blog in defence of complete Ahlebayt
A Scientific Dialogue Regarding Incident Of Kisa (revealing some facts)
Re: blog in defence of complete Ahlebayt
BS ! propoganda quite similar to the ones churned out by the rafidis
the "complete" ahlebait are the banu hashim specifically abdul muttalib progeny including Harith, zubair, abu talib, hamza and Abbas
Re: blog in defence of complete Ahlebayt
Abdul Hakim Green summed the matter of Sahaba very beautifully.
Re: blog in defence of complete Ahlebayt
She testified that who were included among the purfied members of Ahlebayt by prophet(Saw).SINCE PROPHET(sAW) MADE DUA TO INCLUDE HZ ALI(RA) , HZ FATIMA(RA), HZ HUSSAIN(RA) AND HZ HASSAN(RA), TO BE included among the purfied members mentioned in 33:33 since the verse was revealed for wives of prophet(Saw), had it been that the verse was revealed for Ahle kisa, THEN THERE WAS NO NEED TO AGAIN MAKE DUA FOR THEM, AS THE PROPHET(sAW) DID…
For detailed info refer this:
Re: blog in defence of complete Ahlebayt
we know from the quran that ahlebait includes the mothers RA. it is the household of the prophet SAW
currently you seem to be lumping both the rawafid and those who take on their lies into the same category. this appears wrong to me because one group is a liar upon islam and we all know that the liars are the rawafid.
u r the opposite of rawafid i.e nawasib thats equally if not more detestible
your interests are simply petty sectarian squabbles, but both you and 12ers miss the bigger picture i.e the tribal nature of arabs.
Ahle bait are the blood relations of the Prophet which includes ( but not limited to) the ali and his sons, and membership of wives is honorary.
Re: blog in defence of complete Ahlebayt
[mod] Please, refrain from personal attacks. Keep the discussion civil. [/mod]
Re: blog in defence of complete Ahlebayt
It's a bit rowdy in this section of the forum, I'm almost too scared to post anything lol
Re: blog in defence of complete Ahlebayt
Please, don’t be scared. If you see anything inappropriate, feel free to report the post. Thanks!
Happy Posting! 
Re: blog in defence of complete Ahlebayt
I am hearing this bifurcation of Ahlulbayt for the first time from a Sunni, anyhow, this is itself close to what Shia say that is Ahlulbayt are those who are purified.
Re: blog in defence of complete Ahlebayt
The verse "Verily Allah intends to ... (33:33)" was revealed to the Prophet (PBUH&HF) in the house of Umm Salama. Upon that, the Prophet gathered Fatimah, al-Hasan, and al-Husain, and covered them with a cloak, and he also covered Ali who was behind him. Then the Prophet said: "O' Allah! These are the Members of my House (Ahlul-Bayt). Keep them away from every impurity and purify them with a perfect purification." Umm Salama (the wife of Prophet) asked: "Am I also included among them O Apostle of Allah?" the Prophet replied: "You remain in your position and you are toward a good ending."
Sahih al-Tirmidhi, v5, pp 351,663
Re: blog in defence of complete Ahlebayt
Yazid b. Hayyan reported: We went to him (Zaid b. Arqam) and said to him. You have found goodness (for you had the honour) to live in the company of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and offered prayer behind him, and the rest of the hadith is the same but with this variation of wording that lie said: Behold, for I am leaving amongst you two weighty things, one of which is the Book of Allah, the Exalted and Glorious, and that is the rope of Allah. He who holds it fast would be on right guidance and he who abandons it would be in error, and in this (hadith) these words are also found: We said: Who are amongst the members of the household? Aren't the wives (of the Holy Prophet) included amongst the members of his house hold? Thereupon he said: No, by Allah, a woman lives with a man (as his wife) for a certain period; he then divorces her and she goes back to her parents and to her people; the members of his household include his ownself and his kith and kin (who are related to him by blood) and for him the acceptance of Zakat is prohibited.
Sahih Muslim, book 31, hadith 5923
Re: blog in defence of complete Ahlebayt
^ so if we follow this logic isnt jaffar, aqeel, abbas, hamza, ubaidah, Tufayl etc also Ahlebait since they are nephews uncles and cousins i.e kith and kin of the Prophet ?
Re: blog in defence of complete Ahlebayt
Peace Jafri and Das Reich
In Sahih Muslim, Book 31 around these hadith 5920s there are variants of the same or similar hadith. The general idea that can be gleaned from the hadith are:
Ahlulbayt the term has two meanings - linguistically a wife is part of the family of a person, but when it was used in the context of the two burdens being left behind that we need to care for - it was Al-Qur’an and all the people for whom taking zakat was made unlawful. The reason the wives were excluded from the second definition is only because they are included in the people who can accept zakat if the need arises.
