Our Objections to Sunni Traditions

First objection - The esteemed status of the family of Sayyida UMME KALTHUM (as) and her mother

We read in Asadul Ghaybah Volume 7 page 225 "Dhikr Fatima binte Rasul"

"On the Day of Judgement a voice will come from the hidden, lower your gazes for Fatima binte Muhammad is passing by"

The hadith testifies to the esteemed rank / piety / shyness acknowledged by Rasulullah (s) in relation to Sayyida Fatima (as). When she behaves in such a manner that we will be ordered to lower our gazes on the Day of Judgement, is it acceptable that such behaviour would not have been instilled in her daughter? Rather than this being the case, according to the fabricated Nasibi traditions cited, she grooms herself and then attends the home of a possible suitor, leaving herself to the discretion of a perverted old man.

Second Objection - Such a marriage would pain Sayyida Fatima (as)

As we have already cited in chapter one from Sahih al Bukhari Volume 5 hadith 61

"Allah's Apostle said, "Fatima is a part of me, and he who makes her angry, makes me angry."

Tell us Afriki, will this portrayal of her daughter please Sayyida Fatima (as) or cause her pain? At the age of eleven she attends Umar's home and before marriage is fondled by him, according to your filthy, fabricated Nasibi fabricated reports. Would any mother tolerate such a report? And who is Umme Kalthum (as)'s mother? These Nasibi should be ashamed of these reports that pain Sayyida Fatima (as), but alas they have none and they cite these references on the internet as 'proof' against the Shi'a - to them harming the Shi'a is the ultimate objective, and it must be achieved at all costs even if that means incurring the displeasure of Sayyida Fatima (as). Unfortunately for them, they didn't read the traditions in much detail� till now and our exposing of the Nasibi privates, which are uncircumcised. Till now it never occurred to their puny little minds that their beloved 'Umar could be brought down in the steaming pile of paedophilia and perversion which stamp him in these very same traditions. We are exposing the Nasibi privates�it is not clean�it has been seen�they all have foreskins still�hiding their hypocrisy beneath kaftans made of the finest silk threads.

Third objection - Umar's anger would have displeased Rasulullah (s)

We read in Tareekh Kamil, Volume 3, page 27:

"Amr bin Aas said to Umar, 'Umme Kalthum binte Abu Bakr is underage and is simple'. You are rude, and even we are fearful of you. If the girl opposes you in any matter you shall get upset with the daughter of Abu Bakr, and (your rudeness to his daughter) shall pain Abu Bakr (her father).' "

If Umar's behaviour towards Abu Bakr's daughter would pain her father, we argue that on the same ground it would also anger Rasulullah (s). Why? Amr told Umar to refrain from marrying Abu Bakr's daughter on account of her young age and his rude manners and disposition which would pain Abu Bakr. Had Amr bin Aas had even an ounce of respect for Sayyida Fatima (as) he would have similarly told him not to ask for the hand of Sayyida Fatima (as)'s daughter Umm Kalthum binte 'Ali (as). Amr was concerned for the wellbeing and protection of Abu Bakr's daughter NOT the daughter of Hadhrath Fatima (as). The fathers of both girls, 'Ali (as) and Abu Bakr, were alive at the time of 'Umar allegedly considering marriage with them. The priority of 'Umar and Amr bin Aas was not to incur the wrath of Abu Bakr, whilst the texts of Ahl'ul Sunnah state when it came to 'Ali (as) 'Umar first accused him of lying by pretending his daughter was too young for marriage and was being suckled (somehow I think a father would know better than 'Umar) and then pressurised him to a point where he was coerced into saying yes, so much so that prior to the marriage he sends his daughter to 'Umar's home. "There 'Umar, according to these traditions, takes the opportunity to kiss her, hug her, place her on his knee and touch her calf and ankle i.e. to generally snog and fondle her according to these fabricated traditions which all aim to portray 'Ali as so weak and humbled by 'Umar's domination of the Khilafat that he could not even stand up for his young daughter's rights before the paedophile Khalifa who is now abusing her, something even the lowest of fathers would do to defend their daughter from. It is clear from the words used in these Nasibi traditions that the terrified girl (aged 11 according to these traditions) was being forced against her will, that she resisted the onslaught of the paedophile so that he had to use force to pull her towards him to sexually abuse her. Oh Muslims! THIS IS THE BELIEFS OF THE NASIBIS It is so sickening that we ourselves feel almost unclean when analysing these events that they believe in. Destroy the Salafi/Wahabi/Nasibi beliefs. The Holy Prophet (saws) refused to pray for the people of Najd for the Devil would rise from there, and it is from there that Wahabi'ism started. Defend the honour of the Holy Prophet (saws)! For ultimately they aim to denigrate Mohammad (saws) himself by denigrating his daughters, granddaughters, rightful successor 'Ali (as) and the other Holy Imams from the line of Mohammad (saws)."

Fourth Objection - Ahl'ul Sunnah aqeedah that a daughter of Rasulullah (s) cannot be married to a man with other wives

Sahih al Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 57, Number 76:

Narrated Al-Miswar bin Makhrama:
"'Ali demanded the hand of the daughter of Abu Jahl. Fatima heard of this and went to Allah's Apostle saying, "Your people think that you do not become angry for the sake of your daughters as 'Ali is now going to marry the daughter of Abu Jahl.' On that Allah's Apostle got up and after his recitation of Tashah-hud, I heard him saying, "Then after! I married one of my daughters to Abu Al-'As bin Al-Rabi' (the husband of Zainab, the (alleged) daughter of the Prophet) before Islam and he proved truthful in whatever he said to me. No doubt, Fatima is a part of me, I hate to see her being troubled. By Allah, the daughter of Allah's Apostle and the daughter of Allah's Enemy cannot be the wives of one man.' So 'Ali gave up that engagement. "

Whilst we reject such a tradition (and will Insha'Allah refute it in a forthcoming article) this is a tradition that the Ahl'ul Sunnah deem as Sahih. In it we learn that Rasulullah (s) was opposed to Imam 'Ali (as) taking another wife, whilst still married to Sayyida Fatima (as) on the grounds that he (s) could not tolerate her being troubled.

In his commentary of this alleged event, Mullah 'Ali Qari stated:

" Shaykh Abu 'Ali Subkee stated in Sharh Talkhees that 'for a man to marry again whilst married to a daughter of Rasulullah is haraam, as this pains Rasulullah (s) and to cause pain to Rasulullah (s) is haram.'"
Mirqaat Volume 11 page 375

On this same basis we should point out that 'Umar already had other wives and Sayyida Umme Kalthum (as) was ALSO a daughter (the distinction of daughter and granddaughter is irrelevant in this context as she was alive during the lifetime of Mohammad (saws)) of Rasulullah (s) so this would similarly cause pain to her mother Sayyida Fatima (as) and in turn to Rasulullah (s).

Based on the above incident that Ahl'ul Sunnah deem as Sahih, Imam Ali (as)'s alleged desire to marry another woman pained Sayyida Fatima (as) and Rasulullah (s). A marriage that pains these two personalities can never be cited as evidence of virtues according to Mullah 'Ali Qari. Thus, 'Umar's alleged marriage to Umm Kulthum (as), rather than being a form of praise for him as seen by the Nasibis, actually becomes a source of condemnation when analysed in depth, Not only the marriage, but 'Umar's sexual abuse and fondling of Umme Kalthum (as) prior to the alleged marriage was no doubt an act so perverse that it would pain Rasulullah (s) even further.

Fifth Objection - Umar was not the kuff (equivalent) of Umme Kalthum (as), which makes the putative existence of this marriage as untenable

As proof we shall cite the following two major texts of Ahl'ul Sunnah:

1. Sawaiqh al Muhriqa page 95 by Ibn Hajar al Makki
   
2. Nur al Absar page 21

We read in Sawaiqh as follows:

"A distinguishing feature of Rasulullah (s) is that he is the father of Fatima's descendants. The descendants of Fatima are his children. For a man or woman, marriage based on kuff (equivalent) is a necessity. A kuff for the descendants of Fatima is compulsory; a pious Hashmi cannot marry a non Hashmi".

To expand on the term 'pious' in this context we shall cite Ahsaaf al Ghaneen page 121:

"A particular characteristic bestowed upon the descendants of Fatima is piety. Suyuti wrote in Risala Zeynebia:

'�during the old days every pious person referred to (came from) the family of the Fatima whether they were Hasani or Husayni (descendants of Imam Hasan (as) or Imam Husain (as).'"

From Sawaiqh it is clear that, in the eyes of Ahl'ul Sunnah, a female descendant of Fatima can only marry a male descendant of Fatima.

