The Daughter of Muhammad (s): Between Lammens and Clohessy

The juxtaposition of Western academic discourses on Islam, and more specifically Shiʿism, from diverse temporal, regional, and traditional contexts, augments our comprehension of Islamic studies and its progression through history. This comparison illuminates the evolution of pivotal concepts, paradigm shifts, and contextual adaptations. A thorough analysis of varying methodologies uncovers the robustness, constraints, and heterogeneity of scholarly apparatuses, and starkly exposes the mechanism of internal critique, a distinctive feature of Western examinations of Islam and Shiʿism.

A subject that is intrinsically linked to the Sīra of the Prophet^(s) and consequently the sources associated with it, is the matter of the Prophet’s^(s) descendants. This subject has been scrutinized from multiple angles within both Islamic traditional academia and Western scholarly pursuits. The discussions within the tradition have in recent decades revolved around the number of the Prophet’s^(s) descendants,[1] their gender, their survival beyond the Prophet^(s), and their potential roles in early Islam. It is an undisputed fact that the lineage of the Prophet^(s) continued and persists to this day solely through Fatima^(a) and her husband ʿAli^(a). Despite her personal virtues, as corroborated by Prophetic narrations, this fact alone bestows upon her a significant status in both Sunni and Shiʿi sects of Islam. While she has remained a consistent focus of traditional academia,[2] her deserved recognition has until recently been somewhat overlooked by researchers of Islam within Western academia.

In this study, we examine the works of two Catholic priests, separated by a century, who have both contributed to the research on Shiʿism and Shiʿi holy figures. This presents a unique opportunity for a comparative analysis of their respective works.

Henri Lammens (d. 1937), a Belgian Orientalist historian and Jesuit, made significant contributions to the study of early Islamic history, leaving an enduring impact on the field. His notable works, written in French, include “Islam: Beliefs and Institutions”, “Quran and Tradition” (1910), “The Age of Muhammad and the Chronology of the Sira”, and “Fatima and the Daughters of Muhammad” (1912).[3]

His latter publication is compared with “Fatima, Daughter of Muhammad” (first published 2009) by Father Christopher Paul Clohessy, a contemporary South African-born Roman Catholic priest and a professor of Shiʿi Islamic Studies at the Pontifical Institute for Arabic and Islamic Studies in Rome.[4]

The comparison of these two works on Fatima^(a) presents several challenges. Lammens, who lived prior to the Second World War, was not privy to the epistemological paradigm shift that followed it. In contrast, Clohessy, a product of the post-modern era, lives in an age of religious relativism and pluralism. Lammens, evident in his critique of Islamic sources and their prophet, could have hardly imagined the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) and its ensuing theology of inclusivism. For him, inter-faith studies may have only functioned as Jesuit missionary work if not entirely polemical.

While Lammens outright rejection of Islamic sources may have been critiqued by his contemporary Orientalists, Clohessy has witnessed Said’s criticism of Orientalism and must be aware of the sensitivity of his research.

Furthermore, the success of the Islamic Revolution of Iran (1979), has propelled Shiʿi Studies to the fore front of Islamic Studies resulting in the recognition of Shiʿism as a significant contributor to Islamic civilization. These recent developments have led to the translation of original Shiʿi sources into European languages and a steady growth of secondary sources on various topics related to Shiʿism grounded in Shiʿi texts and society.[5]

The recent surge in religious feminism and the search for the feminine have led to a renewed interest in the holy figures of traditional religions, Clohessy’s work might be a part of which.  

These developments, which Lammens could not have fathomed, underscore the importance of considering each author’s context, methodologies, and potential biases in order to draw meaningful conclusions.

