Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
Muslim2010

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

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, onereligion said:

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).

We need not to respond to the foolish persons moving in circles thus confirming their blindness.

Edited by skamran110

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice going there with your baseless claims which you cannot prove yourself (for example, a prophet (asws) and his wife giving birth to an imam).  We will also pretend we did not notice you turning the page (starting anew) to avoid the difficult questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/7/2016 at 0:55 PM, skamran110 said:

OP til  last post:

Evidences by Shia:  8 verses ,  8 hadith

All irrelevant to the discussion, misinterpretations (a prophet's wife is righteous if she bears him another prophet or imam) and desperation.

As for the mainstream view, we have addressed the context of the verse (replete with direct references to the wives (ra) of the Prophet (saw) and no mention of those whom you try to insert in the verse), the shift from feminine to masculine pronoun, the definition of Ahlul Bayt (ra) as per the Qur'an and other authentic Prophetic narrations and the interpretation of "rijs" according to Shia narrations.

You have failed to provide counter-rebuttal to all of those points which is why you had to bring our discussion here to avoid the hard questions staring right back at you in the other topic.  Even if someone was to accept this verse (although it is portion of a verse, call it a sub-verse), how do you extrapolate it to confer infallibility upon the remaining 9 "infallibles" (ra)?  In a time when you yourself are without an Imam, preaching Imamat or finding supporting verses is like collecting evidence for the flying cookie monster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@skamran110 Salam. Brother I am surprised you are still debating with @onereligion. What do you expect to achieve from this brainwashed nasbi. Even if we tell him 2+2=4, he won't believe us because we are shia. No other real reason. He has failed to answer my two basic questions. 

If he can't answer simple questions, then do we really think we can debate with him on advanced/intellectual topics such as the one in this thread? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, goldenhawk said:

@skamran110 Salam. Brother I am surprised you are still debating with @onereligion. What do you expect to achieve from this brainwashed nasbi. Even if we tell him 2+2=4, he won't believe us because we are shia. No other real reason. He has failed to answer my two basic questions. 

If he can't answer simple questions, then do we really think we can debate with him on advanced/intellectual topics such as the one in this thread? 

2 simple questions my foot!  You could not write Fadak for Fatima (ra) so now you are running hurt hoping to get a chance at a fourth redemption.  As I have said before, the debate style you read in "Peshawar Nights" and hear from your pulpits - one person debating many by posing "intellectual questions" - do not go far in real life especially when you are upon misguidance.

Happy miserable days!

Edited by onereligion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@onereligion just admit it brother, you have ran away in the other thread because you could not answer my fadak and ibn abbas questions and you are trying to run away again from my 2 easy questions. typical nasbi behavior! when the going gets tough, the tough gets going. There is no shame if you can't answer them, or you need more time to research but it is not right if you are just trying to play games with me and waste time as you usually do with everyone.

Edited by goldenhawk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, goldenhawk said:

@onereligion just admit it brother, you have ran away in the other thread because you could not answer my fadak and ibn abbas questions

and you are trying to run away again from my 2 easy questions.

typical nasbi behavior! when the going gets tough, the tough gets going.

There is no shame if you can't answer them, or you need more time to research but it is not right if you are just trying to play games with me and waste time as you usually do with everyone.

- See, you are a hypocrite of the highest order.  You open with "brother" and then work your way to referring to me as a "typical nasbi".

- Ibn Abbas (ra) had an opinion on mutah which was in contradiction with the ruling by majority of the Sahaba (ra), including Imam Ali (ra).  In other words, there was ikhtilaf over mutah (although the Prophet (saw) clearly pronounced it as forbidden) with vast majority of the Sahaba (ra) deeming it impermissible.  You tried to lump this up with the interpretation that Ibn Abbas (ra) provided for Qur'an 42:23 (Say: "No reward do I ask of you for this except the love of those near of kin") over which there is no ikhtilaf.  There is not another authentic narration that challenges that position.  Simply put, you are mixing two very different concepts just because they share Ibn Abbas (ra) as a common denominator.  Going by your logical fallacy, you might as well consider yourself from the Nawaasib because you and the Nawaasib share a common denominator, Ahlul Bayt (ra).

- Yes, when the going gets tough, the tough get going.  However, in your case, when the going gets tough, the Shia keeps opening new topics.  Then he runs away for a while and returns while shrieking that his "2 simple questions" - tactics learned from Peshawar Nights and other "successful" debates against Sunnis (all fairy tales) - have not been answered.