Hanafi scholar Mufti Ghulam Rasul expands on this matter further, relying on the fatwas of classical Sunni Ulema in his book Hasab aur Nasab Volume 2 pages 188-190:

"Marriage between a Sayyid woman and a non Sayyid man is batil (false) on the basis that Nikah to a non kuff (equivalent) is not permitted. When the cornerstone of marriage is kuff then the marriage between a Sayyid female and non Sayyid man cannot be achieved since Sayyid women are the descendants of Rasulullah (s), and hence their equivalents can only be another one of Rasulullah's descendants. This was the opinion of Allamah Yusuf Nabhani (d. 1350 Hijri) in al Sharaf al Muhbad page 39.

Al Hafidh Jalaladeen Suyuti stated in Khasais al Kubra that 'One of the distinctions of the descendants of Rasulullah (s) is that no one else can be their kuff. Ibn Hajr al Makki (d. 974 Hijri) states 'One distinction of Rasulullah (s) is that his daughter's descendants are linked to him. As no one is the kuff to Rasulullah (s) the only kuff to his descendants can be those from his daughters lineage, which is why even one of Abbaside lineage cannot be the kuff of a female descendant of Fatima, despite the fact that they are both of Hashmi descent (Fatawi Kabeera Volume 4 page 97)'. He also stated in Sawiqh al Muhriqa page 234 that 'Our scholars have concluded that these traditions serve as proof that a distinguishing feature of Rasulullah (s) is that he is the father of Fatima's descendants, their kuff is linked to him�to that point a pious (non Sayyid) Hashmi cannot be the kuff of his descendants. Other than Rasulullah (s)'s lineage the lineage of ALL other daughters is linked to their fathers, not their mothers'.

When no one can be counted as the kuff of Rasulullah's descendants then the Nikah of a Sayyidah to a non-kuff, does not meet the criterion of a valid Nikah. Hadhrath 'Umar stated 'I prohibit women marrying their non-kuff. Imam Muhammad narrates in al Thashar from Imam Abu Hanifah that 'I am opposed to a woman of good lineage marrying one that is not her kuff.' Shah Waliyullah also cited these words of 'Umar in Hujjul Balagha, Volume 2, page 94, and added:

'In light of these traditions there are no grounds to conclude that that the concept of kuff is unproven. The character of all manner of people is all linked to their kuff� people's kuff differs, the Shari'a does not ignore such matters, which is why 'Umar prohibited women from marrying those that were not their kuff�"

Marriage needs to be conducted on the basis of one's kuff. If a non Sayyid woman chooses to marry a non-kuff of her own accord then the foundation of that marriage is false. Allamah Abdul Rahman Hazarvi stated in Bagheeyatathul Mishtur Shahdeen, page 94:

'If a pious Sayyid woman declares marriage to a non Sayyid, I do not deem such a marriage to be correct, even if the wali and the Sayyid woman are happy since marriage can only be conducted on the basis of kuff.'

The marriage between a Sayyid woman and a non Sayyid man in all circumstances is unacceptable, since this constitutes disrespect of Ahl'ul bayt, and this is not permissible under the Shari'a, on the contrary it is binding upon us to afford them respect and protection."
Hasab aur Nasab Volume 2 pages 188-189
Hasab aur Nasab Volume 2 pages 190

Mufti Ghulam Rasul proceeds to cite further Sunni Fatwas on this issue in Hasab aur Nasab, Volume 3, page 123:

"Allamah Shahrani (d. 973 Hijri) stated:

'No one can be the kuff of the Ahl'ul bayt when it comes to marriage. Ahl incorporates all the descendants of Rasulullah (s) until the Day of Judgement [Kushuf al Ghimma Volume 2 page 42]�.'

So when they have no kuff until the Day of Judgement, if a Sayyida woman marries with a non kuff, this marriage is devoid of kuff, and is not acceptable. That is why the Ulema have issued edicts concerning Sayyids.

The Shaafi Ulema have stated that the descendents of Sayyida Fatima are linked to Rasulullah (s) they share one another's characteristics and rules of kuff apply to them. In marriage they both are kuff of one another. If the girl is Sayyid and the boy is not then a Nikah cannot take place, since a non Sayyid is not the kuff of a Sayyid woman. This is because the Sayyida woman is linked to Rasulullah (s) whilst the non Sayyid male is not. The closeness to Rasulullah (s) is not shared by both�.

That is why Allamah Sayyid Shahabadeen in 'Rashafath al Sari, page 74' stated:

'Whether we are Hasani or Husayni in ancestry we only marry our daughters with those of a pious noble lineage, it is not permissible for us to marry them to a non-Sayyid.'

Mehr 'Ali Shah (ra) stated that the Nikah (marriage contract) between a Sayyid woman and a non Sayyid man is not permissible, and there is a broad agreement amongst the Ulema on this point, since such a Nikah would be with a non kuff, hence its duty on the Ulema of Islam to deem such a Nikah to be unlawful. (Fatwa Siraya page 134)
Hasab aur Nasab, Volume 3, page 123

Our objection is that Umar was NOT Ahl'ul bayt (as). So no descendant of the Holy prophet (saws) could have contracted a marriage with him, since the Ahl'ul Sunnah themselves accept that he was not the kuff of Umme Kalthum (as).

Sixth Objection - It is not even permissible to look at the foot of a Sayyida Woman

We read in Nur al Absar page 181:

"If a Sayyida woman whether she be a stranger or in Purdah is selling something do not look at her. If she purchases a shoe do not even look at her feet. If a Sayyida woman is begging on the road and your intention is not to give her any money, then change you direction".

This is the rank afforded to the descendants of Fatima (as) in the eyes of Ahl'ul Sunnah. When you cannot even look at a Sayyida woman what was 'Umar doing sexually molesting one before his alleged marriage to her, and then actually marrying her? If we are to accept that this was the daughter of Fatima (as) then Umar's iman is at risk of destruction. If the Ahl'ul Sunnah want to protect their faith and the integrity of their second Khalifa then we can only suggest that they reject the notion that 'Umar married a daughter of Fatima (as), and thus that the reported marriage of Umm Kulthum binte Ali (as) to 'Umar is fabricated.

Seventh Objection - According to the Sunnah of Rasulullah (s) and the ijma of the Ahl'ul Sunnah Ulema you cannot even shake hands with a non mahram woman

Imam of Ahl'ul Sunnah al-Tabaraani in al-Kabeer, page 486, narrated this tradition on the authority of Ma'qil ibn Yassaar:

"The Messenger of Allah (s) said: 'For one of you to be stabbed in the head with an iron needle is better for him than that he should touch a woman who is not permissible for him.'"

The Ulema of the four Sunni madhabs have relied on this and similar traditions to issue fatwas declaring the shaking hands with a non mahram woman to be haraam.

Ibn Nujaym al Hanafi in Al-Bahr al-Raa'iq, Volume 8, page 219, said:

"It is not permissible for a man to touch a woman's face or hands even if there is no risk of desire because it is haraam in principle and there is no necessity that would allow it".

Muhammad ibn Ahmad ('Ulaysh) al Maliki in Manh al-Jaleel Sharh Mukhtasar Khaleel, Volume 1, page 223, stated:

"It is not permissible for a man to touch the face or hand of a non-mahram woman, and it is not permissible for him to put his hand on hers without a barrier. 'Aa'ishah (may Allah be pleased with her) said: 'The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) never accepted a woman's oath of allegiance by shaking hands with her; rather he (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) used to accept their oath of allegiance by words only.' According to another report, 'His hand never touched the hand of a woman, rather he would accept their oath of allegiance by words only.'"

Al-Nawawi al Shaafi said in Al-Majmoo', 4/515 states:

"It is not permissible to touch a woman in any way."

Wali al-Deen al-'Iraaqi al Shaafi stated in Tarh al-Tathreeb, Volume 7, pages 45- 46:

"This indicates that the hand of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) did not touch the hand of any woman apart from his wives and concubines, whether in the case of accepting the oath of allegiance or in other cases. If he did not do that despite the fact that he was infallible and beyond suspicion, then it is even more essential that others heed this prohibition. It appears from the texts that he refrained from doing that because it was haram for him to do so. The fuqaha' among our companions and others said that it is haram to touch a non-mahram woman even if that is not touching parts of her body that are not 'awrah, such as her face. But they differed with regard to looking when there is no desire and no fear of fitnah. The prohibition on touching is stronger than the prohibition on looking, and it is haraam when there is no necessity that would allow it. If it is the case of necessity, e.g. medical treatment, removing a tooth or treating the eyes, etc., if there is no woman who can do that, then it is permissible for a non-mahram to do that because it is the case of necessity".

