The position of the Imami scholars and authors

BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents

 

The position of the Imami scholars and authors

 

If some extremists throughout history have believed in the rib-breaking story, this myth has been denied by a significant number of Imami scholars and authors. The supporters of this myth—especially the stream of deviation that Jafar Murtada al ‘Amili spearheaded—have tried to portray to the people that Marja’ Muhammad Hussain Fadl Allah was the only one to deny it and that the rib-breaking story is a famous and agreed-upon issue. The truth, however, is quite the opposite; as Muhammad Hussain Fadl Allah was not the only one to reject this myth and cast doubt on it. Rather, he was preceded in that, in addition to the fact that many of the expert researchers from the Imami scholars who are known for following the method of authentication and verification of the narrations have followed Marja’ Muhammad Hussain Fadl Allah in rejecting this myth and ruling upon its weakness. These are the names of the Imami scholars we have come across who rejected the authenticity of the rib-breaking story; among them is a group of their great scholars, including:

 

1. The genealogist Abu al Hassan al ‘Umari (fifth century)

He is the first of the Imami scholars we have come across who denies the occurrence of the myth of the assault on Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha and the miscarriage of her foetus. He says while listing the children of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu:

 

ولم يحتسبوا بمحسن لأنه ولد ميّتًا وقد روت الشيعة خبر المحسن والرفسة ووجدت بعض كتب أهل النسب يحتوي على ذكر المحسن ولم يذكر الرفسة من جهة أعوّل عليها

And they did not count Muhsin because he was stillborn. The Shia narrated the story of Muhsin and the kick. I found some books of the genealogists making mention of Muhsin; he did not mention the kick from a source that I rely on.^[1]

 

What is meant by the kick is what came in the narrations of the rib-breaking myth that ‘Umar kicked Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha and she miscarried Muhsin. Abu al Hassan al ‘Umari states that this report was not proven to him and it is strange that after a long search, we did not find anyone who pointed out that Abu al Hassan al ‘Umari was the first of the Imami scholars to deny the story of the miscarriage of Muhsin. We do not know the reason behind those who reject the story of the miscarriage of Muhsin neglecting this. On the other hand, we found the supporters of this legend including Abu al Hassan al ‘Umari among those who confirmed the rib-breaking story. The first of them was Jafar Murtada al ‘Amili^[2], followed by Wafiq Sa’d al ‘Amili^[3], followed by Muhammad Mahdi al Khurasan who mentioned Abu al Hassan al ‘Umari’s name in the list of those who declared that Muhsin died as a result of a miscarriage.^[4] These people have relieved themselves from discussing al ‘Umari’s words and have been content with quoting him among those who confirm the story of Muhsin’s miscarriage, while ignoring the fact that he rejected the story of Muhsin’s miscarriage; this is the limit of deception. ‘Abdul Zahra’ Mahdi has taken another path. He relieved himself from this problem by citing from Abu al Hassan al ‘Umari’s words what suits him, so he quoted his words to his saying, “And the Shia have narrated the story of Muhsin and the kick,” and deleted the rest of his statement that contradicted his intention, which included, “he did not mention the kick from a source I rely on,” thus discarding academic honesty.

 

2. Muhammad Hussain Kashif al Ghita’ (1373 AH)

Muhammad Hussain Kashif al Ghita’ is considered one of the first in the modern era to doubt some details of the rib-breaking story. After mentioning the abundance of narrations of beating Fatimah and breaking her rib in the books of the Imamiyyah, he says:

 

ولكن قضية ضرب الزهراء ولطم خدها مما لا يكاد يقبله وجداني ويتقبّله عقلي ويقتنع به مشاعري لا لأن القوم يتحرّجون ويتورعون من هذه الجرأة العظيمة بل لأن السجايا العربية والتقاليد الجاهلية التي ركّزتها الشريعة الإسلامية وزادتها تأييدًا وتأكيدًا تمنع بشدة أن تضرب المرأة أو تمد إليها يد سوء حتى أنّ في بعض كلمات أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام ما معناه أن الرجل كان في الجاهلية اذا ضرب المرأة يبقى ذلك عارًا في أعقابه ونسله

But the issue of beating al Zahra’ and slapping her cheek is something that my conscience and mind can hardly accept, and my feelings can hardly be convinced of, not because people are embarrassed and wary of this great audacity, but because the Arab traits and pre-Islamic traditions that Islamic law has emphasised and increased in support and confirmation strictly prohibit beating a woman or extending a hand of evil to her, to the point that in some of the words of the Commander of the Faithful ‘alayh al Salam there is something to the effect that if a man in pre-Islamic times beat a woman, it would remain a disgrace for his descendants and offspring.^[5]

 

