Part 2: Defence of Ahlelbayt[wives of Prophet/mothers of believers] from the Religious Slanderers


What was the role of Mother of believers, Ayesha(ra) in battle of Jamal?

                                          Section – I

In this section we would like to present before our readers a brief account of the Fitnah that occurred after the martyrdom of the third Caliph of believers, Uthman bin affaan(ra). Which will help us understanding the role of Ayesha(ra) in the battle of Jamal, her actual intentions in regards to approaching towards Basrah. And Inshallah, this will even be helpful in clearing many other misconceptions which people have regarding the battle of Jamal.

One of the most common lies in regards to Aisha(رضّى الله عنها) is that she left her house to fight Ali (رضّى الله عنه) in 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. A renowned scholar of Ahlesunnah, Imam Ibn Khaldun said: “(The) more an incident becomes popular the more a network of unfounded tales and stories is woven around it.”

The truth is that both Umm Al Mumineen (Mother of the Believers) Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) and Amir Al Mumineen (Commander of the Believers) Ali (رضّى الله عنه) were innocent of the Fitnah during the Battle of the Camel (al-Jamal). The real culprits who instigated the Battle of the Camel were the Sabains, who have historically been the cause of much Fitnah.  The first element which is ignored by the ignorants is the Jewish element. Allah says in Quran:”You will surely find the most intense of the people in animosity towards the believers [to be]the Jews and those who associate others with Allah” [Quran 5:82]

Who was Abdullah Ibn Saba and who were Sabains?

Let us quote some famous books of history, which answers about Abdullah ibn Saba and his followers who were named as Sabains.

A Jew of Yemen, Arabia, of the seventh century, who settled in Medina and embraced Islam. Having adversely criticized Calif Othman’s administration, he was banished from the town. Thence he went to Egypt, where he founded an antiothmanian sect, to promote the interests of Ali. On account of his learning he obtained great influence there, and formulated the doctrine that, just as every prophet had an assistant who afterward succeeded him, Mohammed’s vizier was Ali, who had therefore been kept out of the califate by deceit. Othman had no legal claim whatever to the califate; and the general dissatisfaction with his government greatly contributed to the spread of Abdallah’s teachings. Tradition relates that when Ali had assumed power, Abdallah ascribed divine honors to him by addressing him with the words, “Thou art Thou!” Thereupon Ali banished him to Madain. After Ali’s assassination Abdallah is said to have taught that Ali was not dead but alive, and had never been killed; that a part of the Deity was hidden in him; and that after a certain time he would return to fill the earth with justice. Till then the divine character of Ali was to remain hidden in the imams, who temporarily filled his place. It is easy to see that the whole idea rests on that of the Messiah in combination with the legend of Elijah the prophet. The attribution of divine honors to Ali was probably but a later development, and was fostered by the circumstance that in the Koran Allah is often styled “Al-Ali” (The Most High).[Shatrastani al-Milal, pp. 132 et seq]

“Abdullah bin Saba’, was one of those who slandered Abu Bakr, Omar, Othman and the Companions and disowned them. He claimed that it was Ali [as] who enjoined this on him. Ali arrested him, and upon interrogation, admitted to the charge, and (Ali) ordered him to be executed. The People cried ‘O Chief of Believers ! Do you execute a man calling to your love, Ahlul-Bayt, to your allegiance, and disowning your enemies?’ He (Ali) then exiled him to al-Mada’in (Capital of Iran back then). Some of the knowledgeable companions of Ali [as] narrated that Abdullah bin Saba’ was a Jew who embraced Islam and sided with Ali [as]. That he was of the opinion, at the time when he was a Jew, claiming that Yousha’ bin Noon is after Moses. After his submission to Islam, after the demise of the Prophet [sallalahu alayhi wa ala alihi wa salam], he claimed the same for Ali [as]. He was the first to publicly mandate the Imamah of Ali [as], disowning his enemies, and debated his opposers. From thence, those who oppose Shi’ism say: The origin of Shi’ism is rooted in Judaism. When Abdullah bin Saba’ heard of the demise of Ali while in (his exile at) al-Mada’in, he said to the announcer of the news: ‘You are a liar, if you are to bring his head in seventy bags, and brought seventy witnesses testifying to his death, we’ll insist that he did not die nor murdered, and (he) shall not die till he rules the globe’ “. [Firaq al-Shi'a ; Nubakhti, pp. 43,44 ]

Abdullah ibn Saba was spreading his poison since the days of ‘Uthman (ra) and his followers called the Sabains took part in the Fitnah between the Muslims and this is mentioned in a huge amount of Ahadith through countless chains and some are Sahih in both Sunni and Shia books.

The blame is not only directed to Abdullah ibn Saba but also many of the tribes and tribal leaders and foreign nations who had a grudge against Islam and against the Caliphs and their Ameers in various provinces and these people were of huge numbers and they were integrated into the Islamic state almost seamlessly. The first man who was exposed to this heat was Ameer al-Mumineen ‘Uthman Ibn ‘Affan (ra), because He(ra) was one of the kindest and most peaceful leaders this nation has ever had, he refused to fight the rebels and feared that he’d be the first to shed blood in the Nation of Muhammad(saw) and as a result he ended up brutally martyred in his own house in Madinah.

But surprisingly, In our days we’ve witnessed two small groups of writers, the first group denies the existence of Abdullah Ibn Saba completely and they’ve been affected by the Orientalists, So the modern Shia writers decided to ride this train and hide the existence of this man because it suits their desires and protects their Madhab, the other group are closer to conspiracy theorists and they will blame almost everything that happened during the Fitnah on the jew Ibn Saba. Both views are ignored by the respectable Muslim(sunni) scholars and researchers for obvious reasons.

This Jew(Abdullah ibn saba) who decided to split the rows of the Muslims did so by spreading false propaganda and poisonous notions which were sugar coated by ideas such as “The love of Ahlul-bayt”. He did gather quite a good number of supporters by misguiding the naive and ignorant Ghulat(exaggerators) until they started claiming that they saw ‘Ali (ra) in the clouds and other such ridiculous ideas, of course Ali (ra) became quite irritated with these people when they spread rumors that Ali(ra) had secret divine knowledge, Or that He considered himself to be superior to Abubakr(ra) and Umar(ra), etc.

Shia Shaykh Muhammad Husayn az-Zayn al-‘Amili writes in his book ash-Shi‘ah fit-Tarikh: However it may be, Ibn Saba definitely existed and manifested ghuluww (extremism), even though some people doubt his existence and made him out to be an imaginary character created by personal interests. As for us, on grounds of the latest research we have no doubt concerning his existence and his extremism… Yes, Ibn Saba exhibited extremism in his religion. This innovation of his seeped into the thinking of a group that was by no means small, and that group was named after him. (Muhammad Husayn az-Zayn, ash-Shi‘ah fit-Tarikh, p. 213, Dar al-Athar, Beirut, 1979)

Another shia scholar Jafri tells us in his book, The Origins and Early Development of Shi‘ah Islam (p. 300): There is another important point that must be discussed here briefly. A considerable number of traditions are to be found, especially in the earliest Shi‘i collection of hadith, Al-Kafi, which describe the Imams as supernatural human beings. What was the origin of these traditions, and to what extent are the Imams themselves responsible for them? These traditions are reported, as indeed are all Shi‘i traditions, on the authority of one of the Imams, in this case from Al-Baqir and Ja‘far. But were these Imams really the authors of such traditions, which describe their supernatural character? The first thing which must be noted in this connection is that while Al-Baqir and Ja‘far themselves lived in Medina, most of their followers lived in Kufa. This fact brings us to a crucial problem. Kufa had long been a centre of ghulat speculations and activities. Whether ‘Abd Allah bin Saba, to whom the history of the ghulat is traced, was a real personality or not, the name as-Saba’iyya is often used to describe the ghulat in Kufa who believed in the supernatural character of ‘Ali. According to the heresiographers, Ibn Saba was the first to preach the doctrine of waqf (refusal to recognise the death of ‘Ali) and the first to condemn the first two caliphs in addition to ‘Uthman. (Jafri, The Origins and Early Development of Shi‘a Islam, p. 300, Ansariyan Publications, Qum)

Here are few examples which can help us in understanding that, from what type of circumstances Ali(ra) was going through.

Sahih Muslim- Book #009, Hadith #3601: Ibrahim al-Taimi reported on the authority of his father: Ali bin Abu Talib (Allah be pleased with him) addressed us and said: He who thinks that we (the members of the Prophet’s family) read anything else besides the Book of Allah and this Sahifa (and he said that Sahifa was tied to the scabbard of the sword) tells a lie.

في خطبة علي رضي الله عنه على منبر الكوفة : ألا إنه بلغني أن قوما يفضلونني على أبي بكر وعمر رضي الله عنهما ، ولو كنت تقدمت في ذلك لعاقبت فيه ، ولكن أكره العقوبة قبل التقدم . من قال شيئا من ذلك فهو مفتر ، عليه ما على المفتري . وخير الناس كان بعد رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أبو بكر ثم عمر ، ثم أحدثنا بعدهم أحداثا يقضي الله فيها ما شاء
الراوي: علقمة المحدث: الحكمي – المصدر: معارج القبول – الصفحة أو الرقم: 1181/3
خلاصة حكم المحدث: مشهور عنه من طرق لا تحصى

In the Khutbah of Ali on the Mimbar of Kufah he said: “it had reached me that some folks have preferred me over Abu Bakr and Umar may Allah be pleased with them (…) Whoever says anything of the sort is a slanderer and his punishment will be that of a slanderer. The best of people after the Prophet PBUH was Abu Bakr and then Umar, Then things happened after them in which it is for Allah to pass his judgement.

Muhaddiths are al Hakami in Ma’arij al Qubool and al Bayhaqi in Al I’itiqad.
Hadith rank: Famous, was narrated from him through countless chains and has many Shawahid.

What happened after martydom of Uthman(ra)?

After Uthman’s(ra) death, society was unstable, lies and rumors were being spread, the Caliph was murdered in his house, and during this turbulent period people came to Ali(ra) and asked him to declare himself Caliph. Ali(ra) refused, namely out of anger at his own Shia who murdered Uthman(ra). Ali(ra) finally accepted to become the Caliph after the Muslims insisted on him.

We read in the Shia book Nahjul Balagha: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] 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.” (Nahjul Balagha, Sermon 91)

Similar reports are present in the books of Ahlesunnah:
وروى الحاكم بإسناده عن قيس بن عبادقال : سمعت علياً رضي الله عنه الله عنه يوم الجمل يقول : اللهم إني أبرأ إليك من دمعثمان ولقد طاش عقلي يوم قتل عثمان ، وأنكرت نفسي وجاءوني للبيعة ، فقلت والله إنيلأستحي من الله أن أبايع قوماً قتلوا رجلاً قال فيه رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم(( ألا استحيي ممن تستحيي منه الملائكة )) وإني لأستحيي من الله أن أبايع وعثمان قتيلعلى الأرض لم يدفن بعد فانصرفوا ، فما دفن رجع الناس فسألوني البيعة فقلت اللهم إنيمشفق مما أقدم عليه ثم جاءت عزيمة فبايعت فلقد قالوا : يا أمير المؤمنين فكأنما صدعقلبي ، وقلت : اللهم خذ مني لعثمان حتى ترضى
al-Hakim narrated with its Isnad from Qays bin Ubad: I heard Ali(ra) say on the Day of Jamal: (( O Lord I seek refuge in you and I am innocent from the blood of ‘Uthman, I had almost lost my mind the day he was murdered, I denied myself but they came to me offering a pledge of allegiance,I said to them: By God I feel shy from Allah that I would receive a pledge of allegiance from those who killed the Man that the Prophet(saw) described as:”Should I not feel shy of a man of whom the angels are shy?”, and I feel shy from Allah that I would receive allegiance while ‘Uthman is murdered and still lying on the ground without burial. They left me and came back after he was buried asking me for the Baya’ah(Pledge of allegiance), I said: “O Lord I feel pity from what I am about to do” later came determination and I took the pledge when they said: “O chief of believers” I felt my heart ache and I said: “O Lord take from me and give to ‘Uthman until you are pleased.” ))
sources: al-Mustadrak (3/95) and al-Hakim said: Sahih on the condition of Bukhari and Muslim, Imam al Dhahabi agreed with him. -al-Bidayah wal Nihayah(7/202). -al-Riyadh al-Nadirah(3/69,70). -al-Sawa’eq al-Muhriqahp173.

As we can see that the things weren’t pleasant and Ali (ra) was not happy but he surely proved himself as a worthy leader and he started running the affairs of the state as expected from a rightly guided Caliph who follows the Manhaj of Rassul-Allah(saw).

One of these affairs that Ali(ra) had to deal with was the murder of his predecessor(Uthman) before him, that was an urgent affair and the companions differed on the issue of Qisas. When the emotions were still tense and the matters were clouded, it wasn’t quite clear which side was right in their Ijtihad.

After ‘Uthman’s death, Talha and al-Zubair met Aisha (as) in the year 36 hijri, they regretted that they couldn’t do anything to stop the murder of Uthman and they thought they let this man down. So this played a big role in how their mental state was, they started negotiations and here are a couple of reports to know what was being talked about during that time:

The wives of Prophet (s), the mothers of the believers went to Hajj to avoid the fitna that year (36 H.). And when the people came to know that Uthman has been murdered, they(mothers of believers) remained in Makkah, and even they(people) returned and stayed in Makkah….Ali(ra) was elected as a Caliph, and even though Ali(ra) used to dislike the rebels and the murders of Uthman(ra) but these people got respite due to the circumstances. And Ali(ra) thought that if we get control over them then we will take Qisas from them, But things turned around in such a way that these people over came Ali(ra). And they stopped some high ranking Sahaba(ra) from meeting Ali(ra). And a group of Bani Umayya and other people fled towards Makkah. And Talha(ra) and Zubair(ra) took permission from Ali(ra) for Umrah, so he(ra) granted them the permission, so they went towards Makkah, many people followed them. And when Ali(ra) decided for a battle with people of Sham, he called the people of Madina to join him, but they didn’t accept his call. Then Ali(ra) called Abdullah bin Umar(ra) and asked him to came along with him, so he said that, I’m one of the residents of Madinah, So if people of Madinah will go along with you then I will come, But this year I won’t be going for a battle. Then Ibn Umar(ra) made arrangements and traveled towards Makkah. Similarly that year, Layla bin Umaya came from Yemen to Makkah, He was appointed a governor over Yemen by Uthman(ra). He had 600 camels and 6 Lakh Dirham along with him. And Abdullah bin Amer(ra) too came to Makkah from Basrah, who was a Naa’ib(someone who is second in command) of Uthman over Basrah. Then in Makkah several respectable companions of Prophet(saw) and Mother of believers gathered and Ayesha(ra) stood and addressed them and asked them to take revenge for the murder of Uthman(ra) and reminded them of Fatwa where Uthman(ra) was murdered in the sacred city and in the sacred month by those people, they didn’t even respect the son in law of Prophet(Saw) and looted the wealth. So people responded Ayesha(ra) saying that we will obey you in the way you will adopt depending upon the situation. They said to her that wherever you will go, we will follow you. So one person said we will go towards Sham…Some people said : We should go to Madinah, and ask Ali(ra) to hand over the killers of Uthman to us and to kill them. And some people said : We should go to Basrah, and gain support from the forces there and we will begin from the killers of Uthman that are staying there. At the end , they agreed on it. And the mothers of the believers agreed with Aisha to go towards Madinah, But when the people agreed on going to Basrah, so the mothers of the believers returned and said : We will not go to any place other than Madinah…And Ummul Momineen Hafsa also agreed with Aisha to go to Basrah, but her brother Abdullah (ibn Umar) stopped her and refused to go with her except to Madinah…nd the mothers of the believers went with Aisha till Zaat Araq and they parted there and when they were parting, they wept, and other people also wept, and that day is called yawm al naheeb.(Al bidaya, Vol. 7, p. 304-305 )

إن عثمان قُتل مظلومًا والله لأطالبن بدمه
‘Aisha said in Tareekh al-Tabari: “’Uthman died as an innocent victim by Allah I will ask for his blood.”

إنه كان منى في عثمان شيء ليس توبتي إلا أنيسفك دمي في طلب دمه
Talha said in Siyar al-A’alam al-Nubalaa: My only Tawbah(repentance) is that I die while asking for the blood of ‘Uthman.

: نُنهض الناس فيدرك بهذا الدم لئلا يَبْطل، فإن في إبطاله توهينسلطان الله بيننا أبدًا، إذا لم يُفطم الناس عن أمثالها لم يبق إمام إلا قتله هذاالضرب
Al-Zubair said in al-Tabari: We need to gather the people to seek his killers otherwise it will be lost, if his blood is lost then the rule of Allah will always be taken lightly (he means Caliphate), If we do not teach the people that they must not commit another like it then there won’t remain an Imam unless he’s exposed to this(danger).

We come to know from other reports that the people of Mecca who were very close to ‘Uthman (ra) were extremely sad and they accepted the call of the senior companions and the mother of believers (ra), they spent the day crying as recorded in the Ahadith before they left to al-Basarah and that day was called “Yawm al-Naheeb” “يوم النحيب”.

Other factors which contributed is that many members of bani Umayyah were present in Mecca after they escaped as they were threatened in Madinah. Abdullah ibn Amir who was the Ameer of Basarah during the days of Uthman was also present in Mecca and he encouraged the men to seek the killers of Uthman and he offered all forms of support. Ya’ala bin Umayyah who took off from Yemen in order to help ‘Uthman had recently reached al-Mecca and he had many men and lots of provisions.

For what reason did Ayesha(ra) participate in the demand of Qisas for Uthman(ra)?

The plan as mentioned in al-Tabari was to head to al-Basarah especially since it did not contain many rebels and from there they’d head into one of the breeding grounds of rebellion which is al-Kufa in ‘Iraq, there they would ask for the support of the people against the murderers and they would do this in the surrounding provinces until they corner the rebels found in ‘Ali’s army, they knew that they had to expose the Sabains and the rebels in his army and surround them so they’d deal with them with the least possible casualties, they also knew that it was almost impossible for Ali to face them(sabains) since they were well integrated into his army and since they’ve increased dramatically in numbers and power. We read in al-Tabari 5/475 that even the other wives of Prophet(saw) were of her(ayesha’s) opinion and that a big number of the people in al-Basarah joined her.

واللهما مثلي يسير بالأمر المكتوم، ولا يغطى لبنية الخبر، إن الغوغاء من أهل الأمصار، ونزاعالقبائل غزوا حرم رسول الله وأحدثوا فيه الأحداث، وآووا فيه المحدثين، واستوجبوافيه لعنة الله ولعنة رسوله مع ما نالوا من قتل إمام المسلمين بلا ترة ولا عذر
The Wali of ‘Ali on al-Basarah at the time was ‘Uthman ibn Hunayf and he sent the mother of believers a message asking her about why she came to the city and she responded: “I am not the kind that would keep hidden secrets from her children, the rebels from the lands and the tribes have invaded the forbidden sanctuary of Rassul-Allah (Madinah) and committed the events therein, they have given shelter to the innovators and have received the curse of Allah and his prophet in turn by killing the Imam of the Muslims without a reason and with no excuse…”

وروىابن حبان أن عائشة – رضي الله عنها – كتبت إلى أبى موسى الأشعري – والى علىّ علىالكوفة-: فإنه قد كان من قتل عثمان ما قد علمت، وقد خرجت مصلحة بين الناس
Ibn Habban narrated in al-Thiqat that ‘Aisha wrote to Abu Musa al-Ash’ari and to ‘Ali in al-Kufa: “You have witnessed the events leading to the murder of ‘Uthman and I have decided to go and fix the matters between the people…”

وقال:أي أُمه، ما أشخصك وما أقدمك هذه البلدة؟ قالت: أي بنى، إصلاح بين الناس
‘Ali then sent al-Qa’qa’ ibn ‘Amr al-Tamimi to ‘Aisha and he said: “O mother, what brings you to these lands?” she said: “my son I have come to settle matters between the people.”

فقاللها: غفر الله لك. قالت: ولك، ما أردت إلا الإصلاح
And after the war of al-Jamal ‘Ali told ‘Aisha:“May Allah forgive you” she said: “And you(too), I only wished to fix the affairs.”

As for the Shias who claim that Ayesha(ra) went to rebel against Ali(ra) and take the Caliphate for herself, etc all such claims are lies. Ayesha(ra) went to make reform by punishing the killers of Ameer al-Mumineen and she had a Mahram with her that is her sister’s son ‘Abdullah ibn al-Zubair, because going out to reconcile and fix the affairs of the people in the time of Fitnah is an order from Allah just like Hajj is an order.

Infact the Prophet (Sal Allaahu Alaiyhi wa Sallam) said: “Shall I not tell you of something that is better than fasting, prayer and charity?”They said: Yes. He said: “Reconciling between two people, for the corruption of that which is between the hearts is the shaver(destroyer). It is the shaver, and I do not say that it shaves hair, rather that it shaves religious commitment.”(al-Tirmidhi-2509) Sahih Hadeeth as mentioned by al-Tirmidhi.

Another lie that is spread is that al-Zubair forced her to go out but this is not true as this was her opinion even before al-Zubair and Talha came to Mecca, we read in the Hadith that when she was on her way back to Mecca:

عبدالله بن عامر الحضرمي فقال: ما ردك يا أم المؤمنين؟ قالت: ردّني أن عثمان قُتلمظلومًا، وأن الأمر لا يستقيم ولهذه الغوغاء أمر، فاطلبوا دم عثمان تعزُّواالإسلام. فكان عبد الله أول من أجابها
‘Aisha met ‘Abdullah bin ‘Amer al-Hadrami who said: “What brings you back O mother of believers?” she said: “What brings me back is that Uthman was killed and he was innocent, the affair of the Muslims will not be fixed while these rebels run rampant, so ask for ‘Uthman’s blood to fortify Islam.” And ‘Abdullah was the first member of their army.

One of the famous rebels in al-Basarah was not pleased, al-Hukaym ibn Jabalah led a group of cavalary and attacked Aisha(ra) but she and her men went to a defensive position until nightfall came, and Jabalah would walk amongst the people with his spear killing anyone who would not curse Aisha(ra), In the morning he went and did the same thing again which angered the tribe of ‘Abd al-Qays and they told him: “You did this yesterday and you go back to it today? Allah will make his Qisas on you” so they abandoned him and his men who then realized they were no longer welcome in the city and while they were leaving they clashed with Aisha’s men and although she kept ordering them to fight only those who fight them yet the men would not listen and this time they insisted on fighting and so did Ibn Jabalah, it became apparent to al-Zubair what the nature of Ibn Jabala’s men was and he realized that Ibn Jabalah was from those responsible for the Fitnah, so he raised his hands and said:

الحمدلله الذي جمع لنا ثأرنا من أهل البصرة، اللهم لا تبق منهم أحدًا
“Praise be to Allah who gathered for us our targets of revenge from the people of Basarah, O Lord leave none amongst them”

منلم يكن من قتلة عثمان – رضي الله عنه – فليكفف عنا، فإننا لا نريد إلا قتلة عثمان،ولا نبدأ أحدًا، فاقتتلوا أشد القتال
‘Aisha’s men started shouting as recorded in al-Tabari 5/499: “He who was not amongst the killers of ‘Uthman then he must leave us, we only want the killers of ‘Uthman and we will not initiate the fighting against anybody else.”

The battle was getting heated and all the rebels in the city were dealt with except one, the men started calling on the battle field:

ألامن كان فيكم من قبائلكم أحد ممن غزا المدينة فليأتنا بهم
“If any of the people from your tribes had taken part in the invasion of Madinah then bring him to us.”

The result was that around seventy of the rebels who took part in the fitnah of Uthman were killed and so was their leader Hukaym ibn Jabalah as recorded with a Hasan Isnad(good chain) in Ansab al-Ashraf 2/93.

Aisha(ra) then sent letters to the people of al-Kufa and al-Yamamah and al-Madinah and al-Sham explaining to them why this has happened and telling them to do their part and informing them of the name of the Rebel that managed to get away and he was “Hurqous ibn Zuhair” and she said that Allah will make Qisas on him.

The moves of Ali(ra).

On the other hand Ali(ra) had decided that al-Madinah no longer had the qualities of the other lands and he thought al-‘Iraq could do much better as a base for the Khilafah but most of the companions did not feel that this was the right choice and it has been recorded that Abu Ayyub al-Ansari told ‘Ali:

ياأمير المؤمنين، أقمت بهذه البلاد لأنها الدرع الحصينة، ومهاجرة رسول الله، وبهاقبره ومنبره ومادة الإسلام، فإن استقامت لك العرب كنت كمن كان، وإن تشغب عليك قومرميتهم بأعدائهم، وإن ألجئت حينئذ إلى السير سرت وقد أعذرت
“Ya Ameer al-Mumineen, you have been a resident of this land because it was a fortified shield, it is the destination of the emigration of the Prophet(saw) and in it is his grave, his Mimbar and the pure Religion, so if the Arabs choose to submit to you then you’ll rule like those before you and if they rise in rebellion against you then you will order the men against them…(until the end of the Hadith).”

Also from the companions who tried to discourage ‘Ali from leaving Madinah was ‘Abdullah ibn Salam and what is ironic is that he was threatened by the Kouffans and Basarites that accompanied ‘Ali, they told ‘Ali:

دعنافلنقتله
“Let us kill him”

‘Ali (ra) told those men to leave ‘Abdullah alone, he told them:
إنعبد الله بن سلام رجل صالح
“’Abdullah ibn Salam is a good pious man.”

