General notes on the contents of the rib-breaking narrations

BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents

 

General notes on the contents of the rib-breaking narrations

 

The problems of the rib-breaking narrations are not limited to their weak chains and their texts that testify to their fabrication and invention, as we have explained in detail. Rather, there are many other problems in these narrations, some of which relate to the contradiction and conflict between these narrations themselves and some of which relate to their conflict with other narrations that were limited to the occurrence of threats or intimidation without claiming that an attack on Fatimah’s radiya Llahu ‘anha house occurred. Some of these problems relate to the implications resulting from believing in this legend, which leads to questioning ‘Ali’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu courage and some of which relate to the issue of Muhsin ibn ‘Ali and the conflict over whether he died young or was a miscarriage and some of which relate to the effect of this story on the relationship of ‘Ali and the family of the Prophet with Abu Bakr and ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma, etc.

 

Contradiction and inconsistency between the texts of the rib-breaking narrations

Before explaining the aspects of contradiction and conflict between the rib-breaking narrations, it is necessary to state an important point. We do not say that the mere occurrence of an inconsistency in the rib-breaking narrations necessitates declaring them invalid, as the difference in the details of an incident is not in itself a reason to say that historical incidents are invalid, as there are many established historical events that differ in many of their details. However, the difference in the rib-breaking incidents is not a difference in established historical incidents, rather it is a difference that cannot be resolved by using the rules of combining and weighing between different narrations, as it is a difference and contradiction that returns to the origin of the story with invalidity. This is due to the fact that the origin of this contradiction in the narrations of the rib-breaking incident is not due to a difference between the narrators of the story in details in which a contradiction may occur, rather it is a contradiction that originates from fabrication, lying, addition, and invention, as each narrator of this story brings something that no one else has, to the point that we can hardly find two narrations that agree in the details of the reports of the rib-breaking. And this is what necessitates the ruling that this contradiction necessitates determining this story as invalid.

The rules for combining conflicting narrations cannot be applied to the rib-breaking incident because combining is a branch of the statement of authenticity. It is also forbidden to give preference between these narrations because they are narrations that are equal in being narrations with a weak isnad, so it is not possible to give precedence to one narration over another.

We followed the Imami method in dealing with some historical events and issues. There are many historical incidents that they denied the authenticity of and ruled invalid under the pretext of contradiction in them. Many of these incidents are proven with correct chains of transmission. There are many examples of this; perhaps the most famous of them is al Mufid’s denial of the marriage of ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu to Umm Kulthum radiya Llahu ‘anha, the daughter of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu, under the pretext of differences in the narrations. A group of contemporaries followed him in this and made this imagined difference in the story of Umm Kulthum’s marriage a reason to deny it, even though this difference has no truth at all and even though this marriage is proven by correct narrations in the books of the Ahlus Sunnah and the Imamiyyah. If these people rule that ‘Umar’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu marriage to Umm Kulthum radiya Llahu ‘anha is invalid under the pretext of differences in the narrations—even though they are narrated in their most authentic books with correct chains—then it is even more appropriate for them to rule that the rib-breaking story is invalid, which was not narrated from a correct source at all.

Then the most important individual who defended the rib-breaking myth and tried to prove it is Jafar Murtada al ‘Amili. He tried in every way to prove its validity and claim its authenticity, and ignored all the conflicts and contradictions that were mentioned in the narrations that he relied on, although we find him at other places making the mere difference in the narrations a reason to rule the invalidity of historical incidents. The examples of this consistent approach in the writings of Jafar Murtada al ‘Amili are countless. Rather, his dominant characteristic in studying the narrations is that he seeks to collect as many differences as he can between the narrations—without looking at the ranks of the narrations, nor their degrees—then he rejects the incidents and events based on the claim of conflict.^[1]

Therefore, Muhammad al Hussaini said:

 

استعمل السيد مرتضى نفسه كلمة تناقض في أخبار لا تكاذب بينها والتناقض من التعارض كما هو معلوم وذلك في كتابه الصحيح من سيرة النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم حيث رد عددًا من الأخبار لتناقضها مع عدم التنافي بينها وقد ذكرنا عددًا من الشواهد مطلع البحث فراجع وبالتحديد في حديثنا حول المنهج بل إنه رد الروايات والأخبار لمجرد الاختلاف

