Can the incident of mubahila be used as an evidence to exclude wives of prophet(Saw) from his Ahlebayt?


Can the incident of mubahila be used as an evidence to exclude wives of prophet(Saw) from his Ahlebayt?

In The Name of Allah, The Beneficent, The Merciful.

The verse of mubahalah(Quran 3:61), which was revealed concerning the Christian delegation of Najran, is regarded by the Twelver Shia as a proof for the exclusion of wives of Prophet(saw) from Ahlelbayt and also for their claims of Imamate. In this Article we would be answering the often raised arguments of the Shias using this verse.

Question 1: Does the incident of Mubahila excludes wives of prophet(saw) from his ahlebayt?

Answer:

In The Name of Allah, The Beneficent, The Merciful.

The incident of mubahila is often used as an evidence to exclude wives of prophet(Saw) from his ahlebayt by the shias, they conclude this by giving the explanation that since wives of prophet(Saw) were not taken for the incident of mubahila, thus they are not ahlebayt, because when the verse (3:61) was revealed prophet(Saw) called Ali(ra), Fatima(ra), Hasan(ra) and Husain(ra) and said: O Allah, they are my family(ahli). And even wives of prophet(Saw) were not the purified ones because mubahila could have only be taken-up by the ones who were pure and infallible.

And unfortunately muslims who lack basic knowledge have been fooled and mislead from this reasoning from a long time, the reasoning which was based on wrong concepts. In no way this incident can be a proof to exclude the azwaj e muttaharaat(purified wives ) of prophet(saw) from ahlebayt because the conclusions shias tried to make from this incident were actually irrelevant to the issue. The whole incident  is based on verse 61 of surah aal e imran.

Here is that verse: “let us call our sons and your sons, our women and your women, ourselves and yourselves, then we pray and we invoke Allah’s curse upon the liars. ” Quran(3:61)

Now the reason we said that this incident is irrelevant to the issue that are wives of prophet(Saw) ahlebayt or not? Because no where in the verse we find Allah commanding prophet(saw) to call his ahlebayt.  The verse does not say: “Let us call Ahlu Baytena, wa Ahlu Baytakum” but It says: “Nisa’ana wa Nisaakum” , Neither does the quran says: “let us call the purified ones”, Nor does it says: “Let us call the infallible ones” . So how can people with some sense claim that the ones who were not taken for mubahila are excluded from Ahlebayt of prophet(saw) or from being the purified ones, when this was not the criteria set by Allah?

And if the shias would have claimed that since the quran says: “Nisa’ana wa Nisaakum” (our women and your women) thus the wives of prophet(Saw) are not from his “Nisa” (women) then it would been considered something relevant to the commands given in verse regarding the incident of mubahila. But they didn’t dare say this because quran explicitly addressed wives of prophet(Saw) as his “Nisa”(women) in surah Ahzab verse 32 (يَا نِسَاءَ النَّبِيِّ) . So instead of raising an argument in accordance to the criteria set by quran, the shias raised arguments which were irrelevant to the criteria Allah had set. Because Allah said: “our women and your women” . Allah didn’t say : “your ahlebayt and our ahlebayt”  neither did Allah say: “your infallibles and our infallibles”. Thus in no way this incident can be used to exclude wives of prophet(Saw) from his Ahlebayt.

 

Question 2: Why was the imprecation extended to “sons” and “women”?

Answer:

There was “only one reason” for the imprecation being extended to family members. And it was because they were closely related to the disputants. Since Allah has put in man the love of his children and family, to such an extent that he puts himself in jeopardy to save them, plunges into perilous situations to keep them safe. That is why Allah extended the curse to family members, to distinguish between truth and falsehood because the ones who were on falsehood wouldn’t have dared to take up the challenge.

Had it been the case that the curse was restricted to the disputants only, then even the ones who were on falsehood would have dared to take up the mubahila challenge. But it was the hikmah of Almighty Allah, So he(swt) extended the curse to family members too. Thus making it impossible for the ones who were on falsehood to take up the mubahila challenge. And this is what happened eventually.

So the reason behind the imprecation being extended to family members was to establish the truth and seperate falsehood. As the ones who were on falsehood wouldn’t have dared to bring their families.

From this we realize that the ones who were taken for mubahila from the side of prophet(Saw) were because they were closely related to prophet(Saw).The other reasonings people have made regarding this issue are incorrect. Neither they were infallible nor the most superior of the whole muslim community or only the ones worthy to be taken, all these are senseless assumptions made. They were only taken because they were closely related to prophet(Saw). And we get to know the same from the authentic narration, where prophet(Saw) gathered ali(ra), Fatima(ra), hassan(ra) and hussain(ra) when the verse (3:61) was revealed and said: “they are my family ”(sahi muslim). Indicating that that they were being taken because they closely related to him.


Question 3: Was it mandatory to call the “complete” Ahlebayt for Mubahila?

Answer:

As we have proved(in question 1) that quran didn’t  specifically mentions the word “ahlebayt” or to bring “complete ahlebayt of both parties for mubahila”, so excluding wives of prophet(saw) from Ahlebayt based on this argument is stupidity. Thus instead of solving this issue from quran the shias jumped to the narrations(ahadees) applying their own interpretations to them just to prove their claims.

The authentic narration which they quote from the books of Ahle sunnah is from sahi muslim (Bk 31, Number 5915) which states that: when the (following) verse was revealed:”let us gather together,- our sons and your sons, our women and your women, ourselves and yourselves” Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) called ‘Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Husain and said: O Allah, they are my family.

Now they say that since prophet(Saw) didn’t took any of his wives along with him and on the other hand gathered Ali(ra), Fatima(ra), Hassan(ra), Hussain(ra) and said: O Allah they are my family(ahli). Thus this proves that wives of prophet(Saw) are not from his ahlebayt.

But the fact they don’t ponder over is that, neither the verse of Quran uses the word “ahlebayt” for those to be called nor it was a condition that the “complete Ahlebayt” of  both the parties should be present. Because the Christians who were the opponents to take up mubahila, didn’t bring their  families(ahl) along with them. Infact there was “no woman” among them.

It is stated in fath al bari: Najran is rather a big area of land. It was at a distance of seven trip stages southwards of Makkah towards Yemen. It included seventy three villages. It took a fast-rider one day ride to get there…. The delegation comprised sixty “men”. Twenty-four of them were of noble families. Three out of twenty-four were at one time leaders of Najran. [Fath Al-Bari 8/94]

The Christians who came were 60 “men”, so there was no woman among them. And it would have been impossible for the Christians to return back, bring all their families, and come back in time. Rather the Prophet(saw) wanted the Mubahala to take place right then and there, but they asked for it to be postponed one day (as is mentioned in some of the narrations). Thus it would have been impossible for them to have gone back to Najran, get their families and come back in one day, because returning to najran itself would have taken one day, then coming back with families would have taken couple of days because traveling with family make the speed of the travelers slow. So how could they have taken up the challenge of Mubahila the very next day?

This shows that it was not a necessity for the complete family of the disputants to be present there for mubahila. And the ones who were taken for mubahila were just as an example, to establish before the opponents the seriousness and truthfulness of their claim.

Moreover from a sahi narration from Imam ahmad(rah) we come to know that the families of the Christians would have been included in the imprecation even when they were not present there, indicating that presence of the complete family was not a necessity.

