Chapter Seven: Was Uthman Dhul Nurayn?

Ansar.org stated:

Uthman bin Affan, the man of two lights, his wives were Ruqiyyahh and Umm Kalthum, the two daughters of the Prophet peace be upon him, and the brother-in-law of Ali bin Abi Talib, may Allah be pleased at him.

It is indeed amusing that Nasibi’s whether they be Salafi or Deobandi have an aqeedah that Rasulullah (s) was not created from Nur (Light) – as Nur is not the composition of a human being and Rasulullah (s) was human like us. At the same time they give Uthman the title ‘Dhul Nurayn’ possessor of two lights – how can this be when no human can constitute Nur?

We also have some questions for Ansar on this very topic:

1. If Uthman was indeed ‘the possessor of two lights’ by the same token can we also deem Abu Lahab to be Abu Nurayn? After all his sons (in Sunni traditions) married Hadhrath Ruqiyyah and Umm Kulthum?
2. Do you accept that this honor gives Abu Lahab a superior virtue over the rest of the Ummah?
3. Can you produce even a single reference with a complete Sahih chain where Rasulullah (s) had referred to either of these daughters as Nur?

Among the scholars of Islam, there are two point of views about the status of the three ladies namely Um Kulthum, Ruqiyyah and Zainab i.e. some scholars deem them as the biological daughters of Holy Prophet [s] while others counted them amongst the step daughters of the Holy Prophet [s]. Since AA deem the second view to be more logical, let us submit evidence to corroborate our claim.

The alleged biological daughters of Prophet(s) i.e Ruqiyyah and Kulthoom were allegedly married to two infidels Utba and Uteeba

For proof we shall cite the following authentic sunni books.

1. Al Tabaqat al Kubra, Volume 8, page 36
2. Al Isaba fi Tameez al Sahaba, Volume 4, page 297
3. Usdul Ghaba fi Marafat e Sahaba, Volume 7, Page 113 & Volume 7, page 384
4. Al Istiab fi isma al Ashaab, Volume 4, page 292
5. Tarikh e Khmees, Volume 1, Page 274
6. Al Badayah wal Nahayah, Page 308
7. Seerat ibn Hasham, Volume 2, Page 652 printed in Egypt.
8. Al Muajib ul deena, Volume 1, page 45
9. Sharah Fiqah Akbar, page 130
10. Tafsir Dur e Manthoor, page 409, Surah Tabat
11. Tafsir Ruh al Mani, parah 30, Surah Tabat
12. Zakhair al Uqba, page 162, Qism 2nd Chapter 1, fasl 5th
13. Noor al Abasar, page 83
14. As’af ar Raghibain, page 84
15. Tazkarat al Khawas al Amma, page 182, chapter 11
16. al Mu’arif la bin Qateeba page 55 and page 62
17. Madarijun Nabuwah, page 458, published Nolakshur
18. Ma`raj al Nabuwah, page 86, Rukn 4
19. Rodha tul Ahbaab, page 604
20. Habib as Sayeer Volume 1, page 90, part 3

We read in Usdul Ghaba fi Marafat e Sahaba:

“The Prophet(s) had married Ruqiyyah with Utba bin Abi Laheb kaafir and the sister of Ruqiyyah i.e Ume Kulthoom with Uteeba bin Abi Laheb kaafir. When [to counter Abu Laheb] Surah Tabata was revealed, Utba’s and Uteebaa’s father Abu Laheb and mother Ume Jameel asked them to separate [means to divorce] both the daughters of Muhammad(s). Hence they divorced them without making relations with them, this was a grace from Allah (swt) for both Ruqiyyah and Ume Kulthoom and a disgrace for both Utba and Uteeba. Then Uthman bin Affan married Ruqiyyah in Makkah and Ruqiyyah along with Uthman migrated towards Habshah”

We read in Al Istiab:

“Ruqiyyah entered into a nikah with Utba bin Abi Laheb the Kaafir whilst Ume Kulthoom was in Uteeba’s house. When Surah Tabat was revealed, they were divorced and then Uthman married Ruqiyyah in Makkah”

We read in Al Isaba:

“Ruqiyyah was initially under the nikah of Utba bin Abi Laheb Kaafir, when the Prophet(s) declared his Prophethood, Abu Lahab instructed his son to divorce Ruqiyyah and then Uthman married Ruqiyyah”.

The above mentioned 20 books of Ahle Sunnah contain evidence that Ruqiyyah and Ume Kulthoom initially married Utba and Uteeba respectively and when they were divorced, then married Uthman. If being a husband of these two ladies is a merit, then this was achieved initially by Kuffar and the merit of a Kaafir participating with a muslim, is not something to sing about. Uthman cannot assert pride over all Muslims on account of his relationship with these two ladies since by the same token, the two kafirs Utba and Uteeba, were also the respective husbands of both women which entitled them to likewise assert pride over the Muslims. It is amazing that Nasibis have adopted so many steps to conceal the evil acts of Mauwiyah and his notorious son Yazeed, when they were neither were Prophets or Imams, rather they fought the Prophet and Imams. Why don’t they have the same enthusiasm and consideration when it comes to protecting the character of the Chief of Prophets?

Some final points to ponder

No doubt the stubborn Nawasib shall still assert their stance to extol Uthman. Let us for arguments sake accept that they were the true daughters of the Prophet(s), so what? This would not evidence the virtue of Uthman after all:

• these daughters don’t possess any merit. There is no merit for a Muslim man that remarries a divorced woman that was previously married to a Kafir.
• the relationship between the Prophet(s) and Uthman is of son in law and father in law whilst the relationship of Qabeel with Adam(as) and the relationship of Yusuf’s brothers with Prophet Yaqub(as) was the relationship of sons, and the relation of Noah(as) with his son was also a father/son’s relationship; yet these close blood ties did not avail them from their injustices and the same can be said of Uthman.

Objection One

Some Nasibis have cited an esteemed Shia book Tafsir Majma al Bayan to prove that in Islam, it was permissible to have marital ties with the Kuffar, and have hence argued why the objection if the Prophet(s) had given His daughters hands to infidels?

Reply One

Nawasib can never leave their dishonest traits. At no point in Majma al Bayan, are we informed that the Prophet (s) committed sins before Islam or that it was permissible for him to marry his daughter (s) to the Kuffar. Our discussion is not about any common man but about the Chief of all Prophets. It is stated in Majma al Bayan that “according to some people, before Islam it was permissible to establish relationships with the kuffar” . Now who are ‘some people’? We the Shias cannot be counted as ‘some people’. The usage ‘some people’ refers to the non Shi’a Sects that hold this belief.

Objection Two

It is stated in the Holy Quran that Prophet Lut (as) offered his daughters to his kaafir people. What is the objection if Prophet Muhammad (s) did likewise?

