The second Shi'a tradition

Ansar.org states:

Muhammad ibn Abi 'Umayr-Hisham ibn Salim, who narrates that -Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq said: "When ['Umar] proposed to Amir al-Mu'minin, he said, 'She is a child.' Then he ['Umar] met 'Abbas and asked him, 'What is wrong with me? Is there a problem with me?' 'Abbas asked, 'Why?' 'Umar replied, 'I asked your nephew for his daughter's hand in marriage, and he rejected me. Oh, I swear by Allah, I will fill the well of Zamzam with earth, I will destroy every honour that you have, and I will set up two witnesses to testify that he stole, that I may cut off his right hand.' 'Abbas thereupon came to 'Ali and informed him of what had transpired. He asked 'Ali to put the matter in his hands, and 'Ali complied." (Furu' al-Kafi, vol. 5 p. 347-348, Dar al-Adwa, Beirut 1992)

Reply one - other than condemning Umar, the tradition sheds no light on Umar marrying Umme Kalthum (as)

Afriki needs stronger spectacles for the tradition of al Kafi that he no doubt is advancing to prove Umar's esteemed status in marrying Umme Kalthum (as), does nothing for him, other than present him as liar who was willing to bring false allegations against an innocent man to gain some type of personal benefit. An individual who threatens to amputate the hand of a man who has committed no crime can never be deemed as just. Rather he is an oppressor. Had Afriki had an ounce of intelligence he would have never bothered to produce a reference that presents Umar in such a degrading manner.

If we scrutinise the tradition we see that key words that would have otherwise proven Afriki's case are missing. We do not see the words "UMME KALTHUM" "Nikah" and nor is there any clarification that Abbas was witness to this wedding. This reference only highlights Umar's actions, that he was prepared to bring a false allegation against Imam 'Ali (as) to get his own way. The tradition does not establish the marriage of Umar. In fact the tradition is so vague it does not even mention UMME KALTHUM by name, so on what basis has Afriki reached his conclusion?

Reply Two - You can only rely on evidence that supports your claim

The Ahl'ul Sunnah claim that Imam 'Ali (as) happily married his daughter to Umar. This tradition does not concur with such a claim, there is no evidence that Imam 'Ali (as) willingly married his daughter to Umar, this cannot not be surmised from the text, nor from interpreting its meaning. Ahl'ul Sunnah's argument cannot be proven from the text, nor logic since the tradition that Afriki relied on makes no reference to UMME KALTHUM binte Ali.

Reply Three - You can only cite evidence that you believe to be true

It is indeed incredible that Afriki has cited a reference that he does not accept. There is no way that he would accept that Imam 'Ali (as) rejected Umar's offer and then Umar threatened to bring false witnesses and have the hand of Imam 'Ali (as) amputated! If Afriki is citing evidence that he himself does not believe then why is he producing it as evidence to support his case?

Reply Four - Personal viewpoints do not constitute proof

Afriki (in light of this hadith) has deduced that this proves that Imam 'Ali (as) married his daughter Umme Kalthum (as) to Umar. We should point out that in the same way that Afriki's very own Nasibi Imam Ibn Taymeeya stated that the 'personal views' of Ayesha and Umar cannot constitute proof, - the personal views of Afriki or for that matter any Shi'a scholar cannot constitute proof, unless such comments are accompanied by clear unequivocal evidence. If the proof has been based on the 'personal opinions' - of a very vague tradition, then personal opinions have no weighting to the argument.

Reply Five - Examination of the Arabic destroys Afriki's claim that this hadith referred to 11-year-old Umme Kalthum binte Fatima (as)

If we examine the Arabic closely we will see that in reply to Umar's offer, Imam 'Ali (as) replied "ka la na Sabeeya". Afriki had defined this as 'She is a child.' In Arabic Sabtha is not just a child - it's a milk fed child (i.e. Is still breast fed). We should point out that Imam used exactly the same term in the tradition of Tabaqat Ibn Sa'd.

