Response to Chapter 9 entitled “The second Shi’a tradition”
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 Answering-Ansar, 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
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].”
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
باب تزويج ام كلثوم [Translation: Chapter of Umm Kulthoom’s Marriage]
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!
Written By: Ibn al-Hashimi, www.ahlelbayt.com
|
|