They decided to assassinate him during prayer. During the lifetime of the Messenger of Allah (PBUH), the Prophet himself had been the greatest threat to them. After him, this danger came from Imam Ali (A), because he could expose and thwart their plans.

Therefore, the physical and political assassination of Imam Ali (A) became part of their plan.

According to a narration, Abu Bakr ordered Khalid to kill the Commander of the Faithful (A) during prayer. In the middle of the prayer, however, he regretted the order and said:

“Khalid! Do not carry out the order I gave you.” [24]

Later, when the Commander of the Faithful (A) saw Ibn Muljam for the first time, he revealed his correct name and lineage and identified his killer, through the words of the Messenger of Allah (PBUH), as a Jew. [25]

A report also states that after the return of the Commander of the Faithful (A), he will again be martyred by a Jew in the region of Jericho. [26]

B. The Martyrdom of Lady Fatimah (S)

Lady Fatimah (S) was one of the principal targets of the infiltration organization and members of the ruling faction.

In the second stage of their plan, they decided to eliminate her because Lady Fatimah (S) was the principal defender of the Commander of the Faithful (A), and all people regarded themselves as obligated to preserve her honor and status.

Her complete defense of Imam Ali (A), together with her separation from the forces of falsehood, placed a major obstacle before them.

Therefore, they had to take action by every possible means to remove this obstacle.

Another reason was Lady Fatimah's role in establishing Imam Ali's social standing.

Bukhari transmitted:

“As long as Fatimah was alive, the Commander of the Faithful was respected in society.” [27]

C. The Assassination of Saʿd ibn ʿUbadah

Saʿd ibn ʿUbadah was one of the strongest opponents of the ruling faction. He was killed in Syria in the fifteenth year after the Hijrah. [28]

References

[1] Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. 1, p. 586.
[2] Tarikh Abi al-Fida, vol. 1, p. 156.
[3] Al-Milal wa al-Nihal by al-Shahrastani, vol. 1, p. 57.
[4] Al-ʿIqd al-Farid, vol. 5, pp. 13–14.
[5] Sahih al-Bukhari, vol. 2, p. 504; vol. 3, hadith 1265.
[6] Tarikh al-Tabari, vol. 2, p. 353; Al-ʿIqd al-Farid, vol. 5, p. 21; Al-Muʿjam al-Kabir, vol. 1, p. 62; Al-Imamah wa al-Siyasah, vol. 1, p. 36.
[7] Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. 2, p. 315.
[8] Ikmal al-Kamal, vol. 1, p. 338.
[9] Tarikh al-Madinah, vol. 3, pp. 1099–1100.
[10] Ibid., pp. 1101–1102.
[11] Ibid., p. 1102.
[12] Shuʿab al-Iman by al-Bayhaqi, vol. 3, pp. 194–195.
[13] Al-Dhahabi, Tarikh al-Islam wa Wafayat al-Mashahir wa al-Aʿlam, vol. 3, p. 411.
[14] Tafsir al-Qurtubi, vol. 3, pp. 417–418.
[15] Sharh Nahj al-Balagha, vol. 8, pp. 255–256.
[16] Al-Imamah wa al-Siyasah, vol. 1, p. 28.
[17] Takhrij al-Ahadith wa al-Athar, vol. 4, p. 184; Al-Sirah al-Nabawiyyah by Ibn Hisham, vol. 1, p. 23.
[18] Sunan al-Tirmidhi, vol. 4, p. 367 [Hasan Sahih]; Al-Sunan al-Kubra by al-Bayhaqi, vol. 8, p. 166; Al-Sunan al-Kubra by al-Nasa'i, vol. 7, p. 111; Al-Mustadrak, vol. 1, p. 9.
[19] Al-Tabaqat al-Kubra, vol. 5, p. 535.
[20] The forces of falsehood, fully aware of this and of Jewish expertise in medicine, used Jewish physicians whenever they reached an impasse. Historical sources contain many examples. One of the most famous concerns Muʿawiyah and Abd al-Rahman ibn Khalid ibn al-Walid. When Muʿawiyah saw the people of Syria favoring Abd al-Rahman, he decided to eliminate him. When Abd al-Rahman became ill, Muʿawiyah ordered his Jewish physician, Ibn Athal, to visit him and finish the task. Ibn Athal gave him a drink that killed him. Ibn Athal was later killed by Abd al-Rahman's brother, Muhajir, and his son, Khalid ibn Muhajir. Muʿawiyah sentenced Muhajir ibn Khalid to pay two blood compensations, one to the physician's heirs and one to the public treasury. This practice continued until the time of Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz. Muhajir ibn Khalid remained imprisoned until after Muʿawiyah's death. (Al-Istiʿab, vol. 2, pp. 829–830; Al-Wafi bi al-Wafayat, vol. 13, p. 163 and vol. 18, p.

