Usage of word Ahl/Ahlebayt in Quran


Usage of word Ahl/Ahlebayt in Quran

Bismillah Al-Rahman Al-Raheem (In The Name of Allah, The Beneficent, The Merciful)

Ahl or Ahl-bayt when refered to a man always means his family, namely his wife. And even in quran the words ahl/ahlebayt were used to address wife of a person. We will be proving this from several examples of Quran.

Example 1:

وَاسْتَبَقَا الْبَابَ وَقَدَّتْ قَمِيصَهُ مِن دُبُرٍ وَأَلْفَيَا سَيِّدَهَا لَدَى الْبَابِ قَالَتْ مَا جَزَاءُ مَنْ أَرَادَ بِأَهْلِكَ سُوءًا إِلاَّ أَن يُسْجَنَ أَوْ عَذَابٌ أَلِيمٌ

And they both hastened to the door, and she rent his shirt from behind and they met her husband at the door. She said: What is the punishment of him who intends evil to your wife(ahli) except imprisonment or a painful chastisement? (shakir 12:25)

So they both raced each other to the door, and she tore his shirt from the back: they both found her lord near the door. She said: “What is the (fitting) punishment for one who formed an evil design against thy wife(ahli), but prison or a grievous chastisement?”(yusuf ali 12:25))

In the above verse of quran wife of Aziz is refered as “ahli” , and even the shia tafseer confirms this.

The need to protect herself from scandal and the desire to punish Yusuf for rejecting her advances flooded her thoughts. Putting on a specious face, she looked at her husband with a straight face and accused Yusuf of having evil designs against her, and sought his punishment by prison or a grievous chastisement. The verse says: “… She said: ‘What is the punishment for him who intends evil to your wife save he be imprisoned or a painful chastisement ? “ (The Light of The Holy Qur’an  by Ayatullah Sayyid Kamal Faghih Imani and A Group of Muslim Scholars, under explanation of verse 12:25)  )

 

Example 2:

وَحَرَّمْنَا عَلَيْهِ الْمَرَاضِعَ مِن قَبْلُ فَقَالَتْ هَلْ أَدُلُّكُمْ عَلَى أَهْلِ بَيْتٍ يَكْفُلُونَهُ لَكُمْ وَهُمْ لَهُ نَاصِحُونَ

And we ordained that he refused suck at first, until (His sister came up and) said: “Shall I point out to you the people of a house(ahli bayt) that will nourish and bring him up for you and be sincerely attached to him?”.(28:12)

Even in the verse above the mother of Moses(as) is termed as ahlebayt, not because she was mother of a prophet, but because she was the wife of Imran. And some people like shia scholar aqa pooya mahdi whose tafseer is refered by popular shia website al-islam.org  have completely misunderstood this verse, they think that here mother of Moses(as) was termed ahlebayt because she was mother of a prophet, no this is wrong understanding because, the statements which the sister of Moses(as) made , were to the soldiers of firawn , if the sister of Moses(as) was addressing the lady with term ahlebayt because she was mother of Moses(as), then the people there would surely would have questioned her that who is the mother of his child and why did she put the baby in the river and then everything would have been messed up.

Similar is said by a different shia tafseer:

(The agents of Pharaoh became happy by that statement and began going with her toward that lady. Moses’ sister, who showed herself as an unacquainted person and a stranger, informed the mother of the matter.) (The Light of The Holy Qur’an  by Ayatullah Sayyid Kamal Faghih Imani and A Group of Muslim Scholars, under explanation of verse 20:40)

And if people use their common sense then they can understand this verse easily that, in no way the sister of Moses(as) was signifying any relation between the child and mother of Moses(as), had she done so, she would have been in deep trouble. But infact she addressed mother of Moses(as) with “ahlebayt” because of being the wife of a  person(Imran).

Its is possible that after reading  convincing response to the illogical arguments raised by them, the shia might try to take a U-turn with their theories , they might say that in this verse a complete household is being addressed, not just a single lady. So to such arguments we answer from the Quran itself . Because  the best way is to explain the Quran is through the Quran. For, what the Quran alludes to at one place is explained at the other, and what it says in brief on one occasion is elaborated upon at the other.

Quran says: See how We repeat the verses that they may understand.” (6:65)

“And certainly We have repeated for mankind in this Quran, every kind of similitude, but the majority of mankind do not consent to aught but denying.” (17:89)

Its clear from quran that there was no need for a complete household, But just a single woman who could nurse the child. So why would sister of Moses(as) refer to a complete household? Moreover another verse of quran is more clear to solve the confusion that was it a complete household addressed by sister of moses(as) or just a single lady with the term “ahlebayt” ?

Your sister went to them and said, “May I show you “someone” who will nurse this child?”(sarwar shia translator, 20:40)

Even explained similarly by shia commentators:She told the men of Pharaoh whether she introduced a “woman” to them who was able to nurse the baby. The verse continues saying: (“…’Shall I direct you to one who will nurse him?’ …”) Maybe, she added that this “woman” had a pure milk so that she was sure that the child would accept it. (The Light of The Holy Qur’an  by Ayatullah Sayyid Kamal Faghih Imani and A Group of Muslim Scholars, under explanation of verse 20:40)  )

From popular Shia website, Al-Islam.org, which contains the authentic Shia Tafseer of Pooya/M.A. Ali. :When it was picked by Firawn’s family and they seemed to love the child, she appeared before them and promised to bring a good “wetnurse” for the child.(pooya ali, tafseer al islam.org  20:40)

Similar is said in another shia tafseer i.e Tafseer namuna vol 7, page 359

Even sunni commentators explain the same:

she then said, “Shall I show you “someone” who will take care of him?”. Her offer was accepted and so she brought [them] his “mother” and he took to her breasts.(tafseer jalalayn 20:40)

She meant , “Shall I guide you to “someone” who can nurse him for you for a fee” So she took him and they went with her to his real mother.(tafseer ibn katheer, 20:40)

Quran itself answers such misunderstandings , where it clears that sister of moses(as) referred to single women “someone”… the Qur’an is its own best commentary . As we proceed with the study of the Book, we find how true this is. A careful comparison and collation of passages from the Qur’an removes many difficulties.

And moreover if for an instance for sake of argument we agree that it was a complete household addressed, even then no one can deny that fact that, mother of Moses(as) was included in it, and not because of being the mother of the child, as we explained why, but because being the wife of Imran.

 

Example 3:

فَلَمَّا قَضَى مُوسَى الْأَجَلَ وَسَارَ بِأَهْلِهِ آنَسَ مِن جَانِبِ الطُّورِ نَارًا قَالَ لِأَهْلِهِ امْكُثُوا إِنِّي آنَسْتُ نَارًا لَّعَلِّي آتِيكُم مِّنْهَا بِخَبَرٍ أَوْ جَذْوَةٍ مِنَ النَّارِ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَصْطَلُونَ

When Moses completed the term of the contract and departed from his employer with his family(ahli), he saw a fire (on his way) on one side of the Mount (Sinai). He asked his wife(ahli), “Stay here. I can see some fire. Perhaps I will be able to bring some news of it or some fire for you to warm-up yourselves.”(sarwar shia translator, 28:29)

In the above verse too, the wife of hz musa(as) is refered to as “ahli” as  shia translator explicitly mentions it.

(Recall that incident) when Musa (Moses) said to his “wife”: ‘I have seen a fire (or I have perceived a flash of love and liking in the fire). Soon I will bring you some news from it (for which we have been wandering in deserts and forests since long), or I bring (you also from there) some burning brand so that you (too) may feel the burn (of its heat).’(27:7) tahir ul qadri, irfan ul quran)

Shia commentaries:

Tafseer majumua al bayan states:

قال الزجاج: العامل في إذ أذكر أي أذكر في قصة موسى إذ قال لأهله أي امرأته وهي بنت شعيب

Al-Zajaaj said: meaning remember in the story of Musa when he told his Ahl (إذ قال لأهله) meaning his Wife and she was the Daughter of Shu’aib (tafseer majumua al bayan, surah naml verse 7)

When the thought to return to his native place came, he set out with his wife.((tafseer ul quran by zafar hasan founder of jamia imamia)  volume 3, page 243, surah 20 verse 10)

Though some shia commentators  makes an analogy which is not backed up with authentic sources of Islamic history and its only based on Christian sources that hz musa(as) had two sons along with him, but they doesn’t deny that his “wife” too was along with him when he was traveling, And that in this verse he addressed his wife. So if anyone tries to deny that wife is not a part of ahl of any prophet(as) because she can be divorced, then that person rejects the quranic verses where “wives” of prophets(as) were termed as “ahl/ahlebayt” . And even if hz musa(as) had children and was traveling along with them, so when he addressed his wife and children , he wouldn’t have used “ahl” if his wife was not a part of his “ahl(family)”. Moreover neither any of the son of hz musa(as) is known have become Imam or prophet after hz musa(as) , so even the analogy which shias try to use for the wife of  hz ibrahim(as) that she was included in ahlebayt for being mother of prophets is shattered here.

Coming back to the point , the conclusion from the verse can be derived that wives of prophets are their ahlebayt.

 

Example 4:

إِلاَّ آلَ لُوطٍ إِنَّا لَمُنَجُّوهُمْ أَجْمَعِينَ إِلاَّ امْرَأَتَهُ قَدَّرْنَا إِنَّهَا لَمِنَ الْغَابِرِينَ

Only the family(aal) of Lot will all be saved, except his wife who is doomed to be left behind.” (sarwar shia translator 15:59-60)

In this verse the construction “except his wife” would be nonsensical unless the wife was included in the family(aal) of Loot . Otherwise, why would Allah need to clarify that Loot’s wife was an exception to the rule that the family of Loot would be saved?

And keep in mind that we have already quoted the Arabic grammarians in previous article which stated that ahl and aal implies the same meanings.

And even the shia tafseer says the same that family of lot(as) included even his wife too:

The verse says: ” Save the family of Lot, We shall surely rescue them all. “ However, as the Arabic phrase/ ‘alalout/ (the family of Lot) with an emphasis on/ ‘ajma’in/ (them all) , included all of his family members encompassing even his misguided wife, who cooperated with the pagans, and perhaps with the awareness of ‘Ibrahim of the matter, the angels immediately made her an exception to the rule, and said: ” Except his wife, of whom we decreed that she should be among those who remain behind (in the chastisement) . ” (The Light of The Holy Qur’an  by Ayatullah Sayyid Kamal Faghih Imani and A Group of Muslim Scholars, under explanation of verse (15:60),

 

Example 5:

قَالُواْ أَتَعْجَبِينَ مِنْ أَمْرِ اللّهِ رَحْمَتُ اللّهِ وَبَرَكَاتُهُ عَلَيْكُمْ أَهْلَ الْبَيْتِ إِنَّهُ حَمِيدٌ مَّجِيدٌ

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. They said: Do you wonder at Allah’s bidding? The mercy of Allah and His blessings are on you, O people of the house(ahlebayt), surely He is Praised, Glorious.(11:72-73)

In this verse too, wife of hz ibrahim(as) is addressed as ahlebayt, And she was addressed because of being wife of hz ibrahim(as), As explained by quran itself in another chapter:(He went quietly to his wife(ahlihi) and returned to his guests with a fat, roasted calf.(51:26, sarwar shia translator)) .

But there are some misguided people who fail to understand this and they  give wrong, farfetched and out of the mind interpretations to these simple verses. They say, 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 (AS).

Firstly, nowhere does the quran says she was pregnant , it just says that she was given a glad tiding of the birth of a child, moreover within the verse it also gives gladtidings of a grandson , no one even the most foolish shia on earth will say that someone was pregnant with that grandson at that time too, because of the glad tidings. Similarily, when Maryam [‘Alaiha Al Salam] was given glad tidings of Easa [‘Alaihi Al Salam] she was not pregnant at the time [Refer 3:45, 19:19-20, etc].

Secondly, the arabic word used in the verse(11:71) is ضحكت (Dahikat), Now a good portion of their(shia) scholars explained it as meaning حاضت (or menstruated).

Their scholar Al-Fayd Al-Kashani, for example, [the scholar of his Time and Age – according to them] said in his Tafseer: Al-‘Ayashi from [the way of] Al-Sadiq ‘Alaihi Al salam [said: that Dahikat means] Haadhat (she menstruated), same as Al-Qumi who added that she had not had her period for a long time before.

Al-Qumi [said]: Dhahikat meaning Haadhat (she menstruated), and it (i.e. her menstrual cycle) had stopped long before that (i.e. before she menstruated that time, she had not had her period for a long time before that).

There is another Hadeeth in their book with a SaHeeH isnaad that talk about this.

