Introduction to Rebuttal
I think both sides realize how important the issue of Umm Kulthoom’s marriage is when it comes to the Shia-Sunni
“dialogue” (or rather, the Shia-Sunni cage-match to the death). If the Ahlus Sunnah could establish that Ali did in fact
give his daughter (Umm Kulthoom) in marriage to Umar, it would pretty much destroy the entire Shia paradigm and the
theology based upon this paradigm. The Shia deviation from the mainstream Islam in matters of faith was a result of
their belief in the oppression of Ali and the Ahlel Bayt by the likes of Umar bin Khattab and his supposed “henchmen”;
thus, if Ali gave his daughter to Umar, it would really pop the balloon of Shi’ism.
It was this thought that motivated Abu Muhammad al-Afriki of the Ansar team to write an article documenting the Shia
sources that affirm Umm Kulthoom’s marriage. I have always been a fan of Brother Afriki’s work and I pray that Allah
reward him for his efforts. Having said that, and I don’t mean to diminish his work at all, but I think the article could
have used minor polishing up in regards to formatting. There were certain paragraphs that were, in my humble opinion,
out of place; therefore, I took the liberty of modifying his article before I uploaded it to the Ahlel Bayt website. The new
updated version of the article reads a lot better, and therefore I strongly urge people to propagate this version of it as
opposed to the older version: Modified and Updated Version of the Ansar Article: Ali Gives His Daughter to Umar
In spite of the minor issues of formatting, Brother Afriki’s article created quite a stir amongst Shia audiences. Many
Sunnis would visit Shia forums and simply copy-and-paste the article; not to be undone, Answering-Ansar decided to
write its rebuttal of the article. Now, whenever a Sunni refers to the Ansar article, the Shia will simply post the link to
the Answering-Ansar article and say things like “it’s all answered here.”
I seriously don’t think that many Shia have even read the entire Answering-Ansar article, and it simply suffices them
that they have a hyperlink they can give when the issue of Umm Kulthoom’s marriage comes up. For example, had they
read the Answering-Ansar article, they would have seen the following absurd diatribe, indicative of the quality of the
rebuttal:
Answering-Ansar says
“
Unfortunately for them, they didn’t read the traditions in much detail? till now and our exposing of the Nasibi
privates, which are uncircumcised. Till now it never occurred to their puny little minds that their beloved ‘Umar could
be brought down in the steaming pile of paedophilia and perversion which stamp him in these very same traditions. We
are exposing the Nasibi privates?it is not clean?it has been seen?they all have foreskins still?hiding their hypocrisy
beneath kaftans made of the finest silk threads.
”
This is how I know that most people didn’t even read the article. Who would take it seriously when the authors declare
that they have exposed the private parts of their opponents? Only a grade-schooler or immature teenager would use
such sort of language. Answering-Ansar’s article is of a very unprofessional nature, defies the Shia scholarship on many
issues, and is of very poor quality overall. To sum it up: it may be rebuttal, but I don’t think anyone who actually reads it
would think it worthwhile to reference. Admittedly, it is both sides of the divide that resort to inane copy-and-paste jobs
with little actual reading being done. Unfortunately for the Shia, the Answering-Ansar article cannot really be used as a
rebuttal because it really does not respond to the points brought up by the Ansar article. The Ansar article focused on
one issue, namely that the classical Shia position was that the marriage of Umm Kulthoom bint Ali and Umar bin
Khattab did indeed take place.
The main point of the Ansar article was that the classical Shia scholars–including the traditionists–never denied the
marriage of Umm Kulthoom bint Ali to Umar bin Khattab. It took four centuries for the Shia to wake up to this issue and
suddenly reverse their position. This is not a small issue, and Answering-Ansar has failed to explain it away. Why is it
that the Shia traditionists, including the venerated Imam Al-Kulayni himself, believed that Umm Kulthoom bint Ali
married Umar bin Khattab?
Umm Kulthoom’s marriage was confirmed by Imam Al-Kulayni, who for all intents and purposes is to the Shia who
Imam Bukhari is to the Sunnis. It is narrated on the authority of the Infallible Imams themselves, namely Imam Jafar
as-Sadiq. Not a single Shia scholar denied this marriage for four centuries, and the Ansar team named such Shia
heavyweights as Abul Qasim Al-Kufi, Sayyid Murtada (brother of the compiler of “Nahjul Balagha”), at-Tabarsi (the Shia
mufassir of the 6th century), Shaykh ‘Abd an-Nabi al-Kazimi, and pretty much every other Shia scholar before the 5th
century AH. Among the Shia sources that narrate the fact of this marriage from Imam Muhammad al-Baqir with the
statement “Umm Kulthum bint Ali ibn Abi Talib died at the same time as her son Zayd ibn Umar ibn al-Khattab” and
the narration from Muhammad ibn al-Hasan that “Umar ibn al-Khattab married Umm Kulthum bint Ali with a dowry of
40,000 dirhams” are the following:
1- Agha Burzug al-Tahrani’s al-Dhari`a (5:184).
2- Ali ibn Muhammad al-`Alawi’s al-Mujdi fi Ansab al-Talibiyyin (p. 17).
3- Al-Fadil al-Hindi’s Kashf al-Litham (2:312).
4- Al-Hurr al-`Amili’s Wasa’il al-Shi`a Al al-Bayt (15:19, 17:594, 21:263, 26:314).
5- Muhammad ibn Habib al-Baghdadi’s al-Munammaq fi Akhbar Quraysh (p. 301).
6- Al-Muhaqqiq al-Ardabili’s Majma` al-Fa’ida (11:530).
7- Al-Muhaqqiq al-Naraqi’s Mustanad al-Shi`a (19:452).
8- Al-Muhaqqiq al-Sabzawari’s Kifayat al-Ahkam (p. 307).
9- Al-Sayyid Muhammad Sadiq al-Rawhani’s Fiqh al-Sadiq (24:496).
10- Al-Shahid al-Thani’s Masalik al-Afham (13:270).
11- Al-Shaykh al-Amini’s al-Ghadir (6:136-137).
12- Al-Shaykh al-Tusi’s al-Mabsut (4:272).
13- Tahdhib al-Ahkam (9:362-363).
14- Al-Shaykh al-Jawahiri’s Jawahir al-Kalam (39:308).
How is it that the Shia propagandists will reject the Shia heavyweights and instead accept the lightweight AnsweringAnsar, who are neither religious scholars nor are they historians? Answering-Ansar is run by high school or college
students, not by scholars. So why in the world would a devout Shia take the word of Answering-Ansar over that of Imam
Al-Kulayni? The current day Shia opinion of the marriage is 100% at variance with the people who supposedly founded
their religion and the people they claim to follow, including the very people who lived at the time of the so-called Hidden
Imam’s Minor Occultation in which they could contact him.
What the Answering-Ansar team failed to address was that why did all of these classical Shia scholars hold the opinion
that this marriage took place, and that it was only after so many centuries that the opinion suddenly switched?
Addressing the point that previous Shia scholars agreed that the marriage took place, Answering-Ansar pretty much just
says that this was their “opinion” about the marriage and a wrong opinion. Again, the Shia author never addresses the
point of the historical change that took place in the Shia opinion, before 5 AH and after that when the Mutazallites
began the rationalization process. This is one of the Ansar article’s strongest points, and yet I found that the AnsweringAnsar team failed to address this.
Instead of responding to this point–which was the crux of the argument–Answering-Ansar merely went on and on about
how the marriage between Umm Kulthoom and Umar could not possibly have happened because it conflicts with
various beliefs of the Shia. For example, Answering-Ansar claims the marriage could not have happened because the
marriage would have displeased Fatima and brought disgrace on the family of the Prophet. This argument does not
apply to Sunnis, however, because we believe that Umar was upright and therefore the marriage would be a good one
that would please Fatima and bring honor to the Prophetic Household. Most of Answering-Ansar’s arguments are in a
similar vein, claiming that the marriage could not have taken place because Umar was so-and-so or such-and-such.
Answering-Ansar has even stooped to childish (and inflammatory) arguments such as Umar had homosexual
tendencies, he was impotent, he was a bastard child, he was an alcholic, he was a Nasibi, and many other things that I
seek refuge from the Lord of the Alameen from. None of these are proper arguments in a formal debate, because no
Sunni would accept these as facts.
Indeed, the very purpose of the argument is to prove that the marriage confirms Umar’s good nature. Therefore, the
Shia bringing up various attacks on Umar’s personality and saying that the marriage could not have taken place because
of these flaws in Umar is actually very circular logic that defies the very point and purpose of the debate we are having. If
we accepted the Shia’s derrogatory opinion of Umar, then there would be no need for this debate in the first place. To
prove that the marriage could not have taken place because it violates the Shia paradigm is not a valid methodology of
debating. Again, the purpose of the debate is to prove that the marriage itself indeed contradicts the Shia paradigm and
therefore the Shia version of history (i.e. the so-called persecution of the Ahlel Bayt by the Sahabah) is false. We already
know that this marriage would clash with the Shia paradigm and that’s the very reason we bring it up.
In addition to avoiding the topic that the classical Shia scholars held the opinion that the marriage took place,
Answering-Ansar also failed to deal with the issue about how at least four Shia Hadith from Al-Kafi confirm this
marriage. Basically, Answering-Ansar said that their Hadith in Al-Kafi are not authentic, an argument that is ridiculed
by the Shia if the Sunni were to claim a similar thing. It may have taken Answering-Ansar ten pages to say it, but they
are basically still saying the same thing, namely that their own Hadith are unauthentic. It is therefore of note that the
Answering-Ansar article is on weak footing, basing its entire argument around the idea that their own Hadith is wrong
(as well as the Shia traditionists and classical scholars).
As for the Isnad of the Shia Hadith, Answering-Ansar barely even addressed this issue at all. Of course, I don’t blame
Answering-Ansar since no doubt they had a difficult time finding fault with any of the narrators, all of whom are
considered reliable and authentic narrators by Shia standards. In fact, the reader will become even more convinced that
the narrators of the Shia Hadith are reliable after he reads the response by Answering-Ansar. Most Shia lay-persons will
assume when they read Abu Muhammad Afriki’s article on Ansar.org that the narrators he cited were not as strong as he
claimed. But after reading Answering-Ansar’s article, you will notice that their inability to refute the reliability of the
narrators only makes it more obvious to the lay-person that the narrators are in fact authentic.
It seems that the narrators were so reliable by Shia standards that Answering-Ansar had to resort to passing Takfeer and
condemnation on their greatest scholars and narrators of Hadith. For example, in the first two Shia Hadith, the only
person that Answering-Ansar even attempted to weaken was Hisham ibn Salim.
Answering-Ansar says
“
“He (Hisham) was an adherent of the “fasid al aqeedah” and believed that you physically see Allah (swt)”…The fasid
al aqeedah is a break away group from the Shi’a and their beliefs were so deviant that they opposed mainstream
Shi’aism…[Hisham] has deviated from the Shi’a path and hence any hadith narrated by him is to be rejected.
”
And yet, wee see that the more reliable Shia website, Al-Islam.org, declares Hisham ibn Salim to be not only reliable but
an “authority” figure of Hadith.
Al-Islam.org says
“
There is the narration reported by several authorities including Hisham ibn Salim, Hammad and others that….
”
It should be noted that Al-Islam.org is supervised by Shia scholars, whereas Answering-Ansar is not and is made up of
volunteer writers that are mostly high school and college students, or what we like to call e-Shias who enjoy arguing over
the internet. No Shia in his right mind would take Answering-Ansar’s word above that of Al-Islam.org. In fact,
Answering-Ansar routinely takes positions that contradict what their scholars say, simply to boost their polemical stance
against the Sunnis in e-debate. This is a very irresponsible attitude taken by Answering-Ansar and no doubt the
haphazard manner in which they pass Takfeer on their own scholars would be condemned by the Shia Ulema.
I have already proven, by quoting Al-Islam.org, that all the narrators of the first two Shia Hadith are reliable and
therefore these two Hadith are considered Sahih by Shia standards. None of the other narrators of the first two Hadith,
other than Hisham ibn Salim, have been criticized by Answering-Ansar, implicitly admitting that the rest are reliable.
Had any of the others been unreliable, Answering-Ansar would not have spared them and would have left no stone
unturned in their rebuttal: if there had been other weak narrators then they would have been mentioned in the
Answering-Ansar article. Therefore, based on the above, we find that it was all too easy to prove the Sahih nature of the
first two Shia Hadith, and this would be enough to conclude the debate on the issue of Umm Kulthoom’s marriage. After
all, the Sunni only needs to prove the veracity of one of the four Shia Hadith in Al-Kafi in order to establish that the
marriage took place.
As for the third and fourth Shia narration, Answering-Ansar questioned another three narrators, but once again, we find
that Al-Islam.org rejects this opinion and affirms the reliability of all three of them. For example, Answering-Ansar tried
to cast doubt on Humayd ibn Ziyad and al-Hasan ibn Muhammad Ibn Sama’ah, yet we find that Al-Islam.org includes
these two in a Sahih narration that they have deemed a “muttasil” (continuous) Isnad. It should also be noted that this is
Ayatollah Khomeini’s work “Forty Hadith” translated in English on Al-Islam.org; this in itself is enough to confirm that
Humayd ibn Ziyad and Ibn Sama’ah are considered reliable, because–as Ayatollah Khomeini clearly said–his book
“Forty Hadith” contains only Sahih Hadith “narrated through the Prophet and his Ahl al-Bayt.”
Al-Islam.org says
“
Through my continuous [muttasil] sanad going back to the proof of the sect and its leader, Muhammad ibn Ya’qub
al-Kulayni - may God bless his soul - from Humayd ibn Ziyad, from al-Hasan ibn Muhammad ibn Sama’ah,
from Wuhayb ibn Hafs, from Abu Bash, from Abu Ja’far (A) that he said:
source: http://www.al-islam.org/fortyhadith/22.htm
”
And the only other narrator that Answering-Ansar attempts to weaken is Sulayman ibn Khalid. He is also quoted on AlIslam.org in a Sahih narration of the Shia, available on Al-Islam.org here: http://al-islam.org/amali/26.htm Grand
Ayatollah Al-Khoei says in “Mujam Rijal Al-Hadith” (vol.9, p.261):
“The reliability of Sulayman Ibn Khalid should not be doubted…This is also supported by what Al-Najashi mentioned
that he was a Faqih and an authority (‫ ف ق يها ك ان‬،‫)وجها‬. Even if this does not prove that he is thiqah, it surely proves that
he is hasan, for it is apparent that he meant that he was an authority in narration (‫ف ي وجها ك ان أن ه ب ذل ك ي ري د أن ه ال ظاهر ف إن‬
،‫ )ال رواي ة‬and since he is a narrator, he depended upon him in narration.”
These are the only narrators that Answering-Ansar attempted to weaken, and the rest were implicitly admitted to be
reliable. It was thus not difficult to quickly unveil the deception used by Answering-Ansar in their attempt to cast doubt
on these four narrators, all of whom have been affirmed by the more reliable Shia website, Al-Islam.org. In fact, the
attempts at taking quotes out of context in order to question these narrators was actually sophomoric in nature and
would never be sanctioned by the seasoned Maraje’ (top scholars) of the Shia.
Because the Answering-Ansar article is very long and recycles arguments that are oftentimes extraneous, the reader
should keep in mind three points so as not to get bogged down:
Firstly: The Shia never denied the marriage of Umm Kulthoom bint Ali to Umar bin Khattab for the first four centuries
after Hijrah. The classical Shia scholars and the traditionists, including Imam Al-Kulayni himself, affirmed the marriage
(although they claimed that Umar forced Ali to give his daughter to him). It was only after four centuries that suddenly
the position of the Shia changed, thanks to the Mutazzalites (rationalists) who reasoned that the marriage did not fit
well with the Shia paradigm.
Secondly: The Isnad of the Shia Hadith are Mutassil (continuous) with no unreliable narrators in the chain.
Thirdly: None of the classical Shia scholars or the traditionists–not even the compiler of the Hadith himself (Imam AlKulayni)–interpreted the Shia Hadith in any other way other than that Ali’s daughter married Umar. We read in the
foot-note of the Hadith of Al-Kafi by Imam Al-Kulayni, available on Al-Shia.com, that it is in reference to Umm
Kulthoom bint Ali and Umar bin Khattab:
Al-Shia.com says
“
‫ماف عل وف عل ماق ال عمر ف قال او ال ف رده خ الف ته زمن ف ي عمر ال يه خط بها ق د ال س الم ع ل يه ال مؤم ن ين ام ير ب نت هى هذه ك ل ثوم ام‬
Translation: “[Regarding] Umm Khulthum, who is the daughter of Ameer al-Mu’mineen Ali, Umar proposed to Ali for
her hand in marriage during his [Umar’s] caliphate, and at first Ali refused him. So then Umar said what he said, and
did what he did [i.e compelled Ali by words and force].”
source: http://www.al-shia.com/html/ara/books/al-kafi-5/213.html
”
Therefore, it is odd that the Shia today would read the Hadith in a different manner than the very man who compiled it.
It is clear, in no uncertain terms, that the Umm Kulthoom in question is the daughter of Ali ibn Abi Talib. Any other
interpertation would be non-sensical.
I ask the reader to not be side-tracked from these three points whilst he reads the Answering-Ansar article and my
rebuttal. These are the central issues of the debate and Answering-Ansar has endeavored hard to try to move the reader
away from these three points.
Response to Chapter 1
Response to Chapter 1 entitled “Introduction”
In the first paragraph, Answering-Ansar promises:
Answering-Ansar says
“
through the course of this article we have shall provide over one hundred replies as to why we reject such a claim.
”
Personally, I think this is a poor tactic to employ in order to refute someone logically. Providing “over one hundred
replies” probably means that you can’t do it with one strong, firm argument. When I read over Answering-Ansar’s
article, it felt like they were throwing a hundred darts at a dart-board in the hopes that one or two would get lucky and
hit their mark. It’s the attitude that “if this doesn’t work, ok then let’s try this, or this, or what about this!” In the end, the
Shia writers end up throwing everything including the kitchen sink. We find that some of the latter arguments are
actually contradictory to the prior arguments.
I believe that this opinion is taken by the Shia in general. Their scholars seem to provide “contingency” plans in case one
argument fails then they have a back-up one. For example, in the case of Umm Kulthoom, they make two arguments:
1. The marriage never took place.
2. If it did, then it took place out of force.
For both opinions, they will cite authoratative Shia sources. Option 2 above is in case Option 1 fails. But if we logically
think about this, it’s like OJ Simpson saying:
1. I didn’t kill Nicole Brown.
2. If I did, then it was out of self-defense.
For both opinions, he will cite his friend as a witness. The obvious question arises: the veracity of both OJ Simpson and
his friend comes into question when he claims that he didn’t kill her, but then gives evidence to prove it was self-defense
when he did. The proof he shows that it was self-defense contradicts his original statement that it didn’t happen at all. In
a court of law, presentation of such contradictory evidence would undermine one’s defense.
Likewise, the Shia giving proof from their sources that it was a forced marriage, this really shatters any possible
credibility of the Shia in claiming that the marriage never took place. It is simple logic. Sometimes the Shia will
brainstorm and then say well it could also have been (3) Taqiyyah, or they would even give a “hundred other replies” to
explain the actions of Ali. It would be like the Prosecutor saying that I have convincing evidence that OJ Simpson killed
Nicole with a baseball bat, but if you don’t buy that, then I have evidence that it was a gun, or if not that, then I have
evidence it was a poision he gave her. The very fact that he brings up other options actually weakens his initial case
which was that it was a baseball bat. If there is also evidence that it was a gun or a poision, then it couldn’t be a baseball
bat!
Answering-Ansar approaches the Shia Hadith by saying:
1. The Hadith is fabricated.
2. If it’s not fabricated, then it was talking about another Umm Kulthoom anyways.
Then they will provide a lot of “proof” to show how it was a different Umm Kulthoom who got married in the Hadith.
But the obvious question arises: weren’t you just claiming a second ago that the Hadith is fabricated? If it was indeed
fabricated, then there is no way you can claim that you know that it’s talking about another Umm Kulthoom. You should
be consistent: either stick to the claim that the Hadith is fabricated, or stick to the claim that it is not fabricated but it
refers to someone else. There is no way, however, that you can logically adopt both opinions. The second opinion
completely negates the first opinion.
Moving on, Answering-Ansar says in its introduction:
Answering-Ansar says
“
The Shi’a community, and in particular students, are being attacked by these Nasibi dogs in Universities…you will
find this masterpiece on countless Nasibi sites…the increased cockiness of the Nasibi on this topic left us with no other
choice but to enter the gladiatorial arena, clad with all the necessary ammunition to silence these lovers of Mu’awiya
once and for all.
”
I strongly feel that the credibility of the Shia authors–as well as many Shia propagandists on various sites and forums–is
hurt when they claim that the Sunnis are “Nasibis” or “haters of the Ahlel Bayt” or “haters of Ali, Fatima, Hasan, and
Hussain.” I have as of yet never met a single Sunni scholar–neither from the Salafi or Deobandi camps–who has ever
hated on Ali, Fatima, Hasan, Hussain, or any of the Ahlel Bayt. If you visit any of the Sunni websites, such as Islam-QA,
Sunni Path, Ask-Imam, IslamOnline, etc, you will never find a single statement recorded against any of these
personalities. Instead, you will find praise. Whereas my Shia counterparts were raised on stories villifying Abu Bakr and
Umar (such as Fadak and Fatima’s house being burned down), I grew up on stories of the bravery of Ali. Hasan and
Hussain are said to be the leaders of the youth of Paradise, and Fatima is the chief of the women of Paradise. It is thus
dishonest (and silly) to say that the Sunnis hate these people or are “Nasibis” (haters of Ahlel Bayt).
The manner in which the Shia try to convince themselves that the Sunnis hate on Ali’s family reminds me of the manner
in which the Shia convince themselves that the Three Caliphs and the Sahabah hated on the Ahlel Bayt. I’ve seen various
members on Shia Chat (and even the diatribes on Answering-Ansar) which claim that Sunnis hate the Ahlel Bayt. Are
these Shia really fooling themselves like such? They are seriously living in a cave if they think that Sunnis hate Ahlel
Bayt. Any Shia who doubts that the Sunnis love Ali and the Ahlel Bayt should do Taqiyyah and pretend to be a Sunni and
go to a Sunni mosque. There, he should profess hatred for Ali and the Ahlel Bayt, just to witness the uproar of the Sunnis
when they hear such things against the man and family they love. It actually shows the desperation of the Shia when
they try to convince themselves and their fellow bretheren that the Sunnis are Nasibis and hate the Ahlel Bayt. It is a
pathetic attempt at hoodwinking the Shia masses with emotional rhetoric, in the hopes that none of them would be
smart enough to actually investigate the position of the Ahlus Sunnah for themselves.
If you ask a Sunni about his view of Abu Lahab, he will say he hates him. If you ask a Sunni about his view of Ali, he will
say he loves him. It is as clear as night and day. Why should we believe the Shia when they claim that we hate the Ahlel
Bayt? Who would know better who we love and who we hate other than our ownselves? If you wanted to know whether
or not I liked chocolate ice cream, you would obviously ask me about it and nobody else. If I said I liked chocolate ice
cream, would you then insist that I hated it? How would you know what I like and what I don’t? The Ahlus Sunnah wal
Jama’ah loves Ali, his family, and the Ahlel Bayt. Why are the Shia speaking for us when they say that we hate them?
Have the Shia ever once heard a real Sunni scholar saying even a word of bad against the Ahlel Bayt? You will find that
on Shia Chat, most of the Shia users will append the names of Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman with “(la)” which means
“Laanat be upon them”–the opposite of “(ra)”. However, when you read Sunni websites, you will find that we always
refer to Ali and his family as “(ra)”. If the Shia want to call us “lovers of Muawiyyah” then we must be even bigger lovers
of Ali, since all Sunni Ulema have confirmed the fact that Ali is superior in rank to Muawiyyah; Ali is referred to by
Sunnis as one of the Rightly Guided Caliphs whereas Muawiyyah is not. The Shia assumption that the Sunnis hate Ahlel
Bayt is as preposterous as a Christian claiming that Muslims hate Prophet Jesus.
The truth is that the Shia so desperately wants us to hate the Ahlel Bayt so that their own paradigm holds true, which
revolves around the fictitious idea that the Sunni masses hated on and oppressed the Ahlel Bayt. The way in which
Answering-Ansar continues to portray the Sunnis as “Nasibis” and haters of Ali only underscores the Shia propensity to
call people haters without reason, such as they do to the Sahabah accusing them of hating the Ahlel Bayt even though
they loved it. It seems like the Shia have a pathological need to call those who disagree with them to be “Nasibi” and it is
in this context of declaring everyone to be Nasibis that they view history, rejecting facts that lift the veil on this Nasibicalling addiction.
The importance of this point is so great that I would like to reiterate it: the hatred of the Sahabah for the Ahlel Bayt is
just as fictitious as the supposed hatred of Sunnis for the Ahlel Bayt. The Shia declare that the Sahabah hated Ali and the
Ahlel Bayt, and yet, they also claim this about the Sunnis. An unbiased observation of the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah
shows that the Sunnis have nothing but love for Ali and the Ahlel Bayt, and thus, the accusation of the Shia is baseless.
Similarly, the Shia accusation that the Sahabah hated Ali and the Ahlel Bayt is also without grounds. The “evidences”
they bring to back up this position are as flimsy as the arguments that they use to declare that the Sunnis hate the Ahlel
Bayt. The Sunnis claiming that the marriage took place between Umm Kulthoom and Umar has nothing to do with being
“Nasibi” nor does it insult Ali at all. In fact, Umar was such an upright person that the marriage brought honor upon
Ali’s family. Answering-Ansar says that only a Nasibi would claim that Ali gave his daughter to Umar, but then what
about Imam Al-Kulayni and the rest of the classical Shia scholars who held this position?
Anyways, Answering-Ansar’s introduction was very passionate, as is the rest of the article, but I think that the need to
insult the Sunnis as “Nasibis” hampered the credibility of the authors. Answering-Ansar’s very emotional response
lacked the sophistication necessary to view history in a balanced fashion.
Response to Chapter 2
Response to Chapter 2 entitled “The alleged marriage of Umar ibn al Khattab to Hadhrath Umme
Kalthum binte Fatima (as) from the texts of Ahl’ul Sunnah”
In this section, Answering-Ansar argues that Umar was a “pervert, paedophile or child molester” for wanting to marry
such a young girl.
Answering-Ansar says
“
Alternately such traditions may have been fabricated both to denigrate the respect that should be afforded to the
Ahl-ulBait, and to justify paedophilia (here it is part of the Sunnah of ‘Umar) as certain muslim groups of the Nasibi
persuasion have allowed it for their followers historically. In this day and age it rather notoriously includes certain
members of the Saudi royal family, but has also included other Nasibis in history.
”
This is what I meant earlier by the Shia just throwing one hundred darts and hoping that one of them hits the target: we
have here the completely random accusation that perhaps these traditions were fabricated in order to justify
paedophilia. I don’t know if the Shia writer even believed himself when he tried to further this proposition.
In any case, the Shia threw the paedophelia dart and it ended up hitting himself on the foot. How in the world can the
Shia call Umar to be a paedophiler for wanting to marry a young girl? Do these Shia not realize that Prophet
Muhammad also married Aisha when she was six or seven years old? He consummated the marriage when she was only
nine or ten years old.
Al-Islam.org says
“
QUESTION:
What was the age of Aisha when the prophet married her?
ANSWER:
A’isha was born in 614 A.D., Although the marriage was performed earlier,
it was not consummated until 623 or 624 A.D. [9 years of age]
source: “Aisha’s age at marriage”,
http://www.al-islam.org/organizations/AalimNetwork/msg00704.html
”
To further damage the Shia claim, we see that Ali married Fatima when she was nine years old. (Al-Islam.org, http://alislam.org/gracious/26.htm) In the process of pointing fingers at the Three Caliphs, the Shia ended up condemning both
the Prophet and Ali ibn Abi Talib. The overzealous nature in which the Shia try to tarnish the image of the Three Caliphs
have allied the Shia propagandists with the likes of anti-Islam groups, such as the “Answering-Islam” site.
Answering-Ansar has taken great pride in calling Umar a “pervert, paedophile, or child molestor” for the reason that he
married Umm Kulthoom when she was around ten to twelve years old. In condemning Umar, these Shia condemn the
Prophet and Ali as well. Not only this, but all of the Shia Maraje‘ (top scholars) have declared that marriage with a girl of
this age is Halal (permissible) and that nobody can condemn it. I do not think I need to even discuss this point about
paedophelia any further in order to “expose” the Shia accusations against Umar.
In the culture of the Arabs of the time, it was normal to marry a pre-pubertal girl, but only to consummate the marriage
once she passed puberty. This may seem odd and disgusting to Westerners, but it’s is just custom and culture; there are
even some cultures today that believe in bethroathals from birth. It does not mean that the person is committing sexual
acts with a minor; no, it simply means that a person is “reserving” a girl until she reaches puberty. (In any case, there are
many articles defending the Prophet’s actions in marrying a young girl, and I do not see it relevant in the discussion with
the Shia, but rather with Non-Muslims. Hence, I will not delve into this point further.)
As for Umar bin Khattab, he wanted to reserve Ali’s daughter for himself because he wanted the honor of being related
to the Prophet. It was not, as the Shia try to imply, because he had a sick desire for little girls. Let us see what Ibn Sa‘d
says in his work “at-Tabaqat al-Kubra” which is even quoted by the Answering-Ansar site:
Answering-Ansar says
“
…on the authority of Jafar ibn Muhammad [as-Sadiq], and he from his father [Muhammad al-Baqir] that—
Umar said, “Marry her to me, O Abul Hasan, for by Allah,there is no man on the face of the earth who seeks to achieve
through her good companionship that which I seek to achieve.”
…He [Umar] came to them [Sahabah] and said, “Congratulate me.” They congratulated him, and asked, “With whom are
we congratulating you, O Amir al-Mu’minin?” He replied, “With the daughter of ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib.”
Then he related to them that the Prophet said, “Every tie of kinship, and every association will be cut off on the Day of
Qiyamah, except my kinship and my association.” [Umar said,] “I have had the companionship of Rasool-Allah; I would
like also to have this [kinship].”
(vol.8, p.338, ed. Muhammad ‘Ab al-Qadir ‘Ata, “Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah”, Beirut 1990).
”
Thus, the intention of Umar was clear: it was to have the honor of being related to the Prophet. If Umar really hated Ali,
then why would he seek to have the honor of his kinship? Surely, the Shia paradigm makes no sense.
In any case, these Shia who accuse Umar of being a pervert and child molestor should feel very stupid just about now
when they consider the marriage of the Prophet and Aisha, as well as that of Ali and Fatima. I have noticed this pattern
with the Shia frequently: in their eternal quest to condemn the Sahabah, they accidentally end up attacking the Ahlel
Bayt as a consequence because their accusations apply to the Ahlel Bayt equally. They accuse Umar of paedophilia, and
thereby–by a process of implicit reasoning–they end up condemning their own Prophet and Ali. Similarly, the Shia say
Abu Bakr is going to Hell because he angered Fatima and they even bring up the Prophet’s Hadith; little do these Shia
know that Ali also angered Fatima and that the Prophet’s Hadith (about whoever angers Fatima also angers me) was in
fact in reaction to Ali angering Fatima. And there are many other examples in which the Shia accusations against the
Sahabah also condemn their Infallible Imams and their Maraje’.
Answering-Ansar says
“
does a father marry off a daughter in this manner? Dress her up (so as to make her look attractive) and then send
her to the home of her potential husband? Is this how Nasibi Mullah’s marry their daughters / sisters? If so, it may well
have been the way Mullah ‘Umar sent one of his daughters round to see ‘Usama bin Ladin, who married her! In this
case, ‘Usama bin Ladin is also a pervert. We should stress to these Nasibi that the act of sending one’s daughters before
potential candidates is the Sunnah of ‘Umar not the Sunnah of Ahl’ul bayt (as).
”
Answering-Ansar’s indignation is a bit pretentious in nature, because most of the authors are Pakistani or Persian.
Almost all Pakistani and Persian parents dress their daughters up when Rishtas (marriage proposals) come and suitors
come to see them. I’m pretty sure all Muslims do that; I know the Persians (who are mostly Shia) do that. There are even
Sunni and Shia matrimonial sites, all of which claim to strictly follow the Shariah; they have the blessing of the Ulema
on both sides and we see that these sites involve parents taking attractive pictures of their daughters so that potential
suitors can see them.
Answering-Ansar’s basic argument is that Ali would never dress up his daughter and allow another man to look at her
like that, or rather, “check her out.” The fact that Answering-Ansar would use such an argument is perhaps indicative of
the fact that the site is run by non-scholars. Not only is it permissible for a woman to let another man look at her if he is
a sincere suitor, but it is actually the Sunnah and highly recommended. In the following Hadith, a man told the Prophet
he intended on marrying a woman:
The Messenger of Allah said: ‘Have you looked at her?’ He said, ‘No.’ He said, ‘Go and look at her… (Reported by
Ahmad, 2/286, 299; Muslim, 4/142; al-Nisaa’i, 2/73)
In another Hadith, we read:
The Messenger of Allah said: “When any one of you proposes marriage to a woman, if he can look at that which will
encourage him to go ahead and marry her, let him do so.” (Reported by Abu Dawood and al-Haakim.)
Let us now look at what the Shia Maraje’ have ruled on this matter. We find the following fatwa on Al-Islam.org, an
authoratative Shia website:
Al-Islam.org says
“
That is, it is permissible to look at a woman in lust when one wants to see a woman to decide whether or not to
marry her, as a serious suitor for marriage. Of course, it is clear that a man cannot spend years looking at women in this
way to determine whether or not he wants to get married…
The second place the issue [of looking] is discussed is in relation to marriage and to what extent a suitor has the right to
look at the woman he may decide to seek permission to marry…
Ayatullah Hakim in his recital Minhaj al-Salihin, [11] in the section on marriage, gives a direct edict in which he states
“…It is permissible to look at a person one intends to marry as well as dhimmah women as long as there is no lust in the
glance…”
…As to the permissibility of looking, Allamah wrote, “A man looking at a woman or a woman looking at a man is either
necessary (like the look of a suitor) or not…”
[11]. Minhaj al-Salahin, 9th edition, issue 3.
source: http://al-islam.org/modestdress/6.htm
”
Scholars disagree with how much a suitor can look at, but generally speaking the opinion is that a suitor can even see a
woman without her Hijab, and some say more than this. Therefore, we can see nothing wrong in that Ali would show his
daughter to Umar, who was indeed the sincerest of suitors. The Shia accusation, although emotional in appeal, falls flat
on its face.
Answering-Ansar says
“
The Ahl’ ul bayt (as) are the shining examples of chastity, modesty and purdah, and they [would never] send their
daughters unchaperoned to a potential husband who can do whatever he pleases with them.
”
Not a single narration that the Shia cited ever said anything about sending Umm Kulthoom alone. Just because Ali did
not come along, that does not mean she went alone. This is simply conjecture on the part of the Shia. In fact, in one of
the narrations cited by Answering-Ansar, we read that Ali delegated Hasan and Hussain to marry off Umm Kulthoom.
Both Hasan and Hussain were suitable Mahrems to do the job. So it is likely that her brothers are the ones who
accompanied her to Umar. We read the following:
Answering-Ansar says
“
“Ali asked Hasan and Husain to marry off their sister to Umar…Hasan (as) and Husayn then married Umme
Kalthum to ‘Umar” (Sawaiqh al Muhriqa, Page 155)
”
Having said that, Umm Kulthoom was pre-pubertal when she was sent to Umar, and thus, the rules of Purdah did not
exist for her. We will get into this point next.
And this is what Answering-Ansar makes the most fan-fare out of:
Answering-Ansar says
“
If we accept this narration (Allah Forbid), then we would be upholding Imam ‘Ali (as) happily sending his young,
unmarried daughter to the home of an elderly man who decides to molest her. This man is ‘Umar, a pervert of the first
order…
…the girl is so young that her father says she is not of an age for marriage (more on that later on). Is this how a proposal
for marriage is conducted? Can Afriki tell us of any muslim parent that would allow a potential suitor to court their
daughter in this manner? Here a muslim father allegedly sends his daughter to the home of the potential suitor who
kisses her calf (Istiab) and grabs her elbow (Khamees / Baghdad). Both actions of ‘Umar are HARAM as he was not
married to her…And after this sordid behaviour the alleged suitor, ‘Umar, is still deemed by the alleged father-in-law to
be an acceptable husband for his daughter!
…It says a great deal, in fact, about their [Sunni’s] own diseased and perverted sick minds. In this day and age they could
have had successful careers writing for pornographic magazines…There is a link between porn and politics. This was one
of them? the sick minds of scholars who wrote fabricated lies to appease khalifas who wanted official religious sanction
for their own perverted recreational habits.
”
The Answering-Ansar website has resorted to outlandish accusations and exaggerations of events, taking things
drastically out of context. The one statement I found the most amusing was “there is a link between porn and politics.”
What in the world does that even mean!?
What the Shia have done here is present narrations after they first poision the water with their propaganda. They first
claim that Umar is a “pervert, paedophile or child molester” and then right after this they mention certain events while
that statement is still ringing in the reader’s ears. To see how unfair of a reading this is, let us take this story for instance:
When I was about ten years old, I remember that this one auntie and uncle baby-sat me because my parents were out of
town. They treated me real nice, like their own son. They even hugged me and kissed me on the forehead. They said they
loved me like their own little boy.
