maclatunji:

Actually, LagosShia's many posts don't show anything more than the fact that Aisha (RA) was a normal wife who had disagreements with her husband. Ultimately, the husband was happy enough to keep her as his wife until his death. No need to write long epistles on her status in Islam. It is obvious to anyone with a clear mind.

Keep deluding yourself- none of your Ayatollah's has more judicial power than the one ready to pass a "death sentence" on LagosShia for his actions on this thread. It is a good thing to curb him if not for any other reason for his own safety since he doesn't even understand the creed he claims to defend.

#Notsofunnyish.

I'm sure my brother LagosShia is very proud to read your post.he has succeed to make you see that aisha was just another "normal wife".she wasn't what sunnis say about her and definitely not "favorite wife" of the Prophet (sawaws).and was the Prophet a "normal" husband that aisha can disgree with,raise her voice at,deny his truthfulness and disobey? LagosShia in fact raised very valid points to answer your question why our Prophet (sawaws) didn't divorce her.

I think your acceptance she was a normal wife (and not the invincible wife Sunnis express) should serve LagosShia as consolation for his ban.

Rafidi :


I'm sure my brother LagosShia is very proud to read your post.he has succeed to make you see that aisha was just another "normal wife".she wasn't what sunnis say about her and definitely not "favorite wife" of the Prophet (sawaws).and was the Prophet a "normal" husband that aisha can disgree with,raise her voice at,deny his truthfulness and disobey? LagosShia in fact raised very valid points to answer your question why our Prophet (sawaws) didn't divorce her.

I think your acceptance she was a normal wife (and not the invincible wife Sunnis express) should serve LagosShia as consolation for his ban.

You guys are funny and over-simplistic. Whoever said Aisha (RA) was perfect? I doubt she herself said that- indeed, she never did. You guys would be better-off if you left obscurities on the sidelines and work hard at salvaging yourselves from Allah's displeasure by focusing on the basics of Islam.

Vedaxcool, I will not tolerate inflammatory posts from you. You have been warned. People, let us behave.

maclatunji:

You guys are funny and over-simplistic. Whoever said Aisha (RA) was perfect? I doubt she herself said that- indeed, she never did. You guys would be better-off if you left obscurities on the sidelines and work hard at salvaging yourselves from Allah's displeasure by focusing on the basics of Islam.

Thanks to LagosShia you now realize that.he broke the veil against criticism of her ill-actions, Sunnis wrap her with.and if she isn't perfect,then why ban LagosShia?

I wonder how expressing what you have realized displeases God? And who says we are not working on the "basics"? As for of what use is it to "work on the basics" when you're treading a shaky or rather muddy path?

Zhul-Fiqar.:


Thanks to LagosShia you now realize that.he broke the veil against criticism of her ill-actions Sunnis wrap her with.and if she isn't perfect,then why ban LagosShia?

Thanks to LagosShia? What do we all have the day of judgement for if any of us are perfect? The hadith here shows that even Prophets don't see themselves as perfect http://mercyprophet.org/mul/node/868 . Last time I checked, Aisha (RA) does not have the status of a prophet. However, my reasons for banning LagosShia have been clearly spelt-out.

maclatunji:

Thanks to LagosShia? What do we all have the day of judgement for if any of us are perfect? The hadith here shows that even Prophets don't see themselves as perfect http://mercyprophet.org/mul/node/868 . Last time I checked, Aisha (RA) does not have the status of a prophet. However, my reasons for banning LagosShia have been clearly spelt-out.

The case of Aisha isn't one on arguing whether she was perfect or not.it is even ridiculous how you're still elevating her status by talking about perfection.no one is doing any judgement here.the only people doing judgement are sunnis.in spite of her crimes,blasphemy,killings and bad behaviour,sunnis still insist on sending her to their paradise.more like wishful thinking and usurping God's role as the Judge.

LagosShia didn't insult her.he only brought out what Sunnis conceal about her.you have many Sunnis today who consider saddam and bin laden as martyrs.and they forget all that these two criminals did and the innocent lives they wasted.now imagine a sunni in america putting "(RA)" after either of their names.would the americans feel happy? You're asking God to be pleased with a criminal.it is wrong.now,that doesn't mean those who don't put "(RA)" after their names are passing judgement on their eternal fate.it simply means they are displeased with the evil acts carried by those two.

Similarly the Shia,particularly as a result of the battle of Jamal Aisha fought against Imam Ali (as),they don't feel good about her.so we see no need to hide the facts of what she committed.you're angry but your anger isn't justified if you can only think.you banned LagosShia because you felt an emotional urge to.LagosShia brought out the facts which will shatter Sunni views on Aisha.

Zhul-Fiqar.:


The case of Aisha isn't one on arguing whether she was perfect or not.it is even ridiculous how you're still elevating her status by talking about perfection.no one is doing any judgement here.the only people doing judgement are sunnis.in spite of her crimes,blasphemy,killings and bad behaviour,sunnis still insist on sending her to their paradise.more like wishful thinking and usurping God's role as the Judge.

LagosShia didn't insult her.he only brought out what Sunnis conceal about her.you have many Sunnis today who consider saddam and bin laden as martyrs.and they forget all that these two criminals did and the innocent lives they wasted.now imagine a sunni in america putting "(RA)" after either of their names.would the americans feel happy? You're asking God to be pleased with a criminal.it is wrong.now,that doesn't mean those who don't put "(RA)" after their names are passing judgement on their eternal fate.it simply means they are displeased with the evil acts carried by those two.

Similarly the Shia,particularly as a result of the battle of Jamal Aisha fought against Imam Ali (as),they don't feel good about her.so we see no need to hide the facts of what she committed.you're angry but your anger isn't justified if you can only think.you banned LagosShia because you felt an emotional urge to.LagosShia brought out the facts which will shatter Sunni views on Aisha.

Nope! Even the headings and the hadith that LagosShia posted aren't in congruence. Leave matter... The Ayatollah has spoken, Aisha (RA) is the mother of the believers. No sane person would tolerate lampoon of his mother. You can dance all you want around it, but we know what you and LagosShia are up to and it is not acceptable- QED.

Lagosshia
Lol but it is written in your Shia will that is you claimed prophet muhammad pbuh left, in which he says his wives will join him paradise, maybe you and your scholars that labelled her kafir are not passing judgement, you were simply practicing shiasmm eh! Lagosshia?

What lagosshia posted could easily be refuted, during the jammal war, what really happened?

Aisha r.a simply travelled to speak to Ali r. On apprehending Uthman r.a murders, she who were of the shia of Ali r.a, Zubayr and Ali may Allah be pleased with them, simply cut a long story short, the same criminals who were responsible for the death of Ali r.a, Uthman r.a, Husayn r.a Zayd and host of other prominent muslims simultaneously attacked the three encampments leading to a break out of hostilities, so who do we blame for the death of muslims in the battle of the cammels? Well the answer is simple, the Shias offcourse! While lying on living people can easily be forgiven, lying on the death is intolerable! And the purification verse clearly puts the prophet wives far above your criticism!
The standards of you guys are very laughable, I remember quoting the hadith written by shias about how Ali r.a plans to marry a second made Fatima so sad that she was extremely un-happy, this made the prophet pbuh remarked whoever angers Fatima angers me, . . ., and seeing your lagosshia grade reaction to something written in your own book, should make it paramount on your mind that tales from the past can be repeated and the we will watch your reaction to the extent to which quoting and misinterpreting history really worked wonders when slandering!

any case we are rest assured that lagosshia having excluded the prophet's daughter from being part of his household in a desperate bid to deny the prophet's wives their rights to being part of this household has done simply marvelous in showing what shiasm is really about!

vedaxcool: ^

Lol but it is written in your Shia will that is you claimed prophet muhammad pbuh says his wives will join him paradise, maybe you and your scholars that labelled her kafir are not passing judgement, you were simply practicing shiasmm eh! Lagosshia?

But he is actually Zhul-Fiqar naww, why are you calling him LagosShia?
lol

Abeg you people should leave LagosShia alone to continue blowing hot air. His views have been thoroughly refuted to the point that he is now grasping for straws to try to save face.

Even after being told that his views are contrary to what his Shia leader teaches he is still using his different IDs to proove who knows what.

Jor, leave am , admitting defeat is not easy.

fellis:

But he is actually Zhul-Fiqar naww, why are you calling him LagosShia?
lol

Abeg you people should leave LagosShia alone to continue blowing hot air. His views have been thoroughly refuted to the point that he is now grasping for straws to try to save face.

Even after being told that his views are contrary to what his Shia leader teaches he is still using his different IDs to proove who knows what.

Jor, leave am , admitting defeat is not easy.

