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  
Mo'min

The true teachings of Ahlul Bayt

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

(bismillah)

(salam)

After discussions with someone I though this would be a good point to look at. As Shia follow the teachings of Ahlul Bayt, it is a condition that a means of verifying this teaching is only with the shia?

Does what the Ahlul Bayt say according to shia sources the same as what Ahlul Bayt says according to Sunni sources?

Or is their conflict? Are there narrations for example from Imam Ali that The Prophet said or did such and such which is in direct contradiction to what he also allegedly said on the other side?

For example Shia says that nobody will ever see Allaah, while I recall a very early discussion here where salmany quoted Imam Ja'far Sadiq on the authority of Sunni sources supporting more the sunni view on this.

Another example would be in fiqh. According to a narration regarding Imam Ali in sources sources it is said that prostatic fluid emittted by males invalidates wudu. However this is not the view of shia fiqh, assumingly because Ahlul Bayt narrated otherwise. This too would be a "contradiction"

So my question, can what Ahlul Bayt teach be found in Sunni and Shia sources both in agreement? If not, then the crix of the shia/sunni debate wouldn't be on following the authority of Alul Bayt (beacuse really the sunnis wouldn't have a probelm with following them) but really its about following shia sources or sunni sources to reach the Ahlul Bayt?

Any comments? I hope TaHa Sayid might have something to say among others! ;)

Mo'min

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Walaykum sallam wr wb.

(bismillah)

Brother good question you raised here let me just inform you that get the knowledge from ahlulbayt doesn't mean that ever hadith having the lable that it is from ahlulbayt cannot be taken and first of all who the ahlulbayt are itself is a big question we shias only consider ahlulbayt as the holy prophet (s.a.w.s) imam ali(a.s) janabe fatema zehra (s.a) Imam hassan (a.s) imam hussain (a.s) and the imams after Imam hussain (a.s) (his a.s) Progeny. (pbuh)

We do not consider any one else except this. nor the wife of holy prophet. (pbuh)

brother tO UNDERSTAND MORE READ THIS

http://al-islam.org/nutshell/files/family.pdf

and the only difference is that we take only those hadith which go together with the word of Allah (S.w.t)( holy quran ) and hadith which goes against the quran we reject it and we don't beleive in such things that if u reject one hadith from sahi u are a kafir (after all sahi is not greater then quran ).

Anyways i Hope u understood me

Mauhtaj e dua ...............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

"Sunni teachings of Ahlul Bayt" ?

With all due respect to our Sunni bretheren here, I'm surprised you've even managed to find as many teachings as you have. Personally, most of the "teachings" that I have ever encountered in Sunni sources are curious statements allegedly made by Imams in favour of Sunniism.

Eg, the one where Imam Sajjad (as) tells people not to speak ill for the 1st two caliphs. Eg, Imam Ali's "khutba" praising Abu Bakr and Umar. Etc etc.

The long and short of it is that there are very few TEACHINGS of Ahlul Bayt in Sunni sources. What you WILL found however are lots of apologetic arguments.

Perhaps this thread will prove me wrong, but I really doubt it.

All Sunnis have ever done with the wisdom of ahlul bayt is to have discarded anything that they said against their viewpoint, and to have instead propagated those bits which they like. And when it comes to quoting bits that they like, they are quite happy even including Rafidhi narrators when trying to prove their points.

Like it or not, we Shias ARE the ones who have preserved the true teachings. OK, so perhaps you will find many of us who do not follow them. But their teachings are still with us nonetheless, and available to those Sunnis who want to learn from them.

Edited by majafri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

Thank you for your replies :)

teh4u - I appreciate that according to the Shia the Ahlul Bayt are those whom you have mentioned and the twelve Imams and nobody else. But even if we take this and have a look at Sunni narrations you will find ahadith at odds with Shia narrations, both claiming to be quoting the same person on a particular issue.

Regarding majafri's comments. I appreciate what you are saying. But if you put those "political" comments aside eg I'm not surprised that Shia would not consider Imam Zaynul Abideen's praise of Abu Bakr and Umar to be authentic or attributed to the Imam. But there are still other comments which would have no relevance to the stance on The Companions.

Let me give some examples:

Abu Dawud (one of the six collections of ahadith of the sunnis) relates that Imam Ali approved wiping over the sandals in wudu. Hence why many sunnis allow the wiping over socks and so on in wudu. This ofcourse is not permissable according to shia fiqh. Which I am lead to believe would also be based on the sayings of Ahlul Bayt eg Imam Ali mentioned here.

