A Comprehensive Rebuttal of Answering-Ansar’s
Article on Umm Kulthoom’s Nikah
Response to Chapter 3 entitled “Our objections to the Sunni traditions”
This is the part where the Answering-Ansar team literally throws everything including the kitchen sink at us…a huge conglomeration of “responses.” In fact, there are no less than twenty-seven different responses here! This reminds me of what lawyers do in order to burden the opposition: they swarm them with paper-work and minutia in an effort to shift the topic of discussion.
Reply 1 Entitled “The esteemed status of the family of Sayyida UMME KALTHUM (as) and her mother”
In this, the Shia is claiming that Fatima would never agree to letting her daughter be seen by a perverted old child molestor like Umar. These are the same accusations that the Shia levied against Umar in chapter 2. I have responded to this child-molestor claim in the previous section (my response to chapter 2), and hence, I will not discuss it again.
Reply 2 Entitled “Such a marriage would pain Sayyida Fatima (as)”
I don’t see how this is any different than the First Objection; it is once again talking about Umar bin Khattab being a pervert for marrying Umm Kulthoom at the age of ten or twelve, completely ignoring the fact that Shia sources confirm that the Prophet married Aisha when she was six years old, and Ali married Fatima when she was nine years old. Once again, refer to my response to chapter 2 in the previous section.
I would, however, like to comment on when Answering-Ansar says the following:
Answering-Ansar says
Unfortunately for them, they didn’t read the traditions in much detail? till now and our exposing of the Nasibi privates, which are uncircumcised. Till now it never occurred to their puny little minds that their beloved ‘Umar could be brought down in the steaming pile of paedophilia and perversion which stamp him in these very same traditions. We are exposing the Nasibi privates? it is not clean? it has been seen?they all have foreskins still? hiding their hypocrisy beneath kaftans made of the finest silk threads.
For the life of me, I cannot understand why a supposedly academic piece would start talking about their opponent’s privates and wether or not they are circumscribed or not!? This is extremely un-professional and I cannot understand how anyone takes this article seriously when it’s using such filthy language. I don’t even understand that last sentence.
To get back on point, the Shia are trying to make the jump that Fatima would get angry at the marriage of Umm Kulthoom to Umar. However, this is not a rebuttal because according to the Sunnis, Umar was an upright individual and the marriage would be a good one. Umar was the Caliph of the Muslims, and no doubt Fatima would be honored to give her daughter to a man of such a noble rank. I do not think that Answering-Ansar understands the rules of debate, evidenced by their talking abour the foreskin of their opponents.
Reply 3 Entitled “Umar’s anger would have displeased Rasulullah (s)”
Here, Answering-Ansar is saying that Umar had a temper and that thus he was not a fit suitor for Umm Kulthoom. According to the Shia, Umar was rude, harsh, and had a temper. However, the Sunni opinion of Umar is different than this. The Shia are just using a play on words here. For example, a non-Muslim could describe Ali as “hostile” (arguing that Ali was hostile towards the Kufaar); on the other hand, a Muslim would use the same quality and refer to it in a positive way, calling Ali as “protective” (arguing that Ali was protective of the Prophet against the Kufaar). Thus, the quality is the same, but we simply use different words in order to portray another connotation. Another example is calling someone “gullible” instead of “trusting”, or how about “arrogant” instead of “confident.”
This is how the Shia manipulate words in order to tarner the image of Umar. Personally, Umar bin Khattab is my absolute favorite Sahabi, for the very reason that he was such a tough guy. He was a man’s man. He used to intimidate the Kufaar, and if anyone messed with the Prophet, he would ask permission to chop that guy’s head off. Once a man urinated in the mosque, and Umar wanted to fight him. The Kufaar were so scared of him; he was like the bulldozer of Islam, ready to run over the Kufaar. He was also strict on women, in regards to them maintaining Haya; when he was Caliph, he stamped out sexually explicit activities. He banned love poetry, strictly enforced the prohibition on Mutah, and maintained a rigid Purdah. These are all great qualites to have; yes, women were subsequently somewhat scared of him (and in awe of his fearsome power). Being a young Muslim man myself, I think this is exactly how I’d like to be.
Umar bin Khattab was not a bad person; he was harsh, but he was harsh on matters in which people should be harsh. He was harsh against the Kufaar (disbelievers), against those who hated the Prophet and wanted to hurt him, against those who advocated sexual lewdness, etc. The Shia themselves believe in being harsh against Nasibis and they curse and hate them, so this concept should not be alien at all to the Shia.
Answering-Ansar quotes a saying in which the people said “Yes, for you are harsher and sterner than Allah’s Apostle.” Notice that this implies that the Prophet did have a level of harshness and sterness in him, so this is not a bad thing. In fact, Allah Almighty commands the Muslims in the Quran to “let them find harshness in you” in reference to those who are against Islam. In fact, it is narrated in Hadith that the Prophet used to pray that someone strong like Umar bin Khattab convert to Islam so that the Muslims would no longer have to practise in secret and in fear. Once Umar converted to Islam, the Muslims publically declared their faith to the world and used the strength of Umar to do so. This was an honor and prestige that Umar had, and no other Sahabi–not even Ali ibn Abi Talib. In fact, according to the Shia, Ali would always live in fear and Taqiyyah (a view rejected by the Ahlus Sunnah), and yet look at how great Umar bin Khattab is that he not only publically declared his own Islam but wrapped his protective cloak over all the Muslims who went out of hiding because of him.
In conclusion, we cannot see how this is a valid argument of the Shia. Yes, if we believe the Shia opinion of Umar, then the argument would make sense. But again, like I said in the last response, this is not a rebuttal because according to the Sunnis, Umar was an upright individual and the marriage would be a good one.
In any case, this point has no relevance to Umm Kulthoom’s marriage. The Ansar team showed proof from the Shia Hadith in Al-Kafi that the marriage did indeed take place. How does showing that Umar had a temper prove in any way relate to this? Do people who have tempers not get married?
Reply 4 Entitled “Ahl’ul Sunnah aqeedah that a daughter of Rasulullah (s) cannot be married to a man with other wives”
This is just plain false and indicative of the lack of knowledge of the Answering-Ansar team. First of all, these Shia high school or college students don’t even know the difference between Aqeedah and Fiqh. Who one marries has nothing to do at all with Aqeedah, but rather it is a purely Fiqh matter!
In any case, it is simply not true that the Sunni fiqh says that the Prophet’s daughters cannot marry a man with other wives. How can the Shia make such ridicolous assertions? The Prophet discouraging Ali from marrying another wife other than Fatima was not due to Fiqh, but rather due to the preference of the Prophet. It was not illegal for Ali to marry another wife, but it was just that the Prophet preferred he not do so. For example, the Prophet disliked certain foods, but this does not mean they are forbidden. And the only reason he didn’t want Ali to marry another wife was that Fatima would have Gheerah (protective jealousy) as she, like Aisha, had a lot of Gheerah (and we use protective jealous in an endearing sort of way here, meaning that these women loved their husbands so much that they didn’t want to share them).
In any case, Umar did not even marry the Prophet’s daughter so why are the Shia even bringing this up!? Umar married Ali’s daughter–not the Prophet’s. So even if the Sunnis had such a principle (which they don’t), it still wouldn’t help the Shia argument! This is what we call throwing the kitchen sink.
Reply 5 Entitled “Umar was not the kuff (equivalent) of Umme Kalthum (as), which makes the putative existence of this marriage as untenable”
The argument of “Kuff” has been used so many times by the Answering-Ansar team, that I have decided to dedicate a separate page to it and just link the reader there. So please go here: Kuff and Umm Kulthoom’s Marriage.
Replies 6 and 7
Looking at a potential spouse for marriage is Halal and it is in fact the Sunnah of the Prophet, as attested by the Shia Maraje’ themselves. In regards to Umar touching Umm Kulthoom, she was not a baligh when Umar touched her, and hence, it was not Haram. I have already discussed both of these arguments in great detail in my response to “Chapter 2.”
Reply 8 Entitled “Umar supposedly exposed Imam ‘Ali (as) as a liar”
The Shia quote this:
Answering-Ansar says
“When Umar asked for Umme Kalthum’s hand, ‘Ali said she is under age. ‘Umar said ‘By Allah this is not the case, you just don’t want to marry her to me’”
I have absolutely no idea how this argument of the Shia refutes the fact that the marriage took place, but I’ll play along anyways. Umar never accused Ali of lying. It was only in a playful tone that he would bug Ali to give him his daughter. Umar was just over zealous in wanting to have kinship with the Prophet via Umm Kulthoom. And how can he blamed for this? So he used to bug Ali to give her to Umar, and eventually Ali did so. I oftentimes bug my friend to let me drive his car. He says “man, my car’s brakes are all messed up.” I say back to him, “aww come on, you just don’t want me to drive the car.” Now obviously there is some brake problem, but there is also an element that maybe he doesn’t want me to borrow his car in the back of his mind. Anyways, I bug him further and eventually he lets me because he is my friend.
The Shia are really grasping at straws here. If Umar and Ali were not friends, then why would Umar want to marry his daughter? Why was Umar so eager in having kinship to the family of the Prophet?
In any case, there is no question of lying since there is no right answer. Ali said that Umm Kulthoom was too young. This is a subjective statement. Maybe to Ali she was too young. But to others, including Umar, she was not. Some parents find their daughters to be too young even when they are 20. If someone else said to them “this is not the case and she is old enough to get married”, is this calling these parents a liar? Let’s say that I wanted to marry an eighteen year old girl. If I went to her parents, they would tell me she is too young. To this, I would say “this is not the case, you just can’t see her get married because you are scared.” Again, there is no issue of accusing anyone of lying. If I say that blue is the best color, and you say “no, I think red is”, did anyone lie? No, it’s just a difference of opinion on a subjective thing.
Reply 9 Entitled “Many of the Sahaba taunted Imam ‘Ali (as) and favoured ‘Umar”
I don’t see any narration that the Sahabah “taunted” Ali. Again, we see the Answering-Ansar team always playing with words to make them sound more dreary than they really are.
Answering-Ansar says
” ‘Umar asked for the hand of ‘Ali (as)’s daughter. ‘Ali (as) said the girl is underage. Then the people accused ‘Ali (as) of just making up an excuse to avoid marrying his daughter to ‘Umar. ‘Umar asked for her hand in marriage a further two times.”
