Part 1: Defence of Ahlelbayt[wives of Prophet/mothers of believers] from the Religious Slanderers

Why were wives of Prophet(Saw) slandered?

In The Name of Allah, The Beneficent, The Merciful.

When the Prophet(saw) was alive, the disbelievers and hypocrites tried their utmost to hurt Prophet Muhammad(Saw) and one of the methods they used to do this was to target those close to him (i.e. his family). One such famous incident is the event of Al-Ifk which is mentioned in Quran, in which they accused the Prophet’s wife of adultery. It was such attacks on his family members that prompted the Prophet(saw) to warn again and again about honoring his family. This warning was especially in regards to the females in his family, as it is well-known that Arabs would debase the women in a man’s family as a means to hurt the man himself. The women in a man’s life are his sensitive spot; a man will be less hurt about someone insulting his own honor and more hurt about someone insulting the honor of his wife.

The intensity with which the Quran and Hadith advocated the protection of the Prophetic Household prompted certain evil elements to devise new ways of harming Ahlel Bayt(family of Prophet) as a means to get at the Prophet of Islam.

It was then that the founders of the Shia movement who actually were Jews like Abdullah Ibn Saba, decided that the best way to turn the Muslims against the Prophetic Household (i.e. the Ahlel Bayt) was to change the very meaning of the word “Ahlel Bayt” in the eyes of the masses. So they went about this task, and they began to say that the Prophet’s wives were not part of the Ahlel Bayt and neither were three of his daughters. And after that they utilized some of the incidents of history inorder to create slanders against the wives of Prophet(saw), so as to create hatred in the hearts of Muslims for wives of Prophet(saw).  So it was that the Shia masses began cursing the Prophet’s family members (i.e. his wives) and even denying the existence of his daughters, all in the name of honoring the Ahlel Bayt. And the present day Shias following the footsteps of their ancestors try to attack the character and personality of mothers of believers by using weak and fabricated reports and by making false accusations, misinterpretations, mistranslations, fabrications and other deceitful tactics.


Don’t be surprised by the high number of slanders against Mother of Believers.

History along with authentic reports testify that from the moment Prophet Muhammad(peace be upon him) started preaching Islam, he had to face many slanders and false allegations. Some called him a magician(ma’azallah/God forbid), some called him insane(ma’azallah) and so on. Though these slanders had been soundly refuted at that time only by the help of Allah, yet the enemies of Islam didn’t stop attacking the noble personality of Prophet Muhamad(peace be upon him), when ever they were refuted, they used to return up with new slanders, time went on and now it’s the 20th Century. Yet we find that the enemies of Islam are always interested in attacking the Noble Prophet Muhammad(peace be upon him). But unfortunately now the attacks on Islam and Prophet Muhammad(peace be upon him) have been multiplied due to the fear of rapid growth of Islam in western countries. In the last 100 years , 50,000(fifty thousand) books have been written against Islam, from this ratio we can easily understand countless and innumerable slanders  and false accusations have been made against Prophet Muhammad(peace be upon him).

For example; Enemies of Islam have attacked Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) by falsely alleging that he is a murderer, rapist, pedophile etc.(Ma’azallah). They charge him with all these disgusting things and But, Praise be to Allah since they have all been soundly refuted.

Let us present before our readers an intresting fact from history, which will give an idea to our readers that what sorts of tricks, deceits, fabrications, mistranslations and misinterpretations have been done by some enemies of Islam inorder to malign Islam and to attack the personality of Prophet Muhammad(Saw):

“The history of Orientalism is hardly one of unbiased examination of the sources of Islam especially when under the influence of the bigotry of Christianity. From the fanatical distortions of John of Damascus to the apologetic of later writers against Islam, that told their audiences that the Muslims worshipped three idols! Peter the Venerable (1084-1156) “translated” the Qur’an which was used throughout the Middle Ages and included nine additional chapters. Sale’s infamously distorted translation followed that trend, and his, along with the likes of Rodwell, Muir and a multitude of others attacked the character and personality of Muhammmed. Often they employed invented stories, or narration’s which the Muslims themselves considered fabricated or weak, or else they distorted the facts by claiming Muslims held a position which they did not, or using the habits practised out of ignorance among the Muslims as the accurate portrayal of Islam. As Norman Daniel tell us in his work Islam and the West: “The use of false evidence to attack Islam was all but universal . . . ” (p. 267).  (From An Authoritative Exposition – Part 1, by cAbdur-Rahîm Green) “

So our readers might have got an idea that large number of slanders or accusations in NO WAY proves that, certain person who is being accused is worthy to be accused and slandered. Now the motive of presenting this reality before you is because, unfortunately some people who claim to be muslims try to attack the character and personality of some wives of Prophet Muhammad(saw), or better to be addressed as Mothers of believers. These people though don’t directly attack Prophet Muhammad(saw) but they attack his beloved wives with the similar tactics which were used by Enemies of Islam inorder to attack character of Prophet Muhamma(saw). And these hidden enemies of Islam attack and slander wives of Prophet Muhammad(Saw) with a large number of Slanders and then they try to reason before their blind followers that , how could these wives of Prophet(Saw), be pious and noble or worthy to be respected when they did so many crimes. This is the reason we clarified before you, using the example of Prophet Muhammad(saw) that, large number of Slanders and accusations in no way signify that the one who was accused could be worthy of being accused.

Sunnah of Prophets(as):

حضرت جعفر صادق فرماتے ہیں ؛ اپنی بیوی یا بیویوں کو زیادہ عزیز رکھنا پیغمبروں کے اخلاق میں داخل تھا۔
تہذیب آل محمد از مجلسی، ص ١١۸
Imam Jafar sadiq said: To keep the wife or wives in a highly respected way was from the manners of Prophets(as).[Tahzeeb aal Muhammad, by Majlisi, page 118]

This was the Sunnah of Prophets(as), and Ahlesunnah still follow this Sunnah of Prophets and respect the wives of our beloved Prophet Muhammad(saw) and keep his wives in high regards. However, slandering those wives of Prophet(saw) is the way of the children of Abdullah ibn Saba(la).


From which kind of people are we going to defend Mother of believers? 

Before, we start our refutation we would like to make our readers aware that from which kind of people are we going to defend Mothers of Believers in this article. The ones from whom we are going to defend Mothers of believers have a lot of characteristics many of which are stated by their own Imams in their own books(eg: Hypocrites, etc), But some important characteristics which can’t be ignored before reading any argument raised by such people are : They are religious liars and SLANDERERS. They consider slandering, deceiving and lying to be the teachings of their cult.

Here are the proofs on which we base our views that:

Shia infallible Imam in shia hadeeth states:
إذا رأيتم أهل البدع والريب – غير الشيعي أو الشيعي المهتدي – فأظهروا البراءة منهم وأكثروا من سبهم والقول فيهم والوقيعة ، وباهتوهم – اي ابهتوهم بالكذب والبهتان – كي لا يطمعوا في الفساد في الإسلام ويحذرهم الناس )[ تنبيه الخواطر ج 2 ص 162] .
[ وسائل الشيعة ج 11 ص 508] .
[ نهج الإنتصار ص 152] .
Imam Al-sajjad (as) said: If you see people of suspicion and innovation(other than shias or new shia) then show disownment from them and abuse them much, backbit them, make false accusations on them – that is, backbite them by attributing lies on them and make false accusations on them (‘Buhtaan’) …(tanbiah al-khawatir v.2 p.162 – wasael al-shia v.11 p. 508 – Nahj al-intisaar p.152)

Here is another one:

مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ يَحْيَى عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ الْحُسَيْنِ عَنْ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ أَبِي نَصْرٍ عَنْ دَاوُدَ بْنِ سِرْحَانَ عَنْ أَبِي عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ع قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ ص إِذَا رَأَيْتُمْ أَهْلَ الرَّيْبِ وَ الْبِدَعِ مِنْ بَعْدِي فَأَظْهِرُوا الْبَرَاءَةَ مِنْهُمْ وَ أَكْثِرُوا مِنْ سَبِّهِمْ وَ الْقَوْلَ فِيهِمْ وَ الْوَقِيعَةَ وَ بَاهِتُوهُمْ كَيْلَا يَطْمَعُوا فِي الْفَسَادِ فِي الْإِسْلَامِ وَ يَحْذَرَهُمُ النَّاسُ وَ لَا يَتَعَلَّمُوا مِنْ بِدَعِهِمْ يَكْتُبِ اللَّهُ لَكُمْ بِذَلِكَ الْحَسَنَاتِ وَ يَرْفَعْ لَكُمْ بِهِ الدَّرَجَاتِ فِي الْآخِرَةِ
“The Messenger of Allah (SAWAS) has said, ‘When you after me find people of bid’ah and doubt/suspicion, do disassociation from them and increase your insults to them and accuse them of false things, and oppose them so they may not become greedy in bringing corruption in Islam. You must warn people against them and against learning their bid’ah (innovations). Allah will reward you for this and will raise you darajaat (positions) in the next life.’” (Source: Al-Kulaynee, Al-Kaafee, vol. 2, ch. 159 “Sitting/Associating with Sinful People”, pg. 375, hadeeth # 4 ; & Majlisi has graded this hadeeth Saheeh in Mir’aat Al-’Uqool, vol. 11, pg. 77)

(Shia scholars) al-Ansari and al-Roohani commented on the Hadith (Above) of Imam Abu Abdullah: “The words “Bahitouhum Kay La Yatma’ou” in the Hadith mean accusing them of things and thinking that they have ill intentions which is Haram in the case of dealing with a believer, so one cannot say about the believer things like: “He might be a Kaffir or a Zani”… And it could be left to its apparent form thus it would permissible to LIE to them for a certain benefit.” Shia sources (Kitab al-Makasib by al-Ansari 2/118), (Minhaj al-Fuqahaa 2/228).

Intrestingly Giant shia scholars give fatawas(verdicts) based on these narrations for example Grand Ayatullah Al Khoei’i

سؤال 1245: هل يجوز الكذب على المبدع أو مروج الضلال في مقام الاحتجاج عليه إذا كان الكذب يدحض حجته ويبطل دعاويه الباطلة؟ الخوئي: إذا توقف رد باطله عليه جاز.
Question”1245″: Is it Possible to Lie or produce Arguments which contain Lies when Debating with a person who Is a Follower of Bida’a (Innovation/ they probably mean Sunnis) and a spreader or Dala’la (Ignorance/ us as well) If this Lie would Destroy my Opponent’s Arguments?
Imam Khoei’i Answers: If it will stop his Falsehood then it is Permissible to do So. (Imam Khoei’i, Sirat el Najat, Volume 1, Page 447) (online source)

A similar fatwa was issue by Grand ayatullah sistani:
السؤال: هل يعاقب الله الشخص اذا اجبر على الكذب في مواضع محرجة اذا سئل عنها خاصة اذا كان المقابل يسال كثيرا عن اشياء لاتخصه؟
الجواب: لايجوز الكذب الا اذا كان لدفع ضرر.

Shia were excessive liars:

علي بن إبراهيم، عن أبيه، عن ابن أبي عمير، عن هشام بن سالم قال: قال أبو عبد الله (عليه السلام): إن ممن ينتحل هذا الامر (( التشيع)) ليكذب حتى أن الشيطان ليحتاج إلى كذبه

Jafar as-Sadiq said: Those who adopted this issue(tashayu) lies (till) Shaytan rely upon their lie. [Rawda min al-Kafi p 212] Majlisi said hadith is hasan and Bahbude said it is saheeh!

Thus, in this article we will be exposing their lies, deceptions and slanders which they made against mothers of believers(esp Ayesha and Hafsa) and tried to deceive innocent and lay muslims and we will be revealing before you that how they make some foolish arguments inorder to name it a refutation to Ahlesunah, how they use lots of twisting of information to press their cause. And even when their arguments have been answered and refuted, they will not stop spreading those arguments. Because they think, that if someone did not fall on it, maybe someone else will.  So please don’t be surprised by seeing that how people can be so stupid and deceptive at the same time, because the fact is that such things are taught to them as religious teachings.


Refutation of the Slanders against mothers of believers.

Accusing Mother of believers, Ayesha(ra) of lying.

Slander 1 A:

Religious slanderers said:

[Quote]Aisha was a known LIAR, and her words alone cannot serve as evidence.

In case this Nasibi disagrees, we ask him to tell us what Aisha has done here:

Narrated Yusuf bin Mahak:Marwan had been appointed as the governor of Hijaz by Muawiya. He delivered a sermon and mentioned Yazid bin Muawiya so that the people might take the oath of allegiance to him as the successor of his father (Muawiya). Then ‘Abdur Rahman bin Abu Bakr told him something whereupon Marwan ordered that he be arrested. But ‘Abdur-Rahman entered ‘Aisha’s house and they could not arrest him. Marwan said, “It is he (‘AbdurRahman) about whom Allah revealed this Verse:–And the one who says to his parents: ‘Fie on you! Do you hold out the promise to me..?’”On that, ‘Aisha said from behind a screen, “Allah did not reveal ANYTHING from the Qur’an about us EXCEPT what was connected with the declaration of my innocence (of the slander).” Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 352

So, the only verses Allah ever revealed on any member of the family of Abubakr were those declaring her innocence?! What about verses like this:

[al-hilali and khan 9:40] If you help him (Muhammad SAW) not (it does not matter), for Allah did indeed help him when the disbelievers drove him out, the second of two, when they (Muhammad SAW and Abu Bakr) were in the cave, and he (SAW) said to his companion (Abu Bakr): “Be not sad (or afraid), surely Allah is with us.” Then Allah sent down His Sakinah (calmness, tranquillity, peace, etc.) upon him, and strengthened him with forces (angels) which you saw not, and made the word of those who disbelieved the lowermost, while it was the Word of Allah that became the uppermost, and Allah is All-Mighty, All-Wise.

Look at such bold-faced lying! [Quote]

Before exposing the deception of Shias, we pray to Allah that he gives hidaya to these shias. And May Allah save innocent muslims from the traps of Shias. Now let us shatter before you this slander which is a masterpiece of deception from shias.

In the first narration which shias cited, they claimed that from this NARRATION we came to know that “the only verses Allah ever revealed on any member of the FAMILY of Abubakr were those declaring innocence of Ayesha(ra)”. But if people  with open eyes and brain read that narration, they will NOT find the words “FAMILY OF ABUBAKARin that narration, these words were inserted by the shias in order to achieve their satanic goal.  In that narration(we shias cited) we find that “Marwan said, “It is he (‘AbdurRahman) about whom Allah revealed this Verse”, Now Marwan didn’t say that this verse was revealed for “COMPLETE family of Abubakar(ra)”, but he said that, “it was revealed for ONE of the sons of Abubakar(ra)”. Thus the one being addressed in the hadeeth was OFFSPRING(son) of Abubakar(ra), as we see from the context of the verse because the verse which marwan quoted talks about the TREATMENT OF CHILDREN WITH PARENTS { But he who says to his parents: “Uf f to you! (46:17)}, So in that context Ayesha(ra) replied that: “No verse except the verses declaring her innocence were revealed regarding THEM(children of Abubakar).

If we see the context in which marwan made the accusation we find that he was addressing son of abubakar(ra), so in same context ayesha(ra) refuted him saying no verse was revealed for CHILDREN OF ABUBAKAR(RA) expect about her innocence.

This correct understanding which we gave can be even found in the English version of tafseer ibn katheer: Aishah responded: “Allah did not reveal any Qur’an in our regard (i.e. the children of Abu Bakr), except for the declaration of my innocence. ”(online English tafseer ibn katheer).

Now based on this report the shias made some serious accusations on mother of believers. They presented the verse of Quran (9:40) which was revealed for abubakar(ra) and claimed that Ayesha(ra) lied. (Mazallah). But the problem with these shias is that they create their own satanic interpretations of narrations by putting their own words in the narrations and then they accuse noble personalities.

In this case, how could ayesha(ra) say that the even the verse (9:40) was revealed for them(children of abubakar), when she intended to say, “the verses which were REVEALED FOR CHILDREN OF ABUBAKAR(RA)”?.  If at all the context of the issue would have been that the verses revealed for the complete families was being discussed then surely Ayesha(ra) would have included the verse (9:40) in her response, but since she was only intending to address those verses which were revealed for CHILDREN OF ABUBAKAR(RA), she didn’t mention the verse (9:40).


Slander 1 B:

But the shias didn’t stop here, they went on further to mention some other verses inorder to Slander mother of believers,

Religious slanderers stated:

[Quote] And: [al-hilali and khan 33:30] O wives of the Prophet! Whoever of you commits an open illegal sexual intercourse, the torment for her will be doubled, and that is ever easy for Allah.

And: [al-hilali and khan 66:3-4] And (remember) when the Prophet (SAW) disclosed a matter in confidence to one of his wives (Hafsah), so when she told it (to another i.e. ‘Aishah), and Allah made it known to him, he informed part thereof and left a part. Then when he told her (Hafsah) thereof, she said: “Who told you this?” He said: “The All-Knower, the All-Aware (Allah) has told me”. If you two (wives of the Prophet SAW, namely ‘Aishah and Hafsah) turn in repentance to Allah, (it will be better for you), your hearts are indeed so inclined (to oppose what the Prophet SAW likes), but if you help one another against him (Muhammad SAW), then verily, Allah is his Maula (Lord, or Master, or Protector, etc.), and Jibrael (Gabriel), and the righteous among the believers, and furthermore, the angels are his helpers.

Look at Aisha’s LIE again:

On that, ‘Aisha said from behind a screen, “Allah did not reveal ANYTHING from the Qur’an about us EXCEPT what was connected with the declaration of my innocence (of the slander[Quote]

Indeed pathetic! What the shias didn’t realize here was that, NONE of these verses where EXCLUSIVELY revealed for CHILDREN OF ABUBAKAR(ra), both the verses which shias cited, included other wives of Prophet(Saw), who were NOT the children of ABUBAKAR(ra).That is why ayesha(ra) didn’t mention those in her response to Marwan. Importantly, this is why we don’t find any counter reply from Marwan, if at all Ayesha(ra) would have lied(mazalalh), then surely Marwan would have replied ayesha(ra) saying didn’t Allah reveal verses such as (33:30)  or (9:40) etc for you people. But even Marwan understood the reply of ayesha(ra) that is why he was left answerless,  but the shias didn’t understood such simple issue because their brains are nothing but devils workshops. How could any one use these verses to accuse and slander Ayesha(ra) of lying? Indeed the shias have no shame at all. They lie blatantly, accuse innocent and noble personalities. But this is nothing strange, because these are the teachings of this cult. Since they are taught to lie, deceive and slander which we witnessed here. That is why in the beginning of our article itself we brought it to the attention of our readers that from which kind of people are we going to defend Ayesha(ra).

So respected readers beware of these Shias, who consider it to be a part of their religious teachings to lie, deceive and Slander, and do not fall into their traps of deception, you will not only ruin your life of this world but even your hereafter.


Slander 2:

Religious slanderers stated:

[Quote] Aisha was so notorious a liar that she even colluded to LIE to the Messenger of the Lord of the worlds! Al-Bukhari records:

Narrated ‘Aisha: Allah’s Apostle used to drink honey in the house of Zainab, the daughter of Jahsh, and would stay there with her. So Hafsa and I AGREED SECRETLY that, if he come to either of us, she would say to him. “It seems you have eaten Maghafir (a kind of bad-smelling resin), FOR I SMELL IN YOU THE SMELL OF MAGHAFIR,” (We did so) and he replied. “No, but I was drinking honey in the house of Zainab, the daughter of Jahsh, and I shall never take it again. I have taken an oath as to that, and you should not tell anybody about it. Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 434 [Quote]

That’s silly. The only way that would be a lie is that, if they indeed did not detect the smell of mughafir, So on what basis can someone NOW say that the smell of such kind wasn’t there? Especially in the case of honey, its rancid/bitter form smells like mughafir. Infact Maghafeer  is a kind of flower having pungent odour, commonly sucked by Urfat, Arabian honey bees. The honey bee called ‘Urfat’ mostly sucks the flowers of Maghafeer and the honey gives its smell.

It’s like telling someone who just drank milk that you detect the smell of yoghurt or buttermilk on them. Those kinds of tricks/games among friends and family are permitted in Islam, provided NO lying is involved.

This article(refer the link) shows that many practical jokes bordered on lying, but should NOT be actual lies i.e. they can be exaggerations or word-games.

This is a side issue: Shias claim that Aisha (ra) plotted against the prophet (pbuh), wasn’t loyal and accuse her of other vile things. So how can Ayesha(ra) be jealous of not receiving the attention from Prophet(saw), if She hated him and plotted against him, etc? If we love someone, wouldn’t we be jealous if that person wasn’t giving their full attention to us? We want to be with them, we miss them. This is common sense. But Shiism and brain damage have a very close relation.


Slander 3:

Religious slanderers stated:

[Quote] Sadly, though it is true that the real plotting and lying was between her and Hafsah, this did not deter her from lying upon another wife of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)! Al-Bukhari records: Narrated ‘Aisha: Allah’s Apostle was fond of honey and sweet edible things and (it was his habit) that after finishing the ‘Asr prayer he would visit his wives and stay with one of them at that time. Once he went to Hafsa, the daughter of ‘Umar and stayed with her more than usual. I got jealous and asked the reason for that. I was told that a lady of her folk had given her a skin filled with honey as a present, and that she made a syrup from it and gave it to the Prophet to drink (and that was the reason for the delay). I said, “By Allah we will play a trick on him (to prevent him from doing so).” So I said to Sada bint Zam’a “The Prophet will approach you, and when he comes near you, say: ‘Have you taken Maghafir (a bad-smelling gum)?’ He will say, ‘No.’ Then say to him: ‘Then what is this bad smell which I smell from you?’ He will say to you, ‘Hafsa made me drink honey syrup.’ Then say: Perhaps the bees of that honey had sucked the juice of the tree of Al-‘Urfut.’ I shall also say the same. O you, Safiyya, say the same.” Later Sada said, “By Allah, as soon as he (the Prophet ) stood at the door, I was about to say to him what you had ordered me to say because I was afraid of you.” So when the Prophet came near Sada, she said to him, “O Allah’s Apostle! Have you taken Maghafir?” He said, “No.” She said. “Then what is this bad smell which I detect on you?” He said, “Hafsa made me drink honey syrup.” She said, “Perhaps its bees had sucked the juice of Al-‘Urfut tree.” When he came to me, I also said the same, and when he went to Safiyya, she also said the same. And when the Prophet again went to Hafsa, she said, ‘O Allah’s Apostle! Shall I give you more of that drink?” He said, “I am not in need of it.” Sada said, “By Allah, we deprived him (of it).” I said to her, “Keep quiet.” ‘ Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 63, Number 193

It was Hafsah that she taught to LIE to the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). But how she is fabricating the whole lie around Sada bint Zam’a, an innocent woman![Quote]

We have dealt with the original accusation by Shias of lying in above slander 2.

As for the other accusation of Shias regarding this incident that ayesha(as) put the blame on other wives of prophet(saw) instead of hafsa(as). Then it just affirms our view that some Shias behave like fools when trying to attack Ahlesunnah.

The above narration just shows that even this incident mentioned in the above narration had occurred. There occurred two different incidents and it seems that above incident occurred before the other incident of Hafsa(ra) and Ayesha(ra).

Here is the incident where Ayesha(ra) and Hafsa(ra) did that trick:

(Sahi bukhar 7.192) Narrated ‘Ubaid bin ‘Umar: I heard ‘Aisha saying, “The Prophet used to stay for a long while with Zanab bint Jahsh and drink honey at her house. So Hafsa and I decided that if the Prophet came to anyone of us, she should say him, “I DETECT THE SMELL OF MAGHAFIR (A kind of flower having pungent odour, commonly sucked by Urfat, Arabian honey bees) IN YOU. Have you eaten Maghafir?’ ” So the Prophet visited one of them and she said to him similarly. The Prophet said, “Never mind, I have taken some honey at the house of Zainab bint Jahsh, but I shall never drink of it anymore.” So there was revealed: ‘O Prophet ! Why do you ban (for you) that which Allah has made lawful for you . . . If you two (wives of Prophet) turn in repentance to Allah,’ (66.1-4) addressing Aisha and Hafsa. ‘When the Prophet disclosed a matter in confidence to some of his wives.’ (66.3) namely his saying: But I have taken some honey.”

Honest and unbiased readers can easily makeout that this incident seems to have occurred after the one which was quoted by shias, that is why here you find Prophet(Saw) MAKING A DECISION that he will not have honey anymore, where as in the first incident which was provided by shias, we don’t find prophet(Saw) making such decision. Moreover we find that the verse (66:1) was revealed regarding this incident, not the one which took before this one.

Other proofs which shows that these were two different incidents is that:

In first incident the number of wives who did that trick were three(3), were as in second they were two(2) and even the wives who provided the honey syrup to prophet(Saw) in both incidents were different.

In first incident the wives who did that trick were: Ayesha(ra) ,Sada bint Zam’a(as) and Safiyya(as).

Where as in second incident there were just two: Ayesha(as) and Hafsa(as)

So, since the Shias didn’t had a brain to understand this, that is why they accused beloved mother of believers(sunnis) of lying. (May Allah deal with those hypocrites).


Slander 4:

Religious slanderers stated:

[Quote] No wonder, the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) was not prepared to believe her EVEN IF SHE TOOK AN OATH during the Ifk incident! Al-Bukhari again records:

Narrated Masruq bin Al-Aida: Um Ruman, the mother of ‘Aisha said that while ‘Aisha and she were sitting, an Ansari woman came and said, “May Allah harm such and-such a person!” Um Ruman said to her, What is the matter?” She replied, “My son was amongst those who talked of the story (of the Slander).” Um Ruman said, “What is that?” She said, “So-and-so….” and narrated the whole story. On that ‘Aisha said, “Did Allah’s Apostle hear about that?” She replies, “yes.” ‘Aisha further said, “And Abu Bakr too?” She replied, “Yes.” On that, ‘Aisha fell down fainting, and when she came to her senses, she had got fever with rigors. I put her clothes over her and covered her. The Prophet came and asked, “What is wrong with this (lady)?” Um Ruman replied, “O Allah’s Apostle! She (i.e. ‘Aisha) has got temperature with rigors.” He said, “Perhaps it is because of the story that has been talked about?” She said, “Yes.” ‘Aisha sat up and said, “By Allah, if I took an oath (that I am innocent), you would not believe me, and if I said (that I am not innocent), you would not excuse me. My and your example is like that of Jacob and his sons (as Jacob said ): ‘It is Allah (Alone) Whose Help can be sought against that you assert.’ Um Ruman said, “The Prophet then went out saying nothing. Then Allah declared her innocence. On that, ‘Aisha said (to the Prophet), “I thank Allah only; thank neither anybody else nor you.” Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 464 [Quote]

Reply 1:
Here is a more elaborated version of this incident which clarifies that what happened:

Sahi bukhari 6.281: Narrated Aisha:I said, “Now then,by Allah, if I were to tell you that I have not done (this evil action) and Allah is a witness that I am telling the truth, that would not be of any use to me on your part because you (people) have spoken about it and your hearts have absorbed it; and if I were to tell you that I have done this sin and Allah knows that I have not done it, then you will say, ‘She has confessed herself guilty.” By Allah, ‘I do not see a suitable example for me and you but the example of (I tried to remember Jacob’s name but couldn’t) Joseph’s father when he said; So (for me) “Patience is most fitting against that which you assert. It is Allah (alone) whose help can be sought.AT THAT VERY HOUR THE DIVINE INSPIRATION CAME to Allah’s Apostle and we remained silent. Then the Inspiration was over and I noticed the signs of happiness on his face while he was removing (the sweat) from his forehead and saying, “Have the good tidings O ‘ “Aisha! Allah has revealed your innocence.”

Sahi bukhari 6.274: Narrated Aisha: By Allah, I cannot find of you an example except that of Joseph’s father: “So (for me) patience is most fitting against that which you assert and it is Allah(Alone) Whose help can be sought. Then I turned away and lay on my bed, and at that time I knew that I was innocent and that Allah would reveal my innocence. But by Allah, I never thought that Allah would sent down about my affair, Divine Inspiration that would be recited (forever), as I considered myself too unworthy to be talked of by Allah with something that was to be recited: but I hoped that Allah’s Apostle might have a vision in which Allah would prove my innocence. By Allah, Allah’s Apostle HAD NOT LEFT HIS SEAT and nobody had left the house when the Divine Inspiration came to Allah’s Apostle . So there overtook him the same hard condition which used to overtake him (when he was Divinely Inspired) so that the drops of his sweat were running down, like pearls, though it was a (cold) winter day, and that was because of the heaviness of the Statement which was revealed to him. When that state of Allah’s Apostle was over, and he was smiling when he was relieved, the first word he said was, “Aisha, Allah has declared your innocence.”

Comment: From these elaborated versions of that scenario, we find that just after the words of Ayesha(ra) ended at the very moment Allah revealed the verses regarding innocence of Ayesha(ra), it seems that Prophet(saw) went out that time just after the revealation began to reveal on him. Prophet(Saw) didn’t get anytime to respond to Ayesha(ra) on her statements in which she took oath.

As soon as Ayesha(ra) finished her words which she was telling to Prophet(Saw), Allah revealed her innocence. So the claim of Shias has no base at all.

Reply 2:
Prophet(saw) going out is not the same as negating or affirming a claim. The Prophet (pbuh) was not silent about this issue at all, if we check the other hadiths. He only didn’t answer back at that instance to Ayesha(ra). However he(saw) had already silenced people who were spreading rumors. The Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) said to Abdullah ibn Ubayy, leader of the Munafiqoon: “O Muslims, who will deal with a man [i.e. Abdullah ibn Ubayy] who I have heard is speaking in an offensive manner about my family(ayesha)? By Allah, I know nothing but good about my family.” [Bukhari, Muslim]

In our opinion, the Prophet (pbuh) would have trusted Ayesha(ra)’s oath, but it was poor etiquette to speak to the Prophet (pbuh) in that way, saying that he wouldn’t trust an oath. So the wisdom of the Prophet (pbuh), especially when someone who is angry/upset speaking to them, is to remain silent and wait for them to return to calmness. This is a form of wisdom we should all adopt especially when our family members (and especially wives and mothers) are yelling or upset.

So we strongly reject the stupid interpretation of shias that Prophet(saw) going out meant that he was not prepared to believe Ayesha(ra). Many times someone will make a bombastic claim against you, saying “if you don’t answer me it means you are guilty”. That’s not true at all. Not answering someone doesn’t mean you agree with them, it means you don’t want to be involved in that argument/discussion at that time.


Slander 5:

Religious slanderers stated:

[Quote] Ayesha and Hafsa tried to create rift between Prophet (s) and his wife Asma by attributing a lie to Prophet (s)

We read in Tabaqat Ibn Saad: Hamza bin Abi Usaid narrated from his father that he said: ‘Allah’s messenger got married to Asma bin al-Numan al-Jaunia. He sent me to bring her to him, then Hafsa said to Ayesha or Ayesha said to Hafsa: ‘You color her hair while I will comb her hair’. Then they both did that, then one of them said to her (Asma): ‘The prophet (pbuh) likes a woman to say to him: ‘I seek refuge in the Lord of you’. When she entered on the prophet and he (prophet) closed the door and advanced his hand to her, she said: ‘I seek refuge in the Lord of you.” Tabaqat Ibn Saad, Volume 8 page 145[Quote]

Chain of this report is  as follows:  Hisham ibn Muhammad – Ibn al-Ghasil (that’s Abdurrahman ibn Sulaiman ibn Abdullah) – Hamza ibn Abu Sayyad – Father.

Hisham ibn Muhammad al-Kalbi was abandoned. Rafidi, and not truthful. (“Mizanul itidal” 4/304/*9237).

Ibn al-Ghasil was saduq with softness in him.  (“Taqrib” 3887)

Thus due to presence of a Rafidi liar in the chain, this narration is unreliable and is to be rejected.


Slander 6:

Religious slanderers said:

[Quote] Aisha was a known LIAR, and her words alone cannot serve as evidence.[Quote]

Since the shias raised objections on credibility of Ayesha(ra).So let us shatter this claim of shias from the person whom they consider as an Infallible Imam.

This narration is present in Sahi muslim.
وحدثنا محمد بن بشار حدثنا عبد الرحمن حدثنا سفيان عن أبي الزناد عن علي بن الحسين عن عائشة رضي الله عنها أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم كان يقبل وهو صائم
صحيح مسلم:ج2/ص778 ح1106
Comment: Imam Zainul Abedin(4th shia Imam) didn’t have any problem narrating hadeeth from Ayesha(ra) , he didn’t find that Ayesha(ra) was Liar(Mazallah) , So who are shias to raise objection on credibility of Mother of believers, Ayesha(ra)?

Here are some other proofs from Shia book:

الفروع من الكافي الجزء السادس
(باب الخيار)

(11002 2) حميد بن زياد، عن ابن سماعة، عن محمد بن زياد، وابن رباط، عن أبي أيوب الخزاز، عن محمد بن مسلم قال: قلت لابي عبدالله (عليه السلام): إني سمعت أباك يقول: إن رسول الله (صلى الله عليه وآله) خير نساءه فاخترن الله ورسوله فلم يمسكهن على طلاق ولو اخترن أنفسهن لبن، فقال: إن هذا حديث كان يرويه أبي عن عائشة وماللناس وللخيار إنما هذا شئ خص الله عزوجل به رسوله (صلى الله عليه وآله).
In Shia book Furu’u al-Kafi volume six al-Kulayni narrates:
Humayd bin Ziad from ibn Sama’ah from Muhammad bin Ziad and Ibn Rabat from Abu Ayyoub al-Khazzaz from Muhammad ibn Muslim that he said to the Imam Abu Abdullah Ja’afar PBUH: I heard your father say that the Prophet PBUH gave his wives the choice so they chose Allah and his prophet so he did not divorce them (…) The Imam said: This is a narration which my father used to narrate from ‘Aisha…

Comment: So the Imam here told us that Muhamamd al-Baqir used to narrate a narration from ‘Aisha, which proves that Shia Imams even narrated ahadees from Ayesha(ra).

More interesting thing which supports the above answer is that Prophet(saw) SPECIFICALLY asked his WIVES(esp ayesha) to teach believing women ISLAMIC RULINGS.

علی بن إبراهیم. عن هارون بن مسلم، عن مسعدة بن زیاد، عن أبی عبدالله (علیه السلام) أن النبی (صلى الله علیه وآله) قال لبعض نسائه: مری نساء المؤمنین أن یستنجین بالماء ویبالغن فإنه مطهرة للحواشی ومذهبة للبواسیر
الفـروع من الكــافی
تألیف أبی جعفر محمد بن یعقوب بن اسحاق الكلینی الرازی
المتوفی فی سنة 328 / 329 ه
From Abi Abdullah (pbuh) that the prophet (pbuh and his family) told some of his wives: Order the women of the believers to clean themselves with water and to exagerate in it because it cleanses the surrounding areas and it makes the hemorrhoids disappear. [Shia book, Al Kafi]

This was considered an authentic quote by Shia scholar Al Majlisi:
12- (مجلسي صحيح13/58 )
عَلِيُّ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ عَنْ هَارُونَ بْنِ مُسْلِمٍ عَنْ مَسْعَدَةَ بْنِ زِيَادٍ عَنْ أَبِي عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ( عليه السلام ) أَنَّ النَّبِيَّ ( صلى الله عليه وآله ) قَالَ لِبَعْضِ نِسَائِهِ مُرِي نِسَاءَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ أَنْ يَسْتَنْجِينَ بِالْمَاءِ وَ يُبَالِغْنَ فَإِنَّهُ مَطْهَرَةٌ لِلْحَوَاشِي وَ مَذْهَبَةٌ لِلْبَوَاسِيرِ .

و لا یخفى ما فیه فإنه لیس فی الخبر دلالة على ان الغسلة الثانیة لازالة شی‏ء فی المحل یعبر عنه بالأثر، بل الظاهر منه لیس الا وجوب غسل المحل بعد ازالة العین عنه و انه یحصل به الإنقاء أی طهارة المحل.و یستدل له أیضا بالخبر العامی النبوی، و فیه: قال صلّى اللّه علیه و آله و سلّم لعائشة: «مری نساء المدینة یستنجین بالماء و یبالغن فإنه مطهرة للحواشی» بتقریب ان فی قوله صلّى اللّه علیه و آله و سلّم‏«یبالغن» مع التعلیل دلالة أو اشعارا بلزوم إزالة الأثر (و الانصاف) وهن هذه الدعوى أیضا، حیث لا دلالة و لا إشعار فی قوله صلّى اللّه علیه و آله و سلّم: «یبالغن» و لا فی التعلیل بان فی المبالغة فی التطهیر یحصل طهر الحواشی على لزوم إزالة الأثر، فالحق انه لیس لإثبات الفرق المذكور دلیل سوى دعوى مثل الشیخ الأكبر (قده) الاتفاق علیه.
مصباح الهدى فی شرح العروة الوثقى، ج‏3
المؤلف: الآملی، المیرزا محمد تقی‏
تاریخ وفاة المؤلف: 1391 ه ق‏
تاریخ الطبع: 1380 ه ق‏
الطبعة: الأولى‏
مكان الطبع: طهران- إیران‏
الأمر الثانی عشر انهم قد فرقوا بین الغسل بالماء و بین المسح بالأحجار
ص: 51 – ص: 52

و یشیر إلیه أیضا قول النبی (صلى الله علیه و آله) «3» لعائشة: «مری نساء المدینة یستنجین بالماء. و یبالغن، فإنه مطهرة للحواشی» فإن قوله (صلى الله علیه و آله) و یبالغن مع التعلیل مشعر بذلك، أو یقال انا لا نلتزم طهارة تلك الأجزاء حال المسح بالأحجار، بل نقول: انه معفو عنها و عما یلاقیها مما یكون فی اجتنابه عسر ما دامت على المحل، أما لو ارتفع ذلك فإنها تنجس ما یلاقیها، و لا ینافی ما ذكرنا من التحدید بزوال العین ما وقع لبعضهم من التحدید بالنقاء كالخبر، لما عرفت من أن النقاء فی كل شی‏ء بحسبه، كما سمعت ذلك فی الروایة، فالنقاء حینئذ متحد المعنى، لكن مختلف بالنسبة إلى ما یحصل به، فان نقاء كل شی‏ء بحسب حاله.جواهر الكلام فی شرح شرائع الإسلام، ج‏2 شیخ الفقهاء و إمام المحققین محمد حسن بن الشیخ باقر بن الشیخ عبد الرحیم النجفی( ت 1266 ه) الناشر: دار إحیاء التراث العربی‏ الطبعة: السابعة مكان الطبع: بیروت- لبنان‏ المحقق / المصحح: الشیخ عباس القوچانی‏ [فی وجوب إزالة الغائط بالماء تخییرا] ص: 26 – ص: 27

These are quotes from shia books of jurisprudence, quoting the Prophet (pbuh) telling Aisha (may God be pleased with her) to “Command the women of Medina to use water to clean their private parts and to exaggerate in the quantity used because it purifies the surrounding areas as well”. The first quote is by “Al Amali” and the second by “al Najafi”.

Comment: We find that Prophet(Saw) commanded his wives(esp ayesha) to teach women Islamic rulings, if at all Ayesha(ra) was liar in the sight of Prophet(saw), (Mazallah) then why would prophet(Saw) ask her to do that? This is sufficient to establish the credibility of Ayesha(ra) in sight of honest , unbiased Muslims. Thus the slander of Shias is destroyd.


Accusing Mother of believers for hating other members of Ahlebayt.

Slander 7 A:

Religious slanderers Stated:

[Quote] حدثني محمد بن الحسين الأشناني، قال: حدثنا أحمد بن حازم، قال: حدثنا عاصم بن عامر، وعثمان بن أبي شيبة، قالا: حدثنا جرير، عن الأعمش، عن عمرو بن مرة، عن أبي البختري، قال:لما أن جاء عائشة قتل علي عليه السلام سجدت.

Narrated to us Muhammad b. Hussein al-Ashnani – narrated to us Ahmad b. Hazem, narrated to us Aseem b. Ameer and Uthman b. Abi Shaybah , narrated to us Jarir, from Amash, from Amr b. Murrah, from Abu Bukhtari that he said: When the news of Ali’s (r.a) death reached Aisha, whereupon she prostrated (to thank God.)  – Abul-Faraj al-Isfahani, “Maqatil al-Talibiyyin”, v.1, p.11 [Quote]

Firstly we would like to start from the author of book – Abul Faraj al-Isfahani. He was a SHIA, So the book being cited is a SHIA book, which doesn’t carry any weight in the sight of Ahlesunnah.

Abul Faraj was shia, as said Dhahabi in “Siyar”.

The chief Shia scholar Abū Ja`far al-Ţūsī (d. 460) states in al-Fihrist:

أبو الفرج الأصبهاني زيدي المذهب له كتاب الأغاني الكبير وكتاب مقاتل الطالبيين وغير ذلك من الكتب وكتاب ما نزل من القرآن في أمير المؤمنين وأهل بيته عليهم السلام وكتاب فيه كلام فاطمة عليها السلام في فدك وغير ذلك من الكتب

“Abū al-Faraj al-Aşbahānī: An adherent of the Zaydī school of thought. He authored the major al-Aghānī [“The Songs”], Maqātil al-Ţālibiyyīn [“Martyrdoms of the Descendents of Abū Ţālib”] and other such works; Kitāb Mā Nazal min al-Qur’ān fī Amīr al-Mu’minīn wa Ahl Baytih `alayhim al-salām [“A Book on What was Revealed in the Qur’ān About the Commander of the Believers and his Ahl al-Bayt (as)”], a book which contains the speech of Fāţima (as) about Fadak, and other such works.” ( al-Fihrist, of Abū Ja`far al-Ţūsī (d. 460), page 280 [Qum])

Perhaps the most remarkable mention of the views held by both Sunnī and Shī`ī scholars about Abū al-Faraj is provided by the Shī`ī editor of Maqātil al-Ţālibiyyīn, Kāžim al-Mužaffar al-Najafī. He states in his introduction of the book:

Abū al-Faraj was a Shia in respect of inclination and belief; upon the known Zaydī school of thought. Most of his biographers have specified his Shī`ism, including his contemporary al-Qāđī al-Tannūkhī, who has mentioned in his book Nishwār al-Muĥāđara that the former was among the adherents of Shī`ism who he had witnessed. Ibn Shākir said in `Uyūn al-Tawārīkh that he was a predominant adherent of Shī`ism. Similarly, al-Ĥurr al-`Āmilī in Amal al-Āmil and al-Khawānsārī in Rawđāt al-Jannāt have also specified his Shī`ism. As for Ibn al-Athīr, he has said in his book al-Kāmil that [Abū al-Faraj] was a Shī`ī, but he found wonderment in the latter’s Shī`īsm and thus added: ‘This is astonishing!’ Perhaps the point of astonishment according to Ibn al-Athīr is Abū al-Faraj’s being from the center of the Ummayad family—and how can then he be upon the Shī`ī school?—while all history knows is colors of enmity and then the political and religious contention that wrangled a long yoke between the Umayyads and Alids. However, in reality, opinion—meaning, any opinion—knows no land or nationality, just as belief has no interference in the lineage of man regardless of whatever that lineage is.”(Maqātil al-Ţālibiyyīn {Introduction}, of Abū al-Faraj al-Aşfahānī (d. 356), page 14 [Najaf])

For a detailed info on this author please refer this [link]

Secondly we would like to mention that narrator al-Amash, Sulaiman ibn Mikhran. Was thiqat, but he was known for tadlis, and this report he transmitted in muanan form, without making clear if he heard it himself or not.

Thirdly, Abul Bukhturi never narrated from Aisha. Imam Waliatdin Abu Zurah al-Iraqi in his “Tuhfat al-Tahshil fi Dzikri Ruwat al-Marasil” (p 126-127) said:Abu Hatim said: (Abul Bukhturi) didn’t heard from Ali, and didn’t see him.

