Note: I will continue to edit this in the future. I will add sources, details, or more.
Fatima Al-Zahra, is the daughtar of our holy, who is widely considered to be his favorite daughtar, and one of the great loves of his life. She was married to Ali ibn Abi-Taleb (as), another love of our holy prophet (saw), and the first of the shia Imams (as). The door incident is perhaps the greatest point of contention between sunnis and shias today as a whole, generally.
Sunnis today all agree on the first four rightly guided caliphs. That is Abu Bakr, Omar, Uthman and Ali. During Ali’s rule there was fitnah, and another sahaba named Mu’awiya waged war against Ali in the battle of Siffin in order to overthrow him and take the Caliphate for himself. The majority of Sunnis today do not look upon Mu’awiya in a favorable light, especially his successor named Yazid ibn Mu’awiya. Yazid was universally considered worse than Mu’awiya, whereas Mu’awiya was wrongly guided, many muslims would agree that Yazid was a tyrant and an evil man. The shias in recent times, have reached a majority consensus in their beliefs that the First three caliphs were wrongly guided as well and in some circles, would say they are completely evil putting them in the same category as Mu’awiya and Yazid. I have no sources for these facts as I consider them widely accepted as true history and modern truths.
The question is, why do shias divert from sunnis in how they view the first three caliphs? Yes it is true that there is much history that the first three caliphs created false Islamic rules and practices, however is that enough to consider them bad or evil? Especially when Imam Ali (as) ultimately gave allegiance to them and supported their endeavors? This all comes down the the incident of the door. This incident is believed to have occurred directly after the death of our holy prophet Muhammad (saw), in an alleged incident where Omar, at the order of the first caliph Abu Bakr, raided Ali’s house and intentionally injuring Fatima (as) by burning her front door, pushing it into her, stabbing her with his sword, and whipping her with a whip. The narration continues to state that she ultimately died of these injuries. The narration claims that Abu Bakr and Omar knew what they were doing and intended to hurt Ali and Fatima out of a secret hate for them or greed for power. To add mystery, all schools agree that Fatima’s (as) burial was kept secret. Some narrations state that Ali wanted something private, other narrations claim that this is evidence of the vicious nature in which Ali, Fatima, and the Ahlul Bayt were treated.
If the door incident never happened, then the question becomes, can the shias ever reconcile with the first three caliphs? If the shias begin to view the first three caliphs in a positive light, would this bring shias and sunnis closer together in belief and brotherhood? Whether the incident of the door happened or not, I am not sure, however I will state that I have found the source (a single narration) of the door incident to be truly inauthentic and unbelievable.
The shia belief about the door incident is ultimately traced to one hadith, one source. This source is a book called Kitab Sulaym. The book is named after a person called Sulaym ibn Qays, however appears to be written by someone called Aban ibn Abi Ayyash (a known fabricator), and allegedly possessed and disbursed by someone named Ibn Udaynah. This information is known to us only from the first page of the book itself, there are no independent sources corroborating this chain or this book. However, it is believed the book existed in history because it was mentioned by various scholars around the third and fourth century after hijrah.
In Kitab Sulaym, the story of the door can be recounted as follows:
Lady Fatimah (AS) said: “O Umar, what do you have to do with us?” He replied: “Open the door, otherwise we will burn your house.” Lady Fatimah (AS) said: “O Umar, are you not afraid of Allah and are you entering our house?” Umar refused to return. He asked fire to be brought and he set the door on fire, then he pushed it and entered. Lady Fatimah (AS) came in front and screamed loudly: “O Father, O Prophet of Allah.” Umar raised his sword with the shield and hit her on the side. She screamed: “O Father” He then lifted a whip and hit her on the hand and she cried: “O Prophet of Allah, Abu Bakr and Umar behaved very badly after you.”
Kitab Sulyam, by Qays Al Hilali, hadith number 3. Isnad is “Aban ibn Abi Ayyash has narrated from Sulaym ibn Qays.”
This is only one portion of the long hadith, part of the story continues as follows:
Abu Bakr said to Qunfuz: “Return to Ali’s house and if he comes out then fine, otherwise enter his house. If he refuses then set the house on fire.” Qunfuz, the cursed, returned and entered the house, without permission, with his companions. Hadhrat Ali (AS) went forward to pick his sword – these people, who were so many went forward against him, got hold of him, raised their swords, arrested him and tied a rope in his neck.
One of the earliest known Shia scholars, Al-Shaykh Al-Mufid (d. 413/1022) in his book Tashih Al-i’tiqadat states,
This book is not trusted, and most of it cannot be acted upon. Distortion and tampering have occurred with its content. The religious one must thus refrain from acting upon all that is in it, and he must not depend on most of it nor should he follow its transmitters. He must leap to the scholars so that they may clarify to him the truth from the falsehood.
Muḥammad b. Muḥammad Al-Mufid, Tashih I’tiqadat Al-Imāmiyyah ed. Husain Dargahi, (Qom, 1413),
149-150.
Rijāl Ibn al-Ghadāʿirī (Arabic: رِجال إبن غَضائِری) is one of the eight main Shiite books of rijal, written by Ahmad b. al-Husayn b. ‘Abd Allah al-Ghada’iri, known as Ibn al-Ghada’iri, a scholar of rijal in 4th/10th and 5th/11th centuries. The first person who mentioned the book was Sayyid Jamal al-Din b. Tawus (d. 673/1274-5). In Al-Rijal, Ibn Al-Ghaḍā’irī stated this about Sulaym ibn Qays:
This famous book is ascribed to him, and our companions used to say: “Sulaym is unknown and he is not mentioned in a single report.” I have found him mentioned in several instances outside his book independently of Abān b. Abī ‘Ayyāsh. Ibn ‘Uqdah mentioned him among the companions of the commander of the faithful, and he listed some ḥadīths transmitted from him. The book is fabricated without a doubt.
Ahmed b. Al-Husayn Al-Ghaḍā’irī, Al-Rijāl, 63.
In Al-Rijal, Ibn Al-Ghaḍā’irī examines another personality that appears in the all variations of the chain of narrators, a well known fabricator named Aban b. Abi Ayyash. He states:
“He was weak, and he should not even be looked at. Our companions ascribe to him the forgery of Kitāb Sulaym b. Qays.”
Ahmed b. Al-Husayn Al-Ghaḍā’irī, Al-Rijāl, 36
In fact, Al-Tusi, one of Shia’s greatest and oldest scholars has stated the following about Aban b. Abi Ayyash:
“Abān bin Abī ‘Ayyāsh, Fayruz: A weak tabī’i.”
Muḥammad b. Al-Hasan Al-Tūsī, Rijāl Al-Tūsī ed. Jawad Al-Qayyumi Al-Asfahani, (Qum, 1373), 126.
With regards to Ahmed b. Al-Husayn named Al-Ghaḍā’irī, prominent scholars of rijal such as Al-RijāSayed Khoei disagree over whether the book was really written by Ibn al-Ghada’iri. This is despite Al-Ghada’iri being cited by many early Shia scholars. In fact, famously Ayatollah Ali Sistani has affirmed that it is not only authentic and valid, but he sees it as the most reliable book of rijal.
Where is Al-Ghada’iri slander, either because of the abundance of his slander or because the book’s attribution to him is not proven, which is not acceptable to the master of the professor. Rather, he sees the proof of the book and that Ibn Al-Ghada’iri is more relied upon in the position of Al-Jarh and Al-Ta’deel than Al-Najashi and the Sheikh and the likes of them, on what was decided by Mr. Boroujerdi (sanctify his secret).
https://www.sistani.org/arabic/data/1/
Further, renowned contemporary scholar Al-Behboodi has held that Al-Ghadairi’s book of rijal is reliable and authoritative.1
Abān b. Abī ‘Ayyāsh was severely criticized in the Sunni tradition prior to the Shī’ite tradition. Over 27 Sunni ḥadīth critics criticized Abān for his extreme weakness as a transmitter. Some even accused him of forgery, while others vindicated him and simply asserted that he was severely weak and delusional in his transmission
Theological Inconsistencies with the Book
Several early critics made note of the fact that the book stated the imāms were
thirteen in number, not twelve. This was one of Ibn Al-Ghaḍā’irī’s objections to the book.2 The mention of thirteen imāms in Kitāb Sulaym was not exclusively noted by Ibn AlGhaḍā’irī. Al-Najāshī, in his book on rijāl referenced it.3 Later versions of the book have forged corrections of this blunder, however the original manuscripts prove this assertion was widespread for several decades or centuries.