Marja’ Muhammad Hussain Fadl Allah considered the words of Kashif al Ghita’ to be a denial of the story of hitting Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha and said, “We did not reach the point of denying these incidents as Sheikh Muhammad Hussain Kashif al Ghita’ (may Allah sanctify his secret) did regarding hitting her and slapping her cheek.”^[6]

On the other hand, Fadl Allah’s opponents concluded that Kashif al Ghita’ did not deny the rib-breaking and miscarriage of the foetus. Rather, what Kashif al Ghita’ meant was excluding that a sinful hand from a stranger could reach the body and face of the pure truthful one radiya Llahu ‘anha by hitting and slapping… As for hitting from beyond the clothes and the cloak, there is no exclusion in that in his view^[7], because Kashif al Ghita’ after excluding the occurrence of hitting al Zahra’ said:

 

لا أمنع من أنه ضربها بسوطه من وراء الرداء وإنما الذي أستبعده أو أمنعه هو لطمة الوجه وقنفذ ليس ممن يخشى العار لو ضربها من وراء الثياب أو على عضدها

I do not deny that he^[8] hit her with his whip from behind the cloak, but what I exclude or prevent is the slapping of the face. Qunfudh is not one of those who fears shame if he hit her from behind the clothes or on her arm.^[9]

 

It seems to us that Kashif al Ghita’ rejects that Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha was beaten and slapped in the face by Abu Bakr or ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu, but he does not see any objection to Qunfudh being the one who beat her with a whip from behind her clothes; since Kashif al Ghita’ has raised a problem with the incident, saying that if it was planned by Abu Bakr and ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma, Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha would have mentioned that in her sermons in which she enumerated her grievances. He says:

 

ويزيدك يقينًا بما أقول أنها ولها المجد والشرف ما ذكرت ولا أشارت إلى ذلك في شيء من خطبها ومقالاتها المتضمنة لتظلمها من القوم وسوء صنيعهم معها مثل خطبتها الباهرة الطويلة التي ألقتها في المسجد على المهاجرين والأنصار وكلماتها مع أمير المؤمنين بعد رجوعها من المسجد

And what increases your certainty in what I say is that she—may glory and honour be hers—did not mention or refer to that in any of her sermons and articles that included her grievances against the people and their bad treatment of her, such as her long dazzling sermon that she delivered in the Masjid to the Muhajirin and Ansar and her words to the Commander of the Faithful after she returned from the Masjid.^[10]

 

Although Kashif al Ghita’ did not reach the level of completely denying the rib-breaking story and the miscarriage, his words contradict the approach of those who believe that Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha was directly beaten by ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu and those who were with him, according to their claim, and for this reason some of them went so far as to cast doubt on the issuance of these words by Kashif al Ghita’ at all.^[11]

 

3. Hashim Ma’roof al Hassani (1404 AH)

He mentioned a number of narrations that mentioned the story of the attack on Fatimah’s house, including the rib-breaking incident^[12] and ruled that these narrations were not proven, saying:

 

إلى كثير من المرويات التي لا تثبت أسانيدها في مقابل النقد العلمي

Many more narrations whose chains are not proven in the face of academic criticism.^[13]

 

4. Marja’ Muhammad Hussain Fadl Allah (1431 AH)

He is considered one of the most prominent individuals who denied the issue of the broken rib and the miscarriage of Muhsin, although he previously believed in it.^[14] It seems that after he studied the relative narrations, he retracted from reporting this story and his position changed to doubting it. We mentioned at the beginning of this study the story of the uproar that was raised around him because of his doubting this issue, as he said in the al Rida Mosque in Qom:

 

أنا لا أتفاعل مع كثير من الأحاديث التي تقول إن القوم كسروا ضلعها أو ضربوها على وجهها أو ما إلى ذلك إنني أتحفظ في كثير من هذه الروايات

I do not interact with many of the hadiths that say that the people broke her rib or hit her on the face or something like that… I have reservations about many of these narrations.^[15]

 

When correspondence took place between him and the supporters of the rib-breaking story, such as Jafar Murtada al ‘Amili and Jawwad al Tabrizi, Fadl Allah discussed with them the authenticity of the narrations of the broken rib in terms of the isnad and the text. At first, he did not reach the point of denying the story in its entirety, as he was content with casting doubt on its authenticity and raising questions and problems about it, so he says:

 

أنا لا أنفي قضية كسر الضلع ولكنني أقول إنني غير مقتنع بذلك وكما أن الإثبات يحتاج إلى دليل كذلك النفي يحتاج إلى دليل

I do not deny the issue of the broken rib, but I say: I am not convinced of it; and just as proof needs evidence, so too does denial need evidence.^[16]

 

Therefore, he described those who were attributed with denying the broken rib as liars, as he says:

 