قال أبو جهل : إن رأيت محمدا يصلي عند الكعبة لآتينه حتى أطأ على عنقه . قال : فقال : لو فعل لأخذته الملائكة عيانا , ولو أن اليهود تمنوا الموت لماتوا ورأوا مقاعدهم من النار , ولو خرج الذين يباهلون رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم لرجعوا لا يجدون مالا ولا أهلا
الراوي: عبدالله بن عباس المحدث: أحمد شاكر – المصدر: عمدة التفسير – لصفحة أو الرقم: 1/378
خلاصة حكم المحدث: [أشار في المقدمة إلى صحته]
(source)

Abbas said, “Abu Jahl, may Allah curse him, said, `If I see Muhammad praying next to the Ka`bah, I will step on his neck.’ The Prophet(saw) later said: Had he tried to do it, the angels would have taken him publicly. Had the Jews wished for death, they would have perished and would have seen their seats in the Fire. Had those who sought Mubahalah with the Messenger of Allah, went ahead with it, they would not have found estates or families(ahl) when they returned home).” Imam Ahmad (authenticated by Al-Albani, Ahmad Shakir, and others)

Explanation:

لرجعوا لا يجدون مالاً ولا أهلاً

They would have gone back, and would not have found wealth or Ahl, indicating that they were not present there. It means that while those Christians would have returned to najran they would not have found their families, who were still in najran.

So from this narration  we found that the presence of complete ahlebayt, all the offsprings, all the women, etc of the disputants was not a condition. Rather even without their presence they would still have been included in the curse. As those Christians who would have gone through with the Mubahala would then had gone back, and would have found that they had lost everything (their wealth, families, etc), even when their families were not present there.

Similarily, we can say that the Prophet’s wives did not have to be in attendance for them to be included in prophet’s(saw) “Nisaa(women)”. And since they are included in his Nisaa(women)(quran 33:32) yet were not in attendance for the mubahila, would not negate them being from Ahl AlBayt even if they were not in attendence.

Thus we see that  it was not necessary for the complete ahlebayt of both the parties to be present there. So even this argument fails to exclude wives of prophet(Saw) from his ahlebayt.

 

Question 4: Doesn’t it signify that “only” Ali(ra), Fatima(ra), Hassan(ra), Hussain(ra) are ahlebayt because prophet(Saw) in the incident of mubahila prophet(Saw) called them and said they are my family(ahl).

Answer:

No, this is incorrect understanding of the narration. Prophet(saw) called Ali(ra), Fatima(ra), Hassan(ra), Hussain(ra) in the incident of mubahila and said they are my family(ahl), Prophet(Saw) didn’t say that “ONLY” these are my ahlebayt.

Moreover if we are to agree with this interpretation then let us bring some other examples and apply the similar interpretations to them.

Example 1: In the incident of Ifk prophet(saw) called his wife as “ahlebayt”

وهو على المنبر: (يامعشر المسلمين، من يعذرني من رجل قد بلغني أذاه في أهل بيتي، فوالله ما علمت على أهلي إلا خيرا، ولقد ذكروا رجلا ما علمت عليه إلا خيرا، وما كان يدخل على أهلي إلا معي

Sahi bukhari (Volume 6 hadith 274)…“So Allah’s Apostle got up (and addressed) the people an asked for somebody who would take revenge on ‘Abdullah bin Ubai bin Salul then. Allah’s Apostle, while on the pulpit, said, “O Muslims! Who will help me against a man who has hurt me by slandering my family(ahli bayti)? By Allah, I know nothing except good about my family, and people have blamed a man of whom I know nothing except good, and he never used to visit my family except with me,”…

Example 2: In another narration of sahi muslim prophet(Saw) again addressed his wives as ahlebayt.

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. يا رسول الله ! كيف وجدت أهلك ؟ فيقول “بخير

Anas(ra) 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(ahle bayt), how are you? They said: Messenger of Allah, we are in good state ‘How do you find your family? He would say: In good state. (sahi muslim Bk 8, Number 3328)

Explanation: Now if we apply the similar logic to these examples which shias applied to the narration of mubahila. Then the conclusion will be that only wives of prophet(Saw) are ahlebayt, because in these examples too prophet(Saw) didn’t mention any other member to be from his Ahlebayt. He just said to this wife “my family” (ahli bayti).

But the fact is that we know this is wrong interpretation neither will ahle sunnah agree with such interpretation nor will any unbiased reader, Infact if someone approaches to a shias with these examples to exclude Family of hz ali(ra) from Ahlebayt then they will surely mock at him. Similarly, even we do the same when these shias come up to sunnis with the narrations of mubahila as proof to exclude wives of prophet(Saw) from Ahlebayt.

When prophet(saw) addressed people with the term “ahlebayt”  at different occasions, that doesn’t excludes from the ahlebayt the others who were not present in the scene, because its very simple to understand that, while he(saw) addressed a group with the term ahlebayt “only those were present there” ,  and the rest were not present in that scene.

And the correct approach to these narrations is that they are to be reconciled, So from these we conclude that wives of prophet(Saw) as well as Ali(ra), Fatima(ra), Hassan(ra), Hussain(ra) are ahlebayt. Similar to the verses of quran where in one chapter it is stated that human beings were created from “dust” , while in another chapter it is stated that human beings were created from “water” . And like we reconcile these verses and conclude that human being are created from dust as well as water even though these two things are mentioned in separate chapters. In the same manner even here we reconcile the separate incidents like incident of mubahila and the incident of Ifk and other authentic narration to conclude that wives of prophet(Saw) as well as Ali(ra), Fatima(ra), Hassan(ra), Hussain(ra) are ahlebayt .

 

Question 5: Were Ali(ra), Fatima(ra), Hassan(ra) and Hussain(ra) included in mubahila because they were infallible/purified and the most virtues in the muslim community?

Answer:

Had it been the reason then surely Allah would have mentioned this in quran. Allah would have surely said to both the groups that: “call the ones who are infallible/purified among you”, Or Allah would have said that: “call those who were most pious and virtues among you”. But Allah just said: “call your sons , your women, and yourselves” to both the parties.

And even prophet(Saw) would have not said gathering ali(ra), Fatima(ra), hassan(ra) and hussain(ra) that “they are my family”(sahi muslim). He(saw) would have said: They are the infallible ones. Or that “they are most virtues ones”. But nothing such was reported.

Actually the Hikmah behind including the family members of disputants was not because they were infallible or they were the most pious among the community, but “only” because they were the ones who were closely related to them. And this reason is even supported if we look at the condition that, “family members of only one party were not included but of both the parties were to be included”. Now its nowhere mentioned that the christian disputants considered even their family members to be purified/inafflible.

Thus we notice that the reason hz ali(ra) , hz Fatima(ra), hz hassan(ra), hz hussain(ra) were included for mubahila was not because they were infallible/purified or that they were the most pious of the whole muslim community of that time. But it was just because they were closely related to prophet(Saw), So as to establish before the Christians that prophet(Saw) could not have risked his beloved family members unless he(saw) was truthful in his claim.

Note: From this, we in no way want to prove that these members were not pious or didn’t have any virtues. (May Allah forbid). We regard them as highly noble , virtues, and pious personalities of Islam. But we even have authentic reports that there were people in muslim community in that period who were more virtues than some of these members. So if at all the criteria was to bring virtues personalities of muslim community then surely someother members would have been brought, but since this was not at all a condition, they were not brought. And even they being not called proves that calling the most virtues ones was not a condition. (Refer sahi bukhari Volume 5, Book 57, Number 20 and 34) Also refer the document in this link (click here)


Question 6: Was being infallible or purified a condition for taking up Mubahila?