Clohessy’s book, recent as it is, has not yet attracted scholarly attention save for a relatively detailed critical book review.[6] However, several articles have engaged Lammens. [Ma1] One such piece by Mahdi Pīshwāʾī provides a comprehensive critique of Lammens’ oeuvre.[7] Jazarī employs the principles of literary criticism to critically assess Lammens’ portrayal of Fatima^(a), contextualizing it within the Shi’a tradition and sources.[8] Veccia Vaglieri seeks to mediate between Lammens’ harsh depiction of Fatima^(a) and the mystical representation put forth by Louis Massignon.[9] Jean Calmard provides a summarization of Vaglieri’s article.[10]

In the ensuing discussion, I aim to delineate the methodologies adopted by the two researchers, the divergent objectives of their research, and the spectrum of their perspectives towards their study of Fatima^(a). After expounding on the central questions posed by these researchers and their respective approaches, I proceed to illustrate the disparity in their views concerning the validity of Islamic sources. I also briefly mention the variation in the range of sources utilized by the two scholars.

In the final section of my paper, with specific references to his critique of Lammens, I demonstrate how Clohessy’s methodology and analysis of the sources lead him to distinct interpretations of the primary texts, resulting in divergent views about different phases of Fatima’s^(a) life. While maintaining a focus on the comparative aspect, I also intend to critically evaluate Clohessy’s critique of Lammens, his interpretations, and his utilization of primary Islamic sources. Furthermore, I assess how his perspective on Lammens contrasts with those of Shiʿi scholars.

Lammens  and Clohessy, despite originating from distinct Christian scholarly traditions and living in disparate eras, share common ground. Both scholars have Catholic backgrounds and employ a philological, source-critical approach, closely engaging with the original sources of Islam. They strive to reconcile the internal discrepancies and inconsistencies presented by the sources, aiming to extract a historical reality as well as understand the motivations of authors writing at least a century after the Prophet’s^(s) demise. This shared methodology facilitates a dialogue between the two, placing them on a common platform. Indeed, a substantial portion of Clohessy’s book is dedicated to refuting the positions and arguments put forth by Lammens.

Clohessy’s objective is to “appraise the life of Fatima, at the level of the copious extant Arabic texts, noting throughout the vast discrepancies that exist between the Shiʿi and Sunni sources and interpretations.”[11] His work could thus be characterized as a comparative study of Shiʿi and Sunni conceptions of Fatima^(a). However, Clohessy’s focus extends beyond the conceptions of authors two centuries post-Prophet^(s), which could have relegated his work to the realms of memory studies and phenomenology. He remains committed to uncovering “the authentic Fatima, who must lie somewhere between the heterodox Nusayri, the traditionalists represented by Jaʿfar Murtaḍā al-ʿĀmilī (and the whole corpus of Shiʿī aḥādīth), the disparate Western orientalists and the revolutionary, sometimes almost secular Shariati.”[12] Clohessy acknowledges the daunting nature of this task, given “the age of the majority of [Ma3] sources available.”[13] This presents a challenge as “the line between historicity and hagiography is bound to become hazy.”[14]

Upon examining and comparing the sources, Clohessy encounters a conundrum previously faced by Lammens a century prior. The puzzle stems from the scarcity of references to Fatima^(a) in the earliest extant texts, contrasted with the abundant references in later sources; the predicament lies between Fatima^(a) as an ordinary woman and Fatima⁽[Ma4] ^a) as the ‘sinless virgin’. Clohessy subsequently poses the question, “Why do some of the earliest texts scarcely mention her?”[15] This query, raised in the introduction and revisited in the conclusion of the book, acknowledges that the book indeed commenced with a dilemma posited by Lammens, a dilemma that Clohessy sought to resolve.[16]

The pages between the introduction and conclusion could be interpreted as a dialogue between the two scholars. However, Clohessy does not aim to examine Lammens’s views on Fatima^(a) in their entirety. Consequently, while focusing on resolving the various and often conflicting reports offered by the Shiʿi and Sunni primary sources, he does not critically engage with Lammens’s resolutions in some instances, even when reaching a conclusion contrary to Lammens. This is evident in the cases of Fatima’s^(a) age at the time of her marriage to Ali and the year of Fatima’s^(a) birth in relation to her mother’s age and the Miʿrāj (ascension), despite recognizing the latter as “the starting point for Lammens’ disparagement of the stories surrounding her person.”[17] Instead, on this issue, he appears to be engaging with the orientalists who have dated the event of Miʿraj.[18] Nonetheless, Clohessy consistently challenges Lammens on his general view of the authentic Fatima^(a), elaborated later in this paper.

