A Comprehensive Rebuttal of Answering-Ansar’s
Article on Umm Kulthoom’s Nikah

Response to Chapter 1

In the first paragraph, Answering-Ansar promises:

Answering-Ansar says

through the course of this article we have shall provide over one hundred replies as to why we reject such a claim.

Personally, I think this is a poor tactic to employ in order to refute someone logically. Providing “over one hundred replies” probably means that you can’t do it with one strong, firm argument. When I read over Answering-Ansar’s article, it felt like they were throwing a hundred darts at a dart-board in the hopes that one or two would get lucky and hit their mark. It’s the attitude that “if this doesn’t work, ok then let’s try this, or this, or what about this!” In the end, the Shia writers end up throwing everything including the kitchen sink. We find that some of the latter arguments are actually contradictory to the prior arguments.

I believe that this opinion is taken by the Shia in general. Their scholars seem to provide “contingency” plans in case one argument fails then they have a back-up one. For example, in the case of Umm Kulthoom, they make two arguments:

1. The marriage never took place.
2. If it did, then it took place out of force.

For both opinions, they will cite authoratative Shia sources. Option 2 above is in case Option 1 fails. But if we logically think about this, it’s like OJ Simpson saying:

1. I didn’t kill Nicole Brown.
2. If I did, then it was out of self-defense.

For both opinions, he will cite his friend as a witness. The obvious question arises: the veracity of both OJ Simpson and his friend comes into question when he claims that he didn’t kill her, but then gives evidence to prove it was self-defense when he did. The proof he shows that it was self-defense contradicts his original statement that it didn’t happen at all. In a court of law, presentation of such contradictory evidence would undermine one’s defense.

Likewise, the Shia giving proof from their sources that it was a forced marriage, this really shatters any possible credibility of the Shia in claiming that the marriage never took place. It is simple logic. Sometimes the Shia will brainstorm and then say well it could also have been (3) Taqiyyah, or they would even give a “hundred other replies” to explain the actions of Ali. It would be like the Prosecutor saying that I have convincing evidence that OJ Simpson killed Nicole with a baseball bat, but if you don’t buy that, then I have evidence that it was a gun, or if not that, then I have evidence it was a poision he gave her. The very fact that he brings up other options actually weakens his initial case which was that it was a baseball bat. If there is also evidence that it was a gun or a poision, then it couldn’t be a baseball bat!

Answering-Ansar approaches the Shia Hadith by saying:

1. The Hadith is fabricated.
2. If it’s not fabricated, then it was talking about another Umm Kulthoom anyways.

Then they will provide a lot of “proof” to show how it was a different Umm Kulthoom who got married in the Hadith. But the obvious question arises: weren’t you just claiming a second ago that the Hadith is fabricated? If it was indeed fabricated, then there is no way you can claim that you know that it’s talking about another Umm Kulthoom. You should be consistent: either stick to the claim that the Hadith is fabricated, or stick to the claim that it is not fabricated but it refers to someone else. There is no way, however, that you can logically adopt both opinions. The second opinion completely negates the first opinion.

Moving on, Answering-Ansar says in its introduction:

Answering-Ansar says

The Shi’a community, and in particular students, are being attacked by these Nasibi dogs in Universities…you will find this masterpiece on countless Nasibi sites…the increased cockiness of the Nasibi on this topic left us with no other choice but to enter the gladiatorial arena, clad with all the necessary ammunition to silence these lovers of Mu’awiya once and for all.

I strongly feel that the credibility of the Shia authors–as well as many Shia propagandists on various sites and forums–is hurt when they claim that the Sunnis are “Nasibis” or “haters of the Ahlel Bayt” or “haters of Ali, Fatima, Hasan, and Hussain.” I have as of yet never met a single Sunni scholar–neither from the Salafi or Deobandi camps–who has ever hated on Ali, Fatima, Hasan, Hussain, or any of the Ahlel Bayt. If you visit any of the Sunni websites, such as Islam-QA, Sunni Path, Ask-Imam, IslamOnline, etc, you will never find a single statement recorded against any of these personalities. Instead, you will find praise. Whereas my Shia counterparts were raised on stories villifying Abu Bakr and Umar (such as Fadak and Fatima’s house being burned down), I grew up on stories of the bravery of Ali. Hasan and Hussain are said to be the leaders of the youth of Paradise, and Fatima is the chief of the women of Paradise. It is thus dishonest (and silly) to say that the Sunnis hate these people or are “Nasibis” (haters of Ahlel Bayt).

