Chapter Eleven: Relations between Sayyida Fatima (as) and Maula Ali (as)
As part of their efforts to mock the Ahl’ul bayt (as) so as to defend Abu Bakr, the Nawasib have sought to point out that if Sayyida Fatima (as)’s anger is on par with that of Rasulullah (s) then Shi’a books highlight her anger at ‘Ali (as). Their logic is simple if the anger Sayyida Fatima (as) do not harm the status of Imam ‘Ali (as)’s then the same rationale applies to Abu Bakr. This is a ‘powerful’ weapon used by the followers of Mu’awiya to silence the Shi’a. Just consider these comments of Ahlebayt.com:
The Shia say that Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) was angry at Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) in the incident of Fadak, but what about their own narrations that say that she was also angry at Ali (رضّى الله عنه) at the same time?
Thus, based on the simple fact that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) made Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) angry on more than one occassion, we arrive at the following conclusions:1) The Prophet’s saying “whoever disturbs her, disturbs me” is addressed to Ali (رضّى الله عنه) but the Shia use it only for Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه); if this statement involved punishment from Allah then it would certainly befall Ali (رضّى الله عنه) before Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه).2) There are other incidents (narrated by the well-reknowned Al-Majlisi, Al-Tusi, Al-Erbali, and others) that occurred in which Ali (رضّى الله عنه) angered Fatima (رضّى الله عنها). What is the Shia response to this anger? Whatever response they use to defend Ali (رضّى الله عنه), then we could use the same response to defend Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه).
Since Ibn al Hashimi is seen as the expert in this field, we have decided to dedicate this chapter to exposing his falsehood by proving that Maula ‘Ali (as) and Sayyida Fatima (as) were the shining examples of the perfect couple, always supporting one another, their marital lives were an example for us.
Before we launch into analysing the traditions that Ibn al Hashimi cited we feel it apt to cite the way that Allah (swt) praises this marriage.
We read in the Holy Qur’an:
He has let free the two bodies of flowing water, meeting together:
Between them is a Barrier which they do not transgress:
Then which of the favours of your Lord will ye deny?
Out of them come Pearls and Coral:
Al-Qur’an, Surah 55, Ayah 19 – 22, translated by Yusufali
The two rivers of chastity and purity are Ali (as) and Fatima (as). The barrier between them is the Holy Prophet (s) and pearl and coral are Hassan (as) and Husayn (as).
This is confirmed by the following esteemed Sunni works:
- Tafseer Dur al Manthur, Volume 6 page 143
- Tadhkiratul Khawwas al Ummah, page 134
- Yanabi al Muwaddah, page 118 Chapter 39
- Shawahid al-Tanzil by Hasakani, Volume 2 page 285
- Tafsir al-Thalabi, Volume 9 page 181
Dur al Manthur:
According to Ibn Abbas the two rivers mean ‘Ali and Fatima. The barrier means the Holy Prophet and the pearl and coral mean Hasan and Husayn
Yanabi al Muwaddah:
The companions and the Imams in exegesis of this verse say that Fatima and Ali are two deep rivers of the secrets of nature, rivers that do not overstep each other and the barrier between them is the Holy Prophet and the pearls and corals extracted from them are Hasan and Husayn.
Deobandi scholar Shah Rafiudeen translated the words as follows:
They do not contravene each other.
Allah (swt) has decreed that Ali (as) and Fatima (as) are two rivers of chastity who never transgress each other. Therefore strife between them is impossible or else God forbid the report of the Qur’an is false. If an incident is found in any book that indicates that strife between the two existed, it contradicts the Qur’an and is therefore false. Let us now look at the traditions that our opponents regularly cite against us.
Four false incidents cited by the Nawasib
Some Nasibi authors in their works have used the following tradition to highlight a quarrel between Ali bin Abi Talib (as) and Fatima Zahra (as):
Ibn Abdrabu al-Andalusi in his book al-Aqd, from Abdullah bin al-Zubair from Mu’awyia bin Abi Sufyan who said: ‘…I said: ‘Oh Allah’s messenger, you went away sad and returned happy?’ He replied: ‘Oh Mu’awyia, why should I not feel happy when I have achieved a reconciliation between the two, that are the most honorable creatures of Allah.’’