Reply Two

We reject such a Quranic interpretation. Every Prophet is the father of his Ummah, as in a spiritual father. This is no different to a State Leader that refers to women as the daughters of his nation. Similarly the Prophet also called the women of his ummah his daughters. The ladies who were offered by Lut (as) to his ummah for the purpose of marriage, were the ladies/daughters of his Ummah and due to his leadership, he referred to them as ‘daughters’. Moreover, if Prophet Lut (as) meant his real/biological daughters then the meaning of: ‘you people should become Muslims and marry these daughters of mine’ would mean that Lut (as) was ready to offer his daughters to those Kaafir people along with their Kufr.

Objection Three

In the Holy Quran it is evident that Asiya (as) daughter of Mazahim was a true believer and the wife of Pharoah. Why the objection if the Prophet’s daughters were in the clutches of the Kuffar?

Reply Three

Hadhrath Asiya (as) was not a daughter of any Prophet nor was her marriage arranged by a Prophet. Hadhrat Asiya (as) was a common lady and the daughter of a common man. When she was married to Pharoah, she herself was not a believer at that time, when she entered the pale of Allah’s religion she was under the strict influence of the tyrant Pharoah. Hence, our discussion has nothing to do with the story of Hadhrath Asiya (as).

Objection Four

Even if we accept that Ruqiyyah and Ume Kulthoom were the step daughters of the Prophet(s), why would He (s) marry them to the Kuffar?

Reply Four

History is silent about these two ladies. The Prophet (s) didn’t marry these two ladies to the Kuffar. If you follow our notion, then the existence of these two ladies is doubtful. Tyrant rulers gave publicity to their existence for their own purposes and later on poor historians merely imitated them.

According to Sunni sources Uthman married Ruqiyyah during his period of infidelity

We shall cite the following books of Ahle Sunnah as evidence:

1. Tarikh Khamees, Volume 1, page 275
2. Tazkirat al Khawas al Ummah, page 172
3. Zakhair al Uqba, page 162
4. Tarikh ul Khulfa, page 148
5. Madarij un Nabuwah, page 458

We read in Zakhair al Uqba and Tazkirat al Khawas:

“Dulabi has said that Uthman’s marriage with Ruqiyyah took place during Uthman’s period of ignorance [Jahilyah] .”

All Muslims unanimously believe that the period of Jahilyah means period of Kufr and Uthman married Ruqiyyah prior to entering the pale of Islam. It is indeed amazing:

• Ruqiyyah and Ume Kulthoom (whilst not adult) were initially married to the Kuffar, namely Utba and Uteeba,
• both of these Kaafirs subsequently divorced them due to their animosity towards Islam.

We would like to ask:

Having been divorced by the Kuffar, what compulsions were there for our Prophet (s) to marry the same pre pubescent daughters to another kafir?

Moreover what merits have Wahabi’s seen in this marriage when both Utba and Uthman were non believers at that time? The marriage of Ruqiyyah took place initially with Kafir Utba and when Utba’s father asked him to divorce her because ‘her father doesn’t recognize our idols as God and has brought a new religion’ Utba divorced her. Then Ruqqyyiah was married to Uthman who himself was Kafir at the time. This meant that she was had been married to two Kafirs. What is the merit in that? Shias don’t recognize the merits of either of these people. The Nawasib are also very unjust why do they recognize the merits of one non-Muslim amongst these two and reject the merit of the other one?

Moreover, why would the Prophet(s) give preference to a Kaafir Uthman over the ‘Muslim’ Abu Bakr? We believe that these stories were concocted during the era of Muawiyah. People fabricated stories in order to get material rewards but they couldn’t succeed in making any sense of them.

Uthman was besotted by Ruqayyia’s beauty

For evidence we shall rely on the following books of Ahle Sunnah:

1. Al Isaba fi Tameez al Sahaba, Volume 4, page 220
2. Riyadh al Nadira, Volume 3, page 9, part 4.
3. Khasais al Kubra, by Allamah Jalaludin Syuti Volume 1, page 121

We read in Riyadh al Nadira:

“Umro bin Uthman narrates that Uthman explained the personal grounds for his embracing Islam: ‘I (Uthman) was renowned for having an interest in women. One night I was sitting in front of the Kaaba along with a group of Quraish upon returning from there, we came to know that Muhammad had married Ruqiyyah with Utba bin Abi Laheb, and Ruqiyyah was very beautiful’. Uthman said that ‘a fire of desire started blazing within his heart on why he wasn’t the first to have married her. Thus, I returned home and found my aunt Sa’da bint Kuraiz sitting there who was a Joban [one could foresee the future with the help of some knowledge]….(She recited the above mentioned couplets that meant that you will get a daughter of the Prophet)….Uthman said ‘I was surprised at the couplets of my aunt and I asked her ‘what kind of news you are giving to me?’ She said ‘O Uthman, you possess both beauty and a way of talking and this Prophet is rightful, bring faith in him, and your wish shall be fulfilled…Uthman said ‘I then became a Muslim & testified that there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is Allah’s messenger and married Ruqiyyah the daughter of Allah’s messenger.”

The above cited books discredit the Prophet (s) and Uthman. For Uthman, he didn’t accept Islam due to its truthfulness but because he fell in love with Ruqiyyah and took the shahadah to attain Ruqiyyah, upon the advice of his merciful aunt. Subhanallah one that accepts Islam on account of the beauty of a woman is praised by Wahabis! The narrations also disrespected the Prophet (s), as the he (s) must have had the level of knowledge that the Uthman’s aunt had. When his aunt recommended that Uthman embrace Islam to obtain the main objective of marrying Ruqiyyah, didn’t the Prophet(s) know that this man was accepting Islam just because he was besotted by Ruqiyyah’s beauty?

A relationship can only be made only with those whose religion is liked by you

We read in:

1. Sunan Darqatni , page 415, Book of Nikah
2. Jama Tirmidhi, Volume 1, page 148, Book of Nikah
3. Neel al Autaar, Volume 6, page 145, Book of Nikah
4. Mujam al-Awsat, Volume 1 page 142

We read in Mujam al-Awsat by Imam Tabarani:

“The Prophet (s) said that when a person wants to have a relationship with you, and you are pleased by his religion, faith and character, then marry him, if you don’t do it than it shall cause affliction and corruption upon the earth”

The Quran repeatedly stresses Allah (swt)’s condemnation of Kufr and Shirk which is why He (swt) prohibited us from marrying our daughters to them. Anything disliked by Allah (swt) is also disliked by a believer, since the Holy Prophet(s) is free from every kind of sin, he would never commit an act disliked by Allah (swt).

The above cited tradition tells us that if somebody whose religion is liked by you, asks for a ‘relationship’ [i.e. asks for the hand of your daughter] we should accept that proposal. However, if a Kaafir asks for a ‘relationship’, since the religion of the Kaafir is disliked by Muslims, the common Muslim should immediately reject such a proposal. As our Prophet(s) had come to eliminate the religion of Kufr, it is impossible that he (s) would have liked the religion of a Kaafir and given his daughter (nauzobillah) to them. In summary, had Zainab, Ruqiyyah and Umme Kulthoom been the biological daughters of the Holy Prophet(s), he would have never married them to Kaafirs.

