An Orthodox Muslim’s Review of ‘The Lady of Heaven’: A Shia Propaganda Film

[AMusee]

​

​

Introduction​

The film LADY OF HEAVEN is causing mass outrage.

Many Muslims are questioning its authenticity, reliability, and whether or not it accurately portrays the lives of the blessed family of Sayyidunā Muḥammad Rasūlullāh ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam and his illustrious companions.

Considering that the film is written by Sheikh Yasser Al-Habib, a Shia preacher, one quickly realizes that this film is about the Shia narrative of the life of Sayyidah Fatimah raḍiyallāhu ‘anhā. It has been the perpetual trick of the Shia to twist and distort facts, creating corruption and problems throughout Muslim history. They continue with this practice unabated. The film is a typical tactic used by Shias to deceive the Muslims and non-Muslims of the world into believing their tale of being oppressed, while portraying Sunnis as violent, oppressive Muslims who are behind prominent terrorist organizations. Films like THE MESSAGE, books like KHALID BIN WALID: THE SWORD OF ALLAH [AI AKRAM], and documentaries like THE ARRIVALS have done precisely the same thing.

The foundation of Shi’ism is based on attacking the finality of the Nubuwwah of Sayyidunā Muḥammad Rasūlullāh ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam. This is done by portraying his family as the only true carriers of, and participants in, the history of Islām. By doing this, no attention is paid to the teachings of the Messenger of Islām, but rather to the fabricated tales placed around him. This is why we find such a huge lack of practical implementation of the blessed Sunnah within the Shia world.

RELATED: The Hidden Shia Agenda of The Muslim Vibe

The Writer: Sheikh Yasser Al-Habib​

As mentioned earlier, the writer of the film, Yasser Al-Habib, is a known hate preacher. He incessantly insults the wives of the Prophet ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam, mainly Sayyidah Aishah raḍiyallāhu ‘anhā, and the companions of the Prophet ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam, most often Sayyidunā Umar raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu and Sayyidunā Abu Bakr raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu.

As a result, in 2003 he was sentenced to 35 years in prison in Kuwait. However, he mysteriously escaped in 2004 and fled to London where he currently resides. More information about the vile things this Shia says can be heard here.

His presence in the UK is not without controversy however. In 2014 he bought a base in Fulmer, Slough, which is worth £2 million. The residents in Buckinghamshire fear that due to his hate speech against the Sahabah raḍiyallāhu anhum, he will cause sectarian violence between the Sunni and the Shia community in the UK. The British government protects him and allows him to spew vitriol against revered and respected figures in Sunni Islam.

Many have questioned how Al-Habib attained his money. The budget for his film was $15 million and the mosque he built in Fulmer was worth £2 million. Then there’s his mysterious escape from the Kuwaiti prison. Some have alleged that he has ties to Western intelligence agencies such as the CIA, MI5 and MI6. He rejects all of these claims of course.

Al-Habib believes that Islamic groups like Al-Qaeda, the Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine and the Islamic Mujahideen in Bangladesh are Salafi and Wahhabi radical groups who want to rid the world of any non-Muslim concepts such as democracy, human rights and a free market economy.

Surprisingly, he is also against Hezbollah due to their religious ideology. He also speaks out against the Iranian regime. ‘[He] also condemns any injustice perpetrated by modern day Islamic scholars and public figures including Ayatollah Khamenei in Iran.’

You may refer to here, here, here and here.

 

[AMusee]

Shia’s Condemning the Film​

When the trailer was released, many Sunnis naturally condemned the film. However there were also Shia groups in Iran, Pakistan, Lebanon and the UK that also condemned the film.

Pakistani Shi’ite scholars condemned the film in a joint statement, calling it:

‘the joint conspiracy of evil elements backed by arrogant powers, including the Zionist regime and their puppet Britain.’

They said:

“The producer of the film ‘The Lady of Heaven’ by this evil act wants to destroy the atmosphere of peace and brotherhood between Muslim nations to achieve the goal of the arrogant powers to hurt the feelings of the Islamic society”

This resulted in the film being banned in Pakistan.