This shows that the people who were part of the army had not one bit of Taqwa or fear of Allah, killing any Muslim that opposes them has become an easy task, they disregarded the narrations in which the Prophet(saw) praised his companions and They did not show any respect to those who entered Islam first and made the Jihad with Rassul Allah(saw)

Ali(ra) then agreed to remain in Madinah but many political events forced him to move closer to al-Sham so he chose al-Kufah as his destination. The news of al-Zubair and Talha also reached him as he was getting ready to travel so he called the people of Madinah for support but they refused and said that the Fitnah was still active and that it was better to be patient and wait until things become much clearer, the rebels in his army were also very hard to deal with and Ali made several sermons in which he complained that the people never gave him the proper support, the big companions who participated in Badr also decided to desert the Fitnah and isolate themselves in their homes, It is recorded in the Sahih Hadith:

أنرجالاً من أهل بدر لزموا بيوتهم بعد مقتل عثمان فلم يخرجوا إلا إلى قبورهم
“The Men of Badr stayed in their homes after the murder of ‘Uthman and only came out when they went to be buried in their graves.”

In another hadith:
لمينهض مع على إلى البصرة غير ستة نفر من البدريين ليس لهم سابع
“Those who rose with ‘Ali to al-Basarah were no more than six of the people of Badr.”

قالتعديسة بنت أهبان : لما جاء علي بن أبي طالب ههنا البصرة دخل على أبي . فقال يا أبامسلمألا تعينني على هؤلاء القوم ؟ قال بلى . قال فدعا جارية له . فقال ياجارية أخرجي سيفي. قال فأخرجته . فسل منه قدر شبر فإذا هوخشب . فقال:” إن خليلي وابن عمك صلى اللهعليه و سلم عهد إلي إذا كانت الفتنة بين المسلمين . فأتخذ سيفا من خشب” . فإنشئت خرجت معك . قال لاحاجة لي فيك ولا في سيفك .سنن ابن ماجة كتاب الفتن ج 2 ص:1309،قال الشيخ الألباني:حسن صحيح،ومسند أحمد ج 5ص: 69، و ج6 ص: 393 وقال شعيب الأرنؤوط: حديث حسن
‘Udaysah bint Ahban (ra) said: when ‘Ali ibn abi Talib came to us in al-Basarah he entered on my father and said: “O Abu Muslim will you not aid me?” He said: yes, then he told his female servant: “bring me the sword” and she did and when he took it out of its sheath it turned out to be a wooden sword, so he told ‘Ali: “Khalili(my beloved companion) who is your cousin(means the Prophet(saw)) may peace be upon him made me give him an oath that when the Fitnah happens I use this wooden sword, so if you want I will accompany you.” ‘Ali said: “I need not your help nor your sword.”
Sunan ibn Majah Kitab al-Fitan 2/1309 al-Albani said: Hasan Sahih, Musnad Ahmad 5/69 & 6/393 al-Arnaout said: Hasan.

ياأهل الكوفة، أنتم وليتم شوكة العجم وملوكهم وفضضتم جموعهم، حتى صارت إليكممواريثهم، فأعنتم حوزتكم، واغتنم الناس على عدوهم، وقد دعوتكم لتشهدوا معناإخواننا من أهل البصرة، فإن يرجعوا فذاك ما نريد، وإن يلجوا داويناهم بالرفق،وبايناهم حتى يبدءونا بظلم، ولن ندع أمرًا فيه صلاح إلا آثرناه على ما فيه الفسادإن شاء الله، ولا قوة إلا بالله
‘Ali praised the people of Kufah and said that he will use all peaceful means and that he wishes to stop the army of al-Zubair and make them return to their homes but if they insist then he will treat them with patience and calmness until they transgress against him. (Recorded in al-Tabari 5/519)

أبورفاعة بن رافع بن مالك العجلان الأنصاري لما أراد الخروج من الرّبذة، فقال: ياأمير المؤمنين، أي شيء تريد؟ وإلى أين تذهب بنا؟ فقال: أما الذي نريد وننوىفالإصلاح، إن قبلوا منا وأجابونا إليه، قال: فإن لم يجيبونا إليه؟ قال: ندعهمبعذرهم ونعطيهم الحق ونصبر، قال: فإن لم يرضوا؟ قال: ندعهم ما تركونا، قال: فإن لميتركونا؟ قال: امتنعنا منهم، قال: فنعم إذًا. فسمع تلك السلسلة من الأسئلةوالإجابات فاطمأن إليها وارتاح لها، وقال: لأرضينك بالفعل كما أرضيتني بالقول
Rifa’ah bin Rafi’i bin Malik al-‘Ajlan al-Ansari, when he wanted to leave al-Rabthah he said to ‘Ali: O Ameer al-Mumineen what do you wish from us? And where are you taking us? ‘Ali: What I want and what we intend is to fix this situation if they agree with us and respond to our call, he said: And if they do not respond? ‘Ali said: We leave them to their excuse and be patient with them, he said: and if they don’t accept? He replied: We leave them if they leave us,he said: and if they don’t leave us? He said: we restrain ourselves from them. So ibn Rafi’i felt comfortable with the answers of ‘Ali and said: By Allah I will please you with my actions as you have pleased me with your words.

Another example recorded in al-Bidayah wal Nihayah and Tareekh al-Tabari:
لماقدم أهل الكوفة إلى أمير المؤمنين رضي الله عنه فيِ ذي قار، قام إليه أقوام من أهلالكوفة يسألونه عن سبب قدومهم، فقام إليه فيمن قام الأعور بن بُنان المنْقرىّ،فقال له على رضي الله عنه: علىَّ الإصلاح وإطفاء النائرة لعل الله يجمع شمل هذهالأمة بنا ويضع حربهم، وقد أجابوني، قال: فإن لم يجيبونا؟ قال: تركناهم ما تركونا.قال: فإن لم يتركونا؟ قال: دفعناهم عن أنفسنا، قال: فهل لهم مثل ما عليهم من هذا؟قال: نعم
When the people of Kufah came to ‘Ali (ra) in Thi al-Qar they started asking him about why he came and one of the men that asked was al-A’awar bin Bunan al-Munqari so ‘Ali said: We came to fix this affair and put out the flames of hatred, maybe Allah will unite this nation through us and there wouldn’t be any wars if they respond to me, the man asked: and if they do not respond? ‘Ali said: we leave them if they leave us. The man asked: And if they don’t leave us? ‘Ali said: we push them away from us…

Another example in al-Bidayah wal-Nihayah 7/250:
أبوسلامة الدألانى، ممن سأل أمير المؤمنين رضي الله عنه فقال: أترى لهؤلاء القوم حجّةفيما طلبوا من هذا الدم، إن كانوا أرادوا الله عز وجل بذلك؟ قال: نعم. قال: فترىلك حجة بتأخيرك ذلك؟ قال: نعم، إنّ الشيء إذا كان لا يدرك فالحكم فيه أحوطه وأعمّهنفعًا، قال: فما حالنا وحالهم إن ابتلينا غدًا؟ قال: إني لأرجو ألاّ يقتل أحد نقىّقلبه لله منّا ومنهم إلا أدخله الله الجنة
Abu Sulamah al-Daalanee asked the chief of believers: Do you see that those folks have a strong argument in asking for this blood? Do they seek to please Allah through this? ‘Ali said: Yes, Then the man asked: Do you have a strong argument in delaying this matter? ‘Ali said: yes …(until the man asked him about the possibility of a battle)… ‘Ali replied: I hope that no one will be killed from either of us and I hope if it happens that Allah would grant us all heaven.

Also Malik ibn Habib asked ‘Ali:
فإنابتلينا فما بال قتلانا؟ قال: من أراد الله عز وجل نفعه ذلك وكان نجاءه
If what we fear happens then what is to become of our dead? ‘Ali replied: He who wants Allah and his intentions are to please Allah then this shall save him.
Comment: The Hadith above is really important as it shows that the fate of those who fight is not tied to which team they joined but is tied to their intentions and to the reason they fight.

From these ahadeeth we come to know that both teams wanted to achieve their goals through peaceful means and the last thing they asked for was another Fitnah. When Ali chose to delay the Qisas of Uthman the other companions thought that the opportunity of Qisas would be lost and this is why they decided to settle the matter by seeking out the rebels and punishing them.

Negotiations for establishing “Peace”

Al-Qa’qa ibn ‘Amro tried to make peace when ‘Ali sent him to Talha and al-Zubair telling him:
القَهذين الرجلين، فادعهما إلى الألفة والجماعة، وعظّم عليهما الاختلاف والفرقة.
“Meet them both and invite them with friendliness and kindness and show them the evils of disunity and separation.”

Al-Qa’qa’ told them: “tell me how you wish to fix this affair? Maybe if we knew it we would help you in your cause.”

They replied:
قتلةعثمان، رضي الله عنه، ولابد أن يُقتلوا، فإن تُركوا دون قصاص كان هذا تركًاللقرآن، وتعطيلاً لأحكامه، وإن اقُتصَّ منهم كان هذا إحياء للقرآن.
“The killers of ‘Uthman may Allah be pleased with him, they must be killed, if they are left without Qisas then this would be equal to leaving the Quran and disobeying its laws”

Al-Qa’qa’ ibn ‘Amro al-Tamimi who was an expert war strategist and a warrior that was almost an equal to Khalid ibn al-Walid said:
لقدكان في البصرة ستُّمائة من قتلة عثمان وأنتم قتلتموهم إلا رجلاً واحدًا، وهو حرقوصبن زهير السعدي، فلما هرب منكم احتمى بقومه من بنى سعد، ولما أردتم أخذه منهموقَتْله منعكم قومه من ذلك، وغضب له ستة آلاف رجل اعتزلوكم، ووقفوا أمامكم وقفةرجل واحد، فإنه تركتم حرقوصًا ولم تقتلوه، كنتم تاركين لما تقولون وتنادون بهوتطالبون عليًا به، وإن قاتلتم بنى سعد من أجل حرقوص، وغلبوكم وهزموكم وأديلواعليكم، فقد وقعتم في المحذور، وقوَّيتموهم، وأصابكم ما تكرهون، وأنتم بمطالبتكمبحرقوص أغضبتم ربيعة ومضر، من هذه البلاد، حيث اجتمعوا على حربكم وخذلانكم، نصرةلبنى سعد، وهذا ما حصل مع على، ووجود قتلة عثمان في جيشه.
“In al-Basarah there were six hundred from the killers of ‘Uthman and you have killed all of them except one and he is Hurqous bin Zuhair al-Sa’adi, when this man escaped from you, he sought refuge with his tribe of bani Sa’ad and when you asked them to hand the man over they refused and blocked you from it, as a result six thousand men became angry with you and stood united against you but if you left Hurqous and did not kill him while you keep asking ‘Ali to do it then you’d become from those who left the laws of the Quran as you said to me, on the other hand if you fight bani Sa’ad because of Hurqous and they defeat you then you’d be in a dire situation and they’d be strengthened by this and you’d hate for that to happen, I add that by asking for Hurqous you have also angered Bani Rabi’ah and the tribe of Mudr and have turned them into enemies as they have agreed on fighting you to support their allies bani Sa’ad and this is exactly what happened with ‘Ali when he tried to deal with the killers of ‘Uthman in his army.”

Ibn ‘Amro at this point had succeeded in convincing them of ‘Ali’s point of view so ‘Aisha decided to take his advice and ask his opinion on what should be done, he replied:
هذاأمر دواؤه التسكين، ولابد من التأني في الاقتصاص من قتلة عثمان، فإذا انتهتالخلافات، واجتمعت كلمة الأمة على أمير المؤمنين تفرغ لقتلة عثمان، وإن أنتمبايعتم عليًا واتفقتممعه، كان هذا علامة خير، وتباشير رحمة، وقدرة على الأخذ بثأر عثمان، وإن أنتمأبيتم ذلك، وأصررتم على المكابرة والقتال كان هذا علامة شر، وذهابًا لهذا الملك،فآثروا العافية ترزقوها، وكونوا مفاتيح خير كما كنتم أولاً، ولا تُعرَّضوناللبلاء، فتتعرضوا له، فيصرعنا الله وإياكم، وايم الله إني لأقول هذا وأدعوكم إليه،وإني لخائف أن لا يتم، حتى يأخذ الله حجته من هذه الأمة التي قلَّ متاعها، ونزلبها ما نزل، فإنّ ما نزل بها أمر عظيم، وليس كقتل الرجل الرجل، ولا قتل النفرالرجل، ولا قتل القبيلة القبيلة
“The only remedy for this affair is leniency and calmness we have to be cautious in the matter of Qisas and when the conflicts end and the nation is united under one word and you have agreed with him(‘Ali) then this would be a blessed sign so you should give baya’ah to ‘Ali that you may leave the matter of Qisas to him but if you insist on fighting then that would be a sign of evil so be the keys of goodness as you were before and do not expose us to hardships that will lead to both your destruction and ours. By Allah I say this and invite you to it and I fear that it may not be done…”

They replied to him by saying:
قدأحسنت وأصبت المقالة، فارجع، فإن قدم على، وهو على مثل رأيك، صلح هذا الأمر إن شاءالله
“You have said correct and truthful words so go back and when ‘Ali comes and he holds this opinion then know that this matter is resolved Insha-Allah.” Tareekh al-Tabari 5/521, al-Bidayah wal-Nihayah 7/739.

Ali was pleased with what he heard and he sent two messengers to learn more about the opinions of Aisha and al-Zubair and they returned and told him that they are as al-Qa’qa’ had left them, ‘Ali then moved in with his army and the men were able to meet and they had no doubt that the matter was resolved as stated in tareekh al-tabari 5/539.

Ali declared his decision to go to al-Basarah:
ألاوإني راحل غدًا فارتحلوا – يقصد إلى البصرة – ألا ولا يرتحلن غدًا أحد أعان علىعثمان بشيء في شيء من أمور الناس
“Know that I will leave tomorrow to al-Basarah so prepare to leave, none of those who stood against ‘Uthman or supported those who did is to come with me.”

The books of history clearly state that in the army of ‘Ali were men from the oppressors and the khawarij who rebelled against Uthman, and there were amongst those men who had the support of their tribes, and men who did not realize the error of their ways, and men who had Nifaq and hypocrisy in their hearts that they could not show. Furthermore the Sabains who were at the heart of the Fitnah had agreed to ignite the flames of Fitnah so that they may stop the Qisas, because the greatest danger to them was that if ‘Aisha and the others would reconcile with ‘Ali, that would surely be their end. ‘Ali,Talha and al-Zubair already met face to face and had their talk and they found no better solution than peace as matters started to get clearer, that night the men all returned to their respective camps.

The strategies of Abdullah ibn Saba and sabains in battle of Jamal

That night when the men returned to their respective camps, this is when the plotting and scheming began by ‘Abdullah Ibn Saba, He said:
: يا قوم إن عزّكم في خلطة الناسفصانعوهم، وإذا التقى الناس غدًا فانشبوا القتال، ولا تفرغوهم للنظر، فإذا من أنتممعه لا يجد بدًا من أن يمتنع، ويشغل الله عليًا وطلحة والزبير ومن رأى رأيهم عماتكرهوه، فأبصروا الرأي وتفرقوا عليه والناس لا يشعرون
“If any of you should mix with the people then say good words and play along, and if the people meet tomorrow then make sure to initiate the fighting between them, this will keep ‘Ali and Talha and al-Zubair busy and will lead them away from the matter which you and I hate”

So the Sabains were up to no good and they were planning to initiate the fighting because they feared the alliance as recorded in Tareekh al-Tabari 5/526:
أما طلحة والزبير فقد عرفنا أمرهما، وأما على فلم نعرف أمرهحتى كان اليوم؛ وذلك حين طلب من الناس أن يرتحلوا في الغد ولا يرتحل معه أحد أعانعلى عثمان بشيء، ورأى الناس فينا – والله – واحد، وإن يصطلحوا مع على فعلى دمائنا
They said:“As for Talha and al-Zubair we know them very well but as for Ali we never knew his stance until today when he asked the people to prepare themselves except those who rose up against Uthman. These people have the same opinion when it comes to our fate and if they want to unite then it shall be over our blood.”

And indeed they were able to start a fight at night so al-Zubair and Talha ordered to repel the attack and they placed ‘Abdul-Rahman ibn al-Harith ibn Hisham on the right flank and on the left flank they placed ‘Abdul-Rahman ibn ‘Itab bin Usayd and when they managed to fight them off Talha and al-Zubair asked:

فقالا: ما هذا؟ قالوا: طرقنا أهل الكوفة ليلاً، فقالا: ماعلمنا أن عليًا غير منته حتى يسفك الدّماء ويستحل الحرمة
“What is this?” they said: “Ahlul-Kufa attacked during the night” they said: “We never knew that ‘Ali changed his intention to spill the blood and make permissible what is forbidden.”

The people in the other camp heard the noises from afar but the Sabains had their agents on the other side as recorded in al-Tabari 5/541, ‘Ali and Ahlul-kufa heard the voices, they asked about the cause and they were told:
ما فجئنا إلا وقوم منهم بيتونا فرددناهم
“We were surprised when we found a group of them attacking so we pushed them away.”

So ‘Ali prepared his commanders on the right and left flanks in case of an attack. Still both sides did not attack and waited until things became clearer Hz. Ali telling his men to wait until they have a clear Hujjah and Hz. Talha on the other side riding his horse as recorded in Tareekh Khalifah ibn Khayyat page 182:
يا أيها الناس أتنصتون؟ فجعلوا يركبونه ولا ينصتون، فما زادأن قال: أف أف فراش نار
He was shouting to the angry people: “O people will you listen?” and they started riding their horses and camels ignoring him so he complained angrily: “Uff! Uff! You are like moths heading to the fire”.

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 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 went 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 …..” (Al-Tabari, vol.3, p.39, year.36H )

Ali(ra) hoping for a peaceful settlement, marched towards basrah to talk personally with Talhah and Az zubayr. The two armies were facing each other. Ali gave an address to basrites in which he said: I am but your brother……..I will avenge uthman’s assassins. Talhah and Az zubayr and basrites were fully satisfied with what Ali told them. The caliph also returned to his camp very satisfied. He gave strict order to his men not to fight in any case , and keep praying all night.  But Ibn saba and his henchmen had planned otherwise. In the darkness of night , the launched a sudden attack on Ayesha(ra)’s army. Talhah and Az zubayr were startled by the sudden attack and deduced that Ali could not desist from shedding Muslim blood and that he ordered to a night attack. On the other hand, Ali was shocked when he was told by sabaites that Talhah and Az zubar had taken them by surprise. He too thought that they did not try to avoid shedding Muslim blood. (Biographies of the rightly guided caliphs page 358-359)
Comment: In brief the scholars and historians agree on the role of the Sabains in starting the battle whether they called them “the corrupt elements” or “the thugs from both parties” or “the killers of ‘Uthman” or “al-Sufahaa” or openly calling them“al-Sabaiyyah”
It was not clear for people what the right course of action was, there was confusion, al-Ahnaf ibn Qays went to support ‘Ali ibn abi Talib and on his way he met Abu Bakrah who told him not to participate and scared him by narrating that he heard the Prophet(saw) say that when two Muslims meet both the killer and the one who is killer are in hell-fire, thus al-Ahnaf returned.

إنهذه لهى الفتنة التي كنا نحدّث عنها، فقال له مولاه: أتسميها فتنة وتقاتل فيها؟قال: ويحك؛ إنا نبصر ولا نبصر، ما كان أمر قط إلا علمت موضع قدمي فيه، غير هذاالأمر، فإني لا أدرى أمقبل أنا فيه أم مدبر
The companions knew that it was a Fitnah, Al-Zubair said: “This is definitely the Fitnah we used to narrate about.” His servant asked him: “Do you call it a Fitnah while you participate in it?” he said: “Careful! For it is as if we see but we do not see, I always knew where I stood, except this day, I no longer know whether I am taking a right path or a wrong one.”

Talha said:
بينمانحن يد واحدة على من سوانا، إذ صرنا جبلين من حديد يطلب بعضنا بعضًا
“While we are one hand against our enemies yet today it appears as if we have become two steel mountains clashing together.”

As for ‘Ammar he also knew that this was an evil Fitnah and he said:
إنهازوجة نبيكم في الدنيا والآخرة، ولكنها مما ابتليتم
“She(ayesha) is the wife of our Prophet(saw) in this life and in the after-life but today we are tested.”.

After the battle of Jamal Started

The killers of Uthman succeeded in starting a war on Friday 16th of the month of Jamad al-Thani in the thirty sixth year in an area called al-Zabouqah near Basarah, it was called the battle of al-Jamal (camel) because of the Camel that ‘Aisha rode and it was offered to her by Ya’ala ibn Umayyah.

Ali told his caller to call: “O people cease the fighting” but he was ignored and the battle raged on and it was divided into two rounds, the first round was from Fajr to Zuhr and the leaders of the army of Basarah were Talha and al-Zubair as recorded in al-Khulafaa al-Rashidun by al-Khalidi page 245.

Ali and Talha and al-Zubair called on their men:
لا تقتلوا مدبرًا، ولا تُجهزوا على جريح، ولا تلحقوا خارجًامن المعركة تاركًا لها
“Do not kill anyone who turned his back to you, do not finish-off the wounded, do not follow those who flee the battle.”

Al-Zubair had asked his son ‘Abdullah to pay his debts and his due, he said:
إنه لا يقتل اليوم إلا ظالم أو مظلوم، وإني لا أراني إلا سأقتلمظلومًا، وإن أكبر همي ديَنْي
“No one will be killed today unless he is an oppressor or a victim who’s been oppressed, I see myself dying as a victim and my biggest concern is my debt.”

During the battle a man came to al-Zubair telling him that he can assassinate ‘Ali if he was able to infiltrate his army.
لا؛ لا يفتك مؤمن بمؤمن
Al-Zubair said that the Prophet(saw) does not allow this, he then said: “No; the Believer does not assassinate a believer.”
Source:Musnad Ahmad 3/19 and Ahmad Muhammad Shakir said: Sahih.

Then when he saw that the matter has gotten completely out of hand and that the soldiers could not be stopped he decided to abandon the battle and the scholars of Ahlesunnah have mentioned these reasons:

1- There is a weak Hadith in which the Prophet(saw) tells al-Zubair a prophecy regarding ‘Ali, he tells him:
لتقاتلنه وأنت له ظالم
“You will fight him and he will be oppressed by you.”

2-He did not narrate the Hadith of ‘Ammar but he might have heard it from someone else and then when he saw ‘Ammar in the army of ‘Ali he left.
تقتل عمار الفئة الباغية
“The transgressing party shall kill ‘Ammar.”

3-Some just say that he revised his position and saw that he was doing the wrong thing so he left.

And it could be one of these or all of them and there is a Sahih Hadith in which ‘Abdullah ibn al-‘Abbas reminds al-Zubair of his closeness to ‘Ali during the battle:
أين صفية بنت عبد المطلب حيث تقاتل بسيفك على بن أبى طالب بنعبد المطلب
“Where is Saffiyah bint ‘Abdul-Muttalib when you fight with your sword ‘Ali ibn abi Talib bin ‘Abdul-Muttalib?”
Source:Tabqat ibn Sa’ad 3/110 & Khilafat ‘Ali page 155.
Comment: Saffiyah is the mother of al-Zubair ibn al-’Awwam (ra) and the aunt of ‘Ali ibn abi Talib(ra) and both of them are cousins.

As for Talha(ra) who was telling his men to back down and stop the fighting, he was hit with an arrow at the beginning of the battle and no one knows who threw that arrow but it is obvious that they were aiming for him and this is one of the reasons the fighting became fierce and al-Zubair could no longer hold back the men.

As for al-Zubair (ra) who had left, he was followed and killed by Ibn Jurmouz and so ends the first round of battle.

‘Ali (ra) would go to al-Hassan (ra) and hug him as recorded in al-Bidayah wal-Nihayah7/521:
وضمّهإلى صدره، وصار يبكى ويقول له: يا بُنى، ليت أباك مات قبل هذا اليوم بعشرين عامًا.فقال الحسن: يا أبت، لقد كنت نهيتك عن هذا، فقال على: ما كنت أظن أن الأمر سيصلإلى هذا الحد، وما طعمُ الحياة بعد هذا؟ وأيُّ خير يُرجى بعد هذا؟
‘Ali hugged al-Hassan and said while he cried: “O my son, I wish your father had died twenty years before this day.” Then al-Hassan would tell him: “Dear father, I told you not to do it.” ‘Ali said: “I never thought it would come to this, what taste life has after this? What goodness would come after this?”

The tragedy reached ‘Aisha (ra) so she went to her camel surrounded by the Azdi tribes and with her was Ka’ab whom she gave a Quran so that he might call the people to stop the war, she had hope that they would listen to her because of her great status in the heart of the Muslims as recorded in the Sahih hadith in Musannaf ‘Abdul-Razzaq 5/456.
Ka’ab stood in front of ‘Ali’s army and said:
ياقوم، أنا كعب بن سور، قاضي البصرة، أدعوكم إلى كتاب الله، والعمل بما فيه، والصلحعلى أساسه. وخشي السبئيون في مقدمة جيش على أن تنجح محاولة كعب فرشقوه بنبالهمرشقة رجل واحد، فلقي وجه الله، ومات والمصحف في يده
“O people, I am Ka’ab bin Sur the Qadi(Judge) of Basarah, I call you to the book of Allah and to work with its laws and to make peace according to it.” The Sabains at the front lines feared that his call may be answered so they fired their arrows and he met his Lord’s face holding the Mushaf in his hand.

