Are Prophet Wives included in Ahl albayat (33:33)?

[Muslim2010]

The discussion is continued with the sunni friend who posted he following hadith:

On 11/18/2016 at 5:02 PM, onereligion said:

Umm Salmah (ra) said, "In my house these verses were revealed, 'Allah only wills to remove what is foul from you Ahlul-Bayt and to purify you thoroughly.'  So the Prophet SAWS called for `Ali and Fatima and Hasan and Husein and then said, 'These are my Ahlul-Bayt'".  In the Hadith of al Qadi and al Summi he said, "'They are my Ahel'.  So I said: 'O Messenger of Allah!  Aren’t I also from your Ahlul-Bayt?'  He said: 'Yes you are Insha-Allah.'" (Al Hakim from al Sunan al Kubrah for Bayhaqi)

The discussion is continued here under in response to the above posts: The reply is given as under:

You have reached back to the state of baseless and false assumptions’where you were before: 

These assumptions were  proved already null void and baseless and accepted by your as well but being u turn nature you have again taken u turn. 

Nothing has been proved what I have asked the narration.

So you dont believe in the words of the wives of the prophet SAWW. including Aisha., Umme Salama and Saffiya RA, and you falsely claim that they are included in the progeny Ahl Albayat ie Ahlul kissa covered under the verse 33;33?

 

You have admitted  that the wives were not covered under the cloak thus confirming by the Prophet action they are not covered  in the verse of purification as per the saying,  words and action of the prophet saww. except 5 purified members. .

The action of the prophet saww by coming to the house of  Imam Ali AS and Fatima SA and reciting the verse of purification for them and hadith mentioned earlier are concrete proofs making your assumptions null and void.

The quoted hadith by you does mot exist in any of the 6 Siheen books (Sihah Sitta) . Also its text is contradictory to the hadith mentioned in Sahih Muslim and Sahih Tirmizi, so it is unreliable/  unacceptable. This is another a sold and concrete evidence of our view in the discussion conducted so far in the referred thread.

Logical assessment of text is quite obvious as Umme Salama RA did not know that she was included in ahl lul bayat otherwise there was no need of asking her, it so it is confirmation she is excluded from Ahl albayat as referred in the verse of purification last part of 33:33.

The hadith posted by you,  does not mention the covering of the Ahl alabayat including the prophet saww himself under the cloak which is clearly mentioned in the hadith in Sahih Muslim and Sahih Tirmizi..

Now as per own Principe and confirmation this hadith does not exist in sahih bukhari but exist in sahih Muslim and Tirmizi  Alone. These narrations mention that 5 persons were duly covered with cloak by the prophet saww which you are denying by lying. .

If you himself take contradictory hadith from your own books, then it is a proof of shattered principle and your false believes.

Where is in the narration from sahiheen books that any wife of the prophet saw was covered under cloak (declared as Ahl albayt),?

No doubt wives were part of residents of house in general meaning but kept out of cloak from the scope of verses of purification 33;33.

The other hadith without any covering of ahl albayat and the text that “You are Inshalla” is nothing but very weak  and considered as fabrication.

Waslam

Edited November 22, 2016 by skamran110

[Endtimes]

1 hour ago, skamran110 said:

The discussion is continued with the sunni friend who posted he following

:

 

 

Here is a very clear answer from the Holy Quran!

بِسۡمِ اللهِ الرَّحۡمٰنِ الرَّحِيۡمِ يٰۤاَيُّهَا النَّبِىُّ لِمَ تُحَرِّمُ مَاۤ اَحَلَّ اللّٰهُ لَـكَۚ تَبۡتَغِىۡ مَرۡضَاتَ اَزۡوَاجِكَؕ وَاللّٰهُ غَفُوۡرٌ رَّحِيۡمٌ‏ 

 

(66:1) O Prophet, why do you forbid what Allah has made lawful for you?¹ Is it to please your wives?² Allah is Most Forgiving, Most Compassionate.

 

قَدۡ فَرَضَ اللّٰهُ لَـكُمۡ تَحِلَّةَ اَيۡمَانِكُمۡؕ وَاللّٰهُ مَوۡلٰٮكُمۡۚ وَهُوَ الۡعَلِيۡمُ الۡحَكِيۡمُ‏ 

قَدْIndeed,

فَرَضَ ٱللَّهُAllah has ordained

لَكُمْfor you

تَحِلَّةَ(the) dissolution

أَيْمَـٰنِكُمْ‌ۚ(of) your oaths.

وَٱللَّهُAnd Allah

مَوْلَـٰكُمْ‌ۖ(is) your Protector

وَهُوَand He

ٱلْعَلِيمُ(is) the All-Knower,

ٱلْحَكِيمُthe All-Wise.

﴿٢﴾

(66:2) Allah has prescribed for you a way for the absolution of your oaths.⁴ Allah is your Guardian. He is All-Knowing, Most Wise.⁵

 

وَاِذۡ اَسَرَّ النَّبِىُّ اِلٰى بَعۡضِ اَزۡوَاجِهٖ حَدِيۡثًاۚ فَلَمَّا نَـبَّاَتۡ بِهٖ وَاَظۡهَرَهُ اللّٰهُ عَلَيۡهِ عَرَّفَ بَعۡضَهٗ وَاَعۡرَضَ عَنۡۢ بَعۡضٍۚ فَلَمَّا نَـبَّاَهَا بِهٖ قَالَتۡ مَنۡ اَنۡۢبَاَكَ هٰذَاؕ قَالَ نَـبَّاَنِىَ الۡعَلِيۡمُ الۡخَبِیْرُ‏ 

وَإِذْAnd when

أَسَرَّconfided

ٱلنَّبِىُّthe Prophet

إِلَىٰto

بَعْضِone

أَزْوَٲجِهِۦ(of) his wives

حَدِيثًاa statement,

فَلَمَّاand when

نَبَّأَتْshe informed

بِهِۦabout it

وَأَظْهَرَهُ ٱللَّهُand Allah made it apparent

عَلَيْهِto him,

عَرَّفَhe made known

بَعْضَهُۥa part of it

وَأَعْرَضَand avoided

عَنۢ[of]

بَعْضٍ‌ۖa part.

فَلَمَّاThen when

نَبَّأَهَاhe informed her

بِهِۦabout it,

قَالَتْshe said,

مَنْ`Who

أَنۢبَأَكَinformed you

هَـٰذَا‌ۖthis?`

قَالَHe said,

نَبَّأَنِىَ`Has informed me

ٱلْعَلِيمُthe All-Knower

ٱلْخَبِيرُthe All-Aware.`

﴿٣﴾

(66:3) The Prophet confided something to one of his wives and then she disclosed it (to another); so after Allah revealed to the Prophet (that she had disclosed that secret), he made a part of it known to her and passed over a part of it. And when he told her about this (i.e., that she had disclosed the secret entrusted to her), she asked: “Who informed you of this?” He said: “I was told of it by He Who is All-Knowing, All-Aware.”⁶

 

اِنۡ تَتُوۡبَاۤ اِلَى اللّٰهِ فَقَدۡ صَغَتۡ قُلُوۡبُكُمَاۚ وَاِنۡ تَظٰهَرَا عَلَيۡهِ فَاِنَّ اللّٰهَ هُوَ مَوۡلٰٮهُ وَجِبۡرِيۡلُ وَصَالِحُ الۡمُؤۡمِنِيۡنَۚ وَالۡمَلٰٓٮِٕكَةُ بَعۡدَ ذٰلِكَ ظَهِيۡرٌ‏ 

إِنIf

تَتُوبَآyou both turn

إِلَىto

ٱللَّهِAllah,

فَقَدْso indeed,

صَغَتْ(are) inclined

قُلُوبُكُمَا‌ۖyour hearts;

وَإِنbut if

تَظَـٰهَرَاyou backup each other

عَلَيْهِagainst him,

فَإِنَّthen indeed,

ٱللَّهَAllah,

هُوَHe

مَوْلَـٰهُ(is) his Protector,

وَجِبْرِيلُand Jibreel,

وَصَـٰلِحُand (the) righteous

ٱلْمُؤْمِنِينَ‌ۖbelievers,

وَٱلْمَلَـٰٓئِكَةُand the Angels,

بَعْدَafter

ذَٲلِكَthat

ظَهِيرٌ(are his) assistants.

