Introduction
Among the recurring objections raised by the Rafidhi Shia against Ahlus Sunnah wal-Jama’ah is the historically documented marriage of Umm Kulthum bint ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib to Amir al-Mu’mineen ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with them all). When confronted with this marriage — which stands as a shining proof of the brotherly relationship between the Ahlul Bayt and the Khulafa ar-Rashideen — the Rafidha typically resort to two escape routes:
First Objection: They claim the Umm Kulthum married to ‘Umar was not the biological daughter of ‘Ali, but rather the daughter of Abu Bakr as-Siddiq who became ‘Ali’s step-daughter after Asma bint ‘Umays married him.
Second Objection: They allege that even if she was ‘Ali’s daughter, ‘Umar coerced ‘Ali into the marriage — and they attempt to attribute this claim to Sunni scholars such as Imam Yahya ibn Sharaf an-Nawawi and Abu al-Qasim ar-Rafi’i.
Both objections are historically fabricated, textually indefensible, and self-refuting from the Rafidha’s own most authenticated sources. What follows is a systematic dismantling of these claims, first through the Qur’an and Sunnah, and then through a Final Rebuttal drawn from their own (Rafidhi Shia) books.
Part One: Response from the Qur’an and Sunnah
Refutation of the First Objection — “She Was Abu Bakr’s Daughter, Not ‘Ali’s”
This claim is a desperate historical fabrication with no basis in authentic history. Abu Bakr as-Siddiq (Radi Allahu Anhu) did indeed have a daughter named Umm Kulthum bint Abi Bakr — but she was born after Abu Bakr’s death, still in the womb of her mother Habibah bint Kharijah when he passed away. She was later married to Talha ibn ‘Ubaydillah (Radi Allahu Anhu), not to ‘Umar.
The Umm Kulthum married to ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab was, without doubt, the biological daughter of ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib from Fatimah az-Zahra (may Allah be pleased with them). This is established in the classical Sunni sources including at-Tabaqat al-Kubra of Ibn Sa’d, Tarikh at-Tabari, al-Isabah of Ibn Hajar, Usd al-Ghabah of Ibn al-Athir, and al-Bidayah wan-Nihayah of Ibn Kathir.
Allah the Exalted commands in His Book:
Wa ankihu al-ayama minkum was-saliheena min ‘ibadikum wa ima’ikum
“And marry the unmarried among you and the righteous among your male slaves and female slaves.” (Surah an-Nur 24:32)
‘Ali (Radi Allahu Anhu) — a scholar from amongst the Companions— would never violate this Qur’anic command by marrying his daughter to a man who was not righteous. If ‘Umar was, as the Rafidha claim, a usurper, an oppressor, and an enemy of the Ahlul Bayt, then ‘Ali’s action would constitute a major sin and a violation of the Qur’anic injunction itself. This is a theological dead-end for the Rafidhi position.
The Messenger of Allah (Salallahu Alaihi Wa Sallam) said:
Idha khataba ilaykum man tardawna deenahu wa khuluqahu fa-ankihuhu, illa taf’alu takun fitnatun fi al-ardi wa fasadun ‘areed
“When someone whose religion and character you are pleased with proposes to you, then marry your daughter to him. If you do not do so, there will be tribulation on earth and widespread corruption.” (Sunan at-Tirmidhi, Hadith 1084; Sunan Ibn Majah, Hadith 1967 — graded Hasan)
Since ‘Ali (Radi Allahu Anhu) gave his daughter in marriage to ‘Umar, it means — by the Prophet’s own criterion — that ‘Ali was pleased with ‘Umar’s religion and character. To claim otherwise is to accuse Amir al-Mu’mineen ‘Ali of violating the direct command of Rasulullah (Salallahu Alaihi Wa Sallam).
Refutation of the Second Objection — “‘Umar Coerced ‘Ali into the Marriage”
This is perhaps the most shameless slander against Amir al-Mu’mineen ‘Ali (Radi Allahu Anhu), because it portrays him as a coward who surrendered the honor of his daughter — and by extension, the granddaughter of Rasulullah (Salallahu Alaihi Wa Sallam) — under threat.
