A Comprehensive Rebuttal of Answering-Ansar’s
Article on Umm Kulthoom’s Nikah
Response to Chapter 2 entitled “The alleged marriage of Umar ibn al Khattab to Hadhrath Umme Kalthum binte Fatima (as) from the texts of Ahl’ul Sunnah”
In this section, Answering-Ansar argues that Umar was a “pervert, paedophile or child molester” for wanting to marry such a young girl.
Answering-Ansar says
Alternately such traditions may have been fabricated both to denigrate the respect that should be afforded to the Ahl-ulBait, and to justify paedophilia (here it is part of the Sunnah of ‘Umar) as certain muslim groups of the Nasibi persuasion have allowed it for their followers historically. In this day and age it rather notoriously includes certain members of the Saudi royal family, but has also included other Nasibis in history.
This is what I meant earlier by the Shia just throwing one hundred darts and hoping that one of them hits the target: we have here the completely random accusation that perhaps these traditions were fabricated in order to justify paedophilia. I don’t know if the Shia writer even believed himself when he tried to further this proposition.
In any case, the Shia threw the paedophelia dart and it ended up hitting himself on the foot. How in the world can the Shia call Umar to be a paedophiler for wanting to marry a young girl? Do these Shia not realize that Prophet Muhammad also married Aisha when she was six or seven years old? He consummated the marriage when she was only nine or ten years old.
Al-Islam.org says
To further damage the Shia claim, we see that Ali married Fatima when she was nine years old. (Al-Islam.org, http://al-islam.org/gracious/26.htm) In the process of pointing fingers at the Three Caliphs, the Shia ended up condemning both the Prophet and Ali ibn Abi Talib. The overzealous nature in which the Shia try to tarnish the image of the Three Caliphs have allied the Shia propagandists with the likes of anti-Islam groups, such as the “Answering-Islam” site.
Answering-Ansar has taken great pride in calling Umar a “pervert, paedophile, or child molestor” for the reason that he married Umm Kulthoom when she was around ten to twelve years old. In condemning Umar, these Shia condemn the Prophet and Ali as well. Not only this, but all of the Shia Maraje‘ (top scholars) have declared that marriage with a girl of this age is Halal (permissible) and that nobody can condemn it. I do not think I need to even discuss this point about paedophelia any further in order to “expose” the Shia accusations against Umar.
In the culture of the Arabs of the time, it was normal to marry a pre-pubertal girl, but only to consummate the marriage once she passed puberty. This may seem odd and disgusting to Westerners, but it’s is just custom and culture; there are even some cultures today that believe in bethroathals from birth. It does not mean that the person is committing sexual acts with a minor; no, it simply means that a person is “reserving” a girl until she reaches puberty. (In any case, there are many articles defending the Prophet’s actions in marrying a young girl, and I do not see it relevant in the discussion with the Shia, but rather with Non-Muslims. Hence, I will not delve into this point further.)
As for Umar bin Khattab, he wanted to reserve Ali’s daughter for himself because he wanted the honor of being related to the Prophet. It was not, as the Shia try to imply, because he had a sick desire for little girls. Let us see what Ibn Sa‘d says in his work “at-Tabaqat al-Kubra” which is even quoted by the Answering-Ansar site:
Answering-Ansar says
…on the authority of Jafar ibn Muhammad [as-Sadiq], and he from his father [Muhammad al-Baqir] that—
Umar said, “Marry her to me, O Abul Hasan, for by Allah,there is no man on the face of the earth who seeks to achieve through her good companionship that which I seek to achieve.”
…He [Umar] came to them [Sahabah] and said, “Congratulate me.” They congratulated him, and asked, “With whom are we congratulating you, O Amir al-Mu’minin?” He replied, “With the daughter of ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib.”
Then he related to them that the Prophet said, “Every tie of kinship, and every association will be cut off on the Day of Qiyamah, except my kinship and my association.” [Umar said,] “I have had the companionship of Rasool-Allah; I would like also to have this [kinship].”
