Shia Sources have Referred to Ayesha as the Imam al-Kufr

-:Objection Three:- 

Shia Sources have Referred to Ayesha as the Imam al-Kufr

Ibn al Hashimi states:

In fact, the very same Shia Tafseer on Al-Islam.org declares that Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) is not only a Kaffir but rather she is the very leader of the Kufaar [Imam al-Kufr]. Al-Islam.org quotes the Shia Tafseer for verse 9:12 as:

Al-Islam.org says

“According to the Holy Prophet, a-immatal kufr (leaders of infidelity) are also those who opposed and fought against the divinely commissioned Imams of the Ahl ul Bayt…Ali ibn abi Talib had recited this verse at the battle of Jamal and quoted the above noted prophecy of the Holy Prophet.

[Pooya/M.A. Ali 9:12]

source: http://www.al-islam.org/quran/ ”

In Tafseer Al-Qumi (which is perhaps the most classical of Shia Tafseer), it is said that it is the people whom Ali (رضّى الله عنه) fought in the Battle of Jamal including Aisha (رضّى الله عنها), Talha (رضّى الله عنه), and Zubair (رضّى الله عنه) who are being referred to in this Verse as the “Leaders of Kufr.” This view is also the position of Kashani in his Tafseer Al-Safi, and in other Shia interpretations. The Majma ul Bayan Tafseer also includes Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) as one of the “Aimmatul Kufr” (Imams of Kufr) along with the Quraish polythiests, the Persian Magians, and the Byzantine Christians

Reply One – One can assess the position of Ayesha fighting Ali (as) by assessing her conduct against the Hadith of the Prophet (s)

The tragedy lies in the fact Ibn al Hashimi refuses to apply Hadith of the Prophet (s) to assess the conduct of others. The harsh reality is the conduct of Ayesha and her war mongering cohorts was that which violated the Quran and a plethora of Hadith setting out the consequences for those that fight Maula Ali (as). We have cited the relevant traditions at length in an earlier chapter. Ayesha did not accept the Imam of her time (Ali), she fought him, and the traditions against her are clear, that fighting against Ali (as) as on par with fighting against Rasulullah, how should we then adjudge those whose conduct constitutes fighting Rasulullah (s)?

These traditions leave us with no doubt about how Ayesha should be judged.

Moreover we would like to remind our readers that it was Prophet (s) himself who referred to the Ayesha & Co as infidels fighting agasint Ali (as), as we read in We read in Al-Mustadrak:

Kaythama ibn Abdurahman said: ‘We were with Hudayfah (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.’ 

Al-Mustadrak, Volume 7 page 44 Tradition 8453

The Arabic word used herein is:

أعلاجها

And we read the definition of this word in Lisan al-Arab, Volume 2 page 326:

ويقال للرجل القويّ الضخم من الكفار عِلْج

“The strong and huge man of the infidels is called Elj”

Reply Two – Ayesha failed to recognise the Imam of her time

We read in Sharh Fiqh Akbar, by Mulla Ali Qari, p 175 (publishers Muhammad Saeed and son, Qur’an Muhall, Karachi) we read:

“…there is a hadith in Sahih Muslim, narrated by Abdullah ibne Umar ‘He who dies without recognising giving bayah and following his Imam dies the death of one belonging to the days of jahiliyya’. This is why the Sahaba viewed the appointment of the Imam as so important that they preferred it to attending the Prophet’s funeral, because the Muslims need an Imam so that orders can be made on Jihad, and so that Islamic Laws can be implemented”

Ibn Abu Asim in his book ‘al-Sunnah’ page 489 records this hadith:

من مات وليس عليه إمام مات ميتة جاهلية

“Whoever dies without having an Imam dies the death of Jahiliyyah”.

Imam Albaani al-Salafi in his commentary on the hadith, writes:

إسناده حسن ورجاله ثقات

“Its chain is Hasan and all of its narrators are Thiqah’.

Imam Muslim has recorded this one in his Sahih, Kitab al-Imarah:

من مات وليس في عنقه بيعة مات ميته جاهلية

“Whoever dies without having on his neck bayah (to an Imam) dies the death of Jahiliyyah.”

Lastly, Imam Ibn Hibban has recorded in his Sahih, Volume 7 page 49:

من مات بغير إمام مات ميتة جاهلية

“Whoever dies without an Imam dies the death of Jahiliyyah”

Imam Ali (as) WAS the Imam of the time, his obedience was unconditional, it was incumbent on Ayesha to recognise his Leadership and follow him in all his decisions. Rather than do this, she chose to oppose him, instigate rebellion against him and a war that lead to the deaths of thousands of her supporters, as a result these individuals died the death of jahilyya because they failed to recognise the Imam of their time. Not only did Ayesha fail to do so she led others in to misguidance, they fell in to error on account of her position.

Reply Three – One who opposes Ahl’ul bayt (as) is from the Party of Shaytan

“The stars protect the inhabitants of earth against drowning, and my Ahl alBayt protect my nation against dissension. If a tribe among the Arabs differs from them, they will all then differ and become the party of Satan.”

al-Hakim on page 149, Vol. 3, of Al-Mustadrak from Ibn `Abbas. Al-Hakim adds: 

“This is an authentic hadith though they (both Shaykhs, i.e. Bukhari and Muslim) did not include it (in their own books).”

Ayesha’s duty after Rasulullah (s) was to attach herself to the Ahl’ul bayt (as) not to openly dissent against them and mount armed rebellion against Imam ‘Ali (as). Rasulullah (s) had declared that Ali was with the truth, and Ayesha’s duty was to obey Imam ‘Ali (as) not to oppose him. Allah (swt) had also made love of the Ahl’ul bayt (as) a duty in the Qur’an but rather than attach herself to the Ahl’ul bayt (as) and love them, Ayesha bore resentment towards them, fought Imam ‘Ali (as) and rejoiced at his martyrdom.

