Response to: The Life Of The Prophet (saw) From The Wife of the Prophet (saw)

Share

This is a response to the article by RevisitingtheSalaf.org, written on the 3rd of February, 2012, entitled: The Life Of The Prophet (saw) From The Wife of the Prophet (saw), which can be found here & here.

Introduction:

Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alaihi wasallam) is the last prophet, and his Shariah is the last Shariah. Since this Shariah should serve as a guide to humanity till the end of the times, that is why Allah took the responsibility of preserving the Quran Himself, because it is the main source of Shariah.

The beauty of our Islamic law or Shariah is that it guides us in all spheres of our life. And its message is not for one race only, but it is for the entire humanity. That is why Allah bestowed the Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wasallam) with the best family members, and the best companions, as they were the ones who were responsible to teach the Shariah to the people after the death of the Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wasallam). We can’t expect that the ones who are responsible for teaching the Shariah would hide Quran or its divine interpretation as Shias claim.

Similarly the life of the Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wasallam) should also be sufficiently known to the people because the Holy Quran says:
{There has certainly been for you in the Messenger of Allah an excellent pattern for anyone whose hope is in Allah and the Last Day and [who] remembers Allah often.} [Quran 33:21]

Now a part of the life of the Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wasallam) can be known from his companions, but a part of his life which deals with how he lived inside his home can only be learned from his wives, because he had no sons, and his four daughters were married before the battle of Uhud, which happened in 3 AH. The Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wasallam) knew this very well, and hence he put special effort in teaching his wives too, besides teaching his companions.

Ummul Momineen Ayesha’s narrations mostly deal with how the Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wasallam) would live inside his home, and how he behaved with his family members. The fact is that in the Shia books, we rarely find the narration of any wife of the Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wasallam). And when Ummul Momineen Ayesha narrated how the Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wasallam) lived in his home, the ignorant started accusing her of mentioning immoral things. But little do they know that if this is to be considered immorality, than this ‘immorality’ is present in the narration of their Imams as well.

Response:

RTS starts by mentionning a movie called “The innocence of Muslims”, he says:

we have a question: ‘Is the film depiction at variance with the portrayal of Prophet (saw) in the main corpus of authority Sunni works?’
If you ask the average Sunni Muslim on the street, he will provide an impromptu response that it is. It is unlikely that most Sunni Muslims would have ever consulted any of these books, they have simply taken to the streets at the behest of their Mullah’s who have through their incendiary speeches duped the masses into assuming that the film depiction of Muhammad (saw) is alien to Islam, and that people should therefore vent their anger by way of violent protest. What these poor adherents are not told is the truth, that the very depictions, that formed the basis for this obscene piece of film making is not out of kilter with the Sunni Muslim depiction of Muhammad (saw) in the authentic Sunni world, on the contrary it concurs with it.

I watched the first ten minutes of the movie, and I can say very easily that it is so disgusting that even a neutral person will declare that it is complete misrepresentation of what is present in the Sunni books. I am amazed at how on earth have the RTS claimed this nonsense!?

Let’s begin with the arguments of Shias and lets see whether the same can be found in the Shia books as well or not.

We read in Saheeh Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 18: Narrated ‘Urwah: The Prophet asked Aboo Bakr for ‘A’isha’s hand in marriage. Aboo Bakr said “But I am your brother.” The Prophet said, “You are my brother in Allah’s religion and His Book, but she (Aisha) is lawful for me to marry.” Note how the narrator of this tradition is Urwah the nephew of Aisha, not Aisha herself who is presenting the discussion as an eye witness, by the side of Aboo Bakr, clear as he did not attribute the tradition to anybody else, saying I heard from so and so, rather he states the Prophet (saw) asked for the hand of Aisha and grandfather said “But I am your brother.”  Now think carefully Urwah is the younger brother of Abdullah ibn Zubair, who was born in Madina, and this alleged incident occurred when Aisha was six years of age!A lesson can be gauged from, the tradition.  Aboo Bakr was initially apprehensive at the proposal as the Prophet (saw) was his brother thus making Aisha his niece, hence making such a union invalid.  The Prophet (saw) draws up a clear distinction between brothers in religion and brother through bloodline.  Does this not evidence Aboo Bakr’s lack of knowledge on the matter?  Is this not disrespectful of Aboo Bakr?  The reality is this was an attempt by Urwah to establish some familial link with the Prophet (s). Sadly we know the bonds of brother were made between the companions on two occasion, and on both the Prophet (saw) took Imam Alee (a.s) as his brother nobody else!
 We shouldn’t expect the people to have known the whole religion from the day they are born. Especially in the case of the companions, who were in the era when Islam was in the process of completion, rather than being in a complete form. Hence, Abu Bakr definitely had a question as the Prophet (saww) had declared him his brother. So he had a definite question if it would have similar effect on his relations with the Prophet (saww) as a biological brother will have. The Prophet (saww) clarified to him that it was not the case, Abu Bakr agreed to it and married his daughter to the Prophet (saww). I don’t find anything wrong with this, but what the Shia Ayatullah Sayyid Muhammad Taqi Musawi Isfahani says in his book  ‘Mikyal al-Makarim’ is definitely worth reading.

We read in the book of Ayatullah Sayyid Muhammad Taqi Musawi Isfahani:

“there is a traditional report mentioned in Mazar Bihar and other books quoting Azadi that he said: In Medina I came out to go to the house of His Eminence, Abu Abdullah Imam Sadiq (a). On the way I met Abu Baseer, who was in a state of ritual impurity (requiring bath), although I didn’t know at that time. Both of us together came to the Imam and saluted him. The Imam raised his head and said to Abu Baseer: O Abu Baseer, do you not know that it is inappropriate to enter the Prophet’s houses in a state of ritual impurity? So Abu Baseer returned and after he had bathed, we came back to the Imam.”

Reference : Mikyal al-Makarim p. 776

The infallible Imam of Shias exposed Abu Baseer, who would enter the house of the Prophet (saww) in the state of ritual impurity, while fully knowing that it was not allowed to enter the Holy Mosque in the state of ritual impurity. So if we have to criticize anyone, it should be Abu Baseer rather than Abu Bakr.

In Sahih al-Bukhari we read that `Ali (ra) for example was ignorant of a specific Fiqhi ruling:

[I used to get emotional urethral discharge frequently. Being the son-in-law of the Prophet I requested a man to ask him about it. So the man asked the Prophet about it. The Prophet replied, “Perform ablution after washing your organ (penis).]

From the Shia book al-Ja`fariyat by Muhammad bin Muhammad bin al-Ash`ath al-Kufi we read:

أخبرنا محمد حدثني موسى حدثنا أبي عن أبيه عن جده جعفر بن محمد عن أبيه عن آبائه عن علي (عليه السلام) قال : كنت رجلا مذاء فاستحييت أن أسأل رسول الله لمكان فاطمة بنته لأنها عندي فقلت للمقداد يمضى و يسأله فسأل رسول الله عن الرجل الذي ينزل المذي من النساء فقال : يغسل طرف ذكره و أنثييه و ليتوضأ وضوئه للصلاة .

[Muhammad told us, from Musa . that his father told him from his grandfather Ja`far bin Muhammad from his father from his fathers from `Ali bin abi Talib (ra): I used to get emotional urethral discharge frequently. I was shy to ask the Prophet (saw) in the presence of his daughter, so I told al-Miqdad to ask him, so he (saw) said: He should wash his organ then make ablution for prayer.]

We hope RTS doesn’t consider this narration by `Ali (ra) to be immoral…

I ask should we claim that `Ali (ra) is an ignorant and avoid taking religious rulings from him? Or is it not the job of our Prophet (saw) to educate his community and guide them from darkness to light?

RTS continues his rampage:

Saheeh Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 15: 

Narrated ‘Aisha:  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.'” 

If we bring the traditions together we learn that:

• Urwah states Aboo Bakr initially rejected the hand for Aisha on the premises of brotherhood, the Prophet (saw) rejected this stance, Aboo Bakr became silent

• When the time came for Aisha to enter the home of the Prophet (saw) Aboo Bakr was nowhere to be seen,  rather it was her mother Umm Ruman that took her to the house of the Prophet (saw)

• As for the traditions suggesting the desire of the Prophet (saw) the famous saying that all good deeds are rewarded by Allah (swt), well the Prophet (saw) saw a photo of Aisha in a dream, so what is left of this saying when the Prophet (saw) concludes with the words ‘If this is from Allah, then it must happen’ ?

• Whether it happened or did not happen would be from Allah (swt)

• As the intention was to evidence love of Prophet (saw), Urwah did not consider this fact, nor did Bukhari!

Now note the discrepancies in the dream traditions ‘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:  “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 ‘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 (saw) uncovered the cloth to observe Aisha ‘Volume 7, Book 62, Number 15

Abu Bakr had never rejected the hand for Aisha, rather he merely asked a question, a very logical question which could arise in the mind of any Muslim. This is not called rejection, hence RTS has lied upon Abu Bakr. The Prophet (saww) explained it to Abu Bakr and he understood. But since the Shias have a deep hatred against Abu Bakr, they would not stop making a hill out of it as well.

Secondly you should not expect from the narration that everything would be mentioned. Hence we don’t know a lot of things about the marriage of Fatima from `Ali according to the authentic Shia narrations. For example, we don’t know how she went to her new home. Whether she went on foot, or she rode a camel? We don’t know what kind of dress was she wearing, we don’t know the number of family members who attended this marriage ect…  In other words,  if we don’t find the presence of Abu Bakr in the narration when she was being taken to her new home as far as the narrations are concerned, it doesn’t negate his presence.

