Introduction
Answering-Ansar says“ Hadhrath Ayesha was a severe critic of Hadhrath Uthman. How is it that following his murder, she chose to rebel against Imam Ali (as) on the premise that his killers should be apprehended? During her lifetime Hadhrath Ayesha was a severe critic of Hadhrath Uthman, to the point that she advocated his killing. How is it that following his murder, she chose to rebel against Imam Ali (as) on the premise that his killers should be apprehended? Why did she leave Makkah, portray Hadhrath Uthman as a victim and mobilise opposition from Basrah? Was this decision based on her desire to defend Hadhrath Uthman or was it motivated by her animosity towards Hadhrath Ali (as)?
History records that she said the following about Hadhrath Uthman “Kill this old fool (Na’thal), for he is unbeliever”,
see [references:]
History of Ibn Athir, v3, p206
Lisan al-Arab, v14, p141
al-Iqd al-Farid, v4, p290
and Sharh Ibn Abi al-Hadid, v16, pp 220-223
Answering-Ansar copied this pathetic list of references from the nefarious Shia Encyclopedia:
Shia Encyclopedia says“Many Sunni historian reported that Once Aisha went to Uthman and asked for
her share of inheritance of Prophet (after so many years passed from the
death of Prophet). Uthman refrained to give Aisha any money by reminding
her that she was one those who testified and encouraged Abu-Bakr to refrain
to pay the share of inheritance of Fatimah (AS). So if Fatimah does not
have any share of inheritance, then why should she? Aisha became extremely
angry at Uthman, and came out saying:
“Kill this old fool (Na’thal), for he is unbeliever.”
^^^^
Sunni references:
- History of Ibn Athir, v3, p206
- Lisan al-Arab, v14, p141
- al-Iqd al-Farid, v4, p290
- Sharh Ibn Abi al-Hadid, v16, pp 220-223
Everywhere we go, we find these same four bogus references. Let us deal with them one at a time:
(1) Sharh Ibn Abi al-Hadid
Ibn Abi al-Hadid was not a Sunni at all, but rather a Mutazzalite/Shia. In “Al-Kunna wal Al-Alqab” (vol.1, p.185), the Shia scholar al-Qummi outlines the staunch and fanatical Shia background of Ibn Abi Al-Hadid in al-Madain. As such, his book is not a proof for us Sunnis. It is extremely deceitful of the Shia to provide this non-Sunni pro-Shia book in a list entitled “Sunni references.” The Shia books are full of lies against Aisha, some even accusing her of poisoning the Prophet himself. Therefore, bringing up a Shia book does not prove anything in a debate.
If we are going to accept everything the Shia attribute to Aisha in their books, then we would have to accept many other so-called “facts” such as the idea that the sixth of the seven doorways of Hell will be exclusively for Aisha (as stated in Bihar al-Anwar [vol.4, p.378] and Tafseer al-Ayyashi [vol.2, p.243]). We would have to accept the idea that Aisha was a hypocrite who apostatized after the Prophet’s death. We would even have to accept the idea that Aisha was guilty of adultery (as recorded by Ali ibn Ibrahim al-Qummi in his Tafsir [vol.2, p.377], Hashim al-Bahrani in al-Burhan [vol.4, p.358] and Abdullah Shubbar in his Tafsir [p.338]). And yet we know that accusing Aisha of adultery is Kufr and the one who says such a thing becomes an apostate due to the fact that Allah Himself declared Aisha innocent of this in the Quran.
In fact, the proper title of the book is Sharh Nahjul Balagha–not the Sharh Ibn Abi al-Hadid–which is perhaps one of the reasons that the Shia propagandists do not like to take the entire name of the book, as this would unveil their deception quite readily. The Nahjul Balagha is one of the Shia’s most revered books, and the Sharh Nahjul Balagha is the most famous commentary of it. The Sunnis, of course, reject the Nahjul Balagha altogether as nothing but a pack of lies and forgeries. This book, Sharh Nahjul Balagha, is a useless commentary on a worthless book; Ibn Abi al-Hadid’s book is worthy of being used as toilet paper. We would like the Shia to think about how they are bringing forth a book as proof that we would consider worthy of being used as toilet paper and nothing else.
(2) Iqd al-Fareed
Once again, the Shia attempt to pass off an insignificant and useless source as being an “authentic Sunni text.” Iqd al-Fareed is not a history book at all, but rather it is a literary novel that contains elements of fiction in it. Perhaps tomorrow the Shia will quote from a few Nancy Drew novels or maybe Sidney Sheldon’s thrillers and claim that these are authentic history books. Furthermore, and this point cannot be stressed enough, the author of Iqd al-Fareed was Ibn Abd Rabuh who was well known for his pro-Shia inclinations.
