The position of the Sunni scholars on the rib-breaking myth

BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents

 

The position of the Sunni scholars on the rib-breaking myth

 

After we have completed the discussion of the narrations of the rib-breaking myth, both in terms of isnad and text, and demonstrated its invalidity by criticising its contents and clarifying the contradictions in its texts, we decided to follow it with the statements of the scholars on this myth, as a group of them have refuted it and considered it among the lies and concocted fabrications that were intended to attack the Companions and the Household of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. After research and investigation, it became clear to us that the Sunni scholars who exposed the rib-breaking myth agreed on the rejection of this story and judging it as a lie and fabrication. Here are their statements:

 

1. Abu al Hussain al Malati al ‘Asqalani (377 AH)

Abu al Hassan al Malati considered this story to be false and fabricated. He said while listing the reprehensible statements of Hisham ibn al Hakam:

 

إن أبا بكر مر بفاطمة عليها السلام فرفس في بطنها فأسقطت وكان سبب علتها وموتها وأنه غصبها فدك فذكر أشياء كثيرة مما كاد بها الإسلام من المخاريق والأباطيل والزور

Abu Bakr passed by Fatimah ‘alayha al Salam and kicked her in the stomach, so she miscarried. This was the cause of her illness and death. And he usurped Fadak from her. He thus mentioned many things that he plotted against Islam with from fabrications, falsehoods, and lies.^[1]

 

2. Abu Bakr al Baqillani (405 AH)

Al Baqillani says in response to the extremists’ use of some fabricated narrations as evidence:

 

إن هذه الرواية من جنس روايتكم أنه تأخر عن بيعة أبي بكر وأن عمر رفس فاطمة وأنها أسقطت وأنهم أحضروا عليًا إلى البيعة في حبل أسود يسحبه عمر في أمثال هذه الروايات وليس يجب ترك الظاهر المعلوم من حال علي وسائر الصحابة لأجل هذه الرواية المردودة

This narration is of the same type as your narration that he was late to pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr, that ‘Umar kicked Fatimah^[2], that she miscarried, that they brought ‘Ali to the pledge of allegiance in a black rope which ‘Umar was pulling, and such narrations. It is not necessary to abandon the apparent, known state of ‘Ali and the rest of the Companions for the sake of this rejected narration.^[3]

 

He described their claim that ‘Umar kicked Fatimah until she miscarried Muhsin^[4] as a superstition and whispering of the devil.^[5]

 

3. Abu al Fath al Shahrastani (548 AH)

Al Shahrastani stated that the story of ‘Umar striking Fatimah is a lie. He said so while listing the faults of al Nazzam al Mu’tazili:

 

وزاد في الفرية فقال إن عمر ضرب بطن فاطمة يوم البيعة حتى ألقت الجنين من بطنها وكان يصيح أحرقوا دارها بمن فيها وما كان في الدار غير علي وفاطمة والحسن والحسين

And he added to the lie saying, “‘Umar struck Fatimah’s stomach on the day of the pledge of allegiance until she miscarried the foetus from her womb while he was shouting, ‘Burn her house with everyone in it;’ and there was no one in the house except ‘Ali, Fatimah, al Hassan and al Hussain.”^[6]

 

4. Abu al ‘Abbas Ibn Taymiyyah (728 AH)

Ibn Taymiyyah strongly criticised the narrations of the broken rib and those who believed in them. He considered that believing in such stories is a sign of a lack of intelligence, saying:

 

أما إقدامه عليهم أنفسهم بأذى فهذا ما وقع فيه قط باتفاق أهل العلم والدين وإنما ينقل مثل هذا جهال الكذابين ويصدقه حمقى العالمين الذين يقولون إن الصحابة هدموا بيت فاطمة وضربوا بطنها حتى أسقطت وهذا كله دعوى مختلق وإفك مفترى باتفاق أهل الإسلام ولا يروج إلا على من هو من جنس الأنعام

As for him harming them, this has never happened by the consensus of the people of knowledge and religion. Such things are only transmitted by ignorant liars and believed by the foolish scholars, who say, “The Companions destroyed Fatimah’s house and struck her stomach until she miscarried.” All of this is a concocted claim and a fabricated lie, by the consensus of the people of Islam; and it is only spread by those who are similar to livestock.^[7]

 

He also said:

 

