From the Concealment of Ghadir to the Assault on Fatimah’s House, Peace Be Upon Her
Author: Hamed Sarem
Revisiting a Historical Event through Analysis and Documentation
1. Satan’s Ever-Present Triangle: Concealment, Confusion, and Distortion
Throughout the history of the prophets, devils and the front of falsehood have consistently employed a fixed pattern to confront the prophets and their successors—a pattern that may be summarized in three words:
Concealment: as far as possible, they bury the truth in silence and oblivion; Confusion: what can no longer be concealed is presented in another guise through the mingling of truth and falsehood; Distortion: once the truth has been recorded in history and can neither be removed nor wholly denied, they alter its meaning and direction.
This triangle is also plainly visible in the events following the martyrdom of the Noble Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him and his family: first, the concealment of Ghadir; then the confusion and justification of Saqifah; and finally, the distortion and denial of Fatimah’s sufferings.
2. Lady Fatimah al-Zahra’s Cry against the Concealment of Ghadir, Peace Be upon Her
Ghadir was the day that the Qur’an described as the “perfection of religion” and the “completion of blessing”; the day on which the guardianship of the Commander of the Faithful, peace be upon him, was affirmed. Yet after the Prophet’s passing, the ruling current sought to marginalize this truth.
In such an atmosphere, Lady Fatimah, peace be upon her, did not remain silent:
The Fadak sermon was not merely a financial dispute; it was an explicit protest against the alteration of the course of the caliphate and a reminder of Ghadir. Her positions conveyed this message: “The central issue is Ghadir; Fadak is a sign.”
Therefore, it may be said:
“Remembering the sufferings of Fatimah is, in truth, remembering Ghadir.”
Keeping alive the sufferings of Lady Fatimah, peace be upon her, means keeping alive the greatness of that day for whose preservation a figure such as her—and even her six-month-old unborn child—was sacrificed; while Satan still hopes to conceal Ghadir beneath the dust of oblivion.
Even today, the continuation of that same line reveals itself in the concealment of Fatimah’s sufferings and the distortion of the account of the assault upon the House of Revelation, to the point that some deny that the door of the house was set on fire in the first place.
3. Fatimah’s Light: A Guide for Seekers of Truth
Despite all these efforts, the light of Fatimah al-Zahra, peace be upon her, cannot be extinguished. Although some brazenly claim: “There was neither an assault, nor fire, nor a violation of the sanctity of the House of Revelation,” the combined historical evidence indicates otherwise.
To clarify the matter, rather than relying on emotions, we shall present the course of events from various sources and then place alongside it an internal admission from the very head of the ruling establishment—an admission that plays a key role in the argument.
4. The Course of Events in the Assault on the House of Fatimah, Peace Be Upon Her
These events have been reported primarily in Sunni sources. Each one, considered on its own, constitutes an “indication”; yet taken together, they form a complete and coherent picture of the incident.
The First Incident: A Harsh Order to Bring Ali, Peace Be Upon Him
Some historical sources report that the first caliph gave the following order:
They were to bring ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib, peace be upon him, before him in the harshest possible manner to give allegiance; and if they refused to pledge allegiance, they were to fight them.
This order—issued only a few days after the Prophet’s passing, in a tense Medina—shows that the matter was not merely a simple difference of opinion; rather, it involved structural pressure to impose allegiance.
The Second Incident: Gathering Firewood
Books by Sunni historians report that the second caliph ordered:
“Bring firewood and place it at the door of the house.”
It was a house that everyone knew was the home of Fāṭimah, the Prophet’s daughter.
Analysis: Gathering firewood at the door of a Muslim’s home—especially the home of the Prophet’s daughter—conveys an unmistakable message: submit and pledge allegiance, or face the threat of being burned.
Third and Fourth Incidents: The Wick and Fire in Hand
Some reports state that:
Umar approached the house carrying a wick, and came near its door with a piece of fire.
That is, in practical terms:
Firewood + wick + fire
All the prerequisites for an actual fire had been prepared; this was no longer a “vague verbal threat.”
