Ayesha

Ayesha
Work file: the_ayesha.pdf

Project: Answering-Ansar.org Articles
Revisions:
No. Date Author Description Review Info

2.0.0 22.12.2008 Answering-Ansar.org 2nd Edition
1.0.0 23.01.2002 Answering-Ansar.org Created
Copyright © 2002-2008 Answering-Ansar.org. • All Rights Reserved

Page 2 of 89
Contents
Table of Contents
1.CHAPTER ONE - THE REBELLION OF AYESHA AGAINST IMAM ALI (AS).......... 3
2.CHAPTER TWO – REFUTING THE DEFENCES SUBMITTED BY AYESHA’S

ADVOCATES............................................................................................................................... 8
3.CHAPTER THREE – REFUTING THE OBJECTIONS OF AYESHA’S ADVOCATES

...................................................................................................................................................... 41
4.CHAPTER FOUR - UNTANGLING THE LIES SPUN BY AYESHA’S ADVOCATES

...................................................................................................................................................... 46
5.CHAPTER FIVE: THE STANCE OF IMAM ALI (AS).....................................................62
6.CHAPTER SIX: AYESHA'S ENMITY TOWARDS IMAM ALI (AS).............................64
7.CHAPTER SEVEN – THE MERITS OF AYESHA FROM THE PEN OF HER

ADVOCATES............................................................................................................................. 68
8.WAS AYESHA THE MOST SUPERIOR WIFE OF RASULULLAH (S)?......................69
9.THE 'TRUE' SHIA POSITION WITH REGARDS TO AYESHA.................................... 85
10.COPYRIGHT........................................................................................................................ 89

Page 3 of 89
1. Chapter One - The rebellion of Ayesha against Imam Ali

(as)
1. 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.
2. 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

Page 4 of 89
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 (‫)صلى ال عليه وآله وسلم‬, and he himself
travelled with his wives after this. For example,
he travelled with Aisha (‫ )رض ى ال عنها‬to 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 (‫ )صلى ال عليه وآله وسلم‬of
violating the meaning of this verse!
Even after the Prophet’s death, the Prophet’s

widows performed Hajj; it is narrated that Umar (
‫ )رض ى ال عنه‬gave Uthman (‫ )رض ى ال عنه‬or Abdul-
Rahman bin Owf (‫ )رض ى ال عنه‬the 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)
3. 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?
4. 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.
5. 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

Page 5 of 89
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:

‫ لقوله عليه السلم لزواجه " هذه ثم ظهور الحصر " وأما بقية‬،‫ولم تحج بعد حجة الوداع ل هي ول سودة‬
‫ وال ل تحركنا بعده دابة‬:‫أزواج النبي صلى ال عليه وسلم فكن يخرجن إلى الحج وقالتا زينب وسودة‬.
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’.
6. 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

Page 6 of 89
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
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:
‫ فإنك خرجت من بيتك عاصية ل تعالى ولرسوله‬، ‫ أما بعد‬: ‫وكتب علبه السلم إلى عائشة‬
"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)?
7. 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:
‫ المر لهن بالتوقر والسكون في بيوتهن وأن ل يخرجن‬: ‫ومعناه‬
“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 ول تخرجن منها إل 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 الية 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.

Page 7 of 89
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.

Page 8 of 89
2. Chapter Two – Refuting the defences submitted by

Ayesha’s advocates
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.
8. Defense One - Ayesha was acting as an arbiter demanding Qisas for

Uthman?

The Prophet’s widow, Aisha (‫)رض ى ال 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 (‫)رض ى ال عنه‬, who married
two of Aisha’s half-daughters.
9. 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 though
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 streer 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.
10. 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 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

Page 9 of 89
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:
‫ وعثمان رجل من بني أمية وأنت امرأة‬، ‫ وزعمت أنك طالبة بدم عثمان‬، ‫فخبريني ما للنساء وقود العسكر‬
‫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 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.
11. 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 there 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
Sharià since the Head of State can ONLY enforce the Law of Qisas.

Page 10 of 89
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:

£‫ه‬£‫ر‬¤‫ي‬¥‫ى غ‬¥‫ا إل‬¥‫ه ل‬
£ ¤‫ي‬¥‫ا إل‬¥‫ت§ه‬¥‫ام‬¥‫إق‬£‫و‬¥ ‫ى‬¥‫ال‬¥‫ع‬¥‫ه ت‬
£ ‫ق© ال̈ل‬¥‫د ح‬¥ ‫حد§و‬
§ ‫ل‬¤ ‫ا‬
“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 المام يملك أمورا ل 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 المام‬
“Implementing punishments is the duty of the Imam’
12. 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.
13. 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.

Page 11 of 89
14. 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)
15. Defence Three - Ayesha was seeking to prevent bloodshed and open
rebellion

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 (‫)رض ى ال 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 (‫)رض ى ال 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 (‫ )صلى ال عليه وآله وسلم‬told Saudah (
‫)رض ى ال 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

Page 12 of 89
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)
16. 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?

Page 13 of 89
• 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:
Aisha’s intentions (‫ )رض ى ال عنها‬were to prevent
warfare; she even advised people to stay at home
instead of adding to the Fitnah. Aisha (‫رض ى ال‬
‫ )عنها‬said: “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!
17. 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”.
bin Jarir: Dahabi said: ‘Thiqah’ (Al-Kashif, v2 p356), Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah’ (Taqrib al-
18. Defence Four – Ayesha was legally entitled to act in the manner that
she did

In fact, if Aisha (‫ )رض ى ال عنها‬thought that leaving
her house was the only way to save Muslim lives,
then it would not only be Halal for her to leave

Page 14 of 89
her house but no doubt it would be Wajib

(obligatory).
It is narrated in both Sahih Bukhari and Muslim
that the Prophet (‫ )صلى ال عليه وآله وسلم‬told Saudah (
‫)رض ى ال 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)
19. 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
Ths 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:

Page 15 of 89
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?’
Kanz ul Ummal, Volume 11 page 334 Tradition 31671
Imam Abi Bakar al-Haythami records:

‫ ليت شعري أيتكن صاحبة الجمل‬: ‫ قال رسول ال صلى ال عليه و سلم لنسائه‬: ‫وعن ابن عباس قال‬
‫الديب تخرج فينبحها كلب 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

Page 16 of 89
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:

‫ تقاتلين علي́ا وأنت له‬.‫ب‬²‫ب الح§و‬
§ ‫ل‬£‫بحك ك‬¤‫تن‬¥ ‫ كأني بك‬،‫ يا ح§ميراء‬:‫وقد كان النبي صلى ال عليه وسلم قال لها‬
‫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 ال عنها في الخروج وقد اعترفت بخطئها وأن الولى‬
‫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:

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

Page 17 of 89
Baladhuri records in Ansab al-Ashraf, Volume 1 page 286:

‫ وجاء بخمسين من‬، ‫ كذب من زعم أن هذا الماء الحوأب‬: ‫وعزمت على الرجوع فأتاها عبد ال بن الزبير فقال‬
‫بني عامر فشهدوا وحلفوا على صدق عبد ال‬
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.
20. 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:

Page 18 of 89
‘Sahih according to the standards of Bukhari and Muslim’
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

Page 19 of 89
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.
21. 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

Page 20 of 89
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?
22. 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:

‫ فمنعها أخوها عبد ال من‬،‫وكانت حفصة بنت عمر أم المؤمنين قد وافقت عاشئة على المسير إلى البصرة‬
‫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.
23. 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:

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

Page 21 of 89
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?
24. 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)

Aisha’s Intention (‫)رض ى ال عنها‬
Aisha’s intention (‫ )رض ى ال عنها‬for 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)

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

Aisha (‫ )رض ى ال عنها‬feared that if she did not
intercede on behalf of the malcontents by
convincing Ali (‫ )رض ى ال عنه‬to quickly prosecute
the murderers, they would rebel against Caliph Ali
(‫)رض ى ال عنه‬. This point cannot be emphacized
enough: Aisha (‫ )رض ى ال عنها‬left her house with
the intention of reconciling Muslims, not to make
them fight.

Page 22 of 89
25. 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 (‫رض ى ال‬
‫)عنها‬, most Muslims at that time had a great deal
of respect for her, including Ali (‫)رض ى ال عنه‬. It is
likely that Ali (‫ )رض ى ال عنه‬would 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 (‫ )رض ى ال عنها‬who
was responsible for the Fitnah but rather it was
the ancestors of the Shia–the murderers of
Uthman (‫–)رض ى ال عنه‬who caused the Battle of the
Camel. They had killed Uthman (‫)رض ى ال عنه‬, and
they did not want Aisha (‫ )رض ى ال عنها‬to convince

Page 23 of 89
Ali (‫ )رض ى ال عنه‬to 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.
26. 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.
27. 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 and 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 رجل´ 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

Page 24 of 89
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 رجل´ 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 رجل´ وأرسلوا بما فعله من أخذ عثمان وأخذ ما في بيت المال إلى عائشة يستشيرونها‬
‫ فقالت لها امرأة‬.‫في عثمان وكان الرسول أليها أبان بن عثمان فقالت عائشة اقتلوا عثمان بن حنيف‬
‫نشادتك ال يا أم المؤمنين في عثمان بن حنيف وصحبته لرسول ال صلى ال عليه وسلم فقالت ردوا أبانا‬
‫فردوه فقالت احبسوه ول تقتلوه فقال أبان لو أعلم أنك رددتني لهذا لم أرجع وجاء فأخبرهم فقال لهم‬
‫مجاشع بن مسعود اضربوه وانتفوا شعر لحيته فضربوه أربعين سوط́ا 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

Page 25 of 89
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

Page 26 of 89
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
makpeace 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!
28. 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 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.
29. Defence Five - Ayesha was seeking to embarrass people into not
fighting

Aisha (‫ )رض ى ال عنها‬said 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

Page 27 of 89
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.’”
30. 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.
31. 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.
32. 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?
33. Defence Six – Ayesha was seeking to use her influence to end the
conflict

It should be noted that most people alive during
the Battle of the Camel respected the Prophet’s

Page 28 of 89
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 (‫رض ى ال‬
‫)عنها‬, most Muslims at that time had a great deal
of respect for her, including Ali (‫)رض ى ال عنه‬. It is
likely that Ali (‫ )رض ى ال عنه‬would 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.
34. 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!
35. 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"
36. 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

Page 29 of 89
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:
37. 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.
Ùmar 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 Àli 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.
38. Reply Three - 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).

Page 30 of 89
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.
39. Reply Four - 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"

Page 31 of 89
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.
40. Reply Five – The legal duty to kill oath breakers and rebels negates the
defence of correctly interpreted ijtihad
We read in Al-Bidayah wal-Nihayah:

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

Page 32 of 89
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.
41. Reply Six - 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:

Page 33 of 89
‫ يا زبير ! أنشدك ال أسمعت‬:‫ فقال له علي‬،‫ شهدت عليا والزبير حين تواقفا‬:‫قال‬.‫عن أبي جرو المازني‬
‫ نعم ! لم أذكره إل في موقفي هذا‬:‫ " إنك تقاتلني وأنت ظالم " ؟ قال‬:‫رسول ال صلى ال عليه وسلم يقول‬
‫ 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.
42. Reply Seven – 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:

Page 34 of 89
"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`duddeen 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?
43. Reply Eight – 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:

Page 35 of 89
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.
44. Reply Nine – 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

Page 36 of 89
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 الخرة‬
"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:

،‫ حدثنا الفرات بن سلمان عن عبد الكريم عن عكرمة وأخبرنا عبد ال بن جعفر الرقي‬،‫أخبرنا كثير بن هشام‬
،‫حدثنا عبيد ال بن عمرو عن عبد الكريم عن عكرمة أن أسماء بنت أبي بكر كانت تحت الزبير بن العوام‬
‫ يا بنية اصبري فإن المرأة إذا كان لها زوج صالح ثم مات‬:‫وكان شديدا عليها فأتت أباها فشكت ذلك إليه فقال‬
‫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.
45. Reply Ten – 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"

Page 37 of 89
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'.
46. Reply Eleven - 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.
47. Reply Twelve - Ayesha’s refusal to be buried next to Rasulullah (s)

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."

Page 38 of 89
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:

‫ن§وني مع‬£‫دث́ا فادف‬¥‫ إني أحدثت بعده ح‬،‫ ل‬:‫ ت§دفنين مع رسول ال صلى ال عليه وسلم؟ قالت‬:‫وقيل لها‬
.‫ب‬²‫ب الح§و‬
§ ‫ل‬£‫بحك ك‬¤‫تن‬¥ ‫ كأني بك‬،‫ يا ح§ميراء‬:‫ وقد كان النبي صلى ال عليه وسلم قال لها‬.‫إخوتي بالبقيع‬
‫تقاتلين علي́ا 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’.
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?
48. Reply Thirteen - 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!"

Page 39 of 89
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).
49. Reply Fourteen - Rasulullah's hadith 'Fitnah shall appear from the
House of Ayesha' is clear proof that she was on the wrong path and
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 went on in the
houses of the wives of the Prophet". 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

Page 40 of 89
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.

Page 41 of 89
3. Chapter Three – Refuting the objections of Ayesha’s

advocates
Having refuted the defenses submitted by Ayesha’s advocates in the previous chapter, we shall
in this one seek to continue the debate by assessing the merits of specific objections that Ibn al
Hashimi submitted.
50. First Objection – The suggestion that Ayesha wanted to fight Imam Ali
(as) is a Shia concocted fairytale

One of the most common lies in regards to Aisha
(‫ )رض ى ال عنها‬is that she left her house to fight Ali
(‫ )رض ى ال عنه‬in the Battle of the Camel. This lie
has been propagated so many times by the Shia
scholars that people have started to think of this
as fact. In the words of Ibn Khaldum: “The more
a supposed ‘incident’ becomes popular, the more
a network of unfounded tales and stories is
woven around it.”
51. Reply One – If anyone is fond of perpetuating fairytales it is the

Nawasib
The irony is we could say exactly the same with ibn al Hashimi’s ad nauseum claim that all
Fitnah from the anti Uthman movement until the assassination of Maula Ali (as) was the
brainchild of Abdullah Ibn Saba. This Nasibi has continually sought to play the same broken
record player in his articles, knowing that these events are based around the narrations of Sayf
ibn Umar whose unreliability as a hadith narrator has unanimous Sunni opinion. With the
popularity of these narrations Nawasib have subsequently sought to expand on such lies to give
further credibility to this fairy tale, to paraphrase Ibn Khaldun “The more a supposed
‘incident’ becomes popular, the more a network of unfounded tales and stories is
woven around it.”
We would invite Ibn al Hashimi to examine his own methodology before slandering others.
52. Reply Two – Ayesha’s conduct evidences her desire to fight Imam Ali
(as)
Perhaps we are being simple, but when Ayesha:

• convenes a meeting in her home, wherein discussions focus on fighting Ali (as) and
recruiting men from Basrah, where Talhah has influence (cited in the previous chapter)
• refuses to negotiate with Ali (as) and in fact seeks to undermine his authority, be telling
him through written correspondence that issues are non negotiable (cited in the
previous chapter)
• appears with fighting men on a camel, thus acting as the mascot for a cause,
can we not interpret such conduct as evidence of her desire to fight Imam Ali (as)?
As we had stressed previously, had her intention been different she would have sought to enter

Page 42 of 89
into negotiations with Imam Ali (as) directly in Makka, not sought to give her backing to
movement intent on overthrowing Imam Ali (as)!
53. Second Objection - Why would Ayesha demand Qisas for a man whose
downfall she had contributed towards?
It is interesting that Abu Sulaiman poses this question:

Ansar.org states:
"if Aysha was delighted for the death of Uthman,
then why she would go after Uthman's
murderers? Did she come out to prevent Ali from
taking the Caliphate?"
54. Reply
In light of the lead role Ayesha took in inciting people to kill Uthman, it would be much more
appropriate for Ayesha’s advocates to answer this question themselves. We have proven from
the sources cited in our article ‘Who killed Uthman’ that during his lifetime, Ayesha was a
severe critic of Uthman, to the point that she advocated his killing. When hearing that Imam 'Ali
(as) had become the khalifa, her tone had changed immediately. All of a sudden she portrayed
Uthman as being killed unjustly and she chose to rebel against Imam Ali (as) on the premise
that his killers should be apprehended. Why did she leave Makka, portray Uthman as a victim
and mobilize opposition from Basrah? Was this decision based on her desire to defend Uthman
or was it motivated by her animosity towards Ali (as)? These are questions that Ayesha’s
advocates always shy away from. Ansar.Org might well feel outraged at the suggestion that
Ayesha’s real motive was ‘to prevent Ali from taking the Caliphate?’ but as we have cited
previously the words spoken by Ibn Zubayr, one of her key Lieutenants in Basrah namely ‘We
don’t consider him more eligible for leadership than we’ (History of Tabari, English
Edition, Volume 16 pages 68-69) – proves that her motive was just that.
55. Third objection - Why would the Banu Ummayya want to forge links
with those that had killed Uthman?

