The position of the Sunni scholars on the rib-breaking myth
March 19, 2025The position of the Zaidi scholars
March 19, 2025BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents
The position of the Mu’tazili scholars
We felt it appropriate to clarify the position of the majority of Mu’tazili scholars regarding the rib-breaking myth, because the supporters of this myth cite words attributed to al Nazzam al Mu’tazili on this issue. It was therefore necessary to clarify the position of the majority of the Mu’tazilah, so that it becomes clear to the reader that if what was attributed to al Nazzam was proven, his statement would be anomalous in contrast to the majority of Mu’tazili scholars who considered the rib-breaking story a fabrication and lie, including a group of the leaders and senior scholars of the Mu’tazilah.
1. Dirar ibn ‘Amr (lived in the second century)
The first person we came across who denied the rib-breaking story from the Mu’tazilah was Dirar ibn ‘Amr al Mu’tazili. He considered this story to be one of the fabricated reports, so he mentioned that one of the extremists’ sayings was, “Abu Bakr and ‘Umar wronged and beat Fatimah, the daughter of the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, until she miscarried.” He described this report by saying:
في نحو هذا من الحديث الضال المضل المفتعل
The likes of this is from the deviant, misleading and fabricated hadith.[1]
2. Abu ‘Ali al Jubba’i (303 AH)
Qadi ‘Abdul Jabbar al Mu’tazili narrated on the authority of Abu ‘Ali al Jubba’i that he said:
وهذا الذي رووه عن جعفر بن محمد من ضرب عمر لا أصل له بل المروي عن جعفر بن محمد أنه كان يتولى أبا بكر وعمر ويأتي القبر فيسلم عليهما مع تسليمه على رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم روى ذلك عباد بن صهيب وشعبة بن الحجاج وفهد بن هلال والدراوردي وغيرهم ويُروى عن أبيه وعن علي بن الحسين مثل ذلك فكيف يصح ما ادعوه وهل هذه الرواية إلا كروايتهم عن جعفر في أخبار لهم أن علي بن أبي طالب هو إسرافيل وأن الحسن ميكائيل وأن الحسين جبريل وفاطمة ملك الموت وآمنة أم النبي ليلة القدر قال فإن صدقوا بذلك قيل لهم فعمر بن الخطاب كيف يقوى على ضرب ملك الموت فإن قال لا أصدق ذلك فقد جوَّز رد هذه الأخبار وصح أنه لا يجوز التعويل على هذا الجنس
What they narrated from Jafar ibn Muhammad of ‘Umar’s beating has no basis. Rather, what was narrated from Jafar ibn Muhammad is that he used to befriend[2] Abu Bakr and ‘Umar and would come to the grave and greet them along with greeting the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. This was narrated by ‘Abbad ibn Suhayb, Shu’bah[3] ibn al Hajjaj, Fahd ibn Hilal, al Darawardi, and others. Similar is narrated from his father and from ‘Ali ibn al Hussain. So how can what they claim be correct?
Is this narration anything other than their narration from Jafar in their report that ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib is Israfil, al Hassan is Mika’il, al Hussain is Jibril, Fatimah is the Angel of Death, and Aminah the mother of the Prophet is the Night of Qadr?
He said: If they believe that, it will be said to them, “How can ‘Umar ibn al Khattab strike the Angel of Death?”[4] If he says, “I do not believe that,” then he has permitted the rejection of these narrations; and it is correct that it is not permissible to rely on this type of narrations.[5]
3. Qadi ‘Abdul Jabbar (415 AH)
He says in the book of Imamah from al Mughni in the chapters of justice and monotheism:
وادعوا برواية رووها عن جعفر بن محمد عليه السلام وغيره أن عمر ضرب فاطمة عليها السلام بالسوط وضرب الزبير بالسيف وذكروا أن عمر قصد منزلها وعلي والزبير والمقداد وجماعة ممن تخلف عن بيعة أبي بكر مجتمعون هناك فقال لها ما أحد بعد أبيك أحب إلينا منك وايم الله لئن اجتمع هؤلاء النفر عندك لنحرقن عليهم فمنعت القوم من الاجتماع ولم يرجعوا إليها حتى بايعوا لأبي بكر إلى غير ذلك من الروايات البعيدة الجواب أنا لا نصدق بذلك ولا يجوز عليها عليها السلام
They claimed with a narration they reported from Jafar ibn Muhammad ‘alayh al Salam and others that ‘Umar struck Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha with a whip and struck al Zubair with a sword. They mentioned that ‘Umar went to her house whereas ‘Ali, al Zubair, al Miqdad, and a group of those who did not pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr were gathered there, so he said to her, “No one after your father is more beloved to us than you. By Allah, if these people gather with you, we will burn them.” So, she prevented the people from gathering and they did not return to her until they pledged allegiance to Abu Bakr, as well as other far-fetched narrations.
