THE MARRIAGE OF

UMM KULTHŪM BINT ʿALĪ TO

ʿUMAR IBN AL-KHAṬṬĀB I

BY:

Mawlānā Muḥammad Ṭāhā Karaan

(May Allah have Mercy on him)

WWW.MAHAJJAH.COM
The Marriage of Umm Kulthūm bint ʿAlī to ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb I
by: Mawlānā Muḥammad Ṭāhā Karaan V

A major part of the edifice upon which Shīʿism has constructed itself is its idiosyncratic portrayal of the early history
of Islam. It is especially in its representation of the relationships that existed between ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib I and the
eminent Ṣaḥābah like Abū Bakr I and ʿUmar I that Shīʿism has acquired a character of its own.

Shīʿī historians seemed little troubled by the fact that their own reconstruction of history would inevitably involve the
invention of events, or versions of actual events, that would be at variance with standard sources. They seem to have
been considerably confident that the emotional appeal of their version of history would override, and indeed obviate
the need for a critical comparison of their narratives with those of other historians of repute. Their confidence appears
to have been well founded, for a millennium has passed and still there is evidence in abundance of an emphatically
emotional and sentimental approach to issues whose historicity needed to have been critically scrutinised in a spirit
of emotional detachment. In this belated century that prides itself on the advancement of research methodology and
techniques, the anomaly of a methodology that has emotive appeal as its central component stands out like a very sore
thumb.

It is this spirit—of emotional prejudice overriding objective scholarship—that Shīʿī propagandists up to this very day
insist on “revealing” to their Sunnī audiences the “truth” about the “persecution” suffered by the Ahl al-Bayt M at
the hands of the Ṣaḥābah M. They can often be found launching into their particular misrepresentations of history,
with no respect for standards of historic authenticity, and even less in awe of the way in which they are in actual fact
bringing disgrace upon the Family of Rasūlullāh H. Their audiences too, are just as often completely captivated
by these “revelations”. The last thing on the mind of both propagandist and audience is the grievous contradictions the
writer or speaker makes himself guilty of in his emotionally laden corruption of history.

“Persecution” of the Ahl al-Bayt

One such case of the invention of history is the “persecution” mentioned by Shīʿī reporters of history to have been meted
out to ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib and his wife Sayyidah Fāṭimah immediately after the demise of Rasūlullāh H. The incidents
as mentioned by these unscrupulous narrators of ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb threatening to burn down the house of Fāṭimah
with her and her family inside, of ʿUmar ordering the door of the house to be broken with Fāṭimah being wounded and
losing her unborn child in the process, and six months later dying from that same injury, and of her husband, the valiant
ʿAlī being dragged out of his house like a common criminal to give his oath of allegiance to Abū Bakr; all of these have
to the Shīʿī mind become undisputable and incontestable facts of history, no matter how spurious their origin, or how
blatantly they clash with authentic historical facts. Abū Bakr and ʿUmar will ever be thought of by the Shīʿah in terms of
the “deeds” of that day, and no true Shīʿī who believes in these stories as factual truth could ever be expected to harbour
the merest ounce of goodwill towards Abū Bakr and ʿUmar let alone the rest of the Ṣaḥābah who stood with them and
paid allegiance to them.

However, let us take this version of history that weaves itself around the core element of persecution, and its concomitant
of mutual hatred between ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib and the rest of the Ṣaḥābah, and let us compare it with some other facts,
the historic authenticity of which is accepted by both Ahl as-Sunnah and Shīʿah. For example, the fact that ʿAlī ibn Abī
Ṭālib himself names three of his sons Abū Bakr, ʿUmar and ʿUthmān. (See al-Shaykh al-Mufīd, Kitab al-Irshad, pp. 268-269,
where these three sons of ʿAlī are listed as numbers 12, 6 and 10 respectively.) No one, not even the most magnanimous
of people, names his son after his enemies who were responsible for the death of his wife. That is why one simply cannot
find a Shīʿī today named Abū Bakr, ʿUmar or ʿUthmān. In fact, reports from Iran have it that Shīʿī officials will not allow
Iranian Sunnīs to give their children these names.

2
Another fact of history which clashes with the alleged persecution of ʿAlī and Fāṭimah by the Ṣaḥābah is the marriage
of Umm Kulthūm, the daughter of ʿAlī and Fāṭimah, to ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb. This marriage, in which ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib
gave this daughter borne to him by Fāṭimah, in marriage to ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb—the very same man whom the Shīʿah
allege caused the death of Fāṭimah—assails the foundations of Shīʿism in a way that few issues can. It threw the house
of Shīʿism into violent disorder, and the ʿulamā’ of the Shīʿah, reeling under its impact, found themselves lunging at just
about any twig in sight. This paper looks at the various Shīʿī responses to the marriage of Umm Kulthūm to ʿUmar ibn
al-Khaṭṭāb, and demonstrates the embarrassment in the Shīʿī camp to which this contradictory cacophony of responses
eloquently testifies.

