Rajaee

How Old Was Lady Fatima (s.a) When She Was Martyred? Intro There are two main theories regarding the Lady’s age; one suggests that she was 18 and is supported by Shiites, and the other one, which is advocated by Sunnites, claims her to be 28 when she set to meet her beloved father in the next life. The source of disagreement is because the exact time of Fatima’s (s.a) birthday is a place of debate. If the Lady was 18 then she must have been born after Hijra and if she was 28, there’s no choice but to say she was born before Bi’tha. Let's take a brief look at the narratives and evidence provided by both sides. The Sunnite’s theory Although the said age for the Lady from the Sunnite is not the only theory among them, it is more accepted than others. For example, there’s a narrative in which the birthday is on the 41st year of the noble prophet’s life. To support that Fatima (s.a) was 28, certain narrations were presented by them: 1) Ibn Is’haaq[1] says ALL Rasulullah’s children were born before Bi’tha except Ibrahim[2] 2) Ibn Jawzi[3] says Fatima (s.a) was born around 5 years before Bi’tha during the rebuilding of Ka’ba. 3) Al-Waqidi[4] claims that She was born when Ka’ba was being built, and Rasulullah (s.a.w.s) was 35 years old. Contradiction of the narrative with authentic hadiths from the Sunnite sources All these famous scholars have said the same thing regarding the Lady’s birthday but seems like they were oblivious to their hadiths! There are some hadiths with the same context in which the birthday of Lady Fatima (s.a) was after Rasulullah’s Meraj.[5]. These hadiths are accepted by Sunnite as well:[6] 1. As-Suyuti[7] narrates in his book, called “ad-Durar al-Manthur”, under Ayah al-Miraj that Lady Khadija conceived Lady Fatima (s.a) after Rasulullah (s.a.w.s) returned from his divine ascension (Miraj) 2. A similar narrative is transmitted in Mustadrak as-Sahihayn from Sa’d ibn Malik. It is also added to the end that whenever Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.s) longed for paradise, he’d go to Lady Fatima (s.a) 3. Dhakha’ir al-Uqba and Tarikh Baghdad, in two spots, also narrate a similar version of the narration. The authenticity of the mentioned hadith, which is narrated in various sources with valid chains according to the Sunnite perspective, clearly establishes that the theory suggesting the Lady was born before Bi'tha is firmly unacceptable. The Shiite Theory Unlike Sunnites, Shiites mostly believe that the Lady was born after Bi’tha, with a 5-year difference. This theory not only aligns with the aforementioned hadith but is also firmly supported by additional hadiths: 1. Kashf al-Qumma, vol. 1, p. 449 à Imam al-Baqir (a.s): "Fatima was born five years after Allah revealed His prophethood to His Prophet and sent down revelation upon him, while Quraysh was building the Kaaba. She passed away at the age of eighteen." 2. Usoul al-Kafi, vol. 2, p. 457à also from Imam al-Baqir: "Fatima, the daughter of Muhammad, peace be upon him and his family, was born five years after the Prophet's mission and passed away at the age of eighteen years and seventy-five days." Conclusion Rasulullah’s divine ascension (Miraj) is widely acknowledged to have occurred after his Bi’tha. Consequently, the hadiths indicating that Lady Fatima was born after the Miraj contradict the Sunni perspective. In contrast, the Shia viewpoint aligns with these hadiths and is supported by additional exclusive traditions. Ultimately, we can confidently assert that the Shia theory is more accurate and closer to the truth. [1] The famous Sunnite historian and biographer from Medina. [2] The infant son of Rasulullah (s.a.w.s) who died very young, before reaching 2 years of age. [3] The famous Sunnite jurist and historian of the sixth century. [4] The famous Sunnite historian and biographer of the third century. [5] The event of Rasulullah’s ascension to heaven, which is referred to in Sura al-Isra. [6] Al-FiruzAbadi, Faza’il al-Khamsa min as-Sihah as-Sitta, vol. 2, pp 152-153 [7] Jalal ad-Deen as-Suyuti, the famous Sunnite scholar of the 9th century.