Al Sayed Murtada himself used the word contradiction in reports that do not contradict each other; and contradiction is from conflict as is known. This is in his book al Sahih min Sirat al Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, where he rejected a number of reports for their contradiction without conflict between them. We mentioned a number of evidences at the beginning of the research, so refer to them, specifically in our discussion on the methodology. In fact, he rejected the narrations and reports simply because of the difference.^[2]

 

In this research, we followed the same approach of Jafar Murtada al ‘Amili in his rejection of the narrations based on contradiction, although our methodology is safer and more accurate, because what made us consider these differences to be among the contradictions and conflicts that necessitate ruling the invalidity of this story is that the origin of the calamity in the rib-breaking narrations is that they are narrated through the weak, liars, accused, and extremists whose narrations should not be relied upon at all; in addition to the fact that most of the books in which they were mentioned are fabricated, forged, and made-up books or untrustworthy and unreliable books.

This is what we have decided. We found Jafar Murtada acknowledging it in one of his discussions with his opponents, where he says:

 

لماذا كان الأجدر عند السيد الحسيني رد رواية حمَّاد لضعف سندها ولم يكن الأجدر رد رواية الخثعمي فهي أيضًا ضعيفة السند علمًا بأن رواية حمّاد صريحة بعدم وجود الحلال والحرام في المصحف بعكس رواية الخثعمي التي احتاج الأمر معها إلى توجيه لمعنى الكتاب على أنه المصحف فإن كانتا ضعيفتين سندًا ولا مرجح لهما فليحكم بردهما معًا

Why was it very appropriate according to al Sayed al Hussaini to reject Hammad’s narration due to the weakness of its isnad yet it was not very appropriate to reject al Khath’ami’s narration, as it also has a weak isnad? Knowing that Hammad’s narration is explicit about the absence of what is permissible and what is forbidden in the Qur’an, unlike al Khath’ami’s narration, which required a direction to the meaning of the book as being the Qur’an. If they are both weak in isnad and there is no support for them, then let him rule the rejection of both.^[3]

 

We say: This is what we have followed in this research. It is a path recommended by Jafar Murtada al ‘Amili himself! After this introduction, we say: There are differences, flagrant contradictions, and numerous inconsistencies in the rib-breaking narrations and Marja’ Muhammad Hussain Fadl Allah referred to this when he said:

 

إن هناك كثيرًا من الارتباك في الروايات حول وقوع الإحراق أو التهديد به

There is a lot of confusion in the narrations about the burning or the threat of it.^[4]

 

Perhaps this is what Fadl ‘Ali al Qazwini referred to when he said:

 

اختلفت كلمات الشيعة في الجملة في كيفية القضية لكن المسلم عندهم أن محسنًا سقط ميتًا بفعل عمر

The Shia’s words differed in general regarding the manner of the issue, but what is agreed upon by them is that Muhsin was miscarried due to the actions of ‘Umar.^[5]

 

This, which he claimed was agreed upon, is not agreed upon as will appear and this contradiction between the narrations of the broken rib is what made Abu Jafar Yahya ibn Abi Zaid al ‘Alawi, the companion of Ibn Abi al Hadid, hesitate regarding the issue of Muhsin’s miscarriage, due to the contradiction in the narrations. He asked Ibn Abi al Hadid during a dialogue between them:

 

أروي عنك ما يقوله قوم إن فاطمة رُوِّعت فألقت المحسن فقال لا تروه عني ولا ترو عني بطلانه فإني متوقف في هذا الموضع لتعارض الأخبار عندي فيه

“Should I narrate from you what some people say that Fatimah was terrified so she miscarried Muhsin?”

He said, “Do not narrate it from me and do not narrate its invalidity from me, for I hesitate in this matter due to the contradiction in the narrations I find in it.”^[6]

 

Jafar al Shakhuri says:

 