Then the real problem started as they pointed their spears to the camel on which Aisha (ra) was sitting and they were able to strike the camel while she screamed:
يابنى، الله، الله، اذكروا الله ويوم الحساب، وكفوا عن القتال
“My sons, Allah,Allah, remember Allah and the Day of Judgment and cease the fighting.”

The Sabains and the rebels at the front lines never listened to ‘Ali or ‘Aisha and they kept pushing forward so when Ayesha saw this and she knew who were the ones behind the Fitnah she started making Du’ah:
أيهاالناس، العنوا قتلة عثمان وأشياعهم
She said: “O people, curse the killers of ‘Uthman and their followers.”

The army of Basarah started cursing them and making Du’ah on the killers of ‘Uthman, ‘Ali and those around him heard this so he told his men as recorded in al-Bidayahwal-Nihayah 7/253.:
ادعوامعي على قتلة عثمان وأشياعهم والعنوهم
“Make Du’ah with me on the killers of ‘Uthman and their followers and curse them.”

Also this Hadith:
وروى الإمام أحمد بسنده عن محمد بن الحنفيةقال : أبلغ علياً أن عائشة تلعن قتلة عثمان في المربد . قال : فرفع يديه حتى بلغ بهماوجهه فقال : وأنا ألعن قتله عثمان لعنهم الله في السهل والجبل قال مرتين أو ثلاثاً
Imam Ahmad narrated with its Isnad from Muhammad Ibn alHanafiyah(son of Ali): Ali was told that Aisha is cursing the killers of Uthman in alMarbad(location near al-Basrah) So he lifted his hands until they reached his face and said: “And I curse the killers of Uthman, may Allah curse them in the valleys and the mountains” he said it two or three times. source: Fada’el al Sahabah 1/455 #733 and the Muhaqqiq of thebook said SAHIH, also in al Riyadh al Nadirah fi Manaqib al ‘Asharah 3/70.
The fighting became fiercer and after they finished throwing their spears they drew their swords and clashed again in a second round of fighting, the battle was very violent especially around the Camel and the Hawdaj(Small tent on top of thecamel) which according to the Hasan Hadith in tareekh Khayat and al-Bidayah wal Nihayah looked like a hedgehog because it was being targeted by the rebels who wanted to kill ‘Aisha(ra).

Many Muslims from al-Azd and bani Dubah and the youngsters from Quraysh died while defending the camel, every man who took the rails of the camel met his death until al-Sajjad Muhammad ibn Talha grabbed them and said to ‘Aisha: “O mother, what are your orders?” she said: “Be like the best of bani Adam and sheathe your sword.” But he was killed just like ‘Abdul-Rahmanibn ‘Utayb bin Usayd who tried to kill al-Ashtar even if they both had to die.

‘Ali knew that as long as that camel was standing the battle will never stop, the fighting was taking place around it so ‘Ali ordered Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr and ‘Abdullah ibn Badeel to attack the legs of the camel and then carry the Hawdaj to the safety of ibn Badeel’s house. ‘Ali was right,once the reason that forced the people of Basarah to fight to the death was out of the battle they soon retreated.

According to the Sahih hadith of ibn abi Shaybah this second round of the battle took place from the after-noon and ended at dusk, as for the number of dead they were greatly exaggerated by the narrations and each narrator mentions a completely different number.

What happened after the battle of Jamal was over?

Tabarani narrated from Qays ibn Ubad with good (jayid)chain: “I witness Ali in the day of Camel, he said to his son al-Hasan: “I wish to die 20 years before”. (“Majmau zawaid” #14824).

Tabarani narrated from Talha ibn Musrif: “When Ali reached Talha ibn Ubeydullah, he was already dead. He dismounted and sat near him. He was rubbing his face and beard (from dust) asking mercy for him, and saying: “Wow to me! I wish to die 20 years before this”.(Al-Heythami in “Majmau zawaid” (#14823) said: “Chain is al-Hasan”.)

Ali(ra) didn’t take any war booty from those who fought him:

‘Ali told told the people of Basarah:
منوجد له شيئًا من متاع عند أحد من أصحابه، فله أن يسترده
“If any of you finds any of his belongings with any of us then he can take it back.”

Ali announced: “You have no right to any female captive, and the estates are to be divided according to the laws of Allah. Any woman whose husband has been killed must observe ‘iddah of four months and ten days.” They objected to that, asking: “O Amir al-Mu’mineen, is their blood permissible for us and not their women?” Ali (&) said: “This is the right approach when fighting people of the qiblah (fellow Muslims).”

In a Hadith which is graded “Hasan li ghayrihi” ‘Ali went to check on the dead with a couple of his companions, when he saw Muhammad ibn talha al-Sajjad he said:

خرج على يتفقد القتلى مع نفر من أصحابه، فأبصر محمد بن طلحة (السجاد) فقال: إنا لله وإنا إليه راجعون، أما والله لقد كان شابًا صالحًا، ثم قعد كئيبًا حزينًا…ودعاللقتلى بالمغفرة، وترحم عليهم وأثنى على عدد منهم بالخير والصلاح
“To Allah we belong and to Allah we shall return, by Allah he was a righteous young Man” And he made Du’ah so that Allah would forgive them and he praised many of them. Finally he returned to his home and saw his wife and two girls crying over ‘Uthman and the companions(talha and zubair) who died in that battle so he said: “I wish that we be the people whom Allah mentioned {And We will remove whatever is in their breasts of resentment, so they will be brothers, on thrones facing each other.} (15:47) He then said: Who are they if not we!? Who are they if not we!? He said it several times until I hoped that he would stop added the narrator.” (Musannaf ibn abi Shaybah 15/268-269 and Khilafat ‘Ali by ‘Abdul-Hameed pg 169.)

Ali later went to the house in which Umm al-Mumineen ‘Aisha was, he took permission to enter . Ibn Al-Emad in Shathrat Al-Thahab says, “When Ali arrived at Basrah, he went to Aysha and said, “May Allah forgive you.” She answered, “You too, I only wanted reformation.”(Shatharat Al-Thahab, vol.1, p.42)

There Ali(ra) heard the women crying for the two sons of Khalaf, his son ‘Uthman fought on the side of ‘Ali while his other son ‘Abdullah fought on the side of ‘Aisha, When ‘Ali entered Safiyah the wife of ‘Abdullah, She cried at him “May Allah orphan your children like you orphaned mine” but ‘Ali ignored it, on his way out she repeated the same thing and he was silent, so one of his companions told him “O Ameer al-Mumineen, do you keep silent when this woman says what you hear?” ‘Ali replied:

ويحك إنا أمرنا أن نكف عن النساء وهن مشركات، أفلا نكف عنهن وهن مسلمات “
Careful! the Prophet(saw) ordered us not to be harsh to them when they were polytheists, how do you expect me to act when they are Muslim women!?”

In another Hadith a Man said to ‘Ali: Outside the door are two men who insult ‘Aisha, so ‘Ali ordered al-Qa’qa ibn ‘Amro to tear off their clothes and lash them both one hundred times. ( al-Bidayah wal-Nihayah 7/258 and 7/357. )

It is narrated with a good chain in Siyar al-A’alam al-Nubalaa 2/176-179 that when ‘Ali and Ammar were in a Majlis with other men, one of the men said something to insult Umm al-Mumineen ‘Aisha so ‘Ammar quickly responded:

اغرب مقبوحًا، أتؤذى حبيبة رسول الله
“You and your ugliness leave! How could you harm the beloved of our Prophet”

Then Ali(ra) did what Prophet(saw) ordered Ali(ra) while prophesizing problem between Ayesha(ra) and Ali(ra).

سيكون بينك وبين عائشةأمر قال : أنا يا رسول الله ، قال : نعم ، قال : أنا من بين أصحابي قال : نعم ،قال : فأنا أشقاهم ، قال : لا ولكن إذا كان ذلك فأرددها إلى مأمنها.
Abu Rafi’i said: TheProphet(saw) told ‘Ali: There will be a problem between you and ‘Aisha, ‘Ali said: Me O Rasulullah!? he said: yes, ‘Ali repeated: Me from amongst all my friends!? he said: yes, ‘Ali then said: Then I must have a really horrible end, He(saw) replied: “No, but if it does happen then return her to the safety of her home.” sources: Narrated by Ahmad6/393, and al-Tabarani #995, also narrated by al-Bazzar #3272, al-Haythami said the narrators are trustworthy in Majma’a al-Zawaed, Ibn Hajar said: Isnaduhu Hasan in Fath al-Bari 59/13.)

As Prophet(saw) had ordered Ali(ra) to return Ayesha(ra) to the safety of her home, So Ali(RA) prepared all that Aisha(RA) needed on her trip back to Mecca and Ayesha(ra) complimented Ali(RA) and Ali(ra) complimented her and provided her with Woman servants from al Basrah and gave permission to Muhammad bin Abu Bakr(RA) to go back with her.

(ولما أرادت أم المؤمنين عائشة الخروج من البصرة بعث إليها علي رضي الله عنه بكل ما ينبغي من مركب وزاد ومتاع وغير ذلك وأذن لمن نجا ممن جاء في الجيش معها – أن يرجع إلا أن يحب المقام، واختار لها أربعين امرأة من نساء أهل البصرة المعروفات وسير معها أخاها محمد بن أبي بكر، فلما كان اليوم الذي ارتحلت فيه، جاء علي فوقف على الباب وحضر الناس وخرجت من الدار في الهودج فودعت الناس ودعت لهم وقالت: يا بني لا يعتب بعضنا على بعض إنه والله ما كان بيني وبين علي في القديم إلا ما يكون بين المرأة وأحمائها فقال علي: صدقت والله ما كان بيني وبينها إلا ذاك وإنها لزوجة نبيكم صلى الله عليه وسلم في الدنيا والآخرة وسار علي معها مودعاً ومشيعاً أميالاً، وسرح بنيه معها بقية ذلك اليوم وكان يوم السبت مستهل رجب سنة ست وثلاثين، وقصدت في سيرها ذلك إلى مكة، فأقامت بها إلى أن حجت عامها ذلك ثم رجعت إلى المدينة رضي الله عنها)
And when the mother of believers Aisha wanted to leave Basarah, Ali (RA) sent her provisions from food and clothing and all supplies which were necessary, he permitted for all those who came with her in the army to leave unless they preferred to stay, he chose for her forty of the finest women of Basarah to accompany her as well as her brother Muhammad Ibn Abu Bakr (RA), When the day of her departure came Ali stood by the door and so did the people, she came out and bid them farewell and made Dua for them and said: “O son there is no admonition between us, ‘By Allāh! There was nothing between me and `Alī except what ensues between the woman and her in-laws.” Ali then said: “By Allah she speaks the truth there was nothing except that between us and she is the wife of your prophet PBUH in this life and in the hereafter.” Ali then walked with her a long distance, it was on a Saturday in Rajab of the thirty sixth year of Hijra, she sought Mecca and remained there until she made the Hajj of that year then returned to Madinah may Allah be pleased with her.[Source: Al bidayah wal nihayah 7/268-269 (I found it on 10/473 online probably different print).]

Similar narration recorded in another history book:

تجهيز علي عليه السلام عائشة رضي الله عنها من البصرة
كتب إلي السري عن شعيب عن سيف عن محمد وطلحة قالا وجهز علي بكل شيء ينبغي لها من مركب أو زاد أو متاع وأخرج معها كل من نجا ممن خرج معها إلا من أحب المقام واختار لها أربعين امرأة من نساء أهل البصرة المعروفات وقال تجهز يا محمد فبلغها فلما كان اليوم الذي ترتحل فيه جاءها حتى وقف لها وحضر الناس فخرجت على الناس وودعوها وودعتهم وقالت يا بني تعتب بعضنا على بعض استبطاء واستزادة فلا يعتدن أحد منكم على أحد بشيء بلغه من ذلك إنه والله ما كان بيني وبين علي
في القدم إلا ما يكون بين المرأة وأحمائها وإنه عندي على معتبتي من الأخيار وقال علي يا ايها الناس صدقت والله وبرت ما كان بيني وبينها إلا ذلك وإنها لزوجة نبيكم صلى الله عليه و سلم في الدنيا والآخرة
وخرجت يوم السبت لغرة رجب سنة ست وثلاثين وشيعها علي أميالا وسرح بنيه معها يوما

[Source: Tareekh al tabari 4/544 or 5/581 (I found it in 3/61 in the e-book ).]

اللهم إنهم شرار أمتي يقتلهم خيار أمتي، وما كان بيني وبينه إلا مايكون بين المرأة وأحمائه

When Aisha (RA) heard that Ali (RA) was fighting and killing the Khawarij she said: By Allah I heard the prophet(saw) say: “O Lord they are the worst of my nation being killed by the best of my nation” Then she said:” There was nothing between me and him(Ali) except what ensues between the woman and her in-laws.” [(It is found in the Shia book kashf al Ghummah by al Arbili 1/159 or page 158.)(It is found in Bihar al Anwar by the Shia Al Majlisi 33/332-333.)]

The view of Ali(ra) regarding those who fought him in battle Jamal:

In Sunan Bayhiqi it is narrated that on the eve of the war of Jamal, Ali Radhi
Allaahu ta’ala ‘anh was asked about the opponents:

“Are they Mushrikeen?”
He replied:
“They have run from shirk and come into Islaam”
Then he was asked “Are they Munafiqeen?”
He replied “Munafiqeen are those who don’t remember Allah, except a little
(while the opponents do a lot of Zikr)”
Then he was asked “Then what are they?” He replied:”They are our brothers who
have rebelled from us”
[Sunun Bayhiqi - Dairat ul Ma'arif edition page 173 vol 8]

1. Ibn Abe Shayba reported in “Mosannaf”:
حدثنا أبو أسامة قال حدثنا مسعر عن ثابت بن عبيد قال : سمعت أبا جعفر يقول : لم يكفر أهل الجمل
“From Abo Othaama, reported to me Musaar, from Thaabet ibn Ubayd: I heard Abu Jafar said: he (see Ale) did not declare the people of jamal as disbelievers”.

2.

16490 – أخبرنا أبو عبد الله الحافظ أنبأ أبو الوليد الفقيه ثنا الحسن بن سفيان ثنا أبو بكر بن أبي شيبة ثنا يزيد بن هارون عن شريك عن أبي العنبس عن أبي البختري قال سئل علي رضي الله عنه عن أهل الجمل أمشركون هم قال من الشرك فروا قيل أمنافقون هم قال إن المنافقين لا يذكرون الله إلا قليلا قيل فما هم قال إخواننا بغوا علينا

(Source: Beykhake “Sunnan al-kubra” vol 8, p 173. Tahkeek by Muhammad AbdulQader Ata.)

“Abu Bukhture asked Ale (r.a) about people of Jamal. “Are they mushreeks?”. He replied: “They ran from shirk”. Then i asked: “Are they hypocrites?” He replied: “Hypocrites use to mention Allah seldom”. He was asked: “Then who are they?”. Ale(ra) replied: “They are our brothers that rebel against us”.

This narration was also reported by Ibn Abi Shayba narrated in his Mosannaf:

37763 – حدثنا يزيد بن هارون عن شريك عن أبي العنبس عن أبي البختري قال سئل علي عن أهل الجمل قال قيل أمشركون هم قال من الشرك فروا قيل أمنافقون هم قال إن المنافقين لا يذكرون الله إلا قليلا قيل إخواننا بغوا علينا

Narrated to me Yazeed ibn Haron from Sherik from Abul Anbasa from Abul Bukhturi which said that Ali was asked about people of Jamal, were they mushriks? He said they flee from shirk. It was said were they hypocrites? He said hypocrites doesn’t mention Allah except a little. It was said (by Ali, as it obvious): Our brothers which revolt against us. “Mosannaf” ibn Abu Shayba, Maktabatul Rashid-Riad 1409

3. And ibn Abi Sheiba narrated from Abu Jafar:
37768 – حدثنا أبو أسامة قال حدثنا مسعر عن ثابت بن عبيد قال سمعت أبا جعفر يقول لم يكفر أهل الجمل
That he said: “Didn’t accuse people of Jamal in kufr”.

Comment: Obviously he was talking about Ali.

Chain: Abu Usama (Hammad ibn Usama, thiqat(trustworthy)) – Musa`r (ibn Kadam Abu Salamah al-Kufi al-Hilali, thiqat) – Thabit ibn Ubayd (al-Ansari, mawla of Zayd ibn Thabit, thiqat). Grading taken from Taqrib of ibn Hajar.

4. Shia scholars Majlisi in “Bihar” (32/324); Burjardi “Jamiu ahadeth ash-shia” (13/93) transmitted:
٢٩٧ – قرب الإسناد: ابن طريف عن ابن علوان عن جعفر عن أبيه أن عليا (عليه السلام) كان يقول لأهل حربه: إنا لم نقاتلهم على التكفير لهم ولم نقاتلهم على التكفير لنا ولكنا رأينا أنا على حق ورأوا أنهم على حق.
٢٩٨ – قرب الإسناد: بالاسناد قال: إن عليا لم يكن ينسب أحدا من أهل حربه إلى الشرك ولا إلى النفاق ولكنه كان يقول: هم إخواننا بغوا علينا.
297 – Furat by his chain: ibn Tareef – Ibn Alwan – Jafar – Father – Ali (alaihi salam) who said about those who fought against him: We don’t fight with them due to their takfir, and don’t fight with them due to their takfir of us. But we see that we are upon truth, and they see that they are upon truth.
298 – Furat by his chain: Ali didn’t attribute anyone from those who fought with him to shirk or to hypocrisy, but he use to say: Our brothers which revolt against us.

5. Similar report is present in another shia book, From al-Wasail al-Shia:
عبدالله بن جعفر الحميري في ( قرب الإسناد ) عن هارون بن مسلم ، عن مسعدة بن زياد ، عن جعفر ، عن أبيه ان عليا ( عليه السلام ) لم يكن ينسب أحدا من أهل حربه إلى الشرك ولا إلى النفاق ، ولكنه كان يقول : هم إخواننا بغوا علينا

6. Abul Abbas Abdullah ibn Jafar al-Himayri narrated in his Shia book “Qurub al-Isnad” book (p94/#318),

جعفر ، عن أبيه  : أن علياً  لم يكن ينسب أحداً من أهل حربه إلى الشرك ولا إلى النفاق ، ولكنه كان يقول : « هم إخواننا بغوا علينا »

Jafar from his father, Ali didn’t attributed anyone from those who fought against him to shirk and neither to hypocrisy, but he said: They our brothers which revolt against us.

And in the same book, at page 93, hadith 313:

جعفر ، عن أبيه : أن علياً  كان يقول لأهل حربه : « إنّا لم نقاتلهم على التكفير لهم ، ولم نقاتلهم على التكفير لنا ، ولكنّا رأينا أنّا على حق ، ورأوا أنهم على حق

Jafar from his father: Ali use to say about those who fought against him: We don’t fight them due to our takfir upon them, and don’t fight them due to their takfir upon us, just we see that we are upon thruth, and they see that they are upon truth.

7. When Ibn Abbas argued with the Kharijites who Ali bin Abi Talib fought, he told them, “And your saying that Ali fought and did not take slaves or money. Do you want to take your mother Aysha as a slave? And you make it allowable to take from her what you make it allowable to take from others, yet she is your mother? If you said that you make it allowable to take from her what you make it allowable to take from others, then you became disbeliever! And if you said that she is not your mother, then you became disbeliever! Because Allah Almighty says, “The Prophet is closer to the Believers than their own selves, and his wives are their mothers.” (Al-Ahzab, 5) You are in a circle around two deviations. Go and find a way out.” The Characteristics of the Commander of the Faithful, by Al-Nisa’ei, #185, with strong attribution
Comment: All these narrations prove that the battle that occurred between Ayesha(ra) and Ali(ra) was due to a misunderstanding created by the Sabains. That’s why Ahlelbayt DIDN’T consider Ayesha(ra) and her supporters as disbelievers or hypocrites or polytheists. Ali(ra) considered them as his own brothers.

 

                                          Section – II

In this section we are going to bring forth before our readers, some major arguments of Shias which they raise against the role of Ayesha(ra) in battle of Jamal. Most of the arguments of shia have been taken from Shiawebsite[Answering-Ansar.org] regarding which an authentic shia news website known as “shia news” stated : “Answering-Ansar.org has gained a respectable position in the shia’a publication within such a short time. Their secret of becoming one of the most TRUSTED research work and such a reputation lies in the quality of articles they provide in refutation to the wahabi propaganda, and the unique way of writing backed up with the scanned images of the references they provide is the best bit”. So Inshallah, we will be refuting those arguments with the help of Allah. But we recommend our readers to read (Section–I) before reading this section because if they read the first section then they will get a brief idea about the battle of Jamal, So this second section would be clear before them and they could easily understand and recognize the fabrications which were made by the religious slanderers inorder to slander the mother of believers, Ayesha(peace be upon her).

NOTE: We have left  several reports which were used by Shiawebsite, since they were chainless(without Isnaad). Such reports are of no value in the sight of people of truth. However, we have covered those reports and arguments of  Shias and Shiawebsite[Answering-Ansar.org] in our article, which we found to be worth refuting, and we left majority of the chainless crap used by Answering Ansar and their arguments based on those chainless reports, because Alhmadulillah Answering Ansar.org have been proved to be a website filled with lies and deceptions, which even many honest Shias have attested. And if the readers want us to answer any particular claim of Answering-Ansar.org which we left out due to them being unworthy, then they are most welcome to send their query through mail or comment under this article. If Allah wills, we will try to answer those arguments.

Argument 1

Shia scholar in his book said:

[Quote] We may ask a few questions about the war of al-Jamal, which was instigated by Umm al-Mumineen Aishah, who played an important role in it. (Then I was Guided, p.117) [End Quote]

The accusation that Aysha(ra) ignited the Battle of the Camel is a blatant lie. That is because Aysha(ra) came out to reform between Muslims. She did NOT leave her house to FIGHT ALI.

Ibn Habban narrated, “Aysha wrote to Abu Mousa – and he was the governor of Kufah appointed by Ali-, “You know what happened to Uthman, and 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]

Ibn Al-Emad in Shathrat Al-Thahab says, “When Ali arrived at Basrah, he went to Aysha and said, “May Allah forgive you.” She answered, “You too, I only wanted reformation.”” (Shatharat Al-Thahab, vol.1, p.42)

Ali sent Al-Qi’a’qa’a bin Omro to the people of Al-Basrah asking them why they are leaving: “Al-Qi’a’qa’a left and reached Basrah. He started with Aysha(ra) and made salam to her and said: “O’ Mother, What moved you and pushed you to this country”? She answered: “O’ Son, to reform between people.” Al-Qi’aqa’a said: “Send for Talha and Al-Zubair so that you hear my words and their words.” Aysha sent for them and they arrived. Al-Qi’aqa’a said: “I asked the Mother of Beleivers what brought and pushed her here and she answered to reform between people, what do you say you both? Do you agree or disagree?” They too answered: “We agree.(Tareekh Al-Tabari, vol.3, p.29, year.36H, ALSO Ibn Al-Atheer vol.3, p.122-123, year.36H )

لما أقبلت عائشة, بلغت مياه بني عامر ليلا نبحت الكلاب قالت : أي ماء هذا ؟ قالوا : ماء الحوأب . قالت : ما أظنني إلا أني راجعة, فقال بعض القوم من كان معها : بل تقدمين ، فيراك المسلمون ، فيصلح الله عز وجل ذات بينهم . قالت : إن رسول الله – صلى الله عليه وعلى آله وسلم – قال لها ذات يوم : كيف بإحداكن تنبح عليها كلاب الحوأب .
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 Hawaab’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 then makes peace between them’. She replied: ‘Allah’s messenger once said: ‘Then what would you (wives of the prophet) do when you hear the barking of Al-Hawab dogs?’ [Musnad Ahmed bin Hanbal, Volume 6 page 52 Tradition 24299]

أن عائشة لما نزلت على الحوأب سمعت نباح الكلاب فقالت ما أظنني إلا راجعة سمعت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يقول لنا أيتكن ينبح عليها كلاب الحوأب فقال لها الزبير ترجعين عسى الله أن يصلح بك بين الناس
الراوي: عائشة المحدث: الهيثمي – المصدر: مجمع الزوائد – الصفحة أو الرقم: 7/237
خلاصة حكم المحدث: رجال أحمد رجال الصحيح
Aisha (RA) narrated: That when she came down to al Hawaab she heard the barking of the dogs then said: “I see myself returning after this, I heard the prophet PBUH say: ‘Then what would you (the wives of the prophet) do when you hear the barking of Al-Hawab dogs?’” Al Zubair bin al Awwam said: “You return? maybe Allah will reconcile the people through you?”
source: Mujama’a al Zawaed 7/237.
Grading: Rijal Ahmad Rijal al SAHIH.

This truth is strengthened by ahadeeth where, Aysha regretted on her walk and said, “I wish I was a fresh branch of a tree and never walked this walk.” (Musnaf Ibn Abi Sheibah, vol.8, the Book of the “Camel” in the departure of Aysha, p.718 )… If Aysha(ra) wanted to fight instead of making peace, then why the regret?

And even if Aysha, along with Talha and Al-Zubair, fought Ali (which was unintentional since it started due to mischief of Sabains), then this fight would be as Allah described: “If two parties among 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)

Allah assured faith to these believers although they fought each other. If these believers are included in this verse, therefore the believer Companions should be included.

