[Mudassar-Rana]

A question for the learned bro's and Sisters

What are the ahadith defining the status of the above 3 personalities.

Secondly what is the nature of these ahadith's - are they sahih, mutawatir etc?

Thirdly were these ahadith well known amongst the people after rasool allah s.a.w and if so is there any evidence to suggest they were well known?

[seeker]

 Mudassar-Rana, on 16 April 2012 - 11:49 PM, said:

A question for the learned bro's and Sisters

What are the ahadith defining the status of the above 3 personalities.

Secondly what is the nature of these ahadith's - are they sahih, mutawatir etc?

Thirdly were these ahadith well known amongst the people after rasool allah s.a.w and if so is there any evidence to suggest they were well known?

I'm not trying to second guess you bro, but this may be useful for those who wish to answer insha Allah - is the reason you are asking based either on anti Ahl al-Bayt sentiment today or the subsequent history with regards to conflicts involving the three great personalities mentioned? Because I'm sure in ANY biography, even children's stories, there will be ahadith mentioned about them, for instance, that sayyiduna Hasan and sayyiduna Husayn (alayhima assalaam) are the liege-lords of the youth of Paradise, and as for sayyiduna Ali (alayhis salaam) the Prophet (salAllahu alayhi wasallam) counted him amongst al-Asharah al-Mubashsharah, the hadith of which is in many of the most relied-upon hadith literature. If the Prophetic Guarantee of Paradise for all these three is not a definition of status then nothing is!

[Mudassar-Rana]

 seeker, on 17 April 2012 - 12:11 AM, said:

I'm not trying to second guess you bro, but this may be useful for those who wish to answer insha Allah - is the reason you are asking based either on anti Ahl al-Bayt sentiment today or the subsequent history with regards to conflicts involving the three great personalities mentioned? Because I'm sure in ANY biography, even children's stories, there will be ahadith mentioned about them, for instance, that sayyiduna Hasan and sayyiduna Husayn (alayhima assalaam) are the liege-lords of the youth of Paradise, and as for sayyiduna Ali (alayhis salaam) the Prophet (salAllahu alayhi wasallam) counted him amongst al-Asharah al-Mubashsharah, the hadith of which is in many of the most relied-upon hadith literature. If the Prophetic Guarantee of Paradise for all these three is not a definition of status then nothing is!

Good points bro - tbh the reasons i asked were as a result of a discussion on a couple of things. its not to do with any anti ahlul bayt more curiosity.
The reason i asked are that we here various ahadith about the status of these blessed personalities - which makes ordinary folk like us look at these people in awe. So i wondered (out aloud) about the nature of these ahadith - i.e are they sahih, mutawatir etc. Because sometimes when say the wahabi's and other groups argue they end up saying each other ahadith are daeef!

So my thoughts were are the nature of these ahadith uncontroversial i.e no doubts about their authencity and also as we have received them via books were the people at the time after rasool allah s.a.w aware of these status conferred upon these towering personalities?

Often I have come across people saying that syedna ali is the one who decides between heaven and hell i.e our love for him and not. And to me it signfies that rasool allah s.a.w had some level of awareness of the future about ali a.s would divide opinion. i.e anti ali and pro ali a.s.

We have salafi's who tend to see ali a.s as just another sahabi and we have shia who see ali a.s as a lot more than that! And ourselves stuck in betweeen! My point being if the ahadith are categoric and authentic why is opinion divided today? And why was it dividd back then? Surely the camp of amir muawiyah was aware of the status of ali a.s ? and you enter the battlefield knowing full well that it could be your hands that could kill him?

Further we often tend to lambast and vilify yazeed for his part in the murder of imam hussein a.s but surely it wasnt yazeed that walked onto the battlefield? it wasnt yazeed that blocked the water supply? It was thousands of men who too proclaimed the shahadah and entered the battlefield and butchered the family of the best of creation.Thats why i asked were they not aware of these ahadith? Had doubts been cast upon their authencity? Or was it just ignorance and to the ordinary soldiers they were just rebels who needed to be removed?

SO yes the questions still stand:

What are the ahadith,

How authentic are they?

And were the opponents unaware of them?

[Brother_MGS]

These are very good questions and points you ask brother Mudassar, I believe its for the benefit of all of us to learn the great Maqam in Islam the 3 personalities you have mentioned have.

In the Aqeedah most of us follow here, the Ahle Sunnat Wal Jamaat, their is pretty much an unanimous verdict on the maqam of the 3 personalities you have mentioned. But where some have deviated to the path of Nasbism/Khawarijism is because they feel loving personalities of the Ahle Bayt and openly discussing them and holding mehfils/ conferences about them will make them Shia. Hence why today Hz Ameer Mauwiya(RA) is made to be one of the biggest shining stars amongst such circles, as they believe the more they broadcast him the less shia they will look. To the extent that theyve even adopted a Narah for such reasons to lol.

Before going into Hadith Mubarak about the status of the personalities, the best place to begin is in the Quran. The most famous Ayat that is associated with the Prophetic household is Ayat Thatheer(33:33. This ayat spells it out plainly that the members of the household have been purified.

"And remain in your houses and do not unveil yourselves like the unveiling prevalent in the times of ignorance, and keep the prayer established, and pay the charity, and obey Allah and His Noble Messenger; Allah only wills to remove all impurity from you, O the People of the Household, and by cleansing you make you utterly pure"

Majority of Muffasireen hold the opinion that this Ayat was revealed purely for the PanjTaan Paak. As il state some referenes below:

Imam : Ibn Hajar Makki
Book: Asawaiq e Muriqah p220
“MAJORITY of muffasireeen (Quranic writers) state ayat e tatheer is for the punjtan pak specifically.”