Shaykh Taqiy al-Deen al Hanbali in Al Adaab al-Shar'iyyah, Volume 2, page 257 also deemed shaking hands to be haram, and gave the reason that touching is more serious than looking.

When we have the Sunnah of Rasulullah (s) and fatwas of the Sunni Ulema deeming shaking hands with a woman to be haraam, what opinion should we hold of 'Umar who, according to these Sunni narrations, allowed a non mahram woman into his home and then proceeded to:

• Stroke her calf and ankle
  
• Hug her
  
• Kiss her
  
• Placed her on his lap

If the Ahl'ul Sunnah really want to continue extolling their second khalifa then they should reject this alleged marriage, since these traditions completely destroy 'Umar's character and exclude him from the position of a so-called 'rightly guided' Khalifa.

Eighth Objection - Umar supposedly exposed Imam 'Ali (as) as a liar

1. Tareekh Khamees, page 284, Volume 2, "Dhikr Auld-e-Ali"
   
2. Asad al Ghaybah, Volume 7, page 397
   
3. Zakhair al Akba, page 169, Chapter 1
   
4. Tabaqat ibn Sa'd, Volume 8, page 463

In Tareekh Khamees, page 284, Volume 2, "Dhikr Aulad-e-Ali" and Asad al Ghaybah, Volume 7, page 397, we read:

"When Umar asked for Umme Kalthum's hand, 'Ali said she is under age. 'Umar said 'By Allah this is not the case, you just don't want to marry her to me'"

We have Imam 'Ali (as)'s testimony that the girl was underage. When this is the case, then how would he then permit this marriage to continue? Was 'Ali (as) a liar in declaring his daughter to be underage? Surely a father knows better of this issue than even a potential suitor.

Our second objection under this heading is that of the diehard Sunni Imam of Ahl'ul Sunnah al Muhaddith Shah Abdul Aziz, in Taufa Ithna Ashari, chapter12, page 274, where he states:

"There is an ijma amongst the Ahl'ul Sunnah in relation to the truthfulness of 'Ali al Murthadha."

When Imam 'Ali (as) said the girl was underage then why did 'Umar not accept this, and indeed accuse 'Ali (as) of lying? Abdul Aziz proclaims that there is an ijma amongst Ahl'ul Sunnah in relation to Imam 'Ali (as)'s truthfulness. So it must be 'Umar who is lying. Further, does this references not indicate that 'Umar did not believe in the truthfulness of the family of the Prophet? Are we not led to believe that 'Umar did not deem 'Ali (as) to be honest. Do Ahl'ul Sunnah also hold this opinion? This is a question our Sunni brothers need to ask themselves.

Ninth Objection - Many of the Sahaba taunted Imam 'Ali (as) and favoured 'Umar

We shall cite the following proofs:

1. Al Isaba, Volume 4, page 268
   
2. Al Istiab, Volume 4, page 468

These sources state

" 'Umar asked for the hand of 'Ali (as)'s daughter. 'Ali (as) said the girl is underage. Then the people accused 'Ali (as) of just making up an excuse to avoid marrying his daughter to 'Umar. 'Umar asked for her hand in marriage a further two times."

We have already cited the verdict of Shah Abdul Aziz that there is an ijma amongst Ahl'ul Sunnah in relation to the truthfulness of Imam 'Ali (as). This being the case, then why did the Sahaba not accept Imam 'Ali (as)'s claim that the girl was under age? Why did they seek to incite Umar, by suggesting dishonesty on the part of Hadhrath 'Ali (as)? 'Umar then asked a further two times. Why did not a single Sahaba not object to 'Umar's doubts over Imam 'Ali (as)'s claim and cite the testimony of Rasulullah that 'Ali is with the truth and the truth is with 'Ali'? What kind of irresolute and amnesic people were the Sahaba? The delusion regarding their true nature lies in the minds of the Nasibis.

We would suggest to our Sunni brothers that, if they really wish to protect 'Umar, then they should accept that the Umme Kalthum that he married was not the daughter of 'Ali and Fatima (as). For, otherwise these traditions form an indictment of 'Umar's character far more painful for him than any supposed merit you give him on account of securing the alleged marriage.

Tenth Objection - Umar drove 'Ali (as) to despair, causing him much pain

1. Tareekh Baghdad, Volume 6, page 182
   
2. Sawaiqh al Muhriqa, page 94
   
3. Ahsaaf al Ghaneen, page 124

We read in Baghdad and Sawaiqh:

"'Umar asked for the hand of 'Ali's daughter. 'Ali replied that she is too young. 'Umar eventually made 'Ali desperate, and he ['Umar] climbed the pulpit declaring 'By Allah, I have made 'Ali desperate as I heard Rasulullah (s) say that on the Day of Judgement.'"

So here we are told that 'Umar climbed the pulpit and drove Imam 'Ali (as) to despair by seeking to coerce him in the presence of others. If our opponents claim that Imam 'Ali (as) happily married his daughter to 'Umar, then this makes 'Umar a blatant liar, for he climbed the pulpit and gave false testimony in the name of Allah (swt). If this is indeed the case and 'Ali was brought to a point of despair due to the unrelenting pressure exerted on him by 'Umar, then 'Umar had violated the Sunnah of Rasulullah (s) in the process. This is because we read in Sahih al Bukhari that Rasulullah declared "Ali is from me and I am from him" and in Riyadh al Nadira, Volume 3, Rasulullah (s) said, 'Whoever causes pain to 'Ali, causes pain to me'. We should point out to Ahl'ul Sunnah that if you accept these references, then you are in effect accepting that 'Umar caused pain to Imam 'Ali (as). This in turn means that he caused pain to Rasulullah (s). Do you really wish to ascribe to such a viewpoint?

Eleventh objection - The absence of the father in the Nikah makes this marriage void

We read in Sawaiqh al Muhriqa, Page 155

"When 'Umar asked 'Ali for the hand of Umme Kalthum in marriage and said, 'I want to get the high status from (marriage to) her (the Holy Prophet (saws)'s granddaughter)', 'Ali asked Hasan and Husain to marry off their sister to 'Umar. They replied by saying that she was a woman and could decide for herself, to which 'Ali (as) got enraged and stood up. Hasan grabbed the clothes of his father and said, "We cannot tolerate you being angry with us'. Hasan (as) and Husayn then married Umme Kalthum to 'Umar."

In Islamic Law, when a virgin is to marry, the presence of the Wali al Amr (Guardian), that is the male relative who is the woman's guardian, is compulsory. In this regard we have proof from the Sunnah of Rasulullah (s), for we read in Muwatta Imam Malik Book of Marriage Chapter 28,Hadith Number 28.2.5:

"Yahya related to me from Malik that he had heard that Said ibn al-Musayyab had said that Umar ibn al-Khattab said, "A woman is only married with the consent of her guardian, someone of her family with sound judgement, or the Sultan."

The late Deobandi scholar Ashraf 'Ali Thanvi in his book of fatwas, Bahishti Zehwar, under the Chapter of Nikah, subsection "The Wali or Legal Guardian", states:

"The person who has the power or choice of getting a boy or girl married is called a wali.
1. The first wali of a boy or girl is their father. If the father is not present, the grandfather becomes their wali. If he is not present, then the great grandfather."

In light of the comments of 'Umar, and the fatwa of his diehard advocate Thanvi, we would like to pose this question:

When the father of Sayyida Umm Kalthum Imam Ali (as) was present, how could he ask Imam Hasan (as) and Imam Husayn (as) to marry off their sister?

All the traditions suggest that at the time of marriage, Umme Kalthum was very young. The Shari'a stipulates that in the case of the marriage of an immature girl, the presence of a caretaker and a witness is compulsory. According to the Hanafi school of thought, the presence of the father is also a must, and his absence would make the marriage void.

Twelfth Objection - According to Ahl'ul Sunnah Aqeedah an "if" marriage is void

As we had cited earlier, we read in Al Istiab, Volume 4, Page 469, that that the father of the putative bride, Imam Ali (as), told 'Umar 'I will send Umme Kalthum to your house, if you like her, she will be your wife'. A marriage based on "If" is called a "Mualiq", and according to the Maliki, Shafi and Hanbali schools of thought, it is considered void.

