Search the Community

Why did Imam Ali (AS) not react during the insult to Lady Fatimah (SA) and the burning of their house’s door? Firstly, it’s essential to note that throughout Islamic history, similar incidents have occurred where individuals were forced to remain silent due to expediency. This lack of reaction or silence was not exclusive to the event involving Imam Ali (AS). For instance, during the conversion of the family of Ammar, his mother and father were martyred under torture, Prophet Muhammad (SAW) witnessed this suffering, yet he consoled them, saying, “O family of Yasir, be patient, for your promised abode is Paradise.”[1] Even during the rebellion against Caliph Uthman, there were instances. For example, Soudan ibn Hamran attacked Uthman, severing his wife’s finger, and behaved inappropriately towards Uthman's wife. [2] In another account, a witness stated that during the attack on Uthman’s house, he saw Uthman’s wife coming out, and he struck her. Uthman looked on and cursed but did not react. [3] Is it reasonable to question why Uthman did not defend his wife or respond to the insults and attacks against her? Imam Ali (AS) did respond when they tried to harm his wife, confronting Umar, knocking him down, and striking his face and neck. But because he was commanded to be patient, he refrained from further confrontation. Imam Ali (AS) wanted to convey that if he hadn’t been ordered to endure patiently, no one would have dared to even think of such actions against him. His unwavering commitment to divine orders guided his behavior. Alusi, a prominent Sunni commentator, narrates an account from Shia sources,[4] describing the incident: Umar became angry, set fire to the door of Imam Ali’s house, and entered. Fatimah (SA) rushed toward Umar, crying out, ‘O father, O Messenger of Allah!’ Umar drew his sword, which was in its sheath, and struck Fatimah’s side. He then raised the sword to strike her arm. Witnessing this, Imam Ali (AS) suddenly rose, seized Umar by the collar, pulled him forcefully, and threw him to the ground, striking his nose and neck. [5] Despite enduring immense hardships during this event, Imam Ali (AS) followed the command he had received from Prophet Muhammad (SAW) to remain patient. In the book ‘Khasa’is al-A’imma,’ Seyyed Razi refers to this incident and writes that Prophet Muhammad (SAW) instructed Imam Ali (AS): ‘Be patient with whatever comes to you from this group until they advance against me.’[6] In other words, Imam Ali (AS) was ordered to endure patiently in the face of adversity. In a lengthy narration from Solim ibn Qays al-Hilali, it is reported that Imam Ali (AS) said to Umar: ‘O son of Sohak, if it were not for the divine decree and the covenant made by the Messenger of Allah (SAW) regarding me, you would know that you would not be able to enter my house.’ [7] Therefore, the primary reason for Imam Ali’s behavior lies in his unwavering commitment to divine orders. He exemplified complete submission to the will of Allah, as emphasized in the verse: ‘Whatever the Messenger has given you, take; and what he has forbidden you, refrain from.’[8] Imam Ali (AS) adhered to this command. In another narration, Prophet Muhammad (SAW) said to Imam Ali (AS): ‘When your rights are violated and your sanctity is dishonored, be patient!’ Imam Ali (AS) responded: 'By the God who split the seed and created people, I heard that Gabriel said to the Prophet (SAW): ‘O Muhammad! Inform Ali that his sanctity will be violated.’ In continuation, Imam Ali (AS) said: ‘I accepted and consented, even though my sanctity would be violated, and traditions would be neglected…’ [9] It is worth noting that the reason for the command to exercise patience by the Prophet (SAW) was based on the interests, which were expressed differently in the words of Imam Ali. Where He said: ‘I have observed that patience in this matter is better than creating division among the Muslims and shedding their blood. Especially since people had recently converted to Islam, and the nascent religion of Islam is like a delicate plant that any neglect can lead to its corruption, and even the slightest force can destroy it.’ [10] The Imam's (AS) words conveyed that any internal conflict within the Islamic nation, specifically in Medina, could jeopardize the lives of the Prophet's family.[11] Such strife would create an opportunity for the enemies of Islam and hypocrites to easily uproot the young foundations of Islam. This concern was particularly pressing given the looming threat of an attack from the Roman Emperor, whose forces were stationed at the borders of the Islamic territory. Several conflicts had already occurred between the Roman army and the Islamic forces. The danger was so significant that Rasulullah’s final command was to mobilize an army to the borders to deter any potential Roman invasion. [12] Therefore, according to Shia narrations, the primary reason for Imam Ali’s patience during this incident was the explicit command from Prophet Muhammad (SAW) to endure patiently. This command aimed to preserve the unity of Muslims and prevent internal conflicts. [1] . Ansab al-Ashraf: al-Baladhuri, Vol: 1, P: 158 / Al-Isti’ab fi Tamyiz al-Sahaba: al-Asqalani, Ibn Hajar, Vol: 8, P: 190. [2] . Tarikh al-Tabari (History of Prophets and Kings): Tabari, Abu Jaafar, Vol: 4, P: 391 / Al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh: Al-Jazari, Izz al-Din ibn al-Athir Abu al-Hasan Ali ibn Muhammad (died 630 AH), Vol. 2, p. 544, edited by Abdullah al-Qadi / Al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah: Al-Qurashi al-Dimashqi, Ismail ibn Umar ibn Katheer Abu al-Fida (died 774 AH), Vol. 7, p. 210, Publisher: Maktabat al-Maarif - Beirut. [3] . Karamat al-Awliya (Miracles of the Saints) from the commentary on the beliefs of Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jama’ah: Al-Lalakai, Vol: 9, P: 132. [4] . Kitab Solim ibn Qays Hilali: Al-Hilali, Solim bin Qais, p. 387. [5] . Tafsir Ruh al-Ma’ani: Al-Alusi, Shihab al-Din, Vol: 2, P: 120. [6] . Khasa’is al-A’imma: Sayyid Sharif al-Radi, Vol. 1, p. 73. [7] . Kitab Solim ibn Qays Hilali: Al-Hilali, Solim bin Qais, p. 387. [8] . Al-Hashr: 7. [9] . Al-Kafi: Sheikh Al-Kulayni, Vol: 1, P: 282. [10] . Nahj al-Balagha Commentary: Ibn Abi al-Hadid, Vol. 1, p. 308. [11] . As the Imam also said: "So I pondered and saw that I had no helper except my family, and I was reluctant to sacrifice them for death, and I endured the pain and drank the bitterness and patiently endured the taking of oppression." Nahj al-Balagha: Sayyid Sharif al-Radi, Sermon 26, p. 68. [12] . History of Yaqoubi: Ahmad bin Abi Yaqoob, vol: 2, P: 113.

