We shall in this chapter seek to bring together the vast array of defenses presented by Aisha’s advocates to justify her conduct and will address each one individually.
Defence One – Aisha was acting as an arbiter demanding Qisas for Uthman?
Defence Two – Aisha was seeking to reform the Ummah
Defence Three – Aisha was seeking to prevent bloodshed and open rebellion
Defence Four – Aisha was legally entitled to act in the manner that she did
Defence Five – Aisha wanted to achieve peace and reconciliation between the two groups, and prevent rebellion against Caliph Ali (as)
Defence Six – Aisha was seeking to embarrass people into not fighting
Defence Seven – Aisha was seeking to use her influence to end the conflict
Defence Eight – Aisha should be exempt of all wrongdoing as she correctly exercised Ijtihad
Ibn al Hashimi states:
The Prophet’s widow, Aisha (رضّى الله 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 (رضّى الله عنه), who married two of Aisha’s half-daughters.
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 Aisha an arbiter? You have acknowledged that she was representing the interests of the family of the deceased Khalifa Utmman, to whom she was related through marital links? This means that she was demanding that Qisas be implemented (predetermination) and was favoring one side (bias); this makes Aisha the representative of one side not an arbiter for both! In future we would advise Ibn al Hashimi to steer 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.
It is interesting to see Ibn al Hashimi seek to justify Aisha’s demand for Qisas on account of 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 married to Uthman. How can Ibn al Hashimi suggest that she was representing their interests, when both women were deceased? Did they appear to Aisha 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 Aisha 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 Aisha 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 sister of Muawiyah had a far greater entitlement to demand Qisas as she was from the same Umayyad 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 Aisha 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 Aisha some legitimate right to lead the ‘Justice for Uthman movement’ is completely baseless. Ibn al Hashimi is providing a defence 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 Se’ul, pg. 155 by Shaykh Mufti Kamaluddin Ibn Talha Shafi’i, we read that when Aisha 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 امرأة من بني تيم بن مرة
“Tell me Aisha 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 Aisha 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 Aisha had no basis under the Sharia to seek Qisas for Uthman; hence Aisha’s claim was false as is the defence 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 Aisha was not. Despite this fact, Aisha 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 Aisha could have been executed.
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 Aisha’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 Aisha was not the heir of Uthman to demand Qisas, he was survived by sons who were adults. 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 their way, as Aisha 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.
Aisha’s very demand that the killers of Uthman be handed over to her, contradicts the Shari`a since the Head of State can ONLY enforce the Law of Qisas.
Zameer Sayyid Sharred in Sharh Mawafiq, pg. 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 pg. 235 we read:
“It is not possible to complete without him (the Imam) what is required of enforcing hudud, defending the frontiers, and other things related to maintaining order.”
We read in I’lan Al Sunan, Vol 11, pg. 630:
الْحُدُودَ حَقُّ اللَّهِ تَعَالَى وَإِقَامَتُهَا إلَيْهِ لَا إلَى غَيْرِهِ
“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, Vol 2, pg. 101:
إن الإمام يملك أمورا لا تملكها الرعية وهي إقامة الحدود
“The Imam has an authority which the people don’t have, which is implementing the punishments.”
Imam Ibn Abidin records in Radd al-Muhtar, Vol 10, pg. 219:
إقامة الحدود واجبة على الإمام
“Implementing punishments is the duty of the Imam’
Being the lead advocate demanding Qisas following his murder, could Abu Sulaiman and Ibn al Hashimi inform us about what steps Aisha 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 a vital role in agitation against Uthman. In order to know more, we would suggest our readers go through our article “Who really killed Uthman?” so that the whole chapter along with its correct context makes it clear that it was Aisha 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.
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.
Herein lies the blatant contradiction of the Nawasib in the space of just one article. Ansar.Org in the same article exonerated Aisha of all wrong doing in relation to Jamal and blame it all on the Sabaites, but here we see their admission that Aisha 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 cooperating ‘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 Aisha 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 one's participation in an ijmali (combined) sin constitute ‘reform’?
Allah (swt) says in His Glorious Book (Quran 2:11):
When it is said to them: “Make not mischief on the earth,” they say: “Why, we only Want to make peace!”
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 (رضّى الله 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 (رضّى الله 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 (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) told Saudah (رضّى الله عنها), one of his wives, that “Allah has permitted 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)
Screenshot from Ibn al Hashimi’s article
The suggestion that Aisha 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, English edition, Vol 16 pg. 43 (Arabic):
“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-Basra and al-Kufah. Talhah has a following and popularity and support in al-Basra”. So they agreed to go to al-Basra and al-Kufah, and Abdullah b. Amir gave them much money and camels. Seven hundred men from Medina and Mecca set off, and others joined until their number reached 3000”.
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).
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 Basra and Kufa where Talhah had influence
Tell us Ibn al Hashimi, do these discussions suggest the Aisha 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 Aisha 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 Basra where Talhah had influence. Knowing this objective, did Aisha:
● 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?
● 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 Basra, fully aware that the aim was to recruit men to fight Imam Ali (as). This proves that Aisha 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 (رضّى الله عنها) were to prevent warfare; she even advised people to stay at home instead of adding to the Fitnah. Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) said: “I came out to reform between people. Therefore, 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 Aisha’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!
Our assertion in Reply One can be corroborated by the fact that when Jamal was over Imam Ali (as) accused Aisha of incitement, not reconciliation as Ibn al Hashimi would suggest. We read in the History of Tabari, English Edition, Vol. 16 pg. 127 (Arabic):
“Muhammad b. Abu Bakr carried Aisha 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: 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).
Ibn al Hashimi states:
In fact, if Aisha (رضّى الله 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 (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) told Saudah (رضّى الله عنها), one of his wives, that “Allah has permitted 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)
With regards to Aisha, we read in al Imama wal Siyasa, pg. 82:
“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. Aisha asked Muhammad bin Talha “Which place is this?” He said “It is Hawab” to which Aisha 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 in Musnad Ahmed bin Hanbal, Vol. 40 pg. 298 -299 Tradition 24299:
Qays said: ‘When Aisha 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?’
The 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 the following sources:
We read the following tradition in Kanz ul Ummal, Vol. 11 pg. 334 Tradition 31671 which has been declared Sahih by Mulla Muttaqi Hindi:
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?’
Imam Abi Bakr al-Haythami records Majma al-Zawaed, Vol. 7 pg. 337 Tradition 12026:
وعن ابن عباس قال : قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم لنسائه : ليت شعري أيتكن صاحبة الجمل الأدبب تخرج فينبحها كلاب 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’.
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 Aisha 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!
We also know that the prophet specifically warned Aisha not to be the one who the dogs bark at. We read in Al Mustadrak ala Sahihain Vol 3 pg. 129:
Abu Bakr Muhammad bin Abdullah Al-Hafidh - Ahmad bin Nasr - Abu Nuaym Fadhal bin Amro - Abdel-Jabar bin Ward - Ammar Al-Duhani - Salim ibn Abi Al-Ja'ad - from Um Salamah (as) she said: the Prophet (saws) mentioned a rebellion by some of the mothers of the believers, so Aisha started laughing. So the Prophet (saws) told her: "You should watch that it is not you Oh Humayra'', then he turned his face to Imam Ali (as) and said: If you receive anything from her go easy on her."
Ibn Jarir Tabari records in History of al-Tabari, Vol. 16 pg. 49-50 (Arabic):
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 anywhere”. “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 in History of Tabari, English Edition, Vol. 16 pg. 68 (Arabic) 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 her. 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.
Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani records in Fath ul Bari, Vol. 13 pg. 59:
عن بن عباس أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال لنسائه أيتكن صاحبة الجمل الأدبب بهمزة مفتوحة ودال ساكنة ثم موحدتين الأولى مفتوحة تخرج حتى تنبحها كلاب الحوأب يقتل عن يمينها وعن شمالها قتلى كثيرة وتنجوا من بعد ما كادت وهذا رواه البزار ورجاله ثقات
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).