(vol.8, p.338, ed. Muhammad ‘Ab al-Qadir ‘Ata, “Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah”, Beirut 1990).
Thus, the intention of Umar was clear: it was to have the honor of being related to the Prophet. If Umar really hated Ali, then why would he seek to have the honor of his kinship? Surely, the Shia paradigm makes no sense.
In any case, these Shia who accuse Umar of being a pervert and child molestor should feel very stupid just about now when they consider the marriage of the Prophet and Aisha, as well as that of Ali and Fatima. I have noticed this pattern with the Shia frequently: in their eternal quest to condemn the Sahabah, they accidentally end up attacking the Ahlel Bayt as a consequence because their accusations apply to the Ahlel Bayt equally. They accuse Umar of paedophilia, and thereby–by a process of implicit reasoning–they end up condemning their own Prophet and Ali. Similarly, the Shia say Abu Bakr is going to Hell because he angered Fatima and they even bring up the Prophet’s Hadith; little do these Shia know that Ali also angered Fatima and that the Prophet’s Hadith (about whoever angers Fatima also angers me) was in fact in reaction to Ali angering Fatima. And there are many other examples in which the Shia accusations against the Sahabah also condemn their Infallible Imams and their Maraje’.
Answering-Ansar says
does a father marry off a daughter in this manner? Dress her up (so as to make her look attractive) and then send her to the home of her potential husband? Is this how Nasibi Mullah’s marry their daughters / sisters? If so, it may well have been the way Mullah ‘Umar sent one of his daughters round to see ‘Usama bin Ladin, who married her! In this case, ‘Usama bin Ladin is also a pervert. We should stress to these Nasibi that the act of sending one’s daughters before potential candidates is the Sunnah of ‘Umar not the Sunnah of Ahl’ul bayt (as).
Answering-Ansar’s indignation is a bit pretentious in nature, because most of the authors are Pakistani or Persian. Almost all Pakistani and Persian parents dress their daughters up when Rishtas (marriage proposals) come and suitors come to see them. I’m pretty sure all Muslims do that; I know the Persians (who are mostly Shia) do that. There are even Sunni and Shia matrimonial sites, all of which claim to strictly follow the Shariah; they have the blessing of the Ulema on both sides and we see that these sites involve parents taking attractive pictures of their daughters so that potential suitors can see them.
Answering-Ansar’s basic argument is that Ali would never dress up his daughter and allow another man to look at her like that, or rather, “check her out.” The fact that Answering-Ansar would use such an argument is perhaps indicative of the fact that the site is run by non-scholars. Not only is it permissible for a woman to let another man look at her if he is a sincere suitor, but it is actually the Sunnah and highly recommended. In the following Hadith, a man told the Prophet he intended on marrying a woman:
The Messenger of Allah said: ‘Have you looked at her?’ He said, ‘No.’ He said, ‘Go and look at her… (Reported by Ahmad, 2/286, 299; Muslim, 4/142; al-Nisaa’i, 2/73)
In another Hadith, we read:
The Messenger of Allah said: “When any one of you proposes marriage to a woman, if he can look at that which will encourage him to go ahead and marry her, let him do so.” (Reported by Abu Dawood and al-Haakim.)
