Fadl ibn Shazaan (Died 260 A.H) may Allah (swt) have mercy on him was the companion of the eighth Holy Imam Al-Reza(a.s), who confirms the attack on the house of Sayeda Fatima(s.a).
Fadl ibn Shazaan:
And Abu Bakr said in his illness as a result of which he died,
"I wish I had not attacked the house of Fatima (s.a.), even though it was closed for fight"
. "He regretted" so his repentance is not except due to a sin.
Shia Source: Al-Idhaah. Pg. # 518.
The saying of Fatima (s.a) being killed and her miscarriage isreferred back to the Shi'a for a long time. Poets have writtenabout the oppression which Sayeda Fatima (s.a) underwent.Some of these poets were contemporary to the Imams (a.s),or their time was close to that of the Imams (a.s).
Sayyid Al-Himyari (Died 173 A.H) may Allah (swt) have mercyon him, was contemporary to Imam Al-Sadiq (a.s) and ImamAl-Kadhim (a.s) and he said the following;
Al-Sayyed Ja'far Al-Murtadha:
"Beaten, she (Fatima (s.a)) was, and of her rightsdeprived,
And was made to taste, after his demise, of wounds.
God sever the hands that her did they hit,
And of that who agreed thereto and followed suit.
God may never forgive him nor
Spare him of the horror of leaving the grave..."
Shia Source: Ma'saat ul-Zahra. Vol. 2, Pg. # 15 - 16.
Shibli Nu'mani:
By threatening to burn the house of Fatimah, Umar choked the sedition of Bani Hashim in its cradle!
He writes: Only Bani Hashim continued to insist on their claim; therefore, they would gather in the house of Lady Fatimah to consult among themselves. Umar intended to force Bani Hashim to pledge allegiance, but they refused to bow their heads before anyone except Ali — radiyallāhu ‘anhu. From the perspective of Dirayah Hadith, such conduct from Umar — known for sharp temperament — is not unexpected. Indeed, the actions he undertook in that highly sensitive period, with urgency and intensity, may have involved some excess; however, it must be understood that such sternness was meant to suppress sedition and uproot it. Had the conspiracies of Bani Hashim continued then, the structure of the Muslim community would have collapsed, and the civil wars that later occurred between Ali — karramallāhu wajhah — and Muawiyah would have taken place in that very era.
📚 Sirat al-Faruq, p. 62
Threatening to burn the house of Fatimah was the legitimate right of Umar ibn Khattab, and there was no problem in it!
He states: Whatever has been mentioned regarding Umar and the burning of the house of Lady Zahra — if it is correct — does not invalidate or criticise Umar in any way, because he had the right to threaten those who refused to pledge allegiance in opposition to the Muslims.
📚 Al-Mughni fi Abwab al-Tawhid wa al-Adl – al-Imamah, vol. 20, p. …
Abdul Aziz Dehlawi:
The house of Lady Zahra had become a gathering place for corrupt individuals, and in such a situation, observing courtesy was not necessary!
He argues: If the Noble Prophet (s.a.w.a) threatened to burn the houses of those who abandoned the congregational prayer — which is among the emphasised Sunnahs — then why should it be impermissible to threaten burning the houses in such a case of corruption, whose spark could endanger the entire Muslim community and the whole religion? If the Prophet (s.a.w.a) entered the house of Lady Zahra because of decorative curtains and pictures, and did not leave until they were removed — and even entered the House of Allah for the same reason — then if Umar ibn Khattab, due to the presence of corrupters in that house, and the planning of seditious schemes there, threatened to burn it, what sin could be held against him?
At most, it can be said that observing etiquette did not suit this form of threat. However, evident it becomes that in such grave matters, no one observes courtesy — as proven by the act of Amir with Ayesha the Siddiqah, who was undoubtedly the beloved wife of the Messenger (s.a.w.a), the mother of the believers, and worthy of veneration by all creation. Therefore, anything done by Umar in accordance with the act of the Ma'sum should not become a subject of criticism and reproach.
📚 Tuhfa Ithna Ashariyyah – Nasihat al-Mu'minin wa Fazihat al-Shayatin, p. 593
Ibn Taymiyyah:
The attack on the house of Fatimah was to ensure that no public property was hidden inside it!
He writes: The most that can be said in this matter is that Abu Bakr suddenly entered the house of [Fatimah] to see whether any of the wealth of Allah — which was meant to be distributed among the people — was present there, so that he could return it to its rightful recipient.
📚 Minhaj al-Sunnah al-Nabawiyyah, vol. 8, p. 291
Muslims in general are in denial on the attack on Lady Fatima Zahra’s (s.a.) house post-martyrdom of Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.).
They need only refer to the views of Ibn Taymiyyah – the founder of modern day Salafism – on the subject.
Ibn Taymiyyah not only confirms the attack but defends the actions of the rulers by advancing a rather ‘imaginative’ rational for the attack.
He claims:
He (second one) barged into the house (of Fatima (s.a.)) to see if there was something from Allah’s money to distribute it or give it to those who deserved it!
 |
| BEHAR UL ANWAR VOLUME 31 PG 665 - 668 |
 | |||
| AD DAARATUL BAYZA FI MANAQIBE FATIMA ZAHRA (AS) BY SHEIKHUL ISLAM DR. MOHAMMED TAHIRUL QADRI CHAPTER 16 PAGE 60 |
 | |
| Urdu Translarion of the page |
 |
| ORIGINAL SCANNED ARABIC PAGE OF THE BOOK "EQDUL FAREED " PAGE 13 |
