The Attack on the House of Fatima (عليها السلام)

[Ansar Shiat Ali]

This is one of the most controversial topic in Islamic History. I took the time to research and bring together a thread over the complete story.

We are not trying to dive in on how Abu Bakr usurped the Caliphate or how the Saqīfa went down. Just the attack on the house.

 

It starts with Ali Ibn Abi Talib (عليه السلام) not wanting to give allegiance, he wasn’t the only one who opposed Abu Bakr,

(The people who opposed the pledge to Abu Bakr)

“Ali, Abbas, Zubayr, and Sa’d Ibn Ubada...”

Al Aqd al Farid, Ibn Abd al Bar al Andlusi, Vol.5, P.13

"...He (Ali) didn't pledge for 6 months? He replied 'No, (meaning he agrees) nor did anyone from Bani Hashim."

So it is clear that Ali (عليه السلام) And many other people opposed this pledge.

So what did Abu Bakr do? He sent Umar to get the Bay’ah

 

“...So Abu Bakr sent Umar to take them out of the house Of Fatima (عليها السلام) and he (Abu Bakr) said ‘If they deny, Fight them.’ So Umar went to the house with fire to burn the house, so Fatima (عليها السلام) met him at the door. She said to him, ‘Have you come to burn our house?’ He said ‘Yes, you will enter what the Ummah has entered.’ “
 

Al Mukhtasar, Imad al Deen Ismael, Vol.1, P.156

So now we will go to the threat,

 

“...(Umar says) O’ Daughter of Rasul Allah! No one was more beloved to me then your father, and no one after your father is more beloved to us then you. But By Allah, If these people stay in your house then this (love of mine) will not stop me from burning the House over them.”

Al Musanaf, Ibn Abi Shayba

"The Chain is Sahih"

"...'If they gather in your house, I will certainly do and I will certainly do!.' "

Al Isti'ab, Al Qurtubi, P.975

MashAllah, What did you understand? Why do they hide the fact that Ahlulbayt were oppressed?

Now, what happens with the threat, Umar involves fire and burning the house. 

"...(Fatima to Umar) 'Do I see you burning my door?' He replies, 'Yes.' "

Ansab al Ashraf, Baludhiri. (Very sry, I couldn't get a bigger picture)

"So he (Abu Bakr) Sent Umar. So the People yelled (for them to come out) while they were in the house of Ali (عليه السلام). They denied leaving the house so he (Umar) called for firewood. Umar then said, 'By the one who has the self of Umar in his Hand! You will come out or I will burn it on who is in it!.' It was said to Umar, 'O' Abu Hafsa, in the house is Fatima?' He replied 'So What?' "

Al Imama wa al Siyasa, Ibn Qutayba, P.30

So not only did he want to burn a holy house (that is in the Masjid), He also didn't care that Fatima (عليها السلام) was in the house.

So was the house attacked? Not threatened, Attacked. Yes.

"...They were separated because of the Fitna that ended with the Attack of the house of Fatima (عليها السلام), and for this Attack, it is confirmed through Sahih Chains."

The footnote says, "I thought the Attack was a lie and it isn't sahih, but I found many strong chains..."

Qira'at Fe Kitub al Aqa'id, Hasan Ibn Farhan al Maliki, P.46

Now, let's go to Ibn Tammiya who said this,

"They Attacked the house to see if there was any money they could give to the people who deserve it."

Minhaj al Sunnat Bani Ummaya, Shaykh Islam Banu Ummyah Ibn Tammiya.

May Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) curse the liars! If Ahlulbayt (عليهم السلام) had any money, why did Fatima (عليها السلام) need Fadak? Or did they forget that Ahlulbayt (عليهم السلام) didn't eat for 3 days?

Abu Bakr even admits that he attacked the house,

"...'I wish I didn't Attack the house of Fatima (عليها السلام) even if they closed it for War...' "

Kanz al Ummal, Al Mutaqi al Hindi.

Now, did Umar hit Fatima and kill the fetus in her belly?

"Umar hit the Belly of Fatima (عليها السلام) and killed the Fetus in her belly, and Umar would scream, 'Burn the house on who was in it!' And in the house was Ali, Fatima, Hasan, Husayn (عليهم السلام)!"