أنا من الأساس لم أقل إنه لم يكسر ضلع الزهراء وكل ما ينسب إلي ذلك فهو كاذب أنا استبعدت الموضوع استبعادًا رسمت علامة استفهام على أساس التحليل التاريخي قلت أنا لا أتفاعل مع هذا لأن محبة المسلمين للزهراء كانت أكثر من محبتهم لعلي وأكثر من محبتهم للحسن والحسين وفوقها محبتهم لرسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قلت إنه من المستبعد أن يقدم أحد على فعل ذلك

I did not say in the first place that he did not break al Zahra’s rib. Everyone^[17] who attributes that to me is false. I completely avoided the subject. I drew a question mark on the basis of historical analysis. I said that I do not interact with this because the Muslims’ love for al Zahra’ was more than their love for ‘Ali and more than their love for al Hassan and al Hussain and above that was their love for the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. I said that it is unlikely that anyone would do that.^[18]

 

Nonetheless, what appears from his words is a tendency towards denial. This is evident from his statement:

 

هناك بعض الحوادث التي تعرضت لها مما لم تتأكد لنا بشكل قاطع وجازم كما في مسألة حرق الدار فعلًا وكسر الضلع وإسقاط الجنين ولطم خدها وضربها ونحو ذلك مما نقل إلينا من خلال روايات يمكن طرح بعض علامات الاستفهام حولها إما من ناحية المتن وإما من ناحية السند وشأنها شأن الكثير من الروايات التاريخية ولذا فقد أثرنا بعض علامات الاستفهام كما أثارها بعض علمائنا السابقين رضوان الله عليهم كالشيخ المفيد الذي يظهر منه التشكيك في مسألة إسقاط الجنين بل في أصل وجوده وإن كنا لا نوافقه على الثاني ولكننا لم نصل إلى حد النفي لهذه الحوادث كما فعل الشيخ محمد حسين كاشف الغطاء قده بالنسبة لضربها ولطم خدها لأن النفي يحتاج إلى دليل كما أن الإثبات يحتاج إلى دليل

There are some incidents that she was exposed to that were not confirmed to us in a conclusive and decisive manner, such as the issue of actually burning the house^[19], breaking the rib, aborting the foetus, slapping her cheek, hitting her… and the like, which were transmitted to us through narrations that some question marks can be raised about, either from the perspective of the text or from the perspective of the isnad. And this is like many historical narrations. Therefore, we raised some question marks as some of our previous scholars, may Allah be pleased with them, raised, such as Sheikh al Mufid, who appears to cast doubt on the issue of aborting the foetus, and even on its very existence, even though we do not agree with him on the second, but we did not reach the point of denying these incidents as Sheikh Muhammad Hussain Kashif al Ghita’ (may Allah sanctify his secret) did regarding hitting her and slapping her cheek, because denial requires evidence, just as proof requires evidence.^[20]

 

Fadl Allah considers the issue of the broken rib a controversial issue. He settles:

 

والمسألة محل خلاف من جهة الروايات التاريخية وفي بعض الأمور المتعلقة بالتحليل النقدي للمتن

The issue is controversial in terms of historical narratives and in some matters related to the critical analysis of the text.^[21]

 

The issue is not important to him. He acknowledges:

 

ليست القضية من المهمات التي تهمني سواء قال القائلون إن ضلعها كسر أو لم يقل القائلون ذلك هذا لا يمثل بالنسبة لي أية سلبية أو إيجابية

The issue is not one of the important matters that concern me, whether those who say that her rib was broken or those who say that it was not, this does not represent anything negative or positive for me.^[22]

 

It seems that Fadl Allah believed that the incident did not happen as all the statements he made—such as the weakness of some of the chains of the story, the confusion in the events, the differences in the narrations, and the problems arising from proving this incident from attributing cowardice to ‘Ali ‘alayh al Salam, rejecting the Companions’ attack on Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha because of their love for her, and other arrows of criticism that Fadl Allah directed at this story—support his inclination to deny it. However, the atmosphere surrounding Fadl Allah and the fierce attack that was launched against him is what made him not mention his explicit opinion on the issue. It is sufficient that Fadl Allah, since he cast doubt on the rib-breaking story, did not declare its authenticity even once. He also cited the words of the Imami scholars who denied this story and did not transmit the words of those who confirmed it. Perhaps what supports what we have said is that we came across his words in a sermon he gave at the end of his life, in which he said:

 

إن المشكلة عند الكثيرين من الناس أنهم يذكرون الزهراء بالجانب المأساوي فقط ولهذا شُغل الناس عن شخصية الزهراءع بمسألة أنه كُسر ضلعها وهذا أمر لا نتعقّله

The problem with many people is that they mention al Zahra’ only from the tragic side. For this reason, people were distracted from the personality of al Zahra’ radiya Llahu ‘anha by the issue of her rib being broken; and this is something we do not understand.^[23]

 