Thirteenth Objection - The complete ignorance of the Sahaba with regards to the marriage

We read in Al Istiab, Volume 4, Page 467:

"'Umar asked 'Ali for the hand of Sayyida Umme Kalthum in marriage, to which 'Ali replied that she was still very young. 'Umar asked that he be allowed to marry her as he wanted to attain a high status that no one else could attain. 'Ali said that he would send Umme Kalthum to 'Umar, and if he liked her, he would marry him to her. With that, 'Ali gave Umme Kalthum a piece of cloth and told her to go to Umar and tell him that 'This is the piece of cloth that I was telling you about'. Umme Kalthum went to 'Umar and repeated these words, to which 'Umar replied, 'May Allah be happy with you, I like it'. 'Umar then touched the calve muscle of Umme Kalthum, to which Umme Kalthum said, "What are you doing? If you were not the Khalifa, I would break you nose". After that Umme Kalthum returned to Hadhrath 'Ali and relayed what had transpired, and she asked him, 'Why did you send me to that filthy old man?' 'Ali said, "O daughter, he is your husband". After that 'Umar attended a gathering of the Muhajireen and asked them to congratulate him. They asked him why (they should congratulate him). 'Umar replied, "I have married Umme Kalthum the daughter of 'Ali".

'Umar's asking the unsuspecting Muhajireen to congratulate him having secured this marriage is recorded in exactly the same manner by Imam of Ahl'ul Sunnah Halabi in Kitab-ul-Sirat, Page 46.

Whilst we have already commented on these filthy narrations we should point out that this alleged marriage would be a unique one for other reasons also. No relatives or friends were invited to act as chaperones, but instead the father sends her daughter to the man and says if you like her, I will marry her to you. Can the Nasibi cite any marriage that has been conducted in such a secret manner? This was of course no ordinary marriage, this was the marriage of the khalifa to a member of Ahl'ul bayt (as), and yet the Sahaba were completely in the dark, they had no idea that the marriage had taken place, and only heard of it when Umar told them! Indeed, as the khalifa there should have been no shortage of witnesses. There are no witnesses to this marriage. What a strange affair. Did 'Umar marry her to himself with no witnesses. A man and woman cannot marry secretly and alone, only in the presence of each other. This marriage simply did not take place. That is why there are no witnesses to it.

The above tradition points to the fact that the companions of Prophet Muhammad (s) were kept unaware of this event, it was only after Umme Kalthum got angry with Umar and returned home, that 'Umar asked people to congratulate him. When the companions asked for the reason, 'Umar informed them of his marriage to Umme Kalthum (as). What is also extremely interesting is that 'Umar ibn al Khattab deemed the practice of a secret marriage to be an offence that merited the death penalty:

We read in Muwatta Imam Malik, Book of Marriage, Book 28, Number 28.11.26:

"Yahya related to me from Malik from Abu'z-Zubayr al-Makki that a case was brought to 'Umar about a marriage which had only been witnessed by one man and one woman . He said, "This is a secret marriage and I do not permit it. Had I been the first to come upon it, I would have ordered them to be stoned."

How exactly could 'Umar hold such a stern view of a secret marriage when he himself was party to a secret marriage that none of the Sahaba were aware of? Rather he should have stoned himself to death. This is how totally implausible this alleged marriage is becoming on analysing it in detail. It is nothing but a concoction of the Nasibis.

Fourteenth Objection -The absence of a Marriage (Nikah) makes this alleged marriage void. This is how ridiculous the whole concept of this alleged marriage is.

Despite all their lies, the followers of Mu'awiya forgot one crucial point - there is no narration of the Nikah ceremony (rite of the marriage contract). In none of the traditions can we locate witnesses to the marriage. Moreover, we do not read anything about the Nikah ceremony, where the Bride and Groom accept each other before and through witnesses. The acceptance part of Nikah and the presence of witnesses are the most compulsory components of marriage, without which no marriage after Adam (as) married Hawa (as) can occur. Yet none of the traditions note these two facts. Worthy of note is the fact that there is not even a single tradition in the Saha Sittah (the six most authoritative works of only Hadith of Ahl'ul Sunnah) that makes reference to the Nikah ceremony of 'Umar to Sayyida Umme Kalthum (as). In fact, no book in existence does. What is the purpose of a witness, then? No witnesses, no marriage counted. This marriage just didn't happen.

Fifteenth Objection - The failure to seek the bride's consent means that Imam 'Ali (as) violated the Shari'a (astaghfirullah)

If we simply rely on her date of birth rather than the Sunni traditions, and rightly depict the age of Sayyida Umme Kalthum, we can conclude that at the time of marriage, she was around ten or eleven years of age. This age would make her competent enough to make a decision when a marriage proposal was made according to Islamic law. We should stress that none of the traditions suggest that she had consented to the marriage. All we learn is that it was only after Umar's misbehaviour that the news is broken to her that, from the moment she returned to inform her father 'Ali (as) of 'Umar's behaviour with her, he is now her husband, "Daughter, he is your husband" (Al Istiab, Volume 4, Page 492). This means that despite her hatred of the dirty old man 'Umar as evinced in her words of complaint to her father 'Ali (as), Umme Kalthum (as) was totally unaware of the fact that she was being vetted for marriage by 'Umar when he fondled her. Further, it is clear she had not given her consent to marriage with him, which was proclaimed the moment she returned to her father's house. This is very disconcerting for it is clear that the alleged bride did not consent to marriage, thus the marriage is null and void.

This marriage, which is a fabrication, would also suggest that Imam 'Ali (as) had violated the Sunnah of Rasulullah, for it is stated clearly in Sahih al Bukhari, Bab ul Nikah Volume 7, Book 62, Number 67:

The Prophet said, "A matron should not be given in marriage except after consulting her; and a virgin should not be given in marriage except after her permission." The people asked, "O Allah's Apostle! How can we know her permission?" He said, "Her silence (indicates her permission)."

The Sunnah states that we have to ask the permission of the girl before getting her married and that the father / guardian cannot force a girl to get married. So according to both the cases, the marriage can stand void, since Umme Kalthum did not consent to the marriage. She was married to Umar despite her obvious enmity to him and her complaints about his advances which repulsed her.

Sixteenth Objection - Umar's desire to marry his son in law's grand daughter

Hadhrath Hafsa, daughter of 'Umar was the wife of Rasulullah (s). Umme Kalthum (as) was the daughter of Imam Ali (as) and Sayyida Fatima (as). Sayyida Fatima (as) was Prophet Muhammad's (s) daughter from his first wife, Sayyida Khadija (as). This would therefore make Sayyida Umme Kalthum (as) the step granddaughter of Hadhrath Hafsa, and the step great granddaughter of 'Umar. Is it believable that 'Umar would deem it fit to marry his step great granddaughter? To assert that Imam Ali (as) married Sayyida Umme Kalthum (as) to 'Umar is thus not only an insult to Imam Ali (as), but to 'Umar as well. We find it difficult to conceive that any noble respectable family would ever agree to such a marriage. From the reports of Ahl'ul Sunnah we learn that Hadhrath Umar, at the reported time of this alleged marriage, was an old man, who already had wives and offspring. What was the need for him to marry again?

Rather than blindly jump for joy when citing these references we would urge those with a little common sense to contemplate the reality. Ask yourselves:

1. 'Is it really believable that a middle aged man deemed it acceptable to marry his son in law's granddaughter?'
   
2. What opinion should we hold of a man that marries his great grand daughter?

If we, for the sake of argument, accept Ibn Hajr's comments in Sawaiqh al Muhriqa, page 94, that she was underage, and couple this with the narrations in which 'Umar placed the girl in his lap. Then this would suggest that 'Umar was treating her partly as a child and, when he fondles her, partly as a future wife. Similarly, the girl's sitting aptly on his lap, likewise, would suggest that she deemed him to be a grandfather, but her being pulled against her will towards him that she considered him to be also a paedophile. If 'Umar had sought to secure this marriage for his son, then that would have been more acceptable, but for himself? We believe that such a marriage contradicts logic and morals, and that no muslim society would deem it acceptable for a man to marry a child that was his son in law's grand daughter.

Seventeenth Objection - Why didn't Imam 'Ali (as) marry his elder daughter to Umar?

The traditions of Ahl'ul Sunnah clearly state that 'Umar wanted to marry Umme Kalthum (as) who is referred to as a child. Why did 'Umar deem it necessary to marry this child, when we know Imam 'Ali (as) had an elder daughter called Zeyneb (as). Hadhrath Zeyneb (as) was baligh, so why did 'Umar insist on marrying a child?