Lol! ok oh! me I start my thread with salam, but because say him wan justify in habit in enter overload they race down a slope!

maclatunji:

Nope! Even the headings and the hadith that LagosShia posted aren't in congruence. Leave matter... The Ayatollah has spoken, Aisha (RA) is the mother of the believers. No sane person would tolerate lampoon of his mother. You can dance all you want around it, but we know what you and LagosShia are up to and it is not acceptable- QED.

They are not in congruence? Which? Now we've left arguing the facts to argue the arguments.

There are bad mothers,aren't there? Based on Sunni teachings what should be done to a mother that divide,fight and kill her children? Anywhere you mention Aisha,her role in the battle of Jamal will haunt-aside from how what happened between her and the Prophet-no matter how hard you try to hide these facts.

^

In islam, I don't for shias, but children have a greater responsibility especially in the area of respect when it comes to mother/child relationship! So the real issue is do you respect your mum Aisha r.a whom Allah found worthy to pronounce her to be mother of believers? So the all too important question is what does shia say about children who fight their mothers? Children who speak ill of their mothers? Children who disobey their mother's genuine advise? You your allegations simply bommerangs and hit back at you! Aisha r.a made it her duty to reconcile groups with divergent opinons. No amount of lies or slander would change that!

I remeber the qur'an saying good women for good men and bad women for bad men, so are you shia implying with you slander that the prophet pbuh was bad since Allah specifically made the pronoucement? We say no, Allah would never had allowed bad women near the prophet pbuh!

^
I didn't miss reading your posts.just that there's no time to reply rubbish.you had your opportunity to defend "your mother" of her actions but you can't.

Good mothers who don't kill their children,insult the Prophet (s) and disobey him, no matter how many mistakes or sins they commit deserve prayer.

And please stop misinterpreting the Quran to defend Aisha.get a tafsir and find out what "good women for good men" means and the context.otherwise after all the actions of Aisha are examined, you risk pushing non-muslims to spot a contradiction in the Quran.the wife of Prophet Noah (a) according to the Quran is a hell-bound cargo.was Noah (a) bad? You must answer this.

When I tell you,you make no sense and in fact lack simple islamic knowledge like on the verse you're misinterpreting,you think we just get back at you.

You don't make sense that's why I mostly don't come here to waste time on you.and those among Sunnis who want to make sense (like Mac) you see how they end up in humiliation.they resort to e-violence (using ban) to defend their ideas and beliefs.you need to laugh less and cry more over this thread.you really messed up.each thread you start to attack and provoke the Shia,you end up beaten.you don't want to learn;may be because Maclatunji is ready to abuse power.

Buhahahahahahah someone is sounding hurt, we ask again in Islam mothers are given a very high status that the only time you are allowed to disobey them is when they call you to kufr, what is does shia says about children who speak ill of their mother? What does shia says about children who fight their mother? What does shia say about children who disobey their mother? Keep hurting, let me send you a hug (there, there) the truth saddens the defeated! Once more the shia claim they have the prophet pbuh will in the said will the prophet pbuh said clearly his wives will join him paradise, now we are left with two options, was he speaking the truth. Shias here insist no, he wasn't he could have we are have access to information from the unseen, again we asked the will true, yes it is the truth, so howcan we clear the whispers of the devil? If those who hold this will to be true, the question becomes is in shia Islam is it part of your teaching to spek ill of people of paradise? As for provocatio, LMAO, really lagosshia did you read your response to the entire thread? Lol na wa o! Don't blame for erring ettiques when it comes to reasonably presenting your views! You might be tempted to say oh all I did was to present stuff from sunnis, so did I and what was reaction when I present an authentic saying from shia on Fatima and Ali. May Allah be pleased with them, u were livid with rage! So also we can peak a mix of shia sayings which in your usual capacity could make you cry yourself to sleep! Your reactions is proof enough on how porous your arguments are!

A'isha was not a child when the Prophet (Allah's Peace and Blessings upon Him and His pure Family) married her 




Section : Articles   ||   Date : 2010 / 06 / 17   ||   Reading : 10468

This article is the transcription of a lecture delivered by His Eminence Allama Sheikh Yasser Al-Habib

Enemies of Islam – be they Christians, Jews or other groups have often used the matter of the Prophet's marriage (Allah's Peace and Blessings upon Him and His pure Family) to A'isha as a weapon against this Great Prophet (Allah's Peace and Blessings upon Him and His pure Family). They rely on that which was spread by A'isha about her having been married off to the Prophet (Allah's Peace and Blessings upon Him and His pure Family) when she was a girl of six and that he consummated his marriage to her when she was a girl of only nine. They say: "Look at how this old man married an innocent little girl young enough to be his granddaughter when he was over fifty years old! How could he live with himself taking away her childhood to satisfy his own needs? What sort of a Prophet is this who does something so inhumane?"

In spite of the fact that the account of the Prophet's marriage (Allah's Peace and Blessings upon Him and His pure Family) to A'isha when she was a child is not told by anyone else but A'isha herself – we find no hadith nabawi or any other hadith from a reliable source about it – the enemies of Islam continue to spread these lies dreamt up by A'isha without any proper historical research. They just rely on the accounts to be found in the Bakri (i.e. Sunni) sect's sources.

In fact those with a grudge against the Master of Prophets (Allah's Peace and Blessings upon Him and His pure Family) have exploited the fabricated hadith spread by A'isha through which she wanted to make people think that for the Prophet (Allah's Peace and Blessings upon Him and His pure Family), she was the youngest, most radiant, most beautiful and the favourite among his wives. Her claim that she was just a delicate and innocent child who was ripped away from her swing on which she used to play with her little friends when her mother shouted out to her and led her away so roughly that she could hardly catch her breath – without her knowing what was going to happen or what she was wanted for – to take her to the house of the Prophet who frightened her when he walked in on her when the bitter truth became clear to her that she had suddenly become a wife.

Firstly, let us shed light on the hadith fabricated by A'isha. Bukhari narrates on the authority of Hisham on the authority of his father on the authority of A'isha who said: "The Prophet (Allah's Peace and Blessings upon Him and His pure Family) married me when I was a girl of six. We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani al-Harith Ibn Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell out. Later on my hair grew back and my mother, Umm Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing settled down, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, "Best wishes and Allah's Blessing and good luck." Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah's Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age." (Sahih al-Bukhari vol 4 p251 and Sahih Muslim vol 4 p141).

In another hadith A'isha paints a picture of what happened to her in another scenario no less full of tragedy than the last because she claims that her mother sat her down – when she was just a poor child – on the lap of her husband who treated her cheaply and consummated his marriage to her in the house of her father. No wedding banquet was laid on for her to celebrate her marriage to him. No one else even brought them anything to eat!"

Ibn Hanbal reports on the authority of A'isha that she said, "My mother came to me while I was being swung on a swing between two branches and got me down. My nurse took over and wiped my face with some water and started leading me. When I was at the door she stopped so I could catch my breath. I was brought in while Muhammad was sitting on a bed in our house. Men and women from the Ansar were with him. She sat me down on his lap. Then, she said: "This is your family. May Allah bless you with them and may Allah bless them with you. The men and women jumped up and went out and the Messenger of Allah consummated his marriage to me in our house. No camel was slaughtered for me and no sheep was slaughtered for me until Sa'd Ibn Ibada sent us a bowl of grapes, something he would send to the Messenger of Allah whenever he would go round to his wives. At that time I was a girl of nine." (Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal vol 6, p211)

In order to back up her claim that she was an innocent child who did not understand what was going on around her, she came up with another account in which she claimed that when she got married to the Prophet, (Allah's Peace and Blessings upon Him and His pure Family) she still had the dolls and figures she used to play with.

Muslim reports on the authority of Urwa on the authority of A'isha: "The Prophet (Allah's Peace and Blessings upon Him and His pure Family) married her when she was a girl of seven and she was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and her dolls were with her; and when he (the Holy Prophet) died she was eighteen years old." (Sahih Muslim vol 4 p142)

Moreover she claimed that she carried on playing with her dolls even after her move to the marital home and that the Greatest Prophet (Allah's Peace and Blessings upon Him and His pure Family) would find it soothing and would help her play with her little friends even though they would run away from him because they were scared of him.

Muslim reported on the authority of Hisham Ibn Urwa on the authority of A'isha, "That she used to play with girls in the presence of the Messenger of Allah (Allah's Peace and Blessings upon Him and His pure Family). She said, 'My friends would come to me and would hide from the Messenger of Allah!' She said: 'So the Messenger of Allah would call to them to play with me." (Sahih Muslim vol 7 p135 and similarly Sahih Ibn Hiban vol 13 p174 and Mu'jam al-Tabarani vol 23 p21).

