• Start
  • Previous
  • 25 /
  • Next
  • End
  •  
  • Download HTML
  • Download Word
  • Download PDF
  • visits: 6401 / Download: 2424
Size Size Size
Analysis of the History of Aale Muhammad (P.B.U.H.)

Analysis of the History of Aale Muhammad (P.B.U.H.)

Author:
Publisher: www.alhassanain.org/english
English

Terrible Consequences

As is evident from our discussion, the superiority and caliphate of Ali bin Abi Talib (a.s.) was an established matter - but it's a pity that this issue caused adverse consequences. Thus, when the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) expired, while Ali bin Abi Talib (a.s.) was busy with the funeral arrangements, the event of Saqifah Bani Saaedah occurred and Caliphate was transferred to Abu Bakr, even though all the companions were aware of its adverse effects in the future. Thus Imam Muhammad Bukhari in Sahih Bukhari describes the events surrounding the last illness of the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) in the following words:

Ibn Abbas said, “Thursday! What (a great calamity) took place on Thursday!” Then he started weeping till his tears moistened the gravels of the ground. Then he said, “On Thursday the illness of Allah's Apostle was aggravated and he said, “Fetch me a pen and ink so that I may write something for you, after whom you will never go astray.” The people (present there) differed in this matter and people should not differ before a prophet. They said, “Allah's Apostle is seriously sick.” The Prophet said, “Let me alone, as the state in which I am now, is better than what you are calling me for.”

No one can deny the hadith quoted above. Many of the Sunni and Shia scholars have recorded this tradition and also commented upon it. The greatest commentator of Bukhari, Allamah Aini and the Commentator of Mishkat and Mirqat, Allamah Ali al-Qari, has written exegesis of this tradition. But they have not dared to comment upon its after effects and instead blindly followed their predecessors.

However we shall examine it in brief:

This incident had such disastrous effects on the world of Islam that even today the minds of Muslims are not free from its impact. For if the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) had indeed written a bequest specifying his chosen successor, the Muslim nation would not have been torn apart into sects till the day of Qiyamat. They would have been safe from deviation. But Umar did not allow the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) to fulfill his wishes and said, “The intensity of fever have overcome the Prophet (s.a.) and Quran is sufficient for us.”

Here we pose a question to Umar al-Khattab, “When Abu Bakr was writing the will to appoint you as the Caliph, why did you not say, 'Quran is sufficient for us, there is no need to write anything else'? But you dared to say this to the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.)?”

The answer to this is clear: Umar was silent because Abu Bakr was going to appoint him the caliph whereas the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) would have written the name of Ali (a.s.)! But the courage of a scholar cannot bear such tragedies. Just as when Abu Bakr was appointed as the Caliph and Ali (a.s.) was informed of this, he rushed to the Mosque to prove his own claim for the successorship of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) - all the companions expressed great regret and said, “O Abul Hasan! If at all we had been aware of this we would never have paid allegiance to anyone else.”

Hazrat Ali (a.s.) said, “Is it proper that leaving the purified mortal remains of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.), I rush for Caliphate? I had not imagined that even a single person of the Ummah considered us undeserving for caliphate.” After this incident, Abu Bakr was regretful for having accepted the Caliphate, but his coterie ensured that he does not forgo the Caliphate. Ali (a.s.) did not pay allegiance to Abu Bakr and returned home. Bani Hashim also gathered in the house of Ali (a.s.). Thereafter, Umar bin Khattab came with a group of people at the door of Ali (a.s.) to demand allegiance for Abu Bakr. The partisans of Ali (a.s.) rejected his demands. Due to this Umar collected firewood. Hazrat Fatima Zahra (s.a.) asked, “O Umar! Would you burn down my house?” Zubair, a partisan of Ali (a.s.), attacked Umar and his companions with a sword. Umar ordered that Zubair be subdued. Salmah rushed to Zubair and snatched the sword from his hand. They dragged Ali (a.s.) to the mosque to pay allegiance to Abu Bakr.

Here we shall only mention the most authentic narration of the Ahle Sunnat. If we intend to relate all the narrations, any conscientious scholar would require volcanic courage to defend it.

The Second Tumult

In this way, Abu Bakr occupied the Caliphate seat and at the time of his death appointed Umar bin Khattab for the caliphate. Indeed Abu Bakr was indebted to Umar for his support and thus wanted him to ascend the caliphate. This was a sort of understanding between these two caliphs. Umar, who had not felt the necessity for the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) to write a bequest, accepted the written will of Abu Bakr with all readiness! Abu Bakr died and Umar became the Caliph.

Allamah Ibne Abde Rabb writes in the third volume of his book Iqdul Farid that at the time of his death the first caliph said, “I have committed some acts that I wish I had not done and I left out some actions that I wish I had performed them.

First: I did not ask the one who was deserving of Caliphate and appointed by the Prophet (s.a.w.a). If I had but asked him!

Second and third: I had defended so and so person. I wish I hadn't.

Fourth: I accepted the caliphate. I should have refused it!

Fifth: I wish I hadn't sent people to Fatima's house to forcibly secure Ali's allegiance.

