This article is the refutation to the Ansar.org's defense for Ayesha's character and her actions.
Chapter Two - The rebellion of Ayesha against Imam Ali [A]
Ayesha's entry onto the battlefield of Jamal was a violation of the Quran
Allah (swt) states clearly with regards to the wives of Rasulullah (s):
"And stay quietly in your houses, and make not a dazzling display, like that of the former Times of Ignorance;...." Al-Quran 33:33
Comment
Our contention is that Ayesha’s leaving her residence following the demise of the Holy Prophet (s) and accompanying into battle a rebellious male movement that opposed the Khalifa of the time, was an open violation of this verse.
Are the Shia incorrect for interpreting the verse in this literal manner?
Ansar.org and Ibn al Hashimi unsurprisingly object to our citation of the above verse, their arguments are as follows:
Ansar.org states:
Ordering to stay at houses does not contradict leaving the house for an ordered benefit as when the woman leaves the house to go to hajj or omrah, or leaves with her husband in a travel. This verse came down in the life of the Prophet peace be upon him and the prophet peace be upon him traveled with his wives afterwards, as the prophet peace be upon him traveled with Aysha and others to Hijjat Al-Wida’a. Also, the Prophet peace be upon him sent Aysha with Abdulrahman, her brother ... Hujjat Al-Wada’a happened before the Prophet’s demise by less than three months after the revelation of this verse. Therefore, prophet’s wives were going to hajj in the Caliphate of Omar and others as they used to with the Prophet and Omar gave Uthman or Abdulrahman bin Owf the leadership of the prophet’s wives’ caravans. Accordingly, if it is allowed for the prophet’s wives to travel for a benefit, then Aysha thought that by her departure a reformation for the Muslims could happen. She interpreted in that matter.”
Ibn al Hashimi states:
Allah’s command to stay in the house was a general condition set upon not only the Prophet’s wives, but all women in general. This does not mean that women can never leave the house; it is rather a general rule of thumb so that they remain chaste and in Purdah. However, it is permissible to leave the house for ordered duties, such as Hajj, Umrah, or travelling with one’s husband. Verses 33:32-34 were revealed to the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم), and he himself travelled with his wives after this. For example, he travelled with Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) to Hijjat Al-Wida’a, and this occurred three months after the verse was revealed. Surely we are not so crass as to accuse the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) of violating the meaning of this verse!
Even after the Prophet’s death, the Prophet’s widows performed Hajj; it is narrated that Umar (رضّى الله عنه) gave Uthman (رضّى الله عنه) or Abdul-Rahman bin Owf (رضّى الله عنه) the leadership of the caravan carrying the Prophet’s widows. “Accordingly, if it is allowed for the Prophet’s wives to travel for a benefit, then Aisha thought that by her departure a reformation of the Muslims could happen [and Muslim lives would be saved]. She interpreted it in that matter.” (Minhaj Al-Sunnah, vol.4, p.317-318)
Reply One – The failure of the Salafis to interpret this verse literally exposes their hypocrisy
We find it amazing that the same Nawasib whose whole doctrine around Tawheed insist on interpreting all those verses relating to the face, hands, eyes of Allah (swt) as literal proof of his having a physical body, suddenly insist that this verse need to be interpreted in a non literal way! When the traditional Salafi approach is believing that Allah (swt) has a physical body because the Quran says so, why aren’t they prepared to accept that Ayesha was prevented from leaving her home, because the Quran says so?
Reply Two – There is a difference between travelling with the Prophet (s) and travelling without him
Could Ibn al Hashimi kindly explain the difference between attending a venue that requires all children to be accompanied by adults, and children attending such a venue unaccompanied? It is lawful for children to enter that venue provided they are accompanied by adults, if they enter without one they automatically break the law. The Sharia sets out rules and regulations and we are duty bound to conduct our lives within the boundaries set for us. One such boundary for the wives of the Prophet (s) was leaving the confines of one’s home. Traveling alongside Holy Prophet (s) would obviously not be a violation of this verse, since he (s) was their husband and most importantly, the one with a comprehensive knowledge of Islamic rulings.
