This may come as a surprise and a shock for many dear Sunni readers, but history tells us that Omar Ibn Al-Khattab, after the election of Abu Bakr at Saqifa, approached the house Imam Ali (عليه السلام) and threatened to burn it. Fatima the daughter of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه واله وسلم) was in the house at the time, as was Ali (عليه السلام) and those who supported his claim to caliphate, such as Zubayr (one of the 10 promised paradise in Sunni books of hadith).
The incident is narrated in several Sunni sources, including the following:
Umar Ibn al-Khattab came to the house of Ali. Talha and Zubair and some of the immigrants were also in the house. Umar cried out: "By God, either you come out to render the oath of allegiance, or I will set the house on fire." al-Zubair came out with his sword drawn. As he stumbled (upon something), the sword fell from his hand so they jumped over him and seized him."
- Tarikh Tabari Volume 9 page 187
Chain of Transmission:
Mohammed Ibn Humayd: the source of a significant portion of Tarikh Tabari; Ahmed Ibn Hanbal, Ibn Mo'een and Ibn Jarir Tabari considered him trustworthy, although the like of Dhahabi disagreed with that (refer to Mizan al I'tidaal)
Jarir: Ahmed Ibn Hanbal narrated from him in his Musnad, as did Abu Dawud and Tirmidhi
Mugheera: "Scholar, trusted in hadith, wise" Tahtheeb al-Tahtheeb Volume 10 Page 270 #482.
Nisaii likewise trusted him.
Ziyad Ibn Kulayb: Mizan al I'tidaal by Dhahabi, Volume 2 #798 - Nisaii said he was thiqah (trustworthy) as did Ibn Hajar and Ibn Haban
When Umar came to the door of the house of Fatimah, he said: "By Allah, I shall burn down (the house) over you unless you come out and give the oath of allegiance (to Abu Bakr)."
- Kamil Ibn Athir, v2, p325
- al-Isti'ab, by Ibn Abd al-Barr, v3, p975
Umar said to Fatimah (who was behind the door of her house): "I know that the Prophet of God did not love any one more than you, but this will not stop me to carry out my decision. If these people stay in your house, I will burn the door in front of you."
-al-Faruq, by Shibli Numani, p44
-Kanz al-Ummal, v3, p140
-Ansab Ashraf, by al-Baladhuri, v1, pp 582,586
When Abu Bakr was given the pledge of allegiance after the demise of the Messenger of Allah, Ali and Zubayr were entering the house of Fatima, daughter of the Messenger of Allah, and would talk to her before returning to their issue. When Omar was informed of this, he went until he reached the house of Fatima and he said, “O daughter of the Messenger of Allah, by Allah, no one was more beloved to us than your father and after him no one is more beloved to us than you. If those people gathered at your house I will burn down the house on them. (The narrator) said, “Omar left and they (Ali, Zubayr et al) came to the house and Fatima said, ‘Do you know that Omar came to me and swore by Allah that if you return that he will burn down the house on you, and I swear by Allah he will carry it out. So leave decently and consider, and forget about it” and so they never came back until they gave allegiance to Abu Bakr
حدثنا محمد بن بشر -الحافظ الثقة- اخبرنا عبيد االله بن عمر -ثقة حافظ- حدثنا زيد بن أسلم -ثقة حافظ إمام- عن أبيه أسلم -ثقة، من كبار التابعين- مولى عمر قال : أنه حين بويع لأبي بكر بعد رسول االله صلى الله عليه وسلم كان علي والزبير يدخلان على فاطمة بنت رسول االله صلى الله عليه وسلم فيشاورونها ويرتجعون في أمرهم فلما بلغ ذلك عمر بن الخطاب خرج حتى دخل على فاطمة فقال يا بنت رسول االله صلى الله عليه وسلم واالله ما من أحد أحب إلينا من أبيك وما من أحد أحب إلينا بعد أبيك منك وأيم االله ما ذاك بمانعي إن اجتمع هؤلاء النفر عندك إن أمرتهم أن يحرق عليهم البيت قال فلما خرج عمر جاؤوها فقالت تعلمون أن عمر قد جاءني وقد حلف بالله لئن عدتم ليحرقن عليكم البيت وأيم االله ليمضين لما حلف عليه فانصرفوا راشدين فروا رأيكم ولا ترجعوا إلي فانصرفوا عنها فلم يرجعوا إليها حتّى بايعوا لأبي بكر.
