Objections to the Shia criticisms leveled at
Objection One– The
Shia accuse Ayesha of hating Ali (as)
Ibn al Hashimi emotively argues:
Yet today we see that Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) is still insulted and slandered. She is accused of hating Ali (رضّى الله عنه) and of being an enemy of Ahlel Bayt.
Reply One – Ayesha’s enmity to Imam Ali (as) would open like a pot
In Kanz ul Ummal, Volume 16 page 186 Tradition 44216, we read:
وأما عائشة فأدركها رأي النساء وشئ كان في نفسها علي يغلي في جوفها كالمرجل
“Ayesha was informed about the opinion of women, but there was some
thing inside her boiling like a cooking pot against Ali”
Reply Two – Ayesha’s refusal to mention Imam Ali (as) by name is proof that she hated him
Al-Tijani claims that the historians mentioned Aysha as not wanting to mention the name of Ali. And I ask him, which historians? Can you tell me exactly so that we know the liar from the
truth teller? And on which references did you depend?
There is no need for Abu Sulaiman to get agitated, for this fact can be located in a number of sources of Ahl’ul Sunnah. On this occasion will fare one better than Tijani, we shall cite the
traditions from their books of hadith.
A mild version can also be located in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3 hadith 761:
Ubaidullah bin ‘Abdullah told me that ‘Aisha had said, “When the
Prophet became sick and his condition became serious, he requested his wives to allow him to be treated in my house, and they allowed him. He came out leaning on two men while his feet were
dragging on the ground. He was walking between Al-’Abbas and another man.” ‘Ubaidullah said, “When I informed Ibn ‘Abbas of what ‘Aisha had said, he asked me whether I knew who was the second
man whom ‘Aisha had not named. I replied in the negative. He said, ‘He was ‘Ali bin Abi Talib.”
This reference is sufficient to prove that Ayesha hated Imam Ali (as). In light of the above reference we would like to ask the following questions to the advocates of Ayesha:
When he (s) requested to his wives that he go to the home of Ayesha whose
residence was he residing in at the time?
Which of the other wives expressed a desire that the Prophet (s) reside in
If any other did, who was it?
Why did she not make a request to the other wives and personally bring the
Prophet (s) to her home?
What was troubling the Prophet (s) at that wife’s home that led to him
wishing to leave?
She mentioned Ibn Abbas accompanying the Prophet (s) but not Ali (as), why
Was Ayesha angry with him?
If so why?
Was there any historical reason that pointed to this animosity?
If there was, can any historical evidence be submitted to satisfy our
If there was no reason for this anger, why did she choose to omit his
Does the Deen entitle a Muslim to be angry to such an extreme towards
another Muslims without a reason, whereby they cannot even tolerate saying the name of that person?
Is there any link between the refusal to mention the name of Ali (as) and
the jealousy she possessed towards Khadija (as)?
Is it not the fact that this jealously lay in the fact Khadija (as) bore
the Prophet (s) a lineage and Sayyida Fatima (as) was the walking example of her mother?
Try as they might, even al-Bukhari alludes to the fact that Ayesha was unable to mention Imam ‘Ali (as) by name. Abu Sulaiman would of course differ and seek to deny that ANY animosity was
borne by Ayesha towards Imam ‘Ali (as). The difficulty for him is that the Ulema of Ahl ul Sunnah have confirmed this fact. In his commentary of this hadith, Allamah Bardruddin al-Aini
records in Umadatul Qari, Volume 5 page 192 Tradition 665:
عن معمر ولكن عائشة لا تطيب نفسا له بخير
Mua’amar narrated: ‘Ayesha avoided mentioning him (Ali) in a good
We also read:
عن الزهري ولكنها لا تقدر على أن تذكره بخير
Al-Zuhari said: She ‘(Ayesha) didn’t posses the ability to mention
anything good of him (Ali).’
We shall now present a ‘complete’ version of this tradition which proves clearly that Ayesha’s failure to mention Imam ‘Ali (as)’s name whilst recollecting this incident, was not on account
of temporary amnesia but was in fact due to her hatred of him:
When Ubaidullah Ibn Utbah mentioned to Ibn Abbas that Aisha said “In
his death-illness the Prophet was brought to (Aisha’s) house while his shoulders were being supported by Fadhl Ibn Abbas and another person”, then Abdullah Ibn Abbas said: “Do you know who
this ‘other man’ was?” Ibn Utbah replied: “No.” Then Ibn Abbas said: “He was Ali Ibn Abi Talib, but she is averse to name him in a good context.”
The references for the above narration can be located in the following texts:
al-Ansab al-Ashraf, by al-Baladhuri, v1, pp 544-545
The margin writer of Musnad Ahmed bin Hanbal namely Shaykh Shoib al-Arnaut stated:
“The chain is Sahih according to the standards of the two Sheiks
(Bukhari & Muslim)”
Reply Three – Ayesha hated Banu Hashim and Imam Ali (as)
Allamah Abu Umar Ahmed bin Abd Rabbah records:
He (Ali) said: ‘Go to that woman and tell her to return to her house
wherein Allah ordered her to remain’. He (Ibn Abbas) said: ‘Hence I went to her and asked permission to enter but she refused to grant it, hence I entered the house without permission and sat
on a cushion. She (Ayesha) said: ‘Oh ibn Abbas, by Allah I never saw some one like you! You entered our house without permission and sat on our cushion without our permission’. I said: ‘By
Allah this is not your house, your only house is the one which Allah ordered you to stay at, but you didn’t obey. The commander of the believers orders you to return to your home land which
you left’. She said: ‘May Allah’s mercy be upon the commander of believers who is Umar bin al-Khatab’. I said: ‘Yes, and this is Ali bin Abi Talib the commander of believers’. She said: ‘I
refuse, I refuse……’. Then she said: ‘Alright, I will return, because I hate the city in which you (Bani Hashim) reside in’. Iqd al-Fareed, Volume 2 page 108
In Al Imama wal Siyasa, Volume 1 page 45 we learn that:
“Following Uthman’s murder Zubayr approached Ayesha in Makka and said
‘Look they have made ‘Ali Khalifa. She said, What right does ‘Ali have to rule over our necks? I will not stay in Madina as long as ‘Ali is in power”.
In Rauzatul Ahbaab, Volume 3 page 65, we read that:
“After the Battle of Jamal, Ali approached Ayesha and said: ‘You have
treated me like an enemy’”.
We also read in Rauzat ul Ahbaab, Volume 3 page 10 that:
“Ayesha was clouded by her hatred of Ali”.
Reply Four – Ayesha’s failure to correct a man speaking ill of Ali (as) is proof that she hated him
We read in Musnad Ibn Hanbal, Volume 6 page 113 Hadith 24864:
حدثنا عبد الله حدثني أبي ثنا أبو أحمد قال ثنا عبد الله بن حبيب عن حبيب بن أبي ثابت عن عطاء بن يسار قال : جاء رجل فوقع في علي وفي عمار رضي الله تعالى عنهما عند عائشة فقالت أما علي فلست قائلة
لك فيه شيئا واما عمار فإني سمعت رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم يقول لا يخير بين أمرين الا اختار أرشدهما
‘A man came and spoke negatively of Ali and Ammar in the presence of
Ayesha to which Ayesha said: ‘I shall not tell you anything about Ali but as for Ammar, I heard the Holy prophet say that if he is provided with two options, he opts for the better
The margin writer of Musnad Ahmed bin Hanbal namely Shaykh Shoib al-Arnaut stated:
“The chain is Sahih as per the condition of Muslim”
We appeal to justice, when it comes to the rank of superiority who is at a more superior level, Imam Ali (as) or Amar bin Yasir (ra)? If Ayesha was prepared to correct this individual’s
incorrect and negative opinion of Amar (ra) by citing a Hadith of his excellence, could she not have done the same about Ali (as)? Are we to believe that she had never heard anything about
the excellence of Ali (as) from the tongue of Rasulullah (s)? If she had, was this not the apt time to silence the tongue of this individual? Had Ayesha offered no response to the views of
both Ali (as) and Amar (ra) her advocates may have opined that her response was made under taqiyya, but the fact that she was prepared to defend the character of Amar (ra), but offered no
words to protect the character of Ali (as). By remaining silent Ayesha went against the warning of Rasulullah (s) who said:
من أذل عنده مؤمن فلم ينصره وهو يقدر على أن ينصره أذله الله على رؤوس الأشهاد يوم القيامة
“Whoever is present while a Muslim is humiliated before him, and is
able to assist him [and yet does not], Allah will humiliate him before [all of] creation.” [Ahmad in al-Musnad, 3/487; Suyuti in Al-Jami` As-Saghir, 2/510, Hadith Number
the character of Ali (as). Ayesha’s willingness to allow a person to hold an unsavoury opinion of Ali (as) and offering no rebuttal to such a viewpoint evidences her hatred of him. Lest
not forget that Ayesha was no ordinary person, she was the widow of Rasulullah (s) and as such she commanded considerable trust and respect amongst the people, she will after hold an opinion
that will have influence over the people. If Ayesha was prepared to offer no view about a man that spoke ill of Ali (as), one can only imagine what sort of precedent she was setting amongst
her subjects that she accompanied onto the plains of Jamal.
Reply Five – Ayesha’s reaction at the death of Imam Ali (as) evidences her hatred of him
Al-Tijani says, “and when she learnt of his death she knelt and thanked Allah.” Then he gave us in the footnotes the name of historians he took as references. These are his references,
“AL-Tabari, Ibn Al-Atheer, Al-Fitnah Al-Kubra, and all historians who documented the incidents of the year 40 after the immigration of the prophet peace be upon him.”  So, I went back
to Al-Tabari and Ibn Al-Atheer for the stories of the year 40. And guess what! I did not find any trace for this claim! What a liar he is!