“The fact of the matter is that there were
hundreds of people protesting on the streets, all
of them demanding Qisas for Uthman’s murder.
Most of these were from the same tribe of
Uthman (‫)رض ى ال عنه‬. For example, the Syrian
governor, Muawiyyah (‫)رض ى ال عنه‬, was one such
individual. There was also Talha (‫ )رض ى ال عنه‬and
Zubair (‫)رض ى ال عنه‬. The question begs: if Aisha (
‫ )رض ى ال عنها‬had publically advocated Uthman’s
murder and she was complicit in his murder, then
why would she later be “allied” with Muawiyyah (
‫)رض ى ال عنه‬, who also fought with Ali (‫?)رض ى ال عنه‬
This is truly a contradiction! Wouldn’t Muawiyyah
(‫ )رض ى ال عنه‬have fought Aisha (‫ )رض ى ال عنها‬to
punish her for murdering his cousin? Why would
Muawiyyah (‫ )رض ى ال عنه‬murder his own cousin,
especially the cousin who bestowed upon him
favor upon favor, evidenced by the fact that the

Page 43 of 89
Shia scholars love to show Uthman’s nepotism (

‫ )رض ى ال عنه‬in relation to Muawiyyah (‫”)رض ى ال عنه‬.
56. Reply One – The merger took place as a mechanism to oust Imam Ali
(as) from power
That is one of the biggest ironies! In our article on Uthman we had submitted strong evidence
proving the lead role of Talha and Zubayr in killing Uthman. We also evidenced Ayesha’s
sympathy towards those that were opposed to Uthman. If events that then lead to Jamal
involved the Banu Ummaya and the killers of Uthman forging an alliance, it would be more apt
for questions to be asked from the supporters of the Sahaba. It is for Ibn al Hashimi to answer
this:
1. If all the Sahaba are just and truthful does that include those Sahaba that lead an anti
Uthman movement that enabled the siege of his home and murder?
2. If the above individuals were just and truthful for their role in overthrowing Uthman,
how do they remain just and truthful when they subsequently demanded vengeance for
Uthman?
The fact is these individuals were insincere in their demands for killing Uthman, they were
motivated by a desire to overthrow Imam Ali (as), their demanding Qisas for Uthman was a
mechanism they used to attain this objective. Such a movement would only receive credence if
it gained the support of Uthman’s Ummayad clan which is why an alliance was forged with
them. If the question was asked why the Ummayads would seek to join hands with the killers of
Uthman, we will say that they likewise didn’t care for Uthman they were motivated by their
hatred of Ali (as). On their own they would not have been able to overthrow Ali (as), but with
famed Sahaba supporting their cause, their movement would get popularity and legitimacy.
Both groups were opportunists motivated by a desire to remove Imam Ali (as) as Head of State
as can be evidenced from this tradition that we had partially cited in the previous reply:
Ibn Jarir Tabari also narrated from Ahmad – from his father – from Wahab bin Jarir
bin Hazim – from Yunis 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.
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”.
History of Tabari, English Edition, Volume 16 pages 68-69
bin Jarir: Dahabi said: Thiqah’ (Al-Kashif, v2 p356), Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah’ (Taqrib al-

Page 44 of 89
57. Reply Two – The Banu Ummaya forging links with those that they knew
killed Uthman proves that their objective was not Qisas
It is not uncommon for political opponents to forge an alliance to oppose a common enemy.
Sadly this is the nature of ‘politics’ where bitter enemies become close friends to further a
shared objective. Take the example of Pakistan. There was no love lost between PPP Leader
Asif Ali Zardari and Muslim League Noon Leader Nawaz Sharif. Such was their animosity; they
had each accused the other of corruption during their terms, with Nawaz Sharif imprisoning
Zardari on a vast array of corruption cases when he was in power. Despite this reality we see
how both foes became close allies in 2007/08, dedicated to ousting the (then) President Pervez
Musharraf and restoring democracy to the nation. Their past issues were put aside and they
worked hand in hand to remove their political enemy. Exactly the same scenario applies to the
Ummayad / Ayesha et al. alliance. The Banu Ummayad had agreed to temporarily halt their
pursuit for the killers of Uthman as a merger with these same killers could enable a greater
objective, the removal of Maula Ali (as) from power. The reality of these same individuals killing
Uthman was not missed on the Banu Ummayah and when the opportunity came, they took
revenge from one of the main perpetrators fighting alongside them. Imam Dhahabi has
recorded:
Jawairiya bin Asma narrated from Yahya bin Saeed who narrated from his uncle that
Marwan shot Talha an arrow and killed him, then he looked at Aban (son of
Uthman) and said: ‘I have spared you from one of the murderers of your father.’
Siar alam al-Nubala, Volume 1 page 36
Tell us Ibn al Hashimi, if your Imam Marwan knew that Talhah killed Uthman why did he join
him in Jamal? Clearly it was not to avenge Uthman. Thus both groups used Uthman's murder as
an excuse to enable the overthrow of Imam Ali (as).
58. Fourth Objection – Why do the Shia judge Ayesha differently from the
way they judge Sayyida Fatima (as)?

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

Page 45 of 89
that Aisha (‫ )رض ى ال عنها‬went against her own

Caliph and the Amir Al Mumineen!
59. Reply One – Sayyida Fatima (as) was entitled to Fadak as her legal
right, not due to her status in the eyes of Allah (swt)
The Shia case on Fadak is not based on her being right on account of her position as the
Leader of the Women of Paradise but was because her claim was legitimate in accordance with
the Quran, Sharia, the Sunnah of past Prophets and the instruction of Prophet Muhammad (s).
Compare this to Ayesha who had no legal basis to justify her conduct, on the contrary her
activities were a breach of the Quran, Sunnah and specific Hadith wherein the Prophet
forewarned dire predictions about the barking of Hawab’s dogs and the consequences for those
that fight Maula Ali (as).
60. Reply Two – If anyone has employed double standards it is Ibn al

Hashimi
In his critique of Sayyida Zahra (as) Ibn al Hashimi insisted that she was duty bound to obey
the decision of Abu Bakr on account of his rank as the head of state:
Furthermore, Abu Bakr (‫ )رض ى ال عنه‬was the
Caliph of the Ummah; this is the highest rank
possible, and all the subjects must obey him. As
such, he deserved the respect and obedience of
his subjects, of which includes Fatima (‫رض ى ال‬
‫)عنها‬. As such, if the Shia want to argue that Abu
Bakr (‫ )رض ى ال عنه‬should have been careful about
angering Fatima (‫)رض ى ال عنها‬, an unbiased
observer could easily argue that it was Fatima (
‫ )رض ى ال عنها‬who should have been careful of
angering the Caliph of the Muslims who by the
Shariah was at a rank higher in status than
anyone else.
We appeal to justice, if Sayyida Fatima (as) was duty bound to obey the decision of Abu Bakr
because he was the ‘Calpih of the Ummah’, why does the same not hold true for Ayesha? To
paraphrase Ibn al Hashimi:
“Ali (as) was the Caliph of the Ummah; this is the highest rank possible, and all the
subjects must obey him. As such, he deserved the respect and obedience of his
subjects, of which includes Ayesha”
Why doesn’t Ibn al Hashimi apply the same doctrine to criticize Ayesha’s conduct against Ali
(as) at Jamal? Why is she exempt from obeying Caliph Ali (as) whilst Fatima (as) was not? Was
Ayesha not duty bound to obey the Calip Ali (as) and respect his decision to defer punishment
to a later date? What Quranic verse or Hadeeth entitled Ayesha to behave in the manner that
she did? Ibn al Hashimi’s failure to apply the same principle to Ayesha that he happily applied
to criticize Fatima (as) exposes him for the hypocrite he is.

Page 46 of 89
4. Chapter Four - Untangling the lies spun by Ayesha’s

advocates
In line with their Master advocates Ibn Taymeeya, Ibn Kathir and Shah Abdul Aziz - Abu
Sulaiman and Ibn al Hashimi had sought to play down the situation with the claim that the two
parties had resolved hostilities and that the battle of Jamal was in fact started by the followers
of Ibn Saba hiding within Imam Ali (as)'s army, and it is they (not Ayesha et al.) that should be
blamed for the fitnah. Their modern day spiritual sons put to paper the same lies, with some
additional baseless claim to sensationalize the dossier of evidence against the Shia. This chapter
shall seek to untangle the lies that had spun and shall lift the lid on their status and liars of the
highest order.
61. Did the Sabaites cause Fitnah during the Battle of Jamal?

The truth is that both Umm Al Mumineen (Mother
of the Believers) Aisha (‫ )رض ى ال عنها‬and Amir Al
Mumineen (Commander of the Believers) Ali (‫رض ى‬
‫ )ال عنه‬were innocent of the Fitnah during the
Battle of the Camel (al-Jamal). The real culprits
who instigated the Battle of the Camel were the
Shia, who have historically been the cause of
much Fitnah.
62. Reply One – The onus is on Ibn al Hashimi to prove the authenticity of
these narrations
In our article ‘Who really killed Uthman’ we submitted a detailed discussion about the
unreliability of the reports which mention the role of Ibn Saba during the era of Uthman and
subsequent events, since they are all narrated by the notorious liar Sayf Ibn Umar. Abu
Sulaiman and Ibn al Hashimi's failure to cite the specific narrations relating to the Sabaite role
in killing Uthman at various points in their articles, entitles us to assume that they are relying
on the very fabrications narrated by Sayf Ibn Umar. If other narrations / chains existed we are
sure that these Nawasib would have cited them with the complete chain highlighted in gold.
Our suspicions become stronger when (later on) we see them switch to a narrative in a
summarized manner from Tabari.
If our claim is wrong, we would invite Ibn al Hashimi to substantiate his claim, firstly by citing
those Sunni sources that mention the role of the Sabaites in the Battle of Jamal and then
evidencing that each of those chains is Sahih. It is only then, that he will have a valid ground to
make such an assertion.
63. Reply Two – Ayesha and her supporters spreading Fitnah long before
the battle of Jamal destroys the Ibn Saba defence card
Let us for arguments sake accept Ibn al Hashimi’s assertion that the Sabaites were involved in
‘Fitnah during the Battle of the Camel (al-Jamal)’ the battlefield is that place wherein all manner
of rumor / misunderstanding can take place. If the Sabaites had been party to this during
battle, who was responsible for bringing Ayesha and her armed supporters onto the battlefield
in the first place? Did the Sabaites bound and gag Ayesha onto a camel and then dump her in
Jamal? Were her supporters under some evil Sabaite hypnosis that duped them to gather on
masse at Jamal? Was some medieval superglue used to attach swords to their hands? Did the

Page 47 of 89
Sabaites deceive these pious individuals and tell them that Maula Ali (as) had invited them all to
an outdoor picnic at Jamal, but they should bring their swords with them as no small cutlery
was available? Ibn al Hashimi needs to recognize that battles do not just occur overnight. It
takes time, strategic planning and crucially soldiers that Ayesha had at her disposal.
If Ayesha was averse to any form of Fitnah why did she:

1. allow her supporters to violently take control of Basrah, killing innocent Shia in the
process
2. allow the capture, torture and expulsion of Imam Ali (as)’s appointed Governor of
Basrah
3. become party to rallies in Basrah that talked of overthrowing Imam Ali (as) due to him
being unfit for office?
When Basrah was taken by force, from where these rallies were convened that sought to
attract support and stoke up animosity towards the Head of State, then would such conduct not
fall within the definition of Fitnah?
64. Did Imam Ali (as) condemn his Shia for killing Uthman?

Ali’s Caliphate (‫)رض ى ال عنه‬
After Uthman’s death (‫)رض ى ال عنه‬, the Shia’t Ali

asked Ali (‫ )رض ى ال عنه‬to declare himself Caliph.
Ali (‫ )رض ى ال عنه‬refused, namely out of anger at
his own Shia who murdered Uthman (‫)رض ى ال عنه‬.
Ali (‫ )رض ى ال عنه‬did not want to be associated with
these trouble-makers. This is recorded in Nahjul
Balagha, which the Shia consider very authentic.
[It should be noted that the Ahlus Sunnah believe
the Nahjul Balagha to contain many forgeries.]
The Nahjul Balagha contains the sermons and
letters of Ali (‫ )رض ى ال عنه‬and in it we find sermon
after sermon in which Ali (‫ )رض ى ال عنه‬condems
his Shia–particularly the Saba’ites–for their
extremist actions.
Nahjul Balagha, Sermon 191
Ali says to his Shia:
“You should know that you have again

reverted to the position of the [pagan]
Bedouin Arabs after immigration to Islam,
and have become different Shias after
having been once united. You do not
possess anything of Islam except its name,
and know nothing of belief save its show.
You would throw down Islam on its face in
order to defame its honor and break its
pledge for brotherhood which Allah gave
you as a sacred trust on His earth and a
source of peace among the people…You
have broken the shackles of Islam, have
transgressed its limits, and have destroyed

Page 48 of 89
its commands!”
[source: http://www.al-islam.org/nahjul/191.htm]
65. Reply – Imam Ali (as) was condemning the division of the Ummah into
parties not attacking his specific Shia perse
Look at the dishonesty used by Ibn al Hashimi, he claims to quote it verbatim under the
heading ‘Ali says to his Shia’: but when we look at very online version that has quoted from
he says Condemning his people. Having sought to suggest that the sermon was referring to
his Shia, he then again used the term Shia in the text, whereas the English says parties he
writes ‘and have become different Shias after having been once united ‘ - so as to
suggest that the entire sermon is a condemnation of his Shia adherents. When Imam Ali (as)
was the Khalifa over the Islamic State then all of its citizens were ‘his people’ whether they
accepted him willingly or grudgingly, so that included those that:
• deemed him the rightful Khalifa after the Prophet (s)
• deemed him the rightful fourth khalifa (political Shias)
• were prepared to give bayya subject to Imam Ali (as) apprehending Uthman’s killers
• hated him and refused to recognize him as the Khalifa (Uthmani Shias)
This sermon was Imam Ali (as)’s criticism of the conditions at the time. It was a severe
condemnation of the state of the Muslim Ummah, that had divided into groups with differing
agendas and this was contrary to the spirit of brotherhood and unity dictated by the Quran and
Sunnah. This sermon was therefore a wakeup call by our Imam (as) to all his subjects, making
it clear that this atmosphere of division and hostility ran contrary to Islam, and was in effect a
mirror reflection of conditions during the time of jahilyya. What is wrong in a leader assessing
the situation in this way? It is common place for a leader to galvanize public opinion and call for
unity by striking fear into the hearts of his subjects making it clear that anarchy is harmful to a
functioning society. This sermon was an accurate description of the conditions that Khalifa Ali
(as) faced at the time, it was not a sermon (as Ibn al Hashimi would suggest) addressed to the
Sabaites in his party. If it was, could Ibn al Hashimi kindly point us to that part of the sermon
or for that part any sermon in Nahjul Balagha wherein Imam Ali (as) mentions the word Ibn
Saba or Sabaites or condemns his Shia for killing Uthman? If you can’t then you have no right
to interpret this clear cut sermon in this manner!
66. Did the Sabaites force Ali (as) to accept the Caliphate?

Nahjul Balagha, Sermon 91
When people decided to swear allegiance at Amir

al-mu’minin’s hand after the murder of Uthman,
Ali said:
“Leave me and seek someone else. We are facing

a matter which has (several) faces and colors,
which neither hearts can stand nor intelligence
can accept. Clouds are hovering over the sky, and
faces are not discernible. You should know that if
I respond to you, I would lead you as I know and
would not care about whatever [anyone else]

Page 49 of 89
may say. If you leave me, then I am the same as

you are. It is possible I would listen to and obey
whosoever you make in charge of your affairs. I
am better for you as a counsellor than as chief.”
67. Reply – The Sahaba forced Imam Ali (as) to become the Khalifa not the
Sabaites
Ibn al Hashimi’s ability to infer something from Shi’a texts without a shred of evidence is indeed
amazing. He has suggested that Imam Ali (as) refused to become the Khalifa because he
wanted nothing to do with the Sabaites that killed Uthman. Where does he state this in this and
the preceding sermon? By linking this second sermon with his discussions on the Sabaites it
seems that this Nasibi is suggesting that Sabaites forced Imam Ali (as) to become the fourth
Khalifa. By alleging this he has blasphemed the Sahaba, since it was the companions of Madina
that approached our Imam and asked that he lead them through these tough times. To suggest
that these Madinan Sahaba were Sabaites is indeed a blasphemy that Ibn al Hashimi should be
ashamed of! Imam Ali (as)’s refusal was because he knew the sorts of challenges and hostility
he was due to face, that had been a direct consequence of the policies of his predecessors,
particularly Uthman. Undoing such policies would court criticism from various quarters and our
Imam (as) was fed up with the people and preferred to live a life of peace. When the pressure
of the Sahaba became too much he accepted this leadership role. Such facts don’t brother Ibn
al Hashimi who persists on pursuing the same conspiracy theory, clear from his next
allegation…
68. Was the killing of Uthman by the Shia of Ali an established fact?