ومنهم من يقول إنهم بعجوا بطن فاطمة حتى أسقطت وهدموا سقف بيتها على من فيه وأمثال هذه الأكاذيب التي يعلم من له أدنى علم ومعرفة أنها كذب فهم دائمًا يعمدون إلى الأمور المعلومة المتواترة ينكرونها وإلى الأمور المعدومة التي لا حقيقة لها يثبتونها

And among them are those who claim, “They struck Fatimah’s stomach until she miscarried and they destroyed the roof of her house on those in it,” and such lies that anyone with the slightest knowledge and understanding knows are lies. They always resort to known and transmitted matters and deny them and to non-existent matters that have no truth to them and confirm them.^[8]

 

5. Abu ‘Abdullah al Dhahabi (748 AH)

He says in his summary of Ibn Taymiyyah’s words in Minhaj al Sunnah:

 

والجهلة يقولون إن الصحابة هدموا بيت فاطمة وضربوا بطنها حتى طرحت أفيسوغ في عقل عاقل أن صفوة الأمة يفعلون هذا بابنة نبيهم

And the ignorant say, “The Companions destroyed Fatimah’s house and struck her stomach until she miscarried.” Is it possible in the mind of a sane person that the elite of the nation would do this to the daughter of their Prophet?^[9]

 

6. Abu Al Mahasin al Wasiti (lived in the ninth century)

He says in response to the faults that the extremists attribute to ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu:

 

قولهم إنه قاد عليًا بنبذ سيفه وحصر فاطمة رضي الله عنها في باب فأسقطت ولدًا اسمه المحسن وردُّ ذلك بأن يقال هذا كذب محض ويؤيده وجوه الأول أن 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 ثم لا عبرة به حيث لم ينقل غيره تحقق الكذب وذكرها وجوهًا أخرى ختمها بالحكم على الرواية بالكذب

Their saying: He led ‘Ali with the straps of his sword and he confined Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha behind a door and she miscarried a boy named Muhsin.

The response to that is to say: This is a complete lie and it is supported by the following aspects:

The first: 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? Then there is no consideration for it since no one else has reported the lie.

 

He mentioned other aspects and concluded by ruling the narration a lie.^[10]

 

7. Ahmed ibn Muhammad Ibn Hajar al Haytami (974 AH)

He says in response to the slander of the extremists against ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu:

 

قولهم إن عمر رضي الله عنه قاد عليًا بحمائل سيفه وحصر فاطمة فهابت فأسقطت ولداً اسمه المحسن فقصدوا 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 والخَوَرِ بل ونسبة جميع بني هاشم وهم أهل النخوة والنجدة والأَنَفَة 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 ولا يتوهم إلحاق أدنى نقص أو سكوت على باطل بهؤلاء العصابة الكمَّل الذين طهرهم الله من كل رجس ودنس ونقص على لسان نبيه في الكتاب والسنة

Their saying, “‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu led ‘Ali with the straps of his sword and confined Fatimah so that she became afraid and miscarried a son named Muhsin.” They intended with this despicable slander and stupidity that brought them shame, ruin, and disgrace, to stir up anger against ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu. They did not care about what would result from that of attributing ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu to humiliation, powerlessness, and weakness, and even attributing all of the Banu Hashim—who are the people of chivalry, courage, and pride—to that shame that befell them, which is the ugliest for them, and even attributing all of the Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum to that. How can anyone with the slightest taste attribute that to them with 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, by even fighting and killing their fathers and sons in pursuit of his pleasure? It is not conceivable that the slightest deficiency or silence on falsehood would be attributed to this perfect group whom Allah purified from all filth, impurity, and deficiency on the tongue of His Prophet in the Book and the Sunnah.^[11]

 

8. Nasir al Din known as Khawajah Nasr Allah (lived in the twelfth century)

He says in his book al Sawa’iq al Muhriqah:

 

يقولون إن عمر بن الخطاب حرق بيتا فيه سيدة النساء والحسن والحسين وسادات بني هاشم ورضي بذلك أبو بكر والصحابة وأنه ضرب بمقدم سيفه بطن الزهراء حتى أسقطت ولدًا كان في بطنها وكان ذلك بمحضر من الصحابة وكل ذلك من كذباتهم ومفترياتهم

They say that ‘Umar ibn al Khattab burned a house in which were the Queen of women, al Hassan, al Hussain, and the leaders of the Banu Hashim—and Abu Bakr and the Companions were pleased with that—and that he struck al Zahra’s belly with the tip of his sword until she miscarried a child that was in her belly; and all this occurred in the presence of the Companions. All of this is from their lies and fabrications.^[12]

