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.

Why is the Exact Date of Lady Fatimah's (SA) Martyrdom Uncertain? The precise date of Hazrat Fatimah (SA), the daughter of the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) and the wife of Imam Ali (AS), has been a subject of considerable debate among Shia Muslims. Various factors contribute to this historical uncertainty. 1. Lack of Precise Historical Records: One of the main reasons for the discrepancy lies in the absence of a precise historical recording system during that time. Most significant events were transmitted orally and were rarely documented in writing. This limitation applies not only to Lady Fatimah’s martyrdom but also to other events related to the Ahl al-Bayt (AS).[1] 2. Challenges in Ancient Writing Systems: Additionally, the style of calligraphy and script prevalent during that period played a crucial role. [2] Kufic script, which lacked diacritical marks (such as dots), was common. This led to potential misreadings of similar words, such as “خمسة و سبعون” (75) and “خمسة و تسعون” (95). Such errors in oral transmission of narrations and in handwritten copies contributed to differing opinions regarding the precise date of Lady Fatimah’s martyrdom. Now, let’s explore the different viewpoints regarding the date of her martyrdom: • 75 Days After the Prophet's Demise: Some narrations, including those attributed to Imam Sadiq (AS) and Imam Baqir (AS), suggest that Hazrat Fatimah (SA) passed away 75 days after the Prophet's (SAW) death. Al-Kulayni has narrated a hadith from Imam Sadiq (AS) in this regard in his book "Al-Kafi";[3] Allama Majlisi also quotes a hadith from Imam Baqir (AS) confirming this duration in "Bihar al-Anwar".[4] Some historians have also stated that Hazrat Fatimah (SA) passed away 75 days after the Prophet's (SAW) demise. For instance, Ibn Abi Tha'lab Baghdadi writes in his book "Tarikh al-A'imah" that Hazrat Fatimah (SA) lived for 75 days after the Prophet's (SAW) demise. [5] 95 Days After the Prophet’s Demise: Other narrations suggest that Lady Fatimah’s martyrdom occurred 95 days after the Prophet’s passing. For instance, a narration from Jabir ibn Abdullah Ansari mentions that she lived for 95 days after the Prophet’s demise. [6] Prominent scholars, including Sheikh Mufid, [7] Sayyid ibn Tawus, [8] Kaf’ami in “Al-Misbah,” [9] and Allameh Tabarsi in "Alam Al-Wara"[10] assert that Lady Fatimah (SA) passed away on the third of Jumada al-Akhir in the eleventh year after the Hijra. According to this view, she lived for 95 days after her father’s departure. In conclusion, due to the reasons mentioned above and the diversity of narrations, we cannot definitively determine the exact date of Lady Fatimah’s martyrdom. However, what truly matters is our respect for all valid narrations and the observance of mourning ceremonies on both proposed dates. Such reverence is commendable and draws us closer to the Almighty. [1] . For example: Regarding the birth of Imam Hussain (as), it is stated as follows: He was born on the 3rd of Sha'ban in the 4th year of Hijri in Medina, and according to some, he was born on the 5th of Sha'ban in the 4th year of Hijri. Arabization of Muntaha al-Amal in the History of the Prophet and his Family: Al-Milani, Al-Sayyid Hashim, vol. 1, p. 523. [2] To learn more about the calligraphy of that era, you can refer to the article "History of Quranic Calligraphy and Its Evolution" written by Seyyed Mehdi Saif. [3] . Al-Kafi: Sheikh Al-Kulayni, vol. 1, p. 241. [4] . Bihar al-Anwar: Allamah al-Majlisi, Vol. 43, p. 7. [5] . A Precious Collection in the History of the Imams: a Collection of Scholars, Vol. 1, p. 12. [6] . Kifayat al-Athar fi al-Nass ala al-A'immah al-Ashar: Ali ibn Muhammad al-Khazzaz, Page: 65. [7] . Masar al-Shi'a: Al-Sheikh Al-Mufid, vol. 1, p. 31. [8] . Al-Iqbal al-Amaal al-Hasna: Al-Sayyid bin Tawus, vol. 3, p. 161. [9] . Al-Masbah - Jannah al-Aman al-Waqiyyah and Jannah al-Iman al-Baqiyyah: Al-Sheikh Ebrahim Al-Kafami Al-Amili, vol. 1, p. 511. [10] . The life of the Fourteen Infallible Ones (as): translation of "Alam Al-Wara" by Attardi, Azizullah, p. 226.

"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) …".

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.