At first, Ali (‫ )رض ى ال عنه‬refused to be Caliph.
However, he eventually accepted the position and
became Amir Al Mumineen. Upon his
announcement as Caliph, there was a large
grumbling from people who accused Ali (‫رض ى ال‬
‫ )عنه‬of being an accomplice in the murder of
Uthman (‫)رض ى ال عنه‬, since it was well known that
it was an element of the Shia’t Ali who were
responsible for the seige of Uthman’s house (‫رض ى‬
‫)ال عنه‬. This accusation made against Ali (‫رض ى ال‬
‫ )عنه‬is recorded in Sermon 22 of Nahjul Balagha
which is titled “About those who accused Ali of
Uthman’s killing.”
69. Reply One – Ibn al Hashimi is propagating the beliefs of Nawasib
We find it amazing that Ibn al Hashimi suggests that the above is an established fact by stating
‘it was well known that it was an element of the Shia’t Ali who were responsible for the seige of
Uthman’s house’ - when in reality those that were involved in the siege were the Egyptians and
certain prominent Madinan Sahaba. There is no evidence to suggest that they were Shia’t Ali.
We invite Ibn al Hashimi to read this our article ‘Who killed Uthman?’ that will inshallah open his
bigoted eyes to the truth. The problem with shameless Nawasib like Ibn al Hashimi lies in the
fact that they seek to propagate the belief of the Nawasib of that time as correct viewpoints.
Take the allegation about the Shia of Ali (as) killing Uthman at Maula Ali (as)’s behest – this

Page 50 of 89
was not a common Muslim belief at the time, if it was well known then it was well known false
propaganda of the Nawasib of the time, as can be evidenced from the testimony of Ibn al
Hashimi’s beloved Ibn Taimiyya in Ras al-Hussain page 205:
‫كان طائفة من شيعة عثمان يتهمون عليا بأنه أمر بقتل عثمان‬
“A group of Uthman’s Shias (followers) accused Ali of giving orders to kill Uthman.”
What was the conduct of Uthman’s Shias? Ibn Taimiyya informs us:
“Uthman’s Shi’a would openly curse ‘Ali from the Mosque pulpits”.
Minhajj al Sunnah Volume 3 page 178
Note how Ibn al Hashimi is seeking to suggest Nasibi beliefs as those of Muslims. Does this not
expose him for the shameless Nasibi that he is?
70. Reply Two – Imam Ali (as) refutes the suggestion that he and his Shia
killed Uthman in Sermon 22
Ibn al Hashimi has presented the stance of those that cursed Imam Ali (as) as an established
fact. To those who really want to know whether Ibn Saba did indeed kill Uthman through a
movement devised by him we invite our readers to read this chapter. [LINK UTHMAN]
It is interesting that Ibn al Hashimi cites Sermon 22 of Nahjul Balagha suggesting that this
sermon relates to the Shia of Ali (as) that killed Uthman that in turn falsely implicated Imam Ali
(as) on account of association. If Ibn al Hashimi had any decency he would have shown his
readers that in Sermon 22, our Imam refutes such propaganda and rather than accept any
blame on his part or that of his Shia, makes it clear that his political opponents wanting Qisas
for the killing of Uthman are the same individuals that killed him. Let us quote sermon 22,
verbatim
“SERMON 22 - About those who accused him of Ùthman's killing

Beware! Satan has certainly started instigating his forces and has collected his army
in order that oppression may reach its extreme ends and wrong may come back to
its position. By Allah they have not put a correct blame on me, nor have they done
justice between me and themselves.
They are demanding of me a right which they have abandoned, and a blood that
they have themselves shed. If I were a partner with them in it then they too have
their share of it. But if they did it without me they alone have to face the
consequences. Their biggest argument (against me) is (really) against themselves.
They are suckling from a mother who is already dry, and bringing into life
innovation that is already dead. How disappointing is this challenger (to battle)?
Who is this challenger and for what is he being responded to? I am happy that the
reasoning of Allah has been exhausted before them and He knows (all) about them.
The threat to Wage War against them
If they refuse (to obey) I will offer them the edge of the sword which is enough a
curer of wrong and supporter of Right.
It is strange they send me word to proceed to them for spear-fighting and to keep
ready for fighting with swords. May the mourning women mourn over them. I have
ever been so that I was never frightened by fighting nor threatened by clashing. I
enjoy full certainty of belief from my Allah and have no doubt in my faith”.
71. Was Imam Ali (as) harboring the Sabaite killers of Uthman in his own
army?

Page 51 of 89

Qisas
There was a public outcry for Ali (‫ )رض ى ال عنه‬to
enact Qisas [i.e. find and prosecute Uthman’s
killers], and no doubt Uthman’s family and tribe
were anxious to see the murderers brought to
justice. However, Ali (‫ )رض ى ال عنه‬decided to delay
enacting Qisas for the reason that he was too
preoccupied facing a civil war from people who
were accusing him of murder, and this was not
the time to be searching his own ranks for
murderers. It was a time when people were ready
to rebel against Ali (‫)رض ى ال عنه‬, so the last thing
Ali (‫ )رض ى ال عنه‬could afford to do was lose more
supporters by interrogating his own Shia’t Ali.
Because of this, Ali (‫ )رض ى ال عنه‬decided to delay
enacting Qisas, but it should be noted that Ali (
‫ )رض ى ال عنه‬had the sincere intention of eventually
finding and prosecuting Uthman’s killers even
though they were from his own camp. Such was
the noble nature of Ali (‫)رض ى ال عنه‬.
As a consequence of Ali’s decision (‫ )رض ى ال عنه‬to
delay justice [i.e. delay enacting Qisas], hundreds
of people were taking to the streets in protest.
Many of these were from the same tribe of
Uthman (‫ ;)رض ى ال عنه‬for example, the governor
of Syria–Muawiyyah (‫–)رض ى ال عنه‬was Uthman’s
cousin (‫ )رض ى ال عنه‬and he was one of the people
demanding Qisas.
72. Reply
To suggest that Imam Ali (as) was knowingly harboring the killers of Uthman is indeed a
shameless accusation and a slur upon the character of Imam Ali (as). Imam Ali (as) was unable
to implement Qisas because those elements demanding it were themselves directly involved in
killing Uthman and there is no historical evidence that handed themselves in for punishment! As
for the processions this Nasibi should know that these were not widespread procession, rather
they were limited to Syria wherein Muawiyah was using the killing of Uthman as grounds to
oppose Imam Ali (as). There was no sincerity whatsoever it was just propaganda. If these
demands were sincere then we would like Ibn al Hashimi to explain whey the demand for
punishing Uthman was not submitted as a condition during the arbitration at Sifeen? The
grounds for opposing Imam Ali (as) was mysteriously forgotten when it came to negotiations,
why is that? Did Ibn al Hashimi’s beloved Imam experience amnesia at the negotiation stage on
account post traumatic stress disorder he suffered whilst hiding in his tent during the Battle of
Siffeen? If it was amnesia, at least his memory didn’t fail him when he demanded that the
empire be split with him being made the Head of Syria.
73. Did Ayesha, Talhah and Zubayr seek to resolve hostilities and pursue
peace before the Battle of Jamal commenced?

So it was that Aisha (‫)رض ى ال عنها‬, Talha (‫رض ى ال‬

Page 52 of 89
‫)عنه‬, and Zubair (‫ )رض ى ال عنه‬met Caliph Ali (‫رض ى‬

‫ )ال عنه‬to urge him to find the murderers of
Uthman (‫)رض ى ال عنه‬. It should be noted that
during Uthman’s Caliphate, Ali (‫ )رض ى ال عنه‬also
went to Uthman (‫ )رض ى ال عنه‬to urge him to do
many things at the behest of the Beduins who
opposed Uthman (‫)رض ى ال عنه‬. Hence, it can be
seen that there is nothing wrong in negotiating
with the Caliph and urging him to do something,
as long as this is done in a peaceful and
productive manner; in fact, this prevents
bloodshed and violence.
74. Reply One – Violent opposition against the Khalifa of the time can
never evidence the perusal of peace
We agree that the prevention of bloodshed should be the prime motivation to entering into
negotiations. The problem is how can these three be deemed lovers of peace when they had
already spilled the blood of many on route to Jamal? Is that how you negotiate? Kill hundreds
and then try to negotiate a settlement?
75. Reply Two – Devious Ibn al Hashimi failed to cite the exact text, as its
chain is weak
Ibn al Hashimi knowingly failed to cite the text to substantiate his above claim. If we examine
the History of Tabari Volume 16 that deals with the events leading up to Jamal we see only one
reference wherein all the above named personalities were present. It is recorded in the History
of Tabari page Volume 16 page 115:
“Umar - Abu Bakar al-Hudhali - Qatadah: Ali left al-Zawiyah, heading or Talhah, and
al Zubayr and Aishah left al-Furdah, heading for Ali and they all met at the place of
the castle of Ubaydullah b. Ziyad…..”
Whilst Nawasib might seek to argue that this pre meeting evidences a desire amongst Talah,
Zubayr and Ayesha to have an amicable settlement, they should inspect the chain before
jumping with joy. Abu Bakar al-Hudhali has been criticized by the scholars of rijal which hence
makes this narration worthless. For example and he has been declared 'unreliable' by Imam
Dhahabi (Al-Kashif, v2 p414), 'Matruk' by Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani (Taqrib al-tahdib, v2 p369)
and Imam Nasai (Tahdib al-Tahdib, v12 p46), 'Very weak' by Mura (Tahdib al-Tahdib, v12
p46) while Ibn al-Madini said about him: 'Worth nothing' (Tahdib al-Tahdib, v12 p46). This
leaves us with just one other narration that would suggest pre war peace efforts from Tabari.
The Nawasib of Ansar.Org and Ahlelbayt.com of course were keen to quote the narration.
76. Did the Sabaites start the Battle of Jamal when last minute peace
negotiations between Ali (as), Talhah and Zubayr were successful?
Ansar.Org states:
Al-Tabari assures that the people who are
responsible for the deaths of thousands of
Muslims are the murders of Uthman: “When
people came together and became in ease, Ali,
Talha and Al-Zubair came out, agreed, and talked

Page 53 of 89
in the matters they disagreed with each others.

The did not find a better solution than peace and
to end the war when they saw the matter is
started to be cleared and not achievable through
war. They departed from each other agreeing on
their resolution. Ali came back to his barracks and
Talha and Al-Zubair wnet back to their barracks.
In the evening, Ali sent Abdullah bin Abbas to
Talha and Al-Zubair who sent Muhammad bin
Talha to Ali in a job to talk to their comrades.
They all said yes for a peace. At night – that was
in Jamadah Al-A’akhirah – Talha and AL-Zubair
talked to the leaders of their comrades, and Ali
talked to the leaders of his comrades except
those people who ate Uthman. They ended up on
peace and they slept in a night that they never
had before because of the goodness they are
near to and because they got away from what
some people desired and embarked on whatever
they embarked on. And the people who provoked
the matter of Uthman had the worst sleep ever
because they came close to be doomed. They
were discussing their plight the whole night until
they agreed to ignite the war in secret. They took
that as a secret so that no one would know what
evil they were planning. They woke up at dusk
and while their neighbors did not feel them, they
(the agitators) sneaked to do the dirty job in the
darkness ... they laid swords in the believers.
Then the people of Al-Basrah got angry and every
people fought his comrades who were stunned …
..”
The same event has been recorded from Tabari in a condensed fashion by the Ahlelbayt.com
site…
Uthman’s Killers
The murderers of Uthman [the extremist portion
of the Shia’t Ali, i.e. Saba’ites] obviously did not
want Aisha (‫ )رض ى ال عنها‬to be successful in
convincing Ali (‫ )رض ى ال عنه‬to prosecute them.
“And the people who provoked the murder of
Uthman [the Saba’ites] had the worst sleep ever
because they came close to be doomed. They
were discussing their plight the whole night until
they agreed to ignite a war [between Aisha and
Ali] in secret. They took that as a secret so that
no one would know what evil they were planning.
They woke up at dusk and while their neighbors
did not feel them; they (the agitators) sneaked to
do the dirty job in the darkness … they laid
swords in the believers…” [Al-Tabari, vol.3, p.39,
year 36H]

Page 54 of 89
Both Nasibi websites have yet again humiliated themselves since the chain of this narration is
weak. The narration is located in the History of Tabari Volume 16 page 122 under the heading
‘return to Muhammad and Talhah’s account’. The chain of narration from where this
narrative begins appears on page 120 and it is al-Sari-Shayb-Sayf-Muhammad and Talhah
Yet again, the presence of Sari and Sayf renders this narration worthless.
77. Was the Sabaite attack on Ayesha the trigger that started the Battle of
Jamal?

“The Saba’ites…who were fearing of peace…
started throwing Aisha with lances while she was
on her camel…Aisha said: ‘…remember Allah and
Judgment Day.’ But the Saba’ites refused
anything but to fight. So the first thing Aisha said
when the Saba’ites refused to stop was: ‘O
people, curse the killers of Uthman and their
friends.’” [Musnaf Ibn Abi Sheibah, vol.8, the
Book of the “Camel” in the departure of Aisha,
p.718] Aisha’s contingent (‫ )رض ى ال عنها‬then
returned fire in order to defend the Prophet’s
wife, and soon the matter escalated into an all
out conflict.
78. Reply One – The narration Ibn al Hashimi relied on is weak
We would invite Ibn al-Hashimi to corroborate this claim by citing the narration from Musanaf
along with the chain of narration proving that it is authentic. Our suspicion is he never read the
text himself, since the History of Tabari Volume 16 pages 131-2 does not place this event at the
beginning of the battle of Jamal, on the contrary the Sabaite attack was when Ayesha’s troops
had been routed. The narration is as follows…
““Return to Sayf’s account…

…an in the rout the men retreated toward al-Basrah. But when they saw that the
camel had been encircled by Mudar they rallie and reformed as a center [of the
army], as they had been when thy [first] engaged in battle, and returned to fight
anew, while Rabiah of al-Basrah, some as a right flank, some as a left. “Kab!” leave
the camel, and go forward holding the Book of Almighty and Glorious Allah, and
then call them to it!” said Aishah and thrust the Quran copy at him. Then up came
the forces headed by the Sabaiyya fearing that peace would be made, and Kab met
them with the Quran copy. Ali was behind them, restraining them, but they insisted
on advancing, and then when Kab called them they all shot [their arrows] at him at
the same time and killed him…
They the shot at Aishah in her howdah, and she started calling out: “My sons
[Remember] the recompense [of Allah]! The recompense!” She raised her voice very
loud “Allah, Allah! Remember Almighty and Glorious Allah and the reckoning!” But
they insisted on advancing. So the next thing she did when they insisted was to cry
out: “You men! Curse the killers of Uthman and their various supporters!”
79. Reply Two- Ayesha’s supporters initiated the battle of Jamal, not the
Sabaites
When we look at the narrations free of Sayf we see no mention of the Sabaites in Jamal. On the

Page 55 of 89
contrary we are quick to learn who initiated the battle. Since Ibn al Hashimi felt happy citing
Tabari allow us to likewise cite a narration from Tabari with a chain free of Sayf bin Umar. We
are quoting from pages 126-7:
i then said to those around him: ‘Which of you will hold up this copy of the Quran
and what is in it before then? Should his hand been cut off he shall then take it with
the other one; if that is cut off he shall take it with his teeth”. A young buy said, “I
will”. Ali put this to everyone around him, but none volunteered except the boy, so
Ali said to him “Hold this up before them and say, ‘Every word in this shall judge
between you and us, and I beg of you for Allah’s sake to stop shedding our blood
and yours”. But with the copy of the Quran in his hands the boy was attacked. His
hands were cut off so he took it into his teeth until he was killed, Ali then said,
“Battle is now justified, so fight them!”.
bin Jarir: Dahabi said: ‘Thiqah’ (Al-Kashif, v2 p356), Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah’ (Taqrib al-
Imam Ali (as) had every right to declare war against these rebels and start the battle, but he
did not. He gave them a last chance to ascertain their motive. When aggression was initiated by
Ayesha’s side, Imam Ali (as) deemed it legitimate grounds for him to go into battle.
80. Did the killing of Ayesha’s envoy on his way to Medina trigger the
Battle of Jamal?
The Nasibi author was so desperate to impress this on his Sunni readership that he repeated
the same assertion on three occasions:
“And so the Battle of the Camel was initiated, not
by Ali (‫ )رض ى ال عنه‬nor by Aisha (‫;)رض ى ال عنها‬
rather it was Uthman’s killers who attacked
Aisha’s envoy (‫ )رض ى ال عنها‬for fear that her
negotiation mission would succeed and result in
the subsequent capture of those responsible for
the death of Uthman (‫)رض ى ال عنه‬. Ali (‫)رض ى ال عنه‬,
Aisha (‫)رض ى ال عنها‬, Talha (‫)رض ى ال عنه‬, and Zubair
(‫ )رض ى ال عنه‬found their contingents fighting each
other, not even knowing who fired the first shot;
little did they know that it was Uthman’s killers
who had initiated this entire operation, hoping
that it would cause Aisha’s mission (‫)رض ى ال عنها‬
of negotiation to fail. The Saba’ites would blame
the entire matter on Aisha (‫)رض ى ال عنها‬, and we
see clearly today that their descendants–the
Ithna Ashari Shia–have continued this tradition of
blaming Aisha (‫)رض ى ال عنها‬. This is yet another
solid link between Abdullah ibn Saba and the
modern day Shia, both of which slander the
Prophet’s wives and his companions.

