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

11 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).

- To give you a little bit of grammar lesson, I will borrow some material which will not only explain things but also refute your "proof".

When a person being addressed is referred to in collective noun, like Ahlul Bayt for example (which is a collective noun), then regardless of the gender of the individuals or their number, the masculine plural pronoun is used.  This pronoun will be the same (in other words, masculine plural will be used) when referring to a group of males, a group of females, a group of males and females, and even when referring to one single female.  For all these scenarios the pronoun used will be masculine plural and remember this is independent of the gender or quantity of the individuals being addressed; they are addressed with collective noun by default, hence, the masculine pronoun is used.

This is why the proper way to say salaam to members of your household is, "salaam alaykum ya ahle bayt".  And we see, in an authentic narration, the Prophet (saw) greet his wives (ra) - notice, wives, all females - in the following manner, "Assalamu’alaikum.  Kaifa antum ya Ahlal Bayt".

- Now that I have explained Arabic grammar, it is the right time to comment on Qur'an 11:73.  We see that the verb ‘ta’djabîna’ is used in second person, feminine, singular form so this would then necessitate, according to your whims, that ‘alaykum” should be “alayki”, even if you say this includes Ibrahim (asws) then it would be “alaykuma” (dual form) but instead it is used in plural form.  The reason for this is because after the singular feminine verb, Sarah (asws) is addressed by the title “Ahl al-Bayt” and consistency necessitates employing a masculine plural pronoun because Sarah (asws) is addressed by that title (since Ahl al-Bayt is a collective noun and the masculine plural pronoun must be used irrespective of the number or gender of people being addressed).  This is why we see the plural form "alayKUM" in Qur'an 11:73 and this should also explain why "anKUM" is used in Qur'an 33:33.  There is no doubt that wives of the Prophet (saw) are included in Ahl al-Bayt since Allâh Most High addressed them by this title but this is a hard pill for you to swallow because the Qur'an mentions the wives (ra) of the Prophet (saw) but not the "infallibles" (ra) without whom our religion is supposedly incomplete.

Edited by onereligion

Share this post


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

- To give you a little bit of grammar lesson, I will borrow some material which will not only explain things but also refute your "proof".

When a person being addressed is referred to in collective noun, like Ahlul Bayt for example (which is a collective noun), then regardless of the gender of the individuals or their number, the masculine plural pronoun is used.  This pronoun will be the same (in other words, masculine plural will be used) when referring to a group of males, a group of females, a group of males and females, and even when referring to one single female.  For all these scenarios the pronoun used will be masculine plural and remember this is independent of the gender or quantity of the individuals being addressed; they are addressed with collective noun by default, hence, the masculine pronoun is used.

This is why the proper way to say salaam to members of your household is, "salaam alaykum ya ahle bayt".  And we see, in an authentic narration, the Prophet (saw) greet his wives (ra) - notice, wives, all females - in the following manner, "Assalamu’alaikum.  Kaifa antum ya Ahlal Bayt".

- Now that I have explained Arabic grammar, it is the right time to comment on Qur'an 11:73.  We see that the verb ‘ta’djabîna’ is used in second person, feminine, singular form so this would then necessitate, according to your whims, that ‘alaykum” should be “alayki”, even if you say this includes Ibrahim (asws) then it would be “alaykuma” (dual form) but instead it is used in plural form.  The reason for this is because after the singular feminine verb, Sarah (asws) is addressed by the title “Ahl al-Bayt” and consistency necessitates employing a masculine plural pronoun because Sarah (asws) is addressed by that title (since Ahl al-Bayt is a collective noun and the masculine plural pronoun must be used irrespective of the number or gender of people being addressed).  This is why we see the plural form "alayKUM" in Qur'an 11:73 and this should also explain why "anKUM" is used in Qur'an 33:33.  There is no doubt that wives of the Prophet (saw) are included in Ahl al-Bayt since Allâh Most High addressed them by this title but this is a hard pill for you to swallow because the Qur'an mentions the wives (ra) of the Prophet (saw) but not the "infallibles" (ra) without whom our religion is supposedly incomplete.

What is mentioned in your authentic  hadith is

سَلاَمٌ عَلَيْكُمْ كَيْفَ أَنْتُمْ يَا أَهْلَ الْبَيْتِ

"Salamun Alaykum  how are you  O  people of the house" .

Whole sentence is Masculine Plural

Where as for the verse 20:10 you have also claimed that Musa(as) addressed her wife in in the plural of masculine.

 امْكُثُوا إِنِّي آنَسْتُ نَارًا لَعَلِّي آتِيكُمْ مِنْهَا بِقَبَسٍ أَوْ أَجِدُ عَلَى النَّارِ هُدًى

Wait , for surely I see a fire, haply I may bring to you therefrom a live coal or find a guidance at the fire.

Where as in the verse 11:73

أَتَعْجَبِينَ مِنْ أَمْرِ اللَّهِ  رَحْمَتُ اللَّهِ وَبَرَكَاتُهُ عَلَيْكُمْ أَهْلَ الْبَيْتِ

 Whole sentence  is  mix of feminine singular and masculine plural.

Your authentic hadith & verse 20:10 both are completely masculine plural contrary to the verse 11:73 which is mix up of feminine singular & masculine Plural.

Again your grammar lesson of only Masculine Plural failed here.

Again my question  which you deliberately avoiding is

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
23 hours ago, onereligion said:

- 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.

So 'yanisaa' and 'ahla' being two distinct words with two distinct meanings is an assumption and not a fact?
 

 

23 hours ago, onereligion said:

- 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.

You're own ahaadith are supporting this so that is why you so desperate that you even reject your own ahaadith in favor of your doctrine.
 

 

23 hours ago, onereligion said:

- 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.


Well let's look at your next words then.
 

 

23 hours ago, onereligion said:

- 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.

Added to the defintion Ahl al-Bayt?
Excuse me but 'yanisaa' was mentioned before 'ahla'. If so then it should have been the other way around. First the subject ('ahl') and then you add the wives.

What you are doing is techincally impossible. First claiming that 'yanisaa' are the 'ahl' and after that claim that the 'ahl' is an addition to 'yanisaa' who were actually the 'ahla' according to you.

The term 'ahla' is only mentioned referring to the People of the Cloak. The verses show us clearly that these ('the Wives' and 'the Household') are two distinct entities.

Second of all,

If 'the Wives' are the core of 'the Household' then why weren't they referred to as 'the Household' right from the start of the verses?

Once the term 'ahla' was mentioned, those referred to 'changed' immediately from 'wives' to progeny (Bibi Fatima, Hassan and Hussayn a.s.) and he (Imam Ali a.s.) who's related to them by blood.

It's too obvious but your doctrine must stand.
 

 

23 hours ago, onereligion said:

- 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.


The people of the sunnah are those chose to side Muawiyyah and his successors. The shia are those who stayed true to the Ahl al-Bayt.






 

Edited by Al-Qibli

Share this post


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

Whole sentence is Masculine Plural

Your authentic hadith & verse 20:10 both are completely masculine plural contrary to the verse 11:73 which is mix up of feminine singular & masculine Plural.  Again your grammar lesson of only Masculine Plural failed here.

Again my question  which you deliberately avoiding is

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

- The Prophet (saw) greeted his wives (ra) as "Ahlul Bayt" in masculine pronoun, hence, it proves two things.  One, the Prophet (saw) considered his wives (ra) to be members of his household.  And two, it reiterates my previous statement I said regarding the phrase "Ahlul Bayt" that when it is employed the pronoun will be the same (in other words, masculine plural will be used) when referring to a group of males, a group of females, a group of males and females, and even when referring to one single female.  You must not have read my comment because all you did was prove me right.

