Was Fatima’s House Not a House of Revelation?

The Prophet’s fragrant flower, the Greatest Truthful Lady, Fatimah al-Kubra (PBUH), possesses lofty ranks and virtues in many respects. She was present, in her luminous creation, alongside the first creature of the universe, Muhammad (PBUH), and Ali (PBUH). Her rank was so exalted that Adam saw her name upon the leg of the Throne and implored God by her, her father, her husband, and her children, until his repentance was accepted. She was among those divine words concerning which: «فتلقی آدم من ربه بکلمات فتاب علیه...» Adam uttered: «... اللهم بحق فاطمه و انت فاطر السماوات و الارض...» The Prophet’s fragrant flower (PBUH) is also that niche through which God’s light is likened in heaven and earth: «... مثل نوره کمشکوه ...»

The truth is that one cannot suffice, in describing her station, with saying, “Fatimah is Fatimah,” for Fatimah is not merely Fatimah. She is Mansurah and al-Zahra’; she is the one who received the title “al-Batul” and became known, through the Prophet’s words, as Umm Abiha. Lady al-Zahra’ (PBUH) is the mistress of the women of the two worlds. She is the one concerning whom it is said: «فطم شیعتنا عن معرفتها». And who can know Fatimah al-Zahra’ (PBUH)? Whoever knows her has perceived Laylat al-Qadr: «و ما ادریک ما لیله القدر»—what can make you know what Laylat al-Qadr is?

The luminous being of Fatimah al-Zahra’ (PBUH) is a part of the light of the Noble Prophet (PBUH), for: «فاطمه بضعه منی و من اذاها فقد اذانی»—whoever harms her has harmed the Prophet. Therefore, whoever harms her falls under the noble verse: «إِنَّ الَّذینَ یُؤْذُونَ اللَّهَ وَ رَسُولَهُ لَعَنَهُمُ اللَّهُ فِی الدُّنْیا وَ الْآخِرَةِ وَ أَعَدَّ لَهُمْ عَذاباً مُهیناً» (al-Ahzab 57).

Anything that constitutes injury or harm to Lady Fatimah al-Zahra’ (PBUH) renders its perpetrator, by the judgment of this noble verse, one who harms—and is cursed by—God and His Messenger. Among the forms of injury and harm mentioned by God in the Qur’an are several verses, including: «یا أَیُّهَا الَّذینَ آمَنُوا لا تَرْفَعُوا أَصْواتَکُمْ فَوْقَ صَوْتِ النَّبِیِّ وَ لا تَجْهَرُوا لَهُ بِالْقَوْلِ کَجَهْرِ بَعْضِکُمْ لِبَعْضٍ أَنْ تَحْبَطَ أَعْمالُکُمْ وَ أَنْتُمْ لا تَشْعُرُونَ» (al-Hujurat 2). God also commanded concerning the Prophet: «یا أَیُّهَا الَّذینَ آمَنُوا لا تَدْخُلُوا بُیُوتَ النَّبِیِّ إِلاَّ أَنْ یُؤْذَنَ لَکُم... » (al-Ahzab 3). Raising one’s voice above the Prophet’s voice causes all deeds to be nullified and destroyed, and entering the Prophet’s houses is not permitted except with his authorization, and so forth....

All these points also apply to the Greatest Truthful Lady, peace be upon her. If raising one’s voice causes deeds to be rendered void, and entering her house without her permission constitutes harm and injury to the Prophet, then what of the one who gathers firewood at the door of her house, brings fire, and—together with a group of hirelings—threatens to burn the house of Lady Zahra (peace be upon her)? Has anyone who sets fire to the door of the house of revelation ever believed in revelation? Or does he hold even the slightest respect or regard for the Prophet? Rather, the point is that his very being is filled with hatred and rancor toward the Prophet.