Al-Alai said: He narrated a lot disconnected (reports) from Umar, and Ali and ibn Masood, and Huzayfa and others.

Abu Hatim said: (Reports) Abul Bukhturi from Aisha (is) mursal(disconnected).

We read  that, Sa`eed b. `Ubayd Abu al-Bakhtari, “he from `Aa’ishah is mursal”
– سَعِيدُ بْنُ عُبَيْدٍ أَبُو البخْترِي
270 – قرىء عَلَى الْعَبَّاسِ بْنِ مُحَمَّدٍ الْدُّورِيِّ نَا يَحْيَى بْنُ مَعِينٍ نَا حَجَّاجُ بْنُ مُحَمَّدٍ نَا شُعْبَةُ ح وَحَدَّثَنَا عَلِيُّ بْنُ الْحَسَنِ الْهِسِنْجَانِيُّ نَا أَحْمَدُ بْنُ حَنْبَلٍ نَا حَجَّاجُ يَعْنِي ابْنَ مُحَمَّدٍ نَا شُعْبَةُ قَالَ كَانَ أَبُو إِسْحَق أَكْبَرُ مِنْ أَبِي الْبَخْتَرِيِّ لَمْ يُدْرِكْ أَبُو الْبَخْتَرِيِّ عَلِيًّا وَلَمْ يَرَهُ
271 – سَمِعْتُ أَبِي يَقُولُ أَبُو الْبَخْتَرَيِّ الطَّائِيِّ لَمْ يُدْرِكْ عَلِيًّا وَلَا أَبا ذَرٍّ وَلَا أَبا سَعِيدٍ الْخُدْرِيَّ وَلَمْ يُدْرِكْ زَيدَ بْنَ ثَابِتٍ وَلَا رَافِعَ بْنَ خُدَيْجٍ
273 – وَقَالَ أَبِي أَبُو الْبَخْتَرِيِّ عَنْ عَائِشَةَ مُرْسَلٌ

When we look up Sa`eed b. Fayrooz in Ibn Hajr’s tahdheeb al-Tahdheeb, we see Ibn Hajr quote Abu al-Haatim al-Raazi’s statement of him narrating from `Aa’ishah being mursal. (vol. 4, pg. 73, person # 127)
وكان كثير الحديث يرسل حديثه ويروي عن الصحابة ولم يسمع من كثير أحد فما كان من حديثه سماعا فهو حسن وما كان غيره فهو ضعيف وقال ابن أبي حاتم في المراسيل عن أبيه لم يدرك أبا ذر ولا أبا سعيد ولا زيد بن ثابت ولا رافع بن خديج وهو عن عائشة مرسل
الناشر: مطبعة دائرة المعارف النظامية، الهند
الطبعة: الطبعة الأولى، 1326هـ
عدد الأجزاء: 12

Salaah al-Deel al-`Alaa’ee (d. 761) says in his Jaami` al-Tahseel under Sa`eed b. Fayrooz:
242 – سعيد بن فيروز أبو البختري الطائي كثير الإرسال عن عمر وعلي وابن مسعود وحذيفة وغيرهم رضي الله عنهم قال شعبة كان أبو إسحاق يعني السبيعي أكبر من أبي البختري ولم يدرك أبو البختري عليا ولم يره وكذلك قال البخاري وأبو زرعة وغيرهما وقال البخاري أيضا لم يدرك أبو البختري سلمان رضي الله عنه وقال أبو حاتم لم يدرك أبا ذر ولا زيد بن ثابت ولا رافع بن خديج ولا أبا سعيد الخدري ولم يلق سلمان قال وقول أبي البختري أنهم حاصروا نهاوند يعني أن المسلمين حاصروا وأبو البختري عن عائشة مرسل

Ibn Sa`ad states in regards to Abu al-Bakhtari, that if Abu al-Bakhtari says he has heard a hadeeth, then it is good, but if he doesn’t specify how he got his hadeeth, then it is da`eef.

Here is what Ibn Sa`ad says in his al-Tabaqaat al-Kubra, vol. 6, pg. 296:
وَكَانَ أَبُو الْبَخْتَرِيِّ كَثِيرَ الْحَدِيثِ يُرْسِلُ حَدِيثَهُ وَيَرْوِي عَنْ أَصْحَابِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ – صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ – ولم يَسْمَعْ مِنْ كَبِيرِ أَحَدٍ. فَمَا كَانَ مِنْ حَدِيثِهِ سَمَاعًا فَهُوَ حَسَنٌ. وَمَا كَانَ عَنْ فَهُوَ ضَعِيفٌ.
تحقيق: محمد عبد القادر عطا
الناشر: دار الكتب العلمية – بيروت
الطبعة: الأولى، 1410 هـ – 1990 م
عدد الأجزاء: 8

Since this hadeeth does not specify any way that he got this hadeeth from `A’ishah, simply saying “He said: ‘And when (the news) of the murder of `Ali reached `Aa’ishah, she did sajdah”. This would fall under the weak by the statements of Ibn Sa`ad’s statements.

Also, another thing about Abu al-Bakhtari, Sa`eed b. Fayrooz, died in al-Jamaajim in the year 82 or 83 (most likely), is that he is said to be Shee`ah, qaleel Shiee, so him being a Shiee, is another interesting point to add to this hadeeth, even though he is thiqah.

So even if we would accept Abul Faraj al-Isbahani as a reliable in ahadeth, even then this chain contains  irsal(disconnection) between al-Amash and Abul Bukhturi, and certain irsal(disconnection) between Abul Bukhturi and Aisha. Which makes this report from SHIA book unreliable and thus should be rejected.

Also, we read:

When Ā’ishah heard about the martyrdom of ‘Alī, she prayed for him and said, “Have you seen him (‘Alī) saying other than this (i.e. Allāh & His Messenger spoke the truth)? I said, ‘By Allāh, No.’ She (Ā’ishah) said, ‘Yes Allāh and His Messenger spoke the truth, May Allāh have mercy upon ‘Alī, for whenever he would like something he would say’, ‘Allāh and His Messenger have declared the truth’.” [Sahīh al-Musnad min Ahadīth al-Fitān by Shaykh Mustafa al-Adāwī , page 150-151] Grading: Isnād is Hasan (Strong).


Slander 7 B:

Then religious slanderers Quoted another report:

[Quote]Let’s see another sources, for this incident.

وذهب بقتل علي عليه السلام إلى الحجاز سفيان بن أمية بن أبي سفيان بن أمية بن عبد شمس فبلغ ذلك عائشة فقالت:
فأَلقتْ عَصاها واستقرَّ بها النَّوى كما قرَّ عيناً بالإيابِ المُسافِرُ

“Sufyan b. Uyaynah brought the news of Ali’s death to Hijaz. When Ayesha (ra) was informed about the murder of Ali (ra), he said:“she threw down her staff and settled upon her place of abode, like the traveller happy to return home”. [Quote]

First of all, that is not ibn Uyaynah, but ibn Umayah. Secondly it’s interesting why in contrast to first report, religious deceivers quoted this one without chain?

The chain of this report has Abu Is’haaq is Al-Subai’ee, he was a major mudalis, and he narrated this in anana form, and in our view this is the defect in the chain, which makes it weak. However , we would like to ask Shias, that do they believe that this report is authentic?

Because what was quoted by shias is just a part of much bigger narration from “Tabaqat”. So let us quote it completely:

قال أخبرنا أسباط بن محمد عن مطرف عن أبي إسحاق عن عمرو بن الأصم قال دخلت على الحسن بن علي وهو في دار عمرو بن حريث فقلت له إن ناسا يزعمون أن عليا يرجع قبل يوم القيامة فضحك وقال سبحان الله لو علمنا ذلك ما زوجنا نساؤه ولا ساهمنا ميراثه قالوا وكان عبد الرحمن بن ملجم في السجن فلما مات علي رضوان الله عليه ورحمته وبركاته ودفن بعث الحسن بن علي إلى عبد الرحمن بن ملجم فأخرجه من السجن ليقتله فاجتمع الناس وجاؤوه بالنفط والبواري والنار فقالوا نحرقه فقال عبد الله بن جعفر وحسين بن علي ومحمد بن الحنفية دعونا حتى نشفي أنفسنا منه فقطع عبد الله بن جعفر يديه ورجليه فلم يجزع ولم يتكلم فكحل عينيه بمسمار محمى فلم يجزع وجعل يقول إنك لتكحل عيني عمك بملمول مض وجعل يقول اقرأ باسم ربك الذي خلق خلق الإنسان من علق حتى أتى على آخر السورة كلها وإن عينيه لتسيلان ثم أمر به فعولج عن لسانه ليقطعه فجزع فقيل له قطعنا يديك ورجليك وسملنا عينيك يا عدو الله فلم تجزع

فلما صرنا إلى لسانك جزعت فقال ما ذاك مني من جزع إلا أني أكره أن أكون في الدنيا فواقا لا أذكر الله فقطعوا لسانه ثم جعلوه في قوصرة وأحرقوه بالنار والعباس بن علي يومئذ صغير فلم يستأذن به بلوغه وكان عبد الرحمن بن ملجم رجلا أسمر حسن الوجه أفلج شعره مع شحمة أذنيه في جبهته أثر السجود قالوا وذهب بقتل علي عليه السلام إلى الحجاز سفيان بن أمية بن أبي سفيان بن أمية بن عبد شمس فبلغ ذلك عائشة فقالت … فألقت عصاها واستقرت بها النوى … كما قر عينا بالإياب المسافر

Red marked is a part which was used by Shias. But let us translate the beginning portion of this report, which we marked in green.

Translation : “Narrated to me Asbat ibn Muhammad from Muttarif from Abu Ishaq from Amr ibn Al-Asam, which said: I entered upon al-Hasan ibn Ali and he was in the house of Amr ibn Harith, I said to him: People claim that Ali would be back before day of judgment, and he laughed. He answered: SubhanAllah! If we would know that we wouldn’t marry his wifes, neither divide his inheritance. He said: Abdurrahman ibn Muljam was in the prison, and when Ali ridwanullah alaihi wa rahmatuhu wa barakatuhu died and was buried, al-Hasan ibn Ali send to Abdurrahman ibn Muljam, to take him out from prison for execution….

Further al-Hasan mentioned execution till the end, and described how tongue of ibn Muljam was cut. And in the end he mentioned the thing which was quoted by Shias against Aisha.”

So we would like to present few questions to the Shias who tried to use this narration in their favour in order to attack Ayesha(ra).

1) Do Shias believe in this  report completely? Or exactly as Jews, they believe in some part of it, and reject the other?

2) If Shias do believe in second part, then they should believe in initial part too, because this is single narration which was transmitted via the single chain.

3) If they do believe in it completely, then they should admit that Ahlebayt laughed upon idea that Ali would return before dooms-day, meaning they laughed upon the one of the important SHIA BELIEFS of RAJA’H.

But as said this report is from  Abu Is’haaq is Al-Subai’ee, he was a major mudalis, and he narrated this in anana form, which makes the narration weak.


Slander 8:

Religious slanderers stated:

[Quote] Aisha’s hatred for Imam Ali (AS) was so much that she always tried to distance him from the Prophet (PBUH&HF) whenever she could find the means to do so. Ibn Abil Hadid, in his commentary on the Nahjul Balagha reported:

The Prophet of Allah (PBUH&HF) beckoned to Ali to come close. He came close until he sat between him and Aisha, and he and the Prophet (PBUH&HF) were clung together. She said to him “Can you not find a seat for this one except on my thigh?” Ibn Abil Hadid also reported that one day the Prophet of Allah (PBUH&HF) was walking with Imam Ali and the conversation became prolonged. Aisha approached as she was walking from behind until she came between them saying: “What is it between you two that you are taking so long?” Upon this the Prophet of Allah (PBUH&HF) became angry.

Sunni reference: Sharh Ibn Abil Hadid, v9, p195[Quote]

Ibn Abi al-Hadid was not a Sunni at all, but rather a Mutazzalite/Shia. In “Al-Kunna wal Al-Alqab” (vol.1, p.185), the Shia scholar al-Qummi outlines the staunch and fanatical Shia background of Ibn Abi Al-Hadid in al-Madain. As such, his book is not a proof for us Sunnis. It is extremely deceitful of the Shia to provide this non-Sunni pro-Shia book in a list entitled “Sunni references.” The Shia books are full of lies against Aisha, some even accusing her of poisoning the Prophet himself. Therefore, bringing up a Shia book does not prove anything before Ahlesunnah, because we know the Shias were the masters of fabrications.


Slander 9 A:

Shias scholar Said in his book:

[Quote] Ayesha did not like mentioning his(Ali ibn Abu Talib’s) name.[ Shia book, Then I was Guided, p.118][Quote]

This is not true, here are few examples which refutes the Shia claim.

عبد الرزاق عن الاوزاعي عن مكحول عمن سأل عائشة في كم تصلي المرأة من الثياب ؟ فقالت له : سل عليا ثم ارجع إلي فأخبرني بالذي يقول لك ، قال : فأتى عليا فسأله فقال : في الخمار والدرع السابغ ، فرجع إلى عائشة فأخبرها فقالت : صدق.

‘Abdul-Razzaq from al-Awza’ee from Makhoul from he who asked ‘Aisha (ra) about the clothes that a woman wears in prayer? she said: ask ‘Ali then come back and tell me what he answers, so he went and asked him and ‘Ali replied: “She can pray in a shift that reaches down and covers the top of her feet.” then he returned and told ‘Aisha and she said: He speaks truth.(Musannaf ‘Abdul-Razzaq).

Aisha mentioned Ali by her full mouth. Shareeh Bin Hane’e says, I asked Aysha about washing (the feet in ablution). She said, “Go to Ali ibn abi Talib, he is more knowledgeable than I.” So I went to him and asked him about the wash. Ali said, “The messenger of Allah used to order us to wash our feet at day and night, and the traveler should do it three times.” (The Virtues of the Companions, by Imam Ahmed, vol.2, #1199, p.702)

أتيت عائشة أسألها عن المسح على الخفين : فقالت : عليك بابن أبي طالب فسله . فإنه كان يسافر مع رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم . فسألناه فقال : جعل رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ثلاثة أيام ولياليهن للمسافر . ويوما وليلة للمقيم .

Shurayh bin Hanii said: I came to ‘Aisha (ra) asking her about wiping on the Khufayn(socks) so she said: You have to seek ‘Ali Ibn abi Talib and ask him for he used to travel a lot with the Prophet SAWS, ‘Ali then said: “The Prophet SAWS allowed three days and three nights for the traveler and one day and one night for the resident.”

Aisha(ra) named Ali(ra) when she narrated the hadeeth regarding the hadeeth al kisa (refer sahi muslim, Kitab Fadhailu sahaba, #6414.)

Aisha (may God be pleased with her) said regarding Ali(ra): “He is the most knowledgeable about the Sunna among those who remain,” (Abu Nu`aym, Hilya al-Awliya’ 1:100-128 #4; al-Dhahabi, Siyar A`lam al-Nubala’ 1/2:615-660 #5.)

Comment: So we find from these reports that not only Ayesha(ra) took the name of Ali(ra), but even mentioned the virtues of Ali(ra) and his high knowledge when it comes to Sunnah of Prophet(saw). These reports destroys the claim of Shias, that Ayesh(ra) disliked taking the name of Ali(ra), because she hated him.

Secondly, the Shia schoolar based his argument from the following authentic hadeeth:

Sahi bukhari 3.761: Narrated Az−Zuhari: Ubaidullah bin `Abdullah told me that `Aisha had said, “When the Prophet became sick and his condition became serious, he requested his wives to allow him to be treated in my house, and they allowed him. He came out leaning on two men while his feet were dragging on the ground. He was walking between Al−`Abbas and another man.” ‘Ubaidullah said, “When I informed Ibn `Abbas of what `Aisha had said, he asked me whether I knew who was the second man whom `Aisha had not named. I replied in the negative. He said, ‘He was `Ali bin Abi Talib.”

Comment: So, since Ayesha(ra) said another man for Ali(ra), the shias try to speculate from this that Ayesha(ra) hated Ali(ra). But if it is true then we would like to present another authentic version of report which a slight variation where Ayesha(ra) didn’t even name Abbas(ra), So does it mean that Ayesha(ra) even hated Abbas(ra)? If shias say yes, then we ask them to provide the reason for this ridiculous claim.

Sahi bukhari 1.681: Narrated `Aisha: When Allah’s Apostle became seriously ill, Bilal came to him for the prayer. He said, “Tell Abu Bakr to lead the people in the prayer.” I said, “O Allah’s Apostle! Abu Bakr is a softhearted man and if he stands in your place, he would not be able to make the people hear him. Will you order `Umar (to lead the prayer)?” The Prophet said, “Tell Abu Bakr to lead the people in the prayer.” Then I said to Hafsa, “Tell him, Abu bakr is a softhearted man and if he stands in his place, he would not be able to make the people hear him. Would you order `Umar to lead the prayer?’ ” Hafsa did so. The Prophet said, “Verily you are the companions of Joseph. Tell Abu Bakr to lead the people in the prayer.” So Abu− Bakr stood for the prayer. In the meantime Allah’s Apostle felt better and came out with the help of two persons and both of his legs were dragging on the ground till he entered the mosque.

Comment: Here we find that Ayesha(ra) didn’t even name Abbas(ra). This shows that not naming or forgetting to take the name of a person doesn’t signifies that you hate that person.


Slander 9 B:

Another Shia Quoted a report to back their view:

[Quote] حدثنا عبد الله حدثنى أبى ثنا عبد الاعلى عن معمر عن الزهري عن عبيد الله بن عبد الله عن عائشة قالت لما مرض رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم في بيت ميمونة فاستأذن نساءه ان يمرض في بيتى فاذن له فخرج رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم معتمدا على العباس وعلى رجل آخر ورجلاه تخطان في الارض وقال عبيدالله فقال ابن عباس أتدرى من ذلك الرجل هو على بن أبى طالب ولكن عائشة لا تطيب لها نفسا

narrated abdullah narrated my father (ahmed ibn hanbal) narrated abdul aa’la narrated Muammar from zuhri from ubaidilleh ibn abdilleh from Ayesha she said: when Rasool allah fell ill in the house of maymouna he asked his wives for permission to stay in my house so they agreed so rasool allah came out supported by Al-Abbas and an other manand his feet were dragging on the floor. Ubaidullah said : so ibn Abbas said : do u know who was that man? it’s Ali ibn abi taleb but ayesha doesn’t like him[Quote]

This has been narrated twice in Sahih Bukhari, but in both of these ahadith, this last part
ولكن عائشة لا تطيب لها نفسا
which Shias translated as: but ayesha doesn’t like himis missing.

This addition is a Mudraj part, and it seems that the addition of this phrase was made by a sub narrator, and that addition was the assumption of that sub(middle) narrator. Thus the Mudraj parts are rejected as per hadeeth science.

Sahi Bukhari 3.761: Narrated Az−Zuhari: Ubaidullah bin `Abdullah told me that `Aisha had said, “When the Prophet became sick and his condition became serious, he requested his wives to allow him to be treated in my house, and they allowed him. He came out leaning on two men while his feet were dragging on the ground. He was walking between Al−`Abbas and another man.” ‘Ubaidullah said, “When I informed Ibn Abbas of what `Aisha had said, he asked me whether I knew who was the second man whom `Aisha had not named. I replied in the negative. He said, ‘He was `Ali bin Abi Talib.”

Sahi bukhari 1.197: Narrated `Aisha: When the ailment of the Prophet became aggravated and his disease became severe, he asked his wives to permit him to be
nursed (treated) in my house. So they gave him the permission. Then the Prophet came (to my house) with the support of two men, and his legs were dragging on the ground, between `Abbas, and another man.” ‘Ubaidullah (the sub narrator) said, “I informed Abdullah bin `Abbas of what `Aisha said. Ibn `Abbas said: ‘Do you know who was the other man?’ I replied in the negative. Ibn `Abbas said, ‘He was `Ali (bin Abi Talib).”

Sahi Bukhari 1.634: Narrated `Aisha: “When the Prophet became seriously ill and his disease became aggravated he asked for permission from his wives to be nursed in my house and he was allowed. He came out with the help of two men and his legs were dragging on the ground. He was between Al−`Abbas and another man.” ‘Ubaidullah said, “I told Ibn `Abbas what `Aisha had narrated and he said, ‘Do you know who was the (second) man whose name `Aisha did not mention'” I said, ‘No.’ Ibn `Abbas said, ‘He was `Ali Ibn Abi Talib.’

Here is the Arabic text:
حدثنا : ‏ ‏أبو اليمان ‏ ‏قال : ، أخبرنا : ‏ ‏شعيب ‏ ‏، عن ‏ ‏الزهري ‏ ‏قال : أخبرني : ‏ ‏عبيد الله بن عبد الله بن عتبة ‏ ‏أن ‏ ‏عائشة ‏ ‏قالت : لما ‏ثقل ‏‏النبي (ص) ‏ ‏وإشتد به وجعه ‏ ‏إستأذن أزواجه في أن يمرض في بيتي فأذن له فخرج النبي ‏ (ص) ‏ ‏بين رجلين تخط رجلاه في الأرض بين ‏ ‏عباس ‏ ‏ورجل آخر ، ‏قال عبيد الله :‏ ‏فأخبرت ‏عبد الله بن عباس ‏فقال : أتدري من الرجل الآخر قلت : لا ، قال : هو ‏ ‏علي بن أبي طالب ‏ ‏(ر) ‏ ‏وكانت ‏ ‏عائشة ‏ ‏(ر) ‏ ‏تحدث أن النبي ‏ (ص) ‏ ‏قال : بعدما دخل بيته وإشتد وجعه ‏ ‏هريقوا ‏ ‏على من سبع قرب لم تحلل أوكيتهن لعلي أعهد إلى الناس وأجلس في ‏ ‏مخضب ‏ ‏لحفصة زوج النبي ‏ (ص) ‏، ‏ثم ‏ ‏طفقنا ‏ ‏نصب عليه تلك حتى ‏ ‏طفق ‏ ‏يشير إلينا أن قد فعلتن ثم خرج إلى الناس

حدثنا : ‏ ‏إبراهيم بن موسى ‏ ‏قال : ، أخبرنا : ‏ ‏هشام بن يوسف ‏ ‏، عن ‏ ‏معمر ‏ ‏، عن ‏ ‏الزهري ‏ ‏قال : أخبرني : ‏ ‏عبيد الله بن عبد الله ‏قال : قالت : ‏عائشة ‏لما ثقل النبي ‏ (ص) ‏ ‏وإشتد وجعه إستأذن أزواجه أن يمرض في بيتي فأذن له فخرج بين رجلين تخط رجلاه الأرض وكان بين ‏ ‏العباس ‏ ‏ورجل آخر . ‏قال عبيد الله ‏: فذكرت ذلك ‏ ‏لإبن عباس ‏ ‏ما قالت عائشة ‏ ‏فقال لي : وهل تدري من الرجل الذي لم تسم ‏ ‏عائشة ‏ ‏قلت : لا ، قال : هو ‏ ‏علي بن أبي طالب.

Comment: So we can clearly see from these authentic reports that, the part (ولكن عائشة لا تطيب لها نفسا)  which Shias translated as: but ayesha doesn’t like him”  is missing from these authentic reports, proving our point that it is a mudraj part.

Again this report has been narrated in Sahih Muslim
حدثني : ‏ ‏عبد الملك بن شعيب بن الليث ‏ ‏، حدثني : ‏ ‏أبي ‏ ‏، عن ‏ ‏جدي ‏ ‏قال : ، حدثني : ‏ ‏عقيل بن خالد ‏ ‏قال إبن شهاب ‏ ‏أخبرني : ‏ ‏عبيد الله بن عبد الله بن عتبة بن مسعود ‏ ‏أن ‏ ‏عائشة زوج النبي ‏ (ص) ‏ ‏قالت : ‏لما ‏ ‏ثقل ‏ ‏رسول الله ‏ (ص) ‏ ‏وإشتد به وجعه إستأذن أزواجه أن يمرض في بيتي فأذن له فخرج بين رجلين ‏ ‏تخط ‏ ‏رجلاه في الأرض بين ‏ ‏عباس بن عبد المطلب ‏ ‏وبين رجل آخر ‏قال عبيد الله :‏ ‏فأخبرت ‏ ‏عبد الله ‏ ‏بالذي قالت عائشة :‏ ‏فقال لي ‏ ‏عبد الله بن عباس :‏ ‏هل تدري من الرجل الآخر الذي لم تسم ‏ ‏عائشة ‏ ‏قال : قلت : لا ، قال إبن عباس ‏: ‏هو ‏ ‏علي
Comment: Here too the particular text is missing.

Again this report has been mentioned in Ibn Majah
حدثنا : ‏ ‏سهل بن أبي سهل ‏ ، حدثنا : ‏ ‏سفيان بن عيينة ‏ ‏، عن ‏ ‏الزهري ‏ ‏، عن ‏ ‏عبيد الله بن عبد الله ‏ ‏قال : ‏ ‏سألت ‏ ‏عائشة ‏ ‏فقلت : أي ‏ ‏أمه أخبريني ، عن مرض رسول الله ‏ (ص) ‏ ‏قالت : ‏ ‏إشتكى ‏ ‏فعلق ينفث فجعلنا نشبه نفثه بنفثة أكل الزبيب وكان يدور على نسائه ، فلما ثقل إستأذنهن أن يكون في بيت ‏ ‏عائشة ‏ ‏وأن يدرن عليه قالت : فدخل علي رسول الله ‏ (ص) ‏ ‏وهو بين رجلين ورجلاه تخطان بالأرض أحدهما ‏ ‏العباس ‏ ‏فحدثت به ‏ ‏إبن عباس ‏ ‏فقال : ‏ ‏أتدري من الرجل الذي لم تسمه ‏ ‏عائشة ‏ ‏هو ‏ ‏علي بن أبي طالب
Comment: As we see, the particular text is missing

Again in Sunan Nasai
أخبرنا : محمد بن منصور ، قال : ، حدثنا : سفيان ، عن الزهري ، قال : أخبرني : عبيد الله ، قال : سألت عائشة ، عن مرض رسول الله (ص) قالت : إشتكى فعلق ينفث فكنا نشبه نفثه بنفث أكل الزبيب ، وكان يدور على نسائه فلما إشتد المرض إستأذنهن أن يمرض عندي ويدرن عليه فأذن له فدخل علي ، وهو يتكئ على رجلين تخط رجلاه الأرض خطأ أحدهما العباس ، فذكرت ذلك لإبن عباس ، فقال : ألم تخبرك من الآخر ؟ ، قلت : لا ، قال : هو علي.
Comment: The particular text is missing

Baihaqi also recorded it in Sunan al kubra
أخبرنا : أبو عبد الله الحافظ ، أخبرني : أبو النضر الفقيه ، ثنا : عثمان بن سعيد الدارمي ، قال : قرأناه على أبي اليمان ، عن شعيب بن أبي حمزة ، عن الزهري ، قال : أخبرني : عبيد الله بن عبد الله بن عتبة ، أن عائشة (ر) ، قالت : لما ثقل النبي (ص) وإشتد به وجعه ، إستأذن أزواجه في أن يمرض في بيتي فأذن له فخرج (ص) بين الرجلين تخط رجلاه في الأرض بين عباس ورجل آخر قال عبيد الله : فأخبرت عبد الله بن عباس ، قال : أتدري من الرجل الآخر ؟ ، قلت : لا ، قال : هو علي ، وكانت عائشة ، تحدث أن النبي (ص) ، قال : بعد ما دخل بيتي وإشتد وجعه : أهريقوا على من سبع قرب لم تحلل أوكيتهن لعلي أعهد إلى الناس ، فأجلس في مخضب لحفصة زوج النبي (ص) ، ثم طفقنا نصب عليه من تلك القرب حتى طفق يشير إلينا أن قد فعلتن ، ثم خرج إلى الناس ، رواه البخاري في الصحيح ، عن أبي اليمان ، ويقال : إن ذلك المخضب كان من نحاس وذلك فيما.
Comment: Still the particular text is missing.

This leaves us without a shadow of doubt that the additions present in the narration cited by Shias, is not present in many other authentic narrations, which proves that the addition is Mudraj part, which was done by a sub narrator and is to be rejected.

Moreover, here is what Imam Ibn Hajr said in his explanation of Sahi bukhari, which further strengthens our answer.

Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani in his “Fathul-bari” and Badruddin al-Ayni in his “Umdatul-qari” Said:
قوله : قال : هو علي بن أبيطالب .
‏زاد الإسماعيلي : من رواية عبد الرزاق ، عن معمر ولكن عائشة لا تطيبنفساً له بخير ولإبن إسحاق في المغازي ، عن الزهريولكنها لا تقدر على أن تذكره بخير.
His saying: he said: he is Ali b. Abi Talib.
al-Ismaeli added: from Abdulrazaq’s narrations, from Muammar, “but Aisha herself was not kind/good to him” and Ibn Ishaaq in “al-Maghazi”, narrated from az-Zuhri that “but she didn’t posses the ability to mention him in a good way”. (Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, Fathul-bari, v.2, p.156) ; (Badr ad-Din al-Hanafi al-Ayni, Umdatul-Qari fi-Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari, v.5, p.192)
Comment: So this shows that this additional part was an addition of sub narrator Zuhri or Sub narrator Muammar. And both of these sub narrators are present in the chain of the report that was cited by the Shias. Such addition by sub narrators  is also known as Mudraj in Hadith sciences. An addition by a reporter to the text of the saying being narrated is termed mudraj (interpolated).[Further details regarding Mudraj definition can be read here]

And interestingly one of the sub narrator present in the chain of the hadeeth cited by Shias, have been criticized by Scholars for doing Idraaj. Shaykh Abdurrahman ad-Dimashqiyah said regarding Zuhri:
فهجرته فلم تكلمه حتى توفيت
أن لفظ « فغضبت فاطمة وهجرته ولم تكلمه حتى ماتت.. إلخ الكلام الطويل« أنه مدرج من كلام الزهري وليس من نص الحديث. وقد نص البيهقي على أن الزهري أدرج في هذا الحديث
Comment: Shaykh Abdurrahman ad-Dimashqiyah basically commented regarding a hadeeth that it’s Mudraj from the Hadith of al-Zuhri as stated by al-Beihaqi.

On the contrary the report with the Mudraj part which was narrated by these two sub narrators contradicts what has been reported from these same narrators in a more stronger version present in Sahi Bukhari. Since here they didn’t transmit the report with the Mudraj part.

حدثنا : ‏ ‏إبراهيم بن موسى ‏ ‏قال : ، أخبرنا : ‏ ‏هشام بن يوسف ‏ ‏، عن ‏ ‏معمر ‏ ‏، عن ‏ ‏الزهري ‏ ‏قال : أخبرني : ‏ ‏عبيد الله بن عبد الله ‏قال : قالت : ‏عائشة ‏لما ثقل النبي ‏ (ص) ‏ ‏وإشتد وجعه إستأذن أزواجه أن يمرض في بيتي فأذن له فخرج بين رجلين تخط رجلاه الأرض وكان بين ‏ ‏العباس ‏ ‏ورجل آخر . ‏قال عبيد الله ‏: فذكرت ذلك ‏ ‏لإبن عباس ‏ ‏ما قالت عائشة ‏ ‏فقال لي : وهل تدري من الرجل الذي لم تسم ‏ ‏عائشة ‏ ‏قلت : لا ، قال : هو ‏ ‏علي بن أبي طالب

Conclusion: So this detailed analysis without any doubt proves that the addition {“but ayesha doesn’t like him/ Ayesha didn’t posses the ability to mention him in a good way”} are Mudraj parts which are to be rejected, and no criticism can be made on anyone based on such additions.


Slander 10:

Shia scholar said in his book: 

[Quote]“After all that I ask how did Aishah deserve all that respect from the Sunnis;…is it because she played an important role in the denial of the Prophet’s will for Ali, and when she was told that the Prophet recommended Ali, she said, “Who said that? I was with the Prophet (saw) supporting his head on my chest, then he asked me to bring the washbowl, as I bent down he died, so I cannot see how he recommended Ali. (shia book, Then I was Guided, p.119-120 )[Quote]

Aysha did not play a big role in denying the prophet’s(saw) will as Shia claims. If the prophet(saw) really wanted to make a will for Ali, then Aysha could not deny it in front of the Ummah. Aysha said what she knows that the prophet got sick and passed away when he was with her and she heard nothing about the will.

If the prophet(Saw) wanted to make a will, then he must have done it infront of people, not only mentioning it to his wife. On the contrary shia claims that the evidences that the prophet(saw) gave the caliphate to Ali is abundant and the Shia mentions some of these in his book. The Shia even claims that these evidences are clear to give the caliphate to Ali. So now we ask the Shia scholar that, how comes the shia say that Aysha played a big role in denying the will for Ali?

Aysha(ra), the Siddeqah (the always truth teller), the daughter of Al-Siddeq (Abu Bakr) cannot deny the will of the prophet(saw) for Ali, if Prophet(Saw) ever made it.

Regarding the second part of the Shia Argument then we would like to answer that:

Ayesha(ra) is the pure, the wife of the pure in this life and the life hereafter. She is one of the best of his wives, and the most beloved to him. She deserved this status because she is one of the best woman on earth. So how come we believe the shia who is expert in lying who shows a true narration and belies it, and shows a false narration and believes it! And accuse the best of people as the worst of people, and claims that the worst people are the most guided ones. What can we do about a man like that? Should we believe him and belie the best Mother of Beleivers?


Slander 11:

Religious Slanderer said in his book: 

[Quote] Shia said: Ayesha even intercepted the funeral procession of al-Hasan – Leader of the Heaven’s youth – and prevented his burial beside his grandfather, the Messenger of Allah, and said “Do not allow anybody that I do not like to enter my house.”( Then I was Guided, p.120)

When al-Husayn brought his brother to bury him by his grandfather, the Messenger of Allah, Aisha rode a mule and went around saying, “Do not bury someone I do not love in my house.” Then, the houses of Bani Umayya and Hashim stood opposite each other ready to fight, but al-Husayn told her that he would only take the coffin of his brother around the grave of their grandfather then he would bury him in al-Baqi’. (Then I was Guided, p.139-140 )[Quote]

There is no doubt in the falsehood of these stories about the Mother of Beleivers. Indeed, all stories in this section of Shia books are lies against her. We do not find any of what Shia said in any Sunni books which Shias referenced. In matter of fact, we found the opposite.

Ibn Al-Atheer narrated about the death of Al-Hasan bin Ali may Allah be pleased at both of them, that “Al-Hussain asked for Aysha’s permission to bury his brother. She gave him the permission.” Al-Kamil, by Ibn Atheer, vol.3, p.315, year.39H

In Al-Este’ab, “When Al-Hasan passed away, Al-Hussain went to Aysha to ask her to bury his brother. She said, “Certainly yes.”” Al-Esti’ab, vol.1, p.392

In Al-Bidayah, “Al-Hussain sent someone to ask Aysha to let him bury his brother. She accepted.” Al-Bidayah wa Al-Nihayah, by Ibn Katheer, vol.8, p.46, year.49H

Comment: Yet we find the Shia accusing Ayesha(ra) for preventing Hassan(ra) to bury beside prophet(saw). Don’t the shias have any shame, to accuse mother of believers by fabricating lies against her?  Well for the honest readers here is the plain truth. Just see how pleasingly Ayesha(ra) agreed to bury Hassan(ra) in her house.

3. In “Usd al-Ghaba” 2/15 by Ibn Al-Atheer in the biography of al-Hasan b. Ali, he said:

ولما حضرته الوفاة أرسل إلى عائشة يطلب منها أن يدفن مع النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم، فلقد كنت طلبت منها فأجابت إلى ذلك، فلعلها تستحي مني، فإن أذنت فادفني في بيتها، وما أظن القوم، يعني بني أمية، إلا سيمنعونك، فإن فعلوا فلا تراجعهم في ذلك، وادفني في بقيع الغرقد.

فلما توفي جاء الحسين إلى عائشة في ذلك فقالت: نعم وكرامة، فبلغ ذلك مروان وبني أمية فقالوا: والله لا يدفن هنالك أبداً. فبلغ ذلك الحسين فلبس هو ومن معه السلاح، ولبسه مروان، فسمع أبو هريرة فقال: والله إنه لظلم، يمنع الحسن أن يدفن مع أبيه! والله إنه لابن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم، ثم أتى الحسين فكلمه وناشده الله، وقال: أليس قد قال أخوك: إن خفت فردني إلى مقبرة المسلمين، ففعل، فحمله إلى البقيع.

In “Tareekh Madinat Dimashqa” 13/289 by Abi Al-qasim Ali b. Al-Hasan Al-Shafie – Dar Al-Fikr (shamela):

أن حسن بن علي بن أبي طالب أصابه بطن فلما عرف بنفسه الموت أرسل إلى عائشة زوج النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم أن تأذن له أن يدفن مع النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم في بيتها فقالت نعم بقي موضع قبر واحد قد كنت احب أن ادفن فيه وأنا اؤثرك به
فلما سمعت بنو أمية ذلك لبسوا السلاح فاستلأموا بها وكان الذي قام بذلك مروان بن الحكم فقال والله لا يدفن عثمان بن عفان بالبقيع ويدفن حسن مع رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ولبست بنو هاشم السلاح وهموا بالقتال وبلغ ذلك الحسن بن علي فأرسل إلى بني هاشم فقال لهم رسوله يقول لكم الحسن إذا بلغ الأمر هذا فلا حاجة لي به ادفنوني إلى جنب أمي فاطمة بالبقيع فدفن إلى جنب فاطمة ابنة رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم

All of these narrations are about how al Hassan (may God be pleased with him) asked for permission to be buried next to the Prophet (pbuh) in al Baqee’ cemetery, and Aisha (may God be pleased with him) said: Yes and it would be an honor.  Look respected readers at the plain truth, and look how Shias ignore that, and then claim objectivity and justice.

Infact, It was Marwan bin al Hakim and some of the Ummayads prevented him from being buried there, and Abu Hurayra (may God be pleased with him) protested, saying this was clear oppression. Of course, in Islam we don’t believe that all Ummayads or all Abbassids or Alids or Ottomans were good people. Rather, many of them were downright criminals, as seen above. Unfortunately, sects today think that Muslims defend these kinds of people. And keep in mind that the one who protested was not a companion of Prophet(saw) nor do Ahlesunnah regard consider to be a high ranking personality.


Slander 12:

Shia scholar said in his book:

[Quote] “So why all this hatred towards Imam Ali? History has recorded some aggressive stances against Ali that could not be explained and these are some of them. When she was on her way back from Mekka Aishah was informed that Uthman was killed, so she was delighted, but when she learnt that people had voted for Ali to succeed him she became very angry and said, “I wish the sky would collapse on the earth before Ibn Abi Talib succeeds to the caliphate.” Then she said, “Take me back.” Thus she started the civil war against Ali, whose name she never liked to mention, as many historians agree (Shia book, Then I was Guided, p.117-118)[Quote]

The lie that Aysha(ra) was delighted when she knew that Uthman was killed only shows exact lies of Shias. No one of history scholars said that, instead all of them proved that Aysha(ra) only came out to punish Uthman’s murderers. And we wonder, if Aysha(ra) was delighted for the death of Uthman(ra), then why she would go after Uthman’s murderers? Did she come out to prevent Ali(ra) from taking the Caliphate? The Shias says yes! And if those shias were asked for the reason, they would say that Aysha hated Ali because Ali advised the prophet(saw) to divorce her?! So we tell him, if Aysha hated Ali, then how would you explain the fact that thousands of people followed her? Does the shias have any logical reason for this? Or these thousands hated Ali too? If the shias say yes, then we will ask why? If the Shia have the answer, then they are welcomed, otherwise we declare him as the most lost person.

Note: We request our readers to refer [this article by us] in order to find the beautiful nature of relationship that occurred between Ayesha(ra) and other members of Ahl Al bayt. This refutes the false propaganda spread by religious slanderers against Mother of believers , Ayesha(ra) that she hated the other members of Ahlelbayt.


Accusing Ayesha(ra) of Murder of Uthman(ra) and for killing Prophet(saw).

Slander 13A :

Religious slanderers stated:

[Quote] During her lifetime Hadhrath Ayesha was a severe critic of Hadhrath Uthman, to the point that she advocated his killing. How is it that following his murder, she chose to rebel against Imam Ali (as) on the premise that his killers should be apprehended? Why did she leave Makkah, portray Hadhrath Uthman as a victim and mobilise opposition from Basrah? Was this decision based on her desire to defend Hadhrath Uthman or was it motivated by her animosity towards Hadhrath Ali (as)?

History records that she said the following about Hadhrath Uthman “Kill this old fool (Na’thal), for he is unbeliever”, see references:

History of Ibn Athir, v3, p206
Lisan al-Arab, v14, p141
al-Iqd al-Farid, v4, p290
and Sharh Ibn Abi al-Hadid, v16, pp 220-223[Quote]

This false and absurd allegation has been dealt in a detailed manner here: [Refer this link]

The summary is that, this narration comes via narrator Nasr ibn Muzahim. He was known in his lifetime as a forger of historical material, and was condemned for it by, amongst others, the Hadith expert Abu Khaythamah Zuhayr ibn Harb. His general unreliability as a narrator of historical material is echoed by al-Uqayli, Abu Hatim ar-Razi, ad-Daraqutni, al-Ijli, al-Khalili and Ibn Adi. He is described by a number of these experts as a hardcore extremist Shia. (See Lisan al-Mizan vol.7, p.187) Even a non-muhaddith such as the literary biographer Yaqut al-Hamawi describes him as an extremist Shia who stands accused of forgery and is generally unreliable. (Mujam al-Udaba vol.19, p.225).

The statement “kill this old fool (Na’thal)” was fabricated by Nasr bin Muzahim. As such, the statement has no credibility whatsoever. Al-Aqeeli said about Nasr bin Muzahim: “He tends to be a Shia, and his narrations are filled with confusions and mistakes.” (source: Al-Du’afa by Al-Aqeeli, vol.4, p.300, #1899)

Imam al-Dhahabi said about Nasr: “A hardcore Rafidhi (Shia), and his narrations are not taken as authentic. Abu Khaythamah said, ‘He was a liar.’ Abu Hatim said, ‘Weak narrator, and is not taken as an argument.’ Al-Darqutni said, ‘His narrations are weak.’” (source: Al-Mizan by Al-Dhahabi, vol.4, p.253, #9046)

If for the sake of argument even if we suppose for a moment that Ayesha(ra) had a hand in the martyrdom of Uthman(ra), then why would ayesha(ra) in the middle of battle CURSE the killers and THE FRIENDS of the murderers of Uthman(ra)?

وروى الإمام أحمد بسنده عن محمد بن الحنفية قال : أبلغ علياً أن عائشة تلعن قتلة عثمان في المربد . قال : فرفع يديه حتى بلغ بهما وجهه فقال : وأنا ألعن قتله عثمان لعنهم الله في السهل والجبل قال مرتين أو ثلاثاً
موضع قرب البصرة بينهما نحو ثلاثة أميال ويعرف بمربد البصرة وهو من أشهر محالها . انظر معجم البلدان (5/98) فضائل الصحابة (1/455) حديث (733) وقال محققة : إسناده صحيح ، والرياض النضرة (3/70)

Imam Ahmad narrated with its Isnad from Muhammad Ibn al Hanafiyah RA: Ali was told that Aisha is cursing the killers of Uthman in al Marbad(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 the book said SAHIH, also in al Riyadh al Nadirah fi Manaqib al ‘Asharah 3/70.

