The ‘Alawi/Nusayri Sect in the Balance
February 26, 2025General notes on the contents of the rib-breaking narrations
March 10, 2025BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents
The Claim of Consensus on the Breaking of the Rib:
Jafar Murtada al ‘Amili[1] and others[2] have claimed that there is consensus on the incident of the broken rib. Their evidence for this claim is the statement of al Tusi:
والمشهور الذي لا خلاف فيه بين الشيعة أن عمر ضرب على بطنها حتى أسقطت فسمى السقط محسنًا ورواية الشيعة مستفيضة به لا يختلفون في ذلك
The well-known and undisputed position among the Shia is that ‘Umar struck her belly until she miscarried and the miscarried was named Muhsin. The narration is widespread among the Shia and there is no disagreement in this matter.[3]
The claim of consensus has been addressed from several angles:
1. The invalidity of the claim of consensus due to dissenting views
The claim of consensus on the incident of the broken rib is incorrect, as there were scholars of the Imami sect, both ancient and contemporary, who rejected the story of the broken rib. It has already been mentioned that Abu al Hassan al ‘Umari (5th century) was the first to explicitly deny this incident, saying:
ولم يحتسبوا بمحسن لأنه ولد ميتًا وقد روت الشيعة خبر المحسن والرفسة ووجدت بعض كتب أهل النسب يحتوي على ذكر المحسن ولم يذكر الرفسة من جهة أعول عليها
They did not consider Muhsin as a valid miscarriage because he was born dead. The Shia have narrated the story of Muhsin and the kick and I found some genealogical books mention Muhsin, but not mention kick from an angle I can trust.[4]
Abu al Hassan al ‘Umari was a contemporary of al Tusi and was one of the most renowned genealogists in Imami thought. Therefore, al Tusi’s claim of consensus is refuted by the existence of dissent during his time. Moreover, many contemporary Imami scholars have opposed the claimed consensus with some questioning certain details of the incident of the broken rib, such as Kashf al Ghita’, and others outrightly denying its occurrence. Among them are those who explicitly denied it and stated its inauthenticity.[5] Therefore, the claim of consensus and agreement is contrary to reality.
The scholar, Muhammad Hussain Fadl Allah, and his followers raised an objection to the claim of consensus from another perspective. They attributed a differing opinion in this matter to al Mufid. Al Mufid stated, when mentioning the number of children of ‘Ali:
فأولاد أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام سبعة وعشرون ولدًا ذكرًا وأنثى وفي الشيعة من يذكر أن فاطمة عليها السلام أسقطت بعد النبي ذكرًا كان سماه رسول الله وهو حمل محسنًا فعلى قول هذه الطائفة أولاد أمير المؤمنين ثمانية وعشرون ولدًا والله أعلم وأحكم
The children of Amir al Mu’minin were twenty-seven, both male and female… Among the Shia are those who say that Fatimah miscarried a son after the Prophet’s death, whom the Messenger of Allah had named Muhsin while he was still in her womb. According to this group, the number of Amir al Mu’minin’s children was twenty-eight. And Allah knows best and is wisest.[6]
They argued that since al Mufid, who was the teacher of al Tusi, began by stating that the number of ‘Ali’s children was twenty-seven, then mentioned that some of the Shia said the number was twenty-eight because they counted Muhsin, it becomes evident that al Mufid’s opinion differed from those who claimed that Fatimah miscarried Muhsin after the death of the Prophet. Al Mufid attributed the claim of Muhsin’s miscarriage to a group of Shia, thus indicating that those who held this belief were only a part of the Shia, not all of them. This contradicts the claim of consensus.
Furthermore, it supports the view that al Mufid did not endorse the opinion of that group, as we previously mentioned that his book al Irshad, one of the most significant historical works of the Imami Shia, does not mention the so-called legend of the breaking of the rib.
