Articles  >  History  >  Battle of the Camel

Battle of the Camel

bismillahirahman1.JPG

  • Introduction
One of the most common lies in regards to Aisha (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡ุง) is that she left her house to fight Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) in the Battle of the Camel. This lie has been propagated so many times by the Shia scholars that people have started to think of this as fact. In the words of Ibn Khaldum: “The more a supposed ‘incident’ becomes popular, the more a network of unfounded tales and stories is woven around it.”

The truth is that both Umm Al Mumineen (Mother of the Believers) Aisha (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡ุง) and Amir Al Mumineen (Commander of the Believers) Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) were innocent of the Fitnah during the Battle of the Camel (al-Jamal). The real culprits who instigated the Battle of the Camel were the Shia, who have historically been the cause of much Fitnah.

  • Shia Slander

Let us see what Al-Tijani, the popular Shia scholar and writer, has to say on the issue. Al-Tijani says:

โ€œWe may ask a few questions about the war of al-Jamal, which was instigated by Umm al-Mumineen Aishah, who played an important role in it…how could Aishah allow herself to declare war on the caliph of the Muslims, Ali Ibn Abi Talib, who was the master of all Muslims? As usual, our scholars, with some simplicity, answer us that she did not like Imam Ali because he advised the Messenger of Allah to divorce her in the incident of al-Ifk…โ€ (Then I was Guided, p. 117)

This is a blatant lie; the Shia scholars would have us believe that the entire Battle of the Camel was over “hurt feelings” and was more of a soap opera gone awry then anything else, in which a vengeful woman was hurt and she got hundreds of people to fight over this. This is nothing but a fairy-tale fit for Lifetime TV, and it does not withstand objective historical analysis.

  • Uthman’s Assassination (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡)

During the reign of Uthman (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡), the third Caliph, the Islamic state had expanded far and wide, but the empire was experiencing grave financial troubles. Many poor Beduins felt that Uthman’s policies (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) were tilted in favor of the Ummayad elite. This fact is trumpeted by the Shia scholars today, who love to slander Uthman (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡); they accuse him of nepotism and mismanagement.

In any case, the Beduins found a spokesman in Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡). Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) prevented these Beduins from resorting to violent rebellion and to instead use peaceful negotiation. As the Vizier and top advisor of Caliph Uthman (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡), Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) had the ability to bring the case of the Beduins to the Caliph. Ali’s supporters (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) were a myriad of disenchanted people, all of whom had grievances with Caliph Uthman. A portion of these Shia’t Ali were the Saba’ites, the ancestors of the modern day Ithna Ashari Shia. Abdullah ibn Saba, leader of the Saba’ites, began the villification of Uthman (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡); many of the disenchanted Beduins in the Shia’t Ali were receptive to this Fitnah. This sub-section of the Shia’t Ali would eventually over the centuries form the Shia we see today [i.e. Ithna Ashari Shia].

Abdullah ibn Saba convinced some of the extremist Beduins in Egypt to rebel against Uthman (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡). This was not sanctioned by Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡), who favored arbitration. In any case, Uthman (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) heard of these Shia’t Ali who were planning on rebelling against him [i.e. open treason]. So Uthman (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) ordered the Eygptian governor to punish the malcontents. When the Egyptian Beduins found out that the governor was going to punish the malcontents on the orders of Uthman (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡), they decided to launch a pre-emptive strike and seige the Caliph’s home in Medinah.

This decision by the extremist members of the Shia’t Ali was not supported by Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡). When Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) heard that extremist members of his own party were plotting the murder of the Caliph, he immediately dispatched his own son to defend Uthman (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡). Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) sent a letter to Uthman (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) saying, โ€œI have 500 men, so give me the permission to defend you from these people, otherwise things would happen that they would kill you.” Uthman (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) answered, โ€œMay Allah reward you for your good intentions, but I do not want blood to be shed for my cause.” [Tareekh Damascus, p.403]

Hasan (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡), Hussain (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡), Ibn Umar (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡), Ibn Al-Zubair (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡), and Marwan (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) rushed to the house of Uthman (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) raising their swords. Uthman (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) told them, โ€œI order you to go back home, put your swords in their sheaths, and stay at home.” [Tareekh Khaleefah Al-Khayyat, p.174]

Kunanah, the slave of Safiyah, said:

โ€œI witnessed the murder of Uthman. Four young men from Quraysh were taken out from Uthmanโ€™s house. These young men were covered by blood, and they were defending Uthman may Allah be pleased at him; Al-Hasan bin Ali, Abdullah bin Al-Zubair, Muhamed bin Hatib, and Marwan bin Hakam.โ€ [Aโ€™asr Al-Khilafah Al-Rashidah by Akram Diyaโ€™a Al-Umari, p.390. Al-Umari said that the Hadith was narrated in Al-Estiaโ€™ab with a good authentication.]

When Hasan (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) entered upon Uthman (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡), he said, โ€œO Commander of the Faithful! I am under your command, so order me as you wish.โ€ Uthman (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) answered, โ€œMy dear brotherโ€™s son! Go back, and stay in your home until Allah carries out His order. I do not need the shedding of blood.โ€ [Musnad Ahmed, Virtues of the Companions, #753]

And so it was that the Amir Al Mumineen Uthman bin Affan (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) was slain by certain extremist members of the Shia’t Ali, namely the Saba’ites [the pioneers of modern day Shi’ism].

  • Ali’s Caliphate (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡)

After Uthman’s death (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡), the Shia’t Ali asked Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) to declare himself Caliph. Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) refused, namely out of anger at his own Shia who murdered Uthman (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡). Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) did not want to be associated with these trouble-makers. This is recorded in Nahjul Balagha, which the Shia consider very authentic. [It should be noted that the Ahlus Sunnah believe the Nahjul Balagha to contain many forgeries.] The Nahjul Balagha contains the sermons and letters of Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) and in it we find sermon after sermon in which Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) condems his Shia–particularly the Saba’ites–for their extremist actions.

Nahjul Balagha, Sermon 191
Ali says to his Shia:

“You should know that you have again reverted to the position of the [pagan] Bedouin Arabs after immigration to Islam, and have become different Shias after having been once united. You do not possess anything of Islam except its name, and know nothing of belief save its show. You would throw down Islam on its face in order to defame its honor and break its pledge for brotherhood which Allah gave you as a sacred trust on His earth and a source of peace among the people…You have broken the shackles of Islam, have transgressed its limits, and have destroyed its commands!”

[source: http://www.al-islam.org/nahjul/191.htm]

Nahjul Balagha, Sermon 91
When people decided to swear allegiance at Amir al-mu’minin’s hand after the murder of Uthman, Ali said:

“Leave me and seek someone else. We are facing a matter which has (several) faces and colors, which neither hearts can stand nor intelligence can accept. Clouds are hovering over the sky, and faces are not discernible. You should know that if I respond to you, I would lead you as I know and would not care about whatever [anyone else] may say. If you leave me, then I am the same as you are. It is possible I would listen to and obey whosoever you make in charge of your affairs. I am better for you as a counsellor than as chief.”

[source: http://www.al-islam.org/nahjul/91.htm]

At first, Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) refused to be Caliph. However, he eventually accepted the position and became Amir Al Mumineen. Upon his announcement as Caliph, there was a large grumbling from people who accused Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) of being an accomplice in the murder of Uthman (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡), since it was well known that it was an element of the Shia’t Ali who were responsible for the seige of Uthman’s house (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡). This accusation made against Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) is recorded in Sermon 22 of Nahjul Balagha which is titled “About those who accused Ali of Uthman’s killing.”

  • Qisas

There was a public outcry for Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) to enact Qisas [i.e. find and prosecute Uthman’s killers], and no doubt Uthman’s family and tribe were anxious to see the murderers brought to justice. However, Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) decided to delay enacting Qisas for the reason that he was too preoccupied facing a civil war from people who were accusing him of murder, and this was not the time to be searching his own ranks for murderers. It was a time when people were ready to rebel against Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡), so the last thing Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) could afford to do was lose more supporters by interrogating his own Shia’t Ali. Because of this, Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) decided to delay enacting Qisas, but it should be noted that Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) had the sincere intention of eventually finding and prosecuting Uthman’s killers even though they were from his own camp. Such was the noble nature of Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡).

As a consequence of Ali’s decision (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) to delay justice [i.e. delay enacting Qisas], hundreds of people were taking to the streets in protest. Many of these were from the same tribe of Uthman (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡); for example, the governor of Syria–Muawiyyah (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡)–was Uthman’s cousin (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) and he was one of the people demanding Qisas. The Prophet’s widow, Aisha (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡ุง), realized that the situation was getting out of hand and that things might get ugly soon between those demanding Qisas and those delaying Qisas. She decided to act as an arbiter on behalf of Uthman’s family and friends; she herself was related by marriage to Uthman (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡), who married two of Aisha’s half-daughters. Aisha (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡ุง) feared that if she did not intercede on behalf of the malcontents by convincing Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) to quickly prosecute the murderers, they would rebel against Caliph Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡). This point cannot be emphacized enough: Aisha (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡ุง) left her house with the intention of reconciling Muslims, not to make them fight.

  • Reconciliation

In Tareekh Al-Tabari, the events precipitating the Battle of the Camel are recorded. Al-Tabari narrates that a man asked Aisha (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡ุง): โ€œO mother, what moved you and pushed you to this country?” She answered: โ€œO son, to reconcile between people.” So it was that Aisha (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡ุง), Talha (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡), and Zubair (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) met Caliph Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) to urge him to find the murderers of Uthman (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡). It should be noted that during Uthman’s Caliphate, Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) also went to Uthman (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) to urge him to do many things at the behest of the Beduins who opposed Uthman (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡). Hence, it can be seen that there is nothing wrong in negotiating with the Caliph and urging him to do something, as long as this is done in a peaceful and productive manner; in fact, this prevents bloodshed and violence.

  • Uthman’s Killers

The murderers of Uthman [the extremist portion of the Shia’t Ali, i.e. Saba’ites] obviously did not want Aisha (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡ุง) to be successful in convincing Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) to prosecute them. โ€œAnd the people who provoked the murder of Uthman [the Saba’ites] had the worst sleep ever because they came close to be doomed. They were discussing their plight the whole night until they agreed to ignite a war [between Aisha and Ali] in secret. They took that as a secret so that no one would know what evil they were planning. They woke up at dusk and while their neighbors did not feel them; they (the agitators) sneaked to do the dirty job in the darkness … they laid swords in the believers…” [Al-Tabari, vol.3, p.39, year 36H]

“The Saba’ites…who were fearing of peace…started throwing Aisha with lances while she was on her camel…Aisha said: ‘…remember Allah and Judgment Day.’ But the Saba’ites refused anything but to fight. So the first thing Aisha said when the Saba’ites refused to stop was: ‘O people, curse the killers of Uthman and their friends.’” [Musnaf Ibn Abi Sheibah, vol.8, the Book of the โ€œCamelโ€ in the departure of Aisha, p.718] Aisha’s contingent (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡ุง) then returned fire in order to defend the Prophet’s wife, and soon the matter escalated into an all out conflict.

And so the Battle of the Camel was initiated, not by Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) nor by Aisha (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡ุง); rather it was Uthman’s killers who attacked Aisha’s envoy (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡ุง) for fear that her negotiation mission would succeed and result in the subsequent capture of those responsible for the death of Uthman (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡). Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡), Aisha (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡ุง), Talha (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡), and Zubair (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) found their contingents fighting each other, not even knowing who fired the first shot; little did they know that it was Uthman’s killers who had initiated this entire operation, hoping that it would cause Aisha’s mission (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡ุง) of negotiation to fail. The Saba’ites would blame the entire matter on Aisha (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡ุง), and we see clearly today that their descendants–the Ithna Ashari Shia–have continued this tradition of blaming Aisha (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡ุง). This is yet another solid link between Abdullah ibn Saba and the modern day Shia, both of which slander the Prophet’s wives and his companions.

  • Aisha’s Intention (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡ุง)

Aisha’s intention (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡ุง) for leaving her house was sincere and pure. She left to make peace between two factions of Muslims, namely the Umayyads and the Shia’t Ali. This is 100% in line with Allah’s commands in the Quran:

โ€œIf two parties amongst the Believers fall into a quarrel, make ye peace between them: but if one of them transgresses beyond bounds against the other, then fight ye (all) against the one that transgresses until it complies with the Command of Allah; but if it complies, then make peace between them with justice, and be fair: for Allah loves those who are fair (and just). The Believers are but a single Brotherhood: so make peace and reconciliation between your two (contending) brothers.โ€ (Quran, 49:9-10)

Aisha (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡ุง) said in no uncertain terms: “I only wanted reformation.” (Shatharat Al-Thahab, vol.1, p.42) Ibn Al-Arabi explains that โ€œher presence in the Battle of the Camel was not for war, but people…complained to her about the affliction. They hoped for her blessing in the reformation [between Muslims], and they wanted that the fighting factions would be ashamed when she is present with them and stop fighting. She also thought that. So she left her house to represent what Allah says ‘If two parties among the Believers fall into a quarrel, make ye peace between them.’โ€

It should be noted that most people alive during the Battle of the Camel respected the Prophet’s widow, namely because she was the First Lady of Islam, the Mother of the Believers, and the Prophet’s lover. As such, she carried a great respect, and people listened to her. So it was not at all strange that she would think to use her influence to end the conflict between the Muslims; unlike the Shia who revile Aisha (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡ุง), most Muslims at that time had a great deal of respect for her, including Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡). It is likely that Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) would have accepted her plea to find Uthman’s killers, and no doubt this is the reason that Uthman’s killers had to start the war.

Aisha’s intentions (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡ุง) were to prevent warfare; she even advised people to stay at home instead of adding to the Fitnah. Aisha (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡ุง) said: โ€œI came out to reform between people. Therefore, tell your people to stay at their house, and to be content until they get what they love, i.e. the reformation of the Muslimsโ€™ matter.โ€ (Book of the Trustworthy, by Ibn Habban, vol.2, p.282)

  • “And stay in your homes…”

Al-Tijani further alleges:

โ€œHow could Umm al-Muโ€™mineen Aishah leave her house in which Allah had ordered her to stay, when the most High said: ‘And stay in your houses and do not display your finery like the displaying of the ignorance of yours…’ (Quran, Verse 33:33)” (When I was Guided, p. 117)

Aisha (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡ุง) did not leave her house displaying her finery! We fear Allah from such blasphemy; would the Shia like to share the same fate as the Munafiqeen (hypocrites) who accused Aisha (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡ุง) of adultery in the incident of Al-Ifk and who were subsequently condemned in the Quran? We seek Allah’s Mercy from slandering the chastity of the Prophet’s own wife. Aisha (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡ุง) left her house in complete Hijab and fully covered; thus, she did not in any way violate this verse of the Quran.

Allah’s command to stay in the house was a general condition set upon not only the Prophet’s wives, but all women in general. This does not mean that women can never leave the house; it is rather a general rule of thumb so that they remain chaste and in Purdah. However, it is permissible to leave the house for ordered duties, such as Hajj, Umrah, or travelling with one’s husband. Verses 33:32-34 were revealed to the Prophet (ุตู„ู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู„ูŠู‡ ูˆุขู„ู‡ ูˆุณู„ู‘ู…), and he himself travelled with his wives after this. For example, he travelled with Aisha (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡ุง) to Hijjat Al-Wida’a, and this occurred three months after the verse was revealed. Surely we are not so crass as to accuse the Prophet (ุตู„ู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู„ูŠู‡ ูˆุขู„ู‡ ูˆุณู„ู‘ู…) of violating the meaning of this verse!

Even after the Prophet’s death, the Prophet’s widows performed Hajj; it is narrated that Umar (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) gave Uthman (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) or Abdul-Rahman bin Owf (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) the leadership of the caravan carrying the Prophet’s widows. “Accordingly, if it is allowed for the Prophetโ€™s wives to travel for a benefit, then Aisha thought that by her departure a reformation of the Muslims could happen [and Muslim lives would be saved]. She interpreted it in that matter.” (Minhaj Al-Sunnah, vol.4, p.317-318)

An appropriate analogy is that Allah prohibits us from breaking our Salat midway. However, if we are in Salat and the enemies of Islam attack our camp, then it is permissible to break one’s Salat in order to defend the Muslim camp and save Muslim lives. Likewise, the Prophet’s wives and women in general were instructed to stay at home; however, in this case, Aisha (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡ุง) thought that she could prevent bloodshed and open rebellion by using her status and prestige to act as an arbiter. In fact, if Aisha (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡ุง) thought that leaving her house was the only way to save Muslim lives, then it would not only be Halal for her to leave her house but no doubt it would be Wajib (obligatory).

It is narrated in both Sahih Bukhari and Muslim that the Prophet (ุตู„ู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู„ูŠู‡ ูˆุขู„ู‡ ูˆุณู„ู‘ู…) told Saudah (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡ุง), one of his wives, that “Allah has permitted you to go out of the house for genuine needs.” Imam Maududi says: “This shows that the divine injunction ‘remain in your houses’ does not mean that women should not at all step out of the four walls of the house.” (Purdah, p. 201-202)

If the Shia knew of an incident in which Aisha (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡ุง) did not leave her house and this resulted in some harm to the Ahle Bayt Ali, then suddenly the Shia would reverse their position and use this story against Aisha (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡ุง). For example, if Aisha (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡ุง) could have hypothetically prevented the assassination of Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) by leaving her house and warning him of it, would the Shia still hold to their statement that the Prophet’s wives could not leave their homes? Based on this hypothetical scenario, we see that the Shia accusations are completely biased.

  • “If two parties amongst the Believers…”

Even if we accept the Shia propaganda that Aisha (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡ุง) went out to fight Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡), then we cite the following verse in the Quran:

โ€œIf two parties amongst the Believers fall into a quarrel, make ye peace between them…make peace between them with justice, and be fair: for Allah loves those who are fair (and just). The Believers are but a single Brotherhood: so make peace and reconciliation between your two (contending) brothers.โ€ (Quran, 49:9-10)

This shows that two believers, even two of the most righteous Mu’mins on earth, can get in disagreements that become violent. This does not mean that one party must necessarily be right and the other party must be the devil. This is simpleton thought: both Aisha (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡ุง) and Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) had legitimate viewpoints. Aisha (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡ุง) cannot be blamed for wanting Qisas for Uthman’s murderers, a right granted by Shariah. And Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) cannot be blamed for delaying Qisas because he was trying to prevent more Fitnah.

  • Shia Double Standards and Inconsistencies

It should also be noted that had it been Abu Bakr (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) or Umar Bin Khattab (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) who had delayed enacting Qisas for Ali’s murderers, then the Shia would slander them for this; again, to the Shia, it is not the actions which matter but rather who takes those actions. If Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) does anything, then it is right. If Abu Bakr (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡), Umar (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡), Uthman (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡), Aisha (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡ุง), or Muawiyyah (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) do anything, it is automatically wrong.

Having said that, the truth is that it was not Aisha (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡ุง) who was responsible for the Fitnah but rather it was the ancestors of the Shia–the murderers of Uthman (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡)–who caused the Battle of the Camel. They had killed Uthman (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡), and they did not want Aisha (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡ุง) to convince Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) to swiftly prosecute them.

The Shia fairy-tale regarding the Battle of the Camel is far-fetched and full of inconsistencies. The Shia say that Aisha (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡ุง) was complicit in the murder of Uthman (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡), and that she used his murder as an excuse to fight Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡). In Nahjul Balagha, one of the “sayings” of Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) is the following: “They [i.e. Aisha] are demanding of me a right [i.e. Qisas] which they have abandoned, and a blood that they have themselves shed.” (Nahjul Balagha, Sermon 22) The Ahlus Sunnah believes this to be an obvious forgery and a grave enormity to accuse the Prophet’s wife of murder!

According to the Shia, Aisha rejoiced when Uthman (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) was killed. But then she heard the news that Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) was the new Caliph, and she was supposedly mortified. To quote Al-Tijani, the famous Shia scholar and writer:

โ€œWe may ask a few questions about the war of al-Jamal, which was instigated by Umm al-Mumineen Aishah, who played an important role in it…how could Aishah allow herself to declare war on the caliph of the Muslims, Ali Ibn Abi Talib, who was the master of all Muslims? As usual, our scholars, with some simplicity, answer us that she did not like Imam Ali because he advised the Messenger of Allah to divorce her in the incident of al-Ifk…โ€ (When I was Guided, p. 117)

