Response to Chapter 13 Entitled “The comments of Shi’a Ulema”
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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? 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 Answering-Ansar team failed to address this.
Written By: Ibn al-Hashimi, www.ahlelbayt.com
|
|