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

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 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:

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:

• 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.

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:

• 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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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 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:

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:

https://www.sahih-bukhari.com/
https://www.sahihalbukhari.com/sps/sbk/
https://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:

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.

• 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:

 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.

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.

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 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:

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]