Bihar al-Anwar, Volume 43 page 42
As the Shia scholar Shaykh Baqir Majlisi recorded this tradition in his book Bihar al-Anwar, the Nawasib have grasped an opportunity to cast doubts on the esteemed merits of the revered couple. The reality is this tradition is of no use for use to them, since the primary source of the tradition as cited by Shaykh Majlisi is the famed Sunni book Al-Aqd al-Farid by Allamah Ibn Abdrabu al-Andalusi. Moreover the narrator of the tradition is the notorious enemy of Ahul’bayt (as) whose parentage is usually attributed to Sufiyan. It is therefore not surprising that Shaykh Baqir Majlisi cited the comments of Shaykh Seduq about this tradition that the filthy Nawasib conveniently fail to mention:
Ibn Babweh (Seduq) said: ‘This is unreliable’
If the question is raised as to why Majlisi would cite a false narration, then we should point out that there is no prohibition on citing traditions from other Sects (beliefs). Allah (swt) has also mentioned the beliefs of the Kuffar and Munafiqeen in the Holy Qur’an.
This is one a favourite reference of Nawasib particularly those belonging to Sipah Sahabah who cite it to prove to their naïve masses that the Shi’a blaspheme Ali bin Abi Talib (as). Ibn al-Hashimi uses the very tradition in his Fadak article to prove that Ali bin Abi Talib (as) angered Fatima Zahra (as) and that his caliph Abu Bakr should not be singled out. Ibn al-Hashiimi first quotes the Arabic of the tradition from Bihar al-Anwar and then presents the English translation:
.Translation: Al-Qummi and Al-Majlisi narrated on the authority of Abu Thar: I migrated with Jafar ibn Abi Talib to Abyssynia. A slave girl worth 4,000 dirhams was given to Jafar as a gift. When we came to Medinah he gave it to Ali as a gift that she may serve him. Ali kept her in Fatima’s house. One day Fatima entered and saw that his head was in the girl’s lap. She said: “O Abu Al-Hasan! Have you done it!?” He said: “O daughter of Muhammad! I have done nothing, so what is it that you want?” She said: “Do you allow me to go to my father’s house?” He said: “I will allow you.” So she wore her Jilbab and went to the Prophet.
(source: Ibn Babaveh Al-Qummi’s “Elal Al-Sharae’”, p.163; it is also narrated in Bihar Al-Anwar, pp.43-44, Chapter on “How her life with Ali was”)
The complete chain of narration is:
My father narrated from Saad bin Abdullah from al-Hassan bin Arafa from Wakee from Muhammad bin Israel from Abu Saleh on the authority of Abu Dharr:
Only the Nawasib could have attributed such a thing to Ali bin Abi Talib (as) which is why we see that two of the narrators in the chain namely Hassan bin Arafa and Wakee bin al-Jarah are famed Sunni figures whose work and biographies can easily be found in Sunni books, neither have been authenticated by Shia scholars. Rather than expecting the Shia to react to this narration, Ibn al Hashimi should know that its two of his own ancestors who actually narrated such a thing. Moreover, the narration is of no value to us since another narrator in the chain namely Abu Saleh is completely unknown (Majhul Alain). The narration becomes even more unreliable when we see that there is an unknown (Majhul al-Haal) Shia narrator in the chain namely Muhammad bin Israel as stated by Allamah Jawaheri in Al-Mufid min Mujam al-Rijal, page 499.
With all these grave defects in the chain, Ibn al Hashimi has failed to embarrass the Shia. Although this should suffice to water down Ibn al Hashimi’s attempts to malign Imam Ali bin Abi Talib (as) but for the sake of argument, let us see some historical aspects that prove the tradition is fabrica.
It is sad to see the intellectual deficiency of this Ibn al Hashimi, who comments on the tradition as follows:
she was angry with Ali (رضّى الله عنه) because she saw his head in the lap of a slave girl that was given to him as a gift. She even left him for awhile and went to her father’s house, which is something that females do when they are upset with their husbands or they are facing marital problems.