I don’t see how the people are taunting Ali at all. Again, they just disagree with him. Ali was very over-protective of his daughter, and thus, he didn’t want to marry her off because to him she would always be daddy’s little girl. In fact, the point that Ali was so over-protective that he didn’t want to marry her off just proves that he must’ve really have approved of Umar’s character if he gave her to him (since over-protective parents do not just dump their children off to people of bad character).
Reply 10 Entitled “Umar drove ‘Ali (as) to despair, causing him much pain”
This is getting really old now. Answering-Ansar is simply translating everything using word games. The real words of the narration are that Ali eventually got “annoyed” or “pestered” enough by Umar’s insistence that he gave Umm Kulthoom to him. And annoyance is like the superficial annoyance of a friend; for example, I keep bugging my friend to let me borrow his car, and finally he just throws his hands up in the air and says “alright man, take the car, just shut up!” Of course this is all in an endearing way. A better translation of “desperation” here would be that Ali got sick of it, but not in a bad way. A similar instance is when these two young boys begged the Prophet again and again to let them go on Jihad. The Prophet kept refusing but the boys kept “annoying” the Prophet about it. Eventually, the Prophet agreed when they persisted so much and pestered the Prophet so thoroughly. It was their desire to do good that led them to pester the Prophet, and likewise, it was Umar’s desire to have kinship with the Prophet that he pestered Ali.
In which narration does it say that Ali was caused a lot of pain? I don’t see it. In fact, let’s say it caused Ali pain. Let’s say Ali got pained by Umar asking him again and again. Then, to alleviate his pain, he decides to give his daughter off to a corrupt child molestor? Is this really the coward image the Shia are trying to portray of Ali? Just to get rid of a bit of emotional pain he will give his daughter away?
Reply 11 Entitled “The absence of the father in the Nikah makes this marriage void”
Answering-Ansar says
According to the Hanafi school of thought, the presence of the father is also a must, and his absence would make the marriage void.
Once again, the Answering-Ansar kids couldn’t get Fiqh right. Wali is not required in the Hanafi Madhab:
“Hanafi school of Islamic law does not make wali’s consent a condition of marriage…According to Abu Hanifah, the marriage of a free, adult, sane woman is contracted with her consent, even if there [is] no wali [who] performs the contract for her, whether she is virgin or not.”
(source: “Mukhtasar al-Quduri”, a matn of Hanafi fiqh)
This is confirmed by other Hanafi websites such as Sunni Path, Ask-Imam, and Dar ul Iftaa. Sunni Path says: “the Hanafi School gives women the option to marry without their guardian’s permission” (www.sunnipath.com)
This is the same opinion of the Shia scholars, namely that permission of the father is not necessary if the two are compatible. We read on Al-Islam.org (emphasis is ours):
Al-Islam.org says
if she is a virgin but her father and paternal grandfather refuse to grant permission to her for marrying a man who is compatible to her in the eyes of Sharia’, it will not be necessary to seek their permission.
In any case, the argument of the Shia is ridicolous, because there is a difference between having a father’s permission and having the father present at the Nikah. It is very possible for a woman to have her father’s permission and blessing, but he is unable to attend the wedding; therefore, he is allowed by Shariah to designate a Wali to act on behalf of him at the wedding. Hasan and Hussain would suffice then as representatives and there is no problem with the Nikah. The father not physically present but rather appointing someone in his place is a normal practise amongst Sunnis, namely because oftentimes the Wali is in another country and may have VISA problems, etc. I do believe the same is true of Shia families. In any case, according to the Sunni sources quoted by Answering-Ansar, Ali ibn Abi Talib made Hasan and Hussain the Walis of Umm Kulthoom and told them to get her married. This was in the narration we mentioned earlier and also mentioned on the Answering-Ansar site (emphasis is ours):
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)
The Shia scholars confirm that the father doesn’t have to be present but rather someone else can be delegated to do this task, even a female! We read the following on Al-Islam.org:
Answering-Ansar says
The representative should not necessarily be a male. A woman can also become a representative to pronounce the marriage formula.
Reply 12 Entitled “According to Ahl’ul Sunnah Aqeedah an “if” marriage is void”
This argument of the Shia is ridicolous.
Answering-Ansar says
As we had cited earlier, we read in Al Istiab, Volume 4, Page 469, that that the father of the putative bride, Imam Ali (as), told ‘Umar ‘I will send Umme Kalthum to your house, if you like her, she will be your wife’. A marriage based on “If” is called a “Mualiq”, and according to the Maliki, Shafi and Hanbali schools of thought, it is considered void.
I have to hand it to the Answering-Ansar website: they are getting more and more creative (and more and more desperate) as the article progresses. Based on this, we could say that every marriage is an “if” clause and therefore null. All men marry women if they like the woman.
These high school and college students have misread a ruling that is held by some Sunni scholars. It is for example if a man said to his wife: “If the Yankees win tomorrow, then consider us divorced.” If the Yankees won the next day, his so-called “divorce” would be invalid and not applicable. In order to actually get divorced, he would have to say “Talaq” three times whenever he wants it. So there is a difference then if a man would say to his wife: “If you ever cheat on me, then consider us divorced.” If the woman cheats on the man, the divorce would not be valid yet, but the man simply has to then pronounce the divorce and it would be valid. The man’s statement meant that if you cheat on me, then I will say “Talaq” not that it would automatically be a divorce without him having said it.