Ibn Abu Rabuh’s book, Iqd al-Fareed, is a chain-less literary piece in which his inclusion criteria is only that the text be eloquent Arabic; the text in his book was chosen not for its historical accuracy or authenticity, but rather his book was a compilation of any text that was eloquent in nature. As such, the author of Iqd al-Fareed included texts from Shia sources so long as they were eloquently written. The Shia are well-known for their dedication to poetry so it is not at all strange that Ibn Abd Rabuh would include their texts. To give an example, Nahjul Balagha means “the Peak of Eloquence”; to the Sunni historian, the book is a piece of garbage due to its flagrant inaccuracies and Shia exaggerations. However, to the literary lover (be he Sunni or otherwise), the Nahjul Balagha is actually very eloquent in its original Arabic, and it can be appreciated for that aspect. One can, for example, appreciate the eloquence of the Bible or even the Bhagavad Gita; the Bible might contain an eloquent quote from Jesus but this does not at all mean that it is accurate, no matter how beautifully worded!
The Shia spent excessive amounts of time writing poetry about Kerbala and in fact there are beautiful poems written by the Shia on this incident; however, they lack in historical accuracy and are rather things of legends and myths. Likewise, the Shia spent much time crafting poetry in the name of Ali and forging supposed counter-responses by his so-called opponents such as Muawiyyah and Aisha. The author of Iqd al-Fareed included these texts due to their literary value, but the truth is that no matter how beautifully worded these texts are, they cannot at all be considered authentic.
Furthermore, the author of Iqd al-Fareed was known for his Shia inclinations; he was a big fan of the eloquent nature of Shia texts. Today, there are many so-called liberal and progressive “Sunnis” who preach unity with Shia and even with homosexuals. Irshad Menji the lesbian could be considered a Sunni; if she wrote a literary novel, could this be used as an authentic Sunni text? Could we take her views on homosexuality as indicative of the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah? Not every word written by a “Sunni” can be construed as being “authoritative” or indicative of the Sunni position on matters.
(3) Lisan al-Arab
Lisan al-Arab is a dictionary! Does this Shia not see the utter ridiculousness of his endeavor to establish historical truth by quoting a dictionary? His attempt is comparable to quoting scientific material from an anthology of poetry. Lisan al-Arab is once again chain-less and unauthenticated; as such, it is yet another garbage source.
We read from Lisan al-Arab:
“Na’thal is one who has a long beard and Ayesha said kill this Na’thal, by Na’thal she was referring to Uthman.”
(source: Lisan al-Arab by Ibn Mansur, Vol.11, Chapter “Lughuth Na’thal”, p.670)
So we see that the dictionary Lisan al-Arab was defining the word “Na’thal” and gave that sentence as an example of its usage. Many of the sample sentences in dictionaries are completely fictitious in nature, and one can simply grab any dictionary to confirm this. There is even an Arabic dictionary in which the sample sentence with regards to the word “Na’thal” refers to an elf; could we then use this as a proof that elves exist? Not a single person on earth would use a dictionary’s sample sentences as a historical resource! In fact, the way in which the Shia do this just shows how utterly desperate (and deceptive) the Shia propagandist is, and how he will stoop to any low in order to fool the Sunni layperson.
The sentence “kill this old fool (Na’thal)” has actually become famous due to the fact that the Shia have repeated this statement over and over throughout the ages. As such, it is not at all surprising that the first sentence that comes to mind when the word “Na’thal” is heard would be this sentence, falsely attributed to Aisha by the Shia. Therefore, it is not a shock that this sentence was used as the sample sentence in the Arabic dictionary. Similarly, for example, the sample sentence for the word “trinity”–even in many dictionaries written by Muslims–revolves around the Christian doctrine. This does not at all mean that the Muslim author of the dictionary feels that the sentence is true. If we asked a Sunni student at an Islamic university about the word “Na’thal”, the first thing that would come to his mind would be the sentence “kill this old fool (Na’thal)”, simply because it is a common sentence discussed in debate. In fact, thanks to the Shia propaganda machine, the first thing anyone thinks about when the word “Na’thal” is said is that fabricated saying falsely attributed to Aisha. As such, it is no surprise that this sample sentence was given in the Arabic dictionary.