فإذا كانت هذه الروايات مشكوكًا فيها وذلك لاختلافها في تحديد الثمن فلماذا لا نطبق هذا الكلام على الروايات التي تقول إن الإمام علي عليه السلام لم يثُر وذلك لأنه لم يحصل على عشرين رجلًا وبعضها تقول عدة بدر أي 314 رجلًا أو الروايات الواردة حول تفاصيل الاعتداء على الزهراء عليها السلام حيث إن بعضها يقول إن عمر لطم الزهراء على وجهها حتى انتثر قرطها وبعضها يقول إن الذي فعل ذلك هو قنفذ وفي رواية أن عمر ضربها بالسوط فأثر ذلك في عضدها كالدملج وفي رواية رابعة أنه وجأها بالسيف وهو في غمده وفي رواية خامسة أنه عصرها بالباب وفي رواية سادسة أنه شاهدها في الطريق فأخذ منها صك فدك ومزقه فقالت له الزهراء ع بقر الله بطنك كما بقرت صحيفتي هذه من دون الإشارة إلى تعرضها إلى الضرب وفي رواية سابعة أن عمر رفسها بعد أن أخذ منها الصك وفي رواية ثامنة إنهم اقتحموا الدار وأخذوا عليًا وخرجت الزهراء إلى قبر أبيها صلى الله عليه وسلم من دون الإشارة إلى تعرضها للضرب أيضًا

If these narrations are doubtful due to their difference in determining the price, then why don’t we apply this statement to the narrations that say that Imam ‘Ali ‘alayh al Salam did not revolt because he did not obtain twenty men, and some of them say the number of Badr, i.e. 314 men, or the narrations that came about the details of the attack on al Zahra’ ‘alayha al Salam:

• • Some of them say that ‘Umar slapped al Zahra’ on her face until her earring was scattered, and some of them say that the one who did that was Qunfudh.
  • In a narration: ‘Umar hit her with a whip and it left a mark on her arm like a bruise.
  • In a fourth narration: He hit her with the sword while it was in its sheath.
  • In a fifth narration: He squeezed her at the door.
  • In a sixth narration: He saw her on the road and took the Fadak deed from her and tore it up, so al Zahra’ ‘alayha al Salam said to him, “May Allah rip open your stomach as you ripped open this document of mine,” without indicating that she was beaten.
  • In a seventh narration: ‘Umar kicked her after he snatched the deed from her.
  • In an eighth narration: They stormed the house and took ‘Ali while al Zahra’ went out to her father’s grave salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam without indicating that she was beaten.

 

Then al Shakhuri says:

 

وكما نبهنا فإن بعض تلك المرويات تنسب هذا العمل لقنفذ كما أن بعضها كما في الصحيح من السيرة ينسب هذا العمل للمغيرة بن شعبة وإليك نص العبارة وقد روي قول الإمام الحسن ع للمغيرة بن شعبة أنت ضربت أمي فاطمة حتى أدميتها وألقت ما في بطنها استذلالًا منك لرسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فالحاصل أن بعض الروايات تنسب هذا العمل لعمر وبعضها لقنفذ وبعضها للمغيرة وبعضها لا يتعرض لهذا الأمر أصلًا فهل يمكن أن يدعى أن كل هذه الروايات صحيحة وأن الثلاثة ضربوها وهل يمكن أيضًا أن يدعى أن الزهراء ع ضُربت بالسيف في غمده وعصرت بالباب ولطمت على وجهها ورفست في بطنها وضربت بالسوط وأن جميع هذه الأمور حصلت عملًا بقاعدة الجمع مهما أمكن أولى من الطرح

And as we have pointed out, some of those narrations attribute this action to Qunfudh and some of them, as in al Sahih min al Sirah, attribute this action to al Mughirah ibn Shu’bah; and here is the text verbatim, “It was narrated that Imam al Hassan ‘alayh al Salam said to al Mughirah ibn Shu’bah, ‘You beat my mother Fatimah until she bled and she aborted what was in her stomach out of humiliation from you to the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.” So the result is that some narrations attribute this action to ‘Umar, some to Qunfudh, some to al Mughirah, and some do not address this matter at all. Can it be claimed that all of these narrations are correct and that the three beat her? Can it also be claimed that al Zahra’ ‘alayha al Salam was struck with a sword in its sheath, squeezed with a door, slapped in the face, kicked in the stomach, and struck with a whip, and that all of these things happened in accordance with the rule that combining whenever possible is better than rejecting?^[7]

 

This is what al Shakhuri mentioned. It is part of the contradictions that occurred in the rib-breaking narrations. While comparing these narrations, we found what al Shakhuri mentioned and more, which we will describe by stating all the details in which the contradiction occurred in the rib-breaking narrations. In this comparison, we limited ourselves to the narrations in which it was stated that Fatimah was beaten, or her rib was broken, or her foetus was aborted. These are the narrations that we devoted to studying in this research. Since these narrations are equal in weakness and are not proven, it is not possible in any way to give preference to one narration over another.^[8]