Some Shia scholars in the UK have said:

“We wish to inform all our community members that any attempt which causes friction and disunity amongst Muslims is against the teaching of Ahl-ul-Bayt and not in line with the Fatwas of our honorable Ulama and Religious Authorities (Maraji’)”
“We therefore wish to inform all Muslims that any scenes depicting revered figures of other Muslim schools of thought which may cause sectarian tensions most definitely does not represent the true Shia Islam and its followers”

In fact, in Iran (a Shia majority country), Iranian clerics have banned watching the film, as it will cause discord between Sunnis and Shias. They issued the following statement:

“Without doubt, those who help to produce and release this film, as well as those who have planned to incite a lot of bloodshed among the Muslims through this film. Therefore, all those who help in the production of this film will also be responsible for any Muslim blood that is spilled on its account […] all Muslims must know that the messages intended to be conveyed through this film are neither the messages of Islam nor those of the Shia School”

It is important to note that Yasser Al-Habib is considered a marginal figure amongst Shias due to his provocations, slanders, and insults against the Sahabah raḍiyallāhu ‘anhum.

You may refer here, here, here, here, here and here.

Reviews of the Film​

A Shia Review of the Film​

Even Haseeb Rizvi, a Shia writer from The Muslim Vibe (A liberal Muslim website backed by Shias), condemns the film and says in his review of the film:

“This film’s priority is to offend Sunni Muslims more than is it to depict a Shia Muslim understanding of this period of Islamic history”

Even from a non-Islamic standpoint, he says that the film is a:

‘poorly executed mess with bad scripting, acting and editing’

He goes further by saying:

“The film then relies on lousy acting and cringe-worthy cliches to help the audience decide who is good and evil.”

This mirrors what many non-Muslims have commented about the film (more on this later on in the article).

The film was so bad that Rizvi mentions that he:

‘witnessed three couples leaving the theatre midway, and by the time the film finished, the only person left in the cinema with me was a man who was snoring.’

Rizvi was also complaining about the lack of diversity when it came to the cast. Characters were mainly played by white and black actors. He also commented on the racism displayed in depicting the companions of the Prophet ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam.

“The fact that you could see dark smudges on a lot of the actors’ faces was somewhat reminiscent of racist depictions in the 70s and 80s of Arabs and Indians. This poor casting and makeup combined with these terrible accents almost felt like a parody at times.”

He even comments further on the racism where Sayyidunā Umar, Sayyidunā Abu Bakr and Sayyidah Aishah raḍiyallāhu ‘anhum were depicted as ‘black and brutish’ and believes that they were depicted in such a way, due to ‘the racial bias of black and dark skin people being evil and brutal.’

One could argue that depicting them as black could be influenced by Shia art or the Shia narration that black people are a distorted creation (for more info on racism in Shi’ism).

At the beginning of the film, it explicitly states:

“In accordance to Islamic tradition during the making of this film no individual represented a Holy personality. The performances of the Holy Personalities were achieved through unique synthesis of actors, voices, in-camera effects, lighting, visual effects”

However, the film blatantly lied and later had an actor trying to depict the Prophet Muhammad ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam with a full face. And it’s not just one scene, but multiple scenes within the film, as well as voicing the Prophet ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam. Rizvi describes it as an ‘extremely uncomfortable experience’ and that this is a big redline that should not be crossed.

In an interview, the filmmakers regarded Fatimah as a holy person that should not be represented. Supposedly:

‘the team carefully created a mixture of CGI, lighting and other effects to create the impression of a holy person’

In the past, some people used a blank space to represent a holy person, or to film their perspective from the first person POV (of that person). However, Abdul-Malik Shlibak the producer of the film says regarding this issue:

“None of them have really been suitable for cinema. They all come out a bit cheesy, a bit off, so we didn’t want to do that, we wanted to do something that would do justice to cinema.”

And in wanting to ‘do justice to cinema’ they got an actor to play the Prophet ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam, and a person (whether computer generated or not) in full niqab depicting Fatimah raḍiyallāhu ‘anhā – a holy person according to Shias.

You may refer here and here.

 

[AMusee]

Non-Muslim Review of the Film​

The film was reviewed poorly amongst the film community and was considered lackluster.