5. Muhammad al Hussaini

Muhammad al Hussaini is one of the students of Muhammad Hussain Fadl Allah^[24] and is one of those who defended him against the attack of Jafar Murtada al ‘Amili. Muhammad al Hussaini wrote the book Hawamish Naqdiyyah Dirasah fi Kitab Ma’sat al Zahra’, which criticises the book Ma’sat al Zahra’ by Jafar Murtada al ‘Amili in which he tried to prove the rib-breaking myth. Muhammad al Hussaini confronted many errors and contradictions in the writings of Jafar Murtada al ‘Amili related to the broken rib and discussed his methodology in proving the incident, which is based on the blind gathering of narrations without paying attention to the differences between them.^[25] He refuted the claim of the frequency of narrations of the broken rib.^[26] What appears from the folds of the book is that the author adopts Fadl Allah’s opinion on the issue of the broken rib.^[27]

 

6. Najib Nur al Din[28]

Najib Nur al Din wrote his book Ma’sat Kitab al Ma’sat in response to the book Ma’sat al Zahra’ by Jafar Murtada Al ‘Amili. Najib Nur al Din directed extensive criticism at Jafar Murtada’s methodology and reasoning, and also criticised some details of the rib-breaking narrations, saying for example:

 

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

It is not reasonable under any circumstances that Imam ‘Ali’s ‘alayh al Salam 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 and seeing and not moving a muscle. Imam ‘Ali ‘alayh al Salam 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’ ‘alayha al Salam? We wonder how the duty of a man like the Imam ‘alayh al Salam is to remain silent about the actions of those aggressors?^[29]

 

He also says:

 

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 ونحن نتساءل لأيِّ أمرٍ يكون تكليف هؤلاء الشرفاء أن يُظلَموا وإذا كان ذلك لتبيان حقّ الإمام في الخلافة فإنَّنا لا نوافق على ذلك لسببٍ مهمّ جدًا وهو أنَّنا نعتبر حجّة الإمام بالغة إلى درجة اليقين وأنَّ الطريق للوصول إلى هذا الحقّ لا يكون بهذه الطريقة التي تحرج الإمام والزهراء عليها السلام معًا وأكثر من ذلك نقول هل عُدم الإمام والزهراء عليهما السلام وسيلة لإظهار الحقّ حتّى يلجأوا إلى هذه الطريقة من التعاطي مع الظالمين إنَّنا نشكّ في ذلك وليس هكذا يأخذ أئمّتنا حقوقهم

How can the legal task of al Zahra’ ‘alayha al Salam be to be wronged and beaten in her home and to surrender to this injustice with her full will and the task of Imam ‘Ali ‘alayh al Salam be to leave her exposed to injustice? What kind of logic is this that the author is trying to convince us of? We wonder: For what reason are these honourable people tasked with being wronged? If that is to demonstrate the right of the Imam to the Caliphate, then we do not agree to that for a very important reason, which is that we consider the Imam’s argument to be extremely certain and that the way to reach this right is not in this way that embarrasses both the Imam and al Zahra’ ‘alayha al Salam. Moreover, we say: Did the Imam and al Zahra’ ‘alayhima al Salam lack a means to demonstrate the truth so that they resort to this method of dealing with the oppressors? We doubt that! This is not how our Imams take their rights.^[30]

 

He also criticised Jafar Murtada al ‘Amili who portrayed Kitab Sulaim ibn Qais as being agreed upon as authentic and he objected to him with the words of al Khu’i who ruled that the chains of Kitab Sulaim ibn Qais were weak.^[31] Even though the writer did not state his opinion on the issue, the reader of his book concludes that he agrees with Fadl Allah’s opinion on the subject.

 

7. Jafar al Shakhuri al Bahrani

Jafar al Shakhuri al Bahrani criticised some details of the rib-breaking narrations. Some of his statements were quoted in the discussion of the texts of the narrations of that legend. In his book Marja’iyyat al Marhalah wa Ghubar al Taghyir, Jafar al Shakhuri devoted a special appendix to criticising the texts of the rib-breaking narrations, where he compared them with the rest of the narrations and explained the contradiction in them. He considered the rib-breaking narrations to be weak in isnad and diverse in content.^[32] He adopts Fadl Allah’s opinion on the subject like his predecessors.

