In the Name of Allah, the Beneficient, the Merciful
May Allah bestow His peace and blessings upon the holy Prophet Mohammed and his purified household.
This will Inshallah serve as rebuttal to a Sunni response to this article. For many years, the Sunnis have utilised the same argument regarding the naming of Imam Ali's (عليه السلام) sons, and this will hopefully be the time when their argument finally runs out of heat.
Note: Imam Ali (عليه السلام) had 12, not 18, sons out of 28 children.
The First Sunni Aspersion
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunni says
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7amil ar-Rayya (who we shall call Rayat) has conveniently forgotten that Ali also named one of his sons Abu Bakr. Ali named one of his sons Abu Bakr, two of his sons as Umar, and two more of his sons as Uthman. Rayat knows that Ali had four sons with those names, but he said it is two. This is deceit. We kindly ask Rayat to display more honesty when he furthers arguments; if he knows that four of them were named that, then there is no reason to state two and then base his entire article upon that false fact.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is nothing short of a lie. Imam Ali did not name two of his sons Omar, two of his sons Uthman, and one more son Abu Bakr. We would like to ask the Sunni on what basis do you want us to acknowledge Sunni references that claim Imam Ali had five sons with the names of the three caliphs. It is ironic he is accusing us of lying and deceit, whilst simultaneously his claim that Imam Ali had five sons with those names, and upon which he structures his article, is nothing more than a fish story.
Sheikh Mufid, in Irshad, documents the names of all of the Imam's 28 children in volume 1 Page 355. We shall summarise the names into a list of all the boys:
Hassan
Hussain
Muhsin (unborn child)
Mohammed, who had the kunya of Abul Qasim
Omar
Abbas
Jafar
Uthman (some narrations say Aun)
Abdullah
Mohammed al-Asghar, who had the kunya of Abu Bakr
Ubaydullah
Yahya
Where do we find "two Uthmans" and "two Omars"? There is only one Omar and one Uthman. So I will now sincerely urge the Sunni propagandists to refrain from posting dishonest claims and deceiving their audience.
As for Abu Bakr Ibn Ali, the name Mohammed was the one given to him by his father. Abu Bakr was simply His kunya, which is something like Abu Jafar, Abu Abdullah, Abu Hafs etc. So we again have to ask the Sunnis on what basis do you claim Imam Ali named his son Abu Bakr, or even gave him that kunya?! It is narrated that Mohammed al-Asghar only became known as Abu Bakr during the Ummayad periods, so what are the Sunni propagandists talking about?!
In fact even with regard to Uthman Ibn Ali, it is also thought he was called Aun Ibn Ali. However, we shall assume for the sake of this article his name was Uthman, not Aun.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunni says:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps if the matter was simply about naming his sons Umar and Uthman, then one could somehow (possibly?) pretend it was a coincidence.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well then, there you go. The Sunni has just conceded the entire argument. Imam Ali did only name two of his many sons with names sharing the three caliphs', and so we would like to thank the Sunni for just shooting himself in the foot.
As for Uthman Ibn Ali, he was named in honour of the great companion Uthman Ibn Ma’dhoon. This is narrated as fact in Maqatil al-Talibiyeen, and later recorded by Allamah Majlisi in Bihar al-Anwar and other references.
1) One may ask even though the name Uthman was shared by many people, including a dear friend, it was also the name of Uthman Ibn Affan. So why didn’t Imam Ali shun the name and instead call his son after another companion. We respond to this by saying Imam Ali wasn’t petty as to avoid naming his son a popular name after a companion, just because it was also held by a foe.
2) The Sunnis respond to our references by saying:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunni says:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bihar al-Anwar, Maqatil al-Talibeyeen, and Munthee’ala Mahal are all garbage books. They are Shia books and as such they hold no weight.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps they are not a hujjah (proof) upon you, but it is a reliable source for the Shia, who the article was aimed at. It is the Sunnis who use their own sources in these debates when it comes to, for instance, Imam Ali supposedly naming five of his sons after the three caliphs, or Imam Ali and the other companions thinking the Prophet was cursed by the devil. If you are so sensitive to Shia websites using Shia sources, then you youself should stop using Sunni sources against us.
Interestingly, the book Maqatil al-Talibeyeen, penned by Abu Faraj al-Isfahani in the 3rd century hijri, is published and distributed in Egypt and so can even be considered a more “neutral” source.
So now we have dealt with the names Abu Bakr and Uthman, we only have Omar to play chicken with, and the rest of this article will deal with the arguments used to that respect (but I fear some of the Sunni arguments have become redundant because they were based on the fallacious claim Imam Ali named five sons after the three caliphs)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunni says
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So many dozens upon dozens of Hadiths exist in which Sahabah narrated and only said “Umar” instead of “Umar ibn al-Khattab”. When a Sahabi said “Umar”, there was thus no doubt that this was in reference to Umar. Let us share an example that the Shia propagandists love to bring up: the incident of the pen and paper. In those Hadiths, Ibn Abbas says “Umar” and does not say “Umar ibn al-Khattab”.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It all comes down to the context. So for instance, when people used to call out the companion Uthman Ibn Hunayf’s name or any of the other Omars and Uthmans of the salaf, he never stopped to think who they were calling for. When we hear Abbas was martyred in Karbala, we all think of Abbas Ibn Ali, not Abbas Ibn Abdul Mutallib. Why? It is because of the context. So, by Imam Ali naming his son Omar, people did not necessarily begin to think of Omar Ibn al-Khattab, as the naming of a son is not like an incident where Omar slandered the Prophet, or a leadership issue, where the name Omar would not require further deliberation.
For instance, if I were to open a history book and find the name Franz Ferdinand, I would think of the royal whose assassination sparked off World War I, without needing to flick through the pages. However, if I saw a billboard advertising Franz Ferdinand, only a few would think of the archduke of Austria instead of the rock music band.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunni says
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The point is that the name Omar, for example, was not very common before Omar Ibn al-Khattab after which the proportions of individuals with that name doubled and tripled and increased.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is false. The name Omar, during that early period of Islam and after the Holy Prophet’s demise, was held by many people. Sure, Omar Ibn Al-Khattab currently holds a near-monopoly over that name, but back then this was not the case when it was a standard Arab name just like Khalid, Sufyan, Uthman or Ubaydullah.
Perhaps nobody would call their sons “Abu Bakr” before Abdullah Ibn Abu Quhafa became caliph, but then again Imam Ali didn’t even name his son Abu Bakr. Mohammed al-Asghar acquired that nickname just like the more famous Abdullah did.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunni says
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is clear that when people double names, then there is some significance to them; otherwise, there is no point in doing that
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That argument is redundant as Imam Ali only had one son called Omar, not two.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunni says
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can one imagine Barack Obama naming his daughter Hillary if Hillary Clinton killed his other child?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barack Obama is not as magnanimous as Imam Ali, who would not avoid a common name simply because one holder of it happened to be a transgressor.
Response to “Lightning never strikes twice” argument
The original Sunni claim was that it would have been way too much of a coincidence for Imam Ali to have named five sons after the three caliphs, without having them in mind, especially when there was a plethora of other Arab names he could choose from. Firstly, it is only two sons and not five who shared names with the three caliphs. I feel quite frustrated having to keep mentioning this, but as the Sunni ‘rebuttal’ keeps repeating it, I have to. Secondly I already responded to this argument in my first article, but it seems it was not comprehended completely:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.rayatmohammed.blogspot.com says
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
…we respond to this argument by saying Imam Ali (عليه السلام) never named any of his sons Marwan, Hakam, Amr, Aas, Waleed, Mugheera, Khalid, Sufyan etc all of which are other popular Arab names shared by the enemies of the Commander of the Faithful (عليه السلام).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunni (I did not copy and paste his entire argument as he once again starts saying “Why then did Ali name two of his sons as Umar and two of his sons as Uthman? How “random” is that?”) says
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is perhaps one of the most convoluted arguments we have ever seen…Rayat claims that the above names were all very popular but Ali did not choose them because they were the names of his enemies.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is not what I meant. I was simply saying that it cannot be said it was too huge to be a coincidence for Imam Ali to name two of his sons Omar and Uthman, while there were many other common Arab names shared by his enemies, such as Khalid or Sufyan.
The Second Sunni Aspersion
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunni says
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not only this, but Husayn, the third Imam of the Shia, similarly named his sons Abu Bakr and Uthman! The fact that Husayn named his sons Abu Bakr and Uthman is mentioned in Shaykh Mufid’s book “Kitab al-Irshad” on page 372.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a lie. In Kitab al-Irshad Volume 2 Page 135, Imam Hussain’s sons are given as Ali Ibn al-Hussain (the fourth Imam), Ali Ibn al-Hussain (known as Ali al-Akbar, killed in Karbala), Abdullah Ibn al-Hussain (known as Ali al-Asghar, killed in Karbala) and Jafar Ibn Hussain (killed in Karbala).
For the Greater Good
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunni says
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I also want to keep in mind the likely possibility that Imam Ali (عليه السلام) named his son Omar as a tool of facilitating closeness and reconciliation between the bitterly divided and warring Muslims. A Shia man I know named his daughter Aisha to please his Sunni wife, and so it is absolutely probable Imam Ali (عليه السلام) named his son Omar to bring together the various factions of Muslims who were deeply divided i.e. for the greater good. Personally speaking, I lean towards this idea.
The above point we mentioned in the first article does not mean that we have contradicted the initial argument, as the Sunni ‘rebuttal’ claims. It merely shows two possibilities, or theories, if you will. For instance, a Sunni will say “Omar never threatened to burn down the house unless Ali went to pledge allegiance, but if he did it was to avoid civil tension”. Likewise, it is probable that Imam Ali did indeed name his son Omar for reconciliatory purposes.
The Sunni could then say “well, does this not show that Omar Ibn al-Khattab was thought of whenever his first name was mentioned”. Our response is no, it does not as once again, it all depends on the context. For example, if a Sunni cleric in Iraq named his son Jawad, people would think he did so because Jawad is one of God’s 99 names which can be used by us as long as it is without the prefix “al”, and is a somewhat common name. However, if the Sunni cleric is involved in a treaty designed to halt the sectarian killing in Iraq, he may choose to name his son Jawad as a means to bolster and support that treaty by naming his son after the 9th Imam.
But, the Sunni says, did you not say Omar was a transgressor? How could Imam Ali name his son after a sinful person for reconciliation, especially when this person led the attack on your house which resulted in the killing of Fatima al-Zahra. Our response to this is when the benefits could be good (i.e. it could help reconciliate the ummah), Imam Ali had big heart so as not to be picayune over the issue of a name.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunni says
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Three Caliphs and Ali initially had some friction but this was all resolved and the matter cleared. The Three Caliphs and Ali were brothers, and everyone knows that brothers get in arguments all the time! But at the end of the day, they love each other.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The truth of the matter is that Fatima al-Zahra, the Prophet’s daughter, Imam Ali’s wife, and the doyenne of the women of the worlds, died angry with Abu Bakr and Omar. How can anyone claim their relationship was dandy and rosy? It is a sign of Sunni desperation for them to cling on to this argument regarding Imam Ali’s sons, and is indicative of their failure to look at the bigger picture
And Allah knows best.
Imam Ali's (ع) sons Part II
