ayesha - truth about the prophet's (pbuh) wife

Ayesha

Work file: the_ayesha.pdfProject: Answering-Ansar.org Articles

Revisions:

No. Date Author Description Review Info2.0.0 22.12.2008 Answering-Ansar.org 2nd Edition

1.0.0 23.01.2002 Answering-Ansar.org Created

Copyright © 2002-2008 Answering-Ansar.org. • All Rights Reserved

of 89

Contents

Table of Contents

1.CHAPTER ONE - THE REBELLION OF AYESHA AGAINST IMAM ALI (AS) .......... 3

2.CHAPTER TWO – REFUTING THE DEFENCES SUBMITTED BY AYESHA’S ADVOCATES ............................................................................................................................... 8

3.CHAPTER THREE – REFUTING THE OBJECTIONS OF AYESHA’S ADVOCATES ...................................................................................................................................................... 41

4.CHAPTER FOUR - UNTANGLING THE LIES SPUN BY AYESHA’S ADVOCATES ...................................................................................................................................................... 46

5.CHAPTER FIVE: THE STANCE OF IMAM ALI (AS) ..................................................... 62

6.CHAPTER SIX: AYESHA'S ENMITY TOWARDS IMAM ALI (AS) ............................. 64

7.CHAPTER SEVEN – THE MERITS OF AYESHA FROM THE PEN OF HER ADVOCATES ............................................................................................................................. 68

8.WAS AYESHA THE MOST SUPERIOR WIFE OF RASULULLAH (S)? ...................... 69

9.THE 'TRUE' SHIA POSITION WITH REGARDS TO AYESHA .................................... 85

10.COPYRIGHT ........................................................................................................................ 89


of 89

1. Chapter One - The rebellion of Ayesha against Imam Ali (as)

1. Ayesha's entry onto the battlefield of Jamal was a violation of the Quran

Allah (swt) states clearly with regards to the wives of Rasulullah (s):

"And stay quietly in your houses, and make not a dazzling display, like that of the former Times of Ignorance;...." Al-Quran 33:33

Comment

Our contention is that Ayesha’s leaving her residence following the demise of the Holy Prophet [s] and accompanying into battle a rebellious male movement that opposed the Khalifa of the time, was an open violation of this verse.

2. Are the Shia incorrect for interpreting the verse in this literal manner?

Ansar.org and Ibn al Hashimi unsurprisingly object to our citation of the above verse, their arguments are as follows:

Ansar.org states:Ordering to stay at houses does not contradict leaving the house for an ordered benefit as when the woman leaves the house to go to hajj or omrah, or leaves with her husband in a travel. This verse came down in the life of the Prophet peace be upon him and the prophet peace be upon him traveled with his wives afterwards, as the prophet peace be upon him traveled with Aysha and others to Hijjat Al-Wida’a. Also, the Prophet peace be upon him sent Aysha with Abdulrahman, her brother ... Hujjat Al-Wada’a happened before the Prophet’s demise by less than three months after the revelation of this verse. Therefore, prophet’s wives were going to hajj in the Caliphate of Omar and others as they used to with the Prophet and Omar gave Uthman or Abdulrahman bin Owf the leadership of the prophet’s wives’ caravans. Accordingly, if it is allowed for the prophet’s wives to travel for a benefit, then Aysha thought that by her departure a reformation for the Muslims could happen. She interpreted in that matter.”

Ibn al Hashimi states:Allah’s command to stay in the house was a general condition set upon not only the Prophet’s wives, but all women in general. This does not mean that women can never leave the house; it is rather a general rule of thumb so that they


of 89

remain chaste and in Purdah. However, it is permissible to leave the house for ordered duties, such as Hajj, Umrah, or travelling with one’s husband. Verses 33:32-34 were revealed to the Prophet (صل�ى ال عليه وآله وسل�م), and he himself travelled with his wives after this. For example, he travelled with Aisha (رض�ى ال عنها) to Hijjat Al-Wida’a, and this occurred three months after the verse was revealed. Surely we are not so crass as to accuse the Prophet (صل�ى ال عليه وآله وسل�م) of violating the meaning of this verse!

Even after the Prophet’s death, the Prophet’s widows performed Hajj; it is narrated that Umar (-or Abdul (رض�ى ال عنه) gave Uthman (رض�ى ال عنهRahman bin Owf (رض�ى ال عنه) the leadership of the caravan carrying the Prophet’s widows. “Accordingly, if it is allowed for the Prophet’s wives to travel for a benefit, then Aisha thought that by her departure a reformation of the Muslims could happen [and Muslim lives would be saved]. She interpreted it in that matter.” (Minhaj Al-Sunnah, vol.4, p.317-318)

3. Reply One – The failure of the Salafis to interpret this verse literally exposes their hypocrisy

We find it amazing that the same Nawasib whose whole doctrine around Tawheed insist on interpreting all those verses relating to the face, hands, eyes of Allah (swt) as literal proof of his having a physical body, suddenly insist that this verse need to be interpreted in a non literal way! When the traditional Salafi approach is believing that Allah (swt) has a physical body because the Quran says so, why aren’t they prepared to accept that Ayesha was prevented from leaving her home, because the Quran says so?

4. Reply Two – There is a difference between travelling with the Prophet (s) and travelling without him

Could Ibn al Hashimi kindly explain the difference between attending a venue that requires all children to be accompanied by adults, and children attending such a venue unaccompanied? It is lawful for children to enter that venue provided they are accompanied by adults, if they enter without one they automatically break the law. The Sharia sets out rules and regulations and we are duty bound to conduct our lives within the boundaries set for us. One such boundary for the wives of the Prophet (s) was leaving the confines of one’s home. Traveling alongside Holy Prophet [s] would obviously not be a violation of this verse, since he [s] was their husband and most importantly, the one with a comprehensive knowledge of Islamic rulings.

5. Reply Three – There is a massive difference between going on Hajj and co-coordinating a violent campaign against the Head of State

By weaving the notion of traveling for the purpose of pilgrimage into the debate, both Nasibi authors have sought to convince their naïve readers that the verse was not instructing the wives of the Holy Prophet [s] to remain confined in their homes. It is important to point out here that performing pilgrimage is a personal spiritual journey that neither courts controversy


of 89

nor negatively impact upon others; can the same be said of Ayesha’s movement against Caliph Ali (as)? Certainly not, as we shall evidence later, her:

• leaving her residence,• enlisting men to oppose Imam Ali (as)• leading an opposition campaign that caused the spectacular loss of Muslim life (and that

too when the Holy Prophet [s] had forewarned her of her seditious conduct)

cannot be compared to someone leaving their dwelling for the purpose of peaceful pilgrimage!

Even if we were to accept that the verse permitted the wives of the Holy Prophet [s] to come out where necessity warranted it, how can her leaving her home, travelling through Iraq to co-ordinate a violent opposition that sought to pressure the Head of State to accede to her demands constitute necessity?

Whilst Ahlelbayt.com and Ansar.Org authors insist that the wives of the Prophet (s) performed Hajj after his (s) death, they should know that during the farewell pilgrimage, the Prophet [s] had told his wives that it was their last pilgrimage and that there was no need for them to leave their homes for this purpose again. The Sunni scholars have evidenced this in their commentaries of none other than verse 33:33. We read in Tafseer Dur al-Manthur, Volume 6 page 599:

Muhammad bin Sirin narrated that Saudah the wife of the Prophet (s) was asked ‘why did you not perform Hajj and Umrah like the other wives of the Prophet (s)?’ Saudah said, ‘I have performed Hajj and Umrah (before) and Allah ordered me to remain in my home. By God I will not leave home until my death.’ (Ibn Sirin) said: ‘By God, she did not leave her home until her death, when her funeral bier was taken out.’

Ibn Kathir records in Al-Bidayah wal-Nihayah, Volume 7 page 119:

وأما بقية" هذه ثم ظهور الحصر " ولم تحج بعد حجة الوداع ل هي ول سودة، لقوله عليه السلم لزواجه وال ل تحركنا بعده دابة: أزواج النبي صلى ال عليه وسلم فكن يخرجن إلى الحج وقالتا زينب وسودة .

After the Farewell Hajj, she (Zainab) and Sauda never performed Hajj again because the Prophet (s) had said: ‘This is your last Hajj, after this you must pray on floor mats’, [whilst] the other wives would perform Hajj, Zainab and Sawda would say ‘Nothing shall move us’.

6. Reply Four – Imam Ali (as) deemed Ayesha’s leaving her home to oppose him to be a violation of the Quranic verse

The Nawasib can provide as much advocacy as they like, but it will not succeed in refuting the fact that Ayesha did breach the conditions imposed on her in the Quranic verse under discussion. Our assertion is substantiated by the position of Imam Ali (as) who deemed her conduct to constitute a breach of this Quranic verse. We read the following account in Iqd al-Fareed, Volume 2 page 108, wherein he (as) cascaded his view to Ibn Abbas (ra) who then presented it to Ayesha:

He (Ali) said: ‘Go to that woman and tell her to return to her home wherein Allah had ordered her to remain’. He (Ibn Abbas) said: ‘I therefore went to her and asked permission to enter, but she didn’t grant it. I therefore entered the house without her permission and sat on a cushion. She (Ayesha) said: ‘O ibn Abbas, by Allah I have never witnessed anyone like you! You entered our house without permission and sat on our cushion without our permission’. I said: ‘By Allah this is not your house, your only house is the one wherein Allah ordered you to remain, but you


of 89

didn’t obey. The Commander of the Faithful orders you to return to that homeland from which you had left.

Iqd al-Fareed, Volume 2 page 108

Shaykh Sibt Jauzi al-Hanafi in Tazkirah tul Khawwas page 38, Shaykh Ibn Talha Shafiyee in Matalib al Se'ul page 112 and Ibn Sabagh Maliki in Fusul ul Muhimma page 72 record that prior to the battle of Jamal:

أما بعد ، فإنك خرجت من بيتك عاصية ل تعالى ولرسوله: وكتب علبه السلم إلى عائشة

"He Ali [as] wrote a letter to Ayesha: 'By leaving your home you have disobeyed Allah (swt) and his Rasul (s)"

Comment

The Nawasib of Ansar.Org and Ahlelbayt.com submit as many excuses as they like, the fact of the matter is that the Imam of Truth, Ali (as) felt that Ayesha had no basis to support her stance; she was acting in opposition to Allah (swt) and his Rasul (s). Whose opinion should we rely on, these Nasibi writers or the Gate of Knowledge, Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib (as)?

7. Reply Five – The Sunni scholars of Tafseer have said that these verses prohibited the wives from leaving their homes

Let us now cite some Sunni commentaries to become better informed of the instructions set out in the cited verse to the wives of the Holy Prophet [s]. Imam Showkani records in Fatah al-Qadeer, Volume 4 page 395:

المر لهن بالتوقر والسكون في بيوتهن وأن ل يخرجن: ومعناه

“It means that they were instructed to remain at home and not venture out.”

Abu Bakr al-Jazaeri records in Aysar al-Tafasir, Volume 4 page 1408:

{ أي أقررن في بيوتكن ول تخرجن منها إل للحاجة{ وقرن في بيوتكن

‘{And stay quietly in your houses} means stay at home and don’t go out unless it is for a necessary thing’.

We have already stated that no sane pious person would deem the steps taken by Ayesha to constitute legitimate grounds for her leaving her home. That is precisely why some Sunni sources narrate that Ayesha (on hindsight) realized that she was wrong and had sinned by leaving her home and leading a male movement onto a bloody battlefield leaving scores of Muslims dead. This grave sinful act affected Ayesha to such an extent that whenever she recited this verse, she lamented over the tragedy that she had inflicted on the Ummah (alas, it was too late for her). It is also relevant to point out that some Sunni scholars have recorded this very reaction of Ayesha in their commentaries of this said verse, al-Ghernati for example records in al-Tasehil le Uloom al-Tanzil, Volume 2 page 365:

وكانت عائشة إذا قرأت هذه الية تبكي على خروجها أيام الجمل

Whenever Ayesha recited this verse she would weep on account of her march at Jamal (battle).

Imam Jalaluddin Suyuti records in Tafsir Dur al-Manthur, Volume 6 page 600 records:

Masrooq [ra] narrated that when Ayesha [ra] would recite this verse, she would cry so profusely that her cover would become soaked with tears.


http://islamport.com/w/adb/Web/511/608.htm


of 89

Comment

The distraught reaction of Ayesha shall suffice to water down all Nawasib attempts to distort the divine injunction placed upon the wives of the Holy Prophet [s]. Ayesha’s advocates would lead us to believe that their client exercised ijtihad for which she would receive one reward if she was wrong, with any sin committed wiped out. One wonders how correct such an approach is when textual evidence cites this distraught reaction of Ayesha. Her tears do not suggest that she was confident of her conduct being pardoned let alone be rewarded for her approach.


of 89

2. Chapter Two – Refuting the defences submitted by Ayesha’s advocates

We shall in this chapter seek to bring together the vast array of defenses presented by Ayesha’s advocates to justify her conduct and will address each one individually.

8. Defense One - Ayesha was acting as an arbiter demanding Qisas for Uthman?

Ibn al Hashimi states:The Prophet’s widow, Aisha (رض�ى ال عنها), realized that the situation was getting out of hand and that things might get ugly soon between those demanding Qisas and those delaying Qisas. She decided to act as an arbiter on behalf of Uthman’s family and friends; she herself was related by marriage to Uthman (رض�ى ال عنه), who married two of Aisha’s half-daughters.

9. Reply One – Ayesha was representing the demands of one side, not acting as an arbiter

Clearly Ibn al Hashimi does not know the definition of an arbiter. An Arbiter is an impartial adjudicator whose decision the parties to the dispute have agreed will be final and binding. Crucially an arbiter is an impartial person not connected to either party, so they have no preconception on the matters, thus ensuring that there exists no bias or predetermination. Tell us Ibn al Hashimi was Ayesha an arbiter? You have acknowledged that she was representing the interests of the family of the deceased Khalifa Utmman, to whom she was related though marital links? This means that she was demanding that Qisas be implemented (pre-determination) and was favoring one side (bias); this makes Ayesha the representative of one side not an arbiter for both! In future we would advise Ibn al Hashimi to streer clear of using technical legal terms that he knows nothing about. We would suggest that he sticks to history, but as we shall see later, he does not know that area either.

10.Reply Two - Imam Ali (as) made it clear that Ayesha had no right to demand of Qisas for Uthman

It is interesting to see Ibn al Hashimi seek to justify Ayesha’s demand for Qisas on account an in law relationship because ‘she herself was related by marriage to Uthman , who married two of Aisha’s half-daughters’. One presumes he is referring to the daughters of the Prophet (s) that were (according to Sunni sources) married to Uthman. How can Ibn al Hashimi suggest that she was representing their interests, when both women were deceased? Did they appear to Ayesha in a dream and instruct her to represent them in connection with their murdered husband? Can Ibn al Hashimi kindly show us any textual evidence wherein Ayesha claimed she was demanding Qisas for her deceased half daughters? Moreover there were eight other wives of the Prophet (s) with the same half daughters (according to Ibn al Hashimi) married to Uthman, why didn’t they deem it necessary to demand Qisas for their slain son in law? Why did Ayesha deem it incumbent to uphold the rights of her deceased half daughters and not the other wives? Rather than this remote familial marital link, another wife of the Prophet, Ramla the


of 89

sister of Muawiyah had a far greater entitlement to demand Qisas as she was from the same Ummayad tribe as Uthman, yet we don’t see any evidence of her joining any campaign trail encouraging men to avenge the death of her fallen cousin!

If Ayesha was seeking to represent the rights of her deceased half daughters, why did she not demand Qisas for her brother Muhammad bin Abu Bakr, who had been killed by Muawiyah? If she had no problem with leaving her home to opposed Caliph Ali (as) for not apprehending the killers of Uthman, why didn’t she do likewise for her brother Muhammad who had been murdered without any right to a fair trial?

Ibn al Hashimi needs to realize that the deceased in law relationship that thereby gave Ayesha some legitimate right to lead the ‘Justice for Uthman movement’ is completely baseless. Ibn al Hashimi is providing a defense for his client that she herself never claimed. Ibn al Hashimi might feel at ease when citing such pathetic justifications, but Imam Ali (as) certainly didn’t share his opinion.

In Matalib al Saul, page 116 by Shaykh Mufti Kamaluddin Ibn Talha Shafiyee, we read that when Ayesha reached Basra, Ali wrote a letter to her, part of it stated here:

فخبريني ما للنساء وقود العسكر ، وزعمت أنك طالبة بدم عثمان ، وعثمان رجل من بني أمية وأنت امرأةمن بنتي تيم بن مرة

"Tell me Ayesha what role do women have in leading armies and reforming the Ummah? You claim that you want to avenge Uthman's blood, Uthman was a man from Banu Ummaya whilst you are a woman from Banu Taym Ibn Murra".

Ibn al Hashimi might well argue that Ayesha was legally entitled to act for Uthman due through in law familial ties, but Imam Ali (as) certainly didn’t share such an assertion. This letter is clear proof that that Ayesha had no basis under the Sharia to seek Qisas for Uthman; hence Ayesha's claim was false as is the defense offered by Ibn al Hashimi. When Imam 'Ali (as) had rejected her claim, then it was her duty under Sharia to accept his decision. The demand for Qisas could ONLY come from his next of kin, which Ayesha was not. Despite this fact, Ayesha chose to ignore the comments of Imam 'Ali (as). These Nawasib are so illogical that they are unable to speak justly - they accuse Imam 'Ali (as) of entering the battlefield and causing the death of thousands, when according to Sharia, the act of rebellion against the rightful Khalifa of the Time is so serious that Ayesha could have been executed.

11.Reply Three – Only the Imam can only implement Qisas

Abu Sulaiman claimed that:

Ansar.org states:"Aysha did not hate Ali but she argued with him about the blood of Uthman".

What Ansar.org fail to point out is the fact that Ayesha's demands for Qisas i.e. that the killers of Uthman be handed over, was also contrary to the Sharia since Islamic penalties are implemented by the Head of State not the public, as and when they feel like it. Moreover Ayesha was not the heir of Uthman to demand Qisas, he was survived by sons who were adult. It was their right to demand, but even if they did, that is all that they could do, they could NOT incite and rebel against Imam 'Ali (as) if they did not get there way, as Ayesha did. You cannot hold the State to ransom, insisting that your demands are met through methods such as propaganda, incitement, and seizing control of administrative provinces.

Ayesha's very demand that the killers of Uthman are handed over to her, contradicts the Shari`a since the Head of State can ONLY enforce the Law of Qisas.


of 89

Zameer Sayyid Sharred in Sharh Mawafiq, page 530 comments:

"The Imam's duty is to implement the Shari'a, rules on Qisas, nikah jihad, Eid, the rules cannot be implemented without an Imam".

In Sharh al Maqasid page 251 we read:

"The appointment of the Imam is an absolute necessity, he implements the Shari'a and places the required limits upon man".

We read in Al-Anaya Sharh al-Hidaya, Volume 7 page 216:

ال¤ح§د§ود¥ ح¥ق© ال̈له£ ت¥ع¥ال¥ى و¥إ£ق¥ام¥ت§ه¥ا إل¥ي¤ه£ ل¥ا إل¥ى غ¥ي¤ر£ه£

“Punishments are the right of Allah almighty and implementing them is only by him (ruler) not other than him”

Imam Abu Bakr Kashani records in Badae al-Sanae, Volume 1 page 224:

إن المام يملك أمورا ل تملكها الرعية وهي إقامة الحدود

“The Imam have an authority which the people don’t has, which is implementing the punishments.”

Imam Ibn Abdin records in Takmelat Hashyat Rad al-Muhtar, Volume 1 page 134:

إقامة الحدود واجبة على المام

“Implementing punishments is the duty of the Imam’

12.Reply Four - Ayesha's incitement against Uthman refutes the defence of Qisas

Being the lead advocate demanding Qisas following his murder, could Abu Sulaiman and Ibn al Hashimi inform us about what steps Ayesha had taken to defend the slain khalifa during his lifetime? Surely a woman who was so determined that she was willing to go to war to avenge Uthman's death would have been just as vocal in defending him during his lifetime. Curiously we find that this was not the case. And when we read the annals of history, we come to know that she played vital rile in agitation against Uthman. In order to know more, we would suggest our readers to go through our article “Who really killed Uthman?” so that the whole chapter along with its correct context makes it clear that it was Ayesha who played an important role in agitation against Uthman and the very role was later testified by the people too, when she shifted her policy and decided to avenge the murder of Uthman.

13.Defence Two - Ayesha was seeking to reform the Ummah

Ansar.org states:That Aysha ignited the Battle of the Camel is a plain truth. That is because Aysha did not come out to fight, but to reform between Muslims.


of 89

14.Reply One

Herein lays the blatant contradiction of the Nawasib in the space of just one article. Ansar.Org in the same article exempt Ayesha of all wrong doing in relation to Jamal and blame it all on the Sabaites, but here we see their admission that Ayesha was responsible, not only was she responsible she in their words ‘ignited the Battle of the Camel’. Ignite by definition means ‘to arouse the passions of; excite’. If we apply this definition to Ansar.Org’s admission it becomes evident that the only way that one can 'ignite' a battle is via a campaign of propaganda in order to arouse passions and amass support for military action. I would be just as culpable if I provided petrol and a lighter to a man who subsequently set fire to a house. Similarly incitement to call people to mass opposition and rebellion against the Imam of the time is a blatant violation of the Shari'a and there exist clear provisions under the Shari'a to quell such acts of fitnah.

We would also ask Ansar and their fellow advocates:

'could reform not have been achieved by co-operating 'with' Imam Ali (as) rather than opposing and rebelling against him?'

This 'reform' entailed mass opposition / rebellion against the Imam of the time - a clear violation to the Shari'a that makes obedience to the rightful Head of State unconditional. In consequence those that supported Ayesha in her alleged 'reform' had likewise contradicted the Qur'an through their disobedience of Imam Ali (as). We would like to ask these Nawasib:

‘how can ones participation in an ijimali (combined) sin constitute 'reform'?

Allah (swt) says in His Glorious Book:

When it is said to them: "Make not mischief on the earth," they say: "Why, we only Want to make peace!" (002.011)

15.Defence Three - Ayesha was seeking to prevent bloodshed and open rebellion

Ibn al Hashimi states:An appropriate analogy is that Allah prohibits us from breaking our Salat midway. However, if we are in Salat and the enemies of Islam attack our camp, then it is permissible to break one’s Salat in order to defend the Muslim camp and save Muslim lives. Likewise, the Prophet’s wives and women in general were instructed to stay at home; however, in this case, Aisha (رض�ى ال عنها) thought that she could prevent bloodshed and open rebellion by using her status and prestige to act as an arbiter. In fact, if Aisha (رض�ى ال عنها) thought that leaving her house was the only way to save Muslim lives, then it would not only be Halal for her to leave her house but no doubt it would be Wajib (obligatory).It is narrated in both Sahih Bukhari and Muslim that the Prophet (صل�ى ال عليه وآله وسل�م) told Saudah ( one of his wives, that “Allah has ,(رض�ى ال عنهاpermitted you to go out of the house for genuine needs.” Imam Maududi says: “This shows that


of 89

the divine injunction ‘remain in your houses’ does not mean that women should not at all step out of the four walls of the house.” (Purdah, p. 201-202)

16.Reply One – Ayesha’s willingness to co-operate with those seeking to fight Imam Ali (as) proves that her intention was to incite rebellion not quash it

The suggestion that Ayesha was duty bound to leave her home so as to prevent bloodshed can be easily refuted if one examines this reference wherein she entered into high level discussions at her home (prior to heading for Basra) with her supporters to determine how best to resolve matters with Imam Ali (as). We read in the History of Tabari Volume 16 page 43:

“They went down – Talha and Zubayr to Mecca four months after the killing of Uthman. Ibn Amir, a very rich man was there, and Yala b. Umayyah had arrived with him with a large sum of money and more than 400 camels. They gathered together in Aishah’s house and exchanged opinions. “Let’s go to Ali and fight him,” they said. “We don’t have the strength to fight the people of Medina,” one of them replied. “Let us rather enter al-Basrah and al-Kufah. Talhah has a following and popularity and support in al-Basrah”. So they agreed to go to al-Basrah and al-Kufah, and Abdullah b. Amir gave them much money and camels. Seven hundred men from Medina and Mecca set off, and other joined until their number reached 3000”.

Ahmad bin Zuhayr: Dahabi said: ‘Renowned Hafiz’ (Tarikh al-Islam, v20 p252), Al-Albaani said: ‘Thiqah’ (Silsila Sahiha, v3 p446). Zuhair Abu khaythama: Dahabi said: ‘Hujja’ (Siar alam alnubala, v11 p489), Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah Thabt’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1 p316). Wahab bin Jarir: Dahabi said: Thiqah’ (Al-Kashif, v2 p356), Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v2 p291). Jarir bin Hazim: Dahabi said: ‘Thiqah’ (Al-Kashif, v1, p291), Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1 p158). Yunus bin Yazid: Dahabi said: ‘One of the Thabt’ (Al-Kashif, v2 p404), Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v2 p351). Al-Zuhari: Dahabi said: ‘The hafiz of his time’ (Siar alam alnubala, v5 p326), Ibn Hajar said: ‘There is an agreement about his magnificence’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v2 p133).

Comment

We can see from this reference:

• A high level meeting was convened at Aisha’s house over how to proceed on matters• Two rich donors were present• Discussions were on fighting Imam Ali (as)• It was agreed that fighters be recruited from Basrah and Kufa where Talhah had

influence

Tell us Ibn al Hashimi, do these discussions suggest the Ayesha was seeking to curtail open rebellion and avoid bloodshed? Clearly not, discussions at the meeting were around fighting Imam Ali (as). If Ibn al Hashimi argues that we cannot infer that these were the words of Ayesha we will respond by stating that this high level meeting in her home set the agenda for what methodology would be adopted against Imam Ali (as). It was clear that the aim was to conscript troops from Basrah where Talhah had influence. Knowing this objective, did Ayesha:

• interject and insist that talk of fighting Imam Ali (as) was inappropriate and harmful to the Ummah?

• state reconciliation and peace was the way forward not violence?


of 89

• expel those that made such comments from her home? • sever links from all those that intended on carrying through this objective

She did none of the above; on the contrary she traveled with the same seditious elements to Basrah, fully aware that the aim was to recruit men to fight Imam Ali (as). This proves that Ayesha was never well intentioned, on the contrary she was from the outset, intent on shedding Muslim blood not protecting it.This reference also refutes this baseless assertion:

Ibn al Hashimi states:Aisha’s intentions (رض�ى ال عنها) were to prevent warfare; she even advised people to stay at home instead of adding to the Fitnah. Aisha (رض�ى ال .said: “I came out to reform between people (عنهاTherefore, tell your people to stay at their house, and to be content until they get what they love, i.e. the reformation of the Muslims’ matter.” (Book of the Trustworthy, by Ibn Habban, vol.2, p.282)

The reference that we cited proves that Ayesha’s intention, right from the start were to co-operate those seeking to gather an army to fight Imam Ali (as) which means that it was not an issue of asking that people remain in their houses, rather it was more an issue of encouraging them to come out, armed to the teeth ready to fight the Khalifa!

17.Reply Two – Imam Ali (as) accused Ayesha of inciting Fitnah and causing bloodshed

Our assertion in Reply One can be corroborated by the fact that when Jamal was over Imam Ali (as) accused Ayesha of incitement, not reconciliation as Ibn al Hashimi would suggest. We read in the History of Tabari Volume 16 page 127:

“Muhammad b. Abu Bakr carried Aishah away and erected a large tent over her. Ali stood in front of her and said “You roused the people and they became excited. You stirred up discord among them such that some killed others”, and he went on at length”.

Ahmad bin Zuhayr: Dahabi said: ‘Renowned Hafiz’ (Tarikh al-Islam, v20 p252), Al-Albaani said: ‘Thiqah’ (Silsila Sahiha, v3 p446). Zuhair Abu khaythama: Dahabi said: ‘Hujja’ (Siar alam alnubala, v11 p489), Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah Thabt’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1 p316). Wahab bin Jarir: Dahabi said: ‘Thiqah’ (Al-Kashif, v2 p356), Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v2 p291). Jarir bin Hazim: Dahabi said: ‘Thiqah’ (Al-Kashif, v1, p291), Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1 p158). Yunus bin Yazid: Dahabi said: ‘One of the Thabt’ (Al-Kashif, v2 p404), Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v2 p351). Al-Zuhari: Dahabi said: ‘The hafiz of his time’ (Siar alam alnubala, v5 p326), Ibn Hajar said: ‘There is an agreement about his magnificence’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v2 p133).