Again Abu Sulaiman is seeking to mislead people with false information, for these references can be located in these very books and we are attaching the link of the text from History of al
Tabari Volume 17 page 224 (English translation) for our reader’s perusal: Ayesha’s pleasure at Maula Ali(as)’s death
“When news of ‘Ali’s death reached Aishah, she said: And she threw
down her staff and settled upon her place of abode, like the traveller happy to return home”.
Perhaps Abu Sulaiman will seek to offer his own insight into the meaning of this verse, he need not bother for the English translator, Professor G. R. Hawting states in the footnote on page
“…the verse is proverbial and is cited to indicate pleasure at
Shaykh Kamaluddin Damiri also records in his famed work Hayat al-Haywan, Volume 1 page 43:
ولما انتهى إلى عائشة رضي الله تعالى عنها قتل علي رضي الله تعالى عنه قالت : فألقت عصاها واستقر بها النوى كما قر عينأ بالإياب المسافر
When Ayesha (ra) was informed about the murder of Ali (ra), she said:
‘And she threw down her staff and settled upon her place of abode, like the traveller happy to return home’
This reference can also be located in Tadkhirath al Khawwas, page 181 and Shaykh ul Mudhira page 156. For Abu Sulaiman to use his authority and make this claim, knowing that his adherents
blindly believe his every word since he is an advocate of Mu’awiya, is indeed a cause for concern. We would ask his readers to ask themselves honestly ‘If Abu Sulaiman can not even be honest
about such a basic fact, then how much credence should be given to anything that he says?’
We should also point out that Allamah Asbahani recorded in Maqatil al-Talebeen, page 24:
حدثني محمد بن الحسين الاشناني ، قال : حدثنا أحمد بن حازم قال : حدثنا عاصم بن عامر وعثمان بن أبي شيبة ، قالا : حدثنا جرير عن الاعمش عن عمرو إبن مرة عن أبي البختري قال : لما أن جاء عائشة قتل
علي ع سجدت .
Abu al-Bakhtari said: ‘When Ayesha was informed about Ali’s murder,
Ibn al Hashimi why do you suggest that the Shia believe that being a Nasibi is worse than Zina, is it not correct that the Prophet (s) said being a Nasabi makes one a Kaafir? Why do you
knowingly choose to ignore the implications of clear traditions that make it clear that hated of Ali (as) is a sign of hypocrisy, and fighting Ali (as) is tantamount to fighting the Prophet
(s)? We have addressed all such tradition in previous chapters, so there is no need to run through them once more suffice is to say, Ibn al Hashimi when Rasulullah (s) identified the status
of one that hates Ali (as) and fights him, why are you reluctant to rule on such a status? Do you not believe those that rebelled against Abu Bakr are kaafirs?
Objection Two – The
Shia accuse Ayesha of being a jealous and vengeful woman
Ibn al Hashimi states:
The Shia accusations against Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) range from the absurd [i.e. that she gave poison to the Prophet] to the outright childish; for example, Al-Islam.org dedicates so much
of its webspace to discuss how Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) was an imprudent, rude, and “jealous woman.” Stories will then be cited about how Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) was so jealous and vengeful
towards her co-wives and step-child Ibrahim (رضّى الله عنه); the way the Shia describe her makes her sound diabolical, more like the wicked stepmother in the Disney movie “Cinderella”
than a real life person. In fact, the Shia will never even name their daughter “Aisha” because to them this name is a cursed and wretched name; this shows the depth of their hatred for
Aisha (رضّى الله عنها). The Shia scholars will belittle Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) by saying that she was barren and infertile, citing this as a reason that Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) hated her
co-wives and was jealous of Fatima (رضّى الله عنها).
Reply One – Ayesha testified to her jealousy of Khadija (as)
Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 58, Number 164:
‘Aisha: I did not feel jealous of any of the wives of the Prophet as much as I did of Khadija (although) she died before he married me, for I often heard him mentioning her, and Allah had
told him to give her the good tidings that she would have a palace of Qasab (i.e. pipes of precious stones and pearls in Paradise), and whenever he slaughtered a sheep, he would send her
women-friends a good share of it.
Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 58, Number 166:
I did not feel jealous of any of the wives of the Prophet as much as I did of Khadija though I did not see her, but the Prophet used to mention her very often, and when ever he slaughtered a
sheep, he would cut its parts and send them to the women friends of Khadija. When I sometimes said to him, “(You treat Khadija in such a way) as if there is no woman on earth except Khadija,”
he would say, “Khadija was such-and-such, and from her I had children.”
Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 58, Number 168:
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 upset him. 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 (with a teethless mouth) of red gums who died long ago, and in whose place Allah has given you somebody better
Note how Ayesha’s testimony stops abruptly. We learn nothing of the response that the Prophet (s) gave to her self-appraisal. Had he affirmed her claim she would have definitely cited it, but
see no such thing. Is it plausible that the Prophet (s) would have just left the matter like that, without any response to her claim? Certainly not, we can see from other traditions how the
Prophet would provide a riposte when Ayesha would seek to stifle talk of her, so why would he remain silent to a baseless comment of self appraisal that was preceded by a disparaging slur
about her age? The same Prophet (s) that had defended Khadija on other occasions from the tongue of Ayesha would have certainly done the same, particularly when we know that Ayesha’s claim of
superiority cannot be corroborated. To this we have the Hadith of Rasulullah (s) himself who stated:
It does not therefore require much level of intellect to gauge what the response of Rasulullah (s) would have been.
Sahih Bukhari Volume 9, Book 93, Number 576:
I never felt so jealous of any woman as I felt of Khadija, for Allah ordered him (the Prophet ) to give Khadija the glad tidings of a palace in Paradise (for her).
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 73, Number 33:
I never felt so jealous of any woman as I did of Khadija, though she had died three years before the Prophet married me, and that was because I heard him mentioning her too often, and because
his Lord had ordered him to give her the glad tidings that she would have a palace in Paradise, made of Qasab and because he used to slaughter a sheep and distribute its meat among her
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 165:
I did not feel jealous of any woman as much as I did of Khadija because Allah’s Apostle used to mention her very often. He married me after three years of her death, and his Lord (or Gabriel)
ordered him to give her the good news of having a palace of Qasab in Paradise.
So in summary we learn from these traditions that according to Ayesha:
the Prophet married her three years after Khadija (as) died
she had never been more jealous of any other woman that Khadija (as)
she would become irritated when the Prophet (s) would talk excessively
about Khadija (as)
she would convey her objections to the Prophet (s) on this
the Prophet (s) pointed out that the continuation of his lineage was
attained through her
the Prophet (s) would remember Khadija by sacrificing a goat and
distributing the meat to her friends
What was the source of this jealousy? Ayesha clarifies several reasons from her own mouth, it was jealously because she could not tolerate the fact that the Prophet (s):
constantly talked about her
cited the fact that his lineage continued through her whilst she remained
foretold that there existed a Palace in Heaven for her
would remember her by slaughtering sheep in her name and distributing the
meat to her friends
never married again whilst Khadija (as) was by his side but after Ayesha
he married a further eight times
The crucial thing that one cannot deny is jealously is
a trait that is associated with hatred
animosity towards another
a desire to have that which another has
The testimony of Ayesha is clear the Prophet (s) never forgot Khadija (as) for his entire life, and whenever he sacrificed a sheep he would do so in her memory, that evidences that discussing
her merits counts as a major Sunnah of the Prophet (s). Khadija (as) was beyond a doubt the most superior wife of the Prophet (s) something that the Prophet made clear through his Hadith and
in particular sought to impress upon Ayesha. Why then does a Sect that calls itself Ahl’ul Sunnah al Jamaah make very little reference to this superior wife in their books and lectures? Why
is Ayesha given a greater station by their Mullahs? Why is her example as that which women should aspire to cited, but no reference made to a woman that the Prophet (s) praised for her
contribution towards the deen? Why are their speeches devoid of reference to this superior wife?
Reply Two – Ayesha’s happiness at the death of Sayyida Fatima (as)
“When the Prophets daughter died all the wives except Ayesha came to
console Banu Hashim and she said that she was unwell and the message which she sent to Ali (as) clearly depicts her joy at this sad occasion”.
Reply Three – Ayesha’s happiness at the death of Ibrahim ibne Rasululullah (s)
In Sharh Nahj ul Balagha by Ibn Hadeed page 238 Volume 2 we learn that:
“When Ibrahim died Ayesha was happy inside, although she displayed
sadness outside, Fatima and ‘Ali were very saddened by his death”.
Reply Four – Ayesha’s jealousy towards Ummul Momineen Safiyya
Ayesha said: “Safiyya, the wife of the Prophet (a), sent a dish she
had made for him when he was with me. When I saw the maidservant, I trembled with rage and fury, and I took the bowl and hurled it away. The Prophet of Allah (a) then looked at me; I saw the
anger in his face and I said to him: ‘I seek refuge from Allah’s Apostle cursing me today.’ The Prophet said: ‘Undo it’. I said: ‘What is its compensation, O Prophet of Allah?’ He said: ‘The
food like her food, and a bowl like her bowl.’” 1. Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, Volume 6 page 227 Tradition 26409
2. Sunan Nasai, Volume 2 page 148
3. Majma al-Zawaed, Volume 4 page 372 Tradition 7692
The reviser of Musnad Ahmed namely Shaykh Shoib al-Arnaut declared the
tradition to be ‘Hasan’ while Al-Haythami
said: ‘The narrators are Thiqah’.
Reply Five – Ayesha’s jealousy led to her attempting to commit suicide
We read in Sahih Bukhari Book of Nikah Volume 7, Book 62, Number 138:
Aisha said that whenever the Prophet intended to go on a journey, he drew lots among his wives (so as to take one of them along with him). During one of his journeys the lot fell on ‘Aisha
and Hafsa. When night fell the Prophet would ride beside ‘Aisha and talk with her. One night Hafsa said to ‘Aisha, “Won’t you ride my camel tonight and I ride yours, so that you may see (me)
and I see (you) (in new situation)?” ‘Aisha said, “Yes, (I agree.)” So ‘Aisha rode, and then the Prophet came towards ‘Aisha’s camel on which Hafsa was riding. He greeted Hafsa and then
proceeded (beside her) till they dismounted (on the way). ‘Aisha missed him, and so, when they dismounted, she put her legs in the Idhkhir and said, “O Lord (Allah)! Send a scorpion or a
snake to bite me for I am not to blame him (the Prophet).