86). Other sources identify Ibn Athal as a Christian physician and one of the prominent men of Rome. (ʿUyun al-Anba, p. 172; Tarikh al-Tabari, vol. 4, p. 171; Tarikh Madinat Dimashq, vol. 16, p. 164). Other sources do not mention his religious identity. (Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. 5, p. 109 and vol. 10, p. 209; Al-Munammaq, p. 360; Al-Aghani, vol. 16, p. 397).
[21] Al-Mabsut by al-Sarakhsi, vol. 23, p. 7; Tafsir al-Thaʿlabi, vol. 4, p. 97; Kashf al-Khafa, vol. 2, p. 187; Al-Kashshaf, vol. 1, p. 668; Tafsir Ibn Kathir, vol. 3, p. 166; Al-Durr al-Manthur, vol. 3, p. 129 [reported by Abu al-Shaykh and Ibn Mardawayh].
[22] Tarikh Baghdad, vol. 9, p. 459.
[23] Zubayr ibn Bakkar lists the Companions of al-ʿAqabah as follows: Muʿattib ibn Qushayr, Wadiʿah ibn Thabit, Wajd ibn ʿAbdullah ibn Nabtal, Harith ibn Yazid, Aws ibn Qayzi, Jallas ibn Suwayd, Saʿd ibn Zurarah, Qays ibn Qahd, Suwayd and Daʿis of Banu Balhab, Qays ibn ʿAmr ibn Sahl, Zayd ibn Lasit, and Salalah ibn Hammam. The last two are identified as Jewish hypocrites from Banu Qaynuqa. Most of these individuals belonged to Banu ʿAmr ibn Awf, with some from Banu Harithah and Banu Najjar. (Tahdhib al-Kamal, vol. 5, pp. 503–505).
[24] Al-Ansab by al-Samʿani, vol. 6, p. 176; Sharh Nahj al-Balagha, vol. 13, pp. 301–302.
[25] Al-Kamil by Ibn ʿAdi, vol. 3, p. 464; Tarikh Madinat Dimashq, vol. 42, p. 554.
[26] Duʿafa al-ʿUqayli, vol. 3, p. 416; Tarikh Madinat Dimashq, vol. 42, p. 300.
[27] Sahih al-Bukhari, vol. 5, p. 83.
[28] Muruj al-Dhahab, vol. 2, p. 301.

Source: Doshman-e Shadid: Jaryan-Shenasi-ye Haqq va Batel Pas az Payambar-e Eslam ba Tamarkoz bar Naqsh-e Yahud va Jaryan-e Nefaq, Book Two, based on the comparative history lectures of Hojjat al-Islam Mehdi Taeb, 2nd edition, Summer 2019, Shahid Kazemi Publications, pp. 207–215, with minor modifications.

✅ Jewish Studies Think Tank
🇮🇷👉 @jscenter

🆔 @rahyafte_en

🔸 Enjoining Good Means Being “Engaged”! 🔸

🔹 Ayatollah Haeri Shirazi 🔹

⚙️ What are “Enjoining Good and Forbidding Wrong”?
Look at your watch. The gears of a watch are interlocked with one another. Their teeth fit together; when one turns, it makes the other turn as well.

Enjoining good means that the teeth of one person’s gear engage with those of another. Enjoining good is being “in gear”; abandoning it means putting yourself in neutral!

Being in neutral means one gear turns while the other does not.

⚙️ When enjoining good and forbidding wrong are abandoned, it is as though one gear has moved away from the other—you have shifted into neutral. One turns, but the other does not.

The individual’s gear no longer engages with the gear of society; in other words, the goodness of one person does not spread to others.

When goodness becomes merely a personal matter and enjoining good is abandoned, each person simply turns on their own, while someone else may be turning in the opposite direction and committing wrongdoing.

The result is that society as a whole no longer moves forward.

