we also know that the home of Sayyida Fatima (S.A) was raided by the newly formed state. al-Hafiz Diya al-Din Muhammad ibn al-Wahid al-Maqdisi (d. 643 H) in his authority work al-Ahadith al-Mukhtarat, Volume 1 page 88 stated:
عنهن فأما الثلاث اللاتي وددت أني لم أفعلهن فوددت أني لم أكن كشفت بيت فاطمة أو تركته وأن أعلق على الحرب وددت أني يوم سقيفة بني ساعدة كنت قدفت الأمر في عنق أحد الرجلين أبو عبيدة أو عمر فكان أمير المؤمنين وكنت وزيرا ووددت أني حيث كنت وجهت خالد بن الوليد إلى أهل الردة
Abubakr said: ‘I wish I never violated or abandoned the house of Fatima even if she had waged a war against me. I wish that on the day of Saqifah I had placed the affair (i.e. caliphate) on the neck of either Abu Ubaydah or Umar so that such would be the Commander of the believers while I remained his vizier’.
The margin writer of al-Ahadith al-Mukhtarat Abdulmalik bin Abdullah bin Duhaish has declared the tradition as ‘Hasan’.
Ibn Tamiyah also admitted that Abu Bakr broke into Lady Fatima’s house:
وغاية ما يقال إنه كبس البيت لينظر هل فيه شيء من مال الله الذي يقسمه وأن يعطيه لمستحق
“He broke into the house to see if there was something of Allah’s money to distribute it or give it to those who deserved it”
Minhaj al-Sunnah, Volume 8 page 291
Comment
Whilst the timing of this event is not clear from the Sunni sources our contention is that there is a nexus between Umar’s threats and the raid on the house, we after all know that Imam Ali (A.S) had refused to come out. The physical raid on the home of Sayyida Fatima (S.A) wherein according Ibn Tamiyah illegally held possessions were being hoarded (God Forbid) must have followed on from this refusal. It is logical that these episodes were interlinked, the event started out with Umar issuing threats, and ended with the house being raided, possession being taken and Imam Ali (A.S) being raided.
Assessing Umar’s conduct
One – Umar’s conduct violated all modes of decorum
Before conducting an analysis let us begin with the adulation of it by Shams al Hind Allamah Shibli Numani in al-Faruq Volume 1 page 92, states as follows:
“The learned Tabari in his Tareekh Kabir has narrated a tradition to the effect that Umar, standing at the door of Fatimah’s house, exclaimed ‘O daughter of the Prophet! I swear by God that we love you best of all but if your house continues any longer to be a rendezvous for conspiracy I will set fire to it on account of this.
The authority of this tradition is doubtful having not been able to glean particulars regarding its narrators, but there is no reason to deny the occurrence of this incident in the light of rationalisation. Umar was a man of hot and irrational temper and such an act would not have been inconsistent with his nature”.
Al-Farooq, Volume 1 page 92
Despite his desire to distance himself from the narration his comment “there is no reason to deny the occurrence of this incident” speaks volumes. These eleven words serve as sufficient proof coming from who wrote it. This President of the International Umar Fanclub himself acknowledges that this persecution did indeed take place, and accordingly to Numani was understandable if one understands Umar’s short-tempered nature. Should this characteristics count as mitigation for a man that threatens to set ablaze the home of the pregnant daughter of the Prophet (P.B.U.H&H.P) if her husband and supporters fail to recognize Abu Bakr as the Head of State?
Did Umar not think about the consequences of his actions? He knew Sayyida Fatima (S.A) was in the house, if there was any doubt that her (S.A) remonstrating with him, confirmed this. Despite this he arrogantly replied to her and made his intention clear that he was willing to kill her and those in the house if bayya was not given to Abu Bakr. Just imagine a madman like that in your neighborhood – you would warn your wife and kids not to go anywhere near him. His actions would make the national news headlines “PSYCHO THREATENS TO BURN PREGNANT WOMAN AND HER CHILDREN TO DEATH”. Note that even in jihad, it is forbidden to terrorise women and children. So what was this man doing?
Even if you have a grievance with someone else, including even someone like Afriki, what justification can there be to threaten to set his house on fire, and that too with them inside, as is clearly the case from the Sunni sources that we have cited? What lovely Islamic Ahkam did Umar possess?
The references evidence the fact that Maula ‘Ali (A.S) and Sayyida Fatima (S.A) were both unhappy with Abu Bakr’s coming to power, Umar was fully aware of this and he deemed Sayyida Fatima (S.A)’s home to be a house of conspiracy. The true misrepresentation of history is that which is presented by the Sunni Ulema to the masses. On the one hand these men of truth paint this romantic image of the four khalifas who were the best of friends who worked together in an atmosphere of love and co-operation, and that Imam ‘Ali (A.S) deemed Abu Bakr to be the Khalifa of Rasulullah (P.B.U.H&H.P) and superior to him, and yet on the other hand they say that the house of Fatima (S.A) was where gatherings against Abu Bakr were taking place, and hence it was incumbent on the State to issue forceful threats to these insurgents and burn the residence down.
