Though, we don’t believe in the reports from the books of the Shia, however for the benefit of objective Shia readers we would be analyzing as per Shia standards, the chains of reports often quoted from Shia books regarding the issue of Fadak and the alleged attack on Fatima(ra). The Shia reports in this article were used by Shia website ‘RevisitingTheSalaf.org’ in their article, “The Oppression of Sayeda Fatima (s.a).
Analysis of chains for reports from Shia books regarding Fadak.
Report #1:
Shiawebsite [RTS] stated:
[Quote]
Alee ibn Ibraheem Al-Qummi:
Alee bin Ibrahim said, My father narrated to me, from ibn Aboo Umeyr, from Usmaan bin Isa, and Hamaad bin Usmaan, Aboo Abdullah (a.s) having said…
Source: Tafsir Al-Qummi. Vol. 2, Pg. # 155 – 159.
[End Quote]
Answer:
Tafseer of Ali bin Ibrahim Al-Qummi, was falsely attributed to its author. See Buhooth fi Ilm Al-Rijal p. 428. The book was criticized for the anonymity of the author. Another major problem with the book, is that it is filled with authentic narrations that support that idea that the Qur’an has been tampered with. Perhaps Shiawebsite RTS supports this view, which is why they would champion this book.
Moreover, this reports goes against Quran as we have proven in the refutation of “Chapter two”, hence this report is rejected.
Report #2
Another Shiawebsite stated:
[Quote]
حدثنا علي بن الحسين بن شاذويه المؤدب؛ وجعفر بن محمد بن مسرور رضي الله عنه، قالا: حدثنا محمد بن عبد الله بن جعفر الحميري، عن أبيه، عن الريان بن الصلت، قال: حَضَرَ الرِّضَا عليه السلام
Ali ibn Al-Hussein ibn Shazawayh al-Mo’addib and Ja’far ibn Muhammad ibn Masroor – May God Be Pleased with Them – narrated that Muhammad ibn Abdullah ibn Ja’far al-Himyari quoted on the authority of his father, on the authority of al-Ryan ibn al-Salt : Imam Reza (as) says about the above ayat that: And render to the kindred their due rights…’[bani israeel, 26]
When this verse was revealed to the Prophet (s), he summoned his daughter (the Blessed Lady) Fatima (s). Fatima (s) said, “O Prophet of God! Yes.” The Prophet (s) said:“Fadak is one of the territories that we did not exhaust our horses or camels to seize. Therefore, it is exclusively mine and not the Muslims Now, I will donate it to you and your offspring as a gift according to God’s instructions.”
Source: Ayoon Akhbar ar Reza, vol 1, chapter 23, imam raza’s asws debate with mamoon regarding differences between itraat and ummat, page 220-240. and Amali Sheikh Sudooq, 79th gathering, hadeeth 1
[End Quote]
Answer:
Narrators Ali ibn Al-Hussein ibn Shazawayh al-Mo’addib and Ja’far ibn Muhammad ibn Masroor both are Majhool(anonymous), as per Al-Khoei‘s book, Mu’jam Rijal Al-Hadith. Hence this report is weak and rejected because it goes against Quran, as explained in refutation of “Chapter two”.
Some Shias might try to argue that Tarahum and Taradhee (Praising; i.e usage of the words May God Be Pleased with Them) for the two narrators, by Sadooq is accepted as a sign of madh(praise) or tawtheeq(proof of authenticity) to consider them “Thiqah”(Trustworthy), but this view was considered incorrect by Al-Khoei, because he knew the consequences of it, since God Almighty used the same words for the Sahaba in Quran, which would make the Sahaba trustworthy and reliable. Hence this view was rejected, and such narrators were considered Majhool(anonymous) by Al-Khoei.
Report #3
Shiawebsite [RTS] stated:
[Quote]
Sulaym ibn Al-Qays:
Imam Alee (a.s) said: And he and his companion took away the Fadak, when it was in control of Faatima (a.s) and during the time of the Holy Prophet (saw) she ate the food from it. So he asked an evidence from her when it was in her hand….
Source: Kitab e Sulaym. H. # 14, Pg. # 226 – 228.
[End Quote]
Answer:
The book Kitab e Sulaym, is fabricated book, which makes it unreliable and rejected.
Esteemed Shia scholar Al-Bahbudi comments, “There is no doubt that the book is fabricated, and there are signs that suggest this: Like that Mohammad bin Abi Bakr (who was an infant at the time) advised his father upon his deathbed and that the Imams are thirteen.” See Ma’rifat Al-Hadeeth p. 359.
Analysis of chains of reports regarding alleged attack on Fatima(ra) from Shia books.
Shia reports from the Book of Sulaym ibn Qays Al-Hilali.
Shiawebsite ‘RTS’ share their perspective on how one should view the incident of the broken rib/burned house/death of Fatima. They first choose to suggest the following:
[Quote]
The book of Sulaym ibn Qays Al-Hilali is connected to the incidents which occurred in the early stages of Islam when the usurpation of Caliphate and the seizing of rulership took place after the Prophet’s (saw) demise. The book illustrates the lives and attitudes of the Caliphs and contains information that is unavailable in other sources. It was collected by Sulaym ibn Qays who entrusted it to Aban ibn Abi-Ayyash. The book has received endorsement from the Holy Imam (a.s).
Some have also cast doubt about the authenticity of the book. The author is regarded as trustworthy, however, Aban ibn Abi-Ayyash himself remains disputed. This caused many from the later generation to either partially or completely dismiss the book.
Our purpose is not to delve in to the polemics concerning the reliability of the book, rather we would like to give another perspective concerning the attack on the house of Sayeda Faatima (s.a) and the circumstances surrounding the death of the Prophet (saw). This will allow us to resolve a critical puzzle scattered in many Sunni and Shi’a books about this incident.
