Whilst we will raise Ibn al Hashimi’s generic objections to the Shia view of Aisha later on, this chapter addresses his specific objections in connection with our critique of her role at Jamal.
Ibn al Hashimi states:
One of the most common lies in regards to Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) is that she left her house to fight Ali (رضّى الله عنه) in the Battle of the Camel. This lie 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.”
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.
Perhaps we are being simple, but when Aisha:
● convenes a meeting in her home, wherein discussions focus on fighting Ali (as) and recruiting men from Basra, 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 into negotiations with Imam Ali (as) directly in Mecca, not sought to give her backing to movement intent on overthrowing Imam Ali (as)!
It is interesting that Abu Sulaiman poses this question:
“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?”
In light of the lead role Aisha took in inciting people to kill Uthman, it would be much more appropriate for Aisha’s advocates to answer this question themselves. We have proven from the sources cited in our article ‘Who killed Uthman’ that during his lifetime, Aisha 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 Mecca, portray Uthman as a victim and mobilize opposition from Basra? Was this decision based on her desire to defend Uthman or was it motivated by her animosity towards Ali (as)? These are questions that Aisha’s advocates always shy away from. Ansar.Org might well feel outraged at the suggestion that Aisha’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 Basra namely ‘We don’t consider him more eligible for leadership than we’ (History of Tabari, English Edition, Vol. 16 pg. 68) – proves that her motive was just that.
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 (رضّى الله عنه). For example, the Syrian governor, Muawiyyah (رضّى الله عنه), was one such individual. There was also Talha (رضّى الله عنه) and Zubair (رضّى الله عنه). The question begs: if Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) had publically advocated Uthman’s murder and she was complicit in his murder, then why would she later be “allied” with Muawiyyah (رضّى الله عنه), who also fought with Ali (رضّى الله عنه)? This is truly a contradiction! Wouldn’t Muawiyyah (رضّى الله عنه) have fought Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) to punish her for murdering his cousin? Why would Muawiyyah (رضّى الله عنه) murder his own cousin, especially the cousin who bestowed upon him favor upon favor, evidenced by the fact that the Shia scholars love to show Uthman’s nepotism (رضّى الله عنه) in relation to Muawiyyah (رضّى الله عنه)”.
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 Aisha’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 Umayyad clan which is why an alliance was forged with them. If the question was asked why the Umayyads 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. We read in History of Tabari, English Edition, Vol. 16 pg. 68 (Arabic):
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-Basra and took the road to al-Munkadir. Aisha 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 the 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-Basra, 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”.
Ahmad bin Zuhayr: Dhahabi said: ‘Renowned Hafiz’ (Tarikh al-Islam, v20 p252), Al-Albaani said: ‘Thiqah’ (Silsila Sahiha, v3 p446). Zuhair Abu khaythama: Dhahabi said: ‘Hujja’ (Siar alam alnubala, v11 p489), Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah Thabt’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1 p316). Wahab bin Jarir: Dhahabi said: Thiqah’ (Al-Kashif, v2 p356), Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v2 p291). Jarir bin Hazim: Dhahabi said: ‘Thiqah’ (Al-Kashif, v1, p291), Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1 p158). Yunus bin Yazid: Dhahabi said: ‘One of the Thabt’ (Al-Kashif, v2 p404), Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v2 p351). Al-Zuhri: Dhahabi said: ‘The hafiz of his time’ (Siar alam al nubala, v5 p326), Ibn Hajar said: ‘There is an agreement about his magnificence’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v2 p133).
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 Umayyad / Aisha 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 in Siyar alam al-Nubala, Vol. 1 pg. 36:
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 Abban (son of Uthman) and said: ‘I have spared you from one of the murderers of your father.’
We also read in Tabaqat Al-Kubra Vol 5 pg. 28:
“When Uthman was killed, and Talha, Zubair and A’isha went to Basra in order to avenge the blood of ‘Uthman, at that time Marwan also accompanied them. When all the people were running away on the battlefield (after Aisha’s forces were defeated), Marwan saw Talha and said: ‘By Allah, he is responsible for the killing of Uthman, and indeed he treated Uthman badly. And I need no other testimony after watching all this from my own eyes’. He took an arrow and fired it at Talha, which killed him.”
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).
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 (رضّى الله عنها) fought Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه), and they would use this not as evidence against Fatima (رضّى الله عنها), but rather as evidence against Abu Bakr (رضّى الله 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 (رضّى الله 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 (رضّى الله عنه) as Amir Al Mumineen and Caliph cannot possibly 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 (رضّى الله عنها) as Mother of the Believers is disregarded and suddenly the Shia scholars will trumpet the line that Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) went against her own Caliph and the Amir Al Mumineen!
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 Aisha 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).
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 (رضّى الله 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 (رضّى الله عنها). As such, if the Shia want to argue that Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) should have been careful about angering Fatima (رضّى الله عنها), an unbiased observer could easily argue that it was Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) who should have been careful of angering 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 ‘Caliph of the Ummah’, why does the same not hold true for Aisha? 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 Aisha”
Why doesn’t Ibn al Hashimi apply the same doctrine to criticize Aisha’s conduct against Ali (as) at Jamal? Why is she exempt from obeying Caliph Ali (as) whilst Fatima (as) was not? Was Aisha not duty bound to obey the Caliph Ali (as) and respect his decision to defer punishment to a later date? What Quranic verse or Hadith entitled Aisha to behave in the manner that she did? Ibn al Hashimi’s failure to apply the same principle to Aisha that he happily applied to criticize Fatima (as) exposes him for the hypocrite he is.