The first thing Aysha said when the Saba’eiyah refused to stop, “O’ people, curse the killers of Uthman and their friends. And then she went on supplicating. Then the people of Basrah started supplicating. Ali bin Abi Talib heard the callers. He said, “What is this noise?” His army answered, “Aysha is calling and her army is calling with her against the killers of Uthman and their friends.” Ali started calling and said, “O’ Allah, curse the killers of Uthman and their friends.”(Al-Tabari. vol.3, p.43, year,36H )

Secondly, People asked al-Hasan al-Basrî whether anyone from among the Muhâjirîn or the Ansâr were among the killers of `Uthmân. He replied: Those were rough people from Egypt. [Târîkh Khalîfah b. Khayyât (p. 176)]

Ibn Taymiyah said: None of the first Muslims were involved in `Uthmân’s murder.” [Minhâj al-Sunnah (8/313)]

These statements, clear before us the innocence of the Companions(including Ayesha) from `Uthmân’s murder. Thus she is free from this false allegation.

The irony is that Shias say that Ayesha(ra) wanted to fight with Ali(ra) demanding Qisas of Uthman(ra), but at the same time these fools accuse her of ordering to killing of Uthman(ra).  Another stupidity is that in the we even find Shias accusing Ayesha(ra) for following the same ruling as Uthman(ra) in the matter of hajj(naming it as innovation), but at the same time they accuse her for being enemy of Uthman. Indeed shiism and wisdom are two banks of a river which could never meet.


Slander 13B :

Shias stated:


When the situation became extremely grave, Uthman ordered Marwan Ibn al-Hakam and Abdurahman Ibn Attab Ibn Usayd to try to persuade Aisha to stop campaigning against him. They went to her while she was preparing to leave for pilgrimage, and they told her: “We pray that you stay in Medina, and that Allah may save this man (Uthman ) through you.” Aisha said: “I have prepared my means of transportation and vowed to perform the pilgrimage. By God, I shall not honor your request… I wish he (Uthman ) was in one of my sacks so that I could carry him. I would then throw him into the sea.”
 Ansab al-Ashraf, Volume 6 pages 192-193

[End Quote]

The narration is extremely weak and unreliable, since the source is quoting Abu Mikhnaf, the infamous liar, and does not provide a chain for the narration. In other words, it suffers from an unreliable narrator and a disconnected narration.


Slander 13C :

Shias stated:


In Tabaqat al Kubra, Volume 3 page 82 we read the testimony of famous Tabayee namely Masrooq which has also been quoted by the Abu Sulaiman and has declared the tradition as authentic:

“Musrooq said to Aisha, Uthman died because of you, you wrote to people and incited them against him”.

[End Quote]

This is a deceptive misquote from Shias. The Shias did not include the narration in full, but rather, only quoted the middle of the narration in order to strengthen their view. This is the narration in Arabic:

قال: أخبرنا أبو معاوية الضرير قال: أخبرنا الأعمش عن خيثمة عن مسروق عن عائشة قالت: حين قتل عثمان: تركتموه كالثوب النقي من الدنس ثم قربتموه تذبحوه كما يذبح الكبش، هلا كان هذا قبل هذا؟ فقال لها مسروق: هذا عملك، أنت كتبت إلى الناس تأمرهم بالخروج إليه، قال فقالت عائشة: لا والذي آمن به المؤمنون وكفر به الكافرون ما كتبت إليهم بسوداء في بيضاء حتى جلست مجلسي هذا. قال الأعمش: فكانوا يرون أنه كتب على لسانها.

A’isha criticizes the killers and then is met by Masrooq’s accusations. She then said, “By He who is believed in by the believers and is rejected by the disbelievers, I did not write anything to them up until this very moment.”

Al-A’amash commented, “They believe that it was (a forgery) written in her name.”


Slander 13D :

Shias stated:


Also in Iqd al Fareed, Volume 2 page 93 we read that:“Mugheera bin Shuba approached Aisha and she said to him, ‘In Jamal some of the arrows that were fired, nearly pierced my skin.’ Mugheera replied ‘If only an arrow had killed you, that would have acted as penance for the fact that you had incited the people to kill Uthman “.

[End Quote]

Once again, the Shias didn’t include the refutation by A’isha. We shall quote the narration in full then translate her response:

قال لها المغيرة: وددتُ والله أن بَعضها كان قتلك. قالت: يرحمك الله، ولم تقول هذا؟ قال: لعلَها تكون كَفّارة في سَعْيك على عُثمان. قالت: أما والله لئن قلتَ ذلك لما عَلم الله أني أردتُ قتله، ولكن علم اللّه أني أردتُ أن يُقاتَل فقوتلتُ، وأردتً أن يُرمى فرُميت، وأردت أن يعصى فعُصيت، ولو علم مني أني أردتُ قتلَه لقُتلت.

She replied: “By Allah, you say such, but Allah knows that I did not wish to kill him, but He knows that I wanted him to be fought, and therefore, I was fought, and I wanted him to be hurled upon, and I was hurled upon, and I wanted him to be disobeyed, and I was disobeyed, and if He knew that I wanted him dead, then I would have been dead.”

It should also be known that the narration is weak and the author does not provide a chain for the narration. And it is a known fact that, a report without a chain is like a body without a head, which is worthless.


Slander 13E :

Shias stated:


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]

Once again, the deceptive Shias didn’t quote the rest of the narration:

وإن أم المؤمنين تقول غضبنا لكم على عثمان في ثلاث إمارة الفتى وموقع الغمامة وضربة السوط والعصا فما أنصفنا إن لم نغضب له عليكم في ثلاث جررتموها إليه حرمة الشهر والبلد والدم

The Mother of the Believers said, “We were angered for your sake for three matters: His appointment of the youth, the Al-Ghamama area, and the beatings with the whips and sticks, and we would be unfair if we were not angered by you for three actions that you have caused: The sanctity of the forbidden month, the forbidden land, and the forbidden blood.”

We comment: In other words, A’isha was against the killing of Uthman.


Slander 13F :

Shias stated:


In ‘al Imama wal Siyasa’ page 60 we read that:

“Someone asked Muhammad bin Talha who killed Uthman ? He replied that “one third of his death was attributable to Aisha and one third was due to my father Talha”

[End Quote]

The deceitful Shias once again left out the end of the narration. We quote it and provide the correct translation:

أقبل غلام من جهينة إلى محمد بن طلحة، فقال له: حدثني عن قتلة عثمان، قال: نعم، دم عثمان على ثلاثة أثلاث، ثلث على صاحبة الهودج، وثلث على صاحب الجمل الأحمر، وثلث على علي بن أبي طالب .

“A young man from Juhaina (tribe) came to Mohammad bin Talha and said, ‘Tell me about the killers of Uthman.’ He said, ‘Yes, the blood of Uthman is split into thirds, a third by who is in canopy (A’isha), a third by the one on the red camel (Talha), and a third by Ali bin Abi Talib.”

The narration is weak and does not contain a chain. Plus, the author of the book Al-Imamah wal Siyasa, which is attributed to Ibn Qutaiba, is differed upon, with many academics rejecting the attribution of the book to him. Refer to Al-Awasim min Al-Qawasim (p. 167) by Ibn Al-Arabi where in which he casts doubt on this book. The editor, Muhib Al-Deen Al-Khateeb adds that Ibn Qutaiba never went to Egypt, while the book was written by someone that has been to Egypt.

In conclusion, we find it very clear that there is no tangible evidence that A’isha was responsible for the death of Uthman, but rather, it is well-established that A’isha played a role in avenging Uthman. Refer to the history of the Minor Battle of the Camel for more on this topic.


Slander 14:

Shias stated:

[Quote]وحدثني أحمد بن إبراهيم الدورقي، حدثنا أبو النضر، حدثنا إسحاق بن سعيد، عن عمرو بن سعيد، حدثني سعيد بن عمرو: عن ابن حاطب قال: أقبلت مع علي يوم الجمل إلى الهودج وكأنه شوك قنفذ من النبل، فضرب الهودج؛ ثم قال: إن حميراء إرم هذه أرادت أن تقتلني كما قتلت عثمان بن عفان. فقال لها أخوها محمد: هل أصابك شيء ؟ فقالت: مشقص في عضدي. فأدخل رأسه ثم جرها إليه فأخرجه.

related to me Ahmad ibn Ibrahim Aldourgui, Told us Abu-Nadar, told us Ishaq ibn Said from Amr ibn Said, told me Said ibn Amr from Ibn Haatib said: Once I came with Ali the day of the Camel to hawdaj and it looked like a porcupine from the arrows, so he struck the hawdaj; then he said: this reddish one of Iram wanted to kill me as she killed Uthman ibn Affan. then her brother Mohammed said to her: Did something hit you? She said: something in the humerus. so he Entered his head and then pulled her to himself and took it out.

So Shias said: In this text Ali (as) says that Aïsha (as) wanted to kill him like she killed Uthman (raa). [Quote]

The context is contradicting everything from Ayesha’s position on Uthman’s murder and the position of Ali(ra) on our and his mother; Aisha(ra).

In regards the Sanad(chain) of this report:
هذا السند يبدو أن فيه تصحيف.
فإسحاق بن سعيد ينبغي أن يكون ابن عمرو بن سعيد.
وهو كوفي قليل الرواية إنما يعرف بالرواية عن أبيه وعكرمة بن خالد.
فأما عمرو بن سعيد فهذا فيجب يكون جده، فتكون الرواية مرسلة لأن بين وفاتيهما مائة سنة وتكون مشكلة لأن إسحاق لا يعرف بالرواية عن جده أصلا بغض النظر عن الإرسال.
وأما أن يكون عمرو بن سعيد القرشي فهذا غير وارد لأن إسحاق لم يرو أحاديث البصريين وعمرو بن سعيد هذا بصري وإنما جاء حديثه عن البصريين كأيوب وابن عون.
وهناك عمرو بن سعيد بصري آخر ذكره ابن أبي حاتم في الجرح والتعديل ولكنه أصغر من أحاق بن عمرو فلا يكون هو.
فإن خلصنا من عمرو بن سعيد هذا الذي لا ينقضي إشكاله وجدنا إشكال آخر وهو سعيد بن عمرو، فإن هذا لا يمكن أن يكون والد إسحاق لأنه لا يروي عن أبيه بالواسطة.
ووجدنا من الكوفيين -لأن محمد بن حاطب يروي عنه الكوفيون- سعيد بن عمرو بن أشوع، ولكن هذا لم يذكروا له سماع من الصحابة، كما أنهإذا روي عنه ينسب إلى جده وهنا نسب إلى أبيه عمرو.
وهناك سعيد بن عمرو بن سفيان وليس له إلا حديث واحد ولا يعرف إلا به وهو حديث مضطرب.
وهناك سعيد بن عمرو بن جعيد وهذا لا يذكر له سماع من صحابة.
وهناك سعيد بن عمرو الزرقي وهذا ليس له رواية عن الصحابة.
وهنا سعيد بن عمرو بن أبي نصر وهذا مجهول لا يروي عنه إلا محمد بن عمران بن أبي ليلى وتركه أبو زرعة.
وهناك من هم أصغر من هذه الطبقة أعرضت عنهم.

This chain seems to be the Tasheef
So Ishak bin Saeed should be the son of Amr bin Said. and he is from Kufa,narrates novel but a little from his father as well as well as Ikrima bin Khaled.

As for ‘Amr bin Said, it must be his grandfather, so the narration had to be interrupted since between them is about a hundred years and is a problem because Isaaq is not known for narrating from his grandfather, regardless of the interruption of the transmission.

As for Amr ibn Said al-Qurashi, this is unlikely because Isaaq did not narrrate from the people of Basra while this Amr bin Said, is from Basra and his hadeeth is mainly from Ayoub and Ibn Aoun.

There is another Amr bin Said from Basra mentioned by Ibn Abi Hatim in Jarh wa Tadeel, but younger than the Isaaq bin Amr therefore not likely.

So if we move from the Amr ibn Said whose problems cannot be resolved we find another, Saeed bin Amr, this can not be the father of Isaac, because he does not narrate from his father through a medium.

And we found amongst the people of Kufa – because Mohammed bin Haatib tells them – Saeed ibn ‘Amr ibn ASHUAA, but that did not hear from the companions, and that one is attributed to his grandfather while the other is attributed to the father Amr.

There Said ibn ‘Amr ibn Sufyan and narrated only one Hadeeth and it is problematic.

There Amr bin Said bin Jahid and did not hear from the companions.

There is Saeed bin Amr Azzurqi and This did narrate from the companions.

There is , Said ibn ‘Amr ibn Abi Nasr and is an unknown no one narrates from him except Muhammad ibn’ Imraan ibn Abi Layla.  Abu Zaraa declared him abandoned.
There are those who are smaller than this layer that we ignored.

So the Sanad(chain) is not sahih and it is very weak. Thus it is unreliable and no honest muslim could use it to accuse mother of believers.


Slander 15: 

Religious slanderers stated:

[Quote] Imam Baqir(as) says:- “Aishah and Hafsah martyred Rasulullah by giving him poison. (Shia book, Hayatal Quloob ,Vol. 2, Page 870)

عن عبد الصمد بن بشير عن أبى عبد الله عليه السلام قال: تدرون مات النبي صلى الله عليه واله أو قتل ان الله يقول: ” أفان مات أو قتل انقلبتم على أعقابكم ” فسم قبل الموت انهما سقتاه
[ قبل الموت ] فقلنا انهما وأبوهما شر من خلق الله

From Abdul Samad b. Bashir from Abi Abdullah(as) who said: “You know the Prophet(PBUH) died or was killed/murdered? Indeed Allah(swt) says (in al Qur’an 3:144) “Will it be that, when he dieth or is slain, ye will turn back on your heels?”, the 2 women poisoned him(PBUH) before death.” We(narrator and his companions) said “Those 2 women and their fathers were the worst creation of Allah(swt).” [Shia book, Tafseer ayashi[Quote]

This is one of the most shameless and absurd slander by some Shias on Mother of believers Ayesha(ra). See how they are trying to whitewash the Jews who plotted to posion the Prophet(saw). They are saving those Jews and are attacking the mothers of believers. Indeed they are the spiritual children of Abdullah ibn Saba(la). So let us expose the reality of this slander from the book of esteemed shia scholar.

From Itiqadat al-Imamiyah of Shaykh Saduq:
Shaykh Abu Ja’far says: ”Our belief concerning the Prophet is that he was poisoned during the expedition of Khaybar. The poison continued to be noxious to him until it cut his aorta and then he died from its effects.” [Itiqadat al-Imamiyah].

So we find that esteemed Shia scholars, clearly rejected the fabrications of some shias, which were fabricated by some cunning Shias inorder to create enemity in the hearts of muslims for Ayesha(ra). And like Ahlesunnah even the high ranking Shia scholar Shaykh Saduq believes that prophet(saw) was poisoned DURING EXPEDITION OF KHAYBAR NOT JUST BEFORE HIS DEATH, because Prophet(Saw) lived for couple of years after Khaiber.

Now lets see that what happened in Khaiber as the esteemed Shia scholar pointed out, where Prophet(saw) was poisoned.

Sahi bukhari 3.786: Narrated Anas bin Malik: A Jewess brought a poisoned (cooked)sheep for the Prophet who ate from it. She was brought to the Prophet and he was asked, “Shall we kill her?” He said, “No.” I continued to see the effect of the poison on the palate of the mouth of Allah’s Apostle

Sahi Bukhari 5.713 Narrated `Aisha: The Prophet in his ailment in which he died, used to say, “O`Aisha! I still feel the pain caused by the food I ate at Khaibar, and at this time, I feel as if my aorta is being cut from that poison.”

Ahmad (2784) narrated from Ibn ‘Abbaas that a Jewish woman sent a gift to the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) of a poisoned roasted sheep. He sent for her and asked her, “What made you do what you did?” She said, “I wanted to see if you were a Prophet, then Allaah would tell you about it, and if you were not a Prophet the people would be rid of you.” Whenever the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) felt ill as a result of that he would have himself treated by cupping. On one occasion he traveled and when he entered ihraam he felt ill as a result of that and he had himself treated by cupping. The editor of al-Musnad classed it as saheeh.

That had an impact in causing his death, so he (saw) died as a martyr (shaheed), as Ibn Mas’ood (may Allaah be pleased with him) said:

“If I were to swear by Allaah nine times that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) was killed, that is more beloved to me than swearing once, because Allaah made him a Prophet and made him a martyr.” Narrated by Ahmad, 3617. The editors said, its isnaad is saheeh according to the conditions of Muslim.

Al-Sindi said: The words “he was killed” mean by the poison in the meat of the sheep’s foreleg that he ate, when the effects of that appeared when he was dying.
Quoted from Haashiyat al-Musnad, 6/116.

We read in Shia reports:

Ahmad Bin Muhammad, from Al-Husayn Bin Saeed, from Al-Qasim Bin Muhammad, from Ali, from Abu Baseer, who has narrated the following: ‘Abu Abdullah(AS) said: ‘The Messenger of Allah(SAWS) was poisoned on the day of Khaiber. The meat spoke: ‘O Messenger of Allah(SAWS), I am poisonous’. The Prophet(SAWS) said near to his passing away: ‘Today my insides have been rent asunder by the meal which I ate at Khaiber, and there is none from a Prophet or a successor, but is a martyr’. [Basair al-Darjaat, page 895, #1763]

Ibrahim Bin Hashim, from Ja’far Bin Muhammad, from Abdullah Bin Maymoun Al-Qadaah, who has narrated the following: ‘Abu Abdullah(AS) said: ‘The arm (of a cooked sheep) spoke to the Prophet(SAWS) and the Jews heard it. And the Messenger of Allah(SAWS) loved the arm, and the shoulder, but disliked the hip due to its proximity to the Excretion. When he was given the grill (meat), he ate from the arm, and he used to like it. He(SAWS) ate whatever Allah so Desired, then the arm spoke, ‘O Messenger of Allah(SAWS), I am poisonous. He left it, and that did not invalidate its poison, until he passed away’. [Basair al-Darjaat, page 896, #1764]. Authenticated by Majlisi in [Hayat al-Quloob, vol 2, 460].

Here is what a Shia website stated regarding this incident:

The Jews however, did not forget their humiliation at the hands of the Muslims. After their defeat, a Jewish woman by the name of Zainab brought some lamb meat as a gift for the Holy Prophet (S). The meat was poisoned and the Holy Prophet (S) ate only a little bit, but that poison had an effect on his health in the long term and when he was on his death bed a few years later, he said that his illness was partly due to the poison he had been given at Khayber. (source)

Comment: Thus we find that it was the jews who poisoned Prophet(Saw) not the noble mother of believers Ayesha(ra). She is free from the dangerous charges of religious slanderers.

The Raees ul muhadditheen of Shias, Majlisi said in his book Hayat ul Quloob:

چون حضرت در مرض موت بود مادر بشر به عيادت حضرت آمد، حضرت فرمود: اى مادر بشر! از روزى كه من خوردم آن لقمه را با فرزند تو در خيبر هر سال طغيان مى‏كرد و مرا رنجور مى‏ساخت و در اين مرتبه رگهاى پشت مرا قطع كرد؛ پس مسلمانان مى‏گفتند: پيغمبر نيز شهيد شد
When the Prophet was in his terminal sickness and the mother of Bashar visited him, he said to her: “Every year I feel more the effects of the morsel I ate with your son at Khayber, but this time, I feel it bursting through the veins of my heart” Hence Muslims say that the Prophet (saww) died of it.[Hayat ul Quloob, Vol. 2, p. 668]

Comment: Indeed, the Muslims say the Prophet (saww) died of that poison’s effects that was given to him on khayber, but the children of Abdullah ibn Saba say the Prophet (saww) died of the poison which his wives gave him.

Questions to Shias who believe that Ayesha(ra) and Hafsa(ra) poisoned Prophet(saw):

Why didn’t Ali(ra) take revenge from Ayesha(ra)? Atleast Ali(ra) had the golden opportunity to punish Ayesha(ra) for this supposed crime after the battle of camel(Jamal). But he didn’t even raised that issue why?  Doesn’t the silence of Ali(ra) and on the contrary Ali(ra) allowing Ayesha(ra) to return with security proves that this absurd fabrication is a handi work of Shia fabricators?


Attack on Ayesha’s nature and character.

Slander 16:

Religious slanderer fabricated a lie and said in his book:

[Quote]“Also al-Bukhari wrote in his book in the chapter of Al-Shuroot (Conditions) section of “what went on in the houses of the Prophet’s wives”: Once the Prophet (saw) was giving a speech, and he pointed towards the house where Aishah was living, then said, “There is the trouble … there is the trouble … there is the trouble … from where the devil’s horns come out.” [Shia book, Then I was Guided, p.119][Quote]

A scholar from Ahlesunnah answered to this slander by stating: “I opened Al-Bukhari on the chapter of “The Conditions,” and there was no section called “What went on in the houses of the Prophet’s wives”! but the hadeeth is present in sections about Al-Khums (one-fifth), and this shows that this suspicion was taught to him!

And the misguided shia takes this hadeeth as an argument that Ayesha is the source of afflictions? This claim is obviously false because the prophet peace be upon him meant the east. If the prophet peace be upon him was meaning the house of Ayesha, then he would say “to”, not “towards.” Muslim narrated from Ibn Omar, “The Messenger of Allah peace be upon him came out from Aysha’s house and said, “The head of disbelief comes from here, where the horn of the devil arises.” Meaning the east.” [Muslim with Explanation, #2905, Book of “Afflictions,” Section “The affliction comes from the east where the devil horn rises, vol.18]

Ibn Omar also said, “that he heard the Messenger of Allah –while being in front of the east – saying, “Here is the affliction, here is the affliction, where the horn of the devil arises.” [Muslim with Explanation, #2905, AND Saheeh Al-Bukhari, Book of “Afflictions,” #6680]

And to be more sure, I will mention the story from Muslim that Ibn Omar said that the prophet peace be upon him stood in front of Hafsah’s door (in the hadeeth of Obaydillah bin Sa’ad: the prophet peace be upon him stood in front of Ayesha’s door) and said while his hands pointing towards the east, “Here is the affliction where the horn of the devil arises.” The prophet said it twice or thrice. [Muslim with Explanation, #2905, AND Saheeh Al-Bukhari, Book of “Afflictions,” #6680]

I believe truth had been revealed, and the friends of the devils were exposed! “

So this is how Sunni scholar exposed the slander of religious slanderer. And we would like to ask the religious slanderers that according to your deceptive interpretation the Prophet predicted that Satan’s horns would emerge from Aisha’s house, So when did Satan’s horn emerge, was it before the death of Prophet(Saw) or after it?  The reply we will get is that it emerged after the death of Prophet(saw). But we know that the fact is that Prophet himself was buried inside Aisha’s house!  In the sense that after the death of Prophet(Saw) when the Satan’s horn emerged from the house of Ayesha(ra), in that house was the grave of Prophet(Saw).

So like the Christian Orientalists, are these religious slanderers going to insult Prophet(saw) by saying that Satan’s horn emerged from the place where Prophet(Saw) was buried.? (Mazallah)

For detailed analysis on this narration and its explanation please refer this [link]


Slander 17 A:

Religious slanderers stated:

[Quote] it’s in the sahih collections of the non-shias that Aisha showed non mahrams how to do ghusl actually performing it (not just showing via motions while clothed).

[Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 5, Number 251][Quote]

Shias claim and allege that Ayesha[ra] did Ghusl (bath) infront of two men. Well, this is a home-made and wrong view of Shias. This is not only against the view of Salaf us Sualiheen but even against the Ijm’a. In following, we will be verifying this claim of Shias and after analyzing the facts, will establish the reality before you.

It is reported in Sahi Bukhari :

دَّثَنَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ مُحَمَّدٍ، قَالَ حَدَّثَنِي عَبْدُ الصَّمَدِ، قَالَ حَدَّثَنِي شُعْبَةُ، قَالَ حَدَّثَنِي أَبُو بَكْرِ بْنُ حَفْصٍ، قَالَ سَمِعْتُ أَبَا سَلَمَةَ، يَقُولُ دَخَلْتُ أَنَا وَأَخُو، عَائِشَةَ عَلَى عَائِشَةَ فَسَأَلَهَا أَخُوهَا عَنْ غُسْلِ النَّبِيِّ، صلى الله عليه وسلم فَدَعَتْ بِإِنَاءٍ نَحْوًا مِنْ صَاعٍ، فَاغْتَسَلَتْ وَأَفَاضَتْ عَلَى رَأْسِهَا، وَبَيْنَنَا وَبَيْنَهَا حِجَابٌ‏.‏ قَالَ أَبُو عَبْدِ اللَّهِ قَالَ يَزِيدُ بْنُ هَارُونَ وَبَهْزٌ وَالْجُدِّيُّ عَنْ شُعْبَةَ قَدْرِ صَاعٍ

Narrated Abu Salmah: Aisha’s brother and I went to Aisha and he asked her about the bath of the Prophet. She brought a pot containing about a Sa’ of water and took a bath and poured it over her head and at that time there was a screen between her and us. (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 5, Number 251)

From Sahi Muslim: Bk 3, Number 0626: Abu Salamab. ‘Abd al−Rahman reported: I along with the foster brother of ‘A’isha went to her and he asked about the bath of the Apostle (may peace be upon him) because of sexual intercourse. She called for a vessel equal to a Sa’ and she took a bath. and there was a curtain between us and her. She poured water on her head thrice and he (Abu Salama) said: The wives of the Apostle (may peace be upon him) collected hair on their heads and these lopped up to ears (and did not go beyond that).

This Hadeeth has been included in the following books:
– Nisai: 1/127, # 228 (Al-Sughra) ; 1/116, # 232 (Al-Kubra)
– Musnad Ahmed: 6/71,72, # 24934 ; 6/143, # 25620
– Mustakhraj Sahih Muslim: 1/370, # 720
– Musnad Abu-Awana: 1/266,295
– Sunan AL-Kubra Al-Bahqhi: 1/195

Before understanding the meaning of this narration there are some important points to be noted:

1. During the time period of Sahaba(ra) there roused a confusion that could water equal to one pot(sa) be sufficient for Ghusl(bath)?  So in the hadeeth in question, you will find that the questioners went to Ayesha(ra) to clear this confusion.

2. Here is the hadees from Sahi muslim:

Sahi Muslim: Bk 3, Number 0626: Abu Salamab. ‘Abd al−Rahman reported: I along with the foster brother of ‘A’isha went to her and he asked about the bath of the Apostle (may peace be upon him) because of sexual intercourse. She called for a vessel equal to a Sa’ and she took a bath. and there was a curtain between us and her. She poured water on her head thrice and he (Abu Salama) said: The wives of the Apostle (may peace be upon him) collected hair on their heads and these lopped up to ears (and did not go beyond that).

This hadeeth can be divided into two parts:  (Part 1)  That which was not visible (2) That which was visible.

Part 1:… She called for a vessel equal to a Sa’ and she took a bath. and there was a curtain between us and her .
Comment: This is part 1 which was NOT visible. This includes the bath, because there was a curtain between them. So it was not visible to the questioners.

Part 2: …She poured water on her head thrice and he(Abu Salama)said: The wives of the Apostle(saw)collected hair on their heads and these lopped up to ears(and did not go beyond that).
Comment: This is part 2, which was visible. This part of the narration is talking about what the questioners/students were able to see, and here we don’t find any mentioning of Ghusl(bath) of remaining body, But only the pouring off water on head.

THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT: The reason the questioner didn’t mention anything IN DETAIL regarding the bathing of body is because, he wasn’t able to see the body, as it was covered by the hijab(screen). That is why the questioner was only able to see the head(not the rest of the body), which he stated specifically.

3. Muhaddith Abu Awaana Al-Asfara’ani brought hadeeth in question, in the following chapter heading (tarjuma tul-baab):

اب صفۃ الاوانی التی کان یغتسل منھا رسول اللہ صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم وصفۃ غسل راسہ من الجنابۃ، دون سائر جسدہ۔
Translation: Chapter; Description about the utensils, Prophet[saww] used for bathing and description of the act of washing the head excluding the body during the bath of Janabah.(Sahih Abu Awana’a 1/248)
Comment: So from this classification of the great muhaddis, we came to know that, questioners were only able to see the head of Ayesha(ra) not the rest of the body.

4. If the question would have been regarding the procedure for Ghul, then Ayesha(ra) would have said that verbally(without any demonstration). As we find from the hadeeth of Sahi Muslim, which is just after the hadeeth which Shias tried to misinterpret.

Abu Salamah b. Abd al−Rahman narrated on the authority of A’isha that She said that when the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) took a bath, he started from the right hand and poured water over it and washed it, and then poured water on the impurity with the right band and washed it away with the help of the left hand. and after having removed it, he poured water on his head.(Sahi muslim, Bk 3, Number 0627)

Comment: From this report we find that in order tell the procedure of Ghusl, Ayesha(ra) didn’t do Ghusl. Rather She just explained it verbally.

Similar can be seen in another report:

Narrated Aisha:  Jumay’ ibn Umayr, one of the sons of Banu Taym Allah ibn Tha’labah, said: Accompanied by my mother and aunt I entered upon Aisha. One of them asked her: How did you do while taking a bath? Aisha replied: The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) performed ablution (in the beginning) as he did for prayer. He then poured (water) upon his head three times. But we poured water upon our heads five times due to plaits. (Sunan abu dawood, Book 1, Number 0241)

Comment: So even in this report we find that when questioners asked Ayesha(ra) regarding the procedure of Ghusl(bath), She didn’t demonstrate it, rather she just explained that verbally.

5. The reason why Ayesha(ra) took Ghusl being hidden behind the Hijab(being not visible and being covered) is because, the students/questioners were surprised regarding the quantity of water Prophet(Saw) used to take bath. They were curious to know that how could a bath be taken from so less water. That is why Ayesha(ra) called for a pot(sa’) of water and from that pot she took a bath(being hidden behind a screen and being covered). And from this she clarified that Prophet(saw) used take bath from that much water only.

Imam Bukhari himself brought this hadeeth under the Chapter titled as, “باب الغسل (بالصاع) ونحوہ‘” (Ghusl should be made with one Sa’ of water)

6. It has been mentioned in both Sahi bukhari and Sahi Muslim that between the questioners and Ayesha(ra), there was Hijab(screen/curtain).

It has been reported in an authentic report that Um Hani bint Abi Talib Said: I went to Allah’s Apostle in the year of the conquest of Mecca and found him taking a bath while Fatima was screening him. The Prophet asked, “Who is it?” I replied, “I am Um−Hani.” (Sahi bukhari 1.278)
Comment: It must be clear before the readers that nothing, that was being screened was visible to Umm hani, otherwise what was the need for the screening?

In another report of bukhari, its mentioned that:  Narrated `Abdullah bin Hunain: `Abdullah bin Al−Abbas and Al−Miswar bin Makhrama differed at Al−Abwa’; Ibn `Abbas said that a Muhrim could wash his head; while Al−Miswar maintained that he should not do so. `Abdullah bin Abbas sent me to Abu Aiyub Al−Ansari and I found him bathing between the two wooden posts (of the well) and was screened with a sheet of cloth. I greeted him and he asked who I was. I replied, “I am `Abdullah bin Hunain and I have been sent to you by Ibn `Abbas to ask you how Allah’s Apostle used to wash his head while in the state of lhram.” Abu Aiyub Al−Ansari caught hold of the sheet of cloth and lowered it till his head appeared before me, and then told somebody to pour water on his head. He poured water on his head, and he (Abu Aiyub) rubbed his head with his hands by bringing them from back to front and from front to back and said, “I saw the Prophet doing like this.”(sahi bukhari 3.66)
Comment: Here we find a similar scenario where a sahabi(companion) was taking bath behind the screen, and what is to be noticed is, that he was not able to see who was the questioner, so he asked him for the introduction. Moreover, the head of the sahabi only appeared when the screen(hijab) was lowered till the head appears, this shows that until there remains the screen, the body cannot be seen.

Beware: Most of the times the religious slanderers insert the word “transparent/translucent” along with the word “screen” in order to portray that as though Ayesha(ra) was behind a transparent/translucent screen. These are home made fabrications of religious slanderers inorder to slander ayesha(ra). Anyone who has least common sense would imagine that why would a person even keep a transparent screen in their house, before the place where they take bath? Only religious slanderers with corrupted brains could imagine these filthy things.

7. One from the two persons who came was Ayesha(ra)’s foster brother Abdullah bin Yazeed al basri.(Alsaari AlQastalani, 1/317) Or foster brother Katheer bin ubaid alkufi.(Fath al bari , 1/365). Whereas, the other person was Abu salamah bin abdul rahman bin awf(ra) who was foster nephew of Ayesha(ra), because Aisha’s sister [(Bibi Umm Kulthoom(ra)]suckled Abu Salmah(ra).(Fath al bari, 1/365) .

So from this information, it became evident that both of the questioners/students were not some unknown men, but rather they were Mahrams of Ayesha(ra). And in Islam there is not need to cover head, face, and hands from Mahrams.

8. Abdul rahman wrote that: Both the persons who came to Ayesha(ra) were Mahrams. Ayesha(ra) did the Ghusl having a hijab(screen) between them, And both of them only saw the head of Ayesha(ra) which a Mahram can see.  But the portion of the body which must to be covered even from the Mahrams, was covered by the Hijab(screen) itself .(Fazl al bari, 2/428)

9. Allamah Badruddin Ainee writes in the commentary of this: Qazi Ayadh said: What is apparent from this hadeeth is, that both of them saw that portion of head and body during the Ghusl, which is allowed for the Mahram to see. Ayesha(ra) made the arrangements for the hijaab(screening) regarding the portion below the head and face, which is not allowed for the Mahram to see. (Sharah Sahi muslim, 1/1019-1026)

10. Imam Ibn hajar said:

قال القاضي عياض : ظاهره أنهما رأيا عملها في رأسها وأعالي جسدها مما يحل نظره للمحرم ؛ لأنها خالة أبي سلمة من الرضاع أرضعته أختها أم كلثوم وإنما سترت أسافل بدنها مما لا يحل للمحرم النظر إليه قال : وإلا لم يكن لاغتسالها بحضرتهما معنى . وفي فعل عائشة دلالة على استحباب التعليم بالفعل ؛ لأنه أوقع في النفس ولما كان السؤال محتملا للكيفية والكمية ثبت لهما ما يدل على الأمرين معا : أما الكيفية فبالاقتصار على إفاضة الماء وأما الكمية فبالاكتفاء بالصاع .

Al-Qadhi Iyadh said: We clearly see that they saw her head and the top of her body, which is halal(permisble) for a mahram, because she is the aunt of Abi Salama from breastfeeding. Her sister, Um Kalthoom breastfed him, and she covered the lower part of her body that is haram(impermisble) to be seen by a mahram, and if she didn’t (show her head) then there would be no reason to perform ghusul in front of them. And the actions of A’isha is evidence that teaching with actions is preferred, because it is easier to grasp, and when the question revolved around the quantity and the description, it became clear with two things: the description, was when she poured the water, which was sufficient, and the amount which was the saa’a. (Fath al bari).

11. Imam an-Nawawi in his commentary on the hadith from sahih Muslim quoted al-Qadi ‘Iyad

قال القاضي عياض – رحمه الله تعالى – : ظاهر الحديث أنهما رأيا عملها في رأسها وأعالي جسدها مما يحل لذي المحرم النظر إليه من ذات المحرم ، وكان أحدهما أخاها من الرضاعة كما ذكر ، قيل : اسمه عبد الله بن يزيد ، وكان أبو سلمة ابن أختها من الرضاعة ، أرضعته أم كلثوم بنت أبي بكر .

What is apparent from this hadith is: that they both saw what she has done on her head and upper parts of her body, which are parts a mahram is allowed to look at. And one of them was clearly her foster brother as it was stated, it was said his name was: Abdullah ibn Yazid while abu Salamah was her sisters foster son as Um Kulthum (the daughter of Abu Bakr) has breast fed him.

قال القاضي : ولولا أنهما شاهدا ذلك ورأياه لم يكن لاستدعائها الماء وطهارتها بحضرتهما معنى ؛ إذ لو فعلت ذلك كله في ستر عنهما لكان عبثا ورجع الحال إلى وصفها له ، وإنما فعلت الستر ليستتر أسافل البدن ، وما لا يحل للمحرم نظره . والله أعلم

The Qadi added: If they didn’t witness or see this then asking for water in their presence wouldn’t make any sense, as if she did all of this hidden behind a screen that would make no sense and would only make sense if she was describing what she was doing, and she only placed a screen between her and them to hide what a Mahram is not allowed to see.

What a Mahram is allowed to see is defined in Quranic verse (24:31).

Thus, summarizing all the above facts, we came to a conclusion, that the questioners went to Ayesha(ra) only to know that, Is it true that one pot(sa) of water is sufficient to take Ghusl(bath)? Whereas, this hadeeth in NO way mentions that Ayesha(ra) showed to the questioners the Ghusl of complete body. Infact this hadeeth has NO RELATION to the PROCEDURE of Bath. The slander of Shias that Ayesha(ra) demonstrated Ghusl(bath) infront of men, is an apparent example of the filth filled in the mind of Shias, against mother of believers.

But if Shias aren’t satified with the above answer then let us present a beautiful gift to the religious slanderers who always try to question the pure ahadeeth in books of Ahlesunnah applying their filthy misinterpretations.

محمد بن يحيى، عن محمد بن أحمد، عن عمر بن علي بن عمر بن يزيد، عن عمه محمد بن محمد بن يحيى، عن محمد بن أحمد، عن عمر بن علي بن عمر بن يزيد، عن عمه محمد بن عمر، عن بعض من حدثه أن أبا جعفر (عليه السلام) كان يقول: من كان يؤمن بالله واليوم الآخر فلا يدخل الحمام إلا بمئزر، قال: فدخل ذات يوم الحمام فتنور فلما أنأطبقت النورة على بدنه ألقى المئزر فقال له مولى له: بأبي أنت وامي إنك لتوصينا بالمئزر ولزومه وقد ألقيته عن نفسك؟ فقال: أماعلمت أن النورة قد أطبقت العورة

Abu Jafar(as) used to say: The one who have faith in Allah and the day of judgement should not enter the bathroom without Izaar/lungi(a traditional garment worn around the waist){i.e without any clothes}. Narrator says: one day he(as) entered the bathroom and applied (a kind of powder) something on his body. When he finished applying (a kind of powder) something on his complete body, he removed the Izaar. His slave said to him: May my parents be sacrificed for your preservation, didn’t you command us to wear the Izaar and now you removed the Izaar from you own? In reply to this he(as) said: Don’t you know that the private parts are covered by the powder.( Al furoo min al kafi , The Book of laws of Dresses, Beautifying and the ideal of Manhood (Kitab al-Zay wa alTajammul) VOL 6, PAGE 502 AND 503)


عدة من أصحابنا، عن سهل بن زياد، عن منصور بن العباس، عن حمزة بن عبد الله، عن ربعي، عن عبيد الله الدابقي قال: دخلت حماما بالمدينة فإذا شيخ كبير وهو قيم الحمام فقلت: يا شيخ لمن هذا الحمام؟ فقال: لابي جعفر محمد بن علي بن الحسين عليهم السلام فقلت: كان يدخله؟ قال: نعم، فقلت: كيف كان يصنع؟ قال: كان يدخل فيبدء فيطلي عانته وما يليها ثم يلف على طرف إحليله ويدعوني فاطلي سائر بدنه، فقلت له يوما من الايام: الذي تكره أن أراه قد رأيته، فقال: كلا إن النورة سترة

Abdullah dabkhi narrated that: I entered a bathroom in madina , i saw that an old man was a guard of that bathroom. I asked him whose bathroom is this? He replied, my father’s (i.e) abu jafar muhammed bin ali bin hussian(as). I then asked him , did he used to come here? he replied, yes. I asked, what he used to do here? he replied: He used to enter the bathroom and used to apply(powder) to his private part but he didnt used to see it. Then he used to apply(powder) to his hips and used to call me, So I used to apply(powder) to his complete body. One day I said to him, what you dislike me to see, I have seen that, he(as) replied: No way! It is covered by the powder. (AL FUROO MIN AL KAFI). [Translation by Mohammad Sarwar: al-Kafi, H #12432 & #12460].

The esteemed shia scholar in the introduction of the above respected Shia hadeeth book said:

وقلت إنك تحب أن يكون عندك كتاب كاف يجمع فيه من جميع فنون علم الدين ما يكتفي به المتعلم ويرجع إليه المسترشد ويأخذ منه من يريد علم الدين والعمل به بالآثار الصحيحة عن الصادقين عليهم السلام والسنن القائمة التي عليها العمل وبها يؤدي فرض الله عز وجل وسنة نبيه صلى الله عليه وآله

“Verily, you solemnly wished that you possess a book which is sufficient, brings together the entire Islamic sciences of the knowledge of religion within it, wholly satisfies the needs of the student, acts as a reference for the seekers of guidance, and would be used by those who want to attain the knowledge of religion and practice upon it by deriving correct [şaĥīĥ] narrations of the truthful ones (as) and the upright and acted upon traditions from it—through which the compulsory duties of Allāh, the Powerful and Exalted, and the tradition of His Prophet (saws) can be fulfilled. (al-Kāfī, of Abū Ja`far al-Kulaynī (d. 329), volume 1, page 8 [Tehran]).

Moreover, Under the Tafseer of Surah Ahzab:37, Suduq narrates from al-Rida(as) :
قال الرضا عليه السلام: ان رسول الله (ص) قصد دار زيد بن حارثه بن شراحيل الكلبى في
أمر اراده فراى امراته تغتسل فقال لها: سبحان الذي خلقك!…..
The Prophet(S) saw Zaid Bin Harithah’s wife having a bath(Ma’azAllah), he looked at her and said ‘Glory be to the one who created you’ [Uyunu Akhbar Ar Rida, vol 2, pag 180-181] ; Majlisi graded the chain has Reliable in [Hayat al-Quloob, vol 2, page 1190] ; [Hayat al-Quloob, vol 2, page 891(URDU)]

They have no respect for The Prophet(SAWS). Their books are plagued with lies and filth, and yet they have the audacity to accuse Sunni reports due to their filthy and corrupt mentality.


Slander 17 B:

Dr Shabbir( a shia) in his book argues regarding this incident that :

[Quote]Abu salamah could have sent his wife to learn the correct manner of bathing(Ghusl), and after that could have learnt that from his wife.[The culprits of Islam(Islam ke mujrim) page 45, 46][Quote]

Then the answer to this argument of Shias is that :

1. Abu Salamah(ra) was the foster(Razae’e) nephew of Ayesha(ra). In other words, Aisha(ra) was the aunt of Abu Salamah by suckling because Aisha’s sister [(Bibi Umm Kulthoom(ra)]suckled Abu Salmah(ra). And the other person was Aisha(ra)’s biological brother. Both these men who came to ask the question were Mahram.

2. The query was of Abu Salamah(ra), so should he send his wife to ask that? Let us explain this issue from this example.

Dr shabbir if a person is in a medical field and he is taught regarding some specific organs of women, So will he say that don’t teach me but I will send my wife so that after learning those issues she will inform me? This will not happen. And everything has its own timing, as far as modesty and decency is concerned then Prophet(saw) and his wives were the best examples of modesty and decency, but where the issue regarding Islamic rulings raises there clarifications are needed to be done, So that every rulings is clearly explained. And this is the meaning of Prophet(saw) being oswatun hasana (best example), That is why Prophet(saw) explained and clarified even the minute issues. And there is no argument in it.

If Dr. Shabbir is a medical doctor then surely he must have read rules and laws about Embryology and the teacher who taught him Embryology must have been a female doctor, So then surely Dr Shabbir might have felt shy in asking the questions regarding sexuality, So regarding those issues why didn’t Dr shabbir sent his wife, So that she would learn the rulings of Embryology in correct manner and then inform him about.


