REFUTATION: Qur'an 33:33 excluding the Prophet's Wives?
Shibli Zaman
as-salaamu `alaykum, yaa ayyuha-l Muslimoon,
The following verse clearly includes the Wives of the Prophet (peace
be upon him and them) within the "Ahl al-Bayt" or members of his
family:
"wa qarna fee buyootikunna wa laa tabarrajna tabarruja-l
jaahiliyyati-l oola wa aqimna-S-Salaata wa aateenaz-zakaata wa
aTi`na-llaaha wa rasoolahu innamaa yureedu-llaahu li-yuth-hiba
`ankumu-r-rijsa ahla-l bayti wa yuTahhirakum taT-heeran."
"And stay quiet in your homes and make not a dazzling display like
that of the former times of ignorance; And establish regular prayer,
and give the obligatory charity tax, and obey Allah and His Messenger;
Verily, Allah desires to cleanse you of iniquity, People of the House,
and purify you with an immaculate purity."
[al-Qur'aan, Surat al-AHzaab, 33:33]
However, the Shi`ites have a different twist on this verse. It is a
twist evading both common sense as well as the rules of Qur'anic
Arabic grammar (as usual).
A. The Shi'ite argument is as follows:
1. The verse initially speaks of the wives of the Prophet (peace be
upon him) maintaining the feminine articles of language. However, at
the end of the verse, when speaking about the House of the Prophet
(peace be upon him and them), there is a switch from feminine plural
to masculine plural. This is following a lexical rule in which even if
there is one single male present in a group of females the masculine
articles are automatically applied to that group.
Based on this verse's grammatical switch from masculine to feminine
articles, the Shi`ites deduce:
a. They claim that this verse ceases to refer to the wives of the
Prophet (peace be upon him and them) and ceases to have anything to do
with them, since it uses the masculine articles. They attempt to say
that there must be at least one man amongst that group, thus, it is
Ali, Faatimah, Hassan, and Hussayn (whom are all male and one female).
b. They also claim that this verse is only referring to Ali, Faatimah,
Hassan and Hussayn and they are the only members of the Ahl al-Bayt.
The wives of the Prophet (peace be upon him) are supposedly not
members of his family and Allah does not wish to purfy them as is said
"innamaa yureedu-llaahu li-yuth-hiba `ankumur-rijsa ahla-l bayti wa
yuTahhirakum taT-heeran" ["Verily, Allah desires to cleanse you of
iniquity, People of the House, and purify you with an immaculate
purity."] at the end of this verse.
REFUTATION:
I. QU'RAN: Regarding the allegation that Surat al-AHzaab 33:33
excludes the wives of the Prophet (peace be upon him) due to the
switch in masculine article:
A. Surat al-AHzaab
1. Verse 28,
"yaa ayyuhannabiyyu qul-li azwaajika inn kuntunna.."
"Oh Prophet say to your wives: if you (feminine) be..."
MAINTAINS FEMININITY
2. Verse 29,
"wa inn kuntunna.."
"If you be (feminine)..."
MAINTAINS FEMININITY
3. Verse 30,
"yaa nisaa'an-nabiyyi..."
"Oh wives of the Prophet.."
MAINTAINS FEMININITY
4. Verse 31,
"wa may-yaqnut minkunna.."
"and whoever is devout from you (feminine)..."
MAINTAINS FEMININITY
5. Verse 32,
"yaa nisaa`an-nabiyyi lastunna ka'aHadim-min an-nisaa'i..."
"Oh wives of the Prophet, you are not like other women.."
MAINTAINS FEMININITY
6. Verse 33,
"wa qarnaa fee buyootikunna.."
"and stay quietly in your houses (feminine)..."
However, later at the very end of the verse it states,
"innamaa yureedu-llaahu li-yuth-hiba `ankumur-rijsa ahla-l bayti wa
yuTahhirakum taT-heeran."
"Verily Allah desires to cleanse you (masculine) of iniquity, People
of the House, and purify you (masculine) with an immaculate purity."
MAINTAINS FEMININITY YET UTILIZES 2 MASCULINE WORDS IN THE END OF THE
SENTENCE: "`ankum" and "yuTahhirakum".
7. Verse 34,
"wathkurna ma yutlaa fee buyootikunna.."
"recite (feminine) what is rehearsed in your houses (feminine)..."
MAINTAINS FEMININITY
This subject is addressed in Surat al-AHzaab in a total of seven
verses. All seven use the feminine forms, yet two words in the end of
verse 33 use masculine forms. They are "`ankum" (about you) and
"yuTahhirakum" (he cleanses you). Not only do the Shi'ites allege that
for just this one small fragment of this one verse, out of SEVEN other
verses, the wives of the Prophet (peace be upon him and them) are no
longer referred to, but that they are completely EXCLUDED from any
possible reference. To anyone familiar with Arabic grammar this is
utterly ridiculous.
In Arabic grammar there is a rule that if a group of females contains
even one single male then that group is referred to in the masculine
form. This is obvious in any Qur'anic verse that addresses mankind.