18.Defence Four – Ayesha was legally entitled to act in the manner that she did

Ibn al Hashimi states:In fact, if Aisha (رض�ى ال عنها) thought that leaving her house was the only way to save Muslim lives, then it would not only be Halal for her to leave


of 89

her house but no doubt it would be Wajib (obligatory).It is narrated in both Sahih Bukhari and Muslim that the Prophet (صل�ى ال عليه وآله وسل�م) told Saudah ( one of his wives, that “Allah has ,(رض�ى ال عنهاpermitted you to go out of the house for genuine needs.” Imam Maududi says: “This shows that the divine injunction ‘remain in your houses’ does not mean that women should not at all step out of the four walls of the house.” (Purdah, p. 201-202)

19.Reply One - The barking of Hawab's dogs at Ayesha proves that her conduct was unlawful

We read in al Imama wal Siyasa, page 59 Chapter "Dhikr Jamal" with regards to Ayesha that:

"When she began her opposition to Ali, she and her supporters began to make their way to Basra. On route, the dogs of Hawab began to bark at them. Ayesha asked Muhammad bin Talha "Which place is this?” He said "Its is Hawab" to which Ayesha replied "Take me back for on one occasion Rasulullah (s) said, 'Amongst you (wives) is one at whom the dogs of Hawab shall bark.' He (s) said to me specifically, 'Be careful, in case it is you'." Muhammad bin Talha said 'Leave these things and proceed'. Abdullah bin Zubayr then swore in the name of Allah that they had left Hawab (behind them) during the first part of the night; he brought some men who testified likewise. The Ulema of Islam have declared the event of Hawab to have been the first false testimony in Islam".

Imam Ahmed records:

Qays said: ‘When Ayesha reached Bani Amer's well at night, some dogs barked at her. She asked: ‘What is the name of this well?’ They replied: ‘This is Hawab’s well’. She replied: ‘I have to return’. Some of those who were with her said: ‘Nay you shall go forward so that the Muslims shall see you and Allah makes peace’. She replied: ‘Allah's messenger (pbuh) once said: ‘Then what would you (the wives of the prophet) do when you hear the barking of Al-Hawab dogs?’

Musnad Ahmed bin Hanbal, Volume 6 page 52 Tradition 24299

Ths margin writer of the book Shaykh Shu'aib al-Arnaout said:

‘The chain is Sahih and the narrators are reliable (Thuqat), the narrators of the two Sheikhs’

This tradition also can be found in:

1. Musanaf ibn Aby Shayba, Volumne 8 page 7082. Musnad ibn Rahweh, Volume 2 page 323. Musanaf Abdulrazaq, Volume 11 page 3654. Sahih Ibn Haban, Volume 15 page 1265. Musnad Aby Y'ala, Volume 8 page 282 (the margin writer Hussain Salim Asad said that

the chain is Sahih).

We read the following tradition in Kanz ul Ummal which has been declared Sahih by Mulla Muttaqi Hindi:


http://islamport.com/d/1/mtn/1/89/3518.html


of 89

Tawoos narrates that Allah's Messenger (s) said to his wives: ‘Who amongst you shall have the dogs of so and so bark at them? Oh Humayra, will it be you?’

Kanz ul Ummal, Volume 11 page 334 Tradition 31671

Imam Abi Bakar al-Haythami records:

ليت شعري أيتكن صاحبة الجمل: قال رسول ال صلى ال عليه و سلم لنسائه : وعن ابن عباس قال الديب تخرج فينبحها كلب حوأب يقتل عن يمينها وعن يسارها قتلى كثير ثم تنجو بعد ما كادت

Ibn Abbas narrates that Allah's messenger (s) said to his wives: Who amongst shall be the rider of the camel who when marching, shall have the dogs of Hawab bark at her? Thereafter many people shall be killed on her left and right sides, she would subsequently survive after which she will be made to feel guilty’.

Majma al-Zawaed, Volume 7 page 474 Tradition 12026

Al-Haythami said: ‘The narrators are reliable (Thuqat)’

The last and the decisive sentence of the Prophet [s] is trying to convey the message that Ayesha would create a problem and many people would get killed on account of her actions, but would survive which means that she would neither be killed nor tried for the misery that she had inflicted on the Ummah!

Ibn Jarir Tabari records in History of al-Tabari, Volume 16 pages 49-50:

Al-Urani, the owner of the camel: ‘I was traveling on my camel one day when a rider appeared in front of me. “Owner of the camel” he asked, “Will you sell your camel?”. “Yes”, I replied. “For how much?”. “A thousand Dirhams”, “You must be made”, he said. “Can a camel cost a thousand Dirhams?” “Yes, this camel of mine”. “How so?”. “I have never gone after anyone on him,” I replied, “without catching up with him, and no one has ever come after me when I was on him without my escaping them.” “If you knew for whom we wanted him for”, he replied, “you would have given us a better deal.” “So whom do you need him for?” I asked. “For you mother”. “But I left my mother sitting in her tent not wanting to go any where”. “I want it for the mother of the faithful, Aisha, that’s who”. “He is yours then. Take him for nothing” “No, no! Come back with us to where we are camped” he replied “and we will give you a Mahriyah she-camel and some Dirhams as well.”So I went back and they gave me a Mahriyah she-camel and 400 – or was it 600?- Dirhams as well. He then asked me: “Brother of Uraynah, can you guide the way?” “Certainly better than most,” I replied. “Come with us then”. So I went with them. Every time I passed by a valley or a watering place, they questioned me about it, until we came late one evening at the water of al-Hawab and the dogs there barked at us. “What water is this?” they asked. “The water of al-Hawab” I replied. At that, Aisha shrieked at the top of her voice and hit the upper foreleg of her camel to make it kneel down. “By Allah!” she said, “ I am the one the dogs of al-Hawab have barked at night at! Take us back!” She said this three times.

It is indeed tragic to read that Al-Arni was so confident that her mother would never leave her home yet the ‘mother of the believers’ led a male movement motivated by a desire to create Fitna as per the prediction of the Holy Prophet [s]!

Ibn Jarir Tabari also narrated from Ahmad – from his father – from Wahab bin Jarir bin Hazim – from Younis bin Yazeed – from Zuhri:

I was told that when Talha and al-Zubayr heard that Ali had encamped at Dhu Qar, they left for al-Basrah and took the road to al-Munkadir. Ayesha then heard the dogs barking and asked: ‘What water is this?’. ‘Al-Hawab’ they replied. “We belong to Allah, and to him we return” she exclaimed. “I am she. I heard Messenger of God


http://islamport.com/d/1/krj/1/81/1275.html




of 89

say in the presence of his wives ‘ I wish I knew at which of you the dogs of al-Hawab will bark!’” and she wanted to turn back. Abdullah bin al-Zubayr came up to her, and it is said that he told her, “Whoever said that this was al-Hawab was lying”. And then persisted with her until she set off. History of Tabari, English Edition, Volume 16 pages 68

Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani records:

Ibn Abbas narrated that Allah's messenger (S) said to his wives: ‘Who amongst you would be the rider of the camel, she would march until the dogs of Hawab barked at her, many people shall be killed to the right and left of her. She would subsequently survive after which she would be made to feel guilty’. This is narrated by al-Bazar and the narrators are reliable (Thuqat).

Fatah ul Bari, Volume 13 page 55

We read in Iqd al-Farid, Volume 2 page 109:

تقاتلين علي́ا وأنت له. يا ح§ميراء، كأني بك ت¥ن¤بحك ك£لب§ الح§و²ب: وقد كان النبي صلى ال عليه وسلم قال لها .ظالمة

Rasulullah (s) had told her: ‘Oh Humayra! The dogs of Hawab shall bark at you, you shall fight Ali and you shall be an oppressor towards him’.

Let us present the comments of the Salafi scholar Hassan bin Farhan al-Maliki from his book Naho Enqad al-Tarikh, page 75:

فهذا الحديث يتضمن تخطئة أم المؤمنين عائشة رضي ال عنها في الخروج وقد اعترفت بخطئها وأن الولى.هو بقاؤها في بيتها وكانت تبكي إذا تذكرت مسيرها إلى البصرة

‘This hadith refers to the fact that the mother of believers Ayesha [ra] was mistaken when she conducted a march and she acknowledged this mistake, she was supposed to remain at home and would weep whenever she recalled her march to Basra.’

Our opponents advance lame excuses in their defence for the rebellion of Ayesha et al. as echoed by Imam of the Salafies Nasiruddin Albaani which we shall entertain after citing the next prediction of the Holy Prophet [s] about Ayesha et al. being on the side of falsehood in their rebellion against Ali bin Abi Talib [as].

We should also not forget the sheer cunningness exhibited by the colleagues of Ayesha who happened to be the beloved Sahaba that Ansar.Org and Ahlelbayt.com venerate. If (as they claim) all the Sahaba are just and truthful should we say the same of those Sahaba that bore false testimony that enabled the subsequent killing thousands of Muslims at the battle of Jamal? Yaqut al-Hamawi records in Mujam al-Buldan, Volume 2 page 314:

وهمت بالرجوع فغالطوها وحلفوا لها أنه ليس بالحوأب

‘She decided to return, but they tricked her and bore testimony that it was not Hawab’

We read in Al-Ansab by Sam'ani, page 286:

ليس هذا ماء الحوءب حتى قيل إنه حلف على: وعزمت على الرجوع فدخل عليها إبن أختها إبن الزبير وقال وال أعلم- ذلك وكفر عن يمينه

She decided to return but her sister’s son Ibn al-Zubair approached her and said to her: ‘This is not Hawab’s well’. It has also been said that he gave an oath and subsequently repented. Allah knows best.


http://islamport.com/d/1/srh/1/48/1829.html

http://islamport.com/d/1/srh/1/48/1829.html

of 89

Baladhuri records in Ansab al-Ashraf, Volume 1 page 286:

كذب من زعم أن هذا الماء الحوأب ، وجاء بخمسين من: وعزمت على الرجوع فأتاها عبد ال بن الزبير فقال بني عامر فشهدوا وحلفوا على صدق عبد ال

She decided to return but Abdullah bin al-Zubair approached her and said: ‘Whoever claims that this is Hawab’s well is lying’. He then brought fifty members of the Bani Amer (tribe) and they gave sworn testimony that Abdullah (bin al-Zubair) was telling the truth.’

Comment

When the Prophet (s) predicted that one of his wives would:

• have the dogs of Hawab bark at her• conduct herself in a manner that would cause the loss of Muslim life

and he (s) specifically warned Ayesha not be that wife, then this automatically negates any defence suggesting that her conduct was well intentioned, noble and sanctioned by law.

Rasulullah (s) certainly didn’t state that his wife would be well intentioned and would set out on a noble quest as was her legal right! He (s) made it clear that such conduct was unacceptable and lead to bloodshed. Whilst Nawasib will no doubt argue is that she was tricked into thinking that she was not at Hawab, we would like to make it clear that Ayesha was now a mature lady, not the same (Sunni depicted) legendary child bride that would play with her dolls. When she was aware of this dire prediction her duty was like that of all the other wives should have been to refrain from any such activity that could make them a party to this prediction. Ayesha by traveling through Iraq, recruiting an army of men to oppose the khalifa was conducting herself in a manner that placed her at risk of falling into this prediction.

20.Reply Two – The Holy Prophet [s] predicting that one of his wives would accompany a harmful battalion proves that her conduct was unlawful

Whilst prediction of the Holy Prophet [s] about the dogs of Hawab barking at one of his wives should suffice to prove that Ayesha’s leaving her home was unlawful, let us read another proof about Ayesha being a rebel in the eyes of our Holy Prophet [s]. We read in Al-Mustadrak:

Kaythama ibn Abdurahman said: ‘We were with Hudayfah [ra] and some of us said: ‘O Aba Abdillah, narrate to us what you heard from the Messenger of Allah [s]’. He said: ‘If I do this, you will stone me.’ We said: ‘Subhanallah! Would we do that!?’ He said: ‘What would you say if I narrate to you that some of your mothers would come to you with a battalion large in number, with great harm in it, would you have believed me?’ They said: ‘Subhanallah, and who would believe this!’ Then Hudayfah said: ‘Humayra came to you in a battalion being led by infidels, blackening your faces’. Then he (Hudayfah) got up and entered another chamber.’

Al-Mustadrak, Volume 7 page 44 Tradition 8453

Imam Hakim said about this tradition:

‘Sahih according to the standards of the two Sheikhs’

Imam Dahabi said:




of 89

‘Sahih according to the standards of Bukhari and Muslim’

Ahlelbayt.com and Ansar.Org have sought to desperately convince their readers that the approach taken by Ayesha was legal and necessary, does this Hadeeth substantiate such a position? When the Prophet (s) makes reference to one of his wives accompanying a large battalion that would be harmful, that automatically negates any suggestion of Ayesha’s conduct being for the betterment of the Ummah.

Similarly, we also read the following words of Hudhayfah:

Zaid bin Wahab said: ‘When we were with Hudhayfah, he said: ‘What shall you do if the family of the prophet (s) divided into two groups fighting each other by sword?’ We replied: ‘Oh Aba Abdullah, is that going to happen?’ Some of his companions said: ‘Oh Aba Abdullah what shall we do if reached to that era?’ He replied: ‘Look at the group which propagate to Ali, be close to it because it is on the right path’.

Majma al Zawaid, Volume 7 page 166 Tradition 12032

Al-Haythami said:

‘The narrators are Thiqah’

Let us also read the following related prediction in Kanz ul Ummal, Volume 11 page 917 Hadith number 32970 which will clarify the position where Ayesha stands in her rebellion:

"O Ali! Soon a rebellious group will fight against you, you will be on the truth. Whoever does not support you on that day will not be from us"

The one who doesn’t support Ali bin Abi Talib [as] in rebellion against him is rejected by the Prophet [s] then the rational minds can imagine the destiny of the cult that actually conducted the rebellion! We also read the following words of Prophet [s] in Kanz ul Ummal, Volume 11 page 621 Hadith number 33016:

After me people shall experience fitna, you will split into groups, he then pointed at Ali and said: ‘Ali and his companions shall be on the right path’

Now, in connection to the prediction of Holy Prophet [s] about the dogs barking at Ayesha at Hawab, let us present the testimony of Imam of Salafies Nasiruddin Albaani regarding Ayesha and Zubayr being on error for marching against Ali bin Abi Talib [as] but Albaani didn’t accept this without advancing feeble attempts to defend the two revered Sunni personalities:

In general the chain of the tradition is Sahih, there is no any problem in the content of the hadith, on contrary to the thoughts of the scholar al-Afghani, all what it is about that Ayesha [ra] when she knew about Hawab, she should have returned, but the tradition shows that she didn’t return! and that was not suitable for the mother of believers. We answer that not what ever happens by the perfect persons must be suitable to them, because infallibility is only for God.The Sunni should not be extremist in those who he respects like the Shia do to their Imams! We don’t doubt that the march of the mother of believers was a mistake, therefore she decided to return when she knew that the prophecy of the prophet (s) about Hawab became true, but al-Zubair [ra] convinced her not to return through his statement ‘May Allah make peace among the people through you’ we don’t doubt that he (al-Zubair) also made mistake.The mind says that there must be one group mistaken of the two groups which fought and left hundreds killed and due to many reasons and clear evidences, we don’t doubt that Ayesha [ra] made mistake.

Silsila Sahih, Volume 1 page 473 Tradition 474


http://islamport.com/d/1/alb/1/19/118.html



http://islamport.com/d/1/alb/1/19/118.html

of 89

This was just a sample of Sunni excuses for the sin committed by Ayesha et al But this lame excuses can easily be refuted:

1. The excuse that Ayesha et al were not infallible and hence committed sins is quite absurd, the ability of a true believer to derive an understanding of the true path, from the predictions of Holy Prophet [s] is not dependent upon his / her infallibility. Moreover to believe that a fallible person has to perpetuate acts that contrast with infallibility is a lame excuse.

2. To suggest that Ayesha et al thought that their journey might have brought peace among the people was again an open violation of the Prophet’s predictions. In neither of the two prophecies do we find even the slightest possibility of Ayesha et al being on the right path, on the contrary the Prophet [s] categorized them as infidels. Moreover, when Ayesha realized that the Prophet [s]’s prediction of barking dogs referred to her, her immediate attempt to retreat proves that she was fully aware that she and her supporters were on the wrong path. Tragically she persisted on this accursed path by giving preference to the excuse offered by Ibn Zubayr over the warning by her husband who happened to be the Prophet of Islam, such a preference makes her conduct permanently indefensible.

3. The Prophet [s] considering Ayesha et al and her accomplices as infidels renders the Taweel and Ijtihad excuse null and void anyway.

21.Reply Three- The letter of Ummul Momineen Umme Salmah (ra) to Ayesha demanding that she desists from participating in war proves that her conduct was unlawful

This letter can be evidence in the following esteemed Sunni sources:

1. An-Nihaya by Ibn Athir Jazri, vol 2, page 353; Ibid. vol 1, page 226-237; Ibid. vol 3, pages 271, 331 and 434; Ibid. vol 5, pages 35, 64, 115, 132, 137 and 158.

2. Al-'Iqd al Farid by Abu Umar Ahmed bin Abd Rabbah Qartabi (d. 328 A.H.) vol 2, page 102 (description of battle of Jamal)

3. Qamus by Firozabadi (d. ???) page 3714. al Imama wal Siyasa by Muhammad bin Qutaybah Dinuri (d. 276 A.H.) vol 1, page 53

(description of battle of Jamal)5. Sharh Nahjul Balagha by Azzuddin Abdul Hamid al-Madaini (also known as Ibn Abi al-

Hadid M'autazali) (d. 655 A.H.) vol 2, page 1246. Balaghatun Nisa by Ahmed ibn Abi Zahir ibn Tayfur (d. 280 A.H.) page

Abu Umar Ahmed bin Abd Rabbah Qartabi (d. 328 A.H.) records:

When Ummul Momineen Ayesha decided to go for Jamal, Ummul Momineen Umme Salmah wrote to her: ‘From Umme Salmah wife of the Holy prophet to Ayesha Ummul Momineen. And I praise Allah, There is no God except Allah and then (I want to say), you are the medium between the prophet and his followers (Ummah). And you are guardian of his honor. The Holy Quran has gathered you so don't despair. Pillars of this religion cannot be upheld on women. Women are praised for keeping down their eyes and hiding their bodies. Allah has exempted me and you from this task (of leading the battle). What will you say on the day of Judgment when Allah's Prophet will denounce you from Paradise on the premise that you removed that veil which Allah had concealed you with’.

Al-Iqd al Farid, Volume 2 page 102




of 89

Comment

It is interesting that Ibn al Hashimi argues that necessity dictated that Ayesha conduct herself in the manner that she did. Umme Salmah would certainly not agree with this. In her letter to Ayesha, she made it clear that her legal duty was to remain concealed away from public glare, not to accompany men onto the battlefield. The criticism was so severe that Umme Salmah said that she would enter Hell on account of her illegal conduct. If the Shi’a said such a thing all manner of takfeer fatwa would be issued against us, but this is the position of one of the wives of the Prophet (s) so how are the Nawasib going to respond to her comments?

22.Reply Four - Ibn Umar’s preventing Hafsa from joining Ayesha proves that her conduct was unacceptable

We read in al-Bidayah wal Nihayah, Volume 7 page 231 that:

وكانت حفصة بنت عمر أم المؤمنين قد وافقت عاشئة على المسير إلى البصرة، فمنعها أخوها عبد ال من ذلك

‘The mother of the believers Hafsa bint Umar agreed to march to Basra with Ayesha but her brother Abdullah prevented her’

Comment

If the stance of Ayesha was correct, then why did Abdullah Ibn Umar; a leading companion prevent his sister from joining the rebellion? Clearly he deemed it inappropriate a wife of Rasulullah (s) to behave in such a manner.

23.Reply Five - Ayesha’s regretting that she had not been prevented from moving against Imam Ali (as) proves that her conduct was unlawful

We read the following episode:

إذا مر: قالت عائشة: وروى إسماعيل بن علية عن أبي سفيان بن العلء المازني عن ابن أبي عتيق قال يا أبا عبد الرحمن ما منعك أن تنهاني عن: هذا ابن عمر، فقالت: ابن عمر فأرنيه، فلما مر بها قيل لها

رأيت رجل قد غلب عليك، يعني ابن الزبير: مسيري؟ قال

Ibn Abi Atiq said: Ayesha said: if ibn Umar passes bring him to me. When ibn Umar passed by, they said to her: ‘this is Ibn Umar’. She said: ‘Oh Abu Abdulrahman, why didn’t you prevent me from marching? He replied: I saw a man who had a control over you. He meant ibn al-Zubair1. Musnad ibn Rahewh, v2, p232. Al-Istiab, by ibn Abdulbar, v3, p910

Comment

Ayesha’s approaching Ibn Umar asking why he hadn’t taken steps to prevent her from leaving Madina proves that she acknowledged that her approach was wrong. Ibn al Hashimi and Abu Sulaiman insist that the approach that Ayesha had adopted was correct. One wonders how they can argue this when Ayesha was seeking to ascertain why Ibn Umar had not prevented her from marching. Ibn al Hashimi falsely claims that Ayesha was merely representing the aggrieved relatives of Uthman and that she had no intention of fighting. One thing that he cannot deny is the fact that Ayesha was involved in marching against Imam Ali (as). Ibn al Hashimi would like us to accept that there is a distinction between marching against Imam Ali (as) and fighting him. He is of the opinion that marching is totally legitimate and no objection


of 89

should be leveled against Ayesha for adhering to this methodology. One wonders how he can insist that this was correct when Ayesha was so remorseful over her marching that she wanted to know why her intention had not been curbed by Ibn Umar. Ayesha’s wishing that she had been prevented from leaving her home from the outset, proves that she acknowledged that the approach she had taken was the wrong. How can Ibn al Hashimi and other Nawasib therefore argue that Ayesha’s conduct was legally sound?

24.Defence Four – Ayesha wanted to achieve peace and reconciliation between the two groups, and prevent rebellion against Caliph Ali (as)

Ansar.org states:The Believers are but a single Brotherhood: so make peace and reconciliation between your two (contending) brothers." (49:9-10)

Ibn al Hashimi states:Aisha’s Intention (رض�ى ال عنها) Aisha’s intention (رض�ى ال عنها) for leaving her house was sincere and pure. She left to make peace between two factions of Muslims, namely the Umayyads and the Shia’t Ali. This is 100% in line with Allah’s commands in the Quran: “If two parties amongst the Believers fall into a quarrel, make ye peace between them: but if one of them transgresses beyond bounds against the other, then fight ye (all) against the one that transgresses until it complies with the Command of Allah; but if it complies, then make peace between them with justice, and be fair: for Allah loves those who are fair (and just). The Believers are but a single Brotherhood: so make peace and reconciliation between your two (contending) brothers.” (Quran, 49:9-10)

Ibn al Hashimi states:ReconciliationIn Tareekh Al-Tabari, the events precipitating the Battle of the Camel are recorded. Al-Tabari narrates that a man asked Aisha (رض�ى ال عنها): “O mother, what moved you and pushed you to this country?” She answered: “O son, to reconcile between people.”

Ibn al Hashimi states:Aisha (رض�ى ال عنها) feared that if she did not intercede on behalf of the malcontents by convincing Ali (رض�ى ال عنه) to quickly prosecute the murderers, they would rebel against Caliph Ali This point cannot be emphacized .(رض�ى ال عنه)enough: Aisha (رض�ى ال عنها) left her house with the intention of reconciling Muslims, not to make them fight.


of 89

25.Reply One – Ayesha’s failure to negotiate directly with Imam Ali (as) in Makka, proves that she wanted to incite fitnah not quell it

Could Ibn al Hashimi kindly elabarorate on the methods that Ayesha used to convince Ali (as)? Ayesha was living in Madina, whilst Imam Ali (as) was in Makka. What is closer in distance Makka or Basra? We see no historical account of Ayesha ever using her arbitrary skills to engage with Caliph Ali (as) in Makka, why not? Why did she not approach Imam Ali (as) directly in Makka and issue her demand to satisfy the malcontents? If she feared Fitnah she should have entered into direct face to face negotiations with Imam Ali (as), why did she not do that? If she wanted to avoid Fitnah she would have demanded people to remain calm whilst she negotiated with Imam Ali (as) directly, but she did not do that. Let us not forget:

Ibn al Hashimi claims:It should be noted that most people alive during the Battle of the Camel respected the Prophet’s widow, namely because she was the First Lady of Islam, the Mother of the Believers, and the Prophet’s lover. As such, she carried a great respect, and people listened to her. So it was not at all strange that she would think to use her influence to end the conflict between the Muslims; unlike the Shia who revile Aisha (رض�ى ال most Muslims at that time had a great deal ,(عنهاof respect for her, including Ali (رض�ى ال عنه). It is likely that Ali (رض�ى ال عنه) would have accepted her plea to find Uthman’s killers, and no doubt this is the reason that Uthman’s killers had to start the war.

If as Ibn al Hashimi claims it was likely that Imam Ali (as) would have acceded to Ayesha’s demands and immediately hunted down Uthman’s killers, what was the logic behind her:

• entering into discussions inside Madina that include a resolution to fight Ali (as)?• leaving Madina without discussing the issue of Qisas with Ali (as)? • heading in the opposite direction towards Basrah, from where she wrote the following

to Imam Ali (as) as recorded in Matalib al Se'ul page 116 and Fusul ul Muhimma page 72 both record Ayesha's defiant reply to Imam 'Ali (as)'s letter:

"Son of Abu Talib, the difference between us is irreconcilable, time is running out, and we shall not submit to your authority, whatever you wish to do, do it"

Comment

The contents of this letter serve as a major blow for

Ibn al Hashimi who says:the truth is that it was not Aisha (رض�ى ال عنها) who was responsible for the Fitnah but rather it was the ancestors of the Shia–the murderers of Uthman (رض�ى ال عنه)–who caused the Battle of the Camel. They had killed Uthman (رض�ى ال عنه), and they did not want Aisha (رض�ى ال عنها) to convince


of 89

Ali (رض�ى ال عنه) to swiftly prosecute them

Why didn’t she impress upon Ali (as) this importance whilst in Madina? What was she doing issuing her demands following the violent seizure of the Basrah? There were no Sabaites that would have prevented Ayesha from visiting Imam Ali (as) in Makka. The Sabaites hadn’t written the letter we are discussing this was penned by Ayesha, and one can see her arrogant attitude from the contents. We can see here that it was not the Sabaites that were pushing for war Ayesha was making it clear that she refused to accept the authority of Imam Ali (as) and was challenging him to do whatever he could do to stop her and her supporters. Is Ibn al Hashimi going to argue that there was no nexus between these comments and the subsequent war that ensued? That would be an absurd denial! This letter evidences the willingness of Ayesha to go to war, it was this uncompromising attitude that motivated her supporters to oppose Imam Ali (as) and enter Jamal to fight him. Why should the Sabaites be blamed for causing this battle, when Ayesha’s supporters had seized control of the administrative province of Basrah and was challenging the authority of Imam Ali (as)? It was only when Basrah was seized that Ayesha the alleged peaceful arbiter deemed it the appropriate time to enter into negotiations, from a position of power.

26.Reply Two – The Tabari narration that Ibn al Hashimi cited is a weak one

It is amusing that this Nasibi has sought to evidence Ayesha’s testimony through reliance on Tareekh al Tabari. Ayesha’s testimony has reached us through the following chain, al-Sari-Shuhayb-Sayf-Muhammad-Talha (History of Tabari page 96). We have proven both Sayf and Sari were unreliable narrators in our discussion on Ibn Saba here:

http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/who_really_killed_uthman/en/chap2.php

This testimony is therefore baseless.

27.Reply Three - Ayesha's killing of the Shi'a of Ali at Basra and torturing its Governor destroys the notion of her pursuing peace and reconciliation

Rather than travel to Makka and enter into negotiations with Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib [as] to resolve the potential turmoil she deemed it more apt to raise and army and head for Basrah. When Ali [as] found out about her army and her fitnah-mongering intentions he set out in pursuance of her. Ayesha’s troops launched a whole scale assault onto Basrah, that involved killing innocent people before she even commenced dialogue with Imam Ali [as] who had not yet reached Basra. We read in al-Maarif, page 90 that:

فتوجهوا إليها وأخذوا عثمان بن حنيف عامل علي بها فحسبوه وقتلوا خمسين رج́ل كانوا معه على بيتالمال

They marched towards it (Basra) and they arrested and imprisoned Uthman bin Hunayf the governor who was appointed by Ali and 50 men in the treasury were killed.

In Tadkhirah tul Khawwas, page 26 we are informed that:

"Uthman bin Hunayf was arrested and a messenger was sent to Ayesha for her opinion on what should be done to him. Ayesha said that he should be killed. A woman pleaded for his (Uthman's) life so Ayesha ordered that he be imprisoned, he




of 89

was flogged 40 stripes and the hair from his hair, beard and eyebrows was removed. Ayesha and her supporters also killed a further 70 people without reason".

