Did Umar Attack The House Of Hazrat Fatimah Zahra ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم))?

[Islam4u]

The Allegation

In the accounts of Islamic history, few events are as contentious and emotionally charged as the attack on the house of Hazrat Fatimah Zahra, peace be upon her, which occurred in the wake of Prophet Muhammad’s passing. This incident has long been a point of divergence between Shia and Sunni Muslims, with each group holding markedly different perspectives on the events and their implications.

From the Shia viewpoint, this episode symbolizes the gravest injustice inflicted upon the Prophet’s family. They assert that under the orders of the first Caliph, the second Caliph led an attack on the house where Fatimah Zahra, the Prophet’s daughter, resided with her children. This assault is not merely seen as an act of violence but as a betrayal of the Prophet’s legacy and a deliberate attack on his lineage.

Contrastingly, Sunni historical accounts often present a different narrative. Many Sunni scholars either dispute the severity of this event or interpret it in a way that upholds the integrity of the early Caliphs. This divergence is not just a matter of historical record but reflects deeper theological and ideological divides within the Muslim community.

Interestingly, evidence of this event is found in Sunni literature as well, indicating a certain level of acknowledgment across different Islamic sects. Among these are narrations classified as Sahih al-Sanad, suggesting their authenticity and reliability. However, it’s essential to recognize that historical accounts are often colored by the narrators’ perspectives and biases.

This historical episode’s examination and its documentation in various sources are crucial for understanding the profound and lasting impact it has had on the Muslim world. The incident at Fatimah Zahra’s house is not just a historical event but a lens through which the complexities of early Islamic history and the Shia-Sunni divide can be explored. By delving into these narratives, one gains insight into the profound emotional and spiritual reverberations that this event has had throughout Islamic history.

The Evidence: detailed evidence from Sunni sources is in the link below 

https://islam4u.pro/blog/did-umar-attack-on-the-house-of-hazrat-fatimah-zahra-(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)/

 

Let us know how we can prove the oppression of Lady Zahra?

[Inspector]

9 hours ago, Islam4u said:

Let us know how we can prove the oppression of Lady Zahra?

Salam!

That was a great research work indeed!

I think you also need to take into account the difference of opinion among the shia scholars on that incident specially when you are mentioning this in conclusion:

"The accounts unanimously affirm that Umar did indeed carry out an attack on the house."

Some famous Shia scholars like Ayatullah Fadlullah, disagreed with this position and view it as "Umar only threatened to burn the door but he never attacked the house of Syeda Fatima سلام الله عليها "

Was Ayatullah Fadlullah unaware of the references you have collected in your research paper? 

[hanbali]

It is a fabrication according to sunni standards

[Abu_Zahra]

23 hours ago, Inspector said:

Was Ayatullah Fadlullah unaware of the references you have collected in your research paper? 

Considering that not a single one of those references is a primary Shi'i source, I don't think that he was unaware, rather that none of them was important enough to consider. 

[Inspector]

20 minutes ago, Abu_Zahra said:

Considering that not a single one of those references is a primary Shi'i source

He has only included the sunni references. 

I will try to pull out the shi'i references.

22 minutes ago, Abu_Zahra said:

rather that none of them was important enough to consider. 

I find some of those references interesting. Will take up this matter after viewing the shi'i ahadith. 

Wassalam!

[hanbali]

I read the article and I was laughing at the mental level of the author. He included lisan ul mizan and meezan ul eitdal as his source. Both works are books of weak narrators, and the narration is quoted there to show how the weak narrator is narrating this kind of a fabricated story. Literally shi'i missionaries are a joke

[Abu_Zahra]

11 hours ago, Inspector said:

I find some of those references interesting. Will take up this matter after viewing the shi'i ahadith

InshaAllah. 

In the meantime I have looked through what the author has quoted. From the 16 different quotations (the last 3 are poets or contemporary writers, but let's count them anyway), 11 of them are consistent with the position that a threat was made, but not actually acted upon (obviously this threat is problematic, but the claim is that an attack took place and 11 out of 16 references from the article do not show this).