New York times’ Beatrice Loayza review of the film commented on the film describing it as:

“Historical epic about the life of Fatima, the daughter of the Prophet Muhammad, is a mechanical history lesson riddled with cliches”

She goes on further to say:

“A shoddy script and an overwhelming reliance on cliches, however, make this would-be blockbuster feel incredibly cheap.”

Other film reviewers have said similar things about the film. Dennis Schwartz says about the film:

“The filmmaker gives half a shout-out for his Islamic religion to go to the non-violent route, but the storytelling is made up of plot points by roe, not completely convincing in its call for peace and is loaded with too many religious cliches”

He further comments of the film:

“The film was so uneven it never got my full attention and left me wondering what it wanted me to come away thinking, as it mostly follows the modern-day jihadists on the warpath, doing more harm to other Muslims than to the so-called infidel Westerners”

Even Schwartz agrees with the sentiment that the film is doing more harm than good, by depicting Sunnis as blood thirsty ‘modern day jihadists’ seeking violence and power. While at the same time, the film tries to present and promote propaganda for a supposedly more peaceful Islam, i.e., Shi’ism.

Roger Moore on the other hand, describes the film as a Muslim apologist film. He says:

“The film’s point of view is one we hear often in the West. It’s argument that ISIS, radical fundamentalists, Saudi Wahabists and suicide bombers sanctioned by other sects have hijacked Islam and turned it into a global brand for violent intolerance in the name of religion”

Moore gave the film two out of four stars, commenting that:

‘the movie’s something of a muddle’

Sister Rose Pacatte, a Catholic nun who does film reviews, clearly describes the idea that traditional Sunni Muslims are a bunch of violent, bloodthirsty jihadists:

‘This explains why the ISIS soldier killed Laith’s Mother, also named Fatima. ISIS follows the Sunni branch of Islam and would consider any Shia or Muslim that esteemed the lady Fatima to be an adversary and threat.’

Firstly, Sunnis do revere Fatimah raḍiyallāhu ‘anhā, but we don’t go overboard in idolizing her like extreme Shia, who grant her divinity. This violates the very essence of Islamic Tawhid (Monotheism). Associating partners with Allah is the gravest sin in Islam, which is why many Sunnis denounce Shi’ism – because they violate the rights of Allah by associating partners with Him, i.e., shirk (polytheism), coupled with the fact that they insult the revered and respected companions of the Prophet ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam.

‘Umar raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu narrated:

I heard the Prophet (ﷺ) saying, “Do not exaggerate in praising me as the Christians praised the son of Mary, for I am only a Slave. So, call me the Slave of Allah and His Apostle.” Sahih Al Bukhari 3445

She was a bit more conciliatory towards the film, saying:

“As a film, it is interesting to a non-Muslim because most may not know much about Islam”

She also described the film as:

“a rare film about Islam that may be its greatest achievement”

She did complain about a lack of ‘significant character development’ for the characters in the film.

Judging from online reviews, it seems that the people behind the film have bought fake reviews on major sites such as IMDB, Metacritic, and Rotten Tomatoes. This seems to have been done to boost the credibility of the film and to discredit many of the genuine bad reviews it has received. Anyway, we’ll let you be the judge of that.

 

[AMusee]

False Promotion of the Film and Contradictions​

The producers Abdul Malik Shilbak and Hussain Ashmere went to the Cannes film festival in 2021 to promote their film Lady of Heaven. One would question how they even managed to get into Cannes considering the “prestige” associated with the film festival and how difficult it would be to have your film accepted and be screened at Cannes, especially a film that apparently suffers from numerous technical and artistic problems from even a secular perspective.

While the film producers were there promoting the film, they took advantage of the ignorance of the non-Muslims who were present, creating false narratives about Islam and passing it off as ‘historically accurate.’

They also pandered to modern feminist sentiments by claiming that:

‘[Fatimah] is one of the most influential historical Arabian characters. Her story is fascinating and rich, we believe the lady herself is a figure that, no matter which religious or non-religious background you’re from, you can resonate with and learn a great deal from’.

This is not true. Fatimah raḍiyallāhu ‘anhā had very little influence in the region. This is not to belittle Fatimah raḍiyallāhu ‘anhā. She is one of the respected and revered Sahabiyyat raḍiyallāhu anhunna. In fact, she is the leader of the women of this Ummah and she will be leader of the women of paradise.

Film critics have also commented that the film is ‘hardly about Fatimah’ despite the film being called ‘The Lady of Heaven.’ The character that is supposed to be Ali raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu has more screentime than that of Fatimah raḍiyallāhu ‘anhā.

RELATED: Feminism Is Female Narcissism

They also promote the film as a counter to the mainstream narrative of Islam.

“Many parts of the world are living with attacks, violence, some may call it Islam but it’s a misconception of Islam. We’re trying to reach out to the world and show them this isn’t Islam.”

Hussain Ashmere, the producer of the film explicitly states:

‘Our film was made for the Western media’

Their inferiority complex towards the kuffar becomes very evident through this film, wherein they try to present Islam as a ‘religion of peace and tolerance.’ They distort Islam to appease liberal secularists, showing their masters how Islam is not a barbaric religion.

One of the producers Hussain Ashmere claims that the film is ‘historically accurate’ and says:

‘Funny enough, one thing that you would find so surprising, and may surprise the audience as well. The ones that do know of her story of her [Fatimah] and do know of her story have so much inaccuracies about the story they’ll be so surprised’

I wonder, couldn’t it be that many find it surprising and historically inaccurate because the entire film is based on a fabricated story which the vast majority of Muslims reject?

“Ashmere said he hopes more films from the region and of similar themes can be made in the future”

As an orthodox Muslim, I hope to never see any films that: seek to distort or water down Islam; or inaccurately depict the companions raḍiyallāhu ‘anhum and the Prophet ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam; or make up lies and fabrications about Islam in order to appeal to the West by trying to to show them how Islam is a ‘peaceful and tolerant’ religion – and not show Islam for it what it truly is. The religion of Our Creator, who knows what’s best for us and how we should live our lives. Not according to today’s ‘progressive’ modern standards.

You may refer here and here.

For a more detailed refutation and exposé of the lies spewed by these two during their time at Cannes, see here.

Plot Summary​

The film follows Laith Lanrawai and takes place during 2014 in Mosul, Iraq, where ISIS claims to re-establish the caliphate. An ISIS recruiter attempts to recruit Laith and gets him to join ISIS. In the process he loses his mother Fatimah. He is later adopted by an Iraqi soldier, Raed and his mother. Raed’s mother tells him the story of the life of Fatimah raḍiyallāhu ‘anhā according to twelver Shi’ism; how Laith should learn the virtues and values of Fatimah raḍiyallāhu ‘anhā; and how she practiced patience and was outspoken against her oppressors.

Towards the end of the film Laith goes to a Shia Mosque and is about to pray for his mother when he comes across his friend who is about to suicide bomb the mosque. Knowing this, Laith tries to calm his friend down and through the power of friendship, prevents him from blowing up the mosque. As they are about to head out from the mosque, Jamal trips and Iraqi soldiers nearby notice the detonator fall out of his hoodie. The soldiers try to de-escalate the situation and prevent the bomb from going off. Laith tries to convince everyone it’s all just a misunderstanding, but is later separated from his friend as Raed calls him to his side. The soldiers detain Jamal, and Laith is lauded as a hero on national television for having prevented the bomb from going off. The film ends with Raed giving Laith his mother’s notebook which he found, and we have a voice over of Laith’s mum telling Laith to learn and practice patience like in the story of Fatimah raḍiyallāhu ‘anhā.

Historical Inaccuracies and Fabrications Presented in the Film​

The producer of the film, Hussein Ashmere, claims that the film is:

‘all factually correct, so this is one thing I want to reiterate…We spent meticulous time on this particular subject.’

Producer Abdul-Malik Shlibak:

‘can confidently say this is the most accurate historical feature film that has ever been produced.’

A very bold claim. However the film is ‘factually’ incorrect – wrought with lies and fabrications – unlike what is being promoted to the public, particularly non-Muslims. We delve into these fabrications, as they may affect the faith of lay Muslims who may not know any better.

RELATED: Is the Shi’a Hadith Literature Reliable?