- The grammar lesson did not fail when you have already established that you cannot read or are into selective reading.  When the term "Ahlul Bayt" is used, irrespective of the quantity or gender of people being referred to, the masculine plural pronoun is used.

- New Shia tactic!  The old one was to offer rebuttals by posing questions; the new one is to keep moaning that questions have been deliberately left unanswered when in reality they are answered except our Shia brothers (like yourself) are not willing to accept simple concepts, like grammatical rules in this case.  I repeat, when a single person or a mixed group of people are referred to as "Ahlul Bayt", the masculine plural pronoun will be used (regardless of the gender or quantity of people in question).

You are so engrossed in your misery that you repeatedly type (more like, re-paste) "3:34" when you mean 33:34.

Share this post


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

- So 'yanisaa' and 'ahla' being two distinct words with two distinct meanings is an assumption and not a fact?

- You're own ahaadith are supporting this so that is why you so desperate that you even reject your own ahaadith in favor of your doctrine.

- The verses show us clearly that these ('the Wives' and 'the Household') are two distinct entities.

- If 'the Wives' are the core of 'the Household' then why weren't they referred to as 'the Household' right from the start of the verses?

- Once the term 'ahla' was mentioned, its members 'changed' (i.e. changed according to your fantastic theory) immediately from 'wives' to progeny (Bibi Fatima, Hassan and Hussayn a.s.) and he (Imam Ali a.s.) who's related to them by blood.

- A shia is he who loves Allah, 'Muhammad s.a.w.a.s'. and 'aale Muhammad a.s'.

- It is an assumption when, after you have been informed of Arabic grammar, you insist upon your ignorance.  Actually, if I could be less generous, it has more to do with (dis)honesty than assumptions.

- Shias!  Shias!  What can I say!  When we authenticate our ahadith volumes, they say, "only the Qur'an is authentic; you are setting up rivals to the Book of Allah (swt)".  And when we take the Book of Allah (swt) over our narrations, they say what you just said.  Damned if you do, damned if you don't.  Anyways, there is not a single authentic narration that denies that the wives (ra) of the Prophet (saw) were his "Ahlul Bayt".  Not to mention, and I repeat, no narration can supersede the Qur'an which clearly mentions the wives 3 times whereas a liar only counted it as once.  By the way, did you find Imam Ali, Fatima and Hassanain (peace be upon them) mentioned even once in that Qur'anic passage?

- How can one verse in an entire passage speaking directly to the "Consorts of the Prophet" and making direct references to the "Consorts of the Prophet" three times talk about two different entities?

- You said, "If 'the Wives' are the core of 'the Household' then why weren't they referred to as 'the Household' right from the start of the verses".  

You can ask Allah (swt) that question.  As I said in a previous post, you have a case against Allah (swt), not Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama'ah!  Thank you for proving me right again!

- The narration by Zaid ibn Arqam (ra), which Shias love to quote, offers a broader definition of those related to the Prophet (saw) by blood.  Also, in an authentic Shia narration, which everyone here has ran away from, we have Imam Jaffar As-Sadiq (ra) define the "rijs" (mentioned in the verse) to be "doubt".  The way I see it, the verse does not confer infallibility on anyone (since the Shia narration says Allah (swt) removed doubt from Ahlul Bayt) so please do not chop a Qur'anic verse into two and give a portion of it a new name.  However, if you still insist that it does confer infallibility then - as per the narration by Imam Jaffar As-Sadiq (ra) - Aqeel (ra), Abbas (ra) and their families are just as much of stakeholders on this infallibility as your 14.

- You offered your own definition and explanation of the term, "Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama'ah".  I, as always, will one-up you and allow the Qur'an to define your kind.

"Turn ye back in repentance to Him, and fear Him: establish regular prayers, and be not ye among those who join gods with God;  Those who split up their Religion, and become (mere) Sects (Arabic word used here is Shia),- each party rejoicing in that which is with itself!" (Qur'an 30:31-32)

Now you might bring examples of the word used in other instances, however, we follow the shariah of Muhammad (saw).  Allow me to quote what the Qur'an told him:

"As for those who divide their religion and break up into sects (again the word Shia), thou hast no part in them in the least: their affair is with God: He will in the end tell them the truth of all that they did."  (Qur'an 6:159)

Edited by onereligion

Share this post


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

- It is an assumption when, after you have been informed of Arabic grammar, you insist upon your ignorance.  Actually, if I could be less generous, it has more to do with (dis)honesty than assumptions.

So according to Arabic grammar 'yanisaa' and 'ahla' have one and the same meaning? Who is assuming what?

 

2 hours ago, onereligion said:

- Shias!  Shias!  What can I say!  When we authenticate our ahadith volumes, they say, "only the Qur'an is authentic; you are setting up rivals to the Book of Allah (swt)".  And when we take the Book of Allah (swt) over our narrations, they say what you just said.  Damned if you do, damned if you don't.  

As a sunni you should as I told you before, stand with your product. This is also what your scholars will tell you.

 

Quote

Anyways, there is not a single authentic narration that denies that the wives (ra) of the Prophet (saw) were his "Ahlul Bayt".  

There is not a single hadith which excludes the People of the Cloak. Actually all ahaadith consider them to be the Nucleus of the Household.

There is only disagreement about the Wives being included or not.

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


 

 

2 hours ago, onereligion said:

Not to mention, and I repeat, no narration can supersede the Qur'an which clearly mentions the wives 3 times whereas a liar only counted it as once.

A latter subject always supersedes a former subject. That has nothing to do with narrations or the number of times the former subject is mentioned.

 

 

2 hours ago, onereligion said:

By the way, did you find Imam Ali, Fatima and Hassanain (peace be upon them) mentioned even once in that Qur'anic passage?

Irrelevant statement as not any name is mentioned in the verses we're talking about.
 

 

2 hours ago, onereligion said:

- How can one verse in an entire passage speaking directly to the "Consorts of the Prophet" and making direct references to the "Consorts of the Prophet" three times talk about two different entities?

Why do you only mention 'yanisaa' and not 'ahla'?
 

 

2 hours ago, onereligion said:

- You said, "If 'the Wives' are the core of 'the Household' then why weren't they referred to as 'the Household' right from the start of the verses".  

You can ask Allah (swt) that question.  As I said in a previous post, you have a case against Allah (swt), not Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama'ah!  Thank you for proving me right again!

Only when you consider 'yanisaa' and 'ahla' as one and the same entity which is not the case.

You should read what is written and not try to fit the verse into your presupposed doctrine.
 

 

2 hours ago, onereligion said:

- The narration by Zaid ibn Arqam (ra), which Shias love to quote, offers a broader definition of those related to the Prophet (saw) by blood.  Also, in an authentic Shia narration, which everyone here has ran away from, we have Imam Jaffar As-Sadiq (ra) define the "rijs" (mentioned in the verse) to be "doubt".  The way I see it, the verse does not confer infallibility on anyone (since the Shia narration says Allah (swt) removed doubt from Ahlul Bayt) so please do not chop a Qur'anic verse into two and give a portion of it a new name.  However, if you still insist that it does confer infallibility then - as per the narration by Imam Jaffar As-Sadiq (ra) - Aqeel (ra), Abbas (ra) and their families are just as much of stakeholders on this infallibility as your 14.

LOL! You  shamelessly skip the fact that 'the Wives' were excluded.
 

 

2 hours ago, onereligion said:

- You offered your own definition and explanation of the term, "Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama'ah".  I, as always, will one-up you and allow the Qur'an to define your kind.