We read in Iqd al-Farid, Vol. 5 pg. 79:
وقد كان النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قال لها: يا حُميراء، كأني بك تَنْبحك كِلابُ الحُوّب. تقاتلين علياً وأنت له 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 Sunni scholar Hassan bin Farhan al-Maliki from his book Naho Enqad al-Tarikh, pg. 76:
فهذا الحديث يتضمن تخطئة أم المؤمنين عائشة رضي الله عنها في الخروج وقد اعترفت بخطئها وأن الاولى هو بقاؤها في بيتها وكانت تبكي إذا تذكرت مسيرها إلى البصرة.
‘This hadith refers to the fact that the mother of believers Aisha [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 Aisha 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 Aisha et al. being on the side of falsehood in their rebellion against Ali bin Abi Talib (as).
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 Aisha 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 that she was tricked into thinking that she was not at Hawab, we would like to make it clear that Aisha 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. Aisha 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.
Whilst the prediction of the Holy Prophet (s) about the dogs of Hawab barking at one of his wives should suffice to prove that Aisha’s leaving her home was unlawful, let us read another proof about Aisha being a rebel in the eyes of our Holy Prophet (s). We read in Al-Mustadrak Ala Al Sahihain, Vol. 4 pg. 517 - 518 Tradition 8453:
Kaythama ibn Abdurahman said: ‘We were with Hudhayfah [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.’
Imam Hakim said about this tradition:
‘Sahih according to the standards of the two Sheikhs’
Imam Dhahabi said:
‘Sahih according to the standards of Bukhari and Muslim’
Let us point out in the aforementioned prediction of Holy Prophet (s), the party of Aisha was declared as ‘infidels’ as the Arabic word used is:
أعلاجها
And we read the definition of this word in Lisan al-Arab, Vol. 2 pg. 326:
ويقال للرجل القويّ الضخم من الكفار عِلْج
“The strong and huge man of the infidels is called Elj”
Ahlelbayt.com and Ansar.Org have sought to desperately convince their readers that the approach taken by Aisha was legal and necessary, does this Hadith 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 Aisha’s conduct being for the betterment of the Ummah.
Similarly, we also read the following words of Hudhayfah in Majma al Zawaid, Vol. 7 pg. 339 Tradition 1203:
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 we reach that era?’ He replied: ‘Look at the group which propagated to Ali, be close to it because it is on the right path’.
Al-Haythami said:
‘The narrators are Thiqah’
Let us also read the following related prediction in Kanz ul Ummal, Vol. 11 pg. 613 Hadith number 32970 which will clarify the position where Aisha 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, Vol. 11 pg. 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 Aisha at Hawab, let us present the testimony of Imam of Salafis Nasiruddin Albani regarding Aisha 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. We read in Silsila Al Ahadith Al Sahiha, Vol. 1, pg. 854 Tradition 474:
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 Aisha [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 whatever 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 evidence, we don’t doubt that Aisha [ra] made a mistake.
This was just a sample of Sunni excuses for the sin committed by Aisha et al but these lame excuses can easily be refuted:
1. The excuse that Aisha 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 Aisha 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 Aisha et al being on the right path, on the contrary the Prophet (s) categorized them as infidels. Moreover, when Aisha 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 Aisha et al and her accomplices as infidels renders the Taweel and Ijtihad excuse null and void anyway.
This letter can be evidence in the following esteemed Sunni sources:
1. An-Nihaya by Ibn Athir Jazri, vol 2, pg. 353; Ibid. vol 1, pg. 226-237; Ibid. vol 3, pg.s 271, 331 and 434; Ibid. vol 5, pg. 35, 64, 115, 132, 137 and 158.
3. Qamus by Firozabadi pg. 371
4. al Imama wal Siyasa by Muhammad bin Qutaybah Dinuri (d. 276 A.H.) vol 1, pg. 53 (description of battle of Jamal)
5. Sharh Nahjul Balagha by Azzuddin Abdul Hamid al-Madaini (also known as Ibn Abi al-Hadid Mutazali) (d. 655 A.H.) vol 2, pg. 124
6. Balaghatun Nisa by Ahmed ibn Abi Zahir ibn Tayfur (d. 280 A.H.) pg.
Abu Umar Ahmed bin Abd Rabbah Qurtubi (d. 328 A.H.) records in Al-Iqd al Farid, Vol. 5 pg. 65 - 66:
When Ummul Momineen Aisha decided to go for Jamal, Ummul Muminin Umme Salmah wrote to her: ‘From Umme Salamah, wife of the Holy prophet, to Aisha 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 the 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’.
It is interesting that Ibn al Hashimi argues that necessity dictated that Aisha conduct herself in the manner that she did. Umme Salmah would certainly not agree with this. In her letter to Aisha, 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?
We read in al-Bidayah wal Nihayah, Vol. 10 pg. 433 that:
وكانت حفصة بنت عمر أم المؤمنين قد وافقت عاشئة على المسير إلى البصرة، فمنعها أخوها عبد الله من ذلك
‘The mother of the believers Hafsa bint Umar agreed to march to Basra with Aisha but her brother Abdullah prevented her’
If the stance of Aisha was correct, then why did Abdullah Ibn Umar; a leading companion, prevent his sister from joining the rebellion? Clearly he deemed it inappropriate for a wife of Rasulullah (s) to behave in such a manner.
We read the following episode:
وروى إسماعيل بن علية عن أبي سفيان بن العلاء المازني عن ابن أبي عتيق قال: قالت عائشة: إذا مر ابن عمر فأرنيه، فلما مر بها قيل لها: هذا ابن عمر، فقالت: يا أبا عبد الرحمن ما منعك أن تنهاني عن مسيري؟ قال: رأيت رجلا قد غلب عليك، يعني ابن الزبير
Ibn Abi Atiq said: Aisha 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 control over you. He meant ibn al-Zubair
1. Musnad ibn Rahewh, Vol 2, pg. 34
2. Al-Istiab, by ibn Abdul Barr, Vol 3, pg. 910
Aisha’s approaching Ibn Umar asking why he hadn’t taken steps to prevent her from leaving Medina proves that she acknowledged that her approach was wrong. Ibn al Hashimi and Abu Sulaiman insist that the approach that Aisha had adopted was correct. One wonders how they can argue this when Aisha was seeking to ascertain why Ibn Umar had not prevented her from marching. Ibn al Hashimi falsely claims that Aisha 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 Aisha 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 should be leveled against Aisha for adhering to this methodology. One wonders how he can insist that this was correct when Aisha was so remorseful over her marching that she wanted to know why her intention had not been curbed by Ibn Umar. Aisha’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 Aisha’s conduct was legally sound?
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 (رضّى الله عنها)
Aisha’s intention (رضّى الله 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:
Reconciliation
In Tareekh Al-Tabari, the events precipitating the Battle of the Camel are recorded. Al-Tabari narrates that a man asked Aisha (رضّى الله 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 (رضّى الله عنها) feared that if she did not intercede on behalf of the malcontents by convincing Ali (رضّى الله عنه) to quickly prosecute the murderers, they would rebel against Caliph Ali (رضّى الله عنه). This point cannot be emphasized enough: Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) left her house with the intention of reconciling Muslims, not to make them fight.
Seeking reconciliation is indeed a very noble act since it in effect involves an individual seeking a peaceful end to a conflict. If Aisha’s intention was the pursuit of peace Rasulullah (s) would have no doubt foretold this and praised that wife who left her to traipse across thousands of miles to bring an end to conflict. We for example find the example of Imam Hasan (as) whom Rasulullah (s) praised as follows in Sahih al-Bukhari 3746:
“This son of mine is a Saiyid (i.e. chief) and perhaps Allah will bring about an agreement between two sects of the Muslims through him.”
