 | | The rebellion of Hadhrath Ayesha against Hadhrath 'Ali (as) | | Was Ayesha seeking to reform the Ummah? | | Answering the Ibn Saba Defence Card | | Was Ayesha seeking Qisas for the blood of Uthman? | | Answering the defence of ijtihad | | The stance of Imam 'Ali (as) | | Hadhrath Ayesha's enmity towards Imam 'Ali (as) | | Was Hadhrath Ayesha the most superior wife of Rasulullah (s)? | | Were Abu Bakr and Ayesha the most beloved of Rasulullah (s)? | | Does the Qur'an guarantee Hadhrath Ayesha's protection from criticism? | | Do the Shi'a slander Hadhrath Ayesha? | | The 'true' Shia position with regards to Hadhrath Ayesha |
| |  | | | | You can email the details of this article to a friend. | |  |
| The rebellion of Hadhrath Ayesha against Hadhrath 'Ali (as)
Hadhrath Ayesha's entry onto the battlefield of Jamal was a violation of the Qur'an
Allah (swt) states clearly with regards to the wives of Rasulullah (s):
"And stay quietly in your houses, and make not a dazzling display, like that of the former Times of Ignorance;...." Al-Quran 33:33
In Tafsir Durre Manthur Volume 5 page 196 under the commentary of this verse we read a narration that states
"when Hadhrath Saudah (RA), wife of the Prophet (s), was asked why she did not perform Hajj and Umrah (regularly) like other wives of the Prophet (s)? Saudha (RA) said, "I have performed Hajj and Umrah (before) and Allah has given me the order to stay at home. By God I will not leave home until my death." The narrator added "by God, Saudah (RA) did not leave her home after the Prophet (s) until her death, when her funeral was taken out".
This verse came down exclusively for the wives of Rasulullah (s) and in the commentary of this verse we can see that Hadhrath Sauda deemed it as a clear injunction for her to remain at home. Despite this, Abu Sulaiman seeks to defend Ayesha's position as follows:
| Ansar.org states: | | Ordering to stay at houses does not contradict leaving the house for an ordered benefit as when the woman leaves the house to go to hajj or omrah, or leaves with her husband in a travel. This verse came down in the life of the Prophet peace be upon him and the prophet peace be upon him traveled with his wives afterwards, as the prophet peace be upon him traveled with Aysha and others to Hijjat Al-Wida'a. Also, the Prophet peace be upon him sent Aysha with Abdulrahman, her brother ... Hujjat Al-Wada'a happened before the Prophet's demise by less than three months after the revelation of this verse. |
Abu Sulaiman's defence is contradicted by the fact that Rasulullah (s) had told his wives during Hajjatul Wida (final pilgrimage) that this WAS their first and last Hajj and that in future they were to remain within their homes. To prove our claim we present al Bidaya wa al Nihaya Volume 7 page 104, where Ibn Kathir under the Chapter "Zainab binte Jahsh" records the following:
"During the Farewell Hajj, Prophet (s) had told his wives that "This is your last Hajj, after that you have to pray on floor mats". The narrator then added that except for Zainab bint e Jahsh (RA) and Saudah(RA) all other wives used to go for Hajj but these two used to say that "nothing shall move us".
Rasulullah's order and Hadhrath Saudah's commentary of this verse is clear proof that there was a mandatory duty placed by Allah on the wives of Rasulullah (s), that they remain within the confines of their homes. Despite this Hadhrath Ayesha opposed this explicit verse of the Qur'an and left her home to instigate opposition against the Imam of the time.
Abu Sulaiman claims:
| Ansar.org states: | | Accordingly, if it is allowed for the prophet's wives to travel for a benefit, then Aysha thought that by her departure a reformation for the Muslims could happen. She interpreted in that matter." |
We have already proven that this verse placed an unconditional order on the wives to stay at home. With regards to Abu Sulaiman's claim that she 'interpreted in that matter', we challenge Ansar.org to show us when she cited this verse and said I interpret this as follows. The fact is that they can try as hard as they can, Abu Sulaiman and his Ansar cronies have no evidence that Ayesha interpreted the verse in this manner. On the contrary we read in Tafsir Durre Manthur Volume 5 page 196 commentary of Surah Ahzab, Hilayat al Awliya Volume 2 page 48, Chapter "Dhikr Ayesha" and Tabaqat al Kabeer Volume 8 page 81 under the Chapter "Dhikr Ayesha" that:
"When Hadhrath Ayesha used to recite the Ayat ("And stay quietly in your houses, and make not a dazzling display, like that of the former Times of Ignorance;.." Al-Quran 33:33) she used to cry so much that her cover used to get wet with tears".