The manner in which the Shia try to convince themselves that the Sunnis hate on Ali’s family reminds me of the manner in which the Shia convince themselves that the Three Caliphs and the Sahabah hated on the Ahlel Bayt. I’ve seen various members on Shia Chat (and even the diatribes on Answering-Ansar) which claim that Sunnis hate the Ahlel Bayt. Are these Shia really fooling themselves like such? They are seriously living in a cave if they think that Sunnis hate Ahlel Bayt. Any Shia who doubts that the Sunnis love Ali and the Ahlel Bayt should do Taqiyyah and pretend to be a Sunni and go to a Sunni mosque. There, he should profess hatred for Ali and the Ahlel Bayt, just to witness the uproar of the Sunnis when they hear such things against the man and family they love. It actually shows the desperation of the Shia when they try to convince themselves and their fellow bretheren that the Sunnis are Nasibis and hate the Ahlel Bayt. It is a pathetic attempt at hoodwinking the Shia masses with emotional rhetoric, in the hopes that none of them would be smart enough to actually investigate the position of the Ahlus Sunnah for themselves.

If you ask a Sunni about his view of Abu Lahab, he will say he hates him. If you ask a Sunni about his view of Ali, he will say he loves him. It is as clear as night and day. Why should we believe the Shia when they claim that we hate the Ahlel Bayt? Who would know better who we love and who we hate other than our ownselves? If you wanted to know whether or not I liked chocolate ice cream, you would obviously ask me about it and nobody else. If I said I liked chocolate ice cream, would you then insist that I hated it? How would you know what I like and what I don’t? The Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah loves Ali, his family, and the Ahlel Bayt. Why are the Shia speaking for us when they say that we hate them?

Have the Shia ever once heard a real Sunni scholar saying even a word of bad against the Ahlel Bayt? You will find that on Shia Chat, most of the Shia users will append the names of Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman with “(la)” which means “Laanat be upon them”–the opposite of “(ra)”. However, when you read Sunni websites, you will find that we always refer to Ali and his family as “(ra)”. If the Shia want to call us “lovers of Muawiyyah” then we must be even bigger lovers of Ali, since all Sunni Ulema have confirmed the fact that Ali is superior in rank to Muawiyyah; Ali is referred to by Sunnis as one of the Rightly Guided Caliphs whereas Muawiyyah is not. The Shia assumption that the Sunnis hate Ahlel Bayt is as preposterous as a Christian claiming that Muslims hate Prophet Jesus.

The truth is that the Shia so desperately wants us to hate the Ahlel Bayt so that their own paradigm holds true, which revolves around the fictitious idea that the Sunni masses hated on and oppressed the Ahlel Bayt. The way in which Answering-Ansar continues to portray the Sunnis as “Nasibis” and haters of Ali only underscores the Shia propensity to call people haters without reason, such as they do to the Sahabah accusing them of hating the Ahlel Bayt even though they loved it. It seems like the Shia have a pathological need to call those who disagree with them to be “Nasibi” and it is in this context of declaring everyone to be Nasibis that they view history, rejecting facts that lift the veil on this Nasibi-calling addiction.

The importance of this point is so great that I would like to reiterate it: the hatred of the Sahabah for the Ahlel Bayt is just as fictitious as the supposed hatred of Sunnis for the Ahlel Bayt. The Shia declare that the Sahabah hated Ali and the Ahlel Bayt, and yet, they also claim this about the Sunnis. An unbiased observation of the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah shows that the Sunnis have nothing but love for Ali and the Ahlel Bayt, and thus, the accusation of the Shia is baseless. Similarly, the Shia accusation that the Sahabah hated Ali and the Ahlel Bayt is also without grounds. The “evidences” they bring to back up this position are as flimsy as the arguments that they use to declare that the Sunnis hate the Ahlel Bayt. The Sunnis claiming that the marriage took place between Umm Kulthoom and Umar has nothing to do with being “Nasibi” nor does it insult Ali at all. In fact, Umar was such an upright person that the marriage brought honor upon Ali’s family. Answering-Ansar says that only a Nasibi would claim that Ali gave his daughter to Umar, but then what about Imam Al-Kulayni and the rest of the classical Shia scholars who held this position?

Anyways, Answering-Ansar’s introduction was very passionate, as is the rest of the article, but I think that the need to insult the Sunnis as “Nasibis” hampered the credibility of the authors. Answering-Ansar’s very emotional response lacked the sophistication necessary to view history in a balanced fashion.