[End Quote]
Answer:
Confusion can be found in the above statement. RTS admits that some shia scholars have doubted the authenticity of the book, but yet state that the Imam has endorsed it. The latter is false and we demand RTS to provide evidence of this baseless statement.
We add that Aban bin Abi Ayyash was weakened by Al-Tusi. Ibn Al-Ghadha’iri adds that the Shias suggest that he fabricated the book of Sulaym bin Qays. See Dhu’afa’a Rijal Al-Hadith 1/134.
In other words, RTS is quoting narrations that are seen as fabrications, even according to the standards of Shias themselves.
Al-Bahbudi comments, “There is no doubt that the book is fabricated, and there are signs that suggest this: Like that Mohammad bin Abi Bakr (who was an infant at the time) advised his father upon his deathbed and that the Imams are thirteen.” See Ma’rifat Al-Hadeeth p. 359.
This is the quality of the sources that RTS uses as evidence.
Sulaym bin Qays himself is unknown nor is there any mention of him or any information concerning him in the books of history or Rijal. The correct view upon research is that there was a man known as “Salm bin Qays al-Hilali” not “Sulaym”, this man was a liar who used to narrate mainly from Anas bin Malik and al-Hasan al-Basri, meaning he is a late narrator and couldn’t have narrated anything from `Ali himself. Shia scholars claimed he was a companion of `Ali and fabricated a book and attributed it to this man.
Hence any report presented from the book of Sulaym bin Qays, is to be rejected.
Shia reports regarding the Burning of the House.
Shia Report #1
[Quote]
Al-Majlisi :
From the book Al-Turaf of Sayyid Alee ibn Tawoos, he narrates from the book “Al-Wasiyya” of Al-Sheikh Isa ibn Al-Mustafad Al-Darir from Musa ibn Ja’far (a.s) from his father (a.s)……
Source: Bihar Al-Anwar. Vol. 22, Pg. # 476 – 477.
[End Quote]
Answer:
This is Weak because it comes through the path of Isa Ibn Al-Mustafad, who is anonymous(majhool) according to Al-Jawahiri (p. 449).
Shia Report #2
[Quote]
Al-Ayyashi (Died 320 A.H):
Aboo Muhammad, narrating from Amr ibn Abil Miqdam, from his father, from his grandfather…
Source: Tafsir Al-Ayyashi. Vol. 2, Pg. # 70 – 72.
[End Quote]
Answer:
Narration by Al-Ayyashi in his Tafseer: Weak because the chain is disconnected between him and Amr ibn Abi Miqdam.
Shia Report #3
[Quote]
Sheikh Al-Kulayni:
Muhammd ibn Yahya, narrating Al-Amraki ibn Alee, narrating Alee ibn Ja’far, narrating his brother Aboo Al-Hassan peace be upon him said Faatima (s.a) is truthful and a martyr and daughters of Prophets (a.s) do not menstruate.
Note: Allamah Majlisi II said, “Its content is ‘Mutawaatir” (reported by such a large number of people).
Source: Al-Kafi. Vol. 1, Pg. # 291, H. # 2.[End Quote]
Answer:
The narration is authentic, but does not mention the event, nor does it mention that Abu Bakr and Omar killed Fatima. It only suggests that Fatima is a shaheed. Furthermore, Shias are all shaheed according to the Imam, as we can see in the authentic narration in Al-Kafi 8/146, even if they die on their beds. This supports the Sunni view that there are those that can be referred to as shaheed even though they did not literally die as martyrs. [See Sahih Muslim #1909]. Also in al-Kafi 1/190 we read chapter called:
في أن الأئمة شهداء الله عز وجل على خلقه
“Chapter: That the Imams are Shuhada’ of Allah on the people.”
Shuhahda’ here means witnesses, so how do we know that Fatimah is not a Shaheedah meaning a witness of Allah on his creation?
Shia Report #4
[Quote]
Sheikh Al-Kulayni
From a number of our companions, from Ahmad bin Muhammad, from Al-Qasim bin Yahya, from his grandfather Al-Hassan bin Rashid, from Abi Basir, from Abi Abdillah (a.s), who said: Narrated to me by my grandfather, who said: Amir ul-Mo’mineen (a.s) said: Name your children before they are born, and if you do not know whether it is a boy or a girl, then name them with names that are applicable to both boys and girls, even if you miscarry them. Because if they meet you on the day of judgement, and you have not named them, the miscarriaged child will say to his father: “Why have you not given me a name, whilst the Messenger of Allah (saw) named Mohsin (a.s) before he was born?”
Al-Majlisi I: It is Qawi (strong) in Rawdhatul Muttaqeen. Vol. 8, Pg. # 625.
Sayyed Hashim Al-Hashimi: The chain of this narration is Saheeh (authentic) in Hiwaar Ma’a Fadhlullah. Pg. # 314.
Alee Al-Kurani says: The chain of this narration is Saheeh (Authentic) in Al-Intisaar. Vol. 7, Pg. # 223.
Source: Al-Kafi. Vol. 6. Pg. # 14, H. # 2.[End Quote]
Answer:
This narration does not mention anything about the event of the broken rib. All it mentions is the existence of Al-Mohsin and that he was named before birth. However, the chain is weak due to the anonymity of Al-Qassim bin Yahya.
Shia Report #5
[Quote]
Sheikh Al-Kulayni:
From him (i.e. Al-Hussain ibn Muhammad Al-Ash’ari, from Al-Moala, from Al-Hassan, from Aban, from Aboo Hashim….
Source: Al-Kafi. Vol. 8, Pg. # 129, H. # 320.
[End Quote]
Answer:
The narration is weak due to Al-Moala bin Mohammad. See his biography in Fihrist Al-Najashi.