If Aisha was likewise a sincere genuine person, Rasulullah (s) would have foretold the Ummah of the impeccable peacekeeping role that she would pursue after him, but he did not, when he recollected what her role would be, he did it by severely criticizing her conduct as we have cited in previous responses. There was nothing reconciliatory about Aisha for Dhahabi records in Siyar Alam al-Nubala, Vol. 2 pg. 198:
Ibn Abbas narrated that Rasulullah (s) said: who amongst you is the one that will ride the hairy camel, many people will get killed around her, and then she will survive having been cunning.
The book reviewer namely Dr. Awad Bashar Maroof has graded the tradition as Sahih.
If Aisha was indeed doing her utmost to prevent any form of rebellion against Ali (as), then we would not read the following in in Iqd al-Farid, Vol. 5 pg. 79:
وقد كان النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قال لها: يا حُميراء، كأني بك تَنْبحك كِلابُ الحُوّب. تقاتلين علياً وأنت له 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’.
Rasulullah (s) certainly was not impressed by the role that Aisha would play with regards to this historical event. He did not shower any form of accolade on her; on the contrary, he stated that scores will die around her camel on account of her cunningness and deemed Aisha an oppressor for fighting Ali (as). Rasulullah (s) accusing Aisha of being cunning and an oppressor destroys any notion of her being a sincere person seeking to reconcile the feuding Muslims. A person who on account of her cunningness causes the death of those around her cannot be defined as an irenic individual.
Could Ibn al Hashimi kindly elaborate on the methods that Aisha used to convince Ali (as)? Aisha was living in Medina, whilst Imam Ali (as) was in Mecca. What is closer in distance to Mecca or Basra? We see no historical account of Aisha ever using her arbitrary skills to engage with Caliph Ali (as) in Mecca, why not? Why did she not approach Imam Ali (as) directly in Mecca 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 that 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 (رضّى الله عنها), most Muslims at that time had a great deal of respect for her, including Ali (رضّى الله عنه). It is likely that Ali (رضّى الله 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 Aisha’s demands and immediately hunted down Uthman’s killers, what was the logic behind her:
● entering into discussions inside Medina that include a resolution to fight Ali (as)?
● leaving Medina without discussing the issue of Qisas with Ali (as)?
● heading in the opposite direction towards Basra, from where she wrote the following to Imam Ali (as) as recorded in Matalib al Se’ul pg. 155 - 156 and Fusul al Muhimmah, Vol 1, pg. 388 - 389 both record Aisha’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”
The contents of this letter serve as a major blow for Ibn al Hashimi who says:
the truth is that it was not Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) who was responsible for the Fitnah but rather it was the ancestors of the Shia–the murderers of Uthman (رضّى الله عنه)–who caused the Battle of the Camel. They had killed Uthman (رضّى الله عنه), and they did not want Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) to convince Ali (رضّى الله عنه) to swiftly prosecute them
Why didn’t she impress upon Ali (as) this importance whilst in Medina? What was she doing issuing her demands following the violent seizure of the Basra? There were no Sabaites that would have prevented Aisha from visiting Imam Ali (as) in Mecca. The Sabaites hadn’t written the letter we are discussing this was penned by Aisha, 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. Aisha 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 Aisha 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 Aisha’s supporters had seized control of the administrative province of Basra and were challenging the authority of Imam Ali (as)? It was only when Basra was seized that Aisha the alleged peaceful arbiter deemed it the appropriate time to enter into negotiations, from a position of power.
It is amusing that this Nasibi has sought to evidence Aisha’s testimony through reliance on Tareekh al Tabari. Aisha’s testimony has reached us through the following chain, al-Sari-Shuhayb-Sayf-Muhammad-Talha (History of Tabari pg. 96). We have proven both Sayf and Sari were unreliable narrators in our discussion on Ibn Saba here:
This testimony is therefore baseless.
Rather than travel to Mecca and enter negotiations with Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib (as) to resolve the potential turmoil she deemed it more apt to raise an army and head for Basra. When Ali (as) found out about her army and her fitnah-mongering intentions he set out in pursuance of her. Aisha’s troops launched a large- scale assault onto Basra that involved killing innocent people before she even commenced dialogue with Imam Ali (as) who had not yet reached Basra. We read in al-Ma’arif, pg. 208 that:
فتوجهوا إليها وأخذوا عثمان بن حنيف عامل علي بها فحسبوه وقتلوا خمسين رجلاً كانوا معه على بيت المال
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 Tadhkirah al Khawwas, Vol pg. 370 we are informed that:
“Uthman bin Hunayf was arrested and a messenger was sent to Aisha for her opinion on what should be done to him. Aisha said that he should be killed. A woman pleaded for his (Uthman’s) life so Aisha ordered that he be imprisoned, he was flogged 40 stripes and the hair from his head, beard and eyebrows was removed. Aisha and her supporters also killed a further 70 people without reason”.
Ibn Abdul Barr records in al-Istiab pg. 159:
فقتلوا منهم أربعين رجلاً 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. فقالت لها امرأة نشادتك الله يا أم المؤمنين في عثمان بن حنيف وصحبته لرسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فقالت ردوا أبانا فردوه فقالت احبسوه ولا تقتلوه فقال أبان لو أعلم أنك رددتني لهذا لم أرجع وجاء فأخبرهم فقال لهم مجاشع بن مسعود اضربوه وانتفوا شعر لحيته فضربوه أربعين سوطاً ونتفوا شعر لحيته وحاجبه وأشفار عينه
They killed 40 men, took the money in the treasury and arrested Uthman bin Hunayf, they then sent Aban bin Uthman to consult with Aisha, 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)’. Aisha 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 Aisha’s orders), hence Mujash’e bin Mas'ud said: ‘Hit him, pluck out his beard’. Thus they struck him with 40 lashes and plucked out his beard, eyelash and eyebrows’.
What wrongdoing 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 Basra, legally appointed by the Caliph Ali (as)? What Shari ruling entitled Aisha 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 Aisha passed the decree of death and who was subsequently tortured by the companions of Aisha 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, Vol. 4 pg. 371 - 372 and in Usd al-Ghaba, pg. 821
Mufti Ibn Talha Shafi’i records in Matalib al-Se’ul, pg. 159 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; Aisha 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 the battle of Jamal serve shall serve as a comprehensive slap on Ibn al Hashimi’s face. In History of Tabari, English Edition, Vol. 16 pg. 68-69 (Arabic) Ibn Jarir Tabari narrated from:
Ahmad – from his father – from Wahab bin Jarir bin Hazim – from Yunis bin Yazeed – from Zuhri:
…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”. 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-Basra! 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.“
So Aisha’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 Aisha, 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? Aisha’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 with the entry of Aisha and her supporters in Basra. It was here that they took hold of the treasury and massacred the Shia 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 a peaceful process. Ansar.Org and Ibn al Hashimi are insistent that Aisha’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 Aisha’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 pursuit 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 the Holy Prophet (s) about the dogs of Hawab barking at Aisha is sufficient to water down any attempt to call the march of Aisha as a peace making effort!
We had previously in Reply One cited the fact that Shaykh Sibt Jauzi al-Hanafi in Tazkirah tul Khawwas, pg. 384[1] Shaykh Ibn Talha Shafi’i in Matalib al Se’ul, pg. 155 - 156 and Ibn Sabagh Maliki in Fusul al Muhimmah, Vol 1, pg. 388 - 389 recorded that prior to the battle of Jamal Aisha 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”
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 Aisha as an ‘arbiter’ desirous for peace, what type of efforts for peace and reconciliation can one gauge from this reply? Aisha had demonstrated open opposition to Caliph Ali (as), she refused to accept his authority and challenged him to stop her activities. Imam ‘Ali (as) hence was left with no other choice but to quash the opposition. Aisha had made clear that her intention was that of open defiance and disobedience to the Imam of the time.
