The Fadak Factor

 

What proves the fact that the Fadak issue was political is a dialogue which went on between Imam al-Kazim (A.S.) and Harun ar-Rashid. The latter used to say to Imam Masa ibn Ja`fer, peace be upon both of them, “O father of al-Hasan! Accept Fadak so that I may give it back to you,” but he always used to refuse. Ar-Rashid kept insisting till the Imam said, “I shall not accept it except when defined by its boundaries.” “What are its boundaries?,” ar-Rashid asked him. “O commander of the Faithful,” responded the Imam, “If I define its boundaries, you will not give it back to me.” Ar-Rashid said, “I plead to you in the name of your grandfather (the Prophet [a]) to do just that.” The Imam said, “The first boundary is `Aden.” Ar-Rashid’s face changed color and said, “Eh?!” The Imam said, “The second boundary is Samarkand.” Ar-Rashid’s face was clouded with outrage. The Imam said, “And the third boundary is Africa.” Now ar-Rashid’s face became so dark, it looked black and said, “Eh?!” The Imam said, “And the fourth lies beyond the Caspian Sea and Armenia.” Ar-Rashid said, “Nothing remains for us; so, move over and take my seat on the throne.” Al-Kazim (A.S.) said, “I have told you already that if I defined it, you would not return it.” It was then that ar-Rashid decided to kill the Imam, handing over such a task to Yahya ibn Khalid...^[1]

Yes, al-Zahra’ (A.S.) remained the same ascetic and adoring lady who used to sleep with her husband on a sheep skin on which they used to serve food to the animals during day-time...^[2]

Because of the above, we do not agree with those who say that she addressed Ali (A.S.) with an implied threat of reprimanding him of the harm that had affected her fetus while he sat in the chamber too reluctant to confront the aggressors till she says to him, “... and here is the son of Aba Quhafah usurping my father’s inheritance and what will belong to my sons thereafter.”^[3]

But there is another meaning for this narrative which has not reached our comprehension, or there may be an evidence which has not reached us, or people did not properly quote what she had said. With the presence of such a possibility, we do not dare to judge the story as definitely a lie as some people apparently state.

What is important is that we cannot imagine al-Zahra’ (A.S.) thinking in such an self interest-seeking way, the lady who was compensated by the Messenger of Allah (A.S.) instead of a servant with a legislated tasbeeh which carries her name till the Day of Judgment, i.e. tasbeeh al-Zahra’ (A.S.). The severity of the address gives us the [wrong] assumption that she did not know that Ali (A.S.) was right in all his stands, although al-Zahra’ (A.S.) was the most knowledgeable of all people that Ali (A.S.) was with the truth, and that the truth was with him, revolving wherever he went. Had he did anything else, the creed’s characteristics would have been obliterated.

If this fact is clear for anyone who studies Islamic history, a question comes up: “How can we, one thousand and four hundred years later, understand it, yet al-Zahra’ (A.S.), the infallible lady of knowledge, the Head of the Women of Mankind, the zenith of the religious, doctrinal, social and political awareness, did not know it?!”

The stands made by al-Zahra’ (A.S.) during her lifetime and after her demise reveal to everyone the richness of her knowledge, the depth and terseness of her way of thinking, and her extreme precision in conduct and affective stands.

To sum up, let us say the following:

 

FIRST: Al-Zahra’ (A.S.) did not consider her being beaten, or the confiscation of Fadak, as a personal matter, nor was her response to those folks from behind the door was a personal conduct but a defense for Imamate and caliphate threatened with usurpation. She wanted to stop the legalization of such a usurpation then the removal of or the avoidance of its negative consequences.

 

SECOND: What they committed against al-Zahra’ (A.S.) and their comment that the Prophet (A.S.) was “hallucinating” during his sickness, in addition to other such things, were all for the sake of obtaining the most important and sensitive post and the most impacting upon the whole Islamic reality. All this lets us conclude that anyone who did so was not qualified for the post which he was seeking. It makes it clear for us that he does not represent the best or the most suitable person to be a Muslim ruler. Neither his stands nor his behavior reflect the precise Islamic vision in all matters.

So, the issue of al-Zahra’ (A.S.) is the most serious and the most impacting on the Islamic reality and was never a personal matter. Regarding it, the latter is underestimating it; it is a distortion and a distortion of the truth.

 

THIRD: The indications pointing to the above-stated conclusion is that Allah, Glory belongs to Him, made al-Zahra’ (A.S.) the criterion for us to distinguish between right and wrong, between what is accurate and what is not. Through her can an oppressor and a sinner be distinguished from others. This is so because the Messenger of Allah (A.S.) had clearly declared that Allah is angry when she is angry and is pleased when she is pleased; whoever harms her harms the Prophet (A.S.), and whoever harms the Prophet (A.S.) harms Allah, Glory to Him.

So, the type of one’s connection to al-Zahra’ (A.S.) determines the type of his connection with Allah, with His Messenger (A.S.), and with all values and principles. It is upon such a basis that one can distinguish between what he should take and what he should leaves away and define his stand and the type of relationship with this individual or that.