Discussion 4: Burning the House of Sayyidah Fatimah radiya Llahu `anha

Discussion 3: The Claim for Wealth
August 27, 2015
Discussion 5: The Janazah of Sayyidah Fatimah
August 27, 2015

BACK Return to Table of contents

 

Discussion 4: Burning the House of Sayyidah Fatimah

The objectors have brazenly alleged in the biography of Sayyidah Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha that after the demise of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu sent Sayyidina ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu accompanied by other Sahabah to Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu to summon him to pledge allegiance. When Sayyidina ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu got to the house, he had a very violent and aggressive encounter with Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and warned to burn the house if he did not comply. He also behaved insolently and disrespectfully to Sayyidah Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha. Some of their narrations state that he also became violent with her and caused her much pain (Allah forbid). This slander is hurled at both Sayyidina Abu Bakr and Sayyidina ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma. Their disrespect and aggressive attitude to the Ahlul Bayt is a significant historic event for the Shia.

A few points will be discussed to discover the reality of this slander which — with the help of Allah Ta’ala — will totally debunk this slander. Firstly, the narration will be discussed followed by the event.

 

Scrutinising the Narration

1. The narration which the slander is based upon is not found in authentic hadith books. There is absolutely no trace of such an incident in authentic books, and the books from which this narration has been taken hold no weight in this science and are totally unreliable.

2. Moreover, those narrations which mention this fabrication, according to the terminology of the scholars and Muhaddithin is termed munqati’ with regards to sanad and munkar with regards to text. The scholars understand this fully. However, for the benefit of the laymen we will briefly comment. Those who relate this incident were not present at that time, and whoever supposedly relate this to them is unknown; only Allah knows who the narrator of this incident is. Whatever has been narrated here is in direct conflict to authentic narrations of that era. Other incidents at that time do not support this fairy-tale. Shortly, testimonies and evidences to this will be presented. Furthermore, there are many narrators therein who are, expert liars while others have been severely criticised.

3. Regarding these narrations, senior ‘ulama’ have emphatically declared:

ایں قصہ سراسر واہی و افتراء است ہیچ اصلے نہ دارد

This story is only a fabrication, a lie and a slander. It is utterly baseless.[1]

 

Molana ‘Abdul ‘Aziz Parharwi radiya Llahu ‘anhu has written in Nabras, the commentary of Sharh ‘Aqa’id:

قلنا كذب محض

We declare that it is a blatant lie.[2]

 

Some Shia scholars have also declared this story to be unreliable and fallacious. Thus, Ibn Abi al Hadid al Shia writes in his commentary of Nahj al Balaghah:

و اما ما ذكره من الهجوم على دار فاطمة و جمع الحطب لتحريقها فهو خبر واحد غير موثوق به لا معول عليه فى حق الصحابة بل و لا فى حق احد من المسلمين ممن ظهرت عدالته

What has been narrated about the crowding outside the house of Fatimah and gathering firewood to burn it is a single odd narration which is unreliable and fallacious. It cannot be fathomed with regards to the Sahabah, in fact not even with regards to any Muslim whose justice (and righteousness) is apparent.

 

Scrutinising the Event

This story of causing harm and behaving indecently to Sayyidah Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha and Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu is totally fallacious. There is not an atom of truth in it. This narration has been fabricated in order to criticise the senior Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum.

  • If we accept this story to be true, then this is a tarnish to the self-honour and valour of Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and is also contrary to what actually transpired. It is an accepted fact that Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu pledged allegiance to those khulafaʼ, would perform the five daily salah behind them and he attended the consultations and presented his opinions and was seen many times in the consultation. He would also take money and gifts from the bayt al mal and maintained a healthy relationship with those khulafaʼ.[3]
  • Why did the seniors of Banu Hashim remain silent upon that catastrophic incident whereas this is contrary to their family honour and assisting their family?
  • Similarly, why did the senior Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum not assist and display their solidarity to Sayyidah Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha and Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu? Why did they back off from aiding the truth against Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu and Sayyidina ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu? Why did they remain silent? It is impossible for the people of tawatur to unite on pure falsehood and oppression. In reality, the truth is what Molana Haydar ‘Ali has written regarding this story in his book Muntaha al Kalam:
 

All these allegations and slanders are from senior Jews and are the fabrications of the fire-worshippers of Iran who were injured at the hands of Sayyidina ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu, for whom they harbour deep enmity in their hearts. You are acquainted from reliable sources that when Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu decided to crackdown on those who denied zakat, Sayyidina ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu stood at his side testifying to his truthfulness. So do you think that such a personality will abandon helping the Ahlul Bayt and speaking the truth due to Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu holding the reigns of khilafah? This can never be possible.[4]

 

In reality, the matter of allegiance to the khilafah of Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu was at hand. It was under discussion and deliberation which in fact was nothing bad. No argumentation and squabbling took place. The Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum including the Banu Hashim quickly pledged allegiance at the hands of Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu and this matter was brilliantly resolved within three days. If by chance, there was difference of opinion at that juncture — which is no vice according to the intelligent — then it was superbly settled in a short space of time. Manipulating it and stretching it for six months is the product of the narrators.

 

NEXT⇒ Discussion 5: The Janazah of Sayyidah Fatimah


[1]Tuhfah Ithna ‘Ashariyyah Farsi pg. 292 – The allegations against Faruqi; the answer to the 2nd allegation.

[2]Nabras pg. 529 – Under the text, It is not a condition for the imam to be fallible.

Sharh Nahj al Balaghah vol. 4 pg. 631 – Under the text of the statement of him ‘alayh al Salam to ‘Ammar ibn Yasir where he heard him repeating the words, leave him O ‘Ammar!

[3] Kitab Tanzih al Ambiyaʼ pg. 132

[4]Muntaha al Kalam pg. 53

Back to top