Are the Shia Accusations Levied Against Ayesha Worse than the Accusations of Adultery?

Are the Shia Accusations Levied against Ayesha Worse than the Accusations of Adultery?

Ibn al Hashimi insists:

Any unbiased person can see that the accusations levied against Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) by the Ayatollahs are worse than those levied against her by the Munafiqoon in the incident of al-Ifk. The latter only accused Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) of Fisq (i.e. Zinnah is not Kufr), but the Ayatollahs accuse her of Kufr (i.e. fabricating Hadith is Kufr, and according to the Shia, so is preventing the Imamah of Ali [رضّى الله عنه]).

Reply One – Allah (swt) has condemned Ayesha in the Quran for her deception and trickery

With regards to the accusation levelled against Ayesha, we will address them in the next chapter. Suffice it to say, a comparison can only be drawn with such accusations, if they are false as was the case with the allegations of adultery. The verse that this Nasabi relies upon protects her from one matter alone; it makes clear that she was aloof from lechery, Alhamdulillah. This is no way means that the verse protected her from any other form of transgression. It seems that he seems to have forgotten the condemnation she received in Surah Tahreem that descended after Surah Noor, wherein she is exposed for her trickery and Allah (swt) accused her of having a crooked heart.

Whilst Allah (swt) refers to Rasulullah’s wives in different guises, Ayesha and Hafsa are two wives who have been specifically admonished by Allah (swt) on account of their behaviour. Abu Sulaiman can offer as many defences as he chooses, Ayesha herself testifies to her scheming with Hafsa that led to the descent of this verse.

“O Prophet! Why holdest thou to be forbidden that which Allah has made lawful to thee? Thou seekest to please thy consorts”

(Surah Tahreem verse 1, Yusuf Ali’s translation).

Here are just a handful of Ahl’ul Sunnah texts that confirm Surah Tahreem descended following the planning of Ayesha and Hafsa:

1. Sahih al Bukhari Volume 6 hadith number 434 and 437
2. Sunan Nasai Volume 6 page 152
3. Musnad Ibn Hanbal Volume 1 page 252
4. Tafheemul Qur’an commentary of Surah Tahreem

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

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

So Ayesha admits:

1. Both her and Ayesha entered in to a secret plot in an effort to keep Rasulullah (s) away from the house of Ummul Momineen Zainab.
2. To achieve this objective they both lied to Rasulullah (s).
3. Allah (swt) exposed the two wives in this verse, so much so that in Surah Tahreem verse 4, He (swt) says:“If ye two turn in repentance to Him, your hearts are indeed so inclined; But if ye back up each other against him, truly Allah is his Protector, and Gabriel, and (every) righteous one among those who believe,- and furthermore, the angels – will back (him) up”.

For the sake of brevity we shall only cite the fatwa of Umar with regards to who this verse descended about:

“Narrated Ibn Abbas: I intended to ask ‘Umar about those two ladies who back each other against ‘Allah’s Apostle . For one year I was seeking the opportunity to ask this question, but in vain, until once when I accompanied him for Hajj. While we were in Zahran, ‘Umar went to answer the call of nature and told me to follow him with some water for ablution. So I followed him with a container of water and started pouring water for him. I found it a good opportunity to ask him, so I said, “O chief of the Believers! Who were those two ladies who had backed each other (against the Prophet)?” Before I could complete my question, he replied, “They were ‘Aisha and Hafsa.” 

Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 437

The comments of Sayyid Abul A’la Maudoodi in his Tafheemul Qur’an, regarding this verse, a commentary which he has cited relying on some of the most revered and authentic Sunni sources, are of particular significance. We are translating the text direct from the English version, footnotes 7 and 8:

“The word saghat in the original is from Baghy which means to swerve and to become crooked. Shah Waliyullah and Shah Rafi’uddin have translated this sentence thus: “Crooked have become your hearts.” ‘Abdullah bin Mas’ud, ‘Abdullah bin ‘Abbas, Sufyan Thauri and Dahhak have given this meaning of it: “Your hearts have swerved from the right path.” Imam Razi explains it thus: “Your hearts have swerved from what is right, and the right implies the right of the Holy Prophet (upon whom be Allah’s peace).” And ‘Allama Alusi’s commentary is Although it is incumbent on you that you should approve what the Holy Messenger (upon whom he peace) approves and disapprove what he disapproves, yet in this matter your hearts have swerved from conformity with him and turned in opposition to him. “

*8 The word tazahur means to cooperate mutually in opposition to another person, or to be united against another person. Shah Waliyullah has translated this sentence, thus: “If you mutually join together to cause distress to the Prophet. ” Shah ‘Abdul Qadir’s translation is: “If you both overwhelm him.” Maulana Ashraf ‘Ali Thanwi’s translation runs: “And if you both continued to work thus against the Prophet. ” And Maulana Shabbir Ahmad ‘Uthmami has explained it thus: ,”lf you two continued to work and behave thus (against the Prophet).”

The verse is clearly addressed to two ladies and the context shows that these ladies arc from among the wives of the Holy Prophet (upon whom be peace) for in vv. 1-5 of this Surah the affairs concerning the Holy Prophet’s wives only have been discussed continuously, and this becomes obvious from the style of the Qur’an itself. As for the question who were the wives, and what was the matter which caused Allah’s displeasure, the details are found in the Hadith. In Musnad Ahmad, Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmidhi and Nasa’i, a detailled tradition of ‘Abdullah bin ‘Abbas has been related, which describes the incident with sane variation in wording. Ibn ‘Abbas says:

“I had been thinking a long time to ask ‘Umar as to who were the two of the Holy Prophet’s wives, who had joined each other against him, and about whom Allah sent down this verse: In tatuba…..; but I could not muster courage because of his awe-inspiring personality until he left for Hajj and I accompanied him. On our way back while helping him to perform ablutions for the Prayer at one place I had an opportunity to ask him this question. He replied: they were ‘A’ishah and Hafsah. Then he began to relate the background, saying: “We, the people of Quraish, were used to keeping our women folk under strict control. Then. when we came to Madinah, we found that the people here were under the control of their wives, and the women of Quraish too started learning the same thing from them. One day when I became angry with my wife, I was amazed to see that she argued with me. I felt badly about her conduct. She said, ‘Why should you feel so angry at my behaviour? By God, the wives of the Holy Prophet (upon whom be peace) answer him back face to face,’ (the word in the original is li yuraji nahu) and some one of them remains angrily apart from hire for the whole day. (According to Bukhari: the Holy Prophet remains angry and- apart from her the whole day). Hearing this I came out of my house and went to Hafsah (who was `Umar’s daughter and the Holy Prophet’s wife). I asked her. Do you answer back to the Holy Prophet (upon whom be peace) face to face? She said: Yes. asked: And does one of you remain apart from him for the whole day (According to Bukhari: the Holy Prophet remains angry and apart from her for the entire day). She said: Yes. I said: Wretched is the one from among you, who behaves thus. Has one of you become so fearless of this that AIIah should afflict her with His wrath because of the wrath of His Prophet and she should perish? So, do not be rude to the Prophet (here also the words are: la turaji-’i), nor demand of him anything, but demand of me whatever you desire. Do not be misled by this that your neighbor (i.e. A’ishah) is more beautiful and dearer to the Holy Prophet. After this I left her house and went to the house of Umm Salamah, who was related to me, and talked to her on this subject. She said: Son of Khattab, you are a strange man: you have meddled in every matter until you are now interfering in the affair between Allah’s Messenger and his wives. She discouraged me. Then it so happened that an Ansari neighbor came to my house at night and he called out to me. We used to sit in the Holy Prophet’s assembly by turns and each used to pass on to the other the news of the day of his turn. It was the time when we were apprehending an attack by the Ghassanids any time. On his call when I came out of my house, he said that something of grave significance had happened. 1 said: Have the Ghassanids launched an attack? He said: No, but something even more serious! The Holy Prophet (upon whom be peace) has divorced his wives. I said: Doomed is Hafsah (the words in Bukhari are: Raghima anfu Hafsah wa `Aishah). I already had a premonition of this.”