Had Ayesha remained in her station as Ummul Momineen living a life of piety within the confines of her home, she would have indeed attained the esteemed respect that the wives of Rasulullah (s) deserve. Unfortunately her envy and greed caused her to mount a mass rebellion against the Imam of the time ‘Ali ibne abi Talib (as). By acting in the way that she did, she in effect set a precedent that it was perfectly legitimate to rebel against the rightful Imam to get your demands met. This in effect gave the green light to Mu’awiya and his clan to act in the same way towards Imam ‘Ali (as) – for they saw a wife of the Prophet leading armed rebellion against the rightful Imam of the time.

Shia Sources Allege that Ayesha and Hafsa Poisoned the Prophet (s)

-:Objection Five:-Shia Sources Allege that Ayesha and Hafsa Poisoned the Prophet (s)

Ibn al Hashimi states:

There are even Shia scholars who argue that Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) and Hafsa (رضّى الله عنها) attempted to murder the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) himself: “Aisha and Hafsa poisoned the Prophet.” (Jila-ul-Ayoun, Page No. 118) This is voiced by one of the Shia Maraje, namely Mullah Baqir Majlisi: “Aisha and Hafsa tried to martyr Rasulullaah by giving him poison.” (Vol. 2, Hayat-ul-quloob, page #870, Mullah Baqir Majlisi) And again: “…those two female munafiqs (referring to Aisha and Hafsa) agreed to martyr Rasulullah by administering poison to him.” (Hayatul Quloob, page 745, Vol 2, Mullah Baqir Majlisi) Some of the more liberal Shia will deny that Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) poisoned the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم), but they will not deem it blasphemous to argue this point; in fact, we noticed an entire thread about this topic on Shia-Chat, where poster after poster was arguing that Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) had attempted to poison the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم).

Reply – Muhammad Ismail Bukhari has cited the death of the Prophet (s) in a manner that casts aspersions on Ayesha

First and foremost if one picks up Hayat al Qulob the first notable thing is the entire book is a collection of materials Majlisi found, none of which have any chain of narration as such we have no means of analyzing the chain to look at the accuracy of such a narration.

Rather than attack the Shia on this issue it really would have been far better for this Nasabi to look closer to home, and in particular see how his most esteemed Hadith scholar recorded the final events of the life of the Prophet (s).

Sahih Bukhari Volume 2, Book 23, Number 471:

Narrated ‘Aisha:

During his sickness, Allah’s Apostle was asking repeatedly, “Where am I today? Where will I be tomorrow?” And I was waiting for the day of my turn (impatiently). Then, when my turn came, Allah took his soul away (in my lap) between my chest and arms and he was buried in my house.

Narrated ‘Aisha:

The Prophet in his ailment in which he died, used to say, “O ‘Aisha! I still feel the pain caused by the food I ate at Khaibar, and at this time, I feel as if my aorta is being cut from that poison.”

We read in Sahih Bukhari Volume 9, Book 83, Number 25:

Narrated ‘Aisha:

We poured medicine into the mouth of the Prophet during his ailment. He said, “Don’t pour medicine into my mouth.” (We thought he said that) out of the aversion a patient usually has for medicines. When he improved and felt better he said, “There is none of you but will be forced to drink medicine, except Al-’Abbas, for he did not witness your deed.”

In some of the traditions Rasulullah (s) explains that the poison administered by the Jewess at Khaiber had now affected him deeply. In another we are told how he was forced to drink medicine that he resented, despite his protestations those present continued administering it. This act incurs the wrath of the Prophet (s) and he insists that all those present drink what he had been given, save Abbas.

Now our questions are as follows:

• How did the poison administered in Khaibar have its effect on the Prophet (s) 4 years later?
• According to Ayesha up until then the Prophet (s) had never complained of any ill effects, so did he remember the poisoning at Khaibar four years later?
• It took effect after four years, when it effected the liver, which part of the body was it lying dormant in up until then?
• Why is Ayesha the only person that has mentioned the poisoning from Khaibar?
• When the medicine was being administered which individuals were in the room?
• Where were the other wives?
• When the Prophet (s) ordered all those in the room to likewise take the medicine was this order implemented or not?
• If it was not implemented, why not?
• If it was implemented where is the textual evidence?
• Where were the fathers of Ayesha and Hafsa at this traumatic time?

Whilst the Prophet (s) being forced to take medicine appears elsewhere in Bukhari, it is interesting to note where he places it in this instance, in the Book of Diyat (Blood Money) , from the chapter:

باب القصاص بين الرجال والنساء في الجراحات

Dr Muhsin Khan has translated this as “al Qisas (law of equality in punishment) in cases of injury among men and women” .

Could Ibn al Hashimi kindly expand on:

 - What injuries are being inflicted on the Prophet (s) that caused Imam Bukhari to place this event in a chapter citing the punishment for a mixed gender group that harm somebody? 

 - What is the nexus between administering medicine and causing injury to a person? 

 - From whom was Qisas being sought?

• Is Imam Bukhari suggesting that a crime was perpetuated against Rasulullah (s) on his deathbed?
• Why is the issue of punishment being discussed here?
• Was Rasuluillah (s) injured through this administering of medication?