Ibn Sa'd reports on the authority of Urwa on the authority of A'isha that she said, "The Messenger of Allah walked in on me one day while I was playing with some girls and he said, 'What is this, A'isha?' So she said Sulayman's horse and he laughed." (Al-Tabaqat al-Kubra by Ibn Sa'd vol 8 p62).

This is how A'isha tried to hold together this fictitious account of her being young when she married the Greatest Prophet (Allah's Peace and Blessings upon Him and His pure Family) except that no matter how hard the creators of the false account tried to hold it together, it just falls apart as one can see. Now let us respond to these lies in line with scientific and historical facts, even those recorded in sources belonging to the Bakri sect.

Firstly, if A'isha's claims had been true, she would not have contradicted herself. We have already seen the discrepancy between her saying that when she got married she was "a girl of six" and her saying "a girl of seven". Both statements are reported on the authority of her nephew 'Urwa'.

Secondly, Bukhari narrates on the authority of Hisham on the authority of his father who said, "Khadija passed away three years before the Prophet (Allah's Peace and Blessings upon Him and His pure Family) left for Madina. He let two years pass, more or less and then he married A'isha, a girl of six. Then he consummated his marriage to her when she was a girl of nine." (Sahih al-Bukhari vol 4 p252)

The opponents [to Ahlulbayt i.e. al-mukhalifun] treat this hadith as if it is also narrated on the authority of A'isha herself for Ibn Hajar says, "This appears mursal but given that it is narrated by 'Urwa', what with his detailed knowledge of A'isha's life story it is also deemed to be narrated on her authority." (Fath al-Bari fi Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari by Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani vol 7 p175)

This hadith would mean that A'isha's wedding could only have taken place the year before the hijra in view of the fact that she was a girl of six, because after Khadija's passing (Allah's blessings upon Her) the Prophet (Allah's Peace and Blessings upon Him and His pure Family) let two years pass, more or less, without remarrying. Khadija (Peace be upon Her) passed away three years before the hijra. Then, His having consummated His marriage to A'isha when she was a girl of nine could only have taken place two years after the hijra because this is the time interval between when she was six and when she was nine. A'isha would only have been nine two years after the hijra. On this basis the length of time she lived with the Prophet (Allah's Peace and Blessings upon Him and His pure Family) could not have been more than eight years because as everyone knows He became a martyr in year ten (Allah's Peace and Blessings upon Him and His pure Family).

This contradicts what A'isha claimed according to Muslim's hadith mentioned above – which said that she was taken as a bride, along with her dolls to the Prophet's house (Allah's Peace and Blessings upon Him and His pure Family) when she was a girl of nine and that he died when she was a girl of eighteen which means that she lived with him for nine years. This is confirmed in another hadith narrated by Bukhari on the authority of Hisham on the authority of his father, also on the authority of A'isha: "The Prophet married her when she was a girl of six and she was taken to his house when she was a girl of nine and she lived with him for nine years" (Sahih al-Bukhari vol 6 p134).

The hadiths cancel each other out. If the first is authentic, then the length of time A'isha lived with the Prophet (Allah's Peace and Blessings upon Him and His pure Family) was not nine years and if the second is authentic, then the Prophet (Allah's Peace and Blessings upon Him and His pure Family) did not marry her the year before the hijra or two years after the Mother of the Believers Khadija al-Kubra's passed away.

This is another contradiction A'isha has dropped herself into even though both sayings are narrated along the same chain [of narration] i.e. Hisham on the authority of her nephew Urwa. This contradiction obviously shows up the lie and fabrication. The Bakri sect cannot mitigate by saying something like these hadith are weak because they have decided that they are all authentic and to be without a doubt on the authority of A'isha.

Thirdly A'isha claimed that the Prophet (Allah's Peace and Blessings upon Him and His pure Family) said, "Oh Allah! In particular, strengthen Islam with Omar Ibn al-Khattab." (Mustadrak al-Hakim vol 3 p83).
We are not in the process of refuting this hadith, or proving that it was fabricated by A'isha; we only wanted to rely on it to prove a point. We say that this hadith is claimed to have been uttered before Omar had begun pretending to be a Muslim on the pretext that his Islam had come as an answer to the Messenger of Allah's du'a (Allah's Peace and Blessings upon Him and His pure Family). A'isha claims that she heard it from the Prophet (Allah's Peace and Blessings upon Him and His pure Family) and that she narrates it directly from him.

According to the Bakri sect Omar's conversion to Islam was in the sixth year after the Prophetic Mission had begun i.e. about seven years before the hijra. It was stated above that A'isha was a girl of six the year before the hijra which means that seven years before the hijra she was still either in her mother's womb or a suckling babe incapable of rational thought. How could she have heard or been aware of this hadith allegedly uttered by the Holiest Prophet (Allah's Peace and Blessings upon Him and His pure Family)?

If what she claimed about her being young and her being a girl of six when she got married, she had no business falsely attributing this fabricated hadith to the Messenger of Allah (Allah's Peace and Blessings upon Him and His pure Family). And if it was not authentic then the point is still proven i.e. that she was much older than that because according to the claim, she heard the hadith, understood it and narrated it.
This is a third contradiction to add to the aforementioned contradictions which prove that it is a fabrication and a lie but what is most damaging of all is that they are all narrated through an authentic chain of transmission on the authority of Hisham on the authority of his father 'Urwa'. How does one escape that?

Fourthly: Ibn Qutayba says by way of comment on A'isha's hadith about her marriage when she was a girl of nine: "…And she lived until the time when Mu'awiya was the Caliph and she passed away in the year fifty eight when she was nearly seventy. She was asked, "Shall we bury you next to the Messenger of Allah?" She replied, "But I did wrong. Bury me with my sisters." So she was buried in the Baqi' [cemetery] and she appointed Abdallah Ibn Zubayr as her executor. (Al-Ma'arif by Ibn Qutayba p29).

Al-Birri said, "She passed away in the fifty ninth year after the hijra towards the end of Mu'awiya's reign as Caliph. She was nearly seventy. It was on a Monday night, the night before the seventeenth of Ramadan." (Al-Jawhara fi Nisab al-Nabi wa Ashabihi al-'Ashara by Al-Birri vol 1 p216).

Ibn Abd Rabbih said, "After his death, she lived on right up to the days of Mu'awiya and she died in the fifty eighth year. She was nearly seventy. (Al-Iqd al-Farid by Ibn Abd Rabbih vol 2 p71).

Al-Maqdisi said, "He married A'isha in Makkah the year before the hijra (…) A'isha passed away during the time of Mu'awiya. She was nearly seventy. He said to her, "Should we not bury you in your house with the Messenger of Allah?" She replied, "No. I did wrong after His death." (Al-bid' wa al-Tarikh by Al-Maqdisi vol 1 p260).

On this basis, A'isha's age would have been roughly twelve the year before the hijra, the year in which the Greatest Prophet (Allah's Peace and Blessings upon Him and His pure Family) married her (as mentioned above). What a far cry this is from her saying that she was a girl of six or seven!".

Even if we were to work on the presumption that what they meant by "nearly seventy" at her death was that she reached the age of sixty seven – as some of them have stated – then she would have been a girl of nine when she got married, not a girl of six or seven except for the fact that we also reject their account that she got married the year before the hijra. We refer back to the objection raised in the second point (above). There is shown to be a contradiction which disproves her claim.

Fifthly, Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani says about Asma' daughter of Abu Bakr, "She was the mother of Abdallah son of Al-Zubayr. She became a Muslim a long time ago in Makkah and pledged allegiance to the Prophet (Allah's Peace and Blessings upon Him and His pure Family). She was ten years older than A'isha and died less than a month after her son was killed. She was a hundred years old. That was in the year seventy three. (Subul al-Salam by Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani vol 1 p39).

Al-Baihaqi and Al-Dhahabi narrate on the authority of Ibn Abi al-Zinad that he said, "Asma' daughter of Abu Bakr was ten years older than A'isha. (Sunan al-Baihaqi vol 6 p204 and Siyar  al-Nubala' by Al-Dhahabi vol 2 p289)

Similarly, Al-Nawawi narrates on the authority of Hafiz Abu Na'im that he said, "Asma' was born twenty seven years before the Messenger of Allah's hijra (Allah's Peace and Blessings upon Him and His pure Family). Her father Abu Bakr was twenty one years old when she was born." (Tahdhib al-Asma' by Al-Nawawi vol 3 p223).

The conclusion to be reached from these narrations is that Asma was twenty seven years old the year before the hijra and given that she was ten years older than her sister A'isha, A'isha's age was about seventeen at that time. That was the year in which she got married. What a far cry this is from her claim that she was a girl of six or seven. So the Prophet (Allah's Peace and Blessings upon Him and His pure Family) consummated his marriage to her when she was nearly twenty not a girl of nine.