Let us now look at what the Shia Maraje’ have ruled on this matter. We find the following fatwa on Al-Islam.org, an authoratative Shia website:
Answering-Ansar says
That is, it is permissible to look at a woman in lust when one wants to see a woman to decide whether or not to marry her, as a serious suitor for marriage. Of course, it is clear that a man cannot spend years looking at women in this way to determine whether or not he wants to get married…
The second place the issue [of looking] is discussed is in relation to marriage and to what extent a suitor has the right to look at the woman he may decide to seek permission to marry…
Ayatullah Hakim in his recital Minhaj al-Salihin, [11] in the section on marriage, gives a direct edict in which he states “…It is permissible to look at a person one intends to marry as well as dhimmah women as long as there is no lust in the glance…”
…As to the permissibility of looking, Allamah wrote, “A man looking at a woman or a woman looking at a man is either necessary (like the look of a suitor) or not…”
[11]. Minhaj al-Salahin, 9th edition, issue 3
source: http://al-islam.org/modestdress/6.htm
Scholars disagree with how much a suitor can look at, but generally speaking the opinion is that a suitor can even see a woman without her Hijab, and some say more than this. Therefore, we can see nothing wrong in that Ali would show his daughter to Umar, who was indeed the sincerest of suitors. The Shia accusation, although emotional in appeal, falls flat on its face.
Answering-Ansar says
The Ahl’ ul bayt (as) are the shining examples of chastity, modesty and purdah, and they [would never] send their daughters unchaperoned to a potential husband who can do whatever he pleases with them.
Not a single narration that the Shia cited ever said anything about sending Umm Kulthoom alone. Just because Ali did not come along, that does not mean she went alone. This is simply conjecture on the part of the Shia. In fact, in one of the narrations cited by Answering-Ansar, we read that Ali delegated Hasan and Hussain to marry off Umm Kulthoom. Both Hasan and Hussain were suitable Mahrems to do the job. So it is likely that her brothers are the ones who accompanied her to Umar. We read the following:
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” (Sawaiqh al Muhriqa, Page 155)
Having said that, Umm Kulthoom was pre-pubertal when she was sent to Umar, and thus, the rules of Purdah did not exist for her. We will get into this point next.
And this is what Answering-Ansar makes the most fan-fare out of:
Answering-Ansar says
If we accept this narration (Allah Forbid), then we would be upholding Imam ‘Ali (as) happily sending his young, unmarried daughter to the home of an elderly man who decides to molest her. This man is ‘Umar, a pervert of the first order…
…the girl is so young that her father says she is not of an age for marriage (more on that later on). Is this how a proposal for marriage is conducted? Can Afriki tell us of any muslim parent that would allow a potential suitor to court their daughter in this manner? Here a muslim father allegedly sends his daughter to the home of the potential suitor who kisses her calf (Istiab) and grabs her elbow (Khamees / Baghdad). Both actions of ‘Umar are HARAM as he was not married to her…And after this sordid behaviour the alleged suitor, ‘Umar, is still deemed by the alleged father-in-law to be an acceptable husband for his daughter!
…It says a great deal, in fact, about their [Sunni’s] own diseased and perverted sick minds. In this day and age they could have had successful careers writing for pornographic magazines…There is a link between porn and politics. This was one of them? the sick minds of scholars who wrote fabricated lies to appease khalifas who wanted official religious sanction for their own perverted recreational habits.
The Answering-Ansar website has resorted to outlandish accusations and exaggerations of events, taking things drastically out of context. The one statement I found the most amusing was “there is a link between porn and politics.” What in the world does that even mean!?
What the Shia have done here is present narrations after they first poision the water with their propaganda. They first claim that Umar is a “pervert, paedophile or child molester” and then right after this they mention certain events while that statement is still ringing in the reader’s ears. To see how unfair of a reading this is, let us take this story for instance:
When I was about ten years old, I remember that this one auntie and uncle baby-sat me because my parents were out of town. They treated me real nice, like their own son. They even hugged me and kissed me on the forehead. They said they loved me like their own little boy.
Does anyone here think anything strange of my childhood story? Well, if you are normal (and not perverted), this would seem like an everyday occurrence of no significance. On the other hand, I could’ve have easily relayed the same exact story like this:
When I was about ten years old, I remember that I had this one episode with a child molestor. When I was at this old man’s house, he did some really perverted things! He was a paedophiler. He once fondled me by grabbing me and pressing his chest so close to mine that our privates were not far apart. [He] even hugged me and kissed me… After he had his share and was satisfied of kissing me, he said that he loved little boys like me. It was the worst experience of my life.
