Did Fatimah (peace be upon her) die from the grief of the Messenger of God’s passing, or from the injuries inflicted by her enemies?
Author: Hamed Sarem
A Reasoned Examination of Two Claims Regarding the Passing of the Most Truthful and Pure Lady (peace be upon her): “Death from Grief” or “Martyrdom as a Result of the Assault” — Citing Qur’anic Verses, Reliable Narrations, and Historical Texts
For years, they have sought to reduce the martyrdom of Fatimah al-Zahra (peace be upon her) to “death from grief”; yet Shi‘i and Sunni sources speak of the miscarriage of Muhsin, beating and injury, and a broken rib. If the word “passing” (wafāt) proves the absence of martyrdom, then why has this same word also been used for Hamzah, Ja‘far al-Tayyar, and Imam Husayn (peace be upon him)? The central question is this: Did Fatimah (peace be upon her) die in sorrow over her father’s separation, or beneath the blows of the assailants? The answer to this question is not merely a historical matter; rather, it marks the boundary between the truth of Ghadir and the distortion of Saqifah. Whoever evades confronting it unwittingly stands among those who deny wilayah.
Abstract
The discussion concerning the manner of the passing of Lady Fatimah al-Zahra (peace be upon her) is not merely a historical issue; rather, it is a pivotal point in understanding the truth of Ghadir and the identity of Shi‘ism. Throughout history, two principal narratives have emerged concerning the cause of her death: one narrative holds that her martyrdom resulted from the beating and injuries inflicted after the assault on the house of Fatimah (peace be upon her), while the other presents the cause of death solely as grief and sorrow arising from the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) passing. Through a critical analysis of reliable Shi‘i and Sunni sources, this study demonstrates that the use of the term “passing” (wafāt) cannot serve as evidence for denying martyrdom, because in the Qur’an and narrational texts this term is used generally for every kind of death—including martyrdom. Moreover, numerous historical reports concerning a broken rib, miscarriage, and the bodily injuries suffered by Lady al-Zahra (peace be upon her) constitute clear testimony to the martyric nature of her passing. Citing “death from grief” while disregarding this evidence is a form of distortionary reductionism that ultimately weakens the message of Ghadir and exonerates the events of Saqifah. Employing an argumentative and evidentiary method, this article shows that denying the martyrdom of Lady al-Zahra (peace be upon her) is not a simple historical error, but a denial of a foundational part of the creedal identity of authentic Islam.
Keywords
The martyrdom of Lady Fatima (PBUH), Saqifa, Ghadir, assault and injury, the miscarriage of Muhsin (PBUH), the attack on Fatima’s household, demise or martyrdom, distortion of Islamic history, argumentation, Shi‘i and Sunni sources, infallibility, wilayah, early Islamic history, Fatimid literature.
Introduction
The question of the manner of Lady Fatima al-Zahra’s (PBUH) passing is not merely a historical issue confined to a particular period; rather, it is one of the most fundamental points of contention in Islamic history, directly connected to the question of wilayah, Ghadir, political legitimacy after the Prophet (PBUH), and the formation of Shi‘i identity. The difference between the two principal narratives—“martyrdom as a result of assault and injuries following the attack on Fatima’s household (PBUH)” versus “passing away due to grief over the Prophet’s (PBUH) loss”—is not a minor disagreement, but a dispute over the truth of history and the authenticity of religious authority.
Throughout history, some groups, by emphasizing the term “demise” and attributing her passing to “grief and sorrow,” have sought to diminish the truth of Fatima al-Zahra’s (PBUH) martyrdom and distance themselves from the political, doctrinal, and divine message of this event. Yet numerous Shi‘i and Sunni sources explicitly identify the blow to her side, the breaking of her rib, the miscarriage of Muhsin (PBUH), and bodily injuries as the principal cause of that Lady’s passing. The central question of this study is: Are the available historical evidences more consistent with the narrative of “death from grief” or with “martyrdom as a result of injuries”?
The importance of addressing this subject lies in the fact that one’s understanding of the manner of Lady Fatima’s (PBUH) passing directly affects our understanding of Ghadir, the legitimacy of the caliphate, and the position of Imam Ali (PBUH). Denial of that Lady’s martyrdom effectively entails denial of the injustice perpetrated after the Prophet (PBUH), and consequently weakens the very principle of Imamate and wilayah. Therefore, revisiting this issue is not merely a historical discussion, but a scholarly and argumentative defense of the truth of Islam founded upon wilayah.