Page 56 of 89

The reality is that Aisha (‫)رض ى ال عنها‬, Talha (‫رض ى‬
‫)ال عنه‬, Zubair (‫)رض ى ال عنه‬, Muawiyyah (‫رض ى ال‬
‫)عنه‬, and hundreds of other people wanted Ali (
‫ )رض ى ال عنه‬to apprehend Uthman’s killers who
were in his camp. Ali (‫ )رض ى ال عنه‬always planned
on doing this, and it is likely that he would have
agreed to Aisha’s request (‫ )رض ى ال عنها‬to speed
up the process. Uthman’s killers did not want this,
and they attacked Aisha’s envoy (‫ )رض ى ال عنها‬on
its way to Medinah, thereby initiating the Battle of
the Camel and saving their own skin.
81. Reply One – Ibn al Hashimi has failed to provide any source to back up
his claim
This is a crucial reference for Ibn al Hashimi as he has sought to stress how deceptive the
Sabaites were, they didn’t give peace a chance as they killed Ayesha’s envoy when negotiations
were nearing a positive end. If this event was true, why has Ibn al Hashimi failed to cite its
primary source? The biggest deception Nawasib do is when they provide the summary of a text
to their readers without citing the page number or reference. That way readers are left
assuming that the text has been quoted verbatim, and those seeking to verify such texts are in
effect forced to find a needle in haystack. Shameless hypocrites like Ibn al Hashimi do this
intentionally, after all most people don’t have the time to delve into books and verify such
citations, they are just led to rely on the integrity of the ‘trustworthy’ author. In this instance,
Ibn al Hashimi has severely abused his position of trust.
82. Reply Two – Why would the Sabaites want to kill an envoy heading
away from Jamal?
Ibn al Hashimi by suggesting this incident at the negotiation stage, prior to the commencement
of battle was seeking to create public revulsion towards those he deemed the ancestors of the
Shia, after all they were so evil they did everything to prevent the likelihood of a peaceful
settlement, stooping as low as slaughtering the peace envoy of Ayesha! Firstly the narration
that Ibn al Hashimi relied on regarding the pre Jamal negotiation is weak on account of Sayf bin
Umar in the chain. Secondly, what would be the logic in the envoy of Ayesha being killed on his
way to Madina? Why was he heading in the direction of Medina when the hostile parties were
already camped in Jamal? All the main players were in Jamal, so what was the logic in this
envoy heading elsewhere? If he was on his way to Madina, what were his precise co-ordinates
at the time of death? The distance between Jamal and Medina is thousands of miles, how did
those camped at Jamal receive news of the Sabaites killing this envoy, via email?
83. Does the existence of Ibn Saba mean we don’t need to authenticate
such narrations?
Knowing Ibn al Hashimi’s shameless approach to polemics we can envisage him seeking to
rebut all we said by pointing to the fact that Sunni and Shia texts record the existence of Ibn
Saba. Let us for arguments sake accept his existence, does that mean that we automatically
accept every historical allegation attributed to him without ascertaining its accuracy? Ibn al
Hashimi needs to understand that there is a difference between proving the existence of Ibn
Saba and proving that the same Ibn Saba contributed to every act of Fitnah from the reign of

Page 57 of 89
Uthman until the martyrdom of Maula Ali (as). Let us expand on this with an example:
“There has been a large increase in crime in New York. A known prolific offender resides in that
same York. Does that automatically mean that every criminal act committed in that City should
be attributed to him? No fair minded person would deem process wherein a prolific offender is
charged with every criminal offence, because he happens to live in that New York to be fair or
legally sound. Justice would dictate that the police investigate every offence in an unbiased
manner to identify the perpetrator. Police intelligence / suspicions about this prolific offender
may indeed be justified, but they remain baseless if no evidence can be located placing this
prolific offender at the crime scene. If no physical evidence, such as DNA can be located at the
scene the police will need to seek eye witness testimony. If no eye witnesses can be located
the police will seek out hearsay evidence, taking evidence from those that had heard eye
witnesses disclose what they had seen. From a legal perspective hearsay evidence is the
weakest form of evidence that the police can rely on, sometimes it is so weak that it is in effect
rendered inadmissible. Judges are often loathed to accept secondary evidence as grounds to
convict, particularly when the stakes are so high (a loss of liberty). If the prosecution are going
to rely on hearsay evidence as part of their case, it is pivotal that the witness giving hearsay
evidence is of good character, and has nothing that could undermine his reliability as a witness.
If this witness is widely known amongst men of repute as a dishonest liar his evidence in effect
becomes useless. If it emerges in court that the hearsay evidence of the same witness has
been previously used by the prosecution to secure the successful conviction of the same
offender on several occasions, this coincidence would be enough to cast serious doubts on his
testimony in court.
Applying this example to the facts here, if Ibn al Hashimi is enjoying his cult status as Chief
Prosecutor before his Sunni jury in a trial that is seeking to convict millions of twelver Shias for
the crimes of their ‘ancestor’ Ibn Saba, he needs to be certain that the evidence that he
submits proves Ibn Saba’s guilt beyond any reasonable doubt. Justice dictates that Ibn al
Hashimi successfully proves his case citing each and every narration, quoting the book and its
accompanying chain of narration. What justice system entitles Ibn al Hashimi to present his
case on the basis of one reference from Musanaf Ibn Abi Shaybah (without citing the chain),
one without any reference (the Sabaites killing Ayesha’s envoy) and all the remainder
narrations from Tabari (all of which have been coincidentally by narrated by Sayf bin Umar,
unanimously graded by the Sunni scholars as a liar). Since Ibn al Hashimi relied on Tabari to
expose the wicked ancestry of the twelver Shia, namely the Sabaites we thought it only right to
analyse all those chains wherein the term Ibn Saba and al Sabaiyya are mentioned in the
History of al Tabari. The Tabari narrations of Ibn Saba and the Sabayyite movement span from
Uthman’s reign through to the Battle of Jamal and its immediate aftermath. During that time
Tabari mentions the name Ibn Saba or his other title al Sawda on 14 occasions and Al Sabaiyya
on nine occasions. Tabari makes no further mention of Ibn Saba or al Sabaiyya at Sifeen,
Naharwan or at any other point during the Caliphate of Imam Ali (as). Had Ibn al Hashimi
bothered to look through these narrations, rather than simply quoting from the oxygen thieves
of Najd he would have realised that every single narration in Tabari that makes reference to Ibn
Saba and al Sabaiyya has been narrated through Sayf bin Umar! Ibn al Hashimi don’t you find it
odd that the only narrations that Tabari found about the powerful Ibn Saba and Sabayyites that
successfully ousted Uthman and caused the battle of Jamal, were from a known liar? Did this
reality pass every other witness who lived through that troublesome era? We are sure that any
just man would cast doubts on the fact that something as significant as the Sabaites would
have and should have been narrated by a plethora of witnesses, and not just a notorious liar!
This being the case why has Ibn al Hashimi deemed it appropriate to take narrations about Ibn
Saba and the Sabaites from Tabari? Ibn al Hashimi, is it not shameful that you have sought to
rely on narrations that you know to be weak, with the hope that your Sunni readers will find the
twelvers guilty of the sins of their Sabayyite ancestors?
We appeal to justice has Ibn al Hashimi proven his case against Ibn Saba through this
methodology? By bringing such a pathetic case against the Shia as a mechanism to hide the
sins of his Sahaba ancestors, Ibn al Hashimi has only succeeded in proving one thing, that he is

Page 58 of 89
a dishonest liar of the highest order, whose every word should be looked at with suspicion,
after all Allah (swt) says in his Glorious Book (49:6):
O ye who believe! If a wicked person comes to you with any news, ascertain the
truth, lest ye harm people unwittingly, and afterwards become full of repentance
for what ye have done.
84. The Characteristics of the Munafiqoon according to the world of Ibn al

Hashimi
Having spun this web of lies as part of his deception, the shameless Ibn al Hashimi lets his
imagination run away with him and as part of his closing submission seeks to point to a nexus
between the Sabaites, Munafiqoon of the past and today’s Shia. Let us see his assertions:
85. First claim – the Munafiqoon casted aspersions on the Prophethood of

Muhammad (s)

It is the characteristic of the Munafiqoon
(hypocrites) to accuse the believers of having
alterior motives; in fact, the Quraish leaders
accused the Prophet (‫ )صلى ال عليه وآله وسلم‬of trying
to gain materialistic wealth and they said this was
the reason he claimed prophethood.
86. Reply One – Casting aspersions on the Prophethood of Muhammad (s)

was the Sunnah of the esteemed Sunni caliphs
Ibn al Hashimi do you really believe that this is the definition of a hypocrite? If doubting the
Prophethood of the Prophet (s) is indeed the characteristic of a hypocrite what opinion should
we then hold of the second Sunni Khalifa Umar who at Hudaibiya said:
“I never doubted Prophethood as much as I did on this day”

1. Musanaf Abdulrazaq, Volume 5 page 332
2. Sahih ibn Haban, Volume 11 page 224
3. Al-Mujam al-Kabir by Tabarani, Volume 20 page 14
4. Zaad al-Maad by Ibn Qayim, Volume 3 page 257
Ponder over the words ‘as much as I did on this day’ meaning that doubts continually dogged
Umar’s mind and reached there peak at Hudaibiya that occurred in 8 Hijri. And then we have
Yazeed the sixth Sunni Khalifa who said following news of the martyrdom of Imam Husayn (as)
"Banu Hashim staged a play for Kingdom there was no news from the skies neither
was there any revelation"
al Bidayah wa al Nihaya, Volume 8 page 204
If those that doubt the Prophethood of Muhammad (s) fall within the definition of munafiqoon
why are these two individuals afforded respect as caliphs in the eyes of Ibn al Hashimi?
87. Second claim – the Munafiqoon suggested that Uthman’s reign was
dogged by nepotism and corruption

Page 59 of 89

The Munafiqeen accused Uthman (‫ )رض ى ال عنه‬of
using the Caliphate to empower his family.
Who are these munafiqeen according to Ibn al Hashimi? Who else can it be than the Shia! This
is what he claims at another point in his article:
Uthman’s Assassination (‫)رض ى ال عنه‬
During the reign of Uthman (‫)رض ى ال عنه‬, the third
Caliph, the Islamic state had expanded far and
wide, but the empire was experiencing grave
financial troubles. Many poor Beduins felt that
Uthman’s policies (‫ )رض ى ال عنه‬were tilted in favor
of the Ummayad elite. This fact is trumpeted by
the Shia scholars today, who love to slander
Uthman (‫ ;)رض ى ال عنه‬they accuse him of
nepotism and mismanagement.
88. Reply – The Sunni Ulema have accepted that Uthmans reign was
dogged by nepotism and corruption
The legal definition of slander is A false defamation (expressed in spoken words, signs,
or gestures) which injures the character or reputation of the person defamed;
distinguished from libel.
The crucial thing is the word ‘false’. Tell us Ibn al Hashimi do you really expect your Sunni
readers to accept that there was no nepotism and mismanagement during the reign of Uthman?
Was this merely a Sabaite concoction that was cascaded through the Shia generations?? This is
just a further example of the intellectual dishonesty of Ibn al Hashimi, nepotism and
mismanagement was a sad reality associated with the reign of Uthman something recorded in
the annals of Sunni history and likewise accepted by the Sunni Ulema. We have in fact cited
examples of his mismanagement here:
http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/who_really_killed_uthman/en/chap4.php
His nepotism is a historical fact, and one can pick up any book of Sunni history to see blatant
examples of it. This has been acknowledged by modern day Sunni Ulema like Syed Qutub
Shaheed who said:
“Even apart from money, there were also the governorships which Uthman
scattered profusely among his relatives. Among these was Muawiyah, whose power
Uthman expanded considerably, giving him control of Palestine and the district of
Hums he granted to him a single control of four armies and thus made it easier for
Muawiyah later to aspire royal power during the caliphate of Ali by which time he
had acquired money and built up armies.”
Social justice in Islam, page 222
It is also interesting that he in the same article showered the term Imam on a scholar that
happened to be a severe Uthman critic, Sayyid Abul Ala Maudoodi:
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

Page 60 of 89
walls of the house.” (Purdah, p. 201-202)
‘Imam’ Maudoodi whilst discussing the third khalifa’s reign leads into the discussion by citing
the advice the outgoing Khalifa (Umar) gave to Uthman:
‘If after me you become the khalifa, do not let your relatives ride over the necks of
the Muslims’, but when Uthman subsequently became the Khalifa he gradually
ignored the policy and gave high posts, one after the other to his relatives, and gave
them concessions that normal people did not have. This invited objections from
other”.
Khilafat aur Mulukiyat, page 41-42 (published by Maktaba Ahle Sunnah, Gujranwala, Pakistan)
Ibn al Hashimi, if this Imam's opinion is being advanced by you to defend Ayesha, then that
same Imam's severe critique of the nepotism and mismanagement of Uthman in his famed
work ‘Khilafat aur Mulukiyat’ should likewise be accepted by you. As you can see the
highlighting of Uthman’s corruption is not the exclusive domain of the Shia scholars, rather the
very individual that Ibn al Hashimi deems an Imam was uncompromising in his criticism of
Uthman’s corruption! Imam Maudoodi's book courted much criticism and was the subjected to
refutations and counter refutations. One such counter refutation is a book called ‘Khilafat aur
Mulukiyat aur Ulema Ahle-Sunnat’ wherein the author seeks to corroborate Maudoodi’s
comments on Uthman’s corruption as follows:
Maulana Ahmed Ali Lahori [rh] further states under the topic of 'A tragic incident
regarding the martyrdom of Uthman [ra]':
“Ibn Asakir says that Zuhri asked Saeed bin Musayib of Uthman's martyrdom, [he
replied] ‘the situation was this, some Sahaba deemed Uthman’s Caliphate
unacceptable as everybody was aware that he was aiding his relatives. He was the
Khalifa for twelve years, during that time he helped many Banu Ummayya, they
were not Sahaba of the Prophet (s), they were those that the Sahaba did not like,
they sought to advise him for six years, but he failed to remove them. He was for
the next six years favorable to his uncle’s family, showing them kindness and
support he appointed Abdullah bin Sharh as the Governor of Egypt, the Egyptians
complained of his injustices” [Khudaamudeen, 19 July 1957]
Khilafat aur Mulukiyat aur Ulema Ahle-Sunnat, pages
89. Second claim – the Munafiqoon alleged that Maula Ali (as) killed
Uthman

The Munafiqeen accused Ali (‫ )رض ى ال عنه‬of taking
the Caliphate after supposedly killing Uthman
90. Reply – These allegations were spread by Marwan who Ibn al Hashimi
deems ‘(ra)’
Now this is where things get very interesting. If the Munafiqoon were indeed those that
accused Imam Ali (as) of killing Uthman, then allow us to submit the testimony of one such
individual Marwan ibn al Hakam. Imam of Ahle Sunnah Muhammad bin Yahya in al-Tamheed
wa'l Bayan fi Maqtal al Shaheed Uthman, page 181, quoted the fact that Marwan had accused
Imam Ali [as] as follows:

Page 61 of 89
“If you Ali had not struck the murdered man openly, you surely struck him in
secret”.
Now justice would dictate that Ibn al Hashimi deem this individual a munafiq, but rather than
do so, we see whenever he mentions Marwan on his site, he refers to him as (ra) for example:
The Shia curse Uthman (‫ )رض ى ال عنه‬for taking
Fadak away from Ali (‫ )رض ى ال عنه‬and giving it to
Marwan (‫)رض ى ال عنه‬.
On the one hand Ibn al Hashimi defines Munafiqeen as those that accused Ali (as) of killing
Uthman, and on the other hand he deems Marwan who had that opinion to be (ra).

Page 62 of 89
5. Chapter Five: The stance of Imam Ali (as)
To understand the decision taken by Imam 'Ali (as) and answer Nasibi claims that he was
responsible for the Battle of Jamal, we need to take in to account that Imam 'Ali (as) WAS the
rightful Head of State. The opposition was such that not only was it aimed at winning the
hearts and minds of the people against Imam 'Ali (as), its aim was to cause a mass revolt
against him, as we shall see.
91. Imam 'Ali (as) was within his rights as Khalifa to quell the Fitnah of
Ayesha and her supporters
Surah al Maida verses 32:
Because of that We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone killed a person
not in retaliation of murder, or (and) to spread mischief in the land - it would be as
if he killed all mankind, …..
Surah al Maida verses 33:
The recompense of those who wage war against Allâh and His Messenger and do
mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and
their feet be cut off on the opposite sides, or be exiled from the land. That is their
disgrace in this world, and a great torment is theirs in the Hereafter.
These verses like all verses, are applicable at all times. If the duty on Rasulullah (s) was to quell
fitnah against him by killing the proponents, then his rightful successor ' Ul'il Umr likewise
inherited this same right. If his opponents were insisting on refusing to obey him, preferring to
spread fitnah inciting opposition and animosity towards him, the Head of the State was entitled
to uproot these seditious elements and kill them.
Surah Rad verse 25:
And those who break the Covenant of Allâh, after its ratification, and sever that
which Allâh has commanded to be joined (i.e. they sever the bond of kinship and are
not good to their relatives), and work mischief in the land, on them is the curse (i.e.
they will be far away from Allâh's Mercy); And for them is the unhappy (evil) home
(i.e. Hell)
Surah Sad verse 28:
Shall We treat those who believe (in the Oneness of Allâh Islâmic Monotheism) and
do righteous good deeds, as Mufsidûn (those who associate partners in worship
with Allâh and commit crimes) on earth? Or shall We treat the Muttaqûn (pious -
see V.2:2), as the Fujjâr (criminals, disbelievers, wicked, etc)?
Surah Qasas verse 83:
That home of the Hereafter (i.e. Paradise), We shall assign to those who rebel not
against the truth with pride and oppression in the land nor do mischief by
committing crimes. And the good end is for the Muttaqun
92. Imam 'Ali had no doubt that his stance was correct

Page 63 of 89

Likewise have the Shia taken the actions of the
Prophet’s wives (and Sahabah) and accused them
of having alterior motives. The righteous believers
are those who make 70 excuses for their brothers
and sisters in Islam; the upright Muslims are
those who give the benefit of the doubt to their
fellow believers, especially to the Prophet’s wife
and lover.
96. Reply One – Imam Ali (as) offered no excuses for those that opposed
him at Jamal
If offering excuses and not suggesting ulterior motives if not the conduct of an upright Muslim,
what Fatwa will Ibn al Hashimi attribute to Imam Ali (as) who said as follows to Talhah prior to
hostilities commencing at Jamal.
Ali said to al-Zubair: "Are you asking me for compensation for the blood of 'Uthman,
when it was you who killed him? I ask Allah in His power right now to give a hateful
punishment to he among us who was the severest in opposing 'Uthman." Ali said to
Talhah: " You have brought the Messenger of Allah's wife to make her fight while
you hide your wife at home.”
History of al-Tabari, English Edition, Volume 16 pages 125-126
There is nothing from this explicit statement that would suggest that Imam Ali (as) was offering
70 excuses for those ‘Muslim’ that lead out an army against him at Jamal.
97. Reply Two – Offering excuses for criminal conduct sets a very
dangerous precedent
Providing excuses may well be appropriate over a minor disgression but when the matter is one
wherein the individuals concerned turned there back on the Quran, Hadith (commanding
obedience) and participated in activities that involved lies, propaganda, and a battle that shed
the blood of thousands of Muslims, then there are no grounds to simply provide excuses for
their conduct. If this was to be the case then we would urge the Salafi judiciary to dismanatle
their function forthwith, and permit citizens to conduct incitement, propaganda and violent
rebellion against the State. No actions be sought against such individuals since they are merely
adhering to the Sunnah of the Sahaba. The State should not prosecute such reprobates, on the
contrary excuses should be offered for their conduct and they should be allowed to behave like
this without impunity, after all to quote Ibn al Hashimi ‘the righteous believers are those who
make 70 excuses for their brothers and sisters in Islam; the upright Muslims are those who give
the benefit of the doubt to their fellow believers’