Similarly, in muslim societies, it is deemed as deeply insulting to marry off a younger daughter when the elder daughter is not yet married. This is also commonsense. Why did Imam 'Ali (as) therefore not ask 'Umar to marry his elder daughter. After all, the only thing that 'Umar was interested in was attaining status in society by closeness to Rasulullah (s), by his own admission. This would have been achieved, likewise, had he married Umm Kalthum (as)'s elder sister, who was also unmarried at the time, and Imam 'Ali (as) would have lessened the burden that rested on his shoulders by marrying off his eldest daughter. Yet 'Umar decides to marry the younger sister, a girl so young that her father says she is being breastfed. The reason shall be explained later - Umm Kalthum (as) was chosen as the sister to be married to 'Umar in this sordid fairytale by the Nasibi liars, because her name was the same as that of a real wife of 'Umar, whose name was also Umm Kalthum, though she was not a daughter of 'Ali (as) and Fatima (as). This issue is dealt with in detail later on.

Eighteenth Objection - Umar opposed the Shari'a when he proposed to marry an engaged girl

We are citing from the following texts of Ahl'ul Sunnah:

1. Tabaqat Ibn Sa'd Volume 8, page 338, Dhikr UMME KALTHUM
   
2. Al Isaba Volume 8, page 466, Dhikr Umme Kalthum
   
3. Zakhair al Akba, Part 3, page 168

Ansar.org states:

Ibn Sa'd in his work at-Tabaqat al-Kubra (vol. 8 p. 338, ed. Muhammad 'Ab al-Qadir 'Ata, Dar al-Kutub al-'Ilmiyyah, Beirut 1990) writes as follows: "I was informed by Anas ibn 'Iyad al-Laythi, who reports on the authority of Ja'far ibn Muhammad [as-Sadiq], and he from his father [Muhammad al-Baqir]- that 'Umar ibn al-Khattab asked 'Ali ibn Abi Talib for the hand of Umme Kalthum in marriage. 'Ali said, "I had kept my daughters for the sons of Ja'far." 'Umar said, "Marry her to me, O Abul Hasan, for by Allah, there is no man on the face of the earth who seeks to achieve through her good companionship that which I seek to achieve." 'Ali said, "I have done so." Then 'Umar came to the Muhajirun between the grave [of Rasulullah r ] and the pulpit. They-'Ali, 'Uthman, Zubayr, Talhah and 'Abd ar-Rahman-used to sit there, and whenever a matter used to arrive from the frontiers, 'Umar used to come to them there and consult with them. He came to them and said, "Congratulate me." They congratulated him, and asked, "With whom are we congratulating you, O Amir al-Mu'minin?" He replied, "With the daughter of 'Ali ibn Abi Talib." Then he related to them that the Nabi r said, "Every tie of kinship, and every association will be cut off on the Day of Qiyamah, except my kinship and my association." ['Umar said,] "I have had the companionship of Rasulullah r ; I would like also to have this [kinship]."

We challenge Afriki to analyse the above tradition and answer this:

1. When Imam 'Ali (as) had told 'Umar that his daughter was to marry his nephew, then why was 'Umar scheming and seeking to encourage Imam 'Ali (as) to break off the engagement of his Hashmi relative of Rasulullah (s), so that he could marry her instead? Can a decent reply be given to the dishonest method that 'Umar had employed? Further, 'Umar tried to spoil relations between 'Ali (as) and his family, for Ja'far-e-Tayar (as) was 'Ali(as)'s eldest brother, and had been martyred during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet (saws) while doing Jihad. Ja'far (as)'s sons were very young and orphans. It is forbidden in the Qur'an for a man to try and create fitnah within another man's family. 'Ali (as) had engaged his daughters to his orphaned nephews. Is it not fitnah for 'Umar to scheme and try to make an uncle harden his heart towards his orphaned nephews?
   
   
2. Why did Imam 'Ali (as) automatically push aside his nephew, break off the agreement, and prefer to automatically marry off his non baligh (Sagheera) daughter to an elderly man? Can any logical explanation be given for this? Would not a young girl be more matched and happier with one of Ja'far (as)'s sons, who were young, rather than an old man with a white beard?

All three books contain details of this event, recording it as follows:

"Umar asked for the hand of 'Ali's daughter. 'Ali replied, I have arranged for my daughter to marry my nephew the son of Ja'far".

This makes it clear that Umme Kalthum was betrothed to Imam 'Ali (as)'s nephew. With this in mind we would urge our readers to analyse the following traditions:

We read in Sahih al Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 73:

"Narrated Ibn 'Umar:
The Prophet decreed that one should not try to cancel a bargain already agreed upon between some other persons (by offering a bigger price). And a man should not ask for the hand of a girl who is already engaged to his Muslim brother, unless the first suitor gives her up, or allows him to ask for her hand."

This hadith is also narrated on the authority of Ibn Umar in Sahih al Muslim, Bab ul Nikah, Book 008, Number 3286 and Sunan Abu Daud, Kitab al Nikah Book 11, Number 2076.

Similarly we read in Muwatta Imam Malik Kitab al Nikah, Book 28, Number 28.1.1:

"Yahya related to me from Malik from Muhammad ibn Yahya ibn Habban from al-Araj from Abu Hurayra that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "Do not ask for a woman in marriage when another muslim has already done so."

Umar's asking for the hand of a girl who was already engaged to a muslim, and of which he was told by the girl's father, in effect constitutes an action that was haram for him. It would have been even more disdainful to the traditions of the Holy Prophet (saws) to continue to pursue the matter any further. Sahih al Bukhari, Sahih Muslim and Sunan Abu Daud all confirm that it is not permissible to inquire with regards to a girl whose marriage has already been arranged, i.e. is engaged. Let us for the sake of argument assume that 'Umar had no idea that Umme Kalthum had been arranged with Imam 'Ali (as)'s nephew, until his conversation with Imam 'Ali (as). Once Imam 'Ali (as) had informed 'Umar that Umme Kalthum was engaged, it was then incumbent upon 'Umar to remain silent, yet he persists in his intentions and tries to
coerce Imam 'Ali (as) to break off the arrangement and marry Umme Kalthum to him.

Rather than prove the high merit of 'Umar, this incident also destroys his character, portraying him as a sinner who blatantly breaches the Sunnah to satisfy his own desires. The reason the Nasibi traditions give for 'Umar's desire to marry the daughter of 'Ali (as), this being his desire to become linked to the descendants of Mohammad (saws), is so that they can say that 'Umar was like Ahl-UlBait. However, this would be such a ridiculous assumption that no one says this, not even the Nasibis of today. So they failed in at least one objective in their fabrication of this tradition�sadly, they did not fail in the others�to denigrate the status of Ali (as) and to suggest that he married his daughter to 'Umar. This article sets the issue straight. The whole tradition is fabricated. There was no marriage. Neither did 'Ali (as) lower himself in this way. 'Umar's paedophilia is a matter for the Nasibis to discuss and to try and exonerate him from, assuming they wish to and do not instead prefer to leave their beliefs the way. This they might so as to assuage the practices of certain members of the Saudi royal family, who can duly claim that they are following the Sunna of 'Umar when they surf internet child porn sites, pick up rent boys and pay them for a visit to their rooms in Western hotels and casinos.

Nineteenth Objection - Afriki has sought to present Imam 'Ali (as) as an untrustworthy hypocrite

We object to the suggestion that when a daughter's marriage has already been arranged, the father then decides to break it and give her elsewhere, due to subtle coercion. This contradicts logic and the Shari'a.

The Ahl'ul Sunnah also deem Imam 'Ali (as) to be the fourth rightly guided khalifa, and their texts confirm that he had made it clear that Umme Kalthum was to be married elsewhere. How is it that Imam 'Ali (as), having set the issue straight with 'Umar that Umm Kalthum's hand is not for him and that she is already betrothed to Ja'far-e-Tayar (as)'s son, who is her age and a deserving orphan, then switches sides and marries his young daughter to a 55 year old man, already married with kids? According to these traditions, 'Ali (as) did not even consult with the sons of Ja'far-e-Tayar (as) to whom his daughter was engaged before reneging on his pledge with them. The fact is, as we can see here, that Ansar.org writer Afriki has intentionally decided to cite this reference to portray Imam 'Ali (as) as untrustworthy, implying he did it to get a rich son-in-law in the khalifa. This is how the Nasibi scum think about 'Ali (as), a man renowned by the Sunnis for his ascetic character, knowledge of Allah (swt), and his renouncement of this world and its materialism. On the other hand, 'Umar's own words testify that he sought marriage for status. And status and materialism go hand-in-hand.