- Play games?  Move along goldenfox!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Jafar moh said:

take a chill pill homes u sound disheveled 

Homes?  What'll you say next?  Orale vato?

Quite impressed that you learned a new word "disheveled" but as of now goldenfox looks pretty desperate, or disheveled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since Qaim claimed that the chain of the narration is weak, I thought I'd share the following with him.

 

We mean the narration reported by Al-Bayhaqi may  Allaah  have  mercy  upon  him in which it is mentioned that Umm Salamah may  Allaah  be  pleased  with  her said, “I said, 'O Prophet of Allaah, am I not one of Ahlul-Bayt?' Thereupon, the Prophet sallallaahu  `alayhi  wa  sallam ( may  Allaah exalt his mention ) replied: ''Yes, In shaa' Allaah (Allaah willing).”

Then Al-Bayhaqi may  Allaah  have  mercy  upon  him said, “Abu ‘Abdullaah (meaning himself) said, 'The chain of narration of this Hadeeth is Saheeh, and its narrators are trustworthy. Besides, some Ahaadeeth were narrated supporting it and others contradicting it, but they are not proved to be authentic and the Book of Allaah contains what clarifies what we indicated here that the Prophet sallallaahu  `alayhi  wa  sallam ( may  Allaah exalt his mention ) used the word ‘Ahlul-Bayt’ to mean his wives or that his wives are included in it.'”

http://www.islamweb.net/emainpage/index.php?page=showfatwa&Option=FatwaId&Id=135546

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/21/2016 at 0:49 PM, onereligion said:

Yes, when the going gets tough, the tough get going.  However, in your case, when the going gets tough, the Shia keeps opening new topics.  Then he runs away for a while and returns while shrieking that his "2 simple questions" - tactics learned from Peshawar Nights and other "successful" debates against Sunnis (all fairy tales) - have not been answered.

I know you are hurt because i have comprehensively demolished your weak arguments on fadak, muta and the love of ahlulbayt mentioned in the quran. Yet, you shamelessly come back for more beatings. Have you nasbi's no shame whatsoever? Why can't you just admit that you can't answer my two simple questions instead of beating around the bush and running around like a headless chicken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam,

What do you guys think about the view that the Ahl al-Bayt part of 3:33 is masculine and therefore can not be about the Wives of the Prophet s.a.w.a.s.?

Furthermore:

Yazid b. Hayyan reported:

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 (ﷺ) 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 by Al-Qibli

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/24/2016 at 10:22 AM, goldenhawk said:

I know you are hurt because i have comprehensively demolished your weak arguments on fadak, muta and the love of ahlulbayt mentioned in the quran. Yet, you shamelessly come back for more beatings. Have you nasbi's no shame whatsoever? Why can't you just admit that you can't answer my two simple questions instead of beating around the bush and running around like a headless chicken.

The fact that you have replied to a portion of my post proves that you cannot handle the proofs.  You are only interested in this back-n-forth bickering.

 

On 12/24/2016 at 11:10 AM, Al-Qibli said:

Salam,

What do you guys think about the view that the Ahl al-Bayt part of 3:33 is masculine and therefore can not be about the Wives of the Prophet s.a.w.a.s.?

Furthermore:

Yazid b. Hayyan reported:

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 (ﷺ) 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

- Another new debater, high on Peshawar Nights.  The masculine pronoun is used because the word "ahl" is masculine.  Simple!  There are other instances in the Qur'an where the household of other Prophets (asws) are mentioned in masculine pronoun.

- Let us quote the unabridged version of the narration.

“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 Jafar and the offspring of Abbas.’ Husain said: ‘These are those for whom the acceptance of Zakat is forbidden?’ Zaid said: ‘Yes.’” 

Another clearer version: “His wives are among the people of his household, but the people of his household who are forbidden to receive sadaqah (charity) after his death are the family of ‘Ali, the family of ‘Aqeel, the family of Ja’far and the family of ‘Abbaas. All of these are forbidden to receive sadaqah.”

Now it is for you to explain how you dissect the Ahlul Bayt (ra) of the Prophet (saw) and leave out the family of Aqeel (ra), Jafar (ra) and Abbas (ra).  Are they not infallible?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, onereligion said:

- Another new debater, high on Peshawar Nights.

I never read Peshawar Nights.