Ibn Abdul Barr records in al-Istiab, Volume 1 page 108:

فقتلوا منهم أربعين رج́ل وأرسلوا بما فعله من أخذ عثمان وأخذ ما في بيت المال إلى عائشة يستشيرونها.في عثمان وكان الرسول أليها أبان بن عثمان فقالت عائشة اقتلوا عثمان بن حنيف

They killed 40 men, took the money in the treasury and arrested Uthman bin Hunayf. They then sent Aban bin Uthman to consult Ayesha, she replied: ‘Uthman bin Hunayf should be executed’.

We also read:

فقتلوا منهم أربعين رج́ل وأرسلوا بما فعله من أخذ عثمان وأخذ ما في بيت المال إلى عائشة يستشيرونهافقالت لها امرأة. في عثمان وكان الرسول أليها أبان بن عثمان فقالت عائشة اقتلوا عثمان بن حنيف

نشادتك ال يا أم المؤمنين في عثمان بن حنيف وصحبته لرسول ال صلى ال عليه وسلم فقالت ردوا أبانا فردوه فقالت احبسوه ول تقتلوه فقال أبان لو أعلم أنك رددتني لهذا لم أرجع وجاء فأخبرهم فقال لهم

مجاشع بن مسعود اضربوه وانتفوا شعر لحيته فضربوه أربعين سوط́ا ونتفوا شعر لحيته وحاجبه وأشفارعينه

They killed 40 men, took the money in the treasury and arrested Uthman bin Hunayf, they then sent Aban bin Uthman to consult with Ayesha, she replied: ‘Uthman bin Hunayf should be executed’. A woman then said: ‘O mother of the Believers, I appeal to you by Allah about Uthman bin Hunayf and his accompanying Allah's messenger (pbuh)’. Ayesha said: ‘Tell Aban to return’. When Aban returned, she said: ‘Don’t kill him but imprison him’. Aban said: ‘If I knew you would ask me to return for this, I wouldn’t have returned’. Then he (Aban) went to them and informed them (about Ayesha's orders), hence Mujash’e bin Masud said: ‘Hit him, pluck out his beard’. Thus they struck him with 40 lashes and plucked out his beard, eyelash and eyebrows’.

What wrong doing did Uthman bin Hunayf do that merited his being treated in such a manner? Was his sin, the fact that he was the Governor of Basrah, legally appointed by the Caliph Ali (as)? What Shari ruling entitled Ayesha to order his death (in the first instance)? Was she the Head of State / or a Judge that entitled her to issue this order? What were the charges leveled against Uthman bin Hunayf? Did he get the right to a fair trial? Let us not forget that Uthman bin Hunayf against whom Ayesha passed the decree of death and who was subsequently tortured by the companions of Ayesha was not an ordinary person but a Sahaba the very category of individual that our opponents claim love and adhere to. His biography can be read in al-Isaba, Volume 4 page 449 and in Usud al-Ghaba, Volume 1 page 746

Mufti Ibn Talha Shafiyee records in Matalib al-Seul, page 119 wrote:

"In Kufa Abu Burdha Azdi asked Ali, 'why were people killed at Jamal?'. 'Ali replied 'They killed my Shi'a and my officials without any justification, then they fought me, despite the fact that they gave me Bayyah, they killed 1000 of my companions".

Galvanizing public opinion in your favor is one thing; Ayesha was galvanizing people to join in a military campaign to fight Imam Ali (as). The following words of the companions spoken to Zubayr prior to battle of Jamal serve shall serve as a comprehensive slap on Ibn al Hashimi’s face. Ibn Jarir Tabari narrated from:

Ahmad – from his father – from Wahab bin Jarir bin Hazim – from Younis bin Yazeed – from Zuhri:

…They came to al-Basrah, the governor of which was Uthman bin Hunayf, and he asked them: “What makes you angry at our companion [Ali]?” “We don’t consider


of 89

him more eligible for leadership than we” they replied “after what he has done”. “The man [Ali], made me governor, so I will write to him and inform him why you have come” said Uthman, “On the condition that I lead the prayer until his reply comes”. So they held back from him and he rode off.

But they waited only two days and then attacked Uthman [bin Hunayf] and fought with him at al-Zabuqah near the supply center. They gained the upper hand and captured Uthman. They were about to kill him but then they feared the wrath of the Ansar. So they attacked his hair and body instead.

Talhah and al-Zubair then rose to make speeches and said:

People of al-Basrah! Repentance should fit the crime. We wanted the Commander of Faithful only to get Uthman to satisfy [our complaints]. We didn't want him to be killed, but the fools prevailed over the wise men and killed him." "But Abu Muhammad!" the people replied Talhah. "The letters you sent us said otherwise." [Talhah was unable to answer them, and upon that al-Zubayr said]"Did you [also] receive any letter from me about what he was doing?`"Asked al-Zubayr, going on to mention Uthman's murder and what led to it and to emphasize Ali's blame in it.

At this a man from Abd al-Qays stood up facing him and said: "Be silent, man! And listen so that we may speak." Abdallah bin al-Zubayr retorted, "What position are you in to speak?" "Company of Muhajirun!" said the Abdi. "You were the first to respond to the message of God, and you gained favor through that, and then everyone else entered Islam following your example. Then when the Messenger of God died you gave allegiance to one of your number, but by Allah, you didn't consult us in any way about it. We gave our approval nevertheless and went along with you, and Almighty and Glorious Allah blessed the Muslims through His caliphate. Then he died, having appointed a man Caliph in his place over you. Again you didn't discuss it with us, but we gave our approval and accepted. When this caliph died, he placed the decision in the hands of six men, and you chose Uthman and gave him allegiance without consulting us. Then you found some faults with this man, so you killed him without consulting us. Then you gave allegiance to Ali, without consulting us. So what exactly are you angry with him about that we should fight him? Has he appropriated booty or carried out some injustice? Has he done something you object to such that we should join you against him? If not, then what is going on?" Talhah and al-Zubayr's men then tried to kill this Abdi, but his tribesmen stood in their way. But the next morning they leaped on him and his men and killed seventy men."

History of Tabari, English Edition, Volume 16 pages 68-69

So Ayesha’s arbiter skills involved her:

• forging an alliance with those that had incited opposition to Uthman:• supporters attacking, capturing and torturing Uthman bin Hunayf the Basran Governor

appointed by Imam Ali (as)• entering Basra wherein her nephew (Ibn Zubair) gave a sermon encouraging the people

to fight Imam Ali (as)• her supporters slaughtered seventy men opposed to mounting any opposition to Imam

Ali (as)

All this was happening under the nose of Ayesha, and yet Ibn al Hashimi seems to suggest she was a peaceful negotiator, seeking to avoid bloodshed between the Muslims. If this was the case why did she not interject and demand that her supporters stop making such inflammatory speeches? Ayesha’s siding with a movement that was galvanizing military opposition to Imam Ali (as)’s and was killing his supporters, cannot be construed as the actions of a person seeking to avoid conflict! We have proven from these references that the Fitnah had already started


http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/ayesha/tarikh_tabari_v16_p68_69.jpg


of 89

with the entry of Ayesha and her supporters in Basra. It was here that they took hold of the treasury and massacred the Shi'a of Ali (as). There is no way that the Ibn Saba defence card can be used here since this fitnah had taken place before Imam 'Ali (as) and his alleged Sabaites arrived on the scene.

In light of these facts lets us now contemplate the claim of Abu Sulaiman:

Ansar.org states:"She did not left her house to fight Ali, but to makpeace between people after people desired her to go".

We would like to know from Ansar, 'What efforts at peace were these?' There is nothing wrong with participating in peaceful process. Ansar.Org and Ibn al Hashimi are insistent that Ayesha’s activities were all governed to enable the pursuance of peace, would her troop’s seizure of and distractive province, killing those that supported the Caliph and Ayesha’s order to execute Uthman bin Hunayf fall within the definition of peaceful conduct? It is no different to US troops America and Afghanistan that insist that they are peacekeepers, but in reality kill hundreds of innocent people in the pursuance of peace! Can one really construe actions such as open opposition to the rightful Imam, the gathering of people against him, attacking Basra, killing 40 men in the treasury as acts that constitute major efforts towards peace? We should also remind our readers that the prediction of Holy Prophet [s] about the dogs of Hawab barking at Ayesha is sufficient to water down any attempt to call the march of Ayesha as peace making effort!

28.Reply Three – Ayesha’s defiant uncompromising letter to Imam Ali (as) proves that she was preparing for war, not peace

We had previously in Reply One cited the fact that Shaykh Sibt Jauzi al-Hanafi in Tazkirah tul Khawwas, page 38 Shaykh Ibn Talha Shafiyee in Matalib al Se'ul, page 112 and Ibn Sabagh Maliki in Fusul ul Muhimma, page 72 recorded that prior to the battle of Jamal Ayesha wrote as follows to Caliph Ali (as):"Son of Abu Talib, the difference between us is irreconcilable, time is running out, and we shall not submit to your authority, whatever you wish to do, do it"

Comment

Tell us Ibn al Hashimi and Ansar.Org, should we interpret this letter as conduct in accordance with the spirit of the verse that you had cited? Ibn al Hashimi had insisted on describing Ayesha as an ‘arbiter’ desirous for peace, what type of efforts for peace and reconciliation can one gauge from this reply? Ayesha had demonstrated open opposition Caliph Ali (as), she refused to accept his authority and challenged to him to stop her activities. Imam 'Ali (as) hence was left with no other choice but to quash the opposition. Ayesha had made clear that her intention was that of open defiance and disobedience to the Imam of the time.

29.Defence Five - Ayesha was seeking to embarrass people into not fighting

Ibn al Hashimi states:Aisha (رض�ى ال عنها) said in no uncertain terms: “I only wanted reformation.” (Shatharat Al-Thahab, vol.1, p.42) Ibn Al-Arabi explains that “her presence in the Battle of the Camel was not for war, but people…complained to her about the


of 89

affliction. They hoped for her blessing in the reformation [between Muslims], and they wanted that the fighting factions would be ashamed when she is present with them and stop fighting. She also thought that. So she left her house to represent what Allah says ‘If two parties among the Believers fall into a quarrel, make ye peace between them.’”

30.Reply One

This has to be one of the most absurd arguments yet! If she did not want the Muslims to fight one another what was she doing supporting one side and entering the battlefield with them? She should have traveled onto no mans land on her camel, so that both sides could see here, that way they could have recognized that she was impartial and wanted to avoid bloodshed. Her entry onto the plains of Jamal on the side of one army evidenced her support for them, and it gave them the green light to go into war, after all they had the blessing of Ayesha who Ibn al Hashimi described as having respect because she was the ‘Prophet’s widow, namely because she was the First Lady of Islam, the Mother of the Believers, and the Prophet’s lover’. Her siding with this party and entry onto the battlefield was seen by them to legitimize their cause.

31.Reply Two

If her intention was to avoid bloodshed, why did she wait until the eleventh hour and climb on to a camel at Jamal to shame both parties? Was her role not to shame these parties long before matters depreciated to this level? What was she doing traveling through Iraq, was she on a mission to spread peace and love amongst the Sahaba? Why were her key supporters on this march giving inflammatory speeches geared towards mobilizing an army to fight Imam Ali (as)? Her nephew Ibn Zubair had (as we cited earlier) made it clear that the intention was to fight Imam Ali (as) so what was she doing siding with a party that was seeking to fight Imam Ali (as)? Why did she not silence Ibn Zubair and make it clear that she was opposed to any form of war? Can you show us any references wherein she disassociated herself from armed opposition to Imam Ali (as)? Ibn Hashimi is fully aware that her purpose of travel was to gather support for a military campaign to demand vengeance for Uthman. Her presence at the Battle on camel was a rallying point for her side they, she was acting as their military mascot, not there to shame both parties in to dropping their weapons.

32.Reply Three

If Ibn Arabi’s assertion is indeed correct could the Nawasib kindly cite an authentic source from the mouth of Ayesha wherein she testified that her presence at Jamal was to shame people into not fighting? How has he managed to read the mind of Ayesha on this matter? If this was indeed the intention of Ayesha why did the just and truthful Sahaba not recognize this intention and drop their weapons immediately?

33.Defence Six – Ayesha was seeking to use her influence to end the conflict

Ibn al Hashimi states:It should be noted that most people alive during the Battle of the Camel respected the Prophet’s


of 89

widow, namely because she was the First Lady of Islam, the Mother of the Believers, and the Prophet’s lover. As such, she carried a great respect, and people listened to her. So it was not at all strange that she would think to use her influence to end the conflict between the Muslims; unlike the Shia who revile Aisha (رض�ى ال most Muslims at that time had a great deal ,(عنهاof respect for her, including Ali (رض�ى ال عنه). It is likely that Ali (رض�ى ال عنه) would have accepted her plea to find Uthman’s killers, and no doubt this is the reason that Uthman’s killers had to start the war.

34.Reply - Ayesha was using her influence to encourage rebellion not prevent it

People were deceived into assuming that the movement must have been correct when a wife of the Prophet (s) was prepared to venture outside and encourage people to enlist in armed opposition to Imam Ali (as). She was not using her influence to avoid bloodshed, rather she was encouraging them to take up arms and avenge the death of Uthman, so she was prepared to get her way ‘by any means necessary’ even if that meant the death of thousands in the process!

35.Defence Seven – Ayesha should be exempt of all wrong doing as she correctly exercised Ijtihad

Ansar.org states:"that the two warring factions tried to reach to the truth, and none of the two factions was an oppressor because the death of Uthman divided the Islamic nation to two parties. One party sees to kill the killers of Uthman immediately, and they are Talha, Al-Zubair, and Aysha. The other party sees also to kill the killers of Uthman but wait for the moment until they reach to their goals because these killers had tribes that would defend them. Ali and his companions shared the second opinion. These killers are responsible for the battle of the Camel, and none of the two parties had any responsibility to ignite the battle as I clarified earlier"

36.Reply One - Ijtihad cannot contradict the Qur'an and Sunnah

For a stance to be correct it needs to have a basis in Qur'an and Sunnah. The fact of the matter is that Imam Ali (as) WAS the legitimate khalifa at the Head of the Ummah and the Qur'an makes it clear that obedience to the Ul'il-Amr, Allah (s) and Rasulullah (s) are one and the same. Obedience is unconditional.

The core component of ijtihad is that this is in effect a last resort measure when NO SOLUTION


of 89

is found in the Qur'an or Sunnah. Any act that contradicts these two sources cannot be deemed as ijtihad since it has gone against Nass (clear text). It is here that the advocates of Ayesha fall flat on their face because the actions of Ayesha and her supporters was a violation of the Qur'an and Sunnah, as we shall seek to prove:

37.Reply Two - The duty to take the correct interpretation of the Quran from Ali [s] negates the defence of his opponents correctly interpreting ijtihad

Whilst we reject the notion that Ayesha and the other Sahaba (who ruined their hereafter) that fought Ali bin Abi Talib [as] did so on the basis of exercising Ijtihad, we believe that this excuse was coined much later by the staunch adherents of certain Nasibi Sahaba. If we were for arguments sake going to accept this, such an excuse would not absolve such culprits since the only individual with the correct interpretation of the Quran in terms of fighting was Ali bin Abi Talib [as]. We read the following words of Holy Prophet [s]:

"Among you is one who will fight for its (Quran's) interpretation just as I fought for its revelation." The audience was very excited. Among them were Abu Bakr and Umar. Abu Bakr asked: "Am I the one?" and the Prophet's answer was negative. `Umar inquired: "Is it I?" and the Prophet answered: "No; but it is the one who is mending the shoes," meaning thereby Ali; therefore, we visited `Ali to convey the good news to him, but he did not even raise his head, as if he had already heard it from the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him and his progeny."Al-Mustadrak, Volume 3 page 122. Both Imam al-Hakim and Imam al-Dhahabi have declared it ‘Sahih’.

Comment

Every form of true Jihad is a struggle for the Quran, but, if your war is NOT for the Qur'an, then you are only causing fitna and literally murdering people! When Imam Ali (as) was fighting for the interpretation of the Quran then that automatically renders the cause of his opponents false, unjustified and unlawful. Their duty was to turn to Imam Ali (as) to ascertain the correct interpretation of the Quran, not (as Ansar.org suggest), to take their own interpretation of the Quran and fight him.

38.Reply Three - Ayesha's disobedience of 'Ali (as) contradicted the Qur'an and hence negates the defence of correctly interpreted ijtihad

Abu Sulaiman had stated:

Ansar.org states:There is no doubt that Aysha, Talha, and Al-Zubair were seeking the killers of Uthman before obeying to Ali as an obeisance to Allah.

In other words Ayesha had entered a campaign of disobedience against Imam Ali (as). The difficulty that Abu Sulaiman has here is the Qur'an, places an unconditional duty upon the believer to obey the Ul'il Umr (those in authority):

"O you who believe! Obey Allah and his Apostle and those in authority among you" (Surah Nisa verse 59).


of 89

According to Ahl'ul Sunnah once bayya is given to a leader he is the Ul'il Umr and hence obedience to him is unconditional. The people of Madina had given bayya to Imam 'Ali (as) without any coercion he was the legitimate khalifa. Therefore, his obedience was compulsory. The obedience is a duty and is on par with obedience to Allah (swt) and his Prophet (s). Obedience is not based on pre-conditions being met BEFORE obedience is given. It is explicit obedience, that is clear and unambiguous.

There is no basis in either the Qur'an or Sunnah that you withhold allegiance to the rightful Ul'il Umr until any grievances you have are resolved or that you ransom, oppose and fight him if you don't get your way. If such a provision exists we challenge Ansar.Org to bring their proof. In accordance with this verse, it was incumbent upon Ayesha and her supporters to give Imam 'Ali (as) their unconditional support, they had to obey his every word. Ayesha's failure to do this, and worse not just disobey the Imam of the Ummah but encourage others to follow suit and pursue a course of mass rebellion and war against him is a blatant violation of this verse.

39.Reply Four - Ayesha’s turning away from Ali (as), violated an explicit hadith of Rasulullah (s) and hence negates the defence of correctly interpreted ijtihad

Ansar.org states:"each side thought the truth lies with him/her and interpreted the mistake of the other party differently. Both parties came out to reform as I said, and none of the two parties wanted to fight, but it happened. Allah has the matter in His hands, before it, and after it".

Even if we accept this feeble claim, we should point out that only one party had the Qur'an and Sunnah to support its position and that party was Imam 'Ali (as)'s. He was the Ul'il Umr so his decision had to be honored. Moreover, how could Ayesha's party have been searching for the truth by turning away from Imam 'Ali (as)? Rasulullah (s) had told the faithful:

"Ali is with the truth and the truth is with Ali"1. Nuzul ul Abrar, page 242. Kanz al-Ummal, Volume 6 page 157 Chapter "Fadail 'Ali"3. Tauhfa Ithna Ashariyyah, page 2164. Tafsir Kabir, Volume 1 page 1055. Jama Tirmidhi, Volume 2 page 573 Chapter "Manaqib 'Ali ibne 'Abi Talib"6. Fara'id us Simtayn, page 174 Chapter 367. Manaqib, by Khawarzmi Chapter 8 page 568. Kunuz al Haqaiq, page 1609. Seerah al Halabiyah, Volume 3 page 23610. Manaqib by Ibne Maghazli page 144

This hadith is accepted by Ahl'ul Sunnah as Sahih. It clearly means that the further away an individual is from 'Ali (as), the further away he is from finding the truth. If the truth rests with Imam Ali (as), then how can those who rejected, disobeyed and fought him be 'rewarded' in their search for the truth? This hadith proves that the 'only' way that individuals could remain on the true path was if they attached themselves to Imam 'Ali (as), the Ul'il Umr upon whom obedience is wajib. Abu Sulaiman advances the common excuse namely that?

Ansar.org states:"none of the two factions was an oppressor because the death of Uthman divided the Islamic nation to two parties"


of 89

This defence also fails because Rasulullah (s) had told his followers where to turn in times of fitnah, he said:

‘There will be affliction after me, therefore when ever it happens follow Ali bin Abi Talib because he separates between the truth and falsehood (Farooq)’ Kanz ul Ummal, Volume 11 page 914 Hadith 32964

The duty was to attach themselves to Ali (as) NOT to separate from him, we also have these explicit words of Rasulullah (s):

After me people shall experience fitna, you will split into groups, he then pointed at Ali and said: ‘Ali and his companions shall be on the right path’ Kanz ul Ummal, Volume 11 page 621 Hadith number 33016

From this tradition it is clear that the ONLY way that the Ummah could save itself from fitnah and division was to side with Imam 'Ali (as). Did Ayesha's party adhere to the words of Rasulullah? Clearly not! Rather than follow the words of Allah (swt) [The Qur'an 4:59} and his Rasul (s) and affiliate themselves with Imam 'Ali (as), Ayesha deemed it fit to oppose, rebel and fight him. It is tragic that someone with the stature of Ayesha gave no value to such traditions of guidance, whilst an ordinary believer understood exactly who to side with on the basis of such Prophetic guidance, we read in Majma al-Zawaed, Volume 9 page 184 Tradition 14769:

Jari bin Samra said: ‘When the conflict between the people of Basra and Ali bin Abi Talib took place, I traveled to Madina and met Maymoona bint al-Harith – of the Bani Helal tribe. I greeted her, and she asked: ‘Where do you come from’? I replied: ‘From Iraq’. She asked: ‘From which part of Iraq?’ I replied: ‘From Kufa’. She asked: ‘From which tribe of Kufa?’ I replied: ‘From Bani Amer’. She replied: ‘You are most welcome, why have you come here?’ I replied: ‘There was dispute between Ali and Talha and Zubair, I therefore came to give bayya to Ali’. She replied: ‘By Allah, the truth is with him, he was never on error nor would ever lead to error’. She repeated that three times.

40.Reply Five – The legal duty to kill oath breakers and rebels negates the defence of correctly interpreted ijtihad

We read in Al-Bidayah wal-Nihayah:

عن أحمد بن حفص البغدادي عن سليمان بن يوسف، عن عبيد ال بن موسى، عن فطر، عن حكيم بنأمرت بقتال الناكثين والقاسطين والمارقين: جبير، عن إبراهيم، عن علقمة عن علي قال .

Ali said: ‘I was ordered to fight Nakitheen (oath breakers), Qasateen. (those who refrained from giving bayya to the Imam) and Maraqeen (Khwaarij)’.

In Sharh Maqasid, Volume 2 page 304, Allamah Sa`duddeen Taftazanee after narrating this hadith of Rasulullah (s), states clearly "the oath breakers were Talha, Zubayr and Ayesha".

In Matalib al Sa'ul p 68 we read:

فبدأ علي بقتال الناكثين وهم أصحاب الجمل وثنى بقتال القاسطين وهم أصحاب معاوية

“Ali started by fighting the oath breakers (Nakitheen) who were the people of battle of Jamal and then he fought the Qaseteen who were the companions of Mu'awiya”.

Ibn Athir records:


of 89

Abu Saeed narrated: ‘Allah's messenger (s) ordered us to fight Nakitheen, Qasateen and Maraqeen, we asked: ‘Oh Allah's messenger ! You ordered us to fight them but along with who?’ He said with Ali Ibn abi Talib and Ammar bin Yasir will be killed’’.

Usad ul Ghaba, Volume 1 page 801

At another place we read:

Mukhnaf bin Salim said: ‘We went to Abu Ayub and asked: ‘You by your sword fought with Allah's messenger (s) against the polytheists, then you kill Muslims’? He replied: ‘Rasulullah (s) ordered that I kill Nakitheen, Qasateen and Maraqeen’’.

Usad ul Ghaba, Volume 1 page 801

Comment

It is proven from these traditions that those who opposed 'Ali were breaking the oath of allegiance, the duty was to kill them this was based on the order of Rasulullah (s). Talha, Zubayr and Ayesha were at the forefront of this group.

Ayehsa's duty was to obey the Imam of the time as is stipulated by Allah (swt) as a general rule and explicitly in relation to Maula 'Ali (as) by Rasulullah (s) who declared:

"Whoever obeys 'Ali, obeys me, whoever obeys me, obeys Allah, whoever disobeys 'Ali, disobeys me, whoever disobeys me, disobeys Allah" Kanz al-Ummal, hadith numbers 32973

Comment

This hadith is absolutely explicit, obedience to 'Ali (as) is unconditional, it is on par with obedience to Rasulullah (s) and Allah (swt). Applying this to Rasulullah's orders, it is clear that the onus was to kill those that broke the oath. This duty applied to ALL individuals and to excuse Ayesha's actions as an exercise in ijtihad, is baseless because in the view of Rasulullah (s), the duty was to kill the perpetrators of such an act not reward them for their efforts of interpretation.

41.Reply Six - Rasulullah (s) deeming Zubayr unjust for fighting Ali (as) negates the defence of correctly interpreted ijtihad

Ansar.org states:"true hadeeths, which proves that neither Aysha, Al-Zubair, Talha, nor Ali wanted to fight each others".

First and foremost, the three beloved personalities of Abu Sulaiman leaving their place with a prepared army shall suffice as evidence of their intention. Even if we were to (for arguments sake) accept the claim that these three individuals had NO intention to fight Imam 'Ali (as), the fact of the matter is they did and Rasulullah (s) in his various predictions had warned Ayesha about the rebellion and she and her colleagues being on the wrong path, in fact being infidels. To be more precise, Rasulullah (s) had told Zubayr that he would fight 'Ali (as) and warned him of the consequences, as we read in Al-Imama wal-Siyasa, page 67 and al-Bidaya wa al-Nihaya, Volume 7 page 241:


http://islamport.com/d/1/trj/1/9/64.html




of 89

أنشدك ال أسمعت! يا زبير : شهدت عليا والزبير حين تواقفا، فقال له علي: قال.عن أبي جرو المازني لم أذكره إل في موقفي هذا! نعم : ؟ قال" إنك تقاتلني وأنت ظالم : " رسول ال صلى ال عليه وسلم يقول

.، ثم انصرف

Abi Jaru al-Mazeni said: ‘I saw Ali and Zubair when they met, hence Ali said: ‘Oh Zubair! I appeal you in the name of Allah, didn’t you hear Allah's messenger (s) saying that you shall fight me while you being an oppressor?’ He (Zubair) replied: ‘Yes! Just now I remembered that’. Then he (Zubair) left.’

Comment

We ask Ansar:

1. Was this hadith praising or condemning Zubayr?2. Can an individual declared by Rasulullah (s) as unjust on account of his actions, be

defended for using ijtihad for which he shall be rewarded?3. Did Rasulullah (s) state that Zubayr will fight 'Ali (as) having exercised ijtihad for which

he shall receive one reward and his mistake forgiven?4. If Rasulullah (s) did not declare that Zubayr would exercise ijtihad then on what basis

have Abu Sulaiman and his fellow advocates reached this conclusion? Are they more knowledgeable than Rasulullah (s)?

5. If all the Sahaba are just (according to Ahl’ul Sunnah) why did Rasulullah (s) deemed the Sahabi Zubayr unjust for fighting Imam Ali (as)? Do these words of the Prophet (s) not debunk this Sunni belief system?

Zubayr's only act of fighting against Imam 'Ali (as) was at Jamal, and Rasulullah (s) deemed him to have been Dhaalim on account of his opposition to 'Ali (as). Abu Sulaiman had confidently asserted "none of the two factions was an oppressor" but this hadith PROVES that those who fought Imam 'Ali (as), were so misled that they were deemed by Rasulullah (s) to be Dhaalim (i.e.) they WERE oppressors. It would be incorrect to suggest that this only referred to Zubayr because he had not entered into a duel against Imam 'Ali (as). He was at the helm of the opposition group. If he was Dhaalim on account of his war with 'Ali (as), then so were his associates, such as Ayesha.

42.Reply Seven – Hadith that deem fighting Imam 'Ali (as) to be on par with fighting Rasulullah (s) negates the defence of correctly interpreted ijtihad

We would ask those with objective minds to think over this scenario:

"You are sitting in the midst of Rasulullah (s) and have turned to him to resolve a dispute. He (s) rejects your claim. rather than accept the decision, you leave his presence, enter the neighboring town and encourage others to support your cause. You inform the people that you have been hard done by and that you will force Rasulullah (s) to concede to your demands. You whip up a frenzy, challenging Rasulullah's authority and go to war against him".

If you had behaved in this way i.e. disobeying, rebelling and going to war with Rasulullah (s), could you defend your decision by stating that your decision was on account of your interpreting the Deen i.e. ijtihad? Would Allah (swt) reward you for your efforts to interpret the Shari'a in this way?