It should also be noted that Lisan al-Arab is a dictionary used by Sunnis, Shia, and non-Muslims. Dictionaries are not religious texts, and Lisan al-Arab cannot therefore be used as a “Sunni source”, let alone an “authoritative” one, a word that the Shia propagandist loves to use in order to beguile the layperson.
(4) History of Ibn Atheer
The fact that the questioner names this work as the “History of Ibn Atheer” appears to reveal that he himself is unfamiliar with the book, and happens to be citing it from second or third hand sources. For his information, the book’s proper title is “al-Kamil fi al-Tareekh”. Had the questioner been familiar with this book he would have been aware of the fact that this book is directly based upon Ibn Jarir at-Tabari’s work; and had he been familiar with Tabari’s work he would have known that Tabari has recorded the material in his book complete with chains of narrations. He would also have known that Tabari himself, in a disclaimer at the end of his introduction (vol.1, p.24), declares that in terms of authenticity the material in his book is only as good as the chains of narration through which it has come down to him. Tabari says in his introduction:
I shall likewise mention those (narrators) who came after them, giving additional information about them. I do this so that it can be clarified whose transmission (of traditions) is praised and whose information is transmitted, whose transmission is to be rejected and whose transmission is to be disregarded…The reader should know that with respect to all I have mentioned and made it a condition to set down in this book of mine, I rely upon traditions and reports which have been transmitted and which I attribute to their transmitters. I rely only very rarely upon (my own) rationality and internal thought processes. For no knowledge of the history of men of the past and of recent men and events is attainable by those who were not able to observe them and did not live in their time, except through information and transmission produced by informants and transmitters. This knowledge cannot be brought out by reason or produced by internal thought processes. This book of mine may contain some information mentioned by me on the authority of certain men of the past, which the reader may disapprove of and the listener may find detestable, because he can find nothing sound and no real meaning in it. In such cases, he should know that it is not my fault that such information comes to him, but the fault of someone who transmitted it to me. I have merely reported it as it was reported to me.
(Tareekh at-Tabari, Vol.1, Introduction)
In light of the above, let us now proceed to evaluate the authenticity of the statement which the questioner has so boldly and recklessly (and also ignorantly) ascribed to the Mother of the Believers Aisha. This statement is to be found on p.226 of the 5th volume of the edition of Tareekh at-Tabari published by Dar al-Fikr, Beirut in 1418/1998. It is recorded by Tabari on the authority of the following chain of narration:
Tabari narrates from Ali ibn Ahmad ibn Hasan al-Ijli, who narrates from Husayn ibn Nasr al-Attar, who narrates from his father Nasr ibn Muzahim al-Attar…
Up to this point the following flaws present itself in the chain:
1. Of Tabari’s immediate source, Ali ibn Ahmad ibn Hasan al-Ijli, no trace can be found in the biographical works of narrators. He is thus an unknown person.
2. The next person in the chain is Husayn ibn Nasr ibn Muzahim. Of him too, no trace is to be found in the biographical literature–hence another unknown person. The only thing that is known about him is the fact that he is the son of Nasr ibn Muzahim.
3. Nasr ibn Muzahim presents a major problem. He was known in his lifetime as a forger of historical material, and was condemned for it by, amongst others, the Hadith expert Abu Khaythamah Zuhayr ibn Harb. His general unreliability as a narrator of historical material is echoed by al-Uqayli, Abu Hatim ar-Razi, ad-Daraqutni, al-Ijli, al-Khalili and Ibn Adi. He is described by a number of these experts as a hardcore extremist Shia. (See Lisan al-Mizan vol.7, p.187) Even a non-muhaddith such as the literary biographer Yaqut al-Hamawi describes him as an extremist Shia who stands accused of forgery and is generally unreliable. (Mujam al-Udaba vol.19, p.225)
As may be expected, Shia Hadith scholars are generally more accepting of Nasr ibn Muzahim. However, even they have located a problem with the historical material which he transmits. The Shia Hadith scholar Abul Abbas an-Najashi, for example, remarks about Nasr ibn Muzahim that while he himself was a person of righteous conduct, his problem was that he transmitted material on the authority of unreliable sources. (Rijal an-Najashi vol.2, p.384) This statement of an-Najashi is corroborated by al-Allamah al-Hilli in al-Khulasah. (Jami’ ar-Ruwat vol.2, p.291)
With this background on Nasr ibn Muzahim, let us now proceed to investigate the sources on whose authority Nasr ibn Muzahim has ascribed this alleged statement to Umm al-Mu’mineen Aisha.
