It has been established in the preceding pages beyond a shadow of doubt that the caliph’s cohorts initially laid siege to Hazrat Faatemah’s (s.a.) house to intimidate the inmates and when that did not have the desired effect, they attacked the house by setting it aflame. In this way, the hooligans violated the sanctity of the house and that of its inmates about whom the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) had made innumerable recommendations, some of which have been outlined in the initial chapters. The attack and ensuing violation are established facts and none can raise any doubts whatsoever.
Even Ibne Taiymiyyah did not find anything objectionable as far as the veracity of the chain of incidents is concerned.
If there are still some people who doubt the attacks then they are worse than Ibne Taymiyyah who at least accepts their occurrence. And if some of the deniers include Shiahs, then it is a matter of regret how they can consider themselves as lovers of Ahle Bait (s.a.w.a.) while denying the wrongdoing of the Ahle Bait’s oppressors, a fact accepted by the Shiahs of the oppressors (i.e. Sunnis and Wahhabis)!
The attack was considered with such alacrity and ferocity that it makes one wonder what they were expecting to find over there. Were they expecting to find some wealth or property of Allah that had been embezzled by the inmates through recovery of which they sought proximity of Allah and His Prophet (s.a.w.a.)?!
Indeed, it was clear very soon to the oppressors the extent of their wrongdoing. That is why it is narrated that when Abu Bakr’s death was imminent, he confessed:
‘I do not feel remorse over any worldly affair save three actions which I regret performing. Likewise, I feel remorse over three actions which I abandoned while it would have been better if I had performed them. I wish I had sought the answers from the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) for three questions…’
This narration is very important although we will only elaborate on the portion that is relevant in this discussion.
وددت انی لم اکشف بیت فاطمہ عن شئی و ان کانوا قد غلقوہ علی الحرب
وددت انی کنت سالت رسول اللہ لمن ھٰذا الامر فلا ینازعہ احد
“I wish I had not forced Faatemah to open her house, even if it had been locked for battle.
I wish I had asked the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) about the identity of his successor so I would not oppose him on any matter.”
Although apparently remorseful, do these words of the caliph ring with sincerity?
If indeed he was remorseful and honest then why did he claim ignorance of the Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) successor while he was present in Ghadeer?
Was he not among the first ones to congratulate the successor of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.)?
Was he not aware of the numerous incidents related to the successorship of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.)?
Abu Bakr’s confession can be traced in Taarikhe Tabari.
In addition to this, one can refer to Iqd al-Fareed of Ibn Abde Rabbeh, Al-Amwaal of the great memoriser of the Quran and traditionalist Imam Abu Abeed Qaasim Ibn Salaam, Muruj al-Zahab of Mas’oodi, Al-Imaamah wa al-Siyaasah of Ibne Qutaybah al-Dainoori.
Also notable is that these references have survived despite attempts to distort historical incidents and narrations, as noted earlier. For instance, on referring to Al-Amwaal one finds that instead of ‘I wish I had not forced ….’ it is recorded as ‘I wish I had not done such and such thing.’
It is clear that this is the handiwork of the distortionists. Over here, they deleted reference to a specific event and replaced it with a general reference.
We reiterate a point we have been making consistently in the book – how does one expect to find an accurate representation of the entire chain of events in the face of such distortion?
It is unfortunate that the defrauders of truth have tricked people with lies and a large number of Muslims have fallen prey to them.
 Minhaaj al-Sunnah, vol. 8, pg. 291
 Kitaab al-Amwaal, pg. 131; Imaamah wa al-Siyaasah, vol. 1, pg. 18; Taarikhe Tabari, vol. 3, pg. 430; Muruj al-Zahab; Iqd al-Fareed, vol. 2, pg. 254