Confusion and Contradiction in the Narratives

Someone expresses his bewilderment as he faces such “a great deal of confusion in the narratives,” as he puts it, then says, “The narratives referring to burning the house mentioned in the summary of Al-Shafi, Al-Ikhtisas, al-Mufid’s Amali, contradict each another: some state the threats but not the actual burning, which are quite a few, while others refer to the actual burning.”

In answer, we would like to say that there is really no confusion in these narratives, nor is there any contradiction for the following reasons:

 

1. The traditions referring to the threat to burn did not deny that it did not actually take place. In a previous answer, we stated that everyone transmits what his political objective dictates to him, or his sectarian bias, or whatever the circumstances permit him to transmit or be acquainted with, especially during that cruel political epoch wherein a narrator would be whipped on account of a narrative in favor of Ali (A.S.) as many as one thousand lashes.^[1] Even naming a newborn “Ali” was sufficient to kill that newborn.^[2] In my book about the struggle of freedom during al-Mufid’s time, I listed many weighty matters in this regard, so there is no harm in referring to them.

To sum up,
 

Text transmission varies according to the objectives, circumstances, etc. What is transmitted, too, varies in quantity, warmth or coolness according to the circumstances, individuals, affiliations, etc.

One may transmit the threat to burn. Another transmits gathering firewood. A third transmits bringing a torch. A fourth transmits burning the door or the house. A fifth transmits breaking the door. A sixth transmits the forceful entry of the house, exposing it to strangers and violating its privacy. A seventh transmits squeezing al-Zahra’ (A.S.) between the door and the wall. An eighth transmits the miscarriage because of beating. A ninth transmits hitting her on her fetus, or on her side, or on her wrist till it looked like a bracelet, or hitting her on her fingers so that she would leave the door alone to enable them to open it. A tenth transmits breaking her rib, too.

On the other hand, one transmits that `Omer hit her, while another transmits al-Mugharah ibn Shu`bah doing so, whereas a third transmits Qunfath beating her..., etc.

So, there is no narrative which belies another, nor is there any confusion among them. Each narrator transmits a portion of what went on because he has a purpose relevant to it, or for any other reason, such as taking into consideration a certain political circumstance, or due to a sectarian or other biases. Shaikh Muhammed Hasan al-Muzaffar explained all of this when he said,

 

One of them who is more knowledgeable than others and who wishes to narrate all facts could not afford to leave this incident in its entirety, so he narrates some of its introductions so that he does not distort it from all facets, and so that he does not under-estimate it, as they did with the swearing of allegiance (to Ali [a]) at the Ghadir and others.^[3]

 

2. Those who recorded history and documented hadith used to pay a special consideration to the political environment. The rulers and others wanted to downsize what they had committed against the Household of Infallibility and of Prophethood before the public. If they could deny the incident entirely, they would do so and they would show that the assailants’ hearts were full of love for al-Zahra’ (A.S.). This is what we find in what is attempted by someone to show the warmth of the relationship between al-Zahra’ (A.S.) and the assailants and deny any misunderstanding in this regard. Refer to what is said by Ibn Kathar, the Hanbali scholar, in his book Al-Bidaya wal Nihaya and in others. What we have heard from someone, regarding their love for her, may have been taken from some of these folks.

It becomes quite obvious that transmitting the truth of what al-Zahra’ (A.S.) had to go through implies a very strong and irrevocable indictment which has its effects on understanding history and evaluating events. It affects those who covet the greatest post and status. Moreover, it has certain effects on the level of feelings and sentiments as well as emotional and religious affiliations of this party or that. Permission to transmit something like that and tolerating it was not the best option for many people.

 

3. The actual burning has been narrated through the venues of those who follow the path of Ahl al-Bayt (A.S.) in various ways some of which are quite authentic and reliable; so, there is no need to underestimate these narratives by saying that the traditions about the threat to burn are quite a few and give the impression that others should be discarded.

Some texts proving that the burning did take place have been stated in a forthcoming part of this book dedicated to transmitting the legacies and texts.

 

4. Some narrators are concerned about underestimating what took place. They wish to distance those whom they love from this embarrassing incident, even exonerating them from it if possible. When these same narrators transmit how the burning did, in fact, take place, this makes us feel comfortable about the authenticity of the same when transmitted through the venues of those who follow the path of Ahl al-Bayt (A.S.).