If this type of Hadith were to be found under this sub heading in any Shia book the Nawasib would take to the streets to insist that the Shia be ex-communicated for this belief alone. We would invite our open minded readers to ask whether the same approach should not be adopted here. Is it not shameful that Imam Bukhari has cast aspersions on Ayesha by placing her act of forcing the Prophet (s) to take medicine in a chapter dedicated to the punishment for those that injure another?

The Shia accuse Ayesha of being a Jealous and Vengeful Woman

Objection Two – The Shia Accuse Ayesha of being a Jealous and Vengeful Woman

Ibn al Hashimi states:

The Shia accusations against Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) range from the absurd [i.e. that she gave poison to the Prophet] to the outright childish; for example, Al-Islam.org dedicates so much of its webspace to discuss how Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) was an imprudent, rude, and “jealous woman.” Stories will then be cited about how Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) was so jealous and vengeful towards her co-wives and step-child Ibrahim (رضّى الله عنه); the way the Shia describe her makes her sound diabolical, more like the wicked stepmother in the Disney movie “Cinderella” than a real life person. In fact, the Shia will never even name their daughter “Aisha” because to them this name is a cursed and wretched name; this shows the depth of their hatred for Aisha (رضّى الله عنها). The Shia scholars will belittle Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) by saying that she was barren and infertile, citing this as a reason that Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) hated her co-wives and was jealous of Fatima (رضّى الله عنها).

Reply One – Ayesha testified to her jealousy of Khadija (as)

Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 58, Number 164:

Narrated

‘Aisha: I did not feel jealous of any of the wives of the Prophet as much as I did of Khadija (although) she died before he married me, for I often heard him mentioning her, and Allah had told him to give her the good tidings that she would have a palace of Qasab (i.e. pipes of precious stones and pearls in Paradise), and whenever he slaughtered a sheep, he would send her women-friends a good share of it.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 58, Number 166:

Narrated ‘Aisha:

I did not feel jealous of any of the wives of the Prophet as much as I did of Khadija though I did not see her, but the Prophet used to mention her very often, and when ever he slaughtered a sheep, he would cut its parts and send them to the women friends of Khadija. When I sometimes said to him, “(You treat Khadija in such a way) as if there is no woman on earth except Khadija,” he would say, “Khadija was such-and-such, and from her I had children.”

Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 58, Number 168:

Narrated ‘Aisha: Once Hala bint Khuwailid, Khadija’s sister, asked the permission of the Prophet to enter. On that, the Prophet remembered the way Khadija used to ask permission, and that upset him. He said, “O Allah! Hala!” So I became jealous and said, “What makes you remember an old woman amongst the old women of Quraish an old woman (with a teethless mouth) of red gums who died long ago, and in whose place Allah has given you somebody better than her?”

Note how Ayesha’s testimony stops abruptly. We learn nothing of the response that the Prophet (s) gave to her self-appraisal. Had he affirmed her claim she would have definitely cited it, but see no such thing. Is it plausible that the Prophet (s) would have just left the matter like that, without any response to her claim? Certainly not, we can see from other traditions how the Prophet would provide a riposte when Ayesha would seek to stifle talk of her, so why would he remain silent to a baseless comment of self appraisal that was preceded by a disparaging slur about her age? The same Prophet (s) that had defended Khadija on other occasions from the tongue of Ayesha would have certainly done the same, particularly when we know that Ayesha’s claim of superiority cannot be corroborated. To this we have the Hadith of Rasulullah (s) himself who stated:

“The most excellent of the women of all worlds are: Mary the daughter of Imran, Khadija the daughter of Khuwaylid, Fatimah the daughter of Muhammad, and Asiya the wife of Pharaoh”

Musnad Ahmed bin Hanbal, Volume 3 page 135 Hadith 12414

It does not therefore require much level of intellect to gauge what the response of Rasulullah (s) would have been.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 9, Book 93, Number 576:

Narrated ‘Aisha:

I never felt so jealous of any woman as I felt of Khadija, for Allah ordered him (the Prophet ) to give Khadija the glad tidings of a palace in Paradise (for her).

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 73, Number 33:

Narrated ‘Aisha:

I never felt so jealous of any woman as I did of Khadija, though she had died three years before the Prophet married me, and that was because I heard him mentioning her too often, and because his Lord had ordered him to give her the glad tidings that she would have a palace in Paradise, made of Qasab and because he used to slaughter a sheep and distribute its meat among her friends.

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 165:

Narrated ‘Aisha:

I did not feel jealous of any woman as much as I did of Khadija because Allah’s Apostle used to mention her very often. He married me after three years of her death, and his Lord (or Gabriel) ordered him to give her the good news of having a palace of Qasab in Paradise.

• So in summary we learn from these traditions that according to Ayesha:
• the Prophet married her three years after Khadija (as) died
• she had never been more jealous of any other woman that Khadija (as)
• she would become irritated when the Prophet (s) would talk excessively about Khadija (as)
• she would convey her objections to the Prophet (s) on this
• the Prophet (s) pointed out that the continuation of his lineage was attained through her
• the Prophet (s) would remember Khadija by sacrificing a goat and distributing the meat to her friends

What was the source of this jealousy? Ayesha clarifies several reasons from her own mouth, it was jealously because she could not tolerate the fact that the Prophet (s):

• constantly talked about her
• praised her
• cited the fact that his lineage continued through her whilst she remained barren
• foretold that there existed a Palace in Heaven for her
• would remember her by slaughtering sheep in her name and distributing the meat to her friends
• never married again whilst Khadija (as) was by his side but after Ayesha he married a further eight times

The crucial thing that one cannot deny is jealously is

• a trait that is associated with hatred
• animosity towards another
• a desire to have that which another has

The testimony of Ayesha is clear the Prophet (s) never forgot Khadija (as) for his entire life, and whenever he sacrificed a sheep he would do so in her memory, that evidences that discussing her merits counts as a major Sunnah of the Prophet (s). Khadija (as) was beyond a doubt the most superior wife of the Prophet (s) something that the Prophet made clear through his Hadith and in particular sought to impress upon Ayesha. Why then does a Sect that calls itself Ahl’ul Sunnah al Jamaah make very little reference to this superior wife in their books and lectures? Why is Ayesha given a greater station by their Mullahs? Why is her example as that which women should aspire to cited, but no reference made to a woman that the Prophet (s) praised for her contribution towards the deen? Why are their speeches devoid of reference to this superior wife?