في كتاب معاني الاخبار ابى رحمه الله قال: حدثنا سعد بن عبد الله عن يعقوب بن يزيد عن ابن ابى عمير عن عبد الرحمن بن الحجاج عن ابى عبد الله عليه السلام في قول الله عز و جل: «فضحكت فبشرناها بإسحق» قال: حاضت.

Here is the SaHeeH hadeeth from Al-Sadooq’s Ma`aanee Al-akhbaar that tells us that this explanation (i.e. that she menstruated) has been authentically reported from one of the Shia infallible Imams.

Thus, It actually says that she didn’t have her period for a long time before she got it this time (refer to the words of Al-Qumi mentioned above which affirms this) meaning that she was Not pregnant at the time. A pregnant women does not menstruate. Based on this, my question would be: According to these scholars and Al-Sadiq (who is infallible according to them), and the understanding they put forth, why would Sarah be included in Ahl Al-Bayt if she was not pregnant at the time?

Moreover one of the shia tafseer even refutes the misunderstanding of  the shias who argue that the wife of hz ibrahim(as) was called ahlebayt because of being mother of prophets(as).

Question: Considering the fact that in the above verse (11:73), the angels addressed Abraham’s wife using the phrase Ahl- ul- Bayt, and since, naturally, everyone’s wife is considered as part of one’s household, why is it then that in the verse of Tathir in the Sura Al Ahzab, No. 33, verse 33,(1) the wives of the Prophet Muhammad(p.b.u.h.) are not included in his household?‏

Answer: Regarding only the literal meaning of the word, it would be natural for the word Ahl- ul- Bayt to include reference to one’s wife.(The Light of The Holy Qur’an volume 7, section 7, under title “Ministry of Lot ” page 276, (Ayatullah Sayyid Kamal Faghih Imani and A Group of Muslim Scholars )

So this shia commentary agrees that in the verse 11:73,  the lady addressed as ahlebayt is because of being wife of hz Ibrahim(as)

Moreover another verse of quran refutes their claim because wife of hz ibrahim(as) was called “ahli” even before she was given the glad tiding of birth of child : He went quietly to his wife(ahlihi) and returned to his guests with a fat, roasted calf.(51:26, sarwar shia translator)

And Allah said : See how We repeat the verses that they may understand.” (6:65)

“And certainly We have repeated for mankind in this Quran, every kind of similitude, but the majority of mankind do not consent to aught but denying.” (17:89)

 

Example 6:

يَا نِسَاءَ النَّبِيِّ لَسْتُنَّ كَأَحَدٍ مِّنَ النِّسَاءِ إِنِ اتَّقَيْتُنَّ فَلَا تَخْضَعْنَ بِالْقَوْلِ فَيَطْمَعَ الَّذِي فِي قَلْبِهِ مَرَضٌ وَقُلْنَ قَوْلًا مَّعْرُوفًا وَقَرْنَ فِي بُيُوتِكُنَّ وَلَا تَبَرَّجْنَ تَبَرُّجَ الْجَاهِلِيَّةِ الْأُولَى وَأَقِمْنَ الصَّلَاةَ وَآتِينَ الزَّكَاةَ وَأَطِعْنَ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ إِنَّمَا يُرِيدُ اللَّهُ لِيُذْهِبَ عَنكُمُ الرِّجْسَ أَهْلَ الْبَيْتِ وَيُطَهِّرَكُمْ تَطْهِيرًا

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. Allah only wishes to remove all abomination from you, ye members of the Family(ahlebayt), 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: 32-34)

Lastly after determining from the above verses that those were the wives specially who were called ahl/ahlebayt , we again find the same thing in (33:32-33) that the wives of prophet(Saw) are termed as ahlebayt , So this is nothing unique we find here but the common thing which we have shown from Quran in previous examples.

 

Answering Some Arguments Of Shias:

Argument 1:

Prophet(saw) had 11 wives. Each wife lived in a different house. Therefore, if the verse of tatheer(33:33) is referring to all the wives, it should have said Ahlulbayoot (people of the HOUSES)(plural) rather than Ahlulbayt (people of the HOUSE)(singular).

Answer:

Wives of prophet(saw) are described here as ‘members of the household’, without defining which household. But it refers to prophet(Saw)’s household not household of wives. Therefore since it was household of prophet(Saw) then it should be Ahlelbayt(singular) not Ahlul bayoot(plural). Since all the members including wives, ahle kisa, and people on whom sadaqa is haram all comes under Ahlebayt because it refers to prophet’s household, though all the other members lived in different houses. Moreover, we find an explicit hadeeth where wives of Prophet(saw) were called Ahlel-bayt, though they resided in different houses.

وحدثنا زهير بن حرب وإسحاق بن إبراهيم. كلاهما عن جرير. قال زهير: حدثنا جرير عن منصور، عن إبراهيم. قال:

قلت للأسود: هل سألت أم المؤمنين عما يكره أن ينتبذ فيه؟ قال: نعم. قلت: يا أم المؤمنين! أخبريني عما نهى عنه رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أن ينتبذ فيه. قالت: نهانا، أهل البيت، أن ننتبذ في الدباء والمزفت

Sahi muslim (Bk 23, Number 4918) Ibrahim reported: I said to Aswad if he had asked the Mother of the Believers (in which utensils) he (the Holy Prophet) disapproved the preparation of Nabidh. He (Aswad) said: Yes. I said: Mother of the Believers, inform me about the utensils in which) Allah’s Apostle forbade to prepare Nabidh. She (Hadrat ‘A’isha) said: He forbade us, the members of his family [Ahlal Bayt], to prepare Nabidh in gourd, or varnished jar. I said to him: Do you remember green pitcher, and pitcher? He said: I narrated to you what I have heard; should I narrate to you which I did not hear?

Comment: In the above narration wives of prophet(saw) were called Ahlel-bayt, though they lived in separate houses, since the prohibition was made to all wives of Prophet(Saw), by Prophet(Saw).

Another example for this is the narration of Zaid ibn arqam(ra) in (Sahih Muslim, Book 31, Hadith 5920) where he said people whom saqada is haram are ahlibayt, though they lived in separate houses, he(ra) didn’t say they are ahlibayoot.