This concludes it.

و صل الله على محمد خاتم الانبياء و المرسلين و اله الاطهار

[Ansar Shiat Ali]

So What do u all think?

[Ali bin Hussein]

Where is the final refferance from regarding the burning and killing if the fetus (I don't speak Arabic). And what does it actually say.

[Muslim2010]

23 hours ago, Ansar Shiat Ali said:

This is one of the most controversial topic in Islamic History. I took the time to research and bring together a thread over the complete story.

We are not trying to dive in on how Abu Bakr usurped the Caliphate or how the Saqīfa went down. Just the attack on the house.

It starts with Ali Ibn Abi Talib (عليه السلام) not wanting to give allegiance, he wasn’t the only one who opposed Abu Bakr,

(The people who opposed the pledge to Abu Bakr)

“Ali, Abbas, Zubayr, and Sa’d Ibn Ubada...”

Al Aqd al Farid, Ibn Abd al Bar al Andlusi, Vol.5, P.13

"...He (Ali) didn't pledge for 6 months? He replied 'No, (meaning he agrees) nor did anyone from Bani Hashim."

So it is clear that Ali (عليه السلام) And many other people opposed this pledge.

So what did Abu Bakr do? He sent Umar to get the Bay’ah

“...So Abu Bakr sent Umar to take them out of the house Of Fatima (عليها السلام) and he (Abu Bakr) said ‘If they deny, Fight them.’ So Umar went to the house with fire to burn the house, so Fatima (عليها السلام) met him at the door. She said to him, ‘Have you come to burn our house?’ He said ‘Yes, you will enter what the Ummah has entered.’ “
Al Mukhtasar, Imad al Deen Ismael, Vol.1, P.156

So now we will go to the threat,

“...(Umar says) O’ Daughter of Rasul Allah! No one was more beloved to me then your father, and no one after your father is more beloved to us then you. But By Allah, If these people stay in your house then this (love of mine) will not stop me from burning the House over them.”

Al Musanaf, Ibn Abi Shayba

"The Chain is Sahih"

"...'If they gather in your house, I will certainly do and I will certainly do!.' "

Al Isti'ab, Al Qurtubi, P.975

MashAllah, What did you understand? Why do they hide the fact that Ahlulbayt were oppressed?

Now, what happens with the threat, Umar involves fire and burning the house. 

"...(Fatima to Umar) 'Do I see you burning my door?' He replies, 'Yes.' "

Ansab al Ashraf, Baludhiri. (Very sry, I couldn't get a bigger picture)

"So he (Abu Bakr) Sent Umar. So the People yelled (for them to come out) while they were in the house of Ali (عليه السلام). They denied leaving the house so he (Umar) called for firewood. Umar then said, 'By the one who has the self of Umar in his Hand! You will come out or I will burn it on who is in it!.' It was said to Umar, 'O' Abu Hafsa, in the house is Fatima?' He replied 'So What?' "

Al Imama wa al Siyasa, Ibn Qutayba, P.30

So not only did he want to burn a holy house (that is in the Masjid), He also didn't care that Fatima (عليها السلام) was in the house.

So was the house attacked? Not threatened, Attacked. Yes.

"...They were separated because of the Fitna that ended with the Attack of the house of Fatima (عليها السلام), and for this Attack, it is confirmed through Sahih Chains."

The footnote says, "I thought the Attack was a lie and it isn't sahih, but I found many strong chains..."

Qira'at Fe Kitub al Aqa'id, Hasan Ibn Farhan al Maliki, P.46

Now, let's go to Ibn Tammiya who said this,

"They Attacked the house to see if there was any money they could give to the people who deserve it."

Minhaj al Sunnat Bani Ummaya, Shaykh Islam Banu Ummyah Ibn Tammiya.

May Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) curse the liars! If Ahlulbayt (عليهم السلام) had any money, why did Fatima (عليها السلام) need Fadak? Or did they forget that Ahlulbayt (عليهم السلام) didn't eat for 3 days?

Abu Bakr even admits that he attacked the house,

"...'I wish I didn't Attack the house of Fatima (عليها السلام) even if they closed it for War...' "

Kanz al Ummal, Al Mutaqi al Hindi.