Let us ask some questions:
We have previously cited the event of Ifk, from Sahih Bukhari Volume 6,
Book 60, Number 274 wherein she states:Whenever Allah’s Apostle
intended to go on a journey, he used to draw lots among his wives and would take with him the one on whom the lot had
fallen.But here she tells uswhenever the Prophet
intended to go on a journey, he drew lots among his wives (so as to take one of them along with him). During one of his journeys the lot fell on ‘Aisha and
Hafsa.Why did Rasulullah (s) depart from this practice and take two wives with him on this occasion?
When he (s) took both with him, why did he greet one wife and completely
ignore the other one, is this not against the justice of the Prophet (s)?
If he wanted to focus his attention on one wife alone, why did he take the
other one with him (s)?
When both wives’ agreed to swap camels of their own accord why did Ayesha
get so angry and jealous?
When the Prophet (s) noticed that the wife riding the camel was Hafsa and
not Ayesha why did she get so surprised?
Was Ayesha’s supplication that she die an Islamic one?
If it was can any example be given to evidence such legitimacy?
If it was not why the focus on her supplication?
Was her attempt to get bitten by a snake or scorpion not evidence that she
was seeking to commit suicide?
If it was an attempted suicide, is it legitimate for a jealous wife that
has been ignored by the Prophet (s) to take her own life?
If it is not legitimate, why did she try and take her life?
If it was not legitimate, should we therefore conclude that Ayesha’a act
If it was wrong did she repent in any way?
If she did not, why not?
When Ayesha is herself testifying to the fact that her jealousy would cause her to ignore the Shariah, should we not cite this fact to all Muslims, as a warning of the consequences of
jealousy? This could help women, and indeed those contemplating entry into a polygamous marriage.
Reply Six – Ayesha’s jealousy towards the women of the Ummah led to her committing blasphemy
We read in Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 311:
I used to look down upon those ladies who had given themselves to Allah’s Apostle and I used to say, “Can a lady give herself (to a man)?” But when Allah revealed: “You (O Muhammad) can
postpone (the turn of) whom you will of them (your wives), and you may receive any of them whom you will; and there is no blame on you if you invite one whose turn you have set aside
(temporarily).’ (33.51) I said (to the Prophet), “I feel that your Lord hastens in fulfilling your wishes and desires.”
Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 48:
Narrated Hisham’s father:
Khaula bint Hakim was one of those ladies who presented themselves to the Prophet for marriage. ‘Aisha said, “Doesn’t a lady feel ashamed for presenting herself to a man?” But when the Verse:
“(O Muhammad) You may postpone (the turn of) any of them (your wives) that you please,’ (33.51) was revealed, ” ‘Aisha said, ‘O Allah’s Apostle! I do not see, but, that your Lord hurries in
pleasing you.’ ”
In the first tradition we learn of the astonishment of Aisha that the willingness of women to give themselves to the Porphet (s). In all the conclusion of Aisha remains the same “I feel that
your Lord hastens in fulfilling your wishes and desires.”
Note how Ayesha does not refer to ‘our Lord’, she says ‘Your Lord’. The interesting thing is when it comes to the slaying of Malik bin Nuwayra, it is justified because to quote modern day
Sunni scholar A.I. Akram in book to Khalid bin Al-Walid “Sword of
Allah Khalid b. al-Waleed – a biographical study of one of the greatest military generals in history” page 161:
“Malik referred to the Holy Prophet as “your master”. Khalid was
angered by the unrepentant and supercilious attitude of the accused. He said, “Do you not regard him as your master?”
Khalid remained convinced that Malik was guilty, that he remained an
unbeliever. He gave the order for his execution”.
If the use of the term ‘your Master’ rather than ‘Our Master’ was grounds to prove the apostasy of Malik, should the same approach not be taken with Ayesha? What remains of the faith of
Ayesha when she makes such a statement of clear Kufr?
When Allah (swt) has given the right of women to give themselves to the
Prophet (s), why did Ayesha not like that?
Was it the jealousy of Ayesha that caused the descent of the said verse,
namely he can choose who he likes and leave who he likes?
Was Ayesha’s displeasure not evidence of her objecting and challenging a
decision of Allah (swt)?
If it was not a challenge why can it not be defined as such?
If it was a challenge was it legal or illegal?
If it was legal, what would be the grounds for such an opinion?
If it was illegal could her advocates offer some commentary?
Had any other wife expressed such a form of extreme jealousy?
If so, can her name be furnished?
If no other did, why did Ayesha conduct herself in such an extreme way?
Is this not evidence of her displeasure at an ordinance of Allah (swt)?
Objection Three –
Shia sources have referred to Ayesha as the Imam al-Kufr
Ibn al Hashimi states:
In fact, the very same Shia Tafseer on Al-Islam.org declares that Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) is not only a Kaffir but rather she is the very leader of the Kufaar [Imam al-Kufr]. Al-Islam.org
quotes the Shia Tafseer for verse 9:12 as:
“According to the Holy Prophet, a-immatal kufr (leaders of infidelity) are also those who opposed and fought against the divinely commissioned Imams of the Ahl ul Bayt…Ali ibn abi Talib
had recited this verse at the battle of Jamal and quoted the above noted prophecy of the Holy Prophet.
[Pooya/M.A. Ali 9:12]
source: http://www.al-islam.org/quran/ ”
In Tafseer Al-Qumi (which is perhaps the most classical of Shia Tafseer), it is said that it is the people whom Ali (رضّى الله عنه) fought in the Battle of Jamal including Aisha (رضّى
الله عنها), Talha (رضّى الله عنه), and Zubair (رضّى الله عنه) who are being referred to in this Verse as the “Leaders of Kufr.” This view is also the position of Kashani in his Tafseer
Al-Safi, and in other Shia interpretations. The Majma ul Bayan Tafseer also includes Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) as one of the “Aimmatul Kufr” (Imams of Kufr) along with the Quraish
polythiests, the Persian Magians, and the Byzantine Christians
Reply One – One can assess the position of Ayesha fighting Ali (as) by assessing her conduct against the Hadith of the Prophet (s)
The tragedy lies in the fact Ibn al Hashimi refuses to apply Hadith of the Prophet (s) to assess the conduct of others. The harsh reality is the conduct of Ayesha and her war mongering
cohorts was that which violated the Quran and a plethora of Hadith setting out the consequences for those that fight Maula Ali (as). We have cited the relevant traditions at length in an
earlier chapter. Ayesha did not accept the Imam of her time (Ali), she fought him, and the traditions against her are clear, that fighting against Ali (as) as on par with fighting against
Rasulullah, how should we then adjudge those whose conduct constitutes fighting Rasulullah (s)?
These traditions leave us with no doubt about how Ayesha should be judged.
Moreover we would like to remind our readers that it was Prophet (s) himself who referred to the Ayesha & Co as infidels fighting agasint Ali (as), as we read in We read in Al-Mustadrak:
Kaythama ibn Abdurahman said: ‘We were with Hudayfah (ra) and some of
us said: ‘O Aba Abdillah, narrate to us what you heard from the Messenger of Allah (s)’. He said: ‘If I do this, you will stone me.’ We said: ‘Subhanallah! Would we do that!?’ He said: ‘What
would you say if I narrate to you that some of your mothers would come to you with a battalion large in number, with great harm in it, would you have believed me?’ They said: ‘Subhanallah,
and who would believe this!’ Then Hudayfah said: ‘Humayra came to you in a battalion being led by infidels, blackening your faces’. Then he (Hudayfah) got up and entered another
chamber.’ Al-Mustadrak, Volume 7 page 44 Tradition 8453
The Arabic word used herein is:
And we read the definition of this word in Lisan al-Arab, Volume 2 page 326:
ويقال للرجل القويّ الضخم من الكفار عِلْج
“The strong and huge man of the infidels is called Elj”
Reply Two – Ayesha failed to recognise the Imam of her time
We read in Sharh Fiqh Akbar, by Mulla Ali Qari, p 175 (publishers Muhammad Saeed and son, Qur’an Muhall, Karachi) we read:
“…there is a hadith in Sahih Muslim, narrated by Abdullah ibne Umar
‘He who dies without recognising giving bayah and following his Imam dies the death of one belonging to the days of jahiliyya’. This is why the Sahaba viewed the appointment of the Imam as so
important that they preferred it to attending the Prophet’s funeral, because the Muslims need an Imam so that orders can be made on Jihad, and so that Islamic Laws can be
Ibn Abu Asim in his book ‘al-Sunnah’ page 489 records this hadith:
من مات وليس عليه إمام مات ميتة جاهلية
“Whoever dies without having an Imam dies the death of
Imam Albaani al-Salafi in his commentary on the hadith, writes:
إسناده حسن ورجاله ثقات
“Its chain is Hasan and all of its narrators are Thiqah’.
Imam Muslim has recorded this one in his Sahih, Kitab al-Imarah:
من مات وليس في عنقه بيعة مات ميته جاهلية
“Whoever dies without having on his neck bayah (to an Imam) dies the
death of Jahiliyyah.”
Lastly, Imam Ibn Hibban has recorded in his Sahih, Volume 7 page 49:
من مات بغير إمام مات ميتة جاهلية
“Whoever dies without an Imam dies the death of Jahiliyyah”
Imam Ali (as) WAS the Imam of the time, his obedience was unconditional, it was incumbent on Ayesha to recognise his Leadership and follow him in all his decisions. Rather than do this, she
chose to oppose him, instigate rebellion against him and a war that lead to the deaths of thousands of her supporters, as a result these individuals died the death of jahilyya because they
failed to recognise the Imam of their time. Not only did Ayesha fail to do so she led others in to misguidance, they fell in to error on account of her position.