 

Contradiction and inconsistency regarding the day the Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam learnt of the incident

It appears in the narration of Kamil al Ziyarat that the Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam came to learn of this incident on the Night of Isra’^[9], i.e. when he was in Makkah, while the narration of Minhaj al Salah mentions that he learnt of it in Madinah in Fatimah’s radiya Llahu ‘anha house after Jibril descended and informed him of the same.^[10]

 

Contradiction and inconsistency regarding the date of the rib-breaking calamity

Clarity appears in majority of narrations that the rib-breaking incident took place immediately after the pledge given to Abu Bakr al Siddiq radiya Llahu ‘anhu. This appears in the narration of Kitab Sulaim ibn Qais^[11] and al Khusaybi^[12]. The narration of al Ikhtisas on the other hand mentions that the incident of Fatimah being beaten took place sometime after the pledge. This narration mentions that al Siddiq wrote to Fatimah’s agent in the land of Fadak and expelled him from there. Fatimah then came to him and a dialogue took place between them after which Abu Bakr wrote a document for him to return Fadak.^[13] It is known that Fadak is a land in Khaybar. Undoubtedly, sending Abu Bakr’s messenger to Fadak and his return after expelling Fatimah’s agent requires a long period.

 

Contradiction and inconsistency regarding who struck Fatimah

There was a gross contradiction and conflict regarding who struck Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha:

1. Some narrations attribute this to Qunfudh, sometimes with a whip, as came in two narrations of Kitab Sulaim ibn Qais^[14] and sometimes without mentioning the whip, as in the narration of Tafsir al ‘Ayyashi.^[15]
2. Some narrations attribute this to ‘Umar ibn al Khattab: Sometimes they mention that ‘Umar struck Fatimah with a sword and then hit her with a whip as the narration of Kitab Sulaim ibn Qais^[16], sometimes they mention that this was with the whip of Qunfudh as the narration that al Majlisi transmitted from Dala’il al Imamah^[17], sometimes they mention that this was with the whip of Abu Bakr as the narration of al Khusaybi^[18], and sometimes they mention that ‘Umar kicked Fatimah with his foot as the narration of al Ikhtisas^[19].
3. Some narrations attribute the beating to al Mughirah ibn Shu’bah, as occurred in the narration of al Ihtijaj.^[20]

 

Contradiction and inconsistency in determining the lineage of Qunfudh

Among the incongruous rib-breaking narrations is the gross difference that occurred in the lineage of Qunfudh.

1. The narration of Kitab Sulaim ibn Qais describes Qunfudh as al ‘Adawi^[21] and the narration of Dala’il al Imamah describes Qunfudh as a slave of ‘Umar^[22]; this means that he is counted among the Banu ‘Adi either by slavery or lineage.
2. As for the narration of Tafsir al ‘Ayyashi, it mentions that Qunfudh is the cousin of Abu Bakr.^[23] As for the narration of al Ihtijaj transmitted from Sulaim ibn Qais, it states that Qunfudh is from the freed ones, one of the Banu Taym,^[24] and this means that he is from Taym.
3. Finally, the narration of al Khusaybi describes Qunfudh as a slave of Abu Bakr.^[25]

So how can these contradictions be reconciled?

 

Contradiction in whether or not the house was burned

A group of narrations mention that whoever attacked Fatimah’s house set it on fire, as in the narration of Kitab Sulaim ibn Qais^[26], the narration of al Khusaybi^[27], the narration of al Turaf^[28], and the famous narration of Farhat al Zahra’^[29]. As for the narration of Tafsir al ‘Ayyashi, it does not mention the occurrence of the burning.^[30]

 

Contradiction and inconsistency regarding who caused the mark of the bruise on Fatimah’s arm

Most narrations state that Qunfudh struck Fatimah with a whip, leaving a mark on her arm like a bruise. This is what came in the narrations transmitted from Kitab Sulaim.^[31] As for the two narrations of al Khusaybi, they attribute this act to ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu.^[32]

 

Contradiction and inconsistency behind the reason for Fatimah’s miscarriage

Among the absurd contradictions that cannot be refuted in any way is the conflict that occurred between these narrations in the reason for the miscarriage:

• The narration of Kitab Sulaim ibn Qais mentions that the reason for that is that Qunfudh forced Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha to the doorpost and pushed her, breaking her rib and she miscarried.^[33]
• Dala’il al Imamah states that Qunfudh pushed Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha with the tip of the sword and she miscarried.^[34]
• As for the narration that al Majlisi transmitted from Dala’il al Imamah^[35] and the two narrations of al Hidayah, they state that Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha was behind the door, so ‘Umar kicked it and she miscarried.^[36]
• The narration of al Ikhtisas states that ‘Umar kicked Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha when she returned from Abu Bakr and she miscarried.^[37]
• The narration of al Ihtijaj attributes the miscarriage to the blow of al Mughirah ibn Shu’bah.^[38]

This gross contradiction that has entered into most of the details of the story cannot be remedied except by rejecting some of the narrations, not all. If the supporters of the rib-breaking legend follow this path, they will fall into a difficult problem, because there is no clear method that can be relied upon to favour one narration over another. Moreover, if they do that, they will demolish all of their arguments, because rejecting any of the narrations of the broken rib based on conflict and contradiction will lead to rejecting all of these narrations. The contradiction is not limited to the narrations in which there is explicit mention of beating, assault, or miscarriage. Rather, the contradiction between the rib-breaking narrations and other narrations that opponents have used as evidence deny the occurrence of the attack at all; and we will discuss this in the next section.

 

The contradiction of the rib-breaking narrations with the narrations of threats and intimidation

We noticed during our study of the narrations that the supporters of the rib-breaking myth use as evidence that the opponents gather all the narrations they think prove the occurrence of this incident without contemplating the contents of these narrations. In many cases, they ignore or neglect the apparent contradiction and conflict between these narrations and sometimes they cite narrations that completely demolish their evidence.

One of the most noteworthy pitfalls that these people fell into is their use of narrations that were limited to mentioning the threat of burning to prove the occurrence of the rib-breaking, even though these narrations—regardless of their isnad—contradict the rib-breaking incident, as they are limited to the occurrence of the threat and do not mention anything about the occurrence of the rib-breaking.^[39] Rather, some of them explicitly state that ‘Umar only wanted to intimidate, such as the narration of al Ihtijaj that Jafar Murtada al ‘Amili and his peers used as evidence.^[40] Abu Mansur al Tabarsi narrated on the authority of ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abdur Rahman who said:

 

ثم إن عمر احتزم بإزاره وجعل يطوف بالمدينة وينادي ألا إن أبا بكر قد بويع له فهلموا إلى البيعة فينثال الناس يبايعون فعرف أن جماعة في بيوت مستترون فكان يقصدهم في جمع كثير ويكبسهم ويحضرهم المسجد فيبايعون حتى إذا مضت أيام أقبل في جمع كثير إلى منزل علي عليه السلام فطالبه بالخروج فأبى فدعا عمر بحطب ونار وقال والذي نفس عمر بيده ليخرجن أو لأحرقنه على ما فيه فقيل له إن فاطمة بنت رسول الله وولد رسول الله وآثار رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فيه وأنكر الناس ذلك من قوله فلما عرف إنكارهم قال ما بالكم أتروني فعلت ذلك إنما أردت التهويل فراسلهم علي أن ليس إلى خروجي حيلة لأني في جمع كتاب الله الذي قد نبذتموه وألهتكم الدنيا عنه وقد حلفت أن لا أخرج من بيتي ولا أدع ردائي على عاتقي حتى أجمع القرآن

Then ‘Umar wrapped himself in his garment and began to circumambulate the city and call out, “Behold, allegiance has been pledged to Abu Bakr, so come to the pledge of allegiance.” The people rushed to pledge allegiance. He knew that there were a group of people hiding in houses, so he would go to them in a large group and attack them and bring them to the Masjid so that they would pledge allegiance. Then, when days had passed, he came in a large group to the house of ‘Ali ‘alayh al Salam and demanded that he come out, but ‘Ali refused. So, ‘Umar called for firewood and fire and said, “By the One in whose hand is ‘Umar’s soul, come out or I will burn it with what is in it.”

It was said to him, “Fatimah is the daughter of the Messenger of Allah, the son of the Messenger of Allah, and the relics of the Messenger of Allah are his chosen ones.”

The people denied that statement of his, so when he knew their denial, he said, “What is the matter with you? Do you think I would do that? I only wanted to intimidate.”