"Fatima (s.a) was titled as "mukhaddara" to the point she covered herself in front of a blind person! So how could she go ahead and open the door during the invasion?!" The Origins Lady Fatima (s.a) is a powerful symbol of chastity and piety, embodying the virtues expected of an exemplary figure. As the mother of all infallible imams, she not only adheres strictly to the principles of hijab but also sets a high standard for modesty and moral integrity. Her unwavering commitment to these values is demonstrated by her practice of wearing hijab even in the presence of a blind non-mahram, underscoring her dedication to personal dignity and respect. This is why Lady Fatima (s.a) was referred to as "mukhaddara." Given this, it raises questions about the claim that she opened the door during the invasion. Explanation "mukhaddara" Mukhaddara is an Arabic term that means someone who is behind a veil. In our case however, refers to a virtuous lady who adheres to the Islamic hijab, prefers to remain in the confines of her home, and is quite respected in her community. Lady Fatima (s.a) and Lady Zeynab (s.a) are good examples of this personality. The answer 1. For starters, we should know that the mere act of opening a door for a non-mahram by a female Muslim is not prohibited in the Shari’a. Certain ahadith indicate that Rasulullah (s.a.w) also ordered his wives to open the door occasionally. For example, the late Tabarsi narrates that Rasulullah (s.a.w) was at Ayesha’s house when Ali (a.s) came and knocked on the door. Rasulullah (s.a.w) ordered, “O Ayesha! Open the door [for Ali (a.s)] …”.[1] Here, not only did Rasulullah allow her to open the door, but he also commanded her to do so, indicating that opening a door is permissible. 2. The prevalent misconception is that, during the invasion, Lady Fatima (s.a) went behind the door to open it, which resulted in her fatal injuries. This misunderstanding serves as the basis for many doubts and ongoing debates among Muslims regarding her untimely death. In truth, when Lady Fatima (s.a) saw the attackers, she rushed to the door to close it, fully aware that, according to Islamic law, they were not permitted to enter the home of the esteemed daughter of Rasulullah (s.a.w). Shaykh al-Mufid narrates: “…Fatima (s.a) thought they wouldn’t enter her house without her permission so she closed and locked the door…”[2]. The hadith serves as undeniable evidence that dispels all hypothetical issues. In any defense situation, the necessary actions must be taken, irrespective of who is carrying them out. Lady Fatima (s.a) firmly defended her home in that situation, and it is imperative that we commend her for this instead of subjecting her actions to irrelevant scrutiny. 3. Asking reasonable questions is encouraged, especially in Islam. Conversely, destructive and irrelevant inquiries are unacceptable, as they often distract us from a crucial truth: the grievous act of disrespecting the house of revelation. In essence, we are overlooking the disgraceful intrusion into the home of the Prophet Muhammad's daughter while focusing on trivial matters, such as why she was behind the door. The Noble Quran generally advises against entering a home without the owner's permission.[3] This admonition becomes even more pronounced when it comes to the residence of Rasulullah.[4] In this instance, Lady Fatima (s.a) took the precaution of closing and locking her door, clearly indicating her refusal to grant permission to anyone. She believed they would respect this prohibition; however, they disregarded all instructions and committed their transgression. 4. There is a well-established principle in Islam, grounded in the Quran[5] and a well-known Nabawi Hadith[6] called “Rule of Necessity” (al-Qa’ida al-Idhtirar) stating that committing a wrongful act may be permissible in cases of extreme emergency. For instance, while consuming the meat of a dead animal is generally prohibited, it is allowed when faced with dire hunger that threatens one’s life. In light of this principle, Lady Fatima (s.a) faced severe circumstances. The invaders were at the door, intent on breaching her home to apprehend her Imam and coercively extract an allegiance to legitimize their illegal claim to successorship. According to “a fortiori analogy”[7], what Lady Fatima (s.a) did is entirely justified. The analogy states that if, based on the “rule of necessity”, it is permissible to commit acts that are considered Islamically wrongful during times of emergency, then taking an action that is not even wrongful—such as closing the door on invaders—becomes far more justifiable. In a similar case, Lady Fatima’s daughter, Lady Zeynab (s.a), took a bold stand in similar circumstances. In the gatherings of Ibn Ziyad in Kufa and Yazid in Damascus, she recognized that silence would allow the message of Ashura and Imam Hussain’s cause to fade away. Determined to ensure their struggle was not forgotten, although it was out of her character, she set aside any hesitation. She delivered two powerful lectures that ignited a flame of hope in the hearts of all free people. [1] At-Tabarsi, al-Ihtijaaj, vol. 1, p. 197 [2] Al-Mufid, al-Ikhtisas, p.184 [3] An-Nur: 27-28 [4] Al-Ahzab: 53 [5] Al-An’am: 119 [6] Hurr al-Ameli, Wasa’il ash-Shi’ah, vol. 15, p. 369 [7] A fortiori is a Latin phrase meaning "from the stronger." In logic and argumentation, it's a type of argument where, if a particular proposition is accepted, then a stronger proposition, implied by the first, must also be accepted: Establish a weaker premise: This is a proposition that is already accepted or proven. Introduce a stronger premise: This is a proposition that is logically implied by the weaker premise. Draw a conclusion: The conclusion is that if the weaker premise is true, then the stronger premise must also be true, with even greater certainty. Example: Weaker Premise: If it is wrong to steal a car, Stronger Premise: then it’s even more wrong to steal a life.

At the time of the invasion, there were others at home beside Lady Fatima (s.a) including Imam Ali (a.s), "Fidda" the Lady's servant, and some of Bani-Hashim. Why didn't they open the door instead of the Lady?! Origins According to most historical accounts, Imam Ali (a.s), "Fidda" Lady Fatima's servant, and some of Bani-Hashim were present at home during the invasion. Why should Lady Fatima, as the praised daughter of Rasulullah and the “mistress of all women of the worlds” that possesses even higher spiritual status than Lady Maryam (s.a)[1], open the door to be disrespected and beaten by the invaders?! Introduction First, we must familiarize ourselves with the circumstances surrounding that ominous day. Then, by breaking down the issue into smaller, more manageable questions, we can systematically investigate and answer each one, ultimately drawing a comprehensive conclusion. The invasion is said to have occurred around a week or so after the demise of the noble prophet of Islam.[2] A lot happened during these few days that made Imam Ali (a.s) and Lady Fatima (s.a) certain that there wouldn’t be any help from the people to support his rightful claim. They refused to swear allegiance to Ali (a.s) and there weren’t even 40 people willing to fight for him[3] to the point he complained to his late brother, “Ja’far Ibn Abu-Talib”[4]. On top of that, the Imam (a.s) was foretold about the invasion and instructed by Rasulullah (s.a.w.s) that in the case of not having supporters, he must remain patient during the crisis of successorship.[5] On the other hand, It was only a matter of time until the false leadership invaded the house of revelation to subdue Imam Ali (a.s) and take allegiance from him since they knew their caliphate would not be justified until the true claimant of successorship, Ali (a.s), had given up his rightful claim. Therefore, we can conclude that Ahlulbayt (a.s) were certain about what would happen, so they decided to make the usurpation of Imamate costly for the invaders through the resistance which was embodied by the Lady's presence behind the door. Different Scenarios On the day of the invasion, different scenarios were possible: 1. Imam Ali (a.s) opens the door; 2. Fidda the servant opens the door; 3. One of the Bani-Hashim who were at home opens the door; 4. Lady Fatima (s.a) opens the door. Here we analyze each scenario to see why the 4th one was chosen and the Lady herself opened the door: Scenario 1: Imam Ali opens the door This scenario is exactly what the invaders wanted to happen! Because in that situation, he would either swear allegiance willingly or resist and try to stop them. The first option would legitimize their false claim on the successorship of Rasulullah (s.a.w.s) so the Imam would never do that! In case of the second option, however, they would easily attack the Imam, capture him, and force him to swear allegiance. The Imam’s resistance wouldn’t also stop them from pursuing their distorted dream since they could easily brand him as a traitor to the caliphate who had stood against the rightful successor (!) of Rasulullah (s.a.w.s).[6] Scenario 2: Fidda the servant opens the door Just like in the previous scenario, had the servant opened the door, the invaders would have simply thrown her away, and gotten into the house to capture Imam Ali (a.s). A mere servant had no power to stop them nor could she do it. The self-claimed agents of the so-called caliph had a direct order to enter the house at all costs. Beating a servant, even killing her was a small cost they would be more than willing to pay for their agenda! Scenario 3: One of the Bani-Hashim opens the door The scenario of a Bani-Hashim member opening the door highlights our limited understanding of the actual events. The invasion occurred in three phases. The final wave, which targeted Ahlulbayt (a.s.), was preceded by two earlier attacks. Before the third and most devastating wave which led to Fatima’s (s.a) martyrdom, few Bani-Hashim individuals were present in the Lady’s small house but had fled during the initial two invasions, leaving only Ahlulbayt (a.s) inside. Therefore, we can conclude that: · Since the Lady’s house was so small, only a limited number of Bani-Hashim were present in the house. · All of them fled the house before the third invasion so no one was there to open the door. · Had any member remained in the house to open the door, it still would not have been enough to stop the attacker. Scenario 4: Lady Fatima (s.a) opens the door Thus far, we have come to understand that the invaders were determined to coerce Ali (a.s) into recognizing the legitimacy of their false caliphate, particularly on their third attempt, after two prior efforts had been rebuffed by him. They were willing to dismiss anyone who opposed them and were prepared to pay any price. For them, collateral damage—even the death of a maid or a member of Bani-Hashim—was deemed acceptable. The only thing that seemed to give them pause was the prospect of causing harm or suffering to Lady Fatima (s.a). The memories of Rasulullah’s (s.a.w.s) words about Fatima (s.a) were still vivid in the minds of the Muslims, [7] and her significant status was well-remembered. [8] It was this consideration that rendered their first two attempts unsuccessful, as Fatima’s (s.a) home is known as the house of revelation—one of the holiest places in Islam.[9] In fact, one of their greatest fears was how to confront Fatima (s.a) during their invasion. However, Fatima (s.a) stepped forward to meet them, and their act of invading her home and disrespecting her became the most costly and tragic decision they made in their pursuit of the caliphate. Question: What’s the point in making the usurpation costly for the invaders? When a false claimant makes a bold and costly move, everyone will always remember that, and becomes undeniable. In the pursuit of the caliphate, the invaders went to the extreme by attacking the Lady’s house. Consequently, in seeking legitimacy they couldn’t make empty excuses that Ali (a.s) withdrew from his claim or no one else was willing nor qualified so we stepped in to save the Islamic nation after Rasulullah (s.a.w.s) because the people had witnessed what they did to Zahra (s.a) to quench their thirst for power. They crossed all the redlines and destroyed the bridges behind them. The invasion was an irreversible act that made any white-washing act futile. [1] Ma’ani al-Akhbar, Sadooq, p. 107 à https://B2n.ir/e54523 [2] In another narrative, the invasion is said to happen around 50 days after Rasulullah (s.a.w.s) which has found some credibility among scholars too. Considering this narrative, the argument presented here is even more tangible, since, 50 days presents more time for Ahlulbayt to realize they need to come up with a strategy for an invasion which is going to happen sooner or later! [3] Nuri, Mustadrak al-Wasa’il, vol. 11, p. 74 à https://B2n.ir/w72918 [4] Sh. Al-Mufid, Al-Ikhtisas, sect. 2, p. 274 à https://B2n.ir/x57725 [5] Kulayni, al-Kafi, vol. 1, p. 281 à https://B2n.ir/p94094 [6] Adopted from Ameli, Ma’asaat az-Zahra, Sect. 1, Ch. 7 “What if Ali answered?” [7] Shaykh as-Sadooq, al-Amali, p. 165 [8] Shaykh al-Kulayni, al-Kafi, vol. 1, p. 459 [9] Jame’ah al-Kabirah supplicatio