Reply Three – One who opposes Ahl’ul bayt (as) is from the Party of Shaytan
“The stars protect the inhabitants of earth against drowning, and my
Ahl alBayt protect my nation against dissension. If a tribe among the Arabs differs from them, they will all then differ and become the party of Satan.” al-Hakim on page 149, Vol. 3, of Al-Mustadrak from Ibn `Abbas. Al-Hakim
adds: “This is an authentic hadith though they (both Shaykhs,
i.e. Bukhari and Muslim) did not include it (in their own books).”
Ayesha’s duty after Rasulullah (s) was to attach herself to the Ahl’ul bayt (as) not to openly dissent against them and mount armed rebellion against Imam ‘Ali (as). Rasulullah (s) had
declared that Ali was with the truth, and Ayesha’s duty was to obey Imam ‘Ali (as) not to oppose him. Allah (swt) had also made love of the Ahl’ul bayt (as) a duty in the Qur’an but rather
than attach herself to the Ahl’ul bayt (as) and love them, Ayesha bore resentment towards them, fought Imam ‘Ali (as) and rejoiced at his martyrdom.
Had Ayesha remained in her station as Ummul Momineen living a life of piety within the confines of her home, she would have indeed attained the esteemed respect that the wives of Rasulullah
(s) deserve. Unfortunately her envy and greed caused her to mount a mass rebellion against the Imam of the time ‘Ali ibne abi Talib (as). By acting in the way that she did, she in effect set
a precedent that it was perfectly legitimate to rebel against the rightful Imam to get your demands met. This in effect gave the green light to Mu’awiya and his clan to act in the same way
towards Imam ‘Ali (as) – for they saw a wife of the Prophet leading armed rebellion against the rightful Imam of the time.
Objection Four – The
Shia claim that Ayesha fabricated Hadith
Ibn al Hashimi states:
The Shia Ayatollahs also accuse Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) of fabricating Hadith which is another act of Kufr. Fabricating Hadith is considered Kufr by both the Sunni and Shia Ulema!It is
unfortunate that she is called a Kaffir when Allah Himself declares her a believer: “Surely those who love to spread around slander about those who believe will have a painful punishment
in this world and in the next world; and Allah knows and you do not know.” (Quran, 24:19) Moreover, Allah declares Aisha to be a “good believer”: “Verily, those who accuse chaste women,
who never even think of anything touching their chastity and are good believers, are cursed in this life and in the Hereafter, and for them will be a great torment.” (Quran, 24:23)
Reply One – Allah (swt) has exposed Ayesha as a liar, on account of her lead role in the honey plot
Let us leave Hadith fabrication aside for a moment; we have touched on the lead role of Ayesha in the honey plot, one so serious that Allah (swt) revealed Surah Tahreem to expose her and
Hafsa for their deception.
Has Allah (swt) not exposed Ayesha as a liar here? When her lying so angers Allah (swt) is it implausible to suggest that she may have also concocted traditions? In connection with the honey
plot Ayesha’s contradictions are so blatant that they entitle us to question her honesty. We will quote all of the traditions from Sahih Bukhari, as reported to us by Aisha:
We read in Sahih Bukhari, Book of Tafseer Volume 6, Book 60, Number 434:
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 Bukhari, Book of Talaq Volume 7, Book 63, Number 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 nasty smelling gum) 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.”
Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 63, Number 193:
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 Bukhari Volume 8, Book 78, Number 682:
The Prophet used to stay (for a period) in the house of Zainab bint Jahsh (one of the wives of the Prophet ) and he used to drink honey in her house. Hafsa and I decided that when the Prophet
entered upon either of us, she would say, “I smell in you the bad smell of Maghafir (a bad smelling raisin). Have you eaten Maghafir?” When he entered upon one of us, she said that to him. He
replied (to her), “No, but I have drunk honey in the house of Zainab bint Jahsh, and I will never drink it again.” Then the following verse was revealed: ‘O Prophet ! Why do you ban (for you)
that which Allah has made lawful for you?. ..(up to) If you two (wives of the Prophet turn in repentance to Allah.’ (66.1-4) The two were ‘Aisha and Hafsa And also the Statement of Allah:
‘And (Remember) when the Prophet disclosed a matter in confidence to one of his wives!’ (66.3) i.e., his saying, “But I have drunk honey.” Hisham said: It also meant his saying, “I will not
drink anymore, and I have taken an oath, so do not inform anybody of that ‘
Sahih Bukhari Volume 9, Book 86, Number 102:
Allah’s Apostle used to like sweets and also used to like honey, and whenever he finished the ‘Asr prayer, he used to visit his wives and stay with them. Once he visited Hafsa and remained
with her longer than the period he used to stay, so I enquired about it. It was said to me, “A woman from her tribe gave her a leather skin containing honey as a present, and she gave some of
it to Allah’s Apostle to drink.” I said, “By Allah, we will play a trick on him.” So I mentioned the story to Sauda (the wife of the Prophet) and said to her, “When he enters upon you, he
will come near to you whereupon you should say to him, ‘O Allah’s Apostle! Have you eaten Maghafir?’ He will say, ‘No.’ Then you say to him, ‘What is this bad smell? ‘ And it would be very
hard on Allah’s Apostle that a bad smell should be found on his body. He will say, ‘Hafsa has given me a drink of honey.’ Then you should say to him, ‘Its bees must have sucked from the
Al-’Urfut (a foul smelling flower).’ I too, will tell him the same. And you, O Saifya, say the same.”
So when the Prophet entered upon Sauda (the following happened). Sauda said, “By Him except Whom none has the right to be worshipped, I was about to say to him what you had told me to say
while he was still at the gate because of fear from you. But when Allah ‘s Apostle came near to me, I said to him, ‘O Allah’s Apostle! Have you eaten Maghafir?’ He replied, ‘No.’ I said,
‘What about this smell?’ He said, ‘Hafsa has given me a drink of honey.’ I said, ‘Its bees must have sucked Al-’Urfut.’ ” When he entered upon me, I told him the same as that, and when he
entered upon Safiya, she too told him the same. So when he visited Hafsa again, she said to him, “O Allah’s Apostle! Shall I give you a drink of it (honey)?” He said, “I have no desire for
it.” Sauda said, Subhan Allah! We have deprived him of it (honey).” I said to her, “Be quiet!”
Now note the clear contradictions in Ayesha’s accounts:
In Traditions One, Two and Four we learn that the honey is drunk at the
home of Zainab and the false allegation that the Prophet (s) smells is conjured up by Ayesha and Hafsa.
In Traditions Three and Five we learn that Hafsa has nothing whatsoever to
do with the honey plot, rather the Prophet (s) drinks honey from her house. Ayesha alleges the Prophet (s) smells and implicates two other wives of the Prophet (s) Sauda and Safiyya,
suggesting that she incited them to become unwitting accomplices to the plot.
We have five traditions, with notable contradictions and one common thread, they have all been narrated by Ayesha. How can clarity on the truth be sought? The answer is given by none other
Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 436:
Narrated Ibn Abbas:
I intended to ask ‘Umar so I said, “Who were those two ladies who tried to back each other against the Prophet?” I hardly finished my speech when he said, They were ‘Aisha and
The Quran and testimony of Umar refutes one of Ayesha’s narrations wherein she suggests that Hafsa had done no wrong, rather she innocently gave the Prophet (s) honey that led to Ayesha
plotting with two other wives. Had others been implicated Allah (swt) would have mentioned three, not two! Umar would have likewise said the same, so the question is why did Ayesha deem it
apt to implicate two further innocent women as accomplices to a plot that incurred the anger of Allah (swt)? Does this not evidence lying on her part? Moreover when Umar and indeed several
narrations of Ayesha inform us that she and Hafsa plotted against the Prophet (s) when he had honey at the home of Zainab, why has she turned Hafsa from perpetrator into an innocent honey
distributor in one tradition? Does this not constitute lying on her part?
The fact is Zainab gave the honey and it was Ayesha and Hafsa that plotted by falsely alleging that the Prophet (s) smelled having drunk it. Why then has Ayesha given varying accounts of the
event, and implicated other wives in the plot, when they were completely innocent, most notably poor Saffiya and Sawda? The chains are all authentic, and have all come on the authority of
Ayesha, so why the contradiction? Is this not clear evidence that she has lied?
Now the hearts of both women had been deemed crooked and they had been exposed for their lies. Our questions are as follows:
Did they both seek forgiveness for their dishonesty?
If they did when?
Was their forgiveness cited in the Quran, in the same way Allah (swt)
cites the forgiveness of others?
If no such mention is made should we assume they never repented sincerely?
The verse pinpoints both daughters of the Caliphs, so their forgiveness
should likewise be cited.
If Ayesha had sought forgiveness why was she happily narrating the event?
Does her narrating this event not evidence that she was proud at her
Does her continually narrating it with pride not prove that she cared
little for the condemnation heaped upon her in the Quran?
Does her devious plot, and in particular lying not raise questions over
Reply Two – Ayesha narrated a Hadith claiming that the parents of the Prophet (s) were non-Muslims, that comes into direct conflict with the Quran
We read in Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 56, Number 731:
Once Hassan bin Thabit asked the permission of the Prophet to lampoon (i.e. compose satirical poetry defaming) the infidels. The Prophet said, “What about the fact that I have common descent
with them?” Hassan replied, “I shall take you out of them as a hair is taken out of dough.”
Narrated ‘Urwa: I started abusing Hassan in front of ‘Aisha, whereupon she said. “Don’t abuse him, for he used to defend the Prophet (with his poetry).”