Sixth: I should have given Fadak to Fatimah and not confiscated it.” The writer of this book Qadi Bahjat says, 'We also wish that he hadn't performed any of these acts. But the verdict regarding this matter is clear. Perhaps the Ahle Sunnat scholars and jurists are astonished at these statements! But instead of being astonished by such confessions, they should refer to the following important books for details: Sahih Bukhari, Ibne Khaldun, Iqdul Farid, Aghani, Daaeratul Ma'arif, etc. Yes! The matter will be clear if these books are studied carefully. Sincere research will lead us to the correct path. (Historical research will find its own way).

The Third Turmoil: The Six-Member Consultative Committee (Shura)

At the time of his death, the Second Caliph left the matter of Caliphate between six persons. Yes! This had to happen because whenever anyone strays away from his natural path, then it is necessary that their conditions will change for the worse and they will fall into trouble. But with reference to this Shura, we shall present some explanation and derive conclusions from it. We shall prove that this was absolutely in contravention to Quran, hadith and Ijma. Please note! I request you to ponder deeply on this matter: It is very clear that the Second Caliph appointed such persons to the Shura to ensure that Hazrat Ali (a.s.) does not attain caliphate. Because Abdur Rahman bin Auf, for his worldly gains, despaired of Ali (a.s.) and sided with Uthman.

Sa'ad bin Abi Waqqaas was his cousin and held the same views. Since Talha bin Abdullah was from the Bani Tamim, he did not vote for Ali (a.s.). Finally Uthman considered himself the most deserving for the post!

Thus, from the members of Shura, Ali (a.s.) only had the support of Zubair. This situation has been elucidated by Amirul Momineen (a.s.) in Nahjul Balaghah using metaphors and similes. But we have heard the oft-mentioned traditions that the Second Caliph said, “If Ali hadn't been there, Umar would have perished.” Notwithstanding his confession at Ghadeer Khum, “Without Ali, Umar did not take a decision. Congratulations to Abul Hasan! You have become my master and the master of all believing men and women.”

Astounding! Though he confesses that if Ali (a.s.) had not been present, he would have perished and in the absence of that lofty personality, Umar never took a decision, and even after accepting the fact that Ali (a.s.) was the master of all believers, Umar acted in a manner opposed to it. What type of a contradictory behavior is it and how terrible consequences emerged from it?

There are such shameful pages of history that I am unable to quote them. Yes! The result of this contradictory action was that Abdul Rehman in a gesture of flattery, appointed Uthman bin Affan to Caliphate!

Masoor bin Mukhrema, the nephew (sister's son) of Abdur Rahman, reports, “This time we had not imagined that anyone except Ali bin Abi Talib will be the Caliph. We were sure that the next day we will see Ali at the seat of Caliphate. But my uncle Abdur Rahman went from door to door and mobilized the support of people like Amr-e-Aas and Mughirah bin Shu'bah. At dawn, we heard that Uthman and not Ali (a.s.) had attained the Caliphate!”

Inter alia, we can comment on the statement of Ghazzali that he said: Justifying the deeds of the companions is necessary. But I say, “Justification or no justification -each character is recorded in history and we can simply refer to it. I don't consider the beliefs of Ghazzali to be an obstacle in the fulfillment of my duty to justify or run down someone's deeds because history is itself the judge of the time.

On the Seat of Caliphate

After innumerable seditions and tragedies and through immense persuasion, Hazrat Amirul Momineen (a.s.), accepted the seat of Caliphate. But when one considers the importance of the Caliphate and Imamat of Ali (a.s.), he sees that all the opposing parties had come together to support the Caliphate of Ali (a.s.). One of the points derived from the above discussion is that the persons who were the ardent supporters of Ali (a.s.) for Caliphate were Talha and Zubair. They had supported him with the hope that they shall be rewarded with the governorships of Kufa and Basra. But eventually, when their hopes dwindled, on the pretext of visiting Makkah, they left Madinah and came to Ayesha. Ayesha had also harbored animosity against Ali (a.s.), and thus these two succeeded to win her support, which culminated in the battle of Jamal that was the first armed conflict among the Muslims.

Battle of Jamal

Every action of a person is based on his inner feelings. But the most influential emotion is jealousy, a trait more dominant among women. Ayesha was Fatima Zahra's (s.a.) stepmother and indeed, Ayesha did behave like one. On this juncture we shall quote some portions from the books, Sahih Bukhari, Muslim and Tirmidhi. In Sahih Bukhari and Muslim: 'I have not been jealous of anyone like I was of Khadijah (a.s.)- Ayesha' In Bukhari and Muslim:

'I had not been jealous of any of the wives of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) except Khadijah (a.s.). And I had not seen her. But the Prophet praised her often and I used to say to him, “It seems there is no one except Khadijah (a.s.) in the world.”- Ayesha”

The Sihah-e-Sittah (six books of Ahle Sunnat) have revealed the following from Urwah and Zubair, the nephew of Ayesha, who said, “I did not envy any woman like I envied Khadijah (a.s.).” “I did not feel jealous of any of the wives of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) as much as I did of Khadijah (a.s.) though I did not see her. But the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) used to mention her very often, and whenever he slaughtered a sheep, he would distribute a part of it among the friends of Khadijah (a.s.). I sometimes said to him, “(You treat Khadijah (a.s.) in such a way) as if there is no woman on earth except her.”