We have already proven the fact that Rasulullah (s) had told his wives during his last Hajj that this was their last Hajj and that they would have to stay at home after this. Those wives who followed this command used to recite this ayat to prove their point. Therefore we can say that it was mandatory for Hadhrath Ayesha to stay at home. The crying of Hazrat Ayesha at the recitation of the verse is clear proof that during her battle with Imam 'Ali (as) she had gone against this ayat which is specific for the Prophets (s) wives.
If as Abu Sulaiman asserts it was not mandatory for her to stay at home and that she had an alternative interpretation of this verse that permitted her to rebel against the Imam of the time, then why was she crying whenever she recited it? Abu Sulaiman can advance as many excuses as he likes but the truth is that the realisation had dawned her, that by leaving her house and fighting Imam 'Ali (as) she had violated this Qur'anic order, one that placed a condition on the wives of Rasulullah (s) to remain within their homes. Ansar have no basis to provide their alternative translation for their commentary contradicts the command of Allah (swt), the order of Rasulullah (s) and the testimony of Ayesha against herself.
Imam Ali (as)'s letter to Hadhrath Ayesha testifies to her being on the wrong path
We read in al Tadkhirath al Khawwas page 38, Matalib al Sa'ul page 112 and Fusul ul Muhimma page 72 that
"Prior to the Battle of Jamal he [Imam Ali] wrote a letter to Ayesha in which he said 'by leaving your home you have opposed the order of Allah (swt) and his Rasul (s)"
Ansar can feel free to offer as many excuses as they like, the fact of the matter is that the Imam of Truth, Ali (as) felt that Ayesha had no basis to support her stance, she was acting in opposition to Allah (swt) and his Rasul (s). Whose opinion should we rely on, Abu Sulaiman's or the Gate of knowledge Imam 'Ali ibne abi Talib (as)?
Hadhrath Ayesha's reply demonstrates her uncompromising attitude towards an amicable settlement
Matalib al Sa'ul page 116 and Fusul ul Muhimma page 72 both record Hadhrath Ayesha's defiant reply to Imam 'Ali (as)'s letter:
"Son of 'Abu Talib, the difference between us is irreconcilable, time is running out, and we shall not submit to your authority, whatever you wish to do, do it".
We suggest Abu Sulaiman mull over this letter carefully. He had himself cited the following verse to prove that both parties were believers:
| Ansar.org states: | | The Believers are but a single Brotherhood: so make peace and reconciliation between your two (contending) brothers." (49:9-10) |
What type of efforts for peace and reconciliation are present in this reply? Hadhrath Ayesha had demonstrated open opposition to Imam 'Ali (as), a refusal to accept his authority and a challenge to him to stop her opposition party. Imam 'Ali (as) hence was left with no other choice but to quash the opposition. Hadhrath Ayesha had made clear that her intention was that of open defiance and disobedience to the Imam of the time.
