Problems of believing in the rib-breaking legend

BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents

 

Problems of believing in the rib-breaking legend

 

Belief in the rib-breaking story of Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha results in many problems that require rejecting this story. We have found several problems with this legend, the most significant and legendary of which we will mention.

 

Problem 1: The necessity of attributing cowardice to ‘Ali

Believing in the story of Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha being beaten and deliberately pressed behind the door until her rib was broken and she miscarried, requires attributing cowardice to ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu, Allah forbid, since this act occurred before his eyes and he did not protect his wife from harm, even though he is known for his courage, bravery, and valour.

How can it be imagined that all this injustice and harm would befall Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha, the daughter of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, and the Banu Hashim—who had the greatest power and strength in Quraysh—would remain silent about it? Among them was al ‘Abbas—the uncle of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and one of the masters of Quraysh—and his sons were a group and a clan. Among them were the Banu al Harith ibn ‘Abdul Muttalib, the uncle of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and the most famous of them was Abu Sufyan ibn al Harith, who stood firm with the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam at Hunayn. Among them was ‘Aqil ibn Abi Talib radiya Llahu ‘anhu and his sons were a group. Among them were the sons of Jafar ibn Abi Talib radiya Llahu ‘anhu. If what the opponents claim about the aggression against Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha, the men of Banu Hashim would have been the first to defend her against those who wronged her. If ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and the Banu Hashim had sought support from Quraysh, all of its tribes would have supported them.

Then how can one imagine that all the Companions remained silent about this injustice and none of them defended Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha or defended her from injustice, while they were the ones who sacrificed their lives for her father salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam? Especially since there are among them whose faith the Imamiyyah do not doubt, such as Salman, Abu Dharr, al Miqdad, and others, whom the Imamiyyah see as just and call the chosen Companions.

This rational historical evidence that evokes the history of the Companions and the nature of the Quraysh tribe in their time is what a group of scholars relied on to deny this myth. Abu al Mahasin al Wasiti (who lived in the ninth century) says, explaining the evils of what this story entails:

 

إن ذلك فيه نسبة خساسة وعجز إلى علي رضي الله عنه وبني هاشم لأن عليًا الشجاع الأعظم من الآل والصحب ومعه عصبته القبيلة العظمى من قريش وهم أبطال بني هاشم قبيلة النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم أهل الأنفة والنخوة ولم يصبروا على ضيم فكيف يجوز أن يصبروا على إهانة مخدومهم وابنة مخدومهم

This attributes ignobility and weakness to ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and the Banu Hashim, because ‘Ali, the bravest of the family and Companions, and with him his clan, the greatest tribe of Quraysh—they are the heroes of the Banu Hashim, the tribe of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, the people of pride and chivalry, and they did not put up with injustice,… so how is it possible for them to put up with the humiliation of their master and the daughter of their master?^[1]

 

Al Fadl ibn Ruzabahan (d. 909 AH) said, “One of the most disgusting things they fabricated is this story of ‘Umar burning Fatimah’s house.” Then he mentioned several aspects to refute this slander, including:

 

إن عيون بني هاشم وأشراف بني عبد مناف وصناديد قريش كانوا مع علي وهم كانوا في البيت وعندهم السيوف اليمانية وإذا بلغ أمرهم إلى أن يحرقوا من في البيت أتراهم طرحوا الغيرة وتركوا الحمية رأسًا ولم يخرجوا بالسيوف المسلة فقتلوا من قصد إحراقهم بالنار

a. The notables of the Banu Hashim, the nobles of the Banu ‘Abd Manaf, and the leaders of Quraysh were with ‘Ali and they were in the house. They had Yemeni swords. If their matter reached the point of burning those in the house, do you think they would have abandoned possessiveness and zeal completely and not come out with drawn swords and killed those who intended to burn them with fire?

 

لو صح هذا دل على كمال عجز علي حاشاه عن ذلك فإن غاية عجز الرجل أن يحرَق هو وأهل بيته وامرأته في داره وهو لا يقدر على الدفع ومثل هذا العجز يقدح في صحة الإمامة

b. If this is true, it indicates the complete inability of ‘Ali—he is exonerated from it—because the ultimate inability of a man is for him, his family, and his wife to burn in his house while he is unable to defend himself; and such inability casts doubt on the validity of Imamah.

 

أن أمراء الأنصار وأكابر الصحابة كانوا مسلمين منقادين محبين لرسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أتراهم سكتوا ولم يكلموا أبا بكر في هذا وأن إحراق أهل بيت النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم لا يجوز ولا يحسن

c. The leaders of the Ansar and the great Companions were obedient Muslims who loved the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. Do you think they kept silent and did not speak to Abu Bakr about this and that burning the family of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam is not permissible and not good.^[2]

 

Coupled with other damning answers that show that it is not appropriate for rational people to believe this type of rejected reports.

Ibn Hajar al Haytami explained the meaning of the story about the broken rib and its hideousness, saying:

 

قصدوا بهذه الفرية القبيحة والغباوة التي أورثتهم العار والبوار والفضيحة إيغار الصدور على عمر رضي الله عنه ولم يبالوا بما يترتب على ذلك من نسبة علي رضي الله عنه إلى الذل والعجز والخوَر بل ونسبة جميع بني هاشم وهم أهل النخوة والنجدة والأنفة إلى ذلك العار اللاحق بهم الذي لا أقبح منه عليهم بل ونسبة جميع الصحابة رضي الله عنهم إلى ذلك وكيف يسع من له أدنى ذوق أن ينسبهم إلى ذلك مع ما استفاض وتواتر عنهم من غيرتهم لنبيهم صلى الله عليه وسلم وشدة غضبهم عند انتهاك حرماته حتى قاتلوا وقتلوا الآباء والأبناء في طلب مرضاته

They intended with this ugly slander and stupidity that brought them shame, ruin, and disgrace, to stir up anger against ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu and they did not care about what would result from that, of attributing ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu to humiliation, weakness, and inability, and even attributing all of the Banu Hashim, who are the people of chivalry, courage, and pride, to that shame that has befallen them, which is the most hideous for them, and even attributing all of the Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum to that. How can anyone with the least amount of sense attribute that to them despite what has been widely and repeatedly reported from them of their possessiveness for their Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and their intense anger when his sanctities were violated, to the point that they fought and killed fathers and sons in seeking his pleasure?^[3]

 

Mahmud Shukri al Alusi said:

 

وهذا أيضًا من أقبح مفترياتهم وكذبهم بل فيه طعن بأهل البيت ورميهم بالجبن إذ أقل العرب تأبى غيرته ذلك فكيف بأبي الحسنين كرم الله تعالى وجهه وصناديد بني هاشم يسكتون عن مثل ذلك

This is also one of their most hideous slanders and lies, and even includes a stab at the family of the Prophet and accuses them of cowardice, since the least of the Arabs rejects that out of possessiveness. How would Abu al Hassanayn, may Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala honour his face, and the leaders of Banu Hashim remain silent about such a thing?^[4]

 

He also said:

 

وعلي كرم الله تعالى وجهه أجلُّ من أن يقيم على ضيم وهو أسد الله تعالى الغالب

‘Ali, may Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala honour his face, is too noble to endure injustice; he is the victorious lion of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala!^[5]

 

This is the answer that a group of Zaidis relied on in refuting this myth. They narrated on the authority of Salamah ibn Kuhayl that he said to Zaid ibn ‘Ali, “People claim that Fatimah was slapped!”

Zaid ibn ‘Ali replied:

 

كانت أكرم على أهلها من ذلك يا أبا يحيى

She was more honourable to her family than that, O Abu Yahya!^[6]

 

Yahya al Sa’di narrated on the authority of the Mu’tazilah in response to this slander that they said:

 

لو وقع شيء من ذلك لأنِف أكثر المسلمين لأهل بيت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ولما صبر بنو هاشم على هذه الذلة

If something like that had happened, most Muslims would have been disgusted with the family of the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and the Banu Hashim would not have endured this humiliation!^[7]

 

It was also reported from the Mu’tazilah that they said:

 

لا يظن العاقل بالصحابة مثل هذا لا سيما مع شرف بني هاشم وعزة نفوسهم وقد كانت العرب كلها تقوم معهم في مثل هذا

An intelligent person would not think such a thing of the Companions, especially with the honour and pride of the Banu Hashim, and all the Arabs would stand with them in such a situation.^[8]

 

In fact, some Imamiyyah have denounced the rib-breaking story based on what it entails of attributing ‘Ali ‘alayh al Salam to cowardice and not protecting his family from harm, Allah forbid. Marja’ Muhammad Hussain Fadl Allah says:

 

إذا هجموا على الزهراء ما هو دور الإمام علي الإمام علي جبان أنتم كلكم متزوجون إذا فرضنا أن أحدهم أراد أن يهجم على زوجتك يريد أن يقتلها أو يعتدي عليها تقعد وتقول لا حول ولا قوة إلا بالله العلي العظيم أو تدافع عنها إذا لم تدافع عن زوجتك ماذا يقول الناس عنك

If they attacked al Zahra’, what is the role of Imam ‘Ali? Is Imam ‘Ali a coward? You are all married. If we suppose that one of them wanted to attack your wife, wanted to kill her or assault her, would you sit and say, “There is no power or strength except in Allah, the Most High, the Almighty,” or would you defend her? If you do not defend your wife, what would people say about you?^[9]