It sounds like something out of the most ruthless rebellions in history. For that’s what it was? Abu Bakr had usurped the Khilafat and was hell-bent on destroying all resistance from the opposition camp, even to the degree of exceeding the limits set down by Allah and His Prophet (P.B.U.H&H.P) and burning people to death, even Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H&H.P)’s daughter. This kind of thing went on in the dark ages, and it was going on here and being instigated by the founding fathers of Sunni Islam. It’s a dilemma for the Sunnis, not us. We follow Ali (A.S) and not these individuals. Ali (A.S) used his strength to fight the kuffar on the battlefields. That is manhood. These personalities sought to consolidate their grip on power by quashing the valid stance of their political opponents hence Umar’s threat to set fire to the home of the pregnant daughter of the Prophet (P.B.U.H&H.P). What models of manhood were these! Reeling from the death of her father, rather than console the poor woman Umar felt justified in standing outside her home, and threatening to set her and her family alight if they refused to accept Abu Bakr as Khalifa.
Two – Umar’s conduct contravened the respect afforded to the House of Fatima (S.A)
In Ahl’ul Sunnah’s leading Sunni scholar of Tafseer Durre Manthur Volume 5 page 51, al Hafiz Jalaladeen Suyuti in Tafseer Durre Manthur, narrates from Ibn Mardewah – Anas bin Malik – Buraydah:
Anas bin Malik and Buraydah narrated that Rasulullah (P.B.U.H&H.P) recited this verse: ‘and amongst houses is a house that Allah has ordered to be exalted’. A man stood up and asked: ‘O Prophet of Allah which house is being referred to here?’ He (P.B.U.H&H.P) said: ‘This refers to the houses of Prophets’. Then Abu Bakr stood up and asked: ‘O Rasulullah is this house one of it?’ The house of Ali and Fatima’. Rasulullah (P.B.U.H&H.P) replied ‘Yes, it is one of the best’.
It is tragic that a house that Rasulullah (P.B.U.H&H.P) had testified to having such a rank, where guidance shone out from in Paradise, was attacked with Umar threatening to set it on fire! We ask those with open minds, can there be a more heinous act than that?
Three – Umar’s conduct violated the respect afforded by the Prophet to Sayyida Fatima (S.A)
We read in Sunan Abu DaudBook 41, Number 5198:
“Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu’minin:
I never saw anyone more like the Apostle of Allah (P.B.U.H&H.P) in respect of gravity, calm deportment, pleasant disposition – according to al-Hasan’s version: in respect of talk and speech. Al-Hasan did not mention gravity, calm deportment, pleasant disposition – than Fatimah, may Allah honour her face. When she came to visit him (the Prophet) he got up to (welcome) her, took her by the hand, kissed her and made her sit where he was sitting; and when he went to visit her, she got up to (welcome) him, took him by the hand, kissed him, and made him sit where she was sitting.
We would urge those that love Ahl’ul bayt (A.S) to consider the rank that Rasulullah (P.B.U.H&H.P) gave Sayyida Fatima (S.A). He (P.B.U.H&H.P) would stand up to meet her, and yet Umar threw this respect aside and attacked Sayyida Fatima (S.A). This lady’s demeanour and personality were as gentle as her father’s was. Despite his awareness of the exalted rank of Sayyida Fatima (S.A), he was willing to push this aside and humiliate her and was prepared to set her home on fire.
Key questions that flow from this event
First question – Does this incident not prove the existence of two factions following the death of the Prophet (P.B.U.H&H.P)?
Of course, manner of excuse has been put forward by the Nasibi to defend the actions of Umar. Numani seems to suggest that this was a necessity as it was incumbent to quash any activities that were harmful to unity – the meetings in the house of Sayyida Fatima (S.A), were dangerous in that people were conspiring against ‘Abu Bakr.
We would also like to ask this question:
If the house of Sayyida Fatima (S.A) had become a meeting point where opposition to ‘Abu Bakr was being plotted does this mean that rebellion was being planned in the home of Ali (A.S) and Fatima (A.S), in their midst? If the answer is ‘yes’ this plotting was taking place in their presence then this alhamdolillah this provides immense support for the Shi’a since the following points are proven
Sayyida Fatima (S.A) and Imam ‘Ali (A.S) did NOT deem Abu Bakr to be the rightful khalifa.
Hadhrat Fatima (S.A) and Imam ‘Ali (A.S) deemed ‘Abu Bakr to be a usurper.