Ibn al Hashimi states:
Aisha (رضّى الله 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 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.’”
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 into no man's 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 Aisha 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.
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 a camel was a rallying point for her side there, she was acting as their military mascot, not there to shame both parties into dropping their weapons.
If Ibn Arabi’s assertion is indeed correct could the Nawasib kindly cite an authentic source from the mouth of Aisha wherein she testified that her presence at Jamal was to shame people into not fighting? How has he managed to read the mind of Aisha on this matter? If this was indeed the intention of Aisha, why did the just and truthful Sahaba not recognize this intention and drop their weapons immediately?
Ibn al Hashimi states:
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 (رضّى الله عنها), most Muslims at that time had a great deal of respect for her, including Ali (رضّى الله عنه). It is likely that Ali (رضّى الله 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.
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!
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”
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 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 Aisha fall flat on their face because the actions of Aisha and her supporters was a violation of the Qur’an and Sunnah, as we shall seek to prove:
Whilst we reject the notion that Aisha 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) as recorded in Al-Mustadrak Ala Al Sahihain, Vol. 3 pg. 132:
“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.”
Both Imam al-Hakim and Imam al-Dhahabi have declared it ‘Sahih’
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.
We shall evidence this through three traditions.
We read in Sahih al-Bukhari 1520:
Narrated ‘Aisha:
(That she said), “O Allah’s Apostle! We consider Jihad as the best deed. Should we not fight in Allah’s Cause?” He said, “The best Jihad (for women) is Hajj-Mabrur (i.e. Hajj which is done according to the Prophet’s tradition and is accepted by Allah).”
Sahih al-Bukhari 2875:
Narrated ‘Aisha:
the mother of the faithful believers, I requested the Prophet permit me to participate in Jihad, but he said, “Your Jihad is the performance of Hajj.”
Narrated ‘Aisha:
the mother of the faithful believers: The Prophet was asked by his wives about the Jihad and he replied, “The best Jihad (for you) is (the performance of) Hajj.”
All of the above traditions have reached us from Aisha via Aisha the daughter of Talhah. In the first tradition Aisha makes a specific request to the Prophet (s) to participate in jihad, and he (s) said the Hajj remained the best form of jihad for them. Aisha was not seeking consent to physically arm herself and enter the battlefield as a combatant! All she was requesting was the right to acquire the blessing of accompanying soldiers, coming to their aid should the need arise (e.g. water provision, tending to their wounds etc). The Prophet (s) rejected such a request making it clear that women have no place on the battlefield. Aisha personally knew that there was a prohibition on her venturing onto a battlefield, so the question is why did she choose to ignore this order and instead mobilize men onto the plains of Jamal, to do battle against the legitimate Head of State? Why was she allowing her presence on the battlefield to be used by her supporters as the rallying point for battle?
As we have made it clear in Reply One, ijtihad cannot not contradict Nass (the Quran and Sunnah), so tell us
● Was Aisha’s entry onto the battlefield not a breach of the three traditions that she had herself narrated?
● If not, why not?
● Is the order of the Prophet (s) not the same as the order of Allah (swt)?
● Is this not an open violation of the words of the Prophet (s)?
● Is the entrance of the wife of Rasulullah (s) onto a battlefield, wherein she causes the division of the Ummah causing incalculable loss, not an insult to the memory of the Prophet (s)?
Abu Sulaiman had stated:
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 Aisha 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) (Quran 4:59):
“O you who believe! Obey Allah and his Apostle and those in authority among you”
According to Ahl’ul Sunnah once bayya is given to a leader he is the Ulil Umr and hence obedience to him is unconditional. The people of Medina 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 Ulil 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 Aisha and her supporters to give Imam ‘Ali (as) their unconditional support, they had to obey his every word. Aisha’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.
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 Ulil Umr so his decision had to be honored. Moreover, how could Aisha’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, pg. 24
2. Kanz al-Ummal, Vol. 6 pg. 157 Chapter “Fadail ‘Ali”
3. Tauhfa Ithna Ashariyyah, pg. 216
4. Tafsir Kabir, Vol. 1 pg. 105
6. Fara’id us Simtayn, pg. 174 Chapter 36
7. Manaqib, by Khawarizmi Chapter 8 pg. 56
8. Kunuz al Haqaiq, pg. 160
9. Seerah al Halabiyah, Vol. 3 pg. 236
10. Manaqib by Ibne Maghazli pg. 144
This hadith is accepted by Ahlul 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 Ulil 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”
This defence also fails because Rasulullah (s) had told his followers where to turn in times of fitnah. We read in Kanz ul Ummal, Vol. 11 pg. 612 Hadith 32964 he said:
‘There will be affliction after me, therefore whenever it happens follow Ali bin Abi Talib because he separates between the truth and falsehood (Farooq)’
The duty was to attach themselves to Ali (as) NOT to separate from him, we also have these explicit words of Rasulullah (s) as recorded in Kanz ul Ummal, Vol. 11 pg. 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’
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 Aisha’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), Aisha deemed it fit to oppose, rebel and fight him. It is tragic that someone with the stature of Aisha 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-Zawa'id, Vol. 9 pg. 129 - 130 Tradition 14769:
Jari bin Samra said: ‘When the conflict between the people of Basra and Ali bin Abi Talib took place, I traveled to Medina 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 a dispute between Ali and Talha and Zubair, I therefore came to give bayah to Ali’. She replied: ‘By Allah, the truth is with him, he was never in error nor would ever lead to error’. She repeated that three times.
We read in Al-Bidayah wal-Nihayah, Vol 10, pg. 633:
عن أحمد بن حفص البغدادي عن سليمان بن يوسف، عن عبيد الله بن موسى، عن فطر، عن حكيم بن جبير، عن إبراهيم، عن علقمة عن علي قال: أمرت بقتال الناكثين والقاسطين والمارقين
Ali said: ‘I was ordered to fight Nakitheen (oath breakers), Qasiteen. (those who refrained from giving bayya to the Imam) and Mariqeen (Khawarij)’.[2]
In Sharh Maqasid, Vol. 5 pg. 307, Allamah Sa'duddeen Taftazani after narrating this hadith of Rasulullah (s), states clearly "the oath breakers were Talha, Zubayr and Aisha".
In Matalib al Se'ul pg. 106 - 107 we read:
فبدأ علي بقتال الناكثين وهم أصحاب الجمل
“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 in Usdul Ghaba pg. 882:
Abu Saeed narrated: ‘Allah's messenger (s) ordered us to fight Nakitheen, Qasiteen and Mariqeen, 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’’.
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, Qasiteen and Mariqeen’’.
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 Aisha were at the forefront of this group.
Aisha'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), as recorded in Al Hakim's Mustadrak Ala Al Sahihain, Vol. 3, pg. 131, Kanz ul Ummal, Vol 11, pg. 614, Hadith numbers 32973 & 32974, and Riyadh al Nadira, Vol. 3, pg. 123:
"Whoever obeys 'Ali, obeys me, whoever obeys me, obeys Allah, whoever disobeys 'Ali, disobeys me, whoever disobeys me, disobeys Allah"
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 Aisha'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.
We find this narration in the following sources:
Ibn Abi Shayba records in Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah Volume 17 page 105:
Narrated to us ibn Abi Ghania from his father from Isma'il ibn Rajaa from his father from Abi Sa'id Al-Khudri who said: We were sitting in the Masjid and then Allah's messenger (saw) entered and sat with us. We were just staring, no one of us was speaking, and then he (saw) said: "Verily among you there will be a man who will fight the people for the Ta'weel of the Quran just as I have fought for its Tanzeel." Then Abu Bakr stood up and said: "Am I the one O Allah's messenger (saw)?" He said: "No." Then Umar stood up and said: "Am I the one O Allah's messenger (saw)?" He said: "No, but rather it is the shoe repairer inside the house." Then Ali (a.s) came out towards us and he was holding the shoe of Allah's messenger (saw) that he had repaired.