Shia Report #6
[Quote]
Sheikh Al-Kulayni:
Ahmad ibn Mihran, may Allah (swt) grant him blessing, has narrated in a marfu manner and Ahmad ibn Idris has narrated from Muhammad ibn Abd Al-Jabbar Al-Shaybani who has said that narrated to me Al-Qasim ibn Muhammad Al-Razi who has said that narrated to him Alee ibn Muhammad Al-Hurmuzani from Abu Abd Allah Al-Husayn ibn Alee (a.s)…..
Source: Al-Kafi. Vol. 1, Pg. # 291 – 292, H. # 3.
[End Quote]
Answer:
The narration is weak due to Ali ibn Mohammad Al-Hurmuzani. See Al-Jawahiri p. 414.
Shia Report #7
[Quote]
Al-Khusaybi (Died 334 A.H):
Narrated Al-Mufadhal ibn Umar a long narration from Imam Al-Sadiq (a.s)….
Source: Hidayatul Kubra. Pg. # 417.
[End Quote]
Answer:
Narration is weak because, the chain is disconnected between the author, Al-Khusaybi and Al-Mufadhal.
Shia Report #8
[Quote]
Sheikh Hassan ibn Sulayman Al-Hilli:
Narrated to me the righteous brother Al-Rashid Muhammad ibn Ibraheem ibn Mohsin Al-Mattaar Abadi narrating from the handwriting of his father the righteous Ibraheem ibn Mohsin the following narration and he showed me his handwriting and what he had copied from it, it says: Hussain ibn Hamadan from Muhammad ibn Ismail and Alee ibn Abdullah Hasani from Abi Shuaib Muhammad ibn Nusair from Umar ibn Furat from Mufaddal ibn Umar that he said:
Once I asked my master, Imam Ja’far Sadiq (a.s.)…..
Source: Mukhtasar Al-Basahir Al-Darajaat. Pg. # 515 – 533.
[End Quote]
Answer:
The chain is weak due to the anonymity of Umar ibn Furat. See Al-Jawahiri p. 428.
Shia Report #9
[Quote]
Al-Mas’oodi (Died 346 A.H):
“So he left from them, and Prince of the believer (a.s) and whoever was with him from his Shi’ee were in his house, from what was promised by the Messenger of Allah (saw), so they directly went to his house and attacked it and burnt his door and took him out forcefully and pressed the Lady of Women (Faatima (s.a)) by the door until Mohsin (a.s) fell from a miscarriage, and they took him by the ‘Ba’yah’ (allegiance) and he rejected and said: “I will not.”
Source: Ithbat Al-Wasiyyah. Pg. # 154 – 155.[End Quote]
Answer:
The author, Al-Mas’oodi is anonymous(majhool) which makes the narration weak.
Shia Report #10
[Quote]
Sheikh Al-Sadooq: Narrated Alee ibn Ahmad ibn Musa Al-Daqqaq from Muhammad ibn Abi Abdullah Al-Kufi from Musa ibn Umran Al-Nakha’i from his uncle Al-Hussain ibn Yazeed Al-Nawfili from Al-Hassan ibn Alee ibn Abi Hamza from his father from Sa’eed ibn Jubayr from ibn Abbas….
Source: Al-Amali. Pg. # 90 – 91, H. # 2.
[End Quote]
Answer:
The chain is weak due to Al-Hasan bin Ali Al-Bata’ini and his father Ali bin Abi Hamza Al-Bata’ini, as they have been deemed as liars by Shia hadith scholars.
Shia Report #11
[Quote]
Sheikh Al-Sadooq:
Muhammad ibn Al-Hassan ibn Ahmad ibn Al-Walid (may Allah (swt) be pleased with him) said; Ahmad ibn Idrees and Muhammad ibn Yahya Al-Attar both of them narrating Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Yahya ibn Imran Al-Ash’ari said; Aboo Abdullah Al-Raazi narrating Al-Hassan ibn Alee ibn Abi Hamza, narrating Sayf ibn Umayra, narrating Muhammad ibn Utba, narrating Muhamed ibn Abdul Rahman, narrating his father, narrating Alee ibn Abi Talib….Source: Al-Amali. Pg. # 105, H. # 2.
[End Quote]
Answer:
The chain is weak due to Al-Hasan ibn Ali Al-Bata’ini, as he has been deemed as liar by Shia hadith scholars.
Shia Report #12
[Quote]
Sheikh Al-Sadooq:
Ahmad ibn Muhammad Al-Haysam Al-Ajali, Ahmad ibn Al-Hassan Al-Qattan, Muhammad ibn Ahmad Al-Sin’ani, Al-Hussain ibn Ibraheem ibn Ahmad ibn Hisham Al-Mokattib, Abdullah ibn Muhammad Al-Sahigh and Alee ibn Abdullah Al-Varraq narrated that Abul Abbas Ahmad ibn Yahya ibn Zakariya Al-Qattan quoted Bakr ibn Abdullah Al-Habib, on the authority of Tamim ibn Buhlool, on the authority of Aboo Mu’awiyah, on the authority of Al-A’mash that Ja’far ibn Muhammad Al-Sadiq (a.s) said….
Source: Al-Khisal. Vol. 2, Pg. # 603 – 607.
[End Quote]
Answer:
The chain is weak due to Tamim ibn Buhlool, who is anonymous(majhool). See Al-Jawahiri p. 94.
Shia Report #13
[Quote]
Ibn Qulawayh:
Muhammad ibn Abdullah ibn Ja’far Al-Humayri has told from his father from Alee ibn Muhammad ibn Sulayman from Muhammad ibn Khalid from Abdullah ibn Hamad Al-Basri from Abi Abdullah : I accompanied him (a.s) from Madinah to Makkah. On our journey, we stopped in an area called Usfan and passed by a black, frightening mountain to the left of the road. I said, “O son of Allah’s Messenger (saw)! How frightening this mountain is! I have never seen anything like this on our route.” Imam (a.s.) asked, “Ibn Bukair! Do you know which mountain it is?” I replied, “No.”….