Umm Kulthoom did not become the wife of Umar bin Khattab the moment that Umar liked her when she stepped into his house, but rather what Ali meant to say was that he will then marry Umm Kulthoom to him in the near future. The Answering-Ansar team itself provides many narrations in which Hasan and Hussain then conducted the marriage. I hope the Shia can realize their desperation here; they are grabbing at straws. I think they literally were just surfing websites and saw a fatwa, misinterpreted it, and decided “hey, we could use this in our article!”
Reply 13 Entitled “The complete ignorance of the Sahaba with regards to the marriage”
Answering-Ansar says
After that Umme Kalthum returned [from Umar’s house] to Hadhrath ‘Ali and relayed what had transpired, and she asked him, ‘Why did you send me to that filthy old man?’ ‘Ali said, “O daughter, he is your husband”. After that ‘Umar attended a gathering of the Muhajireen and asked them to congratulate him. They asked him why (they should congratulate him). ‘Umar replied, “I have married Umme Kalthum the daughter of ‘Ali”.
(Al Istiab, Volume 4, Page 467)
So the Answering-Ansar team is now arguing that how could such a wedding have taken place when after it, the Sahabah still don’t know about it. I think these Shia propagandists have reading comprehension problems. Please read the narration above again. When Umar goes to the gathering of Muslims, the Nikah has not been pronounced yet; but rather he is only jubilant that Ali has promised him to her and accepted Umar’s proposal. The likeness of this is if a man meets a CEO at a dinner party. The CEO offers the man a job then and there, so afterwards the man is ecstatic and calls his friends and says “I got a job!” Now officially, at this point in time, he hasn’t signed any of the paper-work and legally he doesn’t have any job at all. It is a promise of a job, and pretty much gauranteed, but the formalities must fall through.
Hence, the marriage of Umm Kulthoom was not held in private or secret. This is absurd. Admittedly, it probably wasn’t a humongous Pakistani style wedding that costs ten trillion dollars and three milion guests from Pakistan. That was not the custom back then and people used to marry in very simple ways. Thus, any comparison the Answering-Ansar team are trying to give between the marriages back then and now are invalid. Ali himself said he had no dower to give Fatima, and he simply gave a coat of armor to Fatima. We could ask the Shia: what kind of Shia parents nowadays would wed their daughter with a dower like this!? And based on this, we could say that Fatima’s wedding with Ali never took place, because who in the world gives weapons to a woman as a dower? And then we could use emphatic rhetoric like the Shia do and say things like “this is no ordinary woman–this is the Prophet’s daughter–how could Ali not give any dower to her?!” And then we could add more punch to this by using words like “dirty Nasibis” and/or “Wahabi” to make our point more effective.
In fact, it is the Sunnah of the Prophet to hold very quiet, simple, and less ostentatious marriages. However, it should be stated that when Umar went to the crowd of Muslims in the narration above, the Nikah had not been pronounced as of yet. Nobody has ever interpreted this in any other way. The evidence for this is in the narration itself, when Umm Kulthoom goes home to Ali; how could the Nikah have been already pronounced and then Ali has to be the one that informs an unknowing Umm Kulthoom that the Nikah has been pronounced? Was Umm Kulthoom drugged during the Nikah? Obviously, common sense (and reading comprehension) dictates that no Nikah ceremony had taken place yet, but that Ali had promised Umm Kulthoom to Umar by this time. In fact, according to the more reliable reports, the actual Nikah would be performed years later when Umm Kulthoom became much older.
Reply 14 Entitled “The absence of a Marriage (Nikah) makes this alleged marriage void. This is how ridiculous the whole concept of this alleged marriage is.”
This is pretty much the same argument as the last one. And we have answered it. In any case, there are many narrations that talk about that Umar had been 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, or other such 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 I do not know how the Shia can use this argument. 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! The narrations about the marriage have so many sources that it is considered Mutawattir.
Reply 15 Entitled “The failure to seek the bride’s consent means that Imam ‘Ali (as) violated the Shari’a (astaghfirullah)”
First off, both Sunni and Shia are accepted on the fact that a girl who is not Baligh can be married off by her father without her consultation; since she is still a minor, she is not capable of making this decision herself.
Islam-qa.com says
Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr said:
The scholars are unanimously agreed that a father may marry off his young daughter without consulting her. The Messenger of Allaah married ‘Aa’ishah bint Abi Bakr when she was young, six or seven years old, when her father married her to him.
Al-Istidhkaar, 16/49-50.
And once again, this is confirmed by the Shia scholars:
Al-Islam.org says
The father and the paternal grandfather can contract a marriage on behalf of his minor son or daughter…And after the children have become baligh or the insane has become sane, he can endorse or abrogate it, if the contracted marriage involves any moral lapse or scandal. And if the marriage contract does not involve any moral lapse or scandal, but the na-baligh son or daughter calls off the marriage, then as an obligatory precaution, a Talaq or a renewed Nikah, whatever the case may be, must be recited.
source: http://www.al-islam.org/laws/marriage1.html
The Shia have no leg to stand upon. Ali did not need to seek Umm Kulthoom’s permission, since–according to the sources that the Shia themselves quote–she was a “milk fed baby.” In any case, the Sunnis do not agree with the idea that Umm Kulthoom hated or despised Umar, so once again, the Answering-Ansar team is not really following the rules of proper debate in their rebuttal. This argument of theirs is invalid to the Sunni on the basis that we think highly of Umar and we think that Umm Kulthoom did too. We admit that she was apprehensive at marrying a man who lived a harsh life of very frugal means (and who strictly enforced Haya on women to the point that some women were scared of him), but that otherwise she respected him as the Caliph of the Muslims.