Does anyone here think anything strange of my childhood story? Well, if you are normal (and not perverted), this would
seem like an everyday occurrence of no significance. On the other hand, I could’ve have easily relayed the same exact
story like this:
When I was about ten years old, I remember that I had this one episode with a child molestor. When I was at this old
man’s house, he did some really perverted things! He was a paedophiler. He once fondled me by grabbing me and
pressing his chest so close to mine that our privates were not far apart. [He] even hugged me and kissed me… After he
had his share and was satisfied of kissing me, he said that he loved little boys like me. It was the worst experience of my
life.
In the analogy above, the actual “Hadith” was simply: “They even hugged me and kissed me on the forehead.” You will
notice that I kept this part the same in both paragraphs and scenarios. However, in the first scenario I surrounded that
sentence with positive words that gave a good image of the uncle. In the latter paragraph (i.e. the second scenario), I
surrounded that same exact sentence with words that poisioned the water and made the person look like a pervert, so
much so that the reader now sees the hugging and kissing to be in a very disgusting sort of way.
This is what the Shia have done with the narrations about Umar and Umm Kulthoom. They first called Umar to be a
“pervert, paedophile or child molester” and they even said that he “molested” Umm Kulthoom in those narrations. Then,
they narrated the story and suddenly the reader reads into the narration what the Shia propagandists want the reader to.
Seemingly normal actions–things we all do when we show our affection towards children–now become sick and
perverted ones that will always be construed as such.
Firstly, it should be established that Ali sent his daughter to Umar when she was still very young (pre-pubescent). In
fact, this is mentioned in the very narrations that Answering-Ansar quotes:
Answering-Ansar says
“
“Ali (as) asked that Umme Kalthum, who was still a milk fed baby, go to Umar and tell him that the request had
been granted. When Umme Kalthum went to Umar and delivered the message, he grabbed her, hugged her and said, ‘I
had asked her father for consent to marry you and he has agreed.’” (Zakhair Al-Aqba, p.169)
”
This point is emphasized in the other narrations that Answering-Ansar quoted:
Answering-Ansar says
“
“Umar asked Ali for the hand of Umme Kalthum. Ali replied that she was too young…” (Al Istiab, Volume 4, p.467)
”
Thus, at the time that Ali sent his daughter to Umar, she was still in the words of Ali to be a “milk-fed baby.” Admittedly,
this is figurative speech to indicate the youth of her age, but the point remains: she was extremely young. Thus, Umar
did not violate any laws when he touched her. Up until the age of puberty, a girl does not have to wear Hijab and it is OK
to touch her as long as there is no lust. Don’t we all touch little children when we hold their hands to cross the street,
and give them hugs, and other such things–this is what normal human beings do with children, not only their own but
others as well.
As to why Ali sent Umm Kulthoom to Umar, it was simply to fulfill the Sunnah act and the command of the Prophet who
demanded that a man see the woman before he agrees to marry her.
IslamOnline.com says
“
In principle, it is a Sunnah to look at the woman someone has intended to marry. There are some hadiths that are
related to this issue. One of them narrates the story of Al-Mughirah Ibn Shu’bah when he proposed to a lady and the
Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) told him to “LOOK at her as it might produce love between and make your
marriage stable”.
”
Furthermore, we read in another Hadith:
The Messenger of Allah said: ‘Have you looked at her?’ He said, ‘No.’ He said, ‘Go and look at her… (Reported by
Ahmad, 2/286, 299; Muslim, 4/142; al-Nisaa’i, 2/73)
There are a variety of narrations as to what happened when this very young girl Umm Kulthoom went to see Umar.
Some of these narrations say that he hugged her, others say he put her on her lap, others say that he didn’t even touch
her at all, and some say that he kissed her or grabbed her leg to stop her from running away from him. All of these
actions seem very normal to me, and I do not see what is odd or strange about them? Umar did not do any of these out
of lust, but rather he was displaying the normal affection that human beings show children.
Let us examine some of the narrations in this light:
Answering-Ansar says
“
“When Umar saw her, he got up, took her in his lap, kissed her, and showered blessings on her. When she got up to
leave, he grabbed her ankle and said, ‘Tell your father that I am willing.’”
(Sawaiqh al Muhriqa page 280 and Asaaf al Ghaneen page 162)
”
The key point is “showered blessings on her.” This is really what my grandfather does to me every time I went to see him
when I was little. He put me in his lap, kissed me, and then he used to shower blessings upon me in his native Urdu
tongue. Seems extremely normal to me.
We can see that Umar thus viewed Umm Kulthoom as a little girl, and he had no intentions of consumating the marriage
with her. But rather, he simply wanted to reserve this girl for himself perhaps even since the day she was born, just so
that he could claim relation to the Prophet via her. When Umm Kulthoom, a very young girl, went to see him, she was
extremely shy of boys. It reminds me of my six year old niece who is so shy of boys; we always laugh and say that she is
already so proper of a girl. I have another two year old niece who is the exact opposite: she only makes friends with boys!
We make fun of this too, all in good fun. These things are what grown-ups laugh at and even tease their kids about.
Answering-Ansar says
“
[Umar said:] ‘If she is underage, send her to me.’ Thus ‘Ali gave his daughter Umme Kalthum a dress and asked her
to go to ‘Umar and tell him that her father wants to know what this dress is for. When she came to Umar and gave him
the message, he grabbed her hand and forcibly pulled her towards him. ‘Umme Kalthum asked him to leave her hand,
which Umar did and said, ‘You are a very mannered lady with great morals. Go and tell your father that you are very cute
and you are not what he said of you’. (Tareekh Khamees Volume 2 page 384 ‘Dhikr Umm Kalthum’ and Zakhair AlAqba, Page 168)
”
Again, we see clearly in this narration that Umm Kulthoom is “under age.” When Umar grabbed her hand, she wanted
him to stop, and then Umar said in a hearty manner: “you are a very mannered lady with great morals.” Notice the key
word here: he called her a “lady.” It is thus very clear that he is talking in a very grown up fashion towards a little child;
it is like when my three year old cousin dresses up with make-up for Eid, I say to her: “oh wow, you look like a very
pretty lady!” It is said tongue-in-cheek by the grown-up.
Thus, we have established the fact that when Ali sent his daughter Umm Kulthoom to him, she was still pre-pubescent
and thus the laws of touching and looking were not even applicable. Neither were the laws of being accompanied by a
Mahrem (although it is unlikely that a “milk-fed baby” could go anywhere by herself so it is likely that she was
accompanied by someone other than Ali).
According to the historical sources, Ali had promised Umm Kulthoom to Umar when she was pre-pubescent and merely
a child; hence, the arguments made by the Shia of violating a woman’s honor are baseless. The engagement period lasted
for a couple years and she was married to Umar when she was about eleven or twelve years of age. The marriage was
then consummated a year after that as we read in another narration kindly quoted by Answering-Ansar:
Answering-Ansar says
“
“Umar married her in 17 Hijri, and consummated the marriage a year later when she became baligh” (Yaseen
Maussali in Al Madhahib, Page 98, and ‘Umar Reza Kulalla, in Ulum Al Nisa, Page 256)
”
Thus, Umm Kulthoom was not even baligh (mature) when she got married, and Umar still had to wait one more year on
top of that to consummate the marriage (thereby fulfilling the Sunnah of the Prophet who also waited before he
consummated the marriage with Aisha). So how then can the Shia claim that the rules of Hijab/Purdah would apply to
Umm Kulthoom years before when Umar proposed to her!? If she wasn’t baligh a year into the marriage, then she surely
wasn’t baligh before her marriage either. (A rather self-evident statement.)
It is actually very pretentious for a Shia to accuse Umar of “molesting” a child, when we read their Hadith or fatwas
from the Shia Maraje’ (top scholars). Ayatollah Khomeini is considered by the Shia to be the absolute authority of Allah
on earth (and the sole representative of the Hidden Imam), and as such, his position to the Shia is higher than the
position of Umar bin Khattab to the Ahlus Sunnah. Let us read what Khomeini said in his book “Tahreer al-Waseelah”:
Al-Shia.com says
“
12 :
‫ س ن ين ت سع إك مال ق بل ال زوجة وطء ي جوز ال‬، ‫ م ن قط عا أو ال ن كاح ك ان دواما‬، ‫ف ال ال ت فخ يذ و ال ضم و ب شهوة ك ال لمس اال س تم تاعات سائ ر أما و‬
‫ ال ر ض ي عة ف ى ح تى ب ها ب أس‬، ‫ االق وى ع لى االث م غ ير ءىى ع ل يه ي ترت ب ل م ي ف ضها ل م و ال ت سع ق بل وطأها ل و و‬، ‫ج عل ب أن أف ضاها إن و‬
‫ ال ثان ية ال صورة ف ى االح وط ع لى ل كن أب دا وطؤها ع ل يه حرم واحدا ال غائ ط و ال ح يض م س ل كى أو واحدا ال ح يض و ال بول م س ل كى‬، ‫حال أي ع لى و‬
‫ االق وى ع لى زوج ي ته عن ت خرج ل م‬، ‫ غ يرها و م عها أخ تها حرمة و ال خام سة حرمة و ال توارث من أح كامها ع ل يها ف يجري‬، ‫ن ف ق تها ع ل يه ي جب و‬
‫ االح وط ع لى ال ط الق ب عد ت زوجت إن و ب ل ط ل قها إن و ح ية مادامت‬، ‫ ق وة من ي خ لو ال ب ل‬، ‫ االف ضاء دي ة ع ل يه ي جب و‬، ‫ ال ن فس دي ة هى و‬، ‫ف إذا‬
‫ ال دخول و ب ال ع قد ا س تح ق ته ال ذي ال مهر إل ى م ضاف ا ال رجل دي ة ن صف ف لها حرة ك ان ت‬، ‫ت حرم ل م ف أف ضاها ال ت سع إك مال ب عد ب زوج ته دخل ل و و‬
‫ ال دي ة ت ث بت ل م و ع ل يه‬، ‫ ال وجوب عدم االق وى ك ان إن و ح ية مادامت ع ل يها االن فاق االح وط ل كن و‬.
Translation: “It is not allowed to perform sexual intercourse (i.e. penetration) with your wife if she hasn’t turned nine
years of age; however, all other sexual pleasure such as touching with sexual desire, hugging, and rubbing between her
thighs is not a problem with her even if she is an infant being breast-fed (less than two years old).”
source: Ayatollah Khomeini, Tahreer al-Waseelah,
http://www.al-shia.com/html/ara/books/tahr…tahrir25.htm#a4
”
And just in case you think I’m making this up, check it for yourself from Al-Shia.com, which along with Al-Islam.org, is
considered by the Shia to be the most authoratative sites. Go to the link I gave above, and then you’ll have to scroll down
to the twelvth item “Ketabonnekah” in order to find Ayatollah Khomeini’s fatwa in Tahreer al-Waseelah.
Hence, I do not think that the Shia has any right to claim that Umar bin Khattab was a pervert, when their own Grand
Ayatollah sanctions behavior such as deriving sexual pleasure from infants. I remind the readers that all Umar did was
hug Umm Kulthoom, kiss her (probably on the forehead), grabbed her hand, put her on his lap, etc. These are all things
that normal people do to children as a sign of affection. On the other hand, what the Shia Ayatollah above is sanctioning
is truly perverted. How can the Shia follow Ayatollah Khomeini on the one hand, and then call Umar a “pervert” for
doing simple things like hugging someone!? The Shia are acting as if hugging a child is a big deal.
The Shia have all sorts of narrations about the Prophet putting his face in between Fatima’s breasts, and kissing her on
the neck, mouth, and even between her breasts. The Ahlus Sunnah of course abhors these traditions and rejects them.
Whereas what the Sunni narrations say about Umar and Umm Kulthoom are normal and healthy, the things that the
Shia claim that the Prophet did to Fatima are borderline perverted and are a slander against the personality of the
Prophet.
Here is another Shia fatwa, this time from Grand Ayatollah Sayyid al-Abtuhi:
Grand Ayatollah Sayyid al-Abtuhi says
“
‫ ال سؤال‬465
‫ال عمر من اب لغ ف تاة ان ا‬15‫ث دي ى ب ين ك ث يرا ي ق ب ل نى اب ى ول كن ال لة وال حمد ال م نزل خارج ال كامل ال حجاب ال بس وات ا جدا م تدي ن رجل اب ى عام‬
‫ب شهوة ك ان ت اذا حرام ان ها ل ى ف ي قول حرام األف عال هذة أل ي ست ل ة ف أق ول ن حرى ف ى وي ق ب ل نى وي ح ت ض نى خ ل فى من ي أت ى او ف مى ف ى او‬
‫ل سان ها وي مص ف مها وف ى ث دي يها وب ين ن حرها من ف اطمة ال س يدة اب ن تة ي ق بل ك ان محمد ال ر سول وان األب وة ب عاط فة ذل ك م عك اف عل ان ا ل كن‬
‫ال عورة ال مس ال ان نى ل ى وي قول ذل ك اب ن تة مع ي ف عل ان اب أل ى رخ صة ف هذة ذل ك ف عل ال ر سول واذا ال اب ن تة ف ى ي فحش ك ان ال ر سول ف هل‬
‫ف ال ف تاة ال ش باب اغراءات من ع لى خوف ة من أي ضا هذا ي ف عل وان ة ت ق ب ي لة او ل م سة او ب رؤي ة م صرح ب عورة ل يس ما وك ل وال دب ر ال ق بل وهى‬
‫ك ان ك يف حرام ك ان واذا حرام ام ح الل م عى اب ى ي ف ع لة ما ف هل ال م نزل داخل وال ح نان ال حب ل م شاعر م ف ت قدة ت كون ىاب أل ى ن ف سها ت س لم ال تى‬
‫ال م ف يد ال موق ع هذا ع لى و ى كرا ال زهراء ف اطمة ال س يدة اب ن تة مع هذا ي ف عل ال ر سول‬.
‫ال جواب‬
‫ال سوء ب ه الت ظ ني و ق ل به ف ي ذل ك و ي قول ه هو ال ذي ب ال شرط جائ ز وال دك ف عل ان ب رك ات ه و هللا رحمة و ال س الم ع ل ي كم و‬. ‫ب كم اهال‬.
Q 465
I’m a 15 years old girl. My dad is a very religious man. When I get out of the house, I wear my full Hijab -al-Hamdulillah.
But my dad kisses me a lot between my breasts or on the mouth, or hugs me from the rear and kisses my neck. When I
ask him, aren’t these acts forbidden, he replies, they are provided they were done with lust, but I do that with you moved
by the passion of fatherhood. That the Messenger Muhammad used to kiss his daughter Fatimah on the neck and in
between her breasts, as well as on the mouth sucking her tongue. So was the Messenger doing such evil to his daughter?
No. And if he did, should this serve as a permission for any father to do the same with his daughter? He says: I’m not
touching the private parts which are the front & rear, and as such what does not constitute an awra is clearly lawful to
see, touch or kiss. He claims that he does this to me out of concerns for me against the seductions of the young men,
because the girl who gives up her body to the guys often lacks love and attention at home. Is what my dad doing with me
Halaal or Haraam? If Haraam, why was the messenger doing that to his daughter Fatimah al-Zahraa, and thank you for
this useful website.
A: wa alaikum assalaam wa rahmatullahi wa barakaatuh. The acts performed by your dad are permissible with the
conditions stated by him, and the (intention) is confined to his heart, but do not think ill of him. Welcome.
Grand Ayatollah Sayyid al-Abtuhi
”
The Shia Hadith which justify such odd and peculiar behavior include the following:
“It was narrated that [Imam] Jafar Ibn Muhamad said: The Prophet Muhammad used to put his face between the
breasts of [his daughter] Fatima before going to sleep” (Bihaar al-Anwar, vol.23, p.78)
And there are many other narrations of the Shia in which the Prophet kisses her on the neck, and other such things.
How can the Shia say anything about Umar kissing a little girl when the same Ayatollahs that the Shia revere kiss little
girls and boys? The Shia even have a peculiar habit of men kissing each other on the lips, as well as kissing little boys on
the lips. We see the following:
If you don’t see that, then click here to view the picture:
http://www.kasralsanam.com/khomaini_radeeaa.gif
This shows Ayatollah Khomeini kissing a young girl. So how then can the Shia accuse Umar in regards to doing this to
Umm Kulthoom? Umar was the Caliph of the Ummah, and it is very normal for leaders of countries (like the US
President) to kiss little babies and kids. And this was not just any kid, but the Prophet’s grand-daughter.
And for good measure, here is a picture of the Ayatollah kissing a boy on the lips, certainly more disturbing and
“perverted” than what Umar ever did:
Again, if you can’t see that, then click here: http://www.kasralsanam.com/hwass2/f01.jpg
There are many pictures of Ayatollahs kissing boys on the lips.
If you can’t see that, then click here: http://www.kasralsanam.com/pages/boosh-shia.jpg
I don’t want to degrade this debate into a mud-slinging contest and my intention here is not to inflame passions by
showing such compromising pictures of Ayatollahs. What I am trying to establish here is that there is no way that the
Shia can criticize those narrations in which Umar does such normal things to Umm Kulthoom, and it is very hypocritical
and sanctimonious that they would hold such an attitude when we weigh in the behavior of their Ayatollahs. Umar bin
Khattab merely did things which healthy human beings do to children (i.e. hug them and kiss them on the cheeks, etc)
and there can be no condemnation of him, especially not from people who accept such peculiar behavior of their
Ayatollahs (i.e. sexual pleasure from infants, kissing little boys on the lips, etc).
I could go on and on, but I think that I’ve sufficiently crippled the Shia argument mentioned in the second chapter of
Answering-Ansar’s article.
Response to Chapter 3
Response to Chapter 3 entitled “Our objections to the Sunni traditions”
This is the part where the Answering-Ansar team literally throws everything including the kitchen sink at us…a huge
conglomeration of “responses.” In fact, there are no less than twenty-seven different responses here! This reminds me of
what lawyers do in order to burden the opposition: they swarm them with paper-work and minutia in an effort to shift
the topic of discussion.
Reply 1 Entitled “The esteemed status of the family of Sayyida UMME KALTHUM (as) and her mother”
In this, the Shia is claiming that Fatima would never agree to letting her daughter be seen by a perverted old child
molestor like Umar. These are the same accusations that the Shia levied against Umar in chapter 2. I have responded to
this child-molestor claim in the previous section (my response to chapter 2), and hence, I will not discuss it again.
Reply 2 Entitled “Such a marriage would pain Sayyida Fatima (as)”
I don’t see how this is any different than the First Objection; it is once again talking about Umar bin Khattab being a
pervert for marrying Umm Kulthoom at the age of ten or twelve, completely ignoring the fact that Shia sources confirm
that the Prophet married Aisha when she was six years old, and Ali married Fatima when she was nine years old. Once
again, refer to my response to chapter 2 in the previous section.
I would, however, like to comment on when Answering-Ansar says the following:
Answering-Ansar says
“
Unfortunately for them, they didn’t read the traditions in much detail? till now and our exposing of the Nasibi
privates, which are uncircumcised. Till now it never occurred to their puny little minds that their beloved ‘Umar could
be brought down in the steaming pile of paedophilia and perversion which stamp him in these very same traditions. We
are exposing the Nasibi privates?it is not clean?it has been seen?they all have foreskins still?hiding their hypocrisy
beneath kaftans made of the finest silk threads.
”
For the life of me, I cannot understand why a supposedly academic piece would start talking about their opponent’s
privates and wether or not they are circumscribed or not!? This is extremely un-professional and I cannot understand
how anyone takes this article seriously when it’s using such filthy language. I don’t even understand that last sentence.
To get back on point, the Shia are trying to make the jump that Fatima would get angry at the marriage of Umm
Kulthoom to Umar. However, this is not a rebuttal because according to the Sunnis, Umar was an upright individual and
the marriage would be a good one. Umar was the Caliph of the Muslims, and no doubt Fatima would be honored to give
her daughter to a man of such a noble rank. I do not think that Answering-Ansar understands the rules of debate,
evidenced by their talking abour the foreskin of their opponents.
Reply 3 Entitled “Umar’s anger would have displeased Rasulullah (s)”
Here, Answering-Ansar is saying that Umar had a temper and that thus he was not a fit suitor for Umm Kulthoom.
According to the Shia, Umar was rude, harsh, and had a temper. However, the Sunni opinion of Umar is different than
this. The Shia are just using a play on words here. For example, a non-Muslim could describe Ali as “hostile” (arguing
that Ali was hostile towards the Kufaar); on the other hand, a Muslim would use the same quality and refer to it in a
positive way, calling Ali as “protective” (arguing that Ali was protective of the Prophet against the Kufaar). Thus, the
quality is the same, but we simply use different words in order to portray another connotation. Another example is
calling someone “gullible” instead of “trusting”, or how about “arrogant” instead of “confident.”
This is how the Shia manipulate words in order to tarner the image of Umar. Personally, Umar bin Khattab is my
absolute favorite Sahabi, for the very reason that he was such a tough guy. He was a man’s man. He used to intimidate
the Kufaar, and if anyone messed with the Prophet, he would ask permission to chop that guy’s head off. Once a man
urinated in the mosque, and Umar wanted to fight him. The Kufaar were so scared of him; he was like the bulldozer of
Islam, ready to run over the Kufaar. He was also strict on women, in regards to them maintaining Haya; when he was
Caliph, he stamped out sexually explicit activities. He banned love poetry, strictly enforced the prohibition on Mutah,
and maintained a rigid Purdah. These are all great qualites to have; yes, women were subsequently somewhat scared of
him (and in awe of his fearsome power). Being a young Muslim man myself, I think this is exactly how I’d like to be.
Umar bin Khattab was not a bad person; he was harsh, but he was harsh on matters in which people should be harsh. He
was harsh against the Kufaar (disbelievers), against those who hated the Prophet and wanted to hurt him, against those
who advocated sexual lewdness, etc. The Shia themselves believe in being harsh against Nasibis and they curse and hate
them, so this concept should not be alien at all to the Shia.
Answering-Ansar quotes a saying in which the people said “Yes, for you are harsher and sterner than Allah’s Apostle.”
Notice that this implies that the Prophet did have a level of harshness and sterness in him, so this is not a bad thing. In
fact, Allah Almighty commands the Muslims in the Quran to “let them find harshness in you” in reference to those who
are against Islam. In fact, it is narrated in Hadith that the Prophet used to pray that someone strong like Umar bin
Khattab convert to Islam so that the Muslims would no longer have to practise in secret and in fear. Once Umar
converted to Islam, the Muslims publically declared their faith to the world and used the strength of Umar to do so. This
was an honor and prestige that Umar had, and no other Sahabi–not even Ali ibn Abi Talib. In fact, according to the Shia,
Ali would always live in fear and Taqiyyah (a view rejected by the Ahlus Sunnah), and yet look at how great Umar bin
Khattab is that he not only publically declared his own Islam but wrapped his protective cloak over all the Muslims who
went out of hiding because of him.
In conclusion, we cannot see how this is a valid argument of the Shia. Yes, if we believe the Shia opinion of Umar, then
the argument would make sense. But again, like I said in the last response, this is not a rebuttal because according to the
Sunnis, Umar was an upright individual and the marriage would be a good one.
In any case, this point has no relevance to Umm Kulthoom’s marriage. The Ansar team showed proof from the Shia
Hadith in Al-Kafi that the marriage did indeed take place. How does showing that Umar had a temper prove in any way
relate to this? Do people who have tempers not get married?
Reply 4 Entitled “Ahl’ul Sunnah aqeedah that a daughter of Rasulullah (s) cannot be married to a man
with other wives”
This is just plain false and indicative of the lack of knowledge of the Answering-Ansar team. First of all, these Shia high
school or college students don’t even know the difference between Aqeedah and Fiqh. Who one marries has nothing to
do at all with Aqeedah, but rather it is a purely Fiqh matter!
In any case, it is simply not true that the Sunni fiqh says that the Prophet’s daughters cannot marry a man with other
wives. How can the Shia make such ridicolous assertions? The Prophet discouraging Ali from marrying another wife
other than Fatima was not due to Fiqh, but rather due to the preference of the Prophet. It was not illegal for Ali to marry
another wife, but it was just that the Prophet preferred he not do so. For example, the Prophet disliked certain foods, but
this does not mean they are forbidden. And the only reason he didn’t want Ali to marry another wife was that Fatima
would have Gheerah (protective jealousy) as she, like Aisha, had a lot of Gheerah (and we use protective jealous in an
endearing sort of way here, meaning that these women loved their husbands so much that they didn’t want to share
them).
In any case, Umar did not even marry the Prophet’s daughter so why are the Shia even bringing this up!? Umar married
Ali’s daughter–not the Prophet’s. So even if the Sunnis had such a principle (which they don’t), it still wouldn’t help the
Shia argument! This is what we call throwing the kitchen sink.
Reply 5 Entitled “Umar was not the kuff (equivalent) of Umme Kalthum (as), which makes the putative
existence of this marriage as untenable”
The argument of “Kuff” has been used so many times by the Answering-Ansar team, that I have decided to dedicate a
separate page to it and just link the reader there. So please go here: Kuff and Umm Kulthoom’s Marriage.
Replies 6 and 7
Looking at a potential spouse for marriage is Halal and it is in fact the Sunnah of the Prophet, as attested by the Shia
Maraje’ themselves. In regards to Umar touching Umm Kulthoom, she was not a baligh when Umar touched her, and
hence, it was not Haram. I have already discussed both of these arguments in great detail in my response to “Chapter 2.”
Reply 8 Entitled “Umar supposedly exposed Imam ‘Ali (as) as a liar”
The Shia quote this:
Answering-Ansar says
“
“When Umar asked for Umme Kalthum’s hand, ‘Ali said she is under age. ‘Umar said ‘By Allah this is not the case,
you just don’t want to marry her to me’”
”
I have absolutely no idea how this argument of the Shia refutes the fact that the marriage took place, but I’ll play along
anyways. Umar never accused Ali of lying. It was only in a playful tone that he would bug Ali to give him his daughter.
Umar was just over zealous in wanting to have kinship with the Prophet via Umm Kulthoom. And how can he blamed
for this? So he used to bug Ali to give her to Umar, and eventually Ali did so. I oftentimes bug my friend to let me drive
his car. He says “man, my car’s brakes are all messed up.” I say back to him, “aww come on, you just don’t want me to
drive the car.” Now obviously there is some brake problem, but there is also an element that maybe he doesn’t want me
to borrow his car in the back of his mind. Anyways, I bug him further and eventually he lets me because he is my friend.
The Shia are really grasping at straws here. If Umar and Ali were not friends, then why would Umar want to marry his
daughter? Why was Umar so eager in having kinship to the family of the Prophet?
In any case, there is no question of lying since there is no right answer. Ali said that Umm Kulthoom was too young. This
is a subjective statement. Maybe to Ali she was too young. But to others, including Umar, she was not. Some parents find
their daughters to be too young even when they are 20. If someone else said to them “this is not the case and she is old
enough to get married”, is this calling these parents a liar? Let’s say that I wanted to marry an eighteen year old girl. If I
went to her parents, they would tell me she is too young. To this, I would say “this is not the case, you just can’t see her
get married because you are scared.” Again, there is no issue of accusing anyone of lying. If I say that blue is the best
color, and you say “no, I think red is”, did anyone lie? No, it’s just a difference of opinion on a subjective thing.
Reply 9 Entitled “Many of the Sahaba taunted Imam ‘Ali (as) and favoured ‘Umar”
I don’t see any narration that the Sahabah “taunted” Ali. Again, we see the Answering-Ansar team always playing with
words to make them sound more dreary than they really are.
Answering-Ansar says
“
” ‘Umar asked for the hand of ‘Ali (as)’s daughter. ‘Ali (as) said the girl is underage. Then the people accused ‘Ali (as)
of just making up an excuse to avoid marrying his daughter to ‘Umar. ‘Umar asked for her hand in marriage a further
two times.”
”
I don’t see how the people are taunting Ali at all. Again, they just disagree with him. Ali was very over-protective of his
daughter, and thus, he didn’t want to marry her off because to him she would always be daddy’s little girl. In fact, the
point that Ali was so over-protective that he didn’t want to marry her off just proves that he must’ve really have
approved of Umar’s character if he gave her to him (since over-protective parents do not just dump their children off to
people of bad character).
Reply 10 Entitled “Umar drove ‘Ali (as) to despair, causing him much pain”
This is getting really old now. Answering-Ansar is simply translating everything using word games. The real words of the
narration are that Ali eventually got “annoyed” or “pestered” enough by Umar’s insistence that he gave Umm Kulthoom
to him. And annoyance is like the superficial annoyance of a friend; for example, I keep bugging my friend to let me
borrow his car, and finally he just throws his hands up in the air and says “alright man, take the car, just shut up!” Of
course this is all in an endearing way. A better translation of “desperation” here would be that Ali got sick of it, but not in
a bad way. A similar instance is when these two young boys begged the Prophet again and again to let them go on Jihad.
The Prophet kept refusing but the boys kept “annoying” the Prophet about it. Eventually, the Prophet agreed when they
persisted so much and pestered the Prophet so thoroughly. It was their desire to do good that led them to pester the
Prophet, and likewise, it was Umar’s desire to have kinship with the Prophet that he pestered Ali.
In which narration does it say that Ali was caused a lot of pain? I don’t see it. In fact, let’s say it caused Ali pain. Let’s say
Ali got pained by Umar asking him again and again. Then, to alleviate his pain, he decides to give his daughter off to a
corrupt child molestor? Is this really the coward image the Shia are trying to portray of Ali? Just to get rid of a bit of
emotional pain he will give his daughter away?
Reply 11 Entitled “The absence of the father in the Nikah makes this marriage void”
Answering-Ansar says
“
According to the Hanafi school of thought, the presence of the father is also a must, and his absence would make the
marriage void.
”
Once again, the Answering-Ansar kids couldn’t get Fiqh right. Wali is not required in the Hanafi Madhab:
“Hanafi school of Islamic law does not make wali’s consent a condition of marriage…According to Abu Hanifah, the
marriage of a free, adult, sane woman is contracted with her consent, even if there [is] no wali [who] performs
the contract for her, whether she is virgin or not.”
(source: “Mukhtasar al-Quduri”, a matn of Hanafi fiqh)
This is confirmed by other Hanafi websites such as Sunni Path, Ask-Imam, and Dar ul Iftaa. Sunni Path says: “the
Hanafi School gives women the option to marry without their guardian’s permission” (www.sunnipath.com)
This is the same opinion of the Shia scholars, namely that permission of the father is not necessary if the two are
compatible. We read on Al-Islam.org (emphasis is ours):
Al-Islam.org says
“
if she is a virgin but her father and paternal grandfather refuse to grant permission to her for marrying a man who
is compatible to her in the eyes of Sharia’, it will not be necessary to seek their permission.
source: http://www.al-islam.org/laws/marriage1.html
”
In any case, the argument of the Shia is ridicolous, because there is a difference between having a father’s permission
and having the father present at the Nikah. It is very possible for a woman to have her father’s permission and blessing,
but he is unable to attend the wedding; therefore, he is allowed by Shariah to designate a Wali to act on behalf of him at
the wedding. Hasan and Hussain would suffice then as representatives and there is no problem with the Nikah. The
father not physically present but rather appointing someone in his place is a normal practise amongst Sunnis, namely
because oftentimes the Wali is in another country and may have VISA problems, etc. I do believe the same is true of Shia
families. In any case, according to the Sunni sources quoted by Answering-Ansar, Ali ibn Abi Talib made Hasan and
Hussain the Walis of Umm Kulthoom and told them to get her married. This was in the narration we mentioned earlier
and also mentioned on the Answering-Ansar site (emphasis is ours):
Answering-Ansar says
“
“Ali asked Hasan and Husain to marry off their sister to Umar…Hasan (as) and Husayn then married Umme
Kalthum to ‘Umar” (as quoted by Answering-Ansar, Sawaiqh al Muhriqa, Page 155)
”
The Shia scholars confirm that the father doesn’t have to be present but rather someone else can be delegated to do this
task, even a female! We read the following on Al-Islam.org:
Answering-Ansar says
“
The representative should not necessarily be a male. A woman can also become a representative to pronounce the
marriage formula.
source: http://www.al-islam.org/laws/marriage1.html
”
Reply 12 Entitled “According to Ahl’ul Sunnah Aqeedah an “if” marriage is void”
This argument of the Shia is ridicolous.
Answering-Ansar says
“
As we had cited earlier, we read in Al Istiab, Volume 4, Page 469, that that the father of the putative bride, Imam Ali
(as), told ‘Umar ‘I will send Umme Kalthum to your house, if you like her, she will be your wife’. A marriage based on
“If” is called a “Mualiq”, and according to the Maliki, Shafi and Hanbali schools of thought, it is considered void.
”
I have to hand it to the Answering-Ansar website: they are getting more and more creative (and more and more
desperate) as the article progresses. Based on this, we could say that every marriage is an “if” clause and therefore null.
All men marry women if they like the woman.
These high school and college students have misread a ruling that is held by some Sunni scholars. It is for example if a
man said to his wife: “If the Yankees win tomorrow, then consider us divorced.” If the Yankees won the next day, his socalled “divorce” would be invalid and not applicable. In order to actually get divorced, he would have to say “Talaq”
three times whenever he wants it. So there is a difference then if a man would say to his wife: “If you ever cheat on me,
then consider us divorced.” If the woman cheats on the man, the divorce would not be valid yet, but the man simply has
to then pronounce the divorce and it would be valid. The man’s statement meant that if you cheat on me, then I will say
“Talaq” not that it would automatically be a divorce without him having said it.
Umm Kulthoom did not become the wife of Umar bin Khattab the moment that Umar liked her when she stepped into
his house, but rather what Ali meant to say was that he will then marry Umm Kulthoom to him in the near future. The
Answering-Ansar team itself provides many narrations in which Hasan and Hussain then conducted the marriage. I
hope the Shia can realize their desperation here; they are grabbing at straws. I think they literally were just surfing
websites and saw a fatwa, misinterpreted it, and decided “hey, we could use this in our article!”
Reply 13 Entitled “The complete ignorance of the Sahaba with regards to the marriage”
Answering-Ansar says
“
After that Umme Kalthum returned [from Umar’s house] to Hadhrath ‘Ali and relayed what had transpired, and she
asked him, ‘Why did you send me to that filthy old man?’ ‘Ali said, “O daughter, he is your husband”. After that ‘Umar
attended a gathering of the Muhajireen and asked them to congratulate him. They asked him why (they should
congratulate him). ‘Umar replied, “I have married Umme Kalthum the daughter of ‘Ali”.
(Al Istiab, Volume 4, Page 467)
”
So the Answering-Ansar team is now arguing that how could such a wedding have taken place when after it, the
Sahabah still don’t know about it. I think these Shia propagandists have reading comprehension problems. Please read
the narration above again. When Umar goes to the gathering of Muslims, the Nikah has not been pronounced yet; but
rather he is only jubilant that Ali has promised him to her and accepted Umar’s proposal. The likeness of this is if a man
meets a CEO at a dinner party. The CEO offers the man a job then and there, so afterwards the man is ecstatic and calls
his friends and says “I got a job!” Now officially, at this point in time, he hasn’t signed any of the paper-work and legally
he doesn’t have any job at all. It is a promise of a job, and pretty much gauranteed, but the formalities must fall through.
Hence, the marriage of Umm Kulthoom was not held in private or secret. This is absurd. Admittedly, it probably wasn’t
a humongous Pakistani style wedding that costs ten trillion dollars and three milion guests from Pakistan. That was not
the custom back then and people used to marry in very simple ways. Thus, any comparison the Answering-Ansar team
are trying to give between the marriages back then and now are invalid. Ali himself said he had no dower to give Fatima,
and he simply gave a coat of armor to Fatima. We could ask the Shia: what kind of Shia parents nowadays would wed
their daughter with a dower like this!? And based on this, we could say that Fatima’s wedding with Ali never took place,
because who in the world gives weapons to a woman as a dower? And then we could use emphatic rhetoric like the Shia
do and say things like “this is no ordinary woman–this is the Prophet’s daughter–how could Ali not give any dower to
her?!” And then we could add more punch to this by using words like “dirty Nasibis” and/or “Wahabi” to make our point
more effective.
In fact, it is the Sunnah of the Prophet to hold very quiet, simple, and less ostentatious marriages. However, it should be
stated that when Umar went to the crowd of Muslims in the narration above, the Nikah had not been pronounced as of
yet. Nobody has ever interpreted this in any other way. The evidence for this is in the narration itself, when Umm
Kulthoom goes home to Ali; how could the Nikah have been already pronounced and then Ali has to be the one that
informs an unknowing Umm Kulthoom that the Nikah has been pronounced? Was Umm Kulthoom drugged during the
Nikah? Obviously, common sense (and reading comprehension) dictates that no Nikah ceremony had taken place yet,
but that Ali had promised Umm Kulthoom to Umar by this time. In fact, according to the more reliable reports, the
actual Nikah would be performed years later when Umm Kulthoom became much older.
Reply 14 Entitled “The absence of a Marriage (Nikah) makes this alleged marriage void. This is how
ridiculous the whole concept of this alleged marriage is.”