The book claims Ali (as) sat on Aisha’s lap. There are several history impossibilities in the book as well, most notably a deathbed conversation with Abu Bakr (ra) and his son. Only, his son was historically 3 years old at the time!
When was Kitab Sulaym First Compiled in History?
The question becomes, when was the first book of Sulaym complied in history? The book is purported to have been written by Sulaym who would have died before 96 AH. His contemporary named Aban b. Abi Ayyash is said to have died around 138 AH, and revealed this book before his death. That is the narrative that the book itself gives that we have in our hands today.
The earliest references to the book come about about three centuries after the death of Sulaym ibn Qays. One possibility is that the book was fabricated by Aban b Abi Ayyash. This would make sense given the wide array of Sunni scholars that call him a forger. The second possibility is that early writings of Sulaym ibn Qays were later compiled into a book three two hundred years later. The third possibility is that Sulaym ibn Qays actually authored the book, and this was tampered with in later iterations. The fourth option is that this book was written by neither Sulaym ibn Qays or Aban b Abi Ayyash, but rather a contemporary of Ibn Uḏaynah. This was the conclusion of scholar Muḥammad Baqer Behbudi, and his reasoning was that the forger seemed too comfortable to utilize the name of Ibn Udaynah. This could be because Ibn Udaynah was forced to flee his home in Basrah, Iraq to Yemen and so he would not be present to refute this attestation.4 This theory is in line with other historians that place the events and mistakes in line with second century AH (sometime in the late Ummiyad dynasty or early Abbasid dynasty).
How to Sell it? The Origin Story
When forgers of texts come along, and they want to sell this text as an authentic piece of history, they will first need to convince the scholars of why this text has just appeared now, hundreds of years later. Often forgers will use fancy and mystical stories of a dream where a spiritual figure told them to check the trunk of a tree or a cave. They will awaken to the great mystery that awaits, and go to the location they saw in their dream, only to find the manuscript there preserved. They then allege they copy that manuscript for safekeeping, and voila here it is. Kitab Sulyman is no different. The opening pages of the book have an origin story:
‘Umar b. Uḏaynah said:
Abān b. Abī ‘Ayyāsh once invited me around a month before his death. He told me: “I saw a dream yesterday [which hinted that] my death is imminent. I then saw you next morning, and I was happy to see you. I saw Sulaym in a dream last night, and he told me: ‘O Abān, you shall die in these coming days, so fear Allah with regards to my entrusted deposit, and do not lose it. Conceal it as you have promised, and only share it with a man from the Shia of ‘Alī b. Abī Tāleb of piety and status.’
When I saw you this morning, I was happy to see you, and I remembered my dream of Sulaym b. Qays.”
Sulaym b. Qays, Kitāb Sulaym ibn Qays, 125.
Abān then provided an anecdote which supposedly explains his clandestine retrieval of Kitāb Sulaym. He said:
When Al-Hajjaj was appointed to Iraq, he inquired about Sulaym b. Qays. Sulaym thus fled from him, and he covertly came upon us in Nawbandajan; and he stayed in our house. I have never seen a man who honored himself, was pious, taken by sadness, and hateful of fame more than him. I was 14 years old at the time, and I had recited the Quran. I used to ask him, and he would tell me about the people of Badr.
