If not then tell us why did the holy prophet say, “Fatima is a part of me, and he who makes her angry, makes me angry.”
Sahih al Bukhari Volume 5 hadith 61
1. because she was literally a part of him
2. she gets angry when people formed an entirely new religion based on the elevation of her status in contrast to what she believed of those greater than her, Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and Ali. Therefore, you shi’as are her greatest oppressors
4. this hadeeth is similar to the hadeeth
“Whoever obeys me, obeys Allah, and whoever disobeys me, disobeys Allah, and whoever obeys the ruler I appoint, obeys me, and whoever disobeys him, disobeys me.” (Sahih Bukhari, Book 9, Number 251)
In other words, there is no special divine level that is espoused here beyond the intent of the noble prophet alaihi salatu salam
If it is permissible to obey her then it is reported in Saheeh Bukhari that Hadhrath Sayyedah Fatima was displeased with the two shaykhs. She had even instructed (in her will) that they should not participate in her funeral procession.
Please see our article “Burning the house of Fatima[sa]“
Why thank you for the citation and for allowing me to do your work
The narration of the event is the following
During her last days, when Abu Bakr and Umar sought the mediation of Imam Ali (AS) to visit the ailing Hadhrat Fatimah (AS), as quoted by Ibn Qutaybah, she tured her face to the wall when they greeted her and in response to their plea for appeasement reminded them of the prophetic declaration that one who displeases Fatimah (AS) has displeased the Prophet and finally said: “I take Allah and the angels to be my witness that you have not pleased me; on the other hand, you have angered me. When I shall meet the Prophet (PBUH&HF) I will complain about you two.”(al-Imamah wa al-Siyasah, by Ibn Qutaybah, v1, p14).
Needless to say, the book of siyaasa is falsely attributed to Ibn Qutayba
The narration of al-Bukharee is
al-Bukhari narrated on the authority of Aisha that:
… Fatimah became angry with Abu Bakr and kept away from him, and did not talk to him till she died. She remained alive for six months after the death of the Prophet. When she died, her husband ‘Ali, buried her at night without informing Abu Bakr and he said the funeral prayer by himself.
– Sahih al-Bukhari, Chapter of “The battle of Khaibar”, Arabic-English,
v5, tradition #546, pp 381-383, also v4, Tradition #325
OH, I got these from your shi’ite friends. However, due to my hunch that you were deceiving the people with these quotes, I actually found the full version of the hadeeth in al-Bukharee that gives us the underlying reason as to the theme of her anger.
Narrated ‘Aisha: Fatima the daughter of the Prophet sent someone to Abu Bakr (when he was a caliph), asking for her inheritance of what Allah’s Apostle had left of the property bestowed on him by Allah from the Fai (i.e. booty gained without fighting) in Medina, and Fadak, and what remained of the Khumus of the Khaibar booty. On that, Abu Bakr said, “Allah’s Apostle said, “Our property is not inherited. Whatever we leave, is Sadaqa, but the family of (the Prophet) Muhammad can eat of this property.’ By Allah, I will not make any change in the state of the Sadaqa of Allah’s Apostle and will leave it as it was during the lifetime of Allah’s Apostle, and will dispose of it as Allah’s Apostle used to do.” So Abu Bakr refused to give anything of that to Fatima. So she became angry with Abu Bakr and kept away from him, and did not task to him till she died. She remained alive for six months after the death of the Prophet. When she died, her husband ‘Ali, buried her at night without informing Abu Bakr and he said the funeral prayer by himself. When Fatima was alive, the people used to respect ‘Ali much, but after her death, ‘Ali noticed a change in the people’s attitude towards him. So Ali sought reconciliation with Abu Bakr and gave him an oath of allegiance. ‘Ali had not given the oath of allegiance during those months (i.e. the period between the Prophet’s death and Fatima’s death). ‘Ali sent someone to Abu Bakr saying, “Come to us, but let nobody come with you,” as he disliked that ‘Umar should come, ‘Umar said (to Abu Bakr), “No, by Allah, you shall not enter upon them alone ” Abu Bakr said, “What do you think they will do to me? By Allah, I will go to them’ So Abu Bakr entered upon them, and then ‘Ali uttered Tashah-hud and said (to Abu Bakr), “We know well your superiority and what Allah has given you, and we are not jealous of the good what Allah has bestowed upon you, but you did not consult us in the question of the rule and we thought that we have got a right in it because of our near relationship to Allah’s Apostle .” Thereupon Abu Bakr’s eyes flowed with tears. And when Abu Bakr spoke, he said, “By Him in Whose Hand my soul is to keep good relations with the relatives of Allah’s Apostle is dearer to me than to keep good