Slander 18:  

Refuting argument that Aisha showed Salim how to make wudu

أن عائشة أرت مولاها سالم كيف كان رسول الله يتوضأ

الحديث يفيد عدم حجاب عائشة نفسها وهو بكامله هكذا:

عن أبي عبد الله سالم سبلان قال «وكانت عائشة تستعجب بأمانته وتستأجره  يتوضأ فتمضمضت واستنثرت ثلاثا وغسلت وجههاeفأرتنى كيف كان رسول الله  ثلاثا ثم يدها اليمنى ثلاثا واليسرى ثلاثا ووضعت يدها في مقدم رأسها ثم مسحت رأسها مسحة واحدة إلى مؤخره ثم أمرت يديها بأذنيها ثم مرت على الخدين قال سالم كنت آتيها مكاتبا ما تختفى منى فتجلس بين يدى وتتحدث معى حتى جئتها ذات يوم فقلت ادعى لى بالبركة يا أم المؤمنين قالت وما ذاك قلت أعتقني الله قالت بارك الله لك وأرخت الحجاب دوني فلم أرها بعد ذلك اليوم» (رواه النسائي في سننه).
روى الرافضة عن أبي عبد الله أنه سئل « هل يجوز للمملوك أن يرى شعر مولاته وساقها؟ قال لا بأس».
وفي الموثق والصحيح بأبان بن عثمان « سألت أبا عبد الله عليه السلام عن المملوك يرى شعر مولاته؟ قال لا بأس».
والرافضة أجازوا ذلك في كتبهم ومروياتهم. (أنظر الحدائق الناضرة23/69 مستند الشيعة للنراقي 16/53 والكافي للكليني5/531 وسائل الشيعة20/223 للحر العاملي، مستمسك العروة الوثقى14/43 لمحسن الحكيم).
فليقرأ الرافضة قول علمائهم بأن المرأة لا يجب أن تحجب من العبد إلا أن يؤدي ما يعتقه.

: « إذا كانeوهو قول الطوسي واحتج له بما رواه عن أم سلمة أن رسول الله  لإحداكن مكاتب وكان عنده ما يؤدي فليحتجب عنه» ورواه الطوسي في المبسوط (6/72) والطبرسي في مستدرك الوسائل (16/26 ورواه ابن أبي جمهور الاحسائي (عوالي الآلي3/435).
وهو واضح في جواز عدم الاحتجاب منه قبل أن يصير عنده ما يؤدي مكاتبته عندكم

The hadeeth about Aisha(ra) showed Salem how to do wudu. From Abi Abdillah Salem, he said “And Aisha was admiring his honesty and she hired him so she showed me how to perform the wudu as the messenger of Allah (pbuh) did it. so she washed the mouth and nose three then she washed the face three then she washed her right forearm three then her left three then she put her hand on the front of her head and passed it to the back once, then she passed them on her ears and cheeks. Salem said, I used to come to her while working on getting my freedom and she would not hide from me and would talk to me. Untill one day I came to her and said: “Make dua for me and blessings o mother of the believers” She said and why that? He said Allah gave me my freedom. she responded: May Allah bless you and then she put on her Hijab and hid her face”


Slander 19:

Religious slanderers accused Aisha(ra) in being a pimp! (mazallah) May the curse of Allah be upon them.

[Quote] Abu Bakr narrated, he said: Waki’ told, quoting Al-’Alaa Bin Abdul Karim Al-Yamani, quoting ‘Ammar Bin ‘Imran, a man from Zaydillah quoting a woman of them, quoting Aisha that she beautified a slave girl and walked around with her and said: May we catch some the young men of Quraysh through her.
إبن أبي شيبة – المصنف – كتاب النكاح – ما قالوا في الجارية تشوف ويطاف بها – الجزء : ( 3 ) – رقم الصفحة : ( 461 )

– ( 259 ) ما قالوا في الجارية تشوف ويطاف بها . ( 1 ) حدثنا أبو بكر قال : نا وكيع عن العلاء بن عبد الكريم اليامي عن عمار بن عمران رجل من زيد الله عن امرأة منهم عن عائشة أنها شوفت جارية وطافت بها وقالت : لعلنا نصطاد بها شباب قريش[Quote]

Only the hypocrites from Shias, could use this report as evidence against mother of believers.

Chain of this report contains several defects.

1) Unnamed woman from Zaydillah.

2) Ammar ibn Imran. His ahadeth are not authentic, as said ibn Hajar in Lisan, and Dhahabi in Mizan.

Thus this report is nothing but a fabrication.

So curse of Allah upon those, who use fabrications just to cast a shadow on the mother of believers.

Moreover these fabrications even go against Quran, So could any one claiming to be a muslim use these fabrications to slander mother of believers?

Allah said in Quran : “Impure women are for impure men and impure men are for impure women. Pure women are for pure men and pure men are for pure women.” (Quran, 24:26)The Ahlus Sunnah uses this as proof that Aisha (ra) must be pure, since the Prophet (saw) married her.


Slander 20:

Religious slanderers stated:

[Quote] Ayesha tried to incite Prophet’s wife Malika against Him (s)

We read in Tabaqat Ibn Saad:Abu Masher said: ‘The Prophet (PBUH&HF) married Malika Bint Ka’b who was known for her outstanding beauty. Aisha went to see her and said to her: “Aren’t you ashamed to marry your father’s killer?” She then sought refuge against the Prophet of Allah (PBUH&HF), whereupon he divorced her. Her people came to him and said: “O Prophet of Allah, she is young and lacking in perception. She was deceived, so take her back”. The Prophet (PBUH&HF) refused to do so. Her father was killed on the day of the conquest of Mecca, and his killer was Khalid Ibn al-Walid al-Khandama.” Tabaqat Ibn Saad, Volume 8 page 148 [Quote]

Ibn Sad reported it from his shaykh Muhammad ibn Umar al-Waqidi, who was and liar and was abandoned.

Imam Ahmad said: Al-Waqidi is a Liar.

Abu Dawuud : “I don’t doubt that he used to make up Ahadeeth”

Al-Hafiz Ishaaq bin Rahweeh: “For me he is one who fabricates”

Imaam Al-Shafi’I said: “Al-Waqidi’s books are all lies”

Al-Nisa’I : “The well known liars who lied about the Prophet (saws) are four: Ibn Abi Yahya in Madina, Al-Waqidi in Baghdad etc…”

Outside Al-Siyar, we can find additional statements.

Ibn Hajar related in his Tahtheeb:

Zakariya Ibn Yahya Al-Saji said: Muhammad Ibn Umar Al-Waqidi, the Judge, is accused.

Ibn Adi said: His hadiths are not known (or memorized by others), and the calamity (or problem) is in him.

Ibn Al-Madini said: Ibrahim Ibn Yahya is a liar, nevertheless I consider him to be of a better status than Al-Waqidi.

Al-Shafi: There are seven men fabricating asanid in Medina, Al-Waqidi is one of them.

Abu Hatim said: “He used to fabricate.”

Thus this report is fabrication and should be rejected.


Slander 21:

Religious slanderers stated:

[Quote] In Tadhkira al-Khawas, of Ibn al-Jawzi, he writes: “when Mu’awiya’s sister Umme Habeeba received news about Muhammad bin Abu Bakr’s murder, she sent Ayesha (RA) a cooked goat suggesting that the reason for his killing was his murder of Caliph Uthman. When this happened Ayesha (RA) said “May Allah (swt) kill this daughter of fornicating woman. By Allah! I shall never eat this meat again”.

Note: the word ‘fornicating woman’ has been used for Hind, mother of Muwaviya who also ate the heart and limbs of Prophet’s (SAW)Uncle Hazrat Hamza. [Quote]

This report is nothing but apparent fabrication of Shias, who hated banu umayya, which was the reason for fabricating it. The book quoted is actually a shia book. The Shia will make use of this book often because they can claim it was written by Ibn al-Jawzi. As most people know, Ibn al-Jawzi was a very famous Sunni scholar. However, this particular book, Tadkhirath al-Khawwas, was not written by Ibn al-Jawzi, but rather by Sibt Ibn al-Jawzi, the undercover shia, and not the famous Sunni scholar. This book is actually on the biographies of the twelve Imams of the Shia! It is quite unbelievable that the Shias attempt to pass off Shia books as Sunni ones. It is using tactics like this that the Shia preachers have tricked many Sunnis.


Slander 22:

Religious slanderers stated:

[Quote] “We have been told by Muhammad Ibn Umar, we have been told by Muhammad Ibn Abdullah ibn Ja’ffar from Ibn Abi Oon that Aysha said: ‘Safiyah and I use to curse each other; I use to curse her father and she use to curse mine’ – Tbaqat Ibn Sa’ad V.8 P.64

It is interesting how our Mothers are cursing each other; and who said that we should take our religion from them?

The Second tradition is even more interesting (as highlighted in the page); it shows the Holy Prophet asking Abu Bakr to release him from Aysha – quite interesting, I wonder what did the Holy Prophet mean? Well, let’s see:

“We have been told by Muhammad Ibn Umar, we have been told by Muhammad Ibn Abdullah, from Al-Zahri, from Ibn Al-Museeb that he said: ‘The Holy Prophet said to Abu Bakr: “O Abu Bakr, can’t you release me from Aysha”; then Abu Bakr turned to Aysha and (he raised his hand and) started beating her chest violently. The Prophet said: “May Allah forgives you Oh Abu Bakr; this is not I wanted” – Tbaqat Ibn Sa’ad V.8 P.64

Both narrations are made up by Muhammad bin Umar Al-Waq’idi who was a liar and he was rejected

Imam Ahmad said: Al-Waqidi is a Liar.

Abu Dawuud : “I don’t doubt that he used to make up Ahadeeth”

Al-Hafiz Ishaaq bin Rahweeh: “For me he is one who fabricates”

Imaam Al-Shafi’I said: “Al-Waqidi’s books are all lies”

Al-Nisa’I : “The well known liars who lied about the Prophet (saws) are four: Ibn Abi Yahya in Madina, Al-Waqidi in Baghdad etc…”

Outside Al-Siyar, we can find additional statements.

Ibn Hajar related in his Tahtheeb:

Zakariya Ibn Yahya Al-Saji said: Muhammad Ibn Umar Al-Waqidi, the Judge, is accused.

Ibn Adi said: His hadiths are not known (or memorized by others), and the calamity (or problem) is in him.

Ibn Al-Madini said: Ibrahim Ibn Yahya is a liar, nevertheless I consider him to be of a better status than Al-Waqidi.

Al-Shafi: There are seven men fabricating asanid in Medina, Al-Waqidi is one of them.

Abu Hatim said: “He used to fabricate.”

Thus these narrations are outright fabrications and not worth to be accepted.

And what is more interesting is the continuation of the narration:

Ayesha(ra) said: “Me and Safiya were insulting each other, so I insulted her father, so she insulted my father and the Messenger of Allah -tala- heard it and said: O Safiya do you insult Abu Bakr! O Safiya do you insult Abu Bakr

Comment: Thus we see that the Prophet (SAW) was angry at Safiya when she insulted Abu Bakr(ra). You can imagine how his reaction is to the multitudes of Shia cursing his close friend day in and day out.

So if Shias want their followers to accept those fabricated narrations then they should even accept the remaining part of the narration, which should stop them from slandering and cursing the beloved friend of Prophet(saw), (i.e) Abubakr(ra).


Slander 23 A:

Religious slanderers stated:

[Quote] Her evil conduct in the presence of the Prophet of Allah (PBUH&HF) reached a point that while he was praying, she would spread her feet towards his direction of prostration. When he prostrated and pushed them, she retracted them. When he stood up for the rest of the prayer, she would spread her feet out again:

Sahih Bukhari Hadith: 1.492 & 1.379
Narrated Aisha:  “I used to sleep in front of Allah’s Apostle with my legs opposite his Qibla (facing him); and whenever he prostrated, he pushed my feet and I withdrew them and whenever he stood, I stretched them.” `Aisha added, “In those days there were no lamps in the houses.”[Quote]

Firstly this used to occur when Ayesha(ra) used to sleep in night, not while she used to be awake in the morning hours. Secondly the wives of the Prophet (pbuh) lived in small homes that were the size of a large closet. So his wife wasn’t streching her feet out in his path of prayer, but they were in the way because of confined space. So for this reason can the mother of believers be slandered by the Shias? Who are they to slander the mother of believers? Who gave them this right, when Prophet(Saw) who was her husband never objected to it(because he knew the condition of the house)?  If the religious slanderers consider themselves muslims then they should fear Allah before slandering mother of believers.

Now let us present before our readers the carefulness and manners of Ayesha(ra) which she used to maintain regarding the prayer of Prophet(saw) when she used to be awake.

Sahi bukhari 1.486: Narrated `Aisha: While I used to lie in my bed, the Prophet would come and pray facing the middle of the bed. I used to consider it NOT GOOD to stand in front of him in his prayers. So I used to slip away slowly and quietly from the foot of the bed till I got out of my guilt.

Sahi bukhari 1.493: Narrated `Aisha: I saw the Prophet praying while I used to lie in (my) bed between him and the Qibla. Whenever I was in need of something, I DISLIKED to sit and trouble the Prophet. So, I would slip away by the side of his feet.”

Comment: We hope these narrations are sufficient to refute the slanders of Shias against Ayesha(ra).

A slap by the Imam Jafar(ra) from shia books on the face of religious slanderers.

Imam Jafar(ra) used a similar incident which shias are using to attack ayesha(ra), to prove that woman can pray in front of man while the man is praying.

In Man La Yahdharhu Al-Faqeeh (p. 119) (Dar Al-Murtadha, 1427, first edition) we find the following hadith:

وروى جميل عن أبي عبد الله عليه السلام أنه قال: لا بأس أن تصلي المرأة بحذاء الرجل وهو يصلي فإن النبي صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم كان يصلي وعائشة مضطجعة بين يديه وهي حائض، وكان إذا أراد أن يسجد غمز رجليها فرفعت رجليها حتى يسجد.

Jameel narrated from Abi Abdullah (as) that he said: It is fine for a woman to pray next to a man while he is praying, for the Prophet (pbuh) used to pray with Aisha laying down in front of him, during her menses, and if he wanted to prostrate, he would poke her legs, and she would raise them so that he would prostrate. [Scan page of this hadeeth]

The path of Ibn Babawaih to Jameel is reliable according to Al-Khoei which can be found in the bottom of this link.

Furthermore, a good number of Shia scholars have authenticated this narration:

1- al-Fawa’id al-Tusiyyah, by Muhammad bin al-Hasan bin `Ali, al-Hurr al-`Amili. Pg.62-64, printed Qum, Iran. al-Matba`ah al-`Ilmiyyah,  1st edition year 1403.
أقول: هذا الحديث صحيح السند على اصطلاح المتأخرين
2- al-Hada’iq al-Nadirah, by Yusuf al-Bahrani. Vol.7, pg.178-186, printed Qum, Iran. Mu’assasat al-Nashr al-Islami, 1st edition year 1405.
ما رواه الصدوق في الصحيح عن جميل عن ابي عبد الله
3- Mustanad al-Shi`ah, by Ahmad bin Muhammad al-Naraqi. Vol.4, pg.411-413, printed Qum, Iran. Mu’assasat Aal-ul-Bayt (as), 1st edition year 1415.
و المستفيضة من الصحاح و غيرها المصرّحة بعدم المنع. إمّا مطلقا كصحيحة جميل
4- Jawahir al-Kalam, by Muhammad Hasan bin Baqir al-Najafi. Vol.8, pg.303-311, printed Beirut, Lebanon. Dar Ihya’-ul-Turath al-`Arabi, 7th edition.

Comment: So we see from shia book that Imam Jafar(ra) didn’t saw anything wrong in it, rather he approved the act of Ayesha(ra) by deriving a ruling from it. If he would have felt anything wrong in it, then he wouldn’t have used this report as evidence to claim that woman can pray in front of man while the man is praying.  

O Shias, when will you give a pause to your hate filled emotions and use your brain? You are a disgrace to your Imams. Have some shame.


Slander 23 B:

Answering-Ansar says:

[Quote]We read in Muslim, Volume 1, Book 6, Number 298:

Narrated ‘A’isha:
The Prophet and I used to take a bath from a single pot while we were Junub. During the menses, he used to order me to put on an Izar (dress worn below the waist) and used to (bashr) fondle me. While in Itikaf, he used to bring his head near me and I would wash it while I used to be in my periods (menses).


Now in the Holy Qur’an Surah Baqarah, verse 222, we read:

“They ask thee concerning women’s courses. Say: They are a hurt and a pollution: So keep away from women in their courses, and do not approach them until they are clean. But when they have purified themselves, ye may approach them in any manner, time, or place ordained for you by Allah. For Allah loves those who turn to Him constantly and He loves those who keep themselves pure and clean”.

This verse clearly prohibits intercourse whilst one’s wife is menstruating. The word that the translator Mr Muhsin Khan has translated as “fondle” is mubasharath – and this actually means ‘to have sexual intercourse’. The term had been used by Allah (swt) in the Qur’an re Ramadhan – wherein Allah (swt) had stated that the previous injunction prohibiting intercourse during the night was abrogated:

“It is made lawful for you to have sexual relations with your wives on the night of the fasts. They are garments for you and you are the same for them. Allah knows that you used to deceive yourselves, so He turned to you and forgave you. So now have sexual relations with them and seek that which Allah has ordained for you, and eat and drink until the white thread (light) of dawn appears to you distinct from the black thread (darkness of night), then complete your fast till the nightfall. And do not have sexual relations with them (your wives) while you are in Itikaf in the mosques. These are the limits (set) by Allah, so approach them not. Thus does Allah make clear His signs to mankind that they may become Al Mut’ahqun (the pious)” (2:187).

The Qur’an has clearly used this term as meaning intercourse so if we are to accept this hadith as Sahih then it means that Ayesha claimed Rasulullah (s) had sex with her whilst she was menstruating. By deeming such hadith as Sahih these Nasibi have alleged that Rasulullah (s) violated a Qur’anic injunction (astaghfirullah). [End Quote]

There is a difference between fondling and intercourse. In the translation of Sahih Muslim, bashr has been translated as fondling, but Answering-Ansar claims that actually it means intercourse (and hence rejecting that it could be translated as fondling). Even the words in the hadith “During the menses, he used to order me to put on an Izar (dress worn below the waist) and used to (bashr) fondle me.” are enough to show that here it doesn’t mean intercourse.

We read in Shia book al-Kafi

علي بن إبراهيم، عن ابيه، عن ابن أبي عمير، عن جميل، عن زرارة، عن أبي جعفر (عليه السلام) قال: ليس في القبلة ولا مس الفرج ولا المباشرة وضوء

Imam Baqir (a.s) said : There is no ablution in case of kissing or touching vagina or doing mubasharath.[al-Kafi, Vol. 3, p. 37](Hasan according to Majlisi- Mirat ul Ukul Vol. 13, p. 118)

Of course, no Shia will say that mubashara here means sexual intercause. They will have to agree that mubasharath here can mean fondling and not sexual intercause as Answering-Ansar would like us to believe. So these religious slanderers from Answering-Ansar, clearly mistranslated the word inorder to slander Ayesha(as) as well as Prophet Muhammad(saw).


Slander 23 C:

Shiawebsite RTS starts off by quoting a translation of a verse from the Holy Qur’an:

[Quote]“They ask thee concerning women’s courses. Say: They are a hurt and a pollution: So keep away from women in their courses, and do not approach them until they are clean. But when they have purified themselves, ye may approach them in any manner, time, or place ordained for you by Allah. For Allah loves those who turn to Him constantly and He loves those who keep themselves pure and clean (2.22)

RTS concludes that this verse implies that husbands cannot approach their wives in any manner when during menses.

Then, RTS quotes narrations in which A’isha narrates that the Prophet (pbuh) used to fondle her during menses while he ordered her to wear an izar (clothing that is wrapped around the legs).

RTS quotes:
We read in Saheeh Bukhari Volume 1, Book 6, Number 298: Narrated ‘Aisha: The Prophet and I used to take a bath from a single pot while we were Junub. During the menses, he used to order me to put on an Izar (dress worn below the waist) and used to fondle me. While in Itikaf, he used to bring his head near me and I would wash it while I used to be in my periods (menses).

Saheeh Bukhari Volume 1, Book 6, Number 299: Narrated ‘Abdur-Rahman bin Al-Aswad: (on the authority of his father) ‘Aisha said: “Whenever Allah’s Apostle wanted to fondle anyone of us during her periods (menses), he used to order her to put on an Izar and start fondling her.” ‘Aisha added, “None of you could control his sexual desires as the Prophet could.”

RTS comments:

The Prophet (saw) has eight other wives to fulfil his needs, so why was he seeking to cleave to an unclean Aisha (la)?  Is it right that a wife notifies this sordid, filthy detail to others, and worse still a man?  What would the Sirah of the Prophet (saw) remain nebulous had it not been for this filthy narration?[End Quote]

There is no doubt in the minds of Muslims that Islam does not permit filthy acts. In other words, that which may be seen as filthy, in the eyes of a certain individual, may not be so in the eyes of another. In other words, determining what is filthy and what isn’t, in many cases, is a subjective matter. However, there is no subjectivity in this specific matter since Islam allows for one to fondle his wife during menses, with the specific condition that he may not approach her vagina.

Not only is this ruling understood from the narration above that RTS quotes, but it is also the position of Twelver Shias. For example, we find in the website of Shia leader Ayatollah Sistani the following religious ruling:

السؤال :

هل يجوز مجامعة الحائض دون القذف من باب المداعبة ؟

الجواب :

يحرم مجامعتها بالدخول في القبل وإن لم يقذف فيه، ولا بأس بالملاعبة من دون إدخال العضو .

The question: Is it permissible for one to have sexual relations with one’s wife during menses without climaxing as a form of foreplay?

The answer: It is prohibited to have sexual relations with her by entering her vagina, even without climaxing; however, foreplay is fine without the inserting of the penis.

محمد بن علي بن الحسين بإسناده عن عبيدالله بن علي الحلبي ، أنه سأل أبا عبدالله ( عليه السلام ) عن الحائض ما يحل لزوجها منها ؟ قال : تتّزر بإزار إلى الركبتين وتخرج سرتها ، ثم له ما فوق الإزار ، قال : وذكر عن أبيه ( عليه السلام ) أن ميمونة كانت تقول : إن النبي ( صلى الله عليه واله وسلم ) كان يأمرني إذا كنت حائضا أن أتزر بثوب ثم اضطجع معه في الفراش.

This opinion is supported by several(Shia) hadiths, one of which is the authentic narration (refer to this link, which in where Al-Khoei authenticates Al-Saduq’s chain) by Ubaidullah bin Ali Al-Halabi from Aba Abdulla (as) in which he asks about what was permissible for the husband when the wife is menstruating. He responded: She would wrap an izar around her legs, and would reveal her belly, and whatever is above that, is permissible. He mentioned from his father (as): Maymoona used to say: The Prophet (pbuh) ordered me when I was menstruating to wear izar, then lay with him in bed. (Shia book, Man La Yahdharhu Al-Faqeeh, 1/47, Dar Al-Murtadha, First edition)

In other words, there is complete harmony between both sects on this issue, and that the narrations from both parties do not conflict with the Qur’an. Most importantly, this matter cannot be described as filthy, because this is what Islam permits. And finally, this narration, as we can see in the Shia reference, was narrated by Maymoona, who is seen in a positive light by the Shias, and this narration is not specific to A’isha.


Slander 24:

Religious slanderers stated:

[Quote] After one month that the Prophet deserted his wives, and when the words of Allah: “You may defer any one of them you wish and take to your self any you wish and there is no sin for you to take back any of them you have (temporarily) set aside (33:51)” were revealed, Aisha said to the Prophet: “It seems to me that your Lord hastens to satisfy your desire!”

Sunni references: Sahih Muslim, English version, Chapter DLXXII (titled: Permissibility of bestowing the turn on one’s fellow wife), v2, pp 748-749, Traditions #3453-3454
Sahih Muslim, Arabic version, 1980 Edition Pub. in Saudi Arabia, v2, pp 1085-1086, Traditions #49-50 [Quote]

Imam Ibn Hajar (may God reward him) explained to the ignorants: (refer this link which provides the answer in detail)

ما أرى ربك إلا يسارع في هواك
Literally the words of Ayesha(ra) were :”I don’t find except that God is quick to your feelings”

Which means that God is quick to send down a revelation as soon as the Prophet (pbuh) feels there is a need for it.

So we don’t see any problem in these words of Ayesha(ra). Even no other unbiased person could use this statement of Ayesha(ra) against her unless he is made to wear the glasses of misinterpretation and slanders.


Slander 25:

Religious Slanderer stated:

[Quote] Once she angrily said to the Messenger of Allah (PBUH&HF):

“It is you who pretend to be a prophet from Allah.”

Sunni references:

  • – Ihyaa al-Ulum/The Revival of Religious Sciences, by al-Ghazzali, Chapter 3, v2, p29, The Book on the Etiquettes of Marriage
  • – Mukashifat al-Qulub, by al-Ghazzali, Chapter 94[Quote]

Here the Shias made an incorrect translation inorder to portray Ayesha(ra) in a negative manner. Here is the Arabic text with more correct translation and along with the comments of the author which the Shias omitted.

وقالت له مرة في كلام غضبت عنده أنت الذي تزعم أنك نبي الله فتبسم رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم واحتمل ذلك حلما وكرما
حديث قالت له عائشة مرة غضبت عنده وأنت الذي تزعم أنك نبي فتبسم رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أخرجه أبو يعلى في مسنده وأبو الشيخ في كتاب الأمثال من حديث عائشة وفيه ابن اسحق وقد عنعنه.

Translation: And she said to him(saw) once in talking while being angry, “You who claim to be God’s prophet”. So Messenger of Allah peace be upon him, smiled and took it with patience and generosity.

It must be pointed out that these people are simply excited to collect material for their claims; they do not go for quality of the argument and instead seek only a large number of allegations. Before examining the quoted statement, it should be mentioned that Qur’an chapter 24 defends lady Ayesha(ra) whereas these people have used it against her.

Narrated IbnAbi Malaika: ‘Aisha used to recite this Verse:– ‘Ida taliqunahu bi-alsinatikum’ (24.15) “(As you tell lie with your tongues.)” and used to say “Al-Walaq” means “telling of a lie. “She knew this Verse more than anybody else as it was revealed about her [Sahih Bukhari 59:465].

The verse was definitely revealed about her but it does not state that she used to lie rather mentions the lies of the people attributed to her. Reading the whole 24th chapter of the Qur’an clarifies everything but this claim is so childish and silly that even replying to it feels shameful.

Now coming to the statement attributed to lady Ayesha(ra) there are a number of issues with this statement attributed to the pious mother of the believers.

1- According to both the sources above mentioned the report is narrated by Ibn Ishaq in an ambiguous way i.e. with ‘an. And he being a mudallis (one known to subtly drop the narrator immediately above him) his report cannot be accepted unless it be with unambiguous way of ascription e.g. haddathana (narrated to us), sam’itu (I heard), akhbarna (informed us).

Hafiz Ibn Hajr has placed him in the fourth category of mudallisin (sing. mudallis) and for this category (as well as the third one) a report has to be through unambiguous way of attribution to be taken as reliable. See, Tabaqat al-Mudallisin, Maktaba al-Manar, Amman, 1983 p.51 No. 125

In his later work, Ibn Hajr put him in the third category, for which the same condition holds. See Al-Nukat ‘ala Kitab Ibn al-Salah, vol.2 p.642 No. 54

2- Ibn Ishaq being the solitary narrator i.e. there is no chain for it that does not involve Ibn Ishaq. Solitary reports of Ibn Ishaq are not reliable.

Imam Ahmad was asked about the solitary reports of Ibn Ishaq if they are considered reliable. He said “No!”. See Tahdhib al-Tahdhib, Da’ira Ma’arif Nizamia, Hyderabad, 1326 A.H. vol.9 p.43

3- Weakness of the narrator Salamah bin Fazal

Following scholars have explicitly graded the report as da’if or have pointed to problem that renders it as such.

Imam Al-Ghazali (d. 505 A.H.): “In it is Ibn Ishaq and he narrated with ‘an’nah (i.e. his tadlis is involved)” [See Ahya al-Uloom al-Din, Dar al-Ma’rifah, Beirut n.d. vol.2 p.43]

Imam Al-Haithmi (d. 807 A.H.): “Abu Ya’la narrated it, it involves Muhammad bin Ishaq (as a narrator) and he is mudallis. And Salamah bin Fazal, he has been deemed reliable by a number of scholars including Ibn Ma’in, Ibn Hibban and Abu Hatim, and a number of scholars have graded him as weak (da’if).” [See Majma’ Al-Zawaid wa manba’ al-Fawaid, Maktaba’ al-Qudsi, Cairo, 1994, vol.4 p.322 No. 7694]

Imam Al-Boseri (d. 840 A.H.): “Abu Ya’la narrated it with a weak (da’if) chain due to tadlis of Ibn Ishaq.” [See Ithaf al-Khira al-Mihra, Dar al-Watan, Riyadh, 1999 vol. 3 pp.154-155 No. 2426]

Shaykh Albani (d. 1420 A.H.): “It is weak (da’if)” [See Silsala Ahadith Da’ifa, Dar al-Ma’rif, Riyadh, 1992, vol.6 pp.554-555, No. 2985]

Shaykh Jamal bin Farhaat Saawali: “Its chain of narrators is weak (da’if) for it has Ibn Ishaq who is mudallis and narrates with ‘an.” [See research on Al-Matalib al-‘Aliya, Dar al-‘Asimah, Riyadh, 1998 vol.8. pp.188-189 No. 1599]

Dr. Abdul Aliy Abdul Hameed Hamid: “Its chain is weak (da’if).” [See research on Kitab al-Amthar fi Hadith al-Nabawi of Abu al-Shaykh, Dar al-Salafiyyah, Bombay, 1987 pp.95-96 No. 56]

Shaykh Abu al-Ishaq Al-Heweny: “And this chain is weak (da’if). And Salamah bin al-Fazal has been graded as weak (da’if) by al-Nasai and others. Al-Bukhari said, ‘There are some rejected reports in his narrations.’ … Ibn Ishaq is a mudallis and reports with ‘an (i.e. in ambiguous way). Its subject matter has evident problem in the statement of Aisha. The narration was graded as weak (da’if) by al-Boseri.” [See Al-Fatawa al-Hadithia 1/244-245]

Thus this report is also weak and no honest muslim can use it to slander mother of believers.


Slander 26 :

Religious slanderers stated:

[Quote]Imam Ghazali in his ‘Ihya’u’l-Ulum, vol. II, ch. 3, Kitab-e-Adabu’n-Nika, p. 135, has reported many hadith condemning A’yesha’s conduct. Among them is her quarreling with the Holy Prophet and Abu Bakr’s intervention. This event is also narrated by Mulla Ali Muttaqi in Kanzu’l-Ummal, vol. VII, p. 116; Abu Yala in his Musnad and Abu’sh-Sheikh in his Kitab-e-Amthal. They write that when Abu Bakr went to see his daughter, he found that there was a grievance between A’yesha and the Holy Prophet. The decision was left in Abu Bakr’s hands. A’yesha used insulting language in her remarks. In the course of her conversation, she asked the Holy Prophet to be fair in his attitude. This insolent remark made Abu Bakr so indignant that he slapped her so severely in her face that blood flowed down her clothes.[Quote]

Here is the Arabic text for this report and a better translation than the deceptive Shia translation.
1462 – حديث : جرى بينه وبين عائشة كلام حتى أدخلا بينهما أبا بكر رضي الله عنه حكما واستشهده ، فقال لها رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم تكلمين أو أتكلم فقالت بل تكلم أنت ولا تقل إلا حقا ، فلطمها أبو بكر حتى دمى فوها وقال : يا عدية نفسها ، أو يقول غير الحق ! فاستجارت برسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وقعدت خلف ظهره ، فقال النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم لم ندعك لهذا ولا أردنا منك هذا “
** أخرجه الطبراني في الأوسط والخطيب في التاريخ من حديث عائشة بسند ضعيف

Translation: Exchange of words happened between him(prophet) and Ayesha’s until they involved, Abu Bakr(ra) between them as a arbiter. So the messenger of Allah (pbuh), said to her, you speak or I speak, she said, you speak! And do not speak but the truth. So Abu Bakr, hit her cheek until blood came out of her mouth and said: O trasngressor itself, does he ever say but the truth! so she sought refuge in the Messenger of Allah peace be upon him and sat behind his back, then the Prophet, peace be upon him said we did not call you for this nor do we want this from you “

As the readers can notice that the translation that was made by shias wasn’t so correct, because from words A’yesha used insulting language in her remarks are not true. We can only see the words as “Ayesha(ra) said: you speak and do not speak but the truth”.

Secondly and most IMPORTANTLY, Iraqi(rah) said this hadith was narrated by Tabarani in al-Awsat and khatib in Tarih through WEAK CHAIN. Thus this report cannot be used to slander mother of believers.

Thirdly, here is the actual incident.
جاء أبو بكر يستأذن على النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فسمع عائشة وهي رافعة صوتها على رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فأذن له فدخل فقال يا ابنة أم رومان وتناولها أترفعين صوتك على رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال فحال النبي بينه وبينها قال فلما خرج أبو بكر جعل النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم يقول لها يترضاها ألا ترين أني قد حلت بين الرجل وبينك قال ثم جاء أبو بكر فاستأذن عليه فوجده يضاحكها فأذن له فدخل فقال له أبو بكر يا رسول الله أشركاني في سلمكما كما أشركتماني في حربكما
al-Nu’uman bin Bachir narrated: Abu Bakr came to get the permission to enter on the Prophet (SAWS), so he heard ‘Aisha raising her voice on the Prophet (SAWS), so he gave him permission and he entered and said to ‘Aisha: “O daughter of Umm Ruman” and he scolded her “Do you raise your voice against Rassul-Allah (SAWS)!?” So the Prophet (SAWS) stepped between them, and when Abu Bakr left the Prophet (SAWS) tried to comfort her and please her, he (SAWS) said: “Do you not see that I stood between you and the man to protect you?” Then Abu Bakr would return and ask for permission and he would see that they were both laughing, so he would tell them (Jokingly): “Ya Rassul-Allah (SAWS), will you permit me join you two in your time of peace like you allowed me to join you in your time of war?”

Fourthly, We have authentic Shia narration regarding Zaynab bint Jahash(ra) from al-kafi which Majlsi has graded muwathaq:
عَنْهُ عَنِ الْحَسَنِ بْنِ سَمَاعَةَ عَنْ وُهَيْبِ بْنِ حَفْصٍ عَنْ أَبِي بَصِيرٍ عَنْ أَبِي جَعْفَرٍ ( عليه السلام ) قَالَ إِنَّ زَيْنَبَ بِنْتَ جَحْشٍ قَالَتْ لِرَسُولِ اللَّهِ ( صلى الله عليه وآله ) لَا تَعْدِلُ وَ أَنْتَ نَبِيٌّ فَقَالَ تَرِبَتْ يَدَاكِ إِذَا لَمْ أَعْدِلْ فَمَنْ يَعْدِلُ فَقَالَتْ دَعَوْتَ اللَّهَ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ لِيَقْطَعَ يَدَيَّ فَقَالَ لَا وَ لَكِنْ لَتَتْرَبَانِ فَقَالَتْ إِنَّكَ إِنْ طَلَّقْتَنَا وَجَدْنَا فِي قَوْمِنَا أَكْفَاءَنَا فَاحْتُبِسَ الْوَحْيُ عَنْ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ ( صلى الله عليه وآله ) تِسْعاً وَ عِشْرِينَ لَيْلَةً ثُمَّ قَالَ أَبُو جَعْفَرٍ ( عليه السلام ) فَأَنِفَ اللَّهُ عَزَّ وَ جَلَّ لِرَسُولِهِ فَأَنْزَلَ يا أَيُّهَا النَّبِيُّ قُلْ لِأَزْواجِكَ إِنْ كُنْتُنَّ تُرِدْنَ الْحَياةَ الدُّنْيا وَ زِينَتَها الْآيَتَيْنِ فَاخْتَرْنَ اللَّهَ وَ رَسُولَهُ فَلَمْ يَكُ شَيْئاً وَ لَوِ اخْتَرْنَ أَنْفُسَهُنَّ لَبِنَّ .
It is narrated from the narrator of the previous Hadith from al-Husayn ibn Sama‘ah from Wuhayb ibn Hafs from abu Basir who has said the following: “Abu Ja‘far, ‘Alayhi al-Salam, has said that once Zaynab bint Jahash said to the Messenger of Allah, O Allah, grant compensation to Muhammad and his family worthy of their services to Your cause, ‘You are not fair and you are the Prophet. He (the Messenger of Allah) replied, ‘May your hands become soiled, ‘If I am not fair then who is fair?’ She then asked, ‘O Messenger of Allah, did you pray that my hands get cut off?’ He (the Messenger of Allah) replied, ‘No, but they become soiled.’ She then said, ‘If you divorce us we will find in our people men as our match who will marry us.’ Revelation stopped coming for twenty-nine nights.’ Abu Ja‘far, ‘Alayhi al-Salam, then said, ‘Allah, most Majestic, most Glorious, disdained and rejected her words and sent revelation that said, ‘O Prophet, say to your wives, “If you want the worldly life and its beauty . . .” to the end of the two verses. They chose Allah and His Messenger then further things did not happen. Had they chosen themselves they would have become stranger to him (the Messenger of Allah).’ [al-Kafi, #10816 ; Grading : Muwathaq(reliable) , Miraat al-Uqool vol 21, page 232].

Comment: So are the religious slanderers going to slander Ummul Momineen Zaynab bint Jahash(ra) too? If so then they should know that the marriage of Prophet(saw) with Zaynab(ra) was from the command of Allah as mentioned in Quran. And if they like to remain silent, then they must do the same with Ayesha(ra) too, otherwise they will end up in hell-fire.



Slander 27 :

Religious slanderers stated:

[Quote] Envy so controlled Ayesha(as)’s heart and her mind that she conducted herself in the presence of the Messenger of Allah (PBUH&HF) without respect or manners. On one occasion, Aisha said to the Prophet (PBUH&HF), when he mentioned Khadija in her presence: Sahih Bukhari Hadith: 5.168.b

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

Then Shias said: When Aisha was jealous, she would exceed her bounds and would do strange things like breaking dishes or tearing clothes. On another occasion when the Prophet was in the house of Aisha, one of the mothers of the believers (namely Safiyya) sent to the Prophet a dish that he really loved. She destroyed the dish, together with the food in it. Let us see how Aisha herself described this episode:  Aisha said: “Safiyya, the wife of the Prophet (PBUH&HF), sent a dish she had made for him when he was with me. When I saw the maidservant, I trembled with rage and fury, and I took the bowl and hurled it away. The Prophet of Allah (PBUH&HF) then looked at me; I saw the anger in his face and I said to him: ‘I seek refuge from Allah’s Apostle cursing me today.’ The Prophet said: ‘Undo it’. I said: ‘What is its compensation, O Prophet of Allah?’ He said: ‘The food like her food, and a bowl like her bowl.'” Sunni references: Musnad, by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v6, p227 ;Sahih al-Nisa’i, v2, p148[Quote]

{And they present several other examples which show that Ayesha(ra) was jealous towards her co-wives}

This slander is one of the most common and often repeated slander against Ayesha(ra), that is why we would like to detail this one in a detailed manner, So that the Shias could understand their mistakes properly and  they should never be able to use these arguments in future to Slander Ayesha(ra).What these reports reflect is the honesty and truthfulness and trustworthiness of Ayesha(alaiha salam). She is narrating the virtues of Khadija(alaihasalam) and isn’t hiding anything related to the event, knowing that some people might not be able to comprehend it.

Before we begin let us cite you an authentic narration from which we will get an idea that the jealousy Ayesha(ra) had towards her co-wives was because of her extreme LOVE FOR PROPHET(SAW). Which shows us that how much she loved our beloved prophet(Saw).

Sahi muslim Bk 31, Number 5991: ‘A’isha reported that when Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) set ont on a journey, he used to cast lots amongst his wives. Once this lot came out in my favour and that of Hafsa. They (Hafsi, and ‘A’isha) both went along with him and Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) used to travel (on camel) when it was night along with ‘A’isha and talked with her. Hafsa said to ‘A’isha: Would you like to ride upon my camel tonight and allow me to ride upon your camel and you would see (what you do not generally see) and I would see(what I do not see) generally? She said: Yes. So ‘A’isha rode upon the camel of Hafsa and Hafsa rode upon the camel of ‘A’isha and Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) came near the camel of ‘A’isha. (whereas) Hafsa had been riding over that. He greeted her and then rode with her until they came down. She (‘A’isha) thus missed (the company of the Holy Prophet) and when they sat down, A’isha felt jealous. She put her foot in the grass and said: O Allah, let the scorpion sting me or the serpent bite me. And so far as thy Messenger is concerned, I cannot say anything about him.

Jealousy between co wives:

Woman’s jealousy towards her co-wives is something that is entirely natural, and it is not something that only some women feel and not others. Hence she will not be called to account for it unless she transgresses the limits and lets it lead to wronging her sister, which is something that Allaah has forbidden, by backbiting or spreading gossip or demanding the divorce of her co-wife or plotting against her and so on.

According to ‘Shia’ Imams jealousy of a woman is a sign of love for her Husband. From Shia book:

[ 25296 ] 5 ـ وعن أبي علي الاشعري ، عن محمد بن عبد الجبار ، عن صفوان ، عن اسحاق بن عمار قال : قلت لابي عبدالله ( عليه السلام ) : المرأة تغار على الرجل تؤذيه قال : ذاك من الحب .

I said to Abu `Abdillah(as): The woman is jealous for the man, ANNOYING him. He said: That is from LOVE. (Wasā’il al-Shīʿa [25296 th hadith ] p 157. v.8)

امام جعفر صادق نے فرمایا ؛ عورتیں جو آپس میں ایک دوسرے سے رشک کرتی ہیں، اس کی وجہ یہ ہوتی ہے کہ وہ خاوند سے زیادہ محبت کرتی ہیں۔
تہذیب آل محمد از مجلسی، ص ١۲۵
Imam Jafar sadiq(as) said: Women who are jealous of one another, the reason for this is that they love their husband very much. (tahzeeb aal muhammad by Majlisi, page 125).

Al-Haafiz ibn Hajar(rah) said: Basically, jealousy is natural and is not something that only some women feel and not others, but if a woman oversteps the mark then she is to be blamed. The guideline concerning that is the hadeeth which was narrated from Jaabir ibn ‘Ateek al-Ansaari, who attributed it to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him): “There is a kind of jealousy which Allaah loves, and a kind which Allaah hates. As for the kind of jealousy which Allaah loves, it is jealousy when there are grounds for suspicion. And as for the kind of jealousy which Allaah hates, it is jealousy when there are no grounds for suspicion.” (Classed as hasan by Shaykh al-Albaani in al-Irwa’, 7/80).  So jealousy on the part of the husband and wife, if it is of the type that is part of human nature which no woman is free from, then it is excused, so long as she does not overstep the mark and do or say anything that Allaah has forbidden. This is the way in which the reports from the salaf which speak of women’s jealousy are to be understood.  [Fath al-Baari, 9/326].

Ibn Muflih(rah) said:  Al-Tabari and other scholars said: Jealousy on the part of women is to be overlooked and they are NOT to be punished for it because it is part of their nature.

Al-Adaab al-Shar’iyyah, 1/248  Al-Haafiz Ibn Hajar(rah) said, commenting on the hadeeth which describes ‘Aa’ishah breaking the vessel of one of her co-wives:  They – i.e., all those who commented on this hadeeth – said: this indicates that the jealous women is not to be taken to task for what she does, because in that case her reasoning is overshadowed by the strong anger that was provoked by jealousy. Abu Ya’la narrated from ‘Aa’ishah with an isnaad with which there is nothing wrong a marfoo’ report which says: “A jealous woman cannot tell the bottom of the valley from its top.” Fath al-Baari, 9/325

The jealousy that occurred on the part of the best of women is something which no one can avoid, and they will not be taken to ask for it because it is not an action that transgresses the laws of Allaah.

