Are there Shia Ahadith claiming that Umer didn't kill Bibi Fatima SA

[Solo_Ta72]

Salam alaikum brother and sisters 

This Question might've been answered before. So if it is that quote the thread

If not:

I have a habit of watching Muslim Apologists Videos but unfortunately shia Muslims I don't know don't make such videos on YouTube anyways one of them is Farid Responds 

I haven't watched his video as i lack knowledge regarding Ahadith but the title of video said that Shias can't defend the claim of Umer Killing bibi fatima (SA) so probably debated with some Shia brothers of Ours and they maybe were not able to defend the claim 

If anyone knows which ahadith are these and are they authentic

JazakAllah khair 

 

 

 

[Ashvazdanghe]

7 hours ago, Solo_Ta72 said:

I haven't watched his video as i lack knowledge regarding Ahadith but the title of video said that Shias can't defend the claim of Umer Killing bibi fatima (SA) so probably debated with some Shia brothers of Ours and they maybe were not able to defend the claim 

Salam such Wahabi Apologists channels never have done a real debate with any knowledgeable Shia muslims  because fact of attacking Umar to lhouse of lady Fatima (sa) & herself has been numerous imes has been proven from both of reliable Sunni & Shia Hadiths anyway such channels stubbornly play with words to deny the fact which debating with such channels is just wasting of time because the Wahabi Apologists channels are too close minded which they don't accept any evidence which they just try to cause spread misinformation in order to cause doubt in mind of people .

[AbdusSibtayn]

On 3/19/2023 at 3:23 AM, Solo_Ta72 said:

Salam alaikum brother and sisters 

This Question might've been answered before. So if it is that quote the thread

If not:

I have a habit of watching Muslim Apologists Videos but unfortunately shia Muslims I don't know don't make such videos on YouTube anyways one of them is Farid Responds 

I haven't watched his video as i lack knowledge regarding Ahadith but the title of video said that Shias can't defend the claim of Umer Killing bibi fatima (SA) so probably debated with some Shia brothers of Ours and they maybe were not able to defend the claim 

If anyone knows which ahadith are these and are they authentic

JazakAllah khair 

 

 

 

1. Stop getting into polemics and apologetics until you have enough knowledge, adroitness and a solid enough grasp over your own fiqh and aqaid. 

2. There's a refutation series to his claim on the Bayat al-Ghadeer channel. 

Forgive me for this, but I have generally observed that you have a somewhat morbid tendency to deliberately get into material that causes doubts, and then to come here seeking clarification. That is not how you study religion. Ameer al-Mu'mineen(عليه السلام) has said that the one who seeks to learn religion through debates and polemics will become a zindeeq (heretic). Acquire solid foundations in your own beliefs first so that you may not go astray. Polemics is not for everyone, and often does more harm than good- steer clear of it. 

Wassalam, wallah yahdeek. 

Edited March 22 by AbdusSibtayn

[Solo_Ta72]

On 3/23/2023 at 12:39 AM, AbdusSibtayn said:

1. Stop getting into polemics and apologetics until you have enough knowledge, adroitness and a solid enough grasp over your own fiqh and aqaid. 

2. There's a refutation series to his claim on the Bayat al-Ghadeer channel. 

Forgive me for this, but I have generally observed that you have a somewhat morbid tendency to deliberately get into material that causes doubts, and then to come here seeking clarification. That is not how you study religion. Ameer al-Mu'mineen(عليه السلام) has said that the one who seeks to learn religion through debates and polemics will become a zindeeq (heretic). Acquire solid foundations in your own beliefs first so that you may not go astray. Polemics is not for everyone, and often does more harm than good- steer clear of it. 

Wassalam, wallah yahdeek. 

Thank you for your response

Actually I don't want to but i somehow end up reading them i try to avoid but my brain somewhat forces me to do it 

This might sound ridiculous but i actually don't wanna see or read hate speech or anything.....

JazakAllah khair for your response 

 

[AbdusSibtayn]

3 hours ago, Solo_Ta72 said:

Thank you for your response

Actually I don't want to but i somehow end up reading them i try to avoid but my brain somewhat forces me to do it 

This might sound ridiculous but i actually don't wanna see or read hate speech or anything.....

JazakAllah khair for your response 

 

Don't read to engage in polemics, and avoid such posts/videos. Study to please Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) alone, and to seek closeness to him. 

Wa iyyakum khair al-jaza. 

[Abu_Zahra]

The question should be the other way around: are there authentic  hadith stating that this actually occured?

[Cool]

3 hours ago, Abu_Zahra said:

The question should be the other way around: are there authentic  hadith stating that this actually occured?

What is known authentically is that the Umar did threaten to burn the door of Syeda Fatima's (سلام الله عليها) house. 