Notice how he is blaming ‘Ali (as) with regard to this incident. As the truth of the whole incident depends on the testimony of Abu Dhar we should highlight the fact that he never migrated to Abyssinia, hence the entire episode has been falsely attributed to Abu Dharr. As proof we shall rely on the following classical Sunni works:
- al-Isaba, Volume 7 page 105
- Asad al-Ghaba, Volume 5 page 186
- Mashaher Ulama al-Amsar by Ibn Haban, page 30
- Siar alam al-Nubala, Volume 2 page 46
- al-Istiab, Volume 4 page 1652
We read in Siar alam al-Nubala:
“He was the fifth person that converted to Islam, then he returned back to his homeland upon the instruction of the Prophet (s) and then when the Prophet migrated, Abu Dhar migrated along with Him”
We read in al-Istiab:
“He converted to Islam after four persons, hence he was the fifth, then he returned to his homeland and lived there until the Prophet (s) migrated to Madina”
Both of the above mentioned texts explicitly state that Hadhrat Abu Dharr (ra) returned to his tribe after embracing Islam and stayed there. Then the battles of Badr, Uhud and Khandaq took place after which he migrated to Madina.
The onus is therefore on these Nasibi to prove that Abu Dharr migrated to Abyssinia, no such evidence exists, and the entire event is a lie. Not only Sunni but Shia books likewise, do not mention any thing about his migration to Abyssinia. One only needs to consult authoritative texts such as:
1. Al-Tabaqat by Burqi, page 29
2. Rijal Tusi, page 32
3. Al-Ikmal by Khatib Tabrizi, page 59
4. Mustadrakat Ilm al-Rijal by Shahroodi, v2 p240
5. Mujam al-Rijal by Khoei, v5, p138
The incident quotes Abu Dharr as saying that he and Jafar bin Abi Talib came to Madina together. Jafar came to Madina following the conquest of Khyber that took place in the 7th Hijra whilst Abu Dharr arrived there after the battle of trench that was fought in the 5th Hijra. The conclusion arrived at is that Abu Dharr had reached Madina long before Jafar. Abu Dharr never went to Abyssinia nor did he return from there. This serves as further proof that the tradition is a fabrication.
Ibn al Hashimi states:
Translation: It is narrated on the authority of Abu Abdullah Jafar Al-Sadiq: A miserable of the miserables came to Fatima, the daughter of the Messenger of Allah, and said to her: “Did you not know that Ali proposed to marry (Khataba) the daughter of Abu Jahl?” She said: “Is it true what you say? He said three times: “What I say is true.” Jealousy entered into her (heart) to an extent she could not control, for Allah has ordained that women be jealous and that men perform Jihad, and He has made the reward of the patient (woman) similar to that of the Murabit and Muhajir in the way of Allah.He said: And Fatima’s anguish became severe and she remained thinking about it until night time…she moved to her father’s residence. Ali came to his residence and did not see Fatima and his anguish increased and became great on him, even though he did not know what happened, and he was ashamed to call her from her father’s house so he went to the Masjid and prayed as much as Allah willed, and he collected some of the sand in the Masjid and laid on it.When the Prophet saw how sad and anguished Fatima was, he poured water over himself and wore his clothes and entered the Masjid. He kept praying, making Rukoo and Sujood, and after every time he completed two Raka he made Du’a that Allah remove what Fatima had of sadness and anguish because he left her turning over and breathing heavily. When the Prophet saw that she could not sleep and could not rest he said: “O daughter, rise!” So she rose and the Prophet carried Al-Hassan and she carried Al-Hussain and took hold of Umm Kulthoom’s hand until they reached Ali (AS) while he was sleeping.
The Prophet put his foot on Ali, pinched him, and said: “Rise Abu Turab! You have disturbed many a resting person. Call for me Abu Bakr from his house and Umar from his Majlis and Talha.” So Ali went and got them from their houses and they gathered around the Messenger of Allah.
The Messenger of Allah then said: “O Ali! Do you not know that Fatima is a piece of me and I am from her. Whoever disturbs her, disturbs me and whoever disturbs me has disturbed Allah, and whoever disturbs her after my death then as if he has disturbed her in my lifetime and whoever disturbed her in my lifetime then as if he has disturbed her after my death.”
(source: Ibn Babveh Al Qummi’s “Elal Al-Sharae’”, pp.185-186, Al-Najaf Print; also narrated in Majlisi “Bihar” 43/201-202)
This story is not only narrated by the Shia founding father Al-Qummi, but it is also narrated by Al-Majlisi in his book Jala Al-Eoyon. There are not many scholars of the Shia considered more authoratative than Al-Qummi and Al-Majlisi, and both narrate this story.