‘Ali wrote to them, “There was no way for me to come out because I am collecting the Book of Allah, which you have abandoned and the world has distracted you from. I have sworn that I will not leave my house or leave my cloak on my shoulders until I collect the Qur’an.”^[41]

 

Muhammad al Hussaini commented on Jafar Murtada’s argument with this narration, saying:

 

لاحظنا على السيد العاملي أنه يحشد نصوصه تحشيدًا دونما تحقيق أو تدقيق ويظهر ذلك جليًا في الروايات التي سجلها في كتابه والمروية عن الأئمة حيث إنه لم يعالجها على المستويين وحشدها بشكل عشوائي وبعض الروايات يعارض البعض الآخر وينفيه وبعضه لا يلتزم به السيد العاملي لأنه يصادر ما يريد إثباته وكنموذج على ذلك ما رواه عن احتجاج الطبرسي

We noticed that al Sayed al ‘Amili marshals his texts without investigation or scrutiny… This is clearly evident in the narrations he recorded in his book and narrated from the Imams, as he did not address them on both levels and marshalled them randomly. Some of the narrations contradict and deny others, and some of them al Sayed al ‘Amili does not adhere to because they oppose what he wants to prove; an example of that is what he narrated from Ihtijaj al Tabarsi.

 

He mentioned this narration and said:

 

هذا النص مما لا يمكن أن يلتزم به السيد العاملي لأنه يناقض ما يريد إثباته من أن عمر ضرب السيدة الزهراء ودخل الدار وفعل كذا وكذا لأن الظاهر من الحديث أن تهديد عمر هو تهديد صوري

This text is something that al Sayed al ‘Amili cannot adhere to, because it contradicts what he wants to prove that ‘Umar struck Sayyidah al Zahra’ and entered the house and did such and such, because it appears from the hadith that ‘Umar’s threat was a superficial threat.^[42]

 

He said at another place about Jafar Murtada al ‘Amili’s use of this narration as evidence:

 

نقلها عن كتاب الاحتجاج للطبرسي الذي وصفه بالوثاقة والاعتماد والخبر إن لم يكن صريحا بتبرئة عمر فهو ظاهر فيه فهل يلتزم بذلك السيد مرتضى العاملي

He quoted it from the book al Ihtijaj by al Tabarsi, which he described as trustworthy and reliable, and the report, if it is not explicit in acquitting ‘Umar, then it is apparent in it, so does al Sayed Murtada al ‘Amili adhere to that?^[43]

 

 

NEXT⇒ Problems of believing in the rib-breaking legend

---

^[1]  Examples of this in Jafar Murtada’s writings are numerous and impossible to count and trace, including his denial of the famous Hadith al Ifk, in which he wrote a book called Hadith al Ifk, his denial that the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and Hamzah ibn ‘Abdul Muttalib radiya Llahu ‘anhu were foster brothers (al Sahih min Sirat al Nabi, 5/195 and 19/220-221), his denial that Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu freed Bilal radiya Llahu ‘anhu (al Sahih min Sirat al Nabi, 8/68), his denial that ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu purchased the Well of Rumah (al Sahih min Sirat al Imam ‘Ali, 18/280), and other examples in: Al Sahih min Sirat al Imam ‘Ali, 3/373-375 and 3/61; knowing that Jafar Murtada only resorts to rejecting narrations when they contradict his purposes and whims, otherwise when the issue agrees with Jafar Murtada’s whims in attacking the Companions, for example, we find him rejecting the differences and responding with a repeated answer, which is combining the narrations and saying that there are multiple causes or incidents, as was done in the story of ‘Uthman beating ‘Ammar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma, although this story is not proven in terms of isnad and there was disagreement in its narrations. Since it was an attack on ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan radiya Llahu ‘anhu, Jafar Murtada al ‘Amili did not find a problem in the disagreements that were associated with it and said, “And what is most likely is the multiple beatings by ‘Uthman of ‘Ammar … for the multiple reasons, and it is supported by the existence of contradictions that can only be resolved by determining multiple incidents.” (Al Sahih min Sirat al Imam ‘Ali, 16/316.)

^[2]  Hawamish Naqdiyyah, pg. 62.

^[3]  Al Fadihah, pg. 147.

^[4]  Ja’a al Haqq, pg. 218, quoting from the letter of Fadl Allah to Jafar Murtada al ‘Amili.