"Turn ye back in repentance to Him, and fear Him: establish regular prayers, and be not ye among those who join gods with God;  Those who split up their Religion, and become (mere) Sects (Arabic word used here is Shia),- each party rejoicing in that which is with itself!" (Qur'an 30:31-32)

Now you might bring examples of the word used in other instances, however, we follow the shariah of Muhammad (saw).  Allow me to quote what the Qur'an told him:

"As for those who divide their religion and break up into sects (again the word Shia), thou hast no part in them in the least: their affair is with God: He will in the end tell them the truth of all that they did."  (Qur'an 6:159)

Well if you consider Imam Ali, his sons a.s. and their followers as those who  broke up the religion into sects and those who opposed them as the rightly guided then I conclude this reply with the following:

Allahumma Salli Alaa Muhammad Wa Aali Muhammad

 

Edited by Al-Qibli

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Al-Qibli said:

So according to Arabic grammar 'yanisaa' and 'ahla' have one and the same meaning? Who is assuming what?

There is not a single hadith which excludes the People of the Cloak.

There is only disagreement about the Wives being included or not.

Irrelevant statement as not any name is mentioned in the verses we're talking about.

You should read what is written and not try to fit the verse into your presupposed doctrine.

LOL! You  shamelessly skip the fact that 'the Wives' were excluded.

Well if you consider Imam Ali, his sons a.s. and their followers as those who  broke up the religion into sects and those who opposed them as the rightly guided then I conclude this reply with the following:

Allahumma Salli Alaa Muhammad Wa Aali Muhammad

 

 

What is in accordance to Arabic grammar is something I have already explained.  Why Allah (swt) mentioned “Ahlul Bayt” at the end and not from the very beginning is an issue you have to take up with Him.  So as to further substantiate my point, here is an excerpt from a long narration found in Sahih Bukhari in which the Prophet (saw) addresses Aisha (ra) - one single individual, female - as “Ahlul Bayt” and uses the masculine plural.

“He (the Prophet) said, ‘Carry away the remaining food.’  Then a batch of three persons stayed in the house chatting.  The Prophet (saw) left and went towards the dwelling place of Aisha and said, ‘Peace and Allah’s Mercy be on you(KUM), Ya Ahlel Bayt (O the people of the house)!’  She replied, ‘Peace and the mercy of Allah be on you too….’"

Killed two birds with one stone: wives are Ahlul Bayt and the use of masculine plural when referring to a single (in the numerical sense of the word, not marital) woman.

We are not arguing to, or even trying to, exclude Ahlul Kisa (ra) from any of this.  We do not parade ourselves with idiot stamped on our foreheads.  We have left that task for you and your desperation has been our most favorite source of entertainment ever since.  Does anyone else want to know what TV shows or entertainment genres I’m into?  Thought so!

Very briefly, since you suffer from amnesia, Zaid (ra) was not interpreting Qur’an 33:33.  The unabridged version confirms that the wives (ra) are members of household but within the context of what Zaid (ra) was explaining, the members of household in question were those who were blood relatives to the Prophet (saw) and his wives (ra) were not his blood relatives.  Also, Zaid (ra) – before he even interprets anything – states (in the text of the hadith) that he has grown old and may have forgotten some of the things.  Lastly, I have shown to you that the Prophet (saw) greeted his wives (ra) – even Aisha (ra) individually – as his “Ahlul Bayt” while using the masculine plural "kum".

“A latter subject…..”?  Are you always this smart (sarcasm) or is it a special occasion today?  The context starts at verse 28.  Prove me wrong!  Go ahead, mangle up the Book of Allah (swt) to save your own pride.

Irrelevant you dare say?  Coming from someone who (in vain) is trying to insert four people into a verse when there is no mention of them while (again, in vain) cutting out those who are explicitly mentioned three times, I must say you have crossed all levels of insolence than the two times you lied (that ahl does not occur in the verse and that “Consorts of the Prophet” are mentioned once).

You are making yourself and your madhhab look really desperate.  I have already shared with you the unabridged narration by Zaid ibn Arqam (ra).

From the same Sahih Muslim:  “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.’”

Neither Imam Ali (ra) nor his sons (ra) broke up the religion.  You did and you are far from being a follower of Imam Ali (ra).  You had no rebuttal for what the Qur'an says about being Shia but I'm sure you'll come back telling us that you're a "proud Shia".  The disobedience towards the Qur'an is off the charts!

Allahumma Sali ‘Ala Muhammadin Wa ‘Ala Aale Muhammadin Wa Salim!

Share this post


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

What is in accordance to Arabic grammar is something I have already explained.

Where did you explain that 'yanisaa' and 'ahla' are one and the same according to grammar rules? It's an attempt of desperation but I'm curious to see it. Show it to me please.

 

4 hours ago, onereligion said:

Why Allah (swt) mentioned “Ahlul Bayt” at the end and not from the very beginning is an issue you have to take up with Him.

I do not at all have an issue with it.

It only becomes an issue when someone doesn't know anymore if 'yanisaa' means 'ahla' or 'yanisaa' and then claims that 'ahla' was added to 'yanisaa' which according to that person actually is 'ahla'.

But that's actually not my problem as I'm in peace with the verse how it is revealed and leave the meanings of the wordings as they are.
 

 

4 hours ago, onereligion said:

So as to further substantiate my point, here is an excerpt from a long narration found in Sahih Bukhari in which the Prophet (saw) addresses Aisha (ra) - one single individual, female - as “Ahlul Bayt” and uses the masculine plural.

 

“He (the Prophet) said, ‘Carry away the remaining food.’  Then a batch of three persons stayed in the house chatting.  The Prophet (saw) left and went towards the dwelling place of Aisha and said, ‘Peace and Allah’s Mercy be on you(KUM), Ya Ahlel Bayt (O the people of the house)!’  She replied, ‘Peace and the mercy of Allah be on you too….’"

 

Killed two birds with one stone: wives are Ahlul Bayt and the use of masculine plural when referring to a single (in the numerical sense of the word, not marital) woman.

Your ahaadith don't surprise me anymore. Anything is possible and it doesn't have to be logical. Obvious contradictions are not a problem and are accepted straight away with an immunity for logic.

 

4 hours ago, onereligion said:

We are not arguing to, or even trying to, exclude Ahlul Kisa (ra) from any of this.  We do not parade ourselves with idiot stamped on our foreheads.  We have left that task for you and your desperation has been our most favorite source of entertainment ever since.  Does anyone else want to know what TV shows or entertainment genres I’m into?  Thought so!

Well, you yourself confirmed that the Household i.e. People of the Cloak were added to the Household which according to your claim consists first and foremost of the Wives.

As a sunni you're taking rare positions on this matter as the majority believes that the core of the Household are the People of the Cloak.

Maybe you're freestyling to get your point across. I understand that. No problem.
 

4 hours ago, onereligion said:

Very briefly, since you suffer from amnesia, Zaid (ra) was not interpreting Qur’an 33:33.  The unabridged version confirms that the wives (ra) are members of household but within the context of what Zaid (ra) was explaining, the members of household in question were those who were blood relatives to the Prophet (saw) and his wives (ra) were not his blood relatives.  Also, Zaid (ra) – before he even interprets anything – states (in the text of the hadith) that he has grown old and may have forgotten some of the things.  Lastly, I have shown to you that the Prophet (saw) greeted his wives (ra) – even Aisha (ra) individually – as his “Ahlul Bayt” while using the masculine plural "kum".

So at the end of the day we have three diffirent kinds of Households.

- The People of the Cloak (the nucleus, the undisputed core)

- The Wives

- The progeny of Abdul Muttalib

Sometimes a combination of two of the three, excuding the Wives. Another time only the Wives, etcetera.
 