 

The Imami Sheikh Yasir ‘Awdah says:

 

تحدث السيد الأستاذ بهذه الملاحظة ونحن نوافقه هل يمكن قبول مسألة أن الإمام عليًا جبان إلى هذا الحد يقف متفرجًا على زوجته وهي تضرب ولا يحرك ساكنًا ولو فعلها أي إنسان دخل دارك لا يمكن لك مع ضعفك إلا أن تتصدى له ولو أدى ذلك إلى موتك فللبيوت حرمات فكيف بالزهراء عليها السلام وبيتها مع ملاحظة أن هذا المعتدَى على داره وزوجته هو الإمام علي الذي يقول لو تظاهرت العرب على قتالي ما وليت مدبرًا

Mr. Professor^[10] spoke with this observation and we agree with him: Is it possible to accept the issue that Imam ‘Ali is a coward to this extent standing by watching his wife being beaten and not moving a muscle? If any person who entered your house did that, you, with your weakness, would have no choice but to confront him, even if that led to your death, for houses have sanctities, so how about al Zahra’ radiya Llahu ‘anha and her house, noting that the one whose house and wife were attacked is Imam ‘Ali; who says, “If the Arabs gathered to fight me, I would not turn back!”^[11]

 

Najib Nur al Din responds to Jafar Murtada al ‘Amili:

 

قوله إنَّ الإمام عليًّا عليه السلام قد عمل بتكليفه الشرعي في سكوته على ما حصل للسيّدة الزهراء عليها السلام أمرٌ مريب لأنّه لا يعقل بحالٍ من الأحوال أن يكون تكليف الإمام عليّ عليه السلام الشرعي هو السكوت على أذيّة زوجته بنت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وأن يترك من يريد هتك حرمتها يفعل ما يريد وهو جالسٌ في مكانه يسمع ويرى ولا يُحرِّك ساكنًا إنَّ الإمام عليًّا عليه السلام أجلُّ ممّا يحاول أن يصفه به المؤلّف وأعلى شأنًا من أيِّ إنسان يملك حميّة الدفاع عن الضعفاء ومهضومي الحقوق أو المعتدى عليهم فكيف إذا كان هذا المظلوم هو أشرف خلق الله وأعزّهم عليه وعلى نبيّه فاطمة الزهراء عليها السلام ونحن نستغرب كيف يكون تكليف رجل كالإمام صلوات الله وسلامه عليه هو أن يسكت عن فعل أولئك المعتدين هذا وهل يقنع هذا الكلام عاقلًا كائنًا مَن كان

His statement that Imam ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu acted according to his religious duty in remaining silent about what happened to Sayyidah al Zahra’ radiya Llahu ‘anha is a suspicious matter, because it is not reasonable under any circumstances that Imam ‘Ali’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu religious duty is to remain silent about the harm done to his wife, the daughter of the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, and to leave whoever wants to violate her honour to do whatever he wants while he sits in his place, listening, seeing, and not moving a muscle. Imam ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu is more noble than what the author tries to describe him with and is higher in status than any human being who has the zeal to defend the weak, those whose rights have been violated, or those who have been assaulted. So, how would it be if this oppressed person was the most honourable of Allah’s creation and the most beloved to Him and His Prophet; Fatimah al Zahra’ radiya Llahu ‘anha? We wonder how the duty of a man like the Imam radiya Llahu ‘anhu is to remain silent about the actions of those aggressors? Does this talk convince a rational person, whoever he may be?^[12]

 

He also says:

 

يصف المؤلّف السيِّدة الزهراء عليها السلام وهي تتعرَّض للأذى بأنَّها قد عملت تكليفها الشرعي ونحن نجد هذا الأمر مستغربًا ومستهجنًا إذ كيف يمكن أن يكون تكليف الزهراء عليها السلام الشرعي هو أن تُظلَم وتُضرَب في بيتها وأن تستسلم لهذا الظلم بملء إرادتها وأن يكون تكليف الإمام عليّ عليه السلام أن يتركها عرضة للظلم أيُّ منطق هذا الذي يحاول المؤلّف أن يقنعنا به

The author describes Sayyidah al Zahra’ radiya Llahu ‘anha being harmed as having done her religious duty. We find this matter strange and reprehensible, because how could al Zahra’s radiya Llahu ‘anha religious duty be to be wronged and beaten in her home and to surrender to this injustice with her full will and Imam ‘Ali’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu duty be to leave her exposed to injustice? What kind of logic is this that the author is trying to convince us of?^[13]

 

Najib Nur al Din continues by saying:

 

كيف يتقبَّل الناس موقف الإمام فيما لو صحَّ قول المؤلّف وهو المعروف بحميّته وبطولته ألَا يدعو الموقف للريبة من الإمام كما يصوّر مواقفه الكاتب وأنَّه يجلس في المنزل ينظر إلى زوجته تظلم وهو لا يُحَرِّك ساكنًا أليسَ من الممكن أن يقول النّاس كيف يمكن أن يكون عليّ عليه السلام إمام المسلمين وهو عاجز عن الدفاع عن زوجته وهي تضرب أمام عينيه وإذا كان سكوته على حدِّ ما يدَّعي المؤلّف بهدف عدم ضياع الحقّ في إمامة الأُمّة فكيف سيقتنع الناس أنَّ الإمام جدير بهذه الإمامة وهو على هذه الصورة التي يقدّمها عنه المؤلّف

How would people accept the Imam’s position, if the author’s statement is true, whereas he is known for his zeal and heroism? Doesn’t the situation call for suspicion of the Imam as the writer depicts his positions and that he sits at home watching his wife being wronged and he does nothing? Isn’t it possible for people to say: How can ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu be the Imam of the Muslims while he is unable to defend his wife while she is being beaten in front of his eyes? And if his silence—as the author claims—was for the purpose of “not losing the right” to the Imamah of the nation, then how will people be convinced that the Imam is worthy of this Imamah while he is in this image that the author presents about him?^[14]

 

Thus, it becomes clear that what this legend included of attributing ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu to abandoning the defence of his family is one of the most important pieces of evidence that scholars, ancient and modern, and from all Islamic sects have used as evidence to prove the invalidity of this fabricated story. Some opponents have tried to answer this problem with strange and contradictory answers, which we will discuss and respond to.

 

Highlighting the weakness of the Imamiyyah’s answers about the reason for ‘Ali’s abandoning defending Fatimah

The supporters of the rib-breaking myth tried to refute the problem of attributing cowardice to ‘Ali ‘alayh al Salam due to his failure to defend Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha with several weak arguments. We felt that we should list some of them and show their weakness:

 

1. Criticism of the claim that ‘Ali abandoned the defence of Fatimah because of the existence of a will from the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam

The supporters of the rib-breaking myth cited a narration that was unique to Kitab Sulaim ibn Qais, which stated that ‘Ali ‘alayh al Salam only abandoned the defence of Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha because the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam commanded him to do so. It was narrated in Kitab Sulaim ibn Qais that ‘Ali jumped up and grabbed ‘Umar by the collar, then he threw him down and hurt his nose and neck and was about to kill him. He then remembered the saying of the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and what he commanded to him, so he said:

 

والذي كرم محمدًا بالنبوة يا ابن صهاك لولا كتاب من الله سبق وعهد عهده إلي رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم لعلمت إنك لا تدخل بيتي

By the One Who honoured Muhammad with prophethood—O son of Sahhak—if it were not for a previous book from Allah and a covenant that the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam gave me, you would have known that you would never enter my house.^[15]

 

The answer to this narration falls into several aspects.

The first aspect: This narration is contradictory in itself, as it mentions here that ‘Ali wrestled ‘Umar to the ground and intended to kill him, then he remembered the will and left him, so the obstacle here is the alleged will. Yet this narration, after a few lines, attributes to ‘Ali that when the attackers returned to take ‘Ali and stormed the house:

 

وثار علي عليه السلام إلى سيفه فسبقوه إليه وكاثروه وهم كثيرون فتناول بعضهم سيوفهم فكاثروه وضبطوه فألقوا في عنقه حبلًا

‘Ali ‘alayh al Salam rose to his sword and they got to it before him and outnumbered him and they were many. Some of them took their swords, outnumbered him, seized him, and threw a rope around his neck.^[16]

 

Here we find that ‘Ali did not abide by the will, but rather intended to take his sword to repel the attackers. Then the narration mentions that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu said when he was forced to pledge allegiance:

 

أما والله لو وقع سيفي في يدي لعلمتم أنكم لن تصلوا إلى هذا أبدًا أما والله ما ألوم نفسي في جهادكم ولو كنت استمكنت من الأربعين رجلًا لفرقت جماعتكم ولكن لعن الله أقوامًا بايعوني ثم خذلوني

By Allah, if my sword had reached my hand, you would have known that you would never reach this point. By Allah, I would not berate myself for fighting you all. If I had been able to get hold of forty men, I would have divided your group. But may Allah curse the people who pledged allegiance to me and then let me down!^[17]

 

And this is a third contradiction, since the narration attributes to ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu that if he had been able to get hold of his sword or had forty men with him, they would not have forced him to pledge allegiance. This narration mentions three contradictory reasons for ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu not defending himself or defending Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha. Sometimes the reason is the will, sometimes his not getting hold of his sword, and sometimes he did not have supporters.

