Did the Most Pure Lady Fatima, peace be upon her, pass away a natural death?

Prejudice has always been a factor that blinds people's truth-seeing vision. How can a person become devoted to truth and reality so long as prejudice has barred the way to discovering it? Throughout the history of the prophets, one of the major difficulties faced by divine guides has consistently been the blind prejudices of communities.

Prejudice went so far that people were unwilling to abandon the worship of idols because idolatry was the religion of their forefathers. Prejudice closes the path to inquiry. A prejudiced person cannot be questioning. Such a person must always defend whatever his prejudice dictates and remain committed to it—whether he has compelling evidence for his belief or no proof or clear evidence at all. It is prejudice that determines how he thinks, how he reflects, and through what lens he views the universe. Captives of prejudice cannot see, know, or understand the world and the universe as they truly are.

This stands in contrast to those endowed with reason and reflection, who seek appropriate evidence and proof for every belief. If they find a matter manifestly true, they will uphold truth and reality to the very end. Their steadfastness arises from insight and firm faith, not from blind prejudice.

One satellite channel (1), in one of its programs, sought to criticize the Shi'a belief in the martyrdom of Fatimah al-Zahra, peace be upon her. The program's aim was to challenge «the martyrdom of Fatimah al-Zahra». Its repeatedly displayed on-screen claim was that Fatimah al-Zahra, peace be upon her died a natural death. To claim a natural death for Fatimah al-Zahra, peace be upon her is to claim that the death of that honored lady was entirely unrelated to the caliphal establishment and bore no connection to those in charge of the caliphate.

It is necessary to note that holding the caliphal establishment and its officeholders responsible for the martyrdom of al-Siddiqah al-Tahirah not only demonstrates their lack of qualification to hold the caliphate; it may also constitute compelling evidence for the illegitimacy of the caliphal system itself and of the notion that the caliph is to be chosen by election. Therefore, the martyrdom or non-martyrdom of al-Siddiqah al-Tahirah, peace be upon her becomes a criterion of truth and falsehood. Those devoted to truth and reality must, free from prejudice, examine this claim: «Martyrdom or natural death??»

Although thinking free from prejudice and seeing the truth as it is are of immense value, this writing seeks—without citing the sufferings inflicted upon al-Siddiqah al-Tahirah, peace be upon her, which led to the breaking of her breastbone, miscarriage, and so forth—to demonstrate that the death of Lady al-Siddiqah al-Tahirah was a “martyrdom,” not a natural death: a martyrdom connected to the caliphal establishment and those in charge of it. Accordingly, this writing will not address the incident of the burning of the house, the violent assault on the house of Fatimah, peace be upon her, or the beating and wounding of that noble lady. May even the minimum historical reports, considered apart from prejudice, reveal another aspect of that lady’s مظلومیت (wrongedness).

Given that the life of al-Siddiqah al-Tahirah, peace be upon her—the daughter of the Messenger of God, peace and blessings be upon him and his family—was very short (at most eighteen years), and that she departed this mortal world only a very short time after the Prophet’s passing and after the formation of the Saqifah, while no report exists of physical weakness or illness in that noble lady up to the Prophet’s death, a serious question arises in the mind of a researcher: “Could this early death be connected to the removal of political power from Banu Hashim and the transfer of sovereignty at the Saqifah of Banu Sa'idah?”

This question becomes more salient when we know that the father of this noble lady departed the world at the height of his political power. He died while dispatching an army to fight the superpower of that age—Rome. When one considers the disputes and conflicts of the final days of the Prophet’s life, the days following the martyrdom of that noble Messenger of Islam, and the contests recorded by history at the Saqifah—disputes all centered on the caliphate and succession to the Greatest Prophet—the question appears with even greater force: “Can one simply pass over the death of the family members of a leader possessing political power—especially shortly after a dispute over that leader’s succession has occurred?”

Among thinkers and people of reflection and research, an adversary’s admission against himself holds a special status. So much so that legal rules regard the confession of a rational person against himself in court as binding, and do not seek proof or evidence for the validity of that claim and acknowledgment against the one making the confession.