Answer:

The shia draw a picture as if that the mubahila could have been only undertaken by those who were infallibles and that prophet(saw) took hz ali(ra), Fatima(ra), hassan(ra) and hussain(ra) because they were infallible. That is why the rest of the people were not taken. This view is completely incorrect and false. Because had it been the case then, no muslim could have been permitted to takeup mubahila. Because according to the shias, only 14 people were infallible and were the purified ones and the rest are of the muslims are not infallible. But we find that the imams of the shias permitted the general mulsims to takeup mubahila with their opponents, even though general muslims are not infallible.

In Usul-Kafi, vol 2, section ‘ mutual curse ‘, there are also cited five traditions which denote that every believer can apply ‘mutual curse’ with the opponents, too, by improving oneself through observing the fast for three days Its order is such that: at twilight he puts his right hand fingers in his opponent’s fingers and recites the concerning special supplication.

Here are few narrations:

[1] عَلِيُّ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ عَنْ أَبِيهِ عَنِ ابْنِ أَبِي عُمَيْرٍ عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ حَكِيمٍ عَنْ أَبِي مَسْرُوقٍ عَنْ أَبِي عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ع قَالَ قُلْتُ إِنَّا نُكَلِّمُ النَّاسَ فَنَحْتَجُّ عَلَيْهِمْ بِقَوْلِ اللَّهِ عَزَّ وَ جَلَّ أَطِيعُوا اللَّهَ وَ أَطِيعُوا الرَّسُولَ وَ أُولِي الْأَمْرِ مِنْكُمْ (النساء -: 59 -) فَيَقُولُونَ نَزَلَتْ فِي أُمَرَاءِ السَّرَايَا فَنَحْتَجُّ عَلَيْهِمْ بِقَوْلِهِ عَزَّ وَ جَلَّ إِنَّما وَلِيُّكُمُ اللَّهُ وَ رَسُولُهُ (المائدة -: 55 -) إِلَى آخِرِ الْآيَةِ فَيَقُولُونَ نَزَلَتْ فِي الْمُؤْمِنِينَ وَ نَحْتَجُّ عَلَيْهِمْ بِقَوْلِ اللَّهِ عَزَّ وَ جَلَّ قُلْ لا أَسْئَلُكُمْ عَلَيْهِ أَجْراً إِلَّا الْمَوَدَّةَ فِي الْقُرْبى‏ (الشورى -: 23 -) فَيَقُولُونَ نَزَلَتْ فِي قُرْبَى الْمُسْلِمِينَ قَالَ
فَلَمْ أَدَعْ شَيْئاً مِمَّا حَضَرَنِي ذِكْرُهُ مِنْ هَذِهِ وَ شِبْهِهِ إِلَّا ذَكَرْتُهُ فَقَالَ لِي إِذَا كَانَ ذَلِكَ فَادْعُهُمْ إِلَى الْمُبَاهَلَةِ قُلْتُ وَ كَيْفَ أَصْنَعُ قَالَ أَصْلِحْ نَفْسَكَ ثَلَاثاً وَ أَظُنُّهُ قَالَ وَ صُمْ وَ اغْتَسِلْ وَ ابْرُزْ أَنْتَ وَ هُوَ إِلَى الْجَبَّانِ فَشَبِّكْ أَصَابِعَكَ مِنْ يَدِكَ الْيُمْنَى فِي أَصَابِعِهِ ثُمَّ أَنْصِفْهُ وَ ابْدَأْ بِنَفْسِكَ وَ قُلِ اللَّهُمَّ رَبَّ السَّمَاوَاتِ السَّبْعِ وَ رَبَّ الْأَرَضِينَ السَّبْعِ عَالِمَ الْغَيْبِ وَ الشَّهَادَةِ الرَّحْمَنَ الرَّحِيمَ إِنْ كَانَ أَبُو مَسْرُوقٍ جَحَدَ حَقّاً وَ ادَّعَى بَاطِلًا فَأَنْزِلْ عَلَيْهِ حُسْبَاناً مِنَ السَّمَاءِ أَوْ عَذَاباً أَلِيماً ثُمَّ رُدَّ الدَّعْوَةَ عَلَيْهِ فَقُلْ وَ إِنْ كَانَ فُلَانٌ جَحَدَ حَقّاً وَ ادَّعَى بَاطِلًا فَأَنْزِلْ عَلَيْهِ حُسْبَاناً مِنَ السَّمَاءِ أَوْ عَذَاباً أَلِيماً ثُمَّ قَالَ لِي فَإِنَّكَ لَا تَلْبَثُ أَنْ تَرَى ذَلِكَ فِيهِ فَوَ اللَّهِ مَا وَجَدْتُ خَلْقاً يُجِيبُنِي إِلَيْهِ
“Once I said to abu ‘Abd Allah, recipient of divine supreme covenant, ‘We speak to people and in support of our (Shi’a Muslim) belief refer them to the words of Allah, the Most Majestic, the Most Holy, ‘O believers, obey Allah, His Messenger, and your leaders (who possess Divine Authority). . .’ (4:59) They say, ‘It applies to the commanders of the missions of armed forces.’ “We then refer them to the words of Allah, the Most Majestic, the Most Holy, ‘Only Allah, His Messenger, and the true believers who are steadfast in prayer and pay alms, while they kneel during prayer, are your guardians.’ (5:55) They say, ‘This applies to the believing people (as a whole).’ “We refer them to the words of Allah, the Most Majestic, the Most Holy, ‘(Muhammad), say, “I do not ask you for any payment for my preaching to you except (your) love of (my near) relatives. . . .”’ (42:23) They say, ‘It applies to the relatives of the Muslims.’ “I (the narrator) then mentioned all such references that I knew of and the Imam said, ‘If such is the case, call them for Al- Mubahalah (pleading before Allah for help against the enemy).’ I then asked, ‘How should I do that?’ The Imam said, ‘Correct your soul three days,’ I think he said, ‘Fast, take a shower and both of you go in the mountains, crisscross the fingers of your right hand with his fingers, then yield for justice against yourself (begin with yourself) and say, “O Lord, the Cherisher of the seven heavens and seven earths, the One who possesses the knowledge of the unseen and seen, the Beneficent, the Merciful, if abu Masruq has denied anyone’s rights or has claimed falsehood, send upon him misfortune from the sky or a painful punishment.” Then turn it to him and say, ‘If so and so has rejected a truth or made a false claim, send upon him a misfortune from the sky or a painful punishment.’ Then the Imam said to me, ‘You will very shortly see it in him.’ The narrator has said, ‘I swear by Allah I could not find any creature, who could accept my call for Al-Mubahalah (pleading before Allah for help against the enemy).’”

The narration is Hasan(good), Grading by Al-Majlisi in Mir’aat Al-`Uqool, vol. 12, pg. 185

مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ يَحْيَى عَنْ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عِيسَى عَنِ ابْنِ مَحْبُوبٍ عَنْ أَبِي الْعَبَّاسِ عَنْ أَبِي عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ع فِي الْمُبَاهَلَةِ قَالَ تُشَبِّكُ أَصَابِعَكَ فِي أَصَابِعِهِ ثُمَّ تَقُولُ اللَّهُمَّ إِنْ كَانَ فُلَانٌ جَحَدَ حَقّاً وَ أَقَرَّ بِبَاطِلٍ فَأَصِبْهُ بِحُسْبَانٍ مِنَ السَّمَاءِ أَوْ بِعَذَابٍ مِنْ عِنْدِكَ وَ تُلَاعِنُهُ سَبْعِينَ مَرَّةً
“Crisscross the fingers of your hand with his fingers and say, ‘O Lord, if so and so has rejected a truth or has professed a falsehood, make him suffer a misfortune from the sky or a punishment from You’, and then renounce each other seventy times.’”

