StrangerInThisWorld

Indeed. 'Umar and his group were thrown out by the Best of Creation (sallallahu 'alayhi wa alihi wa sallam) himself and this with the knowledge that the Messengers of Allah (peace and blessings be upon them) do not this with the believers. In the Book of Allah ta'ala Nuh (peace be upon him) is quoted saying: وَمَا أَنَا بِطَارِدِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ I will not drive away the faithful. | Ash-Shu'araa : 114 And Allah ta'ala revealed the following to the Best of Creation (peace and blessings be upon him and his pure family): وَلَا تَطْرُدِ الَّذِينَ يَدْعُونَ رَبَّهُمْ بِالْغَدَاةِ وَالْعَشِيِّ يُرِيدُونَ وَجْهَهُ ۖ مَا عَلَيْكَ مِنْ حِسَابِهِمْ مِنْ شَيْءٍ وَمَا مِنْ حِسَابِكَ عَلَيْهِمْ مِنْ شَيْءٍ فَتَطْرُدَهُمْ فَتَكُونَ مِنَ الظَّالِمِينَ Do not drive away those who supplicate their Lord morning and evening desiring His face. Neither are you accountable for them in any way, nor are they accountable for you in any way, so that you may drive them away and thus become one of the wrongdoers. | Al-An'aam : 52 The above should be enough for the one who ponders to understand the state of those who were driven out on the incident of Raziyyat Yawm al-Khamis.

Salamun 'alaykum, I was listening to a video, where a Sunni Shaykh tries to respond to the Shaykh Ahmad Salman: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3URcI0EXGmg&pp=ygUT2KfYrdmF2K8g2LPZhNmF2KfZhg%3D%3D He mentions the Hadith of Ghadir and the Hadith of Raziyyat Yawm al-Khamis and discusses them. During the discussion it becomes clearer and clearer that he's trying to defend falsehood and even the host becomes uneasy with his response. He claims that Rasulullah (sallallahu 'alayhi wa alihi wa sallam) was only giving his companions the option to write a document and was not commanding them to do it. 'Umar bin al-Khattab supposedly understood this meaning and saw that Rasulullah (sallallahu' alayhi wa alihi wa sallam) was very weak and stated "the Book of Allah is sufficient". This however lead to an argument among the companions themselves and this is the calamity. 'Umar was not among those, who made the "delusional"-comment. He also claims that the proof of this not being a command, but rather an option, is that Rasulullah (sallallahu 'alayhi wa alihi wa sallam) did not respond to 'Umar. Just imagine the amount of false claims in the above defense. It's quite sad that these type of dishonest people have been able to fool the majority of Muslims and this first and foremost by hiding many informations from them! Let me tell the following to this Sunni Shaykh: You and your ilk have not even once mentioned the incident of Ghadir in front of the people in let's say a Friday sermon or what is similar to it and this despite the fact that it's the single most narrated incident of all of Islamic history! And you likewise have never mentioned Raziyyat Yawm al-Khamis or anything that would make people understand that a significant group of the companions had disobeyed and deviated from the correct path! Did Rasulullah (sallallahu 'alayhi wa alihi wa sallam) give so much importance to his proclamation at Ghadir to the degree that so many people narrated it, so that you end up not even mentioning it once upon the Minbar? A Muslim lives his whole life without hearing a single word about it! Who gave you the right to hide what the Messenger (sallallahu 'alayhi wa alihi wa sallam) had proclaimed?! And what about your ilk not mentioning the correct wording of Hadith al-Thaqalayn (meaning: The Book of Allah and my Family) in front of the people, which is present in pretty much all of your Hadith books, but instead using a wording that is not established (meaning: The Book of Allah and my Sunna). As such you have no right to lecture anyone about the "correct meaning" of these incidents, because your intention is clearly not to clarify, but to distort after you couldn't hide the information anymore! Then: What kind of Islam is this that you want us to follow? The Best of Creation (may endless peace and blessings be upon him and his pure family) is about to leave this world and tells to those present to bring him something to write for them a document that protects them from misguidance and somehow we're supposed to defend those who DISOBEYED him and were causing disunity among the Muslims even in his presence!? And Rasulullah (sallallahu 'alayhi wa alihi wa sallam) did respond to 'Umar and his group by throwing them out, because they chose misguidance and did not want to be REMINDED what they already knew from so many incidents prior to it! Rasulullah (sallallahu 'alayhi wa alihi wa sallam) had already explicitly stated what would protect them from misguidance, so this incident was a last reminder and whoever stood with 'Umar had in reality rejected divine guidance and preferred the life of this world! Look how they have deceived the Muslims! Rasulullah (sallallahu 'alayhi wa alihi wa sallam) stated to Amir al-Muminin 'Ali bin Abi Talib (peace be upon him) prior to Tabuk that their relationship is like that between Musa and Harun (peace be upon them) with the exception of Prophethood and this with the knowledge that Harun is the Khalifa of Musa (as explicitly established in the Book of Allah ta'ala!), but they say "rather Abu Bakr, 'Umar and 'Uthman are his Khulafa and only thereafter 'Ali". Rasulullah (sallallahu 'alayhi wa alihi wa sallam) stated concerning Amir al-Muminin (peace be upon him) that none loves him except a believer and none hates him except a hypocrite, but they say "rather those who loved and those who hated 'Ali are all believers". Rasulullah (sallallahu 'alayhi wa alihi wa sallam) stated concerning 'Ammar bin Yasir that he will by martyred at hands of the rebellious group and that he will be calling them to paradise while they will call him to hellfire, but they say "rather 'Ammar and 'Ali made the correct Ijtihad and therefore have earned two good deeds, while their enemies made a wrong Ijtihad and have therefore earned one good deed". Rasulullah (sallallahu 'alayhi wa alihi wa sallam) stated concerning Fatima (peace be upon her) that Allah ta'ala is displeasured for her displeasure and pleased for her pleasure, but they say "rather Allah is pleased with those, who displeased and oppressed Fatima". And we can keep on and on!