 

4 hours ago, onereligion said:

“A latter subject…..”?  Are you always this smart (sarcasm) or is it a special occasion today?  The context starts at verse 28.  Prove me wrong!  Go ahead, mangle up the Book of Allah (swt) to save your own pride.

What do I have to prove?

There is nothing to prove as everybody can read that the subject in the last part of Quran 33:33 was changed from 'yanisaa' to 'ahla' and as you already admitted was about the People of the Cloak, wether added or distinguished from 'yanisaa' i.e. the Wives.
 

 

4 hours ago, onereligion said:

Irrelevant you dare say?  Coming from someone who (in vain) is trying to insert four people into a verse when there is no mention of them while (again, in vain) cutting out those who are explicitly mentioned three times, I must say you have crossed all levels of insolence than the two times you lied (that ahl does not occur in the verse and that “Consorts of the Prophet” are mentioned once).

And again, then why did you agree with the ahaadith that are proving us that 'ahla' was about the People of the Cloak?

Quran says no, hadith says yes, hadith not right, hadith right but only partly.

How many times are you going to run this circle?
 

 

4 hours ago, onereligion said:

You are making yourself and your madhhab look really desperate.  I have already shared with you the unabridged narration by Zaid ibn Arqam (ra).

 

 

From the same Sahih Muslim:  “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.’”

Instead of solidifying your stance you only provided us with narrations that makes it look more problematic as it already was. It seems that you're jumping from tree to tree not really knowing what the definition of Ahl al-Bayt is.

Changing cores, sub-divisions which also are changeable and fluid additions that change from hadith to hadith which makes your claims only look more hilarious than we've already saw.
 

 

4 hours ago, onereligion said:

Neither Imam Ali (ra) nor his sons (ra) broke up the religion.  You did and you are far from being a follower of Imam Ali (ra).  

Indeed not. Their a.s. opponents did and so are their followers and fans doing. I am a true follower of Imam Ali a.s. as I do not identify myself with his enemies while there are actually a lot who do.

I prefer to call myself muslim just as Allah called us muslims in Quran.

But if Shia is a way to distinct myself from the enemies of the Ahl al-Bayt a.s. then please call me Shia.




 

Edited by Al-Qibli

Share this post


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

Your hadith collectors copied our system and methodology.  They could only wish to come close to something as monumental and practical.

It's still a man-made methodology and above all used as a tool for propaganda and justifications in favor of tyrants and their doctrines to solidify their power and to alienate the true Islam from the fake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 28/12/2016 at 6:34 PM, onereligion said:

- To give you a little bit of grammar lesson, I will borrow some material which will not only explain things but also refute your "proof".

When a person being addressed is referred to in collective noun, like Ahlul Bayt for example (which is a collective noun), then regardless of the gender of the individuals or their number, the masculine plural pronoun is used.  This pronoun will be the same (in other words, masculine plural will be used) when referring to a group of males, a group of females, a group of males and females, and even when referring to one single female.  For all these scenarios the pronoun used will be masculine plural and remember this is independent of the gender or quantity of the individuals being addressed; they are addressed with collective noun by default, hence, the masculine pronoun is used.

This is why the proper way to say salaam to members of your household is, "salaam alaykum ya ahle bayt".  And we see, in an authentic narration, the Prophet (saw) greet his wives (ra) - notice, wives, all females - in the following manner, "Assalamu’alaikum.  Kaifa antum ya Ahlal Bayt".

- Now that I have explained Arabic grammar, it is the right time to comment on Qur'an 11:73.  We see that the verb ‘ta’djabîna’ is used in second person, feminine, singular form so this would then necessitate, according to your whims, that ‘alaykum” should be “alayki”, even if you say this includes Ibrahim (asws) then it would be “alaykuma” (dual form) but instead it is used in plural form.  The reason for this is because after the singular feminine verb, Sarah (asws) is addressed by the title “Ahl al-Bayt” and consistency necessitates employing a masculine plural pronoun because Sarah (asws) is addressed by that title (since Ahl al-Bayt is a collective noun and the masculine plural pronoun must be used irrespective of the number or gender of people being addressed).  This is why we see the plural form "alayKUM" in Qur'an 11:73 and this should also explain why "anKUM" is used in Qur'an 33:33.  There is no doubt that wives of the Prophet (saw) are included in Ahl al-Bayt since Allâh Most High addressed them by this title but this is a hard pill for you to swallow because the Qur'an mentions the wives (ra) of the Prophet (saw) but not the "infallibles" (ra) without whom our religion is supposedly incomplete.

Your grammar lesson can’t explain why pronoun changed in the verse 33:34  to feminine plural from the  masculine plural in the verse 33:33.

Read the whole event of angels coming to House of Ibrahim(as) in sequential manner from the quran and you would come to know why in the verse 11:73 feminine singular & masculine plural is used.

When angels entered in the house of Ibrahim(as) they talked with people of the House

Firstly with Ibrahim(as)  They said: Peace! He answered  Peace”  (11:69) ,”  He said: Surely we are afraid of you” (15:52) ”They said: Be not afraid, surely we give you the good news of a boy, possessing knowledge “ (15:53).” He said: Do you give me good news (of a son) when old age has come upon me?-- Of what then do you give me good news!” (15:54). “They said: We give you good news with truth, therefore be not of the despairing”(15:55). “He said: And who despairs of the mercy of his Lord but the erring ones?” (15:56).

Then with the wife of Ibrahim(as) who came forward.

Then his wife came up in great grief, and she struck her face and said: An old barren woman! (51:29) They said: Thus says your Lord: Surely He is the Wise, the Knowing.(51:30)

Then with the wife of Ibrahim(as)  who was standing by him

And his wife was standing (by), so she laughed, then We gave her the good news of Ishaq and after Ishaq of (a son's son) Yaqoub.(11:71).”She said: O wonder! shall I bear a son when I am an extremely old woman and this my husband an extremely old man? Most surely this is a wonderful thing”(11:72) "They said: Do you wonder at Allah's bidding?”(11:73).

Then angels send the mercy of Allah and his blessings upon the people of the  House( who were three group of  1 male & 2 female).That is why masculine plural is used  in the latter part of the verse to address the  group having 1 male & 2 female member.

The mercy of Allah and His blessings are on you, O people of the house, surely He is Praised, Glorious.(11:73)

Verse 11:73 is similar to the verse 12:29  in which addressing to two different people is mentioned in the single verse.

 O Yusuf! turn aside from this; ask forgiveness for your sin. Indeed, you were of the sinful." 12:29

Latter part of the verse is feminine singular which was addressing to Zulekha.

Edited by elite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/29/2016 at 2:45 PM, Al-Qibli said:

Where did you explain that 'yanisaa' and 'ahla' are one and the same according to grammar rules? It's an attempt of desperation but I'm curious to see it. Show it to me please.


It only becomes an issue when someone doesn't know anymore if 'yanisaa' means 'ahla' or 'yanisaa' and then claims that 'ahla' was added to 'yanisaa' which according to that person actually is 'ahla'.

Your ahaadith don't surprise me anymore. Anything is possible and it doesn't have to be logical. Obvious contradictions are not a problem and are accepted straight away with an immunity for logic.

What do I have to prove?

Instead of solidifying your stance you only provided us with narrations that makes it look more problematic as it already was. It seems that you're jumping from tree to tree not really knowing what the definition of Ahl al-Bayt is.


But if Shia is a way to distinct myself from the enemies of the Ahl al-Bayt a.s. then please call me Shia.
 

- Indeed it is a desperate attempt on your part.  Every word gets its corresponding pronoun.  When someone or a group is referred to as "Ahlul Bayt", the masculine plural pronoun is used.  If you do not understand that, I would like to see your further desperation because I thought you'd be done by now but its like you are peeling layers.  I am curious to see the level to which you'll stoop down.