Narration is SaHeeH ,  Grading by Al-Majlisi in Mir’aat Al-`Uqool, vol. 12, pg. 185

Comment: So, we see that there is no such condition that the ones who are purified or infallible should take up mubahila. Even general muslims could do it. And the shias can’t deny that the companions of prophet(saw) like salman al farsi(ra), abbas(ra), etc were superior to the general muslims. So if they can be allowed to take up mubahila, they why weren’t they taken for it?  The only reasonable answer we can get this question is that, it was not a condition that infallibles should take up mubahila. Nor was this the reason why ali(ra), fatima(ra), hassan(ra) and hussain(ra) were taken for mubahila.

And even the shia commentator explains the same: ‘Mutual curse’ /mubahilah/ was not confined to that time. Some of Islamic traditions indicate that every believer can apply it, too, if the one wishes. (The Light of The Holy Qur’an volume 3, section 6, page 171, (Ayatullah Sayyid Kamal Faghih Imani and A Group of Muslim Scholars )

So, according to shia scholar mubahala was not confined to that time, then if being infallible was a necessity that time, then how come the later generations of muslims were granted permission to take up mubahila? This shows that it was just a concept made up by the shias to exclude wives of prophet(Saw) from Ahlebayt, To whom the quran has explicitly declared as Ahlebayt.

Thus we see that, it’s a false concept which the shia have made that, because Ali(ra), Fatima(ra), Hassan(ra), Hussain(ra) were infallible they were taken for mubahila. No this is completely wrong, they were only taken because they were closely related to prophet(saw), so as to establish before the opponents that prophet(Saw) was true in his claim.

 

Question 7: Why prophet(saw) took “only” Ali(ra), Fatima(ra), Hassan(ra) and Hussain(ra)  for mubahila? Were they only the ones who were worthy of being taken for mubahila?

Answer:

Al-Mubahalah means to curse each other. The actual parties of the argument were the Messenger of Allah on one side, and the Christians men on the other. But in the challenge for the imprecation, the call was extended to the sons and women, as it would show more convincingly that the claimant is perfectly sure of the truth of his claim, that he is absolutely right. Allah has put in man the love of his children and family, to such an extent that he puts himself in jeopardy to save them, plunges into perilous situations to keep them safe. In this way, the Divine curse and chastisement shall cover the sons, women and selves of the liars, and the enemies of truth shall be annihilated completely, they shall be rooted out without leaving any trace. And precisely for this reason, sons have been mentioned before women, because man loves his sons more than his women. As they are the ones from whom progeny of the man survives.

Thus Prophet(Saw) for mubahila particularly took his progeny  and the ones from whom his progeny would persist and survive. And what was unique here was that, the lineage of all daughters in general cases is linked to their fathers, not their mothers’. But Holy Prophet (s)’s lineage was linked to their mother because Prophet’s progeny survives and persists today through his daughter Fatima(ra) and her two sons Hasan(ra) and Husain(ra).

Thus prophet(Saw) as an example took those members to mubahila from whom his progeny would survive and persist, inorder to establish his truthfulness in the sight of opponents, to show to the world(Christians esp) that he was ready to risk his progeny, so that the non-believers may understand that he was not afraid to risk his progeny and if some things happens to them then it would be the end to his lineage. Because those people traditionally gave much importance to progeny and expansion of lineage because according to them a person was remembered only if his progeny would succeed and a person without progeny would be lost to posterity. Thus, invoking the curse on his only daughter left ,her husband and her sons who were the only ones left from whom his progeny would have survived and persisted was not possible unless he was truthful.

And criticism of being “cut off” from the progeny was the very reason because of which the idolaters used to hurt prophet(Saw) as the sons of prophet(Saw) had died, who in general case are the ones from whom progeny of a man survives and persists.

From these narrations we can analyze that how much importance was given to survival of progeny during that time.

Ibn ` Abbas, Muj ahid, Sa`id bin Jubayr and Qatadah all said, “This Ayah was revealed about Al-As bin Wa’il. Whenever the Messenger of Allah would be mentioned (in his presence) he would say, Leave him, for indeed he is a man who is cutoff having no descendants. So when he dies he will not be remembered. Therefore, Allah revealed this Surah.(al kawthar)”

It has been reported that Ata’ said, “This Surah was revealed about Abu Lahab when a son of the Messenger of Allah died. Abu Lahab went to the idolaters and said, Muhammad has been cutoff (i.e. from progeny) tonight .So concerning this Allah revealed For he who hates you, he will be cut off.)’(108:3)

As-Suddi said, “When the male sons of a man died the people used to say, He has been cutoff So, when the sons of the Messenger of Allah died they said, `Muhammad has been cutoff .Thus, Allah revealed, (For he who hates you, he will be cutoff)”

Even the Christian were worried for the similar issue (i.e about the survival of their progeny)

[sahi bukhari 5.663 ]Narrated Hudhaifa: “Al-`Aqib and As-Sayyid, two leaders from Najran, came to the Messenger of Allah seeking to invoke Allah for curses (against whoever is unjust among them), and one of them said to the other, `Let us not do that. By Allah, if he were truly a Prophet and we invoke Allah for curses, we and our offspring shall never succeed afterwards.’

Hence we see that  the opponents were caring about their progeny and its succession as it was a very crucial issue during that moment.

Even the opponents were holding the same understanding according to shia narration: Their leaders as-Sayyid, al-‘Aqib and al-Ahtam, said: ‘If he comes for the imprecation against us with his nation (i.e., people unrelated to him), we shall enter into imprecation against him, because then he is not a prophet. But if he enters into imprecation against us with only the people of his House, we shall not enter into imprecation against him, because he will not put the People of his House forward unless he is truthful.’ (at-Tafsir, al-Qummi) [taken from tafseer e Meezan, tabatabai, for verse 3:61)

Comment: Note, they didn’t say that let us see who are “worthy” from muslim ummah to be brought for mubahila because this was not the reason the curse was extended to family members, nor did they say that lets see who are the “most pious” ones from this ummah or the infallible ones. Because that was not the criteria set for mubahila and that was not the reason the curse was extended to family members. THE REASON CURSE WAS EXTENDED TO FAMILY MEMBERS WAS BECAUSE THEY WERE IN CLOSE RELATION WITH THE DISPUTANTS. So, the shia who think that only those were taken for mubahila who were worthy of being taken needs to correct their misconceptions.

Even today the Prophet’s progeny survives through his daughter Fatima(ra) and her two sons Hasan(ra) and Husayn(ra) only.

Refer these narrations:Al-Hakim has mentioned a tradition through Jabir. Jabir quotes the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.s.) to have said: “For the sons of all the mothers, their agnation returns to their fathers, except the sons of Fatima, as I am their guardian and agnation . Al Mojamul Kabeer, pg. 130  (taken from Ihyaail Mayyit be Fazail-e-Ahle Bayt , translated by shia translator, Syed Athar Husain S.H.Rizvi M.A. (English), M.A. (Persian),M.A. (Islamic Studies)

And people might say that its understood why Fatima(ra), Hassan(ra) and Hussain(ra) were but why was hz ali(ra) taken? The answer to it is in this narration. The Prophet(saw) said: “Verily, Allah, to whom belong Might and Majesty, has placed the progeny of each prophet into his backbone (Sulb), and He, Exalted, has placed my progeny into the backbone of Ali Ibn Abi Talib.” [al-Sawa’iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar al-Haythami, Ch. 11, section 1, p239]

Thus prophet(Saw) wanted to take along with him those from whom his progeny would have persisted and survived as an example to establish before the opponents that he was true in his claim.