The entire contents of this chain come through the descendants of Abu Bakr, namely Ayesha who told her nephew Urwa who told his son Hisham. In this tradition the Prophet (s) criticises Hasan
bin Thabit for his ridicule of the mushrikeen on the grounds that he shares his descent with them. So we have a belief system propagated from Ayesha and her relatives that the descendants of
the Prophet (s) were kaafirs. Imam Abu Hanifa in his Fiqh Akbar states:
“… and the two parents of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him
peace) died on Kufr”
The first contradiction from this belief is evident from the fact that kufr and shirk are precise opposites of one another. Polytheists are mushriks, whilst those involved in kufr are those
that deny the Prophet of the time, when the Prophet (s) was orphaned as an infant years before his declaration of Prophethood how exactly do they fall within this kufr fatwa? Abu Hanifa
should have clarified his fatwa and informed his adherents when they denied the Prophet of the time, i.e. Isa (as), or the faith attributed to the lineage of Ibrahim (as). If the Quran
confirms that they died as infidels then the word of Ayesha will be confirmed, if it cannot be corroborated by the Word of Allah (swt) then serious thought needs to be given to the testimony
of Ayesha and all those that like her who believe that the parents of the Prophet (s) were infidels.
And remember Abraham and Isma’il raised the foundations of the House (With this
prayer): “Our Lord! Accept (this service) from us: For Thou art the All-Hearing, the All-knowing.
“Our Lord! make of us Muslims, bowing to Thy (Will), and of our progeny a people Muslim, bowing to Thy (will); and show us our place for the celebration of (due) rites; and turn unto us (in
Mercy); for Thou art the Oft-Returning, Most Merciful.
“Our Lord! send amongst them a Messenger of their own, who shall rehearse Thy Signs to them and instruct them in scripture and wisdom, and sanctify them: For Thou art the Exalted in Might,
the Wise.” (002.127-129)
This supplication of Prophet Ibraheem and Ismaeel (as) was made when they were erecting the foundations of the Kaaba. In the first supplication they asked that their lineage be that of
Muslims. In the second supplication they ask that from this lineage of believers Allah (swt) sends a Messenger that refers to Prophet Muhammad (s). This Quranic supplication evidences that
the lineage of Ismaeel (as) starting from him through to Prophet Muhammad (s) was a lineage of Muslims, free from the curse of idol worship. The lineage of Ismaeel (as) was protected from
idol worship, and the Banu Hashim from whence Muhammad (s) has his lineage is of that same lineage, that thus evidences that his parents were Muslims. If those that wish to prove Ayesha right
are adamant that the blessed parents of the Prophet (s) were infidels, then we invite them to produce their evidence with a Quranic verse. If they are unable to do so then kindly furnish the
following details about Amina (as) and Abdullah (as):
What was the name of the idol that they worshipped?
What acts of jahilyya did they busy themselves in (gambling, drinking
If you are unable to supply such evidence, then we invite you to distance yourself from the faith of Abu Hanifa, Ayesha and Ismail Bukhari. If you are unable to do so then we invite you to
acknowledge that you are deniers of the Quran as the Muslim lineage of the parents of the Prophet (s) can be evidenced from the Quran, hence one that fails to acknowledge the faith of the
parents of the Prophet (s) has denied the Quran, and one that denies the Quran has committed kufr.
Reply Three – Ayesha attributed a false allegation about the conduct of Rasulullah (s)
Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 63, Number 181:
I asked Az-Zuhri, “Which of the wives of the Prophet sought refuge with Allah from him?” He said “I was told by ‘Ursa that ‘Aisha said, ‘When the daughter of Al-Jaun was brought to Allah’s
Apostle (as his bride) and he went near her, she said, “I seek refuge with Allah from you.” He said, “You have sought refuge with The Great; return to your family.”
Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 63, Number 182:
Narrated Abu Usaid:
We went out with the Prophet to a garden called Ash-Shaut till we reached two walls between which we sat down. The Prophet said, “Sit here,” and went in (the garden). The Jauniyya (a lady
from Bani Jaun) had been brought and lodged in a house in a date-palm garden in the home of Umaima bint An-Nu’man bin Sharahil, and her wet nurse was with her. When the Prophet entered upon
her, he said to her, “Give me yourself (in marriage) as a gift.” She said, “Can a princess give herself in marriage to an ordinary man?” The Prophet raised his hand to pat her so that she
might become tranquil. She said, “I seek refuge with Allah from you.” He said, “You have sought refuge with One Who gives refuge. Then the Prophet came out to us and said, “O Abu Usaid! Give
her two white linen dresses to wear and let her go back to her family.” Narrated Sahl and Abu Usaid: The Prophet married Umaima bint Sharahil, and when she was brought to him, he stretched
his hand towards her. It seemed that she disliked that, whereupon the Prophet ordered Abu Usaid to prepare her and to provide her with two white linen dresses. (See Hadith No. 541).
Before we proceed we should point out that Dr Muhsin Khan has intentionally altered the response of the Jauniyya to make it less offensive. The word she uses is للسوقة and cannot ever be
translated as an ordinary man, it actually means ‘vulgar’.
As is commonly known Imam Bukhari rejected thousands of Hadith in his corpus of work on the premise that they were weak and restricted his book to those (in excess of seven thousand) that he
had graded as Sahih. Now contemplate these three Sahih narrations very carefully, that serve as a slap in the face for all those that insist in the authenticity of this work. As Bukhari was
particularly keen to present the Prophet (s) as a lover to his readership, particularly through the testimony of Ayesha, he was faced with quandary, where was the best place to insert the
said tradition? He could not place it in the Book of Nikah, after all a Nikah should have taken place to enable this Hadith to go into that chapter, nor was there any other relevant chapter
wherein this could be seamlessly inserted without a seconds thought. Having searched everywhere, he found the perfect place, the Book of Divorce wherein the Prophet (s) was able to express
the objective of Ayesha, namely the Prophet’s failed pursuit of love, coupled with his the protection of his exalted status. If only Imam Bukhari had the same level of love and admiration for
the Prophet (s) that he possessed for Ayesha.
Ayesha is informing us when the Jauniyya was brought to the Prophet (s) and he approached her, she said: “I seek refuge with Allah from you.” To which he
said: “You have sought refuge with The Great; return to your
The Sahabi Abu Usaid informs us that he accompanied the Prophet (s) to the garden of Ash-Shaut. As they waited between two walls the Prophet (s) approached the Jauniyya with a marriage
proposal, she made a blatant riposte stating that there was class difference and thereafter the Prophet (s) sought to placate her by seeking to pat her that she took offence to. This is the
tale of a failed love presented by Ayesha and Abu Usaid. Let us now ask some questions:
Why were these Hadith placed in the chapter of divorce?
Did the Prophet (s) divorce the Jauniyya female?
Is this lady counted in the list of the wives of the Prophet (s), and if
she is why?
If she is, then where is this divorce that Ayesha alludes to?
If he divorced her, when did the Nikah occur?
If there was a Nikah where did it occur?
If a Nikah had taken place why did the Prophet (s) arrange a meeting in
the garden of Ash-Shaut?
Did any other wife of the Prophet (s) have the fortune of being
accompanied by the Prophet (s) to the garden of Ash-Shaut?
If a Nikah had taken place, had the consent of this Jauniyya lady been
If she had consented to this marriage why was she seeking protection from
Allah (swt) when the Prophet (s) approached her?
If (as is evident) she had not given her consent, is such a marriage valid
Where was this female acquired from?
Who brought her?
If she had been brought to the Prophet (s) why did he state “Give me
yourself (in marriage) as a gift”
Why did she describe him as a vulgar man?
Did she not know the difference between patting with a noble or sinister
If she did then why did she become fearful and seek the protection from
Allah (swt) when the Prophet (s) tried to pat her?
Why was this lady so fearful of the Prophet (s)?
Has all of this not been concocted to debase the Prophet (s)?
Was the Prophet (s) of such low decency that he would seek to meet
somebody’s daughter in a garden?
What does this narration evidence other than the Prophet (s) was a sexual
predator? Will a non-Muslim become attracted to Islam and its Prophet (s) when coming across such narrations?
Should a narrator that describes the Prophet (s) as a vulgar man not
become a subject of hatred, rather than respect and reliability?
How much reliability can one give to Ayesha, whose narration not only
paints a shameless depiction of the Prophet (s) but is patently false, as it contradicts the second narration wherein it is clear that the lady from Jaun never actually married the Prophet
(s), rather she dismissed his proposal deeming him a vulgar man?
Would any decent man be willing to recite the Shahada of the Prophet (s)
having read this shameless narration?
Do Ayesha’s advocates such as Ibn al Hashimi believe that such narrations
elevate the excellence of the Prophet (s)?
The bottom line is this, the entire event never took pace. If for arguments sake it did, and the account of Abu Usaid is correct then the relationship never came into fruition, rather it
broke down at the proposal stage. This being the case why is Ayesha alleging that the words of Jaun were recited when she was the wife of Rasulullah (s)? Does this not come into direct
conflict with the account of Abu Usaid? If so does it not evidence the fact that she was lying?
Reply Four – An opinion of Ayesha places her in direct conflict with two Sunni Madhab Imams
We read in Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 378:
I said to ‘Aisha, “O Mother! Did Prophet Muhammad see his Lord?” Aisha said, “What you have said makes my hair stand on end ! Know that if somebody tells you one of the following three
things, he is a liar: Whoever tells you that Muhammad saw his Lord, is a liar.” Then Aisha recited the Verse:
‘No vision can grasp Him, but His grasp is over all vision. He is the Most Courteous Well-Acquainted with all things.’ (6.103) ‘It is not fitting for a human being that Allah should speak to
him except by inspiration or from behind a veil.’ (42.51) ‘Aisha further said, “And whoever tells you that the Prophet knows what is going to happen tomorrow, is a liar.” She then
‘No soul can know what it will earn tomorrow.’ (31.34) She added: “And whoever tell you that he concealed (some of Allah’s orders), is a liar.” Then she recited: ‘O Apostle! Proclaim (the
Message) which has been sent down to you from your Lord..’ (5.67) ‘Aisha added. “But the Prophet saw Gabriel in his true form twice.”
Sahih Bukhari Volume 9, Book 93, Number 477:
‘Aisha said, “If anyone tells you that Muhammad has seen his Lord, he is a liar, for Allah says: ‘No vision can grasp Him.’ (6.103) And if anyone tells you that Muhammad has seen the Unseen,
he is a liar, for Allah says: “None has the knowledge of the Unseen but Allah.”