Nasr produces two separate chains of narrators through which he claims to have received this information. They look as follows:
1. Nasr ibn Muzahim narrates from Sayf ibn Umar, who narrates from Muhammad ibn Nuwayrah and Talhah ibn al-Alam.
2. Nasr ibn Muzahim narrates from Umar ibn Saad, who narrates from Asad ibn Abdullah, who narrates from some unnamed persons.
The first chain of narration shows glaring defects. Sayf ibn Umar is that historian whose total unreliability has been a matter of much discussion, especially in Shia circles. The contemporary Shia scholar, Murtada al-Askari has written an interesting book in which he has pointed a finger of accusation at this very same Sayf ibn Umar. The charge which he levels against Sayf ibn Umar is that he is responsible for inventing of the personality of Abdullah ibn Saba. Despite the flaws in al-Askari’s research, this book has been highly acclaimed in Shia circles, and everyone climbed on the bandwagon of labeling Sayf ibn Umar as a shameless liar and forger. But suddenly, when the material which Sayf transmits is not about Ibn Saba, but disparages Aisha, his unreliability is conveniently forgotten, and an-Najashi’s complaint of Nasr ibn Muzahim narrating from unreliable sources is cast to the wind. Such “objectivity” leaves one in complete amazement.
Furthermore, Sayf ibn Umar’s two sources, Muhammad ibn Nuwayrah and Talhah ibn al-Alam, are completely unknown entities.
Nasr ibn Muzahim’s second chain of narration suffers once again from the same defect. His immediate source, Umar ibn Saad is unknown, as is Umar ibn Saad’s source Asad ibn Abdullah. The person or persons from whom Asad ibn Abdullah allegedly received the information are not even named at all. The perceptive reader should keep in mind that the Shia Hadith scholars themselves criticized Nasr ibn Muzahim for his propensity of taking narrations from unreliable sources.
In summary, it may therefore be said that not a single person in the entire chain of narration may be relied upon at all. Usually, Hadiths are thrown out due to the fact that they have just one weak narrator, but in this case, we have not a single person who is reliable.
Nasr bin Muzahim
The statement “kill this old fool (Na’thal)” was fabricated by Nasr bin Muzahim, a Shia and enemy of Sunni Islam. As such, the statement has no credibility whatsoever. Al-Aqeeli said about Nasr bin Muzahim:
“He tends to be a Shia, and his narrations are filled with confusions and mistakes.”
(source: Al-Du’afa by Al-Aqeeli, vol.4, p.300, #1899)
Imam al-Dhahabi said about Nasr:
“A hardcore Rafidhi (Shia), and his narrations are not taken as authentic. Abu Khaythamah said, ‘He was a liar.’ Abu Hatim said, ‘Weak narrator, and is not taken as an argument.’ Al-Darqutni said, ‘His narrations are weak.’”
(source: Al-Mizan by Al-Dhahabi, vol.4, p.253, #9046)
We read further:
“Al-Jowzani said: ‘Nasr was a fake person and far away from truth.’ Salih bin Muhamed said, ‘Nasr bin Muzahim narrated ugly stories from unreliable narrators.’ Al-Hafudh Abi Al-Fath Muhamed bin Al-Hussain said, ‘Nasr bin Muzahim goes excess in his (Shia) denomination.’”
(source: Tareekh Baghdad, by al-Baghdadi, Vol.13, p.283)
And as we have stated earlier, even the Shia scholars of Hadith are critical of Nasr bin Muzahim, and so how now can the Shia propagandists use his narration as a proof, when he was a Shia and an unreliable one at that! As we have discussed above, the Shia scholars such as Abul Abbas an-Najashi and al-Allamah al-Hilli criticized the reliability of Nasr ibn Muzahim.
The statement “kill this old fool (Na’thal)” originated from Nasr bin Muzahim and he is the primary source. His narration then found its way into Tareekh at-Tabari, the secondary source, and from there it was copied into Al-Kamil as well as a few dictionaries. The latter are all tertiary sources, and therefore, to ascertain the authenticity of the statement, we must look back at the primary source. It should be noted that Imam at-Tabari was criticized by the Hadith scholars for his usage of Shia narrators and unauthenticated narrations in his work. However, in Imam at-Tabari’s defense, he clearly stated that his book was merely a collection of Hadith complete with the Isnads, and that it was up to the reader to authenticate whatever was found therein.