In pursuing this study, we must seek historical reports that recount the circumstances of the Pure and Truthful Lady, peace be upon her, during the final days of her blessed life. Finding such reports and depicting the atmosphere of the last days of that honoured Lady’s life will greatly affect the judgment of a fair-minded researcher. On the other hand, some have claimed: “The passing of Lady Fatimah, peace be upon her, had no connection whatsoever with the conduct of the caliphal establishment, and no relationship can be found between that Lady’s death and the conduct of the officials of the government of the time.”!

It is preferable to seek such historical reports in sources accepted by these claimants. In other words, Shi‘i sources should not be used to find these reports; for if the course of inquiry proceeds in light of the claimants’ own sources, there will be no room for excuse-making.

At the first stage of the inquiry, one can find in the most reliable Sunni books that she left this world in a state of intense anger and wrath toward the officials of the caliphal establishment. These reports, which indicate the eruption of that honoured Lady’s anger, peace be upon her, cannot readily be ignored or set aside.

The first point that occurs to the mind of an impartial researcher is the weakness of the claim that “her death had no connection with the officials of the caliphal establishment.” This is despite the fact that the very sources of those claimants report her intense anger at the officials of the caliphate. These reports indicate that the Pure and Truthful Lady had a serious financial dispute with the ruling establishment and that, as a result of this dispute, the ruling establishment and the officials of the caliphate incurred the anger and wrath of the Pure and Truthful Lady.

‘Urwah ibn al-Zubayr narrated from ‘A’ishah that: “ [In the matter of the financial disputes and in response to the caliph’s unjust reaction] Fatimah became angry with …; she then severed relations with him and [as a sign of turning away from and shunning Abu Bakr] did not speak to him until she passed away …” (2)

All these reports (3) indicate the presence, within Fatimah al-Zahra—peace be upon her—of an unending anger toward the caliphal establishment. Anyone who looks without prejudice and with eyes free from the lens of bias will find that:

1- Several weeks before the passing of Lady al-Zahra—peace be upon her—important disagreements arose concerning financial rights between her—peace be upon her—and the ruling system. ‘Urwah ibn al-Zubayr narrated from ‘A’ishah: “Indeed, Fatimah, the daughter of the Messenger of God, sent someone to Abu Bakr and requested from him her inheritance from the Messenger of God. This claim included: fay’, Fadak, and the remainder of the khums of Khaybar... But the Caliph refused to return to her anything from these properties.” (4)

2- These disagreements ultimately led to Lady al-Zahra’s—peace be upon her—anger and wrath toward those in charge of the government of the time. From the moment it arose until the end of her life, this anger and wrath continued unceasingly, day and night, casting its shadow over Lady al-Zahra’s life—peace be upon her—for several successive weeks. Thus, in Sahih al-Bukhari (hadith no. 6230), we read, in sequence, concerning Lady al-Zahra’s—peace be upon her—stance: First stage: “فَهَجَرَتْهُ فاطِمَةُ.” Fatimah severed relations with the Caliph. Second stage: “فَلَمْ تُکَلِّمْهُ.” Therefore, she did not speak to him. Third stage: “حَتّی تُوُفِّیَتْ.” This refusal to speak continued as long as she lived.

In this report, the phrase “فَلَمْ تُـکَلِّمْهُ” comes after the phrase “فَهَجَرَتْهُ.” In other words, “فَلَمْ تُـکَلِّمْهُ” is the result and product (5) of “فَهَجَرَتْهُ”; for this reason, the phrase “فَلَمْ تُـکَلِّمْهُ” cannot be understood to mean “silence arising from being satisfied.” (6)

3- This continuous anger and prolonged wrath were exceedingly deep and intense, to the extent that they led to “the instruction for a nighttime burial” (7).

Her anger and wrath toward the ruling establishment and those in charge of it were so intense that Lady al-Zahra—peace be upon her—instructed that she be buried at night. Her nighttime burial is compelling evidence that her martyrdom was connected to those in charge of the caliphal establishment.

If such rage and fury were to descend upon a healthy person, they could inflict irreparable effects on the body—especially when these calamities befell that Lady while she was confined to a sickbed. Hence the following question arises: “If such anger and wrath descend upon a ‘sick’ body and remain with it for many days, what will they ultimately do to that ‘patient’?”

