BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents

 

Criticism of attempts to claim the existence of evidence for the rib-breaking story

 

The supporters of the rib-breaking myth cite some narrations that do not mention the subject of beating Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha and causing her to miscarry, claiming that these narrations are evidence of the rib-breaking occurrence. Although what is mentioned in these narrations does not prove the rib-breaking occurrence, they cannot be burdened with what they cannot bear, because the point of dispute between us and them is proving a single correct narration, whether according to the standards of the Sunnis or the Imamiyyah, that proves the story of attacking Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha, breaking her rib, and causing her to miscarry. All of these narrations are devoid of that, but the opponents take a strange approach in citing these narrations, as these narrations included some of the matters mentioned in the narrations of the broken rib, such as the threat of burning and the delay of the pledge of allegiance; they thus make these matters evidence of the occurrence of the original attack. Although the contents mentioned in these narrations are not the subject of the dispute between us and them in this research, we will respond to their citing these narrations, because some of the common people may not be aware of the flaw in the narration of the opponents.^[1]

 

Part 1: Sunni Narrations

We have previously shown that the supporters of the rib-breaking myth are trying to prove the validity of this fabricated story in weak ways that are far from the academic method. One of the methods they have taken is claiming that there are evidences that prove the origin of the rib-breaking incident in the books of the Sunnis. Although the answer to this is easy, it has been established in the science of Hadith that one of the famous methods of fabricating and inventing narrations is for the lying narrator to take the narration and add to it what is not from it. This is the method adopted by the supporters of the rib-breaking myth, because they took the narrations that talk about the pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr al Siddiq and added to them many lies that have no basis and were not narrated by any of the trustworthy hadith scholars. Among these lies is the myth of burning Fatimah’s house, beating her, and causing her to miscarry. These details have no basis in the narrations of the Sunnis. However, the opponents ignore this fact and try to prove the rib-breaking story with other narrations that do not mention anything about the broken rib and some of them even contradict that story altogether, as is the case with the narrations of threats by burning, which we will discuss in detail in this section.

 

First: Narrations of the threat to burn

Many supporters of the rib-breaking legend cite narrations in which ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu threatened those who were in Fatimah’s house. They make this evidence of the authenticity of the rib-breaking story. These narrations, do not at all indicate that, in addition to the fact that they are all narrations that are not proven upon investigation.^[2] Here are the details:

 

Narration 1: The narration of Ibn Abi Shaybah

The opponents^[3] cite as evidence a narration narrated on the authority of Aslam, ‘Umar’s freed slave, that he said:

 

حين بويع لأبي بكر بعد رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم كان علي والزبير يدخلان على فاطمة بنت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فيشاورونها ويرتجعون في أمرهم فلما بلغ ذلك عمر بن الخطاب خرج حتى دخل على فاطمة فقال يا بنت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم والله ما من الخلق أحد أحب إلينا من أبيك وما من أحد أحب إلينا بعد أبيك منك وأيم الله ما ذاك بمانعي إن اجتمع هؤلاء النفر عندك أن آمر بهم أن يحرق عليهم البيت قال فلما خرج عمر جاؤوها فقالت تعلمون أن عمر قد جاءني وقد حلف بالله لئن عدتم ليحرقن عليكم البيت وأيم الله ليمضين لما حلف عليه فانصرفوا راشدين فروا رأيكم ولا ترجعوا إلي فانصرفوا عنها فلم يرجعوا إليها حتى بايعوا لأبي بكر

When Abu Bakr was given the pledge of allegiance after the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, ‘Ali and al Zubair would enter upon Fatimah, the daughter of the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, and consult her and discuss their matter. When ‘Umar ibn al Khattab heard of that, he went out until he entered upon Fatimah and said, “O daughter of the Messenger of Allah! By Allah, no one among the creation is more beloved to us than your father and no one is more beloved to us after your father than you. By Allah, that will not prevent me, if these people gather with you, from ordering them to burn the house down on them.”

When ‘Umar left, they came to her and she said, “You know that ‘Umar came to me and he swore by Allah that if you returned, he would burn the house down on you. By Allah, he will carry out what he swore to do, so go back with your heads down and do not return to me.”

They therefore left her and did not return to her until they pledged allegiance to Abu Bakr.^[4]

 

The answer to this argument from the perspective of the isnad and the text

As for the isnad: This report is based on the narration of Muhammad ibn Bishr^[5] — from ‘Ubaidullah ibn ‘Umar al ‘Umari — from Zaid ibn Aslam — from his father Aslam, the freed slave of ‘Umar. The opinions of the researchers differed in their judgment on this isnad into two views:

The first: The report is authentic based on the apparent isnad.^[6]

The second: The ruling that the report is not authentic due to the presence of apparent and hidden defects that cast doubt on its isnad. Those who say that the isnad is authentic are satisfied with its appearance without paying attention to the hidden defects in it.^[7] This is the correct statement in our view. The summary of the defects that make this report invalid are two:

1. Interruption and irsal:

Aslam, the freed slave of ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu, did not hear this report from ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu, so he did not explicitly state that he heard it from ‘Umar and instead narrated the report with the wording “that” which is an expression that does not indicate hearing as is established by the hadith scholars^[8], in addition to the fact that he did not witness the incident, since it is proven that Aslam was not in Madinah at the time of the pledge of allegiance and it is claimed that the rib-breaking incident was the result of it.^[9]

2. Individuality and incongruity. This incongruity occurs in more than one aspect.

The first aspect: Muhammad ibn Bishr is the only one to narrate this report from ‘Ubaidullah, which none of his famous students, such as Malik and al Thawri, narrated from him even though Muhammad ibn Bishr did not narrate much from ‘Ubaidullah nor was he one of his well-known students.^[10] As for the corroborations of Muhammad ibn Bishr, all of them are not authentic.

The first corroboration is ‘Abdul Salam ibn Harb’s narration of this hadith, even though the wording of the threat was not mentioned in it. Al Hakim authenticated its isnad according to the standard of the two Sheikhs.^[11] It is a reprehensible corroboration. As for the isnad, al Dhahabi said about it, “Strange and amazing”^[12], and the investigators of the Dar al Ta’sil edition of al Mustadrak said, commenting on al Hakim’s words, “This isnad does not meet the standard of the two Sheikhs, for they did not narrate from ‘Abdul Mu’min ibn ‘Ali al Za’farani. Moreover, Abu Zur’ah said, ‘I did not leave reporting from ‘Abdul Mu’min ibn ‘Ali al  Za’farani except for fear that the people of the country would defame me for approaching him.’” There is no narration in the Sahihayn^[13] from ‘Abdul Salam ibn Harb from ‘Ubaidullah ibn ‘Umar, nor from ‘Ubaidullah ibn ‘Umar from Zaid ibn Aslam.^[14]

As for the text: What was attributed to ‘Umar, saying:

 

ما رأيت أحدًا أحب إلى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم منك

I have not seen anyone more beloved to the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam than you.

 

is an abhorrent addition, as it was not mentioned in all the paths that were narrated by trustworthy people on the authority of Muhammad ibn Bishr.^[15] What is confirmed on the authority of Muhammad ibn Bishr is the report from ‘Umar with this wording:

 

والله ما من أحد أحب إلينا من أبيك وما من أحد أحب إلينا بعد أبيك منك

By Allah, no one is more beloved to us than your father and no one is more beloved to us after your father than you.

 

There is a great difference between the two wordings, as the confirmed wording on the authority of Muhammad ibn Bishr informs that the most beloved of people to ‘Umar is Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and after him is his daughter Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha while in the report of ‘Abdul Salam ibn Harb, ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu informs that the most beloved of people to the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam is Fatimah.

The second corroboration is the narration of Abu ‘Amr ibn al ‘Ala’ — from his father — from ‘Ubaidullah ibn ‘Umar.^[16] This is a fabricated corroboration; in its isnad is Makki ibn Bandar, the teacher of al Hakim. Al Hakim did not notice his matter and said about him, “Trustworthy and reliable.”^[17] As for al Daraqutni, he knew his condition and said about him, “He is not to be bothered with… He fabricates narrations and chains, and he composes. I narrated ahadith, so he took them and omitted my name and the name of my Sheikh and narrated from the Sheikh of my Sheikh.”^[18]

This isnad in this context; I mean: Muhammad ibn Bishr — from ‘Ubaidullah ibn ‘Umar al ‘Umari — from Zaid ibn Aslam, is not well-known, nor is it common among the authors of the Sunnah and others. There is nothing in this context in the Sahihayn nor in the six books of it.^[19] It is an isnad that does not come at all.^[20] All the narrations in which this isnad came are “incongruous, rejected, and defective reports; none of them are authentic.”^[21]

There are other defects of this report that we will not mention, because what was mentioned above is sufficient to rule this isnad inauthentic.^[22] Thus, the verdict is that the isnad of this report is not authentic.

The second angle in answering this report is to say: Assuming the report is correct, it does not at all indicate the claim that the rib was broken. Rather, this report completely contradicts the story of the rib being broken, as their narrations claim that ‘Umar and those with him came to Fatimah’s house and threatened ‘Ali and ordered him to leave. When he refused, they attacked the house and burned the door, Fatimah was beaten, her rib was broken, and her foetus was miscarried. Then they took ‘Ali and forced him to pledge allegiance. As for this narration, it only says that ‘Umar threatened those in the house with burning them if they returned and gathered in it. Those in the house obeyed ‘Umar’s order and did not gather in it again. Then they pledged allegiance to Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu. So where is this in the story of the rib being broken? This is why Sheikh Imam Ahmed al Katib says:

 

بغض النظر عن قيمة الرواية والكتاب العلمية فإن هذه الرواية تتحدث عن التهديد بحرق البيت مع إعراب عمر عن محبته للزهراء وانصراف علي والزبير ومبايعتهما لأبي بكر

Regardless of the academic value of the narration and the book, this narration talks about threatening to burn the house, with ‘Umar expressing his love for al Zahra’, and ‘Ali and al Zubair turning away and pledging allegiance to Abu Bakr.^[23]

 

If they wanted to denounce ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu because he threatened to burn the house, the answer to this lies in a number of matters:

Firstly: This threat did not happen. Since this is the case, what is the point of denouncing and objecting? Therefore, Abu Muhammad al Yamani, one of the scholars of the sixth century, answered the objection of the opponents to ‘Umar and their evidence for this report, saying:

 

وأما الذي نقموا به على عمر بن الخطاب رضي الله عنهم همه بإحراق بيت فاطمة رضي الله عنها فإنه قد كان ذلك منه على غير ما وهموا به

As for what they blamed ‘Umar ibn al Khattab radiya Llahu ‘anhu for, his intention to burn the house of Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha, it was something other than what they intended.

 

Then, after mentioning the report, he said:

 

فأي شيء على عمر من منقود في هذا لأنه همَّ ولم يفعل ما أراد بذلك إلا الإصلاح

So what is there to criticise ‘Umar for in this, because he intended but did not do it; he only intended to reform.^[24]

 

Secondly: The issuance of the threat by ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu was because he felt the delay of ‘Ali and al Zubair and what they had done of consultation and backtracking on the matter of the pledge of allegiance might lead to division. Just as Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu was informed of the gathering of the Ansar in Saqifah, he hastened to inform them of their lack of right to the Caliphate and the pledge of allegiance was made suddenly without any arrangement for fear of sedition, so ‘Umar did the same with ‘Ali and al Zubair radiya Llahu ‘anhuma. ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu, because he knew of his severity and strength in the right, saw that he should issue a speech that contained a threat and intimidation to ‘Ali and al Zubair, because the failure of the Muslims to unite with the dangers that were looming over Islam might lead to their weakness and the loss of their strength. For this reason, he issued that threat, although he had absolutely no intention of proceeding with it. The Arabs say: Breaking a threat is generosity. It is inconceivable that ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu would proceed with burning the house with its people. Rather, he wanted them to stop gathering in it, so he addressed them with these words that contained a severe threat. This is what a group of scholars and researchers have decided. Abu Bakr ibn Abi ‘Asim said:

 

في حديث عمر بن الخطاب رضي الله عنه ما يدل على أن الإمام إذا بلغه أن قومًا يجتمعون على أمر يخاف أن يحدث عن اجتماعهم ما يكون فيه فساد أن يتقدم إليهم ويوعدهم في ذلك وعيدًا يرهبون به مع اعتراف عمر بحق فاطمة رضي الله عنها وأنها أحب الناس إليه بعد أبيها صلى الله عليه وسلم لم يمنعه ذلك من أن تقدم إليها وأخبرها بما هو عليه ومعرفة فاطمة بحق عمر رضي الله عنه وأنه يفي بموعده