Regarding the wives of prophet(Saw) being left:

Reply 1: Well it can be said that though they weren’t taken to the place of mubahila as it was not compulsory to bring the complete ahlebayt, even then they would have been included in the imprecation in the similar way how the families of the Christians even without their presence would have been included.

Reply 2: If the first response doesn’t seem satisfactory to the shias  then the other reply to this is that they were not the ones from whom the progeny of prophet(Saw) survived, So prophet(Saw) didn’t take them. He(saw)  wanted to take those along with him from whom his(saw) progeny would spread as in those days progeny and is survival was given much importance. Thus there wasn’t any necessity of taking them along with him, as they were not the ones with whom survival of his progeny was related.

Reply 3: It can also be said that by the time of incident of mubahila, the special command for wives of prophet(Saw) (i.e “And stay in your houses”(33:33) ) was revealed . So prophet(Saw) might have left them in their homes as the command of Allah, as he(Saw) thought it was inappropriate or not necessary to take his(saw) wives there.

 

Question 8: Were those who were present on the side of the Prophet for the imprecation – i.e., ‘Ali, Fatimah, al-Hasan and al-Husayn – were partners in the claim of the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.) and his Mission.?

A shia commentator states in his commentary that: Had the claim and the resulting imprecation been between the Prophet only and the Christians, one party (i.e., the Prophet) would demand singular words, and the other, plural. In such cases, it is necessary to use an expression which would cover singular and plural both. For example, the sentence under discussion could have been written like this: and bring about the curse of Allah on whosoever is lying. But it says: “… on the liars.” It proves that indeed there were liars (in plural) in one party of the argument, either on the side of the Prophet or on the Christians’ side. Consequently, all those who came out for the imprecation would be partners in the claim – because lie presupposes a claim.

So from this they want to conclude that, them claim and mission of prophet(saw) and his ahlebayt was same, thus he(saw) didn’t include others and because wives of prophet(saw) were not from ahlebayt , there were not included.

Answer:

All the Christians who had come in the delegation of the Najran were a party to a claim – their claim  was that ‘Isa was God, and the son of God, and one of the three persons of God. There was no discord among them in this matter, nor was there any difference in this claim between their men and women.

Like­wise, the claim on the side of the Prophet(saw) was that; Allah is One, there is no god but He; and ‘Isa(as) son of Maryam(as) was His servant and His messenger.  Now if ali(ra), fatima(ra), hassan(ra) and hussain(ra) were partners in the claim of prophet(Saw) then this claim was even upheld by all the believers; it was not confined to only four of them. Because, obviously every believer of that time held the same claim. And even the most staunch shia will atleast agree that, the claim of hz abbas(ra), hz salam farsi(ra), hz abuzar(ra) etc, was the same. They can’t say that the claim of these companions were different. Therefore, it is out of place to say that those who were brought by the Prophet(saw) for the imprecation were partners in his claim and since other muslims didn’t held this claim, that is why they were not brought.

Moreover, claim and mission are two different things. So how is it that the ones taken for mubahila becomes partners of prophet(saw) in his mission? If mission was to claim that Allah is One, there is no god but He; and ‘Isa(as) son of Maryam(as) was His servant and His messenger. Then the mission of every believer was the same, and no sane person can reject this.

And as for the word “liars”, if you try to imply that the family members were included because they were upholding the same claim, that is why plural (liars) was used. Then you cannot deny that the other believers were also upholding the same claim. Thus your reasoning is incorrect and invalid. And if from the plural word “liars” you denote that ali(ra), Fatima(ra), hassan(ra) and hussain(ra) were partners in claim of  prophet(Saw), that is why plural was used, then you can’t even reject if we say that “liars” was used in plural form because all the believers were upholding the same claim along with prophet(Saw).

Reply 1: Infact the word “liars” was used in plural form because it was used in general form for both the parties. As it is evident from the construction from the sentence, “our sons… our women” The initial words of the verse uses “our” which is plural. That is why you find a plural word “liars” in the end.

Reply 2: Moreover the verse proceeds stating (“then let us be earnest in prayer, and pray for the curse of Allah on the liars.”) Let“us” indicates that the statement was used in general form for both parties. And since the Christians were more than one that is why a plural form was used which even encompassed their disputant(i.e prophet(saw)). Thus it was used in a plural form. We find similar examples in some verses of quran where a masculine word ([يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا]i.e o you who believe) is used  but it even encompasses the female believers since it is used in general form.

Lastly even a narration of your infallible imam goes against your interpretation. as-Sadiq (a.s.) said: …”Then the Messenger of Allah said: ‘(If you do not agree with what I say) then enter into earnest imprecation with me; thus if I am truthful the curse will be sent down on you and if I am a liar it will be sent down on me.’ They said: ‘You have done justice.’ (tafseer Qummi)

Notice that prophet(saw) said: “If I am a liar” ..(nauzbillah) . He didn’t say:”If we are liars”. This proves that it was just prophet’s(saw) claim. And your understanding was incorrect. Either you can say that it was the common claim of all the believers or that it was the claim of prophet(saw) only.

 

Conclusion:

We find that the quran didn’t specifically mentioned the term “Ahlebayt” for the ones to be brought for mubahila nor does it sets any condition that “complete ahlebayt” should be brought. It just mentions “sons” and “women” , and prophet(saw) brought his progeny , to establish before the Christians  that he(saw) was a true prophet. And neither there was a condition to bring only those who were worthy of being taken for mubahila nor that the members should be infallible, “Even the Christian opponents understood this in the same manner” , but unfortunately the shias have a poor understanding of quran even than the Christians.

This incident in no way can be used by any unbiased person to exclude wives of prophet(Saw) from ahlebayt, neither can this incident be used to deny that the ones who were intended to be purified through “verse of purification” in quran were wives of prophet(Saw). As wives of prophet(saw) were the ones who were explicitly mentioned as “ahlebayt” in quran (33:33), as we have proved in one of our article.

 

Some other misconceptions:

Though this misconception is irrelevant to the topic of the article, which is to prove that the incident of mubahila cannot be used as evidence to exclude wives of prophet(saw) from ahlebayt. But we wanted to address a misconception for general info of the readers.

Misconception 1: Why weren’t any of the companions and their families taken for mubahila?

Answer:

It is because the debate was between prophet(saw) and the Christians. And the sahaba(ra) weren’t involved in that debate. So since the dispute was in between prophet(Saw) and Christians only that is why prophet(Saw) didn’t order any companion to join him with his family.