With this in mind let us now contemplate this hadith, taken from Riyadh al Nadhira Volume 2 page 199 Chapter "Manaqib 'Ali":

'Abu Bakr narrates:


of 89

"I saw the Messenger of God pitch a tent in which he placed 'Ali, Fatima, Hasan, and Husayn. He then declared: 'O Muslims, I am at war against anyone who wars against the people of this tent, and am at peace with those who show peace toward them. I am a friend to those who befriend them. He who shows love toward them shall be one of a happy ancestry and good birth. Nor would anyone hate them except that he is of miserable ancestry and evil birth"

Nawasib shall no doubt seek to place the onus on Ali (as) by alleging that he initiated the war, and hence his opponents were not at war against him per se, rather they were defending themselves. To this our reply is clear, whoever takes a stand against Ali (as) is taking a stand against the Prophet (s). If Imam Ali (as) declares war on a group the Prophet (s) is likewise at war with such individuals. There is no room to excuse their behavior on account of mistaken ijtihad.

In this there is no doubt, the Prophet (s) made this point absolutely clear with these words, as narrated by Zaid bin Arqam found in Sunan Ibn-I-Majah, English translation by Muhammad Tufail Ansari, Volume 1 page 81

"Allah's Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said regarding 'Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Husain (Allah be pleased with them all): I am at peace with those with whom you make peace and I am at war with those whom you make war"

Al Muhaddith Shah Abdul Aziz Dehlavi in Tauhfa Ithna Ashariyyah Chapter 11 page 392 makes this admission:

Sunni and Shi'a are in agreement that Rasulullah (s) told 'Ali, "Whoever fights you, fights me and whoever is at peace with you is at peace with me".

Imam of Ahl'ul Sunnah Allamah Sa`duddeen Taftazani in Sharh Maqasid, Volume 2 page 305 states:

"Proof that the opponents of 'Ali were fasiq comes from the fact Rasulullah said 'O 'Ali whoever fights you fights me'.

Comment

We would ask those with open minds to contemplate the seriousness of this hadith. Fighting Ali (as) and Rasul (s) are one and the same - this being the case how can Ayesha and her supporter's actions be defended as having exercised ijtihad when they had in effect gone to war against Rasulullah (s)? Can those who fight Rasulullah (s) be rewarded for ijtihad and forgiven for their mistake?

43.Reply Eight – Ayesha’s role as Leader of her people negates the defence of correctly interpreted ijtihad

Sibt Ibn Jauzi al-Hanafi records in Tazkirah tul Khawwas page 43 Chapter "Dhikr Jamal" the following testimony of a narrator:

"I was walking through Jamal and witnessed a man on the ground rubbing his heels and reciting poetry, another narrators states that someone asked (the same man) 'Who are you?' to which he replied 'I am in that woman's army who intends to become Ameerul Momineen".This role as the self proclaimed leader of the ‘justice for Uthman’ opposition group, contradicts a clear tradition wherein the Prophet (s) condemned peoples that are led by women. We read in Sahih Bukhari Volume 9, Book 88, Number 219:


of 89

Narrated Abu Bakra: During the battle of Al-Jamal, Allah benefited me with a Word (I heard from the Prophet). When the Prophet heard the news that the people of the Persia had made the daughter of Khosrau their Queen (ruler), he said, "Never will succeed such a nation as makes a woman their ruler."

In Sharh Maqasid, Volume 2 page 377 Imam of Ahl'ul Sunnah Sadudeen Taftazani sets out the conditions to be an Imam:1. Free2. Man3. Just4. Adult and sensible

Then in his discussion of the conditions he states clearly that a woman CANNOT be an Imam because she is not apt with regards to the matters of religion and logic, morever she has been forbidden to participate in battles and courts.

While here we see that Ayesha not only go herself misguided but also became cause of misguidance of thousands of stars Like Sahaba who had come out to fight under her command. Now some shameless Nawasib still deny that Ayesha’s role in war of Jamal could not be considered as a leader but it is another lame excuse on their part due to the fact that:

1. Ayesha was conducting all affairs of war.2. Ayesha in her own capacity wrote to Caliph Ali challenging him to do whatever he good

to stop the rebellion against him3. People were seeking her permission before taking any steps were taken, they for

example turned to Ayesha to rule on how Iam Ali (as)’s Basran Govenor should be punished

4. We have the testimony of Sahabi Abu Bakra who relied on a Hadith as grounds condemning women at the helm of the state as grounds for not fighting at Jamal.

44.Reply Nine – Amar bin Yasir’s testimony that obedience to Ayesha constitutes disobedience to Allah (swt) negates the defense of correctly interpreted ijtihad

We read in Sahih Bukhari Hadith, Volume 9 Hadith 220:Narrated Abu Maryam Abdullah bin Ziyad al-Aasadi:

When Talha, al-Zubair and Aisha moved to Basra, Ali sent Ammar bin Yasir and al-Hasan bin Ali who came to us at Kufa and ascended the pulpit. al-Hasan bin Ali was at the top of the pulpit and Ammar was below al-Hasan. We all gathered before him. I heard Ammar saying, "Aisha has moved to al-Basra. By Allah! She is the wife of your Prophet in this world and in the Hereafter. But Allah has put you to test whether you obey Him (Allah) or her (Aisha)."

Look carefully at the testimony of Amar (ra), he is making it clear that the Muslims are being subjected to a test of their faith and must make a choice about who to obey, Allah (swt) or Ayesha. This shows us that the position that Ayesha had adopted was diametrically opposed to that of Allah (swt), so much so that one that obeyed her, would in consequence be disobeying Allah (swt). If obedience to Ayesha at Jamal constituted disobedience to Allah (swt) how can her advocates assert that she has exercised correctly interpreted ijtihad? A mujtahid’s role is to interpret religious texts to endure compliance with the commands of Allah (swt), one that is so misguided that her actions are a breach of the rules imposed on her by Allah (swt), and is so astray that anyone that follows disobeys Allah (swt) in the process can never be described as


of 89

mujtahid correctly interpreting ijtihad!

Some stupid Nawasib take heart from this tradition and suggest that the testimony 'is the wife of your Prophet in this world and in the Hereafter' is an acknowledgement of Ayesha being in Paradise. We would like to remind such pathetic Nawasib that not an exclusive merit of Ayesha the husband / wife relations created in this world remain intact in the hereafter no matter if one spouse enters paradise and the other Hell. relationships are not just limited to this world. A wife for example will be your mother in the next world whether her abode is Paradise or Hell, the relationship does not sever in the next world. Ayesha being the wife of the Prophet (s) is a reality because she was his widow at the time of death, this spousal relationship shall remain as a matter of fact, no matter where she ends up in the next world. Take the example of the wife of Nuh (as) she is his wife in this world and the next, the fact that this wife shall suffer the pangs of Hell is irrelevant, her being the wife of the Prophet Nuh (as) remains unchanged. If the thick and stubborn Nasibi minds are incapable of grasping this reality then allow us to present the testimony of Imam Qurtubi in this regard who stated in Tazkirah, page 560:

إذا ابتكر الرجل امرأة في الدنيا كانت زوجته في الخرة

"If a man marries a woman in the life, she will remain his wife in the hereafter"

We read in Tabaqat ibn Saad, Volume 8 page 251:

أخبرنا كثير بن هشام، حدثنا الفرات بن سلمان عن عبد الكريم عن عكرمة وأخبرنا عبد ال بن جعفر الرقي، حدثنا عبيد ال بن عمرو عن عبد الكريم عن عكرمة أن أسماء بنت أبي بكر كانت تحت الزبير بن العوام،

يا بنية اصبري فإن المرأة إذا كان لها زوج صالح ثم مات: وكان شديدا عليها فأتت أباها فشكت ذلك إليه فقال .عنها فلم تزوج بعده جمع بينهما في الجنة

"Akrama narrated that Asma bint Abi Bakr was the wife of al-Zubair bin al-Awam and he was too tough with her, she therefore went to her father to complain, he (Abu Bakr) said: 'O daughter, you should observe patience, surely if a woman has a pious man who dies before her and she never remarries after him, both shall be gathered in heaven".

Abu Bakar was of course alluding to that fact those couples that led sinless lives would be entitled to enter paradise but as we pointed out earlier, those couples or a spouse who deviated from the right path shall enter Hell without the reality of their spousal relationship changing. The reality of marital relations shall remain intact even if they shall no longer remain together in the next world.

45.Reply Ten – Ayesha’s tears over her role at Jamal negates the defence of correctly interpreted ijtihad

Al Muhaddith Shah Abdul Aziz Dehlavi in Tauhfa Ithna Ashariyyah page 385 and Ibn Taymiyya in Minhajj as Sunnah Volume 2 page 185 both record that:

"When Ayesha would recall the event of Jamal she would cry so profusely that her scarf would be soaked in tears".

Had Ayesha exercised ijtihad then why would she cry so profusely? Shaikh Al Saleh Al Uthaimin in his book of Fatwas "The Muslim's Belief", translated by Ar Maneh Hammad al Johani, p 23 sets out the standard defence for the Sahaba who fought 'Ali (as), namely:

"We believe that the disputes that took place among the Prophet's companions were the result of sincere interpretations they worked hard to reach. Whoever was right among them would be rewarded twice, and whoever was wrong among them would be rewarded once and his mistake would be forgiven"


of 89

If this is indeed the case and Ayesha would be forgiven, even if she was wrong, then why would she express such regret?

Abu Sulaiman had also cited this reference in his defence of Ayesha, namely her testimony:

Ansar.org states:"I wish I was a fresh branch of a tree and never walked this walk." [13] ? if Aysha wanted to fight instead of making peace, then why the regret?

Perhaps it would be more appropriate for Abu Sulaiman to answer the fact 'If Ayesha had exercised ijtihad for which she will be rewarded and forgiven if wrong - then why the regret? Clearly Ayesha did not deem her alleged 'ijtihad' as an interpretation for which she would be rewarded and forgiven even if it was a mistake. Ayesha was fully aware that the fitnah that she had caused carried serious consequences along with the fact that she also knew what Rasul (s) had said about his (s)'s Ahlul Bayt. 'O 'Ali whoever fights you fights me'.

46.Reply Eleven - Ayesha’s deeming her conduct an unforgivable major sin negates the defence of correctly interpreted ijtihad

Chapter "Mawaddatul Saum" we read that:

"Ayesha narrates the Prophet said 'Allah asked me 'Whoever doesn't accept Ali's caliphate and rebels and fights him is a kaffir and will perish in the fire" Someone asked her "Why did you rebel and fight him?" She replied "I forgot this Hadith on the Day of the Battle of Jamal, I remembered it again when I returned to Basra and I asked for Allah's forgiveness, I don't think that I will be forgiven for this sin"

Had Ayesha exercised ijtihad there would have been no need for her to cry or seek repentance for her actions - because this is a such a great act that even the individual interpreting a matter incorrectly "would be rewarded once and his mistake would be forgiven". Ayesha clearly did not feel that this 'reward' applied to her and her testimony that she found it unlikely that she would be forgiven is clear proof that she had committed a grave sin not a mistake in ijtihad. Advocates like Abu Sulaiman and Ibn al Hashimi write belatedly to explain and defend Ayesha, the irony is they provide her defenses that she herself never claimed.

47.Reply Twelve - Ayesha’s refusal to be buried next to Rasulullah (s) negates the defence of correctly interpreted ijtihad

Before we cite the actual tradition on this topic, let us begin with the following one from Sahih Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 277:

Narrated Ibn Abu Mulaika: Ibn 'Abbas asked permission to visit Aisha before her death, and at that time she was in a state of agony. She then said. "I am afraid that he will praise me too much." And then it was said to her, "He is the cousin of Allah's Apostle and one of the prominent Muslims." Then she said, "Allow him to enter." (When he entered) he said, "How are you?" She replied, "I am Alright if I fear (Allah)." Ibn Abbas said, "Allah willing, you are Alright as you are the wife of Allah's Apostle and he did not marry any virgin except you and proof of your innocence was revealed from the Heaven." Later on Ibn Az-Zubair entered after him and 'Aisha said to him, "Ibn 'Abbas came to me and praised me greatly, but I wish that I was a thing forgotten and out of sight."


of 89

We read in Sahih Bukhari Volume 9, Book 92, Number 428:

Narrated Hisham's father: 'Aisha said to 'Abdullah bin Az-Zubair, "Bury me with my female companions (i.e. the wives of the Prophet) and do not bury me with the Prophet in the house, for I do not like to be regarded as sanctified (just for being buried there)."

We read in Iqd al-Fareed, Volume 2 page 109:

ل، إني أحدثت بعده ح¥دث́ا فادف£ن§وني مع: ت§دفنين مع رسول ال صلى ال عليه وسلم؟ قالت: وقيل لها .يا ح§ميراء، كأني بك ت¥ن¤بحك ك£لب§ الح§و²ب: وقد كان النبي صلى ال عليه وسلم قال لها. إخوتي بالبقيع

.تقاتلين علي́ا وأنت له ظالمة

She (Ayesha) was asked: ‘Should we bury you next to Allah's messenger (s)?’ She said: 'No! As I committed some thing after him (s), bury me with my female companions (i.e. the wives of the Prophet)’. Rasulullah (s) had told her: ‘Oh Humayra that the dogs of Hawab would bark at you, you would fight Ali and you would be an oppressor towards him’.

Could you imagine anyone refusing to be buried next to the Prophet (s) when they had such an option? The only hindrance the common person would have, would be that of shame and a feeling that one is simply to impure and sinful to be laid to rest next to the most perfect of Creations. Those that have led a pious life, free of wrongdoing would jump at such an opportunity. With this in mind how should we interpret the instructions of Ayesha that she not be buried beside Rasulullah (s) on account of her actions? This is a clear admission of her error. Clearly she was conscious of the fact that her actions were extremely serious. Had they been mistakes in ijtihad that still guarantee Allah (swt)'s pleasure, then why the insistence that she be buried away from Rasulullah (s) on account of her actions at Jamal?

48.Reply Thirteen - Ayesha's regret on her deathbed proves that she was misguided and negates the defence of correctly interpreted ijtihad

In Nasa al Kaafiya, page 28 we learn that:

On her death bed Ayesha seemed perplexed and uncomfortable, when asked why she replied, "The day of Jamal is dogging my mind".

Ansar.Org and their fellow advocates shall no doubt take comfort that Ayesha's regret on her death-bed constitutes Allah's forgiveness. The fact of the matter is she may have regretted her participation in the battle, but she NEVER expressed nor sought forgiveness for her opposition against the Imam of Guidance Ali ibn Abi Talib (as), on the contrary, her hatred was unrelenting. She continued to bear enmity towards him even after Jamal and later on, that she also vented out against his sons. Even if we, for arguments sake, are to interpret (no doubt Abu Sulaiman will) her words on her deathbed as her seeking repentance, by now it was too little, too late. We read in Surah Yunus verses 90 - 92 (A. Yusuf Ali's translation) that Pharoah's acknowledgement of Allah (swt) when death approached him, was deemed too late by Allah (swt):

"We took the Children of Israel across the sea: Pharaoh and his hosts followed them in insolence and spite. At length when overwhelmed with the flood he said: "I believe that there is no God except Him Whom the Children of Israel believe in: I am of those who submit (to Allah in Islam)." (It was said to him): "Ah now! but a little while before wast thou in rebellion! and thou didst mischief (and violence)!" This day shall We save thee in the body, that thou mayest be a sign to those who come after thee! but verily, many among mankind are heedless of Our Signs!"


of 89

Yusuf Ali in his commentary of this verse states clearly:

"This was death-bed repentance, and even so it was forced by the terror of the catastrophe. So it was not accepted (cf. iv. 18) in its entirety".

His last minute plea of forgiveness could not save him from the wrath of Allah (swt).

49.Reply Fourteen - Rasulullah's hadith 'Fitnah shall appear from the House of Ayesha' is clear proof that she was on the wrong path and negates the defence of correctly interpreted ijtihad

We read the following tradition in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4 Hadith 336:

"Narrated Abdullah: The Prophet stood up and delivered a sermon, and pointed to the house of Aisha, and said: "Fitna (trouble/sedition) is right here," saying three times, "from where the side of the Satan's head comes out."

We also read in Sahih Muslim, Book 041, Number 6941:

Ibn Umar reported that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) came out from the house of 'A'isha and said: It would be from this side that there would appear the height of unbelief, viz. where appear the horns of Satan. i. e. cast.

Abu Sulaiman seeks to cover up the truth with this 'alternative' definition:

Ansar.org states:"If the prophet peace be upon him was meaning the house of Aysha, then he would say "to", not "towards." Muslim narrated from Ibn Omar, "The Messenger of Allah peace be upon him came out from Aysha's house and said, "The head of disbelief comes from here, where the horn of the devil arises." Meaning the east."

This argument is baseless for the following reasons:

1. al-Bukhari has put the tradition related to Aisha in a section named: "What went on in the houses of the wives of the Prophet". This shows that al-Bukhari did not understand the tradition as the East as Abu Sulaiman suggests. If the author ever thought that the Prophet (s) meant The East in that particular tradition, he wouldn't have put the tradition in the section of 'what was going on in the houses of the wives of the Prophet (s).' He probably would have put it in the Chapter of al-Fitna or elsewhere. Could Abu Sulaiman kindly explain the correlation between the East and the house of Aisha! Does Abu Sulaiman have a better understanding of this tradition than al Muhaddith Shaykh Ismail al Bukhari?

2. With regards to Abu Sulaiman's comment:

Ansar.org states:"If the prophet peace be upon him was meaning the house of Aysha, then he would say "to", not "towards."

How can he explain the fact that he mentioned in that particular tradition "right here" and the


of 89

pointing was so clear that the companions understood that he was pointing to the house of Ayesha, as it is mentioned in the text of the tradition? The East can not be "right here" in Madina, in front of the Prophet. In Arabic the text uses the word "ha ona" meaning here - as in within close proximity. The East is NOT within close proximity and if the reference was indeed towards the East then it is there at a distance, Rasulullah (s) would have used the words "honak" - "there" to denote distance.

3. For arguments sake, if the tradition denotes east, then it would certainly have been so vague as to require further elaboration. For example, if there is trouble brewing in the city centre and I state that "Problems are occurring over there" (pointing to the direction of the centre) would those people I told this to, understand what I was saying? Would they not ask me to elaborate as to where exactly I was pointing at i.e. Location? If I had said to the East even then people would ask me to clarify "East which part of the East? Would they not want me to break the area down further? It would be completely normal for further questions to be asked to get a precise understanding of where I was pointing. Does it make sense that Rasulullah (s) by the pointing of his finger, was able to convey successfully to EVERY Sahabi present that he was pointing in the direction of the east? Would the companions not have asked him to clarify which part of the east he was referring to, asking questions about any town / city / province from where this fitnah would rise? This is clearly a feeble attempt to deflect the fact that Rasulullah (s) was pointing at the house of Ayesha. The Sahaba saw no need to ask further questions on the matter. They, through Rasulullah's pointing at Ayesha's house, recognized that fitnah would come from her home.

4. If Abu Sulaiman insists on maintaining this flimsy defense, we would like to know how he would explain the fact that there are traditions in which Rasulullah (s) makes no reference to pointing east. We read in Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal Volume 8 page 373 that:

"Rasulullah (s) came out of the house of Ayesha and said 'the Head of Kufr shall rise from HERE from where Satan's horn shall rise".

Again the Arabic says here "min ha ona" indicating that Rasulullah's referring to closeness not a distance away.

If we delve in to history, we can see how true the words of Rasulullah (s) rang clear. She rebelled against the Caliphate of Imam 'Ali (as), incited opposition to him sought support from the Basrans that led to mass revolt and war. This was the act of fitnah that Rasululllah (s) had predicted, and he had placed the blame squarely at her feet, referring to her as the horn of Satan and pivot of disbelief. Rasulullah's clear use of the words referring to the act as "kufr" and "fitnah” destroys the fallacy that Ayesha had exercised ijtihad for which she shall be rewarded.


of 89

3. Chapter Three – Refuting the objections of Ayesha’s advocates

Having refuted the defenses submitted by Ayesha’s advocates in the previous chapter, we shall in this one seek to continue the debate by assessing the merits of specific objections that Ibn al Hashimi submitted.

50.First Objection – The suggestion that Ayesha wanted to fight Imam Ali (as) is a Shia concocted fairytale

Ibn al Hashimi states:One of the most common lies in regards to Aisha is that she left her house to fight Ali (رض�ى ال عنها) in the Battle of the Camel. This lie (رض�ى ال عنه)has been propagated so many times by the Shia scholars that people have started to think of this as fact. In the words of Ibn Khaldum: “The more a supposed ‘incident’ becomes popular, the more a network of unfounded tales and stories is woven around it.”

51.Reply One – If anyone is fond of perpetuating fairytales it is the Nawasib

The irony is we could say exactly the same with ibn al Hashimi’s ad nauseum claim that all Fitnah from the anti Uthman movement until the assassination of Maula Ali (as) was the brainchild of Abdullah Ibn Saba. This Nasibi has continually sought to play the same broken record player in his articles, knowing that these events are based around the narrations of Sayf ibn Umar whose unreliability as a hadith narrator has unanimous Sunni opinion. With the popularity of these narrations Nawasib have subsequently sought to expand on such lies to give further credibility to this fairy tale, to paraphrase Ibn Khaldun “The more a supposed ‘incident’ becomes popular, the more a network of unfounded tales and stories is woven around it.”

We would invite Ibn al Hashimi to examine his own methodology before slandering others.

52.Reply Two – Ayesha’s conduct evidences her desire to fight Imam Ali (as)

Perhaps we are being simple, but when Ayesha:

• convenes a meeting in her home, wherein discussions focus on fighting Ali (as) and recruiting men from Basrah, where Talhah has influence (cited in the previous chapter)

• refuses to negotiate with Ali (as) and in fact seeks to undermine his authority, be telling him through written correspondence that issues are non negotiable (cited in the previous chapter)

• appears with fighting men on a camel, thus acting as the mascot for a cause,

can we not interpret such conduct as evidence of her desire to fight Imam Ali (as)?

As we had stressed previously, had her intention been different she would have sought to enter


of 89

into negotiations with Imam Ali (as) directly in Makka, not sought to give her backing to movement intent on overthrowing Imam Ali (as)!

53.Second Objection - Why would Ayesha demand Qisas for a man whose downfall she had contributed towards?

It is interesting that Abu Sulaiman poses this question:

Ansar.org states:"if Aysha was delighted for the death of Uthman, then why she would go after Uthman's murderers? Did she come out to prevent Ali from taking the Caliphate?"

54.Reply

In light of the lead role Ayesha took in inciting people to kill Uthman, it would be much more appropriate for Ayesha’s advocates to answer this question themselves. We have proven from the sources cited in our article ‘Who killed Uthman’ that during his lifetime, Ayesha was a severe critic of Uthman, to the point that she advocated his killing. When hearing that Imam 'Ali (as) had become the khalifa, her tone had changed immediately. All of a sudden she portrayed Uthman as being killed unjustly and she chose to rebel against Imam Ali (as) on the premise that his killers should be apprehended. Why did she leave Makka, portray Uthman as a victim and mobilize opposition from Basrah? Was this decision based on her desire to defend Uthman or was it motivated by her animosity towards Ali (as)? These are questions that Ayesha’s advocates always shy away from. Ansar.Org might well feel outraged at the suggestion that Ayesha’s real motive was ‘to prevent Ali from taking the Caliphate?’ but as we have cited previously the words spoken by Ibn Zubayr, one of her key Lieutenants in Basrah namely ‘We don’t consider him more eligible for leadership than we’ (History of Tabari, English Edition, Volume 16 pages 68-69) – proves that her motive was just that.

55.Third objection - Why would the Banu Ummayya want to forge links with those that had killed Uthman?

Ibn al Hashimi states:“The fact of the matter is that there were hundreds of people protesting on the streets, all of them demanding Qisas for Uthman’s murder. Most of these were from the same tribe of Uthman (رض�ى ال عنه). For example, the Syrian governor, Muawiyyah (رض�ى ال عنه), was one such individual. There was also Talha (رض�ى ال عنه) and Zubair (رض�ى ال عنه). The question begs: if Aisha ( had publically advocated Uthman’s (رض�ى ال عنهاmurder and she was complicit in his murder, then why would she later be “allied” with Muawiyyah ( ?(رض�ى ال عنه) who also fought with Ali ,(رض�ى ال عنهThis is truly a contradiction! Wouldn’t Muawiyyah to (رض�ى ال عنها) have fought Aisha (رض�ى ال عنه)punish her for murdering his cousin? Why would Muawiyyah (رض�ى ال عنه) murder his own cousin, especially the cousin who bestowed upon him favor upon favor, evidenced by the fact that the


of 89

Shia scholars love to show Uthman’s nepotism ( .”(رض�ى ال عنه) in relation to Muawiyyah (رض�ى ال عنه

56.Reply One – The merger took place as a mechanism to oust Imam Ali (as) from power

That is one of the biggest ironies! In our article on Uthman we had submitted strong evidence proving the lead role of Talha and Zubayr in killing Uthman. We also evidenced Ayesha’s sympathy towards those that were opposed to Uthman. If events that then lead to Jamal involved the Banu Ummaya and the killers of Uthman forging an alliance, it would be more apt for questions to be asked from the supporters of the Sahaba. It is for Ibn al Hashimi to answer this:

1. If all the Sahaba are just and truthful does that include those Sahaba that lead an anti Uthman movement that enabled the siege of his home and murder?

2. If the above individuals were just and truthful for their role in overthrowing Uthman, how do they remain just and truthful when they subsequently demanded vengeance for Uthman?

The fact is these individuals were insincere in their demands for killing Uthman, they were motivated by a desire to overthrow Imam Ali (as), their demanding Qisas for Uthman was a mechanism they used to attain this objective. Such a movement would only receive credence if it gained the support of Uthman’s Ummayad clan which is why an alliance was forged with them. If the question was asked why the Ummayads would seek to join hands with the killers of Uthman, we will say that they likewise didn’t care for Uthman they were motivated by their hatred of Ali (as). On their own they would not have been able to overthrow Ali (as), but with famed Sahaba supporting their cause, their movement would get popularity and legitimacy. Both groups were opportunists motivated by a desire to remove Imam Ali (as) as Head of State as can be evidenced from this tradition that we had partially cited in the previous reply:

Ibn Jarir Tabari also narrated from Ahmad – from his father – from Wahab bin Jarir bin Hazim – from Yunis bin Yazeed – from Zuhri:I was told that when Talha and al-Zubayr heard that Ali had encamped at Dhu Qar, they left for al-Basrah and took the road to al-Munkadir. Ayesha then heard the dogs barking and asked: ‘What water is this?’. ‘Al-Hawab’ they replied. “We belong to Allah, and to him we return” she exclaimed. “I am she. I heard Messenger of God say in the presence of his wives, ‘ I wish I knew at which of you the dogs of al-Hawab will bark!’” and she wanted to turn back. Abdullah bin al-Zubayr came up to her, and it is said that he told her, “Whoever said that this was al-Hawab was lying”. And then persisted with her until she set off. They came to al-Basrah, the governor of which was Uthman bin Hunayf, and he asked them: “What makes you angry at our companion [Ali]?” “We don’t consider him more eligible for leadership than we” they replied “after what he has done”. “The man [Ali], made me governor, so I will write to him and inform him why you have come” said Uthman, “On the condition that I lead the prayer until his reply comes”.

History of Tabari, English Edition, Volume 16 pages 68-69

Ahmad bin Zuhayr: Dahabi said: ‘Renowned Hafiz’ (Tarikh al-Islam, v20 p252), Al-Albaani said: ‘Thiqah’ (Silsila Sahiha, v3 p446). Zuhair Abu khaythama: Dahabi said: ‘Hujja’ (Siar alam alnubala, v11 p489), Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah Thabt’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1 p316). Wahab bin Jarir: Dahabi said: Thiqah’ (Al-Kashif, v2 p356), Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v2 p291). Jarir bin Hazim: Dahabi said: ‘Thiqah’ (Al-Kashif, v1, p291), Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1 p158). Yunus bin Yazid: Dahabi said: ‘One of the Thabt’ (Al-Kashif, v2 p404), Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v2 p351). Al-Zuhari:




of 89

Dahabi said: ‘The hafiz of his time’ (Siar alam alnubala, v5 p326), Ibn Hajar said: ‘There is an agreement about his magnificence’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v2 p133).