The jealousy that Sarah(wife of Ibrahim(as)) felt towards Hajar(other wife of Ibrahim(as)) comes under this heading. For a woman to ask her husband not to let her see her co-wife and not to make her live with her is something that cannot be denounced. It should be noted that the scholars said that Ibraaheem (as) is the one who took Hajar and her son away, and Sarah did not ask for that.

Al-Haafiz ibn Hajar (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:  And it is said that Sarah was intensely jealous, so Ibraaheem took Ismaa’eel and his mother to Makkah because of that.  Fath al-Baari, 6/401

This is also indicated by the words of Hajar: “O Ibraaheem, will you go and leave us in this valley in which there are no people and nothing?” She said that to him several times, and he did not answer her. Then she said to him: “Is it Allaah Who has commanded you to do this?” He said: “Yes.” She said: “Then He will not forsake us.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 3184.

It was narrated that Ibn ‘Abbaas (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: When what happened between Ibraaheem and his wife happened, he went out with Hajar and Ismaa’eel, carrying a skin full of water…. Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 3185.

Al-Haafiz said:  The words of Ibn ‘Abbaas – “When what happened between Ibraaheem and his wife happened” –  “his wife” refers to Sarah and “what happened” refers to Sarah’s jealousy when Haajar bore Ismaa’eel.  [Fath al-Baari, 6/407]

As for Shia narration, then it is mentioned in a narration of Shia book al-Khisal:
والمحنة في النفس حين جعل في المنجنيق وقذف به في النار، ثم المحنة في الولد حين أمر بذبح ابنه إسماعيل، ثم المحنة بالأهل حين خلص الله عز وجل حرمته من عزازة القبطي المذكور في هذه القصة ، ثم الصبر على سوء خلق سارة
Then it refers to a trial in his life when he was put in a catapult and thrown into the fire. Then it refers to a trial in his son when he was ordered to offer his son Ishmael. Then it refers to his trial through his family when the Honorable the Exalted God freed his wife from the hands of Azarat al-Qabti mentioned in history. Then it refers to his patience with the bad conduct of (his wife) Sarah. [al-Khisal, p. 308]

Similarly, We read in Shia book ilal al-shara’ie:
ان الأنبياء عليهم السلام كانت تسقط عنهم غلفهم مع سررهم يوم السابع فلما ولد لإبراهيم إسماعيل من هاجر عيرتها سارة بما تعير به الإماء، فقال: فبكت هاجر واشتد ذلك عليها، فلما رآها إسماعيل تبكي بكى لبكاءها
وسأله عن أول من خفض من النساء، فقال: هي هاجر أم إسماعيل خفضتها سارة لتخرج من يمينها، وسأله عن أول امرأة جرت ذيلها، فقال: هاجر لما هربت من سارة

Similarly in Shia book, Wasail al-Shia

وعنهم، عن أحمد بن محمد، عن علي بن الحكم، عن أبان الأحمر، عن محمد الواسطي قال: قال أبو عبد الله عليه السلام: ان إبراهيم شكى إلى الله تعالى ما يلقى من سوء خلق ساره فأوحى الله إليه إنما مثل المرأة مثل الضلع المعوج ان أقمته كسرته وان تركته استمتعت به اصبر عليها

We read in Shia book Tarjuma Maqbool, which is approved by twelve grand scholars of the sub continent.

In Tafseer Qummi, it is narrated from Imam Jafar Sadiq that Abraham was  settled in a  desert of Syria. Hajira(as) gave birth to Ismail. Sara(as) was highly saddened  by it,  that she had no child and Hajira gave  birth to a male baby. Sara would hurt Abraham alot regarding Hajira, and would aggrieve him. [Zamima Maqbool, p. 255]

Now would these religious slanderers dare to say the same nonsense regarding Lady Sarah(as) or these religious slanderers like Jews only slander the wives of Prophet Muhammad(saw)?

Other wives of Prophet(Saw) also possessed jealousy towards their Co-wives, here are few examples:

1. We find that another wife of Prophet(saw) who was muslim, was sent a proposal of marriage by Prophet(saw) she also expressed a general nature which is present in women before prophet(saw), because she knew that Prophet(saw) already had other wives. Umm Salama said: I am of jealous temperament. He (the Holy Prophet) said: I would supplicate Allah to do away with (her) jealous (temperament).( Sahi muslim Bk 4, Number 1999)

2. Sahi bukhari 3.755: Narrated `Urwa from `Aisha: The wives of Allah’s Apostle were in two groups. One group consisted of `Aisha, Hafsa, Safiyya and Sauda; and the other group consisted of Um Salama and the other wives of Allah’s Apostle. The Muslims knew that Allah’s Apostle loved `Aisha, so if any of them had a gift and wished to give to Allah’s Apostle, he would delay it, till Allah’s Apostle had come to `Aisha’s home and then he would send his gift to Allah’s Apostle in her home. The group of Um Salama discussed the matter together and decided that Um Salama should request Allah’s Apostle to tell the people to send their gifts to him in whatever wife’s house he was. Um Salama told Allah’s Apostle of what they had said, but he did not reply. Then they (those wives) asked Um Salama about it. She said, “He did not say anything to me.” They asked her to talk to him again. She talked to him again when she met him on her day, but he gave no reply. When they asked her, she replied that he had given no reply. They said to her, “Talk to him till he gives you a reply.” When it was her turn, she talked to him again. He then said to her, “Do not hurt me regarding Aisha, as the Divine Inspirations do not come to me on any of the beds except that of Aisha.” On that Um Salama said, “I repent to Allah for hurting you.” Then the group of Um Salama called Fatima, the daughter of Allah’s Apostle and sent her to Allah’s Apostle to say to him, “Your wives request to treat them and the daughter of Abu Bakr on equal terms.” Then Fatima conveyed the message to him. The Prophet said, “O my daughter!Don’t you love whom I love?” She replied in the affirmative and returned and told them of the situation. They requested her to go to him again but she refused. They then sent Zainab bint Jahsh who went to him and used harsh words saying, “Your wives request you to treat them and the daughter of Ibn Abu Quhafa on equal terms.” On that she raised her voice and abused `Aisha to her face so much so that Allah’s Apostle looked at `Aisha to see whether she would retort. `Aisha started replying to Zainab till she silenced her. The Prophet then looked at `Aisha and said, “She is really the daughter of Abu Bakr.”

3. In a slight different version this is the ending of the narration: Sahi muslim Bk 31, Number 5984: A’isha said: The wives of Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him)then sent Zainab b. jahsh, the wife of Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him), and she was one who was some what equal in rank with me in the eyes of Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) and I have never seen a woman more advanced in religious piety than Zainab, more God−conscious, more truthful, more alive to the ties of blood, more generous and having more sense of self−sacrifice in practical life and having more charitable disposition and thus more close to God, the Exalted, than her. She, however, lost temper very soon but was soon calm….Zainab bint Jahsh said: Allah’s Messenger, your wives have sent me to you seeking equity in case of the daughter of Abu Quhafa. She then came to me and showed harshness to me and I was seeing the eyes of Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) whether he would permit me. Zainab went on until I came to know that Allah’s Messenger(may peace be upon him) would not disapprove if I retorted. Then I exchanged hot words until I made her quiet. Thereupon Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) smiled and said: She is the daughter of Abu Bakr.

Comment: Shias might argue that we don’t believe in these narrations of Ayesha(ra), but if they say so then they will have NO base to accuse Ayesha(ra) because the narrations they tried to use inorder to accuse Ayesha(ra) were also narrated by her.

Here are few examples of Jealousy from Shia narrations to shut the mouth of religious slanderers:

It was narrated in “Biharul anwar” (26/273), “Uyun akhbarul riza” (170) and in “Anwarul wilayah”:
فنظر-آدم عليه السلام- إليهم بعين الحسد وتمني منزلتهم، فتسلط الشيطان عليه حتى أكل من الشجرة التي نهي عنها، وتسلط على حواء لنظرها إلى فاطمة بعين الحسد حتى أكلت من الشجرة كما أكل آدم؛ فأخرجهما الله عز وجل عن جنته وأهبطهما إلى جوار الأرض
So Adam (as) looked upon them (ahlul-bait) with the eyes of jealousy and wished for himself their status, due to this Shaytaan overpowered him until he made him eat from the tree which he was forbidden from, and he overpowered Hawa because she looked at Fatimah with the eyes of jealousy until she too ate from the tree which Adam ate, so Allah Aza Wa Jal removed them from Jannah and dropped them on earth

Comment: This is an example from Shia books which shows that according to shia belief Prophet ADAM was JEALOUS with Ahlebayt.(Mazallah). So we would like to know the verdict of Shias on Prophet Adam(as), do they believe that because of this rank and honor of Adam(as) got degraded? Or was it a sin? If no! then why are they so keen to attack the mother of believers Ayesha(ra) regarding her jealousy towards her co-wives?

Majlisi “Bihar” 43/201-202
إنه جاء شقي من الاشقياء إلى فاطمة بنت محمد صلى الله عليه واله فقال لها : أما علمت أن عليا قد خطب بنت أبي جهل فقالت : حقاما تقول : فقال : حقا ما أقول – ثلاث مرات – فدخلها من الغيرة ما لا تملك نفسها وذلك أن الله تبارك وتعالى كتب على النساء غيرة وكتب على الرجال جهادا .
وجعل للمحتسبة الصابرة منهن من الاجر ما جعل للمرابط المهاجر في سبيل الله .
قال : فاشتد غم فاطمة عليها السلام من ذلك ، وبقيت متفكرة هي حتى أمست وجاء الليل حملت الحسن على عاتقها الايمن والحسين على عاتقها الايسر وأخذت بيد ام الكثوم اليسرى بيدها اليمنى ثم تحولت إلى حجرة أبيها فجاء علي عليه السلام فدخل في حجرته فلم ير فاطمة عليها السلام فاشتد لذلك غمه وعظم عليه ، ولم يعلم القصة
ماهي فاستحيى أن يدعوها من منزل أبيها فخرج إلى المسجد فصلى فيه ماشاء الله ثم جمع شيئا من كثيب المسجد واتكا عليه .
فلما رأى النبي صلى الله عليه واله ما بفاطمة من الحزن أفاض عليه الماء ثم لبس ثوبه ودخل المسجد ، فلم يزل يصلي بين راكع وساجد وكلما صلى ركعتين دعا الله أن يذهب ما بفاطمة من الحزن والغم وذلك أنه خرج من عندها وهي تتقلب وتتنفس الصعداء فلما رآها النبي صلى الله عليه وآله أنها لا يهنئها النوم ، وليس لها قرار قال لها : قومي يابنية فقامت فحمل النبي صلى الله عليه واله الحسن وحملت فاطمة الحسين وأخذت بيد ام الكثوم فانتهى إلى علي عليه السلام وهو نائم فوضع النبي رجله على رجل علي فغمزه وقال : قم ياأبا تراب ، فكم ساكن أزعجة ، ادع لي أباكبر من داره وعمر من مجلسه وطلحة .
فخرج علي عليه السلام فاستخر جهما من منزلهما ، واجتموا عندرسول الله فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه واله : يا علي أما علمت أن فاطمة بضعة مني وأنا منها ، فمن آذاها فقد آذاني [ ومن آذاني فقد آذي الله ] ( 1 ) ومن آذاها بعد موتى كان كمن آذاها في حياتي ، ومن آذاها في حياتي كان كمن آذاها بعد موتى

Translation: It is narrated on the authority of Abu Abdullah Jafar Al-Sadiq: A miserable of the miserables came to Fatima, the daughter of the Messenger of Allah, and said to her: “Did you not know that Ali proposed to marry (Khataba) the daughter of Abu Jahl?” She said: “Is it true what you say? He said three times: “What I say is true.” Jealousy entered into her (heart) to an extent she could not control, for Allah has ordained that women be jealous and that men perform Jihad, and He has made the reward of the patient (woman) similar to that of the Murabit and Muhajir in the way of Allah.

He said: And Fatima’s anguish became severe and she remained thinking about it until night time…she moved to her father’s residence. Ali came to his residence and did not see Fatima and his anguish increased and became great on him, even though he did not know what happened, and he was ashamed to call her from her father’s house so he went to the Masjid and prayed as much as Allah willed, and he collected some of the sand in the Masjid and laid on it.When the Prophet saw how sad and anguished Fatima was, he poured water over himself and wore his clothes and entered the Masjid. He kept praying, making Rukoo and Sujood, and after every time he completed two Raka he made Du’a that Allah remove what Fatima had of sadness and anguish because he left her turning over and breathing heavily. When the Prophet saw that she could not sleep and could not rest he said: “O daughter, rise!” So she rose and the Prophet carried Al-Hassan and she carried Al-Hussain and took hold of Umm Kulthoom’s hand until they reached Ali (AS) while he was sleeping.The Prophet put his foot on Ali, pinched him, and said: “Rise Abu Turab! You have disturbed many a resting person. Call for me Abu Bakr from his house and Umar from his Majlis and Talha.” So Ali went and got them from their houses and they gathered around the Messenger of Allah.The Messenger of Allah then said: “O Ali! Do you not know that Fatima is a piece of me and I am from her. Whoever disturbs her, disturbs me and whoever disturbs me has disturbed Allah, and whoever disturbs her after my death then as if he has disturbed her in my lifetime and whoever disturbed her in my lifetime then as if he has disturbed her after my death.”(source: Ibn Babveh Al Qummi’s “Elal Al-Sharae’”, pp.185-186, Al-Najaf Print; also narrated in Majlisi “Bihar” 43/201-202)

Majlisi “Biharul anwar” 43/147
عن أبي ذر رحمة الله عليه قال : كنت أنا وجعفر بن أبي طالب مهاجرين إلى بلاد الحبشة ( 1 ) فاهديت لجعفر جارية قيمتها أربعة آلاف درهم ، فلما قدمنا المدينة أهداها لعلي عليه السلام تخدمه ، فجعلها علي في منزل فاطمة .
فدخلت فاطمة عليها السلام يوما فنظرت إلى رأس علي عليه السلام في حجر الجارية فقالت : يا أبا الحسن فعلتها ، فقال : لا والله يا بنت محمد ما فعلت شيئا فما الذي تريدين ؟ قالت تأذن لي في المصير إلى منزل أبي رسول الله صلى الله عليه واله فقال لها : قد أذنت لك .
فتجللت بجلالها ، وتبرقعت ببرقعها

Translation: Al-Qummi and Al-Majlisi narrated on the authority of Abu Thar: I migrated with Jafar ibn Abi Talib to Abyssynia. A slave girl worth 4,000 dirhams was given to Jafar as a gift. When we came to Medinah he gave it to Ali as a gift that she may serve him. Ali kept her in Fatima’s house. One day Fatima entered and saw that his head was in the girl’s lap. She said: “O Abu Al-Hasan! Have you done it!?” He said: “O daughter of Muhammad! I have done nothing, so what is it that you want?” She said: “Do you allow me to go to my father’s house?” He said: “I will allow you.” So she wore her Jilbab and went to the Prophet. ((source: Ibn Babaveh Al-Qummi’s “Elal Al-Sharae’”, p.163; it is also narrated in Bihar Al-Anwar, pp.43-44, Chapter on “How her life with Ali was”)

Comment: From the above ahadeeth of Shias we find that even Fatima(ra) wasn’t free from incurring jealousy. So we leave it upon Shias to consider jealousy between co-wives as Natural behaviour or Sin or Mistake.

Similar thing is reported in book of Ahlesunnah:

Sahi Bukhari 4.342:When `Ali bin Abu Talib demanded the hand of the daughter of Abi Jahal to be his wife besides Fatima, I heard Allah’s Apostle on his pulpit delivering a sermon in this connection before the people, and I had then attained my age of puberty. Allah’s Apostle said, “Fatima is from me, and I am afraid she will be subjected to trials in her religion.”

Ayesha(ra) used to love some other wives of Prophet(Saw)

Sahi Muslim Bk 8, Number 3451:’A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Never did I find any woman more loving to me than Sauda bint Zam’a. I wished I could be exactly like her who was passionate.

Even other wife of Prophet(Saw) testified about the goodness of Ayesha(ra)

Sahi bukhari 3.829: Narrated Aisha: Allah’s Apostle asked Zainab bint Jahsh (i.e. the Prophet’s wife about me saying, ‘What do you know and what did you see?’ She replied, ‘O Allah’s Apostle! I refrain to claim hearing or seeing what I have not heard or seen. By Allah, I know nothing except goodness about Aisha.”

Comment: If Ayesha(ra) possessed such a bad behaviour with her co-wives then why would another wife of Prophet(Saw) say that she only know goodness about Ayesha(ra)?

Lastly let us suppose that incurring jealousy is a kind of sin as the shias tried to portray, So even if it was then who are the Shias to accuse Ayesha(ra) and codemn her for that? When Quran teaches us the opposite: {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).} We find that by criticizing and slandering wives of Prophet(saw) Shias are going against the teaching of Quran.

Point to Ponder: If supposedly what Ayesha(ra) did was something unlawful or against Shariah then why didn’t Prophet(Saw) punish Ayesha(ra) or divorced her? The prophet(saw) is ofcourse best example for us to follow, he considered it something natural that is why he didn’t took any strong step against Ayesha(ra). So only hypocrites could use these issues which occurred between a family to cirtiize Ayesha(ra), though the head of family never did this. THE FACT WHICH SHIAS MISSED IS THAT IT WAS THE TRUTHFUL MOTHER AYESHA(ra) WHO narrated us these reports. What these reports reflect is the honesty and truthfulness and trustworthiness of Ayesha(alaiha salam). She is narrating the virtues of Khadija(alaihasalam) and isn’t hiding anything related to the event, knowing that some people might not be able to comprehend it.


Slander 28:

Religious slanderers stated:

[Quote] When she was overcome by suspicion her jealousy crossed all boundaries and was beyond the expression of words, leading her to suspect the Prophet of Allah (PBUH&HF).  she said: “I lost track of the Prophet of Allah (PBUH&HF), and I suspected that he had gone to another of his wives. I went looking for him and I found him in prostration, saying. “O My Lord! Forgive me” Sunni reference: Musnad, by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v6, p147[Quote]

Al-Haafiz ibn Hajar (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: Basically, jealousy is natural and is not something that only some women feel and not others, but if a woman oversteps the mark then she is to be blamed. The guideline concerning that is the hadeeth which was narrated from Jaabir ibn ‘Ateek al-Ansaari, who attributed it to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him): “There is a kind of jealousy which Allaah loves, and a kind which Allaah hates. As for the kind of jealousy which Allaah loves, it is jealousy when there are grounds for suspicion. And as for the kind of jealousy which Allaah hates, it is jealousy when there are no grounds for suspicion.” {Classed as hasan by Shaykh al-Albaani in al-Irwa’, 7/80}.  So jealousy on the part of the husband and wife, if it is of the type that is part of human nature which no woman is free from, then it is excused, so long as she does not overstep the mark and do or say anything that Allaah has forbidden. This is the way in which the reports from the salaf which speak of women’s jealousy are to be understood.  [Fath al-Baari, 9/326].


Slander 29:

Religious slanderers stated:

[Quote] Aisha said:  “I have never been as jealous of any woman as I have been of Mariya. That was because she had beautiful ringlets. She used to stay in the house of Haritha Ibn al-Numan. We frightened her and I became concerned. The Prophet of Allah (PBUH&HF) sent her to a higher place and he would visit her there. That was very hard upon us, and then Allah blessed him with a boy through her and we shunned him”.

Sunni references:

  • al-Tabaqat, by Ibn Sa’d, v8, p212
  • al-Ansab al-Ashraf, by al-Baladhuri, v1, p339

Aisha said: “When Ibrahim was born, the Prophet of Allah (PBUH&HF) brought him to me and said: ‘Look how much he resembles me.’ I said: ‘I do not see any resemblance.’ The Prophet of Allah (PBUH&HF) said: ‘Don’t you see how robust and fair he is?”‘ Aisha said: “I said: ‘Whoever is fed with the milk of sheep becomes fair and robust.'”

Sunni references:

  • al-Tabaqat, by Ibn Sa’d, v1, p37
  • also in al-Ansab al-Ashraf, by al-Baladhuri[Quote]

Again both narrations Muhammad ibn Umar al-Wakidi is present in the chain, So these narrations were made up by Muhammad bin Umar Al-Waq’idi who was a liar and he was rejected

Imam Ahmad said: Al-Waqidi is a Liar.

Abu Dawuud : “I don’t doubt that he used to make up Ahadeeth”

Al-Hafiz Ishaaq bin Rahweeh: “For me he is one who fabricates”

Imaam Al-Shafi’i said: “Al-Waqidi’s books are all lies”

Al-Nisa’i : “The well known liars who lied about the Prophet (saws) are four: Ibn Abi Yahya in Madina, Al-Waqidi in Baghdad etc…”

Outside Al-Siyar, we can find additional statements. Ibn Hajar related in his Tahtheeb:

Zakariya Ibn Yahya Al-Saji said: Muhammad Ibn Umar Al-Waqidi, the Judge, is accused.

Ibn Adi said: His hadiths are not known (or memorized by others), and the calamity (or problem) is in him.

Ibn Al-Madini said: Ibrahim Ibn Yahya is a liar, nevertheless I consider him to be of a better status than Al-Waqidi.

Al-Shafi: There are seven men fabricating asanid in Medina, Al-Waqidi is one of them.

Abu Hatim said: “He used to fabricate.”

Thus these narrations are outright fabrications and not worth to be accepted.


Slander 30:

Religious slanderers stated:

[Quote] Aisha said: “One night, when he was with me, the Messenger of Allah (PBUH&HF) went out”. She said: “I became jealous. When he came and saw what I had done, he said: ‘What is the matter, O Aisha? Are you jealous?’ I replied: ‘And why should not those like me be jealous of those like you?’ The Prophet of Allah (PBUH&HF) then said: ‘Has your devil taken possession of you?'”.

Sunni reference: Musnad, by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v6, p115 [Quote]

Let us post before you the more accurate and complete version of this narration, which will inshallah destroy the argument of Shias. And other versions regarding this report are weak and munkar(rejected).

Sahi Muslim Bk 39, Number 6759: A’isha the wife of Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him),reported that one day Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) came out of her (apartment) during the night and she felt jealous. Then he came and he saw me (in what agitated state of mind) I was. He said: A’isha, what has happened to you? Do you feel jealous? Thereupon she said: How can it he (that a woman like me) should not feel jealous in regard to a husband like you. Thereupon Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: It was your devil who had come to you, and she said: Allah’s Messenger, is there along with me a devil? He said: Yes. I said: Is devil attached to EVERYONE? He said: Yes. I (Aisha) again said: Allah’s Messenger, is it with you also? He said: Yes, but my Lord has helped me against him and as such I am absolutely safe from his mischief.

Comment: The context of the hadeeth does not agree with accusing Ayesha(ra), this is because the reason for the hadeeth is jealousy for Prophet(saw) and that clarifies few issues:

1. That Aisha is not the only one with a satan for everyone has one, so whoever accuses Ayesha(ra) of this is accusing everyone including her husband(pbuh) and he is accusing even himself.

2. That the occasion for the hadeeth is the Jealousy of Aishah(ra) and that is present in all women and in another hadeeth the jealousy of Fatima(ra) on her husband Ali(ra) when he wanted to marry his cousin the daughter of Abu Lahab and her (Fatima) mentioning that to her father (pbuh). So, as this is not a negative for Fatima it is not a negative for Aisha.

Infact, jealously between wives is due to their love for their husband, we read in Shia ahadeeth:

[ 25296 ] 5 ـ وعن أبي علي الاشعري ، عن محمد بن عبد الجبار ، عن صفوان ، عن اسحاق بن عمار قال : قلت لابي عبدالله ( عليه السلام ) : المرأة تغار على الرجل تؤذيه قال : ذاك من الحب .

I said to Abu `Abdillah(as): The woman is jealous for the man, ANNOYING him. He said: That is from LOVE. (Wasā’il al-Shīʿa [25296 th hadith ] p 157. v.8)

امام جعفر صادق نے فرمایا ؛ عورتیں جو آپس میں ایک دوسرے سے رشک کرتی ہیں، اس کی وجہ یہ ہوتی ہے کہ وہ خاوند سے زیادہ محبت کرتی ہیں۔
تہذیب آل محمد از مجلسی، ص ١۲۵
Imam Jafar sadiq(as) said: Women who are jealous of one another, the reason for this is that they love their husband very much. (tahzeeb aal muhammad by Majlisi, page 125).

If the religious slanderers still disagree with us, then we would like to quote the supplication of Imam Zain ul Abedin(rah) from their own book, we read:

Chapter: His(IMAMS) Supplication for himself in Confessing Sins after Finishing the Night Prayer
27- Satan has taken possession of my reins through my distrust and frail certainty. I complain of his evil neighbourhood with me and my soul’s obedience toward him! I ask Thee to preserve me against his domination, and I plead with Thee to turn his trickery away from me! (Saheefa Sajadiya, page 138)

His Supplication on Noble Moral Traits and Acts Pleasing to God

O God, make the wishing, the doubt, and the envy which Satan throws into my heart a remembrance of Thy mightiness, a reflection upon Thy power, and a devising against Thy enemy! Make everything he causes to pass over my tongue,- the indecent or ugly words, the maligning of good repute, the false witness, the speaking ill of an absent man of faith or the reviling of one present, and all things similar – a speech in praise of Thee, a pursual of eulogizing Thee, an excursion in magnifying Thee, a thanksgiving for Thy favour, an acknowledgement of Thy beneficence, and an enumeration of Thy kindnesses!(Saheefa Sajadiya, page 230)


Claims that Prophet(saw) disliked Ayesha(ra) Or that Ayesha(ra) wasn’t beloved to Prophet(Saw).

Slander 31:

Religious slanderers stated:

[Quote] Sahih al-Bukhari Hadith: 7.570 Narrated al-Qasim bin Muhammad:
Aisha, (complaining of headache) said, “Oh, my head”! Allah’s Apostle said, “I wish that (i.e., your death) had happened while I was still living, for then I would ask Allah’s Forgiveness for you and invoke Allah for you.” Aisha said, “A likely story! By Allah, I think you want me to die; and If this should happen, you would spend the last part of the day sleeping with one of your wives!”

Does this narration indicate that the Prophet of Allah (PBUH&HF) loved Aisha so much so that he could not live without her?! Aisha, filled with jealousy, is confessing that the Prophet wishes to be with his other wives than to spend time with Aisha! Forecasting her future deeds, the Prophet wished she would have died in his lifetime so that he could have asked Allah for her forgiveness[Quote]

This is a senseles argument; shias are obviously grasping at straws. Every one of us knows that the Prophet (pbuh) spent the last days of his life praying for our(muslims) forgiveness too.

The Prophet (pbuh) was asked: “Who is the most beloved person to you?” He said, ” ‘Aisha.” I asked, “Among the men?” He said, “Her father.” (Authentic, Tirmidhi, Hadith 3825).

Anyways, Let us see some more reports which mention this incident:

 Narrated Al-Qasim bin Muhammad:`Aisha, (complaining of headache) said, “Oh, my head”! Allah’s Messenger (saw) said, “I wish that had happened while I was still living, for then I would ask Allah’s Forgiveness for you and invoke Allah for you.” Aisha said, “Wa thuklayah! By Allah, I think you want me to die; and If this should happen, you would spend the last part of the day sleeping with one of your wives!” The Prophet(saw) said, “Nay, I should say, ‘Oh my head!’ I felt like sending for Abu Bakr and his son, and appoint him as my successor lest some people claimed something or some others wished something, but then I said (to myself), ‘Allah would not allow it to be otherwise, and the Muslims would prevent it to be otherwise”.(Sahih al-Bukhari #5666)
It was narrated that ‘Aishah said: “The Messenger of Allah (saw) came back from Al-Baqi’ and I had a headache and was saying: ‘O my head!’ He said: ‘Rather, I should say, O my head, O ‘Aishah!’ Then he said: ‘It will not matter if you were to die before me, for I will take care of you, wash you, shroud you, offer the funeral prayer for you and bury you.’”(Sunan Ibn Majah, Book 6, Hadith 1532).
Comment: We find that this occurred when Prophet(saw) returned from Al-Baqi(the Muslim graveyard) after burying one of his companion. Hence, He tried to comfort Ayesha(ra) by saying words which showed his care for Ayesha(ra).
Prophet(saw) expressed his wish that if Ayesha(ra) died before him,  he could pray for forgiveness for his beloved wife Ayesha(ra), So that she gets the benefit of his supplication, like his another beloved wife Khadija(ra) received. Infact this is sign of love and care of Prophet(Saw) for Ayesha(ra). And this hadeeth, refutes those Shia of dajjal who claim that Ayesha(ra) will enter hell-fire, because we read in Quran that, Prophet(saw) was not allowed to pray for forgiveness for those who would enter hell-fire. We read: {It is not for the Prophet and those who have believed to ask forgiveness for the polytheists, even if they were relatives, after it has become clear to them that they are companions of Hellfire}.(Quran 9:113), where as in this hadeeth Prophet(saw) himself said that he would ask for the forgiveness of Ayesha(ra).

Or, this hadeeth can be explained in this way that,  Prophet(Saw) just to distract the attention of Ayesha(ra) from the pain she was suffering he said that, and was successful in distracting her attention. Distracting the attention of a patient from the pain they are suffering, is a widely known remedy which people use on their loved ones. These remedies are still used by people.

And the stupidity of the Shia argument is that they seem to portray that Prophet(saw) was made to continue his relation with Ayesha(ra) on the point of a sword, and he had no other option but to pray for her death.  Prophet(Saw) had the option of divorce, if he wanted he could have easily divorced her. But this was not the case at all. Indeed this is ridiculous, because the words which prophet(Saw) said due to love and affection were misunderstood by Shias in a way that those words seemed to them as a kind of hatred.

The Prophet (saw) loved his wife Aisha (as) dearly. How can the Shia deny this when Allah declares in the Quran: “And of His Signs is this: He created for you mates from yourself that you might find rest in them, and He ordained between you love and mercy.” (Quran 30:21) Every Muslim man is commanded to love his wife, and even the disbelievers love their wives! How can we face the Islam-haters and defend our Prophet (saw) in front of them if they say that the Prophet (saw) did not even love his own wife?


Slander 32:

Answering the argument  that Ayesha(ra) was beaten by Prophet(Saw)

This narration is not only used by Shias to slander ayesha(ra) but even by orientalists to portray that Prophet(Saw) was a husband who used to beat his wives. But it’s the misunderstanding of theirs and this narration have been excellently explained here: [click this link]


Accusation on Ayesha(ra) using the incident of Tahreem and Accusing her of disobeying command of Allah.

Slander 33 A:

Religious deceivers stated:

[Quote] What is the difference between Aisha, Hafsah and the wives of Nuh and Lut?

1. Their wives were misguided. According to Allah, BOTH Aisha and Hafsah too were misguided!
2. Their wives worked AGAINST their husbands. Both Aisha and Hafsah too worked against the Prophet [Quoted]

This stupid and ridiculous slander is similar to the question of a person who asks that, what is the difference between Adam(as) and Iblis(satan), because both disobeyed Allah?.

Satan disobeying Allah: (Except Iblis (Satan). He was one of the Jinn; he disobeyed the command of his Lord. ) (Quran 18:50)

Adam(as) disobeying Allah: (thus did Adam disobey his Lord, and allow himself to be seduced.) (Quran 20:121)

When the religious slanderers will come to know the difference between these two scenarios, then inshallah they will understand the difference between mother of believers(AS)[wives of prophet muhammad(saw)] and wives of Lut(as) and Nuh(as).

Prophet(saw) made dua of forgiveness for Ayesha(ra), can this be proven from Nuh(as) and Lut(as) for their wives? ofcourse not, since their wives were disbelievers.

حَدَّثَنَا أَحْمَدُ بْنُ مَنْصُورٍ ، ثنا هَارُونُ بْنُ مَعْرُوفٍ ، ثنا ابْنُ وَهْبٍ ، أَخْبَرَنِي حَيْوَةُ ، عَنْ أَبِي صَخْرٍ ، عَنِ ابْنِ قُسَيْطٍ ، عَنْ عُرْوَةَ ، عَنْ عَائِشَةَ ، فَذَكَرَ حَدِيثًا بِهَذَا ، ثُمَّ قَالَ : وَبِهِ أَنَّهَا قَالَتْ : لَمَّا رَأَيْتُ مِنَ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ طِيبَ نَفْسٍ ، قُلْتُ : يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ ! ادْعُ اللَّهَ لِي ، قَالَ : ” اللَّهُمَّ اغْفِرْ لِعَائِشَةَ مَا تَقَدَّمَ مِنْ ذَنْبِهَا وَمَا تَأَخَّرَ ، وَمَا أَسَرَّتْ وَمَا أَعْلَنَتْ ” فَضَحِكَتْ عَائِشَةُ حَتَّى سَقَطَ رَأْسُهَا فِي حِجْرِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ مِنَ الضَّحِكِ ، فَقَالَ : ” أَيُسُرُّكُ دُعَائِي ؟ ” فَقَالَتْ : وَمَا لِي لا يَسُرُّنِي دُعَاؤُكَ ، فَقَالَ : ” وَاللَّهِ إِنَّهَا لَدَعْوَتِي لأُمَّتِي فِي كُلِّ صَلاةٍ “
Ayesha(ra) said : when i saw the prophet(saww) in good mood i said: of messenger of allah do du’a for me . he (saww) said : oh allah forgive aicha the sins which were done and which will come and whatever she showed or kept in her heart. so Ayesha(ra) laughed until her head fell in the lap of rasool allah (saww) ..he (saww) said : does my du’a make you happy ? she said: how can’t I be happy with your du’a?  He said : By allah this is my du’a for my ummah in every prayer. [Narrated by bazzar and it’s isnaad is good.]

Comment: Praying on Kafirs is not allowed in Islam, Here Prophet(Saw) prayed for the forgiveness of Ayesha(ra). The Prophet (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) made Du’a for ‘Aishah in specific, a special Du’ah that all her sins, including her FUTURE ones may be forgiven, Something Nuh or Lut never did for their doomed wives.

Secondly, Aishah(ra) chose the Hereafter to this worldly life and can thus not be compared to kafirat such as Nuh’s or Lut’s wives.

Ayesha, may Allah be pleased with her, said, «When the Messenger of Allah, prayers and peace of Allah be upon him, was ordered to give option to his wives, he started with me, saying, ‘I am going to mention to you something, but you shall not hasten (to give your reply) unless you consult your parents.’ He knew that my parents would not order me to leave him. Then he said, “Allah, Glorified and Exalted, says, {O Prophet (Muhammad)! Say to your wives: “If you desire the life of this world, and its glitter, then come! I will make a provision for you and set you free in a handsome manner (divorce). [28]. “But if you desire Allâh and His Messenger, and the home of the Hereafter, then verily, Allâh has prepared for Al-Muhsinât (good-doers) amongst you an enormous reward.”} [Al-Ahzâb: 28-29] I said, ‘Then why consult I my parents? Verily, I desire Allah, His Messenger, and the Home of the Hereafter.’ Then all the other wives of the Prophet, prayers and peace of Allah be upon him, did the same as I did.» [Reported by Al-Bukhari 4786]

Moreover Nowhere is it mentioned that wives of Lut(as) and Nuh(as) were given the honorary title as “MOTHERS OF BELIEVERS”, like it was given to wives of Prophet(saw) including Ayesha(ra) and Hafsa(ra).

Nowhere is it mentioned that Allah himself defended Wives of Lut(as) or Nuh(as) in any matter, But we know that Ayesha(ra) was defended by Allah, since Allah revealed revealed her innocence on Prophet(Saw) which was included in Quran.


Proofs from authentic reports that Ayesha(ra) is going to be the wife of Prophet(Saw) even in hereafter:

A. From ‘Abdurrahman Ibn Ka’b Ibn Malik who narrated from ‘Aaishah (ra):’ I said : O Messenger of Allah, which of your wives will be in Paradise? He (pbuh) said: ‘ As for you, then you are among them. (Mustadrak Al-Hakim (4/13), and he authenticated it. Al-Dhahabi agreed with him)

B. 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.’(No. 1647, Fadha’il Al-Sahabah by Imam Ahmad, authenticated by Shaykh Al-Muhaddith Wasiyullah Al-’Abbas Al-Hindi )

C. حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ بنُ حُمَيْدٍ ، أخبرنا عَبْدُ الرَّزَّاقِ عن عَبْدِ اللّهِ بنِ عَمْرِو بنِ عَلْقَمَةَ المَكِّيِّ عن ابنِ أَبي حُسَيْنٍ عن ابنِ أَبي مُلَيْكَةَ عن عائشةَ ، «أَنَّ جِبْرِيلَ جَاءَ بِصُورَتِهَا في خِرْقَةِ حَرِيرٍ خَضْرَاءَ إِلَى النَّبيِّ فقالَ: إنّ هَذِهِ زَوْجَتُكَ في الدُّنيْا وَالآخِرَةِ

Sayyidah Ayesha (R.A) narrates: Jibril (A.S) came in my appearance on a piece of green silk cloth before the Prophet (PBUH) and said, “this is your wife in this world and the Hereafter”.(Sunnan Tirimdhi, Hadith 3880 & Grading: SAHIH.)
Here are the proofs that even Ahlebayt  believed that Ayesha(ra) will be the wife of Prophet(Saw) even in hereafter(this destroys all the false allegations of Shias against Ayesha(ra))

A. 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).

Comments: Hz hassan(ra) and companions considered hz ayesha(ra) to be the wife of prophet(Saw) in this world and IN HEREAFTER, 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 BELIEVES 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, because Allah said in Quran regarding Wives of Prophet Lut(as) and Prophet Nuh(As), They were told: ‘Enter the Fire along with all who enter it.’” (Surat at-Tahrim: 10)

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).]

C. 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 ).]


Slander 33 B

ایک شعیہ نے کہا تھا کہ اس آیت میں ﷲ  جن دو بیویوں کا زکرکر رہا ھےکہ دونوں کے دل تیٹرے ھو گے وہ حضرت عايشہ اور حضرت حفصہ رضی ﷲ عںھا ہیں

سب سے پہلے تو اس کے ترجمہ پر سید سلیمان ندوی نے سیرت عائشہ  :RA Anha:  میں اعتراض کیا ہے۔
جو کہ پیش خدمت ہے


آیت  دوم ﴿سورہ تحریم ۔ آیت ۴﴾ کی تفسیر میں بھی ہمارے بعض مفسرین نے غلطیاں کی ہیں ان کے خیال کے مطابق دوسری آیت کا  ترجمہ یہ ہوگا۔اگر تم دونوں خدا کی طرف رجوع کرو ﴿تو یہ نہایت ضروری ہے﴾ کیونکہ تمہارے دل کج ہو گئے ہیں اور اگر اس پر ایکا کر لو تو خدا اس کا ﴿پیغمبرکا﴾ آقا ہے ۔۔۔

خط زدہ ترجمہ بالکل غلط ہے۔ یہ ظاہر ہے کہ جملہ شرطیہ ہے اور اس کی جزاء محاورہ عرب کے مطابق مخذوف ہے، ہم نے وہ جزائے مخذوف  لا باس ﴿کوئ ایسی مشکل نہیں﴾ قرار دی ہے۔ مفسرین کے مطابق وہ فہو واجب ﴿یہ ضروری ہے﴾ ہوگی۔ کلام عرب پر جن کو عبور ہے وہ تسلیم کریں گے کہ “ان” کے بعد جب جزاء مخذوف ہوتی ہے اور اس کے بعد “فقد ” کے ساتھ اس جزاء کی علت بیان کر دی جاتے ہے تو ہمیشہ لا باس ﴿کچھ مضائقہ نہیں﴾ لا حرج ﴿کچھ حرج نہیں﴾ لا ضیر ﴿کچھ نقصان نہیں﴾ فہو ھین ﴿یہ تو معمولی بات ہے﴾ وغیرہ الفاظ بطور جزاء کے مراد ہیں، اشعار عرب میں اور خود قرآن مجید میں اس کی کثرت سے مثالیں موجود ہیں۔
صغت کا ترجمہ زاغت ﴿یعنی کج ہونا﴾ بھی صحیح نہیں، حضرت عائشہ  اور دیگر امہات المومنین نعوذ باللہ اس سے بالاتر ہیں کہ ان کے دل کج اور گمراہ ہوں ۔  اردو میں دو مفہوم ہیں، کسی چیز سے ہٹنا اور کسی چیز کی طرف جھکنا اور مائل ہونا۔ عربی میں ان دونوں مفہوموں کے لیے تین قسم کے لفظ ہیں۔ اول جو صرف پہلے معنی پر دال ہیں مثلا  ؛  انحرف ، ادعوی ، زاع، جاد۔ دوم جو لفظ دوسرے معنی کو بتاتے ہیں مثلا ؛ قاء ، تاب ، التفت ، توجہ۔ وہ جو دونوں کو مشتمل ہوں۔ مثلا مال ، شغل، عدل ، رجع وغیرہ۔
صغی دوسرے معنی میں مستعمل ہے۔ بعض مفسروں نے اس کو تیسرے معنی میں لیا ہے اور اکثر نے اول معنی  میں ، یہ سب سے بڑی ادبی غلطی ہے۔ عرب کے محاورات اور لغات کا ایک حرف بھی اس کے استناد میں نہیں مل سکتا۔ قرآن مجید میں ایک اور جگہ آیا ہے۔
وَلِتَصْغَىٰ إِلَيْهِ أَفْئِدَةُ الَّذِينَ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ  ﴿الانعام ١۴﴾
تاکہ جو ایمان نہیں لائے  ان کے دل اس کی طرف جھکیں اور اس کی طرف خواہش کریں۔
دیکھو کہ یہاں کجی یا ٹیڑھے ہونے کے معنی نہیں ہیں ۔
آٰیت زیر بحث میں یہ مذکور نہیں ہے کہ حضرت عائشہ اور حضرت حفصہ کے دل کسی طرف جھک چکے ہیں، بعض مفسرین نے نعوذ باللہ لکھا ہے کہ آنحضرت صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم کی ایذا اور تکلیف رسانی کی طرف، حالانکہ قاعدہ یہ ہے کہ جہاں سے جو لفظ مخذوف ہوتا ہے ہمیشہ آگے پیچھے وہ کہیں مذکور ہوتا ہےیا قرینہ غالب سے سمجھا جاتا ہے۔ اس کے پہلے “توبہ” کا لفظ ہے اس لئے یہی لفظ آگے مخذوف ہے ، آیت کے مخذوفات کو اگر ذکر کردیں تو یہ عبارت ہوگی۔

إِن تَتُوبَا إِلَى اللَّـهِ فَهُوَ هَيَّنٌ فَقَدْصَغَتْ قُلُوبُكُمَا اِلَى التَّوبَةِ اِلَى اللهِ

اور تم دونوں خدا کی طرف رجوع کرو ﴿ تو تمہارے لیے یہ آسان ہے﴾ کیونکہ تمہارے دل رجوع الی اللہ کی جانب مائل ہو ہی چکے ہیں۔

[End Quote]


Slander 34 A:

Shias quoted verse of Quran and said:

[Quote] Maybe, his Lord, if he divorce you, will give him in your place wives better than you, submissive, faithful, obedient, penitent, adorers, fasters, widows and virgins. [Surah Tehreem Ayat No. 5]

Does not this verse prove that Hafsa & aysha-(ra)-(ra) were not Submissive. They were not faithful. They were not obedient, They were not penitent. They were not adorers? [Quote]

Reply 1:

No it does not say that, it just says that Allah will replace the present wives with better ones but this doesn’t say that the present wives of Prophet(saw) were not faithful submissive obedient etc.  The shias should first learn Arabic grammar before making such stupid arguments because what they came up with makes no sense, and If we go along with Shia logic then we will have to conclude that prophet’s(saw) wives weren’t virgins as stated at the end of the verse. But we know that Ayesha(ra) was a virgin when she got married to prophet(saw). So this senseless argument has no base at all.

