BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents

 

Four Daughters of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam

 

The Qur’an attests to the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam having multiple daughters

 

Those who have any sense of justice should consider my words and feel free to object if they find any cause for concern. Consequently, the Noble Qur’an establishes that the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam had many daughters, but if the Shia are unaware by this because of their inability to retain the Qur’an to memory then we would cite the verse for their convenience:

 

يَا أَيُّهَا النَّبِيُّ قُلْ لِّأَزْوَاجِكَ وَبَنَاتِكَ وَنِسَاءِ الْمُؤْمِنِيْنَ يُدْنِيْنَ عَلَيْهِنَّ مِنْ جَلَابِيْبِهِنَّ

O Prophet, tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to bring down over themselves [part] of their outer garments.[1]

 

Now it is not too difficult for ‘Ammar ‘Ali to understand that the word Banat (daughters) appears in plural form. A plural noun signifies at least three characters, but even if the Arabs at times may refer to dual with a plural noun, it will still imply that the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam had more than one biological daughter. Therefore, the claim that Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha was the only biological daughter still remains incorrect and it is in conflict with the Qur’an. It is regrettable that ‘Ammar ‘Ali was not deterred by the thought that his deception may be exposed to others and as a result felt no shame in doing so.

Nevertheless, ‘Ammar ‘Ali has no choice aside from accepting that the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam had many daughters and they are Ruqayyah radiya Llahu ‘anha, Umm Kulthum radiya Llahu ‘anha and Zainab radiya Llahu ‘anha, since no other female has claimed to be the daughter of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. If he fails to acknowledge this, then the following verse of the Qur’an will apply to him:

 

وَمَا يَجْحَدُ بِآيَاتِنَا إِلَّا الْكَافِرُوْنَ

And none reject Our verses except the disbelievers.[2]

 

If he is still adamant and chooses to remain a disbeliever by claiming that Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha was the only biological daughter, then we have no alternative other than referring to authentic Shia texts to support our claim. Surely he could not refute his own sources, but if he does, then this would only add to our delight.

 

The number of the Prophet’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam daughters in light of Shia references

Perhaps a few quotations from Shia references would settle this matter. Nahj al Balaghah enjoys the status of a divine scripture according to the understanding of the Shia and its contents are no less than the Qur’an in authenticity. The Ithna ‘Ashariyyah (Twelvers) maintain that its transmission is classified as Mutawatir[3]. ‘Allamah al Radi—the author—records the following statement of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu regarding ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu:

 

قد بلغت من صهره صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم ما لم ينالا ، يعني الشيخين

You have secured a link through marriage to him [the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam] which they have not.

 

‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu basically highlights one of the merits of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu over Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu and ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu in that he was blessed to be the son-in-law of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam twice over.

Abu Jafar al Tusi—Sheikh al Taʼifah—records the following from Imam Jafar al Sadiq rahimahu Llah in al Tahdhib, which is one of the four authentic ‘hadith’ texts of the Shia and which is on par with the al Kafi of al Kulayni.

كان يقول في دعائه ، أللهم صلى على رقية بنت نبيك – أللهم صلى على أم كلثوم بنت نبيك

Imam Jafar al Sadiq rahimahu Llah used to say the following in his supplications:

O Allah! Shower your favours upon Ruqayyah, the daughter of your Messenger. O Allah! Shower your favours upon Umm Kulthum, the daughter of your Messenger.

 

However, if even this is not satisfactory for ‘Ammar ‘Ali and he asserts that they were referred to as the Prophet’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam daughters on the basis of common terminology (just as Lut ‘alayh al Salam referred to the believing women among his followers as his daughters), then we will be even more determined to make him surrender. Consequently, the following narration appears in the al Kafi of al Kulayni:

 

تزوّج رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم خديجة وهو إبن بضع و عشرين سنة ، فوُلد له منها قبل بعثه عليه السلام القاسم و رقية و زينب وأم كلثوم ، وولد له بعد المبعث الطيب والطاهر و فاطمة

The Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam was over twenty at the time of his marriage to Khadijah radiya Llahu ‘anha. This marriage bore him four children prior to receiving Nubuwwah, namely Qasim radiya Llahu ‘anhu, Ruqayyah radiya Llahu ‘anha, Zainab radiya Llahu ‘anha and Umm Kulthum radiya Llahu ‘anhu. As for those who were born after he received Nubuwwah, they were Tahir radiya Llahu ‘anhu, Tayyab radiya Llahu ‘anhu and Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha.