- Actually, it becomes an issue when you misrepresent my argument, refute it and think you have offered a counter-rebuttal.  I have made no claims regarding "yanisaa" or "ahla" being added to this or that.  People here pointed to the shift in gender (in the latter part of the verse) and I have explained it clearly with the help of many examples.  To repeat myself, when someone or a group is referred to as "Ahlul Bayt", the masculine plural pronoun is used.  Instead of misrepresenting my case, refute me or admit that you learned something new regarding Arabic grammar.

- Shall we talk about your ahadith where we find the "infallible" Imam (ra) give two people two different, contradictory answers?

- Prove that the context does not start at verse 28 because you were quick to claim that the phrase, "O Consorts of the Prophet (saw)", only occurrs once.

- I know the definition of Ahlul Bayt (ra).  This is your attempt to open another front as your emergency exit in case you need a quick getaway.  The narration by Zaid (ra) was specific to those who were blood relatives to the Prophet (saw).  Are you a family man?  Or you can look at your father's case.  You'd appreciate that while your mother is a member of your father's household, she isn't his blood relative.  In matters that affect, or pertain to, your father's blood relatives (or family members related to him by blood), your mother is omitted or exempt.  Such is the case with Zaid's (ra) narration. 

- Thank you for proving your disobedience and my correctness.  The Qur'an forbids you from referring to yourself as "Shia" and you are more concerned with distinctions than obeying the Qur'an.

Share this post


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

Your grammar lesson can’t explain why pronoun changed in the verse 33:34  to feminine plural from the  masculine plural in the verse 33:33.

Then angels send the mercy of Allah and his blessings upon the people of the  House( who were three group of  1 male & 2 female).That is why masculine plural is used  in the latter part of the verse to address the  group having 1 male & 2 female member.

- Saying "your grammar lesson can't explain why pronoun changed" is not a rebuttal.  Either prove me wrong or stay silent.  As I shared with the other brother, when someone or a group is referred to as "Ahlul Bayt", the masculine plural pronoun is used.  This does not explain it to you and Al-Qibli but maybe you can consult someone who knows Arabic. 

- 1 male and 2 females?  Who are these 1 male and 2 females?  Also, the Prophet (saw) addressed Aisha (ra) as "Ahlul Bayt" - a single (in numerical sense, not marital) female - in the masculine plural form when we read the following portion of a narration from Sahih Bukhari.

“He (the Prophet) said, ‘Carry away the remaining food.’  Then a batch of three persons stayed in the house chatting.  The Prophet (saw) left and went towards the dwelling place of Aisha and said, ‘Peace and Allah’s Mercy be on you(KUM), Ya Ahlel Bayt (O the people of the house)!’  She replied, ‘Peace and the mercy of Allah be on you too….’"

Had this been a grammatical error, the Shias would have paraded it on their websites like there is no tomorrow.  However, we see no such criticism (that the narration is grammatically inconsistent or grammatically erroneous) and in it we see that one (single) female is addressed as "Ahlul Bayt" following which the masculine plural pronoun is employed.

Edited by onereligion

Share this post


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

- 1 male and 2 females?  Who are these 1 male and 2 females? 

H. Ibrahim(as), H. Hajra(as),H. Sarah(as)  angels addressed  all the  three who were in the bayt whlie talking to them as "The grace of Allah and His blessings on you,o ye people of the house! for he is indeed worthy of all praise,full of all glory. (11:73)

5 hours ago, onereligion said:

we read the following portion of a narration from Sahih Bukhari.

“He (the Prophet) said, ‘Carry away the remaining food.’  Then a batch of three persons stayed in the house chatting.  The Prophet (saw) left and went towards the dwelling place of Aisha and said, ‘Peace and Allah’s Mercy be on you(KUM), Ya Ahlel Bayt (O the people of the house)!’  She replied, ‘Peace and the mercy of Allah be on you too….’"

please remember your following statement while quoting the Sahih Bukhari.

On 27/12/2016 at 8:46 PM, onereligion said:

- The Qur'an trumps everything from Sahih Bukhari down to the last book of ahadith.

Prove your theory of Collective noun is independent of gender and quantity by answering my simple question from the quran.

I will make for you the question simple.

Starting from the verse of purification the passage continues without any change from the  collective noun Ahl Al Bayt.

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 Allah and His Messenger, and the Home of the Hereafter, verily Allah 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 Allah.But any of you that is devout in the service of Allah and His Messenger, 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 (Allah), 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.And stay quietly in your houses, and make not a dazzling display, like that of the former Times of Ignorance; and establish regular Prayer, and give regular Charity; and obey Allah and His Messenger. And Allah only wishes to remove all abomination from you, ye members of the Family, and to make you pure and spotless.And recite what is rehearsed to you in your homes, of the Signs of Allah and His Wisdom: for Allah understands the finest mysteries and is well-acquainted (with them).(33:28-34)

Before  it has changed from Ya Nisaa I-Nabi to Ahl al Bayt but after that we see that it hasn’t change again from Ahl Al Bayt to Ya Nisaa I-Nabi. Then why passage continues in Feminine Plural(red part).?

Edited by elite

Share this post


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

- Indeed it is a desperate attempt on your part.  Every word gets its corresponding pronoun.  When someone or a group is referred to as "Ahlul Bayt", the masculine plural pronoun is used.  If you do not understand that, I would like to see your further desperation because I thought you'd be done by now but its like you are peeling layers.  I am curious to see the level to which you'll stoop down.

My issue is not about the masculin pronoun. My issue is about your denial of a tradition which is supported by all sects that the People of the Cloak were meant with the verse. Even by your own.

If this tradition did not reach you then your claim is possible but with multiple and unambigious confirmation from all sects/angles you stay hardheaded and stubborn.

 

6 hours ago, onereligion said:

- Actually, it becomes an issue when you misrepresent my argument, refute it and think you have offered a counter-rebuttal.  I have made no claims regarding "yanisaa" or "ahla" being added to this or that.

This is what you claimed a while ago.

- The ahadith explains who else was added to the definition of "Ahlul Bayt". Posted Wednesday at 01:38 PM (edited)             
 

6 hours ago, onereligion said:

People here pointed to the shift in gender (in the latter part of the verse) and I have explained it clearly with the help of many examples.  To repeat myself, when someone or a group is referred to as "Ahlul Bayt", the masculine plural pronoun is used.  Instead of misrepresenting my case, refute me or admit that you learned something new regarding Arabic grammar.

This issue is outdated and not relevant anymore. That 'Ahl' is plural and therefore masculin is something you was right about and I accepted that from the start. But what you are doing is hammering on this while with the introduction of the subject of the verse two possibilities occured:

1) It can refer to males and females as well

2) It can replace the ones reffered to in the former subject and be overwritten with other people

And this is showed and proved by a tradition which like the Quran itself is confirmed as authentic AND accepted to be so by ALL sects of Islam. Therefore this hadith is so strong that it even can be considered to be a proof by the Quran itself:

O you who have believed, obey Allah (the Quran) and obey the Messenger (the Prophetic Traditions) and those in authority among you. And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. That is the best [way] and best in result.

The Messenger (Prophetic Traditions)
means that over where there is unanimity about by all muslims just as is the case with the Quran.
 

6 hours ago, onereligion said:

- Shall we talk about your ahadith where we find the "infallible" Imam (ra) give two people two different, contradictory answers?


The hadith which is under discussion is as I just stated confirmed and accepted as authentic by ALL sects.

Let us therefore stick to it as this back-and forth-bickering will not bring us any further.
 