It was actually Ali (r) who had angered Fatima (r), and consequently, the Prophet (s) chastised him by saying that whoever angers Fatima (r) angers him.
The complete chain of narration is:
Ali bin Ahmad narrated from Abu al-Abbas Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Yahya from Amro bin Abi al-Miqdam and Ziyad bin Abdullah on the authority of Abu Abdullah Jafar Al-Sadiq:
Several defects are evident in the chain of narration that renders it a useless and in fact rejected tradition. Firstly, one of the narrators Ali bin Ahmad bin Matil is unknown (Al-Mufid min Mujam al-Rijal, page 384). Secondly, a narrator Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Yahya has not been authenticated by Shia scholars, see:
1. Kitab Ejara, by Al-Khoei, Volume 1 page 51
2. Rijal ibn Dawoud, page 45
3. Zakhirat al-Maad, Volume 1 page 305
4. Sharh Arwa Wuthqa, Volume 1 page 464
5. Muhadrat fi Usool al-Fiqh, Volume 4 page 334
Last but not the least, FIVE narrators are missing in the chain between Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Yahya and Amro bin Abi al-Miqdam that means the chain is disconnected.
Ibn al Hashimi also employed the same type of dishonesty as was employed by his first Caliph. In his feeble attempt to protect his first caliph from the wrath mentioned in the Prophetic Hadith about Fatima Zahra (as) i.e. ‘Fatima is a piece of me and I am from her. Whoever disturbs her, disturbs me and whoever disturbs me has disturbed Allah’ the author has tried to prove that these words were spoken for Ali bin Abi Talib (as) since He (as) wanted to marry the daughter of Abu Jahal but Ibn al Hashimi did not cite the remainder of the tradition that makes it clear that Ali bin Abi Talib (as) did not have any such intention and it was a lie attributed to him (as) by the dishonest ancestors of Ibn al-Hashimi & Co. The tradition he cited ends in this manner:
The Messenger of Allah then said: “O Ali! Do you not know that Fatima is a piece of me and I am from her? Whoever disturbs her, disturbs me and whoever disturbs me has disturbed Allah, and whoever disturbs her after my death then as if he has disturbed her in my lifetime and whoever disturbed her in my lifetime then it is as if he has disturbed her after my death.
Ali said: ‘Oh Allah’s messenger, yes’. The Prophet said: ‘Then why you did so?’ Ali said: ‘By the one who sent you as Prophet, what you heard about me is not true and I never thought about that.’ The Prophet said: ‘You have spoken the truth’. Then Fatima smiled until her smile was visible.
As we stated earlier, the false news about Ali bin Abi Talib (as) was spread by his (as) enemies that happened to be the ancestors of the present day Nawasib such as Ansar.org, Sipah-e-Sahabha (hcy.com) and Ibn al-Hashimi & Co. Up till now, we have proved that Ali bin Abi Talib (as) never had any such intention, let us also present the testimony of Imam Jafar Sadiq (as) who asserted it was a baseless rumour spread by the Nawasib (hypocrites). Shaykh Seduq records in Amali, page 165:
Imam Jafar al-Sadiq said: ‘….Didn’t they claim that the Master of the believers was seeking (worldly) life and government and he preferred fitna over peace, and he shed the blood of the Muslims without basis, and if he (Ali) was carrying benefit they would not ask Khalid bin al-Walid to assassinate him? Didn’t they claim that he (Ali) wanted to marry Abu Jahl’s daughter over Fatima and then Allah’s messenger complained of him to the Muslims on the pulpit and said: ‘Ali wants to marry the daughter of Allah’s enemy over the daughter of Allah’s Prophet, surely Fatima is part of me, whoever hurts her hurts me, whoever made her happy made me happy, whoever disturbs her disturbs me.’ (Imam Jafar continues) Oh Alqamah how strange are the claims of the people about Ali !’.
At the end we should point also out that the alleged story of Ali bin Abi Talib (as) intending to mary the daughter of Abu Jahl is not considered authentic by the ulema of Ahle Sunnah. Modern day Sunni scholar Shaykh Hassan Saqaf in his book Majm’o Rasael al-Saqqaf, Volume 2 page 738 stated on this alleged story:
“It is an odd tradition and some scholars reject it!! because it is narrated by Musawar bin Makhrama who was deviated from Sayedna Ali”.