If we use the exact same logic like the shias then we’d quote these verses from chapter 69:

And if the messenger were to invent any sayings in Our name, (44) We should certainly seize him by his right hand, (45) And We should certainly then cut off the artery of his heart: (46) Nor could any of you withhold him (from Our wrath). (47).

Here is another one:

And indeed it has been revealed to you(prophet), as it was to those (Allah’s Messengers) before you: “If you join others in worship with Allah, surely your deeds will be in vain.(39:65)

So the readers can see themselves, what will be the outcome of the above verses where Prophet(saw) was addressed in a hypothetical manner using the word “IF”, when we apply the stupid logic like the shias applied to the verses of Quran, where wives of Prophet(Saw) were also addressed in a hypothetical manner using the word “IF”.

The rationale behind what was said to wives of Prophet(saw) in those verses was to make the wives of the Holy Prophet (SAW) a perfect example for the Muslim Ummah for all the times to come. As similar was mentioned in the shia commentary for verse 29 of surah Ahzaab: Thus, Allah made the duty of the Prophet’s wives clear forever, that they must be an example for the faithful women. ((The Light of The Holy Qur’an by Ayatullah Sayyid Kamal Faghih Imani and A Group of Muslim Scholars, under explanation of verse 33;29) . Hence the wives of the Holy Prophet (SAW) were warned to be careful even if they committed minor mistakes.

The fact which we shouldn’t forget is that Allah called wives of Prophet(saw) as the mothers of believers and Allah knew what was their destiny and he knew what was in their hearts and this is why he said in Surah Ahzab:  It is not lawful for thee (to marry more) women after this, nor to change them for (other) wives, even though their beauty attract thee, except any thy right hand should possess (as handmaidens): and Allah doth watch over all things. (33:52)

So Prophet(Saw) cannot change them as Allah knows they are a good match for him and they are on the right path and they will be his wives in Jannah as stated in the authentic hadeeths that ‘Aisha will be his wife in the after-life.

Moreover, the wives of the Prophet(saw) are respected and excelled by Almighty Allah in the Qur’an without mentioning their names . Hence all of them deserved the same right of our respect . Even the chapter 66 which condemned the deviation of two wives of the Prophet is also without names. If Allah, the Omniscient wanted to disclose their names nobody would have dared to stop it. Remember, He the Exalted informed us the name of Abu Lahab, Zaid from the community of the Prophet BUT not of others .

Reply 2:

Zainab bint Jahsh(ra), as per reliable Shia traditions, committed bigger mistakes than Ayesha(ra) and Hafsa(ra). So what is their stance towards her? Readers should note that the marriage of Zaynab bin Jahash(ra) occurred with Prophet(saw) on the command of Allah(swt). Refer[Surah Ahzab: 37].

حُمَيْدُ بْنُ زِيَادٍ عَنِ ابْنِ سَمَاعَةَ عَنْ جَعْفَرِ بْنِ سَمَاعَةَ عَنْ دَاوُدَ بْنِ سِرْحَانَ عَنْ أَبِي عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ( عليه السلام ) قَالَ إِنَّ زَيْنَبَ بِنْتَ جَحْشٍ قَالَتْ أَ يَرَى رَسُولُ اللَّهِ ( صلى الله عليه وآله ) إِنْ خَلَّى سَبِيلَنَا أَنَّا لَا نَجِدُ زَوْجاً غَيْرَهُ وَ قَدْ كَانَ اعْتَزَلَ نِسَاءَهُ تِسْعاً وَ عِشْرِينَ لَيْلَةً فَلَمَّا قَالَتْ زَيْنَبُ الَّذِي قَالَتْ بَعَثَ اللَّهُ عَزَّ وَ جَلَّ جَبْرَئِيلَ إِلَى مُحَمَّدٍ ( صلى الله عليه وآله ) فَقَالَ قُلْ لِأَزْواجِكَ إِنْ كُنْتُنَّ تُرِدْنَ الْحَياةَ الدُّنْيا وَ زِينَتَها فَتَعالَيْنَ أُمَتِّعْكُنَّ الْآيَتَيْنِ كِلْتَيْهِمَا فَقُلْنَ بَلْ نَخْتَارُ اللَّهَ وَ رَسُولَهُ وَ الدَّارَ الْآخِرَةَ .
Humayd ibn Ziyad has narrated from ibn Sama‘ah from Ja‘far ibn Sama‘ah from Dawud ibn Sarhan who has said the following: “Abu ‘Abd Allah, ‘Alayhi al-Salam, has said that Zaynab bint Jahash once said, ‘Does the Messenger of Allah think that if he divorces us we will not find anyone other than him to marry us?’ He had stayed away from his wives for twenty-nine days. When Zaynab said this Allah, most Majestic, most Glorious, sent Jibril to Muhammad, O Allah, grant compensation to Muhammad and his family worthy of their services to Your cause. He said, ‘Say to your wives, “If you want the worldly life and its beauty, then be prepared he will benefit you . . .” They said, ‘We choose Allah and His Messenger and the house in the hereafter.’”

عَنْهُ عَنِ الْحَسَنِ بْنِ سَمَاعَةَ عَنْ وُهَيْبِ بْنِ حَفْصٍ عَنْ أَبِي بَصِيرٍ عَنْ أَبِي جَعْفَرٍ ( عليه السلام ) قَالَ إِنَّ زَيْنَبَ بِنْتَ جَحْشٍ قَالَتْ لِرَسُولِ اللَّهِ ( صلى الله عليه وآله ) لَا تَعْدِلُ وَ أَنْتَ نَبِيٌّ فَقَالَ تَرِبَتْ يَدَاكِ إِذَا لَمْ أَعْدِلْ فَمَنْ يَعْدِلُ فَقَالَتْ دَعَوْتَ اللَّهَ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ لِيَقْطَعَ يَدَيَّ فَقَالَ لَا وَ لَكِنْ لَتَتْرَبَانِ فَقَالَتْ إِنَّكَ إِنْ طَلَّقْتَنَا وَجَدْنَا فِي قَوْمِنَا أَكْفَاءَنَا فَاحْتُبِسَ الْوَحْيُ عَنْ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ ( صلى الله عليه وآله ) تِسْعاً وَ عِشْرِينَ لَيْلَةً ثُمَّ قَالَ أَبُو جَعْفَرٍ ( عليه السلام ) فَأَنِفَ اللَّهُ عَزَّ وَ جَلَّ لِرَسُولِهِ فَأَنْزَلَ يا أَيُّهَا النَّبِيُّ قُلْ لِأَزْواجِكَ إِنْ كُنْتُنَّ تُرِدْنَ الْحَياةَ الدُّنْيا وَ زِينَتَها الْآيَتَيْنِ فَاخْتَرْنَ اللَّهَ وَ رَسُولَهُ فَلَمْ يَكُ شَيْئاً وَ لَوِ اخْتَرْنَ أَنْفُسَهُنَّ لَبِنَّ .

It is narrated from the narrator of the previous Hadith from al-Husayn ibn Sama‘ah from Wuhayb ibn Hafs from abu Basir who has said the following: “Abu Ja‘far, ‘Alayhi al-Salam, has said that once Zaynab bint Jahash said to the Messenger of Allah, O Allah, grant compensation to Muhammad and his family worthy of their services to Your cause, ‘You are not fair and you are the Prophet. He (the Messenger of Allah) replied, ‘May your hands become soiled, ‘If I am not fair then who is fair?’ She then asked, ‘O Messenger of Allah, did you pray that my hands get cut off?’ He (the Messenger of Allah) replied, ‘No, but they become soiled.’ She then said, ‘If you divorce us we will find in our people men as our match who will marry us.’ Revelation stopped coming for twenty-nine nights.’ Abu Ja‘far, ‘Alayhi al-Salam, then said, ‘Allah, most Majestic, most Glorious, disdained and rejected her words and sent revelation that said, ‘O Prophet, say to your wives, “If you want the worldly life and its beauty . . .” to the end of the two verses. They chose Allah and His Messenger then further things did not happen. Had they chosen themselves they would have become stranger to him (the Messenger of Allah).’” [al-Kafi, #10815 and #10816 ; Grading: Muwathaq(reliable) as per Majlisi in Miraat al-Uqool vol 21, page 232].

Comment: So are the religious slanderers going to apply the same accusations on Zaynab(ra)? If yes then they must keep in mind that this marriage occurred on the command of Allah. If they like to remain silent, then we ask those religious slanderers to maintain the attitude with other wives of Prophet(saw) too. Otherwise, these Shias are going to end up in hell-fire for sure. InshaAllah.


Slander 34 B:

Shias quoted a verse of Quran and stated:

[Quote]“Perhaps if he divorces you, his Lord will give him wives who are better than you, who submit and believe (Quran 66:5)” clearly indicates that there were believing women among the Muslims who were much better than Aisha. [Quote]

This is the Shia misunderstanding of Quran, Let us cite Mufti Shafi Usmani’s words to clear this misconception of Shias.

Mufti Shafi Usmani said: The verse refutes the possible thought of the wives that if they are divorced, the Holy Prophet [S.A.W.W] will probably not get women better than themselves. The verse under comment responds to their assessment of the situation. It purports to say that nothing is beyond Allah’s power. If he divorces them, Allah will give him in exchange better wives than he has at the moment. This does not necessarily imply that there were better wives than the present holy wives at that time. Possibly such women were not available at that point of time, but, should the need have arisen, He could make other women better than they are. These verses specifically dealt with the holy wives of the Holy Prophet [S.A.W.W], their deeds, their moral reform, their discipline and training. Similar injunctions are given in the verses that follow for the general body of Muslims and believers. (Source, Maarif-ul-Quran, Mufti Shafi Usmani.)


Slander 34 C :

Shias said:

[Quote] If the Allah threatened the two wives of the Prophet by saying { If ye two turn in repentance to Him, your hearts are indeed so inclined; but if ye back up each other against him, truly Allah is his Protector, and Gabriel, and (every) righteous one among those who believe― and furthermore, the angels― will back (him) up. (66:4)} then how can we render them as pure and sinless and how can they be held as respected personalities? [Quote]

Firstly Ahlesunnah never encouraged anyone to consider the wives of Prophet(saw) as sinless or infallible. The rationale behind what was said to wives of Prophet(saw) in those verses was to make the wives of the Holy Prophet (SAW) a perfect example for the Muslim Ummah for all the times to come. Hence the wives of the Holy Prophet (SAW) were warned to be careful even if they committed minor mistakes.

And yes they are to be respected and honored because Allah wanted this to be done. That is why Allah titled them as Mothers of believers(Ummuhatul Momineen). Since the title mother(umm) itself signifies respect and honor or greatness.

And if Ayesha(ra) and Hafsa(ra) committed a sin or error then later repented then why can’t they be respected and honored? And why can’t they be considered as High ranking Islamic personalities? If this is the logic of the Shias, then let us bring a similar issue which will help the Shias realize their stupidity in a more clear manner.

We know that Adam(as) was warned and commanded by Allah that he(as) shouldn’t approach a tree. But we know that Quran says that Adam(as) disobeyed Allah (20:121) and violated the command of Allah which was given to him, before he commited that error. Yet because Adam(as) repented Allah forgave him and granted him Prophethood.

Muslims respect and honor Adam(as) and consider him to be a noble Prophet. So why is it that Shias make a big fuss when the issue of respecting and honoring Ayesha(ra) and Hafsa(ra) comes? When infact wives of Prophet(Saw) didn’t even violate a command of Allah in specific that what given to them forehand. They didn’t knew that their act would be disliked by Allah, they did that uknowingly. Moreover they even repented for their mistake. Yet the Shias still bring that issue inorder to degrade their status.

What would the Shias say to the person who tries to attack Adam(as) for his mistake and tries to degrade his status due to that? Will the Shias consider that to be acceptable? If not  then why these double standards when it comes to wives of Prophet(Saw), (i.e) Ayesha(ra) and Hafsa(ra)?


Slander 34 D :

A shia scholar said in his book:

[Quote] Al-Bukhari wrote about her(ayesha’s) pretention towards the Prophet until Allah threatened her with divorce. (Shia book, Then I was Guided, p.119 )[Quote]

Al-Bukhari narrated from ` A’ishah, may Allah be pleased with her, the wife of the Prophet that the Messenger of Allah came to her when Allah commanded him to give his wives the choice. She said, “The Messenger of Allah started with me, and said (I am going to tell you about something and you do not have to hasten to respond until you consult your parents. )” He knew that my parents would never tell me to leave him. Then he said: (Allah says: (“O Prophet ! Say to your wives. . . ”)) and he recited the two Ayat . I(ayesha) said to him(prophet), “Concerning what do I need to consult my parents I choose Allah and His Messenger and the Home of the Hereafter. ” He also narrated it without a chain of narrators, and added, “She said, then all the wives of the Prophet did the same as I. ”

Prophet(saw) said: (They(wives) are around me asking me to spend on them. ) Abu Bakr, may Allah be pleased with him, got up to deal with ` A’ishah; and ` Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, got up to deal with Hafsah, and both of them were saying, ` You are asking the Prophet for that which he does not have! ‘ But the Messenger of Allah stopped them, and they (his wives) said, ` By Allah, after this we will not ask the Messenger of Allah for anything that he does not have. ‘ Then Allah revealed the Ayah telling him to give them the choice, and he started with ` A’ishah, may Allah be pleased with her. He said, (I am going to tell you something, and I would like you not to hasten to respond until you consult your parents. ) She said, `What is it ‘ He recited to her: (O Prophet ! Say to your wives. . . ) ` A’ishah, may Allah be pleased with her, said, ` Do I need to consult my parents concerning you I choose Allah and His Messenger, but I ask you not to tell of my choice to your other wives. ‘ He said: (Allah did not send me to be harsh, but He sent me to teach in a gentle and easy manner. If any of them asks me what your decision was, I will tell her. )” This was also recorded by Muslim.

Comment: From these reports its apparent that Ayesha(ra), didn’t hesitate in choosing Prophet(saw) and the hereafter.

Ahlesunnah doesn’t believe that any of the Sahaba or Ahlebayt were infallible. Instead, they are liable to commit mistakes or sins. So, if anyone committed a mistake, whether Aysha(ra) or others, then it would not be strange, because no one is infallible. It is not accepted nor understandable that the shia accounts Aysha badly because she fell in a guilt and repented from that guilt.

The Shia slanders against her as if she did something really awful. Exactly as when Ali bin Abi Talib(ra) wanted to marry the daughter of Abi Jahl while he had Fatima as a wife. The prophet(saw) got angry and said, “Bani Hashim bin Al-Mughirah asked for my permission to marry their daughter to Ali bin Abi Talib. I do not permit, and I do not permit, and I do not permit. Unless the son of Abi Talib wants to divorce my daughter and marry their daughter…” (Saheeh Al-Bukhari, Book of Marriage, #4932)

This is a warning from the prophet(saw) to Ali to divorce his wife if he married the daughter of Abi Jahl. It is not acceptable to make this matter as a slander against Ali!! Except for the most ignorant people!

It is not true that Allah warned Aysha by divorce and to give Muhammad(saw) a better wife than her. Al-Bukhari narrated in his Saheeh from Omar(saw) who said, “The wives of the prophet(saw) gathered to be jealous on him. So I told them, “Perhaps Allah will divorce you all, and He may give him (the prophet) better wives than you. And this verse revealed.” (Saheeh Al-Bukhari, Book of Al-Tafseer (Al-Tahreem), #4632)

As it is obvious, the verse is not a warning, but a choice Allah gave His messenger of divorcing them. Therefore, this verse was called the Verse of Choice. Plus the verse does not pertain to Aysha only, but also to the rest of the prophet’s wives. Also Imam Ahmad recorded that ` A’ishah, may Allah be pleased with her, said: “The Messenger of Allah gave us the choice, and we chose him, so giving us that choice was not regarded as divorce. ”(tafseer ibn katheer).

Even if we assume that this verse is pertained to Aysha only, and that Allah threatened her with divorce, we say that, is there any slander against Ali when the prophet(saw) threatened Ali with divorce? If it was like that, then whatever slander you have against Aysha will be against Ali as well. But if you say that Ali was mistaken and later repented, and there is no slander against him, then Aysha is the same! Hence, choose whatever you want, O Shias!


Slander 35:

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 ) [Quote]

Firstly it seems that Shias have no clue what they are arging 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 new of Martydom of Uthman(ra) reached them and all of them were not in there 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 (s), 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. 304-305)

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 stupid, illogical and biased, the Shia slanders against Ayesha(ra) are.

Secondly, Aisha(ra) did not leave her house displaying her finery! We fear Allah from such blasphemy; would the Shia like to share the same fate as the Munafiqeen (hypocrites) who accused Aisha(ra) of adultery in the incident of Al-Ifk and who were subsequently condemned in the Quran? We seek Allah’s Mercy from slandering the chastity of the Prophet’s own wife. Aisha(ra) left her house in complete Hijab and fully covered; thus, she did not in any way violate this verse of the Quran.

This is a slander which was made by present day shias, due to their ignorance and hatred towards Ayesha(ra), because we haven’t seen any report where Ali(ra) criticized Ayesha(ra) for violating the command of Allah as given in Surah Ahzab verse 33.

Ayesha(ra) by her departure did not display her finery like the displaying of the ignorance times!  Secondly Ordering to stay at houses does not contradict leaving the house for an ordered benefit as when the woman leaves the house to go to hajj or omrah, or leaves with her husband in a travel. This verse came down in the life of the Prophet peace be upon him and the prophet peace be upon him traveled with his wives afterwards, as the prophet peace be upon him traveled with Ayesha and others to Hijjat Al-Wida’a. Also, the Prophet peace be upon him sent Ayesha with Abdulrahman, her brother … Hujjat Al-Wada’a happened before the Prophet’s demise by less than three months after the revelation of this verse. Therefore, prophet’s wives were going to hajj in the Caliphate of Omar and others as they used to with the Prophet and Omar gave Uthman or Abdulrahman bin Owf the leadership of the prophet’s wives’ caravans.

Occasions of need have been exempted from the obligation of staying at home

In the opening sentence of verse 33 ( And remain in your homes), staying in homes was made obligatory which apparently purports that it should be absolutely prohibited and haram for wives of prophet(saw) to go out of their homes, but the verse has, at first place already indicated through the use of the words (And do not display your beauty) within this verse that going out as needed is not prohibited in an absolute sense. Instead, what is prohibited is going out in a manner which displays embellishment. Then there is the injunction of (bring down over themselves part of their outer garments 33:59) to appear later in surah Ahzab. This injunction is itself telling us that to a certain degree women do have the permission to go out of the home, ofcourse on condition that they go out in hijab wearing an outer garment like burqa etc.

In addition to that the prophet(Saw) has himself clarified that occasions of need are exmepted form this injunction as in a hadith where, while addressing his wives prophet(Saw) is reported to have said (Permission has been granted to you that you may go out  for your needs, Sahi Muslim Chapter 7, Bk 26, Number 5395). Maulana Maududi says: “This shows that the divine injunction ‘remain in your houses’ does not mean that women should not at all step out of the four walls of the house.” (Purdah, p. 201-202)

Then the conduct of prophet(saw) after the revelation of the verse of hijab proves that wives of prophet(saw) have the permission to go it of homes on occasions of need, for example the going of wives of prophet(saw) with prophet(saw) for hajj and umrah stands confirmed on  the authority of sound and authentic narrations. Similarly, their going with him in many battles stands proved. Then, there are many narrations of hadith which also prove that wives of prophet(Saw) used to go out of their homes to visit their parents, did their duty by calling on the sick among relatives and offering condolence on the death of someone among them. And during the time of prophet(saw) they also had the permission to go to the masajid.

And not only that it happened in the company of  prophet(Saw) or in his time alone, but even after his passing away, it is a confirmed fact that all his wives went for hajj and umrah with the exception of sayyidah saudah(ra) and sayyidah zainab bint jahsh(ra) . No reproach or disapproval thereupon has been reported from any of the noble sahabah. In fact sayyidna umar(ra) sent the blessed wives of the messenger(saw) for hajj under arrangements specially made for them, he sent sayyidna uthman(ra) and abd ur rahman ibn al awf(ra) with them to supervise and manage their pilgrimage. And as for the incidence of hz saudah(ra) and hz zainab bint jahsh(ra) not going for hajj and umrah after the passing away of prophet(Saw) it was not on the basis of this verse, instead it was on the basis of a hadith. That is, when on the occasion of the last hajj, prophet(Saw) helped his blessed wives perform their hajj with him personally, the remark that he made on return was( This is it. After that, should stick to the mats at home). The first word(hadihihi: translated here as “this is it”) refers to this very hajj and (husur) is the plural form of (hasiir) which means a mat(of straw, a modest version of other floor spreads such as rug, carpet, daree etc).In essence, the hadith is saying: Your going out for this alone is done. After that you stick to the mats of your homes necessarily without having to part therefrom. Sayyidah saudah bint zam’ah(ra) and sayyidah zainab bint jahsh(ra) took this haidth to mean: Your going out was permissible for this very last hajj. Beyond that, it is not. The other wives including a jurist of the class of sayyidah aishah(ra) unanimously interpreted these words of the holy prophet(saw) to mean that your going out of your homes is permissible for this kind of journey which aims at performing a recognized act of worship, otherwise you should stay at home. In gist , from the sense of the verse (And remain in your homes 33) as supported by the indicators of the quran, the practice of the holy prophet(Saw) and the consensus of the noble sahabah, occasions of need are exempted which include religious obligations of hajj and umrah, taking care of natural duties towards parents, visiting mahram relatives in helath and sickness and attending to other requirements of this nature. Thus it has been made amply clear that the sense of imperative of (remain in your homes 33)  as proved form the very indicators, rather, expressions of the quran, as well as from the practice of the prophet(Saw) and after him from the consensus of sahabah(ra), its is confirmed that occasions of need are exempt from it.

Accordingly, if it is allowed for the prophet’s wives to travel for a benefit, then Ayesha thought that by her departure a reformation for the Muslims could happen. She interpreted in that matter.” If for the sake of argument even if we accept the ridiculous accusation of Shias to be true that Ayesha(ra) left her house, even then we will have to realize that Aisha’s intention(ra) for leaving her house was sincere and pure. She left to make peace between two factions of Muslims. This is 100% in line with Allah’s commands in the Quran:

“If two parties amongst the Believers fall into a quarrel, make ye peace between them: but if one of them transgresses beyond bounds against the other, then fight ye (all) against the one that transgresses until it complies with the Command of Allah; but if it complies, then make peace between them with justice, and be fair: for Allah loves those who are fair (and just). The Believers are but a single Brotherhood: so make peace and reconciliation between your two (contending) brothers.” (Quran, 49:9-10)

Also 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) Yes it is Sahih Hadeeth as mentioned by al-Tirmidhi.

An appropriate analogy is that Allah prohibits us from breaking our Salat midway. However, if we are in Salat and the enemies of Islam attack our camp, then it is permissible to break one’s Salat in order to defend the Muslim camp and save Muslim lives. In fact, if Aisha(ra) thought that leaving her house was the only way to save Muslim lives, then it would not only be Halal for her to leave her house but no doubt it would be Wajib (obligatory).


Arguments regarding the virtues and superiority of Ayesha(ra)

Slander 36 A:

Religious slanderers said:

[Quote] It is well-known among Muslims that the best wife of the Prophet (PBUH&HF) was Khadija (RA). She was the first woman who embraced Islam and spent all her wealth for the cause of Allah and the Prophet never married another woman as long as Khadija was alive. The Messenger of Allah gave the name of the best women of the world in chronological order and one should not be surprised that the name of Aisha is missing:

The Messenger of Allah (PBUH&HF) said: “The most excellent of the women of all worlds whom Allah chose over all women are: Asiya the wife of Pharaoh, Mary the daughter of Imran, Khadija the daughter of Khuwaylid, and Fatimah the daughter of Muhammad.”

Sunni references:

  • Sahih al-Tirmidhi, v5, p702[Quote]

Reply 1:

If Ayesha(ra) wasn’t the best wife of Prophet(Saw), then does this gives the permissibility to the shias to slander and accuse her?

And the fact is that Ayesha(ra) was the best living wife of Prophet(saw) (may not the best when compared to wives of Prophet(saw) weren’t alive).

This narration is reported from Prophet(Saw) is an evidence for the superiority of Ayesha(ra):

Narrated Abu Musa Al-Ash’ari: Allah’s Apostle said, “Many amongst men attained perfection but amongst women none attained the perfection except Mary, the daughter of Imran and Asiya, the wife of Pharaoh. And the superiority of ‘Aisha to other women is like the superiority of Thareed (i.e. an Arabic dish) to other meals.” [Sahih Bukhari – Volume 5, Book 57, Number 113]

Al-Nawawi said: The ‘ulamaa’ said: it means that thareed is better than broth, and thareed with meat is better than broth without thareed, and the thareed that has no meat is better than broth. What is meant by better is that it is more nutritious, more filling, easier to digest, more enjoyable and easier to eat; a person may eat his fill of it quickly, and so on. It is better than all kinds of broth and all kinds of food. The superiority of ‘Aa’ishah over other women is great, as great as the superiority of thareed over other kinds of food. This does not clearly state that she is better than Maryam and Aasiyah; it could be that what is meant is that she is superior to the women of this ummah.(Sharh Muslim, 15/199).

Reply 2: Shias  claimed that Ayesha(ra)’s name was not included among the best women, So we want to ask them that does this in any way effects and degrades the rank and honor of Ayesha(ra)? If so then from the understanding of Shias, even the rank and honor of Ali(ra) and their other 9 Imams gets affected, because neither Ali(ra)’s name nor the names of their other 9 Imams was included in the narration which where Prophet [s] said , Hasan [ra] and Hussain [ra] are the leaders of the young people of paradise.


Slander 36 B:

Shia scholar said in his book: 

[Quote]Prophet(saw)  had so many wives, and some of them were better than Aishah, as the Prophet himself declared (in the footnote, Shia mentions: Sahih al Turmidhi, al Istiab, Ibn Abd al Barr, Biography of Safiyya ) (shia book, Then I was Guided, p.119-120) [Quote]

Here is that hadeeth:

Safiyya, who said, “Once, the messenger of Allah peace be upon him entered upon me and I heard something from Hafsah and Aysha. I told the prophet about that. The prophet said to me, ‘You should have said: How could you be better than I could and Muhammad is my husband, Haroon is my father, and Mousa is my uncle?’ As if Safiyya heard that Hafsah and Aysha said that they are more honored by the prophet than she was. And also said that they were the wives of the prophet peace be upon him and his cousins.( Sunan Al-Turmithi,  # 3892 )

This hadeeth is weak in its attribution. Al-Albani says, “This is a strange hadeeth. We do not know it except from Hashim Al-Koufi and the attribution is not like that.” (The Weaks in Sunan Al-Turmithi, by Al-Albani, #816)

In the book of Al-Esti’ab(a book that talks about the Muslim men and women who lives at the time of the prophet) when the book mentions about Aysha, the author presented a lot of her virtues. The author proved her being the most knowledgeable among the prophet’s wives. The author narrates from Al-Zahari, “If the knowledge of Aysha is collected, and compared to the knowledge of all the prophet’s wives and the knowledge of all the women, then we would find that the knowledge of Aysha is better.”(Al-Esti’ab, vol.4, p.1883)


Miscellaneous  Accusations.

Slander 37:

Religious slanderers claimed that Ayesha(ra) innovated in Shari’ah

[Quote] Sahih al-Bukhari Hadith: 2.206
Narrated Ibn Umar: I accompanied Allah’s Apostle and he never offered more than two Rakat during the journey. Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman used to do the same.

Sahih al-Bukhari Hadith: 2.188
Narrated Abdullah bin Umar: I offered the prayer with the Prophet, Abu Bakr and Umar at Mina and it was of two Rakat. Uthman in the early days of his caliphate did the same, but later on he started praying the full prayer.

It is clear that Uthman changed the regulation of the prayer of the traveler in the later years of his reign. For more traditions concerning this innovation, please also see Sahih al-Bukhari, Arabic-English version, Tradition 2.190.

It is noteworthy that Aisha also followed this innovation as al-Bukhari testified:

Sahih al-Bukhari Hadith: 2.196
Narrated Aisha: “When the prayers were first enjoined they were of two Rakat each. Later the prayer in a journey was kept as it was but the prayers for non-travelers were completed.” al-Zuhri said, “I asked ‘Urwa what made Aisha pray the full prayers (in journey).” He replied, “She did the same as Uthman did.”

Muslim also reported the first tradition in “The Chapter on the Prayer recited by the Travelers and Shortening it” He narrated on the authority of al-Zuhri from ‘Urwa from Aisha, that: “The prayer was first decreed as two rak’ah. Then this ruling was preserved for the prayer during a journey, and the prayer at [a person’s town of] residence was made complete”. al-Zuhri said: “I said to ‘Urwa ‘So how come Aisha [recites the] complete prayer on a journey?’ He replied: ‘She interpreted [the ruling] as Uthman interpreted it.’ [Quote]

Some of the Sahabah were of the view that the prayer should be offered in full when travelling, such as ‘Aa’ishah, ‘Uthman. Salman and fourteen other companions of the Messenger of Allah(saw).[Kitab al-Imamah wa’l-Radd ‘ala al-Rafiidah by al-Asbahani, p. 312]

As the Shias stated, “Ayesha interpreted [the ruling] as Uthman interpreted it”.

Uthman did not regard it as obligatory to shorten prayers when travelling, rather he regarded it as permissible, which is the view of the fuqaha’ of Madinah, Malik, al-Shafi’i and others. Moreover, it is a matter that is subject to ijtihad, which is why the scholars differed concerning it. [al-Riyadh al-Nadrah, p. 566]

Shortening the prayer is sunnah in accordance to majority of scholars. (Burhan fi ulumil Quran 1/302). So even if Uthman didn’t shorten his prayers, he just left permissible relief and preferred burden.


Slander 38:

Religious slanderers said:

[Quote] I am interested in 1 question and want sunnis to explain it for us.
Aisha claimed that the reason for her rise against Imam Ali(which was manifested in the battle of Camel) was getting revenge of the blood of Uthman.
My question: Why Aisha didn’t show the same performance, when her own brother Muhammad b. Abu Bakr was killed? [Quote]

Uthman(as) was killed innocent by the rebels, and he didn’t want to fight. But Muhammad ibn abi bakr died in a battle field, where he went to fight with his opponents and there he was killed. So it would be stupidity to claim qisas for a person who died in a battle field.

If the Shias thinks that the above answer wasn’t satisfactory then we would like to use the logic of shias to answer them. So we would like to ask the one who raised this argument that does he knows that Muhammad ibn abibakar didn’t even killed one man in that battle when he was killed? If he did killed few people, then he was killed in retaliation of the death of that person. This is the logic which Shia used and So we are answering the Shia using their own ridiculous logic.

Lastly, When `Âishah(ra) was informed about death of Muhammad b. Abî Bakr, she became very sad, as mentioned by Ibn Hajar in al-Isâbah (9/208). This was the normal behaviour of a sister on the news of the death of her brother.


Slander 39: The slanders made on Ayesha’s(as) using her view on breastfeeding.

Shiawebsite RTS attempts to defame mother A’isha (ra) by quoting various narrations that have to do with her opinion towards breastfeeding adults. Before carrying on, we believe that it is wise to first produce the evidences that show the correct stance of A’isha (ra) towards the breastfeeding of adults and of those above the age of two in general.

The first narration is from Musnad Ali bin Al-Ja’ad #152:

أنا شعبة ، عن الحكم قال : سمعت قيس بن أبي حازم ، وأبا الشعثاء ، عن عائشة قالت :  يحرم من الرضاع ما أنبت اللحم والدم

Shu’ba told us, from Al-Hakam: I heard Qais bin Abi Haazim and Aba Al-Sha’thaa’, from A’isha (ra) say, “Only what causes the growth of the flesh and blood is what causes a foster-relationship through breastfeeding.”

This is a clear narration that A’isha (ra) does not believe that breastfeeding adults causes a foster-relationship with them.

The second narration is from Musannaf Abdul-Razaaq #13928:

أخبرنا ابن جريج قال : سمعت نافعا يحدث أن سالم بن عبد الله حدثه أن عائشة زوج النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم أرسلت به إلى أختها أم كلثوم ابنة أبي بكر ، لترضعه عشر رضعات ، ليلج عليها إذا كبر ، فأرضعته ثلاث مرات ، ثم مرضت ، فلم يكن سالم يلج عليها

I was told by Ibn Juraij: I heard Nafi’ narrate that Salim bin Abdullah narrated that A’isha the wife of the Prophet (pbuh) sent him to her sister Umm Kalthum bint Abi Bakr, to breastfeed him ten times so he can enter on her when he becomes an adult, but she got sick, and Salim couldn’t enter upon her.

If A’isha (ra) believed that Salim was allowed to enter upon her if one of her sisters breastfed him, then why would she not take advantage of this? Why did she not have him be breastfed after he became an adult and only focused on a small time window?

These two narrations are clear and authentic proofs that this is the position of A’isha (ra), which means that there are two possible alternatives to what is widely suggested about the narrations in which she says that adult breastfeeding leads to a foster-relationship.

The first possibility is that these narrations indicate that A’isha (ra) had two views on the subject and that this is her later view, and this is the opinion of `Ala’ Al-Deen Al-Kaasaani.

The second possibility is that A’isha (ra) only has one view, which is that adults cannot be breastfed, and this is the opinion of Al-Jassas. However, this means that the narrations that state that she believed in the permissibility of adult breastfeeding are disconnected reports from late scholars. This is the point that Sheikh Abdullah Ramadan Moosa suggests in his book “Kashf Akadheeb Al-Qisees Hawla Ridhaa’ Al-Kabeer”. See pages 93 to 113.

Shia website RTS starts off the attacks with the following narration, and then proceeds with an explanation:

Muslim ibn Hajjaj:

Umm Salama said to A’isha: “A young boy who is at the threshold of puberty comes to you! I, however, do not like that he should come to me, whereupon A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) said: ‘Don’t you see in Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) a model for you?’ She also said: The wife of Aboo Hudhaifa said: ‘Messenger of Allah, Salim comes to me and now he is a (grown-up) person, and there is something that (rankles) in the mind of Aboo Hudhaifa about him,’ whereupon Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: ‘Suckle him (so that he may become your foster-child), and thus he may be able to come to you (freely).’” Source: Saheeh Muslim. Vol. 2, Pg. # 664, H # 29.

The Muslims believe a foster relationship can only be established through breast-feeding and that is only if the child is less than two (as mentioned in the Holy Qu’raan). But the narration of A’isha wherein she advised Umm Salama (r.a) and her nieces, to breast-feed any man on the grounds that the Prophet (saw) had advised Sahlah to do the same. Now, if Salim’s case had been an exception to the rule, why would A’isha (whose intelligence and knowledge of Qur’aan and Hadeeth is far more superior to any present day Sunni scholar) advance it as a precedent for Umm Salama (r.a) and her nieces to breast-feed men?

Nothing in the narration indicates that this boy was breastfed after the age of two. It is very much possible that this is a case in which A’isha (ra) has had this boy breastfed at a young age, with the intention of him being given permission to enter upon her in the future. She points out the situation of Salim in order to show Umm Salama that circumstances of necessity in which one is forced to breastfeed a child are not the only ones that are permissible.

However, even if we assume that A’isha (ra) is telling Umm Salama (ra) that she should have adults breastfed, then it is still possible that this is her earlier opinion and that she later turned from this view in the future as we have indicated above.

Shiawebsite RTS then quotes:

Ahmad bin Hanbal:

A’isha took that as a precedent for whatever men she wanted to be able to come to see her. She ordered daughters of her sisters and brothers to give milk to whichever men she wanted to be able to come in to see her. The rest of the wives of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, refused to let anyone come in to them by such nursing. They said, ‘No! By Allah! We think that what the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, ordered Sahla bint Suhayl to do was only an indulgence concerning the nursing of Salim alone. No! By Allah! No one will come in upon us by such nursing!’

Footnote: Hadeeh is Saheeh (Authentic). Source: Musnad Ahmad bin Hanbal. Pg. # 192, H # 26208.

There is some weakness in this narration, which is that it has arrived us through the path of the nephew of Al-Zuhri, Muhammad bin Abdullah. Even though he is not completely weak, he has been weakened by Yahya, Muhammad bin Yahya Al-Neesaboori, and Ibn Hibban.

On the other hand, Ma’amar, a top-level student of Al-Zuhri, narrated a very similar narration in Musannaf `Abdul-Razzaq. However, the difference between the two narrations is clear.

عن معمر عن الزهري عن عروة عن عائشة قالت : جاءت سهلة بنت سهيل بن عمرو إلى النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فقالت : إن سالما كان يدعى لابي حذيفة ، وإن الله عزوجل قد أنزل في كتابه : (ادعوهم لابائهم) وكا يدخل علي وأنا فضل ، ونحن في منزل ضيق ، فقال النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم : أرضعي سالما تحرمي عليه ، قال الزهري : قالت  بعض أزواج النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم : لا ندري لعل هذه كانت رخصة لسالم خاصة ، قال الزهري : وكانت عائشة تفتي بأنه يحرم الرضاع بعد الفصال حتى ماتت.

Al-Zuhri said: Some of the wives of the Prophet (pbuh) said: We don’t know, it is possible that this was a special permission. Al-Zuhri said: A’isha used to give religious rulings that the foster-relationship only occurs before the cutting off of breastfeeding (two years), until she died.

We say: This is a clear indication, from the narration, that these words were not those of Urwa, the nephew of A’isha, but rather, the words of Al-Zuhri, who only expressed what he has heard, from an unknown source.

Shiawebsite RTS attempts to argue:

Despite all these absurd narrations, a question which immediately comes to mind is whether Sahlah bint Suhayl who breast-fed Salim, had breast milk at the time? According to historical facts, Sahlah only had one child with Aboo Hudhayfah who was called Muhammad ibn Abi Hudayfah, born during their stay in Abyssinia. After migration in the 5 A.H. The couple later returned to Makkah around a month later, the same year they remained there until the Prophets (saw) emigration to Madinah eight years later. The occurrence of the breast-feeding event as reported, took place in Madinah, which means there was a gap of around 8-10 years between the birth of Sahlah’s child and her breast-feeding Salim. Normally a woman may continue to secrete milk for a few years after childbirth. This being so, it would be impossible for Sahlah to have been lactating at the time that she was supposed to have breast-fed Salim.

There is no evidence that Abu Hudhayfah had no children other than Muhammad. Furthermore, there is no reason to fabricate this incident, and A’isha (ra) is not the sole narrator of this event, but it was also narrated by Umm Salama (ra).

Additionally, Shiawebsite RTS, in order to further criticize A’isha (ra), rejects the idea that breastfeeding can be done through pouring milk into a cup that was originally from the breast of a woman. RTS argues:

This is far-fetched idea and implausible because foster relationships are to be established through contact, is breast-feeding directly and not simply drinking breast milk from a place other than a woman’s breast.

Of course, nobody is interested in the opinion of the writers in the RTS website. It is sufficient that Imam Ibn Abdulbarr said:

وقد أجمع فقهاء الأمصار على التحريم بما يشربه الغلام الرضيع من لبن المرأة وإن لم يمصه من ثديها

“There is a consensus among the scholars of all areas that a foster relationship occurs when a baby drinks from the milk of a woman, even if it didn’t suckle from her breast.” Al-Tamheed 8/257.

Shia scholar Al-Saduq, in Al-Faqeeh, said:
وكتب أحمد بن محمد بن عيسى ألى علي بن محمد عليهما السلام: إمرأة أرضعت عناقا من الغنم بلبنها حتى فطمتها، فكتب عليه السلام: فعل مكروه، ولا بأس به
Rough translation:
Ahmad bin Mohammed bin Eisa wrote to Ali bin Mohammed (as): A woman breastfed a young sheep until it was out of infancy. He wrote back: It is disliked, but it is fine.

Comment: Our intention to posted this Shia hadeeth is with Salim mawla Abi Huthaifa in mind. It isn’t necessary for one to believe that he was literally breastfed either.

Shiawebsite RTS then started to quote narrations from A’isha implying that the Qur’an has been tampered with:

Muslim ibn Hajjaj:

‘A’isha (Allah be pleased with, her) reported that it had been revealed in the Holy Qur’aan that ten clear sucklings make the marriage unlawful, then it was abrogated (and substituted) by five sucklings and Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) died and it was before that time (found) in the Holy Qur’an (and recited by the Muslims).


This is how we got this narration, and this actually happened; she reported the incidence without giving any ruling; For sure, verse of Rajam ‘stoning’ was known amongst companions, and they knew that its recitation and its existence in scriptures (Qur’aan) were abrogated, and only its ruling existed. And that was when the Prophet (saw) approached Umar and did not allow him to write it. And as regards to breastfeeding adults, it was abrogated except according to A’isha’s opinion; or they said it was a permission for Salim only, and because of that, they did not confirm it. As regards to breastfeeding adults ten times, it is reported through the narration of Amra from A’isha, that it was reduced to 5 sucklings, and the abrogation of its ruling and recitation was known amongst companions, and that is why they did not confirm it, not because the goat ate her scriptures, and that is clear by the grace of Allah (swt).

The narration quoted by Al-Bayhaqi is not as strong as the one we find in Saheeh Muslim, since it includes Ibn Ishaaq. The Saheeh Muslim, which is from the narration of Malik, shows no indication of verses of the Qur’an being lost, and that a goat ate some scripture that was already abrogated in the past. The narration found in Muslim is supported by other narrations that include the same meaning about the abrogation of the verse about suckling ten times, and these have come through the paths of Sulayman bin Bilal (in Muslim) and Hamaad bin Salama (Sunan Ibn Majah). Each one of these three men are more trustworthy than Ibn Ishaaq if taken individually, and therefore, their narrations combined make it more certain for us to declare that Ibn Ishaaq erred in this narration.

RTS continues by collecting more quotes, then mistranslating them:

Ibn Hazim:

Narrated A’isha: “The verse of stoning and of suckling an adult ten times was revealed, and they were (written) on a paper and kept under my pillow. When the Messenger of Allah (saw) passed away we were occupied by his death, a goat entered and ate away the paper.”

Footnote: Narration is Saheeh (Authentic). Source: Al-Muhalla. Pg. # 2129.

The text from the PDF file on Shiawebsite RTS’s site does not include the term “adult”. This is an addition by RTS.


Narrated A’isha: “The verse of stoning and of suckling an adult ten times was revealed, and they were (written) on a paper and kept under my pillow. When the Messenger of Allah (saw) passed away we were occupied by his death, a goat entered and ate away the paper.”

Footnote: Narration is Hasan (Reliable).

Ahmad Shakir:

Narrated A’isha: “The verse of stoning and of suckling an adult ten times was revealed, and they were (written) on a paper and kept under my pillow. When the Messenger of Allah (saw) expired and we were occupied by his death, livestock entered and ate away the paper.”

Footnote: Narrration is Saheeh (Authentic).

Each of these narrations above is through the path of Ibn Ishaaq. Refer to the response above in regards to this.

Continuing on, RTS goes on to show examples of modern Sunni scholars who have misunderstood this issue or have given religious rulings on this matter. We say that these opinions do not reflect the opinion of the majority of Ahl Al-Sunnah, and the evidences are clear from what we have included in this article that adult breastfeeding does not necessitate suckling directly, nor does it cause a foster-relationship.

Shia website RTS ends off with the following argument:

Shahin Lashin:

“A’isha opined that adult breast feeding makes an individual mahram, and she practically breast fed a young man, and he would enter upon her, but the remainder mothers of the believers denied it (adult breast feeding)…” Source: Fatah Ul-Mun’im Sharh Saheeh Muslim. Vol. 5, Pg. # 622.