Footnote: Its chain is Sahih (Authentic), Rajaa is ibn Abi Rabia Al-Zubaydi, scholars have authenticated him and they have not talked against him.
The narration has been narrated also by Ahmad, Al-Nasa'i, and Abu Ya'la, and ibn Hibban, and Al-Hakim and he has authenticated it based on the criteria of the Shaykhayn (i.e. Bukhari and Muslim) and Al-Dhahabi has confirmed his authentication. All of them have narrated it through Isma'il ibn Rajaa from Raja.
Ibn Hanbal records in Musnad Ahmed Ibn Hanbal, Vol 18, pg. 295 - 296:
Narrated to us Hussain bin Muhammad, from Fitr, from Isma'il bin Rija, from Al-Zubaydi, from his father, who said: I heard Abu Sa'id Al-Khudri say: We sat waiting for the messenger of Allah (saw) until he came out to us from one of the houses of his wives (A'isha). Then we stood up and his shoe was ripped. Then Alee (a.s) took the responsibility to fix his shoe. The Prophet (saw) then left and we left with him, and he (saw) said: "Verily, there will be one among you who will fight for the interpretation of this Quran just as I have fought for its revelation." We were honored (to hear such news). Then Abu Bakr and Umar stood up, so the Prophet (saw) said: "No. But rather it's the one who repairs the shoe." Then we went to give him (i.e. Ali(a.s)) the good news and it was as if he had heard it.
Footnote: Shu'ayb Al-Arna'ut: “This Hadith is Sahih and it's chain is Hasan.” And Al-Hakim said: "This Hadith is Sahih (Authentic) upon the standards of Al-Bukhari and Muslim," and Al-Dhahabi agreed with him.
Abi Ya’la recorded in Musnad Abu Ya'la. Vol 2, pg. 341 - 342:
Narrated to us Uthman, from Jarir, from Al-A'mash, from Isma'il bin Rija, from his father, from Abu Sa'id Al-Khudri, who said: I heard the messenger of Allah (saw) say: "Verily, there will be someone among you who will fight for the interpretation of the Quran just as I have fought for its revelation." Then Abu Bakr said: "Am I the one, O messenger of Allah?" He (saw) said: "No." Then Umar said: "Am I the one, O messenger of Allah?" He (saw) said: "No, but rather, it is the one who repairs the shoe." And he (saw) had previously given Ali his shoe to repair it.
Footnote: Hussain Salim Asad: Its chain is Sahih (Authentic)
Al Hakim recorded in Musnad Abu Ya'la. Vol 2, pg. 341 - 342:
I heard Abu Sa'id Al-Khudri say: We sat waiting for the messenger of Allah (saw) until he came out to us from one of the houses of his wives (A'isha). Then we stood up and his shoe was ripped. Then Ali (a.s) took the responsibility to fix his shoe. The Prophet (saw) then left and we left with him, and he (saw) said: "Verily, there will be one among you who will fight for the interpretation of this Quran just as I have fought for its revelation." We were honored (to hear such news). Then Abu Bakr and Umar stood up, so the Prophet (saw) said: "No. But rather it's the one who repairs the shoe." Then we went to give him (i.e. Ali( a.s)) the good news and it was as if he had heard it.
Hakim said: Authentic on the conditions of the shaykhayn but they did not include it.
Footnote: Dhahabi agreed in the talkhis
Ibn Hibban records in Sahih ibn Hibban. Vol 15, pg. 385:
Narrated to us Ahmad bin Ali bin Al-Muthanna, from Uthman bin Abi Shaybah, from Jareer, from Al-A'mash, from Isma'il bin Rija, from his father, from Abi Sa'id Al-Khudri, who said: I heard the messenger of Allah (saw) say: "Verily among you there will be someone who will fight for the interpretation of the Quran just as I have fought for its revelation." Abu Bakr then said: "Am I the one O Allah's messenger?" He (saw) said: "No." Umar then said: "Am I the one O Allah's messenger?" He (saw) said: "No, but rather it is the one who repairs the shoe." And he (saw) had given his shoe to Ali (a.s), to repair it.
Shu'ayb Al-Arnaut: The chain is Sahih on the criteria of Muslim.
We read in Kanz ul Ummal, Vol. 11, pg. 613, hadith number 32967 that Rasulullah said:
“Verily among you will be one who will fight for the meaning of the Qur’an in the same way that I fought for its revelation. People asked will that be Abu Bakr or`Umar? '' Rasulullah (s) replied ‘No, but he who is mending my shoes, that person was Ali”
This hadith is absolutely explicit every Jihad of Ali (as) will be in defence of the Qur’an, to protect it from misinterpretation.
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 argument's 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 Aisha 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-Mustadrak Ala Al Sahihain, Vol 3, pg. 413, al-Bidaya wa al-Nihaya, Vol. 10 pg. 458 and Silsilat Al Ahadith Al Sahiha Vol 6, pg. 339:
عن أبي جرو المازني.قال: شهدت عليا والزبير حين تواقفا، فقال له علي: يا زبير ! أنشدك الله أسمعت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يقول: " إنك تقاتلني وأنت ظالم " ؟ قال: نعم ! لم أذكره إلا في موقفي هذا ، ثم انصرف
Abi Jaru al-Mazeni said: ‘I saw Ali and Zubair when they met, hence Ali said: ‘Oh Zubair! I appeal to you in the name of Allah, didn’t you hear Allah's messenger (s) saying that you shall fight me while you are an oppressor?’ He (Zubayr) replied: ‘Yes! Just now I remembered that’. Then he (Zubair) left.’
The nawasib will often try to use this narration to argue that Zubayr left the battlefield before the battle actually began, meaning he did not actually die as a rebel. We would like to remind the foolish nawasib that this would render a prophecy of Rasulallah (saw) untrue, and hence render him a false prophet. The prophet’s prophecy did indeed come true, as Zubayr did indeed fight against Imam Ali at Jamal. We read in Al Mustadrak Ala Al Sahihain Vol. 3, pg. 413, Hadith 5575:
“From Abi Harb ibn Abi Aswad A Du'ali who said "I witnessed Ali and Zubayr, when Zubayr returned on his riding beast, going through the rows(of soldiers) then his son Abdullah blocked him then asked ‘What's with you?’ He (Zubayr) replied "Ali reminded me of a hadith I heard from the prophet who said ‘You will fight him while you are oppressing him" so I won't fight him. Ibn Zubayr replied "And did you come to fight him, or did you come to make peace between people so that Allah may make peace through you?’ Zubayr said "I swore I wouldn't fight" Ibn Zubayr said "expiate your oath by freeing your slave Jarjis, then stand until peace is made". So he freed his slave Jarjis then took his place, then the people differed so he escaped on his horse.”[3]
This is corroborated in Tarikh Al Tabari Vol 16, pg. 125 -126 (Arabic):
When the [forces] confronted each other `Ali went out on his horse and called out to al-Zubayr, and the two of them confronted each other. `Ali asked al-Zubayr, "What has brought you [to this]?" "You," he replied. "I don't find you826 suitable for this leadership or more entitled to it than we." "After `Uthman,"replied `Ali, "it is certainly not you who are suitable for it. We considered you one of Banu `Abd al-Muttalib until your son, the son of evil, reached maturity and created a division between us and you." `Ali then said how bad the evil he had done was and mentioned how the Prophet had passed by the two of them and had said to `Ali: "What did the son of your father's sister say? He will fight you, being the aggressor." Al-Zubayr then left him, saying, "I will not fight you." He returned to his son `Abdallah and said, "I have no firm conviction about this war." "When you set out you did have," replied his son, "but you saw the banners of Ibn Abi Talib and you realized that that meant death, so you lost heart." These words angered him so that he shook with rage and said angrily: "Woe betide you! I have sworn him an oath not to fight him." "Expiate your oath by freeing your ghulam Sarjis," his son replied. So he freed him, and he joined the ranks alongside them. `Ali had said to al-Zubayr: "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. Didn't you give me allegiance?" "I did," he replied, "but with the sword at my neck."