For example:
"innallatheena aamanu wa `amiluS-SaaliHaati kaanat LA-HUM jannaatu-l
firdawsi nuzulaa"
"And those who believe and engage is righteous deeds, they have for
their revelry
the Gardens of Paradise." [al-Qur'aan, Surat al-Kahf, 18:107]
Here the Arabic phrase for "FOR THEM" is "LA-HUM". This is masculine
plural. Does this mean only men will go to Paradise? Of course not.
When there is a group of mixed men and women, even if its all women
and just one man, that group is addressed with masculine articles as
we see in the above verse addressing mankind in totality. This is the
case of most languages which have grammatic distinctions between
feminine and masculine nouns.
Somehow, the Shi`ites, in their despair, have invented new grammar
rules for themselves in order to justify their erroneous hatred for
the Wives of the Prophet (peace be upon him). This anger, hatred and
spite is superfluous to Islam and has no basis in it, or any place
amongst the Muslims.
The bizarre thing is that this argument of their's is very self
defeating. There are only three possibilities. Either the end of this
verse addresses both men and women, just men, or just women (unless
they can invent another gender). If the end of this verse is
addressing only men then it completely excludes Faatimah (peace be
upon her). Are they now ready to exclude her from the Ahl al-Bayt? I
don't think so. However, if it addresses both men and women (which it
does) then it is addressing both the males and females in the
Prophet's Family including his wives and daughters.
To argue any further is to cast Faatimah (peace be upon her) outside
of the Ahl al-Bayt, wa `eeyaathu billaah.
There is an easy explanation for this gender shift. Its probably the
one anybody with common sense would think of when initially reading
this verse. Its simple:
This verse is initially addressing only the wives of the Prophet
(peace be upon them and him) regarding issues particular to women,
however, when it uses the term "Ahl al-Bayt" there is a linguistic
NECESSITY to shift to the masculine article since there are men as
well as women included in the House of the Prophet. The Qur'an is
bound by its perfection.
This section is not EXCLUSIVE but is INCLUSIVE. It does not EXCLUDE
the Wives of the Prophet (peace be upon him and them), but it INCLUDES
the entire Ahl al-Bayt within which there are both men and women. The
Ahl al-Bayt according to the view of orthodox Islam are the wives of
the Prophet, his daughter, Faatimah, her husband and the cousin of the
Prophet, Ali ibn Abi Taalib, all of their children, and those who were
pious from his blood kin such as Abbas and ibn Abbas, etc. May Allah's
peace and blessings be upon them all. Now, this point is thoroughly
refuted.
was-salaamu `alaykum, yaa ayyuha-l Muslimooon,
Shibli Zaman
Shi...@Zaman.Net
http://shibli.zaman.net
Jaafar Karouni
Shibli Zaman wrote:
> bismillaah wa bi-Hamdihi waS-Salaatu was-salaamu `alaa rasoolillaah,
> as-salaamu `alaykum, yaa ayyuha-l Muslimoon,
Wassalaam Alaa Man TTaba3a L Hodaa, and the Curse of Allah and his angels
on the ennemies of Islaam and the ennemies of the prophet's household,
especially the hypocrites.
> The following verse clearly includes the Wives of the Prophet (peace
> be upon him and them) within the "Ahl al-Bayt" or members of his
> family:
What is your logic in saying "clearly" ?
What is clear in the following verse is a reprimend to some prophet's
wives who deserved to be reprimended for what is being cited . Read it !!
I think you refuse to read and to thread what is being posted, and you
keep flooding the group with your own logic without showing respect to
what others are saying. I think you have decide to be : "Som, Bokm, 3oma
Fahom Laa Yarje3oun"
I think, it is people like you trying so hard to change the truth, are
causing more harm to prophet's wives than anything else.
The following verse is a reprimend for the wives and a warning due to
some wrong doing, and strictly addressing wives by using in all the text
the feminin tone : ...na, which well known to those who know arabic (I
hope you do not know arabic, then one can at least excuse your
misguidance).
> "wa qarna fee buyootikunna wa laa tabarrajna tabarruja-l
> jaahiliyyati-l oola wa aqimna-S-Salaata wa aateenaz-zakaata wa
> aTi`na-llaaha wa rasoolahu
That was a reprimend clearly to the wives (feminin: see: ...na, qarna,
tabarrajna, aqimna, aateena, aTi`na)
Stay in your house (because they did not stay),
Dont make tabarroj like in the ignorance era (because they werre naking
tabarroj),
Keep up with prayer (because they did not),
Keep up with Zakaat (because they did not),
Obey Allah and the messanger (because they did not),
Now the tone changes, and turns to masculin, like ...kom, now is the
praise to the prophet's household, who definitly cannot be the ones
reprimended above, and the masculin tone is needed because of the
inclusion of males who definitly are: Mohammad, Ali, Hassan and Hussein
(AS):
See: ankum, yuTahhirakum
> innamaa yureedu-llaahu li-yuth-hiba
> `ankumu-r-rijsa ahla-l bayti wa yuTahhirakum taT-heeran."
(I have deleted your well written and understood correct point of the shia
similar to what I explained, and you seem to well understand, but for a
reason that may Allah cure you of by the means of his choice, you turned
your back).
Now let us see the fruit of your "wisdom" :)
> REFUTATION:
> This subject is addressed in Surat al-AHzaab in a total of seven
> verses. All seven use the feminine forms, yet two words in the end of
> verse 33 use masculine forms. They are "`ankum" (about you) and
> "yuTahhirakum" (he cleanses you). Not only do the Shi'ites allege that
> for just this one small fragment of this one verse, out of SEVEN other
> verses, the wives of the Prophet (peace be upon him and them) are no
> longer referred to, but that they are completely EXCLUDED from any
> possible reference. To anyone familiar with Arabic grammar this is
> utterly ridiculous.
First, you are the one who will come the most ridiculous and blind in the
day of judgment for accusing Allah (SW) for being ridiculous. That was
his word and his decision, not that of the shia.
If you do not like what Allah (SW) writes and gives, what keeps you in
Islaam ?
If now you want to worship the prophet's wives, no one will stop you.
Let us now give you guidance (You should pray a few Rakka to seek
forgivness for calling Allah (SW) ridiculous (Astagferollah)).
1) All the ayats in feminin are reprimend to the wives, and clearly to the
wives only as it starts at the very beginning. For all the wive's wrong
doing that is mentioned by Allah in those feminin ayats there is no
justification for purity of the wives, as the pure do not committ wrong
doing.
2) The masculin Ayat indeed came at the same time as the reprimend is
replaced with praise to clearly indicate that the praised ones now are
different and they include men (why would Allah the most wose prasie
someone who he (SW) just came from reprimending ??)
Now you see who is ridiculous.
> In Arabic grammar there is a rule that if a group of females contains
> even one single male then that group is referred to in the masculine
> form. This is obvious in any Qur'anic verse that addresses mankind.
> For example:
Indeed, except that in this case the males were the majority, Mohammad,
Ali, Hassan, Hussein (AS) and the only female is Fatima Al Zahraa' who
indeed deserved the praise as she did not committ any of the wrong doing
that Allah revealed of the wives.
I know that this will not end because, ma sha'a Shyataan, your misguidance
has no limit, but Insha'a llah we will help.
> Somehow, the Shi`ites, in their despair, have invented new grammar
> rules for themselves in order to justify their erroneous hatred for
> the Wives of the Prophet (peace be upon him).
Yaa Sobhanna llah !!
These are the rules of Arabic and pure logic.
Who hates the prophet's wives, the mothers of the believers than those
like you who try to put them in a place that they cannot be in (and they
do not want to be in).
They are prophet's wives and mothers of believers, but they are not part
of the prophet's household, because the prophet's household are purified
from sins, and sins have come from the wives before and after the ayah of
purification, while the five Ahlulbait Mohammad Ali Fatima Hassan and
Hussein did not committ sins before and after the puification ayat.
Got it now ?
> This anger, hatred and
> spite is superfluous to Islam and has no basis in it, or any place
> amongst the Muslims.
>
Why should we have any hatred against the prophet's wives ?
I have never heared any shia scholar attcking the prophet's wives.
We just know history as much as you know it.
You just show that your problem is not with the shia understanding of the
Ayat, but your problem is that you refuse all what they say, and you will
do everything to reject it.
Wassalaam
Shibli Zaman
Here we have more amusing material from the Shi`ite camp. If they would
take a few moments to think about what they were saying before actually
typing it up, they might not defeat their own arguments so badly.
In article <susbi1...@corp.supernews.com>,
rja...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Shibli mistranslates the tradition narrated about someone
> stopping the Prophet from writing his last testament that would have
> saved the Ummah from straying and you claim that the Ahlul-Bayt of the
> Prophet differed.
>
> It is a serious blunder as you are taking this one phrase and
> translating it
> out of context.
> "Wa Ikhtalafa ahlul Bayt" in that context means that the People in the
> house differed, not that the Members of the Household of the Prophet
> differed.
> In that context if it meant what you want it to say it should read "Wa
> Khtalafa Ahl Bayt al Nabi"
So now rjaffer, when he loses an argument, invents new rules of Arabic
grammar which Allah Himself did not use. Please observe what ALLAH says:
"..innamaa yureedu-llaahu li-yuth-hiba `ankumu-r-rijsa AHLA-L BAYTI wa
yuTahhirakum taT-heeran."
[al-Qur'an, Surat al-AHzaab 33:33]
"...Verily, Allah desires to cleanse you of iniquity, PEOPLE OF THE
HOUSE, and purify you with an immaculate purity."
[al-Qur'aan, Surat al-AHzaab, 33:33]
Which Ahlu-l Bayt is Allah talking about here? He didn't specify "Ahlu-l
Bayt an-Nabiyy". So since rjaffer has invented a new rule of Arabic
grammar for us, I guess the OTHER "Ahlu-l Bayt" are spoken of in this
ayah. Allah did not specify WHICH Ahlu-l Bayt he was talking about in
this ayah, right? So that means its NOT limited to Ali, Faatimah,
Hassan, Hussayn and includes these members as well as the Wives of the
Prophet (peace be upon them all). This is according to rjaffer's errant
logic in this matter.
> Also other versions of this hadeeth in Bukhari alone don't use
> the term "people in the house" at all. This incident has been narrated
But why does that matter? I thought rjaffer said that was NOT the Family
of the Prophet, right? So if its NOT then why would the phrase being
absent support what rjaffer says? It would only make sense if this WAS
the Family of the Prophet (peace be upon them).
