The Testimony of Ayesha - Incident of IKF

Does the testimony of Ayesha suggest that the Prophet (s) and his loyal Sahaba were convinced of her innocence?

Ibn al Hashimi insists that the culpability of Ayesha was a reality that no Sahabi entertained, Ayesha’s testimony becomes all the more interesting when we see of what Imam Ali (as) had proposed. Imam Ali (as) set out the option available but also testified that Ayesha was innocent and suggested that the maid servant be interviewed to affirm this fact. Now let us see the conduct of the Sahaba in this regards. Before doing so let us point out a clear discrepancy in Ayesha’s testimony. In Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 281 Ayesha states ‘Allah’s Apostle had come to my house and asked my maid-servant about me (my character)’ whilst in Volume 5, Book 59, Number 462 after seeking the counsel of Usamah and Ali (as) he summons for the maid servant, that would not have been necessary if he was situate inside the home of Ayesha. Which of these narrations is correct and why the discrepancy? If Ibn al Hashimi insists that they are both the same then the quizzing of the maid-servant in Volume 6, Book 60, Number 281 indicates that the Prophet (s) was alone, whilst her testimony in Sahih Bukhari Volume 5 Book 59, Number 462 suggests that the Prophet (s) conducted a public inquisition of the her maid servant.

At this juncture it is important to address two comments:

Ibn al Hashimi insists:

The Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) was a person with a lot of Gheerah (protective jealousy) which, according to the Sunnah, is considered a good quality in Muslim men.

If anything Ayesha’s testimony in the traditions under discussion, allege that Rasulullah (s) was devoid og Gheerah for his wife, not brimming with it. Why (as per this tradition) would the Prophet (s) who has so much Gheerah for his family be conducting a public inquiry to ascertain the innocence of his wife? Would the normal person not seek to take the maid servant to the side and seek clarity? Was this approach not demeaning the Prophet (s) and Ayesha? There is a concept in English ‘Do not wash your dirty clothes in public’ was the Prophet (s) not doing just that by turning an inquiry into the conduct of his wife a public spectacle? The argument advanced by Ibn al Hashimi does not in any way concur with what the tradition informs us.

Ibn al Hashimi states:

Naturally, the believers were certain that nothing bad had happened, but the Munafiqoon (hypocrites) thought otherwise and were not afraid to insinuate that was the case, accusing the Prophet’s wife of engaging in an adulterous affair.

Let us see the certainty of the Sahaba from Sahih Bukhari Volume 5 Book 59, Number 462:

The maid-servant said, “By Allah, I do not know of any defect in her character except that she sleeps and let the sheep enter (her house) and eat her dough.” On that, some of the Prophet’s companions spoke harshly to her and said, “Tell the truth to Allah’s Apostle.”

Just consider the impromptu response, wherein they are openly expressing their doubts about Ayesha’s character in the presence of Rasulullah (s) by suggesting the maid-servant is lying “Tell the truth to Allah’s Apostle.” – is such an outburst that both embarrasses Rasulullah (s) and casts aspersions on the character of Ayesha acceptable? If only Ayesha had publicly named these shameless Sahaba that were publicly seeking to mar her good name, in a manner timed to embarrass Rasulullah (s)! Clearly Ayesha must have known who these Sahaba were, we are informed that Rasulullah quizzed the maid-servant inside the home of Ayesha, and this occurred after the verse of veiling, that suggests those inside the house at the time must have been the close relatives of Ayesha, so who were these shameless Sahaba? Did these Sahaba have faith in the innocence of Ayesha? If so, why were they cajoling the maid servant in this manner? If hypocrites were casting aspersions on Ayesha, can we assume that these Sahaba were also hypocrites?

One fact that Ibn al Hashimi and his ilk are reluctant to mention is what happens next. The correct order is as follows, Rasulullah (s):

• sought the counsel of Usamah and Ali (as) over how to proceed on the matter
• then questioned the maid servant who attested to her innocence
• then endorsed the innocence of Ayesha at the mosque pulpit that was interrupted by the atrocious conduct of the Khazraj and Aus.