Imam: Ibn Jaleel Tabri (Accepted as the best Quran Tafsir writer, died 310AH)
Book: Tafsir Tabri
“There are 15 authentic narrations that prove that the Ahlul Bayt that is referred to in this ayat is the PUNJTAN PAK
.
Imam: Ibn Jauzi
Book: Zadul Maseer
“The COMPANIONS, Abu Saeed Khudri, Anas Bin Malik, Syeda Aysha & Syeda Ume Salam, state Ayat e tatheer is for the PUNJTAN pak.

InshAllah when I have more time I will try my hardest to contribute more to this thread.

[seeker]

 Brother_MGS, on 17 April 2012 - 09:57 AM, said:

Before going into Hadith Mubarak about the status of the personalities, the best place to begin is in the Quran. The most famous Ayat that is associated with the Prophetic household is Ayat Thatheer(33:33. This ayat spells it out plainly that the members of the household have been purified.

"And remain in your houses and do not unveil yourselves like the unveiling prevalent in the times of ignorance, and keep the prayer established, and pay the charity, and obey Allah and His Noble Messenger; Allah only wills to remove all impurity from you, O the People of the Household, and by cleansing you make you utterly pure"

Majority of Muffasireen hold the opinion that this Ayat was revealed purely for the PanjTaan Paak.

You have mentioned something beautiful and correct, the ayah is good proof in itself. But it is wrong to limit it to the 5.

28. O Prophet! Say unto THY WIVES: If ye desire the world's life and its adornment, come! I will content you and will release you with a fair release;

29. But if ye desire Allah and His messenger and the abode of the Hereafter, then lo! Allah hath prepared for the good among you an immense reward.

30. O ye WIVES OF THE PROPHET! Whosoever of you committeth manifest lewdness, the punishment for her will be doubled, and that is easy for Allah.

31. And whosoever of you is submissive unto Allah and His messenger and doeth right, We shall give her reward twice over, and We have prepared for her a rich provision.

32. O ye WIVES OF THE PROPHET! Ye are not like any other women. If ye Keep your duty (to Allah), then be not soft of speech, lest he in whose heart is a disease aspire (to you), but utter customary speech.

33. And stay in your [F] houses. Bedizen not yourselves with the Bedizenment of the Time of ignorance. Be regular in prayer, and pay the poor due, and obey Allah and His messenger. Allah's wish is but to remove uncleanness far from you [M/F], O FOLK OF THE HOUSEHOLD, and cleanse you [M/F] with a thorough cleansing.

34. And bear in mind that which is recited in your [F] houses of the revelations of Allah and wisdom. Lo! Allah is Subtile, Aware.

http://spa.qibla.com...&ID=2773&CATE=1

Conclusion: the wives of the Prophet (pbuh) are included in the taTheer. This is in no way to deny that other than the wives are included - in fact, there MUST be males included otherwise there would be no switch from the feminine to the masculine - but this is fact.

"This is confirmed by the majority of the scholars of Qur'anic commentary."

Quote

Al-Razi, al-Tafsir al-Kabir (6:615): "Allah Most High quit using the feminine pronoun in his address and turned to the masculine by saying {liyudhhiba `ankum al-rijsa = to remove uncleanness far from you [masculine plural]}, so as to include both the women of his [i.e. the Prophet's] house and the men. Explanations have differed concerning the 'Ahl al-Bayt' but the most appropriate and correct is to say they are his children and wives; al-Hasan and al-Husayn being among them and `Ali being among them... due to his cohabitation with the daughter of the Prophet (SAWS) and his close companionship with the Prophet (SAWS)."

Al-Baghawi, Ma`alim al-Tanzil (2:393): "In this verse [Hud 73] there is a proof that wives are part of Ahl al-Bayt. ... (3:428) He means by Ahl al-Bayt [in 33:33] the wives of the Prophet (SAWS) because they are in his house and this is the narration of Sa`id ibn Jubayr from Ibn `Abbas."

Al-Baydawi, Anwar al-Tanzil (4:374): "The Shi`a's claim that verse 33:33 Is specific to Fatima, `Ali, and their two sons - Allah be well-pleased with them - ... and their adducing it as proof of their immunity from sin (`ismat) and of the probative character of their consensus, is weak, Because restricting the meaning to them is not consistent with what precedes the verse and what follows it. The thread of speech means that they are part of the Ahl al-Bayt, not that others are not part of it also."

Al-Khazin, Lubab al-Ta'wil fi Ma`ani al-Tanzil (3:490): "They [Ahl al-Bayt] are the wives of the Prophet (SAWS) because they are in his house." Then he mentions the other two explanations, namely, that they are the `Itra or that they are the families of `Ali, `Aqil, Ja`far, and al-`Abbas.

Al-Nasafi, Madarik al-Tanzil wa Haqa'iq al-Ta'wil (3:490): "There is in it [verse 33:33] a proof that his wives are part of the Folk of his Household (min ahli baytihi). He said 'from you [M] (`ankum)' because what is meant are both the men and women of his family (?l) as indicated by {wa yutahhirakum tath?ran = and cleanse you [M/F] with a thorough cleansing} >from the filth of sins."

Al-Tabari, Tafsir (22:7) [after citing reports explaining Ahl al-Bayt to mean the `Itra] and al-Wahidi, Asbab al-Nuzul (p. 299 #734): From `Ikrima concerning 33:33: "It is not as they claim, but the verse was revealed concerning the wives of the Prophet (SAWS)."