The marriage of Umm Kulthūm

Umm Kulthūm was the second daughter of ʿAlī and Fāṭimah, and the youngest of their four children. She was born in
about the year 6 A.H. She became of marriageable age during the khilāfah of ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb, and the khalīfah asked
for her hand in marriage. This is recorded by Ibn Saʿd in his work at-Ṭabaqāt al-Kubrā (vol. 8 p. 338, ed. Muḥammad ʿAbd
al-Qādir ʿAṭā, Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, Beirut 1990) as follows:

I was informed by Anas ibn ʿIyāḍ al-Laythī, who reports on the authority of Jaʿfar ibn Muḥammad [al-Ṣādiq], and he
from his father [Muḥammad al-Bāqir] that ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb asked ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib for the hand of Umm Kulthūm
in marriage. ʿAlī said, “I had kept my daughters for the sons of Jaʿfar.” ʿUmar said, “Marry her to me, O Abū al-Ḥasan, 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.” ʿAlī said, “I have done so.”

Then ʿUmar came to the Muhājirīn between the grave [of Rasūlullāh H] and the pulpit. They ʿAlī, ʿUthmān, Zubayr,
Ṭalḥah and ‘Abd al-Raḥmān used to sit there, and whenever a matter used to arrive from the frontiers, ʿUmar used to
come to them there and consult with them. He came to them and said, “Congratulate me.” They congratulated him,
and asked, “With whom are we congratulating you, O Amīr al-Mu’minīn?” He replied, “With the daughter of ʿAlī ibn
Abī Ṭālib.”

Then he related to them that the Nabī H said, “Every tie of kinship, and every association will be cut off on the Day
of Qiyāmah, except my kinship and my association.” [ʿUmar said,] “I have had the companionship of Rasūlullāh H;
I would like also to have this [kinship].”

Two children were born from this marriage, namely Zayd and Ruqayyah. After the martyrdom of ʿUmar she was married
to her cousin ʿAwn ibn Jaʿfar, and after his death to his brother Muḥammad ibn Jaʿfar. Ultimately, she died while married
to a third of the sons of Jaʿfar, namely ʿAbd Allāh during the first half of the fourth decade after the Hijrah. Her son Zayd
died on the same day as his mother, and the funeral prayer for mother and son was performed together.

The marriage of Umm Kulthūm has been unanimously accepted as a fact of history by all major biographers and
historians. Its authenticity has never been contested by anyone—not even the staunchest Shīʿah—during the first four
centuries after the Hijrah. It was only during the fifth century that Shaykh al-Mufīd (d. 413 A.H) appears to have woken
up to the threat that the acceptance of this marriage holds for the doctrine of the Shīʿah and their particular view of
history.

At this moment it needs to be noted that the above narration was recorded by Ibn Saʿd from a man called Anas ibn ʿIyāḍ
al-Laythī, who report directly on the authority of Imām Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq, and he from his father Muḥammad al-Bāqir. In
other words, we have here a purely Shīʿī chain of narration. Anas ibn ʿIyāḍ al-Laythī is regarded by reputable Shīʿī Rijāl,
critics such as al-Najāshī and Ibn Muṭahhar al-Ḥillī, as a companion of Imām Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq who was “thiqah, sahih al-
hadith” (reliable, a transmitter of authentic hadith). (See al-Ardabīlī, Jamiʿ al-Ruwāt, vol. 1 p. 109, Dar al-Adwa, Beirut

3
1983) Since he narrates directly from the “infallible” Imām, there can be no question about the veracity of his report.
Thereupon, his report is corroborated by a wealth of other narrations all of which affirm the historicity of this marriage.
Above it all is the fact that for over three centuries this marriage remained uncontested.

In later centuries the marriage of Umm Kulthūm would become a major bone of contention for Shīʿī polemicists. This
marriage as a topic in Shīʿī theology owes its importance to its open contradiction to Shīʿī views of religion and history.
This is expressed by the Shīʿī authors Muḥammad al-Ḥassūn and Umm ʿAlī Mashkūr in their book Aʿlā al-Nisā’ al-Mu’mināt
(p. 182) in the following terms:

The marriage of Umm Kulthūm to ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb is counted amongst the important issues presented to us
by Islamic history, and as one of those matters around which debate and research has continued at length—and still
continues. Those who regard this marriage as an authentic fact use it to prove the righteousness of her husband
[ʿUmar] and ʿAlī’s acceptance of him. Otherwise, why would he give him his daughter in marriage? As for those who
reject the historic occurrence of the marriage, or are of the opinion that it took place under pressure which ʿUmar
brought to bear upon ʿAlī I use this issue to justify the unrighteousness and viciousness of ʿUmar, and that ʿAlī I
did not approve of him.

Shīʿī writings on the marriage of Umm Kulthūm

The same authors then proceed to enumerate a list of five independent books on the marriage of Umm Kulthūm written
by the ʿulamā’ of the Shīʿah from as early as the 4th century, down to as late as the present age. This list is not exhaustive,
and excludes discussions of the same issue in other larger works. The works listed are:

➢➢ Al-Masalah al-Muwaḍḍiḥah ʿan Asbāb Nikāḥ Amīr al-Mu’minīn by al-Shaykh al-Mufīd (d. 413 A.H). It is
alternatively entitled Inkāḥ Amīr al-Mu’minīn Ibnatahu min ʿUmar. This book is mentioned by Aqa Buzurg
Tehrani in al-Dharīʿah (vol. 2 p. 396 no. 3641) and a manuscript of it is kept at the library of Ayatollah
Marʿashī Najafī in Qum.

