Hazrat Faatemah’s (s.a.) standing in light of traditions

Hazrat Faatemah’s (s.a.) standing in light of traditions

There are innumerable traditions highlighting the eminent position of Hazrat Faatemah (s.a.). These traditions are reliable and documented by scholars of both schools – Sunnis and Shiah. In fact, entire books have been devoted to her status in Islam. Before proceeding with the discussion on the oppressions faced by Hazrat Faatemah (s.a.), it is worth noting some traditions that underline her stature in religion. These traditions have also been recorded by respected scholars of the Sunnis.

Hazrat Faatemah (s.a.) is the Chief of the Women of Paradise

The Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) informed:

فاطمۃ سیدۃ نساء اھل الجنۃ

‘Faatemah is the chief of the women of Paradise.’

This tradition has been recorded varyingly –

The Prophet (s.a.w.a.) informed:

فاطمۃ سیدۃ نساء ھذہ الامۃ

‘Faatemah is the chief of the women of this nation.’

فاطمۃ سیدۃ نساء المومنین

‘Faatemah is the chief of all the believing women.’

فاطمہ سیدۃ نساء العالمین

‘Faatemah is the chief of all the women of the world.’

This tradition with variations has been recorded by Saheeh-e-Bukhari, Musnad-e-Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, Al-Khasaais of Nesaai, Musnad of Abu Dawood al-Tayaalesi, Saheeh-e-Muslim (Chapter of Virtues of Hazrat Faatemah (s.a.)), Mustadrak of Haakim, Sunan-e-Tirmidhi, Sunan-e-Ibne Maajah and other reliable books of the Sunnis.[1]

Based on the narration of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.), who only speaks on the authority of revelation, Hazrat Faatemah (s.a.) is the chief of all women from the beginning of the world till the end.

Hazrat Faatemah (s.a.) is a part of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.)

Reputed scholars of both the sects have recorded the following:

فاطمۃ بضعۃ منی مَن اغضبھا أغضبنی

‘Faatemah is a part of me, one who displeases her has displeased me.’

This tradition has been documented with the very words in Saheeh-e-Bukhari and other books of the Sunnis.[2]

Other traditions with similar purport have also been recorded, for example:

فاطمۃ بضعۃ منی یریبنی ماأرابھا و یؤذینی ما آذاھا

‘Faatemah is a part of me, that which grieves her grieves me and whatever troubles her, troubles me.’

This tradition has been documented in Saheeh-e-Bukhari, Musnad-e-Ahmad, Sunan-e-Ibne Dawood, Saheeh-e-Muslim and other reference books of the Sunnis.[3]

This tradition has been documented in Saheeh-e-Muslim in this manner – Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) said:

Surely, Faatemah is a part of me, it pains me what pains her.[4]

Ahmad Ibn Hanbal records in his Musnad that the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) informed:

انّما فاطمۃ بضعۃ منّی یؤ ذینی ماآذاھا،

‘Surely Faatemah is a part of me, that pains me what pains her, that troubles me what troubles her.’[5]

This tradition has also been recorded by Tirmidhi in his Sunan.[6]

After recording this tradition, Haakim informs:

This tradition is correct (Saheeh) according to the criteria used by Bukhari and Muslim.[7]

In another place in his Musnad, Ahmad records the following tradition of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.):

انّما فاطمۃ بضعۃ منّی یو ذینی مااذاھا و ینصبنی ما انصبھا

‘Faatemah is a part of me it grieves me what grieves her and it pleases me what pleases her.’[8]

This tradition is also narrated in Mustadrak and other reference books of the Sunnis. With regards to this tradition, Haakim says that the chain of narrators is correct.[9]
In Faatemah’s pleasure and displeasure is Allah’s pleasure and displeasure

In one notable tradition, the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) informs about his daughter:

ان اللّٰہ یغضب لغضب فاطمۃ و یرضی لرضاھا

‘Surely Allah is angry with what makes Faatemah angry, and is pleased with what pleases her.’

This tradition is narrated in Mustadrak, Isaabah and Tahzeeb al-Tahzeeb. Muttaqi Hind, author of Kanz al-Ummaal has recorded it from Abu Ya’laa, Tabari and Abu Noaim. In addition to these sources, this tradition can be traced in other reference books of the Sunnis.[10]
The First Person to Meet the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.)

When the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) was on his deathbed, he called for his daughter Faatemah (s.a.). He told her something in a hushed tone. This left Faatemah (s.a.) in tears. He then called for her again and whispered something to her. This time Faatemah was pleased and smiled.[11]

When the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) passed away, Ayesha coaxed Faatemah (s.a.) to reveal what her father (s.a.w.a.) had told her. Hazrat Faatemah (s.a.) informed –

سارنی رسول اللّٰہ (او:سارنی النبی) فاخبرنی یقبض فی وجعہٖ ھٰذافبکیت، ثم سارنی فاخبرنی انّی اول اھل بیتہ اتبعہ فضحک

‘The Prophet (s.a.w.a.)[12] first whispered to me that he would pass away from the sickness and this made me weep. Then he whispered that I would be the first among the Ahle Bait to meet him which made me happy.’

This tradition has been recorded in many reliable books of the Sunnis.[13]
The Most Truthful Person after the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.)

Hazrat Faatemah (s.a.) enjoys an elevated status in religion in beliefs and ethics. Ayesha narrates:

مارأیت احداً کان اصدق لھجۃ منھا غیر ابیھا

‘After the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) I did not see anyone more honest in speech than her (Faatemah (s.a.)).’

Haakim after recording this tradition in Mustadrak writes:

This tradition is correct according to the criteria employed by Bukhari and Muslim (for assessment of traditions). Even Zahabi has acknowledged the tradition to be correct. The tradition is also recorded in al-Isteeaab and Hilyah al-Awliyaa.[14]
The Prophet (s.a.w.a.) would rise in reverence for Faatemah (s.a.)

Ayesha narrates:

کانت اذا دخلت علیہ. علیٰ رسول اللہ ﷺ. قام الیھا فتقبلھا و رحب بھاو اخذ بیدھا فاجلسھا فی مجلسہ

‘When Faatemah used to come in the presence of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.), he (s.a.w.a.) would rise to greet her, kiss her, welcome her, take her by the hand and make her sit in his place.’

Haakim after recording this tradition writes:

This tradition is correct according to the criteria laid down by Bukhari and Muslim. Zahabi also considers it to be correct.[15]
Faatemah is the most beloved

Tabarani has recorded a tradition wherein the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) informed Hazrat Ali (a.s.):

فاطمۃ احب الیّ منک و انت اعزّ علی منھا

‘Faatemah is more beloved to me than you and you are more honourable to me than her.’

After recording this tradition Haithami writes:

All the narrators of this tradition are reliable.[16]
A glance at the narrations of the Sunnis

What has been narrated so far is a preface to what will be discussed in the succeeding pages. When we analyse the events narrated then, we will refer to the traditions on the status of Hazrat Faatemah (s.a.) and Hazrat Ali (a.s.).

These traditions have been recorded by the Sunnis in their books after testifying to their correctness and veracity regarding the text and chain of narrators.

Among the undeniable inferences of these traditions is Hazrat Faatemah’s (s.a.) infallibility. This is further reinforced by Ayat-e-Tatheer (Surah Ahzaab (33): Verse 33) and other narrations.

Moreover, many traditionalists (Muhadditheen), memorisers of Quran (Huffaaz) and reputed scholars have confessed that Faatemah is superior to the first and second caliphs.

As a matter of fact, some scholars based on the aforementioned traditions, particularly – فاطمۃ بضعۃ منی – (Faatemah (s.a.) is a part of me), have concluded that Faatemah (s.a.) is superior to all four caliphs.

It is appropriate to mention Manaavi’s statement over here which is based on the views of reputed scholars of the Sunnis:

In his book Faiz al-Qadeer, under the tradition

استدلّ بہ السھیلی علیٰ من سبھا کفر، لأنہ یغضبہ وانھا افضل من الشیخین

he has documented the view of Saheeli – an illustrious scholar of the Sunnis, who had committed the Quran to memory (Haafiz) and who has written commentaries on various books including Seerah of Ibne Hishaam:

‘Based on the tradition (Faatemah (s.a.) is a part of me), Saheeli writes – لانہ یغضبہ

It establishes the apostasy of the person who abuses Faatemah (s.a.). And one who abuses Faatemah (s.a.) has angered the Prophet and Faatemah (s.a.) is superior to Abu Bakr and Umar.’

Thus, he considers Hazrat Faatemah (s.a.) as a benchmark for apostasy and faith and relates her anger to the Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) anger.

If one takes the Laam in لانہ یغضبہ as Laam of cause (Laam-e-Ellat) then this could denote a specific cause of her anger or a general cause. It is more likely that it denotes a general cause of anger which establishes the apostasy of the person who enrages her.

Hence, whatever causes Hazrat Faatemah (s.a.) to be angry also causes the apostasy of the one who makes her angry. Thus, to annoy Faatemah (s.a.) becomes a cause of the offending party’s apostasy because by annoying Faatemah (s.a.) he has angered the Prophet (s.a.w.a.).

Manaavi writes further:

Ibne Hajar comments – It is clear from this tradition that it is prohibited to offend a person which results in offending the Prophet (s.a.w.a.). Hence any action aimed at offending Faatemah (s.a.) inevitably offends the Prophet (s.a.w.a.). And Faatemah (s.a.) is not offended at anything more than a matter involving her sons. Therefore one who does such a thing will taste the ignominy of his actions in this world and the chastisement of the hereafter is far more humiliating.

