Islamophobes, especially Hindus who worship the Lingam of Shiva, have levelled serious allegations against Prophet Muhammad ﷺ based on fabricated Hadiths. This hostility likely arises from the deep embarrassment within their own tradition, where many Hindu gods are depicted as sexually immoral, engaging even with their own mothers, sisters, sons, underage girls, men, women, and animals. To distract from these disturbing portrayals, they attempt to vilify Islam and its Prophet ﷺ with false claims. This article shall refute two allegations.
Allegation 1) Did Prophet Muhammad ﷺ suck tongue of his daughter Fatima r.a?
Allegation 2) Did the Holy Prophet ﷺ slept between the breasts of her daughter?
Refutation to the allegation 1: Did Prophet Muhammad ﷺ suck tongue of his daughter Fatima r.a?
Claim:
عَائِشَةَ قَالَتْ ” قُلْتُ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ مَالَكَ إِذَا قَبَّلْتَ فَاطِمَةَ جَعَلْتَ لِسَانَكَ فِي فَمِهَا كَأَنَّكَ تُرِيدُ أَنْ تُلْعِقَهَا عَسَلا؟ قَالَ: يَا عَائِشَةُ إِنَّهُ لَمَّا أُسْرِيَ بِي إِلَى السَّمَاءِ اخلني [أَدْخَلَنِي] جِبْرِيلُ الْجَنَّةَ فَنَاوَلْنِي تُفَّاحَةً فَأَكْلَتُهَا فَصَارَتْ نُطْفَةً فِي صُلْبِي فَلَمَّا نَزَلْتُ مِنَ السَّمَاءِ وَاقَعْتُ خَدِيجَةَ، فَفَاطِمَةُ مِنْ تِلْكَ النُّطْفَةِ كُلَّمَا اشْتَقْتُ إِلَى الْجَنَّةِ قَبَّلْتُهَا “.
Aisha said: “I said, ‘O Messenger of God, what is it that when you kiss Fatima, you place your tongue in her mouth as if you want to feed her honey?’ He said: ‘O Aisha, indeed, when I was taken on the Night Journey (Isra) to the heavens, Gabriel had me enter [made me enter] Paradise and handed me an apple, which I ate. It became a nutfah (drop) in my loins. When I descended from the heavens, I was intimate with Khadijah. So, Fatima is from that nutfah. Whenever I long for Paradise, I kiss her.'”
(Translated from Arabic to English using Google Gemini Pro)
The irony of the claim lies in the fact that it originates from a book titled Kitab al-Mawdu‘at (The Great Collection of Fabricated Traditions) by Ibn al-Jawzi (r.h.). This renowned scholar compiled the work to document Hadiths falsely attributed to Prophet Muhammad ﷺ. In it, he organized the fabricated reports by topic, listed their chains of transmission, and explained in detail why each Hadith was deemed fabricated.
Ibn al-Jawzi (r.h.) himself refuted the fabricated Hadith in question. He cited four chains of narration, which I will not detail here to avoid unnecessary length. I now quote Ibn al-Jawzi (r.h).
“This is a fabricated (Mawdu‘) hadith. Even a beginner in the science (of ḥadīth) would not doubt its fabrication, so how much more obvious must it be to one deeply versed in it!
The one who fabricated it was the most ignorant of the ignorant in matters of transmission and history. For Fāṭimah was born five years before Prophethood, yet a group of people even more ignorant than he took the report from him, and thus its transmission routes multiplied.
Its mention of the Night Journey (al-Isrāʾ) makes it even more disgraceful, for the Isrāʾ took place one year before the Hijrah, after the death of Khadījah. The Prophet then lived in Madīnah for ten years. So, according to the fabricator of this ḥadīth, Fāṭimah would have been only about ten years old (and some months) when the Prophet ﷺ died! And where, then, would al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn be, though both of them narrated from the Messenger of Allah ﷺ? In fact, Fāṭimah was seventeen years old on the night of the Miʿrāj. Glory be to the One who exposed this ignorant forger by his own words!