Failure to regard Abu Bakr as the rightful khalifa bears no bearing on one’s iman, if it did then the Ahl’ul bayt (A.S) would have never indulged in such a sin.
Abu Bakr was prepared to secure the bayya of Ahl’ul bayt by any means necessary
Sahaba had gathered in the home of Sayyida Fatima (S.A) plotting to overthrow Abu Bakr.
Ahl’ul Sunnah aqeedah is that ALL the Sahaba are pious and just, hence the conspiracy being hatched to remove Abu Bakr was also a just one.
Rasulullah (P.B.U.H&H.P) had told his Ummah to follow the Qur’an and Ahl’ul bayt (A.S) as two sources of guidance after him. The Ahl’ul bayt (A.S) had rejected Abu Bakr’s khilafat hence their opinion supercedes ‘Abu Bakr’s concerns.
Abu Bakr deemed every method to secure the allegiance to be lawful.
If we for arguments sake accept that Abu Bakr’s coming to power was rightful, then that automatically means those that the Sahaba and Ahl’ul bayt (A.S) opposing him were wrong. Was their mistake in relation to a worldly or religious matter? In case of religion, it is impossible for Ahle Bait to make a mistake, while Rasool Allah [saww] himself has asked the Ummah to follow the Thaqalain after him, who will always be on Haq. And if it was a political mistake, then we have to accept that since the start of new government, there were differences between the policies of government and of Ahle Bait. Now we have the orders to stick with Ahle Bait , therefore, we come to conclusion that politics was related to Ahle Bait. And their enemies were on Batil.
Even if we consider that the Khilafah of Abu Bakr was legal, still we have to see if the government tried to discuss and ask the problem from Ahle Bait before trying to burn them in their home
Second Question – Was a conspiracy being hatched against Abu Bakr?
Advocate of Umar Shibli Numani suggests that Umar’s actions were legitimate since the house of Sayyida Fatima (S.A) had become a meeting point where discussions were over how to overthrow Abu Bakr. The reality is the Banu Hashim and their supporters:
did not deem Abu Bakr to be the legitimate khalifa,
were displeased at his appointment
were angered by the way Abu Bakr came to power.
deemed this position to be someone else’s right.
If our assertion is incorrect then there is no reason why they failed to give bayya to Abu Bakr forthwith, and there certainly would not have been a reason for Abu Bakr to instruct Umar to take the necessary to steps to bring these gatherings to an end.
Not only is our assertion logical, it can also be proven from history that Banu Hashim deemed ‘Ali (A.S) to be the legitimate khalifa of Rasulullah (s). Worthy of note is the fact that voices in Saqifa itself also felt the same way. Their opposition led to them gathering in the home of Imam ‘Ali (as), in order to discuss what had transpired and what steps needed to be taken to redress the imbalance. Those involved in these discussions included prominent Sahaba such as Zubayr, all of whom had gathered to discuss their opposition to Abu Bakr’s unlawful Government, they were not prepared to accept that the destiny of the Ummah had been decided without prior consultation by the Ansar and 3 Muhajireen. The Sahaba and Ahl’ul bayt had been kept in the dark over the Saqifa meeting, individuals that had built the fabric of the Islamic State through their blood, sweat and tears.
Even leading members of the Quraysh such as Abu Sufyan felt that the discussions of a handful of individuals was a conspiracy, and hence they were voicing their objections, as Rasulullah (s) had said “Speaking the truth before an unjust ruler is the greatest jihad” The best fighting (jihad) in the path of Allah is (to speak) a word of justice to an oppressive ruler [taken from Sunan Abu Daud Book 37, Number 4330].
The Banu Hashim and their supporters held Abu Bakr’s election to be unlawful and assertion is these meetings were lawful since people were voicing their objections against an unlawfully appointed khalifa.
Third Question – Was it lawful for Abu Bakr to act in the manner that he did?
Advocates of Abu Bakr claim that Abu Bakr was perfectly within his rights as legitimate khalifa to use whatever means he had at his disposal to quell insurgency. Whilst this might give comfort to the Ahl’ul Sunnah, we should point out that this also supports the Shi’a argument, namely that:
1.There was open opposition towards the Ahl’ul bayt and the Sahaba that sided with them.
2.The planning that was taking case against Abu Bakr in the house of Sayyida Fatima is clear proof as to the illegitimacy of Abu Bakr’s khilafat.
3.Banu Hashim and Sahaba did NOT deem Abu Bakr to be the rightful khalifa of Rasulullah (s).
4.Abu Bakr’s khilafat was NOT rightful and was in fact secured via political maneuvering and treachery. This can be concluded from the words of Rasulullah (s) declared “‘Ali is with the truth and the truth is with ‘Ali”, “Ali is with the Qur’an and the Qur’an is with ‘Ali” “Whoever pains ‘Ali, pains me”, “Ali’s enemies are my enemies”. Those that opposed Imam ‘Ali (as) and sought to set his home on fire in order to secure his compliance had opposed the truth, the Qur’an and had become enemies of Rasulullah (s) in the process.