In the analogy above, the actual “Hadith” was simply: “They even hugged me and kissed me on the forehead.” You will notice that I kept this part the same in both paragraphs and scenarios. However, in the first scenario I surrounded that sentence with positive words that gave a good image of the uncle. In the latter paragraph (i.e. the second scenario), I surrounded that same exact sentence with words that poisioned the water and made the person look like a pervert, so much so that the reader now sees the hugging and kissing to be in a very disgusting sort of way.
This is what the Shia have done with the narrations about Umar and Umm Kulthoom. They first called Umar to be a “pervert, paedophile or child molester” and they even said that he “molested” Umm Kulthoom in those narrations. Then, they narrated the story and suddenly the reader reads into the narration what the Shia propagandists want the reader to. Seemingly normal actions–things we all do when we show our affection towards children–now become sick and perverted ones that will always be construed as such.
Firstly, it should be established that Ali sent his daughter to Umar when she was still very young (pre-pubescent). In fact, this is mentioned in the very narrations that Answering-Ansar quotes:
Answering-Ansar says
“Ali (as) asked that Umme Kalthum, who was still a milk fed baby, go to Umar and tell him that the request had been granted. When Umme Kalthum went to Umar and delivered the message, he grabbed her, hugged her and said, ‘I had asked her father for consent to marry you and he has agreed.’” (Zakhair Al-Aqba, p.169)
This point is emphasized in the other narrations that Answering-Ansar quoted:
Answering-Ansar says
“Umar asked Ali for the hand of Umme Kalthum. Ali replied that she was too young…” (Al Istiab, Volume 4, p.467)
Thus, at the time that Ali sent his daughter to Umar, she was still in the words of Ali to be a “milk-fed baby.” Admittedly, this is figurative speech to indicate the youth of her age, but the point remains: she was extremely young. Thus, Umar did not violate any laws when he touched her. Up until the age of puberty, a girl does not have to wear Hijab and it is OK to touch her as long as there is no lust. Don’t we all touch little children when we hold their hands to cross the street, and give them hugs, and other such things–this is what normal human beings do with children, not only their own but others as well.
As to why Ali sent Umm Kulthoom to Umar, it was simply to fulfill the Sunnah act and the command of the Prophet who demanded that a man see the woman before he agrees to marry her.
IslamOnline.com says
In principle, it is a Sunnah to look at the woman someone has intended to marry. There are some hadiths that are related to this issue. One of them narrates the story of Al-Mughirah Ibn Shu’bah when he proposed to a lady and the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) told him to “LOOK at her as it might produce love between and make your marriage stable”.
Furthermore, we read in another Hadith:
The Messenger of Allah said: ‘Have you looked at her?’ He said, ‘No.’ He said, ‘Go and look at her… (Reported by Ahmad, 2/286, 299; Muslim, 4/142; al-Nisaa’i, 2/73)
There are a variety of narrations as to what happened when this very young girl Umm Kulthoom went to see Umar. Some of these narrations say that he hugged her, others say he put her on her lap, others say that he didn’t even touch her at all, and some say that he kissed her or grabbed her leg to stop her from running away from him. All of these actions seem very normal to me, and I do not see what is odd or strange about them? Umar did not do any of these out of lust, but rather he was displaying the normal affection that human beings show children.
Let us examine some of the narrations in this light:
Answering-Ansar says
“When Umar saw her, he got up, took her in his lap, kissed her, and showered blessings on her. When she got up to leave, he grabbed her ankle and said, ‘Tell your father that I am willing.’”
(Sawaiqh al Muhriqa page 280 and Asaaf al Ghaneen page 162)
The key point is “showered blessings on her.” This is really what my grandfather does to me every time I went to see him when I was little. He put me in his lap, kissed me, and then he used to shower blessings upon me in his native Urdu tongue. Seems extremely normal to me.