How could it be that the Battle of the Camel was started over Aisha’s hurt feelings (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡ุง)? Let us logically analyze this spurious claim. The fact of the matter is that there were hundreds of people protesting on the streets, all of them demanding Qisas for Uthman’s murder. Most of these were from the same tribe of Uthman (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡). For example, the Syrian governor, Muawiyyah (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡), was one such individual. There was also Talha (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) and Zubair (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡). The question begs: if Aisha (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡ุง) had publically advocated Uthman’s murder and she was complicit in his murder, then why would she later be “allied” with Muawiyyah (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡), who also fought with Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡)? This is truly a contradiction! Wouldn’t Muawiyyah (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) have fought Aisha (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡ุง) to punish her for murdering his cousin? Why would Muawiyyah (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) murder his own cousin, especially the cousin who bestowed upon him favor upon favor, evidenced by the fact that the Shia scholars love to show Uthman’s nepotism (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) in relation to Muawiyyah (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡).

Furthermore, if we switch Ali’s name with Abu Bakr and Aisha’s name with Fatima, then suddenly the Shia would use the fact that Fatima (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡ุง) fought Abu Bakr (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡), and they would use this not as evidence against Fatima (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡ุง), but rather as evidence against Abu Bakr (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡)! We see this glaring double-standard when we examine the Shia stance on the issue of Fadak. When it comes to Fadak, then Fatima (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡ุง) is in the right despite the fact that, according to the Shia, she is cursing the Amir Al Mumineen and Caliph. Here, the Shia will say that Abu Bakr’s position (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) as Amir Al Mumineen and Caliph cannot possibly compete with Fatima’s position as Chief of the Women of Paradise. When it comes to the Battle of the Camel, then Aisha’s position (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡ุง) as Mother of the Believers is disregarded and suddenly the Shia scholars will trumpet the line that Aisha (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡ุง) went against her own Caliph and the Amir Al Mumineen!

And is it really believable that hundreds of people would fight against the Shia’t Ali, simply because Aisha’s feelings (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡ุง) were hurt over an incident that took place years before? The Shia scholars taint Aisha’s image (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡ุง) by saying that she did all this simply because Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) told the Prophet (ุตู„ู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู„ูŠู‡ ูˆุขู„ู‡ ูˆุณู„ู‘ู…) to divorce her. [It should be noted that this is another Shia fairy-tale that we shall expose in another article; Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) never told the Prophet (ุตู„ู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู„ูŠู‡ ูˆุขู„ู‡ ูˆุณู„ู‘ู…) to divorce Aisha (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡ุง).] This reason for the Battle of the Camel does not explain why hundreds of people took to the streets against Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡). Were they all angry at this comment made by Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡)? Or was there something else they wanted?

  • Conclusion

The reality is that Aisha (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡ุง), Talha (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡), Zubair (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡), Muawiyyah (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡), and hundreds of other people wanted Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) to apprehend Uthman’s killers who were in his camp. Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) always planned on doing this, and it is likely that he would have agreed to Aisha’s request (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡ุง) to speed up the process. Uthman’s killers did not want this, and they attacked Aisha’s envoy (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡ุง) on its way to Medinah, thereby initiating the Battle of the Camel and saving their own skin. It should be noted that both Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) and Aisha (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡ุง) reconciled after the Battle of the Camel, and Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) even escorted Aisha (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡ุง) back home. This fact alone should be enough for anyone; if Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) did not hold a grudge against Aisha (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡ุง), then surely the Muslims today should not hold a grudge against her.

It is the characteristic of the Munafiqoon (hypocrites) to accuse the believers of having alterior motives; in fact, the Quraish leaders accused the Prophet (ุตู„ู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู„ูŠู‡ ูˆุขู„ู‡ ูˆุณู„ู‘ู…) of trying to gain materialistic wealth and they said this was the reason he claimed prophethood. The Munafiqeen accused Uthman (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) of using the Caliphate to empower his family. The Munafiqeen accused Ali (ุฑุถู‘ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู†ู‡) of taking the Caliphate after supposedly killing Uthman. Likewise have the Shia taken the actions of the Prophet’s wives (and Sahabah) and accused them of having alterior motives. The righteous believers are those who make 70 excuses for their brothers and sisters in Islam; the upright Muslims are those who give the benefit of the doubt to their fellow believers, especially to the Prophet’s wife and lover.

Article Paraphrased By: Ibn al-Hashimi, http://www.ahlelbayt.com/

« Return to the main Articles page or the History subsection.