➢➢ Jawāb al-Su’āl ʿan Wajh Tazwīj Amīr al-Mu’minīn Ibnatahu min ʿUmar by Sayyid Murtaḍā (d. 436 A.H). It
is also mentioned by Aqa Buzurg Tehrani (vol. 5 p. 183 no. 811) and a copy is preserved at the library of
Ayatollah Marʿashī Najafī in Qum.

➢➢ Tazwīj ʿUmar li Umm Kulthūm by Shaykh Sulaymān ibn ʿAbd Allāh al-Māḥūzī (d. 1121 A.H). It is mentioned
by Tehrani in al-Dharīʿah.

➢➢ Tazwīj Umm Kulthūm bint Amīr al-Mu’minīn wa Inkār Wuqūʿihī by Shaykh Muḥammad Jawwād al-Balāghī
(died 1352AH/1932). It is mentioned by Tehrani at two places in al-Dharīʿah (vol. 4 p. 172 and vol. 11 p. 146).

➢➢ An independent treatise by Sayyid Nāṣīr Ḥusayn of Lucknow, India (d. 1361A.H/1941).

The above clearly demonstrates the attention the marriage of Umm Kulthūm has enjoyed with Shīʿī authors, and
indicates the strategic importance of this marriage in Sunnī-Shīʿī polemics and dialogue. Chronologically speaking,
attitudes amongst the Shīʿah towards the marriage of Umm Kulthūm can be divided into three stages:

1. before the 5th century A.H,

2. after the 5th century A.H, and

3. after the establishment of the Safavid Empire in the 10th century.

Each of these stages will now be dealt with separately.

4
Prior to the fifth century
Shīʿī activity during the first century after the Hijrah had been confined to a large extent to revolutionary insurrections,
starting from the campaign of the Tawwābūn who sought to avenge the murder of Ḥusayn, and continuing in the exploits
of people like Mukhtar al-Thaqafī and Abū Muslim al-Khurāsānī. It was only during the latter half of the second century
that evidence begins to surface of some sort of intellectual activity amongst the Shīʿah. However, here too, the scope of
that activity was limited to the documentation of the sayings which the Shīʿah ascribe to their Imāms.

The fourth century after the Hijrah witnessed the compilation of Muḥammad ibn Yaʿqūb al-Kulaynī’s monumental work
al-Kāfī. This work enjoys the following distinctions:

➢➢ In it the author sought to document the minor compilations of Shīʿī hadith by previous authors into one
major compendium.

➢➢ It was compiled in Baghdad during the Minor Occultation of the Hidden Imām (as stated by Aqa Buzurg
Tehrani in al-Dharīʿah, vol. 17 p. 245) at a time when the representative of the Imām resided in that city,
which afforded the opportunity for its contents to be scrutinised an ratified by the Imām himself (as stated
by Ibn Ṭāwūs in his book Kashf al-Maḥajjah, p. 159) This is in itself proof of the authenticity of the narrations
contained in the book (says al-Ḥurr al-ʿĀmilī in Wasā’il al-Shīʿah, vol. 20 p. 71).

➢➢ It actually bears the seal of approval of the Hidden Imām himself, and he was the one who named it “al-
Kāfī” (meaning “sufficient”) by saying, as reported by al-Khuwānasārī in Rawḍāt al-Jannāt (vol. 6 p.116):
“hādhā kāfin li Shīʿatinā” (This is sufficient for our Shīʿah).

In this work the author has documented at least FOUR traditions to the Imāms which affirm the marriage of Umm
Kulthūm to ʿUmar. In fact, he has devoted the 23rd chapter in the Book on Marriage (Kitāb al-Nikāḥ) in Furūʿ al-Kāfī to the
marriage of Umm Kulthūm (bāb tazwīj Umm Kulthūm). Two of the four traditions are contained in this chapter, while the
other two are found in a related chapter on where a widow whose husband has died should spend her waiting period, or
ʿiddah (bāb al-mutawaffā ʿanhā zawjuhā al-madkhūl bihā ayna taʿtaddu wa mā yajibu ʿalayhā).

However, some of these traditions impart a unique flavour to the entire episode, in that now for the first time it becomes
presented as a marriage concluded by sheer force and terror, in which ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib, for all his nobility and courage,
could not protect his young daughter, and was compelled, on threat of physical violence to his person, to give her to the
khalīfah. The traditions documented in al-Kāfī are as follows:

ʿAlī ibn Ibrāhīm—from his father—from Ibn Abī ʿUmayr—from Hishām ibn Sālim and Ḥammād—from Zurārah, who
narrates that Imām Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq said regarding the marriage of Umm Kulthūm:

“That was a ‘woman’ who was taken from us by force.” (Furūʿ al-Kāfī, vol. 5 p. 347, Dār al-Adwā, Beirut 1992)

[The word ‘woman’ here is an attempt from the writer of this article to preserve the honour of the Ahl al-Bayt, since a
literal translation of the original Arabic would prove too vulgar.]