Reply Two – Ayesha’s happiness at the death of Sayyida Fatima (as)

We read in Sharh Nahj ul Balagha by Ibn Abi al Hadeed page 439 Chapter 2:

“When the Prophets daughter died all the wives except Ayesha came to console Banu Hashim and she said that she was unwell and the message which she sent to Ali (as) clearly depicts her joy at this sad occasion”.

Reply Three – Ayesha’s happiness at the death of Ibrahim ibne Rasululullah (s)

In Sharh Nahj ul Balagha by Ibn Hadeed page 238 Volume 2 we learn that:

“When Ibrahim died Ayesha was happy inside, although she displayed sadness outside, Fatima and ‘Ali were very saddened by his death”.

Reply Four – Ayesha’s jealousy towards Ummul Momineen Safiyya

Ayesha said: “Safiyya, the wife of the Prophet (a), sent a dish she had made for him when he was with me. When I saw the maidservant, I trembled with rage and fury, and I took the bowl and hurled it away. The Prophet of Allah (a) then looked at me; I saw the anger in his face and I said to him: ‘I seek refuge from Allah’s Apostle cursing me today.’ The Prophet said: ‘Undo it’. I said: ‘What is its compensation, O Prophet of Allah?’ He said: ‘The food like her food, and a bowl like her bowl.’” 

1. Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, Volume 6 page 227 Tradition 26409

2. Sunan Nasai, Volume 2 page 148

3. Majma al-Zawaed, Volume 4 page 372 Tradition 7692

The reviser of Musnad Ahmed namely Shaykh Shoib al-Arnaut declared the tradition to be ‘Hasan’ while Al-Haythami said: ‘The narrators are Thiqah’.

Reply Five – Ayesha’s jealousy led to her attempting to commit suicide

We read in Sahih Bukhari Book of Nikah Volume 7, Book 62, Number 138:

Narrated al-Qasim:

Aisha said that whenever the Prophet intended to go on a journey, he drew lots among his wives (so as to take one of them along with him). During one of his journeys the lot fell on ‘Aisha and Hafsa. When night fell the Prophet would ride beside ‘Aisha and talk with her. One night Hafsa said to ‘Aisha, “Won’t you ride my camel tonight and I ride yours, so that you may see (me) and I see (you) (in new situation)?” ‘Aisha said, “Yes, (I agree.)” So ‘Aisha rode, and then the Prophet came towards ‘Aisha’s camel on which Hafsa was riding. He greeted Hafsa and then proceeded (beside her) till they dismounted (on the way). ‘Aisha missed him, and so, when they dismounted, she put her legs in the Idhkhir and said, “O Lord (Allah)! Send a scorpion or a snake to bite me for I am not to blame him (the Prophet).

Let us ask some questions:

• We have previously cited the event of Ifk, from Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 274 wherein she states:Whenever Allah’s Apostle intended to go on a journey, he used to draw lots among his wives and would take with him the one on whom the lot had fallen.But here she tells uswhenever the Prophet intended to go on a journey, he drew lots among his wives (so as to take one of them along with him). During one of his journeys the lot fell on ‘Aisha and Hafsa.Why did Rasulullah (s) depart from this practice and take two wives with him on this occasion?
• When he (s) took both with him, why did he greet one wife and completely ignore the other one, is this not against the justice of the Prophet (s)?
• If he wanted to focus his attention on one wife alone, why did he take the other one with him (s)?
• When both wives’ agreed to swap camels of their own accord why did Ayesha get so angry and jealous?
• When the Prophet (s) noticed that the wife riding the camel was Hafsa and not Ayesha why did she get so surprised?
• Was Ayesha’s supplication that she die an Islamic one?
• If it was can any example be given to evidence such legitimacy?
• If it was not why the focus on her supplication?
• Was her attempt to get bitten by a snake or scorpion not evidence that she was seeking to commit suicide?
• If it was an attempted suicide, is it legitimate for a jealous wife that has been ignored by the Prophet (s) to take her own life?
• If it is not legitimate, why did she try and take her life?
• If it was not legitimate, should we therefore conclude that Ayesha’a act was wrong?
• If it was wrong did she repent in any way?
• If she did not, why not?

When Ayesha is herself testifying to the fact that her jealousy would cause her to ignore the Shariah, should we not cite this fact to all Muslims, as a warning of the consequences of jealousy? This could help women, and indeed those contemplating entry into a polygamous marriage.

Reply Six – Ayesha’s jealousy towards the women of the Ummah led to her committing blasphemy

We read in Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 311:

Narrated Aisha:

I used to look down upon those ladies who had given themselves to Allah’s Apostle and I used to say, “Can a lady give herself (to a man)?” But when Allah revealed: “You (O Muhammad) can postpone (the turn of) whom you will of them (your wives), and you may receive any of them whom you will; and there is no blame on you if you invite one whose turn you have set aside (temporarily).’ (33.51) I said (to the Prophet), “I feel that your Lord hastens in fulfilling your wishes and desires.”