The answer: We do not believe in this and it is not possible for her, may blessings be upon her.[6]
He said in Tathbit Dala’il al Nubuwwah:
والذي عرفنا بالخبر أن يزيد بن معاوية قتل الحسين وأشخص ذريته إلى الشام هو الذي عرفنا بعقولنا أن أبا بكر ما ضرب فاطمة ولا قتل المحسن
What we have learnt from the reports that Yazid ibn Muawiyah killed al Hussain and sent his descendants to Greater Syria is exactly what led our intellect to conclude that Abu Bakr did not strike Fatimah nor kill Muhsin.[7]
He also said:
إذا كان أبو بكر قد ضرب فاطمة وقتل المحسن فقد كان ينبغي أن يحصل العلم بذلك عند كل من سمع الأخبار وأن يكون العلم بذلك مثل العلم بقتل يزيد الحسين ومثل قتل معاوية حجر بن عدي وعبيد الله بن زياد مسلم بن عقيل بل كان ينبغي أن يكون العلم بما ادعيتم أقوى من العلم بهؤلاء القتلى لأن هذه الحادثة التي ادعيتموها على أبي بكر كانت بالمدينة وقد شهدها العباس وولده وعليّ بن أبي طالب وولده وعقيل وولده وجميع بن هاشم ومواليهم ونسائهم وجميع المهاجرين والأنصار وأولادهم ونسائهم وقد كان بالمدينة حين توفي رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أكثر من مائة ألف إنسان فكان يكون العلم بهذا أقوى مما كان بكربلاء
If Abu Bakr had beaten Fatimah and killed Muhsin, then knowledge of that should have been obtained by everyone who heard the news and knowledge of that should have been like knowledge of Yazid’s killing of al Hussain, Muawiyah’s killing of Hujr ibn ‘Adi, and ‘Ubaidullah ibn Ziyad’s killing of Muslim ibn ‘Aqil. Rather, knowledge of what you claimed should have been stronger than knowledge of those killed, because this incident that you claimed against Abu Bakr was in Madinah and it was witnessed by al ‘Abbas and his son, ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib and his son, ‘Aqil and his son, all of the Banu Hashim and their slaves and women, and all of the Muhajirin and Ansar and their children and women. There were more than one hundred thousand people in Madinah when the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam passed away, so knowledge of this should have been stronger than what it was in Karbala’.[8]
Likewise, he made the belief in the story of ‘Umar’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu beating of Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha in conflict with ‘Ali’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu getting his daughter Umm Kulthum al Kubra, daughter of Fatimah, married to ‘Umar, saying:
حتى ينقل عليّ بن أبي طالب إلى عمر أم كلثوم بنت فاطمة بنت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فيزوجه ويفترشها ويولدها وهذا الذي زعمتم أنه ضربها وقتل جنينها في بطنها
Until ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib transfers Umm Kulthum, the daughter of Fatimah who is the daughter of the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, to ‘Umar; so that he marries her, consummates it, and has children with her, whereas this is what you claim that he beat her and killed her foetus in her womb.[9]
4. Abu al Hussain al Basri (436 AH)
He said in his book Sharh al Usul:
فأما ما روي من أن عمر أحرق باب فاطمة وأنه رفسها حين أسقطت بمحسن فليس مما يذكر في السير الصحيحة ولا تظاهر به الخبر وهو مع شذوذه بما ظهر قديمًا وحديثًا من عمر مع تحققه بالدين والزهد في الدنيا والتشدد في أمر الآخرة وبث الإسلام في الآفاق ولا يليق السكوت على مثل هذا الفعل وترك النكير له لأهل ذلك العصر مع علمنا بشدة إعظامهم لرسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وكيف لا ينكرون مثل هذا الفعل مع قرب عهدهم برسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وكيف لا يظهر النكير وكيف يجوز لنا أن نصدق بذلك والله يصفهم بأنهم خير أمة أخرجت للناس وأنهم يأمرون بالمعروف وينهون عن المنكر ولو كانوا قد تركوا المبالغة للنكير لهذا الصنيع لكانوا شر أمة أخرجت للناس وكانوا لا يأمرون بالمعروف ولا ينهون عن المنكر وليس يعجز أحد أن يدعي ما لم يكن ويرويه وإنما ندفع هذه الرواية الكاذبة بمثل هذا النظر الذي ذكرنا وأشباهه وهذا هو الذي ادعيناه أن مخالفينا يتركون الروايات الظاهرة ويعدلون إلى الروايات الشاذة التي يشهد الحال ببطلانها ولو كانت هذه صحيحة لما ذهب عنها الزيدية بأجمعها وقد روي عن زيد بن علي عليهما السلام أنه قيل له هل بلغك أن فاطمة صلوات الله عليها عوملت بسوء فقال إنها كانت لأعز على قومها من ذلك إنها كانت تأوي إلى ركن شديد
As for what was narrated that ‘Umar burned the door of Fatimah and that he kicked her when[10] she miscarried Muhsin, it is not what is mentioned in the authentic biographies nor is it apparent from the reports. Along with its anomaly with what appeared in the past and present from ‘Umar, with his realisation of religion, asceticism from the world, strictness in the matter of the Hereafter, and spreading Islam in the horizons. Moreover, it is not appropriate to remain silent about such an act and avoid denouncing it for the people of that era with our knowledge of their intense reverence for the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. How can they not denounce such an act when they were so close in time to the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam? How can they not show disapproval? How can we believe in that, when Allah describes them as the best nation brought forth for mankind and that they enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong? If they had failed to intensely disapprove of this act, they would have been the worst nation brought forth for mankind and they would not have enjoined what is right nor forbade what is wrong.