Note: Reliable Narrators according to Kamal Al-Ziyaraat rule.
Source: Kamal Al-Ziyaraat. Pg. # 539 – 544, H. # 830.
[End Quote]
Answer:
The chain is weak due to Abdullah ibn Bukair Al-Arjani. See Al-Jawahiri p. 327. RTS argued that the narration is authentic due to the “Kamil Al-Ziyarat rule,” which basically suggests that all the narrations in this book are from reliable narrators. We reject this rule and point out that this is an old view of Al-Khoei, but he decided that this view is false since there is no evidence by the author that he intended this. Refer to Al-Jawahiri’s introduction.
Shia Report #14
[Quote]
Ibn Quluwayh:
Alee ibn Muhammad ibn Sulaim from Muhammad ibn Khalid from Abdullah ibn Hamad Al-Basri from Abdullah ibn Abd Al-Rahman Al-Asam from Hamad ibn Uthman from Abi Abdullah….
Source: Kamal Al-Ziyaraat. Pg. # 547 – 551, H. # 12.
[End Quote]
Answer:
The chain is weak due to Abdullah bin Abd Al-Rahman Al-Asam. See Al-Jawahiri p. 338.
Shia Report #15
[Quote]
Al-Khazzaz Al-Qummi (Died 400 A.H):
Narrated to us Al-Qadhi Abul Faraj Al-Ma’afaa ibn Zakariyya Al-Baghdadi from Muhammad ibn Homam ibn Suhayl Al-Katib from Muhammad ibn Ma’afaa Al-Salmasi from Muhammad ibn Amer from Abdullah ibn Dahir from Abdul Qudus from Al-A’mash from Hanash ibn Am-Mo’tamir from Aboo Dhar Al-Ghifari…
Source: Kifayatul Athar. Pg. # 94 – 95.
[End Quote]
Answer:
The chain is weak due to Abdullah ibn Dahir. See Al-Jawahiri p. 333.
Shia Report #16
[Quote]
Al-Tabari Al-Imaami (Died 411 A.H):
Aboo Hassan Muhammad ibn Haroon At-Talla Ukbari said: My father narrated to me. He said: Aboo Alee b. Muhammad ibn Hamam ibn Suhayl narrated to me. He said: Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Al-Barqi narrated from Ahmad ibn Muhammad Al-Ash’ari Al-Qummi from Abd Ar-Rahman ibn Bahr from Abdullah ibn Sinan from ibn Muskan from Aboo Basir from Aboo Abdillah Ja’far ibn Muhammad….
Source: Dala’il Al-Imamah. Pg .# 45 – 46.
[End Quote]
Answer:
The chain is weak due to Aboo Hassan Muhammad ibn Haroon At-Talla Ukbari. He doesn’t have proper Tawtheeq. He is Shaykh of Najashi, but he there is no explicit evidence that, Najashi only narrates from Thiqaat.
The book Dala’il Al-Imamah is incorrectly attributed to Ibn Rustum Al-Tabari. We don’t even know who the author of this book is. Notice that the hadith is the report of the author from Mohammad bin Harun Al-Tal’ukbari. This means that the author died in the fifth century, but Ibn Rustum Al-Tabari died in the 4th. The same response is for this report which is quoted from Ma’sat al-zahra, v 2, p 65-66.
Shia Report #17
[Quote]
Al-Tabari Al-Imaami:
With the previous chain from Abi Abdullah Ja’far ibn Muhammad, narrated Muhammad ibn Humran Al-Madayeni from Alee ibn Isbaat from Al-Hassan ibn Bashir from Abil Jaroud from Abi Ja’far….
Source: Dala’il Al-Imamah, Pg. # 238 – 239.
[End Quote]
Answer:
The chain is weak due to Al-Hassan ibn Bashir who is anonymous(majhool). See Al-Jawahiri p. 136.
Shia Report #18
[Quote]
Al-Tabari Al-Imaami:
Narrated Abul Hassan Muhammad ibn Harun ibn Musa from his father from Aboo Ja’far Muhammad ibn Al-Walid from Muhammad ibn Abi Abdullah ibn Al-Barqi from Zakariyya ibn Adam who said: I was in the presence of Imam Al-Ridha (a.s) that Abi Ja’far….
Source: Dala’il Al-Imamah. Pg. # 207
[End Quote]
Answer:
The chain is weak due to Mohammad bin Ahmad bin Abi Abdullah who is anonymous(majhool).
Shia Report #19
[Quote]
Al-Tabari Al-Imaami:
Narrated to me Aboo Is’haq ibn Ahmad Al-Tabari Al-Qadhi from Al-Qadhi Abul Hussain Alee ibn Umar ibn Al-Hassan ibn Alee ibn Malik Al-Sayyari from Muhammad ibn Zakariyya Al-Ghulabi from Ja’far Ibn Muhammad ibn Amara Al-Kindi from his father from Jabir Al-Ju’fi from Abi Ja’far Muhammad ibn Alee ibn Al-Hussain (a.s) from his father from his father from his father from Muhammad ibn Ammar ibn Yassir from his father who said….
Source: Dala’il Al-Imamah. Pg. # 28 – 29.
[End Quote]
Answer:
The chain is weak due to Ali ibn Umar bin Hasan and Ja’afar bin Mohammad, who are both anonymous(majhool).
Shia Report #20
[Quote]
Sheikh Al-Mufeed (Died 413 A.H):
Chapter: Narration Of The Saqifah Of Bani Sa’ida
Aboo Muhammad, narrating from Amr ibn Abil Miqdam, from his father, from his grandfather who said….
Source: Al-Ikhtisaas. Pg. # 184 – 185.
[End Quote]
Answer:
The narration is weak due to disconnection and also because the grandfather of Amr is unknown.