Despite engaging with him throughout the work, and recognizing Lammens’s reputation as a staunch critic of Islam,[19] Clohessy, does not elucidate how Lammens approaches the study of Fatima^(a) and how that may differ from his own approach.

Lammens [Ma5] appears to be primarily invested in the Sīra literature, rather than focusing on the figure of Fatima herself. He declares at the very beginning, “This monograph inaugurates a series of meticulous studies that we intend to dedicate to the sīra and the origins of Islam. As in the present study where the principal inquiries concerning the sira are raised, they will facilitate an assessment of the documentary value of early Muslim literature.”[20]

Thus, his attention to Fatima^(a) serves as a case study to illustrate the internal inconsistencies of the Sīra literature, or what he terms ‘historical romance’[21], and to highlight the manipulative influence of various political dynasties and factions. Notably, prior to addressing Fatima^(a), he refutes the existence of other daughters of the Prophet^(s) in the same paper, demonstrating how the tradition managed the absence of the Prophet’s^(s) male heirs by fabricating daughters and sons, and how subsequent generations of Sīra writers attempted to reconcile the discrepancies posed by these fabrications.[22] While Lammens acknowledges Fatima’s^(a) existence, albeit as “an ordinary woman” —given that she is said to have outlived her father, his approach to the study of Fatima^(a) in the Sīra literature aligns with his general approach to Sīra.       

Lammens asserts at the outset that the need for Sīra literature emerged much later,

“…concurrent with the veneration of Abul Qasim’s personality. It involved establishing a foundation for his reverence, beginning with a more intimate knowledge of the Master’s deeds and actions, and compiling the memories and traces of his journey. Factors contributing to this evolution included interactions with those who held religious records, political debates sparked by the establishment of the Arab empire, and issues concerning the Caliphate, entitlement to pensions, and so forth.”[23]

Lammens appears to have already formed a definitive stance regarding the authenticity of the sources and the genre of Sīra he is dealing with. For him, the Sīra is replete with fabrications and serves as a battlefield for competing factions in early Islamic history. This skepticism he shares with Goldziher and Noldeke whose services he duly acknowledges is this very work.[24] Thus — as Clohessy suggests — in his dismissal of Fatima as a “lackluster, unattractive and disconsolate creature, a source of annoyance to her father and of irritation to her husband, he echoes the Sunni traditionalist Ibn Kathir[Ma6] ,”[25] should not be seen as a commitment to any of the Sunni versions. Such chance agreement might be a result of his inclination to side with a minimalist account.

Clohessy is also cognizant of the challenges he faces while dealing with the sources and the numerous paths taken by Muslim and non-Muslim authors.[26] Unlike Lammens, who seems to accept ‘consensual reports’ that show little sign of internal discrepancy and layering, he quotes Ayoub, stating, “It is not sufficient to limit ourselves to the bare facts as we perceive them, nor can we consider all traditions to be factual data. We must, however, select our facts, often including those facts which, while they may not seem historically valid to us, were nonetheless regarded as such by the community.”[27]

After introducing several approaches to the problem of the validity and reliability of the Ḥadīth corpus, Clohessy appears to have distanced himself from authentic commitments, leaning more towards the study of historical memory. He states,

“…the aim of this work is not primarily a critical analysis of the Shiʿi and Sunnī texts per se, but a critical examination of the life of Fatima^(a) at the level of those texts. They have been read expressly as religious texts and treated as sacrosanct documents which employ a specifically numinous language, and around which a distinctive theology and spirituality have been constructed.”[28]

What are we to make of the apparent tension between historical authenticity and historical memory in Clohessy’s work? It seems he is concerned with both. He seems to have opted for the former in the first Chapter when he discusses the historical Fatima^(a) in light of the content shared by Sunni and Shiʿi aḥādīth. From the second Chapter onwards, he begins to examine Shiʿi hadith for her spiritual and metaphysical characteristics as featured in early and later Shiʿi Hadīth and subsequently explains this evolution in the image of Fatima^(a).