Secondly, no one tried to mention that it was an evidence of the love of the Prophet (saww) towards his wife, because no one needs to give evidence when the narration itself is clear, and secondly, they were not refuting some foolish people like the Shias who think that the Prophet (saww) married her but had no love towards her. Why would the Prophet (saww) marry her, especially if he had no love for her, and if she had virtue or honor? Let RTS clarify why did the Prophet (saww) marry her? And as far as the discrepancies in the narrations are concerned, we know that it is common in narrations on such issues to have minor differences.

Sayyad Ali Milani says in his book

مجرد اختلاف الأخبار لا يجوز تكذيب أصل الخبر وعلى كل حال، فإن الاستناد إلى اختلاف الروايات في ” الطير المشوي “، لأجل القدح والطعن في أصل الحديث، جهل بطريقة علماء الحديث أو تجاهل عنها

[The existence of differences in a report does not make it permissible to reject it, and in any matter, if one did this with Hadith Al-Tayr, in order to reject it, then he is either ignorant of the ways of the scholars of Hadith, or purposefully ignored it.]

Reference : Nafahat al-Azhar fi Khulasat ‘Abaqat al-‘Anwar, Vol. 14, p. 109

RTS will now ask some genius questions:

Our questions are as follows:
1. Did Allah (swt) physically raise Aisha before the Prophet (saw) or did He (swt) merely present a picture of her?2. Raising her from her bed would have been unlikely, she was an infant, no doubt within close proximity of her parents and siblings, had she been raised they would have surely raised the alarm, and this would have been well documented in the annals of history.3. When its common sense that Aisha was not physically raised, then clearly an image of Aisha must have been presented to the Prophet (saw), since photocopiers were not in existence during that era.4. If an image was presented then how can Nawasib suggest that the Shia usage of imagery is Bidah?

5. Will Nawasib issue a Fatwa against Allah (swt) who have no doubt delivered this image to the Prophet (saw)?

6. Nawasib can’t have their cake and eat it, if imagery is haraam then a Fatwa needs to be issued forthwith against Allah (swt) for creating the Aisha replica

The answers are as follows:

1. Allah didn’t physically raise Aisha before the Prophet (saww), all of the narrations are talking about a dream. It is not necessary that the word dream be there in every narration.

2. No need to answer since it happened in a dream as I mentioned

3. That is true

4. Shias can use imagery in dreams as well, and we will have no problem.

5. We ask, should the Muslims issue a Fatwa against water since a human can see the reflection of his face on its surface?

6. Nawasib don’t need to issue fatwa, because the Ahlul bayt themselves have issued the fatwa already in Shia books.

We present some examples from what their Imams narrated and what they attributed to the Prophet (saw) in their books:

In Mustadrak al-Wasa’il 3/454, 13/110-210:

يخرج عنق من النار فيقول : أين من كذب على الله ؟ وأين من ضاد الله ؟
وأين من استخف بالله ؟ فيقولون : ومن هذه الأصناف الثلاثة ؟ فيقول : من سحر فقد
كذب على الله ، ومن صور التصاوير فقد ضاد الله ، ومن تراءى في عمله فقد استخف
بالله

[A neck comes from the fire and asks: “Where is the one who lied upon Allah? Where is the one who opposed Allah? Where is the one who underestimated Allah?” They say: “Who are these three?” It replies: “Who practiced magic lied upon Allah, who made the images opposed Allah, who worshiped insincerely has underestimated Allah.”]

In al-Kafi 6/528:

أرسلني رسول الله صلى الله عليه
وآله وسلم في هدم القبور وكسر الصو

[The messenger of Allah (saw) sent me to demolish the graves and break the images]

And:

بعثني رسول الله (صلى الله عليه وآله) إلى المدينة فقال: لا تدع صورة إلا محوتها، ولا قبرا إلا سويته، ولا كلبا إلا قتلته

[The messenger of Allah (saw) sent me to Madinah and said: “Don’t leave an image unless you erased it, nor a grave unless you leveled it, or a dog unless you killed it.]

And:

إن عليا عليه السلام كره الصورة في البيوت

[`Ali (as) hated the images in the houses.]

Rawd al-Jinan by al-Shaheed al-Thani pg.212:

إبن عباس رضي الله عنهما وقد سئل : اني اصور هذه الصور فافتني فيها. قال
سمعت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم يقول :كل مصور في النار يجعل له لكل
صورة صورها نفسا فتعذبه في جهنم

[I heard the messenger (saw) say: “Every man who creates images is in the fire, Allah will make each image alive so it may torture him in the fire.]

And other similar narrations…

RTS continues asking useless questions:

We would like to know:

• Who conducted the marriage ceremony (Nikah)?  

• Which Muslims were witnesses to the event?  

• What was the precise necessity to enter into a marriage contract with a six year old?  Where was the nikah read, the house of Aboo Bakr, the Prophet (saw), or the House of God (swt)?  

• Were previous customs in existence relating to marriage with a pre-adolescent?  Sadly none of these narrations provide any clarity on this.

We promise to provide the answers to the first two questions, if the Shia answer the same questions regarding all the other wives of the Prophet (saww) from their own authentic narrations. This is our challenge to RTS and they will fail it because this type of detail is not mentioned most of the time.

RTS’s extremely dumb questions continue:

Before consummation, the Hijrah took place that is why Aboo Bakr was residing in the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj.  The traditions seems to infer that Aisha accompanied Aboo Bakr on Hijrah, that is at variance with the other books of history that inform us that Aisha and others conducted their Hijrah later on, sadly Aisha fails to clarify:• After what period she did the Hijrah and arrived in Madina• How many days of travel did that involve?

• Who accompanied her?

• Were those accompanying her Mus or Kuffar

• If Muslim / non who were they?

• Is this how daughters are married off, unexpectedly, without time to compose / prepare themselves?

• Why did the Prophet (saw) turn up unexpectedly at midday and not at night?

• Why did her mother make her stand at the door?

• Why are we not informed of any consolation between mother and daughter before this hand over?

• Where was Aboo Bakr at this very emotional time?

• Where were her other relatives (brother and sisters) is it not natural that they would want to see off their sister?

• What did Aboo Bakr leave as a gift?

Yes dear readers, his questions are so dumb that we will reply to them with some dumb questions of our own:

1. After how many days did `Ali migrate?

2. How much time did he take to reach Madinah?

3. Was he travelling on horse or camel?

4. What was the color of the horse or camel?

5. When the Prophet (peace be upon him) sent off Fatima to Ali, who were accompanying along with her?

6. Which wives didn’t take part in it and what were the reasons?

7. How many friends did `Ali invite to his wedding ceremony?

ect..ect… Many other completely useless questions can be asked.

We appeal to justice, just ponder over these shameless narrations.  A’isha informs us that she would appear to the Prophet (saw) in his dreams; her image remained in his mind.  He rushed to ask for her hand as a six year old.  Now consider the hand over event, bearing in mind Aboo Bakr’s claim of fraternal links and contemplate the manner in which Aisha is handed over to the Prophet (saw).  Think about the desire of the Prophet (saw), his impromptu entry to enable a speedy hand over and think about what sort of picture this paints of the Prophet (saw).  Is this the image of Prophethood that the Nasb content with?  Of course you will get some insisting that such traditions are false, as the actual age of Aisha  at the time of marriage, as can be deduced from other historical accounts.

This is not stranger than the 11th Imam visiting his wife Narjis before marrying her, and saying to her that he would come in her dream every night. Why was the 11th Imam visiting a strange woman in her dream even before marrying her?

We read in Shia books:

Narjis narrates that the twelfth imam said to her:

فما كان تأخري عنك إلا لشركك، وإذ قد أسلمت فإني زائرك كل ليلة إلى أن يجمع الله شملنا في العيان، فما قطع عني زيارته بعد ذلك إلى هذه الغاية

[I avoided you due to your shirk, and when you embraced Islam, I will visit you every night till Allah gathers us together, (She said): so his visits never stopped until our marriage.]

Reference : Dalail al-Imamah, by Shaykh ibn Jarir ibn Rustam al-Tabari, p. 494

If this is digestible for the Shia, then why do they have a problem with the Prophet (peace be upon him) seeing his future wife in his dream?

As far as the age is concerned, this was never an issue according to the majority of Shia. Rather the Shia have an authentic narration that the infallible Imam was asked about the marriage of a girl or boy, only three years in age, and he said :

عن علي بن يقطين قال: سألت أبا الحسن عليه السلام أتزوج الجارية وهي بنت ثلاث سنين؟ أو يزوج الغلام وهو ابن ثلاث سنين؟ وما أدنى حد ذلك الذي يزوجان فيه؟ فإذا بلغت الجارية فلم ترض فما حالها؟ قال: لا بأس بذلك إذا رضي أبوها أو وليها

[ From Ali bin Yaqteen: I asked Abu Al-Hasan (as) if I can marry a little girl that is three years old, or if a young boy that is three can get married, and the minimum age for marriage? What if she grows into puberty and doesn’t want to, then what? He said: It is fine if her father or caretaker doesn’t mind. ]

Reference : Tahdheeb ul Ahkam, by al-Tusi Vol. 7, p. 382

RTS says:

Such research in no way assists the advocates of Aisha, after all if they are now insisting that we reject the personal testimony of Aisha in favor of secondary sources, they are in fact insisting that Bakri Muslims reject:• The direct witness testimony of Aisha

• The authentic, reliable, golden chain of Aboo Bakr’s  descendants that conveyed these narrations

• The most authentic work in the so called Sunni sect

The repercussions of such an approach are evident for all to see, after all if A’isha’s direct eye witness testimony can be called in to question here then anything that she says can become the subject of scrutiny, scepticism and even doubt.  It is little wonder that faced with this bleak prospect the so called Sunnies have to their credit come out extolling the accuracy of A’isha’s account, thus protecting her from any suggestion that her account was false.  Rather than feel embarrassed at such narrations we see scholars within the so called ‘Ahl Sunnah’ defending such narrations, stating that such marriages are not objectionable as a girl is capable of marrying at the age of nine provided she attains puberty as she is capable of bearing a child.  Bilal Philips falls within the ambit of those that not only affirm to Aisha’s testimony, but actually insist that it is right that such narrations be embraced. There is a world of difference between a girls being capable of marrying (due to her attaining puberty) and whether it is morally / ethically right for such a young girl to marry.  The maturity of a girl does not automatically change with the onset of menstruation; she remains a ‘girl’ developing into a woman.  The suggestion that menstruation gives the green light for such a girl to be wedded and bedded is absurd.  Think logically can any right minded person envisage a fifty year old man marrying a nine year old girl, whose maturity was such she was still playing with her dolls?  Has Bilal Philips married his daughter to a fifty year old man, pursuant to the alleged Sunnah of the Prophet (saw)?.