﴿٤﴾

(66:4) If the two of you turn in repentance to Allah (that is better for you), for the hearts of both of you have swerved from the Straight Path.⁷ But if you support one another against the Prophet,⁸ then surely Allah is his Protector; and after that Gabriel and all righteous believers and the angels are all his supporters.

 

NOTE:(((( If Allah swt purified the wives of the Prophet s.a.w. and they don't make any mistakes or sin, why did Allah swt reveal this Ayah to Afsa and Aisha, the two wives of Mohammad s.a.w warning them to repent?? )))

 

عَسٰى رَبُّهٗۤ اِنۡ طَلَّقَكُنَّ اَنۡ يُّبۡدِلَهٗۤ اَزۡوَاجًا خَيۡرًا مِّنۡكُنَّ مُسۡلِمٰتٍ مُّؤۡمِنٰتٍ قٰنِتٰتٍ تٰٓٮِٕبٰتٍ عٰبِدٰتٍ سٰٓٮِٕحٰتٍ ثَيِّبٰتٍ وَّاَبۡكَارًا‏  

عَسَىٰPerhaps

رَبُّهُۥٓhis Lord,

إِنif

طَلَّقَكُنَّhe divorced you,

أَن[that]

يُبْدِلَهُۥٓHe will substitute for him

أَزْوَٲجًاwives

خَيْرًاbetter

مِّنكُنَّthan you

مُسْلِمَـٰتٍsubmissive,

مُّؤْمِنَـٰتٍfaithful,

قَـٰنِتَـٰتٍobedient,

تَـٰٓئِبَـٰتٍrepentant,

عَـٰبِدَٲتٍwho worship,

سَـٰٓئِحَـٰتٍwho fast,

ثَيِّبَـٰتٍpreviously married

وَأَبْكَارًاand virgins.

﴿٥﴾

(66:5) Maybe if he were to divorce you, your Lord might grant him in exchange wives better than you¹⁰ – those who truly submit to Allah,¹¹ are full of faith, obedient,¹² disposed to repentance,¹³ and given to worship¹⁴ and fasting¹⁵ – both previously wedded ones and virgins.

 

NOTE:  Again, why would Allah swt warn the wives of Prophet s.a.w (Afsa and Aisha) that Allah will exchange wives better then Afsa and Aisha, WHO ARE MUSLIMS, are faithful, obedient, disposed to repentance. Why would Allah swt talk about previously wedded ones and VIRGINS.

Is Allah swt trying to tell us something about Afsa and Aisha here? Like these two were not obviously  married before Mohammad s.a.w married them, and they were not virgins, which mean they were not obeying Allah swt and were committing zina! Then why would Allah swt talk about Noah and Lot a.s., Is Allah swt trying to let us now that just because you are married to the Prophets of Allah swt, you do not automatically become pure and Muslims, and you can die as disbelievers just like the wives of Noah a.s and Lot a.s died as disbelievers??

 

ضَرَبَ اللّٰهُ مَثَلًا لِّـلَّذِيۡنَ كَفَرُوا امۡرَاَتَ نُوۡحٍ وَّ امۡرَاَتَ لُوۡطٍ ؕ كَانَـتَا تَحۡتَ عَبۡدَيۡنِ مِنۡ عِبَادِنَا صَالِحَـيۡنِ فَخَانَتٰهُمَا فَلَمۡ يُغۡنِيَا عَنۡهُمَا مِنَ اللّٰهِ شَيۡــًٔا وَّقِيۡلَ ادۡخُلَا النَّارَ مَعَ الدّٰخِلِيۡنَ‏ 

ضَرَبَ ٱللَّهُAllah presents

مَثَلاًan example

لِّلَّذِينَfor those who

كَفَرُواْdisbelieved -

ٱمْرَأَتَ(the) wife

نُوحٍ(of) Nuh

وَٱمْرَأَتَ(and the) wife

لُوطٍ‌ۖ(of) Lut.

كَانَتَاThey were

تَحْتَunder

عَبْدَيْنِtwo [slaves]

مِنْof

عِبَادِنَاOur slaves

صَـٰلِحَيْنِrighteous,

فَخَانَتَاهُمَاbut they both betrayed them,

فَلَمْso not

يُغْنِيَاthey availed,

عَنْهُمَاboth of them,

مِنَfrom

ٱللَّهِAllah

شَيْــًٔا(in) anything,

وَقِيلَand it was said,

ٱدْخُلَا`Enter

ٱلنَّارَthe Fire

مَعَwith

ٱلدَّٲخِلِينَthose who enter.`

﴿١٠﴾

(66:10) Allah has set forth for the unbelievers the parable of the wives of Noah and Lot. They were wedded to two of Our righteous servants, but each acted treacherously with her husband,²⁴ and their husbands could be of no avail to them against Allah. The two of them were told: “Enter the Fire with all the others who enter it.

 

Everything is to clear for those who seek the truth!

Wasalam.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 22, 2016 by Endtimes

[A true Sunni]

Umm Salama said: "O Prophet of Allah! Am I not one of the members of your family?" The Holy Prophet replied: "You have a good future but only these are the members of my family. O Lord! The members of my family are more deserving."

Sunni reference: al-Mustadrak, by al-Hakim, v2, p416

 

picked this up from an earlier discussion on Shiachat. Contradicts his reference

[Muslim2010]

حَدَّثَنَا قُتَيْبَةُ، حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ سُلَيْمَانَ بْنِ الأَصْبَهَانِيِّ، عَنْ يَحْيَى بْنِ عُبَيْدٍ، عَنْ عَطَاءِ بْنِ أَبِي رَبَاحٍ، عَنْ عُمَرَ بْنِ أَبِي سَلَمَةَ، رَبِيبِ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ لَمَّا نَزَلَتْ هَذِهِ الآيَةُ عَلَى النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلمَّ ‏:‏ ‏(‏ إنمَا يُرِيدُ اللَّهُ لِيُذْهِبَ عَنْكُمُ الرِّجْسَ أَهْلَ الْبَيْتِ وَيُطَهِّرَكُمْ تَطْهِيرًا ‏)‏ فِي بَيْتِ أُمِّ سَلَمَةَ فَدَعَا فَاطِمَةَ وَحَسَنًا وَحُسَيْنًا فَجَلَّلَهُمْ بِكِسَاءٍ وَعَلِيٌّ خَلْفَ ظَهْرِهِ فَجَلَّلَهُمْ بِكِسَاءٍ ثُمَّ قَالَ ‏"‏ اللَّهُمَّ هَؤُلاَءِ أَهْلُ بَيْتِي فَأَذْهِبْ عَنْهُمُ الرِّجْسَ وَطَهِّرْهُمْ تَطْهِيرًا ‏"‏ ‏.‏ قَالَتْ أُمُّ سَلَمَةَ وَأَنَا مَعَهُمْ يَا نَبِيَّ اللَّهِ قَالَ ‏"‏ أَنْتِ عَلَى مَكَانِكِ وَأَنْتِ عَلَى خَيْرٍ ‏"‏ ‏

"When these Ayat were revealed to the Prophet (ﷺ): 'Allah only wishes to remove the Rijs from you, O members of the family, and to purify you with a thorough purification (33:33)' in the home of Umm Salamah, he called for Fatimah, Hasan, Husain, and wrapped him in the cloak, and 'Ali was behind him, so he wrapped him in the cloak, then he said: 'O Allah! These are the people of my house (ahl albayat) , so remove the Rijs from them, and purify them with a thorough purification.' So Umm Salamah said: 'And I, Prophet of Allah?' He said: 'You are in your place and you are goodness.'"