I am astonished at al-Dāraquṭnī — how could he record this ḥadīth through Ibn Ghaylān, and then again through Abū Bakr al-Shāfiʿī? Did he actually think it sound? Yet he did not comment on it nor point out that it is fabricated. At best, one could excuse him by saying: “This is something that scholars would not be unaware of.” But indeed, such things are only not hidden from the scholars — whereas how are the common people, who hear such reports, supposed to know? And what, then, should one make of the Prophet’s saying ﷺ: “Whoever relates from me a ḥadīth knowing it to be false is one of the two liars.”
Scholars mention such reports only in the books of al-Jarḥ wa al-Taʿdīl (criticism and evaluation of narrators), to clarify their status as fabrications. But as for mentioning them in collections of selected ḥadīth or in works of extraction (takhrīj) without comment, that is reprehensible — unless they clearly state that it is fabricated.
As for the first and second routes of transmission — from ʿUmar — in them is al-Thawbān, who was a liar.
Al-Dāraquṭnī said: “He used to fabricate ḥadīth.”
Ibn ʿAdī said: “He used to narrate falsehoods and steal ḥadīth.”
And as for the ḥadīth of Ibn ʿAbbās, it contains al-Abzārī, whom we have already mentioned before — that he was a liar who fabricated ḥadīth.
— As for the ḥadīth of ʿĀʾishah:
The first chain of transmission is known only through the narration of Aḥmad ibn al-Aḥjam, and the scholars of transmission have declared him a liar. In the second chain, there is Muḥammad ibn al-Khalīl. Ibn Ḥibbān said: “He used to fabricate ḥadīth; it is not permissible even to mention him.” In the third chain, there is Ghulām Khalīl, and we have already mentioned previously that he was a liar who fabricated ḥadīth. In the fourth chain, there is Abū Qatādah, who was mostly known for being harmless and naïve, and fabricated reports were inserted into his narrations. Yaḥyā ibn Maʿīn said: “Abū Qatādah is nothing (i.e., not reliable).” Al-Nasāʾī said: “Abandoned in ḥadīth.” Al-Bukhārī said: “They abandoned him.”
The author (Al-Musannif) said: “So look at the differences in wording of this ḥadīth, and the confusion of its narrators, and their claim that he (the Prophet ﷺ) used to place his tongue in her mouth — that is impossible and baseless. For, according to their claim, ʿĀʾishah only saw him doing this after she herself had become his wife, and at that time Fāṭimah was about twenty years old. Such a thing (as described) could only be done by a husband, and is not permissible from a father. May Allah recompense the one who inserted such vile reports into the transmitted traditions.”
Kitab al Madu’at (The Great Collection of Fabricated Traditions), under the topic Kitāb al-Faḍāʾil wa’l-Mathālib by Ibn Jawzi (The Book of Virtues and Vices), vol 1, page 411-13. Translated from Arabic to English using ChatGPT and Google Gemini.
Source https://shamela.ws/book/882/408
Refutation to the allegation 2: Did the Holy Prophet ﷺ slept between the breasts of her daughter?
Claim: Imam Sadiq said: ‘The Messenger of God ﷺ did not sleep until he placed his generous face between the breasts of his daughter Fatima (s)’
Bihar al-Anwar, vol 43, pg 78
Refutation: This fabrication is found in the Shia collection Bihar al Anwar which is taken from the book Manaqibe Ale-Abi-Talib by of Ibn Shahr Ashub. Shia don’t consider it to be authentic because it lacks Sanad (chain of narration) making it a fabricated Hadith.
Islamic scholars emphasize that for a hadith to be considered authentic (sahih) and actionable in jurisprudence, the chain of narrators must be well-documented and consist of qualified transmitters. Since this narration has not been corroborated with a sound chain and lacks mention in other reliable sources, it cannot be regarded as authentic or dependable.
Al-Majlisi’s goal was to gather and preserve all Shi’a narrations he could find, to prevent them from being lost. He included everything, from the strong to the weak, and even those he suspected were fabricated. Shi’a scholars themselves do not treat every narration in Bihar al-Anwar as authentic. Each report must be individually evaluated using the science of hadith criticism (Ilm al-Rijal).