 

1 hour ago, onereligion said:

The masculine pronoun is used because the word "ahl" is masculine.  Simple!  There are other instances in the Qur'an where the household of other Prophets (asws) are mentioned in masculine pronoun.

The word Ahl does not exist in verse 33:33.

It (i.e. the last part of verse 33:33) is connected with Ahl and came down because of the Hadith of the Cloak wherein it is narrated that the People of the Cloak i.e. Bibi Fatima, Imam Ali, Imam Hassan and Imam Hussayn a.s. were his s.a.w.a.s. Ahl al-Bayt.

The Wives were excluded.

Second of all,

Even though the word Ahl wasn't included in the verse, then why did the feminine form changed into masculine only in the last part.

You yourself are now confirming that the first part of the verse was actually NOT about the Ahl al-Bayt because of its feminine form.

And if according to you the change from feminine to masculine took place to include the People of the Cloak then you are contradicting the hadith which is excluding the Wives.
 

 

1 hour ago, onereligion said:

Now it is for you to explain how you dissect the Ahlul Bayt (ra) of the Prophet (saw) and leave out the family of Aqeel (ra), Jafar (ra) and Abbas (ra).  Are they not infallible?

It's your hadith not mine so it's up to you to explain why the Wives were excluded.

 

Edited by Al-Qibli

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys really - it's a test how you recite whole Quran. If you have an attention span of a goldfish, wives are included. If you can remember what Quran has said all over about chosen families, then it's about the 14 Ma'asoomeen.

That is all there is to it. If you are sincere to the hadiths, then it's obviously about Ma'asoomeen. If you want to twist and turn the hadithal thaqalain and hadithal kisaa, then go ahead.

It doesn't matter how we argue about it by grammar. There is a flow both ways, because, God wanted it to have these two flows to test us, as Imam Zainal Abideen talks about in Saheefa Sajjadiya, if we don't act upon Quran (ie. have Taqwa) there is a deception full of deceptions in it. Satan has control and can make you have attention span of goldfish where he wants if you don't fight back and guard against his influence.

Hizbal Shaytan will obviously see Quran differently then hizballah, it is what it is. 

It as Quran says "...and it does not increase the unjust but in perdition."

 

 

 

Edited by LinkZelda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, onereligion said:

Another new debater, high on Peshawar Nights.  The masculine pronoun is used because the word "ahl" is masculine.  Simple!  There are other instances in the Qur'an where the household of other Prophets (asws) are mentioned in masculine pronoun.

-

Why in the verse 11:73  addressing to Ahl Al Bayt starts with the word  “Ata’jabina” (2nd person feminine singular)?

If  the addressee in the verse 3:34  were the same Ahl al Bayt as were  addressed in the  verse  33:33  then why the verse 3:34 changes  back to the Feminine plural.?

Edited by elite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Al-Qibli said:

The word Ahl does not exist in verse 33:33.

It (i.e. the last part of verse 33:33) is connected with Ahl 

The Wives were excluded.

Even though the word Ahl wasn't included in the verse, then why did the feminine form changed into masculine only in the last part.

It's your hadith not mine so it's up to you to explain why the Wives were excluded.

- Wa Qarna Fī Buyūtikunna Wa Lā Tabarrajna Tabarruja Al-Jāhilīyati Al-'Ūlá ۖ Wa 'Aqimna Aş-Şalāata Wa 'Ātīna Az-Zakāata Wa 'Aţi`na Allāha Wa Rasūlahu~ ۚ 'Innamā Yurīdu Allāhu Liyudh/hiba `Ankumu Ar-Rijsa 'Ahla Al-Bayti Wa Yuţahhirakum Taţhīrāan

- There is nothing that indicates that there is a sub-verse.  No proof, no case, just whims.

- The wives were excluded you say?  Explain the following verse then please which reads, "And recite what is rehearsed to you in your homes, of the Signs of God and His Wisdom: for God understands the finest mysteries and is well-acquainted (with them)."

Those in whose homes the verse was rehearsed are asked to recite it.  How many houses did Imam Ali (ra) have?  On the other hand, the Prophet (saw) had built one house for each of his wives (ra).  The passage opens with, and makes constant mention of the, "Consorts of the Prophet".  Is that not clear enough?

- It changed to masculine in the last part because the word "ahl" occurs towards the end of the verse, hence, the shift in the pronoun (at the end of the verse).