NOTICE: The following article is a direct translation of an article with the same topic in Farsi from the official website of The Imamate Cultural Foundation. Does the verse “My covenant will not reach the unjust” [1] indicate the necessity of the Imam's infallibility? How? The Origins and Explanation of the Shubha: Shia scholars have long used the aforementioned verse to argue for the necessity of the Imam's infallibility. However, some opponents of the Shia faith, such as Nasir ibn Abdullah al-Qaffari, have not accepted this view and have criticized it. Nasir al-Qaffari, in his book "Principles of the Shia Imamiyyah Ithna-Ashariyyah Faith," has raised objections to the Shia argument for the Imam's infallibility based on this verse, which can be summarized as follows: The scholars differ in their understanding of the meaning of "covenant"; some interpret it as prophecy, some as Imamat, and others as safety from punishment. Therefore, the majority opinion is not in favor of Imamate. The verse negates the Imamate of the unjust. Therefore, it affirms the Imam's justice, not his infallibility, which the Shia believe in, and includes infallibility from errors, mistakes, and forgetfulness. One who has committed a wrong and then repented is not called a unjust. [2] Therefore, in this article, we will examine his criticisms and objections and prove the necessity of infallibility by arguing from the aforementioned verse, in two parts Insha'Allah. The Answer: The argument from this verse depends on understanding the meaning and purpose of the two words "my covenant" and "the unjust" as intended by God Almighty. Therefore, we will first examine these two words and then present the main argument. The meaning of "my covenant": The significance of "my covenant" in the verse, given the context of Abraham's appeal to Allah (s.w.t) and Allah's reply, is indicative of Imamate. This is because after Allah (s.w.t) informs Abraham that "Indeed, I am making you an Imam for the people," [3] and Abraham seeks Imamate for his descendants [4], God Almighty responds by saying, "My covenant will not reach the unjust." [5] It is evident that this response can only be related to Abraham's request if the covenant refers to Imamate. Otherwise, there would be a discrepancy between the request and the response. Many Sunni commentators have also interpreted the meaning of "my covenant" as Imamate. Tabari, in his commentary, which Ibn Taymiyyah considers one of the greatest and most valuable commentaries [6], writes under the aforementioned verse: “This verse from Allah (s.w.t) states that unjust will not attain Imamate, which is followed by benevolent people. It is also a response to Abraham's request to Allah (s.w.t) to appoint Imams from his descendants, just as He had appointed him as an Imam. Therefore, God Almighty assured him that this request would be fulfilled for the non-unjust among Abraham's descendants. This is because God does not appoint unjust as Imams, nor does He honor them with Imamate or place them in the position of His close friends. Imamate is reserved for the close friends and obedient people of God, not for His enemies and disbelievers.” [7] Ibn Jauzi also writes in “Zad al-Masir”: There are seven opinions about the covenant here: one of these opinions is Imamate, which Abu Saleh has narrated from Ibn Abbas. Also, Mujahid and Saeed ibn Jubair believe in it... and the first opinion (Imamate) is more correct. [8] Fakhr al-Razi also writes: They have mentioned several aspects regarding the covenant: one of these aspects is that the covenant is the same Imamate that was mentioned earlier... The first opinion (Imamate) is more worthy; because Abraham's speech 'and from my descendants' is a request for the same Imamate that God had promised him with his speech 'Indeed, I am making you an Imam for the people.' Therefore, 'My covenant will not reach the unjust' will only be a response to that request if the meaning of the covenant is Imamate. [9] Also, Baydawi writes: "He said: My covenant will not reach the unjust" is a response to Abraham's request and indicates that there will be unjust from Abraham's descendants, and the unjust will not reach Imamate; because Imamate is a trust and covenant of God, and the unjust is not worthy of it, and only the good and pious from his descendants will reach this position. Also, this verse is a proof for the infallibility of prophets from major sins before their mission and a proof that the immoral is not worthy of Imamate. [10] Abu al-Barakaat al-Nasafi also writes in his commentary: "He said: My covenant will not reach the unjust" means that the people of oppression, namely the disbelievers from your descendants, will not reach Imamate. God has stated that the Imamate of Muslims will not be for the people of disbelief, and He has also stated that some of Abraham's descendants are Muslims and some are disbelievers. [11] Abu Hayyan al-Andalusi also writes in al-Bahr al-Muhit fi al-Tafsir: What appears from these opinions is that the meaning of the covenant is Imamate; because Imamate is what is mentioned at the beginning of the verse. Therefore, God Almighty informed Abraham that Imamate would not reach the unjust. Some of the people of knowledge have said that Abraham's speech "and from my descendants" is interrogative; as if he said: Will you appoint an Imam from my descendants? while we said in the past: The apparent meaning is that this sentence is in the form of a request; meaning, appoint (an Imam) from my descendants. The response that God gives to Abraham is the kind of response that is beyond the question and request; because Abraham requested Allah (s.w.t) to appoint an Imam from his descendants; then Allah (s.w.t) responds: Imamate will not reach the unjust. The correct meaning of this response is that His covenant reaches those who are not unjust; as a result, this means that Abraham's descendants are divided into unjust and non-unjust. One of the reasons that the meaning of the covenant is Imamate is the apparent meaning of God's speech "My covenant will not reach the unjust" in response to Abraham's speech 'and from my descendants' in the form of appointment; because if it were in the form of prohibition, He would have said: No, or He would have said: My covenant will not reach your descendants and your lineage, and He would not have made the prohibition conditional on unjust. [12] Therefore, considering the context of the verse and the interpretation of scholars such as Ibn Abbas, Mujahid, and Saeed ibn Jubair, and the explicit statements of the great Sunni commentators, the meaning of "covenant" in this verse is Imamate. The meaning of "the unjust" Dhulm or injustice in Arabic language means placing something in a place other than its proper place. [13] Therefore, they say: "One who resembles his father has not committed injustice"; meaning, he has not placed resemblance in a place other than its proper place. [14] Therefore, disbelief, polytheism, disobedience, and even error, mistake, and forgetfulness are among the examples of injustice; because in all these cases, putting something in a place other than its specific place occurs. For example, if someone, believing that he has the right to kill a person, kills him while he is mistaken and should not have killed him, based on the linguistic meaning, he is a unjust. The Argument by the Verse on Imam's Infallibility After explaining the previous matters, it becomes clear that this verse indicates the Imam's infallibility; because God Almighty, in this verse, has negated the reaching of Imamate to the unjust, and as explained, disbelief, polytheism, disobedience, error, mistake, and forgetfulness are among the examples of the concept of oppression; especially in the matter of Imamate, which is a very great and important position and is related to guiding people and having control over their lives, property, and honor. A position that Abraham reached after reaching the position of prophethood and after successfully completing the divine tests. Therefore, the aforementioned verse indicates the Imam's infallibility; the infallibility that the Shia believe in; namely, infallibility from sin, error, mistake, and forgetfulness. It should be noted that even if we ignore the verse's indication of the Imam's infallibility from error, mistake, and forgetfulness, infallibility from sins remains, and infallibility from sins is different from justice; because justice is avoiding major sins and not insisting on committing minor sins. [15] This means that committing a sin, even if it is minor, is possible for a just person. [16] While the aforementioned verse negates the Imamate of the unjust, and disobedience and sin - whether major or minor - are undoubtedly one of the examples of oppression; as God Almighty says: "And whoever transgresses the limits of God, they are the unjust." [17] Therefore, contrary to Qaffari's claim, the aforementioned verse does not prove the Imam's justice. It is necessary to mention that according to the meaning of the verse, one who has committed disobedience and oppression, even if he has repented, does not deserve the position of Imamate and will not reach divine Imamate; because upon committing disobedience and oppression, the verse's ruling - which is the non-reaching of Imamate to unjust - applies to him; like the ruling of cutting the hand in the verse: "And the thief, male or female, cut off their hands," [18] which applies to him upon the truth of the title of thief, even if this title is not true for him in later times. [19] Another way to enhance the understanding of the argument for the Imam's infallibility from the beginning to the end is to consider that people, based on intellectual division, are logically divided into four groups: Those who are always unjust; Those who are never unjust; Those who are unjust at the beginning of their lives but not at the end; Those who are not unjust at the beginning of their lives but are unjust at the end. The rank of Abraham is higher than that of requesting Imamate for the first and fourth groups from his descendants. So two groups remain, and God negates the Imamate of one of them; namely, the group who were unjust at the beginning of their lives but stopped being unjust at the end. As a result, only one group remains, and they are the ones who Imamate reaches, and they are those who have never committed any oppression. [20] -------------------------------------------------- Footnotes: [1]. Surah Baqarah: Verse 124. [2]. Nasir ibn Abdullah al-Qaffari, Principles of the Shia Imamiyyah Ithna-Ashariyyah Faith - Presentation and Criticism, 1414, Vol. 2, 783-786. [3]. Surah Baqarah: Verse 124. [4]. Surah Baqarah: Verse 124. [5]. Surah Baqarah: Verse 124. [6]. Ibn Taymiyyah Abu al-Abbas Ahmad ibn Abdul Halim, Majmu al-Fatawa, Abdul Rahman ibn Muhammad ibn Qasim and Muhammad ibn Abdul Rahman ibn Muhammad (al-Madinah al-Munawwarah: Majma al-Malik Fahd for Printing the Holy Quran, 1425), Vol. 13, 361. [7]. Abu Jaafar Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari, Tafsir al-Tabari (Jami al-Bayan an Ta'wil Ay al-Quran), Dar Hijr for Printing, Publishing, Distribution, and Advertising, 1422), Vol. 2, 511. [8]. Abu al-Faraj Abdul Rahman ibn Ali al-Jauzi, Zad al-Masir fi Ilm al-Tafsir, Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-Arabi, 1422, Vol. 1, 108. [9]. Fakhr al-Din al-Razi Abu Abdullah Muhammad ibn Umar, al-Tafsir al-Kabir (Miftah al-Ghayb), Beirut: Dar Ihya al-Turath al-Arabi, 1420, Vol. 4, 37. [10]. Nasir al-Din Abu Saeed Abdullah ibn Umar al-Baydawi, Anwar al-Tanzil wa Asrar al-Ta'wil (Tafsir al-Baydawi), Beirut: Dar Ihya al-Turath al-Arabi, 1418, Vol. 1, 104. [11]. Abu al-Barakat Abdullah ibn Ahmad Hafiz al-Din al-Nasafi, Tafsir al-Nasafi (Madarik al-Tanzil wa Haqaiq al-Ta'wil), Beirut: Dar al-Kalam al-Tayyib, 1419, Vol. 1, 128. [12]. Athir al-Din Abu Hayyan Muhammad ibn Yusuf al-Andalusi, al-Bahr al-Muhit fi al-Tafsir, Beirut: Dar al-Fikr, 1420, Vol. 1, 603-604. [13]. Abu Nasr Ismail ibn Hammad al-Jawhari, al-Sahaah Taj al-Lughah wa Sahaah al-Arabiyyah, Beirut: Dar al-Ilm lil-Malyun, 1407, Vol. 5, 1977; Abu al-Husayn Ahmad ibn Faris al-Razi, Mujam Maqayis al-Lughah, Dar al-Fikr, 1399, Vol. 3, 468; al-Raghib al-Asfahani Abu al-Qasim Hussein ibn Muhammad, al-Mufridat fi Garib al-Quran, Damascus - Beirut: al-Dar al-Shamiyyah - Dar al-Qalam, 1412, 537. [14]. Abu al-Husayn Ahmad ibn Faris al-Razi, Mujam Maqayis al-Lughah, Vol. 3, 468. [15]. Abu Zakariya Muhyi al-Din Yahya ibn Sharaf al-Nawawi, Rawdat al-Talibin wa Umdat al-Muftiyin, al-Maktab al-Islami, 1412, Vol. 11, 225. [16]. Amir Sanani writes about this: "Shafi'i has expressed a beautiful speech about justice, in such a way that many wise people after him have considered it good. He says: If a just person was someone who never sinned, we would not find any just person..." Abu Ibrahim Muhammad ibn Ismail al-Amir al-Sanani, Thamarat al-Nazhar fi Ilm al-Athar, al-Riyadh: Dar al-Asimah lil-Nashr wa al-Tawzi, 1417, 72. [17]. Surah Baqarah: Verse 229. [18]. Surah Ma'idah: Verse 38. [19]. Cf. Sayyid Ali Husayn al-Milani, عصمت از منظر فریقین شیعه و اهل سنّت, Qom: Intishaarat al-Haqaiq, 1394, 122. [20]. Al-Sayyid Muhammad Husayn al-Tabatabai, al-Mizan fi Tafsir al-Quran, Qom: Manshuraat Jama'at al-Mudarrisin fi al-Hawzah al-Ilmiyyah, 1417, Vol. 1, 274.