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).
We further read in Tarikh Tabari, Vol 16. pg. 130 -131 (Arabic):
According to `Umar b. Shabbah - Abu al-Hasan [al-Mada'ini] - Ja`far b. Sulayman - Malik b. Dinar: `Ammar attacked al-Zubayr on the day of the Battle of the Camel and had begun to drive a spear at him when he said, "Do you want to kill me?" "No! Leave!" he said.
According to `Amir b. Hafs: On the day of the Battle of the Camel `Ammar approached and drove the spear at al-Zubayr, who said, "Are you going to kill me, Abu al-Yaqzan?" "No, Abu `Abdallah," he replied.
The Nawasib will inevitably try to defend Zubayr by using the narration of Imam Ali telling Zubayr’s killer Amro ibn Jurmuz that the prophet said that the killer of Ibn Saffiya are in hellfire. We respond simply by asking them to quote the rest of what Imam Ali said when he was brought Zubayr’s head and sword. We read in Ansab Al Ashraf, Vol 3 pg. 50 - 51, Muruj Al Dhahab Vol 2, pg. 284, Nasaih Al Kafiya pg. 59, and Sheikh Mufid’s Kitab Al Jamal pg. 387 - 390:
Ali unsheathed and looked at al-Zubayr's sword and said “This sword cleared anguish from the face of Rasulallah (saw) many times but now it has come to an evil end.”
Furthermore, Ibn Jurmuz wasn't promised hellfire because he killed Zubayr, rather the killer of Zubayr was promised hellfire, and this is because he later rebelled against Imam Ali alongside the Khawarij and was killed at Nahrawan. We read in Sheikh Mufid’s Al Fusul Al Mukhtara pg. 145:
“And Ibn Jurmuz went out against Ali (AS) with the Khawarij and he agreed with their opinions. So Allah killed him with the hands of Amir al-Mu'mineen (AS), and with that, took him (Ibn Jurmuz) to hell."
We further read in Ibn Shahrashub’s Manaqib Ale Abi Talib Vol 4, pg. 434 - 436:
(Imam Hadi AS) said to Mutawakkil: “As for Amir Al Mumineen’s saying ‘Announce hell-fire to the murderer of the son of Safiyya,” he was quoting Rasulallah (SAW), and he was among those who rebelled on the day of Nahrawan and Amir Al Mumineen did not kill him in Basra because he knew he would meet his end at Nahrawan.”
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 Ahlul 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 Aisha.
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 ul Nadhira, Vol 3 pg. 154 Chapter "Manaqib 'Ali":
'Abu Bakr narrates:
"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 Majah 145 - The Book of the Sunnah - كتاب المقدمة:
"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 pg. 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".
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 Aisha 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?
Sibt Ibn Jauzi al-Hanafi records in Tadhkirat Al Khawwas Vol pg. 385 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 al-Bukhari 7099:
حَدَّثَنَا عُثْمَانُ بْنُ الْهَيْثَمِ، حَدَّثَنَا عَوْفٌ، عَنِ الْحَسَنِ، عَنْ أَبِي بَكْرَةَ، قَالَ لَقَدْ نَفَعَنِي اللَّهُ بِكَلِمَةٍ أَيَّامَ الْجَمَلِ لَمَّا بَلَغَ النَّبِيَّ صلى الله عليه وسلم أَنَّ فَارِسًا مَلَّكُوا ابْنَةَ كِسْرَى قَالَ " لَنْ يُفْلِحَ قَوْمٌ وَلَّوْا أَمْرَهُمُ امْرَأَةً
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 Persia had made the daughter of Khosrau their Queen (ruler), he said, "Never will such a nation succeed as it makes a woman their ruler."
In Sharh Maqasid, Vol 5, pg. 233 Imam of Ahlul Sunnah Saaduddin Taftazani sets out the conditions to be an Imam:
1. Free
2. Man
3. Just
4. 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, moreover she has been forbidden to participate in battles and courts.
While here we see that Aisha not only got herself misguided but also became the 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 Aisha’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. Aisha was conducting all affairs of war.
2. Aisha in her own capacity wrote to Caliph Ali challenging him to do whatever he good to stop the rebellion against him
3. People were seeking her permission before taking any steps were taken, they for example turned to Aisha to rule on how Iam Ali (as)’s Basran Governor 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.
We read in Sahih al-Bukhari 7100:
حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ مُحَمَّدٍ، حَدَّثَنَا يَحْيَى بْنُ آدَمَ، حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو بَكْرِ بْنُ عَيَّاشٍ، حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو حَصِينٍ، حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو مَرْيَمَ عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ زِيَادٍ الأَسَدِيُّ، قَالَ لَمَّا سَارَ طَلْحَةُ وَالزُّبَيْرُ وَعَائِشَةُ إِلَى الْبَصْرَةِ بَعَثَ عَلِيٌّ عَمَّارَ بْنَ يَاسِرٍ وَحَسَنَ بْنَ عَلِيٍّ، فَقَدِمَا عَلَيْنَا الْكُوفَةَ فَصَعِدَا الْمِنْبَرَ، فَكَانَ الْحَسَنُ بْنُ عَلِيٍّ فَوْقَ الْمِنْبَرِ فِي أَعْلاَهُ، وَقَامَ عَمَّارٌ أَسْفَلَ مِنَ الْحَسَنِ، فَاجْتَمَعْنَا إِلَيْهِ فَسَمِعْتُ عَمَّارًا يَقُولُ إِنَّ عَائِشَةَ قَدْ سَارَتْ إِلَى الْبَصْرَةِ، وَوَاللَّهِ إِنَّهَا لَزَوْجَةُ نَبِيِّكُمْ صلى الله عليه وسلم فِي الدُّنْيَا وَالآخِرَةِ، وَلَكِنَّ اللَّهَ تَبَارَكَ وَتَعَالَى ابْتَلاَكُمْ، لِيَعْلَمَ إِيَّاهُ تُطِيعُونَ أَمْ هِيَ.
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 Ammar (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 Aisha. This shows us that the position that Aisha 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 Aisha at Jamal constituted disobedience to Allah (swt) how can her advocates assert that she has exercised correctly interpreted ijtihad? A mujahid's role is to interpret religious texts to ensure 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 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 Aisha being in Paradise. We would like to remind such pathetic Nawasib that not an exclusive merit of Aisha, 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. Aisha 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 his Kitab Al Tadhkirah pg. 992:
إذا ابتكر الرجل امرأة في الدنيا كانت زوجته في الآخرة
"If a man marries a woman in the life, she will remain his wife in the hereafter"
We read in Tabaqat ibn Saad, Vol. 8 pg. 197:
أخبرنا كثير بن هشام، حدثنا الفرات بن سلمان عن عبد الكريم عن عكرمة وأخبرنا عبد الله بن جعفر الرقي، حدثنا عبيد الله بن عمرو عن عبد الكريم عن عكرمة أن أسماء بنت أبي بكر كانت تحت الزبير بن العوام، وكان شديدا عليها فأتت أباها فشكت ذلك إليه فقال: يا بنية اصبري فإن المرأة إذا كان لها زوج صالح ثم مات عنها فلم تزوج بعده جمع بينهما في الجنة.
"Ikrima narrated that Asma bint Abi Bakr was the wife of al-Zubair bin al-Awwam 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 remarried after him, both shall be gathered in heaven".