The second aspect: The narration did not mention the type of will, is it abandoning the defence of Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha or abandoning the defence of the issue of Imamah? Even if we assume that what is meant is abandoning the defence of Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha, the answer is that this is the most obvious lie. How can it be reasonable that the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam would order that his daughter be left exposed to harm and insult? How so, when the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam urged his Companions to defend their families even if that led to death?

The Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam gave glad tidings of martyrdom to whoever sacrifices himself to defend his family, saying:

 

من قُتل دون أهله فهو شهيد

Whoever is killed defending his family is a martyr.^[18]

 

This meaning is narrated in the books of the Imamiyyah, as al Kulayni narrated on the authority of Abu Jafar al Baqir that he said:

 

قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم من قتل دون مظلمته فهو شهيد ثم قال يا أبا مريم هل تدري ما دون مظلمته قلت جُعلت فداك الرجل يقتل دون أهله ودون ماله وأشباه ذلك فقال يا أبا مريم إن من الفقه عرفان الحق

The Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said, “Whoever is killed defending his injustice is a martyr.”

Then he said, “O Abu Maryam, do you know what is his injustice?”

I said, “May I be your ransom, a man is killed defending his family, his money, and the like.”

He commented, “O Abu Maryam, part of jurisprudence is knowing the truth.”^[19]

 

This principle is also accepted by the scholars of the Imamah. Al Tusi said:

 

إذا قصد رجل رجلًا يريد نفسه أو ماله أو حريمه فله أن يقاتله دفعا عن نفسه بأقل ما يمكنه دفعه به وإن أتى ذلك على نفسه لقوله صلى الله عليه وسلم من قتل دون ماله فهو شهيد

If a man intends to attack a man, wanting his life, his money, or his women, then the latter has the right to fight him in self-defence with the least he can do to defend himself, even if that leads to his own detriment, because of the saying of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, “Whoever is killed defending his wealth is a martyr.”^[20]

 

If this is established, how can it be correct for the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam to issue something contrary to what he ordered his Companions to do, especially since the matter concerns his pure daughter?

The third aspect: Sunni scholars and even some Imamiyyah have criticised this narration. Al Alusi said:

 

كون لزومه الأرض لعهد عهده إليه رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم كما يقولون لا أصل له

His adherence to the land^[21] [i.e. not rising in defence] based on a covenant that the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam gave him, as they claim, has no basis!^[22]

 

The Imami writer Najib Nur al Din, a student of Marja’ Muhammad Hussain Fadl Allah, said:

 

أمّا أن ينسب الكاتب إلى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أنَّه هو من طلب إليه السكوت فهذا خلاف العقل والمنطق وحاشا لرسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أن يصدر عنه ذلك ومتى كان الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم يستعطف بتركهم يهيجون ويظلمون ويعتدون دون أن يقول كلمته الصارخة في وجههم ودون أن يلقمهم حجرًا في أفواههم وأياديهم فكيف إذا كان ذلك بحقّ ابنته الزهراء عليها السلام بضعته الشريفة ونفسه الزكيّة وفي داخل بيتها ومتى عُرِفَ عن الإمام عليّ عليه السلام تفريطه بوديعة رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وتركها تُهان وتؤذى دون أن يقلب الأرض على رؤوس هؤلاء وهل الدين إلاَّ تلك المكارم التي ما عهدناها عند أحد كما كانت عند الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم والإمام عليّ عليه السلام

As for the writer attributing to the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam that he was the one who asked him to be silent, this is contrary to reason and logic. Allah forbid that the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam would issue such a thing. And when did the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam seek sympathy by leaving them to rage, oppress, and transgress without saying his clear word to their face and without throwing stones in their mouths and hands, so how would it be if it was regarding his daughter al Zahra’ radiya Llahu ‘anha—his noble daughter and his pure soul—inside her house? When was it known that Imam ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu neglected the trust of the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and left it to be humiliated and harmed without turning the earth over on the heads of these people? Is religion anything but those noble deeds that we have not known in anyone as they were in the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and Imam ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu?^[23]

 

Jafar al Shakhuri objected to the narration of the will, saying:

 

إن المستفاد من الأخبار أن عليًا موصى بعدم المطالبة بحق الخلافة بالسيف وليس موصًى بعدم الدفاع عن نفسه وأهله

What is understood from the reports is that ‘Ali was recommended not to demand the right of the Caliphate by the sword and he was not instructed  not to defend himself and his family.^[24]

 

Imami Yasir ‘Awdah said:

 

إن قلت كما ادعى البعض إنه مأمور لأنه تمسك بتلابيب عمر وطرحه أرضًا ثم قال لولا كتاب من الله سبق وعهد عهده إلي رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم لعلمت أنك لا تدخل بيتي أقول أولًا هذا لم يثبت بسند صحيح وبغض النظر عن السند إذا كان مأمورًا كما يُدعى فهو مأمور بعدم أخذ الخلافة بالقوة لكي لا يهرق الدم ويمحو ذكر الإسلام… أما أن لا يدافع عن بيته وزوجته فهذا لا يمكن أن ينهى عنه أحد لا الشرائع السماوية ولا القوانين الوضعية ولا النخوة العربية ولا الشهامة الإيمانية فذلك ادعاء باطل وتبرير أقبح من الذنب

If you say as some have claimed that he was ordered, because he grabbed ‘Umar by the collar and threw him to the ground and then said, “If it were not for a previous book from Allah and a covenant that the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam gave me, you would have known that you would not enter my house.”^[25]

I say: Firstly, this has not been proven by a sound isnad and regardless of the isnad, if he was ordered as claimed, then he was ordered not to take the Caliphate by force, so that blood would not be shed and the memory of Islam would not be erased… As for not defending his house and wife, no one can forbid him from doing this, neither the heavenly laws nor the positive laws nor Arab chivalry nor the chivalry of faith, so that is a false claim and a justification worse than the sin!^[26]

 

Imam Dr. ‘Ali Salih Rasn criticised the claim of the will while talking about ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu:

 

وهو بالمقابل لم يستطيع أن يدرأ الخطر عن عائلته بحجة أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم أوصاه بكذا وكذا وأن القوم يفعلون به ما يفعلون بعده فما عليه إلا أن يكون صابرًا محتسبًا وهذه حجة غير مقبولة فلو كان صلى الله عليه وسلم حاضرًا ويرى ما حل بالإمام وأسرته لشد حزام الحرب حتى يدفع الخطر عنهم دون الصبر والاحتساب وأي صبر على ما فالقضية متعلقة بالعرض والنفس وهل هناك قضية يوجب فيها الجهاد أهم من العرض وإذا كان من متقول يقول إن الإمام حفاظا على وحدة المسلمين صبر واحتسب نقول له كن أنت محل الإمام وليفعل بأهلك كما حصل له روحي الفداء واصبر واحتسب لا نريد الإطالة في هذا الموضوع بقدر ما نريد تفنيد الرواية وعدم صحتها

He, on the other hand, was not able to ward off danger from his family under the pretext that the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam had commanded him to do such and such and that the people would do to him what they would do after him, so he had no choice but to be patient and hope for reward. This is an unacceptable argument. If the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam had been present and seen what happened to the Imam and his family, he would have tightened his belt of war to ward off danger from them, without patience and hope for reward. What kind of patience is that? The issue is related to honour and the soul^[27]. Is there an issue in which jihad is required that is more important than honour? If someone says: The Imam, in order to preserve the unity of the Muslims, was patient and hoped for reward, we tell him to be in the place of the Imam and let what happened to his family happen to him, may my soul be sacrificed for him, and be patient and hope for reward. We do not want to prolong this topic as much as we want to refute the narration and its invalidity.^[28]

 

He also said:

 

القارئ عندما يطلع على هذه الأقاويل يظن الظنون في شخص الإمام وكأن عمر واضعًا سيفه على نحره متى ما شاء ذبحه والإمام لم يحرك ساكن فاغتصب حقه في الخلافة كما يدعون وسكت ونهب داره واعتدى على زوجته الزهراء وكسر ضلعها وسقط جنينها ولم يفعل شيء وأخيرًا أجبره عمر على أن يزوجه طفلته أم كلثوم فوافق على ذلك واغتصب حق الزهراء في فدك وغيرها والإمام يعمل بالتقية فما هذه الأباطيل يا مسلمين كفاكم التعرض لشخص الإمام واتركوه لشأنه أفضل من أن تأذوه في قبره

The reader when he reads these sayings will think negatively about the personality of the Imam, as if ‘Umar placed^[29] his sword on his throat and whenever he wanted, he could slaughter him and the Imam did not move a muscle^[30]. So, he usurped his right to the Caliphate as they claim, yet he remained silent. He looted his house, assaulted his wife al Zahra’, broke her rib, and caused her to miscarry and yet did nothing^[31]. Finally, ‘Umar forced him to marry his daughter, Umm Kulthum, so he agreed to that and usurped al Zahra’s right to Fadak and other things, and the Imam was employing Taqiyyah. What are these falsehoods, O Muslims? Stop attacking the personality of the Imam and leave him alone; it is better than hurting him in his grave!^[32]

 

The fourth aspect: The Imami books contain what contradicts this will, as they mention that when ‘Umar wanted to dig up Fatimah’s grave, ‘Ali prevented him from doing so in defence of her.