There is Ijma (consensus) amongst both the Sunni and Shia Ulema that the consultation of an under-aged girl is not required and that her father can marry her off as he sees fit. However, the marriage may not be consummated until the girl reaches maturity, at which point she can annul the marriage if she is not satisfied with the man her father chose. Umm Kulthoom bint Ali did not annul her marriage to Umar bin Khattab, and this is evidence that she approved of him. Whatever reservations she had before Ali married her off, she no longer had them when she became mature.
Reply 16 Entitled “Umar’s desire to marry his son in law’s grand daughter”
Here, the Shia are resorting to anti-Islam rhetoric, and perhaps they got their arguments from the “Answering-Islam” website. They are arguing that it is “gross” that Umar wanted to marry someone who was is his son-in-law’s grand-daughter. We remind these same Shia that Prophet Muhammad married his adopted son’s wife. Zaid, the Prophet’s adopted son, was married to Zaynub but then they got divorced. Upon this, the Prophet himself married Zaynub. The enemies of Islam then questioned the Prophet’s morality for having married his “daughter-in-law.”
Then the Quran came to defend the Prophet’s decision and we learn that nobody can deny someone to marriage other than those prohibited by the Shariah. Both the marriage of Umm Kulthoom to Umar and the marriage of the Prophet to Zaynub were allowed by the Shariah as expounded in the Quran, and nobody can declare this immoral. We ask the readers to open the Quran to Surah al-Nisa in which Allah declares who is and who is not prohibited for marriage. Nobody has the right to declare anything else to be immoral, because this would be speaking against Allah.
We ask these high school and college students of Answering-Ansar to stop allowing their Western bias to seep into their attacks against the Ahlus Sunnah. They first accused Umar of being a child molestor, and completely ignored the example of Prophet Muhammad and Aisha, or the example of Ali and Fatima. Technically, Umar was the step-grandfather of Fatima whom he did ask in marriage and the Prophet did not reply “eww, that’s gross” nor did he say it was Haram.
The Westerners even think that marrying cousins is gross and disgusting, and yet it is completely allowed in Islam. If we go by Western standards, then the marriage of Ali to Fatima is disgusting: he married not only a cousin, but his cousin’s daughter which would mean that Ali married his niece! Again, in the overzealous attempt of the Shia to condemn the Three Caliphs, they have ended up passing judgement on the Prophet and Ali.
To completely end this debate, we find that the Shia scholars have ruled that a man can marry his step-sister. Therefore, if a Shia were to point his finger at Umar bin Khattab in disgust, then we can point to them in greater disgust for allowing a man to marry his step-sister.
Balagh.net says
108. It is Permissible for Son to marry the Daughter of his Father’s Slave-wife
‘Ali b. Idris narrated, saying: “I asked al-Ridā, peace be on him: I had a slave-wife; I had a sexual intercourse with her. Then I emancipated her and she gave birth to a slave-girl. Is it lawful for my son to marry her? ‘Yes,’ he answered, ‘before and after the sexual intercourse.’[2](”Man lā Yahdarahū al-Faqih, vol. 2, p. 131.)
[2] Al-Tahdhib, vol. 2, p. 240.
Reply 17 Entitled “Why didn’t Imam ‘Ali (as) marry his elder daughter to Umar?”
Answering-Ansar says
Similarly, in muslim societies, it is deemed as deeply insulting to marry off a younger daughter when the elder daughter is not yet married. This is also commonsense. Why did Imam ‘Ali (as) therefore not ask ‘Umar to marry his elder daughter.
Umar asked for Fatima’s hand in marriage. Fatima was the youngest daughter of the Prophet. So why didn’t Umar ask for the Prophet’s other three daughters, all of whom were older than Fatima? There could be a million reasons why Umar asked for only Fatima’s hand in marriage or only Umm Kulthoom’s hand in marriage. This is a matter of personal liking as well as the fact that the other daughters may be promised to other men. As for Zaynab bint Ali, she was married to the son of Jafar as-Sadiq, so how then could Umar marry her too? There were many Sahabah who married younger daughters of men rather than the elder ones, so can we say now that none of these marriages must have taken place?
Answering-Ansar has said that in Muslim societies it is deemed deeply insulting to marry off a younger daughter when the elder daughter is not yet married. But this is purely a Jahiliyyah concept! This is the same Jahiliyyah that prevails in Muslim societies such as people condemning marriages to elder women; yet, we look at the example of the Prophet who married a woman senior to him by twenty years. It seems that the Answering-Ansar team is just bumbling around, mixing culture and Islam. It would be a major Bidah (innovation)–and in fact Haram (forbidden)–to say that a younger daughter cannot be married off before an elder one. If we were to ask any Sunni or Shia scholar if it was permissible to marry a younger sister as opposed to the elder one, they would reply unanimously that there is nothing wrong in this.