Reply Three – There is a massive difference between going on Hajj and co-coordinating a violent campaign against the Head of State
By weaving the notion of traveling for the purpose of pilgrimage into the debate, both Nasibi authors have sought to convince their naïve readers that the verse was not instructing the wives of the Holy Prophet (s) to remain confined in their homes. It is important to point out here that performing pilgrimage is a personal spiritual journey that neither courts controversy nor negatively impact upon others; can the same be said of Ayesha’s movement against Caliph Ali (as)? Certainly not, as we shall evidence later, her:
◘ leaving her residence,
◘ enlisting men to oppose Imam Ali (as)
◘ leading an opposition campaign that caused the spectacular loss of Muslim life (and that too when the Holy Prophet (s) had forewarned her of her seditious conduct) cannot be compared to someone leaving their dwelling for the purpose of peaceful pilgrimage!
Even if we were to accept that the verse permitted the wives of the Holy Prophet (s) to come out where necessity warranted it, how can her leaving her home, travelling through Iraq to co-ordinate a violent opposition that sought to pressure the Head of State to accede to her demands constitute necessity?
Whilst Ahlelbayt.com and Ansar.Org authors insist that the wives of the Prophet (s) performed Hajj after his (s) death, they should know that during the farewell pilgrimage, the Prophet (s) had told his wives that it was their last pilgrimage and that there was no need for them to leave their homes for this purpose again. The Sunni scholars have evidenced this in their commentaries of none other than verse 33:33. We read in Tafseer Dur al-Manthur, Volume 6 page 599:
Muhammad bin Sirin narrated that Saudah the wife of the Prophet (s) was asked ‘why did you not perform Hajj and Umrah like the other wives of the Prophet (s)?’ Saudah said, ‘I have performed Hajj and Umrah (before) and Allah ordered me to remain in my home. By God I will not leave home until my death.’ (Ibn Sirin) said: ‘By God, she did not leave her home until her death, when her funeral bier was taken out.’
Ibn Kathir records in Al-Bidayah wal-Nihayah, Volume 7 page 119:
ولم تحج بعد حجة الوداع لا هي ولا سودة، لقوله عليه السلام لازواجه " هذه ثم ظهور الحصر " وأما بقية أزواج النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فكن يخرجن إلى الحج وقالتا زينب وسودة: والله لا تحركنا بعده دابة.
After the Farewell Hajj, she (Zainab) and Sauda never performed Hajj again because the Prophet (s) had said: ‘This is your last Hajj, after this you must pray on floor mats’, [whilst] the other wives would perform Hajj, Zainab and Sawda would say ‘Nothing shall move us’.
Reply Four – Imam Ali (as) deemed Ayesha’s leaving her home to oppose him to be a violation of the Quranic verse
The Nawasib can provide as much advocacy as they like, but it will not succeed in refuting the fact that Ayesha did breach the conditions imposed on her in the Quranic verse under discussion. Our assertion is substantiated by the position of Imam Ali (as) who deemed her conduct to constitute a breach of this Quranic verse. We read the following account in Iqd al-Fareed, Volume 2 page 108, wherein he (as) cascaded his view to Ibn Abbas (ra) who then presented it to Ayesha:
He (Ali) said: ‘Go to that woman and tell her to return to her home wherein Allah had ordered her to remain’. He (Ibn Abbas) said: ‘I therefore went to her and asked permission to enter, but she didn’t grant it. I therefore entered the house without her permission and sat on a cushion. She (Ayesha) said: ‘O ibn Abbas, by Allah I have never witnessed anyone like you! You entered our house without permission and sat on our cushion without our permission’. I said: ‘By Allah this is not your house, your only house is the one wherein Allah ordered you to remain, but you didn’t obey. The Commander of the Faithful orders you to return to that homeland from which you had left.
Iqd al-Fareed, Volume 2 page 108 [
Iqd al-Fareed, Volume 2 page 108]
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 record that prior to the battle of Jamal:
وكتب علبه السلام إلى عائشة : أما بعد ، فإنك خرجت من بيتك عاصية لله تعالى ولرسوله
"He Ali (as) wrote a letter to Ayesha: 'By leaving your home you have disobeyed Allah (swt) and his Rasul (s)"
Comment
The Nawasib of Ansar.Org and Ahlelbayt.com submit as many excuses as they like, the fact of the matter is that the Imam of Truth, Ali (as) felt that Ayesha had no basis to support her stance; she was acting in opposition to Allah (swt) and his Rasul (s). Whose opinion should we rely on, these Nasibi writers or the Gate of Knowledge, Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib (as)?