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 48:

Narrated Hisham’s father:

Khaula bint Hakim was one of those ladies who presented themselves to the Prophet for marriage. ‘Aisha said, “Doesn’t a lady feel ashamed for presenting herself to a man?” But when the Verse: “(O Muhammad) You may postpone (the turn of) any of them (your wives) that you please,’ (33.51) was revealed, ” ‘Aisha said, ‘O Allah’s Apostle! I do not see, but, that your Lord hurries in pleasing you.’ ”

In the first tradition we learn of the astonishment of Aisha that the willingness of women to give themselves to the Porphet (s). In all the conclusion of Aisha remains the same “I feel that your Lord hastens in fulfilling your wishes and desires.”

Note how Ayesha does not refer to ‘our Lord’, she says ‘Your Lord’. The interesting thing is when it comes to the slaying of Malik bin Nuwayra, it is justified because to quote modern day Sunni scholar A.I. Akram in book to Khalid bin Al-Walid “Sword of Allah Khalid b. al-Waleed – a biographical study of one of the greatest military generals in history” page 161:

“Malik referred to the Holy Prophet as “your master”. Khalid was angered by the unrepentant and supercilious attitude of the accused. He said, “Do you not regard him as your master?”

Khalid remained convinced that Malik was guilty, that he remained an unbeliever. He gave the order for his execution”.

If the use of the term ‘your Master’ rather than ‘Our Master’ was grounds to prove the apostasy of Malik, should the same approach not be taken with Ayesha? What remains of the faith of Ayesha when she makes such a statement of clear Kufr?

• When Allah (swt) has given the right of women to give themselves to the Prophet (s), why did Ayesha not like that?
• Was it the jealousy of Ayesha that caused the descent of the said verse, namely he can choose who he likes and leave who he likes?
• Was Ayesha’s displeasure not evidence of her objecting and challenging a decision of Allah (swt)?
• If it was not a challenge why can it not be defined as such?
• If it was a challenge was it legal or illegal?
• If it was legal, what would be the grounds for such an opinion?
• If it was illegal could her advocates offer some commentary?
• Had any other wife expressed such a form of extreme jealousy?
• If so, can her name be furnished?
• If no other did, why did Ayesha conduct herself in such an extreme way?
• Is this not evidence of her displeasure at an ordinance of Allah (swt)?

The Shia Accuse Ayesha of Hating Ali (as)

Objections to the Shia Criticisms Leveled at Ayesha

Objection One– The Shia Accuse Ayesha of Hating Ali (as)

Ibn al Hashimi emotively argues:

Yet today we see that Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) is still insulted and slandered. She is accused of hating Ali (رضّى الله عنه) and of being an enemy of Ahlel Bayt.

Reply One – Ayesha’s enmity to Imam Ali (as) would open like a pot

In Kanz ul Ummal, Volume 16 page 186 Tradition 44216, we read:

وأما عائشة فأدركها رأي النساء وشئ كان في نفسها علي يغلي في جوفها كالمرجل

“Ayesha was informed about the opinion of women, but there was some thing inside her boiling like a cooking pot against Ali”

Reply Two – Ayesha’s refusal to mention Imam Ali (as) by name is proof that she hated him

Ansar.org stated:

Al-Tijani claims that the historians mentioned Aysha as not wanting to mention the name of Ali. And I ask him, which historians? Can you tell me exactly so that we know the liar from the truth teller? And on which references did you depend?

There is no need for Abu Sulaiman to get agitated, for this fact can be located in a number of sources of Ahl’ul Sunnah. On this occasion will fare one better than Tijani, we shall cite the traditions from their books of hadith.

A mild version can also be located in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3 hadith 761:

Ubaidullah bin ‘Abdullah told me that ‘Aisha had said, “When the Prophet became sick and his condition became serious, he requested his wives to allow him to be treated in my house, and they allowed him. He came out leaning on two men while his feet were dragging on the ground. He was walking between Al-’Abbas and another man.” ‘Ubaidullah said, “When I informed Ibn ‘Abbas of what ‘Aisha had said, he asked me whether I knew who was the second man whom ‘Aisha had not named. I replied in the negative. He said, ‘He was ‘Ali bin Abi Talib.”

This reference is sufficient to prove that Ayesha hated Imam Ali (as). In light of the above reference we would like to ask the following questions to the advocates of Ayesha:

• When he (s) requested to his wives that he go to the home of Ayesha whose residence was he residing in at the time?
• Which of the other wives expressed a desire that the Prophet (s) reside in their homes?
• If any other did, who was it?
• Why did she not make a request to the other wives and personally bring the Prophet (s) to her home?
• What was troubling the Prophet (s) at that wife’s home that led to him wishing to leave?
• She mentioned Ibn Abbas accompanying the Prophet (s) but not Ali (as), why not?
• Was Ayesha angry with him?
• If so why?
• Was there any historical reason that pointed to this animosity?
• If there was, can any historical evidence be submitted to satisfy our inquisitive minds?
• If there was no reason for this anger, why did she choose to omit his name?
• Does the Deen entitle a Muslim to be angry to such an extreme towards another Muslims without a reason, whereby they cannot even tolerate saying the name of that person?
• Is there any link between the refusal to mention the name of Ali (as) and the jealousy she possessed towards Khadija (as)?
• Is it not the fact that this jealously lay in the fact Khadija (as) bore the Prophet (s) a lineage and Sayyida Fatima (as) was the walking example of her mother?