We have left out what happened after this, how next morning ‘Umar went before the Holy Prophet and tried to appease his anger. We have described this incident by combining the traditions of Musnad Ahmad and Bukhari. In this the word muraj`at which `Umar has used cannot be taken in its literal sense, but the context shows that the word has been used in the sense of answering back face to face and `Umar’s saying to his daughter: La turaji- `I Rasul Allah clearly has the meaning: Do not be impudent to the Messenger of Allah, Some people say that this is a wrong translation, and their objection is: Although it is correct to translate muraja `at as answering hack, or answering hack face to face, yet it is not correct to translate it as “bing impudent” . These objectors do not understand that if a person of a lower rank or position answers back or retorts to a person of a higher rank and position, or answers him back face to face this very thing is described as impudence. For example, if a father rebukes his son for something or feels angry at his behaviour, and the son instead of keeping quiet or offering an excuse, answers back promptly this could only he described as impudence. Then, when the matter is not between a father and a son, but between the Messenger of Allah and an individual of his community, only a foolish person could say that it was not impudence.

Some other people regard this translation of ours as disrespectful, whereas it could be disrespectful in case we had had the boldness to use such words in respect of Hafsah from ourselves. We have only given the correct meaning of the words of . ‘Umar, and these words he had used while scolding and reproving his daughter for her error. Describing it as disrespectful would mean that either the father should treat his daughter with due respect and reverence even when scolding and rebuking her or else the translator should render his rebuke and reproof in a way as to make it sound respectful and reverent.

Here, what needs to be considered carefully is that if it was such an ordinary and trivial matter that when the Holy Prophet said something to his wives they would retort to Him, why was it given so much importance that in the Qur’an AIIah administered a severe warning directly to the wives themselves? And why did ‘Umar take it as such a grave matter that first he reproved his own daughter, then visited the house of the other wives and asked them to fear the wrath of Allah? And, about alI, was the Holy Prophet (upon whom be peace) also so sensitive that he would take offence at minor things and become annoyed with his wives, and was he, God forbid, so irritable that once having been annoyed at such things he had severed his connections with all his wives and retired to his private apartment in seclusion? If a person considers these questions deeply, he will inevitably have to adopt one of the two views in the explanation of these verses Either on account of his excessive concern for reverence for the holy wives he should not at aII mind if a fault is imputed to AIIah and His Messenger, or else he should admit in a straightforward way that at that time the attitude and behaviour of these holy wives has actually become so objectionable that the Holy Prophet (upon whom be peace) was justified in becoming annoyed over it, and more than that, AIIah Himself was justified that He should administer a severe warning to the wives on their unseemly behaviour and attitude.

These verses, particularly in light of Maudoodi’s commentary, are indeed very interesting, for the aqeedah of Ahl’ul Sunnah is that ALL the Sahaba are just and truthful.

وقال عياض زعم المهلب أن رائحة المغافير والعرفط حسنة وهو خلاف ما يقتضيه الحديث وخلاف ما قاله أهل اللغة

“Ayadh said that Muhalab claimed that Maghafeer and Arfat has sweet smell but this conflicts with the contents of the hadith and also opposes what the linguists stated”

Burhanuddin al-Halabi writes in Sirah Halabia, Volume 3 page 404:

في سبب نزول الآية عن عائشة رضي الله عنها قالت كان رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يشرب عسلا عند زينب ابنة جحش ويمكث عندها فتواطأت أنا وحفصة على أيتنا دخل عليها فلتقل له صلى الله عليه وسلم أكلت مغافير أي أجد منك ريح مغافير فدخل على حفصة رضي الله عنها فقالت له ذلك فقال لها لا ولكني كنت أشرب عسلا عند زينب ابنة جحش فلن أعود له وقد حلفت لا تخبري بذلك أحدا أي لأنه صلى الله عليه وسلم لا يحب أن يظهر منه ريح كريهة لأن المغافير صمغ العوسج من شجر الثمام كريه الريح

