Refuting the Defenses Submitted by Ayesha’s Advocates in Relation to her Opposition to Caliph Ali (as)

Refuting the Defenses Submitted by Ayesha’s Advocates in Relation to her Opposition to Caliph Ali (as)

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

• Defense One – Ayesha was acting as an arbiter demanding Qisas for Uthman?
• Defense Two – Ayesha was seeking to reform the Ummah
• Defense Three – Ayesha was seeking to prevent bloodshed and open rebellion
• Defense Four – Ayesha was legally entitled to act in the manner that she did
• Defense Five – Ayesha wanted to achieve peace and reconciliation between the two groups, and prevent rebellion against Caliph Ali (as)
• Defense Six – Ayesha was seeking to embarrass people into not fighting
• Defense Seven – Ayesha was seeking to use her influence to end the conflict
• Defense Eight – Ayesha should be exempt of all wrong doing as she correctly exercised Ijtihad

Defense One – Ayesha was acting as an arbiter demanding Qisas for Uthman?

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reply Three – Only the Imam can only implement Qisas

Abu Sulaiman claimed that:

Ansar.org states:

“Aysha did not hate Ali but she argued with him about the blood of Uthman”.

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

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

Zameer Sayyid Sharred in Sharh Mawafiq, page 530 comments:

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

In Sharh al Maqasid page 251 we read:

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

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

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, Volume 1 page 224:

إن الإمام يملك أمورا لا تملكها الرعية وهي إقامة الحدود

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

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

إقامة الحدود واجبة على الإمام

“Implementing punishments is the duty of the Imam’

Reply Four – Ayesha’s incitement against Uthman refutes the defence of Qisas

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