Page 64 of 89
6. Chapter Six: Ayesha's enmity towards Imam Ali (as)
98. Ayesha's enmity to Imam Ali (as) would open like a pot
In Kanz ul Ummal, Volume 16 page 186 Tradition 44216, we read:

‫وأما عائشة فأدركها رأي النساء وشئ كان في نفسها علي يغلي في جوفها كالمرجل‬
“Ayesha was informed about the opinion of the women, but there was some thing
inside her boiling like a cooking pot against Ali”
99. Ayesha's refusal to mention Imam 'Ali (as) by name is proof that she
hated him
Ansar.org states:
"Al-Tijani claims that the historians mentioned
Aysha as not wanting to mention the name of Ali.
And I ask him, which historians? Can you tell me
exactly so that we know the liar from the truth
teller? And on which references did you depend?"
There is no need for 'Abu Sulaiman to get agitated, for this fact can be located in a number of
sources of Ahl'ul Sunnah. And we will fare one better than Tijani, we shall cite the traditions
from their books of hadith.
A mild version can also be located in Sahih al Bukhari Volume 3 hadith 761:
Ubaidullah bin 'Abdullah told me that 'Aisha had said, "When the Prophet became
sick and his condition became serious, he requested his wives to allow him to be
treated in my house, and they allowed him. He came out leaning on two men while
his feet were dragging on the ground. He was walking between Al-'Abbas and
another man." 'Ubaidullah said, "When I informed Ibn 'Abbas of what 'Aisha had
said, he asked me whether I knew who was the second man whom 'Aisha had not
named. I replied in the negative. He said, 'He was 'Ali bin Abi Talib."
Try as they might, even al-Bukhari alludes to the fact that Ayesha was unable to mention Imam
'Ali (as) by name. Abu Sulaiman would of course differ and seek to deny that ANY animosity
was borne by Ayesha towards Imam 'Ali (as). The difficulty for him is that the Ulema of Ahl ul
Sunnah have confirmed this fact. In his commentary of this hadith, Allamah Bardruddin al-Aini
records in Umadatul Qari, Volume 5 page 192 Tradition 665:
‫عن معمر ولكن عائشة ل تطيب نفسا له بخير‬
Mua'amar narrated: ‘Ayesha avoided mentioning him (Ali) in a good manner’.
We also read:
‫عن الزهري ولكنها ل تقدر على أن تذكره بخير‬
Al-Zuhari said: She ‘(Ayesha) didn’t posses the ability to mention anything good of
him (Ali).’
We shall now present a 'complete' version of this tradition which proves clearly that Ayesha's

Page 65 of 89
failure to mention Imam 'Ali (as)'s name whilst recollecting this incident, was not on account of
temporary amnesia but was in fact due to her hatred of him:
When Ubaidullah Ibn Utbah mentioned to Ibn Abbas that Aisha said "In his death-
illness the Prophet was brought to (Aisha's) house while his shoulders were being
supported by Fadhl Ibn Abbas and another person", then Abdullah Ibn Abbas said:
"Do you know who this 'other man' was?" Ibn Utbah replied: "No." Then Ibn Abbas
said: "He was Ali Ibn Abi Talib, but she is averse to name him in a good context."
The references for the above narration can be located in the following texts:
1. Musnad Ahmad bin Hanbal, Volume 6 page 228 Tradition 25956

2. al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, by Ibn Sa'd, v2, part 2, p29
3. History of al-Tabari (Arabic), v1, pp 1800-1801
This is also loacted in the English translation.
History of al-Tabari (English) Volume 9 page 169-170
4. al-Ansab al-Ashraf, by al-Baladhuri, v1, pp 544-545
The margin writer of Musnad Ahmed bin Hanbal namely Shaykh Shoib al-Arnaut stated:
‘The chain is Sahih according to the standards of the two Sheiks (Bukhari & Muslim)’
100.Ayesha hated Banu Hashim and Imam Ali (as)
Allamah Abu Umar Ahmed bin Abd Rabbah records:
He (Ali) said: ‘Go to that woman and tell her to return to her house wherein Allah
ordered her to stay at’. He (Ibn Abbas) said: ‘Hence I went to her and asked
permission to enter but she didn’t give me its permission, hence I entered the house
without permission and sat on a cushion. She (Ayesha) said: ‘Oh ibn Abbas, by Allah
I never saw some one like you! You entered our house without permission and sat
on our cushion without our permission’. I said: ‘By Allah this is not your house, your
only house is the one which Allah ordered you to stay at, but you didn’t obey. The
commander of believers orders you to return to your home land which you left’. She
said: ‘May Allah's mercy be upon the commander of believers who is Umar bin al-
Khatab’. I said: ‘Yes, and this is Ali bin Abi Talib the commander of believers’. She
said: ‘I refuse, I refuse……’. Then she said: ‘Alright, I will return, because I hate the
city in which you (Bani Hashim) reside in’.
Iqd al-Fareed, Volume 2 page 108
In Al Imama wal Siyasa, Volume 1 page 45 we learn that:
"Following Uthman's murder Zubayr approached Ayesha in Makka and said 'Look
they have made 'Ali Khalifa. She said, What right does 'Ali have to rule over our
necks? I will not stay in Madina as long as 'Ali is in power".
In Rauzatul Ahbaab, Volume 3 page 65, we read that:
"After the Battle of Jamal Imam 'Ali approached Ayesha and said 'You have treated
me like an enemy'".
We also read in Rauzathul Ahbaab Volume 3 page 10 that:
"Ayesha was clouded by her hatred of 'Ali".

Page 66 of 89
101.Ayesha's reaction at the death of Imam 'Ali (as)
Ansar.org states:
Al-Tijani says, "and when she learnt of his death
she knelt and thanked Allah." Then he gave us in
the footnotes the name of historians he took as
references. These are his references, "AL-Tabari,
Ibn Al-Atheer, Al-Fitnah Al-Kubra, and all
historians who documented the incidents of the
year 40 after the immigration of the prophet
peace be upon him." [20] So, I went back to Al-
Tabari and Ibn Al-Atheer for the stories of the
year 40. And guess what! I did not find any trace
for this claim! What a liar he is!
Again Abu Sulaiman is seeking to mislead people with false information, for these references
can be located in these very books and we are attaching the link of the text from History of al
Tabari Volume 17 page 224 (English translation) for our reader's perusal:
Ayesha'a please at Maula Ali[as]'s death
"When news of 'Ali's death reached Aishah, she said: And she threw down her staff
and settled upon her place of abode, like the traveller happy to return home".
Perhaps Abu Sulaiman will seek to offer his own insight into the meaning of this verse, he need
not bother for the English translator, Professor G. R. Hawting who states in the footnote on
page 224:
"…the verse is proverbial and is cited indicate pleasure at something".
Shaykh Kamaluddin Dinori also records in his famed work Hayat al-Hewan, Volume 1 page 43:
‫ فألقت عصاها واستقر‬: ‫ولما انتهى إلى عائشة رضي ال تعالى عنها قتل علي رضي ال تعالى عنه قالت‬
‫بها النوى كما قر عينأ بالياب المسافر‬
When Ayesha [ra] was informed about the murder of Ali [ra], she said: ‘And she
threw down her staff and settled upon her place of abode, like the traveller happy to
return home’
This reference can also be located in Tadkhirath al Khawwas, page 181 and Shaykh ul Mudhira
page 156. For Abu Sulaiman to use his authority and make this claim, knowing that his
adherents blindly believe his every word since he is an advocate of Mu'awiya, is indeed a cause
for concern. We would ask his readers to ask themselves honestly 'If Abu Sulaiman can not
even be honest about such a basic fact, then how much credence should be given to anything
that he says?'
We should also point out that Allamah Asbahani recorded in Maqatil al-Talebeen, page 24:
‫ حدثنا عاصم بن عامر وعثمان بن‬: ‫ حدثنا أحمد بن حازم قال‬: ‫ قال‬، ‫حدثني محمد بن الحسين الشناني‬
‫ لما أن جاء عائشة‬: ‫ حدثنا جرير عن العمش عن عمرو إبن مرة عن أبي البختري قال‬: ‫ قال‬، ‫أبي شيبة‬
‫ قتل علي ع سجدت‬.
Abu al-Bakhtari said: ‘When Ayesha was informed about Ali's murder, she
prostrated’

Page 67 of 89
102.Ayesha's happiness at the death of Sayyida Fatima (as)
We read in Sharh Nahj ul Balagha by Ibn al Hadid page 439 Chapter 2:
"When the Prophets daughter died all the wives except Ayesha came to console
Banu Hashim and she said that she was unwell and the message which she sent to
Ali (as) clearly depicts her joy at this sad occasion".
103.Ayesha's happiness at the death of Ibrahim ibne Rasululullah (s)
In Sharh Nahj ul Balagha by Ibn Hadeed page 238 Volume 2 we learn that:
"When Ibrahim died Ayesha was happy inside, although she displayed sadness
outside, Fatima and 'Ali were very saddened by his death".
104.Fatwa of Shah Abdul Aziz Dehlavi, "One that expresses happiness at

the suffering of Ahl'ul bayt (as) is a murtad"
In Tauhfa Ithna Ashariyya Shah Abdul Aziz states on page 263:
"What view should we hold of those people who express happiness on Ashura when
Imam Hussain was killed, who marry on that day who disrespect the family of the
Prophet and the descendents of Sayyida Fatima? It is correct to refer to such
individuals as Murtad".

Page 68 of 89
7. Chapter Seven – The merits of Ayesha from the pen of

her advocates

Page 69 of 89
8. Was Ayesha the most superior wife of Rasulullah (s)?
Abu Sulaiman stated:

Ansar.org
There is no doubt that Aysha is the best among
the wives of the prophet peace be upon him
because all true narrations indicate such a thing.
Examples are found in Saheeh Bukhari and
Muslim.
105.Reply One - To believe that the Prophet [s] loved Ayesha more than
others is attributing a great sin to the Prophet [s]
Nawasib in their blind love for the enemies of Ali bin Abi Talib [as] venerate Ayesha so much
that they single her out as the best and most beloved wife of the Holy Prophet [s] tragically
when doing so they forget that the Sharia doesn’t allow a husband to give such a preference,
we read in Quran:
"Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not
be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right
hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice,"
(4:3)"
Why would the Prophet (s) exercise such bias, when (according to Sunni sources) it was he
who said:
When a man has two wives and he is inclined to one of them, he will come on the
Day of resurrection with a side hanging down.
Sunan Abu Dawood, Bab ul Nikah Book 11, Number 2128
106.Reply Two: The most excellent of the women of all worlds were four,
that included Khadija (as) not Ayesha
Imam Ahmed records:
Anas narrated that the prophet (s) said: "The most excellent of the women of all
worlds are: Mary the daughter of Imran, Khadija the daughter of Khuwaylid,
Fatimah the daughter of Muhammad, and Asiya the wife of Pharaoh"
Musnad Ahmed bin Hanbal, Volume 3 page 135 Hadith 12414
Shaykh Shoib al-Arnaut stated:
‘Sahih on the conditions of two Shaykhs’
We also read:
Ibn Abbas narrates that Rasulullah (s) made four lines on the earth, then He [s] said
to his companions, ‘Do you know what is this?’ They replied: ‘Allah and his
messenger know best’. He [s] replied: ‘The most excellent of the women of Paradise
are Khadija the daughter of Khuwaylid, Fatimah the daughter of Muhammad, Asiya
the wife of Pharaoh, and Mary the daughter of Imran’

Page 70 of 89
Musnad Ahmed bin Hanbal, Volume 1 page 293 Hadith 2668
Shaykh Shoib al-Arnaut stated:
‘The Chain is Sahih, the narrators are reliable (Thuqat), narrators of Sahih (books)’
107.Reply Three: Ayesha's jealousy of Khadija [as] is clear proof that she
was not the most beloved wife
In Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5 Tradition 166, Ayesha herself narrates:
"I did not feel jealous of any of the wives of the Prophet as much as I did of Khadija
though I did not see her, but the Prophet used to mention her very often, and
whenever he slaughtered a sheep, he would cut its parts and send them to the
women friends of Khadija. When I sometimes said to him, "(You treat Khadija in
such a way) as if there is no woman on earth except Khadija," he would say,
"Khadija was such-and-such, and from her I had children."
According to wikipedia “Jealousy typically refers to the negative or angry thoughts,

feelings, and behaviours of insecurity, fear, and anxiety that occur when a person
believes a valued relationship is being threatened by a rival, or when another
person is percieved to have some type of advantage” . Jealousy is a trait inherent in a
person who is envious of the superior position of another, and Ayesha's admission "I did not
feel jealous of any of the wives of the Prophet as much as I did of Khadija", is clear
proof that Ayesha was fully aware of the superior rank of Khadija. Had Ayesha indeed been the
most superior wife there would have been no need for her to be jealous.
These four women are the most superior in rank amongst women. Only one wife of Rasulullah
(s) is selected in this group and that wife is Khadija (as) NOT Ayesha. This tradition PROVES
that Khadija is the MOST superior amongst Rasulullah's wives. If Ayesha was, then why did
Rasulullah (s) not elevate her to the station of Leaders of women in Paradise?
108.Reply Four – Sunni Report: Ayesha’s barren status precludes her

from being the most superior wife of the Prophet (s)
Ghazzali in his famed work Ihya Ulum id Din, Volume 2 page 24 records as follows:
“The Prophet said…”Among your women, a lovely woman producing many children
is better than a childless woman. He said: An ugly woman with children is better
than a beautiful woman having no children”
Comment
If (according to these Sunni narrations) a fertile woman is better than a barren on, and the
ability to bear children is a mark of superiority, then Ayesha’s inability to conceive children
automatically means that Khadija (sa) was superior on account of her ability to bear children.
109.Reply Five - Ayesha’s bad manners destroy the notion of her being
the best wife of the Prophet (s)
Having good manners is one of the themes found continually throughout the Quran and Sunnah
and this is the first aspect that proves the importance of good manners. If adults impress on
children the importance of good manners at a young age, they shall seek to adhere to such

Page 71 of 89
principles in later life. It is indeed tragic that Ayesha who (according to Sunnis) benefited from
the company of the Prophet from the age of six, failed to grasp the importance of manners.
Here are just a few snapshots of her manners in the marital home. Let us begin by citing her
reaction to another wife of the Prophet (s) preparing a meal:
Ayesha said: "Safiyya, the wife of the Prophet (a), sent a dish she had made for him
when he was with me. When I saw the maidservant, I trembled with rage and fury,
and I took the bowl and hurled it away. The Prophet of Allah (a) then looked at me;
I saw the anger in his face and I said to him: 'I seek refuge from Allah's Apostle
cursing me today.' The Prophet said: 'Undo it'. I said: 'What is its compensation, O
Prophet of Allah?' He said: 'The food like her food, and a bowl like her bowl.'"
1. Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, Volume 6 page 227 Tradition 26409
2. Sunan Nasai, Volume 2 page 148
3. Majma al-Zawaed, Volume 4 page 372 Tradition 7692
The reviser of Musnad Ahmed namely Shaykh Shoib al-Arnaut declared the tradition to be
'Hasan' while Al-Haythami said: 'The narrators are Thiqah'.
With regards to her mannerisms when rowing with her husband Imam of Ahl'ul Sunnah Abdul
Hamid Ghazzali records the following in his classic Ihya Ulum-id-din:
Once there was an altercation between the Prophet and Ayesha when they found
Abu Bakr as judge. Hazrat Ayesha said to the Prophet: ‘You speak but don't speak
except truth. At once Abu Bakr gave her such a slap that blood began to ooze out
from her mouth’.
Ihya Ulum-id-din by Imam Ghazzali, Volume 2 page 36, Chapter "The secrets of marriage" -
English translation by Maulana Fazlul Karim
The title ‘Sadiq’ was one that dated back to the time of jahilyya, and was a testament to the
fact that the pagan Arabs recognized that Muhammad (s) son of Mustafa was a man that
always spoke the truth. Now compare this recognition to the conduct of Ayesha who was
appealing to the conscience of her husband, demanding that he speak truthfully before her
father that was there as a an arbiter between the feuding couple. Are such manner becoming of
the wife of the Prophet (s)? Her anger is such that she even questions whether the Prophet (s)
may seek to influence a decision by fabricating events obtain a decision in his favor. This
behavior so angered Abu Bakr that he subjected her to a physical; assault, as a result of which
she received a bloody mouth.
Sadly as Ghazzali notes, this was not a one off blasphemous outburst, we note how on another
occasion she said as follows:
‫وقالت له مرة في كلم غضبت عنده أنت الذي تزعم أنك نبي ال‬
"It is you who pretend to be a prophet from Allah."

