anyone else?! Is it thus that the assailants could express their respect for Fatima (A.S.) in lieu of all the statements which her father, the Messenger of Allah (A.S.), made about her?!

 

THIRD: Does the existence of a public opinion mean that it would stop them from burning Fatima (A.S.)?! If this public opinion permitted the burning of Ali (A.S.), why did it not likewise permit the burning of Fatima (A.S.) and both al-Hasan and al-Husain, peace be upon them both, with him, since they are his supporters?! Since the statements made by the Prophet (A.S.) in honour of al-Zahra’ (A.S.) served as a deterrent, why were they not deterred by his statements (A.S.) in honour of Ali (A.S.)?! What kind of “public opinion” is this that allows arresting and assaulting Ali (A.S.)?!

Had there really been a public opinion, why did it not deter someone from saying that the Messenger of Allah (A.S.) was “hallucinating”?! And why was the speaker not punished or at least reprimanded?! We have not found a shred of evidence testifying that they even frowned at him, which is the least they should have done under the circumstance, except if this same individual wanted to deny that the same man (`Omer) did not commit such a rude insult against the Greatest Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him and his progeny! And why did this “public opinion” not prohibit the hitting of Fatima (A.S.) and her miscarriage in its aftermath?! Why did that “public opinion” not prohibit the killing of Imam al-Husain (A.S.) and those with him from among the stars on earth of Bani Hashim and of the elite from among the believers and sincere ones?! Why did it not prohibit the taking of the daughters of the Messenger of Allah (A.S.) captive to be paraded in one country after another as men looked on? And why, and why?...

 

FOURTH: It is quite obvious that “So what?!” serves to join a preceding sentence to one that follows it, so it means: “So what if Fatima (A.S.) is inside the house?! I shall burn the house and everyone inside it...!” It does not at all mean, “We have no business with Fatima (A.S.). We have only come to arrest Ali (A.S.),” as the speaker claims. His claim is not supported by any of the rules of Arabic grammar, and it is not acceptable in the sciences of fluency or in any other.