In the hadith of ‘Umar ibn a-Khattab radiya Llahu ‘anhu what indicates that if the Imam is informed that a group of people are gathering on a matter and he fears that their gathering will cause corruption, he should go to them and threaten them with a threat that will terrify them. Despite ‘Umar’s recognition of the right of Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha and that she was the most beloved person to him after her father salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, this did not prevent him from going to her and informing her of what he was upon and Fatimah’s knowledge of the right of ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu and that he would fulfil his promise.^[25]

 

Abu ‘Ali al Jubba’i al Mu’tazili said:

 

أما ما ذكره من حديث عمر في باب الإحراق فلو صح لم يكن طعنًا على عمر لأن له أن يهدد من امتنع من المبايعة إرادة للخلاف على المسلمين لكنه غير ثابت لأن أمير المؤمنين قد بايع وكذلك الزبير والمقداد والجماعة وقد بينا القول في ذلك فيما تقدم وأن التمسك بما تواتر به الخبر من بيعتهم أولى من هذه الروايات الشاذة

As for what he mentioned of the hadith of ‘Umar in the chapter on burning, if it were authentic, it would not be a criticism of ‘Umar, because he has the right to threaten whoever refuses to pledge allegiance with the intention of causing discord among the Muslims. But it is not proven, because the Commander of the Faithful pledged allegiance, as did al Zubair, al Miqdad and the group. We have explained the statement on that previously and that adhering to what was transmitted in the reports of their allegiance is more appropriate than these odd narrations.^[26]

 

Muhammad al ‘Umrani says:

 

غاية ما في الخبر توجيه التخويف والتهديد من خلال مسلك تأديبي شرعي معروف إلى كل من علي بن أبي طالب والزبير بن العوام على سبيل الدفع بالأخف كي يدركا خطورة المرحلة التي تمر بها دولة الإسلام

The most that the report contains is to intimidate and threaten through a known legitimate disciplinary approach to both ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib and al Zubair ibn al ‘Awwam, to dispel with the lesser approach, so that they realise the seriousness of the matter that the Islamic state is going through.^[27]

 

Tariq al Tayyar says:

 

يقينًا لم تكن العقوبة من عمر بالحرق لو صح إنما هي تهديد مفاده الشدة والحزم والتخويف في هذه المسألة لخطورة الأمر

Certainly, the punishment from ‘Umar was not burning—if true—but rather a threat that means severity, firmness, and intimidation in this matter due to the seriousness of the matter.^[28]

 

Thirdly: As for the legitimacy of threatening to burn houses, it is learned from what came in the Sahihayn from multiple sources on the authority of Abu Hurairah from the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam:

 

إن أثقل صلاة على المنافقين صلاة العشاء وصلاة الفجر ولو يعلمون ما فيهما لأتوهما ولو حبْوًا ولقد هممت أن آمر بالصلاة فتقام ثم آمر رجلًا فيصلي بالناس ثم أنطلق معي برجال معهم حزم من حطب إلى قوم لا يشهدون الصلاة فأحرق عليهم بيوتهم بالنار

The most burdensome Salah for the hypocrites are Salat al ‘Isha’ and Salat al Fajr. If they knew their reward, they would come to them even if they had to crawl. I was about to order the prayer to be called, then order a man to lead the people in Salah, then set out with men carrying bundles of firewood to people who do not attend the prayer, and burn their houses with fire.^[29]

 

According to the most correct opinion, this hadith was issued as a warning, not a literal one. Rather, what was meant is exaggeration, as evidenced by the fact that he salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam did not do it and there is no evidence that they were deterred and stopped staying behind. It was possible for him salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam to burn what was in their houses after removing the women and children from them.^[30] It is understood from the hadith that it is permissible to give precedence to threats and warnings over punishment and it is also understood from the hadith that it is permissible to issue a threat of burning down the house on its occupants despite the presence of innocent people as an exaggeration in intimidation, because the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam did not restrict his words to the fact that he would only burn the houses of those who stayed behind after removing the women and children—those who are not obligated to join the congregation—as is well-known.^[31]

We found a similar action by ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu with his son. It was authentically reported from Ibn ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu that he said: ‘Umar was informed that his son had covered his walls, so he said:

 

والله لئن كان كذلك لأحرقن بيته

By Allah, if that is the case, I will burn his house.^[32]

 

This indicates that the threat of burning may have come from ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu only as a warning and intimidation and it is certain that he would not carry out his threat.

Fourthly: As for Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha, ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu did not address her with a threatening speech at all, since she had no hand in the matter of the pledge of allegiance. However, when ‘Umar wanted to threaten those in the house including her husband, ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu, he preceded his threat with words in which he explained Fatimah’s status with him by telling her that she was the most beloved person to the Muslims because she was the daughter of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. He said, “No one is more beloved to us after your father than you.”

‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu only said that to Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha to prevent what might be thought that his threat to burn her house on her husband was belittling her, or being rude to her, or intending to harm her. Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha was not addressed by ‘Umar’s threat, but rather the address was to those who were gathering in the house; the words of the report indicate that. Therefore, Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha said to ‘Ali and al Zubair radiya Llahu ‘anhuma and those who were with them, “‘Umar has come to me and has sworn by Allah that if you return, he will burn the house on you. By Allah, he will carry out what he swore to do, so leave with your opinion in mind and do not return to me.” She understood that ‘Umar’s threat meant that they were the ones who used to meet in the house, not her. Otherwise, if she had been included in ‘Umar’s speech, she would have said, “‘Umar threatened me or threatened us.” Since that was not mentioned in the speech, it indicates that she was not meant by it. Now that this is made clear, the objection and problem will be removed; and success comes from Allah.

 

Narration 2: The narration of Abu Salamah ibn ‘Abdur Rahman

Hisham ibn ‘Ammar narrated from Abu Salamah ibn ‘Abdur Rahman a long story about the death of the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and the pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu in which he said:

 

ودخل علي والزبير بيت فاطمة بنت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فجاء عمر فقال اخرجوا للبيعة والله لتخرجن أو لأحرقنه عليكم فخرج الزبير صلتًا بالسيف فاعتنقه زياد بن لبيد الأنصاري من بياضة فدق به وبدر السيف من يده منه فأخذه زياد قال لا ولكن اضرب به الحجر قال محمد بن عمرو فحدثني أبو عمرو بن حماس من الليثيين قال أدركت ذلك الحجر الذي فيه ضرب السيف فقال أبو بكر رضي الله عنه دعوهم فسيأتي الله بهم فخرجوا بعد ذلك فبايعوه قالوا ما كان أحد أحق بها ولا أولى بها منك ولكنا قد عهدنا من عمر يبتزنا أمرنا فبايعه الناس يوم الإثنين

‘Ali and al Zubair entered the house of Fatimah, the daughter of the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. ‘Umar came and said, “Go out for the pledge of allegiance. By Allah, you must go out or I will burn it on you.” Al Zubair came out with his sword drawn and Ziyad ibn Labid al Ansari from Bayadah embraced him and struck him, and the sword fell from his hand. Ziyad took it and said, “No, but strike the stone with it.”

Muhammad ibn ‘Amr said: Abu ‘Amr ibn Hamas from al Laythiyyin told me that he saw that stone on which the sword was struck.

Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu said, “Leave them, for Allah will bring them,” so they came out after that and pledged allegiance to him. They said, “No one was more deserving of it nor more worthy of it than you, but we have known for awhile that our matter will be usurped.” The people thus pledged allegiance to him on Monday.^[33]

 

This report is not authentic in terms of isnad and text and it has several defects:

1. Irsal. Abu Salamah ibn ‘Abdur Rahman did not witness this incident. Al Hafiz said in al Taqrib, “He was born in the year twenty-something.” The incident that he narrates here occurred in the year 11 AH by consensus.^[34]
2. The poor memory of Muhammad ibn ‘Amr ibn ‘Alqamah. Despite his trustworthiness and the abundance of his narrations, he is a Sheikh who is not proficient.^[35]
3. It is contradictory, as what came in this narration was mentioned scattered in several hadiths from Abu Salamah. Muhammad ibn ‘Amr deliberately narrated them and formulated them in one context from him with changes in the texts, in addition to his being the only one to do so.^[36]

As for talking about its text, the report is like the previous one, it did not mention anything about the rib-breaking story, but it included the story of the threat, which we explained in detail in the previous narration. As for what was mentioned in these narrations of additions, all of them are not proven and there is no need to detail their rejection because they are not related to the original research.

 

Narration 3: The narration of Ziyad ibn Kulayb

A group of opponents^[37] used as evidence what al Tabari narrated with his isnad on the authority of Ziyad ibn Kulayb, who said:

 

أتى عمر بن الخطاب منزل علي وفيه طلحة والزبير ورجال من المهاجرين فقال والله لأحرقن عليكم أو لتخرجن إلى البيعة فخرج عليه الزبير مصلتًا بالسيف فعثر فسقط السيف من يده فوثبوا عليه فأخذوه

‘Umar ibn al Khattab came to ‘Ali’s house. In it were Talhah, al Zubair, and some of the Muhajirin. He warned, “By Allah, I will burn it down upon you or you must go out to pledge allegiance.” Al Zubair came out to him with his sword drawn and stumbled and the sword fell from his hand, so they jumped on him and seized him.^[38]

 

This narration is also not authentic as it contains several defects in the isnad:

1. Muhammad ibn Hamid al Razi: Although he was a hafiz, he used to make grave mistakes to the point that he would lie, intentionally or not. He has a long biography in Tahdhib al Tahdhib and there is disagreement about him. Imam Ahmed, al Dhuhali, Yahya ibn Ma’in, and Jafar al Tayalisi praised him, but other critics declared him weak, including al Bukhari, Yaqub al Sadusi, and al Juzajani. Most of them called him a liar after they investigated his Hadith and found that he deliberately lied, changed the chains, stole texts, and narrated what he had not heard, such as al Azhari, Salih Jazarah, al Nasa’i, Abu Zur’ah al Razi, Ibn Kharash, and Abu Hatim al Razi.^[39] The correct view is with those who say that he is discredited and weakened.
2. Weakness. Ziyad ibn Kulayb died in the year 120 AH^[40] and the most he narrates is from the young Tabi’in of the middle class, so the minimum between him and the story is two intermediaries if not three. Such an isnad is very weak and is not an argument, so it should not be given attention.

This report is very weak and does not prove an argument. Therefore, both Muhammad al ‘Umrani^[41] and ‘Abdul Fattah Surur^[42] declared it weak.

As for its text, there is a long discussion that is not suitable here. The narration does not prove the rib-breaking or the occurrence of the attack on Fatimah’s house. The most it proves is ‘Umar’s threat to burn those in the house and taking al Zubair’s sword; and this has nothing to do with the subject of the rib-breaking. As for the issue of threatening to burn, it was discussed under the first narration.

 

Narration 4: The narration of Ibn ‘Awn

The opponents^[43] relied on what al Baladhuri narrated from Sulaiman al Taymi and Ibn ‘Awn, who said:

 

إن أبا بكر أرسل إلى علي رضي الله عنه يريد البيعة فلم يبايع فجاء عمر ومعه فتيلة فتلقته فاطمة على الباب فقالت فاطمة يا بن الخطاب أتراك محرقًا عليَّ بابي قال نعم وذلك أقوى فيما جاء به أبوك وجاء علي فبايع وقال كنت عزمت أن لا أخرج من منزلي حتى أجمع القرآن

Abu Bakr sent to ‘Ali ‘alayh al Salam, wanting him to pledge allegiance, but he did not pledge allegiance. Then ‘Umar came with a wick and Fatimah met him at the door. Fatimah said, “O Ibn al Khattab! Do you think you will burn my door?”

He said, “Yes and that is the strongest of what your father brought.”

‘Ali came and pledged allegiance and said, “I had resolved not to leave my house until I had collected the Qur’an.”^[44]

 

And close to it is the statement of Ibn ‘Abd Rabbihi in al ‘Aqd al Farid:

 

الذين تخلفوا عن بيعة أبي بكر عليّ والعباس والزبير وسعد بن عبادة فأما علي والعباس والزبير فقعدوا في بيت فاطمة حتى بعث إليهم أبو بكر عمر بن الخطاب ليخرجوا من بيت فاطمة وقال له إن أبوا فقاتلهم فأقبل بقبس من نار على أن يضرم عليهم الدار فلقيته فاطمة فقالت يا ابن الخطاب أجئت لتحرق دارنا قال نعم أو تدخلوا فيما دخلت فيه الأمة فخرج علي حتى دخل على أبي بكر فبايعه فقال له أبو بكر أكرهت إمارتي فقال لا ولكني آليت أن لا أرتدي بعد موت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم حتى أحفظ القرآن فعليه حبست نفسي

Those who did not pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr were ‘Ali, al ‘Abbas, al Zubair, and Sa’d ibn ‘Ubadah. As for ‘Ali, al ‘Abbas, and al Zubair, they stayed in Fatimah’s house until Abu Bakr sent ‘Umar ibn al Khattab to them to leave Fatimah’s house and said to him, “If they refuse, then fight them.” So he came with a torch of fire to set their house on fire, but Fatimah met him and said, “O Ibn al Khattab, have you come to burn our house?”