Shia Report #21
[Quote]
Sheikh Al-Mufeed
He (i.e. Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Isa) narrated from his father and from Al-Abbas ibn Ma’rouf from Abdullah ibn Al-Mughira who said: narrated to me Abdullah ibn Abdul Rahman Al-Asam from Abdullah ibn Bikr Al-Irjaani who said….
Source: Al-Ikhtisaas. Pg. # 329 – 330.
[End Quote]
Answer:
The narration is weak due to Al-Irjaani and Al-Asam. The chain was discussed above.
Shia Report #22
[Quote]
Sheikh Al-Mufeed:
Aboo Bakr, namely Muhammed ibn Umar Al-Ji’abi, has said that Aboo Bakr, Ahmed ibn Mansar Al-Ramadi, has said that Sa’ad ibn Afar saying that ibn Laha’ah, quoting Khalid ibn Yazid, from Aba Hilal from Marwan ibn Uthman saying ….
Source: Amali. Pg. # 49 – 50.
[End Quote]
Answer:
The chain is weak because of Sa’eed bin Ufair who is anonymous according to Al-Jawahiri p. 251
Shia Report #23
[Quote]
Sheikh Al-Mufeed:
He said: Aboo Bakr Muhammad b. Umar Al-Je’abi reported to me from Abu Abdillah Ja’far ibn Muhammad ibn Ja’far Al-Hassani, who reported from Isa ibn Mehran, from Younis, from Abdullah ibn Muhammad ibn Sulaiman Al-Hashemi, from his father, from his grandfather, from Zainab b. Alee b. Abi Talib (a.s) …..
Source: Amali. Pg. # 40 – 41.
[End Quote]
Answer:
The chain is weak due to Isa bin Mehran who is anonymous according to Al-Jawahiri p. 449.
Shia Report #24
[Quote]
Shareef Al-Murtadha:
Ibraheem ibn Sa’eed Al-Thaqafi (the author of Al-Gharaat who died 385 A.H.) says: Narrated Ahmad ibn Amr Al-Bajali from Ahmad ibn Habib Al-Amiri from Humran ibn Ayun from Abi Abdullah Ja’far ibn Muhammad (a.s) …….
Source: Al-Shafi Fil Imamah. Vol. 3, Pg. # 241.
[End Quote]
Answer:
The chain is weak due to the anonymity of Ahmad bin Amr Al-Bajali. See Al-Jawahiri p. 36.
Shia Report #25
[Quote]
Sheikh Al-Tusi (Died 460 A.H):
Narrated Ibraheem ibn Sa’eed Al-Thaqafi from Ahmad ibn Amr Al-Bajali from Ahmad ibn Habib Al-Amiri from Himran ibn Ayun from Abu Abdullah Ja’far ibn Muhammad….
Source: Talkhees Al-Shafi. Vol. 3, Pg. # 76.
[End Quote]
Answer:
The chain is weak due to the anonymity of Ahmad bin Amr Al-Bajali. See Al-Jawahiri p. 36.
Shia Report #26
[Quote]
Sheikh Al-Tusi (Died 460 A.H):
Narrated with this chain: Muhammd ibn Muhammad (i.e. Sheikh Al-Mufeed) from Aboo Ja’far Muhammad ibn Alee ibn Musa ibn Babawaih (i.e. Sheikh Al-Sadooq) from his father from Ahmad ibn Idrees from Muhammad ibn Abdul Jabbar from Muhammad ibn Abi Umayr from Aban ibn Uthman from Aban ibn Taghlib from Ikrimah from Abdullah ibn Al-Abbas…..
Source: Al-Amali Al-Tusi. Pg. # 292, lecture # 7, H. # 18.
[End Quote]
Answer:
The chain is weak due to Ikrimah.
Shia Report #27
[Quote]
Allamah Al-Karakiji (Died 449 A.H):
And among what the jurist Sheikh Abul-Hassan bin Shadhan (r.a) told us, he said: I was told by my father (r.a) he said: We were told by ibn Al-Walid Muhammad bin Al-Hassan, he said: We were told by Al-Saffar Muhammad bin Al-Hussain, he said: We were told by Muhammad bin Ziyad, of Mufaddhal bin Umar, of Younis bin Ya’qoob (r.a)
Source: Kanzul-Fawa’id. Vol. 1, Pg. # 149 – 151.
[End Quote]
Answer:
The chain is weak due to the weakness of Al-Mufaddhal bin Umar, who died as a Al-Khattabi (a follower heretical sect). He was weakened by Al-Kashshi, Al-Najashi, and Ibn Al-Ghadha’iri, and there is an authentic narration in Al-Kashshi where the Imam cursed him. See Dhu’afa’a Al-Ruwat by Ibrahim Shaboot p. 563.
Isma’eel bin Jabir narrates that Al-Sadiq told him, “Go to Al-Mufadhal and tell him: O’ you kafir, O’ you mushrik! Are you trying to get my son killed?!” [Al-Kashshi, page 230]
Although, there is a difference of opinion regarding Mufaddhal’s reliability, since al-Tusi, al-Mufeed, Ibn Shu’ba al-Harani (the compiler of Tuhuf ul uqool), al-Khoei deemed him reliable. However, Al-Mufeed or Ibn Shu’ba weren’t scholars or experts of Rijal. And Al-Khoei’s view isn’t relevant since he is simply basing his view on old views.
Mohammad Redha Al-Sistani’s comments that due to the conflict, the praise and condemnation in these reports cancel each other out. He says the same about the praise and condemnation of the critics as well.
Al-Sistani states about a report where al-Sadiq tells his companion to convey his salam to Mufadhal:
The most that can be said is that there was a close companionship between Isma’eel and Al-Mufadhal, and that the Imam (as) saw it beneficial to send him his condolences, like it was beneficial for him to say, “We wanted something and Allah wanted another.”