This tradition is a bitter attack on the character of Imam 'Ali (as), for we read in Sahih al Bukhari, Kitab al Iman Volume 1, Book 2, Number 32:

"The Prophet said, "The signs of a hypocrite are three:

1. Whenever he speaks, he tells a lie.
   
2. Whenever he promises, he always breaks it (his promise).
   
3. If you trust him, he proves to be dishonest. (If you keep something as a trust with him, he will not return it.)"

There is no greater promise than to give one's daughter in marriage. Imam 'Ali (as) had promised to marry his daughter to his nephew, and he made this crystal clear in tradition cited by Ibn Sa'd. But then, having made the promise, are we to believe that he would then break it so blatantly upon Umar's insistence. In effect this would suggest the behaviour that is expected from an hypocrite. Was Imam 'Ali (as) an hypocrite (Astaghfirullah). We are not prepared to accept any tradition that suggests that Imam 'Ali (as) contravened the Shari'a and by doing so behaved in the way of the hypocrites. Nor, must it be said, do the Sunnis�.but the Nasibis are quite capable of implying this. It proves their insincerity.

Twentieth Objection - The depiction of an untrustworthy Imam 'Ali (as) contradicts the aqeedah of Ahl'ul Sunnah

Whilst no doubt Afriki has no qualms citing the Ibn Sa'd tradition which depicts Imam 'Ali (as) as a man that does not stick to his word, we should point out that such a portrayal contradicts the aqeedah of Ahl'ul Sunnah. Nasibi, Salafi Imam Shaykh Naasir al-'Aql sets out Ahl'ul Sunnah aqeedah as follows:

"The noble companions are all trustworthy ('udool) and they are the best of this Ummah".
The General precepts of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah, by Shaikh Naasir al-'Aql, page 34 - 35 English translation by 'Abu 'Aaliyah Surkheel ibn Anwar Sharif, published by Message of Islam

If this is indeed the case then how is it that Afriki has advanced evidence that portrays a man they regard as one of the Sahaba, Imam 'Ali (as), as anything but trustworthy? Can a man who makes a clear promise to one individual and then blatantly violates that promise in favour of another individual be deemed as trustworthy? If the answer is no, why exactly has Afriki advanced evidence that contradicts his own aqeedah?

Twenty first Objection - Umar's use of unacceptable language towards the family of Rasulullah (s) when his offer is rejected

We read in Tadhkira al Khawwas, page 181, Chapter 11, that:

"'Ali refused 'Umar's offer of marriage for his daughter. He stated that she was too young and that he had arranged for her to marry his nephew, but 'Umar did not accept this. 'Abbas approached 'Ali and said 'Marry her to him' for I have received unacceptable words (words that cannot be repeated) from 'Umar.

The verse of Mawaddath in the Qur'an makes love and respect for Ahl'ul bayt (as) compulsory. However, here 'Umar uses unacceptable language. His mocking of Imam 'Ali (as)'s refusal, and in other references his desire to publicly humiliate him and his deeming him to be a liar, in effect suggests that 'Umar had no respect for Ahl'ul bayt (as). Numerous traditions, included those cited in this article earlier on, testify to 'Umar's violent temper and the fact that he would lose control over his own self (nafs) and exceed the limits laid down by Allah (swt).

Twenty second Objection - According to the aqeedah of Ahl'ul Sunnah, Umar participated in an haram act

Contemporary Hanafi scholar Mufti Ghulam Rasul in Hasab aur Nasab, Parts 3 & 4 (combined edition), page 157, cites the following episode from classical Sunni sources:

"Allamah Suyuti, Mullah 'Ali Qari, and many other hadith scholars have recorded this episode:

'Hadhrath Shaana, the son of Imam Hasan Mujtaba, sent an individual to Al-Miswar bin Makhrama with a proposal to marry his daughter. When the proposal reached Al-Miswar bin Makhrama, he said 'By Allah, in my eyes no family, no son in law relationship is greater than this, but Rasulullah (s) said 'My daughter Fatima is a part of my flesh, anything that pains her, pains me'.' Miswar then added, 'The daughter of Fatima is in your home (referring to Fatima the younger, the daughter of Husain bin 'Ali). If I give my daughter in marriage (to you), this matter shall pain Fatima.'" [Khasais al Kubra Volume 2 page 256)".
Hasab aur Nasab, Volume 3-4 page 157

The comments of Mufti Ghulam Rasul on this incident are worthy of note. He continues:

"The proposal reached Al-Miswar bin Makhrama, but he stated that this matter would pain the Leader of the Women of Paradise, and he did not want any descendant of Rasulullah (s) to be pained on account of his actions. From here it is clear that to pain the descendants of Fatima is on a par with causing pain to Sayyida Fatima and is thus haram, in exactly the same way that it is haram to cause pain to Rasulullah (s)."
Hasab aur Nasab, Volume 3-4 page 158

The above incident has also been recorded in Zakhair al Ukba, under the chapter "Itrat Fatima", Page 39, where we learn that it was on this basis that:

"Shaykh Subkee stated that to marry a daughter of Fatima to a man with other wives is haram".
Zakhair al-Ukba, Page 39

We should point out to our readers that at the time of this alleged marriage, one of 'Umar's wives was still alive, and according to Ahl'ul Sunnah for him to then marry a daughter of Fatima (as) was haram. A haram act can never be deemed to constitute a virtue on the part of 'Umar. On the contrary, if he contracted such a marriage, he would be questioned about it on the Day of Judgment.

Twenty third Objection - Umar's grounds for marriage contradict the aqeedah of Ahl'ul Sunnah

'Umar claimed that this marriage [to a descendant of Rasulullah (s)] would benefit him in the next world. Such an assertion contradicts the aqeedah of Ahl'ul Sunnah wa al Jamaah.

Our simplest proof lies in the fact that those of Ahl'ul Sunnah who are influenced by the Nasibi fabricators, believe that the closest relatives of Rasulullah i.e. his parents died kaffirs and shall NOT benefit from their relationship to him (s) in the next world. This is acknowledged widely in the works of Ahl'ul Sunnah. Here are just some sources that allege that the parents of Rasulullah (s) were kaffirs.

1. Sahih Muslim page 360, Volume 1, Kitab "Janaiz"
   
2. Sunan Ibn Majah, Bab Majah fi ziyarata kubul mushrikeen
   
3. Sunan Nasai, Page 9, Chapter 4, "Ziyarathul Kaboor"
   
4. Sunan Abu Daud, Volume 3, Page 218, "Kitab al Janaiz"
   
5. Sunan Al Kubra, Page 76, Bab "Ziyarthul Kaboor"
   
6. Mishkat Sharif Volume 1, Page 139, Bab "Ziyarathul Kaboor"
   
7. Musnad Abi Awana, Page 99, Volume 1, Bab "La yad khul al Jannatha al nufs masala"
   
8. Musnad Abi Hanifa, Page 105
   
9. Musnad Imam Ahmad and Abdullah bin Masud, Page 297, Volume 4
   
10. Sharh Fiqh Akbar by Mullah Ali Qari, Page 128
    
11. Kitab Fatawi, Maulana Abdul Hai, Page 84
    
12. Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Page 394, commentary on the verse Tauba, Chapter 6
    
13. Tafsir Khazain, Page 129, Verse Tauba, Verse 115
    
14. Tafsir Kabir by Fakhruddin Razi, Page 315, Chapter 6, Surah "Shaurah"
    
15. Tafsir Ruh Al Ma'ani, Page 11, Surah Tauba, Verse 115
    
16. Tafsir Ghara'ib Al Qur'an, Page 30, Chapter 5, Ayat 115
    
17. Tafsir Mazhari, Page 306, Chapter 4
    
18. Tafsir Al Durr Al Manthur, Page 184, Chapter 3, Verse Tauba
    
19. Kitab Naudi Sharh Muslim, Page 214, Chapter 1
    
20. Mirqat Sharh Mishkat, Page 113, Chapter 4, "Al Kaboor"
    
21. Tafsir Fath Al Qadeer, Page 392, Chapter 3, Surah Tauba, Verse 151
    
22. Ta'rikh Khamees, Page 230, Chapter 1, Dhikr Aaya al Buya
    
23. Muradhij Ul Nubuwwa, Section 3, Chapter 4, Part 21, Page 179
    
24. Siratul Halabiyya, Page 82, Chapter 1, "Wafat walida a Nabi"
    
25. Siratun Nabawiyya, Page 239, Chapter 1, "Lum yuziu Islam abwiyya"
    
26. Al Bidayah Wa Al Nihaya, Page 281, Volume 4, "Raza al Nabi"

For the sake of brevity we shall cite two sources.

We read in Musnad Ibn Hanbal Volume 4 Page 297:

"Two men approached Rasulullah (s) and said, 'Our mother was a pious lady and has died'. Rasulullah (s) said 'Your mother is in Hell'. The men left with anguish on their faces. Rasulullah (s) called them back saying, 'My mother is also in Hell with your mother'".