Did Imam Ali (a.s) really marry off his daughter Umm Kulthum to Omar the second caliph?! Explanation of the Shubha There's a narrative in which Imam Ali (a.s) married his daughter to the second caliph Omar. If the story is correct then it implies there weren't any enmity between them! otherwise the Imam wouldn't have married off Umm Kulthum to the caliph. Therefore all Shia say about the raid on the house of Lady Fatima (s.a), hitting the Lady and harming her which led to her untimely death, is not true! The Answer There are 3 theories regarding the marriage of Umm Kulthum with Omar: Theory 1: There is no such person as Umm Kulthum à the name is just a kunya for Lady Zainab (s.a). On some occasions, she is mentioned in history by the name of Umm Kulthum for example: It is said that when the captives of Ashura reached Kufa Umm Kulthum delivered an eloquent speech as if Imam Ali (as) had come back to life and stood before them.[1] Some sources have claimed that the tomb in Damascus belongs to Umm Kulthum but we already know it's the sacred tomb of Lady Zainab. In other parts of the Ashura event, Lady Zainab (s.a) is again mentioned as Umm Kulthum. There's also a hadith in which Lady Fatima says that her belongings are to be passed onto Umm Kulthum! Theory 2: Umm Kulthum is Abu-Bakr's daughter raised in Imam Ali's house. Because her mother, Asma Bint Umays was the wife of Jaffar at-Tayyar – Imam Ali's brother but married Abu-Bakr after Jaffar's martyrdom, and when Abu-Bakr passed away, she married Imam Ali (a.s). Because of her devotion to the Imam (a.s), she brought her two children from Abu-Bakr to the Imam's (a.s) house. Those two children were Muhammad ibn Abu-Bakr and Umm Kulthum. So, the girl Omar married to, was the daughter of Abu-Bakr and Asma bint Umays. Theory 3: Umm Kulthum is the real daughter of Imam Ali (as) and Lady Fatimah (s.a) beside Lady Zainab and married Omar --> This theory comes with many possibilities and disagreements that reduce its authenticity: The age of Umm Kulthum at the time of marriage, whether the marriage was consummated or not, also her fate after Omar whether she lived long or died young, and whether or not she had children with Omar are just some of the ambiguities regarding this character! Not just that! When we take a look at the Sunnite narratives about this story, we see that they have many obscene wordings that are not just offensive and disrespectful to Imam Ali (as) but also rude to Omar as the second caliph of the Sunnite! For example, most of them stated Imam Ali (as) -Ma'azAllah- put on makeup on his daughter and sent him to Omar which is just outrageous! Such cheap acts are far away from Imam Ali's (as) character. They haven't spared even their own caliph and depicted him as a lustful person! Both Sunnites and Shiites believe that touching non-mahram is forbidden but in their ahadith, the Sunnites narrate that when Omar saw Umm Kulthum, he kissed her or hugged her even bared her leg Ma'azAllah! Considering all these accusations alone, the Sunnite narratives are not to be trusted. Let's not speak about the issues with the chain of the transmitters! There are also some ahadith reflected in the Shiite sources regarding this marriage but they all assert that the marriage was out of duress! In the noble book of Kafi, there is a hadith in which Imam as-Sadiq (a.s) describes the marriage as "ghasb" to indicate that it happened with ikraah or compulsion. In another hadith of Imam as-Sadiq (a.s), it is stated that when Imam Ali (a.s) refused Omar's proposal, he went to al-Abbas the Imam's uncle, and threatened him that if they didn't give him Umm Kulthum he would buy two witnesses to accuse Ali (a.s) of thievery and have his right-hand cut! So, the Imam was compelled to accept the marriage. Anybody with a fraction of impartiality would know involuntary marriage has no value and is not a sign of friendship! [1] بلاغات النساء ص 23