There is another narration attributed to Imam Ali regarding the wiping over th socks being on top of the feet only and not under it. (ie note mention of socks)

There is also a hadith on the authority of Imam Ali in the Sunni collections which states that The Messenger of Allaah made the practice of mut'ah haram (after a period of time that it was halal) - while ofcourse the Shia position by prrof of Ahlul Bayt is that muta'ah was not made haram.

My limited knowledge prevents me from immediately giving more examples. But this post and my first one mention some and atleast show contradiction between shia and sunni statements from the *same* people ie Ahlul Bayt.

I don't want this to be a debate on whose fiqh is right, so please dont comment on that angle with reagrds to the above. My question again is that how do you reconcile this? It clearly shows that the difference between shia and sunni is beyond taking the Ahlul Bayt as an authority. There are many sunnis who do take Ahlul Bayt as an authority, eg some sufis and some other groups i know of here and there. However their practice and beliefs do not match those of the shias. Now, if both are taking from Ahlul Bayt shouldn't they be identical?

What is the missing link?!

Mo'min

Edited by Mo'min

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

THIS IS A VERY GOOD TOPIC INDEED. When a shia talk to a sunni brother about Ahlul Bayt, the usual response is : bro we do follow Ahlul bayt, so no need to tel us.

Well if the sunnis follow Ahlul Bayt and the shia do, so why are we different?

there are two things to keep in mind tough:

1- the diffinition of ahlul bayt are varies between sunnis and shia

2- the principal where Ahlul Bayt opinion should supersede the others or not.

look forward to read the posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

Thanks for reply:)

I do think there is a distinct difference between how the Shia follow Ahlul Bayt and how the Sunnis do which explains many differences for example as you stated the different definition of Ahlul Bayt.

However if for arguments sake we wanted to compare the teachings of Ahlul Bayt (as defined by shia) found in sunni books to those found in shia books there seems to be a difference, as shown with some examples above. Why is that? it should be the same?

The principle of whether Ahlul Bayt's opinion should supercede or not is an obvious point of difference and is the major point that is forwarded to explain why sunni and shia rulings differ. But is that really the only reason? Thats basically the whole aim of this thread insha'Allaah. To find out why Ahlul Bayt's narrations in Sunni sources differ from those in Shia sources regarding the same topics as explained so far.

Mo'min

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's something else to keep in mind-

While the Sunnis do have respect for the Ahlul Bayt, the importance of loving the Ahlul Bayt is not of dire importance to their faith and is hardly emphasized. Though the more learned Sunnis will generally know a litte bit about the Ahlul Bayt and revere them as important figures, in the end following the Ahlul bayt is NOT AT ALL CENTRAL to their theology as it is in Shiism; so while the importance of the family of the prophet (saw) is mentioned in their hadiths, it's just another concept that's in the background treated on the same level as the thousands of other expressions of piety and practice. While on the other hand, our devotion to the Ahlul Bayt (because of our belief that this is what Allah swt had planned out for us) is what defines the Shia faith, and is embedded in our consciousness because we see them a MAJOR source of guidance and religious importance.

The dominant view or claim I hear from Sunni polemicists is "we love the Ahlul bayt, but the Shia love for Ahlul Bayt is exaggerated and extreme." And as others have pointed out, just take a look at Sahih Bukhari and see how many hadiths you see attribute to Imam Ali (VERY few compared to other narrators and quite a few of those that do appear, clearly seem to be there to discredit or contradtict Shia beliefs).

And if Sunnis love Ahl ul Bayt, why do so many REFUSE to commemorate Ashura and show very little care about Karbala or Imam Hussain (there are exceptions to this, but I'm talking about the majority)???

Not as concise or organized as I intended (my apologies for straying off topic), but do ya'll get what I'm saying here?

Edited by Diesel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A very very excellent topic indeed.

1) Sunnis don't believe that the conveyance of the sunnah was the EXCLUSIVE right of the ahlul-bayt. They believe it was also the right of the sahaba, but that the ahlul-bayt had a special status for doing so.

2) Sunnis don't beleive that ahlul-bayt = the 12 imams. Neither do the ismailis or zaydis.

3) You are right; the teachings of the ahlul-bayt in sunni sources are VERY VERY different from those in shia sources. In fact, they are quite the opposite (as majafri pointed out: we love Abu Bakr Umar and Uthman, we don't believe in raj'a, we don't believe in badaa', etc...).

4) For the sunnis. the teachings of the ahlul-bayt are no different from their own beliefs. It was the shia of the time who attributed too many lies to the imams, while they were innocent of those 'blasphemies'.

And if Sunnis love Ahl ul Bayt, why do so many REFUSE to commemorate Ashura and show very little care about Karbala or Imam Hussain (there are exceptions to this, but I'm talking about the majority)???

