Translated by Muhammad Jaffer and edited by Sayyid Burair Abbas

In the context of the recent film released in the UK regarding Lady Fāṭimah (as) entitled “Lady of Heaven,”^[1] we present the following article written by the contemporary scholar Shaykh Ḥusayn al-Khechin.^[2] In his usual analytical style, al-Khechin discusses how the details about the tragedy narrative (al-maẓlūmiyyah) of Lady Fāṭimah should be understood and how a moderate Shī’ah should navigate the tumultuous strife about this issue:

In commemorating Lady Fāṭimah, we ought to take pause in recalling the special relationship between al-Zahrā’ and her father the Apostle of God (sawa). He would display such reverence and assiduous concern in his interactions with her, in a manner entirely different from his behavior toward the rest of his womenfolk (regardless of whether they were his other daughters, wives, etc). It is as the poet has eloquently stated:

ما تمنى غيرها نسلا ومن *** يلد الزهراء يزهد في سواها

                                    He never wished offspring from another,

                                    For one who births Zahrā’ eschews all others!^[3]

1. What Does it Mean for Fāṭimah to be The Chiefess of The Women of the Worlds?

In this context, that which truly draws attention is the famous words of the Holy Prophet (saw) where he refers to al-Zahrā’ as the chiefess (sayyidah) of either the women of the worlds, the women of the believers, or the women of Paradise based on slight variances in the narrations.^[4] Of course, there is no contradiction between these narrations because they are interchangeable (the chiefess of the women of paradise must also be chiefess of the women of the worlds, etc.). It should truly be said that this distinction is the most prestigious one ever granted by the Holy Prophet (saw) to any woman; there is no greater statement he has made regarding any other woman’s status. Being the leader of the women of the worlds is not a simple affair, especially when it is issued by the Holy Prophet (saw), who does not speak frivolously and is not wont to speak based on sentiments or nepotism. Indeed, such a man does not grant epithets wantonly upon those undeserving of them!

The establishment of Lady Fāṭimah (as) as the master of the women of the world implies that she had consolidated within her personality such elements of spiritual and ethical perfection that had rendered her capable of assuming this status. As such, it becomes imperative upon all Muslims who are loyal to his path to discover the significance of Fāṭimah and to disclose the characteristics of leadership within her personality. In turn, they must present her exceptional disposition to the entire world with every facility of communication effective among the current generation. This is because we have absolute conviction that one who has been specifically appointed as “chiefess of the women of the worlds” by the Holy Prophet (saw) himself must not be any ordinary woman; rather she must be an inspired, well-educated, and refined exemplar to be followed for all eternity. Therefore, the question which imposes itself here is: Why don’t we know more about Fāṭimah? Why is it that most are completely ignorant of her reality and the distinct aspects of her personality? Why is it that historians have not bothered to shed light on her stances, words, and personal characteristics? On the other hand, why is it that some are insistent in decorating her with all sorts of clandestine statements that completely mystify her away from practical life? Why is it that she is engulfed in an esotericism which renders her a sacred icon rather than a paragon worthy of emulation? Why is it that some imprison her personality in the confines of an oppression narrative that she faced after the demise of the Holy Prophet (saw)?

We do not deny that Fāṭimah is a woman of special sanctity, nor that she faced several injustices after the passing of her father the Holy Messenger (saw). However, this does not justify us forgetting the rest of the stances she took within the blazing pages of her voluminous life. In reality, behaving in an esoteric manner with the personality of Fāṭimah (as) does not only create a barrier in emulating her, but also in understanding her personality; indeed, this is one of the greatest wrongdoings meted out upon the daughter of Muḥammad (saw): that she should be unknown to this degree.

However, despite the besiegement upon the personality of this great lady (as), we have yet still managed to retain several of her amazing universal and intellectual contributions; albeit these are limited, they are extremely powerful and have the potential to render pervasive guidance. It is upon us only to appreciate their significance and make them apparent; and indeed, Allah will complete his light even if there are those wont to dislike it.^[5]

2. Managing our Differences Regarding the Details of the Oppression Narrative (al-maẓlūmiyyah)

The discussion about the maẓlūmiyyah narrative compels me to state the following: there is a common denominator agreed upon by all regarding how Lady Fāṭimah was oppressed. This agreement extends from her being hindered from Fadak, the symbol of Imāmah, to the attack upon her house and the violation of its sanctity. Indeed, that was a house at which the Prophet would stand for a long time saluting its inhabitants while repeating the Qur’ānic statement, “God only ordains this to rid you of all filth—oh People of the House!—and to purify you to the utmost.”^[6] There is also agreement about that catastrophic oppression that kept Lady Fāṭimah awake at night: namely the seizure of the caliphate from its rightful heir. As she states eloquently in her famous khuṭbah:

ويحهم أنى زحزحوها عن رواسي الرسالة وقواعد النبوة ومهبط الوحي الأمين والطبين بأمر الدنيا والدين ، ألا ذلك هو الخسران المبين ، وما نقموا من أبي حسن ، نقموا والله منه نكير سيفه ، وشدة وطأته ، ونكال وقعته ، وتنمره في ذات الله عز وجل

“Woe betide them! How they diverted it (i.e. the caliphate) away from the mountains of the Divine message, the foundations of the Prophethood, the destination of the trusted revelation, and the sage of worldly and otherworldly wisdom; indeed, that is a monumental loss! By God, they did not seek vengeance against Abū Ḥasan except due to the power of his sword, the might of his swagger, the torment of his strike, and the zealous fury he carried for the sake of God the Almighty.”^[7]

As we can see, al-Zahrā’ herself perceived the biggest oppression as the one meted out upon Imām ‘Alī (as), which by extension was the oppression of Islām and Muslims. Distancing Imām ‘Alī (as) from his rightful position in managing the ummah had and continues to have a plethora of negative repercussions upon our faith community.

Nonetheless, some details of this narrative have been subject to scrutiny and difference of opinion, especially among some scholars who have cast aspersions or raised questions about certain events. Among these we may mention the striking (ḍarb) of Zahrā’ as debated by Shaykh Muḥammad Ḥusayn Kāshif al-Ghiṭā’ (rh) and the breaking of her rib (kasr al-ḍil’) as debated by Sayyid Faḍlullāh (rh). Regardless of our personal stance in affirming or questioning these events, the question here is: how do we manage the differences about these issues? Do we use intellectual discussion devoid of inflammatory language and mutual accusations? Or do we utilize every manner of cold-hearted speech, charged with insults, curses, and accusations of deviance? Do we espouse a rhetoric on the pulpits that destroys the reputations of the living and exhumes the bodies of the dead? This question becomes especially poignant when we consider social media discussions that abound with disparagements, insults, and bigotries galore. The culture becomes one of exposing the other, whereby we rouse rancor between believers upon the very frontier wherein we ought to unite ourselves!

Objectivity and Emotionality

It may seem obvious to state that we ought to manage the variance about these issues based on the same academic rigor that is prevalent in other intellectual investigations, whether historical, jurisprudential, or theological. This is how rational minds in general ought to behave when confronted by discord and difference of opinion. However, it is unfortunate that fanaticism and emotion come to assume precedence in governing this issue; even some preachers and speakers participate in this form of discourse, whereby they evoke and mobilize the sectarian emotions of the laity to cast all sorts of aspersions on those who endorse an alternative narrative.

The stark difference here is that we often subject other theological, historical, and jurisprudential questions to scrutiny and people raise absolutely no objections about it. Even when these issues we question are even more well-established, more influential on theology, and have stronger proof than the details of the maẓlūmiyyah narrative, we find no one raising controversy about them. Some of these issues are even considered by some as unanimously accepted (mashhūrāt) or essential to the creed (ḍarūriyyāt), however no one feels compelled to mobilize the public or issue fanatical statements against those who question them.

As an example: a scholar told me that he was teaching his students some theological material and when they reached the point of discussing the knowledge of the Imām, he mentioned a nuance stating: “This is predicated upon belief that the Imām has knowledge about non-religious affairs (al-mawḍū’āt).” This mere allusion triggered some students, who stated that the Imām was knowledgeable about everything and queried how anyone could even question his knowledge. In response, the scholar said, “Some time ago, we discussed the knowledge of God Almighty and we presented a view of some philosophers that God’s knowledge is not inclusive of particularities; do you recall? The students answered: “Yes.” The scholar said, “At that point, I did not see a single one of you find this objectionable or raise any criticism!” Unfortunately, exactly this same double standard displayed by some students can be found in some scholars.

This is a clear indication that polemical issues are not approached via intellectualism, but rather are treated based on sectarian sensationalism. We recognize this sensationalism and understand its origins in the systematic oversight of the oppression of the Ahl al-Bayt. However, this is not an appropriate justification for the reactionism in defaming others—not from a logical nor a religious perspective.