Mohammad Redha Al-Sistani adds two more people to the list of people that had issues with him: – Al-Kashshi interprets reports in favor of him as those that occurred before he became a Al-Khattabi, suggesting that he has a bad opinion. – Hujr bin Za’idah condemned him.
Al-Mufadhal called to Isma’eel bin Ja’afar. He also wrote a book on Tafweedh. He was a full out zindeeq that played a role in the creation of Isma’ilism. There, his weakness is he purposefully tried to make Isma’eel an Imam and that he was weak in hadith.
Some Shias argue that, al-Kashi (p.612) mentions an explicit hadith which says Mufadhal retracted from his deviant beliefs, but this report is weak due to the anonymity of Jibreel bin Ahmad, however some late Shias Scholars try to deem him reliable, in that case, If Jibreel is reliable then that means that Al Mufadhal doesn’t pray. See the report by Mu’awiyah bin Wahb and Ishaq bin Ammar a couple of pages later in Rijal al-Kashi. The report says that after they were 12 miles away from Kufa the time of Fajr occurred. Mu’awiyah bin Wahb and Ishaq bin Ammar are accusing him of lying about praying. The reason Mu’awiyah bin Wahb and Ishaq bin Ammar narrated this, is because they wanted to expose Mufadhal for lying. His sectarian affiliations have nothing to do with him lying about prayer.
Therefore, the correct verdict is that, Mufadhal was weakened by Shia Rijal experts such as Al-Kashshi, Al-Najashi, and Ibn Al-Ghadha’iri.
Shia Report #28
[Quote]
Sheikh Al-Tabarsi (Died 548 A.H):
It has been narrated from Al-Sha’bi (who died 103 A.H) and Abi Mikhnaf (who died 157 A.H) and Yazid ibn Abi Thabit (who died 128 A.H)….
Source: Al-Ihtijaaj. Vol. 1, Pg. # 354 / 364.
[End Quote]
Answer:
The narration is weak due to disconnection.
Shia Report #29
[Quote]
Sayyid ibn Tawoos:
About the Sajdatu Shukr (prostration to thank Allah (swt)), we have narrated through our chain upto Sa’d ibn Abdullah in the book Fadhl Al-Dua, he says: Aboo Ja’far (i.e. Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Isa) narrated from Muhammad ibn Isma’eel ibn Bazi from Al-Ridha (a.s) and also Bukayr ibn Saleh from Sulayman ibn Ja’far from Al-Ridha (a.s) both of them said; We entered upon him (a.s) and he was in the state of prostration for Sajdatu Shukr, he lengthened his prostration and then he raised his head, we said to him: “You lengthened your prostration” He said: “Whoever supplicates with this supplication in Sajdatu Shukr, he would be like the archer in the battle of Badr with the Messenger of Allah (saw).” They both said: We said, “Let us to write it down.” He (a.s) said: “Write down, when you prostrate for the Sajdatu Shukr, you should say: ‘O my Lord! Curse those two people who changed your religion, and changed Your bounties, and accused Your Messenger, peace and blessings of Allah (swt) be upon him and his progeny, curse those two who opposed Your nation and blocked Your path and ingrated Your graces, and rejected Your decrees, and mocked Your Messenger (saw), and killed the son (Al-Mohsin (a.s)) of Your Prophet (saw)…'”
Source: Mohij Al-Da’awaat. Pg. # 307 – 308.
[End Quote]
Answer:
The narration makes no mention of the killing of Fatima or of the event of the broken rib. It does vaguely mention a cursing of two men, but the narration explicitly says later on that they are Abu Jahl and Waleed, the two greatest enemies of the Prophet (saw). If the Shias insinuate that the two men are supposed to refer to Abu Bakr and Omar, then they would need clear proof of this.
Shia Report #30
[Quote]
Sayyed ibn Tawoos:
A group of scholars narrated to us, and I mentioned the names of some of them in the Volume 1 of Al-Mohimmat, through their acceptable chains up to our great Sheikhs Muhammad ibn Muhammad ibn Al-Nu’man (Sheikh Al-Mufeed) and Al-Hussain ibn Ubaydallah and Ja’far ibn Qulawaih and Abi Ja’far Al-Tusi and others, all of them through their chains from Sa’d ibn Abdullah in his book Fadhl Al-Dua, whose trustworthiness, high status and truthfulness is agreed upon.
Source: Iqbaal Al-A’maal. Pg. # 738.
[End Quote]
Answer:
There is no chain included from Sa’ad bin Abdullah to Ja’afar Al-Sadiq.
Thus, after the analysis of chains from Shia Books, as per Shia standards we found that all those reports turned out to be weak, which means the fictitious incident isn’t even proven from Shia books.
Clarification of Shia Misconception that, the incident of burning house of Fatima(ra) and the broken rib, was transmitted via many chains which necessitates authenticity even if all the chains have weakness.
In recent times, a new phenomenon has occurred among Imami Shia that engage in polemical discourse with Ahlul-Sunnah. This phenomenon is the usage of the claim that narrations with several chains do not need to be examined due to their Tawatur and must simply be accepted. This rule was then incorrectly applied to several fabricated pro-Shia narrations, like Hadith al-Tayr (bird), Hadith Kasr al-Dhil` (broken rib), and Hadith Madinat al-`ilm (city of knowledge), due to their large amount of chains and due to the ignorance of those that abuse this rule. Hence we would like to clear this misconception of Shias and we shall also see if accepting Tawatur the way the Shia view it plays in their favour or not.
Sh. Al-Homaid (p. 10) states that “most of the people that spoke about this (Tawatur) said that one doesn’t need to look at the narrators of the chains, and they seem to mean the Dhabt (i.e. the ability to retain a Hadith), as for their `Adalah (justness) it definitely needs to be looked into.”