Is it correct that houses had no doors at the time Rasulullah (s.a.w.s) and Lady Fatima (s.a)? Explanation There's a Shubha claiming that during the early time of Islam, houses, including Lady Fatima’s house, didn't have any doors! so the Invasion of the house, burning the door, and slamming the door to her side is just a fabrication. Answer The question of whether Lady Fatima's house had a door or not is just a funny question. because centuries before Rasulullah (s) houses had doors! When narrating the story of Prophet Yussuf and Zuleikha, the noble Quran says that she locked the doors and proposed herself to the godly man. When Prophet Yusuf refused to be with her, they both raced towards the door. (12:23~25). In another case, Allah (s.w.t) says you can eat in those houses where you have their keys (24:61) the Ayah clearly indicates that houses at that time had doors otherwise having keys without doors is just nonsense! In an interesting hadith, Sahih Muslim, the most authentic book of the Sunnites, quotes Abu Hamid that Rasulullah (s) ordered them to cover the water containers and also close the doors at night.[1] Lastly, Shaykh al-Mufid narrates in al-Ikhtisas that when Lady Fatima (s.a) saw the attackers she went and closed the door since she thought, according to Islam, they had no right to enter the house without her permission.[2] according to all these pieces of evidence, the houses of Medina including Lady Fatima’s house had doors! [1] Sahih al-Muslim, vol. 3, p. 1593, h. 2010 https://B2n.ir/z06685 [2] Al-Ikhtisas, p. 286 https://B2n.ir/t69805