Lammens adopts various Ṣaḥīḥ and Musnad sources of Sunni hadith, in addition to some historical sources, primarily the Sīra of Ibn Hisham and Ṭabaqāt of Ibn Saʿd to study Fatima^(a). In fact, it is Lammens’s narrow choice of exclusively Sunni sources, in addition to selectively picking out the least reliable reports from amongst them that forms one of the critiques against him.[29] Clohessy opts for a very wide range of Sunnī and Shiʿī hadith, works of history, and biography, making sure that he fills his basket with early and later sources in order to trace the evolution of Fatima’s^(a) image. However, Clohessy wants to tease out a historically authentic Fatima^(a) through a process of negotiation between Sunni and Shiʿi reports, while noting the divergences.

Lammens is sensitive to the transmitters of aḥādīth and the schools of hadith they are coming from before being compiled in the third century, this helps him discard traditions on account of possible transmitter bias. Clohessy seems oblivious to such a hadith criticism, or at least ignores such intricacies as the bulk of his work concentrates on the image of Fatima^(a) as perceived by Shiʿis throughout the centuries.

This section will address the issues explored by both Clohessy and Lammens, highlighting the similarities and differences in their perspectives on Fatima^(a) and different facets of her life.

The first issue pertains to the scarcity of details about Fatima^(a) in early Islamic sources. Lammens asserts that, “it is challenging to discern the vague silhouette of this enigmatic figure, who has remained shrouded in a sort of mysterious twilight.”[30] Clohessy identifies a contradiction in Lammens’s claim when he hurried to conclude:

“Throughout her life, she was regarded as an ordinary woman by her contemporaries, including her father, her husband, and the most eminent Sahabis… Nowhere do we observe her enjoying special privileges… To be convinced of this, it suffices to gauge the space allocated to her by the oldest chroniclers, such as Ibn Hisham’s Sira, where she is mentioned only twice.”[31]

While Clohessy concurs that many of the traditions about Fatima^(a) emerged later, he contends that she was not an ordinary woman even in the earlier strands of Sunni reports. He argues that Sunni chroniclers such as Bukharī, Ibn Māja, Tirmidhī, al-Balādhurī, Muslīm, and Abū Dāwūd, who were all active in the same century as Ibn Hishām, have significant references to Fatima. Shi’i historiographers, Rustam al-Ṭabarī and Yaʿqūbī, were also writing in this century. He further notes that their objective was to record the earlier bulk of oral tradition into an organized and written form, thereby undermining Lammens’ argument. He then proceeds to list the virtues and characteristics attributed to her by Sunni hadith of the third century, which includes Muhammad’s^(s) insistence that she was the most beloved to him of his family.[32]

On this point, Clohessy seems to have a convincing argument, but Lammens, living in the Goldziher era and seemingly seeking non-conflicting, coherent reports, if any, might not be easily persuaded. He is quick to accuse reporters of fabrication and bias, especially if they have Zubayrid or Abbasid connections. Therefore, Clohessy needs to examine the origins of the oral reports and whether he can ward off Abbasid and Alid bias, regardless of whether the compilers are known to be Sunnis. Lammens is not siding with the Sunnis; he is as critical of the Sunnis as he is of the Alids, viewing them both as combatants on the battlefield of hadith.