It is clear that Sh. Al-Homaid holds this opinion since it is very possible for a large group of people to come together and narrate a lie. It is also very possible for a great number of folks to all believe in rumors and spread them such as what happens very often in our days, human nature never changed. In other words, one cannot treat Tawatur as acceptable simply for including a large number of people.
Secondly, The claim that a narration with multiple chains is not to be analyzed is when the many chains gather on a common narrator. Suppose twenty people narrate a narration from Ali (ra). So the status of these twenty narrators are not to be checked as they are two many. This is considerable opinion. But the question, which many people ignore while reading these quote is, whether the isnad is authentic till these twenty people or not? Unless it is authentically established that these twenty people have really claimed to have heard this from Ali there is no point applying the rule as the narration is apparently mutawatir from Ali not from the twenty sub narrators.
We give an example for it. The hadith that actions depends on intention is solely reported from the Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) by Umar, and from him only alqama narrates it, and from alqama only Muhammad b. Ibrahim at-Taimi narrates it, and from at-Taimi only Yahya b. Saeed al-Ansari narrates it. But from al-Ansari a huge number of people have heard it. So this narration is ahad(single) from Prophet, Umar, Alqama and at-Taimi, but mutawatir from Yahya b. Saeed.
For the stubborn Shi’ee that will not be willing to accept the sound explanation above, a sensitive topic needs to be brought up. Esteemed Shia scholar Al-Majlisi comments in Mir’at Al-Uqool 12/525 on Al-Kafi’s Hadith that the Qur’an was originally seventeen thousand verses long:
“The narration is authentic, and it is clear that this narration and many of the authentic narrations are clear that the Qur’an has been shortened and changed, and I hold that the narrations of this meaning are Mutawatir in meaning.”
Modern Shia scholar, Al-Nuri Al-Tabrasi in his notorious book Fasl Al-Khitab, went through the books of the early Shias and successfully collected those traditions. He ended up with 1062 narrations that imply that the Qur’an has been tampered with.
It is safe to say that Shias, with their primitive understanding of Mutawatir narrations, are bound by these 1062 narrations, for there are not many matters in the religion that can be found in anywhere close to that many narrations. Their only choice is to adopt that proper understanding of Mutawatir that we have provided above, or else, embrace the belief that the Qur’an has been tampered with.
Therefore, we say that the Shi`ee idea that every Hadith that reaches us through many chains becomes Mutawatir, this is a false idea that must be corrected. How often does it happen in our society that news which is mass transmitted turns out to be false, how often do many TV stations offer us news reports that are incorrect and unverified? The mass transmission of a piece of information only serves to increase its popularity wherever the transmission is spread, it in no way proves its authenticity.
We say, if the purpose of Tawatur is to prove the certainty of a matter, then it is sufficient that this event be reported by a small amount of strong authentic unique chains, as opposed to a big number of weak unreliable stories.
Based on this we say that the Mutawatir plays no role in accepting or rejecting a narration, and it plays no role in authenticating any information, it is a term that only describes the number of chains for a specific report. Tawatur was a term heavily relied on by innovators as they all fabricated many narrations to try and prove their beliefs, Mu`tazillah would fabricate many reports that support their philosophy, Waqifah would fabricate many reports to prove that Musa bin Ja`far is the Mahdi and so on…
The same can be implied from what the Shia researcher of the book “al-Masa’il al-Sarawiyyah” Sa’ib `Abdul-Hameed stated, he praised the author al-Shaykh al-Mufeed for his scientific professional method in this book, saying on (p. 12):
“In this book we can clearly see the correct methodology (of al-Mufeed) in his research and in how he extracts proofs. He holds on to the authentic established narration and leaves all else, even if what opposes it was related by the great ones such as al-Saduq and ibn al-Junayd. He shows complete disregard to the multitude of narrations whose chains are unreliable, instead he relies on the single authentic chain leaving behind a large pile of weak and fabricated reports. He is the expert diver who selects the pure pearls leaving behind the rubble that floats in the oceans.”
The stance of esteemed Shia scholars on the fabricated story of attack on Fatima(ra).
1. Esteemed Shia scholar Ayatullah Fadlullah said:
“It has reached my attention that many of our scholars have reported in their books that lady Fatima was viciously attacked while she was staying at her home with Imam Ali, and their children along with some of the sahaba of Rasoul Allah, some of our scholars agree that “the attackers” who attacked the house of Imam Ali did actually do so as we arrogate to the masses, but the truth is that “the man” only threatened her. In his speech “the man” said: “wa in lam yakhrojoo”, the words in arabic “wa in” shows “ee7aa2″/”shame” of Alzahraa, so how can we say that he broke her rib while he showed shame towards her? I personally reject the stories regarding the attack on her house along with breaking her ribs since our shia history doesn’t prove that this incident has occurred to sayeda Al-zahraa”. [Sayed Fadhulla, a speech that was given on mother’s day, 1999, Beirut lebnan. This is recorded in: “Almula7azat” by Sayed Yaseen Almusawi, Published by “Dar Al9eddeqa Alkubra” in Beirut Lebanon, 2000]
2. Esteemed Shia scholar Ayatullah al-Sayyed al-Khoei:
This was the question that was posed to Ayatullah al-Khoei:
س 980: هل الروايات التي يذكرها خطباء المنبر، وبعض الكتاب عن كسر ((عمر)) لضلع السيدة فاطمة (عليها السلام) صحيحة برأيكم؟ الخوئي:ذلك مشهور معروف، والله العالم. صراط النجاة: ج 3/ ص 314
Question 980: Are the narrations mentioned by the speakers on the Mimbars and some of the books about ‘Umar breaking the rib of Fatima, authentic according to you?
Answer: That is what’s popular and known and Allah knows best. [Sirat al-Najat 3/314].
Note: This reply of Ayatullah al-khoei was quite diplomatic, he knew that those reports in Shia books are weak, but still Shia scholars propagate them as if the incident is an established fact. The answer of al-Khoei shows that he didn’t consider those reports present in shia books to be authentic. Al-khoei said that those reports were popular but he didn’t declare them to be authentic.