I’ve heard many ḥadīths from him he transmitted from ‘Umar b. Abī Salamah – son of Umm Salamah the Prophet’s wife – Mu’aḏ b. Jabal, Salman Al-Farisi, ‘Alī b. Abī Tāleb, Abū Ḏarr, Al-Miqdad, ‘Ammar, Al-Bara’ b. ‘Azeb. He then asked me to conceal them, but he did not make me swear upon that.
When death eventually was near, he invited me and spoke to me individually. He said: “O Abān, I have lived by you, and I have only seen from you that which I like. I possess some books I had heard from the reliable transmitters and transcribed with my own hands. In them are ḥadīth which I do not want exposed to the public, since the people will deny and reject them. They are the Truth, and I have taken them from the people of Truth, understanding, patience and piety; from ‘Alī b. Abī Tāleb, Salman Al-Farisi, Abū Ḏarr Al-Ghifari, Al-Miqdad b. Al-Aswad.
There is not a single ḥadīth in it I had heard from one of them except that I asked another about it until they’d all eventually agree upon it, so I followed them upon that. It also has things I heard later from the people of Truth. When I fell ill, I initially intended to burn them, but I then felt bad and avoided doing so.
If you promise me by Allah and His covenant to not inform anyone of it so as long as I am alive and that you do not transmit anything from it to anyone after my death asides from those whom you trust from the Shi’a of ‘Alī b. Abī Tāleb who have piety and status.”
[Abān said]: I then promised him, so he handed me the books and read them to me. Sulaym died soon after that:
I’ve heard many ḥadīths from him he transmitted from ‘Umar b. Abī Salamah – son of Umm Salamah the Prophet’s wife – Mu’aḏ b. Jabal, Salman Al-Farisi, ‘Alī b. Abī Tāleb, Abū Ḏarr, Al-Miqdad, ‘Ammar, Al-Bara’ b. ‘Azeb. He then asked me to conceal them, but he did not make me swear upon that.
When death eventually was near, he invited me and spoke to me individually. He said: “O Abān, I have lived by you, and I have only seen from you that which I like. I possess some books I had heard from the reliable transmitters and transcribed with my own hands. In them are ḥadīth which I do not want exposed to the public, since the people will deny and reject them. They are the Truth, and I have taken them from the people of Truth, understanding, patience and piety; from ‘Alī b. Abī Tāleb, Salman Al-Farisi, Abū Ḏarr Al-Ghifari, Al-Miqdad b. Al-Aswad.
There is not a single ḥadīth in it I had heard from one of them except that I asked another about it until they’d all eventually agree upon it, so I followed them upon that. It also has things I heard later from the people of Truth. When I fell ill, I initially intended to burn them, but I then felt bad and avoided doing so.
If you promise me by Allah and His covenant to not inform anyone of it so as long as I am alive and that you do not transmit anything from it to anyone after my death asides from those whom you trust from the Shi’a of ‘Alī b. Abī Tāleb who have piety and status.”
[Abān said]: I then promised him, so he handed me the books and read them to me. Sulaym died soon after that.
Sulaym b. Qays, Kitāb Sulaym ibn Qays, 125-6
Secret books, promises not to share with the public, dreams of impending death, spontaneous delivery to a random member of the shia public, and affirmations of authenticity of not only Imam Ali (as) but also Salman Al-Farisi, Abu Darr Al-Ghifari, and Al-MIqdad b. Al-Aswad. Why Imam Ali’s stamp of approval was not enough for Aban? Your guess is as good as mine.
Conclusion
When digesting the above, which is only the a small summary of the wealth of information out there that exists that discredit this book, we can conclude this book should be trashed. For example, I did not discuss the fact that many do not even believe Sulaym ibn Qays to even have existed, and there is much evidence to prove this theory such as the fact that almost no one had heard of him. You must ask a question of yourself, even if this book could be considered a reliable narration of events as Sulaym ibn Qays saw things, which it is clearly a forgery, can we believe the door incident occurred from just one source? Now add into that, that the one and only source for this incident is clearly a made up fairytale likely soon after the Abbasid revolution (in other words wartime propaganda), I think its safe to say bibi Fatima was never attacked by anyone, let alone Abu Bakr (ra), and Umar (ra).