The main aim of the film is to push the Shia agenda that Shi’ism is the Islamic religion of peace and tolerance. While on the other hand the film implies that terrorist groups like ISIS are full of Sunni Wahhabists/Salafists who are barbaric oppressors that do not want peace and seek power. This can be seen clearly throughout the film. In fact, the film opens with a title screen that says:

‘This film supports the ideal of a peaceful world living in harmony and deplores acts of violence’.

The film itself is based on the fabricated story that Sayyidunā ‘Umar raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu attacked Sayyidah Fatimah raḍiyallāhu ‘anhā behind the door of her house. The film opens with a modern-day reenactment of the story, where ISIS recruiters barge into Laith’s house and his mother (Fatimah) is killed, and Laith is taken away. We are later taken full circle towards the end of the film, where Sayyidunā ‘Umar raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu attacks Sayyidah Fatimah raḍiyallāhu ‘anhā in her home.

This fabricated story is rejected by the vast majority of the ummah including Shias themselves. This false portrayal reinforces the idea in the minds of the lay Shia, as well as other viewers, that the Sahābah raḍiyallāhu ‘anhum (namely Sayyidunā Abu Bakr and Sayyidunā Umar) were bloodthirsty like ISIS types, and the film draws this parallel to modern Islamist terrorist groups, ultimately implying that Sunni wahhabists/salafis are a bunch of terrorists. We seek the protection of Allāh Ta’ālā from such falsehood. A detailed refutation can be read here.

In the film, the story of Fatimah raḍiyallāhu ‘anhā begins when the Prophet ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam had just migrated from Makkah to Medina, and after the treaty that was signed and made with the Jews and the Muslims, so that they could co-exist in Medina. The film misrepresents the treaty and contains lies. It is used as a message of interfaith religious pluralism.

The beloved companion, Sayyidunā Abū Bakr As-Ṣiddīq raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu paid for the hijrah journey of Sayyidah Fāṭimah raḍiyallāhu ‘anhā. Yet, he is portrayed as the enemy of Sayyidah Fāṭimah raḍiyallāhu ‘anhā. The film seems to support feminist ideology, which itself is problematic according to the Shia.

 

[AMusee]

“In the journey of hijrah, Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu was the companion of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. In the initial days of Madinah, Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam lived at the place of Sayyidina Abu Ayub al Ansari radiya Llahu ‘anhu. Meanwhile, the family of both Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu were still in Makkah. After some time, Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam had the desire to call the rest of his family to Madinah. Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam thus prepared Sayyidina Abu Rafi’ and Sayyidina Zaid ibn Harithah radiya Llahu ‘anhuma for this and despatched them to Makkah. He also gave them extra conveyances and some silver coins for the journey expenses. Some ‘ulama’ have clarified that Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam sent two camels for conveyance and five hundred silver coins for expenses. The silver coins were gifted to Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam by Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu. Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam gave instructions to Sayyidina Abu Rafi’ and Sayyidina Zaid ibn Harithah radiya Llahu ‘anhuma to bring his family from Makkah. Meanwhile, Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu sent Sayyidina ‘Abdullah ibn Urayqit al Di’ali with two camels. He also wrote to his son, ‘Abdullah ibn Abi Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhuma, that he should send his family with them i.e. both families should emigrate together to Madinah Mukarramah.”

RELATED: What Muslim Feminists Fail to Understand About Feminism

Shortly after this scene, Ali raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu and Fatimah raḍiyallāhu ‘anhā get married in a lavish wedding amongst the townfolk in Medina, and the dowry of Fatimah raḍiyallāhu ‘anhā is represented as an intercession for the sinners, so that they may enter heaven.

This however, is historically incorrect. The idea of intercession for sinners draws similarities and shares ties with the Christian belief of salvation. The wedding of Fatimah raḍiyallāhu ‘anhā was a benchmark of simplicity, unlike what is depicted in the film.

“According to Fadil Zarqani, etc. senior Sahabah (Sayyidina Abu Bakr, Sayyidina ‘Umar, Sayyidina ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhum, etc.) were invited for the nikah and were witnesses to it. This nikah ceremony was very simple. Neither any formalities were carried out nor any customs.”

As for her dowry, Ali raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu actually sold off his armour to pay it.