Abu Bakr was of course alluding to the fact that 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.
Reply Eleven – Aisha’s tears over her role at Jamal negates the defence of correctly interpreted ijtihad
Al Muhaddith Shah Abdul Aziz Dehlavi in Tauhfa Ithna Ashariyyah pg. 385 and Ibn Taymiyya in Minhaj as Sunnah Vol. 6 pg. 208 both record that:
"When Aisha would recall the event of Jamal she would cry so profusely that her scarf would be soaked in tears".
Had Aisha 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"
If this is indeed the case and Aisha 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 Aisha, 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 Aisha had exercised ijtihad for which she will be rewarded and forgiven if wrong – then why the regret? Clearly Aisha did not deem her alleged ‘ijtihad’ as an interpretation for which she would be rewarded and forgiven even if it was a mistake. Aisha 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’.
We read in Mawaddat al Qurba, pg. 35 by Syed Ali Hamdani:
Urwa stated that Aisha narrated that the Prophet said: ‘Allah has promised me that whoever fights Ali is Kafir and will enter Hell and such an individual deserves the Hell fire’. At this, somebody asked Aisha (ra): ‘Then why did you fight against him?’. She replied: ‘I forgot this Hadith on the Day of the Battle of Jamal, I remembered it again when I reached Basra and I ask for Allah’s forgiveness.’
Had Aisha exercised ijtihad there would have been no need for her to cry or seek repentance for her actions – because this is such a great act that even the individual interpreting a matter incorrectly “would be rewarded once and his mistake would be forgiven”. Aisha clearly did not feel that this ‘reward’ applied to her and her supplication that Allah (swt) forgive her 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 Aisha, the irony is they provide her defences that she herself never claimed, on the contrary she opined that her actions contravened the hadith of Rasulullah, the ramifications thereof were so severe that she sought forgiveness from Allah (swt) for her it..
Before we cite the actual tradition on this topic, let us begin with the following one from Sahih al-Bukhari 4753:
Narrated Ibn Abi 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 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.”
We read in Sahih al-Bukhari 7327, 7328:
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-Farid, Vol. 5 pg. 79:
وقيل لها: تُدفنين مع رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم؟ قالت: لا، إني أحدثت بعده حَدثاً فادفِنُوني مع إخوتي بالبقيع. وقد كان النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قال لها: يا حُميراء، كأني بك تَنْبحك كِلابُ الحُوّب. تقاتلين علياً وأنت له ظالمة.
She (Aisha) was asked: ‘Should we bury you next to Allah’s messenger (s)?’ She said: ‘No! As I committed something 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’.
Dhahabi in Siyar A'lam al-Nubala, Vol. 2 pg. 193, also commented on the will of Aisha as follows:
قال قالت عائشة وكانت تحدث نفسها أن تدفن في بيتها فقالت إني أحدثت بعد رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم حدثا ادفنوني مع أزواجه فدفنت بالبقيع رضي الله عنها قلت تعني بالحدث مسيرها يوم الجمل فإنها ندمت ندامة كلية
Aisha desired to be buried in her home, she then said: ‘I have committed an act after the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) thus bury me with his wives’. She was therefore buried in Baqi may Allah be pleased with her.
I say: .’Her usage of the words ‘committed an act’ referred to her march on the day of Jamal, that she had profuse regret over’.
Al Hakim also recorded in Al-Mustadrak Ala Al-Sahihain. Vol. 4 pg. 7:
Narrated Abul Abbas Muhammad ibn Yaqub from Abul Bakhtari Abdullah ibn Muhammad ibn Bishr Al-Abdi from Isma'il ibn Abi Khalid from Qays ibn Abi Hazim narrated that: Aisha, while speaking about her burial in her house, said: "I invented an innovation after the Messenger of Allah (saw). Bury me with his wives." So, she was buried at Al-Baqi.
Al-Hakim commented that this narration is Sahih and Al-Dhahabi concurred. Interestingly we also read in Suyuti’s Sahih Al-Jami’ As-Saghir. Vol. 2, pg. 1131, H. 2277 / 6666:
The Prophet (saw) said "Believers' blood is equal. They have the upper hand on others. They can be custodians on those lower. A believer's life cannot be compensated for by a non-believers life. If some other has a covenant with a believer, his blood is safe during the duration of the covenant. If someone makes an innovation for himself, he bears the consequences. If he promoted it or gave refuge to an innovator, may Allah (swt), the Angels and all people curse him!"
This narration is Sahih according to Albani (Authentic).
Much can be gauged from Aisha’s will, namely:
● One’s sins cannot be wiped clean via burial next to the Prophet (s)
● One’s excellence cannot be attained by merely being buried next to the Prophet (s)
With this in mind could Aisha’s advocates kindly answer these questions:
● When no personal benefit can be acquired via burial next to the Prophet (s) what is the benefit in acquiring such a burial?
● What happened to that close love that the Nawasib suggested existed between the Prophet (s) and Aisha?
● Do the contents of her will not discredit Abu Bakr and Umar?
● Can the excellence of the Shaykhain on account of their burial next to the Prophet (s) remain a valid argument in light of the comments of Aisha?
● Does this not debunk a common argument about the Shaikhain advanced by their advocates, that one buried next to the Prophet (s) has all his past digressions eradicated?
● Has Aisha’s view not made it clear that burial next to the Prophet (s) does not render oneself as protected, rather individual actions are what protects one from sins?
● Has her opinion disrespected the Prophet (s)?
● If it has, does the Ummah have any recourse against Aisha?
● If Aisha admits she innovated, and the prophet said that whoever innovates will be cursed by Allah and the Angels and the people, then why do our opponents object to the Shia cursing Aisha?
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 too 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 Aisha 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 there 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?
In Zamakhshari’s Rabi’ Al Abrar, Vol 4, pg.124 we learn that:
On her death bed Aisha 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 Aisha’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 argument's 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!”
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).
We read the following tradition in Sahih al-Bukhari 3104:
“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 2905d :
Ibn Umar reported that Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) came out from the house of ‘Aisha 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 has been said regarding the houses of the wives of the Prophet (s) and what houses were named after them”. If one canters through all of the traditions in the said chapter its clear that all make reference to the specific houses of the wives of Rasulullah (s), let us cite the relevant parts of each of the traditions to prove our point:
Narrated ‘Aisha:(the wife of the Prophet) When the sickness of Allah’s Apostle got aggravated, he asked the permission of his wives that he should be treated in my house, and they permitted him.
‘Aisha said, “The Prophet died in my house on the day of my turn
Narrated Safiya:
…when he reached near the gate of the Mosque close to the door (of the house) of Um Salama, the wife of the Prophet, two Ansari men passed by them and greeted Allah’s Apostle ..
Narrated ‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar:
Once I went upstairs in Hafsa’s house and saw the Prophet answering the call of nature ….
Narrated Aisha:
That Allah’s Apostle used to offer the ‘Asr prayer while the sun was still shining in her Hujra (i.e. her dwelling place).
Narrated ‘Amra bint Abdur-Rahman:
‘Aisha, the wife of the Prophet, told her that once Allah’s Apostle was with her and she heard somebody asking permission to enter Hafsa’s house.