Another point of debate pertains to the nature of Fatima’s^(a) marital life, specifically whether she held the unique status of being the sole wife of ʿAli ibn Abī Ṭālib^(a) during her lifetime. The dispute centers around the interpretation of an Arabic phrase in a report by Ibn Hanbal and Bukhārī, where ʿAli^(a) is quoted as having said that he divided a suit “among my women” (bayna nisāʾī). Lammens translates this as “my wives” and suggests that these words were uttered by ʿAli^(a) in a moment when he “forgets himself”.[33] Clohessy reads this as Lammens implying that ʿAli^(a) had other wives whose existence was concealed from Fatima. Clohessy counters this by proposing that “my women” most likely referred to “the women in my life”, encompassing ʿAli’s^(a) wife, daughter, and mother. This is further supported by substantial evidence indicating that ʿAli^(a) did not marry anyone else during her lifetime.[34] However, it appears that Clohessy may have overlooked the context in which Lammens is discussing this issue, which is the inconsistencies of the Sira literature and the attempts to reconcile them. Prior to narrating this incident, Lammens states, “Certain authors have, however, felt a need to portray both the Prophet^(s) and ʿAli as younger at that stage of their careers. The serious implications of this hypothesis did, however, make them hesitate.” It is only after this that he mentions a case in point, “Even during Fatima’s lifetime, ʿAli forgets himself to the extent of speaking of ‘his wives'”. It seems that Lammens is employing his signature satire here, once again highlighting the inefficiency of the Sira writers in smoothing over the fabrications rather than suggesting a wife hidden from Fatima^(a).

Another issue pertaining to grammar is Lammens’ reading of the hadith by the Prophet^(s), “Were Fatima^(a), the Daughter of Muhammad^(s) to steal, I would cut her hand off.” Lammens utilizes this to illustrate the Prophet’s^(s) alleged disparagement of Fatima^(a).[35] Clohessy, however, insists that it simply underscores that “even someone as exalted as Fatima^(a) is not exempt from faithful adherence to the law”. The grammar employed implies that the notion of Fatima being a thief is inconceivable.[36]

Interestingly, both Clohessy and Lammens concur on the issue of her frailty, illness, and malnutrition due to poverty. While Lammens attributes it to anemia, Clohessy posits that the stress coupled with her illness, weakness, and malnutrition due to poverty could have led to a condition called amenorrhea. In addition, she appears to have given birth almost every year of her married life. These factors could have thwarted a return to a normal menstrual cycle. Thus what appears to be a medical condition was interpreted by the piety as God’s grace upon her. Interestingly, Clohessy elaborates how this helped the Shiʿi piety re-define the conception of virginity and bestow Fatima^(a) the title of al-baṭūl (virgin), ^[37] which was initially and lexically true of Maryam, but not quite true of Fatima^(a) who had childbirth following normal sexual relations. Jazari counters Fatima’s^(a) alleged illness and lackluster demeanor by showing that such a reading is based on a selective reading of the sources, primarily Sunni ones, and invokes reports from the Shiʿi hadith corpus illustrating otherwise.[38]

Another point of general consensus between Clohessy and Lammens is the existence of back projection concerning Fatima^(a) at the level of hadith. Lammens sees it as the creativity of the parties having a stake when the Sira was taking shape much after Fatima^(a). However, Clohessy observes a spiritual theology evolving around the image of Fatima^(a), concurrent with the rise of piety and theology surrounding the martyrdom of Imam al-Husayn^(a). It is primarily as his mother that she acquires a mystical and cosmological stature, as a theology begins to develop around her character.

Clohessy reminds Lammens that such an evolution should not be surprising since Mary is seldom mentioned in the gospels and apostolic texts, yet a valid spirituality and theology surrounding her emerged and developed in subsequent centuries. Clohessy does not perceive this as problematic. In a pure stroke of empathetic theology, he asserts that, “by its very nature and quite inevitably, theology, spirituality, and piety evolve as understanding grows, and their lack of immediate existence or apparentness in no way negates their validity.”[39]