No one is unable to claim what did not happen and narrate it. We only refute this false narration with the same view we mentioned and similar ones. This is what we claimed that our opponents abandon the apparent narrations and turn to the anomalous narrations that the situation testifies to their invalidity. If these were correct, the Zaidis as a whole would not have abandoned them… It was narrated from Zaid ibn ‘Ali ‘alayhima al Salam that he was asked, “Have you heard that Fatimah ‘alayha al Salam was treated badly?” He said, “She was dearer to her people than that; she used to take refuge in a strong pillar.[11]
5. Ibn al Malahimi al Khawarizmi (536 AH)
Ibn al Malahimi considered all the criticisms against Abu Bakr and ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma that the extremists made exclusively unreliable. Then he said:
مثل روايتهم أن عمر أضرم النار على باب أمير المؤمنين لاجتماع شيعته عندهم ومثل روايتهم أن عمر ضرب فاطمة حتى ألقت جنينًا ميتًا اسمه محسن وذكر أهل التاريخ أن محسنًا هذا ولد في حياة النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم وتوفي إلى أشباه هذا مما يبهتون به على أصحاب النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم
Such as their narration that ‘Umar set fire to the door of the Commander of the Faithful because his partisans had gathered by them and their narration that ‘Umar beat Fatimah until she miscarried a foetus named Muhsin—Historians mentioned that this Muhsin was born during the life of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and died—and similar things that they slander the Companions of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam with.[12]
6. Ibn Abi al Hadid (656 AH)
Ibn Abi al Hadid is considered one of the late Mu’tazilah who combined with his Mu’tazilah beliefs exaggeration regarding the Ahlul Bayt. Despite this, he denied the validity of the rib-breaking legend, as he says in Sharh Nahj al Balaghah:
فأما حديث التحريق وما جرى مجراه من الأمور الفظيعة وقول من قال إنهم أخذوا عليًا عليه السلام يقاد بعمامته والناس حوله فأمر بعيد على أن جماعة من أهل الحديث قد رووا نحوه وسنذكر ذلك
As for the hadith of burning and other horrific matters that came after it and the statement of those who said that they took ‘Ali ‘alayh al Salam by his turban while people were around him; it is a far-fetched matter… although a group of the people of hadith have narrated something similar to it, and we will mention that.[13]
After mentioning the narrations that have been reported in the story of the pledge of allegiance, he said:
فأما الأمور الشنيعة المستهجنة من إرسال قنفذ إلى بيت فاطمة وإنه ضربها بالسوط فصار في عضدها كالدملج وبقي أثره إلى أن ماتت وأن عمر أضغطها بين الباب والجدار فصاحت يا أبتاه يا رسول الله وألقت جنينًا ميتًا وجُعل في عنق علي حبلٌ يقاد به وهو يعتل وفاطمة خلفه تصرخ ونادى بالويل والثبور فكله لا أصل له عند أصحابنا ولا يثبته أحد منهم ولا رواه أهل الحديث ولا يعرفونه
As for the heinous and reprehensible matters… of sending Qunfudh to Fatimah’s house, that he struck her with a whip so that it became like a boil on her arm and its trace remained until she died, that ‘Umar squeezed her between the door and the wall, so she cried out, “O my father, O Messenger of Allah,” and she miscarried a foetus, and a rope was placed around ‘Ali’s neck to be led by it while he was struggling and Fatimah was behind him screaming and calling out woe and destruction…, all of it has no basis with our companions and none of them confirm it, nor did the people of hadith narrate it nor do they know it.[14]
NEXT⇒ The position of the Zaidi scholars
[1] Al Tahrish, pg. 52.
[2] Yatruku appears in the printed version of al Mughni while in al Murtada’s al Shafi, yatawalla appears which is correct.
[3] Sa’id appears in the printed version whereas Shu’ayb is correct as is known.
[4] He indicates to what has been reported from them just now that Fatimah is the Angel of death.
[5] Al Mughni fi Abwab al ‘Adl wa al Tawhid, al Imamah, first section, 1/336.
[6] Al Mughni fi Abwab al ‘Adl wa al Tawhid, al Imamah, first section, 1/335.
[7] Tathbit Dala’il al Nubuwwah, 1/339.
[8] Tathbit Dala’il al Nubuwwah, 1/240.
[9] Tathbit Dala’il al Nubuwwah, 2/653.
[10] It appears such. Probably, the word hatta is closer to accuracy.
[11] Fasl Muntaza’ min Sharh al Usul fi al Imamah, pg. 168-169, It is published in the peer-reviewed academic investigation journal, issued in Turkey, Issue No. 7, June 2021 CE.
[12] Al Fa’iq fi Usul al Din, pg. 600.
[13] Sharh Nahj al Balaghah, 2/21.
[14] Sharh Nahj al Balaghah, 2/60.