In his vain efforts to escape the words of Allah which address the wives
of the Prophet (peace be upon them) as the "Ahl al-Bayt" (People of the
House), he has presented two arguments which actually STRENGTHEN the
position which he OPPOSES.
Of course all of this interpolation is completely unnecessary to the
OBVIOUS meaning of this ayah and to the term "Ahl al-Bayt". Any Arabic
speaking reader who has been following this thread more than likely
chuckled at the first implication that a man's "Ahl" does not include
his wives. Travel to any traditional Arab country such as Yemen, or
speak to any religious Arab. If you address his wife in a conversation
by name he will probably punch you in the face if not at least give you
a very terse and angry stare. In Arabic linguistics and cultural
etiquette one never addresses a man's wife by her name. You call her his
"Ahl" such as "keef ahlak?" To anyone who is a speaker of Arabic, this
is a polite way of asking how someone's wife is, as well as the family
in general.
These are the problems which arise when a people unfamliiar with loghat
al-`arabiyyah desperately want Islam to be something other than what it
is.
"Thus have We revealed it to be a judgment of authority in Arabic. Wert
thou to follow their (vain) desires after the knowledge which hath
reached thee, then wouldst thou find neither protector nor defender
against Allah."
[al-Qur'an, Surat ar-Ra`ad, 13:37]
> It is obvious as the sun, for those that have vision, that your likes
> will be raised on the day of judgement among their enemies.
Nice to see rjaffer playing "God". He knows what will become of me and
says its "obvious" even though the Prophet (peace be upon him) stated
emphatically that he did not know what was to become of him after he
died. I think this was a moderator's oversight, but of course anyone
whose intials are not S.Z. are exempt from the standards they place on
me. No big deal. I can deal with it ;)
Regards,
corr...@my-deja.com
There are very nice ahadith from the sunni sources. I will provide a
few here (there are many, many more).
Book 031, Number 5923:
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.>>
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/031.smt.htm
l#031.5923
The verse "Verily Allah intends to ... (33:33)" was revealed to the
Prophet (PBUH&HF) in the house of Umm Salama. Upon that, the Prophet
gathered Fatimah, al-Hasan, and al-Husain, and covered them with a
cloak, and he also covered Ali who was behind him. Then the Prophet
said: "O' Allah! These are the Members of my House (Ahlul-Bayt). Keep
them away from every impurity and purify them with a perfect
purification." Umm Salama (the wife of Prophet) asked: "Am I also
included among them O Apostle of Allah?" the Prophet replied: "You
remain in your position and you are toward a good ending."
(Sahih al-Tirmidhi, v5, pp 351,663)
Umm Salama said: "O Prophet of Allah! Am I not one of the members of
your family?" The Holy Prophet replied: "You have a good future but
only these are the members of my family. O Lord! The members of my
family are more deserving."
(al-Mustadrak, by al-Hakim, v2, p416)
Umm Salama said to the Holy Prophet: "Am I also one of them?" He
replied: "No. You have your own special position and your future is
good."
(Tafsir al-Durr al-Manthoor, by al-Suyuti, v5, p198)
I said, "O Prophet of Allah! Am I not also one of your Ahlul-Bayt?" I
swear by the Almighty that the Holy Prophet did NOT grant me any
distinction and said: "You have a good future."
(Tafsir al-Tabari, v22, p7 under the commentary of verse 33:33)
More references available upon request.
W'salam
In article <suv0ipj...@corp.supernews.com>,
Shibli Zaman <Shi...@Zaman.net> wrote:
> as-salaamu `alaykum, ya ayyuha-l Muslimoon,
>
> Here we have more amusing material from the Shi`ite camp. If they
would
> take a few moments to think about what they were saying before
actually
> typing it up, they might not defeat their own arguments so badly.
>
> In article <susbi1...@corp.supernews.com>,
> rja...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > Shibli mistranslates the tradition narrated about someone
> > stopping the Prophet from writing his last testament that would have
> > saved the Ummah from straying and you claim that the Ahlul-Bayt of
the
> > Prophet differed.
> >
> > It is a serious blunder as you are taking this one phrase and
> > translating it
> > out of context.
> > "Wa Ikhtalafa ahlul Bayt" in that context means that the People in
the
> > house differed, not that the Members of the Household of the Prophet
> > differed.
> > In that context if it meant what you want it to say it should
read "Wa
> > Khtalafa Ahl Bayt al Nabi"
>
> Shibli Zaman
> Shi...@Zaman.Net
> http://shibli.zaman.net
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
asim...@my-deja.com
Assalamualaikum
This is one of the utterly ridiculous examples of interpretation which
plagues most Muslims. Without being familiar with the language they
produce the most complex intepretations deducing aspects of law and
belief which were just not meant to be.
The issue of feminine and masculine has nothing to do with the
interpretation of the verse. The fact that the word ahl-bayt is
masculine is a CHARACTERISTIC of the language. Just as car is a
feminine word in Arabic, ahl-bayt is masculine. A car does not have a
personality, it is its characteristic in the language. Englisg lacks
this characteristic. The nafs is a femininine word, whether a male or
female. The earth is a feminine word in arabic.