5.There is a famous hadith of Rasulullah (s) “Whoever does not recognise his Imam of the time dies the death of one belonging to the time of jahiliyya”. From the attack on the home of Sayyida Fatima (as) it is clear that Ali (as) and Abu Bakr opposed each other. By failing to recognize Abu Bakr and not just that, by convening meetings to devise a means to oppose him, were the Banu Hashim and supporters lead by ‘Ali (as) indulging in Kufr? What is Afriki’s reply here?
The harsh reality is the Ahl’ul Sunnah can offer no decent answer to this point, particularly when this destroys the romantic picture that the Sunni Ulema paint of the four rightly guided khalifa’s working closely with one another, in an atmosphere of mutual love, understanding and co-operation. If all was fine and there was a completely smooth transition of power from the Prophet (s) to Abu Bakr, wherein he gained the unconditional baking of all the Sahabi why did his henchmen conduct a raid on the home of Sayyida Fatima (as)? Clearly there was some concern for Abu Bakr, that was so serious that the home of Sayyida Fatima (as) had to be attacked. Let us not forget the previously cited testimony of Ibn Taymiyya:
“He broke into the house to see if there was some thing of Allah’s money to distribute it or give it to those who deserved it”
Minhaj al-Sunnah, Volume 8 page 291
His defence of this action, with the words ‘He broke into the house’ means that entry was gained without the consent of the homeowner, an act that is a blatant violation of the Sunnah of the Prophet (s), for we read in al-Mu’ajam al-Kabir by Tabarani, Volume 8 page 104:
Abi Umamah narrated that the Prophet (s) said: ’… whoever testifies that I am the Messenger of Allah, should never enter on a people in their home without acquiring their consent and saluting them…’
It is worthy to note that something so perturbed Abu Bakr that he was willing to violate the sanctity of the home of Fatima (as), upsetting her and violating the Sunnah of the Prophet (s) at the same time. If it was not a threat to his coming to power then what else was it?
The Ahl’ul Sunnah assert that Imam Ali (as) deemed Abu Bakr to be more superior than him, but this tragic incident destroys this notion for here we have Imam ‘Ali’s open opposition and Abu Bakr’s attempt to secure acceptance via duress.
The consequences of Umar’s actions
It is indeed unfortunate that this violent act of Umar set a precedent for future khalifa’s, namely that a khalifa should secure bayya at all costs, and by whatever means he wishes albeit through intimidation, threats and violence. If threats could be made to the daughter of Rasulullah (s) then threats could be made to anyone. This is why the Salaf Imams / Khalifas that followed deemed Umar’s actions as a model of best practice; a precedent had been set namely that it was lawful for duress to be used to secure compliance.
That is why we had the bandot (fasiq) 6th Imam of Ahl’ul Sunnah Yazeed seeking to secure the bayya of Imam Husayn (as) who could point to Umar’s actions as proof of the correctness of such an approach – namely that it was perfectly okay to terrorise Ahl’ul bayt to get your way. It is indeed tragic that the fire that Umar brought to the house of Sayyida Fatima (s) set a chilling precedent, and left a trail that lit the tents belonging to Sayyida Fatima’s daughters on the 10th of Muharram.
Hajjaj bin Yusuf adopted similar methods of intimidation to quell opponents, and indeed this ‘legitimate approach’ continues until today. (Hajjaj bin Yusuf committed purges and genocide of men just like Vlad the Impaler (Dracula) did in Europe, women and children were killed, human beings insanely tortured though this is forbidden in Islam, killing hundreds of thousands of Muslims down to babies. He is applauded by many Sunnis today as he did some work on the grammar of the Qur’an! Oh yes, that forgives all, doesn’t it! He was just a boy having a tantrum!). If today the masses complain of oppression and intimidation by their rulers they should know that their rulers’ actions are perfectly lawful since they are adhering to the Sunnah of the Shaykhain.
The Arab world has been ruled by many terrorists who they have hailed as heroes and years later they have glorified them with romantic fairytales history is, after all, written by victors, and the victors in this context were the Nasibis. You may applaud them, as some Nasibis have, but whatever you feel inside, terrorism is against the laws of Allah (sawt) and His Prophet, and the terrorist burns in Hell where Allah (sawt) will terrorise him.
Now we can see where Hajjaj, Saddam and Usama bin Ladin get their bad habits. There are some Muslims in this day and age who applaud terrorists who kill innocent women and children. There are others who don’t like to condemn them, even though deep down they know it’s wrong, simply because they get a kick out of getting their own back against their persecutors. There are others who will cover up their actions. And so it is with the Nawasib and their ugly past.