 

Argument 2

Shia scholar said in his book:

[Quote]The same question crops up again. Who was right and who was wrong? Either Ali and his followers were wrong, or Aishah, Talha, al-Zubair and their followers were wrong. There is no third possibility. But I have no doubt that the fair researcher would take Ali’s side and dismiss Aishah and her followers who instigated the civil war that devastated the nation and left its tragic marks to the present day. For the sake of further clarification, and for the sake of my own satisfaction I mention here what al-Bukhari had to say in his book about the civil war. When Talha, al-Zubair and Aishah travelled to Basrah, Ali sent Ammar Ibn Yasir and al-Hasan Ibn Ali to al-Kufah. On their arrival, they went to the mosque and addressed the congregation, and we heard Ammar saying, “Aishah had gone to Basrah … and by Allah she is the wife of your Prophet in this life and the life hereafter, but Allah, the Most High, is testing you to know whom you obey: Him or her.” (Then I was Guided, p.118-119 )[End Quote]

In matter of fact, there is a third possibility. The third possibility is 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 the responsible for the battle of the Camel, and none of the two parties had any responsibility to ignite the battle as we clarified earlier.

The story that the shia scholar was happy about and narrates it from Saheeh Al-Bukhari, is one of the greatest evidences on the virtue of Aysha! But what would you say about an ignorant who takes arguments against Ahl-Sunnah and does not realize that these arguments is against him and his Shia?

Here is that hadeeth: sahi bukhari 9.220: Narrated Abu Maryam `Abdullah bin Ziyad Al−Aasadi: When Talha, AzZubair and `Aisha moved to Basra, `Ali sent `Ammar bin Yasir and 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−Busra. 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 or her (`Aisha).
Comment: A. In the hadeeth, Ammar testifies for the Mother of Beleivers that she is the wife of the prophet peace be upon him in this life and the life hereafter! Meaning in heaven! And is there any virtue beyond that? And did she get this virtue but through the pleasant of Allah? And His messenger peace be upon him?

Well this is in itself a proof to destroy the accusations against hz ayesha(ra) because one can say that a women whose beliefs are questionable can become a wife of prophet, like wife of hz lut(as), BUT NO WOMAN CAN BECOME WIFE OF A PROPHET IN HEREAFTER IF HER BELIEFS WERE INCORRECT OR IF SHE WAS NOT A BELIEVER, can the Shias bring any proof that wives of Prophet lut(as) and prophet Noah(as) are their wives even in hereafter? No not at all, its impossible.

B. From the above point we can understand that, the dispute that occurred between hz ali(ra) and hz ayesha(ra) was political issue not a religious one, moreover it also proves that hz ali(ra) was not a divinely appointed imam from Allah, had it been so, then surely hz hassan(ra) and hz ammar(ra) wouldn’t have considered hz ayesha(ra) to be wife of prophet(Saw) in hereafter, because according to Shias who ever rejects or goes against wilayat of hz ali(ra) becomes kaafir/nasibi(will be in hell forever)

C. Ammar was a supporter of Ali bin Abi Talib may Allah be pleased of him and wanted to trigger people to fight with Ali. But these people were hesitant because the Mother of the Beleivers was in the opposing party. So Ammar clarified for them that the truth is with Ali, because he is the Caliph, and he must be obeyed as Allah ordered them before seeking revenge from the killers of Uthman as the Mother of the Believers sees. This was his own Mawqoof(opinion), and ofcourse the Mawqoof of the other party was different.

D. This narration can’t even be labeled as fabrication by the religious slanderers, unless they remain sensible(which is difficult) because in this narration we find that Ayesha(ra) is being portrayed as incorrect, so why would a supporter of Ayesha(ra) fabricate it?

Argument 3

Shia website[Answering-ansar.org] Stated:

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

إذا ابتكر الرجل امرأة في الدنيا كانت زوجته في الآخرة
“If a man marries a woman in the life, she will remain his wife in the hereafter”

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

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

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

Abu Bakar was ofcourse 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. [End Quote]

From these foolish attempts of religious slanderers to reject the virtues of mother of believers, one can easily understand that how much hatred they possess for the wives of Prophet(Saw). Anyways this whole intellectual deception can be shattered by reading a similar version of the hadeeth which the religious slanderers tried to misinterpret.

١٥٩٥ – حدثنا عبد الله قال: حدثني أبي، قثنا يحيى بن آدم قثنا إسرائيل، عن أبي إسحاق، عن عريب بن حميد قال: رأى عمار يوم الجمل جماعة، فقال: ما هذا؟ فقالوا: رجل يسب عائشة ويقع فيها، قال: فمشى إليه عمار، فقال: « اسكت مقبوحا منبوحا، أتقع في حبيبة رسول الله إنها لزوجته في الجنة »۔ فضائل الصحابة لأحمد بن حنبل
فضائل الصحابة لأحمد بن حنبل
From Arib Ibn Hamid who said: ‘On the day of the camel, Ammar [Ibn Yassir] saw a congregation, so he asked: ‘What is this?’So it was said to him: ‘A man who curses Aaishah and reviles her.’ So he -’Ammar’ went to him and said: ‘Shut up ! You are rebuked and you are refuted ! Do you revile the Habibah (the beloved one) of the Prophet (pbuh) ? Indeed she is his wife in Paradise.’(Hadeeth No. 1647, Fadha’il Al-Sahabah by Imam Ahmad, authenticated by Shaykh Al-Muhaddith Wasiyullah Al-’Abbas Al-Hindi )

Comment: So from the similar version of that hadeeth it is absolutely clear that what Ammar ibn Yasir(ra) meant by the wording “She is the wife of your Prophet in this world and in the Hereafter” is that Ayesha(ra) will be the wife of Prophet(Saw) even in Jannah(heaven). Meaning that Ayesha(ra) is going to be in Jannah as wife of Prophet(saw).

Moreover, ‘Prophet’s Will’ testify Ayesha in Paradise. [See this video]

Ironically we found that the learned Shia scholars who had some knowledge regarding the interpretation of religious texts, understood that report is the same manner as it is understood by Ahlesunnah. Which is fortunately contrary to the stupid interpretations of Shiawebsite Answering-ansar.org.

A.Esteemed Shia scholar Dr.Tijani said in his book, (Ask Those Who Know, chapter 3)

We can also note in the hadith, that the Umayyad narrators have added the phrase “and the hereafter” when saying “She is the wife of your Prophet in this life and the hereafter” so that they may lead the masses into thinking that Allah has forgiven her every sin she committed, and allowed her to enter His heaven, and her husband is His beloved Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.). Otherwise, how did ‘Ammar know that she will be his wife in the hereafter?
This is another trick which the falsifiers of hadith narrators resorted to during the time of the Banu Umayyad. When they found that a hadith was widespread amongst the people, and there was no way to deny or refute it, they decided to add a paragraph or words, or to change some phrases so as to dampen the impact [of the hadith] or to [make it] lose its intended meaning.(Ask Those Who Know, Chapter 3: The Prophet’s (S.A.W.) Warning Against ‘A’isha And Her Sedition]

Comment: Esteemed shia scholar Dr. Muĥammad al-Tījānī, the revered Shī`ī author of Ask Those Who Know,’ have ironically exposed the stupid and non-academic interpretations of Answering-Ansar team’s. No wonder, because Shia scholar Dr. Tijani had some comprehension understanding skills that is why he made that comment instead of the foolish interpretation of Answering-Ansar’s team. Tijani understood this hadeeth in a correct way, but because he is a shia, he made a common Shia rant that it was an addition from Bani Umayya.

B. Even Shia encylopedia, doesn’t support the stupid interpretation of Answering-Ansar.org.

[Shia encylopedia on Al islam.org says: We can also note in the Hadith, that the Umayad narrators have added the phrase "and the hereafter" to the saying of Ammar (RA) and making it "She is the wife of your Prophet in this life and the hereafter" so that they may lead the masses into thinking that Allah has forgiven her every sin she Committed, and allowed her to enter the heaven, and to continue to live with her husband. Otherwise, how did Ammar know that she will be his wife in the hereafter? How could Ammar take an oath about something he did not know? Did he have a verse from the book of God? Or was it a covenant promised to him by the Prophet (PBUH&HF)? Thus, excluding what has been falsely added, we are left with the true Hadith, i.e., that Aisha traveled to Basra, and that she is the wife of your Prophet, but Allah is testing you through her to know whether you obey Him or her. ]

Comment: It would have been better for the team of Shiawebsite Answering-Ansar, to consult their scholars before making those stupid interpretations inorder to deceive people.
Moreover, The stupidity of shiawebsite has lowered down to another extreme. Ayesha (ra) will be the wife of the Prophet (s) in the next world also, in the sense that she will be with the Prophet (saw).

We read in Quran

فَإِذَا نُفِخَ فِي الصُّورِ فَلَا أَنْسَابَ بَيْنَهُمْ يَوْمَئِذٍ

Then, when the Trumpet is blown, there will be no kinship among them that Day.[023:101]

(Shia Commentary of Quran)Pooya Ali Commentary for this verse says:

The Holy Prophet said: “All distinctions and relations shall cease to exist on the day of resurrection except the distinction and relation connected with me.”

On this basis the Holy Prophet said: “O Ali, you are my brother in this life and in the life of hereafter.”

“Salman is of my Ahl ul Bayt.”

Some will be far away from the stem of the spiritual parentage as the son of Nuh was declared to be not his son by Allah. (Pooya Ali, Commentary)

So now when it is said that Ayesha (ra) will be the wife of the Prophet (s), it means she will be with the Prophet(saw).
We read in Quran

إِنَّ أَصْحَابَ الْجَنَّةِ الْيَوْمَ فِي شُغُلٍ فَاكِهُونَ
هُمْ وَأَزْوَاجُهُمْ فِي ظِلَالٍ عَلَى الْأَرَائِكِ مُتَّكِئُونَ
Verily, the dwellers of the Paradise, that Day, will be busy in joyful things.
They and their wives will be in pleasant shade, reclining on thrones. [036:055-056]

Lastly in regards to the narration cited by Shiawebsite where Abubakr(ra) said to his daughter Asma(ra):
أي بنية اصبري فإن الزبير رجل صالح و لعله أن يكون زوجك في الجنة
O daughter, have patience, for Zubair is a good person and perhaps he will be your husband in heaven.

Comment: Here the word “perhaps” signifies that it wasn’t confirmatory, it required righteousness. So yes the couple who were righteous will again be re-married in heaven. But no where do we find that a righteous husband/wife would again be married to a non-righteous wife/husband. Its a baseless assumption of Shiawebsite. Why would Allah re-marry a righteous believer with a non-righteous believer? We can see that how illogical arguments are made by Shiawebsite inorder to deceive people.

Point to Ponder: When being a disbeliever, a biological relationship of Prophet Nuh(As) with his son was broken then, How could a marital relationship remain in hereafter if one of them is disbeliever?

Thus the conclusion is that according to Ammar(ra) who was a supporter of Ali(ra) during battle of Jamal, Ayesha(ra) is going to be the wife of Prophet(Saw) in Jannah and she is going to be in Jannah with Prophet(saw).

 

Argument 4:

Shiawebsite[Answering-Ansar.org] stated:

[Quote] Reply Four – Ibn Umar’s preventing Hafsa from joining Ayesha proves that her conduct was unacceptable

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

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

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

Comment

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

Ibn Umar himself was invited by Ali to join him, but he refused. So does it means that he considered the act of Ali as wrong also. Are the shias going to agrees with it?

Rather the stance of Ibn Umar was that he is with the people of madinah, whatever they say, he will follow them. The people of madinah refused to join any of these groups, hence Ibn Umar didn’t join any of these groups. And for the same reason he didn’t allow his sister to march towards Basrah.

وكان علي لما عزم على قتال أهل الشام قد ندب أهل المدينة إلى الخروج معه فأبوا عليه، فطلب عبد الله بن عمر بن الخطاب وحرضه على الخروج معه، فقال: إنما أنا رجل من أهل المدينة، إن خرجوا خرجت على السمع والطاعة، ولكن لا أخرج للقتال في هذا العام، ثم تجهز ابن عمر وخرج إلى مكة

When Ali intended to fight against the people of syria, he invited the people of madina to go with him. They rejected. Then he called upon Abdullah ibn Umar and told him to go with him, he said : I am a man amongst the people of madinah, if they go, I will go , while hearing and obeying. But I will not go out this year, then Ibn Umar prepared and went to Mecca.

Because Ibn umar(ra) stopped Hafsa(ra) from going to Basrah the religious slanderers claimed that, {“Clearly he(ibn umar) deemed it inappropriate a wife of Rasulullah (s) to behave in such a manner”}. Then we would like to ask those stupid shias that since Ibn Umar(ra) himself rejected the invitation of Ali(ra) to join him, then does it mean that, he(ibn umar) deemed it inappropriate a Caliph to behave in such a manner?

Hafsa(ra) didn’t go with Aisha(ra) because there didn’t remain any mehram with her who could go with her. Hafsa(ra) was so careful of not going alone without mehram, but Shias allege that the most beloved wife(ayesha), and the most learned wife of the Prophet went to the battle without mehram.

If we read the complete context of the quote which was presented by Shiawebsite, then we will understand that all the ummahat ul momineen accepted that the qisas of Uthman must be taken.

كان أزواج النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم أمهات المؤمنين قد خرجن إلى الحج في هذا العام فرارا من الفتنة، فلما بلغ الناس أن عثمان قد قتل، أقمن بمكة بعدما خرجوا منها، ورجعوا إليها وأقاموا بها ، وقدم إلى مكة أيضا في هذا العام يعلى بن أمية (3) من اليمن، – وكان عاملا عليها لعثمان -، ومعه ستمائة بعير وستمائة ألف درهم (4)، وقدم لها عبد الله بن عامر من البصرة، وكان نائبها لعثمان، فاجتمع فيها خلق من سادات الصحابة، وأمهات المؤمنين

The wives of the Prophet(s), the mothers of the believers went for Hajj that year to avoid fitnah, and when the people came to know that Uthman has been killed, they stayed in Mecca after their going, and they also returned to Mecca, and stayed in Mecca. And similarly Yala ibn Umayya from Yemen also reached Mecca this year. He was aamil of Uthman over it (i.e Yemen). With him were 600 camels and six hundred thousand dirhams. And Abdullah ibn Aamir reached there from Basra, and he was Uthman’s naib of Basrah. And he was the naib of Uthman, and he was his Aamil, and the nobles from the companions and the mothers of the believers gathered (in Mecca).

Then Ibn Kathir says:

وقال آخرون: نذهب إلى المدينة فنطلب من علي أن يسلم إلينا قتلة عثمان فيقتلوا، وقال آخرون: بل نذهب إلى البصرة فنتقوى من هنالك بالخيل والرجال، ونبدأ بمن هناك من قتلة عثمان.
فاتفق الرأي على ذلك وكان بقية أمهات المؤمنين قد وافقن عائشة على المسير إلى المدينة، فلما اتفق الناس على المسير إلى البصرة رجعن عن ذلك وقلن: لا نسير إلى غير المدينة ، وجهز الناس يعلى بن أمية فأنفق فيهم ستمائة بعير وستمائة ألف درهم (1) وجهزهم ابن عامر أيضا بمال كثير، وكانت حفصة بنت عمر أم المؤمنين قد وافقت عاشئة على المسير إلى البصرة، فمنعها أخوها عبد الله من ذلك

And some said : Let’s go to Madina and we will ask Ali to handover the killers of Uthman to us, so they will be killed. And others said : Rather we should go to Basrah and gain strength with men, and we will begin from there by killing the killers of Uthman present there. So the agreement was held on this opinion, and the rest of the ummahat ul momineen agreed with Aisha to go towards Madina, but when the people agreed on going towards Basrah, they returned and said, we will not go anywhere except Madina. And Yala ibn Umayyah prepared people, and spent his six hundred camels and six hundred thousand dirhams and Ibn Aamir also spent large amount on preparation. And Hafsa bint Umar agreed with Aisha to go towards Basrah , but her brother Abdullah stopped her.

 

Argument 5

Shiawebsite[Answering-Ansar.org] stated:

[Quote] 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

[End Quote]

Iqd al-Fareed is not a history book at all, but rather it is a literary novel that contains elements of fiction in it. Perhaps tomorrow the Shia will quote from a few Nancy Drew novels or maybe Sidney Sheldon’s thrillers and claim that these are authentic history books. Furthermore, the author of Iqd al-Fareed was Ibn Abd Rabuh who was well known for his pro-Shia inclinations.

Ibn Abu Rabuh’s book, Iqd al-Fareed, is a chain-less literary piece in which his inclusion criteria is only that the text be eloquent Arabic; the text in his book was chosen not for its historical accuracy or authenticity, but rather his book was a compilation of any text that was eloquent in nature. As such, the author of Iqd al-Fareed included texts from Shia sources so long as they were eloquently written. The Shia are well-known for their dedication to poetry so it is not at all strange that Ibn Abd Rabuh would include their texts. To give an example, Nahjul Balagha means “the Peak of Eloquence”; to the Sunni historian, the book is a piece of garbage due to its flagrant inaccuracies and Shia exaggerations. However, to the literary lover (be he Sunni or otherwise), the Nahjul Balagha is actually very eloquent in its original Arabic, and it can be appreciated for that aspect. One can, for example, appreciate the eloquence of the Bible or even the Bhagavad Gita; the Bible might contain an eloquent quote from Jesus but this does not at all mean that it is accurate, no matter how beautifully worded!

The Shia spent excessive amounts of time writing poetry about Kerbala and in fact there are beautiful poems written by the Shia on this incident; however, they lack in historical accuracy and are rather things of legends and myths. Likewise, the Shia spent much time crafting poetry in the name of Ali and forging supposed counter-responses by his so-called opponents such as Muawiyyah and Aisha. The author of Iqd al-Fareed included these texts due to their literary value, but the truth is that no matter how beautifully worded these texts are, they cannot at all be considered authentic.

Furthermore, the author of Iqd al-Fareed was known for his Shia inclinations; he was a big fan of the eloquent nature of Shia texts. Today, there are many so-called liberal and progressive “Sunnis” who preach unity with Shia and even with homosexuals. Irshad Menji the lesbian could be considered a Sunni; if she wrote a literary novel, could this be used as an authentic Sunni text? Could we take her views on homosexuality as indicative of the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah? Not every word written by a “Sunni” can be construed as being “authoritative” or indicative of the Sunni position on matters.

 

Argument 6:

Shiawebsite[Answering-Ansar.org] Stated:

[Quote]
وعن ابن عباس قال : قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم لنسائه : ليت شعري أيتكن صاحبة الجمل الأديب تخرج فينبحها كلاب حوأب يقتل عن يمينها وعن يسارها قتلى كثير ثم تنجو بعد ما كادت
Ibn Abbas narrates that Allah’s messenger (s) said to his wives: Who amongst shall be the rider of the camel who when marching, shall have the dogs of Hawab bark at her? Thereafter many people shall be killed on her left and right sides, she would subsequently survive after which she will be made to feel guilty’.
Majma al-Zawaed, Volume 7 page 474 Tradition 12026

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

Ibn Hajar Asqalani: This is narrated by al-Bazar and the narrators are reliable (Thuqat).
Fatah ul Bari, Volume 13 page 55

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 [Quote]

Both Abu Hatim and Abu Zur’ah declared this hadith to be munkar(denounced) in Ilal ibn Abu Hatim 2758

Even if for the sake of argument if we assume this report to be authentic even then all it does is that it proves that A’isha is fallible.

This narration mentions about a Prophecy and this prophesy was destined to happen. And we don’t find any commands or do’s and don’ts mentioned by Prophet(Saw) in this narration. But in order to deceive people the Shiawebsite inserted their own statements stating that Prophet(Saw) said those, where as we don’t find this statement in the narration. The shiawebsite stated: {“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”}. We don’t find any such specific warning for Ayesha(ra) in this report, like the Shiawebsite claims, inorder to slander Ayesha(ra).

What we should keep in mind that Ayesha(ra) didn’t knew that when and where, what was prophecized is going to take place. So Ayesha(ra) went with the people in order to make reformation, with a noble intention.

The Shias might argue, Ayesha(ra) should have returned when she came to know that she reached Hawab’s well. But such suggestions often come after the time had passed, even Ayesha(ra) felt the same after the time had passed, Ayesha(ra) regretted on her walk and said, “I wish I was a fresh branch of a tree and never walked this walk.” (Musnaf Ibn Abi Sheibah, vol.8, the Book of the “Camel” in the departure of Aysha, p.718 )

If we think this matter from the perspective of Ayesha(ra) then we will realize that she was under a big confusion that, what she must do in order to avoid what was Prophecized by Prophet(saw). BUT SHE DIDN’T KNEW ANY REMEDY FOR THAT, Prophet(Saw) didn’t give any remedy to somehow stop that fitna from occurring, as we said earlier it was destined to occur. Neither Ayesha(ra) knew that when and where the Fitna would occur, NOR SHE KNEW OF ANY REMEDY TO STOP IT. So when her supporters requested her to continue the journey convincing that her presence might be helpful in making reformation between the muslims, She made ijtihad and choose to advance for a noble cause, which was well intentioned, and sanctioned by law, instead of returning. Ayesha(ra) intended for making reconciliation which in light of Sunnah of Prophet, was better than fasting, prayer and charity, as it is reported from Prophet(saw) that He(Saw) said: “Shall I not tell you of something that is better than fasting, prayer and charity?”They said: Yes.He said: “Reconciling between two people, for the corruption of that which is between the hearts is the shaver (destroyer). It is the shaver, and I do not say that it shaves hair, rather that it shaves religious commitment.”[(al-Tirmidhi-2509) Sahih Hadeeth as mentioned by al-Tirmidhi.]. So Ayesha(ra) didn’t even imagined that such a noble and well intended cause could turn out to be a Fitna(due to the mischief of killers of Uthman(ra), i.e the Sabais).

And its the stupidity of shias who stated that:{“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”}. Prophet(saw) didn’t mention anything in regards to the intention of Ayesha(ra) neither in negative sense or in positive sense. He(saw) just said that there would be bloodshed on her right and left side(in the narration which we supposed to be authentic). But this doesn’t negates the fact that Ayesha(ra) was well intentioned, because even a well intentioned thing can turn out to be a disaster due to mischeif of others. Likewise even though Ayesha(ra) was well intentioned, yet due to the mischief of Sabaites(murders of Uthman) the blood shed started, which was prophecized by Prophet(Saw).

Another Prophesy regarding the battle of Jamal:
سيكون بينك وبين عائشةأمر قال : أنا يا رسول الله ، قال : نعم ، قال : أنا من بين أصحابي قال : نعم ،قال : فأنا أشقاهم ، قال : لا ولكن إذا كان ذلك فأرددها إلى مأمنها.

Abu Rafi’i said: TheProphet SAWS told ‘Ali: There will be a problem between you and ‘Aisha, ‘Ali said: Me O Rasulullah!? he said: yes, ‘Ali repeated: Me from amongst all my friends!? he said: yes, ‘Ali then said: Then I must have a really horrible end, He SAWS replied: “No, but if it does happen then return her to the safety of her home.” sources: Narrated by Ahmad6/393, and al-Tabarani #995, also narrated by al-Bazzar #3272, al-Haythami said the narrators are trustworthy in Majma’a al-Zawaed, Ibn Hajar said: Isnaduhu Hasan in Fath al-Bari 59/13.

Comment: If we suppose that what Ayesha(ra) did was a major crime as the shias try to portray, then why didn’t Prophet(saw) mention anything strong against ayesha(ra)? However contrary to what should have happened(according to the shia logic) Prophet(saw) just adviced Ali(ra) to return Ayesha(ra) to the safety of her house. Doesn’t this shows that the shia allegations on mother of believers are baseless.

 

Argument 7

Shiawebsite[Answering-Ansar.org] Stated:

[Quote] 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 [End Quote]

Firstly if the shias want to rely on this report then they should also learn from this narration that Hudhayfa regarded Ayesha to be from Prophet’s family(i.e Ahlebayt).

Secondly, it is not a Marfo’o narration rather Mawqoof(opinion). Meaning its not something which was said by Prophet(Saw), rather this was the personal opinion of the Sahabi. And authentic reports shows that if a fitnah occurs then the best way is to avoid participation in it.