 

6 hours ago, onereligion said:

- Prove that the context does not start at verse 28 because you were quick to claim that the phrase, "O Consorts of the Prophet (saw)", only occurrs once.

I already told you that the number of times it was mentioned is irrelevant once the subject is replaced with or overwritten by another subject. Again you cling unto an argument which is already refuted long time ago.
 

 

6 hours ago, onereligion said:

- I know the definition of Ahlul Bayt (ra).  This is your attempt to open another front as your emergency exit in case you need a quick getaway.  The narration by Zaid (ra) was specific to those who were blood relatives to the Prophet (saw).  Are you a family man?  Or you can look at your father's case.  You'd appreciate that while your mother is a member of your father's household, she isn't his blood relative.  In matters that affect, or pertain to, your father's blood relatives (or family members related to him by blood), your mother is omitted or exempt.  Such is the case with Zaid's (ra) narration. 

I understand that this was about all the males and their descendants who descended from Abdul-Mutallib.

I also believe this was a Sharia matter concerning them and zakar or sadaqa. You may tell me which of the last two as for now I am not interrested to dig deep into that detail.

The tradition actually shows us that after brotherhood in Islam, blood is the strongest bond. After that comes the marital covenant. When we put these three categories next to eachother, all this leads to the conclusion that the People of the Cloak are actually the core definiton and if not the NUCLEUS of the Ahl al-Bayt a.s. as they had the strongest bloodbond wuth and they were mentioned as a distinguished unit by the Prophet s.a.w.a.s. as well.
 

 

6 hours ago, onereligion said:

- Thank you for proving your disobedience and my correctness.  The Qur'an forbids you from referring to yourself as "Shia" and you are more concerned with distinctions than obeying the Qur'an.

The reality is that after Imam Ali a.s. came to reign as was the will of the majority of the Muhajirin and Ansar so actually for the same reasons as the election of Abu Bakr, finally the Ummah divided itself in three sects:

1) The Rawafidh (i.e. the followers or Shia of Imam Ali a.s. or those who rejected Yazid l.a.)

2) The Khawarij

3) The Ahlus Sunnah (i.e. the followers of Muawiyyah and finally the followers of Yazid i.a. and their descendants.)

Now,

A few replies ago you performed the salawat while the Ummawi kingdom from the time of Muawiyya l.a. untill the reign of Umar Ibn Abdul-Aziz r.a. cursed the Household a.s. from their pulpits.

Be my guest and tell me which group was on Haqq.

Strict literally seen, sunni or better said followers of the sunnah of Rasulullah s.a.w.a.s. is in itself not an all-covering term as the Quran seems to be excluded. But above all that the meaning of it was actually to amputate the Ahl al-Bayt a.s. from Rasulullah s.a.w.a.s. while giving people the impression that they were the followers of Rasulullah s.a.w.a.s. which was actually not the case.


 

Edited by Al-Qibli

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/31/2016 at 5:12 AM, elite said:

H. Ibrahim(as), H. Hajra(as),H. Sarah(as) 

please remember your following statement while quoting the Sahih Bukhari.

Prove your theory of Collective noun is independent of gender and quantity by answering my simple question from the quran.

I will make for you the question simple.

Starting from the verse of purification the passage continues without any change from the  collective noun Ahl Al Bayt.

Before  it has changed from Ya Nisaa I-Nabi to Ahl al Bayt but after that we see that it hasn’t change again from Ahl Al Bayt to Ya Nisaa I-Nabi. Then why passage continues in Feminine Plural(red part).?

- There is no indication of Hajra (asws) in the Qur'anic passage.  The angels were directly speaking with Sarah (asws).

- The Qur'an trumps Sahih Bukhari, however, I substantiated my Arabic grammar lesson by referring to Sahih Bukhari.  The two are not in contradiction; rather they agree that if a single entity - irrespective of gender - is mentioned as "Ahlul Bayt" then the masculine plural pronoun is designated for him, her or them.  You have yet to offer your rebuttal so don't make the question simpler for me; make your own task easier by refuting me on Arabic grammar or by conceding this point.

- As explained earlier, the masculine plural pronoun follows when the group is referred to as "Ahlul Bayt" to maintain consistency with Arabic grammar.  Thereafter, it switches back to feminine plural because the wives (who are all females) are being addressed. 

Here is an example from a Shia hadith:

In Mustadrak al-Wasael by al-Mirza al-Noori 41/220, we read the hadith of Imam Ali (ra) talking about marriage:

عن علي ( عليه السلام ) ، قال : ” من أراد منكم التزويج إلى أن قال فإذا زفت زوجته ودخلت عليه ، فليصل ركعتين ثم ليمسح يده على ناصيتها ، ثم ليقل : اللهم بارك لي في أهلي و بارك لهم في ، وما جمعت بيننا فاجمع بيننا في خير ويمن وبركة ، وإذا جعلتها فرقة فاجعلها فرقة إلى خير ، فإذا جلس إلى جانبها فليمسح بناصيتها۔ مستدرك الوسائل – الميرزا النوري ج 41 ص 220۔


Translation: From ‘Ali (as): …So when his wife is wed to him and she entered on him, he should pray two Raka’at then wipe his hand on her forelock, then he should say: “O Allah bless my Ahel for me and bless me for them, if you have gathered us then gather us for goodness and if you wish to separate us then make our separation into goodness.” then if he sits by her side he would wipe her forelock.

Comment: Above we have highlighted the feminine words and the masculine ones , as you see ‘Ali (ra) is talking about the wife and he addresses her in feminine however when he reaches the part where he calls the wife “Ahel” he refers to her in masculine plural, this is because the word “Ahel” is a collective noun and ‘Ali (ra) could never use feminine. The same is in Ayatul-Tathir when Allah refers to the wives as Ahlul-Bayt he uses masculine plural, and then again after that he switches back to feminine. So from this example we came to know that, it depends on the Speaker to address wife in the way he wants, that is if he uses word wife he will use feminine pronoun, but if he uses Ahl for wife, then He will use Masculine plural  and there is NO rule that speaker cannot refer the addressed in the previous form(feminine singular) after using the other form(masculine plural), as we find through this Shia hadeeth.  (taken from: https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2010/10/07/ahlahlebayt-a-collective-noun-and-its-usage/)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/31/2016 at 5:19 AM, Al-Qibli said:

My issue is about your denial of a tradition which is supported by all sects that the People of the Cloak were meant with the verse. Even by your own.

This is what you claimed a while ago.

- The ahadith explains who else was added to the definition of "Ahlul Bayt". Posted Wednesday at 01:38 PM (edited)             
 

This issue is outdated and not relevant anymore. That 'Ahl' is plural and therefore masculin is something you was right about and I accepted that from the start.  But what you are doing is hammering on this

- You cannot find me one Sunni scholar worth the name who denies the People of the Cloak were included in that verse.  Rather than accusing me of denying the People of the Cloak of anything, you should – and you have failed thus far – account for denying the wives (ra) of the Prophet (saw) the privilege of being included in that verse when they are explicitly mentioned thrice.

- And that proves that I never alluded to any comparisons or contrasts between “yanisaa” and “ahla”.  I provided a grammatical answer which is yet to be countered.

- My happiness was very short-lived after reading that you accepted that I (more like my Arabic grammar lesson which I borrowed from knowledgeable sources) was right because you had to allude to your own two points that do nothing but give you an opportunity to drag this matter out (a little longer).  Hence, I will repeat: if an individual or group is referred to as Ahlul Bayt (irrespective of gender or number), the masculine plural pronoun follows suit.  I have shown this from other parts in the Qur’an and authentic narrations.