When we turn the pages of history with greater care, we encounter unmistakable signs of the illness of Lady al-Zahra, peace be upon her (8): “When Fatimah fell ill—namely, the very illness through which she passed away—the women among the Muhajirun and the Ansar came to visit her and asked: ‘How are you bearing this illness, O daughter of the Messenger of God?’” (9) “She said: ‘By God, I have become disinclined toward your world and loathe your men.’”

Undoubtedly, Lady al-Zahra’s anger and wrath toward the ruling caliphal order could not only have prolonged this illness and delayed her recovery, but may also have been among the factors that intensified it.

Accordingly, the connection between illness and death—arising from the intensity of Lady al-Zahra’s anger toward the apparatus of the caliphate—gains strength, and the claim of a natural death unrelated to the conduct of those administering the government is refuted.

There is no doubt that this illness was sufficiently serious and significant to bring the emigrant and Anṣār women to visit Lady [Fāṭimah] (peace be upon her). It persisted until it led to her passing. Nor should it be overlooked that it was accompanied by intense anger and wrath toward the caliphal system. This anger and wrath arose from the unjust conduct of the caliphal establishment in dealing with the rights of Lady Fāṭimah al-Zahrā (peace be upon her). Ultimately, this anger and wrath—resulting from the unforgivable conduct of those administering the caliphate—had agonizing effects upon her afflicted body, preventing recovery and indeed aggravating the illness. Finally, due to the intensity of this wrath and anger, the illness culminated in her death.

It may therefore be said that this anger and wrath occurring during her illness created an inseverable connection between the conduct of those administering the caliphate and the passing of Lady al-Zahrāʾ (peace be upon her); such that it can no longer be regarded as a “natural death,” nor can its susceptibility to the actions of the caliphal administrators be denied. Rather, it must be considered a “death in مظلومانه [oppression and victimhood].”

The conduct of Lady al-Zahrāʾ (peace be upon her) in confronting the unjust behavior of those administering the caliphate—namely, the particular indignation and anger that drove her illness toward death—was pleasing to Almighty God. It suffices to turn the pages of Muslim books to encounter traditions from the Messenger of God (may God bless him and his family), all of which clearly affirm a foundational principle: “Indeed, God, Mighty and Majestic, becomes angry at Fāṭimah’s anger and is pleased at her pleasure.” That is, Almighty God is angered by Fāṭimah’s anger and pleased by her satisfaction.

That is, every anger and wrath expressed by Lady al-Zahrāʾ (peace be upon her) is a God-pleasing act and a response approved by God, far removed from any personal inclinations or worldly motives.(10) Therefore, based on this foundational principle, it must be said that Lady al-Zahrāʾ (peace be upon her), undoubtedly, embraced death in the path of God’s pleasure by enduring the injuries resulting from this God-pleasing response.

If a sick person who needs rest in order to recover becomes so “rightfully” angry with certain people “in the path of God’s pleasure” that his illness worsens and leads to his death, why can his death not be called “martyrdom”? If you hear that someone, “in the path of God’s pleasure,” undertook a “God-pleasing” act and persevered so steadfastly in bringing it about that he lost his life, would you not describe his death as “martyrdom”?

To answer these questions affirmatively and with certainty, follow this report so that an interesting point may become clear:

Zaynab—the wife of Abu al-‘As ibn Rabi‘—set out from Mecca for the city of Medina (= migration) after the Battle of Badr (that is, in the second year after the Hijrah). Habbār ibn al-Aswad—one of the Quraysh disbelievers—frightened her during this migration by attacking Zaynab’s howdah. [According to historical reports,] Zaynab miscarried her child as a result of falling (or of fright). After this incident, she lived in Medina for years, until she finally died in the eighth year after the Hijrah—while traces of the illness resulting from her miscarriage were still evident.