- True!  And the narration you have shared is not even listed under the explanation of this verse.  You are projecting it upon the understanding of this verse without realizing that Zaid (ra), before mentioning anything, said the following, "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)..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, elite said:

Why in the verse 11:73  addressing to Ahl Al Bayt starts with the word  “Ata’jabina” (2nd person feminine singular)?

 

You are asking the wrong question when you should be explaining, or refuting, why the wife of Ibrahim (may Allah's peace be upon them both) is referred to as "Ahl al-Bayti".  The way I see it, your proof to substantiate your argument just backfired.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, onereligion said:

Does Sahih Muslim say that Qur'an 33:33 has a sub-verse?

Are you joking or what?

The hadith of the Cloak only mentions the last part of the verse. And strangely enough it's that part which mentions the Ahl which is Bibi Fatima, Imam Ali, Hassan and Hussayn a.s.

 

Quote

 

Ibn Jarir narrated that Safiyyah bint Shaybah said: "`A'ishah, may Allah be pleased with her, said, `The Prophet went out one morning wearing a striped cloak of black camel's hair. Al-Hasan, may Allah be pleased with him, came and he wrapped him in the cloak with him. Then Al-Husayn, may Allah be pleased with him, came and he wrapped him in the cloak with him. Then Fatimah, may Allah be pleased with her, came and he wrapped her in the cloak with him. Then `Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, came and he wrapped him in the cloak with him, then he said:

﴿إِنَّمَا يُرِيدُ اللَّهُ لِيُذْهِبَ عَنكُـمُ الرِّجْسَ أَهْلَ الْبَيْتِ وَيُطَهِّرَكُمْ تَطْهِيــراً﴾

(Allah wishes only to remove Ar-Rijs from you, O members of the family, and to purify you with a thorough purification.) This was recorded by Muslim.

 

 


What more proof do you want?

Edited by Al-Qibli

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Al-Qibli said:

Are you joking or what?

The hadith of the Cloak only mentions the last part of the verse. And strangely enough it's that part which mentions the Ahl.

What more proof do you want?

The hadith you have quoted (from Zaid) is not in relation to Qur'an 33:33.  Furthermore, the last part of the verse is mentioned in the narrations because the Prophet (saw) prayed for Imam Ali (ra), Fatima (ra) and their children (ra) to be included in the definition of his household.  He (saw) did not exclude his own wives (ra) whom the Qur'an attests to be members of his household.  The Qur'an also declares the wife of Ibrahim (asws) - just one of the many examples - to be his "Ahl al-Bayti".  What more proof do you want?

To drive this point home, in case you have a hard time grasping this simple fact, there is no narration needed in favor of the wives (ra) of the Prophet (saw) since the Qur'anic passage opens with them and makes references to them more than once (throughout the passage).  With or without any ahadith, their position is cemented via explicit mention (of them) in the contextual evidence of the Qur'anic passage.  The same cannot be said regarding Imam Ali, his wife and two sons (may Allah's peace be upon them) since the verse makes no mention of them.  Hence, we have ahadith regarding the last part of the verse to show that the Prophet (saw) also included four more members of his family in that definition.

Edited by onereligion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, onereligion said:

He (saw) did not exclude his own wives (ra) whom the Qur'an attests to be members of his household.


Narrated 'Umar bin Abi Salamah - the step-son of the Prophet (ﷺ):
"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, then he said: 'O Allah! These are the people of my house, so remove the Rijs from them, and purify them with a thorough purification.' So Umm Salamah said: 'And am I with them O Messenger of Allah?' He said: 'You are in your place, and you are more virtuous to me.'"

Jami' at-Tirmidhi
 
50 minutes ago, onereligion said:

To drive this point home, in case you have a hard time grasping this simple fact, there is no narration needed in favor of the wives (ra) of the Prophet (saw) since the Qur'anic passage opens with them and makes references to them more than once (throughout the passage).

The subject 'Wives' is only mentioned once in the start of Quran 33:32. In the last part and sentence of Quran 33:33, the subject changed from 'Wives' into 'People'.

Following the rules of grammar you should stick to the subject of the sentence you're reading. You cannot apply the subject from a former sentence once a new subject is mentioned.

Stay consistent, stick to the rules and avoid wishful thinking.


 

Edited by Al-Qibli

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Al-Qibli said:
Stay consistent, stick to the rules and avoid wishful thinking.