Muhammad (saw) and his folks are one family thus they are all Ahlu-Baytin. If it were to say “Ahlu-Buyoutin” this signifies many families.
إِنَّا كُنَّا أَهْلَ بُيُوتٍ، وَكُنَّا إِنَّمَا نَأْتِي رَسُولَ اللَّهِ

In Mustadrak al-Hakim, from `Abdullah that the Prophet (saw) told a man:
إِنَّ آلَ مُحَمَّدٍ كَذَا وَكَذَا أَهْلَ بَيْتٍ وَأَظُنُّهُ قَالَ تِسْعَةَ أَبْيَاتٍ مَا فِيهِمْ صَاعٌ مِنْ طَعَامٍ
[The Aal(Family) of Muhammad are this and this Ahlu-Baytin, -I think he mentioned nine Abyaat- none of them contain a small quantity of food.]

Comment: Meaning the Ahlul-Bayt(household) of the Prophet (saw) were nine Abyaat(houses) that were poor.

Prophet’s household is ONE household, but they are composed of nine houses for his wives/family. These examples and many other like these show that Ahlelbayt was used in regards to household of Prophet(Saw), and it includes even those who resided in different homes. Ahlul-Bayt is the family of the Prophet (saw), he has ONE family not multiple families, Ahlul-Bayt is the household of the Prophet (saw), we don’t say in Arabic the Households of the Prophet(saw), it’s only one household the Prophetic household, this is not tied to the number of houses he owns. As we know the Prophet(saw) didn’t live with ‘Ali (ra) and Fatima (ra) in the same house.

Secondly, the twelve Imams of Shias lived in different houses and not the same house of Fatima(ra), so if the faulty logic of Shias is applied here, then this would exclude many of Shia Imams too from Ahlelbayt. So either Shias should correct their misunderstanding or should exclude their Imams too from Ahlelbayt.

 

Argument 2:

Counter argument, يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا لَا تَدْخُلُوا بُيُوتَ النَّبِيِّ إِلَّا أَنْ يُؤْذَنَ لَكُمْ إِلَىٰ طَعَامٍ غَيْرَ نَاظِرِينَ إِنَاهُ

[Shakir 33:53] O you who believe! do not enter the houses of the Prophet unless permission is given to you for a meal not waiting for its cooking being finished.

Answer:

Here the reference are “houses” (noun) – of prophet(Saw) so it has to be plural , where as in 33:33 the reference is to people of house(collective noun) – of prophet(Saw) so it has to be singular,  since the referred ones in first case(33:53) are houses where as in second case(33:33) are members(Ahl)(plural) (of a house) .

And an example for this is the narration of hz zaid ibn arqam(ra) in Sahih Muslim(Book 31, Chapter 4, Hadith 5920) where he said people whom saqada is haram are ahlebayt, though they lived in separate houses, he(ra) didn’t say they are ahlelbayoot.. He said ahlebayt for all of these members who lived in different houses.

 

Argument 3: (counter argument )

أَفَأَمِنَ أَهْلُ الْقُرَىٰ أَنْ يَأْتِيَهُمْ بَأْسُنَا بَيَاتًا وَهُمْ نَائِمُونَ {97}
[Shakir 7:97] What! do the people of the towns then feel secure from Our punishment coming to them by night while they sleep?

ahla l-qurā :people (of) the cities. In the above verse reference is made to people still cities is plural, according to what you said above then here cities(plural) must be city(singular).

Answer:

People who raised this argument doesn’t have basic grammar skills, due to which they raise such arguments.

In 33:33  bayt is singular because its referring to the household of single person (i.e Prophet(saw)). Where as in the example above cities is plural because its referring to the people of different cities, not just one city. That is why you find “Ahl al bayt” not Ahl al bayoot in 33:33.

 

Argument 4:

For wives and other family members you can say Ahl bayt of Prophet(saw) but you can not say ‘Ahl Al Bayt’. When noun or pronoun is attached with Bayt artilce ‘Al’ is not used. There is big difference between “Ahl Bayt of Prophet(saw)” and “Ahl Al Bayt”

Answer:

This is an home made rule which is completely false. Here are some narrations where prophet(saw) addressed his wives using the article “Al” attached with bayt.

This one from Sahih Muslim:
قال أنس: وشهدت وليمة زينب. فأشبع الناس خبزا ولحما. وكان يبعثني فأدعوا الناس. فلما فرغ قام وتبعته. فتخلف رجلان استأنس بهما الحديث. لم يخرجا. فجعل يمر على نسائه. فيسلم على كل واحدة منهن “سلام عليكم. كيف أنتم يا أهل البيت؟” فيقولون: بخير.

Anas said: I also saw the wedding feast of Zainab, and he (the Holy Prophet) served bread and meat to the people, and made them eat to their heart’s content, and he (the Holy Prophet) sent me to call people, and as he was free (from the ceremony) he stood up and I followed him. Two persons were left and they were busy in talking and did not get out (of the apartment). He (the Holy Prophet) then proceeded towards (the apartments of) his wives. He greeted with as-Salamu ‘alaikum to every one of them and said: Members of the household(Ahl-Al bayt), how are you? They said: Messenger of Allah, we are in good state. (Sahih Muslim Book 8, Hadith 3328)

Comment: We find an explicit hadeeth where wives of Prophet(saw) were called Ahl Al-bayt, by Prophet Muhammad(saw).

Another example from Sahih Muslim:

وحدثنا زهير بن حرب وإسحاق بن إبراهيم. كلاهما عن جرير. قال زهير: حدثنا جرير عن منصور، عن إبراهيم. قال:

قلت للأسود: هل سألت أم المؤمنين عما يكره أن ينتبذ فيه؟ قال: نعم. قلت: يا أم المؤمنين! أخبريني عما نهى عنه رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أن ينتبذ فيه. قالت: نهانا، أهل البيت، أن ننتبذ في الدباء والمزفت

Sahi muslim (Bk 23, Number 4918) Ibrahim reported: I said to Aswad if he had asked the Mother of the Believers (in which utensils) he (the Holy Prophet) disapproved the preparation of Nabidh. He (Aswad) said: Yes. I said: Mother of the Believers, inform me about the utensils in which) Allah’s Apostle forbade to prepare Nabidh. She (Hadrat ‘A’isha) said: He forbade us, the members of his family [Ahl Al Bayt], to prepare Nabidh in gourd, or varnished jar. I said to him: Do you remember green pitcher, and pitcher? He said: I narrated to you what I have heard; should I narrate to you which I did not hear?

Comment: In the above narration wives of prophet(saw) were called Ahl Al-bayt, though they lived in separate houses, since the prohibition was made to all wives of Prophet(Saw), by Prophet(Saw).