قالالحسن: ان عليا بعث إلى محمد بن مسلمة فجيء به فقال ما خلفك عن هذا الأمر قال دفع اليبن عمك يعني النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم سيفا فقال:” قاتل به ما قوتل العدو فإذارأيت الناس يقتل بعضهم بعضا فاعمد به إلى صخرة فاضربه بها ثم الزم بيتك حتى تأتيك منيةقاضية أو يد خاطئة”، قال خلوا عنه” . مسند أحمد بن حنبل : ج 4 ص: 225 ،وقالالشيخ شعيب الأرنؤوط:حسن بمجموع طرقه

al-Hassan ibn ‘Ali (ra) said: ‘Ali called for Muhammad ibn Muslimah so he was brought to him and he asked: “Why not participate in this?” Ibn Muslimah said: Your cousin (Prophet) gave me this sword and said: “Fight with it as long as you are fighting the enemy but when you see the people kill each other then seek a rock and strike it then retire to your home until you are dead or killed by a hand.” ‘Ali then told his men: “Leave him be.”
Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal 4/225, Shu’ayb al-Arnaout said: all its chains are Hasan.
الرسول-عليه الصلاة و السلام – قال : (( ستكون فتنة يكون المضطجع فيها خيرا من الجالس ،والجالس خيرا من القائم ،و القائم خيرا من الماشي ،و الماشي خيرا من الساعي ، )) فقالله أبو بكرة : يا رسول الله ما تأمرني ؟ قال : (( من كانت له إبل فليلتحق بإبله ،ومن كانت له غنم فليلتحق بغنمه ،و من كانت له أرض فليلتحق بأرضه ،)) فقال له أبو بكرة: فمن لم يكن له شيء من ذلك ؟ قال : (( فليعمد إلي سيفه فليضربه بحده على حرة ، ثملينجوا ما استطاع النجاء )) .رواه أبو داود في سننه ج4 ص 99 و صححه الشيخ الألباني
Abu Bakrah ibn al-Harith (ra): The Prophet SAWS said: “There will be a Fitnah in which the man who sleeps on his side is better than the man who sits down, and the one who sits is better than the one who stands, and the one who stands is better than the one who walks, and the one who walks is better than the one who marches to war.” So Abu Bakrah said: “O Prophet of Allah, what do you order me?” He replied: “He who has camels let him go take care of them and he who has sheep then let him go take care of them and he who has a land then let him go and take care of it.” Abu Bakrah said: “What about the one who has none of this?” He replied: “Then let him draw his sword and strike its tip against a rock, then keep away and save himself as much as he could.”
Abu Dawood in his Sunan 4/99, al-Albani said Sahih.

Comment: If the battle of Jamal was something like battle between truth and falsehood, then why would Prophet(saw) command people to avoid its participation?

Thirdly, as we mentioned earlier that this was a mawqoof report, but when it comes to marfu reports then we find that Prophet(Saw) just prophesized the group that would be nearer to Haq, He(saw) didn’t say that who will be leading that group. And sahaba came to know about this when they found Ali(ra) fighting with Khwarajis.

Fourthly, Even if we assume for a moment that what Hudhayfa transmitted is from the Prophet(peace be upon him) then where do we find that Prophet(peace be upon him) slandered Ayesha or divorced her because she was on falsehood or where did Hudhayfa discredit Ayesha?!

It is a sufficient proof that Prophet(peace be upon him) and his companions only regarded it to be an issue not more than that of Ijtihad! 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”

 

Argument 8:

Shiawebsite[Answering-Ansar.org] stated:

[Quote]

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”. 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. …..
History of Tabari, English Edition, Volume 16 pages 68-69… [End Quote]

The one immediately noticeable point here is that the authorities beyond al Zuhri appear undisclosed. He narrates saying: “I was told that/It has reached me…” (balighni). So here a narrator(s) was omitted. See Tarikh al Tabari (3/18). So it is a mursal(disconnected) narration of Al Zuhri and according to Ibn Ma’een and others Mursal narrations of Al Zuhri are weak and nothing. Thus this report is disconnected and should be rejected with a shadow of doubt.

 

Argument 9:

A Shiawebsite stated:

[Quote]

umm salma narrates that holy prophet asws spoke of uprising of some wives; so ayesha laughed. holy prophet asws said: o humaira! see that it is not you then holy prophet pointed to imam ali asws and said “if it is in your hands, be gentle”
references:-
1- mustadarak; vol 3, page 118; new edition vol 4, page 86, number 4668
[End Quote]

Well here is the full hadith with chain from Mustadrak
(حدثنا) أبو بكر محمد بن عبد الله الحفيد ثنا أحمد بن نصر ثنا أبو نعيم الفضل بن دكين ثنا عبد الجبار بن الورد عن عمار الدهنى عن سالم بن ابي الجعد عن ام سلمة رضى الله عنها قالت ذكر النبي صلى الله عليه وآله خروج بعض امهات المؤمنين فضحكت عائشة فقال انظري يا حميراء ان لا تكوني انت ثم التفت إلى علي فقال ان وليت من امرها شيئا فارفق بها

First of all we should mention that Hakim and Dhahabi DIDN’T authenticate this report.
As we can see this hadith is reported from Umm Salamah and from her narrated Salim ibn Abu Jad. He narrated this report in muanan form. In his bio in Mizan (2/ n 3045) it is said that he use to do tadlis and irsal.

Secondly, This hadith from Mustadrak is not upon conditions of shaykhan. In the chain is Abduljabar, and as said Dhahabi: They didn’t narrate from him.
Shaykh Abu Ishaq al-Huwayni after mentioning this view of Dhahabi said about this report:

وكذا عمار الذهبي ، لم يخرج له البخاري شيئا . غير أني لم أقف على أحد أثبت رواية سالم عن أم سلمة ، فالله أعلم ، وعلى كل حال ، ففي قلبي شيء من صحة هذا الخبر .
And in the same way Ammar ad-Duhani (other narrator), Bukhari didn’t narrate from him a thing. And also I didn’t came across with anyone who would testify that Salim narrated from Umm Salamah (as in this report), and Allah knows best, and no matter what in my soul there is something (which force me to doubt) about authenticity of this report.(See his An Nafila fil ahadeth daifa wal batila p 58) (In addition Ibn Kathir in Bidaya said regarding this report: Extremely strange (gharib jiddan) 6/218)

Lastly, Ibn Qayum in Manar wal Munif (n 89, p 183) said: All ahadeth where (Aisha) mentioned as Humaira are lies and fabrications. And in this report Ayesha(ra) was mentioned as Humaira.

 

Argument 10:

Shiawebiste[al-islam.org] Stated:

[Quote] The Prophet (PBUH&HF) said to his wives: “I wonder which one of you will be the instigator of the Camel Affair, at whom the dogs of Haw’ab will bark, and she will be the one who has deviated from the straight path. As to you Humayra (i.e., Aisha), I have warned you in that regard.”

Sunni references:

  • History of Ibn al-Athir, v3, p120
  • al-Imamah wa al-Siyasah, by Ibn Qutaybah

[End Quote]

Firstly according to Ibn al Qayyim as stated in al Manar al Munif (no.89+), every hadith in which Aisha (Allah be well pleased with her) is called ‘Humayra’ is not authentic. So since even in this report Ayesha(ra) was called as Humayra, thus this report is not reliable and cannot be used to slander mother of believers, Ayesha(ra).

Secondly we found this report in Al-Kamil by Ibn Al-Atheer, but there wasn’t a chain for this report.

And in regards to the other reference then we found this text in al-Imamah wa al-Siyasah, by Ibn Qutaybah , P.57 Dar Al-Kutub Al-Ilmiyah, but again there wasn’t a chain for this report. And a narration without a chain is like a body without a head.

However we would like to clarify a very important issue, most of the times the shia websites in order to deceive people attribute Shia books to Ahlesunnah so as to prove their point. Here the second reference which was placed under sunni references, i.e al-Imamah wa al-Siyasah, by Ibn Qutaybah is not a Sunni book.

The books al-Imāma wal-Siyāsa and Tārīkh al-Khulafā’ are spuriously attributed to Ibn Qutayba by the Shī‘īs:

1. The scholars who wrote the biography of Ibn Qutayibah did not mention any book of Ibn Qutayabah named “Al-Imamah wa Al-Siyasah”. Ibn Qutayibah’s books include “Al-Ma’arif”, and the books that is mentioned by the author of “Sahib Al-Dhonoon”.

2. If a person reads Al_Imamah wa Al-Siyasah, he would notice that Ibn Qutayabah lived in Damascus and Maghrib, whereas in reality he did not leave Baghdad but to Daynoor.

3. The method and the course that the real author of “Al-Imamah wa Al-Siyasah” used, differs completely from the method and the course of Ibn Qutayabah in his books that we have. One of the main characteristics in the methods of Ibn Qutayabah is that he writes long prefaces or introductions explaining his method and the reasons for the writing of the book. In the opposite side, we see the author of “Al-Imamah wa Al-Siyasah” has a very short preface, not more than 3 lines..

4. The real author of Al-Imamah wa Al-Siyasah narrated from Ibn Abi Layla in a way that you feel he got it from him personally, that the authoer met Abi Layla face to face (Talaqa a’anhu). The full name of Ibn Abi Layla is Muhamed bin Abdulrahman bin Abi Layla the jurisprudent, the judge of Kufah, who died in 148H, and it is known that Ibn Qutayabah was born in 213H, after the death of Ibn Abi Layla by 65 years.

5. Even the orientalists questioned the true identity of the book’s authoer First of them was De Gainjose in his book “The history of the Islamic rule in Spain”, then Dr. R. Dozi supported him in his book “The Political and the Lecture History of Spain”, and the book mentioned Brokilman in “Tareekh Al-Adab Al-Arabi”, the Baron De Slan in the index of the “Arabic manuscripts” in Paris Library under the name of “Narrations of Al-Imamah wa Al-Siyasah”, and Margholios in “Dirasat a’an Al-Mu’arekheen Al-Arab”, and they all decided that the book is falsly attributed to Ibn Qutayabah and that he could not be the real author.

6. The narrators and the Sheikhs that Ibn Qutayabah usually narrates from in his books were never mentioned in any place in the book of Al-Imamah wa Al-Siyasah.

7. It seems from the book that the author tells the news of the invasion of the Andulus orally from people who contemporaried the invasion period, like “I was told by a Muwla for Abdullah bin Musa” and it is known that the Fath of Andulus was in 92H, before the birth of Ibn Qutayabah by about 120 yrs.

8. Al-Imamah wa Al-Siyasah contains horrible historical mistakes, like making Aba Al-Abbas and the Saffah (The Slayer) two different people, making Haroon Al-Rasheed the immediate successor to Al-Mahdi, saying that Haroon Al-Rasheed gave Wilayat Al-A’ahd for his son Al-Ma’moon then to Al-Ameen, but if we go back to Ibn Qutayabah book “Al-Ma’arif” we find that he gaves us correct infiormations about Al-Saffah and Haroon Al-Rasheed which disagrees with what the author of Al-Imamah wa Al-Siyasah said.

9. In the book, there are many narrators that Ibn Qutayabah never narrated from, e.g. Abi Maryam, and Ibn A’feer.

10. In the book, there are sentences that are not in the writings of Ibn Qutayabah, like “Qal Thuma Ina”, “it was mentioned about some cheifs”, and “some cheifs told us” and like these structures which are far from the methods and sentences of Ibn Qutayabah and were never mentioned in any of his books.

11. It is obvious that the author of Al-Imamah wa Al-Siyasah does not care about arrangements, organization, and order, for he states the information, then goes to another one and jumps to complete the first information. This chaos does not agree with the method of Ibn Qutayabah who looks for organization and order.

12. The author of Al-Imamah wa Al-Siyasah narrates from two of the biggest Egyptian scholars, and Ibn Qutayabah never entered Egypt and never was a pupil for these two scholars.

13. Ibn Qutayabah has a very high rank among the scholars, for he is from Ahl Al-Sunnah and Trust (Thiqah) in his knowledge and religion. Al-Salafi said: “Ibn Qutayabah was from the Thiqat and Ahl Al-Sunnah, Ibn Hazm said: “he was thiqah in his religion and knowledge”, Al-Khateeb Al-Baghdadi said the same, Ibn Taymiyah said about him: “ibn Qutayabah belongs to Ahmad, Ishaq and one of who supports the famous Sunni schools”, and he is the Speaker for Ahl Al-Sunna as Al-Jahidh is the speaker of Mu’atazilah. A man in this rank among the great scholars could not be the author of Al-Imamah wa Al-Siyasah which changed the history and attributed to the Companions what is not true.

14. In Ibn Qutayabah’s book “Al-Ekhtilaf fi Al-Lafd wa Al-Rad ala Al-Jahamiyah wa Al-Mushabiha” he said that the Rafidah are kafirs because they slandered the Companions of the Prophet (pbuh), then he says: “and I saw them too when they saw the Rafida’s exaggeration in the love of Ali and prefer him on who the Prophet (pbuh) preferred, and their claims that Ali was a partner of Muhamed (pbuh) in his prophethood, and the knowledge of the unknown is for the Imams from his sons and these talks and the secret matters that consolidated to the lies, kufr, extreme ignorance and stupidity, and they saw them slandering the best Companions and their hatred towards them”, then can someone attribute Al-imamah wa Al-Siyasah to him which is full of slanders against the great Companions?

Source: Kitab Al-Imamah wa Al-Siyasah fi Meezan Al-Tahqeeq Al-Elmi, Dr.Abdullah Aseelan

If the viewers want to read the research of Mufti Taha karaan on this book then they can read it from here.[Click this link]

 

Argument 11

Shia Stated:

[Quote] when the dogs barked at Ayesha at al-Huwa’ib” Talha and az-Zubayr testified that that was not Ma’ al-Hawa’ib and fifty men added to them. It was the first false testimony which had occurred in Islam [End Quote]

QADI ABU BAKR IBN AL-`ARABI response to this allegation stating: Talha and Zubayr did not testify. The false testimony came from rabble who did not fear Allah, like Abu Zaynab and Abu’l-Mawra’ as was already stated. As for Talha and az-Zubayr, they had been promised the Garden by the Prophet of mercy, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, who did not speak from passion. They had the highest character and they were too noble to themselves and to Allah to give false testimony. This lie against them came from men who hated the Companions of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. It is not the first lie they made in Islam nor was it the last of the lies that they forged against him and his people.

And from authentic reports we come to know that Zubair(ra) didn’t make any false testimony rather he made a request to Ayesha(ra) that her presense could help in reconciling the people.

أن عائشة لما نزلت على الحوأب سمعت نباح الكلاب فقالت ما أظنني إلا راجعة سمعت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يقول لنا أيتكن ينبح عليها كلاب الحوأب فقال لها الزبير ترجعين عسى الله أن يصلح بك بين الناس
الراوي: عائشة المحدث: الهيثمي – المصدر: مجمع الزوائد – الصفحة أو الرقم: 7/237
خلاصة حكم المحدث: رجال أحمد رجال الصحيح
Aisha (RA) narrated: That when she came down to al Hawaab she heard the barking of the dogs then said: “I see myself returning after this, I heard the prophet PBUH say: ‘Then what would you (the wives of the prophet) do when you hear the barking of Al-Hawab dogs?’” Al Zubair bin al Awwam said: “You return? maybe Allah will reconcile the people through you?”
source: Mujama’a al Zawaed 7/237.
Grading: Rijal Ahmad Rijal al SAHIH.

 

Argument 12

Shia stated:

[Quote] why did `A’isha go out when the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him

peace, had told them in the Hajj of Farewell, “After this, confinement (busr) will appear.”[End Quote]

In the ‘Musnad’ of Ahmad (2:446, first edition) from the hadith of Salih, the client of Tawa’ma from Abu Hurayra that when the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, went on Hajj with his wives, he said, “It is this Hajj. The time of the appearance of confinement comes after it.” In it (5:218, first edition) there is the hadith of Waqid b. Abi Waqid al-Laythi from his father that he, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said to his wives in this Hajj, “After this, confinement will appear.” The hadith of Abu Waqid is in the chapter of ‘The Obligation of the Hajj’ from ‘The Book of Practices in the Sunan’ of Abu Da`ud (book 11, chap.1). ‘Husur’ is the plural of ‘hasir’, i.e. staying in the house.

Ibn Kathir transmitted it in ‘The Beginning and the End’ (5:215), saying that it is an indication by the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, that he himself announced his death to them and that this would be his last Hajj, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. In it, he does not commend that they should not leave confinement for a Hajj or a requirement or to make peace between people. The enemies of the Companions quoted this hadith as an absolute prohibition. Qadi Ibn al-`Arabi considered that to be a lie because it is quoted in order to use it in a manner other than that desired by the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace.

 

Argument 13:

Shiawebsite[Answering-Ansar.org] Stated:

[Quote]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 [End Quote]

As we stated earlier, according to Ibn al Qayyim as stated in al Manar al Munif (no.89+), every hadith in which Aisha (Allah be well pleased with her) is called ‘Humayra’ is not authentic. So since even in this report Ayesha(ra) was called as Humayra, thus this report is not reliable and cannot be used to slander mother of believers, Ayesha(ra).

Anyways for the benefit of readers let us discuss the problems in regards to the chain of this report.

Firstly, the narrator Khaythama is known for Irsaal and it is possible he did not hear it from Hudhayfa. Many scholars question his narration from Ibn Masood , Ayesha and Umar.

Another thing to look at is that despite the narrator Khaythama b. Abdul Rahman’s use of the phrase {“We were with Hudhayfa and some of us said…”} we need to check that whether the chain is in fact fully connected between the two. None of the primary sources that we have thus far consulted, list Khaythama as one of Hudhayfa b. al Yaman’s students, nor the latter as one of Khaythama’s shaykhs. It is quite normal, as evidenced by other isnads, for there to be another authority between the two. Ibn Hajr indicates in Taqrib (no.1773) that Khaythama is known for mursal reporting(so with a narrator/s omitted). But still, his saying “We were with Hudhayfa…” remains problematic.

If there is an error here, it may be from someone earlier in the chain. The end part of al Hakim’s isnad is:

- Zayd b. Abi Unaysa > ‘Amr b. Murra > Khaythama b. Abdul Rahman: “We were with Hudhayfa…”

Al Tabarani in Mu’jam al Awsat (no.1154) records it with the isnad:

- Zayd b. Abi Unaysa > ‘Amr b. Murra > Fulfula al Ju’fi: “We were with Hudhayfa…”

Based on al Mizzi’s Tadhdib al Kamal:

1. Khaythama is listed as one of ‘Amr b. Murra’s shaykhs, but Fulfula is not.

2. Fulfula is listed as one of Khaythama’s shaykhs.

3. Hudhayfa b. al Yaman (Allah be well pleased with him) is not listed as one of Khaythama’s shaykhs, but is listed for Fulfula.

Taking this into account, it would make sense for the isnad to in fact be:

- Zayd b. Abi Unaysa > ‘Amr b. Murra > Khaythama b. Abdul Rahman > Fulfula al Ju’fi: “We were with Hudhayfa…”

If so, Fulfula appears in both isnads and he is “maqbul” according to Ibn Hajr in Taqrib (no.5442), meaning he is acceptable if supported.

For an example of another isnad in which Fulfula appears between Khaythama and Hudhayfa b. al Yaman (Allah be well pleased with him), see al Tabarani’s Mu’jam al Kabir (no.3005).

So the conclusion of this analysis is that, this report has a hidden defect. There is no Khaythama, but it should be Fulfula Al-Ju’fi as per the hadith by Al-Tabarani.

Secondly, Hilal bin al A’la according to Imam Nasai narrated some mukar narrations from his father and he was unsure whether they come from him or his father.

Thirdly, Hakim is lenient and Dhahabi’s decision in Mustadrak is not always his final decision! Imam Dhahabi in his Siyar A’alam Al-Nubala says that he wrote it when he was younger and that it needs to be reviewed.

This cannot be classed as sahih to Bukhari and Muslim’s standards. Al Hakim’s isnad in al Mustadrak (no.8453) is through Hilal b. al ‘Ala al Raqi and Abdul Rahman b. Hamdan al Jallab who neither Bukhari nor Muslim narrated from.

Moreover, even if this is assumed to be true, even then the takfir of hudhayfa will only include Munafiqs who wanted war between the two parties and does not include any companion or the blessed companion such as Talha. If the religious slanderers argue that it includes the blessed companions then here are some other reports which prove before us that Ali(ra) didn’t accuse those who fought him of kufr or shirk, which would make the above report cited by shias to be munkar.

1. Ibn Abe Shayba reported in “Mosannaf”:
حدثنا أبو أسامة قال حدثنا مسعر عن ثابت بن عبيد قال : سمعت أبا جعفر يقول : لم يكفر أهل الجمل
“From Abo Othaama, reported to me Musaar, from Thaabet ibn Ubayd: I heard Abu Jafar said: he (see Ale) did not declare the people of jamal as disbelievers”.

2.

16490 – أخبرنا أبو عبد الله الحافظ أنبأ أبو الوليد الفقيه ثنا الحسن بن سفيان ثنا أبو بكر بن أبي شيبة ثنا يزيد بن هارون عن شريك عن أبي العنبس عن أبي البختري قال سئل علي رضي الله عنه عن أهل الجمل أمشركون هم قال من الشرك فروا قيل أمنافقون هم قال إن المنافقين لا يذكرون الله إلا قليلا قيل فما هم قال إخواننا بغوا علينا

(Source: Beykhake “Sunnan al-kubra” vol 8, p 173. Tahkeek by Muhammad AbdulQader Ata.)

“Abu Bukhture asked Ale (r.a) about people of Jamal. “Are they mushreeks?”. He replied: “They ran from shirk”. Then i asked: “Are they hypocrites?” He replied: “Hypocrites use to mention Allah seldom”. He was asked: “Then who are they?”. Ale(ra) replied: “They are our brothers that rebel against us”.

This narration was also reported by Ibn Abi Shayba narrated in his Mosannaf:

37763 – حدثنا يزيد بن هارون عن شريك عن أبي العنبس عن أبي البختري قال سئل علي عن أهل الجمل قال قيل أمشركون هم قال من الشرك فروا قيل أمنافقون هم قال إن المنافقين لا يذكرون الله إلا قليلا قيل إخواننا بغوا علينا

Narrated to me Yazeed ibn Haron from Sherik from Abul Anbasa from Abul Bukhturi which said that Ali was asked about people of Jamal, were they mushriks? He said they flee from shirk. It was said were they hypocrites? He said hypocrites doesn’t mention Allah except a little. It was said (by Ali, as it obvious): Our brothers which revolt against us. “Mosannaf” ibn Abu Shayba, Maktabatul Rashid-Riad 1409

3. And ibn Abi Sheiba narrated from Abu Jafar:
37768 – حدثنا أبو أسامة قال حدثنا مسعر عن ثابت بن عبيد قال سمعت أبا جعفر يقول لم يكفر أهل الجمل
That he said: “Didn’t accuse people of Jamal in kufr”.

Comment: Obviously he was talking about Ali.

Chain: Abu Usama (Hammad ibn Usama, thiqat(trustworthy)) – Musa`r (ibn Kadam Abu Salamah al-Kufi al-Hilali, thiqat) – Thabit ibn Ubayd (al-Ansari, mawla of Zayd ibn Thabit, thiqat). Grading taken from Taqrib of ibn Hajar.

4. Shia scholars Majlisi in “Bihar” (32/324); Burjardi “Jamiu ahadeth ash-shia” (13/93) transmitted:
٢٩٧ – قرب الإسناد: ابن طريف عن ابن علوان عن جعفر عن أبيه أن عليا (عليه السلام) كان يقول لأهل حربه: إنا لم نقاتلهم على التكفير لهم ولم نقاتلهم على التكفير لنا ولكنا رأينا أنا على حق ورأوا أنهم على حق.
٢٩٨ – قرب الإسناد: بالاسناد قال: إن عليا لم يكن ينسب أحدا من أهل حربه إلى الشرك ولا إلى النفاق ولكنه كان يقول: هم إخواننا بغوا علينا.
297 – Furat by his chain: ibn Tareef – Ibn Alwan – Jafar – Father – Ali (alaihi salam) who said about those who fought against him: We don’t fight with them due to their takfir, and don’t fight with them due to their takfir of us. But we see that we are upon truth, and they see that they are upon truth.
298 – Furat by his chain: Ali didn’t attribute anyone from those who fought with him to shirk or to hypocrisy, but he use to say: Our brothers which revolt against us.

5. Similar report is present in another shia book, From al-Wasail al-Shia:
عبدالله بن جعفر الحميري في ( قرب الإسناد ) عن هارون بن مسلم ، عن مسعدة بن زياد ، عن جعفر ، عن أبيه ان عليا ( عليه السلام ) لم يكن ينسب أحدا من أهل حربه إلى الشرك ولا إلى النفاق ، ولكنه كان يقول : هم إخواننا بغوا علينا

6. Abul Abbas Abdullah ibn Jafar al-Himayri narrated in his shia book “Qurub al-Isnad” book (p94/#318),

جعفر ، عن أبيه  : أن علياً  لم يكن ينسب أحداً من أهل حربه إلى الشرك ولا إلى النفاق ، ولكنه كان يقول : « هم إخواننا بغوا علينا »

Jafar from his father, Ali didn’t attributed anyone from those who fought against him to shirk and neither to hypocrisy, but he said: They our brothers which revolt against us.

And in the same book, at page 93, hadith 313:

جعفر ، عن أبيه : أن علياً  كان يقول لأهل حربه : « إنّا لم نقاتلهم على التكفير لهم ، ولم نقاتلهم على التكفير لنا ، ولكنّا رأينا أنّا على حق ، ورأوا أنهم على حق

Jafar from his father: Ali use to say about those who fought against him: We don’t fight them due to our takfir upon them, and don’t fight them due to their takfir upon us, just we see that we are upon thruth, and they see that they are upon truth.

 

Argument 14:

A Shia Stated:

[Quote] 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”.

The FITNA was planned in the house to which the Prophet (s) pointed towards and stated:

“Fitna (trouble/sedition) is right here,” saying three times, “from where the side of the Satan’s head comes out.”

[End Quote]

Firstly the main problem with the chain of this report is al Zuhri and the possibility of omitted narrator(s), i.e the authorities beyond al Zuhri appear undisclosed could apply here See Tarikh al Tabari (3/9 ). So it is a mursal(disconnected) narration of Al Zuhri and according to Ibn Ma’een and others Mursal narrations of Al Zuhri are weak and nothing.Thus this report is disconnected and should be rejected with a shadow of doubt.
Secondly, and importantly the matn(text) of this narration seems to be fabricated because , Ayesha(ra)’s house was in madina. Even the hadith which the religious slanderers tried to use against our beloved mother, in that hadeeth the words were said by Prophet(Saw) in Madina.