In the beginning, RTS wants to tell the readers that the advocates of Ummul Momineen Ayesha insist that we reject the personal testimony of Ummul Momineen Ayesha in favour of secondary sources, and later on it claims that rather than feel embarrassed at such narrations, we see scholars within the so called ‘Ahl Sunnah’ defending such narrations’. Perhaps RTS want to kill two birds in one shot.

Let us see what Shia scholars have said regarding the marriage of Lady Fatima

Sayyid Muhsin al-Ameen said:

فعلى قول أكثر أصحابنا انها ولدت بعد النبوة بخمس سنين يكون عمرها حين تزويجها تسع سنين أو عشر سنين أو إحدى عشرة سنة لأنها تزوجت بعلي ع بعد الهجرة بسنة وقيل بسنتين وقيل بثلاث سنين

According to most of our companions, she was born five years after Nubuwwah, her age at the time of marriage should be nine, ten or eleven years because she married Ali a year after migration, and it is said two years after migration, and it is also said that three years after migration.

Reference : Aayan al-Shia, Vol. 1, p. 313

Shaykh Ali al-Namazi al-Shahrudi said:

وكان تزويجها في السنة الأولى من الهجرة، وكان لها يومئذ تسع سنين

She was married a year after the migration, and she was nine years at that time.

Reference : Mustadrak Safinatul Bahar, Vol. 8, p. 247

Shaykh Najah al-Tayi said

تزوج علي (عليه السلام) وعمره خمس وعشرون سنة وتزوجته فاطمة (عليها السلام) وعمرها تسع سنين

Ali married Fatima when he was 15 years old, and Fatima was nine years old.

Reference : Azwaj al-Nabi wa-Banatuh, p. 40

Ayatullah Ali Dawani said

Fatima Zahra (a.s) was only nine at the time of marriage. It must be remembered here that Hijaz is one of the warm climatic zones where girls gain puberty rather early. But it is said that principally, Zahra’s development was rather extraordinary and she looked eighteen when she was nine.

Reference : Portraits of Youths in Quran and the History of Islam, p. 156

RTS continues his baseless rant:

Alhamdolillah for the Shiee of Imam Alee (a.s) their exists no conflict of conscience, our position is clear, A’isha concocted this narration to create a persona of an innocent girl, and thus limiting her culpability in future acts, whether they related to marital strife through to her opposition to Imam Alee (a.s). These traditions are the height of indecency, and have in fact been concocted to provide a defence for A’isha’s later conduct; after all they will argue her marital conduct was linked to her immature age.

Again baseless assumptions, as are common amongst the Shias. While the fact remains that majority of their scholars stated that Lady Fatima was married when she was nine years old, and majority of them had no problem with it. So it is strange how someone assumes nowadays that if a wife of Prophet Muhammad (saww) states that she was nine years when she was married, she was trying to protect herself from the culpability of her wrong conduct. Rather Ayesha didn’t need to concoct narrations to limit her culpability in the future acts. `Ali himself said after the battle of Jamal in the Shia book Nahj-ul-Balagha:

وَلَهَا بَعْدُ حُرْمَتُهَا الأولَى، وَالْحِسَابُ عَلَى اللهِ

[She (`Aisha) has the same respect afterwards as she had earlier, and the accountability (Hisaab) is on Allah to take.]

Reference : Nahjul balagha, p. 335

Her respect and stature was accepted by Ali himself, even though if the present day Shias don’t accept it. And if she indeed need to concoct narrations in her virtues, there were much more things which she could falsely claim, rather than mentioning her age wrongly. Majority of the early Shia scholars had no problem with it, and most of them also accepted the young age of Ayesha when she was married. But suddenly, affected by the Western thinking, Shias find a problem with her young age.

RTS moves on to something else, he now attempts to criticize the narrations of the mother of believers:

The Prophet (saw) Would Bathe With Aisha In A Single PotAll sources that are Quoted can also be found from the official websites of the opponents:  http://www.sahih-bukhari.com/ http://www.sahihalbukhari.com/sps/sbk/

Saheeh Bukhari Volume 1, Book 5, Number 250: Narrated ‘Aisha: “The Prophet and I used to take a bath from a single pot called ‘Faraq'”.

Al Kulayni:

النيسابوريان عن صفوان عن العيص بن القاسم قال سألت أبا عبد اللَّه ع هل يغتسل الرجل و المرأة من إناء واحد فقال نعم يفرغان على أيديهما قبل أن يضعا أيديهما في الإناء قال و سألته عن سؤر الحائض فقال لا توضأ منه و توضأ من سؤر الجنب إذا كانت مأمونة ثم تغسل يديها قبل أن تدخلهما في الإناء- و كان رسول اللَّه ص يغتسل هو و عائشة في إناء واحد- يغتسلان جميعاThe two Nishapuris from Safwan from al-`Ees b. al-Qasim.  He said: I asked Aboo `Abdillah (a.s): ‘Do the man and woman do ghusl from a single vessel?’  So he said: “Yes, they pour out on their hands prior placing their hands in the vessel”.  He said: ‘And I asked him about the su’r of the menstruating woman’.  So he said: “Do not do wudu from it, and do wudu from the su’r of the junub when she is trusty then washes her hands prior to inserting them in the vessel.  And the Messenger of Allah (saw) used to do ghusl, him and `A’isha, in a single vessel both doing ghusl”.

Footnote: al-Majlisī II says: ‘Majhool like SaheeH (Authentic)’ in Mir’at al-`Uqool Vol.13 Pg. # 39

After mentioning this Shia tradition, RTS says:

The two Sheikh of Nishabour are Muhammad b. Ismail and Fadl b. Shadhan.  Al-Fadal did not narrate directly from Sheikh Muhammad ibn Yaq’oob Kulayni he used Muhammad bin Isma’il, however Muhammad b Ismail is Majhool ‘Unknown’. Even If the above narration is to be accepted reliable the notion of spouses bathing together is within the confines of the Shariah. Now the narration from Al-Kafi is a question asked from one male to another. ‘The Imam (a.s) is explaining the method on how to perform Ghusul with a menstruating women. However A’isha on the other hand is narrating this not to a women rather a man and that been her nephew Urwah. A’isha goes further and  provides a graphic detail of she would get fondled while performing a bath with the holy Prophet (saw).  No decent, respectable woman would ever contemplate cascading details of her sex life to anyone let alone a man even If it is her nephew. Therefore beggars belief that A’isha had no inhibitions when she narrated such a thing to her nephew.  It’s even more so important to highlight that A’isha has narrated in Bukhari ‘And our hands used to go in the pot after each other in turn’ this suggest the hands went in simultaneously one after the other as compared to the narration in Al-Kafi which states the Imam (a.s) said ‘Yes, they (women) pour out on their hands prior placing their hands in the vessel’.

In religion, there is no shame. But the question is , if Ummul Momineen Ayesha did a bad thing by mentioning her private life to her nephew, how come the Shia infallible Imam did a right thing by mentioning the private life of the Prophet (peace be upon him) ? How he came to know about the private life of the Prophet (peace be upon him) ? If he had learnt this from his forefathers, then it means that the Prophet (peace be upon him) would have told this to Ali. But the question is, didn’t the Prophet (peace be upon him) also provide graphic detail of his private life to Ali? How come it is unobjectionable and the act of Aisha is objectionable? Being a male doesn’t mean that you could mention the private life to everyone. But the case we read is an exception, and it is a religious matter which is necessary to mention to the people. Otherwise, even the Prophet (peace be upon him) would not have mentioned this to Ali, and Ali would not have narrated it to his son if it was not a religious issue.

In Sharh Ma`ani al-Athar by al-Tahawi we read that `Ali (ra) told `Umar (ra) to ask the prophet’s (saw) wives since they were the most knowledgeable about his personal life and habits:

[`Umar ordered al-Muhajirun and al-Ansar to gather and he consulted them, so they agreed that Ghusl was not obligatory except for Mu`adh and `Ali who both said: “When the circumcised part passes the circumcised part Ghusl is obligatory.” so `Umar said: “If you O righteous people of Badr have differed, then who shall I ask?” `Ali said: “O Ameer al-Mu’mineen, there is no one more knowledgeable about these matters regarding the Prophet (SAWS) than his wives.” `Umar then sent after (his daughter) Hafsa and asked, she said: “I have no knowledge of this.” then he sent after `Aisha and she said: “When the circumcised part passes the circumcised part Ghusl is obligatory.” after this `Umar would say: “If I ever hear of a man doing it, I shall make his punishment severe.”]

I hope the reader can clearly see how the companions and Muslims benefited from this personal knowledge.

RTS now says:

Defence OneSayeda Faatima (s.a) consummated the marriage with Imam Alee (a.s) at the age of 10.

Reply One

Food which is eaten by the parents has an enormous effect of the future of the child, because it is from this food that the sperm is formed and carried on to the womb to grow and become a human being.