 

8. Hassan al ‘Alawi

Hassan al ‘Alawi^[33] is considered one of the contemporary Imami thinkers who were free from fanaticism. He doubted the rib-breaking incident and directed arrows of criticism at the narrations about it saying:

 

لم أستسلم بعد إلى زج فاطمة الزهراء في تلك الحادثة وليس معقولًا ولا لائقًا أن تتحدث الرواية عن إسراعها إلى الباب في تلك اللحظة إن المهابة والمكانة والمناسبة اعتبارات تمنع وحيدة النبي أن تقترب من الباب بين أفواج من رجال قريش ومن وضع الرواية تجاهل حزن الزهراء على فقد أبيها ووفاتها كمدًا عليه في روايات أبعدها زمنًا ستة شهور وتجاهل مهابتها فجعلها واحدة من المتخاصمات في يوم الحزن وأحال إسقاط الجنين إلى مصرع الباب بدلًا من أن يكون بسبب مصرع والدها النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم مثلًا إن وفاة النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم عند فاطمة الزهراء كان سيجهضها دون سجال ولطالما أجهضت نساء لوفاة ابن أو زوج أو أب فكيف والسيدة هي فاطمة وكيف والفقيد نبي الله الخاتم فلماذا يقلل من شأن رحيل النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم في رواية الإجهاض سوى أن يكون عمر هو المتهم لم يكن من عادات العرب ردّ المرأة على طارق الباب وفي البيت رجالٌ آخرون فهل يعقل أن تترك فاطمة حزنها المقيم وفجيعتها المرّة لكي تفتح الباب أو تخرج إليه ربما لاحظت الرواية هذا الجانب فاستعانت بالزهراء لتصد مع الرجال هجوم عمر وإذا ما سمحت مناهج الدفاع عن أهل البيت بالإساءة إليهم إذا تعلق الأمر بالإساءة إلى عمر بن الخطاب وضعت فاطمة الزهراء على باب الخصومة وأجهضتها وراء الباب

I have not yet surrendered to involving Fatimah al Zahra’ in that incident. It is neither reasonable nor appropriate for the narration to talk about her rushing to the door at that moment. The awe, status, and occasion are considerations that prevent the only woman of the Prophet from approaching the door among the crowds of Quraysh men. The one who wrote the story ignored the grief of al Zahra’ over the loss of her father and her death out of grief over him in narrations to the maximum period of six months and also ignored her awe, making her one of the disputants on the day of grief and attributed the miscarriage to the doorpost instead of being due to the death of her father, the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, for example.

The death of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam at Fatimah al Zahra’s house would have caused her to miscarry without a doubt. Women have always miscarried due to the death of a son, husband, or father; so how could it be when the lady is Fatimah? How could it be when the deceased is the final Prophet of Allah? Why would he diminish the importance of the departure of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam in the story of the miscarriage, except that ‘Umar is the accused?

It was not the custom of the Arabs for a woman to answer someone who knocked at the door, while there were other men in the house… Is it reasonable that Fatimah would leave her constant sadness and bitter grief in order to open the door or go out to him? Perhaps the report noticed this aspect and sought help from al Zahra’ to repel ‘Umar’s attack with the men… And if the methods of defending the family of the Prophet allowed them to be insulted, if it came to insulting ‘Umar ibn al Khattab, Fatimah al Zahra’ was placed at the door of the dispute and aborted behind the door.^[34]

 

9. Ahmed al Katib

‘Abdur Rasul Lari—well-known as Ahmed al Katib—was known for his freedom from the restrictions of the narrative heritage and his distance from fanaticism. His writings are evidence of his familiarity with the seminary demands in the principles and branches and therefore we saw it useful to include his criticism of the rib-breaking myth. Ahmed al Katib states that the rib-breaking story is a myth. He says under the title: The myth of the attack on the house of Fatimah al Zahra’:

 

وربما كانت قصة كبس بيت الإمام علي من قبل عمر من أجل إجباره على بيعة أبي بكر وما رافق ذلك من تهديد بحرق بيت فاطمة على من فيه أو قيامه بحرق باب البيت وضرب الزهراء وعصرها وراء الباب وإسقاط جنينها محسن والتسبب في وفاتها من أهم القصص الأسطورية الخطيرة التي لعبت عبر التاريخ وتلعب اليوم دورًا كبيرًا في تأجيج الخلافات

Perhaps the story of ‘Umar raiding the house of Imam ‘Ali in order to force him to pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr and what accompanied that of threatening to burn the house of Fatimah and those in it, or his burning the door of the house, beating al Zahra’, squeezing her behind the door, aborting her foetus (Muhsin), and causing her death, is one of the most important dangerous mythical stories that played throughout history and is playing a major role today in fuelling disputes.^[35]

 

Then, after presenting the history of the story of the pledge of allegiance, he proceeded to refute this story, saying:

 

الميزان العام لمعادلة القوى والجو العام لتطور الأحداث يستبعد الرواية السابقة التي تتحدث عن ممارسة العنف في أخذ البيعة لأبي بكر فإذا كان أبو بكر قد ترك سعد بن عبادة ولم يجبره على البيعة فقد كان أضعف من أن يجبر الإمام علي على البيعة وأبعد من أن يأمر باقتحام داره وجلبه بالقوة أو يسمح لأي أحد بتهديده بإحراق بيته عليه وهو ما تقوله الأسطورة التي نشأت في القرون التالية وحملت بين طياتها تفاصيل أسطورية أخرى أبعد ما تكون عن الحقيقة مثل ضرب عمر للزهراء وحرق باب بيتها فعلًا والتسبب في إسقاط جنينها محسن أثناء الهجوم على بيتها والعياذ بالله