This is pretty much the same argument as the last one. And we have answered it. In any case, there are many narrations
that talk about that Umar had been married to Umm Kulthoom. Maybe there are not Hadith about what the dinner
served at the Nikah was, or if there were attractive girls at the wedding, or if the music was good, etc. Why in the world
would there be a need for any of this? A historian would simply say “Umar and Umm Kulthoom were married”, not
“Umar and Umm Kulthoom had a Nikah ceremony on such-and-such date and so-and-so was there and it was a great
blast!”
There were many Sahabah who got married to women, and yet we don’t find any Hadith that talk exactly about the
Nikah day, the very Nikah moment, or other such details. Does this mean that they were not married to their wives?
Surely, the Shia propagandist is getting desperate. There are so many Hadith and narrations that confirm that Umar and
Umm Kulthoom got married, that I do not know how the Shia can use this argument. There could not possibly be more
proof of the marriage if we look at the books of the Ahlus Sunnah, and we even see so many narrations quoted by
Answering-Ansar themselves! The narrations about the marriage have so many sources that it is considered
Mutawattir.
Reply 15 Entitled “The failure to seek the bride’s consent means that Imam ‘Ali (as) violated the Shari’a
(astaghfirullah)”
First off, both Sunni and Shia are accepted on the fact that a girl who is not Baligh can be married off by her father
without her consultation; since she is still a minor, she is not capable of making this decision herself.
Islam-qa.com says
“
Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr said:
The scholars are unanimously agreed that a father may marry off his young daughter without consulting her. The
Messenger of Allaah married ‘Aa’ishah bint Abi Bakr when she was young, six or seven years old, when her father
married her to him.
Al-Istidhkaar, 16/49-50.
source: http://www.islamqa.com/index.php?ref=12708&ln=eng&txt=marriage%20minor
”
And once again, this is confirmed by the Shia scholars:
Al-Islam.org says
“
The father and the paternal grandfather can contract a marriage on behalf of his minor son or daughter…And after
the children have become baligh or the insane has become sane, he can endorse or abrogate it, if the contracted
marriage involves any moral lapse or scandal. And if the marriage contract does not involve any moral lapse or scandal,
but the na-baligh son or daughter calls off the marriage, then as an obligatory precaution, a Talaq or a renewed Nikah,
whatever the case may be, must be recited.
source: http://www.al-islam.org/laws/marriage1.html
”
The Shia have no leg to stand upon. Ali did not need to seek Umm Kulthoom’s permission, since–according to the
sources that the Shia themselves quote–she was a “milk fed baby.” In any case, the Sunnis do not agree with the idea
that Umm Kulthoom hated or despised Umar, so once again, the Answering-Ansar team is not really following the rules
of proper debate in their rebuttal. This argument of theirs is invalid to the Sunni on the basis that we think highly of
Umar and we think that Umm Kulthoom did too. We admit that she was apprehensive at marrying a man who lived a
harsh life of very frugal means (and who strictly enforced Haya on women to the point that some women were scared of
him), but that otherwise she respected him as the Caliph of the Muslims.
There is Ijma (consensus) amongst both the Sunni and Shia Ulema that the consultation of an under-aged girl is not
required and that her father can marry her off as he sees fit. However, the marriage may not be consummated until the
girl reaches maturity, at which point she can annul the marriage if she is not satisfied with the man her father chose.
Umm Kulthoom bint Ali did not annul her marriage to Umar bin Khattab, and this is evidence that she approved of him.
Whatever reservations she had before Ali married her off, she no longer had them when she became mature.
Reply 16 Entitled “Umar’s desire to marry his son in law’s grand daughter”
Here, the Shia are resorting to anti-Islam rhetoric, and perhaps they got their arguments from the “Answering-Islam”
website. They are arguing that it is “gross” that Umar wanted to marry someone who was is his son-in-law’s granddaughter. We remind these same Shia that Prophet Muhammad married his adopted son’s wife. Zaid, the Prophet’s
adopted son, was married to Zaynub but then they got divorced. Upon this, the Prophet himself married Zaynub. The
enemies of Islam then questioned the Prophet’s morality for having married his “daughter-in-law.”
Then the Quran came to defend the Prophet’s decision and we learn that nobody can deny someone to marriage other
than those prohibited by the Shariah. Both the marriage of Umm Kulthoom to Umar and the marriage of the Prophet to
Zaynub were allowed by the Shariah as expounded in the Quran, and nobody can declare this immoral. We ask the
readers to open the Quran to Surah al-Nisa in which Allah declares who is and who is not prohibited for marriage.
Nobody has the right to declare anything else to be immoral, because this would be speaking against Allah.
We ask these high school and college students of Answering-Ansar to stop allowing their Western bias to seep into their
attacks against the Ahlus Sunnah. They first accused Umar of being a child molestor, and completely ignored the
example of Prophet Muhammad and Aisha, or the example of Ali and Fatima. Technically, Umar was the stepgrandfather of Fatima whom he did ask in marriage and the Prophet did not reply “eww, that’s gross” nor did he say it
was Haram.
The Westerners even think that marrying cousins is gross and disgusting, and yet it is completely allowed in Islam. If we
go by Western standards, then the marriage of Ali to Fatima is disgusting: he married not only a cousin, but his cousin’s
daughter which would mean that Ali married his niece! Again, in the overzealous attempt of the Shia to condemn the
Three Caliphs, they have ended up passing judgement on the Prophet and Ali.
To completely end this debate, we find that the Shia scholars have ruled that a man can marry his step-sister. Therefore,
if a Shia were to point his finger at Umar bin Khattab in disgust, then we can point to them in greater disgust for
allowing a man to marry his step-sister.
Balagh.net says
“
108. It is Permissible for Son to marry the Daughter of his Father’s Slave-wife
‘Ali b. Idris narrated, saying: “I asked al-Ridā, peace be on him: I had a slave-wife; I had a sexual intercourse with her.
Then I emancipated her and she gave birth to a slave-girl. Is it lawful for my son to marry her? ‘Yes,’ he answered,
‘before and after the sexual intercourse.’[2](”Man lā Yahdarahū al-Faqih, vol. 2, p. 131.)
[2] Al-Tahdhib, vol. 2, p. 240.
source: http://www.balagh.net/english/ahl_bayt/ali_bin_musa_al_rida/20.htm#_T46906
Reply 17 Entitled “Why didn’t Imam ‘Ali (as) marry his elder daughter to Umar?”
”
Answering-Ansar says
“
Similarly, in muslim societies, it is deemed as deeply insulting to marry off a younger daughter when the elder
daughter is not yet married. This is also commonsense. Why did Imam ‘Ali (as) therefore not ask ‘Umar to marry his
elder daughter.
”
Umar asked for Fatima’s hand in marriage. Fatima was the youngest daughter of the Prophet. So why didn’t Umar ask
for the Prophet’s other three daughters, all of whom were older than Fatima? There could be a million reasons why
Umar asked for only Fatima’s hand in marriage or only Umm Kulthoom’s hand in marriage. This is a matter of personal
liking as well as the fact that the other daughters may be promised to other men. As for Zaynab bint Ali, she was married
to the son of Jafar as-Sadiq, so how then could Umar marry her too? There were many Sahabah who married younger
daughters of men rather than the elder ones, so can we say now that none of these marriages must have taken place?
Answering-Ansar has said that in Muslim societies it is deemed deeply insulting to marry off a younger daughter when
the elder daughter is not yet married. But this is purely a Jahiliyyah concept! This is the same Jahiliyyah that prevails in
Muslim societies such as people condemning marriages to elder women; yet, we look at the example of the Prophet who
married a woman senior to him by twenty years. It seems that the Answering-Ansar team is just bumbling around,
mixing culture and Islam. It would be a major Bidah (innovation)–and in fact Haram (forbidden)–to say that a younger
daughter cannot be married off before an elder one. If we were to ask any Sunni or Shia scholar if it was permissible to
marry a younger sister as opposed to the elder one, they would reply unanimously that there is nothing wrong in this.
Reply 18 Entitled “Umar opposed the Shari’a when he proposed to marry an engaged girl”
Here, Answering-Ansar is inventing history, much like the Shia always do. They are trying to make the spurious claim
that Umm Kulthoom was already engaged to be married to another man, namely the son of Jafar as-Sadiq. (It should be
wondered why the Shia don’t call this other man a paedophiler as well–typical Shia double-standards and
inconsistencies.)
Nowhere does it say that Umm Kulthoom was engaged to anyone else. The only thing that is said is that Ali had the idea
that he would marry this daughter off to Jafar’s sons.
Answering-Ansar says
“
‘Ali said, “I had kept my daughters for the sons of Ja’far.”
”
This is not a statement saying his daughter is engaged already. It is simply saying that Ali planned on marrying his
daughter to Jafar’s sons. If the Shia are trying to say that this means that Umm Kulthoom was already engaged, then
was she really engaged to all of the sons of Jafar at the same time? This is a preposterous assertion. How can a woman
be engaged to multiple men concurrently?
Answering-Ansar says
“
According to these traditions, ‘Ali (as) did not even consult with the sons of Ja’far-e-Tayar (as) to whom his
daughter was engaged before reneging on his pledge with them.
”
So we ask: was Umm Kulthoom engaged to multiple men at a time (i.e. sons), or was it simply that Ali had planned that
perhaps in the future he would one day marry his daughter to one of Jafar’s sons? Surely, a man can change his mind to
whom he marries his daughter off to. A girl I knew was given many proposals, and her parents were planning on
marrying her to one man but then in the end she married another. Is this Haram? Where do the Shia come up with such
ridicolous exaggerations?
I wonder how the Shia propagandist can make up the spurious historical claim that Umm Kulthoom was engaged to the
sons (plural) of Jafar, but deny such historical facts as Umm Kulthoom was married to Umar. We see that facts do not
matter to the Shia, but rather they can invent a history all of their own making.
Reply 19 Entitled “Afriki has sought to present Imam ‘Ali (as) as an untrustworthy hypocrite”
Once again, the Shia propagandists resort to calling people “Nasibis.” Brother Afriki has never once said that Ali was
untrustworthy or a hypocrite, and this is slander. The scholars of the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah have always viewed Ali
as a just, honest, and excellent man. This is part of the creed of the Ahlus Sunnah, and the Shia who argue otherwise are
living in caves of self-delusion.
In this response, Answering-Ansar continues with the farce that Umm Kulthoom was engaged to someone else; see my
last response where I address this as well.
Reply 20 Entitled “The depiction of an untrustworthy Imam ‘Ali (as) contradicts the aqeedah of Ahl’ul
Sunnah”
Same as above. Why did the author number it differently when it’s the same exact claim as his previous response? I
don’t know. Moving on…
Reply 21 Entitled “Umar’s use of unacceptable language towards the family of Rasulullah (s) when his
offer is rejected”
Answering-Ansar says
“
“Ali refused Umar’s offer of marriage for his daughter. He stated that she was too young and that he had arranged
for her to marry his nephew, but Umar did not accept this. Abbas approached Ali and said ‘Marry her to him for I have
received unacceptable words from Umar.” (Tadhkira al Khawwas, page 181, Chapter 11)
”
Then the Shia propagandists insert in parenthesis of their own volition the words “words that cannot be repeated.” This
is simply tampering with narrations to make it mean what they want it to mean. Perhaps they could also insert in
parenthesis the words “words that were mean” or “words that were Nasibi” or anything really…
In any case, let us accept the Shia’s “reading” that it really was abusive words that were used by Umar. Then, right after
Abbas was cussed out by Umar, he goes and tells Ali “marry her to him.” The Shia are then portraying Abbas as a
coward. What kind of a man goes and tells his friend’s daughter to marry a man just because he was cussed out by the
same man? Actually, most people would say “don’t marry her to him because he is abusive.” I hope the Shia
propagandist can realize how their reading of the text is very nonsensical: if Umar cussed Abbas out, then why would
Abbas say to Ali to marry his daughter to him? If anything, it would be the opposite! In fact, if anything, this narration
shows how Abbas–one of the Ahlel Bayt–had a good opinion of Umar, and this destroys the Shia paradigm once again.
Thus, based on context clues, we know that Umar was saddened by the fact that Ali was not agreeing and he expressed
his sadness to Abbas, and Abbas found this unacceptable. Abbas therefore took it upon himself to convince Ali and
rectify this unacceptable problem. This shows that Abbas had such an excellent opinion of Umar that he even put it upon
himself to talk to Ali on Umar’s behalf. Abbas found it completely unacceptable that Umar would be sad, and he went
about to rectify the problem.
Reply 21 Entitled “According to the aqeedah of Ahl’ul Sunnah, Umar participated in an haram act”
In this, Answering-Ansar claims that the Aqeedah of the Ahlus Sunnah declares that a daughter of Fatima could not be
married to a man with other wives. However, this is just false. Why does Answering-Ansar insist on inventing Sunni
Fiqh? (Yes, it is Fiqh–not Aqeedah, but the Answering-Ansar team doesn’t even know the difference, indicative of their
ignorance.)
The Ijma (consensus) of the scholars is that nobody can declare it Haram on any man to marry more than one wife. This
is a right accorded in the Quran:
“Marry women of your choice, two, or three, or four” (Quran, 4:3)
In fact, the strongest opinion amongst the scholars is that it is even Haram for a woman to write in the Nikah contract
that he cannot marry another wife. This is how much of an inalienable right it is of every man to marry more than one
wife.
As for the first two narrations Answering-Ansar quotes, we reply simply that it would not pain Fatima at all that her
daughter married Umar bin Khattab. This is because according to the Sunnis, Umar bin Khattab was an upright and
outstanding man. Thus, this is not a proper rebuttal by Answering-Ansar since they are using arguments that do not
apply to us.
Furthermore, Fatima’s pain cannot dictate what is and what is not Halal or Haram. She was pained when Fadak was
declared Haram to her, but even still Fadak remained Haram. If Fatima thought it Haram for a man to marry more than
one wife, then she would be wrong in saying this. But of course we do not believe she ever thought this. Rather, while
she accepted that it was permissible to marry more than one man, she simply preferred for herself that she not become a
co-wife due to her Gheerah (protective jealousy), and this is why the Prophet urged Ali not to marry another wife. Thus,
Ali did not marry another wife out of consideration for Fatima, not because it was Haram.
In regards to the last narration quoted by Answering-Ansar, we read:
“Shaykh of the madhab al-Izz al-Kanaanee…said about Taaj ad-Deen Subki, ‘he is a man having little manners, lack of
scholarly integrity, ignorant of Ahl as-Sunnah and their ranks.’” [ ‘al-I`laan bi at-Tawbeekh liman Dhamma at-Taareekh’
(94-95) of as-Sakhaawee]
To completely negate this argument of the Shia, let us bring up the example of Fatima’s other daughter, Zaynab bint Ali.
She was married to Abdullah ibn Jafar, whom the Shia revere because he was the son of one of their Infallible Imams.
We find that Abdullah ibn Jafar divorced Zaynab and married someone else. In the book “Khilafat o Muawiyyah o Yazid”
written by Mehmood Ahmed Abbasi, we read that Abdullah did not agree with Zaynab when she wanted to accompany
Hussain to Kufa. Because of this argument, Abdullah divorced Zaynab and then married another woman. How then can
the Shia claim that it is Haram to marry other women while married to a daughter of Fatima? Surely it would then be
even more Haram and disgraceful to divorce a daughter of Fatima and marry another woman. Why then do the Shia
accept this behavior of Abdullah ibn Jafar, but they somehow think it’s wrong for Umar bin Khattab to marry Umm
Kulthoom along with other wives (which was a normal practise in those times and even the Sunnah of the Prophet)?
Reply 21 Entitled “Umar’s grounds for marriage contradict the aqeedah of Ahl’ul Sunnah”
Answering-Ansar says
“
‘Umar claimed that this marriage [to a descendant of Rasulullah (s)] would benefit him in the next world.
”
And then they continued saying:
Answering-Ansar says
“
[The Sunnis] believe that the closest relatives of Rasulullah i.e. his parents died kaffirs
”
I am sorry to break it to the Answering-Ansar team, but the Prophet’s parents are not his descendants. Hence, even if
Umar believed that being married to a descendant of the Prophet would benefit him, this is not contradicted by saying
that the Prophet’s parents were disbelievers. So I don’t get the point here at all.
In any case, Umar did want to be related to the Prophet, but this was not because he thought it would be a free pass to
piety, but only because Umar–in his extreme love for the Prophet–would be honored to be related to the Prophet. Who
wouldn’t want to marry the Prophet’s grand-daughter if given the chance!? Thus, Umar’s decision to marry Umm
Kulthoom had to do with his love for the Prophet, and did not have to do with his desire to get a free pass into Paradise.
What was actually said by Umar was: “Marry her to me for I swear I have toward her more dedication to excellent
companionship than any man on the face of the earth.” He wanted a closer companionship with the Prophet, and that is
all. This was a personal desire and there is nothing wrong in this. Furthermore, while the correct position amongst the
Ahlus Sunnah is that it does not benefit a person to be born into a certain lineage, the same cannot be said of marriage
into a pious household. For example, being the child of a Prophet does not grant anyone an advantage, since it is not a
position earned by one’s deeds; we have the example of Prophet Nuh’s son who will be condemned to Hell-fire. On the
other hand, Uthman bin Affan was awarded two of the Prophet’s daughters due to his piety and excellent character; it
was a position he earned out of his own good deeds. Therefore, Umar bin Khattab earned an exalted status of marrying
Ali’s daughter, proving by his deeds that he was worthy of Ali’s approval.
What is strange is how Answering-Ansar is now taking the position that kinship doesn’t matter, but the Shia are the first
to exaggerate when it comes to the importance of being a Syedi and other such things. Suddenly, in order to make an
argument, Answering-Ansar has abandoned this position of the Shia which is the basis of their religion.
The weak arguments brought by Answering-Ansar are getting quite tedious and boring. I have a feeling that this was the
point of the article: bore the opposition to death, and flood them with so much material that they cannot respond. Let us
look at another extremely weak argument brought by Answering-Ansar:
Answering-Ansar says
“
We should point out that if Umar’s intention was to seek salvation via this marriage (through creating a closer
relationship to Rasulullah), then he had already attained this since his daughter Hafsa was married to Rasulullah (s).
”
Going to Hajj is salvation. By the logic given above, we should only go one time to Hajj. And yet, it is better to go many
times to Hajj. Yes, one good deed can save you, but many good deeds are even better! Of course someone would want to
have companionship to the Prophet with as many bonds of friendship and kinship as he could possibly have. There is no
limit to this desire. Uthman bin Affan, the third Caliph, had the honor and prestige of being called the Man of Two
Lights, because of the fact that he married not just one but two of the Prophet’s daughters. He was thus granted a double
honor.
Reply 24 Entitled “The Dower that ‘Umar gave contradicts his own edict”
There is no limit to dower and what is considered excess by one person is not an excess by another. If a taxi driver were
to get married, then a $10,000 dower would be considered excessive. On the other hand, if Bill Gates gave this much
dower, then he would be considered cheap, since $10,000 is almost nothing to him. Likewise, the standing of the girl
should be taken into consideration. The Princess of Wales would obviously not be contented with a $10,000 dower.
Umar bin Khattab was the Caliph of the Muslims, and hence that ammount of dower given to Umm Kulthoom was not
excessive.
Furthermore, and this point cannot be stressed enough, Umm Kulthoom bint Ali had specifically mentioned that she
was cautious about marrying Umar because she knew that he lived a very frugal life. Hence, it could be possible that, in
order to assuage her fears, Umar gave her a large dower so that she could live to her means.
In this argument, Answering-Ansar are using a Shia book which narrates a story of Umar forbidding dower above 500
dirhams and then he gets corrected by a woman. This is a Shia book, so we wonder why Answering-Ansar would use it in
a rebuttal as it is no basis for debate. We reject it, just like we reject the other books of the Shia which are full of
exaggerations and lies. These same Shia books detail how Umar bin Khattab was supposedly a homosexual, alcoholic, a
Nasibi, and so many other things. Thus, it is not surprising that they would also add this little story in their books about
how Umar went against his own words about dower.
In any case, Umar giving a high dower is a sign of his love and veneration for Ali’s daughter. How in the world can
someone construe this in a negative light? Umar bin Khattab specifically said that he was making an exception by giving
her 40,000 dirhams to honor the Prophetic Household and as a token of his good-will towards the progeny of the
Prophet. Thus, it could be said that Umar was making an exception for an extraordinary girl out of respect for her
grandfather.
Reply 21 Entitled “The Ahl’ul Sunnah have sought to portray Imam ‘Ali (as) as unjust, and this
contradicts the Sunnah of Rasulullah (s)”
Once again, this is not a rebuttal nor is it a basis for proper debate, since the Ahlus Sunnah regards Umar bin Khattab as
a very upright individual. Hence, Ali giving his daughter to Umar was an act that Ali was very well-pleased with, and that
cannot be construed as unjust. This argument is similar to the one about how the marriage would displease Fatima. This
is simply a Shia belief, since they believe Umar to be a bad person. That is not a rebuttal, however, since to the Ahlus
Sunnah, Umar bin Khattab was an upright individual. Ali giving his daughter to him was not unjust but rather it was
very much just.
Reply 26 Entitled “Umar’s private meeting with Umme Kalthum (as) contradicts the Shari’a”
We have already responded to this accusation. Umm Kulthoom was a minor and not a Baligh; hence, the meeting with
Umar bin Khattab was permissible. Furthermore, there is absolutely no book which says that Umar bin Khattab and
Umm Kulthoom were in the room alone together. From where do the Shia invent this? For all we know, there could have
been many witnesses in the room; obviously there were since someone narrated these stories. (Common sense.) In any
case, I have answered this recycled argument of Answering-Ansar in my response to Chapter 2.
Reply 27 Entitled “these traditions would expose ‘Umar as a paedophile / pervert”
Why is Answering-Ansar recycling responses? We have already responded to this. Ali married Fatima when she was
nine years old, and the Prophet married Aisha when she was six. Hence, if the Shia would like to call Umar to be a child
molestor or any such thing, they would also be condemning the Prophet and Ali. See my response to Chapter 2.
Answering-Ansar says
“
we would like to ask ‘Is it permissible under Shari’a for a man to marry a girl that is underage?’ If it is, could our
opponents cite some proof.
”
I have already provided this proof in my response to Chapter 2. The Shia Maraje’ are in agreement that a man can marry
an underage girl. After all, the Prophet married Aisha when she was underage. I don’t know what more proof than this
you could ask for. In any case, see my response to Chapter 2.
It should also be noted that there is no discrepancy and the Answering-Ansar team is trying to create confusion in the
minds of the reader. Answering-Ansar has shown narrations that talk about the time when Umar expressed interest in
marrying Umm Kulthoom as well as when Ali accepted the proposal. It should be noted that it took some time for Ali to
agree to the marriage, and even after he agreed, Ali and Umar waited until Umm Kulthoom was older to marry her
because Ali thought of her as too young to be married. Answering-Ansar jumps to the fallacious conclusion that the time
Umm Kulthoom got married was when she was a “milk-fed baby” because there are narrations about Umm Kulthoom
went to Umar’s house. Then they claim that these contradict with the Sunni opinion that Umm Kulthoom married Umar
when she was much older. However, these narrations only talk about when Ali finally agreed to the marriage, but not
when the actual marriage took place. Rather, the two remained engaged until Umm Kulthoom became a more
appropriate age (according to Ali) to be married. And even after the marriage, Umar waited another year to consummate
the marriage with Umm Kulthoom.
To conclude, the random assortment of arguments brought forth by the Answering-Ansar team is only a testament of
the desperation faced by the Shia when forced to deal with their own Hadith on the matter of Umm Kulthoom’s
marriage to Umar.
Kuff and Umm Kulthoom’s
Marriage
An argument that Answering-Ansar recycles again and again (and again) is that Umm Kulthoom was not the Kuff
(equivalent) of Umar bin Khattab, and therefore the marriage could not have taken place.
First, it should be established what is Kuff in the first place. It literally just means that a man should marry his
equivalent. Now, as for what constitutes equivalency, this is a matter of debate. Various scholars have done their own
Ijtihad and they have postulated as to what factors are involved when it comes to Kuff. There are a variety of opinions
amongst the Ahlus Sunnah as to which factors are considered in Kuff, but the strongest and most egalatarian opinion–
and the one used by the Salafi scholars–is that Kuff is in reference to religious commitment only.
Evidence for this position comes from a Hadith of the Prophet in which he said: “If there comes to you (to propose
marriage to your daughter) one with whose religious commitment and character you are pleased, then marry
(your daughter) to him, for if you do not do that, there will be fitnah (tribulation) on earth and widespread corruption.”
(Narrated by al-Tirmidhi, 1084, from Abu Haatim al-Muzani. This hadeeth was classed as hasan by al-Albaani in Saheeh
al-Tirmidhi.)
This is the opinion of the Salafi scholars, as stated by Shaykh Muhammad ibn Saalih al-‘Uthaymeen, who is considered
one of the highest of authorities in Salafi circles:
Islam-qa.com says
“
Shaykh Muhammad ibn Saalih al-‘Uthaymeen [said]:
The issue of kafaa’ah or compatibility has to do with religious commitment, as Allaah has explained in His Book.
”
Thus, Kuff is largely in reference to religious commitment. It is also in relation to such intangible elements that are a
manifestation and reflection of this religious commitment, including character, personality, respect, interests, and
habits. In fact, the best approximation of the word Kuff in the English language would be the word “compatible.” To ask
if a couple is Kuff is to ask if they are compatible. Compatibility means that the two people have personalities which
match up with each other (i.e. their chemistry is good). The key point is that Kuff refers to the inner-self of a person, and
not the superficial and external things of which a person has no control over.
The Prophet said: “A woman is married for four reasons, her wealth, lineage, status and Deen (i.e. religious nature). So
choose the one who is religious.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, 2/762) Here, the Prophet categorically downplays wealth, lineage,
and status as being factors to choose a wife for; instead, he says to look for religious commitment in a potential spouse.
It is true that the position of the Hanafi and Hanbali Madhabs is that wealth is one of the factors comprised within Kuff.
However, they say that this requirement for wealth is met if the man is able to provide the Mahr (dowry) and can afford
the expenses of the marriage as well as maintenance of the wife and household. Umar bin Khattab met these
requirements and thereby fulfilled the financial qualifications of the Hanafi and Hanbali Madhabs. As for the Maliki and
Shafii Madhabs, they do not even recognize that wealth is a part of Kuff, and this is the position of the Salafi scholars as
well.
Islam-qa.com says
“
If a man is able to provide the mahr (dowry) and can afford the expenses of marriage and the maintenance of his
wife and household, then he is compatible with her, according to the majority of scholars, both those who regard wealth
as a condition of compatibility, such as the Hanafis and Hanbalis, and those who do not, such as the Maalikis and the
Shaafa’is according to the more correct view among them.
As for the view that the husband must be rich on the same level as the wife, this is a less correct view that was held by
some of the fuqaha’.
But the correct view, based on the evidence, is that compatibility does not matter except with regard to religious
commitment, as is the view of (Imam) Maalik (may Allaah have mercy on him).
source: http://www.islamqa.com/index.php?ref=84306&ln=eng&txt=compatibility
”
Answering-Ansar says that Kuff refers to the following:
1. Ancestry / Family Lineage / Tribe
2. Free or slave
3. Wealth / Property
However, this opinion is a very weak one, and is refuted by the stronger opinions which are based upon the Quran and
the Hadith.
1. Ancestry / Family Lineage / Tribe
As for ancestry, this would be a direct violation of the Islamic exhortations of egalatarianism. It would be bigotry and
discriminatory for people to be judged upon their origins instead of their actions. And in fact, this concept is based in the
very Jahiliyyah that the Prophet came to destroy.
The Prophet said: “There are indeed people who boast of their dead ancestors; but in the sight of Allah they are more
contemptible than the black beetle that rolls a piece of dung with its nose. Behold, Allah has removed from you the
arrogance of the Time of Jahiliyyah (Ignorance) with its boast of ancestral glories. Man is but an Allah-fearing believer
or an unfortunate sinner. All people are the children of Adam, and Adam was created out of dust.” (At-Tirmidhi and Abu
Dawud)
The Prophet said further: “Undoubtedly Allah has removed from you the pride of arrogance of the age of Jahilliyah
(ignorance) and the glorification of ancestors. Now people are of two kinds. Either believers who are aware or
transgressors who do wrong. You are all the children of Adam and Adam was made of clay… If they do not give this up
(i.e. pride in ancestors) Allah will consider them lower than the lowly worm which pushes itself through dung.” (Abu
Dawud and Tirmidhi)
Thus, it would be immoral and unjust to claim that Umar bin Khattab could not marry Umm Kulthoom on the basis of
his ancestry. We have noticed the pattern adopted by the Shia who say that such-and-such person was an illegitimate
child from a reprehensible person and therefore he too must be wretched. This is not morally sound: a person can only
be held accountable for his own actions and deeds, not those of his ancestors or even parents. Likewise do the Shia say
things like such-and-such person was born to such-and-such great person and therefore he is blessed. This too is not
morally sound, as it conveys a sense of superiority over a person for no action or doing of his own.
SunniPath.com says
“
Suitability and compatibility (kafa’a) is also one of the important things that need to be considered when choosing a
spouse. One of the main ingredients for a prosperous and successful marriage is compatibility. The greater the
compatibility and more similar your goals and outlooks, the more likely is the prospect of a successful marriage…the
most important aspect that needs to be considered when choosing a spouse is one’s religious inclination and manners.
There is no mention of looking for a spouse in the family.
Compatibility is encouraged, but that does not necessarily mean looking for a spouse within the family. Many times, you
may have so much in common with somebody from a total different background, whereas no chemistry is found
between first cousins.
There are many examples where the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) and the Companions
(Sahaba, Allah be pleased with them all) contracted marriages outside the family. Thus, to place exaggerated emphasis
on marriages within the family based purely on pride of ancestry and lineage is something that Islam disapproves of.
And Allah knows best
Muhammad ibn Adam al-Kawthari
Darul Iftaa, Leicester, UK
source: http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=2100&CATE=10
”
As for tribalism, the Prophet clearly declared Assabiyyah (tribalism) to be Haram: “He is not one us who calls for
Assabiyyah or who fights for Assabiyyah or who dies for Assabiyyah.” (Abu Dawood)
The Prophet said about Assabiyyah: “Leave it. It is rotten.” (Sahih Bukhari & Muslim)
He further said: “The people of such and such a tribe are not my friends and supporters, rather my friends and
supporters are the pious, no matter where they are.”
Therefore, all arguments made by the Shia in which they say that Umar could not have married Umm Kulthoom based
on his parents or ancestors are nullified and made void by the egalatarian spirit of Islam.
2. Free or slave
The idea that free people can only marry free people or that slaves should only marry slaves is very immoral and it does
not match up with the Quranic exhortations. Allah says in the Quran:
“And marry such of you as are solitary and the pious of your slaves and maid servants. If they be poor; Allah will enrich
them of His bounty. Allah is of ample means… ” (Quran, 24:27-34)
Here, Allah says for the free masters to marry their slave women. So obviously this is not what is meant by Kuff either.
The Prophet married Zaynab bint Jahsh al-Qurashiyyah to his freed slave Zayd ibn Harithah, and he married Fatima
bint Qays al-Fahriyyah al-Qurashiyyah to Usamah, the son of Zayd, and he married Bilal ibn Rabaah to the sister of ‘Abd
al-Rahmaan ibn ‘Awf. All these examples eliminate the possibility that Kuff would mean being free or not.
3. Wealth / Property
The same Quranic verse I quoted above applies here too. Allah commands in the Quran for Muslim men to marry pious
women even if they are poor. So how can we say that wealth and property is an issue when it comes to marrying
someone? It would again be immoral and unjust to claim this.
The Prophet said to Banu Bayaadah: “Give (your female relative) to Abu Hind in marriage and ask for his daughters in
marriage” and he was a cupper. Therefore, we find that wealth cannot be a part of Kuff, otherwise the Prophet would not
have advised people to marry someone who was a cupper.
Islam-qa.com says
“
What is implied by the ruling of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) is that attention should be
paid to compatibility in religious commitment first and foremost. So a Muslim woman should not be given in marriage
to a kaafir, or a chaste woman to an immoral man. The Qur’aan and Sunnah do not pay attention to any compatibility
beyond that. It is haraam for a Muslim woman to marry an evil adulterer. No attention is paid to lineage,
profession, wealth, or whether the man is free or a slave. It is permissible for a lowly slave to marry a free
woman of noble birth, if he is chaste and Muslim. And it is permissible for a non-Qurashi to marry a Qurashi woman,
and for a non-Haashimi to marry a Haashimi woman, and for poor men to marry rich women.
And he said: The fuqaha’ differed as to the definition of compatibility. Maalik said, according to the apparent view of his
madhhab, that it refers to religious commitment…
Social level may refer to lineage, wealth, education, profession or job, or it may mean all of them.
If a man’s religious commitment and character are pleasing, then he is compatible with the woman, no matter what her
social level, according to the more correct view, as noted above. This is the basic principle and the ruling of sharee’ah.
source: http://www.islamqa.com/index.php?ref=84306&ln=eng&txt=compatibility
”
The truth is that Kuff is a very subjective word, and it simply means what its translation is: equivalency. What
constitutes equivalency is subjective. Umar bin Khattab was definitely the Kuff of Umm Kulthoom because he had
religious commitment, character, and respect comparable to the best. There is not a single scholar who would argue
otherwise. How could one say that Umar bin Khattab al-Farooq is not the Kuff of Umm Kulthoom!? He was the Caliph
of the Muslims, the Companion of the Prophet, and one of the founding fathers of the Islamic movement. We cannot
possibly find a better suitor than this.
Furthermore, even if we were to accept the weaker position of those scholars who say that Kuff refers to lineage, we find
that none of these scholars ever claimed that Kuff was only lineage. There are also many other things such as wealth,
position, etc. If a potential candidate is weak in one item, he may be stronger in another thereby compensating for what
he “lacks” in; he would thereby fulfill the Kuff requirement. Hence, if the Shia feel that Umar bin Khattab was “weak” in
his ancestry, then he more than compensated for this by his elevated position, wealth, and prestige as the Caliph of the
Muslims.
Thus, we learn three things:
1. Kuff is subjective. There is no way one can use a litmus test and declare someone not to be Kuff to the other.
2. Kuff is multi-factorial. No one element can disqualify a person, but rather it is a general feeling of relative equivalency
that must be met. If a person is weak in one thing he might be stronger in another.
3. There is no way that two people can be exactly Kuff (equivalent). After all, no two people are exactly equal in
wealth/property. If one person has a few cents more than another, does this suddenly mean that they are not good for
marriage? Likewise, if the Shia value the lineage of Ali ibn Abi Talib, then one could easily value the lineage of Umar bin
Khattab Al-Farooq who was the second highest Sahabi in rank (above that of Ali). Thus, Umar’s lineage would be
comparable to that of Ali’s and therefore Kuff would be met in this matter; if their lineages are not exactly equal, they
are at least comparable to each other.
Kuff is Not a Requirement, Only a Recommendation
It should also be noted that no matter what definition of Kuff is taken, at most Kuff is a recommendation and not a
requirement. This is simply what the scholars have recommended their believers to do based on their own individual
Ijithad. Kuff does not fit into the necessary obligations of a Nikah, which include having two witnesses and other such
things. Therefore, a Nikah which is not Kuff in the eyes of some scholars is still a valid Nikah because it meets the
Shariah requirements for a marriage.
Therefore, even if Umar and Umm Kulthoom were not Kuff according to some scholars, their Nikah would still be 100%
valid and accepted as such.
Syedi vs Non-Syedi
In regards to the idea that a Syedi can only marry a Syedi, the response to this is that the strongest opinion amongst the
Ahlus Sunnah–the one taken by the Salafi scholarship–is that there is no such thing as “being a Syedi.” Sheikh
Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid issued the following fatwa on the matter:
Islam-qa.com says
“
The idea that there are “sayyids” or “walis” (“saints”) whom Allaah has singled out from among mankind for some
favour, or that they have a status which other people do not share, is an idea which is based on the Magian belief that
Allaah is “incarnated” in people He chooses from among mankind. The Persians used to believe this of their kings
(Chosroes) , and that this spirit moved from one king to another, through his descendents. This Magian (Zoroastrian)
idea spread to the Muslims via the Raafidi Shi’ah, whose origins are Magian – so this idea was introduced to the
Muslims. This idea says that Allaah selects some of mankind, to the exclusion of others, for this status, which is the
status of imaamah and wilaayah. So they believe in this idea with regard to ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib and his descendents, and
they add other positions to that, such as sayyid…They said that as this sayyid or wali has this position and status, then
they know better what is in our best interests, so we should entrust our affairs to them, because they are better than us,
and so they are more entitled…There can be no doubt that this is obviously a misguided notion.
source: www.islam-qa.com
”
This is the strongest opinion and it is the most egalatarian. Why should anyone be elevated based upon a matter which
they had no control over? It does not make sense. If one were to claim Umm Kulthoom was superior because she was of
the lineage of Ali ibn abi Talib, then Umar bin Khattab could claim lineage to Prophet Nuh who was superior to Ali. And
if that were still not enough, then Umar could claim lineage to Prophet Adam. The truth is that we are all children of
Adam and descendants of Prophet Nuh. Therefore, ancestry cannot be used as a guage of superiority because we all
come from such noble status. It is only our evil actions which destroy our inborn nobility, and it is only our good deeds
that reflect our nobility.
