In this final chapter we will address the emotional rants that Ibn al Hashimi made before his Sunni readership, as a last ditch effort to gauge Sunni opinion against the Shia. These are: .
First emotional rant – The title ‘Umahat ul Momineen’ renders one that disassociates from her to be an unbeliever
Second emotional rant – Our duties towards ‘Umahat ul Momineen’ are on par with those afforded to our natural mothers
Third emotional rant – No one tolerates criticism of their mothers
Fourth emotional rant – No one tolerates criticism of their wives
Fifth emotional rant – Insulting Aisha is on par with insulting Rasulullah (s)
Sixth emotional rant – The Americans afford respect to their First Lady
Seventh emotional rant – Rasulullah (s) was sensitive to criticism of his wives
Eighth emotional rant – Husbands are duty bound to hide the faults of their wives
Ninth emotional rant – Husbands are commanded to love their wives
Tenth emotional rant – The Quran and Sunnah infer that Aisha the spouse of Rasulullah (s) excelled in character and faith
Whilst his materials are splattered with such emotive arguments we have tried to bring them together for this chapter. Let us discuss these in detail.
Ibn al Hashimi emotionally argues:
The Quran bestows the title of “Mother of the Believers” (Umm Al Mumineen) to Aisha (رضّى الله عنها), Hafsa (رضّى الله عنها), and the rest of the Prophet’s wives:
“The Prophet is closer to the believers than their ownselves, and his wives are their mothers.” (Quran, 33:6)
Therefore, anyone who declares “baraa” (disassociation) from Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) and says that she is not his mother, such a person is not a believer.
We have already provided a lengthy discussion / analysis of the said verse in chapter 7, rather than go over the same points again we would urge our readers to refer back to that chapter.
If the Shia dissociate themselves from Aisha they distance themselves from her actions. A mother she may indeed remain, but it does not in any way guarantee her being a mother that we are duty bound to adhere to, no matter what their conduct. Would a son have a duty to associate himself with a mother that has partaken in the type of offences that we cited from the new links in earlier? If a mother for example turns her back on the Deen, commits criminal acts, the natural reaction of her son would be to disassociate himself from his mother. He is not in anyway denying that she is his mother, her conduct has been of a type that he no longer wishes to associate himself with her. If one keeps aloof from one’s mother, it does not mean that he denies she is his mother!
Ibn al Hashimi stated:
In order to be a believer, a Muslim must accept all of the Prophet’s wives as his mothers as decreed in the quoted verse. He must treat Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) with the same respect that he treats his own mother with. Let us see what the Quran says about respecting one’s parents:
“Your Lord has decreed that you worship none but Him, and that you be kind to parents. Whether one or both of them attain old age in your life, say not to them a word of contempt, nor repel them, but address them in terms of honor. And out of kindness, lower to them the wing of humility, and say: ‘My Lord! bestow on them Your Mercy…’” (Quran, 17:23-24).
Allah says again: “And (there is one) who says to his parents ‘oof’ ! …for they are those in loss!” (Quran, 46:17-18)
If Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) is the mother of the believers, then the people who slander her, insult her, and criticize her are not believers. We wonder what will be the fate of those who speak of Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) with contempt, who repel Aisha (رضّى الله عنها), disassociate themselves from her [i.e. “baraa”], and call her an enemy of Islam? How can the mother of Muslims, as declared by Allah, be an enemy of the Muslims?
Look at the dishonesty of this Nasibi. Can Ibn al Hashimi submit any Quranic verse or Sahih Hadith wherein it is stipulated that Aisha should be afforded the same respect as is afforded to one’s biological mother? The verses have nothing whatsoever to do with Aisha, rather they are linked to one’s elderly biological parents, and our duties towards them, in terms of how we converse with them.
The contexts of both verses are as clear as day in (Quran, 17:23-24):
Thy Lord hath decreed that ye worship none but Him, and that ye be kind to parents. Whether one or both of them attain old age in thy life, say not to them a word of contempt, nor repel them, but address them in terms of honor.
And, out of kindness, lower to them the wing of humility, and say: “My Lord! bestow on them thy Mercy even as they cherished me in childhood.”
Now consider Maudoodi’s commentary of the said verse:
This verse enjoins that after Allah’s right, the greatest of all the human rights is the right of parents: therefore, the children should obey and serve and respect their parents. The collective morality of society should make it incumbent on children to be grateful and respectful to their parents, they should serve them as they nursed and brought them up in their childhood. Above all, this verse is not merely a moral recommendation but is the basis of the rights and powers of parents the details of which we find in the Books of Hadith and Fiqh. Moreover, respectful behavior and obedience to and observance of the rights of parents comprise the most important element of the material education and moral training in the Islamic Society and civilization. Incidentally, all these things have determined for ever the principle that the Islamic State shall make the family life sound and secure by laws, administrative regulations and educational policy and prevent its disintegration.
Is there anything from the said verses and the commentary of Maudoodi that suggests the verse regulates our conduct towards the wives of Rasulullah (s)? Clearly not, yet we have this shameless creature at another point quoting a segment of the verse out of context to dupe his readers…
Ibn al Hashimi dishonesty states:
Should we not heed the word of Allah and lower the wing of humility to Aisha (رضّى الله عنها), the Mother of the Believers? Should we not, in fact, pray for her and the rest of the Prophet’s wives as mentioned in the Quran: “My Lord! bestow on them Your Mercy…” (Quran, 17:23-24)
Has Ibn al Hashimi not blatantly lied here? Does the verse that he partially cited indeed refer to a supplication in favour of the wives of Rasulullah (s)? Clearly not, had Ibn al Hashimi quoted the complete verse this would have been evident to all after all, it states:
And, out of kindness, lower to them the wing of humility, and say: “My Lord! bestow on them thy Mercy even as they cherished me in childhood.”
Did the wives of the Prophet (s) bring up the Sahaba, Tabieen, and all the generations until now in childhood that hence requires that we supplicate for them? Did Aisha and Hafsa cherish their respective fathers when they were children? Did Aisha act as baby sitter for Ibn al Hashimi when he was a child? The fact is this verse applies to every generation of believer, and refers to our duty to supplicate for our natural parents who raised us when we were children. We would invite this Nasibi to present authentic Sunni tafseers or Hadeeth wherein we are informed that this verse refers to the relationship between the believers and the wives of Rasulullah (s).
To falsely attribute a verse to the wives of Rasulullah (s) when it has nothing whatsoever to do with them is the height of dishonesty. We should also point out that whilst the verses point out how we engage with them when one is conversing with them, it doesn’t mean that one cannot disassociate from them in the eventuality of them committing unlawful deeds. Along the same lines as we had argued earlier, if there is a mother that takes a position on a matter that is kufr, is a son not entitled to deem such a person an enemy of Islam, and keep aloof from her? Clearly so, since supporting that kufr position violates the contract of obedience he has with Allah (swt).
Ibn al Hashimi stated:
Would our Shia brothers enjoy it if their local Ayatollahs delivered sermons denouncing their biological mothers? Would our Shia brothers enjoy it if Al-Islam.org or other Shia websites broadcasted slander against their biological mothers like they dedicate page after page denouncing Aisha (رضّى الله عنها)? Al-Islam.org has a whole page dedicated to the charge that Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) was a jealous woman. Answering-Ansar has a page dedicated on their site to condemning the Prophet’s wife. Would believers find it acceptable and within religious protocolto (sic) insult their own biological mothers?