Muḥammad ibn Abī ʿUmayr—Hishām ibn Salim, who narrates that Imām Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq said:

When [ʿUmar] proposed to Amīr al-Mu’minīn, he said, “She is a child.”

Then he [ʿUmar] met ʿAbbās and asked him, “What is wrong with me? Is there a problem with me?”

ʿAbbās asked, “‘Why?”’

5
ʿUmar replied, “I asked your nephew for his daughter’s hand in marriage, and he rejected me. Oh, I swear by
Allah, I will fill the well of Zamzam with earth, I will destroy every honour that you have, and I will set up two
witnesses to testify that he stole, that I may cut off his right hand.”

ʿAbbās thereupon came to ʿAlī and informed him of what had transpired. He asked ʿAlī to put the matter in his
hands, and ʿAlī complied. (Furūʿ al-Kāfī, vol. 5 p. 347-348, Dar al-Adwa, Beirut 1992)

Ḥumayd ibn Ziyād—Ibn Samāʿah—Muḥammad ibn Ziyād—ʿAbd Allāh ibn Sinān—Muʿāwiyah ibn ʿAmmār—Imām Jaʿfar
al-Ṣādiq:

[Muʿāwiyah ibn ʿAmmar says:] I asked him about a woman whose husband died: Should she spend her ʿiddah in
her house, or where she wants to?

He replied, “Where she wants to. When ʿUmar died, ʿAlī came and took Umm Kulthūm to his house.” (Furūʿ
al-Kāfī, vol. 6 p. 117, Dar al-Adwa, Beirut 1992)

Muḥammad ibn Yaḥyā and others—Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad ibn ʿĪsā—al-Ḥusayn ibn Saʿīd—al-Naḍr ibn Suwayd—Hishām
ibn Sālim—Sulaymān ibn Khālid, who says:

I asked Imām Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq about the woman whose husband has died: Where should she spend her ʿiddah? In
her husband’s house, or where she wants to?

He said, “Where she wants to. When ʿUmar died, ʿAlī came, took Umm Kulthūm by the hand, and took her
to his house.” (Furūʿ al-Kāfī, vol. 6 p. 117, Dar al-Adwa, Beirut 1992)

Authenticity
We have here four chains of narration up to Imām Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq. An investigation into the authenticity of these chains
of narration by Shīʿī—and not Sunnī—standards reveals that each and every one of them is a highly reliable and accurate
chain.

Narration 1

Al-Kulaynī received the reports from Ibn Abī ʿUmayr through his teacher ʿAlī ibn Ibrāhīm ibn Hāshim al-Qummī, who
is his source for about one third of the material in al-Kāfī. ʿAlī ibn Ibrāhīm is the author of an early Tafsīr of the Shīʿah,
and is highly regarded by Shīʿī rijāl critics such as al-Najāshī and Ibn Muṭahhar, who declare him to be “thiqatun fil ḥadīth,
thabt, muʿtamad, ṣaḥīḥ al-madhhab” (reliable in ḥadīth transmission, reliable, dependable, correct in belief.) (Jamiʿ al-Ruwāt
vol. 1 p. 545)

ʿAlī ibn Ibrāhīm al-Qummī reports from his father Ibrāhīm ibn Hāshim al-Qummī. He is reputed to have been the first
to spread the ḥadīth of the Shīʿah from Kūfah to Qum. Reports via him abound in al-Kāfī, through his son. He has been
generally accepted by the Shīʿah as a reliable narrator. He is even mentioned by Abū Jaʿfar al-Ṭūsī as having met the 9th
Imām. (Jamiʿal-Ruwāt vol. 1 p. 38) His reliability as a narrator is attested to in a contemporary work on the authority of his
son, ʿAlī ibn Ibrāhīm, Ibn Ṭāwūs and ʿAllāmah al-Ḥillī. (Abū Ṭālib al-Tajlīl al-Tabrizi, Muʿjam al- Thiqāt, p. 5)

Ibrāhīm ibn Hāshim al-Qummī reports on the authority of Muḥammad ibn Abī ‘Umayr. This Ibn Abī ʿUmayr is one of
the most reliable Shīʿī narrators ever. Abu Jaʿfar al-Ṭūsī says of him: “kāna min awthaq al-Nās” (he was of the most reliable
of people). (al-Fihrist, p. 169) More importantly, he was of the elect group of Shīʿī narrators called the Aṣhāb al- Ijmāʿ (Men
of the Consensus). What this means is that when the chain of narration is proven authentic up to one of these men, the

6
rest of the chain up to the Imām may automatically be assumed to be authentic too. (See the details of this consensus in
al-Māmaqānī, Miqbas al-Hidāyah fi ʿIlm al- Dirāyah, vol. 2 pp. 171-208) The authenticity of this narration is therefore proven
on grounds of this consensus.

Narration 2

This report also came down to al-Kulaynī through ʿAlī ibn Ibrāhīm, from his father, from Ibn Abī ʿUmayr. The discussion
on the first chain of narration is therefore fully applicable to this chain too.

