The Lies and Rumours against Sayyid Fadlullah
bismillah ar-rahman ar-raheem
1. The issue of Prophet Yusuf (a.s.):
RUMOUR AS TO WHAT SAYYID FADLULLAH IS SUPPOSED TO HAVE SAID:
that in his tafseer of surat yusuf, he says that nabee yusuf (a.s) had 'unlawful sex with his masters wife'
THE TRUITH:
- the verse says:
[Shakir 12:24] And certainly she made for him, and he would have made for her, were it not that he had seen the manifest evidence of his Lord; thus (it was) that We might turn away from him evil and indecency, surely he was one of Our sincere servants.
Arabic: wa laqad hamat be-he wa hema be-ha lo la an ra'a burhana rabih kathalika linsarif 3anho al-soo'a wal-fah-sha' inaho min 3eebadona al-mokhlasoon
the sayyid did not, and has never said, that nabee yusuf (a.s) had 'unlawful sex with his masters wife', astaghfurullah this is a complete lie and fabrication. the truth:
- the sayyid says, in interpreting the part 'wa hema be-ha': when the prophet went through this incident, in terms of his thoughts and intentions, the prophet did not even contemplate the issue even for a fraction of a second because he is, as a prophet, infallible. however, just like when someone who is fasting goes past a restaurant and smells food - even though the person does not even think or contemplate of breaking his fast - his body automatically produces some saliva. this is a similar issue where the body of the prophet reacted just like any other human body to such a situation and this is what is meant by the part of the verse 'wa hema be-ha', but in terms of his thoughts and intentions they remained pure as he is infallible.
source:
- min wahyil quran
- also the sayyid was asked in the may q&a the same question, which is available online to listen to:
it was asked at 39 mins 17 seconds
to listen online:
to download:
- many other tafaseer note a similar opinion, the sayyid is not the only person to hold such a view. for example 'tafseer al-emthal' by shaykh makarim al-sheerazi (one of the people listed in samir's list):
al sayyid al murtadha , see: tanzeeh al anbiya' page 47
al shaykh al toosi, see: al tibyan, part 6 page 120
al shaykh makarim al sheerazi, see: al amthal, part 7, page 164
2. Surat 'Abasa
Another tafseer that people have used to attack sayyid fadlullah:
- the verses in question:
[Shakir 80:1] He frowned and turned (his) back,
[Shakir 80:2] Because there came to him the blind man.
[Shakir 80:3] And what would make you know that he would purify himself,
[Shakir 80:4] Or become reminded so that the reminder should profit him?
[Shakir 80:5] As for him who considers himself free from need (of you),
[Shakir 80:6] To him do you address yourself.
[Shakir 80:7] And no blame is on you if he would not purify himself
[Shakir 80:8] And as to him who comes to you striving hard,
[Shakir 80:9] And he fears,
[Shakir 80:10] From him will you divert yourself.
- what sayyid fadlullah says: there are several shia opinions as to who is refered to in this verse (the person who ignores the blind man). in discussing one of the views that says it is the prophet who is being referred to in this, he says that this can be a possibility because it does not oppose or contradict his infallibility. there are many reasons to explain why this is so, if it is assumed that this possibility (remember it is only a possibility) is correct. in short, the reason is that the blind man interrupted the prophet's conversation and persisted to an abnormal level, such that it was the blind man who was in the wrong, and due to his persistence there were signs on the prophet's face that he was a bit annoyed. this does not mean there is any weakness in the prophet's character or any question that this is wrong in anyway. It certainly does not contradict his infallibility.