But here we find that the house mentioned in this report is the one which was in makkah not madina:
{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.}

So as per the narration, when these people went to makkah, ibn amir was there( in makkah), and another person arrived there, AND THEY GATHERED IN HZ AYESHA(RA) HOUSE. So here is the point where we should concentrate because they went to makkah, So naturally they gathered in makkah itself. So from where did the house of Ayesha(ra), which was in Makkah came here? Moreover Ayesha(ra) was not present in Madina when the martydom of Uthman(ra) took place, she didn’t enter Madina until the battle of Jamal ended.

Lastly, we would like to inform our readers that the shiawebsite asusual tried to play a trick inorder to deceive lay people. They cited the opinions of some Rijal scholars regarding the narrators present in the chain of this report, inorder to portray that this report is authentic. But the fact is that even if the narrators are trustworthy then that doesn’t make a report as authentic, since there could be disconnection in the chain(Isnad) of the report, or some other hidden defects. So we urge our esteemed readers, that they should never take words of Shias into account without proper examination, or consultation with respective Sunni scholar, because shias are religious deceivers. Like if its a hadeeth science related issue, they should consult with hadeth scholar, if the issue is related to Fiqh(jurisprudence) then they should consult that with a mufti, etc.

 

Argument 15

Shiawebsite[Answering-Ansar.org] Stated:

[Quote]

Imam Ali (as) accused Ayesha of incitement, not reconciliation. 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”.

[End Quote]

It is a mursal(disconnected) narration of Al Zuhri and according to Ibn Ma’een and others Mursal narrations of Al Zuhri are weak and nothing. The shiawebsite though mentioned that its chain is authentic, but this term doesn’t proves that the hadeeth as a whole is authentic, the term “chain is authentic” could even mean that the chain is disconnected, and it is to be rejected. That is why the scholar who verified the chain, didn’t authenticate the hadeeth as a whole.

 

Argument 16

Shiawebsite[Answering-Ansar.org] Stated:

[Quote]

In Al Istiab, one of Imam Ali [as]’s speeches is recorded in the following manner:

“When Ali marched for the battle of Jamal, Ali [ra] said from the pulpit: ‘Surely Allah required Jihad and made it the supporter (of religion) and the life does not become on rightness without it, and there is no (correct) faith without it, and I have been tried by four persons, the most clever and generous man Talha, the most brave man al-Zubair, the most obedient person for the people Aisha, and the fastest person responding to sedition Y’ala bin Umaya. By Allah no one condemned me for any abominable action, nor I did I monopolise the money nor am I inclined towards my desires. They (Talha, Zubayr and Aisha) ask the right for something which they themselves abandoned. They ask to avenge the blood, that they themselves shed. They were responsible for the killing of Uthman, to which I was not a party, but now they deny it. I was not a party to Uthman’s killing, and the only culprit party to pay for the killing of Uthman is this rebel group. They made their oath of allegiance to me and then broke it, and I accept the hujja of Allah on them”.

Al-Istiab, Volume 1 page 148 Biography of Rafa bin Rafe bin Malik
Al-Istiab, Volume 1 page 232 Biography of Talha bin Ubaidullah [End Quote]

It is a secondary source, not a primary one, and the narration contains no chain of transmission and in Islam a report without a chain, is like a body without a head. Which is unreliable without a shadow of doubt.

If the religious slanderers can provide a chain for this report then they are most welcomed. But if there isn’t a chain for these reports then we request them to abstain from deceiving people by using such chain-less reports.

 

Argument 17

Shiawebsite[Answering-Ansar.org] Stated:

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

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

The book that was quoted by religious slanderers is actually a book written by a shia scholar Sibt Ibn Al-Jawzi, thus its worth nothing in the sight of Ahlesunnah, since Shias are renowned for fabrications against mother of believers due to their enmity against her.

Here is some short information regarding this shia author.

Sibt ibn Al-Jawzi was a Rafidhi according to Dhahabi’s Meezan Al-E’itidal…
9880يوسف بن قزغلى الواعظ المؤرخ شمس الدين، أبو المظفر، سبط ابن الجوزى. روى عن جده وطائفة، وألف كتاب مرآة الزمان، فتراه يأتي فيه بمناكير الحكايات، وما أظنه بثقة فيما ينقله، بل يجنف ويجازف، ثم إنه ترفض. وله مؤلف في ذلك. نسأل الله العافية. مات سنة أربع وخمسين وستمائة بدمشق. (2 [ قال الشيخ محيى الدين السوسى: لما بلغ جدى موت سبط ابن الجوزى قال: لا رحمه الله، كان رافضيا. قلت: كان بارعا في الوعظ ومدرسا للحنفية ] 2).
(online link)

Al-Dhahabi said: “ He has authored (Miraat Al-Zaman) and included very odd narrations in it (manakir). I do not think he is thiqqa in things he reports rather he exaggerates and goes aside. He then converted to Rafidism , and authored a book to this effect. Shiekh Muhiydin said: When the news of Sibt Ibn Al-Jawzi’s death reached my grandfather, he said: “ May Allah not have mercy on him. He was a Rafidi”

Sibt Ibn Al-Jawzi (581H – 654H) [As-Siyar (23/296), Meezan Al-E’itedal (4/471): Yusuf bin Quzghuli, Abul Muzaffar Sibt Ibn Al-Jawzi Al-Hanafi. Grandson of Imam Abul Faraj Ibn Al-Jawzi. Scholar, Historian, famous for his speech. He was Hanbali but later on became Hanafi for worldly cause. He authored the history book “Mir’aatuz Zamaan” and tafseer “Ma’adin Al-Ibreez” in 29 volumes and several other books. He also authored a book “Tadhkirah Al-Khawwas” in which he talks about great scholars of Ahlul Bayt and Imams of shia sect. He had shi’ism in him as indicated by Imam Dhahabi and his book “Tadhkirat Al-Khawwas Al-Ummah” is also a proof for that wherein he talks bad about some companions and goes into extreme with regard to Ahlul Bayt. Also he was quite irresponsible in his history book, as indicated by Imam Dhahabi at several place in his “As-Siyar” and “Tarikh Al-Islam”.

We would like to provide one example from the book of this rafidi which will leave no doubt in the mind of readers that this person was a Shia Rafidi.

At page 321 of Tadhkira al khawas , Sibt ibn Jawzi makes tabarra on Umar(ra) and even insults his mother. Here are the Scan pages from his book.(SCAN PAGE).This leaves no doubt that Sibt ibn Jawzi was a Rafidi as stated by scholars of Ahlesunnah.

 

Argument 18

Shiawebsite[Answering-Ansar.org] Stated:

[Quote]

Ibn Jarir Tabari – Ziyaad bin Ayub – Muassab bin Sulaiman al-Tamimi – Muhammad – Asim bin Kulayb – his father:
During the time of Uthman bin Affan, I had a dream. I saw a man who was ruling the people while he was ill in bed, and a woman was by his head. The people were after him and hastened toward him and had she forbidden them, they would have stopped. But she did not, so they seized and killed him. I used to recount this dream of mine to everyone, whether settled or nomad, and they were surprised and did not know what it meant.
Then when Uthman was killed the news reached us as we were returning from a raid, and my companions said: ‘You dream Kulayb!’. When we got to Basrah, and we had not been there long when someone said: ‘Talha and al-Zubayr are coming and the Mother of the Faithful is with them’. This alarmed the people and they were surprised, but they were claiming to the people that they had only come out of anger over Uthman and in penance over the way they had not supported him. The Mother of the Faithful spoke up: “We became angry at Uthman on your behalf because of three things he did: giving command to youths, expropriating common property and beating (people) with whips and sticks”.

History of Tabari, English Edition, volume 16, pages 99-100 [End Quote]

One of the narrator in the chain of this report is Ibn Sulaiman at Tamimi. And he is known for some munkar(rejected) narrations and his alone narrations are not a proof for the people of hadith. Thus this report is rejected.

This narration is apparently a munkar narration, which goes against some historical facts and reports.

 

Argument  19

Shia website[Answering-ansar.org] States:

[Quote]Reply Two – Imam Ali (as) made it clear that Ayesha had no right to demand of Qisas for Uthman.

In Matalib al Saul, page 116 by Shaykh Mufti Kamaluddin Ibn Talha Shafiyee, we read that when Ayesha reached Basra, Ali wrote a letter to her, part of it stated here:

فخبريني ما للنساء وقود العسكر ، وزعمت أنك طالبة بدم عثمان ، وعثمان رجل من بني أمية وأنت امرأة من بنتي تيم بن مرة

“Tell me Ayesha what role do women have in leading armies and reforming the Ummah? You claim that you want to avenge Uthman’s blood, Uthman was a man from Banu Ummaya whilst you are a woman from Banu Taym Ibn Murra”.

Ibn al Hashimi might well argue that Ayesha was legally entitled to act for Uthman due through in law familial ties, but Imam Ali (as) certainly didn’t share such an assertion. This letter is clear proof that 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.

[End Quote]

Firstly, It is a secondary source, not a primary one, and the letter contains no chain of transmission. As such, this is yet another garbage reference provided by the Shias.

Secondly, declaring that the claim of Ayesha(ra) was false based on such letter will be irrational. Because anyone who has read history knows very well that, during the afflictions the biggest tool that was used by the rebels and the Sabaites was the forged letters.They forged letter in the name of Ali(ra), Uthman(ra), Talha(ra), Zubair(ra) and Ayesha(ra).

Here are few examples:

We read in Tareekh Al-Islam:[The rebels] had written forged letters in the names of Ali, Talha, Zubayr, and the Mothers of the Believers [i.e. Aisha], to their followers in Kufa, Basra, and Egypt…the letters emphasized that Uthman bin Affan was no longer able to shoulder the heavy burden of the Caliphate. Therefore the matter [i.e. the rebellion] should be brought to its climax in the month of Dhul-Hijjah. Encouraged by these forged letters, the rioters found it easy to indulge in acts of plunder, massacre, and doing away with the present Caliphate. They would not have otherwise [without the forged letters] mustered courage to plan an invasion.(Tareekh al-Islam, Vol.1, pp.412-413)

There were Sahabah who asked Aisha about the letters which were written in her name, to which Aisha declared in no uncertain terms that these words were falsely attributed to her. We read: Masrooq told her (Aisha): “This is the result of your work. You encouraged people to rebel against him (Uthman).” Aisha answered: “By the One who believers believe in and the disbelievers disbelieve in, I did not write them a single word.” Al-A’amash said, “It is to be known that words were forged in her name (and she did not know about it).” (Al-Bidayah wa Al-Nihayah, by Ibn Katheer, vol.7, p.204, with authentic chain of narrators)

We read: Letters were also forged to show that Ali, Talha, Zubair and other noted Companions had full sympathy with the movement. This led people to think that there was widespread unrest and that the leading Companions wanted to remove the Caliph…

“By Allah,” replied Ali, “I will have nothing to do with you (rebels).”

“Then why did you write letters to us?” they (the rebels) demanded.

“What letters?” said Ali in amazement. “By Allah, I never wrote to you anything.”

…They (the rebels) had been using Ali’s name to fan the fire of discontent. How could they see him stand by the side of the Caliph? So they forged the fateful letter.

(source: http://www.anwary-islam.com/companion/usman_bin_affan.htm)

Thus from these examples we come to know that forging letter had become a vital tool of the Sabaites and the rebels, So how could one declare that the claim of Ayesha(ra) was false based on mere letters attributed to Ali(ra)?

Thirdly, even the content in the letter proves that it was forged because those who forged it raised a silly question that what right did Ayesha(ra) had in demanding Qisas of Uthman(ra), When Uthman(ra) was a man from Banu Ummaya whilst Ayesha(ra) was a woman from Banu Taym Ibn Murra?. It seems that those who forged this letter, lacked some basic knowledge, because Uthman(ra) was the son in law of Prophet(saw), two of the daughters of Prophet(Saw) were married to Uthman(ra). So Uthman(ra) was the son in law of Ayesha(ra). This was sufficient proof to demand Qisas for Uthman.

Moreover, we read in Sahi buikhari 8.722: Narrated `Urwa:Aisha said, “When Allah’s Apostle died, his wives intended to send Uthman to Abu Bakr asking him for their share of the inheritance.” Then `Aisha said to them, “Didn’t Allah’s Apostle say, ‘Our (Apostles’) property is not to be inherited, and whatever we leave is to be spent in charity?’”

From this report we find that wives of Prophet(Saw) excluding Ayesha(ra) didn’t have any problem in taking the help of Uthman(ra) to demand a thing from the Caliph Abubakr(ra). None of them thought that we are not from the tribe of Uthman(ra) so how could we take his help. That is why even the time came to demand something for Uthman(ra) the other wives of Prophet(saw) decided to demand the Qisas of Uthman(ra) from Caliph Ali(ra). None of them had any problem from the tribe of Uthman(ra), inorder to demand something on his behalf.

We read in Al bidaya: Some people said : We should go to Madinah, and ask Ali(ra) to hand over the killers of Uthman to us and to kill them. And some people said : We should go to Basrah, and gain support from the forces there and we will begin from the killers of Uthman that are staying there. At the end , they agreed on it. And the mothers of the believers agreed with Aisha to go towards Madinah(Al bidaya, Vol. 7, p.305)

Moreover, there were people from Bani umayyah(uthman’s tribe) who were along with Ayesha(ra), if that letter was supposedly from Ali(ra) and Ali(ra) invalidated the claim of Ayesha(ra) due to her being not from the tribe of Uthman(ra) then what answer would Ali(ra) had given to those people who were from the tribe of Uthman(ra) who too demanded Qisas? And what would have Ali(ra) responded if the people from Bani umayya who were with Ayesha(ra) would have said that we invited Ayesha(ra) to join us in demanding the Qisas of Uthman(ra)? Thus such weak claim couldn’t have been made by Ali(ra) and those letter were a forgery by the Sabaites.

 

Argument 20

Shiawebsite[Answering-ansar.org] states:

[Quote]Could Ibn al Hashimi kindly elaborate 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.

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”

[End Quote]

[ screen shot of above quote]

This quote from one of the most popular and heavily relied website of shias, is a masterpiece to prove before our readers that what kind of ignorants(Jahils) are running this shiabwebsite which is blindly relied by lay shias.

What wonders us is that, though these ignorants who are behind this website haven’t read any books of history relating to battle of Jamal, yet they dare to accuse mother of believers of several things. It is apparent that the religious slanderers have no knowledge about the history related to battle of Jamal. Let us expose before our readers the academic status of those who wrote the articles on the most popular Shiawebsite[Answering-Ansar.org].

As we read above that the religious slanderers argued that, since Ayesha(ra) was living in MADINA, she should have approached Ali(ra) who was in Makkah, She shouldn’t have left her home of Madina. But the fact which the shia ignorants didn’t knew is that, Ayesha(ra) was in Makkah NOT in Madina. She was there in order to perform Hajj. So from where does the question of leaving the house of Madina raises? And Ali(ra) was in Madina not in Makkah. This shows that whole argument of religious slanderer was based on their assumptions.

We read in the book of history, Al bidaya wa nihaya: The wives of Prophet (s), the mothers of the believers went to Hajj to avoid the fitna that year (36 H.). And when the people came to know that Uthman has been murdered, they(mothers of believers) remained in Makkah, and even they(people) returned and stayed in Makkah.(Al bidaya, Vol. 7, p. 304)

Secondly, the religious slanderers argued that ,”they see no historical account of Ayesha ever using her arbitrary skills to engage with Caliph Ali”. Such arguments are obvious from ignorants who aren’t aware of the background of the Battle of Jamal.

We read in Al-Bidaya: Some people said, We should go to Madinah, and ask Ali(ra) to hand over the killers of Uthman to us and to kill them. And some people said : We should go to Basrah, and gain support from the forces there and we will begin from the killers of Uthman that are staying there. At the end , they agreed on it. And the mothers of the believers agreed with Aisha to go towards Madinah(Al bidaya, Vol. 7, p.305)

From this we come to know that Ayesha(ra) was from the group which held the opinion of going towards Madinah and asking Ali(ra) to punish the murderers of Uthman(ra). But the majority decided to go towards Basrah, this could be due to the reasons we find below:

We read in Al-Bidaya:Even though Ali(ra) used to dislike the rebels and the murders of Uthman(ra) but these people got respite due to the circumstances. And Ali(ra) thought that if we get control over them then we will take Qisas from them, But things turned around in such a way that these people over came Ali(ra). And they stopped some high ranking Sahaba(ra) from meeting Ali(ra). And a group of Bani Umayya and other people fled towards Makkah. (Al bidaya, Vol. 7, p. 304)

From this we come to know that, the murders of Uthman(ra) and the rebels were well integrated into Ali(ra)’s army and since they’ve increased dramatically in numbers and power. They stopped some sahaba(ra) to meet Ali(ra) who came to negotiate with Ali(ra) in regards to the Qisas of Uthman(ra). Due to this a group of Bani Umayyah fled to Makkah. So it was not as simple as the religious slanderers are trying to portray, regarding negotiating with Ali(ra) in regards to Qisas of Uthman(ra). It seems that Ayesha(ra) was made aware about all these things which were going in Madina by the people who fled from Madinah and came to Makkah. They might have suggested that, it would be useless to go for Madinah, because the rebels were already creating troubles for those who intended to demand Qisas of Uthman(ra). So going there could lead to another Fitnah in the sacred city of Prophet(Saw). That is why she left her opinion and agreed with the majority who decided to approach towards Basrah.

Thirdly, the shiawebsite quoted the books Matalib al Se’ul and Fusul ul Muhimma where they quoted a letter of Ayesha(ra) to Ali(ra). One of these books is a Shia books by Shia scholar. So please refer the answer for the above argument where we brought examples showing the forgeries in letters done by the Sabaites which were attributed to Ayesha(ra). Moreover these letter are even contradictory to other historical reports, because Ayesha(ra) didn’t have any problem with Ali(ra) but rather with the Sabaies(killers of Uthman) who were hidden in the army of Ali(ra) and Ayesha(ra) agreed on making peace with Ali(ra) unlike what the forged letter states that She said the difference between her and Ali(ra) was irreconcilable.

Al-Qa’qa ibn ‘Amro tried to make peace when ‘Ali sent him to Talha and al-Zubair telling him:
القَهذين الرجلين، فادعهما إلى الألفة والجماعة، وعظّم عليهما الاختلاف والفرقة.
“Meet them both and invite them with friendliness and kindness and show them the evils of disunity and separation.”

Al-Qa’qa’ told them: “tell me how you wish to fix this affair? Maybe if we knew it we would help you in your cause.”

They replied:
قتلةعثمان، رضي الله عنه، ولابد أن يُقتلوا، فإن تُركوا دون قصاص كان هذا تركًاللقرآن، وتعطيلاً لأحكامه، وإن اقُتصَّ منهم كان هذا إحياء للقرآن.
“The killers of ‘Uthman may Allah be pleased with him, they must be killed, if they are left without Qisas then this would be equal to leaving the Quran and disobeying its laws”

Al-Qa’qa’ ibn ‘Amro al-Tamimi who was an expert war strategist and a warrior that was almost an equal to Khalid ibn al-Walid said:
لقدكان في البصرة ستُّمائة من قتلة عثمان وأنتم قتلتموهم إلا رجلاً واحدًا، وهو حرقوصبن زهير السعدي، فلما هرب منكم احتمى بقومه من بنى سعد، ولما أردتم أخذه منهموقَتْله منعكم قومه من ذلك، وغضب له ستة آلاف رجل اعتزلوكم، ووقفوا أمامكم وقفةرجل واحد، فإنه تركتم حرقوصًا ولم تقتلوه، كنتم تاركين لما تقولون وتنادون بهوتطالبون عليًا به، وإن قاتلتم بنى سعد من أجل حرقوص، وغلبوكم وهزموكم وأديلواعليكم، فقد وقعتم في المحذور، وقوَّيتموهم، وأصابكم ما تكرهون، وأنتم بمطالبتكمبحرقوص أغضبتم ربيعة ومضر، من هذه البلاد، حيث اجتمعوا على حربكم وخذلانكم، نصرةلبنى سعد، وهذا ما حصل مع على، ووجود قتلة عثمان في جيشه.
“In al-Basarah there were six hundred from the killers of ‘Uthman and you have killed all of them except one and he is Hurqous bin Zuhair al-Sa’adi, when this man escaped from you, he sought refuge with his tribe of bani Sa’ad and when you asked them to hand the man over they refused and blocked you from it, as a result six thousand men became angry with you and stood united against you but if you left Hurqous and did not kill him while you keep asking ‘Ali to do it then you’d become from those who left the laws of the Quran as you said to me, on the other hand if you fight bani Sa’ad because of Hurqous and they defeat you then you’d be in a dire situation and they’d be strengthened by this and you’d hate for that to happen, I add that by asking for Hurqous you have also angered Bani Rabi’ah and the tribe of Mudr and have turned them into enemies as they have agreed on fighting you to support their allies bani Sa’ad and this is exactly what happened with ‘Ali when he tried to deal with the killers of ‘Uthman in his army.”

Ibn ‘Amro at this point had succeeded in convincing them of ‘Ali’s point of view so ‘Aisha decided to take his advice and ask his opinion on what should be done, he replied:
هذاأمر دواؤه التسكين، ولابد من التأني في الاقتصاص من قتلة عثمان، فإذا انتهتالخلافات، واجتمعت كلمة الأمة على أمير المؤمنين تفرغ لقتلة عثمان، وإن أنتمبايعتم عليًا واتفقتممعه، كان هذا علامة خير، وتباشير رحمة، وقدرة على الأخذ بثأر عثمان، وإن أنتمأبيتم ذلك، وأصررتم على المكابرة والقتال كان هذا علامة شر، وذهابًا لهذا الملك،فآثروا العافية ترزقوها، وكونوا مفاتيح خير كما كنتم أولاً، ولا تُعرَّضوناللبلاء، فتتعرضوا له، فيصرعنا الله وإياكم، وايم الله إني لأقول هذا وأدعوكم إليه،وإني لخائف أن لا يتم، حتى يأخذ الله حجته من هذه الأمة التي قلَّ متاعها، ونزلبها ما نزل، فإنّ ما نزل بها أمر عظيم، وليس كقتل الرجل الرجل، ولا قتل النفرالرجل، ولا قتل القبيلة القبيلة
“The only remedy for this affair is leniency and calmness we have to be cautious in the matter of Qisas and when the conflicts end and the nation is united under one word and you have agreed with him(‘Ali) then this would be a blessed sign so you should give baya’ah to ‘Ali that you may leave the matter of Qisas to him but if you insist on fighting then that would be a sign of evil so be the keys of goodness as you were before and do not expose us to hardships that will lead to both your destruction and ours. By Allah I say this and invite you to it and I fear that it may not be done…”

They replied to him by saying:
قدأحسنت وأصبت المقالة، فارجع، فإن قدم على، وهو على مثل رأيك، صلح هذا الأمر إن شاءالله
“You have said correct and truthful words so go back and when ‘Ali comes and he holds this opinion then know that this matter is resolved Insha-Allah.”
Tareekh al-Tabari 5/521, al-Bidayah wal-Nihayah 7/739.

Ali was pleased with what he heard and he sent two messengers to learn more about the opinions of Aisha and al-Zubair and they returned and told him that they are as al-Qa’qa’ had left them, ‘Ali then moved in with his army and the men were able to meet and they had no doubt that the matter was resolved as stated in tareekh al-tabari 5/539.

 

Argument 21

Shia scholar said in his book:

[Quote]How could Umm al-Mumineen Aishah leave her house in which Allah had ordered her to stay, when the most High said: “And stay in your houses and do not display your finery like the displaying of the ignorance of yours” Holy Quran 33:33. (Then I was Guided, p.117 ) [End Quote]

It seems that Shia scholar have no clue what he is arguing about, because Ayesha(ra) along with OTHER WIVES OF PROPHET(saw), left her home(of madinah) and went for Hajj before the martyrdom of Uthman took place. Ayesha(ra) and all those mothers of believers were not in their homes of Madina when the news of Uthman’s(ra) martyrdom reached them and all of them were not in their homes of Madina when they decided to demand for the Qisas of Uthman(ra).

Imam Ibn Katheer writes in his book: The wives of Prophet(saw), the mothers of the believers went to Hajj to avoid the fitna this year (36 H.). And when the people learnt that Uthman has been killed, they stayed in Mecca. (Al bidaya, Vol. 7, p. 304)

Comment: So are the religious slanderers going to slander ALL those wives of Prophet(saw) who went for Hajj? Why is Ayesha(ra) being singled out for this slander by the shias? This shows that how foolish, illogical and biased, the Shia slanders against Ayesha(ra) are.

For a detailed answer refer (Slander 35) under this link. [Click here]

 

Argument 22

Shiawebsite[Answering-Ansar.org] states:

[Quote]

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

[End Quote]

Hadith: Prophet, sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam, said to Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Hussain) I am in the state of war with those who have war against you, and peace with those who are in peace with you.

This hadith is weak, as it was stated by shaykhana Albani in “Silsila ad-daifa” #6028.

It was narrated from Abu Hurayra, Umm Salamah and Zayd ibn Arkam.

Hadith from Abu Hurayra:

Narrated by al-Hakim in “Mostadrak” (#4713), it’s in “Fadhail sahaba” (#1350), Tabarani in “al-Kabir” (#2555), al-Heythami in “Zawaid al-musnad”, Ahmad in “Musnad” (#9696), Hatib in “Tarih” (7/136/#3582).