There is a marked difference between one’s run of the mill biological mother and mother of the Faithful Aisha. A mother may commit wrong deeds, have faults but they have no bearing on anyone, the community is completely unaffected by her conduct. The influence of that mother remains within the confines of the home and the boundary walls wherein she frequents. It would hence be inappropriate to denounce her conduct via a public forum, as her influence is restricted to her immediate family, and her influence goes no further to her immediate relatives, to the outside world she is an ordinary citizen of the State going about her daily life. The matter is different when a mother whose influence is over an entire community indulges in seditious conduct that creates splits within the community, creating resentment, hostility, bloodshed and violates the rules and regulations imposed on her by the Quran and Sunnah.
Had Aisha been a normal biological mother whose jealous conduct was limited to a family dispute that left the community unaffected it would be wholly inappropriate to cite her conduct publicly. Aisha was however not an ordinary mother, she was the Mother of the believers. It was her home that was used as a planning centre, wherein discussions focussed on a strategy to fight Imam Ali (as). A jealous mother’s act might just affect her immediate relatives and have no bearing on the society wherein she resides, when it came to Aisha her irrational conduct spilled from her home on to the plains of Jamal, wherein she mobilised an entire army to fight the legitimate Head of State, by doing so, not only did she violate the Quran by breaching conditions imposed upon her and rebelling against the Ul’il Amr her Fitnah also breached a plethora of Prophetic traditions relating to a duty to follow Ali (as) after him (s). She used her presence / influence to convince people to overthrow Imam Ali (as), her influence was such that her adherents took control of the province of Basra, and it was then upon her orders that the Governor was brutally tortured. Her conduct breached the Quran, the Sunnah and split the Islamic community, for she exploited her position to convince people to back her bloody campaign to seek vengeance for Uthman. Not only did she commit a major sin by acting in the manner that she did, she also misled others to likewise fall into sin, after all she encouraged people to oppose and fight Ali ibn Abi Talib, the Imam of the time, meaning those that died in Jamal, lost their lives without recognising him as the Imam of the time, by doing so they died apostates pursuant to the words of Rasulullah (s) ‘he who doesn’t recognise his Imam of the Time dies the death of jahilyya’. Aisha's conduct was not only harmful to herself, it was harmful to the Islamic community, one whose conduct harms society has no immunity from criticism, because she has violated the Shariah and misled others in the process. When her advocates insist that her conduct was justifiable and correct, then they are in effect endorsing the conduct of one that violated the Quran and Sunnah, as such we are duty bound to (within the confines of decorum) highlight her conduct and evidence the fact that her conduct contravened the Shariah.
Since Ibn al-Hashimi has automatically sought to cite Shia mothers to further his flawed logic, let us cite one good example for him from his own house. Sheikh Muhammad bin Qasim bin Yaqub (d. 940 H) records in his book Rawudh al-Akhbar al-Muntakhab min Rabi’ al-Abrar, pg. 341:
“Muawiyah (ra) was famous for his cool temperament and no one could make him angry. Thus, one person claimed that he would make him angry. He went to him (Muawiyah) and said: ‘I would like to ask you to marry your mother to me because she had large buttocks.’ Muawiyah replied, ‘That is why my father loved her’. Muawiyah then ordered his treasurer to give him 1000 coins so that he might buy a slave girl for himself.”
We suggest that Ibn al Hashimi takes a good long look at the above example.
Ibn al Hashimi stated:
Would believers find it acceptable and within religious protocolto (sic) insult their own biological mothers?
Muawiyah according to the world that Ibn al Hashimi frequents is not just a believer he is the uncle of the believers, and a Hadi Imam. Ibn al Hashimi’s Hadi Imam is so tolerant of a man insulting his biological mother he does not even object to the fact that a man approaches him directly and attests to having performed cunnilingus on her! Since Ibn al Hashimi deems Muawioyah a Hadi Imam, then he should accept that is only right that believers observe patience when their mother are being publicly ridiculed in their presence, since such patience is the type of religious protocol that had been adopted by his Hadi Imam Muawiyah.
We read in Sahih al-Bukhari 4795:
Narrated Aisha:
Sauda (the wife of the Prophet) went out to answer the call of nature after it was made obligatory (for all the Muslims ladies) to observe the veil. She had a large frame and everybody who knew her before could recognize her. So `Umar bin Al-Khattab saw her and said, "O Sauda! By Allah, you cannot hide yourself from us, so think of a way by which you should not be recognized on going out. Sauda returned while Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) was in my house taking his supper and a bone covered with meat was in his hand. She entered and said, "O Allah's Messenger (ﷺ)! I went out to answer the call of nature and `Umar said to me so-and-so." Then Allah inspired him (the Prophet) and when the state of inspiration was over and the bone was still in his hand as he had not put in down, he said (to Sauda), "You (women) have been allowed to go out for your needs."
حَدَّثَنِي زَكَرِيَّاءُ بْنُ يَحْيَى، حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو أُسَامَةَ، عَنْ هِشَامٍ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، عَنْ عَائِشَةَ ـ رضى الله عنها ـ قَالَتْ خَرَجَتْ سَوْدَةُ بَعْدَ مَا ضُرِبَ الْحِجَابُ لِحَاجَتِهَا، وَكَانَتِ امْرَأَةً جَسِيمَةً لاَ تَخْفَى عَلَى مَنْ يَعْرِفُهَا، فَرَآهَا عُمَرُ بْنُ الْخَطَّابِ فَقَالَ يَا سَوْدَةُ أَمَا وَاللَّهِ مَا تَخْفَيْنَ عَلَيْنَا، فَانْظُرِي كَيْفَ تَخْرُجِينَ، قَالَتْ فَانْكَفَأَتْ رَاجِعَةً، وَرَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم فِي بَيْتِي، وَإِنَّهُ لَيَتَعَشَّى. وَفِي يَدِهِ عَرْقٌ فَدَخَلَتْ فَقَالَتْ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ إِنِّي خَرَجْتُ لِبَعْضِ حَاجَتِي فَقَالَ لِي عُمَرُ كَذَا وَكَذَا. قَالَتْ فَأَوْحَى اللَّهُ إِلَيْهِ ثُمَّ رُفِعَ عَنْهُ وَإِنَّ الْعَرْقَ فِي يَدِهِ مَا وَضَعَهُ فَقَالَ " إِنَّهُ قَدْ أُذِنَ لَكُنَّ أَنْ تَخْرُجْنَ لِحَاجَتِكُنَّ ".
He was of the view that the wives of the Prophet (saw) should remain confined within their homes and should not be permitted to leave. Such was his determination on this view that he again singled out and stalked Bibi Sauda (r.a) for humiliation stating, “Sauda, by Allah, you cannot conceal from us” From the narration, we may note that due to the intimidation that was such a chagrin to her, she abandoned her trip and returned to the Prophet (saw) complaining about Umar’s conduct. It is known that during that era there were no toilets in houses and people would relieve themselves by going into the fields, but according to the world of Umar this was completely unacceptable. He was prepared to humiliate the wives of the Prophet (saw) and let them suffer through constipation rather than venture from their homes, despite the fact they were completely veiled! Does such conduct concur with good manners and etiquette? Would today's followers of the so called 'Ahl ul Sunnah' deem it apt to humiliate their Sheikhs' wives were they to observe them venturing out to tend to their personal needs? Would humiliating a wife of one of their Sheikhs in a manner that caused her upset not be a form of reprehensible conduct? Would the Sheikh not feel angered and humiliated by the fact that one of his students was embarrassing his wife in such a manner? On the other hand, how would their wives themselves feel about it? No rational minded person would behave like this, yet Umar ibn Al-Khattab adopted such an aggressive approach that with it, he humiliated a wife of the Prophet (saw) and caused her embarrassment. How can anyone fail to ponder how disgracefully he had conducted himself.