Salamun 'alaykum, from my personal experience some issues simply need more investigation in order to be accepted with conviction. Accepting the Wilaya / Imama of Amir al-Muminin (peace be upon him) is what makes one a Shi'i and the amount of proofs concerning this are overwhelming (even in Sunni sources!) such that it's easy to accept the moment one understands the proofs. Thereafter the proofs for the Imama of Imam al-Hasan and Imam al-Husayn (peace be upon them) are also established and accepted easily. The issue thereafter becomes more complex, because there are no widely reported Nusus, where any other Imams are mentioned by name. Since the Zaydiyya affirm the Imama of the first three Imams and also affirm the infallibilty of Ahl al-Kisa (peace and blessings be upon them) based upon its clear connection to Ayat al-Tathir (again: even established by Sunni sources!), accepting Zaydiyya may seem easier, because in the case of the Imamiyya / Ithna 'Ashariyya you need to accept the Imama and 'Isma of 9 additional Imams (peace be upon them) not widely reported through Nusus by name. As for the claim that Zaydiyya are near to Sunnis, then that's first and foremost a Sunni claim (with the intention to make Imamiyya look strange and weird) and as a new Shi'i one may subconsciously be more drawn to Zaydis than let's say to the Imamiyya. The more one however reads, the clearer it becomes that proper Zaydis were quite different to Sunnis. The major issues of creed, which the Zaydiyya regard as foundation of religion (like the issue of Tawhid, 'Adl, Wa'd wal Wa'id, Amr bil Ma'ruf wal Nahi 'an al-Munkar and Imama), are all issues where they disagree with Sunnis completely and where the Imamiyya actually are much closer to them. Add to this the fact that the Zaydiyya would have drawn the swords against pretty much everyone whom the Sunnis regarded as legitimate rulers. With more investigation several issues started however to seem problematic in the Zaydi view. Take the issue of Sahaba: The Zaydiyya do accept that there were good and bad people and also people with mixed deeds among the companions, what is however weird is the different positions concerning the first and second "Khalifa", while the Shi'i position concerning them should be quite clear. The more one reads about history (including Sunni sources!) and the more one knows how al-Zahra (peace be upon her) disliked these two oppressive usurpers, the more it becomes clear that there is no reason for difference of opinion, rather disassociating oneself from them is the only correct way. To be fair here: Many of the scholars of the Zaydiyya - especially those from the Ahl al-Bayt - had a negative opinion of these two usurpers or simply didn't want to openly say their own view due to their hostile environment, but the existence of positive opinions is still quite alarming and telling for later Sunni influence at least upon some of them. The other issue is Imama itself: With more reading the Imami view simply is more consistent. If the first three Imams (peace be upon them) are infallible and the last one (meaning: Imam al-Mahdi, peace be upon him) is also infallible (this is accepted by Zaydis at least implicitly), then why should there be a shift from infallible to fallible and then back to infallible? Another issue are the narrations regarding 12 leaders, which are reported by Sunnis and Shi'a alike. Some Zaydis today try to weaken these Ahadith, but when we see that Sunni sources (like Musnad Ahmad) and Shi'a sources (like Basair al-Darajat) PRIOR to the Ghayba both narrated the number 12 concerning this issue, then the claim itself becomes weak. There are also some further issues here, but then the comment would become too long. Then the issue of Fiqh: It takes a while to understand that the existence of 4 Madhahib among Sunnis is completely manmade and that the true way should be one methodology and not four different ones. Difference of opinion is one thing, but different methodology is something else. Zaydis have some views, where they differ quite clearly with Sunnis, but then they have views, which are simply too Sunni. Take their view on washing the feet in Wudu. The Quran al-karım clearly establishes wiping on feet, so why follow the 'Amma and their false claims on this? And why claim consensus of Ahl al-Bayt concerning issues, where there is in reality no concensus? There are still some issues, where I take issue with the views / actions of some Imamis, but the way supported by most proofs is the belief in 12 infallible leaders with Muhammad bin al-Hasan al-'Askari (peace be upon him) being the last one and being the Imam of our time. Wa sallallahu 'ala 'Muhammad wa Al-i Muhammad wa 'ajjil farajahum.