The method of the present study is a comparative analysis of authoritative Shi‘i and Sunni sources, an applied semantic assessment of terms such as “demise” and “martyrdom,” and a documentary examination of direct reports concerning Lady Fatima al-Zahra’s (PBUH) bodily injuries. In light of this examination, it will become clear that reducing her passing to “natural death” or “death from sorrow”—despite its ostensibly scholarly appearance—is nothing but the reproduction of a distorted reading of early Islamic history.
This article seeks, through a reasoned and documented approach, to offer a scholarly critique of the aforementioned doubts, clarify the historical truth of the martyrdom of Lady Fatimah (PBUH) on the basis of reliable sources, and demonstrate that the dispute over “natural death or martyrdom” is a dispute over the very essence of Islam; just as denying the martyrdom of that noble Lady ultimately amounts to denying Ghadir and denying Islam in its entirety.
Examining the “Primary Cause” of the Martyrdom of Lady Fatimah (PBUH)
In view of the abundant evidence concerning the martyrdom of that greatest oppressed figure in history, Lady Fatimah al-Zahra (PBUH), found in Shi‘i and Sunni sources, restricting the cause of her death merely to the spiritual pain resulting from the passing of the Messenger of God (PBUH) is not only an incomplete analysis, but also a dangerous distortion of a great historical truth. The central question of this study is: Did Lady al-Zahra (PBUH) pass away merely from the grief of separation from the Messenger of God (PBUH), or was the severity of the injuries inflicted upon her body the primary cause of her martyrdom?
In this article, after explaining the existential rank of Lady al-Zahra (PBUH) and demonstrating the sensitivity of the issue of her martyrdom, two principal doubts concerning her “death” or “martyrdom” are examined: 1. the doubt arising from the use of the term “death” (wafāt) rather than “martyrdom” in certain sources; 2. the doubt that restricts the cause of the Lady’s passing to sorrow and grief over the death of the Prophet (PBUH).
By citing Qur’anic verses, reliable narrations, and numerous historical reports, the author demonstrates, first, that the term “death” (wafāt) in the Qur’an and hadith texts encompasses both natural death and martyrdom; and second, that according to multiple pieces of evidence, the beatings and injuries resulting from the assault on the house of Fatimah (PBUH) were the primary cause of that Lady’s martyrdom, rather than merely the grief of separation from the Messenger of God (PBUH).
1. The Existential Rank of Lady al-Zahra (PBUH) and the Importance of the Question of Her Martyrdom
Lady Fatimah al-Zahra (peace be upon her), as explicitly stated in sound traditions, is the foremost of the women of the worlds (1) and possesses the rank of infallibility; the noble verse of purification—“Indeed, Allah only desires to remove all impurity from you, O People of the House, and to purify you completely”—was revealed concerning her and the other members of the Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them). The reverence and greatness of this Lady are not due solely to her genealogical relation to the Noble Prophet of Islam (peace be upon him and his family). Although that relation is itself an immense honor, the numerous traditions transmitted concerning Lady al-Zahra (peace be upon her) render her position within the Muslim community far more sensitive and decisive: she is a divine criterion for truth and falsehood.
The Noble Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) says concerning this honored Lady: “Indeed, Allah is pleased with her pleasure and angered by her anger” (2). In another tradition, he says: “Fatimah is a part of me; whoever harms her has indeed harmed me…” (3)
If, on the basis of these traditions, Fatimah’s pleasure is Allah’s pleasure and her anger is Allah’s anger, then this fundamental and unsettling question logically arises:
If Fatimah’s anger (peace be upon her) is the very wrath of God, at what degree of divine wrath will the killers of Lady Fatimah al-Zahra (peace be upon her) stand?
On the other hand, since harming Fatimah al-Zahra (peace be upon her), as the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) explicitly states, is harming the Messenger of God himself, and since her anger is divine anger, the standing of those who played a role in harming, striking, and wounding her must be assessed in light of the explicit Qur’anic verse in which God says: “Indeed, those who abuse Allah and His Messenger—Allah has cursed them in this world and the Hereafter, and has prepared for them a humiliating punishment” (4).
Therefore, the question of Lady al-Zahra’s martyrdom (peace be upon her) is not merely a simple historical matter; rather, it is an important criterion by which to assess a person’s stance toward God and His Messenger. This is why the martyrdom of Fatimah al-Zahra (peace be upon her) assumes particular importance in Islamic history. Naturally, those for whom her martyrdom exposes the invalidity of their foundations and ideas have, throughout history, sought to deny or diminish this truth.