"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.

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) …".

How does the story of the Mubahala refer to Imam Ali's successorship after Rasulullah (s.a.w.s)? The story is pretty straightforward! when Rasulullah (s.a.w.s) went for the Mubahala, he was accompanied by 4 others: Lady Fatima (s.a), Imam Ali (a.s), and their two sons al-Hassan (a.s) and al-Hussain (a.s)[1]. Seeing Rasulullah (s.a.w.s) in that state, the Christians realized he was earnest. One of them said, “he’s sitting on his knees for Mubahala like the prophets”[2] trembled in fear and accepted to sign a peace pact with Muslims[3]. What makes the story of Mubahala even more interesting is they asked Rasulullah (s.a.w.s) why he had come with only his family. He answered because Allah (s.w.t) had instructed me to do so, referring to ayah 61 of Sura Aali Imran. The verse doesn't explicitly refer to Ahlulbayt (a.s) and devises a unique way to point to them. However, the phrase used for Ali (a.s) stands out. He is called the "nafs", signifying his similarity to Rasulullah (s.a.w.s) and elevating his status to be equal to Rasulullah (s.a.w.s). This argument is also echoed by Imam al-Hassan (a.s) in his letter to Mu’awiyah[4] and emphasized by Imam ar-Ridha (a.s) in his response to Ma’moun, highlighting the utmost closeness of Ali (a.s) to the position of Rasulullah (s.a.w.s) as his most important virtue. Finally, it is evident that Ali (a.s) holds the closest position to Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.s) in terms of status and position, making him the most fitting person to succeed the prophet (s.a.w.s) and be designated as the leader of the Islamic nation. [1] Sayyed ibn Tawous, Sa’d as-Su’oud, p.90 [2] Ibn Shahr Ashoub, al-Manaqib, vol. 3, p.369 [3] Majlisi, Hayat al-Quloub, vol. 4, p.1305 [4] Shaykh at-Tousi, Amali, p. 563

How does the Quran signifies Immaculate Ahlulbayt (a.s) in narrating the event of Mubahala? In the event of Mubahala, there were 4 persons with Rasulullah (s.a.w.s): Imam Ali (a.s), Lady Fatima (s.a), Imam Hassan (a.s) and Imam Hussain (a.s). verse 61 of Surat "Aali Imran" Allah (s.w.t) refers to three groups to be present in Mubahala: 1. "[O]ur sons" -> which refers to Imam al-Hassan (a.s) and Imam al-Hussain (a.s) 2. "[O]ur women" -> which refers to Lady Fatima (s.a) 3. "[O]urselves" -> which refers to Imam Ali (a.s) Allama al-Majlisi claims that the narrations that prove the verse is about “Ahl al-Kisa” are Mutawatir[1] Al-Zamakhshari, a prominent Sunni scholar, considered this verse to be the strongest proof of the virtue of “Ahl al-Kisa”[2]. At-Tabarsi considers the verse as a sign of Lady Fatima’s superiority over all ladies in the world[3]. [1] Al-Majlisi, Haq al-Yaqin, vol. 1, p. 67 [2] Al-Zamakhshari, al-Kashshaf 1415 A.H, vol. 1, p. 370 [3] At-Tabarsi, Majma’ al-Bayan, vol. 2, p. 746