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'd like to answer this one. Even I don't do matam/chains/swords, because I REALLY don't believe beating myself up gets me closer to Allah. So I can understand if sunnis don't either. Also, I have seen SAHIH shia ahadith in which the imams forbid wailing/scratching. Surely some of the practices people do in muharram are even more extreme than that?

On the other hand, I HAVE seen riwayaat that encourage mourning/beating yourself. However, I have NOT seen a single AUTHENTIC riwayah that encourages it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For example Shia says that nobody will ever see Allaah, while I recall a very early discussion here where salmany quoted Imam Ja'far Sadiq on the authority of Sunni sources supporting more the sunni view on this.

Another example would be in fiqh. According to a narration regarding Imam Ali in sources sources it is said that prostatic fluid emittted by males invalidates wudu. However this is not the view of shia fiqh, assumingly because Ahlul Bayt narrated otherwise. This too would be a "contradiction". ...

Any comments? I hope TaHa Sayid might have something to say among others!

But there are magic rules in Shia Hadithology and Jurisprudance to get rid of such contradictions.

al-Kafi fil-Usool, vol. 1, Kitaab Virtues of Knowledge, Ch. Differences of Hadith, Narration 10:

Muhammad ibn Yahya has narrated from Muhammad ibn al-Husayn from Muhammad ibn ‘Isa from Safwan ibn Yahya from Dawud ibn al-Husayn from ‘Umar ibn Hanzala who has said the following.

"I asked Imam abu ‘Abdallah (a.s.) about the two people with a dispute between them on the issue of debts or inheritance and they go to the king or the judges for a decision is it permissible to seek such decisions?" The Imam replied, "Whoever would go to them for a judgement in a right or wrongful matter it is like seeking the judgment of the devil. Anything received through such judgment would like consuming filth even if it would one’s established right. It is because of receiving through the judgment of the devil and Allah has commanded to reject the devil, "yet choose to take their affairs to Satan for judgment even though they are commanded to deny him. Satan wants to lead them far away from the right path. (4:60)"

I said, "What should then they do?" The Imam replied, "They must look for one among you who have narrated our Hadith and have studied what is lawful and unlawful in our teachings and have learned our laws they must agree to settle their dispute according to his judgment because I have made him over you a ruler. When he may judge according to our commands and then it is not accepted from him the dissenting this judgment has ignored the commands of Allah and it is rejection of us. Rejecting us is rejecting Allah and that is up to the level of paganism and considering things equal to Allah."

I said, "What if each one of such disputing parties would chose a man from among our people and agree to accept their judgment but these two man would come up with different judgments and they would have differences in your Hadith?"

The Imam replied, "The judgment will be the judgment of the one who has a more just, having more better understanding of the law, Fiqh, the more truthful in Hadith and the more pious of the two. The judgment of the other one will be disregarded."

I said, "What if both (of such judges) would be just and accepted among our people and none of them would have been any preference over the other?"

The Imam replied, "One must consider and study the hadith that each one of them would narrate from us as to which has received the acceptance of all of your *people*. Such Hadith must be followed and the one, which rarely accepted and is not popular in your *people*, must be disregarded because the one popularly accepted is free of doubts. The nature of cases are of three kinds: A] A case that is a well-known and true to follow. B] A case that is well known to be false to stay away from. C] And a confusing case the knowledge of which must be left to Allah and His Prophet for an answer. The holy Prophet has said, ‘There is the clearly lawful and the clearly unlawful and the confusing cases. One who stays away from the confusing ones he has protected himself against the unlawful ones. Those who follow the confusing matters they indulge in unlawful matters and will be destroyed unexpectedly."

I said, "What if both Hadith from you would be popular and narrated by the trustworthy people from you?"

The Imam replied, "One must study to find out which one agrees with the laws of the Quran and the Sunnah and it does not agree with the laws of those who oppose us. Such Hadith must be accepted and the one that disagree with the laws of the Quran and the Sunnah and coincides the masses must be disregarded."

I said, "May Allah take my soul in the service of your cause, What if both Faqih, scholars of the law would have deduced and learned their judgment from the book and the Sunnah and found that one of the Hadith agrees with the masses and the other disagrees with the masses which one must be followed?"

The Imam replied, "The one which disagrees with the masses must be followed because in it there is guidance."

I said, "May Allah take my soul in the service of your cause, what if both Hadith would agree with the masses?"

The Imam replied, "One must study to find out of the two the one that is more agreeable to their rulers and judges must be disregarded and the other must be followed."

I said, "What if both Hadith would agree with their rulers?"