Therefore this tradition prohibits one from doing anything to infuriate Faatemah (s.a.) as she is a part of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and it has been already established that it proves the apostasy of the offending party.

Mannaavi writes further:[17]

قال السُبکی: الذی نختارہ وندین اللہ بہ ان فاطمہ افضل من خدیجۃ ثم عائشہ قال شھاب الدین ابن حجر :ولوضوح ما قالہ السبکی تبعہ علیہ المحققون، و ذکر العَلَم العراقی: ان فاطمۃ و اخاھا ابراہیم افضل من الخلفاء الاربعۃ باتفاق.

Al-Sobki states – What I am choosing (to conclude) and pledging near Allah is that Faatemah is superior to Ayesha and Khadijah.

Shahaab al-Deen Ibne Hajar says – Al-Sobki’s point being the evident truth, researchers after him have supported his point and adopted the same stand.

Alam al-Deen Iraaqi comments – Hazrat Faatemah (s.a.) is superior to all four caliphs (based on the consensus of the scholars).

Based on this confession, there exists no difference between the Shiah and the Sunnis – both the sects believe that Faatemah (s.a.) is superior to Abu Bakr and Umar and that annoying Faatemah (s.a.) is a cause for being relegated to hellfire.

It is apparent from these traditions that there is no condition or restriction and it applies to everyone and under all circumstances. At least there is no restriction evident when the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) says – Faatemah’s (s.a.) displeasure leads to Allah’s displeasure. There is no rider in this statement that if she is displeased in such and such circumstance or with such and such criterion or if she is displeased for such and such reason. Rather, the tradition is categorical that if Faatemah (s.a.) is displeased for whatever reason, it leads to Allah’s displeasure.

It does not matter why she is displeased, who displeases her, in which era she is displeased. The Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) tradition does not impose any condition or restriction whatsoever. It is unconditional in every aspect.

Likewise, there is no condition or criterion evident in the tradition – One who torments her has tormented me. It does not state, who torments Faatemah (s.a.), when and under what condition. It is unconditional. The aforementioned traditions also establish Faatemah’s (s.a.) truthfulness and it is forbidden to falsify her regardless of the matter or claim. It is forbidden to reject her claims because as Ayesha asserts in truthfulness she was next only to the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) himself.

It is obvious that the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) was aware of what was to transpire after him. He narrated numerous traditions of such nature so as to make the people aware of these issues and forewarn them.






[1] Saheeh-e-Bukhari, vol. 4, pg. 209 Book of Initiation of Creation, Chapter of Virtues of the Prophet’s Relatives; Al-Khasaais, pg. 34; Musnad of Abu Dawood Tayaalasi, pg. 187; Saheeh-e-Muslim, vol. 7, pg. 143; al-Tabaqaat, vol. 2, pg. 40; Musnad-e-Ahmad, vol. 6, pg. 282; Hilyah al-Awliyaa, vol. 2, pg. 39; Mustadrak, vol. 3, pg. 151; Sunan-e-Ibne Maajah, vol. 1, pg. 518; Sunan-e-Tirmidhi, vol. 5, pg. 326


[2] Saheeh-e-Bukhari, vol. 4, pg. 210 Book of Initiation of Creation, Chapter of Virtues of the Prophet’s Relatives, Chapter of Faatemah’s (s.a.) Virtues


[3] Saheeh-e-Bukhari, vol. 6, pg. 158; Musnad-e-Ahmad, vol. 4, pg. 324; Saheeh-e-Muslim, vol. 7, pg. 141 Book of the Companions’ Virtues, Chapter of Faatemah binte Muhammad’s Virtues; Sunan-e-Abi Dawood, vol. 1, pg. 460


[4] Saheeh-e-Muslim, vol. 7, pg. 141 Chapter of Faatemah’s Virtues


[5] Musnad-e-Ahmad, vol. 4, pg. 5


[6] Sunan-e-Tirmidhi, vol. 5, pg. 360


[7] Mustadrak, vol. 5, pg. 153


[8] Musnad-e-Ahmad, vol. 4, pg. 323


[9] Mustadrak, vol. 5, pg. 153; Kanz al-Ummaal, vol. 12, pg. 111, vol. 13, pg. 674


[10] Mustadrak, vol. 3, pg. 158; Isaabah, vol. 8, pg. 266; Tahzeeb al-Tahzeeb, vol. 12, pg. 392; Kanz al-Ummaal, vol. 12, pg. 111, vol. 13, pg. 674


[11] According to certain versions of the tradition, Ayesha found it hard to accept the secret discussions between Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and Hazrat Faatemah (s.a.).


[12] The salutation on the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) in the books of the Sunnis from where we have derived our references is incomplete. We have mentioned the salutation as per the Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) tradition.


[13] Saheeh-e-Bukhari, vol. 4, pg. 183; Saheeh-e-Muslim, vol. 7, pg. 142; Mustadrak, vol. 4, pg. 272; Musnad-e-Ahmad, vol. 6, pg. 282. The tradition has been summarised in Sunan-e-Tirmidhi, vol. 5, pg. 369.


[14] Mustadrak, vol. 3, pg. 160; Hilyah al-Awliyaa, vol. 2, pg. 41; al-Isteeaab, vol. 4, pg. 1896


[15] Mustadrak, vol. 3, pg. 154


[16] Majma al-Zawaaed, vol. 9, pg. 202


[17] Faiz al-Qadeer fi Sharh al-Jaam’e al-Sagheer, vol. 4, pg. 421

Have Muslims realized the importance of Lailatul Qadr?

Have Muslims realized the importance of Lailatul Qadr?

The Night of Decree (Lailatul Qadr) has untold benefits for the Muslims. It is mentioned twice in the Majestic Quran – once as a distinct Chapter – Surah Qadr (97) and in Surah Dokhan (44) in the opening verses. Despite the general awareness of Lailatul Qadr, Muslims have fallen short in appreciating its specific importance. It is the specific aspect of Lailatul Qadr, which involves the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and his immaculate progeny (a.s.), that lends significance to the general aspects. There are an overwhelming number of reports that underscore the intimate link between Lailatul Qadr and the infallible personas (a.s.). For brevity we reproduce only a few:

1. Surah Qadr superior to the other chapters of the Holy Quran2. Special status of Ameerul Momineen (a.s.)3. Special status of Fatima Zahra (s.a.)4. Angels honor Aale Muhammad (a.s.)5. Even the enemies were aware of the significance of Lailatul Qadr

1. Surah Qadr superior to the other chapters of the Holy Quran

Mufazzal Ibn Umar reports, “Surah-e-Qadr was mentioned in the presence of Imam Jafar al-Sadiq (a.s.). He (a.s.) said, ‘How manifest is its excellence over the other chapters (of the Quran)!’ I inquired, ‘How is its excellence manifest?’ He (a.s.) responded, ‘The mastership (wilayah) of Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) is revealed in it.’ I asked, ‘In Lailatul Qadr? In which we are hopeful about in the month of Ramadan?’ He (a.s.) asserted, ‘Yes in the (same) night, in which the (affairs of the) skies and the earth are decreed and mastership of Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) is decreed.’           Ma’ani al-Akhbaar p. 316

Imam Jafar al-Sadiq (a.s.) asked the narrator – ‘…how many months make a year?

He replied – 12 months.

Imam (a.s.) – How many of them are prohibited (for battle)?

He replied – 4 months.

Imam (a.s.) asked – Is the month of Ramadan included in them?

He replied – No.

He (a.s.) informed – In the month of Ramadan, there is a night superior to a thousand months. We are the Ahle Bait, none can be compared to us.”

(That is, the position of the Ahle Bait (a.s.) is higher than all just like the month of Ramadan because of Lailatul Qadr is superior even to the prohibited months.) Ma’ani al-Akhbaar p. 179

2. Special status of Ameerul Momineen

Buraidah narrates: ‘I was seated with the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) and Ali (a.s.) was with him (s.a.w.a.) when he (s.a.w.a.) said: ‘O Ali, have I not witnessed you with me on seven occasions? The fifth occasion is Lailatul Qadr, especially its blessings; these are not for anyone other than us.’ Basaaer al-Darajaat vol. 1 p. 221 Behar al-Anwar vol. 94 p. 24

Imam Jafar al-Sadiq (a.s.) informed about the verse –

بِإِذْنِ رَبِّهِمْ مِنْ كُلِّ أَمْرٍ سَلامٌ

i.e. all affairs are directed to Muhammad (s.a.w.a.) and Ali (a.s.)
Tafseer Furaat al-Kufi p. 581 under the exegesis of Surah Qadr

3. Special status of Fatima Zahra (s.a.)

Imam Sadiq (a.s.) informs regarding the verse –

إِنَّا أَنْزَلْناهُ‏ فِي‏ لَيْلَةِ الْقَدْرِ

“Night is Fatima (s.a.) and Qadr is the decree of Allah. So, one who recognizes Fatima with due recognition has attained Lailatul Qadr. Surely, Fatima (s.a.) has been named thus because the creation are separated from her recognition. As for Allah’s saying ‘The Night of Power is better than a thousand months’ it means (Fatima) is better than a thousand believers and she is the mother of believers. The angels and the Ruh al-Qudus descend in it – the angels here refer to the believers, those who possess the knowledge of the progeny of Muhammad (a.s.) and Ruh al-Qodos refers to Fatima (s.a.)…”
Tafseer Furaat al-Kufi p. 581 under the exegesis of Surah Qadr

4. Angels honour Aale Muhammad (a.s.)

Imam Muhammad Baqir (a.s.) informed: O Aba al-Huzail, the Lailatul Qadr is not concealed from us. Surely the angels circumambulate around us during this Night.
Basaaer al-Darajaat vol. 1 p. 221

5. Even the enemies were aware of the significance of Lailatul Qadr

Imam Jafar al-Sadiq (a.s.) informed: Ali Ibn Abi Talib (a.s.) used to frequently say whenever we met with the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.), Al-Taymi (Abu Bakr) and his companion (Umar) were with him while he (s.a.w.a.) recited: Surely We have send it down in the Night of Decree humbly and tearfully. They both asked – ‘How you have been so extremely affected by this Chapter?’