He said, “Yes, or you enter in what the nation has entered into?”

So, ‘Ali went out until he entered upon Abu Bakr and pledged allegiance to him.

Abu Bakr said to him, “Do you hate my leadership?”

He said, “No, but I swore that I would not wear a shirt after the death of the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam until I memorised the Qur’an and for that I confined myself.”

 

This report is rejected in terms of its isnad and text:

As for the narration of Ibn ‘Abd Rabbihi, it is not to be taken seriously because it was narrated without an isnad. Ibn ‘Abd Rabbihi died in the year 328 AH. Moreover, it contains additions that were not mentioned in the narration of al Baladhuri, so no attention should be paid to it. As for al Baladhuri, he narrates this report on the authority of al Mada’ini — from Maslamah ibn Muharib — from Sulaiman al Taymi — and on the authority of Ibn ‘Awn. This isnad has several defects:

1. Maslamah ibn Muharib al Ziyadi’s biography was written by al Bukhari and Ibn Abi Hatim and they did not mention any criticism or approval of him^[45] so Ibn Hibban mentioned him in al Thiqat^[46] as is his well-known habit of documenting unknowns.^[47]
2. The interrupted isnad. And there is a difference in the isnad of this report, as it appears in al Shafi by al Sharif al Murtada, “Maslamah ibn Muharib — from Sulaiman al Taymi — from Abu ‘Awn.”^[48] As for the handwritten and printed copies, it says: “Maslamah ibn Muharib — from Sulaiman al Taymi and Ibn ‘Awn.” So ​​either Maslamah ibn Muharib combined the narration of the report on the authority of Sulaiman al Taymi and Ibn ‘Awn, or its narrator is Ibn ‘Awn alone, as we assume; in both cases, the report is interrupted and not connected as both Sulaiman al Taymi and Ibn ‘Awn did not witness the incident.^[49]

As for its text, it does not contain any evidence for the claim that the attack on the house took place, let alone the claim of a broken rib and a miscarriage, since the most that is in this report is that ‘Umar brought a torch of fire to threaten ‘Ali and when ‘Ali heard him, he pledged allegiance and apologised that he was busy collecting the Qur’an. Where is this from the claim that ‘Umar attacked the house, burned the door, and hit Fatimah? However, its text is rejected and unacceptable because of the apparent oddness in it. Since, we have proven the invalidity of the narration of the threat, even though its isnad is cleaner than the isnad of this narration, then it is even more appropriate for us to reject the validity of this report that included the claim that ‘Umar brought a wick or a torch of fire.^[50] What came from his speech with Fatimah of strange words that are unique to this narration and for which there is no evidence in the rest of the narrations, it is most likely that whoever fabricated this report took the narration of the threat and added to it that ‘Umar brought a torch or a wick.

 

Narration 5: The story of al Imamah wa al Siyasah

A group of opponents^[51] argued with a narration mentioned in al Imamah wa al Siyasah attributed to Ibn Qutaybah al Dinawari (276 AH) in which it appears:

 

إن أبا بكر رضي الله عنه تفقد قومًا تخلفوا عن بيعته عند علي كرم الله وجهه فبعث إليهم عمر فجاء فناداهم وهم في دار علي فأبوا أن يخرجوا فدعا بالحطب وقال والذي نفسه عمر بيده لتخرجن أو لأحرَّقنها على من فيها فقيل له يا أبا حفص إن فيها فاطمة فقال وإن فخرجوا فبايعوا إلا عليًا فإنه زعم أنه قال حلفت أن لا أخرج ولا أضع ثوبي على عاتقي حتى أجمع القرآن فوقفت فاطمة رضي الله عنها على بابها فقالت لا عهد لي بقوم حضروا أسوأ محضر منكم تركتم رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم جنازة بين أيدينا وقطعتم أمركم بينكم لم تستأمرونا ولم تردوا لنا حقًا فأتى عمر أبا بكر فقال له ألا تأخذ هذا المتخلف عنك بالبيعة فقال أبو بكر لقنفذ وهو مولى له اذهب فادع لي عليًا قال فذهب إلى علي فقال له ما حاجتك فقال يدعوك خليفة رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال علي لسريع ما كذبتم على رسول الله فرجع فأبلغ الرسالة قال فبكى أبو بكر طويلًا

Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu did not find some people who had not pledged allegiance to him; they were by ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu. He sent ‘Umar who came and called them while they were in ‘Ali’s house, but they refused to come out. He thus called for firewood and said, “By the One in Whose Hand is ‘Umar’s soul, you must come out or I will burn it with whoever is in it.”

He was told, “O Abu Hafs, Fatimah is in it.”

He said, “Even so.”

They went out and pledged allegiance except for ‘Ali, for he claimed that he swore that he would not come out nor put his garment on his shoulder until he had collected the Qur’an.

Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha stood at her door and said, “I have not known a people who attended a worse gathering than you. You left the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam as a funeral procession in front of us and you decided your affair among yourselves; you did not consult us and you did not return to us our right.”

‘Umar came to Abu Bakr and said to him, “Will you not take this one who stayed away from you from pledging allegiance?”

Abu Bakr said to Qunfudh, who was his slave, “Go and call ‘Ali for me.”

He went to ‘Ali who said to him, “What do you need?”

He said, “The successor of the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam calls you.”

‘Ali said, “You have lied about the Messenger of Allah quickly.”

Qunfudh returned and delivered the message. Abu Bakr cried for a long time.^[52]

 

Then the narration mentions that ‘Umar insisted that ‘Ali pledge allegiance and threatened to kill him yet ‘Ali refused to pledge allegiance and that Abu Bakr and ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma went to Fatimah to appease her, but she refused; then after she died, ‘Ali pledged allegiance to Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu.

This is the only narration that Muhammad Hussain Fadl Allah relied on, who doubts the rib-breaking incident.^[53] For this reason, we saw it appropriate to separate the discussion on it.

The answer: This report is fabricated and has no basis; the signs of lying and fabrication are apparent on it. It is surprising that someone uses such fabricated reports that have no basis in truth as evidence. The details of this report from the aspect of its isnad fall into two aspects:

The first aspect: The book al Imamah wa al Siyasah is falsely attributed to Ibn Qutaybah as the researchers have concluded. The evidence for that is clear and numerous. This is a summary of what they mentioned:^[54]

• The absence of a reference from Ibn Qutaybah in his other books to al Imamah wa al Siyasah, although Ibn Qutaybah’s habit in the rest of his books is to refer to his own works.
• None of the scholars who wrote about Ibn Qutaybah listed this book among his books. This evidence was considered by Dr. Jibril Jabbur as one of the strongest pieces of evidence that the book was wrongly attributed to Ibn Qutaybah.^[55]

We did not find—with the expansion of the research—any scholar before the sixth century who referred to this book or quoted a text from it. The first to refer to it was Ibn al ‘Arabi al Maliki (543 AH) in al ‘Awasim min al Qawasim, but he did not definitively attribute everything in it to Ibn Qutaybah. The first person we found quoting from it was Ibn al Shabbat al Tunisi (681 AH). This is evidence that none of the predecessors had knowledge of this book, unlike the rest of Ibn Qutaybah’s books that were frequently quoted.

It is not limited to the Sunnis. Even the Imamiyyah, as the early scholars who transmitted several texts from Ibn Qutaybah, such as al Mufid and al Murtada, did not transmit any text from al Imamah wa al Siyasah. Rather, we did not stop with the effort and expansion in searching for any of the Imami scholars before the tenth century who transmitted a text from al Imamah wa al Siyasah, although the book is one of the sources of disparagement of the Companions that the Imamiyyah are keen to use as evidence.

The opponents have provided weak evidence to prove the validity of attributing the book to Ibn Qutaybah, which does not go back to a source. Perhaps, the most important of them is that some scholars and a group of contemporary writers attributed the book to Ibn Qutaybah. The truth is that all those who attributed the book to Ibn Qutaybah from the modernists and contemporaries were wrong, rather most of them are those who do not care to verify the attribution of books to their owners, especially the owners of the printing presses among them and those who printed the book. They are opposed by those who denied the book’s attribution to Ibn Qutaybah; most of these are interested in Ibn Qutaybah’s heritage or have verified his books or have studied the book al Imamah wa al Siyasah in a detailed study. Among these are: Dr. Ishaq al Hussaini in his doctoral thesis on Ibn Qutaybah, Dr. Mahmud ‘Ali Makki in his article Misr wa al Masadir al Ula li al Tarikh al Islami, Dr. ‘Abdullah al Jubburi in his article Dirasah fi Kutub Ibn Qutaybah, Professor Jibril Jabbur in his book Kayf Afham al Naqd, Dr. Muhammad Yusuf Najm in his article Kitab al Imamah wa al Siyasah Man Huwa Mu’allifuhu, Dr. ‘Abdullah ‘Asilan in his thesis al Imamah wa al Siyasah fi Mizan al Tahqiq al ‘Ilmi, Dr. ‘Ali ibn Nafi’ al ‘Alyani in his book ‘Aqidat al Imam Ibn Qutaybah, Dr. ‘Ali al Sallabi in his article, Dr. Khalid ‘Allal in his thesis Naqd Kitab al Imamah wa al Siyasah al Mansub li Ibn Qutaybah, Dr. Raniya Nazmi in her research Manhaj Ibn Qutaybah fi al Radd ‘ala al Mu’tazilah, and Sheikh Hassan Salman al Mashhur in his book Kutub Hadhdhara minha al ‘Ulama’ mentioned that among those who denied its attribution to Ibn Qutaybah were: Dr. ‘Abdul Halim Uways, Dr. Sayyidah Ismail al Kashif, al Jundi, Dr. Faruq Hamadah, and Dr. Shakir Mustafa.^[56]

Among those who investigated Ibn Qutaybah’s books are: Sheikh Muhibb al Din al Khatib in the introduction to his investigation of the book al Maysar wa al Qaddah, Dr. Tharwat ‘Ukkashah in the introduction to his investigation of the book al Ma’arif, Sheikh Sulaim ibn ‘Id al Hilali in the introduction to Ta’wil Mukhtalif al Hadith, Sayed Ahmed Saqr in the introduction to Ta’wil Mushkil al Qur’an, and Professor Ibrahim Salih in the introduction to Tahqiq Ta’bir al Ru’ya.

Perhaps the best thing written about al Imamah wa al Siyasah is the thesis of the researcher Sa’id Salih Khalil for his master’s degree, which he titled al Imamah wa al Siyasah li Mu’allif min al Qarn al Thalith al Hijri. It is the only study that includes a study of the manuscript copies of al Imamah wa al Siyasah, because all other editions of the book are poor editions that did not rely on many manuscript copies. The researcher Sa’id Salih Khalil investigated the book based on ten manuscript copies and concluded, “Ibn Qutaybah al Dinawari is far from the book al Imamah wa al Siyasah. Thus, the author of al Imamah wa al Siyasah remains unknown.”^[57]

These researchers have provided conclusive evidence to deny the attribution of the book to Ibn Qutaybah, contrary to those who have proven it who have no evidence other than that they found the book attributed to Ibn Qutaybah.

• Among the evidence that invalidates the attribution of the book to Ibn Qutaybah is the difference in the style of the writer of al Imamah wa al Siyasah from the style of Ibn Qutaybah known in his books. It is common for Ibn Qutaybah to bring long introductions to his books in which he mentions the reason for writing and the book al Imamah wa al Siyasah is devoid of that.
• Ibn Qutaybah’s habit in transmitting historical news is to mention the full isnad and he does not leave that out in most cases. As for the book al Imamah wa al Siyasah, it only contains a few chains at the beginning of the book and in scattered places in it. As for most of the reports, they came disconnected without chains of transmission, reins, or bridles. Rather, you see strange expressions from Ibn Qutaybah’s style, such as his sayings, “And some of the Sheikhs told me,” “some of the Sheikhs told us,” “they mentioned from Muhammad ibn Sulaiman,” “from the Sheikhs of the people of Egypt.”
• Among the evidence of Ibn Qutaybah’s innocence from this book is that none of Ibn Qutaybah’s well-known Sheikhs were mentioned in al Imamah wa al Siyasah.
• Among the things that prove the invalidity of attributing al Imamah wa al Siyasah to Ibn Qutaybah is the explicit statement of the author of al Imamah wa al Siyasah that he heard from Sheikhs whom Ibn Qutaybah did not meet.