– حدثنا قيس بن حفص وموسى بن إسماعيل قالا: حدثنا عبد الواحد بن زياد: حدثنا أبو قرة
مسلم بن سالم الهمذاني قال: حدثني عبد الله ابن عيسى: سمع عبد الرحمن بن أبي ليلى قال:
لقيني كعب بن عجرة فقال: ألا أهدي لك هدية سمعتها من النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم؟ فقلت: بلى،
فأهدها لي، فقال: سألنا رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فقلنا: يا رسول الله، كيف الصلاة عليكم أهل
البيت، فإن الله قد علمنا كيف نسلم عليكم؟ قال: (قولوا: اللهم صل على محمد وعلى آل محمد، كما
صليت على إبراهيم، وعلى آل إبراهيم، إنك حميد مجي، اللهم بارك على محمد وعلى آل محمد، كما
باركت على إبراهيم وعلى آل إبراهيم، إنك حميد مجيد).

(Sahi bukhari 4.589): 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 Apostle saying, ‘O Allah’s Apostle! How should one (ask Allah to) send blessings on you, the members of the family(Ahl-Al bayt), 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.’

Comment : In this narration we find that people asked prophet(Saw) that how should they bless prophet(Saw) and Ahl Al bayt.

(Sahi muslim Bk 4, Number 0807) Abu Humaid as−Sa’idi reported: They (the Companions of the Holy Prophet) said: Apostle of Allah, how should we bless you? He (the Holy Prophet) observed: Say:” O Allah! bless Muhammad, his wives and his offspring as Thou didst bless Ibrahim, and grant favours to Muhammad, and his wives and his offspring as Thou didst grant favours to the family of Ibrahim; Thou art Praiseworthy and Glorious.”

Comment: In the narration before this, though Prophet(Saw) taught us how to send blessings on him and his family as in ,But here prophet(saw) in a crystal clear manner teaches us that his wives and his progeny collectively forms his family, for which Ahl AL bayt was used.

 

Argument 5: 

Innama (verily or only) signifies exclusive distinction. To emphasise this exclusiveness, the second object of the verb yudh-hiba (keep off)-the phrase ankum (from you)-has been put before the first object rijs (uncleanness); and for further emphasis, the phrase Ahl ul Bayt has been mentioned to explain the pronoun ankum (from you). The grammatical structure of the whole clause indicates that this a unique privilege or distinction granted to the Ahl ul Bayt only, excluding all others.

So the claim is made that “Innama” limits the wish of God completely purifying to be just for Ahlebayt. So the only people Allah desires to completely purify is Ahlebayt. So the shia argue that if the verse was addressing only the wives of prophet(Saw) then how come even the ahle kisa were purified because innama is “restricter” so it should restrict the wish of Allah to wives of prophet(Saw) only.

Answer:

This is an often repeated argument by Shias, therefore we would like to discuss this issue in detail for a better and clear understanding of this issue.  Let us quote the complete verse (33:33) before starting the explanation:

Transliteration: Waqarna fee buyootikunna wala tabarrajna tabarruja aljahiliyyati aloola waaqimna alssalata waateena alzzakata waatiAAna Allaha warasoolahu innama yureedu Allahu liyuthhiba AAankumu alrrijsa ahla albayti wayutahhirakum tatheeran (33:33)
Translation: 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 [Rijs], O people of the household, and to purify you with [extensive] purification. (33:33).
Reply 1:

The Shias argue that the second part is a separate verse not linked to what is before it or after it, and now the question becomes: Is this correct grammatically? Can the second part be independent of the context that surrounds it?

We have differentiated the two parts above with different colours and we can see that the second part which is known as Ayatul-Tathir starts from “Innama” and ends with “Tatheeran”.

Now we ask, can an independent phrase not linked to anything before it or after it, can it just begin with “Innama”? In the Arabic language the word “Innama” إنما is known to have the function of “Adat-Hasr” أداة حصر and this in English means that it has a function of restriction, it restricts the meaning.

The classical Arab linguists such as al-Farra’ and ibn Faris say in the book al-Bahr al-Muheet:

قال الفراء : ولا يكون ابتداء إلا ردا على أمر ، ولا يكون ابتداء كلام . قال ابن فارس : والذي قاله الفراء صحيح وحجته : { إنما الولاء لمن أعتق } . قلت : ينبغي أن يكون الرد لأمر محقق أو مقدر ، وإلا لورد عليه { إنما الأعمال بالنيات } ونحوه .  من أحسن ما يستدل به أنها للحصر : قوله تعالى : { إنما يتقبل الله من المتقين } ; لأنه لم يتقبل من أخيه ، فلو كان يتقبل من غير المتقين لم يجز الرد على الأخ بذلك ، ولو كان المانع من عدم القبول فوات معنى في المتقرب به لا في الفاعل لم يحسن ذلك ، فكأنه قال : استوينا في الفعل وانحصر القبول في بعلة التقوى

They state that “Innama” cannot be used to begin a sentence unless it is linked to what came before it, it is only used at the beginning of speech if it is a response to something else; otherwise, it implies simple totality with no exceptions.

This is because according to the scholars of language “Innama” does two functions, the function of:

ما النافية i.e. “(Ma) al-Nafiyah”

and

إلا الإستثنائية i.e. “(illa) al-Istithnaiyyah”

Where “Ma” has the function of negating, and “illa” has the function of making an exception.

An example of the use of “Innama” in the beginning of a sentence without it being linked to anything before it:

إنما خلق الله الشمس

Transliteration: Innama Khalaqa Allahu al-Shamsa
Translation: Allah only created the sun

As you can see this meaning is corrupt, we all believe that Allah created the sun but the sentence above implies that Allah created ONLY THE SUN, this saying is blasphemy as we know Allah created everything and not just the sun.

This is because as we said before “Innama” has a restrictive function and in our case it restricted the creations of Allah to ONLY THE SUN, and as we said “Innama” in the Arabic language does the function of two tools and they are “Ma” ما (negation), and “illa” إلا (exception).

So it is as if we are saying:

ما خلق الله إلا الشمس

Transliteration: Ma Khalaqa Allahu illa al-Shamsa
Translation: Allah never created, except the sun

Above you can see how “ma” does the function of denial or negation and this is the word in RED (never), so it gives the meaning that Allah never created anything but then comes the other tool “illa” and this is BLUE (except) since it has the function of making an exception so it made an exception for the sun, thus the meaning would be that Allah never created anything except the sun, which is clear blasphemy.