The term Sabeeya here would in effect deem marriage impossible since this refers to a milk fed child, how could Imam 'Ali (as) marry his daughter when she was STILL being suckled? Is this believable in terms of logic? The word definitely refers to an infant child that of course infers one being weened on milk, and has been used by Allah (swt) in Surah Maryam verse 29 when referring to Hadhrath Esau (as):

But she pointed to the babe. They said: "How can we talk to one who is a (Sabeeya) child in the cradle?"

Yusuf Ali translates the word as 'child in the cradle' and other English transliterations such as Pickthall and T.B. Irving have also translated Sabeeya in the same way.

The term Sabeeya here would in effect deem marriage impossible since this refers to a milk fed child, how could Imam 'Ali (as) marry his daughter when she was STILL being suckled? Is this believable in terms of logic? The word definitely refers to milk, and has been used by Allah (swt) in Surah Maryam�

A child that is so young that she is being given milk is referred to as "Sabeeya". Now as Afriki had himself pointed out:

Ansar.org states:

Umme 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 khilafat of 'Umar ibn al-Khattab, and the khalifa asked for her hand in marriage.

Now the marriage of Umar to Umme Kalthum binte 'Ali (as) is alleged to have taken place in 17 Hijri, this would have made her eleven years of age. This being the case how can Imam 'Ali (as) refer to his daughter (in this tradition) as being milk fed? Umar died in 23 Hijri and the maximum age that a child is milk fed is four or five, this being the case then how could this same milk fed child, married aged five - attain puberty and give birth to two children in six years? It is agreed by both Sunni and Shi'a Ulema that where a tradition contravenes logic, the fault lies with the narrator's recollection of the event, not the Imam (as) and such an illogical narration cannot constitute proof.

Some might assert that Imam 'Ali (as) use of the word "Sabeeya" was just an example that she was young. To counter such an assertion we should point out that the term Sabeer is an exclusive one that refers specifically to a child that is so young that they are still being milk fed. If Umme Kalthum was slightly older but still young Imam 'Ali (as) would have used the words "Sagheer" - that means Young. This was a term that was used by Rasulullah (s), we read in Sunan Nasai that when Abu Bakr and Umar asked for the hand of Sayyida Fatima (as) Rasulullah (s) made replied "Na Sagheera" - meaning "No she is too young" rather than "Na Sabeeya" meaning she is milk fed. Applying this to the hadith that Afriki had advanced, the term Sagheera would have applied to eleven year old Umme Kalthum. The term Sabeeya that Imam 'Ali (as) used was much more applicable to Umme Kalthum daughter of Abu Bakr, as according to Ahl'ul Sunnah she was just five years of age at the time (17 Hijri) and a 5 year old child can still be milk fed (Sabeeya). In light of Ayesha's stipulations for marriage, when Umar asked to marry Umme Kalthum binte Abu Bakr. When a correct interpretation of a tradition can be made (in light of proven facts) then that tradition can be accepted. From the authentic Ahl'ul Sunnah sources it is quite clear that Umme Kalthum binte Abu Bakr was this milk fed child, and if the hadith is interpreted in this way then we have no bone of contention with the Nasibi.

If the Nasibi are going to ask why this tradition exists, a tradition that makes no sense, then exactly the same could be asked of the tradition in Tabaqat ibn Sa'd where Imam 'Ali (as) refers to his daughter as a milk fed child.

Reply Six - Imam 'Ali (as) rejected Umar's offer

If the Nasibi are going to take issue against us with regards to these words in the traditions, namely Umar's comments to Abbas:

'I asked your nephew for his daughter's hand in marriage, and he rejected me'.