The Imam replied, "If such would be the case it must be suspended until you meet your Imam. Restraint in confusing cases is better than indulging in destruction."

Edited by abeer_xyz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

We're getting somewhere! thanks fir your replies, learnt something here.

Bro, TahaSyed, you mentioned

the teachings of the ahlul-bayt in sunni sources are VERY VERY different from those in shia sources. In fact, they are quite the opposite

Are there many teachings from the Ahlul Bayt in the sunni sources? I am not clear as to what your own position is, but I am under the impression that you favour the shia side of what Ahlul Bayt teaches and not the sunni side. Is there a reason for this? (and if the converse is actually true, what are your reasons?) I hope you can educate an ignorant one like me :(

abeer_xyz that was a fascinating hadith. Is it unanimousy accepted amongs the Shias?

Mo'min

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Even I don't do matam/chains/swords, because I REALLY don't believe beating myself up gets me closer to Allah. So I can understand if sunnis don't either. Also, I have seen SAHIH shia ahadith in which the imams forbid wailing/scratching. Surely some of the practices people do in muharram are even more extreme than that?

On the other hand, I HAVE seen riwayaat that encourage mourning/beating yourself. However, I have NOT seen a single AUTHENTIC riwayah that encourages it.

Bro, I wasn't talking about matam (even I've never done it). I was talking about the fact that Sunnis don't place importance on Ashura as being the day of Imam Hussain's martyrdom at all; in fact, the majority celebrate and fast on Ashura for other reasons which have nothing to do with Karbala (if you go to a Sunni masjid on Ashura, I doubt you'll hear ANY mention of Karbala). You can commemorate Muharram/Ashura by simply attending a majalis to mourn for the Imam Hussain to learn about and remember what happened at Karbala. No matam necessary. Just wanted to clarify. :)

Edited by Diesel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brother momin,this is only true of athnashri akhbari,usooli(irani shias)have wisely adopted most of the sunni teaching in their sect.Usooli think that quran and hadeeth are not enough we need intellect and consensus to pass a law.Only following of mujhtid is allowed not of 14infallibles.Imam can be other than the 12.Mujhtid can give new relegious laws,you donnt have to follow the laws of the 14 masoomeen.Alian waliulah is not apart of kalima.Blood letting is haram.Salvation is through practice of islam not love of ahlulbayet.Hadeeth are sahih,zayeef mohsin etc not wrong or right.

So you see Irani brothers have left the fundemantalism behind.And have no fight with sunnis.So will akhbari

UN GINAT SADIYON SAY TAREEK BAHIMANA TILSM

ATLAS O RESHAM O KAMKHWAB MEIN BUNWAYIA HUAY

faiz ahmed faiz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brother momin,this is only true of athnashri akhbari,usooli(irani shias)have wisely adopted most of the sunni teaching in their sect.Usooli think that quran and hadeeth are not enough we need intellect and consensus to pass a law.Only following of mujhtid is allowed not of 14infallibles.Imam can be other than the 12.Mujhtid can give new relegious laws,you donnt have to follow the laws of the 14 masoomeen.Alian waliulah is not apart of kalima.Blood letting is haram.Salvation is through practice of islam not love of ahlulbayet.Hadeeth are sahih,zayeef mohsin etc not wrong or right.

So you see Irani brothers have left the fundemantalism behind.And have no fight with sunnis.So will akhbari

UN GINAT SADIYON SAY TAREEK BAHIMANA TILSM

ATLAS O RESHAM O KAMKHWAB MEIN BUNWAYIA HUAY

faiz ahmed faiz

usoolis are not just irani shias, how ignorant you are!

and the usoolis did not adopt sunni teachings, they adopted the usool that the imams taught us.

and mujtahids are not our Imams, and they do not attempt to give new laws, they try to deduce the laws taught by imams, like the sahabah did when the imam wasnt around.

if you dont know about tashayyo matters, please keep quiet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bro, I wasn't talking about matam (even I've never done it). I was talking about the fact that Sunnis don't place importance on Ashura as being the day of Imam Hussain's martyrdom at all; in fact, the majority celebrate and fast on Ashura for other reasons which have nothing to do with Karbala (if you go to a Sunni masjid on Ashura, I doubt you'll hear ANY mention of Karbala). You can commemorate Muharram/Ashura by simply attending a majalis to mourn for the Imam Hussain to learn about and remember what happened at Karbala. No matam necessary.  Just wanted to clarify. :)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Exactly!, How can the sunni muslims say that they show love and respect for the family of the Pophet (pbuh) when they do not even be bothered to attend the majalis to commerate their suffering!