Is it true that Imam Ali (a.s) wanted to marry Abu-Jahl's daughter and Rasulullah (s.a.w.s) stopped the marriage? The Origins of the Shubha: This is nothing but an iftra to the Imam (a.s). The main purpose for the fabrication of this narrative is to devalue the famous Nabawi hadith regarding the high status of Lady Fatima (s.a) which is know as "Hadith al-Badh'ah". In the hadith, Lady Fatima (s.a) is recounted as "a part of Rasulullah's flesh". The hadith grants a unique and significant position to the Lady (s.a), since following that statement, Rasulullah (s.a.w.s) added that "whoever abuse her [Fatima] has abused me" meaning that those who attacked her house after Rasulullah (s.a.w.s) and harmed her, were actually harming Rasulullah (s.a.w.s). On top of that, according to ayah 57 of Surah al-Ahzab, abusing Rasulullah (s.a.w.s) is equal to being cursed in this world and the Hereafter and entails a humiliating punishment. The Possible Answer The hadith is transmitted in different ways with various details but It's Mutiwatir (successive) and can be found in both Shiite and Sunnite sources. On the Shia side, everything is crystal clear as the narrators have dealt with the story without adding marginal matters, and the “Fatima is a part of my flesh" section is common in all versions Sheikh al-Mufid and Sheikh at-Tousi have transmitted this narrative from Ibn Abi Waqqas, and Sheikh as-Sadooq has quoted Imam as-Sadeq (a.s). On the Sunnite side, however, the hadith is transmitted under the title of "the proposal of Ali (a.s) to Abu Jahl's daughter". Sahih al-Bukhari the most important hadith book of the Sunnites narrates that when Fatima (s.a) hears about the proposal, she goes to her father complaining about her husband! The narrator (al-Miswar) claims: “I had reached the age of puberty in those days when I heard Allah’s Messenger (s) addressing the people on the pulpit: Fatima is a part of me, and I fear that she may be put to trial regarding her faith. By Allah! The daughter of Allah’s Messenger and the daughter of the enemy of Allah can never be combined (in marriage) in one place. Upon hearing that Ali dismissed the proposal.” This hadith is definitely fabricated! Because of some obvious reasons: If the hadith is true, Rasulullah (s.a.w.s) has dedicated a whole sermon to his son-in-law's remarriage which is a personal matter. That would be highly inappropriate for him (s.a.w.s) because even ordinary people do not bring personal matters to the public let alone Rasulullah (s.a.w.s). In the Sunni hadith, Rasulullah (s.a.w.s) praises Abul-Aas another son-in-law of his for being honest and faithful but blames Ali (a.s) demanding him to follow the example of Abul-Aas, another improper attribution to Rasulullah (s.a.w.s) and Ali (a.s). Rasulullah (s.a.w.s) married several women and was never concerned about the religiosity of his wives but -Ma'azAllah- he's concerned about the religion of his daughter who happens to be "the Lady of All women in paradise" Indeed, Abu-Jahl was a pagan and a true enemy of Rasulullah and Islam but his daughter was a Muslim, so what's the big deal?! If the hadith is true, Rasulullah is forbidding something that is approved by Islam the very religion he was its prophet and the biggest advocator; The narrator of this hadith (al-Miswar ibn al-Makhramah) was born in the 2nd year of Hijrah and this narrative is said to be in the 8th year of Hijrah. A quick calculation tells us he was around 6 when narrating the story! It gets even more interesting to know that he claims to be at the age of puberty at that time! Abdullah Ibn Zubayr the other narrator of this hadith is a true enemy of Amir al-Mu'mineen, he was a prominent figure in the Battle of Camel (Jamal) fighting against Ali (a.s). He never mentioned and saluted Rasulullah (s) during his reign in Mecca because he believed that doing so would make Ahlulbayt happy! On top of everything, Shaykh as-Sadooq narrates a lengthy hadith in his book, Amali from "Alqamat-ibn Muhammad al-Hadhrami". He complains to Imam as-Sadiq about the unfair treatment given to him and other Shiites by the people. The Imam (a.s) sets many examples proving to him that even the prophets and Imams weren't safe from accusations. Interestingly, the Imam (a.s) says, "Didn't they accuse Ali (a.s) of wanting to marry Abu-Jahl's daughter?! And say Rasulullah went on the pulpit to blame Ali (a.s) and stop the marriage?!", "O Alqama! How strange things people say about Ali (a.s) …".