Ibn al Hashimi stated:
Sunni Imam and Shia Ayatollah
There is the story of a Sunni Imam who gave a speech in front of a Shia mosque. He began the speech by praising the Ayatollah of the Shia mosque and declaring his undying love for him. After this, the Sunni Imam began insulting the Ayatollah’s wife and declared her to be a Kaffir, Fasiq, Munafiqh, Nasibi, and an enemy of Islam.
The Ayatollah rushed outside and began yelling at the Sunni Imam. The Sunni Imam responded, “but I love you, dear Ayatollah!”
To which the Shia Ayatollah responded with, “then why do you insult my wife?”
The Sunni Imam calmly replied: “I love you, but I am against your wife who is an imprudent, inappropriate, and hateful woman.”
The Shia Ayatollah raised his fist in the air and said: “By Allah, if you hate my wife, then you hate me! My wife is my beloved!”
The Sunni Imam said: “She is my enemy. May Allah curse her!”
The Shia Ayatollah was rightfully incensed: “By Allah, I cannot stand for such slander. May Allah curse you! An enemy of my wife is an enemy of me! By Allah, I wish to kill you!”
The Sunni Imam then said: “O Shia, you reject the love of those who hate your wife. So then, why do you think the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) will accept your love for him when you hate his wife and insult her, calling her a Kaffir, Fasiq, Munafiqh, Nasibi, and an enemy of Islam?”
To this, the Shia Ayatollah was left speechless.
Ibn al Hashimi stated:
A rule of thumb in Islam is that we should treat our brothers like we want ourselves to be treated. Thus, before anyone insults the Prophet’s wife, one should first allow others to insult one’s own wife. If he does not allow others to insult his own wife, then we wonder why he feels so comfortable insulting the wife of the greatest man ever born
Whilst we are in no doubt that the entire event is fictitious like much of Ibn al Hashimi’s defence submissions for his clients, let us make it clear that whilst no man has the right to make up false allegations against the wife of another, in this scenario the Sunni Mullah made unsubstantiated allegations, with no evidence to corroborate what he was saying, he was therefore publicly defaming / lying about another man’s wife, hence the hostile reaction by the Ayatollah. That is the natural response to a false allegation, what should our approach be when serious allegations against an influential woman that are harmful to the community at large are proven as correct, would the Sunni Mullah be justified in such making such public comments? What if the woman was indeed as the Sunni Mullah said, could this public dressing down be justified? A man may for example be in receipt of information that another man’s wife is committing acts that violate the Deen and make her a gross sinner. Such acts are personal they effect no one save that lady, in such circumstances he can choose to remain silent or take the husband to the side and advise him of the information that he has ascertained. It would be wholly inappropriate to publicly expose this woman, it would embarrass her and her husband.
What if this is no ordinary wife, rather the wife of a public figure, whose acts are so serious not only is she perpetuating sins, she is using her position to misguide others? Would it not be right in such circumstances to publicly denounce a wife whose conduct is both harmful to herself, others and most crucially a direct threat the national interest of the State? In such circumstances her conduct is damaging the basic fabric of society, peace and tranquillity, as her behaviour runs the risk of creating a divided nation subsumed in anarchy. If a wife is for example publicly incites people to rise against the Head of State, encouraging armed opposition, stoking hatred through her inflammatory speeches etc, she has gone astray and has misled others, it then becomes one’s duty publicly expose this wife, as her activities are harming society. When we look at history it is evident that Aisha was responsible for dividing the Muslim nation, already deeply divided following the downfall of Uthman, her conduct worsened the situation, her rebellion against Ali (as) was a major sin that breached the Quran and Sunnah, caused the death of thousands, and fragmented the Ummah yet further. This was the harsh reality at the time, if we therefore evaluate Aisha’s conduct against what the Quran and Sunnah that required that she remains at home, and see that she blatantly violated it, and caused harm to the Ummah in the process then it is only right that we highlight these facts to the masses, and criticise her conduct.
We read in Sahih Muslim 1478:
وَحَدَّثَنَا زُهَيْرُ بْنُ حَرْبٍ، حَدَّثَنَا رَوْحُ بْنُ عُبَادَةَ، حَدَّثَنَا زَكَرِيَّاءُ بْنُ إِسْحَاقَ، حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو الزُّبَيْرِ، عَنْ جَابِرِ بْنِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ، قَالَ دَخَلَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ يَسْتَأْذِنُ عَلَى رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَوَجَدَ النَّاسَ جُلُوسًا بِبَابِهِ لَمْ يُؤْذَنْ لأَحَدٍ مِنْهُمْ - قَالَ - فَأُذِنَ لأَبِي بَكْرٍ فَدَخَلَ ثُمَّ أَقْبَلَ عُمَرُ فَاسْتَأْذَنَ فَأُذِنَ لَهُ فَوَجَدَ النَّبِيَّ صلى الله عليه وسلم جَالِسًا حَوْلَهُ نِسَاؤُهُ وَاجِمًا سَاكِتًا - قَالَ - فَقَالَ لأَقُولَنَّ شَيْئًا أُضْحِكُ النَّبِيَّ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَقَالَ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ لَوْ رَأَيْتَ بِنْتَ خَارِجَةَ سَأَلَتْنِي النَّفَقَةَ فَقُمْتُ إِلَيْهَا فَوَجَأْتُ عُنُقَهَا . فَضَحِكَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم وَقَالَ " هُنَّ حَوْلِي كَمَا تَرَى يَسْأَلْنَنِي النَّفَقَةَ " . فَقَامَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ إِلَى عَائِشَةَ يَجَأُ عُنُقَهَا فَقَامَ عُمَرُ إِلَى حَفْصَةَ يَجَأُ عُنُقَهَا كِلاَهُمَا يَقُولُ تَسْأَلْنَ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم مَا لَيْسَ عِنْدَهُ . فَقُلْنَ وَاللَّهِ لاَ نَسْأَلُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم شَيْئًا أَبَدًا لَيْسَ عِنْدَهُ ثُمَّ اعْتَزَلَهُنَّ شَهْرًا أَوْ تِسْعًا وَعِشْرِينَ ثُمَّ نَزَلَتْ عَلَيْهِ هَذِهِ الآيَةُ { يَا أَيُّهَا النَّبِيُّ قُلْ لأَزْوَاجِكَ} حَتَّى بَلَغَ { لِلْمُحْسِنَاتِ مِنْكُنَّ أَجْرًا عَظِيمًا} قَالَ فَبَدَأَ بِعَائِشَةَ فَقَالَ " يَا عَائِشَةُ إِنِّي أُرِيدُ أَنْ أَعْرِضَ عَلَيْكَ أَمْرًا أُحِبُّ أَنْ لاَ تَعْجَلِي فِيهِ حَتَّى تَسْتَشِيرِي أَبَوَيْكِ " . قَالَتْ وَمَا هُوَ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ فَتَلاَ عَلَيْهَا الآيَةَ قَالَتْ أَفِيكَ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ أَسْتَشِيرُ أَبَوَىَّ بَلْ أَخْتَارُ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ وَالدَّارَ الآخِرَةَ وَأَسْأَلُكَ أَنْ لاَ تُخْبِرَ امْرَأَةً مِنْ نِسَائِكَ بِالَّذِي قُلْتُ . قَالَ " لاَ تَسْأَلُنِي امْرَأَةٌ مِنْهُنَّ إِلاَّ أَخْبَرْتُهَا إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَمْ يَبْعَثْنِي مُعَنِّتًا وَلاَ مُتَعَنِّتًا وَلَكِنْ بَعَثَنِي مُعَلِّمًا مُيَسِّرًا " .