Narration 3

Al-Kulaynī reports this narration from his teacher Ḥumayd ibn Ziyād. This Ḥumayd is graded by the Shīʿī rijāl critics as
“ʿalīm jalīl al-Qadr, wasīʿ al-ʿilm, kathīr al-taṣnīf, thiqah” (a learned scholar, of great status, wide knowledge, a prolific author,
reliable) (Jamiʿ al-Ruwāt, vol. 1 p. 284)

Ibn Samāʿah is properly known as al-Ḥasan ibn Muḥammad ibn Samāʿah. He was one of the foremost Shīʿī fuqahā’ of
Kūfah, and is described as “Kathī al-ḥadīth, faqīh, Thiqah” (a prolific narrator of ḥadīth, a jurist, reliable). (Jamiʿ al-Ruwāt,
vol. 1 p. 225)

Muḥammad ibn Ziyād is properly known as Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan ibn Ziyād al-ʿAṭṭār. He is described as “thiqah”
(reliable). (Jamiʿ al-Ruwāt, vol. 2 p. 91)

ʿAbd Allāh ibn Sinān was an eminent Imāmi Shīʿī of Kūfah about whom it is stated: “Thiqatun min aṣḥābinā, lā yuṭʿanu
ʿalayhi fi shay’’” (one of our reliable associates against whom no criticism whatsoever can be levelled). (Jamiʿ al-Ruwāt, vol.
1 p. 487)

Muʿāwiyah ibn ʿAmmār was an eminent and leading Shīʿī narrator of Kūfah who narrates from Imām Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq. His
Shīʿī biographers have documented about him that he was “Wajhan min aṣḥābinā muqaddam, kabīr al-shān, ʿaẓīm al-maḥall,
thiqah” (a leading figure amongst our associates, pre-eminent, great in status, exalted in position, reliable). (Jamiʿ al-
Ruwāt, vol. 2 p. 239)

The opinions of the Shīʿī critics of ḥadīth regarding the narrators of this report as reproduced here unequivocally indicate
that what we have here is an authentic report.

Narration 4

Al-Kulaynī recorded this report on the authority of several of his teachers, one of whom is Muḥammad ibn Yaḥyā
al-ʿAṭṭār al-Qummī. He was regarded as “shaykhu aṣḥābinā fi zamānihi, thiqah, ʿayn, kathīr al-ḥadīth” (the shaykh of our
associates in his time, reliable, an outstanding personality, a prolific narrator of ḥadīth). (Jamiʿ al-Ruwāt, vol. 2 p. 213)

Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad ibn ʿĪsā al-Qummī was “shaykh al-Qummiyyin, wa wajhuhum, wa faqīhuhum, ghayra muḍāfā’” (the
shaykh of the people of Qum, and their undisputed leader and jurist). (Jamiʿ al-Ruwāt, vol. 1 p. 69) Abū Jaʿfar al-Ṭūsī and
ʿAllāmah al-Ḥillī have unequivocally declared him “thiqah” (reliable). (Al-Rijāl p. 366; and al-Khulāṣah p. 13)

Al-Ḥusayn ibn Saʿīd is described as “ʿayn, jalīl al-qadr” (an outstanding personality of great stature) and “thiqah” (reliable).
(Jamiʿ al-Ruwāt, vol. 1 p. 241)

Al-Naḍr ibn Suwayd is rated as “Kūfī, thiqah, ṣaḥīḥ al-ḥadīth” (a reliable Kufan who transmits authentic ḥadīth). (Jamiʿ
al-Ruwāt, vol. 2 p. 292)

7
Hishām ibn Sālim is credited with having been a student of Imām Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq. His reliability as a transmitter of ḥadīth
is attested to by the emphatic statement of ʿAllāmah and al-Najāshī: “thiqatun thiqah” (reliable, and once again reliable).
(Jamiʿ al-Ruwāt, vol. 2 p. 315)

Sulaymān ibn Khālid is mentioned as having been a student of Imām al-Bāqir. His death is recorded to have caused
Imām Jaʿfar extreme grief. He is universally acclaimed as “thiqah” (reliable). (Jamiʿ al-Ruwāt, vol. 1 p. 378)

This investigation concludes that each of the narrators of the four narrations affirming the marriage of Umm Kulthūm
documented in al-Kāfī was a reliable Imāmī Shīʿī transmitter with whose abilities and trustworthiness in hadith
transmission the Shīʿī authorities have expressed their satisfaction. The significance of this fact will come to light when
we discuss the turnabout that occurred after the development of Shīʿī kalam (scholastic theology) at the hands of al-
Shaykh al-Mufīd in the fifth century.

Besides al-Kulaynī, there were during this time other Shīʿī authors too who affirmed the marriage of Umm Kulthūm in a
way much similar to that of al-Kulaynī. One of these was Abū al-Qāsim al-Kūfī (d. 352 A.H). He devoted a number of pages
in his book al-Istighāthah fi Bidaʿ al-Thalāthah to the marriage of Umm Kulthūm, and after presenting several arguments
and counter arguments, he concludes the following:

Rasūlullāh H entrusted upon ʿAlī I all that he needed at the time of his death. He informed him of everything
that will be done to him by his Ummah, mentioning the usurpers one by one. ʿAlī I said, “What do you command me
to do?” and Rasūlullāh H answered, “Have patience and forbearance until the people return to you of their own
volition. At that time, you must fight the breakers of oaths, the unjust and those who out of the fold. Do not oppose any
of the Three, for thereby you will bring about your own destruction, and the people will go from hypocrisy to disunity.”

