The position of the Mu’tazili scholars
March 19, 2025The position of the Imami scholars and authors
March 19, 2025BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents
The position of the Zaidi scholars
A critic may object to what we have mentioned of the positions of the Sunni scholars and their counterparts from the Mu’tazilah, saying that their opinion is questionable, because they claim that they do not go back to the heritage of the Prophet’s family and are loyal to others. Despite this claim being clearly false, if we were to accept the validity of his objection, he would not cite such an objection when we argue with him with the words of Zaidi scholars who consider themselves loyal to the Prophet’s family. So, the opponent cannot accuse the Zaidis of being hostile, in particular to the Prophet’s family, or being loyal to their opponents. For this reason, we saw fit to clarify their position on the rib-breaking myth.
The words of Abu al Hussain al Basri, who exonerated the Zaidis as a whole from believing in the rib-breaking story, have already passed. He said:
لو كانت هذه صحيحة لما ذهب عنها الزيدية بأجمعها
If this were true, the Zaidis as a whole would not have abandoned it.
This is what the contemporary Zaidi researcher Qasim Hassan al Siraji decided when he said:
رواية أن عمر ضرب فاطمة وإسقاطها للمحسن لم أجد له أصلًا في كتب الزيدية
The story that ‘Umar struck Fatimah and caused her to miscarry Muhsin, I did not find any basis for it in the Zaidi books.[1]
This indicates that this legend has no basis in the Zaidi heritage and their narratives transmitted from the Ahlul Bayt, knowing that a group of Zaidi scholars believe that ‘Ali’s pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr was under duress and some of them believe that the pledge of allegiance took place after the incident of the threat of burning[2], yet despite this, their books are devoid of the rib-breaking narration.[3] They attributed to their Imam, Zaid ibn ‘Ali, the denial of this story. They narrated from Salamah ibn Kuhayl that he said to Zaid ibn ‘Ali, “People claim that Fatimah was struck.” Zaid ibn ‘Ali replied, “She was more honourable to her family than that, O Abu Yahya.”[4]
Yahya ibn al Qasim al Zaidi said after mentioning this narration:
فترى زيدا أنكر صحة الرواية لذلك وهو إمام الزيدية
You see Zaid denying the authenticity of this narration; and he is the Imam of the Zaidis.[5]
Therefore, most Zaidi scholars deny the rib-breaking incident. This is what we have found from their statements:
1. Abu al Qasim al Basti (lived in the fifth century)
Abu al Qasim al Basti mentioned the argument of the opponents with the story of ‘Umar’s beating Fatimah and the miscarriage of Muhsin, the report of Zaid ibn Aslam threatening to burn her, the report of Abu Bakr’s regret over exposing Fatimah’s house, and other fabricated reports. He responded to them saying:
الأصل أن هذه الأخبار رُويت من طرق ضعيفة ورجال طُعن فيهم ونُسبوا إلى وضع الحديث وطُعن في أديانهم
The reality is that these reports were narrated through weak paths and men who were censured and attributed to fabricating hadiths and censured for [incorrect] religious beliefs.