Sahih Muslim Book 001, Number 0337:
It is narrated on the authority of Masruq that he said: I was resting
at (the house of) ‘A’isha that she said: O Abu ‘A’isha (kunya of Masruq), there are three things, and he who affirmed even one of them fabricated the greatest lie against Allah. I asked that
they were. She said: He who presumed that Muhammad (may peace be upon him) saw his Lord (with his ocular vision) fabricated the greatest lie against Allah. I was reclining but then sat up and
said: Mother of the Faithful, wait a bit and do not be in a haste. Has not Allah (Mighty and Majestic) said:” And truly he saw him on the clear horizon” (al-Qur’an, lxxxi. 23) and” he saw Him
in another descent” (al-Qur’an, iiii. 13)? She said: I am the first of this Ummah who asked the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) about it, and he said: Verily he is Gabriel. I have
never seen him in his original form in which he was created except on those two occasions (to which these verses refer) ; I saw him descending from the heaven and filling (the space) from the
sky to the earth with the greatness of his bodily structure. She said: Have you not heard Allah saying.” Eyes comprehend Him not, but He comprehends (all) vision. and He is Subtle, and
All-Aware” (al-Qur’an, v. 104)? (She, i. e. ‘A’isha, further said): Have you not heard that, verily, Allah says:” And it is not vouchsafed to a human being that Allah should speak unto him
otherwise than by revelation, or from behind a veil, or that He sendeth a messenger (angel), so that he revealth whatsoever He wills. Verily He is Exalted. Wise” (al. Qur’an, xii. 51) She
said: He who presumes that the Messengerof Allah (may peace be upon him) concealed anything, from the Book, of Allah fabricates the greatest lie against Allah. Allah says:” O Messenger!
deliver that which has been revealed to thee from thy Lord, and if thou do (it) not, thou hast not delivered His message” (al-Qur’an, v. 67). She said: He who presumes that he would inform
about what was going to happen tomorrow fabricates the greatest lie against Allah. And Allah says” Say thou (Muhammad): None in the heavens and the earth knoweth the unseen save Allah”
(al-Qur’an, xxvii 65).
Sahih Muslim Book 001, Number 0339:
Masruq reported: I asked ‘A’isha if Muhammad (may peace be upon him)
had seen his Lord. She replied: Hallowed be Allah, my hair stood on end when you said this, and he (Masruq) narrated the hadith as narrated above. The hadith reported by Diwud is more
complete and longer.
Ayesha’s rejecting the notion that the Prophet (s) saw Allah (swt) is based upon her citing a Quranic verse refutes all those traditions that suggest that Allah (swt) is visible. Does this
not evidence the belief of Ayesha that the eye cannot comprehend Allah(swt)? When the Prophet (s) never saw him, who else can? Contrast this to Sharh Fiqh Akbar, the commentary of Imam Abu
Hanifa’s Fiqh Akbar by Mullah Ali Qari, wherein we read as follows on page 99 (printed in Quran Muhalla. Karachi):
It has been narrated that Imam Aba Hanifa said: ‘I saw Allah (swt) in
my dreams on one hundred occasions. Then he saw it for the 100 time…it has also been narrated that Imam Ahmad said: I saw Allah (swt) in my dreams and said to Him: O Allah how can your
servants get closer to you ? He replied: O Ahmad, with my words. I said: with realization or without ? he replied: both with realization or without.
Note how the Sahihayn and Sharh Fiqh Akbar form an integral part of Hanafi Fiqh and cannot be abandoned by the adherents of Imam Numan, as doing so in effects means rejecting the Deen. Tell
us Ibn al Hashimi what is a Sunni to do? Should he accept the testimony of two Sunni Madhab Imams that they saw Allah (swt)? If we do this makes Aisha a liar. Or should we accept the
insistence of Aisha that vision cannot comprehend Allah (swt), and anyone that says the contrary is a deviant, to the extent that anyone that claims that the Prophet (s) saw Allah (swt) is a
liar. If we accept the word of Aisha then two esteemed Sunni Imams of Fiqh become liars.
Now who is telling the truth, the Mother of Faithful of her learned spiritual son?
Reply Five – There are clear discrepancies in the narrations citing a meeting between Ayesha and Hasan bin Thabit
There are three traditions we will cite.
Firstly, we read in Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 467:
We went to ‘Aisha while Hassan bin Thabit was with her reciting poetry to her from some of his poetic verses, saying “A chaste wise lady about whom nobody can have suspicion. She gets up with
an empty stomach because she never eats the flesh of indiscreet (ladies).” ‘Aisha said to him, “But you are not like that.” I said to her, “Why do you grant him admittance, though Allah
said:– “and as for him among them, who had the greater share therein, his will be a severe torment.” (24.11)
On that, ‘Aisha said, “And what punishment is more than blinding?” She, added, “Hassan used to defend or say poetry on behalf of Allah’s Apostle (against the infidels).”
Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 279:
‘Aisha said that Hassan bin Thabit came and asked permission to visit her. I said, “How do you permit such a person?” She said, “Hasn’t he received a severely penalty?” (Sufyan, the
subnarrator, said: She meant the loss of his sight.) Thereupon Hassan said the following poetic verse:
“A chaste pious woman who arouses no suspicion. She never talks about chaste heedless women behind their backs.’ On that she said, “But you are not so.”
Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 280:
Hassan came to Aisha and said the following poetic Verse: ‘A chaste pious woman who arouses no suspicion. She never talks against chaste heedless women behind their backs.’ ‘Aisha said, “But
you are not,” I said (to ‘Aisha), “Why do you allow such a person to enter upon you after Allah has revealed:
“…and as for him among them who had the greater share therein’?” (24.11)
She said, “What punishment is worse than blindness?” She added, “And he used to defend Allah’s Apostle against the pagans (in his poetry).
Note a clear discrepancy in the accounts here, despite Masruq being a narrator to all three. In Tradition One we see that Masruq enters to find Hasan bin Thabit already there, reciting the
poetry. In Tradition Two Masruq visits Ayesha, and Hasan bin Thabit then seeks permission to enter.
Then note a discrepancy in the poetry that is being recited. The first tradition has these couplets
“A chaste wise lady about whom nobody can have suspicion. She gets up
with an empty stomach because she never eats the flesh of indiscreet (ladies).”
The couplets in Tradition Two and Three are as follows:
“A chaste pious woman who arouses no suspicion. She never talks about
chaste heedless women behind their backs.’
The timing of the event and the couplets differ, despite them all reaching us through Ayesha and Masruq. Clearly someone is lying here, so who is it?
Reply Six – Ayesha’s testimony that Rasulullah (s) saw her in a dream has some notable discrepancies
Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 57:
Allah’s Apostle said (to me), “You were shown to me in a dream. An angel brought you to me, wrapped in a piece of silken cloth, and said to me, ‘This is your wife.’ I removed the piece of
cloth from your face, and there you were. I said to myself. ‘If it is from Allah, then it will surely be.’ ”
Sahih Bukhari Book of Dreams Volume 9, Book 87, Number 139:
Allah’s Apostle said (to me), “You were shown to me twice in (my) dream. Behold, a man was carrying you in a silken piece of cloth and said to me, “She is your wife, so uncover her,’ and
behold, it was you. I would then say (to myself), ‘If this is from Allah, then it must happen.’ ”
Sahih Bukhari Book of Dreams Volume 9, Book 87, Number 140:
Allah’s Apostle said to me, “You were shown to me twice (in my dream) before I married you. I saw an angel carrying you in a silken piece of cloth, and I said to him, ‘Uncover (her),’ and
behold, it was you. I said (to myself), ‘If this is from Allah, then it must happen.’ Then you were shown to me, the angel carrying you in a silken piece of cloth, and I said (to him),
‘Uncover (her), and behold, it was you. I said (to myself), ‘If this is from Allah, then it must happen.’ ”
Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 15:
Allah’s Apostle said (to me), “You have been shown to me twice in (my) dreams. A man was carrying you in a silken cloth and said to me, ‘This is your wife.’ I uncovered it; and behold, it was
you. I said to myself, ‘If this dream is from Allah, He will cause it to come true.’ ”
All four traditions have reached us via Aisha who informed her nephew Urwa who informed his son Hisham.
Now note the discrepancies in the dream traditions:
Who presented Aisha to the Prophet (s)?
An angel brought you to me, wrapped in a piece of silken cloth. (Volume 7, Book 62, Number 57 and Book of Dreams Volume 9, Book 87, Number 140).a man was carrying you in a silken piece of
cloth and said to me ( Book of Dreams Volume 9, Book 87, Number 139 and Volume 7, Book 62, Number 15).
How many dreams did the Prophet see regarding Aisha?
You were shown to me in a dream. (Volume 7, Book 62, Number 57)You have been shown to me twice in (my) dreams. (Volume 7,
Book 62, Number 15,
Book of Dreams Volume 9, Book 87, Number 140 and Book of Dreams Volume 9, Book 87, Number 139).
Who uncovered the cloth to reveal Aisha?
The Angel / man uncovered the cloth to show Aisha (Volume 7, Book 62, Number 57, Book of Dreams Volume 9, Book 87, Number 139 and Book of Dreams Volume 9, Book 87, Number 140).The Prophet
(s) uncovered the cloth to observe Aisha (Volume 7, Book 62, Number 15).
What did the man delivering Aisha say to the Prophet
A man was carrying you in a silken cloth and said to me, .’This is your wife.’ I uncovered it; and
behold, it was you(Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 15).a man was carrying you in a silken piece of cloth and said to me, “She is your wife, so uncover
her,’ (Sahih Bukhari Book of Dreams Volume 9, Book 87, Number 139).
The fascinating thing he is the entire chain for these traditions is identical, so why the additional wording in one tradition?