ʿAlī I was, thus, keeping this covenant, protecting thereby the oppressed Muslims, and preserving the Religion, so
that people would not return to open Jāhiliyyah, with tribes seeking to stir up sedition by settling old scores.

Thus, when ʿUmar asked for the hand of Umm Kulthūm, ʿAlī I thought to himself, “If I say no, he will want to kill
me, and if he tries to kill me, I will protect myself, and that would mean breaking the covenant with Rasūlullāh H
and going against his command. Should that happen, that thing would come to pass which Rasūlullāh H tried to
prevent, and for which reason he asked me to exercise patience, which is that people will fall into apostasy.” It was
better to hand over Umm Kulthūm to him than to kill him. He, thus, handed her over to him, knowing fully well that
what the man had usurped of the wealth of the Muslims and of their government, and what he had perpetrated by
denying his (ʿAlī’s) right and sitting on the place of the Prophet H, and his changes to and corruption of the laws
and ordinances of Allah were far more terrible and dreadful than his forcible possession of his daughter. He handed her
over, and resigned himself to patience, just like the Prophet H had ordered him to do.

In doing so he placed his daughter in a position similar to that of Āsiyah bint Muzāḥim, the wife of Firʿawn, since Allah
mentions her in the words: “She said: O my Lord, build for me a house by you in Paradise, and save me from Firʿawn and
his doings, and save me from the unjust people.” Indeed, what Firʿawn had wreaked upon Bani Isrāʿīl—killing their infants
and raping their women—in his search for Mūsā was much more ghastlier than his forcible possession of his wife Āsiyah,
and his marriage to her. She is a believing woman and of the people of Paradise, as attested to by Allah Himself.

The case of this man with Umm Kulthūm is the same as the case of Firʿawn with Āsiyah. His unjust usurpation of
leadership, wherein he opposed Allah and His Messenger H, by denying the Imām his right, and his confiscation
of the government of the Muslims, whilst governing their wealth, their persons and their lives with laws other than the
laws of Allah and His Messenger H—all of that was more dreadful in the sight of Allah than his forcible possession
of the bodies of a thousand believing women, not even to mention the body of a single woman. (al-Istighāthah fi Bidaʿ
al-Thalāthah p. 90)

8
Abū al-Qāsim al-Kūfī seems not to spare a moment’s thought for the fact that this was not just any woman. This was
the daughter of ʿAlī and Fāṭimah. This was the granddaughter of Rasūlullāh H. This was the sister of Ḥasan and
Ḥusayn. What the Shīʿah here seek to subject their Imām ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib to is unspeakable. Which father would sit by
idly while his daughter is being forcibly taken by an abominable enemy? This is the extent to which their twisting and
corruption of history has led them—that they are prepared to place upon their Imāms the kind of shame that even the
simplest ones amongst themselves would never bear. And the evil plot only entraps its own people. (al-Fāṭir: 43)

In addition, this attempt by Abū al-Qāsim al-Kūfī to explain the marriage of Umm Kulthūm is full of discrepancies, some
of which we will make mention of hereunder:

➢➢ The comparison between Umm Kulthūm and Āsiyah is unjustified. Āsiyah was not the daughter of a Nabī
who was forced to hand her over in marriage to a tyrant. She was married to him even before Mūsā was
born. Her marriage to Firʿawn was not concluded under threat and compulsion, neither could it have been
caused her father (whoever he was) any sort of embarrassment.

➢➢ Abū al-Qāsim’s report speaks of Rasūlullāh H informing ʿAlī of exactly what would be done to him
by each of the three khulafāʼ. He must therefore have known that ʿUmar will demand his daughter. Yet
when the time comes to pass, he refuses the marriage on grounds that she is too young (see the second
narration from al-Kāfī), and even Abū al-Qāsim’s own report mentions him weighing his options. Someone
who knows what is coming has no need to weigh his options.

➢➢ The reason for preserving the peace with the three khulafāʼ is given as the fear that people will revert into
apostasy. Yet in a narration from Imām al-Bāqir documented in al-Kāfī, apostasy is mentioned to have set
in immediately after the death of Rasūlullāh H: “Kāna al-nās ahla riddatin baʿda Rasūlullāh H illā
thalāthah” (After the death of Rasūlullāh H the people were apostates, except three.) (Rawḍāt al-Kāfī,
vol. 8 p. 167, no. 341) If they were, thus, already apostate, what reason did he have to sacrifice his own
daughter’s honour and chastity in order to preserve the non-existent?

However, despite all Abū al-Qāsim al-Kufi’s effort in working out a logical explanation of why ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib gave his
daughter in marriage to ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb, later Shīʿī scholars like al-Mufīd could find no place for his arguments
within their recension of Shīʿī doctrines.