Al-Zamakhshari, Tafsir al-Kashshaf (2:212): "In this [33:33] there is an explicit proof that the wives of the Prophet - Allah bless and greet him - are among the People of his House (min Ahli Baytihi)."

Al-Shawkani, Fath al-Qadir (4:278-280) and al-Mubarakfuri, Tuhfat al-Ahwadhi (9:48-49): "Ibn `Abbas, `Ikrima, `Ata', al-Kalbi, Muqatil, and Sa`id ibn Jubayr said the wives of the Prophet (SAWS) are specifically meant [in 33:33], and by house are meant the houses of his wives as mentioned before in the verses. While Abu Sa`id al-Khudri, Mujahid, and Qatada - it is also related from al-Kalbi - said that those meant are specifically `Ali, Fatima, al-Hasan, and al-Husayn. They adduced the fact that the pronouns are in the masculine, but this was refuted by the fact that the noun Ahl is masculine and therefore necessitates a masculine gender as in the verse [Hud 73].... A third group stands midway between the two and includes both [the wives and the `Itra]... A number of the verifying authorities consider this the most correct explanation, among them al-Qurtubi, Ibn Kathir, and others."

Al-Jalalayn: "Ahl al-Bayt [in 33:33] i.e. the wives of the Prophet (SAWS)."

Al-Sawi, Hashiyat al-Jalalayn: "It was said the verse [33:33] is comprehensive (`?mma) to mean the People of his House in the sense of his dwelling and these are his wives, and the People of his House in the sense of his lineage and these are his offspring."

Al-Suyuti, al-Durr al-Manthur (6:603): [after citing the narrations of the `Itra] Ibn Sa`d narrated from `Urwa that he said: "Ahl al-Bayt [in 33:33] means the wives of the Prophet (SAWS) and it was revealed in the house of `A'isha."

Ibn al-Jawzi, Zad al-Masir fi `Ilm al-Tafsir (6:378): "Then He showed their superiority over all women when He said: {You [feminine] are not like anyone [masculine] of the women} (33:32). Al-Zajjaj [the philologist] said: 'He did not say, "like any other woman" in the feminine, because the masculine form denotes a general exclusion of both male and female [human beings], one and all.'"

Al-Bukhari, Sahih: Hadith from Anas: The Prophet (SAWS) visited `A'isha and, upon entering her house, said: "As-Sal?mu `alaykum Ahl al-Bayt! wa rahmatullah." Whereupon she responded: "Wa `alayka as-Salam wa rahmatullah, how did you find your wives [ahlak]? May Allah bless you." Then he went around to see all of his wives and said to them exactly what he had said to `A'isha.

Al-Wahidi, al-Wajiz fi Tafsir al-Kitab al-`Aziz (2:865): "Ahl al-Bayt [in 33:33] meaning, the wives of the Prophet (SAWS) and the men [and women] of the People of his House."

Al-Tha`alibi, Jawahir al-Hisan fi Tafsir al-Qur'an (2:212): "This verse [Hud 73] shows that the wife of a man is part of the People of his House (min Ahli Baytihi)... and 'the House' in Surat al-Ahzab [33:33] refers to the dwelling quarters [i.e. of the wives]."

Ibn Kathir, Tafsir (3:532) and al-Wahidi, Asbab al-Nuzul (p. 299 #733): From Ibn `Abbas: "This verse [33:33] was revealed concerning the wives of the Prophet (SAWS)."

Ibn Jama`a, Ghurar al-Tibyan fi Ma lam Yusamma fi al-Qur'an (p. 421 #1201) and al-Suyuti in Mufhamat al-Aqran fi Mubhamat al-Qur'an: "Ahl al-Bayt in verse 33 are the Prophet and his wives. It was also said they are `Ali, Fatima, al-Hasan, and al-Husayn, and it was also said they are those for whom sadaqa is unlawful [i.e. ?l `Aqil, ?l `Ali, ?l Ja`far, and ?l al-`Abbas]."

Al-Zarkashi, al-Burhan fi `Ulum al-Qur'an (2:197): "The phrasing of the Qur'an [in Surat al-Ahzab] shows that the wives are meant, that the verses were revealed concerning them, and that it is impossible to exclude them from the meaning of the verse. However, since others were to be included with them it was said with the masculine gender: {Allah desires to remove uncleanness far from you [masculine plural], O Folk of the Household}. It is then known that this desire comprises all the Folk of the Household - both male and female - as opposed to His saying {O wives of the Prophet} and it shows that `Ali and Fatima are more [specifically] deserving of this description ["Ahl al-Bayt"] than the wives."

Al-Jassas, Ahkam al-Qur'an (4:378-379): "It [the verse Hud 73] shows that the wives of the Prophet - Allah bless and greet him - are of the People of his House (min Ahli Baytihi) because the angels names Ibrahim's wife as being of the People of his House, and so has Allah Most High said when addressing the wives of the Prophet - Alah bless and greet him - when He said:... [33:33]. His wives are part of those meant because the beginning of the address concerns them."

Abu al-Su`ud, Irshad al-`Aql al-Salim ila Mazaya al-Qur'an al-Karim (7:103):

"This [33:33], as you see, is an explicit verse and a radiant proof that the wives of the Prophet - Allah bless and greet him - are among the People of his House (min Ahli Baytihi), ruling once and for all the invalidity of the opinion of the Shi`is who narrow it to mean only Fatima, `Ali, and their two sons - Allah be well-pleased with them. As for what they claim as their proof [hadith of the Mantle], it only shows that they [the Four] are part of Ahl al-Bayt, not that other than them are excluded."