What is known is the martyrdom of Hazrat Mohsin (عليه السلام). What is known is that she had injuries which Imam Ali knew while giving her ghusl before her burial. 

What else is known? We also have reports that even the Holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) was poisoned, allegedly by some of his wives. The whole story circulates around the intention of grabbing the governance and strengthening hold on governance. So it is very likely that what we have in our history books, is a correct version irrespective of our standards by which we judge the authenticity of any hadith. 

[Abu_Zahra]

10 minutes ago, Cool said:

So it is very likely that what we have in our history books, is a correct version irrespective of our standards by which we judge the authenticity of any hadith. 

There is a difference between something being popularly spread and something being supported with authentic narrations from our books. 

To say that something is likely to have occured regardless of evidence is a strange position to take. Essentially this is like saying you have already decided on the outcome before carrying out the research (in which case the research becomes redundant)

[AbdusSibtayn]

1 minute ago, Cool said:

What is known authentically is that the Umar did threaten to burn the door of Syeda Fatima's (سلام الله عليها) house. 

What is known is the martyrdom of Hazrat Mohsin (عليه السلام). What is known is that she had injuries which Imam Ali knew while giving her ghusl before her burial. 

What else is known? We also have reports that even the Holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) was poisoned, allegedly by some of his wives. The whole story circulates around the intention of grabbing the governance and strengthening hold on governance. So it is very likely that what we have in our history books, is a correct version irrespective of our standards by which we judge the authenticity of any hadith. 

The evidence has been so incontrovertible that even the greatest among the mukhalifeen's scholars have been pushed to the wall when confronted with it. Ref. Dhahabi's classic 'my heart testifies that this is false' remark. 

Regarding the doubts and wiggle room that are tried to be created from our own sources, the late Sayyid Ja'far Murtada al-Amili (rh), may his grave be haloed, has more than answered them and laid them to rest. 

Sheikh Tusi (rh) in his 'talkhis' has reported an ijma of the Imamiyyah salaf and qudama on this issue, presenting the detractors with only two  stark alternatives- either he, na'udhubillah, is lying upon his predecessors (reporting an ijma where none existed), or their revisionism is wrong. 

Yet you see every year (and especially during the Fatimiyyah days) such doubts rising afresh from admittedly 'shi'i' circles, causing average lay mu'mineen to wobble. 

When you object, the response is a haughty 'you're just a layman who hasn't even walked the corridors of a single madrassah, our XYZ scholar knows more than you so you should shut up and not punch above your weight, jahil! ' Paradoxically, it is these very laymen juhaal, the amorphous 'public' , who's supposed to act as the court of appeal against the supposed shibboleths of the 'orthodoxy'/'mainstream'/'establismental' scholarship. 

I might have an uncharitable view of this but (and I am not apologetic about it), but having observed this year after year, I now don't believe a wee bit that these aspersions come from a position of sincerity. 

[Cool]

14 minutes ago, Abu_Zahra said:

To say that something is likely to have occured regardless of evidence is a strange position to take. Essentially this is like saying you have already decided on the outcome before carrying out the research

Let me know one thing brother, what would be your opinion after reading Al-Ya'qoobi's Tareekh or Al-Masudi's Muruj al-Dhahab or Suleman al-Kufi's Manaqib or ibn Abil Hadid or Ibrahim bin Sayyar or Shehristani etc? 

These are the classical references, after going through them any student of history can take only two positions (it is likely happened or not happened) out of which I am of the view that the event is more likely happened keeping in view the circumstances, situation & environment surrounding the whole story. 

No one of us can get back to the past for observing what exactly happened there. So what we see as evidence, are the reports of non-shi'i historians and I am quoting them from wikipedia:

"Ibrahim b. Sayyar known as al-Nazzam (d. 230/844-5), a nobleman of Mu'tazila, and al-Shahristani (d. 548/1153-4), in his book al-Milal wa al-nihal, say that the blow of the door to the stomach of Lady Fatima (a) on the day of allegiance caused miscarriage of Muhsin. He writes:

"On the day of allegiance, the stomach of Lady Fatima (a) was struck so that she (a) lost her baby and there was a shout that, "Burn her house and those inside it."[48]

Because of this belief and some other beliefs, al-Nazzam has been excommunicated by some Sunnis.[49]

Also, Ibn Abi l-Hadid has mentioned miscarriage of Muhsin on the day of allegiance in his discussion with his teacher, Abu Ja'far al-Naqib.[50] It is evident that miscarriage of Muhsin happened after the demise of the Prophet (s), when the agents of Abu Bakr were trying to force Ali (a) to pay allegiance.