The incident that caused the descent of this verse is that Ayesha (may Allah be pleased her) said that Allah’s apostle was drinking honey at Zainab bint Jahish’s house, thus she and Hafsa conspired in union that whosoever saw him (Allah’s apostle) first, would covey that he smelt of Maghafeer. He (Allah’s apostle) thereafter went to Hafsa thus she said to him such and such, he replied: “No, but I drank honey at Zainab’s house, and I won’t do that again and I would ask that you disclose this to no one”. That is because he peace be upon him did not like to smell bad, because Maghafeer is the gum of Panicum plant that smells bad.

Attributing a lie to the Prophet carries serious consequences for we read a Hadith in Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 3, Hadith Number 106, Book: Kitab al-Iilm (Knowledge);

The Prophet said, “Do not tell a lie against me for whoever tells a lie against me (intentionally) then he will surely enter the Hell-fire

What is left of the Sunni doctrine that the Sahaba never attribute a lie to the Prophet (s) in light of this verse? Ayesha was caught in the act, and Allah (swt) condemned her on account of her lying conduct, that both destroys the suggest that the Sahaba never attribute a lie to the Prophet (s), and specifically in relation to Ayesha it destroys the moniker the Ahl’ul Sunnah have given her “Siddiqa” (The Truthful one) since her lying conduct during the honey episode, conduct wherein she intentionally lied about the personal hygiene of the Prophet (s) to serve her own purpose, was an act of deceit that incurred the anger of Allah (swt) that led to her being admonished in Surah Tahreem.Will his those Mullahs who deem the Shi’a apostates for their questioning the truthfulness and sincerity of Ayesha offer a verdict here? Did a Rafidhi insert this verse into the Quran? Has it been abrogated? Should it be removed? Should it have been set alight, along with the old Quranic manuscripts Uthman had on his person?

Reply Two – The Sunni view that Ayesha suckled an adult servant is on par with the allegations of fornication leveled against her

We read in Fatah ul-Mun’im Sharh Sahih Muslim Volume 5 page 622 by Shaykh Musa Shahin Lashin as follows:

“Ayesha (ra) opined that adult breast feeding makes an individual mahram, and she practically breast fed a young man, and he would enter upon her, but the remainder mothers of the believers denied it (adult breast feeding) as is cited in the 12th and 13th tradition”

Fatah ul-Mun’im Sharh Sahih Muslim Volume 5 page 622 by Shaykh Musa Shahin Lashin

The comments of this author, Shaykh Shahin Lashin cannot merely be dismissed as the rants of an irrelevant personality. The said author is a man of considerable avoirdupois and ticks the box of recognition in Sunni and Salafi circles for his resume is one wherein he was a hadith teacher in al-Azhar University and Imam Muhammad bin Saud university in Saudi (the main Salafi University) and in Um al-qura university in Saudi Arabia. He eas eafter the vice resident ofAzharUniversity, credentials that evidence the fact that he is a high ranked scholar.

The said author is clearly notifying his readership that Ayesha personally breastfed a Ghulam. Whilst we recognise that Ghulam is an all encompassing term that incorporates ages from an infant, a pubescent individual through to one of majority age we have translated the term here as “young man”. Lest it be argued that our translation is false and that Ayesha merely breast fed an infant, we should point out that this is a commentary of Sahih Muslim, and one can gauge the author’s intention by observing the tradition and chapter upon which he commenting one. The said tradition relates to ‘suckling a grown boy’ that deals with a tradition wherein Salim a grown bearded man was suckled by the Sahla the materfamilias of the household upon the orders of Rasulullah (s) to enable him her to become his Mahram thus facilitating his ability to roam free from non-Mahram restrictions that he was hitherto observing. When the author is offering his views on the said tradition, and has along the same line opined that Ayesha had done likewise, it can correctly be deduced that Ayesha like Sahla suckled an adult servant.

