AYESHA [3/10]

AYESHA [3/10]

This article is the refutation to the Ansar.org's defense for Ayesha's character and her actions.

Chapter Three – Refuting the defences 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?


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 through 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 stay 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 of 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 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 their 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. 

Defence Two - Ayesha was seeking to reform the Ummah


Ansar.org states:
That Aysha ignited the Battle of the Camel is a plain truth. That is because Aysha did not come out to fight, but to reform between Muslims.


Reply One

Herein lays the blatant contradiction of the Nawasib in the space of just one article. Ansar.Org in the same article exempt Ayesha of all wrong doing in relation to Jamal and blame it all on the Sabaites, but here we see their admission that Ayesha was responsible, not only was she responsible she in their words ‘ignited the Battle of the Camel’. Ignite by definition means ‘to arouse the passions of; excite’. If we apply this definition to Ansar.Org’s admission it becomes evident that the only way that one can 'ignite' a battle is via a campaign of propaganda in order to arouse passions and amass support for military action. I would be just as culpable if I provided petrol and a lighter to a man who subsequently set fire to a house. Similarly incitement to call people to mass opposition and rebellion against the Imam of the time is a blatant violation of the Shari'a and there exist clear provisions under the Shari'a to quell such acts of fitnah.

We would also ask Ansar and their fellow advocates: 

'could reform not have been achieved by co-operating 'with' Imam Ali (as) rather than opposing and rebelling against him?' 

This 'reform' entailed mass opposition / rebellion against the Imam of the time - a clear violation to the Shari'a that makes obedience to the rightful Head of State unconditional. In consequence those that supported Ayesha in her alleged 'reform' had likewise contradicted the Qur'an through their disobedience of Imam Ali (as). We would like to ask these Nawasib: 

‘how can ones participation in an ijimali (combined) sin constitute 'reform'? 

Allah (swt) says in His Glorious Book:

When it is said to them: "Make not mischief on the earth," they say: "Why, we only Want to make peace!" (002.011) 

Defence Three - Ayesha was seeking to prevent bloodshed and open rebellion


Ibn al Hashimi states:
An appropriate analogy is that Allah prohibits us from breaking our Salat midway. However, if we are in Salat and the enemies of Islam attack our camp, then it is permissible to break one’s Salat in order to defend the Muslim camp and save Muslim lives. Likewise, the Prophet’s wives and women in general were instructed to stay at home; however, in this case, Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) thought that she could prevent bloodshed and open rebellion by using her status and prestige to act as an arbiter. In fact, if Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) thought that leaving her house was the only way to save Muslim lives, then it would not only be Halal for her to leave her house but no doubt it would be Wajib (obligatory).
It is narrated in both Sahih Bukhari and Muslim that the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) told Saudah (رضّى الله عنها), one of his wives, that “Allah has permitted you to go out of the house for genuine needs.” Imam Maududi says: “This shows that the divine injunction ‘remain in your houses’ does not mean that women should not at all step out of the four walls of the house.” (Purdah, p. 201-202)

  Screenshot from Ibn al Hashimi's article

Reply One – Ayesha’s willingness to co-operate with those seeking to fight Imam Ali (as) proves that her intention was to incite rebellion not quash it

The suggestion that Ayesha was duty bound to leave her home so as to prevent bloodshed can be easily refuted if one examines this reference wherein she entered into high level discussions at her home (prior to heading for Basra) with her supporters to determine how best to resolve matters with Imam Ali (as). We read in the History of Tabari Volume 16 page 43:

“They went down – Talha and Zubayr to Mecca four months after the killing of Uthman. Ibn Amir, a very rich man was there, and Yala b. Umayyah had arrived with him with a large sum of money and more than 400 camels. They gathered together in Aishah’s house and exchanged opinions. “Let’s go to Ali and fight him,” they said. “We don’t have the strength to fight the people of Medina,” one of them replied. “Let us rather enter al-Basrah and al-Kufah. Talhah has a following and popularity and support in al-Basrah”. So they agreed to go to al-Basrah and al-Kufah, and Abdullah b. Amir gave them much money and camels. Seven hundred men from Medina and Mecca set off, and other joined until their number reached 3000”. 

Ahmad bin Zuhayr: Dahabi said: ‘Renowned Hafiz’ (Tarikh al-Islam, v20 p252), Al-Albaani said: ‘Thiqah’ (Silsila Sahiha, v3 p446). Zuhair Abu khaythama: Dahabi said: ‘Hujja’ (Siar alam alnubala, v11 p489), Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah Thabt’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1 p316). Wahab bin Jarir: Dahabi said: Thiqah’ (Al-Kashif, v2 p356), Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v2 p291). Jarir bin Hazim: Dahabi said: ‘Thiqah’ (Al-Kashif, v1, p291), Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1 p158). Yunus bin Yazid: Dahabi said: ‘One of the Thabt’ (Al-Kashif, v2 p404), Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v2 p351). Al-Zuhari: Dahabi said: ‘The hafiz of his time’ (Siar alam alnubala, v5 p326), Ibn Hajar said: ‘There is an agreement about his magnificence’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v2 p133).

Comment

We can see from this reference:
◘ A high level meeting was convened at Aisha’s house over how to proceed on matters
◘ Two rich donors were present
◘ Discussions were on fighting Imam Ali (as)
◘ It was agreed that fighters be recruited from Basrah and Kufa where Talhah had influence

Tell us Ibn al Hashimi, do these discussions suggest the Ayesha was seeking to curtail open rebellion and avoid bloodshed? Clearly not, discussions at the meeting were around fighting Imam Ali (as). If Ibn al Hashimi argues that we cannot infer that these were the words of Ayesha we will respond by stating that this high level meeting in her home set the agenda for what methodology would be adopted against Imam Ali (as). It was clear that the aim was to conscript troops from Basrah where Talhah had influence. Knowing this objective, did Ayesha: 

◘ interject and insist that talk of fighting Imam Ali (as) was inappropriate and harmful to the Ummah? 
◘ state reconciliation and peace was the way forward not violence?
◘ expel those that made such comments from her home? 
◘ sever links from all those that intended on carrying through this objective

She did none of the above; on the contrary she traveled with the same seditious elements to Basrah, fully aware that the aim was to recruit men to fight Imam Ali (as). This proves that Ayesha was never well intentioned, on the contrary she was from the outset, intent on shedding Muslim blood not protecting it.

This reference also refutes this baseless assertion:

Ibn al Hashimi states:
Aisha’s intentions (رضّى الله عنها) were to prevent warfare; she even advised people to stay at home instead of adding to the Fitnah. Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) said: “I came out to reform between people. Therefore, tell your people to stay at their house, and to be content until they get what they love, i.e. the reformation of the Muslims’ matter.” (Book of the Trustworthy, by Ibn Habban, vol.2, p.282)


The reference that we cited proves that Ayesha’s intention, right from the start were to co-operate those seeking to gather an army to fight Imam Ali (as) which means that it was not an issue of asking that people remain in their houses, rather it was more an issue of encouraging them to come out, armed to the teeth ready to fight the Khalifa! 

Reply Two – Imam Ali (as) accused Ayesha of inciting Fitnah and causing bloodshed

Our assertion in Reply One can be corroborated by the fact that when Jamal was over Imam Ali (as) accused Ayesha of incitement, not reconciliation as Ibn al Hashimi would suggest. We read in the History of Tabari Volume 16 page 127:

“Muhammad b. Abu Bakr carried Aishah away and erected a large tent over her. Ali stood in front of her and said “You roused the people and they became excited. You stirred up discord among them such that some killed others”, and he went on at length”. 

Ahmad bin Zuhayr: Dahabi said: ‘Renowned Hafiz’ (Tarikh al-Islam, v20 p252), Al-Albaani said: ‘Thiqah’ (Silsila Sahiha, v3 p446). Zuhair Abu khaythama: Dahabi said: ‘Hujja’ (Siar alam alnubala, v11 p489), Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah Thabt’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1 p316). Wahab bin Jarir: Dahabi said: ‘Thiqah’ (Al-Kashif, v2 p356), Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v2 p291). Jarir bin Hazim: Dahabi said: ‘Thiqah’ (Al-Kashif, v1, p291), Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1 p158). Yunus bin Yazid: Dahabi said: ‘One of the Thabt’ (Al-Kashif, v2 p404), Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v2 p351). Al-Zuhari: Dahabi said: ‘The hafiz of his time’ (Siar alam alnubala, v5 p326), Ibn Hajar said: ‘There is an agreement about his magnificence’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v2 p133).

Defence Four – Ayesha was legally entitled to act in the manner that she did

Ibn al Hashimi states:
In fact, if Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) thought that leaving her house was the only way to save Muslim lives, then it would not only be Halal for her to leave her house but no doubt it would be Wajib (obligatory).
It is narrated in both Sahih Bukhari and Muslim that the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) told Saudah (رضّى الله عنها), one of his wives, that “Allah has permitted you to go out of the house for genuine needs.” Imam Maududi says: “This shows that the divine injunction ‘remain in your houses’ does not mean that women should not at all step out of the four walls of the house.” (Purdah, p. 201-202)


Reply One - The barking of Hawab's dogs at Ayesha proves that her conduct was unlawful

We read in al Imama wal Siyasa, page 59 Chapter "Dhikr Jamal" with regards to Ayesha that:

"When she began her opposition to Ali, she and her supporters began to make their way to Basra. On route, the dogs of Hawab began to bark at them. Ayesha asked Muhammad bin Talha "Which place is this?” He said "Its is Hawab" to which Ayesha replied "Take me back for on one occasion Rasulullah (s) said, 'Amongst you (wives) is one at whom the dogs of Hawab shall bark.' He (s) said to me specifically, 'Be careful, in case it is you'." Muhammad bin Talha said 'Leave these things and proceed'. Abdullah bin Zubayr then swore in the name of Allah that they had left Hawab (behind them) during the first part of the night; he brought some men who testified likewise. The Ulema of Islam have declared the event of Hawab to have been the first false testimony in Islam".

Imam Ahmed records:

Qays said: ‘When Ayesha reached Bani Amer's well at night, some dogs barked at her. She asked: ‘What is the name of this well?’ They replied: ‘This is Hawab’s well’. She replied: ‘I have to return’. Some of those who were with her said: ‘Nay you shall go forward so that the Muslims shall see you and Allah makes peace’. She replied: ‘Allah's messenger (pbuh) once said: ‘Then what would you (the wives of the prophet) do when you hear the barking of Al-Hawab dogs?’ 
 Musnad Ahmed bin Hanbal, Volume 6 page 52 Tradition 24299

The margin writer of the book Shaykh Shu'aib al-Arnaout said: 

‘The chain is Sahih and the narrators are reliable (Thuqat), the narrators of the two Sheikhs’ 

This tradition also can be found in: 

1. Musanaf ibn Aby Shayba, Volumne 8 page 708
2. Musnad ibn Rahweh, Volume 2 page 32
3. Musanaf Abdulrazaq, Volume 11 page 365
4. Sahih Ibn Haban, Volume 15 page 126
5. Musnad Aby Y'ala, Volume 8 page 282 (the margin writer Hussain Salim Asad said that the chain is Sahih).