1. Among these is the author’s statement: “A slave girl of ‘Abdullah ibn Musa, who was a man of truth and righteousness, told me that Musa besieged the fortress which she was from and there was another fortress opposite it. She said, ‘So he besieged us for a while and with him were his family and children; he would not invade except with them.’”^[58] It is known that the conquest of Spain was in the year 92 AH, i.e. about one hundred and twenty years before the birth of Ibn Qutaybah.^[59]

This ‘Abdullah ibn Musa is the son of Musa ibn Nusayr who died close to the year 103 AH^[60] and Ibn Qutaybah was born in the year 213 AH. Can it be imagined that Ibn Qutaybah would meet the slave girl of ‘Abdullah ibn Musa ibn Nusayr?

2. The author of al Imamah wa al Siyasah says, “Ibn Abi Maryam told us, he said Asad ibn Musa told us.” ^[61]

What appears to be meant by Ibn Abi Maryam is Ahmed ibn Sa’d ibn al Hakam ibn Abi Maryam (253 AH), because he was one of the students of Asad ibn Musa^[62] and he was the first Sheikh mentioned in the book. Some copies state, “Ibn Abi Layla,”^[63] which is definitely a typo because the name Ibn Abi Maryam was repeated in two other places. Moreover, it is inconceivable that Muhammad ibn ‘Abdur Rahman ibn Abi Layla, who died in the year 148 AH, narrated from Asad ibn Musa, who was born in the year 132 AH, because Ibn Abi Layla is in the same class as the Sheikhs of Asad ibn Musa, but not in the same class as those who narrated from him. Ibn Qutaybah did not narrate from Ibn Abi Maryam in any of his books and Ibn Qutaybah never visited Egypt in order to narrate from its Sheikhs.

• Among the evidence that indicates that the author of al Imamah wa al Siyasah is someone other than Ibn Qutaybah is that the author of the book narrates from Sheikhs from Egypt, Tunisia, and Morocco whereas Ibn Qutaybah did not enter those countries.

The author says, “And some of the people of Africa told us.” He also says, “Al Karir Abu Bakr ‘Abdul Wahhab ibn ‘Abdul Ghaffar, a Sheikh from Tunisia, told us.” He also says, “And some of the Sheikhs of the people of Morocco told us.”^[64]

 

We say: Ibn Qutaybah did not enter Tunisia, Africa, or Morocco to narrate from their Sheikhs. Moreover, the possibility of his meeting them in Baghdad is also remote, because all of Ibn Qutaybah’s books are devoid of any narration from the Sheikhs of Morocco or Egypt. The fact that al Imamah wa al Siyasah is unique in this matter is evidence that it is not by Ibn Qutaybah.

All of these evidences, taken together, invalidate the attribution of the book to Ibn Qutaybah. When this is proven, then one should not rely on what is in this book or be preoccupied with the chains that came in it, because its author is unknown.

The second aspect: Even if we assume hypothetically that the book is by Ibn Qutaybah, this also does not necessitate the authenticity of the narration. The truth is that this narration is invalid in terms of its isnad and text, in addition to its lack of indication to the topic of dispute, which is the issue of beating Fatimah and causing her to miscarry.

As for the isnad: The author of al Imamah wa al Siyasah said at the beginning of this report:

 

وحدثنا قال حدثنا ابن عفير عن أبي عون عن عبد الله بن عبد الرحمن الأنصاري

He narrated to us saying — Ibn ‘Ufayr narrated to us — from Abu Awn — from ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abdur Rahman al Ansari.

 

Then he mentioned the report in its entirety. This isnad is not to be taken into account, as there was ambiguity at the beginning of the isnad. It is possible that the one who said, “he narrated to us,” is the narrator of the book al Imamah wa al Siyasah on the authority of its author, and thus the ambiguous name is the name of the author of the book, because the author of al Imamah wa al Siyasah narrated on the authority of Ibn ‘Ufayr in two other places.^[65] What is meant by Ibn ‘Ufayr is Sa’id ibn Kathir ibn ‘Ufayr.

If it is said: The author narrated in a previous isnad and said, “Sa’id ibn Kathir narrated to us from ‘Ufayr,”^[66] then the answer is: It is possible that this is a typo, and that the correct version is, “Sa’id ibn Kathir ibn ‘Ufayr narrated to us,” especially since the copies of al Imamah wa al Siyasah contained many distortions and typos in the chains, as will come. If this is decided, we say: This isnad contains several problems and dilemmas, due to the gross difference and strange confusion that occurred in the way the author of al Imamah wa al Siyasah narrated from these narrators. Here is an explanation of that:

1. Sa’id ibn Kathir ibn ‘Ufayr (226 AH), from whom the author of al Imamah wa al Siyasah narrated, is trustworthy.^[67] However, Ibn Qutaybah’s narration from Sa’id ibn Kathir is strange and unlikely, since Sa’id ibn Kathir is an Egyptian Sheikh and most of his narrations are from al Layth ibn Sa’d and ‘Abdullah ibn Wahb, the Egyptians.^[68] Ibn Qutaybah is Baghdadi; he did not enter Egypt, does not narrate from its Sheikhs, and we did not find in the biography of Ibn Qutaybah among the earlier and later scholars any mention of Sa’id ibn Kathir in his Sheikhs, in addition to the fact that the rest of Ibn Qutaybah’s books are devoid of narrations from Sa’id ibn Kathir, which makes it likely that this isnad is fabricated, which will be confirmed by explaining the other defects in this isnad.
2. As for Abu ‘Awn from whom Sa’id ibn Kathir ibn ‘Ufayr narrates, there was a gross inconsistency in the accuracy of his name in the chains that were mentioned in al Imamah wa al Siyasah. In this place, it was mentioned with the title Abu ‘Awn, in a second place it was mentioned with the title Ibn ‘Awn^[69], and in a third place it was mentioned with the title ‘Awn.^[70] Verifying the correct name is difficult, because we did not find a narration from Sa’id ibn Kathir ibn ‘Ufayr from someone whose name is ‘Awn or from someone who is called Abu ‘Awn or Ibn ‘Awn. It is possible that the purport is ‘Amr ibn ‘Amr ibn ‘Awn ibn Tamim Abu ‘Awn al Ansari, mentioned by al Dhahabi who said, “Sa’id ibn ‘Ufayr narrated from him. He is unknown.”^[71] If that is proven, then the isnad is also very weak.
3. As for ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abdur Rahman al Ansari from whom Abu ‘Awn narrated, it is a common name among a group. There are two possibilities here:

i. He is in the class of the Companions.^[72] Based on that, there must be an interruption and a defect in the isnad. According to the view that Ibn Qutaybah is the author of al Imamah wa al Siyasah, then his narration from a Companion with an isnad via only two narrators is one of the unlikely and inconceivable matters, since Ibn Qutaybah died in the year 276 AH, and those in this class usually narrate from the Companions with a four or five-chain isnad. We found Ibn Qutaybah narrating from Ibn ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu with a five-chain isnad^[73], from Abu Dharr radiya Llahu ‘anhu with a five-chain isnad^[74], from Hudhayfah ibn al Yaman radiya Llahu ‘anhu with a five-chain isnad^[75], from Ibn ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhuma with a four-chain isnad^[76], and from Abu Hurairah radiya Llahu ‘anhu with a four-chain isnad.^[77] And these are simple examples, so how can it be imagined that Ibn Qutaybah narrates from a Companion via only two narrators?

Assuming that the narrator of the report is one of the Companions, then the statement that the isnad is interrupted is inevitable, especially since Ibn ‘Awn, who narrates from ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abdur Rahman al Ansari, is unknown and his class is not known.

ii. He is in the class of the Tabi’in. A group of Tabi’in shared the name ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abdur Rahman al Ansari, including: ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abdur Rahman ibn Thabit al Ansari^[78], ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abdur Rahman ibn al Hubab al Ansari^[79], ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abdur Rahman ibn Abi Sa’sa’ah al Ansari^[80], and ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abdur Rahman ibn Ma’mar ibn Hazm al Ansari.^[81] Identifying who is meant by ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abdur Rahman in this isnad is difficult, in addition to the fact that the isnad will also be interrupted because all of those mentioned did not witness the pledge of allegiance at Saqifah that took place in the eleventh year.

Thus, it becomes clear that this isnad is flawed and contains serious defects. What we lean towards is that this isnad is a late construction, as it is unlikely that such a report would be circulated among narrators and would only appear in a book of an unknown author with a flawed isnad.

As for the text, we say: This narration, like the rest of the narrations that were mentioned in this chapter, does not prove the occurrence of the disputed rib-breaking incident. Rather, the most that was mentioned in it was the threat of burning. However, this narration added to the rest of the narrations that Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha was included in this threat and that Abu Bakr and ‘Umar visited Fatimah’s house more than once to force ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu to pledge allegiance. There is no doubt that this is a lie. These details, we are certain are fabrications and have no basis from the author of this book. It is possible that he came across the narrations of threats and added to them the claim of collecting firewood, just as he added to this narration talks about the death of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and the pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr, matters that have no basis. We should not be preoccupied with refuting all of his concoctions, but we will suffice with pointing out some of them:

• Among them is the statement of the author of the book, “‘Ali ‘alayh al Salam went out carrying Fatimah, the daughter of the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, on a mount at night to the gatherings of the Ansar, asking them for support.” We absolve ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu from seeking intercession through Fatimah and going around with her to the gatherings of the Ansar until they support him, for this is not the nature of the Arabs at all, let alone ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu.
• Among the abhorrent matters that this narration attributed to ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib radiya Llahu ‘anhu is that when he was ordered to pledge allegiance, he went to the grave of the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam shouting and crying.^[82] This action is inconceivable to come from someone like ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu, who is known for his courage and heroism. Is it reasonable that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu would leave facing men and resort to shouting and crying? We absolve ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu from these actions that are more appropriate for cowards. It is surprising that those who cite such narrations slander the Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum and ignore the accusations that are attributed to ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu.
• Among the fabricated matters in this narration is the story of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu coming to Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha to appease her, but she refused and said, “I bear witness to Allah and His angels that you have angered me and not satisfied me. If I meet the Prophet, I will complain to him about you.” This has no basis and was only mentioned in the narrations of the Imamiyyah.

And other lies and abnormalities that this narration is full of, which makes it among the rejected narrations. Therefore, we find some Imami writers rejecting this narration and directing arrows of criticism at it, as Dr. Hassan al ‘Alawi commented on this narration saying:

 

مرويات أخرى في مناهج القطيعة تأخذ بالزهراء مع الإمام علي إلى أقل من ذلك وتستشهد كتب القطيعة وآخرها كتاب المواجهة مع رسول الله إذ يكرس رواية لصاحب كتاب الإمامة والسياسة أن عليًا حمل فاطمة على حمار وسار بها ليلًا إلى بيوت الأنصار يسألهم النصرة وتسألهم فاطمة الانتصار فكان الأنصار يقولون يا بنت رسول الله قد مضت بيعتنا لهذا الرجل ولو أن ابن عمك سبق إلينا أبا بكر ما عدلنا بهوبهذه السهولة يُفترى على الإمام علي وترسم عنه لوحة تقشعر لها الأبدان وكلتا الروايتين لم تحدثا فلا علي يسمح لنفسه طارقًا الأبواب في الليل على حمار ومعه المفجوعة برحيل والدها

Other narrations in the courses of estrangement take al Zahra’ with Imam ‘Ali to less than that. And the books of estrangement cite such as evidence; the latest of which is the book al Muwajahah ma’a Rasul Allah… as it devotes a narration by the author of the book al Imamah wa al Siyasah that ‘Ali carried Fatimah on a donkey and walked with her at night to the homes of the Ansar, asking them for support and Fatimah begging them for assistance. But the Ansar would say, “O daughter of the Messenger of Allah, our allegiance to this man is finalised. Had your cousin preceded Abu Bakr to us, we would not have equated to him…” With this ease, Imam ‘Ali is slandered and an image is drawn about him that makes the body shudder. Both stories did not happen; so ‘Ali would not allow himself to knock on doors at night on a donkey and with him the woman who was grieving the death of her father.^[83]

 

Sheikh Ahmed al Katib said about al Imamah wa al Siyasah:

 

إذا ما انتقلنا إلى كتاب آخر صدر في نفس الفترة وهو كتاب الإمامة والسياسة لابن قتيبة الدينوري (213 – 276هـ) فإننا سوف نشاهد فيلمًا هنديًا مليئًا بالبكاء والدموع والخيال اللامحدود بدل أن نقرأ رواية علمية يعتمد عليها