⚙️ Sometimes a person may feel unable to make another person “turn,” so they put themselves in neutral. They may be a righteous and upright person in their private life, but their gear does not engage with others in social life.

They may think: If others are becoming heedless, I will not become heedless. If others delay their prayers, I will not delay mine.

So they put themselves in neutral in order to pray on time.

But no—the real art is to pray on time while still remaining “in gear.” ⚙️

— Ayatollah Haeri Shirazi

https://t.me/haerishirazi/5689

🆔 @rahyafte_en

🔸 The More You Trust in God’s Goodness, the More You Should Trust Him 🔸

🔹 Ayatollah Haeri Shirazi 🔹

💐 However much you think well of God, think even better of Him. And however good you believe God to be, believe Him to be even better. However compassionate you believe Him to be, believe Him to be even more compassionate. And however much you believe Him to be watching over you, accompanying you, supporting you, and showing mercy toward you, believe Him to be far beyond even that.

💐 Someone who has such a Lord—why should they be upset? Why should they worry or feel brokenhearted? Someone who has such a Master—why should they be hopeless or sorrowful? Someone who has such a #Teacher and nurturer, why should they live in anguish? Why should they be anxious?

God is the Most Merciful—your fellow traveler, your companion, your partner in life, and the One who shares your sorrows.

💐 It is our illusions that create distance between us and Him and give rise to negative assumptions about Him.

These doubts arise because we do not understand. Our objections and complaints are like the objections of Moses (peace be upon him) to Khidr (peace be upon him).

They all stem from our limited knowledge, because we do not know the wisdom behind God’s actions, nor can we grasp their deeper reality.

💐 Sometimes, we find ourselves questioning and criticizing what happens.

Let us accept that what we have understood is far less than what truly exists—and that the goodness God has willed in every matter is far greater than what we have been able to comprehend.

— Ayatollah Haeri Shirazi

https://t.me/haerishirazi/5690

🆔 @rahyafte_en

🔊 Listen

🗡️ Empty Your Sword of Air!

🎙️ Ayatollah Haeri Shirazi

Why is it that some people have such great strength and resilience, while others may have enormous potential yet little real value?

The reason is compression.

A material becomes strong when everything that is unnecessary has been removed from it. The more completely its impurities and empty spaces are eliminated, the stronger and more solid it becomes.

This is how tempered steel is made. Think of a sword that has been forged and tempered so well that it can be used in battle for years and still remain strong.

The same is true of the human being.

🗡️ The more you remove the “air” within yourself, the better you are forged.

When you feed a baby milk, some air enters the stomach along with it. You lift the baby and gently pat its back so that the air comes out. Otherwise, the child may develop stomach pain. Some babies even become restless because, after feeding, they were not moved enough to release that trapped air.

Victories are like this too.

After every victory, a person must “burp”—they must release the pride and ego that can accumulate within them. Step by step, they must purify themselves.

Otherwise, that pride becomes a kind of illness.

💠 Even a tiny bubble of worldly attachment entering a person can eventually cause pain—just as a baby twists in discomfort when its stomach hurts. There will be suffering, tears, and distress.

When attachment to the world begins to stir within a person, if they do not recognize it and quickly remove it, it can take root.

And once it takes hold, a person may have to shed many tears to free themselves from it.

Therefore, the hardships that continue along the way—the disappointments, failures, and pressures we experience—can serve as multifaceted forms of purification.

🌿 Desire, ego, and love of this world are like bubbles of air:
they create empty spaces and gaps in the middle of our spiritual journey, and those gaps become the source of difficulty.

🗡️ So empty your sword of air. Let the impurities out. Let yourself be forged.

https://t.me/haerishirazi/5693

🆔 @rahyafte_en

🔸 Plastic Flowers and Artificial Fruit! 🔸

🔹 Ayatollah Haeri Shirazi 🔹

Satan tempts those who have problems in their fundamental beliefs to do good deeds. He encourages them toward discipline, good manners, and morality—so that he can eventually make them proud of themselves and whisper:

“If your beliefs were really flawed, you wouldn’t be capable of producing such good deeds.”

Imam al-Sadiq (A.S.) said to Zurārah:

«يَا زُرَارَةُ إِنَّهُ إِنَّمَا صَمَدَ لَكَ وَلِأَصْحَابِكَ، فَأَمَّا الْآخَرُونَ فَقَدْ فَرَغَ مِنْهُمْ»

“O Zurārah! Satan is only lying in wait for you and those like you; as for the others, he has already finished with them.”

🌳 What does this mean?

Because the roots of those people have already been severed and their connection to wilāyah has been cut off, Satan wants to keep them from realizing that their tree is already dead.

So he puts artificial fruit on it.

He attaches fake fruit or plastic flowers to a dead tree so that the person can take comfort in thinking:

“Look! My tree is blossoming!”

When in reality, the flowers are artificial.

🌱 But you are different. Your tree has roots.

That is why Satan would rather pick up an axe and break its branches.

This is why, when someone has false beliefs, they may pray all five daily prayers in congregation—even in the mosque—and never grow tired of it!

But when that person’s beliefs become sound, sometimes they may struggle just to attend one congregational prayer.

The same wind that blows behind them and pushes them toward the mosque may blow against you and stand in your way.

⚠️ Do not mistake outward religious activity for a healthy spiritual tree.

A tree can have beautiful flowers and abundant fruit—and yet they may be plastic and artificial.

🌿 What matters first is the root.

📖 Amr bil-Ma‘ruf wa Nahy ‘an al-Munkar, p. 75

https://t.me/haerishirazi/5698

🆔 @rahyafte_en

🔸 Now It’s America’s Turn! 🔸

🔹 Ayatollah Haeri Shirazi 🔹

🔥 Some people repeatedly urged Imam Zayn al-‘Abidin (A.S.) to rise up in revolt, just as his father had.

Apparently, there was a fire burning in the Imam’s home. Imam al-Baqir (A.S.) narrates that his father said to those who kept insisting:

“Who among you is willing to take a burning ember in his hand and hold it until it goes out?”

No one stepped forward.

I said, “Father, I am willing.”

My father replied, “I do not mean you.”

He asked again. Once more, no one came forward. I volunteered again, and again he said, “I do not mean you.”

The third time was the same.

I saw that the companions became so ashamed and embarrassed that they wished the earth would open up and swallow them. My father felt sorry for them and let them go.

🔥 Consider this: The words of Imam Zayn al-‘Abidin (A.S.) are, in a sense, God’s question to all of us.

This question has been repeated from generation to generation, yet no generation was willing to pick up that ember.

Then Imam Khomeini looked at the people and saw faithfulness in them. He understood people. So, in response to the call:

“Who among you is willing to take a burning ember in his hand and hold it until it goes out?”

he answered:

“We will take it.”

🔥 The first fire Imam Khomeini took into his hand was the fire of the Shah and SAVAK.

He was told to hold it until it became cold. The people said:

“Whatever the Imam takes into his hand, we will take into ours.”

The Shah and SAVAK were a red-hot fire.

To hold that fire meant allowing your body to burn, blister, and lose pieces of flesh—yet never dropping the fire until it cooled and became charcoal.

The martyrs, the wounded veterans, the lashes endured in prison, the pursuits, the raids on homes, and all the suffering endured along the way were the pieces of flesh that fell away as the people held that fire.

Yet Imam Khomeini never backed down.

For 15 years—from 5 June 1963 to 11 February 1979—the Imam and the people held that fire until it cooled.

🔥 Then came the fire of Saddam and the Ba‘athist regime. They took that fire as well, and held it until it cooled.

Then Imam Khomeini was told:

“Take the next fire.”

He replied:

“After the Shah, it is America’s turn.”

Whatever happened with the Shah, he said, must also happen with America.

America and Israel are like fire; they must be held until they cool.

🔥 Resistance means holding this fire.

And this fire is cooling.

Where was America in 1979, and where is America today?

The demonstrations taking place around the world, the courage people have gained, and the repeated burning of American flags are, in this view, signs that the fire is cooling.

When the same transformation that took place in our country occurs throughout the world, the Awaited One will come.

We must pray that the nations of the world continue along this path to its end.

🔥 In Palestine, this fire has been taken into their hands.

Whoever says, “What does Palestine have to do with us? They are one nation and we are another,” has put the fire down.

If someone puts down this forty-year-old fire today, they must answer for the failure of forty previous generations.

Why?

Because, in this perspective, Imam al-Mahdi (A.S.) asks:

“Forty generations did not put this fire down. Now that you have taken it up, why would you put it down after only a few years?”

🔥 All these martyrs are the burns on the hands of the people who have held the fire of oppression and domination and have never flinched from carrying it.