They seem to show absolutely NO importance to the Ahlulbayt (as) and go about their daily business as if it is a normal day!

They seem to prefer to ignore the Ahulbayt (as). :cry:

I cannot see how the sunni's even follow the example of the Ahlulbayt (as) if they show no feelings for them.

Edited by SHIA-OF-ALI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not a shia ,I know what I read.Instead of being angry if you could have given us some information.I called usooli irani for the benefit of my sunni brothers.We dont know that much about shias a you do about sunnis.Anyway this is from akhbari org.

Important Note: The basic difference between Shia Imamia Ithna Ashari Akhbari sect and Usooli sect is issuance of fatwe by Usoolis using own intellect, based on ones own opinion, which is bidath (deviation from the true faith). Such that, all Mujtahadeen of Usooli sect has taken a unanimous decision that the third Shahdath of Kalema is not an integral part of Azaan and Aqama. Refer Tauzihul Masael, Ayatullah al khoi, page 167, Ayatullah imam khomeini, page 146, Ayatullah syed mohammed raza al gul payegani, page 158, Ayatullah mohammed ali araki, page 176, Ayatullah syed ali hussaini seestani, page 148, and ambassador of Iran for India Dr.Behnaam ‘Isme kithab Mecca ke qatl-e-aam ki chashm deedh gawahi’ page 10. The above mujtahadeens have published the matter which has ruined Shiism to a great extent

flowchart.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The above mujtahadeens have published the matter which has ruined Shiism to a great extent

flowchart.gif

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In what way has Shia Islam been ruined?

The fact of the matter is that the sunni's show NO importance to the Ahlulbayt (as), and therefore do not follow their teachings as they should be followed.

As for the sunni's claim that the shia are deviating from the true faith by adding a third testament in the azaan, show me where it is forbiden?

Since the sunni's have left the Ahlulbayt (as) they are bewildered by our actions which are in line with the true Islam.

On the other hand, the sunni's show great importance to the teachings of those who openly said "If not for Ali, I would have been destroyed"

Instead they follow and respect the one who opposed the person of whom Rasool (pbuh) said "The truth is with him, and he is with the truth"

Edited by SHIA-OF-ALI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

THEY (SUNNI'S) HAVE NOTHING TO FOLLOW IN REGARDS TO THE AHLULBAYT (as) EVEN THOUGH THEIR OWN BOOKS CONTAIN FRAGMENTS OF THEIR TEACHINGS.

INSTEAD THEY FOLLOW THOSE WHO WERE HOSTILE TOWARDS THEM, AND HONOUR AND RESPECT THEM INSTEAD.

Edited by SHIA-OF-ALI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For example Shia says that nobody will ever see Allaah, while I recall a very early discussion here where salmany quoted Imam Ja'far Sadiq on the authority of Sunni sources supporting more the sunni view on this.

THIS IS THE THING WHICH ANGERS ME, SO CALLED "SHIA" WHO FAIL TO UNDERSTAND THE TRUE MEANING OF THE TEACHINGS OF THE 12 IMAMS (as) AND HAVE DOUBTS IN THEIR MINDS.

THERE ARE MANY INCIDENTS OF IMAM JAFAR SADIQ (as) EXPLAINING THIS MATTER TO PEOPLE, AND IN EACH OCCASION THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO MENTION OF SEEING WITH THE PHYSICAL EYES!

THE TRUE TEACHINGS ARE IN THE BOOKS OF THE SHIA MUSLIMS, AND I HAVE BEEN AMAZED AND AWED BY THE ABSOLUTE BRILLIANCE OF THE IMAMS (as) TEACHINGS TIME AND TIME AGAIN!

Edited by SHIA-OF-ALI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ON THE OTHER HAND I HAVE NOT SEEN EVEN ONE AUTHENTIC TEACHING BY ABU BAKR, UMAR OR USMAN WHICH CAN EVEN COMPARE WITH THE TEACHINGS OF THE AHLULBAYT (as)

Edited by SHIA-OF-ALI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

no i am not angry

if you want to know about "usoolis" then look at "usooli" websites

modern akhbaris are mainly a bunch of jahil people saying a lot of lies, causing fitnah, they have little following.

anyway this isnt the topic here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we donnt beat ourselves like pagan arabs,it does not mean we dont respect the family of prophet.It is shias who have stricken out wives of the prophet from his family.Ever heard of a family without wives,where after husband come children without the mention of wife?And thoose who trace a family through a daughter(hazrat fatima)degrade women by not including them in family and cursing them.