After the fifth century

With the ascendancy of the Shīʿī Buyids at Baghdad during the latter half of the fourth century, Shīʿī scholarship gained
the patronage it required, and there developed under al-Shaykh al-Mufīd a school of Shīʿī theology that was to leave its
lasting upon Shīʿism. This school took full advantage of the methods and techniques of the existing schools of theology,
especially the rationalist approach of the Muʿtazilah. It adopted and appropriated Muʿtazilī methods to its own advantage,
and rationalised much of what had earlier been left to the domain of textual authority.

The marriage of Umm Kulthūm did not escape this process of rationalisation. When this issue was discovered to run
against the grain of Shīʿī theology—a theology that has its roots in a particular perspective of history—there was but
one of two options open to the rationalisers. They could choose the way of Abū al-Qāsim al-Kufi, al-Kulaynī, and other
traditionists, and accept the marriage as a union achieved by force and threats of violence. But this option, instead of
solving the problem, created another problem. The other option left open to them was to do a complete turnabout and
deny that this marriage ever took place.

9
Al-Shaykh al-Mufīd
The lead was taken by al-Shaykh al-Mufīd himself. He wrote an independent treatise about the marriage of Umm
Kulthūm, and discussed it in his other works as well, most notably al-Masā’il al-Sarawiyyah. The tenth question in this
book deal with the marriage of Umm Kulthūm. It reads as follows:

TENTH QUESTION: What is his (al-Mufīd’s) view regarding Amīr al-Mu’minīn marrying his daughter Umm Kulthūm to
ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb, and regarding the Nabī H marrying his daughters, Zaynab (sic) and Ruqayyah, to ʿUthmān?

ANSWER: The report speaking of Amīr al-Mu’minīn marrying his daughter to ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb is unfounded. It is
narrated via Zubayr ibn Bakkār, and its chain of narration is well known. He was untrustworthy in transmission. There
is suspicion on him in what he mentions. He used to hate Amīr al-Mu’minīn. What ʿAlī ibn Hāshim claims to narrate
from him is untrustworthy. This ḥadīth was included by Abū Muḥammad al-Ḥasan ibn Yaḥyā in his book on genealogy,
and account of that people thought it to be true, thinking that it is narrated by an ʿAlawī (descendant of ʿAlī). However,
the fact is that he narrates it from Zubayr ibn Bakkār.

The ḥadīth in itself is a forgery. It is sometimes narrated that Amīr al-Mu’minīn himself performed the ceremony, and
sometimes it is narrated that it was ʿAbbās who performed it. Sometimes it is narrated that the marriage took place
only after menacing by ʿUmar and threats against Banū Hāshim; and sometimes it is mentioned that the marriage took
place freely and voluntarily. Then some narrators claim that a child named Zayd was born from this marriage, while
others claim he was killed before consummating the marriage. Some say Zayd ibn ʿUmar left offspring, while others
say he was killed without leaving children. Some say he and his mother were killed, and some say his mother lived
after him. Some say ʿUmar gave Umm Kulthūm a dowry of 40 000 dirhams, others claim it was 4000 dirhams, and yet
others claim her dowry was 5000 dirhams. The origin of this claim, as well as the amount of contradiction in it renders
the ḥadīth null, so it is of no consequence.

At this point the benefit of investigating the authenticity of the four reports in al-Kāfī will become apparent. It can be
seen here that al-Mufīd places the responsibility for inventing the marriage of Umm Kulthūm on the shoulders of the
historian Zubayr ibn Bakkār. However, even a cursory comparison with the narrations in al-Kāfī and the one quoted
earlier from Ṭabaqāt Ibn Saʿd (all of which are but a drop in the ocean) demonstrates clearly that Zubayr ibn Bakkār
features nowhere in any of those chains of narration. Each of the narrators of those reports was a Shīʿī about whose
trustworthiness the ʿulamā’ of the Shīʿah were fully satisfied. Not a single one of those reports originated with Zubayr
ibn Bakkār. On the contrary, each one of them is traced back to Imām Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq. Al-Mufīd’s protestations are, thus,
completely bereft of substance. If anything, it shows the man’s desperation for finding some grounds, no matter how
flimsy or spurious, on which to dismiss the marriage of Umm Kulthūm.

Aside from trying to make Zubayr ibn Bakkār responsible for the invention of the marriage of Umm Kulthūm, al-Mufīd
tries to dismiss the incident by drawing attention to the discrepancies regarding certain lesser details. A simple response
to this is that when a multitude of reports all share one common element, the common element cannot be dismissed
because of differences in negligible details. An objective scholar who is not prejudiced by his idiosyncratic notion of
what history should actually be like will never stoop to the level al-Mufīd has. Objectivity here would require thoroughly
sifting through the available historical material and accepting the version that fulfils the criteria of authenticity, such
as have been demonstrated in the case of al-Kulaynī’s narrations in al-Kāfī. If an historical incident could be denied
for a reason as flimsy as discrepancies in minor details, one could well reject the Battle of Badr on grounds of the fact
that there are differences regarding the exact date on which it took place, or differences in the amount of combatants,
or even the amount of persons killed and taken captive. Here we are once again treated to the spectacle of a scholar’s
desperation to superimpose the idiosyncrasies of his theology over the facts of history, even if it means he has to discard
the most basic standards of objectivity.