The meaning of the hadith is clear. Ayesha confesses that the jealousy and hatred she harboured for Khadijah (a.s.)h was not for other wives of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.). This was because the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) never left the house without the mention of Khadijah (a.s.)'s praise. In retaliation, Ayesha told the Prophet (s.a.w.a.), “Khadijah (a.s.) was an aged woman, while Allah has bestowed you with better women in her stead.” This infuriated the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) and he retorted, “Allah has not given me better wives in lieu of Khadijah (a.s.).”

If I quote all the hadith quoted in Jamiul Fawaid from Bukhari and Muslim and Al-Isabah from Imam Nisaai, the matter will be clear but we will be straying from our aim. Thus, a clue is sufficient for the wise. The above matter mentioned was an example of the fact that the emotion of jealousy and avarice, which is generally prevalent among women, was the cause of enmity between Ali (a.s.) and Ayesha. Thus, the first cause to instigate Ayesha for this undesirable event was her nephew Zubair. But the second cause was even more serious. Zubair nursed a great ambition for rule; therefore he instigated Ayesha to serve him as his tool to fulfill his ambition and to establish another caliphate instead of the Caliphate of Ali (a.s.).

When Ayesha heard the barking of the dogs at Hawwab, she became penitent and wanted to retract her steps but Zubair persuaded her to remain with them. He even told her that he would commit suicide if she returned. He also swore falsely that the name of that village was not Hawwab! Abdullah Ibne Zubair was so dominated his own father to such an extent that he even used to lead him in prayers.

Yes, Talha and Zubair with Ayesha raised a standard of revolt against Ali (a.s.) at Basra. They were supported by Marwan and Utbah. The advices of Ali (a.s.) to refrain from confrontation fell on deaf ears. After the completion of proof, he became busy in fighting the enemies. And those who had sown the seed of dissension began to reap the fruits of defeat. Talha and Zubair were killed at the hands of the supporters of Ali (a.s.). The lady (Ayesha) was sent back to her quarters with great regret after she had blatantly acted against the Quranic command (to the wives of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.)) “And stay in your houses. (Surah Ahzaab)” The incident will be presented in brief. But I consider it necessary to say that the scholars (of the Ahle Sunnat) remember the instigators of battle of Jamal with reverence. It seems that not only that they in their historical life have given birth of insult and degradation, but they have even taught that in spite of these great evils, they do not consider them responsible for the crimes perpetrated by them. But we say that being in a group of companions neither washes his crimes nor erases his sins from his account of deeds. Rather, since the companions were so near to the light of prophethood, they are more responsible for their crimes and sins. And in the beginning of this book we have mentioned this with many examples.

It is very clear that as soon as Ayesha and Talha heard that people have revolted against Uthman and wanted to slay him, they began to instigate them more. When a group of people killed Uthman, Ayesha was in Makkah. She rushed to Madinah in joy. The moment she heard the news of the Caliphate of Ali (a.s.) she turned back to Makkah and gathered all the characters who harboured enmity against the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) like Ya'la bin Munnabah, Abdullah bin Aamir, Sa'ad bin Aas, etc. And it is again clear that whatever these people do will indeed be greater crimes.

It is also obvious that if the battle of Jamal had not occurred, it was very likely that even the battles of Naharwan and Siffeen would not have taken place. Thus, opening the door of mischief, sowing the seeds of dissension in the Ummah, instigating and initiating controversies, fighting the Imam of the Muslims, creating disunity in the United Jamat (group), killing thousands of people, sending them to the gallows, etc., are all evil acts, regardless of the subject who has committed them. They deserve curse and criticism and are inscribed in the pages of history as unpardonable sins and shall remain so till the day of Judgment. They shall always be condemned and castigated. Objection: The perpetrators of the battle of Jamal had repented and later, sought divine forgiveness.

Reply: It is only Allah who can bestow forgiveness. But the matter of forgiveness is related to the day of judgment. What we are concerned with is the sedition and insurrection that has actually occurred and clearly recorded in history.

Objection: The people who caused the battle of Jamal were great companions, who waged wars alongside the Prophet (s.a.w.a.). They have been remembered with praise and satisfaction in the Quran!

Reply: The perpetrator of the battle of Naharwan, Harqoos bin Zuhair and his followers had some of the great companions, who were also present at the oath of Ridwan. Then why have they qualified for curse and criticism? But we shall gradually come to the conclusion that there was no difference whatsoever, between the perpetrators of the battles of Jamal, Naharwan and Siffeen. They all are equally accountable. Now let us move to the sequel of Battle of Jamal that is Siffeen.

The Battle of Siffeen

We do not intend to relate all the activities of Hazrat Ali (a.s.) and other circumstances of Siffeen. Our aim is to expose the level at which the perpetrator of this rebellion stooped. He was nobody but the son of Abu Sufyan. And the obstacles and the difficulties they created for the rightful Ali (a.s.) shall be judged from this. Let us elaborate.