2. The Nature of Doubts and the Tactics of Denying the Martyrdom
By raising various doubts, some seek to erase this great truth from the minds and consciences of Muslims. Clearly, in order to call into question a belief with which Shiʿa Muslims have lived for centuries and upon which they have shaped their identity, one cannot proceed with a superficial and direct doubt. Hence, such doubts are designed and advanced in a subtle and complex manner.
The author rightly emphasizes that:
“The more subtly doubts are expressed, the more deceptive and dangerous they become.”
Such doubts are both more difficult to detect and extract, and more difficult for the general public to answer. The most complex doubts are those presented in the guise of scholarly inquiry and research, whose designers speak from the position of a “curious seeker,” as though they were searching for the truth, while at a deeper level they have made truth itself their target.
This type of doubt has rightly been described as follows: “Such doubts never directly deny a historical reality; rather, the principal tactic in their construction is to plunge the reader into doubt and astonishment. What arises after reading such doubts is a wave of hesitation, ambiguity, and surprise that ultimately leads the reader, unconsciously, toward denial—a denial that wounds the soul and may perhaps never be uttered aloud.” (5)
In what follows, by way of example, one of these doubts—raised in issue no. 668 of the newspaper «Aftab» concerning the cause of the death of Lady Fatimah (a)—is quoted and critically examined.
3. Statement of the Doubt: «Demise» versus «Martyrdom» and «Death from Grief»
In addressing the cause of Lady Fatimah’s (a) death, that article makes the following claim:
Regarding the demise of Lady Fatimah (a), the term «wafāt» (demise) has been used in early and later sources, including Manāqib of Ibn Shahrāshūb, Rawḍat al-Wāʿiẓīn of Ibn Fattāl Nayshābūrī, Muntahā al-Āmāl of Shaykh ʿAbbās Qummī, Aʿyān al-Shīʿah of Sayyid Muḥsin Amīn al-ʿĀmilī, and many other sources. According to what is reported in these sources, after the passing of the Messenger of God (s), Lady Fatimah (a) became so grief-stricken that she wept day and night; she became intensely heartbroken, thin, and frail, and after a time passed away as a result of illness. In some books, the distress caused by disputes and conflicts following the death of the Messenger of God (s) has likewise been considered an additional contributing factor. It is then concluded that not everything recounted today concerning her martyrdom can be deemed mutawātir (mass-transmitted) and consensually agreed upon; finally, it is said: the martyrdom or demise of Lady Fatimah (a) is a historical matter, and the leading Shiʿi figures who recorded her passing as «wafāt» were not Sunnis.
In this article, the term «wafāt» as applied to Lady Fatimah (a) is presumed to be synonymous with «the absence of martyrdom», and the author seeks to suggest that wherever this term is used, it denotes a natural, non-martyred death. Moreover, the cause of her passing is confined to the grief arising from the loss of the Messenger of God (s) and the intense sorrow caused by his death; by exaggerating this sorrow, «grief and anguish alone» are presented as the cause of Fatimah’s (a) passing. The present text briefly, yet argumentatively, examines the two principal doubts advanced in this article:
- 1. The doubt concerning the use of «wafāt» in place of «martyrdom»; 2. The doubt concerning the exclusive attribution of the cause of her passing to spiritual suffering and grief over the loss of the Prophet (s).
4. First Objection: The Use of the Term “Death” (wafāt) Instead of “Martyrdom”
With a little reflection on the word “wafāt” (death), and careful attention to its Qur’anic usage, the fallacy employed in this objection becomes clear. In the Qur’an, the word “wafāt” is used for death in its general sense: “Allah takes the souls at the time of their death” (6).
Given that the Qur’anic use of the word “wafāt” encompasses both natural death and martyrdom, it becomes clear that there is no contradiction whatsoever between the martyrdom of Lady Fatimah (peace be upon her) and the use of the word “wafāt” concerning her. This is because “wafāt” includes every kind of death and does not negate martyrdom.
The use of this word in the works of leading Shi‘i scholars, both early and later, likewise carries this general meaning. The Shi‘i scholars never intended, by using the word “wafāt,” to deny the martyrdom of the Greatest Truthful Lady (al-Ṣiddīqah al-Kubrā) (peace be upon her). This is particularly evident from the fact that the word “wafāt” has also been used for persons whose martyrdom in battle, or through assassination or poisoning, is established and certain.