 

There is no possibility of any alternate interpretation to this narration. Neither could it be said that these were referred to as the Prophet’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam daughters on the basis of common terminology. This narration also establishes that the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam had three other daughters besides Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha, which is the stance of the Ahlus Sunnah. They are Zainab radiya Llahu ‘anha, Ruqayyah radiya Llahu ‘anha, and Umm Kulthum radiya Llahu ‘anha.

Strangely though, ‘Ammar ‘Ali’s extreme caution even prevented him from saying that the Ahlus Sunnah believe that the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam had three daughters besides Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha. Perhaps he felt that it is best to subdue the opponents view as best as one can.

And what to say about his in-depth and all-encompassing information! Subhan Allah! He skilfully lists dozens of texts and references of the Ahlus Sunnah as if he has perused each one of them, when he is ignorant about the basic beliefs of the Ahlus Sunnah which is known to every Sunni; what chance is there of him ever perusing these texts? He probably heard the names of these references as a student and then lists them as if he is intimately acquainted with them. In fact, he may have not seen some of the references cited regarding the Estate of Fadak in his dreams as well; references such as Jam’ al Jawami’ and the Musnad Imam Ahmed ibn Hanbal (as they were not available in print at that time). When this is the reality of his ‘association’ with these references, there is no need to respond to what he ascribes to them.

 

No significance recorded about the other daughters

However, it is necessary for us to acknowledge the simple-mindedness of ‘Ammar ‘Ali. In order to establish that Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha was the only biological daughter of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam he states:

 

Nevertheless, even if we were to assume that these two were the daughters of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, then we would certainly have some reports highlighting their merit just as how the merit of Sayyidah Fatimah al Zahra’ radiya Llahu ‘anha is recorded in the books of the Ahlus Sunnah, as well as in the books of the Shia.

 

Is this adequate proof and can this really be considered a justification for their claim? If ‘Ammar ‘Ali was not acquainted with the laws of justification and substantiation, he ought to have asked somebody at least. After all, everything that is written in his letter is but the opinion and views of others which he copied without taking any pain to verify.

Nevertheless, from the point of logic and reason this much is established that not mentioning something does not necessarily imply its non-existence but perhaps you would object to this, since you only accept proof and evidence that is based on narration and your extreme piety simply cannot tolerate any mention of subjects such as logic. So here is a portion of a verse which appears towards the end of Surah al Nisaʼ:

 

وَرُسُلًا قَدْ قَصَصْنٰهُمْ عَلَیْكَ مِنْ قَبْلُ وَرُسُلًا لَّمْ نَقْصُصْهُمْ عَلَیْكَ

And [We sent] Messengers about whom We have related [their stories] to you before and Messengers about whom We have not related to you.[4]

 

Therefore, if failing to mention them necessitates their non-existence then this would result in negating the rest of the Prophets who have not been mentioned in the Qur’an, Allah forbid!

Similarly, is it necessary that all the offspring of a saint attain the same rank and position (or do they have different potentials)? If ‘Ammar ‘Ali asserts that they should all be equal than he should think carefully before taking such a view as this would demand that Imam Muhammad al Baqir rahimahu Llah and his brother Zaid rahimahu Llah—the martyr—also have the same rank. Perhaps he alleges that the Ahlus Sunnah consider Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha and Umm Kulthum radiya Llahu ‘anha to be on the same rank; never and again I say never: the rank of Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha is uniquely enjoyed by her alone.

That is the bounty of Allah; He grants his grace to whomsoever He wishes.

 

‘Ammar ‘Ali’s proficiency in History

As for his statements that between Umm Kulthum radiya Llahu ‘anha and Ruqayyah radiya Llahu ‘anha, one of them happened to be married to Abu al ‘As ibn al Rabi’ radiya Llahu ‘anhu, this is glaring testimony of the marvellous retention capacity of ‘Ammar ‘Ali. My dear sir, it was Zainab radiya Llahu ‘anha who was married to Abu al ‘As ibn al Rabi’ radiya Llahu ‘anhu. The other two daughters were initially wed to the two sons of Abu Lahab. Why do you tarnish the name of Ibn Hajar when you are guilty of committing the error? You commit the crime and someone else is the villain?