The rest of your post, with all due respect and in all humility, warrants no response.  I have learned the hard way that the best method is to abide by “less is more”.  The more we say, the more opportunities for you to introduce new discussions (as you have already tried).  The gender shift in Qur’an 33:33 has been explained and you have been offered a standing rebuttal.  Whether it makes you happy or upset, my job is done.

Share this post


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

- There is no indication of Hajra (asws) in the Qur'anic passage.  The angels were directly speaking with Sarah (asws).

That is already explained with example of verse 12:29 that  two addressee are mentioned in a single verse so is the case with the verse 11:73.At least you are agree for Ibrahim(as) to be "Ahl al Bayt"  by the word of Sarah(as) in the verse 11:72 that "This My Husband" while she was talking with angels.

22 hours ago, onereligion said:

- The Qur'an trumps Sahih Bukhari, however, I substantiated my Arabic grammar lesson by referring to Sahih Bukhari.

Narrated `Abdur-Rahman bin Abi Laila:

Ka`b bin Ujrah met me and said, "Shall I not give you a present I got from the Prophet?" `Abdur- Rahman said, "Yes, give it to me." I said, "We asked Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) saying, 'O Allah's Messenger (ﷺ)! How should one (ask Allah to) send blessings on you, the members of the family, for Allah has taught us how to salute you (in the prayer)?' He said, 'Say: O Allah! Send Your Mercy on Muhammad and on the family of Muhammad, as You sent Your Mercy on Abraham and on the family of Abraham, for You are the Most Praise-worthy, the Most Glorious. O Allah! Send Your Blessings on Muhammad and the family of Muhammad, as You sent your Blessings on Abraham and on the family of Abraham, for You are the Most Praise-worthy, the Most Glorious.' "

 

Questioner asked the prophet(saw) how to send blessing on you "Ahl al Bayt"  by these words  that it is understood that prophet(saw) was the one from among the Ahl al Bayt as was Ibrahim(as) in the verse 11:73

 

 

22 hours ago, onereligion said:

 

- As explained earlier, the masculine plural pronoun follows when the group is referred to as "Ahlul Bayt" to maintain consistency with Arabic grammar.  Thereafter, it switches back to feminine plural because the wives (who are all females) are being addressed. 

Here is an example from a Shia hadith:

In Mustadrak al-Wasael by al-Mirza al-Noori 41/220, we read the hadith of Imam Ali (ra) talking about marriage:

عن علي ( عليه السلام ) ، قال : ” من أراد منكم التزويج إلى أن قال فإذا زفت زوجته ودخلت عليه ، فليصل ركعتين ثم ليمسح يده على ناصيتها ، ثم ليقل : اللهم بارك لي في أهلي و بارك لهم في ، وما جمعت بيننا فاجمع بيننا في خير ويمن وبركة ، وإذا جعلتها فرقة فاجعلها فرقة إلى خير ، فإذا جلس إلى جانبها فليمسح بناصيتها۔ مستدرك الوسائل – الميرزا النوري ج 41 ص 220۔


Translation: From ‘Ali (as): …So when his wife is wed to him and she entered on him, he should pray two Raka’at then wipe his hand on her forelock, then he should say: “O Allah bless my Ahel for me and bless me for them, if you have gathered us then gather us for goodness and if you wish to separate us then make our separation into goodness.” then if he sits by her side he would wipe her forelock.

Comment: Above we have highlighted the feminine words and the masculine ones , as you see ‘Ali (ra) is talking about the wife and he addresses her in feminine however when he reaches the part where he calls the wife “Ahel” he refers to her in masculine plural, this is because the word “Ahel” is a collective noun and ‘Ali (ra) could never use feminine. The same is in Ayatul-Tathir when Allah refers to the wives as Ahlul-Bayt he uses masculine plural, and then again after that he switches back to feminine. So from this example we came to know that, it depends on the Speaker to address wife in the way he wants, that is if he uses word wife he will use feminine pronoun, but if he uses Ahl for wife, then He will use Masculine plural  and there is NO rule that speaker cannot refer the addressed in the previous form(feminine singular) after using the other form(masculine plural), as we find through this Shia hadeeth.  (taken from: https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2010/10/07/ahlahlebayt-a-collective-noun-and-its-usage/)

 

 your grammar lessons concludes with “ it depends on the Speaker to address wife in the way he wants,”

 So there is no rules.

Musa addressed his wife in the verse 20:10  by the verb “umkuthu (wait)” which is masculine plural.Angels addressed wife of Ibrahim in the verse 11:73 by the verb “”ata’jabaina” which is feminine singular.

There is a hadith from Imam Ali(as)  in Biharul anwar vol.100 pg 268  where reference to Ahl is in feminine singular.

اللهم بارك لي في أهلي وبارك لها في

we also find in Mizanul itidal of  Al dhahabi vol 4 pg 106  where reference to Ahl is in feminine singular..

اللهم بارك لي في أهلي، وبارك لأهلي في، وارزقني منها، وارزقها منى

Edited by elite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/4/2017 at 6:50 AM, elite said:

At least you are agree for Ibrahim(as) to be "Ahl al Bayt"  by the word of Sarah(as) in the verse 11:72 that "This My Husband" while she was talking with angels.

Narrated `Abdur-Rahman bin Abi Laila:

Questioner asked the prophet(saw) how to send blessing on you "Ahl al Bayt"  by these words  that it is understood that prophet(saw) was the one from among the Ahl al Bayt as was Ibrahim(as) in the verse 11:73

 

your grammar lessons concludes with “ it depends on the Speaker to address wife in the way he wants,” So there is no rules.

Angels addressed wife of Ibrahim in the verse 11:73 by the verb “”ata’jabaina” which is feminine singular.

- Didn't understand your first point at all but its alright.

- Here is another authentic report from Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim:

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."

Please try to understand our position, if not Islam, holistically.

- If anything, Qur'an 11:72 proves that Sarah (asws) is the member of the household of Ibrahim (asws).  That "proof", although you are subscribing to its grammar and wordage, reaffirms our belief more than it substantiates your claim.

- Perhaps, in an attempt to only quote the relevant portion, I left out the entire set of their counter-rebuttals - with multiple proofs - which make it clear that there are rules and what the Shias consider to be a shift in personalities (being spoken of) is nothing more than just grammar rules.  The reason why they said what they said, I think, is that they are clarifying that such things (switch in gender and number) are neither monumental nor haphazard.  It is Arabic grammar nearly identical examples of which can be found in the Qur'an and other Arabic texts, and that's all there is to it; it is not the announcement of a special group nor is it free-styling.

- In your previous post, you wanted us to believe that the angels spoke to Sarah (asws) in presence of Hajra (asws) and now you are back to saying that angels "addressed wife of Abraham" (asws).  Anyways!  What is to be noted, and is my main argument, is that when Sarah (asws) was referred to as "Ahlul Bayt", the masculine plural followed.  That, however, does not prove your point that Ayat Tatheer is an isolated verse or sub-verse.  It also does not prove that the shift in gender and number (when the term Ahlul Bayt is used) means that there has been a shift (or change) in target audience (or those who are being referred to).

Edited by onereligion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 22/11/2016 at 8:08 PM, skyweb1987 said:

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.

So those who were not inside the cloak were not purified ? That means other than the 3 Imams who were inside the cloak, they rest of them are out of the scope of verse of purification 33:33. 

Share this post


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

So those who were not inside the cloak were not purified ? That means other than the 3 Imams who were inside the cloak, they rest of them are out of the scope of verse of purification 33:33. 

'Ahl' is a masculine, plural term but it can contain females as well. The hadith however points towards the Ahl al-Kisa when it comes to this part of the verse.