What is the teleological argument or "Burhān an-Nadhm" This argument is one of the most straightforward, as it relies on observations of the natural world rather than complex philosophical concepts. It's no coincidence that the Quran frequently points to the universe and its contents as evidence of a Creator.[1] Martyr Morteza Motahari defined this argument as the negation of the universe's accidental existence, arguing that accidents lack causes. He categorizes causes into four types: material, formal, efficient, and final. He then refutes the misconception that atheists deny the existence of efficient causes, asserting that both theists and atheists agree on this point. The primary difference lies in the recognition of a final cause. Believers in God posit a purpose and goal for the creation and its marvelous order because the mere existence of an efficient cause is not sufficient to bring about such precise order! It is necessary that there be a will and a purpose behind this order, otherwise, it would be like a child who picks up a pen and draws on a piece of paper. The child's action includes all causes, even an efficient cause, but there is no goal in it, and it is merely engaged in drawing meaningless lines on paper that have neither order nor convey any meaning. Another example for better understanding is a book. The author intends a meaning behind every word he writes, which together lead to sentences, paragraphs, and different pages, which necessarily require a specific order to convey that meaning. Just like the order we observe in the universe! Just as we infer the existence of a knowledgeable author from a well-structured and informative book, we can deduce the existence of a supreme being from the intricate order of the universe. The teleological argument posits that the universe's design necessitates a designer, much like a book requires an author. This designer, we infer, must possess attributes far beyond our comprehension.[2] [1] Quran: 2:164, 6:97, 42:29, 39:20-21 [2] Motahari, Murteza, Majmu'eh Asar, 1376, vol. 4, pp. 62-66

What is the argument of “Possible and Necessary Being”? This Argument which is called "Burhān al-Imkān wa al-Wujūb" in Arabic, is a pioneering concept of Islamic philosophers, and it is considered as one of the most robust proofs for the existence of God.[1] The argument is summarily expressed by Nasir ad-Din Tusi as follows: Everything that exists is either contingent or necessary. Contingent beings require a cause outside of themselves. If that cause is necessary, then the existence of a necessary being (God) is proven. If that cause is contingent, it too requires a cause, leading to an infinite regress. Infinite regress is impossible. Therefore, the chain of contingent beings must terminate in a necessary being.[2] Based on the argument, Allah (s.w.t) or "Wajib al-Wujud" is a being that has existence from himself as part of his nature. Nothing has grated him the existence, nothing is the cause for his existence, and nothing can cause him to cease to exist. Some simple examples: "Salt and saltiness". salt is salty by nature and nothing has given it this quality. actually it can be the cause of other thing's saltiness. "Oil and oiliness" is a perfect illustration of an intrinsic property. It's a defining characteristic that sets oil apart from other substances. "Water and wetness" serves as another simple and tangible proof for proving our point. Conclusion The existence of a supernatural being that has intrinsic quality of existence is rationally necessary, otherwise, it leads to "infinite regress" and invalidity of "principle of causality" [1] Tusi, Sharh al-Isharat wa at-Tanbihat, 1375 SH, vol. 3, pp. 66-67 [2] Tusi, Sharh al-Isharat wa al-Tanbihat, 1375 SH, vol. 3, pp. 18-20

How can the existence of God be proven? The fundamental question of proving the existence of Almighty God as the Creator and Sustainer of the universe is one of the most critical beliefs in Islam. It serves as the bedrock upon which other beliefs, such as monotheism, prophethood, and Imamate, are built. Therefore, it is essential to note that the proof of God's existence must rely on rational arguments, as the Quran and hadith cannot be used as primary evidence due to the risk of circular reasoning. Initially, it must be understood that all arguments employed to prove the existence of God are grounded in three fundamental principles that must first be established: 1. The principle of avoiding circular reasoning 2. The principle of avoiding infinite regress 3. The principle of causality. Circular reasoning It is a logical fallacy where the conclusion of an argument is already assumed in the premise. It's a flawed form of reasoning because it doesn't provide any new evidence or support for the claim. Here's a simple example: Premise: Ghosts exist because people have seen them. Conclusion: People have seen ghosts, so they must exist. As you can see, the conclusion is simply a restatement of the premise, providing no additional proof. Infinite Regress Infinite regress is a logical problem that occurs when a process or argument can be traced back indefinitely, leading to an endless loop. It often arises in situations where a concept or event is defined or explained in terms of itself, creating a circular dependency. infinite regress in causality means that every event has a cause and the cause itself has a cause leading to an infinite chain of causes. one of the ways of addressing the challenge of infinite regress, especially in theology, is to break the chain by adding an independent cause which is Allah (s.w.t) The principle of causality In Islamic Kalam, this principle is known as "Asl al-ʿilliyya", which is a fundamental concept. It posits that every event has a cause or reason behind it. This principle is closely tied to the Islamic belief in God as the ultimate cause and creator of all things.

Our Mission We are a dedicated group committed to providing clear and comprehensive answers to questions and inquiries related to Shia Islamic beliefs (itiqadaat). Our aim is to foster a deeper understanding of Shia theology through the lens of authentic sources, such as the Noble Quran, the four principles of Shia, and sound intellectual reasoning. Our Approach We believe that the Quran and the teachings of the Ahlulbayt (the Prophet Muhammad's family) are the cornerstone of Shia Islam. By carefully studying and interpreting these sources, we strive to provide accurate and insightful responses to a wide range of questions. Our approach is grounded in critical thinking and a commitment to intellectual honesty. Our Resources We draw upon a rich repository of resources, including: The Noble Quran: The primary source of guidance for all Muslims. The Four Principle Books of Shia: The most authentic hadith compendia according to Shia Islam, including "Usoul al-Kafi", "at-Tahdhib", "al-Istibsaar", and "Man La Yahdhuruh al-Faqih". Hadith Literature: Authentic narrations from the Prophet Muhammad and the Imams, providing valuable insights into Islamic teachings. Scholarly Works: The writings of renowned Shia scholars who have contributed significantly to the understanding of Islamic theology. Rational Reasoning: Intellect is widely recognized as a valuable tool for understanding and interpreting Islamic texts, particularly when it leads to logical conclusions that are consistent with the Quran and Sunnah. Our Commitment We are committed to: Promoting Understanding: Fostering a deeper understanding of Shia beliefs through clear and accessible explanations. Encouraging Dialogue: Engaging in respectful and constructive dialogue with individuals of different perspectives. Maintaining Authenticity: Ensuring that our responses are grounded in reliable and authentic sources. Providing Guidance: Offering guidance and support to those seeking to deepen their understanding of Shia Islam. We invite you to join us on this journey of discovery and exploration. Together, we can build a stronger and more informed community of Shia Muslims. Our Social Medias: YouTube: @almisbaah110 Instagram: @almisbaah110 Telegram: @almisbaah110