Another example: the widely accepted opinion among both Shī’ah and Sunnī scholars is that the Prophet (saw) had a number of other daughters other than Lady Fāṭimah (as), namely Zaynab, Ruqayyah, and Umm Kulthūm. However, one recent scholar has opposed this view and backed it up with proof. While some have interpreted his critique as a polemical one meant to refute that the third caliph was the Prophet’s son-in-law, we have not witnessed anyone stripping the right of the said scholar to adopt his respective view.^[8] The question here is this: why is it that when it comes to the issue of Muḥsin who was miscarried by Zahrā’, it is as though the Day of Judgement has been raised when someone questions his existence or even insinuates that he was a natural miscarriage?

It is absolutely crucial for us—especially as scholars—to treat this issue with complete objectivity while abstaining from every manner of sectarian reprehension or sentimentalism. We also emphasize here the right of anyone for whom these historical events are established to be able to express his opinion, as long as it does not offend the sentiments of others nor the wider Islamic community.^[9]

Those who believe that employing a hardline style of critique and raining accusations against the opposite party will mitigate the spread of the alternative narrative are gravely mistaken. In addition to this style being completely inappropriate from a religious standpoint, devoid as it is of intellectual value, suppression of alternative viewpoints will only contribute to its spread.

On the opposite side, it is obligatory upon those who doubt these events to employ an intellectual style, and not mock or undermine those who endorse this narrative; it is necessary for us to properly critique and to teach people how to critique ideas rather than engage in ad hominem against personalities.

3. The Details of the Maẓlūmiyyah Narrative are Historical Events, not Theological Ones

In placing issues in their proper intellectual context while distancing them from sentimentalism, it is important for us to understand the framework in which these various details about the maẓlūmiyyah narrative should be understood. Are these theological matters or historical ones? Answering this question is critical and leads to a number of important advantages:

A. We come to recognize the type of evidence that should be presented for this issue; theological issues require proofs that render conviction, while historical matters do not require such meticulous evidence (at least this is the popular opinion).

B. If a historical criterion is to be applied to these issues, this implies that rejection of them is purely historical and has no bearing on the scrutiny of theological issues.

Now perhaps some might say that although these issues are historical in themselves, they entail a rejection of certain other theological concepts such as dissociating oneself from certain personalities.

The answer is that this is a presupposition about the intention of others and has no intellectual or religious excuse. Moreover, there is absolutely no theological contradiction, since the principle here is dissociating oneself from those who oppressed the Ahl al-Bayt. Refuting a certain detail of an event does not imply that one is befriending the oppressors or that he is relinquishing his dissociation. As an example, should we presume that those who reject the existence of Laylā (the wife of Imam al-Ḥusayn) in Karbalā’ are opposing dissociation from ‘Umar ibn Sa’d and his army?!

Even if these issues should be deemed theological, variances of opinion on such topics should not lead us issuing statements that undermine the sanctity of others or accuse them of aberration. Many theological issues are not universally accepted and are only theoretical, subsuming various schools of thought.

It is a grave danger to tie the entire madhhab to these historical details, however monumental they may be. In doing so, we will imply that the toppling of this narrative or the raising of questions about its events shall topple the entire sect or create an earthquake in its theological foundation! Far from it, for a sect should stand instead based on its principles and central foundations, backed as they are by compelling arguments.

In conclusion, we end with the eloquent statement of Imam ‘Ali (as) narrated by Sharīf al-Raḍī in Nahj al-Balāghah. Upon burying Lady Fāṭimah, he stood toward the grave of the Prophet as though confiding in him and said:

السَّلَامُ علَيْكَ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّه عَنِّي – وعَنِ ابْنَتِكَ النَّازِلَةِ فِي جِوَارِكَ، والسَّرِيعَةِ اللَّحَاقِ بِكَ، قَلَّ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّه عَنْ صَفِيَّتِكَ صَبْرِي ورَقَّ عَنْهَا تَجَلُّدِي، إِلَّا أَنَّ فِي التَّأَسِّي لِي بِعَظِيمِ فُرْقَتِكَ وفَادِحِ مُصِيبَتِكَ مَوْضِعَ تَعَزٍّ فَلَقَدْ وَسَّدْتُكَ فِي مَلْحُودَةِ قَبْرِكَ، وفَاضَتْ بَيْنَ نَحْرِي وصَدْرِي نَفْسُكَ، فَـ {إِنَّا لِلَّه وإِنَّا إِلَيْه راجِعُونَ} [البقرة-156 ]، فَلَقَدِ اسْتُرْجِعَتِ الْوَدِيعَةُ وأُخِذَتِ الرَّهِينَةُ، أَمَّا حُزْنِي فَسَرْمَدٌ وأَمَّا لَيْلِي فَمُسَهَّدٌ، إِلَى أَنْ يَخْتَارَ اللَّه لِي دَارَكَ الَّتِي أَنْتَ بِهَا مُقِيمٌ، وسَتُنَبِّئُكَ ابْنَتُكَ بِتَضَافُرِ أُمَّتِكَ عَلَى هَضْمِهَا – فَأَحْفِهَا السُّؤَالَ واسْتَخْبِرْهَا الْحَالَ، هَذَا ولَمْ يَطُلِ الْعَهْدُ ولَمْ يَخْلُ مِنْكَ الذِّكْرُ، والسَّلَامُ عَلَيْكُمَا سَلَامَ مُوَدِّعٍ لَا قَالٍ ولَا سَئِمٍ، فَإِنْ أَنْصَرِفْ فَلَا عَنْ مَلَالَةٍ، وإِنْ أُقِمْ فَلَا عَنْ سُوءِ ظَنٍّ بِمَا وَعَدَ اللَّه الصَّابِرِينَ

“Peace be upon you oh Apostle of God, on my behalf and on behalf of your daughter: who has alighted in your proximity, most swift in joining you. Oh Apostle of God, my patience is feeble upon losing your pristine daughter and my perseverance is frail. However, in my affliction at the calamity of your departure and the gravity of your tragedy also rests my honor: for it is I who placed you into the cavity of your grave, and it was between my neck and my chest that your soul departed this world. “Indeed we are from God and to him we return.” (Sūrah al-Baqarah verse 156)

I have returned the trust and the pledge has been taken back; as for my grief, it is forever and as for my night, it is sleepless—until God chooses for me the abode wherein you reside. Your daughter will surely inform you about the conspiracy of this ummah in repressing her; therefore, press her with your inquiry and ask her of the circumstance. Indeed, all this has transpired while not much time has elapsed since your departure and while your memory is still fresh. Salutations upon you both, from one taking your leave while not hateful or weary: if I depart from your presence I don’t do so out of boredom, and if I remain here I don’t do so out of despair regarding what God has promised those who are perseverant.”^[10]

Footnotes

[1] TN: We would also recommend referring to the following post, where the film is critically reviewed: https://iqraonline.net/film-review-the-lady-of-heaven/

[2] TN: The original article can be found here: http://al-khechin.com/article/446

[3] TN: This is a famous line of poetry from the Arabic literarian Aḥmad al-Shawqī.

[4] In the famous ḥadīth narrated by ‘Ā’ishah: “Fāṭimah told me: “The Apostle of God (saw) confided to me and said: “Gabriel used to present the Qur’ān to me once a year but this year he presented it to me twice. I take this not except as a sign of my departure and you are the first of my Ahl al-Bayt in joining me. How great a precedent I am for you!” Fāṭimah said: “Then I cried.” The Prophet said: “Are you not pleased to be the chiefess of the women of this nation/the women of the worlds?” Then Fāṭimah laughed (al-Istī’āb of ibn ‘Abd al-Barr volume 4 page 1894). It has also been narrated from Abū Sa’īd al-Khudrī that he said, “The Holy Prophet (saw) said: Fāṭimah is the chiefess of the women of Paradise, except for Maryam bint ‘Imrān” (cf. ibid).

[5] TN: This latter statement is an interpolation from the Holy Qur’ān, Sūrah Tawbah verse 32

[6] Sūrah al-Aḥzāb verse 33. TN: This is as per a famous hadith of the Prophet unanimously accepted by all Muslims. Please see here for more information: https://iqraonline.net/an-in-depth-analysis-of-the-verse-of-tathir-who-are-the-ahl-al-bayt-part-1/

[7] Ma’ānī al-Akhbār page 355 and Dalā’il al-Imāmah page 126

[8] TN: the reference by the author here is to Sayyid Ja’far Murtada al-‘Amili (rh) and his work entitled, “Daughters of the Prophet or Stepdaughters?” (Banaat al-Nabi am Rabaa’ibuhu)

[9] TN: on this note, the film recently released about Lady Fatimah has created a great deal of discord and tension with Sunni co-religionists. Expression of the narrative in this matter is completely unacceptable.

[10] Nahj al-Balāghah volume 2 page 182