Reply 18 Entitled “Umar opposed the Shari’a when he proposed to marry an engaged girl”
Here, Answering-Ansar is inventing history, much like the Shia always do. They are trying to make the spurious claim that Umm Kulthoom was already engaged to be married to another man, namely the son of Jafar as-Sadiq. (It should be wondered why the Shia don’t call this other man a paedophiler as well–typical Shia double-standards and inconsistencies.)
Nowhere does it say that Umm Kulthoom was engaged to anyone else. The only thing that is said is that Ali had the idea that he would marry this daughter off to Jafar’s sons.
Answering-Ansar says
‘Ali said, “I had kept my daughters for the sons of Ja’far.”
This is not a statement saying his daughter is engaged already. It is simply saying that Ali planned on marrying his daughter to Jafar’s sons. If the Shia are trying to say that this means that Umm Kulthoom was already engaged, then was she really engaged to all of the sons of Jafar at the same time? This is a preposterous assertion. How can a woman be engaged to multiple men concurrently?
Answering-Ansar says
According to these traditions, ‘Ali (as) did not even consult with the sons of Ja’far-e-Tayar (as) to whom his daughter was engaged before reneging on his pledge with them.
So we ask: was Umm Kulthoom engaged to multiple men at a time (i.e. sons), or was it simply that Ali had planned that perhaps in the future he would one day marry his daughter to one of Jafar’s sons? Surely, a man can change his mind to whom he marries his daughter off to. A girl I knew was given many proposals, and her parents were planning on marrying her to one man but then in the end she married another. Is this Haram? Where do the Shia come up with such ridicolous exaggerations?
I wonder how the Shia propagandist can make up the spurious historical claim that Umm Kulthoom was engaged to the sons (plural) of Jafar, but deny such historical facts as Umm Kulthoom was married to Umar. We see that facts do not matter to the Shia, but rather they can invent a history all of their own making.
Reply 19 Entitled “Afriki has sought to present Imam ‘Ali (as) as an untrustworthy hypocrite”
Once again, the Shia propagandists resort to calling people “Nasibis.” Brother Afriki has never once said that Ali was untrustworthy or a hypocrite, and this is slander. The scholars of the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah have always viewed Ali as a just, honest, and excellent man. This is part of the creed of the Ahlus Sunnah, and the Shia who argue otherwise are living in caves of self-delusion.
In this response, Answering-Ansar continues with the farce that Umm Kulthoom was engaged to someone else; see my last response where I address this as well.
Reply 20 Entitled “The depiction of an untrustworthy Imam ‘Ali (as) contradicts the aqeedah of Ahl’ul Sunnah”
Same as above. Why did the author number it differently when it’s the same exact claim as his previous response? I don’t know. Moving on…
Reply 21 Entitled “Umar’s use of unacceptable language towards the family of Rasulullah (s) when his offer is rejected”
Answering-Ansar says
“Ali refused Umar’s offer of marriage for his daughter. He stated that she was too young and that he had arranged for her to marry his nephew, but Umar did not accept this. Abbas approached Ali and said ‘Marry her to him for I have received unacceptable words from Umar.” (Tadhkira al Khawwas, page 181, Chapter 11)
Then the Shia propagandists insert in parenthesis of their own volition the words “words that cannot be repeated.” This is simply tampering with narrations to make it mean what they want it to mean. Perhaps they could also insert in parenthesis the words “words that were mean” or “words that were Nasibi” or anything really…
In any case, let us accept the Shia’s “reading” that it really was abusive words that were used by Umar. Then, right after Abbas was cussed out by Umar, he goes and tells Ali “marry her to him.” The Shia are then portraying Abbas as a coward. What kind of a man goes and tells his friend’s daughter to marry a man just because he was cussed out by the same man? Actually, most people would say “don’t marry her to him because he is abusive.” I hope the Shia propagandist can realize how their reading of the text is very nonsensical: if Umar cussed Abbas out, then why would Abbas say to Ali to marry his daughter to him? If anything, it would be the opposite! In fact, if anything, this narration shows how Abbas–one of the Ahlel Bayt–had a good opinion of Umar, and this destroys the Shia paradigm once again.
Thus, based on context clues, we know that Umar was saddened by the fact that Ali was not agreeing and he expressed his sadness to Abbas, and Abbas found this unacceptable. Abbas therefore took it upon himself to convince Ali and rectify this unacceptable problem. This shows that Abbas had such an excellent opinion of Umar that he even put it upon himself to talk to Ali on Umar’s behalf. Abbas found it completely unacceptable that Umar would be sad, and he went about to rectify the problem.
Reply 21 Entitled “According to the aqeedah of Ahl’ul Sunnah, Umar participated in an haram act”
In this, Answering-Ansar claims that the Aqeedah of the Ahlus Sunnah declares that a daughter of Fatima could not be married to a man with other wives. However, this is just false. Why does Answering-Ansar insist on inventing Sunni Fiqh? (Yes, it is Fiqh–not Aqeedah, but the Answering-Ansar team doesn’t even know the difference, indicative of their ignorance.)
The Ijma (consensus) of the scholars is that nobody can declare it Haram on any man to marry more than one wife. This is a right accorded in the Quran:
“Marry women of your choice, two, or three, or four” (Quran, 4:3)
In fact, the strongest opinion amongst the scholars is that it is even Haram for a woman to write in the Nikah contract that he cannot marry another wife. This is how much of an inalienable right it is of every man to marry more than one wife.