And who can know about the secret socisty of shias.The only books available are some sermons and restatement of history,which the name suggest is an attempt to rewrite the history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Word House (Ahlul-Bayt) in Quran

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

House of Abraham (a)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quran testifies that Sarah, the wife of Prophet Abraham (a), was blessed by angels and was given the glad tiding that she will give birth to two prophets of God:

[Quran 11:71]: And his wife, standing by, laughed when We gave her good tidings (of the birth) of Isaac, and, after Isaac, of Jacob.

[quran 11:72]: She said: "Alas for me! Shall I bear a child when I am an old woman and my husband now is an old man? That would indeed be a strange thing!"

[Quran 11:73]: The (angles) said: Do You wonder at Allah's decree? The grace of Allah and His blessings be upon you, O People of the House! He is indeed worthy of all praise full of all glory!"

Since in the mercy and the bounty of God offered in the above verse to the People of the House of Abraham, it has been a tendency of some Sunni commentators and their anxiety to find some argument for their counting the wives of the Holy Prophet (s) in the terms Ahlul-Bayt. They argue that since Sarah the wife of Abraham is included in the term Ahlul-Bayt mentioned in the above verse, then all the wives of the Prophet (s) are included in the verse 33:33 relating to the purity and the excellence of the Ahlul-Bayt of Prophet Muhammad.

However, these commentators intentionally or otherwise ignore the significance of the address by the Angels. If Sarah, the wife of Abraham, is included in the term Ahlul-Bayt used in the above verse, it is not because she was the wife of Abraham, but because she was going to be the MOTHER of two prophets (Isaac and Jacob). She was mentioned by angles in the above verse as a member of Ahlul-Bayt, AFTER she RECEIVED the glad tiding that she is pregnant of Prophet Isaac (a).

The matrimonial relation between and a man and a woman is only circumstantial and can be given up at any moment. She could never be a permanent partner to any husband to be included in the heavenly address who are endowed with the unique and heavenly excellence UNLESS she brings a son who becomes a Prophet or an Imam. Thus if we consider Sarah as a member of the House, it would be only because she would be the mother of Isaac, and not being the wife of Abraham. The verses 11:71-73 quoted above show that Sarah was called among Ahlul-Bayt after she got to know that she is having Isaac (a).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

House of Imran (a)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Likewise, Quran mentions the mother of Moses among the Ahlul-Bayt of Imran. Again, as we can see in the following verses, the emphasis here is the MOTHER of Moses and not the wife of Imran:

[Quran 28:12]: And We ordained that he refuse to seek any foster mother before so she said: Shall I point out to you a household who will take care of him for you, and will be kind to him?

[Quran 28:13]: So We restored him to his mother that she might be comforted and not grieve, and that she might know that the promise of Allah is true. But most of them know not.

The mother of Moses is termed as Ahlul-Bayt, not for being the wife of Imran, but for being the mother of Moses, otherwise the wives who are subject to divorce and being substituted with women better than them (Quran 66:5) can't be considered as Ahlul-Bayt as pointed out by Zaid Ibn Arqam as well. This is illustrated with the wife of Noah and Lot, though they were the wives of such great servants of God, they were not considered Ahlul- Bayt. They perished along with the rest of community.

Let's remember what Zaid Ibn Arqam said: "Ahlul-Bayt (household) of the Prophet are his lineage and his descendants (those who come from his blood) for whom the acceptance of charity (Zakat) is prohibited."

The wife of Imran was in the lineage of the Moses, so was the wife of Abraham who was in the lineage of Isaac and Jacob. Similarly, if Fatimah is among the Ahlul-Bayt Prophet of Islam, it is because not only she was the daughter of the Prophet (s), but also she was the mother of two Imams.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

House of Noah (a)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And Noah Cried unto his Lord and said: "My Lord! Verily my son is of my family; and verily Your promise is true, and You are the most just of the judges."

He (Allah) said: "O Noah! Verily he is not of your family; Verily he is (of) conduct other than the righteous; Therefore do not ask what you have no knowledge about; Verily I advice you not to be of the ignorant ones." (Quran 11:45-46)

Abul Ala Maududi wrote in his commentary of the above verse that: "If a part of the body of a person becomes rotten and the surgeon decides to cut it off, he will not comply with the request of the patient, who says 'Do not cut because it is a part of my body'. The surgeon will reply, 'It is no longer a part of your body because it is rotten.' Likewise when a righteous father is told that his son is a worthless act, it means to imply that the efforts that you made to bring him up as a good son have gone waste for the work is spoilt and ended in utter failure."

