Asking For Fatima’s Forgiveness Denotes the Status of AL-ZAHRA’ (A.S.)

 

Someone wonders: “Did not the request of both senior sahabis, `Omer and Abu Bakr, of al-Zahra’s forgiveness indicate that she (A.S.) enjoyed a lofty status among major sahabis?” Here is our answer:

 

FIRST: Their request for forgiveness by itself proves that they had harmed her and enraged her to the extent that they sought her forgiveness even if through pretense.

 

SECOND: There is no doubt that al-Zahra’ (A.S.) maintained her value in the Islamic society, and this is what forced those who harmed and assaulted her to try to absorb the public anger against them and to remove the negative impression caused by what they had committed against her (A.S.).

 

THIRD: When they sought to appease her, they did not offer anything that would prove that they were serious about such an appeasement. All indications point out to their action as a media ploy and nothing else. They did not return Fadak to her, nor did they take any practical steps to remove the effects of their cruel assault on her, nor did they retreat from their firm determination to usurp the caliphate from Ali (A.S.). Also, they did not publicly admit any wrongdoings, which they also committed, before the sahaba in public.

 

FOURTH: Her maintaining her value did not stop them from assaulting her with beating and with other means. Moreover, her father enjoyed a greater value in the hearts of the people, and he was more holy, yet his greatness, holiness and value did not stop them, when their ambitions and interests prompted them, from directing the most cruel of crude speech to him when one of them prohibited him (A.S.) from writing a book appointing Ali (A.S.) as his successor when he was on his bed feeling sick. This is what is known as “Thursday’s Calamity.” Their man said, “The Prophet is hallucinating,” or “overcome by pain.”[1]

They had also confronted this great Prophet (A.S.) with screaming loud noises during the pilgrimage season[2] when he said to them, “The Imams after me..., etc,” till nobody could hear what the Messenger of Allah (A.S.) was saying after that, i.e. “all of them from Quraish,”[3] when they had the feeling that he was going to emphasize the Imamate and caliphate of Ali (A.S.) after him.

Also, the value, the greatness and the holiness of this Prophet (A.S.) did not prohibit them from insisting on disobeying his sure order to enlist in Usamah’s army although he (A.S.) said to him, “The curse of Allah be on anyone who lags behind Usamah’s army.”[4] Nor did it stop them from trying to assassinate him (A.S.) by scaring his she-camel at the `Aqaba.[5]

 

FIFTH: What sort of status did she have in their hearts while `Omer was saying to Abu Bakr, who was crying upon being rebuked by al-Zahra’ (A.S.) when they both visited her to appease her, “Are you upset on account of a woman being angry with you?”!

 

SIXTH: Historical events cannot be evaluated based on one factor in formulating an event, such as the human factor, or the ethical, or the religious, or the interest, or the economic, or the rational..., etc., although each one of them has a degree of affecting the formulation of this event and determining its motives as well as outcomes.

Had such a statement been valid, it would have been mandatory to belie that Yazid killed al-Husain (A.S.), for example, or Pharaoh claiming to be a god, because all of this is not in harmony with the religion, nor with the ethics, nor is it accepted by reason or conscience.

The fact is that the factor in formulating an event may be all those afore-mentioned matters combined, and it may be the madness of desires, too. Rather, an event may result from stupidity, or from an emotional outburst, or from psychological diseases or complexes, or from right or wrong ambitions. And it may be some of those factors in addition to one more in addition to this or to that. So, deeming al-Zahra’ (A.S.) as great and respecting her probably would not prohibit them from confiscating Fadak, for example, if their policies, interests, the passion to rule, or love for money, necessitated it.

We all know that one’s love for his son and his compassion towards him does not stop the father from killing the son if the latter becomes his rival for authority. We have heard many rulers say, “Authority is sterile; it has no mercy.”[6] One may beat his son very hard for a personal reason or for standing between him and his ambitions and desires. It is said that a woman during the Abbaside period killed her son for the sake of power. Al-Ma’man killed his brother (al-Aman) for the same reason as we have already stated.

Thus, it becomes clear that there are factors and influences some of which may be stronger than others, and some may cancel the effect of others.