“However, when I stood before Rasulullah ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam he said nothing and I was so awestruck to even utter a word. Rasulullah ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam asked me ‘Why have you come? Are you in need of something?’’ I continued to remain silent until Rasulullah ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam himself said, ‘Perhaps you have come to propose for Fatimah raḍiyallāhu ‘anhā’ I replied that is indeed why I have come. Rasulullah ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam enquired if I had anything to give as Mehr (dowry) and I replied, ‘O Rasulullah ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam asked me about the armor he had given to me; that armor was made by Hathamah bin Mahaarib and I take an oath by that Being who has control of my life it was worth more than four hundred Dirhams, and I replied that I still had it in my possession. Rasulullah ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam replied that he had performed my Nikaah in lieu of it; I should sell it and take the price to be the Mehr of Hadhrat Fatimah raḍiyallāhu ‘anhā” (Hundred Stories of Hadhrat Fatimah raḍiyallāhu ‘anhā’)

The Battle of Uhud​

During the battle of Uhud, it is shown in the film that the soldiers were wearing bands that say ‘Ya Ali,’ which are used as talismans and protection during the battle. This is clear shirk (polytheism, i.e., associating partners with Allah) the biggest sin in Islam, and is a violation of tawhid (monotheism, i.e., the Oneness of Allah), and by extension, a person’s Islam. The miraculous appearance of the sword of Sayyidunā ‘Alī raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu at Uḥud is also false. The ṣaḥābah raḍiyallāhu ‘anhum are accused of greed when going to collect the spoils of war, when they thought the Battle of Uḥud to be over. This is another misnomer and lie against them, repeated time and time again by the Shia. The Sahabah, specifically Sayyidunā Umar and Sayyidunā Abu Bakr raḍiyallāhu ‘anhuma, are depicted as cowards when the tide of battle turns in the favor of the pagans. Instead of fighting to defend the Prophet ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam they run to the mountains.

The Poisoning of the Prophet (and His Demise)​

It is deplorable to note how the film portrays the most beloved wife of Rasūlullāh ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam (Aishah raḍiyallāhu ‘anhā) as a person consumed with jealousy. This contradicts the ṣaḥīḥ ḥadīth in this regard. Not to mentioned that she was depicted as a black person. Here is a detailed poem about Aishah raḍiyallāhu ‘anhā refuting the Shias who insult her.

The film goes as far as accusing the blessed wives of Rasūlullāh ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam of poisoning Rasūlullāh ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam. However it was the Jewish woman of Khaybar who had poisoned the mutton eaten by the Prophet ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam.

“Anas reported that a Jewess came to Allah’s Messenger ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam with poisoned mutton and he took of that what had been brought to him (Allah’s Messenger). (When the effect of this poison were felt by him) he called for her and asked her about that, whereupon she said:
I had determined to kill you. Thereupon he said: Allah will never give you the power to do it. He (the narrator) said that they (the Companions of the Holy Prophet) said: Should we not kill her? Thereupon he said: No. He (Anas) said: I felt (the effects of this poison) on the uvula of Allah’s Messenger. (Sahih Muslim 2190a)

The film shows Rasūlullāh ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam dying on his deathbed at the side of Sayyidah Fāṭimah raḍiyallāhu ‘anhā, but this is also false. He passed away in the lap of Sayyidah Aishah raḍiyallāhu ‘anhā. [Abridged Sīrat-ul-Mustafā p.576]

“While he ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam lay there, with his head resting on ‘Aaishah raḍiyallāhu ‘anhā he ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam would insert his hand in a container of water and then wipe his wet hand over his face all the while saying, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah. Verily, death has its agonies.’ Then raising and extending his hands to supplicate. He ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam would say, ‘The most exalted companionship on high; until his soul was taken. […] And according to another account, ‘Aaishah raḍiyallāhu ‘anhā listened carefully, trying to catch the final words of the Prophet ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam as he died; and she raḍiyallāhu ‘anhā heard him say, ‘O Allah, forgive me, have mercy on me, and admit me into the company of the most exalted companionship on high.’” (The Biography of Abū Bakr As-Siddeeq p.198, Shaykh ‘Alī Sallābī)

​

 

[AMusee]