This study has endeavored to juxtapose and contrast the scholarly examinations of Fatima^(a), the daughter of Muhammad^(s), by two Catholic priests: the contemporary scholar Christopher Paul Clohessy and a Jesuit priest from nearly a century ago, Henri Lammens. The study aimed to critically evaluate Clohessy’s critique of Lammens. Both scholars approach the subject differently. Clohessy seeks to unearth an authentic portrayal of Fatima^(a) and her theological image as depicted in Sunni and Shi’i texts. In contrast, Lammens aims to highlight the discrepancies in the Sira literature, using Fatima^(a) as a case study. For Lammens, the Sira is rife with fabrications, with rival political dynasties vying to retroactively project their agendas through the Sira, not at the level of compilation, but rather at the reporting level. Clohessy generally adopts a more positive stance towards the sources, neatly categorizing them as Sunni and Shi’i and dating them to a specific century. While Lammens portrays the authentic Fatima^(a) as a deplorable ordinary woman, Clohessy posits that Fatima^(a), as depicted by the earliest Sunni sources, was an exceptional woman, loved and respected by the Prophet^(s) and her husband. However, it is after the tragedy of Karbala that she gains theological significance as the mother of Imam al-Husayn^(a), her image evolves into a theological and spiritual character with mystical hues, as reflected in Shiʿi sources. Clohessy finds no issue with the validity of this evolution and does not attribute it to innovation. This suggests that theology and spirituality do not necessarily need to demonstrate a historical record. This is a significant implication for the tradition that often strives to demonstrate that its core ideas have historical credentials. Clohessy’s critique of Lammens appears valid within a specific framework, but a skeptic like Lammens may not accept many of his readings. Particularly, Clohessy focuses on identifying a compiler’s sect and the century of its compilation, demonstrating less nuanced awareness of the transmission lines and schools of Hadith, which might be necessary for a deeper engagement with Lammens.

1. Abbott, Nabia, Aishah the Beloved of Muhammad, Saqi Books, London 1988.
2. al-Qazwīnī, Muhammad Kaẓim, Fātimā al-Zahrāʾ min al-Mahd ilā al-Lahd, Sayyid al-Shuhadāʾ Publications, Qum, 1414 AH.
3. Āshūr, Ali, Fātimā bint Muhammad: Qudwa li al-Nisāʾ, Dār al-Hādī, Beirut, 2002. 
4. Ayoub, Mahmoud M., Redemptive Suffering in Islam: A Study of Devotional Aspects of Ashura in Twelver Shiism, Mouton Publishers, The Hague, 1978.
5. Calmard, Jean, “FĀṬEMĀ,” Encyclopædia Iranica, IX/3, pp. 400-404; available online at FĀṬEMĀ (accessed online at 6 January 2024).
6. Clohessy, Christopher Paul, Fatima, Daughter of Muhammad, Gorgias Press, NJ, 2018.
7. Ibn Bābwayh, Muhammad ibn Ali, ʿIlal al-Sharāʾiʿ, Dāwarī, Qum, 1966.
8. Jazari Mamoui, Said, “A Methodical Critique of Henri Lammens’s View of Fatima (AS) in the Book “Fatima and the Daughters of Muhammad (s)””, Shiite Studies, No. 22 (September 2022): 281-308.     
9. Lammens, Henri, “Fatima and the Daughters of Muhammad”, in Ibn Warraq (ed. and trans.), The Quest for the Historical Muhammad, Prometheus Books, New York, 2000:218-329. 
10. Miskinzoda, Gurdofarid (ed.), Daftary, Farhad (ed.), The Study of Shiʿi Islam: History, Theology and Law, Bloomsbury Publishing, London, 2014.
11. Muhammad Husayn Faḍlullah, Fātimah al-Maʿsumah (as), A Role Model for Men and Women, Al-Bakir Cultural and Social Center, London, n.d.
12. Murtaḍā al-ʿĀmilī, Sayyid Jaʿfar, Banāt al-Nabī am Rabāʾibih, n.p., n.d.
13. Murtaḍā al-ʿĀmilī, Sayyid Jaʿfar, Maʾsāt al-Zahrāʾ: Shubhāt wa Rudūd, Dār al-Sīra, Beirut, 1997.
14. Mūsawī, Muhammad Bāqir, al-Kawthar fī Aḥwāl Fāṭima bint Nabī al-Aṭhar, Qum, 2000.
15. Pīshwāʾī Mahdi, “Naqd-i Dīdgāh-i Tārīkhī-ye Yik Sharq-Shinās”, Tārīkh-i Islām dar Āʾīniy-e Pazhūhish, No. 6 (Summer 1384 AH): 27-56.
16. Rosiny, Stephan, “The Tragedy of Fāṭima al-Zahrāʾ in the Debate of Two Shiite Theologians in Lebanon”, in Rainner Brunner, and W.Ende (eds.), The Twelver Shia in Modern Times, Brill, Leiden 2001: 207:219.
17. Shariati, Ali, Fatima is Fatima, The Shariati Foundation, Tehran, n.d.
18. Sumar, Afzal, “Review of “Fatima, Daughter of Muhammad””, Journal of Shi’a Islamic Studies, No.1 (Winter 2015): 89-98.
19. Veccia Vaglieri L., Fāṭima, in H.A.R Gibb et al. (eds.), Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2^nd edition., E.J. Brill, Leiden, 1965, Vol. 2, 841-850.