The 5 others are:

- Fara'id al Simtayn, written around 700 years after the event 

-Al-Masudi al-Shafi’i (345 AH). The source is given as 'Proof of the Testament'. I don't know which of his works this is supposed to refer to. 

-Muqatil ibn Atiyyah (505 AH)

-Al-Safadi (764 AH)

-Ibn Hajar Asqalani (852 AH)

-Abdul Fattah Abdul Maqsoud (contemporary)

 

The only early work here is the one of Al Masudi (which can't be verified until the source is not properly provided) otherwise there appears to be nothing for 5 centuries.

This is already the situation without even discussing authenticity. 

Edited December 1, 2023 by Abu_Zahra

[Inspector]

9 hours ago, hanbali said:

Both works are books of weak narrators, and the narration is quoted there to show how the weak narrator is narrating this kind of a fabricated story

lol, as per your Sahih Books, Umar threatened to burn the house of Syed Fatima s.a.

That alone is sufficient.

Abu Bakar given him the task of receiving pledge of allegiance (bay'ah) from Imam Ali (عليه السلام) at any cost. That is well documented. 

Your books, specifically the quoted references in that article are a valid case against Abu Bakar & Umar. 

[Inspector]

4 minutes ago, Abu_Zahra said:

Essentially the author has failed to provide a single primary source supporting his position. 

Salam!

Brother giving a threat itself is showing a highly violent behaviour. He was supposed to show respect.

If you don't pledge allegiance, "I will burn the house, even if Fatima s.a is in there" 

What kind of behaviour was that? 

[Inspector]

11 minutes ago, Abu_Zahra said:

The only early work here is the one of Al Masudi (which can't be verified until the source is not properly provided) otherwise there appears to be nothing for 5 centuries.

This is already the situation without even discussing authenticity. 

I think we do need to see the Arabic text of historical references quoted in that article. 

For me, issuing the threat to Ahlul Dhikr alone, is a big crime. At least it is reflecting that the very heart of the person is devoid of the spirit of verse of mawaddah.

[Abu_Zahra]

10 hours ago, Inspector said:

Salam!

Brother giving a threat itself is showing a highly violent behaviour. He was supposed to show respect.

If you don't pledge allegiance, "I will burn the house, even if Fatima s.a is in there" 

What kind of behaviour was that? 

Wa alaikum as salam brother. This isn't what is being disputed though. The author claims that his sources unanimously show that this attack indeed occured, but this is not true. 

In your post you then questioned if Sayyid Fadlullah, who according to you accepts that the threat was made but not that an attack occured, is aware of these sources. 

However, most of the sources are not showing anything other than what he already believes, and the few that mention an attack seem to come several centuries later. 

Which credible evidence has been provided to counter Sayyid Fadlullahs position?

[hanbali]

4 hours ago, Inspector said:

lol, as per your Sahih Books, Umar threatened to burn the house of Syed Fatima s.a.

That alone is sufficient.

Abu Bakar given him the task of receiving pledge of allegiance (bay'ah) from Imam Ali (عليه السلام) at any cost. That is well documented. 

Your books, specifically the quoted references in that article are a valid case against Abu Bakar & Umar. 

The most authentic what you got is mursal of aslam which goes against the musnad in mustadrak. The mursal narration states that ali and zubayr together went and pledged allegiance to abu bakr. While the more authentic one states that first ali was called, he pledged allegiance then zubayr was called then he pledged allegiance.

 

Rest of all the references are all weak and fabricated narrations.

[gajarkahalva]

https://youtu.be/yInWnfU_p3c

[Ashvazdanghe]

On 12/1/2023 at 4:54 AM, hanbali said:

The most authentic what you got is mursal of aslam which goes against the musnad in mustadrak. The mursal narration states that ali and zubayr together went and pledged allegiance to abu bakr. While the more authentic one states that first ali was called, he pledged allegiance then zubayr was called then he pledged allegiance.