This is why we cannot use the tool “Innama” at the beginning of most sentences as it would restrict the meaning and imply totality UNLESS we are using it as part of a context, for example to reply to a deviant Mu`tazili like we will show below.

The Mu`tazilah would say:

Allah created the Qur’an and the sun.

This is because they (Mu`tazilah) believe that the Qur’an was created and not eternal and this is a corrupt belief according to the Muslims, so in this case we can reply to him by using “Innama” exactly as it was used above, we would say:

“Allah only created the sun.” (Innama Khalaqa Allahu al-Shamsa).

In this occasion, even if we began our speech with “Innama” it no longer holds a corrupt blasphemous meaning as it did before, this is because as we said previously the tool “Innama” if used, has to be linked to the meaning or the context that came before it, in our situation it is a rebuttal to the Mu`tazili argument so the meaning would become:

“Allah created the sun only” (out of the two things the deviant mentioned).

So basically we are telling him that what he said is wrong and that from the things he mentioned (Qur’an & Sun) Allah had created only the sun, and this is how “Innama” is linked to what came before it in context.

In what cases can we use “Innama” at the beginning of a sentence without it being linked to what came before it?

Answer: It can be used if the meaning we are going for is an absolute total meaning such as:

إنما الإ له الله

Transliteration: Innama al-Ilah Allah
Translation: The God is only Allah

In this case, the use of Innama at the beginning is correct without any need for it to be linked to anything before it, since the meaning we are giving is an absolute one that there is no God except Allah.

But we cannot start with “Innama Bilal Karim” or “The kind is only Bilal” because this is a Kufri(blasphemous) statement that means: “No one is kind except Bilal”.

So, how is this relevant to our topic? how is it relevant to verse [33:33]?

Well the Shia claim that the second part of the verse is independent and not linked to the context which surrounds it, the second part they are talking about begins with “Innama” and ends with “Tatheeran”, so if it were to begin like this then the function of “Innama” would be in the absolute sense and it would replace “Ma” (negation) and “illa”(exception), this would turn the meaning of Ayatul-Tathir to:

ليس يريد الله إلا إذهاب الرجس و التطهير عن أهل البيت

Transliteration: “Laysa Yuridu Allahu illa Ithhab al-Rijs wa al-Tatheer ‘an Ahlul-Bayt”
Translation: “Allah wants(wills) nothing except to remove the foul and impurity from Ahlul-Bayt”

Which limits and restricts the limitless will of Allah almighty to nothing except purifying Ahlul-Bayt, as if Allah wants nothing else and this is without a doubt blasphemy and Kufr of the highest order.

Whereas if Ayatul-Tathir is linked in context to what is before it and after it (And it most certainly is) then the meaning would simply become:

“O wives if you follow the orders I gave you and stop yourselves from committing what I prohibited you from, then you shall be purified as I only intend to purify you O household through my orders and prohibitions.”

And this is indeed the correct meaning and the healthy understanding of these verses, this is how any Arab in the desert would understand it. Otherwise, how do we explain that this verse which has absolutely nothing to do with anything surrounding it, how do we explain that it suddenly jumped landed here, in the middle of speech directed towards the wives? Is Allah intentionally trying to misguide his followers? Because if the Shia say that what is understood from this is infallibility then this means that every Arab reading this 1400 years ago to this day would understand that the wives are infallible and this is the exact opposite of the Shia belief as they state that his wives are un-trustworthy and downright evil in some cases.

Towards the end of this answer, we look at what some of esteemed Shia scholars said:

فيكون تلخيص الكلام :ليس يريد الله إلا إذهاب الرجس على هذا الحد عن أهل البيت ، فدل ذلك على أن إذهاب الرجس قد حصل فيهم . وذلك يدل على عصمتهم ، وإذا ثبت عصمتهم ثبت ما أردناه – كتاب التبيان للطوسي 8/340۔

Translation: So the summary of this would be that: Allah wants nothing except to remove the Rijs in this context from Ahlul-Bayt, this proves that al-Rijs was removed from them. that proves their infallibility and if this is proven than what we want has been established. [al-Tusi, al-Tibyan: 8/340]

This is the height of double standards, Al-Tusi mentions that it is only restricted to this context so we ask WHAT CONTEXT? There is None according to your sect so stop misguiding people and playing with words!

Then another Shia scholar shows us the double standards of the likes of al-Tusi and al-Tabataba’i, we read:

ويظهر من كلام العلماء الأبرار ( رضوان الله عليهم): أن الإرادة الإلهية المعبر عنها بقوله تعالى: (إِنَّمَا يُرِيدُ اللهُ لِيُذْهِبَ عَنْكُمُ..) قد تعلقت أولاً وبالذات بإذهاب الرجس، وبالتطهير ولكننا نقول:إن الظاهر هو أنها قد تعلقت أولاً وبالذات بأمر آخر، وهو نفس الأوامر والزواجر التي توجهت إلى زوجات النبي

Translation: And it appears from the saying of the righteous scholars (ra): that the divine will that is expressed in his saying “Allah only intends to remove from you the foul…” is linked primarily and exclusively with removing the foul and with purifying, but we say: That what is apparent is that it is linked primarily and exclusively to another matter, it is linked to the same orders and prohibitions that were aimed at the Prophet’s SAWS wives. [Ja`far Murtada al-`Amili, Ahlul-Bayt fi Ayatul-Tathir: pg 66]

Reply 2: 

Let us try to understand this issue from a different angle. We look at another part of the verse [33:33]:

إنما يريد الله ليذهب

Transliteration: “innama yuridu Allahu li-yudh’hib”
Translation: “Allah only wants to remove”

Here we have the word “to” which in Arabic is the letter ل or “Laam” that we highlighted in Mangeta color in “li-yudh’hib”, this letter which is placed before the word “yudh’hib” “remove” has a function that ties the removal of impurity with the orders and prohibitions directed at the mothers of believers. In Arabic it is called لام) التعليلية) or “Lam al-Ta`liliya”, its function is (consequential) so “li” implies consequence.

An example of “li” being used in a sentence is:

جئت ل أزورك
Transliteration: “ji’tu li-azurak”
Translation: “I came to see you”

So it implies consequence, as if you are asking the question “Why did I come?” the answer:”To see you.”

And just like “Innama” covers the function of “Ma” and “illa”, the “Lam al-Ta’aliliyah” covers the function of كي “Kay”, this is why it can be called “Lam kay”.

So it is as if you said:

جئت كي أزورك

Transliteration: ji’tu Kay azurak
Translation: I came to see you

And notice that whether you use “Lam” or “Kay” the English translation remains the same, this is because they have the same exact purpose.