[1]Al-adah, p. 359. Tathkirat al-Khawass, p. 62. Sirr al-`alaman, p. 21. Al-Bukhari, Sihah, Vol. 3, p. 60 and Vol. 4, pp. 5, 173 and Vol. 1, pp. 21, 22 and Vol. 2, p. 115. Al-San`ani, Al-Musannaf, Vol. 6, p. 57 and Vol. 10, p. 361 and Vol. 5, p. 438. Al-Mufid, Al-Irshad, p. 107 (Najaf edition). Al-Majlisi, Bihar al-Anwar, Vol. 22, p. 498. Al-Nu`mani, Al-Ghayba, pp. 81, 82. `Umdat al-Qari, Vol. 14, p. 298 and Vol. 2, pp. 170, 171 and Vol. 25, p. 76. Fath al-Bari, Vol. 8, pp. 100-102, 186-87. Al-Bidaya wal Nihaya, Vol. 5, pp. 227, 251. Al-Bid’ wal-Tarikh, Vol. 5, p. 59. Al-Shahristani, Al-Milal wal Nihal, Vol. 1, p. 22. Ibn Sa`d, Al-Tabaqat al-Kubra, Vol. 2, p. 244. Al-Tabari, Tarikh al-Umam wal Mulak, Vol. 3, pp. 192-93. Al-Kamil fil Tarikh, Vol. 2, p. 320. Ansab al-Ashraf, Vol. 1, p. 562. Ibn Abul-Hadid, Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Vol. 6, p. 51 and Vol. 2, p. 55. Tarikh al-Khamas, Vol. 2, pp. 164, 182. Muslim, Sihah, Vol. 1, p. 75. Ahmed, Musnad, Vol. 1, pp. 355, 324, 222, 325, 332, 336, 362, 346. Ibn Hisham, Al-Sara al-Halabiyya, Vol. 3, p. 344. Nahj al-Haqq, p. 273. Al-`Ibar wa Dawan al-Mubtada’ wal Khabar, Vol. 2, Part 2, p. 62. Ithbat al-Hudat, Vol. 2, pp. 344, 348, 399 and Vol. 1, p. 657. Al-Tirmithi, Al-Jami` al-Sihah, Vol. 3, p. 55. Nihaya al-Arab, Vol. 18, p. 375. Ibn Shahnah, Rawdat al-Munazir, Vol. 7, p. 808 (as referred to in a footnote in Al-Kamil fil Tarikh). Also refer to Haqq al-Yaqan, Vol. 1, pp. 181-82. Dala’il al-Sidq, Vol. 3, part 1, pp. 63, 70. Al-Sirat al-Mustaqam, Vol. 3, pp. 3, 7. Sharaf ad-Dan Sadr ad-Dan al-Masawi, Al-Muraja`at, p. 353; Sharaf ad-Dan al-Masawi, Al-Nass wal Ijtihad, pp. 149, 163. Al-Mukhtasar fa Akhbar al-Bashar, Vol. 1, p. 151. Al-Kaf`ami, Majma` al-Ghara’ib, p. 289. Minhaj al-Sunnah, Vol. 3, p. 135. Manaqib al Aba Talib, Vol. 1, p. 292. Tarikh al-Islam, Vol. 2, pp. 383-84. Kashf al-Mahajja, p. 64 (Haidari Press edition, 1370 A.H.). Al-Tara’if, pp. 432, 433. Refer to Al-Taratab al-Idariyya, Vol. 2, p. 241. Al-Muttaqi al-Hindi, Kanz al-`Ummal (Indian edition, 1381 A.H.), Vol. 7, p. 170. Al-Bayhaqi, Dala’il al-Nubuwwa, Vol. 7, pp. 181, 184. Aba Ya`li, Musnad, Vol. 5, p. 393 and Vol. 3, pp. 393-94 and Vol. 4, p. 299. Mujma` al-Zawa’id, Vol. 4, p. 214.