Yasir ‘Awdah says:

 

نسأل سؤالًا هامًا في المقام حيث ورد أن عمر في اليوم التالي من دفنها عليها السلام سرًّا غضب لعدم مشاركته في مراسم الدفن واعتبر ذلك استخفافًا من علي به فأخذ أبو بكر وجماعة وصعد إلى البقيع لينبش القبر وكان الإمام علي قد رسم في الأرض عدة قبور ليخفي أثره فلما وصل الخبر إلى الأمير صعد إلى البقيع منتفخ الأوداج محمر الوجه شاهرًا سيفه قائلًا له والذي نفسه بيده لو رمت من هذا القبر شيئًا لسقيت الأرض من دمائك والسؤال الكبير هنا الذي يدافع عن زوجته وهي ميتة وليس معلوما مكان قبرها فلربما دفنت في حجرتها ويأتي بهذه الحالة مغضبا كما تصف آنفًا ألا يدافع عنها وهي حية

We ask an important question in this regard. It was reported that ‘Umar, the day after her secret burial, became angry because he could not participate in the burial ceremonies and considered this to be a disdain from ‘Ali; so he took Abu Bakr and a group and went up to al Baqi’ to dig up the grave. Imam ‘Ali; had drawn several graves on the ground to hide its trace. When the news reached the Amir, he went to al Baqi’, his veins swollen and his face red, brandishing his sword, saying to him, “By the One in Whose Hand is my soul, if you threw anything from this grave, I would water the ground with your blood….” The big question here is one defends his wife while she is dead despite the location of her grave being unknown—perhaps she was buried in her room—and comes in this state of rage as you described here, would he not defend her while she is alive?^[33]

 

Jafar al Shakhuri al Bahrani established the invalidity of the will narration through the actions of ‘Ali in defending the grave of Fatimah, saying:

 

على أن المستفاد من الأخبار أن عليًا موصى بعدم المطالبة بحق الخلافة بالسيف وليس موصى بعدم الدفاع عن نفسه وأهله ففي دلائل الإمامة عندما بلغ أمير المؤمنين ع أن البعض همّ بنبش قبر الزهراء ع بحجة الصلاة عليها فخرج علي مغضبًا قد احمرت عيناه ودرت أوداجه وعليه القباء الأصفر الذي كان يلبسه في الكريهة وهو يتوكأ على سيف ذي الفقار إلى أن يقول فأخذ عليّ بجوامع ثوبه ثم ضرب به الأرض وقال يا ابن السوداء أمّا حقي فقد تركته مخافة ارتداد الناس عن دينهم وأما قبر فاطمة فوالذي نفس علي بيده لئن رمت أنت أو أصحابك شيئًا لأسقينَّ الأرض من دمائكم

What is understood from the reports is that ‘Ali was recommended not to demand the right of the Caliphate by the sword and he was not instructed to not defend himself and his family. In Dala’il al Imamah, when the Commander of the Faithful ‘alayh al Salam was informed that some people intended to dig up the grave of al Zahra’ ‘alayha al Salam under the pretext of praying for her, ‘Ali came out angry, his eyes red and his veins gushing, he was wearing the yellow robe that he used to wear in times of distress and leaning on the sword Dhu al Fiqar … so ‘Ali took hold of the hem of his (‘Umar) garment and threw him on the ground shouting, “O son of a black woman! As for my right, I left it for fear of people turning away from their religion. As for the grave of Fatimah, by the One in Whose Hand is ‘Ali’s soul, if you or your companions move anything, I will water the ground with your blood!”^[34]

 

2. Comparing the position of ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib in the claim that he left the defence of his wife with the story of Prophet Ibrahim and the tyrant king

Some supporters of the rib-breaking myth tried to compare the position of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu in not defending Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha, with the story of Ibrahim ‘alayh al Salam when he sent his wife Sarah to the tyrant. The details of this story is that Ibrahim ‘alayh al Salam emigrated with Sarah and entered a village in which there was a king or a tyrant who sent to him, “Send her to me,” He thus sent her. The tyrant approached her. She got up to perform wudu’ and pray; she supplicated, “O Allah, if I have believed in You and Your Messenger, then do not give power to the infidel over me,” so he fell and became immobile.^[35] The basis of their corrupt evidence is that Ibrahim ‘alayh al Salam did not prevent his wife from the tyrant and did not protect her from harm.

The story is proven, but the evidence for it is incorrect for several reasons:

Firstly: This narration is in brief. When studying the rest of the reports in which the story was mentioned in detail, we find in one narration that Ibrahim ‘alayh al Salam knew that the tyrant would not reach Sarah and that Allah would prevent him from her. Abu Ya’la narrated with a sound isnad that when Ibrahim ‘alayh al Salam sent Sarah to the tyrant, he said to her, “Go to him for Allah will prevent him from you.”^[36] Since this is established, then there is no reason to use this story as evidence.

Secondly: The analogy between the two matters is invalid, as the wife of Ibrahim ‘alayh al Salam was not harmed by the tyrant and he did not touch her at all. As for Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha, the people claim that she was beaten until her rib was broken and she miscarried, and this was the cause of her death. Thus, there is no similarity between the two matters at all; accordingly, the analogy is not valid, because analogy can only be between two similar matters.

 

3. Criticism of their attempt to compare what happened in the martyrdom of ‘Uthman with the rib-breaking story

Some of them tried to claim that there is a similarity between the myth of the attack on the house of Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha and the story of the Khawarij besieging the house of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu. They claimed that the objection to ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu not defending Fatimah is supported by a similar practice of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu, because according to them he did not defend his wife when the attackers attacked her and he did not defend himself until the Khawarij killed him. Accordingly, it is not permissible to object to what they attribute to ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu of not defending his wife.

The truth is that this answer is one of the weakest and most inconsistent answers. This can be explained from two angles.

Firstly: The opponents’ argument that ‘Uthman did not defend his wife is one of the weakest and strangest arguments. That is because the narration that mentioned the Khawarij’s attack on Na’ilah, the wife of ‘Uthman, is the narration of Saif ibn ‘Umar al Tamimi. This narration—coupled with its weakness—mentions that the Khawarij entered upon ‘Uthman and among them were al Ghafiqi and Sawdan ibn Hamran. Al Ghafiqi struck him with an iron rod that he had with him and kicked the Qur’an with his foot, so the Qur’an toppled and settled in his hands, and blood flowed on it. Sawdan ibn Hamran came to strike him, but Na’ilah bint al Farafisah fell upon him and protected herself from the sword with her hand. He deliberately struck her and cut her fingers, thus her fingers were severed^[37] and she turned. Thereafter, ‘Uthman was killed.^[38]

This narration states that the attack on Na’ilah was after ‘Uthman was struck, his blood was shed, he fell to the ground, and the Qur’an fell on his hands; so ‘Uthman, according to this version, had been struck and had fell to the ground, how can he be compared to ‘Ali—no one struck him with a sword nor did his blood flow? It has been proven in a more authentic narration that the Khawarij did not strike Na’ilah at all, but rather spoke ill of her after they killed ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu.^[39] This is what is proven and preferred. We only responded to this weak evidence as a concession and to show the invalidity of their evidence for this story.

Secondly: The use of the story of ‘Uthman’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu murder as an apology for ‘Ali’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu stance is intended to justify the rib-breaking myth and prove its validity. The truth is that those who use the story of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu as evidence must say that the rib-breaking story is invalid, because the attack on ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu and his murder led to a major strife among the Muslims and war broke out between them because of this great injustice, even though the incident of ‘Uthman’s murder was not witnessed by many of the great Muhajirin and Ansar who were martyred in the conquests. So, how can it be imagined that the rib-breaking incident would occur, in which Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha was subjected to injustice, her rib was broken, her foetus was killed, and that was the cause of her death, yet the best of the Prophet’s Companions from the Muhajirin and Ansar had no reaction to that! Knowing that Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha was the most beloved person to the Companions after the death of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, is this not evidence of the invalidity, weakness, and untruthfulness of this story?