He (s.a.w.a.) said to them: I was affected what my eyes saw, what my heart stored and what his (meaning Ali (a.s.)) heart will experience after me.

They both said: What have you seen and what will his heart experience?

He (s.a.w.a.) recited the verse ‘The angels and the Ruh al-Qudus descend in it with the permission of their Lord with all affairs till the appearance of the morn’ –

He (s.a.w.a.) asked: Does anything remain after the Words of the Blessed, the High, ‘with all affairs?’

The two of them replied: No.

He (s.a.w.a.) inquired: Do the two of you know on whom the descent takes place?

They both answered: No, by Allah, O Messenger of Allah.

He (s.a.w.a.) questioned: Will there be Lailatul Qadr after me?

They both affirmed: Yes.

He (s.a.w.a.) questioned: Will the command descend therein?

They both reaffirmed: Yes.

He (s.a.w.a.) asked: On whom?

They both expressed ignorance: We do not know.

He (s.a.w.a.) took me (Ali (a.s.)) by my head, and said: If you did not know, this is the one after me.

Whenever it was Lailatul Qadr after the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.), the two of them could distinguish it from the awe they witnessed due to the intensity of the occasion.
Basaaer al-Darajaat vol. 1 p. 224, Behar al-Anwar vol. 94 p. 21

Evidently, Lailatul Qadr is deeply connected to the progeny of Muhammad (a.s.) and serves as irrevocable proof of their leadership and succession of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.). It is the most important basis to prove the existence of an Imam at all times on whom all the affairs of the heavens and the world descend.

12 Questions Concerning Fadak

12 Questions Concerning Fadak

Qur’anic verses and historical documents reveal that the land of Fadak situated near the Fort of Khaibar, formerly belonging to the Jews, was the personal property of the Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h). It was neither a government property owned by the treasury nor was it war booty. The seventh verse of Surah Hashr, explains the point in detail:

“Whatever Allah has restored to His Apostle from the people of the towns, it is for Allah and for the Apostle, and for the near of kin and orphans and the needy and the wayfarer, so that it may not be a thing taken by turns among the rich of you. . .” (59: 7)

Fadak was a piece of land that had come in possession of the Prophet (p.b.u.h) without waging a war. In the seventh century, the people of that place had handed it over to the Muslims fearing reprisal. As it was given voluntarily, this land automatically became the personal property of the Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h), and had nothing to do with the government. The fact was accepted by many commentators and historians. For reference, we are quoting a few names: Bilazaris ‘Futuh al-Bildaan’; Shaykh Shahabudin Hamui in ‘Mojam al-Bildaan’ under the word ‘Fadak’; Mohammad Ibn Jurair Tabari in his ‘Tarikh al-Umam wal Molook’, vol.3, p. 14; Ibn Atheer in ‘Al-Kaamil’, vol.3, p.221; Ibn Abil Hadeed in ‘Sharh-e-Nahjul Balagha’, vol. 16, p.210

All the Sunni commentators while explaining the 28th verse of Surah Bani Israel state that the Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h) had gifted Fadak to Janabe Fatima Zahra (p.b.u.h). Thus, automatically it becomes the personal property of Hazrat Fatima Zahra (p.b.u.h). Just to prove our point, the following books may be referred to: Suyooti’s ‘Durrul Mansoor’, vol. 5, p.273; Hakim-e-Haskani’s ‘Shawaahed ut-Tanzeel’, vol. 1, p.240. Both these authors have quoted from Abu Saeed Khudri and Ibn Abbas. Also, the following learned men have explained and confessed that the Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h) has gifted Fadak to Fatima Zahra (p.b.u.h): Qazi Abdul Jabbar Motazali, Yaqoote Hammui, Ibn Abil Hadeed, Abdul Fattah Abdul Maqsood-e-Misri, etc…

After receiving Fadak from the Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h), Fatima Zahra (p.b.u.h) had appointed her own employees there. Thus Fadak remained of the Prophet (p.b.u.h). The first Caliph could not bear to see Fadak in the hands of Fatima (p.b.u.h). So he sent his henchmen to Fadak to drive away the appointees of Fatima Zahra (p.b.u.h) and grabbed possession. Ameeral Mo’mineen Hazrat Ali (p.b.u.h) has penned a very meaningful sentence in his book Nahjul Balagha saying that “Under the sky what we were having was Fadak”, which proves that the due of Ahlul Bayt was not given. Whereas how many people have applied their charitable disposition and broad based outlook? Of course, God is an Excellent Arbiter. (Nahjul Balagha, Letter no. 45).

Janabe Fatima Zahra (p.b.u.h), protesting against the step of the government went to the Mosque. There she sat behind the curtain and addressed the first Caliph in the presence of all the people. She questioned him and put up a claim for the return of Fadak, that was given to her by the Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h) and that it had become her property. The first Caliph did not entertain her claim and refuted it by saying that the Prophet (p.b.u.h) had not gifted it to her, and asked her to produce witnesses to the effect that Fadak was her property. Janabe Fatima (p.b.u.h) then produced six witnesses three males and three females, comprising Hazrat Ali (p.b.u.h), Imam Hasan (p.b.u.h), Imam Husain (p.b.u.h), Ummul Mo’mineen Janabe Umme Salma, Umme Aiman, maid of the Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h) and Asma Binte Umais, the wife of the first Caliph himself (may God be pleased with her). The first Caliph did not accept the testimony of these witnesses and continued his occupation of Fadak. Even after adopting this attitude the first Caliph could not gain much. First, because the Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h) had himself given it to her. Second, because she (Fatima (p.b.u.h)), being the only daughter of the Prophet (p.b.u.h), it was her parental inheritance. She had to advance the plea of inheritance because her first plea was not accepted by the first Caliph. At this juncture, the Caliph recited a hadith on his own authority (without substantiating it from any source) saying that, “We prophets do not leave behind any property, and if at all something remains, it belongs to all Muslims.” Janabe Fatima (p.b.u.h) took exception to it, and contradicted the authenticity of this hadith and said it is against the spirit of the Qur’an. Qur’an on numerous places had said about the worldly property of the prophets. When Fatima (p.b.u.h) could no longer bear the Caliph’s obstinacy, she returned home displeased. After that incident, she never spoke with both first and second Caliphs. According to Ibn Qutaybah (‘Al-Imamah wal-Siyaasah’), she cursed them after every prayer. And during her last days, she had requested Hazrat Ali (p.b.u.h) not to permit these persons to accompany her funeral. Keeping all this in mind, some questions would automatically arise in the minds of decent persons who believe in truth and justice. We therefore, would like to pose a few questions:

1. Regarding the claim of Fadak, the claim of Fatima (p.b.u.h) was enough because Janabe Fatima (p.b.u.h) is the main spirit of the verse of Tatheer. She would never talk or utter anything which is not true and correct. Under these circumstances, non-acceptance of her claim tantamounted to casting aspersions on Ayat Tatheer wherein God had certified the purity of the characters of the persons of the Cloak.

2. Why the witnesses of Hazrat Ali (p.b.u.h) and others were not accepted when the Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h) had repeatedly said, “Wherever Ali (p.b.u.h) goes, Truth goes with him.” Ayat Tatheer was revealed in connection with Hazrat Imam Hasan and Imam Husain (p.b.u.h). Were not these two princes, the leaders of the youths of Paradise? Why the witness of Umme Salma, may God be pleased with her, and Umme Aiman, was not accepted even thought they were among those promised paradise by the Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h)? Whether the Qur’an for giving witness was not complete? No, because the witness of two men and one woman or two women and one man was enough to complete the Qur’an. Were the witnesses not the upholders of justice? Leave alone the question of being upholders of justice, their infallibility personified.

3. Before arriving at the decision, the wtinessess of Janabe Fatima (p.b.u.h) were driven out. Why? Whther this act was not to be construed as tyrannical or that of high-handedness?

4. This is an undisputed act of Muslim Law that whoever is in possession of anything, be it a property or anything else, it belongs to the person who is possessing it. He would simply say under the oath that a certain property belongs to him. Moreover, witnesses are required by the party who is claiming and not by the one who is having the property in his possession. Under this law calling for witness does not conform with the requirements of Justice. Thus, calling for witnesses from Fatima Zahra (p.b.u.h) was not right. Her responsibility was to simply say an oath. Presenting witnesses was the duty of the first Caliph. Why then Islamic law was tampered with and circumvented?