- secondly, this view is not exclusive to sayyid fadlullah. many shia quran scholars have held a similar opinion that this could be a possibility. some of them include: sayyid muhsin al-ameen al-3amili mid-20th c.; sayyid muhammad ijwad moghneya recent (he lists the impossibilities in interpreting the verse and the possibilities and concludes that it is certainly one of the possibilities - as it doesn’t oppose the prophet's 'ismah/infallibility):
sayyid muhsin al amin, see: a'yan al shi'a part 1 page 234
sayyid hashim ma'roof al hasani, see: seerat al mustafa, page 196
shaikh mohamed jawad mughniya, see: al kashif, part 7, page 515
sayyid muhsin al amin al amilee, see: majma' al bayan, part 10, page 557
shaikh makarim al shirazi, see: al amthal, part 19, page 363
3. Fatimah al- Zahra and the Issue of Her Rib
- what the sayyid says (taken from his book 'Fatimah al-Ma'sumah : a role model for men and women'; available online at ):
------
Her grievances
The short life of Fatimah , which lasted no more than twenty years according to some historians, was filled with much suffering and grave crises. If we talk about the suffering and hardships in her daily living, we also need to talk about what was worse than that: the calamities and grievances which she suffered after the death of her father - something which opened a bleeding wound in the Islamic nation, and which in turn was the cause of the painful wounds that followed - one of the worst of which was the murder of the Master of the Youth of Paradise Imam al-Husain and his progeny in the desert of Kerbala' and the taking of the women and children as captives to al-Sham (Damascus), driven like slaves. These grievances have been narrated by both the Sunnah and Shi'ah, and the numerous narrations which speak about her grievances and injustices coincide, even to the level of mutawatir.[19]
1- The attack on her house
Historians, one of whom is Ibn Qutaybah in al-Imamah wal Siyasah, said that - after the death of the Prophet and al-Saqeefah episode - men came with wood to burn down the house of Ali and Fatimah , to threaten them and those whom they considered as opposition, who had gathered at the house of Ali . Some said to the leader of the assault: 'O man! In the house is Fatimah!'; and Fatimah was the person whom the Muslims agreed to love and respect, and whose position they agreed to acknowledge, because she was the only daughter that the Prophet (sawa) left when he died, and because she was part of him - what made her angry made him angry and what harmed her harmed him... So, how come you come with fire to burn her house?
But, he replied with his famous statement: 'Even though!'
We regard this as one of the most dangerous utterances, because it means that there are no sacred entities in this house, and so there is nothing to prevent it being burned with its people inside!
This utterance points to the mindset of the people, and what they were prepared to do. However, had they opened the door to dialogue through nice words, they would have found Ali the man of dialogue, as he had always been throughout his life, even after he became a caliph; and they would have found Fatimah a woman of dialogue, because the Qur'an, to which Fatimah above all others adhered most closely to, was the book of dialogue. However, those people had already passed the stage of dialogue by the time they gathered the wood to burn the house of al-Zahra . So when in reply to 'In the house is Fatimah', that man said 'Even though!' this represented the ugliest form of injustice to which Fatimah was subjected.
2- Other grievances
There were other events in which she suffered, but they have not always been substantiated fully beyond doubt. Those include the actual burning of the house, the breaking of her rib, the miscarriage, the slapping of her cheek, and the beating of her and others. These are recorded in narrations that may have question marks raised against them, either in their actual text (matn) or in the chain of narrators (sanad), as is the case with many historical narrations.
Therefore, we have raised some queries, as have been raised by some scholars in the past (may Allah be satisfied with them) such as Sheikh al-Mufeed[20] who seems to question the miscarriage issue, even the existence of the pregnancy - although we disagree with him on the latter. However, we do not deny that these events may have taken place - as Sheikh Muhammad Husain Kashif al-Ghita' has done regarding beating her and slapping her cheek[21] because denying requires as much proof as accepting. At any rate, what is definite is that the numerous narrations attain the level of mutawatir as a whole, confirm that there was an assault on her if only by exposing her house, attacking it and threatening to burn it - and this alone should be sufficient to prove the degree of crime which took place. It was a crime that continued to haunt those who committed it, and this was why the first caliph declared as he was dying: 'I wish I had not exposed the house of Fatimah, even if it had declared war on me.'[22]
footnotes:
[19] Narrated by so many sources, which could never gather to conspire to lie, so as to make it impossible for it but to be true. The translator.
[20] Al-Irshad, vol. 1, p. 355; this also seems to be the opinion of al-Tabrasi in
I'lam al-Wara bi A'lam al-Huda, vol. 1, p. 395, Ahlul Bayt publishers, Iran, 1417H.
[21] Jannatul Ma'wa, p. 135, Dar al-Adwa', Beirut 1988.
[22] Commentary on Nahj al-Balaghah, vol. 6, p. 50; Lisan al-Mizan, vol. 4, p. 189.
------
- also, in the same book there is a question and answer session, a similar question was
brought up:
------
Q9 - Fatimah's rib: what is your true position regarding this matter?
A - Any one who claims that I have said that Fatimah's rib was not broken is a liar!