Everytime the Quran has used the term ahl-bayt, it refers to the wives
of the Prophet (S). All seven cases to be exact. The issue of the
nature of the word ahl-bayt and its being masculine is irrelevant. It
is a product of the language. English lacks this quality to a major
extent.
Surah ahzab is a more pronounced and important case because the
centrality of the surah deals with the Prophet (S) and His wives being
the center of Muslim eyes. The Quran addresses the wives of the
Prophet (S) in a more responsible fashion because the Muslim ummah
looks up to the household of the Prophet (S) as the ultimate example.
The Quran tells them to take extreme reverence because the revelation
descends in their households. They are told to speak behind veils and
even taking extreme precations in their tones of speech. They are
given restrictions beyond any average Muslim woman. Not only that,
they are teachers for they take notice of the revelations. This is the
significance of the address that Allah wishes to purify them. What is
also noteworthy is that the Quran uses the word MUTTAHARAH for the
purified wives in Paradise.
Surah Ahzab, besides addressing the wives of the Prophet (S), addresses
the Muslims attitudes with respect to them. They are our mothers and
because of their relationship with the Prophet (S), who is dearer to
the believers than their own selves, they deserve a special treatment
and love. Surah Ahzab than speaks about how Muslims in general are to
handle and deal with their wives.
Not only that, if one were to accept the intepretation given by Jaffer,
it is tantamount to making the Quran a poor piece of literature, which
it is not. The verse would be totally misplaced having nothing to do
with the signifcance of the surah.
To sum up:
1) Surah Ahzab discusses the role of the Prophets (S) wives as being
helpers in deliverance of the Message of Allah. "You are not like any
other women" "Revelations descend in the house."
2) Surah Ahzab discusses the Prophets wives responsibilities.
3) Surah Ahzab speaks about the relationship between wives and
husbands also.
4) The gender of the word has nothing to do with the intepretation of
the verse.
5) The context also denies Jaffers interpretation of the verse.
6) The Quran as in many cases refers to the women of Paradise as being
purified.
7) If one accepts the stretched interpretation, one will be aghast at
how a small portion of a sentence which is directed towards the wives
can be redirected to form a strange theology. The reason why this is
said is because the interpretation is taking a portion of a sentece and
intepreting it to mean something else based on a gender of a particular
word. If I were to say "The earth was created over a span of many
years. The earth is round and she is beautiful." The word she
obviously implies the earth, and has nothing to so with the she is
somewhere in China drinking a soda at the restaurant. If it did, one
would say that I am a poor speaker and an idiot. Now how can one
accept this of the Quran, the epitome of language. There is no problem
in my statement, the problem is in the listener who interprets my
statement in the way he/she does.
8) The Quran addresses the wives of the Prophet (S) in a direct manner
to make them take special precautions and it addresses them in special
and dignified way, i.e. Mother of the Believers. These particularities
are very prfound and emphasize the roles of the wievs of the Prophet
(S). And a Muslim who is sincere with his deen can only treasure the
dust on their feet.
As is clear, the verse pertains to the wives. In ever case of the
Quran it is addressing the wives of the Prophet (S). The Quran rejects
the shia theology. Now just for the sake of academic exercise, let us
assume the shia intepretation, what happens to Hadhrat Fatima (R), who
is in fact the connection to ahl-bayt for Ali (R), in shia theology.
Assalamaualaikum
Shibli Zaman
>Assalamo Aleikom,
>
>There are very nice ahadith from the sunni sources. I will provide a
Please refer to my earlier post in this newsgroup called "REFUTATION:
The Hadeeth of the 'Two Weighty Things"". These aHadeeth were already
addressed in the first part of that post.
>few here (there are many, many more).
Yes, in Tabari's History, and my GOSH have we not already beat that
issue with a hammer 50 times over again? No matter how many times you
quote Tabari's preface to his books of history in which he states MANY
fabrications were included just for the sake of collection, they will
STILL quote from it without presenting any information regarding its
veracity or authenticity.
About those besides Tabari's they quote could they please present
their chains of transmission for us? If you think its all good to just
quote fabrications without presenting any proof of their veracity and
authenticity, then you won't mind if I start quoting from Shi`ite
sources such as:
"Ali said: I am the one in whose command Allah has put the clouds,
lightning, thunder, darkness, rivers, mountains, stars, moon, and the
sun. I am the leader and guide of this ummah!"
["Hayaat al-Quloob", Mulla Baqir al-Majlisi; recommended by Ayatollah
Khomeini in his "Kashf al-Asraar"]
So far I haven't resorted to exposing the erroneous exaggerations
contained in the Shi`ite collections such as the above quote. This is
simply because I have not found it necessary. My purpose in even
returning to this newsgroup was to silence the Shi`ites and Christian
Missionaries and slow down their barrage of non-stop drivel.
So I would strongly advise they start resorting to presenting the TRUE
SOURCES of their quotes, or else I may be forced to start quoting from
their books in the same style, and believe me, they will be ashamed.
Regards,
Shibli Zaman
GF Haddad
<corr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:sv0u2qh...@corp.supernews.com...
>From Sahih Muslim:
> Book 031, Number 5923:
> Yazid b. Hayyan reported: We went to him (Zaid b. Arqam) and said to
> him....