Allah the Exalted describes the true believers:
Alladheena qala lahumu an-nasu inna an-nasa qad jama’u lakum fakhshawhum fazadahum imanan wa qalu hasbuna Allahu wa ni’ma al-wakeel
“Those to whom people said: Indeed, the people have gathered against you, so fear them. But it merely increased them in faith, and they said: Sufficient for us is Allah, and He is the best Disposer of affairs.” (Surah Aal-‘Imran 3:173)
‘Ali ibn Abi Talib — the hero of Badr, Uhud, Khaybar, and Khandaq — the one who slept in the Prophet’s bed on the night of Hijrah while the assassins of Quraysh waited outside — this man was coerced by ‘Umar?
The Messenger of Allah (Salallahu Alaihi Wa Sallam) said about ‘Ali on the Day of Khaybar:
La-u’tiyanna ar-rayata rajulan yuhibbu Allaha wa Rasulahu, wa yuhibbuhu Allahu wa Rasuluhu
“I shall give the banner tomorrow to a man who loves Allah and His Messenger, and whom Allah and His Messenger love.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith 3701; Sahih Muslim, Hadith 2406)
By Allah! The one whom Allah and His Messenger loved — being coerced into surrendering his daughter? This is not merely historically false; it is a degradation of ‘Ali’s manhood, his faith, and his character. The Rafidha, in their zealous attack upon ‘Umar, end up defaming ‘Ali himself.
Furthermore, Imam at-Tabari in his Tarikh (Vol. 3, p. 269) and Ibn Sa’d in at-Tabaqat al-Kubra (Vol. 8, p. 463) narrate that when ‘Umar proposed, ‘Ali responded positively and mentioned only that Umm Kulthum was still young. When she came of age, ‘Ali himself sent her to ‘Umar, was pleased with the match, and pronounced the marriage contract with his own tongue. This was a voluntary, joyful contract witnessed by the senior Muhajireen and Ansar, including al-‘Abbas ibn ‘Abd al-Muttalib, al-Hasan, and al-Husayn (may Allah be pleased with them all).
On the Alleged Attribution to an-Nawawi and ar-Rafi’i- The Rafidhi claim that Imam an-Nawawi and Abu al-Qasim ar-Rafi’i supported the coercion theory is a classic case of academic dishonesty. What both scholars actually did was mention the variant opinion only to refute it or to record it as a weak minority view. Citing a scholar’s mention of an opinion as if it were his endorsement of that opinion is a fundamental breach of scholarly integrity. Both Imam an-Nawawi and Imam ar-Rafi’i affirmed the validity of the marriage in their final rulings. Any student of usul al-fiqh knows the difference between naql (transmission of a view) and ikhtiyar (adoption of a view).
Part Two: The Final Rebuttal — From Their Own Books
Having answered the objection from the Qur’an and Sunnah, we now turn to the method known among the classical scholars as ilzam — binding the opponent with his own evidence. What follows are proofs drawn exclusively from the Rafidha’s own most authenticated sources, from which they have no escape.
Proof One: The Testimony of al-Kafi
Al-Kulayni, whom the Shia title Thiqat al-Islam (“The Trustworthy of Islam”), records the marriage of Umm Kulthum bint ‘Ali to ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab in al-Kafi, Volume 5, page 346, Kitab an-Nikah, in a chapter he himself titled “Bab Tazwij Umm Kulthum” — “The Chapter on the Marriage of Umm Kulthum.” Additional narrations affirming this marriage are recorded in al-Furu’ min al-Kafi, Volume 6, pages 115–116, where the marriage is discussed alongside its legal implications and the offspring born from it — Zayd ibn ‘Umar and Ruqayyah bint ‘Umar.
Al-Kafi is to the Twelver Shia what Sahih al-Bukhari is to Ahlus Sunnah — their most trusted collection. If the marriage was a Sunni fabrication, why does the most authoritative book of the Shia devote an entire chapter to it?
Proof Two: The Rulings of Shaykh at-Ta’ifah at-Tusi
At-Tusi, titled Shaykh at-Ta’ifah (the Shaykh of the Sect), addresses this marriage in Tahdhib al-Ahkam, Volume 8, page 161, and Volume 9, page 262, as well as in al-Istibsar, Volume 3, page 352. In these fiqh works, at-Tusi discusses the legal rulings surrounding the marriage — including matters of the ‘iddah after ‘Umar’s death and the inheritance from her son Zayd ibn ‘Umar.
Both Sunni and Shia jurisprudence agree on a fundamental principle: a coerced or invalid marriage produces no legitimate offspring in the eyes of the law, and consequently no rights of inheritance between the spouses. Yet the greatest jurist of the Twelver Shia treats this marriage as producing legitimate children and valid inheritance rulings. This is complete self-contradiction. If the Rafidhi narrative of coercion were true, the entire Shia fiqh treatment of this marriage — as documented by at-Tusi himself — would be built upon an invalid foundation, which the leading Shia jurists would never accept.
Proof Three: The Testimony of al-Majlisi in Bihar al-Anwar
Al-Majlisi, the compiler of the encyclopedic Bihar al-Anwar — considered by many later Shia to be the greatest hadith collection of their school — records the marriage in Bihar al-Anwar, Volume 38, page 88. Al-Majlisi himself authenticated several of the narrations from al-Kafi that confirm this marriage. When the most encyclopedic Shia compiler affirms the marriage’s occurrence, on what basis can the ordinary Rafidhi commenter deny it?
Proof Four: The Deafening Silence of Nahj al-Balagha
Ash-Sharif ar-Radi compiled Nahj al-Balagha, which the Shia consider the second most sacred book after the Qur’an — a book they claim contains the sermons, letters, and sayings of ‘Ali (Radi Allahu Anhu). Within its pages, ‘Ali is recorded as openly discussing his grievances and criticizing many affairs. Yet nowhere in Nahj al-Balagha does ‘Ali mention being coerced or humiliated by ‘Umar into surrendering his daughter. If such a monumental humiliation had truly occurred against the honor of the granddaughter of Rasulullah, would ‘Ali remain silent about it while addressing lesser matters? The silence of Nahj al-Balagha on this alleged coercion is itself thunderous refutation.
Proof Five: The Names of the Sons of Ahlul Bayt — Documented in Shia Sources
The most devastating proof is recorded in the Shia sources themselves. The naming of the sons of the Ahlul Bayt after the three Khulafa is documented across their most authoritative books:
Regarding the sons of ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib (Radi Allahu Anhu):
* Ash-Shaykh al-Mufid in al-Irshad, pages 167–168, records that ‘Ali had a son named ‘Umar and another named ‘Uthman (both from Umm al-Baneen, both martyred at Karbala with al-Husayn), and a son named Muhammad al-Asghar whose kunya was Abu Bakr (also martyred at Karbala).
* Abu al-Faraj al-Isfahani, the Shia historian, in Maqatil at-Talibiyyin, pages 33–34, names Abu Bakr ibn ‘Ali and ‘Uthman ibn ‘Ali among the martyrs of Karbala.
* ‘Ali ibn ‘Isa al-Irbili in Kashf al-Ghummah, Volume 1, page 590, lists among the sons of ‘Ali: Abu Bakr, ‘Uthman, and ‘Umar.
* Ibn ‘Inabah in ‘Umdat at-Talib, page 361, mentions ‘Umar al-Atraf ibn ‘Ali.
* Al-Majlisi in Jila al-‘Uyun, pages 464–465, lists ‘Umar, ‘Uthman, and mentions the disagreement over whether Abu Bakr ibn ‘Ali was martyred at Karbala.
Regarding the sons of al-Hasan ibn ‘Ali (Radi Allahu Anhu):
* Al-Ya’qubi, the Shia historian, in Tarikh al-Ya’qubi, Volume 2, page 228, names among al-Hasan’s sons: ‘Umar, al-Qasim, and Abu Bakr.
* Ash-Shaykh ‘Abbas al-Qummi in Muntaha al-Amal, Volume 1, page 240, mentions ‘Umar ibn al-Hasan and Abu Bakr ibn al-Hasan.
Regarding the sons of al-Husayn ibn ‘Ali (Radi Allahu Anhu):
* Al-Mas’udi, the Shia historian, in at-Tanbih wal-Ashraf, page 263, explicitly lists Abu Bakr as one of the sons of al-Husayn who was martyred at Karbala.
Now let every fair-minded reader ask: does any father in the history of humanity name his son after his worst enemy? Would any man name his son after the alleged usurper of his father’s right, the alleged oppressor of his mother, the one who — according to Rafidhi mythology — attacked Fatimah az-Zahra? This is psychologically, biologically, and Islamically impossible. And these are not Sunni claims — they are documented in the Shia’s own books by their own historians and scholars.
Proof Six: The Testimony of Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq Himself
The Rafidha claim to follow the school of Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq (Rahimahullah). Yet in Kashf al-Ghummah by al-Irbili — a foundational Shia biographical work — Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq is recorded as declaring:
Waladani Abu Bakr marratayn
“Abu Bakr gave birth to me twice.”
This statement is documented in Kashf al-Ghummah, Volume 2, page 374 (Dar al-Adwa, Beirut edition, as cited by Shia sources themselves). He said this in reference to his lineage, because his mother was Umm Farwah bint al-Qasim ibn Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr, and his maternal grandmother was Asma bint ‘Abd ar-Rahman ibn Abi Bakr. So Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq — the sixth Imam of the Twelver Shia themselves — proudly proclaims his double descent from Abu Bakr as-Siddiq (Radi Allahu Anhu). How can any Rafidhi reconcile this proud declaration with his cursing of Abu Bakr?
Closing Summary
To the Rafidhi objector: by insisting on this claim, you have committed the following theological and historical offenses:
1- You have accused Amir al-Mu’mineen ‘Ali (Radi Allahu Anhu) of being a coward who surrendered his daughter’s honor under threat.
2-You have accused ‘Ali of violating the Qur’anic command in Surah an-Nur by marrying his daughter to a man you consider unrighteous.
3-You have accused ‘Ali of violating the Prophetic Sunnah of only marrying his daughter to a man whose religion and character pleased him.
4-You have contradicted your own most authentic book, al-Kafi, which devotes an entire chapter to this marriage.
5-You have contradicted your own Shaykh at-Ta’ifah at-Tusi, who ruled the fiqh matters of this marriage as valid.
6- You have contradicted your own al-Majlisi, who documented and authenticated the marriage in Bihar al-Anwar.
7-You cannot explain why ‘Ali, al-Hasan, and al-Husayn named their sons Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, and ‘Uthman — as documented by al-Mufid in al-Irshad, al-Isfahani in Maqatil at-Talibiyyin, al-Irbili in Kashf al-Ghummah, al-Ya’qubi in his Tarikh, al-Mas’udi in at-Tanbih wal-Ashraf, and al-Majlisi in Jila al-‘Uyun.
8-You cannot explain why Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq proudly declared: Waladani Abu Bakr marratayn — “Abu Bakr gave birth to me twice.”
9-You have done academic dishonesty by misrepresenting the positions of Imam an-Nawawi and Imam ar-Rafi’i.
Allah the Exalted commands:
Qul hatu burhanakum in kuntum sadiqeen
“Say: Produce your proof, if you are truthful.” (Surah al-Baqarah 2:111)
Wa lillahi al-hujjatu al-balighah — And to Allah belongs the conclusive argument.
Wa sallallahu ‘ala Nabiyyina Muhammad, wa ‘ala alihi wa sahbihi ajma’een.
Sources and Acknowledgments
The primary source references cited in this rebuttal — including volume and page numbers from Shia works such as al-Kafi, Tahdhib al-Ahkam, al-Istibsar, Bihar al-Anwar, al-Irshad, Kashf al-Ghummah, Maqatil at-Talibiyyin, Tarikh al-Ya’qubi, at-Tanbih wal-Ashraf, Jila al-‘Uyun, Muntaha al-Amal, and ‘Umdat at-Talib — have been compiled with reference to the established Sunni scholarly corpus on this subject.
The author acknowledges reliance upon the following:
Contemporary Research and Compilations:
– Mahajjah Research Institute, Ruhama Baynahum, particularly the chapters on the marriage of Umm Kulthum and the naming of the children of the Ahlul Bayt (mahajjah.com).
– Shaykh ‘Uthman al-Khamees, Kashf al-Jani and related polemical works.
– Shaykh Ihsan Ilahi Zaheer (Rahimahullah), ash-Shia wa Ahl al-Bayt.
While the prose, arrangement, and argumentative framework of this rebuttal are the author’s own, the underlying research corpus stands on the shoulders of these scholars, whose works remain the standard references for any serious study of this subject. The reader is encouraged to consult the original works for the full Arabic texts and complete contextual reading.
(Compiled by Mohammed bin Thajammul Hussain Manna.)