Imam at-Tabari’s book was simply an attempt to place Hadith into a chronological order so that they would read out like a historical narrative; therefore, at-Tabari–like Ibn Ishaq–did a wonderful job of creating one of the first books which placed Hadiths in a chronological order. However, Imam at-Tabari only placed them in the right order, but he did not authenticate them, nor did he claim that. In fact, Tabari himself, in a disclaimer at the end of his introduction (vol.1, p.24) declares that in terms of authenticity the material in his book is only as good as the chains of narration through which it has come down to him.
It should be known that to the Sunnis, the only two books of Hadith which are considered completely authentic are the Sahihayn (Bukhari and Muslim). After these two books, there are four other books which are considered reliable, but which contain some authentic and some unauthentic Hadiths. As for Tareekh at-Tabari, it is considered less reliable than any of these six books of Hadith! If, for example, a Shia were to quote a Hadith from Sunan at-Tirmidhi, then we would have to look up the Isnad in order to verify its authenticity. If this is the case with Sunan at-Tirmidhi, one of the six books of Hadith, then what can be said of a book (i.e. Tareekh at-Tabari) which is of a lower status than the six?
The most authentic book of Shia Hadith is Al-Kafi, compiled by Imam al-Kulayni. Yet, many times the Shia will adamantly deny Hadiths found in that book, and even go as far as to say that the book contains thousands of unauthentic Hadith. If this is the Shia attitude towards the book they claim is the most authentic, then it is absurd for the Shia to expect us to accept every narration found in at-Tabari’s book, when in fact the Sunni scholars of Hadith have always criticized his book for its weak narrations and unreliable narrators. In Al-Kafi there are narrations from the mouths of the Shia Imams that mention how Ali ibn Abi Talib wed his daughter to Umar ibn al-Khattab. Yet, the Shia will claim that these are falsely attributed to the Imam; then why do the Shia balk when we say that the words “kill this old fool (Na’thal)” were falsely attributed to Aisha?
Answering-Ansar has dedicated an entire article to the fact that the Sunni compilers of Hadith would take from Shia sources/narrators. Indeed, the compilers of Hadith would simply compile all the known narrations about certain topics; this was their job. This in itself was a very tedious task that consumed their time; these compilers generally left the authenticating to others, and this is why the Isnads were left intact so that this could be done. Nasr bin Muzahim was a Shia; as any student of Hadith would attest to, narrations by those who follow deviant sects are not to be accepted if they pertain to the viewpoints of that sect. Therefore, as a rule, Nasr bin Muzahim’s narration condemning Aisha (a Shia belief) cannot be accepted as valid to the Sunni.
Rebuttal of Answering-Ansar
For a very long time, the Shia would prance around the internet regurgitating the same four sources (Ibn Atheer’s book, Lisan al-Arab, Iqd al-Fareed, and Ibn Abi al-Hadid’s Sharh), and guffawing over the fact that no Sunni layperson on the various forums could deal with them. But then Abu Sulaiman and Moulana M Taha Karaan easily refuted these four sources, as we have reproduced above. The Shia argument was quickly unraveled when it became clear how deceitful the Shia propagandists were that they needed to reproduce a Shia source and pass it off as a Sunni one; worse still, the desperation of the Shia became obvious when it was revealed that they were using a dictionary as a source!
After the Sunnis had embarrassed the Shia by refuting all four sources they had relied upon, Answering-Ansar responded in the time-honored fashion of the Shia propagandist: they dumped us with even more garbage sources. This tactic is oftentimes used by lawyers, whereby they dump loads of paperwork onto the opposing side in order to slow down their response time. Answering-Ansar did not have any one solid source, so they decided to compensate for this by throwing at us a list of garbage sources. The Shia propagandist knows that the non-Arab layperson is impressed with lengthy lists with Arab names. The layperson is wowed by names like “Iqd al-Fareed” or “Lisan al-Arab”; granted, the layperson has never heard of these names and certainly doesn’t know what they mean, but these words sure do sound impressive! And it is for this reason that the Shia propagandist is able to pass off Shia works as Sunni ones, or pass off dictionaries as history books.
It was in this spirit that Answering-Ansar provided another seven garbage sources to back their claim, knowing full-well that this would take the Sunni writers some more time to look up and refute.