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.>>
The reply is connected with the status of those who are denied Zakat. The
wives of the Prophet (SAWS) are entitled to Zakat by Consensus, and so they
were excluded from this zakat-related definition of Ahl al-Bayt. This is
confirmed by the narration from Zayd ibn Arqam which Muslim cited just
before the above (#5920) and which the Shi`is know very well - the narration
of Ghadir Khum, in which Zayd is asked: "Are not his wives among the Ahl
al-Bayt?" and he replies: "*His wives are the Ahl al-Bayt,* however, the Ahl
al-Bayt [in the context of the address of Ghadir Khum] are those for whom
sadaqa is unlawful."
--
GF Haddad
Qas...@cyberia.net.lb
www.sunnah.org
GF Haddad
Regarding the primary evidence of the Book of Allah addressing the wives of
the Prophet (SAWS) (Sura 33) as "Ahl al-Bayt":
28. O Prophet! Say unto THY WIVES: If ye desire the world's life and its
adornment, come! I will content you and will release you with a fair
release;
29. But if ye desire Allah and His messenger and the abode of the
Hereafter, then lo! Allah hath prepared for the good among you an immense
reward.
30. O ye WIVES OF THE PROPHET! Whosoever of you committeth manifest
lewdness, the punishment for her will be doubled, and that is easy for
Allah.
31. And whosoever of you is submissive unto Allah and His messenger and
doeth right, We shall give her reward twice over, and We have prepared for
her a rich provision.
32. O ye WIVES OF THE PROPHET! Ye are not like any other women. If ye keep
your duty (to Allah), then be not soft of speech, lest he in whose heart
is a disease aspire (to you), but utter customary speech.
33. And stay in your [F] houses. Bedizen not yourselves with the bedizenment
of the Time of ignorance. Be regular in prayer, and pay the poor due, and
obey Allah and His messenger. Allah's wish is but to remove uncleanness
far from you [M/F], O FOLK OF THE HOUSEHOLD, and cleanse you [M/F] with a
thorough cleansing.
34. And bear in mind that which is recited in your [F] houses of the
revelations of Allah and wisdom. Lo! Allah is Subtile, Aware.
It is clear that a switch from feminine to masculine with reference to the
address to Ahl al-Bayt means (1) the grammatical value of Ahl is masculine
and/or (2) at least one man is included with the feminine group being
addressed. The latter group would thus consist in the wives of the Prophet
(SAWS) *together* with the Mantle (`Itra): `Ali, Fatima, and their children.
This is confirmed by the majority of the scholars of Qur'anic commentary.
In addition, it includes the zakāt-forbidden Muttalibi families of `Ali,
`Aqil, Ja`far, and `Abbas; while Haqqi in Ruh al-Bayan added Salman
al-Farisi according to the explicit hadith "Salmanu minnā Ahl al-Bayt" as a
proof that the freedman is part of a man's household, while Shaykh Muhyi
al-Din Ibn `Arabi in his Futuhat (2:126-127) explained Ahl al-Bayt in the
Salman hadith as referring to each Muslim that acquires the attributes of
his Master i.e. the Prophet (SAWS). The latter sense is confirmed by the
narrations stating: "Do not come to me with your lineages on the Day of
Resurrection! My Family is every Godwary believer" and "Every Prophet has a
Family and carriage; my Family and carriage are the Believer" (ālī wa
`iddatī al-mu'min).
In conclusion, Ahl al-Bayt has many meanings according to context, and the
context of 33:33 is: first the wives of the Prophet (SAWS), then the wives
together with the noble `Itra, and Allah knows best.
Al-Razi, al-Tafsir al-Kabir (6:615): "Allah Most High quit using the
feminine pronoun in his address and turned to the masculine by saying
{liyudhhiba `ankum al-rijsa = to remove uncleanness far from you [masculine
plural]}, so as to include both the women of his [i.e. the Prophet's] house
and the men. Explanations have differed concerning the 'Ahl al-Bayt' but the
most appropriate and correct is to say they are his children and wives;
al-Hasan and al-Husayn being among them and `Ali being among them... due to
his cohabitation with the daughter of the Prophet (SAWS) and his close
companionship with the Prophet (SAWS)."
Al-Baghawi, Ma`alim al-Tanzil (2:393): "In this verse [Hud 73] there is a
proof that wives are part of Ahl al-Bayt. ... (3:428) He means by Ahl
al-Bayt [in 33:33] the wives of the Prophet (SAWS) because they are in his
house and this is the narration of Sa`id ibn Jubayr from Ibn `Abbas."
Al-Baydawi, Anwar al-Tanzil (4:374): "The Shi`a's claim that verse 33:33 is
specific to Fatima, `Ali, and their two sons - Allah be well-pleased with
them - ... and their adducing it as proof of their immunity from sin
(`ismat) and of the probative character of their consensus, is weak, because
restricting the meaning to them is not consistent with what precedes the
verse and what follows it. The thread of speech means that they are part of
the Ahl al-Bayt, not that others are not part of it also."
Al-Khazin, Lubab al-Ta'wil fi Ma`ani al-Tanzil (3:490): "They [Ahl al-Bayt]
are the wives of the Prophet (SAWS) because they are in his house." Then he
mentions the other two explanations, namely, that they are the `Itra or that
they are the families of `Ali, `Aqil, Ja`far, and al-`Abbas.