The Son-in-Lawship of the Prophet(s) was only allocated to Maula Ali (as)

For the evidence we shall rely on the following books of Ahlul Sunnah :

1. Riyadh al Nadira fi Manaqib e Ashrah Mubashrah, Volume 3, page 260
2. Arja al Muttalib, page 853
3. Mawadatul Qurba, by Sayed Ali Hamdani, page 65
4. Yanabi ul Mawaddah, page 255, Chapter 56
5. Faraid al Simtain, page 142, Chapter 25
6. Maktal Hussain al Khawarzmi, part 6, page 109
7. Al Manaqib al Khawarzmi, part 19, page 209

We read in Riyadh al Nadira:

“Abu Saeed narrated that The Prophet(s) once said to Ali that you have been granted three things which no one has been granted, not even me. You have found a father in law like me and I didn’t achieve this, you found a Sideeqa daughter of mine but I didn’t attain a wife like her, you have been granted sons like Hassan and Hussain from your loins and I didn’t get sons like them from my loins, but you are from me and I am from you.”

It has been proven from the above mentioned tradition that being the son in law of the Holy Prophet (s) is a merit that belongs to Maula Ali (as) alone. Had those three ladies indeed been the Prophet’s biological daughters, he (s) would not have referred to Maula Ali (as) as his only son in law when other sons in law existed! Specifically attributing this merit to Maula Ali (as) is evidence that those three ladies were not the biological daughters of the Holy Prophet(s) and that Uthman being the (actual) son in law of the Prophet(s) is a plain lie. The Salafis should ponder over this and be ashamed that a merit possessed exclusively by Ali (as) is being associated with outsiders.

Ruqiyyah and Ume Kulthoom were orphans during the life of the Prophet(s), hence they were not His (as) biological daughters

We read in Tafsir Kabeer, Volume 1, page 427, part 30, published in Egypt:

“It has been narrated that this verse was revealed when the Prophet(s) had scolded and talked to a progeny of Khadija with a loud voice.”

A orphan is one whose father has died, an orphan amongst animals is one whose mother has died and an orphan amongst birds is one who has lost both parents.

Zainab, Ruqiyyah and Umme Kulthoom are being referred to as orphans in the above cited tradition. According to this Sunni text, the Prophet(s) scolded one of them that led to the revelation of this verse ‘do not scold the orphan’. Had these ladies been the biological daughters of the Prophet (s), Allah (swt) would not have referred to them as orphans during the lifetime of the Prophet (s) because an orphan is one whose father has died. This proves that they were not the biological daughters of the Prophet (s).

Sunni scholars have admitted that Zainab, Ruqiyyah and Ume Kulthoom were the step daughters of Prophet(s)

We read in Quran:

[Shakir 4:23] Forbidden to you are your mothers and your daughters and your sisters and your paternal aunts and your maternal aunts and brothers’ daughters and sisters’ daughters and your mothers that have suckled you and your foster-sisters and mothers of your wives and your step-daughters who are in your guardianship, (born) of your wives to whom you have gone in, but if you have not gone in to them, there is no blame on you (in marrying them), and the wives of your sons who are of your own loins and that you should have two sisters together, except what has already passed; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

In the commentary of this verse, we read in Tafsir Gharaib al Quran, Volume 2 page 6:

If he had intercourse with a woman, he would have been prevented from marrying her daughter, whether she was under his guardianship or not, but the condition to have intercourse with her mother was due to his (Allah) saying : { of your women unto whom ye have gone in } that is related to step daughters such as the daughters of Allah’s messenger (pbuh) from Khadija.

It is proved from the above mentioned quotation that Ruqiyyah and Ume Kulthoom were not the biological daughters of the Holy Prophet (s) but were girls living in the house of the Prophet (s). Had they been the biological daughters of the Holy Prophet(s), they would have already come under the instructions of the verse of Hurmat [Alaikum Umaha takum wabna Takum] and there would have been no need to bind them to the edicts of the verse Raba ye yukum.

This reference proves that they were the step daughters of the Holy Prophet(s), and as far as Uthman being their husband is concerned, we say that Utba and Uteeba were also their ex husbands. Therefore, this is not a merit that is specifically for Uthman but was also shared with Utba and Uteeba and any merit that can be found in the house of a Kaafir, cannot be cited as a matter of pride for Muslims.

Allah’s (swt) had testified that there would be only one daughter of the Holy Prophet (s)

We read in Holy Quran:

[Shakir 13:29] (As for) those who believe and do good, a good final state shall be theirs and a goodly return.

Imam Jalaluddin Suyuti records in Tafseer Dur al-Manthur, Volume 4, page 59:

Farqad al-Sabkhi [ra] states that Allah (swt) revealed to Isa (as) in the Enjeel: ‘ Oh Isa. Try to recognize my Amar (matter) and do not be lazy, listen to my order and obey it. O son of virgin Mary, I created you without a father, I made you and your mother my Signs for the entire universe. So worship me and have faith in me and firmly grasp the book’. Isa (as) asked which book shall I grasp firmly ?, Allah(swt) said: ‘the Enjeel’ and explain its tafsir to the Syrians and tell them that I am the only one who is worth worshipping, I am Hayu Qayum, Creator of everything and will remain alive for ever that I am immortal, [tell your ummah] bring faith [Iman] on Allah and His Prophet, that Prophet who is an Ummi, who will come at the end period, recognize him and obey him, he is the one of Camel, armor, stick, crown, cloak, with connected eyebrows. His progeny will be from Khadija who is a blessed lady, O Isa (as) there is a house for Khadija in paradise made with such pearls that will have no hole and it will have a mixture of gold. This house will not have troubles and fatigue, Khadija will have a daughter whose name is Fatima, who will bare two sons Hassan and the second one Hussain, both shall be martyred. Repentance is for the one who listens to His book and finds the era of this Prophet’. Isa (as) asked: ‘What is that Tooba O Allah?’ He (swt) replied: ‘It is a tree in paradise which I have planted myself and have settled angels around, its roots are from Ridhwan and its water is from Tasneem’.
 Tafseer Dur al-Manthur, Volume 4, page 59

We see from the above cited tradition that Allah (swt) had already informed previous prophets that there would be only one daughter of the Prophet Muhammad (s) from Khadija (sa) whose name is Fatima who would bear two sons Hassan and Hussain both of whom would be martyred. Had those ladies been the biological daughters of the Prophet (s), their names would have been mentioned along with Fatima’s name.