We read the following tradition in Kanz ul Ummal which has been declared Sahih by Mulla Muttaqi Hindi:

Tawoos narrates that Allah's Messenger (s) said to his wives: ‘Who amongst you shall have the dogs of so and so bark at them? Oh Humayra, will it be you?’ 
 Musnad Ahmed bin Hanbal, Volume 6 page 52 Tradition 24299

Imam Abi Bakar al-Haythami records:

وعن ابن عباس قال : قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم لنسائه : ليت شعري أيتكن صاحبة الجمل الأديب تخرج فينبحها كلاب حوأب يقتل عن يمينها وعن يسارها قتلى كثير ثم تنجو بعد ما كادت

Ibn Abbas narrates that Allah's messenger (s) said to his wives: Who amongst shall be the rider of the camel who when marching, shall have the dogs of Hawab bark at her? Thereafter many people shall be killed on her left and right sides, she would subsequently survive after which she will be made to feel guilty’. 
 Majma al-Zawaed, Volume 7 page 474 Tradition 12026

Al-Haythami said: ‘The narrators are reliable (Thuqat)’

The last and the decisive sentence of the Prophet (s) is trying to convey the message that Ayesha would create a problem and many people would get killed on account of her actions, but would survive which means that she would neither be killed nor tried for the misery that she had inflicted on the Ummah!

Ibn Jarir Tabari records in History of al-Tabari, Volume 16 pages 49-50:

Al-Urani, the owner of the camel: ‘I was traveling on my camel one day when a rider appeared in front of me. “Owner of the camel” he asked, “Will you sell your camel?”. “Yes”, I replied. “For how much?”. “A thousand Dirhams”, “You must be made”, he said. “Can a camel cost a thousand Dirhams?” “Yes, this camel of mine”. “How so?”. “I have never gone after anyone on him,” I replied, “without catching up with him, and no one has ever come after me when I was on him without my escaping them.” “If you knew for whom we wanted him for”, he replied, “you would have given us a better deal.” “So whom do you need him for?” I asked. “For you mother”. “But I left my mother sitting in her tent not wanting to go any where”. “I want it for the mother of the faithful, Aisha, that’s who”. “He is yours then. Take him for nothing” “No, no! Come back with us to where we are camped” he replied “and we will give you a Mahriyah she-camel and some Dirhams as well.”
So I went back and they gave me a Mahriyah she-camel and 400 – or was it 600?- Dirhams as well. He then asked me: “Brother of Uraynah, can you guide the way?” “Certainly better than most,” I replied. “Come with us then”. So I went with them. Every time I passed by a valley or a watering place, they questioned me about it, until we came late one evening at the water of al-Hawab and the dogs there barked at us. “What water is this?” they asked. “The water of al-Hawab” I replied. At that, Aisha shrieked at the top of her voice and hit the upper foreleg of her camel to make it kneel down. “By Allah!” she said, “ I am the one the dogs of al-Hawab have barked at night at! Take us back!” She said this three times. 

It is indeed tragic to read that Al-Arni was so confident that her mother would never leave her home yet the ‘mother of the believers’ led a male movement motivated by a desire to create Fitna as per the prediction of the Holy Prophet (s)!

Ibn Jarir Tabari also narrated from Ahmad – from his father – from Wahab bin Jarir bin Hazim – from Younis bin Yazeed – from Zuhri:

I was told that when Talha and al-Zubayr heard that Ali had encamped at Dhu Qar, they left for al-Basrah and took the road to al-Munkadir. Ayesha then heard the dogs barking and asked: ‘What water is this?’. ‘Al-Hawab’ they replied. “We belong to Allah, and to him we return” she exclaimed. “I am she. I heard Messenger of God say in the presence of his wives ‘ I wish I knew at which of you the dogs of al-Hawab will bark!’” and she wanted to turn back. Abdullah bin al-Zubayr came up to her, and it is said that he told her, “Whoever said that this was al-Hawab was lying”. And then persisted with her until she set off. 
History of Tabari, English Edition, Volume 16 pages 68

Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani records:

Ibn Abbas narrated that Allah's messenger (S) said to his wives: ‘Who amongst you would be the rider of the camel, she would march until the dogs of Hawab barked at her, many people shall be killed to the right and left of her. She would subsequently survive after which she would be made to feel guilty’. This is narrated by al-Bazar and the narrators are reliable (Thuqat). 
 Fatah ul Bari, Volume 13 page 55

We read in Iqd al-Farid, Volume 2 page 109:

وقد كان النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قال لها: يا حُميراء، كأني بك تَنْبحك كِلابُ الحُوّب. تقاتلين علياً وأنت له ظالمة.

Rasulullah (s) had told her: ‘Oh Humayra! The dogs of Hawab shall bark at you, you shall fight Ali and you shall be an oppressor towards him’. 

Let us present the comments of the Salafi scholar Hassan bin Farhan al-Maliki from his book Naho Enqad al-Tarikh, page 75:

فهذا الحديث يتضمن تخطئة أم المؤمنين عائشة رضي الله عنها في الخروج وقد اعترفت بخطئها وأن الاولى هو بقاؤها في بيتها وكانت تبكي إذا تذكرت مسيرها إلى البصرة.

‘This hadith refers to the fact that the mother of believers Ayesha [ra] was mistaken when she conducted a march and she acknowledged this mistake, she was supposed to remain at home and would weep whenever she recalled her march to Basra.’ 

Our opponents advance lame excuses in their defence for the rebellion of Ayesha et al. as echoed by Imam of the Salafies Nasiruddin Albaani which we shall entertain after citing the next prediction of the Holy Prophet (s) about Ayesha et al. being on the side of falsehood in their rebellion against Ali bin Abi Talib (as). 

We should also not forget the sheer cunningness exhibited by the colleagues of Ayesha who happened to be the beloved Sahaba that Ansar.Org and Ahlelbayt.com venerate. If (as they claim) all the Sahaba are just and truthful should we say the same of those Sahaba that bore false testimony that enabled the subsequent killing thousands of Muslims at the battle of Jamal? Yaqut al-Hamawi records in Mujam al-Buldan, Volume 2 page 314:

وهمت بالرجوع فغالطوها وحلفوا لها أنه ليس بالحوأب

‘She decided to return, but they tricked her and bore testimony that it was not Hawab’

We read in Al-Ansab by Sam'ani, page 286:

وعزمت على الرجوع فدخل عليها إبن أختها إبن الزبير وقال : ليس هذا ماء الحوءب حتى قيل إنه حلف على ذلك وكفر عن يمينه - والله أعلم

She decided to return but her sister’s son Ibn al-Zubair approached her and said to her: ‘This is not Hawab’s well’. It has also been said that he gave an oath and subsequently repented. Allah knows best. 

Baladhuri records in Ansab al-Ashraf, Volume 1 page 286:

وعزمت على الرجوع فأتاها عبد الله بن الزبير فقال : كذب من زعم أن هذا الماء الحوأب ، وجاء بخمسين من بني عامر فشهدوا وحلفوا على صدق عبد الله

She decided to return but Abdullah bin al-Zubair approached her and said: ‘Whoever claims that this is Hawab’s well is lying’. He then brought fifty members of the Bani Amer (tribe) and they gave sworn testimony that Abdullah (bin al-Zubair) was telling the truth.’ 

Comment

When the Prophet (s) predicted that one of his wives would: 

• have the dogs of Hawab bark at her
• conduct herself in a manner that would cause the loss of Muslim life

and he (s) specifically warned Ayesha not be that wife, then this automatically negates any defence suggesting that her conduct was well intentioned, noble and sanctioned by law. 

Rasulullah (s) certainly didn’t state that his wife would be well intentioned and would set out on a noble quest as was her legal right! He (s) made it clear that such conduct was unacceptable and lead to bloodshed. Whilst Nawasib will no doubt argue is that she was tricked into thinking that she was not at Hawab, we would like to make it clear that Ayesha was now a mature lady, not the same (Sunni depicted) legendary child bride that would play with her dolls. When she was aware of this dire prediction her duty was like that of all the other wives should have been to refrain from any such activity that could make them a party to this prediction. Ayesha by traveling through Iraq, recruiting an army of men to oppose the khalifa was conducting herself in a manner that placed her at risk of falling into this prediction. 

Reply Two – The Holy Prophet (s) predicting that one of his wives would accompany a harmful battalion proves that her conduct was unlawful

Whilst prediction of the Holy Prophet (s) about the dogs of Hawab barking at one of his wives should suffice to prove that Ayesha’s leaving her home was unlawful, let us read another proof about Ayesha being a rebel in the eyes of our Holy Prophet (s). 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

Imam Hakim said about this tradition: 

‘Sahih according to the standards of the two Sheikhs’

Imam Dahabi said:

‘Sahih according to the standards of Bukhari and Muslim’

Let us point out in the aforementioned prediction of Holy Prophet (s), the party of Ayesha was declared as 'infidels' as the Arabic word used 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" 

Ahlelbayt.com and Ansar.Org have sought to desperately convince their readers that the approach taken by Ayesha was legal and necessary, does this Hadeeth substantiate such a position? When the Prophet (s) makes reference to one of his wives accompanying a large battalion that would be harmful, that automatically negates any suggestion of Ayesha’s conduct being for the betterment of the Ummah. 

Similarly, we also read the following words of Hudhayfah:

Zaid bin Wahab said: ‘When we were with Hudhayfah, he said: ‘What shall you do if the family of the prophet (s) divided into two groups fighting each other by sword?’ We replied: ‘Oh Aba Abdullah, is that going to happen?’ Some of his companions said: ‘Oh Aba Abdullah what shall we do if reached to that era?’ He replied: ‘Look at the group which propagate to Ali, be close to it because it is on the right path’. 
 Majma al Zawaid, Volume 7 page 166 Tradition 12032

Al-Haythami said: 

‘The narrators are Thiqah’

Let us also read the following related prediction in Kanz ul Ummal, Volume 11 page 917 Hadith number 32970 which will clarify the position where Ayesha stands in her rebellion:

"O Ali! Soon a rebellious group will fight against you, you will be on the truth. Whoever does not support you on that day will not be from us"

The one who doesn’t support Ali bin Abi Talib (as) in rebellion against him is rejected by the Prophet (s) then the rational minds can imagine the destiny of the cult that actually conducted the rebellion! We also read the following words of Prophet (s) in Kanz ul Ummal, Volume 11 page 621 Hadith number 33016:

After me people shall experience fitna, you will split into groups, he then pointed at Ali and said: ‘Ali and his companions shall be on the right path’ 

Now, in connection to the prediction of Holy Prophet (s) about the dogs barking at Ayesha at Hawab, let us present the testimony of Imam of Salafies Nasiruddin Albaani regarding Ayesha and Zubayr being on error for marching against Ali bin Abi Talib (as) but Albaani didn’t accept this without advancing feeble attempts to defend the two revered Sunni personalities:

In general the chain of the tradition is Sahih, there is no any problem in the content of the hadith, on contrary to the thoughts of the scholar al-Afghani, all what it is about that Ayesha [ra] when she knew about Hawab, she should have returned, but the tradition shows that she didn’t return! and that was not suitable for the mother of believers. 
We answer that not what ever happens by the perfect persons must be suitable to them, because infallibility is only for God.
The Sunni should not be extremist in those who he respects like the Shia do to their Imams! We don’t doubt that the march of the mother of believers was a mistake, therefore she decided to return when she knew that the prophecy of the prophet (s) about Hawab became true, but al-Zubair [ra] convinced her not to return through his statement ‘May Allah make peace among the people through you’ we don’t doubt that he (al-Zubair) also made mistake.
The mind says that there must be one group mistaken of the two groups which fought and left hundreds killed and due to many reasons and clear evidences, we don’t doubt that Ayesha [ra] made mistake. 
 Silsila Sahih, Volume 1 page 473 Tradition 474

This was just a sample of Sunni excuses for the sin committed by Ayesha et al But this lame excuses can easily be refuted:

1. The excuse that Ayesha et al were not infallible and hence committed sins is quite absurd, the ability of a true believer to derive an understanding of the true path, from the predictions of Holy Prophet (s) is not dependent upon his / her infallibility. Moreover to believe that a fallible person has to perpetuate acts that contrast with infallibility is a lame excuse.
2. To suggest that Ayesha et al thought that their journey might have brought peace among the people was again an open violation of the Prophet’s predictions. In neither of the two prophecies do we find even the slightest possibility of Ayesha et al being on the right path, on the contrary the Prophet (s) categorized them as infidels. Moreover, when Ayesha realized that the Prophet (s)’s prediction of barking dogs referred to her, her immediate attempt to retreat proves that she was fully aware that she and her supporters were on the wrong path. Tragically she persisted on this accursed path by giving preference to the excuse offered by Ibn Zubayr over the warning by her husband who happened to be the Prophet of Islam, such a preference makes her conduct permanently indefensible.
3. The Prophet (s) considering Ayesha et al and her accomplices as infidels renders the Taweel and Ijtihad excuse null and void anyway.

Reply Three- The letter of Ummul Momineen Umme Salmah (ra) to Ayesha demanding that she desists from participating in war proves that her conduct was unlawful


This letter can be evidence in the following esteemed Sunni sources:

1. An-Nihaya by Ibn Athir Jazri, vol 2, page 353; Ibid. vol 1, page 226-237; Ibid. vol 3, pages 271, 331 and 434; Ibid. vol 5, pages 35, 64, 115, 132, 137 and 158.
2. Al-'Iqd al Farid by Abu Umar Ahmed bin Abd Rabbah Qartabi (d. 328 A.H.) vol 2, page 102 (description of battle of Jamal)
3. Qamus by Firozabadi (d. ???) page 371
4. al Imama wal Siyasa by Muhammad bin Qutaybah Dinuri (d. 276 A.H.) vol 1, page 53 (description of battle of Jamal)
5. Sharh Nahjul Balagha by Azzuddin Abdul Hamid al-Madaini (also known as Ibn Abi al-Hadid M'autazali) (d. 655 A.H.) vol 2, page 124
6. Balaghatun Nisa by Ahmed ibn Abi Zahir ibn Tayfur (d. 280 A.H.) page

Abu Umar Ahmed bin Abd Rabbah Qartabi (d. 328 A.H.) records:

When Ummul Momineen Ayesha decided to go for Jamal, Ummul Momineen Umme Salmah wrote to her: ‘From Umme Salmah wife of the Holy prophet to Ayesha Ummul Momineen. And I praise Allah, There is no God except Allah and then (I want to say), you are the medium between the prophet and his followers (Ummah). And you are guardian of his honor. The Holy Quran has gathered you so don't despair. Pillars of this religion cannot be upheld on women. Women are praised for keeping down their eyes and hiding their bodies. Allah has exempted me and you from this task (of leading the battle). What will you say on the day of Judgment when Allah's Prophet will denounce you from Paradise on the premise that you removed that veil which Allah had concealed you with’. 
 Al-Iqd al Farid, Volume 2 page 102

Comment

It is interesting that Ibn al Hashimi argues that necessity dictated that Ayesha conduct herself in the manner that she did. Umme Salmah would certainly not agree with this. In her letter to Ayesha, she made it clear that her legal duty was to remain concealed away from public glare, not to accompany men onto the battlefield. The criticism was so severe that Umme Salmah said that she would enter Hell on account of her illegal conduct. If the Shi’a said such a thing all manner of takfeer fatwa would be issued against us, but this is the position of one of the wives of the Prophet (s) so how are the Nawasib going to respond to her comments? 

Reply Four - Ibn Umar’s preventing Hafsa from joining Ayesha proves that her conduct was unacceptable

We read in al-Bidayah wal Nihayah, Volume 7 page 231 that:

وكانت حفصة بنت عمر أم المؤمنين قد وافقت عاشئة على المسير إلى البصرة، فمنعها أخوها عبد الله من ذلك

‘The mother of the believers Hafsa bint Umar agreed to march to Basra with Ayesha but her brother Abdullah prevented her’

Comment

If the stance of Ayesha was correct, then why did Abdullah Ibn Umar; a leading companion prevent his sister from joining the rebellion? Clearly he deemed it inappropriate a wife of Rasulullah (s) to behave in such a manner.

Reply Five - Ayesha’s regretting that she had not been prevented from moving against Imam Ali (as) proves that her conduct was unlawful

We read the following episode:

وروى إسماعيل بن علية عن أبي سفيان بن العلاء المازني عن ابن أبي عتيق قال: قالت عائشة: إذا مر ابن عمر فأرنيه، فلما مر بها قيل لها: هذا ابن عمر، فقالت: يا أبا عبد الرحمن ما منعك أن تنهاني عن مسيري؟ قال: رأيت رجلا قد غلب عليك، يعني ابن الزبير

Ibn Abi Atiq said: Ayesha said: if ibn Umar passes bring him to me. When ibn Umar passed by, they said to her: ‘this is Ibn Umar’. She said: ‘Oh Abu Abdulrahman, why didn’t you prevent me from marching? He replied: I saw a man who had a control over you. He meant ibn al-Zubair
1. Musnad ibn Rahewh, v2, p23
2. Al-Istiab, by ibn Abdulbar, v3, p910

Comment

Ayesha’s approaching Ibn Umar asking why he hadn’t taken steps to prevent her from leaving Madina proves that she acknowledged that her approach was wrong. Ibn al Hashimi and Abu Sulaiman insist that the approach that Ayesha had adopted was correct. One wonders how they can argue this when Ayesha was seeking to ascertain why Ibn Umar had not prevented her from marching. Ibn al Hashimi falsely claims that Ayesha was merely representing the aggrieved relatives of Uthman and that she had no intention of fighting. One thing that he cannot deny is the fact that Ayesha was involved in marching against Imam Ali (as). Ibn al Hashimi would like us to accept that there is a distinction between marching against Imam Ali (as) and fighting him. He is of the opinion that marching is totally legitimate and no objection should be leveled against Ayesha for adhering to this methodology. One wonders how he can insist that this was correct when Ayesha was so remorseful over her marching that she wanted to know why her intention had not been curbed by Ibn Umar. Ayesha’s wishing that she had been prevented from leaving her home from the outset, proves that she acknowledged that the approach she had taken was the wrong. How can Ibn al Hashimi and other Nawasib therefore argue that Ayesha’s conduct was legally sound? 

Defence Four – Ayesha wanted to achieve peace and reconciliation between the two groups, and prevent rebellion against Caliph Ali (as)

Ansar.org states:
The Believers are but a single Brotherhood: so make peace and reconciliation between your two (contending) brothers." (49:9-10)


Ibn al Hashimi states:
Aisha’s Intention (رضّى الله عنها) 
Aisha’s intention (رضّى الله عنها) for leaving her house was sincere and pure. She left to make peace between two factions of Muslims, namely the Umayyads and the Shia’t Ali. This is 100% in line with Allah’s commands in the Quran: 
“If two parties amongst the Believers fall into a quarrel, make ye peace between them: but if one of them transgresses beyond bounds against the other, then fight ye (all) against the one that transgresses until it complies with the Command of Allah; but if it complies, then make peace between them with justice, and be fair: for Allah loves those who are fair (and just). The Believers are but a single Brotherhood: so make peace and reconciliation between your two (contending) brothers.” (Quran, 49:9-10)


Ibn al Hashimi states:
Reconciliation
In Tareekh Al-Tabari, the events precipitating the Battle of the Camel are recorded. Al-Tabari narrates that a man asked Aisha (رضّى الله عنها): “O mother, what moved you and pushed you to this country?” She answered: “O son, to reconcile between people.” 


Ibn al Hashimi states:
Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) feared that if she did not intercede on behalf of the malcontents by convincing Ali (رضّى الله عنه) to quickly prosecute the murderers, they would rebel against Caliph Ali (رضّى الله عنه). This point cannot be emphasized enough: Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) left her house with the intention of reconciling Muslims, not to make them fight.


Reply One – Ayesha’s failure to negotiate directly with Imam Ali (as) in Makka, proves that she wanted to incite fitnah not quell it

Could Ibn al Hashimi kindly elabarorate on the methods that Ayesha used to convince Ali (as)? Ayesha was living in Madina, whilst Imam Ali (as) was in Makka. What is closer in distance Makka or Basra? We see no historical account of Ayesha ever using her arbitrary skills to engage with Caliph Ali (as) in Makka, why not? Why did she not approach Imam Ali (as) directly in Makka and issue her demand to satisfy the malcontents? If she feared Fitnah she should have entered into direct face to face negotiations with Imam Ali (as), why did she not do that? If she wanted to avoid Fitnah she would have demanded people to remain calm whilst she negotiated with Imam Ali (as) directly, but she did not do that. Let us not forget:

Ibn al Hashimi claims:
It should be noted that most people alive during the Battle of the Camel respected the Prophet’s widow, namely because she was the First Lady of Islam, the Mother of the Believers, and the Prophet’s lover. As such, she carried a great respect, and people listened to her. So it was not at all strange that she would think to use her influence to end the conflict between the Muslims; unlike the Shia who revile Aisha (رضّى الله عنها), most Muslims at that time had a great deal of respect for her, including Ali (رضّى الله عنه). It is likely that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) would have accepted her plea to find Uthman’s killers, and no doubt this is the reason that Uthman’s killers had to start the war.