Now, did Umar hit Fatima and kill the fetus in her belly?

"Umar hit the Belly of Fatima (عليها السلام) and killed the Fetus in her belly, and Umar would scream, 'Burn the house on who was in it!' And in the house was Ali, Fatima, Hasan, Husayn (عليهم السلام)!"

This concludes it.

و صل الله على محمد خاتم الانبياء و المرسلين و اله الاطهار

Did the sunni  not try to make the denial of facts or degrade the authenticity of the narrations about attack?

wasalam

[Ansar Shiat Ali]

13 hours ago, Muslim2010 said:

Did the sunni  not try to make the denial of facts or degrade the authenticity of the narrations about attack?

Salam brother,

I think one did, all he said was the brother @Warilla replied to the hadiths and said they are weak, which is a lie. I told him so, then he stayed quiet.

[Ansar Shiat Ali]

20 hours ago, Warilla said:

Where is the final refferance from regarding the burning and killing if the fetus (I don't speak Arabic). And what does it actually say.

There are about 3 refs that I can get off of the top of my head. The 2 above and one more,

"So they attacked his (Ali's) house, and they burned his door...And they squeezed the Mistress of Women until she Miscarried Muhsin."
Ithbat al Wasiya, Masudi, P.154-155

Someone might say this is a Shia source. It Might be. But in Masudi's Muruj al Dhahab, he says (رضي الله عنه) to Abu Bakr. Honestly, I don't care if he is Sunni or Shia. He is a historian who narrated the truth.

Hopefully this helps.

[Ali bin Hussein]

On 12/5/2020 at 11:42 AM, Ansar Shiat Ali said:

Salam brother,

I think one did, all he said was the brother @Warilla replied to the hadiths and said they are weak, which is a lie. I told him so, then he stayed quiet.

I think the threat of burning the house. And alot of other things did happen. But the actual burning and physical attack on Bibi Fatima is denied by Sunni, and Zaidi scholars and there is also some minority 12er scholars who at least claim the narrations are weak. So as I'm not a  scholar, I follow the opinion of Ahlulbayt (through zaydia)if asked I say I don't believe it hapoened. If I found some strong evidence that me as a layman could verify i wouldn't deny it.

[Ansar Shiat Ali]

1 hour ago, Warilla said:

I think the threat of burning the house. And alot of other things did happen. But the actual burning and physical attack on Bibi Fatima is denied by Sunni, and Zaidi scholars and there is also some minority 12er scholars who at least claim the narrations are weak. So as I'm not a  scholar, I follow the opinion of Ahlulbayt (through zaydia)if asked I say I don't believe it hapoened. If I found some strong evidence that me as a layman could verify i wouldn't deny it.

 

Sunni sources point to an attack happening, as I showed above. I haven't really read the Zaydi Scholar room because I am not Zaydi. If you could give me a few Zaydi Scholars and some of their books, that would be cool. 

[Ali bin Hussein]

39 minutes ago, Ansar Shiat Ali said:

Sunni sources point to an attack happening, as I showed above. I haven't really read the Zaydi Scholar room because I am not Zaydi. If you could give me a few Zaydi Scholars and some of their books, that would be cool. 

As you said it's disputable whether the author are Shia or Sunni regarding the actual attack. As far as I know Sunni position is that it did not happen.

I'll try can you speak Arabic as there are lots of Arabic books. It would be helpful for me also.

 

Edited December 5, 2020 by Warilla

[Eddie Mecca]

Think about it logically. It would have been impossible for Yazid to decapitate Imam Husayn (alayhis-salām) and Mu'awiyah to fight Ali (and poison Hasan and besmirch Ali's fair reputation from the mimbar as an act of formal state policy for 50 bloody years) if the precedent of wholesale disrespect of the Prophet's family wasn't set 30 - 40 years prior by the Shaykhain.  If the exemplary model of loving and obeying Prophet's itrah by word and deed were etched in stone by those particular companions then what Mu'awiyah and Yazid did would have been absolutely impossible. It would have triggered a tsunami-like backlash among the Muslim masses. The attack on the house later gave Mu'awiyah and Yazid a pattern of behavior to futuristically mimic and replicate and take things to the next level. Also, now the Qurʼānic injunction (.i.e. "Say: I do not ask of you any reward for it but love for my near relatives" 42:23) to love them and ahadith commanding the same (i.e. Whosoever fights Ali, fights me, whoever fights me fights Allah. Whoever angers Fatima angers me etc.) make perfect sense in retrospect. It was a dire warning and a reminder for what was inevitably to come in the near future.