5. On many occasions, the first Caliph had agreed to the problems presented by the companions of Prophet (p.b.u.h) without calling for witnesses. For instance, once Janab Jabir came to the Caliph saying that the Prophet (p.b.u.h) had promised that he would pay him some amount.

The first Caliph paid him one thousand five hundred dirhams without calling for witnesses. Similarly, once Abu Basheer Maazani had said that the Prophet (p.b.u.h) had promised to pray him some amount. The Caliph paid him 1400 dirhams (Sahih Bukhari).

Then what was the reason, that in these cases no witnesses were called for. In some cases only companionship of Prophet (p.b.u.h) was enough for consideration. But, in the case of the Prophet’s daughter why witnesses were required? There were the very persons about whom the verse of Tatheer was revealed.

6. When Fadak was not considered as a property of Fatima (p.b.u.h), why then on previous occasion the first Caliph had issued a certificate of property in her favour, when earlier she had represented in the matter? Why then the second Caliph seeing the certificate in the hands of Fatima (p.b.u.h) had torn it into pieces and had spat on it? (Sharh Nahjul Balagha, of Ibn Abil Hadeed vol. 16, p.174; Seera Halbiya, vol. 3, p.362)

When Fadak was not the property of Janabe Fatima (p.b.u.h), why was it given to her in the first instance? And if at all it was hers, why was it usurped?

7. If the first Caliph was right in the case of Fadak, then why did he repeatedly repent at the time of remembering Fadak? And why he himself was ashamed of his own act?

8. The hadith that was quoted by the first Caliph for not conceding Fadak was clearly against the spirit of the Qur’an. In Qur’an, there is reference to the property of Sulaiman, Dawood, ‘Aal-e-Yaqub, Zacharia and Yahya – all of them were prophets and property holders (Surah Naml, verse 16; Surah Mariam, verse 46).

Apart from the above, Janabe Fatima Zahra (p.b.u.h) was infallible, virtue and honest. Why then her statement was not taken as true? The hadith recited by the first Caliph was not conforming with Qur’anic spirit and teachings, and hence, cannot be accepted. Why then was Fatima Zahra (p.b.u.h) deprived and denied her own property?

9. If it is true, that the Messenger of Allah had not let any property and if at all there is any, it belongs to the government or to all Muslims, why then the wives of the Prophet (p.b.u.h) specially Abu Bakr’s daughter, Ayesha, were not told to vacate possession of their premises? This was also the property left by the Prophet (p.b.u.h). Whether the denial of the right of property was applicable only to Janabe Fatima Zahra(p.b.u.h)?

10. If the property left by the Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h), does not belong to any particular person, then why did Abu Bakr seek permission only from his own daughter, Ayesha, for getting buried besides the Prophet (p.b.u.h)?

If at all the inheritance of property is considered, the wives are not entitled to get a share in it. At the most they can have residential rights. If the property rights are accepted, in the presence of children, a wife’s share is only 1/8th. And in this very 1/8th only, all wives would get equal share. If it is to be distributed among nine wives, the share of each wife would come to 1/72. In this way, Ummul Mo’mineen, Ayesha could give permission only upto her own share. Why other were not approached and consulted?

11. If it is accepted that the Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h) did not gift Fadak to Janabe Fatima (p.b.u.h) and that there was no property belonging to the Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h), even then, why were the Ahlul Bayt deprived of the Khums of the Khaibar and the wars? Has Qur’an not ordained to pay Khums to all your relatives (Zul Qurba) (Surah Tawba: 41, Surah Isra: 28)? In regards to booty, the question of inheritance does not arise.

12. Had the argument and the stand of the Khilafat been right regarding Fadak, then why Omar II, Omar bin Abdul Aziz, Omavi, Saffah, Mehdi and Mamoon Abbasi, had made offers to return Fadak to the progeny of Janabe Fatima (p.b.u.h)?

If it was the property of all followers of Islam, then why the third Caliph gave it to Marwan? After that, Muavia distributed it amongst his son, Hakam’s son, the son of Osman?

Thereafter, why was it retaken into possession by Yazid bin Abdul Malik, Mansoor Dawaaneqi and Mutawakkil Abbasi? (Bukhari vol.5, p.3; Tarikh of Ibn Atheer vol.5, p.288, vol.9, p.200)

The truth is that Fadak belonged to Fatima (p.b.u.h) and was her right. But the government usurped it, most probably for the reason that the land was fertile and populated. Its income was quite good, and it was the base of the economic resources of Ahlul Bayt. Or it was a step towards weakening the economy of Ahlul Bayt and to ease them out from religion and political mainstream.

Anyway, those who possess absolute faith in Qur’an and obey its orders, taking it as their bounded duty and for those who take Fatima (p.b.u.h) as the meaning fo ‘Ayat Tatheer’ and who consider Mubahala as the evidence of her truthfulness and take Surah Hal ‘Ataa in the light of her exalted character and purity, they are sure that in respect of Fadak, Janabe Fatima (p.b.u.h) was absolutely right and that it was her due. In the words of Qur’an, “After truth, there is nothing but erring.”

“When they are told not to commit corruption in the land, they reply, “We are only reformers.” They are corrupt but do not realize it. When they are told to believe as everyone else does, they say, “Should we believe as fools do?” In fact, they are fools but they do not know it.” (Holy Qur’an)

Why Hazrat Zahra (s.a.) demanded Fadak from the government

Why Hazrat Zahra (s.a.) demanded Fadak from the government

Hazrat Fatemah Zahra (s.a.) (the chief of all women in Paradise) was least interested in worldly possessions. She being a lady of exalted disposition, enjoyed great spiritual status and this was well-acknowledged by the Islamic world. She had all along remained aloof from the world and was wary of its trappings and deceit. However, after the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) demise, she agitated against the government to assert her claim over Fadak.

What brought about this change in her outlook to worldly possessions after snubbing them all her life? Why after recognizing the world for what it is more worthless than a goat’s sneeze or the bone of a pig in the hand of a leper or lighter than the wing of a fly, did she embark on a prolonged struggle with the government over a piece of property?

What factors made her bear untold hardships, affliction and troubles in her crusade against the government? Were a small piece of land and a few date trees worth so much trouble? After all, she was fully aware that all her efforts would eventually be in vain and the government would not return the land to her. It is natural for conscious readers to raise such questions regarding Hazrat Fatemah Zahra (s.a.) anguished demand for Fadak.

The questions are not complex for students of Islamic history, particularly for those who have closely studied the events in the immediate aftermath of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) demise. A cursory analysis of these events will provide the readers the answers they are seeking.

The first and primary reason was that Fadak was usurped to deprive Hazrat Fatemah Zahra (s.a.) of her lawful property and thus financially weaken the progeny of Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.a.). Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) was already facing opposition in his claim for caliphate; by withholding the property of Fadak, an attack was being inflicted by the government to weaken him economically. It was anticipated by the government that the people would see Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) as financially weak and would disregard his claim to caliphate. In the process, they wanted to dent his social and religious status. This was the very tactic adopted by the hypocrites with regards to the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) in the early era of Islam, who had imposed economic sanctions against all the companions and helpers of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.), thereby aiming to weaken him (s.a.w.a.) and his mission.

The second reason was that the income of Fadak was substantial. According to IbnAbil Hadeed al-Mutazali, the number of date trees in Fadak was equal to the total number of date trees in Kufa. Allama Majlisi (r.a.) quotes from €˜Kashf al-Muhajja’, the annual income of Fadak was 24,000 dinars. Another tradition says that the income was 70,000 dinars. Disparity in the amounts could be a result of fluctuation in the computation of income over the years. Obviously, such a significant amount did not escape the government'™s attention, especially since the Hashimites were the beneficiaries.

The third reason was that the demand of Fadak had a direct bearing on the demand of her illustrious husband, Ali Ibn Abi Taalib (a.s.) for caliphate. To substantiate this point, it is worthwhile to delve on an incident involving the renowned scholar Ibn Abil Hadeed al-Mutazali. The latter was studying at Madrasah al-Arabiyyah in Baghdad, when he once asked the teacher Ali b. al-Faraqi whether Fatemah (s.a.) was truthful.

The teacher answered, Of course

€˜Then why did Abu Bakr, who knew she (a.s.) was truthful, not return Fadak to her?€™ shot back the zealous student.

The teacher smiled and responded: ‘If Abu Bakr had conceded Fadak to Fatemah (s.a.) based on her pleas, she would have claimed that caliphate is the right of my husband which Abu Bakr had usurped. Under the circumstances, Abu Bakr would not have any excuse for denying Ali his right to caliphate (since he had already conceded Fatemah'™s (s.a.) claim on Fadak). Consequently, he would be bound to accept every argument advanced by her after making this concession.

The fourth reason was that right, if not given, should always be demanded. So, the one whose right is usurped, is bound to claim his right and struggle for it, since the right is his whether or not he needs it or is attached to it. The right to claim a usurped property is not related to one’s piety or indifference to the world. One can be pious and aloof from worldly possessions and still claim his usurped right vociferously.

The fifth reason is that a man, however aloof he may have remained from worldly possessions, is duty-bound to spend money on religious obligations (like joining relations – Sila-e-Rahm) and other duties enjoined by Allah the Almighty. Finance is required to perform these obligations and duties, and if that money is usurped by someone, hemust attempt to recover the same so as to perform his religious duties. Does history not confirm that the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) was the most pious and God-fearing of all Muslims? Even then, to further the cause of Islam, he needed the property and wealth of Hazrat Khadijah (s.a.).