Salamun 'alaykum, that which traditional Sunnis (at least in my experience) usually teach is that our Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa alihi wa sallam) is infallible as established by qat'i proofs. As for any narration that seems to go against this, then they're single narrations (Ahad) and cannot establish certainty nor override qat'i proofs. As for Salafis, then they don't differentiate between qat'i (definitive) and dhanni (speculative) - due to their ignorance! - and that's why you will find Mashayikh among them, who basically have a similar Kufri creed as that of the Ahl al-Kitab concerning the Anbiya (peace be upon them). Anyways, it's quite obvious that Imam al-Mahdi (peace be upon him) is infallible - that which he will achieve by the will of Allah ta'ala (meaning: justice on earth) is way too big for it to be otherwise - and this is what is affirmed by the Imamiyya explicitly and by the Zaydiyya and traditional Sunnis implicitly. And as for the losers, whose "Mahdi" is a sinner or worse, then let them find a religion other than Islam in order to have such ugly beliefs.

The reason for acting as if 'Aisha was young and Khadija (peace be upon her) was old when getting married to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) was mainly a political one. The information for the age of 'Aisha relies solely on Hisham bin 'Urwa and even in those chains where he is not mentioned directly it still relies on him, because then the same Iraqi narrators are still in the chain, who originally narrated the issue through him. In addition he also narrated things that would make her prepubescent and this is a clear misinformation in order to make 'Aisha look innocent and more special than the rest of the wives. The reality is that neither Hisham nor his father 'Urwa bin Zubayr are to be trusted. Both of them inclined towards the oppressors of their times. As for 'Aisha herself, then Surat al-Tahrim is more than enough to distrust her and not to rely on anything she claimed. In addition to that it seems that a number of statements have been put into her mouth for different reasons. I doubt any sane Muslim would accept some of the false and void things that are "narrated" through her.