Jabir b. 'Abdullah (Allah be pleased with them) reported:
Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with him) came and sought permission to see Allah's Messenger (ﷺ). He found people sitting at his door and none amongst them had been granted permission, but it was granted to Abu Bakr and he went in. Then came 'Umar and he sought permission and it was granted to him, and he found Allah's Apostle (ﷺ) sitting sad and silent with his wives around him. He (Hadrat 'Umar) said: I would say something which would make the Prophet (ﷺ) laugh, so he said: Messenger of Allah, I wish you had seen (the treatment meted out to) the daughter ofKhadija when you asked me some money, and I got up and slapped her on her neck. Allah's Messenger (mav peace be upon him) laughed and said: They are around me as you see, asking for extra money. Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with him) then got up went to 'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) and slapped her on the neck, and 'Umar stood up before Hafsa and slapped her saying: You ask Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) which he does not possess. They said: By Allah, we do not ask Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) for anything he does not possess. Then he withdrew from them for a month or for twenty-nine days. Then this verse was revealed to him:" Prophet: Say to thy wives... for a mighty reward" (xxxiii. 28). He then went first to 'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) and said: I want to propound something to you, 'A'isha, but wish no hasty reply before you consult your parents. She said: Messenger of Allah, what is that? He (the Holy Prophet) recited to her the verse, whereupon she said: Is it about you that I should consult my parents, Messenger of Allah? Nay, I choose Allah, His Messenger, and the Last Abode; but I ask you not to tell any of your wives what I have said He replied: Not one of them will ask me without my informing her. God did not send me to be harsh, or cause harm, but He has sent me to teach and make things easy.
Is this respect for the mothers of the Faithful? Beating them? If it is argued they were their daughters, we can't see how even beating your daughters in such a manner is acceptable. The same people that insist that the Shia disrespect the mothers of the Faithful, we invite them to consider this reference and ask whether one’s mothers should be respected in this manner. Ibn al Hashimi insists that no husband tolerates criticism of their wives, perhaps he could elaborate on how many husbands tolerate their father in laws entering their homes and beating their wives?
Ibn al Hashimi stated:
Indeed, no man allows others to slander his wife, and the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) is the one with the most Gheerah (protective “jealousy”) in regards to his wives. If the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) heard the things which the Shia say about Aisha (رضّى الله عنها), no doubt the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) would be furious.
Hurting the feelings of the Prophet’s wives (رضّى الله عنهم) is hurting the feelings of the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم). In fact, this methdology of targetting the Prophet’s wives (رضّى الله عنهم) was used by the Munafiqoon (hypocrites) to hurt the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) in the incident of al-Ifk: they insulted Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) in order to insult the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) by extension.
Ibn al Hashimi stated:
Yet, an insult against Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) is a personal insult to all the believers. Recently, the Muslims rallied against the Denmark newspaper which insulted the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم); should we not also rally against the forces that insult his wives and the Mothers of all the Believers?
Ibn al Hashimi stated:Insulting or harming the Prophet’s wife (رضّى الله عنها) is insulting and harming the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) himself. Even the man with the least amount of chivalry and self-respect would not allow people to insult his wife, and this includes the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم)
The crucial word that Ibn al Hashimi has himself used is the term ‘slander’ i.e. a false allegation. We are in full agreement that no man would tolerate a false allegation about his wife, and would indeed have ‘gheerah’ in this regard. If the Shia were to slander Aisha with false allegations about her conduct then we are committing a major sin, in the eyes of Allah (swt) and his Rasul (s). The Shia do not perpetuate lies about Aisha, the present facts as recorded in esteemed Sunni works and use the Quran and Sunnah to decide how her conduct should be evaluated. When the Quran has prevented Aisha from leaving her home, and she chose to ignore that preferring to rebel against the Ul’il Amr (Ali), that also contradicted the Quran and specific Hadith, what is objectionable in that? Would Prophet Nuh (as) and Lut (as) be furious if we were to criticise their wives when Allah (swt) has exposed the fact that deviants?
There exists a clear distinction between insult and justified criticism. Insult by definition means to ‘treat with gross insensitivity, insolence, or contemptuous rudeness’ – if the Shia criticise Aisha , by looking at her conduct and evaluating it against the dictates of the Quran and Sunnah and from this conclude that she committed a major transgression, does that mean we are insulting Aisha ? Insult is a very subjective concept, the Ahle Kitab would no doubt feel that our critique of the Bible, St Pauls conduct etc is an insult to their divine book, would you concur with this conclusion, or is the reality that one is merely seeking to highlighting errors / realities so that the truth can be known to all?
If only Ibn al Hashimi’s exuberance at defending Aisha was shared by the Salaf that Ibn al Hashimi worships, we have evidenced from our discussions on Ifk how they stood around whilst Aisha was humiliated and slandered, they even ignored the Prophet’s public sermon wherein he asked that retribution be sought against the main perpetrator. We see no evidence of them raising even their voices to support Aisha , let alone co-ordinate protests in support of her!
Imam of Ahl’ul Sunnah Abdul Hamid Ghazali records the following in his classic Ihya Ulum-id-din, Vol 2 pg. 43, Chapter “The secrets of marriage”:
“Once there was an altercation between the Prophet and Aisha when they found Abu Bakr as a judge. Aisha said to the Prophet: ‘You speak but don’t speak except for the truth’. At once Abu Bakr gave her such a slap that blood began to ooze out from her mouth. Then he said: ‘O enemy, will he speak the truth?”
We read in al-Tabaqat al Kubra, Vol 2 pg. 188:
“We were with the Prophet, may Allah bless him, and there was a screen between the women and between us. The Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, said: Wash me with seven waterskins and bring something to write upon and an inkpot, I shall write a document for you and you will never be misguided till eternity. The women said bring to the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him with what he wants. Umar said; I said to them: Keep quiet. You are like the women of Yusuf when he is ill and you shed tears, and when he is healthy you hold him by his neck. Thereupon the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him said: They are better than you”
We would ask that our readers analyze both comments. In one Abu Bakr refers to Aisha as an enemy and physically assaults her. In the other Umar sets his sights on all of the wives of Rasulullah comparing them to the women of ill character from the time of Prophet Yusuf (as)
Both incidents evidence that the Sheikhain were happy to insult / disparage the wives of Rasulullah (s), so much so that they even humiliated them publicly in his (s), if those that insult the wives of Rasulullah (s) are in fact insulting Rasulullah (s), then clearly the first Takfeer Fatwa needs to be issued against the Sheikhain.
This advocate needs to ponder over his own shameless comments,
Ibn al Hashimi wrote in one of his articles:
Historical Examples
The Prophet (s) himself was born to a family of Mushriks (polytheists) who worshipped idols. Indeed, his own parents were Kaffir (infidels). So how can we use lineage as a litmus test for piety or greatness? Our own Prophet (s) would then be in a lowly position, but we know this is not the case! There is nobody greater than Prophet Muhammad (s) because of his great deal of Taqwa .