Another angle from which Sunni scholars rejected the cited story is:
In Sahih Muslim recorded his (Musawar’s) tradition about Ali’s proposal to Abu Jahl’s daughter, he said: ‘I heard the prophet (s) addressing to the people while I was adult’. There is a problem in accepting the hadith because the historians never disagreed about his (Musawar’s) birth which was after the migration while the story of Ali’s proposal is about six or seven years after Musawar’s birth, thus how come he was an adult?’.
The fourth incident
Ibn al Hashimi states:
We read the following, as narrated by Al-Majlisi’s Haqq-ul-Yaqeen as well as in Al-Tusi’s Amali:“When Fatima asked for Fadak from Abu Bakr and he refused to give it to her, she returned full of anger that could not be described and she was sick; and she was angry with Ali because he refused to help her.” (Al-Majlisi’s Haqq-ul-Yaqeen, pp.203-204; also recorded in Al-Tusi’s Amali, p.295)
This has also been recorded by Tabrisi in Ihtijaj. Whilst these scholars recorded this tradition, the primary source of this tradition is Manaqib al-Abi Talib by Ibn Shehr Ashub. Ibn al Hashimi sought to ultra condense the text for his Sunni followers, the complete narration is as follows:
When Syeda Zahra came back, she complained to Ali (as) about Abu Bakr’s treatment in these words: “O Son Of Abu Talib! you are hiding your self as a child is hidden in its mother’s womb. You are sitting at home like the one who is not liked by anyone. Abu Bakr Ibne Qahafa is depriving me of the land which was given to me by my father. He has stood openly against me. Mahajreen and Ansar are not helping me. You have weakened yourself since the time you abandoned your sword. I wish i had died before seeing this day”
The Nasibi attempt to malign Ali bin Abi Talib (as) has failed again since the tradition has NO chain of narration, let alone a weak one. We should remind the present day Nawasib about the principle of debates pointed out by their filthy Imam Ibn Tamiyah in his authority work Minhaj al-Sunnah, Volume 8 page 41:
“At least what the arguer must do is mention the chains of narration to know the authenticity of the tradition, but only mentioning what drawing an inference from what is written in books is unacceptable.”
Whilst there is no room for discussion on this baseless tradition, for the sake of discussion we would like reply to the Nawasib questioning how individuals that the Shias deem infallible (Masum) may quarrel with on another.
Reply Two – Tensions between Nabi Musa (as) and the Angel of Death
We read in Sahih Muslim Book 030, Number 5851, Bab Fadail Musa:
Abu Hurraira reported that the Angel of Death was sent to Moses (peace be upon him) to inform of his Lord’s summons. When he came, he (Moses) boxed him and his eye was knocked out. He (the Angel of Death) came back to the Lord and said: You sent me to a servant who did not want to die. Allah restored his eye to its proper place (and revived his eyesight), and then said: Go back to him and tell him that if he wants life he must place his hand on the back of an ox, and he would be granted as many years of life as the number of hair covered by his hand. He (Moses) said: My Lord what would happen then He said: Then you must court death. He said: Let it be now. And he supplicated Allah to bring him close to the sacred land. Thereupon Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: If I were there, I would have shown you his grave beside the road at the red mound.
This has also been reported in Sahih al Bukhari Book 23 Volume 2, Book 23, Number 423, Book of Funerals.
This tradition has been narrated by Abu Hurraira and is places the Ahl’ul Sunnah in a dilemma. This is because both Hadhrat Musa (as) and the Angel of Death are infallible and here we see one infallible slapping the other so hard that the other loses his eye.
Esteemed Imam of Ahl’ul Sunnah Nawawi in his Sharh Muslim, said:
‘It is possible that Allah allowed Musa to slap him (the angel of death) and perhaps this was a test for the one who was being slapped. Allah tests His creation in any way He likes’
We deem Hadhrat ‘Ali (as) and Hadhrat Fatima (as) to be Masum. When Fatima (as) was deprived of the land of Fadak she (according to the Ahl’ul Sunnah) addressed ‘Ali (as) in anger. Now we say IF there is any element of anger in the words of Fatima (as), she might have been given permission for such an address (just as Musa was allowed to slap the angel). Similarly ‘Ali (as) was to be tested for his patience by listening to the angry discourse of Fatima (as) (just as the patience of the Angel was tested by Musa (as)’s slap). In the same way that the dignity and honour of Musa and Israel remain intact after this encounter, so do the dignity and honour of ‘Ali (as) and Fatima (as) after this discussion. As far as Abu Bakr is concerned, he is not Masum even in the eyes of Ahl’ ul Sunnah. So when Sayyida Fatima (as) was angry at him, it is evident that Abu Bakr was in the wrong. We need no explanation to understand his conduct.
