(Did Sayyiduna Umar (ra) burn down house of Sayyidah Fatima (ra), also break the door which fell on her and it later caused her death along with a child in her womb?)

 

This is one of the biggest hoaxes. Some Shias blame Sunnis that the 2nd caliph did the huge crime of burning the house of Sayyidah Fatima, broke the door that fell on her and she along with her son in womb died due to it.

We will come to the historical background of this fabricated report later on but even logically this could not have happened.

a)   Sayyiduna Ali (ra) was the bravest among Sahaba, he used to fight a group of disbelievers all alone. He pulled out the door of Khayber with his mere hands. He was named Haydar and Asad- Ullah (lion of Allah), so how is it possible that such a brave Sahabi tolerated it and not fought against Sayyiduna Umar (RA)? Remember Imam Hussain (a.s) took his kids (including infants) to stand against tyrant and cursed Yazeed even though he was outnumbered.

b)   Had this incident happened then it would have reached us from Tawatur (multiply narrated to an extent that it reaches a stage of certainty). Except for a few fabricated stories mentioned in the history books this incident has not come from hadith books with multiple chains of transmission.

The first person to enter this incident in Shia books and also the first book in which it was mentioned is: Sulaym bin Qays al Aamiri al Hilaali’s “al- Saqeefa”

The chain of it is: Abbaan bin Abi Ayaash who narrates from Sulaym bin Qays and Sulaym said: I was myself sitting in Ibn Abbas’s house and some Shiyaan -e- Ali were also sitting when the news reached us that Umar has come with wood and turned the house of Fatima on Fire.

The reality of Sulaym bin Qays and his book is as follows:

The leading Shia scholars have themselves rejected this book of Sulaym bin Qays. The Shias rejected this book because it is the first book which inserted the lie that Qur’an has alterations in it.

One of the leading hadith masters of Shia i.e. Ibn Mutahr al Hilli wrote a book Kitaab ur Rijaal famous with name Rijaal al Hilli. On it’s Page # 206 he states:

Abaan bin Abi Ayyash was “EXTREMELY WEAK IN NARRATIONS” and our scholars (shias) consider (this book) “MAWDO (FABRICATED)” to be attributed towards Sulaym bin Qais.

Another Shia scholar Muhammad bin Ali in Jami ar Ruwaat 1/9 says:

Abaan bin Abi Ayaash is “DA’EEF (WEAK)” and “DO NOT PAY ATTENTION TOWARDS HIS SAYINGS, OUR ASHAAB (SHIAS) CONSIDER (THIS BOOK) FABRICATED AND IT CANNOT BE ATTRIBUTED TO SULAYM BIN QAYS.

Another Shia leading authority in science of Rijaal, al- Mamikaani said in his Tanqih ul Maqaal 2/25:

Sulaym bin Qays is himself “NOT KNOWN AMONGST OUR ASHAAB (SHIAS)” THIS BOOK AL- SAQEEFA IS “DEFINITELY A FABRICATION” THEN HE SAID WHATEVER IS NARRATED IN THIS BOOK ARE “ADILLA- TUN KAFIYATUN LI DALALATUN ALA WADHIHI”

Another great Shia scholar Shaykh Mufid in Tashih Aitiqaad al Imamiyyah, Page # 149, 150 says:

This book is completely not relied upon. The religious people should abstain from this book and what is inside it.

Sunni scholars also called Abaan bin Abi Ayaash as a “LIAR AND MUNKAR UL HADITH (DENOUNCED IN HADITH)” see Tahdheeb ut Tahdheeb of Ibn Hajr. Hence both Sunnis and Shias are unanimous in refuting Abban bin Abi Ayyash.

Shia scholar Hussain aal Kashif in Jannat al Ma’waa, Page #135 said: No Muslim’s intellect can accept this incident to have happened or to be true. NEITHER AQL (INTELLECT) ACCEPTS IT NOR SHAOOR THAT IT COULD HAVE HAPPENED IN PRESENCE OF ALI.