The parents of Rasulullah (s) should be afforded greater respect than any wife of Rasulullah (s), an insult against them is an insult against Rasulullah (s). Can there exist any greater than shameless Ibn al Hashimi’s referring to them as kuffar? Should protests not be launched against Ibn al Hashimi and his shameless cult that defame the parents of the Prophet (s)?
Ibn al-Hashimi has sought to suggest that any level criticism directed Aisha as by implication an insult against the Prophet (s) that he sought to substantiate via reliance on self deduced meanings of certain verses of Holy Quran. Whilst Ibn al Hashimi has sought to create an argument without any textual backing, he holds a particularly favorable view of those individuals whose conduct constitutes abusing Rasulullah (s) for he (s) stated unequivocally as recorded in multiple sources:
“Whoever curses Ali, cursed me”
1. Al-Mustadrak, by al-Hakim, Vol 3, pg. 130, who mentioned this tradition is authentic, and Dhahabi agreed
2. Musnad Ahmed, Vol. 44 pg. 329 Hadith 26748
3. Mishkat al-Masabih, English version, Tradition 6101
4. Tarikh al-Khulafa, by Jalaluddin al-Suyuti, pg. 138 - 139
Whilst Ibn al Hashimi sought to ‘create’ an argument that criticizing Aisha is on par with abusing Rasulullah (s), there is no need to create or concoct an argument here, Rasulullah (s) drew a direct nexus between him and Ali (as) so much so that one that accused the 4th Sunni Khalifa abuses the Prophet (s)
If Ibn al Hashimi was true to his word then anyone that abuses Ali (as) automatically insults Rasulullah (s) and merits condemnation of the highest order. Ibn al Hashimi and his cult choose not to adhere to this approach when it comes to those that abuse Imam Ali (as). We had in our article ‘the Sunni myth of love and adherence to the Ahlul bayt (as)’ evidenced by the fact that abusing Ali (as) has never been a bone of contention in Sunnism, as their elders took Prophetic Hadith from Nawasib and Khawarij that cursed Ali (as). Ibn al Hashimi is no different, we have Muawiyah who personally cursed Ali (as) and implemented an order that others do the same, evident by the fact we read in we read in Sahih Muslim Book 31, Hadith 5915:
Muawiyah, the son of Abu Sufyan, gave order to Sa’d, and told him: “What prevents you from cursing Abu Turab (nickname of Ali)?” Sa’d replied: “Don’t you remember that the Prophet said three things about (the virtue of) Ali? So I will never curse Ali.”
In Sunan Ibn Majah, Vol. 1, Book 1, Hadith 121 we read the following tradition:
“On his way to Hajj, Sa’d met Mu’awiya and his companions mentioned ‘Ali upon which Mu’awiya showed disrespect towards Ali, Sa’d got angry and asked ‘why do you say such things?’
Despite this reality Ibn al Hashimi has undying love and affection for Muawiya, defending him passionately
Ibn al Hashmi states:
Muawiyyah (رضّى الله عنه) demanded that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) find and prosecute Uthman’s killers, because it was well known that the killers were from amongst the Shia’t Ali. Muawiyyah (رضّى الله عنه) was a blood-relative of Uthman (رضّى الله عنه) and he was very upset that the murderers were not apprehended.
His Governor Marwan, did the same so much so that even Ibn al Hashimi’s fellow polemicists
Ansar.org admit:
However, the Umayyad caliph that slandered and libeled Ali from the pulpits was Al-Marwan bin Al-Hakam. He had also many sins. May Allah keep us away from sin.
And yet he also commands respect for
Ibn al Hashimi states:
The Shia curse Uthman (رضّى الله عنه) for taking Fadak away from Ali (رضّى الله عنه) and giving it to Marwan (رضّى الله عنه).
We would urge Ibn al Hashimi to stop using a line of argument, that he himself adheres to.
Ibn al Hashimi stated:
The Americans bestow respect upon their president, and one way they do this is by extending this respect to his wife, whom they refer to as the First Lady of America. Historically, the British have bestowed respect on the wife of their king. Surely, the respect bestowed upon the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) by the Muslims should far surpass the respect the Americans give to the President, or the British have given to the King.
If the Americans have the decency to respect the First Lady of America, and if the British have the decency to respect the Queen of England, then surely the Muslims should have the decency to respect Aisha (رضّى الله عنها), the First Lady of Islam. All government officials address the First Lady of America with respect; but do we see the Ayatollahs (the officials of the Shia religion) addressing the First Lady of Islam with respect? Instead, they call her a Kaffir [the Imam of Kufr], Fasiq, Munafiqh, Nasibi, and an enemy of Islam.
Insulting or harming the Prophet’s wife (رضّى الله عنها) is insulting and harming the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) himself. Even the man with the least amount of chivalry and self-respect would not allow people to insult his wife, and this includes the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم)
Respect is not granted as an automatic right, it has to be earned. The first lady has a formal role / responsibility, and should act as a role model citizen. If the wife of a Head of State conducts herself in a dignified, respectful manner, and does not attract attention by partaking in any form of activity that might open the door for criticism then she has earned the respect from her husband’s subjects. If the First Lady does the exact opposite, and chooses to undertake unlawful activities that ask questions of her, such as corruption, bribery or worse indulges in activities that are harmful to the national interest then the respect that she once had will erode, and will be replaced by open criticism. That is why we have examples of First Lady’s whose respect was replaced by criticism on account of their conduct, examples include:
All of the above were First Ladies who were both criticised and (in some cases) fell from grace, and were severely criticised, the fact that they were the spouses of Heads of State in no way guaranteed them immunity from criticism. Their conduct courted controversy, criticism and in some cases prosecution! The above facts relate to the wives of normal fallible Heads of State, the duty to behave in a certain manner is ten fold greater when it comes to the wife of Rasulullah (s), for she should act as a perfect role model to the people. If a wife of Rasulullah (s) fails to act in an appropriate manner, and in fact abuses her position, and worse still, uses her influence to partake in a seditious rebellion, that makes her a sinner and those that followed her, then we are fully within our rights to highlight this reality, and point out that our loss of respect for her is due to this reality.
There exist scenarios wherein a First Lady’s conduct is of such a serious nature that it is harmful to the Head of State on account of her being his spouse. In such circumstances any Leader worth his salt will seek to distance himself from such activities and will warn his people not to steer clear of her. We have Mandela who not only distanced his wife when she partook in serious offences he eventually divorced her. When it came to Rasulullah (s), he was openly critical about the future conduct of his First Lady, and warned the nation of her reality when he relayed two facts as recorded in Kanz ul Ummal, Vol 11 pg. 334 Tradition 31671:
Tawus 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?’
And as we read in Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 4, Book 53, 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.”
Now when Rasulullah (s) was publicly criticising Aisha in one tradition and alluding to the deviation of this same First Lady in the other, then what is wrong if we accordingly criticise her, by relying on both traditions? The conduct of this First Lady violated the Quran, Sunnah and her deviation from the truth was foretold by Rasulullah (s) that hence entitles us to criticise her accordingly, for we are exposing her for that very conduct that Rasulullah (s) had expressed his concerns about.
Ibn al Hashimi argues:
The Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) was actually extremely sensitive about his wives, and Allah thus warned the believers about hurting them. His wives were considered so precious that Allah instructed the believers to talk to them from behind a screen and He also forbade anyone from marrying them after the Prophet’s death: “When you ask his wives for something, ask them from behind a screen. That is purer for your hearts and for their hearts. It is not for you to cause injury to the Messenger of Allah, or ever marry his wives after him. To do that would be something dreadful in the sight of Allah.” (Quran 33:53) If the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) was so sensitive about his wives, then we can only guess at what his response would be towards those Ayatollahs alive today who malign them.