Al-Nasafi, Madarik al-Tanzil wa Haqa'iq al-Ta'wil (3:490): "There is in it
[verse 33:33] a proof that his wives are part of the Folk of his Household
(min ahli baytihi). He said 'from you [M] (`ankum)' because what is meant
are both the men and women of his family (āl) as indicated by {wa
yutahhirakum tathīran = and cleanse you [M/F] with a thorough cleansing}
>from the filth of sins."
Al-Tabari, Tafsir (22:7) [after citing reports explaining Ahl al-Bayt to
mean the `Itra] and al-Wahidi, Asbab al-Nuzul (p. 299 #734): From `Ikrima
concerning 33:33: "It is not as they claim, but the verse was revealed
concerning the wives of the Prophet (SAWS)."
Al-Zamakhshari, Tafsir al-Kashshaf (2:212): "In this [33:33] there is an
explicit proof that the wives of the Prophet - Allah bless and greet him -
are among the People of his House (min Ahli Baytihi)."
Al-Shawkani, Fath al-Qadir (4:278-280) and al-Mubarakfuri, Tuhfat al-Ahwadhi
(9:48-49): "Ibn `Abbas, `Ikrima, `Ata', al-Kalbi, Muqatil, and Sa`id ibn
Jubayr said the wives of the Prophet (SAWS) are specifically meant [in
33:33], and by house are meant the houses of his wives as mentioned before
in the verses. While Abu Sa`id al-Khudri, Mujahid, and Qatada - it is also
related from al-Kalbi - said that those meant are specifically `Ali, Fatima,
al-Hasan, and al-Husayn. They adduced the fact that the pronouns are in the
masculine, but this was refuted by the fact that the noun Ahl is masculine
and therefore necessitates a masculine gender as in the verse [Hud 73].... A
third group stands midway between the two and includes both [the wives and
the `Itra]... A number of the verifying authorities consider this the most
correct explanation, among them al-Qurtubi, Ibn Kathir, and others."
Al-Jalalayn: "Ahl al-Bayt [in 33:33] i.e. the wives of the Prophet (SAWS)."
Al-Sawi, Hashiyat al-Jalalayn: "It was said the verse [33:33] is
comprehensive (`āmma) to mean the People of his House in the sense of his
dwelling and these are his wives, and the People of his House in the sense
of his lineage and these are his offspring."
Al-Suyuti, al-Durr al-Manthur (6:603): [after citing the narrations of the
`Itra] Ibn Sa`d narrated from `Urwa that he said: "Ahl al-Bayt [in 33:33]
means the wives of the Prophet (SAWS) and it was revealed in the house of
`A'isha."
Ibn al-Jawzi, Zad al-Masir fi `Ilm al-Tafsir (6:378): "Then He showed their
superiority over all women when He said: {You [feminine] are not like anyone
[masculine] of the women} (33:32). Al-Zajjaj [the philologist] said: 'He did
not say, "like any other woman" in the feminine, because the masculine form
denotes a general exclusion of both male and female [human beings], one and
all.'"
Al-Bukhari, Sahih: Hadith from Anas: The Prophet (SAWS) visited `A'isha and,
upon entering her house, said: "As-Salāmu `alaykum Ahl al-Bayt! wa
rahmatullah." Whereupon she responded: "Wa `alayka as-Salam wa rahmatullah,
how did you find your wives [ahlak]? May Allah bless you." Then he went
around to see all of his wives and said to them exactly what he had said to
`A'isha.
Al-Wahidi, al-Wajiz fi Tafsir al-Kitab al-`Aziz (2:865): "Ahl al-Bayt [in
33:33] meaning, the wives of the Prophet (SAWS) and the men [and women] of
the People of his House."
Al-Tha`alibi, Jawahir al-Hisan fi Tafsir al-Qur'an (2:212): "This verse [Hud
73] shows that the wife of a man is part of the People of his House (min
Ahli Baytihi)... and 'the House' in Surat al-Ahzab [33:33] refers to the
dwelling quarters [i.e. of the wives]."
Ibn Kathir, Tafsir (3:532) and al-Wahidi, Asbab al-Nuzul (p. 299 #733): From
Ibn `Abbas: "This verse [33:33] was revealed concerning the wives of the
Prophet (SAWS)."
Ibn Jama`a, Ghurar al-Tibyan fi Ma lam Yusamma fi al-Qur'an (p. 421 #1201)
and al-Suyuti in Mufhamat al-Aqran fi Mubhamat al-Qur'an: "Ahl al-Bayt in
verse 33 are the Prophet and his wives. It was also said they are `Ali,
Fatima, al-Hasan, and al-Husayn, and it was also said they are those for
whom sadaqa is unlawful [i.e. Āl `Aqil, Āl `Ali, Āl Ja`far, and Āl
al-`Abbas]."