Salam this is a fabrication based on both of Sunni & shia standards which it's one of fabrications between too many fabrications in sunni  sources which you have just repeated typical wahabi procedure about using abusive comments & denying validity of proven facts & slandering & making joks when you have no rational or authentic refutation infacing with bitter truth . 

[hanbali]

14 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

Salam this is a fabrication based on both of Sunni & shia standards which it's one of fabrications between too many fabrications in sunni  sources which you have just repeated typical wahabi procedure about using abusive comments & denying validity of proven facts & slandering & making joks when you have no rational or authentic refutation infacing with bitter truth . 

Lol. Someone's very angry.

[Islam4u]

On 12/1/2023 at 12:01 AM, hanbali said:

I read the article and I was laughing at the mental level of the author. He included lisan ul mizan and meezan ul eitdal as his source. Both works are books of weak narrators, and the narration is quoted there to show how the weak narrator is narrating this kind of a fabricated story. Literally shi'i missionaries are a joke

It doesn't surprise me that some, as has been the case historically, may quickly label a hadith or event as 'Mursal,' 'Za'if,' or 'Munqati' when it doesn't align with their perspective. Often, rather than thoroughly researching to uncover the truth, there's a tendency to immediately become defensive, as if much is at stake. The need of the hour is a blend of research and logical analysis, which, if employed regularly, can be enlightening.

It's also important to note that the incident in question is not an isolated one. When one considers the cumulative weight of events like Saqifa, the appropriation of Fadak by Abu Bakr, Imam Ali's refusal to pledge allegiance, and Abu Bakr's later regret over his actions towards Fatimah – all documented in key sources such as Sahih Bukhari – a more complex narrative emerges. It's more than what initially meets the eye.

Furthermore, expecting accurate and unbiased historical accounts from a century after the events, especially ones that might cast revered figures like Umar in a negative light, seems unrealistic. Over time, narratives are shaped and reshaped, often in favor of prevailing views. And even if such accounts were to exist, they might be omitted, as we've seen with numerous hadiths in the past century from collections like Bukhari alone. History, as we see it, is often an interplay of power, perspective, and time.

And just so you know :
Ibn Abi Shaybah was one of the teachers of Muhammad ibn Ismail Bukhari, the author of one of the most credible books of Ahl al-Sunnah. He has narrated a hadith in his book "Al-Musannaf" which explicitly mentions the attack on the House of Revelation and Omar ibn al-Khattab swearing to set fire to the House of Revelation.

Examining the authenticity of Ibn Abi Shaybah's narration: Muhammad bin Bashar says: Ibn Hajar writes in "Tahdhib": "And he was trustworthy, abundant in hadith. An-Nasa'i and Ibn Qanah authenticated him. And Ibn Shahin mentioned him among the trustworthy in Al-Thiqat."

Dr. Hassan bin Farhan Maliki, a Saudi Arabian educator and researcher in educational and training affairs, writes about the chain of narration of Ibn Abi Shaybah: "Initially, I thought the story of the attack was a lie and not true; but after research and investigation, I found strong chains of evidence for it, one of these chains being the words of Ibn Abi Shaybah in his book Al-Musannaf; hence, this heartbreaking incident is proven with authentic chains."

[Islam4u]

On 11/29/2023 at 10:20 PM, Inspector said:

Was Ayatullah Fadlullah unaware of the references you have collected in your research paper? 

In reference to Sunni sources, it's noteworthy that despite relying on Sunni authors, there are numerous narrations that are often contested or rejected within the Sunni sect itself. 

On the Shia side, the historical accounts are detailed and directly sourced from the Ahlulbayt, which holds a significant place in Shia scholarship. These narratives are almost universally accepted within the Shia tradition, and affirmed as definitive by the majority (if not all) of Shia scholars. Exceptions like Sayyid Fadlullah represent a minority viewpoint within Shia thought. Although they might question certain aspects of these narratives, they do not outright reject the entire event, particularly the critical incidents like the attack on Fatimah’s house or the forceful removal of Imam Ali from the house.

Sayyid Fadlullah’s doubts, while they stand out in the context of Shia scholarship, have been extensively addressed and refuted by other scholars.