Ihya Ulum-id-din [Arabic], Volume 2 page 43
Clearly Ayesha’s manners as demonstrated from the above examples fell far below the
standards than Allah (swt) and his Prophet (s) would expect, after all he (s) stated:
Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Amr: "The Prophet never used bad language neither a
'Fahish nor a Mutafahish. He used to say 'The best amongst you are those who have
the best manners and character.'
Sahih Bukhari, Virtues and Merits of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and his Companions,
Volume 4, Book 56, Number 759

Page 72 of 89
110.Were Abu Bakr and Ayesha the most beloved of Rasulullah (s)?
Abu Sulaiman sought to conclude his passionate exoneration of Ayesha by citing the following
tradition:
Ansar.org states:
Omro bin Al-A'as said, 'Once the prophet peace
be upon him used me as a leader for an army. I
went to him and said, "O' Messenger of Allah,
who is the most beloved to you?" He answered,
"Aysha." I said, "What about men?" He replied,
"Her father."'
111.Reply One - Ayesha's testimony as to who the most beloved were
This alleged hadith does not tally up to stronger explicit traditions that prove that there existed
individuals who Rasulullah (s) had clearly indicated as superior on account of his love for them.
If the Ansar.org will continue to insist on their position that Ayesha and Abu Bakr were the most
beloved in the eyes of Rasulullah (s), then why do they not accept the testimony of Ayesha
herself recorded and declared Sahih by Imam Hakim in Mustadrak, Volume 4 page 261
Tradition 4744:
Jami bin Umair narrates: 'I accompanied my aunt and approached Ayesha [ra] and
asked her: 'Who was the dearest among the people to Rasulullah?' She replied
'Fatima'. I then asked 'And amongst men? She replied 'Her husband'
Imam Nasai records in Khasais Imam Ali, page 89:
Amro bin Ali narrated from Abdulaziz bin al-Khatab from Muhammad bin Ismail bin
Raja al-Zubaidi from Abi Ishaq al-Shaybani from Jami bin Umair who narrated: 'I
along with my father went to Ayesha and asked her (behind the veil) about Ali. She
replied: 'You are asking me about a man whom I know NONE among the men that
the Holy Prophet loved most except him and NONE among the women except his
wife'.
Jami bin Umair: Ibn Hajar said: 'Seduq' (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1 p156). Abu Ishaq al-
Shaybani: Ibn Hajar said: 'Thiqah' (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1 p386). Muhammad bin Ismail bin
Raja: Ibn Hajar said: 'Seduq' (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v2 p55). Abdulaziz bin al-Khatab: Ibn
Hajar said: 'Seduq' (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1 p603). Amro bin Ali: Ibn Hajar said: 'Thiqah'
(Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1 p741). Moreover the margin writer of the book namely Abu Ishaq al-
Huwayni who has been one of the beloved students of Imam Nasiruddin Albaani al-Salafi has
also declared the chain of this tradition to be 'Sahih'.
In another tradition recorded by Imam Haythami in Majma al Zawaid, Volume 9 page 24

Tradition 14730, Ayesha has herself testified that Ali [as] was more dearest to Holy Prophet [s]
than Abu Bakr:
Al-Numan bin Bashir said: ‘Abu Bakr asked for permission to enter on the prophet
[s], then he heard Ayesha saying (to the prophet): ‘I knew that Ali is dearest to you
than my father’. She said that twice or thrice'
Imam Abi Bakar al-Haythami said:
‘al-Bazar recorded it and the narrators the narrator of Sahih’

Page 73 of 89
Same episode has also been narrated in this manner in Majma al Zawaid, Volume 9 page 136
Tradition 15194:
Al-Numan bin Bashir said: ‘Abu Bakr asked for permission to enter on the prophet
[s], whereupon he heard Ayesha's loudly raised voice, saying (to the prophet): ‘I
knew that Ali and Fatima are more dearer to you than me and my father’. She said
that twice or thrice – Abu Bakr then asked for permission and entered he
approached her and said: 'O daughter, you should not raise your voice before Allah's
messenger (s)'.
Imam Abi Bakar al-Haythami said:
‘Ahmad recorded it and the narrators are the narrators of the Sahih’.
We would urge Ayesha’s advocates to take a good look at this tradition. Nawasib can huff and
puff as much as they like and seek to impress upon their readers that the Prophet (s) deemed
Ayesha and Abu Bakr to be the dearest to the Prophet (s), but when we have Ayesha’s own
testimony telling us otherwise then such claims become baseless. Not only did Ayesha testify to
the Prophet (s) loving Maula Ali (as) and Fatima (sa) more than her and her father, her raised
voice evidences how jealous and resentful she was at this fact, so much so that it caused her
behaviour to fall foul of the standards of conduct imposed by Allah (swt) on those speaking to
the Prophet (s). It took Abu Bakr to intervene and remind his daughter of her religious
obligation: 'O daughter, you should not raise your voice before Allah's messenger (s)'.
Abu Bakr may well have been alluding to Surah Hujurat verse 2:
O ye who believe! Raise not your voices above the voice of the Prophet, nor speak
aloud to him in talk, as ye may speak aloud to one another, lest your deeds become
vain and ye perceive not.
The verse sets out the serious consequences for those that raise their voice in the presence of
the Prophet (s), Abu Bakr had practical experience of this, since this verse descended to
reprimand his conduct (Sahih Bukhari, Book of Tafseer).
Mulla Mutaqi Hindi records in Kanz ul Ummal, Volume 11 page 334 Tradition 31670:
Arwa said: ‘I asked Ayesha: ‘Who was the dearest man to Holy Prophet [s]?’ She
replied: ‘Ali bin Abi Talib’. I said: ‘Then what was the reason for rebelling against
him?’ She replied: ‘What was the reason for your father marring your mother?’ I
said: ‘It was the fate’. She replied: ‘And also this was a fate’.
The unequivocal testimony of Ayesha about Ali bin Abi Talib [as] being dearest to the Holy
Prophet [s] should suffice to silence her advocates. If we examine the excuse she advanced for
fighting the dearest person to the Holy Prophet [s] we see it is both feeble and unIslamic since
in Islam, one cannot commit heinous crimes and blame fate she will after all have to pay the
price for those offences in the hereafter!
112.Reply Two - The Sahabi Buraida’s testimony as to who the most

beloved were
Imam Hakim records a Sahih tradition in Mustadrak, Volume 4 page 2581 Tradition 4735:
Buraida said: ‘The dearest woman to Allah's messenger was Fatima and the dearest
man was Ali’.

Page 74 of 89
113.Reply Three - The most beloved individuals are those that are loved
by Allah (swt) and his Rasul (s)
To locate the most beloved in they eyes of Rasulullah (s) it would need to be that individual
who is also loved by Allah (swt). Such an individual attains a rank that cannot be attained by
any other person. Following the successive failures of the Shaykhain in leading the Muslim army
to conquer the fort of Khaiber, Rasulullah (s) made this declaration that we have cited from
Sahih Muslim Book 031, Number 5918 Chapter "The merits of Ali ibne Abi Talib":
Sahl b. Sa'd reported that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said on the
Day of Khaibar: I would certainly give this standard to a person at whose hand Allah
would grant victory and who loves Allah and His Messenger and Allah and His
Messenger love him also. The people spent the night thinking as to whom it would
be given. When it was morning the people hastened to Allah's Messenger (may
peace be upon him) all of them hoping that that would be given to him. He (the Holy
Prophet) said: Where is 'Ali b. Abu Talib? They said: Allah's Messenger, his eyes are
sore. He then sent for him and he was brought and Allah's Messenger (may peace be
upon him) applied saliva to his eyes and invoked blessings and he was all right, as if
he had no ailment at all, and conferred upon him the standard. 'Ali said: Allah's
Messenger, I will fight them until they are like us. Thereupon he (the Holy Prophet)
said: Advance cautiously until you reach their open places, thereafter invite them to
Islam and inform them what is obligatory for them from the rights of Allah, for, by
Allah, if Allah guides aright even one person through you that is better for you than
to possess the most valuable of the camels.
So here Rasulullah (s) gave a clear guarantee that the individual who would be given the
standard was a man loved by Allah (swt) and him. The fact that all the Sahaba were hoping for
the Standard being given to them, vouches for the fact that they were fully aware of the
esteemed rank the next person grasping the standard would have in the eyes of Allah (swt) and
his Apostle (s). The fact that it was 'Ali (as) and no one else evidences that he was the most
beloved to Rasulullah (s), one loved by Rasul (s) and his Creator.
With regards to Imams Hasan (as) and Husayn (as), we read in Sunan Tirmidhi Volume 2 page
24 that Rasulullah stated:
"Hasan and Husayn are both my sons, O Allah I love them so love them and those
that love them".
In this supplication Rasulullah (s) has declared that his love for his beloved grandsons, was
such that he has declared his love for those that loved them.
Along the same line, consider this tradition:
Rasulullah (s) said:

"God commanded me to love four, and He informed me that he loves them. People
asked him: Messenger of God who are they? He said: Ali is from them (repeating
that three times ). And Abu Tharr and Salman and al-Miqdad."
1. Sunan ibn Majah, v1 p53 Hadith 149;
2. The Khalifas who took the right way page 177 (A part translation of Suyuti's Tarikh ul
Khulafa")
3. Mishkat al Masabih, Volume 4 page 131 Chapter "Companions in General" - English
translation by Maulana Fazlul Karim.
Such is the rank of the four individuals in this hadith that Allah (swt) has declared his love for
them, so they have a rank of superiority that far outstrips that of the other Sahaba.
It is clear that the individuals in these traditions rank as the most beloved from amongst the

Page 75 of 89
faithful so much so that not only the Prophet (s) but Allah (swt) declared his love for them. We
challenge Ansar.org to present any traditions in which Rasulullah (s) had declared that Allah
(swt) loved Ayesha and 'Abu Bakr. No such hadith exists.
114.Reply Four - The most beloved are those individuals whose love has
been made compulsory upin the believers in the Quran
When seeking to identify the most beloved in the eyes of Rasulullah (s) one needs to look no
further than the Qur'an. Allah (swt) states the duty that has been placed on the Muslims:
Say: "No reward do I ask of you for this except the love of those near of kin."
(42:23).
Jalaladin Suyuti in Tafsir Durre Manthur under the commentary of this verse records the
following:
Abdullah ibne Abbas narrates 'When this verse descended the people asked who are
these close relatives whose love had been made compulsory?' Rasulullah said they
are 'Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Husayn'.
Other leading lights of Ahl'ul Sunnah have also confirmed that this verse came down in respect
of these four individuals:
1. Hilayat al Awliya page 201 Volume 3
2. Mustadrak al Hakim Volume 3 page 172
3. Sawaiq al Muhriqa page 101
4. Usdul Ghaba page 367 Volume 5
5. Kanz al-Ummal page 217 Volume 1
Clearly these four individuals are the most beloved to Rasulullah (s) to the extent that Allah
(swt) has declared love towards them as the only wage required by Rasulullah (s), for providing
the ummah with Allah's message - Islam. Therefore, their love is a part of the Deen. If Ayesha
and Abu Bakr were indeed the 'most' beloved then why has Allah (swt) not stipulated love
towards them as a duty upon the Muslims in the same way He (swt) has for Imams Ali (as),
Hasan (as), Husayn (as) and Sayyida Fatima (as)?
115.Reply Five - Prophet [s] selected his most beloved on the Day of
Brotherhood
We read in Seerah Ibn Hisham, Volume 1 page 55 that:
"The Prophet after the Hijrah said to the Muslims: Be brothers in God. Every two
should be brothers. Then he took the hand of Ali Ibn Abi Talib and said this is my
brother. Thus, the Messenger of God, the Leader of the Messengers, the Imam of the
righteous, the one who has no equal among the servants of God and Ali Ibn Abi
Talib became brothers. Al Hamzah, Lion of Allah and of his Messenger and Zaid Ibn
Harith became brothers, and Abu Bakr and Kharijah Ibn Zuhair became brothers.
Omar Ibn Khattab and Atban Ibn Malik became brothers"
Our question to Abu Sulaiman and his fellow advocates is 'If Abu Bakr was indeed the most
beloved then why did the Holy Prophet (s) not select him to be his brother when he (s) divided
the Sahaba in to pairs on the Day of Brotherhood?' This occasion was a clear declaration of the
closeness between Imam 'Ali (as) and Rasulullah (s). If Abu Bakr was the most beloved then
why did he prefer Imam Ali (as) over him?

Page 76 of 89
116.Does the title of ‘Umahat ul Momineen’ given to the wives of the Holy
Prophet [s] evidence Ayesha’s personal merit or guarantees her
immunity from criticism?
Unable to identify a legitimate defence for the crimes committed by their Nasibi ancestors
against Imam Ali bin Abi Talib [as] from the Quran and Sunnah, they turn to the fact that Allah
(swt) declared the wives of the Prophet [s] to be the ‘mothers of the believers’ the exempts
them from criticism. Ansar.org submit this defence in this manner:
Ansar.org states:
And we value her because she is our mother in
faith. Allah says, “The Prophet is closer to the
Believers than their own selves, and his wives are
their mothers.” (Al-Ahzab, 5)
117.Reply One: The actual reason for declaring them ‘mothers of the
believers’ was to prevent Muslims from marrying them
We shall puncture this Nawasib ‘defence ball’ by pointing out that the sole reason for declaring
the wives of the Prophet [s] as ‘the mothers of the believers’ was to prevent the Muslims from
marrying them in the eventuality of their being divorced or widowed, it is not a merit on their
part. That is why we read in the Holy Quran:
Nor is it right for you that ye should annoy Allah's Messenger, or that ye should
marry his widows after him at any time. (33:53)
The first verse was revealed when Allah [swt] exposed the evil wish of Talha to marry Ayesha in
the eventuality of the Prophet’s death. Allah [swt] sought to remove such an option by
revealing this verse:
‘and his wives are their mothers’ (33:6)
The first verse was revealed to establish a new rule that Muslims could not marry the Prophet
(s)’s and the second commandment was revealed to emphasize the very rule. It is similar to the
case of the verses of Zakat. Zakat was mentioned in the Quran several times, initially to
establish a new rule with the remainder occasions emphasizing the requirement of Zakat. Let us
now substantiate our argument with the help of Sunni sources. We read in Tafsir al-Qurtubi,
Volume 14 page 228:
‫رج§́لا‬¥ ‫̈ن‬¥‫ة أ‬¥‫اد‬¥‫ت‬¥‫ ق‬¤‫عن‬ ¥ ‫ر‬¥‫عم‬¤ ‫م‬¥ ¤‫ن‬¥‫ر ع‬¤‫و‬¥‫ن ث‬¤‫̈مد ب‬¥‫ا §مح‬¥‫ن‬¥‫̈دث‬¥‫ ح‬¥‫ال‬¥‫د ق‬¤‫ي‬¥‫ن ع§ب‬¤‫̈مد ب‬¥‫ا §مح‬¥‫ثن‬¥‫̈د‬¥‫ ح‬¥‫ال‬¥‫اق ق‬¥‫سح‬ ¤ ‫إ‬£ ‫ن‬¤‫يل ب‬£‫اع‬¥‫م‬¤‫س‬£‫ى إ‬¥‫رو‬¥
‫ؤذ§وا‬¤ §‫ن ت‬
¤ ‫أ‬¥ ¤‫كم‬
§ ¥‫ ل‬¥‫ان‬¥‫ا ك‬¥‫م‬¥‫ " و‬: ‫ى‬¥‫ال‬¥‫ع‬¥‫ ال̈له ت‬¥‫زل‬¥ ‫ن‬¤ ‫أ‬¥¥‫ ف‬, ‫ة‬¥‫ئش‬£‫ا‬¥‫ت ع‬¤‫̈وج‬¥‫تز‬¥ ¥‫̈لم‬¥‫وس‬¥ ‫ه‬
£ ¤‫ي‬¥‫ل‬¥‫̈لى ال̈له ع‬¥‫رس§ول ال̈له ص‬¥ ‫ض‬ ¥ £‫و ق§ب‬¤ ¥‫ ل‬: ¥‫ال‬¥‫ق‬
¤ ¥‫ل‬¥‫ز‬¥‫ن‬¥‫ و‬. ‫ة‬¥‫آي‬¤‫رس§ول ال̈له " ال‬¥ "
‫اتهم‬¥‫اجه أ§̈مه‬¥‫زو‬¤ ¥‫أ‬¥‫ " و‬: ‫ت‬
Qatada said: ‘A man said: ‘If Allah's messenger (s) died, I would marry Ayesha’.
Hence Allah revealed ‘{ Nor is it right for you that ye should annoy Allah's
Messenger}’ then revealed ‘{ and his wives are their mothers}’.
Modern day Salafi scholar Abu Bakr al-Jazairi records in Aysar al-Tafasir, Volume 4 page 1422:
‫روي أن رج́ل من المنافقين لما تزوج رسول ال صلى ال عليه وسلم أم سلمة وحفصة بعد خنيس بن‬
‫ فأنزل ال تعالى هذه‬، ‫ فما بال محمد يتزوج نساءنا وال لو قد مات لجلنا السهام على نسائه‬: ‫حذافة قال‬
‫ فحرم ال نكاح أزواجه من بعده وجعل لهن حكم المهات‬، ‫الية‬
It has been narrated that when Allah's messenger (s) married Um Salama and

Page 77 of 89
Hafsa, after (she got separated) from Khunais bin Hudafa, a male hypocrite said:
‘Why is Muhammad marrying our women? By Allah when he dies, we should fire our
arrows at his wives’. Allah (swt) therefore revealed this verse. Thus Allah made the
marriage to His wives unlawful and made their status as the status of mothers.
In Volume 4 page 1395 we read:

{‫وأزواجه أمهاتهم } في الحرمة وسواء من طلقت أو مات عنها منهن رضي ال عنهن‬
“{and his wives are their mothers.} The unlawfulness (for marriage) whether they
are divorced or widows may Allah be pleased with them.”
Allamah Salehi al-Shami records in Subul al-Huda wa al-Rashad, Volume 11 page 146:
‫ أن معنى الية أن المومة في المة المراد بها تحريم نكاحهن على التأبيد كالمهات‬.
“The meaning of motherhood to the nation means that it is unlawful to marry them
for ever just like the case of their biological mothers.”
One of the beloved scholars of Salafies namely Shawkani records in Fatah al-Qadir, Volume 4
page 372 wrote:
‫فل يحل لحد أن يتزوج بواحدة منهن كما ل يحل له أن يتزوج بأمه فهذه المومة مختصة بتحريم النكاح لهن‬
“It is impermissible for anyone to marry any one of them as it is impermissible to

marry his biological mother, thus this motherhood is about forbidding marriage with
them”
Imam Jalaluddin Suyuti records in Tafsir Dur al-Manthur, Volume 6 page 566:
‫ أمهاتهم في الحرمة ل يحل‬: ‫وأخرج ابن أبي حاتم عن قتادة رضي ال عنه في قوله وأزواجه أمهاتهم يقول‬
‫لمؤمن ان ينكح امرأة من نساء النبي صلى ال عليه و سلم في حياته ان طلق ول بعد موته هي حرام‬
‫على كل مؤمن مثل حرمة أمه‬
“Qutada [ra] said about his (Allah) satatement ‘{and his wives are their mothers.}’
they are their mothers in unlawfulness (for marriage), it is impermissible for a
believer to marry any woman from the prophet (s)’s women, whether they were
divorced during His life time or after his death, they are unlawful for every believer
as the unlawfulness of their biological mothers.”
Imam Fakhr al-Razi records in Tafsir al-Kabir, Volume 5 page 136:

‫ { وأزواجه أمهاتهم } لجل‬: ‫كما أنه تعالى سمى أزواج النبي عليه السلم أمهات المؤمنين في قوله‬
‫ الحرمة‬.
“He (Allah) Almighty called the wives of the prophet (s) as the mother of believers
according to the verse {and his wives are their mothers} due to unlawfulness (of
marriage).”
And to hit a final nail in the Nasibi coffin, let us present the testimony of Ayesha herself who
unequivocally stated that she was the mother of the Muslim men not of Muslim women, that
perfectly concurs with the notion that those women were made mothers of the ‘male’ believers
so as to prohibit marriage, as stated earlier. Imam Ibn Saad records in Tabaqat al-Kabir,
Volume 8 page 65:
‫حدثنا هشام أبو الوليد الطيالسي حدثنا أبو عوانة عن فراس عن عامر عن مسروق أن امرأة قالت لعائشة‬
‫يا أمة فقالت لست بأمك أنا أم رجالكم‬
Masrooq said: ‘A woman said to Ayesha: ‘Oh mother’. She replied: ‘I'm not your
mother, I'm the mother of your men’.