57.Reply Two – The Banu Ummaya forging links with those that they knew killed Uthman proves that their objective was not Qisas

It is not uncommon for political opponents to forge an alliance to oppose a common enemy. Sadly this is the nature of ‘politics’ where bitter enemies become close friends to further a shared objective. Take the example of Pakistan. There was no love lost between PPP Leader Asif Ali Zardari and Muslim League Noon Leader Nawaz Sharif. Such was their animosity; they had each accused the other of corruption during their terms, with Nawaz Sharif imprisoning Zardari on a vast array of corruption cases when he was in power. Despite this reality we see how both foes became close allies in 2007/08, dedicated to ousting the (then) President Pervez Musharraf and restoring democracy to the nation. Their past issues were put aside and they worked hand in hand to remove their political enemy. Exactly the same scenario applies to the Ummayad / Ayesha et al. alliance. The Banu Ummayad had agreed to temporarily halt their pursuit for the killers of Uthman as a merger with these same killers could enable a greater objective, the removal of Maula Ali (as) from power. The reality of these same individuals killing Uthman was not missed on the Banu Ummayah and when the opportunity came, they took revenge from one of the main perpetrators fighting alongside them. Imam Dhahabi has recorded:

Jawairiya bin Asma narrated from Yahya bin Saeed who narrated from his uncle that Marwan shot Talha an arrow and killed him, then he looked at Aban (son of Uthman) and said: ‘I have spared you from one of the murderers of your father.’

Siar alam al-Nubala, Volume 1 page 36

Tell us Ibn al Hashimi, if your Imam Marwan knew that Talhah killed Uthman why did he join him in Jamal? Clearly it was not to avenge Uthman. Thus both groups used Uthman's murder as an excuse to enable the overthrow of Imam Ali (as).

58.Fourth Objection – Why do the Shia judge Ayesha differently from the way they judge Sayyida Fatima (as)?

Ibn al Hashimi states:Furthermore, if we switch Ali’s name with Abu Bakr and Aisha’s name with Fatima, then suddenly the Shia would use the fact that Fatima and ,(رض�ى ال عنه) fought Abu Bakr (رض�ى ال عنها)they would use this not as evidence against Fatima (رض�ى ال عنها), but rather as evidence against Abu Bakr (رض�ى ال عنه)! We see this glaring double-standard when we examine the Shia stance on the issue of Fadak. When it comes to Fadak, then Fatima (رض�ى ال عنها) is in the right despite the fact that, according to the Shia, she is cursing the Amir Al Mumineen and Caliph. Here, the Shia will say that Abu Bakr’s position (رض�ى ال as Amir Al Mumineen and Caliph cannot (عنهpossibly compete with Fatima’s position as Chief of the Women of Paradise. When it comes to the Battle of the Camel, then Aisha’s position (رض�ى ال as Mother of the Believers is disregarded and (عنهاsuddenly the Shia scholars will trumpet the line




of 89

that Aisha (رض�ى ال عنها) went against her own Caliph and the Amir Al Mumineen!

59.Reply One – Sayyida Fatima (as) was entitled to Fadak as her legal right, not due to her status in the eyes of Allah (swt)

The Shia case on Fadak is not based on her being right on account of her position as the Leader of the Women of Paradise but was because her claim was legitimate in accordance with the Quran, Sharia, the Sunnah of past Prophets and the instruction of Prophet Muhammad (s).

Compare this to Ayesha who had no legal basis to justify her conduct, on the contrary her activities were a breach of the Quran, Sunnah and specific Hadith wherein the Prophet forewarned dire predictions about the barking of Hawab’s dogs and the consequences for those that fight Maula Ali (as).

60.Reply Two – If anyone has employed double standards it is Ibn al Hashimi

In his critique of Sayyida Zahra (as) Ibn al Hashimi insisted that she was duty bound to obey the decision of Abu Bakr on account of his rank as the head of state:

Ibn al Hashimi states:Furthermore, Abu Bakr (رض�ى ال عنه) was the Caliph of the Ummah; this is the highest rank possible, and all the subjects must obey him. As such, he deserved the respect and obedience of his subjects, of which includes Fatima (رض�ى ال As such, if the Shia want to argue that Abu .(عنهاBakr (رض�ى ال عنه) should have been careful about angering Fatima (رض�ى ال عنها), an unbiased observer could easily argue that it was Fatima ( who should have been careful of (رض�ى ال عنهاangering the Caliph of the Muslims who by the Shariah was at a rank higher in status than anyone else.

We appeal to justice, if Sayyida Fatima (as) was duty bound to obey the decision of Abu Bakr because he was the ‘Calpih of the Ummah’, why does the same not hold true for Ayesha? To paraphrase Ibn al Hashimi:

“Ali (as) was the Caliph of the Ummah; this is the highest rank possible, and all the subjects must obey him. As such, he deserved the respect and obedience of his subjects, of which includes Ayesha”

Why doesn’t Ibn al Hashimi apply the same doctrine to criticize Ayesha’s conduct against Ali (as) at Jamal? Why is she exempt from obeying Caliph Ali (as) whilst Fatima (as) was not? Was Ayesha not duty bound to obey the Calip Ali (as) and respect his decision to defer punishment to a later date? What Quranic verse or Hadeeth entitled Ayesha to behave in the manner that she did? Ibn al Hashimi’s failure to apply the same principle to Ayesha that he happily applied to criticize Fatima (as) exposes him for the hypocrite he is.


of 89

4. Chapter Four - Untangling the lies spun by Ayesha’s advocates

In line with their Master advocates Ibn Taymeeya, Ibn Kathir and Shah Abdul Aziz - Abu Sulaiman and Ibn al Hashimi had sought to play down the situation with the claim that the two parties had resolved hostilities and that the battle of Jamal was in fact started by the followers of Ibn Saba hiding within Imam Ali (as)'s army, and it is they (not Ayesha et al.) that should be blamed for the fitnah. Their modern day spiritual sons put to paper the same lies, with some additional baseless claim to sensationalize the dossier of evidence against the Shia. This chapter shall seek to untangle the lies that had spun and shall lift the lid on their status and liars of the highest order.

61.Did the Sabaites cause Fitnah during the Battle of Jamal?

Ibn al Hashimi states:The truth is that both Umm Al Mumineen (Mother of the Believers) Aisha (رض�ى ال عنها) and Amir Al Mumineen (Commander of the Believers) Ali (رض�ى were innocent of the Fitnah during the (ال عنهBattle of the Camel (al-Jamal). The real culprits who instigated the Battle of the Camel were the Shia, who have historically been the cause of much Fitnah.

62.Reply One – The onus is on Ibn al Hashimi to prove the authenticity of these narrations

In our article ‘Who really killed Uthman’ we submitted a detailed discussion about the unreliability of the reports which mention the role of Ibn Saba during the era of Uthman and subsequent events, since they are all narrated by the notorious liar Sayf Ibn Umar. Abu Sulaiman and Ibn al Hashimi's failure to cite the specific narrations relating to the Sabaite role in killing Uthman at various points in their articles, entitles us to assume that they are relying on the very fabrications narrated by Sayf Ibn Umar. If other narrations / chains existed we are sure that these Nawasib would have cited them with the complete chain highlighted in gold. Our suspicions become stronger when (later on) we see them switch to a narrative in a summarized manner from Tabari.

If our claim is wrong, we would invite Ibn al Hashimi to substantiate his claim, firstly by citing those Sunni sources that mention the role of the Sabaites in the Battle of Jamal and then evidencing that each of those chains is Sahih. It is only then, that he will have a valid ground to make such an assertion.

63.Reply Two – Ayesha and her supporters spreading Fitnah long before the battle of Jamal destroys the Ibn Saba defence card

Let us for arguments sake accept Ibn al Hashimi’s assertion that the Sabaites were involved in ‘Fitnah during the Battle of the Camel (al-Jamal)’ the battlefield is that place wherein all manner of rumor / misunderstanding can take place. If the Sabaites had been party to this during battle, who was responsible for bringing Ayesha and her armed supporters onto the battlefield in the first place? Did the Sabaites bound and gag Ayesha onto a camel and then dump her in Jamal? Were her supporters under some evil Sabaite hypnosis that duped them to gather on masse at Jamal? Was some medieval superglue used to attach swords to their hands? Did the


of 89

Sabaites deceive these pious individuals and tell them that Maula Ali (as) had invited them all to an outdoor picnic at Jamal, but they should bring their swords with them as no small cutlery was available? Ibn al Hashimi needs to recognize that battles do not just occur overnight. It takes time, strategic planning and crucially soldiers that Ayesha had at her disposal.

If Ayesha was averse to any form of Fitnah why did she:

1. allow her supporters to violently take control of Basrah, killing innocent Shia in the process

2. allow the capture, torture and expulsion of Imam Ali (as)’s appointed Governor of Basrah

3. become party to rallies in Basrah that talked of overthrowing Imam Ali (as) due to him being unfit for office?

When Basrah was taken by force, from where these rallies were convened that sought to attract support and stoke up animosity towards the Head of State, then would such conduct not fall within the definition of Fitnah?

64.Did Imam Ali (as) condemn his Shia for killing Uthman?

Ibn al Hashimi states:Ali’s Caliphate (رض�ى ال عنه)

After Uthman’s death (رض�ى ال عنه), the Shia’t Ali asked Ali (رض�ى ال عنه) to declare himself Caliph. Ali (رض�ى ال عنه) refused, namely out of anger at his own Shia who murdered Uthman (رض�ى ال عنه). Ali (رض�ى ال عنه) did not want to be associated with these trouble-makers. This is recorded in Nahjul Balagha, which the Shia consider very authentic. [It should be noted that the Ahlus Sunnah believe the Nahjul Balagha to contain many forgeries.] The Nahjul Balagha contains the sermons and letters of Ali (رض�ى ال عنه) and in it we find sermon after sermon in which Ali (رض�ى ال عنه) condems his Shia–particularly the Saba’ites–for their extremist actions.

Nahjul Balagha, Sermon 191

Ali says to his Shia:

“You should know that you have again reverted to the position of the [pagan] Bedouin Arabs after immigration to Islam, and have become different Shias after having been once united. You do not possess anything of Islam except its name, and know nothing of belief save its show. You would throw down Islam on its face in order to defame its honor and break its pledge for brotherhood which Allah gave you as a sacred trust on His earth and a source of peace among the people…You have broken the shackles of Islam, have transgressed its limits, and have destroyed


of 89

its commands!”

[source: http://www.al-islam.org/nahjul/191.htm][source: http://www.al-islam.org/nahjul/91.htm]

65.Reply – Imam Ali (as) was condemning the division of the Ummah into parties not attacking his specific Shia perse

Look at the dishonesty used by Ibn al Hashimi, he claims to quote it verbatim under the heading ‘Ali says to his Shia’: but when we look at very online version that has quoted from he says Condemning his people. Having sought to suggest that the sermon was referring to his Shia, he then again used the term Shia in the text, whereas the English says parties he writes ‘and have become different Shias after having been once united ‘ - so as to suggest that the entire sermon is a condemnation of his Shia adherents. When Imam Ali (as) was the Khalifa over the Islamic State then all of its citizens were ‘his people’ whether they accepted him willingly or grudgingly, so that included those that:

• deemed him the rightful Khalifa after the Prophet (s) • deemed him the rightful fourth khalifa (political Shias)• were prepared to give bayya subject to Imam Ali (as) apprehending Uthman’s killers• hated him and refused to recognize him as the Khalifa (Uthmani Shias)

This sermon was Imam Ali (as)’s criticism of the conditions at the time. It was a severe condemnation of the state of the Muslim Ummah, that had divided into groups with differing agendas and this was contrary to the spirit of brotherhood and unity dictated by the Quran and Sunnah. This sermon was therefore a wakeup call by our Imam (as) to all his subjects, making it clear that this atmosphere of division and hostility ran contrary to Islam, and was in effect a mirror reflection of conditions during the time of jahilyya. What is wrong in a leader assessing the situation in this way? It is common place for a leader to galvanize public opinion and call for unity by striking fear into the hearts of his subjects making it clear that anarchy is harmful to a functioning society. This sermon was an accurate description of the conditions that Khalifa Ali (as) faced at the time, it was not a sermon (as Ibn al Hashimi would suggest) addressed to the Sabaites in his party. If it was, could Ibn al Hashimi kindly point us to that part of the sermon or for that part any sermon in Nahjul Balagha wherein Imam Ali (as) mentions the word Ibn Saba or Sabaites or condemns his Shia for killing Uthman? If you can’t then you have no right to interpret this clear cut sermon in this manner!

66.Did the Sabaites force Ali (as) to accept the Caliphate?

Ibn al Hashimi states:Nahjul Balagha, Sermon 91

When people decided to swear allegiance at Amir al-mu’minin’s hand after the murder of Uthman, Ali said:

“Leave me and seek someone else. We are facing a matter which has (several) faces and colors, which neither hearts can stand nor intelligence can accept. Clouds are hovering over the sky, and faces are not discernible. You should know that if I respond to you, I would lead you as I know and would not care about whatever [anyone else]


of 89

may say. If you leave me, then I am the same as you are. It is possible I would listen to and obey whosoever you make in charge of your affairs. I am better for you as a counsellor than as chief.” [source: http://www.al-islam.org/nahjul/91.htm]

67.Reply – The Sahaba forced Imam Ali (as) to become the Khalifa not the Sabaites

Ibn al Hashimi’s ability to infer something from Shi’a texts without a shred of evidence is indeed amazing. He has suggested that Imam Ali (as) refused to become the Khalifa because he wanted nothing to do with the Sabaites that killed Uthman. Where does he state this in this and the preceding sermon? By linking this second sermon with his discussions on the Sabaites it seems that this Nasibi is suggesting that Sabaites forced Imam Ali (as) to become the fourth Khalifa. By alleging this he has blasphemed the Sahaba, since it was the companions of Madina that approached our Imam and asked that he lead them through these tough times. To suggest that these Madinan Sahaba were Sabaites is indeed a blasphemy that Ibn al Hashimi should be ashamed of! Imam Ali (as)’s refusal was because he knew the sorts of challenges and hostility he was due to face, that had been a direct consequence of the policies of his predecessors, particularly Uthman. Undoing such policies would court criticism from various quarters and our Imam (as) was fed up with the people and preferred to live a life of peace. When the pressure of the Sahaba became too much he accepted this leadership role. Such facts don’t brother Ibn al Hashimi who persists on pursuing the same conspiracy theory, clear from his next allegation…

68.Was the killing of Uthman by the Shia of Ali an established fact?

Ibn al Hashimi states:At first, Ali (رض�ى ال عنه) refused to be Caliph. However, he eventually accepted the position and became Amir Al Mumineen. Upon his announcement as Caliph, there was a large grumbling from people who accused Ali (رض�ى ال of being an accomplice in the murder of (عنهUthman (رض�ى ال عنه), since it was well known that it was an element of the Shia’t Ali who were responsible for the seige of Uthman’s house (رض�ى رض�ى ال) This accusation made against Ali .(ال عنه is recorded in Sermon 22 of Nahjul Balagha (عنهwhich is titled “About those who accused Ali of Uthman’s killing.”

69.Reply One – Ibn al Hashimi is propagating the beliefs of Nawasib

We find it amazing that Ibn al Hashimi suggests that the above is an established fact by stating ‘it was well known that it was an element of the Shia’t Ali who were responsible for the seige of Uthman’s house’ - when in reality those that were involved in the siege were the Egyptians and certain prominent Madinan Sahaba. There is no evidence to suggest that they were Shia’t Ali. We invite Ibn al Hashimi to read this our article ‘Who killed Uthman?’ that will inshallah open his bigoted eyes to the truth. The problem with shameless Nawasib like Ibn al Hashimi lies in the fact that they seek to propagate the belief of the Nawasib of that time as correct viewpoints. Take the allegation about the Shia of Ali (as) killing Uthman at Maula Ali (as)’s behest – this


of 89

was not a common Muslim belief at the time, if it was well known then it was well known false propaganda of the Nawasib of the time, as can be evidenced from the testimony of Ibn al Hashimi’s beloved Ibn Taimiyya in Ras al-Hussain page 205:

كان طائفة من شيعة عثمان يتهمون عليا بأنه أمر بقتل عثمان

“A group of Uthman’s Shias (followers) accused Ali of giving orders to kill Uthman.”

What was the conduct of Uthman’s Shias? Ibn Taimiyya informs us:

“Uthman’s Shi’a would openly curse ‘Ali from the Mosque pulpits”. Minhajj al Sunnah Volume 3 page 178

Note how Ibn al Hashimi is seeking to suggest Nasibi beliefs as those of Muslims. Does this not expose him for the shameless Nasibi that he is?

70.Reply Two – Imam Ali (as) refutes the suggestion that he and his Shia killed Uthman in Sermon 22

Ibn al Hashimi has presented the stance of those that cursed Imam Ali (as) as an established fact. To those who really want to know whether Ibn Saba did indeed kill Uthman through a movement devised by him we invite our readers to read this chapter. [LINK UTHMAN]

It is interesting that Ibn al Hashimi cites Sermon 22 of Nahjul Balagha suggesting that this sermon relates to the Shia of Ali (as) that killed Uthman that in turn falsely implicated Imam Ali (as) on account of association. If Ibn al Hashimi had any decency he would have shown his readers that in Sermon 22, our Imam refutes such propaganda and rather than accept any blame on his part or that of his Shia, makes it clear that his political opponents wanting Qisas for the killing of Uthman are the same individuals that killed him. Let us quote sermon 22, verbatim

“SERMON 22 - About those who accused him of `Uthman's killing Beware! Satan has certainly started instigating his forces and has collected his army in order that oppression may reach its extreme ends and wrong may come back to its position. By Allah they have not put a correct blame on me, nor have they done justice between me and themselves. They are demanding of me a right which they have abandoned, and a blood that they have themselves shed. If I were a partner with them in it then they too have their share of it. But if they did it without me they alone have to face the consequences. Their biggest argument (against me) is (really) against themselves. They are suckling from a mother who is already dry, and bringing into life innovation that is already dead. How disappointing is this challenger (to battle)? Who is this challenger and for what is he being responded to? I am happy that the reasoning of Allah has been exhausted before them and He knows (all) about them. The threat to Wage War against them If they refuse (to obey) I will offer them the edge of the sword which is enough a curer of wrong and supporter of Right.

It is strange they send me word to proceed to them for spear-fighting and to keep ready for fighting with swords. May the mourning women mourn over them. I have ever been so that I was never frightened by fighting nor threatened by clashing. I enjoy full certainty of belief from my Allah and have no doubt in my faith”.

71.Was Imam Ali (as) harboring the Sabaite killers of Uthman in his own army?


of 89

Ibn al Hashimi states:Qisas There was a public outcry for Ali (رض�ى ال عنه) to enact Qisas [i.e. find and prosecute Uthman’s killers], and no doubt Uthman’s family and tribe were anxious to see the murderers brought to justice. However, Ali (رض�ى ال عنه) decided to delay enacting Qisas for the reason that he was too preoccupied facing a civil war from people who were accusing him of murder, and this was not the time to be searching his own ranks for murderers. It was a time when people were ready to rebel against Ali (رض�ى ال عنه), so the last thing Ali (رض�ى ال عنه) could afford to do was lose more supporters by interrogating his own Shia’t Ali. Because of this, Ali (رض�ى ال عنه) decided to delay enacting Qisas, but it should be noted that Ali ( had the sincere intention of eventually (رض�ى ال عنهfinding and prosecuting Uthman’s killers even though they were from his own camp. Such was the noble nature of Ali (رض�ى ال عنه).As a consequence of Ali’s decision (رض�ى ال عنه) to delay justice [i.e. delay enacting Qisas], hundreds of people were taking to the streets in protest. Many of these were from the same tribe of Uthman (رض�ى ال عنه); for example, the governor of Syria–Muawiyyah (رض�ى ال عنه)–was Uthman’s cousin (رض�ى ال عنه) and he was one of the people demanding Qisas.

72.Reply

To suggest that Imam Ali (as) was knowingly harboring the killers of Uthman is indeed a shameless accusation and a slur upon the character of Imam Ali (as). Imam Ali (as) was unable to implement Qisas because those elements demanding it were themselves directly involved in killing Uthman and there is no historical evidence that handed themselves in for punishment! As for the processions this Nasibi should know that these were not widespread procession, rather they were limited to Syria wherein Muawiyah was using the killing of Uthman as grounds to oppose Imam Ali (as). There was no sincerity whatsoever it was just propaganda. If these demands were sincere then we would like Ibn al Hashimi to explain whey the demand for punishing Uthman was not submitted as a condition during the arbitration at Sifeen? The grounds for opposing Imam Ali (as) was mysteriously forgotten when it came to negotiations, why is that? Did Ibn al Hashimi’s beloved Imam experience amnesia at the negotiation stage on account post traumatic stress disorder he suffered whilst hiding in his tent during the Battle of Siffeen? If it was amnesia, at least his memory didn’t fail him when he demanded that the empire be split with him being made the Head of Syria.

73.Did Ayesha, Talhah and Zubayr seek to resolve hostilities and pursue peace before the Battle of Jamal commenced?

Ibn al Hashimi states:So it was that Aisha (رض�ى ال عنها), Talha (رض�ى ال


of 89

رض�ى) met Caliph Ali (رض�ى ال عنه) and Zubair ,(عنه to urge him to find the murderers of (ال عنهUthman (رض�ى ال عنه). It should be noted that during Uthman’s Caliphate, Ali (رض�ى ال عنه) also went to Uthman (رض�ى ال عنه) to urge him to do many things at the behest of the Beduins who opposed Uthman (رض�ى ال عنه). Hence, it can be seen that there is nothing wrong in negotiating with the Caliph and urging him to do something, as long as this is done in a peaceful and productive manner; in fact, this prevents bloodshed and violence.

74.Reply One – Violent opposition against the Khalifa of the time can never evidence the perusal of peace

We agree that the prevention of bloodshed should be the prime motivation to entering into negotiations. The problem is how can these three be deemed lovers of peace when they had already spilled the blood of many on route to Jamal? Is that how you negotiate? Kill hundreds and then try to negotiate a settlement?

75.Reply Two – Devious Ibn al Hashimi failed to cite the exact text, as its chain is weak

Ibn al Hashimi knowingly failed to cite the text to substantiate his above claim. If we examine the History of Tabari Volume 16 that deals with the events leading up to Jamal we see only one reference wherein all the above named personalities were present. It is recorded in the History of Tabari page Volume 16 page 115:

“Umar - Abu Bakar al-Hudhali - Qatadah: Ali left al-Zawiyah, heading or Talhah, and al Zubayr and Aishah left al-Furdah, heading for Ali and they all met at the place of the castle of Ubaydullah b. Ziyad…..”

Whilst Nawasib might seek to argue that this pre meeting evidences a desire amongst Talah, Zubayr and Ayesha to have an amicable settlement, they should inspect the chain before jumping with joy. Abu Bakar al-Hudhali has been criticized by the scholars of rijal which hence makes this narration worthless. For example and he has been declared 'unreliable' by Imam Dhahabi (Al-Kashif, v2 p414), 'Matruk' by Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani (Taqrib al-tahdib, v2 p369) and Imam Nasai (Tahdib al-Tahdib, v12 p46), 'Very weak' by Mura (Tahdib al-Tahdib, v12 p46) while Ibn al-Madini said about him: 'Worth nothing' (Tahdib al-Tahdib, v12 p46). This leaves us with just one other narration that would suggest pre war peace efforts from Tabari. The Nawasib of Ansar.Org and Ahlelbayt.com of course were keen to quote the narration.

76.Did the Sabaites start the Battle of Jamal when last minute peace negotiations between Ali (as), Talhah and Zubayr were successful?

Ansar.Org states:Al-Tabari assures that the people who are responsible for the deaths of thousands of Muslims are the murders of Uthman: “When people came together and became in ease, Ali, Talha and Al-Zubair came out, agreed, and talked


of 89

in the matters they disagreed with each others. The did not find a better solution than peace and to end the war when they saw the matter is started to be cleared and not achievable through war. They departed from each other agreeing on their resolution. Ali came back to his barracks and Talha and Al-Zubair wnet back to their barracks. In the evening, Ali sent Abdullah bin Abbas to Talha and Al-Zubair who sent Muhammad bin Talha to Ali in a job to talk to their comrades. They all said yes for a peace. At night – that was in Jamadah Al-A’akhirah – Talha and AL-Zubair talked to the leaders of their comrades, and Ali talked to the leaders of his comrades except those people who ate Uthman. They ended up on peace and they slept in a night that they never had before because of the goodness they are near to and because they got away from what some people desired and embarked on whatever they embarked on. And the people who provoked the matter of Uthman had the worst sleep ever because they came close to be doomed. They were discussing their plight the whole night until they agreed to ignite the war in secret. They took that as a secret so that no one would know what evil they were planning. They woke up at dusk and while their neighbors did not feel them, they (the agitators) sneaked to do the dirty job in the darkness ... they laid swords in the believers. Then the people of Al-Basrah got angry and every people fought his comrades who were stunned …..”

The same event has been recorded from Tabari in a condensed fashion by the Ahlelbayt.com site…

Ibn al Hashimi states:Uthman’s KillersThe murderers of Uthman [the extremist portion of the Shia’t Ali, i.e. Saba’ites] obviously did not want Aisha (رض�ى ال عنها) to be successful in convincing Ali (رض�ى ال عنه) to prosecute them. “And the people who provoked the murder of Uthman [the Saba’ites] had the worst sleep ever because they came close to be doomed. They were discussing their plight the whole night until they agreed to ignite a war [between Aisha and Ali] in secret. They took that as a secret so that no one would know what evil they were planning. They woke up at dusk and while their neighbors did not feel them; they (the agitators) sneaked to do the dirty job in the darkness … they laid swords in the believers…” [Al-Tabari, vol.3, p.39, year 36H]


of 89

Both Nasibi websites have yet again humiliated themselves since the chain of this narration is weak. The narration is located in the History of Tabari Volume 16 page 122 under the heading ‘return to Muhammad and Talhah’s account’. The chain of narration from where this narrative begins appears on page 120 and it is al-Sari-Shayb-Sayf-Muhammad and TalhahYet again, the presence of Sari and Sayf renders this narration worthless.

77.Was the Sabaite attack on Ayesha the trigger that started the Battle of Jamal?

Ibn al Hashimi states:“The Saba’ites…who were fearing of peace…started throwing Aisha with lances while she was on her camel…Aisha said: ‘…remember Allah and Judgment Day.’ But the Saba’ites refused anything but to fight. So the first thing Aisha said when the Saba’ites refused to stop was: ‘O people, curse the killers of Uthman and their friends.’” [Musnaf Ibn Abi Sheibah, vol.8, the Book of the “Camel” in the departure of Aisha, p.718] Aisha’s contingent (رض�ى ال عنها) then returned fire in order to defend the Prophet’s wife, and soon the matter escalated into an all out conflict.

78.Reply One – The narration Ibn al Hashimi relied on is weak

We would invite Ibn al-Hashimi to corroborate this claim by citing the narration from Musanaf along with the chain of narration proving that it is authentic. Our suspicion is he never read the text himself, since the History of Tabari Volume 16 pages 131-2 does not place this event at the beginning of the battle of Jamal, on the contrary the Sabaite attack was when Ayesha’s troops had been routed. The narration is as follows…

““Return to Sayf’s account……an in the rout the men retreated toward al-Basrah. But when they saw that the camel had been encircled by Mudar they rallie and reformed as a center [of the army], as they had been when thy [first] engaged in battle, and returned to fight anew, while Rabiah of al-Basrah, some as a right flank, some as a left. “Kab!” leave the camel, and go forward holding the Book of Almighty and Glorious Allah, and then call them to it!” said Aishah and thrust the Quran copy at him. Then up came the forces headed by the Sabaiyya fearing that peace would be made, and Kab met them with the Quran copy. Ali was behind them, restraining them, but they insisted on advancing, and then when Kab called them they all shot [their arrows] at him at the same time and killed him…They the shot at Aishah in her howdah, and she started calling out: “My sons [Remember] the recompense [of Allah]! The recompense!” She raised her voice very loud “Allah, Allah! Remember Almighty and Glorious Allah and the reckoning!” But they insisted on advancing. So the next thing she did when they insisted was to cry out: “You men! Curse the killers of Uthman and their various supporters!”

79.Reply Two- Ayesha’s supporters initiated the battle of Jamal, not the Sabaites

When we look at the narrations free of Sayf we see no mention of the Sabaites in Jamal. On the


of 89

contrary we are quick to learn who initiated the battle. Since Ibn al Hashimi felt happy citing Tabari allow us to likewise cite a narration from Tabari with a chain free of Sayf bin Umar. We are quoting from pages 126-7:

i then said to those around him: ‘Which of you will hold up this copy of the Quran and what is in it before then? Should his hand been cut off he shall then take it with the other one; if that is cut off he shall take it with his teeth”. A young buy said, “I will”. Ali put this to everyone around him, but none volunteered except the boy, so Ali said to him “Hold this up before them and say, ‘Every word in this shall judge between you and us, and I beg of you for Allah’s sake to stop shedding our blood and yours”. But with the copy of the Quran in his hands the boy was attacked. His hands were cut off so he took it into his teeth until he was killed, Ali then said, “Battle is now justified, so fight them!”.