The general balance of the equation of power and the general atmosphere of the development of events exclude the previous story that talks about  violence in taking the pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr. If Abu Bakr had left Sa’d ibn ‘Ubadah and did not force him to pledge allegiance, he was too weak to force Imam ‘Ali to pledge allegiance and too far from ordering the storming of his house and bringing him by force, or allowing anyone to threaten to burn his house on him, which is what the legend that arose in the following centuries says and carried within it other legendary details that are far from the truth, such as ‘Umar beating al Zahra’, actually burning the door of her house, and causing her foetus (Muhsin) to miscarry during the attack on her house, Allah forbid!^[36]

 

Ahmed al Katib believes that the rib-breaking legend originated in the third century and that those who adopted it were the supporters of the theory of the birth of a son to al Hassan al ‘Askari, who later became known as the Twelvers. He says:

 

أنصار النظرية ظلوا يتحمسون لتأييد نظريتهم ونقد نظرية الشورى والاختيار ويحاولون قراءة التاريخ بشكل مغاير لسلوك أهل البيت والإمام علي وكتابته من جديد ومن أجل ذلك تشبثوا بحكاية تهديد عمر بحرق بيت فاطمة الزهراء وحولوا التهديد المفترض الى واقع تاريخي ثابت وأضافوا على الحادث كثيرًا من الرتوش الأخرى مثل ضرب الزهراء وعصرها وراء الباب وكسر ضلعها وإسقاط جنينها محسن ووفاتها على إثر ذلك

The supporters of the theory remained enthusiastic about supporting their theory and criticising the theory of Shura (consultation) and selection. They tried to read history in a way that differed from the behaviour of the Ahlul Bayt and Imam ‘Ali, and to write it anew. For this reason, they clung to the story of ‘Umar’s threat to burn down the house of Fatimah al Zahra’ and they transformed the supposed threat into a fixed historical reality and further added many other embellishments to the incident, such as beating al Zahra’, squeezing her behind the door, breaking her rib, and aborting her foetus Muhsin, and her death as a result.^[37]

 

10. Muhammad Hussain Tarhini al ‘Amili

It is rare in this era to find one of the Imami scholars explicitly denying the rib-breaking story. If Fadl Allah and his supporters were content with casting doubt on it and pointing out the flaws in its details without daring to deny it completely, then Muhammad Hussain Tarhini al ‘Amili went beyond casting doubt on it to denying the story outright. He declares in his book ‘Aqa’id al Imamiyyah bayn al Asil wa al Dakhil:

 

لو كان عمر فعلًا ضرب بالباب على صدر فاطمة وكسر أضلاعها كيف يقدم علي عليه السلام على تزويج ابنة فاطمة إلى قاتل أمها وكيف كانت أم كلثوم ترضى بأن تكون زوجة لقاتل أمها وهل كان الإمام الحسن والحسين وهما شابان غيوران يرضيان بمثل هذا

If ‘Umar had actually knocked on Fatimah’s chest with the door and broken her ribs, how would ‘Ali ‘alayh al Salam have married Fatimah’s daughter to her mother’s killer? How would Umm Kulthum have been satisfied with being the wife of her mother’s killer? Would Imam al Hassan and al Hussain, while they were two possessive young men, have been satisfied with such a thing?^[38]

 

11. Yasir ‘Awdah

Yasir ‘Awdah is one of the few who had the courage to deny and reject the rib-breaking myth. Unlike Muhammad al Hussaini, Najib Nur al Din, and Jafar al Shakhuri, who were content to support Fadl Allah’s opinion by casting doubt on the rib-breaking story, criticising its texts, and placing it within the circle of proof or lack thereof, Yasir ‘Awdah is the only student of Muhammad Hussain Fadl Allah whom we found denying the rib-breaking myth frankly. He writes in his book Qadaya Atharat Jadalan:

 

أما كسر ضلع فاطمة عليها السلام فقد ذهب المشهور إلى ذلك ولم يبحثه أحد من العلماء الذين يراعون القواعد العلمية للحديث في بحثه سندًا ومتنًا إلا وتحفظ على تلك الحادثة التاريخية إلى أن يقول نصل لسيدنا الأستاذ الكبير آية الله العظمى السيد محمد حسين فضل الله الذي هذب ما أُفسد من الإسلام وحارب الغلو والخرافة ووقف سدًا منيعًا في وجه الموضوع والمكذوب فأحاديث كسر الضلع لم تثبت عنده سندًا ولن نتكلم فيه بل ننقل الكلام إلى المتن

As for the breaking of Fatimah’s rib, this has become infamous, and none of the scholars who observe the academic rules of hadith in their research, in terms of isnad and text, have researched it without having reservations about that historical incident… We reach our master, the great teacher, Ayat Allah al ‘Uzma Sayed Muhammad Hussain Fadl Allah, who refined what was corrupted in Islam, fought extremism and superstition, stood as a solid barrier in the face of the fabricated and the false. The reports of breaking the rib were not proven to him by an isnad—and we will not talk about them, but rather we will transfer the discussion to the text.