As for his statement that in spite of the dominance of Islam they still remained in marriage to disbelievers, this is a true height of audacity. Subhan Allah! If they were not the biological daughters of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam they certainly were the biological daughters of Khadijah radiya Llahu ‘anha. We believe that the Shia too have that much regard for Khadijah radiya Llahu ‘anha that they would consider her daughters to be Muslims.

Whether anyone understands this or not, the fact remains that ‘Ammar ‘Ali himself considers them to be Muslims. If he really considered them to be disbelievers, then what was the need for the remark:

However, despite Islam gaining authority and dominance they remained in wedlock to disbelievers and the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam did not even bother to terminate their relationships with these disbelievers, so what if they were wed to ‘Uthman thereafter? As for ‘Uthman, he was a believer and far better than those disbelievers whom they were initially attached to.

In addition to this, could any Muslim ever entertain the thought that let alone his own daughters, would the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam ever allow even the least virtuous of the believing women to remain in marriage to a disbeliever when Islam was dominant?

 

The order of the Qur’an to extricate Muslim women from the control of disbelievers

Forget the obligation of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam in this regard, Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala obligates every ordinary Muslim to release Muslim women from the clutches of the disbelievers. Read the following verse if you are not convinced about this:

 

وَمَا لَكُمْ لَا تُقَاتِلُوْنَ فِيْ سَبِيْلِ اللَّهِ وَالْمُسْتَضْعَفِيْنَ مِنَ الرِّجَالِ وَالنِّسَاءِ وَالْوِلْدَانِ الَّذِيْنَ يَقُوْلُوْنَ رَبَّنَا أَخْرِجْنَا مِنْ هٰذِهِ الْقَرْيَةِ الظَّالِمِ أَهْلُهَا وَاجْعَل لَّنَا مِنْ لَّدُنْكَ وَلِيًّا وَاجْعَل لَّنَا مِنْ لَّدُنْكَ نَصِيْرًا

And what is [the matter] with you that you fight not in the cause of Allah and [for] the oppressed among men, women, and children who say, “Our Lord, take us out of this city of oppressive people and appoint for us from Yourself a protector and appoint for us from Yourself a helper?”[5]

 

Even the Shia are aware that these verses were revealed prior to the Conquest of Makkah, when Islam was not yet a force to be reckoned with, so there is no question of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam not having the free will to do as he wished with the Arabs. So, if ‘Ammar ‘Ali is implying that the daughters of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam were in Makkah till the moment of the revelation of these verses, then not only is this in conflict with the true facts, it is also a subtle but direct objection against the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. However, if they say that the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam came to Madinah long before the revelation of this verse, then we would ask what authority did the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam actually have that he preferred them remaining in wedlock to disbelievers.

However, if we are asked to state the facts then we would inform them that these two daughters were married to ‘Utbah and ‘Utaybah, the sons of Abu Lahab, prior to the Nubuwwah of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. After the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam announced his Nubuwwah, and Abu Lahab became his avowed enemy, Abu Lahab instructed his sons to divorce the Prophet’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam daughters. Thereafter one of them was married to ‘Uthman salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and both daughters arrived in Madinah Munawwarah in the very first year of the hijrah (emigration). At the time of the Battle of Badr, which took place in the second year after hijrah, one of these daughters who was already married to ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu, fell seriously ill. It was on account of her critical illness that ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu was instructed to remain behind in Madinah; but it seems that accurately reporting history has terminated on ‘Ammar ‘Ali such that he has resorted to distorting the facts as he desires.

 

NEXT⇒ The merits of ‘Uthman, Dhu al Nurayn radiya Llahu ‘anhu

---

[1] Surah al Ahzab: 59.

[2] Surah al ‘Ankabut: 47.

[3] Mutawatir: A hadith reported by such a large number of people that it is inconceivable for them to have all agreed upon a lie.

[4] Surah al Nisaʼ: 164.

[5] Surah al Nisaʼ: 75.