Edited December 6, 2020 by Eddie Mecca

[Guest Psychological Warfare]

Go back a little and understand the foundation of everything that took place later from Saqifa to Karbala, on that Black Thursday. Book of Allah(عزّ وجلّ) was not understood by  them, (Qur'an 3:7), nor did they understand Muhammad al- Mustafa (peace be upon him and his pure progeny).  I don't know why we do not have  this day as a day of Mourning,wearing black cloths , Have a Majlis -Cry on this Tragedy and deliver the Message -  we should every year. 

https://sunnah.com/muslim/25/29

"Sa'id b. Jubair reported that Ibn 'Abbas said:Thursday, (and then said): What is this Thursday? He then wept so much that his tears moistened the pebbles. ..."

[Ali bin Hussein]

2 hours ago, Eddie Mecca said:

Think about it logically......

Interesting theory, but it's ultimately just speculation. A layman either follows scholars or goes on explicit undeniable evidence. In the absence of strong evidence you can follow your scholars opinion of the attack. I follow the Zaidi opinion of there is evidence for the threat from hz Umar and some form of aggression at the house. But no burning, and Bibi Fatima died a natural death.

I understand the 12er position. But the only thing I would say is if you believe it happened then there is no reason to respect the caliphs and your Ulema should encourage open cursing of the murderers of Bibi Fatima. 

I would definitely curse them if I believed they killed Bibi Fatima the way I curse Muawiya and Yazeed.

Allah knows best.

Edited December 6, 2020 by Warilla

[Muslim2010]

20 hours ago, Warilla said:

I follow the Zaidi opinion of there is evidence for the threat from hz Umar and some form of aggression at the house. But no burning, and Bibi Fatima died a natural death.

Does such evidence not form the violation of the verse of quran 42:23, "Say: I do not ask of you any reward for it but love for my near relatives" ? and numerous hadith mentioned to love and respect Ahl alabyt by the prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)?

Edited December 6, 2020 by Muslim2010

[Ayuoobi]

Can someone post references to any part of this event from al-kuttub al-sittah? Not necessarily the part about the fetus, but even the threat to burn down the house.

[Ayuoobi]

@Ansar Shiat Ali can you repost the picture with the reference in Musanaf ibn abi shaybah?

[Eddie Mecca]

20 hours ago, Warilla said:

Interesting theory

Granted my theory isn't 100% conclusive but realize that social trends, social tendencies, socially accepted modes of behavior etc. normally don't pop into existence out of thin air...they appear due to some type of behavioral precursor. 

 

20 hours ago, Warilla said:

I follow the Zaidi opinion

 You might want to research the opinion of the Jarudiyah. They are the earliest and most authentic Zaydi branch/subgroup. The later groups (i.e. Sulaymaniyyah, and Batriyyah) sought to reconcile and compromise with the Sunni position. The Jarudiyah refuse to pull their punches regarding the actions of the first three caliphs and uncompromisingly call a spade a spade...they believe the Prophet (peace be upon him) appointed Ali by way of divine designation...they maintain the three caliphs should have easily recognized the superior traits innately found in Ali and failure to hand over the reigns of political authority was tantamount to sin...according to Shaykh al-Mufid only Twelvers, Ṭayyibi Ismā‘īlis, al-Kaysaniyyah and Jarudiyah should be classified or considered Shi'a....Jarudiyah also believe the Imam possesses a type of inborn divine knowledge in addition to acquisition of knowledge through naturalistic study or dutiful/diligent scholastic means...this is the theological school the Houthis follow and why I suppose they feel a deep ideological and moral connection with Iran and Hezbollah.