As for the first two narrations Answering-Ansar quotes, we reply simply that it would not pain Fatima at all that her daughter married Umar bin Khattab. This is because according to the Sunnis, Umar bin Khattab was an upright and outstanding man. Thus, this is not a proper rebuttal by Answering-Ansar since they are using arguments that do not apply to us.
Furthermore, Fatima’s pain cannot dictate what is and what is not Halal or Haram. She was pained when Fadak was declared Haram to her, but even still Fadak remained Haram. If Fatima thought it Haram for a man to marry more than one wife, then she would be wrong in saying this. But of course we do not believe she ever thought this. Rather, while she accepted that it was permissible to marry more than one man, she simply preferred for herself that she not become a co-wife due to her Gheerah (protective jealousy), and this is why the Prophet urged Ali not to marry another wife. Thus, Ali did not marry another wife out of consideration for Fatima, not because it was Haram.
In regards to the last narration quoted by Answering-Ansar, we read:
“Shaykh of the madhab al-Izz al-Kanaanee…said about Taaj ad-Deen Subki, ‘he is a man having little manners, lack of scholarly integrity, ignorant of Ahl as-Sunnah and their ranks.’” [ ‘al-I`laan bi at-Tawbeekh liman Dhamma at-Taareekh’ (94-95) of as-Sakhaawee]
To completely negate this argument of the Shia, let us bring up the example of Fatima’s other daughter, Zaynab bint Ali. She was married to Abdullah ibn Jafar, whom the Shia revere because he was the son of one of their Infallible Imams. We find that Abdullah ibn Jafar divorced Zaynab and married someone else. In the book “Khilafat o Muawiyyah o Yazid” written by Mehmood Ahmed Abbasi, we read that Abdullah did not agree with Zaynab when she wanted to accompany Hussain to Kufa. Because of this argument, Abdullah divorced Zaynab and then married another woman. How then can the Shia claim that it is Haram to marry other women while married to a daughter of Fatima? Surely it would then be even more Haram and disgraceful to divorce a daughter of Fatima and marry another woman. Why then do the Shia accept this behavior of Abdullah ibn Jafar, but they somehow think it’s wrong for Umar bin Khattab to marry Umm Kulthoom along with other wives (which was a normal practise in those times and even the Sunnah of the Prophet)?
Reply 21 Entitled “Umar’s grounds for marriage contradict the aqeedah of Ahl’ul Sunnah”
Answering-Ansar says
‘Umar claimed that this marriage [to a descendant of Rasulullah (s)] would benefit him in the next world.
And then they continued saying:
Answering-Ansar says
[The Sunnis] believe that the closest relatives of Rasulullah i.e. his parents died kaffirs
I am sorry to break it to the Answering-Ansar team, but the Prophet’s parents are not his descendants. Hence, even if Umar believed that being married to a descendant of the Prophet would benefit him, this is not contradicted by saying that the Prophet’s parents were disbelievers. So I don’t get the point here at all.
In any case, Umar did want to be related to the Prophet, but this was not because he thought it would be a free pass to piety, but only because Umar–in his extreme love for the Prophet–would be honored to be related to the Prophet. Who wouldn’t want to marry the Prophet’s grand-daughter if given the chance!? Thus, Umar’s decision to marry Umm Kulthoom had to do with his love for the Prophet, and did not have to do with his desire to get a free pass into Paradise.
What was actually said by Umar was: “Marry her to me for I swear I have toward her more dedication to excellent companionship than any man on the face of the earth.” He wanted a closer companionship with the Prophet, and that is all. This was a personal desire and there is nothing wrong in this. Furthermore, while the correct position amongst the Ahlus Sunnah is that it does not benefit a person to be born into a certain lineage, the same cannot be said of marriage into a pious household. For example, being the child of a Prophet does not grant anyone an advantage, since it is not a position earned by one’s deeds; we have the example of Prophet Nuh’s son who will be condemned to Hell-fire. On the other hand, Uthman bin Affan was awarded two of the Prophet’s daughters due to his piety and excellent character; it was a position he earned out of his own good deeds. Therefore, Umar bin Khattab earned an exalted status of marrying Ali’s daughter, proving by his deeds that he was worthy of Ali’s approval.
What is strange is how Answering-Ansar is now taking the position that kinship doesn’t matter, but the Shia are the first to exaggerate when it comes to the importance of being a Syedi and other such things. Suddenly, in order to make an argument, Answering-Ansar has abandoned this position of the Shia which is the basis of their religion.
The weak arguments brought by Answering-Ansar are getting quite tedious and boring. I have a feeling that this was the point of the article: bore the opposition to death, and flood them with so much material that they cannot respond. Let us look at another extremely weak argument brought by Answering-Ansar:
Answering-Ansar says
We should point out that if Umar’s intention was to seek salvation via this marriage (through creating a closer relationship to Rasulullah), then he had already attained this since his daughter Hafsa was married to Rasulullah (s).
Going to Hajj is salvation. By the logic given above, we should only go one time to Hajj. And yet, it is better to go many times to Hajj. Yes, one good deed can save you, but many good deeds are even better! Of course someone would want to have companionship to the Prophet with as many bonds of friendship and kinship as he could possibly have. There is no limit to this desire. Uthman bin Affan, the third Caliph, had the honor and prestige of being called the Man of Two Lights, because of the fact that he married not just one but two of the Prophet’s daughters. He was thus granted a double honor.
