Speculation 1: Da`wat al-`Ashirah

Discussion 5: The Janazah of Sayyidah Fatimah
August 27, 2015
Speculation 2: The Verse of Mawaddah
August 27, 2015

BACK Return to Table of contents


Speculations and Assumptions

Some people have spread utter confusion among the masses by claiming that Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam had only one daughter. I found a need to remove this speculation and confusion under a separate heading. Answers will be provided where needed. Firstly, the speculation will be mentioned followed by its answer.


Speculation 1: Da’wat al ‘Ashirah

Allah Ta’ala states in the Qur’an

وَ اَنْذِرْ عَشِیْرَتَکَ الْاَقْرَبِیْنَ ﴿214﴾ۙ

And warn, [O Muhammad], your closest kindred.[1]


This discussion is termed as the discussion of da’wat al ‘Ashirah. When this verse was revealed, Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam called his close relatives, invited them to towhid and risalah, warned them about the punishment of the hereafter, kindled concern in them about their actions and turned their attention towards accountability in the hereafter, thereby fulfilling the responsibility given to him of having to warn his closest kindred. On this occasion, Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam took the names of the chief tribes of Quraysh individually and addressed them. For example, He said: “O Quraysh, O Bani Ka’b, O Bani Murrah, O Bani ‘Abd Manaf, O Bani ‘Abd Shams, O Bani Hashim, O Bani ‘Abdul Muttalib, etc. and invited them. Regarding this incident, the narrations of the sihah[2] mention one thing while the narrations of other books have something else.

In some narrations of Bukhari and Muslim, from among these tribes, the names of three individuals have been taken viz. Sayyidina ‘Abbas (the uncle of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam), Sayyidah Safiyyah (bint ‘Abdul Muttalib, his aunt) and Sayyidah Fatimah bint Rasulillah radiya Llahu ‘anha. No other person’s name from the other tribes was taken individually. Yes, the name of the tribe was mentioned.


The Proof of the Shia

The contemporary Shia create a doubt here that in this gathering of close relatives, only Sayyidah Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha was invited. Had there been any other biological daughters, they would have definitely been called, i.e. if Sayyidah Zainab, Sayyidah Ruqayyah and Sayyidah Umm Kulthum radiya Llahu ‘anhunna were biological daughters, they would be included in this special gathering. This is the proof for Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam having only one biological daughter viz. Sayyidah Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha, according to the Shia.



Different narrations are found in this regard. The narrations recorded in books besides the sihah are not worthy of consideration. With regards to those narrations recorded in the sihah, some of the following are found therein.

In some authentic narrations, only the tribes of Quraysh were called by name, however, no individual’s name was taken. In other narrations, Sayyidah Fatimah’s radiya Llahu ‘anha name has been taken individually, while in others the names of Sayyidina ‘Abbas and Sayyidah Safiyyah and Sayyidah Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anhum have been taken.

An accepted principle is: the non-mention of something does not necessitate its non-existence. Only Sayyidina ‘Abbas’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu name was taken from all the paternal uncles of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. This does not necessitate that the other paternal uncles of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam viz. Sayyidina Hamzah, Abu Talib, Zubair, Harith, etc. were not present or are not the biological uncles of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. No one has the right to claim that since Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam only took Sayyidina ‘Abbas’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu name in this gathering, it is established that he was the only biological uncle of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam while the other uncles are not biological.

Similarly, only the name of one aunt of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam has been taken viz. Safiyyah radiya Llahu ‘anha. This is not a proof that the other aunts viz. ‘Atikah, Barrah, Umm Hakim, Bayda’, etc. were not present and are not the biological aunts of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.

In the narrations of books besides the sihah, only the name of Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu is mentioned. This is not proof that the other brothers viz. Jafar, ‘Aqil, etc. were not present and are not biological cousins of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.

Likewise, the sole mention of Sayyidah Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha does not prove the non-existence of her sisters and is not evidence to show that Sayyidah Zainab, Ruqayyah and Umm Kulthum radiya Llahu ‘anhunna are not the biological daughters of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. How can such a proof be correct?


A Reasonable Reason

The Shia have demanded an answer as to why the other sisters of Sayyidah Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha were not present at the gathering of da’wat al ‘Ashirah whereas they were all alive, sane, mature and residents of Makkah at that time.

To answer this, the following points should be studied.