Ahmad bin Zuhayr: Dahabi said: ‘Renowned Hafiz’ (Tarikh al-Islam, v20 p252), Al-Albaani said: ‘Thiqah’ (Silsila Sahiha, v3 p446). Zuhair Abu khaythama: Dahabi said: ‘Hujja’ (Siar alam alnubala, v11 p489), Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah Thabt’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1 p316). Wahab bin Jarir: Dahabi said: ‘Thiqah’ (Al-Kashif, v2 p356), Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v2 p291). Jarir bin Hazim: Dahabi said: ‘Thiqah’ (Al-Kashif, v1, p291), Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1 p158). Yunus bin Yazid: Dahabi said: ‘One of the Thabt’ (Al-Kashif, v2 p404), Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v2 p351). Al-Zuhari: Dahabi said: ‘The hafiz of his time’ (Siar alam alnubala, v5 p326), Ibn Hajar said: ‘There is an agreement about his magnificence’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v2 p133).

Imam Ali (as) had every right to declare war against these rebels and start the battle, but he did not. He gave them a last chance to ascertain their motive. When aggression was initiated by Ayesha’s side, Imam Ali (as) deemed it legitimate grounds for him to go into battle.

80.Did the killing of Ayesha’s envoy on his way to Medina trigger the Battle of Jamal?

The Nasibi author was so desperate to impress this on his Sunni readership that he repeated the same assertion on three occasions:

Ibn al Hashimi states:“And so the Battle of the Camel was initiated, not by Ali (رض�ى ال عنه) nor by Aisha (رض�ى ال عنها); rather it was Uthman’s killers who attacked Aisha’s envoy (رض�ى ال عنها) for fear that her negotiation mission would succeed and result in the subsequent capture of those responsible for the death of Uthman (رض�ى ال عنه). Ali (رض�ى ال عنه), Aisha (رض�ى ال عنها), Talha (رض�ى ال عنه), and Zubair found their contingents fighting each (رض�ى ال عنه)other, not even knowing who fired the first shot; little did they know that it was Uthman’s killers who had initiated this entire operation, hoping that it would cause Aisha’s mission (رض�ى ال عنها) of negotiation to fail. The Saba’ites would blame the entire matter on Aisha (رض�ى ال عنها), and we see clearly today that their descendants–the Ithna Ashari Shia–have continued this tradition of blaming Aisha (رض�ى ال عنها). This is yet another solid link between Abdullah ibn Saba and the modern day Shia, both of which slander the Prophet’s wives and his companions.


of 89

Ibn al Hashimi states:The reality is that Aisha (رض�ى ال عنها), Talha (رض�ى رض�ى ال) Muawiyyah ,(رض�ى ال عنه) Zubair ,(ال عنه) and hundreds of other people wanted Ali ,(عنه to apprehend Uthman’s killers who (رض�ى ال عنهwere in his camp. Ali (رض�ى ال عنه) always planned on doing this, and it is likely that he would have agreed to Aisha’s request (رض�ى ال عنها) to speed up the process. Uthman’s killers did not want this, and they attacked Aisha’s envoy (رض�ى ال عنها) on its way to Medinah, thereby initiating the Battle of the Camel and saving their own skin.

81.Reply One – Ibn al Hashimi has failed to provide any source to back up his claim

This is a crucial reference for Ibn al Hashimi as he has sought to stress how deceptive the Sabaites were, they didn’t give peace a chance as they killed Ayesha’s envoy when negotiations were nearing a positive end. If this event was true, why has Ibn al Hashimi failed to cite its primary source? The biggest deception Nawasib do is when they provide the summary of a text to their readers without citing the page number or reference. That way readers are left assuming that the text has been quoted verbatim, and those seeking to verify such texts are in effect forced to find a needle in haystack. Shameless hypocrites like Ibn al Hashimi do this intentionally, after all most people don’t have the time to delve into books and verify such citations, they are just led to rely on the integrity of the ‘trustworthy’ author. In this instance, Ibn al Hashimi has severely abused his position of trust.

82.Reply Two – Why would the Sabaites want to kill an envoy heading away from Jamal?

Ibn al Hashimi by suggesting this incident at the negotiation stage, prior to the commencement of battle was seeking to create public revulsion towards those he deemed the ancestors of the Shia, after all they were so evil they did everything to prevent the likelihood of a peaceful settlement, stooping as low as slaughtering the peace envoy of Ayesha! Firstly the narration that Ibn al Hashimi relied on regarding the pre Jamal negotiation is weak on account of Sayf bin Umar in the chain. Secondly, what would be the logic in the envoy of Ayesha being killed on his way to Madina? Why was he heading in the direction of Medina when the hostile parties were already camped in Jamal? All the main players were in Jamal, so what was the logic in this envoy heading elsewhere? If he was on his way to Madina, what were his precise co-ordinates at the time of death? The distance between Jamal and Medina is thousands of miles, how did those camped at Jamal receive news of the Sabaites killing this envoy, via email?

83.Does the existence of Ibn Saba mean we don’t need to authenticate such narrations?

Knowing Ibn al Hashimi’s shameless approach to polemics we can envisage him seeking to rebut all we said by pointing to the fact that Sunni and Shia texts record the existence of Ibn Saba. Let us for arguments sake accept his existence, does that mean that we automatically accept every historical allegation attributed to him without ascertaining its accuracy? Ibn al Hashimi needs to understand that there is a difference between proving the existence of Ibn Saba and proving that the same Ibn Saba contributed to every act of Fitnah from the reign of


of 89

Uthman until the martyrdom of Maula Ali (as). Let us expand on this with an example:

“There has been a large increase in crime in New York. A known prolific offender resides in that same York. Does that automatically mean that every criminal act committed in that City should be attributed to him? No fair minded person would deem process wherein a prolific offender is charged with every criminal offence, because he happens to live in that New York to be fair or legally sound. Justice would dictate that the police investigate every offence in an unbiased manner to identify the perpetrator. Police intelligence / suspicions about this prolific offender may indeed be justified, but they remain baseless if no evidence can be located placing this prolific offender at the crime scene. If no physical evidence, such as DNA can be located at the scene the police will need to seek eye witness testimony. If no eye witnesses can be located the police will seek out hearsay evidence, taking evidence from those that had heard eye witnesses disclose what they had seen. From a legal perspective hearsay evidence is the weakest form of evidence that the police can rely on, sometimes it is so weak that it is in effect rendered inadmissible. Judges are often loathed to accept secondary evidence as grounds to convict, particularly when the stakes are so high (a loss of liberty). If the prosecution are going to rely on hearsay evidence as part of their case, it is pivotal that the witness giving hearsay evidence is of good character, and has nothing that could undermine his reliability as a witness. If this witness is widely known amongst men of repute as a dishonest liar his evidence in effect becomes useless. If it emerges in court that the hearsay evidence of the same witness has been previously used by the prosecution to secure the successful conviction of the same offender on several occasions, this coincidence would be enough to cast serious doubts on his testimony in court.

Applying this example to the facts here, if Ibn al Hashimi is enjoying his cult status as Chief Prosecutor before his Sunni jury in a trial that is seeking to convict millions of twelver Shias for the crimes of their ‘ancestor’ Ibn Saba, he needs to be certain that the evidence that he submits proves Ibn Saba’s guilt beyond any reasonable doubt. Justice dictates that Ibn al Hashimi successfully proves his case citing each and every narration, quoting the book and its accompanying chain of narration. What justice system entitles Ibn al Hashimi to present his case on the basis of one reference from Musanaf Ibn Abi Shaybah (without citing the chain), one without any reference (the Sabaites killing Ayesha’s envoy) and all the remainder narrations from Tabari (all of which have been coincidentally by narrated by Sayf bin Umar, unanimously graded by the Sunni scholars as a liar). Since Ibn al Hashimi relied on Tabari to expose the wicked ancestry of the twelver Shia, namely the Sabaites we thought it only right to analyse all those chains wherein the term Ibn Saba and al Sabaiyya are mentioned in the History of al Tabari. The Tabari narrations of Ibn Saba and the Sabayyite movement span from Uthman’s reign through to the Battle of Jamal and its immediate aftermath. During that time Tabari mentions the name Ibn Saba or his other title al Sawda on 14 occasions and Al Sabaiyya on nine occasions. Tabari makes no further mention of Ibn Saba or al Sabaiyya at Sifeen, Naharwan or at any other point during the Caliphate of Imam Ali (as). Had Ibn al Hashimi bothered to look through these narrations, rather than simply quoting from the oxygen thieves of Najd he would have realised that every single narration in Tabari that makes reference to Ibn Saba and al Sabaiyya has been narrated through Sayf bin Umar! Ibn al Hashimi don’t you find it odd that the only narrations that Tabari found about the powerful Ibn Saba and Sabayyites that successfully ousted Uthman and caused the battle of Jamal, were from a known liar? Did this reality pass every other witness who lived through that troublesome era? We are sure that any just man would cast doubts on the fact that something as significant as the Sabaites would have and should have been narrated by a plethora of witnesses, and not just a notorious liar! This being the case why has Ibn al Hashimi deemed it appropriate to take narrations about Ibn Saba and the Sabaites from Tabari? Ibn al Hashimi, is it not shameful that you have sought to rely on narrations that you know to be weak, with the hope that your Sunni readers will find the twelvers guilty of the sins of their Sabayyite ancestors?

We appeal to justice has Ibn al Hashimi proven his case against Ibn Saba through this methodology? By bringing such a pathetic case against the Shia as a mechanism to hide the sins of his Sahaba ancestors, Ibn al Hashimi has only succeeded in proving one thing, that he is


of 89

a dishonest liar of the highest order, whose every word should be looked at with suspicion, after all Allah (swt) says in his Glorious Book (49:6):

O ye who believe! If a wicked person comes to you with any news, ascertain the truth, lest ye harm people unwittingly, and afterwards become full of repentance for what ye have done.

84.The Characteristics of the Munafiqoon according to the world of Ibn al Hashimi

Having spun this web of lies as part of his deception, the shameless Ibn al Hashimi lets his imagination run away with him and as part of his closing submission seeks to point to a nexus between the Sabaites, Munafiqoon of the past and today’s Shia. Let us see his assertions:

85.First claim – the Munafiqoon casted aspersions on the Prophethood of Muhammad (s)

Ibn al Hashimi states:It is the characteristic of the Munafiqoon (hypocrites) to accuse the believers of having alterior motives; in fact, the Quraish leaders accused the Prophet (صل�ى ال عليه وآله وسل�م) of trying to gain materialistic wealth and they said this was the reason he claimed prophethood.

86.Reply One – Casting aspersions on the Prophethood of Muhammad (s) was the Sunnah of the esteemed Sunni caliphs

Ibn al Hashimi do you really believe that this is the definition of a hypocrite? If doubting the Prophethood of the Prophet (s) is indeed the characteristic of a hypocrite what opinion should we then hold of the second Sunni Khalifa Umar who at Hudaibiya said:

“I never doubted Prophethood as much as I did on this day” 1. Musanaf Abdulrazaq, Volume 5 page 3322. Sahih ibn Haban, Volume 11 page 2243. Al-Mujam al-Kabir by Tabarani, Volume 20 page 144. Zaad al-Maad by Ibn Qayim, Volume 3 page 257

Ponder over the words ‘as much as I did on this day’ meaning that doubts continually dogged Umar’s mind and reached there peak at Hudaibiya that occurred in 8 Hijri. And then we have Yazeed the sixth Sunni Khalifa who said following news of the martyrdom of Imam Husayn (as)

"Banu Hashim staged a play for Kingdom there was no news from the skies neither was there any revelation" al Bidayah wa al Nihaya, Volume 8 page 204

If those that doubt the Prophethood of Muhammad (s) fall within the definition of munafiqoon why are these two individuals afforded respect as caliphs in the eyes of Ibn al Hashimi?

87.Second claim – the Munafiqoon suggested that Uthman’s reign was dogged by nepotism and corruption


of 89

Ibn al Hashimi states:The Munafiqeen accused Uthman (رض�ى ال عنه) of using the Caliphate to empower his family.

Who are these munafiqeen according to Ibn al Hashimi? Who else can it be than the Shia! This is what he claims at another point in his article:

Ibn al Hashimi states:Uthman’s Assassination (رض�ى ال عنه) During the reign of Uthman (رض�ى ال عنه), the third Caliph, the Islamic state had expanded far and wide, but the empire was experiencing grave financial troubles. Many poor Beduins felt that Uthman’s policies (رض�ى ال عنه) were tilted in favor of the Ummayad elite. This fact is trumpeted by the Shia scholars today, who love to slander Uthman (رض�ى ال عنه); they accuse him of nepotism and mismanagement.

88.Reply – The Sunni Ulema have accepted that Uthmans reign was dogged by nepotism and corruption

The legal definition of slander is A false defamation (expressed in spoken words, signs, or gestures) which injures the character or reputation of the person defamed; distinguished from libel.The crucial thing is the word ‘false’. Tell us Ibn al Hashimi do you really expect your Sunni readers to accept that there was no nepotism and mismanagement during the reign of Uthman? Was this merely a Sabaite concoction that was cascaded through the Shia generations?? This is just a further example of the intellectual dishonesty of Ibn al Hashimi, nepotism and mismanagement was a sad reality associated with the reign of Uthman something recorded in the annals of Sunni history and likewise accepted by the Sunni Ulema. We have in fact cited examples of his mismanagement here:


His nepotism is a historical fact, and one can pick up any book of Sunni history to see blatant examples of it. This has been acknowledged by modern day Sunni Ulema like Syed Qutub Shaheed who said:

“Even apart from money, there were also the governorships which Uthman scattered profusely among his relatives. Among these was Muawiyah, whose power Uthman expanded considerably, giving him control of Palestine and the district of Hums he granted to him a single control of four armies and thus made it easier for Muawiyah later to aspire royal power during the caliphate of Ali by which time he had acquired money and built up armies.”

Social justice in Islam, page 222

It is also interesting that he in the same article showered the term Imam on a scholar that happened to be a severe Uthman critic, Sayyid Abul Ala Maudoodi:

Ibn al Hashimi states:Imam Maududi says: “This shows that the divine injunction ‘remain in your houses’ does not mean that women should not at all step out of the four


http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/ayesha/social_justice_p221_222.jpg



http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/ayesha/social_justice_p221_222.jpg

of 89

walls of the house.” (Purdah, p. 201-202)

‘Imam’ Maudoodi whilst discussing the third khalifa’s reign leads into the discussion by citing the advice the outgoing Khalifa (Umar) gave to Uthman:

‘If after me you become the khalifa, do not let your relatives ride over the necks of the Muslims’, but when Uthman subsequently became the Khalifa he gradually ignored the policy and gave high posts, one after the other to his relatives, and gave them concessions that normal people did not have. This invited objections from other”. Khilafat aur Mulukiyat, page 41-42 (published by Maktaba Ahle Sunnah, Gujranwala, Pakistan)

Ibn al Hashimi, if this Imam's opinion is being advanced by you to defend Ayesha, then that same Imam's severe critique of the nepotism and mismanagement of Uthman in his famed work ‘Khilafat aur Mulukiyat’ should likewise be accepted by you. As you can see the highlighting of Uthman’s corruption is not the exclusive domain of the Shia scholars, rather the very individual that Ibn al Hashimi deems an Imam was uncompromising in his criticism of Uthman’s corruption! Imam Maudoodi's book courted much criticism and was the subjected to refutations and counter refutations. One such counter refutation is a book called ‘Khilafat aur Mulukiyat aur Ulema Ahle-Sunnat’ wherein the author seeks to corroborate Maudoodi’s comments on Uthman’s corruption as follows:

Maulana Ahmed Ali Lahori [rh] further states under the topic of 'A tragic incident regarding the martyrdom of Uthman [ra]':

“Ibn Asakir says that Zuhri asked Saeed bin Musayib of Uthman's martyrdom, [he replied] ‘the situation was this, some Sahaba deemed Uthman’s Caliphate unacceptable as everybody was aware that he was aiding his relatives. He was the Khalifa for twelve years, during that time he helped many Banu Ummayya, they were not Sahaba of the Prophet (s), they were those that the Sahaba did not like, they sought to advise him for six years, but he failed to remove them. He was for the next six years favorable to his uncle’s family, showing them kindness and support he appointed Abdullah bin Sharh as the Governor of Egypt, the Egyptians complained of his injustices” [Khudaamudeen, 19 July 1957]Khilafat aur Mulukiyat aur Ulema Ahle-Sunnat, pages

89.Second claim – the Munafiqoon alleged that Maula Ali (as) killed Uthman

Ibn al Hashimi states:The Munafiqeen accused Ali (رض�ى ال عنه) of taking the Caliphate after supposedly killing Uthman

90.Reply – These allegations were spread by Marwan who Ibn al Hashimi deems ‘(ra)’

Now this is where things get very interesting. If the Munafiqoon were indeed those that accused Imam Ali (as) of killing Uthman, then allow us to submit the testimony of one such individual Marwan ibn al Hakam. Imam of Ahle Sunnah Muhammad bin Yahya in al-Tamheed wa'l Bayan fi Maqtal al Shaheed Uthman, page 181, quoted the fact that Marwan had accused Imam Ali [as] as follows:


of 89

“If you Ali had not struck the murdered man openly, you surely struck him in secret”.

Now justice would dictate that Ibn al Hashimi deem this individual a munafiq, but rather than do so, we see whenever he mentions Marwan on his site, he refers to him as (ra) for example:

Ibn al Hashimi states:The Shia curse Uthman (رض�ى ال عنه) for taking Fadak away from Ali (رض�ى ال عنه) and giving it to Marwan (رض�ى ال عنه).

On the one hand Ibn al Hashimi defines Munafiqeen as those that accused Ali (as) of killing Uthman, and on the other hand he deems Marwan who had that opinion to be (ra).


of 89

5. Chapter Five: The stance of Imam Ali (as)

To understand the decision taken by Imam 'Ali (as) and answer Nasibi claims that he was responsible for the Battle of Jamal, we need to take in to account that Imam 'Ali (as) WAS the rightful Head of State. The opposition was such that not only was it aimed at winning the hearts and minds of the people against Imam 'Ali (as), its aim was to cause a mass revolt against him, as we shall see.

91. Imam 'Ali (as) was within his rights as Khalifa to quell the Fitnah of Ayesha and her supporters

Surah al Maida verses 32:

Because of that We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone killed a person not in retaliation of murder, or (and) to spread mischief in the land - it would be as if he killed all mankind, …..

Surah al Maida verses 33:

The recompense of those who wage war against Allâh and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on the opposite sides, or be exiled from the land. That is their disgrace in this world, and a great torment is theirs in the Hereafter.

These verses like all verses, are applicable at all times. If the duty on Rasulullah (s) was to quell fitnah against him by killing the proponents, then his rightful successor ' Ul'il Umr likewise inherited this same right. If his opponents were insisting on refusing to obey him, preferring to spread fitnah inciting opposition and animosity towards him, the Head of the State was entitled to uproot these seditious elements and kill them.

Surah Rad verse 25:

And those who break the Covenant of Allâh, after its ratification, and sever that which Allâh has commanded to be joined (i.e. they sever the bond of kinship and are not good to their relatives), and work mischief in the land, on them is the curse (i.e. they will be far away from Allâh's Mercy); And for them is the unhappy (evil) home (i.e. Hell)

Surah Sad verse 28:

Shall We treat those who believe (in the Oneness of Allâh Islâmic Monotheism) and do righteous good deeds, as Mufsidûn (those who associate partners in worship with Allâh and commit crimes) on earth? Or shall We treat the Muttaqûn (pious - see V.2:2), as the Fujjâr (criminals, disbelievers, wicked, etc)?

Surah Qasas verse 83:

That home of the Hereafter (i.e. Paradise), We shall assign to those who rebel not against the truth with pride and oppression in the land nor do mischief by committing crimes. And the good end is for the Muttaqun

92. Imam 'Ali had no doubt that his stance was correct


of 89

Ibn al Hashimi states:Likewise have the Shia taken the actions of the Prophet’s wives (and Sahabah) and accused them of having alterior motives. The righteous believers are those who make 70 excuses for their brothers and sisters in Islam; the upright Muslims are those who give the benefit of the doubt to their fellow believers, especially to the Prophet’s wife and lover.

96.Reply One – Imam Ali (as) offered no excuses for those that opposed him at Jamal

If offering excuses and not suggesting ulterior motives if not the conduct of an upright Muslim, what Fatwa will Ibn al Hashimi attribute to Imam Ali (as) who said as follows to Talhah prior to hostilities commencing at Jamal.

Ali said to al-Zubair: "Are you asking me for compensation for the blood of 'Uthman, when it was you who killed him? I ask Allah in His power right now to give a hateful punishment to he among us who was the severest in opposing 'Uthman." Ali said to Talhah: " You have brought the Messenger of Allah's wife to make her fight while you hide your wife at home.”

History of al-Tabari, English Edition, Volume 16 pages 125-126

There is nothing from this explicit statement that would suggest that Imam Ali (as) was offering 70 excuses for those ‘Muslim’ that lead out an army against him at Jamal.

97.Reply Two – Offering excuses for criminal conduct sets a very dangerous precedent

Providing excuses may well be appropriate over a minor disgression but when the matter is one wherein the individuals concerned turned there back on the Quran, Hadith (commanding obedience) and participated in activities that involved lies, propaganda, and a battle that shed the blood of thousands of Muslims, then there are no grounds to simply provide excuses for their conduct. If this was to be the case then we would urge the Salafi judiciary to dismanatle their function forthwith, and permit citizens to conduct incitement, propaganda and violent rebellion against the State. No actions be sought against such individuals since they are merely adhering to the Sunnah of the Sahaba. The State should not prosecute such reprobates, on the contrary excuses should be offered for their conduct and they should be allowed to behave like this without impunity, after all to quote Ibn al Hashimi ‘the righteous believers are those who make 70 excuses for their brothers and sisters in Islam; the upright Muslims are those who give the benefit of the doubt to their fellow believers’






of 89

6. Chapter Six: Ayesha's enmity towards Imam Ali (as)

98.Ayesha's enmity to Imam Ali (as) would open like a pot

In Kanz ul Ummal, Volume 16 page 186 Tradition 44216, we read:

وأما عائشة فأدركها رأي النساء وشئ كان في نفسها علي يغلي في جوفها كالمرجل

“Ayesha was informed about the opinion of the women, but there was some thing inside her boiling like a cooking pot against Ali”

99.Ayesha's refusal to mention Imam 'Ali (as) by name is proof that she hated him

Ansar.org states:"Al-Tijani claims that the historians mentioned Aysha as not wanting to mention the name of Ali. And I ask him, which historians? Can you tell me exactly so that we know the liar from the truth teller? And on which references did you depend?"

There is no need for 'Abu Sulaiman to get agitated, for this fact can be located in a number of sources of Ahl'ul Sunnah. And we will fare one better than Tijani, we shall cite the traditions from their books of hadith.

A mild version can also be located in Sahih al Bukhari Volume 3 hadith 761:

Ubaidullah bin 'Abdullah told me that 'Aisha had said, "When the Prophet became sick and his condition became serious, he requested his wives to allow him to be treated in my house, and they allowed him. He came out leaning on two men while his feet were dragging on the ground. He was walking between Al-'Abbas and another man." 'Ubaidullah said, "When I informed Ibn 'Abbas of what 'Aisha had said, he asked me whether I knew who was the second man whom 'Aisha had not named. I replied in the negative. He said, 'He was 'Ali bin Abi Talib."

Try as they might, even al-Bukhari alludes to the fact that Ayesha was unable to mention Imam 'Ali (as) by name. Abu Sulaiman would of course differ and seek to deny that ANY animosity was borne by Ayesha towards Imam 'Ali (as). The difficulty for him is that the Ulema of Ahl ul Sunnah have confirmed this fact. In his commentary of this hadith, Allamah Bardruddin al-Aini records in Umadatul Qari, Volume 5 page 192 Tradition 665:

عن معمر ولكن عائشة ل تطيب نفسا له بخير

Mua'amar narrated: ‘Ayesha avoided mentioning him (Ali) in a good manner’.

We also read:

عن الزهري ولكنها ل تقدر على أن تذكره بخير

Al-Zuhari said: She ‘(Ayesha) didn’t posses the ability to mention anything good of him (Ali).’

We shall now present a 'complete' version of this tradition which proves clearly that Ayesha's


of 89

failure to mention Imam 'Ali (as)'s name whilst recollecting this incident, was not on account of temporary amnesia but was in fact due to her hatred of him:

When Ubaidullah Ibn Utbah mentioned to Ibn Abbas that Aisha said "In his death-illness the Prophet was brought to (Aisha's) house while his shoulders were being supported by Fadhl Ibn Abbas and another person", then Abdullah Ibn Abbas said: "Do you know who this 'other man' was?" Ibn Utbah replied: "No." Then Ibn Abbas said: "He was Ali Ibn Abi Talib, but she is averse to name him in a good context."

The references for the above narration can be located in the following texts:

1. Musnad Ahmad bin Hanbal, Volume 6 page 228 Tradition 25956 2. al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, by Ibn Sa'd, v2, part 2, p293. History of al-Tabari (Arabic), v1, pp 1800-1801

This is also loacted in the English translation. History of al-Tabari (English) Volume 9 page 169-170

4. al-Ansab al-Ashraf, by al-Baladhuri, v1, pp 544-545

The margin writer of Musnad Ahmed bin Hanbal namely Shaykh Shoib al-Arnaut stated:

‘The chain is Sahih according to the standards of the two Sheiks (Bukhari & Muslim)’

100.Ayesha hated Banu Hashim and Imam Ali (as)

Allamah Abu Umar Ahmed bin Abd Rabbah records:

He (Ali) said: ‘Go to that woman and tell her to return to her house wherein Allah ordered her to stay at’. He (Ibn Abbas) said: ‘Hence I went to her and asked permission to enter but she didn’t give me its permission, hence I entered the house without permission and sat on a cushion. She (Ayesha) said: ‘Oh ibn Abbas, by Allah I never saw some one like you! You entered our house without permission and sat on our cushion without our permission’. I said: ‘By Allah this is not your house, your only house is the one which Allah ordered you to stay at, but you didn’t obey. The commander of believers orders you to return to your home land which you left’. She said: ‘May Allah's mercy be upon the commander of believers who is Umar bin al-Khatab’. I said: ‘Yes, and this is Ali bin Abi Talib the commander of believers’. She said: ‘I refuse, I refuse……’. Then she said: ‘Alright, I will return, because I hate the city in which you (Bani Hashim) reside in’.

Iqd al-Fareed, Volume 2 page 108

In Al Imama wal Siyasa, Volume 1 page 45 we learn that:

"Following Uthman's murder Zubayr approached Ayesha in Makka and said 'Look they have made 'Ali Khalifa. She said, What right does 'Ali have to rule over our necks? I will not stay in Madina as long as 'Ali is in power".

In Rauzatul Ahbaab, Volume 3 page 65, we read that:

"After the Battle of Jamal Imam 'Ali approached Ayesha and said 'You have treated me like an enemy'".

We also read in Rauzathul Ahbaab Volume 3 page 10 that:

"Ayesha was clouded by her hatred of 'Ali".



http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/ayesha/al_tabari.gif



http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/ayesha/al_tabari.gif


of 89

101.Ayesha's reaction at the death of Imam 'Ali (as)

Ansar.org states:Al-Tijani says, "and when she learnt of his death she knelt and thanked Allah." Then he gave us in the footnotes the name of historians he took as references. These are his references, "AL-Tabari, Ibn Al-Atheer, Al-Fitnah Al-Kubra, and all historians who documented the incidents of the year 40 after the immigration of the prophet peace be upon him." [20] So, I went back to Al-Tabari and Ibn Al-Atheer for the stories of the year 40. And guess what! I did not find any trace for this claim! What a liar he is!

Again Abu Sulaiman is seeking to mislead people with false information, for these references can be located in these very books and we are attaching the link of the text from History of al Tabari Volume 17 page 224 (English translation) for our reader's perusal:

Ayesha'a please at Maula Ali[as]'s death

"When news of 'Ali's death reached Aishah, she said: And she threw down her staff and settled upon her place of abode, like the traveller happy to return home".

Perhaps Abu Sulaiman will seek to offer his own insight into the meaning of this verse, he need not bother for the English translator, Professor G. R. Hawting who states in the footnote on page 224:

"…the verse is proverbial and is cited indicate pleasure at something".