Similar is said in shia tafseer: The actual parties of the argument were the Messenger of Allah on one side, and the Christians men on the other.(tafseer meezan, tabatabai. For verse 3:61)

More over a detailed explanation  is given by infallible shia imam: as-Sadiq (a.s.) said: …”Then the Messenger of Allah said: ‘(If you do not agree with what I say) then enter into earnest imprecation with me; thus if I am truthful the curse will be sent down on you and if I am a liar it will be sent down on me.’ They said: ‘You have done justice.’ So they made an appointment for the imprecation. When they returned to the place they were staying, their leaders as-Sayyid, al-‘Aqib and al-Ahtam, said: ‘If he comes for the imprecation against us with his nation (i.e., people unrelated to him), we shall enter into imprecation against him, because then he is not a prophet. But if he enters into imprecation against us with only the people of his House, we shall not enter into imprecation against him, because he will not put the People of his House forward unless he is truthful.’ (at-Tafsir, al-Qummi) [taken from tafseer e Meezan, tabatabai, for verse 3:61)

Thus we see from this narration that, the dispute was between prophet(Saw) and Christians only, that is why prophet(saw) said: “If I am a liar” ..(nauzbillah) . He didn’t say:”If we are liars”..  Moreover if prophet(Saw) would have come up with his community, then it would have been a bad remark on him as the opponents would have thought that prophet(saw) was dependent on his community and was afraid to take up mubahila alone with his family, so the Christians would have concluded that He(saw) was not a true prophet. That is why prophet(saw) only went “alone” with  his progeny and not any other companion , to establish that he(saw) was extremely confident and was truthful in his claim.

 

Misconception 2: Was Ali(ra) taken under the category of “ownselves”?

Answer:

Some shias have claimed that since hz ali(ra) was not the son of prophet(Saw) he could not be referred to by the holy prophet(saw) as our “son”. Through this notion the shias concluded that hz ali(ra) was included in the words “ourselves”. And their commentators usually say that from this verse we can see that Ali was equal to prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam). Because he was called here nafse rasulullah.

Reply 1:

Shiekh Ali Muhammad as-Sallaabi answered this doubt of Shias stating:

[There is no support in the verse of mubahalah for what the Twelver Shia claim about imamate, for a number of reasons:

(i). Despite the many meanings and synonyms of the Arabic word for “self”, which the Imamis quoted as evidence that the text refers to the caliphate of ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib (ra), there is no meaning of this word, either literal or metaphorical, that indicates the meaning of caliphate.

What the Sunnis understand from this verse is that it refers to the Prophet(saw) praying, alone or in the presence of his brothers in Islam or through blood and ties, and this is something that is in accordance with Arabic usage and with religious terminology. Az-Zubaydi said: “Ibn Khalawayh said: ‘The [Arabic for the] word “self” may mean brother.”‘ Ibn Barriy said: ‘The evidence for that is the verse in which Allah says: {But when you enter the houses, greet one another [lit. greet yourselves]}(Qur’an 24: 61).” Ibn ‘Arafah interpreted the words {Why then, did not the believers, men and women, when you heard it [the slander], think good of their own people [lit. think good of themselves] and say: ‘This [charge] is an obvious Lie?’) (Qur’an 24:12) as referring to people of faith or people of their own religion.

Ad-Dahlawi said, concerning the verse of mubahalah: “What is meant by “let us call” is “let us bring ourselves”. Moreover, even if we agree that the ruler, Imam ‘Ali, was appointed by the Prophet(saw) on the basis of the word “ourselves”, then who is referred to as ruler of the disbelievers in the word “yourselves”, even though they are all included in the word for “let us call”? There is no point in the Prophet(saw) calling himself and his children after the word “come”.

The words ‘ourselves’ and ‘yourselves’ are like the usage in the verse in which Allah (swt) says, {Why then, did not the believers, men and women, when you heard it [the slander], think good of their own people [lit. think good of themselves] and say: ‘This [charge] is an obvious lie?’} (Qur’an 24:12), which was revealed about the Mother of the Believers ‘Aaishah and the slander incident. One person could be meant by the Arabic word for “selves” here. Similarly, in the verse {So turn in repentance to your Creator and kill yourselves [the innocent kill the wrongdoers among you])} (Qur’an 2:54), what is meant is some killing others. In the verse: {And [remember] when We took your covenant [saying]: Shed not the blood of your [people], nor turn out your own people [lit. do not turn out yourselves] from their dwellings} (Qur’an 2: 84) what is meant is ‘do not expel one another’. So the Arabic word that is translated as ‘selves’ may refer to brothers, either by blood or by faith.

Allah(swt) says concerning His Messenger(saw): {Verily, there has come unto you a Messenger [Muhammad] from amongst yourselves. It grieves him that you should receive any injury or difficulty. He [Muhammad] is anxious over you; for the believers [he is] full of pity, kind, and merciful}(Qur’an 9: 128). This verse contains clear proof against the argument that the word ‘selves’ (in the verse of mubahalah) refers to individuals that are identical, because here it is speaking of the Messenger of Allah(saw) and the disbelievers of Makkah, yet it says ‘from amongst yourselves’. Who could say that the ‘self of the Messenger of Allah(saw) is the same as the ‘selves’ of the disbelievers of Makkah? Allah forbid!

This discussion illustrates how they follow whims and desires in explaining the verse of mubahalah. The Shiite scholars ignore all of these texts, then they come to this verse and exaggerate its meaning to the extent that they say that Ali(ra) is the same as Muhammad(saw) except in prophethood. Some Shiite reports even indicate that using the word for ‘ourselves’ to refer to a brother or relative or people of the same group is something that was known among the Arabs. It was narrated that Abu Abdullah said: “Amir al-Mu’mineen[‘Ali] sent Abdullah ibn al-‘Abbas to Ibn al-Kawa’ and his companions, and he was wearing a thin chemise and a suit. When they looked at him, they said: ‘O Ibn ‘Abbas, you are the best among ourselves, yet you are wearing such [fine] clothes.’ He said: ‘I am the first to dispute with you concerning that. Allah(swt) says: {Say [O Muhammad]: ‘Who has forbidden the adornment with clothes given by Allah, which He has produced for His slaves, and At-Tayyibat [all kinds of Halal (lawful) things] of food?}, (Qur’an 7: 32) and {O Children of Adam! Take your adornment [by wearing your clean clothes] while praying [and going round (the Tawaf of) the Ka’bah} (Qur’an 7: 31).”

After all this Qur’anic evidence and this Shiite report, is there any room for the extremists to speak?

(ii). One of the prominent Shiite scholars, ash-Shareef ar-Radiy, admitted that the verse in which Allah(swt) mentions ‘ourselves’ does not mean that ‘Ali(ra) is the same as the Messenger of Allah(saw) as the Shia say. He said: “The Arabs, in their language, may refer to a cousin who is close or a relative as being ‘the self of his cousin, or a close friend as being ‘the self’ of his close friend. The evidence for that is the verse in which Allah(swt) says: {Nor defame one another [lit. yourselves], nor insult one another by nicknames} (Qur’an 49: 11). What Allah(swt) means is: ‘Do not criticise your believing brothers,’ so He refers to the brotherhood of faith as being like the brotherhood of blood. If the word for ‘self may be applied to a distant relative, it is more appropriate to be applied to a close relative. The poet said: ‘On the day of Qura, we were killing ourselves,’ meaning that it was as if we were killing ourselves by killing our brothers, and he regarded the ‘self of his kinsmen as being the same as his own ‘self. With regard to the verse in Soorat an-Noor in which Allah(swt) says, {But when you enter the houses, greet one another [lit. greet yourselves]} (Qur’an 24: 61), it may be interpreted in a similar manner, because in the commentary it says that it means to greet one another. It is not possible for a person to greet himself, and it is inappropriate to interpret it in this way. The ‘selves’ of the believers are like one ‘self since they are following one religion, and this is a religious instruction. So if one of them greets his brother, it is like greeting himself, because the differences are lifted and the ‘selves’ have become one.”

Thus it becomes clear that the Shia have no argument to support their claim that this verse indicates that the Messenger of Allah(saw) and Ali(ra) are equal and the same. The Arabic word that is translated as ‘self may apply to one who is a distant relative, so applying it to one who is a close relative is more appropriate than that, but this does not refer to imamate in any way whatsoever.