In Ihyaul Uloom, Ghazzali says, “There is no controversy regarding the Imamat of Mu'awiyah and whatever he had done was on the basis of Ijtehad (jurisprudence); and a Mujtahid (jurist) is correct in all events.” What a tragedy! Something that is obvious to a layman was beyond the understanding of the great scholar like Ghazzali. Possibly, he feigned ignorance deliberately. Did not Mu'awiyah covet for Imamat and Caliphate? If not, what else was it that he desired? Though he had, prior to this, desired the blood of Uthman! But he could not achieve it because Uthman did not die heirless. It was necessary that they would turn to the caliph of that time - Ali (a.s.) to enforce their claim of Uthman's revenge. Not only this, Mu'awiyah and Amr Aas had deceived the Ummah, revolted against the Muslim Caliph and slaughtered thousands of Muslims and started many innovations.

Ghazzali says: All the actions of Mu'awiyah were based on Ijtehad. I say that the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) said: “O Ammar! You shall be killed by a rebellious group.” Mu'awiyah was aware of this tradition. He gave a bag of gold each to two evil Syrians and ordered them to slay Ammar and get his head and was finally pleased with it!

Does Ghazzali consider this act a result of Ijtehad? What a travesty of truth! Secondly, Ghazzali also knew very well that Mu'awiyah utilized ill-gotten wealth to instigate and persuade the people to curse Ali (a.s.). So much so, that he came to Madinah ascended the pulpit of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and cursed Ali (a.s.) and his progeny! This fact has been recorded by all historians. Was this also Ijtehad? Ghazzali says: Criticism of the deeds of Sahaba (companions) is 'Rafd'! We say: Was Ali bin Abi Talib (a.s.) not a companion that Mu'awiyah cursed and imprecated him? Why does Ghazzali not label Mu'awiyah as Raafedi instead of conferring the title of Mujtahid on him! Ghazzali has contravened his own principle!

Thirdly: Before coming to Siffeen in order to just test the Syrians and to find if they were obedient to Quran or himself, he performed an extremely despicable act. He led the Friday prayers on a Wednesday! No one objected to any of his acts. Therefore he trusted the people of Syria to obey him unconditionally and found himself powerful enough to confront the Imam of the age! Was this based on Ijtehad?

Fourthly: He signed a peace treaty with Imam Hasan al-Mujtaba (a.s.). The first condition of the peace treaty was to make him the heir apparent. But with utmost barbarity, he had Imam Hasan (a.s.) poisoned through the Imam's wife Juda binte Ashath bin Qays. The liver of the beloved son of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) was shred into pieces and he attained martyrdom. Juda claimed her reward from Mu'awiyah but Yazid refused to take her as his wife. When the crime is such that it makes one a disbeliever, how is it possible to forgive this act or to justify it by saying that it was based on Ijtehad? We say: If at all Ghazzali has accepted the Caliphate and Imamate of Ali bin Abi Talib (a.s.), he must agree that Mu'awiyah was obliged to pay allegiance to Ali (a.s.) unconditionally. If not, Ghazzali should admit that Mu'awiyah was a renegade and a rebel! Undoubtedly, to believe in the Caliphate of Ali (a.s.) and to accept the evil deeds of Mu'awiyah at one and the same time, is like gathering white and black at one place. It is impossible! Such conjecture does not befit a person of Ghazzali's stature.

Now let us come to our conclusion:

Mu'awiyah, with the cooperation of Amr Aas's cunning, gathered the people of Syria and arrived at a desert-spot named Siffeen to confront Hazrat Amirul Momineen (a.s.). Ali (a.s.) tried his best to placate the people and prevent the tragedy and to ward off the circumstances that had divided the Muslims but to no avail.

The mischief of Mu'awiyah did not desire to dispel the corruption from the Muslims. The battle of Siffeen continued for a hundred days. It is well-known that the great companions of Ali (a.s.) like Owais Qarni and Ammar Yasir attained martyrdom in this battle. Its evil effects were also evident in the fact that gradually the chiefs of the army of Ali (a.s.) like Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr and Malik al-Ashtar also laid their lives. In spite of this, Mu'awiyah was on the verge of defeat when with the help of the deceit of Amr Aas, he raised the bogey of arbitration. Ali (a.s.) had to accept this against his wishes because he was aware of the results. On one hand he had to face the deception of Amr Aas and on the other, bear the weakness of his own men. This put him in a nigh impossible situation. The sloth of his companions was worst than the attack of the enemies.

Yes! The result of the arbitration was dreadful and Ali (a.s.) began to prepare for another confrontation. Some people of Ali's (a.s.) side had strayed away from truth and Shariat. The details of these are given in my book “Yuzgoon”

Battle of Siffeen

The chief of the Kharijis was Harqoos bin Zuhair and they had gathered at Naharwan. Despite fighting so many battles prior to this one, Ali (a.s.) managed to mobilize his forces and routed the Kharijis. It's a real pity that the refuge of Imamat and the strong pillar of the world of Islam found obstacles at every step. And these steps would have surely led to the prosperity of the Muslims in this world as well as the hereafter. Unfortunately, it could not produce the results it should have. This is the reason that its bitter effects remain till date. A tragedy indeed!

