Were Aisha and Ali Bad Muslims?


Sami Zaatari



Christian apologist David Wood with whom I recently debated the topic "Is Islam a religion of Peace" has sought to twist my words and misrepresent my position concerning a statement I made during our debate:

Is Islam a Religion of Peace?

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=aDebQrT6CXI - Part 1

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=o5U1PqakmbE - Part 2

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=4z82lZF5pVQ - Part 3

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=2RRH_VKKsRk - Part 4


David made this point during the debate and has kept on repeating it saying, "Sami has declared both Aisha and Ali as bad Muslims!"

I really don't blame Wood for taking this approach, as anyone who watches the debate shall see that every point he raised was systematically refuted, while all of my positive points were never refuted. Wood was literally reduced to a broken record, where he simply kept on repeating his points over and over again! So of course he needs to employ such a tactic as this one, as it takes some of the spotlight away from his miserable and utter defeat.

In fact, for the sake of argument let us assume that I did say that Ali and Aisha were bad Muslims, in what way does that refute my points? In what way does that establish Wood's points?! Guess what folks, it CHANGES NOTHING but shows how desperate Wood truly is!

David might argue back that since Aisha and Ali were close to the Prophet, their actions represent Islam. Yes, but this is not evidence that they are infallible. We already know (we could prove them if we wanted to, but it's not necessary) of mistakes that Aisha and Ali committed already and that does not threaten the validity of Islam one bit. SO EVEN IF I did say that Ali and Aisha were bad Muslims, HOW DOES THAT SHOW THAT DAVID SCORED A POINT AGAINST ME IN THE DEBATE?

Now my statement which David has sought to use as his winning card came in my closing statement, which can be found on part 4 of the above. Before pasting what I said, there was a context to why I said it, which is due to Wood.

David kept mentioning the fact that the early Muslims fought each other, mainly Ali and Aisha during The Battle of The Camel; he kept on repeating this point. So once again I replied in my conclusion saying:

And then he says Muslims killed Muslims, they were wrong, the prophet said don't fight each other, so bad Muslims means Islam is wrong? (Time Slice: 22nd minute)

Now since I am talking and thinking fast, I paraphrase most of my words and often don't have time to go into specific details. Put this with the fact that this was my closing statement where I had 5 minutes.

Hence I was talking fast and paraphrasing as much as I could.

Now in my statement there are TWO parts to my statement and my chain of thought.

When I mentioned bad Muslims in NO WAY were I referring to Aisha or Ali (may Allah be pleased with them). This thought didn't even cross my mind, nor do I believe such a thing. My statement which was directed at Aisha and Ali was the part where I said they were wrong.

Let me explain further, you see folks I will be honest with you, I am not very well versed concerning the early Muslim struggle between Aisha and Ali. This includes the Battle of The Camel; in fact to put it more mildly I am ignorant when it comes to this topic.


Hence when David kept saying that these two went against each other and so on, due to my ignorance and brief knowledge on this topic I simply took David's word for it and simply ran with it. So from what I concluded thanks to David's info along with my little research, I simply concluded "okay yes Aisha and Ali were wrong in leading two armies to fight against each other."


And that was it from me concerning Aisha and Ali. However so since David is not a trustful person when it comes to Islamic sources he completely distorted the true events of what really happened as Bassam Zawadi my brother in Islam has shown:




The above article shows how David has distorted history, as well as fooling me! So with that said I take back what I said, Aisha and Ali were in no way or shape wrong at all.


However I think you can all agree with me in the circumstances I was in, that when I said that they were wrong is perfectly understandable and at the end of the day it is not the end of the world, since the companions of the prophet are not infallible and have committed errors.


One thing you could blame me for is when I trusted what David Wood said regarding the Battle of the Camel. I will never trust anything he says again until I verify it myself.


Now we come to the second part of my statement, the bad Muslims, which I repeat was not aimed at Ali or Aisha, and this never crossed my mind nor was it the point I was trying to make.


When I said bad Muslims, my mind and aim was at the ones who carried the sword and killed each other on the battlefield. However, so remember one important thing, I am ignorant on this issue, and I took David Wood's DECEPTIVE AND TWISTED version of this event, hence from his twisted version of what really happened it led me to this conclusion.


Yet as Bassam Zawadi shows in his article it was a few renegades who caused all hell to break loose. It wasn't your classical battle where they lined up against each other and a battle broke out, not at all, it was a few criminal renegades who instigated an entire fight.


So as you can see in my position, with my ignorance on this SPECIFIC ISSUE, compounded with David's deceptive tactics it led me to this conclusion, which is completely wrong as nothing of what David described truly happened. Hence my entire statement was based on an ENTIRE LIE BY DAVID WOOD. I think most people would have said the same thing I did, unless they were Bassam Zawadi who has good knowledge concerning the early civil war.


Another point I want to make is that when I said "bad Muslims" I did not mean they were bad in the general sense, that someone is bad and evil, rather I SPECIFICALLY meant they were SPECIFICALLY bad for that SPECIFIC act that they committed at that SPECIFIC time, and that you cannot take that as an example to generalize on a whole religion.


So that is basically it, that was my only real weak point during the entire debate, on every other issue I was well versed and researched, hence David couldn't fool me on the other topics except for this specific issue.


In fact How deceiving could David Wood be? EVEN IF WE WERE TO ASSUME THAT AISHA AND ALI WERE BAD MUSLIMS WHO FOUGHT EACH OTHER, they definitely could not have been influenced by Islamic teachings. The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said:


Saheeh Bukhari


Volume 1, Book 2, Number 30:

Narrated Al-Ahnaf bin Qais:

While I was going to help this man ('Ali Ibn Abi Talib), Abu Bakra met me and asked, "Where are you going?" I replied, "I am going to help that person." He said, "Go back for I have heard Allah's Apostle saying, 'When two Muslims fight (meet) each other with their swords, both the murderer as well as the murdered will go to the Hell-fire.' I said, 'O Allah's Apostle! It is all right for the murderer but what about the murdered one?' Allah's Apostle replied, "He surely had the intention to kill his companion."


How absurd can David be? Islamic teachings condemn two Muslims fighting each other, YET David says that the Muslims who fought each other were following Islamic teachings!


Also, we would like to clarify to our readers that the above hadith condemns those Muslims who do it unjustifiably. If I as a Muslim fight in self defense against another Muslim who attacks me, then of course I would not be condemned. I would have a valid reason for what I did. The above hadith wouldn't apply to me.


EVEN IF AISHA AND ALI WANTED TO FIGHT EACH OTHER we have to look at their intentions. Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said that we are judged by our intentions. If our intentions are sincerely good, despite committing a wrong, we won't be condemned for it. So if Aisha (this is all assuming that she wanted to fight, which isn't the case) had good intentions to raise an army in order to punish the killers of the third Caliph Uthman and Ali had good intentions in raising his army in order to defend himself, then that only makes both of them wrong, but not condemned sinners. That above hadith of the Prophet won't apply to them.



This all teaches us one thing, if you are ever ignorant about a specific Islamic issue, never take a Christian missionary's word for it, because they truly might deceive you and distort the issue so bad that it resembles nothing to the truth.


And Allah truly knows best and David has surely and truly been a bad boy!