The supporters of Fadl Allah provided another piece of evidence, namely that al Mufid in his book al Jamal, only mentioned the incident of the threat. He said:
لما اجتمع من اجتمع إلى دار فاطمة عليها السلام من بني هاشم وغيرهم للتحيز عن أبي بكر وإظهار الخلاف عليه أنفذ عمر بن الخطاب قنفذًا وقال له أخرجهم من البيت فإن خرجوا وإلَّا فاجمع الأحطاب على بابه وأعلمهم أنَّهم إن لم يخرجوا للبيعة أضرمت البيت عليهم نارًا ثمَّ قام بنفسه في جماعة منهم المغيرة بن شعبة الثقفي وسالم مولى أبي حذيفة حتى صاروا إلى باب علي عليه السلام فنادى يا فاطمة بنت رسول الله أخرجي من اعتصم ببيتك ليبايع ويدخل في ما دخل فيه المسلمون وإلَّا والله أضرمت عليهم نارًا
When those who gathered at the house of Fatimah from the Banu Hashim and others sought refuge from Abu Bakr and openly opposed him, ‘Umar ibn al Khattab sent Qunfudh, telling him, “Get them out of the house; if they come out, fine, but if not, gather firewood at its door and inform them that if they do not come out to pledge allegiance, I will set the house on fire.” Then ‘Umar himself came with a group, including al Mughirah ibn Shu’bah al Thaqafi and Salim, the freed slave of Abu Hudhayfah, until they reached the door of ‘Ali. He called out, “O Fatimah, daughter of the Messenger of Allah, bring out those who have taken refuge in your house to pledge allegiance and join what the Muslims have entered into, otherwise, by Allah, I will set the house on fire.”[7]
Najib Nur al Din commented on this text, saying:
هذا ما قاله الشيخ المفيد في الموضوع وكما يرى القارئ لم يصرح شيخ الطائفة مطلقًا بأنَّه حصل ما هو أزيد من تهديد بالحرق هناك نية بالاعتداء فإن ثبت ذلك انتفت دعوى الإجماع وقال محمد حسين فضل الله إذا كان الشيخ الطوسي ينقل اتفاق الشيعة على أنَّ عمر ضرب على بطن فاطمة عليها السلام حتى أسقطت محسنًا والرواية بذلك مشهورة عندهم فالشيخ المفيد يخالف الطوسي وهو معاصر له بل هو أستاذه وكلامه يوحي بأنَّه لا يتبنَّى الإسقاط من الأساس
This is what Sheikh al Mufid said on the matter. As the reader can see, Sheikh al Ta’ifah [al Tusi] did not explicitly state that anything beyond the threat of burning occurred. There is only an intention to attack.[8] If that is proven, the claim of consensus is nullified.[9] Muhammad Hussain Fadl Allah added, “If Sheikh al Tusi reports that the Shia agreed that ‘Umar struck Fatimah (peace be upon her) in the stomach, causing her to miscarry Muhsin, and this narration is well-known among them, then al Mufid disagrees with al Tusi. Al Mufid was his contemporary, and in fact, his teacher, and his words suggest that he does not adopt the view of the miscarriage at all.”[10]
Najib Nur al Din also said:
كيف يصح نقل كلام عن الشيخ الطوسي يناقضه الشيخ المفيد والطوسي تلميذ المفيد أي إنَّهما وجدا في زمن واحد واختلفا في زمن واحد ورغم ذلك يتحدث المؤلف عن إجماع كلام الشيعة حول هذا الأمر
How can a statement attributed to Sheikh al Tusi contradict the words of Sheikh al Mufid, when al Tusi was al Mufid’s student? They both lived during the same time and disagreed during the same period. Despite this, the author speaks of consensus regarding the Shia’s stance on this issue.[11]
Jafar al Shakhuri comments on the claim of al Tusi reporting consensus:
لم نتحقق هذا الإجماع فكيف يكون أستاذه مخالفًا
We have not verified this consensus… How can his teacher contradict him?[12]
This view was not limited to the scholar Muhammad Hussain Fadl Allah and his students. He was preceded by Muhammad Sadiq Bahr al ‘Ulum (d. 1399 AH), who quoted the words of al Mufid and then commented, saying:
وهذا الكلام من المفيد يعطي عدم اعترافه بحديث محسن وسقوطه مع أنه مشهور لدى المؤرخين والنسابين فراجع وتأمل
This statement by al Mufid indicates his lack of recognition of the hadith of Muhsin and his miscarriage, despite it being well-known among historians and genealogists. So, refer to it and reflect.[13]
Al Mufid’s statement also posed a challenge for Jafar Murtada, who attempted to reinterpret it in a way that would align with the claim of consensus. At one point, he alleged that al Mufid, by the term “Shia” here, meant the Imamiyyah.[14] At another point, he claimed that al Mufid did not explicitly mention the incident of Muhsin’s miscarriage because the era in which he lived was extremely sensitive.[15] However, there is no doubt that these feeble excuses were made because he knew that al Mufid’s statement contradicted the supposed claim of consensus.