I would argue that Sunnism has been in a constant change based upon what the rulers preferred as "orthodoxy". This is not to say that Shi'a are immune to changes, but due to Shi'a in general not believing that random wordly leaders were or are the Ulu al-Amr, who are mentioned in the Book of Allah ta'ala as being obligatory to obey, they were still much less likely to be influenced by the governments or change their core beliefs for their sake. Sunnis were not always united upon the idea that the companions were all upright, but when it was good for the ruling elites to have this position any differing view was faced with fierce criticism and maybe even force such that we find the absolute majority of Sunnis upon this false view today. Likewise is the issue of the 4 Madhahib. Some of the Madhahib in question were literally enemies of each other and then they became "all best friends and representative of orthodoxy". Let's also not forget here the enmity between Ahl al-Rai and Ahl al-Hadith. Then take the issue of creed: There were major differences between the Hanabila and the Mu'tazila or even Asha'ira / Maturidiyya. After some centuries of strong enmity between these Sunni groups, the Mu'tazila basically died out (or adopted other Madhahib) and the Ash'aris and Maturidis became "representative of orthodoxy" with the Hanabila strongly weakened and this again due to the governments now favoring their views. In the last centuries the Wahhabiyya / Najdis took over the Haramayn al-sharifayn and started basically influencing majority of Sunnis to some degree due to their petro dollars. This is why today following some sort of "Salafi Fiqh" or even "do it yourself"-Fiqh (meaning: follow your desires and your own ignorance) or following "Salafi creed" (read: the pagan creed of some random people) is the "new orthodoxy" among many Sunnis and suddenly even a minor issue like Tawassul (historically a Fiqhi issue according to pretty much all Sunnis and Shi'a alike with the exception of one of the Hanabila) is a major issue of creed. To make it short: Sunnis should start reading history books and develop some critical thinking. With their stubborn persistence upon a completely false idea like "not getting into what happened between the companions" they have not just damaged themselves, but all Muslims. No normal person can read Islamic history and then reach the conclusion that "all sides were upright" or that "all sides held the same views". What would also help is if they would start seeing what was emphasized by the Messenger of Allah (may peace and blessings be upon him and his pure family) such that it's established at least in meaning from what has reached them as random single narrations (usually in favor of some random rulers). Using some common sense would obviously also help.

Interestingly one finds the following in one of the earliest non-Shi'i Tafasir (Tafsir of Muqatil bin Sulayman): لِتُنذِرَ قَوْماً } بما فى القرآن من الوعيد { مَّآ أُنذِرَ آبَآؤُهُمْ } الأولون { فَهُمْ غَافِلُونَ } [آية: 6] { لَقَدْ حَقَّ ٱلْقَوْلُ عَلَىٰ أَكْثَرِهِمْ } لقوله لإبليس:{ لأَمْلأَنَّ جَهَنَّمَ مِنكَ وَمِمَّن تَبِعَكَ مِنْهُمْ أَجْمَعِينَ } [ص: 85] لقد حق القول لقد وجب العذاب على أكثر أهل مكة { فَهُمْ لاَ يُؤمِنُونَ } [آية: 7] لا يصدقون بالقرآن ___ So the majority of the people of Makka are explicitly mentioned here among those who will be punished due to their disbelief.

Salamun 'alaykum, Sunnism has unfortunately always been under the influence of the rulers, so they won't even understand such clear proofs for the Nifaq of many of the Quraysh / Tulaqa, because they were the rulers. Don't forget that the lay-Sunni has ZERO knowledge of early Islamic history (even those who think they know something do not know anything and you can trust me on this one, because I'm speaking from personal experience) and has been tricked into believing that the companions were all similar to angels and had all good intentions. As for their Mashayikh then most of them have only studied later texts where everything negative about the hypocrites among the companions has already been filtered out and censored. Their earlier and bigger heads believed that it's a religious obligation to hide these issues not just from the laymen, but even from the students of knowledge. The result is a nation that doesn't know its history and looks up to the enemies of their Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his pure family) and to those who betrayed his message for a small worldly gain and even takes their religion from them. Wallahul musta'an.

The reason why it's important to highlight the connection between Raziyyat Yawm al-Khamis and between Hadith al-Thaqalayn / Ghadir Khumm is the following: Sunni Mashayikh / debaters will answer by saying "so you're saying that Umar was able to stop revelation? And you're saying that our Prophet had not proclaimed all that was necessary upon his followers up to that point in time?". If no one clarifies to the Sunni laymen that Rasulullah (sallallahu 'alayhi wa alihi wa sallam) was actually REMINDING those present of that which he had already stated in the farewell pilgrimage and at Ghadir Khumm (and even at other occasions), then he will either end up not understanding the importance of Raziyyat Yawm al-Khamis or maybe even loose faith altogether due to the mindless response of Sunni debaters. The idea of holding to the Book of Allah ta'ala and the Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them) was clearly and openly stated by the Messenger of Allah (may peace and blessings be upon him and his pure family). The idea that we're supposed to follow the Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them) was emphasized to such a degree that even today ALL muslims send peace and blessings upon "Muhammad and Al-i Muhammad" in their ritual prayers. The problem however is that the [Sunni] Mashayikh never mention anything about the Thaqalayn or Ghadir or Hadith al-Safina, which means that the lay-Sunni doesn't understand the context of Raziyyat Yawm al-Khamis when he hears it and that's why the context should be explained.