 

9. Shah ‘Abdul ‘Aziz al Dihlawi (1239 AH)

Al Alusi quoted al Dihlawi’s words in his Mukhtasar al Tuhfah al Ithnay ‘Ashariyyah, saying:

 

ومنها أن عمر قصد إحراق بيت سيدة النساء وضربها على جنبها الشريف بقبضة سيفه حتى وضعت حملها بسبب ذلك والجواب أن هذه القصة محض هذيان وزور من القول وبهتان

And among them is that ‘Umar intended to burn the house of the Queen of women and struck her on her noble side with the handle of his sword until she miscarried her foetus because of that. The answer is that this story is pure delirium, false speech, and slander.^[13]

 

10. Mahmud Shukri al Alusi (1346 AH)

Al Alusi quoted the words of Khawajah Nasr Allah above in his summary of al Sawa’iq and added to it, saying:

 

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 ugliest slanders and lies, rather it contains a slander against the Ahlul Bayt and accuses them of cowardice, since the lowest of the Arabs rejects this with their possessiveness, so how could Abu al Hassanayn, may Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala honour his face, and the leaders of the Banu Hashim remain silent about such a thing?^[14]

 

He said in his explanation of the al ‘Ayniyyah poem after mentioning that the story of Muhsin’s miscarriage has no basis:

 

وعلي كرم الله تعالى وجهه أجل من أن يقيم على ضيم وهو أسد الله تعالى الغالب وكون لزومه الأرض لعهد عهده إليه رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم كما يقولون لا أصل له

‘Ali, may Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala honour his face, is too noble to remain in oppression; he is the victorious lion of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala. His submission^[15] due to a covenant that the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam made to him, as they say, has no basis.^[16]

 

NEXT⇒ The position of the Mu’tazili scholars

---

^[1]  Al Tanbih wa al Radd ‘ala Ahl al Ahwa’ wa al Bida’, pg. 26.

^[2]  In the Dar al Fikr al ‘Arabi edition, pg. 209, it says: rafasa, which is what appeared in the original that was relied upon in the Dar al Fikr edition, which is the Paris manuscript numbered: 6090 as in Q 82/B. As for the edition of Mu’assasat al Kutub al Thiqafiyyah, pg. 514—and its editor relied on the Dar al Fikr al ‘Arabi edition—it says: rafada. It seems that this is the work of the editor and the correct word is rafasa, which is what appeared in the Hagia Sophia manuscript numbered: 2201 as in Q 230/A and the ‘Atif Effendi manuscript numbered: 1223 as in Q 224/A.

^[3]  Tamhid al Awa’il, pg. 514-515, Mu’assasat al Kutub al Thaqafiyyah print.

^[4]  Hassan appears in the printed version whereas Muhsin is correct.

^[5]  Nukat al Intisar li Naql al Qur’an, pg. 361.

^[6]  Al Milal wa al Nihal, 1/57.

^[7]  Minhaj al Sunnah, 8/291.

^[8]  Minhaj al Sunnah, 4/492.

^[9]  Al Muntaqa min Minhaj al I’tidal, pg. 538.

^[10]  Abu al Mahasin al Wasiti: Al Munazarah, pg. 201-203. This appears verbatim in al Hujaj al Bahirah, pg. 295-298, attributed falsely to Jalal al Din al Siddiqi al Dawani as appeared before.

^[11]  Al Sawa’iq al Muhriqah, 1/127.

^[12]  Nasir al Din Muhammad famously known as Khawajah Nasr Allah: Al Sawa’iq al Muhriqah, pg. 280. From the beginning of the book to the author’s statement, “One hundred and seventeen, study and investigation,” master’s thesis prepared by the student Muhammad ibn Ahmed ibn Buwalfal.

^[13]  Mukhtasar al Tuhfah al Ithnay ‘Ashariyyah, pg. 252.

^[14]  Al Suyuf al Mushriqah wa Mukhtasar al Sawa’iq al Muhriqah, pg. 157.

^[15]  Al ghab appears in the printed version. Probably, what we wrote is correct.

^[16]  Sharh al Kharidah al Ghaybiyyah fi Sharh al Qasidah al ‘Ayniyyah, pg. 71.