Ibn Kathir al-Dimashqi—the renowned Sunni historian—reports that the Companions, ]relying solely on the fact that Zaynab had contracted a particular illness six years earlier, on the route of the “migration” (which is a God-pleasing act undertaken in the path of God’s pleasure), and that its effects continued until the end of her life[, believed regarding Zaynab’s death that: “ماتَتْ شَهِيدَه.” (11)

Indeed, if Zaynab’s death can be linked, through her illness, to her migration six years earlier and thus regarded as “martyrdom,” then, undoubtedly, according to the logic of the Companions, the passing of Lady Fatimah, peace be upon her—whose complete connection to her God-pleasing reaction toward the rulers of her time was evident—may likewise be called “martyrdom.” (12) Therefore, according to the logic of the Companions (all of whom, in the view of those who claim a natural death, are just), the death of Lady Fatimah, peace be upon her, was martyrdom, and not a natural death, solely on the basis of the illness intensified by her anger and wrath toward those in charge of the caliphate. This is without even considering the cause of the illness: an illness brought about by the crime committed behind the door of her house by the apparatus of the caliphate.

Excerpted from: Arghavān, by Ali Labāf

1. Beginning on 1/4/1387, the satellite channel «Al-Mustaqillah» broadcast a live program aimed at critiquing and examining “the martyrdom of Lady Fatimah, peace be upon her.”)

2. Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, hadith no. 3913; [similar report:] Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, hadith no. 3304.

3. Also, Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, hadith no. 2862; [similar report:] Musnad Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, hadith no. 25. Also, Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, hadith no. 6230; [similar report:] Tārīkh al-Madīnah (authored by Ibn Shubbah), vol. 1, p. 197.

4. Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, hadith no. 3913.

5. The meaning of the “faʾ of consequence” in Arabic literature.

6. Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī explicitly affirms this very point in Fatḥ al-Bārī, vol. 6, p. 139.

7. Some chains of transmission for “the instruction to be buried at night” may be found in the following sources:
al-Muṣannaf (authored by ʿAbd al-Razzāq al-Ṣanʿānī, died 211), vol. 3, p. 521; Taʾwīl Mukhtalif al-Ḥadīth (authored by Ibn Qutaybah, died 276), p. 300; Ansāb al-Ashrāf (authored by al-Balādhurī, died 279), vol. 2, p. 34; and al-Istīʿāb (authored by Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, died 463), vol. 4, p. 1898.

8. Although some Sunni sources have also mentioned a visit by the two Shaykhs ]see: al-Imāmah wa al-Siyāsah (authored by Ibn Qutaybah), vol. 1, pp. 12–13[.

9. Balāghāt al-Nisāʾ (authored by Ibn Ṭayfūr), p. 32 (edition: Dār al-Nahḍah al-Ḥadīthah, Beirut).

10. This fundamental principle enjoys “semantic tawātur,” for when one turns the pages of reliable Sunni sources, one encounters numerous hadiths from the Messenger of God, may God bless him and his family, all of which recall this same meaning. Among the prominent Sunni scholars who transmitted or recorded such hadiths are:
— Ibn al-Muthannā al-Baṣrī (died 252); see: Dhakhāʾir al-ʿUqbā, pp. 82–83.
— Abū Bakr ibn Abī ʿĀṣim (died 287); see: al-Iṣābah, vol. 8, p. 57; Sharḥ al-Mawāhib, vol. 4, p. 330.
— Abū Yaʿlā al-Mawṣilī (died 307); see: Kanz al-ʿUmmāl, vol. 12, p. 111, hadith 34238; Musnad Abī Yaʿlā, vol. 1, p. 190.
— Abū al-Qāsim al-Ṭabarānī (died 360); see: al-Muʿjam al-Kabīr, vol. 1, p. 108, hadith 182; vol. 22, p. 401, hadith 1001.
— al-Ḥākim al-Nayshāpūrī (died 405); see: al-Mustadrak ʿalā al-Ṣaḥīḥayn, vol. 3, p. 167, hadith 4730. [Given that al-Ḥākim al-Nayshāpūrī included in his book sound hadiths according to the criteria of al-Bukhārī and Muslim, it must be said that the above hadith is authentic according to the standards of Bukhārī and Muslim and is accepted by both of them.]

11. al-Bidāyah wa al-Nihāyah (authored by Ibn Kathīr), vol. 5, p. 308 (edition: Maktabat al-Naṣr, Riyadh, 1966), and vol. 5, p. 216 (edition: Muʾassasat al-Tārīkh al-ʿArabī, Beirut).

12. “The martyr in the Sharīʿah is one who is killed in the path of God.” Al-Zabīdī al-Ḥanafī (died 1205), Tāj al-ʿArūs fī Sharḥ al-Qāmūs, vol. 2, p. 391.