When I re-read my own comments in this thread, the following came to my mind: It's established that Amir al-Muminin 'Ali bin Abi Talib, Imam al-Hasan and Imam al-Husayn (peace be upon them) are infallible successors of Rasulullah (may peace and blessings be upon him and his pure family). What is also established is that Imam al-Mahdi (peace be upon him) is an infallible successor and that he will fill the earth with justice after it has become filled with oppression. Now it's possible that some non-Imamis may deny his infalliblity by their tongues, but in reality all those who believe in the concept of Imam al-Mahdi (peace be upon him) do regard him as infallible, because otherwise the things that they ascribe to him would not apply. Now looking at the issue from a logical point of view: If the first three Imams are infallible and the last one (may peace be upon them) also, then a concept of Imama were there is a line of infallible successors makes more sense than one where you have a shift from infallible to fallible and then back to infallible. Wa 'alaykum al-Salam, the Shaykh Ahmad Salman has mentioned that the Zaydiyya was more a political movement [among the Shi'a] in the beginning and that a person being regarded "Zaydi" back then doesn't show him having what was regarded as "Zaydi creed" later on. There are also examples where the Aimma of Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them) supported people, whom the Zaydiyya also look up to. Let's not forget also the general situation back then: Being "too Shi'a" was dangerous, which is why the Aimma (peace be upon them) and their followers and supporters would not speak about every issue in front of everyone. This means that some people, who were supporter of the Aimma (peace be upon them), did obviously not openly say that they believed in the Imama of the Imam of their time. Anyways, I still believe that the Imamiyya and the Zaydiyya today should be united and that there a lot of things that are common to both and that differences of opinion should be treated with respect and understanding.

The basics of Wudu are mentioned in the following Aya: يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا إِذَا قُمْتُمْ إِلَى الصَّلَاةِ فَاغْسِلُوا وُجُوهَكُمْ وَأَيْدِيَكُمْ إِلَى الْمَرَافِقِ وَامْسَحُوا بِرُءُوسِكُمْ وَأَرْجُلَكُمْ إِلَى الْكَعْبَيْنِ ۚ وَإِنْ كُنْتُمْ جُنُبًا فَاطَّهَّرُوا ۚ وَإِنْ كُنْتُمْ مَرْضَىٰ أَوْ عَلَىٰ سَفَرٍ أَوْ جَاءَ أَحَدٌ مِنْكُمْ مِنَ الْغَائِطِ أَوْ لَامَسْتُمُ النِّسَاءَ فَلَمْ تَجِدُوا مَاءً فَتَيَمَّمُوا صَعِيدًا طَيِّبًا فَامْسَحُوا بِوُجُوهِكُمْ وَأَيْدِيكُمْ مِنْهُ ۚ مَا يُرِيدُ اللَّهُ لِيَجْعَلَ عَلَيْكُمْ مِنْ حَرَجٍ وَلَٰكِنْ يُرِيدُ لِيُطَهِّرَكُمْ وَلِيُتِمَّ نِعْمَتَهُ عَلَيْكُمْ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَشْكُرُونَ | O you who have faith! When you stand up for prayer, wash your faces and your hands up to the elbows, and wipe a part of your heads and your feet, up to the ankles. If you are junub, purify yourselves. But if you are sick, or on a journey, or any of you has come from the toilet, or you have touched women, and you cannot find water, then make tayammum with clean ground and wipe a part of your faces and your hands with it. Allah does not desire to put you to hardship, but He desires to purify you, and to complete His blessing upon you so that you may give thanks. | Al-Maaida : 6 ___ What is obvious from the Aya is that Wudu consists of washing the face and hands and wiping the head and feet, while in Tayammum one should wipe what usually should be washed (meaning: face and hands) and leave out what usually should be wiped (meaning: head and feet). It's quite straightforward, but as you know Sunnis will come up with the issue of Qiraat and tell you that in "Arjulakum" it could also mean that the feet should be washed. The problem for them here is that in the other Qiraa ("Arjulikum") it could only mean wiping the feet and even in "Arjulakum" both options could theoretically apply, so why give precedence to the weaker understanding? What basically destroys their argument is the fact that the same Aya mentions Tayammum, which consists of wiping over what is usually washed (meaning: face and hands). Anyways, if Muslims differed in a matter, which they did several times every single day, then this should be enough to show that the claim that "the Book of Allah is sufficient" can not be true and that different people will understand things differently. So which understanding should we take? The understanding of the companions, who differed with each other and drew their swords against each other? Or the understanding of the 4 Madhahib in jurisprudence and the understanding of the Asha'ira, Maturidiyya and the Hanabila in creed, who differed greatly with each other and were all fallible men? The most logical answer - and the one supported by Nass! - are the Thaqalayn, because both are infallible.