Edited December 7, 2020 by Eddie Mecca

[GEU_40]

23 minutes ago, Eddie Mecca said:

The Jarudiyah refuse to pull their punches regarding the actions of the first three caliphs and uncompromisingly call a spade a spade

When I think of Zaydis in general, the Jarudiyah always come to mind, although I was unaware of this term before.

[Eddie Mecca]

1 minute ago, Sabrejet said:

When I think of Zaydis in general, the Jarudiyah always come to mind, although I was unaware of this term before.

The first thing Anṣār Allāh did before venturing out to initiate the Zaydi revivalist movement in Yemen (circa 1990) was to delve deeply into the original source material and rediscover Zaydism...they concluded Zaydism to be much closer aligned with the Twelver position than previously thought...this is one reason why many Houthi-naysayers and Saudi propagandists consider them to be clandestine Twelvers or Iranian implants (although I believe Hussein Badreddin Houthi and one or two other Houthi family members did later embrace Ja'fari madhhab) stirring up trouble against Sunnis in southern Arabia.

[GEU_40]

1 minute ago, Eddie Mecca said:

The first thing Anṣār Allāh did before venturing out to initiate the Zaydi revivalist movement in Yemen (circa 1990) was to delve deeply into the original source material and rediscover Zaydism...they concluded Zaydism to be much closer aligned with the Twelver position than previously thought...this is one reason why many Houthi-naysayers and Saudi propagandists consider them to be clandestine Twelvers or Iranian implants (although I believe Hussein Badreddin Houthi and one or two other Houthi family members did later embrace Ja'fari madhhab) stirring up trouble against Sunnis in southern Arabia.

Something similar is happening with sunnis in Pakistan recently. Prominent sunnis have read their own material in greater depth, and are reassessing a lot of their long held beliefs. They have published research papers and have published lectures on youtube.

Issues like Ghadir e Khum, Jamal, Siffin, and Karbala are hotly discussed topics. Nasibis and their beliefs are being exposed left and right. The term "Maula Ali ((عليه السلام))" is becoming more commonly accepted among sunnis (although for different reasons than shias). These changes are possible because sunni hadith literature is easily available online, and scholars are easily accessible through platforms like youtube.

[Eddie Mecca]

5 minutes ago, Sabrejet said:

Something similar is happening with sunnis in Pakistan recently

Hopefully Imran Khan gravitates closer and closer to Tehran and away from Riyadh. Hopefully the Talban's leadership realizes the folly and error of their past ways and begins to play a progressive role in attempts made to unify Khorasan. The Taliban has recently made a groundbreaking move by recruiting their first ever Hazara tribal leader. It's part of a new trend to broaden and soften its image. Let's hope this current continues to grow. President Rouhani’s outreach to Ghani helped mend bilateral ties in 2018. We'll be patient and see what happens.

[Ali bin Hussein]

2 hours ago, Eddie Mecca said:

Granted ......

 .

The Hadawi madhab I follow is Jarudiya. As far as I know the opinion is that Bibi Fatima died a natural death. If natural death wasn't mentioned in our books then one could argue that Ahlulbayt choose to remain silent on the topic.

But Zaidiai difficult to box. As it's more of a gradient even within "Jarudiya the opinion on the Caliphs vary" Also I haven't encountered anything from Zaidi scholars about in born knowledge. They maintain everything Imam Ali knew was learnt from Rasool'Allah.

I would be interested to read any primary Zaidi (not non Zaidi commentary) material that suggest otherwise.

On a side note although terms like batiriyya and Jarudiya are mentioned in later Zaidi encyclopedias. But the opinion I these terms were coined by non Zaidis to categories. The Sholars sort of reject these boxes and say scholars of Ahlulbayt have ijma on topics or they differ along the gradient of views. 

I guess it's a bit like Akhbari and Usooli. As an outsider it's easier to box it off as one or the other but any 12er with a bit of knowledge will know it's more subtle  and even scholars like Sheikh Baharani began applying some Usooli principles later.

Edited December 7, 2020 by Warilla

[Ansar Shiat Ali]

Salam Brother, it is in the breakdown of the story, the 4th source.

[Zainuu]

7 hours ago, Eddie Mecca said:

The first thing Anṣār Allāh did before venturing out to initiate the Zaydi revivalist movement in Yemen (circa 1990) was to delve deeply into the original source material and rediscover Zaydism...they concluded Zaydism to be much closer aligned with the Twelver position than previously thought...this is one reason why many Houthi-naysayers and Saudi propagandists consider them to be clandestine Twelvers or Iranian implants (although I believe Hussein Badreddin Houthi and one or two other Houthi family members did later embrace Ja'fari madhhab) stirring up trouble against Sunnis in southern Arabia.

Maybe because it might appear that the Zaydism in a pattern of what it follows, appears to be close to the Sunnis. 

But if we delve into a little bit of history, it is easier to catch that the principles of Zaydism are more closer to Shia Imamis. For example, out of all the sects, the most involved ideology (not people) into politics seems to be Shia and Zaydism. The ideas of revolution and change for the better in the society. The idea of 'never to humiliation' are practiced much deeply by Zaydism and Shia.

I also read somewhere that Ansarullah and Houthis are different. Ansarullah is a movement which is led on the top mostly by the Houthis. Houthis are dominant by population also maybe. While, Ansarullah also includes Imami shias too. 

[Ansar Shiat Ali]

On 12/6/2020 at 4:14 AM, Warilla said:

I follow the Zaidi opinion of there is evidence for the threat from hz Umar and some form of aggression at the house. But no burning, and Bibi Fatima died a natural death.

Salam brother. Some people act like that a threat to burn your house down is something that happens Regularly and it is completely fine. Everything changes for Sunnis when it comes to the Sahaba. Not only is he threatening to burn a house down, it is the house of Fatima (عليه السلام), and the it in the Masjid (a house of Allah)! So, if I was your friend and I came to your house, to your wife, and I told her ‘Tell your Husband to come out, if he doesn’t, I will burn the house down.’ What would you think of me?

[Ali bin Hussein]

14 minutes ago, Ansar Shiat Ali said:

Salam brother. Some people act like that a threat to burn your house down is something that happens Regularly and it is completely fine. Everything changes for Sunnis when it comes to the Sahaba. Not only is he threatening to burn a house down, it is the house of Fatima (عليه السلام), and the it in the Masjid (a house of Allah)! So, if I was your friend and I came to your house, to your wife, and I told her ‘Tell your Husband to come out, if he doesn’t, I will burn the house down.’ What would you think of me?

My personal feelings are irrelevant.  

Also I'm not Sunni I don't view sahaba as they do.

What is important are determining facts. Was an action taken that lead to the murder of Bibi Fatima you say yes, I say no.

Murder and threat are not the same things in Sharia law.

Edited December 7, 2020 by Warilla

[Muslim2010]

15 hours ago, Ansar Shiat Ali said:

Salam brother. Some people act like that a threat to burn your house down is something that happens Regularly and it is completely fine. Everything changes for Sunnis when it comes to the Sahaba. Not only is he threatening to burn a house down, it is the house of Fatima (عليه السلام), and the it in the Masjid (a house of Allah)! So, if I was your friend and I came to your house, to your wife, and I told her ‘Tell your Husband to come out, if he doesn’t, I will burn the house down.’ What would you think of me?

I do not agree with thoughts of any person who favors or  pays respect to the act of even disrespect (other than burning  of house and killing ) of the daughter of the prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). My view is clear in accordance with the verse of Muwaddah (42:23) and other hadith.

wasalam

Edited December 7, 2020 by Muslim2010

[Ansar Shiat Ali]

On 12/6/2020 at 4:06 PM, Ayuoobi said:

@Ansar Shiat Ali can you repost the picture with the reference in Musanaf ibn abi shaybah?

It is the 4th source I believe.

[Ain-Al Hayat]

"This world is like a snake, soft to touch, but full of venom inside."

Imam Ali (عليه السلام)

[Nightclaw]

On 12/5/2020 at 11:14 PM, Warilla said:

As you said it's disputable whether the author are Shia or Sunni regarding the actual attack. As far as I know Sunni position is that it did not happen.

I'll try can you speak Arabic as there are lots of Arabic books. It would be helpful for me also.