Having complete confidence in the innocence of Ayesha he then attends her home and says as follows: ‘Amma Badu,

 O Aisha! I have been informed so-and-so about you; if you are innocent, then soon Allah will reveal your innocence, and if you have committed a sin, then repent to Allah and ask Him for forgiveness for when a slave confesses his sins and asks Allah for forgiveness, Allah accepts his repentance.’

Now Ibn al Hashimi please answer these points:

• Having sought the counsel of Usamah, Ali (as) and Barira that confirmed her innocence, and his public declaration of support on the pulpit that led to serious disorder between those in attendance, he (s) now knew that his wife was innocent. This being the case why did he then approach and say ‘Ayesha! I have been informed so-and-so about you; if you are innocent, then soon Allah will reveal your innocence, and if you have committed a sin, then repent to Allah and ask Him for forgiveness for when a slave confesses his sins and asks Allah for forgiveness, Allah accepts his repentance.’? Did he not accept the testimony of the just Sahaba? If he did then that explains his pulpit speech, so why did he then still have a niggling doubt in his mind? What can we say of this portrayal of Rasulullah, one wherein he publicly unequivocally supports his wife, but then expresses doubts when he sees her personally? Is this no different to the spouses of modern day politicians who publicly support their partners in the face of allegations over their infidelity, but privately entertain such allegations as quite plausible? This is called hypocrisy and lying, was Ayesha suggesting that the Prophet (s) was behaving in a similar manner?
• When the Prophet (s) updated Ayesha she turned to her parents asking that they reply, they offered no response, why not?

Ayesha’s narrative then continues as follows:

“…When Allah’s Apostle finished his speech, my tears ceased flowing completely that I no longer felt a single drop of tear flowing. I said to my father, ‘Reply to Allah’s Apostle on my behalf concerning what he has said.’ My father said, ‘By Allah, I do not know what to say to Allah’s Apostle .’ Then I said to my mother, ‘Reply to Allah’s Apostle on my behalf concerning what he has said.’ She said, ‘By Allah, I do not know what to say to Allah’s Apostle”.

What sort of parents are these that don’t rush to protect their daughters innocence, Umm Ruman does not even say a single word, why not? We know of no parents that will sit quietly when such shameless accusations have been levelled against their daughter.

Why did Ayesha censor the name of her munafiqoon accusers?

Turning to the munifaqoon, verily we are in no doubt that those shameless individuals that slandered Ayesha were hypocrites of the highest order. What we find curious is why so little has been cascaded to us about them. There existed an entire group that slandered Ayesha during the event of Ifk, yet Ayesha only informs us of Safwan bin Al-Mu’attil As-Sulami Adh-Dhakw and ‘Abdullah bin Ubai, why is that?

Ayesha attests that “None was mentioned as members of the slanderous group besides (‘Abdullah) except Hassan bin Thabit and Mistah bin Uthatha and Hamna bint Jahsh along with others about whom I have no knowledge, but they were a group as Allah said “There is no doubt that those that propagated the lie were the Kuffar that had infiltrated the Muslim ranks” i.e. they were hypocrites, and it was not just a handful of persons rather an entire group. There certainly must have been someone that knew the identity of these entire group members? Is it not likely that Ayesha would have sought to discover the names of all those responsible? Once she had done so why did she choose to just cite a few offenders and not provide a comprehensive list of those that were clear enemies of the Deen?

Ayesha should have cascaded these names to the Muslims of that time after all if they were so dangerous during the life of Rasulullah (s) could they not have caused even greater damage after he left the earth? Why did she choose to remain silent?

Crucially, where did these hypocrites go after the death of the Prophet (s)? Did they vanish into thin air, or did they have any connection with the era of the rightly guided khalifas?