English reference	: Vol. 5, Book 44, Hadith 3205
Arabic reference	: Book 47, Hadith 3510

Sahih Tirmizi

 

Edited November 22, 2016 by skamran110

[Abu Nur]

And abide in your houses and do not display yourselves as [was] the display of the former times of ignorance. And establish prayer and give zakah and obey Allah and His Messenger. Allah intends only to remove from you the impurity [of sin], O people of the [Prophet's] household, and to purify you with [extensive] purification. 33:33

Who are the Ahlulbait in this verse? The Wifes of Nabi. Then:

Jibir bin Abdullah said: "I saw the Messenger of Allah during his Hajj, on the Day of Arafah (on his last pilgrimage). He was upon his camel Al-Qaswa, giving a Khutbah, so he said: O People! Indeed, I have left among you, that which if you hold fast to it, you shall not go astray: The Book of Allah (Quran) and my Family, the People of my House (Ahlul-Bait).(Sahih)

Conclusion: Allah leaved us Quran and Wifes of the prophet to be followed and hold fast to them.

Of course it is not the wifes. According to this sahih hadith, its not Wifes of the Prophet.

We went to him (Zaid b. Arqam) and said to him. You have found goodness (for you had the honour) to live in the company of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and offered prayer behind him, and the rest of the hadith is the same but with this variation of wording that lie said: Behold, for I am leaving amongst you two weighty things, one of which is the Book of Allah, the Exalted and Glorious, and that is the rope of Allah. He who holds it fast would be on right guidance and he who abandons it would be in error, and in this (hadith) these words are also found: We said: Who are amongst the members of the household? Aren't the wives (of the Holy Prophet) included amongst the members of his house hold? Thereupon he said: No, by Allah, a woman lives with a man (as his wife) for a certain period; he then divorces her and she goes back to her parents and to her people; the members of his household include his ownself and his kith and kin (who are related to him by blood) and for him the acceptance of Zakat is prohibited." Sahih Muslim

Edited November 22, 2016 by Dhulfikar

[Abu 'l Jarud]

Is Qutayla b. Qays al-Kindiyya considered "Mother of believers"?

she was prophets wife who later divorced him and became a pagan again.

so to answer your question, some are and some are not.

[Abu Nur]

17 minutes ago, Abu 'l Jarud said:

Is Qutayla b. Qays al-Kindiyya considered "Mother of believers"?

she was prophets wife who later divorced him and became a pagan again.

so to answer your question, some are and some are not.

Or none of them are according Sunni Hadith.

Edited November 22, 2016 by Dhulfikar

[Qa'im]

The first part of 33:33 is addressing the wives in the buyut in the feminine plural form, and the second part is addressing the Ahl al-Bayt (singular) in the masculine plural form. The first part is an order, and the Ahl al-Bayt were mentioned in the second part because they are the bayt that the buyut should look up to as a model family.

Most references indicate that the wives are not from Ahl al-Bayt. In Islam, women have their own family - their father's. They don't join a new family or leave a family when they get married and divorced.

[Muslim2010]

Brother Qa'im, you explained it well.

 

 

Edited November 24, 2016 by skamran110

[goldenhawk]

@skamran110

Mash Allah, this is a good thread brother. Although this issue has been dealt with many times, it is a good reminder to the rest of the Muslims who have an open mind and a sincere heart. 

My two simple questions to the non shia brothers would be the following:

1. If 33:33 was revealed for the wives, and they were purified, then why did some of them continue to annoy Allah and his messenger? Didn't surah tahrim (66) came after surah ahzab (33)? If so, then why didn't the some of the wives change their behavior with the holy prophet (s)?

2. Can anyone show me just ONE authentic narration where ANY of the wives claimed that 33:33 was revealed for them?

 

Edited November 27, 2016 by goldenhawk

[Muslim2010]

Bump

[onereligion]

On 11/22/2016 at 4:11 PM, Qa'im said:

The first part of 33:33 is addressing the wives in the buyut in the feminine plural form, and the second part is addressing the Ahl al-Bayt (singular) in the masculine plural form. The first part is an order, and the Ahl al-Bayt were mentioned in the second part because they are the bayt that the buyut should look up to as a model family.

Most references indicate that the wives are not from Ahl al-Bayt. In Islam, women have their own family - their father's. They don't join a new family or leave a family when they get married and divorced.

“In the science of Usool we say: The context is proof, meaning that when we need to know the meaning of some words or the meaning of a word, we look at what surrounds it and in what context it is found in, because the words that surround it and the context of the phrase that contains it will aid us in understanding that word or phrase, this is something they mention in `Ilm al-Usool and this is something correct, no one disputes it.” [Ayat al Tatheer, pg 23 – by: Grand Ayatullah Sayyed `Ali al-Milani]

Why are you so hesitant, then, to apply this methodology to Ayat al-Tatheer when it repeatedly makes reference to the wives of the Prophet (saw)?

Second, "When he saw a fire and said to his Ahel, 'Stay here; indeed, I have perceived a fire; perhaps I can bring you a torch or find at the fire some guidance.' " [Surah Taha, verse 10]  Here the word “ahl” is referring to Musa's (asws) wife only, but Musa (asws) addressed her in the plural of masculine.

Another example is in Surah Hud verse 73 when the angels are talking to Sarah (as) the wife of Ibrahim (asws).  They said, “Are you amazed at the decree of Allah?  May the mercy of Allah and His blessings be upon you, people of the house.  Indeed, He is Praiseworthy and Honorable.” [Hud: 73]  She is a female being addressed in the plural of masculine which is the exact same case as Qur'an 33:33.

[onereligion]

On 11/22/2016 at 9:38 AM, skamran110 said:

The action of the prophet saww by coming to the house of  Imam Ali AS and Fatima SA and reciting the verse of purification for them and hadith mentioned earlier are concrete proofs making your assumptions null and void.

Where is in the narration from sahiheen books that any wife of the prophet saw was covered under cloak (declared as Ahl albayt),?

No doubt wives were part of residents of house in general meaning but kept out of cloak from the scope of verses of purification 33;33.

Ignoring the rest of your nonsense, since they all echo the same message said in different ways, allow me to say this.  The Prophet (saw) coming to the house of Imam Ali (ra) or calling for them and then reciting the verse was necessary to include Imam Ali (ra), Fatima (ra) and Hassanain (ra) in this verse.  The wives (ra) did not need such inclusion, including covering them in a cloak, because the verse was revealed in their house with them being the reference point in the verse and also in the preceding and proceeding verses.  The passage continues and verse 34 opens by saying, "And recite what is rehearsed to you in your homes....."  How many homes did Imam Ali (ra) have for this to be rehearsed in his "homes"?

Unless you accuse the Prophet (saw) of having 2 different classes of family members, one being ahlul bayt and the other being more prestigious and therefore "Ahlul Bayt" or whatever other logical or linguistic inconsistencies you can come up with, you will be happy to know that the Prophet (saw) referred to his wives, including Aisha (ra), as his Ahlul Bayt in Sahihain.  Explicitly!  Why were they not covered under the cloak (to answer your third claim that I have quoted)?  They did not need to have themselves covered because their inclusion came from Allah (swt) unequivocally.  Allah (swt) declares them Ahlul Bayt like He (swt) declared Sarah (as) the Ahlul Bayt of Ibrahim (asws).

Edited December 1, 2016 by onereligion

[onereligion]

On 11/27/2016 at 0:41 AM, goldenhawk said:

1. If 33:33 was revealed for the wives, and they were purified, then why did some of them continue to annoy Allah and his messenger? Didn't surah tahrim (66) came after surah ahzab (33)? If so, then why didn't the some of the wives change their behavior with the holy prophet (s)?

Who said "purification" implied "infallibility"?  Your own Imam (ra) equated it to removal of "doubt", not "infallibility".  The passage asks the wives (ra) of the Prophet (saw) to not emulate the women in the days of ignorance.  It says nothing about purification of all actions till the Day of Judgment.