^[5]  Hayat al Zahra’ ba’d Abiha, pg. 65.

^[6]  Sharh Nahj al Balaghah, 14/193.

^[7]  Marja’iyyat al Marhalah wa Ghubar al Taghyir, pg. 232-233.

^[8]  However, we distinguished between the narrations with and without an isnad during the comparison. We mention the narrations with isnad by the number in which they appear in this study, while we mention the narrations without isnad by their number, indicating that they are from the second section designated for narrations without a continuous isnad. This is so that the reader is aware and so that those who disagree do not object, that we have equated the narrations with isnad with the narrations without isnad. We have indicated this in the footnotes.

^[9]  Kamil al Ziyarat, pg. 329, Narration: 840.

^[10]  Minhaj al Salah fi Ikhtisar al Misbah, pg. 445. This is from the narrations of the second type without isnad.

^[11]  Kitab Sulaim ibn Qais, pg. 143, 224.

^[12]  Al Hidayah al Kubra, pg. 406.

^[13]  Al Ikhtisas, pg. 183. This is from the narrations of the second type without isnad.

^[14]  Kitab Sulaim ibn Qais, pg. 223.

^[15]  Tafsir al ‘Ayyashi, 2/308. This is from the narrations of the second type without isnad.

^[16]  Kitab Sulaim ibn Qais, pg. 150, 378.

^[17]  Bihar al Anwar, 30/393.

^[18]  Al Hidayah al Kubra, pg. 407.

^[19]  Al Ikhtisas, pg. 185. This is from the narrations of the second type without isnad.

^[20]  Al Ihtijaj, pg. 2/40. This is from the narrations of the second type without isnad.

^[21]  Kitab Sulaim ibn Qais, pg. 223.

^[22]  Dala’il al Imamah, pg. 45 (Matba’ah Haydariyyah print) pg. 45 (Mu’assasat al A’lami print), pg. 134 (Mu’assasat al Ba’thah print).

^[23]  Tafsir al ‘Ayyashi, 2/308. This is from the narrations of the second type without isnad.

^[24]  Al Ihtijaj, pg. 1/82. This is from the narrations of the second type without isnad.

^[25]  Al Hidayah al Kubra, pg. 178, 179. This is from the narrations of the second type without isnad.

^[26]  Kitab Sulaim ibn Qais, pg. 143-153. This narration is reported by al Tabarsi in al Ihtijaj, 1/80 from Sulaim ibn Qais. Between the narration of Kitab Sulaim ibn Qais (printed version) and the narration of al Ihtijaj are many differences.

^[27]  Al Hidayah al Kubra, pg. 402. This is from the narrations of the second type without isnad.

^[28]  Al  Turaf min al Anba’ wa al Manaqib, 19th anecdote, pg. 169.

^[29]  Bihar al Anwar, 31/126. This is from the narrations of the second type without isnad.

^[30]  Tafsir al ‘Ayyashi, 2/308. This is from the narrations of the second type without isnad.

^[31]  Kitab Sulaim ibn Qais, pg. 153, 223, 224.

^[32]  Al Hidayah al Kubra, pg. 178-179, 402. This is from the narrations of the second type without isnad.

^[33]  Kitab Sulaim ibn Qais, pg. 153.

^[34]  Dala’il al Imamah, pg. 45 (Matba’ah Haydariyyah print) pg. 45 (Mu’assasat al A’lami print), pg. 134 (Mu’assasat al Ba’thah print).

^[35]  Bihar al Anwar, 30/294.

^[36]  Al Hidayah al Kubra, pg. 179, 402. This is from the narrations of the second type without isnad.

^[37]  Al Ikhtisas, pg. 183. This is from the narrations of the second type without isnad.

^[38]  Al Ihtijaj, 2/40. This is from the narrations of the second type without isnad.

^[39]  The detailed rebuttal of the opposition citing the narrations of threatening with burning narrated in the books of the Ahlus Sunnah will soon appear in a separate discussion.

^[40]  Ma’sat al Zahra’, 2/187-189; al Hujum ‘ala Bayt Fatimah, pg. 299-300.

^[41]  Al Ihtijaj, 1/105.

^[42]  Hawamish Naqdiyyah, pg. 12-13, introduction to the third print.

^[43]  Hawamish Naqdiyyah, pg. 34.