The psychological state of the parents during sexual intercourse has a great effect on the child’s state of mind and his/her behavior in the future. In light of these two points (the nutritional and psychological effects upon children), we move on to elaborate on the subject by verifying it through a narration.

Narrated from Imam Alee Reza (a.s) the Prophet (saw) said: ‘When I was taken to the heavens, Jibra’eel (a.s) took me by my hand, and I entered Jannah. Then, he (Jibra’eel) gave me from the heavenly dates, and I ate it. Then that altered my sperm in my loin. So when I returned to the earth, I had slept with Khadeejah (s.a), and Fatimah (s.a) was conceived, and Fatimah (s.a) is a human Houri. So whenever I yearn the scent of Jannah, I smell the scent of my daughter, Fatimah (s.a).’”

Source: Uyoon Al-Akhbaar Al-Reza. Vol. 1, Pg. # 115, Hadeeth # 3.

There is a little disagreement about the primary narrator ‘Abd Al-Salaam bin Saalih,’ whether or not if he was an Sunni or Shi’ee. Al-Khoei in his Mu`jam Rijal Al-Hadeeth and Al-Tafreeshee in his Naqd Al-Rijaal have said that he is a Shie’e. While earlier scholars such as Al-Tusi and Al-Hilli have stated that he is an Sunni. Even if we were to say he was a Sunni, the hadeeth will only be lowered to Reliable because it is 100% established that the narrator is trustworthy.

The heavenly status of Sayeda Faatima (s.a) makes her unique among all the women and indeed from all the humans of the world.

Taking evidence from this narration only proves that Fatima (ra) was not more than ten years old when she married Ali. The reason is that the event of Miraj occurred in the late Meccan period, before the Muslims migrated to Madinah. Hence RTS has just proved that Fatima was less than ten years old when she married Ali. So this ‘heavenly status’ comes with a ‘bitter truth’ regarding the age of Fatima (ra) as well which the Shias have to accept.

RTS continues:

Defence TwoA’isha’s age was 10 according to the Imams of the Ahlulbayt (a.s).Reply Two

وعنه ، عن محمد بن عيسى ، عن يونس ، عن أبي أيوب الخرّاز ، قال : سألت إسماعيل بن جعفر : متى تجوز شهادة الغلام ؟ فقال : إذا بلغ عشر سنين ، قلت ، ويجوز أمره ؟ قال : فقال : إن رسول الله ( صلى الله عليه وآله ) دخل بعائشة وهي بنت عشر سنين ، وليس يدخل بالجارية حتى تكون امرأة ، فاذا كان للغلام عشر سنين جاز أمره ، وجازت شهادته .

Alee bin Ibraheem from Muhammad bin Isa from Yunus bin Abdur Rahman from Aboo Ayyub Al-Khazaz who said: I asked Isma’eel bin Ja’far, “What age is the witnessing of a boy accepted?” In which he replied: “If he completes 10 years of age.” I (Aboo Ayyub) said, “And is his matter (decisions?) legal (at that age)?” He said: “The messenger of Allah (saw) entered upon A’isha when she was a female of 10 years, and it is not for one to enter upon a girl until she becomes a woman (i.e 10 years is the limit for that), so if a boy reaches 10 years his matter (decisions?) is legal and so is his witnessing.”

Grading: Al-Majlisi II said this hadeeth is Saheeh in Mir’aat Al-`Uqool, Vol. 24, pg. 235. Al-Majlisi said this hadeeth is Saheeh Mawqoof (Authentic Halted). Milaadh Al-Akhyaar, vol. 10, pg. 102

Source: Al-Kaafi, Vol.7, Pg. 388, H # 1. , Tahdheeb Al-aHkaam, Vol. 6, ch. 91, Pg. 251, H # 49. , Wasaa’il Al-Shee`ah. Vol. 1, ch. 4, Pg. 44, H # 75.

The Hadeeth has been Graded ‘Saheeh’ or ‘Saheeh Mawqoof ‘ by Allamah Majlisi II (r.a). The narration states A’isha consummated the marriage at the age of 10. Also we find there is no mention of when the intial Nikaḥ had taking place. Sayed Al-Khoei (r.a) has commented on this Hadeeth as follows:

( * 1 ) ولكن الرواية لا يمكن الاستدلال بها ، فإنها ليست رواية عنمعصوم ، وقول إسماعيل ليس بحجة ، على أنه مبنى على استدلالفاسد وعلى قياس واضح البطلان .

“But the narration can not be used as a proof because it is not from an infallible person (Imam/Prophet), and Isma’eel’s opinion is not Hujjah (proof). Besides, it is based on a clear wrong logic and Qiyas.”

مباني تكملة المنهاج – السيد الخوئي – ج 2 – شرح ص 77

Source: Mabani Takmilat Al-Minhaaj. Vol. 2, Pg. # 77.

We have already mentioned many Shia scholars who accepted the fact that Lady Fatima was married when she was nine. Secondly, this statement of al-Khui just proves that even the sons of the Imams would practice ‘Qiyas’ according to the Shia scholars. In this narration Isma`eel the son of Ja`far practices Qiyas according to the Shia, this means he is from Ahlul-Sunnah because only we practice Qiyas, the Shia are forbidden from it.

He continues:

The Prophet (saw) Fondled Aisha Whilst Menstruating!
All sources that are Quoted can also be found from the official websites of the opponents:
http://www.sahih-bukhari.com/
http://www.sahihalbu…i.com/sps/sbk/If one does not trust the links above please feel free to either Google a online version of Bukhari which can be found from multiple sites or alternatively invest into a personal copy of the book.  “They ask thee concerning women’s courses. Say: They are a hurt and a pollution: So keep away from women in their courses, and do not approach them until they are clean. But when they have purified themselves, ye may approach them in any manner, time, or place ordained for you by Allah. For Allah loves those who turn to Him constantly and He loves those who keep themselves pure and clean (2.22)We read in Saheeh Bukhari Volume 1, Book 6, Number 298: Narrated ‘Aisha: The Prophet and I used to take a bath from a single pot while we were Junub. During the menses, he used to order me to put on an Izar (dress worn below the waist) and used to fondle me. While in Itikaf, he used to bring his head near me and I would wash it while I used to be in my periods (menses).

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

Whilst this tradition evidences a further effort of Aisha (la) to evidence the extreme sexually charged relationship she had with the Prophet (saw) to the extent that he (saw) could not keep away from her even when she was menstruating! The Prophet (saw) has eight other wives to fulfil his needs, so why was he seeking to cleave to an unclean Aisha (la)?  Is it right that a wife notifies this sordid, filthy detail to others, and worse still a man?  What would the Sirah of the Prophet (saw) remain nebulous had it not been for this filthy narration?

The simple answer to all this long appeals is that it is allowed according to infallible Shia Imams.

Grand Ayatullah Khomeini says in his book

لا إشكال في جواز استمتاع الزوج من زوجتها الحائض بما فوق السرة ودون الركبة، بل الظاهر أن الحكم مسلم بين الفريقين، فما في بعض الروايات من عدم جواز مطلق الاستمتاع شاذ مطروح أو مؤول

[There is no problem in the husband seeking pleasure from his menstruating wife above the navel and below the knee, rather it is an agreed upon issue between the two sects. And what is mentioned in some narrations regarding the impermissibility of seeking pleasure completely is a rare view which is rejected.]

Reference : Kitab al-Tahara, Vol. 1, p. 128

RTS continues:

Saheeh Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 118: Narrated ‘Ursa: Aisha said, “While the Ethiopians were playing with their small spears, Allah’s Apostle screened me behind him and I watched (that display) and kept on watching till I left on my own.” So you may estimate of what age a little girl may listen to amusement. Saheeh Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 15, Number 70: Narrated Aisha: … 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.If one inspects the tradition carefully, it is clear that Aisha watched the entire display whilst seated upon the shoulders of the Prophet (saw). Our claim can be evidenced by the fact that we are informed from Aisha’s (la) testimony that she was standing behind the Prophet (saw) so how was she then capable of observing the entire spectacle cheek to cheek with the Prophet (saw)? Did she take some growth hormone that enabled her to rise in height to such dramatic proportions, to the point that she was cheek to cheek with the Prophet (saw)? Or did she climb on to some cushions. Or was she riding on the back of the Prophet (saw)? Just contemplate the ages of the spouses. Aisha (was had not yet attained majority age) whilst the Prophet (saw) was in his fifties. Was Aisha taller, shorter or the same size as the Prophet (saw)? If Aisha was of the same height or shorter she would have only been able to observe the spectacle cheek to cheek with the Prophet (saw), unless of course if she was on his (saw) shoulders.

The history books suggest that the middle aged Prophet (saw) was of medium height. Aisha (had not yet hit puberty so was bound to increase in height, but it is unlikely that at that time she would have been the same height as the Prophet (saw). This being the case, precisely how could her taller husband have enabled her to see the event by telling her to stand behind him (saw)? How was she then able to stand behind the Prophet (saw) and observe the event cheek to cheek? The only possible way that this could have happened was if she was watching the event on the shoulders of the Prophet (saw). 

Since Salafis always insist that their married lives should be a mirror image of that of the Prophet (saw) and Aisha we would urge them to accordingly implement this Sunnah forthwith. It is essential they avers such traditions and accordingly accompany their wives to male displays of bravado and wrestling. Naturally to ensure complete compliance with the Sunnah of the Prophet (saw) the Nasbieees should ensure that their wives are raised either through physical carrying or via lift supports (for the heavier Salafi female) so that she is accordingly positioned cheek to cheek with her spouse, that way both spouses can enjoy the display and ensure complete conformity with the Sunnah of the Prophet (saw)!  Now we have some questions that we would invite the Salafis to clarify for us?