- Narrated 'Umar bin Abi Salamah - the step-son of the Prophet (ﷺ):
"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, then he said: 'O Allah! These are the people of my house, so remove the Rijs from them, and purify them with a thorough purification.' So Umm Salamah said: 'And am I with them O Messenger of Allah?' He said: 'You are in your place, and you are more virtuous to me.'"

Jami' at-Tirmidhi
 

- The subject 'Wives' is only mentioned once in the start of Quran 33:32. In the last part and sentence of Quran 33:33, the subject changed from 'Wives' into 'People'.

- Following the rules of grammar you should stick to the subject of the sentence you're reading. You cannot apply the subject from a former sentence once a new subject is mentioned.

- I will respond to your last point first because you have violated your own request.  You talk about Qur'an 33:33, you make references to Hadith of Cloak, you quote Zaid ibn Arqam (ra) on an unrelated matter, you misrepresent my position regarding Sahih Muslim and you substantiate your claim by quoting Jami' at-Tirmidhi?

- The Qur'an trumps everything from Sahih Bukhari down to the last book of ahadith.  If the Qur'an declares the wives (ra) of the Prophet (saw) to be members of his household, then we hear and we obey.  However, Bayhaqi (rah) narrates another version from Umm Salamah (ra), with a sahih chain, in which the Prophet (saw) replies to Umm Salamah's (ra) question by saying, "Yes you are, inshaAllah".  Too bad some member here "proved" that it came via weak chain and then I found out that that wasn't the case.  Irrespective of that narration, the one you have quoted or any other narration, they do not stand a chance in front of the Qur'an.  The Qur'an very clearly and explicitly opens the discussion by making repeated references to the "Consorts of the Prophet (saw)".

- First you lied that the word "ahl" does not occur in the latter portion of Qur'an 33:33.  Now you are lying about the context of the verse.  Let us see how many times the wives (ra) of the Prophet (saw) are mentioned.  The context starts at verse 28:

"O Prophet! Say to thy Consorts: "If it be that ye desire the life of this World, and its glitter,- then come! I will provide for your enjoyment and set you free in a handsome manner.  But if ye seek God and His Apostle, and the Home of the Hereafter, verily God has prepared for the well-doers amongst you a great reward.  O Consorts of the Prophet! If any of you were guilty of evident unseemly conduct, the Punishment would be doubled to her, and that is easy for God.  But any of you that is devout in the service of God and His Apostle, and works righteousness,- to her shall We grant her reward twice: and We have prepared for her a generous Sustenance.  O Consorts of the Prophet!  Ye are not like any of the (other) women: if ye do fear (God), be not too complacent of speech, lest one in whose heart is a disease should be moved with desire: but speak ye a speech (that is) just."  (Qur'an 33:28-32)

Can you do some basic math now and tell us how many times the wives (ra) have been mentioned?  Also, while at it, tell us how many times Ahlul Kisa have been mentioned!  If that is not proof then you have a case against Allah (swt), not Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama'ah!

- No one is applying anything from a previous verse.  The word "ahl" is masculine so the latter part of the verse gets the masculine pronoun to, as you said, maintain consistency (with grammar rules).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, onereligion said:

 Furthermore, the last part of the verse is mentioned in the narrations because the Prophet (saw) prayed for Imam Ali (ra), Fatima (ra) and their children (ra) to be included in the definition of his household.  

When did he pray for them to be included in the Verse? Before or after it was revealed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, onereligion said:

"O Prophet! Say to thy Consorts: "If it be that ye desire the life of this World, and its glitter,- then come! I will provide for your enjoyment and set you free in a handsome manner.  But if ye seek God and His Apostle, and the Home of the Hereafter, verily God has prepared for the well-doers amongst you a great reward.  O Consorts of the Prophet! If any of you were guilty of evident unseemly conduct, the Punishment would be doubled to her, and that is easy for God.  But any of you that is devout in the service of God and His Apostle, and works righteousness,- to her shall We grant her reward twice: and We have prepared for her a generous Sustenance.  O Consorts of the Prophet!  Ye are not like any of the (other) women: if ye do fear (God), be not too complacent of speech, lest one in whose heart is a disease should be moved with desire: but speak ye a speech (that is) just."  (Qur'an 33:28-32)

 

 

1 hour ago, onereligion said:

 If the Qur'an declares the wives (ra) of the Prophet (saw) to be members of his household, then we hear and we obey.