If as Ibn al Hashimi claims it was likely that Imam Ali (as) would have acceded to Ayesha’s demands and immediately hunted down Uthman’s killers, what was the logic behind her: 

• entering into discussions inside Madina that include a resolution to fight Ali (as)?
• leaving Madina without discussing the issue of Qisas with Ali (as)? 
• heading in the opposite direction towards Basrah, from where she wrote the following to Imam Ali (as) as recorded in Matalib al Se'ul page 116 and Fusul ul Muhimma page 72 both record Ayesha's defiant reply to Imam 'Ali (as)'s letter:

"Son of Abu Talib, the difference between us is irreconcilable, time is running out, and we shall not submit to your authority, whatever you wish to do, do it"


Comment

The contents of this letter serve as a major blow for

Ibn al Hashimi who says:
the truth is that it was not Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) who was responsible for the Fitnah but rather it was the ancestors of the Shia–the murderers of Uthman (رضّى الله عنه)–who caused the Battle of the Camel. They had killed Uthman (رضّى الله عنه), and they did not want Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) to convince Ali (رضّى الله عنه) to swiftly prosecute them


Why didn’t she impress upon Ali (as) this importance whilst in Madina? What was she doing issuing her demands following the violent seizure of the Basrah? There were no Sabaites that would have prevented Ayesha from visiting Imam Ali (as) in Makka. The Sabaites hadn’t written the letter we are discussing this was penned by Ayesha, and one can see her arrogant attitude from the contents. We can see here that it was not the Sabaites that were pushing for war Ayesha was making it clear that she refused to accept the authority of Imam Ali (as) and was challenging him to do whatever he could do to stop her and her supporters. Is Ibn al Hashimi going to argue that there was no nexus between these comments and the subsequent war that ensued? That would be an absurd denial! This letter evidences the willingness of Ayesha to go to war, it was this uncompromising attitude that motivated her supporters to oppose Imam Ali (as) and enter Jamal to fight him. Why should the Sabaites be blamed for causing this battle, when Ayesha’s supporters had seized control of the administrative province of Basrah and was challenging the authority of Imam Ali (as)? It was only when Basrah was seized that Ayesha the alleged peaceful arbiter deemed it the appropriate time to enter into negotiations, from a position of power. 

Reply Two – The Tabari narration that Ibn al Hashimi cited is a weak one

It is amusing that this Nasibi has sought to evidence Ayesha’s testimony through reliance on Tareekh al Tabari. Ayesha’s testimony has reached us through the following chain, al-Sari-Shuhayb-Sayf-Muhammad-Talha (History of Tabari page 96). We have proven both Sayf and Sari were unreliable narrators in our discussion on Ibn Saba here:

 http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/who_really_killed_uthman/en/chap2.php 

This testimony is therefore baseless.

Reply Three - Ayesha's killing of the Shi'a of Ali at Basra and torturing its Governor destroys the notion of her pursuing peace and reconciliation


Rather than travel to Makka and enter into negotiations with Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib (as) to resolve the potential turmoil she deemed it more apt to raise an army and head for Basrah. When Ali (as) found out about her army and her fitnah-mongering intentions he set out in pursuance of her. Ayesha’s troops launched a whole scale assault onto Basrah, that involved killing innocent people before she even commenced dialogue with Imam Ali (as) who had not yet reached Basra. We read in al-Maarif, page 90 that:

فتوجهوا إليها وأخذوا عثمان بن حنيف عامل علي بها فحسبوه وقتلوا خمسين رجلاً كانوا معه على بيت المال

They marched towards it (Basra) and they arrested and imprisoned Uthman bin Hunayf the governor who was appointed by Ali and 50 men in the treasury were killed. 

In Tadkhirah tul Khawwas, page 26 we are informed that:

"Uthman bin Hunayf was arrested and a messenger was sent to Ayesha for her opinion on what should be done to him. Ayesha said that he should be killed. A woman pleaded for his (Uthman's) life so Ayesha ordered that he be imprisoned, he was flogged 40 stripes and the hair from his hair, beard and eyebrows was removed. Ayesha and her supporters also killed a further 70 people without reason".

Ibn Abdul Barr records in al-Istiab, Volume 1 page 108:

فقتلوا منهم أربعين رجلاً وأرسلوا بما فعله من أخذ عثمان وأخذ ما في بيت المال إلى عائشة يستشيرونها في عثمان وكان الرسول أليها أبان بن عثمان فقالت عائشة اقتلوا عثمان بن حنيف.

They killed 40 men, took the money in the treasury and arrested Uthman bin Hunayf. They then sent Aban bin Uthman to consult Ayesha, she replied: ‘Uthman bin Hunayf should be executed’. 

We also read:

فقتلوا منهم أربعين رجلاً وأرسلوا بما فعله من أخذ عثمان وأخذ ما في بيت المال إلى عائشة يستشيرونها في عثمان وكان الرسول أليها أبان بن عثمان فقالت عائشة اقتلوا عثمان بن حنيف. فقالت لها امرأة نشادتك الله يا أم المؤمنين في عثمان بن حنيف وصحبته لرسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فقالت ردوا أبانا فردوه فقالت احبسوه ولا تقتلوه فقال أبان لو أعلم أنك رددتني لهذا لم أرجع وجاء فأخبرهم فقال لهم مجاشع بن مسعود اضربوه وانتفوا شعر لحيته فضربوه أربعين سوطاً ونتفوا شعر لحيته وحاجبه وأشفار عينه

They killed 40 men, took the money in the treasury and arrested Uthman bin Hunayf, they then sent Aban bin Uthman to consult with Ayesha, she replied: ‘Uthman bin Hunayf should be executed’. A woman then said: ‘O mother of the Believers, I appeal to you by Allah about Uthman bin Hunayf and his accompanying Allah's messenger (pbuh)’. Ayesha said: ‘Tell Aban to return’. When Aban returned, she said: ‘Don’t kill him but imprison him’. Aban said: ‘If I knew you would ask me to return for this, I wouldn’t have returned’. Then he (Aban) went to them and informed them (about Ayesha's orders), hence Mujash’e bin Masud said: ‘Hit him, pluck out his beard’. Thus they struck him with 40 lashes and plucked out his beard, eyelash and eyebrows’. 

What wrong doing did Uthman bin Hunayf do that merited his being treated in such a manner? Was his sin, the fact that he was the Governor of Basrah, legally appointed by the Caliph Ali (as)? What Shari ruling entitled Ayesha to order his death (in the first instance)? Was she the Head of State / or a Judge that entitled her to issue this order? What were the charges leveled against Uthman bin Hunayf? Did he get the right to a fair trial? Let us not forget that Uthman bin Hunayf against whom Ayesha passed the decree of death and who was subsequently tortured by the companions of Ayesha was not an ordinary person but a Sahaba the very category of individual that our opponents claim love and adhere to. His biography can be read in al-Isaba, Volume 4 page 449 and in Usud al-Ghaba, Volume 1 page 746

Mufti Ibn Talha Shafiyee records in Matalib al-Seul, page 119 wrote: 

"In Kufa Abu Burdha Azdi asked Ali, 'why were people killed at Jamal?'. 'Ali replied 'They killed my Shi'a and my officials without any justification, then they fought me, despite the fact that they gave me Bayyah, they killed 1000 of my companions".

Galvanizing public opinion in your favor is one thing; Ayesha was galvanizing people to join in a military campaign to fight Imam Ali (as). The following words of the companions spoken to Zubayr prior to battle of Jamal serve shall serve as a comprehensive slap on Ibn al Hashimi’s face. Ibn Jarir Tabari narrated from: 

Ahmad – from his father – from Wahab bin Jarir bin Hazim – from Younis bin Yazeed – from Zuhri:

…They came to al-Basrah, the governor of which was Uthman bin Hunayf, and he asked them: “What makes you angry at our companion [Ali]?” “We don’t consider him more eligible for leadership than we” they replied “after what he has done”. “The man [Ali], made me governor, so I will write to him and inform him why you have come” said Uthman, “On the condition that I lead the prayer until his reply comes”. So they held back from him and he rode off. 

But they waited only two days and then attacked Uthman [bin Hunayf] and fought with him at al-Zabuqah near the supply center. They gained the upper hand and captured Uthman. They were about to kill him but then they feared the wrath of the Ansar. So they attacked his hair and body instead.

Talhah and al-Zubair then rose to make speeches and said:

People of al-Basrah! Repentance should fit the crime. We wanted the Commander of Faithful only to get Uthman to satisfy [our complaints]. We didn't want him to be killed, but the fools prevailed over the wise men and killed him." "But Abu Muhammad!" the people replied Talhah. "The letters you sent us said otherwise." [Talhah was unable to answer them, and upon that al-Zubayr said]"Did you [also] receive any letter from me about what he was doing?`"Asked al-Zubayr, going on to mention Uthman's murder and what led to it and to emphasize Ali's blame in it. 

At this a man from Abd al-Qays stood up facing him and said: "Be silent, man! And listen so that we may speak." Abdallah bin al-Zubayr retorted, "What position are you in to speak?" "Company of Muhajirun!" said the Abdi. "You were the first to respond to the message of God, and you gained favor through that, and then everyone else entered Islam following your example. Then when the Messenger of God died you gave allegiance to one of your number, but by Allah, you didn't consult us in any way about it. We gave our approval nevertheless and went along with you, and Almighty and Glorious Allah blessed the Muslims through His caliphate. Then he died, having appointed a man Caliph in his place over you. Again you didn't discuss it with us, but we gave our approval and accepted. When this caliph died, he placed the decision in the hands of six men, and you chose Uthman and gave him allegiance without consulting us. Then you found some faults with this man, so you killed him without consulting us. Then you gave allegiance to Ali, without consulting us. So what exactly are you angry with him about that we should fight him? Has he appropriated booty or carried out some injustice? Has he done something you object to such that we should join you against him? If not, then what is going on?" 
Talhah and al-Zubayr's men then tried to kill this Abdi, but his tribesmen stood in their way. But the next morning they leaped on him and his men and killed seventy men."
 History of Tabari, English Edition, Volume 16 pages 68-69

So Ayesha’s arbiter skills involved her:

• forging an alliance with those that had incited opposition to Uthman:
• supporters attacking, capturing and torturing Uthman bin Hunayf the Basran Governor appointed by Imam Ali (as)
• entering Basra wherein her nephew (Ibn Zubair) gave a sermon encouraging the people to fight Imam Ali (as)
• her supporters slaughtered seventy men opposed to mounting any opposition to Imam Ali (as)

All this was happening under the nose of Ayesha, and yet Ibn al Hashimi seems to suggest she was a peaceful negotiator, seeking to avoid bloodshed between the Muslims. If this was the case why did she not interject and demand that her supporters stop making such inflammatory speeches? Ayesha’s siding with a movement that was galvanizing military opposition to Imam Ali (as)’s and was killing his supporters, cannot be construed as the actions of a person seeking to avoid conflict! We have proven from these references that the Fitnah had already started with the entry of Ayesha and her supporters in Basra. It was here that they took hold of the treasury and massacred the Shi'a of Ali (as). There is no way that the Ibn Saba defence card can be used here since this fitnah had taken place before Imam 'Ali (as) and his alleged Sabaites arrived on the scene.

In light of these facts lets us now contemplate the claim of Abu Sulaiman:

Ansar.org states:
"She did not left her house to fight Ali, but to make peace between people after people desired her to go".


We would like to know from Ansar, 'What efforts at peace were these?' There is nothing wrong with participating in peaceful process. Ansar.Org and Ibn al Hashimi are insistent that Ayesha’s activities were all governed to enable the pursuance of peace, would her troop’s seizure of and distractive province, killing those that supported the Caliph and Ayesha’s order to execute Uthman bin Hunayf fall within the definition of peaceful conduct? It is no different to US troops America and Afghanistan that insist that they are peacekeepers, but in reality kill hundreds of innocent people in the pursuance of peace! Can one really construe actions such as open opposition to the rightful Imam, the gathering of people against him, attacking Basra, killing 40 men in the treasury as acts that constitute major efforts towards peace? We should also remind our readers that the prediction of Holy Prophet (s) about the dogs of Hawab barking at Ayesha is sufficient to water down any attempt to call the march of Ayesha as peace making effort! 