What I intended here is the following narration as found in Sahih Muslim: حَدَّثَنِي يَزِيدُ بْنُ حَيَّانَ، قَالَ انْطَلَقْتُ أَنَا وَحُصَيْنُ، بْنُ سَبْرَةَ وَعُمَرُ بْنُ مُسْلِمٍ إِلَى زَيْدِ بْنِ أَرْقَمَ فَلَمَّا جَلَسْنَا إِلَيْهِ قَالَ لَهُ حُصَيْنٌ لَقَدْ لَقِيتَ يَا زَيْدُ خَيْرًا كَثِيرًا رَأَيْتَ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم وَسَمِعْتَ حَدِيثَهُ وَغَزَوْتَ مَعَهُ وَصَلَّيْتَ خَلْفَهُ لَقَدْ لَقِيتَ يَا زَيْدُ خَيْرًا كَثِيرًا حَدِّثْنَا يَا زَيْدُ مَا سَمِعْتَ مِنْ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم - قَالَ - يَا ابْنَ أَخِي وَاللَّهِ لَقَدْ كَبِرَتْ سِنِّي وَقَدُمَ عَهْدِي وَنَسِيتُ بَعْضَ الَّذِي كُنْتُ أَعِي مِنْ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَمَا حَدَّثْتُكُمْ فَاقْبَلُوا وَمَا لاَ فَلاَ تُكَلِّفُونِيهِ ‏.‏ ثُمَّ قَالَ قَامَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم يَوْمًا فِينَا خَطِيبًا بِمَاءٍ يُدْعَى خُمًّا بَيْنَ مَكَّةَ وَالْمَدِينَةِ فَحَمِدَ اللَّهَ وَأَثْنَى عَلَيْهِ وَوَعَظَ وَذَكَّرَ ثُمَّ قَالَ ‏"‏ أَمَّا بَعْدُ أَلاَ أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ فَإِنَّمَا أَنَا بَشَرٌ يُوشِكُ أَنْ يَأْتِيَ رَسُولُ رَبِّي فَأُجِيبَ وَأَنَا تَارِكٌ فِيكُمْ ثَقَلَيْنِ أَوَّلُهُمَا كِتَابُ اللَّهِ فِيهِ الْهُدَى وَالنُّورُ فَخُذُوا بِكِتَابِ اللَّهِ وَاسْتَمْسِكُوا بِهِ ‏"‏ ‏.‏ فَحَثَّ عَلَى كِتَابِ اللَّهِ وَرَغَّبَ فِيهِ ثُمَّ قَالَ ‏"‏ وَأَهْلُ بَيْتِي أُذَكِّرُكُمُ اللَّهَ فِي أَهْلِ بَيْتِي أُذَكِّرُكُمُ اللَّهَ فِي أَهْلِ بَيْتِي أُذَكِّرُكُمُ اللَّهَ فِي أَهْلِ بَيْتِي ‏"‏ ‏.‏ فَقَالَ لَهُ حُصَيْنٌ وَمَنْ أَهْلُ بَيْتِهِ يَا زَيْدُ أَلَيْسَ نِسَاؤُهُ مِنْ أَهْلِ بَيْتِهِ قَالَ نِسَاؤُهُ مِنْ أَهْلِ بَيْتِهِ وَلَكِنْ أَهْلُ بَيْتِهِ مَنْ حُرِمَ الصَّدَقَةَ بَعْدَهُ ‏.‏ قَالَ وَمَنْ هُمْ قَالَ هُمْ آلُ عَلِيٍّ وَآلُ عَقِيلٍ وَآلُ جَعْفَرٍ وَآلُ عَبَّاسٍ ‏.‏ قَالَ كُلُّ هَؤُلاَءِ حُرِمَ الصَّدَقَةَ قَالَ نَعَمْ Yazid b. Hayyan reported, I went along with Husain b. Sabra and 'Umar b. Muslim to Zaid b. Arqam and, as we sat by his side, Husain said to him: Zaid. you have been able to acquire a great virtue that you saw Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) listened to his talk, fought by his side in (different) battles, offered prayer behind him. Zaid, you have in fact earned a great virtue. Zaid, narrate to us what you heard from Allah's Messenger (ﷺ). He said: I have grown old and have almost spent my age and I have forgotten some of the things which I remembered in connection with Allah's Messenger (ﷺ), so accept whatever I narrate to you, and which I do not narrate do not compel me to do that. He then said: One day Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) stood up to deliver sermon at a watering place known as Khumm situated between Mecca and Medina. He praised Allah, extolled Him and delivered the sermon and. exhorted (us) and said: Now to our purpose. O people, I am a human being. I am about to receive a messenger (the angel of death) from my Lord and I, in response to Allah's call, (would bid good-bye to you), but I am leaving among you two weighty things: the one being the Book of Allah in which there is right guidance and light, so hold fast to the Book of Allah and adhere to it. He exhorted (us) (to hold fast) to the Book of Allah and then said: The second are the members of my household I remind you (of your duties) to the members of my family. He (Husain) said to Zaid: Who are the members of his household? Aren't his wives the members of his family? Thereupon he said: His wives are the members of his family (but here) the members of his family are those for whom acceptance of Zakat is forbidden. And he said: Who are they? Thereupon he said: 'Ali and the offspring of 'Ali, 'Aqil and the offspring of 'Aqil and the offspring of Ja'far and the offspring of 'Abbas. Husain said: These are those for whom the acceptance of Zakat is forbidden. Zaid said: Yes. ___ Several things are to be noted here: - Zaid bin Arqam chooses the incident of Ghadir Khumm out of all the things that happened during the Prophetic mission, which means that he believes that it is important for the Muslim to know about it - It's clear from the wording he uses that he is still somehow afraid to get more into details and therefore even starts by basically saying "I will tell you about an important incident, but don't ask too much about it" - The part where the Prince of the Believers (peace be upon him) is mentioned (meaning him being the Mawla of all believers) is not narrated here, but interestingly the narration is still found in the chapter regarding the "virtues of 'Ali bin Abi Talib" (peace be upon him) - Another interesting point is that he even states that the Ahl al-Bayt that are intended here are not the wives (even though the rest of the definition is not really accurate) (One could obviously still criticize some aspects of the narration, but let's not forget here that we don't know how much the narrators even narrated from the actual words of Zaid bin Arqam.)

I think what is intended here is not innovation, but not having broken ones ablution. Renewing ablution is recommended for every prayer. In the above case I can't even blame them, because al-Bukhari KNOWINGLY exchanged "masaha" (wiped) with "dhakara" (mentioned), so the sentence doesn't make any sense anymore if one were to translate it as it is found in al-Bukhari's Sahih. To al-Bukhari's dismay not all people are ignorant and we even know the real wording of the narration. If I think about it how "our" Mashayikh told us all these years that his Jami' al-Sahih is the most authentic book after the Book of Allah ta'ala and that pretty much all that is found in it is correct I seriously feel deceived. If I add to this how much al-Bukhari and his likes narrated from those close to the rulers and from Nasibis (even according to Sunni standards!) and how much he distorted the Sira of the Best of Creation (may peace and blessings be upon him and his family) and even other Messengers (peace be upon them) I feel disgusted. Well I guess from now on, they should not just hide early Islamic history (they were so successful in this to the degree that their Mashayikh have no idea regarding it anymore!), but add to it hiding all the ugly things found in their "Sahih" books.

The context you've mentioned the Aya is really spot on. I'm pretty sure by now that someone like al-Bukhari would knowingly hide information and even change wordings in Ahadith and this even in matters of Furu'. An example: حَدَّثَنَا ‌أَبُو دَاوُدَ ، قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا ‌شُعْبَةُ ، قَالَ: أَخْبَرَنِي ‌عَبْدُ الْمَلِكِ بْنُ مَيْسَرَةَ ، قَالَ: سَمِعْتُ ‌النَّزَّالَ بْنَ سَبْرَةَ ، يَقُولُ: «صَلَّى ‌عَلِيٌّ رَضِيَ اللهُ عَنْهُ الظُّهْرَ فِي الرَّحَبَةِ ثُمَّ جَلَسَ فِي حَوَائِجِ النَّاسِ حَتَّى حَضَرَتِ الْعَصْرُ، ثُمَّ أُتِيَ بِكُوزٍ مِنْ مَاءٍ، فَصَبَّ مِنْهُ كَفًّا فَغَسَلَ وَجْهَهُ وَيَدَيْهِ، وَمَسَحَ عَلَى رَأْسِهِ وَرِجْلَيْهِ، ثُمَّ قَامَ فَشَرِبَ فَضْلَ الْمَاءِ، وَهُوَ قَائِمٌ، ثُمَّ قَالَ: إِنَّ نَاسًا يَكْرَهُونَ أَنْ يَشْرَبُوا وَهُمْ قِيَامٌ، وَرَأَيْتُ رَسُولَ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فَعَلَ مِثْلَ الَّذِي فَعَلْتُ، وَقَالَ: هَذَا وُضُوءُ مَنْ لَمْ يُحْدِثْ ___ The above is a narration from the Musnad of Abu Dawud al-Tayalisi and as you see it also contains a description of the Wudu of Amir al-Muminin 'Ali bin Abi Talib (peace be upon him): "... he WASHED his face and hands and WIPED over his head and feet...". Now compare this with the narration found in al-Bukhari's Sahih: حَدَّثَنَا آدَمُ، حَدَّثَنَا شُعْبَةُ، حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الْمَلِكِ بْنُ مَيْسَرَةَ، سَمِعْتُ النَّزَّالَ بْنَ سَبْرَةَ، يُحَدِّثُ عَنْ عَلِيٍّ ـ رضى الله عنه ـ أَنَّهُ صَلَّى الظُّهْرَ ثُمَّ قَعَدَ فِي حَوَائِجِ النَّاسِ فِي رَحَبَةِ الْكُوفَةِ حَتَّى حَضَرَتْ صَلاَةُ الْعَصْرِ، ثُمَّ أُتِيَ بِمَاءٍ فَشَرِبَ وَغَسَلَ وَجْهَهُ وَيَدَيْهِ وَذَكَرَ رَأْسَهُ وَرِجْلَيْهِ، ثُمَّ قَامَ فَشَرِبَ فَضْلَهُ وَهْوَ قَائِمٌ ثُمَّ قَالَ إِنَّ نَاسًا يَكْرَهُونَ الشُّرْبَ قَائِمًا وَإِنَّ النَّبِيَّ صلى الله عليه وسلم صَنَعَ مِثْلَ مَا صَنَعْتُ‏ ___ Now look how he has simply changed the word "wiped over" to "mentioned" such that it states: "... he WASHED his face and hands and MENTIONED his head and feet.." Have you ever heard of such an ablution, where you MENTION your head and feet?! Note that the chain of narrators is the same except for the first person (the chain starts in the Musnad of Abu Dawud al-Tayalisi with Abu Dawud himself, while in al-Bukhari's Sahih it starts with Adam [bin Abi Iyas]), which means it's the very same narration!

The connection is very obvious and the only reason it needs clarification is due to the systematic attempt by the early usurpers at Saqifat Bani Sa'ida to hide this information from the Umma of our Master Muhammad al-Mustafa (peace and blessings be upon him and his pure family). An interesting thing to know here is that in a narration in Sahih Al-Bukhari three points are mentioned that the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu 'alayhi wa alihi wa sallam) ordered in the incident of Raziyyat Yawm al-Khamis. The third point - the actual information which protects one from deviation! - is mentioned in the following form: وَالثَّالِثَةُ خَيْرٌ، إِمَّا أَنْ سَكَتَ عَنْهَا، وَإِمَّا أَنْ قَالَهَا فَنَسِيتُهَا The third order was something beneficial which either [Ibn `Abbas] did not mention or he mentioned but I forgot. ___ The above statement is no coincidence! It's very common when the issue of successorship comes up that one of the narrators either tells us that he has "forgotten" the full information (like the above case, where there is a clear indication towards Hadith al-Thaqalayn through the statement "after which you will never go astray") or that he "didn't hear what exactly was said" (like in the case of the twelve successors!) or that he is "already old" and that one "shouldn't ask him more" (like in the case of the incident of Ghadir, where only the part regarding the Thaqalayn are mentioned without the absolutely mass transmitted statement "Whoever's master i am, then Ali is his master"). It's very clear that some of the narrators were under pressure and fear of saying "too much", which would lead to imprisonment or even worse, but still tried to inform us regarding what happened.