Search the Community

"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.

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) …".