Reply Three – Ayesha’s defiant uncompromising letter to Imam Ali (as) proves that she was preparing for war, not peace

We had previously in Reply One cited the fact that Shaykh Sibt Jauzi al-Hanafi in Tazkirah tul Khawwas, page 38 Shaykh Ibn Talha Shafiyee in Matalib al Se'ul, page 112 and Ibn Sabagh Maliki in Fusul ul Muhimma, page 72 recorded that prior to the battle of Jamal Ayesha wrote as follows to Caliph Ali (as):

"Son of Abu Talib, the difference between us is irreconcilable, time is running out, and we shall not submit to your authority, whatever you wish to do, do it"

Comment

Tell us Ibn al Hashimi and Ansar.Org, should we interpret this letter as conduct in accordance with the spirit of the verse that you had cited? Ibn al Hashimi had insisted on describing Ayesha as an ‘arbiter’ desirous for peace, what type of efforts for peace and reconciliation can one gauge from this reply? Ayesha had demonstrated open opposition to Caliph Ali (as), she refused to accept his authority and challenged to him to stop her activities. Imam 'Ali (as) hence was left with no other choice but to quash the opposition. Ayesha had made clear that her intention was that of open defiance and disobedience to the Imam of the time.

Defence Five - Ayesha was seeking to embarrass people into not fighting

Ibn al Hashimi states:
Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) said in no uncertain terms: “I only wanted reformation.” (Shatharat Al-Thahab, vol.1, p.42) Ibn Al-Arabi explains that “her presence in the Battle of the Camel was not for war, but people…complained to her about the affliction. They hoped for her blessing in the reformation [between Muslims], and they wanted that the fighting factions would be ashamed when she is present with them and stop fighting. She also thought that. So she left her house to represent what Allah says ‘If two parties among the Believers fall into a quarrel, make ye peace between them.’” 


Reply One

This has to be one of the most absurd arguments yet! If she did not want the Muslims to fight one another what was she doing supporting one side and entering the battlefield with them? She should have traveled onto no mans land on her camel, so that both sides could see here, that way they could have recognized that she was impartial and wanted to avoid bloodshed. Her entry onto the plains of Jamal on the side of one army evidenced her support for them, and it gave them the green light to go into war, after all they had the blessing of Ayesha who Ibn al Hashimi described as having respect because she was the ‘Prophet’s widow, namely because she was the First Lady of Islam, the Mother of the Believers, and the Prophet’s lover’. Her siding with this party and entry onto the battlefield was seen by them to legitimize their cause.

Reply Two

If her intention was to avoid bloodshed, why did she wait until the eleventh hour and climb on to a camel at Jamal to shame both parties? Was her role not to shame these parties long before matters depreciated to this level? What was she doing traveling through Iraq, was she on a mission to spread peace and love amongst the Sahaba? Why were her key supporters on this march giving inflammatory speeches geared towards mobilizing an army to fight Imam Ali (as)? Her nephew Ibn Zubair had (as we cited earlier) made it clear that the intention was to fight Imam Ali (as) so what was she doing siding with a party that was seeking to fight Imam Ali (as)? Why did she not silence Ibn Zubair and make it clear that she was opposed to any form of war? Can you show us any references wherein she disassociated herself from armed opposition to Imam Ali (as)? Ibn Hashimi is fully aware that her purpose of travel was to gather support for a military campaign to demand vengeance for Uthman. Her presence at the Battle on camel was a rallying point for her side they, she was acting as their military mascot, not there to shame both parties in to dropping their weapons. 

Reply Three

If Ibn Arabi’s assertion is indeed correct could the Nawasib kindly cite an authentic source from the mouth of Ayesha wherein she testified that her presence at Jamal was to shame people into not fighting? How has he managed to read the mind of Ayesha on this matter? If this was indeed the intention of Ayesha why did the just and truthful Sahaba not recognize this intention and drop their weapons immediately?

Defence Six – Ayesha was seeking to use her influence to end the conflict


Ibn al Hashimi states:
It should be noted that most people alive during the Battle of the Camel respected the Prophet’s widow, namely because she was the First Lady of Islam, the Mother of the Believers, and the Prophet’s lover. As such, she carried a great respect, and people listened to her. So it was not at all strange that she would think to use her influence to end the conflict between the Muslims; unlike the Shia who revile Aisha (رضّى الله عنها), most Muslims at that time had a great deal of respect for her, including Ali (رضّى الله عنه). It is likely that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) would have accepted her plea to find Uthman’s killers, and no doubt this is the reason that Uthman’s killers had to start the war.


Reply - Ayesha was using her influence to encourage rebellion not prevent it

People were deceived into assuming that the movement must have been correct when a wife of the Prophet (s) was prepared to venture outside and encourage people to enlist in armed opposition to Imam Ali (as). She was not using her influence to avoid bloodshed, rather she was encouraging them to take up arms and avenge the death of Uthman, so she was prepared to get her way ‘by any means necessary’ even if that meant the death of thousands in the process! 

Defence Seven – Ayesha should be exempt of all wrong doing as she correctly exercised Ijtihad

Ansar.org states:
"that the two warring factions tried to reach to the truth, and none of the two factions was an oppressor because the death of Uthman divided the Islamic nation to two parties. One party sees to kill the killers of Uthman immediately, and they are Talha, Al-Zubair, and Aysha. The other party sees also to kill the killers of Uthman but wait for the moment until they reach to their goals because these killers had tribes that would defend them. Ali and his companions shared the second opinion. These killers are responsible for the battle of the Camel, and none of the two parties had any responsibility to ignite the battle as I clarified earlier"


Reply One - Ijtihad cannot contradict the Qur'an and Sunnah

For a stance to be correct it needs to have a basis in Qur'an and Sunnah. The fact of the matter is that Imam Ali (as) WAS the legitimate khalifa at the Head of the Ummah and the Qur'an makes it clear that obedience to the Ul'il-Amr, Allah (s) and Rasulullah (s) are one and the same. Obedience is unconditional.

The core component of ijtihad is that this is in effect a last resort measure when NO SOLUTION is found in the Qur'an or Sunnah. Any act that contradicts these two sources cannot be deemed as ijtihad since it has gone against Nass (clear text). It is here that the advocates of Ayesha fall flat on their face because the actions of Ayesha and her supporters was a violation of the Qur'an and Sunnah, as we shall seek to prove:

Reply Two - The duty to take the correct interpretation of the Quran from Ali (s) negates the defence of his opponents correctly interpreting ijtihad


Whilst we reject the notion that Ayesha and the other Sahaba (who ruined their hereafter) that fought Ali bin Abi Talib (as) did so on the basis of exercising Ijtihad, we believe that this excuse was coined much later by the staunch adherents of certain Nasibi Sahaba. If we were for arguments sake going to accept this, such an excuse would not absolve such culprits since the only individual with the correct interpretation of the Quran in terms of fighting was Ali bin Abi Talib (as). We read the following words of Holy Prophet (s):

"Among you is one who will fight for its (Quran's) interpretation just as I fought for its revelation." The audience was very excited. Among them were Abu Bakr and Umar. Abu Bakr asked: "Am I the one?" and the Prophet's answer was negative. `Umar inquired: "Is it I?" and the Prophet answered: "No; but it is the one who is mending the shoes," meaning thereby Ali; therefore, we visited `Ali to convey the good news to him, but he did not even raise his head, as if he had already heard it from the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him and his progeny."
Al-Mustadrak, Volume 3 page 122. Both Imam al-Hakim and Imam al-Dhahabi have declared it ‘Sahih’. 

Comment

Every form of true Jihad is a struggle for the Quran, but, if your war is NOT for the Qur'an, then you are only causing fitna and literally murdering people! When Imam Ali (as) was fighting for the interpretation of the Quran then that automatically renders the cause of his opponents false, unjustified and unlawful. Their duty was to turn to Imam Ali (as) to ascertain the correct interpretation of the Quran, not (as Ansar.org suggest), to take their own interpretation of the Quran and fight him.

Reply Three - Rasulullah (s) telling Ayesha that women cannot participate in Jihad negates the defence of correctly interpreted ijtihad

We shall evidence this through three traditions.

We read in Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 43: 

Narrated 'Aisha: 
(That she said), "O Allah's Apostle! We consider Jihad as the best deed. Should we not fight in Allah's Cause?" He said, "The best Jihad (for women) is Hajj-Mabrur (i.e. Hajj which is done according to the Prophet's tradition and is accepted by Allah)." 

Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 127: 

Narrated 'Aisha: 
the mother of the faithful believers, I requested the Prophet permit me to participate in Jihad, but he said, "Your Jihad is the performance of Hajj." 

Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 128: 

Narrated 'Aisha: 
the mother of the faithful believers: The Prophet was asked by his wives about the Jihad and he replied, "The best Jihad (for you) is (the performance of) Hajj." 

All of the above traditions have reached us from Ayesha via Ayesha the daughter of Talhah. In the first tradition Ayesha makes a specific request to the Prophet (s) to participate in jihad, and he (s) said the Hajj remained the best form of jihad for them. Ayesha was not seeking consent to physically arm herself and enter the battlefield as a combatant! All she was requesting was the right to acquire the blessing of accompanying soldiers, coming to their aid should the need arise (e.g. water provision, tending to their wounds etc). The Prophet (s) rejected such a request making it clear that women have no place on the battlefield. Ayesha personally knew that there was a prohibition on her venturing onto a battlefield, so the question is why did she choose to ignore this order and instead mobilise men onto the plains of Jamal, to do battle against the legitimate Head of State? Why was she allowing her presence on the battlefield to be used by her supporters as the rallying point for battle? 

As we have made it clear in Reply One, ijtihad cannot contradict Nass (the Quran and Sunnah), so tell us

• Was Ayesha’s entry on to the battlefield not a breach of the three traditions that she had herself narrated?
• If not, why not?
• Is the order of the Prophet (s) not the same as the order of Allah (swt)?
• Is this not an open violation of the words of the Prophet (s)?
• Is the entrance of the wife of Rasulullah (s) onto a battlefield, wherein she causes the division of the Ummah causing incalculable loss, not an insult to the memory of the Prophet (s)?

Reply Four - Ayesha's disobedience of Ali (as) contradicted the Qur'an and hence negates the defence of correctly interpreted ijtihad

Abu Sulaiman had stated:

Ansar.org states:
There is no doubt that Aysha, Talha, and Al-Zubair were seeking the killers of Uthman before obeying to Ali as an obeisance to Allah.


In other words Ayesha had entered a campaign of disobedience against Imam Ali (as). The difficulty that Abu Sulaiman has here is the Qur'an, places an unconditional duty upon the believer to obey the Ul'il Umr (those in authority):

"O you who believe! Obey Allah and his Apostle and those in authority among you" (Surah Nisa verse 59). 