- Izalatul Khilafa, by Shah Waliullah Muhaddith Dehlavi, v2, p362
- Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah Volume 7 Page 432
The chain of narrators is: Mohammed Ibn Bishr, Ubaydillah Ibn Omar, Zaid Ibn Aslam, Aslam the client of Omar. All of these narrators are thiqah (trustworthy).
Whilst many dear Sunni readers will probably deny this incident, it is as you can see narrated and accepted by the historians and scholars. Furthermore, the Sunni scholarship view Omar's threat as a legitimate one - he was correct in making this threat. One may feel surprised as to how anyone can view murdering Ali (عليه السلام) and Fatima (عليها السلام), as well as many of the early Muslims as legal, but the apologists base their argument on the prophetic hadith which says to kill someone who claims the caliphate whilst their already exists a caliph. The apologist argument can be broken down into: Abu Bakr was the leader, kill anyone who disagreed (i.e. eliminate the opposition)
However, this view is incorrect. The Sunnis maintain that the caliph is elected via consultation. However, Ali (عليه السلام) was not consulted, neither were any of the other prominent muhajirun. They were not given an opportunity to nominate themselves for the caliphate, neither were they given an opportunity to nominate a caliph of their choosing. The word "consultation" implies people being given the chance to express their wish as to who becomes leader, yet Imam Ali (عليه السلام) was not allowed to do so, and when he did his life was threatened! Additionally, even if we were, for a second, to accept the ludicrous Sunni claim that it was permissible for Omar to kill Ali (عليه السلام), then what about Fatima (عليها السلام) and what about the children who were undoubtedly present at the house.
We ask the Sunni brethren to seriously consider for a second whether they accept the idea that it was acceptable for Omar to threaten to burn down the house and kill the lion of Allah as well as the chief of the women of the worlds, and many other companions of the Messenger of Allah (صلى الله عليه واله وسلم). Absolutely not! How can a Sunni on one hand claim Omar was a great man who loved Ahlel Beit, whilst on the other hand there are authentic narrations, acknowledged by the like of Shibli Numani, which say he threatened to burn down the house of Imam Ali and Fatima al-Zahra (عليهما السلام). Looking over at the incident truly causes the blood to boil. How daring and outrageous of him!?
This Incident Does Not Sit Well With The Sunni Paradigm
The Sunnis claim that the Muslims were united on Abu Bakr, and there was an ijmaa (consensus) regarding his leadership, and thirty-three thousand all happily pledged alleigance to him in one day.
Sunnis say
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The day after Saqifa, thirty-three thousand companions pledged alleigance to Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه). Do the Shia know of any modern day election in which one candidate wins 100% of the vote? Surely this is not possible. Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) was a more popular candidate than the others and it is for this reason that he became Caliph. Thirty-three thousand Sahabah took Baya’ah at the hands of Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) , whereas only a handful supported Ali (رضّى الله عنه)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If Omar threatened to burn down the houses of all those who opposed Abu Bakr, then of course thousands of people would go and pledge their alleigance to him, otherwise they would have had their homes burnt to the ground! What Omar did by threatening the lives of dissidents, was to crush the opposition to Abu Bakr so that he would become caliph smoothly and with the perceived support of most Muslims. A good modern-day comparison would be most Arab countries today, where candidates win 100% of the vote in elections. This is not because the people love them, but because there is no opposition, and whatever oppostion there is is killed, threatened or imprisoned! This is exactly what happened back then - people were coerced into supporting Abu Bakr! I would like to remind you, dear readers, of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه واله وسلم)'s hadith in which he says, "There is no validity for an alleigance given by force."
Does Islam Forbid Oppositon?
