Search the Community

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

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) …".