Shaykh Shuayb Arnawut said chain is extremely weak in his notes on “Musnad”. In the chain Talid ibn Sulaiman. Ahmad said: “Shia, I don’t see problem in him”. Yahya ibn Maeen said: “Liar, abused Uthman”. Abu dawud said: “Rafidi, abused Abu Bakr and Umar”. Nasai said: “Not truthful”. (“Mizanul itidal” 1/358/#1339).  Ibn Jawzi in “Duafa wal matrukin” (1/155) narrated that Ahmad said Talid was liar, and Daraqutni said he’s weak.

Hadith from Zayd ibn Arkam.

Narrated by al-Hakim in “Mostadrak” (#4714), Tabarani in “al-Kabir” #2553 and in “as-Sagher” (#767), Tirmizi and ibn Majah in their “Sunnan” books, ibn Abu Shayba in “Mosanaf” (#32181), ibn Hibban in “Sahih” (#6997).

Chain is weak. It contains Asbat ibn Nasr al-Hamadane. Ibn Maeen said he’s thiqat. Abu Nuaym said he’s weak. Nasai said he’s not strong (“Mizanul itidal” 1/175/#712). Ibn Jawzi included him in “Duafa wal matrukin” (1/96).

Other problem Ismail ibn Abdurrahman as-Sudde. Very controversial person, scholars differed in him a lot.

Third problem is Sabeeh mawla of Umm Salama, imam Tirmizi said he’s not known (“Mizanul itidal” 2/307/#3860). This Sabeeh present almost in all ways till Zayd ibn Arkam. Difference in chains only in people before him, in some ways one weak narrator replaced by other weak one. Other chains contain such weak narrators like Sulaiman ibn Qarm, Hussain al-Ashqar

Ibn Asakir narrated in his “History” (14/157) via chain: Hussain ibn Hasan Ansare (that’s err in print, in real that’s Hasan ibn Hussain al-Aroone) from Ali ibn Hashim from his father from Abu Juhaf from Moslem ibn Sabih from Zayd ibn Arkam.

Ali ibn Hashim and his father. Both son and father known for their extreme shia beliefs. Ibn Hibban said about this Ali: “Extreme in at-tashayu, narrated rejected (data) from famous (narrators)”. Ibn Numayr said he’s munkar-alhadith. Ibn Maeen said he was thiqat  (“Mizanul itidal” 3/160/№5960).

Other problem Dawud ibn Abi Ouf Abu Juhaf. Ibn Adi said: “In my view he’s not strong, and not from those who should be rely on”. Ibn Maeen and Ahmad said he’s thiqat. He was from extreme of ahlal tashayu (Mizzi “Tahzib al-kamal” 8/#1779).

Next problem is Hussain al-Aroone. He was from head of tashayu. Ibn Adi said: “His ahadeth doesn’t look like ahadeth of thiqat” (“Mizanul itidal” 1/483/#1829).

Ibn Asakir narrated in his “History” (13/218) via chain: Abu Iskhaq from Zayd. Abu Ishkaq known for his tadlis, and he narrated it anana form, without making clear did he hear it himself or not. Most likely he didn’t met Zayd. Allah knows best.

Narration from Umm Salamah.

It was reported by ibn Asakir in his history (14/143-144) as a part of greater narration via chain: Muhammad ibn Suqat (محمد بن سوقة) from the one who narrated to him, from Umm Salamah.

Chain is weak due to unknown narrator.

 

Argument 23

Shiawebsite[Answering-Ansar.org] stated:

[Quote]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. [End Quote]

Al-Heythami in “Majmau zawaid” (#12031) said: “It was narrated by al-Bazzar, in the chain is Sad ibn Shuayb, I don’t know him, and other narrators are people of “Saheeh”.

We’d like to note that the comment from scholars like, “narrators from people of “Saheeh”, doesn’t mean chain is upright.

It was also narrated by Hateeb in “Tarih” (14/322, 6/312 shamela) from Umma Salamah, with wording: “Ali is with truth, and truth is with Ali, and they would never separate until they would reach me at pool”.

In the chain is Yusuf ibn Muhammad ibn Ali, from him people narrated manakeer(rejected reports) (“Mizanul itidal” 4/473/#9885). In the chain is Ali ibn Hisham ibn Burayd with his father. Both were known for their extreme shia beliefs. Ibn Hibban said about this narrator Ali: “Extreme in at-tashayu, narrated rejected (data) from famous (narrators)”. Ibn Numayr said he’s munkar-alhadith. Ibn Maeen said he was thiqat (“Mizanul itidal” 3/160/№5960).

Also in the chain Abdussalam ibn Salih. Abul Hasan Ali ibn Muhammad ibn al-Arraq al-Kinani in “Tanziru sharia” (1/79/#166) said: “Abdussalam ibn Salih Abu Salt al-Harwi was accused in lie by more than one scholar”.Abu Abdullah al-Hakim in “al-Madkhal ila sahih” (#139) said: “Abdussalam ibn Salih ibn Sulayman Abu Salt al-Harwi. Narrated from Khammad ibn Ziyad, Abu Moawiyah, Abbad ibn al-Awam and other rejected stories”. Same opinion was quoted by Abu Nuyam al-Isfahani in “Kitabu duafa” (#140).Uqayli said about this narrator: “Rafidi habidh”, ibn Adi said: “Accused”. Nasai said: “Not tuthful”. Daraqutni said: “Habidh rafidi, was accused in fabrication of hadith: “Faith is by accepting by heart”. (“Mizanul itidal” 2/616/#5051). Zakariya Saji said: “He narrated munkar stories, and he was weak due to their opinion”. And it was reported from Uqayli that he said about Abu Salt: “Liar”. Naqash said: “Narrated manakir”.Muhammad ibn Takhar said: “Liar”. (“Tahzib attahzib” 6/286) Hafidh al-Khalili in “Irshad” (3/873) said: “He wasn’t strong due to their opinion”. Imam Zeylai al-Hanafi in “Nasbu rayi” (1/345), ibn Rajab in “Fathkul bare” (6/412) and ibn Hajar in “Tahrij ahadeth kashaf” (2/465) said: “Abandoned”.

Next problem in this chain is Abu Saed at-Tayme, his name was Uqayza. He also was shia. Nasai said about him: “Not strong”. Daraqutni said: “Matruk al-hadith”. Saade said: “Not truthful”. Ibn Maeen said: “Nothing”. Bukhari said: “They spoke against him”. (“Lisanul mizan” 2/p 433). Also in the chain Abu Thabit mawla of Abu Dharr, and I couldn’t find any info on him.

Thus this hadeeth is not authentic in regards to its chain(sanad).

Moreover we know from authentic reports that Ali(ra) was NOT ALWAYS correct, for example when he burned people alive during his Caliphate, though it was prohibited by Prophet(Saw), etc. So one cannot follow Ali(ra) in this regards claiming that truth is with Ali(ra).

We would like to add few points.

1. Aisha, Ali and Muawiya [r.a.a] did ijtihad and at that time it was not clear who is on Haq.

2. The Muslims learnt that Ali [ra] is on Haq later on after he fought Khawarij and the other incidents happened. Which shows that Prophet(saw) didn’t say that hadeeth, moreover we find authentic reports where Prophet(Saw) just prophesized the group which would be nearer to truth, and its signs. But he(saw) didn’t name the person who would lead that group. That’s why the Muslims learnt that Ali(ra) was on Haq later on when he fought Khawarij.

3. It was not that Aisha and Muawiyah had made some baseless ijtihad, there were sound reasons for their ijtihad, Qisas is a right given by the Holy Quran and if someone asks for the right which Quran gives him, then he is not on batil.

They also based their ijtihad on some prophetic hadeeths that show and clear that Uthman would be killed as an innocent and describes the rebels as hypocrites. Al-Turmithi and Ibn Majah narrated from Aisha who says: The prophet peace be upon him said: “O’ Uthman! If Allah one day gave you the leadership of this nation, and the hypocrites wanted you to remove your clothes which Allah had gave you, then do not do it.” The prophet said that three times. [Sunan Ibn Majah, Book of “Virtues of the Companions of the Prophet peace be upon him,” #112. See also Saheeh Ibn Majah #90]

Ka’ab bin Murrah testified for Uthman’s innocence once in front of Mu’awiyah’s army, and said: If it were not for a hadeeth that I heard from the prophet peace be upon him, then I would not have taken a stand (did not support Mu’awiyah to punish Uthman’s murderers) and the prophet mentioned the afflictions and acknowledged them. Then a masked man passed by so the prophet peace be upon him said: “This guy at these (affliction) days is on guidance.” So I went to the masked man and he was Uthman bin Affan. I took Uthman to the prophet and asked him: “This one?” The prophet answered: “Yes.”) [Al-Tirmithi, Book of “The Virtues,” #3704. See also Saheeh Al-Turmithi #2922]

Also, Abdullah bin Shaqeeq bin Murrah says: The prophet peace be upon him said: “Afflictions would agitate on earth as the horns of cows” Then a masked man passed by and the prophet peace be upon him said: “This guy and his companions at these (affliction) days would be on the right path.” So I went to this guy and unmasked him and took him to the messenger of Allah peace be upon him and I asked: “O’ Messenger of Allah, is he the one?” The prophet said: “He is.” He was Uthman bin Affan.) [Musnad Ahmad, Book of “Virtues of the Companions,” vol.1, p.449-450, #720. The Examiner of the book said that this hadeeth has a true attribution.]

So they thought that they were right in the light of these sayings of Prophet(saw) and that they were on guidance especially when they knew that the hypocrite rebels against Uthman were in the army of Ali.

 

Argument 24

A Shia Stated:

[Quote] Its is reported in the books of Sunnis that :

Ali with Quran and Quran with Ali, they wouldn’t separate until reach (me) at the pool.

So how could Ayesha assume that if they follow the decision of Imam Ali(as) then they might end up leaving Quran and disobeying its laws?

[End Quote]

Hadeeth:Ali with Quran and Quran with Ali, they wouldn’t separate until reach (me) at the pool.

Imam Hakeem narrated it in his “Mostadrak” (#4604), and Tabarani narrated these words in “al-Awsat” and “as-Sagher”.

All chains are weak.

Chain in “Mostadrak” contains Amr ibn Hammad ibn Talha al-Qanade. He was truthful narrator, but from the rafidah (“Mizanul itidal” 3/254/№6353). Second and third problem are Ali ibn al-Hashim ibn Burayd and his father al-Hashim ibn Burayd. Both son and father known for their extreme shia beliefs. Ibn Hibban said about this Ali: “Extreme in at-tashayu, narrated rejected (data) from famous (narrators)”. Ibn Numayr said he’s munkar-alhadith. Ibn Maeen said he was thiqat  (“Mizanul itidal” 3/160/№5960). Next problem in this chain is Abu Saed at-Tayme, his name was Uqayza. He also was shia. Nasai said about him: “Not strong”. Daraqutni said: “Matruk al-hadith”. Saade said: “Not truthful”. Ibn Maeen said: “Nothing”. Bukhari said: “They spoke against him”. (“Lisanul mizan” 2/p 433). Also in the chain Abu Thabit mawla of Abu Dharr, and I couldn’t find any info on him.

As for narration in books of Tabarani, al-Heythami in “Majmau zawaid” (#14767) said: “Narrated Tabarani in “al-Awsat” and “as-Sagher” in the chain Salih ibn Abu Aswad, and he’s weak”. It’s worse to mention that Hisham ibn Burayd and Abu Saed at-Taymi present in both of these chains.

Shaykhana Albani said this hadith is weak in “Daif al-jame” (#3802).

 

Argument 25

Shiawebsite[Answering-Ansar.org] Stated:

[Quote]

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).

[End Quote]

Albani said this hadith is weak in “Silsila ad daifa” (#4892). Chain of this hadith is weak, in it Yahya ibn Yala. Shaykh Albani said that it’s Aslami. The problem is that in the same time there were two narrators with similar name. Yahya ibn Yala al-Aslami, and he was weak, and Yahya ibn Yala at-Taymi, and he was good. Hassan ibn Hammad, next narrator in this chain use to narrate from both of them. The problem is solved by next narrator in chain. Ibn Yala narrated it from Basam ibn Abdullah as-Sayrafe. Ibn Adi in “Kamil fi duafa” (7/233) in the bio of Yahya ibn Yala al-Aslami cited this hadith via the same chain: Hassan ibn Hammad as-Sadjadat – Yahya ibn Yala – Bassam ibn Abdullah as-Sayrafe. In the very same place of that book, ibn Adi noticed that this hadith from Bassam isn’t known in the transmission of any one other than Yahya ibn Yala.

In “Mizanul itidal” (4/415/№9657) regarding this ibn Yala we can see scholars saying: Abu Khatim: Weak. Buhkari: His ahadeth are mixed.

Moreover as we mentioned earlier that, what all happened between some Sahaba and Ali(ra) was due to their Ijtihad. And we know from authentic hadeeth that those who did wrong ijtihad will get one reward. Inshallah.

But we think it will be very difficult for the religious slanderers to digest this response because they have crossed all the limits in fabricating reports for obedience to Ali(ra). We find that Shia scholar, Ibn Yusuf al-Hilli in his book , Kashf al-yaqin, p 8, wrote:

فَأوحَى اللهُ تَعالَى إلَيهِ: حَمَدتنِي عَبدِي! وَعِزَّتي وَجَلالِي لَولاَ عَبدَانِ أُرِيدُ أنْ أخلُقَهُما فِي دَارِ الدُّنيَا مَا خَلقتُكَ. قَالَ: إلَهي فَيكُونانِ مِنِّي؟ قَال: نَعَمْ!َ يَا آدَمُ ارفَعْ رَأسَكَ وَانظُرْ. فَرفعَ رَأسَهُ فإذا هُوَ مَكتُوبٌ علَى العَرشِ: لاَ إلَهَ إلاَّ اللهُ، مُحَمَّدٌ نَبِيُّ الرَّحمَةِ، عَلِيٌّ مُقِيمُ الحُجَّةِ. وَمَن عرَفَ حَقَّ عَليٍّ زَكا وَطابَ. ومَنْ أنكَرَ حَقَّهُ لُعِنَ وَخابَ. أَقسَمْتُ بِعزَّتي أُدخِلُ الجَنَّةَ مَن أطاعَهُ وَإن عَصانِي. وَأقْسَمتُ بِعزَّتِي أُدخِلُ النَّارَ مَن عَصاهُ وإنْ أطَاعنِي.
Allah revealed to him: My slave! Now that you praised me, by My glory, were if not for the sake of two of my servants, I would never have created you. Adam said: O my God! Are those two worthy servants from my issue? (Allah answered): Yes. Now raise your hand and behold what you see. An he raised his head and saw an inscription on the Arsh: There is no god but Allah and Muhammad (the prophet of mercy) is His Messenger and `Ali is Allah’s proof for the people. Whoever recognizes `Ali’s right, he is pure inwardly and whoever denies his right will be deprived from my mercy and will suffer. I swear by My glory that whoever obeys `Ali, I will give him a place in heaven even if he disobey Me, if anyone disobeys him, I will punish him with fire even if he has obeyed me.
Comment: So from this report it seems that according to these people obeying to Ali (r.a) is more important than obeying to Allah!

 

Argument 26

Shiawebsite[Answering-Ansar.org] Stated:

[Quote]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) [Quote]

Again a stupid argument from Shiawebsite that since Ayesha(ra) regretted then that means she was misguided. But it seems the religious slanderers who raised this stupid argument weren’t aware that there are reports where we find that even Ali(ra) regretted. So according to this stupid logic of shiawebsite this implies that even Ali(ra) was misguided. Though this is not the view of Ahlesunnah.

Here are few reports from which we find that even Ali(ra) regretted after the battle of jamal.

1590 وَقَالَ الْحَسَنُ الْبَصْرِيُّ ، عَنْ قَيْسِ بْنِ عَبَّادٍ ، قَالَ : قَالَ عَلِيٌّ يَوْمَ الْجَمَلِ : ” يَا حَسَنُ ، لَيْتَ أَبَاكَ مَاتَ مُنْذُ عِشْرِينَ سَنَةً ، فَقَالَ لَهُ : يَا أَبَتِ قَدْ كُنْتُ أَنْهَاكَ عَنْ هَذَا ، قَالَ : ” يَا بُنَيَّ لَمْ أَرَ أَنَّ الأَمْرَ يَبْلُغُ هَذَا

Hassan basri from Qais – who said that Ali said on the day of Jamal : O Hassan, O Hassan, may your father had died twenty years ago. Hassan said to him : O father, I told you about this. Ali said : O son, I didn’t thought that this matter (the bloodshed) would reach to this extent. (Tareekh al islam, al dhahabi)
قال سعيد بن أبي عروبة ، عن قتادة ، عن الحسن ، عن قيس بن عباد قال : قال علي يوم الجمل : يا حسن ، يا حسن ، ليت أباك مات منذ عشرين سنة . فقال له : يا أبه قد كنت أنهاك عن هذا . قال : يا بني إني لم أر أن الأمر يبلغ هذا
Saeed – Qatadah – Hassan – Qais – who said that Ali said on the day of Jamal : O Hassan, O Hassan, may your father had died twenty years ago. Hassan said to him : O father, I told you about this. Ali said : O son, I didn’t thought that this matter (the bloodshed) would reach to this extent. (al bidaya wan nihaya)

Ali (ra) would go to al-Hassan (ra) and hug him as recorded in al-Bidayah wal-Nihayah7/521:
وضمّهإلى صدره، وصار يبكى ويقول له: يا بُنى، ليت أباك مات قبل هذا اليوم بعشرين عامًا.فقال الحسن: يا أبت، لقد كنت نهيتك عن هذا، فقال على: ما كنت أظن أن الأمر سيصلإلى هذا الحد، وما طعمُ الحياة بعد هذا؟ وأيُّ خير يُرجى بعد هذا؟
‘Ali hugged al-Hassan and said while he cried: “O my son, I wish your father had died twenty years before this day.” Then al-Hassan would tell him: “Dear father, I told you not to do it.” ‘Ali said: “I never thought it would come to this, what taste life has after this? What goodness would come after this?”

Tabarani narrated from Qays ibn Ubad with good (jayid)[2] chain: “I witness Ali in the day of Camel, he said to his son al-Hasan: “I wish to die 20 years before”. (“Majmau zawaid” #14824).

Tabarani narrated from Talha ibn Musrif: “When Ali reached Talha ibn Ubeydullah, he was already dead. He dismounted and sat near him. He was rubbing his face and beard (from dust) asking mercy for him, and saying: “Wow to me! I wish to die 20 years before this”.(Al-Heythami in “Majmau zawaid” (#14823) said: “Chain is al-Hasan”).

Secondly, the shiawebsite[Answering-ansar.org] raises another foolish argument that, {“she may have regretted her participation in the battle, but she NEVER expressed nor sought forgiveness for her opposition against the Imam Ali”}. This argument shows that how narrow minded the shias are when it comes to wives of Prophet(Saw). What is the difference between participating in a battle which is fought against Ali(ra) AND opposing against Ali(ra)? If seen from sensible perspective then we will not find any difference between them because both are related to each other, So if someone regrets over participating in the battle against a person then that regression even applies to opposing that person.

Moreover Ayesha(ra) cleared this argument when she expressed her intentions.

ولما أرادت أم المؤمنين عائشة الخروج من البصرة بعث إليها علي رضي الله عنه بكل ما ينبغي من مركب وزاد ومتاع وغير ذلك وأذن لمن نجا ممن جاء في الجيش معها – أن يرجع إلا أن يحب المقام، واختار لها أربعين امرأة من نساء أهل البصرة المعروفات وسير معها أخاها محمد بن أبي بكر، فلما كان اليوم الذي ارتحلت فيه، جاء علي فوقف على الباب وحضر الناس وخرجت من الدار في الهودج فودعت الناس ودعت لهم وقالت: يا بني لا يعتب بعضنا على بعض إنه والله ما كان بيني وبين علي في القديم إلا ما يكون بين المرأة وأحمائها فقال علي: صدقت والله ما كان بيني وبينها إلا ذاك وإنها لزوجة نبيكم صلى الله عليه وسلم في الدنيا والآخرة وسار علي معها مودعاً ومشيعاً أميالاً، وسرح بنيه معها بقية ذلك اليوم وكان يوم السبت مستهل رجب سنة ست وثلاثين، وقصدت في سيرها ذلك إلى مكة، فأقامت بها إلى أن حجت عامها ذلك ثم رجعت إلى المدينة رضي الله عنها)

Translation: And when the mother of believers Aisha wanted to leave Basarah, Ali (RA) sent her provisions from food and clothing and all supplies which were necessary, he permitted for all those who came with her in the army to leave unless they preferred to stay, he chose for her forty of the finest women of Basarah to accompany her as well as her brother Muhammad Ibn Abu Bakr (RA), When the day of her departure came Ali stood by the door and so did the people, she came out and bid them farewell and made Dua for them and said: “O son there is no admonition between us, ‘By Allāh! There was nothing between me and `Alī except what ensues between the woman and her in-laws.” Ali then said: “By Allah she speaks the truth there was nothing except that between us and she is the wife of your prophet PBUH in this life and in the hereafter.” Ali then walked with her a long distance, it was on a Saturday in Rajab of the thirty sixth year of Hijra, she sought Mecca and remained there until she made the Hajj of that year then returned to Madinah may Allah be pleased with her.[Source: Al bidayah wal nihayah 7/268-269 ).

Similar report is present in shia books:

اللهم إنهم شرار أمتي يقتلهم خيار أمتي، وما كان بيني وبينه إلا مايكون بين المرأة وأحمائه

When Aisha (RA) heard that Ali (RA) was fighting and killing the Khawarij she said: By Allah I heard the prophet PBUH say: “O Lord they are the worst of my nation being killed by the best of my nation” Then she said:” There was nothing between me and him(Ali) except what ensues between the woman and her in-laws.” [(It is found in the Shia book kashf al Ghummah by al Arbili 1/159 or page 158.)(It is found in Bihar al Anwar by the Shia Al Majlisi 33/332-333.)]

 

Argument 27

Shia website[Answering-Ansar.org] stated:

[Quote]Ayesha’s refusal to be buried next to Rasulullah (s) negates the defence of correctly interpreted ijtihad

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:

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’. [Quote]

As we can see the Shias obviously have no evidence for claiming that the reason Ayesha(ra) didn’t want to get buried next to Prophet(Saw) was due to feeling guilty of her sins. These are just the speculations of Shias.

Let us present before you the narration from which they made this speculation.

Sahi 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).”

Comment: From the portion of hadeeth highlighted in blue we find that, Ayesha(ra) herself clarified that why she wants to be buried somewhere else. And it was because, she didn’t like to be regarded as sanctified.

Imam Ibn Hajar provided an explanation for this:

أي أن يثني علي أحد بما ليس في , بل بمجرد كوني مدفونة عنده دون سائر نسائه فيظن أني خصصت بذلك من دونهن , لمعنى في ليس فيهن وهذا منها في غاية التواضع .

Ibn Hajar is basically saying that the reason why Aisha did this was out of modesty and humbleness. She didn’t want people to think that she was special and singled out of the Prophet’s wives to the extent that she be buried next to the Prophet.

As for the other reference provided by Shiawebsite from Iqd al-Fareed, then this is a garbage reference. Iqd al-Fareed is not a history book at all, but rather it is a literary novel that contains elements of fiction in it. Perhaps tomorrow the Shia will quote from a few Nancy Drew novels or maybe Sidney Sheldon’s thrillers and claim that these are authentic history books. Furthermore, the author of Iqd al-Fareed was Ibn Abd Rabuh who was well known for his pro-Shia inclinations.

Ibn Abu Rabuh’s book, Iqd al-Fareed, is a chain-less literary piece in which his inclusion criteria is only that the text be eloquent Arabic; the text in his book was chosen not for its historical accuracy or authenticity, but rather his book was a compilation of any text that was eloquent in nature. As such, the author of Iqd al-Fareed included texts from Shia sources so long as they were eloquently written. The Shia are well-known for their dedication to poetry so it is not at all strange that Ibn Abd Rabuh would include their texts.

 

Argument 28

Shiawebsite[Answering- Ansar.org] stated:

[Quote]Ayesha’s tears over her role at Jamal negates the defence of correctly interpreted ijtihad.
Al Muhaddith Shah Abdul Aziz Dehlavi in Tauhfa Ithna Ashariyyah page 385 and Ibn Taymiyya in Minhajj as Sunnah Volume 2 page 185 both record that:

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

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

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

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

Yes Ayesha(ra) wept even Ali(ra) wept, and everyone who had love for the Muslims wept.

Ibn Abi Shayba narrated in his Mosannaf  from Abu Jafar:
37774 – حدثنا أبو أسامة عن خالد بن أبي كريمة عن أبي جعفر قال جلس علي وأصحابه يوم الجمل يبكون على طلحة والزبير
That Ali and his companions sat down on the day of Jamal and cried upon Talha and Zubair.

Ali (ra) would go to al-Hassan (ra) and hug him as recorded in al-Bidayah wal-Nihayah7/521:
وضمّهإلى صدره، وصار يبكى ويقول له: يا بُنى، ليت أباك مات قبل هذا اليوم بعشرين عامًا.فقال الحسن: يا أبت، لقد كنت نهيتك عن هذا، فقال على: ما كنت أظن أن الأمر سيصلإلى هذا الحد، وما طعمُ الحياة بعد هذا؟ وأيُّ خير يُرجى بعد هذا؟
‘Ali hugged al-Hassan and said while he cried: “O my son, I wish your father had died twenty years before this day.” Then al-Hassan would tell him: “Dear father, I told you not to do it.” ‘Ali said: “I never thought it would come to this, what taste life has after this? What goodness would come after this?”