There is no such thing as “being Syedi” and this is an imaginary position that people have invented of their own. It has
no basis in the Quran and Hadith. The Prophet called certain people “Syedi” but this does not mean that their children
automatically become Syedi as well. The Prophet referred to Abu Bakr as “Sadiq” (truthful), but does this mean that this
title will be passed on to his children and their children as well? Of course not. They may or not be truthful, and
truthfulness is not an inherited quality but rather it is an aspired for quality. Therefore, the idea that people are born as
“Syedi” has no sound basis and it is a weak position. It is sad that some Sunnis have adopted this bigotted idea of “being
Syedi”, despite the fact that its origins can be found in the Ghullat Shia who are the first to exaggerate on such matters.
As for those Sunni scholars who take a different position than the Salafis and acknowledge the existence of “Syedis”, the
vast majority of them do not prohibit marriage between a Syedi and a non-Syedi. We read the fatwa of Shaikh Faraz
Rabani on Sunni Path:
SunniPath.com says
“
There is nothing wrong with marrying a non-Sayyid if he is religious, upright, and of good character.
It is wrong to marry a Sayyid who is not this way, and you have no obligation to obey your parents in such a case.
source: http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=2314&CATE=10
”
As for the Hanafi position that Answering-Ansar referred to, Kuff is only a necessity in case that the girl’s Wali does not
agree to the marriage. According to the Hanafi Madhab, if the two are equal in stature (Kuff), then they can get married
without the permission of the Wali. This is the Hanafi position (and it is misstated by Answering-Ansar). Thus, those
who do not meet the Kuff requirement can still get married with the blessing of the woman’s Wali; in Umm Kulthoom’s
case, Ali had agreed to marry her off to Umar and thus this criteria was fulfilled.
Ask-Imam.com (A Hanafi fatwa site) says
“
“A sayed female can marry a non-sayed male if she has the permission of her guardian” (Raddul Muhtaar, Vol. 2,
Page 297, Fataawaa Darul Uloom Deoband Mukammal wa Mudallal, Vol. 8, Page 236/7)
”
There is no Syedi alive today who is equivalent to the greatness of Umar bin Khattab. In any case, there are many
differing opinions amongst the Ahlus Sunnah in regards to “being Syedi”, but there has never been a strong position
such as that it is completely Haram for a Syedi to marry a non-Syedi. No Sunni fatwa site on the net has passed such a
ruling. For that matter, the Shia Maraje’ have also allowed a “Syedi” to marry a “non-Syedi”; Grand Ayatollah Sistani
was asked the following question to which he answered:
Grand Ayatollah Sistani says
“
Question : Can a non-Sayyid man marry a Sayyid girl?
§ Answer : Yes
source: Grand Ayatollah Sistani’s official website
http://www.sistani.org/html/eng/main/index.php?page=4&lang=eng&part=4
”
So how can Answering-Ansar claim that the marriage could not have taken place since Umm Kulthoom was a Syedi and
Umar was not? Their own Maraje’ have said that it is perfectly permissible for such a marriage to take place.
Something Else to Think About
There is another pressing matter: by demanding that Umm Kulthoom only marry the Ahlel Bayt, the Shia are quite
literally asking her to marry amongst her biological brothers only! After all, the Shia say that Syedis are the descendants
of Ali and Fatima. In that case, the only option left for Umm Kulthoom would be to marry one of her biological brothers,
since nobody else in the world is Syedi yet. I hope that these Shia propagandists can understand how ludicrous this
argument of theirs is.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Umar was the Kuff of Umm Kulthoom. Kuff translates to “equivalency” and it simply warrants that the
two parties are compatible with each other. In fact, the best lexical usage of the word “Kuff” is indeed compatibility.
Umar and Umm Kulthoom were compatible because they both had a great religious commitment. The fact of the matter
is that Kuff is something subjective. There is no way to actually rank people objectively; the Shia view Umar in a very
negative light, but the Sunnis see him as worthy of any woman. The entire purpose of the debate was to prove that Umar
bin Khattab is a worthy individual otherwise Ali wouldn’t have given him his daughter.
Response to Chapter 4
Response to Chapter 4 entitled “The marriage from the annals of the Salaf Kingpins”
Despite the melodramatic movie title of this section, this is the most useless chapter in the Answering-Ansar response.
Here, the Answering-Ansar team has picked about three or four Sunni Hadith on the marriage of Umm Kulthoom and
then, in the typical nature of the Shia, declared why all of the Hadith are false and do not prove the marriage of Umm
Kulthoom. The likeness of this is if I wrote an article about how there is no such thing as Infallible Imamah, and then I
picked out a handful of Shia Hadith showing how they are all of a weak Isnad and then I could claim: “Well there is
nothing in your Hadith that suggests that Imamah exists or that Ali is the first Imam.” That’s obviously ridicolous
because even if I were to question the authenticity of three or four Shia Hadith on the topic of Infallible Imamah, what
about the dozens upon dozens of other Shia Hadith which refer to Imamah?
Likewise, there are so many narrations in the Sunni books about the marriage of Umm Kulthoom bint Ali to Umar bin
Khattab Al-Farooq that I do not understand how disproving three or four of them (and that by Shia methods, not Sunni
ones) could possibly cancel out the plethora of other sources. In fact, the marriage of Umm Kulthoom has been narrated
by so many books and so many narrators that it is considered Mutawattir to the Ahlus Sunnah. What is amusing is that
the Answering-Ansar article itself documents dozens of Sunni sources itself, so how then could they claim that the
Sunnis don’t have enough narrations about the marriage? Here is a non-inclusive list of Sunni sources that confirm this
marriage:
Ibn al-Jarud, al-Muntaqa [an entirely sahih book] (p. 142);
al-Zubayr ibn Bakkar, al-Muntakhab min Azwaj al-Nabi SallAllahu `alayhi wa-Sallam (p. 30-31);
al-Dulabi, al-Dhurriyat al-Tahira (p. 62);
Ibn Sa`d, Tabaqat (8:337-340=8:463-464);
al-Siyar wal-Maghazi (p. 248);
Tarikh al-Ya`qubi (2:260);
Ibn Shabba’s Tarikh al-Madina (2:654);
Nasab Quraysh (p. 352);
`Abd al-Razzaq, Musannaf (3:465);
al-Nasa’i, Sunan (4:71) and Sunan Kubra (1:641);
al-Bukhari, Tarikh al-Saghir (1:102);
Ibn Qutayba, Ma`arif (p. 107, 122);
al-Tabari, Tarikh (4:199 and 5:335);
al-Daraqutni, Sunan (2:79);
al-Bayhaqi, Sunan Kubra (4:33);
Ibn `Abd al-Barr, Isti`ab (4:490-491);
al-Nawawi, Tahdhib al-Asma’ wal-Lughat (2:267 #1219);
al-Dhahabi, Siyar A`lam al-Nubala’ (Dar al-Fikr ed. 5:22-24) and Tarikh al-Islam (4:58-59, 4:137-139, 4:227, 5:21);
al-Dimyati, Nisa’ al-Rasul (p. 128);
Ibn Hajar, Isaba (4:492 #1481);
Ibn al-Athir, Usd al-Ghaba (7:387-388) and al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh (3:54, 4:12);
al-Suyuti, al-Hawi lil-Fatawa (2:179); etc.
Thus, even if we were to eliminate all of our Hadith that the Shia pointed to, there still wouldn’t be any room to claim
that the Sunnis don’t have enough evidence even in their own books. I have noticed that the Shia are super-heroes: every
super-hero has his own certain strength or power, and the Shia super-ability is that they can weaken any Hadith and–no
matter what–if any Hadith contradicts their belief, it will be automatically rejected even if the Isnad is rock-solid. This
same approach is taken to historical records: those that contradict the Shia are abandoned. So I guess I shouldn’t be
really surprised when they go into our Hadith and call them all weak too.
The point is, however, that there are many narrations of the marriage in the Sunni books, and so it is not possible to
claim that the Sunnis can’t prove it from Sunni sources. Yes, you could say that these Sunni sources are not Shia sources
and thereby you could reject them, and that is why the Ansar article never referred to Sunni sources but rather only used
Shia ones, namely because using your own sources to prove something is not a proper means of debating.
Having said that, Answering-Ansar has been haphazard in their approach to denying Sunni Hadith, and we can examine
that very easily. Answering-Ansar says about the first narration:
Answering-Ansar says
“
The actual word that is used in the text that Khan interpreted as wife is “Undhuk” whilst we acknowledge Undhuk
can indeed refer to one’s wife, its literal meaning in Arabic grammar is “Close”, “Next To” and “Near”. In the Qur’an the
word Undhuk is used in exactly this context. If we really wish to understand this tradition at most all that we can
ascertain is that people had asked that the garment be given to Umm Kalthum who was close to Umar.
”
The Shia admit that the word “Undhuk” can indeed refer to one’s wife. Hence, there is no discussion here. The Shia
could translate everything differently using secondary definitions of words thereby rendering all Hadith nonsensical.
That is upto the Shia to do that. It’s as if I said to someone “I am a follower of the Prophet” and then someone hearing
my words translates them to mean that I am a follower of money (i.e. profit).
The word “next to” would make no sense contextually. Why would the people single out Umm Kulthoom to be the one
who gets the clothes from Umar unless he was indeed related to her? Logically, the people said to give it to his wife, not
some random woman.
After this, the Shia have made some argument to question the Isnad of the Hadith. This Hadith has been deemed Sahih
by the Sunnis, and it is narrated in Sahih Bukhari. Hence, the argument of the Shia falls apart.
As for the second narration from Sunnan Abu Dawud, the Shia use the preposterous argument that it refers to Umm
Kulthoom, but not that Umm Kulthoom. Maybe then the Ibn Abbas mentioned is not the Prophet’s relative, and maybe
Abu Hurrairah mentioned is not that Abu Hurrairah. It is akin to saying that a certain Hadith which starts off with “the
Messenger of Allah said” doesn’t actually refer to Prophet Muhammad, since it didn’t mention him by name; after all,
there were other Messengers of Allah, so maybe it is referring to them? When you play this game, there is no way you
can establish anything, not from the Hadith nor even from historical sources.
In any case, as for this particular narration, it is very clear that it is referring to Umm Kulthoom bint Ali since she is the
one who died on the same day as her son, and this is a well-known event. Thus, this should clarify any doubt and
confirm that this Hadith could only relate to Ali’s daughter and nobody else.
In the next Hadith, from Sunan Nasai, Answering-Ansar claims:
Answering-Ansar says
“
The narration begins “Nafi ‘za aam”
The words za aam makes this entire narration false, since the narrator has himself expressed doubts over the event that
he is narrating. The rules of hadith methodology stipulate that any doubt expressed by a narrator makes that narration
null and void.
In Arabic the words ‘za aam’ can be used as a term that means ‘to lie’ as we can see from the text of Arabic terms
‘lughuth Kishwari page 22′ [Luknow edition]. Hence this narration can be interpreted as follows:
‘Naf’ would lie that?.”
”
Are the Answering-Ansar team really claiming that the narration reads “He lies that Abdullah ibn Umar said the
following”? That would be ridicolous. Do the Shia think that the Ahlus Sunnah would include a narration that started off
“he lied that” in our Sahih book!? The word “za’ama” here means “he thinks” and not “he lies.”
This exposes not only the Answering-Ansar team’s lack of Arabic knowledge, but also the lack of knowledge of their own
Shia Hadith methodology. A huge bulk of Hadith, both Sunni and Shia, start off with the words “he thinks” and there is
no Sunni or Shia scholar who would discard a Hadith simply because it used those words. In fact, if you discarded
Hadith which used the word “Za’ama”, then the Shia would be left with very few Hadith! Once again, Answering-Ansar
has, in its overzealous attack on the Sunnis, hastily condemned their own Shia Hadith system.
It should also be noted that weak Hadith are not the same as fabricated Hadith. If you have one weak Hadith that
confirms what is in a strong Hadith, then how does someone else pointing out that one of them is weak destroy the
credibility of the second? The second Hadith has independently been put to the test and deemed Sahih; therefore, there
is no issue. If the Shia even convince us that four or five of the Hadith are weak (and this using the Shia super-hero
ability to weaken Hadith at will), this doesn’t affect the plethora of other Hadith, all of which document the marriage of
Umm Kulthoom and Umar bin Khattab.
Response to Chapter 5
Response to Chapter 5 Entitled “Elucidation to the truth”
The bulk of the argument brought forth by Answering-Ansar in this chapter deals with the absurd idea that perhaps it
was not that Umm Kulthoom but another one. Because this argument has been recycled again and again by the
Answering-Ansar team, I’ve decided to make a separate page to deal with this idea so that I can simply refer the reader
there. Please click here for my response to the idea that it was another Umm Kulthoom.
There is one other minor point brought up by the Answering-Ansar team in this chapter, and I shall address it now.
Answering-Ansar says
“
…we would like to pose this question:
Marriage serves a number of key objectives:
Every man has a natural instinct for a woman’s companionship
It is a means to produce offspring, and seek happiness from them
Partners can reap the benefits of a comfortable life together
It can have some type of worldly / materialistic benefit
It can carry some religious benefit
When it is clear that not a single one of these aims would have been fulfilled by Umar’s marriage to Umme Kalthum
binte Abu Bakr, why did he deem it necessary marry this five year old child, particularly when he already had wives to
fulfil the above aims?’
”
Firstly, these five reasons are not the only reasons people get married. Just apply this to today and you will see that this
is not true. There are many other reasons people get married. Secondly, even if we limit ourselves to these five myopic
reasons people get married (invented by the love gurus at Answering-Ansar), we see that Umar’s marriage to Umm
Kulthoom bint Abu Bakr would fulfill all of these (except perhaps worldly benefit). Just like Umar wanted to become
more related to the Prophet by marrying Ali’s daughter, he also wanted to get closer in relationship to Abu Bakr, one of
the greatest Muslims in history. Sure, the Shia do not think so, but to say that wanting Abu Bakr’s companionship is not
a good thing is not a valid argument for the reason that to the Sunnis Abu Bakr’s companionship is an excellent thing.
A Different Umm Kulthoom?
Answering-Ansar has repeatedly used the preposterous argument that the Hadith in question refer to Umm Kulthoom,
but not that Umm Kulthoom. We could look at various Hadith and say to ourselves that maybe it wasn’t that Umar, or
maybe it wasn’t that Hamza, or maybe it wasn’t that Aisha. Maybe then we could argue that the Hadith which mention
Ali do not actually refer to that Ali but rather to another one. We could easily then render useless many of the Shia
Hadith by furthering such a claim. Perhaps the Hadith about Ghadeer Khumm refer to another Ali? Or what if it wasn’t
that Umar who threatened to burn down Fatima’s house? Or perhaps it wasn’t that Aisha who was involved in the Battle
of the Camel? This tactic is akin to saying that a certain Hadith which starts off with “the Messenger of Allah said”
doesn’t actually refer to Prophet Muhammad, since it didn’t mention him by name; after all, there were other
Messengers of Allah, so maybe it is referring to them? When you play this game, there is no way you can establish
anything, not from the Hadith nor even from historical sources. You could always claim that the reference is to someone
with the same name, but not that one.
Like there is no question that the Ghadeer Khumm Hadith refers to Ali (yes, that Ali), there is also no question that the
Hadith documents the marriage of Umar bin Khattab and the daughter of Ali (yes, that Umm Kulthoom). In the Sunni
narrations (many of which were kindly quoted by Answering-Ansar), the narrations which document the marriage also
tell us that Ali sent Umm Kulthoom to Umar’s house. So there can thus be no confusion as to who this Umm Kulthoom
is. As for the four Shia Hadith in Al-Kafi, the first two talk about how Umar threatened Ali in order to get Umm
Kulthoom; why would Umar threaten Ali if that Umm Kulthoom wasn’t his daughter? Does this even make sense? We
see that the Shia argument falls apart, and I have a vague feeling that the Answering-Ansar kids made it up for
themselves, and I doubt any reliable Shia scholar would claim this. As for the other two narrations in Al-Kafi, those
clearly say that:
“When Umar died, Ali came and took Umm Kulthoom to his house.” (Furoo al-Kafi, vol.6, p.117)
Again, why would Ali come to collect someone else’s daughter? Does this make any sense? Since all four of the Shia
Hadith state that this was Umm Kulthoom, the daughter of Ali, then how in the world is Answering-Ansar claiming that
it is referring to another Umm Kulthoom!?
To bolster this claim of “mistaken identities”, Answering-Ansar has stated that Umar had many wives that were named
Umm Kulthoom.
Answering-Ansar says
“
1. Umme Kalthum Jameela binte Asim bin Thabit …
2. Umme Kalthum binte Jarweela Khuzeema - Her actual name was Maleeka. She was the mother of Zaid bin Umar.
(Tareekh Kamil Volume 3 page 22).
3. Umme Kalthum binte Ukba bin Abi Mayyath …
4. Umme Kalthum binte Rahab …
5. Umme Kalthum binte Abu Bakr …
”
However, this is just plain false, and another sign of Answering-Ansar’s weakness. Umar had only one other wife that
went by the name of Umm Kulthoom, and that is the second one mentioned above. Before we examine each of the
names given above by Answering-Ansar, we should clarify for the reader what a “kunya” is. A kunya is an Arabic
nickname, such as “Abu Turab” which was used for Ali.
Let us analyze each of the five that Answering-Ansar claimed were married to Umar.
1. Her name was Jameela bint Asim bin Thabit. It is narrated on the authority of Ibn Abd Al-Bar (d. 463 A.H) and Ibn
Al-Atheer (d. 630 A.H) that her kunya (Arabic nickname) was Umm Asim and not Umm Kulthoom.
2. Her name was Umme Kulthoom bint Jarweela Khuzeema. She was the only other wife of Umar who went by the name
“Umm Kulthoom”, but this was only her kunya (Arabic nickname). As mentioned by Answering-Ansar, her real name
was Maleeka. As such, this is a differentiating factor and there can be no confusion on the matter between Umm
Kulthoom bint Ali and Maleeka.
3. Her name was Umm Kulthoom bint Uqba, and the Prophet recommended to her to accept Abdul Rahman ibn Awf’s
proposal to her, and so she married him. Abdul Rahman would eventually pass away, leaving Umm Kulthoom bint Uqba
as a widow. Umar bin Khattab could not possibly have married her because she was married to Abdul Rahman Ibn Awf
who outlived Umar by almost ten years!
4. Answering-Ansar mentioned Umm Kalthoom bint Rahab. She does not exist.
5. Lastly, we have Umm Kulthoom bint Abu Bakr, who was the daughter of Abu Bakr. Umar proposed to her before he
sent his proposal to Ali’s daughter, but Abu Bakr’s daughter refused him. Saad ibn Waqas recommended to Umar that
he marry Ali’s daughter instead. As for Abu Bakr’s daughter, she married Talha and gave birth to his daughter Aisha.
Thus, Umar was not married to this Umm Kulthoom.
To conclude, it is an unfounded claim by Answering-Ansar that Umar had many wives named Umm Kulthoom. He had
only two wives who were named that, and they were very much able to be differentiated because one’s real name was
Maleeka.
Having said that, even if we accepted that there were many Umm Kulthooms, let us examine the Hadith in Al-Kafi to see
if any of them could possibly refer to anyone other than the daughter of Ali.
As for the first two narrations mentioned in Al-Kafi, they were both in the same chapter which was entitled “bab tazwig
Umm Kulthoom” (the marriage of Umm Kulthoom). In these two narrations, we read:
NARRATION 1
“Abu Abdullah (a.s) said about marriage of Umm Kulthoom: ‘That was the vagina that we were forced to give.’” (Furoo
al-Kafi, vol.5, p.347)
NARRATION 2
“When [Umar] proposed to Amir al-Mu’minin [Ali], he said, ‘She is a child.’ Then he [Umar] met Abbas and asked him,
‘What is wrong with me? Is there a problem with me?’ Abbas asked, ‘Why?’ Umar replied, ‘I asked your nephew for his
daughter’s hand in marriage, and he rejected me. Oh, I swear by Allah, I will fill the well of Zamzam with earth, I will
destroy every honor that you have, and I will set up two witnesses to testify that he stole, that I may cut off his right
hand.’ Abbas thereupon came to Ali and informed him of what had transpired. He asked Ali to put the matter in his
hands, and Ali complied.” (Furoo al-Kafi, vol.6, p.117)
In these narrations, Umar is mentioned by name (see the bolded part above), and it vividly describes Umar’s actions of
threatening Ali. How can this not refer to Ali’s daughter? Why would Umar threaten Ali demanding for him to give
another man’s daughter to him? What right would Ali have to give another man’s daughter to Umar? Does this make
any logical sense? Let us say that it was another Umm Kulthoom. In that case, why would the Shia Imam feel the need to
say that it was a woman “stolen from us” (us here referring to the Ahlel Bayt)? The fact that he says she was stolen
indicates that she comes from the very same Ahlel Bayt. If I ran off with my neighbor’s daughter, would you say that I
ran off with your daughter? Obviously not. You would only say that I stole her from you if she was your daughter.
It is upto the Shia if he wants to live in an imaginary world. Maybe it wasn’t Umar bin Khattab above, and maybe it
wasn’t Umm Kulthoom bint Ali, and maybe it wasn’t even that Ibn Abbas. It is very difficult to live in this imaginary
world since the narration mentions all three people by name, and it would be folly to say that any of them are different
since by virtue of Ali being mentioned in the story, it makes it clear that it is in reference to his daughter.
How can the Shia propagandist deny that these Hadith in Al-Kafi refer to Umm Kulthoom’s marriage to Umar when
Imam Al-Kulayni himself mentioned that these Hadith are in reference to Umm Kulthoom’s marriage to Umar? The
Shia reader can even read the Hadith for himself as posted on Al-Shia.com: http://www.alshia.com/html/ara/books/al-kafi-5/213.html
On the top of this page, we find the words written:
Al-Shia.com says
“
‫[ ك ل ثوم ام ت زوي ج ب اب‬Translation: Chapter of Umm Kulthoom’s Marriage]
source: http://www.al-shia.com/html/ara/books/al-kafi-5/213.html
”
After this, the Hadith is mentioned. Then, we read in the foot-note on the same page, in which we read that the Hadith
are in reference to Umm Kulthoom bint Ali and Umar bin Khattab:
Al-Shia.com says
“
‫ماف عل وف عل ماق ال عمر ف قال او ال ف رده خ الف ته زمن ف ي عمر ال يه خط بها ق د ال س الم ع ل يه ال مؤم ن ين ام ير ب نت هى هذه ك ل ثوم ام‬
Translation: “[Regarding] Umm Khulthum, who is the daughter of Ameer al-Mu’mineen Ali, Umar proposed to Ali for
her hand in marriage during his [Umar’s] caliphate, and at first Ali refused him. So then Umar said what he said, and
did what he did [i.e compelled Ali by words and force].”
source: http://www.al-shia.com/html/ara/books/al-kafi-5/213.html
”
Thus, there can be absolutely no confusion as to who the two people in question are in this Hadith. Al-Shia.com itself
admits, by posting that footnote from Imam Al-Kulayni’s work, that it is Ali’s daughter and the Caliph Umar which are
being referred to in the Hadith. This should be an earth-shattering blow to the Answering-Ansar Team and their childish
antics. I think that in debates with the Shia, this point should be vigorously stressed, and the hyperlink I gave above
should be mentioned so that the Shia will have to answer the bottom line point: how can the Shia deny that this refers to
Ali’s daughter when Al-Shia.com has Imam Al-Kulayni’s footnote which clearly states that he was referring to Ali’s
daughter and Umar bin Khattab. Imam Al-Kulayni is the one who compiled those Hadith, so shouldn’t he be the
authority on who he is referring to?
Moving on to the third and fourth Hadith in Al-Kafi, we find that those are even harder for the Shia to claim that they
don’t refer to that Umm Kulthoom and that Umar bin Khattab. These two narrations both have the following line in
them:
Al-Shia.com says
“
1) (10902 1) ‫ ب ن حم يد‬،‫ اب ن عن زي اد‬،‫ ب ن محمد عن سماعة‬،‫ ب ن ع بد هللا عن زي اد‬،‫ اب ن وم عاوي ة س نان‬،‫ع ل يه ع بد هللا أب ي عن عمار‬
‫ق ال ال س الم‬: ‫ق ال ت؟ ىاء ح يث أو ب ي تها ف ي أت ع تد زوجها ع نها ال م توف ى ال مرأة عن سأل ته‬: ‫ ىاء ح يث ب ل‬،‫ت وف ي ل ما ال س الم ع ل يه ع ل يا إن ت‬
‫ب ي ته إل ى ب ها ف ان ط لق ك ل ثوم أم أت ى عمر‬
2) (10903 - 2) ‫ ب ن محمد‬،‫ ي ح يى‬،‫ ب ن محمد ب ن أحمد عن وغ يره‬،‫ ب ن ال ح س ين عن ع ي سى‬،‫ ال ن ضرب ن عن س ع يد‬،‫ ب ن ه شام عن سوي د‬،‫سال م‬
‫ق ال خال د ب ن س ل يمان عن‬: ‫ أي ن زوجها ت وف ى امرأة عن ال س الم ع ل يه أب اع بد هللا سأل ت‬،‫ق ال ت؟ ىاء ح يث أو ت ع تد زوجها ب يت ف ي ت ع تد‬: ‫ب لى‬
‫ح يث‬
‫ ىاء‬،‫ق ال ث م ت‬: ‫ب ي ته إل ى ب ها ف ان ط لق ب يدها ف أخذ ك ل ثوم ام أت ى عمر مات ل ما ال س الم ع ل يه ع ل يا إن‬
Translation: “…When Umar died, Ali came and took Umm Kulthoom to his house.” (Furoo al-Kafi, vol.6, p.117)
”
source: http://www.al-shia.com/html/ara/books/al-kafi-6/85.html
So is their any confusion as to which Umm Kulthoom it is? How can the Shia apply their argument here and say that this
refers to another one of Umar’s wives? It is obvious that the father, Ali, is going to take care of his daughter, Umm
Kulthoom, after the death of her husband. Why would Ali just pick up a random woman? Obviously, it is his daughter,
and nothing else makes sense. It is a normal practise for a woman whose husband dies to go to her father’s house if he is
still alive.
Thus, the argument of the Shia–that it wasn’t that Umm Kulthoom–doesn’t work because it doesn’t apply to any of the
four Shia Hadith on the topic. Let us review the narrations and why the Shia cannot apply this argument:
1. NARRATION 1: Why would the Imam have said it was a woman stolen from us, unless it was a woman from the Ahlel
Bayt? So then how could it refer to any of the other wives of Umar, who were not part of Ahlel Bayt? Why would the
Imam have said that a woman was stolen from the Ahlel Bayt if she wasn’t part of the Ahlel Bayt? It doesn’t make sense.
A secondary point here is that it cannot possibly be a coincidence that this Hadith refers to a woman being stolen from
her father, and then in the second narration (which is in the same chapter of Al-Kafi, all labelled by Imam Al-Kulayni as
“the marriage of Umm Kulthoom”) we see that Umar is accused of stealing Umm Kulthoom from Ali. Thus, the two
Hadith support each other and strengthen the idea itself that the Shia texts believed that Umar stole Umm Kulthoom
from Ali.
2. NARRATION 2: How could this refer to another one of Umar’s wives, when it clearly mentions that Umar was
threatening Ali that he give his daughter. Surely, there would be no point in Umar threatening Ali for anyone else’s
daughter, so we can conclude that it is Ali’s daughter that is being referred to, especially since the name “Umm
Kulthoom” is being used. Unless of course it wasn’t that Ali and it wasn’t that Umm Kulthoom…a very comical way of
looking at things.
3. NARRATIONS 3 and 4: When Umar died, Ali comes to pick up Umm Kulthoom to take care of her. Why would Ali
come to pick up Umm Kulthoom unless it was his daughter? Unless this is another magical coincidence that not only
was it another Umm Kulthoom, but that Ali was supposedly also taking care of another Umm Kulthoom other than his
daughter–would the Shia really like to believe that it was some random woman whom Ali decided to take care of her
after her husband’s death?
In addition to all of this bullet-proof logic, we have yet another proof that destroys Answering-Ansar’s argument that it
wasn’t that Umm Kulthoom: not a single classical scholar of the Shia ever said that these Hadith refers to another
Umm Kulthoom other than the daughter of Ali. Not a single Shia scholar denied this marriage for four centuries.
Not a single Shia scholar denied this marriage for four centuries, and the Ansar article mentioned such Shia
heavyweights as Abul Qasim Al-Kufi, Sayyid Murtada (brother of the compiler of “Nahjul Balagha”), at-Tabarsi (the Shia
mufassir of the 6th century), Shaykh ‘Abd an-Nabi al-Kazimi, and pretty much every other Shia scholar before the 5th
century AH. So how come not a single one of these Shia founding fathers ever interpreted the Hadith in Al-Kafi as
referring to another Umm Kulthoom other than Ali’s daughter? I doubt that any of the later Shia scholars even used this
argument, but rather most of them just said that those four Hadith in Al-Kafi were when the Imam was doing Taqiyyah
(deceit). Of course, this argument sounds foolish nowadays and is a severe blow to the credibility of the Shia sources of
religion, and hence, Answering-Ansar did not use this argument. Instead, Answering-Ansar invented this new excuse
that it wasn’t that Umm Kulthoom, but this argument doesn’t stand up for the reason that the classical Shia scholars
didn’t view those Hadith in this way nor could any of the four Hadith be understood logically in this manner.
To add to the comedy of the Shia argument that it could be another Umm Kulthoom, we observe that Answering-Ansar
claimed at one point in time that the Umm Kulthoom in question must be Umm Kulthoom bint Abu Bakr. In the same
article, they later claimed that it actually referred to Umm Kulthoom bint Jarweela. And then elsewhere, they would
claim that it referred to Umm Kulthoom bint Junth.
Answering-Ansar says
“
We have already proven from the Shi’a traditions that Afriki relied on, that Imam Ja’far Sadiq (as) was referring to
Umme Kalthum binte Abu Bakr.
”
Answering-Ansar says
“
“People have assumed that Umar married Umme Kalthum binte Fatima, rather he married Umme Kalthum binte
Jarweela Khuzeema”
Tareekh al Qum Shaykh Saduq, by Muhammad Nishapur page 193, published in Tehran
”
Answering-Ansar says
“
UMME KALTHUM here refers to UMME KALTHUM binte Junth
”
For some odd reason, the Shia is willing to accept any other Umm Kulthoom, even if it were Umm Kulthoom bint
Mickey Mouse! Just so long as they don’t have to accept the one thing that actually makes sense based on the Shia
Hadith, namely that it was Umm Kulthoom bint Ali. In fact, no other possibility makes sense when we take into account
that it is Ali who is mentioned in three of the Shia Hadith we mentioned, and he is implicitly referred to in the other one
as well. Therefore, it is only possible to conclude that it was another Umm Kulthoom if one wishes to belie common
sense and reasoning.
Response to Chapter 6
Response to Chapter 6 Entitled: “Afriki’s failed efforts to get the Shi’a to accept a Sunni narration”
I have attempted to make this article of mine to be as honest as possible. Hence, I concede this point to the Shia. Brother
Afriki should have clarified that Ibn Sa’d was Sunni. However, there is no need to rely on this narration, and instead we
should focus on the four Hadith in Al-Kafi. Surely the Shia cannot convince us that those four were also written by Imam
Al-Kulayni the Sunni?
Not only this, but there are plenty of Shia sources that discuss the marriage of Umm Kulthoom bint Ali to Umar bin
Khattab. Therefore, Brother Afriki could easily refer the reader to those. Among the Shia sources that narrate the fact of
this marriage from Imam Muhammad al-Baqir with the statement “Umm Kulthum bint Ali ibn Abi Talib died at the
same time as her son Zayd ibn Umar ibn al-Khattab” and the narration from Muhammad ibn al-Hasan that “Umar ibn
al-Khattab married Umm Kulthum bint Ali with a dowry of 40,000 dirhams” are the following:
1- Agha Burzug al-Tahrani’s al-Dhari`a (5:184).
2- Ali ibn Muhammad al-`Alawi’s al-Mujdi fi Ansab al-Talibiyyin (p. 17).
3- Al-Fadil al-Hindi’s Kashf al-Litham (2:312).
4- Al-Hurr al-`Amili’s Wasa’il al-Shi`a Al al-Bayt (15:19, 17:594, 21:263, 26:314).
5- Muhammad ibn Habib al-Baghdadi’s al-Munammaq fi Akhbar Quraysh (p. 301).
6- Al-Muhaqqiq al-Ardabili’s Majma` al-Fa’ida (11:530).
7- Al-Muhaqqiq al-Naraqi’s Mustanad al-Shi`a (19:452).
8- Al-Muhaqqiq al-Sabzawari’s Kifayat al-Ahkam (p. 307).
9- Al-Sayyid Muhammad Sadiq al-Rawhani’s Fiqh al-Sadiq (24:496).
10- Al-Shahid al-Thani’s Masalik al-Afham (13:270).
11- Al-Shaykh al-Amini’s al-Ghadir (6:136-137).
12- Al-Shaykh al-Tusi’s al-Mabsut (4:272).
13- Tahdhib al-Ahkam (9:362-363).
14- Al-Shaykh al-Jawahiri’s Jawahir al-Kalam (39:308).
I acknowledge that Ibn Sa’d’s work is not useful in quoting to debate with the Shia. Having agreed with AnsweringAnsar on this point, I’d like to clarify that the reason why the Hadith compilers were wary of narrating Hadith from
Jafar bin Muhammad was only because the Shia hold him to be one of their Infallible Imams, and they would narrate
false Hadith from him. Thus, Hadith which they claimed was from Imam Jafar would have to be scrutinized to make
sure that it had no Shia fabricators in their chain of transmission because the Shia were very fond of forging Hadith in
his name. It should be clear, however, that the Ahlus Sunnah believes Jafar bin Muhammad to be Sunni and an upright
Muslim. The Shia trying to convince us that he is Shia is similar to their failed attempts at convincing us that the
Prophet or Ali were Shia.
I have conceded that Ibn Sa’d’s work cannot be used as a Hujjah (proof) for the Shia. Answering-Ansar has clearly stated
that using Ibn Sa’d’s work in a debate is not fair due to the fact that the Shia do not acknowledge it as an authentic book.
Fine. Then let me refer you to the most authentic Shia book: it is called Al-Kafi and perhaps we could use this as Hujjah
for the Shia in a debate. Oh but wait, Answering-Ansar doubts its authenticity! Thus, there is no way to debate with the
Shia since he can even deny the most authentic book of his just like he denies Ibn Sa’d’s Sunni book.
By denying the authenticity of Al-Kafi, Answering-Ansar has violated the rules of debate by making it impossible to
convince them from their own Shia books, since any time we point to the Shia books, the Shia can simply say “it’s not
authentic.” Well then, which book is authentic? The Shia scholars have declared by Ijma (consensus) that Al-Kafi is the
most reliable Shia book of Hadith–and the classical Shia scholars and the traditionists have declared that Al-Kafi is
100% Sahih–and yet even this the Shia propagandist is saying is not authentic. Thus, no matter what source Afriki
referred to, it would never suffice for Answering-Ansar.
Response to Chapter 7
Response to Chapter 7 Entitled “The authenticity of Furu al Kafi”
Imam Al-Kulayni is to the Shia what Imam Bukhari is to the Sunni. Imam Al-Kulayni is one of the most respected
figures in Shi’ism and he is referred to as “Thiqat al-Islam” which translates to the “Trust of Islam.” His book, Al-Kafi, is
referred to as Hujjat of Islam (Proof of Islam).
Al-Islam.org says
“
The author of al-Kafi was thiqat al-Islam, Abu Ja’far Muhammad b. Ya’qub b. Ishaq al-Kulaini al-Razi.
source: http://www.al-islam.org/al-serat/kulayni-howard.htm
”
In this chapter, Answering-Ansar has adopted the tone of the apologist, denying integral parts of their belief in order to
seem more presentable. They deny that the book Al-Kafi, written by the venerated Imam Al-Kulayni, is authentic. We
see a similar approach used by the so-called “modern” and “liberal” Muslims who deny certain verses of the Quran (such
as marrying more than one wife or going to Jihad) in order that they may please the disbelievers and be more effective in
argumentation with them. Similarly, the Shia propagandist has attempted to deny the authoratative nature of Al-Kafi;
this is in an effort to hide the many embarassing narrations in Al-Kafi that expose the Shia belief.
However, a little investigation into the matter quickly reveals that Al-Kafi is considered absolutely authentic by the Shia.
The akhbariyun (traditionists) have declared that Al-Kafi is completely Sahih except two or three narrations in it. This
opinion was held by the traditionalist party for so many centuries, and it was only long after–especially during the
Safavid Empire–in which the Shia scholars decided that it was time to discard the claim of authenticity due to the fact
that there were so many “troublesome” Hadith in Al-Kafi. There has been a recent drive for the Shia to deny that Al-Kafi
is the Sahih Bukhari of the Shia, but again, a little research on the matter shows that the historical opinion of the Shia
was that Al-Kafi is as Sahih to the Shia as Sahih Bukhari is to the Sunni.