Imam Bukhari records in his book Al-Adab al-Mufrad 1053:
عن مجاهد عن عائشة رضي الله تعالى عنها قالت كنت آكل مع النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم حيسا فمر عمر فدعاه فأكل فأصابت يده إصبعي فقال حس لو أطاع فيكن ما رأتكن عين فنزل الحجاب
Aisha may Allah be pleased with her said: ‘I was eating wheat with the Prophet (pbuh) when Umar passed by us, so he (the Prophet) invited him to eat, whilst Umar was eating, his hand touched my finger, thus he (Umar) said: ‘Oh, if only he (the Prophet) submitted on this matter regarding you (his wives), then no eye would see you’. The verse of Hijab was thus revealed’.
Also see:
1. Al-Sunan al-Kubra, by Nisai, Vol 10, pg. 224 -225
2. Al-Mu'jam al-Awsat, by Tabarani, Vol. 3, pg. 212
3. Tafsir ibn Abi Hatim, Vol 10, pg. 3148
4. Akhbar Asbahan, by Abu Na’im Al Asbahani, Vol 1, pg. 230
This tradition been authenticated by several Sunni scholars such as Al-Haythami who said: ‘The narrators are the narrators of the Sahih except Musa ibn Abi Kathir but he is Thiqah’ (Majma al-Zawa'id, Vol 7, pg. 151). Jalaluddin Suyuti said: ‘The chain is Sahih’ (Al-Durr al-Manthur, Vol 5 pg. 213). Albaani said: ‘Sahih’ (Sahih al-Adab al-Mufrad, Vol 1, pg. 381 - 382).
How does this verse provide the wives of the Prophet (s) with a blanket immunity from criticism? It is about how one conducts oneself when conversing with the wives of Rasulullah (s) and was evidently a response to the poor conduct of the Sahaba at the time, that caused Allah (swt) to reveal this verse. Ibn Kathir writes in his commentary of the said verse:
(And when you ask (his wives) for anything you want, ask them from behind a screen,) meaning, `just as it is forbidden for you to enter upon them, it is forbidden for you to look at them at all. If anyone of you has any need to take anything from them, he should not look at them, but he should ask for whatever he needs from behind a screen.’
Maudoodi expands on this a little further in Tafhim ul Quran, in his commentary of the verse:
This is the verse which is called “the verse of the veil”. Bukhari has related on the authority of Hadrat Anas that before the coming down of this verse, Hadrat ‘Umar had made a suggestion several times to the Holy Prophet to the effect: “O Messenger of Allah, all sorts of the people, good and bad, come to visit you. Would that you commanded your wives to observe hijab. According to another tradition, once Hadrat ‘Umar said to the holy wives, “If what I say concerning you is accepted, my eyes should never see you. ” But since the Holy Prophet was not independent in making law, he awaited Divine Revelation. At last, this Command came down that except for the mahram males (as being stated in v. SS below) no other man should enter the Holy Prophet’s houses, and whoever had to ask some thing from the ladies, should ask for it from behind a curtain. After this Command curtains were hung at the doors of the apartments of the wives, and since the Holy Prophet’s house was a model for the Muslims to follow, they to
o hung curtains at their doors. The last sentence of the verse itself points out that whoever desire that the hearts of the men and women should remain pure, should adopt this way.
Now whosoever has been blessed with understanding by Allah can himself see that the Book which forbids the men and women to talk to each other face to face and commands them to speak from behind a curtain because `this is a better way for the purity of your as well as their hearts,” could not possibly permit that the men and women should freely meet in mixed gatherings, educational and democratic institutions and offices, because it did not affect the purity of the hearts in any way. For him who does not want to follow the Qur’an, the best way would be that he should disregard its Commands and should frankly say that he has no desire to follow it. But this would be the height of meanness that he should violate the clear Commandments of the Qur’an and then stubbornly say that he is following the ¦spirit” of Islam which he has extracted. After all, what is that spirit of Islam which these people extract from sources outside the Qur’an and the sunnah?
The verse in its entirety is about the veiling of the wives of Rasulullah (s), and gives wider guidance on how we conduct our lives when conversing with the opposite sex, there is no directive therein that prohibits criticism of the Mothers of the Faithful if they commit a wrong act, Ibn al Hashimi is fully aware of this reality but is merely seeking to mislead his followers once more.
Reply Three – Rasulullah (s) did not object to Abu Bakr maligning his warring spouses
We read in Sahih Muslim 1462:
حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو بَكْرِ بْنُ أَبِي شَيْبَةَ، حَدَّثَنَا شَبَابَةُ بْنُ سَوَّارٍ، حَدَّثَنَا سُلَيْمَانُ بْنُ الْمُغِيرَةِ، عَنْ ثَابِتٍ، عَنْ أَنَسٍ، قَالَ كَانَ لِلنَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم تِسْعُ نِسْوَةٍ فَكَانَ إِذَا قَسَمَ بَيْنَهُنَّ لاَ يَنْتَهِي إِلَى الْمَرْأَةِ الأُولَى إِلاَّ فِي تِسْعٍ فَكُنَّ يَجْتَمِعْنَ كُلَّ لَيْلَةٍ فِي بَيْتِ الَّتِي يَأْتِيهَا فَكَانَ فِي بَيْتِ عَائِشَةَ فَجَاءَتْ زَيْنَبُ فَمَدَّ يَدَهُ إِلَيْهَا فَقَالَتْ هَذِهِ زَيْنَبُ . فَكَفَّ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم يَدَهُ . فَتَقَاوَلَتَا حَتَّى اسْتَخَبَتَا وَأُقِيمَتِ الصَّلاَةُ فَمَرَّ أَبُو بَكْرٍ عَلَى ذَلِكَ فَسَمِعَ أَصْوَاتَهُمَا فَقَالَ اخْرُجْ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ إِلَى الصَّلاَةِ وَاحْثُ فِي أَفْوَاهِهِنَّ التُّرَابَ . فَخَرَجَ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَقَالَتْ عَائِشَةُ الآنَ يَقْضِي النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم صَلاَتَهُ فَيَجِيءُ أَبُو بَكْرٍ فَيَفْعَلُ بِي وَيَفْعَلُ . فَلَمَّا قَضَى النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم صَلاَتَهُ أَتَاهَا أَبُو بَكْرٍ فَقَالَ لَهَا قَوْلاً شَدِيدًا وَقَالَ أَتَصْنَعِينَ هَذَا.
Anas (Allah be pleased with him) reported that Allah's Apostle (ﷺ) had nine wives. So when he divided (his stay) with them, the turn of the first wife did not come but on the ninth (day). They (all the wives) used to gather every night in the house of one where he had to come (and stay that night). It was (the night when he had to stay) in the house of 'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her), when Zainab came there. He (the Holy Prophet) stretched his hand towards her (Zainab), whereupon she ('A'isha) said:
It is Zainab. Allah's Apostle (ﷺ) withdrew his hand. There was an altercation between the two until their voices became loud (and it was at that time) when Iqama was pronounced for prayer. There happened to come Abu Bakr and he heard their voices and said: Messenger of Allah, (kindly) come for prayer, and throw dust in their mouths. So the Prophet (ﷺ) went out. 'A'isha said: When Allah's Apostle (ﷺ) would finish his prayer there would also come Abu Bakr and he would do as he does (on such occasions, i.e. reprimanding). When Allah's Apostle (ﷺ) had finished his prayer, there came to her Abu Bakr, and spoke to her ('A'isha) in stern words and said: Do you behave like this?