What is the story of the Mubahala? SUMMARY: The Mubahala was a solemn challenge issued by Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.s) to Christian leaders from Najran to resolve a theological dispute. To emphasize the gravity of the situation, Muhammad (s.a.w.s) was accompanied by his closest family: his daughter Fatima (s.a), her husband Ali (a.s), and their two young sons, al-Hasan and al-Hussain (a.s), known collectively as Ahl al-Kisa. Upon witnessing this powerful display of faith and family, the Christian delegation backed down from the challenge, recognizing the immense spiritual authority and purity embodied by Muhammad (s.a.w.s) and his family (a.s). This event is considered a pivotal moment in Islamic history, affirming the truth of Islam and the special status of the Prophet's household. THE FULL STORY The event is said to have happened after the battle of Tabouk in the 9th year after Hijra. The Najran delegation was accompanied by "Abu Harith ibn Alqamah", the Archbishop of Najran, who traveled to Medina following Rasulullah's (s.a.w.s) letter claiming to be a prophet of God and inviting them to Islam. It's said before starting their journey, first, they had a scientific debate among themselves about the issue of whether Muhammad (s.a.w.s) was a prophet or not. When they went through some of their ancient Christian scriptures they realized there was a truth in Muhammad's (s.a.w.s) claim, so they sought to visit the prophet and talk with him. According to Muhammad's (s.a.w.s) order, the delegation stayed in Medina for 3 days before having any official discussion with him. That was a good opportunity to observe Muhammad's (s.a.w.s) actions and attitude. The more they observed, the clearer it became that a prophet of God was before them. Finally, the official meeting was held and the delegation started asking questions. Their very first question was about Prophet Isa (Jesus Christ). Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.s) asserted that he was no one but a humble servant and a prophet of God (s.w.t), and to prove his words, he referred to this Quranic verse: Although Muhammad's argument seemed convincing, they adamantly insisted upon their position of Jesus being the son of God. Therefore, by Allah's order, Muhammad (s.a.w.s) invited them to Mubahala [the Quran 3:61]. A date was set and each party agreed to bring their companions for the ceremony as it was part of the custom. On the promised day, the delegation had brought all their men in the belief that their large numbers would attract God's favor. On the other hand, Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.s) arrived with only a handful of his family members: his beloved daughter Lady Fatima (s.a), his cousin and son-in-law Ali (a.s), and his two lovely grandsons al-Hassan and al-Hussain (a.s). Upon seeing this, the heads of the delegation rushed to the presence of the prophet and asked, "Are you going to take part in Mubahala with only these people?!" The prophet replied, "Yes, they're the closest individuals to Allah after me." He remained steadfast in his belief. One of them said, "I see faces that, if they raise their hands in prayer, they can move mountains!" It is said that the signs of divine retribution appeared as well, so the delegation shivered in fear of the punishment and agreed to compromise.

When is the advent of Shia? The rise of Shia is a historical matter; thus, we need to look into history to find evidence. One good evidence is the narrations or hadiths of a reliable person from that era which is valid for all Muslims. . The narrations of Rasulullah (s.a.w.s) hold significant weight in this regard, as both Shia and Sunni acknowledge the credibility of his words and actions. The noble Quran states, "Indeed, in the Messenger of Allah you have an excellent example..." [al-Ahzab:21], underscoring Rasulullah's role as a model for the Islamic nation. In another ayah, he's regarded as a person who does not speak of his own desires. [Quran 53:3]. Therefore, whatever Rasulullah's words and actions reach us (through authentic methods of course) are proof for and against us and we have to follow. Some narrations from Rasulullah (s) explicitly use the term "Shia" next to the name of Ali (as) and can be found in both Shiite and Sunnite sources: Allamah Majlisi the author of Bihar al-Anwar narrates that after the revelation of this verse, "…they are the best of the creatures",[1] the noble prophet explained to Ali (as) that "they are you and your Shia (follower). You and your Shia will come on the day of judgment while you are well-pleased and pleasing…"[2] Khatib al-Baghdadi narrates from Rasulullah (s): "O Ali you and your Shia are in Paradise"[3] Ibn Asakir narrates from Rasulullah (s) through Ali (as): "I and Ali may be compared to a tree; I am like the roots and Ali is the trunk and al-Hassan and al-Hussain are the fruits and the Shia are the leaves of that tree...". [4] [1] . Al-Bayyenah: 7, «إِنَّ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ أُولَئِكَ هُمْ خَيْرُ الْبَرِيَّةِ» [2] . Bihar al-Anwar vol. 35 p. 346. [3] . Tarikh al-Baghdadi, vol 12, p. 389. [4] . The History of the City of Damascus, vol. 42, p. 383.