For example:
- Shaykh al-Ṣadūq (d. 381 AH) (7) narrates a report concerning Ja‘far al-Ṭayyār and Zayd ibn Ḥārithah with the following meaning: “Indeed, when news of the death of Ja‘far ibn Abī Ṭālib and Zayd ibn Ḥārithah reached the Prophet (PBUH), whenever he entered his home, his weeping for the two of them would intensify greatly...” (8). That is, when news of the “death” of Ja‘far ibn Abī Ṭālib (al-Ṭayyār) and Zayd ibn Ḥārithah reached the Messenger of Allah (PBUH), his grief and weeping for them would become more intense whenever he entered his home. It is clear that Ja‘far al-Ṭayyār and Zayd ibn Ḥārithah were martyred on the battlefield. Ibn Shahrāshūb (d. 588 AH), concerning the date of Imam al-Sajjād’s birth (peace be upon him), reports: “Two years before the death of the Commander of the Faithful...” (9), whereas the death of the Commander of the Faithful (peace be upon him) is, in the historical record, certainly accompanied by martyrdom. Al-Ṭabrisī (d. 6th century AH), referring to the conduct of Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥanafiyyah after the martyrdom of Imam al-Ḥusayn (peace be upon him), writes: “After the death of his brother al-Ḥusayn, may Allah’s blessings be upon him...” (10), even though the martyrdom of Imam al-Ḥusayn (peace be upon him) is among the most indisputable events in Islamic history.
In Sunni sources as well, the term “death” (wafāt) has been used for two great martyrs of early Islam: Hamza (11) and Ja‘far al-Tayyār (12). Does the mere use of the word “death” concerning Imam Husayn (a) and the Commander of the Faithful (a) permit us to claim that these two great Imams were not martyred and passed away naturally? If this logic is accepted, then in the event of Ashura too, one would have to doubt the very fact of martyrdom merely because the word “death” was used! This itself demonstrates the invalidity of that writer’s basis of argument.
Although Shaykh Abbas al-Qummi uses the term “death” (wafāt) for the Greatest Truthful Lady (a) in Muntahā al-Āmāl, in another of his books, Bayt al-Ahzān, he employs an explicit description concerning that same Lady: “the martyred, oppressed, subjugated one …” (13). Therefore, even those who have used the term “death” have never denied her martyrdom.
There are many examples and pieces of evidence exposing this fallacy; however, for the sake of brevity, this much suffices. The conclusion of this section is that the use of the term “death” (wafāt), neither in the Qur’an nor in hadith, historical texts, means a negation of martyrdom; and invoking this word to deny the martyrdom of Lady Fatima (a) is a clear lexical fallacy.
5. Second Doubt: Restricting the Cause of Her Passing to Spiritual Pain Resulting from the Prophet’s Death (s)
The second doubt raised in that writing is that the principal cause of Lady Fatima’s (a) death was solely the grief arising from the loss of the Messenger of God (s) and her intense sorrow after his passing, and that claims concerning beating, injury, and the attack on Fatima’s house (a) are either baseless or, at the very least, neither mutawātir nor consensually established.
In response, it must be said that no one denies the profound grief and sorrow of the Greatest Truthful Lady (a) over the death of her noble father. Undoubtedly, that sorrow was deeply rooted and profound within her soul. But the point at issue is the excessive magnification of this grief in such a way that “grief and sorrow” alone are regarded as the exclusive cause of that great Lady’s martyrdom, while the role of other factors—especially the beatings and injuries after Saqifa—is ignored.
While acknowledging the profound impact of al-Ṣiddīqah al-Ṭāhirah’s (peace be upon her) unending grief over the loss of the Messenger of God (peace be upon him), historical evidence requires emphasis on the role of several other highly significant factors in the passing of Lady Fāṭimah (peace be upon her). It should be noted that the pages of history contain no indication of Lady Fāṭimah’s (peace be upon her) physical weakness prior to the events of the eleventh year AH (14). Contrary to what some have assumed (15), historical texts attest to Lady Fāṭimah al-Zahrā’s (peace be upon her) physical strength (16), although it has been stated: “Fāṭimah was physically small and slender...” (17). Therefore, portraying a woman who was inherently weak and frail, and who would collapse under the slightest grief, is not an accurate depiction of historical reality.
6. Sources Explicitly Affirming the Martyrdom of Lady Fāṭimah al-Zahrā (peace be upon her)
After examining the two aforementioned doubts, the text turns to several sources that explicitly affirm the martyrdom of Lady Fāṭimah (peace be upon her) and show that the beating and bodily injuries resulting from the assault on her home were the direct prelude to her passing.