[Abu_Zahra]

@Cool I have understood your reasoning but it doesn't address the question that I originally raised in this thread. The OP asked if there are authentic hadith of an event NOT occurring. The question has a logical flaw in it. It should be the other way around. 

[Abu Nur]

Great 4 parts series on this matter. 

 

[Guest Reform]

Salam,

People don't realise that, in order to honour the ahllbayt, by simply taking anything and everything, no matter how weak a source, against those who antagnoised the ahlulbayt, doesn't truly serve them.

Caliph Umar, when they went to Saqifah and they went against the command of the Prophet saw, then returned. Imam Ali, Sayeda Fatima, Imam Hassan , Hussain, and a few of the other Sahaba gathered togeher in the house of Fatima as per Bukhari, and opposed the caliphate.

Caliph Umar, as per authentic Sunni sources, knew full well that, it would be political suicide to burn down, let alone attack Fatima. He however, stated that, even knowing how beloved she was to the Prophet and the Ummah would not be enough to stop him burning down the house if they did not come out and pledge allegience.

There is good evidence a threat was made, but there is no evidence it was carried out. Historically, it would make no sense. Consider what image it would give to literally burn down the house of Fatima and Ali?  

As for the narratives in the weak book Sulaym Ibn Qays or other sources, that Umar hit Fatima, consider what this says? That ALi stood there and did not get in the way? That Umar, in front of the Ummah, whipped the pregnant daughter of the Prophet, after burning down her house?

Not only is it untenable for Ali to have stood there and watched Sayeda Zahra get hit, it would have been political suicide for Umar to have done so.

People need to realise, Abu Bakr, and Umar were presenting themselves as the wise , long standing, safe pair of hands. Study politics to see this happen again and again. The caliphate was usurped by clever means, by politically astute and generally intelligent men, who went against the command of the Prophet saw, and took the right of Ali.

When we begin to support such narratives, we drive people away from the path of ale Muhammed. We are seen as people who take weak sources, ahistorical, illogical, and promote a very biased, unrealistic narrative. It then makes them think, if this group of people have such poor standards, what other beliefs do they have bereft of sense and evidence? 

This is not about 'absolving' abu bakr and umar. It is about honouring the ahlulbayt as a school that is just, logical, objective and deeply rooted in evidence and clarity.

[Guest Reform]

Bismillah

Salam

Remember, the Quran should be our guide on how to approach matters.

"O you who have believed, if there comes to you a disobedient one with information, investigate, lest you harm a people out of ignorance and become, over what you have done, regretful" [49:6]

Historically, there is an authentic narration in Sunni books, from the ?freed slave of Umar, who is the most reliable source of his biography whereby, Caliph Umar threatens to burn down the house of Fatima [as].

Essentially, if you look at any event that takes place, and then all of the conflicting narratives, you usually find they agree on common things, and then there are conflicting accounts of additions because of fabrications or interpolations or chinese whispers.

When you look at the cumulative collection of narrations about this event,  you find that there is enough evidence, and enough context to agree a threat was likely made by Caliph Umar.

"When Abu Bakr received the pledges of allegiance after the Messenger of Allah, Ali and al-Zubayr used to enter the presence of Fatima the daughter of the Messenger of Allah and consult with her and hesitate in their allegiance. When news of this reached Umar ibn al-Khattab, he came out until he entered Fatima’s presence and said: “Daughter of the Messenger of Allah, none in all creation was more dearly beloved to me than your father, and none is more beloved to us after him than you. However, by Allah, this shall not prevent me, if that group gathers in your house, to order that their house be set afire!”" - Ibn Abi Shaybah, on the authority of the freed slave of Umar, the most reliable source of his biography, and a saheeh sanad going to him. 

So a threat was made, and not just from biased Kufan , sectarian sources.

You also find that, even in the Saheeh of Bukhari, Ali, Fatima, Hasan, Hussain, and a number of the Sahaba did not  give bayyah, and remained in the house, opposing the pronouncement. 

It is likely what Caliph Umar had lost patience with them, and wanted them to come out and accept the agreement reached in Saqifah. However, it is highly implausible and political suicide for him to burn down the house of a highly respected and venerated family, in front of the entire Ummah, which would likely have resulted in a civil war, let alone publicly hit the daughter of the apostle, whichw ould have been political suicide.

All we know is, the various sources agree that a threat was made, and we have very reliable sources giving clear context as to why Caliph Umar would have made the threat, and it is in keeping with his behaviour in other narrations / personality i.e. he had no patience for those who did not act in the way he felt was the right manner of acting and was very vocal. 

What i think is possible is that the threat was then flowered up and turned into an elaborate story, which in effect, makes very little political and historical context, and is bereft of any good evidence, and paints Ali b. Abi Talib, the lion of Badr, Khandaq, and Khaybar, to ahve merely stood there and allowed it to happen. Forget fighting, any man would stand in front of his wife.  

