Some Muslims claim that the Shaikhain – the first and second pseudo-caliphs – expressed remorse after attacking Lady Fatima 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, she (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.
1. Apology exposes Shaikhain’s blunder
2. Lady 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.)
Back to Top1. 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 Lady 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.
Back to Top2. Hazrat Fatima Zahra (s.a.) is chief of all women of Paradise
Before leveling any accusation against Lady 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 Lady 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 Lady Fatima Zahra’s (a.s.) wishes under all circumstances.
Back to Top3. 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 Lady 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 Lady Fatima Zahra’s (s.a.) refusal in accepting forgiveness. It only ends up showing Shaikhain as the guilty party and not Lady Fatima Zahra (s.a.).
Back to Top4. 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 Lady 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 Lady Fatima Zahra (s.a.), in the least they should have returned Fadak, since that was a critical issue over which Lady 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 Lady 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 Lady 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 Lady Fatima Zahra (s.a.)!