The Prophet(s)’s pride over the merits of his son in law

1. Tafsir Dur a Manthoor, page 292, para 11, Surah Taubah, verse 128
2. Seerat al Halabya, Volume 1, page 68, Dhikr Tazweej

[Shakir 9:128] Certainly a Messenger has come to you from among yourselves; grievous to him is your falling into distress, excessively solicitous respecting you; to the believers (he is) compassionate

Anas said: ‘Allah’s messenger recited ’{Now hath come unto you a Messenger from amongst yourselves}’. Thus Ali said: ‘Oh Allah’s messenger what means {amongst yourselves}?’ Allah’s messenger said: ‘I am the most precious in terms of descendants, having a son in law and lineage, there is no one in my ancestors uptil Adam born from adultery, all are from Nikah’.

This tradition demonstrates that the Prophet (s) felt pride that there was no son in law save Ali bin Abi Talib (as)! The Prophet(s)’s pride over his son in law is evidence that:

• his biological daughter was only Fatima Zahra (sa)
• Ali bin Abi Talib (as) had all manner of merits conferred on him (as)
• had Ali (as) not been there, no one would have had the rank to marry Fatima and become the Prophet’s son in law.

The Prophet (s) didn’t feel pride at Uthman being the husband of Ruqiyyah and then of Umme Kulthoom as their former husbands were Kaafirs Utba and Uteeba.

Maula Ali (as)’s pride at being the son in law of our Holy Prophet (s)

For the evidence we shall rely on the following books of Ahle Sunnah.

1. Sawaiq al Muhirqa, Volume 2 page 386
2. Akhbar al Tawaal, page 36
3. Yanabi ul Mawwadah, page 371, Chapter 65
4. Deewan Ali Mutrajim, page 171, Qafia ‘meem’, Published in Karachi
5. Faraid al Simtain, page 427
6. Sharah ibn al Hadeed, page 455
7. Kunzal Ummal, Volume 2, page 392, Fadhail Ali

We read in Sawaiq al Muhirqa:

“When Ali received a boastful letter from Muawiyah, He asked one of his servants to write its answer, then Ali made him write that, ‘Muhammad is Allah’s Prophet and my brother and father in law, and chief of martyrs Hamza is my uncle, and Jaffar who along with the angels, day and night fly over paradise is my brother and the daughter of Muhammad (s) is the ease of my heart and my wife, her blood and flesh has mingled with my blood and flesh, both of the grandsons of Muhammad (s) are my sons from Fatima. Verily, who amongst you shares the merits I possess? Amongst all of you, I rushed towards Islam as a child that had not attained puberty’.
Imam Bayhaqi has stated that people that are weak on the merits of Ali, are duty bound to learn this prose by heart, so that they may know of the virtues of Ali in Islam. ”
 Sawaiq al Muhirqa, Volume 2 page 386

The above words can be located in Yanabi ul Mawadah and Deewan Ali along with these words:

In the same manner that the Wilayah of the Holy Prophet(s) is evident over the people, He (s) likewise made my Wilayah and leadership incumbent over you on the day of Ghadir.

Had Uthman been the actual son in law of the Prophet (s) then why didn’t Mu’awiyah seek to refute the claim of Ali (as) by ‘correcting’ him and pointing out the same station was also possessed by his Ummayad cousin? If the claim of Imam Ali (as) was false, do you really think Mu’awiyah would have read the letter and ignored it? With his own deceptive skills, and advisers like Marwan, they would have sought their utmost to propagate to the masses that Maula Ali (as) was a liar.

We read in Faraid al-Simtain:

“Muawiyah wrote a letter to Ali, in which he stated that ‘my father was the leader of ignorants during the period of ignorance [Jahilyah] and in Islam, I am a king. I am uncle of the Momineen (because Umme Habiba the wife of the Holy Prophet(pbuh) was Muawiya’s sister) I am the letter writer, and the brother in law of the Prophet(s)’. When this letter reached Ali, He replied, ‘on what merits does the son of the lady who chewed the liver of the martyrs feel pride over me?’. O Qamber, write to him that I possess the very Hashmi swords and spears, whose wounds you saw on your family during Badr and those weapons are still not sheathed from oppressors. The Prophet (s) was my father in law, His (s) daughter was my wife, tell me who else except me possesses these merits?’”

In the above mentioned prose, Ali (as) has defined some of his merits that included the statement ‘Fatima Zahra (sa), the daughter of the Holy Prophet(s) is my wife and the Prophet (s) is my father in law’. After that he (as) used the words Khayakum- Ya- Fakam who in the lights of wisdom and knowledge, are the Seeghay of Umoom which in Arabic grammar encompasses everybody and hence asked ‘whether anybody possesses such merits as I do’. It hence becomes evident from the above mentioned discussion of Ali Bin Abi Talib (as), that our Holy Prophet (s) had only one daughter, Fatima Zahra (sa) while the three ladies who were married to Kuffar were not the biological daughters of the Prophet (s). When Maula Ali (as) has denied them being the biological daughters of the Prophet (s), no one can deem them the true daughters since the statements of Maula Ali (as) are always true as there is a hadith about Ali (as): ‘Ali is with truth and truth is with Ali’.

Ali (as)’s pride at being the husband of Fatima Zahra (sa) daughter of Prophet (s)

We shall prove this through reliance on the following Sunni sources:

1. Faraid al Simtain, page 321, Chapter 58
2. Al Manaqib al Khawarzmi, page 222, Part 19

Both books state that:

“For Allah’s sake, tell me is there anyone amongst you other than me, that possesses a wife like Fatima binte Muhammad (s), the same Fatima (as) who is the Chief of the women of Paradise?”

This was the submission of Maula Ali (as) before the sox man committee appointed by Umar to decide the next caliph, that included Uthman. We see that the merit of being the sole husband of the Prophet’s daughter was raised as the right to Caliphate. If Uthman was also a son in law of the Prophet (s) in the sense that he was the husband of a biological daughter of the Prophet (s), why did he not seek to interject and say: ‘I also possess the same merits in this regard as you do O Ali, in fact I have had two daughters of the Holy Prophet (s) therefore I am more virtuous than you’. Uthman remaining silent in front of Maula Ali (as) is clear proof that both ladies were not the biological daughters of the Holy Prophet(s).

If Uthman couldn’t speak out at that time, then there were four other Sahaba who could have pointed out the greater merit possessed by Uthman but we see that no one sought to ‘correct’ Maula Ali (as). Their silence is clear evidence that the companions knew that Ruqiyyah and Ume Kulthoom were not the biological daughters of the Holy Prophet (s).