We appeal to justice! Four narrations, all from the tongue of Ayesha through her nephew and his son with blatant contradictions. If polemical writers versed in attacking Christianity were to
locate such discrepancies in the Gospels they would automatically argue that the narrators are liars, will they likewise say the same for Ayesha?
Reply Seven – Ayesha’s account of the girls singing on the day of Eid contains some notable discrepancies
We read in Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 58, Number 121:
The day of Bu’ath (i.e. Day of fighting between the two tribes of the Ansar, the Aus and Khazraj) was brought about by Allah for the good of His Apostle so that when Allah’s Apostle reached
(Medina), the tribes of Medina had already divided and their chiefs had been killed and wounded. So Allah had brought about the battle for the good of His Apostle in order that they (i.e. the
Ansar) might embrace Islam.
Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 58, Number 267:
The day of Bu’ath was a day (i.e. battle) which Allah caused to take place just before the mission of His Apostle so that when Allah’s Apostle came to Medina, they (the tribes) had divided
(into hostile groups) and their nobles had been killed; and all that facilitated their conversion to Islam.
Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 58, Number 186:
Allah caused the day of Buath to take place before Allah’s Apostle was sent (as an Apostle) so that when Allah’s Apostle reached Medina, those people had already divided (in different groups)
and their chiefs had been killed or wounded. So Allah made that day precede Allah’s Apostle so that they (i.e. the Ansar) might embrace Islam.
All three traditions from Ayesha inform us about the day of Buath. The main objective behind Hadith narrations are to ascertain that uttered by the Prophet (s) that includes his sayings,
acts, and approval or disapproval of things.
Now compare this to the three traditions about Buath. The Prophet (s) says nothing about it, nor performs any action in connection with the day of Buath that one can imitate, fact of the
matter is Ayesha’s knowledge of the day of Buath is that which has reached her through musical lyrics, as we shall expand on later. Suffice it to say the day of Buath has no nexus with the
Islamic history. Whilst we have been unable to gauge any facts of the day of Bu’ath from history books, some light is shed by Allamah Shibli Numani in his Siratun Nabi Volume 1 page 231:
“For a considerably long time Aus and Khazrak remain allied and
united; but true to the old Arab tradition, they were led at last to bloody battles by tribal feuds and dissensions. The last one known is Arab history as the Battle of Bu’ath was so fiercely
fought that each side lost all the warriors of note. The Ansar were now so weak that they sent a deputation to the Quraish to seek their alliance. But Abu Jahl nipped these efforts in the
Now our confusion is as follows:
During the battle of Bu’ath were the Khazraj Muslim or non-Muslim?
Was this battle to assist Islam or to enable tribal superiority?
If this was an Islamic battle why is it not mentioned in the annals of
If it was merely for tribal superiority why was Ayesha advocating its
If the Jews benefitted from the outcome of this battle why was Ayesha
citing its significance?
If it benefitted the Ansar on what basis did Numani suggest that the Ansar
had become weakened?
Now look at the traditions celebrating the said event.
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 15, Number 70:
Allah’s Apostle (p.b.u.h) came to my house while two girls were singing beside me the songs of Buath (a story about the war between the two tribes of the Ansar, the Khazraj and the Aus,
before Islam). The Prophet (p.b.u.h) lay down and turned his face to the other side. Then Abu Bakr came and spoke to me harshly saying, “Musical instruments of Satan near the Prophet
(p.b.u.h)?” Allah’s Apostle (p.b.u.h) turned his face towards him and said, “Leave them.” When Abu Bakr became inattentive, I signalled to those girls to go out and they left. It was the day
of ‘Id, and the Black people were playing with shields and spears; so either I requested the Prophet (p.b.u.h) or he asked me whether I would like to see the display. I replied in the
affirmative. Then the Prophet (p.b.u.h) made me stand behind him and my cheek was touching his cheek and he was saying, “Carry on! O Bani Arfida,” till I got tired. The Prophet (p.b.u.h)
asked me, “Are you satisfied (Is that sufficient for you)?” I replied in the affirmative and he told me to leave.
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 15, Number 72:
Abu Bakr came to my house while two small Ansari girls were singing beside me the stories of the Ansar concerning the Day of Buath. And they were not singers. Abu Bakr said protestingly
(sic), “Musical instruments of Satan in the house of Allah’s Apostle !” It happened on the ‘Id day and Allah’s Apostle said, “O Abu Bakr! There is an ‘Id for everyone.
Sahih Bukhari Volume 2, Book 15, Number 103:
Narrated ‘Urwa on the authority of ‘Aisha:
On the days of Mina, (11th, 12th, and 13th of Dhul-Hijjah) Abu Bakr came to her while two young girls were beating the tambourine and the Prophet was lying covered with his clothes. Abu Bakr
scolded them and the Prophet uncovered his face and said to Abu Bakr, “Leave them, for these days are the days of ‘Id and the days of Mina.” ‘Aisha further said, “Once the Prophet was
screening me and I was watching the display of black slaves in the Mosque and (‘Umar) scolded them. The Prophet said, ‘Leave them. O Bani Arfida! (carry on), you are safe (protected)
Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 155:
Allah’s Apostle came to my house while two girls were singing beside me the songs of Bu’ath (a story about the war between the two tribes of the Ansar, i.e. Khazraj and Aus, before Islam.)
The Prophet reclined on the bed and turned his face to the other side. Abu Bakr came and scolded me and said protestingly, “Instrument of Satan in the presence of Allah’s Apostle?” Allah’s
Apostle turned his face towards him and said, “Leave them.” When Abu Bakr became inattentive, I waved the two girls to go away and they left. It was the day of ‘Id when negroes used to play
with leather shields and spears. Either I requested Allah’s Apostle or he himself asked me whether I would like to see the display. I replied in the affirmative. Then he let me stand behind
him and my cheek was touching his cheek and he was saying, “Carry on, O Bani Arfida (i.e. negroes)!” When I got tired, he asked me if that was enough. I replied in the affirmative and he told
me to leave.
Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 58, Number 268:
That once Abu Bakr came to her on the day of ‘Id-ul-Fitr or ‘Id ul Adha while the Prophet was with her and there were two girl singers with her, singing songs of the Ansar about the day of
Buath. Abu Bakr said twice. “Musical instrument of Satan!” But the Prophet said, “Leave them Abu Bakr, for every nation has an ‘Id (i.e. festival) and this day is our ‘Id.”
If we bring together these shameless traditions we see that from
two girls attend the home of Ayesha and sing about the battle of Bu’ath,
we know nothing of which tribe they are from
The Prophet (s) lay down and turned his face to the other side.
Abu Bakr criticises Ayesha for allowing Satanic instruments into the home
of the Prophet (s)
The Prophet (s) insist they be left alone
When Abu Bakr becomes distracted Ayesha signals them to leave
We know nothing of what day this was
They are Ansari girls
It is the day of Eid
The Prophet (s) justifies the singing saying Abu Bakr! There is an ‘Id for
everyone, no mention of the words ‘Leave them’ from Tradition One.
No mention of their tribe
No mention of their singing about the day of Buath unlike Tradition One
Abu Bakr admonishes the girls (not Aisha as stated in Tradition One)
The Prophet has his face covered, whilst Tradition One says he turned away
Abu Bakr scolds the singers but makes no reference to Satanic instruments
present in the other two traditions
The Prophet defends the signing with an addition to Tradition “Leave them,
for these days are the days of ‘Id and the days of Mina” no mention of there is an Eid for everyone from Tradition Two.
In Traditions One and Two, we are told that the girls were singing, and
Abu Bakr’s got angry observing tambourines in the room. In Tradition Three there is no mention of their singing rather their playing the tambourine!
Tradition One states the Prophet (s) turned his face towards Abu Bakr,
whilst Tradition Three says he uncovered his face
Perhaps the contradictions might have been explainable were they from different narrators, how can such notable variations be accepted when they all come the direct eye witness testimony of
Ayesha who informed her nephew Urwa? Note how in the traditions Abu Bakr is angered at the scene that he witnessed before him, girls singing with what he deemed the instruments of Satan. The
Prophet (s) seeks to justify the situation by pointing out that it is Eid, can we therefore deduce that partaking in irreligious acts such as playing instruments, and listening to women
singing is okay, provided that it is done on Eid? Does the day of Eid give the believer carte blanch authority to act in any way he pleases, due to the festive nature of the day? What
portrayal of Muhammad (s) is Ayesha seeking to inform her adherents from such shameless narrations? Does the Shariah not prohibit a man from listening to women singing? Does the Shariah not
prohibit the use of musical instruments? There is no doubt that it does and we even read in Sunan Ibn Majah Volume 5 Hadith Number 4020:
Narrated Abu Malik Al-Ashari:
“The Messenger (pbuh) of Allah (SWT) said, “Some people of my Ummah will drink wine, calling it by other than its real name, merriment will be made for them through the playing of musical
instruments and the singing of lady singers. Allah will cleave the earth under them and turn others into monkeys and swines.
How can a Prophet (s) that makes it clear to his followers that those that listen to musical instruments and lady singers will incur the wrath of Allah (swt) risk such a wrath by partaking in
the very act that he (s) has himself stated is haram? If one is left with the choice of either rejecting the testimony of Ayesha or safeguarding the purity of Rasulullah (s), we the Shia know
which approach we will take. Will Ibn al Hashimi do the same?
Reply Eight – Ayesha gave two contradicting statements relating to Hafsa being visited by her uncle
Sahih Bukhari Volume 3, Book 48, Number 814:
Narrated Amra bint ‘Abdur-Rahman:
That ‘Aisha the wife of the Prophet told her uncle that once, while the Prophet was in her house, she heard a man asking Hafsa’s permission to enter her house. ‘Aisha said, “I said, ‘O
Allah’s Apostle! I think the man is Hafsa’s foster uncle.’ ” ‘Aisha added, “O Allah’s Apostle! There is a man asking the permission to enter your house.” Allah’s Apostle replied, “I think the
man is Hafsa’s foster uncle.” ‘Aisha said, “If so-and-so were living (i.e. her foster uncle) would he be allowed to visit me?” Allah’s Apostle said, “Yes, he would, as the foster relations
are treated like blood relations (in marital affairs).”
Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 53, Number 337:
Narrated ‘Amra bint Abdur-Rahman:
‘Aisha, the wife of the Prophet told her that once Allah’s Apostle was with her and she heard somebody asking permission to enter Hafsa’s house. She said, “O Allah’s Apostle! This man is
asking permission to enter your house.” Allah’s Apostle replied, “I think he is so-and-so (meaning the foster uncle of Hafsa). What is rendered illegal because of blood relations, is also
rendered illegal because of the corresponding foster-relations.”
Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 36:
(the wife of the Prophet) that while Allah’s Apostle was with her, she heard a voice of a man asking permission to enter the house of Hafsa. ‘Aisha added: I said, “O Allah’s Apostle! This man
is asking permission to enter your house.” The Prophet said, “I think he is so-and-so,” naming the foster-uncle of Hafsa. ‘Aisha said, “If so-and-so,” naming her foster uncle, “were living,
could he enter upon me?” The Prophet said, “Yes, for foster suckling relations make all those things unlawful which are unlawful through corresponding birth (blood) relations….”
Notice the discrepancies between the traditions. The chain of transmission in the two traditions is identical. In one Ayesha informs Rasulullah (s) that the man wishing to enter is the uncle
of Hafsa whilst in the remainder Rasulullah (s) informs Ayesha of this fact. If it is suggested they are all different occasions are we going to assume that Ayesha highlighted this fact on
four different occasions? Was she in some way seeking to embarrass Hafsa? Why? Moreover note how the name of this uncle is covered up in the traditions, he ie ‘so and so’ why is that? Whilst
this question is a side issue does the discrepancy not evidence lying on the part of Ayesha?
Reply Nine – Ayesha narrated the black magic event with notable discrepancies
One tradition that Imam Bukhari has narrated at various points in his Sahih is the suggestion that Rasulullah (s) became a victim of black magic. It is interesting that no other person was
aware of this supposed fact, save Ayesha. If we were to narrate all of these narrations we would detract from the matter at hand, suffice it to say they have reached us through the
descendants of Abu Bakr with two particularly notable contradictions:
Who was responsible for carrying out black magic on the Prophet
(s)? Sahih Bukhari the Book of Medicine Volume 7, Book 71, Number 660:Hisham-Urwa-Aisha- Labid bin Al-A’sam, a man from Bani Zuraiq who was
an ally of the
Jews and was a hypocrite.Sahih Bukhari, the Book of Medicine Volume 7, Book 71, Number 661:Hisham-Urwa-Aisha‘Labid bin A’sam, a Jew from the tribe of Bani
How did two men notify the Prophet (s) that he (s) had been the victim of black
magic? Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 71, Number 660:Hisham-Urwa-Aisha‘The one near my head asked the other.
What is wrong with this man?’ The latter replied he is under the effect of magic whilst. Sahih Bukhari Volume 8, Book 73, Number 89:Hisham-Urwa-Aisha- The one near my feet, asked the one
near my head (pointing at me), ‘What is wrong with this man?’.
We wish to point out that whilst the complete chain of narrators are six, the common link that we have shown is the narrations all come to us via Ayesha, Urwa (her nephew) and his son.
Reply Ten – Ayesha testified to her performing the Tawaf of the Kaaba when she could not have done so
Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 6, Number 293:
‘Aisha said, “We set out with the sole intention of performing Hajj and when we reached Sarif, (a place six miles from Mecca) I got my menses. Allah’s Apostle came to me while I was weeping.
He said ‘What is the matter with you? Have you got your menses?’ I replied, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘This is a thing which Allah has ordained for the daughters of Adam. So do what all the pilgrims do
with the exception of the Taw-af (Circumambulation) round the Ka’ba.” ‘Aisha added, “Allah’s Apostle sacrificed cows on behalf of his wives.”
This is the first tradition that opens up the Book of menstruation in Sahih Bukhari.
Rasulullah (s) only performed one Hajj during his lifetime, now did he not
explain what menstruation was until the matter arose on that day?
Why did he wait until the time of the Hajj to elaborate on the origins of
Had Ayesha never asked about this in the past, or had the Prophet (s)
never told her?
If Ayesha had never asked the Prophet about this previously, why not?
If he had not expounded on it, why not?
One thing is clear, a woman in a menstrual state is prohibited from perform the Twaf around the Kaaba.
Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 6, Number 325:
(the wife of the Prophet) I told Allah’s Apostle that Safiya bint Huyai had got her menses. He said, “She will probably delay us. Did she perform Tawaf (Al-Ifada) with you?” We replied,
“Yes.” On that the Prophet told her to depart.
The fascinating thing is Rasulullah (s) asks the women “Did she perform Tawaf (Al-Ifada) with you?” the gender is clearly in the feminine, yet the response does not come from women, the
Arabic grammar “Yes” is in the masculine. We are attaching the Arabic text to evidence this fact. One also wonders why the Ahle Hadith Urdu translation of the said tradition states “the women
replied ‘Yes’ – when the Arabic text says something different. The fact of the matter is the question addresses women and Ayesha’s advocates will simply put this down to an error on the part
of Imam Bukhari. This might indeed be the case and the positive response came from the women, the problem is how can Ayesha be one of the women that said yes when we know she started
menstruating before she got to Mecca, and hence was told by the Prophet (s) that she could not perform the tawaaf?
Objection Five –
Shia sources allege that Ayesha and Hafsa poisoned the Prophet (s)
Ibn al Hashimi states:
There are even Shia scholars who argue that Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) and Hafsa (رضّى الله عنها) attempted to murder the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) himself: “Aisha and Hafsa
poisioned the Prophet.” (Jila-ul-Ayoun, Page No. 118) This is voiced by one of the Shia Maraje, namely Mullah Baqir Majlisi: “Aisha and Hafsa tried to martyr Rasulullaah by giving him
poison.” (Vol. 2, Hayat-ul-quloob, page #870, Mullah Baqir Majlisi) And again: “…those two female munafiqs (referring to Aisha and Hafsa) agreed to martyr Rasulullah by administering
poison to him.” (Hayatul Quloob, page 745, Vol 2, Mullah Baqir Majlisi) Some of the more liberal Shia will deny that Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) poisioned the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله
وسلّم), but they will not deem it blasphemous to argue this point; in fact, we noticed an entire thread about this topic on Shia-Chat, where poster after poster was arguing that Aisha
(رضّى الله عنها) had attempted to poison the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم).
Reply – Muhammad Ismail Bukhari has cited the death of the Prophet (s) in a manner that casts aspersions on Ayesha
First and foremost if one picks up Hayat al Qulob the first notable thing is the entire book is a collection of materials Majlisi found, none of which have any chain of narration as such we
have no means of analysing the chain to look at the accuracy of such a narration.
Rather than attack the Shia on this issue it really would have been far better for this Nasabi to look closer to home, and in particular see how his most esteemed Hadith scholar recorded the
final events of the life of the Prophet (s).
Sahih Bukhari Volume 2, Book 23, Number 471:
During his sickness, Allah’s Apostle was asking repeatedly, “Where am I today? Where will I be tomorrow?” And I was waiting for the day of my turn (impatiently). Then, when my turn came,
Allah took his soul away (in my lap) between my chest and arms and he was buried in my house.
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.”
We read in Sahih Bukhari Volume 9, Book 83, Number 25:
We poured medicine into the mouth of the Prophet during his ailment. He said, “Don’t pour medicine into my mouth.” (We thought he said that) out of the aversion a patient usually has for
medicines. When he improved and felt better he said, “There is none of you but will be forced to drink medicine, except Al-’Abbas, for he did not witness your deed.”
In some of the traditions Rasulullah (s) explains that the poison administered by the Jewess at Khaiber had now affected him deeply. In another we are told how he was forced to drink medicine
that he resented, despite his protestations those present continued administering it. This act incurs the wrath of the Prophet (s) and he insists that all those present drink what he had been
given, save Abbas.
Now our questions are as follows:
How did the poison administered in Khaibar have its effect on the Prophet
(s) 4 years later?
According to Ayesha up until then the Prophet (s) had never complained of
any ill effects, so did he remember the poisoning at Khaibar four years later?
It took effect after four years, when it effected the liver, which part of
the body was it lying dormant in up until then?
Why is Ayesha the only person that has mentioned the poisoning from
When the medicine was being administered which individuals were in the
Where were the other wives?
When the Prophet (s) ordered all those in the room to likewise take the
medicine was this order implemented or not?
If it was not implemented, why not?
If it was implemented where is the textual evidence?
Where were the fathers of Ayesha and Hafsa at this traumatic time?
Whilst the Prophet (s) being forced to take medicine appears elsewhere in Bukhari, it is interesting to note where he places it in this instance, in the Book of Diyat (Blood Money) , from the chapter:
باب القصاص بين الرجال والنساء في الجراحات
Dr Muhsin Khan has translated this as “al Qisas (law of equality
in punishment) in cases of injury among men and women” .
Could Ibn al Hashimi kindly expand on what injuries are being inflicted on the Prophet (s) that caused Imam Bukhari to place this event in a chapter citing the punishment for a mixed gender
group that harm somebody? What is the nexus between administering medicine and causing injury to a person? From whom was Qisas being sought?
Is Imam Bukhari suggesting that a crime was perpetuated against Rasulullah
(s) on his deathbed?
Why is the issue of punishment being discussed here?
Was Rasuluillah (s) injured through this administering of medication?
If this type of Hadith were to be found under this sub heading in any Shia book the Nawasib would take to the streets to insist that the Shia be ex communicated for this belief alone. We
would invite our open minded readers to ask whether the same approach should not be adopted here. Is it not shameful that Imam Bukhari has cast aspersions on Ayesha by placing her act of
forcing the Prophet (s) to take medicine in a chapter dedicated to the punishment for those that injure another?