Answering-Ansar says“ Hadhrath Ayesha’s lead role in killing Uthman
Many of the books of Ahlul Sunnah record that Ayesha had declared Uthman a Nathal that should be killed. Amongst those texts are the following:
1. Manaqib by Khawarzmi, page 117
2. Tadkhirath al Khawwas page 38
3. Asadul Ghaba Volume 3 page 14, “Dhikr Jamal”
4. Al Istiab Volume 2 page 185
5. Al Nahaya Volume 5 page 80
6. Qamus page 500 “lughut Nathal” by Firozabadi
7. Iqd al Fareed Volume 2 page 117 “Dhikr Jamal”
8. Sharh Nahjul Balagha Ibn al Hadeed Volume 2 page 122
9. Shaykh Mudheera page 163
”
Is it not unbelievable how the Shia have the audacity to refer to the Prophet’s wife as “Hadrath” on the one hand and then accuse her of being a cold-blooded murderer on the other? This inconsistency exposes the two faced hypocrisy of the Shia. How it is that these people claim to be Muslim and call for unity with us, all the while accusing the Prophet’s wife of murder?
Let us now deal with these nine sources:
(1) Manaqib by Khawarzmi
We actually couldn’t find any such narration in Khawarzmi’s work! In any case, Khawarzmi’s reliability is disputed, and he was criticized for being weak and lenient when it came to Hadith. His book is a secondary source, and–as we have reviewed before–secondary sources have no value unless we examine the primary source and its reliability. The Shia propagandists could point to one million secondary sources but if they all originate from the same primary source, then the authenticity is checked in the primary text. The quote “kill this old fool (Na’thal)” originates from Nasr bin Muzahim and as such has absolutely no value.
(2) Tadkhirath al Khawwas
The Shia propagandists will make use of this book often because they can claim it was written by Ibn al-Jawzi. As most people know, Ibn al-Jawzi was a very famous Sunni scholar. However, this particular book, Tadkhirath al-Khawwas, was not written by Ibn al-Jawzi, but rather by Sibt Ibn al-Jawzi, the Hanafi turned Shia, and not the famous Sunni scholar. This book is actually on the biographies of the twelve Imams of the Shia! It is quite unbelievable that the Shia propagandists attempt to pass off Shia books as Sunni ones. It is using tactics like this that the Shia preachers have tricked many Sunnis.
(3) Usd al-Ghaba
It is a secondary source, not a primary one, and the narration contains no chain of transmission. As such, this is yet another garbage reference provided by the Shia propagandist.
(4) Al Istiab
Same as above.
(5) Al Nahaya
This is a dictionary just like Lisan al-Arab; therefore, our rebuttal of Lisan al-Arab (see above) would apply here as well.
(6) Qamus
Yet another dictionary! Perhaps the Shia propagandist will provide us with three dozen dictionaries and then show us how these are three dozen “authoritative Sunni sources”! We already know that the most famous sentence using the word “Na’thal” is “kill this old fool (Na’thal)”, and it is therefore no surprise that many dictionaries use this nefarious sentence when defining the word “Na’thal”.
(7) Iqd al Fareed
We have already discussed Iqd al-Fareed in detail above.
(8) Sharh Nahjul Balagha
We have discussed this above as well.
(9) Shaykh Mudheera
How it is that Answering-Ansar is using an anti-Sunni book and passing it off as a Sunni text! Quite unbelievable! This book was written by the contemporary heretic Mahmud Abu Rayya, the fool who questioned the veracity of Abu Hurayra and who referred to the entire Sunnah as being unauthentic. His work would probably not even be palatable to an extreme Shia, let alone a Sunni!
(10) Seerath al Halabiyya
Absolutely no Isnad given here. Chain-less and unauthentic.
Answering-Ansar says“ We should point out that Abu Sulaiman fails to cite WHICH TEXT contains the name of Nasr bin Muzahim! Ayesha’s takfeer against Uthman is not just restricted to Nasr bin Muzahim the classical Sunni scholars who have narrated from various chains!
”
Oh yeah? Then cite them! What “various chains”? We are very interested to know of these! Do they perhaps exist in the imaginary world of Answering-Ansar? What is interesting is that Answering-Ansar makes this bold claim (a blatant lie) but fails to back it up. If indeed this narration were found in “various chains” as Answering-Ansar claims, then what are they and where can we find them? Instead of providing these “various chains”, Answering-Ansar provides a handful of chain-less books. Answering-Ansar claims that Abu Sulaiman failed to point out which text originates from Nasr ibn Muzahim, but in fact it is Answering-Ansar which failed to mention which text does not!