Qāḍī al-Nuʿmān al-Maghribī (d. 363 AH) reports, on the authority of Imam Jaʿfar ibn Muḥammad al-Ṣādiq (peace be upon him) from his father, that the Messenger of God (peace be upon him) confidentially told Fāṭimah (peace be upon her) that she would be the first of his household to join him (18). After the Messenger of God (peace be upon him) passed away and this lady suffered injuries at the hands of the community, she took to her bed; her body grew weak, her flesh wasted away, and she became like a shadow: «وَ نَحَلَ جِسْمُها وَ ذابَ لَحْمُها وَ صارَتْ کَالْخَیالِ.» (19) Shaykh al-Ṭūsī (d. 460 AH) explicitly states: “... and the well-known matter, concerning which there is no disagreement among the Shiʿa, is that ʿUmar struck the lady’s abdomen so severely that she miscarried...” (20). ʿAllāmah al-Ḥillī (d. 726 AH) writes: «وَ ضُرِبَتْ فاطِمَةُ علیهاالسّلام فَأَلْقَتْ جَنیناً اُسْمُهُ مُحْسِنٌ...» (21), meaning that Fāṭimah (peace be upon her) was beaten and, as a result, miscarried a fetus named Muḥsin.
These explicit statements show that bodily assault and injury are a serious reality in the account of Lady Fāṭimah’s (peace be upon her) passing, rather than a marginal matter or something merely added by later writers.
7. Explaining the “Primary Cause” of Lady Fāṭimah’s (peace be upon her) Passing
Based on the body of cited evidence, it may be concluded that Lady Fatimah (peace be upon her), in defending Amir al-Mu'minin Ali (peace be upon him), endured profound spiritual suffering and, especially, severe physical injuries. The principal cause of her passing was the beating and injuries inflicted during the assault by the caliph's supporters upon “the House of Fatimah (peace be upon her),” rather than merely the grief of separation from the Prophet (peace be upon him).
Imami al-Tabari (d. 5th century AH) narrates from Abu Basir, from Imam al-Sadiq (peace be upon him): “The reason for the death of that Lady was that Qunfudh—the servant of Umar—at his command struck her severely with the sword’s metal shoe (the piece of iron placed at the end of a sword sheath), causing her to miscarry Muhsin; from that point, she became gravely ill...” (22)
Al-Kaf'ami (d. 905 AH) writes: “Indeed, the cause of that Lady’s death was that she was struck, beaten, and miscarried her child.” (23)
Al-Tabrisi (d. 6th century AH) reports: “Fatimah (peace be upon her) stood at the doorway, placing herself between her husband and them (the attackers). Qunfudh struck that Lady’s arm with a whip, leaving a mark on it like an armband. Abu Bakr sent word to Qunfudh: ‘Strike her!’ They then threw that Lady into part of her house; a rib bone in her side was broken, and she miscarried the fetus from her womb. Thereafter, she remained bedridden until she died a martyr as a result of those very injuries...” (24)
Taken together, these testimonies present a clear picture of the “principal cause” of that oppressed Lady’s passing: martyrdom resulting from beating, injury, and miscarriage during the assault on the House of Revelation.
8. Conclusion: Denial of Martyrdom, Distortion of Ghadir, and Islam
In view of the reliable evidence and numerous documents concerning the martyrdom of that greatest oppressed figure in history, restricting the cause of the death of Lady Fatimah (PBUH) to the spiritual suffering and pain arising from the passing of the Messenger of God (PBUH) constitutes a great injustice and an unforgivable sin against that noble lady. Such reductionism is another form of distorting history and reversing the places of executioner and martyr.
It is no exaggeration to say that denying this heartrending martyrdom is itself a great injustice toward that oppressed lady. Denial of the martyrdom of Lady Fatimah (PBUH) is akin to denying Ghadir, and denying Ghadir means denying Islam in its entirety; for Ghadir was the day on which religion was perfected and the blessing completed. Lady Fatimah (PBUH) was the one who confronted the ruling establishment to safeguard the message of Ghadir, not for personal interests. The concern of that noble lady was the trampling of Ghadir’s message—a Ghadir without which God’s mission on earth could not be brought to completion.
In other words, denying the martyrdom of that oppressed lady is a denial of Ghadir; and denying Ghadir is a denial of the reality of wilayah and the essence of Islam. Undoubtedly, the lonely martyrdom of the Mistress of the Women of the Worlds is one of the principal reasons why the voice of the Messenger of God (PBUH) still echoes in the ears of history today: «مَنْ کُنتُ مَولاهُ فَهذا علیٌّ مَولاه.»