 

4. Jafar Murtada al ‘Amili’s contradictions in answering the objection of ‘Ali’s silence

Jafar Murtada al ‘Amili fell into strange and bizarre contradictions in his answer to the objection of ‘Ali’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu silence in defending Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha. In one place, he states that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu acted according to his religious duty, but when he transmits the narrations, he ignores their texts which contain what contradicts his claim. Muhammad al Hussaini pointed this out in his criticism of Jafar Murtada al ‘Amili’s method of gathering the texts, saying:

 

من طريف ما يرويه عن علي عليه السلام وهو يقاد والحبل في عنقه ويصر على ذلك في مواطن أخرى وهو لا يسيء برأيه لعلي وذلك لوصية كان رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أوصاه بها وبنى على ذلك عدم مواجهة الإمام علي عليه السلام للمهاجمين دار الزهراء ع ولكن في موضع آخر يروي أن عليًا أنجد الزهراء ع ولكن المهاجمين فرُّوا من بين يديه [ج1/299] وفي موضع آخر يقول إن الزبير هو وحده الذي لم يحتمل فأخذ السيف وواجه القوم [1/290] لتخليص علي عليه السلام ويظهر منه أن عليًا عليه السلام لم يواجه التزامًا بوصية رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم لكن يروي في موضع آخر خلاف ذلك تمامًا حيث يحشد الروايات التي تؤكد مواجهة علي للمهاجمين وخاصة عمر بن الخطاب وأنه أخذ بتلابيب عمر ثم نتره فصرعه ووجأ أنفه ورقبته وهمَّ بقتله ولكن للأمانة يقول إنه عليه السلام تذكَّر وصية رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فكف عنه [2/155] وفي نص آخر أن خالد بن الوليد سل سيفه لضرب فاطمة ع فحمل عليه علي عليه السلام بسيفه فأقسم على عليِّ عليه السلام فكف [2/165] ويظهر أن امتناع علي عليه السلام هذه المرة لا لوصية رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم بل لقسم خالد بن الوليد وتوسله ولكننا استطرادًا نقول بغض النظر عما في هذه الروايات من أمور تبدو غريبة هل يلتزم السيد جعفر مرتضى بجواز السهو على المعصوم وخاصة بوصية تتعلق بمستقبل الأمة الإسلامية على أنه ينقل روايات تخالف ما نقله أولًا وعن سليم بن قيس الهلالي نفسه [فانتهوا بعلي ع إلى أبي بكر وهو يقول $أما والله لو وقع سيفي في يدي لعلمتم أنكم لن تصلوا إلى هذا أبدًا

One of the strange things he narrates about ‘Ali ‘alayh al Salam is that he was led with the rope around his neck… and he insists on this in other places yet does not think negatively of ‘Ali, due to a will that the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam had given him, upon which he builds his case of Imam ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu not confronting the attackers of the house of al Zahra’ radiya Llahu ‘anha. Yet, at another place he narrates that ‘Ali helped al Zahra’ radiya Llahu ‘anha, but the attackers fled from him [1/299].

At another place, he says, “Al Zubair was the only one who could not bear it, so he took the sword and confronted the people to free ‘Ali ‘alayh al Salam [1/290].” It appears from here that ‘Ali ‘alayh al Salam did not confront, out of commitment to the will of the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. However, he narrates at another place completely the opposite where he reports the narrations that confirm ‘Ali’s confrontation of the attackers, especially ‘Umar ibn al Khattab; that he grabbed ‘Umar by the collar and then pulled him and wrestled him and hurt his nose and neck, and intended to kill him. But, to be honest, he says that he ‘alayh al Salam remembered the will of the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam so he refrained from him [2/155].

In another text, Khalid ibn al Walid drew his sword to strike Fatimah ‘alayha al Salam, so ‘Ali ‘alayh al Salam attacked him with his sword but Khalid swore upon ‘Ali ‘alayh al Salam so he refrained [2/165]. It appears that ‘Ali’s refusal this time was not due to the will of the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam but rather due to the oath of Khalid ibn al Walid and his intercession.

We digress and say: Regardless of the strange matters in these narrations, does al Sayed Jafar Murtada adhere to the permissibility of forgetfulness on the part of the infallible, especially in a will related to the future of the Islamic nation? Moreover, he transmits narrations that contradict what he transmitted first. On the authority of Sulaim ibn Qais al Hilali himself, “They took ‘Ali ‘alayh al Salam to Abu Bakr and he said, ‘By Allah, if my sword had reached my hand, you would have known that you would never reach this point…’” [2/156]. And his ‘alayh al Salam saying, “If I had been able to find forty men on the day the house was searched, meaning Fatimah’s house [2/194].” This diverse mixture of narrations caused al Sayed Murtada to fall into bitter contradiction!^[40]

 

Jafar Murtada al ‘Amili fell into another contradiction that was more astonishing than the one before it. Knowingly or unknowingly, he insulted ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and made Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha braver than him! When Marja’ Muhammad Hussain Fadl Allah objected to the narrations that mention that Fatimah opened the door, saying, “If al Zahra’ radiya Llahu ‘anha was veiled, how could she have rushed to open the door, since the one who does not see men and does not meet anyone, does not do that,”^[41] Jafar Murtada answered saying:

 

هل المخدرة لا يحق لها أن تدافع عن نفسها لو هوجمت أو عن ولدها وزوجها أو عن شرفها أو دينها ورسالتها

Does a veiled woman not have the right to defend herself if she, her son, her husband, her honour, her religion, or her message is attacked?^[42]

 

He says at another place about Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha:

 

هناك نص يفيد أنها هي التي أنجدت عليًا حين أخذوه فاعتدوا عليها بالضرب يقول النص فحالت فاطمة عليها السلام بين زوجها وبينهم عند باب البيت فضربها قنفذ بالسوط

There is a text stating that she is the one who helped ‘Ali when they took him and they assaulted her by beating her. The text says, “So, Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha stood between her husband and them at the door of the house, then Qunfudh hit her with a whip.”^[43]

 

We say: Is it conceivable that Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha would take the initiative to defend her husband and son whereas she is a woman and her husband is sitting in the house looking at her yet not moving a muscle when she is assaulted, the attack ends with her rib being broken and her foetus being miscarried, and this incident ultimately causes her death? It is strange that Jafar Murtada allowed Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha to defend the house while she is a woman and, at the same time, he attributes to the brave hero ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu silence and not defending his family. Who is more deserving to confront men, women or men?

Then, if the task of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu—as claimed by Jafar Murtada al ‘Amili—was to remain silent, it would have been more appropriate for Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha to abide by what ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu was tasked with, since it is not reasonable that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu would be tasked with remaining silent, yet she would rush to protect him as claimed by Jafar Murtada al ‘Amili, because the purpose of the will, as claimed by the supporters of the rib myth, is to avoid a clash between ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and the rest of the Companions so that this would not lead to a rift in Islam. The occurrence of any confrontation between the two parties is contrary to the wisdom of the will. Accordingly, how is it reasonable that Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha would disobey the will and rush to defend ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and thus forfeit the benefit of the alleged will?

And if someone says: The will is specific to ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu. The answer is: If we accept that for the sake of argument, then where are the Banu Hashim, ‘Ammar, Salman, Miqdad and the rest of the chosen Companions from saving Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha and ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu from the injustice that befell them? The truth is that these answers are very weak and absurd and their proponents resorted to them to answer the problems that result from believing in this legend. Moreover, whenever they tried to solve a problem in this story, they fell into something worse than it. They are as the poet said:

كالمُستَجيرِ مِن الرَّمضاءِ بالنارِ

المُستجيرُ بعمروٍ عِندَ كَربَتِهِ

He who seeks refuge with ‘Amr in his distress is like he who seeks refuge from the burning coals with fire.

 

This contradiction that Jafar Murtada fell into indicates the inability to answer this difficult problem that cannot be resolved, which results in attacking ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu. For this reason, Najib Nur al Din said in response to him:

 

أمّا وقد جَلَسَ الإمام في المنزل دون أن يُبادر إلى أيّة حركة كما يصوّره المؤلّف وتقوم الزهراء عليها السلام للدفاع عنه فهذا ما لا يجوز الكلام فيه لا على الإمام عليّ عليه السلام ولا على السيِّدة الزهراء عليها السلام أيضًا

As for the Imam sitting in the house without making any move, as the author depicts, and al Zahra’ ‘alayha al Salam standing up to defend him; this is something that it is not permissible to speak about, neither about Imam ‘Ali ‘alayh al Salam nor about Sayyidah al Zahra’ ‘alayha al Salam.^[44]

 

Problem 2: Muhsin ibn ‘Ali between birth and miscarriage

The implication of the rib-breaking legend is that Muhsin died as a foetus in his mother’s womb due to the blow that he was exposed to, which caused him to be miscarried. This story is contradicted by other narrations that are more appropriate than it, which state that Muhsin was born during the life of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.

It was narrated on the authority of Abu Sa’id al Khudri radiya Llahu ‘anhu that he said:

 

مررت بغلام له ذؤابة وجمة إلى جنب علي بن أبي طالب فقلت ما هذا الصبي إلى جانبك قال هذا عثمان بن علي سمَّيته بعثمان بن عفان وقد سمَّيت بعمر بن الخطاب وسمَّيت بعباس عم النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم وسمَّيت بخير البرية محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم فأما حسن وحسين ومحسَّن فإنما سمَّاهم رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وعق عنهم وحلق رؤوسهم وتصدق بوزنها وأمر بهم فسروا وختنوا

I passed by a boy with a forelock and a fringe next to ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib, so I said, “Who is this boy next to you?”

He said, “This is ‘Uthman ibn ‘Ali; I named him after ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan. I named^[45] another after ‘Umar ibn al Khattab, I named another after ‘Abbas, the uncle of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, and I named another after the best of creation, Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. As for Hassan, Hussain, and Muhassan [Muhsin], the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam named them, he performed ‘aqiqah for them, shaved their heads, gave charity in proportion to its [the hair’s] weight, and ordered them to be circumcised and they were circumcised.”^[46]

 

However, this report is not authentic, as ‘Abbad ibn Ahmed al ‘Azrami appears in its isnad, about whom al Daraqutni said, “Matruk (suspected of hadith forgery).”^[47]

It was narrated through different chains on the authority of Abu Ishaq al Sabi’i — from Hani’ ibn Hani’ — from ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu who said:

 

لما ولد الحسن سمَّيته حربًا فجاء رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال أروني ابني ما سميتموه قال قلت حربًا قال بل هو حسن فلما ولد الحسين سميته حربًا فجاء رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال أروني ابني ما سمَّيتموه قال قلت حربًا قال بل هو حسين فلما ولد الثالث سميته حربًا فجاء النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال أروني ابني ما سمَّيتموه قلت حربًا قال بل هو محسَّن ثم قال سمَّيتهم بأسماء ولد هارون شبر وشبير ومشبر

When al Hassan was born, I named him Harb. The Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam came and said, “Show me my son; what have you named him?”