Edited by Faruk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Faruk said:

'Ahl' is a masculine, plural term but it can contain females as well. The hadith however points towards the Ahl al-Kisa when it comes to this part of the verse.

So those who were not inside the cloak are out of the scope of this verse ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Student_of_Deen said:

So those who were not inside the cloak were not purified ? That means other than the 3 Imams who were inside the cloak, they rest of them are out of the scope of verse of purification 33:33. 

Brother, You are misquoting the facts. Umme Salam RA admitted that only 5 of Ahl albayat were covered in the cloak who were present in the life of the prophet saww and the others were not born. The wives (including umme Salama RA) were excluded and kept out of cloak.

As far as other 9 imams from Ahl labayat are concerned there are narrations of the prophet saww  mentioning the names of those 12 imams from Ahl albayat till Imam Mahdi. They are purified ones from Ahl albayat.

wasalam

 

 

Edited by skyweb1987

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Student_of_Deen said:

So those who were not inside the cloak are out of the scope of this verse ? 

Those who were inside the Cloak are in the scope.

Those who were outside the Cloak are out of the scope.

Are you happy now?

Edited by Faruk

Share this post


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

Those who were inside the Cloak are in the scope.

Those who were outside the Cloak are out of the scope.

Are you happy now?

Then how come the rest of the 12 Imams who were outside of the cloak still among the pure ones ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 08/05/2017 at 7:11 PM, skyweb1987 said:

Brother, You are misquoting the facts. Umme Salam RA admitted that only 5 of Ahl albayat were covered in the cloak who were present in the life of the prophet saww and the others were not born. The wives (including umme Salama RA) were excluded and kept out of cloak.

As far as other 9 imams from Ahl labayat are concerned there are narrations of the prophet saww  mentioning the names of those 12 imams from Ahl albayat till Imam Mahdi. They are purified ones from Ahl albayat.

wasalam

How are they purified if they were outside of the cloak ?

You yourself said those who were outside of it are out of the scope of this verse. 

Share this post


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

How are they purified if they were outside of the cloak ?

You yourself said those who were outside of it are out of the scope of this verse. 

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.

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.

The wives of the prophet saww were kept out of the cloak and not covered by this verse as there is no hadith of the prophet narrated by the wives of the prophet saww that they were brought under the cloak.

wasalam

 

 

Edited by skyweb1987

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, skyweb1987 said:

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

What does it has to do with what i`m saying ? 

You said those who were not inside the cloak are out of the scope of purification verse. So i`m simply asking how are the later 9 Imams are also tahireen if they were not present inside the cloak ?

11 hours ago, skyweb1987 said:

"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.

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.

Twelve CALIPHS

As far as I know, only 2 out of the 11 Imams (Not counting the Mahdi here) had the chance to become Caliphs. The rest of the 9 Imams never even became Caliphs even for a single day. So there narrations are not about them. 

 

11 hours ago, skyweb1987 said:

The wives of the prophet saww were kept out of the cloak and not covered by this verse as there is no hadith of the prophet narrated by the wives of the prophet saww that they were brought under the cloak.

wasalam

Was this verse only revealed for those who were inside the cloak or all the members of the Prophet`s family including his wives ?

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. (Al Qu`ran 33:33)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Student_of_Deen said:

You said those who were not inside the cloak are out of the scope of purification verse. So i`m simply asking how are the later 9 Imams are also tahireen if they were not present inside the cloak ?

The verse of purification (33:33) mentions that every kind of rijs / blemishes are kept away from ahl albayt thus they are purified. The hadiths of the prophet saww as mentioned in the last post and others in this thread  define the Ahl albayat  including (4 present in the life of the prophet saww (Ali, Fatima, Hassan, Hussain  AS) and other 9 out of 12 imams defined by the hadith of the prophet saww.

The result is very clear, do you deny the hadith of the Prophet saww ? 

 No wive ever claimed that they were covered under the cloak and  they are kept out of the scope of the verse.

Edited by skyweb1987

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Student_of_Deen said:

Twelve CALIPHS

As far as I know, only 2 out of the 11 Imams (Not counting the Mahdi here) had the chance to become Caliphs. The rest of the 9 Imams never even became Caliphs even for a single day. So there narrations are not about them. 

Brother you are going off topic. however if you insist to continue with this view i like to get the simple verse of quran that people can choose caliph/ successor of the prophet saww  instead of Allah swt  (in order to verify that the hadith of 12 caliphs means  people chosen caliphs).

Edited by skyweb1987

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Student_of_Deen said:

Was this verse only revealed for those who were inside the cloak or all the members of the Prophet`s family including his wives ?

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. (Al Qu`ran 33:33)

This has already been replied in the thread, i mention the links for your information instead of repeating the words:

wasalam

Edited by skyweb1987

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/10/2017 at 8:20 AM, skyweb1987 said:

It has been made clear already that no wife of the prophet is included in those ahl albayt..

Among the many forms of "Rijs", one is "saghat qulubukuma" (deviated hearts). Those who are purified as per verse 33:33 are pure of having any sort of deviation of hearts. There is a different story of the wives of Prophet (pbuh), we see in Quran:

إِن تَتُوبَا إِلَى اللَّهِ فَقَدْ صَغَتْ قُلُوبُكُمَا
If you both turn to Allah, then indeed your hearts are already inclined (66:4) (Shakir)

If you both (women) repent to Allah, (it is better for you), for your hearts have swerved from the right path (Moududi)

Following note is present in the commentary of above verse, by Molana Abul Aala Moududi:
"
The word saghat in the original is from Baghy which means to swerve and to become crooked. Shah Waliyullah and Shah Rafi'uddin have translated this sentence thus: "Crooked have become your hearts." Hadrat 'Abdullah bin Mas'ud, 'Abdullah bin 'Abbas, Sufyan Thauri and Dahhak have given this meaning of it: "Your hearts have swerved from the right path." Imam Razi explains it thus: "Your hearts have swerved from what is right, and the right implies the right of the Holy Prophet (upon whom be Allah's peace)." And 'Allama Alusi's commentary is Although it is incumbent on you that you should approve what the Holy Messenger (upon whom he peace) approves and disapprove what he disapproves, yet in this matter your hearts have swerved from conformity with him and turned in opposition to him."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, skyweb1987 said:

The verse of purification (33:33) mentions that every kind of rijs / blemishes are kept away from ahl albayt thus they are purified. The hadiths of the prophet saww as mentioned in the last post and others in this thread  define the Ahl albayat  including (4 present in the life of the prophet saww (Ali, Fatima, Hassan, Hussain  AS) and other 9 out of 12 imams defined by the hadith of the prophet saww.

The result is very clear, do you deny the hadith of the Prophet saww ? 

 No wive ever claimed that they were covered under the cloak and  they are kept out of the scope of the verse.

I agree they were not covered in the cloak but so weren`t the rest of Imams and their progeny. 

So how come they are not out of the scope of this verse ?

59 minutes ago, skyweb1987 said:

Brother you are going off topic. however if you insist to continue with this view i like to get the simple verse of quran that people can choose caliph/ successor of the prophet saww  instead of Allah swt  (in order to verify that the hadith of 12 caliphs means  people chosen caliphs).

I didn`t brought those narrations because I know they got nothing to do with the topic. And now you`re going even off topic by this question.

It is another debate whether people can choose or not. 

The main thing is that 9 out of the 12 Imams never became caliphs so those hadiths are not about them. 

57 minutes ago, skyweb1987 said:

This has already been replied in the thread, i mention the links for your information instead of repeating the words:

wasalam

I`m not asking for detailed explanation. I`m just asking whether the wives of the Prophet (Peace be upon him) has got anything to do with this Ayah or not ? 

 

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...