Tabarani narrated from Talha ibn Musrif: “When Ali reached Talha ibn Ubeydullah, he was already dead. He dismounted and sat near him. He was rubbing his face and beard (from dust) asking mercy for him, and saying: “Wow to me! I wish to die 20 years before this”.(Al-Heythami in “Majmau zawaid” (#14823) said: “Chain is al-Hasan”).

So now we find that even Ali(ra) regretted and cried even though he was on Haq, So are the foolish shias going to argue that the regression of Ali(ra) proves that he was incorrect and that he thought that he wouldn’t be forgiven?

And since Ali(ra) cried and wished that he had died twenty years before that day, then does it mean that he didn’t consider himself on Haq and he thought that he wouldn’t be forgiven?

When the religious slanderers will ponder over these questions, then they will not dare to raise such stupid claims against wife of Prophet(saw) due to her similar actions.

 

Argument 29

Shiawebsite[Answering-Ansar.org] Stated:

[Quote]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” [Quote]

[Screen shot of above quote]

The religious slanderers quoted a chapter(Mawaddatul Saum) from the book Mawaddat ul Qurba. The writer of Mawaddat ul Qurba was a Shia. His name was Sayyid `Ali Hamadani, he is well known as a liar and a fabricator of ahadith among the Ahle Sunnah, only the shi’ites keep referring to him as a “Shafi’i Faqih” in order to fool the ignorant.

Ali Hamadani received his education from his maternal uncle Ala-ul-Daulah Samnani. Now who is Ala ul Daulah Samnani? This is the same man who is often referred by shia as a Sunni-Shafi, where as he was a famous Shia-sufi and Shia poet. Aga Buzurg Tehrani considered Ala-ul Daulah Samnani to be a Shia in his book “Al-Thareea”, which is an Encyclopedia on Shia books.

آداب الخلوة) للعارف ركن الدين علاء الدولة أحمد بن محمد البيابانكي السمناني المتوفى ليلة الجمعة الثاني من رجب سنة 736 ذكره في كشف الظنون، واستظهر تشيعه القاضي في المجالس من بعض كلماته في كتابه الفلاح وبيان الاحسان وغيرهما – الذريعة إلى تصانيف الشيعة – ج 1 – ص 18 – رقم 84

البيابانكي = أحمد بن محمد بن أحمد السمناني، علائي – مشــاهير شــعراء الشيـعة – عبد الحسين الشبستري – ج 5 – الفهرست 1 – رقم البيابانكي

So one shouldn’t have any doubt that the person who received his religious education from his Shia uncle and who was brought up by his Shia uncle, Ala ul Dulah was also a Shia.

Moreover the above fabricated report contradicts other shia ahadeeth and Sunni ahadeeth, as well as other historical facts, which shows that Ali(ra) never considered the ones who fought as kaafirs or hypocrites.

1. Ibn Abe Shayba reported in “Mosannaf”:
حدثنا أبو أسامة قال حدثنا مسعر عن ثابت بن عبيد قال : سمعت أبا جعفر يقول : لم يكفر أهل الجمل
“From Abo Othaama, reported to me Musaar, from Thaabet ibn Ubayd: I heard Abu Jafar said: he (see Ale) did not declare the people of jamal as disbelievers”.

2.

16490 – أخبرنا أبو عبد الله الحافظ أنبأ أبو الوليد الفقيه ثنا الحسن بن سفيان ثنا أبو بكر بن أبي شيبة ثنا يزيد بن هارون عن شريك عن أبي العنبس عن أبي البختري قال سئل علي رضي الله عنه عن أهل الجمل أمشركون هم قال من الشرك فروا قيل أمنافقون هم قال إن المنافقين لا يذكرون الله إلا قليلا قيل فما هم قال إخواننا بغوا علينا

(Source: Beykhake “Sunnan al-kubra” vol 8, p 173. Tahkeek by Muhammad AbdulQader Ata.)

“Abu Bukhture asked Ale (r.a) about people of Jamal. “Are they mushreeks?”. He replied: “They ran from shirk”. Then i asked: “Are they hypocrites?” He replied: “Hypocrites use to mention Allah seldom”. He was asked: “Then who are they?”. Ale(ra) replied: “They are our brothers that rebel against us”.

This narration was also reported by Ibn Abi Shayba narrated in his Mosannaf:

37763 – حدثنا يزيد بن هارون عن شريك عن أبي العنبس عن أبي البختري قال سئل علي عن أهل الجمل قال قيل أمشركون هم قال من الشرك فروا قيل أمنافقون هم قال إن المنافقين لا يذكرون الله إلا قليلا قيل إخواننا بغوا علينا

Narrated to me Yazeed ibn Haron from Sherik from Abul Anbasa from Abul Bukhturi which said that Ali was asked about people of Jamal, were they mushriks? He said they flee from shirk. It was said were they hypocrites? He said hypocrites doesn’t mention Allah except a little. It was said (by Ali, as it obvious): Our brothers which revolt against us. “Mosannaf” ibn Abu Shayba, Maktabatul Rashid-Riad 1409

3. And ibn Abi Sheiba narrated from Abu Jafar:
37768 – حدثنا أبو أسامة قال حدثنا مسعر عن ثابت بن عبيد قال سمعت أبا جعفر يقول لم يكفر أهل الجمل

That he said: “Didn’t accuse people of Jamal in kufr”.
Comment: Obviously he was talking about Ali.

Chain: Abu Usama (Hammad ibn Usama, thiqat(trustworthy)) – Musa`r (ibn Kadam Abu Salamah al-Kufi al-Hilali, thiqat) – Thabit ibn Ubayd (al-Ansari, mawla of Zayd ibn Thabit, thiqat). Grading taken from Taqrib of ibn Hajar.

4. Shia scholars Majlisi in “Bihar” (32/324); Burjardi “Jamiu ahadeth ash-shia” (13/93) transmitted:
٢٩٧ – قرب الإسناد: ابن طريف عن ابن علوان عن جعفر عن أبيه أن عليا (عليه السلام) كان يقول لأهل حربه: إنا لم نقاتلهم على التكفير لهم ولم نقاتلهم على التكفير لنا ولكنا رأينا أنا على حق ورأوا أنهم على حق.
٢٩٨ – قرب الإسناد: بالاسناد قال: إن عليا لم يكن ينسب أحدا من أهل حربه إلى الشرك ولا إلى النفاق ولكنه كان يقول: هم إخواننا بغوا علينا.
297 – Furat by his chain: ibn Tareef – Ibn Alwan – Jafar – Father – Ali (alaihi salam) who said about those who fought against him: We don’t fight with them due to their takfir, and don’t fight with them due to their takfir of us. But we see that we are upon truth, and they see that they are upon truth.
298 – Furat by his chain: Ali didn’t attribute anyone from those who fought with him to shirk or to hypocrisy, but he use to say: Our brothers which revolt against us.

5. Similar report is present in another shia book, From al-Wasail al-Shia:
عبدالله بن جعفر الحميري في ( قرب الإسناد ) عن هارون بن مسلم ، عن مسعدة بن زياد ، عن جعفر ، عن أبيه ان عليا ( عليه السلام ) لم يكن ينسب أحدا من أهل حربه إلى الشرك ولا إلى النفاق ، ولكنه كان يقول : هم إخواننا بغوا علينا

6. Abul Abbas Abdullah ibn Jafar al-Himayri narrated in his shia book “Qurub al-Isnad” book (p94/#318),

جعفر ، عن أبيه  : أن علياً  لم يكن ينسب أحداً من أهل حربه إلى الشرك ولا إلى النفاق ، ولكنه كان يقول : « هم إخواننا بغوا علينا »

Jafar from his father, Ali didn’t attributed anyone from those who fought against him to shirk and neither to hypocrisy, but he said: They our brothers which revolt against us.

And in the same book, at page 93, hadith 313:

جعفر ، عن أبيه : أن علياً  كان يقول لأهل حربه : « إنّا لم نقاتلهم على التكفير لهم ، ولم نقاتلهم على التكفير لنا ، ولكنّا رأينا أنّا على حق ، ورأوا أنهم على حق

Jafar from his father: Ali use to say about those who fought against him: We don’t fight them due to our takfir upon them, and don’t fight them due to their takfir upon us, just we see that we are upon thruth, and they see that they are upon truth.

 

Argument 30

Shiawebsite[Answering-Ansar.org] stated:

[Quote]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. [Quote]

This report was narrated from Abu Layla al-Ghifari.

Ibn Abdulbar said in Istiab (4/307):
فيه إسحاق بن بشر ممن لا يحتج بنقله إذ انفرد لضعفه ونكارة حديثه
In the chain. Ishaq ibn Bishr is from those, whose report should not be relied upon if he stayed alone in narrating due to his weakness.

Moreover this weak report even contradicts the authentic reports where Prophet(Saw) commanded his companions to avoid fitna altogether instead of participating in it and following any of the groups. This makes the above hadeeth to be munkar.

Now a few authentic narrations about how the Muslims should act during the time of Fitnah:

قالالحسن: ان عليا بعث إلى محمد بن مسلمة فجيء به فقال ما خلفك عن هذا الأمر قال دفع اليبن عمك يعني النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم سيفا فقال:” قاتل به ما قوتل العدو فإذارأيت الناس يقتل بعضهم بعضا فاعمد به إلى صخرة فاضربه بها ثم الزم بيتك حتى تأتيك منيةقاضية أو يد خاطئة”، قال خلوا عنه” . مسند أحمد بن حنبل : ج 4 ص: 225 ،وقالالشيخ شعيب الأرنؤوط:حسن بمجموع طرقه
al-Hassan ibn ‘Ali (ra) said: ‘Ali called for Muhammad ibn Muslimah so he was brought to him and he asked: “Why not participate in this?” Ibn Muslimah said: Your cousin (Prophet) gave me this sword and said: “Fight with it as long as you are fighting the enemy but when you see the people kill each other then seek a rock and strike it then retire to your home until you are dead or killed by a hand.” ‘Ali then told his men: “Leave him be.”
Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal 4/225, Shu’ayb al-Arnaout said: all its chains are Hasan.
قالتعديسة بنت أهبان : لما جاء علي بن أبي طالب ههنا البصرة دخل على أبي . فقال يا أبامسلمألا تعينني على هؤلاء القوم ؟ قال بلى . قال فدعا جارية له . فقال ياجارية أخرجي سيفي. قال فأخرجته . فسل منه قدر شبر فإذا هوخشب . فقال:” إن خليلي وابن عمك صلى اللهعليه و سلم عهد إلي إذا كانت الفتنة بين المسلمين . فأتخذ سيفا من خشب” . فإنشئت خرجت معك . قال لاحاجة لي فيك ولا في سيفك .سنن ابن ماجة كتاب الفتن ج 2 ص:1309،قال الشيخ الألباني:حسن صحيح،ومسند أحمد ج 5ص: 69، و ج6 ص: 393 وقال شعيب الأرنؤوط: حديث حسن
‘Udaysah bint Ahban (ra) said: when ‘Ali ibn abi Talib came to us in al-Basarah he entered on my father and said: “O Abu Muslim will you not aid me?” He said: yes, then he told his female servant: “bring me the sword” and she did and when he took it out of its sheath it turned out to be a wooden sword, so he told ‘Ali: “Khalili(my beloved companion) who is your cousin(means the Prophet SAWS) may peace be upon him made me give him an oath that when the Fitnah happens I use this wooden sword, so if you want I will accompany you.” ‘Ali said: “I need not your help nor your sword.”
Sunan ibn Majah Kitab al-Fitan 2/1309 al-Albani said: Hasan Sahih, Musnad Ahmad 5/69 & 6/393 al-Arnaout said: Hasan.

قال عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ عَمْرِو بْنِ الْعَاصِ : بَيْنَمَا نَحْنُ حَوْلَرَسُولِ اللَّهِ ، صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ ، إِذَا ذَكَرَ الْفِتْنَةَ أَوْذُكِرَتْ عِنْدَهُ ، فَقُلْتُ : كَيْفَ أَفْعَلُ ، جَعَلَنِي اللَّهُ فِدَاكَ ؟ قَالَ: ” الْزَمْ بَيْتَكَ ، وَامْلِكْ عَلَيْكَ لِسَانَكَ”.
حديث حسن :أخرجه أبو داود (4343) ، والنسائي في ” عمل اليوم” (205) ، وابن المبارك في ” مسنده ” (257) ، وابن أبي شيبة (15/9ـ10) ، وأحمد (2/212) ، والطحاوي في ” بيان مشكل حديث النبي – صلى الله عليه وسلم- ” (2/67 ـ 68) ، وابن السني في ” عمل اليوم (439) ، والحاكم (4/282 ـ238) ، وأبو عمرو الداني في ” الفتن ” (117) ، والطبراني في ” كبيره” (ج 13 رقم 4/قطعة من الجزء الثالث عشر) ، والخطابي في ” العزلة “(ص 63 ـ 64)
‘Abdullah ibn ‘Amro ibn al-’Aas (ra): While we were sitting around the Prophet SAWS they mentioned the Fitnah so I asked him: “May Allah make me a sacrifice for you, what am I to do?” he SAWS said: “remain in your house and guard your tongue.”
Hadith is Hasan from Abu Dawood #4343, Ahmad in his Musnad 2/212, Ibn al-Mubarak in his Musnad p257 and others.

الرسول-عليه الصلاة و السلام – قال : (( ستكون فتنة يكون المضطجع فيها خيرا من الجالس ،والجالس خيرا من القائم ،و القائم خيرا من الماشي ،و الماشي خيرا من الساعي ، )) فقالله أبو بكرة : يا رسول الله ما تأمرني ؟ قال : (( من كانت له إبل فليلتحق بإبله ،ومن كانت له غنم فليلتحق بغنمه ،و من كانت له أرض فليلتحق بأرضه ،)) فقال له أبو بكرة: فمن لم يكن له شيء من ذلك ؟ قال : (( فليعمد إلي سيفه فليضربه بحده على حرة ، ثملينجوا ما استطاع النجاء )) .رواه أبو داود في سننه ج4 ص 99 و صححه الشيخ الألباني
Abu Bakrah ibn al-Harith (ra): The Prophet SAWS said: “There will be a Fitnah in which the man who sleeps on his side is better than the man who sits down, and the one who sits is better than the one who stands, and the one who stands is better than the one who walks, and the one who walks is better than the one who marches to war.” So Abu Bakrah said: “O Prophet of Allah, what do you order me?” He replied: “He who has camels let him go take care of them and he who has sheep then let him go take care of them and he who has a land then let him go and take care of it.” Abu Bakrah said: “What about the one who has none of this?” He replied: “Then let him draw his sword and strike its tip against a rock, then keep away and save himself as much as he could.”
Abu Dawood in his Sunan 4/99, al-Albani said Sahih.

Comment: If the battle of Jamal was something like battle between truth and falsehood, they why would Prophet(saw) command people to avoid its participation?

عن ابي موسى الأشعري رضي الله عنه أن رسول الله -صلى الله عليه و سلم-قال عن أيام الفتنة : (( كسّروا قسيّكم ،و قطّعوا أوتاركم ،و ألزموا أجواف البيوت ،و كونوا فيها كالخيّر من بني آدم )). رواه أحمد في المسند ج 4ص: 408 وعلق الشيخ شعيبالأرنؤوط:صحيح لغيره .و الترمذي في سننه ج4 ص: 490 و صححه الألباني.وابن ماجة في السننج 2/ص1310 وصححه الألباني.
Abu Musa al-Asha’ari (ra): The Prophet SAWS told us about the days of Fitnah: “Break your swords and cut the strings of your bows and remain in the deepest part of your houses and be like best from amongst the children of Adam.”
Musnad Ahmad 4/408 al-Arnaout said: Sahih li ghayrihi, Sunan al-Tirmithy 4/490 and Ibn Majah 2/1310 al-Albani said Sahih.

 

Argument 31

Shiawebsite[Answering-Ansar.org] stated:

[Quote]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?[Quote]

This narration was reported by Tabarani in al-Kabir from Kab ibn Ujra.

In the chain is Salih bin Bidal. (صالح بن بدل) this man status is unknown. So chain is weak. We couldn’t find anything on him.

Interestingly, similar hadeeth was narrated with close wording with ending that Prophet(Saw) pointed to Uthman and not Ali. As it is narrated from Marrat al-Bahziya (r.a) in “Juzz min hadith Abu Hafs al-Kattani”; “Fadail khulafa ar rashidin” by Abu Nuaym;“Musnad” of Ahmad


رقم الحديث: 17
(حديث مرفوع) حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ مُحَمَّدٍ ، نا طَالُوتُ بْنُ عَبَّادٍ أَبُو عُثْمَانَ ، نا أَبُو هُلَيْلٍ ، عَنْ قَتَادَةَ ، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ شَقِيقٍ ، عَنْ مُرَّةَ الْبَهْزِيِّ ، أَنّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ ، قَالَ : ” إِنَّهُ سَتَكُونُ فِتْنَةٌ كَأَنَّهَا صَيَاصِي بَقَرٍ ” . فَمَرَّ بِنَا رَجُلٌ مُتَقَنِّعٌ ، فَقَالَ : ” هَذَا وَأَصْحَابُهُ عَلَى الْحَقِّ ” . فَذَهَبْتُ فَنَظَرْتُ إِلَيْهِ ، فَإِذَا هُوَ عُثْمَانُ بْنُ عَفَّانَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ

Argument 32

Shia scholar in his book[Peshawar nights] stated:

[Quote]Sheikh Sulayman Balkhi Hanafi has specified in the 7th chapter of his Yanabiu’l-Mawadda this very topic under the caption: “About Ali’s being like the self of the Holy Prophet and the tradition that ‘Ali is from me and I am from Ali.’” In this chapter he has narrated 24 traditions in different ways and with different words from the Holy Prophet, who said that Ali was like his own self. ….”Fighting against Ali is fighting against Allah, and peace with Ali is peace with Allah”…. [Quote]

It’s an old habbit of the religious slanderers to introduce books of Shia scholars by saying that those were books written by Sunni scholars. This book which was written by a religious deceivers and religious liar[Peshawar nights] its filled with such examples and here is one of those, where he presents the Shia book “Yanabiu’l-Mawadda” as a Sunni book. But the fact is that this book is a shia book. Thus its worth nothing.

Sulayman Ibn Muhammad Al-Qunduzi Al-Hanafi:He is the author of Yanabi’ Al-Mawada. Aga Buzurg Tehrani included his book “Al-Thareea” , which is an Encyclopedia on Shia books.

Shia scholar Aga Buzurg Tahrani in his “Al-Thareea” said about this book:

و ان لم يعلم تشيعه لكنه غنوصى و الكتاب يعد من كتب الشيعة

Even though the Shiasm of the author is not known, but he is Gnostic, and the Book is considered to be one of the books of Shia”(See “Zariya” 25 /p 290)

 

Argument 33

Shiawebsite[Answering-Ansar.org] Stated:

[Quote]Imam of Ahl’ul Sunnah Allamah Sa’dudeen Taftazani in Sharh Maqasid, Volume 2 page 305 states:

“Proof that the opponents of ‘Ali were fasiq comes from the fact Rasulullah said ‘O ‘Ali whoever fights you fights me’. [Quote] (screen shot)

Praise be to Allah, Now days it has become a renowned fact that Christians are better than the Shiatu dajjal, because atleast one can expect truth from them but not from the Shiatu dajjal(rafidah). We have countless examples were the shias have blatantly lied, distorted and misinterpreted quotes from the books of Ahlesunnah, and this quote is one from those countless examples where we find that how mendacious religious slanderers are.

This is the quote from Allamah Sa’dudeen Taftazani’s Sharh Maqasid, Volume 2 page 305, which the religious slanderers misquoted:

وما ذهب إليه الشيعة من أن محاربي علي كفرة ومخالفوه فسقة تمسكا بقوله صلى الله عليه وسلم حربك يا علي حربي وبأن الطاعة واجبة وترك الواجب فسق فمن اجتراآتهم وجهالاتهم
As for what the Shia claim, that those who fought ‘Ali (ra) are all kouffar and those who disagree with him are Fasiqoun, they used this saying of the Prophet (s) whoever fought you O Ali, fought me and that obedience is obligatory and leaving it is Fisq, they claim this only because of their audacity and ignorance..”

So the religious slanderers deceptively chopped off the wordings which showed that the Sunni scholar was just addressing the “Shia claim”, Which the same clearly refuted eventually.

This was stated by Allamah Sa’dudeen Taftazani just before the statement that was misquoted by shiawebsite:

إخواننا بغوا علينا كيف وقد صح ندم طلحة والزبير رضي الله عنهما وانصراف الزبير رضي الله عنه عن الحرب واشتهر ندم عائشة رضي الله عنها والمحققون من أصحابنا على أن حرب الجمل كانت فلتة من غير قصد من الفريقين بل كانت تهييجا من قتلة عثمان رضي الله عنه حيث صاروا فرقتين واختلطوا بالعسكرين وأقاموا الحرب خوفا من القصاص وقصد عائشة رضي الله عنها لم يكن إلا إصلاح الطائفتين وتسكين الفتنة فوقعت في الحرب وما ذهب إليه الشيعة من أن محاربي علي كفرة ومخالفوه فسقة تمسكا بقوله صلى الله عليه وسلم حربك يا علي حربي وبأن الطاعة واجبة وترك الواجب فسق فمن اجتراآتهم وجهالاتهم

We also know that Talha (ra) regretted this and al-Zubair (ra) left the battle, the regret of ‘Aisha (ra) is also famous and we know that the researchers among our companions all agree that al-Jamal was an un-intentional mistake, it was a conflict created by the killers of ‘Uthman (ra) who divided themselves into two groups and infiltrated both camps to start a war because they feared Qasas. The intention of ‘Aisha (ra) was only to reconcile and end the Fitnah between the Muslims but they were dragged into a war.

As for what the Shia claim, that those who fought ‘Ali (ra) are all kouffar and those who disagree with him are Fasiqoun, they used this saying of the Prophet (s) whoever fought you O Ali, fought me and that obedience is obligatory and leaving it is Fisq, they claim this only because of their audacity and ignorance by which they do not differentiate between [disobeidience due to] an interpretation or extrapolation. (Sharh Maqasid, Volume 2 page 304- 305)

Similar statement was made by Allamah Sa’dudeen Taftazani in his other book:

“The dissensions and conflicts which took place were NOT because of a quarrel over the question of his [Imam Ali's] Khalifate but because of an error in ijtihad.” (al-Taftazani ‘s Sharh al-Aqaid)(scan page)

Thus it should be clear before our readers that how mendacious the religious slanderers are.

 

A Warning to the Shia Layperson:

It is distressing that the Shia layperson will thoughtlessly accept anything as a fact so long as it insults and brings down the Prophet’s own beloved wife, no matter how spurious the source. How many countless lay shias have accepted the idea that the Prophet’s wife was guilty for igniting the war against Ali(ra), simply based on fabricated reports and misinterpreted and misquoted statements mentioned in the Shiawebsites? Many times the tabloid magazines will spread slander and lies about famous people, but most people have the sense to question the authenticity of such stuff, due to the fact that these are not reliable texts. Of course nobody would use these tabloid magazines as proof in a court of law in order to accuse someone of a crime! And yet, the Shia are willing to make use of even more spurious sources to accuse the Prophet’s wife for igniting the war against Ali(ra). This tells us a lot about Shi’ism, namely that it is a religion which fosters a hatred towards the Prophet’s loved ones, such that the Shia will believe anything negative about them.

Is it on the basis of such worthless sources that the Shias wish us to believe that Aisha was a evildoer. (mazallah)? If the Shias can bring themself to accept such worthless material, it begs the question as to why they would do so. It cannot be because of the intrinsic value of the report itself, for it has been adequately demonstrated here that the report has no value at all. The only reason for their acceptance of such narrations would have to be the Shia’s own sectarian prejudices. It is only because of their sect’s infernal hatred for the Prophet’s wife that they are willing to accept such tall-tales, even if the proof  revolves around a few obscure texts that are even less reliable than the tabloids. Indeed, these Shia will have to answer to Allah for accepting and believing information provided by such worthless and unreliable sources. On the Day of Judgment, the Prophet’s wife will testify against these Shiatu dajjal, and then Allah will bring to justice those who brought forth allegations without proof.

As for us mainstream Muslims, we abide by the instruction of Allah Almighty who declared: “O you who believe! If an evil-doer comes to you with a report, look carefully into it, lest you harm a people in ignorance, then be sorry for what you have done.” (Quran, 49:6)

Thus we, Ahlesunnah say: Our Lord, forgive us and [forgive] our brethren who preceded us in faith. And do not put in our hearts rancour towards the Believers. Our Lord, You are Most Kind, Most Merciful.” (59:10)

May Allah bestow His Infinite Blessings upon the Ahlel Bayt, including the Prophet’s wife Aisha, the Mother of the Believers.

Article written by Sons of Ummahatul Momineen(Peace be upon all of them)

3 thoughts on “Part 2: Defence of Ahlelbayt[wives of Prophet/mothers of believers] from the Religious Slanderers

  1. Thank you very much….I really wanted the correct view on this matter and your article provided me this. May Allah reward you for this.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s