Our Questions:

1. The traditions allude to the Ethiopians conducting combat training, was it exclusively this group?
2. Are there any previous examples of the Sahaba conducting military training in the mosque of the Prophet (saw)?
3. Were those conducting this training Muslim or non-Muslim?
4. If they were non-Muslim what were the companions doing at the time?
5. If the Sahaba were present were they also partaking in these military exercises?
6. If they were not present, why not?
7. If they were present, what is the evidence?
8. If it was merely military training, what did Umar find so objectionable that cause him to intervene and rebuke the participants?
9. Did Umar object to Muslims partaking in combat training?
10. If so what was his objection?
11. If he had no objection, why did he try and curtail it?
12. If it was combat training, why did the Prophet (saw) not point out the validity of such training when he stopped Umar ibn Khataab?
13. If I was merely combat training, why would a young Aisha found it so enjoyable?
14. Was the Prophet (saw) seeking to equip Aisha with military training?
15. Was the right to learn this training the exclusive right of Aisha, or could his remainder wives and the wives and daughters of the Sahaba not also benefit from such training?
16. If no other female was entitled to watch this combat spectacle why not?
17. If other females were present, who were they?

I am surprised by the foolishness of this Rafidhi who has written this nonsense. Basically he is trying to negate that Ayesha was young when she married the Prophet (peace be upon him). But here, he is saying that ‘it is clear that Aisha watched the entire display whilst seated upon the shoulders of the Prophet (saw)’. If she was indeed mature, and not young, as RTS wants to have us believe, than how did she watch the entire display while seated upon the shoulders of the Prophet (saw)? And RTS says ‘Our claim can be evidenced by the fact that we are informed from Aisha’s (la) testimony that she was standing behind the Prophet (saw) so how was she then capable of observing the entire spectacle cheek to cheek with the Prophet (saw)?’ This is the height of foolishness. For we can see alot of couples who can stand cheek to cheek even when they are not of the same height. And how can a woman stand cheek to cheek with her husband if she is seated upon him? And how can a wife who is not young be seated upon the shoulders of her husband while watching a display till she is tired? The dumb person who has written this nonsense needs serious mental rehabilitation.

Secondly, it should be noted that this is definitely an incident before the laws regarding veil were ordained. So after the laws regarding veil were ordained, no one needs to lead his wife to a ceremony to watch any kind of display.

As usual RTS did not disappoint us, his questions are nothing but waste of time. This is like asking:

1. Who was the first male to render allegiance to `Ali?
2. Who was the first female to render allegiance to `Ali?
3. Where was the allegiance ceremony held?
4. In which Islamic month did it happen?
5. How many people were present in the allegiance ceremony?
6. How many of the Muhajireen were present in the ceremony?

Ect..Ect…

Even if there is no answer to these questions, still we know `Ali did receive the allegiance of the people thus becoming a ruler. Such useless questions are abundant in the RTS website and there is no need to waste any more time…

We move on:

The Prophet (saw) Would Indulge Himself In Romantic Pursuits While Fasting!
All sources that are Quoted can also be found from the official websites of the opponents:

http://www.sahih-bukhari.com/
http://www.sahihalbukhari.com/sps/sbk/
http://www.muslimacc…dawud/index.htm

Saheeh Bukhari Volume 3, Book 31, Number 153: Narrated Aboo Bakr bin ‘Abdur-Rahman:
My father and I went to ‘Aisha and she said, “I testify that Allah’s Apostle at times used to get up in the morning in a state of Janaba from sexual intercourse, not from a wet dream and then he would fast that day.” Then he went to Umma Salama and she also narrated a similar thing.

Saheeh Bukhari Volume 3, Book 31, Number 148: Narrated ‘Aisha and Umma Salama: At times Allah’s Apostle used to get up in the morning in the state of Janaba after having sexual relations with his wives. He would then take a bath and fast.

Whilst A’isha might be seeking to extol the depths of love that the Prophet (saw) had for her, such narrations  lower the character of the Prophet (saw)  to some pervert (God forbid) that goes against the exalted status of the Prophet (saw). This entire depiction of the Prophet (saw) from the tongue of A’isha presents him as just like some perverted Arab leader.  Had A’isha (la)  had a true picture of Prophet hood in her mind she would have never attributed such shameless narrations to the Prophet (saw), that would one would not like attributed to the common layman, let alone the Seal of all Prophets (peace be upon all of them).  

Defense One
[ 12840 ] 5 ـ وبإسناده عن سعد ، عن محمد بن الحسين ومحمد بن علي ، عن محمد بن عيسى ، عن احمد بن محمد بن أبي نصر ، عن حماد بن عثمان ، عن حبيب الخثعمي ، عن أبي عبدالله ( عليه السلام ) قال : كان رسول الله ( صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم ) يصلي صلاة الليل في شهر رمضان ثم يجنب ثم يؤخر الغسل متعمدا حتى يطلع الفجر .
وبإسناده عن محمد بن أحمد بن يحيى ، عن محمد بن عيسى مثله .
5 – And by his isnad from Sa`d from Muhammad b. al-Husayn and Muhammad b. `Ali from Muhammad b. `Isa from Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Abi Nasr from Hammad b. `Uthman from Habib al-Khath`ami from Abu `Abdillah (a.s). He said: The Messenger of Allah (saw) would pray the night prayer during the month of Ramadan then become junub then delay the ghusl on purpose until the fajr would rise.

Reply One
These narrations suggest that during the blessed moth of Ramadhan the Prophet (saw) would sleep after conjugal relation with his wife throughout the night, not offering Tahajjud prayers, nor reciting the Qur’aan, rather he would sleep through the entirety of the night and would in fact awaken in the morning (after Sunrise), would perform the Ghusl and then commence fasting.  Aisha (la) was frank enough to explain that it was not merely to a deep sleep but due to the act of sexual intercourse. In one tradition the brother of A’isha (la) seek to include Umma Salmah (r.a) as a narrator. When we compare it to the narration to Al-Kafi the Imam (a.s) said ‘The Messenger of Allah (saw) would pray the night prayer during the month of Ramadan then become junub then delay the ghusl on purpose until the fajr would rise’ clearly A’isha has ascribed a lie to the holy Prophet (saw) by suggesting he would waken in that state which could me either two things:

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

or

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

Aisha had given the green light to her spiritual sons to implement a practice that enables them to partake in such culinary delights during this blessed month, she seeks to do so by citing the example of Prophet (saw).  One can happily partake in this act, and sleep at leisure.  Thereafter one is at leisure to awake at Fajar, then commence the fast one can turn to one’s wife sleep with her then go back to sleep and perform Ghusul and continue their fast as usual! And thus the Sunnah of the Prophet (saw) will likewise be implemented in the process!

The deception of the Shia can be seen from the clear fact that the Hadith itself mentions that the Prophet (peace be upon him) would wake up in the state of Janabah, and then he would fast on that day. The Shia claims that it could mean two things, either the Prophet (peace be upon him) while fasting, read morning prayers, and then broke his fast, and later did Ghusl. Or the Prophet (peace be upon him) would miss night prayers, and morning prayers and then awake in the morning in the state of Junub and then perform Ghusl. While you can see very clearly that this is totally wrong if we read the hadith of Ummul Momineen Ayesha.

The hadith of Ummul Momineen Ayesha merely mentions that:
– The Prophet (saw) would get up in the morning
– In the state of Janabah.
– He would keep fast on that day.

This neither negates the night prayer, since it is only talking about the Prophet (saww) getting up in the morning. The Prophet (saww) would pray at night, and then he would become Junub, and then he would sleep. After getting up, he would then take a bath, and fast. The Shia, who perhaps was on drugs while writing this article, unnecessarily makes assumptions which are absolutely illogical. And RTS says ‘In one tradition the brother of A’isha (la) seek to include Umma Salmah (r.a) as a narrator.’ Perhaps RTS has read only one tradition, we would like to add this to their information that in another tradition, Sulayman ibn Yasar also narrated this from Umm Salamah.

أحمد بن عثمان النوفلي حدثنا أبو عاصم حدثنا ابن جريج اخبرني محمد بن يوسف عن سليمان بن يسار انه سأل أم سلمة رضي الله عنها عن الرجل يصبح جنبا أيصوم قالت كان رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يصبح جنبا من غير احتلام ثم يصوم

[Sulaiman b. Yasar reported that he asked Umm Salama whether a person (who gets up) in the morning in a state of junub should observe fast. She said: The Messenger of Allaah (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) (at times) got up in the morning in a state of junub, not because of sexual dreams (but on account of intercourse at night), and then observed fast.]

Reference : Sahih Muslim, Vol. 3, p. 138

RTS may Allah guide him and bestow upon him much needed intellect says:

Saheeh Bukhari Volume 1, Book 8, Number 379:  Narrated Abu Salama: ‘Aisha the wife of the Prophet said, “I used to sleep in front of Allah’s Apostle and my legs were opposite his Qibla and in prostration he pushed my legs and I withdrew then and when he stood, I stretched them.’ ‘Aisha added, “In those days the houses were without lights.” To likewise implement this Sunnah that has been cascaded to them by their first lady.  For men the act of the Prophet (saw) is a Sunnah, and for ladies it is imperative that they adhere to the steps of Aisha.  It is therefore important that a Salafi man places his wife onto the marital bed in the evening and waits until she falls asleep.  Once she has done so her husband should stand make the intention of making nawafil prayers and should commence his prayers whilst she slept in front of him, he can then think about the extent to which the performance of such prayers will be accepted by the Creator (swt).  He can also contemplate how much spirituality has been acquired coupled with enjoyment, and why should be no assume that there will be some sort of rewards, after his children have the benefit of knowing that paradise is at the feet of his mothers, he must also likewise also acquire some sort of benefit.  He can offer his Salat and also elevate himself to paradise in the process!The manners and respect that has been cascaded by Aisha is present for us all to see. Aisha made it clear to the Ummah that Salat is not a normal act, rather it is an act via which spouses can evidence their undying love to one another.  Aisha (la) was pointing out that the Prophet (saw) even considered his love for her when he was praying.  When the Prophet (saw) would pray and her legs would get in the way he would touch them, thus enabling him to taste the fruits of love and worship at the same time.  This was a teaching that Aisha (la) was seeking to cascade to men and women alike.