Sheikh Shahin Lashin a much lauded scholar, hadeeth teacher and vice president at Al-Azhar University in Egypt. The said author is alleging that A’isha of her own volition breastfed a slave. Our readers should not forget that the tradition under discussion is that set out under the chapter of Saheeh Muslim titled, ‘Suckling a Young Lad,’ wherein we learn how Salim, a grown bearded man was suckled by Sahla the mother of the household upon the orders of the Prophet (saw), so that he could become her foster son and negotiate his way through her home without the need for the type of rigid rules of contact placed on a non mahram. During the course of commenting on this very tradition, the author argues that A’isha suckled a Ghulam (servant). Umm Salam (r.a) disliked this young boy entering upon the wives of the Prophet (saw). (Source: Saheeh Muslim. Vol. 2, Pg. # 664, H # 29.)

In order to breast-feed, A’isha would have had to expose her breast, in other words uncover her (Awrah), something which Allah (swt) has clearly made unlawful for the believers. Breast-feeding involves physical contact between two persons; the woman and the child. If the servant of A’isha had been breast-fed, physical contact would most certainly have taken place, breaking yet another Islam’s ruling.

We like the rest of Ahl Al-Sunnah only accept reports that include evidence. The opinion of one of the early predecessors has no weight if it goes against the Qur’an and the established Sunnah. Similarly, a report indicating that A’isha (ra) would suggest such a thing, through a disconnected chain, is not sufficient for us. Now, if that is our position towards our predecessors, then one can only guess how little weight a contemporary opinion holds. With all due respect to Shahin Lashin, there is no evidence that A’isha (ra) suckled or had the ability to suckle an infant, and due to this we flat out reject it as evidence.


Slander 40:

Shia scholar said in his book: 

[Quote] Ibn Abbas said a few verses regarding this event(when ayesha supposedly prevented Hassan’s burial beside prophet(saw)):  “She rode a camel, she rode a mule, if she had lived longer, she would have ridden an elephant, you have the ninth of the eighth, and you took everything.”( Then I was Guided, p.139-140) [Quote]

The claims of Shia that Ibn Abbas said two verses of poem about the Mother of Beleivers. Although the two verses are weak in structure, they even contradict what Ibn Abbas said about her when she was about to die, as reported in authentic reports.

Ahmed narrated in the Chapter of “Virtues” that Thikran, the slave of Aysha, “asked for Aysha’s permission to let Ibn Abbas enter at the time of her death. Abdullah bin Abdulrahman, the son of her brother was present also. Thikran said, “Here is Ibn Abbas asking for your permission to enter. He is the best of your sons.” She said, “Let me off from Ibn Abbas and his justification and purification.” Abdullah bin Abdulrahman told her, “He is a reader of the Book of Allah, and is knowledgeable in the religion of Allah. Let him in to give a salam to you, and to say goodbye.” Aysha answered, “Let him in if you want to.” Abdullah said, “I will give him the permission.” So Ibn Abbas came in, made salam, and had a seat. He said, “O’ Mother of Beleivers, be happy. By Allah, there is nothing between the removal of pain and lie and the meeting of the beloved ones, Muhammad and his Companions except that your soul leaves your body.” Aysha said, “What else?” Ibn Abbas answered, “You were the most beloved wife to the messenger of Allah peace be upon him. He loved none but purity. Allah Almighty revealed your innocence from the seven heavens. There is no mosque on earth that does notrecite the verses that proves your innocence day and night. One day your necklace was dropped, so the prophet peace be upon him got caught with the people in the house. And when they wanted to pray, they did not have water. So Allah revealed the verse of Tayamum. It was a permission for people came through you. By Allah, you are holy. She said, “Leave me O’ Ibn Abbas from this. By Allah, I wish I was forgotten.” (Virtues of the Companions, by Ahmed, vol.2, #1639, with a strong attribution)

And 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)

These true narrations answer these ignorant verses of poem, which might be Shia lies.


Slander 41:

Religious slanderers said:

[Quote] Ayesha’s desire was that she not be buried beside Rasulullah (s) on account of her actions. This is a clear admission of her error. Clearly she was conscious of the fact that her actions were extremely serious. Had they been mistakes in ijtihad that still guarantee Allah (swt)’s pleasure, then why the insistence that she be buried away from Rasulullah (s) on account of her actions at Jamal? [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 guity of her sins, Shias are only speculating.

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).”

So as we can see, Ayesha(ra) herself clarified that why she wants to be buried somewhere else.(i.e 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.


Slander 42 A:

Shia said:

[Quote] I bet every shia have heard about the accusation that we narrate that rasool allah(saw) left his wife with ali under the same cover in bed!!! For example this report : Ali Ibn Abi Talib said: I traveled with Allah’s messenger (s) and He did not have any servant other than me, He did not have more than one blanket and Ayesha was with Him. The Prophet (s) was sleeping between me and Ayesha and we were under one blanket, when He got up for the night prayer, He made a line by His hand along the middle of the blanket between me and Ayesha until the blanket touched the mattress which was under us'” (Shia book, Bihaar al-Anwar vol. 40, p. 2).
The riwayat we have is weak but let’s look at this sunni hadith that is sahih

حدثنا أبو العباس محمد بن يعقوب ثنا محمد بن سنان القزاز ثنا إسحاق بن إدريس ثنا محمد بن حازم ثنا هشام بن عروة عن أبيه عن عبد الله بن الزبير عن أبيه قال : أرسلني رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم في غداة باردة فأتيته و هو مع بعض نسائه في لحافه فأدخلني في اللحاف فصرنا ثلاثة

Narrated Abu Al-Abbas Muhammed Ibn Yaqoob narrated Muhammed Ibn sinan al-qazzaz narrated ishaq ibn idrees narrated muhammed ibn hazim narrated hishem ibn urwa from his father from abdullah ibn al-zubair from his father he said: rasool allah sent for me in a cold night so i came to him and he was under the cover with one of his wives so he let me under the cover and we became three

this hadith is sahih al-sanad

Ref: Mustadrak al-Hakim, Volume 3 page 410 Tradition 5564  [Quote]

The isnad(chain) contains Ishaq b. Idris (Abu Ya’qub). See his biography in Mizan al I’tidal (no.734) and in Ibn Hajr’s Lisan al Mizan (no. 1088) where he is accused of fabrication and being munkar in hadith.

He also appears in Ibn Abi ‘Asim’s (d. 287H) isnad in Kitab al Sunnah (1985 ed., p.597/no.1394) where Muhammad b. al Muthana narrates from him. Ibn ‘Adi quotes this narration in Ishaq’s biography in al Kamil fi al Du’afa (no. 157)).

Also Muhammad b. Sinan is in the isnad. Ibn Hajr graded him “weak” in Taqrib (no.5936).

So the hadith is a fabrication without any doubt. And is to be rejected.


Slander 42 B :

A similar report is used by Shias to attack another wife of Prophet(Saw), here is that report:

[Quote]أخبرنا روح بن عبادة ، نا حماد بن سلمة ، عن هشام بن عروة ، عن أبيه أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم بعث ليلة الأحزاب الزبير ورجلا آخر في ليلة ، فقال قرة : فنظروا ثم جاءوا ورسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم في مرط (1) لأم سلمة ، فأدخلهما في المرط ، التزق رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم بأم سلمة

Urwa narrated that the Holy Prophet (s) sent al-Zubair and another man during the night of Ahzab (battle) and said to them: ‘Go and spy’. They returned when the Holy Prophet (s) was under a blanket with Um Salama, He (the prophet) wrapped them under the blanket, the Prophet (s) therefore clung to Um Salamah.

Musnad Ishaq bin Rahweh, Volume 4 page 343 Tradition 1777[Quote]

Imam Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani graded the Chain of this report to be saheeh in MURSAL(disconnected) form; and Dr. Abdul Ghafoor Balushi stated that the narrators are thiqat, except that it is MURSAL(disconnected) because Urwah ibn Zubayr (the father of Hisham and the nephew of A’ishah رضّى الله عنها) did not hear from the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم (as he was born in the era of Uthman’s Caliphate). He is a famous tabi’I, not a Sahabi.

So since this report is disconnected, thus it cannot be used against mother of believers or anyone esle.


Slander 43:

Shia stated:


Ayesha rejected hadith because following her desire?

Shia  say, Ayesha(ra) heard this hadith from Rasulullah(saw) and she rejected when she heard it:
حدثنا عبد الله حدثني أبي قال ثنا أبو المغيرة قال ثنا صفوان قال ثنا راشد بن سعد عن عائشة زوج النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم قالت قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم لا يقطع صلاة المسلم شيء إلا الحمار والكافر والكلب والمرأة فقالت عائشة يا رسول الله لقد قرنا بدواب سوء
Rough translation: Narrated to us ‘Abdullah, he said, ‘narrated to me my father, he said ‘narrated to us Abul Mughirah, he said, ‘ narrated to us Shafwan, he said, narrated to us Raasyd bin Sa’d from Aisyah wife of  Nabi [shallallahu ‘alaihi wasallam], she said , Rasulullah [shallallahu ‘alaihi wasallam] said “None can cut off the prayer of muslim except ass, kafir, dog and woman. Aisyah said “Ya Rasulullah, you have affiliate us with ugly animal [Musnad Ahmad 6/84 no 24590] [quote]


This narration from Musnad Ahmad has a defect, the narration is disconnected.

In Al-Ikleel by Abi Ishaq (p.34) Al-Samnudi, we find under the biography of Rashid bin Sa’ad the following:

قال ابن رجب الحنبلي: راشد بن سعد لم يسمع من عائشة.

Ibn Rajab Al-Hanbali said: Rashid bin Sa’ad didn’t hear from A’isha.

Abu Dawud includes Rahyid bin Sa’ad in Al-Maraseel in his narration from A’isha. See page 283. (Mu’assasat Al-Risala) .

The Shias might argue that Rashid bin Sa’ad lived in the same period with Ayesha(ra). And as mentioned by al-Bukhari, he witnessed the war of Siffin and the demise of Aisya(ra) was long after Siffin war. However this narration in Al-Tareekh Al-Kabeer that implies that he was in Siffeen is weak, due to the tadlees of Baqiyyah.

The same narration is in Sunan Al-Daraqutni 4/81 with Rashid bin Sa’ad ‘an A’isha, and yet it is still considered to be mursal. The chain is connected in Sunan Al-Daraqutni, which implies that this hadith was indeed heard by Rashid bin Sa’ad. Abu Dawud, on the other hand still included it in mursal form. This implies that he believed it to be mursal(disconnected).

Therefore, this report is disconnected and weak.


Slander 44:

In Tadhkira al-Khawas, Ibn al-Jawzi, he writes:

“when Mu’awiya’s sister Umme Habeeba received news about Muhammad bin Abu Bakr’s murder, she sent Ayesha (RA) a cooked goat suggesting that the reason for his killing was his murder of Caliph Uthman. When this happened Ayesha (RA) said “May Allah (swt) kill this daughter of fornicating woman. By Allah! I shall never eat this meat again”.


Sibt ibn Al-Jawzi was an UNRELIABLE Rafidhi according to Dhahabi’s Meezan Al-E’itidal…
In Meezan al-‘E’itidal, al-Imam al-Dhahabi on vol.4 pg.471 states:

9880 – يوسف بن قزغلى الواعظ المؤرخ شمس الدين، أبو المظفر، سبط ابن الجوزي . 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 . قال الشيخ محيي الدين السوسي : لما بلغ جدي موت سبط ابن الجوزي قال : لا رحمه الله ، كان رافضيا

9880- Yusuf ibn Qazghali al-Wa’ith the historian Shams al-Deen, abu al-Muzaffar Sibt ibn al-Jawzi. narrated from his grandfather and others, authored the book Miraat al-Zaman and in it he has gathered corrupt stories, I do not think he is reliable in what he reports but he exaggerates, then he became a Rafidhi. He has a book about this. We ask Allah for protection, he died 654 in Damascus. al-Sheikh Muhyi al-Deen al-Susi said: When my grand-father learned of the death of Sibt ibn al-Jawz he said: May Allah not show him any mercy he was a Rafidhi.

Thus, the report is unreliable since Sibt ibn Jawzi was unreliable as said by Dhahabi, as well as he was a rafidi.


Slander 45 A:

Shia claimed that, Ayesha did Matam for Holy Prophet(saw).

حدثنا عبد الله حدثني أبى ثنا يعقوب قال ثنا أبى عن بن إسحاق قال حدثني يحيى بن عباد بن عبد الله بن الزبير عن أبيه عباد قال سمعت عائشة تقول : مات رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم بين سحري ونحرى وفي دولتي لم أظلم فيه أحدا فمن سفهي وحداثة سني ان رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قبض وهو في حجري ثم وضعت رأسه على وسادة وقمت ألتدم مع النساء واضرب وجهي
Narrated Abdullah narrated my father narrated Yaqoob narrated my father from Ibn Ishaq he said narrated to me Yahya ibn Abbad ibn Abdilleh ibn Al-Aubair from his father Abbad he said I heard A’isha saying: The Messenger of Allah (s.a.w) died between my lap and my neck and in my area (home). I did not oppress anyone in it. It was due to my ignorance and my young age that the Messenger of Allah (saw) died while he was in my house, I put his head on a pillow and I grieved with the women and hit my own face.

[ Ref: Musnad Abu Ya’la. Vol. 8, Pg. # 63, H # 230 – Shaykh Sulaym Asad said the chain is hasan in his comments on “Musnad” Abu Yala #4586, ; Seerah Ibn Hisham. Pg. # 482.; Seerat Ibn Ishaq, 2/713 ; Musnad Ahmed ibn Hanbal. Vol. 43, Pg. # 368. H # 26348; Hassan by Shu`ayb al-Arnout and Albaanee in Irwa . Vol. 7, Pg. # 86. ]

If the wailing woman does not repent before she dies, she will be made to stand on the Day of Resurrection wearing a garment of pitch and a chemise of mange. Source: Saheeh Muslim. Book 10, H # 69, Pg. # 415.

So you see, `Aisha (r.a) didn’t repent and thus the above punishment is to be inflicted upon her.

Shaykh Shu`ayb al-Arnout said :
) إسناده حسن من أجل ابن إسحاق: وهو محمد، وقد صرح بالتحديث هنا، فانتفت شبهة تدليسه. وبقية رجاله ثقات رجال الشيخين غير يحيى بن عباد بن عبد الله بن الزبير أخرج له أصحاب السنن، وهو ثقة، يعقوب: هو ابن إبراهيم بن سعد بن إبراهيم بن عبد الرحمن بن عوف. وأخرجه أبو يعلى (4586) ، والبيهقي في “الدلائل” 7/213 من طريقين عن ابن إسحاق، بهذا الإسناد. وأخرجه مختصراً ابن سعد 2/261-262 و262 من طريق عيسى بن معمر، وأبي الأسود، كلاهما عن عباد بن عبد الله، عن عائشة، به. قلنا: لكن في طريقهما الواقدي، وهو متروك. وأخرجه ابن سعد 2/262 من طريق زيد بن أبي عتاب، عن عروهَ، عن عائشة، به. قلنا: وفي طريقه الواقدي كذلك، وهو متروك. وقد سلف نحوه برقم (24039) و (24216) . قلنا: وقولها: وقمت ألتدم مع النساء وأضرب وجهي. فيه نكارة ولم نجده إلا في هذه السياقة، والسيدة عائشة زوجة النبي صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ لا يخفى عليها حديث ابن مسعود مرفوعاً: ليس منا من ضرب الخدود، وشق الجيوب، ودعا بدعوى الجاهلية” وهو حديث صحيح سلف في مسند ابن مسعود برقم (3658) ، وقال السندي في تفسيره هناك: ليس منا، أي: ليس من أهل طريقتنا وسنتنا.
[Rough Translation]
Isnaad is hassan because of Ibn Ishaaq: he is Muhammad, the hadith is stated by him and is suspected of tadlees, however rest of the men are trustworthy (men of the shaikhain) except Yahya bin ‘Ibaad bin Abdullah bin Zubair who is from ashaab as sunan, and he is trustworthy; Yaqoob: he is Ibn Ibrahim bin Sa’ad bin Ibrahim bin ‘Abd ar-Rahman bin ‘Awf. and it is narrated by Ab Ya`la (4586), and Bayhiqi in “Ad-Dalail” 7/213 from two routes (one) from Ibn Ishaaq with this chain. And it is also narrated in Mukhtasar Ibn Sa’ad 2/261-262 from ‘Essa bin Ma’amar, and Abi Aswad, and all of them from ‘Ibaad bin ‘Abdullah from ‘Aisha. We say: but in their route there is Waqdi , who is matrooq. And it is narrated in by Ibn Sa’ad 2/262 from Zaid bin Abi ‘Itaab, from ‘Arwa, from ‘Aisha. We say: It has in its chain Waqdi also , who is (again) matrooq. We say and her saying:”stood up with women and started doing iltidam( an arabic word meaning hitting the face and chest ) and hitting my face” it is denied and it is not found except in this context, and Sayeeda ‘Aisha is the wife of Rasool Allah (s.a.w) and the following marfoo’ narration of Ibn Masood is not hidden from her: ” He who slaps his cheeks, rips his pockets, or calls out the cries of the pre-Islamic period of ignorance is not of us.” and it s a sahih hadith quoted in musnad via Ibn Masood (3658), Al-Sindi said in its tafseer there: “not from us” means not from the our ways and sunan.

Note: We did not mention the narration that had al-Waaqdi that states :
فعجبت من حداثة سني أن رسول الله قبض في حجري فلم أتركه علی حاله حتی یغسل و لکن تناولت وسادة فوضعتها تحت رأسه ثم قمت مع النساء أصيح و ألتدم
because Waadiqi is Matrook(abandoned).

In the above narration `Aisha(r.a) herself testifies that it was due to her ignorance and young age(  فمن سفهي وحداثة سني ) she did what she did. Which implies her regret over it.

حَدَّثَنَا هِشَامُ بْنُ عَمَّارٍ، حَدَّثَنَا سُفْيَانُ، عَنْ عَبْدِ الْكَرِيمِ الْجَزَرِيِّ، عَنْ زِيَادِ بْنِ أَبِي مَرْيَمَ، عَنِ ابْنِ مَعْقِلٍ، قَالَ ‏:‏ دَخَلْتُ مَعَ أَبِي عَلَى عَبْدِ اللَّهِ فَسَمِعْتُهُ يَقُولُ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ ـ صلى الله عليه وسلم ـ ‏:‏ ‏”‏ النَّدَمُ تَوْبَةٌ ‏”‏ ‏.‏ فَقَالَ لَهُ أَبِي ‏:‏ أَنْتَ سَمِعْتَ النَّبِيَّ ـ صلى الله عليه وسلم ـ يَقُولُ ‏:‏ ‏”‏ النَّدَمُ تَوْبَةٌ ‏”‏ ‏.‏ قَالَ ‏:‏ نَعَمْ ‏.‏

It was narrated that Ibn Ma’qil said: “I entered with my father upon ‘Abdullah, and I heard him say: ‘The messenger of Allah (saw) said: “Regret is repentance.” My father said: ‘Did you hear the Prophet (saw) say: “Regret is repentance?” He said: ‘Yes.’”[Sunan ibn Majah, Book 37, Hadith 4393 ; Grading; Hasan].

Therefore, since Ayesha(ra) regretted over her act, then this was her repentance. So this is not going against her at all . And Allah does not punish a person for a mistake which they did either unknowingly or due to coercion or in circumstances when they were absolutely grieve striken or not in control. Even the strongest of Sahaabi `Umar (r.a) himself shrank back in astonishment upon hearing the news of the death of Prophet (s.a.w) so much so that he threatened to chop off the head of anyone who utterd such a “blasphemy” , then what about the grief and shock of the gentle and loving `Aisha (r.a)?

The prophet (s.a.w) himself said that “If any one of you is touched by a calamity, let him remember the calamity that befell him concerning me (death) because it is of the greatest calamities.”  [Ref: Tabraani Mu`jam al- Kabeer 6718 and Saheeh by Albaanee in Silsilah Saheeha 1106., may Allah reward brother Syed Asif for informing me of this narration]

Shias even use the above tradition in an attempt to justify the action of self beating during times of great misery. However, the narration is actually evidence against those that see the permissibility of these actions, since A’isha(as) attributes these actions to her ignorance and youthfulness, also there are authentic reports that prohibit it. This is more obvious since we are not aware of any other accounts in which A’isha practices this, nor does she attempt to justify her actions.

On the other hand, those that self-flagellate today are not only young Shias, nor do they blame their ignorance. They practice this with the upmost pride, believing that these actions will allow them to reap their rewards.


Slander 45 B:

حدثني يونس، قال: أخبرنا ابن وهب، قال: أخبرنا يونس بن يزيد عن ابن شهاب ؛ قال: حدثني سعيد بن المسيب، قال: لما توفى أبو بكر رحمه الله أقامت عليه عائشة النوح، فأقبل عمر بن الخطاب حتى قام ببابها، فنهاهن عن البكاء على أبي بكر، فأبين أن ينتهين، فقال عمر لهشام بن الوليد: ادخل فأخرج إلى ابنة أبي قحافة ؛ أخت أبي بكر، فقالت عائشة لهشام حين سمعت ذلك من عمر: إني أحرج عليك بيتي. فقال عمر لهشام : ادخل فقد أذنت لك، فدخل هشام فأخرج أم فروة أخت أبي بكر إلى عمر، فعلاها بالدرة، فضربها ضربات، فتفرق النوح حين سمعوا ذلك.

[ تاريخ الطبري ج 2 ص 217]

Narrated Younus from Ibn Wahab from Younus Ibn Yazid from Al-Zuhri from Sa’eed Ibn Mosayyib who said: ‘When Aboo Bakr died, A’isha held a mourning gathering for him in which mataam had been read. Umar was informed of it, so he came to her door and forbade them of mourning on Aboo Bakr. They (women) refused, so he (Umar) said to Hisham Ibn Al-Walid: “Enter and bring out for me daughter of Abi Quhafa sister of Abi Bakr.” When  A’isha  heard this, she said to Hisham: “I forbid you from entering into my house!” Umar said to Hisham: “Enter, I allow you to do that!” So Hisham entered and brought out Umme Farwa sister of Abi Bakr to Umar, so Umar started beating her with his whip for a while. When the mourners heard this they escaped.

[Ref: Tarikh Al-Tabari. Vol. 3, Pg. # 423.; Al-Tabaqat of Ibn Sa’d. Vol. 3, Pg. # 191; Fath Al-Bari. Vol. 6, Pg. # 225 and Ibn Hajar declared it to be Saheeh]

The word used here is “Nouh   النوح ” (a sad poetry) and not hitting or beating oneself up as described by many shias [See Irwaa ul-Ghaleel 7/86 for more explanations on this word]2) The chain is disconnected between Sa`eed ibn al-Mussayib and the incident he is reporting because Sa`eed (r.h) was born two years after the khilaafah of `Umar (r.a) i.e two years after this incident occured . And thus this is a weak narration i.e a Munqati one and this is what Ibn Mulqin and others have preferred in contrary to what Ibn Hajar said.
والمنقطع ضعيف بالاتفاق بين العلماء وذلك للجهل بحال الراوى المحذوف
[Rough translation] : A Munqati narration is undoubtedly or unanimously agreed upon to be weak among the scholars as the reporting source is unknown [Taiseer Mustalahal Hadeeth].

Slander 46:

Shia website[] Stated

Aisha’s Judgement Over Herself.

Sunnis defend Aisha by all means. They proclaim her to be among the  best of creation, and declare her to be the best wife of the Prophet of  Allah, peace be upon him and his family. The problem, however, is that  she did not view herself in that manner! Let us start in earnest.  Al-Hakim records this hadith in his al-Mustadrak 4/7, Number 6717:

حدثنا أبو العباس محمد بن  يعقوب ثنا أبو البحتري عبد الله بن محمد بن بشر العبدي ثنا إسماعيل بن أبي  خالد عن قيس بن أبي حازم قال : قالت عائشة رضي عنها : و كانت تحدث نفسها  أن تدفن في بيتها مع رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم و أبي بكر فقالت : إني  أحدثت بعد رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم حدثا أدفنوني مع أزواجه فدفنت  بالبقيع
Narrated Qays ibn Abi Hazim:Aisha wished that she be buried in her house with the  Prophet, peace be upon him, and Abubakr. Then she said, “I INNOVATED AN  HERESY AFTER THE DEATH OF ALLAH’S APOSTLE, PEACE BE UPON HIM. Therefore,  bury me along with his other wives.” Thus, she was buried at al-Baqi.

Al-Hakim says:
هذا حديث صحيح على شرط الشيخين و لم يخرجاه
This hadith is sahih on the conditions of the Two Shaykhs, although they have not recorded it.

Al-Dhahabi says:
على شرط البخاري ومسلم
Sahih upon the conditions of al-Bukhari and Muslim.

To understand the full implications of this, let us read this other  hadith. Imam Ahmad records this hadith in his Musnad  1/122, Number 993:
من أحدث حدثا أو آوى محدثا فعليه لعنة الله والملائكة والناس أجمعين
Whoever innovates a heresy, on him or her is the Curse of Allah, the Angels and ALL mankind.

When the translation done by the religious slanderers  was shown to famous translator Khalid Williams, He replied:

This is not an accurate translation. When an Arab says ahdathtu hadatha, he means ‘I did something I’m not proud of.’ It does not have to mean a new thing or a heresy. Al-Dhahabi says in Siyar that Sayyida Aisha was speaking about the Battle of al-Jamal when she said this, because she sorely regretted it and repented from it, even though at the time she thought she was doing a good thing and had a reasonable explanation for it. The (Shia)translator is taking one possible meaning of the verb ahdatha, ‘to innovate’, and running way too far with it, probably for sectarian reasons. Either way, Sayyida Aisha’s statement is certainly not speaking about heresy or bid’a. Wa Allahu ta’ala A’lam.

Intrestingly, In Sahih Bukhari, al-Bara’ bin `Azib says the exact same thing:

قيت البراء بن عازب رضي الله عنهما ، فقلت : طوبى لك ، صحبت النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم وبايعته تحت الشجرة ، فقال : يا ابن أخي ، إنك لا تدري ما أحدثنا بعده .
Narrated Al-Musaiyab: I met Al-bara bin ‘azib and said (to him). “May you live prosperously! You enjoyed the company of the Prophet and gave him the Pledge of allegiance (of Al-Hudaibiya) under the Tree.” On that, Al-bara’ said, “O my nephew! You do not know what we have done after him (i.e. his death).” (Sahi bukhari Book #59, Hadith #488)

Hafiz Ibn Hajar asqalani explaining this hadeeth stated: The Tabi`i was happy for al-Bara’ bin `Azib because he accompanied the prophet (SAWS) ect.. but al-Bara’ was humble in his answer. As for “You don’t know what we did after him” al-Bara’ means the wars that took place during the Fitnah and he feared from this. [Fath al bari]

So we see that when Sahaba(ra) said these words they didn’t mean they were talking about a new biddah(innovation) or heresy in religion. Rather they were counting their mistakes that lead to the battles. But we know that the this might not suffice the religious slanderers until they get some high voltage shocks. So here is the similar thing which Ali(ra) also said about himself.

قام علي فقال : خير هذه الأمة بعد نبيها أبو بكر وعمر وإنا قد أحدثنا بعدهم أحداثا يقضي الله تعالى فيها ما شاء
الراوي : عبد خير الهمداني المحدث: أحمد شاكر – المصدر: مسند أحمد – الصفحة أو الرقم: 2/182
خلاصة حكم المحدث: إسناده صحيح
Narrated Abd Khayr al-Hamdani :’Ali bin abi Talib (ra) stood up and said: “The best of this nation after its prophet (SAWS) are Abu Bakr and ‘Umar, and we have innovated matters after them that only Allah can judge.”(Musnad Ahmad, 2/182 “Isnad SAHIH”)

خطبنا علي رضي الله عنه على هذا المنبر فحمد الله وأثنى عليه وذكر ما شاء الله أن يذكر وقال : إن خير الناس كان بعد رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أبو بكر ثم عمر رضي الله عنهما ثم أحدثنا بعدهما أحداثا يقضي الله فيها
الراوي: علقمة بن قيس المحدث: أحمد شاكر – المصدر: مسند أحمد – الصفحة أو الرقم: 2/231
خلاصة حكم المحدث: إسناده صحيح
Narrated Alqamah:’Ali bin abi Talib (ra) gave us a sermon on the Mimbar, so he praised Allah and thanked him for his favor, and mentioned what Allah willed for him to mention then said: “The best of the people after the Prophet (SAWS) was Abu Bakr then `Umar may Allah be pleased with both of them, after them we innovated matters in which only Allah can judge. (Musnad Ahmad, 2/231 “Isnad SAHIH”)

So if we apply the same Khawariji logic like the Rafidah, then the same ruling would apply on Ali(ra), which the religious slanderers are trying apply on Ayesha(ra). But the fact is that these words have nothing to do with innovation in religion(bidah), rather these words, both from Ayesha(ra) and Ali(ra) are a form of regret.

It was narrated that Ibn Ma’qil said: “I entered with my father upon ‘Abdullah, and I heard him say: ‘The messenger of Allah (saw) said: “Regret is repentance.” My father said: ‘Did you hear the Prophet (saw) say: “Regret is repentance?” He said: ‘Yes.’”[Sunan ibn Majah, Book 37, Hadith 4393].


Slander 47:

Shia website RTS quoted narrations in which A’isha and Um Salama narrated that the Prophet (pbuh) would get up in the morning, while being in a state of impurity, due to sexual intercourse, he’d then bathe and fast.

RTS argues:

These narrations suggest that during the blessed moth of Ramadhan the Prophet (saw) would sleep after conjugal relation with his wife throughout the night, not offering Tahajjud prayers, nor reciting the Qur’aan, rather he would sleep through the entirety of the night and would in fact awaken in the morning (after Sunrise), would perform the Ghusl and then commence fasting.

There is nothing in the narrations by A’isha that suggests that the Messenger (pbuh) did not perform the night prayers or read the Qur’an prior to engaging in sexual activities. The narration is not, in any way, contradictory to what RTS quotes in Al-Kafi in his article. Nor does the narration state that he woke up after the Fajr (sunrise) period. On the contrary, in one narration in Saheeh Al-Bukhari, we find the exact timing being determined, it states:

كان يدركه الفجر وهو جنب من أهله ثم يغتسل ويصوم

The (time of) Fajr would come upon him, while he was in a state of Janaba due to his family (his wives), he would bathe, and fast. (Saheeh Al-Bukhari, p. 309, Dar Alsalam, 1419, 2nd edition)

RTS also says:

A’isha has ascribed a lie to the holy Prophet (saw) by suggesting he would waken in that state which could me either two things:

A) The Prophet (saw) was fasting read mourning prayers (At this point his fast was closed) then broke his fast by intentionally sleepin with his wive(s) then later performing Ghusul which would mean the Prophet (saw) broke his fast!?


B) The Prophet (saw) would miss night Prayers and Mourning prayers awake in the mourning in the state of Janub then performed Ghusul in the morning?!

A third possibility that wasn’t included by RTS is that he could have had sexual intercourse after his night prayers, then woke up and bathed at sunrise.

It is also strange that RTS quotes this narration, which is also attributed to Um Salama, but then states that it is a fabrication by the brother of A’isha. RTS argues:

In one tradition the brother of A’isha (la) seek to include Umma Salmah (r.a) as a narrator.

Well, firstly, the brother of A’isha is nowhere to be found. The event is narrated by Abdulrahman bin Al-Harith bin Hisham, whose full name is found in the narration itself. It is possible that RTS confused this narrator with Abdulrahman bin Abi Bakr Al-Siddeeq, A’isha’s brother. Either way, Abdulrahman is not the sole narrator of this narration from Um Salama, others have narrated the same from her, like Sulaiman bin Yassar (Saheeh Muslim, p. 496, Dar Al-Ma’rifah, 2007, 2nd edition) Nafi’ (Sunan Ibn Majah, p. 243, Daralsalam, 1420, First edition), and Amir, the brother of Um Salama. (See Musnad Ahmad, 28/287, Dar Al-Hadith, 1416, First edition.) Each and every single one of these narrations is authentic, of course.

In other words, this narration is not specific to A’isha, and was also narrated by Um Salama, who the Shias hold in a positive light.


Slander 48:

Using a report from Sunan Ibn Majah the religious slanderers allege that according to Ayesha(ra) some verses of the Qur’an were lost as they were eaten by a goat. The narration goes as:

عن عائشة قالت لقد نزلت آية الرجم ورضاعة الكبير عشرا ولقد كان في صحيفة تحت سريري فلما مات رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وتشاغلنا بموته دخل داجن فأكلها

Reported ‘Aisha (RA): the verse of stoning and of suckling an adult ten times was revealed, and they were (written) on a paper and kept under my pillow. When the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) expired and we were occupied by his death, a goat entered and ate away the paper. (Sunan Ibn Majah, Hadith 1944)

1- Authenticity of the narration:

Whenever we have a narration we ought to see whether it is authentic or not? The narration infact has some problems.

The particular chain given in Sunan Ibn Majah finds one of the narrators Muhammad bin Ishaq narrating it using the word عن (‘an) which is rather an ambiguous way of narration and renders the narration weak when used by a narrator known for practicing Tadlis [practice of subtly missing a link] and Muhammad Ibn Ishaq is indeed such a narrator. Thus through particular chain of narration in Sunan Ibn Majah the narration is weak and unauthentic due the above mentioned defect though it has other issues as well as mentioned in the lines to follow. This is clarified by Shaykh Muhammad Taqi Usmani in Takmala Fath Al-Mulhim 1/69 pub. Darul Ahya Al-Turath Al-Arabi, Beirut.

In Musnad Ahmad the same narration is given through the same chain but with an explicit way of narration i.e. it does not have the defect like the narration in Ibn Majah’s collection. But the narration is exposed to more criticism because many other narrators have related from ‘Aisha (RA) about the suckling/breastfeeding but no one has narrated the words found in this chain even though the narrators in those cases are more reliable and consistent than Muhammad bin Ishaq. And due to thefact of these words being narrated solely by him and in defiance to other much more reliable narrators, scholars have questioned its authenticity. Shaykh Shu’aib Arnaud has classified it as Da’if in his classification of Musnad Ahmad. [See Musnad Ahmad 6/269 Hadith 26359].

2- The narration no way questions Qur’an infallibility:

Even if the narration were authentic it no way questions the claim of Qur’an being totally preserved and here are my evidences for this;

1- One of the two allegedly lost verses as per this narration was about stoning i.e. punishment of married adulterers. But other narrations prove that a commandment was revealed about stoning but the Holy Prophet (PBUH) did not allow it to be written as a part of the Qur’an implying that it was not meant to be Qur’an integral part. Following narrations testify to this;

a-It is reported in a narration from Kathir bin Salt that: Zaid (b. Thabit) said: ‘I heard the Messenger of Allah say, ‘When a married man or woman commit adultery stone them both (to death)’, (hearing this) Amr said,

فقال عمرو : لما نزلت أتيت النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فقلت : أكتبها ؟ فكأنه كره ذلك
When this was revealed I came to Prophet and asked if I could write it, he (the Prophet) disliked it. (Mustadrik Al-Hakim, Hadith 8184. Hakim called it Sahih)

b- About this ‘verse’ Kathir bin Salt says that he, Zaid bin Thabit and Marwan bin Hakam were discussing as to why it is not written in the Quranic manuscript and Umar bin Khattab was present with them and listening to their discussion he said he knew it better then them and told them that he came to Messenger of Allah and said:

يا رسول الله أكتبني آية الرجم قال فأتيته فذكرته قال فذكر آية الرجم قال فقال يا رسول الله أكتبني آية الرجم قال لا استطيع ذاك

“‘O Messenger of Allah, let the verse about stoning be written for me.’ He (the Prophet) said, ‘I can’t do this.'” (Sunan Al-Kubra Baihiqi 8/211 & Sunan Al-Kubra Nasai Hadith 7148. Albani (in Sahiha 6/412) said Baihiqi pointed to its authenticity)

Had it meant to be a part of the Qur’an why would Holy Prophet (PBUH) dislike its being written and who could stop him from doing it?

2- The second allegedly lost verse was about suckling of an adult ten times but in this case too we have other narrations which categorically say that the verse was abrogated. And interestingly those narrations come through ‘Aisha (RA) only. In Sahih Muslim we read;

عَنْ عَائِشَةَ أَنَّهَا قَالَتْ كَانَ فِيمَا أُنْزِلَ مِنْ الْقُرْآنِ عَشْرُ رَضَعَاتٍ مَعْلُومَاتٍ يُحَرِّمْنَ ثُمَّ نُسِخْنَ بِخَمْسٍ مَعْلُومَاتٍ فَتُوُفِّيَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ وَهُنَّ فِيمَا يُقْرَأُ مِنْ الْقُرْآنِ

‘A’isha (Allah be pleased with, her) reported that it had been revealed in the Holy Qur’an that ten clear sucklings make the marriage unlawful, then it was abrogated (and substituted) by five sucklings … (Sahih Muslim, Hadith 2634)

This narration explicitly says that verse about ten sucklings was abrogated. For further queries about this issue and the narration from Sahih Muslim see THIS.

Having known that neither of them was meant to be part of the Qur’an; even if we accept the narration in question we will have to say that perhaps ‘Aisha (RA) had kept them with her as a historical record and nothing more. Thus even if the goat actually ate them up no part of the Qur’an was lost.

Moreover ‘Aisha (RA) lived through the whole period of Qur’an compilation during the time of Abu Bakr (RA) and Usman (RA) while she was unanimously considered an authority for herself so if she had any thought about some verses missing she would have brought it to attention of other Companions of the Prophet (PBUH). Infact we have evidence of Usman (RA) making special endeavor of consulting ‘Aisha (RA) and her records for verifying the official compilation. See Ibn Shabba’s Tarikh Al-Madina p.997. Despite all this she never raised the issue supporting our conclusion that no part of the Qur’an was lost even if the narration is considered reliable.


Slander 49:

The Imami(Shias) English lecturer, Ammar Nakshawani, presented a classical Shia view on the incident of Ifk. He advocates a prominent classical Imami(shia) view that the relevant verses of Ifk were revealed when the Mary the coptic was accused of adultery by Ayesha(ra), rather than Ayesha(ra) being accused of adultery, and then being defended by Allah(swt). However, most of his lecture is spent weakening the usual Sunni view.


1. The verse says:
إِنَّ الَّذِينَ جَاؤُوا بِالْإِفْكِ عُصْبَةٌ مِّنكُمْ لَا تَحْسَبُوهُ شَرّاً لَّكُم بَلْ هُوَ خَيْرٌ لَّكُمْ لِكُلِّ امْرِئٍ مِّنْهُم مَّا اكْتَسَبَ مِنَ الْإِثْمِ وَالَّذِي تَوَلَّى كِبْرَهُ مِنْهُمْ لَهُ عَذَابٌ عَظِيمٌ
Verily! Those who brought forth the slander  are a group among you. Consider it not a bad thing for you. Nay, it is good for you. Unto every man among them will be paid that which he had earned of the sin, and as for him among them who had the greater share therein, his will be a great torment.

Now Sighah Al-Jam’ (addressing someone in the plural) has only been used for ALLAH in the Qur’an. Like we/us etc. it is the  majestic plural( literally, “the plural of majesty”), is the use of a plural pronoun to refer to a single person holding a high office. Now are the religious slanderers going to tell us that ‘Ayesha(as) held a high position in the sight of Allah hence He(swt) addressed her with “those”?! After all the Shias claim ‘Ayesha(as) accused Maryam the Coptic of Zinah (fornication)! Surah 11-20 of Surah Al-Nur is addressing a group of MUNAFIQS, read it to convince yourself.

2. The Ayat about the incident of Al-Ifk were revealed in the 5th or 6th year after Hijra. Maria Al-Qibtiyyah came to the Prophet (saw) AFTER he had sent invitation letters to Persia, Rome and Egypt. When the letter/invitation of the Messenger reached the Egyptian King, he in return sent MARIA to the Prophet(saw) , this was in the year 7th or 8th.


Verses were revealed in : 5th/6th Hijra
Maria came to the Prophet in : 7th/8th Hijra

We think the calculation and its result is obvious to every sane and rational person except the braindead religious slanderers who potray the household of the Prophet as a house of Fahshaa’ (obscenity), where his wife accuses the other wife of adultery yet the Prophet keeps them all (while possessing the knowledge of the unseen according to the Shia sect).

Regarding the arguments raised by Shia lecturer Ammar Nakshwani then the first is that he never cites his sources. At times, he mentions specifics that we do not find in the narrations. Take for example the part in which he says that Ali was trying to beat a confession out of Buraira. We couldn’t find this.

This is also a problem with his approach on history. He assumes that there is an agreement over everything that he says. For example, he argues that Sa’ad bin Mu’ath died before the event, and that there is a consensus among historians that the event of Al-Ifk happened in the year 6 AH. However, Musa bin Uqbah, whose Tareekh is arguably better than Ibn Ishaaq, suggests that Al-Ifk happened in the year 4 AH. So, there is room for the questioning of historical dates pertaining to these matters and nothing is completely set in stone with the existence of these differences of opinion.

Of course, the biggest issue with Ammar’s lecture is the alternative he gives. If he just stayed quiet it would have been a better lecture. However, instead he quoted Tafseer Al-Qummi, which according to many Shia scholars is a fabricated book and is wrongly attributed to Ali bin Ibrahim Al-Qummi. Of course, the chains are also weak and do not come close to the authenticity of the narration of A’isha or Ibn Abbas.

To argue that Ibn Abbas wasn’t there at the time is a weak argument. There is no reason to believe that because he didn’t witness these actions that he assumed wrong for a total of 50+ years without clarifying with other witnesses. Thus (as usual) it is the Ahl Al-Bayt, the Bani Hashimis who refute the slanders of the religious slanderers like Ammar Nakhswani:

From ‘Abdullah Ibn ‘Ubayd who said: “Ibn Abbas (Bani Hashimi of the Ahl Al-Bayt) sought permission to enter upon Aaisha during her sickness which she died from. So she refused. And he continued to persistand seek permission until she agreed for him to enter. He entered and heard her saying:’I seek refuge by Allah from the fire.’He – Ibn Abbas – said: ‘ O Mother of the Believers, indeed Allah, the Most Glorious, The Most Mighty has exempted you from the fire. You are the first women whose excuse was revealed from the heavens”.
[No. 1636, Fadha’il Al-Sahabah by Imam Ahmad :Rehmaullah: with the checking of Shaykh Al-Muhaddith Wasiyullah al-‘Abbas Al-Hindi who said it is Sahih.]

Confusion in regards to some narrators:

One Shubha by Ammar Nakhswani is in regards to a certain Sahabi who has been mentioned in the famous Al-Ifk narration:

«يَامَعْشَرَ الْمُسْلِمِينَ مَنْ يَعْذِرُنِي مِنْ رَجُلٍ قَدْ بَلَغَنِي أَذَاهُ فِي أَهْلِ بَيْتِي، فَوَاللهِ مَا عَلِمْتُ عَلَى أَهْلِي إِلَّا خَيْرًا، وَلَقَدْ ذَكَرُوا رَجُلًا مَا عَلِمْتُ عَلَيْهِ إِلَّا خَيْرًا، وَمَا كَانَ يَدْخُلُ عَلَى أَهْلِي إِلَّا مَعِي»
فقام سعد بن معاذ الأنصاري فقال أنا أعذرك منه يا رسول الله إن كان من الأوس ضربنا عنقه وإن كان من إخواننا الخزرج أمرتنا ففعلنا أمرك

“… so Allah’s Messenger got up (and addressed) the people (after Aisha had been accused of adultery by the HYPOCRITES) and asked for somebody who would take revenge on Abdullah Ibn Ubay Ibn Salool. Allah’s Apostle, while on the pulpit, said, “Who will relieve me from a man who has hurt me by slandering my AHL AL-BAYT? By Allah, I know nothing EXCEPT good about my Ahl (family)“.[…] so (Saad Ibn) Muaadh stood up and said: Allah’s Messenger, I defend your honour against him. If he belong to the tribe of Aus we would strike his neck and if he belongs to the tribe of our brother Khazraj and you order us we would comply with your order […][Sahih Muslim, Book 037, Number 6673]

Nakhswani makes a big deal out of the mistakes in the narration by stating that the Sahabi Saad Ibn Muaadh was dead long time before, to be precice, he was dead after the battle of Khandaq which was in 5AH, according the majority of Sunni historians, hence Saad Ibn Muaadh was not alive when the incident of Al-Ifk 5/6AH occured, for the incident of Al-Ifk was after the Ghazwa of Bani Mustalaq (which was AFTER the battle of Khandaq were Muaadh died!). How can then Saad Ibn Muadh be mentioned in the narration (NOTE, he is NOT a narrator!)