The sixth reason is that reason demands that one should struggle to assert his usurped right. This can give rise to one of two scenarios:

a)Â Â Â Â Â If his struggle bears fruit, he will get what he wanted. Thus, his objective would be achieved in his struggle.

b)     If he fails in his endeavor and cannot reclaim his right, the usurper would stand fully exposed before all those who are aware of the truth. Every time the people see the oppressed man, they will be reminded of the usurper regardless of his good qualities and ethics. In fact, the people will come to realize that these qualities are a façade under which the usurper oppresses and cheats people.

The seventh reason was to invite the attention of the masses towards their oppressed state. Imposters and frauds use money and influence to win the heart of the masses. But the noblemen win over masses with their sincerity and ethics. When oppressed, such people use wisdom and exhortation to prove their point so that the people can clearly differentiate between the oppressor and the oppressed one and support the latter in his struggle against the former.

Thus, keeping in view the abovementioned factors, there was merit in Hazrat Fatemah Zahra’s (s.a.) crusade against the government that made her address the Muslims in Masjid al-Nabavi, the Mosque of her beloved father (s.a.w.a.) in a bid to establish her right.

She (s.a.) did not go to the house of the first caliph for discussions. Instead, she selected a place which was the centre for discussion and the meeting point of Muslims. She (s.a.) also selected the best time to go to the mosque. At that time, the mosque was filled to capacity by the Muhajireen, the Ansaar and people of various social strata. Moreover, she did not go to the mosque alone; rather she was accompanied by a group of ladies, who surrounded her.

Before her arrival in the mosque, a curtain was suspended at a pre-determined place so that she might address the audience from behind it

These arrangements were made so that she could present her arguments without compromising on etiquette. After all, she was the daughter of the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) who had claimed, ‘I am the most learned and cultured man in the whole of Arabia.’ She was a role-model for all Muslim women till the Day of Judgment as her father (s.a.w.a.) had declared, ‘An angel informed me and gave me glad tidings that my daughter, Fatemah is the chief of all women of my nation…’

(Al-Khasaaes by Imam Nisaai p. 34)

Did Abu Bakr and Umar seek forgiveness from Hazrat Fatima Zahra (s.a.)?

Did Abu Bakr and Umar seek forgiveness from Hazrat Fatima Zahra (s.a.)?

Introduction

Some Muslims claim that the Shaikhain – the first and second pseudo-caliphs – expressed remorse after attacking Hazrat Zahra’s (s.a.) house and usurping Fadak.

They maintain that the apology should have been accepted by Fatima Zahra (a.s.). By not accepting the apology, Hazrat Zahra (a.s.) has been unreasonable (we seek refuge in Allah!) and some Muslims go as far as to allege that she was by nature short-tempered and took offense at the slightest provocation. To prove their point by hook or by crook, these so-called Muslims even fabricate incidents, which paid historians have recorded in their chronicles.

Reply

1. Apology exposes Shaikhain’s blunder

2. Hazrat Fatima Zahra (s.a.) is chief of all women of Paradise

3. Allah also rejects apology (a.s.)

3. Shaikhain’s apology did not meet the standards set by the Majestic Quran (a.s.)

1. Apology exposes Shaikhain’s blunder

By defending the Shaikhain for seeking forgiveness, these Muslims have admitted that the Shaikhain were at fault. For if they were not at fault, then why the apology?

This means that Hazrat Fatima Zahra (s.a.) was right on the matter of Fadak and the Shaikhain were wrong.

It also means that the Shaikhain were wrong on the matter of caliphate. The argument of consensus (ijmaa) on the matter of caliphate is nullified with the apology of the Shaikhain.

Shaikhain’s apology shows that there was no consensus at all, neither on caliphate nor Fadak.

2. Hazrat Fatima Zahra (s.a.) is chief of all women of Paradise

Before leveling any accusation against Hazrat Fatima Zahra (s.a.) one must reflect on whether he has any intention of going to Paradise. For, if he does wish to enter Paradise, he must be prepared to contend with Hazrat Fatima Zahra (s.a.) – the chief of the ladies of all women – without whose permission entry in Paradise is prohibited. So, Muslims have no option other than to submit to Hazrat Fatima Zahra’s (a.s.) wishes under all circumstances.

3. Allah also rejects apology

If rejecting apology is a sign of being short-tempered and unreasonable, then this allegation must first be made against Allah, the Almighty Himself.

Allah the Merciful states in the Holy Quran:

‘Ask forgiveness for them or do not ask forgiveness for them; even if you ask forgiveness for them seventy times, Allah will not forgive them; this is because they disbelieve in Allah and His Apostle, and Allah does not guide the transgressing people.’ (Surah Taubah (9): Verse 80)

Here, Allah the High asserts He will reject the intercession of his own Noble Prophet (s.a.w.a.) because the sinners under question did not truly believe in Allah and His Prophet (s.a.w.a.).

Since Hazrat Fatima Zahra’s (s.a.) satisfaction and anger is linked to Allah’s satisfaction and anger, her refusal to accept the apology of the Shaikhain can only mean that they too did not deserve forgiveness like the transgressors of Surah Taubah (9): Verse 80.

It would have been better if these Muslims had not raised the point of Hazrat Fatima Zahra’s (s.a.) refusal in accepting forgiveness. It only ends up showing Shaikhain as the guilty party and not Hazrat Fatima Zahra (s.a.).

4. Shaikhain’s apology did not meet the standards set by the Majestic Quran

It is clear why Shaikhain were not forgiven by Fatima Zahra (a.s.). They lacked remorse and were only apologizing because tension in Medina had eased by then and their seat of power was secure. Everyone had submitted to them and they did not expect opposition from any front. There was the unfinished business of pacifying the Bani Hashim, who were very angry and withdrew in a shell after the attack on Hazrat Fatima Zahra’s (s.a.) house and the usurping of Fadak, among other injustices. Perhaps, they would protest at a later stage. The apology of the Shaikhain was more for public display than anything else. It is like a government trying to appease a particular group to prevent future opposition from that group. There is no sincerity or remorse in such an apology.

Allah lays down the ground rule for sincere forgiveness in the Quranic verse:

‘And those who when they commit an indecency or do injustice to their souls remember Allah and ask forgiveness for their faults– and who forgives the faults but Allah, and (who) do not knowingly persist in what they have done.’ [Surah Taubah (9): Verse 135]

The Holy Quran clearly says after apologizing, the transgressors – ‘do not knowingly persist in what they have done’. So if Shaikhain were truly sorry for their behavior with Hazrat Fatima Zahra (s.a.), in the least they should have returned Fadak, since that was a critical issue over which Hazrat Fatima Zahra (s.a.) was told that she was a liar (Allah forbid) and the Shaikhain were demanding witnesses!

By refusing to part with Fadak, what were the Shaikhain hoping to achieve by apologizing? The apology was hollow and meaningless and the message it gives Hazrat Fatima Zahra (s.a.) is – we are sorry we disputed with you on Fadak, but Fadak will still remain with us. Can one still say Hazrat Fatima Zahra (s.a.) was wrong in rejecting such an ‘apology’ where the transgressors ‘knowingly persist in what they have done’?

May Allah the High curse those who questioned the integrity of Hazrat Fatima Zahra (s.a.)!

Fatima Zahra’s (s.a.) anger - A small matter?

Is Fatima Zahra’s (s.a.) anger a small matter?

Doubt

Some Muslims are in denial about the displeasure of Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) and Fatima Zahra (s.a.) with the pseudo-caliphs and companions after the Holy Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) demise. They maintain that both of them (a.s.) were satisfied with these usurpers and relations between them were cordial.

However, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, some do concede that both (a.s.) were indeed upset with the usurpers and made their displeasure unknown in the most uncertain terms. In fact, the way they were treated by these usurpers and Muslims after the Holy Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) demise left no doubt about how Ameerul Momineen Ali Ibn Abi Talib (a.s.) and Fatima Zahra (s.a.) viewed the companions and caliphs.

But even after this, these Muslims shrug off the blame from the companions and caliphs by claiming that it was an error in jurisprudence (khata-e-ijtehaadi), a minor sin for which forgiveness is possible and nothing serious must be read into the situation.

Ibn Abi al-Hadid’s view on Fatima (s.a.) and caliphs

Let us first begin with what Abd al-Rahman Ibn Abi al-Hadid al-Motazeli has to say about Fatima Zahra’s (s.a.) stand vis-à-vis the usurpers. Ibn Abi al-Hadid al-Motazeli is a noted Ahle Tasannun scholar and although some allege that he was a Shia, it is clear from this statement that he was certainly not a Shia and very much part of the mainstream ‘Sunni’ ideology.

Ibn Abi al-Hadid writes, ‘In my view what is true is that when Fatima (s.a.) departed from this world, she was angry with Abu Bakr and Umar and had written in her will that they should not even participate in the prayers of her dead body. This act (the disrespect shown to Fatima (s.a.)) is considered a minor sin in the eyes of our scholars but an act which can be forgiven.’

However, it would have been better if Abu Bakr and Umar respected Fatima (s.a.) and considered her eminence (before acting as they did). But they feared discord and controversy and acted upon that which was best in their estimation as they held a prominent position in religion and powerful certitude. If a similitude of this episode is found anywhere, it is not a major sin but rather, a minor one and should not be made a criterion for friendship or enmity (towards them).’