Being the husband of Fatima Zahra (sa) is a merit of Maula Ali (as) that was coveted by both Omar and Abdullah bin Umar

For proof we shall cite the following books of Ahlul Sunnah:

1. Tafsir e Kashaf, Volume 2, page 76, Surah Mujadla , ayah Najomi
2. Al Mastadarak alas Sahihain, Volume 3, page 125, Dhikr Ali
3. Kifayat al Talib, page 136, Chapter 29
4. Tarikh e Khulfa, page 172
5. Riaz al Nuzerah, Volune 3, page 202, Part 6
6. Sawaiq Al Muhirqa, page 76, Chapter 9, part 3
7. Musnad Ahmed bin Hambal, Volume 7, page 20, Published in Egypt
8. Faraid al Simtain, page 345, Chapter 64
9. Al Manaqib al Khawarzmi, page 238, part 19

We read in Sawaiq al Muhirqa that:

“Umar used to say that ‘Ali was given three qualities any one of which I would prefer to the gift of high-bred camels. He was asked ‘And what are they?’ He said ‘He married him his daughter Fatimah, Secondly he was permitted to enter the mosque in the situation which was not permitted to me and thirdly he attained the standard on the Day of Khayber.”

We ead in Musnad Ahmed bin Hanbal that:

“Abdullah bin Umar states that ‘Ali was given three qualities any one of which I would prefer to the gift of high-bred camels. (1) The Prophet(s) married his daughter with Ali (2) The Prophet(s) made the two doors closed that used to open at the mosque except the door of Ali (3) The Prophet(s) gave him the standard on the Day of Khayber.”

Shaykh Ahmad Shakir declared it Sahih while Imam Al-Haythami in Majma al-Zawaed, Volume 9 page 123 said: ‘The narrators are of the Sahih (books)’. Imam Nasiruddin Albaani al-Salafi said: ‘The chain is good’ (Dhilal al-Janah, hadith 1199).

The above mentioned traditions highlights the impeccable merit of Ali (as) being the son in law of the Holy Prophet (s) that was coveted by Umar. According to the belief of Ahle Sunnah, two (biological) daughters of the Holy Prophet (s) were also there in the house of Uthman. If this was the case then Umar would have coveted the ‘merit’ of Uthman since according to Ahle Sunnah, Uthman was ‘Dhul Nurayn’ and Umar would have desired to be ‘Dhul Nurayn’ too! However, we see that Umar didn’t include this in his list of merits. Hence, we come to know that those ladies were not the biological daughters of the Holy Prophet (s), had that been the case, Umar would have cited this as an excellence of Uthman that he was envious of.

The Holy Prophet (s) praised His son in law Ali bin Abi Talib (as)

We read in the following books of Ahlul Sunnah

1. Tahdib al Tahdib , Volume 7, page 327, Dhikr Ali
2. Faraid Al Simtain, page 92, Chapter 17
3. Al Manaqib al Khawarzmi, page 243

“The Prophet(s) gave Fatima Zahra in the Nikah of Ali and said to his daughter: ‘I have married you to a man who is a leader of people in this world and hereafter.’

According to Ahle Sunnah Uthman was also the son in law of the Holy Prophet (s) but this tradition negates such a notion because had there been any (biological) daughter of the Prophet (s) in Uthman’s house, the Prophet (s) would have likewise extolled Uthman in some similar fashion.

The notable absence of these daughters at the feast of kinsmen

We read in Sahih Muslim Book 001, Number 0401:

It is narrated on the authority of ‘A’isha that when this verse was revealed:” And warn thy nearest kindred,” the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) stood up on Safa’ and said: O Fatima, daughter of Muhammad. O Safiya, daughter of ‘Abd al-Muttalib, O sons of ‘Abd al-Muttalib. I have nothing which can avail you against Allah; you may ask me what you want of my worldly belongings.

Whilst we see Aisha providing eye witness testimony to an event prior to her birth, let us for arguments sake accept the authenticity of this narration. According to the History of Tabari Volume 6 page 88 this event occurred “three years after the commencement of his mission” . Sayyida Zahra (as) was a young girl at the time having not yet attained the age of puberty. Why would Rasulullah (s) seek to warn a pre pubescent girl to save herself from the fire? According to Sunni sources the other (biological) daughters were married, two of them to Abu Lahab’s sons, then why did Rasulullah (s) issue a warning to Sayyida Fatima (as) and not to the other daughters if they existed? There is no way that the Sunnis can argue that they would not have been there since the family of Abd al-Muttalib were all summoned to the feast of kinsmen. Is it logical to believe that Rasulullah (s) ignored issuing such warnings to his other alleged daughters? They were of majority age and married, so the duty for them to steer clear from sins was greater, so why were they not warned? If they existed why did the Prophet (s) not call out their names during this event? This serves as clear proof that other natural daughters of the Prophet (s) did not exist, and their existence is merely advanced to extol the virtues of Uthman.

The services of Fatima Zahra (sa) for the Holy Prophet(s) during her childhood

We read in Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 185:

Narrated Abdullah: Once the Prophet was offering the prayer in the shade of the Ka’ba. Abu Jahl and some Quraishi men sent somebody to bring the abdominal contents of a she camel which had been slaughtered somewhere in Mecca, and when he brought them, they put them over the Prophet Then Fatima (i.e. the Prophet’s daughter) came and threw them away from him, and he said, “O Allah! Destroy (the pagans of) Quraish; O Allah! Destroy Quraish; O Allah Destroy Quraish,” naming especially Abu Jahl bin Hisham, ‘Utba bin Rabi’a, Shaiba bin Rabi’a, Al Walid bin ‘Utba, Ubai bin Khalaf and ‘Uqba bin Abi Mitt. (The narrator, ‘Abdullah added, “I saw them all killed and thrown in the Badr well).

Offspring have a natural affection with their parents, even those that have not attained puberty are keen to help and serve their parents during periods of difficulty. When the Prophet (s) declared his Prophethood, the Kuffar of Quraish subjected him (s) to torment and the service provided by Fatima Zahra (sa) for her father during this difficult time can be ascertained from the above tradition. Had there been any other daughter of the Prophet (s), she would have likewise aided her father, but we are surprised to learn of no traditions pointing to the efforts of these other daughters coming to the aid of their father.

Moreover, Uthman’s step father Utba who has been mentioned in Bukhari, would throw dirt at the Holy Prophet (s), why did Uthman or his wife never prevent him from doing this? Surely there must be one tradition that would point to one of these daughters intervening and protecting her father from the onslaught of Utbah? By pondering over the cited tradition from different angles, it is clear that Uthman’s status as the son in law of the Holy Prophet(s) is false.

The services rendered by Fatima Zahra (sa) for the Holy Prophet (s) during the Battle of Uhud

As evidence, we shall rely on:

1. Sahih Bukhari , Volume 4, Book 52, Number 152
2. Faraid al Simtain, page 252, Chapter 48

We read in Sahih Bukhari:

Narrated Sahl: When the helmet of the Prophet was smashed on his head and blood covered his face and one of his front teeth got broken, ‘Ali brought the water in his shield and Fatima the Prophet’s daughter) washed him. But when she saw that the bleeding increased more by the water, she took a mat, burnt it, and placed the ashes on the wound of the Prophet and so the blood stopped oozing out.