The Hadith in Bukhari and Muslim (actually a RIWAYAH/NARRATION, since it is not a saying of the Prophet) is a very long Hadith, and mistakes do happen in these kinds of narrations. It is also interesting to note that the problem with such contradictions in the narration seems to go back to the fact that it is narrated by several tabi’een who heard it from A’isha. Al-Zuhri narrates this hadith through all of them together without differentiating each narration from each other. It seems that this is one of the reasons why the scholars didn’t isolate a certain narrator as the person that made the mistake. However, the problem lies most probably in Alqama bin Waqqas, since we haven’t seen any other narrations that mention Saad bin Muadh except for the ones that he is in.

Long Hadith, with lots of details, are a difficult task in terms of memorisation, even for people with a strong Hifdh (memory) it is problematic, so these mistakes do happen but certainly do not change the major issues of an event/incident i.e. in our case the fact that without a shred of doubt Aisha was the one being accused and the fact that the ayahs about the innocence of the one being accused were definately revealed  (acc. to all major and notable historians) before MARIA could have ever become the Prophet’s wife i.e. they were revealed for the Mother of the Believers Aisha. Most importantly, none of these contradictions imply any form of foul play. These are mistakes at best.

Ibn Ishaq mentions the incident and clarifies the issue about Saad Ibn Muadh:

. وقال محمد بن إسحاق إن غزوة بني المصطلق كانت في سنة ست بعد الخندق وذكر فيها حديث الإفك إلا أنه قال عن الزهري عن عبيد الله بن عبد الله بن عتبة عن عائشة فذكر الحديث .فقال فقام أسيد بن الحضير فقال أنا أعذرك منه فرد عليه سعد بن عبادة ولم يذكر سعد بن معاذ . قال أبو محمد بن حزم : وهذا هو الصحيح الذي لا شك فيه وذكر سعد بن معاذ وهم لأن سعد بن معاذ مات إثر فتح بني قريظة بلا شك وكانت في آخر ذي القعدة من السنة الرابعة وغزوة بني المصطلق في شعبان من السنة السادسة بعد سنة وثمانية أشهر من موت سعد وكانت المقاولة بين الرجلين المذكورين بعد الرجوع من غزوة بني المصطلق بأزيد من خمسين ليلة .


Ibn Ishaaq (like the absolute majority) mentions that the incident of Al-Ifk happened in the year 6AH, after the battle of Khandaq, he also mentions the Hadith of Al-Ifk, with a slight but important difference than in the Sahihayn:

[…] so Asyad Ibn Al-Hudhayr (instead of Saad Ibn Mu’adh) stood up and said: Allah’s Messenger, I defend your honour against him […]

As we can see, he did not mentioned Saad Ibn Muaadh and Ibn Hazm agreed with him, this is (as explained before) because Saad Ibn Muaadh had passed away (at least) a year ago.

Also remember that the only narration mentioning Saad Ibn Muaadh is the narration of where Alqama Ibn Waqqas is in the chain, so he most propably made the mistake.

Nasibis in the chain?

Another lie by Ammar Nakshwani was that he says at min. 26:00 in his lecture, that Saeed Ibn Al-Musayyib (the major Tabi’i, also known as the leader of the Tabi’is!) didn’t give a damn about Zayn Al-Abidin and when being asked if he attends (Ali Ibn Al-Hussein) Zayn Al-Abidin’s funeral, he replied that two mustahhab Rak’a are more beloved to him than praying for Zayn Al-Abidin. Saeed Ibn Al-Musayyib is one of the Tabi’i narrators of the incident of Al-Ifk, so this deceptive lecturer tries to say that he is unreliable (!)


Shias themselves doubt the authenticity of the above (i.e. what Nakhshawani said about Saeed Ibn Al-Musayyab):
فإن كتاب الأركان وإن ذكره النجاشي والشيخ في كتب
الشيخ المفيد إلا أنه ليس من كتبه المعروفة، ومن ثم لم يصل إلى الشيخ المجلسي
ولا إلى صاحب الوسائل ولا إلى الشيخ النوري (قدس الله أسرارهم) مع
حرصهم الشديد على تتبع الكتب والرواية عنها، إذن لم يثبت أن طريق الشهيد

Now the truth is: Shias in their own text and websites portray Saeeb Ibn Al-Musayyib in a good light:

A young man from Quraysh was sitting in an assembly with Sa’id b. al-Musayyib and saw Ali b. al-Husayn, peace be on them. “Who is that, Abu Muhammad?” the Qurash; asked Sa’id b. al- Musayyib. “That is the lord of worshippers (abidin), Ali b. al-Husayn b. Ali b. Abi Talib, peace be on them,” he answered.[Source] [Screen shot]

Allah exposed them at their own hands! Most of Imam Zayn ul `Aabideen’s(rah) narrations are from Sayyidina Abu Hurayrah(ra) and Sa’eed ibn al-Musayyib(rah). They did not even let political rivalries impede their persuit of knowledge.

It has been reported in SUNNI AND SHIA books that Saeed Ibn Al-Musayyib said about Zayn Al-Abidin:
قال سعيد بن المسيب: ما رأيت أورع منه.
“I have not seen anyone more pious than him”!

Even Shias scholars use this quote, “Ayatullah” Al-Milani quotes the same saying above on his website!.

قال ابن المسيب: «ما رأيت أورع منه»

اسعاف الراغبين بهامش نور الأبصار ص218.


It was narrated from Salih ibn Hassan that a man said to Said ibn Mussaib: “I haven’t seen anyone more godfearing that such and such”. He asked: “Have you seen Ali ibn al-Hussain?” He answered negative. Said said to him: “You didn’t seen anyone more godfearing than him” (“Sifatus saffa” p 417.)

Al-Zuhri (also Tabi’i) (d. 124/742) was a well known jurist and traditionist and is credited with being the first to call the Imam by the title ‘Zayn al-‘Abidin’.

But unfortunately the problem is that no Shia that watches the stuff of Lecturer Ammar Nakshwani will question what he said because of his deceitful tricks. Nakshawani did build up credibility through two tactics. The first was by giving very detailed information. This happened on 6 AH. That happened on 8 AH. This person was a Muhajir not an Ansari. These specifics build up his credibility, because it makes it seem as though he knows what he is talking about. The second tactic is that he wouldn’t give a specific source. Instead, he would say, “Check ANY Shia or Sunni source!” or “All historians agree!!”

The latter is a great deceitful tactic by Ammar because it prevents anyone from refuting him, because nobody is going to go through all the sources. However, the objective observer may be aware of this and will question his material.

Lastly, we would like to quoted Esteemed Shia al-`Allamah al-Helli who defends `Aisha(as) from Shia slander

A Big Shia scholar ibn al-Mutahhar al-Helli responds to some questions in his book “Ajwibat al-Masa’el al-Muhana’iyyah” ” أجوبة المسائل المهنائية” pg121-122, issue #14:

He was asked:

“ما يقول سيدنا في قصة الإفك والآيات التي نزلت ببراءة المقذوفة ، هل ذلك عند أصحابنا كان في عائشة أم نقلوا أن ذلك كان في غيرها من زوجات النبي صلى اللَّه عليه وآله”
“What does our Master(Sayyid) say about the story of Ifk and the verses that were revealed to prove the innocence of the woman? do our companions(Shia) consider them to be revealed regarding `Aisha, or did they report that it was aimed at another wife of the Prophet (SAWS)?”

He(al-Helli) answered:

“ما عرفت لأحد من العلماء خلافا في أن المراد بها عائشة”
“I do not know of any scholar who disagrees about them being revealed regarding `Aisha.”

Then he was asked:

“ما يقول سيدنا في عصمة نساء الأنبياء عليهم السلام ، هل هي واجبة في حقهن فلا يجوز ذلك عليهن أم يجوز ذلك ولم يقع منهن ، إذ لو كان لا يجوز عليهن لكان رسول اللَّه صلى اللَّه عليه وآله لما قذفت زوجته أخبر بأن ذلك لا يجوز عليها ، ولكنه عليه السلام بقي أياما والناس يخوضون في ذلك حتى نزل الوحي ببراءتها”
“What does our Master(Sayyid) say about the infallibility of the wives of the Prophets (SAWS)? is it necessary for them so it’s not possible for them to do it (Zinah)? or is it that they aren’t infallible but they never did it (Zinah)? because if it wasn’t possible then  the prophet (SAWS) would have told the ones who accused her of it that it wasn’t possible, instead he (SAWS) waited for days while people talked about it until Allah revealed the verses to prove her innocence.”

He answered:

” لم يشترط أحد من العلماء عصمة النساء اللواتي للأنبياء عليهم السلام عن الزنا ، لكن اللائق بعصمة النبوة نزاهتهن عن ذلك وسلامتهن منه ، ولم يقع من واحدة منهن ذلك “
“None of the scholars placed the infallibility of the wives of the Prophets from Zinah as a condition, but what is fitting for the infallibility of Prophethood is that their wives are elevated above such matters and none of them committed such acts.


Slander 50:

The spiritual son of Abdullah Ibn Saba al-Yahoodi(la) – Yasser al-Habib(May Allah’s curse be upon him) states:

Enemies of Islam – be they Christians, Jews or other groups have often used the matter of the Prophet’s marriage (Allah’s Peace and Blessings upon Him and His pure Family) to A’isha as a weapon against this Great Prophet (Allah’s Peace and Blessings upon Him and His pure Family). They rely on that which was spread by A’isha about her having been married off to the Prophet (Allah’s Peace and Blessings upon Him and His pure Family) when she was a girl of six and that he consummated his marriage to her when she was a girl of only nine. They say: “Look at how this old man married an innocent little girl young enough to be his granddaughter when he was over fifty years old! How could he live with himself taking away her childhood to satisfy his own needs? What sort of a Prophet is this who does something so inhumane?”

In spite of the fact that the account of the Prophet’s marriage (Allah’s Peace and Blessings upon Him and His pure Family) to A’isha when she was a child is not told by anyone else but A’isha herself – we find no hadith nabawi or any other hadith from a reliable source about it – the enemies of Islam continue to spread these lies dreamt up by A’isha without any proper historical research. They just rely on the accounts to be found in the Bakri sect’s sources.

Throughout history (until recently when the Rafidi got influenced with the orientalists) none of the kuffar ever accuse the Prophet (saws) of being pedophiles والعياذ بالله. Dr. Jonathan Brown has explained this in simple terms. Even the Rafidah, despite their hatred and all sorts of attack against the Sunnis have never attacked the Sunni hadith about the Prophet (saws) having consummated the marriage between him and the mother of the Believers ‘Aisha(as) when she was nine years old. None of their classical scholars ever attacked Sunnis for such a believe, not even Baqir Al-Majlisi and his likes. Why is that? Well, because according to Rafidi fiqh itself one can consummate a marriage (have sexual intercourse) with ANY woman (wife) who reaches puberty, even if she is nine years old.

Shia reports supporting the Sunni view that a woman can marry at the age of 9-10 years:

(i). Shia have a clear cut Sahih narration by the son of Ja’far Al-Sadiq who reported what Sunnis have reported, we read:

نَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ ص دَخَلَ بِعَائِشَةَ وَ هِيَ بِنْتُ عَشْرِ سِنِينَ وَ لَيْسَ يُدْخَلُ بِالْجَارِيَةِ حَتَّى تَكُونَ امْرَأَةً
“The Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله entered upon (had sexual intercourse with) `Aa’ishah when she was 10 years old, and that one doesn’t enter (upon) a jaariyah (girl) until she became a woman.”
1.       Al-Kulayni, Al-Kaafi, vol.7, pg. 388, hadeeth # 1
2.       Al-Toosi, Tahdheeb Al-aHkaam, vol. 6, ch. 91, pg. 251, hadeeth # 49
3.       Al-`Aamilee, Wasaa’il Al-Shee`ah, vol. 1, ch. 4, pg. 44, hadeeth # 75
1.       Al-Majlisi said this hadeeth is SaHeeH
è  Mir’aat Al-`Uqool, vol. 24, pg. 235
2.       Al-Majlisi said this hadeeth is SaHeeH Mawqoof (Authentic Halted)
è Milaadh Al-Akhyaar, vol. 10, pg. 102.

(ii). We read in other Shia reports:

الخصال ص421 والوسائل ج20 ص104 ومستدرك الوسائل ج1 ص86/87

ما رواه محمد بن أبي عمير عن غير واحد، عن الإمام الصادق (عليه السلام): حدّ بلوغ المرأة تسع سنين

Ibn Abi Umayr from a person from al-Sadiq who said The bulugh of a woman is at nine.

(iii). The Muwathaqa of Ibn Sinan – Wasail Shia Vol.13 Chapter 44 Hadith 12

قال: إذا بلغ الغلام ثلاث عشرة سنة كتبت له الحسنة، وكتبت عليه السيئة، وعوقب، وإذا بلغت الجارية تسع سنين فكذلك، وذلك أنها تحيض لتسع سنين

He (a.s) said : when the boy reaches 13 years of age the good and the bad deeds are recorded for him and similar when the girl reaches 9 years of age and that is because she menstruates at nine.

(iv). Some more reliable shia hadiths from Wasail ash-Shi`a, vol 1, muqaddima al-`ibada, chapter 4:

وعن محمد بن يحيى، عن أحمد بن محمد، عن ابن محبوب، عن عبد العزيز العبدي، عن حمزة بن حمران، عن حمران قال: سألت أبا جعفر ( عليه السلام )، قلت له: متى يجب على الغلام أن يؤخذ بالحدود التامة، وتقام عليه، ويؤخذ بها؟ قال: إذا خرج عنه اليتم وأدرك، قلت: فلذلك حد يعرف به؟ فقال: إذا احتلم، أو بلغ خمس عشرة سنة، أو أشعر أو أنبت قبل ذلك، أقيمت عليه الحدود التامة، وأخذ بها وأخذت له، قلت: فالجارية، متى تجب عليها الحدود التامة، وتؤخذ بها، ويؤخذ لها ؟ قال: إن الجارية ليست مثل الغلام، إن الجارية إذا تزوجت، ودخل بها ولها تسع سنين ذهب عنها اليتم، ودفع إليها مالها، وجاز أمرها في الشراء والبيع، وأقيمت عليها الحدود التامّة، وأخذ لها بها، قال: والغلام لا يجوز أمره في الشراء والبيع، ولا يخرج من اليتم، حتى يبلغ خمس عشرة سنة، أو يحتلم أو يشعر أو ينبت قبل ذلك

ورواه محمد بن إدريس في آخر ( السرائر ) نقلا من كتاب ( المشيخة ) للحسن بن محبوب، مثله، إلا أنه أسقط قوله: عن حمران)

From Muhammad b. Yahya from Ahmad b. Muhammad from Ibn Mahbub from `Abd al-`Aziz al-`Abdi from Hamza b. Hamran from Hamran.  He said:  I asked Abu Ja`far (as).  I said to him: When is it obligatory for a boy to take to the hudud completely, (that it be) established upon him, and that he be taken by it (?).  He said: When the state of orphanhood (al-yatm) leaves and he reaches maturity.  I said: Is there something by which this limit is known?  So he said: When he has a nocturnal emission, or he reaches fifteen years, or  he grow hair or grow pubic hair prior to that, the hudud are established upon him completely, he is taken by them, and they are taken for him.  I said:  So the girl, when does the hudud become obligatory upon her completely, she is taken by them, and they are taken for her?  He said:  The girl is not like the boy.  Verily, the girl when she marries and is entered upon (i.e. has sexual intercourse) and she is nine years old, the state of orphanhood leaves her, her property is given to her, her command is allowed in buying and selling, and the hudud are established upon her completely, and they are taken for her.   He said:  As to the boy, his command is not allowed in buying and selling, the state of orphanhood does not leave him until he reaches fifteen years, or he has a nocturnal emission, or he grows hair or he grows pubic hair prior to that.

(v). Some more reliable hadith from Wasa’il ash-Shi`a, Book of Marriage, Chapters 12 ( باب عدم جواز التمتع بالبنت قبل البلوغ بغير ولي)

[ 26462 ] 2 ـ وعنه ، عن أبيه ، عن ابن أبي عمير ، عن رجل ، عن أبي عبدالله ( عليه السلام ) قال : قلت : الجارية ابنة كم لا تستصبى ؟ أبنت ست أو سبع ؟ فقال : لا ، ابنة تسع لا تستصبى ، وأجمعوا كلهم على أن ابنة تسع لا تستصبى إلا أيكون في عقلها ضعف ، وإلا فإذا بلغت تسعا فقد بلغت .

And from him from his father from Ibn Abi `Umayr from a man from Abu `Abdillah عليه السلام.  He said: I said: The girl, at which age does she not a child?  A girl of six or seven?  So he said: No.  A girl of nine is not a child. And all of them concur that a girl of nine is not a child except that there be in her intellect a weakness, otherwise when she has reached nine she has become baligh.

Age of Fatima(ra) when she got married to Ali(ra):

ابن المسيب عن الإمام زين العابدين (عليه السلام)  قال: (( فقلت لعلي بن الحسين: فمتى زوج رسول الله فاطمة من علي؟ فقال: بالمدينة بعد الهجرة بسنة وكان لها يومئذ تسع سنين. (الكافي: 8/338.
Zayn Al-‘Abidin (AS) was asked: “When did the Prophet married Fatimah to Ali?” He answered: “In Madinah, one year after the Hijrah when she was nine years old.” – [Al-Kafi, 8/338]

Shia Shaykh Ali al-Namazi al-Shahrudi [Rafidi] said:
وكان تزويجها في السنة الأولى من الهجرة، وكان لها يومئذ تسع سنين
She was married a year after the migration, and she was nine years at that time.
Reference : Mustadrak Safinatul Bahar, Vol. 8, p. 247

Shia Shaykh Najah al-Tayi said

تزوج علي (عليه السلام) وعمره خمس وعشرون سنة وتزوجته فاطمة (عليها السلام) وعمرها تسع سنين

Ali married Fatima when he was 15 years old, and Fatima was nine years old. [Reference : Azwaj al-Nabi wa-Banatuh, p. 40]

Shia Ayatullah Ali Dawani said

Fatima Zahra (a.s) was only nine at the time of marriage. It must be remembered here that Hijaz is one of the warm climatic zones where girls gain puberty rather early. But it is said that principally, Zahra’s development was rather extraordinary and she looked eighteen when she was nine.[Reference : Portraits of Youths in Quran and the History of Islam, p. 156]

Now lets move to shia scholars view on the marriage age of women:

1. Sheikh As-Saduq narrated it by his isnad from Muhammad b. Yahya al-Khath`ami from Muhammad b. Muslim.

أقول : وتقدممايدلعلىذلكفيأولياءالعقد،ولعلالمرادبعشرسنينالدخولفيالعاشرة .

I say: And there has preceded what indicates upon that in the (chapters of) the awliya of the `aqd.  And perhaps the meaning of ten years is entrance in the tenth.

2. Ayatullah Khoei says that it is not permissible to have sex with girls under nine years of age (and hence permissible afterwards) and refers to these ahadith as evidence:

منها : صحيحة الحلبي عن أبي عبدالله (عليه السلام) ، قال : «إذا تزوّج الرجل الجارية وهي صغيرة ، فلا يدخل بها حتى يأتي لها تسع سنين» (1) .

ومنها : موثَّقة زرارة عن أبي جعفر (عليه السلام) ، قال : «لا يدخل بالجارية حتى يأتي لها تسع سنين أو عشر سنين» (2) . وحيث إنّ الترديد في الحدّ أمر غير معقول فلا بدّ من حمل الحد الثاني على الأفضلية لا محالة .

ومنها : معتبرة غياث بن إبراهيم عن جعفر عن أبيه عن علي (عليهم السلام)، قال: «لا توطأ جارية لأقلّ من عشر سنين ، فإنْ فعل فعيبت فقد ضمن» (3


The first hadith is Sahih, second muwaththaq, and third mu`tabar according to Sayyid Khoei.

3. Here is a selection from the three Q/A articles I translated from Ayatollah Muhammad Ibrahim Jannaati that Allama al-hilli believe:

Question: What are the signs of sexual puberty according to the Shi`ah jurists?

Answer: From early times the Shi`ah jurists had ikhtilaf on this issue.

علامه حلى بلوغ را منوط به احتلام، رويش موى زبر و خشن بر عانه و رسيدن به نه سالگى در دختران و پانزده سالگى در پسران دانسته است، كه اين نظريه بين فقها مشهور است؛

Allamah al-Hilli viewed sexual maturity depending on ihtilam, the growth of rough and coarse hair in the pubic region and the reaching of 9 years of age for females and 15 years of age for males. This view is that which is mash’hoor amongst the jurists.

3. On Ayatollah Sayyid Fadlullah wesbite we read:

Q: Is it morally and traditionally permissible for a man of 32 to marry of woman who is barely 17 years old?

A: Why not: The prophet(p.), our role model, married Aisha when she wad 10 years old while he was 53 years. If both parties accept the marriage than there is nothing wrong with it.” [Screen shot]

[Source (Under the section of AGE)]

4. Also Murtadha Askari a Shia historian said that Aisha(as) was married at the age of 9.5-10. [Screen shot]

Comment: So it is clear from above shia hadiths and view of shia scholars that the age of Aisha(ra)’s marriage with prophet(pbuh) was not illegal in any case. As we can see even many of contemporary Shia scholars did not attack the Sunni belief because it is actually an old Shia belief or at least a respected view hold by most of them. But some of the children of Abdullah Ibn Saba(la) just want single narration to curse ummul-mominin hazrat Ayesha-AS) no matter she is related with emotions of prophet(pbuh) or not. For more details in regards to the age of Ayesha(ra) during her marriage, please refer this article. [Why Prophet Muhammad married Aisha when she was only 9?]


Slander 51

A Rafidi stated:

Let’s take another look at the “merits” of Aisha. Here, we see that despite how Aisha herself says that the prophet never beat anyone, she herself says that she used to beat orphans till they submitted to her, clearly going against the prophet once again.

Shumaysa al-‘Atakiyya said, “The disciplining of orphans was mentioned in the presence of ‘A’isha and she said, ‘I would beat an orphan until he submits.'” [Al-Adab Al-Mufrad 142 : Sahih as per al-Albani]

The Rafidi fool doesn’t know of Ahadith from The Prophet(S) mentioning disciplining orphans under your care by striking them just as you strike your child. Also, The Prophet(S) has said to strike a children of 10 for Salah.

Narrated As-Saburah: The Prophet (SAWS) said: Command a boy to pray when he reaches the age of seven years. When he becomes ten years old, then beat him for prayer. [Sunan Abi Dawud #494 : Hasan Sahih as per al-Albani]

Narrated Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al-‘As: The Messenger of Allah(SAWS) said: Command your children to pray when they become seven years old, and beat them for it (prayer) when they become ten years old; and arrange their beds (to sleep) separately. [Sunan Abi Dawud #495: Hasan Sahih as per al-Albani].



Any unbiased person can see that the accusations levied against Mother of believers, Aisha(as) by the Shias are worse than those levied against her by the Munafiqoon(hypocrites) in the incident of al-Ifk. The latter only accused Aisha(as) of Fisq (i.e. Zinnah is not Kufr), but some of the Shias have even gone to the extent of  accusing her of Kufr.

No believer should feel comfortable slandering a woman who was specifically defended in the Quran by Allah Almighty, a person whom the Quran warns against slandering in the strictest of tones, declaring those who do so to be unbelievers. During the incident of al-Ifk, the Prophet(saw) publically denounced the Munafiqoon and said that he knew nothing bad about his family; so why then do the Shias insult the Prophetic family by speaking ill of them, even when the Quran and Hadith both exonerate Aisha(as)?

The Prophet(saw) was actually extremely sensitive about his wives, and Allah thus warned the believers about hurting them. His wives were considered so precious that Allah instructed the believers to talk to them from behind a screen and He also forbade anyone from marrying them after the Prophet’s death. So if the Prophet (saw) was so sensitive about his wives, then we can only guess at what his response would be towards those Shias alive today who malign them. Indeed, if the Prophet(saw) were alive today, he would defend Aisha(as) and refute the malicious lies levied against her.

If Shias want to continue following the Sunnah of Hypocrites and of enemies of Islam by Slandering the mothers of belivers, then we want to warn them that the Sons of Ummahat-ul-Momineen are still there to defend their mothers from the attacks of  such hypocrites and enemies of Islam and also of  Prophet(saw). And we are thankful to Allah for choosing us to defend the noble wives of Prophet(saw), since defending the wives of Muhammad(Saw) is from the Sunnah of Allah(swt) and also of our beloved Prophet(Saw).

Article by Sons of Ummahat-ul-Momineen(as)

12 thoughts on “Part 1: Defence of Ahlelbayt[wives of Prophet/mothers of believers] from the Religious Slanderers

  1. Brother Slave of Alllah ,, didi you touch about the hadith of abi daud in which is in bab raza al kabir , about aisha make people apear with milk of her sisters etc please chek it ,,,, currently i m debating on it

  2. Good article. I think you forgot the hadeeth about a got eating the Quraan – shias often accuse the sunnis of believing in Tahreef al-Quraan because os that.

  3. The “Suckle him” Hadith – In Context


    This hadith is frequently cited to object to Islam is as follows:

    Zainab daughter of Abu Salama reported: I heard Umm Salama, the wife of Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon himy, saying to ‘A’isha: By Allah, I do not like to be seen by a young boy who has passed the period of fosterage, whereupon she (‘A’isha) said: Why is it so? Sahla daughter of Suhail came to Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) and said: Allah’s Messenger, I swear by Allah that I see in the face of Abu Hudhaifa (the signs of disgust) on account of entering of Salim (in the house), whereupon Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) said: Suckle him. She (Sahla bint Suhail) said: He has a heard. But he (again) said: Suckle him, and it would remove what is there (expression of disgust) on the face of Abu Hudhaifa. She said: (I did that) and, by Allah, I did not see (any sign of disgust) on the face of Abu Hudhaifa.

    Sahih Muslim 1453

    This article will address this objection and be divided into the following sections:

    Other narrations.

    No physical contact.

    How and why it was a specific case.




    There are a few narrations related to this matter in Sahih Muslim and other collections, one of which is as follows:

    ‘A’isha -Allah be pleased with her- reported that Sahla bint Suhail b. ‘Amr came to Allah’s Messenger –may Allah bless him- and said: Messenger of Allah, Salim (the freed slave of Abu Hudhaifa) is living with us in our house, and he has attained (puberty) as men attain it and has acquired knowledge (of the sex problems) as men acquire, whereupon he said: Feed him (i.e. make him drink your milk) so that he may become unlawful (in regard to marriage)

    Sahih Muslim 2636

    In another narration, we read:

    Feed him, and it would remove what is there (expression of disgust) on the face of Abu Hudhaifa. She said: (I did that) and, by Allah, I did not see (any sign of disgust) on the face of Abu Hudhaifa.

    Sahih Muslim 2638

    The same is reported in other books of hadith as well, including the Muwatta of Imam Malik (1113).

    No Physical Contact

    The first thing that must be clarified is that there was no physical contact between Sahla bin Suhail (RA) and Salim (RA). It is also important to point out that, ironically, this is the complete opposite of a sexual act by nature of its purpose, as suckling a women necessarily means it is unlawful to marry them. If someone wanted to get married to fulfill their sexual desires, the last thing they would want to do is suckle their prospective bride and become their son. Any form of sexual deviances following suckling would be punishable in an Islamic court and would result, at the very least, in a lashing. However, as will be demonstrated below, to do such a thing would be impermissible in the first place.

    Meaning of the Arabic Word أَرْضِعِيهِ

    The hadith actually uses the word أَرْضِعِيهِ to show what the Prophet ﷺ asked Sahla (RA) to do. The word is a derivative of رضاع (rada) and it doesn’t necessarily mean suckling (i.e. drinking from the breasts). In Arabic it is perfectly valid to say, as it appears in the classical Arabic lexicographic dictionary, Tajul ‘Uroos (1/7848) (and it is often used otherwise as well) to say:

    رضع (من) ثدي أمه

    He did rada (from the) breasts of his mother.

    So the basic, original meaning of rada cannot be “suckling”, instead, it must be “feeding.” Had it been “suckling” there would be no need to add, “from the breasts…”. The real meaning is “feeding” and the context or explicit information alone can clarify if it means, “suckling” i.e. “feeding from the breasts” or if it was some other way. While one might share another definition of the term given by someone else, the definition above is from a famous classical lexicographical work in Arabic, and, thereby, cannot be fallaciously dismissed.


    The internal context in the narrations themselves do not unequivocally mention that he was breastfed, in other words, they don’t mention direct mouth to breast contact, this a major problem for those arguing that it was.

    Qadi Iyad (the famous author of the masterpiece Kitab Ash-Shifa bi Ta’rif Huquq al-Mustafa) said:

    It is possible that she (Sahla) poured (her milk) and then he (Salim) drank it without having to touch her breast.

    Imam al-Nawawi said:

    It is a fair possibility.

    Fath al-Bari 14/346

    Infact, one narration gives us the explicit answer; we read:

    Muhammad bin ‘Umar (al-Waqidi) told us: Muhammad bin ‘Abdullah, al-Zuhri’s nephew, told us on authority of his father that he said, “An amount of a drink milk was collected in a pot or a glass, and Salim used to drink it every day, for five days. After this, he used to enter upon her while her head was uncovered. This was by permission from the Messenger of Allah to Sahla bint Suhail.”

    Ibn Sa’d’s Tabaqat al-Kubra 8/271, Quoted by Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani in al-Isabah 4/11

    What is cited as an objection to this report (one of the narrators) is not actually a problem. [1]

    That this event took place following the revelation of the verse of hijab is also very strong evidence that there was no direct feeding. The breasts of a women are considered as part of her awrah, which would mean that he would have seen her breasts which is by itself absolutely forbidden let alone suckling directly from them. Therefore, we can ascertain from this that she had to have put the milk in a cup. At this point, someone might object and say that Salim (RA) drinking from the breast is a concession given by the Prophet ﷺ and that the Prophet ﷺ granted concessions. Such a response is guilty of circular reasoning as it presupposes that the feeding was intended to be direct first place, without any evidence whatsoever. It is simply being assumed and then forced onto the text with the evidence contradicting it being reinterpreted in light of the assumption; thus it is guilty of circular reasoning. Furthermore, concessions are given based on necessity but there is no necessity for it to be direct feeding. Simply put, this objection makes no sense.

    Just as the purpose of feeding can be used to show that it was not a sexual act, it can also be cited to demonstrate that there was no physical contact as well because suckling directly from the breast would defeat its purpose. It would be akin to praying all-night during Ramadan, which is optional, but then missing the obligatory prayer in the morning; or attempting to rid the world of suffering by killing all creatures capable of feeling it. More on this point will be discussed below when we look at the background.

    How and Why it Was a Specific Case

    Save for Aisha (RA), all the Wives of the Prophet (may Allah be pleased with them all) maintained that it was a special case and that the same cannot be extended to anyone else.

    Umm Salama, the wife of Allah’s Apostle (ﷺ), used to say that all wives of Allah’s Apostle (ﷺ) disclaimed the idea that one with this type of fosterage (having been suckled after the proper period) should come to them. and said to ‘A’isha: By Allah, we do not find this but a sort of concession given by Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) only for Salim, and no one was ging to be allowed to enter (our houses) with this type of fosterage and we do not subscribe to this view.

    Sahih Muslim 1454

    This is so because the general principle goes as;

    Narrated Aisha: Foster relationship is established only when milk is the only food of the child.

    Sahih Bukhari 4712

    Imam al-Nawawi writes:

    And all the scholars from amongst the Companions and the Successors and scholars of all regions to this day have said, ‘Foster relation is not proved if it after two years.’

    Sharh Sahih Muslim 5/182

    This is an agreed upon opinion. Those who are said to have differed also include Imam Abu Hanifa and Imam Malik but even they did not hold that someone reaching puberty can be suckled, they only added few months to the period just after the two years.

    So, among the companions the opinion of Aisha (RA) is weak as the rest of the companions, including the other Wives of the Prophet (may Allah be pleased with them all) disagreed with her and held that it was a special relaxation for Salim (RA). One might argue that Aisha (RA) was the closest wife of the Prophet ﷺ and thereby her opinion takes precedent. This is not necessarily the case as it must be demonstrated why the vast majority of companions, including the other wives, who also spent time a great of time with the Prophet ﷺ, and, collectively, much more than Aisha (RA), did not maintain this position and clearly disagreed.

    And among the later scholars, it was rare to find one allowing it, while the overwhelming majority of the scholars held the same opinion as the majority of the companions did. Mufti al-Kawthari basically says this as well, he writes:

    Due to the above narrations, all four Sunni schools of Islamic law are in agreement that suckling and breastfeeding will only be considered (i.e. in effecting the rules of marriage and Hijab) if it takes place in the period designated for it, and it is of no significance after that period…

    Imam Abu al-Abbas al-Qurtubi (Allah have mercy on him) states that all of the Prophet’s wives with the exception of A’isha (Allah be pleased with them all) considered this to be a special dispensation, and this is the view taken by the majority of early (salaf) and late (khalaf) scholars. They considered the Hadith to be specific with Salim and Sahla, and are of the opinion that it is not permitted for an adult to drink breast-milk. If an adult did drink breast-milk, it will be of no consequence with regards to marriage and the rules of Hijab. (See: al-Mufhim, 4/186-187 & I’la al-Sunan, 11/119)

    Dar al-Ifta: Institute of Islamic Jurisprudence

    It may also very well be the case that Aisha (RA) changed her opinion later on as the following hadith indicates:

    Shu’ba told us, from al-Hakam: I heard Qais bin Abi Hazim and Aba al-Sha’tha’, from Aisha (RA) say, “Only what causes the growth of the flesh and blood is what causes a foster-relationship through breastfeeding.”

    Musnad Ali bin al-Ja’d 152

    The above authentic narration demonstrates that Aisha (RA) did not believe that breastfeeding adults causes a foster relationship with them because an adult breastfeeding does not cause them to grow in flesh and blood, but it does for an infant or child.

    Another authentic narration supports this conclusion:

    I was told by Ibn Jurayj: I heard Nafi’ narrate that Salim bin Abdullah narrated that Aisha the wife of the Prophet ﷺ sent him to her sister Umm Kulthum bint Abu Bakr, to breastfeed him ten times so he can enter on her when he becomes an adult, but she got sick, and Salim couldn’t enter upon her.

    Musannaf Abdul-Razaq 13928

    If Aisha (RA) believed Salim was allowed to enter upon her if one of her sisters breastfed him, then why would she not take advantage of this position in this situation? Moreover, why didn’t she just have him breastfeed after he became an adult rather than focus on a such a short time-span? One, such as Imam al-Kasani, can derive from these narrations that Aisha (RA) changed her opinion later on and that this is her later opinion.

    Now, let’s dig a little more and try to find out what leads us to believe that it was a special case and should not be extended to any others.

    In the Muwatta of Imam Malik, we read the background:

    Abu Hudhaifa ibn Utba ibn Rabia, one of the companions of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ who was present at Badr, adopted Salim -who is called Salim, the mawla of Abu Hudhaifa- as the Messenger of Allah ﷺ adopted Zayd ibn Haritha. He thought of him as his son, … When Allah the Exalted sent down in His Book what He sent down about Zayd ibn Haritha, ‘Call them after their true fathers. That is more equitable in the sight of Allah. If you do not know who their fathers were then they are your brothers in the deen and your mawali,’ (Sura 33 Ayah 5) people in this position were traced back to their fathers. When the father was not known, they were traced to their mawla. Sahla bint Suhayl who was the wife of Abu Hudhaifa, and one of the tribe of Amr ibn Luayy, came to the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and said, ‘Messenger of Allah! We think of Salim as a son and he comes in to see me while I am uncovered. We only have one room, so what do you think about the situation?’ The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, ‘Give him five drinks of your milk and he will be mahram by it.’ She then saw him as a foster son.

    Muwatta Imam Malik 1113

    This narration clarifies the whole event. Salim (RA) was adopted by Hudhaifa (RA) and both he and his wife considered Salim (RA) as their son. His case was very much like Zaid bin Harith (RA) except that the wife of the Prophet ﷺ, Khadijah (RA) in whose presence Zaid (RA) was adopted had died long before the revelation of Surah al-Ahzab (which includes instructions on veil). And further that Zaid’s lineage was known but that of Salim (RA) was not (Tabaqat al-Kubra 3/87).

    Now, when Surah al-Ahzab was revealed, two issues came up. Verse 5 ordered the adopted sons to be known with reference to their own biological fathers and in case it was unknown they were to be considered brothers in faith and “mawali.” And in verse 59 it was revealed the instructions on Hijab for women.

    In light of the instruction in verse 5, Salim (RA) was referred to as “Mawla Abu Hudhaifa” and that is the reason everywhere we find his mention like this only. And the verse on Hijab brought the other issue of him visiting Sahla (RA), so to say his adoptive mother. She brought the case to the Prophet ﷺ who considered the fact he was to Sahla (RA) like her own son, gave them a way out of the situation.

    However, now that rulings about adoption and hijab are already in place, such a practice cannot be repeated. If the adopted one is an infant and can be fostered before he reaches his second birthday, then he will become a foster child without involving any controversy. And if he is older, then right from the start hijab factor must be considered in the light of the general injunctions and etiquettes of Islamic Law and civilization.

    The narrations say, Abu Hudhaifa (RA) was disgusted (Sahih Muslim 2638) with Salim (RA) visiting Sahla (RA) like before. This happened as Salim reached puberty (Sahih Muslim 2636) and verses of Surah al-Ahzab were revealed (Muwatta 1113). But Muwatta’s narration also says they considered him as their son. So apparently the disgust on Abu Hudhaifa’s face was due to something basically unlawful happening and not due to any other concern. And that is why when practically an out of way solution was suggested and put into practice the disgust on his face disappeared. It also hints that there was no physical contact for Abu Hudhaifa (RA) who had disliked Salim visiting Sahla would have not been satisfied had there been physical contact during feeding. And of course it is wrong to suggest that Prophet ﷺ would have allowed physical contact. He prescribed the out of way solution because on the emotional level the relation between Salim (RA) and Sahla (RA) was indeed pure and innocent as testified by Sahla (RA) (Muwatta 1113) and because of the adoption to have taken place during the transitionary period they were given a special consideration and an exception.


    It is important to mention the baseless nature of objections to this hadith in the first place. Even if we grant a best case scenario regarding this narration for anti-Muslim/Islam apologists, the assertion that adult breastfeeding somehow falsifies Islam is a non-sequitur fallacy. Such objections can easily be dismissed as they are based on an unsubstantiated criterion which Muslims should not accept in the first place. Why? Because it presupposes objective morals and duties which Islam is subject too. Many Jews and Christians object to this narration and find it immoral, on such standards they should also reject the Bible for verses like this:

    But in the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes

    Deuteronomy 20:16 (English Standard Version)

    Here is another verse that would falsify there faith based on their standards:

    When men fight with one another and the wife of the one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of him who is beating him and puts out her hand and seizes him by the private parts then you shall cut off her hand. Your eye shall have no pity.

    Deuteronomy 25:11-12 (English Standard Version)

    Similar types of verses are recorded here: Biblical Laws, Values and Theology.

    Its also strange that objections to this narration come from atheists of all people who, much like Jews and Christians, consider this narration to be morally wrong. Atheists have no source for objective morals and duties in the first place, so, such criticism is itself baseless, moreover, even if they did, it would fall under the category as criticism from Jews and Christians as they are presupposing that Islam is subject to what is thought to be good or bad, by themselves or their society. However, on an atheistic/naturalistic worldview, life has no objective value, meaning, or purpose because we are all accidents of nature. The atheist biologist/historian of biology William Provine agrees with this, he writes:

    Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear — and these are basically Darwin’s views. There are no gods, no purposes, and no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end of me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life, and no free will for humans, either.

    Darwinism: Science or Naturalistic Philosophy? Vol. 16, Number 1 (1994)

    Anything the atheist thinks is wrong is the product of social conditioning, not that there is anything that is objectively wrong. To maintain that things are right or wrong based on popular opinion (through social conditioning) is a logical fallacy known as Argumentum Ad Populum or Appeal to the People, the fallacy is as follows:

    If you suggest too strongly that someone’s claim or argument is correct simply because it’s what most everyone believes, then your reasoning contains the Fallacy of Appeal to the People. Similarly, if you suggest too strongly that someone’s claim or argument is mistaken simply because it’s not what most everyone believes, then your reasoning also uses the fallacy. Agreement with popular opinion is not necessarily a reliable sign of truth, and deviation from popular opinion is not necessarily a reliable sign of error, but if you assume it is and do so with enthusiasm, then you are using this fallacy.

    On an atheistic/naturalistic worldview, any action can never really be wrong and are meaningless in the first place. Such an argument from atheists carries no weight and the fact that the atheist has the audacity to judge in the first place shows a clear lack of consistency with their own worldview and its presuppositions therein. For more, see: An Atheistic Worldview. In short, arguing that any moral objection proves Islam to be false is logically fallacious.


    We can ascertain that there wasn’t physical contact from the following summarized points:

    The hadith itself is ambiguous and doesn’t explicitly state Salim drank directly from her breast.

    The Arabic term rada doesn’t necessitate direct suckling, but feeding.

    The law of hijab by necessity would demonstrate that it had to have not been direct.

    There was no need for it to have been direct.

    Were it direct, it would have defeated its purpose as Abu Hudhaifa, who already disliked Salim visiting Sahla, would have never been satisfied were there physical contact.

    Salim, the freed-slave of Abu Hudhaifa, was an adopted son of Abu Hudhaifa. Both Abu Hudhaifa and his wife, Sahla treated Salim like their son. And Salim used to walk up to his adoptive mother and when instruction on Hijab was revealed Abu Hudhaifa felt bad about Salim coming to Sahla when she was not observing full Hijab at home. So the Prophet ﷺ gave them a special relaxation considering the details of their case. And when they actually followed the instruction, there was no physical contact. The milk was drawn in a cup and Salim drank it. And but now when all the instructions on adoption and Hijab are well in place, such a relaxation cannot be sought. This is the well-established opinion of all but one of the Companions, the four established schools of Islamic jurisprudence and nearly all of the top scholars from the earliest generations.

  4. Under the Tafseer of Surah Ahzab:37, Suduq narrates from al-Rida(as) :
    قال الرضا عليه السلام: ان رسول الله (ص) قصد دار زيد بن حارثه بن شراحيل الكلبى في
    أمر اراده فراى امراته تغتسل فقال لها: سبحان الذي خلقك!…..
    The Prophet saw Zaid Bin Harithahs wife having a bath, he looked at her and said ‘Glory be to the one who created you’ [Uyunu Akhbar Ar Rida, vol 2, pag 180-181]

    They have no respect for The Prophet(SAWS). Their books are plagued with lies and filth.

    Majlisi graded the chain has Reliable in Hayat al-Quloob, vol 2, page 891.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Connecting to %s