Now will you finally answer my only question.  Why did Imam Ali (ra), his wife and children require cleansing?  From which sin?  And spare me the rubbish that the verse only shows the continuation of removal of sin and constant maintenance of infallibility when your own Imam (ra) never attributed infallibility to it.

[Qa'im]

6 hours ago, onereligion said:

“In the science of Usool we say: The context is proof, meaning that when we need to know the meaning of some words or the meaning of a word, we look at what surrounds it and in what context it is found in, because the words that surround it and the context of the phrase that contains it will aid us in understanding that word or phrase, this is something they mention in `Ilm al-Usool and this is something correct, no one disputes it.” [Ayat al Tatheer, pg 23 – by: Grand Ayatullah Sayyed `Ali al-Milani]

Why are you so hesitant, then, to apply this methodology to Ayat al-Tatheer when it repeatedly makes reference to the wives of the Prophet (saw)?

Second, "When he saw a fire and said to his Ahel, 'Stay here; indeed, I have perceived a fire; perhaps I can bring you a torch or find at the fire some guidance.' " [Surah Taha, verse 10]  Here the word “ahl” is referring to Musa's (asws) wife only, but Musa (asws) addressed her in the plural of masculine.

Another example is in Surah Hud verse 73 when the angels are talking to Sarah (as) the wife of Ibrahim (asws).  They said, “Are you amazed at the decree of Allah?  May the mercy of Allah and His blessings be upon you, people of the house.  Indeed, He is Praiseworthy and Honorable.” [Hud: 73]  She is a female being addressed in the plural of masculine which is the exact same case as Qur'an 33:33.

A few issues here. There is a grammar change in 33:33, which means that the individuals being addressed change. That change can either include the wives or exclude them. The masculine plural cannot be used for one woman or a group of women. It can only be used for a group of men or a group of men and women together. Had there not been contextual evidence that the latter part of 33:33 did not refer to the wives, then I would say that it would be a reasonable assumption to say that they were a part of Ahl al-Bayt. But there's the hadith of Zayd b. Arqam in Sahih Muslim and the hadith of the Prophet in Tirmidhi that say clearly that the wives are not a part of Ahl al-Bayt. Umm Salama is not put under the cloak in any version of the hadith, and the Prophet says "you are upon good" when she asks if she is included in the Ahl al-Bayt.

This is the hadith you posted that said Umm Salama was in Ahl al-Bayt:

4- أخبرنا أبو عبد الله الحافظ غير مرة، وأبو عبد الرحمن محمد بن الحسين السلمي من أصله وأبو بكر أحمد بن الحسن القاضي قالوا: ثنا أبو العباس محمد بن يعقوب، ثنا الحسن بن مكرم، ثنا عثمان بن عمر، ثنا عبد الرحمن بن عبد الله بن دينار، عن شريك بن أبي نمر، عن عطاء بن يسار، عن أم سلمة قالت: في بيتي أنزلت {إنما يريد الله ليذهب عنكم الرجس أهل البيت ويطهركم تطهيرا} [الأحزاب: 33] قالت: فأرسل رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم إلى فاطمة، وعلي، والحسن، والحسين، فقال:" هؤلاء أهل بيتي " وفي حديث القاضي والسلمي: " هؤلاء أهلي " قالت: فقلت يا رسول الله، أما أنا من أهل البيت؟ قال: " بلى إن شاء الله تعالى "

Not only is this hadith contrary to all of the other versions of the hadith; but it's not sahih: Shareek ibn Abi Nimr would make mistakes ( صدوق ليس به بأس قد يخطئ ), and `Abd ar-Rahman b. `Abdullah b. Dinar was weakened ( صدوق وسط قد ضعِّف ).

Whether or not the wives are part of the Ahl al-Bayt is a khilaf issue among Sunnis. You can't really blame us for holding the same position as some Sunni scholars.

The verse also pluralized bayt when referring to the wives (because they all lived in separate chambers) but it is singular at the end of the verse.

As for 20:10, where is the proof that Musa was addressing his wife? He is using the masculine plural, which cannot be used for one woman or a group of women. His "ahl" could be his "people". As for Surah Hud, it's not Sarah that's being addressed as masculine plural, it's the House of Abraham as a whole.

Looking before and after a sentence in the Quran can be a good indication of its interpretation, but not always. Anyone that's opened a tafsir book knows that the tafsir of a verse is not always its most intuitive meaning. The Quran is not an ordinary book, each part has its asbab an-nuzul, and the hadith literature always distinguishes the latter part of 33:33.

[onereligion]

6 hours ago, Qa'im said:

There is a grammar change in 33:33, which means that the individuals being addressed change. That change can either include the wives or exclude them.

Had there not been contextual evidence that the latter part of 33:33 did not refer to the wives, then I would say that it would be a reasonable assumption to say that they were a part of Ahl al-Bayt.

But there's the hadith of Zayd b. Arqam in Sahih Muslim and the hadith of the Prophet in Tirmidhi that say clearly that the wives are not a part of Ahl al-Bayt.

This is the hadith you posted that said Umm Salama was in Ahl al-Bayt:

Whether or not the wives are part of the Ahl al-Bayt is a khilaf issue among Sunnis. 

The verse also pluralized bayt when referring to the wives (because they all lived in separate chambers) but it is singular at the end of the verse.

As for 20:10, where is the proof that Musa was addressing his wife? He is using the masculine plural, which cannot be used for one woman or a group of women. His "ahl" could be his "people".

As for Surah Hud, it's not Sarah that's being addressed as masculine plural, it's the House of Abraham as a whole.

- The main reason for the use of masculine pronoun is that the word “Ahlul-Bayt” or "ahl" is a masculine word.  It is that simple but of course you have to strait-jacket the matter and make it appear as though the individuals (being addressed) changed and therefore, it includes or excludes the wives (ra) of the Prophet (saw).  The “collective noun” is always masculine and hence the shift to masculine pronoun.

- Unless you don't understand the word "context", contextual evidence, on the contrary, repeatedly points to the wives (ra) of the Prophet (saw).  Therefore, isolating the wives (ra) of the Prophet (saw) from any portion of the passage (which starts at verse 28) is tantamount to dishonesty (among other things).

- There is more than one version of that narration by Zayd bin Arqam (ra) and the honest approach is to study all verses and narrations pertaining to a matter before we pass judgment.  Had you done so, you would have known that the narration by Zayd (ra) actually confirms the inclusion of the wives (ra) of the Prophet (saw) in his Ahlul Bayt.  Similarly, I can show you from Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim where the Prophet (saw) referred to his wives (ra) as his "Ahlul Bayt".  That overrides Sunan at-Tirmidhi.

- The narration I quoted comes from Al Hakim from al Sunan al kubrah for Bayhaqi and Al baghawi in Sharh Al Sunnah.  Both versions come with sahih isnad.

- Where?  Says who?  Allah (swt) declares the wives (ra) of the Prophet (saw) as his Ahlul Bayt.  We do not have disagreements over Qur'anic declarations.  After all, we are not the ones to invent usool in deen (like Imamat) which does not find its roots in the Qur'an.

- The singular occurs at the end of the verse because a man has only one household.  He, in the case of Muslims, can have four wives and each wife can have a house but at the end of the day, his household is one which consists of all of his wives and children.  Logic shortage?

- Ibn Katheer (rah) says, "From this point, Allah begins to mention the story of Musa, how revelation began to come to Him, and Allah's speaking directly to him.  This occurred after Musa had completed the time agreed upon between he and his father-in-law that he would herd sheep.  He was traveling with his family, and it has been said that he was headed for the land of Egypt, after having been away from it for more than ten years.  He had his wife with him and he became lost on the way during a cold, wintery night."  Anyways, this is not as important as is the next point where you shot yourself in the foot.

- EXACTLY!  Similarly, ayat tatheer refers to the House of the Prophet (saw) as a whole which is why we see the shift to masculine pronoun while employing the singular "bayt" at the end of the verse.

Edited December 1, 2016 by onereligion

[LinkZelda]

Salam

We know the word family and household in general includes wives. But you know what also know? Quran has emphasized in many Surahs on a special meaning of family. That is a type that is chosen, exalted, and pure. In some places in Quran God does use in general meaning, for example, when he says the wife of Lut is of his family, even though she disbelieved. There is other places we see it excludes people, like when it excluded the son of Nuh from his family.

Now Sunnis argue the context of 33:33 shows it to mean the general type, and that it has nothing to do with the chosen concept.  However a closer look in the context and words chosen, and we can see an alternative flow.

The Suratal Ahzab is particularly different from other Surahs in that it magnifies the issue of the Prophet and his character. For example, when people question his Prophethood over the issue of Zaid.  It emphasizes that he is preferred and has more authority over the believers then they do over themselves.  The wives are not singled out due to merits they have. They are singled out due to who they are married to.

If we pretend for a second the line was "God only desires to keep the uncleanness from you O Prophet, and purify you a thorough purification".  We would not have a problem with the context, because, it would be similar, how we are commanded to bless the Prophet right after Allah [swt] addresses the wives, and tells them to fear God.

If we keep in mind in how much the Surah is emphasizing on the rights of the Nabi, to the extent, in ends with telling people not to be like the people who annoyed or spoke evil words towards Moses, then emphasizing on the Prophet's purity and that he has been singled out from humanity for God's blessings makes sense.

This after all the Surah we are told to bless the Prophet.

We know the way to bless the Prophet in Salah is to bless his family with him.

Then why is it out of context, to emphasize the purity and blessed status of his family here?

His chosen family have similar rights. They are to blessed. They are to be preferred over ourselves. We are not to speak evil words about them or annoy them, and the emphasis of Moses and his rights also apply to them.

If we keep in mind the wives are addressed because of the Nabi status, it makes sense here to also contrast with them, is his chosen family, which are chosen on merit, as opposed to having extra duty to relationship to the Prophet.

The Ayat Tatheer can be saying it is only Ahlulbayt that God desires to keep all uncleanness from and to purify a thorough purification. It can also mean he only desires to keep the uncleanness away from them while also desiring to only purify them a thorough purification.

Aside from this, is that we know that "only" (Inama) cannot be towards the commands to the wives, because God desires more with those commands then simply to purify them like manifest guidance to humanity, emphasizing on the rights of the Prophet, and as well he desires the wives enter paradise by them and achieve states more than the just the stage of purity.

This is so clear if we think about how the verses before are emphasizing on honorable risq and the verse after promises an immense reward, it cannot be that God only desires by these commands ot purify them.  He desires a lot more.

And we see God desires even more by Salah, that by Salah and wudoo, God desires for us to reach high stages of gratefulness, and to complete his favor upon us which includes reaching higher stages of love towards God and being rewarded with paradise.

This indisputable. Rationally as well as many verses show God desires more with these commands then to only purify the wives.

Then what does the Inama refer to? It must refer something in the sentence or two things in the sentence in this case.

The exalted status of his family here makes sense to contrast with the wives, who are being told to make a choice between Dunya and Allah/Messenger/Akheera. The true family of the Prophet makes sense to be emphasized here.

And we see contrast between non-chosen and chosen family through. For example where it mentions Abraham was given Isaac and Jacob, if often reminds us that a lot of Abraham's offspring were unjust. 

And I think Quran has emphasized on chosen families through out for a reason. Not only that, but on chosen leadership with true family of Prophets has been a major emphasis. To throw all that out the window and to emphasize only on a few verses ignoring all that Quran has emphasized is the real dishonesty.

You pretend verses emphasizing on chosen families of the Prophets don't exist. You ignore all that, and say we are making a whole new concept.

But that is unfair.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Muslim2010]

11 hours ago, onereligion said:

 you will be happy to know that the Prophet (saw) referred to his wives, including Aisha (ra), as his Ahlul Bayt in Sahihain.  

The verses of Quran reject your false assumption. The wife of Lut AS was not covered or included in his family. (Ahl.). The verses of quran provide the evidence of it. like:

٧_٨٣    فَأَنجَيْنَٰهُ وَأَهْلَهُۥٓ إِلَّا ٱمْرَأَتَهُۥ كَانَتْ مِنَ ٱلْغَٰبِرِينَ

007:083 Thereupon We delivered him and his family except his wife she was one of those who remained behind.

Edited December 1, 2016 by skamran110

[Muslim2010]

11 hours ago, onereligion said:

 Allah (swt) declares them Ahlul Bayt like He (swt) declared Sarah (as) the Ahlul Bayt of Ibrahim (asws).

011:071 His wife, standing by, laughed as We gave her the good news of [the birth of] Isaac, and of Jacob, after Isaac.

011:073 They said, ‘Are you amazed at Allah’s dispensation? [That is] Allah’s mercy and His blessings upon you, members of the household. Indeed He is all-laudable, all-glorious.’

You are intentionally or otherwise ignore the significance of the address by the Angels. Sarah was addressed in the verse because she,was going to be the mother of two prophets (Isaac and Jacob). She was mentioned by angles after she received the glad tiding that she is pregnant of Prophet Isaac (as).

The matrimonial relation between and a man and a woman is only circumstantial and can be given up at any moment. She could never be a permanent partner to any husband to be included in the heavenly address who are endowed with the unique and heavenly excellence UNLESS she brings a son who becomes a Prophet or an Imam.

Also, no wife of the prophet Muhammad saww was the mother of a prophet or Imam so no wife has that special / chosen status as Ahl albayat,

This is the reason that wives are neither covered in the cloak nor  covered in Ahl albayat. The hadtth narrated by the wives of the prophet saww confirm it. that they are not included in ahl  alabayt ie ahlul kissa.

 

Edited December 1, 2016 by skamran110

[Qa'im]

5 hours ago, onereligion said:

you have to strait-jacket the matter

 

6 hours ago, onereligion said:

Unless you don't understand the word "context"

 

6 hours ago, onereligion said:

After all, we are not the ones to invent usool in deen (like Imamat)

 

6 hours ago, onereligion said:

Logic shortage?

 

13 hours ago, onereligion said:

Ignoring the rest of your nonsense

Buddy, if I can be respectful, then so can you. Your behaviour in the Radical Islam thread is even worse. You have been warned.

6 hours ago, onereligion said:

- The main reason for the use of masculine pronoun is that the word “Ahlul-Bayt” or "ahl" is a masculine word.  It is that simple but of course you have to strait-jacket the matter and make it appear as though the individuals (being addressed) changed and therefore, it includes or excludes the wives (ra) of the Prophet (saw).  The “collective noun” is always masculine and hence the shift to masculine pronoun.

No, there has to be at least one man in the group because of the pronouns. The word "ahl" itself wouldn't have any bearing on the second person pronoun. It can only do anything if there was a third person pronoun going back to it.

 

6 hours ago, onereligion said:

- There is more than one version of that narration by Zayd bin Arqam (ra) and the honest approach is to study all verses and narrations pertaining to a matter before we pass judgment.  Had you done so, you would have known that the narration by Zayd (ra) actually confirms the inclusion of the wives (ra) of the Prophet (saw) in his Ahlul Bayt.  Similarly, I can show you from Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim where the Prophet (saw) referred to his wives (ra) as his "Ahlul Bayt".  That overrides Sunan at-Tirmidhi.

- The narration I quoted comes from Al Hakim from al Sunan al kubrah for Bayhaqi and Al baghawi in Sharh Al Sunnah.  Both versions come with sahih isnad.

- Where?  Says who?  Allah (swt) declares the wives (ra) of the Prophet (saw) as his Ahlul Bayt.  We do not have disagreements over Qur'anic declarations.  After all, we are not the ones to invent usool in deen (like Imamat) which does not find its roots in the Qur'an.

This is why this is a khilaf issue among Sunnis. There are narrations which say that the wives are included, and there are narrations which say that they are not. The hadiths that say that the wives are not included in the Ahl al-Bayt are reliable and have been included in the sahih books:

خرج النبي غداة وعليه مرط مرحل من شعر أسود فجاء الحسن فأدخله معه ، ثم جاء الحسين فأدخله معه ، ثم جاءت فاطمة فأدخلها، ثم جاء علي فأدخله ثم قال: إِنَّمَا يُرِيدُ اللَّهُ لِيُذْهِبَ عَنكُمُ الرِّجْسَ أَهْلَ الْبَيْتِ وَيُطَهِّرَكُمْ تَطْهِيرًا 

^ Narrated by `A'isha in Sahih Muslim, it's the asbab an-nuzul of the second part of 33:33 and the wives are not included in the kisa'.

نزلت هذه الآية على النبي "إنَّما يريدُ اللهَ...”في بيت أُم سلمه فدعا النبي فاطمه و حسناً و حسيناً فجعلهم بكسائه و علي خلف ظهره ثم قال: ألَّلهم هؤلاء أهل بيتي فاْذهب عنهم الرجس و طهرهم تطهيراً. قالت أمُّ سلمه: و أنا معهم يا نبي الله؟ قال أنتِ على مكانك و أنتِ إلى خير.

^ Narrated in Sunan al-Tirmidhi, sahih, and the Prophet basically tells Umm Salama that she is not in Ahl al-Bayt, but that she is upon goodness and has her own rank.

al-Hakim also includes this version of the tradition in his Mustadrak, volume 2, page 416. Suyuti, Tabari, al-Waqidi, and Ibn al-Atheer include this same narration as well.

قلنا: "مَنْ أهل بيته؟ نساؤه؟”قال: "لا، وأيم الله، إن المرأة تكون مع الرجل العصر من الدهر، ثم يطلقـهــا فترجع إلى أبيها وقومها، أهل بيته: أصله وعصبته الذين حرموا الصدقة من بعده"

^ Zayd ibn Arqam saying that the wives are not included in Ahl al-Bayt. Yes there is another version where he says that they are included in the general term Ahl al-Bayt, but that they are not included in the Prophet's usage of Ahl al-Bayt on Mount `Arafa in Hadith al-Thaqalayn. That "Ahl al-Bayt" is only his blood relatives.

If there is a contradiction in your books of hadith, then you can't really blame us for holding one of the two positions. And yes, some Sunnis did take the position that the wives are not included in the second part of 33:33. From the Sunni sight islamqa:

أما حديث أم سلمة رضي الله عنها الوارد في السؤال فقد استدل به الفريق الآخر من العلماء الذين قالوا بعدم دخول أزواج النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم في الآية الكريمة : ( إِنَّمَا يُرِيدُ اللَّهُ لِيُذْهِبَ عَنْكُمُ الرِّجْسَ أَهْلَ الْبَيْتِ وَيُطَهِّرَكُمْ تَطْهِيرًا )، قالوا فهو حديث صريح في أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم رفض أن يدخل أم سلمة في كساء آل بيته ، وبشرها بأنها على خير ، ولكن ليست من آل بيته الذين هم ذريته ، قالوا ولا مانع من القول إن سياق الآيات ينقطع في هذه الجملة ، فتبدأ الآيات بمخاطبة نساء النبي عليه الصلاة والسلام ، ثم تعترض هذه الجملة في تزكية آل البيت ، ثم ترجع وتخاطب أزواج النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم مرة أخرى .

https://islamqa.info/ar/177635

Just show us a hadith where the wives were put under the cloak as this verse was revealed. It does not exist.

7 hours ago, onereligion said:

- Ibn Katheer (rah) says, "From this point, Allah begins to mention the story of Musa, how revelation began to come to Him, and Allah's speaking directly to him.  This occurred after Musa had completed the time agreed upon between he and his father-in-law that he would herd sheep.  He was traveling with his family, and it has been said that he was headed for the land of Egypt, after having been away from it for more than ten years.  He had his wife with him and he became lost on the way during a cold, wintery night."

Right, so the proposed inclusion of Shu`ayb in this verse would be the reason why it's a masculine plural pronoun. If he were addressing his wife, he would not say umkuthu.

 

7 hours ago, onereligion said:

- Unless you don't understand the word "context", contextual evidence, on the contrary, repeatedly points to the wives (ra) of the Prophet (saw).  Therefore, isolating the wives (ra) of the Prophet (saw) from any portion of the passage (which starts at verse 28) is tantamount to dishonesty (among other things).

We don't do tafsir bir-ra'i. Just because the sentence is between two verses on the wives, that does not mean that the verse is referring to the wives. Its asbab an-nuzul is clear to us, and they give us a good reason why the gender and the plurals change halfway into 33:33. We are satisfied with this view, if you are not, then we should agree to disagree.

 

7 hours ago, onereligion said:

- The narration I quoted comes from Al Hakim from al Sunan al kubrah for Bayhaqi and Al baghawi in Sharh Al Sunnah.  Both versions come with sahih isnad.

You have already said this, and I showed two weaknesses in its chain.

[onereligion]

20 hours ago, skamran110 said:

The verses of Quran reject your false assumption. The wife of Lut AS was not covered or included in his family. (Ahl.). The verses of quran provide the evidence of it. like:

٧_٨٣    فَأَنجَيْنَٰهُ وَأَهْلَهُۥٓ إِلَّا ٱمْرَأَتَهُۥ كَانَتْ مِنَ ٱلْغَٰبِرِينَ

007:083 Thereupon We delivered him and his family except his wife she was one of those who remained behind.

The wife of Loot (asws) was a disbeliever whereas Aisha (ra) was a Muslim.  Apples and oranges!  Your credibility, as though you had any, has been taken to new lows.

[onereligion]

17 hours ago, Qa'im said:

Buddy, if I can be respectful, then so can you. Your behaviour in the Radical Islam thread is even worse. You have been warned.

No, there has to be at least one man in the group because of the pronouns. The word "ahl" itself wouldn't have any bearing on the second person pronoun. It can only do anything if there was a third person pronoun going back to it.

This is why this is a khilaf issue among Sunnis. There are narrations which say that the wives are included, and there are narrations which say that they are not.

^ Zayd ibn Arqam saying that the wives are not included in Ahl al-Bayt. Yes there is another version where he says that they are included in the general term Ahl al-Bayt, but that they are not included in the Prophet's usage of Ahl al-Bayt on Mount `Arafa in Hadith al-Thaqalayn. That "Ahl al-Bayt" is only his blood relatives.

We don't do tafsir bir-ra'i. Just because the sentence is between two verses on the wives, that does not mean that the verse is referring to the wives. Its asbab an-nuzul is clear to us, and they give us a good reason why the gender and the plurals change halfway into 33:33. We are satisfied with this view, if you are not, then we should agree to disagree.

 

- How was I disrespectful?  Warned, lol!  Very scared right now, no jokes!

- "Ahl" is masculine.  You have no point irrespective of how you twist the rest of the narrative.

- There is no "ikhtilaaf" over anything which exists in the Qur'an among Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama'ah.  The dishonesty displayed by Shia brothers is so sad that when we provide authentic Prophetic narrations regarding Fadak, they demand a verse which exempts Prophets (asws) from leaving (material) inheritance.  And when we show them Qur'anic verses that declare the wives (ra) of the Prophet (saw) to be his Ahlul Bayt, they demand for Prophetic narrations.

Now you are commenting on other narrations (and I would have appreciated the translation) when your Zayd ibn Arqam (ra) bit did not go over.  And you dare use that in reference to Qur'an 33:33 when Zayd (ra) only comments on the event of Ghadir (in one narration) and Hadith Thaqalayn (in another).  In fact, Zayd (ra) includes Aqeel (ra) and his descendants (ra), the offspring of Jafar (ra) and Abbas (ra) and his children in that definition.  It is not limited to the "14 infallibles" as you want us to believe.  For example, the Prophet (saw) did not cover Aqeel (ra) and his descendants (and others mentioned by Zayd) with the cloak and you do not consider them to be infallible.  Then why are you using Zayd's (ra) narration to understand Ayat Tatheer when Zayd (ra) wasn't even referring to it?  This is the Shia problem.  Using irrelevant proof to further their weak position via extrapolation.

Also, in the narration, Zayd (ra) admits that he has "grown old" and has "forgotten some of the things" which he remembered "in connection with Allah’s Messenger (saw)".  If you want to take the weak memory of someone over the words of Allah (swt), be my guest but do not claim that you are making an argument from an Islamic standpoint.

- In spite of Allah (swt) declaring the wives (ra) to be Ahlul Bayt, you had to ask for a narration in which they are covered in the cloak.  While there is no such narration - after all, why cover them in a cloak when the passage was revealed for them - we read in Sahih Muslim Book 4, Number 0807:

Abu Humaid as-Sa'idi reported: They (the Companions of the Holy Prophet) said : Apostle of Allah, how should we bless you?  He (the Holy Prophet) observed: Say: "O Allah! bless Muhammad, his wives and his offspring as Thou didst bless Ibrahim, and grant favours to Muhammad, and his wives and his offspring as Thou didst grant favours to the family of Ibrahim; Thou art Praiseworthy and Glorious."

- We have already exhausted all the resources and reasoning as to why the verse is where it is, what the context is, the reason for the switch from feminine pronoun to masculine pronoun and the singularity of the term "bayt".  The context of the verse unequivocally points to the wives (ra) of the Prophet, the pronoun switches to masculine because "ahl" is masculine and the word "bayt" occurs in singular form because a man can only have one household (even if comprised of many physical houses).  

In reality, we both know that you believe that Ayat Tatheer was an intentional misplacement.

Edited December 2, 2016 by onereligion

[Muslim2010]

1 hour ago, onereligion said:

The wife of Loot (asws) was a disbeliever whereas Aisha (ra) was a Muslim.  Apples and oranges!  Your credibility, as though you had any, has been taken to new lows.

This is quran your logic does not work here. The quran does mention the principles and hadith confirm those.

You are still not able to bring a single hadith from you Sahiheen where wives were covered under the cloak or declared as ahl albayat as mentioned in the scope of last part of 33:33.

 

Edited December 2, 2016 by skamran110

[Muslim2010]

22 hours ago, skamran110 said:

011:071 His wife, standing by, laughed as We gave her the good news of [the birth of] Isaac, and of Jacob, after Isaac.

011:073 They said, ‘Are you amazed at Allah’s dispensation? [That is] Allah’s mercy and His blessings upon you, members of the household. Indeed He is all-laudable, all-glorious.’

You are intentionally or otherwise ignore the significance of the address by the Angels. Sarah was addressed in the verse because she,was going to be the mother of two prophets (Isaac and Jacob). She was mentioned by angles after she received the glad tiding that she is pregnant of Prophet Isaac (as).

The matrimonial relation between and a man and a woman is only circumstantial and can be given up at any moment. She could never be a permanent partner to any husband to be included in the heavenly address who are endowed with the unique and heavenly excellence UNLESS she brings a son who becomes a Prophet or an Imam.

Also, no wife of the prophet Muhammad saww was the mother of a prophet or Imam so no wife has that special / chosen status as Ahl albayat,

This is the reason that wives are neither covered in the cloak nor  covered in Ahl albayat. The hadtth narrated by the wives of the prophet saww confirm it. that they are not included in ahl  alabayt ie ahlul kissa.

This is the reason that wives are neither covered in the cloak nor  covered in Ahl albayat. The hadtth narrated by the wives of the prophet saww confirm it. that they are not included in ahl  alabayt ie ahlul kissa.

The verses of quran quoted above are sufficient evidence and proof for our consolidated view.

wasalam

Edited December 2, 2016 by skamran110

[Zamestaneh]

Question:

(1) If you wish to restrict the ayah to refer only to those who were under the cloak, then would that not mean the rest of the Imams after the Hussain are not infallible?

(2) Who said purification means making one infallible?

[Qa'im]

11 hours ago, onereligion said:

- How was I disrespectful?  Warned, lol!  Very scared right now, no jokes!

Since this last post of yours had no real substance, and was not an adequate reply to my post, I will stop here and allow the readers to decide. My last post made arguments based on grammar ("ahl" being masculine is irrelevant, please review your Arabic grammar), authentic hadith, weakening the hadith in the original post, a paragraph from a Sunni site that showed that Sunnis are not unanimous on this issue (some have indeed argued that the latter part of 33:33 is not about the wives, please review the link I posted); and none of these points were sufficiently answered.

 

11 hours ago, onereligion said:

Abu Humaid as-Sa'idi reported: They (the Companions of the Holy Prophet) said : Apostle of Allah, how should we bless you?  He (the Holy Prophet) observed: Say: "O Allah! bless Muhammad, his wives and his offspring as Thou didst bless Ibrahim, and grant favours to Muhammad, and his wives and his offspring as Thou didst grant favours to the family of Ibrahim; Thou art Praiseworthy and Glorious."

This hadith (1) does not say that the wives are Ahl al-Bayt, (2) does not say that the end of 33:33 pertains to the wives, (3) is not related to the event of the kisa', (4) does not even agree with the other hadiths in the same chapter. Everyone knows that the salat al-ibrahimiyya is "muhammad wa `ala aali muhammad", not "muhammad wa `ala azwajihi".

[Muslim2010]

6 hours ago, Zamestaneh said:

Question:

(1) If you wish to restrict the ayah to refer only to those who were under the cloak, then would that not mean the rest of the Imams after the Hussain are not infallible?

First the title of OP means as explained and proven in this thread that the wives of the prophet saw are not part of Ahl albayat. (as mentioned in verse 33:33 last part). The action and savings of the prophet saw have shown us the members of Ahl albayat who  were present in his life and covered under the cloak.

However the nine descendants of Imam al-Husain were not alive at that time so that the Prophet could not cover them by his cloak. But the Prophet did, in fact, mention their names and their numbers. Let us review some traditions from Sihah Sittah:

The Prophet (PBUH&HF) said: "al-Mahdi is one of us Ahlul-Bayt."

Reference: Sunan Ibn Majah, v2, Tradition #4085

also:

The Prophet (PBUH&HF) said: "The Mahdi will be of my family, of the descendants of Fatimah (the Prophet's daughter).

References:

- Sunan Abi Dawud, English version, Ch. 36, Tradition #4271  (narrated by  Umm Salama, the wife of the Prophet)

- Sunan Ibn Majah, v2, Tradition #4086

- al-Nisa'i and al-Bayhaqi, and others (as per al-Sawa'iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar al-Haythami, Ch. 11, section 1, p249)

By the above traditions, the Prophet extended Ahlul-Bayt up to Imam al-Mahdi (AS). So Ahlul-Bayt are not just those five covered under the cloak, and Imam al-Mahdi is the last member of Ahlul-Bayt, but he was not born at the time of the Prophet so that he could take him into the Cloak as well!  Also the messenger of Allah said: in his traditions that

"There shall be twelve Caliphs/ Amirs / Imams for my nation"

References:

- Sahih al-Bukhari, Arabic-English, v9, Tradition #329;

- Sahih Muslim, English version, Chapter DCCLIV, v3, pp 1009-1010,  Traditions #4476 --> #4483;

- Sunan Abi Dawud, v2, p421 (three traditions);

- Sahih al-Tirmidhi, v4, p501;

- Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v5, p106;

- Others such as al-Tiyalasi, Ibn al-Athir, etc.

I have mentioned in the other thread that hadith of 12 caliphs refers to chosen representatives of Allah swt (not chosen by the people). These 12 caliphs / Imams will cover till the day of resurrection as Sahih Muslim testifies. The last of them is  Imam al-Mahdi (AS) who will appear in the last days and who is also from Ahlul-Bayt.

There are other traditions in Sunni & Shia collections in which the Prophet (PBUH&HF) has mentioned the name of all these twelve individuals.

Edited December 3, 2016 by skamran110

[Muslim2010]

6 hours ago, Zamestaneh said:

Question:

(2) Who said purification means making one infallible?

The simple answer to the question is quran, the prophet and his pure progeny ie Ahl albayat explained it that purification means to be infallible.

The matter of infallibility has been discussed in many threads at SC in detail that you may check for any further response.

[onereligion]

On 12/2/2016 at 7:26 PM, Qa'im said:

Since this last post of yours had no real substance, and was not an adequate reply to my post, I will stop here and allow the readers to decide. My last post made arguments based on grammar ("ahl" being masculine is irrelevant, please review your Arabic grammar), authentic hadith, weakening the hadith in the original post, a paragraph from a Sunni site that showed that Sunnis are not unanimous on this issue (some have indeed argued that the latter part of 33:33 is not about the wives, please review the link I posted); and none of these points were sufficiently answered.

 

This hadith (1) does not say that the wives are Ahl al-Bayt, (2) does not say that the end of 33:33 pertains to the wives, (3) is not related to the event of the kisa', (4) does not even agree with the other hadiths in the same chapter. Everyone knows that the salat al-ibrahimiyya is "muhammad wa `ala aali muhammad", not "muhammad wa `ala azwajihi".

You fizzled out easier than I thought but I will entertain your last hurrah.  If your last post contained an argument based on “grammar”, how is the fact that ahl is masculine "irrelevant"?  Gender forms fall under grammar (in a language) and how you strip one off from another is desperation on your part.  As for “weakening” the hadith in the original post (if you are referring to the narration by Umm Salamah (ra) and her inclusion in the pronouncement of Ahlul Bayt), then rest assured that I am actively looking into it.  For now, it is your word against another source’s words.  As for those who have argued that the latter part is not for the wives are in grave error and upon huge misguidance (as you are) since the context of the portion of the verse is replete with the mention of the wives (ra) of the Prophet (saw).

 

(1)  “His wives and his offspring” is a clear reference to the Prophet’s (saw) family meaning the family of the Prophet (saw) is made up of his wives and offspring.  In fact, the wives are mentioned before the offspring.  (2) I did not say that the hadith is in reference to Qur’an 33:33.  You cannot refute your own misunderstanding (of my reference) as proof of having refuted me.  (3) Again, you are refuting your own concoction.  (4)  How does it not agree with the rest of the hadiths in the same chapter?  There is a reason why the narration “O Allah! bless Muhammad, his wives and his offspring…” is under the same chapter heading as the Salat al-Ibrahimiya and that is because if you expound upon the term “aal” (although aal is more general than ahl), it starts with the wives and offspring of a person and then emanates from there on out.

Edited December 5, 2016 by onereligion

[Muslim2010]

On 12/1/2016 at 9:07 PM, skamran110 said:

The verses of Quran reject your false assumption. The wife of Lut AS was not covered or included in his family. (Ahl.). The verses of quran provide the evidence of it. like:

٧_٨٣    فَأَنجَيْنَٰهُ وَأَهْلَهُۥٓ إِلَّا ٱمْرَأَتَهُۥ كَانَتْ مِنَ ٱلْغَٰبِرِينَ

007:083 Thereupon We delivered him and his family except his wife she was one of those who remained behind.

 

On 12/1/2016 at 9:18 PM, skamran110 said:

011:071 His wife, standing by, laughed as We gave her the good news of [the birth of] Isaac, and of Jacob, after Isaac.

011:073 They said, ‘Are you amazed at Allah’s dispensation? [That is] Allah’s mercy and His blessings upon you, members of the household. Indeed He is all-laudable, all-glorious.’

You are intentionally or otherwise ignore the significance of the address by the Angels. Sarah was addressed in the verse because she,was going to be the mother of two prophets (Isaac and Jacob). She was mentioned by angles after she received the glad tiding that she is pregnant of Prophet Isaac (as).

The matrimonial relation between and a man and a woman is only circumstantial and can be given up at any moment. She could never be a permanent partner to any husband to be included in the heavenly address who are endowed with the unique and heavenly excellence UNLESS she brings a son who becomes a Prophet or an Imam.

Also, no wife of the prophet Muhammad saww was the mother of a prophet or Imam so no wife has that special / chosen status as Ahl albayat,

This is the reason that wives are neither covered in the cloak nor  covered in Ahl albayat. The hadtth narrated by the wives of the prophet saww confirm it. that they are not included in ahl  alabayt ie ahlul kissa.

 

This is the reason that wives are neither covered in the cloak nor  covered in Ahl albayat. The hadtth narrated by the wives of the prophet saww confirm it. that they are not included in ahl  alabayt ie ahlul kissa.

The verses of quran quoted above are sufficient evidence and proof for our consolidated view.

 

[onereligion]

On 12/2/2016 at 7:12 PM, Zamestaneh said:

Question:

(1) If you wish to restrict the ayah to refer only to those who were under the cloak, then would that not mean the rest of the Imams after the Hussain are not infallible?

(2) Who said purification means making one infallible?

Salaam alaykum wa rahmatullah,
While you have asked two important questions, I suggest you go step-by-step.  An argument rooted in error must be picked apart like the layers of an onion, one layer at a time.  Do not expect an answer for your questions any time soon since I have already alluded to the second question by presenting an authentic Shia narration, from Imam Jaffar As-Sadiq (ra), in which he defines “rijs” as “doubt”, not “purification” to the point of infallibility.  That was in another topic.  Our brother @skamran110 had to initiate this discussion (and tag me on it) so as to start fresh since he could not address that point.  He can turn a new page but the incapacity on his part (and everyone else’s part) to fail to answer that point cannot be erased from my memory.  However, I do not cling on to one point because, as I said, an argument rooted in error can be picked apart on many points.  This onion has many layers and even if they hide one, I’ve many more layers to peel.
 

Edited December 5, 2016 by onereligion

[Muslim2010]

11 minutes ago, onereligion said:

Our brother @skamran110 had to initiate this discussion (and tag me on it) so as to start fresh since he could not address that point.  

I have responded all the posts as given above in my last post. And just an unnecessary addition of few irrelevant lines as given in your post does not change the truth that we have proved by our posts.

Wasalam

 

Edited December 5, 2016 by skamran110

[onereligion]

6 minutes ago, skamran110 said:

 

This is the reason that wives are neither covered in the cloak nor  covered in Ahl albayat. The hadtth narrated by the wives of the prophet saww confirm it. that they are not included in ahl  alabayt ie ahlul kissa.

The verses of quran quoted above are sufficient evidence and proof for our consolidated view.

 

If I have to choose between the Qur'an and Al-Islam.org, I choose the former.  What is unclear is why you choose the latter?  Furthermore, there is no concept of Imamat in the Qur'an and no where does the Qur'an say that the wife of a prophet (asws) is excluded from his household unless she bears him a male child who becomes a prophet or "imam" (in quotation because the concept is absent from the Qur'an).

Lastly, your argument is laughable when we consider that none of your Imams (ra) came from a matrimonial relationship between a prophet and his wife, starting with Imam Ali (ra).

[onereligion]

4 minutes ago, skamran110 said:

I have mentioned all the responses as given above in my last post. And just an unnecessary addition of few irrelevant lines as given in your post does not change the truth that we have proved by our posts.

Wasalam

 

The only thing you have done is turn a new page and ask for reinforcements.  If you consider that the truth has been "proved by our posts", then you deserve to bask in your glory because the standards are now set to make everyone feel special, especially those who are special.

Edited December 5, 2016 by onereligion

[Muslim2010]

4 minutes ago, onereligion said:

The only thing you have done is turn a new page and ask for reinforcements.  If you consider that the truth has been "proved by our posts", then you deserve to bask in your glory because the standards are now set to make everyone feel special, especially those who are special.

When we get speechless persons like you, we get the shattered responses like we see yours. 

 

Edited December 5, 2016 by skamran110