This is how the lie told by A'isha is exposed. It was her intention to pretend to be younger and fool people into thinking that she was an innocent child who was married against her will to a really old man. In fact, A'isha was nearly twenty at the time meaning that she was a grown up woman and not a child as she claimed.

The age difference between her and between the Prophet (Allah's Peace and Blessings upon Him and His pure Family) was about 33 years which is much less than the age difference between Joseph the Carpenter and Our Lady, the Virgin Mary (Peace be upon Her) when she got married or when they got engaged to each other. Mary's age was between just 12 and 14 while Joseph's was about 90.

The Catholic Encyclopedia says, "…a respectable man to espouse Mary, then twelve to fourteen years of age, Joseph, who was at the time ninety years old" (Website). That means that the age difference between Joseph and Mary was about 77 years. That is more than double the difference between the Prophet Muhammad (Allah's Peace and Blessings upon Him and His pure Family) and A'isha. So why is there no outcry over this matter too?

http://alqatrah.net/en/edara/index.php?id=91

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXCvnposB1k

[size=14pt] SHOCKER! SHOCKER !! SHOCKER !!! [/size]

1. Ammar Ibn Yasir (RA) said to people before the battle of Camel that:

"Allah has put you to test whether you obey Allah or her (Aisha)." (See Sahih al-Bukhari, Arabic-English version, Tradition 9.220).

2. Sahih al-Bukhari Hadith: 4.336
Narrated Abdullah:

The Prophet stood up and delivered a sermon, and pointed to the house of Aisha, and said: "Fitna (trouble/sedition) is right here," saying three times, "from where the side of the Satan's head comes out."

3. Muslim has related in his Sahih from Ikrima Ibn Ammar from Salim from Ibn Umar who said:

"The Prophet of Allah (PBUH&HF) emerged from the house of Aisha and said. 'The head of disbelief is from here, where the horns of Satan will rise.'"

Sunni reference: Sahih Muslim, Arabic version, the Chapter of Seditions, v4, p2229

Rafidi :
[size=14pt] SHOCKER! SHOCKER !! SHOCKER !!! [/size]

1. Ammar Ibn Yasir (RA) said to people before the battle of Camel that:

"Allah has put you to test whether you obey Allah or her (Aisha)." (See Sahih al-Bukhari, Arabic-English version, Tradition 9.220).

2. Sahih al-Bukhari Hadith: 4.336
Narrated Abdullah:

The Prophet stood up and delivered a sermon, and pointed to the house of Aisha, and said: "Fitna (trouble/sedition) is right here," saying three times, "from where the side of the Satan's head comes out."

3. Muslim has related in his Sahih from Ikrima Ibn Ammar from Salim from Ibn Umar who said:

"The Prophet of Allah (PBUH&HF) emerged from the house of Aisha and said. 'The head of disbelief is from here, where the horns of Satan will rise.'"

Sunni reference: Sahih Muslim, Arabic version, the Chapter of Seditions, v4, p2229

It looks like we should expect Maclatunji to soon officially ban the hadiths of Prophet Muhammed (s) on nairaland-like he banned LagosShia-for "insulting" Aisha.

[b]