Reply Three – The incident of Musa (as) and Khider (as)
We read in Surah Kahf verse 71:
So they twain set out till, when they were in the ship, he made a hole therein. (Moses) said: Hast thou made a hole therein to drown the folk thereof? Thou verily hast done a dreadful thing.
Al-Qur’an, Surah Kahf, Ayah 71, translated by Pickthal
Let us see how the classical Sunni Ulema have translated the words ‘Imr’
“You are doing a dreadful act”
Tafseer khazan Volume 4 page 182
“Musa said have you killed an innocent person who had killed no one? verily you have committed a thing Nukr ‘MUNKAR’ act [prohibited, evil, dreadful thing]
Tafseer by Ashraf Ali Thanvi
(Verily, you have committed a evil thing.) About `Imr’, Mujahid said: “An evil thing.” Qatadah said, “An astounding thing.” At this point, reminding him of the previously-agreed condition, Al-Khidr said.
Fakhrudeen Razi defined Nukr as:
“worse (more evil) and this is a reference to the killing of the child which is worse then piercing the boat because the boat can be repaired”
Both Musa (as) and Khidr (as) are Masum Prophets. One Masum is addressing the other in anger. Since there is always some wisdom in the words and actions of a Masum, a Muslim after reading these verses does not question them and Musa (as)’s harsh words do not undermine the dignity of the two prophets.
Reply Four – The quarrel between two angels
We read in Sura Sa’d (Ayat 22):
“When they entered in upon Dawood (David), he was terrified of them. They said,” ‘fear not! We are two litigants one of whom has wronged the other, therefore judge between us with truth and treat us not with injustice and guide us to the right way’”
Al-Qur’an, Surah Sa’d, Ayah 22, translated by Yusufali
In 1927 Sunni publishers in Delhi, combined the Tafseer’s of two Sunni scholars, Shah Rafiudeen and Ashraf ‘Ali Thanvi in the marginal notes of page 640 we read:
“some translators narrate a story here the major part of which has its origin in Judaism. However there is no tradition of the Holy Prophet which makes it obligatory for us to believe in it. Therefore it is recommended to confine oneself to the mere recitation of this incident with the belief that only Allah knows of its wisdom as we know that the Holy Qur’an and all its topics are truth”
The holy Qur’an has testified to the fact that the two angels came to Hadhrat Dawood (as) after a quarrel. This raises a question as to how Angels quarrel when they are Masum? The Ahl’ ul Sunnah have resolved this problem by declaring that since the Qur’an is the truth as is everything contained within it we should suffice to a mere reading of these verses and not say anything undermining the dignity of Prophet Dawood and two angels. By the same token, Sayyida Zahra (as) and Ali (as) are Masum and their piety is certain. If the Ahl’ul Sunnah fail to understand any words spoken by either of them, they should suffice to mere reading of these words and not say anything against their honour just as they have abstained from saying anything against the honour of Dawood (as) and the two angels. As far as Abu Bakr is concerned, no Qur’anic verse or Prophetic tradition testifies to his piety and purity. He is neither an Imam / Prophet, Angel nor Saint. So when he deprived Fatima (as) of the land of Fadak, he was in the wrong. Since he is not a Masum we do not need any reason to justify his act.
The blasphemy of Mullah Muradabadi
In a book called Naseeath ai Shi’a (page 439), a Nasibi author namely Muradabadi states having cited the above tradition:
“these words of Fatima imply harshness of her tone and this bitterness was not removed till end and their living together after this was for the sake of married life and her illness”.