If we move on to another book published in the same period, which is the book al Imamah wa al Siyasah by Ibn Qutaybah al Dinawari (213-276 AH), then we will watch a Bollywood movie full of sobbing, tears, and unlimited imagination, instead of reading a reliable academic treatise.^[84]

 

After it became clear that this narration is false due to the source in which it was found being of an unknown author, in addition to the defects in its isnad and text, we must point out that this narration included what contradicts the claim of those who provide evidence for it. In addition to its lack of anything indicating that the incident of beating and assault occurred, it included what indicates that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu was not seeking the Caliphate. It was mentioned in it that ‘Ali said to Abu Bakr after the death of Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha:

 

أما بعد يا أبا بكر فإنه لم يمنعنا أن نبايعك إنكارًا لفضيلتك ولا نفاسة عليك ولكنا كنا نرى أن لنا في هذا الأمر حقًا فاستبددت علينا

After praise and salutations, O Abu Bakr, it was not a denial of your virtue nor a lack of respect for you that prevented us from pledging allegiance to you, but we saw that we had a right in this matter, so you assumed it over us.^[85]

 

It was also mentioned in this narration that when ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu wanted to pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu in the Masjid in front of the people:

 

عظَّم حق أبي بكر وذكر فضيلته وسابقته ثم مضى فبايعه

He glorified Abu Bakr’s right, mentioned his virtue and precedence, then went and pledged allegiance to him.^[86]

 

Even greater than this is what was mentioned in the same narration of ‘Ali’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu insistence on confirming the pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu and that he was the first to object to Abu Bakr’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu dismissal of his own pledge of allegiance. It appears in the narration:

 

فلما تمت البيعة لأبي بكر أقام ثلاثة أيام يُقيل الناس ويستقيلهم يقول قد أقلتكم في بيعتي هل من كاره هل من مبغض فيقوم علي في أول الناس فيقول والله لا نقيلك ولا نستقيلك أبدًا قد قدمك رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم لتوحيد ديننا من ذا الذي يؤخرك لتوجيه دنيانا

When the pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr was completed, he stayed for three days dismissing people and asking them to resign, saying, “I have relieved you of my pledge of allegiance; is there anyone who dislikes it? Is there anyone who hates it?” So, ‘Ali stands first and says, “By Allah, we will never dismiss you or ask you to resign. The Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam has sent you forward to unify our religion; who will hinder you from directing our worldly matters?”^[87]

 

If this is clear, then how can it be correct for the opponents to use this narration as evidence for their claim? Therefore, we find some of them using the beginning of this narration in which only the threat was mentioned and ignoring its end which contains ‘Ali’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu praise for Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu and his statement that he did not see himself as more deserving of the Caliphate than Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu.

The conclusion of this is that all reports transmitted of ‘Umar threatening ‘Ali and those with him with burning, are reports that cannot be proven after scrutiny. The strongest of what has been narrated in this regard is the narration of Aslam, ‘Umar’s freed slave, which is a weak narration, not authentic, and contains defects that prevent it from being deemed authentic. As for the rest of the narrations that have been reported in this regard, they are extremely weak and odd, not suitable for citation or support, let alone their lack of evidence for the claim that the rib-breaking incident occurred.

 

Second: The narration of Abu Bakr’s order to ‘Umar to bring ‘Ali to him with the most violent force

Among the tales the opponents have relied on^[88] is what al Baladhuri narrated with his isnad on the authority of Ibn ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhuma who said:

 

بعث أبو بكر عمر بن الخطاب إلى علي رضي الله عنهم حين قعد عن بيعته وقال ائتني به بأعنف العنف فلما أتاه جرى بينهما كلام فقال احلب حلبًا لك شطره والله ما حرصك على إمارته اليوم إلا ليؤثرك غدًا فقال علي وما ننفس على أبي بكر هذا الأمر ولكنا أنكرنا ترككم مشاورتنا وقلنا إن لنا حقًا لا يجهلونه ثم أتاه فبايعه

Abu Bakr sent ‘Umar ibn al Khattab to ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu when he refused to pledge allegiance to him and said, “Bring him to me with the most violent force.” When he came to him, a conversation took place between them during which he said, “Milk it, you have a share in it. By Allah, your eagerness for his leadership today is only so that he may prefer you tomorrow.”

‘Ali said, “We do not compete with Abu Bakr for this matter, but we disapproved of your failure to consult us and we said that we have a right that they are not unaware of.”

Then he came to him and pledged allegiance.^[89]

 

The supporters of the rib-breaking legend and others have cited this narration as evidence and have conspired to cut off ‘Ali’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu statement in the continuation of the narration:

 

وما ننفس على أبي بكر هذا الأمر ولكنا أنكرنا ترككم مشاورتنا وقلنا إن لنا حقًا لا يجهلونه ثم أتاه فبايعه

“We do not compete with Abu Bakr for this matter, but we disapproved of your failure to consult us and we said that we have a right that they are not unaware of.” Then he came to him and pledged allegiance.^[90]

 

We will discuss shortly the reason for their cutting off this statement.

The answer: This is a fabricated, contrived, and concocted report. Its isnad and text are rejected.

Al Baladhuri narrated it on the authority of Bakr ibn al Haytham — from ‘Abdur Razzaq — from Ma’mar — from al Kalbi — from Abu Salih — from Ibn ‘Abbas; and there are defects in it:

The first defect: Bakr ibn al Haytham is al Ahwazi, a Sheikh from whom al Baladhuri narrated a lot in his genealogies. We did not find a biography for him, even though he narrated from famous hadith scholars such as ‘Abdur Razzaq ibn Humam al San’ani, as in this report, and from Qubaysah ibn ‘Uqbah^[91], ‘Abdullah ibn Salih al Misri^[92], Abu al Walid al Tayalisi^[93], Muhammad ibn Yusuf al Firyabi^[94], and others. Thus, whoever narrated a lot from trustworthy people and you do not find a biography for him, even though he lived in an era in which the science of criticism and authentication and attention to the conditions of narrators reached its peak, is one of the bizarre matters. In any case, the man is unknown.

The second defect: Al Kalbi here is Muhammad ibn al Sa’ib; he is a plague among plagues.

 

Muhammad ibn al Sa’ib

• Layth ibn Abi Salim said, “In Kufah there are two liars: Al Kalbi and al Suddi.”
• Qurrah ibn Khalid said, “They used to think that al Kalbi was lying.”
• Yahya ibn Ma’in said, “He is nothing.”
• Al Bukhari said, “Yahya ibn Sa’id and Ibn Mahdi abandoned him.”
• Abu Hatim said, “People are unanimous in abandoning his hadith; do not bother with it. He is a lost hadith.”
• Al Nasa’i said, “He is not trustworthy and his hadith should not be written.”
• ‘Ali ibn al Junaid, al Hakim Abu Ahmed, and al Daraqutni said, “He is matruk (suspected of hadith forgery).”
• Al Hakim Abu ‘Abdullah said, “He narrated fabricated hadiths from Abu Salih.”
• That is why Ibn Hibban said, “The clarity of his lying is more evident than needs to be described in detail.”^[95]

It is enough for this isnad to be invalidated by the fact that it was narrated by al Kalbi — from Abu Salih — from Ibn ‘Abbas. This is the weakest of chains, because al Kalbi is accused of fabricating this isnad and narrating it. Al Thawri narrated from him that he said, “Everything that I narrate from Abu Salih is a lie.”^[96]

The third defect: oddness and strangeness. Bakr ibn al Haytham was the only one to narrate the report with this isnad on the authority of ‘Abdur Razzaq. It is unlikely that ‘Abdur Razzaq would narrate such a report—the invalidity of which is apparent—without his famous students narrating it on his authority. We do not need to elaborate on that after it has been established that the narrator of the report from ‘Abdur Razzaq is not known; so his being the only one to narrate this report requires its rejection.

As for its text, it does not indicate that the attack on Fatimah’s house took place, nor does it indicate the rib-breaking story. Rather, the report contradicts the rib-breaking story since what it includes is an argument between ‘Umar and ‘Ali, which ended with ‘Ali’s pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr and his recognition of his right to the Caliphate. As for what is mentioned in it of Abu Bakr’s saying, “Bring him to me with the most violent force,” it is definitely a fabricated statement attributed to Abu Bakr. This is the statement the opponents clung to in order to denounce Abu Bakr and ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma. They did not bother themselves to look into the isnad of the report in addition to ‘Ali’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu saying, “Your eagerness for his leadership today is only so that he will prefer you tomorrow,” is evidence of slander and fabrication, as it is proven in Sahih al Bukhari that Abu Bakr had no desire for the Caliphate at all and therefore he suggested to the Ansar that they pledge allegiance to ‘Umar or Abu ‘Ubaidah radiya Llahu ‘anhuma. As for ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu, if he had been keen on the Caliphate, he would have accepted it from the beginning when Abu Bakr al Siddiq offered it to him^[97], as it is inconceivable that someone who incites for the Caliphate and desires it would abandon it when it is offered to him; rather if ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu was seeking the Caliphate as they claim, he would have assumed it as soon as he found a way to do so.

There is no doubt that the claim that ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu only wanted to confirm the pledge of allegiance to al Siddiq radiya Llahu ‘anhu so that the matter would be transferred to him is false! The consequence of this is that ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu knew that al Siddiq would die before him. The truth is that this statement in this narration is evidence that the narration was fabricated after the time of the Rightly Guided Khilafah, for sure. Then the rest of the report proves that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu saw that Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu was more deserving of the Caliphate than him and that the only  reason for his delay in pledging allegiance was that he was not involved in the consultation. It was mentioned in the narration that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu said, “We have a right that they are not unaware of.” This is something that the opponents do not accept and are not satisfied with. Therefore, they conspired not to transmit this statement while using it as evidence for the claim of attack only because it refutes the basis of their objection.

 

Third: The narration of Abu Bakr’s regret over exposing Fatimah’s house

The opponents cite a narration that mentions Abu Bakr’s regret and remorse over exposing Fatimah’s house, to claim that it is evidence of the attack on Fatimah’s house.^[98] This narration is narrated on the authority of ‘Abdur Rahman ibn ‘Awf from Abu Bakr in a long narration in which it is stated that Abu Bakr said:

 

أمَا إني لا آسى على شيء إلا على ثلاث فعلتهن وددت أني لم أفعلهن … فأما الثلاث اللاتي وددت أني لم أفعله فوددت أني لم أكن كشفت بيت فاطمة وتركته

As for me, I do not regret anything except for three things that I did and I wish I had not done. As for the three things that I wish I had not done: I wish I had not exposed Fatimah’s house and had [rather] left it.^[99]

 

The answer: This report, like all the previous reports, does not indicate to the occurrence of the rib-breaking incident, as there is no indication in its wording of that at all. We will detail the answer to it from the aspect of the isnad and the text.

 

Study of the Isnad

The isnad of this report is very weak as it contains many defects. The researcher Muhammad al ‘Umrani has traced the versions of this report and completed its verification.^[100] He ruled that the story is weak and fabricated.^[101] The summary of his words is that the isnad of the report is plagued by several defects.

The first defect: The basis of all the paths of this hadith is ‘Alwan ibn Dawood al Bajali or ‘Alwan ibn Salih^[102] and he is the scourge of this hadith and the one accused of it.

 

‘Alwan ibn Dawood al Bajali

• Al Bukhari and Ibn Yunus al Misri said about him, “Munkar al hadith (unacceptable in hadith).”^[103]
• Ibn Shahin reported that ‘Alwan is abandoned by Ahmed ibn Salih al Misri.^[104]
• Ibn al Jawzi included him in al Du’afa’ (weak narrators).^[105]
• Al Dhahabi said, “Munkar al hadith.”^[106]
• Ibn Abi Hatim mentioned him and did not mention any criticism or approval of him.^[107]
• In contrast to these, Ibn Sadaqah al Baghdadi said about him, “‘Alwan is fine in himself.”
• Ibn Hibban mentioned him in al Thiqat.^[108]

As for Ibn Sadaqah’s words, they are based on justice without accuracy, so there is no contradiction between him and those who criticised him, since the context of his words was to clarify ‘Alwan’s fabrication of this hadith as will come.

As for Ibn Hibban, his authentication of unknowns, especially those he came across in al Bukhari’s al Tarikh and Ibn Abi Hatim’s al Jarh wa al Ta’dil, is a well-known matter, so one should not rely on him in these aspects. Even if we accept that Ibn Sadaqah and Ibn Hibban authenticated ‘Alwan ibn Dawood, their authentication is contradicted by the statements of the majority of critics and scholars of criticism and authentication, who accused him and declared him weak, so their weakening takes precedence over the authentication by those who authenticated him.

