Is Beating AL-ZAHRA’ (A.S.) a “Personal Matter”?!

 

The same individual goes on in his “protests” to say, “If you say that Ali (A.S.) did not defend al-Zahra’ (A.S.) because of the Prophet’s will to him,” so he was “hand-tied because of the will of his Brother (A.S.),” we say to you that the Prophet (A.S.) simply told him not to initiate a battle for the sake of winning the caliphate. He did not tell him not to defend his wife. The beating of al-Zahra’ (A.S.) has nothing to do with caliphate because it is a personal matter. Al-Zahra’ (A.S.) herself does not have anything to do with caliphate. The issue of caliphate is relevant to the entire Islamic reality.

Here is our answer to the above:

Before responding to the above, we would like to record the following observation:

The issue of al-Zahra’ (A.S.) with those folks is the issue of Imamate, then of caliphate, because those folks were installing themselves as the imams of the people, while Imamate is a Divine position which Allah had vested upon others, not upon them, and caliphate is one of the functions of Imamate. The proof for what we state here is their attempt to confine specifically to their own selves the right to legislate. When one of them was reprimanded for once issuing a legislation, he said, “I am a colleague of Muhammed (A.S.).”[1] I have discussed some of what is related to this issue in my book about the political life of Imam al-Hasan (A.S.), so refer to it.

Having pointed thus out, I would like to add the following:

 

FIRST: Those folks went to the house of al-Zahra’ (A.S.) in order to force the Commander of the Faithful (A.S.) to swear the oath of allegiance to them in order to firm the foundations of their caliphate and underscore the fact that it would be solely theirs rather than his, and al-Zahra’ (A.S.) tried to stop them from realizing this objective precisely, and so did Ali (A.S.). Those folks wanted to remove al-Zahra’ (A.S.) from their way in order to force Ali (A.S.) to swear fealty to them.

So, this is a war waged by the enemies of Ali (A.S.) for the sake of grabbing the caliphate, and the Messenger of Allah (A.S.) had already told him not to wage a war over caliphate[2] according to the admission of the same opponent; so, what is the meaning of his statement that al-Zahra’ (A.S.),and the fact that she was beaten, had nothing to do with caliphate? The truth is that the issue of al-Zahra’ (A.S.) and what she went through is related to the whole Islamic reality.

Does this claimant think that her demanding Fadak to be returned to her was also for the sake of enhancing her standard of living, although her life (A.S.) before Fadak, with the acquisition of Fadak, and after she had lost Fadak, remained one and the same? She did not build a mansion from Fadak’s income, nor did she decorate herself with gold or silver, nor did she acquire better pieces of furniture, nor any valuables, nor did she treasure anything for the future, nor bought orchards nor real estate, nor luxurious conveyances, as someone else did, and as others do. Rather, the income from Fadak used to be spent in the Cause of Allah to help the poor and the indigent.

[1]Al-Tabari, Tarikh al-Umam wal Mulak, Vol. 3, p. 291 (Al-Istiqama edition). Al-Fa’iq, Vol. 2, p. 11.

[2]Al-Mufid has stated that Ali (A) quoted the Messenger of Allah (A) as saying the following to him: “If they total twenty, then you should fight them.” Al-Ikhtisas, p. 187. Al-Majlisi, Bihar al-Anwar, Vol. 28, pp. 229, 270, 313. In this reference, the Prophet’s statement is: “If you found forty of them determined to harm you, you should fight them.” Al-`Ayyashi, Tafsir, Vol. 2, p. 68. Tafsir al-Burhan, Vol. 2, p. 93. Refer also to p. 12, Vol. 3, of Al-Sirat al-Mustaqam. Al-Tibrisi, Al-Ihtijaj, Vol. 1, pp. 188, 213. Al-Mustarshid fa Imamat Ali (A), p. 63. Also refer to the book of Salam ibn Qais (edited by al-Ansari). Ibn Maytham, Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Vol. 2, p. 27.