[Brother_MGS]

If you ad the hadith Al Kisa, the famed hadith that gave the status and brought about the phrase PanjTaan Paak, it can be argued that purity is only for the chosen 5. The wives do form part of the Prophetic household but complete purity and immunity from Sin is only given to the chosen 5.

Narrated Aisha(RA):

One day the Prophet (PBUH&HF) came out afternoon wearing a black cloak (upper garment or gown; long coat), then al-Hasan Ibn Ali came and the Prophet accommodated him under the cloak, then al-Husain came and entered the cloak, then Fatimah came and the Prophet entered her under the cloak, then Ali came and the Prophet entered him to the cloak as well. Then the Prophet recited: "God Allah intends to keep off from you every kind of uncleanness O' People of the House (Ahlul-Bayt), and purify you a perfect purification (the last sentence of Verse 33:33)."

Sunni reference:

* Sahih Muslim, Chapter of virtues of companions, section of the virtues of the Ahlul-Bayt of the Prophet (PBUH)


Another version of the "Tradition of Cloak" is written in Sahih al-Tirmidhi, which is narrated in the authority of Umar Ibn Abi Salama, the son of Umm Salama which is as follows:

The verse "Allah only intends to ... (33:33)" was revealed to the Prophet (PBUH&HF) in the house of Umm Salama. Upon that, the Prophet gathered Fatimah, al-Hasan, and al-Husain, and covered them with a cloak, and he also covered Ali who was behind him. Then the Prophet said: "O' Allah! These are the Members of my House (Ahlul-Bayt). Keep them away from every impurity and purify them with a perfect purification." Umm Salama (the wife of Prophet) asked: "Am I also included among them O Apostle of Allah?" the Prophet replied: "You remain in your position and you are toward a good ending."

Sunni reference: Sahih al-Tirmidhi, v5, pp 351,663

To further add to the arguement that only the PanjTaan Paak have recieved perfect purification, there are hadiths where our beloved Master RasoolAllah SallalahuAlaiyhiWaSalaam has shown the status of Ali, Hassan, Hussain and Fatima. It is said that Fatima is a part of our beloved prophet, part of their blessed body to. Many muffasireen and muhaditheen have used this hadith which (of the top of my head) can be found also in Sahih Muslim further strengthens the arguement that Fatima is pure and is also of Noor.

Just like how Ali is Moula to whomever our Prophet is Moula to, How Ali is the brother of our beloved Prophet in this life and the after, how Ali is the door of knowledge to which our Prophet is the city of knowledge.
How Hussain is said to be the copy of the bottom half of our beloved Prophet and Hassan is said to be the identical copy of the top half of our Prophet(correct me if im wrong). How Hussain is from our beloved Prophet and our beloved Prophet is from Hussain.

InshAllah when i have more time i will go into it further and i will provide sources if it helps.

[seeker]

Such a proposition is evidence for their inclusion in the verse, certainly. But it does not exclude others.

The proof is there in the Qur'an - it comes slap bang in the middle of discussion addressing the mothers of the believers ONLY, then this is thrown in, then it carries on with the mothers of the believers. Therefore, if an ignorant person read this they might even think it ONLY refers to THEM - so your proofs to include the panjtaan paak is very useful to show that, no, actually they are included too.

It is not the other way around - i.e. that it refers to Panjtaan paak and we must prove the mothers of the believers are included too. That is not the way it is presented in the Qur'an.

[Mudassar-Rana]

status of Ali, Hassan, Hussain and Fatima. It is said that Fatima is a part of our beloved prophet, part of their blessed body to. Many muffasireen and muhaditheen have used this hadith which (of the top of my head) can be found also in Sahih Muslim further strengthens the arguement that Fatima is pure and is also of Noor.

Just like how Ali is Moula to whomever our Prophet is Moula to, How Ali is the brother of our beloved Prophet in this life and the after, how Ali is the door of knowledge to which our Prophet is the city of knowledge.
How Hussain is said to be the copy of the bottom half of our beloved Prophet and Hassan is said to be the identical copy of the top half of our Prophet(correct me if im wrong). How Hussain is from our beloved Prophet and our beloved Prophet is from Hussain.


Bro MGS what you write above - is what we have all heard - however how have the scholars classified these ahadith? Are they sahih, daeef or mutawatir?

Also the quranic verse you highlighted - again i have heard that it refers to panjtan paak - but again though naturally the verse is mutawatir - does it really refer to the panjtan paak? Or do others namely wahabi's use it for others?

The reason for the questions are purely to gain a bit of knowledge. thanks to both yourself and bro seeker.

[Husayni]

 Mudassar-Rana, on 16 April 2012 - 11:49 PM, said:

A question for the learned bro's and Sisters

What are the ahadith defining the status of the above 3 personalities.

were these ahadith well known amongst the people after rasool allah s.a.w and if so is there any evidence to suggest they were well known?

1. It is reported that once, Imam Hasan approached the Holy Prophet - blessings and peace be upon him - and climbed on his shoulders. A person, (who was present) remarked, “O blessed son! What a nice steed you have”. In reply, the Holy Prophet declared, “And how nice a rider (too).” [Sunan al-Tirmidhi, Kitab al-Manaqib, Manaqib Abi Muhammad al-Hasan – Hadith no. 3809, Vol 5, Page 432].