(iii). The contention of the Imami Shia, that the verse is indicative of equality between ‘Ali(ra) and the Prophet(saw) except in prophetbood, is something that is not to be accepted at all. No one, whether it is ‘Ali(ra) or anyone else, is equal to the Prophet in matters of religion. What comparison can there be between the Messenger of Allah(saw) and the level of human perfection he reached, and any other person?

Ameer al-Mu’mineen Ali(ra) himself would not accept what the Imami Shia say about him, and any wise and fair-minded person would understand this issue clearly. The position of prophethood is one that was held in great esteem by Amir al-Mu’mineen, and we have discussed that in this book.

(iv). Major issues of belief and basic fundamentals of religion must be proven by clear Qur’anic verses with definitive meanings.]

(Source: Ali ibn Abi Talib by Sheikh Ali Muhammad as-Sallaabi, vol 2, pg 399-403).

Reply 2:

Firstly, the word used for “yourselves” is “anfusana” which is a plural form. This indicates that there were more than one who were worthy to be called as the “self of the Messenger of Allah (s)”. And the Prophet(s) coming up with only Ali in reference to “anfusana” (yourselves) doesn’t falsify its implication for others. Take for example the verse “And [as for] those who put away their wives by likening their backs to the backs of their mothers” (58:3). Here, the verse uses plural form even though the cause for its revelation was a single person. But still the implication is not limited to that person only and that is why Allah (swt) used the plural form. This refutes the contention of At-Tabtaba’i, the shi’a author of “Tafseer Al-Meezan”, who took this verse of Zihaar, present in Surah Al-Mujadilah (58:3), as a proof to claim that the word “anfusana”, although plural, is restricted to Ali bin Abi Talib (ra). He also took this evidence from “Allah has certainly heard the saying of those who said: Surely Allah is poor and we are rich” (3:181) and “And they ask you as to what they should spend” (2:219).

Interestingly all these verses are very strong evidences against what he was trying to prove, as in the case of verses of Zihar. As for the verse of  Surah Ale ‘Imran “Allah has certainly heard the saying of those…”, then this was revealed for the Jews, and its implication applied to a group of Jews who held such a view. This ugly statement was attributed to a group of Jews by Ibn Abbas, Hasan Al-Basari and Qatadah as reported by Tabari (7/443) and Ibn Abi Hatim . As for the argument of Shi’i At-Tabtaba’i then he probably concluded it from the report of Ibn Ishaq through Ibn Abbas which was recorded by Tabari (7/441-442) and Ibn Hisham in his “Seerah”, according to which the statement was said by Finhaas who was a Jewish scholar, and he said it during a Majlis of Jewish people. Ibn Ishaq narrates it from Muhammad bin Abi Muhammad the mawla of Zaid bin Thaabit, and he was not known. But this same Tafsir has come from Ikramah and As-Suddi. But as said before, just because the cause of of the revelation was one person or Prophet (S) was seen applying it to one person, doesn’t mean its implication restricted to that single person, this is quite obvious in light of several verses of Ahkam which were revealed because of a single person but it applies to others also . The above verse was revealed for Finhaas, but it applies to all those Jews who agreed with him and this include the Jews who were sitting in his Majlis.

Shaykhul Islam has excellent speech on this matter of “limitation of the verse to its cause of revelation” in his Muqaddima Usul At-Tafseer which is in his “Majmoo’ Al-Fatawa” (13/338-340). The same answer goes for the verse 219 of Surah Al-Baqarah. In conclusion, the argument of At-Tabtaba’i has nothing in it to change the plural into singular. In our case here, the verse used anfusana, which is plural, indicates that there were others who could be called “nafs” of Rasulullah (S).

Secondly, the use of “anfusana” doesn’t necessitate equality or even similarity. Allah (SWT) states {“why did not the believing men and believing women, when they heard it, think well of their own selves (anfusahum)” [24:12], “therefore turn to your Creator [penitently], so kill your people [anfusakum i.e. yourselves]” [2:54]} that doesn’t mean those who worshipped were like those who did not. “and do not kill your people [yourselves i.e. anfusakum]” [4:29]. “and do not find fault with your own people [anfusakum]” [49:11]. Refer to “Minhaj As-Sunnah” (7/87-89).

Similarly, the statement of Prophet (S) to Ali (ra) “you are from me, and I am from you” [Sahih Bukhari], and his (SAW) statement regarding one of his companion Julaibib (ra) “he is from me, and I am from him” [Sahih Muslim], and his statements regarding Ash’aris “they are from me, and I am from them” [Sahih Muslim]. All these statements do not indicate that Ali, Julaibib or Ash’ari brothers were equal to Prophet (S) in quality, except for the Prophethood.  Allah (SWT) mention a statement of Ibrahim (AS) in his Book: “My Lord! surely they have led many men astray; then whoever follows me, he is surely of me”. [Surah Ibrahim, verse 36] No person with intelligence would conclude from the above verse that those who followed Ibrahim (pbuh) were similar to him in all aspects except Prophethood. Likewise, no one can claim that the followers of Taloot, who did not drink from the river, were like him in characteristics because of his (Taloot’s) statement “whoever then drinks from it, he is not of me, and whoever does not taste of it, he is surely of me” [Surah Al-Baqarah, verse 249]. Likewise Shia Muhaddith Al-Kulaini relates (2/170, Kitab Al-Eeman wa Al-Kufr) a narration, which is Hasan as per the verdict of Al-Majlisi, through Imam Ja’af As-Sadiq in which he said regarding relation of Muslims with each other, “he is from you, and you are from him”.

Reply 3:

This claim is incorrect because the words “our sons” does not mean our sons as of the lions only. Instead the sense is general. They may be sons or grandsons, because this how the word is used in common usage. The reason those categories were mentioned was to denote that the close relatives should be brought.  Therefore, the grandsons of the prophet(saw), namely hz hassan(ra) and hz hussain(ra) as well as hz ali(ra) the son in law of prophet(saw) are all included in the words of “our sons” . And this view is even supported by a narration, where the Prophet(saw) said: “Verily, Allah, to whom belong Might and Majesty, has placed the progeny of each prophet into his backbone (Sulb), and He, Exalted, has placed my progeny into the backbone of Ali Ibn Abi Talib.” [al-Sawa’iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar al-Haythami, Ch. 11, section 1, p239]  (Answer compiled from the tafseer of mufti shafi uthmani, ma’ariful quran)

Moreover, argument of being from the nafs doesn’t makes someone superior. (Refer this for detail)

 

Misconception 3: Why weren’t the other daughters of Prophet(Saw) included in Mubahila

Answer: Rest of the daughters of Prophet(Saw) were dead by that time. For more details Refer answers to argument number 12, 13, 14  in this [Article]

 

Some narrations that are often quoted regarding mubahila by the shias:

كان الناس من شجر شتى ، وكنت أنا وعلي من شجرة واحدة

Narration 1:  It is also narrated that: The Messenger of Allah (PBUH&HF) said: “Me and Ali are from one tree, and the rest of people are from different trees.”

* al-Sawa’iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar al-Haythami, Ch. 9, section 2, p190
* Tarikh al-Khulafaa, by Jalaluddin al-Suyuti, p171
* al-Awsat, by al-Tabarani, from Jabir Ibn Abdillah al-Ansari

Answer: This narration is used by shias to prove that hz ali(ra) was included in the category of “ourselves”.