Reply 24 Entitled “The Dower that ‘Umar gave contradicts his own edict”
There is no limit to dower and what is considered excess by one person is not an excess by another. If a taxi driver were to get married, then a $10,000 dower would be considered excessive. On the other hand, if Bill Gates gave this much dower, then he would be considered cheap, since $10,000 is almost nothing to him. Likewise, the standing of the girl should be taken into consideration. The Princess of Wales would obviously not be contented with a $10,000 dower. Umar bin Khattab was the Caliph of the Muslims, and hence that ammount of dower given to Umm Kulthoom was not excessive.
Furthermore, and this point cannot be stressed enough, Umm Kulthoom bint Ali had specifically mentioned that she was cautious about marrying Umar because she knew that he lived a very frugal life. Hence, it could be possible that, in order to assuage her fears, Umar gave her a large dower so that she could live to her means.
In this argument, Answering-Ansar are using a Shia book which narrates a story of Umar forbidding dower above 500 dirhams and then he gets corrected by a woman. This is a Shia book, so we wonder why Answering-Ansar would use it in a rebuttal as it is no basis for debate. We reject it, just like we reject the other books of the Shia which are full of exaggerations and lies. These same Shia books detail how Umar bin Khattab was supposedly a homosexual, alcoholic, a Nasibi, and so many other things. Thus, it is not surprising that they would also add this little story in their books about how Umar went against his own words about dower.
In any case, Umar giving a high dower is a sign of his love and veneration for Ali’s daughter. How in the world can someone construe this in a negative light? Umar bin Khattab specifically said that he was making an exception by giving her 40,000 dirhams to honor the Prophetic Household and as a token of his good-will towards the progeny of the Prophet. Thus, it could be said that Umar was making an exception for an extraordinary girl out of respect for her grandfather.
Reply 21 Entitled “The Ahl’ul Sunnah have sought to portray Imam ‘Ali (as) as unjust, and this contradicts the Sunnah of Rasulullah (s)”
Once again, this is not a rebuttal nor is it a basis for proper debate, since the Ahlus Sunnah regards Umar bin Khattab as a very upright individual. Hence, Ali giving his daughter to Umar was an act that Ali was very well-pleased with, and that cannot be construed as unjust. This argument is similar to the one about how the marriage would displease Fatima. This is simply a Shia belief, since they believe Umar to be a bad person. That is not a rebuttal, however, since to the Ahlus Sunnah, Umar bin Khattab was an upright individual. Ali giving his daughter to him was not unjust but rather it was very much just.
Reply 26 Entitled “Umar’s private meeting with Umme Kalthum (as) contradicts the Shari’a”
We have already responded to this accusation. Umm Kulthoom was a minor and not a Baligh; hence, the meeting with Umar bin Khattab was permissible. Furthermore, there is absolutely no book which says that Umar bin Khattab and Umm Kulthoom were in the room alone together. From where do the Shia invent this? For all we know, there could have been many witnesses in the room; obviously there were since someone narrated these stories. (Common sense.) In any case, I have answered this recycled argument of Answering-Ansar in my response to Chapter 2.
Reply 27 Entitled “these traditions would expose ‘Umar as a paedophile / pervert”
Why is Answering-Ansar recycling responses? We have already responded to this. Ali married Fatima when she was nine years old, and the Prophet married Aisha when she was six. Hence, if the Shia would like to call Umar to be a child molestor or any such thing, they would also be condemning the Prophet and Ali. See my response to Chapter 2.
Answering-Ansar says
we would like to ask ‘Is it permissible under Shari’a for a man to marry a girl that is underage?’ If it is, could our opponents cite some proof.
I have already provided this proof in my response to Chapter 2. The Shia Maraje’ are in agreement that a man can marry an underage girl. After all, the Prophet married Aisha when she was underage. I don’t know what more proof than this you could ask for. In any case, see my response to Chapter 2.
It should also be noted that there is no discrepancy and the Answering-Ansar team is trying to create confusion in the minds of the reader. Answering-Ansar has shown narrations that talk about the time when Umar expressed interest in marrying Umm Kulthoom as well as when Ali accepted the proposal. It should be noted that it took some time for Ali to agree to the marriage, and even after he agreed, Ali and Umar waited until Umm Kulthoom was older to marry her because Ali thought of her as too young to be married. Answering-Ansar jumps to the fallacious conclusion that the time Umm Kulthoom got married was when she was a “milk-fed baby” because there are narrations about Umm Kulthoom went to Umar’s house. Then they claim that these contradict with the Sunni opinion that Umm Kulthoom married Umar when she was much older. However, these narrations only talk about when Ali finally agreed to the marriage, but not when the actual marriage took place. Rather, the two remained engaged until Umm Kulthoom became a more appropriate age (according to Ali) to be married. And even after the marriage, Umar waited another year to consummate the marriage with Umm Kulthoom.
To conclude, the random assortment of arguments brought forth by the Answering-Ansar team is only a testament of the desperation faced by the Shia when forced to deal with their own Hadith on the matter of Umm Kulthoom’s marriage to Umar.
Written By: Ibn al-Hashimi, www.ahlelbayt.com
|
|