Al-Zarkashi, al-Burhan fi `Ulum al-Qur'an (2:197): "The phrasing of the
Qur'an [in Surat al-Ahzab] shows that the wives are meant, that the verses
were revealed concerning them, and that it is impossible to exclude them
>from the meaning of the verse. However, since others were to be included
with them it was said with the masculine gender: {Allah desires to remove
uncleanness far from you [masculine plural], O Folk of the Household}. It is
then known that this desire comprises all the Folk of the Household - both
male and female - as opposed to His saying {O wives of the Prophet} and it
shows that `Ali and Fatima are more [specifically] deserving of this
description ["Ahl al-Bayt"] than the wives."
Al-Jassas, Ahkam al-Qur'an (4:378-379): "It [the verse Hud 73] shows that
the wives of the Prophet - Allah bless and greet him - are of the People of
his House (min Ahli Baytihi) because the angels names Ibrahim's wife as
being of the People of his House, and so has Allah Most High said when
addressing the wives of the Prophet - Alah bless and greet him - when He
said:... [33:33]. His wives are part of those meant because the beginning of
the address concerns them."
Abu al-Su`ud, Irshad al-`Aql al-Salim ila Mazaya al-Qur'an al-Karim (7:103):
"This [33:33], as you see, is an explicit verse and a radiant proof that the
wives of the Prophet - Allah bless and greet him - are among the People of
his House (min Ahli Baytihi), ruling once and for all the invalidity of the
opinion of the Shi`is who narrow it to mean only Fatima, `Ali, and their two
sons - Allah be well-pleased with them. As for what they claim as their
proof [hadith of the Mantle], it only shows that they [the Four] are part of
Ahl al-Bayt, not that other than them are excluded."
WAllahu a`lam.
Hajj Gibril
GF Haddad
news:suud0c3...@corp.supernews.com...
> Stay in your house (because they did not stay),
> Dont make tabarroj like in the ignorance era (because they werre naking
> tabarroj),
> Keep up with prayer (because they did not),
> Keep up with Zakaat (because they did not),
> Obey Allah and the messanger (because they did not),
There are two answers to the above parenthetical impieties:
(1) By the same token, the purification of impurity in the following line,
stating : Allah desires to drive away from you filth O Ahl al-Bayt, would
mean that the Ahl al-Bayt being addressed were thus marred and unclean i.e.
guilty of all-encompassing sins including, but not limited to the above
transgressions, so the wives are presumably less culpable.
(2) In the same Sura Allah Most High specified that the wives of the Prophet
(SAWS) are the mothers of the believers. This means that one who mentions
his wives with less respect - e.g. explicating their sins - than he would
use towards his own biological mother, is not a believer.
qizilbash
At least one of the Prophets wives is not included in this Ayah.
Here is the logical reason, it does not require any knowledge of arabic
or anything , but simple logic and one verse.
I'll take your trasnlation of it.
<personal attack on rjaffer snipped>
> "...Verily, Allah desires to cleanse you of iniquity, PEOPLE OF THE
> HOUSE, and purify you with an immaculate purity."
> [al-Qur'aan, Surat al-AHzaab, 33:33]
>
> Which Ahlu-l Bayt is Allah talking about here? He didn't specify
"Ahlu-l
> Bayt an-Nabiyy". So since rjaffer has invented a new rule of Arabic
> grammar for us, I guess the OTHER "Ahlu-l Bayt" are spoken of in this
> ayah. Allah did not specify WHICH Ahlu-l Bayt he was talking about in
> this ayah, right? So that means its NOT limited to Ali, Faatimah,
> Hassan, Hussayn and includes these members as well as the Wives of the
> Prophet (peace be upon them all). This is according to rjaffer's
errant
> logic in this matter.
This contradicts history directly. As Aisha fought Against the
manifestation of truth, the man who was always with the truth, the man
that lifted the door of khaybar, the man that was Mazhar Haq in the
world, the man that cut of the heads of antar and amroo, the man who
was great then all the saints and companions..the man that did what abu
bakr and umar, could not do. The man selected to be the prophets
successor.
How you could not see, the sun, Ali(AS) who's light is manifest. Only
bats living in the darkest caves can not see his light.. tongues are
cutoff, brains are smashed when one thinks about this great man.
Yes If the wives were refered to "puurify you with an immaculate
purity.", then they would not go against the truth.
They did go against the truth, so they were not purified with an
immaculate purity..
No need of intrepretation of classical arabic which has varying
intrepretation can go against this logic.
Also please see rjaffer's post on many reliable sunni hadeeths directly
mentioning Salman ws considered part of the Prophet(PBUH&HP) family.
So those that fought the truth, were not pure and thus at least some of
the wives are not included.
Let me tell you a philosophical reason, which I am aware. The reason
that Ali(AS) was not obeyed, in the philosophical sense has nothing to
do with the likes of Ayesha, Umar, Abubakr or anyone. Those are just
the means, but not the reason.
The reason is that the world would have been perfect, there would not
be one place without the true version of Islam.. But the reason this
does not occur has a very significant philosophical reason.
If the world was perfect, then the purpose of creation, which is to
reach perfection and become Insaan al-kaamil, would not be existant on
earth. To know protons, you need to know electrons, to know light you
need darkness and to know Good, you need evil.
How come you "muslims" never ask yourself why God didn't make the world
ideal? What is the reason for existence?.. try to answer these
questions and you will find out why Ali, did what he did and why he was
infalliable.
Regards