2. Once, when the Holy Prophet - blessings and peace be upon him - was in ritual prostration Imam Hasan wrapped himself on the blessed back of the Holy Prophet - blessings and peace be upon him. Due to this, the Holy Prophet - blessings and peace be upon him - lengthened the ritual prostration so that he (Hasan) would not fall when the Prophet raised his head. [Musnad Abu Ya'la, Musnad Anas bin Malik, Hadith no. 3415, Vol 3, Page 21].

3. The Prophet - blessings and peace be upon him - declared: “these two sons of mine are the leaders of the youth in Paradise.” [Sunan al-Tirmidhi, Kitab al-Manaqib, Manaqib Abi Muhammad al-Hasan, Hadith no. 3793, Vol. 5, Page 426].

4. The Holy Prophet - blessings and peace be upon him - has also stated that, “Their friends are my friends, their enemies are my enemies.” [Sunan ibn Maja, kitab al-Sunna, Fadl al Hasan wa al Husain, Hadith no. 143, Vol. 1, Page 96].

5. He has also stated that, “these two are the swords of the heavens.” He has also stated that, “Hussain is from me and I am from Hussain. May Allah keep him as a friend who keeps Hussain as his friend. Hussain is a grandchild from among grandchildren.” [Sunan al-Tirmidhi, Hadith no. 3800, Vol. 5, Page 429].

6. It is stated that once, the Holy Prophet - blessings and peace be upon him - placed Imam Hussain on his right thigh and and his own son, Sayyiduna Ibrahim on his left thigh. Jibra’il appeared to him and said, “Allah will not keep them both with the Prophet, choose one of them.” The Holy Prophet - blessings and peace be upon him - could not bear being separated from Imam Hussain and three days later, Sayyiduna Ibrahim passed on to the Divine Lord. After this incident, whenever Imam Hussain came in front of him , he used to kiss him and say, ‘Welcome to the one for whom I have sacrificed my own son’” [Tarikh al-Baghdad, Vol. 2, Page 200].

7. He has also declared that, “They are my sons and the sons of my daughter. O Allah! I have kept them in my friendship; You also keep them in Your friendship and keep him as Your friend who keeps them as his friends.” [Sunan al-Tirmidhi, Kitab al-Manaqib, Hadith no. 3794, Vol. 5, Page 427].

8. He advised his blessed daughter, “Bring me both my sons.” He used to then smell them and then hug them to his chest. [Sunan al-Tirmidhi, Kitab al-Manaqib, Hadith no. 3797, Vol. 5, Page 428].

[Mudassar-Rana]

thanks bro husayni - now how are these classified in terms of authencity?

What i am driving at is - if they are mutawatir through both reporting and meaning - then basically they form the part of aqaid for ALL muslims from whichever shade and we are not allowed to differ on the status of these 3 hugely eminent and towering personalities.

[objective-enquirer]

the verse 3:61 is was revealed for the pajntan paak exclusively by the unanimous agreement of all. when the christians of najran came to debate with the Noble Prophet(s) and logical arguments were presented but they would not agree so Allah(s) then said that now..do mubahala with them. which means that both parties would go out in the open and pray to Allah(s) for a curse upon the liars.
this occurred in the 9th after Hijra. the Prophet(s)'s companions and wives were all available but as per the instruction of the Quran the Prophet(s) only took out in the open Ali, Fatimah and Hasan and Hussain (alayhum al-salaam). the Quran calls Hasan/Hussain as the sons of the Prophet(s) and calls Ali as the nafs/self of the Prophet(s). the verse of purification had already been revealed so this in a sense was demonstration of the people of purification. i am not citing any references about 3:61 because it is agreed upon by everyone. Imam hakim calls it mutawatir.

here is the verse:

Then whoever argues with you about it after [this] knowledge has come to you - say, "Come, let us call our sons and your sons, our women and your women, ourselves and yourselves, then supplicate earnestly [together] and invoke the curse of Allah upon the liars [among us]."

another verse of the Quran says that be with the 'truthful' and in this verse Allah(s) tells us who are the turthful in the Qur'an.

when the curse is upon the liars then it means the ones from this side are truthful! so when we gather all the verses of the Qur'an topically then in tafseer of the Quran with Quran explains that the panjtan paak the truthful about whom the Allah tells us to be with.

[seeker]

 objective-enquirer, on 17 April 2012 - 11:22 PM, said:

the verse 3:61 is was revealed for the pajntan paak exclusively by the unanimous agreement of all. when the christians of najran came to debate with the Noble Prophet(s) and logical arguments were presented but they would not agree so Allah(s) then said that now..do mubahala with them. which means that both parties would go out in the open and pray to Allah(s) for a curse upon the liars.
this occurred in the 9th after Hijra. the Prophet(s)'s companions and wives were all available but as per the instruction of the Quran the Prophet(s) only took out in the open Ali, Fatimah and Hasan and Hussain (alayhum al-salaam). the Quran calls Hasan/Hussain as the sons of the Prophet(s) and calls Ali as the nafs/self of the Prophet(s). the verse of purification had already been revealed so this in a sense was demonstration of the people of purification. i am not citing any references about 3:61 because it is agreed upon by everyone. Imam hakim calls it mutawatir.

here is the verse:

Then whoever argues with you about it after [this] knowledge has come to you - say, "Come, let us call our sons and your sons, our women and your women, ourselves and yourselves, then supplicate earnestly [together] and invoke the curse of Allah upon the liars [among us]."

another verse of the Quran says that be with the 'truthful' and in this verse Allah(s) tells us who are the turthful in the Qur'an.

when the curse is upon the liars then it means the ones from this side are truthful! so when we gather all the verses of the Qur'an topically then in tafseer of the Quran with Quran explains that the panjtan paak the truthful about whom the Allah tells us to be with.