Martyrdom and Destruction:

Efforts to destroy this rebellious group became the cause of Imam's martyrdom and a tragedy and destruction for the Muslim Ummah. A woman named Qatama, who lived in Kufa helped a Kharjiite, Abdur Rahman bin Muljim, who attacked Ali (a.s.) with a poisoned sword while he was praying at the Kufa mosque. Ali (a.s.) succumbed to his injury after two days and the Muslim nation was immersed in untold calamities. Although we have already proved the superiority and caliphate of Ali (a.s.), here we shall only mention two points:

After the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.), Ali (a.s.) was the greatest leader of the Muslims. At the time of his martyrdom he was 63 years old. During the lifetime of Hazrat Fatima Zahra (s.a.), he did not have another wife. Hasan, Husain, Mohsin (stillborn), Zainab and Umme Kulsoom were born from her. After the demise of Hazrat Fatima (s.a.) Ali (a.s.) married a few women. The first of them was Yamama, daughter of Zainab bint Jahsh, daughter of Prophet (s.a.). Ali (a.s.) married her according to the bequest of Fatima Zahra (s.a.). The second wife of Ali (a.s.) was Asma binte Umais and third, Ummul Baneen the mother of Hazrat Abbas (a.s.). The fourth one was a lady of Bani Hanifa who became the mother of Muhammad Ibne Hanafiyya. Apart from the children of Fatima Zahra (s.a.), Hazrat Abbas (a.s.) and Muhammad Ibne Hanafiyya became famous. Ali ibn Abi Talib (a.s.) was the father of Ummah because the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) had said:

“O Ali I and you are the fathers of this Ummah.”

Yes! Just as Ali (a.s.) is the father of the Ummah in the same way he was the master of all rational and traditional sciences. Thus Ibne Abil Hadeed says that if we see all the sciences and knowledge that are extant in this blessed Ummah, we will realize that they have been shaped and developed by Ali (a.s.). For example: The science of exegesis, jurisprudence, principles of Islamic law, grammar, syntax, etymology, poetry, algebra, geometry, etc. were available in the personality of Ali (a.s.). Nahjul Balaghah is a prime witness to the eloquence of Ali (a.s.) and the collection of his poetry indicates his excellence in literature.

Amirul Momineen (a.s.) possessed such knowledge that was not found in anyone else - Ilme Jafr that was the sole prerogative of Ali (a.s.) and his respected descendants (Imams). The books Durrul Maknoon by the doyen of Sufis Shaykh Muhyuddin Arabi and Durrul Munazzam by Shaykh Kamaluddin Shafei have mentioned that knowledge was specially reserved for the Aale Muhammad and the heirs of Imamat till Hazrat Qaem (a.s.). It is not our aim to discuss it over here. To obtain the treasure of sciences, it is sufficient to say that Ali (a.s.) said:

“If I want, I can load 70 camels with the exegesis of Surah Fateha.” And also said: “Ask me! Before you lose me. “ It is clear that if after the passing away of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) if the political conditions had favoured Ali (a.s.) and if there hadn't been such terrible obstacles, the Muslim Ummah would have scaled heights of righteousness and accomplishment.

Ali, the great, who had single-handedly slain half the enemies at Badr, who alone did not flee in Uhud, on the day of ditch (Khandaq) who alone released the Muslims from fear and dread of Amr ibne Abdawod, whose each stroke was more valuable than the combined worship acts of men and jinn, who uprooted the gate of the fort when there was a general feeling of despair among Muslims at Khaiber, etc. The achievements of this noble personality are so many that they cannot be enumerated. He bestowed Islam with splendor and firmness. Is it proper that such a versatile personality should be forced to sit in gloom and inactivity for a long period of twenty-five years? How true was Ali's (a.s.) refrain,

“Every grudge that the Quraysh harboured against the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) was avenged from me and after me it will continue against my progeny. What did I have against the Quraysh except that I killed them on the command of Allah and His Messenger (s.a.w.a.)? Is it the reward of obeying Allah and His Messenger (s.a.w.a.)?”

How nice it would be if people begin to think on these lines! Brief Biographies of Janab Fatima Zahra (s.a.) and Her Eleven Descendants (a.s.)

FATIMA ZAHRA (s.a.)

The holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) combated with the disbelievers of the Arabs and polytheists of the tribe of Quraysh for 23 years and after extraordinary difficulties and troubles had to migrate to Abyssinia. Finally, at the end of all these calamities, which were beyond the capacity of ordinary mortals, he had to bear separation from the near and dear ones and to leave their place of residence. Gradually, the true religion of Islam obtained influence and strength. The low Arabs became wealthy, prosperous and honourable. The idol-worshippers and the slaves of statues turned into the worshippers of ONLY ONE GOD, thanks to Islam.

The holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) had no attachment with anything. Only Fatima Zahra (s.a.), the leader of all women, was extremely dear to him. That is why it is essential that Fatima must be dearer than life for every professing believer because the holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) has said,

“Fatima is a part of me, whoever hurts her, hurts me.”5 Once one of the companions of the holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) asked Ayesha, 'Who, among all the creatures, is the dearest to the holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.)'? She replied, 'Fatima Zahra is the dearest for the holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.).' The questioner inquired again, 'Who among men is dearest to the holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.)? Ayesha responded, 'Ali (a.s.)'. There are so many traditions and narrations praising and honoring Fatima Zahra (a.s.) that if only one example from each one of them is included here, this volume will not suffice. But, since it is our intention to explain and examine the event of Fadak, we will express our view regarding this bitter and retrograde happening.