---

Footnotes

[1]. For instance, see: Murtaḍā al-ʿĀmilī, Sayyid Jaʿfar, Banāt al-Nabī am Rabāʾibih.

[2]. For recent works on Fatima(a) in the tradition, see: al-Qazwīnī, Muhammad Kaẓim, Fātimā al-Zahrāʾ min al-Mahd ilā al-Lahd, Sayyid al-Shuhadāʾ Publications, Qum, 1414 AH; Āshūr, Ali, Fātimā bint Muhammad: Qudwa li al-Nisāʾ, Dār al-Hādī, Beirut, 2002; Muhammad Husayn Faḍlullah, Fātimah al-Maʿsumah (as), A Role Model for Men and Women, Al-Bakir Cultural and Social Center, London, n.d. ; Murtaḍā al-ʿĀmilī, Sayyid Jaʿfar, Maʾsāt al-Zahrāʾ: Shubhāt wa Rudūd, Dār al-Sīra, Beirut, 1997; Mūsawī, Muhammad Bāqir, al-Kawthar fī Aḥwāl Fāṭima bint Nabī al-Aṭhar, Qum, 2000.

 

[3]. His scholarly contributions spanned various areas. Lammens mastered Arabic, Latin, and Greek during his first eight years in Lebanon. He taught the Arabic language at the Jesuit-run Saint Joseph University in Beirut between 1886 and 1891. Starting in 1903, he taught Islamic history at the Oriental Studies Department at Saint Joseph University. In 1907, he continued his teaching at the Jesuit-run universities in Cairo and Alexandria, Egypt, before returning to Beirut in 1919. He also spent time in Rome. Lammens was the editor of Al Bashir, a Catholic journal published in Beirut. He contributed to the scholarly journal Al-Machriq. In 1899, he published one of the earliest in-depth pieces on Zionism in Arabic in the journal al-Machriq, titled “The Jews in Palestine and their Settlements.” In this work, he surveyed existing Zionist settlements, categorizing them by location. His tone was detached, focusing on factual observations rather than expressing opinions.

[4]. His work focuses on promoting an educated and harmonious dialogue between Catholics and Muslims. He also holds a Bachelor of Sacred Theology from the Pontifical Urbanianum University in Rome, and a PhD from the Pontifical Institute for Arabic and Islamic Studies He has authored several books, including “Angels Hastening: The Karbala Dreams”, “Half of my Heart: The Narratives of Zaynab, Daughter of Ali”, and “Fatima, Daughter of Muhammad”

[5] . Miskinzoda, Gurdofarid (ed.), The Study of Shiʿi Islam: History, Theology and Law, xvii.