And he said criticising its text:
مثل هذا لا يجوز أن يظهر [إلا] ظهورًا يوقع العلم لأنه أعظم شيء يتصور لو كان صحيحًا حدث في الصدر الأول فيستدل بفقده على كونه كذبًا وأنه لم يكن ويستدل بما روي من رجوعهم إلى أمير المؤمنين في المسائل واستمدادهم من جهة الرأي والمشورة فيما كان يحدث من الحوادث وبحضوره الصلاة إذا ما صلوا وبمواصلته لعمر وبثنائه على أبي بكر وعمر على ما بينا في كتاب الإمامة أن هذه الأخبار لا أصل لها
Something like this cannot appear [except][6] in a way that leads to knowledge, because it is the greatest thing that can be imagined, if it was true, that happened in the first generation, so its absence[7] is used as evidence that it is a lie and that it did not happen. Moreover, evidence is used with what was narrated of their referring to the Commander of the Faithful in matters and seeking his opinion and advice regarding the incidents that were transpiring, his attendance at the Salah when they prayed, his befriending[8] ‘Umar, and his praise of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar, as we explained in the Book of Imamah that these reports have no basis.[9]
2. Yahya ibn Hamzah (749 AH)
Yahya ibn Hamzah considered what was narrated of ‘Umar beating Fatimah until she miscarried Muhsin to be from the myths and forgeries of the extremists.[10]
In his book al Tahqiq fi Taqrir Adillat al Ikfar wa al Tafsiq, he listed the narrations in which Fatimah was beaten, threatened with burning, and other evidence that the opponents use as evidence to attack ‘Ali and Fatimah. Then he said:
هذه الروايات رويت من طرق ضعيفة وحكايات موهومة عن رجال لا يوثق بدينهم وينسبون إلى وضع الأحاديث واختلاقها فما هذا حاله لا يمكن قبوله ولا يصغى إليه بل تكون مردودة على ناقلها وراويها إلى أن يقول فيقال إن هذه الأخبار موضوعة كما وضعت تلك والقصد بوضعها الطعن في الصحابة وإسقاط منازلهم في الدين وأما ثانيا فلما عُلم من حال الصحابة رضي الله عنهم من تعظيم أمير المؤمنين ورفع منزلته واستمدادهم من جهته للرأي والمشورة واعتمادهم على فتواه في مسائل الاجتهاد ولحضوره للصلوات إذا صلوا وبمواصلته لهم وثباته عليهم وكل ما ذكرناه يبطل ما تقدم من هذه الروايات المكذوبة
These narrations were narrated through weak chains and imaginary stories from men whose religion is not trustworthy and they are attributed to fabricating and inventing hadiths. So, such a situation cannot be accepted or heeded, rather it should be rejected against its transmitter and narrator… It is said that these narrations are fabricated just as those were fabricated. The intention of fabricating them is to attack the Companions and lower their status in religion…
As for the second: Since it is known from the state of the Companions radiya Llahu ‘anhum of venerating the Commander of the Faithful and raising his status, seeking from him opinion and advice, relying on his rulings in matters of ijtihad, his attendance at prayers when they prayed, his associating with them and his steadfastness with them, and everything we mentioned invalidates the fabricated narrations that came before.[11]
3. Yahya ibn al Hassan al Qurashi al Sa’di (780 AH)
He said, commenting on the accusations that the extremists attribute to Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu:
ومنها ما روي أن عمر لما بويع لأبي بكر أتى منزل فاطمة وفيه بنو هاشم وغيرهم فأحرق الباب وأخرج عليًا كارهًا يقاد إلى البيعة وكسر سيف الزبير وضرب فاطمة حتى ألقت جنينًا في بطنها وأن أبا بكر قال لعلي حين وصل إليه لئن لم تبايع لأضربن الذي فيه عيناك قالوا وهذا كله يدل على فسقه وفسق عمر ومن والاهما
Among them is what was narrated that when ‘Umar pledged allegiance to Abu Bakr, he went to the house of Fatimah, in which were the Banu Hashim and others, burned the door and took ‘Ali out reluctantly to be led to the pledge of allegiance, broke al Zubair’s sword, and beat Fatimah until she miscarried a foetus in her womb, and that Abu Bakr said to ‘Ali when he reached him, “If you do not pledge allegiance, I will beat that which contain your eyes [i.e. your head].” They claim: All of this indicates his immorality and the immorality of ‘Umar and those who supported them.
Then he responded to that by saying that the Mu’tazilah accused the extremists of fabricating these narrations:
وكيف يُظن بالصحابة هذا على علو مكانتهم في الدين ومعرفتهم بقدر أهل بيت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ولو وقع شيء من ذلك لأنف أكثر المسلمين لأهل بيت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ولما صبر بنو هاشم على هذه الذلة وبعد فلو وقع ذلك لكان نقله ظاهرًا متواترًا لعظمه وغرابته قال المعتزلة والمروي خلاف هذا كله هو أن عليًا رضي الله عنه حضر المسجد طائعًا وبايع ورضي البيعة وإن كان المعلوم من قصده أنه كان أولى بها
How can this be suspected of the Companions, notwithstanding their high status in religion and their knowledge of the status of the family of the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam? If something like this had happened, majority of the Muslims would have been sickened for the sake of the family of the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, and the Banu Hashim would not have been patient with this humiliation. And if this had happened, its transmission would have been apparent and continuous due to its severity and strangeness.
