Refuting the Objections of Ayesha’s Advocates in Connection with her Role at Jamal - 4

Refuting the Objections of Ayesha’s Advocates in Connection with her Role at Jamal - 4

Fourth Objection – Why do the Shia judge Ayesha differently from the way they judge Sayyida Fatima (as)?

Ibn al Hashimi states:

Furthermore, if we switch Ali’s name with Abu Bakr and Aisha’s name with Fatima, then suddenly the Shia would use the fact that Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) fought Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه), and they would use this not as evidence against Fatima (رضّى الله عنها), but rather as evidence against Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه)! We see this glaring double-standard when we examine the Shia stance on the issue of Fadak. When it comes to Fadak, then Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) is in the right despite the fact that, according to the Shia, she is cursing the Amir Al Mumineen and Caliph. Here, the Shia will say that Abu Bakr’s position (رضّى الله عنه) as Amir Al Mumineen and Caliph cannot possibly compete with Fatima’s position as Chief of the Women of Paradise. When it comes to the Battle of the Camel, then Aisha’s position (رضّى الله عنها) as Mother of the Believers is disregarded and suddenly the Shia scholars will trumpet the line that Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) went against her own Caliph and the Amir Al Mumineen!

Reply One – Sayyida Fatima (as) was entitled to Fadak as her legal right, not due to her status in the eyes of Allah (swt)

The Shia case on Fadak is not based on her being right on account of her position as the Leader of the Women of Paradise but was because her claim was legitimate in accordance with the Quran, Sharia, the Sunnah of past Prophets and the instruction of Prophet Muhammad (s).

Compare this to Ayesha who had no legal basis to justify her conduct, on the contrary her activities were a breach of the Quran, Sunnah and specific Hadith wherein the Prophet forewarned dire predictions about the barking of Hawab’s dogs and the consequences for those that fight Maula Ali (as).

Reply Two – If anyone has employed double standards it is Ibn al Hashimi

In his critique of Sayyida Zahra (as) Ibn al Hashimi insisted that she was duty bound to obey the decision of Abu Bakr on account of his rank as the head of state:

Ibn al Hashimi states:

Furthermore, Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) was the Caliph of the Ummah; this is the highest rank possible, and all the subjects must obey him. As such, he deserved the respect and obedience of his subjects, of which includes Fatima (رضّى الله عنها). As such, if the Shia want to argue that Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) should have been careful about angering Fatima (رضّى الله عنها), an unbiased observer could easily argue that it was Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) who should have been careful of angering the Caliph of the Muslims who by the Shariah was at a rank higher in status than anyone else.

We appeal to justice, if Sayyida Fatima (as) was duty bound to obey the decision of Abu Bakr because he was the ‘Caliph of the Ummah’, why does the same not hold true for Ayesha? To paraphrase Ibn al Hashimi:

“Ali (as) was the Caliph of the Ummah; this is the highest rank possible, and all the subjects must obey him. As such, he deserved the respect and obedience of his subjects, of which includes Ayesha”

Why doesn’t Ibn al Hashimi apply the same doctrine to criticize Ayesha’s conduct against Ali (as) at Jamal? Why is she exempt from obeying Caliph Ali (as) whilst Fatima (as) was not? Was Ayesha not duty bound to obey the Caliph Ali (as) and respect his decision to defer punishment to a later date? What Quranic verse or Hadeeth entitled Ayesha to behave in the manner that she did? Ibn al Hashimi’s failure to apply the same principle to Ayesha that he happily applied to criticize Fatima (as) exposes him for the hypocrite he is.