According to the sunni narrative, everything that happened after the Prophet’s (s) martyrdom, from saqifah to the assault on the door of Sayyida Fatima (a), is, of course just some "shia fabrication". According to them, the shias just woke up one day, decided to invent grief, invent betrayal, and invent tragedy. Because apparently, a people who revolve their entire faith around the love of the Prophet’s Household (a) simply had nothing better to do than to imagine oppression that never existed. They’ll tell you that all those narrations, the ones from their own Bukhari, Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah, Tarikh al-tabari, Ansab al-ashraf, and Tabaqat Ibn sa'd, are either "misunderstood," "weak," or "taken out of context." Somehow, the context always saves their idols. Every threat becomes a "metaphor," every assault becomes "discipline," and every act of anger from the Prophet’s daughter becomes "a minor disagreement." But then, let’s take their own sources, their own narrations, their own historians, and see what happens when we simply line up the dots. Because, coincidently, the Prophet (s), who never spoke out of desire but revelation itself [quran 53:3-4], just happened to make "emotional statements" when he said, "Fatima is a part of me; whoever angers her angers me, and whoever hurts her hurts me." Coincidently, they say he didn’t really mean that, he was, apparently, just being sentimental. Coincidently, when you connect the dots, Sayyida Fatima (a), even according to their narrations, the chief of the women of Paradise, died angry with abu bakr, as Bukhari itself narrates, and coincidentally, her anger means nothing. Coincidently, we’re supposed to ignore that the Messenger of Allah (s) tied his own pleasure and anger directly to hers. Coincidently, she was only eighteen, a young woman in perfect health, who suddenly passes away within six months of her father (s). Coincidently, we’re told that Sayyida Fatima (a), the pure, radiant daughter of the Prophet (s), just happened to die suddenly at the age of eighteen. Coincidently, she wasn’t an elderly woman, wasn’t frail, and wasn’t suffering from any prolonged illness. Coincidently, her death came right after months of grief, threats, and political exclusion. Coincidently, this "natural" passing occurred in the exact aftermath of the storm that followed saqifa. Coincidently, during this very same time, umar is recorded in Bukhari, Musannaf Ibn abi shaybah, and Tarikh al-tabari as threatening to burn down the house of Fatima (a), the same house in which the Prophet (s) used to stand daily at the door and say, "Peace be upon you, O People of the House, and may Allah’s mercy and blessings be upon you." and follow up by reciting the verse [33:33]. Coincidentely, umar says, "If you and Ali and those inside do not come out to give allegiance, I will burn the house down, even if Fatima is inside." Coincidently, we are asked to accept that umar threatened to burn down a house, then somehow kept that threat in suspended animation for six months like a man waiting at a clock, day after day, until everything conveniently resolved itself. Coincidently, reports of assault, forced entry, and the crushing of her ribs are dismissed as "shia exaggeration," yet the same historians record her severe illness following that very encounter. Coincidently, we’re told grief can kill, trauma can weaken, but somehow, when it’s Sayyida Fatima (a), both medicine and morality take a back seat, it becomes just another coincidence. Coincidently, the physical and emotional agony she endured lines up perfectly with the timeline of her demise, yet no one dares connect the dots. (continued)