Forged Letters
Answering-Ansar says“ Sahaba had even reminded Ayesha of her takfeer against Uthman
”
During the Caliphate of Uthman, the rebels forged letters in the name of various Sahabah and distributed them to various provinces. These letters enticed the people to rise up against Caliph Uthman. We read:
[The rebels] had written forged letters in the names of Ali, Talha, Zubayr, and the Mothers of the Believers [i.e. Aisha], to their followers in Kufa, Basra, and Egypt…the letters emphasized that Uthman bin Affan was no longer able to shoulder the heavy burden of the Caliphate. Therefore the matter [i.e. the rebellion] should be brought to its climax in the month of Dhul-Hijjah. Encouraged by these forged letters, the rioters found it easy to indulge in acts of plunder, massacre, and doing away with the present Caliphate. They would not have otherwise [without the forged letters] mustered courage to plan an invasion.
(source: Tareekh al-Islam, Vol.1, pp.412-413)
In Nahjul Balagha, one of the Shia’s most revered books, Ali ibn Abi Talib complained that he was falsely being accused of Uthman’s murder. Letters were forged in the name of Ali and sent to the rebels, authorizing them to kill Uthman. And yet, Ali would later declare himself innocent of that. Similarly, words were forged and falsely attributed to Aisha, so is it not strange and hypocritical that the Shia declare Ali’s innocence and yet condemn Aisha for the very same thing?
There were Sahabah who asked Aisha about the letters which were written in her name, to which Aisha declared in no uncertain terms that these words were falsely attributed to her. We read:
Masrooq told her (Aisha): “This is the result of your work. You encouraged people to rebel against him (Uthman).” Aisha answered: “By the One who believers believe in and the disbelievers disbelieve in, I did not write them a single word.” Al-A’amash said, “It is to be known that words were forged in her name (and she did not know about it).”
(source: Al-Bidayah wa Al-Nihayah, by Ibn Katheer, vol.7, p.204, with authentic chain of narrators)
And similarly did Ali disregard the letters written in his name. We read:
Letters were also forged to show that Ali, Talha, Zubair and other noted Companions had full sympathy with the movement. This led people to think that there was widespread unrest and that the leading Companions wanted to remove the Caliph…
“By Allah,” replied Ali, “I will have nothing to do with you (rebels).”
“Then why did you write letters to us?” they (the rebels) demanded.
“What letters?” said Ali in amazement. “By Allah, I never wrote to you anything.”
…They (the rebels) had been using Ali’s name to fan the fire of discontent. How could they see him stand by the side of the Caliph? So they forged the fateful letter.
(source: https://www.anwary-islam.com/companion/usman_bin_affan.htm)
These forged letters rallied the people to assassinate Uthman. After Uthman’s demise, some of the people used those fabricated sayings as “proof” against Ali, declaring war upon him for supposedly orchestrating the murder of Uthman. Similarly, these forged sayings were used against Aisha, in particular by the Shia killers of Uthman.
Caliph Uthman bin Affan was killed by radical Shia extremists; Aisha was calling on Ali to find and punish these Shia. These Shia, fearful that Aisha would be successful in that, immediately began spreading lies about Aisha. One of the dirtiest lies they could spread about her was to accuse her of orchestrating Uthman’s murder, a claim that would single-handedly call to question Aisha’s very noble quest to find and bring to justice Uthman’s killers. Very conveniently they referred back to the same letters they had forged in her name to rally the people against Uthman.
Answering-Ansar says“ In al Tabaqat al Kubra Volume 3 page 82 we read that:
“Musruq said to Ayesha, Uthman died because of you, you wrote to people and incited them against him”.
”
This is a deceptive half-quote. In fact, this is the same narration that we ourselves quoted above, found in Ibn Katheer’s “Al-Bidayah wa Al-Nihayah.” Answering-Ansar purposefully left out the very next line, in which Aisha denies that she ever wrote those words and that the Sahabah came to the conclusion that the letter was forged in her name, much like letters were forged in the name of Ali. So Answering-Ansar is correct in claiming that there were Sahabah who mentioned the forged letters, but afterwards the Sahabah agreed that those letters were forged, and the matter was thereby cleared.
Conclusion
The statement “kill this old fool (Na’thal)” found its way in Tareekh at-Tabari through Nasr bin Muzahim, a Shia liar. And from Tabari’s work, the statement was copied in a handful of secondary and tertiary sources, as well as into some dictionaries under the meaning of the word “Na’thal”.