Making a decision where one does not recognize the truth is exceedingly difficult, indeed impossible. Satan is ever intent on concealing the truth in order to lead humankind astray. His greatest stratagem is to make falsehood appear as truth; and whoever shows falsehood to people has, in reality, given them the blessing of guidance to drink, sip by sip. The Pure and Truthful Lady (peace be upon her), by drinking the most severe afflictions and hardships sip by sip, gave humanity guidance sip by sip, so that on the Day of Resurrection no one may have an argument against God.

Yes, through her protest and the loud cry she raised because of the deviation of the community, Fatimah illuminated the path of guidance. Yes, she stripped from him the cloak of truth that the Iblis of her age had donned for deception, so that all might recognize Iblis for what he truly was. So that all might understand that this person, who hypocritically speaks of the welfare and rectitude of the Prophet’s community, never believed in prophethood; for if he had believed, why would he have threatened to burn the house of revelation?

Those who, having understood these points well, nevertheless took the wrong path and placed their pens at the service of the front of hypocrisy cannot convey the events and sufferings of Fatimah transparently to present and future generations. Accordingly, relying on the dogmatic beliefs of certain Islamic schools, they have recorded only those incidents that would not direct the reader’s accusing finger toward the caliphal system, nor incline the reader toward belief in the righteousness of the actions of Amir al-Mu’minin (ع) and Fatimah al-Zahra (س).

Along this path, we encounter either the omission of many Fatimah-related events and sufferings, such as the incidents concerning the beating and injury of Lady al-Zahra (ع), or a particular form of distortion. In some incidents, the accounts of biased historians are far less extensive and significant than the events that occurred in history and reality; for example, the incident of setting Fatimah’s house (س) on fire has been reported in a diminished form—namely, as a threat to burn it.

Although they resorted to concealment and distortion in order to wash away a stain of disgrace from the usurpers’ mantle, even the small amount they have transmitted establishes proof of the validity of Shi‘i thought—a proof whose conclusion is the usurpers’ unfitness for the caliphate, their lack of belief in revelation, and ultimately their violation of many Qur’anic verses concerning the Household of the Messenger of Allah (ع). We therefore turn to certain Sunni sources to examine the sufferings of Fatimah and, in particular, the “threat to burn the House of Revelation.”

One narrator of this grave violation of sanctity, Ibn Qutaybah al-Dinawari, states: “The first caliph asked about a group who had withheld their allegiance to him and gathered around Ali, and he sent the second caliph to them. The second caliph came to Ali’s house and called out to them, but they did not come out. He then requested firewood and said: ‘By Him in Whose hand is my soul, if you do not come out, I shall set the house ablaze with everyone in it.’ They said to him: ‘What if Fatimah is there?’ He said: ‘Even if she is there.’ Then all except Ali came out and pledged allegiance.”(1)

The recording of “the second caliph’s threat to set Fatimah’s house (ع) on fire” is not confined to the book «الإمامة و السیاسه»; explicit statements attesting to the occurrence of this incident can also be found in other authoritative sources of the caliphal school. There is therefore no room for any doubt concerning “the second caliph’s threat to set Fatimah’s house (س) on fire,” and the occurrence of this incident is among the certain and indisputable events of Islamic history. More strikingly, these explicit statements are recorded in sources and references whose attribution to their authors admits of no doubt whatsoever.(2)

Given that this report refers only to the threat to set the House of Revelation on fire and does not explicitly state that flames rose from the house of Fatimah al-Zahra (a), some have used this very point as a pretext and attempted to exonerate the perpetrator of this crime. In this regard, it must be borne fully in mind that, even if we take as our criterion only the minimum that biased historians have reported, the unworthiness of one who threatens to burn the House of Revelation becomes evident.

With this small amount that has reached us from opposing sources, the violation of the sanctity of the noble daughter of the Prophet of Islam—who is one of the unique instances of the Verse of Purification and one of the most complete instances of the Verse of Affection—is established. Put more simply, one who threatens Lady Zahra (a) and says, “Even if Lady Fatimah (a) is in the house, I will set the house on fire,” cannot have had the slightest scent of faith or belief in the Qur’an. Nevertheless, in search of evidence for the burning of the door of the house of Lady Zahra, peace be upon her, we turn through the books of Ahl al-‘Ammah.