There is also another narration via route of Al Madayni who narrated from Muslima bin Maharib al Ziyadi al Kufi who narrates from Suliman at Taymi and from Ibn Awn.

Muslima bin Maharib is “MUJHOOL AL HAAL (UNKNOWN) IN HADITH”

It is to be noted that Suliman bin Awn was born in 73 AH whereas the incident could have only happened of 11 AH. How can he narrate this incident when he was born about 62 years later? Therefore the narration is Munqata (broken). Also Ibn Awn was born 66 AH.

This narration is also narrated from another route from Muhammad bin Humayd ar- Razi. In Tahdheeb ul Kamaal 25/102 to 107 it says: Muhammad bin Hummaid ar- Razi is “KADHAAB (LIAR)”

The Shia attribute three references from Sunni books: 1. Allama Masoodi in Burooj az Zahb. 2. Allama Shahrastani in Milal wal Nihal. 3. Allama Safadi in al Wafi wal Wafiyaat.

Al- Masoodi’s book Burooj az Zahb is not a Sunni book, MASOODI WAS A SHIA. His name is Ali bin Hussain al Masoodi, he is mentioned in Shia books as: In Bahr ul Uloom book Fawaid ur Rijaliyyah 4/150: THE SHIA ALI BIN HUSSAIN AL MASOODI THE AUTHOR OF BOOK BUROOJ UZ ZAHB.

Also al- Hilli in Khulasa tul Aqwaal #146 mentioned Masoodi as a Shia and mentioned that he authored many books on Shia beliefs.

Accusation on Allama Shahrastani.

First of all, exact creed of al- Shahrastani is unknown. He was considered an Ismaili Shia according to Wikipedia. 

Note: Although Wikipedia is not considered an academic source by author but on biographies it can be cited after scrutiny.

Even if assuming he was a Sunni then Shahrastani in Milal wal Nihal made a chapter “ AL FIRAQ UL BATILA –(Mention of false sects)” in which he has mentioned a chapter on “MU’TAZILA (A MISGUIDED SECT)” where he mentions three sects of Mu’tazila. In explanation of Nazamiyyah sect he mentioned their false creed and then included this incident. SO HE HAS ACTUALLY QUOTED THIS AS A MISGUIDED AQIDA OF NIZAMIYYAH.

Now in book of al- Safadi’s al Wafi al Wafiyat 2/227: Again in chapter of Nizaam al Mu’tazili al Rafidhi while mentioning his misguided beliefs he has quoted this incident.

Shias also claim that Al Imama wal Siyasa is written by Sunni scholar Ibn Qutayba whereas it is not his book. Ibn Nadeem has written on “LIST OF BOOKS” by different scholars. In Volume 1, Page 115 he has mentioned Ibn Qutayba’s books and nowhere has he mentioned Imama wal Siyasa.  Also Allama Zarqali has not mentioned Imama wal Siyasah as a book of Ibn Qutayba.

The unknown author of Imama wal Siyasah mentions that Ibn Qutayba went to Damuscus whereas Ibn Qutayba never went there.

Many Shia books explain how Sayyidah Fatima passed away: In Book of Shaykh Sudooq Illal ul Shara’ie D.381 AH Published from Najaf Iraq, Chapter # 148 Page # 184,185: Nowhere is it mentioned that Umar RA burnt her house. He has mentioned sadness and dispute with caliphs till death of Sayyidah Fatima but “DID NOT MENTION THIS INCIDENT”

Reconciliation: The reports that mention burning the house of Sayyidah Fatima are fabrications and lies. They are lies even according to Shia hadith masters. One should not circulate such absurdities in public so that there could be unity between Sunnis and Shias. The author can quote many narrations present in Shia literature which talk about alterations in Qur’an (for example in al- Kafi) but Shia would call them weak or fabricated. Similarly these reports about burning of the house should not be attributed to Sunnis as they are equally fabricated like some absurd reports in Shia books.