There are a total of seven traditions in this chapter of Sahih Bukhari, all of them make reference to the personal homes of the wives of the Prophet (s). That is why Bukhari places these traditions here, under that specific heading as they all make references to those homes wherein the wives resided. When each of these six traditions make a specific reference to the house of a particular wife, why are Nawasib denying this in the case of tradition 336, that states clearly:
“The Prophet stood up and delivered a sermon, and pointed to the house of Aisha”
When the other six traditions in this chapter are there due there mentioning the house of a particular wife, then exactly the same is the case with this tradition, wherein Rasulullah (s) pointed to the house of Aisha. This shows that al-Bukhari did not understand the tradition of 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 has been said regarding the houses of the wives of the Prophet (s) and what houses were named after them” 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! Moreover if the tradition was actually alluding to the East wherein the house of Aisha was allegedly situated, why did Abdullah Ibn Umar the narrator of the said tradition not make any reference to “pointing East”? If the tradition had nothing whatsoever to do with the house of Aisha, then why the need to make reference to Aisha’s house at all? Would it not have been logically more simple to say “The Prophet stood up and delivered a sermon, and pointed to the East, and said: “Fitna (trouble/sedition) is right here,” …. What was the need for making reference to the house of Aisha here if it bore no relevance to the prediction of Rasulullah (s)? 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 pointing was so clear that the companions understood that he was pointing to the house of Aisha, as it is mentioned in the text of the tradition? The East can not be “right here” in Medina, in front of the Prophet. The words ho hona هَا هُنَا denote a closeness, right next to, we for example read in Surah al Maida verse 24:
قَالُوا۟ يَٰمُوسَىٰٓ إِنَّا لَن نَّدْخُلَهَآ أَبَدًا مَّا دَامُوا۟ فِيهَا ۖ فَٱذْهَبْ أَنتَ وَرَبُّكَ فَقَٰتِلَآ إِنَّا هَٰهُنَا قَٰعِدُونَ
They said, "O Moses, indeed we will not enter it, ever, as long as they are within it; so go, you and your Lord, and fight. Indeed, we are remaining right here."
Ibn Kathir in his commentary of this verse states:
Abu Bakr bin Marduwyah recorded that Anas said that when the Messenger of Allah went to Badr, he asked the Muslims for their opinion, and `Umar gave his. The Prophet again asked the Muslims for their opinion and the Ansar said, "O Ansar! It is you whom the Prophet wants to hear.'' They said, "We will never say as the Children of Israel said to Musa,فَاذْهَبْ أَنتَ وَرَبُّكَ فَقَاتِلا إِنَّا هَـهُنَا قَـعِدُونَ(So go, you and your Lord, and fight you two, we are sitting right here.)
So the Sahaba understood this verse to denote remaining at an identifiable close place
Along the same lines we read in Sahih al-Bukhari Hadith number 3136:
فَقَالَ جَعْفَرٌ إِنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم بَعَثَنَا هَا هُنَا، وَأَمَرَنَا بِالإِقَامَةِ فَأَقِيمُوا مَعَنَا
Ja`far said (to us), "Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) has sent us here and ordered us to stay here, so you too, stay with us."
Again the words هَا هُنَا denote a closeness as in remain here.
We read in Sahih al-Bukhari Hadith Number 2976:
حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ الْعَلاَءِ، حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو أُسَامَةَ، عَنْ هِشَامِ بْنِ عُرْوَةَ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، عَنْ نَافِعِ بْنِ جُبَيْرٍ، قَالَ سَمِعْتُ الْعَبَّاسَ، يَقُولُ لِلزُّبَيْرِ رضى الله عنهما هَا هُنَا أَمَرَكَ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم أَنْ تَرْكُزَ الرَّايَةَ.
Narrated Nafi bin Jubair:
I heard Al Abbas telling Az-Zubair, "The Prophet (ﷺ) ordered you to fix the flag here."
The use of the word هَا هُنَا was because the Sahaba understood precisely where the flag is to be fixed, it was nearby and they new the precise location.
We also read in Sahih Muslim Hadith number 2038 b:
يَقُولُ بَيْنَا أَبُو بَكْرٍ قَاعِدٌ وَعُمَرُ مَعَهُ إِذْ أَتَاهُمَا رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَقَالَ " مَا أَقْعَدَكُمَا هَا هُنَا " .
One day while Abu Bakr was sitting and there was with him Umar also there came to them Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) and he said: What makes you stay here?
The use of the word هَا هُنَا clearly denotes an identifiable place that is close by
We read in Sunan Abi Dawud 1951:
النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ خَطَبَ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم النَّاسَ بِمِنًى وَنَزَّلَهُمْ مَنَازِلَهُمْ فَقَالَ " لِيَنْزِلِ الْمُهَاجِرُونَ هَا هُنَا " . وَأَشَارَ إِلَى مَيْمَنَةِ الْقِبْلَةِ " وَالأَنْصَارُ هَا هُنَا " . وَأَشَارَ إِلَى مَيْسَرَةِ الْقِبْلَةِ " ثُمَّ لْيَنْزِلِ النَّاسُ حَوْلَهُمْ " .
The Prophet (ﷺ) addressed the people at Mina and he made them stay in their dwellings. He then said: The Muhajirun (Emigrants) should stay here, and he made a sign to the right side of the qiblah, and the Ansar (the Helpers) here, and he made a sign to the left side of the qiblah; the people should stay around them.
There mere use of a sign was sufficient for the Sahaba to recognise that هَا هُنَا referred to standing and a place that was nearby and they recognised.
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 هناك “honak” – “there” to denote distance.
3. For argument's 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 center and I state that “Problems are occurring over there” (pointing to the direction of the center) 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 Aisha. The Sahaba saw no need to ask further questions on the matter. They, through Rasulullah’s pointing at Aisha’s house, recognized that fitnah would come from her home.
4. If Abu Sulaiman insists on maintaining this flimsy defence, 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 Vol. 8 pg. 373 that:
“Rasulullah (s) came out of the house of Aisha 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 into history, we can see how true the words of Rasulullah (s) rang clear. Rasulullah (s) drew a nexus between the house of Aisha and fitnah, and this is precisely what happened historically, that shatters Nawasib efforts to interpret the tradition differently, since we have already evidenced that the first meeting wherein discussions focused on rebelling against Ali (as) occurred in the house of Aisha as we previously cited from the History of Tabari, English edition, Vol 16 pg. 43: (Arabic):
“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…”
This gathering in the house of Aisha was the springboard via which mounted opposition to Ali (as), so fitnah did indeed spring from the house of Aisha just as the Prophet (s) foretold.
She rebelled against the Caliphate of Imam ‘Ali (as), incited opposition to him and sought support from the Basrans that led to mass revolt and war. This was the act of fitnah that Rasulullah (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 Aisha had exercised ijtihad for which she shall be rewarded.
[1] Sibt Al Jawzi says that there was no response from Aisha, but the footnote cites multiple sources, including Ibn A’tham Al Kufi which includes the response from Aisha.
[2] Ibn Kathir states that the chains for this narration are all weak, but this narration is EXTREMELY mutawatir (mass transmitted). Ibn Hajar even accepted it; see Talkhis al-Habeer fi Ahadith Raafi al-Kabir. Vol. 4, pg. 84:
“His (Al-Rafi'i) statement {It is firmly established that the people of Al-Jamal (under Aisha), and Siffin (under Muawiyah) and Al-Nahrawan (i.e. the Khawarij) were rebels} is true. What further proves this is the hadith in which he (Imam Ali) says “I was COMMANDED to fight the Nakitheen (oath breakers), the Qasiteen and the apostates.” Al-Nisai recorded it in al-Khasais, as well as al-Bazzar and al-Tabarani. The people of Al-Jamal (under Aisha) were the oath-breakers because they broke their bayah to him (i.e. Imam Ali), and the Qasiteen were the people of Syria (under Muawiya) because they left the haqq (truth) in their refusal to give him bayah. The apostates were the people of al-Nahrawan (i.e. the Khawarij) due to the establishment of the sahih report about them that “they apostatized from the religion as the arrow leaves the bow (i.e. completely)”. The hadith that Ammar would be killed by a rebellious group is also established about the Syrians (i.e. they murdered him).”
[3] Albani graded this hadith Hassan or Sahih (Silsilat Al Ahadith Al Sahiha Vol 6, pg. 339).