In this gathering, it appears that only Sayyidina ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhu and Abu Lahab were present from the men of Banu Hashim and Banu ‘Abdul Muttalib. Others have not been mentioned. The reason given for their non-mention by you will be the same answer given for the non-mention of the three daughters by us.

The Banu Hashim and Banu Muttalib consisted of many women. However, only one of their senior women seems to be present at da’wat al ‘Ashirah viz. Sayyidah Safiyyah radiya Llahu ‘anha. All the others were absent. The answer you give to this is the very same answer to your question.

Among the lads of the family, it seems that only Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu was present. All of his brothers were not. Kindly present a reasonable reason for their non-mention and non-participation. Were there no youngsters of the family living that time?

Only one girl’s name of the family i.e. Sayyidah Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha has been mentioned. So if the other daughters’ or other girls’ names are not mentioned, then the reason for this will be found in the answers to our questions.

Firstly, we have to find out the reason for the non-presence and non-mention of the other uncles, aunts, cousins who were alive and present in Makkah at that time since the invitation of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam was general. So why did Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam not invite them and if he did, why did he not address them individually? Your answer is our answer.


The Proof of the Shia for the Undisputed Khilafah

The early Shia scholars and Mujtahidin under the verse “And warn, [O Muhammad], your closest kindred” with support from a narration found in the non-sihah prove the immediate khilafah of Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu. They say that after the revelation of this verse, Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam invited all his close relatives for a meal. His idea was to call them towards Islam but unfortunately did not get the chance because everyone dispersed after eating. Thereafter, on several occasion was this feast prepared. Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu arranged the gathering. On the last occasion, Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said: “I have brought to you the goodness of this world and the next. Allah Ta’ala has instructed me to invite you to it.” He then said:

و ايكم يوازرنى على امرى و يكون اخى و وصيتى و خليفتى

Who of you will help me in my endeavour and be by brother, my executor and my successor?


Everyone was silent at this plea. Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu allegedly the said: “I was the youngest of them. I spoke out that I will be your assistant in this matter.” Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam held my neck and announced:

ان هذا اخى و وصيتى و خليفتى فيكم فاسمعوا له و اطيعوا

This is my brother, executor and successor among you. Thus, listen to and obey him.


From the words executor and successor, the Shia prove the immediate khilafah of Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu.


Removing this Speculation

  1. Let us first examine the verse regarding which this narration is related. The issue of khilafah is not established from this verse nor is there any evidence of khilafah in it. The only thing mentioned in the verse is the command to warn his relatives. It has no connection whatsoever with khilafah.
  2. With regards to the narration, the name of Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu does not feature in the narrations of sihah as mentioned previously.
  3. Regarding the non-sihah narration concerning the verse which mentions about the invitation and wherein the words executor and successor do appear, such narrations do not meet the standards of this science. Narrators likes ‘Abdul Ghaffar ibn Qasim, Minhal ibn ‘Amr, etc. are criticised and unreliable and have been accepted to be Shia by the Shia scholars. Our ‘ulama’ have labelled them as matruk[3], great liars, Shia, and Rafidi. To establish the immediate khilafah from such flimsy narrations with such weak narrators is not correct, whereas according to us, these narrations — on account of severe criticism — are matruk and non-acceptable. Only those narrations can be furnished as proof against the opposition which are reliable and accepted.


Countless ‘ulama’ have rejected this narration labelling it as matruk. There is a long list of such ‘ulama’. Only a few will be mentioned here which can be checked to gain satisfaction.

  1. Al Layali al Masnu’ah pg. 197, 198 – Under this narration
  2. Al Sirah al Halabiyyah vol. 3 pg. 309 – The narration of ghadir khum
  3. Al Mowdu’at al Kabir pg. 79 – Under this narration
  4. Mowdu’at Qadi Showkani pg. 125 – Under this narration
  5. Qurrat al ‘Aynayn fi Tafdil al Sheikhayn pg. 279 – Under this discussion


In the verse under discussion, neither Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam having only one daughter can be established nor can the issue of the undisputed khilafah of Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu be proven. Thus, the flimsy fallacious proof cannot establish the claim. Moreover, it is a different matter that Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu never cited this verse to prove his immediate khilafah. The narrations presented by the Shia are matruk, hence unacceptable.


NEXT⇒ Speculation 2: The Verse of Mawaddah

[1]  Surah al Shu’ara: 214

[2]  The six books of hadith viz. Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmidhi, Abu Dawood, Sunan al Nasa’i and Ibn Majah.

[3]  Discarded