The second reason: ‘Alwan ibn Dawood was extremely confused in his isnad, so he narrated this report in several contradictory ways:

i. He narrated it once from Salih ibn Kaysan — from Humaid ibn ‘Abdur Rahman ibn ‘Awf — from his father. This is the narration of al Layth and Ibn Bukayr.

ii. He narrated it once from Humaid ibn ‘Abdur Rahman ibn Humaid ibn ‘Abdur Rahman ibn ‘Awf — from Salih ibn Kaysan — from Humaid ibn ‘Abdur Rahman ibn ‘Awf — from his father. This is the narration of Sa’id ibn ‘Ufayr.

iii. He narrated it once from Abu Muhammad al Madani and al Majishun — from Salih ibn Kaysan — from Humaid ibn ‘Abdur Rahman ibn ‘Awf — from his father. This is the narration of al Walid ibn al Zubair.

This is what appeared in the paths that were authenticated to ‘Alwan. There are other paths that were mentioned in other weak paths to ‘Alwan.

This is not a difference on the part of ‘Alwan’s trustworthy students as much as it is on the part of ‘Alwan himself.^[109] So, this gross confusion requires ruling the isnad invalid. Thus, al ‘Uqayli said, “‘Alwan is not known except for this with the confusion of the isnad and he is not corroborated.”^[110]

The third defect: Abu Bakr ibn Sadaqah said, “This hadith was narrated from ‘Alwan ibn Dawood al Bajali from the people of Qarqisiya. He narrates these hadiths from Ibn Dab. I saw this hadith from his hadith from Dab; and ‘Alwan himself is not bad.”^[111] “Based on this, the hadith is originally from Ibn Dab. ‘Alwan omitted his mention from this isnad. Ibn Dab’s name is ‘Isa ibn Yazid ibn Dab and he is abandoned and accused.”^[112]

 

‘Isa ibn Yazid ibn Dab

• Khalaf al Ahmar said, “He used to fabricate hadith.”
• Al Bukhari and others said, “Munkar al hadith (unacceptable in hadith).”
• Abu Hatim said, “Munkar al hadith.”
• Al ‘Uqayli said, “His uncorroborated hadith are more than his corroborated hadith.”^[113]
• Ibn Hibban disagreed and mentioned him among the trustworthy.

The correct view is with the majority.

 

The Opinion of the Scholars on the hadith under discussion

• Therefore, the critics ruled upon the rejection of this hadith.
• Imam Ahmed said about this hadith, “It is not authentic.”^[114]
• Ibn Rushdin said, “I asked Ahmed ibn Salih about the hadith of ‘Alwan ibn Dawood, which our companions narrate, to which he said, ‘This is a fabricated hadith, a lie, and it should not be written, read, or narrated.’ It is as if I saw ‘Alwan—he and his hadith were abandoned in his sight. He said, ‘This is false and fabricated.’”^[115]
• Al ‘Uqayli said, “‘Alwan ibn Dawood al Bajali or ‘Alwan ibn Salih. His hadith is not corroborated.” Then he mentioned this report.^[116]
• Al Dhahabi said, “It includes ‘Alwan ibn Dawood and he is weak.”^[117]
• Al Haythami said, “It was narrated by al Tabarani and it includes ‘Alwan ibn Dawood al Bajali, and he is weak. This report is one of the things that was denounced.”^[118]

Khalid ibn al Qasim narrated this report, but he forged it and omitted ‘Alwan ibn Dawood from it. Ibn ‘Asakir narrated this report via Khalid ibn al Qasim — from al Layth — from Salih ibn Kaysan — from Humaid ibn ‘Abdur Rahman ibn ‘Awf — from his father.^[119] Ibn ‘Asakir said after it, “This is how Khalid ibn al Qasim al Madani narrated it, from al Layth, and he omitted ‘Alwan ibn Dawood from it.”^[120]

 

Khalid al Madani

• Al Dhahabi said about Khalid ibn al Qasim al Madani, “One of those accused of lying, he fabricated hadiths against al Layth ibn Sa’d.”^[121]
• The man is doomed and his affair was exposed because he was tampering with the chains, adding to them and subtracting from them! That is why most critics agreed to declare him da’if.
• Ahmed ibn Hanbal said, “I do not narrate anything from Khalid al Madani.”
• Al Bukhari said, “‘Ali and the people abandoned him.”
• Ibn Rahawayh said, “He was a liar.”
• Al Azdi said, “They agreed to abandon him.”
• Yaqub ibn Shaybah said, “Khalid al Madani is a master of hadith, but he is matruk al hadith. All of our companions agreed to abandon him except Ibn al Madini, who had a good opinion of him. I said, ‘Al Bukhari narrated from ‘Ali that he also abandoned him, saying, ‘‘Ali and the people abandoned him.’”
• Al Daraqutni said, “Weak.”
• Ibn Abi ‘Asim said, “Khalid is matruk al hadith.”
• Abu Hatim said, “Matruk al hadith. He accompanied al Layth from Iraq to Makkah and to Egypt. When he returned, he used to narrate a lot from al Layth, so a man from Iraq, Ahmed ibn Hammad, went to Egypt with those books and compared them with al Layth’s books; he had added a lot to them and changed them.”
• Al Nasa’i said, “Matruk al hadith.”
• Others said, “He is not trustworthy, and his hadith is not to be written.”
• Al Saji said, “Matruk al hadith. The scholars of hadith agreed to abandon his hadith. He would take an interrupted hadith and put a complete isnad to it.”^[122]

It was narrated from al Haytham ibn ‘Adi — from Yunus ibn Yazid al Ayli — from al Zuhri — from ‘Abdur Rahman ibn ‘Awf, and his wording is, “I wish I had not searched Fatimah’s house!” Al Baladhuri narrated it — from his Sheikh Hafs ibn ‘Umar — from al Haytham ibn ‘Adi.^[123]

This report is also not authentic, rather it is false with this isnad as we did not find a biography for al Baladhuri’s Sheikh Hafs ibn ‘Umar and most of his narrations were from al Haytham ibn ‘Adi and Hisham ibn Muhammad al Kalbi.

If the report is free from him, then the defect of this report is al Haytham ibn ‘Adi, as he is one of the pillars of lying in narration.

 

Al Haytham ibn ‘Adi

• Abu Zur’ah said, “He is nothing.”
• Ibn Ma’in and Abu Dawood said, “He is a liar.”
• Al Nasa’i and others said, “Matruk al hadith.”
• Al Bukhari said, “They kept quiet about him.”
• Al ‘Ijli said, “He is a liar and I have seen him.”
• Al Saji said, “He lived in Makkah and used to lie.”
• Imam Ahmed said, “He was a narrator of reports and fabrications.”
• Ibn al Sakan, Ibn Shahin, Ibn al Jarud and al Daraqutni mentioned him in al Du’afa’.^[124]

The most famous of his lies is what he fabricated against Hisham ibn ‘Urwah, that he narrated on the authority of ‘Urwah ibn al Zubair that the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam named his two sons ‘Abdul ‘Uzza and ‘Abd Manaf. Al Nasa’i said about this report, “It is impossible that this came from the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.”^[125] Ibn Hajar said, “This is a fabrication of al Haytham against Hisham.”^[126] Muhammad al ‘Umrani said, “If al Haytham had narrated this lie from some unknown people who are not known except from his side… we would have said that perhaps this was from their side. And if al Haytham had come with a formula that was not explicit in hearing it, we would have said that perhaps this was from his forgery. But the man came with this slander with an explicit formula that does not allow for forgery from an Imam of the Imams of Madinah, Hisham ibn ‘Urwah, who had more than one student… If Hisham ibn ‘Urwah had narrated this report, it would have been found in the hadith of these students. But when no trace of it was found, the critics were certain that the report was fabricated by al Haytham.”^[127]

It appears that al Haytham ibn ‘Adi forged this report, appropriating it from ‘Alwan ibn Dawood and narrating it from Yunus ibn Yazid al Ayli, from al Zuhri. If that is proven, then this isnad is not to be taken seriously.

There are other reasons mentioned by al ‘Umrani, including the oddness of the isnad, as al Haytham ibn ‘Adi is the only one to narrate it in this manner, and its interruption; as al Zuhri did not meet ‘Abdur Rahman ibn ‘Awf.^[128] Accordingly, this isnad should not be used.

 

Discussion of the text’s significance in the rib-breaking incident

This report does not indicate in any way the rib-breaking legend. In fact, it does not even indicate that an attack on the house of Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha occurred, as the wording of the report is general and not detailed, because the phrase, “I exposed the house of Fatimah,” never means to burn her door, beat her, break her rib, and cause her to miscarry.

Al Haytham ibn ‘Adi narrated this report with the wording, “I wish I had not searched Fatimah’s house.” Abu al Hassan al Mas’udi al Imami mentioned this report with the wording, “I wish I had not searched Fatimah’s house.”^[129] So, what is meant in this narration by “expose” is search; where is this from the opponents’ claim that the Companions attacked the house, burned the door, and beat Fatimah? Therefore, Ibn Taymiyyah said in response to al Hilli’s use of this report as evidence for the incident of the attack^[130]:

 

وأما إقدامه عليهم أنفسهم بأذى فهذا ما وقع فيه قط باتفاق أهل العلم والدين وإنما ينقل مثل هذا جهال الكذابين ويصدقه حمقى العالمين الذين يقولون إن الصحابة هدموا بيت فاطمة وضربوا بطنها حتى أسقطت هذا كله دعوى مختلق وإفك مفترى باتفاق أهل الإسلام ولا يروج إلا على من هو من جنس الأنعام

As for his attacking them with harm, this has never happened by the consensus of the people of knowledge and religion. Only ignorant liars transmit such things. The fools of the scholars believe it, who say, “The Companions demolished Fatimah’s house and beat her stomach until she miscarried.” All of this is a fabricated claim and a fabricated lie, by the consensus of the people of Islam; and it is only spread by those who are similar to livestock.^[131]

 

This is what Sheikh Imam Ahmed al Katib decided. He commented on this narration, saying:

 

وإذا صحت هذه الرواية فإنها لا تحمل في طياتها أكثر من كشف البيت أو تفتيشه دون اعتراف باستعمال العنف أو تهديد بإحراق البيت على فاطمة الزهراء عليها السلام

If this narration is correct, it does not contain more than the opening or searching of the house, without admitting to the use of violence or threatening to burn the house on Fatimah al Zahra’ radiya Llahu ‘anha.^[132]

 

There is no evidence in the context of the narration that could carry the meaning of an attack. For that reason, Ibn Taymiyyah interpreted this report with another matter, saying:

 

غاية ما يقال إنه كبس البيت لينظر هل فيه شيء من مال الله الذي يقسمه وأن يعطيه لمستحقه ثم رأى أنه لو تركه لهم لجاز فإنه يجوز أن يعطيهم من مال الفيء

The most that can be said is that he exposed [raided^[133]] the house to see if there was anything in it from the wealth of Allah that he divides to give it to its rightful owner, then he saw that had he left it to them, it would be permissible; because it is permissible to give them from the money of the spoils.^[134]

 

Although, we do not tend to believe that what is meant by the report is that the house was raided to search for the wealth of Allah, since the wording of the report does not contain any evidence for that. What is meant is that the narration does not indicate the rib-breaking incident, as evidenced by the fact that Ibn Taymiyyah did not understand that from it. Jafar Murtada al ‘Amili responded to Ibn Taymiyyah’s words, saying, “This is from Ibn Taymiyyah’s divination and guessing in the unseen, for which there is no witness nor evidence.”^[135] We say, “Just as Ibn Taymiyyah’s words have no evidence, so the argument of Jafar Murtada al ‘Amili and other opponents based on this report to claim that it indicates to the rib-breaking incident or the attack on Fatimah’s house has no evidence.”

 

Doubts about the narration of exposing the house and its significance

If this is clear, then know that the opponents, while citing this narration, raised some problems and objections to strengthen their argument with this report. Some of their words may be confusing to someone who does not know the truth of things, therefore, we saw the need to clarify the matter.

 

The first doubt: Claiming the authenticity of the narration of ‘Alwan ibn Dawood

Some opponents try to claim the authenticity of the narration of ‘Alwan ibn Dawood. Some of them tried to refute the criticism of ‘Alwan by saying that Ibn Hibban mentioned him among the trustworthy; and we have already answered this. Then, the reason for the narration is not dependent on proving ‘Alwan’s trustworthiness, as this narration is plagued by other damaging reasons, such as confusion in the isnad and accusing ‘Alwan of fabricating this narration and omitting Ibn Dab.