Try as they might, even al-Bukhari alludes to the fact that Ayesha was unable to mention Imam ‘Ali (as) by name. Abu Sulaiman would of course differ and seek to deny that ANY animosity was borne by Ayesha towards Imam ‘Ali (as). The difficulty for him is that the Ulema of Ahl ul Sunnah have confirmed this fact. In his commentary of this hadith, Allamah Bardruddin al-Aini records in Umadatul Qari, Volume 5 page 192 Tradition 665:

عن معمر ولكن عائشة لا تطيب نفسا له بخير

Mua’amar narrated: ‘Ayesha avoided mentioning him (Ali) in a good manner’.

We also read:

عن الزهري ولكنها لا تقدر على أن تذكره بخير

Al-Zuhari said: She ‘(Ayesha) didn’t posses the ability to mention anything good of him (Ali).’

We shall now present a ‘complete’ version of this tradition which proves clearly that Ayesha’s failure to mention Imam ‘Ali (as)’s name whilst recollecting this incident, was not on account of temporary amnesia but was in fact due to her hatred of him:

When Ubaidullah Ibn Utbah mentioned to Ibn Abbas that Aisha said “In his death-illness the Prophet was brought to (Aisha’s) house while his shoulders were being supported by Fadhl Ibn Abbas and another person”, then Abdullah Ibn Abbas said: “Do you know who this ‘other man’ was?” Ibn Utbah replied: “No.” Then Ibn Abbas said: “He was Ali Ibn Abi Talib, but she is averse to name him in a good context.”

The references for the above narration can be located in the following texts:

1. Musnad Ahmad bin Hanbal, Volume 6 page 228 Tradition 25956
2. al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, by Ibn Sa’d, v2, part 2, p29
3. History of al-Tabari (Arabic), v1, pp 1800-1801 this is also loacted in the English translation. History of al-Tabari (English) Volume 9 page 169-170
4. al-Ansab al-Ashraf, by al-Baladhuri, v1, pp 544-545

The margin writer of Musnad Ahmed bin Hanbal namely Shaykh Shoib al-Arnaut stated:

“The chain is Sahih according to the standards of the two Sheiks (Bukhari & Muslim)”

Reply Three – Ayesha hated Banu Hashim and Imam Ali (as)

Allamah Abu Umar Ahmed bin Abd Rabbah records:

He (Ali) said: ‘Go to that woman and tell her to return to her house wherein Allah ordered her to remain’. He (Ibn Abbas) said: ‘Hence I went to her and asked permission to enter but she refused to grant it, hence I entered the house without permission and sat on a cushion. She (Ayesha) said: ‘Oh ibn Abbas, by Allah I never saw some one like you! You entered our house without permission and sat on our cushion without our permission’. I said: ‘By Allah this is not your house, your only house is the one which Allah ordered you to stay at, but you didn’t obey. The commander of the believers orders you to return to your home land which you left’. She said: ‘May Allah’s mercy be upon the commander of believers who is Umar bin al-Khatab’. I said: ‘Yes, and this is Ali bin Abi Talib the commander of believers’. She said: ‘I refuse, I refuse……’. Then she said: ‘Alright, I will return, because I hate the city in which you (Bani Hashim) reside in’.

Iqd al-Fareed, Volume 2 page 108

In Al Imama wal Siyasa, Volume 1 page 45 we learn that:

“Following Uthman’s murder Zubayr approached Ayesha in Makka and said ‘Look they have made ‘Ali Khalifa. She said, What right does ‘Ali have to rule over our necks? I will not stay in Madina as long as ‘Ali is in power”.

In Rauzatul Ahbaab, Volume 3 page 65, we read that:

“After the Battle of Jamal, Ali approached Ayesha and said: ‘You have treated me like an enemy’”.

We also read in Rauzat ul Ahbaab, Volume 3 page 10 that:

“Ayesha was clouded by her hatred of Ali”.

Reply Four – Ayesha’s failure to correct a man speaking ill of Ali (as) is proof that she hated him

We read in Musnad Ibn Hanbal, Volume 6 page 113 Hadith 24864:

حدثنا عبد الله حدثني أبي ثنا أبو أحمد قال ثنا عبد الله بن حبيب عن حبيب بن أبي ثابت عن عطاء بن يسار قال : جاء رجل فوقع في علي وفي عمار رضي الله تعالى عنهما عند عائشة فقالت أما علي فلست قائلة لك فيه شيئا واما عمار فإني سمعت رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم يقول لا يخير بين أمرين الا اختار أرشدهما

‘A man came and spoke negatively of Ali and Ammar in the presence of Ayesha to which Ayesha said: ‘I shall not tell you anything about Ali but as for Ammar, I heard the Holy prophet say that if he is provided with two options, he opts for the better one’.

The margin writer of Musnad Ahmed bin Hanbal namely Shaykh Shoib al-Arnaut stated:

“The chain is Sahih as per the condition of Muslim”

We appeal to justice, when it comes to the rank of superiority who is at a more superior level, Imam Ali (as) or Amar bin Yasir (ra)? If Ayesha was prepared to correct this individual’s incorrect and negative opinion of Amar (ra) by citing a Hadith of his excellence, could she not have done the same about Ali (as)? Are we to believe that she had never heard anything about the excellence of Ali (as) from the tongue of Rasulullah (s)? If she had, was this not the apt time to silence the tongue of this individual? Had Ayesha offered no response to the views of both Ali (as) and Amar (ra) her advocates may have opined that her response was made under taqiyya, but the fact that she was prepared to defend the character of Amar (ra), but offered no words to protect the character of Ali (as). By remaining silent Ayesha went against the warning of Rasulullah (s) who said:

من أذل عنده مؤمن فلم ينصره وهو يقدر على أن ينصره أذله الله على رؤوس الأشهاد يوم القيامة

“Whoever is present while a Muslim is humiliated before him, and is able to assist him [and yet does not], Allah will humiliate him before [all of] creation.”