I would agree with all of the above, alhamdulillah, I don't know about the Tafseer of that last verse as I haven't heard about it but I don't deny it.

The only point which I am keen to emphasise - for no other reason than that it is true - is that in 33:33 (the verse of purification), it is clear that the Mothers of the Believers are included, and this is the foundation of the proof in that they are considered Ahl al-Bayt. Does this affect the rank and status of 'Ali, Fatimah, Hasan, or Husayn - alayhim assalaam - in any way? Certainly not. Narrowing the verse does not serve them.

[objective-enquirer]

 seeker, on 17 April 2012 - 02:30 PM, said:

Such a proposition is evidence for their inclusion in the verse, certainly. But it does not exclude others.

The proof is there in the Qur'an - it comes slap bang in the middle of discussion addressing the mothers of the believers ONLY, then this is thrown in, then it carries on with the mothers of the believers. Therefore, if an ignorant person read this they might even think it ONLY refers to THEM - so your proofs to include the panjtaan paak is very useful to show that, no, actually they are included too.

It is not the other way around - i.e. that it refers to Panjtaan paak and we must prove the mothers of the believers are included too. That is not the way it is presented in the Qur'an.

it is the jumhur ahl al-sunnah interpretation that the 33:33 was ONLY revealed for the panjtan paak. the references that you have quoted from tafsirs are hacked my dear brother. for example:

Quote

Al-Tabari, Tafsir (22:7) [after citing reports explaining Ahl al-Bayt to mean the `Itra] and al-Wahidi, Asbab al-Nuzul (p. 299 #734): From `Ikrima concerning 33:33: "It is not as they claim, but the verse was revealed concerning the wives of the Prophet (SAWS)."

it is the method of imam ibn jarir tabari that he presents the strong opinion first then the weak one. for ayah tatheer he presents about 16 ahadith and opinions including the wives themselves that the verse is revealed for the panjtan paak alone and at the end he gives only one other opinion that of ikrima the khariji that it was for the wives alone. it is not a hadith but an opinion of ikrima-khariji and on the other side there are sixteen sound evidences for panjtan paak only. however, al-tabari gives only two options: either for the five or for the wives. there is no position that it was for both, which you are claiming!! his own opinion is what he cites first with sixteen reports that it is only for 5tan paak. see how quote is a chakkar!!

the prominent mufassireen from third century to 11th century have stated that MAJORITY ahl al-sunna opinion is that this verse was ONLY revealed for panjtan paak! for detailed discussion and evidences i will provide a link with references. the wives are from ahl al-bayt because a man's wife is his ahl al-bayt, it self evident. but we are talking about ahl al-bayt in ayah tatheer only. there are five types of ahl al-bayt...see the link for further details.

as for the argument from context then it is very weak. there are feminine pronouns before and after the verse and suddenly the verse changes to masculine. the passage addresses the wives only before and after directly yet when asked, all agree that the Prophet(s) is also included in the verse. may I ask: since the verse before/after is directly addressed to wives so does it mean that wives are the first persons addressed in ayah tatheer? you will say no because the Prophet(s) is the first person addressed in ayah tatheer. so if the Prophet(s) is the FIRST person here and He is NOT addressed before or after then it means this verse is jumla mu'tarizah, it is disconnected from before and after and if it is not then where how is the Prophet(s) included in it? there many such instances in the Qur'an like it when a statement is made without connection with before or after.

there are three opinions:
majority: for panjtan paak only
minority: for wives only
minority: both- this originates from dhihak ibn mazahim who also believed in copyist errors in the Qur'an by the way.

for further study of it watch this:

This post has been edited by objective-enquirer: 17 April 2012 - 11:54 PM

[seeker]

Edit: By the way, for anybody reading, I do not want you thinking this is an 'argument' or anything, nor is anybody deriding ANY of the great personalities of our history. Alhamdulillah.
-----------------------------------------------
The only thing to do is to go and look at the Tafaseer themselves to see the veracity of the claims!

Annoyingly I can't type Arabic here it comes up as question marks (forgive roughness of my transliteration), but this is from Imam Fakhruddin ar-Raazi:

...thumma inna Allaha ta'ala taraka khiTaab almu'annathaat wa khaaTaba al-mudhakkreena biqowlihi (liyudhhiba 'ankum ar-rijsa) liyudkhila fiihi nisaa'a ahli baytihi warijaalihim, wakhtalafati al-aqwaalu fi ahl al-bayti, wal-oolaa an yuqaala hum awlaaduhu wa azwaajuhu walhasan walhusayn minhum wa 'ali minhum liannahu kaan...

Imam al-Baydawi is somewhat more explicit with regards to the Shi'ah, concluding:
...al-takhseesu bihim (meaning, the panjtaan-e-paak) la yunaasib maa qablal aayah wmaa ba'dahaa, walHdeeth yaqtDii annahum min ahl il-bayti laa annahu laysa ghayrahum.

This is what I have been saying - the hadith of the cloak does not make it EXCLUSIVE to those under the cloak (alayhim assalaam), rather it proves that they are from amongst them. Furthermore, the Hadeeth of the cloak ends with Umm Salamah asking "And I?" (to be included in the "cloak" and the Prophet pbuh replies in the affirmative. Also, I do not accept the context to be a 'weak' source of evidence in this case, as both these Imams in Tafsir have relied upon it.