During the battle of Uhud, the Prophet(s) was injured on account of the companions deserting him from the battlefield. It is stated in Sahih Bukhari, Book al Manaqib, Chapter Manaqib Abi Talha, page 27 that Ayesha was also present during this war, but her absence during the medical treatment of Prophet (s) proves that when Abu Bakar and Umar ran away from the battle field, Ayesha – the alleged most beloved wife of Prophet (s) fled like her father . When the news of the Prophet (s)’s injury reached Fatima Zahra (sa) in Madinah, she (as) quickly approached him (s) in the field of Uhud and shared the grief of her father and tended to his medical needs. The Salafis state that Umme Kulthoom was married to Uthman and was alive at that time, we ask why did these alleged biological daughters not rush to the aid of injured father (s) on the battlefield?

Uthman was not the kuff (equivalent) of any daughter of the Prophet (s) to allow such a marriage

According to Islamic injunctions, it is necessary for both man and woman to be equal in family dignity/decency to make their Nikah legitimate

As proof we shall cite the following authority works of Ahl’ul Sunnah:

1. Al Hidaya, Chapter Nikah fasl fi Kuf Volume 2 page 320
2. Sharh wa Qaya Chapter “Nikah” page 100
3. Durre Mukthar “Kitab Nikah” Volume 2 page 7
4. A’zathu khufa Risala Fiqh Amr, Kitab Nikah, Dhikr Kuf Volume 3 page 407
5. Fatawa Qadhi Khan, Kitab Nikah Volume 1 page 161
6. Fiqh A’la Madhab al Arba “Kitab Nikah” Volume 4 page 54
7. Al Hajr al Dukhair, Kitab Nikah Volume 3 page 48

[Shakir 24:3] The fornicator shall not marry any but a fornicatress or idolatress, and (as for) the fornicatress, none shall marry her but a fornicator or an idolater; and it is forbidden to the believers.

We read in Fiqh A’la Madhahib al Arba “Kitab Nikah” Volume 4 page 54:

“Kuf means that a man and woman are on equal standing, in certain criteria, namely:

1. Ancestry
2. Islam
3. Family lineage
4. Free (not captive)
5. Respect
6. Property and money

We read in Al Hajr al Dukhair, Kitab Nikah Volume 3 page 48:

“Kuf means that for a man and woman piety and family lineage should be equal, this is a compulsory component of Nikah”.

Also worthy of note is Umar’s very own statement on this issue. Hanafi scholar Mufti Ghulam Rasul, cites Imam Muhammad’s ‘Al Ahsaf’ wherein we read that:

“Umar Faruq (ra) stated ‘I shall issue an edict that the Nikah of a woman from a family of high rank / social standing should not be conducted with one from a lower family”.

Hasab aur Nasab, Volume 1 Page 40

These are the conditions of kuff in the eyes of Ahle Sunnah. Islam is a comprehensive code of life, covering all aspects of living including behavior such as manners and etiquette. The laws are clearly stipulated, as is the case for marriage. The Ulema of Ahle Sunnah have clearly stipulated the concept of kuff, as a necessary component of Nikah, male and female should be on par with one another. We are prevented from marrying anyone who is not above or below our status, and are not to contract marriages that are devoid of equality. These references prove that in Islam, the concept of Kuf has been taken into consideration and there is clear evidence in the Holy Quran that fornicator shall marry a fornicator only.

In the case of Uthman, he was not equal to the progeny of the Holy Prophet(s) in respect of family decency and this can be evidenced from the following books of Ahle Sunnah:

1. Maqtal Hussain, part 6, Volume 1, page 191 Muhadis Khawarzmi
2. Sharah Ibn al Hadeed, Volume 2, page 168
3. Tazkiratul Khawas al Amma, page118
4. Maroj az Zahub ,Volume 2, page 345, Dhikr Amal Uthman

All of these books state that Imam Hussain (as) said to Uthman’s brother Walid bin Uqba, that you are son of a Jew from the Safooria village Duwant alaj ahl Surya’s .

When Walid’s father Utba died, his mother Urdi bint Kameez married Affan from which Hadrath Uthman was born. Whilst we are not questioning the legitimacy of this wedlock, the fact is the mother of Uthman was a fornicator and we read in the Holy Quran about the story of Mary(as) that “O Mary, your mother was not a fornicator” from which it is evident that if ones mother is a fornicator, it will impact on her children.

Any maternal prestige and decency that may have existed for Uthman was uprooted on account of his mother being a fornicator that conceived the step brother of Uthman illegitimately. The lineage of Uthman was impure from his mother’s side, because a woman that has conceived a child through fornication can never be equal to the mother of Fatima Zahra (sa) who was amongst the four virtuous women of this universe.

Failed Nasibi efforts to prove the existence of other biological daughters of Prophet (s) from the Quran

Whenever questions are raised over the existence of any other biological daughters of the Holy Prophet other than Fatima Zahra (as), our opponents confidently cite the following verse of the Holy Quran and by that way they think that they have won the debate!

“O Prophet, tell your wives and daughters and the believing women to draw their outer garments around them (when they go out or are among men). That is better in order that they may be known (to be Muslims) and not annoyed…” (Qur’an 33:59)

They argue that in this verse Allah uses the plural word for daughters, not the singular form. If it was one daughter only, it would be “bintuka.” This completely negates the claim that the Prophet [s] had only one daughter. Had this been the case, then surely Allah would have not used the plural form.

Reply one – The word ‘daughters’ in 33:59 is figurative as mentioned in the verse 11:78

We should point out that the word ‘daughters’ mentioned in the verse 33:59 has been used in a figurative sense and hence doesn’t prove that there was more than one biological daughter of the Holy Prophet (s). In case Ibn al Hashimi deems our response to be unique or illogical, then allow us to present another example from the Holy Quran wherein Prophet Lut (as) used the word ‘daughters’ for the daughters of his nation. We read in the Holy Quran:

[Shakir 11:78] And his people came to him, (as if) rushed on towards him, and already they did evil deeds. He said: O my people! these are my daughters– they are purer for you, so guard against (the punishment of) Allah and do not disgrace me with regard to my guests; is there not among you one right-minded man?

We read in Tafseer Bahr al-Uloom by Imam Samarqandi, Volume 2 page 163:

“Dahak said: {here are my daughters} He offered them the daughters of His nation”

Imam Fakhruddin al-Razi records in Tafseer Kabeer, Volume 18 page 32:

“Mujahid and Saeed bin Jubayr state that Lut (as) referred to the daughters of his (as) ummah….because He was a Prophet therefore He was their spiritual father.”

This commentary reflects the true meaning of this verse, no rational person would give his biological daughters hand to immoral characterless people. When a normal person cannot bear this then how can a Prophet be prepared to marry his natural daughters to homosexuals? Moreover, the biological daughters of the Prophet Lut (as) were not sufficient for his whole Ummah while the daughters of the entire Ummah were sufficient for their males.