• Sharho Nahj al-Balaaghaah vol pg 6 pg 49-50

Reply

1. A ‘small matter’ for Muslims could be a grievous matter for Allah

2. Imam Hasan’s (a.s.) reply to those who underestimate Fatima (s.a.)

3. Position of Fatima (s.a.) is beyond the intellect

4. Violating explicit instructions of the Quran

5. Is the murder of the entire mankind a small sin?

6. A small sin also has consequences

7. The unjust and unforgiven caliphs

8. Imamat will never reach the unjust

1.A ‘small matter’ for Muslims could be a grievous matter for Allah

Before writing off Fatima’s (s.a.) anger as a ‘small matter’, these so-called Muslims should consider the following verse of the Holy Quran:

‘…and you deemed it an easy matter while with Allah it was grievous.’

(Surah Nur (24): Verse 15)

Have these Muslims considered the possibility that what they consider a ‘small matter’ regarding Fatima’s (s.a.) anger is a grievous matter near Allah the High?

If Fatima’s (s.a.) anger can be dismissed as a ‘small matter’, then any number of crimes and misdeeds can be overlooked

under the same pretext like accusing the Holy Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) wife – Maariyah Qibtiyyah of adultery (we seek refuge in Allah!). But Allah the High says regarding the accusation – ‘you consider it an easy matter while with Allah it was grievous.’

2. Imam Hasan’s (a.s.) reply to those who underestimate Fatima (s.a.)

An incident involving Imam Hasan Mujtaba (a.s.) and the companions is a fitting reply to those who undermine Fatima’s (s.a.) status in Islam and dismiss her anger as something insignificant.

Imam Hasan Mujtaba (a.s.) said the following to Mughairah b. Shobah in protest to Muawiya and his accomplices when Mughairah uttered malicious filth against Ameerul Momineen (a.s.):

‘And then you, O Mughairah b. Shobah! You are an enemy of Allah and (you are) the one who opposed the Quran and belied the Prophet (s.a.w.a.)! You attacked the daughter of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) with the whip and wounded her, an act which led to her losing her child (in the womb). Then, you opposed the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) with such audacity and vilification and considered the Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) statement regarding the eminence of Fatima (s.a.) to be unimportant when he said that, ‘O Fatima, You are the chief of the women of Paradise.

O Mughairah! May Allah throw you into hell, and may He load the burden of the extreme guilt of lies upon your neck.’

• Al-Ehtejaaj vol. 1, pp. 269 – 280

If annoying Fatima (s.a.) is a minor sin, why is Imam Hasan (a.s.) so angry with Mughairah (may Allah curse him) threatening him with hell-fire?

3. Position of Fatima (s.a.) is beyond the intellect

Clearly, the Muslims have underestimated the importance of Fatima (s.a.):

a. She is the Chief of all Women of all times and the Lady of the women of Paradise.

• • Saheeh al-Bukhari, vol. 4, p. 209 Book of Initiation of Creation, Chapter of Virtues of the Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) relatives;
• • Al-Khasaais, p. 34;
• • Musnad of Abu Dawood al-Tayaalesi, p. 187;
• • Saheeh Muslim, vol. 7, p. 143;
• • Al-Tabaqaat al-Kubra of Ibn Sa’d, vol. 2, p. 40;
• • Musnad-o-Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, vol. 6, p. 282;
• • Hilyah al-Awliyaa, vol. 2, p. 39;
• • Al-Mustadrak alaa al-Saheehain, vol. 3, p. 151;
• • Sunan-o-Ibn Maajah, vol. 1, p. 518;
• • Sunan-o-Tirmidhi, vol. 5, p. 326

There is no defence possible for someone who mistreats her and worse, considers it insignificant and pardonable.

b. A crime against her is in fact a crime against the Prophet of Allah (s.a.w.a.) and Allah Himself because she is a part of his (s.a.w.a.) flesh; to anger her is to anger the Prophet of Allah (s.a.w.a.).

• Saheeh al-Bukhari, vol. 4, p. 210 Book of Initiation of Creation, Chapter of Virtues of the Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) Relatives, Chapter of Faatemah’s (s.a.) Virtues

• Saheeh al-Bukhari, vol. 6, p. 158;

• Musnad-o-Ahmad, vol. 4, p. 324;

• Saheeh-o-Muslim, vol. 7, p. 141 Book of the Companions’ Virtues, Chapter of Faatemah bint Muhammad’s Virtues;

• Sunan-o-Abi Dawood, vol. 1, p. 460

And one who angers the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) is cursed in the Holy Quran:

‘Surely (as for) those who annoy Allah and His Apostle, Allah has cursed them in this world and the hereafter, and He has prepared for them a chastisement bringing disgrace.’ 

(Surah Ahzab (33): Verse 57)

Is annoying the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) by annoying Fatima (s.a.) a small matter in view of this verse?

c. In fact, Allah Himself is pleased and displeased based on Fatima’s (s.a.) pleasure and displeasure.

• Al-Mustadrak, vol. 3, p. 158;

• Al-Isaabah, vol. 8, p. 266;

• Tahzeeb al-Tahzeeb, vol. 12, p. 392;

• Kanz al-Ummaal, vol. 12, p. 111, vol. 13, p. 674

4. Violating explicit instructions of the Quran

By entering the house of Fatima (s.a.) without permission, the oppressors have disobeyed and violated two verses of the Holy Quran:

‘O you who believe! Do not enter houses other than your own houses until you have asked permission and saluted their inmates; this is better for you, that you may be mindful.’

(Surah Nur (24): Verse 27)

‘O you who believe! Do not enter the houses of the Prophet unless permission is given to you…’

(Surah Ahzaab (33): Verse 53)

Is it a small sin to defy explicit orders of the Holy Quran?

5. Is the murder of the entire mankind a small sin?

By killing the unborn child of Fatima (s.a.), Mohsin b. Ali (a.s.), the oppressors have killed the entire mankind.

‘For this reason did We prescribe to the Children of Israel that whoever slays a soul, unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew all men…’

(Surah Anaam (5): Verse 32)

6. A small sin also has consequences

Incidentally, even small sins are not to be considered lightly as Allah the High warns in the Noble Quran:

‘And he who has done an atom’s weight of evil shall see it.’

(Surah Zilzaal (99): Verse 8)

7. The unjust and unforgiven caliphs

What has happened to the so-called strong sense of justice of the caliphs, particularly the second claimant, when it comes to returning Fatima’s (s.a.) right?

Even if a small sin has been perpetrated, where does that leave the sinners behind the crime? Clearly, Fatima (s.a.) has not forgiven them going by her refusal to grant entry to the criminals in her funeral. This means neither Allah nor His Prophet (s.a.w.a.) have forgiven them.

So the pseudo-caliphs were sinners then and will continue to be so till the Day of Reckoning. We are not even venturing into their other sins like abandoning the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) in the battles, annoying him on various occasions as highlighted in the Quran and so on.

Under the circumstances, was it fit for them to claim caliphate by virtue of proximity with the Prophet of Allah (s.a.w.a.) of all criteria? Can proximity with him (s.a.w.a.) be claimed after trampling over the rights of his (s.a.w.a.) only and beloved daughter and annoying her even if it be a ‘small sin’ as claimed?

8. Imamat will never reach the unjust

Imamat can never be the right of the oppressors and sinners, regardless of the magnitude of the sin. Didn’t Allah warn Ibrahim (a.s.) when he requested Imamat for his sons:

‘…My covenant does not include the unjust, said He.’ (Surah Baqarah (2): Verse 124)

In fact, Imamat is the right of the immaculate ones, led by Ameerul Momineen Ali b. Abi Talib (a.s.) and his sons (a.s.) who never ever committed a sin, big or small.

The so-called ‘small sin’ in question is big enough to expose the usurpers for what they were and their hollow claims to caliphate and proximity with the Prophet of Allah (s.a.w.a.).

Murder of Mohsin at the hands of "Muslims"

Hazrat Mohsin Ibn Ali (a.s.): A Victim of Oppression and Terrorism

Introduction

The demise of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) triggered a chain of events that caught the Muslims unawares. They accepted these events as if that was the most natural thing to do and remained unmindful of the far-r

eaching consequences of their submission.

One such incident that stands out in the aftermath of the Holy Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) demise is the siege on Fatimah’s (s.a.) house and the eventual attack that claimed two lives in its wake, one of them being Fatimah (s.a.) herself. The other one being the martyrdom of Mohsin b. Ali (a.s.), which is the subject of this article.



1. Unbelievably true
2. Timing of the attack
3. Who is Mohsin b. Ali (a.s.)
4. Documentary evidence of Mohsin b. Ali’s (a.s.) Martyrdom
5. Permissibility of Killing the One Who Oppressed Fatimah (s.a.)
6. Bibliography of References Documenting Mohsin b. Ali’s (a.s.) Martyrdom
7. Conclusion

Unbelievably true

Mohsin b. Ali’s (a.s.) martyrdom is so unsettling and even incredible that it has been denied by many Muslims.

When one comes to think of it, indeed the incident is unbelievably true. Not just the martyrdom of Mohsin b. Ali (a.s.), the entire chain of incidents, the oppressors and oppressed ones, everything about the attack on Fatimah’s (s.a.) house is unbelievable.