I said, “Harb.”

He said, “Rather, he is Hassan.”

When al Hussain was born, I named him Harb.

The Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam came and said, “Show me my son; what have you named him?”

I said, “Harb.”

He said, “Rather, he is Hussain.”

When the third was born, I named him Harb. The Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam came and said, “Show me my son; what have you named him?”

I said, “Harb.”

He said, “Rather, he is Muhassan.”

Then he commented, “I named them after the names of the sons of Harun: Shabar, Shubayr, and Mushabbar.”^[48]

 

This hadith is based on Hani’ ibn Hani’ as Abu Ishaq al Sabi’i is the only one to narrate it from him; critics differed about him.

 

Hani’ ibn Hani’

• Al Shafi’i said about him, “He is not known. The scholars of hadith do not attribute his hadith due to his unknown status.”
• Ibn Sa’d said about him, “He is munkar al hadith (unacceptable in hadith).”
• ‘Ali ibn al Madini said about him, “He is unknown.”
• Others tended to authenticate him.
• Al ‘Ijli said, “A trustworthy Kufi Tabi’i.”
• Al Nasa’i said about him, “He is not bad.”
• Ibn Hibban mentioned him in al Thiqat (trustworthy narrators), as was his well-known habit of authenticating unknowns.^[49]

 

Because of this difference, there was also a difference among the scholars about authenticating the hadith. Ibn Hibban included it in his al Sahih and al Hakim said about it, “Its isnad is authentic.”^[50] Al Hafiz Ibn Hajar authenticated its isnad.^[51] Some contemporary scholars, such as Sheikh Shu’ayb al Arna’ut^[52] and Sheikh Ahmed Shakir^[53] deemed it authentic.

Others considered the report weak, such as Sheikh al Albani.^[54] It seems that Abu Bakr al Bazzar tends towards the weakness of the hadith, as he said, “We do not know of this hadith being narrated from the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam with a better isnad than with this wording, although Hani’ ibn Hani’, as we mentioned earlier, was not narrated from except by Abu Ishaq. It was narrated from ‘Ali from another source and it was narrated from Salman, from the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. The hadith of Hani’ is the best that is narrated in this regard.”^[55]

The most likely view is that the hadith is weak, but this hadith remains better and more excellent than the fabricated hadith of the broken rib, except that the opponents cling to the hadith of the broken rib, which has no basis among the Sunnis and reject this hadith that was narrated by a group of the great hadith scholars; some of whom authenticated it. It has no defect except the ignorance of the narrator of it from ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu. If we were followers of whims, we would have gone to authenticate this hadith because it refutes the myth of the miscarriage of Muhsin from its foundation, but we are not followers of whims. If a person were given the choice between believing in the story of Muhsin’s miscarriage, which was not narrated in any sound manner, and saying that the story of Muhsin’s birth during the time of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam was correct, then the closest to the truth would be to believe in the story of Muhsin’s birth, for this report is the best that has been narrated about Muhsin. As for the story of his miscarriage, it was not narrated in the collections of the Prophetic Sunnah or history books with any isnad.

Furthermore, the majority of Sunni scholars went to the fact that Muhsin was born and died young. The first one we came across who stated this is Muhammad ibn Ishaq al Madani (d. 151 AH) where he says:

 

وَلَدت فاطمة لعلي الحسن والحسين ومحسن فذهب محسن صغيرًا

Fatimah gave birth for ‘Ali to al Hassan, al Hussain, and Muhsin; Muhsin died young.^[56]

 

This is what Ibn Qutaybah (276 AH) preferred where he said, “As for Muhsin ibn ‘Ali, he died when he was young,”^[57] al Baladhuri (278 AH) where he says, “And Muhsin died young,”^[58] Abu Jafar al Tabari (310 AH), where he says in al Tarikh, “And he mentions that she had another son from him called Muhsin who died young,”^[59] al Daraqutni (385 AH) where he says in al Ikhwah wa l-Akhawat, “As for Muhsin, he died young,”^[60] and Ibn Hazm (456 AH) where he said in al Jamharah, “Muhsin died young.”^[61] This is the opinion of most scholars.^[62]

Sunnis were not alone in this. Some Imami scholars agreed with them. One of their oldest historians, al Yaqubi (who lived in the third century), stated this when he mentioned the sons of ‘Ali, “Muhsin died young.”^[63] This was mentioned in the book al Hidayah attributed to al Khusaybi, which previously included long narrations that mentioned the rib-breaking story. At the beginning of the book, when mentioning the sons of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu, it says: “Muhsin died young.”^[64] This contradicts the narrations that were mentioned in the book about his miscarriage. We have previously said that the printed version of the book al Hidayah is not reliable and there were additions and distortions in it. The Imami genealogist Ibn Funduq al Bayhaqi (565 AH) said when mentioning the sons of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu, “Muhsin ibn ‘Ali; he died young.”^[65]

Some scholars mentioned the birth of Muhsin without mentioning that he died young, such as Ibn Hibban (354 AH)^[66], Ibn Mandah (395 AH)^[67] and others. A few scholars believed that Muhsin was a miscarriage. We did not find any of the earlier scholars who said that from the Sunnis. Only some of the later scholars believed that; the most famous of those we found who explicitly stated that was al Hafiz al Mizzi who said, “Muhsin was born a miscarriage.”^[68] However, al Hafiz al Mizzi’s statement differed on this issue, as he explicitly stated at the beginning of the book that Muhsin died young. He said while mentioning the children of Fatimah, “And Muhsin died young.”^[69]

A group other than al Mizzi believed that Muhsin was a miscarriage, such as ‘Abdur Rahman ibn ‘Abdul Salam al Saffuri (894 AH)^[70], and others^[71]. This statement is weaker than the one before it, as it is a later statement and is not based on any linked isnad among the Sunnis, in addition to the fact that the majority are against it. Therefore, this statement is weak and we only wanted to point it out for benefit.

The point is that the statement that Muhsin was born and died young is the statement of the majority of Sunni scholars; and some Imami scholars agreed with them in this. This contradicts the statement that the rib-breaking legend is true, which states that Muhsin was miscarried due to the attack on the house of Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha.

Another problem is added to what we mentioned, which is that the implication of the rib-breaking story is that Muhsin ibn ‘Ali was the first of the people of the house to die after the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. This contradicts the established and famous narration from the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam in which he gave Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha the good news that she would be the queen of the women of the people of Paradise, informing her:

 

إنك أول أهل بيتي لحاقا بي

You are the first of my family to join me.

 

And in another wording, Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha said:

 

أخبرني أني أول أهل بيته أتبعه

He told me that I am the first of his family to follow him.^[72]

 

This hadith is also narrated in the books of the Imamiyyah; Ibn Babawayh narrated it in al Amali.^[73]

This report has been confirmed with certainty, as the first of the Prophet’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam family to pass away after his death was Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha. The claim of the rib-breaking legend necessitates the denial of this hadith and the claim that Muhsin ibn ‘Ali was the first of the family to die.

 

Problem 3: The contradiction of the rib-breaking story with the attribution of miracles and al wilayah al takwiniyyah[74] to ‘Ali

The supporters of the rib-breaking legend do not find any harm in believing in the truth of this story despite its contradiction with what they attribute to ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu of supernatural abilities that reach the level of miracles, in addition to their belief that ‘Ali possesses al wilayah al takwiniyyah and the absolute ability to control the entire universe. If we look at the heritage of the Imamiyyah, we find that they attributed to ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu hundreds of miracles and supernatural events that indicate that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu possessed an ability beyond human abilities. They authored many books on this, both ancient and modern, such as al Khara’ij wa al Jara’ih by al Qutb al Rawandi, Nawadir al Mu’jizat attributed to al Tabari, Madinat al Ma’ajiz by Hashim al Bahrani, Ithbat al Hudat bi al Nusus wa al Mu’jizat by al Hurr al ‘Amili, and other books.

Hashim al Bahrani brought the number of ‘Ali’s miracles to five hundred and fifty-five, including: tearing off the gate of Khaybar which only seventy men could carry^[75], his ability to prevent fire from burning^[76], that iron was so soft in his hands that he took the shaft of a heavy iron millstone and wrapped it around the neck of Khalid ibn al Walid^[77], he used to fly above the clouds^[78], he used to calm the earth when it shook^[79], he transformed a man into a turtle^[80], he transformed another into a dog^[81], on the Day of Siffin there were twenty-thousand horsemen in Muawiyah’s battalion each of whom saw that ‘Ali was following him [at the same time]^[82], that the polytheists on the Day of the Trench in the story of the Confederates split into seventeen groups and he was with each group mowing them down with the sword^[83], and other examples that are difficult to list.