According to Ahl'ul Sunnah once bayya is given to a leader he is the Ul'il Umr and hence obedience to him is unconditional. The people of Madina had given bayya to Imam 'Ali (as) without any coercion he was the legitimate khalifa. Therefore, his obedience was compulsory. The obedience is a duty and is on par with obedience to Allah (swt) and his Prophet (s). Obedience is not based on pre-conditions being met BEFORE obedience is given. It is explicit obedience, that is clear and unambiguous.

There is no basis in either the Qur'an or Sunnah that you withhold allegiance to the rightful Ul'il Umr until any grievances you have are resolved or that you ransom, oppose and fight him if you don't get your way. If such a provision exists we challenge Ansar.Org to bring their proof. In accordance with this verse, it was incumbent upon Ayesha and her supporters to give Imam 'Ali (as) their unconditional support, they had to obey his every word. Ayesha's failure to do this, and worse not just disobey the Imam of the Ummah but encourage others to follow suit and pursue a course of mass rebellion and war against him is a blatant violation of this verse.

Reply Five - Ayesha’s turning away from Ali (as), violated an explicit hadith of Rasulullah (s) and hence negates the defence of correctly interpreted ijtihad

Ansar.org states:
"each side thought the truth lies with him/her and interpreted the mistake of the other party differently. Both parties came out to reform as I said, and none of the two parties wanted to fight, but it happened. Allah has the matter in His hands, before it, and after it".


Even if we accept this feeble claim, we should point out that only one party had the Qur'an and Sunnah to support its position and that party was Imam 'Ali (as)'s. He was the Ul'il Umr so his decision had to be honored. Moreover, how could Ayesha's party have been searching for the truth by turning away from Imam 'Ali (as)? Rasulullah (s) had told the faithful:

"Ali is with the truth and the truth is with Ali"
1. Nuzul ul Abrar, page 24
2. Kanz al-Ummal, Volume 6 page 157 Chapter "Fadail 'Ali"
3. Tauhfa Ithna Ashariyyah, page 216
4. Tafsir Kabir, Volume 1 page 105
5. Jama Tirmidhi, Volume 2 page 573 Chapter "Manaqib 'Ali ibne 'Abi Talib"
6. Fara'id us Simtayn, page 174 Chapter 36
7. Manaqib, by Khawarzmi Chapter 8 page 56
8. Kunuz al Haqaiq, page 160
9. Seerah al Halabiyah, Volume 3 page 236
10. Manaqib by Ibne Maghazli page 144

This hadith is accepted by Ahl'ul Sunnah as Sahih. It clearly means that the further away an individual is from 'Ali (as), the further away he is from finding the truth. If the truth rests with Imam Ali (as), then how can those who rejected, disobeyed and fought him be 'rewarded' in their search for the truth? This hadith proves that the 'only' way that individuals could remain on the true path was if they attached themselves to Imam 'Ali (as), the Ul'il Umr upon whom obedience is wajib. Abu Sulaiman advances the common excuse namely that?

Ansar.org states:
"none of the two factions was an oppressor because the death of Uthman divided the Islamic nation to two parties"


This defence also fails because Rasulullah (s) had told his followers where to turn in times of fitnah, he said:

‘There will be affliction after me, therefore when ever it happens follow Ali bin Abi Talib because he separates between the truth and falsehood (Farooq)’ 
Kanz ul Ummal, Volume 11 page 914 Hadith 32964

The duty was to attach themselves to Ali (as) NOT to separate from him, we also have these explicit words of Rasulullah (s):

After me people shall experience fitna, you will split into groups, he then pointed at Ali and said: ‘Ali and his companions shall be on the right path’ 
Kanz ul Ummal, Volume 11 page 621 Hadith number 33016

From this tradition it is clear that the ONLY way that the Ummah could save itself from fitnah and division was to side with Imam 'Ali (as). Did Ayesha's party adhere to the words of Rasulullah? Clearly not! Rather than follow the words of Allah (swt) [The Qur'an 4:59} and his Rasul (s) and affiliate themselves with Imam 'Ali (as), Ayesha deemed it fit to oppose, rebel and fight him. It is tragic that someone with the stature of Ayesha gave no value to such traditions of guidance, whilst an ordinary believer understood exactly who to side with on the basis of such Prophetic guidance, we read in Majma al-Zawaed, Volume 9 page 184 Tradition 14769:

Jari bin Samra said: ‘When the conflict between the people of Basra and Ali bin Abi Talib took place, I traveled to Madina and met Maymoona bint al-Harith – of the Bani Helal tribe. I greeted her, and she asked: ‘Where do you come from’? I replied: ‘From Iraq’. She asked: ‘From which part of Iraq?’ I replied: ‘From Kufa’. She asked: ‘From which tribe of Kufa?’ I replied: ‘From Bani Amer’. She replied: ‘You are most welcome, why have you come here?’ I replied: ‘There was dispute between Ali and Talha and Zubair, I therefore came to give bayya to Ali’. She replied: ‘By Allah, the truth is with him, he was never on error nor would ever lead to error’. She repeated that three times. 

Reply Six – The legal duty to kill oath breakers and rebels negates the defence of correctly interpreted ijtihad

We read in Al-Bidayah wal-Nihayah:

عن أحمد بن حفص البغدادي عن سليمان بن يوسف، عن عبيد الله بن موسى، عن فطر، عن حكيم بن جبير، عن إبراهيم، عن علقمة عن علي قال: أمرت بقتال الناكثين والقاسطين والمارقين.

Ali said: ‘I was ordered to fight Nakitheen (oath breakers), Qasateen. (those who refrained from giving bayya to the Imam) and Maraqeen (Khwaarij)’. 

In Sharh Maqasid, Volume 2 page 304, Allamah Sa`duddeen Taftazanee after narrating this hadith of Rasulullah (s), states clearly "the oath breakers were Talha, Zubayr and Ayesha".

In Matalib al Sa'ul p 68 we read:

فبدأ علي بقتال الناكثين وهم أصحاب الجمل وثنى بقتال القاسطين وهم أصحاب معاوية

“Ali started by fighting the oath breakers (Nakitheen) who were the people of battle of Jamal and then he fought the Qaseteen who were the companions of Mu'awiya”. 

Ibn Athir records:

Abu Saeed narrated: ‘Allah's messenger (s) ordered us to fight Nakitheen, Qasateen and Maraqeen, we asked: ‘Oh Allah's messenger ! You ordered us to fight them but along with who?’ He said with Ali Ibn abi Talib and Ammar bin Yasir will be killed’’. 
 Usad ul Ghaba, Volume 1 page 801

At another place we read:

Mukhnaf bin Salim said: ‘We went to Abu Ayub and asked: ‘You by your sword fought with Allah's messenger (s) against the polytheists, then you kill Muslims’? He replied: ‘Rasulullah (s) ordered that I kill Nakitheen, Qasateen and Maraqeen’’. 
 Usad ul Ghaba, Volume 1 page 801

Comment

It is proven from these traditions that those who opposed 'Ali were breaking the oath of allegiance, the duty was to kill them this was based on the order of Rasulullah (s). Talha, Zubayr and Ayesha were at the forefront of this group.

Ayehsa's duty was to obey the Imam of the time as is stipulated by Allah (swt) as a general rule and explicitly in relation to Maula 'Ali (as) by Rasulullah (s) who declared: 

"Whoever obeys 'Ali, obeys me, whoever obeys me, obeys Allah, whoever disobeys 'Ali, disobeys me, whoever disobeys me, disobeys Allah" 
Kanz al-Ummal, hadith numbers 32973

Comment

This hadith is absolutely explicit, obedience to 'Ali (as) is unconditional, it is on par with obedience to Rasulullah (s) and Allah (swt). Applying this to Rasulullah's orders, it is clear that the onus was to kill those that broke the oath. This duty applied to ALL individuals and to excuse Ayesha's actions as an exercise in ijtihad, is baseless because in the view of Rasulullah (s), the duty was to kill the perpetrators of such an act not reward them for their efforts of interpretation.

Reply Seven - Rasulullah (s) deeming Zubayr unjust for fighting Ali (as) negates the defence of correctly interpreted ijtihad


Ansar.org states:
"true hadeeths, which proves that neither Aysha, Al-Zubair, Talha, nor Ali wanted to fight each others".


First and foremost, the three beloved personalities of Abu Sulaiman leaving their place with a prepared army shall suffice as evidence of their intention. Even if we were to (for arguments sake) accept the claim that these three individuals had NO intention to fight Imam 'Ali (as), the fact of the matter is they did and Rasulullah (s) in his various predictions had warned Ayesha about the rebellion and she and her colleagues being on the wrong path, in fact being infidels. To be more precise, Rasulullah (s) had told Zubayr that he would fight 'Ali (as) and warned him of the consequences, as we read in Al-Imama wal-Siyasa, page 67 and al-Bidaya wa al-Nihaya, Volume 7 page 241:

عن أبي جرو المازني.قال: شهدت عليا والزبير حين تواقفا، فقال له علي: يا زبير ! أنشدك الله أسمعت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يقول: " إنك تقاتلني وأنت ظالم " ؟ قال: نعم ! لم أذكره إلا في موقفي هذا ، ثم انصرف.

Abi Jaru al-Mazeni said: ‘I saw Ali and Zubair when they met, hence Ali said: ‘Oh Zubair! I appeal you in the name of Allah, didn’t you hear Allah's messenger (s) saying that you shall fight me while you being an oppressor?’ He (Zubair) replied: ‘Yes! Just now I remembered that’. Then he (Zubair) left.’ 

Comment

We ask Ansar:

1. Was this hadith praising or condemning Zubayr?
2. Can an individual declared by Rasulullah (s) as unjust on account of his actions, be defended for using ijtihad for which he shall be rewarded?
3. Did Rasulullah (s) state that Zubayr will fight 'Ali (as) having exercised ijtihad for which he shall receive one reward and his mistake forgiven?
4. If Rasulullah (s) did not declare that Zubayr would exercise ijtihad then on what basis have Abu Sulaiman and his fellow advocates reached this conclusion? Are they more knowledgeable than Rasulullah (s)?
5. If all the Sahaba are just (according to Ahl’ul Sunnah) why did Rasulullah (s) deemed the Sahabi Zubayr unjust for fighting Imam Ali (as)? Do these words of the Prophet (s) not debunk this Sunni belief system?

Zubayr's only act of fighting against Imam 'Ali (as) was at Jamal, and Rasulullah (s) deemed him to have been Dhaalim on account of his opposition to 'Ali (as). Abu Sulaiman had confidently asserted "none of the two factions was an oppressor" but this hadith PROVES that those who fought Imam 'Ali (as), were so misled that they were deemed by Rasulullah (s) to be Dhaalim (i.e.) they WERE oppressors. It would be incorrect to suggest that this only referred to Zubayr because he had not entered into a duel against Imam 'Ali (as). He was at the helm of the opposition group. If he was Dhaalim on account of his war with 'Ali (as), then so were his associates, such as Ayesha.

Reply Eight – Hadith that deem fighting Imam Ali (as) to be on par with fighting Rasulullah (s) negates the defence of correctly interpreted ijtihad

We would ask those with objective minds to think over this scenario: 

"You are sitting in the midst of Rasulullah (s) and have turned to him to resolve a dispute. He (s) rejects your claim. rather than accept the decision, you leave his presence, enter the neighboring town and encourage others to support your cause. You inform the people that you have been hard done by and that you will force Rasulullah (s) to concede to your demands. You whip up a frenzy, challenging Rasulullah's authority and go to war against him".