The Mu’tazilah said, “What is narrated is contrary to all of this, that ‘Ali ‘alayh al Salam attended the Masjid willingly and pledged allegiance and was satisfied with the pledge, even though it is known from his resolve that he was more deserving of it.”[12]
He said, commenting on their attacks on ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu:
ومنها ما رووا أن عليًا لما تخلف عن البيعة والزبير جاء إلى باب فاطمة فأحرقه وفعل وفعل وأن فاطمة ماتت بسبب ضرب بطنها
الجواب ما تقدم عن المعتزلة من أنه لا يظن العاقل بالصحابة مثل هذا لا سيما مع شرف بني هاشم وعزة نفوسهم وقد كانت العرب كلها تقوم معهم في مثل هذا
And among them is what they narrated that when ‘Ali and al Zubair failed to pledge allegiance, he came to the door of Fatimah and burned it and did this and that and that Fatimah died because of a blow to her stomach…
The answer is what was mentioned by the Mu’tazilah that no rational person would think such a thing about the Companions, especially with the honour of the Banu Hashim and the pride of their souls. Moreover, all the Arabs would stand with them in such a thing.[13]
4. ‘Izz al Din ibn al Hassan ibn al Mu’ayyad (900 AH)
Ibn al Mu’ayyad said in his explanation of the above words of Yahya ibn al Hassan al Qurashi al Sa’di when responding to the attacks attributed to Abu Bakr al Siddiq radiya Llahu ‘anhu:
لا شك أنها لم تبلغ حد التواتر وإيمان القوم معلوم مشهور وفضلهم معروف غير منكور وتلك الأمور المنسوبة إليهم لا تليق بحالهم وفضلهم ولا يصدر مثلها إلا عن الجبابرة المفرطين في الظلم والعدوان كما كان من خلفاء الجور الأمويين والعباسيين وأما أصحاب رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وخواصه ومن سمحوا بديارهم وأموالهم وآبائهم وأبنائهم في محبته ونصرته وحفظ أديانهم فمن البعيد أن يصدر منهم ما فيه إحباط لأعمالهم الصالحة وجرأة على الله وهتك لحرمة رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وينبغي اجتناب الظن السَّيء فيهم فهو من البعض الذي هو إثم
There is no doubt that they did not reach the level of continuous transmission. Furthermore, the faith of the people is known and famous, their virtue is known and not denied, and those matters attributed to them do not befit their status and merit. Such things only come from tyrants who are excessive in injustice and aggression, as was the case with the unjust Umayyad and Abbasid caliphs. As for the Companions of the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, his confidants, and those who allowed their homes, money, fathers, and children to be sacrificed in his love, support, and the preservation of their religion, it is highly unlikely that they would do something that would nullify their good deeds, be bold with Allah, and violate the sanctity of the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. It is necessary to avoid bad thoughts about them, as it is from the part that is a sin![14]
He said when responding to the attacks of the Imamiyyah on ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu:
قوله جاء إلى باب فاطمة فأحرقه وفعل وفعل المذكور أن عمر قام على الباب وقال لئن لم يخرج ابن أبي طالب لأحرقن عليه البيت بمن فيه وأخرج عليًا والزبير وكسر سيفه قوله وإن فاطمة ماتت بسبب ضربة على بطنها الذي رووه أنه لما دخل عمر عليهم البيت اعتمد على الباب واعتمدت فاطمة عليه فضرب الباب على بطنها فألقت صبيًا اسمه محسن وبقيت عليلة إلى أن ماتت قوله من أنه لا يظن العاقل بالصحابة مثل هذا قال الإمام يحيى وهذه الروايات رويت من طرق ضعيفة وحكايات موهومة عن رجال لا يوثق بدينهم يُنسبون إلى وضع الأحاديث و تُنزَّل هذه الأخبار في الرد والتهمة منزلة أخبار الجبر والتشبيه والقصدُ بوضعها الطعنُ في الصحابة وإسقاط منازلهم في الدين قال ولا معنى لتأويل هذه القصص فإنها لو صحت لكانت من الكبائر المبطلة للأعمال الموجبة لاستحقاق النار قال وخلافها معلوم من حال الصحابة يعني فقد علم منهم تعظيم أمير المؤمنين ورفع منزلته واستمدادهم من جهته للرأي والمشورة واعتمادهم على فتواه في مسائل الإجتهاد
His saying, “He came to the door of Fatimah and burned it and did this and that.” It is mentioned that ‘Umar stood at the door and said, “If Ibn Abi Talib does not come out, I will burn the house down with everyone in it,” and he took out ‘Ali and al Zubair and broke his sword.