We should point that the term 'rejection' can also be found in Ahl'ul Sunnah texts. The Sahaba had pointed out to Umar that he had been rejected by Imam 'Ali (as) and you can see this in 'Asba fi tamheedh al Sahaba' Volume 14 page 468 - where the Sahaba said to Umar - 'Ali rejected you'. When this term appeared on the lips of the Sahaba (in Sunni texts) then our opponents have no right to raise objections against us. The word Nikah cannot be found in the whole narration, the only thing that is proven from the text is that Imam 'Ali (as) rejected Umar's proposal to marry his daughter.

Reply Seven - The tradition portrays Umar as an unjust liar

In the third portion of this reference Umar says:

"Oh, I swear by Allah, I will fill the well of Zamzam with earth, I will destroy every honour that you have, and I will set up two witnesses to testify that he stole, that I may cut off his right hand.'

There is no doubt that this potion shall cause immense pain to Afriki and his likes since it portrays the second khalifa as unjust. We would like to point out to Afriki that if he has presented this reference to 'prove' that this marriage took place, then he cannot just accept the portion that supposedly supports his claim. You have to accept the tradition in its entirety. If a defence lawyer in a court case is relying on a witness testimony of an event as proof, he will have to rely on his ENTIRE testimony - he can't take bits that he likes and discredit the bits that he does not. So tell us Afriki since you have presented this evidence as 'proof' to support you claim, does this mean that you (as the hadith states) accept that Umar was an unjust liar? If you do not then why are you citing this reference as evidence to prove your argument?

If anything, our assertion is that this evidence tallies up with the text of Ahl'ul Sunnah Tadhkira Khawwas page 181 Chapter 11 in which Sibt ibn Jauzi al Hanafi states that Abbas had asked that Imam 'Ali (as) marry his daughter as he "received unacceptable words from Umar". This was the unacceptable language that had been cited in al Kafi. These two traditions clearly tally up with one another, and in the same way that a mother seeks to cover up the faults of her daughter, Ibn Jauzi had sought to cast a veil over the words of the second khalifa towards Hadhrath Abbas.

Reply Eight - Afriki's claim cannot be proven from the text

In the fourth and final portion of this hadith, we read as follows:

'Abbas thereupon came to 'Ali and informed him of what had transpired. He asked 'Ali to put the matter in his hands, and 'Ali complied."

We would urge our readers to carefully read through this hadith from start through to its conclusion, does it inform us that Imam 'Ali (as) married his daughter Umme Kalthum to Umar? Proof of any argument can be determined from the words that are used, if the words are clear and a narration is complete. Now does this tradition cited by Afriki have a clear ending from where we can conclude what happened? Once Imam 'Ali (as) hands his daughter over to Abbas (ra) what happens next? The hadith does not state that Abbas then married the girl to Umar. There is no reference to any "Nikah" taking place between Umar and Umme Kalthum (as). Neither do we learn of a public Nikah with multiple attendees, nor a small private Nikah with Abbas present as Umme Kalthum's witness. If you are trying to convince your opponents of an argument - guesswork / assumptions can never be advanced as proof. So, based purely on the text of al Kafi, without an interpolation exactly what has Afriki proven from this tradition? Nothing from this al Kafi tradition points to a marriage taking place, so would like to ask this Nasibi 'how have you arrived at this conclusion?'

Reply nine - Historical precedent refutes Afriki's false claim

Imam of Ahl'ul Sunnah Allamah Shibli Numani in his authority work 'al Faruq" whilst discussing how best to eliminate doubts over the authenticity of any given event, states:

"It should at first be ascertained whether the event itself lies within the pale of possibility, for, if the event is not possible, the veracity of the narrator is useless. Ibn Khaldun has also pointed out that possibility in such instances does not signify logical possibility but that which is in accordance with the laws of Nature and Society"
al Faruq Volume 1 page 18

With this point in mind we should point out that in Sunan Nasai Volume 6 page 62 "Kitab Nikah" and Riyadh al Nadira Volume 2 page 128 we learn that that:

"Abu Bakr and Umar both made a proposal to marry Fatima, the daughter of Rasulullah (s), but he (s) stated that she was too young".
Riyadh al Nadira Volume 2 page 128