[6]. Sumar, Afzal, “Review of “Fatima, Daughter of Muhammad””, Journal of Shi’a Islamic Studies, No.1 (Winter 2015): 89-98.

[7] . Pīshwāʾī Mahdi, “Naqd-i Dīdgāh-i Tārīkhī-ye Yik Sharq-Shinās”, Tārīkh-i Islām dar Āʾīniy-e Pazhūhish, No. 6 (Summer 1384 AH): 27-56.

[8]. Jazari Mamoui, Said, “A Methodical Critique of Henri Lammens’s View of Fatima (AS) in the Book “Fatima and the Daughters of Muhammad (s)””, Shiite Studies, No. 22 (September 2022): 281-308.

[9] . Veccia Vaglieri L., Fāṭima, in H.A.R Gibb et al. (eds.), Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd edition., E.J. Brill, Leiden, 1965, Vol. 2, 841-850.

[10]. Calmard, Jean, “FĀṬEMĀ,” Encyclopædia Iranica, IX/3, pp. 400-404; available online at FĀṬEMĀ (accessed online at 6 January 2024).

[11]. Clohessy, Fatima, Daughter of Muhammad, 1.

[12]. Clohessy, Fatima, Daughter of Muhammad, 10.

[13]. Clohessy, Fatima, Daughter of Muhammad, 10.

[14]. Clohessy, Fatima, Daughter of Muhammad, 10.

[15]. Clohessy, Fatima, Daughter of Muhammad, 3.

[16]. Clohessy, Fatima, Daughter of Muhammad, 279.

[17]. Clohessy, Fatima, Daughter of Muhammad, 21.

[18]. Clohessy, Fatima, Daughter of Muhammad, 29.

[19]. Clohessy, Fatima, Daughter of Muhammad, 9-10; Abbott, Nabia, Aishah: The Beloved of Muhammad, Xviii.

[20]. Lammens, Henri, “Fatima and the Daughters of Muhammad”, in Ibn Warraq (ed. and trans.), The Quest for the Historical Muhammad, Prometheus Books, New York, 2000: 218.

[21]. Lammens, Henri, Fatima and the Daughters of Muhammad, 222.

[22]. Lammens, Fatima and the Daughters of Muhammad, 220-222.

[23]. Lammens, Fatima and the Daughters of Muhammad, 219.

[24]. Lammens, Fatima and the Daughters of Muhammad, 231,233.

[25]. Clohessy, Fatima, Daughter of Muhammad, 9-10.

[26]. Clohessy, Fatima, Daughter of Muhammad, 16-19.

[27]. Clohessy, Fatima, Daughter of Muhammad, 16-17; Ayoub, Mahmoud M., Redemptive Suffering in Islam: A Study of Devotional Aspects of Ashura in Twelver Shiism, 137.

[28]. Clohessy, Fatima, Daughter of Muhammad, 19.

[29]. Jazari, A Methodical Critique of Henri Lammens’s View of Fatima (AS) in the Book “Fatima and the Daughters of Muhammad (s)”, 301.

[30]. Lammens, Fatima and the Daughters of Muhammad, 222.

[31]. Clohessy, Fatima, Daughter of Muhammad, 279.

[32]. Clohessy, Fatima, Daughter of Muhammad, 279-282.

[33]. Lammens, Fatima and the Daughters of Muhammad, 235.

[34]. Clohessy, Fatima, Daughter of Muhammad, 45.

[35]. Lammens, Fatima and the Daughters of Muhammad, 266.

[36]. Clohessy, Fatima, Daughter of Muhammad, 48.

[37]. Ibn Bābwayh, ʿIlal al-Sharāʾiʿ, 1, 181.

[38]. Jazari, A Methodical Critique of Henri Lammens’s View of Fatima (AS) in the Book “Fatima and the Daughters of Muhammad (s)”, 293.

[39]. Clohessy, Fatima, Daughter of Muhammad, 289.

---