Transition of Power​

In the film, the Prophet ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam says that his successors will come through his daughter, Sayyidah Fāṭimah raḍiyallāhu ‘anhā. However, this is incorrect, the Prophet ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam did not appoint a successor. The idea of the film is derived from the Shia belief of an Imāmate. The pledge of leadership was never given to anyone during the lifetime of Rasūlullāh ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam. Unlike what is suggested in the film, there was no conflict for power in Islām. This is a filthy accusation upon the ṣaḥābah raḍiyallāhu ‘anhum. The film however, portrays the Khulafā’ Ar-Rāshidīn (Abu Bakr and Umar raḍiyallāhu ‘anhumā) as power hungry. This goes contrary to the aḥādīth and the desire of Rasūlullāh ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam. It is a fact that Sayyidunā Abu Bakr raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu was hesitant towards becoming the Caliph.

“Abu Bakr raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu had accepted the caliphate because he feared disunity and also because the people had insisted that he accept it. However, it pained him for having accepted this heavy responsibility. He therefore remained sad and dejected in his house. When Umar raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu went to Abu Bakr raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu, he rebuked Umar raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu and complained to him by saying: ‘You are the one who placed me in this serious position. It is very difficult to pass judgment among the people.’ Umar raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu consoled him by saying: ‘Have you not heard the words of Rasulullah ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam that when a ruler or judge uses all his faculties and abilities to pass judgement, then when he passes his judgement, he will receive a single reward if he is wrong in his judgment and a double reward if he is correct.’ ON hearing this Abu Bakr raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu felt a bit easier. [Abridged Sīratul Muṣṭafā p.597]

Even as the Caliph, he had warned the Muslims to follow him if he obeys Allah and His Messenger ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam, and to not follow him if he disobeys Allah and His Messenger ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam.

“I have been given the authority over you, and I am not the best of you. If I do well, help me; and if I do wrong, set me right. Sincere regard for truth is loyalty and disregard for truth is treachery. The weak amongst you shall be strong with me until I have secured his rights, if God will; and the strong amongst you shall be weak with me until I have wrested from him the rights of others, if God will. Obey me so long as I obey God and His Messenger. But if I disobey God and his Messenger, ye owe me no obedience. Arise for your prayer, God have mercy upon you!”

He wasn’t some power-hungry Caliph who just wanted rule and authority, yet this is how the film unjustly portrays him.

RELATED: The Honor of Abu Bakr and His Family


Abu Bakr raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu was so hesitant to become Caliph, and wary of the huge responsibility that came along with being the leader of the Muslims, that he asked people on the pulpit to return his pledge:

“Abu Bakr raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu remained in his house for three days. When he used to come to the Masjid, he would climb the pulpit and say:
‘O people! I am returning your pledge, so pledge your allegiance to whomever you like’ On each occasion, Ali raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu would stand up and say: ‘By Allah, we will neither remove you nor will we take back our pledge. Who can remove you when it was Rasulullah ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam who put you forward?” [Abridged Sīratul Muṣṭafā p.597]

Ali raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu pledged his allegiance to Abu Bakr Ali raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu as Caliph more than once:

“According to some traditions, ‘Ali raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu had given the bay’ah [pledge] in the very beginning – without any hesitation. However, a Hadith of Bukhari states that he gave the bay’ah six months later. It is possible that he did so on two occasions. And that in order to save the masses from any misunderstanding, he gave the bay’ah in the presence of the masses six months later. The very words of ‘Ali raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu demonstrates that he had no hesitation and no misgivings whatsoever as regards to Abu Bakri raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu being the rightful Khalifa [Caliph].” [The Khulafa-e-Rashidin their Life and Achievements p.39, Mawlānā Abdush Shakūr Lucknowī raḥimahullāh]

On the other hand, the film tries to fabricate an Imāmate by portraying Ali raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu as the rightful Caliph after the death of the Prophet ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam, which is in line with the Shia Sīrah.