Reply Five – The Sunni scholars of Tafseer have said that these verses prohibited the wives from leaving their homes
Let us now cite some Sunni commentaries to become better informed of the instructions set out in the cited verse to the wives of the Holy Prophet (s). Imam Showkani records in Fatah al-Qadeer, Volume 4 page 395:
ومعناه : الأمر لهن بالتوقر والسكون في بيوتهن وأن لا يخرجن
“It means that they were instructed to remain at home and not venture out.”
Abu Bakr al-Jazaeri records in Aysar al-Tafasir, Volume 4 page 1408:
{وقرن في بيوتكن } أي أقررن في بيوتكن ولا تخرجن منها إلا للحاجة
‘{And stay quietly in your houses} means stay at home and don’t go out unless it is for a necessary thing’.
We have already stated that no sane pious person would deem the steps taken by Ayesha to constitute legitimate grounds for her leaving her home. That is precisely why some Sunni sources narrate that Ayesha (on hindsight) realized that she was wrong and had sinned by leaving her home and leading a male movement onto a bloody battlefield leaving scores of Muslims dead. This grave sinful act affected Ayesha to such an extent that whenever she recited this verse, she lamented over the tragedy that she had inflicted on the Ummah (alas, it was too late for her). It is also relevant to point out that some Sunni scholars have recorded this very reaction of Ayesha in their commentaries of this said verse, al-Ghernati for example records in al-Tasehil le Uloom al-Tanzil, Volume 2 page 365:
وكانت عائشة إذا قرأت هذه الآية تبكي على خروجها أيام الجمل
Whenever Ayesha recited this verse she would weep on account of her march at Jamal (battle).
Imam Jalaluddin Suyuti records in Tafsir Dur al-Manthur, Volume 6 page 600 records:
Masrooq [ra] narrated that when Ayesha [ra] would recite this verse, she would cry so profusely that her cover would become soaked with tears.
Comment
The distraught reaction of Ayesha shall suffice to water down all Nawasib attempts to distort the divine injunction placed upon the wives of the Holy Prophet (s). Ayesha’s advocates would lead us to believe that their client exercised ijtihad for which she would receive one reward if she was wrong, with any sin committed wiped out. One wonders how correct such an approach is when textual evidence cites this distraught reaction of Ayesha. Her tears do not suggest that she was confident of her conduct being pardoned let alone be rewarded for her approach.
© MMII - MMIV Answering-Ansar.org | © 2002 - 2009 Answering-Ansar.org
Ayesha's entry onto the battlefield of Jamal was a violation of the Quran
Allah (swt) states clearly with regards to the wives of Rasulullah (s):
"And stay quietly in your houses, and make not a dazzling display, like that of the former Times of Ignorance;...." Al-Quran 33:33
Comment
Our contention is that Ayesha’s leaving her residence following the demise of the Holy Prophet (s) and accompanying into battle a rebellious male movement that opposed the Khalifa of the time, was an open violation of this verse.
Are the Shia incorrect for interpreting the verse in this literal manner?
Ansar.org and Ibn al Hashimi unsurprisingly object to our citation of the above verse, their arguments are as follows:
Ansar.org states:
Ordering to stay at houses does not contradict leaving the house for an ordered benefit as when the woman leaves the house to go to hajj or omrah, or leaves with her husband in a travel. This verse came down in the life of the Prophet peace be upon him and the prophet peace be upon him traveled with his wives afterwards, as the prophet peace be upon him traveled with Aysha and others to Hijjat Al-Wida’a. Also, the Prophet peace be upon him sent Aysha with Abdulrahman, her brother ... Hujjat Al-Wada’a happened before the Prophet’s demise by less than three months after the revelation of this verse. Therefore, prophet’s wives were going to hajj in the Caliphate of Omar and others as they used to with the Prophet and Omar gave Uthman or Abdulrahman bin Owf the leadership of the prophet’s wives’ caravans. Accordingly, if it is allowed for the prophet’s wives to travel for a benefit, then Aysha thought that by her departure a reformation for the Muslims could happen. She interpreted in that matter.”
Ibn al Hashimi states:
Allah’s command to stay in the house was a general condition set upon not only the Prophet’s wives, but all women in general. This does not mean that women can never leave the house; it is rather a general rule of thumb so that they remain chaste and in Purdah. However, it is permissible to leave the house for ordered duties, such as Hajj, Umrah, or travelling with one’s husband. Verses 33:32-34 were revealed to the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم), and he himself travelled with his wives after this. For example, he travelled with Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) to Hijjat Al-Wida’a, and this occurred three months after the verse was revealed. Surely we are not so crass as to accuse the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) of violating the meaning of this verse!