It is unbelievable that a hair on Fatimah’s (s.a.) would be harmed let alone being inflicted with a fatal body blow. Especially when the Muslims were served a crystal clear warning by the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) in this regard when he informed them that Fatimah’s displeasure was the cause of his displeasure and his displeasure was the cause of Allah’s displeasure and incurring Allah’s displeasure would drive one to Hell.

It is unbelievable that Ali b. Abi Talib (a.s.) who was anointed Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) publicly by the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) on divine command less than three months before his (s.a.w.a.) demise in Ghadeer-e-Khumm and was the unanimous choice of Allah and His Messenger (s.a.w.a.) as highlighted by every notable incident in Islam’s history should be subjugated by individuals who could not even compare to the dust of his horse’s hooves which incidentally Allah swears by in Surah Aadiyaat.

It is unbelievable that the perpetrators of this crime were none other than the so-called companions of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and his so-called successors who claimed proximity and brotherhood with the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and after whose names the Muslims invoke Allah’s satisfaction and mercy.

It is unbelievable that the atrocities meted out to Fatimah (s.a.) would eventually claim her life inducing Ali (a.s.) to declare that she was like a flower nipped in the bud and confessing to the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) his helplessness in safeguarding the Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) trust. All this within a few days of the Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) demise and revelation of the Verse of Purification (Surah Ahzaab (33): 33) and Incident of the Cloak testified to by all the Muslims as being related to Fatimah (s.a.) along with her husband and sons.

It is unbelievable that Fatimah (s.a.) willed her burial to be carried out in the dead of the night deeming the companions in question unfit to attend her funeral and in this way categorically refuting their claim to caliphate and so-called proximity to her father (s.a.w.a.) and inflicting a slap so hard on her oppressors that its reverberations will always be felt by her oppressors and their partisans.

Finally it is unbelievable that the struggle launched by a few individuals for worldly power and status would mercilessly uproot the existence of a six-month unborn infant from the comfort of his mother’s womb.

Over here, the martyrdom of Mohsin b. Ali (a.s.), the third son of Ali b. Abi Talib (a.s.) and Fatimah (s.a.) after Hasan (a.s.) and Husain (a.s.), has been analyzed in detail. Other events before and after the martyrdom, although very significant from the viewpoint of Ali b. Abi Talib (a.s.) and Fatimah (s.a.) in particular and Muslims in general, are referred to in lesser detail.

Despite claims to the contrary by misinformed and uninformed Muslims, it is well-documented by scores of scholars from both the sects – Ahle Sunnah and Shias, that there was a full-scale attack on Fatimah’s (s.a.) house only a few days after the Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) demise. The objective of the companions who assaulted Fatimah (s.a.) and Ali b. Abi Talib (a.s.) was to extract Ali’s (a.s.) allegiance for Abu Bakr, without which they knew Abu Bakr’s caliphate would lack any form of legitimacy.

Timing of the attack

Although the exact day of the attack on Fatimah’s (s.a.) house is a matter of some debate among historians, the broad consensus is that it all happened within three days of the Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) demise. This is concluded from the fact that Ali b. Abi Talib (a.s.) refused to leave the house when the mobsters demanded allegiance for Abu Bakr, citing the Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) recommendation that he remain confined to the house until he had collected the Quran and Ali (a.s.) took three days to complete the task. (Tafseer-e-Furaat-e-Kufi pg. 398-399 from Imam Muhammed Baqir (a.s.), which has been recorded by Ibne Nadeem in his book Al-Fehrist pg. 30, Behaar al-Anwaar, vol. 23 pg. 249. However in some traditions the number of days for compiling the Quran has been narrated varyingly as seven days and nine days.)

Based on this, it is apparent the attack on Fatimah’s (s.a.) house was executed within a maximum of nine days of the Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) demise. Many narrations that mention the attack and compilation of the Quran mention two days and three days and it is likely that the two events have been mixed up by narrators. At any rate, it is most probable that the attack on Fatimah’s (s.a.) house was engineered by the government-backed mob within two-three days as opposed to a more prolonged period of seven or nine days.

A quicker attack also appears more plausible given the alacrity and keenness with which this group had moved within moments of the Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) demise on 28th Safar to select a caliph amongst themselves. Since Ali’s (a.s.) allegiance to Abu Bakr was very important to lend legitimacy to their scheme, it is unlikely they would have delayed the move (to force Ali’s (a.s.) consent) as with every passing day the danger of tables turning on them increased manifold. Also once the entire Medina (save the Bani Hashim and Ali’s (a.s.) select companions) had pledged allegiance, they realized they had to move fast to acquire Ali’s allegiance which was conspicuous by its absence. (Kitab-e-Sulaim Ibne Qays pgs 82, 249)

If one considers the attack three days after the Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) demise then 1st Rabi al-Awwal is the fateful day in the lives of Ali (a.s.) and Fatimah (s.a.) and their Shias that altered the course of Islam forever. It marked the subjugation of the Ahle Bait (a.s.) at the hands of the unworthy creatures and laid the foundation of other heinous crimes like the battle of Karbala and the martyrdom of all Imams (a.s.) ending in the occultation of Imam Mahdi (a.t.f.s.). All these events were triggered by that single attack on the house of Fatimah (s.a.) and if anyone believes otherwise then he has underestimated Ali (a.s.) and Fatimah (s.a.) and/or not fully comprehended the consequences of Karbala and other calamities that befell the nation.

It is for this reason that Shias across the globe observe 1st Rabi al-Awwal as the date of Mohsin b. Ali’s (a.s.) martyrdom. The idea is not so much to observe a specific date as it is to observe the martyrdom of someone who by giving his life invalidated the efforts of those who forcefully attempted to legitimize their caliphate by illegitimately entering Fatimah’s (s.a.) house despite her pleas and lamentations to be left alone.

Who is Mohsin b. Ali (a.s.)

Mohsin b. Ali (a.s.) is the third son of Ali (a.s.) and Fatimah (s.a.) after Hasan (a.s.) and Husain (a.s.). He is also referred to as Mushabar which is also the name of Haroon b. Imran’s (a.s.) third son. He was no more than six months old at the time of the attack. (Al-Hidaayat al-Kubra, pg. 407, Behaar al-Anwaar, vol. 53 pg. 19).

Mohsin b. Ali (a.s.) was the least involved in the business of politics and machinations which the attack on Fatimah’s (a.s.) was all about. He was not concerned with anything that transpired on that day and no one who had any grouse with Ali (a.s.) and Fatimah (s.a.) had an argument against Mohsin b. Ali (a.s.). Even those who debate about the infallibility of Ali (a.s.) and Fatimah (s.a.) fall silent when the infallibility of an unborn child is raised because they have no answer.

Therefore, although the entire attack on Fatimah’s (s.a.) house was illegitimate, the attack on Mohsin b. Ali (a.s.) in many ways was the most illegitimate part of the attack.

Just like this vicious attack laid the foundation of another murderous attack 50 years later in Karbala, it is perhaps Mohsin b. Ali’s (a.s.) martyrdom to safeguard the infallibility of his parents (a.s.), that inspired his nephew Ali b. Husain (al-Asghar) to wage a battle against the enemies in Karbala to safeguard the infallibility of his father Husain b. Ali (a.s.). Husain b. Ali (a.s.), of course, is unique among the oppressed ones as he is the only one present on the scenes of both the attacks – one on his parents and brother and the second on his children, nephews and another brother.

It is perhaps the potency of Mohsin b. Ali’s (a.s.) martyrdom that has led some Muslims to deny his death in the attack, attributing it to other causes. This is clearly a campaign based on misinformation or lack of information that is similar to the campaign to deny the attack on Fatimah’s (s.a.) house altogether. The attack on Fatimah’s (s.a.) house has no justification whatsoever and therefore the only way out is to deny it altogether.

Of course, the biggest blow to the deniers is the martyrdom of Fatimah (s.a.) and Mohsin b. Ali (a.s.) in the aftermath of the attack. It is widely documented that both (a.s.) were martyred as a result of the attack; Mohsin b. Ali (a.s.) instantly and Fatimah (s.a.) a few days later.

Documentary evidence of Mohsin b. Ali’s (a.s.) Martyrdom

There are several well-documented narrations to establish Mohsin b. Ali’s (a.s.) martyrdom from the attack on Fatimah’s (s.a.) house. Those interested in seeking the truth of the matter should not be surprised to find scores of scholars and historians from across eras and predispositions (Shia and Ahle Sunnah) record the martyrdom of Mohsin b. Ali (a.s.) in a manner that puts the issue beyond doubt.

A) Mohsin b. Ali’s (a.s.) Martyrdom in the Holy Quran

Since the first place to look for evidence of a belief or concept is in the Quran, we must turn to this divine book for evidence of Mohsin b. Ali’s (a.s.) martyrdom. And evidence of this event appears in the 8th and 9th verses of Surah Taqweer (81):

‘And when the female infant buried alive is asked, for what sin she was killed.’

Mufazzal b. Umar, the respected companion and special deputy of Imam Sadiq asked Imam (as) – What is your opinion about these verses?

Imam (a.s.) informed: O Mufazzal, by Allah, ‘Maudato’ (i.e. infant) in this verse means Mohsin and surely he is from us and not others. Those who claim otherwise are lying.

Then Imam (a.s.) elaborated (on the events on the Day of Resurrection) – Fatimah, the daughter of the Allah’s Messenger will supplicate – O Allah fulfill Your Promise and Your Pledge with me with regards to those who oppressed me, usurped my rights, struck me and distressed me with regards to all my children.