1- “Al-Baladhuri(3), who died in 224,” writes: “The First sent for ‘Ali to obtain his allegiance, but he did not give allegiance; therefore, the Second(4) came carrying a wick(5).” (6)

2- “Abu al-Fida’(7), who died in 732,” writes: “The Second came forward with some fire in order to burn the house.” (8)

Likewise, in the report of «Ibn ʿAbd Rabbih, died 328» we read: “He came forward with a firebrand in order to burn the house down upon its occupants.”(9).

«Ibn Abi al-Hadid al-Muʿtazili, died 656»(10) writes: “As for the incident of kindling the fire … only the Shiʿah have transmitted it, although a group among the ‘Ahl al-Hadith’ have likewise narrated something similar to it.”(11)

Further to Ibn Abi al-Hadid al-Muʿtazili’s view, we refer to the writing of one of the renowned Imami jurists and theologians: «Dhu al-Majdayn, Sayyid Murtada ʿAlam al-Huda—may his secret be sanctified—died 436», writes in response to «Qadi ʿAbd al-Jabbar, died 415»: “We have made clear that a group of non-Shiʿi transmitters—who are not regarded as suspect by the Ahl al-Sunnah—have also related the report of the kindling of the fire.”(12)

Footnotes:

1. Quoted from: al-Imamah wa al-Siyasah, vol. 1, p. 12.
2. Some of these sources are: 1—«Ansab al-Ashraf» (authored by Baladhuri, died 279), vol. 1, p. 586, no. 1184, Egypt edition. 2—«Tarikh al-Umam wa al-Muluk» (authored by Tabari, died 310), vol. 2, p. 443, Beirut edition. 3—«al-ʿIqd al-Farid» (authored by Ibn ʿAbd Rabbih, died 328), vol. 5, pp. 13–14, Beirut edition, 1404 AH (= vol. 3, p. 64, Egypt edition, 1353 AH.)
3. «Dhahabi, died 748» writes concerning him: He was a memorizer of numerous hadiths, knowledgeable in history, and a learned man. (Tadhkirat al-Huffaz, vol. 3, p. 892)
4. Regarding the manner of “ʿUmar’s coming,” we read: ʿUmar came toward ʿAli’s house in order to burn the house with its occupants. See: «Rawdat al-Manazir» (authored by Ibn Shahnah, died 882), printed in the margin of «al-Kamil» (authored by Ibn Athir, died 630), vol. 11, p. 113, al-Afandi edition, 1301 AH (= vol. 7, p. 164).
5. A wick is a twisted cord that is set alight in order to kindle a fire.
6. Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. 1, p. 586.
7. «Dhahabi, died 748» writes concerning him: al-Muʾayyad [ʿImad al-Din, Abu al-Fidaʾ, Ismaʿil ibn ʿAli] was a generous, virtuous person, knowledgeable of legal rulings. (Siyar Aʿlam al-Nubalaʾ, vol. 23, p. 274)
8. al-Mukhtasar fi Akhbar al-Bashar, vol. 1, p. 156.
9. al-ʿIqd al-Farid, vol. 5, p. 13.
10. «Dhahabi, died 748» explicitly states that «Ibn Abi al-Hadid» was Muʿtazili and writes: فَإنَّ الْعِزَّ مُعْتَزِلیٌّ. ʿIzz al-Din [ʿAbd al-Hamid ibn Hibat Allah, known as Ibn Abi al-Hadid] was Muʿtazili. (Siyar Aʿlam al-Nubalaʾ, vol. 23, p. 274)
11. Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, vol. 2, p. 21.
12. al-Shafi fi al-Imamah, vol. 4, p. 119.