The marriage of Maula ‘Ali (as) and Sayyida Fatima (as) was via the Wahy of Allah (swt)
As evidence we shall cite the following esteemed Sunni works:
- Tabaqat Ibn Sa’d Volume 8 page 19 (chapter Dhikr Fatima)
- Riyadh al Nadira(chapter Dhikr Tazweej ai Fatima) Volume page 188
- Sharh Fiqh Akbar(chapter Dhikr Aulad e Rasul)page 190
- Zakhair al Uqba page 30 [printed in Cairo]
We read in Tabaqat:
“Abu Bakr asked the Holy Prophet for Fatima’s hand in marriage. The prophet replied that he was waiting for Allah’s command regarding Fatima’s marriage”
Riyadh al Nadira:
“Afsar bin Malik narrates that he was with the Holy Prophet (s) when there he received a revelation. The Prophet (s) said that Jibrael has brought Allah’s command that I marry Fatima to Ali Ibne Abi Talib”
Sharh Fiqh Akbar:
“The marriage of Sayyida Zahra with ‘Ali took place in 3rd Hijra and this was by the command and Wahy (revelation) of Allah”
Dr Tahir al Qadri in ‘Al Durratul Baydha fee Manaqib Fatima al Zahra (as)’ page 77 records this Hadeeth:
“Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Masud narrates that the Prophet (s) said ‘Allah has ordered me to marry Fatima to Ali”.
Al Duratul Baydha fee Manaqib Fatima al Zahra (as), Page 77
Qadri copied this narration from the following esteemed Sunni works.
1. al Muhajjim al Kabeer by Tabrani Volume 1 page 154
2. al Muhajjim al Kabeer by Tabrani Volume 22 page 407
3. Majmaa al Zawaad Volume 9 page page 204 the author Yashmi said the chain is Thiqah
4. Al Kashaf al Haseeyath Volume 1 page 174
5. Kanz al Ummal traditions 32979-32891
6. Kanz al Ummal Volume 13 Hadeeth 682
7. Tadkhirathul Khawwas page 276, narrated from Buraidha
8. Al Bayan al Tahreef Volume 1 page 174, who took this narration from Ibn Asakir and Khatteb Baghdadi
9. Fayz al Qadeer Volume 2 page 215
The above references are sufficient proof of the fact that Fatima (as) was married to ‘Ali (as) by the command of Allah (swt).Thus it is impossible that any action of ‘Ali (as) caused her grief. Otherwise questions would be raised on Allah’s decision that he married his beloved Prophet’s daughter to a person who caused her sorrow.
Two marriages have been arranged by Allah (swt):
A) Adam (as) and Hawa (as)
B) ‘Ali (as) and Fatima (as)
Discord never took place between either couple. Their pious lives are an example for the Ummah.
The Ahl’ul Sunnah have come up with all manner of lame excuse to defend Abu Bakr. When it dawned on them that they would lose in every case, they came up with an accusation that even Mu’awiya (the greatest enemy of Ali (as)) could not think of.
Some more Shia traditions that make Nawasib estatic
We deem it an appropriate place to discuss some other Shia traditions which though not concerned with the relationship between Ali bin Abi Talib (as) and Fatima Zahra (sa) are often quoted by the Nawasib such as Sipah e Sahaba (kr-hcy.com) in order to make the Shias embarrassed.
Shaykh Baqar Majlisi has recorded in Bihar al-Anwar, Volume 40 page 2 and some other of his books:
…(Ali said): ‘I traveled with Allah’s messenger (s) and He did not have any servant other than me, He did not have more than one blanket and Ayesha was with Him. The Prophet (s) was sleeping between me and Ayesha and we were under one blanket, when He got up for the night prayer, He made a line by His hand along the middle of the blanket between me and Ayesha until the blanket touched the mattress which was under us’
Nawasib belonging to www.allaahuakbar.net also quoted:
Ali Ibn Abi Talib said that he once slept with the prophet Muhammad p.b.u.h and his wife Ayesha in one bed, and under one cover, then the prophet woke up to pray, and left them together [Ali and Ayesha] in the same bed, under the same cover” (Bihaar al-Anwar vol. 40, p. 2)
We should point out that the najis Nawasib are not going to get any benefit from this tradition since the chain of narration contains a narrator namely Aban bin Abi Ayash who is not only weak and worthless according to Shia and Sunni scholars alike. Among Shia scholars, he has been declared ‘weak’ by Shaykh Tusi said (Rijal Tusi, page 126), Ibn Ghadaeri (Rijal ibn Ghadaeri, page 36) and by Shaykh Baqar Majlisi himself (Rijal Majlisi, page 141) whilst Allamah Heli declared him ‘extremely weak’ (Khulasat al-Aqwal, page 325).