relations with my own relatives. But as for the trouble which arose between me and you about his property, I will do my best to spend it according to what is good, and will not leave any rule or regulation which I saw Allah’s Apostle following, in disposing of it, but I will follow.” On that ‘Ali said to Abu Bakr, “I promise to give you the oath of allegiance in this after noon.” So when Abu Bakr had offered the Zuhr prayer, he ascended the pulpit and uttered the Tashah-hud and then mentioned the story of ‘Ali and his failure to give the oath of allegiance, and excused him, accepting what excuses he had offered; Then ‘Ali (got up) and praying (to Allah) for forgiveness, he uttered Tashah-hud, praised Abu Bakr’s right, and said, that he had not done what he had done because of jealousy of Abu Bakr or as a protest of that Allah had favored him with. ‘Ali added, “But we used to consider that we too had some right in this affair (of rulership) and that he (i.e. Abu Bakr) did not consult us in this matter, and therefore caused us to feel sorry.” On that all the Muslims became happy and said, “You have done the right thing.” The Muslims then became friendly with ‘Ali as he returned to what the people had done (i.e. giving the oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr). (Book #59, Hadith #546)
So there is no mention of burning her house down and seeing Umar and then punching her stomach causing her to have lost her unborn baby. These are mere delusions of your own making.
If you are still in rage and believe that Abu Bakr should have conceded to her, then might I remind thee, oh shi’i, that it is the prophet alaihi salatu-salaam who made it firm and clear that had his own daughter made zina, he would have enforced the shariah of Allah on her i.e. would have lashed her or stoned her . The point here is, there is no bending of the shariah, no matter who you are. The messenger of Allah said
“There is no obedience to the creation to the disobedience to the Creator. Fatimahs request was at the disobedience of the Creator, and Abu Bakr, being the most pious of all, choose the right decision.
If Hadhrath Fatima’s displeasure towards the two shaykhs was not against Islam then why is it important upon the general mass to love them? Allah[swt] deemed His anger and Fatima’s to be the same, and Syeda Fatima left the earth angry with the 2 Shaykhs.
1. Yes it was, because her displeasure at Abu Bakr (not Umar) was due to her either not knowing, or giving in to herself the notion of the ahlul-bayt “inheriting” which is against the shariah of Allah.
2. Anger is only in congruity to Allah’s anger if the engine of anger is based on that which is legalized in the shariah. As the hadeeth that you quoted to tried to deceive us has blasted your theory to the ground and put everything in context, it is beyond clear that in this case, her anger is unshared by any other because Allah does not become angry at the fulfillment of His shariah, which in this case Abu Bakr upheld.
You are of the opinion that there had been no opposition between Hadhrath Ali (as) and the three companions. Suppose I accept that, but let me tell you, I have a very deep respect and honour for the pure lady Fatima (as) who was part of the flesh of the holy prophet (saww) and she has this esteem to her credit that whenever she appeared in the presence of the holy prophet (saww) he used to stand up as a welcoming gesture of honour to her. Therefore, will following such a respectful personality be a cause of salvation or not? Decide by keeping Bukhari and Muslim before your sight.
Yes, I will keep Bukharee and Muslim in my sight as I see the intuitiveness of your sensational interpretative acrobats.
If you have this feeling about Fatimah, then what about the more honorable feeling that whenever the prophet alaihi salatu salaam was brought in the presence of Uthman ibn Affan, he would cover (his leg) because he was shy of him (due to his extraordinary humility).
Or how about when the Messenger of the Lord of the Universe said that when he dreams, he envisions Abu Bakr passing him only for him to regain ascendency over him. This is the level of khalil”ness” to Allah Abu Bakr had. Or how about the t’adeel of the Messenger of Allah that had there been another prophet after him, it would have been Abu Bakr. What do you nitroglycerine heretics have to say about this?
While departing from this world, did the holy prophet (saww) leave the Qur’an with the ummah or not?
Yes, he left it in their hearts, and arranged its contents
If he did then why did the need for the collection of the Qur’an arise? And why were the Ummah kept without the Qur’an till the period of Uthman?
1. Because the hufaadh of the Qur’an were dying in jihaad fisabilillah
2. the second question is a lie. the ummah was not kept from a Qur’an because it was during Abu Bakrs caliphate that the collection of the Qur’an came into a mushaf, not Uthman.