10
At the end al-Mufīd’s nonchalance failed to convince anyone—including himself. Therefore, two paragraphs after
denying the occurrence of Umm Kulthūm’s marriage he comes back to fall into the queue of traditional Shīʿī scholarship
behind people like al-Kulaynī and Abū al-Qāsim al-Kūfī, and writes:

Amīr al-Mu’minīn was coerced to marry his daughter to the man, because he was threatening and menacing him.
There can, thus, be no argument against Amīr al-Mu’minīn because he was forced into it for his own safety and that
of his Shīʿah. He therefore complied under duress, just as we say that duress allows for even the pronunciation of Kufr.
Allah says, “Except him who is forced, but his heart is content in faith.”

There is no end to one’s amazement at seeing how this man would place the safety of the Shīʿah (“for his own safety and
that of his Shīʿah”) over the chastity and honour of his Imām’s daughter, and the granddaughter of Rasūlullāh H.

After al-Mufīd
The first explanation produced by al-Mufīd—that of denying the historicity of the marriage—was so ludicrous that he
failed to convince even himself. His own student, the eminent Sayyid Murtaḍā (d. 436 A.H), brother of the compiler
of Nahj al-Balāghah, Sayyid Raḍī, was even less impressed by his teacher’s artifices. He solemnly stuck to the line of
traditional Shīʿī scholarship, insisting that the marriage was one of coercion and force. He dealt with the marriage of
Umm Kulthūm in two of his books. In the book al-Shāfī he discussed it at considerable length, the gist of which he later
incorporated into his other book Tanzīh al-Ambiyā’ wa al-A’immah, where he writes:

As for giving his daughter in marriage, we have mentioned the answer to this in the book al-Shāfī in detail, and that he
only consented to give his daughter after he had been threatened and menaced and after there had been altercations
at length.

After Sayyid Murtaḍā, Abū ʿAlī al-Faḍl ibn Ḥasan al-Ṭabarsī, the Shīʿī mufassir of the 6th century (d. 502 A.H) stuck to the
same line. He writes in his book Iʿlam al-Warā’ bi Aʿlam al-Hudā (p. 204):

As for Umm Kulthūm, she is the one whom ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb married. Our associates say that he (ʿAlī) only married
her to him after putting up a lot of resistance, severe refusals, and finding excuses. Ultimately, he was forced by
circumstances to turn her matter over to ʿAbbās ibn ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib who married her off.

A later Shīʿī scholar, Shaykh ʿAbd al-Nabī al-Kāẓimī, writes in his book Takmilat al-Rijāl:

The well-known view of our associates, and the well-known narrations are that ʿUmar married her by force, as Sayyid
Murtaḍā emphatically insists in his treatise on the issue. In light of the narrations this is the more correct view. These
narrations remove whatever doubt there might have been regarding how Amīr al-Mu’minīn could marry his daughter
to him, when according to what the Shīʿah believe it is not supposed to be permissible to have marital ties with him,
since forcible possession and duress render everything permissible. The same applies to the objection regarding how
he could have borne this forcible taking of his daughter when the very Hāshimī spirit and Arab sense of honour would
not tolerate such utter humiliation and insult. These texts settle the matter completely.

Having found this niche of the “forced taking” of Umm Kulthūm, these ʿulamā’ of the Shīʿah took refuge in it from the
torrent of questions and the utter indignation of anyone who witnesses the way in which they have shed their own
shame and dishonour upon the memory of Sayyidunā ʿAlī, Sayyidah Fāṭimah, and their daughter Umm Kulthūm—the
granddaughter of Rasūlullāh H. Year in and year out they wail and lament the death of Sayyidunā Ḥusayn, but for
the honour of his sister Umm Kulthūm they have not the slightest sympathy, blithely asserting that she was “forcibly
taken” by ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb. Wouldn’t it be simpler, easier and indeed more honourable and truthful just to accept
the course of history as it was? But no, to them that would mean the destruction of this edifice of theirs called Shīʿism.

11
So, it is better for them to sacrifice the honour of the granddaughter of Rasūlullāh H than to forgo the doctrines
which their own minds fashioned. As al-Mufīd indicated, rather secure the safety of the Shīʿah than protect the honour
of Umm Kulthūm bint ʿAlī.

After the founding of the Safavid Empire

The founding of the Safavid empire in Iran at the dawn of the 16th century CE opened a new chapter in Shīʿī history. Shīʿī
scholarship in particular benefitted from the patronage of the Safavid monarchs who invited them to fill the void left
by the extermination and exile of the Sunnī ʿulamāʼ of Iran. Though at first reluctant, they soon flowed into Iran in large
numbers from Iraq, Bahrain and Syria, to fill posts created by the newly established Shīʿī state, and to spread their faith
amongst the people of Iran, the vast majority of whom were at that stage still Sunnī.

The establishment of a Shīʿī state did not bring discussion around the marriage of Umm Kulthūm to an end.

12