From the six traditions we can see one teaching specific to men, namely one can offer Salat with one’s wife asleep before him, the wife can have her legs spread before you, or she can be in a slumber like a corpse, this in no way negates one’s salat, a Salafi man should have nothing to worry about.

We appeal to justice what picture of Islam and the life of the immaculate Prophet (saw) has Aisha sought to paint through these traditions? Consider how shameless these narrations are he if offering Salat whilst his wife is spread out before and even touches her all this contact is occurring whilst the Prophet (saw) is seeking to prostrate.  We are sure that no illiterate woman would act in such a disrespectful manner, nor would any man see seek to pray with his wife laid out in front of him, with his wife’s legs spread out in the direction of the Qibla!  The entire tradition seeks to lower the station of the Prophet (saw). No normal believer would contemplate offering such a form of salat, since this is that act wherein the believer stands purely before Allah (swt) free of impediments, after all Rasulullah (saw) said ‘Salat is the Miraj of the believers’ – so would he seek to acquire this by offering his prayers before his sleeping wife, whose feet would be situate before the Qibla thus disrupting his ability to perform a proper prostration?

We read in al-Saduq’s ‘Man la Yahdaruhu al Faqih’

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

[Jameel has narrated from Imam Jafar that there is no problem if a  woman prays in the front and man prays in the backward. Because the Prophet (peace be upon him) would pray, and Ayesha would lie in front of him, her legs spread. And when the Prophet (saw) would intend to prostate, he would point towards her legs and and she would constrict her legs so that he could prostate. And there is no problem if a man and woman pray and there is some cushion or anything between them.]

Reference : Man la yahdaruhul faqih, Vol. 1 , p. 247

This tradition shows that even the Imam didn’t have any problem with this narration. Rather he himself used it to prove that a man can pray while a woman is in front of him.

RTS continues on his rampage:

قَالَ رَبِّ بِمَآ أَغْوَيْتَنِى لأُزَيِّنَنَّ لَهُمْ فِى الاٌّرْضِ وَلأُغْوِيَنَّهُمْ أَجْمَعِينَ إِلاَّ عِبَادَكَ مِنْهُمُ الْمُخْلَصِينَ قَالَ هَذَا صِرَطٌ عَلَىَّ مُسْتَقِيمٌ إِنَّ عِبَادِى لَيْسَ لَكَ عَلَيْهِمْ سُلْطَـنٌ إِلاَّ مَنِ اتَّبَعَكَ مِنَ الْغَاوِينَ – وَإِنَّ جَهَنَّمَ لَمَوْعِدُهُمْ أَجْمَعِينَ

Iblis said: “O my Lord! Because You misled me, I shall indeed adorn the path of error for them (mankind) on the earth, and I (Iblees) shall mislead them all except Your chosen (guided) servants among them.” (Allah) said: “This is the way which will lead straight to Me. “Certainly, you shall have no authority over My servants, except those of the astray who follow you. And surely, Hell is the place promised for them all. Holy Qur’aan (15.39-40)

فَإِذَا قَرَأْتَ الْقُرْءَانَ فَاسْتَعِذْ بِاللَّهِ مِنَ الشَّيْطَـنِ الرَّجِيمِ

“Verily, he (Iblees) has no power over those who believe and put their trust only in their Lord” Holy Qur’aan (16.99)

إِلاَّ مَنِ ارْتَضَى مِن رَّسُولٍ فَإِنَّهُ يَسْلُكُ مِن بَيْنِ يَدَيْهِ وَمِنْ خَلْفِهِ رَصَداً

“Except to a Messenger whom He has chosen, and then He makes a band of watching guards to march before him and behind him.” Holy Qur’aan (72.27)

ثُمَّ لآتِيَنَّهُم مِّن بَيْنِ أَيْدِيهِمْ وَمِنْ خَلْفِهِمْ وَعَنْ أَيْمَـنِهِمْ وَعَن شَمَآئِلِهِمْ وَلاَ تَجِدُ أَكْثَرَهُمْ شَـكِرِينَ

“Then I (Iblees) will come to them from before them and behind them, from their right and from their left, and You will not find most of them to be thankful.” Holy Qur’aan (17.16)

It is clear from the above conversation that Allah (swt) has promised that Satan has no means into His sincere Servants, and only wrong-doers will follow the Him. Thus the Sincere Servants of Allah (swt) are not wrong-doers and shall not be deceived. Also Allah (swt) confirms that the Path of His Sincere Servants is a path which leads straight to Him (swt). All these facts prove that the Sincere Servants of Allah(swt) never fall into the trap of Satan, and as such they are infallible, due to Allah’s (swt) Mercy. This is not just restricted to “Prophet” or “Messenger” alone it encompass all righteous servants till the day of Judgement!

Narrated ‘Aisha: Magic was worked on the Prophet so that he began to fancy that he was doing a thing which he was not actually doing. One day he invoked (Allah) for a long period and then said, “I feel that Allah has inspired me as how to cure myself. Two persons came to me (in my dream) and sat, one by my head and the other by my feet. One of them asked the other, “What is the ailment of this man?” The other replied, ‘He has been bewitched” The first asked, ‘Who has bewitched him?’ The other replied, ‘Lubaid bin Al-A’sam.’ The first one asked, ‘What material has he used?’ The other replied, ‘A comb, the hair gathered on it, and the outer skin of the pollen of the male date-palm.’ The first asked, ‘Where is that?’ The other replied, ‘It is in the well of Dharwan.’ ” So, the Prophet went out towards the well and then returned and said to me on his return, “Its date-palms (the date-palms near the well) are like the heads of the devils.” I asked, “Did you take out those things with which the magic was worked?” He said, “No, for I have been cured by Allah and I am afraid that this action may spread evil amongst the people.” Later on the well was filled up with earth.

Source: Sahih Bukhari Vol. 4, Book 54, # 490

Lubaid bin Al-A’sam dumped a comb, the hair gathered on it, and the outer skin of the pollen of the male date-palm, as a mechanism for performing black magic on the Prophet (saw), that was effective that he would assume he was doing that which he had not done (Salat etc)

Whilst offering prayers he inform Aisha (la) that he has been fully informed of the magic done on him, and the contents used to enable it, and the well wherein the items were placed.

He visits the locality, and returns to Aisha (la) informing her of what he had observed

Aisha (la) sought clarification as to whether the items had been disposed of, to which the Prophet (saw) said the matter was otiose he had been cured by Allah (swt) and he did not want the matter to be propagated, lest it create Fitnah amongst his subjects.

We would like to pose some questions that remain unclear:-

The Prophet (saw) would assume that he had done that which he had not done, so when supplicating did he not already assumed he had done just that?

Then he informs Aisha, did he not already think that had informed her?

Before visit Dharwan, did he not assume that he had already gone?

Why did he (saw) choose to only disclose the entire matter to Aisha and not his other wives?

What did the Prophet (saw) do to curtail the effects of the magic?

He (saw) did not remove the offending items?

Were the effects of magic simply removed by his visiting Dharwan and then reporting back its description to Aisha?

The Prophet (saw) did not want this matter to be disclosed to his subjects, so why did Aisha inform her nephew Urwah, who informed his Hisham about it?

If they knew how many other people did they tell? Why were they propagating that which the Prophet (saw) wanted kept secret?

First of all, his understanding of the verses is not accurate, here for instance Iblees affects Prophet Ayyub (as),

{And remember Our servant Job, when he called to his Lord, “Indeed, Satan has touched me with hardship and torment.”} [38:41]

We ask: Is Ayyub (as) an evil-doer? Obviously not!

These questions of RTS are again the product of  “stupid thinking syndrome” which is a disease that seems to have affected his brain. When it is mentioned that the Prophet (saww) thought or assumed that he was doing a thing which he was actually not doing, it doesn’t mean that it happened every time, and this is a very simple thing to understand because if we knew that a person often forgets, this doesn’t mean that he forgets all the time.

Secondly, if RTS has read only the narration of Ayesha, it doesn’t mean that the Prophet (peace be upon him) mentioned this to Ayesha only. This only proves that the narration was narrated by Ayesha. This same incident was also narrated by Ibn Abbas and Zaid ibn Arqam.

The Prophet (saww) untied the knots in the material and this untying was enough to remove the strength of magic. Hence there was no need to remove the object.

Also the Prophet (saww) never said that he didn’t want this matter to be disclosed to his subjects, this is no where mentioned in the Hadith of Bukhari. Rather the Prophet (saww) mentions regarding the question of Ayesha ‘Did you take out those things with which the magic was worked?’ And if that was the case, than Ibn Abbas and Zaid ibn Arqam would also not have mentioned this to Dhahhak and Thumama respectively.

Source: Sahih Bukhari. Vol. 7, Book 71, H. # 658.

