Would They be too Afraid to Open the Door Though Armed?!

 

There is another attempt exerted by someone in favor of the claim that there was no reason why al-Zahra’ (A.S.), rather than anyone else from among those who were inside, should open the door. He says, “If people come to arrest you, would you tell your wife to open the door, or would you open it yourself?!”

Those folks went to arrest Ali (A.S.); so, why did al-Zahra’ (A.S.) open the door, especially since those inside her house were all armed and would not be too scared to face the assailants? Al-Zubayr came out carrying an unsheathed sword, so they broke it.

It seems that such a confusion is learned from al-Fadl ibn Roozbahan who said the following:

“The apples of the eyes of Bani Hashim, the most prominent of Bani `Abd Manaf, and the most valiant heroes of Quraish were all with Ali (A.S.), and they were all inside the house, armed with Yemenite swords. If they had heard that everyone inside the house was to be burnt to death, would they abandon their zeal and manliness and refrain from coming out with their swords to kill those who intended to burn them with fire?”^[1]

Here is our answer:

 

FIRST: I think that what I have already indicated above while answering the previous question suffices to explain the necessity of al-Zahra’ (A.S.) opening the door. The issue is not merely stopping the assailants from arresting Ali (A.S.); rather, the issue is that Ali’s confrontation with them would have resulted in losing the opportunity to show others what was right, and it would have provided the assailants with the opportunity to achieve their objectives behind forging history and falsifying the truth.

Exposing the reality of those folks, informing the people that they were the oppressors and the assailants, hinged on al-Zahra’ (A.S.) responding to them, rather than anyone else, not even Fidda or any of the Bani Hashim.

It is to be noted that although this issue is quite clear, someone uses vocabulary which is not conducive with this fact, such as saying “arresting Ali (A.S.).” There will be other expressions which he uses such as “subduing the opposition,” “confronting the mutiny,” etc.

It is as if they saw Ali’s stay at home, and al-Zahra’ (A.S.) response to them, was in apprehension of such an arrest rather than a plan to foil what the assailants wanted to accomplish from their attempt. Both Ali (A.S.) and al-Zahra’ (A.S.) succeeded a great deal in such foiling despite the price which they had to pay.

 

SECOND: It was quite obvious that confronting the assailants with swords and violence was exactly what the assailants had in mind, and it would have served their interests greatly. It was exactly what Ali (A.S.) had feared and against which he was prohibited by the Messenger of Allah (A.S.) as well.

The arguing person seeks evidence from the fact that Ali (A.S.) was “checked by the will of his Brother (A.S.)” not to use violence with regard to the issue of caliphate. So, what is the meaning of Ali (A.S.) expecting that to happen? Was it intended for him to disobey the order of the Prophet (A.S.) and to surrender to the trap set up for him so that the nation may would thus lose the opportunity of knowing the truth?!

 

THIRD: Not responding to the invitation for violence does not mean that those sought for the aggression should not take necessary precautions to defend themselves should there be an evil intention against them or harm? Their reluctance to seek the caliphate is one thing, and self-defense when their blood was sought is something else.

As regarding what al-Zubayr did, he did it when they took Ali (A.S.) by force, and he could not tolerate standing idly by, so he tried to attack them in order to free Ali (A.S.) whereupon Khalid threw a stone at him which hit his back, and the sword fell from his hand. `Omer took the sword and hit it on a stone, breaking it.^[2]