إنّ عمر رفس فاطمة حتّى أسقطت بمحسن.
“umar kicked fatima asws, and that caused abortion of mohsin asws”
Shia quoted this report as a proof for their views that Umar attacked Fatima.
Here full article from shia site.
InshAllah we will address all doubts here.
1) All reports should contain two things: a) Text. b) Chain of reporters.
This one doesn’t contain any chain. In books which were quoted by this rafidi, there is mention of only one narrator – Ibn Abi Daraam.
This in itself is enough to reject above mentioned report as non-established. In contrast to rafidis, which would quote even Oxford dictionary to proof their points, we as an ahlesunnah wal jamaa, wouldn’t accept story which would accuse noble companion without sound chain of reporters.
2) This report would be rejected even if it would contain sound report, because text of it is munkar and shazz to well known history facts.
This alleged attack onFatimawould contradicts to well known fact. Many of aimma from ahlalbayt named their sons – Umar.
Shias believe that after this alleged attack,Fatimasoon died due to this attack. After her death Ali married other women, and he named his son from them Umar?!!!
3) Let us back to ibn Abi Daraam. Rafidi answered himself to his own doubt. First he said that scholars rejected ibn Abi Daraam because he was rafidi. And then he quoted other narrators, which we described as rafidi and we accepted as truthful by our scholars. Thanks to Allah, that he himself answered to his own doubt that our scholars judged reporters due to their sect.
So ibn Abi Daraam wasn’t simply rafidi, but he was a liar. And this is verdict of ibn Hajar and Dhahabi. Al-Hakim said he wasn’t truthful. (See Mizan 1/139, Lisan 1/268).
Rafidi quoted Siyar of Dhahabi, where he mentioned that ibn Abi Daraam was Imam and Hafidh. But as all other rafidis, this one closed his eyes on fact that in the very same place, Dhahabi said that ibn Abi Daraam wasn’t truthful in his narrations.
4) As for hadith which Dhahabi quoted from the way ibn Abi Daraam. Rafidi used words of Dhahabi that hadith is agreed upon, as some kind of proof for reliability of ibn Abi Daraam.
This is only due to ignorance of rafidi, because “agreed upon” doesn’t mean that each narrator of report is perfectly reliable. This term means that hadith was transmitted by Bukhari and Muslim! See Muhammad ibn Futuh al-Humaydi “Jami beyna sahihayn al-Bukhari and Muslim” #805. Both (Muslim 107-1599 and Bukhari 52) narrated this report by chains which doesn’t contain ibn Abi Daraam.
5) As for doubt of rafidi that how it possible that imam would become rafidi liar, we have some good examples in our time. For sure shining star of modern rafd – al-Tijani wasn’t Imam or even scholar, he was layman soofe, but he became well known rafidi.
During the time of prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) was a companion, which believed in Islam, left his hometown and made hijra to Abisiniyah and there accept Christianity.
So there is no problem in accepting fact that someone could change his religion.