This fire will eventually cool—just as the fires of the Shah and Saddam cooled.

When the Shah’s fire cooled, Imam Khomeini returned to us. And when the fire of oppression and domination cools, we will have the honor of meeting the Awaited Imam.

The issue is simple:

🔥 Hold the fire.

This is our responsibility today.

https://t.me/haerishirazi/5703

🆔 @rahyafte_en

https://eitaa.com/ansari_m_h/11825

🆔 @rahyafte_en

💠 #quran

🌸🎧

💠 #page_404

🌐 @rahyafte_en

💠 The Most Beneficial for Your Health! 🌿

🔅 Imam al-Kāẓim (peace be upon him):

✓ “There is no medicine except that it may provoke another illness. For the body, nothing is more beneficial than restraint, except from what the body needs, and eating only according to its needs.”

📚 Al-Kāfī, Vol. 8, p. 273, Hadith 409

🔗 https://eitaa.com/solok_shieh/14264

🆔 @rahyafte_en

🔥 The Burning of the House of Prophethood — and Why Understanding History Matters

One of the most important questions in early Islamic history is not simply what happened after the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ passed away, but what the earliest historical records actually preserve about those events.

A striking piece of evidence comes through ʿUrwah ibn al-Zubayr, a prominent early Muslim historian and the brother of ʿAbdullah ibn al-Zubayr.

When ʿAbdullah ibn al-Zubayr later besieged members of the Banū Hāshim and gathered firewood against them, ʿUrwah attempted to justify his brother's actions. According to al-Masʿūdī, as quoted by Ibn Abī al-Ḥadīd, ʿUrwah argued that his brother only wanted to force unity and obedience.

Then comes the remarkable comparison:

“Just as ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb did with Banū Hāshim when they delayed giving allegiance to Abū Bakr: he brought firewood to burn the house over them.”

The significance of this report is that the comparison is not presented by a later Shīʿī polemicist as an isolated accusation. It is attributed to ʿUrwah ibn al-Zubayr, transmitted through the historical work of al-Masʿūdī and preserved by Ibn Abī al-Ḥadīd.

And this is not the only early report.

Another important narration is transmitted from Aslam, the freedman of ʿUmar. In the Muṣannaf of Ibn Abī Shaybah, the report states that after Abū Bakr received the allegiance, ʿAlī and al-Zubayr were meeting at Fāṭimah's house. When ʿUmar learned of this, he went to Fāṭimah and warned that if the people gathered there again, he would order the house to be burned over them. The report further says that Fāṭimah informed those present of ʿUmar's oath, after which they did not return and eventually gave allegiance.

Other historical works preserve similar wording. Al-Dīnawarī records that ʿUmar called for firewood and threatened to burn the house over those inside, while al-Balādhurī reports a confrontation in which Fāṭimah asked whether he intended to burn her door, to which the answer is reported as “Yes.”

The report attributed to al-Wāqidī is also cited in later historical literature:

“Come out, or I will burn it over you.”

This wording is preserved in discussions citing al-Wāqidī's account of ʿUmar's confrontation with ʿAlī.

So what can we responsibly conclude?

The historical evidence clearly preserves multiple early reports of a threat to burn the house where ʿAlī, Fāṭimah and others were gathered. It also preserves the remarkable testimony attributed to ʿUrwah ibn al-Zubayr, who explicitly compared ʿAbdullah's use of firewood against Banū Hāshim with ʿUmar's earlier action concerning the house of Fāṭimah.

That is historically significant.

At the same time, a careful historical presentation should distinguish between three different claims:

1. A threat to burn the house — explicitly preserved in several early reports.

2. Bringing or gathering firewood — explicitly preserved in reports attributed to ʿUrwah/al-Masʿūdī and other historical traditions.

3. What physically happened afterward — whether the house was actually set on fire, and the precise details of any physical assault — these involve additional reports and are disputed in historical and sectarian scholarship.

The existence of this disagreement does not erase the importance of the reports that do survive.

Indeed, perhaps the most important lesson is this:

History must be read through its sources, not through slogans.

If an early historical source preserves a threat to burn the house of the Prophet's daughter, that report deserves to be examined seriously — regardless of whether it fits a later theological narrative.

And if an early transmitter such as ʿUrwah ibn al-Zubayr is reported as using ʿUmar's treatment of Banū Hāshim as the very precedent by which he justified his own brother's actions, then the passage deserves even closer examination.