A Warning to the Shia Layperson
It is distressing that the Shia layperson will thoughtlessly accept anything as a fact so long as it insults and brings down the Prophet’s own beloved wife, no matter how spurious the source. How many countless e-Shia have accepted the idea that the Prophet’s wife was guilty of murder simply based on these four garbage sources mentioned in the Shia Encyclopedia? Many times the tabloid magazines will spread slander and lies about famous people, but most people have the sense to question the authenticity of such stuff, due to the fact that these are not reliable texts. Of course nobody would use these tabloid magazines as proof in a court of law in order to accuse someone of murder! And yet, the Shia are willing to make use of even more spurious sources to accuse the Prophet’s wife of being a murderer. This tells us a lot about Shi’ism, namely that it is a religion which fosters a hatred towards the Prophet’s loved ones, such that the Shia will believe anything negative about them.
Slander is a very heinous sin in Islam. Even in America, the punishment for defamation is very steep. But in the Court of Allah, the punishment is nothing short of Hell-Fire. Allah warns specifically against slandering Aisha, saying:
“Surely those who fabricate the lie are a group from among you…Every man will receive what he has earned for this sin, and whoever had the greater part in it will have a grievous punishment. Why did the men and women believers, when they heard it, not think good of their own folk and say: ‘This is clearly a lie?’ …If it were not for the Grace of Allah, and His mercy on you in this world and in the next world, an awful doom would have overtaken you for what you repeated. Since you received it with your tongues, and repeated what you did not know anything about with your mouths, you thought it was a trifle, but in the sight of Allah it is serious. Why, when you heard it, did you not say: ‘It is not for us to repeat this, Glory be to You (O Allah), this is a serious slander.’ Allah warns you to never repeat anything like this again, if you are indeed believers! And Allah makes the signs clear to you; and Allah is Knowing, Wise. Surely those who love to spread around slander about those who believe will have a painful punishment in this world and in the next world; and Allah knows and you do not know. And had it not been for the Grace of Allah and His Mercy on you, (Allah would have hastened the punishment upon you). And that Allah is full of kindness, Most Merciful. O you who believe! Follow not the footsteps of Shaytan…Do you not love that Allah should forgive you? …Vile women are for vile men, and vile men for vile women. Good women are for good men, and good men for good women; such are innocent of that which people say: For them is pardon and a bountiful provision.”
(Quran, 24:11-26)
The Shia Tafseer confirm that these above verses are in reference to none other than Aisha (see Pooya/M.A. Ali, https://www.al-islam.org/quran/). Yet, do the Shia propagandists hold their tongues, or do they slander her by calling her a murderer? This is proof of the intense brainwashing of the Shia masses, whereby they will obey their Ayatollah masters even if it means accusing the Prophet’s wife of murder!
Is it on the basis of such worthless sources that the Shia wish us to believe that Aisha was a murderer? If the Shia can bring himself to accept such worthless material, it begs the question as to why he would do so. It cannot be because of the intrinsic value of the report itself, for it has been adequately demonstrated here that the report has no value at all. The only reason for his acceptance of such narrations would have to be the Shia’s own sectarian prejudices. It is only because of his sect’s infernal hatred for the Prophet’s wife that he is willing to accept such tall-tales, even if the proof revolves around a few obscure texts that are even less reliable than the tabloids. Indeed, these Shia will have to answer to Allah for accepting and believing information provided by such worthless and unreliable sources. On the Day of Judgment, the Prophet’s wife will testify against these Shia, and then Allah will bring to justice those who brought forth allegations without proof.
As for us mainstream Muslims, we abide by the instruction of Allah Almighty who declared:
“O you who believe! If an evil-doer comes to you with a report, look carefully into it, lest you harm a people in ignorance, then be sorry for what you have done.”
(Quran, 49:6)
Those who come to us with such reports of Aisha being a murderer are nothing but evil-doers, including Nasr ibn Muzahim and his fellow Shia throughout the ages up until this day.
Aisha was a Muhajir, and Allah says in the Quran:
“And those [believers] who come after them [the Muhajirs and Ansars], they say: ‘Our Lord, forgive us and [forgive] our brethren who preceded us in faith. And do not put in our hearts rancor towards the Believers. Our Lord, You are Most Kind, Most Merciful.”
(Quran, 59:10)
May Allah bestow His Infinite Blessings upon the Ahlel Bayt, including the Prophet’s wife Aisha, the Mother of the Believers.
Article Paraphrased from Moulana M Taha Karaan by Ibn al-Hashimi, www.ahlelbayt.com