The opinion that it refers to the wives is also propounded in the Jalalayn, without any mention of the panjtaan paak (I am a little surprised they are not included and disagree, but there you go).

[objective-enquirer]

brother you can accept any of the three opinions amongst ahl al-sunna. it is for panjtan paak or for wives only or for both. it is for panjtan paak only is the opinion of majority of ahl al-sunna and the other two are a minority ahl al-sunna opinion. you can be with minority because majority is not a hujjat in shariah.

the question about contetx i asked was that before and after the Prophet(s) is NOT addressed but in this verse He(s) is the first person addressed so his inclusion makes it out of context!!

[seeker]

 objective-enquirer, on 18 April 2012 - 01:16 AM, said:

the question about contetx i asked was that before and after the Prophet(s) is NOT addressed but in this verse He(s) is the first person addressed so his inclusion makes it out of context!!

Sorry, I don't know what you mean that it addresses the Prophet (s) first?



"And abide in your [F. plural] houses and do not display yourselves [F. plural] as [was] the display of the former times of ignorance. And establish prayer [F. plural] and give zakah [F. plural] and obey Allah and His Messenger [F. plural]. Allah intends only to remove from you [M. plural including F] the impurity [of sin], O people of the [Prophet's] household, and to purify you with [extensive] purification [M. plural including F]."

The switch from F. to M. + F. shows that Allah was talking all along to and is talking to the Wives, but in THIS part of the passage specifically, at least one male is being included in addition.

[objective-enquirer]

well, atleast, we have agreement that according to the jumhur of ahl al-sunnah ayah tathir was revealed for panjtan paak only (origin: Hazrat Ayesah, hazrat umm salama, hz abu saeed khudri, hz Anas ibn malik) though the minority is split into two groups: the ones that believe that it was revealed for the wives only (origin: `ikrima) and the ones that believe it is for both panjtan paak and wives (origin: dhihak ibn mazahim).

now, that has been established and you are arguing for the third minority position that it was revealed for both i.e. panjtan paak and wives.
it is also unanimous that the ayah tatheer was revealed on its own and other verses were not revealed together with it. it was revealed in the house of umm salama or bibi ayesha, nevertheless, all agree that it was revealed separately to before and after at a different time and place.

furthermore, since it occurs in the passage with the verses before and after exclusively for wives hence people say that ayah tatheer which occurs within that passage must also be for them though it was revealed separate from the passage in which only panjtan paak were included.

however, there are two questions about the argument from before and after:

1. the dramatic shift from feminine pronouns to masculine pronouns though immediately prior to it and immediately after we have feminine pronouns addressing ONLY and directly the wives. None before or after is included in the address except for the wives. here in the middle, all of a sudden we have masculine pronouns used and the the word ahl al-bayt used and declared to be purified in the best of purification.

Quote

"And abide in your [F. plural] houses and do not display yourselves [F. plural] as [was] the display of the former times of ignorance. And establish prayer [F. plural] and give zakah [F. plural] and obey Allah and His Messenger [F. plural]. Allah intends only to remove from you [M. plural including F] the impurity [of sin], O people of the [Prophet's] household, and to purify you with [extensive] purification [M. plural including F]"

and here is what you missed out in the very next verse:

And remember [F. plural] what is recited in your [F. plural] houses of the verses of Allah and wisdom.


so the whole is this:

Quote

"And abide in your [F. plural] houses and do not display yourselves [F. plural] as [was] the display of the former times of ignorance. And establish prayer [F. plural] and give zakah [F. plural] and obey Allah and His Messenger [F. plural]. Allah intends only to remove from you [M. plural including F] the impurity [of sin], O people of the [Prophet's] household, and to purify you with [extensive] purification [M. plural including F].And remember [F. plural] what is recited in your [F. plural] houses of the verses of Allah and wisdom."

why the shift from FEMININE to masculine? people who include wives in it answer that because of the Prophet(s) being included here has changed the pronouns into Masculine. But this backfires because this very fact i.e. the Prophet being included makes the verse disconnected to before and after in the sense that before/after EXCLUSIVELY the wives are being addressed and admonished. THEN the address changes to masculine gender and FIRST and foremost person addressed is the PROPHET(s). the shift from wives as the first people to be addressed and to the Prophet(s) being the first person being addressed has made it out of context.
now, when this argument shatters the contxtual argument because the Qur'an is a miracle and does not use pronouns meaninglessly. in response, some other people say that masculine pronoun changes because of the word ahl al-bayt itself. it is because of this word that it requires masculine pronoun. okay, fine. but we know in arabic grammar that a pronoun refers to the nearest referent in terms of masculinity and femininity. once it is established that it changes to masculine because of the word ahl al-bayt then why didnt it remain masculine immdediately in the next line (see above). there is nothing stopping it from remaing masculine because it is now referring to ahl al-bayt which is masculine according to you. the very next verse changes back again to feminine without a new reference being introduced to change it back into feminine?

[seeker]

 objective-enquirer, on 18 April 2012 - 02:09 PM, said:

well, atleast, we have agreement that according to the jumhur of ahl al-sunnah ayah tathir was revealed for panjtan paak only (origin: Hazrat Ayesah, hazrat umm salama, hz abu saeed khudri, hz Anas ibn malik) though the minority is split into two groups: the ones that believe that it was revealed for the wives only (origin: `ikrima) and the ones that believe it is for both panjtan paak and wives (origin: dhihak ibn mazahim).