Perhaps some of them may relate to the fact that al Diya’ al Maqdisi (643 AH) said about this narration, “This is a good narration on the authority of Abu Bakr.”^[136] The answer is: If what is meant by good here is that the narration is proven, then this is rejected, as everyone who spoke about this narration from the predecessors ruled its rejection, at their head were the Imams of this field and its experts such as Imam Ahmed ibn Hanbal, Ahmed ibn Salih al Misri, and al ‘Uqayli, and from the later scholars, al Dhahabi and al Haythami.

Also, everyone who studied the chains of this hadith from the contemporaries ruled that the hadith was rejected, such as ‘Alawi ibn ‘Abdul Qadir al Saqqaf,^[137] Sheikh Sa’d ibn ‘Abdullah al Hamid^[138], and Ismail Sa’id Ridwan^[139]. Accordingly, the words of al Diya’ al Maqdisi should not be relied upon, as it appears that he did not know ‘Alwan’s condition nor did he know the chains of this hadith, otherwise he would not have ruled it to be good.

 

The second doubt: The opponents’ evidence based on Ibn Taymiyyah’s words about this narration

Some opponents clung to the words of Ibn Taymiyyah about this narration and they followed two paths in that:

a. Those who attributed to Ibn Taymiyyah that he confirmed the occurrence of the attack on the house of Fatimah and they deleted his words in which he denied the occurrence of the attack, which is academic betrayal. This is what ‘Abdul Zahra’ Mahdi did when he mentioned Ibn Taymiyyah among those who confirmed the occurrence of the attack on the house^[140] and ‘Ali al Milani when he said, “Ibn Taymiyyah did not deny the attack of the people on the house of the pure al Zahra’ radiya Llahu ‘anha and their aggression against her and the people of the house!” Then he quoted Ibn Taymiyyah’s words and deleted from them his denial of the attack on the house of Fatimah.^[141] He said at another place, “As for Ibn Taymiyyah, he does not deny the origin of the issue, nor does he deny Abu Bakr’s wish, but rather he justifies.”^[142] These people quoted the first words of Ibn Taymiyyah above and deleted from it his denial of the attack on Fatimah’s house when he said, “As for his attacking them with harm, this has never happened according to the consensus of the people of knowledge and religion. Rather, such a thing is transmitted by ignorant liars and believed by the foolish scholars who say: The Companions demolished Fatimah’s house and struck her stomach until she miscarried. All of this is a fabricated claim and a fabricated lie, according to the consensus of the people of Islam; and it is only spread by those who are of the same kind as livestock.”^[143]

b. Those who attributed to Ibn Taymiyyah that he proved that the attack on the house occurred, because he used the word kabasa which indicates an attack.^[144] Jafar Murtada al ‘Amili said in his comment on the words of Ibn Taymiyyah, “The people of language said, kabas al qawm dar fulan: they attacked it suddenly and surrounded it, meaning: so that its residents would not be able to take any action that would lead the attackers away from their goal.”^[145]

‘Ali al Kurani said, “He claimed that Abu Bakr and ‘Umar attacked the house of Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha looking for the wealth of the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.”^[146]

The answer: Relying on this word alone to claim that the attack occurred without looking at the rest of Ibn Taymiyyah’s words in which he denies that Abu Bakr caused any harm to those in the house is not fair at all, as Ibn Taymiyyah says, “As for him attacking them with harm, this has never happened according to the consensus of the people of knowledge and religion.”

It appears that this word is misspelled and that the correct word is, “the most that can be said is that he exposed the house.” The word expose is what suits the rest of Ibn Taymiyyah’s words, so the meaning becomes that Abu Bakr exposed the house to see if there was anything in it from Allah’s wealth that he would distribute. This is what suits the context of the words since Ibn al Mutahhar al Hilli included in the book Minhaj al Karamah, which is the book that Ibn Taymiyyah responded to, the narration of ‘Alwan ibn Dawood with the wording, “I wish I had left Fatimah’s house without exposing it.”^[147] If this is proven, then there is no reason to use this text as evidence.

 

 

NEXT⇒ Part 2: Imami Narrations

---

^[1]  We have limited ourselves to citing the narrations that could be thought to have a connection to the rib-breaking issue as they mention Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha or her house. As for the narrations from which no connection to the subject of the rib-breaking can be understood, we have refrained from discussing them, even if the opponents have used them as evidence, because they do not indicate the origin of the claim in any way, such as some narrations in which the breaking of al Zubair’s sword was mentioned when he refused to pledge allegiance, or similar narrations. Sheikh Muhammad al ‘Umrani has spared us the trouble of responding to them; study them in al Tahqiq fi Khabar al Tahdid bi al Tahriq, pg. 307-372.

^[2]  We have benefited from what Sheikh Muhammad al ‘Umrani Halhul al Hassani mentioned in al Tahqiq fi Khabar al Tahdid bi al Tahriq as he collected a number of reports that the opponents use as evidence and we were satisfied with what he mentioned. We added some narrations that the opponents use as evidence in their books.

^[3]  Ma’sat al Zahra’, 2/200; al Hujum ‘ala Bayt Fatimah, pg. 161; al Hujjah al Gharra’ ‘ala Shahadat al Zahra’, pg. 27; Zalamat al Zahra’ fi Riwayat Ahlus Sunnah, pg. 66; al Mughni fi al Radd ‘ala Hassan al Hussaini, pg. 5.

^[4]  Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah, 7/432, Hadith: 37045; Abu Bakr ibn Abi ‘Asim: Al Mudhakkir, pg. 91-92, Hadith: 19; Ibn ‘Asim: Al Ahad wa al Mathani, briefly without the threat of burning, Hadith: 2952. Many hadith experts have narrated it briefly. Abu Bakr al Qati’i: Ziyadat Fada’il al Sahabah, Hadith: 532; Ibn ‘Abdul Barr: Al Isti’ab, 4/223; Abu Bakr al Khatib al Baghdadi: Tarikh Baghdad, 6/75 from chains from Muhammad ibn Bishr from ‘Ubaidullah ibn ‘Umar al ‘Umari from Zaid ibn Aslam from his father Aslam.

^[5]  In some editions of al Isti’ab and its manuscript copies, Muhammad ibn Bishr was sometimes misspelled as Muhammad ibn Nasir, as in the Dar al Jil edition, 3/975, and sometimes as Muhammad ibn Bashir, as the editor of the Dar al Jil edition indicated in the margin that this occurred in a manuscript copy. The correct version is Muhammad ibn Bishr, as is confirmed in the Hijr Centre edition to which we referred and it is the most accurate edition.

^[6]  Like Dr. Bashshar ‘Awwad in his investigation of Tarikh Baghdad, 6/75, footnote 3, who said, “An authentic report,” and Sheikh Muhammad Salih al Munajjid who said in response to a question related to this report, “This is a correct isnad,” (Islam Question and Answer website, Fatwa No. 98641) and Sheikh ‘Abdul Fattah Surur who said in his book Tasdid al Mulk li Hukm Abi Bakr, pg. 55, “This is a isnad whose men are trustworthy and it appears to be mursal, but it is interpreted as meaning that Aslam, the freed slave of ‘Umar, received this from him.”

^[7]  This is what was decided by both Tariq al Tayyar in Marwiyyat al Khilafah al Rashidah fi Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah, pg. 101-108, footnote, and Sheikh Muhammad al ‘Umrani in al Tahqiq fi Khabar al Tahdid bi al Tahriq, as he expanded on explaining the reasons for the narration. It appears from Abu Muhammad Usamah ibn Ibrahim that he is hesitant about the authenticity of the isnad; he said, “In its isnad is Aslam al Qurashi. It has been said that ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu bought him during the time of Abu Bakr’s Hajj in the eleventh year. Based on this he would have witnessed this incident, but the implication of that is that he was a Companion which has not been proven, so it is considered whether he transmitted this story or not. (Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah, 13/202, footnote 1, al Faruq edition.)

^[8]  Muhammad al ‘Umrani has detailed the scholars’ statements on the wording of the narration with “that” and “from” and that it does not indicate connection until meeting is proven. (Al Tahqiq fi Khabar al Tahdid bi al Tahriq, pg. 63-70)

^[9]  Muhammad al ‘Umrani collected the statements mentioned in the history of ‘Umar’s purchase of Aslam and confirmed that it was at the end of the year 11 AH when Abu Bakr sent ‘Umar to lead the people in Hajj. Al ‘Umrani also showed the weakness of some of the narrations in which it was mentioned that Aslam met the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. (Al Tahqiq fi Khabar al Tahdid bi al Tahriq, pg. 73-90.)

^[10]  Marwiyyat al Khilafah al Rashidah fi Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah, pg. 101, 102, footnote.

^[11]  Al Mustadrak ‘ala al Sahihayn, 3/168; al Hakim: Fada’il Fatimah, pg. 55.

^[12]  The condensed version mentioned in the footnotes of al Mustadrak ‘ala al Sahihayn, 3/168.

^[13]  Sahih al Bukhari and Sahih Muslim.

^[14]  Al Mustadrak ‘ala al Sahihayn, 5/379, footnote 3, Dar al Ta’sil print.

^[15]  Sunan al Tirmidhi, Hadith: 3653, al Albani graded it Hassan; al Tahqiq fi Khabar al Tahdid bi al Tahriq, pg. 150.

^[16]  Al Hakim: Fada’il Fatimah, pg. 56.

^[17]  Al Hakim: Su’alat al Sijzi, pg. 229-230, Hadith: 303.

^[18]  Al Daraqutni: Su’alat al Sulami; similar appears in Su’alat al Barqani with the medium of Mawsu’at Aqwal Abi al Hassan al Daraqutni, 2/662. Study Muhammad al ‘Umrani’s writing on these corroborations in his book al Tahqiq fi Khabar al Tahdid bi al Tahriq, pg. 127-161.

^[19]  Marwiyyat al Khilafah al Rashidah fi Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah, pg. 101, footnote.

^[20]  Al Tahqiq fi Khabar al Tahdid bi al Tahriq, pg. 236.

^[21]  Ibid., pg. 238.

^[22]  Ibid., pg. 162-259.

^[23]  Al Shia wa al Sunnah Wahdat al Din Khilaf al Siyasah wa al Tarikh, pg. 114.

^[24]  ‘Aqa’id al Thalath wa al Sab’in Firqah, 1/141-142; al Tahqiq fi Khabar al Tahdid bi al Tahriq, pg. 26-27.

^[25]  Al Mudhakkar wa al Tadhkir, pg. 97.

^[26]  Al Mughni fi Abwab al ‘Adl wa al Tawhid, al Imamah, section 1, 1/337.

^[27]  Al Tahqiq fi Khabar al Tahdid bi al Tahriq, pg. 13-14.

^[28]  Marwiyyat al Khilafah al Rashidah fi Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah, pg. 105, footnote.

^[29]  Sahih al Bukhari, Hadith: 644; Sahih Muslim, Hadith: 651.

^[30]  Mir’at al Mafatih, 3/486.

^[31]  Al Tahqiq fi Khabar al Tahdid bi al Tahriq, pg. 12-13.

^[32]  Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah, 8/360, Hadith: 25744, (al Faruq print), Usamah ibn Ibrahim graded the isnad sahih.

^[33]  Hadith Hisham ibn ‘Ammar, pg. 124, Hadith: 47.

^[34]  Al Tahqiq fi Khabar al Tahdid bi al Tahriq, pg. 270-271.

^[35]  See the details of the comments of the scholars on it and their deeming it weak in al Tahqiq fi Khabar al Tahdid bi al Tahriq, pg. 271-272.

^[36]  Al Tahqiq fi Khabar al Tahdid bi al Tahriq, pg. 275. The author has listed all the contradictions in the narration, pg. 275-286.

^[37]  Ma’sat al Zahra’, pg. 204; ‘Abdullah al Nasir: Mihnat Fatimah, pg. 50; al Hujum ‘ala Bayt Fatimah, pg. 173; Hiwar ma’a Fadl Allah, pg. 386.

^[38]  Tarikh al Tabari, 3/202.

^[39]  See their comments in Tahdhib al Tahdhib, 9/127-131.

^[40]  Tahdhib al Tahdhib, 3/382.

^[41]  Al Tahqiq fi Khabar al Tahdid bi al Tahriq, pg. 316.

^[42]  Tasdid al Mulk li Hukm Abi Bakr, pg. 55-56.

^[43]  Ma’sat al Zahra’, pg. 2/288; al Muhsin al Sibt Mawlud Am Siqt, pg. 437; Mihnat Fatimah, pg. 50; al Hujum ‘ala Bayt Fatimah, pg. 171; Hiwar ma’a Fadl Allah, pg. 259; Mazlumiyyat al Zahra’, pg. 60.