We can see that Umar thus viewed Umm Kulthoom as a little girl, and he had no intentions of consumating the marriage with her. But rather, he simply wanted to reserve this girl for himself perhaps even since the day she was born, just so that he could claim relation to the Prophet via her. When Umm Kulthoom, a very young girl, went to see him, she was extremely shy of boys. It reminds me of my six year old niece who is so shy of boys; we always laugh and say that she is already so proper of a girl. I have another two year old niece who is the exact opposite: she only makes friends with boys! We make fun of this too, all in good fun. These things are what grown-ups laugh at and even tease their kids about.
Answering-Ansar says
[Umar said:] ‘If she is underage, send her to me.’ Thus ‘Ali gave his daughter Umme Kalthum a dress and asked her to go to ‘Umar and tell him that her father wants to know what this dress is for. When she came to Umar and gave him the message, he grabbed her hand and forcibly pulled her towards him. ‘Umme Kalthum asked him to leave her hand, which Umar did and said, ‘You are a very mannered lady with great morals. Go and tell your father that you are very cute and you are not what he said of you’. (Tareekh Khamees Volume 2 page 384 ‘Dhikr Umm Kalthum’ and Zakhair Al-Aqba, Page 168)
Again, we see clearly in this narration that Umm Kulthoom is “under age.” When Umar grabbed her hand, she wanted him to stop, and then Umar said in a hearty manner: “you are a very mannered lady with great morals.” Notice the key word here: he called her a “lady.” It is thus very clear that he is talking in a very grown up fashion towards a little child; it is like when my three year old cousin dresses up with make-up for Eid, I say to her: “oh wow, you look like a very pretty lady!” It is said tongue-in-cheek by the grown-up.
Thus, we have established the fact that when Ali sent his daughter Umm Kulthoom to him, she was still pre-pubescent and thus the laws of touching and looking were not even applicable. Neither were the laws of being accompanied by a Mahrem (although it is unlikely that a “milk-fed baby” could go anywhere by herself so it is likely that she was accompanied by someone other than Ali).
According to the historical sources, Ali had promised Umm Kulthoom to Umar when she was pre-pubescent and merely a child; hence, the arguments made by the Shia of violating a woman’s honor are baseless. The engagement period lasted for a couple years and she was married to Umar when she was about eleven or twelve years of age. The marriage was then consummated a year after that as we read in another narration kindly quoted by Answering-Ansar:
Answering-Ansar says
“Umar married her in 17 Hijri, and consummated the marriage a year later when she became baligh” (Yaseen Maussali in Al Madhahib, Page 98, and ‘Umar Reza Kulalla, in Ulum Al Nisa, Page 256)
Thus, Umm Kulthoom was not even baligh (mature) when she got married, and Umar still had to wait one more year on top of that to consummate the marriage (thereby fulfilling the Sunnah of the Prophet who also waited before he consummated the marriage with Aisha). So how then can the Shia claim that the rules of Hijab/Purdah would apply to Umm Kulthoom years before when Umar proposed to her!? If she wasn’t baligh a year into the marriage, then she surely wasn’t baligh before her marriage either. (A rather self-evident statement.)