Now Ibn al Hashimi can propagate as much hatred as he likes, by suggesting that the allegations that the Shia level against Ayesha far exceed the allegations of fornication levelled against her, to which our riposte is we are yet to find any Shia suggesting that Ayesha suckled an adult male! On the one hand this Nasibi insists that his adherents should take to the streets against the Shia in the same way Muslims took to the streets when the Danish Prophet cartoons controversy emerged, yet when a scholar from his own camp paints a obscene picture of a male servant juxtaposition in the lap of Ayesha to acquire a Mahram status she doesn’t bat an eyelid! Ibn al Hashimi where has your proud insistence that the Ahl’ul Sunnah are those that rush to the defence of Ayesha gone now? If the Shia via the Quran, Hadith and history deduce that there existed aspects of Ayesha’s conduct that fell below the high standards expected of a wife of the Prophet (s), such as her lying during the honey episode, or her irrational conduct in the matrimonial home, that is objectionable, whilst suggesting that she of her own volition presented her breasts for suckling (naudobillah) is completely fine!

The suggestion seems all the more obscene when one considers the fact that Ayesha never bore children, meaning she never was in a position wherein she was lactating. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary suckling is defined as:

“1

a : to give milk to from the breast or udder <a mother suckling her child> b : to nurture as if by giving milk from the breast <was suckled on pulp magazines>

2

: to draw milk from the breast or udder of <lambs suckling the ewes>”

Suckling to make a recipient a Mahram carries a pre-requisite that milk is ingested into the mouth of the recipient, the transfer of that milk thus creates that Mahram relationship. 

If a woman is not lactating, then no suckling takes place, the entire process is therefore otiose. Now this being the case, what exactly (as alleged by Sunni scholar) was Ayesha seeking to achieve when she was fully aware that she had no milk, and hence could NOT make her Ghulam her Mahram via suckling?

Reply Three – The Sunni view that Ayesha allowed sexually mature single men to sleep in her apartment is not far off the allegations of fornication leveled against her

We read in Sahih Muslim Book 2 Hadith Number 0566:

Alqama and Aswad reported: A person stayed in the house of A’isha and in the morning began to wash his garment. A’isha said: In case you saw it (i. e. drop of semen), it would have served the purpose (of purifying the garment) if you had simply washed that spot; and in case you did not see it, it would have been enough to sprinkle water around it, for when I saw that on the garment of the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him). I simply scraped it off and he offered prayer, while putting that on.

We read in Sahih Muslim Book 2 Hadith Number 0572:

Abdullah b. Shihab al-Khaulani reported: I stayed in the house of ‘A’isha and had a wet dream (and perceived its effect on my garment), so (in the morning) I dipped both (the clothes) in water. This (act of mine) was watched by a maid-servant of A’isha and she informed her. She (Hadrat A’isha) sent me a message: What prompted you to act like this with your clothes? He (the narrator) said: I told that I saw in a dream what a sleeper sees. She said: Did you find (any mark of the fluid) on your clothes? I said: No. She said: Had you found anything you should have washed it. Incase I found that (semen) on the garment of the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) dried up, I scraped it off with my nails. 

We read in Musnad Tayalesi, page 199:

حدثنا يونس قال حدثنا أبو داود قال حدثنا شعبة عن الحكم عن إبراهيم أن همام بن الحارث كان نازلاً على عائشة فاحتلم فأبصرته جارية لعائشة يغسل أثر الجنابة من ثوبه فأخبرت عائشة فأرسلت إليه عائشة لقد رأيتني وما أزيد أن أفركه من ثوب رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم

Ibrahim said that al-Hareth bin Humam stayed in the house of Aysha and had a wet dream so (in the morning) began to wash his garment, this (act of him) was watched by a maid-servant of A’isha and she informed her. She (Hadrat A’isha) sent me a message: I used scraped it off the garment of the Messenger of Allah.