His saying, “And Fatimah died because of a blow to her stomach.” What they narrated is that when ‘Umar entered the house, he leaned on the door and Fatimah in turn leaned against it, so he pushed the door on her stomach and she miscarried a boy named Muhsin, and remained ill until she died.
His saying, “That no sane person would think of the Companions like this.” Imam Yahya said, “These narrations were narrated through weak chains and imaginary stories, from men whose religion is not trustworthy, who are attributed to fabricating reports. In refutation and indictment, these narrations are placed on the level as those of al Jabr[15] and al Tashbih[16]. The purpose of fabricating them is to attack the Companions and bring down their status in religion.”
He said, “There is no point in interpreting these stories, for if they were true, they would be among the major sins that nullify deeds and necessitate deserving Hellfire.”
He said, “And the opposite is known from the state of the Companions,” i.e. it is known from them that they respected the Commander of the Faithful, raised his status, sought advice and opinion from him, and relied on his rulings in matters of ijtihad.[17]
5. Yahya ibn al Hussain ibn al Qasim (1100 AH)
He said in his book al Idah lima Khafa min al Ittifaq ‘ala Ta’zim Sahabat al Mustafa:
ما يروى من أن عمر أحرق بيت علي بن أبي طالب وأن فاطمة لُطمت فهو كذب ومثله ذكر النجري في شرح القلائد وهو من كبار علماء الهادوية وقال موضوع وروي عن سلمة بن كهيل وغيره بإسناده إلى يحيى بن سلمة قال أخبرني أبي عن زيد بن علي قال قلت له يزعمون أن فاطمة لُطمت قال زيد كانت أكرم على أهلها من ذلك يا أبا يحيى انتهى فترى زيدًا أنكر صحة الرواية لذلك وهو إمام الزيدية
What is narrated that ‘Umar burned the house of ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib and that Fatimah was slapped, is a lie. Similarly, al Najri mentioned in Sharh al Qala’id, and he is one of the great scholars of the al Hadawiyyah, “It is fabricated. It was narrated on the authority of Salamah ibn Kuhayl and others with his isnad to Yahya ibn Salamah who said: My father told me that he asked Zaid ibn ‘Ali, ‘They claim that Fatimah was slapped.’ Zaid answered, ‘She was more honourable to her family than that, O Abu Yahya.’” You see that Zaid denied the authenticity of this narration and he is the Imam of the Zaidis.[18]
NEXT⇒ The position of the Imami scholars and authors
[1] He said this in his commentary on the words of Yahya ibn Hamzah in Majmu’ al Imam al Mu’ayyad bi Rabb al ‘Izzah Yahya ibn Hamzah, pg. 201, footnote 1.
[2] See what Qasim al Siraji mentioned in his commentary on the words of Yahya ibn Hamzah in Majmu’ al Imam al Mu’ayyad bi Rabb al ‘Izzah Yahya ibn Hamzah, pg. 201, footnote 1.