Some people have been talking this nonsense for more than five years.[7] Here, I have this to say to you, to clarify the matter: to start with, I reiterate that I did not say that Fatimah's rib was not broken, and everyone who claims that I did is a liar. I merely regarded it as unlikely; I raised a question mark on the basis of historical analysis. I said: 'I do not react positively with this because the Muslims' love for Fatimah had been greater than their love for Ali, and greater than their love for al-Hasan and al-Husain, and greater than that their love for the Messenger of Allah (sawa). I said that it was unlikely that anyone would commit such an act, but conceded that bad intentions were plotted - not to establish the innocence of anyone, but in fear of agitating Islamic public opinion.
There were many narrations: some said that they entered the house, while others said they did not. Hence, I said: 'I see that to be unlikely and I do not react positively to the word itself'. The world roared and heavens fell on earth, and words began to be fabricated and spread in some quarters!
This reaction has still not abated in more than one place, and leaflets are being distributed around the world. It is as if the dangers confronting the Muslims and all the injustice that we live in have become nothing, and all that matters is this historical issue!
In fact, this is a symptom of the backwardness which is being practised by many in our Islamic arena. This problem still festers among those who do not care about the dangers which confront Islam, and that the problem is still alive means that we are not addressing the major issues on the proper level of awareness.
footnotes:
[7] This was in October 1997. The translator.
------
- that suffices as an answer, but let me remind you, this is a historical matter. no matter what the opinion, this is not an 3aqeeda matter, or in fact a fiqh matter.
- does fatimah become somehow less if her rib was not broken? does it mean she is less of a person? or is it only till breaking her rib did the ummah prove how astray it was? or only till the breaking of her rib was she injusticed?
4. The Doubt in the Infallibility of the Prophets and Imams
RUMOUR and ALLEGATION:
That sayyid fadlullah doubts the infallibility of the prophets and imams
THE TRUTH:
- this case demonstrates, more clearly than ever, how there are some people out there whose intentions are only to spread false accusations and slander against sayyid fadlullah, and how they have managed to convince many people of this.
- what the sayyid says: sayyid fadlullah says that he disagrees with the argument put forward by sayyid tabatabi in proving the infallibility of the prophets and imams, as his argument has a flaw which means that it can be argued against in a certain way to reach the conclusion that the imams and prophets can make mistakes. however, sayyid fadlullah says he has a different basis for proving the infallibility (3isma) of the prophets and imams, according to which it is impossible to argue that the prophets or imams committed any sin.
- source: min wahyil quran
- amazing how different the lies are to the truth!
5. Duaas of Imams in asking for Forgiveness
THE RUMOUR and LIE:
'In Dua Kumail: Fadlallah when interpreting the dua suggests this means
Imam Ali(as) had many sins'
THE TRUTH:
- what the sayyid really says: the sayyid was asked why duaas of the prophet and imams mention forgiveness for sin, does that mean they had sins? sayyid fadlullah replied that the prophet and imams are infallible and of course had no sin; instead what is meant by them when they read these duaas is that they are talking on behalf of mankind, not themselves, because they are ma3soomeen (infallible).
- this question was repeated in the february q&a; the question specifically mentioned duaa kumayl and imam ali :
the question is at 8 mins 30 seconds
to listen online:
to download:
6. Third Shahada and Adhan and 'Iqama
THE RUMOUR:
Sayyid fadlullah is alleged to say that the third shahad should 'not be recited because it has negative effects'
THE TRUTH:
- what the sayyid actually said: it should not be recited if it leads to trouble for the person or gives a negative effect.
- the point to note is that no marji' argues that the 3rd shahada is part of the the adhan or iqama, and anyone who reads it with the intention that it is, invalidates their adhan or iqama.
- most marji' say it is mustahab specifically to recite the 3rd shahada in the adhan and iqama. sayyid fadlullah, and a few other marji', say that the strength of the evidence only points to it being generally mustahab to recite the 3rd shahada and not specific to the adhan and iqama. he argues that if it is was a matter of strength of evidence, then the strength of evidence of the iqama being part of salat is far greater than the evidence of a specific istihbab for reciting the 3rd shahada in the iqama, and thus if you were to go by the basis of strength of evidence you would argue that out of precaution you should not recite the 3rd shahada in the iqama in case the iqama is part of the salat and it is haram to have any additions in salat. (note: the sayyid does not rule that the iqama is part of salat, this is merely a hypothetical argument).
The Lies and Rumours Against Sayyid Fadlullah