[Ahmad in al-Musnad, 3/487; Suyuti in Al-Jami` As-Saghir, 2/510, Hadith Number 8375]

the character of Ali (as). Ayesha’s willingness to allow a person to hold an unsavoury opinion of Ali (as) and offering no rebuttal to such a viewpoint evidences her hatred of him. Lest not forget that Ayesha was no ordinary person, she was the widow of Rasulullah (s) and as such she commanded considerable trust and respect amongst the people, she will after hold an opinion that will have influence over the people. If Ayesha was prepared to offer no view a

bout a man that spoke ill of Ali (as), one can only imagine what sort of precedent she was setting amongst her subjects that she accompanied onto the plains of Jamal.

Reply Five – Ayesha’s reaction at the death of Imam Ali (as) evidences her hatred of him

Ansar.org states:

Al-Tijani says, “and when she learnt of his death she knelt and thanked Allah.” Then he gave us in the footnotes the name of historians he took as references. These are his references, “AL-Tabari, Ibn Al-Atheer, Al-Fitnah Al-Kubra, and all historians who documented the incidents of the year 40 after the immigration of the prophet peace be upon him.” [20] So, I went back to Al-Tabari and Ibn Al-Atheer for the stories of the year 40. And guess what! I did not find any trace for this claim! What a liar he is!

Again Abu Sulaiman is seeking to mislead people with false information, for these references can be located in these very books and we are attaching the link of the text from History of al Tabari Volume 17 page 224 (English translation) for our reader’s perusal:

Ayesha’s pleasure at Maula Ali(as)’s death

“When news of ‘Ali’s death reached Aishah, she said: And she threw down her staff and settled upon her place of abode, like the traveller happy to return home”.

Perhaps Abu Sulaiman will seek to offer his own insight into the meaning of this verse, he need not bother for the English translator, Professor G. R. Hawting states in the footnote on page 224:

“…the verse is proverbial and is cited to indicate pleasure at something”.

Shaykh Kamaluddin Damiri also records in his famed work Hayat al-Haywan, Volume 1 page 43:

ولما انتهى إلى عائشة رضي الله تعالى عنها قتل علي رضي الله تعالى عنه قالت : فألقت عصاها واستقر بها النوى كما قر عينأ بالإياب المسافر

When Ayesha (ra) was informed about the murder of Ali (ra), she said: ‘And she threw down her staff and settled upon her place of abode, like the traveller happy to return home’

This reference can also be located in Tadkhirath al Khawwas, page 181 and Shaykh ul Mudhira page 156. For Abu Sulaiman to use his authority and make this claim, knowing that his adherents blindly believe his every word since he is an advocate of Mu’awiya, is indeed a cause for concern. We would ask his readers to ask themselves honestly ‘If Abu Sulaiman can not even be honest about such a basic fact, then how much credence should be given to anything that he says?’

We should also point out that Allamah Asbahani recorded in Maqatil al-Talebeen, page 24:

حدثني محمد بن الحسين الاشناني ، قال : حدثنا أحمد بن حازم قال : حدثنا عاصم بن عامر وعثمان بن أبي شيبة ، قالا : حدثنا جرير عن الاعمش عن عمرو إبن مرة عن أبي البختري قال : لما أن جاء عائشة قتل علي ع سجدت .

Abu al-Bakhtari said: ‘When Ayesha was informed about Ali’s murder, she prostrated’

Ibn al Hashimi why do you suggest that the Shia believe that being a Nasibi is worse than Zina, is it not correct that the Prophet (s) said being a Nasabi makes one a Kaafir? Why do you knowingly choose to ignore the implications of clear traditions that make it clear that hated of Ali (as) is a sign of hypocrisy, and fighting Ali (as) is tantamount to fighting the Prophet (s)? We have addressed all such tradition in previous chapters, so there is no need to run through them once more suffice is to say, Ibn al Hashimi when Rasulullah (s) identified the status of one that hates Ali (as) and fights him, why are you reluctant to rule on such a status? Do you not believe those that rebelled against Abu Bakr are kaafirs?

Does Ayesha’s Supposed Inclusion in the Verse of Purity Protect her from Criticism?`

Does Ayesha’s Supposed Inclusion in the Verse of Purity Protect her from Criticism?

Ibn al Hashimi insists:

We wonder why then the Shia scholars say that they are the “followers of Ahlel Bayt” since Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) and her co-wives are the Ahlel Bayt! Allah Himself addresses them in the Quran as such.

The Quran specifically refers to the wives of the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) as Ahlel Bayt in the following verse:

“O wives of the Prophet! You are not like any other of the women; If you will be on your guard, then be not soft in your speech, lest he in whose heart is a disease yearn; and speak a good word. And stay quietly in your houses, and make not a dazzling display, like that of the former Times of Ignorance; and establish regular Prayer, and give regular Charity; and obey Allah and His Messenger. And Allah only wishes to remove all abomination from you, you Ahlel Bayt (People of the House) , and to make you pure and spotless.” (Quran, 33:32-33)

The transliteration reads: “Ya nisa al-nabiyilastuna kahadin mina alnisa-i ini itaqaytuna fala takhdaAAna bialqawli fayatmaAAa allathee fee qalbihi maradun waqulna qawlan maAAroofan Waqarna fee buyootikunna wala tabarrajna tabarruja aljahiliyyati al-oola waaqimna alssalata waateena alzzakata waatiAAna Allaha warasoolahu innama yureedu Allahu liyuthhiba AAankumu alrrijsa Ahlul Bayt-i wayutahhirakum tatheeran” (Quran, 33:32-33).