Najib Nur al Din refuted Jafar Murtada’s response by pointing to the actions of al Tusi, who had no hesitation in explicitly mentioning the incident of the breaking of the rib. Al Tusi was a student of al Mufid and lived in the same era. Najib Nur al Din said:
لماذا لم يتصرَّف الشيخ الطوسي إذًا بالطريقة نفسها وهو كما علمنا معاصر للشيخ المفيد بل تلميذه ألم يكن أجدر بتلميذ الشيخ المفيد أن يتعامل مع الأمر بالطريقة نفسها حسب مرتكزات التفكير عند المؤلف وحسب منطق المؤلف يعد الشيخ الطوسي متهورًا والعياذ بالله لأنَّه لم يتمتَّع بالحكمة العالية التي كانت عند أستاذه وهذا غير صحيح وغير مقبول
Why then did Sheikh al Tusi not act in the same manner, since he was, as we know, a contemporary of Sheikh al Mufid and indeed his student? According to the author’s logic, would Sheikh al Tusi not be considered reckless (and we seek refuge with Allah) because he did not possess the great wisdom that his teacher supposedly had? This, of course, is neither correct nor acceptable.[16]
2. Al Tusi did not categorically state the existence of consensus
This is due to the fact that the word al Ijma’ (consensus) does not appear in al Tusi’s text. The word al ittifaq (agreement) appears therein. It is known that the term al Ijma’ (consensus) is more specific than al ittifaq (agreement). It is possible for agreement to be reached by a group of people, not all of them; contrary to consensus which requires the agreement of all. The evidence for this is that al Mufid himself did not transmit a single view regarding the miscarriage of Muhsin. Had consensus been obtained, he would have transmitted one view. This is exactly what Muhammad al Hussaini pointed out saying:
والصحيح هو عدم نقل الشيخ الطوسي الإجماع على هذه المسألة كيف يعقل أن يدعي الطوسي الإجماع وأستاذه المفيد يخالف
It is correct that Sheikh al Tusi did not transmit consensus on this aspect. How is it fathomable for al Tusi to claim consensus whereas his teacher al Mufid opposes?[17]
3. The text of the Imamiyyah of not considering al Tusi’s claims of consensus
A group of scholars of the Imamiyyah have criticised al Tusi for his laxity in claiming consensus in many aspects without this being the reality. This is well-known according to them. Zaid al Din al ‘Amili—renowned among the Imamiyyah as al Shahid al Thani—authored a treatise pursuing the claims of consensus reported by al Tusi and those in which al Tusi himself has opposed consensus, titling it, “Sheikh al Tusi’s opposition to consensus himself.”[18] He explains his objective of authoring this treatise:
لا يغتر الفقيه بدعوى الإجماع فقد وقع فيه الخطأ والمجازفة كثيرا من كل واحد من الفقهاء سيما من الشيخ والمرتضى
No jurist should be misled by the claim of consensus, as errors and recklessness has occurred plenty from each of the jurists, especially al Sheikh and al Murtada.[19]
He mentioned 36 issues in this treatise in which al Tusi claimed consensus while majority of these are disputed. Then in his other books, al Tusi confirms dispute in the exact issue in which he claimed consensus. Hence, Yusuf al Bahrani says:
التحقيق أن الذين هم الأصل في الإجماع كالشيخ والمرتضى قد كفونا مؤنة القدح فيه وبيان بطلانه بما وقع لهم من دعوى الإجماعات المتناقضة تارة ودعوى الإجماع على ما تفرد به أحدهما تارة أو تبعه عليه شذوذ من أصحابه كما لا يخفى على المطلع على أقوالهم
The verification is that those who are the origin of consensus, such as al Sheikh and al Murtada, have spared us the trouble of criticising it and demonstrating its invalidity by what they have claimed of contradictory consensuses at times and the claim of consensus on what one of them has uniquely said at times or what was followed by few of his students, as is not hidden from anyone who is familiar with their statements.[20]
He then indicated to the said treatise of al Shahid al Thani.
Al Ardabili says regarding the consensus which al Tusi reports in his book al Khilaf:
لا اعتداد بإجماع الخلاف
No consideration should be given to the consensus of al Khilaf.[21]
Ahmed Al Ta’’an al Qatifi said about al Tusi:
عُرِفَ مِنْ تساهله في نقل الإجماعات حتى إنّه ينقل الإجماع في موضع ويخالفه
He was known for his leniency in transmitting consensus to the point that he would transmit consensus at one place and contradict it at another.[22]
This matter applies to this determination as well. If we were to concede to the opponents and accept that al Tusi’s words are based on consensus, the answer is that this consensus is not accepted due to al Tusi’s well-known leniency in transmitting consensus, in addition to the fact that others contradicted him, as mentioned above. Therefore, it is not correct to use the claim of consensus as evidence.
NEXT⇒ General notes on the contents of the rib-breaking narrations
[1] Ma’sat al Zahra’, vol. 1, pg. 163.
[2] Al Hujum ‘ala Bayt Fatimah, pg. 385, Zalamat Fatimah al Zahra’, pg. 303.
[3] Talkhis al Shafi, vol. 3, pg. 156.
[4] Al Majdi fi Ansab al Talibiyyin, pg. 12.
[5] Further statements regarding the scholars of the Imamiyyah who doubted or denied the incident of the broken rib will be discussed in the specific section.
[6] Al Irshad, vol. 1, pg. 354–355.
[7] Al Jamal, pg. 57.
[8] Ma’sat Kitab al Ma’sat, pg. 137.
[9] Hawamish Naqdiyyah, pg. 69–71.
[10] Ma’sat Kitab al Ma’sat, pg. 133.
[11] Ma’sat Kitab al Ma’sat, pg. 133–134.
[12] Marja’iyyat al Marhalah wa-Ghubar al Taghyir, pg. 166.
[13] Risalah fi ‘Adad Awlad Amir al Mu’minin, from al Hadiqah al Ghunna’, published in Majallah Turathuna, vol. 117–118, issues 1–2, Muharram–Jumada al Akhirah, 1435 A.H. (pg. 390).
[14] Ma’sat al Zahra’, vol. 1, pg. 168.
[15] Ma’sat al Zahra’, vol. 1, pg. 168.
[16] Ma’sat Kitab al Ma’sat, pg. 136.
[17] Hawamish Naqdiyyah, pg. 72.
[18] Printed in Rasa’il al Shahid al Thani, 2/847-857.
[19] Rasa’il al Shahid al Thani, 2/847.
[20] Al Hada’iq al Nadirah, 9/368.
[21] Majma’ al Fa’idah, 11/557.
[22] Al Rasa’il al Ahmediyyah, 1/354.