Narrated A’isha: A man called Labid bin Al-A’sam from the tribe of Bani Zaraiq worked magic on Allah’s Apostle till Allah’s Apostle started imagining that he had done a thing that he had not really done. One day or one night he was with us, he invoked Allah (swt) and invoked for a long period, and then said, “O A’isha! Do you know that Allah (swt) has instructed me concerning the matter I have asked him about? Two men came to me and one of them sat near my head and the other near my feet. One of them said to his companion, ‘What is the disease of this man?’ The other replied, ‘He is under the effect of magic.’ The first one asked, ‘Who has worked the magic on him?’ The other replied, “Labid bin Al-A’sam.’ The first one asked, ‘What material did he use?’ The other replied, ‘A comb and the hairs stuck to it and the skin of pollen of a male date palm.’ The first one asked, ‘Where is that?’ The other replied, ‘(That is) in the well of Dharwan.’ ” So Allah’s Apostle along with some of his companions went there and came back saying, “O A’isha, the colour of its water is like the infusion of Henna leaves. The tops of the date-palm trees near it are like the heads of the devils.” I asked, “O Allah’s Apostle? Why did you not show it (to the people)?” He said, “Since Allah (swt) cured me, I disliked to let evil spread among the people.” Then he ordered that the well be filled up with earth.This and the previous tradition are at variance with one another despite the narrator being A’isha.
  • In this tradition we are informed of the tribe of Labaid
  • In previous traditions there is no mention of the Prophet (saw) being accompanied by anyone when attending Dharwan, but here we are informed that companions were with him. A’isha does not elaborate on who these individuals were, one is therefore unsure whether this was due to extenuating circumstances or for her dislike of certain individuals.
  • In the previous Hadeeth, upon his return from Dharwan A’isha asks Did you take out those things with which the magic was worked?”, buy here she seeks clarity to ascertain whether the products were made subject to a public display “Why did you not show it (to the people)?”  Our question is why was she keen to know whether the items in questions had been shown to the public?

It is indeed unusual that Ai’sha wanted to know if the items used for the black magic has been displayed publicly, when the second man had already identified them to the Prophet (saw). A’isha knew the products that had been used, so why was she curious as to whether or not others had also seen them? Surely someone must have given these items to Lubaid  bin Al-A’sam, a comb used by the Prophet (saw) with his hair on it. One presumes Aisha was no doubt confused as to how this item reached the possession of Lubaid  bin Al-A’sam when she personally combed his hair.  There is no doubt that Aisha was favoured for this task, to the point that she even performed this task whilst the Prophet (saw) was in the mosque. Clearly this must have truly perplexed A’isha.

Now this is called freestyle speculations, in which the Shias are masters. So the comb was provided to Lubaid by the wife of the Prophet (saww) to whom he revealed his dream. Perhaps the Prophet (saww) trusted his wife more than the Shias, and he was more aware of his wife than the Shias. In any case, just because Lubaid was not mentioned in the previous tradition, it doesn’t mean contradiction. For it would mean that many verses of Quran are also contradictory, because in some verses, one fact is not mentioned, while in another verse, it is mentioned. For example, we read in the Holy Quran [7:150] that Moses grabbed Aaron from his head on one occassion, and regarding the very same occassion, we read in Holy Quran [20:94] that Moses grabbed Aaron from his head as well as beard.

[007:150]  When Moses came back to his people, angry and grieved, he said: “Evil it is that ye have done in my place in my absence: did ye make haste to bring on the judgment of your Lord?” He put down the tablets, seized his brother by (the hair of) his head, and dragged him to him. Aaron said: “Son of my mother! the people did indeed reckon me as naught, and went near to slaying me! Make not the enemies rejoice over my misfortune, nor count thou me amongst the people of sin.”

[020:094]  (Aaron) replied: “O son of my mother! Seize (me) not by my beard nor by (the hair of) my head! Truly I feared lest thou shouldst say, ‘Thou has caused a division among the children of Israel, and thou didst not respect my word!'”

So only an ignorant, like the writers at RTS, can consider this as contradiction. And just because Ayesha didn’t name few individuals doesn’t mean that this was due to her dislike for certain people. This especially can’t be accepted if we know that `Aisha narrated authentic virtues of this person whom the Shia claim she hated. The un-mentioning of their names in a far lesser incident like this one can not be considered dislike for them, by any sane person.

As far as the question of Ayesha regarding why the Prophet (saww) didn’t take out that material is concerned, it is obvious that she wanted that the people realize that the Prophet (saww) was affected by this magic.

Source: Sahih Bukhari. Vol. 7, Book 71, H. # 660

Narrated A’isha:  Then one day he said, “O Aisha do you know that Allah has instructed me concerning the matter I asked Him about? Two men came to me and one of them sat near my head and the other sat near my feet. The one near my head asked the other. What is wrong with this man?’ The latter replied the is under the effect of magic The first one asked, Who has worked magic on him?’ The other replied Labid bin Al-A’sam, a man from Bani Zuraiq who was an ally of the Jews and was a hypocrite.’ The first one asked, What material did he use)?’ The other replied, ‘A comb and the hair stuck to it.’ The first one asked, ‘Where (is that)?’ The other replied. ‘In a skin of pollen of a male date palm tree kept under a stone in the well of Dharwan’ ” So the Prophet went to that well and took out those things and said “That was the well which was shown to me (in a dream) Its water looked like the infusion of Henna leaves and its date-palm trees looked like the heads of devils.” The Prophet added, “Then that thing was taken out’ I said (to the Prophet ) “Why do you not treat yourself with Nashra?” He said, “Allah has cured me; I dislike to let evil spread among my people.”

This tradition conflicts with the previous two discussed. In those we are informed that the Prophet (saw) was unsure if he had done something, here Aisha elaborates what this meant at the ground level, providing an actual example that in many ways clarifies matters.  Clearly this black magic’s effect was linked to conjugal relations, and it must have reached the hand of  Lubaid  bin Al-A’sam from that individual that would have sought it useful that the Prophet (saw) assumed he had had conjugal relations with his wife when he had in fact not.  If it worked, it would have meant the Prophet (saw) not visiting some of his wives, as he would have assumed that he (saw) had spent the night with them when he had not.

Lubaid bin Al-A’sam is referred to as a hypocrite, ally of the Jews. If one analyses history it is not difficult to identify such a category of person. Aisha manages to identify Lubaid bin Al-A’sam, so which individuals did he frequent with? Did he survive the Prophet (saw) or not?  If he outlived him (saw) which group of Muslims did he attach himself with?

In this tradition we are told that the used item were removed whilst in the other traditions we are told the well was filled with earth.  When the Prophet approaches Dharwan he states “That was the well which was shown to me (in a dream)…” but he does not state this in the other traditions. In this tradition the second man discloses the precise location wherein the materials can be located ‘In a skin of pollen of a male date palm tree kept under a stone in the well of Dharwan’ ” whilst in the others he simply states “It is in the well of Dharwan”. This tradition concludes with the Prophet refusing treatment with Nashra, no such reference is made of this offer by Aisha (la) in the other traditions.

Again these are outright speculations to defame Ayesha [ra], which is why they don’t even make sense, for why would a wife of the Prophet [saww] want to cast a black magic upon her husband!? Especially if it could make him err regarding whether he had performed his conjugal rights or not. Secondly, there is no conflict, just few facts are elaborated more in this narration than in the previous narration. Elaboration or “extra detail” is never considered a contradiction by any knowledgeable person.

As far as the identity of Lubaid al-Asam is concerned, the fact is that Shias don’t have the biography of a lot of companions of the Prophet [saww], perhaps RTS meant the Sunni books. The Sunni books have documented the biographies of much more people surrounding the Prophet [saww] than the Shias, rather even a big Shia narrator like Zurarah is also a very less documented person as far as his biography is concerned.

Again, RTS is trying to disprove the Hadith only on the basis that it has a few more elaborations than the previous narrations, which as I mentioned is never considered a contradiction. But by using the same principle, I can prove multiple contradictions between (1) The identity of the mother of the 12th Imam (2) The Hadith of Ghadeer (3) The incident of the house burning of Fatima (4) The incident of Fadak (5) The Mushaf of Fatima, etc. But for the time being, we shall leave it aside for the convenience of the readers.

He continues:

Source: Sahih Bukhari. Vol. 7, Book 71, # 661.Narrated A’isha: Magic was worked on Allah’s Apostle so that he began to imagine that he had done something although he had not. One day while he was with me, he invoked Allah and invoked for a long period and then said, “O ‘Aisha! Do you know that Allah has instructed me regarding the matter I asked Him about?” I asked, “What is that, O Allah’s Apostle?” He said, “Two men came to me; one of them sat near my head and the other sat near my feet. One of them asked his companion, ‘What is the disease of this man?’ The other replied, ‘He is under the effect of magic.’ The first one asked, ‘Who has worked magic on him?” The other replied, ‘Labid bin A’sam, a Jew from the tribe of Bani Zuraiq.’ The (first one asked), ‘With what has it been done?’ The other replied, ‘With a comb and the hair stuck to it and a skin of the pollen of a male datepalm tree.’ The first one asked, ‘Where is it?’ The other replied, ‘In the well of Dharwan.’ Then the Prophet went along with some of his companions to that well and looked at that and there were date palms near to it. Then he returned to me and said, ‘By Allah the water of that well was (red) like the infusion of Henna leaves and its date-palms were like the heads of devils” I said, O Allah’s Apostle! Did you take those materials out of the pollen skin?” He said, ‘No! As for me Allah has healed me and cured me and I was afraid that (by Showing that to the people) I would spread evil among them when he ordered that the well be filled up with earth, and it was filled up with earth”

Further contradictions abound between traditions. In the second tradition Lubaid bin Al-A’sam is unknown, here we know his faith and his tribe. In the previous tradition Lubaid  bin Al-A’sam is referred to as a hypocrite ally of the Jews whilst here he is a Jew.  In this tradition he ventures to the well with companions whilst in two previous traditions no mention is made of him being accompanied by anyone.  In the previous traditions the Prophet (saw) asks a rhetorical question and expands on what has been disclosed to him, before A’isha answers.  But here A’isha is given the opportunity to respond and asks “What is that, O Allah’s Apostle?”