 

He then mentioned the problems of determining the rib-breaking reports as authentic, such as the necessity of attributing cowardice to ‘Ali ‘alayh al Salam—Allah forbid—and other weak points in the reports. After he considered that the issue of breaking the rib is a historical issue and not a doctrinal one, he directed criticism at those who remain silent about clarifying the truth of such superstitions, saying:

 

لأنها مسألة تاريخية بحتة فالإيمان بها وعدمه سيان وإن كانت على شهرة جعلت الكثير من العلماء لا يواجهونها لعدم جرأتهم في المقام ومما يؤسف له أن عدم جرأة العلماء الكبار على مواجهة الكثير مما أدخل في الدين وأُخِذَ أَخْذَ المسلمات وألبس ثوب المقدسات أدى إلى ما نحن فيه من الخلافات وتجرأت الناس على المقامات واستخراج الفتاوى المضللات إن استقالة كثير من العلماء الكبار وخصوصًا من تقدم ومن بقي ممن لا جرأة له جعل من الجهلة علماء ومحققين ليبثوا على منابر رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم من الخرافة والجهل والتخلف ما لا يحصى حتى أصبح اللادين دينًا والدين غريبًا ومن يواجه هذه الترهات يوصف بالضلال والخروج عن المذهب

Because it is a purely historical issue, belief in it or not is the same, even if it is famous, which made many scholars not confront it due to their lack of courage in position. What is regrettable is that the lack of courage of the great scholars to confront much of what was introduced into the religion and was taken as axioms and dressed in the garment of sanctities, led to what we are in of disagreements and people’s audacity in positions and extracting misleading verdicts. If the resignation of many senior scholars, especially those who came forward and those who remained who had no courage, made the ignorant scholars and investigators to spread on the pulpits of the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam countless superstitions, ignorance and backwardness, until irreligion became a religion and religion became strange. And whoever confronts this nonsense is described as misguided and deviant from the doctrine.^[39]

 

Perhaps Yasir ‘Awdah’s frankness compared to the rest of Fadl Allah’s supporters is due to the fact that Yasir ‘Awdah wrote this book after Fadl Allah’s death, while the rest wrote their books during Fadl Allah’s lifetime, so it appears that they did not want to go beyond the official position of Muhammad Hussain Fadl Allah, unlike Yasir ‘Awdah who was free from these restrictions. However, what we hope is that the fair-minded will be encouraged and write a special study that criticises this myth frankly and courageously.

 

NEXT⇒ Conclusion

---

^[1]  Al Majdi fi Ansab al Talibiyyin, pg. 12.

^[2]  Ma’sat al Zahra’, 2/133.

^[3]  Ayn al Insaf, pg. 100.

^[4]  Al Muhsin al Sibt Mawlud am Siqt, pg. 119. He quotes al ‘Umari’s words on page 120.

^[5]  Jannat al Ma’wa, pg. 135.

^[6]  Al Zahra’ al Qudwah, pg. 110.

^[7]  The first person to issue this was Qadi ‘Ali al Tabataba’i in his commentary on Jannat al Ma’wa, pg. 173, footnote 2, and he was followed in this by those who discussed this issue later such as Hashim al Hashimi in Hiwar ma’a Fadl Allah, pg. 359).

^[8]  He refers to Qunfudh here.

^[9]  Jannat al Ma’wa, pg. 137.

^[10]  Jannat al Ma’wa, pg. 136.

^[11]  Mukhtasar Mufid, 9/67-69.

^[12]  Sirat al A’immah al Ithnay ‘Ashar, pg. 132-133; Marja’iyyat al Marhalah wa Ghubar al Taghyir, pg. 74, footnote; Qadaya Atharat Jadalan, pg. 179.

^[13]  Sirat al A’immah al Ithnay ‘Ashar, pg. 133.

^[14]  Jafar al Shakhuri mentioned that Fadl Allah said in one speech of his on Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha in al Shahid al Sadr Mosque during his visit to Qom in Sha’ban 1414 AH, “The stories agreed that she was beaten and that she miscarried.” (Marja’iyyat al Marhalah wa Ghubar al Taghyir, pg. 374, footnote 1.)