Fifth Incident: An Explicit Threat to Set Fire, Even in Fatimah’s Presence
Historical sources report that the second caliph addressed the people of the house, saying:
“By God! Either you come out to pledge allegiance, or I will set the house on fire over you.”
And when he was told that Fatimah was in that house, he did not withdraw his threat.
Qur’anic and ethical analysis: This very threat—even if one were to assume that the actual burning was not conclusively established—is exceedingly grave in the light of the Qur’an and ethics. The Qur’an states:
“Indeed, those who abuse Allah and His Messenger—Allah has cursed them in this world and the Hereafter and has prepared for them a humiliating punishment” (al-Ahzāb, 57).
What relation does one who threatens to burn a house, even if Fatimah is in it, have to this verse, when the Prophet himself said: “Fatimah is a part of me; whoever harms her has harmed me”?
The Sixth Incident: An Explicit Report of the Burning of the House Door
Some historical sources, including Ithbāt al-Waṣiyya, attributed to al-Masʿūdī, report as follows:
“They hastened toward the house of the Commander of the Faithful, peace be upon him; they attacked his home and set its door on fire.”
Regarding al-Masʿūdī, many Sunni scholars of biographical evaluation have described him as a reliable historian familiar with their own scholarly milieu. Even if one debates the chain of transmission of this particular report, the underlying incident of the assault and confrontation over Fāṭima’s house is also reflected in numerous other sources.
5. A Crucial Link at the Heart of the Affair: Abū Bakr’s Deathbed Admission
Thus far, most of the evidence has consisted of external historical reports—that is, later historians reporting the event. Yet in the course of the argument, there is another, exceptionally important piece of evidence that emerges from within the ruling structure itself: Abū Bakr’s admission at the end of his life.
Sunni sources report that Abū Bakr said on his deathbed:
“There are three things I did which I wish I had not done … Among them, he said: وَدِدتُ أَنِّی لَم أَکُن کَشَفتُ بَیتَ فاطِمَةَ وَتَرَکتُهُ وَإِن أُغلِقَ عَلَی الحَربِ: I wish that I had never uncovered (opened) Fāṭima’s house and had left it alone, even if it had been closed in preparation for war.”
From an argumentative standpoint, this statement contains several highly significant points:
The very expression “kashaftu bayta Fatimah” (“I opened up Fatimah’s house”) is telling: the word kashf here means opening and violating a closed sanctuary; that is, a house deliberately shut was forced open by the ruling authority. This bears no resemblance whatsoever to a “friendly visit” or an “ordinary visit to an invalid.” It acknowledges that the house had been deliberately and knowingly closed. The continuation, “wa in ughliqa ‘ala al-harb,” means: we knew that this house had been closed as a stance of protest and opposition; nevertheless, we proceeded to “open it up,” and now I (Abu Bakr), at the end of my life, wish I had not done so. This fully accords with the preceding chain of events. We have already seen that: a stern order was issued to bring ‘Ali, peace be upon him; firewood was gathered; a wick and fire were prepared; an explicit threat to burn the house was made; and historians then report the burning of the house’s door. Now, the leader of that very authority acknowledges the matter in these words: “Would that I had not opened up Fatimah’s house …” This admission is, in a sense, an internal confirmation of what historians have narrated externally; within the line of argument, it functions like the golden link at the center of a chain: it not only confirms the assault and the opening of the house, but also shows that the act was so grave that its principal perpetrator, in his final reckoning at the end of life, expressed remorse for it.
6. Even if someone doubts the report of the fire, what still remains?
Let us suppose—so as to engage in dialogue with a Sunni audience—that someone says: “I do not accept the explicit report that the door was burned; I have doubts about its chain of transmission.”
Even in that case, their own sources confirm several matters:
A forceful order to bring ‘Ali, peace be upon him, even by war; the gathering of firewood before the house’s door; the bringing of a wick; the bringing of fire; a serious and public threat to burn the house, even with Fatimah present; and Abu Bakr’s deathbed admission: “Would that I had not opened up Fatimah’s house.”