Similarly, about Rasulullah (saws)'s father we read in Musnad Awana Volume 1 Page 99:

"A man approached Rasulullah (s) and said, my father has died. Rasulullah said 'He is in Hell'. As he [the man] was about to depart, Rasulullah called him back and said 'Your father and my father are both in Hell'.

Now from the Tabaqat tradition that Afriki had cited 'Umar wanted to contract this marriage because:

Ansar.org states:

"the Nabi r said, "Every tie of kinship, and every association will be cut off on the Day of Qiyamah, except my kinship and my association"

So 'Umar wanted to benefit from his relationship with Rasulullah (s). We object to such reasoning because in Islam, one's eminence rises only through piety, not through relationships. This is testified to in the Qur'an. It is ironic that these Nasibi believe as part of their aqeedah that the parents and uncles of Prophet Muhammad (s) were non-believers, and that he will be unable to intercede for them. Is this not clear proof of the double standards that these Nasibi apply? On one hand, they claim, 'Umar will attain salvation on account of his marriage to the descendant of Prophet Muhammad (s), whereas on the other hand, the close relatives of Prophet Muhammad (s), like his parents, uncles etc., will perish in the fire. If according to 'Umar, such a lineage shall not be severed on the Day of Judgement, how is it that Rasulullah (saws)'s link with his parents shall be broken to the point that they shall be in Hell on the Day of Judgment? When Rasulullah's own parents cannot benefit from their relationship with him then how could 'Umar? Are natural parents closer than a grandson in law?

This is, of course, a manifestation of the terrible self- contradiction within Nasibi'ism. The path of truth, however, is not self-contradictory.

If 'Umar felt that salvation could be attained due to claiming that he was related to the Holy Prophet (saws) on Judgment Day, and that Heaven could be achieved on account of this basis, is it safe to conclude that Rasulullah (saws)'s uncle Abu Lahab shall also benefit from this relationship? Yet Abu Lahab is called the Father of the Flame in the Qur'an. If Abu Lahab cannot benefit from this relationship then neither can 'Umar, who persecuted the Ahl'ul bayt (as) and introduced countless bidah's into the religion. Umar's stance is fraudulent, as is the claim of this alleged marriage.

Being the husband / wife of an esteemed personality does not provide a means of salvation in the next world; if this was the case then it shall benefit Pharaoh, the brother of Hadhrath Asiya (as). The marriage relationship was also of no avail to the wives of the Prophets Nuh (as) and Lut (as). We should also point out that according to Ahl'ul Sunnah, though not us, Utbah ibn Abu Lahab married to a daughter of Mohammad (saws) and was thus, they claim, the son in law of Rasulullah (saws). Despite this he remained a kaffir, hence the son in law relationship shall also be of no benefit to him in the next world.

We should point out that if Umar's intention was to seek salvation via this marriage (through creating a closer relationship to Rasulullah), then he had already attained this since his daughter Hafsa was married to Rasulullah (s). So, why is he denying the children of Ja'far-e-Tayar (as) their right in marriage by breaking up the engagement. Is he greedy? If 'Umar felt that , thus far, he had been unable to attain the rank of someone after whose name 'radhinathallanho' would be pronounced through his existing relationship with Rasulullah (saww), then why would 'Umar marrying Umme Kalthum have been sufficient for him to attain such a rank and thus salvation.

Twenty fourth Objection - The Dower that 'Umar gave contradicts his own edict

As proof we shall cite the following texts:

1. Al Istiab Volume 4 page 469 - Dhikr Umme Kalthum
   
2. Al Isaba Volume 4 page 469 - Dhikr Umme Kalthum
   
3. Asada al Ghaybah Volume 7 page 387 - Dhikr Umme Kalthum

We read in Al Isaba, Volume 4, page 469:

"Umar gave Umme Kalthum dowry totalling 40,000 dirhams".

We read in Sunan Abdu Daud Book 11, Number 2101,Kitab al Nikah, that:

"Abul Ajfa' as-Sulami said: Umar (Allah be pleased with him) delivered a speech to us and said: Do not go to extremes in giving women their dower, for if it represented honour in this world and piety in Allah's sight, the one of you most entitled to do so would have been the Prophet (saww). The Apostle of Allah (saww) did not marry any of his wives or gave any of his daughters in marriage for more than twelve uqiyahs."

Hadhrath Umar was clearly voicing his opposition to excessive dower, and was telling people to look to the Sunnah of Rasulullah (s) for an example.

We also read in Taufa Ithna Ashari, Part 7, page 298, that:

"One day Umar gave a sermon prohibiting the excessive giving of dowry, and issued a warning that any dowry in excess of 500 dirhams would be confiscated. Upon saying this a woman interjected saying 'Allah says in the Qur'an that an entire treasure chest can be given as dowry.' Upon hearing this Umar replied 'Everyone knows more than me on matters of Fiqh even women in veil."

In addition to exposing 'Umar's stern fatwas about the marriage dower, it also exposes 'Umar's being a non Mujtahid, and his own confession of nothing more than the most meagre religious knowledge about the Shari'a. How odd that he is regarded as a rightfully guided khalifa! But, not only would such a large dower contradict the Sunnah of Rasulullah (s) it would also contradict the second Nasibi khalifas own order. Tell us, Afriki, when 'Umar was making an order that no one could give dowry in excess of 500 dirhams, then why did he give 40,000 dirhams as dowry when marrying Umme Kalthum (as)? Does a Khalifa not lead by example? Clearly 'Umar strongly disapproved of the practice of the excessive giving of dowry, to the point that he made his displeasure known to all So why would he then act in violation of his own opinion and give such an extravagant dowry? If this marriage is not a fabrication, then does this excessive dowry not expose double standards / hypocrisy on the part of Umar, a hypocrisy that is all too common amongst leaders who do not practice what they preach. 'Do as we say, not as we do' may have been 'Umar's motto. Can such a motto be that of the true Khalifa? Absolutely not.

Twenty Fifth Objection - The Ahl'ul Sunnah have sought to portray Imam 'Ali (as) as unjust, and this contradicts the Sunnah of Rasulullah (s)

We shall cite the following Sunni books as proof:

1. Al Istiab, Volume 4, Page 468
   
2. Asadaul Ghaybah, Volume 7, Page 387
   
3. Zakheer Al Akba, Page 168
   
4. Tareekh Khamees, Volume 2, Page 384

All four texts record the following words of Umme Kalthum:

"You sent me to a disgraceful, ill-mannered man".

This is Umme Kalthum (as)'s appraisal of 'Umar from her own tongue, and it is clear that she was unhappy and outraged at this marriage, and despite this Imam 'Ali (as) still decided to marry her. Should the traditions about the marriage be true, they report a marriage that constitutes a clear breach of the Shari'a, a sin, and an obvious injustice. Shah Abdul Aziz in Taufa Ithna Ashari, Page 85, states:

"An Imam is an example of the Prophet".

Our argument with these Nasibi, is that in their efforts to exalt the rank of 'Umar, they have shown disrespect towards Rasulullah (s), as these texts portray Imam 'Ali as unjust. Such a depiction of Imam 'Ali (as) is completely incomprehensible since the justice of Rasulullah (s) and Imam 'Ali (as) was one and the same. In this regard we have the testimony of 'Abu Bakr to consider:

"Verily Allah (swt) and his Prophet (s) spoke the truth, I heard Rasulullah (s) say on the night of Hijrah as we left Makka 'My hand and Ali's hand are EQUAL in dispensing justice'"
Manaqib by Ibne Maghazli Al Shaafi, Page 98. This Hadith can also be found in Kanz Al Ammal, Volume 11, Page 604

Thus, any depiction that portrays Imam 'Ali as unjust likewise means that Rasulullah (s) was unjust (astaghfirullah) and this contradicts the Sunnah of Rasulullah (s) and hence can never be presented as evidence to support a claim.

Twenty sixth objection - 'Umar's private meeting with Umme Kalthum (as) contradicts the Shari'a

We read in Sahih Al Muslim, The Book of Pilgrimage (Kitab Al-Hajj), Book 007, Number 3110:

"Ibn 'Abbas (Allah be pleased with them) reported: I heard Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) delivering a sermon and making this observation: "No person should be alone with a woman except when there is a Mahram with her, and the woman should not undertake journey except with a Mahram."

