Thread by @NutcaseRafidi, So I've already replied to this, and this dumb assertion has been [...]

So I've already replied to this, and this dumb assertion has been refuted many a time, but I'll go over it briefly. https://twitter.com/Farid_0v/status/1342428686197399553

https://twitter.com/Farid_0v/status/1342428686197399553

1) Number one, he wants a sahih chain for a historical event. This event has been attested to by your own umari scholars. Ur shaykh ul Islam ibn taimiyyah la attests to the fact that there was a break in, but covers it up by saying that it was to see if there was stolen money!

“He broke into the house to see if there was some thing of Allah’s money to distribute it or give it to those who deserved it”
Source: Minhaj al-Sunnah, Volume 8 page 291

Here, the umaris try to mask it and say it's out of context, or that bakr la meant no harm

Bakr la broke into the house of lady Zahra sa and this was not to harm? Jaahil assertion. So the fact of the matter is that number one, your own scholars attest to the fact that there was a break in and so historically, this is proven and needs no sahih chain.

2) Next, Farid asks for a Sahih chain, but does not realise that in our books, this is tawattur. Does he not realise this?? Maybe it is due to his ignorance, similar to when he missed out certain arabic words in his debate against brother Isa.

Now, it also has ijma from early classical scholars, and InshaAllah I will briefly go through this later. Allama Majlisi here shows that the Hadiths are mutawattir also.

Al-Majlisi II:

This report provides evidence that Fatima (s.a) is a martyr. *This report is mutawaatir*. The reason for that was when they usurped the Caliphate and the majority of the people pledged allegiance to them, they sent for Alee (a.s) to pledge allegiance,

But he refused. Accordingly, Umar sent people to burn the house of the Ahlulbayt (as) and they wanted ro force their entry, but Faatima (sa) resisted them at the door. So Qunfudh, Umars servant, pushed tje door upon the belly of Faatima (sa) so her side got crushed and

she miscarried her unborn child. And the Messenger of Allah (saw) named him Mohsin (a.s). She got ill because of that and died because of that illness.

Source: Mir'aat Al-Uqool. Vol. 5, Pg. # 315 / 318.

So here, we see Allama Majlisi attesting to the attack and stating that it is Mutawaatir. After seeing this, will you still ask for one sahih Hadith when you know mutawattir of more weighty Farid?

Like this, we see, again, that more Imams of the Ahlulbayt as have actually commented on Bibi Zahra sa and stated that she is a martyr. Imam Ali as himself states this:
" Fatima al-Zahra (sa) is truthful and a martyr"
Source: Imam Ali (a) in Al-Kafi, Ch. 114, h 2

Like this, there are many other narrations to state that Bibi Zahra sa is a martyr, but I have not quoted it in order to keep this thread as concise as can be. So for umaris to state that the book is a fabrication and it never happened is a lie, as we have narrations from

books like Al Kafi that state Bibi Zahra sa was martyred, going hand in hand with kitab Sulaym. It reconciles.

3)On top of this, most of our classical scholars have also attested to this event, including Sayyed Kheoi, Shaykh Mufeed, Al Najashi, along with allama majlisi as shown

So this, along with the fact that scholars have stated it is Mutawaatir and there is IJMA on this, shows that this is not a fabrication, rather it is something that is agreed upon and has consensus from classical scholars. It is undeniable.

So again, for Farid to ask for one sahih tradition is pure ignorance. I'm not quite sure if he did it on purpose or did not realise.

4) As a final point, although it is not needed as this incident has concensus from our classical scholars, I will quote 2 scholars, one Umari, who comments on the so called problematic "Aban ibn abi Ayyash" to show that he is in fact reliable, and this also goes against what the

Mukhalifeen state, so it strengthens it as of course, the Mukhalifeen will ridicule him.

We see
Al Mamaqani says the following:I say:Assertion about him being weak is difficult,especially aftee someone like Sulaym Bin Qays passes over his book to him and he calls him "O Nephew". Anyone who checks the position of Sulaym bin Qays, he will incline towards the opinion

That the man (Aban) was a praiseworthy person who converted to Shi'a, and the attribution of the fabrication of the book of Sulaym to him has no basis to it. If we add to this the statement of Sheikh Abi Alee in "Al Muntaha" where he says:

I came to the conclusion that the origin of degrading him is through Mukhalifeen(i.e. the so-called 'Ahl Al-Sunnah'),because of him being Shi'a" which strengthens it.Allah (swt) knows best.Rather after the trustworthiness of Sulaym is established,as it will come later Insha'Allah

The trustworthiness of Aban will be proven too, due to him handing over his famous book to him.

Source: Tanqih Al-Maqaal, vol 3, pg 69-71.

Here, we see a scholar attesting to Aban's reliability, stating that the Mukhalifeen have tried to curse and degrade him.

Not only this, but Al Dahabi, the great umari scholar, himself comments in his book on the piety of Aban:

And Hamad bin Zayd said: Salm Al-Alawi narrated to us, he said: "I saw Aban bin Abi Ayyash writing something from Anas." Then Salm said to me: "My son, you have to narrate

From Aban." So I mentioned that to Ayoob Al Sakhtani, and he said:" We have known him to be good since the day he was." Ibn Hibban said :" Aban was one of the worshippers that spent his nights in prayer and his days by fasting."

Source: Mizan Al-I'tidal. Vol. 1, Pg. # 10 / 12, Person # 15.

So, here we see that. Dhabai himself records on the piety of Aban, and so not only do Shia scholars attest to his reliability, so do the umari scholars.

Overall, it can be seen that I have briefly addressed this from 4 angles.
1)Historical Events do not a "Sahih Sanad" as this event is attested to even by great nasibis la like Ibn Taimiyyah la.

2)I showed that the incident is Mutawaatir and showed the statement of Allama Majlis

3) I showed that classical scholar have ijma on this issue, and this does not even require references as those who study, know.

4) I addressed the assertion that Aban is unreliable and a liar, and showed from our scholars as well as Dhahabi, an umari one,that he was a pious man

This, overall, shows that the incident of the door is not only known throughout history to be one that occurred, as their own scholars admit, but also that it is Mutawaatir with ijma from our scholars, showing that the reports from Sulaym Bin Qays are in fact reliable

May Allah swt curse abu bakr, umar, Qunfudh, khalid bin walid la and all those that accompanied them, and May Bibi Zahra sa be pleased with those who defend her. Haqq is with Bibi Zahra sa, the pure #LadyOfHeaven

Also, I already know what nawasib will try with Ibn Taimiyyah reference. It was used to show that even if he thinks it is hypothetical, instead of saying clearly that Bakr la is a laanti for entering the house, he covers up and says it would be for money.

So I used this to supplement and show that the cover up from even ppl like ibn taimiyyah shows enough, as this event is historically known, and will be further known after the #LadyOfHeaven movie InshaAllah. Haqq is with Zahra sa

Latest Threads Unrolled: