The first Shi'a tradition

Ansar.org states:

'Ali ibn Ibrahim-from his father-from Ibn Abi 'Umayr-from Hisham ibn Salim and Hammad-from Zurarah, who narrates that -Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq said regarding the marriage of Umme Kalthum: "That was a 'woman' who was taken from us by force." (Furu' al-Kafi, vol. 5 p. 347, Dar al-Adwa, 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.]

Reply one - You can only cite a reference when it supports your claim

A truism of rational thought is that you can only advance a proof if it supports your argument. In this case the evidence that Afriki has cited does not prove his claim. Afriki is alleging that this tradition proves that Umme Kalthum (as), daughter of Imam 'Ali (as), married 'Umar. But this Nasibi has not bothered to actually look at the tradition he cited and what it actually does prove? If we look at the tradition, we do not see the name "'Umar" or the word "marriage". He has cunningly juxtaposed his own interpretation of this Hadith into this paragraph and misleadingly given the impression that the Umm Kalthum being spoken of is the one who is the daughter of Ali (as) and is the figure central to this alleged marriage. There is no mention of "'Ali" or "binte Fatima" - just "Umme Kalthum". When 'Umar's name is not established from this narration, where is Afriki's proof? There is not even the slightest indication that 'Umar is being referred to here.

Afriki is clutching at straws; he is relying on a vague tradition from al Kafi that does not support his stance, not even in the slightest, so how has he concluded that this tradition proves the marriage of Umme Kalthum (as) to Umar? All this proves is the wonderful imagination that these Nasibis have� an imagination that aims to deceive their followers and those that would listen to them. As noted, Umm Kalthum was a popular name amongst Arabs...it still is to this day, and numerous ladies from the descendants of Ahl-ulBait have been named Umm Kalthum. Is this, or is this not, the Umm Kalthum that was allegedly married to 'Umar. Where is 'Umar mentioned? Where are these words being used to mention marriage�there is no mention of marriage save in the delusional mind of Afriki who SEES WHAT HE WANTS TO SEE. Indeed, NOTHING of any substance to this argument can be substantiated from this Hadith. This is an example of Nasibi logic - it is also called clutching for straws.

He cites a Hadith which is totally vague as to who it refers to and to which event it refers to. It cannot be used as evidence - we don't know who the Hadith is speaking of - WHICH Umm Kalthum is it speaking of, there were so many. And is it even speaking of marriage? Instead, it sounds like it is speaking of a lady by this name who was kidnapped�but I don't know. We just can't say as the whole tradition is so ambiguous.

Reply two - A claim can only be proven when the text supports it

We would suggest that Afriki look at the 'proof' that he has advanced. We shall analyse this tradition by the laws of logic and intellect - these dictate that proofs can only be established when there is supporting evidence for them. Using logic and not blind bigotry that is clutching at straws, Afriki's claim cannot be upheld.

Consider this. Afriki is seeking to convince us that the marriage of Umme Kalthum to Umar is established by this reference. The text refers to the marriage of Umme Kalthum (as) - marriage to whom? The crucial words Umme Kalthum binte Fatima are NOT present here, and the name Umme Kalthum was in common usage at that time, much more so in the house of 'Umar - who had four wives by that name. The text makes no reference as to WHO the parents of Umme Kalthum were in this tradition. The text is devoid of crucial information that would be necessary to sustain Afriki's argument. It fails to inform us:

1. Who Umme Kalthum married.
   
2. The names of Umme Kalthum's parents
   
3. The name of Umme Kalthum's husband

The absence of this key information makes Afriki's claim null and void. The text he relied on here does not prove that Umme Kalthum (as) binte Fatima (as) married 'Umar.

Reply Three - A proof can only be accepted when the subject matter is proven

It is common sense that you can only rely on evidence as proof when the subject matter can be proven from the text. Unfortunately this cannot be proven here, since the names of key players are missing, most crucially Umme Kalthum "binte Fatima" and "'Umar". How can Afriki claim that this tradition proves the marriage of Umme Kalthum to 'Umar when there is no mention of 'Umar in the text? How ridiculous!

Reply four - even the words in the tradition fail to support Afriki's claim

Is it possible that, assuming this tradition mentioned the words Umme Kalthum "binte Fatima" or "binte 'Ali", then would this have served as evidence for Afriki's claim? The text does not make any reference to Umme Kalthum's parents. Our opponents can go back to the oldest copy of Al Kafi, and will see that only Umme Kalthum is mentioned there and there is no mention of her parents. If we look at the Arabic in the text, we see that Imam Ja'far al Sadiq (as) only said five words:

1. Faqatha
   
2. Ina
   
3. Zaalikun
   
4. Furuj
   
5. Ghuzubna

On the basis of five words said about an individual who is not properly named, and none of which deal with marriage, Afriki jumps to his erroneous conclusion! Now, we would urge Afriki to look at the 'proof' that he had cited. Had this Nasibi had even an ounce of dignity, he would be deeply embarrassed at producing 5 ambiguous words as evidence before the Shi'a for his claims. This evidence cannot prove his claim, not even in the slightest, not even in the most corrupt court of law in the whole wide world.

Reply five - Personal viewpoints cannot constitute proof

Imam of the Nasibis, their Grand Wizard, Ibn Taymeeya, in Minhaaj as Sunnah, Volume 5, page 136 (Egypt edition) stated, as follows:

"The personal views of Ayesha and 'Umar cannot constitute proof".

We should point out that the Al Kafi tradition fails to shed light on the age of Umme Kalthum. We proved earlier on that the Umme Kalthum who was married to 'Umar was the daughter of Abu Bakr, NOT the daughter of Fatima (as). When Ahl'ul Sunnah Ulema of the rank of the grand wizard, Ibn Taymeeya, are not prepared to rely on the personal views of their esteemed personalities such as Ayesha and 'Umar, then we likewise reject the viewpoints of a Nasibi in the absence of proof. This is particularly so when our assertion with regards to the identity of Umme Kalthum (as) can be established by evidence. In short, the viewpoint of Afriki does not constitute proof. As he insists on adhering to them, we are led to conclude that his is only a personal viewpoint, that is, one which has no proof and is a baseless allegation. He has every right to have his viewpoint. Just as he has the right to believe, as do many Nasibis, that Ayatullah Khomeini was a really a CIA agent, or even believe that Tabari was a Shi'a, that Maudoodi was a Shi'a, or even that the Pope is Jewish, or maybe even that that the Sun orbits the Earth and that they are the real believers and what is written on this website is a black magic spell so powerful that it is bewitching you into seeing writing that does not actually exist. Others call this type of 'personal viewpoint' blind bigotry�embarrassingly blind, even for more moderate Sunnis. I call it the death-rows of a set of beliefs that are intellectually on the retreat.

Reply six - this hadith can be rejected due to Shi'a rules on conflicting hadith

Unfortunately Afriki has failed to conduct research into Shi'a hadith methodology. One principle is that where two hadith conflict with one another, then both are to be discarded. In this context, there is a hadith called Meerath al Uqul in which Imam Ja'far Sadiq (as) replied to a query that Imam 'Ali (as) married his daughter Umme Kalthum (as) to 'Umar. The Imam (as) replied, declaring, "Whoever claims such a thing is lying". In theory we now might have had two conflicting hadith, and under Shi'a jurisprudence both would be rejected. However, the Hadith of Meerath al Uqul is strong and categorically mentions WHICH Umm Kalthum is being discussed, and in WHICH context. Therefore the Shi'a view is that there was no such marriage. The al Kafi tradition does not prove this conclusively, since the parentage of UMME KALTHUM is not clarified in the tradition, and we know that Umar had several wives called UMME KALTHUM.

Reply seven - when the identity of a person is unknown then such a tradition can be rejected

Imam of Ahl'ul Sunnah Shah Abdul Aziz, in Taufa Ithna Ashari, Part 8, Chapter "Muthaeen Sahaba", responding to the Shi'a claim that when Umar went to attack the home of Sayyida Fatima (as) he was accompanied by an individual called "Kunfuz" - argues that this narration can be rejected since Kunfuz is an unknown personality. He conveniently forgets to mention the fact that while Kunfuz's existence may be doubted by that tradition, the whole Hadith makes the context in which the event occurred to be clear and precise, thus making the rest of the Hadith viable. However, by the same token we can also reject the al Kafi tradition since the UMME KALTHUM in this tradition is not clarified that therefore renders her an unknown personality. And unlike even the Hadith in which Kunfuz is mentioned, there is not even a context to what is being said here. If Shah Abdul Aziz can use this argument to counter a Shi'a argument we are entitled to use his approach when countering a considerably weaker Nasibi argument.

Reply eight - Imam Ja'far al Sadiq (as) was referring to a distant relative

The word 'zaalik' is used in the tradition and in Arabic when one is referring to distance. In this tradition the Umme Kalthum (as) that Imam Ja'far al Sadiq (as) was referring to was far removed from the lineage of Rasulullah (s), had it referred to a close relative from Ahl'ul ul bayt (as) zaalik would not have been used. The Umme Kalthum that was not closely related to the Ahl'ul bayt (as) was Umme Kalthum binte Abu Bakr. We already established from Sunni sources in the previous chapter that Umar proposed to marry Umme Kalthum binte Abu Bakr and Ayesha accepted the proposal

Reply nine - The term Ghuzubna

Some Nasibi shall no doubt pick up on the term Ghuzubna that literally means taken / snatched. Applying the word in this context would clearly contradict logic, wisdom and the Shari'a it simply makes no sense, particularly when there is no evidence in history to suggest that Umme Kalthum binte Fatima was snatched. If the Nasibi are going to claim that the Shi'a embarrassed by this allege marriage are in effect suggesting that Umar kidnapped the daughter of Fatima (as) we should point out that the tradition fails to locate the birth of the UMME KALTHUM concerned, it does not mention who her parents were, and as we have already proven (and shall elaborate further) the alleged marriage of UMME KALTHUM binte Fatima (as) is replete with contradictions, whilst the traditions relating to Umar's marriage to UMME KALTHUM daughter of Abu Bakr compliment one another. It is common sense that we leave a matter that has contradictions and accept that which has consistency i.e. marriage to daughter of Abu Bakr - this was the matter that Imam al Sadiq (as) was referring to.

With this in mind, one needs to understand the context in which the Imam was speaking. If I say, "Today was a black day" - it does not mean that they sky outside was black - although it does literally, I am speaking in a context expressing a viewpoint, as the Imam had done. Ghazabna "taken" refers to the regret of the Imam (as) that the marriage of UMME KALTHUM daughter of Abu Bakr had been taken out of the hands of Imam 'Ali (as)'s hands. After Abu Bakr died Imam 'Ali (as) married his widow, her daughter (born after Abu Bakr died) was Kalthum. The marriage of UMME KALTHUM was arranged by Ayesha and Imam 'Ali (as) was not pleased with this, but Ayesha had a greater say as she was Abu Bakr's waris (executor) - Imam a' Sadiq (as)'s use of Ghuzubna was regret that this matter was taken away from Imam 'Ali (as).

Reply ten - the word Umme Kalthum (as)

If Afriki is going to insist that UMME KALTHUM automatically means binte 'Ali, then we ask those with logic:

If a woman is called Ayesha does that automatically mean that her husband is the son in law of a man called 'Abu Bakr? If a woman is called Hafsa does that automatically mean that her husband is the son in law of a man called Umar? Likewise you cannot conclude that if a woman is called Umme Kalthum, then her husbands' father in law is called 'Ali.

Reply eleven - a tradition that contradicts the Qur'an and Sunnah is to be rejected

This is a clear part of Sunni and Shi'a jurisprudence. The moment a tradition is in violation to the Qur'an and Sunnah it is to be discarded.

The Qur'an makes it clear that we are not to mix with those that are Zaalim - we deem Umar to be Zaalim on account of his treatment of Sayyida Fatima (as) as proven in chapter one. Marrying a Zaalim is ten times worse than liaising with one, and we are not prepared to accept that Imam 'Ali (as) would marry his daughter to a Zaalim since this would contradict the Qur'an.

In al Kafi there is a tradition that states clearly that if a tradition contradicts the Sunnah of Rasulullah (s) it must be rejected. We read in Riyadh al Nadira Volume 3 page 182 that Umar had asked for the hand of Sayyida Fatima (as) in marriage, Rasulullah (s) rejected his offer. This rejection made it clear that Umar was not eligible to marry a daughter of Rasulullah (s) this was his Sunnah. Sayyida Umme Kalthum (as) was also a daughter of Rasulullah (s), when rejecting Umar was a Sunnah of Rasulullah (s) then there is no way that Imam 'Ali (as) would contradict the established Sunnah.

Al Kafi Volume 1 page 68 also makes it clear that if any contradiction does indeed arise, then we are to reject those traditions that support Sunni aqeedah, hence if the Sunni viewpoint is that Umme Kalthum married Umar, we reject it.

Reply twelve - Use of the term "Furuj"

Afriki seeks to play a moralistic game:

Ansar.org states:

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.

There is no need for this Nasibi to try and preserve the honour of the Ahl'ul bayt (as) particularly when as cited in chapter one his Salaf Imams have done their utmost to destroy and humiliate the Ahl'ul bayt (as). Does this Nasibi really think he can use this moralistic line with us when his Ulema claim that Imam 'Ali (as) grooms his daughter, sends her to Umar's home, who kisses and fondles her. Are these traditions that preserve and honour the Ahl'ul bayt (as)?

This Nasibi needs to understand that Furuj can mean "sexual organ" but it also can mean "Chastity" and "Respect". If this Nasibi is going to suggest that we are lying and that this is an exclusive filthy term, then could he explain why Allah (swt) use the word Furuj when referring to Hadhrath Maryam? Allah (swt) says clearly in Surah al Anbiya verse 92:

"She protected her Furuj"

If Furuj is indeed always synonymous in Arabic as a vulgar term then why does Allah (swt) use it when praising such a pure / chaste woman?

Reply thirteen - The word "Furuj" has been used by Rasulullah (s) his wives in Sahih al Bukhari

We read in Sahih al Bukhari that Ayesha said:

Whenever the Prophet intended to sleep while he was Junub, he used to wash his private parts and perform ablution like that for the prayer.
Sahih al Bukhari Volume 1, Book 5, Number 286

Umm'ul Momineen Maimuna also uses the term Furuj.

This is proven from Sahih al Bukhari Volume 1, Book 5, Number 249:

"Narrated Maimuna:
(The wife of the Prophet) Allah's Apostle performed ablution like that for the prayer but did not wash his feet. He washed off the discharge from his private parts and then poured water over his body. He withdrew his feet from that place (the place where he took the bath) and then washed them. And that was his way of taking the bath of Janabah".

If Furuj is such a filthy term then why did Ayesha and Maimuna use it when talking about Rasulullah (s)? In Sahih al Bukhari "Chapter on Ghusl" Rasulullah's wives usage of the term Furuj can be located in SEVEN traditions. If wives can use it, then why is Afriki making a big issue if Imam al Sadiq (as) says the same?

We have cited the term Furuj from the most authentic text of Ahl'ul Sunnah. The fact is the term Furuj was common amongst Arabs at that particular time all because this term is not commonly used today in other countries (except in a vulgar context) do NOT automatically mean that it is incorrect to use it. Rather than attack the Shi'a for this word in al Kafi, it would be far better for Afriki to conduct an autopsy of the term Furuj in his own books, and he will see that this term is not just restricted to Sahih al Bukhari�

Reply fourteen - shooting stars appeared from the "Furuj" of Imam Shaafi's mother

We are quoting this reference from the following three esteemed works of Ahl'ul Sunnah.

1. Tareekh Baghdad Volume 2 page 59 Dhikr Muhammad bin Shaafi
   
2. Seerath al Halabeeya Volume 1 page 92 Dhikr Muhammad 'ur Rasulullah
   
3. Isma al Rijjal - Dhikr Imam Shaafi page 41

"When our Imam Shaafi's mother was carrying him (in pregnancy) she saw a dream in which shooting stars were coming out of her Furuj, one fell in Egypt and then light encompassed all other cities. An interpreter of dreams told her and said 'Lady Khaleeda you shall give birth to a son whose knowledge shall reach Egypt in the first instance and then travel to all cities".

We should point out to our opponents that we have sited this reference referring to the Furuj of Shaafi's mother from your own esteemed works. In their efforts to praise Shaafi, his supporters did not even spare referring to the Furuj of Shaafi's mother. It is amusing that Afriki deems this terminology as vulgar, whilst for Shaafi' supporters this is a matter of pride�

Reply fifteen - Asma binte Abu Bakr's Furuj of mercy

We read in Habeeb as Sayyar Volume 2 page 23:

"When the news of Abdullah Ibn Zubayr's death reached his mother Asma binte Abu Bakr, she began to mourn. Despite her age of ninety she began to menstruate and said 'Allah's child, mercy be upon you, every part of my body is mourning you, including my Furuj that is reciting mercy for you.

Reply sixteen - The Ahl'ul Sunnah deem it permissible to spread Qur'anic verses over a woman's furuj

We read in Tafseer Durre Manthur, Volume 4 page 42, under the commentary of the last verse of Surah Yusuf as follows:

"Rasulullah (s) stated that if a woman feels the pangs of child birth, should bring a clean bowl and then place this [above] verse into a bowl. The bowl should then be washed and then this water should be administered to some trustworthy women to drink. Any water remaining should be sprinkled over the stomach and 'Furuj' [vagina]

Reply seventeen - The Hanafi Fiqh deem it permissible for a man to observe a woman's furuj during Salaat

In this regard we shall rely on the following esteemed work of the Hanafi Sect:

1. Fatawa Alamgeeri Volume 1 page 143 Bab Salaat
   
2. Fatawa Qadhi Khan Volume 1 page 64 Bab Salaat

We are quoting directly from Fatawa Qadhi Khan:

"If any man lustfully observes a woman's Furuj whilst offering Salaat then the woman's mother and daughter become haraam for him. If a man lustfully looks at the furuj of a woman that he had previously divorced, but who he can now lawfully take back then that woman shall remain Halal for him and his Salaat shall not become batil [void]".

Reply eighteen - the Hanafi litmus test to determine who should lead Salaat

The Hanafi madhab's authority work Durre Mukhthar Volume 1 page 42 states:

"When two Imams are present in a Mosque at one given time, the following criteria can be used to decided which Imam should lead the prayers:

1. One whose wife is more beautiful
   
2. One who has more possessions
   
3. One whose prestige / persona is greater
   
4. One whose clothes are cleaner
   
5. One whose head is larger and penis is smaller"

Having cited these references we would like to point out to Mr Moralistic al Nasibi Afriki:

'when your books describe the following:

• the Furuj of Imam Shaafi's mother,
  
• the Furuj of Asma binte Abu Bakr,
  
• the lawfulness of Hanafi men to lustfully observe a woman's furuj during salaat
  
• the legitimacy of a pregnant woman to place a Qur'anic verse on her Furuj
  
• the penis size criterion for Hanafi Imams

What right do you have to attack the use of Furuj in al Kafi?'

Reply nineteen - the rules of Nikah require the man and woman to be the kuff (equivalent) of one another

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

We read in Fiqh A'la Madhab 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 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:

"Hadhrath 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".
Hasb aur Nasab, Vol.1 Page 40

These are the conditions of kuff in the eyes of Ahl'ul Sunnah. Islam is a comprehensive code of life, covering all aspects of living including behaviour such as manners and etiquette. The laws are clearly stipulated, as is the case for marriage. The Ulema of Ahl'ul 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 not to contract marriages that are devoid of equality. Applying this to the Sunni assertion, how can an old man, with three wives, marry someone who had was only a mere child? We even have Umar's own comments on kuff. Was he such a hypocrite that he would advocate marriages based on equal ranking for other but ignore such a rule in his own case?

The Shi'a share the same views with the following additional criteria. The man must:

1. Not be a Nasibi
   
2. Must not drink alcohol
   
3. Must not be illegitimate
   
4. Must not be homosexual

If an individual possess these flaws he is prohibited from marrying a women of good / pure ancestry. Umar was NOT the kuff of Sayyida Umme Kalthum binte Fatima (as). She possessed a complete pure ancestry, whilst Umar was of unknown ancestry. Before expanding on this point it is necessary to expose the unknown ancestry of Waleed bin Mugheera as Rasulullah (s) had compared Umar to Waleed.

Waleed did not possess a legitimate ancestry

As our evidence we shall quote Verse 10-13 of the Pen and Paper in the Qur'an, wherein Allah (swt) exposes the flaws in Waleed's character including the fact that he was illegitimate. We are quoting from Abdullah Yusuf Ali's transliteration of the verses:

"Heed not the type of despicable men,- ready with oaths, A slanderer, going about with calumnies, (Habitually) hindering (all) good, transgressing beyond bounds, deep in sin, Violent (and cruel), with all that, base-born"

The Ahl'ul Sunnah Ulema are in agreement that this verse descended with regards to Waleed bin Mugheera and that base-born means of illegitimate birth

Proof of this fact can bee seen in the following classical works of Ahl'ul Sunnah:

1. Tafseer Kabeer Volume 8 page 188
   
2. Tafseer Mazhari Volume 10 page 34
   
3. Tafseer Khazan Volume 7 page 110
   
4. Tafseer Kashaf Volume page 485
   
5. Tafseer Durre Manthur Volume 6 page 404
   
6. Tafseer Ruh al Ma'ani Volume 3 pages 48-49
   
7. Tafseer Jalalayn Volume 3 page 29
   
8. Al Fathuwaath Volume 4 page 284

For the sake of brevity we shall cite only the one source, Al Fathuwaath Volume 4 page 284:

"When this verse descended, Waleed approached his mother and said, 'Muhammad cited my characteristics. I am fully aware of them with the exception of the final one (that I am illegitimate). Now if you do not tell me the truth, then I shall strike off your neck. Waleed's mother replied 'Your father was impotent, so I slept with another man and you are that man's son' "

In the eyes of Rasulullah (s) the example of Umar was the same as that of Waleed

As evidence for this fact we have relied on the following authentic texts of Ahl'ul Sunnah:

1. Sifwaath an Sifwaath Volume 1 page 304, Dhikr Umar
   
2. Al Tabaqal al Kabeer Volume 3 page 168, Dhikr Umar
   
3. Tareekh al Khulafa Dhikr Umar page 111
   
4. Sawaiqh al Muhriqa page 55
   
5. Seerath al Halabeeya Volume 4 page 15
   
6. Rauzathul Ahbaab Volume 1 page 134
   
7. Riyadh al Nadira page 60 - Part 2 Dhikr Umar
   
8. Nur al Absar page 60

This event is narrated similarly in the above named books and for the sake of brevity we shall quote just Sifwaath an Sifwaath, Volume 1, page 304, under Dhikr Umar:

"When Hadhrath Umar went to slay Rasulullah (s) with his sword, he (s) had received information of this and he stood up and took hold of his collar saying, "'Umar, why do you not desist from this action? Will you not refrain lest Allah (swt) reveals that information about you that He has already revealed about Waleed bin Mugheera?"

Questions about ancestry put before Rasulullah (s), and Umar's concerns

We read in Sahih al Bukhari, "Book of knowledge" Volume 1, Book 3, Number 93:

"Narrated Anas bin Malik:
One day Allah's Apostle came out (before the people) and 'Abdullah bin Hudhafa stood up and asked (him), "Who is my father?" The Prophet replied, "Your father is Hudhafa." The Prophet told them repeatedly (in anger) to ask him anything they liked. 'Umar knelt down before the Prophet and said thrice, "We accept Allah as (our) Lord and Islam as (our) religion and Muhammad as (our) Prophet." After that the Prophet became silent".

We relied on eight esteemed Ahl'ul Sunnah works to demonstrate that when Umar went to kill Rasulullah (s) with his sword, his action was like that of Waleed bin Mugheera who threatened to slay his mother, upon receiving the news of his illegitimacy, a fact that was subsequently vouched for by his mother. Rasulullah (s) had similarly warned 'Umar, pointing out that he was fully aware that he was in receipt of the same information on him as had been revealed about Waleed bin Mugheera, and that unless he desisted from his violent actions and attempt to assassinate the Seal of Prophets (saws), Allah (swt) would certainly cause a verse to be revealed about 'Umar as it had about Walid. Both individuals assumed that they had legitimate ancestry and both were incorrect in their assumption.

We should not be surprised by this, indeed we should be surprised when a Sahaba is of legitimate birth, for debauchery was prevalent and accepted as common and matter-of-fact in the pre-Islamic days of Jahiliya�we have the example of illegitimacy being common in western societies in our own time, and the people of the time of Jahiliya were not even People of the Book. The shock of some muslims at this notion, that many of the Sahaba were, in all likelihood of illegitimate birth, is based upon romanticisation within Sunni Islam. If a man is illegitimate but has good actions then his illegitimacy confers upon him few disadvantages except in the matter of kuff and khilafat, and he is to be regarded as his actions determine, not on what his parents did. But, with the illegitimacy of the time we must also remember that it was also associated with bad actions on the part of the illegitimate offspring. Many of the Sahaba had, in fact, been both illegitimate and also Jahils�.Umar so Jahil that he had dared to try and assassinate the Holy Prophet (saws).

On the basis of this evidence, and Ahl'ul Sunnah aqeedah that a marriage has to be based on kuff between the man and woman (that this is a necessary component of marriage), we can conclude that 'Umar could not have been married to Umm Kalthum (as) the daughter of Ali (as) and Fatima (as). 'Umar was illegitimate, while Umm Kalthum (as) was the granddaughter of the Holy Prophet (saws). There is no equivalence, in any way, between them in terms of kuff. Illegitimacy has implications in Shari'a - an illegitimate man cannot be a rightly guided khalifa (Al Mawardi, Al Ahkam Al Sultaniya). Thus we can question whether 'Umar was rightly guided as a khalifa. BUT we can also question whether 'Ali (as) would have given his daughter's hand in marriage to an illegitimate man, while she was the granddaughter of the Holy Prophet (saws).

On this basis alone we can conclude that the marriage of Umme Kalthum binte 'Ali (as) and Fatima (as) to 'Umar ibn al Khattab would have been haram. Sayyida Umme Kalthum (as) was a woman with the pure / noble ancestry of Banu Hashim, while 'Umar's unknown ancestry automatically means that she was not the kuff (equivalent) of Umar. We are not prepared to accept that Maula 'Ali (as) contravened the Shari'a by marrying his daughter to a man who was not her equivalent. If any text contradicts this assertion (and confirms such a marriage) then the fault lies with the narrators not with the actions of Ahl'ul bayt (as).

Some Nasibi will no doubt pose the question that if Umar was devoid of legitimate ancestry, why would Rasulullah (s) refer to him as Ibn al Khattab. Our reply shall be based on two proofs:

We read in the Qur'an that False Gods are called "I la" that is Allah (swt)'s actual name.

Verily ye, (unbelievers), and the (false) gods that ye worship besides Allah, are (but) fuel for Hell! to it will ye (surely) come!
Surah al Anbiya verse 99

Ibrahim (as) calls a star "Rub" - again Allah's exclusive title.

When the night covered him over, He saw a star: He said: "This is my Lord." But when it set, He said: "I love not those that set. When he saw the moon rising in splendour, he said: "This is my Lord." But when the moonset, He said: "unless my Lord guide me, I shall surely be among those who go astray. When he saw the sun rising in splendour, he said: "This is my Lord; this is the greatest (of all)."
Surah Anam verses 67-69

We ask Afriki, when an idol is not Allah (swt), nor is the star, sun or moon then why have all four been given the titles "I la" and "Rabb"? The fact is, when a title becomes commonplace then it becomes perfectly acceptable to use that terminology. The word "I la" and "Rabb" whilst being used to describe an idol, the star, sun and moon has clearly been used by Allah (swt) because these were commonly held terms used for all four, as used by the Arabs of that time. Similarly, Umar's birth in the home of Khattab meant that the indigenous Arab population referred to him as Ibn Khattab. This is common sense, a person that raises a child in his home, will be deemed by the outside world as that child's father, the fact that Khattab raised Umar lead to him being popularly known by his father'' name. In the same way that Waleed was referred to as Ibn Mugheera, Umar was called Ibn Khattab.

Reply twenty - It is not permissible to marry a momin daughter to a Nasibi

As proof we present to hadith from our most esteemed Shi'a source Furu al Kafi Volume 5 page 349, Kitab al Nikah. Both hadith are on the authority of Imam Ja'far al Sadiq (as):

"Do not marry a momin daughter to a Nasibi"

(The narrator asked the Imam) 'Is it permissible to marry one's daughter to a Nasibi? Imam (as) replied, to marry one's daughter to a Nasibi is neither acceptable nor halaal".

This may be a bitter pill for the followers of Mu'awiya to swallow, but Umar was a Nasibi (one who hates Ahl'ul bayt (as)). This can be proven via his actions. His behaviour towards Sayyida Fatima (as), his threat to burn her home without caring for her feelings, his assault on her that led to a miscarriage and her insistence that he should not attend her funeral are clear proofs that he was a Nasibi.

When Imam al Sadiq (as) has stated that one should not marry one's daughter to a Nasibi then there is no way that Imam 'Ali (as) would marry his daughter to one. The descendants of Rasulullah (s) unlike the descendants of Mu'awiya and Marwan always practised what they preached. Tell us Afriki, if someone:

• Threatened to harm your wife by setting her home on fire whilst she was inside,
  
• Pained you wife so much that she issued an instruction that he not attend her funeral in the event of her death, would you then marry your daughter to that same individual? We do not believe that ANY man would stoop so low, and yet these Nasibi are trying to convince us that Imam 'Ali (as) had done just that.

Reply twenty first - Do not marry your daughter to a man that possesses bad manners

We are citing our esteemed Shi'a source Waseeyath ul Najaath page 300, Chapter Nikah:

"Rasulullah (s) said 'Do not marry your daughter to man that possesses bad manners"

Umar possessed bad manners

We read in Sahih al Bukhari Volume 5, Book 57, Number 32, Chapter Companions of the Prophet:

"Narrated Sad bin Abi Waqqas:
Umar bin Al-Khattab asked the permission of Allah's Apostle to see him while some Quraishi women were sitting with him, talking to him and asking him for more expenses, raising their voices above the voice of Allah's Apostle.
When 'Umar asked for the permission to enter, the women quickly put on their veils. Allah'� Apostle allowed him to enter and 'Umar came in while Allah's Apostle was smiling, 'Umar said "O Allah's Apostle! May Allah always keep you smiling." The Prophet said, "These women who have been here, roused my wonder, for as soon as they heard your voice, they quickly put on their veils. "'Umar said, "O Allah's Apostle! You have more right to be feared by them than I." Then 'Umar addressed the women saying, "O enemies of yourselves! You fear me more than you do Allah's Apostle?" They said, "Yes, for you are harsher and sterner than Allah's Apostle." Then Allah's Apostle said, "O Ibn Al-Khattab! By Him in Whose Hands my life is! Never does Satan find you going on a way, but he takes another way other than yours".

The Sahaba of Rasulullah (s) were tired of Umar's bad manners

As evidence we shall cite the following texts:

1. Asad ul Ghaybah Volume 4 page 168 Dhikr Umar
   
2. Al Tabaqat Ibn Sa'd Volume 3 page 199 "Waseeyath Abu Bakr"
   
3. Tareekh Tabari Volume 4 page 2137 "The events of 13 Hijri"
   
4. Tareekh Kamil Volume 3 page 207
   
5. Al Imama wa al Siyasa page 19 "Dhikr Wafaath Abi Bakr"

"When Abu Bakr nominated Umar to succeed him, the Sahaba approached him, complaining of Umar's bad manners, they said 'What response will you give to Allah (swt) when He (swt) asks you 'Why did you appoint Umar, when you was aware that he is a bad mannered individual?"
Al Imama wa al Siyasa page 19

Imam 'Ali (as) did not even wish to see Umar's face on account of his bad manners

We are just quoting partially from what is a very lengthy narration in Sahih al Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 546 "Chapter Military Expeditions led by the Prophet (pbuh) (Al-Maghaazi). Ayesha narrates:

"�When Fatima was alive, the people used to respect 'Ali much, but after her death, 'Ali noticed a change in the people's attitude towards him. So Ali sought reconciliation with Abu Bakr and gave him an oath of allegiance. 'Ali had not given the oath of allegiance during those months (i.e. the period between the Prophet's death and Fatima's death). 'Ali sent someone to Abu Bakr saying, "Come to us, but let nobody come with you," as he disliked that 'Umar should come."

In summary these references prove that Umar possessed bad manners, this was made clear before Rasulullah (s) by the Quraysh women, and Rasulullah (s) corroborated their claim stating that even Satan flees from him on account of his behaviour. When Abu Bakr made Umar his successor, the Sahaba expressed their concerns that Umar was bad mannered. Imam 'Ali (as) did not even wish to see the face of Umar due to his bad manners. The Shari'a, as set out by Rasulullah (s) makes it clear that one should not marry a man with bad manners. We already established in Chapter one, that Amr bin Aas did not want Umar to marry Umme Kalthum binte Abu Bakr on account of his bad manners, and the books of Ahl'ul Sunnah confirm that the same Umme Kalthum had rejected this proposal on account of Umar's bad manners, Ayesha also initially rejected the proposal on this same ground.

Ayesha and Amr bin Aas may well have given in to Umar's assurances, but Imam 'Ali (as) would certainly not have, he would never had married his beloved daughter to a bad mannered man, particularly in light of the suffering this bad mannered man had exposed his wife to.

Reply twenty second - it is not permissible for a father to marry his daughter to a man that drinks alcohol

We read in the Shi'a text Furu al Kafi Volume 5, page 347, Kitab Nikah:



"Imam Ja'far al Sadiq (as) said "Anyone that marries his daughter to a man that drinks alcohol had done an injustice to her. Rasulullah (s) had deemed alcohol to be haraam, so if an individual drinks (alcohol) do not marry your daughters to him".

Umar used to drink alcohol

We read in Ahl'ul Sunnah's authority work "al Mustaraf fi kul Mustadhruf Volume 2 page 229, Chapter 74 the following:

"Three verses were revealed by Allah (swt) in connection with the prohibition on alcohol. In regards to alcohol people asked questions on it to Rasulullah (s), who replied that it was a great sin. After some time, some Muslims began to refrain from drinking alcohol, whilst others continued to drink it, this got to a point whereby on one occasion a man entered the Mosque and proceeded to speak nonsense during Salaat. It was at this time that the verse descended "O you believe do not approach prayers whilst intoxicated. Some people then left alcohol, whilst others continued to drink, to the point that Umar drank alcohol, mounted onto a camel and then proceeded to throw an object at Abdul Rahman bin Auf, that caused his head to split open, he then began to sing about the kuffar participant of Badr. His actions reached a point of kufr and transgression, he (Umar) began to say 'I won't fast in Ramadan, and you cannot stop me from drinking. When Rasulullah (s) received news of this, he left the mosque and hit Umar on the head with an object, it was then that this verse descended 'Satan wants you to stop�' Umar then said 'Yes I have stopped, I have stopped'.
Also:
Al-Mustathraf Fi-Kule Fane Muthathraf, Page 469-470

The Shari'a prohibits a woman from marrying a man that drinks, and we have relied an esteemed work of Ahl'ul Sunnah that identifies Umar as being so drunk that he began to sing the praises of the kuffar of Badr. Would Imam 'Ali (as) marry his daughter to such an individual?

Umar used to keep alcohol in his water flask

We read in Ahl'ul Sunnah authority commentary of Sahih al Bukhari, Fathul Bari Volume 5 page 341 that:

"On one occasion Saeed bin Zai drank from Umar's water flask and he became intoxicated. Umar began to beat him and Saeed said to him 'My only wrongdoing was that I drank from your flask'. (Upon hearing this) Umar replied 'I am beating you, as I want to know why you became intoxicated".

This reference proves that Umar would keep alcohol in his water flask and it compliments a narration by Al-Nakha`i wherein we learn that `Umar during latter part of his reign drank alcoholic wine (nabidh) which he diluted with water, saying: "Do this if/lest its shaytan overcome you"
see al-Sarakhsi's al-Mabsut, book of beverages, chapter on Muzara`at al-Harbi; and I`la' al-Sunan (18:34)

We do not doubt that the water flask was mixed with water, but clearly poor Saeed's experience proves that that the alcohol was of such strength that an ordinary man that drank from the flask would be unable to tolerate it and immediately become intoxicated. Clearly this was not the case for Umar, as he was used to consuming such strong alcohol, which is why he could not understand why taking just one drink had intoxicated Saeed.

Hadhrath Umar's love of 'Nabidh' alcohol

Nabidh is a drink that is prepared by fermenting crushed dates / grapes. It was Hadhrath Umar's favourite alcoholic drink.

We read in Muwatta of Imam Malik, Book 45, Number 45.6.21, Chapter Madina:

Yahya related to me from Malik from Yahya ibn Said from Abd ar-Rahman ibn al-Qasim that Aslam, the mawla of Umar ibn al-Khattab informed him that he had visited Abdullah ibn Ayyash al-Makhzumi. He saw that he had some nabidh with him and he was at that moment on the way to Makka. Aslam said to him, ''Umar ibn al-Khattab loves this drink." Abdullah ibn Ayyash therefore carried a great drinking bowl and brought it to Umar ibn al-Khattab and placed it before him. Umar brought it near to him and then raised his head. Umar said, "This drink is good," so he drank some of it and then passed it to a man on his right".

Umar drank Nabidh alcohol on his deathbed

We are quoting from Ahl'ul Sunnah's classical work Riyadh al Nadira Volume 2 page 351:

"Whilst on his deathbed, Umar became deeply affected by the wound and his physician asked Umar 'Which alcohol would you like to drink?' Umar said 'alcohol called nabidh is my preferred choice. This drink was then administered to Umar".
Riyadh al Nadira Volume 2 page 351

There is no way that Ahl'ul Sunnah can claim that 'Nabidh' does not constitute alcohol, since Rasulullah (s) had specifically referred to this as haraam. We read in Sunan Abu Daud Book 26, Number 3707:

"Narrated Abu Hurayrah:
I knew that the Apostle of Allah (saww) used to keep fast. I waited for the day when he did not fast to present him the drink (nabidh), which I made in a pumpkin. I then brought it to him while it fermented. He said: Throw it to this wall, for this is a drink of the one who does not believe in Allah and the Last Day".

Our opponents should examine the text that says clearly that Umar had requested "Nabidh". It is unfortunate that even on his deathbed the second Khalifa's thoughts were on drinking alcohol. Umar's alcoholic way, even until his deathbed means that under the Shari'a it would have not have been permissible for Imam 'Ali (as) to marry his daughter to Umar.

Reply twenty third - do not marry your daughter to a 'Mukhnaath'

We are quoting from the authority of the Shi'a work Waseelathul Najaath, page 300, Chapter Kitab Nikah:
"Do not marry your daughter to a man that possess the following flaws:

1. He is bad mannered
   
2. He is mukhnaath
   
3. He is a transgressor
   
4. He drinks alcohol"

The definition of Mukhnaath

To shed light on this definition we shall rely on Ahl'ul Sunnah's authority work "Kitab al Lughat al Hadeeth" Volume 2, page 141, by Allamah Wahid az Zaman:


"We do not deem it permissible to offer Salat behind a Mukhnaath. Qasthalani stated that Mukhnaath is a person that indulges in sodomy".

Three individuals were identified as Mukhnaath during the early part of Rasulullah's mission

We read in Tafseer Ruh-al Maani, Volume 3 page 49 under the commentary of "Surah Pen and Paper"

"This verse refers to the filthy act of Zeenum. Ibn Abi Hathim stated that "Zeenam is that person who takes it in the anus, and in this verse three individuals are referred, Waleed bin Mughira, Hakim bin Aas, Abu Jahal".

For those interested in reading to this matter, the Ahl'ul Sunnah text Hayaath al Haywaan discussed the homosexuality of Hakim and Abu Jahal. Sawaiqh al Muhriqa also acknowledges that Hakim was a homosexual, but that this came to an end when he attained the rank of Sahaba. Our interest is with regards to Waleed bin Mugheera since Rasulullah (s) had compared Waleed to Hadhrath Umar.

We have faithfully cited this reference from Tafseer Ruh al Ma'ani, which is a high-ranking Sunni Tafseer, which cited the comments of Ibn Hatim who was an esteemed Sunni scholar. Ibn Khalikkan in Wafaat al Wafayaat Volume 1 page 543 (Egypt edition) wrote as follows:

"Abdur Rahman al Muhammad Ibn Abi Hatim al Timmeemee al Handhali stated that the son of an Imam is an Imam and the son of a Hafidh is also a Hafidh. Abu'l Ali Khlalilee stated that the above individual was at the forefront of servants, his piety, knowledge and wisdom had been praised by the majority".

Allah (swt) had unveiled Waleed's actions, and was threatening to reveal that same about Umar

We are quoting from the following three authority texts of Ahl'ul Sunnah:

1. Sifwaat al Safwaat Volume 1 page 103 Dhikr Umar
   
2. Riyadh al Nadira Volume 2 page 11 Dhikr Islam, Umar
   
3. Al Tabaqat al Kubra Urdu translation, Volume 3, Page 58

All three texts record this momentous event as follows:

"When Umar went to kill Rasulullah (s) with his sword, Rasulullah (s) grabbed him and said ''Umar, will you not desist from this action, lest Allah reveals the same bad news about you that He revealed about Waleed bin Mugheera?"
Al Tabaqat al Kubra Urdu translation, Volume 3, Page 58

With regards to Waleed bin Mugheera we have proved from Ahl'ul Sunnah's Ruh al Ma'ani that he was a homosexual, and a verse had been revealed exposing his filthy acts. Rasulullah (s) had similarly warned Umar to control himself, otherwise a verse would also descend about him as had been revealed about Mugheera. From here we can deduce that according to Sunni scholars, 'Umar indulged in sodomy in the same way that Waleed bin Mugheera did. Rasulullah (s) had compared them both on account of their similar virtues, they were one and the same. At first, the fact that such Sahaba may have been homosexuals may come as a surprise.

Again, as with the issue of illegitimacy, it may be nothing but a product of the romanticisation of them. The people of Jahiliya who Mohammad (saws) had to contend with, who were now many of the Sahaba, including most of the Muhajireen from Makka, had been worse than the people of Sodom that Hadhrath Lut (as) (The Prophet Lot) had to do contend with. Since they were worse than the Sodomites, it is not surprising that their own well-known addiction to the flesh and carnal desires meant that homosexuality too would have been rampant. Undoubtedly, the modern Western world is a model of the days of Jahiliya, and likewise we see in the modern world the resurgence of homosexuality, which in many western countries is considered normal behaviour, or nothing but a trifle. Indeed, men who hold power at the highest levels of today's governments, power comparable to that which 'Umar and other Sahaba held, are under the influence of this affliction and are tolerated in western societies where they are part of the ruling class.

Whatever conditions / illnesses that people suffer from, Allah (swt) has provided a cure, and it is left for man to search out such cures. In this regard, people should not feel aggrieved by homosexuality, for there is forgiveness if the perpetrator sincerely repents after one warning, though not after the second when he must be executed. May Allah (swt) reward the family of Sunni Hakeems, such as that of Hakeem Ajmul Khan, for their efforts to treat this affliction. Hakeems are men of religious training who specialise in the practice of 'Islamic' medicine, as opposed to 'western' medicine. A few exist to this day. The father of the late Hakeem Ajmul Khan, Hakeem Shareef Khan Dehlavi had prescribed the treatment for this condition in his book "Ahlaaj al Mareez" Part 8, Dialogue 14 page 309.

This book was in the book collection of Hakeem Ajmul Khan's grandson, Hakeem Mahmood Khan. The book then reached the hands of his student Dr Sayyid Shareef Husayn Dehlavi of Luknow. Hakeem Mahmood states that on the 13th of October 1890 he saw with his own eyes the following text from "Ahlaaj al Mareez" that he then copied into his own book of debates Thanzeey al Nasab page 80 under the Chapter "Rafidi ba Rafidi":

"The medicine that is needed to treat anal diseases was used extensively by the second khalifa, this medicine is prepared by grinding certain chemicals and then preparing a solution in either vinegar or wine and is then inserted into the anus of the patient"

However, while Islam is humanitarian enough to offer treatment to those whose anuses have been violated and abused by this unnatural practice, the Shari'a strictly prohibits marriage to a man that indulges in such anal practices and Islam condemns this type of person, Allah (swt) calling homosexuality an abomination in the Qur'an. We do not believe that any sincere muslim parent would marry their daughter to such an individual, and it is indeed deeply insulting to entertain the thought that Imam 'Ali (as) would marry his daughter to a man with homosexual tendencies, as was, according to certain Sunnis, the case with 'Umar.

While this supposed 'Sunna' or 'Practice' of 'Umar undoubtedly exists as a school of thought, one that lies just beneath the surface in acceptable Sunni muslim society (you don't have to probe very far beyond the surface of 'official' behaviour in many muslim countries to find this widespread belief and the practices that it is used to sanction by corrupt scholars), it has probably survived to this day to serve and to justify the homosexuality of numerous khalifas and even contemporary men of power, with the logic that if it was good enough for 'Umar it's good enough for you, so you can continue with your addiction to men. In this context it is further interesting to note that in Arabic, the words Ilat-e-Oonba are often used to describe homosexuality�literally it means an addiction (Ilat) to the anus (Oonba).

This suggests that men who practice homosexuality find it very difficult to give up, for with many it is an addiction like smoking. However, such an attitude is a distortion of the Qur'an and true Islam which expressly forbids homosexuality. The Sunni belief that 'Umar was homosexual appeases homosexual muslim men, reducing their guilt, and enables them to continue with their addiction. It lets them deceive themselves that they are not going to burn in Hell for their 'addiction'. The implicit words of the Qur'an which forbid this practice are ignored or twisted out of context, or not mentioned all, in favour of the 'Sunna' of 'Umar.

In short, it is impossible that a woman from such the pure / chaste family of Rasulullah (s) would be married to such an individual. The marriage just didn't happen. Thus, a further evidence against it happening is the fact that a school of Sunni thought accepts 'Umar as a homosexual. Thus he could not have married the daughter of 'Ali (as).

Reply twenty fourth - Rasulullah (s) had stated that the daughters of his household were to marry within the Banu Hashim

Imam of Ahl'ul Sunnah Ibn Hajr al Makki records in Sawaiqh al Muhriqa page160:

"Rasulullah (s) said, 'The women of household are reserved for the men of our household' we can conclude from this hadith that that the kuff of Banu Hashim is not a non-Hashmi".

This hadith is even more explicit in Shi'a references, where Rasulullah (s) had made a specific reference to the daughters of Sayyida Fatima (as), Shaykh Saduq narrates the following hadith in 'Mun la yuzul Faqih, Volume 3 page 249':

"Rasulullah (s) looked at the family of Ja'far Tayyar and Muhammad bin Ja'far Tayyar, and then looked at Hasan, Hussain, Zaynab and Kalthum and said 'Our daughters are for our sons and our sons are for our daughters'.

This hadith demonstrates that Rasulullah (s) had restricted marriage of his grand daughter (s) in his family. Rasulullah (s) clearly deemed the kuff of his daughter (s) to be restricted to his relatives. This being the case then how can it be believed that Imam 'Ali (as) would blatantly disregard the words of Rasulullah (s) and marry Umme Kalthum (as) to Umar who was non Hashmi and not even remotely her equivalent in marriage? Of interest if the fact that Ibn Qutaybah in al Maarif page 70 states:

"All of the daughters of Hadhrath 'Ali were married into the sons of Hadhrath Aqeel and Hadhrath Abbas, with the exception of Umm'ul Hasan and Fatima".

Why did Ibn Qutaybah fail to mention Umme Kalthum here?