This narration contains Amr bin Abdul-Ghafar about whom this was the view of scholars:

Abu Hatim said: Matrook Al-Hadith.
Ibn Adi said: He is accused of fabricating hadiths.
Ali bin Al-Madini said: He is a rafidhi that I left due to his rafdh.
Al-Aqeeli said: Munkar Al-Hadith. (Mizan Al-I’itidal 5/328 Dar Al-Kutub Al-Ilmiya)

Another narrator is sabah ibn yahya:

الراوي: عبدالله بن عمر المحدث: الذهبي – المصدر: ميزان الاعتدال – الصفحة أو الرقم: 2/306
خلاصة حكم المحدث: [فيه] صباح بن يحيى متروك، بل متهم
Imam Dhahabi says in it(chain) is sabah ibn yahya and he is rejected.

Sabah ibn Yahya is abandoned (matrok), and accused in lie (mat`hum). See “Mizan” 2/306/3850.

Al-Heythami in “Majmau zawaid” (9/103) said in it people whom he didn’t know and people which were disputed.

Verdict on the narration:  Fabricated.


Narration 2: It is narrated on the authority of Abdullah Ibn Umar that:The Messenger of Allah (PBUH&HF) said: “Had there been any soul on the whole earth better than Ali, Fatimah, al-Hasan and al-Husain, Allah would have commanded me to take them along with me to Mubahala. But as they were superior in dignity and respect to all human be beings, Allah confined His choice on them only for participation in Mubahala.” [Sunni reference: Tafsir al-Baidhawi, under the commentary of Verse 3:61]

Answer: We couldn’t find this narration under the reference provided. Here is the link to the referred tafseer. (source of reference) ; neither do Al-Munawi mention any such hadith in his book “Al-Fath As-Samawi” which is book regarding the Takhreej(analysis) of narrations present in the Tafseer of Al-Baydhawi.

So we will not be quick to say this was a lie propagated by the shias, we want to give shias a chance to provide us either the scan page or link to the book which they referred if they have a different edition.

Conclusion: Narration doesn’t exist in the book referred.


Narration 3: On the day of consultation, Ali argued with the committee members saying: “I adjure you in the name of Allah, is there anyone amongst you closer in relationship to the Messenger of Allah than me? Is there any other man whom the Prophet made him ‘his (own) soul’ (Nafs), and that he made his children ‘his (own) children’, and his women ‘his (own) women’?” They replied: “No, by God!”

* al-Darqunti, as per:
* al-Sawa’iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar al-Haythami, Ch. 11, section 1, p239

Answer: There are several defects in chain of this narration.

First Abu Ishaq as-Sabei. Known mudalis and he narrated in muanan form, second Abbad ibn Abdullah. He was weak.

Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Saeed, that’s ibn Uqda, he was disputed, scholars differed regarding him. He was shia.

Also in it Yahya ibn Zakariya ibn Shaiban. Ibn Hibban mentioned him in “Thiqat”, but as you know his tawsiq alone isn’t sufficient. Couldn’t find anyone other praising him.

Yaqub ibn Muabad is unknown for me. Couldn’t find him in books on rijal.

Verdict on narration: very weak and unreliable


Regarding the reference used:

We have used a narration from tafseer al qummi , though the narration doesn’t contains anything which seems to be weird , which leads us to consider it weak, but even then just for general info. Here is something regarding the authenticity of tafseer al qummi.

Regarding authenticity of Tafseer al qummi since we have used it in our referece:

This was the narration we used in our arctile.

as-Sadiq (a.s.) said: “When the Christians of Najran came to the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.) as a delegation – and their leaders were al-Ahtam, al-‘Aqib, and as-Sayyid – and (the time of) their prayer came, they began to ring hand-bells and prayed. The Companions of the Messenger of Allah said: ‘O Messenger of Allah! This in your Mosque?’ He said: ‘Let them be!’ When they finished (their prayer) they came near the Messenger of Allah and said: ‘To what do you call (us)?’ He said: ‘To bearing the witness that there is no god except Allah, and that I am the Messenger of Allah, and that ‘Isa was a servant created (by Allah), he used to eat, drink and relieve himself.’ They said: ‘Then who was his father?’ Thereupon came the revelation to the Messenger of Allah saying: ‘Say to them, “What do you say about Adam? Was he a servant created (by Allah) who used to eat, drink, relieve himself and cohabit?” ‘ The Prophet put this question to them and they replied: ‘Yes.’ He said: ‘Then who was his father?’ and they became speechless. Then Allah sent down (the verse): Surely the likeness of ‘Isa is with Allah as the likeness of Adam; He created him from dust …; and the verse: But whoever disputes with you in this after what has come to you of knowledge… and bring about the curse of Allah on the liars.

“Then the Messenger of Allah said: ‘(If you do not agree with what I say) then enter into earnest imprecation with me; thus if I am truthful the curse will be sent down on you and if I am a liar it will be sent down on me.’ They said: ‘You have done justice.’

“So they made an appointment for the imprecation. When they returned to the place they were staying, their leaders as-Sayyid, al-‘Aqib and al-Ahtam, said: ‘If he comes for the imprecation against us with his nation (i.e., people unrelated to him), we shall enter into imprecation against him, because then he is not a prophet. But if he enters into imprecation against us with only the people of his House, we shall not enter into imprecation against him, because he will not put the People of his House forward unless he is truthful.’

“When the morning came, they came to the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.) – and there were with him the Leader of the Faithful (‘Ali), Fatimah, al-Hasan and al-Husayn (a.s.). The Christians said: ‘Who are these?’ They were told: ‘This is his cousin, al-wasiy (executor of will) and son-in-law, and this is his daughter Fatimah, and these are his sons al-Hasan and al-Husayn.’ So they were frightened and said to the Messenger of Allah: ‘We shall pay you whatever you are pleased with, but excuse us from the imprecation.’ Thereupon the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.) made agreement with them on (the condition of) al-jizyah (tax); and they went away.” (at-Tafsir, al-Qummi)

Here is the chain(isnaad) of this narration used:

فإنه حدثني أبي عن النضر بن سويد عن ابن سنان عن أبي عبد الله ع

So based on the isnaad(chain) the narration is saheeh.

Moreover a celebrated Shī`ī scholar of this era, Āyat Allāh al-Sayyid `Alī al-Shahrastānī, reveals in his book studying the recording of narrations: “`Ali ibn Ibrahim al-Qummiy, the compiler of the famous book of Tafsir that carries his name, has confirmed the authenticity of the Hadiths that he recorded in his book by bearing out that these Hadiths have been reported by trustworthy narrators from the Holy Imams.” [ Man` Tadwīn al-Ĥadīth Asbāb wa Natā’ij, of al-Sayyid `Alī al-Shahrastānī, page 546 [Qum] i.e The Prohibition of Recording the Hadith: Causes and Effects (English), of Sayyid Ali al-Shahristaniy, page 510 [Qum]

As it is evident, `Alī ibn Ibrāhīm al-Qummī, who was a major scholar and teacher of al-Kulaynī, also confirmed that the narrations in his Commentary of the Holy Qur’ān are authentic. This, consequently, means that he himself also believed that the narrations in his work are authentic.

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

4 thoughts on “Can the incident of mubahila be used as an evidence to exclude wives of prophet(Saw) from his Ahlebayt?

  1. Hi, this weekend is pleasant for me, as this time i am reading
    this great educational article here at my home.

  2. Thanks for your personal marvelous posting! I genuinely enjoyed reading it, you could be a great author.I will ensure that I bookmark your blog and may
    come back later on. I want to encourage one to continue your great writing,
    have a nice evening!

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