The question is:
In light of these six points, how should the “natural course of events” be understood? As tending toward conciliation and dialogue, or toward a grave assault and violation of the sanctity of the House of Revelation?
Even if, out of partisanship, someone seeks to remove the word “burning” from the reports, the very fact of the “forcible entry into Fatima’s house,” accompanied by the threat of fire, remains in their own sources. This alone suffices to establish the violation of the sanctity of the Ahl al-Bayt and the departure from the path of divine and prophetic approval.
7. Confirmation of the Atmosphere of Tension: Fatima’s Anger in Sahih al-Bukhari
Sahih al-Bukhari—regarded by Sunnis as occupying the pinnacle of hadith authority—states that:
After the episode of Fadak, Fatima, peace be upon her, did not speak to Abu Bakr; she died while angry with him.
This report:
Although it does not disclose the details of the assault, it indicates a state of profound rupture and dissatisfaction between Fatima and the ruling authority. When this anger is considered alongside Abu Bakr’s admission, the threat of fire, and the “forcible entry into Fatima’s house,” the picture becomes clearer.
8. Response to the Objection: “Since It Is Not in al-Bukhari, It Did Not Happen”
It is sometimes said: “Since the incident of the fire and the assault is not reported in Sahih al-Bukhari, it is therefore not trustworthy.”
However:
No one has claimed that every major event in Islamic history must appear in al-Bukhari. Al-Bukhari is a selective hadith collection, not a comprehensive encyclopedia of history. Many events from early Islam—whether accepted by Sunni Muslims or disputed—are recorded in other sources such as Tarikh al-Tabari, Ansab al-Ashraf, al-Imamah wa al-Siyasah, and so on; these same sources have also been cited by Sunni scholars themselves. If every event absent from al-Bukhari were to be denied, a large part of Muslims’ shared history would, in effect, become impossible to understand.
Therefore, the omission of an event from one particular book is not evidence that it did not occur in reality—especially when the event itself, or its necessary implications, has been reported in numerous other books in different forms and accords with the internal admissions of the principal figures involved.
9. Final Question: Is There Room for Fairness, or for Prejudice?
In light of all that has preceded, even if someone:
doubt the details of the burning, or seek to contest the chains of transmission of certain reports,
these questions still remain:
Why, in order to pressure ʿAlī—peace be upon him—would they bring firewood, wick, and fire to the door of Fāṭimah’s house? What crime, according to the logic of the Qur’an and the Sunnah, warrants the punishment of threatening to burn down a house with its occupants inside? What is the standing, before the verse «Indeed, those who harm Allah and His Messenger …» (إِنَّ الَّذینَ یُؤذونَ اللَّهَ وَ رَسولَهُ…), of one who says, “I will burn down the house, even if Fāṭimah is in it”? And finally: is one who organizes an assault on Fāṭimah’s house—and years later, on his deathbed, expresses remorse over the “opening of Fāṭimah’s house” (the opening of Fatimah’s house)—worthy of the caliphate over the Muslim community?
At this point, sectarian prejudice should no longer provide the answer; this is the moment for fairness, conscience, and reflection on history.
Sources and Documentation
1. The emphatic order to bring the Commander of the Faithful—peace be upon him—and to inspect those who had abstained from pledging allegiance
The incident, as stated in the article: “The first caliph inspected those who had abstained from pledging allegiance (in the house of ʿAlī—peace be upon him—and Fāṭimah—peace be upon her) and ordered that they be brought forth forcefully to pledge allegiance.”
Sources:
Ibn Qutaybah al-Dinawari, al-Imamah wa al-Siyasah, vol. 1, pp. 19–20 (various editions): the account of inspecting those gathered with Ali, peace be upon him, sending Umar to bring them out, and threatening to burn the house: «تخلّفوا عن بیعته عند علی… فبعث إلیهم عمر…». Ibn Abd Rabbih, al-‘Iqd al-Farid, vol. 3, p. 63 (the section on the Saqifah of Banu Sa‘idah and those who withheld allegiance); the account of Ali, Abbas, and Zubayr gathering in Fatimah’s house and Umar being sent with strict orders to bring them out.. Al-Baladhuri, Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. 1, p. 586: «إن أبا بكر أرسل إلى علي يريد البيعة…» (Abu Bakr summoned Ali for allegiance, and he refused.).