What happened to Fadak?

“Fadak” was one of the properties, which belonged to the Jews who lived around Madinah. After the conquest of Khaibar, as per the terms of treaty, it went in the possession of the holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.). As it was not captured forcibly in a holy war, no one had any right or share in it and thus it was an absolute property of the holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.). All properties apart from Fadak were also similar.

There also were such other properties, which formerly belonged to “Bani Quraizah” and were within Madinah. The holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) used to spend the proceeds of these properties on both his holy wives and on his poor and needy relatives, thus helping them. So he had, since long back, gifted Fadak to his dearest daughter Fatima Zahra (s.a.). So it belonged exclusively to her. Fatima (s.a.) too used to spend and donate the profits of Fadak in the path of Allah. As soon as the holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) passed away and when Fatima was still in a state of mourning, she was informed that the officials of caliph Abu Bakr had cancelled Fatima (a.s.)'s ownership of Fadak! Fatima (a.s.) was very much grieved by this deed of greed. So she sent some one to the caliph to question him about this cancellation of her right over Fadak. He replied, 'Fadak is a part of Baitul Maal and hence Fatima has no right in it.'

Surely we are Allah's and to Him we shall surely return.6 Has such irregularity ever taken place in the world? Before dealing with the objection raised by Fatima (s.a.) we find it necessary to mention here our impressions: Firstly: Had the caliph taken into consideration benefits of both the worlds offered to him by the Prophet of God (s.a.w.a.), he would have never indulged in such undue deeds.

Did the caliph not recollect that the locust-eating Arabs had become the caliphs of the world? Did he not remember that when he and his like were bowing before stones and worshipping idols, it was the father of Fatima (s.a.) who pulled them out of humiliation and degradation and guided them to grandeur, and brought them out from polytheism and made them believers? Was it a reward of all this goodness that the dearest daughter of the holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) should be grieved so much just for the sake of a little piece of garden? And all this despite the right of the holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) had already been mentioned in the holy Quran through the holy verse:

Say: I do not ask of you any reward for it but love for my near relatives.7 And thus the friendship (affection) of the holy progeny has been made obligatory for the entire community. Was it unbecoming on the part of the holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) who had gifted so much to the caliph to gift even a piece of garden to his beloved daughter?

Secondly: Fatima is one of the holy members of the honorable family regarding whom the holy Quran says:

Allah only desires to keep away the uncleanness from you, O people of the House! And to purify you a (thorough) purifying8 indicating that Allah the Almighty has made them pure from all uncleanness. Can such a respectable Surah Baqarah 2:156 Surah Shura 42:23 8Surah Ahzab 33.33 personality ever make an unlawful or improper claim of ownership? No, never. Each and every word and deed and movement and pause of Fatima prove that it is true and that she is the righteous leader. Making a false claim of Fadak is filth, which is impossibility in the case of Fatima (s.a.).

Thirdly: Under what authority and proof can Fatima (s.a.) be prevented from making her claim when she is an associate of Quran and a source of reason? Fourthly: How can the claim of Fatima be baseless when the holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) says, “Fatemah is a part of me”? Can Fatima who is a part of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) ever make a false claim? No, never. (For it will tantamount to accusing the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) of making a false claim).

Fifthly: The holy Prophet (s.a.w.) said:

“I am at war with those who attack you.”

This makes it clear that the holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) too is an associate in her claim. Yes, there is no doubt that the one who quarrels with Fatima (a.s.) quarrels with the holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.), because there is no disagreement about the validity and soundness of the abovementioned hadith. Its goes as follows: One day the holy Prophet (s.a.w.) gathered Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Husain at one place and said:

“I am at war with the one who quarrels with you and I am at peace with the one who is at peace with you.” Sixthly: It is obvious that Fatima (s.a.) who was denied her right had become sad, as is expected from any human being. There is a hadith recorded in Sahih Bukhari from Ayesha which runs as follows: Fatima went to my father Abu Bakr to inform him about the usurpation of Fadak and said that her father, the Prophet of God (s.a.w.a.), had gifted Fadak to her. Abu Bakr held back Fadak from her. So Fatima returned disappointed and died while she was angry with my father.

This hadith is found in all hadith books but I have quoted only Bukhari. It shows that Fatima (s.a.) was unhappy with the caliph, while the Prophet of God had said,

“Fatima is from me, whoever hurts her hurts me”. This is an explicit statement. No claim contrary to it is possible. Just as it is impossible that denial of Fadak may not displease her, so it is impossible that the displeasure of Fatima (s.a.) will not make the holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) unhappy. Now we may revert to the argumentation of the original claim: We quote below a narration made by Allamah Abu Abdillah Bukhari in the part “Faraaiz-e-Sahih al- Bukhari”, which says that Fatima (s.a.) demanded, “O Abu Bakr! In case your father expires who is his heir?”

He replied, “I, his son, will be his heir.”

