Alleged attack on her house
In the immediate aftermath of Muhammad's death in 11/632, the Ansar (natives of Medina) gathered in the Saqifa (lit. 'courtyard') of the Sa'ida clan. The conventional wisdom is that they met to decide on a new leader for the Muslim community among themselves. For Madelung, however, the absence of the Muhajirun (migrants from Mecca) from this meeting suggests that the Ansar gathered to re-establish the control of the Ansar over their city Medina, under the belief that the Muhajirun would mostly return to Mecca after Muhammad's death.
Abu Bakr and Umar, both companions of Muhammad, hastened to the gathering upon learning about it. After a heated session, in which a chief of the Ansar was likely beaten into submission by Umar, those gathered at Saqifa agreed on Abu Bakr as the new head of the community. The Saqifa event is said to have excluded Muhammad's family, who were preparing to bury him, and most of the Muhajirun. To protest the appointment of Abu Bakr, al-Baladhuri (d. 892) reports that the Banu Hashim (Muhammad's clan) and some of his companions gathered at Fatima's house. Among them were Muhammad's uncle Abbas and his companion Zubayr, according to Madelung. The protesters, including Fatima, held that her husband Ali was the rightful successor to Muhammad, possibly referring to Muhammad's announcement at Ghadir Khumm. Ali is believed to have explained this position to Abu Bakr.
After the Saqifa affair, Abu Bakr reportedly tasked his ally Umar with securing Ali's pledge of allegiance. As noted by al-Tabari (d. 923), the latter led an armed mob to Ali's residence and threatened to set the house on fire if Ali and his supporters would not pledge their allegiance to Abu Bakr. The scene soon grew violent, and Zubayr was disarmed and carried away. The mob, however, retreated without Ali's pledge after Fatima pleaded with them, as reported in al-Imama wa al-siyasa. Alternatively, al-Baladhuri states that Ali capitulated and pledged allegiance to Abu Bakr immediately after Umar's threat. In contrast, the canonical Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim relate that Ali pledged to Abu Bakr after Fatima died. Soufi comments that all but one of the traditions cited by al-Tabari and al-Baladhuri do not have chains of transmission that reach back to the time of the conflict.
Madelung believes that Abu Bakr later placed a boycott on Ali and, more broadly, on the Banu Hashim to abandon their support for Ali. As a result, prominent men ceased to speak to Ali, according to a Sunni hadith attributed to Aisha. Hazleton similarly writes that Ali prayed alone even in the mosque. Jafri adds that those who initially supported Ali gradually turned and pledged their allegiance to Abu Bakr. It appears that only his wife Fatima and their four small children remained on his side, writes Hazleton, in line with a statement to this effect attributed to Ali in Nahj al-balagha.
Umar has been noted for his severity and misogyny, especially in Shia sources. "Umar's toughness" (shidda) is cited in a Sunni tradition by Aisha as the reason Umar was excluded from a supposed attempt at reconciliation between Ali and Abu Bakr. Kelen describes an incident of Umar's violence against his sister when she professed Islam (before Umar). It is uncertain what followed the above altercation at Fatima's house. Shia sources allege that Fatima suffered injuries and miscarriage during a raid on her house led by Umar. In particular, Shia alleges that Fatima miscarried her son Muhsin, whose name had been chosen by Muhammad before his death, according to Abbas. These claims are categorically rejected by Sunnis, who maintain that Muhsin died in infancy of natural causes.
The allegations of violence and miscarriage appear in some Shia works, including the canonical Kitab al-Kafi, Kamil al-ziyarat, Kitab al-Irshad, Tarikh al-Ya'qubi, and Dala'il al-imama. Of these, Tarikh al-Ya'qubi does not mention miscarriage, while Kitab al-irshad by al-Mufid (d. 1022) is quiet about any violence. For the latter, considering that al-Mufid writes about violence against Fatima elsewhere, Khetia suspects that he refrained from controversial topics in his Kitab al-Irshad to render it accessible to most Twelvers without provoking the anger of Sunnis. In his al-Saqifa wa Fadak, al-Jawhari (d. 935) includes a tradition to the effect that Umar and his men first threatened to set Fatima's house on fire. Then they entered the house, despite her pleas, and forced Ali and his supporters out of the house. The remainder of the account in al-Imama wa al-siyasa describes that Ali was pulled out of his house by force and threatened with death, according to Khetia. Mu'awiya (r. 661–680) is known to have alluded to the violent arrest of Ali in a letter to him before the Battle of Siffin.
Madelung is uncertain about the use of force. Still, he notes that there is evidence (in Sunni sources) that Fatima's house was searched. According to Madelung, Ali later repeatedly said that he would have resisted (Abu Bakr) had there been forty men with him. Alternatively, Buehler suggests that the allegations of violence should be treated with caution as they reflect the political agendas of the time. In contrast, Veccia Vaglieri is of the view that the Shia allegations are based on facts, even if they have been exaggerated. Abbas writes that some well-regarded Sunni sources mention Umar's raid and Fatima's injuries. Khetia believes that there are known instances where sensitive information has been censored by Sunni authors, such as the prominent jurist Abu Ubayd al-Salam (d. 837), who was possibly concerned with the righteous representation of Muhammad's companions. Similar allegations have emerged against al-Tabari and al-Mas'udi (d. 956). Along these lines, Lucas and Soufi both note the Sunni tendency to minimize and neutralize the conflicts among companions after Muhammad, particularly about the Saqifa affair, while these conflicts might have been amplified in Shia records.
Both al-Tabari and al-Mas'udi note that Abu Bakr regretted the events after Saqifa on his deathbed. In particular, al-Tabari states that Abu Bakr wished he had "never opened Fatima's house to anything, even though they had locked it as a gesture of defiance." This appears to have been a sensitive admission that has been censored by the Sunni author Abu Ubayd al-Salam in his Kitab al-amwal. Abu Bakr's regret is also cited by the Shia al-Ya'qubi (d. 897-8). Sunni sources are nearly unanimous that Ali pledged his allegiance to Abu Bakr after Fatima's death. When it became clear that Muslims did not broadly support his cause, Ali is said to have relinquished his claims to the caliphate for the sake of the unity of a nascent Islam, which faced internal and external threats, according to Mavani. In particular, Jafri notes that Ali turned down proposals to forcefully pursue the caliphate, including an offer from Abu Sufyan. In reference to Abu Bakr's caliphate, Madelung writes that a poem later began to circulate among the Banu Hashim ending with, "Surely, we have been cheated in the most monstrous way." Ali forbade the poet to recite it, adding that the welfare of Islam was dearer to him than anything else.
In sharp contrast with Muhammad's lifetime, Ali is believed to have retired from public life during the caliphates of Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman. Anthony describes this change in Ali's attitude as a silent censure of the first three caliphs. While he reportedly advised Abu Bakr and Umar on government and religious matters, the mutual distrust and hostility of Ali with Abu Bakr and Umar is well-documented, though largely downplayed or ignored in Sunni sources. Their differences were epitomized during the proceedings of the electoral council in 644 when Ali refused to be bound by the precedence of the first two caliphs. A common Sunni argument is that Ali would have never continued his relations with Umar had the latter organized a raid on Ali's home. A typical Shia response is that Ali gave up his rights and exercised restraint for the sake of a nascent Islam, according to Abbas.