It is not limited to miracles and supernatural events, but some of them have gone so far as to believe that ‘Ali controls the entire universe. Khomeini says:

 

إن للإمام عليه السلام مقامًا محمودًا ودرجةً ساميةً وخلافةً تكوينيةً تخضع لولايتها وسيطرتها جميع ذرات هذا الكون وإن من ضروريات مذهبنا أن لائمتنا مقامًا لا يبلغه ملك مقرب ولا نبي مرسل

The Imam ‘alayh al Salam has a praiseworthy position, a lofty rank, and wields such a delegated authority of genesis to whose authority and control all the atoms of this universe are subject. It is one of the essentials of our doctrine that our Imams have a position that no close angel or sent prophet can attain.^[84]

 

The professor of the religious seminary, Abu al Qasim al Khu’i, says:

 

أمَّا الولاية التكوينية فلا إشكال في ثبوتها وأنّ المخلوقات بأجمعها راجعة إليهم وإنّما خلقت لهم ولهم القدرة على التصرف فيها وهم وسائط التكوين ولعلّ ذلك بمكان من الوضوح ولا يحتاج إلى إطالة الكلام

As for al wilayah al takwiniyyah, there is no doubt about its proof and that all creatures return to them and were created for them. They have the ability to dispose of them and they are the intermediaries of creation. Perhaps this is clear and does not require lengthy discussion.^[85]

 

Marja’ Muhammad Sadiq al Ruhani says:

 

الولاية التكوينية أي ولاء التصرف التكويني والمراد بها كون زمام أمر العالم بأيديهم ولهم السلطنة التامة على جميع الأمور بالتصرف فيها كيف ما شاءوا إعدامًا وإيجادًا وكون عالم الطبيعة منقادًا لهم لا بنحو الاستقلال بل في طول قدرة الله تعالى وسلطنته واختياره فالروايات المتواترة المتضمنة للمعجزات والكرامات الصادرة عن المعصومين عليهم السلام كالتصرف الولائي في النقش وصيرورته أسدًا مفترسًا وما شاكل إنما نلتزم بها ونعتقد من غير التزام بالتأويل بالجملة ثبوت الولاية بهذا المعنى للنبي والأئمة المعصومين الذين يثبت لهم جميع ما يثبت للنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم للروايات الكثيرة المتواترة مما لا ينبغي التوقف فيه ويقول جعفر مرتضى العاملي أشهر أنصار أسطورة كسر الضلع من المعاصرين

Al wilayah al takwiniyyah—that is, the allegiance of the formative disposition. What is meant by it is the reins of the world’s affairs are in their hands. They have complete authority over all matters by disposing of them as they wish, whether by destruction or creation, and the natural world being subject to them, not in a way of independence but rather under the power, authority, and choice of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala…

So, the successive narrations that include the supernatural acts and miracles performed by the infallible ones ‘alayhim al Salam—such as the guardianship disposition in the image and its becoming a ferocious lion and the like—we adhere to them and believe without adhering to the interpretation… In short, the establishment of guardianship in this sense for the Prophet and the infallible Imams—for whom everything that is established for the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam owing to the many successive narrations—is something that should not be distrusted.^[86]

 

Jafar Murtada al ‘Amili—the most famous contemporary supporter of the rib-breaking myth—says:

 

إن جميع الشيعة يعتقدون بمعنى الولاية التكوينية ومضمونها لأنهم يرون أن كرامات الأئمة عليهم السلام ومعجزاتهم متواترة إجمالًا وقد تضمنت عشرات القضايا التي اشتملت على تعمدهم عليهم السلام القيام بأمور تدخل في نطاق ما يسميه البعض في هذه الأعصار ب‍الولاية التكوينية

All Shia believe in the meaning of al wilayah al takwiniyyah and its content because they see that the miracles of the Imams ‘alayhim al Salam are mutawatir and include dozens of cases that included their intention to do things that fall within the scope of what some in this era call al wilayah al takwiniyyah.^[87]

 

When it is established that the Imamiyyah attribute miracles and supernatural powers to ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and claim that he possesses al wilayah al takwiniyyah that allows him to control the entire universe, how does this reconcile with their claim that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu was unable to defend his wife Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha until her rib was broken and she miscarried? Either they say that al wilayah al takwiniyyah and those miracles have no truth, because if ‘Ali had al wilayah al takwiniyyah, he would have been obligated to protect Fatimah’s soul from being killed as this is one of the supreme obligatory duties upon him, since Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha is the part of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and the queen of the women of the worlds, otherwise he would have been negligent in repelling harm from her. Or they state that the rib-breaking legend has no truth, because it does not agree with the claim of the al wilayah al takwiniyyah of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu.

 

 

NEXT⇒ Criticism of attempts to claim the existence of evidence for the rib-breaking story – Part 1: Sunni Narrations

---

^[1]  Abu Al Mahasin al Wasiti: Al Munazarah, pg. 201-203, which is the same as what is mentioned in al Hujaj al Bahirah, pg. 295-298, attributed to Jalal al Din al Siddiqi al Dawani. Khalid al Janahi explained in his investigation of the book al Munazarah by al Wasiti, pg. 36, that the book al Hujaj al Bahirah is nothing but another copy of the book al Munazarah by al Wasiti, that the book al Hujaj al Bahirah cannot be attributed to al Dawani, and that no one who wrote his biography mentioned it, in addition to the many texts in the contents of the book that contradict al Dawani’s approach in matters of Sufism.

^[2]  Al Tustari quoted these statements from Ibtal Nahj al Batil; Ihqaq al Haqq, pg. 228-229.

^[3]  Al Sawa’iq al Muhriqah, 1/127.

^[4]  Al Suyuf al Mushriqah wa Mukhtasar al Sawa’iq al Muhriqah, pg. 157.

^[5]  Sharh al Kharidah al Ghaybiyyah fi Sharh al Qasidah al ‘Ayniyyah, pg. 71.

^[6]  Tasmiyat man Rawa ‘an Zaid ibn ‘Ali, pg. 74; al Idah lima Khafa min al Ittifaq ‘ala Ta’zim Sahabat al Mustafa, pg. 242.

^[7]  Minhaj al Muttaqin fi Ma’rifat Rabb al ‘Alamin, printed in al Mi’raj ila Asrar al Minhaj, 4/227.

^[8]  Ibid., 4/236-237.

^[9]  Khutbat al Zahra’ ‘alayha al Salam is a model message delivered by Muhammad Hussain Fadl Allah in al Imamayn al Hassanayn Mosque on the 19th Jumada al Thaniyah 1430 AH, corresponding to 12.06.2009. We have quoted his speech with slight modification of some colloquial words into Arabic, from a video recording on YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RdRVT5TO6A. The summary of the sermon is published on the Bayyinat website, which is the official website of Marja’ Fadl Allah, and the summary states, “What prevented ‘Ali ‘alayh al Salam from defending Al Zahra’, which is something that the average person would not accept if someone attacked his wife or mother?” See the following link: http://arabic.bayynat.org.lb/NewsPage.aspx?id=931.

^[10]  He refers to Marja’ Muhammad Hussain Fadl Allah and is indicating to the speech which we have just quoted from him.

^[11]  Nahj al Balaghah, pg. 534.

^[12]  Ma’sat Kitab al Ma’sat, pg. 155-156.

^[13]  Ma’sat Kitab al Ma’sat, pg. 156.

^[14]  Ma’sat Kitab al Ma’sat, pg. 158.

^[15]  Kitab Sulaim ibn Qais, pg. 150.

^[16]  Kitab Sulaim ibn Qais, pg. 150-151.

^[17]  Kitab Sulaim ibn Qais, pg. 152.

^[18]  Musnad Ahmed, Hadith: 1652; Jami’ al Tirmidhi, Hadith: 1421; Sunan Abi Dawood, Hadith: 4772; Sunan al Nasa’i, Hadith: 4094-4095; al Sunan al Kubra, Hadith: 3543-3544. Al Albani graded it sahih in Irwa’ al Ghalil, 2/164 while Shu’ayb al Arna’ut commented after verifying the hadith in al Musnad, “The isnad is strong.”

^[19]  Al Kafi, 5/52; al Majlisi graded it sahih in Mir’at al ‘Uqul, 18/394; al Bahbudi graded it sahih in Sahih al Kafi, 2/287; Muhammad Asif Muhsini listed in among the reliable narrations in his book al Ahadith al Mu’tabarah min Jami’ Ahadith al Shia, pg. 299.

^[20]  Al Mabsut, 7/279.

^[21]  Al ghab (low grounds) appears in the printed version. Perhaps what we have established is accurate.

^[22]  Sharh al Kharidah al Ghaybiyyah fi Sharh al Qasidah al ‘Ayniyyah, pg. 71.

^[23]  Ma’sat Kitab al Ma’sat, pg. 160.

^[24]  Marja’iyyat al Marhalah wa Ghubar al Taghyir, pg. 194.

^[25]  Kitab Sulaim ibn Qais, pg. 150.

^[26]  Qadaya Atharat Jadalan, pg. 180-181.

^[27]  Verbatim. It has passed that Dr. ‘Ali Salih Rasan’s writings contain a lot of confusion, and his intention is that the situation here does not tolerate patience.

^[28]  Umm Kulthum bint ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib Haqiqah Am Wahm, pg. 203-204.

^[29]  Verbatim. The correct Arabic word is wadi’.

^[30]  Verbatim. The correct Arabic word is sakinan.

^[31]  Verbatim. The correct Arabic word is shay’an.

^[32]  Umm Kulthum bint ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib Haqiqah Am Wahm, pg. 211.

^[33]  Qadaya Atharat Jadalan, pg. 181-182.

^[34]  Marja’iyyat al Marhalah wa Ghubar al Taghyir, pg. 194.

^[35]  Sahih al Bukhari, Hadith: 2217, 6950.

^[36]  Musnad Abi Ya’la, Hadith: 6039, Hussain Asad graded its isnad jayyid (good); al Fawa’id al Muntaqat al Hisan al Sihah wa al Ghara’ib al Ma’rufah bi al Khal’iyyat, Hadith: 1095.

^[37]  Atana dhira’uhu bi al saif fatannat: to strike with it and swiftly sever it. (Al Muhkam wa al Muhit, 9/131)

^[38]  Tarikh al Tabari, 4/391.

^[39]  Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah, Hadith: 37690; Tarikh al Tabari, 4/384.

^[40]  Hawamish Naqdiyyah, pg. 102-103.

^[41]  Ma’sat al Zahra’, 1/272, quoting from Fadl Allah.

^[42]  Ma’sat al Zahra’, 1/273.

^[43]  Ma’sat al Zahra’, 1/299, quoting from Fadl Allah.

^[44]  Ma’sat Kitab al Ma’sat, pg. 158.

^[45]  Wa sammaytuhu appears in Tarikh Dimashq; what we established is accurate. This is established in al Riyad al Nadirah, 3/49.

^[46]  Tarikh Dimashq, 45/304; al Mujam al Kabir, 3/29 briefly.

^[47]  Su’alat al Barqani, pg. 48.

^[48]  Ziyadat Yunus ibn Bukayr ‘ala al Sirah, pg. 247; Musnad Ahmed, Hadith: 769, 953; Fada’il al Sahabah, Hadith: 1365; al Adab al Mufrad, Hadith: 823; Musnad al Bazzar, Hadith: 742; al Dulabi: al Dhurriyyah al Tahirah (Mabarrat al Al wa al Ashab print), Hadith: 93; Sahih Ibn Hibban, Hadith: 6958.

^[49]  Tahdhib al Tahdhib, 11/22-23; Ibn Sa’d: al Tabaqat al Kubra, 6/223; al ‘Ijli: Al Thiqat, 1883.

^[50]  Al Mustadrak ‘ala al Sahihayn, 3/180.

^[51]  Al Isabah, 6/192.

^[52]  In his critical examination of Musnad Ahmed, 2/159, footnote 2.

^[53]  In his critical examination of Musnad Ahmed, 2/196.

^[54]  Silsilat al Ahadith al Da’ifah, Hadith: 3607.

^[55]  Musnad al Bazzar, 2/314.

^[56]  Sirat Ibn Ishaq, pg. 247.

^[57]  Al Ma’arif, pg. 211. Contrary to what Ibn Shahrashub attributed to him in al Manaqib, 3/133, where he said, “In al Ma’arif al Qutaybi said that Muhsin was corrupted by the strike of Qunfudh al ‘Adawi.” This is a slander against Ibn Qutaybah and has no basis in the book al Ma’arif. Also, Muhammad ibn Yusuf al Kanji in his book Kifayat al Talib, pg. 413, attributed to Ibn Qutaybah that Muhsin was miscarried after the death of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam without mentioning the reason for the miscarriage, so he said, “And he added to the majority and said, ‘Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha miscarried a male child after the Prophet, whom the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam had named Muhsin.’ This is something that was not found with any of the people of transmission except Ibn Qutaybah.” This is also not correct and it appears that al Kanji only came across Ibn Qutaybah’s words from the book of Ibn Shahrashub. In any case, al Kanji’s transmission is not worthy of attention because he is the only one among the people of knowledge to transmit this transmission from Ibn Qutaybah, in addition to the fact that al Kanji is known for his inclination towards the extremists in his time, as Abu Shamah al Maqdisi mentioned and he mentioned in the appendix to al Rawdatayn, pg. 208, that he collected books for them that agreed with their purposes. Accordingly, it is likely that he came across this statement in the book of Ibn Shahrashub and accordingly his statement is not to be taken seriously.

As for the claim of some opponents that al Ma’arif was subject to distortion as Jafar Murtada al ‘Amili claimed in Ma’sat al Zahra’, 1/313 and 2/197-198, and al Khurasan in al Muhsin al Sibt, pg. 591, and others, then no attention should be paid to it, because their claim is merely an accusation not based on any argument or proof. If they had adhered to this approach based on accusing books of distortion based on a single transmission, it would have required them to say that dozens of Imami books were distorted, to which a text was attributed that does not exist in them! In addition to the fact that this claim was issued by the opponent and the transmission of the opponent is not to be taken seriously at all, but rather what matters is the evidence and proof; and they did not provide any evidence for this false accusation. It is sufficient to demonstrate the invalidity of this claim that the researcher of al Ma’arif relied on several handwritten copies preserved in the libraries of several countries, including France, Britain, Egypt, Holland, and Austria. Is it conceivable that distortion could occur in all of these copies? Then the most important evidence of the invalidity of the objectors’ claim is that one of the handwritten copies of al Ma’arif was copied from a copy that was written in the handwriting of Ibn al Musannaf, as stated in the copy of the Egyptian National Library numbered, 3- History. (See the introduction to al Ma’arif, pg. 102.)

^[58]  Ansab al Ashraf, 1/402, 2/189.

^[59]  Tarikh al Tabari, 5/135.

^[60]  Al Ikhwah wa al Akhawat, pg. 27.

^[61]  Jamharat Ansab al ‘Arab, pg. 16.

^[62]  Al Dhurriyyah al Tahirah, pg. 114; al Bayhaqi: Dala’il al Nubuwwah, 3/161; al Safdi: Al Wafi bi al Wafiyyat, 1/79; al Riyad al Nadirah, 3/239; Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr al Talmasani: Al Jawharah fi Nasab al Nabi wa Alihi al Bararah, pg. 19; Abu al Hajjaj al Shafi’i: al Ta’rif bi al Ansab wa al Tanbih bi Dhawi al Ahsab, pg. 42; al Mughalta’i: Al Isharah ila Sirat al Mustafa, pg. 101; al Muhibb al Tabari: Khulasat Siyar Sayed al Bashar, pg. 139; al Muhibb al Tabari: Dhakha’ir al ‘Uqba, pg. 55; Ibn Sayed al Nas: ‘Uyun al Athar, 2/358; Ibn Kathir: Al Bidayah wa al Nihayah, 3/418; Ibn Hajar: Al Isabah fi Tamyiz al Sahabah, 6/191; al Sakhawi: Al Ajwibah al Mardiyyah, 2/416; al Sakhawi: Al Tuhfah al Latifah, 1/19; al Suyuti: Al Thughur al Basimah, pg. 37; Muhammad ibn Ishaq al Khawarizmi: Itharat al Targhib wa al Tashwiq, pg. 311; Abu Muhammad al Hijrani al Shafi’i: Qiladat al Nahr, 1/154; Ithaf al Sa’il, pg. 23, which has been attributed to al Munawi, but the correct opinion is that it belongs to al Qalqashandi.

^[63]  Tarikh al Yaqubi, 2/213.

^[64]  Al Hidayah, pg. 94.

^[65]  Lubab al Ansab, 1/337.

^[66]  Al Thiqat, 2/144.

^[67]  Dala’il al Nubuwwah, 3/162; al Thughur al Basimah, pg. 37.

^[68]  Tahdhib al Kamal, 20/479.

^[69]  Tahdhib al Kamal, 1/191.

^[70]  Nuzhat al Majalis wa Muntakhab al Nafa’is, 2/177.

^[71]  Al Suyuti: Al ‘Ujajah al Zarnabiyyah, printed in al Hawi li al Fatawa, 2/37. This is contrary to what he mentioned in al Thughur al Basimah, pg. 37, as appeared above where he quoted Ibn Mandah’s words that Fatimah mothered Muhsin.

^[72]  Sahih al Bukhari, Hadith: 3623, 3626; Sahih Muslim, Hadith: 2450.

^[73]  Al Amali, pg. 692.

^[74]  Al wilayah al takwiniyyah implies that Allah granted certain abilities to certain people to influence and control aspects of this universe.

^[75]  Madinat al Ma’ajiz, 1/171-172.

^[76]  Ibid., 1/260.

^[77]  Ibid., 1/518-519.

^[78]  Ibid., 1/543-544.

^[79]  Madinat al Ma’ajiz, 2/102-103.

^[80]  Nawadir al Mu’jizat, pg. 49.

^[81]  Madinat al Ma’ajiz, 2/39.

^[82]  Ibid., 1/429.

^[83]  Ibid., 1/427.

^[84]  Al Hukumah al Islamiyyah, pg. 52.

^[85]  Mawsu’at al Khu’i, al Tanqih fi Sharh al Makasib, 37/157.

^[86]  Fiqh al Sadiq, 16/153-155.

^[87]  Mukhtasar Mufid, 12/75.