Let us now respond to Answering-Ansar’s apologetic defense which involves the negation of their most sacred book of
Hadith:
Answering-Ansar says
“
Had Imam Mahdi (as) confirmed the 100% authenticity of al Kafi then there would have been no need for Kulayni
to state that hadith should be examined against the Qur’an to determine their authenticity. Al Kulayni makes this point
crystal clear in his introduction to Usul al Kafi:
“Brother, may God lead you to the right road. You ought to know that it is impossible for anyone to distinguish the truth
from the untruth when Muslim scholars disagree upon statements attributed to the Imams. There is only one way to
separate the true from the untrue reports, through the standard which was declared by the Imam:
” Test the various reports by the Book of God; whatever agrees with it take it, whatever disagrees with it reject it”.
Why would Kulayni have needed to make such a comment if al Kafi was indeed 100% authentic verified by Imam al
Mahdi (as).
”
Here, Imam Al-Kulayni is stating that the only way to discern the authenticity of the Hadith is by applying the following
principle: “Test the various reports by the Book of God; whatever agrees with it take it, whatever disagrees with it reject
it.” Imam Al-Kulayni then goes on to explain that this is what he has done when he was compiling the Hadith and that
after he went through this process the result is his book Al-Kafi. In fact, Imam Al-Kulayni was asked by another Shia to
compile a book with only Sahih Hadith because that particular Shia follower was confused as to which Hadith to follow
and which not to. Imam Al-Kulayni declared that he had accomplished this task and says in the Preface of Al-Kafi:
“…You wanted to have a book which would be sufficient (for your religious needs) (kafin), which would include all kinds
of knowledge (’ilm) of religion, which would be adequate for the student, and to which the teacher might refer. Thus it
could be used by anyone who wanted knowledge of religion and of legal practice (’amal) according to only sound
traditions (athar) from the truthful ones (the Imams)…Allah, the Most Majestic, the Most Gracious, has made
the compilation of the book that you had wished for possible. I hope it will prove to be up to your expectations”
(source: Al-Kulayni in his Preface of Al-Kafi)
Thus, Imam Al-Kulayni had completed the task, and therefore it is no longer upto the Shia follower to question the
authenticity of Al-Kafi which is declared Sahih by the scholars. In fact, he has in this same preface strictly forbidden the
followers from questioning Al-Kafi’s veracity:
“Follow what is unanimously agreed upon (by the scholars) because there is no harm in what is unanimously agreed
upon…refer to the scholar and accept that which is within the limit of his words, ‘Whichever you would follow in
submission and obedience is excusable for you.’”
(source: Al-Kulayni in his Preface of Al-Kafi)
Thus, Answering-Ansar has employed a devious trick (staying true to their faith of Taqiyyah) by taking Imam AlKulayni’s words out of context. In his introduction, Imam Al-Kulayni explains what was the process that he underwent
in order to verify that the Hadith he compiled were authentic. He is not asking the Shia follower to question any of the
reports in Al-Kafi, but rather he is saying that he already has done this by testing all of the Hadith with the Book of God.
How could the Shia possibly say otherwise, when we see that Imam Al-Kulayni has stated emphatically that the
narrations in Al-Kafi are authentic, except two or three? When you debate with the Shia, keep asking him why the Shia
can say that Al-Kafi is not authentic, when the compiler of Al-Kafi himself says they are authentic. The Shia
propagandist will always dodge this point so it is important to hammer it in. It would be like the Sunni denying the
authenticity of Sahih Bukhari despite the fact that Imam Bukhari has declared that they are authentic. Surely, the best
one to ask if a Hadith is authentic is the one who compiles it!
It is an accepted fact amongst the Shia community that Imam Al-Kulayni said that he only included authentic Hadith in
his Al-Kafi. This is admitted by Shaykh Arif Abdulhussain of the Al-Mahdi Institute on their official website, in which he
declares that the compilers of the four books of Hadith (which includes Al-Kafi) all declared that the narrations
contained therein were completely authentic.
Shaykh Arif Abdulhussain of the Al-Mahdi Institute says
“
…Mirza Muhammad Amin al-Asterabadi [2] a traditionist who in his work al-Fawaid al-Madaniyah maintains that
the traditions contained within the four books should be deemed as authentic …The most substantial of the reasons
according to the scholars…[were] the claims of the compliers as to the authenticity of the traditions contained within
their works…
…the compilers themselves have asserted that whatever they have recorded in their works is authentic…as stated by alSayyid Muhammad Tabataba’i in Mafatih al-Usul that, “the testimony of al-Kulayni as to the authentic nature of what
he has recorded in al-Kafi…he has stated this through his knowledge and certainty of the issuance of the traditions from
the Imams, in which case it would be permissible to adhere to them based on the authority of the report of a just
person…”
source: Al-Mahdi Institute’s official website
http://almahdi.4t.com/issue5/page18.html
”
It is very deceitful of Answering-Ansar to even insinuate that Imam Al-Kulayni did not claim that the narrations in AlKafi are authentic. It is a well-established fact that Imam Al-Kulayni was a prominent Shia scholar of Hadith and he
declared that 99% of the Hadith in his book, Al-Kafi, were Sahih.
Actually, it was the position of the Shia scholarship for many centuries, at least the first four centuries after Hijrah, that
Al-Kafi (as well as the other three books of Hadith) were Sahih in totality. It was only very recently that the Shia scholars
shifted from this policy and questioned the authenticity of Al-Kafi. This is why the Shia propagandists, like AnsweringAnsar, avoid discussing how their scholars for so many centuries believed in the totality of Al-Kafi but then they
suddenly abandoned it. Why? Shouldn’t the Shia follow the founders of their faith, those who compiled their Hadith and
who they supposedly revere?
Who is a more reliable Hadith scholar: Answering-Ansar or Imam Al-Kulayni? Let us see what Al-Shia.com has to say
about the greatness of Imam Al-Kulayni and his proficiency as a Hadith scholar. It should be noted that these quotes are
from the Preface of Al-Kafi as posted on Al-Shia.com.
Al-Shia.com says
“
Al-Kulayni was a great scholar, a reliable narrator of hadith and a man of great learning. He was of the outstanding
scholars of law and an authority in the science of hadith science. He was a man of great chastity, piety, integrity and
holiness.
His book al-Kafi, no doubt, is a treasure of Islamic literature, Shari‘a (law), Divine commandments and prohibitions, in
the form of texts of the Sunna, the statements, actions and the approvals of the Holy Prophet and the twelve Imams. It is
a text of the basis of the Islamic education and culture.
Al-Kulayni has himself prefaced his book, al-Kafi and has also provided certain explanatory notes in certain chapters
which shows his skill and proficiency in writing and in Arabic literature.
He was well versed in categorizing the narrators of hadith and the texts of hadith. He is the author of a book in the
science of hadith and an expert in scrutinizing the narrators. He was a great scholar of theology…
Words of Appreciation for his Efforts
Al-Najashi has said, “In our people al-Kulayni was the chief scholar in Ray, Iran. He was the most reliable in the
matters of hadith.”
Al-‘Allama al-Hilli has confirmed this and ibn Dawud also has expressed similar words about him.
Al-Tusi, the great scholar has called him the most dependable expert in hadith, the man of highest esteem
and a scholar in hadith.
Al-Sayyid Radi al-Din ibn Tawus has said, “Muhammad ibn Ya‘qub al-Kulayni is universally accepted for his
leadership and reliability.”
He has also said, “Muhammad ibn Ya‘qub, al-Kulayni is the most eloquent and the most truthful in the
knowledge of hadith.”
Ibn al-Athir has called him to be of the outstanding leaders of the Shi‘a and their great scholar.”
He has also described him as “A reformer of the Shi‘a at the end of the third century, as their leader and as a
renown scholar among them.”
Al-Tayyibi has called him the reviver of the ’Ummah, the whole Muslim community at the end of that century . . .
He was among the most learned in Islamic jurisprudence.39
Ibn Hajar has said, “He was one among the Shi‘a scholars of law and an author of their school.” 40
He has also said, “Abu Ja’far Muhammad ibn Ya’qub al-Kulayni was among the chief scholars of the Shi ‘a
world in the days of al-Muqtadir.” 41
Al-Shaykh Husayn ibn ‘Abd al-Samad al-Harithi al-Hamdani has said, “Muhammad ibn Ya’qub al-Kulayni was the
religious chief of his time and an outstanding, noble minded and highly learned scholar. He was the
most reliable person in hadith, the best critic and the most conversant in it.” 42
Al-Qadi Nur Allah al-Shushtari placed him at the top of the scholars of hadith and the chief guardian
thereof. 49
Muhammad Taqi al-Majlisi, the great scholar has said,
“He is unparalleled among all the scholars we have seen. The study of his compiling hadith, his manner
of editing them, proves him to be a Divinely gifted scholar.
“May Allah grant him the highest rewards reserved for the doers of the good for his services to Islam and the Muslim
community.” 44
He also has called him “The shaykh (the chief) al-Sadiq (the most truthful) and Thiqatu al-Islam (the most
trustworthy in Islamic learning), as one acceptable to people of all classes. Both Shi‘a and non- Shi‘a have praised
him.” 46
Mirza ‘Abd Allah al-Afandi has said, “The person generally referred to with the title Thiqatu al-Islam (the
trustworthy in Islamic issues) is Muhammad ibn Ya‘qub ibn Ishaq al-Kulayni al-Razi, the compiler of the book alKafi. He is the earliest religious chief of the Muslim world in the sight of the masses and the elite alike
and the Mufti, scholar of law…” 46
source: Preface of Al-Kafi
http://www.al-shia.com/html/eng/books/hadith/al-kafi/abttrans.htm
”
Based on the above, we see that there is a very long list of classical Shia heavy-weights that deemed Imam Al-Kulayni to
be the authority when it comes to Hadith. If they believed him to be the authority, then shouldn’t we believe Imam AlKulayni when he says that Al-Kafi contains authentic Hadith and the book is Sahih? His word should certainly be taken
above that of Answering-Ansar’s! Just take a gander at the classical Shia Maraje’ (top scholars) who endorsed Imam AlKulayni.
Indeed, the dominant view amongst the classical Shia was that Al-Kafi was indeed authentic in its entirity. We read the
following statements by the leading classical Shia scholars:
Al-Tabrassi said:
“Al-Kafi among the four Shia books (Al-Kafi, Al-Tahzeeb, Al-Istibsar, Al-Faqih) is like the sun among the stars, and who
looked fairly would not need to notice the position of the men in the chain of hadiths in this Book, and if you looked
fairly you would feel satisfied and sure that the hadiths are firm and accurate.” (Mustadrak Al-Wasa’el, vol.3, p.532)
Al-Hur Al’amily said:
“The authors of the four Books of the Shia (Al-Kafi, Al-Tahzeeb, Al-Istibsar, Al-Faqih) have testified that the Hadiths of
their books are accurate (Sahih), firm and well conducted from the roots that all Shia agreed on, and if you consider
those scholars (the authors of the four books) are reliable then you must accept their sayings and their narrations.” (AlWasa’el, vol.20, p.104)
Sharaf Al Din Musawi said:
“Al-Kafi, Al-Tahzeeb, Al-Istibsar, and Mun La Yahdu-Ruhu Al-Faqih are Mutawatirah (100% accurate) and agreed on
the accuracy of its contents (the Hadiths), and Al-Kafi is the oldest, greatest, best and the most accurate one of them.”
(The book of Al-Muraja’aat, Muraj’ah number 110)
Muhammad Sadiq Al-Sadr said:
“The Shia are unanimous as to the four books (Al-Kafi, Al-Tahzeeb, Al-Istibsar, Al-Faqih) being accepted and all the
narrations in them are accurate.” (”Kitab Al-Shia”, The Book of Shia, p.127)
It is very interesting that the great classical scholars of the Shia are of the opinion that Al-Kafi is Sahih and that it is only
recently that the contemporary Shia scholars claim otherwise. But the fact is that the Shia religion is based upon the
sayings of people like Imam Al-Kulayni, who himself was in contact with the Hidden Imam via his representative during
the Minor Occultation.
Imam Al-Kulayni was alive during the time of the Minor Occultation of Imam Mehdi. The Shia believe that during the
Minor Occultation, there were four representatives who were able to contact Imam Mehdi personally and get religious
advice from him. Imam Al-Kulayni was a companion of all four of these men, and thus, he had access to the Hidden
Imam through them. The authoratative Shia website, Al-Shia.com, quotes the preface of Al-Kafi:
Al-Shia.com says
“
Al-Kulayni, of all other compilers of hadith, alone was a contemporary of all the four successive special
representatives and ambassadors of Imam al-Mahdi, the twelfth Imam. He had the chance to collect hadith from the
proper sources. Al-Kafi, the book is a unique collection of hadith. Al-Kulayni compiled this book on request from a
prominent Shi ‘a scholar (as mentioned in his introduction to al-Kafi).
…The compiler of al-Kafi, al-Kulayni was a contemporary of the four successive special representatives of Imam alMahdi. As al-Sayyid ibn Tawus has pointed out, “All the works and the collections (of hadith) of al-Shaykh Muhammad
ibn Ya‘qub al-Kulayni had been completed during the life time of the special representatives of Imam al-Mahdi. It is a
ground to believe the veracity of his collection of hadith.
source: Preface of Al-Kafi
http://www.al-shia.com/html/eng/books/hadith/al-kafi/abttrans.htm
”
Thus, as stated on Al-Shia.com, Al-Kafi was compiled in Baghdad during the Minor Occultation of the Hidden Imam
(also refer to Aqa Buzurg Tehrani in “adh-Dhari‘ah”, vol.17, p.245) at a time when the representative of the Imam
resided in that city, which afforded the opportunity for its contents to be scrutinized and ratified by the Hidden Imam
himself (as stated by Ibn Tawus in his book “Kashf al-Mahajjah”, p.159) This is in itself proof of the authenticity of the
narrations contained in the book (says al-Hurr al-‘Amili in “Wasa’il ash-Shi‘ah”, vol.20, p.71). Al-Kafi actually bears the
seal of approval of the Hidden Imam himself, and he was the one who named it “Al-Kafi” (meaning “sufficient”) by
saying, as reported by al-Khwansari in “Rawdat al-Jannat” (vol.6, p.116): “hadha kafin li-shi‘atina” (This is sufficient for
our Shia). Now let us examine the flimsy response by Answering-Ansar.
Answering-Ansar says
“
“We read in books, that some Ulema have held a view that he (Kulayni) presented this to Imam Mahdi (as) who
replied “This is sufficient for our Shi’ah”.
”
Answering-Ansar has manipulated the Arabic here to make it sound as if some of the Ulema claimed one thing and some
Ulema of the time claimed another thing. This is a narration in the Preface of Al-Kafi which is reported on the authority
of some Ulema. Obviously, the Isnad would not be from all of the scholars of the world, but rather a group amongst
them. This is true for all narrations. The truth is that there is not a single classical Shia scholar of that time who did not
believe that Imam Al-Kulayni presented this book to Imam Mehdi.
Answering-Ansar says
“
“Some Ulema” is far too vague to be deemed authentic, as we are unable to ascertain, who these Ulema are, to rely
on the opinions of un-named individuals does not constitute proof in the Shi’a madhab.
”
Says who? Certainly not the Shia Maraje’ (top scholars) of that time. It seems that Answering-Ansar is inventing its own
Madhab. And why is Answering-Ansar claiming that they are unable to ascertain which of Ulema held this opinion? The
names of the Shia scholars who upheld Imam Al-Kulayni’s position are mentioned in the Preface of Al-Kafi and this is
available on Al-Shia.com (as we have stated above). Thus, these are not un-named individuals, but rather these are the
Shia heavy-weights, including: Al-Najashi, Al-‘Allama al-Hilli, ibn Dawud, Al-Tusi, Al-Sayyid Radi al-Din ibn Tawus,
Al-Tayyibi, Al-Shaykh Husayn ibn ‘Abd al-Samad al-Harithi al-Hamdani, Al-Qadi Nur Allah al-Shushtari,
Muhammad Taqi al-Majlisi, Mirza ‘Abd Allah al-Afandi …amongst others.
Those who verified Imam Al-Kulayni’s Al-Kafi as 100% authentic that are not mentioned on Al-Shia.com include:
Sharaf Al Din Musawi, Ali ibn Akbar al Ghifari, Faydh al Kashani, Shaikh Muhammad Sadiq Sadr, Al Tabrisi, and
Shaikh Abbas al Qummi, and many others.
In fact, even in the preface of Al-Kafi, we read that the book can be considered an interview with Imam Qaem himself:
Al-Shia.com says
“
This volume of al-Kafi, which is about seven hundred pages, can be considered a text of an interview with a person
who possesses Divine authority. It is an established fact that the words of Ahl al-Bayt are in complete harmony. An
interview with any one of them would serve as an interview with all and every one of them. To have an interview of that
many words as those in this volume provides one a very good chance to know the personality of the person interviewed.
source: Preface of Al-Kafi
http://www.al-shia.com/html/eng/books/hadith/al-kafi/abttrans.htm
”
Does it not seem odd that we find a narration in the Preface of Al-Kafi stating that the contents of Al-Kafi have been
verified by the Imam Mehdi himself, and yet the Shia still doubt the veracity of Al-Kafi? Does it not seem strange that all
of the classical Shia scholars of the time verified the absolute authenticity of Al-Kafi, and yet we find that suddenly the
contemporary Shia scholars switched this position? It is a mystery as to why the modern day scholars of the Shia do not
give a lucid explanation as to why the classical scholars believed Al-Kafi to be Sahih and why the contemporary scholars
disagree with them.
Actually the monumental shift in viewing Al-Kafi’s authenticity was taken by latter day Shia scholars who realized that
Al-Kafi contained many contradictory and upsetting narrations that exposed the faith of Shi’ism. It was thus imperative
to strip Imam Al-Kulayni’s book of its authenticity in order to defend against Sunni polemical attacks. The Ahlus
Sunnah had for such a long time a very detailed Science of Hadith, but the Shia did not; the Shia would get in a lot of
heat for this since many of their Hadith contradicted each other, and all were considered Sahih by the classical Shia
scholarship. So it was that Allamah al-Hilli decided to borrow the Sunni system of Hadith scrutinization. He
incorporated the Sunni grading system of authentic (sahih), trustworthy (muwathaq), meritorious (hasan) and weak
(da’if). He suddenly claimed that 60% of Al-Kafi was false.
Allamah al-Hilli lived 400 years after Imam Al-Kulayni, so it can be seen for those four hundred years the Shia
scholarship accepted Al-Kafi as Sahih. How reliable can a religion be when its ancestors and progenitors had a view that
was 100% at variance with what the modern day Shia holds to be true.
It should be noted, however, that the Shia Maraje’ (top scholars) of today generally hold Al-Kafi to be Sahih. They may
use Taqiyyah in their responses to obscure and obfuscate this position, refusing to give definitive answers on the issue;
nonetheless, there is much proof to show that despite this, the Maraje’ have never passed definitive and clear-cut
declaration that most of Al-Kafi is false. It is only the Shia propaganda sites which utilize Taqiyyah (deceit) and say that
it is not authentic, and they utilize the opinions of lesser scholars, none that are on par with the classical scholars of
Shi’ism.
Sayyid Mahdi Modaressi is the son of Ayatollah al Udhma Modaressi who he studied under; he is also related to Grand
Ayatollah Modaressi. According to the Shia website, www.al-hewar.com, we read that Sayyid Mahdi Modaressi is the
official representative of some Maraje’.
Al-Hewar.com says
“
Sayyed Almodarresi also represents a number of prominent Supreme religious jurists (Maraje’a) who have
appointed him as their representative
”
Sayyid Mahdi Modaressi’s official website can be seen here: http://66.221.74.102/english/index.htm I encourage the
reader to actually visit this site so that he feels assured of his authority to the Shia.
Sayyid Modaressi was invited to Shia Chat to answer questions. He said:
Sayyid Mahdi Modaressi says
“
About the authenticity of these traditions, I would have to say that we must give them the benefit of the doubt and
consider them authentic until proven otherwise if they are narrated in one of the major Shia texts such as the Four
Books, Al Kafi, Al Wasa’el, Al Mustadrak, and Bihar Al Anwar along with its sources.
source: Shia Chat
http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=28156
”
The above is a bit implicit, but what we have below is stated explicitly.
Sayyid Mahdi Modaressi says
“
Q. Assalamon alaikom, it is normally said that the hadiths from the four famous books are not always accepted….?
A. That is not necessarily the case. There are many high ranking scholars who believe in the authenticity of all the
traditions narrated by the Four Books.
Q. However the author (of Al Murajat) says that all narrations in the 4 books are accepted. is this not against the general
belief of the shia???
A. No it does not. In fact, we have traditions that prohibit us from rejecting any Hadeeth especially if they are narrated
by the Four Books which are our most reliable sources of Hadeeth. I have not seen anyone who categorically rejects
traditions and is able to prove that the Hadeeth did not originate from the mouth of the infallibles.
source: Al-Hewar.com
http://www.al-hewar.com/eng/index.php?showtopic=312
”
As we see from the above, the representative of the Maraje’ declares “there are many high ranking scholars who believe
in the authenticity of all the traditions narrated by the Four Books” which includes Al-Kafi.
Al-Kafi was presented to the legendary Imam Qaem who liked it and said: “It suffices our Shia” (al-Tharee’ah ela
Tasaneef al-Shi’a: Agha Buzurg al-Tahraani; vol.17, p.245) He gave it his seal of approval, and it was on this basis that
Imam Al-Kulayni declared that it was Sahih.
Ironically, we find Mullah Baqir Majlisi stating in his commentary on Al-Kafi, named Mir’at al-’Uqul, that 9,485 out of
the 16,121 narrations in Al-Kafi are unreliable! There are now two possibilities: either Imam Qaem made a mistake to
authenticate a book of which 60% of its contents would later be discovered to be unreliable, or Mullah Baqir Majlisi did
not know what he was talking about.
The Shia propagandists say that Al-Kafi contains 60% false narrations, even though historically we know that the
classical Shia scholars considered it completely authentic. This change in policy of the Shia–while it has saved them
some face from having to defend their book–has left the Shia with absolutely no reliable book of Hadith. Instead, the
Shia adopted the practise of accepting any Hadith which conformed to their beliefs, and rejected all others.
You will notice that the Shia will jump to the Matn’ (content) of a Hadith and ignore the Isnad (chain of transmission). It
is thus that the Shia accept so many Sunni Hadiths, because these narrations agree with the Shia version of history (i.e.
the Sunni Hadith which praise Ali, Fatima, Hasan, and Hussain). In fact, they have used Sunni Hadith as a basis for
many events in history, such as the Incident of the Pen and Paper. But it should be noted that not every Hadith with a
good Matn’ can be declared Sahih. Awhile back I got an email that quoted a “Hadith” about the 500 punishments for
missing prayer. It was a really motivating email, but it was soon discovered that it was just some teenager who had
invented that Hadith in order to have a successful email forward. Should the true believer actually believe everything
just because it sounds good, or should they also verify that it comes from a legitimate source? In fact, if you circulate an
imaginary narration that you made up yourself and tried to pass it off as a Hadith, a Shia would accept it if it elevated
the status of Ali and denigrated the status of Abu Bakr. To the Shia, Isnad means nothing. A Hadith narrated on the
authority of Mickey Mouse would be accepted so long as it praises Ali!
The Shia scholars could not possibly accept all of the Hadith in their books with a Sahih Isnad, since that would involve
accepting contradictory Hadith that would topple the faith of Shi’ism and expose it to the Sunnis. Not only that, but it
would expose how the roots of the Ithna Ashari are actually Akhbari in nature, and not Usooli. In Al-Kafi, for instance,
there are far too many troubling narrations in it and after sorting them out, the Shia was left with only 40% of it left and
they would have to reject some of the beliefs their ancestors had from whom they got the faith. Indeed, if the Shia were
to actually accept all of Al-Kafi, their beliefs would be Akhbari.
The Shia say that they are allowed to reject the Hadiths that do not agree with the Quran. But why would Imam AlKulayni compile Hadiths that are wrong (obviously wrong since they contradict the Quran)? Is it because he held those
beliefs? If that is the case, then the Shia should reject Imam Al-Kulayni’s works altogether since he had views repugnant
to the Quran. In fact, this would mean that the Shia would have to reject all of their classical scholars, and these are the
same scholars that they base all their beliefs in and whose books they use. So it is really a self-destructive process.
I would like to close this chapter by quoting the Preface of Al-Kafi as quoted on Al-Shia.com:
Al-Shia.comsays
“
What is in al-Kafi?
The contents of al-Kafi are precious gifts from Ahl al-Bayt (the fourteen infallible family members of Prophet
Muhammad), to their followers.
Each piece is as valuable as the wealth of the whole world. In this volume (vol.1) there are about fourteen hundred pieces
of such costly items but in the form of Hadith. Based on the above, one can imagine the value of this precious gift from
Ahl al-Bayt to their followers.
The followers and supporters of Ahl al-Bayt would not dispute that such Ahadith are generous gifts to them…How would
an individual accept that these items are really worth so much?
As a translator, for what I know of therein, I would only ask, “Have you opened the gift yet?”
If the answer would be negative one would ask, “How would you know the contents of the package and the value of the
items therein? ”
The above statements are facts. They are not mere assumptions. The value of the gift is real and the way to find such
value is also realistic and logical. Simply open up your gift and check it out thoroughly. You will never agree to sell it for
less than the stated value.
…[Al Kafi] provides beautiful details of the above matters as they are mentioned in various passages and verses of the
Holy Quran…
This volume of al-Kafi, which is about seven hundred pages, can be considered a text of an interview with a person who
possesses Divine authority. It is an established fact that the words of Ahl al-Bayt are in complete harmony. An interview
with any one of them would serve as an interview with all and every one of them. To have an interview of that many
words as those in this volume provides one a very good chance to know the personality of the person interviewed. Thus,
it could serve as the answer to the prayer at the end of hadith quoted above, ” . . . O Lord make me know the one who
possesses Your authority over the creatures for if You will not make me know him I will stray away from my religion . .
.”(H 869, Ch. .80, h 5)
You may be better off to open your gift and yourself examine. Keep in mind that the gift is very large. Knowing Allah and
those who possess Divine authority is much more valuable than all the worldly things…
Al-Kulayni, of all other compilers of hadith, alone was a contemporary of all the four successive special representatives
and ambassadors of Imam al-Mahdi, the twelfth Imam. He had the chance to collect hadith from the proper sources. AlKafi, the book is a unique collection of hadith. Al-Kulayni compiled this book on request from a prominent Shi ‘a scholar
(as mentioned in his introduction to al-Kafi).
Prominent scholars of Islamic studies in search of knowledge would meet him at his place to discuss, exchange notes
and to confer with him for better understanding of the issues.
Al-Kulayni was a great scholar, a reliable narrator of hadith and a man of great learning. He was of the outstanding
scholars of law and an authority in the science of hadith science. He was a man of great chastity, piety, integrity and
holiness.
His book al-Kafi, no doubt, is a treasure of Islamic literature, Shari‘a (law), Divine commandments and prohibitions, in
the form of texts of the Sunna, the statements, actions and the approvals of the Holy Prophet and the twelve Imams. It is
a text of the basis of the Islamic education and culture.
Al-Kulayni has himself prefaced his book, al-Kafi and has also provided certain explanatory notes in certain chapters
which shows his skill and proficiency in writing and in Arabic literature.
He was well versed in categorizing the narrators of hadith and the texts of hadith. He is the author of a book in the
science of hadith and an expert in scrutinizing the narrators. He was a great scholar of theology and he has written a
book refuting al-Qaramitah (one of the several names applied to the sect of Isma‘ilies who were once very active in
politics).
…The compiler, except in the case of a few hadith, has named the whole chain of narrators up to the infallible Imam…
source: Preface of Al-Kafi
http://www.al-shia.com/html/eng/books/hadith/al-kafi/abttrans.htm
”
Al-Islam.org says
“
The importance of al-Kafi as a work of tradition is considerable. It is regarded as one of the four major works of Shi’i
traditions…The great value of al-Kafi to Shi’i Muslims is emphasized by the number of outstanding scholars of their
community who have considered it worthwhile to write commentaries on the work. Al-Kafi represents a decisive
moment in the collection of traditions from the Prophet and the Imams and their systematic presentation.
”
source: http://www.al-islam.org/al-serat/kulayni-howard.htm
This is the importance of Al-Kafi as stated by the Shia themselves. So how can Answering-Ansar cast doubt on it? Not
only this, but the official classical opinion of the Shia was that it was entirely Sahih. This opinion was held by the
traditionists of the Shia faith, and all the great scholars in the first four centuries after Hijrah. One point that cannot be
stressed enough is the fact that Imam Al-Kulayni lived in the time of the Minor Occultation and that he had direct access
to the Four Representatives of the Hidden Imam. Thus, it would not make logical sense that Al-Kulayni would not have
first confirmed the book’s authenticity from Imam Mehdi before he published it. And if Imam Mehdi checked the book,
then surely he would not allow false Hadith to be propagated. This is why the Traditionists vehemently argue that the
sayings in Al-Kafi are Sahih, contrary to what Answering-Ansar tries to insinuate.
Shaykh Arif Abdulhussain of the Al-Mahdi Institute says
“
the traditionists (akhbariyun)…[believe in] the authenticity and validity of the traditions contained within the four
books of tradition and their issuance from the Imams (as) and hence the needlessness of scrutinising the worth of the
traditions through subjecting every link of the chain of the reporters to in depth biographical studies (rijali)…the shi’ite
traditions are derived from these four books whose compilers in turn derive them from the authentic traditions recorded
by the companions of the Imams popularly known as usul arba’ah miah (the four hundred principles).
…Mirza Muhammad Amin al-Asterabadi [2] a traditionist who in his work al-Fawaid al-Madaniyah maintains that the
traditions contained within the four books should be deemed as authentic and the existence of permissibility of adhering
to them due to the fact that the traditions are continuous (mutawatir) in their transmission from the authors to their
compilers. He goes on to mention twelve reasons in support of his claim. Astarabadi’s views were supported by a group
of scholars most of them traditionists like himself but in particular he was supported by Hur al-Amili the author of
wasa’il al-Shi’ah who has stated twenty-two reason in support of the claim.
The most substantial of the reasons according to the scholars extended by the above two beinga. The claims of the compilers as to the authenticity of the traditions contained within their works
b. The strictness observed by the earlier scholars in ensuring the authenticity of what they transmitted and recorded
through various means and methods
As for the second point (b) we find great evidence in support of it. It was standard practise among the companions of the
Imams to exert themselves in the prope[r] retention and recording of the traditions until the time of the three
Muhammads who in turn compiled them in their four books.
Such care and emphasis normally results in the attainment of surety as to the authenticity of the claim that the
traditions are from the Imams. [5]
…every tradition is reported from the Imams (as) except for two or three which are falsely attributed to them…
With this standard it would seem unlikely that the three Muhammads [including Muhammad al-Kulayni] would not
have taken due care in having the contents of their compilations verified or having knowledge of the verification of the
traditions from those they reported from especially Shaykh al-Kulayni who lived during the period of the minor
occultation.
[2] He is the most renowned and the foremost of the traditionists to mount criticism upon the legists [those who denied
the authenticity of the books of Hadith]. He died in Mecca in the year 1030/1033 ah
[5] Durus Tamhidiyah Fi al-Qawa’id al-Rijaliyah by Baqir Irawani
source: Al Mahdi Institute
http://almahdi.4t.com/issue5/page18.html
”
In conclusion, it should be established that Al-Kafi was considered 100% Sahih (authentic) by the one who compiled it,
namely Imam Al-Kulayni–who was referred to as “Thiqatul Islam” (the Trust of Islam). He lived in the time of the socalled Minor Occultation and his work was overseen by Imam Mehdi himself, who gave Al-Kafi the seal of approval as
well as its name “Al-Kafi” which translates to “the Sufficient”–meaning that Al-Kafi was sufficient for the Shia. The view
that Al-Kafi was Sahih was held for over four centuries after Hijrah; as such, the classical Shia scholars–those who
founded the religion’s basic principles and theologies–were all of this belief. However, due to the effect of the
Mutazzalites (rationalists), the Shia scholars eventually realized that by accepting that Al-Kafi was accurate, they opened
themselves up to much criticism by their Sunni rivals. They thereby abandoned the view of Imam Al-Kulayni and
declared that only a small segment of the narrations were accurate.
How this relates to the debate on Umm Kulthoom’s marriage is two-fold: firstly, the Hadiths which document the
marriage of Umm Kulthoom are contained in that portion of Al-Kafi which was abandoned by the latter scholars, and
this too based not upon Isnad (chain of transmission) but upon Matn’ (content). Secondly, we see an over-arching
theme in Shia history, namely that the contemporary Shia scholars hold beliefs that run contrary to their ancestors and
some of the same people that they claim to follow. More importantly, the traditionists and classical scholars that the
Shia now reject are the same ones who were the direct link to the so-called Infallible Imams, including those who had
direct contact with the Hidden Imam during the Minor Occultation! When a religious faith has different views than the
ones they claim to originate from, then this is a good sign that it is a faith which has been horribly corrupted over the
centuries and therefore should not be followed.
So whereas the Shia scholars of today can haphazardly weaken any Hadith which runs contrary to what they believe
(such as those mentioned in the Ansar article), the reality is that the ancient scholars of the Shia–whom are revered with
such titles as “Thiqatul Islam” and who had a direct link to the so-called Infallible Imams–did in fact believe in the
marriage of Umm Kulthoom to Umar. Answering-Ansar can never explain this phenomenon, and this is why you will
notice that their article completely and conveniently side-steps the issue.
Response to Chapter 8
Response to Chapter 8 Entitled “The first Shi’a tradition”
In this section, Answering-Ansar gives another twenty-six responses, but of these, only one of them relates to the first
Shia Hadith at all. The rest are recycled arguments from Chapter 3 of the Answering-Ansar article, entitled “Our
objections to the Sunni traditions.” The Answering-Ansar team explains why the marriage could not have taken place
since the marriage contradicts Shia beliefs; this is not a valid methodology of argumentation because it does not hold
applicable to the Sunnis whom they are arguing with.
For example, one of Answering-Ansar’s arguments (Reply 20) is that the marriage could not have taken place because
Umar was a Nasibi and Ali wouldn’t have married his daughter to a Nasibi. But how would this be a valid argument
when the Ahlus Sunnah believes that Umar was not only not a Nasibi, but rather he was a lover of the Ahlel Bayt (to the
extent that he wanted to marry into the Ahlel Bayt)? Answering-Ansar then claims the marriage couldn’t have taken
place because Umar was not the Kuff of Umm Kulthoom due to the fact that he was of a lowly status; but again, this is
not a valid argument for the Sunnis since to us there can be nobody higher in status than Umar bin Khattab!
Other arguments of the Shia in this section are of this same vein (which are all based on assumptions of Umar’s horrible
nature), and some of their arguments get downright inflammatory (such as saying that Umar was an alcoholic, bastard
child, etc). This, in my opinion, was in an attempt to distract the reader from the main point that the Shia’s own Al-Kafi
documents the marriage.
In fact, what the Ahlus Sunnah is establishing is the fact that Umar was a virtuous man and we do this by showing that
Ali gave his daughter to him; therefore, to argue that this marriage could not have taken place because Umar was
immoral is simply circular logic and an invalid method of debate. There would be no point of having this debate about
Umm Kulthoom’s marriage if we agreed with the Shia on their opinion of Umar! In other words, twenty-five of
Answering-Ansar’s arguments in this section are invalid because they simply say that the marriage could not have taken
place because it violates various Shia beliefs.
Of the twenty-six responses given by Answering-Ansar, only one deals with the authenticity of this Hadith in Al-Kafi. Let
us examine this argument first, since in reality, it is the only one worth responding to.
Reply 26 Entitled “The isnad of this narration”
Answering-Ansar says
“
There are six narrators in this tradition and yet Afriki as his proof only cites three.
”
The five levels of transmission of the first Shia Hadith in Al-Kafi are:
1. Ali ibn Ibrahim who narrated from
2. Ibrahim ibn Hashim al-Qummi who narrated from
3. Muhammad ibn Abi Umayr who narrated from
4. Hisham ibn Salim and Hammad who narrated from
5. Zurarah
Brother Afriki (the Ansar article’s author) mentioned the first three levels in his commentary of Narration 1, and he
deals with the fourth one in another section of his article which Answering-Ansar mentions right away:
Ansar.org says
“
Hisham ibn Salim is credited with having been a student of Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq. His reliability as a transmitter of
hadith is attested to by the emphatic statement of al-’Allamah and an-Najashi: “thiqatun thiqah” (reliable, and once
again reliable). (Jami’ ar-Ruwat, vol. 2 p. 315)
”
So there is only one level of the Hadith which the Ansar article did not mention, which is Zurarah. The reason that the
Ansar article didn’t find the need to address Zurarah was that he was the companion of the Infallible Imams of the Shia,
and is considered such “an eminent Shi’i figure” (in the words of Al-Islam.org) that it would be like determining the
reliability of Salman al-Farsi or Ibn Abbas to the Shia. As for the Sunni, it would be like questioning an Isnad and asking
“who is Abu Hurrairah” or any other such big name. My point here is that the Ansar article dealt with all the levels of the
narration, and only left out the companion of the Imam who narrated the Hadith, figuring that the Shia would be smart
enough to figure out that they revere Zurarah.