Among the Sunni scholars, he has been declared ‘Matruk’ by Dhahabi (Al-Kashif, Volume 1 page 207), Ibn Hajar Asqalani (Taqrib al-Tahdib, Volume 1 page 51) and Nasiruddin Albaani (Silsila Dhaifa, Volume 5 page 128).
The intention of Nawasib by advancing this (weak) Shia tradition before the masses is to portray Shias as shameless individuals who believe that the Holy Prophet (s) would allow an outsider male to get into the same bed sheet being used by him (s) and his wife. The reality is that it is the filthy Nasibi cult itself that holds such an absurd belief. We read the following tradition in Mustadrak al-Hakim, Volume 3 page 410 that has been declared Sahih by both Imam Hakim and Imam Dhahabi:
Al-Zubair said: ‘Once Holy Prophet (s) called me in a cold night, hence I went to Him and He was with some of his women under a blanket, then he placed me with them under the blanket and we became three persons’
Mustadrak al-Hakim, Volume 3 page 410 Tradition 5564
Now let us read another impudent account recorded in Musnad Ishaq bin Rahweh, Volume 4 page 343 which has been declared Sahih by Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani in Al-Matalib al-Alyia, Volume 4 page 229 while Dr. Abdulghafor bin Abdulhaq al-Buluchi, the margin writer of the book ‘Musnad Ishaq bin Rahweh’ stated that the narrators of this tradition are Thiqah:
Urwa narrated from his father that the Holy Prophet (s) sent al-Zubair and another man during the night of Ahzab (battle) and said to them: ‘Go and spy’. They returned when the Holy Prophet (s) was under a blanket with Um Salama, He (the prophet) wrapped them under the blanket, the Prophet (s) therefore clung to Um Salamah.
Musnad Ishaq bin Rahweh, Volume 4 page 343 Tradition 1777
Ironically we find the Mulla Baqir slanders Ali, Fatima and the Prophet in such disgusting ways: It was narrated that [Imam] Ja`far Ibn Muhamad said : The prophet Muhammad p.b.u.h used to put his face between the breasts of [his daughter] Fatima before going to sleep” (Bihaar al-Anwar, vol. 43, p. 78)
This tradition recorded in Bihar al-Anwar does not have any chain of narration and Arbali in his book Kashf al-Ghuma, Volume 2 page 95 quoted this tradition from a Sunni book written by Abu Ishaq al-Thalabi and the same can also be found in another Sunni book Maqtal al-Hussain, Volume 1 page 108 authored by Ibn Amhed al-Khawarzami, therefore we understand that it is basically a Sunni tradition which was copied down by Shaykh Majlisi in his book.
Having proved that the cited tradition has no connection with Shia beliefs, let us now cite a blasphemous incident recorded by a scholar equally loved by Salafies and Deobandies namely Shah Ismaeel Shaheed Dehalwi in his famed work Siraat e Mustaqeem, page 315:
“One of my elders saw in a dream the great saint, Hazrat Ali, and the leader of all women, Hazrat Fatimah (RA). Thus, Hazrat Ali gave a bath to my elder with his own blessed hands and cleansed the body of my elder like a father cleanses the body of his son, and Hazrat Fatimah Zahra dressed him in fine clothes with her blessed hands “.
Siraat e Mustaqeem, page 315
This is not the only disrespect shown by the Nawasib towards Fatima Zahra (sa) but in Malfuzat Hakeem al-Ummat, Volume 8 page 37, we read the following statement of Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi who in Deobandi world is known as ‘The Physician of the Muslims’ [Hakeem al-ummat] and ‘Reformer of the Nation’ [Mujaddid al-Millat]:
“Once I was very ill and I am extremely afraid of dying. I saw Hazrat Fatima (RA) in a dream and she embraced me to her chest and I got well.”
- General facts on Fadak
- The claim of Sayyida Fatima (as)
- Abu Bakr’s rejection of witnesses’ testimony
- Imam Ali (as)’s position on Fadak
- Rules of inheritance in the Qur’an
- Analysing the judgement of Abu Bakr
- The inheritance of previous prophets
- Sayyida Fatima (as)’s response to the confiscation of Fadak
- Refuting the defences of Abu Bakr’s advocates
- Relations between Sayyida Fatima (as) and Maula Ali (as)
- Further injustices perpetrated against Sayyida Fatima (as)
- The Shi’a position on Abu Bakr
- No public Twitter messages.