The question is not: “Do I like this report?”

The question is:

“What did the earliest sources actually say?”

And once we begin asking that question, understanding the history of Fāṭimah al-Zahrāʾ (سلام الله عليها) becomes impossible without confronting these uncomfortable reports.

May Allah grant us the courage to seek the truth, even when the truth is difficult.

#History #FatimahAlZahra #Fatima #AhlulBayt #HouseOfFatimah #EarlyIslamicHistory #UmarIbnAlKhattab #UrwahIbnAlZubayr #AlMasudi #AlWaqidi #IbnAbiShaybah #UnderstandingHistory #AhlulBaytHistory

https://eitaa.com/Sahebmedia1/2721

🆔 @rahyafte_en

🔷 How to Understand History Intelligently

Approaches to the Burning of the House of Fāṭimah

To understand the hidden realities of early Islamic history, we must avoid two extremes: blind acceptance of every historical report and blind denial of every uncomfortable event.

A serious historian does neither.

The proper approach is source criticism, isnād analysis, comparison of independent reports, chronology, and careful attention to historical context.

History is not a photograph.

A report appearing in a historical book does not automatically make it true. But neither does the absence of a report prove that an event never happened—especially when we are dealing with events that may have been politically sensitive and subject to suppression, omission, or later reinterpretation.

This distinction becomes crucial when studying the events surrounding the house of Fāṭimah al-Zahrāʾ (سلام الله عليها) after the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ.

🔸 When history itself is under pressure

One of the fundamental questions for a historian is:

Who had the power to preserve a report—and who had the power to suppress it?

If an event directly threatens the legitimacy of a political order, its historical transmission may become especially complicated.

This is why the historian cannot simply say:

“If it really happened, surely every history book would mention it.”

That is not how historical research works.

Instead, the researcher looks for traces preserved in different sources, including hostile accounts, indirect references, political correspondence, early transmitters, and reports that survive despite later attempts to reinterpret them.

🔸 The importance of indirect evidence

Consider the reports concerning the forced allegiance of ʿAlī (عليه السلام).

In the historical material, we encounter references to pressure being placed upon ʿAlī and those gathered with him. Even reports transmitted within Sunni historical literature preserve traditions concerning a threat to burn the house in which they had gathered.

The historian's task is then to ask:

How early is the report? Who transmitted it? Through which chains? Are there parallel traditions? What was the political context? And how did later historians treat the same event?

These questions are far more meaningful than simply asking whether a particular report confirms our prior beliefs.

🔸 Read the enemy's testimony carefully

One of the most powerful techniques in historical research is examining admissions preserved by people who had no interest in supporting the opposing side.

The case of ʿUrwah ibn al-Zubayr is particularly striking.

When his brother, ʿAbdullah ibn al-Zubayr, took severe measures against members of Banū Hāshim, ʿUrwah reportedly sought to justify his brother's actions by comparing them with what ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb had done when members of Banū Hāshim delayed giving allegiance to Abū Bakr.

Whatever conclusion one ultimately reaches regarding the complete sequence of events, the historical significance of such a comparison is undeniable:

A later action was being justified by appealing to an earlier precedent involving the household of Fāṭimah.

That is precisely the kind of material a historian must investigate rather than dismiss.

🔸 Early sources matter

Another essential principle is chronological proximity.

The closer a source or transmitter stands to the event, the more seriously historians generally examine its testimony—while still evaluating its reliability.

Among the early traditions discussed in this context are reports associated with figures such as Mūsā ibn ʿUqbah, as well as material transmitted through al-Wāqidī, Ibn Abī Shaybah, al-Balādhurī, al-Masʿūdī and others.

No single report should automatically be treated as decisive merely because it is old.

But when multiple strands of historical evidence converge around a particular core event, the historian has a responsibility to explain that convergence.

🔸 The real question

Therefore, the discussion is not simply:

“Was the house burned?”

The first historical questions should be more precise:

Was there a confrontation at Fāṭimah's house?

Were there threats involving fire?

Was pressure applied to obtain allegiance?

Which early sources preserve these reports?

How independent are the traditions?

What details are historically secure, and which remain disputed?

How did later political and theological developments affect the transmission of these reports?

This is what understanding history means.

Not accepting everything.

Not denying everything.

But following the evidence wherever it leads.