When Rasulullah (s) was not prepared to marry his own daughter to Umar on account that he was not her 'kuff' on account of her young age, this clearly referred to age gap between her and Umar, as she was not too young to marry Hadhrath 'Ali (as). With this in mind we should point out that UMME KALTHUM was the youngest child of Sayyida Fatima (as). This would have therefore meant a massive age gap between Umar and UMME KALTHUM. We also assert that Imam 'Ali (as) would have likewise rejected Umar due to the age gap, to do otherwise and accept the proposal would have contradicted the Sunnah of Rasulullah (s). Alhamdolillah, we the Shi'a do NOT believe that Imam 'Ali (as) would ever contravene a Sunnah / precedent that had been set by Rasulullah (s).

Reply ten - Ahl'ul Sunnah aqeedah requires two witnesses to a wedding

As proof we shall rely in the following authority texts of Ahl'ul Sunnah:

1. Al Hidayaa ma al dhur'ayaath, page 304 Kitab Nikah
   
2. Al Durrul Mukthar, Volume 2 page 2 Kitab Nikah
   
3. Fatawa Qadhi Khan, Volume 1 page 153 Kitab Nikah
   
4. Al Fiqh a'la madhaib al Raya Volume 4 page 28 Kitab Nikah
   
5. Taufa Ithna Ashari page 258

We read in Taufa Ithna Ashari page 258:

"The difference between the rules of Talaq and Nikah are that with a Nikah the necessary components are the declaration and two witnesses"

We read in Al Hidayaa ma al dhur'ayaath, page 304 Kitab Nikah:

"Without the presence of two witnesses a Muslim Nikah is not correct"

The Shi'a Madhab deems the presence of a witness and declaration to be a Sunnah

We are relying on the following Shi'a texts to support our assertion:

1. Sharh al Islam, Chapter Sharh Islam, Bab al Ahdah
   
2. Jawhur Al Ahkam Volume 2 page 29 "Kitab Nikah" (Tehran edition)

"The presence of two witnesses at a Nikah ceremony is mustahab (recommended), and their absence is makruh (not favourable). Imam 'Ali (as) stated that a Nikah should not be conducted when a guardian and witnesses are absent. Amongst the Shi'a, Abi Aqeel school and a group amongst Ahl'ul Sunnah have issued fatwas that the presence of witnesses to the Nikah is wajib"

In Sunni and Shi'a Fiqh the declaration and the presence of a witnesses is compulsory. Our challenge to the adherents of Ahl'ul Sunnah who claim Umar married UMME KALTHUM binte Fatima (as) is simple:

Produce us evidence that will shed light to the following:

1. When was the declaration for the suspicious Nikah made?
   
2. Who were the witnesses to the Nikah?

The Ahl'ul Sunnah will never be able to reply to these two questions, since the identity of the witnesses and the declaration can be located in any of their authoritative books, and it is on this basis that we assert that this entire event is a concoction.

Reply eleven - The al Kafi tradition does not support Afriki's claim

The al Kafi tradition that Afriki brought before the Shi'a to embarrass serves only as a slap in his face. UMME KALTHUM here refers to UMME KALTHUM binte Junth, and we would urge our opponents to examine our replies with an open mind. As we have stated Sabeeya refers to a milk fed child, a term that exists in al Kafi and Tabaqat Ibn Sa'd.

From examining the narration from start to end there is no reference to Imam 'Ali (as) referring to Umar as his son in law, nor is there any reference to a wedding ceremony. All that this reference proves is that Umar was an oppressor, an unjust liar who brought suffering to the Ahl'ul bayt (as). If Afriki by citing this 'proof' expects the Shi'a community to sit up and afford respect to Umar based on this tradition then we are afraid that his efforts have failed abysmally. We shall never deem an unjust person as an Imam, as to do so would contradict the Qur'an, wherein Hadhrath Ibrahim (as) had stipulated that Imamate not be given to the unjust.