But if he explained by saying that he meant “assailing...

But if he explained by saying that he meant “assailing,” not “entering,” then the culprit himself had said, “How I wish I never had to unveil Fatima’s door!” Numerous texts indicate that they forcefully entered the house, refuting such a claim. SECOND: Why should this person confine himself to the narrative saying that they did not open the house while she herself never said that they did not enter, contending herself with silence and with mentioning some of what went on.

If we accept such a narrative, it is contradicted by numerous narratives enjoying a much better isnad and are more numerous. They all say that the assailants forcefully entered her house, violating its sanctity and her privacy. THIRD: Beating al-Zahra’ (sa) and causing her to miscarry is not an ordinary matter.

It is a momentous event which cannot be accepted by any Muslim whose conviction is true, and he will be vocal in protesting it and in reprimanding them, only in the absence of the fear of the sword or of the whip. It is surely not in the best interest of the rulers nor that of those who love them that the public should circulate such an event, nor to know its details. Hence, they permitted neither themselves nor others to transmit it or circulate it.

Rather, we have seen how some people consider transmitting this issue as a crime whose transmitter is held accountable, and here we would like to transmit to you some proofs from the following: 1. “Do Not Quote me Saying it! Ibn Abul-Hadid, the Mu’tazilite scholar, says that he read to his mentor, Abu Ja’far al-Naqib, the story of Zainab when she was terrorized by Habar ibn al-Aswad. Abu Ja’far said to him, “If the Messenger of…