Imam of the Nasibis, the Salafi Sheikh ibn Baz, the chide scholar of Saudi Arabia, and fortunately recently deceased, in 'Al-Fataawaa ash-Shar'iyyah fil-Masaa'il il-'Asriyyah min Fataawaa 'Ulamaa' il-Balad il-Haraam', pp. 498-499, stated about a man and woman who are not mahram:

"�is not permissible with him being alone with her. Rather, her father, or brother, or someone else must be with them. This is because the Prophet (Sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam) said, "A man must never be alone with a woman unless there is someone who is a Mahram with them." (Agreed upon in Sahih Al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim.) He (Sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam) also said, "A man must never be alone with a woman, for verily the Satan is their third." (At-Tirmithee and Ahmad)"

This reference and the accompanying Salafi Fatwa makes it absolutely clear that according to Ahl'ul Sunnah a man and woman cannot be alone together UNLESS the woman is accompanied by a mahram. Is it therefore even conceivable that Imam 'Ali (as) would intentionally send his daughter unaccompanied to the home of a non-mahram man? Did it not dawn on 'Umar that he was breaching the Shari'a, by conversing with Umme Kalthum whilst she had no mahram accompanying her? If we are to accept these filthy traditions then they in effect suggest that both Imam 'Ali (as) and 'Umar flagrantly violated the Shari'a: Imam 'Ali (as) by sending his daughter to 'Umar without accompanying her, and 'Umar by being alone with her.

Twenty seventh Objection - these traditions would expose 'Umar as a paedophile / pervert

We started this topic by citing the filthy depiction of this marriage from the texts of Ahl'ul Sunnah. Those with respect for Ahl'ul bayt (as) have tried to distance themselves from such vile, un-Islamic filth that strike at the very roots of human morality. Sibt Ibn Jauzi Al Hanafi attacked these traditions as follows in Tadkirathul Khawas al-Ummah, page 321:

"My grandfather states in his book that 'Ali sent his daughter to 'Umar and 'Umar touched her calf and kissed her. And by Allah this is vile and despicable, even if she was a slave 'Umar may not have done this to her, and furthermore in accordance with ijma of the Ulema, the touching of a non-mahram is not allowed. Then how can these traditions be attributed to 'Umar?"

So how can we believe this marriage happened? For this is what the traditions dealing with this alleged marriage all say happened between the girl and the old man (I will not use the word boy as 'Umar was 55 and the girl a child). Clearly Ibn Jauzi had more sense that these modern day Nasibi. It dawned on him that these traditions were filthy and presented 'Umar as a pervert and would be used as ammunition by the Shi'a in years to come. He was right in that. If the Nasibis accept this marriage happened. There is no doubt left that 'Umar was a paedophile, and there can be no foundation left to Sunni Islam. It just dies, for the second of their rightly guided khalifas can in no way be called rightly guided�he was, rather, a twisted paedophile, and as we shall see later, also bent, according to these Nasibi transitions. Ibn Jauzi used common sense and logic, rightly concluding that no respectable father would behave in this manner, let alone make the girl physically attractive to the potential suitor!

In Sawaiqh, Page 94, Ibn Hajr al Makki sought to justify the incident as follows:

"'Umar's actions of embracing and kissing Umme Kalthum are not haraam as she was underage and such actions are permissible as is not the case with an adolescent woman"

What? Then how could he have married her if she was underage. He also touched up her calf? Is that acceptable with even little girls?

This is indeed very interesting, since according to Afriki:

Ansar.org states:

Umm Kalthum was the second daughter of 'Ali and Fatima, and the youngest of their four children. She was born in about the year 6 AH. She became of marriageable age during the khalifa of 'Umar ibn al-Khattab, and the khalifa asked for her hand in marriage.

According to Afriki's assessment that would make her 11 years of age when the alleged marriage took place (17 Hijri) so she was NOT as young as Ibn Hajar would have us believe! Yet Ibn Hajr insists that she was a very small girl of the age that is sat in a lap, though providing no evidence for this! Whichever option the supporters of Mu'awiya choose, both rather destroy the character of 'Umar. We would like to ask Ibn Hajr the following:

If this is indeed Umme Kalthum binte Fatima (as) then she was 11 / 12 years of age at the time (as Afriki had rightly calculated) then why is it that the writers of Ahl'ul Sunnah have referred to her as Sagheera (Child) and some as Sabeeya (milk fed)?'.

These terms cannot be used for a girl that has attained puberty, and in the Arabic - English Dictionary by Hans Wehr, page 517, Sagheer is defined as:

"a minor under age".

If this was indeed the 11 / 12 year old Umme Kalthum that Afriki claims, then how could Imam 'Ali (as) as a responsible father send his adolescent daughter to 'Umar, who then takes the opportunity to place the girl on his knee, kiss her and fondle her? This type of action is all the more obscene when one takes into account that, according to Sahih Al Bukhari, Ayesha was deemed to be mature enough to have sexual intercourse when she was nine years of age (Sahih al Bukhari, Bab ul Nikah Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64) - Umme Kalthum binte Fatima (as) was older than even Ayesha was, allegedly, according to the Sunnis.

If, as Ibn Hajr claims, Umm Kalthum (as) was underage, then we would like to ask 'Is it permissible under Shari'a for a man to marry a girl that is underage?' If it is, could our opponents cite some proof. If it is not, then it in fact suggests paedophilia on the part of 'Umar who married / consummated marriage with an underage girl. Some of the traditions refer to Umme Kalthum (as) as Sabeeya - a term referring to a child that is still being suckled. The risk of infectious diseases at that time meant that mothers would have breast fed their children into their early years (4 / 5 years) of age. Ibn Hajr's attempts to defend 'Umar were also based around the fact that Umme Kalthum (as) was of a very young age. If we, for the sake of argument, accept Ibn Hajr's account of the placing of the girl in his lap by 'Umar as being because she was very young, this would certainly indicate she was very young indeed - still being breastfed and nowhere near puberty. This leaves the Ahl'ul Sunnah with serious questions to ask of 'Umar, for two Sunni scholars, Yaseen Maussali in Al Madhahib, Page 98, and 'Umar Reza Kulalla, in Ulum Al Nisa, Page 256, both state that:

"Umar married her in 17 Hijri, and consummated the marriage a year later when she became baligh".

Now our question is simple:

'How can a girl, so young as to be breastfed and young enough for 'Umar to place her on his lap, suddenly transform into being called an adolescent in only one year?'

Such a transition is simply not biologically possible. For despite the defence of these Sunni authors, whether the date of consummation of this alleged marriage was 17 Hijri or 18 Hijri, the Umme Kalthum depicted as a suckled child could not, scientifically, have become an adolescent in the space of only one year. This leaves the followers of Mu'awiya in a very precarious position, for we are led to believe that 'Umar ibn al Khattab has sex with an underage girl. Paedophilia is a haram act, punishable with execution!

If, according to Afriki, she was mature enough to marry, then 'Umar's actions of fondling a baligh girl before marriage make him a perverted sinner who had contravened Shari'a. Both versions do not portray the second khalifa in a particularly favourable light; on the contrary they would suggest that he was a twisted pervert who deserved to be locked up. 'Lock up your daughters' would the people have cried when such a man approached, yet in the Nasibi concoction of this marriage we are also led to believe that 'Ali (as) sent his non-mahram daughter to this man unaccompanied!

If the above-mentioned traditions are to be believed, then they mean that 'Umar acted indecently with a young girl. In normal circumstances, an ordinary man would be punished severely for committing this crime. Why was no legal action brought against Umar, or was it that his position made him beyond the law? Or rather, the whole event of this marriage is a diseased concoction, an outright fabrication of the Nasibi Ulema of the past, to insult 'Ali (as), elevate 'Umar (inadvertently shooting him in the foot in the process) and to justify the paedophilia and perversions of the corrupt khalifas that bankrolled them. I'll take the latter as the real reason for these inconsistencies that turn morality upside down.

These traditions slander 'Umar in a manner that the Shi'a could exploit. We are however a just people and are not prepared to accept that even 'Umar behaved in such a manner with 'Umme Kalthum, daughter of Fatima (as). It is indeed amusing that the Shi'a are always accused of attacking the character of 'Umar when in fact the Ahl'ul Sunnah, by seeking to prove this marriage happened, are tarnishing the reputation of their beloved second khalifa. We ask Ansar this question:

How does it look to a non-believer when the Ahl' ul Sunnah, who claim to love and respect 'Umar, attribute filthy actions to him, whilst the Shi'a, who are deemed to be the enemies of 'Umar, are trying to defend him of an unjust accusation, by rejecting these narrations and asserting that such a marriage never occurred? We believe 'Umar did many deviant things to gain power, but we do not believe that he was a paedophile�it is you who believe this for you believe in this marriage, the very existence of which is highly contentious.

One should point out that the narrations also discredit the character of Hadhrath Hafsa for she failed to refrain her father from committing perverse acts that no muslim society would ever deem to be acceptable.