[3] With the exception of what is mentioned in the book Tathbit al Imamah, pg. 16-18, attributed to Yahya ibn al Hussain, known as al Hadi ila al Haqq (298 AH), which contains a narration about the legend of the attack on Fatimah’s house and Khalid’s whipping of her. This text is not worthy of attention, because this book was fabricated by some of the later students of Yahya ibn al Hussain, and the edition in which this text was mentioned, which was printed in the year 1419 AH, relied on a handwritten copy dated 1399 AH, i.e. only twenty years before the book was printed. The copyist of this copy claimed that he had copied it from a copy dated 782 AH. So, how can one rely on such a weak argument to attribute an unknown book to an author from the third century? In addition to the existence of another treatise called Tathbit al Imamah by Yahya ibn al Hussain, which was printed by the distinguished Zaidi scholar Muhammad ‘Azzan in the book al Muntakhab wa yalihi Kitab al Funun, and it was printed by ‘Abdullah ibn Muhammad al Shadhili in Majmu’ Rasa’il al Hadi. However, the researcher of the independent edition of the book Tathbit al Imamah—whose name was not disclosed—accused Muhammad ‘Azzan of printing the book Tathbit al Imamah with distortion and deletion. This is contrary to the truth, as the version that this objector relied on differs from the version that ‘Azzan relied on in everything. Professor Zaidi Muhammad ‘Azzan stated that the book Tathbit al Imamah that was published independently cannot be attributed to al Hadi. He presented numerous pieces of evidence for that, perhaps the most obvious of which is the difference in the style of that letter from all of Imam al Hadi’s books and the weakness of expression to the point that a expert of Arabic speech cannot imagine that its writer had knowledge of the Arabic language and its styles, as it included errors in the formulation of sentences and colloquial vocabulary was used in it. (See: al Sahabah ‘ind al Zaidiyyah, pg. 133-136.)
[4] Tasmiyat man Rawa ‘an Zaid ibn ‘Ali, pg. 74.
[5] Al Idah lima Khafa min al Ittifaq ‘ala Ta’zim Sahabat al Mustafa, pg. 242. There is scepticism in attributing this to Zaid. Nonetheless, we have quoted the words attributed to Zaid on the methodology of the Zaidiyyah in citing evidence; the onus is upon them.
[6] This addition is not in the printed version. We included it because the sentence is not correct without it. It appears that it was omitted from the manuscript and the researcher did not notice that the sentence was not correct without it. The author’s intention is that if these reports were correct, it would not be permissible unless it was narrated through clear and obvious chains and it would be transmitted in ways that create certainty and conviction because it is a major event. If it had occurred, it would have been one of the greatest events in the early period, which cannot be narrated through such chains.
[7] I.e. with the absence of the emergence of the report and its spread.
[8] Probably this is an error and the correct wording is: bi musahiratihi li ‘Umar since the habit of the Mu’tazilah is evidencing ‘Ali’s relation to ‘Umar to destroy the claim of Imamah.
[9] Al Bahth ‘an Adillat al Takfir wa al Tafsiq, pg. 126-127.
[10] Mishkat al Anwar li al Salikin Masalik al Abrar, pg. 201, printed with Majmu’ al Imam al Mu’ayyad bi Rabb al ‘Izzah Yahya ibn Hamzah.
[11] Al Tahqiq fi Taqrir Adillat al Ikfar wa al Tafsiq, 2/545-546. Our statement here is close to the statement of Abu al Qasim al Basti which just passed.
[12] Minhaj al Muttaqin fi Ma’rifat Rabb al ‘Alamin, 4/227, printed with al Mi’raj ila Asrar al Minhaj.
[13] Minhaj al Muttaqin fi Ma’rifat Rabb al ‘Alamin, 4/236-237.
[14] Al Mi’raj ila Asrar al Minhaj, 4/227, footnote.
[15] The belief that human beings have no choice or free will.
[16] Anthropomorphism, or the act of attributing human characteristics or forms to Allah.
[17] Al Mi’raj ila Asrar al Minhaj, 4/236-237, footnote.
[18] Al Idah lima Khafa min al Ittifaq ‘ala Ta’zim Sahabat al Mustafa, pg. 242.