 His tribe has been mentioned in the previous narration as well, so that is a mis-statement by RTS itself. Secondly, as far as his religion is concerned, we know for sure that the hypocrites were not atheists, before apparently embracing Islam. They all had some religion, so Lubaid was a Jew, who apparently embraced Islam, and hence he was considered a hypocrite. As far as the other so called tradition is mentioned by RTS that in the two previous traditions, no mention is made of him being accompanied by anyone, then you can see in the tradition Book 71, H. # 658 which has been mentioned earlier, that there it was mentioned that the Prophet [saww] along with some of his companions went there and came back‘. Hence this is another mis-statement by RTS.

Source: Saheeh Bukhari. Vol. 8, Book 73, # 89.Narrated A’isha: The Prophet (saw) continued for such-and-such period imagining that he has slept (had sexual relations) with his wives, and in fact he did not. One day he said, to me, “O ‘Aisha! Allah has instructed me regarding a matter about which I had asked Him. There came to me two men, one of them sat near my feet and the other near my head. The one near my feet, asked the one near my head (pointing at me), ‘What is wrong with this man? The latter replied, ‘He is under the effect of magic.’ The first one asked, ‘Who had worked magic on him?’ The other replied, ‘Lubaid bin Asam.’ The first one asked, ‘What material (did he use)?’ The other replied, ‘The skin of the pollen of a male date tree with a comb and the hair stuck to it, kept under a stone in the well of Dharwan.”‘ Then the Prophet went to that well and said, “This is the same well which was shown to me in the dream. The tops of its date-palm trees look like the heads of the devils, and its water looks like the Henna infusion.” Then the Prophet ordered that those things be taken out. I said, “O Allah’s Apostle! Won’t you disclose (the magic object)?” The Prophet said, “Allah has cured me and I hate to circulate the evil among the people.” A’isha added, “(The magician) Lubaid bin Asam was a man from Bani Zuraiq, an ally of the Jews.”

In this tradition (unlike the previous) the Prophet (saw) makes no form of supplication that enables the reality to be revealed to him. The tradition from Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 71, Number 66 informs us ‘The one near my head asked the other. What is wrong with this man?’ The latter replied the is under the effect of magic whilst this tradition informs us The one near my feet, asked the one near my head (pointing at me), ‘What is wrong with this man?’.

In fact this tradition is very similar to the tradition of Book 71, H. # 660. There is only the mentioning of invocation in the words about which I had asked Him’ just like in this tradition. And everyone can understand that this means invocation. So it is clearly mentioned in this narration. As far as the second contradiction is concerned, that is a contradiction but a minor one, and the narrations in such cases are not rejected, neither in the Sunni science of hadith, nor in the Shia science of hadith, and plenty of examples can be given from the Shia books, and the one with the better chain of transmission is given superiority in such case. Such minor contradictions arise in the narrations often in the transmission of the narration, since the narrators are humans who can err in the details, even if they are truthful.

Sahih Bukhari. Volume 8, Book 75, Number 400.Narrated ‘Aisha: that Allah’s Apostle was affected by magic, so much that he used to think that he had done something which in fact, he did not do, and he invoked his Lord (for a remedy). Then (one day) he said, “O ‘Aisha!) Do you know that Allah has advised me as to the problem I consulted Him about?” ‘Aisha said, “O Allah’s Apostle! What’s that?” He said, “Two men came to me and one of them sat at my head and the other at my feet, and one of them asked his companion, ‘What is wrong with this man?’ The latter replied, ‘He is under the effect of magic.’ The former asked, ‘Who has worked magic on him?’ The latter replied, ‘Labid bin Al-A’sam.’ The former asked, ‘With what did he work the magic?’ The latter replied, ‘With a comb and the hair, which are stuck to the comb, and the skin of pollen of a date-palm tree.’ The former asked, ‘Where is that?’ The latter replied, ‘It is in Dharwan.’ Dharwan was a well in the dwelling place of the (tribe of) Bani Zuraiq. Allah’s Apostle went to that well and returned to ‘Aisha, saying, ‘By Allah, the water (of the well) was as red as the infusion of Hinna, and the date-palm trees look like the heads of devils.’ ‘Aisha added, Allah’s Apostle came to me and informed me about the well. I asked the Prophet, ‘O Allah’s Apostle, why didn’t you take out the skin of pollen?’ He said, ‘As for me, Allah has cured me and I hated to draw the attention of the people to such evil (which they might learn and harm others with)”
Notice how in the very first tradition the Prophet (saw) keep all the items in the well, but here A’isha asks “Why didn’t you take out the skin of pollen?”That suggests he removed the comb and hair!  This question is not asked in the previous traditions.

The exact translation in this case should be ‘Why didn’t you take it out?’ since in the original Arabic text, the exact word for the skin of pollen has not been used, the translator has mentioned the words ‘the skin of the pollen’ but they are not found in the Arabic text, and he might have considered it to be referring to the skin of pollen, but that can be his personal view. As far as the original text of the narration is concerned, we don’t find it.

The entire notion of the Prophet (saw) becoming a victim of witchcraft is indeed a deeply shameless one! It makes a mockery of the doctrine of Prophethood, wherein the appointed one of Allah (swt) loses his thinking capability blurred by witchcraft, and is of the actions that he has performed. The difficulty is when A’isha has narrated it, then there is some need for him to find an appropriate place to record it, but where? What is the precise nexus between these traditions and their being placed in a Chapter that deal with the creation and good manners?  What can one learn from good manners by reading a Hadeeth that discusses black magic being performed on the Prophet (saw)?

 The Prophethood would suffer if the Prophets can commit mistakes in matters dealing with the preaching of religious rulings and beliefs, although since they are divinely corrected if they commit mistakes, this also doesn’t cause problem in the prophethood. But as far as matters apart from the religion is concerned, they can forget and they can commit mistakes as well. If this is indeed a disgusting opinion, than this was the view of heavyweight Shia scholars such as Shaikh Sadooq, Shaikh ibn al-Waleed and a number of other major Shia scholars. And this is also evidenced by authentic Shia narrations. But as far as witchcraft is concerned, we read in the Holy Quran [20:66] that the rods and the ropes which the magicians threw appeared to be moving to Moses. So it means that the spell worked on the Prophets as well. But since they are divinely protected, hence Allah protects them. And that is what Allah did when he protected Moses from the magicians and that is what Allah did when he protected the Prophet [saww] from the magic of Lubaid ibn al-Asam. Rather in this incident is a virtue of the Prophet [saww] that Allah protected him and showed him the truth in his dream. If he was not a divinely appointed Prophet, he would not have been informed with how the plot was made.

RTS finally concludes:

From this, one can only conclude that according to the Nasibi Aqeeda based on the Qur’aanic passages above and their most authentic books of Hadeeth the Prophet (saw) was not righteous and Allah (swt) therefore decided to hand him over to the power and control of Satan by the effects of magic, or Allah (swt) wasn’t powerful enough to save his chosen Apostle (saw) from this.
أَوْ يُلْقَى إِلَيْهِ كَنْزٌ أَوْ تَكُونُ لَهُ جَنَّةٌ يَأْكُلُ مِنْهَا وَقَالَ الظَّـلِمُونَ إِن تَتَّبِعُونَ إِلاَّ رَجُلاً مَّسْحُوراً“Or (why) has not a treasure been granted to him, or why has he not a garden whereof he may eat” And the wrongdoers (disbelievers) say: “You follow none but a man bewitched” Holy Qur’aan (25.8)
A’isha took a stand with the oppressive polytheists that accused the messenger of Allah (swt) of been bewitched. This confirms that A’isha didn’t believe the Prophet (saw) was divinely appointed, as no true believer would ever accuse the Prophet (saw) of such nonsense. As a result of such narrations the enemies of Islam attack the seal of the Prophets (saw). A’isha opened a door for attacking the holy Prophet (saw).

On the contrary I say: This proves even further that the Prophet [saww] was a truthful one, he was indeed saved by Allah. As far as this verse is concerned, it doesn’t mean that those who say that the Prophet [saww] was bewitched are wrongdoers, and if that was the case, then does RTS believe that all the Shia scholars who agreed with the Sunnis are wrongdoers? The right interpretation of this verse is that the wrongdoers said that the Prophet [saww] is visited by the Satan, rather than an angel Gabriel, and Satan deceived him. The disbelievers never claimed that a true prophet was safe from magic, so we should understand this verse in its context rather than trying to misinterpret it.

Conclusion:

The first conclusion is that the articles of revisiting the Salaf are a waste of time, the only thing they’re good at is providing scans of pages from PDF books they download from online. I add, It has become obvious that the arguments of the Shia are based on ignorance of their own books, and the ignorance of the religion as well.

This is why the Shia of RTS claimed that the movie ‘The innocence of Muslims’ is based on the Sunni books. When RTS gets knowledge of its own books, than they should claim about knowing the Sunni books.

The most ironic part is that through such weakly written material, through such easily refutable un-intellectual texts, they wish to convert people  to their deviant way, so our response to them would be that of Musa (as):

{I take refuge with God, lest I should be one of the ignorant} [Qur’an 2:67]

4 Comments

  1. May Allah reward you abundantly for taking the time to answer this garbage on behalf of the Muslims!
    The constant presentation of scanned pages from texts gives the RTS site a spurious air of authenticity, and people can easily get fooled if they don’t have sites like this to point out their stupidities.

  2. i would like clarification regarding the hadith regarding the prophet visiting his wives and having sexual intercourse with all of them. one shia has asked about it. how to answer him please give the response.
    jazak allah khair

    • I’m afraid I’m not sure what you question is. Is the Shia suggesting that it is impossible to have sexual intercourse with several women (separately) in a single night? Shias have narrations that state the same.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*