So in the sentence above, “I came to see you”, me seeing you is a consequence of me coming.

And in our verse: “Allah only wants to remove”

The “to” which is “li” also implies consequence, So the cause of Allah’s removal of impurity is tied to the wives following the orders and prohibitions “abide in your houses”, “do not display yourselves” ect… the removal of impurity is a consequence of them following the Godly orders that came previously, and this is how “li” ties the meaning to what came before it.

Otherwise, Allah could have used a tool which does not tie or link the meaning to the surrounding context, he could have used أن “An”, this would give us:

إنما يريد الله أن يذهب

Transliteration: innama yuridu Allahu An yudh’hib
Translation: Allah only wants to remove

And as you see in English there is absolutely no difference whether you use “li” or “An”, the phrase would still be translated the exact same way as both of them would be translated as “to remove”.

So what’s the difference then? the difference is that “An” does not tie the meaning to what is before it whereas “li” implies consequence as we stated and automatically links to the context before it, Allah specifically used “li” because the Ayatul-Tathir is linked to the orders and prohibitions aimed at the wives and as a consequence they get to be purified.

Since both “An” and “li” translate the same way in English, this becomes a bit hard to express but the matter of the fact is that they are both quite distinct to the Arabs. In the case of “li” we might express this by translating the verse as follows, with “this” in parentheses:

“Allah but wills [this] to remove from you all that is foul…

Here, the interpolated word ‘[this]‘ refers to all that has been told to the Mothers of the Believers (ra) before.

What is most ironic is that the Shia scholars like Ja`far al-`Amili and al-Tabataba’i, both admit that the “li” in verse [33:33] is “Lam al-Ta`liliyah” and here we quote:

الطباطبائي في تفسيره (الميزان) لسورة (الاسراء) يقول : قوله تعالى: { ذرية من حملنا مع نوح إنه كان عبداً شكوراً } تطلق الذرية على الأولاد بعناية كونهم صغاراً ملحقين بآبائهم، وهي – على ما يهدي إليه السياق – منصوبة على الاختصاص ويفيد الاختصاص عناية خاصة من المتكلم به في حكمه فهو بمنزلة التعليل كقوله تعالى : { إنما يريد الله ليذهب عنكم الرجس أهل البيت }۔ [الأحزاب: 33] أي ليفعل بكم ذلك لأنكم أهل بيت النبوة۔

And

ويقول آيتهم العظمى جعفر مرتضى العاملي في كتابه (أهل البيت في آية التطهير – ص70) : واللام في «ليذهب» هي لام كي، وهي تفيد التعليل، أي أن ما بعدها يكون علة لما قبلها، كقولك: «جئت لأكرمك»؛ فمدخول اللام، وهو الإكرام، علة لما قبلها وهو المجيء۔
فما ذكره البعض من أن متعلق الإرادة هو نفس إذهاب الرجس، ليس على ما يرام لا من حيث التركيب ولا من حيث المعنى حسبما أوضحناه۔

Therefore, in conclusion, we say that the second part of the verse [33:33] or Ayatul-Tathir cannot stand on its own without a previous context, unless the Shia think that the Arabs can begin with a consequential tool without having a context before it. Therefore the words “innama…..tatheera” do not constitute an isolated parenthetical phrase, but rather are part of the general context of these Ayat.

Reply 3:

If Shias still want to stick to their faulty interpretations, and continue claiming that the verse of tatheer is not linked with the verses before it, and innama is restrictor which restricts who Ahlelbayt are, and they claim it to be Ahl-Kisa(people of cloak), that is Fatima(ra), Ali(ra), Hassan(ra) and Hussain(ra), then in accordance to this faulty interpretation, the Shias can’t even include rest of their nine(9) Imams, because even they weren’t present in the cloak.  We hope this example will make the Shias understand the silly view they are holding upon.

May Allah’s (swt) blessings be upon His Messenger, his household, and his companions.

 

6 thoughts on “Usage of word Ahl/Ahlebayt in Quran

  1. Salaam brothers,

    One hadees, I came across, can you comment on it, I do not know its Isnad and want to know if you would regard it as ‘Sahih’; if not then why is it a part of Sahih Muslim? Are they not all supposed to be Sahih? if not then why is it given a title Sahih?

    Narrated Yazid Ibn Hayyan:
    We went to Zaid Ibn Arqam and said to him: You have found goodness (for you had the honor) to live in the company of the Prophet (PBUH&HF) and offered prayer behind him, and the rest of the Hadith is the same (as 3 traditions before) but the Prophet said: “Behold, for I am leaving amongst you two weighty things, one of them is the Book of Allah…”, and in this (Hadith) these words are also found: We said: “Who are his Ahlul-Bayt (that the Prophet was referring to)? Are they his wives?” Thereupon Zaid said: “No, by Allah! A woman lives with a man (as his wife) for a while; he then divorces her and she goes back to her parents and her people. The Ahlul-Bayt of the Prophet are his lineage and his descendants (those who come from his blood) for whom the acceptance of charity (Sadaqah) is prohibited.”
    Reference:

    Sahih Muslim, Chapter of virtues of companions, section of the virtues of Ali, 1980 Edition Pub. in Saudi Arabia, Arabic version, v4, p1874, Tradition #37
    For the English version of Sahih Muslim, please see Chapter CMXCVI,

    • Walaikumsalam,

      Brother before raising quetion please use the search feature because the question you asked was already answer in our other article. Here is the link{click here} , Anyways for your benefit we will paste that answer here. Before that we would like educate you that the ahadeeth of Sahi Muslim which are Mawqoof(views of Sahaba) those are authentic, but since those views of Sahaba then if they go against other authentic hadeeth then those authentic views of Sahaba will be considered incorrect. Meaning the hadeeth about opinion of sahabi is correct that he did give that opinion, but that opinion is incorrect since it was his personal opinion based on analogy. So please read the below answer for a brief answer.

      Answer: Firstly and most importantly the answer of hz zaid(ra) was his own mawqoof as signified by imam ibn katheer(rah) in his tafseer for verse 33:33. And he had based this view from a general prospective for women because of his own reasoning, but here it was not a general case because Allah said, wives of prophet(saw) are not like other women(33:32), So the ruling which are ment for wives in general cannot be applied to wives of prophet(saw) as they were special ones.