Al-Masudi was a Shi'i Mu'tazilite. Ibn Hajar, Ibn al-Subki, Al-Baghdadi, Ad-Dhahabi, etc. all denounced him.

[Ansar Shiat Ali]

12 minutes ago, Nightclaw said:

Al-Masudi was a Shi'i Mu'tazilite. Ibn Hajar, Ibn al-Subki, Al-Baghdadi, Ad-Dhahabi, etc. all denounced him.

Then why do Sunnis print his Muruj al Dhahab? He says sal Allah Alayhi wa Salem, and also says (رضي الله عنه) to Abu Bakr. He is a historian who narrated the truth.

[Ansar Shiat Ali]

15 minutes ago, Nightclaw said:

Al-Masudi was a Shi'i Mu'tazilite. Ibn Hajar, Ibn al-Subki, Al-Baghdadi, Ad-Dhahabi, etc. all denounced him.

Also Ibn Hajar says that there is no problem with taking from Shias if they are thiqah. Even the Shia say that there is no problem with taking from Sunnis (In the chain) if they are thiqah and they are not Nasibis.

[Nightclaw]

16 hours ago, Ansar Shiat Ali said:

Then why do Sunnis print his Muruj al Dhahab? He says sal Allah Alayhi wa Salem, and also says (رضي الله عنه) to Abu Bakr. He is a historian who narrated the truth.

Zaydis also say رضي الله عنه. This is not limited to only Sunnis. Printing something does not necessitate acceptance. All Sunnis are not the same.

He is a denounced historian. You can say he narrated the truth, but this event of the attack on Fatima's house only arose 300+ years after the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). Nothing of it is dated prior, including every single one of the books you mentioned that mention this story or allude to it actually happening.

[Nightclaw]

2 minutes ago, Ansar Shiat Ali said:

Also Ibn Hajar says that there is no problem with taking from Shias if they are thiqah. Even the Shia say that there is no problem with taking from Sunnis (In the chain) if they are thiqah and they are not Nasibis.

Even if this were the case, which it isn't, the person you have put forth (al-Masudi) was denounced by Ibn Hajar himself.

[Ansar Shiat Ali]

3 minutes ago, Nightclaw said:

He is a denounced historian. You can say he narrated the truth, but this event of the attack on Fatima's house only arose 300+ years after the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). Nothing of it is dated prior, including every single one of the books you mentioned that mention this story or allude to it actually happening.

 

If you say that it was narrated 300+ Years after the death of Rasul Allah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم), then denounce your fabricated Abdul Allah Ibn Saba story. It was narrated 200 years after the death of Rasul Allah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).

 

Back to al Masudi, Ibn Hajar saying that he is a Shia, then he says Mu’tazilli. Mu’tazila are Sunnis. Take Ibn Abi al Hadid for example. He is a Sunni Mu’tazille. So what Ibn Hajar is basically saying he is a Shia and Sunni (because the Mu’tazilla are a Sunni sect)

[Nightclaw]

2 minutes ago, Ansar Shiat Ali said:

If you say that it was narrated 300+ Years after the death of Rasul Allah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم), then denounce your fabricated Abdul Allah Ibn Saba story. It was narrated 200 years after the death of Rasul Allah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).

 

Back to al Masudi, Ibn Hajar saying that he is a Shia, then he says Mu’tazilli. Mu’tazila are Sunnis. Take Ibn Abi al Hadid for example. He is a Sunni Mu’tazille. So what Ibn Hajar is basically saying he is a Shia and Sunni (because the Mu’tazilla are a Sunni sect)

It is not simply the fact it was narrated over 300 years after the Messenger, but the mere fact that it appears from nowhere with no chain of transmission or chain of transmitters that are authentic. Do not use the appeal to hypocrisy to defend your position. If you make the claim that the Ibn Saba' story is a fabrication, prove it. Though there is no need, because I really will not read it or look at it. It is prevalent in both of our books.

Bring the quote from Ibn Hajar's book in response to al-Masudi. You will see that he mentions that al-Masudi is a Shi'a because of his tendencies and his works are that of the Mu'tazili - therefore rejected. Not because he is "Sunni and Shi'a".