Observation
Aisha might well be the daughter of Abu Bakr, but from as per the Quran they are mother of the believers, meaning that interaction with them needs to be a respectful one.
Ibn al Hashmi claims:
If the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) was so sensitive about his wives, then we can only guess at what his response would be towards those Ayatollahs alive today who malign them.
If the Prophet (s) was indeed sensitive about his wives, why was Abu Bakr advising Rasulullah (s) to curtail his warring daughters and "throw dust in their mouths" is clearly disrespectful? His anger didn't subside following the completion of her prayers, he went to Aisha and reprimand her over her behaviour.
Ibn al Hashimi insists:
Allah further says: “They (wives) are like garments for you, and you are like garments for them.” (Quran, 2:187) In the Tafseer, both Sunni and Shia Ulema say that this means that husbands should hide the faults of their wives, and vice/versa. Hence, the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) was a covering for Aisha (رضّى الله عنها), protecting her from slander and insults. Indeed, if the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) were alive today, he would defend Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) and refute the malicious lies levied against her. In fact, Allah commands the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) to be a protector and maintainer of his wives: “Men are the protectors and maintainers of women.” (Quran, 3:34)
Ibn al Hashimi’s deception continues unabated. The garment verse relates to permissibility to perform conjugal relations with one’s wife during Ramadan, and has nothing to with hiding their faults. It was revealed to satiate the high libido of the Sahaba, Ibn Kathir states in his commentary of the said verse in Tafsir Ibn Kathir Vol 2, pg. 67 - 68:
They are Libas [i.e., body-cover, or screen] for you and you are Libas for them.)
Ibn `Abbas, Mujahid, Sa`id bin Jubayr, Al-Hasan, Qatadah, As-Suddi and Muqatil bin Hayyan said that this Ayah means, “Your wives are a resort for you and you for them.” Ar-Rabi` bin Anas said, “They are your cover and you are their cover.” In short, the wife and the husband are intimate and have sexual intercourse with each other, and this is why they were permitted to have sexual activity during the nights of Ramadan, so that matters are made easier for them.
If Sunni / Shia Tafseers have expanded on this to suggest that husbands should hide the faults of their wives, we would agree, there are certain matters that are personal to spouses and are no body else’s business but that couples. Differences can exist between spouses and it would be right to protect / hide those faults that have a bearing on no one else save the parties in that relationship. If for example a husband is critical of his wife’s cooking, the way she runs the house, these matters are private and such faults should be covered by the husband. If however a wife’s conduct goes outside the confines of the marital home, and in fact affects other individuals, and worse threatens the stability of society, his duty as a citizen of the State overrides his duty to his wife. In such circumstances the husband has a duty to warn others of the conduct of his wife so that individuals do not come under her wing.
Rasulullah (s) was the Head of the nascent state, and the Leader of an entire Ummah. He struggled through blood, sweat and tears to create a fully functioning Islamic government. Would Rasulullah (s) not seek to prevent any threats to that State, that could threaten its existence? Would he (s) not seek to warn his Ummah of any future conduct that might challenge the stability of the State? If the challenge was to come in the form of his own wife, would his duty be to remain silent and hide her faults, or would his duty be to warn his subjects of the threats that his wife posed? In such circumstances the duty to protect the Ummah from the seditious activities of his wife were more important than hiding her faults. There existed a direct nexus between her faults and the threat to societal stability, Rasulullah (s) accordingly made that fault a matter of public disclosure so that all recognised the threat that her conduct would pose in the future. That is why he stated in a public sermon, that we have cited before in Sahih Bukhari, Vol 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.”
The Fitna / sedition of Aisha came into fruition when Imam Ali (as) took the helm of Government following the assassination of Uthman, all that we are doing is highlighting the very Fitna that Rasulullah (s) foretold. We fully concur with the submission of Ibn al Hashimi:
Ibn al Hashimi insists:
Indeed, if the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) were alive today, he would defend Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) and refute the malicious lies levied against her. In fact, Allah commands the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) to be a protector and maintainer of his wives: “Men are the protectors and maintainers of women.” (Quran, 3:34)
We are in no doubt that Rasulullah (s) would have defended her for any sort of ‘lies’ levelled against her but we are dealing with an altogether different situation which pertains to historical facts about her leaving her home, mounting a campaign against the Caliph of the time, galvanising an army, waging war against Caliph and her exhibiting abhorrence towards him (as). These are all matters that the Prophet (s) foretold his adherents.
Ibn al Hashimi insists:
The Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) loved his wife Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) dearly. How can the Shia deny this when Allah declares in the Quran: “And of His Signs is this: He created for you mates from yourself that you might find rest in them, and He ordained between you love and mercy.” (Quran 30:21) Every Muslim man is commanded to love his wife, and even the disbelievers love their wives! How can we face the Islam-haters and defend our Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) in front of them if they say that the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) did not even love his own wife? What kind of a man except a cold-blooded wretch does not love his own wife? By Allah, the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) loved Aisha (رضّى الله عنها), and if he loved her, then we should love her too.
We are in no doubt whatsoever that the desire of Allah (swt) is that spouses live in a loving relationship, in the same way that Allah (swt) desires that Muslims are brothers to one another. Divine desire and what practically happens on the ground by his subjects is not always what happens. Do scenarios not occur wherein relationships breakdown that can lead to separation and in some cases divorce? The very fact that Allah (swt) has allowed a man to divorce his wife proves that there comes a point in a marital relationship when love is replaced by animosity. In the case of Aisha and Hafsa, there was a point wherein their conduct was so damaging that it placed a strain on their marriage to Rasulullah (s) – not only did Allah (swt) expose their collective collusion in Surah Tahreem and the honey plot, the Prophet (s) also separated from them for a period as a direct result. Separation can never be deemed evidence of love between spouses, Rasulullah (s) did so through displeasure.
We read in Sahih Muslim Book 009, Number 3507:
‘Umar b. al-Khattab (Allah be pleased with him) reported: When Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) kept himself away from his wives, I entered the mosque, and found people striking the ground with pebbles and saying: Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) has divorced his wives, and that was before they were commanded to observe seclusion ‘Umar said to himself: I must find this (actual position) today. So I went to ‘A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) and said (to her): Daughter of Abu Bakr, have you gone to the extent of giving trouble to Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him)? Thereupon she said: Son of Khattab, you have nothing to do with me, and I have nothing to do with you. You should look to your own receptacle. He (‘Umar) said: I visited Hafsa daughter of ‘Umar, and said to her: Hafsa, the (news) has reached me that you cause Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) trouble. You know that Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) does not love you, and had I not been (your father) he would have divorced you.
We appeal to justice if Ibn al Hashimi insists that the Quran compels a husband to love his wife, what should we say about the comments of Umar who said to his daughter: “You know that Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) does not love you, and had I not been (your father) he would have divorced you”? If Ibn al Hashimi’s interpretation of this verse is correct, are we to therefore conclude that Rasulullah (s) was sinning by not loving Hafsa? The fact of the matter is this reference alludes to the fact that there existed a political element to Rasulullah (s) marrying certain women, namely to forge tribal links / connections via marriage.