If Answering-Ansar is saying that Brother Afriki didn’t mention some of the narrators in an attempt to hide the
narrators of suspect reliability, then which of them do the Shia consider unreliable? In fact, all of the narrators are valid
to the Shia. Otherwise, you would have seen that Answering-Ansar would have attempted to question the Hadith by
mentioning which of the ones that Brother Afriki didn’t mention are not reliable, but you will notice that AnsweringAnsar does not do this! If Answering-Ansar had said that Brother Afriki doesn’t mention some of the narrators because
one of these is not reliable, then the Shia would have a valid argument, but you will notice that the Answering-Ansar
team was unable to do this.
“Level four” of the Hadith was transmitted by Hisham ibn Salim and Hammad. As for Hammad, although the Ansar
article did not mention him, we find that Answering-Ansar could not question him either and this is why he is not
mentioned in their rebuttal. Indeed, we see that Al-Islam.org has declared that Hammad is considered an authority of
Hadith.
Al-Islam.org says
“
There is the narration reported by several authorities including Hisham ibn Salim, Hammad and others that….
source: http://www.al-islam.org/al-tawhid/sunnah/index.htm
”
In their desperate attempts at casting doubt at even one of the narrators in the Hadith, Answering-Ansar was left with
only Hisham ibn Salim that they could question.
Ansar.org says
“
Hisham ibn Salim is credited with having been a student of Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq. His reliability as a transmitter of
hadith is attested to by the emphatic statement of al-’Allamah and an-Najashi: “thiqatun thiqah” (reliable, and once
again reliable). (Jami’ ar-Ruwat, vol. 2 p. 315)
”
Answering-Ansar says
“
If Afriki really wants to convince the Shi’a his first approach, then he should cite our MOST AUTENTIC book of
Rijjal, which is not Jami’ ar Ruwat but Rijjal al Kashi. When we want to know the authenticity of a narrator this is our
first port of call. When we examine Rijjal al Kashi we learn that:
“He (Hisham) was an adherent of the “fasid al aqeedah” and believed that you physically see Allah (swt)”
Rijjal Kashi page 184
The fasid al aqeedah is a break away group from the Shi’a and their beliefs were so deviant that they opposed
mainstream Shi’aism. The Shi’a concept of Allah (swt) is that He (swt) cannot be seen / has no physical attributes and to
believe otherwise is kufr. Anyone that holds a viewpoint that He (swt) can be seen has deviated from the Shi’a path and
hence any hadith narrated by him is to be rejected.
”
Here, the kids at Answering-Ansar decided to become scholars themselves and declare one of their most reliable
narrators of Hadith to be unreliable and even outside the folds of Shi’ism. In fact, there is no such reliable report about
Hisham ibn Salim believing in the idea that “you could see Allah.” The report that Hisham ibn Salim said anything of
this sort was deemed false by the Grand Ayatollah of the Shia. Let us see what the Grand Ayatollah Al-Khoei has to say
on Hisham ibn Salim (instead of the Answering-Ansar high school and college students).
In “Mujam Rijal Al-Hadith” (Vol.20, p.325), Grand Ayatollah Al-Khoei said with regards to Hisham ibn Salim:
“In his Adadiya treatise, Shiekh Mufid counted him amongst the prominent figures, the leaders, those from whom
(judgments concerning) Halal and Haram are taken, as well as Fatwa and Rulings, those who cannot be criticized
for anything, and those to which there is no way of condemnation.”
Al-Khoei related the narration by which Hisham has been criticized in Rijjal Al-Kashi and commented:
“I say, this narration proves that Hisham ibn Salim was condemned, however, because of its weakness it cannot be
depended upon. A similar thing has been reported about Hisham ibn Al-Hakam [i.e. it is false].”
This is the ruling on the authority of Hisham ibn Salim and it is the accepted position of the Maraje’ (top scholars) of the
Shia. So how then can Answering-Ansar question his reliability? It is indeed a sign of their desperation to cast doubt on
even one of the narrators in this Hadith. First, they tried to cast doubt on their most reliable book Al-Kafi, and then they
tried to cast doubt on one of their most reliable Hadith narrators…all of this in an attempt to further their argument
against those whom they so flipplantly call “Nasibis.”
Even if Answering-Ansar could establish the fact that Hisham ibn Salim had one specific view that did not sit well with
the Ithna Ashari beliefs, this does not make him outside the folds of Shi’ism nor does it invalidate his authenticity whilst
relating Hadiths. If this were the case, then the Shia would have to abandon so many of their scholars and narrators who
held such beliefs as that there was Tahreef (tampering) of the Quran and many other such beliefs that the Shia deny
publically. The Maraje’ (top scholars) believe that a person can be wrong about one specific belief, but this does not
make him outside the folds of Shi’ism but rather simply incorrect about one specific belief. Otherwise, the Shia would be
forced to reject many of their classical Shia scholars who held the opinion that there was Tahreef of the Quran, but this
is not the established position of the Shia scholars.
As can be seen from the Answering-Ansar article, they were unable to find an authoratative Shia text which stated that
Hisham ibn Salim was not reliable to narrate Hadith; the only quote they could find was one that questioned a specific
belief that he had. So Answering-Ansar, unable to find a text that deemed Hisham ibn Salim as unauthentic, had to use
what little they had against him and then jump to the conclusion that having one errant belief makes a person
unreliable, a view that is not held by any of the Shia scholars.
To completely negate the Answering-Ansar claim, we shall quote from Al-Islam.org, which is the most reliable Shia
website available. It is a site made by Shia scholars, and I doubt any Shia could take the word of Answernig-Ansar over
that of Al-Islam.org. We find then that Al-Islam.org actually declares that Hisham ibn Salim is an authority of
Hadith.
Al-Islam.org says
“
There is the narration reported by several authorities including Hisham ibn Salim, Hammad and others that….
source: http://www.al-islam.org/al-tawhid/sunnah/index.htm
”
And then Al-Islam.org narrates a Hadith which was narrated through him. Therefore, we see that Al-Islam.org finds him
not only a reliable source of Hadith, but also finds him an authority figure. It is strange then that Answering-Ansar
would reject their own authority figures, all in an attempt to bolster their polemical stance against the Sunnis. This is a
very irresponsible attitude of the Answering-Ansar high school and college students.
And even if Answering-Ansar were to cast doubt on Hisham ibn Salim, too bad for them that this level of transmission
was narrated by two people: Hisham ibn Salim and Hammad. Both of them narrated it from Zurarah and both of them
told it to Muhammad ibn Umayr. Thus, to invalidate this level of transmission of the Hadith, the Shia would have to cast
doubt on Hammad as well. Unfortunately for Answering-Ansar, Hammad is considered so reliable that he is the one
who narrates Ali’s sermons in Nahjul Balagha! And that is why Answering-Ansar did not question him in their rebuttal
of the Ansar article, namely because that would invalidate sermons from the Nahjul Balagha. And as we have seen, AlIslam.org considered Hammad to be an authority figure of Hadith.
In conclusion, Answering-Ansar cannot refute even one of the five levels that the Hadith was transmitted upon. All six
narrators are considered reliable; even Hisham ibn Salim, the one that Answering-Ansar attempted to weaken, was
declared by Grand Ayatollah al-Khoie as one “who cannot be criticized for anything, and those to which there is no way
of condemnation.” And he was declared by Al-Islam.org to be an “authority” figure of Hadith. Therefore, since all six
narrators are sound, this Hadith is a Sahih narration in the most reliable of Shia books of Hadith, Al-Kafi. The fact that
Answering-Ansar had such a difficult time that it couldn’t even touch any of the other five narrators in the chain is
testament to the strength of the Isnad and the reliability of the narrators.
The bottom line point is that this is a Sahih narration in Al-Kafi which documents the marriage of Umm Kulthoom to
Umar bin Khattab. And there is really no excuse or reasoning the Shia can give that could change that fact.
Reply 6 Entitled “this hadith can be rejected due to Shi’a rules on conflicting hadith”
Well, this is not a defense, but rather an admission of guilt! It is an admission by the Shia that they have conflicting
Hadith and contradictory beliefs. This is not a valid method of arguing. The fact is that the marriage is recorded in the
Shia books of Hadith, and Answering-Ansar has not addressed this point. Simply saying that it conflicts with your (Shia)
faith doesn’t answer anything–in fact, we know it conflicts with your faith and that’s the whole reason we debate with
you on this topic!
It should be noted that the Shia have such a plethora of conflicting and contradictory Hadith and beliefs, that they have
a certain odd Hadith (also in Al-Kafi) to explain it all away. Basically, this Hadith says that when the Imam gave two
conflicting answers to different people, it means that one of the times the Imam was simply doing Taqiyyah in order to
“protect” the faith of Shi’ism.
Zurarah narrated: “I asked a certain question of Imam al-Baqir, and he gave me its answer. Another person then asked
the same question, and the Imam gave him a different answer. Later, a third person asked the same question, but the
Imam’s answer that time was different than the previous two answers. I then asked him, ‘O son of the Messenger, the
two persons who just came here to ask you questions were from Iraq and were Shia, yet you gave them contradictory
answers.’ The Imam then answered, ‘O Zurarah, this is good for me as well as for you, and this will help us (Shia) survive
and prosper.’” (Usool-e Kafi, p.37)
This is how great the discrepancies are in the Shia faith that they have to invent explanations as absurd as that a
religious scholar would lie to a person who asked him for a fatwa. The question begs: how do the believers know which
time the Imam is telling the truth and which time he is doing Taqiyyah? It really brings the entire Shia faith into
question, since the Imam could have been doing Taqiyyah at any point. Imam Jafar talks about the marriage of Umm
Kulthoom to Umar in a few Hadiths, then he supposedly says something completely opposite in the Hadith brought up
by Answering-Ansar? This is a very nonsensical religion, and no Shia can put this up as an “argument” in a debate.
In any case, if the Shia have two conflicting Hadiths, then they should accept the one that is in the more reliable book.
After all, wasn’t it Answering-Ansar themselves who claimed that Brother Afriki didn’t consult the most authentic Shia
book of Rijal? Similarly, when it comes to Hadith books, shouldn’t the most authoratative book of Hadith takes
precedence? And there is no book more reliable in regards to Shia Hadith than Al-Kafi. The superiority of Al-Kafi to
other Shia books of Hadith has been mentioned unanimously by the Shia scholars, and this can be seen in my “Response
to Chapter 7: The authenticity of Furu al Kafi.” To take just one example, the Shia heavyweight Sharaf Al Din Musawi
said of the Shia books of Hadith: “…Al-Kafi is the oldest, greatest, best and the most accurate one of them.” (The book of
Al-Muraja’aat, Muraj’ah number 110)
The likeness of the Answering-Ansar argument is the argument made by the Christians when we confront them with
verses from the Bible which clearly indicate that God is One, and not three. We will even show these Christians verses in
which Prophet Jesus clearly said to worship only the “Father” and nobody else. In response to this, the Christians could
say that when two verses in the Bible contradict, then you can throw out one of them. Does anyone here actually think
that this is a valid methodology of arguing? Admitting you have contradictions in your books is a weakness in your faith,
and it cannot reasonably be used in the manner that the Answering-Ansar team has.
Now let us take a look at the other arguments made by the Shia in this chapter. Since none of them address this Shia
Hadith in particular (and because most of them are recycled arguments that the Answering-Ansar team already used in
earlier chapters), I will simply link the reader to the place where I have already answered the question.
Replies 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10
In a nutshell, all of these nine responses say the exact same thing: Answering-Ansar is arguing that the Hadith is not
talking about that Umm Kulthoom but rather another Umm Kulthoom. I have already dealt with this absurd proposition
here: A Different Umm Kulthoom?
A side-point to be added here: it is strange that Answering-Ansar claims on the one hand that this Hadith can be
rejected because of the Shia laws of conflicting Hadith (see the argument put forth above in reply 6 of the AnsweringAnsar article), but on the other hand they are saying that it actually refers to another Umm Kulthoom and they say this
with such vehement certainty. If this Hadith was really and so clearly referring to another Umm Kulthoom, then why
would we find the need to reject this Hadith? Answering-Ansar has claimed that the Hadith can be rejected because it
contradicts other Hadith which state that the marriage between Umm Kulthoom bint Ali and Umar bin Khattab never
took place. This is implicitly admitting that this Hadith refers to Umm Kulthoom bint Ali and nobody else. Otherwise,
it would not be in conflict with the other Hadith and there would be no need to throw it out.
This is what I meant earlier when I said that Answering-Ansar has produced hundreds of replies but they are all
contradictory to each other and actually self-damning. By admitting that this Hadith contradicts another Shia Hadith
(and arguing that it must be thrown out because of this), you are actually negating your other argument that it was
another Umm Kulthoom. This shows the utter desperation of the Shia in furthering any argument–no matter how
spurious or contradictory–to deny the marriage of Umm Kulthoom to Umar.
Replies 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18
All of these responses are the exact same, so again, I don’t know why Answering-Ansar has the habit of creating separate
replies for the same recycled argument. These seven responses deal with the word “Furuj” (vagina) which is used in the
original Shia Hadith which calls Umm Kulthoom a “vagina” which was stolen from the Ahlel Bayt:
“Imam Jafar as-Sadiq said regarding the marriage of Umm Kulthoom: ‘That was a Furuj (vagina) who was taken from us
by force.’” (Furoo al-Kafi, vol.5, p.347)
The Shia narrator of the Hadith employed a derrogatory term to refer to Umm Kulthoom. The truth is that the Shia
abandoned Ali’s daughter, Umm Kulthoom, for they believe she has brought shame to the Ahlel Bayt by having married
into the family of Umar; they thus refer to her in a very insulting manner.
Answering-Ansar says
“
This Nasibi needs to understand that Furuj can mean “sexual organ” but it also can mean “Chastity” and “Respect”.
If this Nasibi is going to suggest that we are lying and that this is an exclusive filthy term, then could he explain why
Allah (swt) use the word Furuj when referring to Hadhrath Maryam? Allah (swt) says clearly in Surah al Anbiya verse
92:
“She protected her Furuj”
If Furuj is indeed always synonymous in Arabic as a vulgar term then why does Allah (swt) use it when praising such a
pure / chaste woman?
”
“Furuj” can never be translated as “chastity” or “respect.” There is not a single Arabic dictionary on Earth which would
confirm this, and an Arab would die of laughter if he heard this argument. Allah says in the Quran that the believers are
those who protect their private parts (that which is between their legs) from Zinnah. The Quran does not call someone
to be a penis or a vagina, but rather simply states that a person should protect these bodily organs from Zinnah. For
example, it says that Maryam protected her private parts from Zinnah, and cannot in any way be likened to the Shia
Hadith which calls Umm Kulthoom a “vagina.” There is a monumental difference between these two examples. In the
Hadith of Al-Kafi, Umm Kulthoom is referred to as a “vagina” herself. The difference between the Quran and the Shia
Hadith is like the difference of telling someone to cover their penis out of shame and on the other hand referring to
someone as a “penis.” The former is a caution to guard a body part, whereas the second is referring to someone as an
organ in an attempt to degrade them.
In all of the narrations from Sunni sources, this difference in usage is maintained. In the narrations of Sahih Bukhari
that Answering-Ansar quoted, the Prophet washed his private parts as a part of ritual ablution; he was not referred to as
a private part nor did he call anyone such a thing. Then the Shia referred to little known Sunni sources (which suddenly
became “authoratative”) which used the word “Furuj” but it should be noted that the word always refers to private parts;
as such, the Shia has not successfully changed the definition of the word Furuj which–from an Arabic standpoint–can
only be used to refer to this one thing. Unlike the Sunni narrations, the Shia have a Hadith in which the Infallible Imam
calls someone a vagina (something very derrogatory), and I have yet to come across a similar Sunni Hadith. Nowadays,
calling someone a “dick” or “prick” (derrogatory references to the male penis) is a common practise amongst low-life
hoodlums; it seems that the Infallible Imams and their Shia disciples have been hanging out with these sort of people.
Replies 19, 24, and 25
How many times are the Shia going to attempt to use this Khuff argument!? I’m tired of responding to this oft-recycled
argument. I’ve already responded to it in my response to Kuff and Umm Kulthoom’s Marriage. The fact that AnsweringAnsar jammed this argument into this section shows that they really had no ability to explain this particular Shia Hadith
so instead they had to argue about why the marriage could not have taken place from a general Shia perspective.
Reply 20 entitled “It is not permissible to marry a momin daughter to a Nasibi”
Umar bin Khattab was not a Nasibi and this is the entire point of the argument. Ali gave his daughter to Umar and this
proves that he wasn’t a Nasibi. The Shia arguing that this marriage couldn’t have taken place because Umar was a Nasibi
is not sound argumentation. The likeness of this is if we got in an argument over wether or not George Washington likes
apples or not: I say that he does, and you say he hates apples. To prove my side, I show you a historical account in which
Washington heartily eats an apple. To respond to this, you say that this historical account can’t be true because
Washington hated apples. It’s just restating your initial position, a position that I am in disagreement with and which is
the entire purpose of the debate. If it were an established fact that Umar was a Nasibi, then this entire argument would
be pointless. Why in the world would Umar want to marry into the Ahlel Bayt if he hated them? The fact that he had this
desire is a testament to his deep respect for the family of Ali.
Reply 21 entitled “Do not marry your daughter to a man that possesses bad manners”
This argument was already used in Chapter 3 by Answering-Ansar (Response 3), so once again, it is a recycled
argument. I’ve already responded to it in my response to Chapter 3.
Reply 22 entitled “it is not permissible for a father to marry his daughter to a man that drinks alcohol”
Many of the Sahabah drank alcohol before it was declared Haram (forbidden). The Laws of Allah were revealed step-bystep, and in the beginning of the Prophet’s Message, alcohol was Halal (permissible) since it had not been explicitly
made Haram. During this time, Umar bin Khattab drank alcohol. Allah did not declare alcohol to be Haram all at once,
but rather He eliminated it in steps. (Alcohol is an addictive substance, and as any Alcoholic Anonymous member will
tell you, the only way to stop is in steps.)
In the first step, Allah simply implied that wine is not a good drink when He said: “And from the fruit of the date palm
and the vine you get intoxicant drink and wholesome food.” (Quran, 67:16). Thus, the Quran implicitly differentiated
intoxicants from things that are wholesome, which implies that alcohol is not wholesome.
The people reacted to the above verse and went to the Prophet to ask about it. Then the Quran took a second step when
Allah conveyed the following message: “They ask you about wine and gambling, say in them is great harm and some
profit for men; but the harm is greater than the profit.” (Quran, 2:219) Still, the Quran did not declare alcohol to be
explicitly Haram, but the message was slowly being conveyed that alcohol was harmful.
After awhile, Allah declared that the believers should not approach prayer whilst they are intoxicated or drunk. As any
drinker will tell you, there is a huge difference between drinking one or two glasses of wine, and being drunk. Here, the
prohibition was against being drunk and then going to prayer. Allah said: “O you who believe! Do not go near prayer
when you are drunk until you know (well) what you say” (Quran, 4:43).
Thus, at this point in time, it was still permissible to drink alcohol but not to approach prayer whilst drunk, emphasis on
the word “drunk.” During this time, the Sahabah were still adjusting to these rules and attempting to shed these
addictions. It was in this context that the narration that Answering-Ansar uses took place in.
Answering-Ansar says
“
We read in Ahl’ul Sunnah authority commentary of Sahih al Bukhari, Fathul Bari Volume 5 page 341 that:
“On one occasion Saeed bin Zai drank from Umar’s water flask and he became intoxicated. Umar began to beat him and
Saeed said to him ‘My only wrongdoing was that I drank from your flask’. (Upon hearing this) Umar replied ‘I am
beating you, as I want to know why you became intoxicated”.
”
Notice the emphasis with which Umar bin Khattab says that the sin is in being intoxicated (i.e. drunk) not in drinking
itself. The ruling at this point in time was that a person could still legally drink in moderation so long as he did not get
drunk. Thus, Umar was scolding Saeed for having crossed the line and getting drunk. The manner in which AnsweringAnsar has not put this narration in context is deceptive and purposefully misleading. A little reflection on the matter
shows that Umar did not wrong because alcohol was still not prohibited in Islam, and there were many Sahabah who
continued to drink. No blame can be put on them for this.
Finally came the conclusive command when the Quran declared: “O you who believe! Intoxicants and gambling,
dedication of stones and divination by arrows are an abomination of Satan’s handiwork. So eschew it all so that you may
prosper. Satan’s plan is to excite enmity and hatred among you with intoxicants and gambling, and hinder you from the
remembrance of God and from prayer. Will you not then abstain?” (Quran, 5:90).
At this point in time, Umar bin Khattab stopped drinking alcohol completely: he never touched it again. In fact, he
became one of the greatest opponents of it. Umar even increased the penalty for drinking alcohol from 40 lashes to 80
lashes; this was how much he was against drinking. How could Answering-Ansar then claim that he was known to drink
alcohol, when actually Umar bin Khattab is recorded to be one of the most outspoken critics of alcohol? In fact, a
common Shia accusation against Umar is that they accuse him of changing the Shariah [i.e. introduce Bidah] by
increasing the punishment for drinking alcohol from 40 lashes to 80 lashes, and you will see this argument made by
them frequently. It is well-known that Umar was at the forefront against alcohol, and as is typical with his headstrong
manner, he was firm in this respect.
All of the narrations that Answering-Ansar have brought forth regarding Umar drinking alcohol are from when Allah
had not yet declared alcohol to be Haram. Therefore, we can find no fault with Umar in this regard. All of the Sahabah,
including Ali ibn Abi Talib, did many things which were later forbidden by Allah and His Messenger; the examples are
endless and we cannot blame any of them for it. In fact, if anything, we should look upto and respect Umar bin Khattab
since he let go of such a difficult addition simply for the Pleasure of Allah. Medically speaking, we know how difficult it is
to leave an addiction like alcohol and only the truly dedicated can do so.
In regards to “Nabidh”, this accusation by Answering-Ansar is probably the most deceptive, dishonest, and weasel-like
twisting of the truth that I have seen in their article. Answering-Ansar claims that Nabidh is an alcoholic drink and then
they quote a narration in which Umar is asking for it on his deathbed. Once you find out the truth on this matter, you
might even chuckle at the trickiness of the Answering-Ansar team.
What is Nabidh? It is a drink made of grapes; it is an Arab grape-juice. Since when is grape-juice Haram? After Umar
left alcohol, he took up grape-juice as his favorite drink. As even a half-wit knows, wine is made by fermented grapes.
Fermentation means that the drink is left out for so long that it grows yeast and thereby becomes toxic. Therefore, the
conclusion we reach is that grape-juice is Halal but if it becomes fermented, then it becomes Haram. Thus, Nabidh is
Halal if it hasn’t fermented. We can find the following fatwa on Al-Islam.com which says quite clearly: “Permissibility of
Nabidh which is not ripe nor becomes intoxicant” (http://hadith.al-islam.com/Bayan/tree.asp?Lang=eng&ID=712)
Nabidh refers to grape-juice or alternatively also to date-juice. Either way, it is considered a juice, and only when it
ferments does it become Haram. Nobody would ever be so bold as to declare the juice from grapes to be Haram, but if it
is allowed to sit for a long time, it will rot and then grow yeast (thereby becoming fermented). It is this yeast which gives
the drink its toxic effects, and this is the same process used by alcohol manufacturers even today.
Wikipedia Encyclopedia says
“
Winemaking, or vinification, is the process of wine production, from the selection of grapes to the bottling of
finished wine.
After the harvest, the grapes are crushed and allowed to ferment…During this primary fermentation, which often takes
between one and two weeks, yeast converts most of the sugars in the grape juice into ethanol (alcohol).
source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winemaking
”
Answering-Ansar says
“
We are quoting from Ahl’ul Sunnah’s classical work Riyadh al Nadira Volume 2 page 351:
“Whilst on his deathbed, Umar became deeply affected by the wound and his physician asked Umar ‘Which alcohol
would you like to drink?’ Umar said ‘alcohol called nabidh is my preferred choice. This drink was then administered to
Umar”.
Riyadh al Nadira Volume 2 page 351
”
It should be noted that Answering-Ansar “tweaked” the translation in order to make it sound like they wanted it to.
However, the point is that the physician asked Umar what alcohol he wanted to use in order to dull his pain. To this,
Umar replied that the only “drink” he drank was simple grape-juice. Umar clearly rejects the physician’s offer to
administer a pain-killer of alcohol, and says he just wants grape-juice instead.
Answering-Ansar then claims that the Prophet forbade Nabidh:
Answering-Ansar says
“
There is no way that Ahl’ul Sunnah can claim that ‘Nabidh’ does not constitute alcohol, since Rasulullah (s) had
specifically referred to this as haraam. We read in Sunan Abu Daud Book 26, Number 3707:
“Narrated Abu Hurayrah:
I knew that the Apostle of Allah (saww) used to keep fast. I waited for the day when he did not fast to present him the
drink (nabidh), which I made in a pumpkin. I then brought it to him while it fermented. He said: Throw it to this
wall, for this is a drink of the one who does not believe in Allah and the Last Day”.
”
I have bolded the words “while it fermented.” The Prophet rejected the drink because he noticed fermentation.
Otherwise, the Prophet commonly drank Nabidh which was not fermented yet. There are many narrations to this effect:
In Sahih Muslim (3748), it is narrated by Anas: “I served honey, juice (Nabidh), water, and milk in my cup for Allah’s
Messenger to drink from.”
In another narration also in Sahih Muslim (3747), it is narrated by Sahl bin Sa’d: “…Allah’s Messenger then set forth on
that day along with his Companions to the Saqifah of Banu Sa’idah and sat there. He (the Messenger) then said to Sahl:
‘Serve us to drink.’ He (Sahl) said: ‘I brought out for them this bowl with juice (Nabidh) and served them.’”
Sahl bin Sa’d narrated in Sahih Muslim (3746): “Abu Usaid Al-Sa’idi invited Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him)
to his wedding feast, and his wife had been serving them on that day while yet a bride. Sahl said: ‘Do you know what she
served as drink to Allah’s Messenger?’ She had soaked the dates in water during the night in a big bowl, and when he
(the Holy Prophet) had eaten food she served him this drink (Nabidh).”
Based on this, we can only conclude that Nabidh is a harmless juice made out of either grape-juice or date-juice. It is
commonly known that Nabidh is not forbidden unless it ferments and thereby becomes toxic. The Shia of AnsweringAnsar are simply preying on the ignorance of its English-speaking audiences. This was a very deceptive argument, and it
really brings to question the credibility of Answering-Ansar who use such dishonest arguments. Perhaps it is that they
enjoy doing Taqiyyah (deceit) since it is part of their faith to do so.
Reply 23 entitled “do not marry your daughter to a ‘Mukhnaath’”
Here, Answering-Ansar makes the inflammatory claim that Umar bin Khattab was a homosexual, and they say that this
is based on some Sunni “schools of thought.” I wonder: which schools of thought are these? I certainly haven’t heard of a
single Sunni school of thought that claims that Umar was a homosexual. And Answering-Ansar certainly didn’t mention
the names of any such groups. Instead, they simply went off on a diatribe without any references whatsoever, claiming
that some Sunnis believe Umar to be a homosexual. No Sunni would ever think such a thing; it is as ludicrous as a Shia
believing that Ali was a homosexual, and it is just as offensive. I kindly ask Answering-Ansar to show restraint in the
future and to instead display academic professionalism in its articles.
Umar bin Khattab was never a homosexual, not before he accepted Islam nor after it. He was married to many different
women, so how can the Shia claim this? In fact, Umar was one of the harshest critics of homosexuality, and he was of the
opinion that homosexuals should be stoned to death. Answering-Ansar does not provide a single Sunni reference–let
alone a Shia one–that even hints at the idea that Umar bin Khattab was a homosexual.
Answering-Ansar says
“
it is indeed deeply insulting to entertain the thought that Imam ‘Ali (as) would marry his daughter to a man with
homosexual tendencies, as was, according to certain Sunnis, the case with ‘Umar.
”
Which Sunnis would that be? The make-believe ones that are a figment of Answering-Ansar’s imagination?
Answering-Ansar says
“
While this supposed ‘Sunna’ or ‘Practice’ of ‘Umar undoubtedly exists as a school of thought, one that lies just
beneath the surface in acceptable Sunni muslim society
”
Which school of thought would that be? Oh wait, it lies just beneath the surface…meaning it exists only in the minds of
Answering-Ansar.
Answering-Ansar says
“
The Sunni belief that ‘Umar was homosexual appeases homosexual muslim men, reducing their guilt, and enables
them to continue with their addiction. It lets them deceive themselves that they are not going to burn in Hell for their
‘addiction’. The implicit words of the Qur’an which forbid this practice are ignored or twisted out of context, or not
mentioned all, in favour of the ‘Sunna’ of ‘Umar.
”
It is the belief of the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah that homosexuality is an abomination and those who engage in
homosexual acts will burn in Hell-Fire. Answering-Ansar is really destroying its credibility by making such ridicolous
claims.
Answering-Ansar says
“
In short, it is impossible that a woman from such the pure / chaste family of Rasulullah (s) would be married to such
an individual. The marriage just didn’t happen. Thus, a further evidence against it happening is the fact that a school of
Sunni thought accepts ‘Umar as a homosexual. Thus he could not have married the daughter of ‘Ali (as).
”
In short, Answering-Ansar has run out of arguments so it has gotten quite desperate by making such outlandish claims
that Umar was a homosexual despite the fact that Umar married many women and had a love for them. All of these
antics on the part of Answering-Ansar are an attempt to divert attention away from the bottom line, which is that the
Shia have a Hadith in their own book, Al-Kafi–which is considered the most authentic book of the sayings of the
Infallible Imams–which documents the marriage of Umar bin Khattab to Umm Kulthoom bint Ali.
Most of the arguments in this section of Answering-Ansar’s article don’t even belong in this section, and are simply
recycled arguments that they already used in Chapter 3 entitled “Our objections to the Sunni traditions.” It is a common
practise in debate that when you are losing, simply go off on a tangent so that people forget what the entire point of the
argument was. This is what Answering-Ansar has attempted to do in their section about the first Shia tradition (and you
will notice that it talks about anything but the first Shia tradition).
Response to Chapter 9
Response to Chapter 9 entitled “The second Shi’a tradition”
What is interesting here is that the Answering-Ansar team did not even attempt to question the Sahih nature of the
Isnad. Not a single argument here questions the narrators, and it is thus an established fact (explicitly stated by Ansar’s
article which quotes the Shia Rijjal books, and implicitly stated by Answering-Ansar’s failure to address the Isnad) that
what we have here is a rock-solid Shia Hadith, which is considered Sahih by Shia standards. Hence, there is no way that
the Shia can just discount it.
As always, Answering-Ansar has repeated and recycled arguments, and so I will answer them in groups.
Replies 1, 3, 7, and 11
Here, Answering-Ansar is claiming that the Hadith makes Umar bin Khattab look evil. Therefore, reasons AnsweringAnsar, how could the Sunnis claim that it is Sahih when all it does is condemn the very Umar bin Khattab that they are
trying to defend?
Answering-Ansar says
“
It is indeed incredible that Afriki has cited a reference that he does not accept. There is no way that he would accept
that Imam ‘Ali (as) rejected Umar’s offer and then Umar threatened to bring false witnesses and have the hand of Imam
‘Ali (as) amputated! If Afriki is citing evidence that he himself does not believe then why is he producing it as evidence to
support his case?
”
Answering-Ansar is missing the point of the entire debate here. The Sunnis (including the Ansar team and Muhammad
al-Afriki) never furthered the claim that the Shia traditionists believed that Ali gave his daughter willingly to Umar.
Rather, the point of this entire debate (and of the Ansar article) was to establish the classical Shia position. The classical
Shia position of the Traditionists (akhbariyun), including Imam Al-Kulayni, was that the marriage of Umar and Umm
Kulthoom was a fact, but it was a marriage conducted out of force.
What we have established is that the classical Shia position is 100% at variance with the modern day Shia propagandists
(such as the Answering-Ansar team) who claim that the marriage simply did not take place. How could the marriage be
forced if it never happened at all!? Truly this is a contradiction. We are simply proving that the marriage was an
accepted fact amongst the classical Shia scholars, even those who were in contact with the Hidden Imam himself.
Under what conditions the marriage took place, that part is debateable. Of course, the Shia versions will always portray
Umar as evil, oppressive, and inhumane. On the other hand, the Sunni versions of history will portray Umar as
righteous, just, and compassionate. Now it is upto the reader to accept which of these two goggles to view the events of
history with. If we accept the “Shia vision” then we see that Ali is portrayed as a coward: how could it be that the great
Ali, with all his courage and bravery on the battlefield, would give his daughter in marriage to Umar, the man who
supposedly killed Ali’s wife (the Prophet’s grand-daughter) and unborn child?
Why didn’t Ali fight Umar and defend Umm Kulthoom, who was the Prophet’s grand-daughter? For that matter, why
didn’t Ali raise his sword to defend Fatima and his unborn child? The Shia version of history portrays Ali as a coward;
even a man of low status would have enough courage not to give his daughter in marriage to a murderer and a pervert.
Would any of the Shia propagandists (the same ones who argue with us) give their daughters in marriage to the man
who killed their wives and children? Would any man give his daughter to a man who is a child molestor and pervert, as
the Shia claim that Umar is?
The truth is that the Shia version of history is false. Umar was not a murderer nor was he a pervert or any of the other
horrendous things they accuse him of. Umar bin Khattab was a man of excellent character, and the evidence is that Ali
would never give his daughter to anyone who did not possess an excellent character. To think otherwise would demean
the status of Ali to a position lower than most of us today, as none of us would give our daughters in marriage to evil and
sinful men. It is upto the reader to accept the Ahlus Sunnah version of history (which maintains Ali’s courage and
bravery), or the Shia version (which makes Ali appear cowardly and refers to his daughter as a “furuj” or vagina).
The bottom line is that Umar and Umm Kulthoom were married, and this is established by both the classical Shia and
classical Sunni positions. The modern day Sunni position is in conformity with their classical opinion, and thus it
remains relevant. However, the modern day Shia position is 100% at variance with the classical Shia position and is
therefore irrelevant. In conclusion, we have only two acceptable options: the classical Shia or classical Sunni positions,
and it is upto the reader to decide how courageous Ali ibn Abi Talib was. The event of Umar and Umm Kulthoom’s
marriage is an established fact, and the way that the historians portray that marriage is of course going to be biased
depending on who writes it. Thus, the Shia traditionists, while accepting the marriage, added their own coloring to the
event by claiming that it must have been a marriage undertaken out of fear and force. The basis of Ansar’s article was
not that the classical Shia accepted the good character of Umar but rather that they accepted the marriage as a fact and
rationalized it by inventing the idea that it was a marriage undertaken out of force. Answering-Ansar has failed to
understand the nature of the debate.
Replies 2, 5, and 11
In a nutshell, all three of these responses say the exact same thing: Answering-Ansar is arguing that the Hadith is not
talking about that Umm Kulthoom but rather another Umm Kulthoom. I have already dealt with this absurd
proposition here: A Different Umm Kulthoom? I have responded to the issues about Umm Kulthoom’s age in my
Response to Chapter 2 entitled “Our objections to the Sunni traditions.”
Answering-Ansar says
“
In fact the tradition is so vague it does not even mention UMME KALTHUM by name, so on what basis has Afriki
reached his conclusion?
”
Actually, Imam Al-Kulayni’s foot-note on the same page clearly says that he was talking about Umm Kulthoom bint Ali
ibn Abi Talib and Umar bin Khattab.
Al-Shia.com says
“
‫ماف عل وف عل ماق ال عمر ف قال او ال ف رده خ الف ته زمن ف ي عمر ال يه خط بها ق د ال س الم ع ل يه ال مؤم ن ين ام ير ب نت هى هذه ك ل ثوم ام‬
Translation: “[Regarding] Umm Khulthum, who is the daughter of Ameer al-Mu’mineen Ali, Umar proposed to Ali for
her hand in marriage during his [Umar’s] caliphate, and at first Ali refused him. So then Umar said what he said, and
did what he did [i.e compelled Ali by words and force].”
source: http://www.al-shia.com/html/ara/books/al-kafi-5/213.html
”
To add more comedy to the Answering-Ansar argument that it was a different Umm Kulthoom, we see the
inconsistencies in their rebuttal.
Answering-Ansar says
“
UMME KALTHUM here refers to UMME KALTHUM binte Junth
”
This is odd, because earlier Answering-Ansar claimed that the Shia Hadith were talking about Umm Kulthoom bint ABU
BAKR and not Umm Kulthoom bint JUNTH.
Answering-Ansar says
“
We proved earlier on that the Umme Kalthum who was married to ‘Umar was the daughter of Abu Bakr, NOT the
daughter of Fatima (as)…In this tradition the Umme Kalthum (as) that Imam Ja’far al Sadiq (as) was referring to
was…Umme Kalthum binte Abu Bakr
”
And then elsewhere, Answering-Ansar claims that the Hadith refers to Umm Kulthoom bint Jarweela:
Answering-Ansar says
“
“People have assumed that Umar married Umme Kalthum binte Fatima, rather he married Umme Kalthum binte
Jarweela Khuzeema”
Tareekh al Qum Shaykh Saduq, by Muhammad Nishapur page 193, published in Tehran
”
So basically, this second Shia Hadith refers to Umm Kulthoom bint JUNTH, whereas the first Shia Hadith refers to
Umm Kulthoom bint ABU BAKR, or maybe Umm Kulthoom bint JARWEELA. But God forbid that any of them actually
refer to Ali’s own daughter! For some odd reason, Umar is threatening Ali for him to give the daughter of another man.
