Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
ShiaChat.com
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

The Attack on the House of Fatima (عليها السلام)

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 118
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

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 usurp

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 mim

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

Posted Images

  • Veteran Member
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

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
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,

%D8%A5%D8%AB%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%AA%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%88%D8%B5%D9%8A%D8%A9%20%D9%84%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%85%20%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%8A%D8%8C%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%B3%D8%B9%D9%88%D8%AF%D9%8A_0000.jp2&id=ghiloufik_gmail_20160831_1143&scale=4&rotate=0

2-LI1-LI

"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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
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 by Warilla
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. ..."

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
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 by Warilla
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
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 by Warilla
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
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 by Warilla
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
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 by Muslim2010
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
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)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
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".

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...