If we choose to disbelieve in the door incident, then what reason is there for shias to hate the Rashadoun (the first three caliphs)? Perhaps we can question Abu Bakr’s cheating, Omar’s unguided fiqi reforms, or Uthman’s nepotism. But those reasons alone were not enough to cause Imam Ali (as) to revolt, much to the contrary, he gave his pledge of allegiance, fought by their side, send his sons to fight for them, named his children after them, and even married his daughtar to Omar (ra) AFTER bibi Fatima’s death. The shia madhab needs reform, and it starts with tossing out the Fatima door narrative that is the main roadblock to unity among the ummah.
EDIT: The Muḥammad bin ‘Alī Al-Sayrafi, Abū Saminah Chain
There are certain scholar such as Al-Tūsī and Al-Najāshī in their books on rijāl that promote the same chain (seen in the above diagram as chain N and T1). In hopes to bypass and avoid Aban b. Abi Ayyash (a known fabricator), these individuals utilize those above chains. Firstly, this chain does in fact still go through Aban b. Abi Ayyash, despite what they say. The only copy of the book we have today, consists of the tranmission story that involves Aban b Abi Ayyash.
Regardless, this chain is also very weak for an equally if not more glaring reason. Muḥammad bin ‘Alī Al-Sayrafi, Abū Saminah, who was a known liar and forger.
Al-Najāshī described him saying:
He was very weak, corrupt in his beliefs, and he cannot be relied upon for anything. He had migrated to Qom, and he was infamous in Al-Kufa for lying. He stayed with Ahmed b. Muḥammad b. ‘Isa for a while, then he became known for his ghuluww. Thus, Ahmed b. Muḥammad b. ‘Isa expelled him from Qom.
Ahmed b. ‘AlīAl-Najāshī, Rijāl Al-Najāshī ed. Musa Al-Shobeiri Al-Zanjani, (Qum, 1418), 8
Ibn Al-Ghaḍā’irī described him saying:
A Kufan liar who was extreme. He had entered Qom, and his status was exposed in it; and Ahmed b. Muḥammad b. ‘Isa Al-Ash’ari expelled him from the city. He was famous in the highland. He should never be considered, and his ḥadīth should not be written.
Ahmed b. Al-Husayn Al-Ghaḍā’irī, Al-Rijāl ed. Muḥammad Rida Al-Husaini Al-JalAlī, (Qum, 1422), 94
Al-Kashi said:
Al-Fadl [b. Shaḏan] said in one of his books: “The infamous liars are Abū Al-Khattāb, Yunus b. Ḏabyan, Yazid Al-Sayegh, Muḥammad b. Sinan, and Abū Saminah is the most infamous of them all.
Muḥammad b. Al-Hasan Al-Tūsī, Ikhtiyar Ma’rifat Al-Rijāl ed. Jawad Al-Qayyumi, (Qum, 1427), 451
In conclusion, any chain that includes Muhamad b Ali Al-Sayrafi is nulled and voided.
Footnotes
- Muḥammad Baqir Al-Behboodi, Ma’rifat Al-Ḥadīth, (Beirut, 2006), 116. Also, Al-Behboodi, after performing a comprehensive cross-reference of Rijāl Ibn Al-Ghaḍā’irī, also noted that earlier citations of Ibn Al-Ghaḍā’irī often matched what is mentioned in the book in our possession today, further solidifying the case for its reliabīlity
- Ahmed b. Al-Husayn Al-Ghaḍā’irī, Al-Rijāl, 63.
- Ahmed b. ‘AlīAl-Najāshī, Rijāl Al-Najāshī, 440. – in his description of “Hibatullah b. Ahmed”, referencing his reliance on 13 imams by providing proof from Kitāb Sulaym.
- Muḥammad Baqer Al-Behbudi, Ma’rifat Al-Ḥadīth, (Beirut, 2006), 363.
Sources:
Deconstructing Kitab Sulyam ibn Qays, Abu Al-Abbas Al-Shami.
Leave a Reply