Why did Imam Ali (peace be upon him) not avenge the atrocities upon Hazrat Fatima Zahra (peace be upon her) and why did he not kill those who oppressed her?

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on whatsapp
Share on telegram
Share on pinterest
Share on email

Prejudice has always overpowered the reasoning abilities of Muslims while trying to absolve their leaders of their wrong-doings such as the oppression upon Hazrat Fatima Zahra (peace be upon her), the beloved daughter of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him and his progeny). In order to defend their leaders, they go to any lengths and even attempt to either distort history or raise such objections and doubts for the fickle minded masses that the wrong-doings of their leaders seem non-existent to them. Now-a-days, many so-called Shias have also begun raising such doubts for political and financial gains. Unfortunately, ordinary Shias fall prey to such objections and begin to doubt the actions of our Imams (peace be upon them), especially those of Ameerul Momineen Ali Ibn Abi Talib (peace be upon both of them). It should be borne in mind that neither the objections nor their replies are new for us. But it is important for us to remember the replies nevertheless. Let us look at one of the objections raised and their brief replies.

Objection

Why did Imam Ali (peace be upon him) not avenge the atrocities upon Hazrat Fatima Zahra (peace be upon her) and why did he not kill those who oppressed her?

Reply

  1. The right of seeking revenge is among those which Allah, the High, has entrusted upon blood relatives. But utilising this right is not mandatory. The blood relative can either forgive or even demand blood money for it. There are many instances where a person might have been killed by someone but his blood relatives do not avenge the killing on personal, social or some other grounds and they prefer to be patient over taking revenge. Ameerul Momineen (peace be upon him) possessed extremely lofty morals and was personally trained by Holy Prophet (peace be upon him and his progeny). He was the most knowledgeable of the sensitive conditions of Muslims at that time and was also extremely aware of his concealed internal and external enemies. Hence, acting upon the covenant and the promise which he made to Holy Prophet (peace be upon him and his progeny), he chose not to rebel against the usurpers for the salvation of the Muslim society. He indicated towards this in the Sermon of Shiqshiqiyyah as well. The path he chose for the safety of Islam was the best proof of his rightfulness.
  2. Solitary confinement, lack of supporters and assistance was another reason for his silence which he expressed in the same sermon of Shiqshiqiyyah.
  3. Those who raise this objection and thereby try to deny the attack on the house of Hazrat Fatima Zahra (peace be upon her) should be asked:
    1. Why did Holy Prophet (peace be upon him and his progeny) not take revenge from the killers of Hazrat Hamza, uncle of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him and his progeny)?
    2. Why did the companions not take revenge from those who attempted to kill the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him and his progeny) after the expedition of Tabuk?
    3. Why did the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him and his progeny) grant respite to and not take revenge from Abu Sufyan, Muawiyah, Amr Aas and all other chiefs of the polytheists and disbelievers who were hostile towards the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him and his progeny) and Muslims, waged wars like Badr, Ohad, Khandaq, Khyber, etc. and martyred many Muslims?
    4. Why was no revenge taken from Usmaan Bin Afaan who, as per the narrations of the Ahle Tasannun, killed Umm Kulsum, one of the daughters of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him and his progeny)?
    5. Does not seeking revenge mean these incidents didn’t take place at all?
  4. Even if Ameerul Momineen (peace be upon him) wanted to take revenge then which court of law could he appeal to? History is witness that all the power was under the control and supervision of the rulers and they used to conveniently alter the cases as per their benefit. There are many such incidents. For example,
    1. Mughirah Ibn Sho’bah committed adultery and there were witnesses against him but the witnesses were not accepted and instead they were flogged on the orders of the caliph.
    2. Khalid Bin Waleed killed Maalik Ibn Nowairah and raped his wife but the caliph defended the actions of Khalid and on the contrary justified his actions.

Conclusion

These were only couple of examples where judgements were twisted in the favour of the ones whom the rulers wanted to. This was also one of the reasons why Ameerul Momineen (peace be upon him) did not revolt against or seek revenge from those who oppressed Hazrat Fatima Zahra (peace be upon her). He very well knew that even if he took steps towards seeking revenge, he will not reach his aim because the judge who will supervise the case was the main culprit of the case.

Leave a Comment

recommended reading

Was Abu Bakr the first Muslim?

“Repeat a lie so many times that it becomes more reliable than the truth” goes a famous proverb. Some Ahle Tasannun scholars – in their attempt to glorify their leaders – have fabricated and spread such lies that these have become like “famous truths” today. One of them is the canard that Abu Bakr was

Read More »