^[15]  Muhammad Abu al Sa’ud al Qatifi quoted this text from a recorded lecture that Fadl Allah delivered in the Imam al Rida Mosque in Bi’r al ‘Abd, in the year 1993 CE; Khalfiyyat Kitab Ma’sat al Zahra’, (2/11), Hiwar ma’a Fadl Allah Hawl al Zahra’, pg. 277.

^[16]  Jafar Murtada al ‘Amili quoted this in Ma’sat al Zahra’, 1/325.

^[17]  It appears as such in the printed version. Probably, man is correct.

^[18]  Al Zahra’ al Ma’sumah Unmudhaj al Mar’ah al ‘Alamiyyah, pg. 55-56.

^[19]  It appears as such in the printed version. Probably, mathalan is correct.

^[20]  Al Zahra’ al Qudwah, pg. 109-110.

^[21]  Footnotes of Ayat Allah al ‘Uzma al Sayed Muhammad Hussain Fadl Allah on the questions posed to Ayat Allah al ‘Uzma al Mirza Jawwad al Tabrizi, pg. 55.

^[22]  Hashim al Hashimi quoted this from him in Sharit Musajjal. (Hiwar ma’a Fadl Allah Hawl al Zahra’, pg. 28.)

^[23]  The sermon of al Zahra’ radiya Llahu ‘anha is a model message, delivered by Muhammad Hussain Fadl Allah in the al Imamayn al Hassanayn Mosque on 19 Jumada al Thani 1430 AH corresponding to 12/06/2009 CE. It is published on the Bayyinat website affiliated with the Marja’iyyah of Fadl Allah. http://arabic.bayynat.org.lb/NewsPage.aspx?id=931

^[24]  Fadl Allah praised him in his preface to his book al Ijarah, “I perused the book Fiqh al Ijarah in which our esteemed son, the scholar Sayed Muhammad al Sayed Tahir al Hussaini, may Allah protect him, decided on our jurisprudential research in postgraduate studies….” (Fiqh al Ijarah, pg. 2.)

^[25]  Hawamish Naqdiyyah, pg. 12-13.

^[26]  Hawamish Naqdiyyah, pg. 157-162.

^[27]  Hawamish Naqdiyyah, pg. 29-30. He showed here that the point of dispute between him and Jafar Murtada is the occurrence of the beating of Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha. It is worth noting that Muhammad al Hussaini states at the beginning of the book that he is not intending to deny or prove the controversial issue between Fadl Allah and Jafar Murtada al ‘Amili, but rather the main goal of his book is to discuss the book Ma’sat al Zahra’. Nonetheless, through the induction of the book and its discussion of Jafar Murtada’s proofs, the conclusion the reader reaches is the invalidity of the narrations of the broken rib.

^[28]  Najib Nur al Din is one of Fadl Allah’s close students. He holds a PhD in Sociology and has published several books, most of which are related to Muhammad Hussain Fadl Allah, including three books by Muhammad Hussain Fadl Allah that Najib Nur al Din prepared: Umara’ wa Qaba’il Khafaya wa Haqa’iq Lubnaniyyah, Ahadith fi Qadaya al Ikhtilaf wa al Wahdah, and Hiwarat fi al Fikr wa al Siyasah wa al Ijtima’. The rest of his publications are his own, including: Muhammad Hussain Fadl Allah al ‘Aqlaniyyah wa al Hiwar min Ajal al Taghyir, Idiyulujiya al Rafd wa al Muqawamah, and al Islam Din al Rahmah wa al ‘Adalah.

^[29]  Ma’sat Kitab al Ma’sat, pg. 155.

^[30]  Ma’sat Kitab al Ma’sat, pg. 156.

^[31]  Ma’sat Kitab al Ma’sat, pg. 125-130.

^[32]  Marja’iyyat al Marhalah wa Ghubar al Taghyir, pg. 201.

^[33]  Hassan Al ‘Alawi is from the Imamiyyah, but he is not one of their scholars. Rather, he is one of the political thinkers who combined writing about politics, thought, and religion. We have included his words for benefit and as a guide and to show that the criticism of the rib-breaking myth is not limited to the words of the Imamiyyah scholars. Rather, even their wisest thinkers have denied it.

^[34]  ‘Umar wa al Tashayyu’, pg. 119.

^[35]  Al Shia wa al Sunnah Wahdat al Din Khilaf al Siyasah wa al Tarikh, pg. 108, soft copy.

^[36]  Al Shia wa al Sunnah, pg. 112.

^[37]  Al Shia wa al Sunnah, pg. 121.

^[38]  ‘Aqa’id al Imamiyyah bayn al Asil wa al Dakhil, pg. 353.

^[39]  Qadaya Atharat Jadalan, pg. 187.