Page 78 of 89
According to Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani, Abu al-Walid al-Tealisi and Abu Uwana are ‘Thiqa
Thabt’ while Amer al-Sh'abi and Masrooq are ‘Thiqah’ while Feras bin Yaya is ‘Seduq’.
Moreover, many Sunni scholars have declared this tradition to be Sahih. This tradition is
recorded in Masanid Feras, Volume 1 page 85 by Feras al-Maktab while the reviser of the book
Sheikh Muhammad bin Hassan al-Masri has declared its chain as ‘Sahih’ as has also been done
by Esaami in Semt al-Nujum al-Awali, page 184. The Salafi scholar Abu Ishaq al-Huwaini was
the favorite student of Imam Nasiruddin Albaani al-Salafi which why is Salafies call him 'the
small Albaani'. Abu Ishaq in his book Tanbeeh al-Hajeb, Volume 2 page 425 answered al-
Qurtubi in this manner:
! ‫ رضي ال عنك‬: ‫قلت‬
‫فقد صح هذا عن عائشة– رضي ال عنها –من طريق مسروق‬
I say: may Allah be pleased with you!

This is a Sahih (tradition) from Ayesha may Allah be pleased with, narrated by
Masrooq.
Tanbeeh al-Hajeb, Volume 2 page 425
For the Nawasib belonging to Sipah Sahaba, we should point out that one of the favorite
scholars of Deoband school namely Qazi Thanaullah Pani Patti Uthmani records in Tafseer
Mazhari, Volume 9 page 202:
“Shu’bi has narrated from Masrooq that a woman said to Ayesha: ‘Oh mother’. She
replied: ‘I'm not your mother, I'm the mother of your men’. Bahaqi has also narrated
it in Sunan. This has proved that Allah [swt] calling the wives of Holy Prophet [s] as
the mothers of the believers means that in the same way that one’s biological
mother is Haram for the Ummah so is the case with marrying the wives of the Holy
Prophet [s]”
Tafseer Mazhari, Volume 9 page 202
Beside Sunni texts, Shia sources also confirm that their being mothers of the belevers was to
prevent their marriage with Muslim men, see
1. Rasael al-Murtaza, by Sharif al-Murtaza, v4, p65
2. Jame al-Jawame, by Tabarsi, v3, p49
3. Tafsir al-Quran, by Abdullah Shubar, p418
4. Min Wahi al-Quran, by Fadhlullah, v18, p263
5. Tafsir al-Quran, by Abdullah Shubar, p418
Nasibi Objection
A Nasibi advanced an absurd objecottion that Shias consider themselves ‘Momineen’ (believers),
does that mean that Allah [swt] prevented the Shia men from marrying the wives of Holy
Prophet [s] whilst the Sunni men were not?
Reply to the Nasibi Objection
The word ‘Mumineen’ has been used in the Holy Quran at various places and at times it carries
different meanings. For example, Allah [swt] has also used this word for the hypocrites too
(61:2), for Muslims in general (5:6) and also for the true believers (31:8). It is therefore not
strange if Allah [swt] used this word to refer to the Muslims in general so as to prevent them
marrying the wives of the Holy Prophet [s].

Page 79 of 89
118.Reply Two: Being a ‘mother of the believers’ is a merit dependent on

the believers
Let us cite an example:
There is a doctor who has invented a treatment to care cancer or an engineer who has
developed a new formula or a warrior who laid down his life whilst defending his nation’s
territory in an unprecedented manner. The nation awards him with the highest medal of valour
following his death. Now if you happen to know the mothers of all these individuals and you are
to introduce her to a third person, your introduction will certainly be based on their (mothers’)
relation to their respective sons. You might say ‘meet her, she is the mother of Dr. ABC’ . The
use of such terminology acts as the recognition of the mother-son relationship and is
dependent on the merits of the son, not of mother. There isn’t any contribution of the mother
in the efforts the doctor made in the laboratories on the contrary it was the efforts of the son
who has brought a reputation or name to his mother.
119.Reply Three: A mother can be good or bad
There isn’t any rocket science in this. A mother cannot be barred from crticism and punishment
for the crimes and sins she commits just because she is a mother. The Nawasib always seek to
‘embarrass’ the Shia by asking:
‘Will you disrespect and criticize your own biological mother? If not then how can you treat the
mothers of the believers in this manner?
Firstly, no Shia ‘disrespects’ Ayesha criticizing her crimes does not constitute showing her
disrespect. Ayesha herself opened the door of criticism by committing such sins.
As for the second point, Nawasib are working on the assumption that mothers are always good
to their children on account of the status as mothers. Tragically this is not a hard a fast rule and
there exist many examples of mothers subjecting their biological children to neglect and abuse,
for example:
Mother participates in the rape of her daughter

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/6230072.stm]
Mother jailed over child neglect

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,20511524-1702,00.html
Mother abandons children and goes on holiday
Mother murders her baby son

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1532206/Mother-who-killed-her-baby-son-in-fire-
is-spared-jail.htm
Applying these cases to the facts under and the question whether a Shia would criticize his own
biological mother, then the answer is that if one’s biological mother (godforbid) committed sins
like those of the above women and Ayesha, she is worthy of criticism. Alhamdulilah, we don’t
see any Shia mother going out of her house joining men after her husband’s death, causing
fitnah and murder in the Ummah and fighting the Ulil Amr who she hates, and that too when
she was forewarned that such conduct would evidence her being on the wrong path!

Page 80 of 89
120.Does the verse of Surah Noor shows any individual merit of Ayesha or
guarantee her protection from criticism?
In his attempt to defend Ayesha,

Ansar.org states:
Aysha deserved all this respect, regard, and more
from Ahl Al-Sunnah because she is the wife of the
pure prophet peace be upon him that he chose to
be his wife because she is pure too. Allah
Almighty says, "Women impure are for men
impure, and men impure for women impure and
women of purity are for men of purity, and men
of purity are for women of purity: these are not
affected by what people say: for them there is
forgiveness, and a provision honourable." (Surat
Al-Noor, 26).
Here Allah (swt) is talking about the common example of people, a pious man will not
intentionally search out an ill-chartered woman and vice versa. To say that this is a precedent
that pious men ONLY have pious wives and impure men only have impure wives, is absolutely
baseless and contradicts the Qur'an. To prove the fallacy of Abu Sulaiman's claim all we need to
do is to cite these two verses from Surah Tahreem verses 66:10-11, which incidentally had
descended as a warning to Ayesha and Hafsa:
"Allah has set forth an example to the disbeliever's, the wife Of Noah and the wife
of Lot. They were both married to two servants from among our righteous servants,
but they were deceitful/treacherous to their husbands. And they benefited nothing
before Allah on the account of their (husbands). Instead they were told: "Enter the
Fire with those who enter." Allah cited an example for the believers, the wife of
Pharaoh when she said: "O my Lord, build for me a house in paradise, and save me
from Pharaoh and his deeds; and save me from the people who do wrong".
If pious men ONLY marry pious women, how is it that Prophet's Nuh (as) and Lut (as) both had
wives that are in Hell for their acts of deceit and treachery? If impious men only marry impious
women then how is it Pharaoh, the enemy of Allah (swt) was married to Asiya, who is extolled
for her piety?
We would look forward to Abu Sulaiman's commentary of these verses in light of his claim.
Before we close our discussions on this verse, we should point out that there is no need to use
this verse to shield the sins committed by Ayesha since the verse should be understood in the
context in which it was revealed, namely its discussion about fornication and chastity. No Shia
or Sunni has even the slightest doubt over the chastisy of the Prophet [s] and all his wives, that
in effect ends the debate! Imam Shawkani in Tafsir Fatah al-Qadir, Volume 4 page 27 confirms
that the impurtiy and purtiy referred to in this verse are for fornication and chasty respectively:
‫الخبيثات الزواني والطيبات العفائف وكذا الخبيثون والطيبون‬
“Impure women are the fornicators, the women of purity are the chaste and so are
the impure men and the purity of men”
121.Allah (swt) has condemned Ayesha in the Quran
Whilst Allah (swt) refers to Rasulullah's wives in different guises, Ayesha and Hafsa are two

Page 81 of 89
wives who have been specifically admonished by Allah (swt) on account of their behaviour. Abu
Sulaiman can offer as many defences as he chooses, Ayesha herself testifies to her scheming
with Hafsa that led to the descent of this verse.
"O Prophet! Why holdest thou to be forbidden that which Allah has made lawful to
thee? Thou seekest to please thy consorts" (Surah Tahreem verse 1, Yusuf Ali's
translation).
This is what we read in Sahih al Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 434:
"Narrated 'Aisha: Allah's Apostle used to drink honey in the house of Zainab, the
daughter of Jahsh, and would stay there with her. So Hafsa and I agreed secretly
that, if he come to either of us, she would say to him. "It seems you have eaten
Maghafir (a kind of bad-smelling resin), for I smell in you the smell of Maghafir,"
(We did so) and he replied. "No, but I was drinking honey in the house of Zainab,
the daughter of Jahsh, and I shall never take it again. I have taken an oath as to
that, and you should not tell anybody about it".
So Ayesha admits:
1. Both her and Ayesha entered in to a secret plot in an effort to keep Rasulullah (s) away
from the house of Ummul Momineen Zainab.
2. To achieve this objective they both lied to Rasulullah (s).
Allah (swt) exposed the two wives in this verse, so much so that in Surah Tahreem verse 4, He
(swt) says:
"If ye two turn in repentance to Him, your hearts are indeed so inclined; But if ye
back up each other against him, truly Allah is his Protector, and Gabriel, and (every)
righteous one among those who believe,- and furthermore, the angels - will back
(him) up".
Here are just a handful of Ahl'ul Sunnah texts that confirm Surah Tahreem descended following
the planning of Ayesha and Hafsa:
1. Sahih al Bukhari Volume 6 hadith number 437
2. Sunan Nasai Volume 6 page 152
3. Musnad Ibn Hanbal Volume 1 page 252
4. Tafheemul Qur'an commentary of Surah Tahreem
For the sake of brevity we shall only cite the fatwa of Umar with regards to who this verse
descended about:
"Narrated Ibn Abbas: I intended to ask 'Umar about those two ladies who back each
other against 'Allah's Apostle . For one year I was seeking the opportunity to ask
this question, but in vain, until once when I accompanied him for Hajj. While we
were in Zahran, 'Umar went to answer the call of nature and told me to follow him
with some water for ablution. So I followed him with a container of water and
started pouring water for him. I found it a good opportunity to ask him, so I said, "O
chief of the Believers! Who were those two ladies who had backed each other
(against the Prophet)?" Before I could complete my question, he replied, "They
were 'Aisha and Hafsa."
Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 437
The comments of Sayyid Abul A'la Maudoodi in his Tafheemul Qur'an, regarding this verse, a
commentary which he has cited relying on some of the most revered and authentic Sunni
sources, are of particular significance. We are translating the text direct from the English
version, footnotes 7 and 8:

Page 82 of 89
“The word saghat in the original is from Baghy which means to swerve and to
become crooked. Shah Waliyullah and Shah Rafi'uddin have translated this sentence
thus: "Crooked have become your hearts." 'Abdullah bin Mas'ud, 'Abdullah bin
'Abbas, Sufyan Thauri and Dahhak have given this meaning of it: "Your hearts have
swerved from the right path." Imam Razi explains it thus: "Your hearts have
swerved from what is right, and the right implies the right of the Holy Prophet
(upon whom be Allah's peace)." And 'Allama Alusi's commentary is Although it is
incumbent on you that you should approve what the Holy Messenger (upon whom
he peace) approves and disapprove what he disapproves, yet in this matter your
hearts have swerved from conformity with him and turned in opposition to him. "
*8 The word tazahur means to cooperate mutually in opposition to another person,
or to be united against another person. Shah Waliyullah has translated this
sentence, thus: "If you mutually join together to cause distress to the Prophet. "
Shah 'Abdul Qadir's translation is: "If you both overwhelm him." Maulana Ashraf 'Ali
Thanwi's translation runs: "And if you both continued to work thus against the
Prophet. " And Maulana Shabbir Ahmad 'Uthmami has explained it thus: ,"lf you two
continued to work and behave thus (against the Prophet)."
The verse is clearly addressed to two ladies and the context shows that these ladies
arc from among the wives of the Holy Prophet (upon whom be peace) for in vv. 1-5
of this Surah the affairs concerning the Holy Prophet's wives only have been
discussed continuously, and this becomes obvious from the style of the Qur'an itself.
As for the question who were the wives, and what was the matter which caused
Allah's displeasure, the details are found in the Hadith. In Musnad Ahmad, Bukhari,
Muslim, Tirmidhi and Nasa'i, a detailled tradition of 'Abdullah bin 'Abbas has been
related, which describes the incident with sane variation in wording. Ibn 'Abbas
says:
"I had been thinking a long time to ask 'Umar as to who were the two of the Holy
Prophet's wives, who had joined each other against him, and about whom Allah sent
down this verse: In tatuba.....; but I could not muster courage because of his awe-
inspiring personality until he left for Hajj and I accompanied him. On our way back
while helping him to perform ablutions for the Prayer at one place I had an
opportunity to ask him this question. He replied: they were 'A'ishah and Hafsah.
Then he began to relate the background, saying: "We, the people of Quraish, were
used to keeping our women folk under strict control. Then. when we came to
Madinah, we found that the people here were under the control of their wives, and
the women of Quraish too started learning the same thing from them. One day
when I became angry with my wife, I was amazed to see that she argued with me. I
felt badly about her conduct. She said, 'Why should you feel so angry at my
behaviour? By God, the wives of the Holy Prophet (upon whom be peace) answer
him back face to face,' (the word in the original is li yuraji nahu) and some one of
them remains angrily apart from hire for the whole day. (According to Bukhari: the
Holy Prophet remains angry and- apart from her the whole day). Hearing this I
came out of my house and went to Hafsah (who was Ùmar's daughter and the Holy
Prophet's wife). I asked her. Do you answer back to the Holy Prophet (upon whom
be peace) face to face? She said: Yes. asked: And does one of you remain apart from
him for the whole day (According to Bukhari: the Holy Prophet remains angry and
apart from her for the entire day). She said: Yes. I said: Wretched is the one from
among you, who behaves thus. Has one of you become so fearless of this that AIIah
should afflict her with His wrath because of the wrath of His Prophet and she should
perish? So, do not be rude to the Prophet (here also the words are: la turaji-'i), nor
demand of him anything, but demand of me whatever you desire. Do not be misled
by this that your neighbor (i.e. A'ishah) is more beautiful and dearer to the Holy
Prophet. After this I left her house and went to the house of Umm Salamah, who
was related to me, and talked to her on this subject. She said: Son of Khattab, you
are a strange man: you have meddled in every matter until you are now interfering