[2]Refer to Ibn `Awanah, Musnad, Vol. 4, pp. 394, 400. Ahmed, Musnad, Vol. 5, pp. 99, 93, 90, 96, 98, 101. Aba Dawad, Sunan, Vol. 4, p. 106. Al-Nu`mani, Al-Ghayba, pp. 121-24. Irshad al-Sari, Vol. 10, p. 273. Muslim,Sihah, Vol. 6, p. 4 (Mashkal edition). Shaikh al-Tasi, Al-Ghayba, pp. 88-89. Fath al-Bari, Vol. 13, pp. 181-184. I`lam al-Wara, p. 38. Al-Majlisi, Bihar al-Anwar, Vol. 36, pp. 235, 239, 240 and Vol. 63, p. 236. Muntakhab al-Athar, p. 20. Ikmal al-Dan, Vol. 1, pp. 272-73. Tarikh al-Khulafa’, pp. 10-11. Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalani, Al-Sawa`iq al-Muhriqa, p. 18. Al-Qandazi, Yanabi` al-Mawadda, pp. 444-45. Al-Khisal (in a chapter about the Twelve Imams); refer also to Vol. 2, pp. 470, 472, 474 of it. Refer also to `Uyan Akhbar al-Rida and Mawaddat al-Qurba and to Vol. 13, p. 1 of Ihqaq al-Haqq (the Appendices). Ibn al-Batraq, Al-`Umda, p. 421. Refer to Al-Nihaya fil Lugha, Vol. 3, p. 54. Ibn Manzar, Lisan al-`Arab, Vol. 12, p. 343 and to Al-Qarab fa Mahabbat al-`Arab, p. 129.

[3]Regarding the narrator hearing the phrase “all of them from Quraish,” or “from Bani Hashim,” refer to the following references:

Muslim, Sihah, Vol. 6, p. 3 through various venues (Mashkal edition). Ahmed, Musnad, Vol. 5, pp. 90, 92-101, 106-18. Aba `Awanah, Musnad, Vol. 4, p. 394. Hilyat al-Awliya’, Vol. 4, p. 333. I`lam al-Wara, p. 382. Ibn al-Batraq, Al-`Umda, pp. 416-22. Ikmal ad-Dan, Vol. 1, pp. 272-73. Al-Khisal, Vol. 2, pp. 275, 469. Fath al-Bari, Vol. 13, pp. 181-85. Al-Nu`mani, Al-Ghayba, pp. 119-25. Al-Bukhari, Sihah, Vol. 4, p. 159. Al-Qandazi, Yanabi` al-Mawadda, pp. 444-46. Tarikh Baghdad, Vol. 2, p. 126 and Vol. 14, p. 353. Al-Mustadrak `alal Sihahain, Vol. 3, p. 618 and its Talkhis by al-Thahbi (referred to in its footnote) on the same page. Muntakhab al-Athar, pp. 10-23 which cites numerous references. Al-Tirmithi, Al-Jami` al-Sihah, Vol. 4, p. 501. Aba Dawad, Sunan, Vol. 4, p. 116. Kifayat al-Athar, from p. 49 till the end of the book. Al-Majlisi, Bihar al-Anwar, Vol. 36, p. 231 till the end of the chapter. Ihqaq al-Haqq (Appendices), Vol. 13, pp. 1-50, citing numerous references.

[4]The references for this statement have already been cited.

[5]Refer to Al-Mustarshid fa Imamate Ali (A) p. 146 and p. 147 of Al-Farq Baynal Firaq.

[6]Refer to the following references: Sharh Mamiyyat Aba Firas, pp. 73-74. Al-Majlisi, Bihar al-Anwar, Vol. 48, p. 131. `Uyan Akhbar al-Rida, Vol. 1, p. 91. Al-Qandazi, Yanabi` al-Mawadda, p. 383. Maqatil al-Talibiyyan, p. 453. Al-Khawarizmi, Manaqib Ali (A) ibn Abi Talib, p. 208. Ibn Sa`d, Al-Tabaqat al-Kubra, Vol. 5, p. 227 (Sadir’s edition). Al-Bidaya wal Nihaya, Vol. 8, p. 316. Tatimmat al-Muntaha, p. 185. Qamas al-Rijal, Vol. 10, p. 370.