Fatima asked, “Who is the heir of my late father?” Abu Bakr said, “You who are his daughter.” Fatima asked, “Then why do you take back Fadak forcibly?” Abu Bakr replied that the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) said, “We Prophets do not leave inheritance.” Fatima shot back, “My father had gifted me Fadak during his lifetime and currently it is in my use.” Abu Bakr argued, “You must produce witness.”

Fatima brought Ali (a.s.) and Umme Aiman as witness. The caliph did not accept. Fatima returned disheartened and disappointed. Here let us examine some aspects of this claim: First: The tradition on which the caliph based his decision is a one-person narration, and a one-man narration cannot be relied upon against a clear Quranic commandment.

Second: Even if a narration is true, it does not pertain to the inheritance of wealth. Rather, it indicates the inheritance of Prophethood or messenger ship. For, at that time the holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) had, in response to a claim made by the Jews and the Christians, said that Prophethood is not based on race that I must belong to Bani Israel. Had Prophethood been a part of heritage or inheritance, then a Prophet must be from Bani Israel. That is why the holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) had defended his claim in these words.

Third: In case this hadith was about inheritance of wealth, then no Prophet should have any inheritor. But we do see that the inheritors of all the Prophets have shared the wealth left by those Prophets. The holy Quran also supports our claim as God Almighty says in it while mentioning the event of Prophet that Zakariya said,

Who should inherit from me and from the children of Yaqoub?9 Zakariya's request for a child was because of his desire that his children should inherit his wealth, and in his children were also those who were not Prophets. Fourth: This tradition, in any case, does not relate to the claim of Fatima because the possession of Fadak by Fatima was not by way of inheritance but it was a gift and this hadith prevents inheritance, not a gift. Fifth: Bringing forth of witnesses was not necessary for Fatima (s.a.) because she was only defending what was in her possession and witnesses are required when the possession of anything is demanded. Fatima Zahra (s.a.) was holding a property, not demanding it.

Sixth: It is known that the second caliph had, during his caliphate, returned Fadak to Ali (a.s.) but Ali rejected the offer saying: When an established right of 9 Surah Maryam 19:6

one was denied to her and now when she is no more, I cannot accept Fadak. All historians, even the author of Qaamoos al Aalaam has, under the topic, FADAK explained this sentence of Ali (a.s.). Now, if the argument of the first caliph was correct then why the second caliph did disregard it and returned Fadak to its owner? And if the first caliph was not right, then why was the dearest child of the holy Prophet (s.a..w.a.) harassed?

Seventh: Umar bin Abdul Aziz, an Umayyad caliph, was known as a wiser and more pious man than his predecessors. He was also more inclined toward truth. He returned Fadak to the progeny of Fatima (s.a.) during his caliphate. This also means that all Muslims had been convinced that the confiscation of Fadak was oppressive and wrong. We conclude this unpalatable investigation here. At the end of every court trial, some rights are established. Yet we suffice with this much that the First Caliph had expressed his remorse publicly in these three phrases:

First: Acceptance of caliphate,

Second: Sending his men to the house of Fatima to obtain allegiance.

Three: Confiscation of Fadak

We have nothing to do with the remorse or otherwise on the part of that Caliph. But, alas, before taking such ugly actions, he should have done something to prevent it. How much hardships and pains the holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) had suffered for the welfare and prosperity and safety of religion as well as their worldly lives. The kind Prophet, at the last moment of his life, when the entire Muslim nation was under his obligation, leaves as his memorial his beloved daughter. He also ordered everybody to respect and honor her. Thus, anybody who opposes these commands, whosoever he may be, cannot escape historic investigation and its unpalatable consequences.

Fatima Zahra (s.a.), after the passing away of the holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.), suffered many oppressions and innumerable attacks on her rights. Then she, under the painful effects of such excesses passed away from this world. Fatima Zahra (s.a.) was the youngest child of the holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.). She was born to lady Khadija (s.a.) and was the youngest remembrance of the holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) left for the ummah. Thereafter the memorials of Fatima Zahra are Hasan (a.s.), Husain (a.s.), Zainab (a.s.) and Umme Kulsoom (a.s.). The Quranic verses and hadiths describing the grace and nobility of Fatima Zahra (s.a.) are so many that the brevity of this book does not suffice to accommodate all of them.

As Fatima Zahra (a.s.) was buried secretly at night in the presence of only Ali (a.s.), Hasan, Husain and a small selected group of Bani Hashim, the actual location of her blessed grave of this dearest daughter of the holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) is not known to common Muslims. But it is likely that her holy grave is situated in one of the mausoleums.

Imam Hasan Mujtaba (a.s.)

Imam Hasan Mujtaba was born to Fatima Zahra (s.a.) in the second year of the Hijri. His kunniyat (agnomen) is Abu Muhammad. Amirul Momineen Ali (a.s.) said that in his natural disposition, Hasan is very much like his noble grandfather, the Prophet of God (s.a.w.a.). The holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) has repeatedly said, “These two sons of mine (viz. Hasan and Husain) are the leaders of the youths of paradise.”