In the same way that Prophet Lut (as) used the term daughters of his Ummah in a figurative sense, in verse 33:59 the daughters of this Ummah are likewise called the daughters of the Prophet(s) in a figurative sense.

Reply Two – The understanding of word ‘Banati’ by Ayesha

We read in Sunan Abu Daud Book 41, Number 4914:

Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu’minin:
When the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) arrived after the expedition to Tabuk or Khaybar (the narrator is doubtful), the drought raised an end of a curtain which was hung in front of her store-room, revealing some dolls which belonged to her.
He asked: What is this? She replied: My dolls. Among them he saw a horse with wings made of rags, and asked: What is this I see among them? She replied: A horse. He asked: What is this that it has on it? She replied: Two wings. He asked: A horse with two wings? She replied: Have you not heard that Solomon had horses with wings? She said: Thereupon the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) laughed so heartily that I could see his molar teeth.
 Sunan Abu Daud [Arabic], Volume 2 page 701 Hadith 4932

In the original (Arabic) text of the tradition, Ayesha refers to the dolls as Banati ‘daughters’ – whilst the English translator has translated that as ‘dolls’. Obviously Ayesha called her dolls as her daughters figuratively as she had no child of her own, thus Nawasib should have no problem if it is believed that the ‘daughters’ mentioned in verse 33:59 refers to the daughters of Prophet’s Ummah.

Reply Three – According to Sunnies the son of Noah (as) mentioned in the Quran was not actually his biological son

Whilst we proved that the word ‘daughters’ can be used figuratively rather than literally, let us also cover the Nasibi criticism targeted at the Shia of Ahlulbayt (as) in this reply. We have noticed that some Nawasib bring a morality issue into the debate over whether those three ladies were the biological daughters of the Holy Prophet or were His step daughters. They ask the Shias:

‘How would you feel if someone calls your daughters as the daughters of another man? If you will feel absurd then how can you call the daughters of Prophet (s) as someone else’s daughters?’

In its reply we would argue that firstly there isn’t any point to generalize the issue. There shouldn’t be any shame if someone holds the view that the three daughters under discussion were not the biological daughters of Holy Prophet (s) but were his step daughters. Secondly, Nawasib have no right to attack the Shia stance since they believe that the son of Prophet Noah (as) mentioned in the Quran was not actually his own son but was from born from the union of Noah’s wife with another man. If that is the case then it would mean that Allah [swt] referredto him as the son of Prophet Noah (as) in a figurative sense and we are likewise entitled to use this as an argument to prove that the word ‘daughters’ mentioned in 33:59 is similarly not implying that the Prophet [s] had more than one biological daughter.

We read in Quran:

[Shakir 11:45] And Nuh cried out to his Lord and said: My Lord! surely my son is of my family, and Thy promise is surely true, and Thou art the most just of the judges.

Now we read in Tafseer Kabeer, Volume 2 page 60:

There is a dispute about the son referred to by the Prophet Noah (as), whether or not he was his biological son and there are several opinions about it. First it is thought that he was Noah (as)’s own son…..and its argument is the father of a Prophet being a Kaafir moreover the father of Prophet Abraham (as) being a Kaafir as is proven hence in this incident, the son of Noah (as) being a Kaafir is proven and being his own son is also proven…… The second thought is that he was not the biological son of Noah (as) but the son of his (as) wife. This thought has been upheld by the Mohammad bin Ali al-Baqar and Hassan Basri. There is a tradition that Ali (ra) has recited this ayah as “Abnaha ” instead of “Abnah” and Mohammad bin Ali and Urwa bin al-Zubair rectied it “Abnah” but took its meaning that he was not the biological son of Noah (as) rather he was the son of Noah’s wife.

Note: The stance of Ali (as) and Imam Muhammad Baqar (as) quoted by al-Razi is a Sunni point of view and the Shia text does not ascribe to such a view.

So according to the second category of Sunni scholars pointed out by Razi, Allah (swt) referred to him figuratively as the son of Noah (as) as he lived in Noah (as)’s house. The same applies with verse 33:59 wherein the daughters of this Ummah are described as the daughters of our Prophet (s) that would also include those three ladies that lived in the Prophet (s)’s house.

Reply Four – Nawasib are unable to decide upon the father of Prophet Ibrahim (as)

Nawasib who think they can make the Shias embarrassed by the objection that we call daughters of Prophet [s] the daughters of another man, then we should point out that they have no right to criticize Shias for this since they can’t even decide upon the parentage of Prophet Ibrahim (as). We read in Quran 6:74:

And when Ibrahim said to his father Azar: Do you take idols for gods? Surely I see you and your people in manifest error.

As we can see from this Saudi transliteration the word ‘Ab’ used in this verse has been translated as ‘father’. The word ‘Ab ‘ in Arabic language may mean father as well as ancestor or even uncle as Ishmael the uncle of Jacob has been addressed as ‘Ab’ in the verse 002.133:

Were ye witnesses when death appeared before Jacob? Behold, he said to his sons: “What will ye worship after me?” They said: “We shall worship Thy god and the god of thy fathers, of Abraham, Isma’il and Isaac,- the one (True) Allah: To Him we bow (in Islam).”

Since Ishmael was not the father of Jacob, and yet the Quran uses the word ‘Ab’ for him as uncle, then the usage of this word for a non biological father is established. The Shia likewise believe that with the first verse the word ‘la aabi azar’ has been said for ‘uncle’.

As for the verse we cited earlier, the Shias believe that the father of Abrahim (as) was not Azar but Tarikh who was a believer. Allamah Mahmud Alusi likewise states in Tafseer Ruh al Ma’ani, Volume 7 pages 194-195 under the commentary of the same verse:

A great number of Ahle Sunnah relied on the fact that Azar was not the father of Ibrahim (as) and they asserted that none amongst the forefathers of the Prophet [s] were disbelievers, according to his [s] statement: ‘I was transferred from the pure loins to the pure wombs, and the Mushrik is impure.’

This reference proves that according to Sunni belief, some words in the Quran carry a figurative meaning, Azar was called Ibrahim (as)’s father figuratively, the son of Noah (as)’s wife was called Noah (as)’s son figuratively, the daughters of Prophet Lut (as)’s Ummah were called Lut’s daughters figuratively, by the same token we argue that the daughters of this Ummah were figuratively called the daughters of our Holy Prophet (s) in verse 33:59, hence using this verse the Nawasib shall not make feeble attempts to prove that Prophet (s) had more than one biological daughters.