You see it was not supposed to be removing them from the honour of the household rather it was freeing the ummah from the burden of including the wives in that specific requirement. The dear prophet (SAW) could not accept zakat, but he accepted gifts here is the story of Hz Salman Farsi (RA) on supporting this idea:
“…After the new bishop died, Salman attached himself to various Christian religious figures, in Mosul, Nisibis and elsewhere. The last one told him that there was none left on the earth that were following the correct path. He also told him that the time had arrived for the advent of a Prophet in the land of the Arabs, who would have a reputation for strict honesty, one who would accept a gift but would never consume charity (sadaqah) for himself. …”
" … That evening, Salman took some dates that he had gathered and went to the place where the Prophet had alighted. He went to him and said, ‘I have heard that you are a righteous man and that you have companions with you who are strangers and are in need. Here is something from me as sadaqah. I see that you are more deserving of it than others are.’
The Prophet ordered his companions to eat but he himself refrained. Salman gathered some more dates and when the Prophet left Quba for Madinah, Salman went to him and said, ‘I noticed that you did not eat of the sadaqah I gave. This however is a gift for you.’ Of this gift of dates, both he and his companions ate. …"
http://www.central-mosque.com/biographies/HazaratSalman.htm
So …
The burden (weighty thing) of the ahlulbayt was for us to honour them by providing gifts and invitations without providing them charity or zakat from the fund.
hadith 5920 set next to hadith 5923 puts all this in to context.
" … O people, I am a human being. I am about to receive a messenger (the angel of death) from my Lord and I, in response to Allah’s call, (would bid good-bye to you), but I am leaving among you two weighty things: the one being the Book of Allah in which there is right guidance and light, so hold fast to the Book of Allah and adhere to it. He exhorted (us) (to hold fast) to the Book of Allah and then said: The second are the members of my household I remind you (of your duties) to the members of my family. He (Husain) said to Zaid: Who are the members of his household? Aren’t his wives the members of his family? Thereupon he said: His wives are the members of his family (but here) the members of his family are those for whom acceptance of Zakat is forbidden. And he said: Who are they? Thereupon he said: 'Ali and the offspring of 'Ali, 'Aqil and the offspring of 'Aqil and the offspring of Ja’far and the offspring of 'Abbas. Husain said: These are those for whom the acceptance of Zakat is forbidden. Zaid said: Yes …"
Now you may ask why does one hadith say “yes” and the other say “no” ? … This is a simple Arabic grammar question … When a question such as “Isn’t such and such the case?” i.e. the question is phrased as a negation. Another example is “Didn’t you already have some food?” then in Arabic to answer “yes” or “no” directly would still mean “no” …
In order to answer by affirmation of the question being asked another response is given - the Arabs say “bala” - And I’m quite sure this was used here. “Bala” means - “No but yes” then a clarification statement comes after this. This is often lost in translation.
I think the major difference between Shi’a and Sunni concepts about ahl ul bayt are that Sunnis consider the distinction a special responsibility upon the Ummah for them to uphold the “burden” and Shi’a consider it a basis to exclude and highlight special status for the ahl ul bayt which supports their basis to separate from the “other” Muslims. To me it seems it is more important for a Shi’a to declare their separation and hence “find” evidence to support that position rather than decide upon how we are meant to understand scripture the way it was meant to be understood. This is a personal observation and not a taunt.
Re: blog in defence of complete Ahlebayt
psyah, since you are at it I would like to know more about this. Since "ahle bayt" intrinsically includes wives then it should also include "daughter" in the term. But we see some claiming the Fatima was only included after the Prophet made a supplication ( as narrated bu Umm Salama in Sahih Bukhari). Was the verse 33:33 revealed only in relation to the wives? If yes then why was Fatima excluded from the term Ahle Bayt here.
Also, are there narrations from the Prophet (s) *himself *(not opinions of his sahaba) which allude to the fact that the entire banu hashim forms part of Ahle Bayt. Why is it that the Prophet (s) had to convoke Ali, Fatima, Hassan and Hussein and declare them to be Ahle Bayt and the pure ones if it all was self evident?
Re: blog in defence of complete Ahlebayt
I am hearing this bifurcation of Ahlulbayt for the first time from a Sunni, anyhow, this is itself close to what Shia say that is Ahlulbayt are those who are purified.
yes purified Ahlebayt are wives of prophet(Saw) and Ahle kisa...