Shaykh Kamaluddin Dinori also records in his famed work Hayat al-Hewan, Volume 1 page 43:

فألقت عصاها واستقر: ولما انتهى إلى عائشة رضي ال تعالى عنها قتل علي رضي ال تعالى عنه قالت بها النوى كما قر عينأ بالياب المسافر

When Ayesha [ra] was informed about the murder of Ali [ra], she said: ‘And she threw down her staff and settled upon her place of abode, like the traveller happy to return home’

This reference can also be located in Tadkhirath al Khawwas, page 181 and Shaykh ul Mudhira page 156. For Abu Sulaiman to use his authority and make this claim, knowing that his adherents blindly believe his every word since he is an advocate of Mu'awiya, is indeed a cause for concern. We would ask his readers to ask themselves honestly 'If Abu Sulaiman can not even be honest about such a basic fact, then how much credence should be given to anything that he says?'

We should also point out that Allamah Asbahani recorded in Maqatil al-Talebeen, page 24:

حدثنا عاصم بن عامر وعثمان بن: حدثنا أحمد بن حازم قال : حدثني محمد بن الحسين الشناني ، قال لما أن جاء عائشة: حدثنا جرير عن العمش عن عمرو إبن مرة عن أبي البختري قال : أبي شيبة ، قال

. قتل علي ع سجدت

Abu al-Bakhtari said: ‘When Ayesha was informed about Ali's murder, she prostrated’


http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/ayesha/ayeshas_pleasure_at_Maula_Alis_death.gif

http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/ayesha/ayeshas_pleasure_at_Maula_Alis_death.gif

of 89

102.Ayesha's happiness at the death of Sayyida Fatima (as)

We read in Sharh Nahj ul Balagha by Ibn al Hadid page 439 Chapter 2:

"When the Prophets daughter died all the wives except Ayesha came to console Banu Hashim and she said that she was unwell and the message which she sent to Ali (as) clearly depicts her joy at this sad occasion".

103.Ayesha's happiness at the death of Ibrahim ibne Rasululullah (s)

In Sharh Nahj ul Balagha by Ibn Hadeed page 238 Volume 2 we learn that:

"When Ibrahim died Ayesha was happy inside, although she displayed sadness outside, Fatima and 'Ali were very saddened by his death".

104.Fatwa of Shah Abdul Aziz Dehlavi, "One that expresses happiness at the suffering of Ahl'ul bayt (as) is a murtad"

In Tauhfa Ithna Ashariyya Shah Abdul Aziz states on page 263:

"What view should we hold of those people who express happiness on Ashura when Imam Hussain was killed, who marry on that day who disrespect the family of the Prophet and the descendents of Sayyida Fatima? It is correct to refer to such individuals as Murtad".


of 89

7. Chapter Seven – The merits of Ayesha from the pen of her advocates


of 89

8. Was Ayesha the most superior wife of Rasulullah (s)?

Abu Sulaiman stated:

Ansar.orgThere is no doubt that Aysha is the best among the wives of the prophet peace be upon him because all true narrations indicate such a thing. Examples are found in Saheeh Bukhari and Muslim.

105.Reply One - To believe that the Prophet [s] loved Ayesha more than others is attributing a great sin to the Prophet [s]

Nawasib in their blind love for the enemies of Ali bin Abi Talib [as] venerate Ayesha so much that they single her out as the best and most beloved wife of the Holy Prophet [s] tragically when doing so they forget that the Sharia doesn’t allow a husband to give such a preference, we read in Quran:

"Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice," (4:3)"

Why would the Prophet (s) exercise such bias, when (according to Sunni sources) it was he who said:

When a man has two wives and he is inclined to one of them, he will come on the Day of resurrection with a side hanging down. Sunan Abu Dawood, Bab ul Nikah Book 11, Number 2128

106.Reply Two: The most excellent of the women of all worlds were four, that included Khadija (as) not Ayesha

Imam Ahmed records:

Anas narrated that the prophet (s) said: "The most excellent of the women of all worlds are: Mary the daughter of Imran, Khadija the daughter of Khuwaylid, Fatimah the daughter of Muhammad, and Asiya the wife of Pharaoh"

Musnad Ahmed bin Hanbal, Volume 3 page 135 Hadith 12414

Shaykh Shoib al-Arnaut stated:

‘Sahih on the conditions of two Shaykhs’

We also read:

Ibn Abbas narrates that Rasulullah (s) made four lines on the earth, then He [s] said to his companions, ‘Do you know what is this?’ They replied: ‘Allah and his messenger know best’. He [s] replied: ‘The most excellent of the women of Paradise are Khadija the daughter of Khuwaylid, Fatimah the daughter of Muhammad, Asiya the wife of Pharaoh, and Mary the daughter of Imran’




of 89

Musnad Ahmed bin Hanbal, Volume 1 page 293 Hadith 2668

Shaykh Shoib al-Arnaut stated:

‘The Chain is Sahih, the narrators are reliable (Thuqat), narrators of Sahih (books)’

107.Reply Three: Ayesha's jealousy of Khadija [as] is clear proof that she was not the most beloved wife

In Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5 Tradition 166, Ayesha herself narrates:

"I did not feel jealous of any of the wives of the Prophet as much as I did of Khadija though I did not see her, but the Prophet used to mention her very often, and whenever he slaughtered a sheep, he would cut its parts and send them to the women friends of Khadija. When I sometimes said to him, "(You treat Khadija in such a way) as if there is no woman on earth except Khadija," he would say, "Khadija was such-and-such, and from her I had children."

According to wikipedia “Jealousy typically refers to the negative or angry thoughts, feelings, and behaviours of insecurity, fear, and anxiety that occur when a person believes a valued relationship is being threatened by a rival, or when another person is percieved to have some type of advantage” . Jealousy is a trait inherent in a person who is envious of the superior position of another, and Ayesha's admission "I did not feel jealous of any of the wives of the Prophet as much as I did of Khadija", is clear proof that Ayesha was fully aware of the superior rank of Khadija. Had Ayesha indeed been the most superior wife there would have been no need for her to be jealous.

These four women are the most superior in rank amongst women. Only one wife of Rasulullah (s) is selected in this group and that wife is Khadija (as) NOT Ayesha. This tradition PROVES that Khadija is the MOST superior amongst Rasulullah's wives. If Ayesha was, then why did Rasulullah (s) not elevate her to the station of Leaders of women in Paradise?

108.Reply Four – Sunni Report: Ayesha’s barren status precludes her from being the most superior wife of the Prophet (s)

Ghazzali in his famed work Ihya Ulum id Din, Volume 2 page 24 records as follows:

“The Prophet said…”Among your women, a lovely woman producing many children is better than a childless woman. He said: An ugly woman with children is better than a beautiful woman having no children”

Comment

If (according to these Sunni narrations) a fertile woman is better than a barren on, and the ability to bear children is a mark of superiority, then Ayesha’s inability to conceive children automatically means that Khadija (sa) was superior on account of her ability to bear children.

109.Reply Five - Ayesha’s bad manners destroy the notion of her being the best wife of the Prophet (s)

Having good manners is one of the themes found continually throughout the Quran and Sunnah and this is the first aspect that proves the importance of good manners. If adults impress on children the importance of good manners at a young age, they shall seek to adhere to such




of 89

principles in later life. It is indeed tragic that Ayesha who (according to Sunnis) benefited from the company of the Prophet from the age of six, failed to grasp the importance of manners. Here are just a few snapshots of her manners in the marital home. Let us begin by citing her reaction to another wife of the Prophet (s) preparing a meal:

Ayesha said: "Safiyya, the wife of the Prophet (a), sent a dish she had made for him when he was with me. When I saw the maidservant, I trembled with rage and fury, and I took the bowl and hurled it away. The Prophet of Allah (a) then looked at me; I saw the anger in his face and I said to him: 'I seek refuge from Allah's Apostle cursing me today.' The Prophet said: 'Undo it'. I said: 'What is its compensation, O Prophet of Allah?' He said: 'The food like her food, and a bowl like her bowl.'" 1. Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, Volume 6 page 227 Tradition 264092. Sunan Nasai, Volume 2 page 1483. Majma al-Zawaed, Volume 4 page 372 Tradition 7692

The reviser of Musnad Ahmed namely Shaykh Shoib al-Arnaut declared the tradition to be 'Hasan' while Al-Haythami said: 'The narrators are Thiqah'.

With regards to her mannerisms when rowing with her husband Imam of Ahl'ul Sunnah Abdul Hamid Ghazzali records the following in his classic Ihya Ulum-id-din:

Once there was an altercation between the Prophet and Ayesha when they found Abu Bakr as judge. Hazrat Ayesha said to the Prophet: ‘You speak but don't speak except truth. At once Abu Bakr gave her such a slap that blood began to ooze out from her mouth’.

Ihya Ulum-id-din by Imam Ghazzali, Volume 2 page 36, Chapter "The secrets of marriage" - English translation by Maulana Fazlul Karim

The title ‘Sadiq’ was one that dated back to the time of jahilyya, and was a testament to the fact that the pagan Arabs recognized that Muhammad (s) son of Mustafa was a man that always spoke the truth. Now compare this recognition to the conduct of Ayesha who was appealing to the conscience of her husband, demanding that he speak truthfully before her father that was there as a an arbiter between the feuding couple. Are such manner becoming of the wife of the Prophet (s)? Her anger is such that she even questions whether the Prophet (s) may seek to influence a decision by fabricating events obtain a decision in his favor. This behavior so angered Abu Bakr that he subjected her to a physical; assault, as a result of which she received a bloody mouth.

Sadly as Ghazzali notes, this was not a one off blasphemous outburst, we note how on another occasion she said as follows:

وقالت له مرة في كلم غضبت عنده أنت الذي تزعم أنك نبي ال

"It is you who pretend to be a prophet from Allah." Ihya Ulum-id-din [Arabic], Volume 2 page 43

Clearly Ayesha’s manners as demonstrated from the above examples fell far below the standards than Allah (swt) and his Prophet (s) would expect, after all he (s) stated:

Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Amr: "The Prophet never used bad language neither a 'Fahish nor a Mutafahish. He used to say 'The best amongst you are those who have the best manners and character.' Sahih Bukhari, Virtues and Merits of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and his Companions, Volume 4, Book 56, Number 759


http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/ayesha/ihiya_ulum_idin_p37.jpg



of 89

110.Were Abu Bakr and Ayesha the most beloved of Rasulullah (s)?

Abu Sulaiman sought to conclude his passionate exoneration of Ayesha by citing the following tradition:

Ansar.org states:Omro bin Al-A'as said, 'Once the prophet peace be upon him used me as a leader for an army. I went to him and said, "O' Messenger of Allah, who is the most beloved to you?" He answered, "Aysha." I said, "What about men?" He replied, "Her father."'

111.Reply One - Ayesha's testimony as to who the most beloved were

This alleged hadith does not tally up to stronger explicit traditions that prove that there existed individuals who Rasulullah (s) had clearly indicated as superior on account of his love for them. If the Ansar.org will continue to insist on their position that Ayesha and Abu Bakr were the most beloved in the eyes of Rasulullah (s), then why do they not accept the testimony of Ayesha herself recorded and declared Sahih by Imam Hakim in Mustadrak, Volume 4 page 261 Tradition 4744:

Jami bin Umair narrates: 'I accompanied my aunt and approached Ayesha [ra] and asked her: 'Who was the dearest among the people to Rasulullah?' She replied 'Fatima'. I then asked 'And amongst men? She replied 'Her husband'

Imam Nasai records in Khasais Imam Ali, page 89:

Amro bin Ali narrated from Abdulaziz bin al-Khatab from Muhammad bin Ismail bin Raja al-Zubaidi from Abi Ishaq al-Shaybani from Jami bin Umair who narrated: 'I along with my father went to Ayesha and asked her (behind the veil) about Ali. She replied: 'You are asking me about a man whom I know NONE among the men that the Holy Prophet loved most except him and NONE among the women except his wife'.

Jami bin Umair: Ibn Hajar said: 'Seduq' (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1 p156). Abu Ishaq al-Shaybani: Ibn Hajar said: 'Thiqah' (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1 p386). Muhammad bin Ismail bin Raja: Ibn Hajar said: 'Seduq' (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v2 p55). Abdulaziz bin al-Khatab: Ibn Hajar said: 'Seduq' (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1 p603). Amro bin Ali: Ibn Hajar said: 'Thiqah' (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1 p741). Moreover the margin writer of the book namely Abu Ishaq al-Huwayni who has been one of the beloved students of Imam Nasiruddin Albaani al-Salafi has also declared the chain of this tradition to be 'Sahih'.

In another tradition recorded by Imam Haythami in Majma al Zawaid, Volume 9 page 24 Tradition 14730, Ayesha has herself testified that Ali [as] was more dearest to Holy Prophet [s] than Abu Bakr:

Al-Numan bin Bashir said: ‘Abu Bakr asked for permission to enter on the prophet [s], then he heard Ayesha saying (to the prophet): ‘I knew that Ali is dearest to you than my father’. She said that twice or thrice'

Imam Abi Bakar al-Haythami said:

‘al-Bazar recorded it and the narrators the narrator of Sahih’


of 89

Same episode has also been narrated in this manner in Majma al Zawaid, Volume 9 page 136 Tradition 15194:

Al-Numan bin Bashir said: ‘Abu Bakr asked for permission to enter on the prophet [s], whereupon he heard Ayesha's loudly raised voice, saying (to the prophet): ‘I knew that Ali and Fatima are more dearer to you than me and my father’. She said that twice or thrice – Abu Bakr then asked for permission and entered he approached her and said: 'O daughter, you should not raise your voice before Allah's messenger (s)'.

Imam Abi Bakar al-Haythami said:

‘Ahmad recorded it and the narrators are the narrators of the Sahih’.

We would urge Ayesha’s advocates to take a good look at this tradition. Nawasib can huff and puff as much as they like and seek to impress upon their readers that the Prophet (s) deemed Ayesha and Abu Bakr to be the dearest to the Prophet (s), but when we have Ayesha’s own testimony telling us otherwise then such claims become baseless. Not only did Ayesha testify to the Prophet (s) loving Maula Ali (as) and Fatima (sa) more than her and her father, her raised voice evidences how jealous and resentful she was at this fact, so much so that it caused her behaviour to fall foul of the standards of conduct imposed by Allah (swt) on those speaking to the Prophet (s). It took Abu Bakr to intervene and remind his daughter of her religious obligation: 'O daughter, you should not raise your voice before Allah's messenger (s)'. Abu Bakr may well have been alluding to Surah Hujurat verse 2:

O ye who believe! Raise not your voices above the voice of the Prophet, nor speak aloud to him in talk, as ye may speak aloud to one another, lest your deeds become vain and ye perceive not.

The verse sets out the serious consequences for those that raise their voice in the presence of the Prophet (s), Abu Bakr had practical experience of this, since this verse descended to reprimand his conduct (Sahih Bukhari, Book of Tafseer).

Mulla Mutaqi Hindi records in Kanz ul Ummal, Volume 11 page 334 Tradition 31670:

Arwa said: ‘I asked Ayesha: ‘Who was the dearest man to Holy Prophet [s]?’ She replied: ‘Ali bin Abi Talib’. I said: ‘Then what was the reason for rebelling against him?’ She replied: ‘What was the reason for your father marring your mother?’ I said: ‘It was the fate’. She replied: ‘And also this was a fate’.

The unequivocal testimony of Ayesha about Ali bin Abi Talib [as] being dearest to the Holy Prophet [s] should suffice to silence her advocates. If we examine the excuse she advanced for fighting the dearest person to the Holy Prophet [s] we see it is both feeble and unIslamic since in Islam, one cannot commit heinous crimes and blame fate she will after all have to pay the price for those offences in the hereafter!

112.Reply Two - The Sahabi Buraida’s testimony as to who the most beloved were

Imam Hakim records a Sahih tradition in Mustadrak, Volume 4 page 2581 Tradition 4735:

Buraida said: ‘The dearest woman to Allah's messenger was Fatima and the dearest man was Ali’.


of 89

113.Reply Three - The most beloved individuals are those that are loved by Allah (swt) and his Rasul (s)

To locate the most beloved in they eyes of Rasulullah (s) it would need to be that individual who is also loved by Allah (swt). Such an individual attains a rank that cannot be attained by any other person. Following the successive failures of the Shaykhain in leading the Muslim army to conquer the fort of Khaiber, Rasulullah (s) made this declaration that we have cited from Sahih Muslim Book 031, Number 5918 Chapter "The merits of Ali ibne Abi Talib":

Sahl b. Sa'd reported that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said on the Day of Khaibar: I would certainly give this standard to a person at whose hand Allah would grant victory and who loves Allah and His Messenger and Allah and His Messenger love him also. The people spent the night thinking as to whom it would be given. When it was morning the people hastened to Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) all of them hoping that that would be given to him. He (the Holy Prophet) said: Where is 'Ali b. Abu Talib? They said: Allah's Messenger, his eyes are sore. He then sent for him and he was brought and Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) applied saliva to his eyes and invoked blessings and he was all right, as if he had no ailment at all, and conferred upon him the standard. 'Ali said: Allah's Messenger, I will fight them until they are like us. Thereupon he (the Holy Prophet) said: Advance cautiously until you reach their open places, thereafter invite them to Islam and inform them what is obligatory for them from the rights of Allah, for, by Allah, if Allah guides aright even one person through you that is better for you than to possess the most valuable of the camels.

So here Rasulullah (s) gave a clear guarantee that the individual who would be given the standard was a man loved by Allah (swt) and him. The fact that all the Sahaba were hoping for the Standard being given to them, vouches for the fact that they were fully aware of the esteemed rank the next person grasping the standard would have in the eyes of Allah (swt) and his Apostle (s). The fact that it was 'Ali (as) and no one else evidences that he was the most beloved to Rasulullah (s), one loved by Rasul (s) and his Creator.

With regards to Imams Hasan (as) and Husayn (as), we read in Sunan Tirmidhi Volume 2 page 24 that Rasulullah stated:

"Hasan and Husayn are both my sons, O Allah I love them so love them and those that love them".

In this supplication Rasulullah (s) has declared that his love for his beloved grandsons, was such that he has declared his love for those that loved them.

Along the same line, consider this tradition:

Rasulullah (s) said:"God commanded me to love four, and He informed me that he loves them. People asked him: Messenger of God who are they? He said: Ali is from them (repeating that three times ). And Abu Tharr and Salman and al-Miqdad." 1. Sunan ibn Majah, v1 p53 Hadith 149;2. The Khalifas who took the right way page 177 (A part translation of Suyuti's Tarikh ul Khulafa")3. Mishkat al Masabih, Volume 4 page 131 Chapter "Companions in General" - English translation by Maulana Fazlul Karim.

Such is the rank of the four individuals in this hadith that Allah (swt) has declared his love for them, so they have a rank of superiority that far outstrips that of the other Sahaba.

It is clear that the individuals in these traditions rank as the most beloved from amongst the


of 89

faithful so much so that not only the Prophet (s) but Allah (swt) declared his love for them. We challenge Ansar.org to present any traditions in which Rasulullah (s) had declared that Allah (swt) loved Ayesha and 'Abu Bakr. No such hadith exists.

114.Reply Four - The most beloved are those individuals whose love has been made compulsory upin the believers in the Quran

When seeking to identify the most beloved in the eyes of Rasulullah (s) one needs to look no further than the Qur'an. Allah (swt) states the duty that has been placed on the Muslims:

Say: "No reward do I ask of you for this except the love of those near of kin." (42:23).

Jalaladin Suyuti in Tafsir Durre Manthur under the commentary of this verse records the following:

Abdullah ibne Abbas narrates 'When this verse descended the people asked who are these close relatives whose love had been made compulsory?' Rasulullah said they are 'Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Husayn'.

Other leading lights of Ahl'ul Sunnah have also confirmed that this verse came down in respect of these four individuals:1. Hilayat al Awliya page 201 Volume 32. Mustadrak al Hakim Volume 3 page 1723. Sawaiq al Muhriqa page 1014. Usdul Ghaba page 367 Volume 55. Kanz al-Ummal page 217 Volume 1

Clearly these four individuals are the most beloved to Rasulullah (s) to the extent that Allah (swt) has declared love towards them as the only wage required by Rasulullah (s), for providing the ummah with Allah's message - Islam. Therefore, their love is a part of the Deen. If Ayesha and Abu Bakr were indeed the 'most' beloved then why has Allah (swt) not stipulated love towards them as a duty upon the Muslims in the same way He (swt) has for Imams Ali (as), Hasan (as), Husayn (as) and Sayyida Fatima (as)?

115.Reply Five - Prophet [s] selected his most beloved on the Day of Brotherhood

We read in Seerah Ibn Hisham, Volume 1 page 55 that:

"The Prophet after the Hijrah said to the Muslims: Be brothers in God. Every two should be brothers. Then he took the hand of Ali Ibn Abi Talib and said this is my brother. Thus, the Messenger of God, the Leader of the Messengers, the Imam of the righteous, the one who has no equal among the servants of God and Ali Ibn Abi Talib became brothers. Al Hamzah, Lion of Allah and of his Messenger and Zaid Ibn Harith became brothers, and Abu Bakr and Kharijah Ibn Zuhair became brothers. Omar Ibn Khattab and Atban Ibn Malik became brothers"

Our question to Abu Sulaiman and his fellow advocates is 'If Abu Bakr was indeed the most beloved then why did the Holy Prophet (s) not select him to be his brother when he (s) divided the Sahaba in to pairs on the Day of Brotherhood?' This occasion was a clear declaration of the closeness between Imam 'Ali (as) and Rasulullah (s). If Abu Bakr was the most beloved then why did he prefer Imam Ali (as) over him?


of 89

116.Does the title of ‘Umahat ul Momineen’ given to the wives of the Holy Prophet [s] evidence Ayesha’s personal merit or guarantees her immunity from criticism?

Unable to identify a legitimate defence for the crimes committed by their Nasibi ancestors against Imam Ali bin Abi Talib [as] from the Quran and Sunnah, they turn to the fact that Allah (swt) declared the wives of the Prophet [s] to be the ‘mothers of the believers’ the exempts them from criticism. Ansar.org submit this defence in this manner:

Ansar.org states:And we value her because she is our mother in faith. Allah says, “The Prophet is closer to the Believers than their own selves, and his wives are their mothers.” (Al-Ahzab, 5)

117.Reply One: The actual reason for declaring them ‘mothers of the believers’ was to prevent Muslims from marrying them

We shall puncture this Nawasib ‘defence ball’ by pointing out that the sole reason for declaring the wives of the Prophet [s] as ‘the mothers of the believers’ was to prevent the Muslims from marrying them in the eventuality of their being divorced or widowed, it is not a merit on their part. That is why we read in the Holy Quran:

Nor is it right for you that ye should annoy Allah's Messenger, or that ye should marry his widows after him at any time. (33:53)

The first verse was revealed when Allah [swt] exposed the evil wish of Talha to marry Ayesha in the eventuality of the Prophet’s death. Allah [swt] sought to remove such an option by revealing this verse:

‘and his wives are their mothers’ (33:6)

The first verse was revealed to establish a new rule that Muslims could not marry the Prophet (s)’s and the second commandment was revealed to emphasize the very rule. It is similar to the case of the verses of Zakat. Zakat was mentioned in the Quran several times, initially to establish a new rule with the remainder occasions emphasizing the requirement of Zakat. Let us now substantiate our argument with the help of Sunni sources. We read in Tafsir al-Qurtubi, Volume 14 page 228:

ر¥و¥ى إ£س¤م¥اع£يل ب¤ن إ£س¤ح¥اق ق¥ال¥ ح¥̈دث¥ن¥ا م§ح¥̈مد ب¤ن ع§ب¥ي¤د ق¥ال¥ ح¥̈دث¥ن¥ا م§ح¥̈مد ب¤ن ث¥و¤ر ع¥ن¤ م¥ع¤م¥ر ع¥ن¤ ق¥ت¥اد¥ة أ¥̈ن ر¥ج§́لاو¥م¥ا ك¥ان¥ ل¥ك§م¤ أ¥ن¤ ت§ؤ¤ذ§وا: " ف¥أ¥ن¤ز¥ل¥ ال̈له ت¥ع¥ال¥ى , ل¥و¤ ق§ب£ض¥ ر¥س§ول ال̈له ص¥̈لى ال̈له ع¥ل¥ي¤ه£ و¥س¥̈لم¥ ت¥ز¥̈وج¤ت ع¥ائ£ش¥ة : ق¥ال¥

و¥أ¥ز¤و¥اجه أ§̈مه¥اتهم: " و¥ن¥ز¥ل¥ت¤ . ال¤آي¥ة " ر¥س§ول ال̈له "

Qatada said: ‘A man said: ‘If Allah's messenger (s) died, I would marry Ayesha’. Hence Allah revealed ‘{ Nor is it right for you that ye should annoy Allah's Messenger}’ then revealed ‘{ and his wives are their mothers}’.

Modern day Salafi scholar Abu Bakr al-Jazairi records in Aysar al-Tafasir, Volume 4 page 1422:

روي أن رج́ل من المنافقين لما تزوج رسول ال صلى ال عليه وسلم أم سلمة وحفصة بعد خنيس بنفما بال محمد يتزوج نساءنا وال لو قد مات لجلنا السهام على نسائه ، فأنزل ال تعالى هذه: حذافة قال

الية ، فحرم ال نكاح أزواجه من بعده وجعل لهن حكم المهات

It has been narrated that when Allah's messenger (s) married Um Salama and


of 89

Hafsa, after (she got separated) from Khunais bin Hudafa, a male hypocrite said: ‘Why is Muhammad marrying our women? By Allah when he dies, we should fire our arrows at his wives’. Allah (swt) therefore revealed this verse. Thus Allah made the marriage to His wives unlawful and made their status as the status of mothers.

In Volume 4 page 1395 we read:

{ في الحرمة وسواء من طلقت أو مات عنها منهن رضي ال عنهن{ وأزواجه أمهاتهم

“{and his wives are their mothers.} The unlawfulness (for marriage) whether they are divorced or widows may Allah be pleased with them.”

Allamah Salehi al-Shami records in Subul al-Huda wa al-Rashad, Volume 11 page 146:

. أن معنى الية أن المومة في المة المراد بها تحريم نكاحهن على التأبيد كالمهات

“The meaning of motherhood to the nation means that it is unlawful to marry them for ever just like the case of their biological mothers.”

One of the beloved scholars of Salafies namely Shawkani records in Fatah al-Qadir, Volume 4 page 372 wrote:

فل يحل لحد أن يتزوج بواحدة منهن كما ل يحل له أن يتزوج بأمه فهذه المومة مختصة بتحريم النكاح لهن

“It is impermissible for anyone to marry any one of them as it is impermissible to marry his biological mother, thus this motherhood is about forbidding marriage with them”

Imam Jalaluddin Suyuti records in Tafsir Dur al-Manthur, Volume 6 page 566:

أمهاتهم في الحرمة ل يحل: وأخرج ابن أبي حاتم عن قتادة رضي ال عنه في قوله وأزواجه أمهاتهم يقول لمؤمن ان ينكح امرأة من نساء النبي صلى ال عليه و سلم في حياته ان طلق ول بعد موته هي حرام

على كل مؤمن مثل حرمة أمه

“Qutada [ra] said about his (Allah) satatement ‘{and his wives are their mothers.}’ they are their mothers in unlawfulness (for marriage), it is impermissible for a believer to marry any woman from the prophet (s)’s women, whether they were divorced during His life time or after his death, they are unlawful for every believer as the unlawfulness of their biological mothers.”

Imam Fakhr al-Razi records in Tafsir al-Kabir, Volume 5 page 136:

لجل{ وأزواجه أمهاتهم : } كما أنه تعالى سمى أزواج النبي عليه السلم أمهات المؤمنين في قوله . الحرمة

“He (Allah) Almighty called the wives of the prophet (s) as the mother of believers according to the verse {and his wives are their mothers} due to unlawfulness (of marriage).”

And to hit a final nail in the Nasibi coffin, let us present the testimony of Ayesha herself who unequivocally stated that she was the mother of the Muslim men not of Muslim women, that perfectly concurs with the notion that those women were made mothers of the ‘male’ believers so as to prohibit marriage, as stated earlier. Imam Ibn Saad records in Tabaqat al-Kabir, Volume 8 page 65:

حدثنا هشام أبو الوليد الطيالسي حدثنا أبو عوانة عن فراس عن عامر عن مسروق أن امرأة قالت لعائشةيا أمة فقالت لست بأمك أنا أم رجالكم

Masrooq said: ‘A woman said to Ayesha: ‘Oh mother’. She replied: ‘I'm not your mother, I'm the mother of your men’.


of 89

According to Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani, Abu al-Walid al-Tealisi and Abu Uwana are ‘Thiqa Thabt’ while Amer al-Sh'abi and Masrooq are ‘Thiqah’ while Feras bin Yaya is ‘Seduq’. Moreover, many Sunni scholars have declared this tradition to be Sahih. This tradition is recorded in Masanid Feras, Volume 1 page 85 by Feras al-Maktab while the reviser of the book Sheikh Muhammad bin Hassan al-Masri has declared its chain as ‘Sahih’ as has also been done by Esaami in Semt al-Nujum al-Awali, page 184. The Salafi scholar Abu Ishaq al-Huwaini was the favorite student of Imam Nasiruddin Albaani al-Salafi which why is Salafies call him 'the small Albaani'. Abu Ishaq in his book Tanbeeh al-Hajeb, Volume 2 page 425 answered al-Qurtubi in this manner:

!رضي ال عنك : قلت – من طريق مسروق– رضي ال عنها فقد صح هذا عن عائشة

I say: may Allah be pleased with you!This is a Sahih (tradition) from Ayesha may Allah be pleased with, narrated by Masrooq.