It is actually very pretentious for a Shia to accuse Umar of “molesting” a child, when we read their Hadith or fatwas from the Shia Maraje’ (top scholars). Ayatollah Khomeini is considered by the Shia to be the absolute authority of Allah on earth (and the sole representative of the Hidden Imam), and as such, his position to the Shia is higher than the position of Umar bin Khattab to the Ahlus Sunnah. Let us read what Khomeini said in his book “Tahreer al-Waseelah”:
Al-Shia.com says
12 :
لا يجوز وطء الزوجة قبل إكمال تسع سنين ، دواما كان النكاح أو منقطعا ، و أما سائر الاستمتاعات كاللمس بشهوة و الضم و التفخيذ فلا بأس بها حتى فى الرضيعة ، و لو وطأها قبل التسع و لم يفضها لم يترتب عليه شىء غير الاثم على الاقوى ، و إن أفضاها بأن جعل مسلكى البول و الحيض واحدا أو مسلكى الحيض و الغائط واحدا حرم عليه وطؤها أبدا لكن على الاحوط فى الصورة الثانية ، و على أي حال لم تخرج عن زوجيته على الاقوى ، فيجري عليها أحكامها من التوارث و حرمة الخامسة و حرمة أختها معها و غيرها ، و يجب عليه نفقتها مادامت حية و إن طلقها بل و إن تزوجت بعد الطلاق على الاحوط ، بل لا يخلو من قوة ، و يجب عليه دية الافضاء ، و هى دية النفس ، فإذا كانت حرة فلها نصف دية الرجل مضافا إلى المهر الذي استحقته بالعقد و الدخول ، و لو دخل بزوجته بعد إكمال التسع فأفضاها لم تحرم عليه و لم تثبت الدية ، و لكن الاحوط الانفاق عليها مادامت حية و إن كان الاقوى عدم الوجوب .
Translation: “It is not allowed to perform sexual intercourse (i.e. penetration) with your wife if she hasn’t turned nine years of age; however, all other sexual pleasure such as touching with sexual desire, hugging, and rubbing between her thighs is not a problem with her even if she is an infant being breast-fed (less than two years old).”
source: Ayatollah Khomeini, Tahreer al-Waseelah
And just in case you think I’m making this up, check it for yourself from Al-Shia.com, which along with Al-Islam.org, is considered by the Shia to be the most authoratative sites. Go to the link I gave above, and then you’ll have to scroll down to the twelvth item “Ketabonnekah” in order to find Ayatollah Khomeini’s fatwa in Tahreer al-Waseelah.
Hence, I do not think that the Shia has any right to claim that Umar bin Khattab was a pervert, when their own Grand Ayatollah sanctions behavior such as deriving sexual pleasure from infants. I remind the readers that all Umar did was hug Umm Kulthoom, kiss her (probably on the forehead), grabbed her hand, put her on his lap, etc. These are all things that normal people do to children as a sign of affection. On the other hand, what the Shia Ayatollah above is sanctioning is truly perverted. How can the Shia follow Ayatollah Khomeini on the one hand, and then call Umar a “pervert” for doing simple things like hugging someone!? The Shia are acting as if hugging a child is a big deal.
The Shia have all sorts of narrations about the Prophet putting his face in between Fatima’s breasts, and kissing her on the neck, mouth, and even between her breasts. The Ahlus Sunnah of course abhors these traditions and rejects them. Whereas what the Sunni narrations say about Umar and Umm Kulthoom are normal and healthy, the things that the Shia claim that the Prophet did to Fatima are borderline perverted and are a slander against the personality of the Prophet.
Here is another Shia fatwa, this time from Grand Ayatollah Sayyid al-Abtuhi:
Grand Ayatollah Sayyid al-Abtuhi says
السؤال 465
انا فتاة ابلغ من العمر15عام ابى رجل متدين جدا واتا البس الحجاب الكامل خارج المنزل والحمد اللة ولكن ابى يقبلنى كثيرا بين ثديى او فى فمى او يأتى من خلفى ويحتضنى ويقبلنى فى نحرى فأقول لة أليست هذة الأفعال حرام فيقول لى انها حرام اذا كانت بشهوة لكن انا افعل معك ذلك بعاطفة الأبوة وان الرسول محمد كان يقبل ابنتة السيدة فاطمة من نحرها وبين ثدييها وفى فمها ويمص لسانها فهل الرسول كان يفحش فى ابنتة لا واذا الرسول فعل ذلك فهذة رخصة لأى اب ان يفعل مع ابنتة ذلك ويقول لى اننى لا المس العورة وهى القبل والدبر وكل ما ليس بعورة مصرح برؤية او لمسة او تقبيلة وانة يفعل هذا أيضا من خوفة على من اغراءات الشباب فالفتاة التى تسلم نفسها لأى شاب تكون مفتقدة لمشاعر الحب والحنان داخل المنزل فهل ما يفعلة ابى معى حلال ام حرام واذا كان حرام كيف كان الرسول يفعل هذا مع ابنتة السيدة فاطمة الزهراء وشكرا على هذا الموقع المفيد.