If you had behaved in this way i.e. disobeying, rebelling and going to war with Rasulullah (s), could you defend your decision by stating that your decision was on account of your interpreting the Deen i.e. ijtihad? Would Allah (swt) reward you for your efforts to interpret the Shari'a in this way?

With this in mind let us now contemplate this hadith, taken from Riyadh al Nadhira Volume 2 page 199 Chapter "Manaqib 'Ali":

'Abu Bakr narrates:
"I saw the Messenger of God pitch a tent in which he placed 'Ali, Fatima, Hasan, and Husayn. He then declared: 'O Muslims, I am at war against anyone who wars against the people of this tent, and am at peace with those who show peace toward them. I am a friend to those who befriend them. He who shows love toward them shall be one of a happy ancestry and good birth. Nor would anyone hate them except that he is of miserable ancestry and evil birth"

Nawasib shall no doubt seek to place the onus on Ali (as) by alleging that he initiated the war, and hence his opponents were not at war against him per se, rather they were defending themselves. To this our reply is clear, whoever takes a stand against Ali (as) is taking a stand against the Prophet (s). If Imam Ali (as) declares war on a group the Prophet (s) is likewise at war with such individuals. There is no room to excuse their behavior on account of mistaken ijtihad. 

In this there is no doubt, the Prophet (s) made this point absolutely clear with these words, as narrated by Zaid bin Arqam found in Sunan Ibn-I-Majah, English translation by Muhammad Tufail Ansari, Volume 1 page 81 

"Allah's Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said regarding 'Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Husain (Allah be pleased with them all): I am at peace with those with whom you make peace and I am at war with those whom you make war"

Al Muhaddith Shah Abdul Aziz Dehlavi in Tauhfa Ithna Ashariyyah Chapter 11 page 392 makes this admission:

Sunni and Shi'a are in agreement that Rasulullah (s) told 'Ali, "Whoever fights you, fights me and whoever is at peace with you is at peace with me".

Imam of Ahl'ul Sunnah Allamah Sa'dudeen Taftazani in Sharh Maqasid, Volume 2 page 305 states:

"Proof that the opponents of 'Ali were fasiq comes from the fact Rasulullah said 'O 'Ali whoever fights you fights me'. 

Comment

We would ask those with open minds to contemplate the seriousness of this hadith. Fighting Ali (as) and Rasul (s) are one and the same - this being the case how can Ayesha and her supporter's actions be defended as having exercised ijtihad when they had in effect gone to war against Rasulullah (s)? Can those who fight Rasulullah (s) be rewarded for ijtihad and forgiven for their mistake? 

Reply Nine – Ayesha’s role as Leader of her people negates the defence of correctly interpreted ijtihad

Sibt Ibn Jauzi al-Hanafi records in Tazkirah tul Khawwas page 43 Chapter "Dhikr Jamal" the following testimony of a narrator:

"I was walking through Jamal and witnessed a man on the ground rubbing his heels and reciting poetry, another narrators states that someone asked (the same man) 'Who are you?' to which he replied 'I am in that woman's army who intends to become Ameerul Momineen".

This role as the self proclaimed leader of the ‘justice for Uthman’ opposition group, contradicts a clear tradition wherein the Prophet (s) condemned peoples that are led by women. We read in Sahih Bukhari Volume 9, Book 88, Number 219:

Narrated Abu Bakra: 
During the battle of Al-Jamal, Allah benefited me with a Word (I heard from the Prophet). When the Prophet heard the news that the people of the Persia had made the daughter of Khosrau their Queen (ruler), he said, "Never will succeed such a nation as makes a woman their ruler." 

In Sharh Maqasid, Volume 2 page 377 Imam of Ahl'ul Sunnah Sadudeen Taftazani sets out the conditions to be an Imam:
1. Free
2. Man
3. Just
4. Adult and sensible

Then in his discussion of the conditions he states clearly that a woman CANNOT be an Imam because she is not apt with regards to the matters of religion and logic, morever she has been forbidden to participate in battles and courts. 

While here we see that Ayesha not only go herself misguided but also became cause of misguidance of thousands of stars Like Sahaba who had come out to fight under her command. Now some shameless Nawasib still deny that Ayesha’s role in war of Jamal could not be considered as a leader but it is another lame excuse on their part due to the fact that:

1. Ayesha was conducting all affairs of war.
2. Ayesha in her own capacity wrote to Caliph Ali challenging him to do whatever he good to stop the rebellion against him
3. People were seeking her permission before taking any steps were taken, they for example turned to Ayesha to rule on how Iam Ali (as)’s Basran Govenor should be punished
4. We have the testimony of Sahabi Abu Bakra who relied on a Hadith as grounds condemning women at the helm of the state as grounds for not fighting at Jamal.

Reply Ten – Amar bin Yasir’s testimony that obedience to Ayesha constitutes disobedience to Allah (swt) negates the defense of correctly interpreted ijtihad

We read in Sahih Bukhari Hadith, Volume 9 Hadith 220:

Narrated Abu Maryam Abdullah bin Ziyad al-Aasadi: 
When Talha, al-Zubair and Aisha moved to Basra, Ali sent Ammar bin Yasir and al-Hasan bin Ali who came to us at Kufa and ascended the pulpit. al-Hasan bin Ali was at the top of the pulpit and Ammar was below al-Hasan. We all gathered before him. I heard Ammar saying, "Aisha has moved to al-Basra. By Allah! She is the wife of your Prophet in this world and in the Hereafter. But Allah has put you to test whether you obey Him (Allah) or her (Aisha)." 

Look carefully at the testimony of Amar (ra), he is making it clear that the Muslims are being subjected to a test of their faith and must make a choice about who to obey, Allah (swt) or Ayesha. This shows us that the position that Ayesha had adopted was diametrically opposed to that of Allah (swt), so much so that one that obeyed her, would in consequence be disobeying Allah (swt). If obedience to Ayesha at Jamal constituted disobedience to Allah (swt) how can her advocates assert that she has exercised correctly interpreted ijtihad? A mujtahid’s role is to interpret religious texts to endure compliance with the commands of Allah (swt), one that is so misguided that her actions are a breach of the rules imposed on her by Allah (swt), and is so astray that anyone that follows disobeys Allah (swt) in the process can never be described as mujtahid correctly interpreting ijtihad!

Some stupid Nawasib take heart from this tradition and suggest that the testimony 'is the wife of your Prophet in this world and in the Hereafter' is an acknowledgement of Ayesha being in Paradise. We would like to remind such pathetic Nawasib that not an exclusive merit of Ayesha the husband / wife relations created in this world remain intact in the hereafter no matter if one spouse enters paradise and the other Hell. relationships are not just limited to this world. A wife for example will be your mother in the next world whether her abode is Paradise or Hell, the relationship does not sever in the next world. Ayesha being the wife of the Prophet (s) is a reality because she was his widow at the time of death, this spousal relationship shall remain as a matter of fact, no matter where she ends up in the next world. Take the example of the wife of Nuh (as) she is his wife in this world and the next, the fact that this wife shall suffer the pangs of Hell is irrelevant, her being the wife of the Prophet Nuh (as) remains unchanged. If the thick and stubborn Nasibi minds are incapable of grasping this reality then allow us to present the testimony of Imam Qurtubi in this regard who stated in Tazkirah, page 560:

إذا ابتكر الرجل امرأة في الدنيا كانت زوجته في الآخرة

"If a man marries a woman in the life, she will remain his wife in the hereafter"

We read in Tabaqat ibn Saad, Volume 8 page 251:

أخبرنا كثير بن هشام، حدثنا الفرات بن سلمان عن عبد الكريم عن عكرمة وأخبرنا عبد الله بن جعفر الرقي، حدثنا عبيد الله بن عمرو عن عبد الكريم عن عكرمة أن أسماء بنت أبي بكر كانت تحت الزبير بن العوام، وكان شديدا عليها فأتت أباها فشكت ذلك إليه فقال: يا بنية اصبري فإن المرأة إذا كان لها زوج صالح ثم مات عنها فلم تزوج بعده جمع بينهما في الجنة.

"Akrama narrated that Asma bint Abi Bakr was the wife of al-Zubair bin al-Awam and he was too tough with her, she therefore went to her father to complain, he (Abu Bakr) said: 'O daughter, you should observe patience, surely if a woman has a pious man who dies before her and she never remarries after him, both shall be gathered in heaven".

Abu Bakar was of course alluding to that fact those couples that led sinless lives would be entitled to enter paradise but as we pointed out earlier, those couples or a spouse who deviated from the right path shall enter Hell without the reality of their spousal relationship changing. The reality of marital relations shall remain intact even if they shall no longer remain together in the next world.

Reply Eleven – Ayesha’s tears over her role at Jamal negates the defence of correctly interpreted ijtihad

Al Muhaddith Shah Abdul Aziz Dehlavi in Tauhfa Ithna Ashariyyah page 385 and Ibn Taymiyya in Minhajj as Sunnah Volume 2 page 185 both record that:

"When Ayesha would recall the event of Jamal she would cry so profusely that her scarf would be soaked in tears".

Had Ayesha exercised ijtihad then why would she cry so profusely? Shaikh Al Saleh Al Uthaimin in his book of Fatwas "The Muslim's Belief", translated by Ar Maneh Hammad al Johani, p 23 sets out the standard defence for the Sahaba who fought 'Ali (as), namely:

"We believe that the disputes that took place among the Prophet's companions were the result of sincere interpretations they worked hard to reach. Whoever was right among them would be rewarded twice, and whoever was wrong among them would be rewarded once and his mistake would be forgiven"

If this is indeed the case and Ayesha would be forgiven, even if she was wrong, then why would she express such regret? 

Abu Sulaiman had also cited this reference in his defence of Ayesha, namely her testimony:

Ansar.org states:
"I wish I was a fresh branch of a tree and never walked this walk." [13] ? if Aysha wanted to fight instead of making peace, then why the regret?


Perhaps it would be more appropriate for Abu Sulaiman to answer the fact 'If Ayesha had exercised ijtihad for which she will be rewarded and forgiven if wrong - then why the regret? Clearly Ayesha did not deem her alleged 'ijtihad' as an interpretation for which she would be rewarded and forgiven even if it was a mistake. Ayesha was fully aware that the fitnah that she had caused carried serious consequences along with the fact that she also knew what Rasul (s) had said about his (s)'s Ahlul Bayt. 'O 'Ali whoever fights you fights me'.

Reply Twelve - Ayesha’s deeming her conduct an unforgivable major sin negates the defence of correctly interpreted ijtihad

Chapter "Mawaddatul Saum" we read that:

"Ayesha narrates the Prophet said 'Allah asked me 'Whoever doesn't accept Ali's caliphate and rebels and fights him is a kaffir and will perish in the fire" Someone asked her "Why did you rebel and fight him?" She replied "I forgot this Hadith on the Day of the Battle of Jamal, I remembered it again when I returned to Basra and I asked for Allah's forgiveness, I don't think that I will be forgiven for this sin"

Had Ayesha exercised ijtihad there would have been no need for her to cry or seek repentance for her actions - because this is a such a great act that even the individual interpreting a matter incorrectly "would be rewarded once and his mistake would be forgiven". Ayesha clearly did not feel that this 'reward' applied to her and her testimony that she found it unlikely that she would be forgiven is clear proof that she had committed a grave sin not a mistake in ijtihad. Advocates like Abu Sulaiman and Ibn al Hashimi write belatedly to explain and defend Ayesha, the irony is they provide her defenses that she herself never claimed.