Why on Earth wouldn’t Umar threaten that girl’s father? Why would he find the need to threaten Ali, unless it was his
daughter? Answering-Ansar is really trying for the reader to throw common sense out the door, and to instead believe
that sometimes it is one Umm Kulthoom, then another one, and then another one…perhaps it was even Umm Kulthoom
bint Mickey Mouse, so long as it is not the only Umm Kulthoom that makes logical sense and the same one that Imam
Al-Kulayni specifically said it was.
Reply 4 Entitled “Personal viewpoints do not constitute proof”
I don’t really understand this argument. It is not a personal viewpoint that this Hadith refers to the marriage of Umar
and Umm Kulthoom. In fact, the compiler of the Hadith himself said it was in reference to them. Imam Al-Kulayni
clearly mentioned it in his footnote that it was in reference to Umar bin Khattab and Umm Kulthoom bint Ali.
Maybe what Answering-Ansar is trying to say in this argument is that no matter what evidence we bring, it will not
suffice because evidence is irrelevant and only the views of the Shia matter. Translation: “We are always right; you are
always wrong, and evidence does not matter in debate.”
Reply 6 Entitled “Imam ‘Ali (as) rejected Umar’s offer”
Yes, at first Ali ibn Abi Talib rejected Umar bin Khattab’s proposal. But what was the reason? It was clearly because in
his mind, he viewed his daughter to be too young. It had nothing at all to do with Umar. In fact, Ali approved of Umar,
so much so that he eventually agreed and married his daughter to him, despite his reservations about Umm Kulthoom’s
young age.
Reply 8 Entitled “Afriki’s claim cannot be proven from the text”
Answering-Ansar says
“
In the fourth and final portion of this hadith, we read as follows:
‘Abbas thereupon came to ‘Ali and informed him of what had transpired. He asked ‘Ali to put the matter in his hands,
and ‘Ali complied.”
We would urge our readers to carefully read through this hadith from start through to its conclusion, does it inform us
that Imam ‘Ali (as) married his daughter Umme Kalthum to Umar? Proof of any argument can be determined from the
words that are used, if the words are clear and a narration is complete. Now does this tradition cited by Afriki have a
clear ending from where we can conclude what happened? Once Imam ‘Ali (as) hands his daughter over to Abbas (ra)
what happens next? The hadith does not state that Abbas then married the girl to Umar. There is no reference to any
“Nikah” taking place between Umar and Umme Kalthum (as). Neither do we learn of a public Nikah with multiple
attendees, nor a small private Nikah with Abbas present as Umme Kalthum’s witness.
”
Answering-Ansar is basically asking the reader to throw out reason when reading the Hadith. Let us break the Shia
Hadith into parts:
1. Umar asks Ali for his daughter in marriage
2. Ali says no because of her age
3. Umar gets furious and threatens Ali with harm if he does not give him his daughter
4. Ali complies
Hmmm…it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to deduce that Ali married his daughter to Umar. Now Answering-Ansar is
asking for the details of the wedding, how many guests were invited, what the food was like, etc…but this is all not
necessary. The Hadith is simply narrating the event in which Ali complied with Umar’s demands.
Answering-Ansar says
“
Nothing from this al Kafi tradition points to a marriage taking place, so would like to ask this Nasibi ‘how have you
arrived at this conclusion?’
”
How about from the title of the narration?
http://www.al-shia.com/html/ara/books/al-kafi-5/213.html
On the top of this page, we find the words written:
Al-Shia.com says
“
‫[ ك ل ثوم ام ت زوي ج ب اب‬Translation: Chapter of Umm Kulthoom’s Marriage]
source: http://www.al-shia.com/html/ara/books/al-kafi-5/213.html
”
Emphasis on the word “marriage.”
Reply 9 Entitled “Historical precedent refutes Afriki’s false claim”
Here, Answering-Ansar makes the claim that the Prophet would not have allowed the marriage of Umar to Umm
Kulthoom based on age gap. Unfortunately for the Shia, this is simply contradictory to the Prophet’s Sunnah. The
Prophet was fifty-three years old when he married Aisha when she was only six years old! Suddenly, the Shia argument
loses air.
As for Fatima, Abu Bakr and Umar asked for her hand in marriage. The Prophet said she is too young to get married
now. Answering-Ansar is trying to say that she was too young to marry Abu Bakr and Umar, but this is the Shia’s own
spin on things. The Prophet said that Fatima is too young to marry, period. The Prophet told them that it was too soon
to decide who is to marry Fatima, because the Prophet was waiting for Ilham (divine inspiration) as to whom she should
marry. This is stated in “Sharh al-Mishkaat” (Dar al-Fikr ed. 10:476-477) that she had been asked in marriage by Abu
Bakr and Umar at an early time, and that the Prophet was still waiting for specific heavenly revelation concerning her
marriage. This is confirmed by the other version of the proposal of Abu Bakr and Umar, in which the Prophet replies:
“The qada’ [concerning this decision] has not been revealed yet.”
Even if it were that the Prophet did not want to marry Fatima to a man who was much older, then this was his personal
decision for only her, and it was not an all-encompassing rule. For example, I would only marry my daughter to a doctor,
but this does not mean that I say that it is obligatory to do so; it is simply my personal preference. As such, a personal
preference cannot be used as a precedent, since the Prophet himself married women with different age gaps, including
Khadijah who was twenty years his senior and Aisha who was forty-seven years his junior.
Reply 10 Entitled “Ahl’ul Sunnah aqeedah requires two witnesses to a wedding”
This argument has absolutely nothing to do with the second Shia tradition, and it belongs in Answering-Ansar’s chapter
entitled “Our objections to the Sunni traditions.” It is my opinion that Answering-Ansar is trying once again to distract
the reader from the Shia Hadith and instead to focus on other side issues.
Answering-Ansar says
“
Produce us evidence that will shed light to the following:
When was the declaration for the suspicious Nikah made?
Who were the witnesses to the Nikah?
The Ahl’ul Sunnah will never be able to reply to these two questions, since the identity of the witnesses and the
declaration can be located in any of their authoritative books, and it is on this basis that we assert that this entire event
is a concoction.
”
Actually, there are Sunni reports–quoted by Answering-Ansar themselves–that indicate that Hasan and Hussain were
the two witnesses.
Answering-Ansar says
“
“Ali asked Hasan and Husain to marry off their sister to Umar…Hasan (as) and Husayn then married Umme
Kalthum to ‘Umar” (as quoted by Answering-Ansar, Sawaiqh al Muhriqa, Page 155)
”
There are many narrations that talk about Umar being married to Umm Kulthoom. Maybe there are not Hadith about
what the dinner served at the Nikah was, or if there were attractive girls at the wedding, or if the music was good, etc.
Why in the world would there be a need for any of this? A historian would simply say “Umar and Umm Kulthoom were
married”, not “Umar and Umm Kulthoom had a Nikah ceremony on such-and-such date and so-and-so was there and it
was a great blast!”
There were many Sahabah who got married to women, and yet we don’t find any Hadith that talk exactly about the
Nikah day, the very Nikah moment, and other trivial details. Does this mean that they were not married to their wives?
Surely, the Shia propagandist is getting desperate. There are so many Hadith and narrations that confirm that Umar and
Umm Kulthoom got married, that the event is considered Mutawattir (narrated by so many people and so many
narrations that it cannot be false) and I do not know how the Shia can use this argument of theirs. There could not
possibly be more proof of the marriage if we look at the books of the Ahlus Sunnah, and we even see so many narrations
quoted by Answering-Ansar themselves!
Response to Chapter 10
Response to Chapter 10 Entitled “The third and fourth Shi’a tradition”
For once, Answering-Ansar actually makes the attempt of addressing the Isnad. It should be noted that AnsweringAnsar only attempted to weaken Hisham ibn Salim in the first and second narrations, but then they failed in this task
because I showed how Al-Islam.org called Hisham ibn Salim an “authority” figure of Hadith. Thus, I have established
that the first two narrations are Sahih, and this would be enough to conclude the debate since the third and fourth
narrations are simply redundant and reinforce the first two Hadith.
Having said that, let us examine the haphazard attempt made by Answering-Ansar in casting doubt on the third and
fourth narrations.
Humayd ibn Ziyad
Answering-Ansar says
“
Interestingly is the fact that our great Shi’a scholar Allamah Hullee (ra) writing on this individual [Humayd ibn
Ziyad] deemed him “Aam” (common) that in Shi’a circles means non Shi’a (Khulasathul al Kuwwal page 219). If Nasibi
will take issue that a Sunni taught Kulayni then we shoiuld point out that your Imam Bukhari also had teachers that
were Shi’a. The views of a non-Shi’a have no value to us.
”
I opened up Allamah Hilli’s book, and far from calling him “aam”, Allamah Hilli actually calls Humayd ibn Ziyad an
“aalim” (scholar). In fact, we find that Allamah Hilli also says that Humayd ibn Ziyad is “Thiqah” (trustworthy) on page
129 of “al-Khulasah” by Allamah Hilli (the same book quoted by Answering-Ansar). He also cites the opinion of Najashi
who declared Humayd ibn Ziyad to be “Thiqah.”
This is a blatant lie of Answering-Ansar when they claim that Allamah Hilli deemed Humayd ibn Ziyad to be a non-Shia.
In fact, we ask our readers to actually open up the book that Answering-Ansar cited and we find that it is filled with
praises of Humayd and calls him an “aalim” and not a non-Shia at all.
As Answering-Ansar grudgingly admitted, Humayd ibn Ziyad was the teacher of Imam Al-Kulayni. So how then can
Answering-Ansar claim that Humayd was a Sunni? That is non-sensical. Answering-Ansar has tried to justify this by
claiming that Imam Bukhari was taught by Shia scholars. But no knowledgeable or rational person can accept this
proposition. Yes, there are some Sunnis who believe that Jafar as-Sadiq might have taught Imam Bukhari, but all Sunnis
believe that Imam Jafar was Sunni! We revere Jafar as-Sadiq just like we revere Ali ibn abi Talib. The Shia believe that
the Prophet, Ali, Fatima, Hasan, Hussain, Muhammad Baqir, Jafar as-Sadiq, Salman Al-Farsi, and many others were
Shia, but this is something that a Sunni would never accept! All of these individuals were Sunni, and this is why we find
there to be no problem with Imam Jafar teaching Imam Bukhari if indeed he did. The Shia claiming that Jafar as-Sadiq
was Shia is just like they claim that Ali ibn Abi Talib was Shia.
It is inconceivable that the teacher of Imam Kulayni was Sunni, or that the teacher of Imam Bukhari was Shia.
Therefore, the fact that Humayd ibn Ziyad was the teacher of Imam Al-Kulayni negates Answering-Ansar’s claims that
he was a Sunni. If Answering-Ansar could find even one place in which Humayd ibn Ziyad is properly condemned as a
non-Shia, then surely they would have provided it. The one source they cite is a lie, for Allamah Hullee praised Humayd
ibn Ziyad and called him an “aalim.”
The truth is that Humayd ibn Ziyad was the teacher of Imam Al-Kulayni, and this just shows how immensely reliable he
is to the Shia. If he was a reliable enough source for Imam Al-Kulayni, then surely he should be reliable enough for
Answering-Ansar. We find that no reliable Shia book of Rijal questions Humayd ibn Ziyad.
To completely end all debate on this issue, we find that Al-Islam.org affirms the reliability of Humayd ibn Ziyad and
narrates a Hadith (which is considered Sahih) via him. Based on the narrators, an Isnad can be deemed as munqati’
(broken) or muttasil (continuous). Ibn al-Salah defines a Sahih Hadith by saying: “A Sahih Hadith is the one which has a
continuous (muttasil) Isnad.” It should also be noted that this is Ayatollah Khomeini’s work “Forty Hadith” translated in
English on Al-Islam.org; this in itself is enough to confirm that Humayd ibn Ziyad is considered reliable, because–as
Ayatollah Khomeini clearly said–his book “Forty Hadith” contains only Sahih Hadith “narrated through the Prophet and
his Ahl al-Bayt.”
Al-Islam.org says
“
Through my continuous [muttasil] sanad going back to the proof of the sect and its leader, Muhammad ibn Ya’qub
al-Kulayni - may God bless his soul - from Humayd ibn Ziyad, from al-Hasan ibn Muhammad ibn Sama’ah, from
Wuhayb ibn Hafs, from Abu Bash, from Abu Ja’far (A) that he said:
source: http://www.al-islam.org/fortyhadith/22.htm
”
We see that this is another evidence in support of the claim that Humayd is considered reliable by the Shia. Why would
Humayd ibn Ziyad be reliable enough that the above Hadith from Al-Islam.org could be considered Sahih, but suddenly
another Hadith cannot be Sahih based on the same Humayd ibn Ziyad? And more importantly, Ayatollah Khomeini’s
famous book “Forty Hadith” only contains Sahih Hadith with reliable chains of transmission. Therefore, there is no way
that Answering-Ansar can doubt Humayd ibn Ziyad, unless they doubt the words of Ayatollah Khomeini who was the
sole representative of the Hidden Imam.
Hisham bin Salim
Ansar.org says
“
Hisham ibn Salim is credited with having been a student of Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq. His reliability as a transmitter of
hadith is attested to by the emphatic statement of al-’Allamah and an-Najashi: “thiqatun thiqah” (reliable, and once
again reliable). (Jami’ ar-Ruwat, vol. 2 p. 315)
”
Answering-Ansar says
“
If Afriki really wants to convince the Shi’a his first approach, then he should cite our MOST AUTENTIC book of
Rijjal, which is not Jami’ ar Ruwat but Rijjal al Kashi. When we want to know the authenticity of a narrator this is our
first port of call. When we examine Rijjal al Kashi we learn that:
“He (Hisham) was an adherent of the “fasid al aqeedah” and believed that you physically see Allah (swt)”
Rijjal Kashi page 184
The fasid al aqeedah is a break away group from the Shi’a and their beliefs were so deviant that they opposed
mainstream Shi’aism. The Shi’a concept of Allah (swt) is that He (swt) cannot be seen / has no physical attributes and to
believe otherwise is kufr. Anyone that holds a viewpoint that He (swt) can be seen has deviated from the Shi’a path and
hence any hadith narrated by him is to be rejected.
”
Here, the kids at Answering-Ansar decided to become scholars themselves and declare one of their most reliable
narrators of Hadith to be unreliable and even outside the folds of Shi’ism. In fact, there is no such reliable report about
Hisham ibn Salim believing in the idea that “you could see Allah.” The report that Hisham ibn Salim said anything of
this sort was deemed false by the Grand Ayatollah of the Shia. Let us see what the Grand Ayatollah Al-Khoei has to say
on Hisham ibn Salim (instead of the Answering-Ansar high school and college students).
In “Mujam Rijal Al-Hadith” (Vol.20, p.325), Grand Ayatollah Al-Khoei said with regards to Hisham bin Salim:
“In his Adadiya treatise, Shiekh Mufid counted him amongst the prominent figures, the leaders, those from whom
(judgments concerning) Halal and Haram are taken, as well as Fatwa and Rulings, those who cannot be criticized
for anything, and those to which there is no way of condemnation.”
Al-Khoei related the narration by which Hisham has been criticized in Rijjal Al-Kashi and commented:
“I say, this narration proves that Hisham ibn Salim was condemned, however, because of its weakness it cannot be
depended upon. A similar thing has been reported about Hisham ibn Al-Hakam.”
This is the ruling on the authority of Hisham ibn Salim and it is the accepted position of the Maraje’ (top scholars) of the
Shia. So how then can Answering-Ansar question his reliability? It is indeed a sign of their desperation to cast doubt on
even one of the narrators in this Hadith. First, they tried to cast doubt on their most reliable book Al-Kafi, and then they
tried to cast doubt on one of their most reliable Hadith narrators…all of this in an attempt to further their argument
against those whom they so flipplantly call “Nasibis.”
As can be seen from the Answering-Ansar article, they were unable to find an authoratative Shia text which stated that
Hisham ibn Salim was not reliable to narrate Hadith; the only quote they could find was one that questioned a specific
belief that he had. So Answering-Ansar, unable to find a text that deemed Hisham ibn Salim as unauthentic, had to use
what little they had against him and then jump to the conclusion that having one errant belief makes a person
unreliable, a view that is not held by any of the Shia scholars.
To completely negate the Answering-Ansar claim, we shall quote from Al-Islam.org, which is the most reliable Shia
website available. It is a site made by Shia scholars, and I doubt any Shia could take the word of Answering-Ansar over
that of Al-Islam.org. We find then that Al-Islam.org actually declares that Hisham ibn Salim is an authority of
Hadith.
Al-Islam.org says
“
There is the narration reported by several authorities including Hisham ibn Salim, Hammad and others that….
source: http://www.al-islam.org/al-tawhid/sunnah/index.htm
”
And then Al-Islam.org narrates a Hadith which was narrated through him. Therefore, we see that Al-Islam.org finds him
not only a reliable source of Hadith, but also finds him an authority figure. It is strange then that Answering-Ansar
would reject their own authority figures, all in an attempt to bolster their polemical stance against the Sunnis. This is a
very irresponsible attitude of the Answering-Ansar high school and college students.
Ibn Sama‘ah
Answering-Ansar says
“
According to Rijjal al Kashi he (Hasan bin Muhammad bin Sama’ah) was:
“An unreliable adherent of the Wakfee madhab”
Rijjal Kashi page 293
Followers of the Wakfee madhab have been condemned by the Shi’a Imams as Kaffir and Zindeeq, one can for example
consult the words of Imam Reza (as) in Mukees ad’a raraya fi ilm al riwaya page 83
“An adherent of the wakfee al madhab is an individual opposed to the truth, should he remain on this deviant path until
his die, his ultimate resting place shall be in Hell”.
These words of the Imam are similarly worded in Rijjal Maqqani Volume 1 page 378
”
Answering-Ansar has tried to make the claim that being a Waqfi means that a narrator automatically becomes
unreliable. But this is not what the Shia Rijal critics have said. Although having such a belief is incorrect, a person can
still very much be reliable according to Shia criterion. Even though Ibn Sama’ah had the beliefs of a Waqfi, that does not
automatically make him unreliable according to the Shia rules of Rijal. There are many other narrators in the Shia texts
of Rijal that have been declared Waqfi and Thiqah (trustworthy) at the same time. Similarly, the pioneers of the Shia
science of narrators have also declared Ibn Sama’ah as reliable while recognizing his Waqfi beliefs.
Ahmad ibn ‘Ali al-Najashi, who is the author of one of the most earliest and reliable works on Shia narrators, has said
regarding Ibn Sama’ah:
“…a prolific narrator of hadith, a jurist (faqih), trustworthy (thiqah)…” (Rijal al-Najashi, p.40)
Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Tusi, the author of two of the Kutub al-Arba’ah and the one whose editorial revision of Rijal
al-Kashi the Ayatollahs use today, has himself said in his independent work on narrators of Hadith:
“…He is good (jayyid) in his authorships, pure in jurisprudence, fair in his criticisms…” (al-Fehrist, p.103)
Therefore, if Answering-Ansar has quoted Rijal Al-Kashi, let them at least tell us the opinion of Al-Tusi, who is the editor
of Rijal Al-Kashi. Although Al-Tusi (the editor of Rijal Al-Kashi) acknowledges that Ibn Sama’ah had Waqfi beliefs, he
still deemed his writings to be “jayyid” (good).
And we have already seen that in the Shia book of Rijal “Jami’ ar-Ruwat”, Ibn Sama’ah is declared: “kathir al-hadith,
faqihun thiqah” (a prolific narrator of hadith, a jurist, reliable). (Jami’ ar-Ruwat, vol. 1 p. 225)
Another Shia heavyweight who affirmed Ibn Sama’ah’s reliability is Ibn Mutahhar al-Hullee, who the Shia call the
Mujaddid (reviver of Islam) of his century. The Shia consider Allamah Hullee to be an expert in the field of narrators. In
fact, Answering-Ansar has earlier cited al-Hullee’s position on Humayd ibn Ziyad and used it as a basis for argument;
therefore, there can be no question on al-Hullee’s authoratative nature to the Shia. Let us then see what Allamah Hullee
says regarding Ibn Sama’ah, in the very same book used by Answering-Ansar earlier:
“…He [ibn Sama’ah] is Waqfi in doctrine, but nonetheless he is good (jayyid) in his authorships, pure in jurisprudence,
fair in criticisms, a prolific author, a jurist, trustworthy…” (al-Khulasah, p.333)
All these experts of the Shia science of narrators have declared Ibn Sama’ah as trustworthy while accepting him to be a
Waqfi. The kids at Answering-Ansar are flouting their scholarship when they claim that being a Waqfi automatically
means that a narrator is not reliable in terms of narration. The truth is that Answering-Ansar could not find a single
word against the reliability of Ibn Sama’ah so they therefore had to use what they could against him hoping that nobody
would see the dramatic jump in assumptions made by Answering-Ansar, a jump which is not sanctioned by the Shia
scholarship.
To add yet another point which affirms Ibn Sama’ah’s character in the eyes of the Shia, we see that Al-Tusi declares in
his book al-Fehrist (p.103) that Ibrahim ibn Muhammad al-‘Alawi prayed over the body of Ibn Sama’ah. Ibrahim ibn
Muhammad al-‘Alawi is revered by the Shia as one from the pure progeny of the Prophet who traces his lineage to the
people “created from Allah’s Light.” We see proof of this in Rijal al-Tusi (p.409) in which Ibrahim ibn Muhammad al‘Alawi’s lineage traces back to Ali ibn Abi Talib himself. If Ibn Sama’ah were destined to Hell-Fire, then why would such
a great person (according to the Shia) pray over his body?
Much in the same way that Answering-Ansar has cast doubt on Hisham ibn Salim (despite the fact that the more
authoratative Al-Islam.org affirms him as an “authority” figure), we find that Answering-Ansar has taken a similar
approach to Ibn Sama’ah. Again, Al-Islam.org considers him reliable and narrates many Hadith through him.
Al-Islam.org affirms the reliability of Ibn Sama’ah and narrates a Hadith (which is considered Sahih) via him. As we
have stated earlier, based on the narrators, an Isnad can be deemed as munqati’ (broken) or muttasil (continuous). Ibn
al-Salah defines a Sahih Hadith by saying: “A Sahih Hadith is the one which has a continuous (muttasil) Isnad.” It
should also be noted that this is Ayatollah Khomeini’s work “Forty Hadith” translated in English on Al-Islam.org; this in
itself is enough to confirm that Ibn Sama’ah is considered reliable, because–as Ayatollah Khomeini clearly said–his
book “Forty Hadith” contains only Sahih Hadith “narrated through the Prophet and his Ahl al-Bayt.”
Al-Islam.org says
“
Through my continuous [muttasil] sanad going back to the proof of the sect and its leader, Muhammad ibn Ya’qub
al-Kulayni - may God bless his soul - from Humayd ibn Ziyad, from al-Hasan ibn Muhammad ibn Sama’ah, from
Wuhayb ibn Hafs, from Abu Bash, from Abu Ja’far (A) that he said:
source: http://www.al-islam.org/fortyhadith/22.htm
”
The Sanad is affirmed as continuous (muttasil), which means in the Hadith sciences that every chain of narrators is
reliable and affirmed, including Ibn Sama’ah. Again, we find that Answering-Ansar has taken a position that is not in
conformity with their scholars in order only that their polemical position against the Sunni is bolstered. This is a very
irresponsible attitude. Why would Ibn Sama’ah be reliable enough that the above Hadith from Al-Islam.org could be
considered Sahih, but suddenly another Hadith cannot be Sahih based on the same Ibn Sama’ah? Should we take the
opinion of Ayatollah Khomeini (who affirmed Ibn Sama’ah’s reliability) or the position of Answering-Ansar (which has
no basis in Shia scholarship)?
The position that Ibn Sama’ah is reliable is backed by what Ansar.org already mentioned, namely that the Shia book of
Rijal, Jami’ ar-Ruwat, declares that Ibn Sama’ah was “kathir al-hadith, faqihun thiqah” (a prolific narrator of Hadith, a
jurist, reliable). It is difficult to take a different position when we consider that he was one of the foremost Shia fuqaha
of Kufa.
Sulayman ibn Khalid
Answering-Ansar says
“
Ansar.org states:
Sulayman ibn Khalid is mentioned as having been a student of Imam al-Baqir. His death is recorded to have caused
Imam Ja’far extreme grief. He is universally acclaimed as “thiqah” (reliable). (Jami’ ar-Ruwat, vol. 1 p. 378)
Many people were students of Imam Muhammad Baqir (as) including Sunni Imams such as Imam Abu Hanifa, this does
not automatically make such a person reliable. If the Imam (as) was aggrieved by his death then it does not mean that it
was because he deemed him to be a reliable narrator, grief could be for a number of reasons, do we not have friends that
for example are Non Muslim? Are we not heartbroken when they die? Grief may simply have been on account of the
cordial relations that existed between the two men.
”
Earlier, Answering-Ansar claimed that one of Imam Al-Kulayni’s teachers was a Sunni. And now they are claiming that
one of his students was a Sunni. This is like an Ayatollah being taught from a Deobandi or Salafi scholar. It is an absurd
proposition. As their evidence again, Answering-Ansar states that Imam Muhammad Baqir was a Shia and his student
was Imam Bukhari. But all Sunnis believe that Muhammad Baqir was a Sunni, and not Shia. Like I said earlier, we
revere Jafar as-Sadiq and Muhammad Baqir just like we revere Ali ibn abi Talib. The Shia believe that the Prophet, Ali,
Fatima, Hasan, Hussain, Muhammad Baqir, Jafar as-Sadiq, Salman Al-Farsi, and many others were Shia, but this is
something that a Sunni would never accept! All of these individuals were Sunni, and this is why we find there to be no
problem with Imam Bukhari being a student of Imam Muhammad Baqir if he was. The Shia claiming that Muhammad
Baqir was Shia is just like they claim that Ali ibn Abi Talib was Shia.
Therefore, Answering-Ansar has still failed to respond to the fact that according to them Sulayman was a student of one
of their Infallible Imams. And he was such a good student that the Infallible Imam was horribly grieved by his death. It
is therefore difficult to simply brush aside Sulayman ibn Khalid.
Answering-Ansar says
“
The text claims that Sulayman is universally acclaimed as “thiqah” (reliable). - but by whom? No elaboration is given
as to WHICH Shi’a scholars graded him as thiqah.
”
Perhaps the Answering-Ansar team has reading comprehension issues, because the Ansar article clearly mentioned who
considered him “thiqah.” Brother Afriki clearly quoted the Shia book of Rijal, Jami’ ar-Ruwat, which said this.
Answering-Ansar says
The reality is Sulayman ibn Khalid was an adherent of the Zaydiyya Madhab. In our Shi’a authority source ‘Tanqeeyh al
Maqaal Volume 1 page 57′ with regards to Sulayman bin Khalid we learn that:
“Najashi and Tusi did not deem him to be reliable. Ibn Daud deemed him to be Daeef (weak)”.
”
Actually, Grand Ayatollah Al-Khoei refutes such claims of Sulayman’s weakness and rather establishes that he is
“thiqah” (reliable) based on the opinion of such greats such as Sheikh Mufid himself. At minimum, Grand Ayatollah AlKhoei says, Sulayman is to be regarded as a Hasan narrator. (A Hasan Hadith is considered “good” and therefore
sound.) Grand Ayatollah Al-Khoei says in “Mujam Rijal Al-Hadith” (vol.9, p.261):
“The reliability of Sulayman Ibn Khalid should not be doubted, because of what you have known from the testimony of
Ayoub Ibn Nuh and the testimony of Shaikh Mufid regarding his reliability. This is also supported by what Al-Najashi
mentioned that he was a Faqih and an authority (‫ ف ق يها ك ان‬،‫)وجها‬. Even if this does not prove that he is thiqah, it surely
proves that he is hasan, for it is apparent that he meant that he was an authority in narration (‫أن ه ب ذل ك ي ري د أن ه ال ظاهر ف إن‬
‫ ف ي وجها ك ان‬،‫ )ال رواي ة‬and since he is a narrator, he depended upon him in narration. Thus, it is apparent that there is no
reason for Ibn Dawuud to include him in his book amongst the second section–the section of weak narrators. Nor is
there a reason for (what is mentioned) in Al-Madarik regarding…the claim that the reliability of Sulayman Ibn Khalid is
not established.”
Grand Ayatollah Al-Khoei goes on to say that it is incorrect to condemn Sulayman ibn Khalid, and that those who did
so–including the author of Rijal Al-Kashi–did it based on a weak narration against him:
“As for what Al-Kashi narrated …If the deduction is considered correct as to condemning Sulayman Ibn Khalid, then it is
weak because of Abdul Rahman Ibn Abi Al-Dulaym, and that his reliability is not established.”
Grand Ayatollah Al-Khoei also refuted the claim that Sulayman was Zaydi, and that even the last narration of Rijal AlKashi confirms this fact (which proves that Answering-Ansar did a magnficient job of taking Rijal Al-Kashi out of
context). He continues in his book:
“Even though Sulayman Ibn Khalid joined Zayd (’s revolution), this does not prove that he was Zaydi and there is no
proof for it. Rather the last narration of Al-Kashi proves that he was an Imami who extremely preferred Imam Sadiq (as)
over Zayd. As for what is apparent from Al-Barqi’s statement, then it only shows that he committed something that is
not lawful, and Allah shed his bounties on him and he repented. He might mean by the matter, revolting without the
permission of the Imam.”
Grand Ayatollah Al-Khoei also mentioned from the Book of Saad:
“He [Sulayman] revolted with Zayd and then escaped [from Zayd]. By Allah’s bounty he repented and returned after
that.”
Answering-Ansar has been so quick to pass Takfeer on their scholars that they have gone against their Shia Maraje’ (top
scholars). It should be noted that the Shia followers place immense importance on following the Maraje’ and we wonder
why Answering-Ansar is straying from them? Do we need to remind them of the strict Taqleed on the Maraje’ that is
required of them in Shi’ism?
And once again, we find that the more reliable Al-Islam.org affirms that Sulayman Ibn Khalid was reliable and in fact
narrates Hadith–considered Sahih–via him.
Al-Islam.org says
“
He said: Abu Ja’far Muhammad b. Ali b. al-Husain reported to me from his father, who reported from
Muhammad b. Yahya al-Attar, who reported from Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Isa, from Ali b. Al-Hakam, from
Hisham b. Salim, from Sulaiman b. Khalid, from Abu Abdillah Ja’far b. Muhammad al-Sadiq, peace be upon
him, from his forefathers, peace be upon them, who said:
“The Prophet, peace be upon him and his progeny, told Ali, peace be upon him: O Ali, you are from me and I from you.
Your friend is my friend and my friend is Allah’s friend. And your enemy is my enemy and my enemy is the enemy of
Allah.”
source: http://al-islam.org/amali/26.htm
”
In fact, this is a very famous Shia Hadith that they commonly use against Sunnis. Once again, the question must be
asked: why is Sulayman ibn Khalid reliable enough to use in this Hadith (used against Sunnis) but suddenly he becomes
unreliable when it becomes convenient to the Shia? (Of note is that Hisham ibn Salim is also one of the narrators, giving
yet another example of how Al-Islam.org considers him reliable.)
In Conclusion As Regards to Isnad
For narrations 1 and 2, Answering-Ansar was only able to question Hisham ibn Salim, but this was rejected by AlIslam.org which called him an “authority” figure. For narrations 3 and 4, we find that Isnad with Humayd ibn Ziyad and
Ibn Sama’ah in them were considered “muttasil” by Al-Islam.org. As for Sulayman ibn Khalid, he too was narrated by
Al-Islam.org in what is considered a Sahih narration, and his reliability is affirmed by Grand Ayatollah Al-Khoie, Shaikh
Mufid, and others. The truth is that the quotes brought forth against any of the above narrators by Answering-Ansar
were taken dramatically out of context in an attempt to obfuscate the reality, namely that all of them are considered
reliable by the Shia and in fact Al-Islam.org routinely narrates from them. Why does Al-Islam.org find these narrators
reliable enough to narrate Hadith (and many of these Hadith aimed against the Ahlus Sunnah), but suddenly when this
works against the Shia, then the Shia super-hero ability of weakening Hadith comes into play?
Replies 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6
Here, the Answering-Ansar team tries to play mathematical acrobatics in order to throw doubt on the life of Umm
Kulthoom. Answering-Ansar claims that there is no way that Umm Kulthoom married the sons of Jafar after the death
of Umar, of course ignoring all the Shia texts to that effect. However, I have chosen not to respond to this argument of
Answering-Ansar, because I don’t see its relevance.
OK, fine; let’s say that Umm Kulthoom didn’t marry the sons of Jafar. What does that have to do with her marriage to
Umar? Absolutely nothing. The debate is about Umm Kulthoom’s marriage to Umar bin Khattab, and has nothing to do
with what happened near the end of her life. I think this is another attempt of Answering-Ansar to distract from the
main point of the debate, and notice that they jammed this extraneous argument in their discussion of the third and
fourth Shia traditions. Tell me, what relevance does this argument have to the third and fourth Shia traditions?
Let’s say that we were having a debate as to wether or not Germany invaded France in World War II; you are arguing
that it didn’t attack France in WWII, but I show you proof that shows that yes indeed Germany attacked France then.
You then produce “counter-evidence” that Germany didn’t invade Alaska in 1975. How does an event thirty years later
have any relevance to what we were debating about, which was Germany attacking France in World War II? The two
events are independant of each other, and have no bearing on the other.
Whatever happened to Umm Kulthoom after Umar’s death, this is all irrelevant to the debate between Sunni and Shia.
For all we care, after Umar’s death, Umm Kulthoom could have married anyone else or nobody at all. If the Shia want to
debate every single historical event in Islam, then we will be sitting here for a very long time. So let us at least limit our
debate to relevant points.
If Answering-Ansar were claiming that there was another Umm Kulthoom (i.e. not Umm Kulthoom bint Ali but another
one) that married the sons of Jafar as-Sadiq, then perhaps there would have been some relevance to this debate. But this
is not the case, and no Shia would claim that another Umm Kulthoom married the sons of Jafar. Answering-Ansar
claims that the Umm Kulthoom in question is another one, and they point to Umm Kulthoom bint Abu Bakr, Umm
Kulthoom bint Jarweela, and Umm Kulthoom bint Junth. According to both Sunni and Shia sources, none of these three
women married any of the sons of Jafar. Therefore, the argument of the Shia is pointless.
Reply 7 entitled “Imam Muhammad Baqir (as) referred to Abu Bakr and Umar as Zaalim”
Here, the Shia quote a Hadith from a Shia source saying that this is evidence that Imam Muhammad Baqir referred to
Abu Bakr and Umar as Zaalim. What kind of argument is this!? There is an overabundance of Shia Hadith to the effect
that the Prophet, Ali, and others supposedly claimed that Abu Bakr and Umar were so many things. We know this.
These are all Shia fabrications.
Answering-Ansar says
“
Some might feel that it is not right to prove our arguments by citing our own books
”
I couldn’t have said it better myself. Moving on…
Reply 8 Entitled “Umar’s disgraceful ancestry means that he would never be the kuff (equivalent) to
Umme Kalthum in marriage”
I wonder how many times is Answering-Ansar going to recycle the Kuff argument? See Kuff and Umm Kulthoom’s
Marriage
Once again, we reach the same conclusion: the third and fourth Shia Hadith are considered Sahih according to the Shia
standards, without a single weak narrator in them.
Response to Chapter 11
Response to Chapter 11 Entitled “Fifth Shi’a tradition”
Answering-Ansar says
“
One narrator is Saeed Ibn Salma who according to Rijjal al Makoofi was an unknown narrator (Volume 1 page 68
and Volume 2 page 27). Neither is the Tadheeb tradition acceptable in logic nor does it have a reliable chain of narrators.
”
Answering-Ansar bases its argument on the fact that Saeed ibn Salma was an unknown narrator. Unfortunately for
Answering-Ansar, we find the embarassing fact that Saeed ibn Salma was not in the chain of narrators! Let us see who
the narrators are of the Tadheeb narration, according to the authoratative Shia website, Rafed.net:
Rafed.net says
“
[ 33067 ] 1 ‫ ي ح يى ب ن أحمد ب ن محمد عن ب إ س ناده ال ح سن ب ن محمد ـ‬، ‫ ال قمي محمد ب ن ج ع فر عن‬، ( ‫( ) ال قداح اب ن عن‬1) ، ‫ ج ع فر عن‬،
‫ ) ال س الم ع ل يهما ( أب يه عن‬، ‫ ق ال‬: ‫ واحدة ساعة ف ي ال خطاب ب ن عمر ب ن زي د واب نها ) ال س الم ع ل يه ( ع لي ب نت ك ل ثوم ام مات ت‬، ‫أي هما ي درى ال‬
‫ ق بل هلك‬، ‫ االخ ر من أحدهما ي ورث ف لم‬، ‫ جم ي عا ع ل يهما و ص لى‬.
Translation: Muhammad ibn al-Hasan (i.e. al-Tusi) with his chain, from Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Yahya, from Jafar
ibn Muhammad al-Qummi, from ibn al-Qiddah, from (Imam) Jafar (al-Sadiq), from his father (Imam al-Baqir)…
source: http://www.rafed.net/books/hadith/wasael-26/26015.html
”
As we can see, there is no Saeed ibn Salma in the Isnad here, which al-Hurr al-’Amili has recorded in al-Wasa’il. Indeed,
this is how desperate Answering-Ansar has become in declaring their own Hadith to be fabricated. They have here
declared an imaginary narrator to be unreliable. Another blow to the credibility of the Answering-Ansar website. If they
cannot even accurately quote from their own Shia books, then how reliable do we think Answering-Ansar’s quotations
are from Sunni ones?