^[44]  Ansab al Ashraf, 1/586.

^[45]  Al Tarikh al Kabir, Hadith: 1685; al Jarh wa al Ta’dil, 8/266.

^[46]  Al Thiqat, 4/311.

^[47]  Al Tahqiq fi Khabar al Tahdid bi al Tahriq, pg. 318.

^[48]  Al Sharif al Murtada: Al Shafi fi al Imamah, 3/241. Abu ‘Awn is a typo. The correct wording is Ibn ‘Awn. It appears in al Shafi of ‘Abdullah ibn Hamzah al Zaidi, 4/174, Muslim ibn Muharib from Sulaiman al Taymi from Abu al A’war. This contains many errors.

^[49]  Al Tahqiq fi Khabar al Tahdid bi al Tahriq, pg. 319-322.

^[50]  There was a difference in the wording of the narration. In some manuscripts, it says “qaltin” instead of “fatilah.” This appears in the copy of Maktabat Ra’is al Kitab, numbered 579, pg. 286. The researcher of Ansab al Ashraf, 1/586, referred to this in footnote number one, except that he read the wording: qalthin. Fatilah is a rope with a flame of fire in it. (Lisan al ‘Arab, 11/354.) In some copies, it says “qabas.” This is how it appears in Ansab al Ashraf, 2/268, published by Dar al Fikr. Al qabas is a flame of fire. (Lisan al ‘Arab, 6/167.)

^[51]  Ma’sat al Zahra’, pg. 2/213; al Muhsin al Sibt Mawlud Am Siqt, pg. 282; Mihnat Fatimah, pg. 49; al Hujum ‘ala Bayt Fatimah, pg. 165; Hiwar ma’a Fadl Allah, pg. 376.

^[52]  Al Imamah wa al Siyasah, 1/19.

^[53]  Al Zahra’ al Qudwah, pg. 107-109.

^[54]  These evidences are a summary of what was mentioned in the book Ula’ika Mubarra’un, Talhah ibn ‘Ubaidullah, pg. 213-232, by Hafiz Asdaram. We have collected it from various books and articles, including al Imamah wa al Siyasah fi Mizan al Naqd, two articles by Dr. Jibril Jabbur in his book Kayf Afham al Naqd, pg. 136, 167, Dr. Muhammad Yusuf Najm’s response to Jabbur’s article in the same book, pg. 152, an article Dirasah fi Kutub Ibn Qutaybah by ‘Abdullah al Jabburi, an article Naqd Kitab al Imamah wa al Siyasah al Mansub li Ibn Qutaybah by Dr. Khalid Kabir ‘Allal, the book ‘Aqidat al Imam Ibn Qutaybah, pg. 88, an article Ibn Qutaybah wa Kitab al Imamah wa al Siyasah al Nazariyyat wa al Ishkaliyyat by Professor Muhammad Nur, translated by Muhammad ‘Abdur Razzaq, Manhaj Ibn Qutaybah fi al Radd ‘ala al Mu’tazilah by Raniya Nazmi, and introductions to the investigation of a number of Ibn Qutaybah’s books.

^[55]  Kayf Afham al Naqd, pg. 145.

^[56]  Kutub Hadhdhara minha al ‘Ulama’, 2/298-301.

^[57]  Al Imamah wa al Siyasah li Mu’allif min al Qarn al Thalith al Hijri, pg. 3.

^[58]  Al Imamah wa al Siyasah, 1/94.

^[59]  Al Imamah wa al Siyasah fi Mizan al Tahqiq al ‘Ilmi, pg. 25.

^[60]  Al Zirkili: Al A’lam, 4/140.

^[61]  Al Imamah wa al Siyasah, critical revision of ‘Ali Shiri, 1/17.

^[62]  Tahdhib al Tahdhib, 1/30.

^[63]  Jibril Jabbur: Kayf Afham al Naqd, pg. 184.

^[64]  Al Imamah wa al Siyasah, 2/100.

^[65]  Al Imamah wa al Siyasah, 1/46, 1/102.

^[66]  Ibid., 1/19.

^[67]  Tahdhib al Tahdhib, 4/74.

^[68]  Al Bukhari narrated from his Sheikh Sa’id ibn ‘Ufayr more than forty narrations, most of them from al Layth ibn Sa’d al Misri and Ibn Wahb al Misri.

^[69]  Al Imamah wa al Siyasah, 1/46.

^[70]  Ibid., 1/102.

^[71]  Mizan al I’tidal, 3/283; Dr. Khalid ‘Allal: Naqd Kitab al Imamah wa al Siyasah al Mansub li Ibn Qutaybah, pg. 3, soft copy.

^[72]  This is the conclusion reached by Dr. Khalid ‘Allal in Naqd Kitab al Imamah wa al Siyasah al Mansub li Ibn Qutaybah, pg. 5, soft copy.

^[73]  Ibn Qutaybah: al Ashribah, pg. 226; al Ma’arif, pg. 37, 184.

^[74]  Al Ma’arif, pg. 252.

^[75]  ‘Uyun al Akhbar, 1/78.

^[76]  Ibn Qutaybah: Al Ashribah, pg. 226; Gharib al Hadith, 1/582.

^[77]  ‘Uyun al Akhbar, 1/53.

^[78]  Tahdhib al Tahdhib, 5/291.

^[79]  Ibid., 5/292.

^[80]  Ibid., 5/294.

^[81]  Ibid., 5/297.

^[82]  Al Imamah wa al Siyasah, 1/31.

^[83]  ‘Umar wa al Tashayyu’, pg. 119-120.

^[84]  Al Shia wa al Sunnah Wahdat al Din Khilaf al Siyasah wa al Tarikh, pg. 117.

^[85]  Al Imamah wa al Siyasah, 1/32.

^[86]  Ibid., 1/33.

^[87]  Al Imamah wa al Siyasah, 1/33.

^[88]  Ma’sat al Zahra’, 2/200; al Muhsin al Sibt Mawlud Am Siqt, pg. 290; al Hujum ‘ala Bayt Fatimah, pg. 170.

^[89]  Ansab al Ashraf, 1/587.

^[90]  Al Murtada in Ma’sat al Zahra’, 2/200; al Khurasan in al Muhsin al Sibt Mawlud Am Siqt, pg. 290; ‘Abdul Zahra’ Mahdi in al Hujum ‘ala Bayt Fatimah, pg. 170; and Hashim al Hashimi in Hiwar ma’a Fadl Allah, pg. 382.

^[91]  Ansab al Ashraf, 1/162.

^[92]  Ibid., 1/177.

^[93]  Ibid., 1/257.

^[94]  Ibid., 1/512.

^[95]  Tahdhib al Tahdhib, 9/180.

^[96]  Ibn ‘Adi: Al Du’afa’, 7/267.

^[97]  Sahih al Bukhari, Hadith: 6830.

^[98]  Ma’sat al Zahra’, pg. 2/194; Khalfiyyat Kitab Ma’sat al Zahra’, 2/49; Mazlumiyyat al Zahra’, pg. 71; Hiwar ma’a Fadl Allah, pg. 248, 304; al Hujum ‘ala Bayt Fatimah, pg. 156; al Muhsin al Sibt Mawlud Am Siqt, pg. 203.

^[99]  Al Mujam al Kabir, 1/62, Hadith: 43.

^[100]  Al Tahqiq fi Khabar al Tahdid bi al Tahriq, pg. 373-412.

^[101]  Ibid., pg. 412.

^[102]  Abu ‘Ubaid al Qasim ibn Salam: al Amwal, pg. 174; Ibn Zanjawayh: al Amwal, 1/301, 347; Tarikh al Tabari, 3/429-431; al ‘Uqayli: al Du’afa’, 3/419; al Hakim: Al Mustadrak, 4/343; Abu Nuaim: Ma’rifat al Sahabah, 1/31; Hilyat al Auliya’, 1/34; Tarikh Dimashq, 30/422; al Diya’ al Maqdisi: Al Ahadith al Mukhtarah, 1/88, with diverse paths on the basis of ‘Alwan ibn Dawood.

^[103]  Al ‘Uqayli: Al Du’afa’, 3/419; Ibn al Jawzi: Al Du’afa’ wa al Matrukun, 2/190.

^[104]  Tarikh Asma’ al Du’afa’ wa al Kadhdhabin, pg. 131.

^[105]  Ibn al Jawzi: al Du’afa’ wa al Matrukun, 2/190.

^[106]  Mizan al I’tidal, 3/108.

^[107]  Al Jarh wa al Ta’dil, 7/37.

^[108]  Al Thiqat, 5/380.

^[109]  Al Tahqiq fi Khabar al Tahdid bi al Tahriq, pg. 393-394.

^[110]  Al ‘Uqayli: Al Du’afa’, 3/421.

^[111]  Ibn Qudamah: Al Muntakhab min ‘Ilal al Khallal, pg. 297.

^[112]  Al Tahqiq fi Khabar al Tahdid bi al Tahriq, pg. 394.

^[113]  Al ‘Uqayli: Al Du’afa’, 3/391.

^[114]  Ibn Qudamah: Al Muntakhab min ‘Ilal al Khallal, pg. 297.

^[115]  Tarikh Asma’ al Du’afa’ wa al Kadhdhabin, pg. 131.

^[116]  Tarikh Asma’ al Du’afa’ wa al Kadhdhabin, pg. 131.

^[117]  Mukhtasar Istidrak al Hafiz al Dhahabi ‘ala Mustadrak Abi ‘Abdullah al Hakim, 6/3108.

^[118]  Majma’ al Zawa’id, 5/203.

^[119]  Tarikh Dimashq, 30/417-418.

^[120]  Tarikh Dimashq, 30/419; al Tahqiq fi Khabar al Tahdid bi al Tahriq, pg. 399.

^[121]  Tarikh al Islam, 1/637.

^[122]  Lisan al Mizan, 3/333-335.

^[123]  Ansab al Ashraf, 10/346.

^[124]  Lisan al Mizan, 8/361-363.

^[125]  Ibid., 8/362.

^[126]  Ibid.

^[127]  Al Tahqiq fi Khabar al Tahdid bi al Tahriq, pg. 410.

^[128]  Al Tahqiq fi Khabar al Tahdid bi al Tahriq, pg. 411-412.

^[129]  Muruj al Dhahab, 2/101.

^[130]  Al Hilli used this report as evidence that the attack on Fatimah’s house occurred after the pledge of allegiance, but he did not state that the rib-breaking incident occurred in Minhaj al Karamah, pg. 180. As for Kashf al Murad fi Sharh Tajrid al I’tiqad, pg. 403, he linked the report of the house being attacked to the rib-breaking incident.

^[131]  Minhaj al Sunnah al Nabawiyyah, 8/291.

^[132]  Al Shia wa al Sunnah Wahdat al Din Khilaf al Siyasah wa al Tarikh, pg. 119.

^[133]  It appears like this in the printed version. Probably the origin has a typo. The correct word is kashafa.

^[134]  Minhaj al Sunnah al Nabawiyyah, 8/291.

^[135]  Mukhtasar Mufid, 2/225-228.

^[136]  Al Ahadith al Mukhtarah, 1/90.

^[137]  Takhrij Ahadith wa Athar Kitab fi Zilal al Qur’an, pg. 385.

^[138]  In his footnotes on Mukhtasar Istidrak al Hafiz al Dhahabi ‘ala Mustadrak Abi ‘Abdullah al Hakim, 6/3109, Hadith: 1041, footnote.

^[139]  Check the article of al Faja’ah al Sulami: Marwiyyat Ihraq Abi Bakr Jam’ wa Dirasah wa Naqd, a peer-reviewed research published in the Journal of the Islamic University of Gaza, volume 13, issue 2, pg. 211-259.

^[140]  Al Hujum ‘ala Bayt Fatimah, pg. 201, knowing that he cited the rest of Ibn Taymiyyah’s words in which the latter denies the rib-breaking incident at another place, pg. 221, but he only cited Ibn Taymiyyah’s words under the title “What the commoners (Ahlus Sunnah) narrated about the Shia,” pg. 219, because his intention was to prove the fame of this statement among them as he said on page 221.

^[141]  Dirasat fi Minhaj al Sunnah, pg. 352.

^[142]  Muhadarat fi al I’tiqadat, 2/470.

^[143]  Minhaj al Sunnah al Nabawiyyah, 8/291.

^[144]  Al Zabidi says in Taj al ‘Urus, 16/425, “Kabasa darahu: He attacked and sieged his house.”

^[145]  Mukhtasar Mufid, 2/225.

^[146]  Alf Su’al wa Ishkal, pg. 134.

^[147]  Minhaj al Karamah, pg. 180.