Reference: Commentary of Quran by Abul Ala Maududi (published by the Islamic Publications (Pvt) Limited), p367, under verse 11:45-46

Prophet Noah (a) was pleading for his own son and the reply was that the lad was not worthy of being his son. It is made crystal clear by this verse that though one might be of the same blood and flesh, born through the same parents, but if the issue doesn't possess the good qualities of the parents then he or she is not of his parents' stock (as said in the second verse). Noah had three other sons, Aam, Sam and Yafas who were believers and who with their wives entered the Ark and were saved and Kanan was Noah's son by his OTHER wife who was a disbeliever and perished along with her son.

It can be concluded that if any one does not hold the goodness of the correct faith in Allah, be he the son of the Apostle, he is not to be of the stock of his parentage; His very birth through his own parents is denied to him, even the right to be on God's earth is withdrawn from him, and he is to be destroyed.

Thus, even one is to be the son of a prophet of Allah, the lack of righteousness gets him disowned from the progeny (Itrat) of the apostolic family. It is for this reason that the term Ahlul-Bayt is restricted to the deserving members of the House of the Prophet and doesn't cover all of those who are born from his blood. Ahlul-Bayt are only the individuals among Prophet's descendants who also had close affinity in character and utmost spiritual attainment with Prophet (s).

http://www.geocities.com/ahlulbayt14/ab-q.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So it's important to note that DAUGHTERS are not omitted from the ahlul bayt of their fathers, but from the ahlul bayt of their husbands UNLESS they are bound to the ahlul bayt through CHILDREN. So no one is denying kinship of any permanent kind. Mothers and daughters are included. there is NO woman who is not a daughter of SOMEONE, thus no matter what she is part of her father's ahlul bayt, but there is the condition of motherhood that would make her included in the ahlul bayt of her husband.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Al-Ahzaab 33: 28 – 34 reads as follows:

si-007-1.gif

si-007-2.gif

si-007-3.gif

(NOTICE AHLUL BAYET IN THIRD LAST LINE)

O Prophet, say to your wives: If you seek the life of this world and its pleasures, come I shall make provision for you and release you in the best of manners. But if you seek [the pleasures of] God and His apostle and the [blessings of the] life hereafter, know that God has prepared a great reward for those among you who act in the best of manners. O wives of the Prophet, those who are guilty of clear lewdness, from among you, shall be doubly punished. That is extremely easy for God. But those who are obedient to God and His messenger, from among you, and do good deeds, We shall doubly reward her and for her We have made a rich provision. O wives of the Prophet, you are not like other women. If you fear God, then do not be overly complacent in your speech [with others], lest a flame of desire may light in the heart of the lecherous. And speak [to them] discreetly. And stay in your houses and do not display your adornments as was done in the days of ignorance, of old. And establish regular prayer and pay Zaka’h and obey Allah and His messenger. O household [of the Prophet], God only desires to remove all uncleanness from you and to completely purify you. And, [O wives of the Prophet,] adhere to the remembrance of what is being recited in your dwellings from the signs [or verses] of God and His wisdom. Indeed, God is fully aware of even the minutest.

Any one can see that the implication of the underlined phrase ‘household’ (“Ahl al-Bayet” in Arabic) in the above context can only be the ‘wives of the Prophet’. When all the directives surrounding the phrase are meant only for the wives of the Prophet, how could the phrase ‘household of the Prophet’, which is actually a part of a verse, which describes the reason and the wisdom of the directives that precede and succeed it, be taken to imply anyone besides the wives.

Thus, it is quite obvious that the phrase ‘Ahl al-Bayet’ in the cited verses is meant only for the wives of the Prophet

Now the third infallible would be amused to see her mother missing from her family(Although it is proven by your quote that mothers are not excluded even if wives are)Now the first infallible will be amused to see that the woman on whoose death he declared a year of grief is not even his family!!!!The truth is that in the enimity of one you discarded all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok, let's get this straight. since you seem not to be grasping it. Wives, who are NOT mothers, are not included. Wives (such as Bibi Khadija (as) WOULD be included as the MOTHER of Fatima (as)), but she (as) was deceased at the time of the revelation of this ayat (not sure whether Ibrahim (as) was alive or not when this ayat was revealed, but regardless there is NO evidence that ANY of the wives were included in the purification of this ayat).

Second, why would Allah (SWT) need to tell those purified (since you're ignoring the grammar (which switches from feminine to masculine for the latter part of 33:33) and hadith surrounding this ayat) that they face double punishment for clear lewdness (like going to war against the imam of her time, perhaps? and disobeying the admonition to stay in her home :angel:)? If they are purified with a THOROUGH purification, wouldn't that make them clean of character and above such transgressions?

Edited by Aliya

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

delight seems happy to include the wives as being part of the Ahlulbayt (as).