Even after the Prophet’s death, the Prophet’s widows performed Hajj; it is narrated that Umar (رضّى الله عنه) gave Uthman (رضّى الله عنه) or Abdul-Rahman bin Owf (رضّى الله عنه) the leadership of the caravan carrying the Prophet’s widows. “Accordingly, if it is allowed for the Prophet’s wives to travel for a benefit, then Aisha thought that by her departure a reformation of the Muslims could happen [and Muslim lives would be saved]. She interpreted it in that matter.” (Minhaj Al-Sunnah, vol.4, p.317-318)
Reply One – The failure of the Salafis to interpret this verse literally exposes their hypocrisy
We find it amazing that the same Nawasib whose whole doctrine around Tawheed insist on interpreting all those verses relating to the face, hands, eyes of Allah (swt) as literal proof of his having a physical body, suddenly insist that this verse need to be interpreted in a non literal way! When the traditional Salafi approach is believing that Allah (swt) has a physical body because the Quran says so, why aren’t they prepared to accept that Ayesha was prevented from leaving her home, because the Quran says so?
Reply Two – There is a difference between travelling with the Prophet (s) and travelling without him
Could Ibn al Hashimi kindly explain the difference between attending a venue that requires all children to be accompanied by adults, and children attending such a venue unaccompanied? It is lawful for children to enter that venue provided they are accompanied by adults, if they enter without one they automatically break the law. The Sharia sets out rules and regulations and we are duty bound to conduct our lives within the boundaries set for us. One such boundary for the wives of the Prophet (s) was leaving the confines of one’s home. Traveling alongside Holy Prophet (s) would obviously not be a violation of this verse, since he (s) was their husband and most importantly, the one with a comprehensive knowledge of Islamic rulings.
Reply Three – There is a massive difference between going on Hajj and co-coordinating a violent campaign against the Head of State
By weaving the notion of traveling for the purpose of pilgrimage into the debate, both Nasibi authors have sought to convince their naïve readers that the verse was not instructing the wives of the Holy Prophet (s) to remain confined in their homes. It is important to point out here that performing pilgrimage is a personal spiritual journey that neither courts controversy nor negatively impact upon others; can the same be said of Ayesha’s movement against Caliph Ali (as)? Certainly not, as we shall evidence later, her:
◘ leaving her residence,
◘ enlisting men to oppose Imam Ali (as)
◘ leading an opposition campaign that caused the spectacular loss of Muslim life (and that too when the Holy Prophet (s) had forewarned her of her seditious conduct) cannot be compared to someone leaving their dwelling for the purpose of peaceful pilgrimage!
Even if we were to accept that the verse permitted the wives of the Holy Prophet (s) to come out where necessity warranted it, how can her leaving her home, travelling through Iraq to co-ordinate a violent opposition that sought to pressure the Head of State to accede to her demands constitute necessity?
Whilst Ahlelbayt.com and Ansar.Org authors insist that the wives of the Prophet (s) performed Hajj after his (s) death, they should know that during the farewell pilgrimage, the Prophet (s) had told his wives that it was their last pilgrimage and that there was no need for them to leave their homes for this purpose again. The Sunni scholars have evidenced this in their commentaries of none other than verse 33:33. We read in Tafseer Dur al-Manthur, Volume 6 page 599:
Muhammad bin Sirin narrated that Saudah the wife of the Prophet (s) was asked ‘why did you not perform Hajj and Umrah like the other wives of the Prophet (s)?’ Saudah said, ‘I have performed Hajj and Umrah (before) and Allah ordered me to remain in my home. By God I will not leave home until my death.’ (Ibn Sirin) said: ‘By God, she did not leave her home until her death, when her funeral bier was taken out.’
Ibn Kathir records in Al-Bidayah wal-Nihayah, Volume 7 page 119:
ولم تحج بعد حجة الوداع لا هي ولا سودة، لقوله عليه السلام لازواجه " هذه ثم ظهور الحصر " وأما بقية أزواج النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فكن يخرجن إلى الحج وقالتا زينب وسودة: والله لا تحركنا بعده دابة.
After the Farewell Hajj, she (Zainab) and Sauda never performed Hajj again because the Prophet (s) had said: ‘This is your last Hajj, after this you must pray on floor mats’, [whilst] the other wives would perform Hajj, Zainab and Sawda would say ‘Nothing shall move us’.
