Response to Chapter 8 Entitled “The first Shi’a tradition”
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:
Answering-Ansar 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 Answering-Ansar 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….
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….
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, Al-Islam.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 Answering-Ansar 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 Answering-Ansar 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-by-step, 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 Answering-Ansar 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).
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 Answering-Ansar 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).
Written By: Ibn al-Hashimi, www.ahlelbayt.com
|
|