If that's the case, can he show us what he has learned from the teachings of his version of the Ahlulbayt (as)?

I would like examples from the wives.

Edited by SHIA-OF-ALI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

delight, the quran is not a big story book, each verse and each sentence with a verse needs to be seen as an individual.

there is undeniable proof in mutawatir saheeh hadeeths that the relevant part of verse 33:33 was revealed in a very distinct and special situation from the rest of the sentences around this verse.

refer to these hadeeths to understand the quran

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before beginning our usual toss a hadeeth contest some answers.

The unnamed one is confused whether you include mothers or not.Are infallible alive for ever or death is for everyone?Then what is the death arguement.The word 'Ahl' in the Arabic language is a masculine word. It is because of this reason that the pronouns used for the phrase "Ahl al-Bayet" are masculine. Such gender is not real but is actually a linguistic gender in its nature. Thus, the masculine gender of the pronouns used for the phrase 'Ahl al-Bayet' do not, in any way, hinder interpreting the phrase for 'the wives of the Prophet (pbuh) - the revered mothers of the believers.

Atleast a logical one.What do we learn from hazrat fatima?The sayings of prophet.I cannt forget that the present quran was prasented by a wife to hazrat usman and the first muslim beside the messenger was a wife.

Ghulamhussein doesnt like repetition.Brother,in 1400 years we have done nothing else.So now there is a pause in quran,whereas shia only defense of ayah on mutah is,that they are a continous surah.Wah shia logic.

In the story of Zaleekha, the wife of Al-Azeez, when she wanted to temp Yousif, Allah says: "She said: "What is the (fitting) punishment for one who formed an evil design against thy family, but prison or agrievous chastisement?"

Also, Allah says: "Now when Moses had fulfilled the term, and was travelling with his family." Al-Qumi says in his Tafseer: "When the time had come, Mousa took his wife, Shu'ayb provided Mousa, and Mousa lead his goats. When Mousa wanted to leave, Shu'ayb told him: "Go, Allah made it privately for you." Therefore, Mousa lead his goats aiming Egypt. Mousa and his wife were in a place when a cold breeze, wind and darkness stroked Mousa and his family. Then, Mousa saw a fire, where Allah said the verse: "Now when Moses had fulfilled the term, and was travelling with his family

Now, let us see what language has to say about this issue. Arabic Language scholars are very clear in identifying the wives of a man as his household. Ibn Manthoor says in the Tongue of the Arabs (Lisan Al-Arab): "Ahl Al-Bayt: its dwellers, Ahl Al-Rajul (family of a man) is the closest people to him, and the household of Prophet Muhammad may Allah have peace on him is his wives, his daughters, and his son-in-law who is Ali bin Abi Talib"

The companion of the prophet Zayd who narrated Hadeeth Al-Thiqalyn says: "his wives are among his household, but his household are those who charity is forbidden upon them." One asked: "and who are they?" Zayd answered that they were the household of Ali, household of Aqeel, household of Jaffar, and household of Abbas. The first person asked again: "Upon all of them charity is forbidden?" and Zayd answered by a yes

In the enimity of one,you have discarded even the mother of them all

Edited by delight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

delight, what have you learned from the teachings of your version of the Ahlulbayt which includes the wives?

I don't want to read your flimsy excuses, just tell me a teaching from your version of the Ahlulbayt which includes the wives.

Edited by SHIA-OF-ALI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

actually we've posted many times the hadith you quoted that says the wives are not included because they are only with their husbands conditionally and they go bakc to their people, so your clear LIE is outed:

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

Sahih Al Muslim, Book Number 31, Hadith Number 5923.

Second, didn't the wives of the prophets (as) that you mentioned ALL have children with their husbands :!!!: once again reinforcing the shia view! Thank you :D

Edited by Aliya

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SHIA OF ALI

Atleast a logical one.What do we learn from hazrat fatima?The sayings of prophet.I cannt forget that the present quran was prasented by a wife to hazrat usman and the first muslim beside the messenger was a wife

Second, didn't the wives of the prophets that you mentioned ALL have children with their husbands once again reinforcing the shia view! Thank you

Never mind.But that is what I am saying.Hazrat fatima would be very happy that the woman she called mother,was not even the family of his father

In the enimity of one,you have discarded even the mother of them all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Qur'an makes if obvious, even adoptive parents are not the same as biological ones in the way they are treated. Quit making this stuff up because you don't like it and stick with ISLAM, which states as the shias believe and have shown from non-shia sources as well

And is there any reference of her (as) calling ANY of them mother? especially the one you guys maintain was younger than her (as)???

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...