My opinion is to affirm a threat likely occured, but to withold any opinion in terms of certainty for or against or what or what may not have occured after with certainty, but merely casting doubt on the story narrative. 

Furthermore, this is not an Aqeedah issue, it is a historical one. The Quran focuses on Tawheed,  Salah, Hajj, Qiyamah,  and to focus on higher matters 

This is why i can't side with traditional Shias, nor the current pure reformists adding 'RA' to the names of certain Sahaba. If you threatened a house full of the Ahlulbayt upon which the verses of purification were revealed, after the proclamation at Ghadir, and the command to obey the Thaqalayn for our guidance, i will not abuse you, but i can not revere you. I leave your judgement to Allah. 

 

[Cool]

You have the clues all around, you just need to join them to reach to a conclusion.

1. There was a threat given

2. Martyrdom of Mohsin (عليه السلام)

3. Martyrdom of Syed Fatima s.a

4. Her broken ribs

If you want to see the references, the following article will give you the details of historical records (both Sunni & Shi'i)

https://www.al-islam.org/tragedy-al-zahra-doubts-and-responses-jafar-murtadha-al-amili/part-8-here-and-there

 

[Ashvazdanghe]

On 4/2/2023 at 4:34 PM, Guest Reform said:

Not only is it untenable for Ali to have stood there and watched Sayeda Zahra get hit, it would have been political suicide for Umar to have done so.

Salam this is just accusation of Wahabists & Nasibis against Imam Ali (عليه السلام) to just watching it which according authentic reports Umar has tried to attack their house multiple times which first time Imam Ali (عليه السلام) one time stopped it & in another attack Zubair attacked Umar with sword which his sword has been broken by supporters of Umar which in last attack Lady Fatima (sa) has tried to end his attacks peacefully because even Arabs during ignorance era wouldn't attack a woman which all laws hvae been broken by Umar which Nasibis & Wahabists accused Imam Ali (عليه السلام) to being coward by playing with words & mudding water .

It has not been political suicided for Umar because he has done everything to achieve caliphate after Abubakr which also Aubakr & Uthman have not been wise but on the other hand they have been too much greedy for power & usurping right of  Imam Ali(عليه السلام) .

On 4/4/2023 at 9:21 AM, Guest Reform said:

t is likely what Caliph Umar had lost patience with them, and wanted them to come out and accept the agreement reached in Saqifah. However, it is highly implausible and political suicide for him to burn down the house of a highly respected and venerated family, in front of the entire Ummah, which would likely have resulted in a civil war, let alone publicly hit the daughter of the apostle, whichw ould have been political suicide.

this ha been a void statement from him which even according to Sunni sources he multiple times objected decisions of prophet Muhammad (pbu) during his lifetime likewise opposing with peace treaty of Hudaybiah which he even has doubted prophethood of prophet mUhammad due to signing the peace treaty which after demise of prophet Muhammad (pbu) all of three caliph & their comrades have followed policy of cursed  Umayyads who have have been pulling all strings for destroying Islam & usurping right of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) & killing him  & lady fatima (sa) & total  destroying lineage of prophet Muhammad (pbu)  which all of three caliphs have been their puppets.

On 4/4/2023 at 9:21 AM, Guest Reform said:

My opinion is to affirm a threat likely occured, but to withold any opinion in terms of certainty for or against or what or what may not have occured after with certainty, but merely casting doubt on the story narrative. 

Furthermore, this is not an Aqeedah issue, it is a historical one. The Quran focuses on Tawheed,  Salah, Hajj, Qiyamah,  and to focus on higher matters 

this is dangerous method for fooling people by denying a undeniable fact & saying people to put their head under snow just by focusing on Tawheed,  Salah, Hajj, Qiyamah,  and to focus on higher matters which Imamate is greates matter which even believing to Tawheed without accepting Imamate of Imam Ali(عليه السلام) has no value which  some of enemies of Ahlulnayt (عليه السلام) have believed to Quran & Tawheed,  Salah, Hajj, Qiyamah in similar fashion which Daesh/ISIS terrorists have believed to all of them without believing to Imamate of Imam Ali(عليه السلام) & rest of infallile Imams because something likewise Tawheed,  Salah, Hajj, Qiyamah have been more important or them than imamate.

On 4/4/2023 at 9:21 AM, Guest Reform said:

My opinion is to affirm a threat likely occured, but to withold any opinion in terms of certainty for or against or what or what may not have occured after with certainty, but merely casting doubt on the story narrative. 

Attack of Umar to lady Fatima & martying her by him is an undeniable fact which doubts about it only have been created by  Wahabists & Nasibis .