The statements of Shia scholars that the wives of Uthman had only been brought up by Khadija (as)

We read in Majma al-Bahrain, Volume 2 page 214:

b>“It has been said that he brought them up, and this is the correct (view)”

We read in Manaqib al Abi Talib, Volume 1 page 138:

“According to the books Anwar and Bida Ruqiyyah and Zainab were daughters of Hala, the sister of Khadija”

Shaykh Baqar Majlisi records in Mirat al-Uqool, Volume 5 page 179:

“According to the books Anwar and Bida Ruqiyyah and Zainab were daughters of Hala, the sister of Khadija”

We read in Kashf al-Ghita by Jaffar Kashef al-Ghitta, Volume 1 page 5:

“Some of our scholars have said that Ruqiyyah and Zainab were adopted daughters not biological daughters and they were the daughters of Hala the sister of Khadija”

We read in Muhakmat al-Khulafa by Dr. Jawad al-Khalili, page 445:

“The two girls are not the daughters of Allah’s messenger but they were the daughters of Hala the sister of Khadija”

We read in al-Sahih min Sirat al-Nabi by Jaffar al-Amili, Volume 7 page 58:

“We say that it appears that they were brought up by him”

Some prominent Shia scholars opposed the belief that the Prophet [s] had more than one biological daughter and that Uthman was his [s] son in law. Syed Abul Qasim Ali bin Ahmed bin Musa bin Imam Mohammad Taqi (as) the son of our 9th Imam’s grandson who died in 352 Hijri, wrote a book Al Istighasa fi Bad’a Thalasa, and on page 68 we read:

“It is impossible that the Prophet (s) would have given two daughters to infidels why would the Prophet (s) have to do this when he bore enmity to the Kuffar?….When it unsound for the Prophet (s) to give His (s) daughters to the Kuffar and since these ladies had been given to Kuffar hence, their being the daughters of the Holy Prophet(s) becomes Baatil.”

He further writes:

“The correct [Sahih] tradition is that which has been conveyed by our esteemed Ulema from Ahlulbait (as), namely that Lady Khadija (sa) had a sister whose name from her mother’s side was Hala and she was first married to a man from Banu Makhzoom. Again her marriage was conducted with a man Abu Hind from Banu Tameem. Two daughters were born to Hala from this man, namely Ruqiyyah and Umme Kulthoom. Abu Hind then died and Hala became a widow. Hala was a poor lady while her sister Khadija (as) was a rich woman. After becoming a widow, Khadija (sa) sheltered Hala and her two daughters place in her house. Hala died within a few days of Khadija (sa) marrying the Holy Prophet (s). Khadija (sa) and the Prophet (s) then raised the two daughters of Hala.

Before Islam, the Arab practice was that whoever raised an orphan, the child would be deemed the son or daughter of that person [who had brought them up].”

So, Uthman was not the son in law of Prophet (s) rather he was the son in law of an Arab Abu Hind, and the Kuffar also attained the same son in law relationship, therefore asserting pride at the son in law relationship of Uthman is in fact a shameful thing.

The use of Shia texts by Nawasib to prove their point

We shall now inspect those traditions from Shi’a sources that the Nasabis are fond of quoting as part of their efforts to extol the virtues of Uthman.

Tradition one

Narrator states that that once the Prophet (s) entered the home when Ayesha was shouting at Fatima (as) and was saying: ‘O daughter of Khadija, you believe that your mother has superiority over us, while she doesn’t have any, she was also a woman amongst us’. The Prophet (s) heard this statement of Ayesha, and when Fatima (as) saw the Prophet(s), she wept.

When the Prophet (s) inquired as to why she was weeping, Fatima (as) stated that Ayesha mentioned my mother and disrespected her hence I wept. The Prophet (s) became angry and said: ‘O Humera, refrain from such acts. Allah (swt) has given me blessings in the wives who love and who bore children and Khadija (as) bore these children to me, Abdullah, Qasim, Fatima, Ruqiyyah, Zainab Ume Kulthoom and you O Ayesha are from amongst those women for whom Allah (swt) had closed such mercy. Verily you have bore nothing’
al-Khisal by Sheikh Seduq, Volume 2 page 37

Reply

The tradition that our opponents cite in order to prove the merits of Uthman does in fact expose the jealousy of Ayesha that mirrored commonly held notions of step mothers. It shows that Ayesha was envious about the late wife of the Holy Prophet (s) and hurt Fatima (as) (just like her father Abu Bakr) that resulted in the Prophet’s anger.

In any case, the tradition isn’t authentic since the chain contains three unknown narrators namely:

1. Abu Ali al-Waseti who has been declared unknown by Jawaheri in Al-Mufid min Mu’ajam al-Rijal, page 714.
2. Abdullah ibn Esmah who has been declared unknown by Shahroodi in Mustadrakat Ilm Rijal Hadith, Volume 5 page 55
3. Yahya bin Abdullah al-Basri who has also been declared unknown by Jawaheri in Al-Mufid min Mu’ajam al-Rijal, page 664.

Tradition Two

Another tradition often quoted by Nawasib is:

Abu Abdullah (as) stated: ‘The Prophet (s) had the following progeny from Khadija: Qasim, Tahir, Umm Kulthoom, Ruqiyyah, Zainab and Fatima. Fatima was married to Ali bin Abi Talib, Zainab was married to a Ummawi man Abul Aas bin al-Rabi and Umm Kulthoom was married to Uthman but she died before consummation, when they marched to the battle of Badr, Allah’s messenger married him (Uthman) to Ruqiyyah. The prophet had Ibrahim from Maria the Coptic, who was a slave girl.
al-Khisal by Sheikh Seduq, page 404

Reply

The tradition is of no use since it contains Ali bin Abi Hamza in the chain of narration about whom Ibn al-Ghadaeri said: ‘May Allah curse him…he was an enemy of the Imam’ (Rijal ibn al-Ghadaeri, page 83). Allamah Heli said: ‘Very weak’ (Khulasat al-Aqwal, page 181). Al-Basri said: ‘Weak’ (Fayq al-Maqal, page 302). Hur al-Amili said: ‘He is dispraised’ (Al-Rijal, page 170). Allamah Majlesi said: ‘Weak’ (Rijal al-Majlesi, page 255). Shaykh Burujerdi said: ‘A Liar’ (Taraef al-Maqal, Volume 1 page 528). Al-Khoei said: ‘A liar’ (Kitab al-Saum, Volume 1 page 380).

Tradition Three

Some Nawasib also try to use the following sermon recorded in Nahjul Balagha in order to prove that the Prophet (s) had more than one biological daughters. When Ali went to see Uthman and said to him:

“You have seen as we have seen and you have heard as we have heard. You sat in the company of the Prophet of Allah as we did. (Abu Bakr) Ibn Abi Quhafah and (`Umar) ibn al-Khattab were no more responsible for acting righteously than you, since you are nearer than both of them to the Prophet of Allah through kinship, and you also hold relationship to him by marriage which they do not hold.”
Nahjul Balagha, Sermon 163

Reply

It should be noted that there is no chain of narration for the cited sermon. Secondly, it is a view of a group of scholars that those ladies were the step daughters of Holy Prophet (s), thus we can argue that Ali (as) was referring to the same relationship.