In this regards Maudoodi in his commentary of Surah Ahzab verse 50 whilst discussing why Allah (swt) granted the Prophet (s) the right to have multiple wives, expounds the political reasons:
“The Holy Prophet had also been appointed to abolish the system of life of the pre-Islamic days of ignorance and replace it with the Islamic system of life practically. For the accomplishment of this task a conflict was inevitable with those who upheld the system of ignorance, and this conflict was being encountered in a country where the tribal system of life was prevalent with aII its peculiar customs and traditions. Under these conditions, besides other devices, it was also necessary that the Holy Prophet should marry in different families and clans in order to cement many ties of friendship and put an end to enmities. Thus, the selection of the ladies whom he marred was to some extent determined by this object besides their personal qualities. By taking Hadrat ‘A’ishah and Hadrat Hafsah to wife he further strengthened and deepened the relations with Hadrat Abu Bakr and Hadrat ‘Umar. Hadrat Umm Salamah was the daughter of the family to which Abu Jahl and Khalid bin Walid belonged, and Umm Habibah was the daughter of Abu Sufyan. These marriages neutralized the enmity of these families to a large extent; so much so that after Umm Habibah’s marriage Abu Sufyan never confronted the Holy Prophet on the battefield. Hadrat Safiyyah, Hadrat Juwairiah and Raihanah belonged to Jewish families. When the Holy Prophet married them, after setting them free, the hostile Jewish activities against him subsided. For according to the Arab traditions when the daughter of a clan or tribe was married to a person, he was regarded as the son-in-law of not only the girl’s family but of the entire tribe, and it was disgraceful to fight the son-in-law.
Practical reformation of the society and abolition of its customs of ignorance was also included among the duties of his office. Therefore, he had to undertake one marriage for this purpose also, as has been related in detail in this surah Ahzab itself”
Ibn al Hashimi insists:
The Quran itself serves as a testament to the fact that Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) and the rest of the Prophet’s wives are righteous Muslims. In fact, the Shariah as expounded through the Quran declares that Muslims are forbidden to marry people who are not righteous. Allah demands in the Quran: “Marry those among you who are single and the righteous ones among yourselves, male or female.” (Quran 24:32) This is a command, in the imperative form of Arabic; even the Shia Ulema forbid their followers from marrying unrighteous women. To say that the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) would go against his own laws and marry a bad and unrighteous woman is undoubtedly Kufr! Ayatollah Khomeini said: “It is forbidden in Islam to marry the Fasiqoon (sinners).” So we ask this Ayatollah: is he accusing the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) of sinning by marrying one of the Fasiqoon?
The Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) said: “A man may marry [a woman] for four reasons: for her property, for her rank, for her beauty, or for her religion (and character). So marry the one who is best in the religion and character and [you will] prosper, or else you will be a loser.” If the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) did not even fulfill his own advice and if he married a woman of bad religion and bad character, then by his own words he would be a loser! We seek Allah’s Mercy from such slander. Surely the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) only married righteous women, and Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) was righteous.
We read in Sahih Bukhari Merits of the Helpers of Madina Vol 5, Book 58, Number 234:
Narrated Aisha:
The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girlfriends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became Alright, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, “Best wishes and Allah’s Blessing and a good luck.” Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah’s Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age.
Sahih Bukhari Vol 7, Book 62, Number 64:
Narrated ‘Aisha:
that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).
If the testimony of Aisha is to be believed then Rasulullah (s) married Aisha when she was six years of age. Now, according to Ibn al Hashimi Rasulullah set a rule of marriage, namely “marry the one who is best in the religion and character” – could he kindly elaborate on what traits a six year old Aisha possessed that would have evidenced that she was the best in religion and character? A child aged six, no matter what part of the word she frequents is an infant, and as such lacks maturity and understanding, they are at the early developmental stage in their lives, and acquire knowledge of the basics of Deen as rote from adults. At that stage a child’s priorities are linked to recreation, their being shaped into individuals of probity and faith are developed during the period between puberty and adulthood as it is at that point that an individual appreciates what is wrong / right and recognises their role in the world around them. It is at this transitory stage from a teenager into an adult, that an individual appreciates his religious obligations, the duty owed to his Creator (swt) and develops traits of righteousness and faith. Aisha was no different to a normal child, as one can see even when the marriage was consummated Aisha was playing on a swing with friends. Thereafter, she did not just mature overnight, rather she continued to partake in childlike activities that are commonplace for one that lacks maturity. This can be clearly evidenced by the First Lady’s own testimony in Sahih Bukhari Vol 8, Book 73, Number 151:
Narrated ‘Aisha:
I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah’s Apostle used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join and play with me. (Playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.) (Fateh-al-Bari pg. 143, Vol.13)
Even if Ibn al Hashimi argues that the tradition is prior to the consummation of the marriage, and she abandoned doll playing when she got puberty, it does not take away the fact that Aisha was married at the age of six, and we challenge him to evidence the traits of righteousness and faith that this infant child possessed that excelled her over all the other females of that time. The fact of the matter is marrying one that excels in faith and character is not a rule set in stone, it is a mere recommendation, had it been a hard and fast rule there would have been no logic in him (s) (as per this Sunni narration) marrying a doll playing infant!
Ibn al Hashimi insists:
This is a command, in the imperative form of Arabic; even the Shia Ulema forbid their followers from marrying unrighteous women. To say that the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) would go against his own laws and marry a bad and unrighteous woman is undoubtedly Kufr! Ayatollah Khomeini said: “It is forbidden in Islam to marry the Fasiqoon (sinners).” So we ask this Ayatollah: is he accusing the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) of sinning by marrying one of the Fasiqoon?
Let us present a gift to the Nasibi author that will definitely stop his arguments in their tracks. We read in one of the most esteemed Sunni works Al-Muhala by Ibn Hazm, Vol 10 pg. 24:
وكذلك المسلم الفاضل كفؤ للمسلمة الفاسقة ما لم تكن زانية
“Also the righteous Muslim man is competent for an immoral Muslim woman as long she is not a fornicator”.
The actual meaning of the verses relied upon by Ibn al-Hashimi is that marrying a righteous one is worthier than marrying a Fasiq or an unrighteous individual. Sunni scholar Melbari records in his famed work Fath al-Mueen, pg. 449:
نكاح المرأة الدينة التي وجدت فيها صفة العدالة أولى من نكاح الفاسقة
“Marrying a righteous woman who carries the quality of justice is more appropriate than marrying an immoral woman”
That is why we see that Prophet Noh and Lut were married to unrighteous women, and so was the case of Imam Hassan (as).
We read Sunan Abu Dawud: Book 11, Number 2044:
Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas:
A man came to the Prophet (peace be upon him), and said: My wife does not prevent the hand of a man who touches her. He said: Divorce her. He then said: I am afraid my inner self may covet her. He said: Then enjoy her.
In an esteemed Hanafi work a more detailed account of the above cited incident is recorded, the wife in question is an adulterer, despite this the Holy Prophet (s) deemed it permissible for the Sahabi to keep enjoying her:
“A man came to Holy Prophet [saww] and said that my wife doesn’t refuse any touching hand, i.e. she is an adulterer. Holy Prophet [saww] said: “Divorce her”, the man said that she is very beautiful and I love her, then Holy Prophet said: “Then keep enjoying her.” That is, don’t divorce her and keep her with you.”
Dur ul Mukhtar, volume 2, page 25, Kitab ul Nikah (H.M Saeed Co. Karachi)
Can an unfaithful spouse be deemed exalted in character and faith? Certainly not, despite this according to this Sunni report husbands were allowed to remain wedded to such harlots!