Hadith About Aisha’s House and
Satan’s Horns [A Sunni Perspective]
Praise be to Allah for giving us this
opportunity to defend the Prophet’s
wife. Truly what an amazing honor this
is. May Allah raise us up with those who
defend the Ahlel Bayt, as opposed to
those who slander the blessed Ahlel
Bayt. As for those who slander and insult
the Prophet’s own wives, we can only
imagine the Prophet’s anger towards
these erring people; indeed, not even
the vilest and most debased Shia would
tolerate someone insulting his own wife!
It will be the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah
that will forever guard the honor of our
Beloved’s beloved.
Shia Slander Against the Mother of
the Believers
Despite the fact that Umm al Mu’mineen
Aisha is part of the blessed Ahlel Bayt,
the Shia propagandists revile her; of the
many slanders they utter against her,
one of their favorites is to claim that the
“horns of Satan” or the “head of Satan”
would emerge from Aisha’s house. This is
based on their horrible misinterpretation
of Sunni Hadith which they then
propagate amongst the ignorant ones
amongst the Sunnis.
Let us read the false translations and
even falser interpretations made by the
Shia propaganda website, Al-Islam.org:
Al-Islam.org says
“ The Prophet of Allah (PBUH&HF)
warned the Ummah against her on
several occasions…
Sahih al-Bukhari Hadith: 4.336
Narrated Abdullah:
The Prophet stood up and delivered a
sermon, and pointed to the house of
Aisha, and said: “Fitna (trouble/sedition)
is right here,” saying three times, “from
where the side of the Satan’s head
comes out.”
In the above tradition the Prophet
predicted the sedition which Aisha will
bring for Muslims and that she will be
seduced by Satan for instigating the first
civil war in the history of Islam.
Muslim has also related in his Sahih from
Ikrima Ibn Ammar from Salim from Ibn
Umar who said:
“The Prophet of Allah (PBUH&HF)
emerged from the house of Aisha and
said. ‘The pivot of disbelief is from here,
where the horns of Satan will rise.’”
Sunni reference: Sahih Muslim, Arabic
version, the Chapter of Seditions, v4,
p2229
source: http://www.al-islam.org/
encyclopedia/chapter1a/10.html”
A Similar Accusation Made By the
Anti-Islam Orientalists
Unbeknownst to many Shia is the fact
that this same Hadith is used by the
Anti-Islam Orientalists (i.e. Non-Muslims)
who seek to defile the good name of
Prophet Muhammad. These Orientalists
argue that the Prophet predicted that
Satan’s horns would emerge from Aisha’s
house, and then they are quick to
mention that the Prophet himself was
buried inside Aisha’s house! It is
disconcerting how the Shia
propagandists–in their overzealous
attempts to slander the Ahlel Bayt (i.e.
the Prophet’s wives)–have unwittingly
allied themselves with Orientalists.
Indeed, if the Hadith in question is
actually in reference to Aisha’s house,
then nobody can deny that the
Orientalists have rightfully pointed out
that the Prophet was buried in that same
house. If we take this interpretation,
then we are led to the conclusion that
Satan’s horn emerged from the Prophet
himself; this claim has been made by the
Christians for a very long time, whereby
they argue that Prophet Muhammad was
not sent by Allah but was rather one of
Satan’s agents. The Christians argue that
the Prophet was doomed by his own
prophecy, in a similar fashion that Mirza
Ghulam Ahmed of the Qadianis was
doomed by his own prophecy. (Mirza
Ghulam Ahmed had claimed to be a
prophet after our Prophet Muhammad;
he also prophecized that false prophets
die from illnesses such as cholera.
Ironically, Mirza Ghulam Ahmed himself
died from cholera.)
Today, a very large mosque is built over
Aisha’s house, known as al-Masjid al-
Nabawi (the Prophet’s Mosque). Are the
Shia implying that the Horn of Satan
would emerge from the second holiest
mosque of Islam? Do they say that the
Horn of Satan would emerge from the
Prophet’s Mosque (not “Aisha’s
Mosque”)? The Shia are agreed upon the
sanctity of the Prophet’s Mosque, and
yet at the same time they dare to make
accusations that this was the site from
where Satan’s horns would emerge?
The Hadiths in Question
In fact, the Hadiths in question have
nothing at all to do with Aisha, but rather
the Prophet was simply pointing in the
direction of the East towards Iraq (i.e.
the Persian Empire at that time). An
analogy of this is if a man asks which
direction is Qiblah, and his friend points
towards a certain house on the street.
This simply means that Qiblah is in that
direction. The Prophet did not at all
mean that Aisha’s house would be the
source of Satan’s horns, but rather he
meant the East. In relation to where the
Prophet was standing, Aisha’s house
simply happened to be in the direction of
the East.
Shia Chat Member says
“ This Hadith has been narrated in the
Sahihayn, in both Sahih Muslim and
Sahih Bukhari.
”
Indeed. Now let us reproduce the
Hadiths from both Sahih Muslim and
Sahih Bukhari. We read:
Sahih Muslim, Book 041, Number
6938:
Ibn Umar reported that he heard Allah’s
Messenger (may peace be upon him) as
saying while he had turned his face
towards the East: “Behold, turmoil
would appear from this side, from where
the horns of Satan would appear.”
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/
fundamentals/hadithsunnah/
muslim/041.smt.html#041.6938
Sahih Muslim, Book 041, Number
6939:
Ibn Umar reported that Allah’s
Messenger (may peace be upon him)
stood by the door (of the apartment of)
gafsa and, pointing towards the East,
he said: “The turmoil would appear from
this side, viz. where the horns of Satan
would appear,” and he uttered these
words twice or thrice; and Ubaidullah in
his narration said: the Messenger of
Allah (may peace be upon him) had
been standing by the door of Aisha.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/
fundamentals/hadithsunnah/
muslim/041.smt.html#041.6939
Sahih Muslim, Book 041, Number
6940:
Salim b. Abdullah reported on the
authority of his father that Allah’s
Messenger (may peace be upon him),
while turning his face towards the
East, said: “The turmoil would appear
from this side; verily, the turmoil would
appear from this side; verily, the turmoil
would appear from this side–the side
where appear the horns of Satan.”
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/
fundamentals/hadithsunnah/
muslim/041.smt.html#041.6940
Sahih Muslim, Book 041, Number
6941:
Ibn Umar reported that Allah’s
Messenger (may peace be upon him)
came out from the house of Aisha
and said: “It would be from this side
(pointing to the East) that there would
appear the height of unbelief, viz. where
appear the horns of Satan.”
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/
fundamentals/hadithsunnah/
muslim/041.smt.html#041.6941
Sahih Muslim, Book 041, Number
6942:
Ibn Umar reported: I heard Allah’s
Messenger (may peace be upon him) as
saying while pointing his hands
towards the East: “The turmoil would
appear from this side; verily, the turmoil
would appear from this side (he
repeated it thrice) where appear the
horns of Satan.”
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/
fundamentals/hadithsunnah/
muslim/041.smt.html#041.6942
Sahih Muslim, Book 041, Number
6943:
Ibn Fudail reported on the authority of
his father that he heard Salim b.
Abdullah b. Umar as saying: O people
of Iraq, how strange it is that you ask
about the minor sins but commit major
sins? I heard from my father Abdullah b.
Umar, narrating that he heard Allah’s
Messenger (may peace be upon him) as
saying while pointing his hand
towards the East: “Verily, the turmoil
would come from this side, from where
appear the horns of Satan and you would
strike the necks of one another…”
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/
fundamentals/hadithsunnah/
muslim/041.smt.html#041.6943
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 53,
Number 336:
Narrated Abdullah:
The Prophet stood up and delivered a
sermon, and pointing towards Aisha’s
house (i.e. Eastwards), he said thrice,
“Affliction (will appear from) here,” and,
“from where the side of the Satan’s head
comes out (i.e. from the East).”
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/
fundamentals/hadithsunnah/
bukhari/088.sbt.html
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 88,
Number 212:
Narrated Salim’s father:
The Prophet stood up beside the pulpit
(and pointed with his finger towards the
East) and said, “Afflictions are there!
Afflictions are there, from where the side
of the head of Satan comes out,” or said,
“..the side of the sun..” (i.e. the
sun emerges from the East)
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/
fundamentals/hadithsunnah/
bukhari/088.sbt.html
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 88,
Number 213:
Narrated Ibn Umar:
I heard Allah’s Apostle while he was
facing the East, saying, “Verily!
Afflictions are there, from where the side
of the head of Satan comes out.”
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/
fundamentals/hadithsunnah/
bukhari/088.sbt.html
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 88,
Number 214:
Narrated Ibn Umar:
The Prophet said, “O Allah! Bestow Your
blessings on our Sham! O Allah! Bestow
Your blessings on our Yemen.” The
People said, “And also on our Najd (i.e.
Iraq).” He said, “O Allah! Bestow Your
blessings on our Sham (North)! O Allah!
Bestow Your blessings on our Yemen
(South).” The people said, “O Allah’s
Apostle! And also on our Najd (i.e. Iraq).”
I think the third time the Prophet said,
“There (in the Najd, i.e. Iraq) is the
place of earthquakes and afflictions
and from there comes out the side
of the head of Satan.”
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/
fundamentals/hadithsunnah/
bukhari/088.sbt.html
Iraq was at that time referred to by the
Arabs as the Najd, as stated in “Najd
Qarnu ash-Shaytan”. This has been
stated by al-Khattabi, al-Kirmani, al-Ayni,
an-Nawawi, Ibn Hajr and others. Shaykh
al-Islam Ibn Hajr said:
“Al-Khattabi said: ‘For the one who is in
Medinah, then his Najd would be the
desert of Iraq and its regions (baadiya al-
Iraaq wa Nawaaheehaa) for this is to the
East of the People of Medinah.”
This is made abundantly clear by the
same narration recorded in alternate
wording:
Al-Mu’jam al-Kabeer, Compiled by
Imam Al-Tabarani:
Narrated by Ibn Abbas:
The Prophet supplicated and said, “O
Allah bestow your blessings on our
Shaam and Yemen.” A person from
amongst the people said, “O Prophet of
Allah, and Iraq?” He said, “Indeed there
(in Iraq) is the Horn of Satan, and the
trials and tribulations will come like
mounting waves, and indeed harshness
is in the East.”
“Pointed Towards”, Not “Pointed
To”
It is Hadith Number 336 of Vol.4, Book 53
of Sahih Bukhari that the Shia
propagandists rely on most, namely
because the translator used by the USC
website (Muhsin Khan) made a mistake
in his translation. He translates it as
“pointed to Aisha’s house” instead of
“pointed towards Aisha’s house.”
However, the proper translation is
“pointed towards” and not “pointed to.”
In the Arabic text of said Hadith, the
words are “fa-ashaara nahwa
(towards) maskani `a’ishah” and not
“fa-ashaara ila (to) maskani `a’ishah”.
Therefore, we see that the Prophet was
simply pointing towards the direction of
Aisha’s house, and not at Aisha’s house
specifically.
The Persian Empire: Wherefrom
Satan’s Horns Emerged
At that time in history, Iraq was part of
the Persian Empire; the Prophet had
dispatched an ambassador to the Persian
Chosroes inviting him to Islam. The
haughty Persian leader scoffed at the
Prophet’s call, rejecting to accept the
“lowly” Arab “barbarians” as spiritual
leaders over and above the “mighty”
Persians. Soon thereafter, the Muslim
Ummah would be propelled into an all-
out war with the the Persian Empire;
Caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab blitzed across
Iraq and this is when the Fitnah began
for the Muslims. The perceptive reader
should keep in mind that before the fall
of Persia, the Muslim Ummah was united
under its Caliph and Dar al-Islam was
expanding its borders. Right after the
liberation of Iraq from Persian
domination, the assassinations of Caliphs
began.
The Muslims had indeed defeated the
haughty and proud Persian Empire, but
the Persians carefully planned their
revenge. The Persian governor
Harmuzan was pardoned by the Caliph,
but he conspired against the Muslims to
avenge his humiliating defeat. The
conquered Persians plotted against the
Muslims, and it was their conspiracy
plans which no doubt the Prophet was
referring to as “Satan’s horns”. It was
from the ashes of the Persian Empire
that the Shia sect was formed, a mix
between Islam and Zoroastrianism as
well as Persian nationalism.
The Persian governor Harmuzan became
partners with Jafeena Al-Khalil and Saba
bin Shamoon (whose son was Abdullah
ibn Saba, founder of the Shia sect);
these three men hired Feroz Abu Lulu, a
Persian POW from Iraq, to assassinate
Caliph Umar. Today, the modern day
Persian Shia venerate Abu Lulu, and they
call him “Baba Shuja-e-din” which can be
translated as “Honored Defender of
Religion.” These Shia have a shrine
erected for this murderer, located in the
Iranian city of Kashan called the Abu Lulu
Mausoleum wherein he is buried. The
Shia travel from far distances to pray
inside this shrine, and many of the Shia
fast on the day that Umar was killed, and
even pass out sweets. Feroz Abu Lulu is
one of the venerated founding figures of
Shia ideology; the same people who
conspired to kill Umar were the ones
who planted the seeds of the Shia
movement.
Abu Lulu was hired by three men, and
the third of these three was the father of
Abdullah ibn Saba, founder of the Shia
faith. His intention in creating the Shia
faith was to create a sect within Islam
that would split its ranks, create disunity,
and–quite frankly–to forever be a rebel
movement against mainstream Islamic
governments. And if we look throughout
history, we find that the Shia have
always been rebels and turncoats, one of
the reasons they are referred to as
“Rafidhis” (or turncoats). Not only they
were turncoats, but these Shia were Ahl
al-Bidah (People of Innovation) for they
adultered Islam with their Magian
beliefs. This was the Satan’s horn that
emerged from the East, and no doubt
this is what the Prophet was referring to.
Aisha Did Not Start the Fitnah
The Shia argue that it was Aisha who
started the Fitnah in the ranks of the
Muslims by organizing an army against
Ali. But in fact, this is incorrect. First of
all, Aisha did not leave her house with
the intention of instigating an armed
revolt against Ali. Instead, she left her
house only with the intention of Islah
(reformation). In Tareekh Al-Tabari, the
events precipitating the Battle of the
Camel are recorded. Al-Tabari narrates
that a man asked Aisha why she had
come to visit Ali, saying: “O mother,
what moved you and pushed you to this
country?” She answered: “O son, to
reconcile between people.”
The word “Fitnah” refers to turmoil
which causes disunity in the ranks of the
Muslim Ummah. Even before the time of
the Battle of Camel, the Muslim ranks
had become split, so why should the Shia
blame this on Aisha? The Fitnah began
right after the Persians assassinated the
Caliph of the Muslims, which pre-dated
the Battle of the Camel. In fact, it was
the murder of Umar ibn al-Khattab by
the Persians that started the chain
reaction which resulted in the Battle of
the Camel. Ubaidallah, Umar’s son,
avenged the murder of his father by
plotting to kill the three men who hired
the assassin Abu Lulu. Ubaidallah was
successful in killing two of the three
men, but the third–Saba bin Shamoon–
survived, and he demanded that
Ubaidallah be executed for his double
murder. Caliph Uthman, however,
showed Ubaidallah mercy, despite Ali
who advised the Caliph to execute him
for his crime of vigilante murder.
The fact that Uthman showed mercy
upon Ubaidallah angered Saba bin
Shamoon and his son, Abdullah ibn Saba.
These two men looked sympathetically
towards Ali, due to the fact that Ali had
taken a harsh stance towards
Ubaidallah’s actions. It was thus that
Abdullah ibn Saba “converted” to Islam
and founded the Shia sect, calling the
masses to adore Ali and agitating them
against Uthman. It was Abdullah ibn
Saba’s propaganda against Uthman that
helped fan the flames of civil discontent
and caused the people to rise against
the Caliph. And so it was that the
Saba’ites (followers of Abdullah ibn
Saba) assassinated Uthman.
This murder of Uthman led to the rise of
Ali as Caliph; the people demanded of Ali
that he apprehend the killers of Uthman
and this was the cause of the Battle of
Camel. The people were upset with Ali
for failing to apprehend the killers of
Uthman–who happened to be in his own
party, but Ali chose to delay
apprehending them due to the fact that
he did not want to alienate his own
supporters in this time of civil discontent
when he needed them the most. So Ali
decided to delay on apprehending the
killers until after he consolidated his
power as Caliph, but the people were
threatening to revolt against and even
kill Ali, who was even wrongfully
implicated in the murder of Uthman. And
so it was that some of the people
appealed to the Prophet’s wife to go talk
to the Caliph on their behalf. Aisha
agreed to do this, only to prevent
bloodshed and furnish Islah (reformation)
between the ranks of the Muslims. Aisha
was hopeful that she could convince Ali
to find the killers and apprehend them
posthaste.
When the Saba’ite killers of Uthman
found out that Aisha was on her way to
meet the Caliph in order to urge him to
apprehend the assassins, this naturally
made them antsy and fear for their lives.
So it was they who attacked Aisha’s
contingent and thus began the Battle of
the Camel, a result of the chain reaction
that began with the Persian murder of
Caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab. It was thus
that the Persians were the cause of the
Fitnah, and Aisha was innocent of that.
Today, we find that the modern day Shia
are soft towards the Persian conspirators
but harsh towards the Mother of the
Believers! The truth is that the Shia
propagandists will be raised with those
they love, and they will be raised up with
the likes of the Persian Abu Lulu,
whereas the Muslims will be raised with
the blessed Ahlel Bayt including the
Prophet’s wives. The Shia of today are
the remnants of the Magian Persian
Empire, and they are from where Satan’s
horns emerged.
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Hajar said:
“The People of the East were
disbelievers at that time and the
Messenger of Allah informed us that the
trials and tribulations would arise from
that direction and it was as he said. And
the first of the trials that arose, arose
from the direction of the East and they
were the reason for the splitting of the
Muslim ranks, and this is what Satan
loves and delights in. Likewise the
innovations appeared from that
direction.” (Fath al-Bari 13/58)
Conclusion
The Prophet was not at all referring to
his own wife. If that were the case, then
nothing prevented him from simply
pointing to his wife, instead of pointing
towards Aisha’s house in the direction of
the East. In fact, although this Hadith is
abused by the Shia propagandists, in
reality this same Hadith is a damnation
of the Shia themselves for it was they
who the Prophet was warning against us.
May Allah save us from Shi’ism, the horn
of Satan.
It is inconceivable that the Prophet of
Islam would be buried at the spot
wherefrom Satan’s horns emerged. May
Allah bless the Prophet’s Ahlel Bayt
including his wives, the Mother of the
Believers.
Article Written By: Ibn al-Hashimi [/b]

We come to see the shia people whom Allah warned not split the religion of Islam are the same horn of satan, headed by the persians (the hypocrites belief that Allah speaks persia when he is happy and arabic when sad) this same kufrs (the persians) are the ones that built a religion on the very back of a slandering the wives, the companion of the prophet pbuh thereby proving that they are the real nasibi, we can see the above article refutes the nasibi lagosshia claim that Aisha r.a went to start a war with Ali when in fact she went to encourage him to bring the book the murderers (the ancestors of shiasm) of Uthman! Truly this thread exposed the deep hatred shias have for their mother, Aisha may Allah be pleased with her and shows their religion is built on the hatred of her. It shows the dishonesty of the shias, their own WILL they attribute to the prophet pbuh says clearly Aisha r.a is in heaven. It again reaffirms beyound reasonable doubt that the prophet pbuh was right when he said satan horn will come from the persians - the masters of shiasm!

May Allah protect us from kufr and guide us from falling into satan's deceptions, may he guide those who have fallen victim to satan whispers! Amin.

^
I read the beating around the bush you posted to an extent.as usual,when its impossible to deny the fact or the existence of the hadiths in the most reliable sunni books (bukhari and muslim),sunni apologists resort to funny excuses and outright mighty lies and fabrication of history that are not in anyway relevant to the issue.if anti-islam orientalists are using the hadith to slander the Prophet (saw) wrongfully and maliciously,then that's their ignorance.the location or the house itself have nothing to do with Aisha.it just happens she lived there and reference is made to her location.to the Shia,the location is only mentioned because Aisha was present there;if not,then there is nothing with the location or its holiness.she could have been anywhere.the uncle of the Prophet (saw),abu lahab who is cursed in the Quran was living right there in Mecca,Islam's holiest place! Even the holy Ka'ba was once filled with idols.ofcourse as you know,the orientalist still use that to spread ignorance like they are using the hadiths on Aisha,who is referred to by the Prophet (saw) as "head of disbelief","source of sedition" and "horn of satan".another thing to note is that the Prophet (saw) was buried in the Masjidun Nabawi,but is Aisha "the horn of satan" buried there? Why? When she was about dying,she refused in her will to be buried there.regardless,the significance of the hadiths is about the person representing evil,regardless of the location.evil people can be anywhere,just like there were idol worshippers in Mecca.

Also,the claim by whoever that Najd is in Iraq is so annoying and false.to this day there is a province in saudi arabia called Najd.Najd is both historically and geographically since the Prophet's (saw) days found in arabian peninsula.the location of Najd needs no interpretation to say its found in iraq or somewhere else.that is where Ibn Abdul Wahab (founder of the wahhabi movement) came from- Najd.the hadiths also referring to Najd as "the place satan will rise" are different from the ones referring to Aisha and pointing towards her house.yet another hadith in sahih muslim makes the same reference on hafsa,aisha's associate who conspired against the Prophet (saw) in surat al tahreem.

In my next post I will provide a clear and complete refutation to the beating around the bush Vedaxcool posted to hide the painful revelation found in the most authentic Sunni hadith books on Aisha from the very lips of the holy Prophet (saw).

Aisha Was a Test

The Prophet (PBUH&HF) sensed the depth and danger of the schemes that revolved around him from all sides. He knew specifically that one of his wives, Aisha, was the instigator of the dangerous role because of the hatred and rancor that she felt towards his successor Ali in particular and his family in general. How could he not know, when he lived observing her role and her enmity towards them? He sometimes got angry; sometimes his face would change color and he would try to placate her at all times, informing her that one who loved Ali loved Allah, and the one who hated Ali was a hypocrite, whom Allah hated.

As a result, the Prophet of Allah (PBUH&HF) was patient when he realized that she was the test that Allah had sent to the Ummah, to examine it as He had tested the previous nations. "Do the people think that they will be left alone when they say: 'We believe' and they will not be tested?" (Quran 29:2)

The fact that she was a test for people is clear from the previously quoted tradition of al-Bukhari where Ammar Ibn Yasir said to people before the battle of Camel that: "Allah has put you to test whether you obey Allah or her (Aisha)." (See Sahih al-Bukhari, Arabic-English version, Tradition 9.220).

The Prophet of Allah (PBUH&HF) warned the Ummah against her on several occasions. In Sahih al-Bukhari, there is a chapter about what went on in the houses of the wives of the Prophet in which there is the following tradition:

Sahih al-Bukhari Hadith: 4.336
Narrated Abdullah:

The Prophet stood up and delivered a sermon, and pointed to the house of Aisha, and said: "Fitna (trouble/sedition) is right here," saying three times, "from where the side of the Satan's head comes out."

In the above tradition the Prophet predicted the sedition which Aisha will bring for Muslims and that she will be seduced by Satan for instigating the first civil war in the history of Islam.

Muslim has also related in his Sahih from Ikrima Ibn Ammar from Salim from Ibn Umar who said:

"The Prophet of Allah (PBUH&HF) emerged from the house of Aisha and said. 'The pivot of disbelief is from here, where the horns of Satan will rise.'"

Sunni reference: Sahih Muslim, Arabic version, the Chapter of Seditions, v4, p2229

A Sunni brother mentioned that the following two traditions have the same reference to "one side of Satan's head", and they show that the Prophet (PBUH&HF) was pointing to Najd where the Wahhabis later emerged. Thus the above tradition (about Aisha) must be referring to the same thing (i.e., Najd). It might be that the house of Aisha was located in the east, and the Prophet was perhaps referring to Najd and not the house of Aisha. Here are the two traditions:

Sahih al-Bukhari Hadith: 2.147:
Narrated Ibn Umar:

(The Prophet) said, "O Allah! Bless our Sham and our Yemen." People said, "Our Najd as well." The Prophet again said, "O Allah! Bless our Sham and Yemen." They said again, "Our Najd as well." On that the Prophet said, "There will appear earthquakes and afflictions, and from there will come out the side of the head of Satan."

Sahih al-Bukhari Hadith: 5.672:
Narrated Abu Huraira:

The Prophet said, "Belief is Yemenite while afflictions appear from there (the east) from where the side of the head of Satan will appear."

This argument does not seem to be correct for the following reasons:

1. al-Bukhari has put the tradition related to Aisha in a section named: "what went on in the houses of the wives of the Prophet". This shows that al-Bukhari did not understand the tradition as this brother proposed. If the author ever thought that the Prophet (PBUH&HF) meant Najd in that particular tradition, he wouldn't have put the tradition in the section of what was going on in the houses of the wives of the Prophet (PBUH&HF). He probably would have put it in the Chapter of al-Fitan or else. You agree that Najd has nothing to do with what was going on in the house of Aisha! Do you claim that you know better than the author of Sahih al-Bukhari?

2. The name of Aisha has been explicitly mentioned in that tradition while those of related to Najd do not have reference to Aisha.

3. Although the Prophet himself did not name Aisha, yet he mentioned in that particular tradition "right here" and the pointing was so clear that the companions understood that he was pointing to the house of Aisha as it is mentioned in the text of the tradition. Najd can not be "right here" in Medina in front of the Prophet. That is why the Messenger of Allah used "there" in the traditions related to Najd. I have highlighted the phrase "right here" in the tradition referring to Aisha, and the word "there" in the traditions referring to Najd for comparison. (See above).

4. The brother mentioned that the other traditions have the same reference to "one side of Satan's head", so this particular tradition must be referring to the same thing (i.e., Najd). Well, you agree that Satan's head does not have one side (or one horn) only. In fact, any Fitna is the manifestation of Satan. This includes all major Fitna which happened in the past (in the early history of Islam and civil wars, as well as the Wahhabi emergence in Najd) and also the great incoming Fitna by al-Dajjal and Sufyani as predicted in the traditions. Satan does not belong to Najd Metropolitan only! Like it or not, Muhammad Ibn Abdil Wahhab (the inventor of Wahhabism) and Aisha were both Fitna as the documented history proves. However they have been in different era. When the Messenger of Allah mentions anywhere the phrase "one of the horns of Satan", it is a symbolic way to say "one of the great Fitna induced by Satan." You agree with me that the inducing of Fitna by Satan has not been particular to one occasion. In fact, this has been Satan's business for long!

5. The problem is not Aisha alone. In a similar tradition in Sahih Muslim it is said that the Prophet was pointing the house of Hafsa (daughter of Umar). In the other tradition in Sahih Muslim (same page), the Prophet uses the phrase "The Chief of Unbelief/Blasphemy (Kufr)" instead of "Fitna" (see Sahih Muslim, Arabic version, the Chapter of Seditions, v4, p2229).

6. There is a great possibility that the additions which exist in other traditions parallel to the genuine Hadith and their explanation: "That means the east" is a mere fabrication to dilute the accusation against Aisha. The way of adding words to genuine traditions was a typical scheme of the Umayad to face the widespread traditions of the Prophet (PBUH&HF). Nonetheless, the two traditions mentioned above about Aisha from al-Bukhari and Muslim, do not include such additions.

http://www.al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter1a/10.html

vedaxcool: We come to see the shia people whom Allah warned not split the religion of Islam are the same horn of satan, headed by the persians (the hypocrites belief that Allah speaks persia when he is happy and arabic when sad) this same kufrs (the persians) are the ones that built a religion on the very back of a slandering the wives, the companion of the prophet pbuh thereby proving that they are the real nasibi, we can see the above article refutes the nasibi lagosshia claim that Aisha r.a went to start a war with Ali when in fact she went to encourage him to bring the book the murderers (the ancestors of shiasm) of Uthman! Truly this thread exposed the deep hatred shias have for their mother, Aisha may Allah be pleased with her and shows their religion is built on the hatred of her. It shows the dishonesty of the shias, their own WILL they attribute to the prophet pbuh says clearly Aisha r.a is in heaven. It again reaffirms beyound reasonable doubt that the prophet pbuh was right when he said satan horn will come from the persians - the masters of shiasm!

May Allah protect us from kufr and guide us from falling into satan's deceptions, may he guide those who have fallen victim to satan whispers! Amin.

So you really believe in BS in the article of Ibn hashimi's imaginations,who is a notorious wahhabi liar,without any reference(s) to back his claims?

So Vedaxcool that claim common sense believe that Aisha was going to "encourage" Imam Ali (a) to arrest the murderers of Usthman who were "followers" or "Shia" of Imam Ali (a)? So a woman marching with an army from medina to basrah and further was actually going to "encourage" someone? And the person she went to "encourage" she ended up fighting him,and he defeated her! Please read about the Battle of Jamal. it is not befitting for a human being to think this way and disgraceful for someone claiming Islam to lie in this way.you're lying to yourself and I'm sure you know that.

Ibn Hashimi's article revolves around implicit condemnation of Imam Ali (a),complete denial of what Aisha did,and mean lies without the fear of Allah.you need to read who were the murderers of Usthman.aisha herself was inciting people to kill usthman,then she wanted to use the murder as pretext to wage war against Imam Ali (a).what does Umar been killed by a persian for racism got to do with companions of the Prophet (s) backed by egyptian rebels killing usthman years later?

And oh,the joke of all times: Shia are followers of Abdullah Ibn Saba its really now confusing thanks to the many lies.were the Shia followers of abdullah ibn saba (a jew) or were they "magians" of persia or were they followers of Imam Ali (a),who "murdered" usthman and Aisha wanted "revenge" on ? Which one? Or are you now slandering Imam Ali (a)-who was then the "fourth caliph"- that his Shia followers were "magians" and "jews"? If the Shia were "followers of a jew,abdullah ibn saba",why did Aisha falsely claimed the "Shia followers of Imam Ali (a) " were responsible for usthman's murder? Who were the Shia following,Imam Ali (a) or Ibn Saba,someone Imam Ali (a) condemned? Who did Aisha fight,Imam Ali (a) or Ibn Saba? Too many lies,we don't know which to believe or refute!Please get real or keep deceiving yourself with scare tactics based on satanic lies! And please stop lying no where in our book does it say aisha or the wives of the Prophet (s) will be in paradise with the Prophet (s).stop dreaming! We Shia are never like Sunnis who hide what is in their books and are scared of the past so they conceal it.

I finally, when the prophet pbuh pointed to the Persian empire as being the place where satan horn would arise, we see how the this came to be:

It was from the ashes of the Persian empire that the assassins of Umar emerge (abu lulu whom the shias in todays Iran built a shrine for). The fitnah began right from the murder of Umar r.a lets restate the very crucial things that happened:

The Persian governor Harmuzan was pardoned by the Caliph, but he conspired against the Muslims to avenge his humiliating defeat. The conquered Persians plotted against
the Muslims, and it was their
conspiracy plans which no doubt the Prophet was referring to as “Satan’s horns”. It was from the ashes of the Persian Empire that the Shia sect was formed, a mix between Islam and Zoroastrianism as well as Persian nationalism. The Persian governor Harmuzan became partners with Jafeena Al-Khalil and Saba bin Shamoon (whose son was Abdullah ibn Saba, founder of the Shia sect); these three men hired Feroz Abu Lulu, a Persian POW from Iraq, to assassinate Caliph Umar. Today, the modern day Persian Shia venerate Abu Lulu, and they call him “Baba Shuja-e-din” which can be
translated as “Honored Defender of
Religion.” These Shia have a shrine
erected for this murderer, located in the
Iranian city of Kashan called the Abu Lulu Mausoleum wherein he is buried.
The Shia travel from far distances to pray inside this shrine, and many of the Shia fast on the day that Umar was
killed, and even pass out sweets. Feroz Abu Lulu is one of the venerated founding figures of Shia ideology; the same people who conspired to kill Umar were the ones who planted the seeds of the Shia movement. Abu Lulu was hired by three men, and the third of these three was the father of Abdullah ibn Saba, founder of the Shia
faith. His intention in creating the Shia
faith was to create a sect within Islam that would split its ranks, create
disunity, and–quite frankly–to forever be a rebel movement against mainstream Islamic governments. And if we look through out history, we find that the Shia have always been rebels and turncoats, one of the reasons they are referred to as “Rafidhis” (or turncoats). Not only they were turncoats, but these Shia were Ahl
al-Bidah (People of Innovation) for they
adultered Islam with their Magian beliefs. This was the Satan’s horn that
emerged from the East, and no doubt
this is what the Prophet was referring to.Aisha Did Not Start the Fitnah
The Shia argue that it was Aisha who
started the Fitnah in the ranks of the
Muslims by organizing an army against
Ali. But in fact, this is incorrect. First of
all, Aisha did not leave her house with
the intention of instigating an armed
revolt against Ali. Instead, she left her
house only with the intention of Islah
(reformation). In Tareekh Al-Tabari,
the events precipitating the Battle of
the Camel are recorded. Al-Tabari
narrates that a man asked Aisha why she had come to visit Ali, saying: “O
mother, what moved you and pushed you to thiscountry?” She answered: “O son, to reconcile between people.” The word “Fitnah” refers to turmoil which causes disunity in the ranks of the Muslim Ummah.


Even before the time of the Battle of Camel, the Muslim ranks
had become split, so why should the Shia blame this on Aisha?[ The Fitnah
began right after the Persians
assassinated the Caliph of the Muslims, which pre- dated the Battle of the Camel. In fact, it was the murder of Umar ibn al-Khattab by the Persians that started the chain reaction which resulted in the Battle of
the Camel. Ubaidallah, Umar’s son,
avenged the murder of his father by
plotting to kill the three men who
hired the assassin Abu Lulu. Ubaidallah
was successful in killing two of the three
men, but the third–Saba bin Shamoon–
survived, and he demanded that
Ubaidallah be executed for his double
murder. Caliph Uthman, however, showed Ubaidallah mercy, despite
Ali who advised the Caliph to execute
him for his crime of vigilante murder.
The fact that Uthman showed mercy
upon Ubaidallah angered Saba bin
Shamoon and his son, Abdullah ibn Saba. These two men looked
sympathetically towards Ali, due to the fact that Ali had taken a harsh stance towards Ubaidallah’s actions. It was thus
that Abdullah ibn Saba “converted” to
Islam and founded the Shia sect, calling
the masses to adore Ali and agitating
them against Uthman. It was Abdullah
ibn Saba’s propaganda against
Uthman that helped fan the flames of civil discontent and caused the people to rise against the Caliph. And so it was that the Saba’ites (followers of Abdullah
ibn Saba) assassinated Uthman.

Now what this people whose defies Allah order not to split religion still shivering about? very centre of shia was what prophet Muhammad pbuh foretold to be satan's horn.

Q.E.D

^
any source with reference to back up your claims? At least historical sources.

Iblis must really be one of your admirers.you're not only lying and copying lies,you believe your lies! and your power of hallucination and imaginative ability to link and tie unrelated events is smoking.

But ofcourse he who calls the "head of disbelief" and "horn of satan" proudly his "mother",should have great deception skills.another name for Sunni must be "liar"!

@ Vedaxcool
Please don't force us to get banned.you started this thread thinking you're a genius.when LagosShia brought out the facts with detailed references,he got banned for only revealing what you refuse to read in Sunni sources.

Do you want us to get banned? We can bring out the facts with references (and not just story-telling as you're doing) and then you will feel whipped and your moderator will feel bitter about the truth to flex his muscles and abuse power.all the unrelated issues you're linking up and lying on,I can bring wicked facts that will make you guys cry again and resort to oppression to silence us.just don't overstep your limit.

Lol again the horns of satan is at it again, he now in his misguided theology calls me Allah, Auzobillah! And claims I am the one who calls Aisha r.a mother of the believers, when it was Allah, the majestic that gave Aisha r.a the befitting title mother of the believers! When would the followers of the horn of satan, Zoroostrian shia regime of Iran who made a shrine for a murderer and followed Jewish inclinations clear the web from their eyes? May Allah save us from the lies of the nasibi who built a religion on the hatred of the Prophet pbuh Ahlul bayt and proudly defied Allah's comman not to be one of those who divide religion, the word used in the Qur'an to refer to those who split religion is shia, what a pity let leave this golden quote to followers of the Horn of Satan:

“…and be not amongst those who join
gods with Allah, those who split up their
Religion, and become shias (sects) -
each party rejoicing in that which is with
itself.” (Quran, 30:31-32)
The transliteration of the Arabic reads:
“Muneebeena ilayhi waittaqoohu
waaqeemoo alssalata wala takoonoo
mina almushrikeena. Mina allatheena
farraqoo deenahum wakanoo shia an
kullu hizbin bima ladayhim farihoona”

Is there any doubt what the horn of satan really is?
Abdullah ibn Saba, founder of the Shia
faith. His intention in creating the Shia
faith was to create a sect within Islam
that would split its ranks, create disunity, and–quite frankly–to forever be a rebel movement against mainstream Islamic governments. And if we look throughout history, we find that the Shia have always been rebels and turncoats, one of the reasons they are referred to as “Rafidhis” (or turncoats). Not only they were turncoats, but these Shia were Ahl al-Bidah (People of Innovation) for they adultered Islam with their Magian beliefs. This was the Satan’s horn that emerged from the East, and no doubt this is what the Prophet was referring to.

Crossing of the Arms During Prayer: a Zoroastrian Pagan Tradition of Sunnis

crossing arms or folding arms during prayers is an innovation (bid'ah) by all accounts. Their second ranked Bakri (i.e. Sunni) Imam, Imam Malik bin Anas, the Imam of Malikies said: “letting my arms down and not folding them in prayers is better and dearer for me”, refer to Al Magni by Ibn Qudama vol 1, page 572.

Al Tahawi reported that Al Laith bin Saad said: “keeping my arms down during prayers is dearer to me”, refer to Nail Al Awtar vol 2, page 204.

The Malikies today keep their arms down during prayers, the rest of Bakris, Hanafies, Shafia'is, Hanbalies do not rule that folding arms during prayers as a Wajib ( compulsory) , rather Mostahab ( optional recommendation).

We (Shia) describe it as an innovation. Had the prophet peace be upon him and his family done it, all Muslims would have agreed on it. He used to lead the prayers for them five times a day. Why could not they make up their mind on the position of arms?

Omar added it in response to an etiquette done by Persian Zoroastrian prisoners at the time, refer to Jawahir Al Kalam vol 11, page 19.

Who is the one who should be called Zoroastrian now?


PS: you can see above the references in details to back up every claim. back up your claims/hallucinations if you're truthful!

Sahih Muslim - Book 004, Number 0792:
Wail b. Hujr reported: He saw the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) raising his hands at the time of beginning the prayer and reciting takbir, and according to Hammam (the narrator), the hands were lifted opposite to ears. He (the Holy Prophet) then wrapped his hands in his cloth and placed his right hand over his left hand. And when he was about to bow down, he brought out his hands from the cloth, and then lifted them, and then recited takbir and bowed down and when (he came back to the erect position) he recited: Allah listened to him who praised Him. And when prostrates. He prostrated between the two palms.