-----------

why the shift from FEMININE to masculine? people who include wives in it answer that because of the Prophet(s) being included here has changed the pronouns into Masculine. But this backfires because this very fact i.e. the Prophet being included makes the verse disconnected to before and after in the sense that before/after EXCLUSIVELY the wives are being addressed and admonished. THEN the address changes to masculine gender and FIRST and foremost person addressed is the PROPHET(s). the shift from wives as the first people to be addressed and to the Prophet(s) being the first person being addressed has made it out of context.
now, when this argument shatters the contxtual argument because the Qur'an is a miracle and does not use pronouns meaninglessly. in response, some other people say that masculine pronoun changes because of the word ahl al-bayt itself. it is because of this word that it requires masculine pronoun. okay, fine. but we know in arabic grammar that a pronoun refers to the nearest referent in terms of masculinity and femininity. once it is established that it changes to masculine because of the word ahl al-bayt then why didnt it remain masculine immdediately in the next line (see above). there is nothing stopping it from remaing masculine because it is now referring to ahl al-bayt which is masculine according to you. the very next verse changes back again to feminine without a new reference being introduced to change it back into feminine?

Apologies to the thread people - this is diverging from the topic to the position of the Mothers of the Believers (r.a.)!

Pardon me for the brevity of this post, but I feel it necessary to mention a few contentions despite my shortage in time. Please forgive me if this may sound in any way rude, but I am just going to get to the point! I am sure you are mature enough to handle that

-Your first statement is putting words in my mouth, I'm sorry to say!
-I disagree with your usage of the word "majority" opinion as if it was solid fact - for example, the tafaaseer more often than not, from what I have seen, seem to suggest otherwise.
-Your explanation of the change in pronoun is not very... It's not what seems clear from the Qur'an, rather it seems to oppose. Forget the "pronoun changed because of the words "ahl al-bayt", that is nonsense. Rather it is talking to the wives allll along, and then in that section Allah wishes to add some males too. - who those males are, is explained by the hadith of the mantle - and then those males are removed in the rest of the discourse in the following verse as you mentioned.
- If the hadith of the mantle is used, it shows that they are included, and not that it is them exclusively. Furthermore, if that is the argument, then you would have to include Umm Salamah in that same category, because she said - after the Prophet (pbuh) said what he said - : "Qultu Ya RasulAllah, wa ana? Qaala wa ant". This shows that the mantle was not to exclude others.

 seeker, on 18 April 2012 - 12:40 AM, said:

The only thing to do is to go and look at the Tafaseer themselves to see the veracity of the claims!

Annoyingly I can't type Arabic here it comes up as question marks (forgive roughness of my transliteration), but this is from Imam Fakhruddin ar-Raazi:

...thumma inna Allaha ta'ala taraka khiTaab almu'annathaat wa khaaTaba al-mudhakkreena biqowlihi (liyudhhiba 'ankum ar-rijsa) liyudkhila fiihi nisaa'a ahli baytihi warijaalihim, wakhtalafati al-aqwaalu fi ahl al-bayti, wal-oolaa an yuqaala hum awlaaduhu wa azwaajuhu walhasan walhusayn minhum wa 'ali minhum liannahu kaan...

Imam al-Baydawi is somewhat more explicit with regards to the Shi'ah, concluding:
...al-takhseesu bihim (meaning, the panjtaan-e-paak) la yunaasib maa qablal aayah wmaa ba'dahaa, walHdeeth yaqtDii annahum min ahl il-bayti laa annahu laysa ghayrahum.

This is what I have been saying - the hadith of the cloak does not make it EXCLUSIVE to those under the cloak (alayhim assalaam), rather it proves that they are from amongst them. Furthermore, the Hadeeth of the cloak ends with Umm Salamah asking "And I?" (to be included in the "cloak" and the Prophet pbuh replies in the affirmative. Also, I do not accept the context to be a 'weak' source of evidence in this case, as both these Imams in Tafsir have relied upon it.

The opinion that it refers to the wives is also propounded in the Jalalayn, without any mention of the panjtaan paak (I am a little surprised they are not included and disagree, but there you go). [/size]

[Fatema-the-resplendent]

Sorry to interject the conversation between you two but Br Seeker once you have finished your point about the Wives being in the Ayah Tatheer can you also explain the exclusion of the Wives in the Mubahala between Prophet and the Christians of Najran. It was Seyyeda Fatema who accompanied him when the Quran asked for representation of 'your women' and why then were the Wives not included? Does this not point the special spiritual status of the immediate blood family of RasoolAllah, which included the original panjtan paak?

This post has been edited by Fatema-the-resplendent: 18 April 2012 - 02:51 PM

[seeker]

 Fatema-the-resplendent, on 18 April 2012 - 02:50 PM, said:

Sorry to interject the conversation between you two but Br Seeker once you have finished your point about the Wives being in the Ayah Tatheer can you also explain the exclusion of the Wives in the Mubahala between Prophet and the Christians of Najran. It was Seyyeda Fatema who accompanied him when the Quran asked for representation of 'your women' and why then were the Wives not included? Does this not point the special spiritual status of the immediate blood family of RasoolAllah, which included the original panjtan paak?

You are right, the Mothers of the Believers are not included in the Mubahalah - as far as I remember, that is, but yes that is what I was taught. But this is not really.. excuse my saying... not really the topic of discussion. Who is questioning the special status of sayyidah Fatimah, sayyidna Ali and Hasan and Husayn (alayhim assalaam)? (Rhetorical question - does not need an answer.)