Tanbeeh al-Hajeb, Volume 2 page 425

For the Nawasib belonging to Sipah Sahaba, we should point out that one of the favorite scholars of Deoband school namely Qazi Thanaullah Pani Patti Uthmani records in Tafseer Mazhari, Volume 9 page 202:

“Shu’bi has narrated from Masrooq that a woman said to Ayesha: ‘Oh mother’. She replied: ‘I'm not your mother, I'm the mother of your men’. Bahaqi has also narrated it in Sunan. This has proved that Allah [swt] calling the wives of Holy Prophet [s] as the mothers of the believers means that in the same way that one’s biological mother is Haram for the Ummah so is the case with marrying the wives of the Holy Prophet [s]”

Tafseer Mazhari, Volume 9 page 202

Beside Sunni texts, Shia sources also confirm that their being mothers of the belevers was to prevent their marriage with Muslim men, see 1. Rasael al-Murtaza, by Sharif al-Murtaza, v4, p652. Jame al-Jawame, by Tabarsi, v3, p493. Tafsir al-Quran, by Abdullah Shubar, p4184. Min Wahi al-Quran, by Fadhlullah, v18, p2635. Tafsir al-Quran, by Abdullah Shubar, p418

Nasibi Objection

A Nasibi advanced an absurd objecottion that Shias consider themselves ‘Momineen’ (believers), does that mean that Allah [swt] prevented the Shia men from marrying the wives of Holy Prophet [s] whilst the Sunni men were not?

Reply to the Nasibi Objection

The word ‘Mumineen’ has been used in the Holy Quran at various places and at times it carries different meanings. For example, Allah [swt] has also used this word for the hypocrites too (61:2), for Muslims in general (5:6) and also for the true believers (31:8). It is therefore not strange if Allah [swt] used this word to refer to the Muslims in general so as to prevent them marrying the wives of the Holy Prophet [s].


http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/ayesha/tafsir_mazhari_v9_202.jpg



http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/ayesha/tafsir_mazhari_v9_202.jpg

of 89

118.Reply Two: Being a ‘mother of the believers’ is a merit dependent on the believers

Let us cite an example:

There is a doctor who has invented a treatment to care cancer or an engineer who has developed a new formula or a warrior who laid down his life whilst defending his nation’s territory in an unprecedented manner. The nation awards him with the highest medal of valour following his death. Now if you happen to know the mothers of all these individuals and you are to introduce her to a third person, your introduction will certainly be based on their (mothers’) relation to their respective sons. You might say ‘meet her, she is the mother of Dr. ABC’ . The use of such terminology acts as the recognition of the mother-son relationship and is dependent on the merits of the son, not of mother. There isn’t any contribution of the mother in the efforts the doctor made in the laboratories on the contrary it was the efforts of the son who has brought a reputation or name to his mother.

119.Reply Three: A mother can be good or bad

There isn’t any rocket science in this. A mother cannot be barred from crticism and punishment for the crimes and sins she commits just because she is a mother. The Nawasib always seek to ‘embarrass’ the Shia by asking:‘Will you disrespect and criticize your own biological mother? If not then how can you treat the mothers of the believers in this manner?

Firstly, no Shia ‘disrespects’ Ayesha criticizing her crimes does not constitute showing her disrespect. Ayesha herself opened the door of criticism by committing such sins.

As for the second point, Nawasib are working on the assumption that mothers are always good to their children on account of the status as mothers. Tragically this is not a hard a fast rule and there exist many examples of mothers subjecting their biological children to neglect and abuse, for example:

Mother participates in the rape of her daughter http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/6230072.stm]

Mother jailed over child neglect http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,20511524-1702,00.html

Mother abandons children and goes on holiday

Mother murders her baby son http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1532206/Mother-who-killed-her-baby-son-in-fire-

is-spared-jail.htm

Applying these cases to the facts under and the question whether a Shia would criticize his own biological mother, then the answer is that if one’s biological mother (godforbid) committed sins like those of the above women and Ayesha, she is worthy of criticism. Alhamdulilah, we don’t see any Shia mother going out of her house joining men after her husband’s death, causing fitnah and murder in the Ummah and fighting the Ulil Amr who she hates, and that too when she was forewarned that such conduct would evidence her being on the wrong path!


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1532206/Mother-who-killed-her-baby-son-in-fire-is-spared-jail.html


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article534741.ece%5Dhttp://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article534741.ece

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,20511524-1702,00.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/6230072.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/6230072.stm

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,20511524-1702,00.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article534741.ece%5Dhttp://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article534741.ece


of 89

120.Does the verse of Surah Noor shows any individual merit of Ayesha or guarantee her protection from criticism?

In his attempt to defend Ayesha,

Ansar.org states:Aysha deserved all this respect, regard, and more from Ahl Al-Sunnah because she is the wife of the pure prophet peace be upon him that he chose to be his wife because she is pure too. Allah Almighty says, "Women impure are for men impure, and men impure for women impure and women of purity are for men of purity, and men of purity are for women of purity: these are not affected by what people say: for them there is forgiveness, and a provision honourable." (Surat Al-Noor, 26).

Here Allah (swt) is talking about the common example of people, a pious man will not intentionally search out an ill-chartered woman and vice versa. To say that this is a precedent that pious men ONLY have pious wives and impure men only have impure wives, is absolutely baseless and contradicts the Qur'an. To prove the fallacy of Abu Sulaiman's claim all we need to do is to cite these two verses from Surah Tahreem verses 66:10-11, which incidentally had descended as a warning to Ayesha and Hafsa:

"Allah has set forth an example to the disbeliever's, the wife Of Noah and the wife of Lot. They were both married to two servants from among our righteous servants, but they were deceitful/treacherous to their husbands. And they benefited nothing before Allah on the account of their (husbands). Instead they were told: "Enter the Fire with those who enter." Allah cited an example for the believers, the wife of Pharaoh when she said: "O my Lord, build for me a house in paradise, and save me from Pharaoh and his deeds; and save me from the people who do wrong".

If pious men ONLY marry pious women, how is it that Prophet's Nuh (as) and Lut (as) both had wives that are in Hell for their acts of deceit and treachery? If impious men only marry impious women then how is it Pharaoh, the enemy of Allah (swt) was married to Asiya, who is extolled for her piety?

We would look forward to Abu Sulaiman's commentary of these verses in light of his claim. Before we close our discussions on this verse, we should point out that there is no need to use this verse to shield the sins committed by Ayesha since the verse should be understood in the context in which it was revealed, namely its discussion about fornication and chastity. No Shia or Sunni has even the slightest doubt over the chastisy of the Prophet [s] and all his wives, that in effect ends the debate! Imam Shawkani in Tafsir Fatah al-Qadir, Volume 4 page 27 confirms that the impurtiy and purtiy referred to in this verse are for fornication and chasty respectively:

الخبيثات الزواني والطيبات العفائف وكذا الخبيثون والطيبون

“Impure women are the fornicators, the women of purity are the chaste and so are the impure men and the purity of men”

121.Allah (swt) has condemned Ayesha in the Quran

Whilst Allah (swt) refers to Rasulullah's wives in different guises, Ayesha and Hafsa are two


of 89

wives who have been specifically admonished by Allah (swt) on account of their behaviour. Abu Sulaiman can offer as many defences as he chooses, Ayesha herself testifies to her scheming with Hafsa that led to the descent of this verse.

"O Prophet! Why holdest thou to be forbidden that which Allah has made lawful to thee? Thou seekest to please thy consorts" (Surah Tahreem verse 1, Yusuf Ali's translation).

This is what we read in Sahih al Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 434:

"Narrated 'Aisha: Allah's Apostle used to drink honey in the house of Zainab, the daughter of Jahsh, and would stay there with her. So Hafsa and I agreed secretly that, if he come to either of us, she would say to him. "It seems you have eaten Maghafir (a kind of bad-smelling resin), for I smell in you the smell of Maghafir," (We did so) and he replied. "No, but I was drinking honey in the house of Zainab, the daughter of Jahsh, and I shall never take it again. I have taken an oath as to that, and you should not tell anybody about it".

So Ayesha admits:

1. Both her and Ayesha entered in to a secret plot in an effort to keep Rasulullah (s) away from the house of Ummul Momineen Zainab.

2. To achieve this objective they both lied to Rasulullah (s).

Allah (swt) exposed the two wives in this verse, so much so that in Surah Tahreem verse 4, He (swt) says:

"If ye two turn in repentance to Him, your hearts are indeed so inclined; But if ye back up each other against him, truly Allah is his Protector, and Gabriel, and (every) righteous one among those who believe,- and furthermore, the angels - will back (him) up".

Here are just a handful of Ahl'ul Sunnah texts that confirm Surah Tahreem descended following the planning of Ayesha and Hafsa:

1. Sahih al Bukhari Volume 6 hadith number 4372. Sunan Nasai Volume 6 page 1523. Musnad Ibn Hanbal Volume 1 page 252 4. Tafheemul Qur'an commentary of Surah Tahreem

For the sake of brevity we shall only cite the fatwa of Umar with regards to who this verse descended about:

"Narrated Ibn Abbas: I intended to ask 'Umar about those two ladies who back each other against 'Allah's Apostle . For one year I was seeking the opportunity to ask this question, but in vain, until once when I accompanied him for Hajj. While we were in Zahran, 'Umar went to answer the call of nature and told me to follow him with some water for ablution. So I followed him with a container of water and started pouring water for him. I found it a good opportunity to ask him, so I said, "O chief of the Believers! Who were those two ladies who had backed each other (against the Prophet)?" Before I could complete my question, he replied, "They were 'Aisha and Hafsa." Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 437

The comments of Sayyid Abul A'la Maudoodi in his Tafheemul Qur'an, regarding this verse, a commentary which he has cited relying on some of the most revered and authentic Sunni sources, are of particular significance. We are translating the text direct from the English version, footnotes 7 and 8:


of 89

“The word saghat in the original is from Baghy which means to swerve and to become crooked. Shah Waliyullah and Shah Rafi'uddin have translated this sentence thus: "Crooked have become your hearts." 'Abdullah bin Mas'ud, 'Abdullah bin 'Abbas, Sufyan Thauri and Dahhak have given this meaning of it: "Your hearts have swerved from the right path." Imam Razi explains it thus: "Your hearts have swerved from what is right, and the right implies the right of the Holy Prophet (upon whom be Allah's peace)." And 'Allama Alusi's commentary is Although it is incumbent on you that you should approve what the Holy Messenger (upon whom he peace) approves and disapprove what he disapproves, yet in this matter your hearts have swerved from conformity with him and turned in opposition to him. " *8 The word tazahur means to cooperate mutually in opposition to another person, or to be united against another person. Shah Waliyullah has translated this sentence, thus: "If you mutually join together to cause distress to the Prophet. " Shah 'Abdul Qadir's translation is: "If you both overwhelm him." Maulana Ashraf 'Ali Thanwi's translation runs: "And if you both continued to work thus against the Prophet. " And Maulana Shabbir Ahmad 'Uthmami has explained it thus: ,"lf you two continued to work and behave thus (against the Prophet)."

The verse is clearly addressed to two ladies and the context shows that these ladies arc from among the wives of the Holy Prophet (upon whom be peace) for in vv. 1-5 of this Surah the affairs concerning the Holy Prophet's wives only have been discussed continuously, and this becomes obvious from the style of the Qur'an itself. As for the question who were the wives, and what was the matter which caused Allah's displeasure, the details are found in the Hadith. In Musnad Ahmad, Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmidhi and Nasa'i, a detailled tradition of 'Abdullah bin 'Abbas has been related, which describes the incident with sane variation in wording. Ibn 'Abbas says: "I had been thinking a long time to ask 'Umar as to who were the two of the Holy Prophet's wives, who had joined each other against him, and about whom Allah sent down this verse: In tatuba.....; but I could not muster courage because of his awe-inspiring personality until he left for Hajj and I accompanied him. On our way back while helping him to perform ablutions for the Prayer at one place I had an opportunity to ask him this question. He replied: they were 'A'ishah and Hafsah. Then he began to relate the background, saying: "We, the people of Quraish, were used to keeping our women folk under strict control. Then. when we came to Madinah, we found that the people here were under the control of their wives, and the women of Quraish too started learning the same thing from them. One day when I became angry with my wife, I was amazed to see that she argued with me. I felt badly about her conduct. She said, 'Why should you feel so angry at my behaviour? By God, the wives of the Holy Prophet (upon whom be peace) answer him back face to face,' (the word in the original is li yuraji nahu) and some one of them remains angrily apart from hire for the whole day. (According to Bukhari: the Holy Prophet remains angry and- apart from her the whole day). Hearing this I came out of my house and went to Hafsah (who was `Umar's daughter and the Holy Prophet's wife). I asked her. Do you answer back to the Holy Prophet (upon whom be peace) face to face? She said: Yes. asked: And does one of you remain apart from him for the whole day (According to Bukhari: the Holy Prophet remains angry and apart from her for the entire day). She said: Yes. I said: Wretched is the one from among you, who behaves thus. Has one of you become so fearless of this that AIIah should afflict her with His wrath because of the wrath of His Prophet and she should perish? So, do not be rude to the Prophet (here also the words are: la turaji-'i), nor demand of him anything, but demand of me whatever you desire. Do not be misled by this that your neighbor (i.e. A'ishah) is more beautiful and dearer to the Holy Prophet. After this I left her house and went to the house of Umm Salamah, who was related to me, and talked to her on this subject. She said: Son of Khattab, you are a strange man: you have meddled in every matter until you are now interfering


of 89

in the affair between Allah's Messenger and his wives. She discouraged me. Then it so happened that an Ansari neighbor came to my house at night and he called out to me. We used to sit in the Holy Prophet's assembly by turns and each used to pass on to the other the news of the day of his turn. It was the time when we were apprehending an attack by the Ghassanids any time. On his call when I came out of my house, he said that something of grave significance had happened. 1 said: Have the Ghassanids launched an attack? He said: No, but something even more serious! The Holy Prophet (upon whom be peace) has divorced his wives. I said: Doomed is Hafsah (the words in Bukhari are: Raghima anfu Hafsah wa Àishah). I already had a premonition of this."

We have left out what happened after this, how next morning 'Umar went before the Holy Prophet and tried to appease his anger. We have described this incident by combining the traditions of Musnad Ahmad and Bukhari. In this the word murajàt which Ùmar has used cannot be taken in its literal sense, but the context shows that the word has been used in the sense of answering back face to face and Ùmar's saying to his daughter: La turaji- Ì Rasul Allah clearly has the meaning: Do not be impudent to the Messenger of Allah, Some people say that this is a wrong translation, and their objection is: Although it is correct to translate muraja àt as answering hack, or answering hack face to face, yet it is not correct to translate it as "bing impudent" . These objectors do not understand that if a person of a lower rank or position answers back or retorts to a person of a higher rank and position, or answers him back face to face this very thing is described as impudence. For example, if a father rebukes his son for something or feels angry at his behaviour, and the son instead of keeping quiet or offering an excuse, answers back promptly this could only he described as impudence. Then, when the matter is not between a father and a son, but between the Messenger of Allah and an individual of his community, only a foolish person could say that it was not impudence. Some other people regard this translation of ours as disrespectful, whereas it could be disrespectful in case we had had the boldness to use such words in respect of Hafsah from ourselves. We have only given the correct meaning of the words of . 'Umar, and these words he had used while scolding and reproving his daughter for her error. Describing it as disrespectful would mean that either the father should treat his daughter with due respect and reverence even when scolding and rebuking her or else the translator should render his rebuke and reproof in a way as to make it sound respectful and reverent. Here, what needs to be considered carefully is that if it was such an ordinary and trivial matter that when the Holy Prophet said something to his wives they would retort to Him, why was it given so much importance that in the Qur'an AIIah administered a severe warning directly to the wives themselves? And why did 'Umar take it as such a grave matter that first he reproved his own daughter, then visited the house of the other wives and asked them to fear the wrath of Allah? And, about alI, was the Holy Prophet (upon whom be peace) also so sensitive that he would take offence at minor things and become annoyed with his wives, and was he, God forbid, so irritable that once having been annoyed at such things he had severed his connections with all his wives and retired to his private apartment in seclusion? If a person considers these questions deeply, he will inevitably have to adopt one of the two views in the explanation of these verses Either on account of his excessive concern for reverence for the holy wives he should not at aII mind if a fault is imputed to AIIah and His Messenger, or else he should admit in a straightforward way that at that time the attitude and behaviour of these holy wives has actually become so objectionable that the Holy Prophet (upon whom be peace) was justified in becoming annoyed over it, and more than that, AIIah Himself was justified that He should administer a severe warning to the wives on their unseemly behaviour and attitude.

These verses, particularly in light of Maudoodi's commentary, are indeed very interesting, for


of 89

the aqeedah of Ahl'ul Sunnah is that ALL the Sahaba are just and truthful. This verse demonstrates the exact opposite, two wives of Rasulullah (s) have been exposed for lying.

122.Ayesha's condemnation in the Quran is further proof that she was not the most superior wife of Rasulullah (s)

Some Ahl'ul Sunnah assert that since Ayesha was the most superior wife then that means that she was the most superior of all women. Not only is the claim that she was the most superior wife baseless, the fact of the matter is in Surah Tahreem, Allah (swt) also states this:

"Perhaps if he divorces you, his Lord will give him wives who are better than you, who submit and believe” (Qur'an 66:5) - this clearly indicates that there were believing women among the Muslims who were much better than Ayesha.


of 89

9. The 'true' Shia position with regards to Ayesha

123.Distinguishing between slander and objective criticism

Unfortunately our opponents have difficulty distinguishing between criticism and slander. Criticism is perfectly legitimate if it is based on facts whether they are from the sources of Qur'an, Sunnah and annals of history. This is the Shi'a approach when we discuss topics such as this one; we present the facts from these three sources to show to our readers that if we have been critical of Ayesha, it is on account of her actions. Slander entails making uncorroborated comments about an individual, so as to destroy that person's character. As we have proven, slandering Ayesha was an approach adopted by the Sahaba. The Shi'a do NOT slander Ayesha, if we are critical of Ayesha or for that matter, any Sahabi, we can substantiate and elaborate our reasons, as this site sets out to do.

124.Slandering Ayesha is the Sunnah of the Sahaba

Before accusing the Shia of slander we suggest that the Nawasib look closer to home, since the true shameless people that slandered Ayesha were the very Sahaba that they venerate. It was these shameless individuals that attributed formication to Ayesha. This event is clearly mentioned in the Holy Quran: Surah Noor, Ayah 11. For authentic references from the books of Ahl'ul Sunnah, see the following:

1. Sahih Bukhari Volume 5 hadith number 462, Chapter al Maghazi (Expeditions)2. Sunan Nisai Volume 4 page 162 "Kitab Hudood"3. Fatah ul Bari Volume 5 page 273 "Kitab Shahadath"4. Irhsad al Sari Sharh Bukhari Volume 4 page 494 "Kitab Shahadath"5. Nawawi's Sharh Muslim, Volume page 364 "Kitab Tauba"6. al Bidayah al Nihaya by Ibn Kathir on page 160 Volume 4, Chapter "Dhir Ifk"7. Tafsir Mazhari commentary of Surah Nur Volume 17 page 4798. Tafsir Kabeer Volume 6 page 240 Surah Nur9. Tafsir Fatah ul Qadeer Volume 5 page 49 Surah Nur10.Umdah al Qari fi Sharh Sahih Bukhari, Volume 6 page 90 11.Sirat un Nabi by Ibn Hisham, chapter 137 (the event of Ifik) page 360

This is how the event is narrated in Sahih Bukhari Volume 5 hadith number 462:

Whenever Allah's Apostle intended to go on a journey, he used to draw lots amongst his wives, and Allah's Apostle used to take with him the one on whom lot fell. He drew lots amongst us during one of the Ghazwat which he fought. The lot fell on me and so I proceeded with Allah's Apostle after Allah's order of veiling (the women) had been revealed. I was carried (on the back of a camel) in my howdah and carried down while still in it (when we came to a halt). So we went on till Allah's Apostle had finished from that Ghazwa of his and returned. When we approached the city of Medina he announced at night that it was time for departure. So when they announced the news of departure, I got up and went away from the army camps, and after finishing from the call of nature, I came back to my riding animal. I touched my chest to find that my necklace which was made of Zifar beads (i.e. Yemenite beads partly black and partly white) was missing. So I returned to look for my necklace and my search for it detained me. (In the meanwhile) the people who used to carry me on my camel, came and took my howdah and put it on the back of my camel on which I used to ride, as they considered that I was in it. In those days women were light in weight for they did not get fat, and flesh did not cover their bodies in abundance as they used to eat only a little food. Those people therefore, disregarded the lightness of the howdah while lifting and carrying it; and at that


of 89

time I was still a young girl. They made the camel rise and all of them left (along with it). I found my necklace after the army had gone.

Then I came to their camping place to find no call maker of them, nor one who would respond to the call. So I intended to go to the place where I used to stay, thinking that they would miss me and come back to me (in my search). While I was sitting in my resting place, I was overwhelmed by sleep and slept. Safwan bin Al-Muattal As-Sulami Adh-Dhakwani was behind the army. When he reached my place in the morning, he saw the figure of a sleeping person and he recognized me on seeing me as he had seen me before the order of compulsory veiling (was prescribed). So I woke up when he recited Istirja' (i.e. "Inna lillahi wa inna llaihi raji'un") as soon as he recognized me. I veiled my face with my head cover at once, and by Allah, we did not speak a single word, and I did not hear him saying any word besides his Istirja'. He dismounted from his camel and made it kneel down, putting his leg on its front legs and then I got up and rode on it. Then he set out leading the camel that was carrying me till we overtook the army in the extreme heat of midday while they were at a halt (taking a rest). (Because of the event) some people brought destruction upon themselves and the one who spread the Ifk (i.e. slander) more, was 'Abdullah bin Ubai Ibn Salul."

(Urwa said, "The people propagated the slander and talked about it in his (i.e. 'Abdullah's) presence and he confirmed it and listened to it and asked about it to let it prevail." Urwa also added, "None was mentioned as members of the slanderous group besides ('Abdullah) except Hassan bin Thabit and Mistah bin Uthatha and Hamna bint Jahsh along with others about whom I have no knowledge, but they were a group as Allah said. It is said that the one who carried most of the slander was 'Abdullah bin Ubai bin Salul." Urwa added, "'Aisha disliked to have Hassan abused in her presence and she used to say, 'It was he who said: My father and his (i.e. my father's) father and my honor are all for the protection of Muhammad's honor from you.").

Ibn Kathir in al Bidayah al Nihaya, Volume 4 page 160 writes the following:

ثم خرج إلى الناس فخطبهم وتل عليهم ما أنزل ال عزوجل من القرآن في ذلك ثم أمر بمسطح بن أثاثةوحسان بن ثابت وحمنة بنت جحش وكانوا ممن أفصح بالفاحشة فضربوا حدهم

"Then he (prophet) went to the people and addressed and then recited what Allah revealed in Quran, then he ordered that Mastah bin Uthatha, Hasaan bin thabit, Hamna bint Jahsh to be punished because they were among those who spread the allegation of adultery."

As part of their propaganda, Nawasib often allege that we accuse Ayesha of this, but this is a blatant lie. Ayesha's innocence ‘in this particular case’ has been vouched for in the Quran and the Shi'a have stated this clearly in their commentaries. It is unfortunate that rather than attack us these masters of fitnah don't take into account that those who questioned Ayesha's character were none other than the Sahaba themselves.

125.Ayesha failed to recognise the Imam of her time

We read in Sharh Fiqh Akbar, by Mulla Ali Qari, p 175 (publishers Muhammad Saeed and son, Qur'an Muhall, Karachi) we read:

"…there is a hadith in Sahih Muslim, narrated by Abdullah ibne Umar 'He who dies without recognising giving bayah and following his Imam dies the death of one belonging to the days of jahiliyya'. This is why the Sahaba viewed the appointment of the Imam as so important that they preferred it to attending the Prophet's funeral, because the Muslims need an Imam so that orders can be made on Jihad,


of 89

and so that Islamic Laws can be implemented"

Ibn Abu Asim in his boo al-Sunnah, page 489 records this hadith:

من مات وليس عليه إمام مات ميتة جاهلية

"Whoever dies without having an Imam dies the death of Jahiliyyah".

Imam Albaani al-Salafi in his commentary on the hadith, writes:

إسناده حسن ورجاله ثقات

“Its chain is Hasan and all of its narrators are Thiqah’.

Imam Muslim has recorded this one in his Sahih, Kitab al-Imarah:

من مات وليس في عنقه بيعة مات ميته جاهلية

“Whoever dies without having on his neck bayah (to an Imam) dies the death of Jahiliyyah.”

Lastly, Imam Ibn Hibban has recorded in his Sahih, Volume 7 page 49:

من مات بغير إمام مات ميتة جاهلية

“Whoever dies without an Imam dies the death of Jahiliyyah”

Imam Ali (as) WAS the Imam of the time his obedience was unconditional, it was incumbent on Ayesha to recognise his Leadership and follow him in all his decisions. Rather than do this she chose to oppose him, instigate rebellion against him and a war that lead to the deaths of thousands of her supporters, as a result these individuals died the death of jahilyya because they failed to recognise the Imam of the time. Not only did Ayesha fail to do so she led others in to misguidance, they fell in to error on account of her position.

126.One who opposes Ahl'ul bayt (as) is from the Party of Shaythan

"The stars protect the inhabitants of earth against drowning, and my Ahl alBayt protect my nation against dissension. If a tribe among the Arabs differs from them, they will all then differ and become the party of Satan." (al-Hakim on page 149, Vol. 3, of Al-Mustadrak from Ibn `Abbas. Al-Hakim adds: "This is an authentic hadith though they (both Shaykhs, i.e. Bukhari and Muslim) did not include it (in their own books)."

Ayesha's duty after Rasulullah (s) was to attach herself to the Ahl'ul bayt (as) not to openly dissent against them and mount armed rebellion against Imam 'Ali (as). Rasulullah (s) had declared that Ali was with the truth, and Ayesha's duty was to obey Imam 'Ali (as) not to oppose him. Allah (swt) had also made love of the Ahl'ul bayt (as) a duty in the Qur'an but rather than attach herself to the Ahl'ul bayt (as) and love them, Ayesha bore resentment towards them, fought Imam 'Ali (as) and rejoiced at his martyrdom.

Had Ayesha remained in her station as Ummul Momineen living a life of piety within the confines of her home, she would have indeed attained the esteemed respect that the wives of Rasulullah (s) deserve. Unfortunately her envy and greed lead her to mount a mass rebellion against the Imam of the time 'Ali ibne abi Talib (as). By acting in the way that she did, she in effect set a precedent that it was perfectly legitimate to rebel against the rightful Imam to get your demands met. This in effect gave the green light to Mu'awiya and his clan to act in the same way towards Imam 'Ali (as) - for they saw a wife of the Prophet leading armed rebellion against the rightful Imam of the time.


of 89


of 89

10.Copyright

All rights, including copyright, in the content of these Answering-Ansar.org web pages are owned or controlled for these purposes by the Answering-Ansar.org team.

You can distribute the download version of "Adobe® PDF" documents of the Answering-Ansar.org articles, as long as the documents remain in their original state and none of the contents are modified in any format.

The Answering-Ansar.org reserves the right over the contents of the articles if they are used in the original format. You can freely distribute the Islamic references and quotes that we use in our articles in any format.

When using our articles in your websites or if in distribution in print format, please include the source as Answering-Ansar.org.

Our web site contains links to third party sites. These links are used for the convenience of our users; however, they are not under the control of Answering-Ansar.org. We are not responsible for their contents, nor should they be considered endorsements of the individual linked sites.

However, it is possible that the site could contain typographical errors. If such a condition is brought to our attention, a reasonable effort will be made to fix or remove it.

If you wish to reproduce, print and distribute our articles in book format, then you will need a written permission of Answering-Ansar.org. If you wish to do so, then please contact us for further details.


ayesha - truth about the prophet's (pbuh) wife

Documents