Reply Four – Imam Ali (as) deemed Ayesha’s leaving her home to oppose him to be a violation of the Quranic verse
The Nawasib can provide as much advocacy as they like, but it will not succeed in refuting the fact that Ayesha did breach the conditions imposed on her in the Quranic verse under discussion. Our assertion is substantiated by the position of Imam Ali (as) who deemed her conduct to constitute a breach of this Quranic verse. We read the following account in Iqd al-Fareed, Volume 2 page 108, wherein he (as) cascaded his view to Ibn Abbas (ra) who then presented it to Ayesha:
He (Ali) said: ‘Go to that woman and tell her to return to her home wherein Allah had ordered her to remain’. He (Ibn Abbas) said: ‘I therefore went to her and asked permission to enter, but she didn’t grant it. I therefore entered the house without her permission and sat on a cushion. She (Ayesha) said: ‘O ibn Abbas, by Allah I have never witnessed anyone like you! You entered our house without permission and sat on our cushion without our permission’. I said: ‘By Allah this is not your house, your only house is the one wherein Allah ordered you to remain, but you didn’t obey. The Commander of the Faithful orders you to return to that homeland from which you had left.
Iqd al-Fareed, Volume 2 page 108 [
Iqd al-Fareed, Volume 2 page 108]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 record that prior to the battle of Jamal:
وكتب علبه السلام إلى عائشة : أما بعد ، فإنك خرجت من بيتك عاصية لله تعالى ولرسوله
"He Ali (as) wrote a letter to Ayesha: 'By leaving your home you have disobeyed Allah (swt) and his Rasul (s)"
Comment
The Nawasib of Ansar.Org and Ahlelbayt.com submit as many excuses as they like, the fact of the matter is that the Imam of Truth, Ali (as) felt that Ayesha had no basis to support her stance; she was acting in opposition to Allah (swt) and his Rasul (s). Whose opinion should we rely on, these Nasibi writers or the Gate of Knowledge, Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib (as)?
Reply Five – The Sunni scholars of Tafseer have said that these verses prohibited the wives from leaving their homes
Let us now cite some Sunni commentaries to become better informed of the instructions set out in the cited verse to the wives of the Holy Prophet (s). Imam Showkani records in Fatah al-Qadeer, Volume 4 page 395:
ومعناه : الأمر لهن بالتوقر والسكون في بيوتهن وأن لا يخرجن
“It means that they were instructed to remain at home and not venture out.”
Abu Bakr al-Jazaeri records in Aysar al-Tafasir, Volume 4 page 1408:
{وقرن في بيوتكن } أي أقررن في بيوتكن ولا تخرجن منها إلا للحاجة
‘{And stay quietly in your houses} means stay at home and don’t go out unless it is for a necessary thing’.
We have already stated that no sane pious person would deem the steps taken by Ayesha to constitute legitimate grounds for her leaving her home. That is precisely why some Sunni sources narrate that Ayesha (on hindsight) realized that she was wrong and had sinned by leaving her home and leading a male movement onto a bloody battlefield leaving scores of Muslims dead. This grave sinful act affected Ayesha to such an extent that whenever she recited this verse, she lamented over the tragedy that she had inflicted on the Ummah (alas, it was too late for her). It is also relevant to point out that some Sunni scholars have recorded this very reaction of Ayesha in their commentaries of this said verse, al-Ghernati for example records in al-Tasehil le Uloom al-Tanzil, Volume 2 page 365:
وكانت عائشة إذا قرأت هذه الآية تبكي على خروجها أيام الجمل
Whenever Ayesha recited this verse she would weep on account of her march at Jamal (battle).
Imam Jalaluddin Suyuti records in Tafsir Dur al-Manthur, Volume 6 page 600 records:
Masrooq [ra] narrated that when Ayesha [ra] would recite this verse, she would cry so profusely that her cover would become soaked with tears.
Comment
The distraught reaction of Ayesha shall suffice to water down all Nawasib attempts to distort the divine injunction placed upon the wives of the Holy Prophet (s). Ayesha’s advocates would lead us to believe that their client exercised ijtihad for which she would receive one reward if she was wrong, with any sin committed wiped out. One wonders how correct such an approach is when textual evidence cites this distraught reaction of Ayesha. Her tears do not suggest that she was confident of her conduct being pardoned let alone be rewarded for her approach.
© MMII - MMIV Answering-Ansar.org | © 2002 - 2009 Answering-Ansar.org