And when the evidence concerns Fāṭimah al-Zahrāʾ (سلام الله عليها), the daughter of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, the subject deserves particular care, precision, and intellectual honesty.

The name of Fāṭimah remains one of the clearest moral dividing lines in the history of Islam.

History may be censored.
Sources may be selective.
Narratives may be rewritten.
But the task of the historian remains the same: search, compare, verify—and never surrender the truth to inherited slogans.

#History #IslamicHistory #FatimahAlZahra #AhlulBayt #EarlyIslam #HouseOfFatimah #HistoricalResearch #SourceCriticism #UmarIbnAlKhattab #UrwahIbnAlZubayr #MusaIbnUqbah #AlWaqidi #AhlulBaytHistory #UnderstandingHistory

https://eitaa.com/Sahebmedia1/2722

🆔 @rahyafte_en

🔷 What Did Ibn Taymiyyah Say About Abu Bakr?

A Historical Admission—or a Defensive Justification?

Sometimes, when investigating a historical event, the most revealing evidence does not come from its opponents, but from the way its defenders attempt to explain it.

One noteworthy example is a passage found in Ibn Taymiyyah’s famous work Minhāj al-Sunnah al-Nabawiyyah, volume 8, page 291, in his discussion of the reports concerning the house of Fāṭimah al-Zahrāʾ (سلام الله عليها).

Ibn Taymiyyah writes:

“The most that can be said is that he entered the house to see whether there was any of the public treasury’s property there…”

This passage deserves careful attention.

🔸 Ibn Taymiyyah himself preserves the claim that Abū Bakr entered Fāṭimah’s house in order to investigate whether public property was present there.

🔸 He uses the expression “kabas al-bayt” (كبس البيت)—a term that does not ordinarily describe a casual visit, but rather conveys the idea of entering upon a place with force or pressure.

🔸 However, it would be historically inaccurate to claim that Ibn Taymiyyah thereby accepted the entire Shīʿī account of the attack. He presents the statement within an argument and then attempts to justify Abū Bakr’s alleged action. Therefore, the passage should be understood in its full context.

So the more precise historical question is not simply:

❌ “Did Ibn Taymiyyah openly accept the Shīʿī version of the attack?”

Rather, we should ask:

Why does Ibn Taymiyyah, while defending Abū Bakr, even discuss a scenario in which Abū Bakr entered Fāṭimah’s house to investigate property?

And more importantly:

What source was Ibn Taymiyyah relying upon when presenting this claim?

This is precisely where historical research must move beyond slogans and enter the realm of source criticism and contextual analysis.

🔸 An Important Point

In the same discussion, Ibn Taymiyyah attempts to argue that Abū Bakr did not harm ʿAlī, al-Zubayr, or the other opponents of his rule, while presenting the alleged entry into the house as an act motivated by concern over “the property of Allah” and its distribution.

Therefore, even someone who rejects the Shīʿī interpretation of these events cannot simply claim:

“There is absolutely no historical report about Abū Bakr entering Fāṭimah’s house.”

Such a statement would be difficult to reconcile with the passage preserved in Minhāj al-Sunnah.

At the same time, intellectual honesty requires another distinction:

This passage by itself does not establish every detail found in Shīʿī accounts—such as the breaking of the door, physical assault, or the martyrdom of al-Muḥassin.

Each of those claims requires its own independent examination of the sources.

But the passage is still historically significant enough to raise an important question:

If there was no historical basis whatsoever for such an incident, why would one of Abū Bakr’s strongest defenders discuss his entering Fāṭimah’s house in the first place?

🔻 This Is How We Should Read History

Do not accept every claim without examination.

But do not reject every uncomfortable report simply because it challenges a familiar narrative.

Read the text.
Examine the wording.
Study the context.
Identify the source.
Then draw the conclusion.

The house of Fāṭimah al-Zahrāʾ (سلام الله عليها) is not merely a historical detail.

It is one of the most important points of dispute in understanding the events that followed the death of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ.

And if we truly want to understand history, we must be willing to examine both the evidence and the arguments of those who oppose our interpretation.

📚 Minhāj al-Sunnah al-Nabawiyyah, Ibn Taymiyyah, vol. 8, p. 291.

