Response to Chapter 4 entitled “The marriage
from the annals of the Salaf Kingpins”

Response to Chapter 4 entitled “The marriage from the annals of the Salaf Kingpins”

Despite the melodramatic movie title of this section, this is the most useless chapter in the Answering-Ansar response. Here, the Answering-Ansar team has picked about three or four Sunni Hadith on the marriage of Umm Kulthoom and then, in the typical nature of the Shia, declared why all of the Hadith are false and do not prove the marriage of Umm Kulthoom. The likeness of this is if I wrote an article about how there is no such thing as Infallible Imamah, and then I picked out a handful of Shia Hadith showing how they are all of a weak Isnad and then I could claim: “Well there is nothing in your Hadith that suggests that Imamah exists or that Ali is the first Imam.” That’s obviously ridicolous because even if I were to question the authenticity of three or four Shia Hadith on the topic of Infallible Imamah, what about the dozens upon dozens of other Shia Hadith which refer to Imamah?

Likewise, there are so many narrations in the Sunni books about the marriage of Umm Kulthoom bint Ali to Umar bin Khattab Al-Farooq that I do not understand how disproving three or four of them (and that by Shia methods, not Sunni ones) could possibly cancel out the plethora of other sources. In fact, the marriage of Umm Kulthoom has been narrated by so many books and so many narrators that it is considered Mutawattir to the Ahlus Sunnah. What is amusing is that the Answering-Ansar article itself documents dozens of Sunni sources itself, so how then could they claim that the Sunnis don’t have enough narrations about the marriage? Here is a non-inclusive list of Sunni sources that confirm this marriage:

Ibn al-Jarud, al-Muntaqa [an entirely sahih book] (p. 142);
al-Zubayr ibn Bakkar, al-Muntakhab min Azwaj al-Nabi SallAllahu `alayhi wa-Sallam (p. 30-31);
al-Dulabi, al-Dhurriyat al-Tahira (p. 62);
Ibn Sa`d, Tabaqat (8:337-340=8:463-464);
al-Siyar wal-Maghazi (p. 248);
Tarikh al-Ya`qubi (2:260);
Ibn Shabba’s Tarikh al-Madina (2:654);
Nasab Quraysh (p. 352);
`Abd al-Razzaq, Musannaf (3:465);
al-Nasa’i, Sunan (4:71) and Sunan Kubra (1:641);
al-Bukhari, Tarikh al-Saghir (1:102);
Ibn Qutayba, Ma`arif (p. 107, 122);
al-Tabari, Tarikh (4:199 and 5:335);
al-Daraqutni, Sunan (2:79);
al-Bayhaqi, Sunan Kubra (4:33);
Ibn `Abd al-Barr, Isti`ab (4:490-491);
al-Nawawi, Tahdhib al-Asma’ wal-Lughat (2:267 #1219);
al-Dhahabi, Siyar A`lam al-Nubala’ (Dar al-Fikr ed. 5:22-24) and Tarikh al-Islam (4:58-59, 4:137-139, 4:227, 5:21);
al-Dimyati, Nisa’ al-Rasul (p. 128);
Ibn Hajar, Isaba (4:492 #1481);
Ibn al-Athir, Usd al-Ghaba (7:387-388) and al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh (3:54, 4:12);
al-Suyuti, al-Hawi lil-Fatawa (2:179); etc.

Thus, even if we were to eliminate all of our Hadith that the Shia pointed to, there still wouldn’t be any room to claim that the Sunnis don’t have enough evidence even in their own books. I have noticed that the Shia are super-heroes: every super-hero has his own certain strength or power, and the Shia super-ability is that they can weaken any Hadith and–no matter what–if any Hadith contradicts their belief, it will be automatically rejected even if the Isnad is rock-solid. This same approach is taken to historical records: those that contradict the Shia are abandoned. So I guess I shouldn’t be really surprised when they go into our Hadith and call them all weak too.

The point is, however, that there are many narrations of the marriage in the Sunni books, and so it is not possible to claim that the Sunnis can’t prove it from Sunni sources. Yes, you could say that these Sunni sources are not Shia sources and thereby you could reject them, and that is why the Ansar article never referred to Sunni sources but rather only used Shia ones, namely because using your own sources to prove something is not a proper means of debating.