What are the types of Tawhid (Unity of God)? Many Muslim theologians, mystics, and philosophers, relying on the Quran and the hadiths of the Prophet Muhammad and the Shia Imams, have outlined various levels and degrees of Tawhid. For a better understanding, this classification is summarized as follows: 1. Unity of Essence: This is the first level of Tawhid, meaning that God is unique and without equal or substitute. God says in the Quran, " Nor is there to Him any equivalent."[1] In another sense, the unity of essence means that God is not multiple or dualistic and is free from composition. 2. Unity of Attributes: This means that God's essence is one with His attributes and that these attributes are not added to His essence. So, when we say "God is knowing, "we mean that knowledge is the very essence of the Lord and is not added to Him as a part. The same applies to other divine attributes such as power and life. God says in the Quran, " Glory to thy Lord, the Lord of Honor and Power! (He is free) from what they ascribe (to Him)."[2] The word "ascribe" refers to God being exalted from any attribute that contradicts unity and Tawhid, especially since the verse begins with glorification and refers to God's majesty. In a hadith from Imam as-Sadiq (a.s), knowledge, hearing, and sight are mentioned as being the very essence of God, and it is stated that God was all-hearing and all-seeing before there was anything to hear or see.[3] 3. Unity of Actions: Just as God is unique in His essence; He is also unique in His actions. The necessity of belief in the unity of actions is that everything that happens in this world is an act of God, and the source of the actions of all beings in the universe is considered to be the sacred essence of the Lord, as one of the well-known supplications among Muslims indicates: "There is no power and no strength except with God."[4] The unity of actions is manifested in the following: o Unity in creation, meaning that there is only one independent creator in the universe, and everyone else is dependent on His permission and will for their creation. However, this divine will does not contradict the free will of human beings.[5] The Noble Quran also signifies the concept on many occasions: “…Say, "Allāh is the Creator of all things, and He is the One, the Prevailing.”[6] o Unity of Lordship means that God alone is the independent manager of the universe; consequently, “all creatures are dependent on God in all aspects of their existence, and the dependencies they have on one another ultimately lead to the dependency of all of them on the Creator. It is He who manages some creations through others, provides sustenance to those who seek it through the sustenance He creates, and guides beings with consciousness through internal means (such as reason and other faculties of perception) and external means (such as prophets and heavenly books), and sets laws and regulations for those who are obligated, determining their duties and responsibilities.”[7] Lordship and creation are interconnected, and it makes no sense that the creator is different from the manager of creation. In the Holy Quran, it is stated: “Verily your Lord is Allah, who created the heavens and the earth in six days, and is firmly established on the throne (of authority), regulating and governing all things...”[8] “[All] praise is [due] to Allāh, Lord of the worlds.”[9] o Unity in sovereignty, meaning that God alone has absolute, undisputed sovereignty over all beings in the universe. Allah the exalted says in his holy book, “Do you not know that to Allāh belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth and [that] you have not besides Allāh any protector or any helper”[10] 4. Unity of Divinity: Derived from the word "ilah," a commonly used word in Islamic literature, “which means "worthy of worship" or "object of worship." Similar to ‘book’, in the sense of something that is written and has the quality of being written”[11]. The Islamic slogan of Tawhid, "La ilaha illa Allah" (There is no god but God), which is a part of the testimonies (shahadatayn), also refers to the exclusivity of divinity for God. Along with unity in divinity, there is talk of unity in worship and obedience, meaning that worship and obedience are exclusive to God. These two are in fact necessary consequences of unity in divinity. 5. Unity in Legislation: This means that only God has the independent right to legislate and judge, as stated in the Quran, "…The command rests with none but Allah: He declares the truth, and He is the best of judges."[12] Unity in legislation can also be considered a case of “unity in lordship”, as legislation is befitting of the manager of the universe. The classification provided in this text aligns with the majority opinion among Islamic theologians. Nonetheless, this doesn't preclude the existence of other classification systems or the possibility of a more exhaustive analysis. For the sake of brevity, the topics have been summarized. Consequently, to gain a more nuanced comprehension of the hierarchy and varieties of Tawhid, it is advisable to consult the elaborate explanations furnished for each subcategory. [1] Al-Ikhlas/4, Sahih International translation. [2] As-Saffat/180, YusufAli translation. [3] Sh, Kulayni, al-Kafi, vol 1, p. 107 [4] The word “hawqala” itself is not explicitly mentioned in the Quran, but the phrase 'la quwwata illa billah' (there is no power except with Allah) is found in verse 39 of Surah al-Kahf. This supplication is one of the well-known invocations among Muslims. Muhammad ibn Ali ibn Babawayh al-Qummi (Shaykh as-Saduq) has narrated that the Noble Messenger of Islam recited this supplication in the qunut of the witr prayer. (Man La Yahduruhu al-Faqih, Vol. 1, p. 487). [5] Aliasghar Rezvani, Shialogy, and answering the doubts, vol. 1, p. 129 [6] Ar-Ra’d/16, Sahih International translation. [7] Ayt. Misbaah Yazdi, Amoozesh Aqayed, p. 78 [8] Yunus/3, Yusufali translation [9] Al-Fatiha/2, Sahih International translation [10] Al-Baqara/107 Sahih International translation [11] Ayt. Misbaah Yazdi, Amoozesh Aqayed, p. 79 [12] Al-An’am/57

In some theories put forward from non-Shia groups, Shia is formed after Rasulullah (s.a.w.s) and the election of Abu Bakr in "Saqifah". Is it a valid theory?

As one of the elementary acts of the prayer, "sajdah" has to be performed in this way: In every rakʿah of the obligatory and recommended prayers, one must perform two sajdahs after rukūʿ. A sajdah is performed when one places his forehead on the ground in a particular manner with the intention of humility [before Allah]. While performing a sajdah in prayers, it is obligatory that the palms of both hands, both knees, and both big toes be placed on the ground. Based on obligatory precaution, [for the purposes of sajdah] the ‘forehead’ refers to its middle area, i.e. the rectangular area when two imaginary lines are drawn between the place where the eyebrows begin in the middle of the forehead up to the point where the hair grows. ... Two sajdahs together comprise one rukn, and if someone does not perform both of them in obligatory prayers in one rakʿah – even if this is due to forgetfulness or not knowing the ruling – his prayer is invalid. The same applies, based on obligatory precaution, if one adds two sajdahs in one rakʿah forgetfully or due to inculpable ignorance (al‑jahl al‑quṣūrī). (Inculpable ignorance is when someone has a valid excuse for not knowing.)

Considering the following points are quite helpful in the occasion of forgetting to perform "ruku": If a person forgets to perform rukūʿ and remembers this before he performs sajdah, he must stand upright and then perform rukūʿ. It will not suffice if he performs rukūʿ while in the state of bending forward [not having stood upright]. If after one’s forehead touches the ground he remembers that he did not perform rukūʿ, it is necessary that he stand up and perform rukūʿ. In case he remembers in the second sajdah, his prayer is invalid based on obligatory precaution.