الجواب
و عليكم السلام و رحمة الله و بركاته ان فعل والدك جائز بالشرط الذي هو يقوله و ذلك في قلبه و لاتظني به السوء. اهلا بكم.
Q 465
I’m a 15 years old girl. My dad is a very religious man. When I get out of the house, I wear my full Hijab -al-Hamdulillah. But my dad kisses me a lot between my breasts or on the mouth, or hugs me from the rear and kisses my neck. When I ask him, aren’t these acts forbidden, he replies, they are provided they were done with lust, but I do that with you moved by the passion of fatherhood. That the Messenger Muhammad used to kiss his daughter Fatimah on the neck and in between her breasts, as well as on the mouth sucking her tongue. So was the Messenger doing such evil to his daughter? No. And if he did, should this serve as a permission for any father to do the same with his daughter? He says: I’m not touching the private parts which are the front & rear, and as such what does not constitute an awra is clearly lawful to see, touch or kiss. He claims that he does this to me out of concerns for me against the seductions of the young men, because the girl who gives up her body to the guys often lacks love and attention at home. Is what my dad doing with me Halaal or Haraam? If Haraam, why was the messenger doing that to his daughter Fatimah al-Zahraa, and thank you for this useful website.
A: wa alaikum assalaam wa rahmatullahi wa barakaatuh. The acts performed by your dad are permissible with the conditions stated by him, and the (intention) is confined to his heart, but do not think ill of him. Welcome.
Grand Ayatollah Sayyid al-Abtuhi
The Shia Hadith which justify such odd and peculiar behavior include the following:
“It was narrated that [Imam] Jafar Ibn Muhamad said: The Prophet Muhammad used to put his face between the breasts of [his daughter] Fatima before going to sleep” (Bihaar al-Anwar, vol.23, p.78)
And there are many other narrations of the Shia in which the Prophet kisses her on the neck, and other such things.
How can the Shia say anything about Umar kissing a little girl when the same Ayatollahs that the Shia revere kiss little girls and boys? The Shia even have a peculiar habit of men kissing each other on the lips, as well as kissing little boys on the lips. We see the following:
This shows Ayatollah Khomeini kissing a young girl. So how then can the Shia accuse Umar in regards to doing this to Umm Kulthoom? Umar was the Caliph of the Ummah, and it is very normal for leaders of countries (like the US President) to kiss little babies and kids. And this was not just any kid, but the Prophet’s grand-daughter.
And for good measure, here is a picture of the Ayatollah kissing a boy on the lips, certainly more disturbing and “perverted” than what Umar ever did:
I don’t want to degrade this debate into a mud-slinging contest and my intention here is not to inflame passions by showing such compromising pictures of Ayatollahs. What I am trying to establish here is that there is no way that the Shia can criticize those narrations in which Umar does such normal things to Umm Kulthoom, and it is very hypocritical and sanctimonious that they would hold such an attitude when we weigh in the behavior of their Ayatollahs. Umar bin Khattab merely did things which healthy human beings do to children (i.e. hug them and kiss them on the cheeks, etc) and there can be no condemnation of him, especially not from people who accept such peculiar behavior of their Ayatollahs (i.e. sexual pleasure from infants, kissing little boys on the lips, etc).
I could go on and on, but I think that I’ve sufficiently crippled the Shia argument mentioned in the second chapter of Answering-Ansar’s article.
|
|