Reply Thirteen - Ayesha’s refusal to be buried next to Rasulullah (s) negates the defence of correctly interpreted ijtihad

Before we cite the actual tradition on this topic, let us begin with the following one from Sahih Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 277: 

Narrated Ibn Abu Mulaika: 
Ibn 'Abbas asked permission to visit Aisha before her death, and at that time she was in a state of agony. She then said. "I am afraid that he will praise me too much." And then it was said to her, "He is the cousin of Allah's Apostle and one of the prominent Muslims." Then she said, "Allow him to enter." (When he entered) he said, "How are you?" She replied, "I am Alright if I fear (Allah)." Ibn Abbas said, "Allah willing, you are Alright as you are the wife of Allah's Apostle and he did not marry any virgin except you and proof of your innocence was revealed from the Heaven." Later on Ibn Az-Zubair entered after him and 'Aisha said to him, "Ibn 'Abbas came to me and praised me greatly, but I wish that I was a thing forgotten and out of sight." 

We read in Sahih Bukhari Volume 9, Book 92, Number 428: 

Narrated Hisham's father: 
'Aisha said to 'Abdullah bin Az-Zubair, "Bury me with my female companions (i.e. the wives of the Prophet) and do not bury me with the Prophet in the house, for I do not like to be regarded as sanctified (just for being buried there)." 

We read in Iqd al-Fareed, Volume 2 page 109:

وقيل لها: تُدفنين مع رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم؟ قالت: لا، إني أحدثت بعده حَدثاً فادفِنُوني مع إخوتي بالبقيع. وقد كان النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قال لها: يا حُميراء، كأني بك تَنْبحك كِلابُ الحُوّب. تقاتلين علياً وأنت له ظالمة.

She (Ayesha) was asked: ‘Should we bury you next to Allah's messenger (s)?’ She said: 'No! As I committed some thing after him (s), bury me with my female companions (i.e. the wives of the Prophet)’. Rasulullah (s) had told her: ‘Oh Humayra that the dogs of Hawab would bark at you, you would fight Ali and you would be an oppressor towards him’. 

Dhahabi in Siyar Alam al-Nubala, Volume 2 page 193, also commented on the will of Ayesha as follows:

قال قالت عائشة وكانت تحدث نفسها أن تدفن في بيتها فقالت إني أحدثت بعد رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم حدثا ادفنوني مع أزواجه فدفنت بالبقيع رضي الله عنها قلت تعني بالحدث مسيرها يوم الجمل فإنها ندمت ندامة كلية

Ayesha desired to be buried in her home, she then said: ‘I have committed an act after the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) thus bury me with his wives’. She was therefore buried in Baqi may Allah be pleased with her.
I say: .'Her usage of the words ‘committed an act’ referred to her march on the day of Jamal, that she had profuse regret over’.

Much can be gauged from Ayesha’s will, namely:

• One’s sins cannot be wiped clean via burial next to the Prophet (s)
• One’s excellence cannot be attained by merely being buried next to the Prophet (s)

With this in mind could Ayesha’s advocates kindly answer these questions:

• When no personal benefit can be acquired via burial next to the Prophet (s) what is the benefit in acquiring such a burial?
• What happened to that close love that the Nawasib suggest existed between the Prophet (s) and Ayesha?
• Do the contents of her will not discredit Abu Bakr and Umar?
• Can the excellence of the Shaykhain on account of their burial next to the Prophet (s) remain a valid argument in light of the comments of Ayesha?
• Does this not debunk a common argument about the Shaikhain advanced by their advocates, that one buried next to the Prophet (s) has all his past digressions eradicated?
• Has Ayesha’s view not made it clear that burial next to the Prophet (s) does not render oneself as protected, rather individual actions are what protects one from sins?
• Has her opinion disrespected the Prophet (s)? 
• If it has, does the Ummah have any recourse against Ayesha?

Could you imagine anyone refusing to be buried next to the Prophet (s) when they had such an option? The only hindrance the common person would have, would be that of shame and a feeling that one is simply to impure and sinful to be laid to rest next to the most perfect of Creations. Those that have led a pious life, free of wrongdoing would jump at such an opportunity. With this in mind how should we interpret the instructions of Ayesha that she not be buried beside Rasulullah (s) on account of her actions? This is a clear admission of her error. Clearly she was conscious of the fact that her actions were extremely serious. Had they been mistakes in ijtihad that still guarantee Allah (swt)'s pleasure, then why the insistence that she be buried away from Rasulullah (s) on account of her actions at Jamal?

Reply Fourteen - Ayesha's regret on her deathbed proves that she was misguided and negates the defence of correctly interpreted ijtihad

In Nasa al Kaafiya, page 28 we learn that:

On her death bed Ayesha seemed perplexed and uncomfortable, when asked why she replied, "The day of Jamal is dogging my mind".

Ansar.Org and their fellow advocates shall no doubt take comfort that Ayesha's regret on her death-bed constitutes Allah's forgiveness. The fact of the matter is she may have regretted her participation in the battle, but she NEVER expressed nor sought forgiveness for her opposition against the Imam of Guidance Ali ibn Abi Talib (as), on the contrary, her hatred was unrelenting. She continued to bear enmity towards him even after Jamal and later on, that she also vented out against his sons. Even if we, for arguments sake, are to interpret (no doubt Abu Sulaiman will) her words on her deathbed as her seeking repentance, by now it was too little, too late. We read in Surah Yunus verses 90 - 92 (A. Yusuf Ali's translation) that Pharoah's acknowledgement of Allah (swt) when death approached him, was deemed too late by Allah (swt):

"We took the Children of Israel across the sea: Pharaoh and his hosts followed them in insolence and spite. At length when overwhelmed with the flood he said: "I believe that there is no God except Him Whom the Children of Israel believe in: I am of those who submit (to Allah in Islam)." (It was said to him): "Ah now! but a little while before wast thou in rebellion! and thou didst mischief (and violence)!" This day shall We save thee in the body, that thou mayest be a sign to those who come after thee! but verily, many among mankind are heedless of Our Signs!" 

Yusuf Ali in his commentary of this verse states clearly:

"This was death-bed repentance, and even so it was forced by the terror of the catastrophe. So it was not accepted (cf. iv. 18) in its entirety".

His last minute plea of forgiveness could not save him from the wrath of Allah (swt).

Reply Fifteen - Rasulullah's hadith 'Fitnah shall appear from the House of Ayesha' is clear proof that she was on the wrong path and negates the defense of correctly interpreted ijtihad


We read the following tradition in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4 Hadith 336:

"Narrated Abdullah: The Prophet stood up and delivered a sermon, and pointed to the house of Aisha, and said: "Fitna (trouble/sedition) is right here," saying three times, "from where the side of the Satan's head comes out." 

We also read in Sahih Muslim, Book 041, Number 6941: 

Ibn Umar reported that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) came out from the house of 'A'isha and said: It would be from this side that there would appear the height of unbelief, viz. where appear the horns of Satan. i. e. cast.

Abu Sulaiman seeks to cover up the truth with this 'alternative' definition:

Ansar.org states:
"If the prophet peace be upon him was meaning the house of Aysha, then he would say "to", not "towards." Muslim narrated from Ibn Omar, "The Messenger of Allah peace be upon him came out from Aysha's house and said, "The head of disbelief comes from here, where the horn of the devil arises." Meaning the east."


This argument is baseless for the following reasons:

1. al-Bukhari has put the tradition related to Aisha in a section named: "What has been said regarding the houses of the wives of the Prophet (s) and what houses were named after them". This shows that al-Bukhari did not understand the tradition as the East as Abu Sulaiman suggests. If the author ever thought that the Prophet (s) meant The East in that particular tradition, he wouldn't have put the tradition in the section of 'what was going on in the houses of the wives of the Prophet (s).' He probably would have put it in the Chapter of al-Fitna or elsewhere. Could Abu Sulaiman kindly explain the correlation between the East and the house of Aisha! Does Abu Sulaiman have a better understanding of this tradition than al Muhaddith Shaykh Ismail al Bukhari? 

2. With regards to Abu Sulaiman's comment: 

Ansar.org states:
"If the prophet peace be upon him was meaning the house of Aysha, then he would say "to", not "towards."


How can he explain the fact that he mentioned in that particular tradition "right here" and the pointing was so clear that the companions understood that he was pointing to the house of Ayesha, as it is mentioned in the text of the tradition? The East can not be "right here" in Madina, in front of the Prophet. In Arabic the text uses the word "ha ona" meaning here - as in within close proximity. The East is NOT within close proximity and if the reference was indeed towards the East then it is there at a distance, Rasulullah (s) would have used the words "honak" - "there" to denote distance.

3. For arguments sake, if the tradition denotes east, then it would certainly have been so vague as to require further elaboration. For example, if there is trouble brewing in the city centre and I state that "Problems are occurring over there" (pointing to the direction of the centre) would those people I told this to, understand what I was saying? Would they not ask me to elaborate as to where exactly I was pointing at i.e. Location? If I had said to the East even then people would ask me to clarify "East which part of the East? Would they not want me to break the area down further? It would be completely normal for further questions to be asked to get a precise understanding of where I was pointing. Does it make sense that Rasulullah (s) by the pointing of his finger, was able to convey successfully to EVERY Sahabi present that he was pointing in the direction of the east? Would the companions not have asked him to clarify which part of the east he was referring to, asking questions about any town / city / province from where this fitnah would rise? This is clearly a feeble attempt to deflect the fact that Rasulullah (s) was pointing at the house of Ayesha. The Sahaba saw no need to ask further questions on the matter. They, through Rasulullah's pointing at Ayesha's house, recognized that fitnah would come from her home.

4. If Abu Sulaiman insists on maintaining this flimsy defense, we would like to know how he would explain the fact that there are traditions in which Rasulullah (s) makes no reference to pointing east. We read in Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal Volume 8 page 373 that:

"Rasulullah (s) came out of the house of Ayesha and said 'the Head of Kufr shall rise from HERE from where Satan's horn shall rise".

Again the Arabic says here "min ha ona" indicating that Rasulullah's referring to closeness not a distance away.

If we delve in to history, we can see how true the words of Rasulullah (s) rang clear. She rebelled against the Caliphate of Imam 'Ali (as), incited opposition to him sought support from the Basrans that led to mass revolt and war. This was the act of fitnah that Rasululllah (s) had predicted, and he had placed the blame squarely at her feet, referring to her as the horn of Satan and pivot of disbelief. Rasulullah's clear use of the words referring to the act as "kufr" and "fitnah” destroys the fallacy that Ayesha had exercised ijtihad for which she shall be rewarded.

© 2002 - 2009 Answering-Ansar.org