2. Umar’s arrival with firewood and his threat to burn the house, despite knowing Fatimah, peace be upon her, was present
The incident in the article: “Umar orders firewood to be brought, threatens: either you come out to pledge allegiance or I will burn the house; when he is told that Fatimah is in this house, he says: ‘Even so!’”
Sunni sources:
Ibn Qutaybah, al-Imamah wa al-Siyasah, vol. 1, pp. 19–20: «… فبعث إليهم عمر، فجاء فناداهم وهم في دار علي فأبوا أن يخرجوا، فدعا بالحطب وقال: والذي نفس عمر بيده، لتخرجن أو لأحرقنّها على من فيها، فقيل له: يا أبا حفص، إن فيها فاطمة، قال: وإن …». Ibn Abi Shaybah, al-Musannaf, vol. 7, p. 432 (and also vol. 8, p. 572 in some editions): Umar’s threat that, should those people’s gathering in Fatimah’s house recur, he would set the house ablaze over them: «… لئن بلغني ذلك لأحرقنّ عليهم البيت…». Abu al-Fida’, al-Mukhtasar fi Akhbar al-Bashar, vol. 1, p. 156: reports Umar’s threat to burn Fatimah’s house, stating that they must join what the community had entered into, or the house would be burned over them..
3. Umar’s arrival at the door of the house with a “wick / firebrand” (a flame of fire)
Incident in the article: “Umar approaches the house carrying a wick (a burning brand); Fatimah—peace be upon her—meets him at the door and asks: ‘Do you intend to set the door of the house on fire?’”
Sources:
Al-Baladhuri, Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. 1, p. 586: “... Then Umar came with a wick, and Fatimah met him at the door. She said: ‘O son of al-Khattab, do you see yourself burning my door?’ He said: ‘Yes, and that is stronger in support of what your father brought...’” This report has been retransmitted with the same purport in numerous Shi‘i and Sunni works; among them: – Makarem Shirazi, al-Gharah ‘ala Bayt al-Wahy (citing Ansab al-Ashraf and al-Musannaf)
4. Bringing firewood, placing it around the house, and openly threatening to kindle a fire
Incident in the article: “Firewood is piled around the house, and Umar loudly threatens: either you come out and pledge allegiance, or I will set it on fire.”
Sources:
Al-Imamah wa al-Siyasah, Ibn Qutaybah—the same text cited above: “Then he called for firewood... ‘You must come out, or I shall burn it down over those within it...’” hadith and historical books (reporting the atmosphere of threat and the piling of firewood): – Bihar al-Anwar, Allamah Majlisi, vol. 28, pp. 269 and 308–309 (the gathering of firewood, Umar’s threat, and the burning of the door).
5. Umar’s oath: “By God, I will surely burn [the house] over you” in historical sources
The incident in the article: “Umar swears: By God, you must either come out to pledge allegiance, or I will set the house ablaze over you.”
Sunni sources:
Tārīkh al-Umam wa al-Mulūk, al-Ṭabarī — vol. 3, pp. 198–202 (in some editions): a report from Ziyād ibn Kulayb concerning Umar’s coming to Ali’s house—peace be upon him—where Talha, Zubayr, and some of the Emigrants were present, and Umar said: “By God, I will surely burn [the house] over you, unless you come out to pledge allegiance …” Tārīkh Abī al-Fidā’ — vol. 1, p. 156: a similar report of Umar’s threat to burn Fatimah’s house in order to compel those present to pledge allegiance.
6. The explicit report of burning the door of Fatimah’s house—peace be upon her
The incident in the article: “The climactic stage: the burning of the door of Fatimah’s house and the assault on the house of Revelation.”