Answering-Ansar says
“
In which year did these deaths take place? (45 / 50 Hijri)
In which month did mother and son die? (e.g. Safar / Rajab)
What day did they die on (e.g. Thursday / Friday)
What time of day was it? (Day or night)
Where did they die? (e.g. Madina, Makka)
How old was UMME KALTHUM at the time of her death?
”
The answer to all of these questions is simple and has been stated both in the books of Ahlus Sunnah as well as those of
secular historians: the exact date of Umm Kulthoom’s death is unknown, and there are various reports as to when she
died. The more reliable reports indicate that she died before the incident of Karbala, although there are some weaker
reports that place her at the scene of Karbala. (Answering-Ansar itself quotes “Zakhair al Akba” which states “There
exist two viewpoints amongst the Ulema in relation to the death of Umme Kalthum, wife of Umar.”)
There is nothing strange in the fact that the exact date of Umm Kulthoom’s death is unknown. In fact, there are many
such people during that time of whom we do not know exactly when they died, or even where they died. Let us take
Umm Kulthoom’s elder sister, for example; there are conflicting reports as to the year Zaynab bint Ali died as well as the
place she died, and even where she spent out the last few years of her life. We see that there are conflicting reports, some
saying that Zaynab spent her last days in Medinah, others saying that she spent them in Egypt, and yet others placing
her in Syria.
In fact, not only are the Shia not sure of the exact year Zaynab died but they are not sure even what date of the year it
was. Because they do not know the exact date of her death, the Shia have chosen the five most likely days Zaynab died:
16th Rajabul Asab, the 11th or 21st of Jamadi uth-thani, the 24th of Safar, or the 16th of Dhu’l-Hijjah. Notice that these
dates are in separate months altogether, and so Answering-Ansar asking us exactly when Umm Kulthoom died is unfair.
Not only this, but there are even conflicting reports amongst the Shia as to how Zaynab bint Ali died, some claiming she
died of natural causes and others (in the typical Shia fashion) claiming that the Nasibis murdered her. And there are
even disputes amongst the Shia as to where she is buried, and there are many cities which supposedly boast her grave.
Wikipedia Encyclopedia says
“
After the Battle of Kerbala, Zaynab and her family were eventually released and escorted back to Medina. After her
return to Medina, little is known of her in the year and a half before her death, except through much later, conflicting
reports. According to one report, she stayed and died there. Another report states that due to persecution from the
governor of Medina, she traveled to Fustat (later Cairo) in Egypt with several other women from the family of the
Prophet; she lived in Fustat for over a year, narrating the Karbala tragedy and preaching the love of the family of the
Prophet, and died there. A third report states that she went with her husband to his Syrian estates in a year of drought
and died there.
Sources also differ as to the year of her death. According to most of them, she died on 15 Rajab AH 62 (682 CE), when
she was fifty-six years old. Although it is not known exactly what year she died with so many differing reports, what is
known for certain is that Zaynab did not long survive her return from Kerbala, and died circa 682 CE. Some traditions
say that Zaynab was murdered by a Yazid-loyalist with a spade in a garden at Damascus. The anniversary of her death is
said to be either 16th Rajabul Asab, the 11th or 21st of Jamadi uth-thani, the 24th of Safar, or the 16th of Dhu’l-Hijjah.
Several cities boast shrines said to be built over Zaynab’s grave. One shrine is located in Damascus, Syria [1]. There is
also a shrine to Zaynab in Cairo, Egypt.
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaynab_bint_Ali
”
Answering-Ansar attempts to make a huge fuss out of the idea that there are various reports about Umm Kulthoom’s
son and when he died. Again, there is nothing strange in this: there are various reports about Zaynab’s son whose name
was Muhammad. Some reports claim that he died in the tragedy of Karbala whereas others say he didn’t. And there is
even less information about Zaynab’s son Abbas, with no reliable reports telling us where and when he died.
Wikipedia Encyclopedia says
“
Together this young couple had five children, of whom four were sons, Ali, Aun, Muhammad, and Abbas, and one
daughter, Umm Khultum. Ali, also known as Ali al-Zaynabi, would have numerous descendants who would take pride in
their lineage to Zaynab. Aun al-Akbar was killed at Kerbala. Some reports indicate that Muhammad was also killed at
Kerbala, although others say that he lived on after that. There is no information about Abbas in regards to how or when
he died.
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaynab_bint_Ali
”
Thus, there is nothing strange in the fact that there is a difference of opinion as to when Umm Kulthoom died or when
her son died. Similarly, there is a difference of opinion as to when her sister, Zaynab, died (and Zaynab’s son as well).
What I don’t get is how any of this has anything to do with the matter at hand, namely the marriage of Umar and Umm
Kulthoom? The fact that there are different reports as to when Zaynab died has no bearing on her marriage to Abdullah
ibn Jafar. Could a Sunni really claim that the marriage of Zaynab to Abdullah ibn Jafar never took place based on the
simple fact that there are differing reports as to when Zaynab died? I don’t see the link between the two assumptions.
Likewise, the fact that there are differing reports as to when Umm Kulthoom died has no bearing on her marriage to
Umar bin Khattab. Whereas there may be some confusion as to the date of Umm Kulthoom’s and Zaynab’s respective
deaths, there is no confusion on the matter that Umm Kulthoom and Zaynab married Umar and Abdullah respectively.
Response to Chapter 12
Response to Chapter 12 Entitled “Offspring from this alleged marriage”
Replies 1 and 2
As we have stated before, the reliable reports indicate that by the time that Umar bin Khattab married Umm Kulthoom
bint Ali, she was likely one year away from being Baligh, and not four or five as indicated by Answering-Ansar. Umar bin
Khattab expressed interest in marrying Ali’s daughter when she was very young, but it took him many years to convince
Ali of it and even after Ali agreed, they waited until she was older and a more appropriate age to get married, when she
was around 10 to 12 years of age. The consummation of the marriage was even after this, about a year afterwards. What
Answering-Ansar has done is oversimplified narrations and taken them out of context to make them mean what they
want them to mean. For example, they claim that the Sunnis claim that Umm Kulthoom was four or five when she was
married to Umar, when in reality we only claim that this was the time that Umar expressed interest in her but that the
actual marriage was consummated years afterwards. And this is confirmed by the Shia sources.
Replies 3 and 4
Answering-Ansar claims that “Umar the khalifa was impotent” and that “Umar the khalifa had a phobia of sexual
intercourse.” This is yet another childish and purposefully inflammatory attack against the personality of Umar bin
Khattab. It is as absurd and ludicrous as the claims made by Answering-Ansar that Umar was a homosexual. The idea
that Umar was impotent can be quickly negated by the fact that Umar had many children with other wives, including
Abdullah, Asim, Abu Shahma, Abdur Rahman, Zaid, Iyad, Mujir, Hafsa, Fatima, Ruqayyah and Zaynab. With so many
children, how could one argue that he was impotent? This hardly seems like a man who was impotent. How could the
Shia forget that Umar had other children, when they so adamantly despise his daughter and wife of the Prophet, namely
Hafsa bint Umar?
Reply 5 Entitled “Umar’s objective was only to attain status via marriage not to benefit from conjugal
relations”
Answering-Ansar says
“
When Umar’s sole aim was to attain status and not to benefit from the conjugal relations that are connected with
marriage then where did these two children come from?
”
This is an extremely weak argument and indicative of the desperation felt by the Answering-Ansar team. Umar stated
that he wanted to marry Umm Kulthoom in order to obtain more closeness to the Prophetic Household. Having children
is a normal part of marriage and it is in fact the Sunnah. But to play along with Answering-Ansar, we could easily
respond that having children with the Prophet’s grand-daughter would bring Umar closer in relationship to the Prophet
thereby making him the father of the Prophet’s great-grandson.
Response to Chapter 13
Response to Chapter 13 Entitled “The comments of Shi’a Ulema”
Reply 1
I do not see an argument here, so I don’t know what to respond to.
Reply 2 Entitled “The ‘common element’ in the narrations are that Umar consummated marriage with
an underage girl”
Umar married Umm Kulthoom when she was one year away from being Baligh, and he consummated the marriage a
year after that.
Answering-Ansar says
“
To Afriki and his stooges who love singing the praises of this marriage, we ask:
‘Is is really a matter of pride that your texts depict an event that points to Umar consummating marriage with an under
age girl?’
This completely destroys the credibility of your khalifa and makes a complete mockery of the Shari’a…
Now we ask those with open minds, can reason really accept that:
A middle-aged man sought the marriage of a child that happened to be his son in laws granddaughter?
An elderly man was willing to violate the Shari’a by demanding the hand of a girl that was already betrothed?
A respectable father would dress up his daughter and send her to a potential suitor (like some mail order bride)?
A suitor (the second rightly guided khalifa) would fondle the girl, by groping and kissing her?
When the girl complains of her treatment, her father is not bothered in the slightest, on the contrary he deems the
individual to be a worthy son in law?
”
To sum it up, Answering-Ansar has recycled its earlier argument that Umar bin Khattab was a child molestor and
pervert for marrying such a young girl. I have responded to this accusation thoroughly in my response to Chapter 2
entitled “Our objections to the Sunni traditions.”
Replies 3, 4, and 5
The Shia will oftentimes attempt to side-step their own Shia Hadith and instead focus on all of the Sunni narrations in
regards to Umm Kulthoom and then attempt to invent “inconsistencies”. They will use mathematical acrobatics in an
attempt to show inconsistencies in the timing of Umm Kulthoom’s lifestory. It should be noted that a similar approach
can be taken to any event in Islamic history, and even when it comes to secular history. Using this approach, one could
easily deny that the Battle of Badr took place, since there are varying accounts of the exact details. The exact year of the
battle varies as given by various sources, and so too do the number of combatants, as well as how many prisoners were
taken, how many prisoners were killed, and other such details. Likewise, you will find that there are varying dates given
for the marriage of Aisha or the event of Ghadeer Khumm, or many other incidents in Islamic history.
Different historians used various methodologies in dating historical events. The differences in dates can thus be
attributed to this, and this is normal for any event in Islamic history, not just the marriage of Umm Kulthoom. For
example, some historians would claim that a certain event X took place at a time when Aisha was a certain age, whereas
other historians would claim that it actually took place when she was Y years of age. And thus, each of the two historians
would have a different timeline he worked with. It is therefore unfair to mix and match historical narratives that use
different dating techniques.
To give a simplified understanding of this very complex topic, there are certain narrations which say “after a few years.”
Now, when a historian is dating events such as these, he has to decide what does it mean “a few years.” One historian
might say that this means two or three years, whereas another might think seven years, and another might even think
more than this. Based on their own understanding and dating methodology, the historian will translate such words
accordingly and consequently his chronology of events will differ from another historian’s.
Similarly, there were conflicting opinions as to the details of exactly how old Umm Kulthoom was at certain times. For
example, in one Hadith, Ali refers to Umm Kulthoom as a “milk fed baby.” One historian might take this to mean its
literal definition and thereby date according to this. However, another historian might reason that Ali was being
figurative in his speech and calling her a baby in the same sense that a big brother calls his little sister a “baby sister.”
Based on the different interpretations of these words, different historians would construct separate timelines.
With the overwhelming number of narrations regarding the event of Umm Kulthoom’s marriage from so many different
sources, it is only obvious that minor details will differ between different narrators. This is the case with any event in
Islamic history, and one could also use the same tactic used by Answering-Ansar to eliminate events that Shia claim. For
example, there are many different reports in Shia Hadith about the event of Ghadeer Khumm, with varying dates being
given. However, it would not be sound practise to declare that the event never took place just because there is a slight
discrepancy between narrations. In fact, most Hadith–both Sunni and Shia–usually have different versions and each
has slight differences with the others.
Answering-Ansar makes a big fuss out of Umm Kulthoom’s presence in the Battle of Karabala. But the truth of the
matter is that there are many different narrations about who was present at this event. There is a great controversy as to
who was present at Karbala, as to how many people were killed or taken captive, and many other such details. For
example, some spurious reports say that over 30,000 soldiers surrounded Hussain’s contingent, but these reports are
questioned by the more reliable reports used by “the latest academic research [that] … the forces facing Husayn would
not have exceeded 4500 men, and were probably fewer in number.” (Historian Hugh Kennedy, as quoted by
Answers.com, http://www.answers.com/topic/battle-of-karbala)
Another inconsistency in the incident of Karbala revolves around the timing of the incident. The Shia claim that Hussain
left Mecca around the 8th or 9th of Dhul Hijjah, after he performed Hajj.
ImamReza.net says
“
In it he [Imam Hussain] wrote, “O people of Kufah! I have received the letter of Muslim Ibn ‘Aqil stating that you
have gathered to help us and ask for our rights. I ask Almighty God to reward you for this action. For this reason, I
left Makkah on Thursday the 8th of Dhul-Hijjah. When my messenger arrives, be united until I reach Kufah in a
few days.”
source: http://www.imamreza.net/eng/imamreza.php?id=2595
”
Memory of Karbala says
“
It was the time of pilgrimage in Makkah, and Imam Husayn had begun to perform the pilgrimage rites. When he
learned that some of Yazid’s men had come dressed as pilgrims to kill him in Makkah, he gathered his people together to
leave for Iraq. He did not want his blood to be spilled within the sacred precincts and to have the sacred rite of Hajj
dishonored by that violence. Thus, he, some members of his family, and a group of followers set out
towards Kufah on 8th of Dhul-Hijjah.
source: http://www.twilightbridge.com/hobbies/festivals/muharram/memory.htm
”
Al-Islam.org says
“
From that time till the 8th of Zilhaj he continued to stay on in Makkah. None could imagine that on the 8th of Zil-
Haj when the people were putting on Ehram (pilgrim’s garb) to perform Haj the son of the Holy Prophet of Allah and
child of Makkah and Mina would leave Makkah without performing the ceremonies of Haj and would abandon Ehram
after performing Umra. However, the Imam decided to depart from Makkah…The Imam did not leave Makkah to escape
from being killed. He left Makkah so that if he was killed it should be in such a way that Islam should always benefit
from his martyrdom.
source: http://al-islam.org/ashura/13.htm
These same Shia claim that Hussain arrived in Karbala on the 1st or 2nd of Muharram.
”
Al-Islam.org says
“
On Thursday, the 2nd of Muharram 61 A.H. Imam Husayn camped at a place in the region of Naynava called
Karbala.
source: http://al-islam.org/ashura/16.htm
”
Al-Islam.org says
“
When Imam Husain learned that the place was called Karbala, he felt he reached the destination and ordered his
camp to be setup. That day was 2nd of Muharram, Hijri 61.
source: http://al-islam.org/short/Karbala.htm
”
This means that Hussain made the journey between Mecca and Karbala in twenty days. This is an impossibility because
the distance between Mecca and Karbala is around 1,100 to 1,300 miles!
Al-Islam.org says
“
Many friends and relatives urged Imam Husain not to go to Kufa, but he insisted on going. Imam Husain, along with
family, friends, and companions began the journey toward Kufa (1,100 miles) in a long caravan in the blistering heat of
summer.
source: http://www.al-islam.org/short/Karbala.htm
”
I took out a map and measured the distance between Mecca and Kufa. It’s about 1,300 miles. Of course, this is if they
literally walked in a straight line from Mecca to Kufa. So it’s probably even more than 1,300 miles if you take into
account that it is highly unlikely that they travelled in exactly a straight line. Having said that, let’s agree that the
distance is at least 1,100 to 1,300 miles.
Unless Hussain travelled by car, there is absolutely no way that he could have travelled 1,100 to 1,300 miles in twenty
days, especially when we factor in the fact that he was travelling by foot with women and children in the harsh desert.
According to Shia sources, Hussain avoided the main routes for fear of Yezid’s men and this would also add to the
impossibility that he could have made the journey in twenty days. Not only this, but Hussain camped at many places on
the way, thereby making it even less likely that he could have completed the trip in twenty days.
If we accept the Shia narrations that Hussain and his contingent (which was made up of women and children) left Mecca
on the 9th of Dhul Hijjah and reached Karbala by the 1st of Muharram, then this would mean they travelled 65 miles per
day, every day, for twenty days in a row! (1,300 miles divided by 20 days equals 65 miles per day.) This is an
impossibility. No human being could travel 65 miles per day, and not just once but twenty days in a row. Therefore, we
see that the historical accounts of the Shia have inconsistencies. Now, based on the methodology of Answering-Ansar,
we could give a conceited laugh and say that this entire incident of Karbala is a myth and never happened.
Would it be justified for someone to claim that the Battle of Karbala was a myth or simply did not happen since there are
so many conflicting reports, including how many people were present at Karbala, how many people died in the battle,
and how many were taken prisoner? Would it be justified for someone to claim that the Battle of Karbala never took
place because there is an inconsistency in the date which the Shia claim that Hussain left Mecca and the date he
supposedly reached there? This is not an honest manner of viewing history. No reasonable person can deny the Battle of
Karbala based on these minor inconsistencies, and this is not the methodology of modern-day historians either.
The bottom line point is that this methodology of denying historical events can be taken with any event in early Islamic
history, because minor differences in historical accounts is an inevitability when dating events that took place 1400
years ago. And what is very interesting is that Answering-Ansar does not even focus on finding inconsistencies in the
actual marriage itself, but rather in events of Umm Kulthoom’s life that were many years after the marriage and even
after the death of Umar. These events have even less relevance to the debate at hand. As I’ve stated before:
AhlelBayt.com says
“
There is nothing strange in the fact that the exact date of Umm Kulthoom’s death is unknown. In fact, there are
many such people during that time of whom we do not know exactly when they died, or even where they died. Let us
take Umm Kulthoom’s elder sister, for example; there are conflicting reports as to the year Zaynab bint Ali died as well
as the place she died, and even where she spent out the last few years of her life. We see that there are conflicting
reports, some saying that Zaynab spent her last days in Medinah, others saying that she spent them in Egypt, and yet
others placing her in Syria.
In fact, not only are the Shia not sure of the exact year Zaynab died but they are not sure even what date of the year it
was. Because they do not know the exact date of her death, the Shia have chosen the five most likely days Zaynab died:
16th Rajabul Asab, the 11th or 21st of Jamadi uth-thani, the 24th of Safar, or the 16th of Dhu’l-Hijjah. Notice that these
dates are in separate months altogether, and so Answering-Ansar asking us exactly when Umm Kulthoom died is unfair.
Not only this, but there are even conflicting reports amongst the Shia as to how Zaynab bint Ali died, some claiming she
died of natural causes and others (in the typical Shia fashion) claiming that the Nasibis murdered her. And there are
even disputes amongst the Shia as to where she is buried, and there are many cities which supposedly boast her grave.
Wikipedia Encyclopedia says
“
After the Battle of Kerbala, Zaynab and her family were eventually released and escorted back to Medina. After her
return to Medina, little is known of her in the year and a half before her death, except through much later, conflicting
reports. According to one report, she stayed and died there. Another report states that due to persecution from the
governor of Medina, she traveled to Fustat (later Cairo) in Egypt with several other women from the family of the
Prophet; she lived in Fustat for over a year, narrating the Karbala tragedy and preaching the love of the family of the
Prophet, and died there. A third report states that she went with her husband to his Syrian estates in a year of drought
and died there.
Sources also differ as to the year of her death. According to most of them, she died on 15 Rajab AH 62 (682 CE), when
she was fifty-six years old. Although it is not known exactly what year she died with so many differing reports, what is
known for certain is that Zaynab did not long survive her return from Kerbala, and died circa 682 CE. Some traditions
say that Zaynab was murdered by a Yazid-loyalist with a spade in a garden at Damascus. The anniversary of her death is
said to be either 16th Rajabul Asab, the 11th or 21st of Jamadi uth-thani, the 24th of Safar, or the 16th of Dhu’l-Hijjah.
Several cities boast shrines said to be built over Zaynab’s grave. One shrine is located in Damascus, Syria [1]. There is
also a shrine to Zaynab in Cairo, Egypt.
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaynab_bint_Ali
”
What I don’t get is how any of this has anything to do with the matter at hand, namely the marriage of Umar and Umm
Kulthoom? The fact that there are different reports as to when Zaynab died has no bearing on her marriage to Abdullah
ibn Jafar. Could a Sunni really claim that the marriage of Zaynab to Abdullah ibn Jafar never took place based on the
simple fact that there are differing reports as to when Zaynab died? I don’t see the link between the two assumptions.
Likewise, the fact that there are differing reports as to when Umm Kulthoom died has no bearing on her marriage to
Umar bin Khattab. Whereas there may be some confusion as to the date of Umm Kulthoom’s and Zaynab’s respective
deaths, there is no confusion on the matter that Umm Kulthoom and Zaynab married Umar and Abdullah respectively.
”
Furthermore, the entire point of the Ansar’s article was that the marriage of Umm Kulthoom is narrated in the Shia
books. Answering-Ansar should deal with the narrative in its own book, and respond to this. Finding discrepancies in
the Sunni Hadiths does not change the fact that the Hadiths are in the Shia books. Even if you were to eliminate all
Sunni Hadiths about the marriage of Umm Kulthoom, it would still not change the fact that the marriage is documented
in Shia Hadith. And more importantly, it doesn’t change the fact that the traditionists and the classical Shia scholars for
four centuries also upheld the view that Umar bin Khattab was married to Umm Kulthoom bint Ali. No ammount of
confusing mathematical acrobatics could change that.
Reply 6 Entitled “The different lives of both Umme Kalthum’s prove that this event is a lie”
Answering-Ansar says
“
[Umm Kulthoom bint Ali was] Present at Kerbala, [and] died in 62 Hijri…Present in Kerbala made captive by Ibn
Ziyad, gave a sermon in Kufa
”
This is not true. The reliable reports tell us that Umm Kulthoom bint Ali was not present at Karbala. The only women
who were from the Prophet’s descendants that were present at Karbala were the following: Zaynab bint Ali, Fatima bint
Ali, Fatima bint al-Husayn, Sukayna bint al-Husayn, al-Rabab al-Kalbiyyah, and Umm Muhammad. Sukayna is the one
that spoke the famous words to Yazid, “Have you taken prisoner the daughters of the Messenger of Allah” which words
are spuriously attributed to Umm Kulthum bint Ali in some of the non-Sunni accounts.
What is interesting here is that Answering-Ansar first claims that the Hadith refers to Umm Kulthoom bint Abu Bakr,
but then just a few lines later claim that it was Umm Kulthoom bint Jarweela. And earlier, Answering-Ansar had
claimed that it referred to Umm Kulthoom bint Junth.
Answering-Ansar says
“
We have already proven from the Shi’a traditions that Afriki relied on, that Imam Ja’far Sadiq (as) was referring to
Umme Kalthum binte Abu Bakr.
”
Answering-Ansar says
“
“People have assumed that Umar married Umme Kalthum binte Fatima, rather he married Umme Kalthum binte
Jarweela Khuzeema”
Tareekh al Qum Shaykh Saduq, by Muhammad Nishapur page 193, published in Tehran
”
Answering-Ansar says
“
UMME KALTHUM here refers to UMME KALTHUM binte Junth
”
The absurd argument that the Shia Hadith refer to Umm Kulthoom but not that Umm Kulthoom has already been
thoroughly discussed in what I wrote earlier, entitled “A Different Umm Kulthoom?”
Reply to “The views of Shi’a Ulema who believed that this marriage took place”
Here, Answering-Ansar merely says that the Shia scholars who held this view were wrong. This is not much of an
argument. And it also downplays the issue, namely that for four centuries after Hijrah, the Shia scholars never denied
the marriage of Umm Kulthoom bint Ali to Umar bin Khattab. It took four centuries for the Shia to wake up to this issue
and suddenly reverse their position. This is not a small issue, and Answering-Ansar has failed to explain it away. Why is
it that the Shia traditionists, including the venerated Imam Al-Kulayni himself, claimed that this was the marriage of
Umm Kulthoom bint Ali to Umar bin Khattab? And what about all the classical Shia heavyweights listed in the Ansar
article?
Umm Kulthoom’s marriage was confirmed by Imam Al-Kulayni, who for all intents and purposes is to the Shia who
Imam Bukhari is to the Sunnis. It is narrated on the authority of the Infallible Imams themselves, namely Imam Jafar
as-Sadiq. Not a single Shia scholar denied this marriage for four centuries, and the Ansar team named such Shia
heavyweights as Abul Qasim Al-Kufi, Sayyid Murtada (brother of the compiler of “Nahjul Balagha”), at-Tabarsi (the Shia
mufassir of the 6th century), Shaykh ‘Abd an-Nabi al-Kazimi, and pretty much every other Shia scholar before the 5th
century AH. Among the Shia sources that narrate the fact of this marriage from Imam Muhammad al-Baqir with the
statement “Umm Kulthum bint Ali ibn Abi Talib died at the same time as her son Zayd ibn Umar ibn al-Khattab” and
the narration from Muhammad ibn al-Hasan that “Umar ibn al-Khattab married Umm Kulthum bint Ali with a dowry of
40,000 dirhams” are the following:
1- Agha Burzug al-Tahrani’s al-Dhari`a (5:184).
2- Ali ibn Muhammad al-`Alawi’s al-Mujdi fi Ansab al-Talibiyyin (p. 17).
3- Al-Fadil al-Hindi’s Kashf al-Litham (2:312).
4- Al-Hurr al-`Amili’s Wasa’il al-Shi`a Al al-Bayt (15:19, 17:594, 21:263, 26:314).
5- Muhammad ibn Habib al-Baghdadi’s al-Munammaq fi Akhbar Quraysh (p. 301).
6- Al-Muhaqqiq al-Ardabili’s Majma` al-Fa’ida (11:530).
7- Al-Muhaqqiq al-Naraqi’s Mustanad al-Shi`a (19:452).
8- Al-Muhaqqiq al-Sabzawari’s Kifayat al-Ahkam (p. 307).
9- Al-Sayyid Muhammad Sadiq al-Rawhani’s Fiqh al-Sadiq (24:496).
10- Al-Shahid al-Thani’s Masalik al-Afham (13:270).
11- Al-Shaykh al-Amini’s al-Ghadir (6:136-137).
12- Al-Shaykh al-Tusi’s al-Mabsut (4:272).
13- Tahdhib al-Ahkam (9:362-363).
14- Al-Shaykh al-Jawahiri’s Jawahir al-Kalam (39:308).
How is it that the Shia propagandists will reject the Shia heavyweights and instead accept the lightweight AnsweringAnsar, who are neither religious scholars nor are they historians? Answering-Ansar is run by high school or college
students, not by scholars. So why in the world would a devout Shia take the word of Answering-Ansar over that of Imam
Al-Kulayni? The current day Shia opinion of the marriage is 100% at variance with the people who supposedly founded
their religion and the people they claim to follow, including the very people who lived at the time of the so-called Hidden
Imam’s Minor Occultation in which they could contact him.
What the Answering-Ansar team failed to address was that why did all of these classical Shia scholars hold the opinion
that this marriage took place, and that it was only after so many centuries that the opinion suddenly switched?
Adressing the point that previous Shia scholars agreed that the marriage took place, Answering-Ansar pretty much just
says that this was their “opinion” about the marriage and a wrong opinion. Again, the Shia author never addresses the
point of the historical change that took place in the Shia opinion, before 5 AH and after that when the Mutazallites
began the rationalization process. This is one of the Ansar article’s strongest points, and yet I found that the AnsweringAnsar team failed to address this.
Conclusion to Rebuttal
The desperate arguments brought forth by Answering-Ansar are a testament of their weak position. The marriage of
Umm Kulthoom bint Ali to Umar bin Khattab is recorded in four separate narrations in the most reliable Shia book of
Hadith, Al-Kafi. The narrators of these Hadith, according to the Shia website Al-Islam.org, are all reliable. Not only this,
but the Shia narrations of this marriage can be found in many different authoratative Shia books, and fourteen different
Shia sources were given. Additionally, all of the Shia traditionists and classical Shia scholars up until the fifth century
AH upheld this marriage.
The fact that the marriage took place destroys the Shia paradigm, which revolves around the supposed persecution of
the Ahlel Bayt by Umar bin Khattab and the Sahabah. Ali ibn Abi Talib was a good friend of Umar’s, so much so that he
would give his daughter to him. The Shia version of history is bogus, and a figment of the Shia imagination. The Shia
fool themselves into thinking that Umar hated the Ahlel Bayt much like they fool themselves into thinking that the
Sunnis of today also hate the Ahlel Bayt (when in fact we love the Ahlel Bayt).
I would like to thank Brother Mohammed Belhoul for his help in writing this article. I would also like to sincerely
apologize to any Shia out there who was offended by my tone of voice or anything offensive which I may have said. I
tried very hard to remain dispassionate and analytic in my rebuttal, but sometimes Answering-Ansar made it difficult
with some of their more inflammatory remarks. In the end, the purpose of this debate is not to bash the other side over
the head nor to be victorious in a cage-match to the death, but rather for each person to reach closer to the truth. It is my
hope that the Shia readers can look inside their hearts and realize that the marriage of Umar bin Khattab and Umm
Kulthoom bint Ali is very difficult to deny. Like so many other events in early Islamic history, it is impossible to
reconcile the Shia paradigm with the facts.
Al-Islam.org Admits that Umar Married Ali’s
Daughter
One of the most troubling events in history for the Shia propagandists to deal with or rationalize is the marriage of Umm
Kulthoom, Ali ibn Abi Talib’s daughter, to Umar ibn al-Khattab. After all, why would Ali marry his daughter off to a man
who supposedly killed Fatima in the “Incident of the Door”? Does it make sense that any righteous man would marry off
his daughter to the very man who killed that girl’s mother?
Because of this inconsistency, the modern Shia polemecist has adopted the policy of simply denying that this marriage
ever took place. Shia propaganda sites (including Answering-Ansar, the Shia Encyclopedia, and Shia Chat) have toted
this line, claiming that the marriage between Umar ibn al-Khattab and Umm Kulthoom bint Ali is simply a lie, a
concoction of “Nasibi propaganda.” And yet, in two articles have we refuted this idea: Ali Gave His Daughter to Umar
and A Comprehensive Rebuttal of Answering Ansar’s Article on Umm Kulthoom’s Nikah. In both of those articles, we
showed how this “modern” view of Shia propagandists conflicts with the Shia Hadith literature, the classical Shia texts,
and the Shia scholarship throughout the ages.
Shia Website, Al-Islam.org, Admits the Marriage
The most reliable and popular Shia website, Al-Islam.org, has a section for fatwas entitled “Aalim Network”. These Shia
Aalims refute Answering-Ansar, the Shia Encyclopedia, and Shia Chat by clearly stating that Ali ibn Abi Talib did in fact
marry his daughter to Umar ibn al-Khattab. Shaykh Mohammed Soleiman-Peneh of the “Aalim Network” stated:
Al-Islam.org says
“
[’Aalim Network QR] Silence of Imam Ali (AS)
Aalim: Mohammad Soleiman-Panah
Question:
…if Ali (s) was against Omar he would not have let his daughter marry Omar’s Son…Is the above…TRUE?
ANSWER:
…As to the issue of marriage…if anyone wants to use this kind of events against more basic idea he must know that first
of all it was Omar himself who married Ali and Fatemeh’ (AS) daughter, Ume Kulsum. Secondly When Omar asked
Imam’s (AS) permission to marry her, Imam (AS) refused and said she is too young for marrying him. Omar swore ” wa
Allah-e I do not seek her for what you may think, I seek her because I heard the holy prophet (SA) saying ‘get closer to
me by being close to my family. I want to be closer to him by marrying his granddaughter.” Whatever his true intentions
were - perhaps a political gesture for the chilly political climate of the time when everybody knew that Ali (AS) did not
let them to be present in the Salah to Fatemeh’s (SA) body and her burial, or making confusion among the public and
generation to come, or perhaps a call of conscience of guilt for what he has done to Fatemeh (SA)- Imam (AS) must
have had good reasons for agreeing to the marriage.
source: Aalim Network, http://www.al-islam.org/Organizations/Aalimnetwork/msg00166.html
”
So, Shaykh Mohammed Soleiman-Peneh’s only explanation is that surely that “Imam [Ali] must have had good reasons
for agreeing to the marriage.” (What those reasons are is unclear, but surely, they must have been “good reasons.”) And
he also states that Ali at first rejected Umar’s proposal, but then later accepted it out of force. Again, the Shia scholars
portray a very cowardly image of Ali, saying that he was bullied into marrying his own daughter to a supposed murderer
(i.e. the man whom the Shia claim killed Ali’s wife and unborn child). If a Sunni were to kill a Shia man’s wife and
unborn child, then demanded that he be married to his daughter, how many Shia men today would accept this? Even a
man with the least bit of courage and integrity would not allow this, so why would anyone accept this of the Lion of
Allah, namely Ali ibn Abi Talib?
It may be that some Shia propagandists and youths will refuse to accept that Al-Islam.org, the Aalim Network, and such
a respectable Shia Aalim, all accept this marriage as a fact. They might protest to the words “I believe it is also wrong”
which were used in the fatwa. It should be noted that the Aalim is saying that he believes using this event to prove
something is wrong, not that this event didn’t take place. Indeed, a follow-up question was asked to the same scholar, as
follows:
Al-Islam.org says
“
[’Aalim Network QR] Silence of Imam Ali(AS)- Follow-up
Aalim: Mohammad Soleiman-Panah
Salaamun alaykum,
The follow-up question below on the marriage of the daughter
of Imam Ali (AS) to Omar was answered by Mohammed Soleiman-Peneh.
Wasalaam,
Mustafa Rawji
Acting Moderator,ABDG-A
QUESTION:
I read in the Shia Encyclopedia that Omar did not marry Ume Kulsum. Now here a Learned Aalim is giving a different
Answer. Now I am confused what is right and wrong. Could someone further elaborate this?
ANSWER:
…As far as the discrepancy between my reply and the Shia Encyclepedia - Which is a respectful text- is concerned, I’d
like you to know that what I said concerning the marriage of Omar with Um-e Kulthum is not based on my personal
historical research , I relied on the work of Dr. Sayyed Ja’far Shahidi ” Life of Fatemeh Zahra(SA)” Pp.263-265. Dr.
Shahidi is in my opinion the most distinguished contemporary Shia Historian, and I know of no contemporary Shia
historian to be more reliable than him, but at the same time we all may make mistake. I have no basis to challenge Shia
Encyclepedia, but if I have to choose between Dr. Shahidi’s work and Shia Encyclepedia, I believe it is safer to choose
former in the case of discrepancy. However this by no means takes way from the value of the Shia Encyclepedia which is
a great work and I have relied on it in many cases (may God rewards those responsible for it’s compiling).
Having said this, I like to call your attention to the fact that in my response I intended to argue that even in the case of
such marriage it cannot be used as a sign of agreement of Imam Ali (AS) with Omar’s Khilafa.
source: Aalim Network, http://www.al-islam.org/organizations/AalimNetWork/msg00168.html
”
Shaykh Mohammad Soleiman-Panah clearly states that the “the most distinguished contemporary Shia historian” (Dr.
Sayyed Ja’far Shahidi) said that the marriage between Umm Kulthoom bint Ali and Umar ibn al-Khattab did in fact take
place. Although he admits that the Shia Encyclopedia is generally a good tool, in this case it is wrong, and that the more
reliable opinion amongst the Shia scholarship is that the marriage did indeed take place. Shaykh Mohammed SoleimanPanah also states that the Shia historian, Dr. Sayyed Ja’far Shahidi, is so reliable that “no contemporary Shia historian
[is believed] to be more reliable than him.” Is this not in contradiction to what the Shia polemecist sites have claimed,
namely that the marriage is only “Nasibi propaganda”?
It should be noted that the Aalim Network of Al-Islam.org is one of the most authoratative fatwa sites on the internet,
comparable to Islam-QA, Ask-Imam, or Sunni Path for Sunnis. Now it is upto the Shia lay-person to either accept the
authoratative word of his top scholars or to be fooled by the propagandists amongst the Shia youth who themselves are
lay-persons and change their faith if only to strengthen their polemical stance.
A well-respected Shia scholar, Shaykh Mohammed Soleiman-Panah, answered this question. Perhaps the Shia
propagandists will try to question his authority by quoting the scholar’s own modesty on the issue, but it should be
noted that Al-Islam.org itself calls him a “Shaykh” as well as an “Aalim”, such as here:
http://al-islam1.org/organizations/aalimnetwork/msg00063.html
It is therefore an established fact, by both Sunni and Shia scholarship, that Ali married his daughter to Umar. It is upto
the reader himself to decide whether or not he would like to accept the confusing Shia paradigm that Ali married her off
to a supposed murderer out of force and “for good reasons”, or rather to accept the more sensical position of the
mainstream Muslims which is that Ali married his daughter to Umar because Ali thought of Umar as a God-fearing and
honorable man. Not only did Ali marry his daughter to Umar, but he named his son after Umar and also after Abu Bakr
and Uthman. Indeed, the marriage proves that Ali approved of the Shaikhain (Abu Bakr and Umar) and refutes the
imaginary tales of the Shia. We implore upon our Shia brothers to cleanse their minds of the programming and brainwashing of their Ayatollahs. No rational and fair-minded person could, in the modern day and age, accept such nonsensical fairy-tales.