“Qays ibn ‘Ibad narrates: “‘Ali raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu said to me ‘Rasulullah ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam remained ill for several days and nights. During those days, when the call to salah used to be given, he used to say: ‘Give the order to Abu Bakri to lead the salah.’ When Rasulullah ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam passed away, I pondered over the fact that salah is the flag of Islam, and a pillar of our religion. For our worldly affairs, we were therefore pleased with that person with whom Rasulullah ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam was pleased for our religious affairs. We therefore gave the bay’ah to Abu Bakr’” [The Khulafa-e-Rashidin their Life and Achievements p.40]

In the film, after the attempt by Umar raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu to kill and burn down her house, Fatimah raḍiyallāhu ‘anhā stands before him ready to reign down her wrath and punishment upon him. However, in line with the peaceful tolerant narrative, Fatimah raḍiyallāhu ‘anhā refrained from exerting her wrath and punishment onto the sahabah. This is clearly not true. As Muslims, we believe that only Allah possesses the power to cause wrath and punishment – not a human being, as a human being does not possess divinity.

The film suggests that Shi’ism was formed immediately after the Prophet ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam passed on. However, Shi’ism only became a fully-fledged sect well after the life of Rasūlullāh ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam. In essence, Shiasm is not Islām. It is a plot and conspiracy against Islām.

Death of Fatimah (raḍiyallāhu ‘anhā)​

The Janāzah ṣalāh for Sayyidah Fāṭimah raḍiyallāhu ‘anhā was led by Sayyidunā Abū Bakr raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu. It was his wife Sayyidah Asmā bint Umays raḍiyallāhu ‘anhā that tended to Sayyidah Fāṭimah raḍiyallāhu ‘anhā during her illness. Compare this to what is portrayed in the film, where Fatimah raḍiyallāhu ‘anhā was buried alone and in secret.

“After her ghusl and kafn was complete came the moment of her janazah salah. Sayyidina Abu Bakr and Sayyidina ‘Umar and other Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum gathered. Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu told Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu to lead the salah. In response, Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu said that in front of the khalifah of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, I cannot go forward to perform the janazah. Only you have the right to perform the janazah, hence step forward and perform it. Accordingly, Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu stepped forward and performed the janazah salah of Sayyidah Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha with four takbir’s while everyone followed.” [‘Alī raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu, His Life & Times vol.1 p.297]

For a more detailed response and refutations of the Lady of Heaven you may watch Sunnah Discourse’s ‘Lady of Heaven Refuted’ playlist on Youtube.

In short, the film is pushing the idea that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance.

“Shiasm: A Religion of Peace and Tolerance vs Sunni Aggressive Oppressors of Shias”

You may refer here, here, here, here and here.

​

 

[AMusee]

Concluding Remarks​

It seems that the Shia who made this film can’t help but lie. From promoting Shiaism through the countless fabrications within the film, and possibly using fake reviews to further boost and promote it as a great film rather than the shoddily made film it actually is, with all its historical inaccuracies, fabrications, and lies.

Finally, it is clear as day that the Shia who made this film desire to extinguish the light of Islām and erase the illuminated teachings of Rasūlullāh ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam. It is they who deny the authentic Sunnah and want to replace it with lies and the killing of the Ahl-us-Sunnah wal Jamā’ah. All praise is for Allāh Ta’ālā. The light of Islām has not been extinguished and it never will be, despite the attempts made by the liars towards doing so.

It was a great feat of all the Saḥābah, including the family of the Rasūlullāh ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam, to preserve and transmit the beautiful religion of Islām to us. There are mentions of the great qualities that the noble Saḥābah raḍiyallāhu ‘anhum possessed in the blessed Sunnah and the Sirah. This is what Muslims hold dear to their hearts, and try to implement within their lives.

It is evil films like these that can lead Shias towards violence against the Ahl-us-Sunnah wal Jamā’ah.

He is not of us who beats his cheeks and tears his clothes.
– Sayyidunā Muḥammad Rasūlullāh ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam. (Bukhari)

You may refer here, here and here.

 

[AMusee]

 

[AMusee]

 

[AMusee]

 

[AMusee]

 

[Sheikh Google]

Damn I wanted to go see this as well. I love Islamic history it puts game of thrones to shame. Sectarian issues in this day and age ffs why do people get butthurt.

 

[Sajid]

This film is a failure they put it in cinema but no one went there

 

[AMusee]

 

[AMusee]

 

[Mount23]

Wait, they depicted the Sahabas like Umar as black or??

Wallahi so many Muslims are subconsciously racist and dont even realize it

 

[AMusee]

 

[AMusee]

 

[AMusee]

 

[AMusee]