It doesn't matter if it is mentioned one time or thirty times. The former subject is not relevant anymore when another subject in a new sentence took its place. Your claim is an assumption, not fact.

 

 

1 hour ago, onereligion said:

Too bad some member here "proved" that it came via weak chain and then I found out that that wasn't the case.  Irrespective of that narration, the one you have quoted or any other narration, they do not stand a chance in front of the Qur'an.

This is also a desperate claim, again without proof. It is your interpretation. Your argument is that because the Wives were mentioned multiple times before, the new subject 'Ahl' is automatically about them. That's just a straight-up assumption.

Furthermore it is hilarious that you do not stand by your product (Sunni Ahaadith) as you guys Always claim. Thank you for killing that fantasy as well.

Last of all, the ahaadith are actually not refuting the Quranic verse but explaining the verse.

They are refuting  and contradicting Ahlus Sunnah and their doctrines. But Truth still stands.
 

 

1 hour ago, onereligion said:

 If that is not proof then you have a case against Allah (swt), not Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama'ah!


What is Ahlus Sunnah? It's just a man-made term. I am looking for truth. Not for Ahlus Sunnah or whatever.

If you believe Quran trumps than you should call yourself 'muslim' as Allah named us so.


 

Edited by Al-Qibli

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 01/12/2016 at 10:22 AM, onereligion said:

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.

What is about your theory of masculine plural  used always for collective noun "ahl" ?

Where as  the verse 11:73  addressing to Ahl Al Bayt starts with the word  “Ata’jabina” (2nd person feminine singular).

If  the addressee in the verse 3:34  were the same Ahl al Bayt as were  addressed in the  verse 33:33  then why the verse 3:34 changes  back to the Feminine plural.?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, elite said:

What is about your theory of masculine plural  used always for collective noun "ahl" ?

Where as  the verse 11:73  addressing to Ahl Al Bayt starts with the word  “Ata’jabina” (2nd person feminine singular).

If  the addressee in the verse 3:34  were the same Ahl al Bayt as were  addressed in the  verse 33:33  then why the verse 3:34 changes  back to the Feminine plural.?

That's a very interresting point my Indian brotherman.

When we go further we even see that the word Buyutikunna is mentioned meaning: your houses,  in plural which indicates that it was adressed to more persons i.e. wives.







 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Al-Qibli said:

It doesn't matter if it is mentioned one time or thirty times. The former subject is not relevant anymore when another subject in a new sentence took its place.

This is also a desperate claim, again without proof. It is your interpretation. Your argument is that because the Wives were mentioned multiple times before, the new subject 'Ahl' is automatically about them. That's just a straight-up assumption.

Furthermore it is hilarious that you do not stand by your product (Sunni Ahaadith) as you guys Always claim. Thank you for killing that fantasy as well.

Last of all, the ahaadith are actually not refuting the Quranic verse but explaining the verse.

What is Ahlus Sunnah? It's just a man-made term. I am looking for truth. Not for Ahlus Sunnah or whatever.

If you believe Quran trumps than you should call yourself 'muslim' as Allah named us so.

- Exactly!  It does not, and will not, matter to you even if it was mentioned 300 times.  You have the gall to come back with such a response after being caught lying twice.  So I will leave you with your own response regarding the claim on a "new sentence".  Your claim is an assumption, not fact.

- Well then give us your Divinely Guided and Inspired interpretation to a verse which you wish to dissect (when it is all one verse).  Allow me to define desperate for you.  Desperate is when you give a portion of a verse a new name, Ayat Tatheer, and hope to pass it off as a disconnected verse, unrelated to anything before and after it.

- The Qur'an trumps the ahadith all day, every day!  Only fools rush in which is why we see you rush to ahadith when the Qur'an explicitly, more than once, identifies those whom it is addressing.

- The ahadith explains who else was added to the definition of "Ahlul Bayt".  They do not undo the Qur'an by refusing the wives (ra) - whom the Qur'an clearly refers to more than once - of the same privilege, honor and title.

- What is "Shia" but a condemned term in the Qur'an!

- To say I am from the People of the Sunnah of the Prophet (saw) reiterates our adherence to the Qur'an since the Qur'an, again numerously, commands us to follow the Prophetic model.  What negates the Qur'an is when you proudly call yourself a "Shia" when it (the Qur'an) clearly forbids us from being "Shia" and it tells the Prophet (saw) that he (saw) has nothing to do with such people.

Edited by onereligion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...