If the holy prophet (saww) did not leave the Qur’an with the Ummah prior to his departure then the task of Risallah was not accomplished because the purpose of his arrival was to convey the message of Allah to the ummah. How then is the religion complete?
Firstly, because Allah said it was complete you infidel
This day, I have perfected your religion for you, completed My Favor upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion.”
( سورة المائدة , Al-Maeda, Chapter #5, Verse #3)
When Allah employs terms like “perfected” and “completed” anyone who has a mind will not conclude that He did not perfect or complete the religion. Only someone who disbelieves in Allah would have such an outlook.
Secondly, he did NOT leave the Quran prior to his departure. So the question starts off on a lie.
Furthermore the religion is complete, other wise you are saying Allah lied when He said “I have perfected your religion for you, completed My Favor upon you“
There is only our opinion, which is equal to making complete affirmation of this ayaah, and hence “believing” in what their Lord had revealed, or
there is your opinion, which is equal to making Allah into a big fat liar. And if your mode of argument will be “Well Allah did not say that” then your still making Allah a big fat liar because Allah said Verily We: It is We Who have sent down the Dhikr (i.e. the Quran) and surely, we will guard it (from corruption).
( سورة الحجر , Al-Hijr, Chapter #15, Verse #9)
and that “No falsehood shall enter it”
Either way your cult madhaab looks at it, you are surrounded by kufr from every avenue
You make a long list of Muslims who compiled the revelations which proves the fact that the holy prophet (saww) had himself been causing the Qur’an being written and preserved it. But to our surprise, after the holy prophet (saww) up until the period of Uthman, people could not get the Qur’an. Could you explain why this gap occurred?
1. There was already a mushaf before Uthman, so there is no need to continue with lying and saying there wasn’t a Quran until Uthman came along.
2. Unlike your modern lifestyle, in the early days of Islam, books were not just printed with a printing press as you are accustomed to. People had to write it down i.e. a copyist. Hence the level or quality of books was not up to the modern era. Therefore since that is the case, it was the usual custom that books were preserved in libraries, as not everybody had the luxury of a book.
3. Even with this reality, you only demonstrated your utter ignorance of history. There were copies of the Quran being circulated. In fact, this is the reason that lead to the Uthmaanic script and the demolition of other scripts by which the senior sahaba gathered together to make one script due to the different reciters in various regions who were reading their own copies were corrupting (unintentionally) the tajweed and the language of the Quran which therefore changed the meanings of ayaah that they were reciting. In order to prevent that, Uthmaan ordered that ALL OF THE COPIES THAT HAD BEEN CIRCULATED to be destroyed. That is why in Yemen and in other places, those who received the orders buried their mushafs.
Therefore, your question is based on deception and ignorance of history.
You are proud of the memorizers of the Qur’an and even claim the fact that there had been many such people among the companions of the holy prophet. Then, tell us, from among Ali (as), Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman who knew the Qur’an by heart? Give your answers with complete sources and refer to your books.
Ummm, Uthmaan would recite the entire Qur’an in one single rakah, something that all of your imaams can’t do if they helped each other.
‘Abdur-Rahman ibn ‘Uthman reported that, “One night I was praying when someone touched me on my back. I saw that it was ‘Uthman, the leader of the believers. I made space for him and then he started to pray. He recited the whole Qur’an in one single rakah and then came out of prayer. I said to him, ‘But you have prayed only one rakah’ “That is my Witr prayer.” he said.” and this riwaayah was reported by al-Bayhaqi
Muhammad ibn Seereen reported that: “When people surrounded Uthman and intended to assassinate him, his wife said: ‘How can you kill him when he is a person who stays awake the whole night and recited the whole Qur’an in one single rakah?’” and this riwaayah was reported by at-Tabaraani.
If none of the three companions had been Haafidh of the Qur’an then why scoff the Shias despite the presence of many Haafidh among them?
Because you are a liar and you know it. they knew the Quran and I will get back with the sources inshallah. Secondly, this is a logical fallacy, that is, to use an issue that there are plenty of haafidh among the shia to prove that their opponents were not haafidh. This logic of yours does not connect between this and that.
The reality is that we scoff at you for your blatant apostasy in the religion of Islam, blatant paganism, blatant disbelief in multifarious issues in Islam, and most of all, we scoff at the munafiq tendencies that your Imaams and rulers have done to the people of Allah throughout the centuries and your continual aiding of the mushriks and kuffar against the people of Allah is all the more reason for our “scoff” to you and your cult.