To execute any believer, let alone the lion of Allah and the doyenne of the women of the worlds, is a very serious crime. The “crime” for which Omar was willing to do this is that Imam Ali, along with his followers, convened to discuss what they would do regarding the caliphate, just like any opposition party would do in any free democracy today. When Omar opposed the Prophet when he asked for a pen and paper to write his final directive, the Prophet never asked for Omar’s house to be burnt down. When Omar opposed the Prophet’s actions at Hudaybiya his house wasn’t burnt down. Was Abu Bakr more sacred than the Prophet that disagreeing with Abu Bakr warranted getting killed? Remember Abu Bakr was not appointed by Allah or His messenger so Imam Ali wasn’t in violation of any divine commands or prophetic instructions. An elected caliph may have the right to limit the actions of the laity, or for other contenders not to demand the caliphate for themselves, but he does not have the right kill opposition groups simply for convening to discuss their strategies. Omar threatened Imam Ali and his family – he basically said “stop or I will kill”. It all reminds me of most Arab countries we have today, where opposition groups are threatened with death if they convene. The only difference is that today they would be killed swiftly but Omar was willing to burn them alive (it is worth noting that Fatima, and her children were also present so Omar did not have any qualms about burning alive little innocent kids) Election of a caliph is never absolute, rather they are bound by the book of God and the sunnah of His Messenger, both of which state the killing of a believer is forbidden.
Shia narratives document that after the appointment of Abu Bakr as caliph, a large group of people led by Omar went to the house of Imam Ali in order to extract the pledge of alleigance from him. They took him out of his house by force to the Prophet's mosque. At the same time, (the more reliable accounts say) Omar's slave Qunfudh pushed the door of the house on Fatima, who was behind it. This caused her to miscarry her foetus Mohsin, and led to her death a few months later.
This narrative has led to claims that it portrays Imam Ali, the lion of Allah, as a coward who failed to protect his wife from being beaten and unborn child from being killed.
Cowardice: lack of courage to face danger
Source: Online Dictionary
If Imam Ali was lacking in the courage to defend his wife, we would be the first to say that this was cowardice. However, the narrative does not say that Imam Ali did not intervene because he was too fearful or scared; rather it was due to inability. If a gunman were to come up to a husband and shoot his wife in front of him, no one would accuse the husband of cowardice as there was nothing he could do to prevent the tragic occurrence. Similarly, it was not in Imam Ali’s power to go and stop Fatima Al-Zahra being beaten. To put it simply, he was not superman. Some attempt to portray the narrative as showing Imam Ali standing back idly while this took place. This could not be further from the truth.
Allama al Hilli reported, “They took Ali out by force, and Zubayr was inside the house. They broke the latter’s sword and took him out of the house. Fatima was beaten, and she miscarried a son named Muhsin.”
Kashf al-Murad page 401-2
When they took Ali out, Fatima intercepted them at the door, so Qunfath hit her with a whip on her wrist, causing a mark on her wrist. He pushed her, breaking one of her side ribs, and she miscarried her foetus.”
Al-Tabrisi, Al-Ihtijaj, Vol. 1, p. 212
As we can see, Imam Ali could not defend Fatima, as he had already been detained and was being taken away against his will. It is worth remembering that the group accompanying Omar was a rather large one and was also armed. Omar himself was a big man. Therefore, after a short examination one can clearly say that the cowardice argument is baseless and has gone down the drain.
I would like to mention that this event has variation in the exact details of what happened, but this is the case with most other historical events.
If things had happened differently...
What would have happened if Imam Ali had successfully managed to defend his wife by killing Qunfudh? How would things have gone down differently? Seeing as there Omar’s company outnumbered the Hashemites and the companions who were with Ali, it would not be wrong to say that Imam Ali along with the rest of his followers would have been killed. This would have had serious ramifications for the future of Islam. If the Prophet’s successor had been killed on the same day as the Prophet, along with all his followers, Islam probably would not have survived bluntly speaking. When I think about it, it must have been a very terrible occurrence, not least for Imam Ali. Even if he had the ability to save Fatima (which he did not), he would have had the dilemma of choosing between Islam and his wife. For this reason, we say this was a great calamity that befell the people of the Prophet’s house, and we ask Allah to bestow His peace and blessings upon them, and all those who followed them in piety.
Ayatollah Mohammed Hussain Fadhlullah (حفظه الله)
The pre-eminent Shia religious authority, Ayatollah Sayed Fadhlullah has indeed questioned the event based on multiple reasons. As a mujtahid, he is within his right to do analyse historical events and make conclusions. It is true that many Shias have attacked Sayed Fadhlullah, even harshly, for his views. However, this is completely unacceptable and as a scholar, Sayed Fadhlullah is entitled to respect. To say the fact he, a Shia scholar has placed doubts on the event, disproves its veracity is inappropriate because whenever we say "Fakhruldeen Razi believed mutah was halal" you say, "it is only one scholar". Well, we can say the same.
And Allah Knows Best
Incident of Fatima Al-Zahra (ع)'s house