On hearing this, all the angels inhabiting the seven heavens, the carriers of the Throne and all those residing in space and the inhabitants of the earth and under the layers of the earth will lament and wail in front of Allah. Then none will remain from those who oppressed us and killed us and those who were pleased at our oppression except that he will be killed.

(Behaar al-Anwaar vol. 53 pg. 23-24)

B) Mohsin b. Ali’s (a.s.) Martyrdom in Supplications

Apart from the Holy Quran, supplications of infallibles (a.s.) are reliable sources of beliefs and concepts. The martyrdom of Mohsin b. Ali (a.s.) finds mention even in supplications. In the renowned Supplication of Sanamay-e-Quraish we implore Allah to curse the oppressors (of Ahle Bait a.s.) for every foetus that they have destroyed.

(Misbaah al-Kaf’ami pg. 731 by Shaykh Taqi Al-Deen Ibraheem al-Kaf’ami)

Over here, the reference to the oppressors who attacked Fatimah’s (s.a.) house resulting in Mohsin b. Ali’s (a.s.) martyrdom is obvious.

C) Mohsin b. Ali’s (a.s.) Martyrdom from Sunnah and History

Allamah Muhammad Baqer Majlisi records in Behaar al-Anwaar vol. 43 pg. 171 on the authority of Abu Baseer who relates from Imam Jafar Sadiq (a.s.), ‘Fatimah’s (s.a.) death resulted from being pierced by the sword which claimed (the unborn) Mohsin’s life. The perpetrator of this crime was Qunfuz, who was acting on his master – Umar’s explicit command…’

Ibn Shahr Aashob al-Sarvi al-Mazandarani in vol. 3 pg. 132 records from Al-Maarif of Ibne Qutaybah al-Dinawari (Ahle Sunnah scholar) – The following were Fatimah’s children – Hasan, Husain, Zainab, Umme Kulsum and Mohsin b. Ali who was killed by Qunfuz Adawi (i.e. from Bani Adi, the same tribe as Umar b. Khattaab).

Masoodi in Isbaat al-Wilaayah pg. 142 records – They attacked Fatimah’s (s.a.) house. They crushed the Chief of All Women behind the door so violently that it resulted in the miscarriage of Mohsin.

Muhammad al-Shahrastaani records in Al-Milal wa al-Nehal vol. 1 pg. 57 (Beirut Edition) – Umar struck Fatimah violently in the abdomen (on the Day of Allegiance) so much so that she fell on her abdomen (resulting in the infant’s death).

Abu Abdillah Shams al-Deen al-Zahabi records in Mizaan al-Etedaal vol. 1 pg. 139 – Undoubtedly Umar kicked Fatimah so much so that it lead to Mohsin’s miscarriage.

Allamah Khalil b. Aybak al-Safadi in Al-Waafi be al-Wafiyyaat vol. 6 pg. 17 records – The Motazelah sect is of the view that on the Day of Allegiance Umar undoubtedly struck Fatimah so much so that Mohsin was killed.

Abdul Qadir al-Tamimi al-Baghdadi in Al-Farq bain al-Faraaq pg. 107 records on the same lines as above.

Sadr al-Deen Ibraheem Ibn Sa’d al-Deen Muhmmad al-Hammuee in Al-Faraaed al-Simtain vol. 2 pg. 35 records on the authority of Ibne Abbas who heard the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) prophesy – ‘…it is as if I see grief and anxiety entering my daughter’s house, her respect being violated, her rights being usurped, her inheritance being denied to her, her unborn being miscarried and (in this moment of distress) she is calling out – O Muhammad, but no one replies to her pleas.’

Permissibility of Killing the One Who Oppressed Fatimah (s.a.)

Ibne Abil al-Hadeed Motazali in Sharhe Nahjul Balagha vol. 4 pg. 192 (Beirut Edition) has documented the following incident:

Some apostates belonging to a group led by Habbareen b. Aswad were making elaborate plans to trouble Zainab the daughter of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.). Zainab was on camel-back heading towards Medina from Mecca. The apostates were giving her chase. The first to catch up with her was Habbareen b. Aswad. He threateningly pointed his spear towards Zainab’s saddle (so as to scare her and the camel). This terrified Zainab so much so that she suffered a miscarriage as a result. Due to this the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) ordered Habbareen b. Aswad to be killed on sight.

After narrating this incident, Ibne Abil Hadeed writes – I have recorded this incident from Naqeeb Abi Jafar.

Naqeeb said – It is clear that Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) considered Habbareen b. Aswad a criminal deserving death due to his terrifying Zainab leading to her miscarriage. Without doubt if the Prophet of Allah (s.a.w.a.) had been alive at the time of Fatimah, he would likewise have considered permissible shedding the blood of the one who terrorized his daughter leading to her miscarriage.

Ibne Abil Hadeed relates – I asked Naqeeb – Should I report the incident of Fatimah being terrorized by a group of people leading to her miscarriage on your authority?

Naqeeb replied – Do not report this incident on my authority. Also do not report its rejection on my authority. I do not wish to give my view and belief on this subject.

A simple analysis of Naqeeb’s statement tells us that Fatimah’s (s.a.) miscarriage was evident for him. If that was not the case and he did not believe in the miscarriage, he would have outright denied it and would have gone on record saying that he did not believe in the incident. However, he did believe in the miscarriage, it was only because of his prejudice and predisposition that he refused to go on record and in this way tried to show that he was not certain about the incident.

It is worth stating over here Shaikh al-Hurr al-Aameli’s comment in Isbaat al-Hudaat vol. 2 pg. 360 after recording Naqeeb’s confession – It is not concealed from us that witness of something having occurred is closer to acceptance than witness of something not have occurred. The witness of something not having occurred is not acceptable except in the rarity that the witness who refutes the event is doubtful about it. (This is clearly not the case with Naqeeb who confesses that the incident did in fact occur only he did not wish to go on record with the same.)

Bibliography of References Documenting Mohsin b. Ali’s (a.s.) Martyrdom

Mohsin b. Ali (a.s.) martyrdom has been recorded by the following scholars/historians:

I) Ahle Sunnah Sources

Al-Milal wa al-Nehal vol. 1 pg. 57 (Beirut Edition) by Muhammad al-Shahrastaani exp. 548 AH
Mizaan al-Etedaal vol. 1 pg. 139 by Abu Abdillah Shams al-Deen al-Zahabi exp. 748 AH
Al-Waafi be al-Wafiyyaat vol. 6 pg. 17 by Allamah Khalil b. Aybak al-Safadi exp. 746 AH
Al-Farq bain al-Faraaq pg. 107 by Abdul Qadir al-Tamimi al-Baghdadi exp. 429 AH
Al-Faraaed al-Simtain vol. 2 pg. 35 Sadr al-Deen Ibraheem Ibn Sa’d al-Deen Muhmmad al-Hammuee exp. 732 AH
Sharhe Nahjul Balagha vol. 4 pg. 192 (Beirut Edition) by Ibne Abil Hadeed Motazali exp. 656 AH
Kitaabo Dalaael al-Imamah by Abu Ja’far Muhammad Ibn Jurair al-Tabari exp. 310 AH

II) Shia Sources

Al-Manaaqeb by Ibn Shahr Aashob al-Sarvi al-Mazandarani (exp. 583 AH) vol. 3 pg. 132 from Al-Maarif of Ibne Qutaybah al-Dinawari (Ahle Sunnah)
Isbaat al-Wilaayah by Masoodi (exp. 346 AH) pg. 142
Amaali-e-Sadooq pg. 99 by Shaykh al-Saduq (exp. 381 AH)
Bashaarah al-Mustafa le Shiah al-Murtaza pg. 197 by Abu Ja’far Muhammad Ibn Abu al-Qaasim al-Tabari (sixth century scholar)
Iqbaal al-A’maal pg. 625 by Sayyed Ibn Taawoos (exp. 664 AH)
Irshaad al-Quloob pg. 295 by Abu Muhammad al-Hasan Ibn Abi al-Hasan Muhammad Dailami
Jalaa al-Uyoon vol. 1 pg. 184 by Allamah Muhammad Baqer Majlisi (exp. 1111 AH)
Misbaah al-Kaf’ami pg. 522 by Shaykh Taqi Al-Deen Ibraheem al-Kaf’ami (exp. 905 AH)
Al-Muhtazar pg. 109 by Husain Ibn Sulayman al-Hilli, a student of al-Shaheed al-Awwal
Kaamil-e-Bahaai pg. 309 by Shaykh Bahaai (exp. 1031 AH)
Hadiqah al-Shia pg. 265 by Ahmed b. Muhammad famous as Muqaddas-e-Ardebili (exp. 993 AH)
Ma’ani al-Akhbaar pg. 205 by Shaykh al-Saduq (exp. 381 AH)
Ilme Yaqeen pg. 686
Rawzah al-Muttaqeen vol. 5 pg. 342
Behaar al-Anwaar vol. 43 pg. 171 by Allamah Muhammad Baqer Majlisi (exp. 1111 AH)
Isbaat al-Hudaat vol. 2 pg. 337 by Shaikh al-Hurr al-Aameli (exp. 1104 AH)

http://www.seratonline.com/8668/hazrat-mohsin-ibn-ali-a-s-a-victim-of-oppression-and-terrorism/