Letter of Ummul Momineen Hadhrath Umme Salmah to stop Hadhrath Ayesha from participating in the Battle of Jamal is concrete evidence that Hazrat Ayesha was in error
For authentic references from the books of Ahl'ul Sunnah, see following:
- An-Nihaya by Mubarak bin Muhammad bin Abdul Karim Ibn Athir Jazri (d. 606 A.H.) vol 2, page 353; Ibid. vol 1, page 226-237; Ibid. vol 3, pages 271, 331 and 434; Ibid. vol 5, pages 35, 64, 115, 132, 137 and 158
- Al-'Iqd al Farid by Abu Umar Ahmed bin Abd Rabbah Qartabi (d. 328 A.H.) vol 2, page 327 (description of battle of Jamal)
- Qamus by Firozabadi (d. ???) page 371
- al Imama wal Siyasa by Muhammad bin Qutaybah Dinuri (d. 276 A.H.) vol 1, page 53 (description of battle of Jamal)
- Sharh Nahjul Balagha by Azzuddin Abdul Hamid al-Madaini (also known as Ibn Abi al-Hadid M'autazali) (d. 655 A.H.) vol 2, page 124
- Balaghatun Nisa by Ahmed ibn Abi Zahir ibn Tayfur (d. 280 A.H.) page 7
"When Ummul Momineen Aisha decided to go for Jamal, Ummul Momineen Umme Salmah wrote to her: "From Umme Salmah wife of the Holy prophet to Aisha Ummul Momineen, And I praise Allah, There is no God except Allah, and then (I want to say), you are the medium between the prophet and his followers (Ummah). And you are guardian of his honour. The Holy Quran has gathered you so don't despair…. Pillars of this religion cannot be upheld on women. Women are praised for keeping down their eyes and hiding their bodies. Allah has exempted me and you from this task (of leading the battle). What will you say on the day of Judgement when Allah's Prophet will denounce you from Paradise on the deserts that you torn the veil which Allah had concealed you with". Then the announcer will announce that the mother (Umme Salmah) remained here (didn't go for the battle) so should you".
The Qur'an has clearly ordered wives of Prophet to stay in their houses (and stay in your homes, 33:33). This order of Allah is only for the wives of Prophet (S) and Hazrat Ayesha's participation in battle of Jamal against Hadhrat Ali (AS) is a clear violation of order of Allah in the Holy Quran and his Prophet (S).
The prohibition on Hadhrath Hafsa that she not join Ayesha proves that Ayesha was misguided
We read in al Bidaya Volume 7 page 231 that:
"Hadhrath Hafsa binte Umar made preparations to join Ayesha, but (her brother) Abdullah Ibne Umar prevented her from going".
If the stance of Ayesha was correct then why did 'Abdullah Ibne Umar; a leading companion prevent his sister from joining in the rebellion? Clearly he deemed it inappropriate for the wife of Rasulullah (s) to behave in such a manner.
The barking of Hawabs dogs at Ayesha proves she had left the right path
We read in al Imama wal Siyasa page 59 Chapter "Dhikr Jamal" with regards to Ayesha that:
"When she began her opposition to 'Ali, she and her supporters began to make their way to Basra. On route, the dogs of Hawab began to bark at them. Ayesha asked Muhammad bin Talha "Which place is this?". He said "Its is Hawab" to which Hadhrath Ayesha replied "Take me back for on one occasion Rasulullah (s) said, 'Amongst you (wives) is one at whom the dogs of Hawab shall bark.' He (s) said to me specifically, 'Be careful in case it is you'." Muhammad bin Talha said 'Leave these things and proceed' and the Sahaba Abdullah bin Zubayr swore by Allah that they had left Hawab during the first part of the night, he brought some men who testified likewise. The Ulema of Islam have declared the event of Hawab to have been the first false testimony in Islam".
Ayesha wanted to install herself as the Imam over the nation
In Tadkhirath al Khawwas page 43 Chapter "Dhikr Jamal" the narrator states:
"I was walking through Jamal and witnessed a man on the ground rubbing his heels and reciting poetry, another narrators states that someone asked (the same man) 'Who are you?' to which he replied 'I am in that woman's army who intends to become Ameerul Momineen".
Rasulullah (s) condemned women at the helm of a people
We read in Sahih al Bukhari Volume 9, Book 88, Number 219:
Narrated Abu Bakra:
During the battle of Al-Jamal, Allah benefited me with a Word (I heard from the Prophet). When the Prophet heard the news that the people of the Persia had made the daughter of Khosrau their Queen (ruler), he said, "Never will succeed such a nation as makes a woman their ruler."
In Sharh Muqassad Volume 2 page 377 Imam of Ahl'ul Sunnah Sa`duddeen Taftazanee sets out the conditions to be an Imam:
- Free
- Man
- Just
- Adult and sensible
Then in his discussion of the conditions he states clearly that a woman CANNOT be an Imam:
"…because she possesses innate impurity with regards to certain matters of Deen, hence she is prohibited from sitting as Judge or participating in battle".
|
Ayesha
Original article by Ansar.org