      Imam ibn qayyim(rah) in his book discusses this issue in a great detail clearing the doubts who believed that wives of prophet(Saw) were allowed sadaqa. He said that, the relation of wives of prophet(Saw) was similar to nasab(lineage) because the wives of prophet(saw) remained haram on other men even after the death of prophet(Saw) and they were his wives even in his life and will be his wives even in hereafter, so their relation to prophet(Saw) was like of nasab(lineage). That is why sadaqa was even haram for the wives of prophet(Saw). Then he said that even Imam Ahmed(rah) was from the madhab who held this same belief. And he refuted all the arguments and claims of the people who denied that wives of prophet(Saw) were eligible to receive sadaqa in an satisfactory. So for detailed answer refer the book (Jila al afhaam by imam ibn qayyim page 331-333.)

      Moreover the wives of prophet(Saw) were given a share from Khumms since they were not eligible to receive sadaqa and also there is an authentic narration where hz ayesha(ra) returned a thing which was given to her in sadaqa saying that sadaqa was haram on aal e Muhammad(saw). Here is that narration from Musannaf ibn abi shaybah (chapter Laa tahillu al-sadqa ala bani hashim)

      ابن أبي مليكة أن خالد بن سعيد بعث إلى عائشة ببقرة من الصدقة فردتها وقالت إنا آل محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم لا تحل لنا الصدقة

      Narrated with sahi sanad From Ibn Abu Malika [narrated] that: Khaled Ibn Saeed sent a cow from the Sadaqah to Aisha, so she sent it back and said: We are the Aal (the family) of Muhammad(saw) the sadaqah is not permissible for us.

      Thus the view of hz zaid(ra) is to be rejected, because wife of prophet(Saw) knew better than hz zaid(ra) that what was forbidden for her and what was not. And hz ayesha(ra) was known for her vast knowledge in Islamic fiqh she used to be a teacher for some of the companions and in one of the report (sahi muslim, Bk 31, Number 5920) hz zaid said that:”I have grown old and have almost spent my age and I have forgotten some of the things which I remembered in connection with Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him), so accept whatever I narrate to you, and which I do not narrate do not compel me to do that.” So this was not a marfu narration from hz zaid(ra) but his own mawqoof so this will be rejected.

      Secondly we will now throw some light on what comes right before the narration in question, namely Hadith-5920, 5921, and 5922. All of these are part of the same narration and event as Hadith-5923. Hadiths 5921, 5922, and 5923 are all abridged versions of Hadith 5920, which is the entire Hadith. For example, Hadith 5922 simply says:

      “This hadith [5920] has been transmitted on the authority of Abu Hayyan but with this addition: ‘The Book of Allah contains right guidance, the light, and whoever adheres to it and holds it fast, he is upon right guidance and whosoever deviates from it goes astray.’”

      This means that Hadith 5922 cannot stand alone without Hadith 5920, which is the entire Hadith, whereas Hadiths 5921, 5922, and 5923 are abridged versions with minor additions and the words of additional narrators.

      In fact, it is stated in Hadith 5923 (the one often quoted by Shia) that it cannot stand alone without Hadith 5920. Notice the bolded part below:

      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 [as Hadith 5920] but with this variation of wording that he said…

      (Sahih Muslim, Book 31, Chapter 4, Hadith 5923)

      So we see that Hadith 5923 (as quoted by the Shia) cannot stand alone without the un-abridged version of Hadith 5920.

      Let us now look at Hadith 5920 which is the un-abridged version:

      “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.’”

      (Sahih Muslim, Book 31, Chapter 4, Hadith 5920)

      In perhaps the clearest version of this Hadith, Zaid ibn Arqam(ra) says :“His wives are among the people of his household, but the people of his household who are forbidden to receive sadaqah (charity) after his death are the family of ‘Ali, the family of ‘Aqeel, the family of Ja’far and the family of ‘Abbaas. All of these are forbidden to receive sadaqah.”

      So though the mawqoof of hz zaid(ra) was incorrect , yet he(ra) didn’t deny that wives of prophet(Saw) are from the Ahlebayt of prophet(Saw). Moreover it shows us that Ahlebayt is not restricted to only five people, or 14 infallible as shias claim. But it includes several families as said by hz zaid(ra).

  2. حدثنـا أبو حميد الـحمصي أحمد بن الـمغيرة، قال: ثنا يحيى بن سعيد، قال: ثنا حفص بن سلـيـمان، عن مـحمد بن سوقة، عن وبرة بن عبد الرحمن، عن ابن عمر، قال: قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: ” إنَّ اللَّهَ لَـيَدْفَعُ بِـالْـمُؤْمِنِ الصَّالِـحِ عَنْ مائَةٍ أَهْلِ بَـيْتٍ مِنْ جِيرَانهِ الْبَلاَءَ ” ثم قرأ ابن عمر: وَلَوْلاَ دَفْعُ اللَّهِ النَّاسَ بَعْضَهُمْ بِبَعْضٍ لَفَسَدَتِ الأرْضُ
    […From ibn `Umar, he said: Rasul-Allah (saw) said: “Through the presence of a righteous believer, Allah shall not cause misery to befall a hundred Ahlul-Bayt from his neighbors.” Then ibn `Umar recited: …]

  3. 1) Aal e firaun is cursed in the Quran but Firaun’s wife Aasia is one of the most virtuous women of Islam, how would you explain the exclusion of wife from Aal here?
    2) What about the Hadith of cloak? which is explained in refernce to the verse of surah ahzab? thatumm e salma wanted to be a part of the 5 people in the cloak but prophet muhammed gestured her to stay where she was and then he prayed “these are my ahlul bayt o ALLAH remove from them any rijs and make them pure”. .

    • 1. The meaning of Aal is followers. So when Quran talks about Aali Firawn, then its referring to followers of Firawn , but Asiya(as) was not the follower of Firawn, hence she is excluded from Aali Firawn. Please refer the article:The Fact about Aale Muhammad regarding which Shias are unaware.

      2.Prophet Mohammad(SAWS) in the hadeeth of Kisa, actually made a Dua(supplication) to Allah(swt) to include these members in His(swt) wish to purify Ahlulbayt, which was actually for wives of Prophet(saws). Therefore, Prophet(saws) made a dua to Allah, to include these members too. As for not including wives, in dua under Kisa(cloak), then the wish of Allah was primarily for wives of Prophet(saws), hence there was no need to include them in the supplication(dua) under the Kisa. For more details refer this article:A Scientific Dialogue Regarding Incident Of Kisa.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s