But here we will not mention the holy verses or traditions showing the grace and honor of Imam Hasan. How can we do so when nearly one-fourth of the holy Quran shows the excellence and nobility of the holy family of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.)? As has been stated repeatedly, our aim has not been the enumeration of such virtues. Our only intention is to examine the rights of the holy family of the great Prophet (s.a.w.a.) who were the pillars of Prophethood. So, brevity is the need of the hour. Yes, when Amirul Momineen (a.s.) was martyred, as per his will, Imam Hasan and Imam Husain (a.s.) buried him (a.s.) secretly in a particular place. Thereafter the Muslims paid allegiance to Imam Hasan Mujtaba (a.s.) and accepted him as a caliph.

Here we feel it is necessary to mention the difference between Imamat and Caliphate, which is indeed great. Imamat is different from the apparent caliphate. Likewise the apparent caliphate is other than the divine Imamate. The apparent caliphate was available to thousands of persons but Imamat is a distinction confined only for the twelve infallible persons, viz. Ali and his eleven holy descendants (a.s.).

Yes, the Muslims did pay allegiance to the Holy Book of God and to tradition and way of the holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) with a vow to fight against the enemies of Islam from the side of Imam Hasan (a.s.). But the Imam was aware of the consequences. He also knew the non-resoluteness and instability of the Muslims in his time and their retreating from the battlefront in difficult situations. An army of forty thousand had gathered for censuring Mu'awiyah, who was the enemy of truth and was out to disobey Imam (a.s.). They advanced to reach “Madaaen”, but then the army became disorganized and the Imam (a.s.) was injured at the hands of an evil opponent. The miserable conditions and the pitiable situation that prevailed compelled the Imam (a.s.) to give up the apparent caliphate. For, he knew that if they fight with the enemy with such a disorganized unit, possessing no morality whatsoever, there was a danger of the destruction of all the members of the holy family and their supporters. So he left the apparent caliphate to the enemy.

Mu'awiyah did not comply with even one of the terms of the treaty that he had signed with Imam Hasan (a.s.). The most important condition of the said treaty was that after Mu'awiyah, the caliphate should return to its original place.

That Mu'awiyah would not abide by this condition was obvious. Hence, on Amr Aas's instigation, he invited Imam Hasan (a.s.) to the Masjid and requested him to sit on the pulpit. The intent behind the deed was to show Imam Hasan's (a.s.) concurrence to the caliphate of Mu'awiyah. But, as expected, the Imam (a.s.) of the time would not speak such incorrect things. Therefore, Imam Mujtaba (a.s.) accepted the de facto caliphate of Mu'awiyah on the pulpit. He also declared that the caliphate and its inheritance belong to the holy family and also explained his helplessness, which led to the treaty with Mu'awiyah. He said that if he fights with Mu'awiyah, all the members of the holy family would be totally wiped out and that all of his supporters would also die. He declared that Mu'awiyah is not worthy of caliphate. He is a usurper. Hearing these words, Mu'awiyah and his supporters were enraged. They pulled the Imam (a.s.) from the pulpit and felled him. His head collided with a pillar and was injured. Ever since that day, Mu'awiyah decided to finish this dear son of the holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.).

Ibne Aasaal Nasraani was the private physician of Mu'awiyah. He prepared poison from diamond. Mu'awiyah sent him to Marwan Hakam and ordered him to poison Imam Hasan (a.s.). Marwan beguiled the evil Jo'dah, the wife of Imam Hasan (a.s.), gave her the gold and poison sent by Mu'awiyah and assured her that she would be married with Yazid, as promised by Mu'awiyah.

The depraved Jo'dah took that oppressive poison and gave it to the Imam through his food. Consequently the Imam remained painfully ill for forty days and ultimately passed away from this world.

This is the respect paid by the Ummat to the memorial of God's Prophet (s.a.w.a.).

Imam was poisoned on a number of occasions but when it did not work, the oppressors prevented him even to remain in his house. He was forced to migrate from Madinah. He had to go to Mosul and Syria repeatedly but Mu'awiyah and his helpers who were rebellious and mischief-makers sent insurgents after him and finally poisoned him. Consequently, the poison ripped apart the holy heart of the dear son of the holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.).

The curse of Allah is on the unjust.10

What is truly shocking is that some of the earlier Sunni scholars support a tyrant like Mu'awiyah and fabricate pretexts for his evil and ugly deeds. They also, through such infidelity, praise Yazid and absolve Mu'awiyah. They failed to comprehend that they would not get any benefit through such deeds either in this world or in the Hereafter.

10 Surah A'raaf 7:44

We have mentioned, in our book Irshaad-e-Hamzavi our arguments and conclusions regarding the nature of Mu'awiyah, his qualities, his misdeeds, his movements, his innovations and inventions in religion, etc. At the time of his demise Imam Hasan was 46. He expired in the 49th year of the hijrah era. The children of Imam Hasan Mujtaba were as follows: Hasan Muthanna, Qasim, Zaid, Al Husain and Umar. In his posterity were the only sons of Hasan Muthanna Abdullah, Ibrahim and Hasan Muthallath. Their mother was Fatima binte Imam Husain (a.s.). Apart from them, from Umme Valad, he bore Ja'far and Dawood. Those who had children are Zaid. Amr had no issues. Husain had a daughter whose name is Fatima and the mother of Ismail, the son of the late Imam Ja'far Sadiq (a.s.).