Ibn al Hashimi insists that this verse corroborates Ayesha’s inclusion in the verse of purity as the wife of the Prophet (s), we will point it that (as already proven) her violation of the Quranic verse to remain in her home during the battle of Jamal coupled with her own testimony not to be buried alongside the Prophet (s) in no way suggests that she was a person that had been protected for all form of impurity. Moreover we have Ayesha’s very own testimony from Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 352:

Narrated Yusuf bin Mahak:

Marwan had been appointed as the governor of Hijaz by Muawiya. He delivered a sermon and mentioned Yazid bin Muawiya so that the people might take the oath of allegiance to him as the successor of his father (Muawiya). Then ‘Abdur Rahman bin Abu Bakr told him something whereupon Marwan ordered that he be arrested. But ‘Abdur-Rahman entered ‘Aisha’s house and they could not arrest him. Marwan said, “It is he (‘AbdurRahman) about whom Allah revealed this Verse:–

‘And the one who says to his parents: ‘Fie on you! Do you hold out the promise to me..?’”

On that, ‘Aisha said from behind a screen, “Allah did not reveal anything from the Qur’an about us except what was connected with the declaration of my innocence (of the slander).”

Note how Ayesha cited only one verse in honour of her family, and that verse related to the verse of her innocence. Has Ayesha also formed part of the verse of purity she would have definitely cited that, as it was far more significant, not only would it have protected her innocence, it would have guaranteed her protection from sins ad infinitum. Ayesha’s very own admission that only one verse exists in honour of the family of Abu Bakr serves as clear evidence that there existed no nexus between her and the verse of purity. Moreover it was Ayesha herself who testified the subjects of the verse of purification in Sahih Muslim.

Concluding our discussions on Ifq

There is no doubt that Ayesha was indeed exonerated of the evil lie made against her, one however wonders why so much detail was given but the Hadith narrators before this exoneration? We have without any addition or deletion cited Ayesha’s recollection of Ifk from your most authentic works Sahih Bukhari. Are the narrations not shameless and disgusting? What was the precise reason behind these narrators going into the precise minutiae of this terrible event? Would the life of Ayesha remain incomplete if so much vivid detail had not been disclosed to the masses? Or could it be that such details should be presented for all to see and admire, as they were cascaded to us via the blessed tongue of Ayesha? If all this was merely submitted to evidence the purity of Ayesha, what is the point having placed so many blots on her character up until then? If you have a white cloth that becomes stained in some way, it does not matter how much you wash it, it will never appear as clean and shiny as when you initially purchased it.

In conclusion, it would have been far better if Bukhari had steered clear of these traditions. One wonders why Ibn al Hashimi and his ilk baselessly attack the Shia for attacking the good character of Ayesha when the real culprits ate the Sahaba that slandered her, protected the perpetrators in the name of tribal affiliation and even openly questioned her character in the presence of the Prophet (s). It is evident that the practice of slandering Ayesha is not some Ibn Saba inspired concoction; rather it was the Sunnah of the Sahaba, who all are sources of guidance like stars in the sky for Ibn al Hashimi. It was these shameless individuals that attributed fornication to Ayesha that cause divine intervention via the subsequent declaration of innocence in Surah Noor. We relied purely on the testimony of Ayesha from Sahih Bukhari, for those interested in looking further into the matter, they can consult the following esteemed Sunni works:

1. Sunan Nisai Volume 4 page 162 “Kitab Hudood”
2. Fatah ul Bari Volume 5 page 273 “Kitab Shahadath”
3. Irhsad al Sari Sharh Bukhari Volume 4 page 494 “Kitab Shahadath”
4. Nawawi’s Sharh Muslim, Volume page 364 “Kitab Tauba”
5. al Bidayah al Nihaya by Ibn Kathir on page 160 Volume 4, Chapter “Dhir Ifk”
6. Tafsir Mazhari commentary of Surah Nur Volume 17 page 479
7. Tafsir Kabeer Volume 6 page 240 Surah Nur
8. Tafsir Fatah ul Qadeer Volume 5 page 49 Surah Nur
9. Umdah al Qari fi Sharh Sahih Bukhari, Volume 6 page 90
10. Sirat un Nabi by Ibn Hisham, chapter 137 (the event of Ifik) page 360

Ibn Kathir in al Bidayah al Nihaya, Volume 4 page 160 writes the following:

ثم خرج إلى الناس فخطبهم وتلا عليهم ما أنزل الله عزوجل من القرآن في ذلك ثم أمر بمسطح بن أثاثة وحسان بن ثابت وحمنة بنت جحش وكانوا ممن أفصح بالفاحشة فضربوا حدهم

“Then he (prophet) went to the people and addressed and then recited what Allah revealed in Quran, then he ordered that Mastah bin Uthatha, Hasaan bin thabit, Hamna bint Jahsh to be punished because they were among those who spread the allegation of adultery.”

As part of their propaganda, Nawasib often allege that we accuse Ayesha of this, but this is a blatant lie. Ayesha’s innocence ‘in this particular case’ has been vouched for in the Quran and the Shi’a have stated this clearly in their commentaries. It is unfortunate that rather than attack us these masters of fitnah don’t take into account that those who questioned Ayesha’s character were none other than the Sahaba themselves. As Shia we believe that the wife of a Prophet (s) can be a kaafir or a hypocrite but she will never indulge in zinah, Allah (swt) has ensured that his chosen servants are protected from such a scandal. We wish to make it clear may the curse of Allah (swt) be upon all those that accused Ayesha of Zinah, we would invite the Nawasib to do likewise.

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.