Page 83 of 89
in the affair between Allah's Messenger and his wives. She discouraged me. Then it
so happened that an Ansari neighbor came to my house at night and he called out to
me. We used to sit in the Holy Prophet's assembly by turns and each used to pass on
to the other the news of the day of his turn. It was the time when we were
apprehending an attack by the Ghassanids any time. On his call when I came out of
my house, he said that something of grave significance had happened. 1 said: Have
the Ghassanids launched an attack? He said: No, but something even more serious!
The Holy Prophet (upon whom be peace) has divorced his wives. I said: Doomed is
Hafsah (the words in Bukhari are: Raghima anfu Hafsah wa Àishah). I already had
a premonition of this."
We have left out what happened after this, how next morning 'Umar went before
the Holy Prophet and tried to appease his anger. We have described this incident by
combining the traditions of Musnad Ahmad and Bukhari. In this the word murajàt
which Ùmar has used cannot be taken in its literal sense, but the context shows
that the word has been used in the sense of answering back face to face and
Ùmar's saying to his daughter: La turaji- Ì Rasul Allah clearly has the meaning: Do
not be impudent to the Messenger of Allah, Some people say that this is a wrong
translation, and their objection is: Although it is correct to translate muraja àt as
answering hack, or answering hack face to face, yet it is not correct to translate it
as "bing impudent" . These objectors do not understand that if a person of a lower
rank or position answers back or retorts to a person of a higher rank and position,
or answers him back face to face this very thing is described as impudence. For
example, if a father rebukes his son for something or feels angry at his behaviour,
and the son instead of keeping quiet or offering an excuse, answers back promptly
this could only he described as impudence. Then, when the matter is not between a
father and a son, but between the Messenger of Allah and an individual of his
community, only a foolish person could say that it was not impudence.
Some other people regard this translation of ours as disrespectful, whereas it could
be disrespectful in case we had had the boldness to use such words in respect of
Hafsah from ourselves. We have only given the correct meaning of the words of .
'Umar, and these words he had used while scolding and reproving his daughter for
her error. Describing it as disrespectful would mean that either the father should
treat his daughter with due respect and reverence even when scolding and rebuking
her or else the translator should render his rebuke and reproof in a way as to make
it sound respectful and reverent.
Here, what needs to be considered carefully is that if it was such an ordinary and
trivial matter that when the Holy Prophet said something to his wives they would
retort to Him, why was it given so much importance that in the Qur'an AIIah
administered a severe warning directly to the wives themselves? And why did 'Umar
take it as such a grave matter that first he reproved his own daughter, then visited
the house of the other wives and asked them to fear the wrath of Allah? And, about
alI, was the Holy Prophet (upon whom be peace) also so sensitive that he would
take offence at minor things and become annoyed with his wives, and was he, God
forbid, so irritable that once having been annoyed at such things he had severed his
connections with all his wives and retired to his private apartment in seclusion? If a
person considers these questions deeply, he will inevitably have to adopt one of the
two views in the explanation of these verses Either on account of his excessive
concern for reverence for the holy wives he should not at aII mind if a fault is
imputed to AIIah and His Messenger, or else he should admit in a straightforward
way that at that time the attitude and behaviour of these holy wives has actually
become so objectionable that the Holy Prophet (upon whom be peace) was justified
in becoming annoyed over it, and more than that, AIIah Himself was justified that
He should administer a severe warning to the wives on their unseemly behaviour
and attitude.
These verses, particularly in light of Maudoodi's commentary, are indeed very interesting, for

Page 84 of 89
the aqeedah of Ahl'ul Sunnah is that ALL the Sahaba are just and truthful. This verse
demonstrates the exact opposite, two wives of Rasulullah (s) have been exposed for lying.
122.Ayesha's condemnation in the Quran is further proof that she was not
the most superior wife of Rasulullah (s)
Some Ahl'ul Sunnah assert that since Ayesha was the most superior wife then that means that
she was the most superior of all women. Not only is the claim that she was the most superior
wife baseless, the fact of the matter is in Surah Tahreem, Allah (swt) also states this:
"Perhaps if he divorces you, his Lord will give him wives who are better than you,
who submit and believe” (Qur'an 66:5) - this clearly indicates that there were believing
women among the Muslims who were much better than Ayesha.

Page 85 of 89
9. The 'true' Shia position with regards to Ayesha
123.Distinguishing between slander and objective criticism
Unfortunately our opponents have difficulty distinguishing between criticism and slander.
Criticism is perfectly legitimate if it is based on facts whether they are from the sources of
Qur'an, Sunnah and annals of history. This is the Shi'a approach when we discuss topics such
as this one; we present the facts from these three sources to show to our readers that if we
have been critical of Ayesha, it is on account of her actions. Slander entails making
uncorroborated comments about an individual, so as to destroy that person's character. As we
have proven, slandering Ayesha was an approach adopted by the Sahaba. The Shi'a do NOT
slander Ayesha, if we are critical of Ayesha or for that matter, any Sahabi, we can substantiate
and elaborate our reasons, as this site sets out to do.
124.Slandering Ayesha is the Sunnah of the Sahaba
Before accusing the Shia of slander we suggest that the Nawasib look closer to home, since the
true shameless people that slandered Ayesha were the very Sahaba that they venerate. It was
these shameless individuals that attributed formication to Ayesha. This event is clearly
mentioned in the Holy Quran: Surah Noor, Ayah 11. For authentic references from the books of
Ahl'ul Sunnah, see the following:
1. Sahih Bukhari Volume 5 hadith number 462, Chapter al Maghazi (Expeditions)
2. Sunan Nisai Volume 4 page 162 "Kitab Hudood"
3. Fatah ul Bari Volume 5 page 273 "Kitab Shahadath"
4. Irhsad al Sari Sharh Bukhari Volume 4 page 494 "Kitab Shahadath"
5. Nawawi's Sharh Muslim, Volume page 364 "Kitab Tauba"
6. al Bidayah al Nihaya by Ibn Kathir on page 160 Volume 4, Chapter "Dhir Ifk"
7. Tafsir Mazhari commentary of Surah Nur Volume 17 page 479
8. Tafsir Kabeer Volume 6 page 240 Surah Nur
9. Tafsir Fatah ul Qadeer Volume 5 page 49 Surah Nur
10.Umdah al Qari fi Sharh Sahih Bukhari, Volume 6 page 90
11.Sirat un Nabi by Ibn Hisham, chapter 137 (the event of Ifik) page 360
This is how the event is narrated in Sahih Bukhari Volume 5 hadith number 462:
Whenever Allah's Apostle intended to go on a journey, he used to draw lots amongst

his wives, and Allah's Apostle used to take with him the one on whom lot fell. He
drew lots amongst us during one of the Ghazwat which he fought. The lot fell on me
and so I proceeded with Allah's Apostle after Allah's order of veiling (the women)
had been revealed. I was carried (on the back of a camel) in my howdah and carried
down while still in it (when we came to a halt). So we went on till Allah's Apostle
had finished from that Ghazwa of his and returned. When we approached the city of
Medina he announced at night that it was time for departure. So when they
announced the news of departure, I got up and went away from the army camps,
and after finishing from the call of nature, I came back to my riding animal. I
touched my chest to find that my necklace which was made of Zifar beads (i.e.
Yemenite beads partly black and partly white) was missing. So I returned to look for
my necklace and my search for it detained me. (In the meanwhile) the people who
used to carry me on my camel, came and took my howdah and put it on the back of
my camel on which I used to ride, as they considered that I was in it. In those days
women were light in weight for they did not get fat, and flesh did not cover their
bodies in abundance as they used to eat only a little food. Those people therefore,
disregarded the lightness of the howdah while lifting and carrying it; and at that

Page 86 of 89
time I was still a young girl. They made the camel rise and all of them left (along
with it). I found my necklace after the army had gone.
Then I came to their camping place to find no call maker of them, nor one who
would respond to the call. So I intended to go to the place where I used to stay,
thinking that they would miss me and come back to me (in my search). While I was
sitting in my resting place, I was overwhelmed by sleep and slept. Safwan bin Al-
Muattal As-Sulami Adh-Dhakwani was behind the army. When he reached my place
in the morning, he saw the figure of a sleeping person and he recognized me on
seeing me as he had seen me before the order of compulsory veiling (was
prescribed). So I woke up when he recited Istirja' (i.e. "Inna lillahi wa inna llaihi
raji'un") as soon as he recognized me. I veiled my face with my head cover at once,
and by Allah, we did not speak a single word, and I did not hear him saying any
word besides his Istirja'. He dismounted from his camel and made it kneel down,
putting his leg on its front legs and then I got up and rode on it. Then he set out
leading the camel that was carrying me till we overtook the army in the extreme
heat of midday while they were at a halt (taking a rest). (Because of the event)
some people brought destruction upon themselves and the one who spread the Ifk
(i.e. slander) more, was 'Abdullah bin Ubai Ibn Salul."
(Urwa said, "The people propagated the slander and talked about it in his (i.e.
'Abdullah's) presence and he confirmed it and listened to it and asked about it to let
it prevail." Urwa also added, "None was mentioned as members of the slanderous
group besides ('Abdullah) except Hassan bin Thabit and Mistah bin Uthatha and
Hamna bint Jahsh along with others about whom I have no knowledge, but they
were a group as Allah said. It is said that the one who carried most of the slander
was 'Abdullah bin Ubai bin Salul." Urwa added, "'Aisha disliked to have Hassan
abused in her presence and she used to say, 'It was he who said: My father and his
(i.e. my father's) father and my honor are all for the protection of Muhammad's
honor from you.").
Ibn Kathir in al Bidayah al Nihaya, Volume 4 page 160 writes the following:
‫ثم خرج إلى الناس فخطبهم وتل عليهم ما أنزل ال عزوجل من القرآن في ذلك ثم أمر بمسطح بن أثاثة‬
‫وحسان بن ثابت وحمنة بنت جحش وكانوا ممن أفصح بالفاحشة فضربوا حدهم‬
"Then he (prophet) went to the people and addressed and then recited what Allah
revealed in Quran, then he ordered that Mastah bin Uthatha, Hasaan bin thabit,
Hamna bint Jahsh to be punished because they were among those who spread the
allegation of adultery."
As part of their propaganda, Nawasib often allege that we accuse Ayesha of this, but this is a
blatant lie. Ayesha's innocence ‘in this particular case’ has been vouched for in the Quran and
the Shi'a have stated this clearly in their commentaries. It is unfortunate that rather than attack
us these masters of fitnah don't take into account that those who questioned Ayesha's
character were none other than the Sahaba themselves.
125.Ayesha failed to recognise the Imam of her time
We read in Sharh Fiqh Akbar, by Mulla Ali Qari, p 175 (publishers Muhammad Saeed and son,
Qur'an Muhall, Karachi) we read:
"…there is a hadith in Sahih Muslim, narrated by Abdullah ibne Umar 'He who dies
without recognising giving bayah and following his Imam dies the death of one
belonging to the days of jahiliyya'. This is why the Sahaba viewed the appointment
of the Imam as so important that they preferred it to attending the Prophet's
funeral, because the Muslims need an Imam so that orders can be made on Jihad,

Page 87 of 89
and so that Islamic Laws can be implemented"
Ibn Abu Asim in his boo al-Sunnah, page 489 records this hadith:
‫من مات وليس عليه إمام مات ميتة جاهلية‬
"Whoever dies without having an Imam dies the death of Jahiliyyah".
Imam Albaani al-Salafi in his commentary on the hadith, writes:

‫إسناده حسن ورجاله ثقات‬
“Its chain is Hasan and all of its narrators are Thiqah’.
Imam Muslim has recorded this one in his Sahih, Kitab al-Imarah:
‫من مات وليس في عنقه بيعة مات ميته جاهلية‬
“Whoever dies without having on his neck bayah (to an Imam) dies the death of
Jahiliyyah.”
Lastly, Imam Ibn Hibban has recorded in his Sahih, Volume 7 page 49:
‫من مات بغير إمام مات ميتة جاهلية‬
“Whoever dies without an Imam dies the death of Jahiliyyah”
Imam Ali (as) WAS the Imam of the time his obedience was unconditional, it was incumbent on
Ayesha to recognise his Leadership and follow him in all his decisions. Rather than do this she
chose to oppose him, instigate rebellion against him and a war that lead to the deaths of
thousands of her supporters, as a result these individuals died the death of jahilyya because
they failed to recognise the Imam of the time. Not only did Ayesha fail to do so she led others
in to misguidance, they fell in to error on account of her position.
126.One who opposes Ahl'ul bayt (as) is from the Party of Shaythan
"The stars protect the inhabitants of earth against drowning, and my Ahl alBayt
protect my nation against dissension. If a tribe among the Arabs differs from them,
they will all then differ and become the party of Satan." (al-Hakim on page 149, Vol.
3, of Al-Mustadrak from Ibn Àbbas. Al-Hakim adds: "This is an authentic hadith
though they (both Shaykhs, i.e. Bukhari and Muslim) did not include it (in their own
books)."
Ayesha's duty after Rasulullah (s) was to attach herself to the Ahl'ul bayt (as) not to openly
dissent against them and mount armed rebellion against Imam 'Ali (as). Rasulullah (s) had
declared that Ali was with the truth, and Ayesha's duty was to obey Imam 'Ali (as) not to
oppose him. Allah (swt) had also made love of the Ahl'ul bayt (as) a duty in the Qur'an but
rather than attach herself to the Ahl'ul bayt (as) and love them, Ayesha bore resentment
towards them, fought Imam 'Ali (as) and rejoiced at his martyrdom.
Had Ayesha remained in her station as Ummul Momineen living a life of piety within the
confines of her home, she would have indeed attained the esteemed respect that the wives of
Rasulullah (s) deserve. Unfortunately her envy and greed lead her to mount a mass rebellion
against the Imam of the time 'Ali ibne abi Talib (as). By acting in the way that she did, she in
effect set a precedent that it was perfectly legitimate to rebel against the rightful Imam to get
your demands met. This in effect gave the green light to Mu'awiya and his clan to act in the
same way towards Imam 'Ali (as) - for they saw a wife of the Prophet leading armed rebellion
against the rightful Imam of the time.

Page 88 of 89

Page 89 of 89
10.Copyright
All rights, including copyright, in the content of these Answering-Ansar.org web pages are
owned or controlled for these purposes by the Answering-Ansar.org team.
You can distribute the download version of "Adobe® PDF" documents of the Answering-
Ansar.org articles, as long as the documents remain in their original state and none of the
contents are modified in any format.
The Answering-Ansar.org reserves the right over the contents of the articles if they are used in
the original format. You can freely distribute the Islamic references and quotes that we use in
our articles in any format.
When using our articles in your websites or if in distribution in print format, please include the
source as Answering-Ansar.org.
Our web site contains links to third party sites. These links are used for the convenience of our
users; however, they are not under the control of Answering-Ansar.org. We are not responsible
for their contents, nor should they be considered endorsements of the individual linked sites.
However, it is possible that the site could contain typographical errors. If such a condition is
brought to our attention, a reasonable effort will be made to fix or remove it.
If you wish to reproduce, print and distribute our articles in book format, then you will need a
written permission of Answering-Ansar.org. If you wish to do so, then please contact us for
further details.

Ayesha - Truth About The Prophet's (Pbuh) Wife

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Ayesha - Truth About The Prophet's (Pbuh) Wife

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Work file: the_ayesha.pdf

No. Date Author Description Review Info

Copyright © 2002-2008 Answering-Ansar.org. • All Rights Reserved

1.CHAPTER ONE - THE REBELLION OF AYESHA AGAINST IMAM ALI (AS).......... 3

2.CHAPTER TWO – REFUTING THE DEFENCES SUBMITTED BY AYESHA’S

3.CHAPTER THREE – REFUTING THE OBJECTIONS OF AYESHA’S ADVOCATES

4.CHAPTER FOUR - UNTANGLING THE LIES SPUN BY AYESHA’S ADVOCATES

5.CHAPTER FIVE: THE STANCE OF IMAM ALI (AS).....................................................62

6.CHAPTER SIX: AYESHA'S ENMITY TOWARDS IMAM ALI (AS).............................64

7.CHAPTER SEVEN – THE MERITS OF AYESHA FROM THE PEN OF HER

8.WAS AYESHA THE MOST SUPERIOR WIFE OF RASULULLAH (S)?......................69

9.THE 'TRUE' SHIA POSITION WITH REGARDS TO AYESHA.................................... 85

Copyright © 2002-2008 Answering-Ansar.org. • All Rights Reserved

1. Chapter One - The rebellion of Ayesha against Imam Ali

1. Ayesha's entry onto the battlefield of Jamal was a violation of the

Ibn al Hashimi states:

Copyright © 2002-2008 Answering-Ansar.org. • All Rights Reserved

remain chaste and in Purdah. However, it is

Even after the Prophet’s death, the Prophet’s

4. Reply Two – There is a difference between travelling with the Prophet

5. Reply Three – There is a massive difference between going on Hajj and

Copyright © 2002-2008 Answering-Ansar.org. • All Rights Reserved

Ibn Kathir records in Al-Bidayah wal-Nihayah, Volume 7 page 119:

Copyright © 2002-2008 Answering-Ansar.org. • All Rights Reserved

Abu Bakr al-Jazaeri records in Aysar al-Tafasir, Volume 4 page 1408:

Copyright © 2002-2008 Answering-Ansar.org. • All Rights Reserved

Copyright © 2002-2008 Answering-Ansar.org. • All Rights Reserved

2. Chapter Two – Refuting the defences submitted by

8. Defense One - Ayesha was acting as an arbiter demanding Qisas for

Ibn al Hashimi states:

Copyright © 2002-2008 Answering-Ansar.org. • All Rights Reserved

Abu Sulaiman claimed that:

Copyright © 2002-2008 Answering-Ansar.org. • All Rights Reserved

Zameer Sayyid Sharred in Sharh Mawafiq, page 530 comments:

In Sharh al Maqasid page 251 we read:

"The appointment of the Imam is an absolute necessity, he implements the Shari'a

We read in Al-Anaya Sharh al-Hidaya, Volume 7 page 216:

“Implementing punishments is the duty of the Imam’

13. Defence Two - Ayesha was seeking to reform the Ummah

Copyright © 2002-2008 Answering-Ansar.org. • All Rights Reserved

14. Reply One

We would also ask Ansar and their fellow advocates:

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

Allah (swt) says in His Glorious Book:

Ibn al Hashimi states:

Copyright © 2002-2008 Answering-Ansar.org. • All Rights Reserved

the divine injunction ‘remain in your houses’ does

16. Reply One – Ayesha’s willingness to co-operate with those seeking to

We can see from this reference:

Copyright © 2002-2008 Answering-Ansar.org. • All Rights Reserved

• expel those that made such comments from her home?

Ibn al Hashimi states:

Copyright © 2002-2008 Answering-Ansar.org. • All Rights Reserved

her house but no doubt it would be Wajib

Imam Ahmed records:

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

This tradition also can be found in:

Copyright © 2002-2008 Answering-Ansar.org. • All Rights Reserved

Imam Abi Bakar al-Haythami records:

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

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

Copyright © 2002-2008 Answering-Ansar.org. • All Rights Reserved