To clear this diplomatic answer of al-khoei, let us see what al-khoei writes in his books:
لا ينجبر ضعف السند بالشهرة
“The weakness of Sanad is not fixed by the popularity of a Hadith” (kitab al-Khums 1/18)
Al-khoei also says about another narration:
وجه الاشكال هو أن المعروف والمشهور بين الأصحاب وإن كان ذلك إلا أنه لا دليل عليه
“The problem is that even if it is known and popular amongst our companions, yet there is no proof for it” ” (Mabani Takmilat al-Minhaj 2/434)
Comment: Thus as we see, popularity of a report doesn’t makes it authentic according to al-khoei himself. And Al-khoei not authenticating that story shows us that even in shia books this story doesn’t have any authentic route. Al-Khoei’s stance was further explained by another Shia Scholar Abdul Haleem al-Ghizzi. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SIIa0U0f5U
An Interesting Zaydi Shia Tradition.
Interesting tradition from the Zaydi scholar, Abu Abdillah al-Sharīf al-‘Alawi (d. 445). In this tradition, the great grandson of Fatima(ra) – Zayd bin Ali(rah) is asked: “The people claim that Fatimah was beaten.” Zayd replied: “She was more honorable to her family than for that to take place, O Abu Yahya!”
The status of the story that Sayyida Fatima(ra) had a miscarriage.
The story that Fatima(ra) had a miscarriage is a fabrication and concoction. It has been mentioned in an authentic book of history, i.e. Albidayah wan Nihaayah, that during the lifetime of Rasoolullah(saw), Sayyida Fatima(ra) gave birth to a third son by the name of Muhassin and that this child passed away in his childhood. This is why the majority of the historians mentioned only two sons of Fatima(ra).
We know of this “Muhassan bin Ali” through the narration of Ali bin Abi talib(ra):
علي بن أبي طالب رضي الله عنه قال : لمَّا ولد الحسن جـاء رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال : أروني ابني ما سميتموه ؟ قلت : سمّيته حرباً ، قال : بل هـو حسن ، فلما ولد الحسين قال : أروني ابني ما سميتموه ؟ قلت سميته حرباً ، قال : بل هو حسين . فلما ولد الثالث جاء النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال : أروني ابني ما سميتموه ؟ قلت حرباً ، قال : بل هو محسَّن ثم قال : إني سمّيتهم بأسماء ولد هارون شبّر وشُبَيْر ومشبّر
Ali bin Abi talib said: When al Hassan was born the Prophet(saw) came and said: Show me my boy, what have you named him? I said: I called him Harb, he said: Nay He is Hassan, When al Hussein was born the Prophet(saw) said: show me my boy, what have you named him? I said: Harb, he said: Nay he is Hussein, and when the third was born the Prophet(saw) came then said: Show me my boy, what have you named him? I said: Harb, He said: Nay he is Muhassan, then He said: I have named them after the names of the children of Haroun(Aaron) they are Shibr, Shubeir, Mushabbar.
source: مسند أحمد (1/98) إسناده صحيح .
Musnad Ahmad 1/98, Isnad is SAHIH. AND [Isnad Hasan(good) as per Shaykh Shuaib al-Arnaut]
However Some shias argue that, the above report it weak, hence they want Sunnis to drop the view that Al-Muhsin was born and died young, and to hold the Shia view that Al-Muhsin was stillborn son of Fatima(ra), though this baseless view isn’t even backed by a weak report, let alone by any authentic one.
Shiawebsite RTS quoted the names of the Sunni scholars that suggested that Al-Mohsin died young, after birth. The list includes, Ibn Hazm, Ibn Al-Athir, Al-Muhib Al-Tabari, Al-Bakkari, Ibn Sayyid Al-Naas, Ibn Kathir, Al-Qastalani, Al-Nuwairi, Zakariya Al-Ansari, and Abu Al-Fida’a. We add to this list the name of Ibn Ishaaq (d. 150 AH), who is the Imam of the seerah, and one of the most knowledgeable people when it comes to the biographies of the companions and family of the Prophet(saw). See Al-Thuriyah Al-Tahira by Al-Dulabi p.114.
RTS then mentioned the names of the scholars that believed that Al-Mohsin was a stillborn. The scholars they included in this list were Ibn Abd Al-Hadi Al-Maqdisi, Al-Mizzi, Al-Safoori, Al-Suban, Al-Hamzawi, Al-Fasi, and Al-Safadi.
RTS also includes a quote from Ibn Shahr Ashoub in which he quotes Ibn Qutaibah as being from the second group of scholars. However, what we find in his book is different, which is why we disregard it, since Ibn Shahr Ashoub is not a trusted scholar.
It should also be noted that Ibn Abd Al-Hadi has two opinions and that he has included in his book the narration in which the Prophet(saw) named Al-Mohsin. Refer to his Nihayat Al-Maraam p.58.
Now, due to the apparent difference of opinion between the scholars, we find ourselves obliged to stick with the view of the first party, for several reasons:
1- They are the majority.
2- They are supported by a hadith, that even if considered weak, is not considered a fabrication, in which the Prophet (saw) names Al-Mohsin, which means that he was born during his lifetime. The opposing view is not supported by weak hadiths.
3- The naming of children rarely ever occurs until after birth, especially in an age in which ultrasounds did not exist.
4- Most importantly, even if we assumed that Al-Mohsin died a stillbirth, there is no sufficient evidence to suggest that it was from any causes other than natural ones.
In Defense of the Aal & Ashaab 
with hasan sanad in Musnad imam Ahmad: Muhsin (son of Ali and Fatimah who was allegedly killed by Omar according to shia fabrications) was BORN during the time of RASULULLAH (s)