This truth is not merely a historical issue; it is also a criterion for a person’s faith-based stance toward wilayah and divine guidance.
Final Remarks:
An examination of the historical, hadith-based, and analytical evidence in this study showed that reducing the passing of Lady Fatimah al-Zahra (PBUH) to “death caused by grief over the loss of the Prophet (PBUH)” is a reductionist and inaccurate interpretation, inconsistent not only with reliable Shi‘i sources but also with numerous Sunni reports. A precise analysis of the word “وفات” in religious texts made clear that this term in the Qur’an and hadith encompasses both natural death and martyrdom and is never incompatible with martyrdom; indeed, the term “وفات” has also been used for many undisputed martyrs in Islamic history.
By contrast, a body of reliable narrations, early historical reports, and explicit statements by eminent scholars clearly affirms that Lady Fatimah (peace be upon her), during the attack on her home and in defense of the wilayah, suffered severe assault and injury, lost her unborn child, and was martyred as a result of those very wounds. Denial of this historical truth is neither a methodological error nor an academic difference of opinion; rather, it is a deliberate distortion of early Islamic history, whose direct consequence is the exoneration of those responsible for the attack on the House of Revelation and the erasure of oppression from the scene after the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family).
The conclusion of the present study is that the principal cause of Lady Fatimah’s (peace be upon her) passing was the bodily injuries resulting from the attack and assault, not merely the spiritual pain caused by grief over the loss of the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family). This conclusion does not merely describe a historical event; it marks a doctrinal and civilizational boundary between two readings of Islam: an Islam that culminated in wilayah at Ghadir, and an Islam that, through Saqifah, separated its path from the path of guidance.
Accordingly, the question of Lady Fatimah’s martyrdom is a criterion for discerning truth from falsehood in Islamic history; just as denying it is a prelude to denying Ghadir, the Imamate, and ultimately the reality of Islam founded upon wilayah. Defending the martyrdom of that oppressed Lady is not merely the defense of a historical event; it is the defense of justice, prophethood, wilayah, and the essential core of religion—a religion that clearly proclaims:
“Whoever harms Fatimah has harmed me, and whoever harms me has harmed God.”
And today, after fourteen centuries, this question still remains:
If Fatimah’s wrath is God’s wrath, then in what position do Fatimah’s killers stand?
Footnotes:
- Al-Kafi, vol. 1, p. 458. Bihar al-Anwar, vol. 27, p. 62. Ibid. Al-Ahzab, 57. Be Rang-e Khun [The Color of Blood], Ali Labaf. Al-Zumar, 42. Died 381 AH. Man La Yahduruhu al-Faqih, hadith 527. Died 588 AH, Manaqib Al Abi Talib, vol. 4, p. 175, Allameh Publications Institute, Qom. Al-Ihtijaj, vol. 2, p. 273. Asimi al-Shafi‘i, d. 1111 AH, Simt al-Nujum al-‘Awali, vol. 1, p. 426, Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah. Ibn Abi Shaybah, d. 235 AH, Al-Musannaf, vol. 3, p. 62 and vol. 7, p. 414, Maktabat al-Rushd. Bayt al-Ahzan, p. 3. Abbas Mahmud al-Aqqad, Fatimah al-Zahra’ wa al-Fatimiyyun, second edition, p. 68. Dr. Ali Shariati, Fatimah Is Fatimah, p. 117; “Fatimah was essentially of a frail constitution.” Sayyid Muhsin al-Amin, A‘yan al-Shi‘ah, vol. 1, p. 307, quoted from Mustadrak al-Hakim al-Nishapuri. Ayyub Ganji, Fatimah Zahra Defends Herself, p. 36. Note: Some writers, relying on “deterministic fatalism” in Sunni thought, have regarded the cause of Lady Zahra’s (PBUH) early death solely as the “fulfillment of the Prophet’s prediction”; the motive for recording such narrations by supporters of the school of the caliphs (including Aisha) should be sought in this very point. Da‘a’im al-Islam, vol. 1, p. 232. Talkhis al-Shafi, vol. 3, p. 156. Sharh al-Tajrid, p. 376. Dala’il al-Imamah, p. 45; new edition: p. 134. Misbah, p. 522. Al-Ihtijaj, vol. 1, p. 83.
Author: Hamed Sarem
Related articles
Comments
No comments yet.