#IbnTaymiyyah #MinhajAlSunnah #AbuBakr #FatimahAlZahra #HouseOfFatimah #AttackOnFatimahsHouse #AhlulBayt #IslamicHistory #HistoricalResearch #SourceCriticism #EarlyIslamicHistory #AhlulBaytHistory #MuhammadKhoniferzadeh #SahebMedia

https://eitaa.com/Sahebmedia1/2723

🆔 @rahyafte_en

🔷 Abū Bakr’s Alleged Regret Concerning Fāṭimah’s House

A Controversial Report from the Final Hours of His Life

One of the most striking reports concerning the events after the death of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ appears in accounts describing Abū Bakr’s final illness.

According to a report attributed to ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn ʿAwf, Abū Bakr expressed regret over three actions shortly before his death.

Among the statements attributed to him is a remarkable one concerning the house of Fāṭimah al-Zahrāʾ (سلام الله عليها):

“I wish I had not opened Fāṭimah’s house, even if they had closed it for confrontation, and I wish I had not sent men into it.”

This report is cited in a number of historical works, including:

📚 Tārīkh al-Ṭabarī, vol. 2, p. 619
📚 al-ʿIqd al-Farīd, vol. 5, p. 23
📚 Tārīkh Madīnat Dimashq, vol. 30, p. 418–419 in some editions

The wording and exact details vary between transmissions and editions, which is precisely why the report should be examined carefully rather than reduced to a slogan.

🔸 Why Is This Report Important?

Because the statement is presented as a regret expressed by Abū Bakr himself, rather than an accusation originating from a later polemic.

If the report is historically authentic, its significance is enormous.

The statement would indicate that Abū Bakr regarded the entry into Fāṭimah’s house—and the sending of men there—as one of the actions he wished he had not undertaken.

That raises an unavoidable historical question:

What exactly happened at Fāṭimah’s house that caused such regret?

And this question becomes even more important when the report is studied alongside other early traditions concerning:

• the gathering of ʿAlī and Banū Hāshim at Fāṭimah’s house;
• demands for allegiance following the Saqīfah;
• threats involving the burning of the house;
• reports of men being sent to the house;
• and later historical accounts attempting to explain or justify these actions.

A single report should never be treated as the entire case.

But historical methodology also demands that a report preserved in multiple historical works not simply be ignored because its implications are uncomfortable.

🔸 The Broader Context of Succession

The final days of Abū Bakr also contain important reports concerning the appointment of ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb.

Several historical narratives describe Abū Bakr dictating his succession document while suffering from severe illness, with ʿUthmān ibn ʿAffān involved in recording it.

This episode itself has generated extensive historical discussion regarding the transition from Abū Bakr to ʿUmar and the political structure that developed after the Prophet's death.

The historian therefore has to examine the entire sequence:

Saqīfah → allegiance → pressure on those who did not immediately accept the new political order → the events surrounding Fāṭimah’s house → Abū Bakr’s later succession arrangement.

Only by placing the reports within their chronological context can we properly understand their significance.

🔻 A Crucial Historical Distinction

Intellectual honesty requires us to distinguish between:

“This report exists in early historical literature”

and

“Every detail of this report has been conclusively proven authentic.”

These are not the same claim.

The report of Abū Bakr's regret deserves serious investigation precisely because it appears in several major historical works. But questions concerning its chain of transmission, variants in wording, and the reliability of its transmitters must also be addressed.

That is what genuine historical research looks like.

Not:

“Accept everything.”

And not:

“Reject everything.”

But:

Locate the earliest sources.
Compare their wording.
Examine their chains.
Study the historical context.
Then determine what can responsibly be concluded.

If the report is authentic, however, one statement becomes especially difficult to dismiss:

Abū Bakr is reported to have regretted what happened at the house of Fāṭimah.

And that alone makes this one of the most important reports to investigate when studying the events surrounding the succession after the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ.

The truth does not become false because it is uncomfortable.
And historical research does not become sectarian simply because it asks difficult questions.

📚 Tārīkh al-Ṭabarī; al-ʿIqd al-Farīd; Tārīkh Madīnat Dimashq.

#AbuBakr #FatimahAlZahra #HouseOfFatimah #Saqifah #EarlyIslamicHistory #IslamicHistory #AhlulBayt #HistoricalResearch #HistoryOfIslam #UmarIbnAlKhattab #UthmanIbnAffan #HistoricalSources #AhlulBaytHistory #MuhammadKhoniferzadeh #SahebMedia

https://eitaa.com/Sahebmedia1/2724

🆔 @rahyafte_en