A Comprehensive Rebuttal of Answering-Ansar’s
Article on Umm Kulthoom’s Nikah
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 Answering-Ansar, 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 Answering-Ansar 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.
Answering-Ansar 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 Al-Islam.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 (كان فقيها 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 (فإن الظاهر أنه يريد بذلك أنه كان وجها في الرواية،) and 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 Al-Kulayni)–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:
Answering-Ansar says
ام كلثوم هذه هى بنت امير المؤمنين عليه السلام قد خطبها اليه عمر في زمن خلافته فرده اولا فقال عمر ماقال وفعل مافعل
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].”
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.
|
|