We learn from this tradition that three different men had spent the night in the house of Ayesha on three separate occasions, and whilst there they ejaculated on the garments provided, that caused Ayesha to share her knowledge on how the affected area should be cleaned pursuant to the Sunnah of the Prophet (s), the said individuals are as follows:

1. An unnamed individual that ejaculated on the garments provided, that came to the notice of Ayesha, who personally explained how the affected area could be cleaned.
2. Abdullah b. Shihab al-Khaulani who ejaculated on the garment that led to Ayesha sending a message on cleaning via a maid servant
3. al-Hareth bin Humam who ejaculated on the garment, that led to Ayesha sending a message on cleaning via a maid servant

When a woman becomes a widow she will seek to try her utmost to live her life in a manner that does not cause questions about her conduct. She will seek to keep aloof from members of the opposite sex, lest such contact leads to tongues wagging. A widow may for have (during her husband’s lifetime) been introduced to his friends, they may have attended their home on frequent occasions, BUT once the husband dies that type of contact comes to an end, to protect her honour and decency she would never allow such individuals to frequent her home again in an individual capacity, since that merely invites people to raise questions about her decency. No decent self-respecting individual would wish to risk such a scandal about her, yet we find that Ayesha the widow of the Prophet (s) as per these narrations allowed single men to spend the night at her home, who all coincidentally experienced wet dreams whilst residing therein, that caused her to intervene and clarify how such a mess should be cleaned up. There is a term in English “once bitten, twice shy” meaning that once someone has had a bad experience they will be more risk averse thereafter, and shall seek to avoid a repetition of the previous unfortunate event. 

We would like some clarity over precisely where these men would have slept, since the apartment wherein Ayesha resided was not a particularly large one, on the contrary conditions were so tight, that as per her very own testimony in Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 8, Number 379, Rasulullah (s) would pray in touching distance of her whilst she slept, so much so she would have to push her legs away to enable him (s) to prostrate, there would be no reason to offer salat in such a tight confined space if a less congested space was available elsewhere.

Now if Ayesha’s allowing a non mahram to sleep in her apartment on the first occasion was not bad enough the fact that the male ejaculated whilst residing therein, was an unfortunate episode that was bound to invite discussions from amongst the people. Any cautious person would have sought to ensure that such an unfortunate episode would not happen again, and would have sought to eliminate the risk by prohibiting men to sleep at her apartment in the future, but alas she did not as per the reports a further two men slept at her apartment, and they likewise ejaculated on the bed sheets provided.

We wish to make it clear that we are NOT in any way suggesting that there was any physical contact between Ayesha and the said individuals, what we are critical of is her judgment / decision making if these narrations are to be believed. Having already been falsely accused of sexual relations during the lifetime of Rasulullah (s) would she not become more risk averse and steer clear of anything that might lead to questions over her chastity? Did she not consider that allowing sexually mature single men to spend the night at her home might raise questions about her character? We appeal to justice what sort of perception did this leave in the eyes of outsiders? What would people think about a widow of Rasulullah (s) allowing her home to be used as a male hostel? If was not bad enough that they were observing men sleeping in the apartment, what would people assume when all three returned in a ritually impure state?

Would these shameless Nawasib Mullah’s not have an issue if their madrassa students were to spend the night in their marital home wherein their surviving wife resided after they died? We are sure that no Mullah would entertain such a notion, yet here the Sunni scholars have suggested just that, they have suggested that Ayesha allowed single men to spend the night in her house. Is it not objectionable that males were spending the night in the house of the widow of Rasulullah (s) and whilst they ejaculated on sleeping garments? Verily by recording such narratives in their books they have slandered Ayesha, by presenting her as a carefree individual who had no issue about adult males spending the night in her apartment.