Shi‘i sources (explicit in mentioning the burning):
Al-Mas‘udi, إثبات الوصیّة للإمام علي بن أبي طالب, pp. 143–146 (Ansariyan edition and other editions): “...They stormed his house, burned its door, forcibly brought him out, and pressed the Lady of Women against the door until she miscarried Muhsin...” A brief list of Shi‘i sources affirming the burning of the door (for use in a bibliographic footnote): – Sulaym ibn Qays, كتاب سليم بن قيس; – بحار الأنوار, vols. 28, 43, and 53; – العوالم, vol. 11; – الهداية الكبرى; – الاحتجاج للطبرسي; – and others, which have been listed together in the response of the Center for Doctrinal Research as well as in the article “ما هي المصادر التي تذكر ما جرى على فاطمة الزهراء (ع) من مصائب؟”.
7. Abu Bakr’s admission on his deathbed: “I wish I had not exposed Fatimah’s house”
The incident in the article: “At the end of his life, Abu Bakr says: I wish I had not exposed Fatimah’s house and had left it alone, even if it had been closed in preparation for war.”
Sunni sources:
Tarikh al-Tabari, vol. 2, p. 353 (in some editions): from ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn ‘Awf, from Abu Bakr: “...I do not regret anything except three things that I did... I wish I had not exposed Fatimah’s house for any reason, even if they had closed it for war...” Al-Dhahabi, Tarikh al-Islam, vol. 1, p. 385 (under the events of the year 13 AH and Abu Bakr’s death): reports the same wording, “I wish I had not exposed Fatimah’s house...”. Al-Muttaqi al-Hindi, Kanz al-‘Ummal, under the reports concerning Abu Bakr’s remorse (various editions, including the collection of reports from ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn ‘Awf): the text, “I wish I had not exposed Fatimah’s house and had left it alone, even if it had been closed for war...” Al-Haythami, Majma‘ al-Zawa’id, vol. 2, p. 353 (also in the discussion of Abu Bakr’s virtues): mentions the same statement among the three acts Abu Bakr wished he had not done.
Note for the article: This admission, alongside the reports of threats and assault, shows that “exposing Fatimah’s house” was not an ordinary act or a simple visit; rather, the central figure in the event himself regarded it at the end of his life as a grave error and a matter for remorse.
8. Lady Fatimah’s anger with and estrangement from Abu Bakr in Sahih al-Bukhari and Muslim
Incident in the article: “Fatimah, peace be upon her, became upset with Abu Bakr; she did not speak to him until she passed away, and she was buried at night without his being informed.”
Sources:
Sahih al-Bukhari — Book of Khums / Book of Inheritance, chapter “The Prophet’s statement: ‘We are not inherited from; what we leave behind is charity’” (in some editions: vol. 4, p. 1549, or vol. 5, p. 5; hadith: “Fatimah found fault with Abu Bakr …”). The well-known wording is: “Fatimah, the daughter of the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, became angry with Abu Bakr and shunned him, and she continued to shun him until she died …” Sahih Muslim — Book of Jihad and Expeditions (or the chapter “We are not inherited from; what we leave behind is charity”); a similar report states: “Fatimah found fault with Abu Bakr over this, so she shunned him and did not speak to him until she died …”
These two sources demonstrate, at the highest level of Sunni hadith authority, an atmosphere of “Fatimah’s dissatisfaction with the ruling order”; alongside the historical sources on the assault and threats, they form an important piece of the evidentiary puzzle in your article.
9. Supplementary Shi‘i Sources (for Use in More Detailed Footnotes)
If you wish to include a separate section on “Shi‘i sources” in a more detailed version of the article, you may also list the following in one paragraph:
The Book of Sulaym ibn Qays al-Hilali; al-Ihtijaj, al-Tabrisi; Bihar al-Anwar, al-Majlisi (especially vols. 28, 31, 43, and 53) ; al-‘Awalim, vol. 11; al-Hidayah al-Kubra; Dala’il al-Imamah, al-Tabari al-Imami; Bayt al-Ahzan, al-Qummi; and dozens of other sources included in general lists (such as the response of the Center for Doctrinal Research).