Reply twenty fifth - Sayyida Zeyneb (as)'s strict interpretation of kuff could not have been maintained if her sister had married Umar

For this section we shall rely on both Sunni and Shi'a sources:

Shi'a References:

1. Munthahil Aamaal, Volume 1 pages 432 - 433 (Iran)Shaykh Abbas Qummi
   
2. Nufs'ul Mahamoon page 447 (Iran)
   
3. Majalis page 31 by Shaykh Saduq Amali
   
4. Rozhathul Waizoon page 164

Sunni references:

1. Tarikh Kamil, Volume 4 page 35
   
2. Tarikh Tabari Volume 19 page 171 (English translation by I.K.A Howard)

All the above sources record this event similarly, we are quoting from Tabari, where one of Imam 'Ali (as)'s daughters narrates the suffering of the women of Ahl'ul bayt (as) when they were presented before Imam of Ahl'ul Sunnah Yazid ibn Mu'awiya:

"Then a Syrian with a red face stood up before Yazid and said, 'Commander of the Faithful, give me this one'. He meant me. I was a pretty young girl. I shuddered and moved away, for I though that that would be allowed them. I caught hold of the skirt of my sister Zaynab. My sister Zaynab was older and cleverer than I. She said that that would not happen. She said to the Syrian, "By God! You are a liar! You are too lowly born! Such a thing is not for you, not for him!' Yazid cried out angrily, 'By God! You are a liar! That is for me. If I wish to do it I can do it'. She retorted, 'No by God! God would only let you do that if you left our faith and professed belief in another religion".

So here the reference makes it clear that:

• The cursed Syrian wanted to marry one of Imam 'Ali (as)'s daughters
  
• Sayyida Zeyneb (as) says that this could not be possible as he was lowly born (i.e. Not her kuff)
  
• Sayyida Zeyneb stated that one who entered into such an action was a kaffir.

Hanafi scholar Mufti Ghulam Rasul commenting on this event states:

"This incident serves as proof that a Sayyida cannot be the kuff of a non Sayyid. This is why Sayyida Zeyneb said to Yazeed the cursed 'You should have some respect, these are the daughters of Rasulullah (s), no one has the right to decide that this girl is for me. This is the Sunnah of Ahl'ul bayt, on the issue of kuff, if one even contemplates such a thing he is outside the pale of Islam"
Hasab aur Nasab Volume 2 page 186

Now our question to Afriki is simple, how could Sayyida Zeyneb (as) maintain this strict rigid stance on kuff if we are to indeed to accept your account that her younger sister married Umar? Why did not a single individual in Yazid's court intervene and seek to correct Sayyida Zeyneb (as) and point out that her claim was baseless as her sister Umme Kalthum (as) was the widow of Umar?

Reply twenty sixth - The isnad of this narration

Whilst we are confident that these replies serve as sufficient proof within themselves, we would also like to make some comments on the isnad of this narration that Afriki claimed was Sahih. This Nasibi tactically avoids commenting the authenticity of the narrators. The chain is as follows:

Ansar.org states:

'Ali ibn Ibrahim-from his father-from Ibn Abi 'Umayr-from Hisham ibn Salim and Hammad-from Zurarah, who narrates that

Curiously when it comes to proving the isnad Afriki applies deception:

Ansar.org states:

NARRATION 1 al-Kulayni received the reports from Ibn Abi 'Umayr through his teacher 'Ali ibn Ibrahim ibn Hashim al-Qummi, who is his source for about one third of the material in al-Kafi. 'Ali ibn Ibrahim is the author of an early Tafsir of the Shi'ah, and is highly regarded by Shi'i rijal critics such as an-Najashi and Ibn Mutahhar, who declare him to be "thiqatun fil hadith, thabt, mu'tamad, sahih al-madhhab" (reliable in hadith transmission, reliable dependable, correct in belief.) (Jami' ar-Ruwat vol. 1 p. 545) 'Ali ibn Ibrahim al-Qummi reports from his father Ibrahim ibn Hashim al-Qummi. He is reputed to have been the first to spread the hadith of the Shi'ah from Kufah to Qum. Reports via him abound in al-Kafi, through his son. He has been generally accepted by the Shi'ah as a reliable narrator. He is even mentioned by Abu Ja'far at-Tusi as having met the 9th Imam. (Jami' ar-Ruwat vol. 1 p. 38) His reliability as a narrator is attested to in a contemporary work on the authority of his son, Ali ibn Ibrahim, Ibn Tawus and al-'Allamah al-Hilli. (Abu Talib at-Tajlil at-Tabrizi, Mu'jam ath-Thiqat, p. 5) Ibrahim ibn Hashim al-Qummi reports on the authority of Muhammad ibn Abi 'Umayr. This Ibn Abi 'Umayr is one of the most reliable Shi'i narrators ever. Abu Ja'far at-Tusi says of him: "kana min awthaq an-nas" (he was of the most reliable of people). (al-Fihrist p. 169) More importantly, he was of the elect group of Shi'i narrators called the Ashab al-Ijma' (Men of the Consensus). What this means is that when the chain of narration is proven authentic up to one of these men, the rest of the chain up to the Imam may automatically be assumed to be authentic too. (See the details of this consensus in al-Mamaqani, Miqbas al-Hidayah fi 'Ilm ad-Dirayah, vol. 2 pp. 17 1-208) The authenticity of this narration is therefore proven on grounds of this consensus.

There are six narrators in this tradition and yet Afriki as his proof only cites three. One of the narrators of this hadith is Hisham ibn Salim. Worthy of note is Hisham is a narrator in three out of the four Shi'a traditions that Afriki cited from al Kafi. Afriki portrays Hisham as reliable by stating:

Ansar.org states:

Hisham ibn Salim is credited with having been a student of Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq. His reliability as a transmitter of hadith is attested to by the emphatic statement of al-'Allamah and an-Najashi: "thiqatun thiqah" (reliable, and once again reliable). (Jami' ar-Ruwat, vol. 2 p. 315)

If Afriki really wants to convince the Shi'a his first approach, then he should cite our MOST AUTENTIC book of Rijjal, which is not Jami' ar Ruwat but Rijjal al Kashi. When we want to know the authenticity of a narrator this is our first port of call. When we examine Rijjal al Kashi we learn that:

"He (Hisham) was an adherent of the "fasid al aqeedah" and believed that you physically see Allah (swt)"
Rijjal Kashi page 184

The fasid al aqeedah is a break away group from the Shi'a and their beliefs were so deviant that they opposed mainstream Shi'aism. The Shi'a concept of Allah (swt) is that He (swt) cannot be seen / has no physical attributes and to believe otherwise is kufr. Anyone that holds a viewpoint that He (swt) can be seen has deviated from the Shi'a path and hence any hadith narrated by him is to be rejected.

We have provided 26 replies to Afriki's claim that the tradition from al Kafi proved that Umme Kalthum binte Fatima (as) married Umar ibn al Khattab. We could provided many more but feel that at this stage this shall suffice to convince those who wish to know the truth - namely that this marriage was a lie and that Afriki had sought to deceptively read in between the lines of a vague Shi'a hadith to prove his point. We countered it pointing out that this marriage would have breached the Shari'a in Sunni and Shi'a eyes and hence simply did not happen.