Having said that, Answering-Ansar has been haphazard in their approach to denying Sunni Hadith, and we can examine that very easily. Answering-Ansar says about the first narration:

Answering-Ansar says

The actual word that is used in the text that Khan interpreted as wife is “Undhuk” whilst we acknowledge Undhuk can indeed refer to one’s wife, its literal meaning in Arabic grammar is “Close”, “Next To” and “Near”. In the Qur’an the word Undhuk is used in exactly this context. If we really wish to understand this tradition at most all that we can ascertain is that people had asked that the garment be given to Umm Kalthum who was close to Umar.

The Shia admit that the word “Undhuk” can indeed refer to one’s wife. Hence, there is no discussion here. The Shia could translate everything differently using secondary definitions of words thereby rendering all Hadith nonsensical. That is upto the Shia to do that. It’s as if I said to someone “I am a follower of the Prophet” and then someone hearing my words translates them to mean that I am a follower of money (i.e. profit).

The word “next to” would make no sense contextually. Why would the people single out Umm Kulthoom to be the one who gets the clothes from Umar unless he was indeed related to her? Logically, the people said to give it to his wife, not some random woman.

After this, the Shia have made some argument to question the Isnad of the Hadith. This Hadith has been deemed Sahih by the Sunnis, and it is narrated in Sahih Bukhari. Hence, the argument of the Shia falls apart.

As for the second narration from Sunnan Abu Dawud, the Shia use the preposterous argument that it refers to Umm Kulthoom, but not that Umm Kulthoom. Maybe then the Ibn Abbas mentioned is not the Prophet’s relative, and maybe Abu Hurrairah mentioned is not that Abu Hurrairah. It is akin to saying that a certain Hadith which starts off with “the Messenger of Allah said” doesn’t actually refer to Prophet Muhammad, since it didn’t mention him by name; after all, there were other Messengers of Allah, so maybe it is referring to them? When you play this game, there is no way you can establish anything, not from the Hadith nor even from historical sources.

In any case, as for this particular narration, it is very clear that it is referring to Umm Kulthoom bint Ali since she is the one who died on the same day as her son, and this is a well-known event. Thus, this should clarify any doubt and confirm that this Hadith could only relate to Ali’s daughter and nobody else.

In the next Hadith, from Sunan Nasai, Answering-Ansar claims:

Answering-Ansar says

The narration begins “Nafi ‘za aam”

The words za aam makes this entire narration false, since the narrator has himself expressed doubts over the event that he is narrating. The rules of hadith methodology stipulate that any doubt expressed by a narrator makes that narration null and void.

In Arabic the words ‘za aam’ can be used as a term that means ‘to lie’ as we can see from the text of Arabic terms ‘lughuth Kishwari page 22′ [Luknow edition]. Hence this narration can be interpreted as follows:

‘Naf’ would lie that?.”

Are the Answering-Ansar team really claiming that the narration reads “He lies that Abdullah ibn Umar said the following”? That would be ridicolous. Do the Shia think that the Ahlus Sunnah would include a narration that started off “he lied that” in our Sahih book!? The word “za’ama” here means “he thinks” and not “he lies.”

This exposes not only the Answering-Ansar team’s lack of Arabic knowledge, but also the lack of knowledge of their own Shia Hadith methodology. A huge bulk of Hadith, both Sunni and Shia, start off with the words “he thinks” and there is no Sunni or Shia scholar who would discard a Hadith simply because it used those words. In fact, if you discarded Hadith which used the word “Za’ama”, then the Shia would be left with very few Hadith! Once again, Answering-Ansar has, in its overzealous attack on the Sunnis, hastily condemned their own Shia Hadith system.

It should also be noted that weak Hadith are not the same as fabricated Hadith. If you have one weak Hadith that confirms what is in a strong Hadith, then how does someone else pointing out that one of them is weak destroy the credibility of the second? The second Hadith has independently been put to the test and deemed Sahih; therefore, there is no issue. If the Shia even convince us that four or five of the Hadith are weak (and this using the Shia super-hero ability to weaken Hadith at will), this doesn’t affect the plethora of other Hadith, all of which document the marriage of Umm Kulthoom and Umar bin Khattab.

Written By: Ibn al-Hashimi, www.ahlelbayt.com