Re: blog in defence of complete Ahlebayt
**Answer: **According to this narration the verse of tatheer was revealed before prophet(Saw) made the supplication for Hz ali(ra), fatima(ra), hassan(ra) and hussain(ra) under the cloak. If we keep this in mind, then it is illogical for the Prophet(saw) to make supplication for the Ahle kisa to be purified AFTER the verse was revealed, because the verse states that Allah had ALREADY intended to purify Ahlebayt. It would only make sense when we say that 33:33 is for the wives since he(saw) tells his wife, “Inti ala khair.” The Prophet(saw) knew that this verse was originally revealed about the wives and he is the one who placed the verses 33:33 in context with the other verses in Surat al Ahzab, So he knew that she was already purified that’s why he told her to not worry since she is already on goodness, but He now wanted Allah to purify Ali(ra) And Fatima(ra), hz hassan(ra) and hz hussain(ra) whom he loved and considered from his ahlul-bayt, So he invited them under the cloak and made Dua for all of them so that Allah may purify them also.
Regarding this narration where hz umm salama(ra) was asked not to enter, then this falls under the narration of the hadith according to the meaning: Al-riwaya bil ma’ana. Without even filtering out the weak from the authentic in those narrations, we can assume that they all mean the same thing, which is that Um Salama(ra) was always from Ahlul Bayt(that 33:33 refers to the wives) and that she is not in need of the dua’a of the Prophet(saw) while the other four are in need of it.
The point people should ponder over is that why is dua made ? If at all Allah would have revealed this verse for Ahle kisa then there wouldn’t have been any need for a supplication from prophet(Saw) to purify them, because Allah had already wished to purify Ahlebayt(wives). Prophet(Saw) asking dua itself is a proof that this verse was not revealed for Ahlekisa.
Moreover as a whole I found, based on my personal observation, that all of the report which talks about Hz Um Salama’s (ra) question and reply of the Prophet (pbuh), has some disputed narrator, though that doesn’t make the narration weak(in some narrations) but they are not stronger than other narrations in which there is no mentioning of hz umm salama(ra) asking any question. And many a time different words are being narrated through a single route. However we find that scholars have authenticated these narrations, because the scholars show some leniency while authenticating narrations related to virtues(fadhail).
Anyways regardless of the authenticity this narration, it still is in favour of wives of prophet(Saw) and this narration and narrations similar to this in no way could be used to exlclude wives of prophety(Saw), based on the non-sensical argument that why didn’t prophet(Saw) allow hz umm salama(ra) in, or why didn’t prophet(Saw) made a similar supplication(dua) for wives, to which we give a sensible and logical reply that because the verse was revealed for the wives there was no need for prophet(Saw) to make dua for them, Dua was/is done for those who were/are not included not for those who were already included.
Another reasonable reply that was given regarding objections raised using this narration to exclude wives of prophet(Saw) from Ahlebayt by Shaykh Al-Saloos [May Allah reward him] was:”how can the Messenger of Allah enter his wife in his cloak at the same time with his cousin?!”. Moreover we have some other authentic narrations which we have provided in this article under the subtitle “authentic” narrations and they shows us that prophet(Saw) replied in affirmative to hz umm salama(ra) when she asked the question.
ANYWAYS A GIFT FOR YOU:
في بيتي أنزلت : ? إنما يريد الله ليذهب عنكم الرجس أهل البيت ويطهركم تطهيرا ? قالت : فأرسل رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم إلى فاطمة وعلي والحسن والحسين ، فقال : هؤلاء أهل بيتي ، وفي حديث القاضي والسمي : هؤلاء أهلي ، قالت : فقلت : يا رسول الله ! أما أنا من أهل البيت ؟ قال : بلى إن شاء الله تعالى
الراوي: أم سلمة المحدث: الحاكم – المصدر: السنن الكبرى للبيهقي – الصفحة أو الرقم: 2/150
خلاصة حكم المحدث: صحيح سنده ثقات رواته
a. Umm Salmah said: in my house these verses were revealed ” God wants to remove all kinds of uncleanliness from you Ahlul-Bayt and to purify you thoroughly.” So the Prophet PBUH called for Ali and Fatima and Hassan and Hussein and then said: These are Ahlu-Bayti, In the Hadith of al Qadi and al Summi: They are Ahly. So I said: O Messenger of Allah! aren’t I also from your Ahlul-Bayt? He said: yes you are Inshallah.
Muhaddith: Al Hakim from al Sunan al kubrah for Bayhaqi.
Hadith rank: Isnad SAHIH narrators all trustworthy.
Re: blog in defence of complete Ahlebayt
Answer: Firstly and most importantly the answer of hz zaid(ra) was his own mawqoof as signified by imam ibn katheer(rah) in his tafseer for verse 33:33. And he had based this view from a general prospective for women because of his own reasoning, but here it was not a general case because Allah said, wives of prophet(saw) are not like other women(33:32), So the ruling which are ment for wives in general cannot be applied to wives of prophet(saw) as they were special ones.
Imam ibn qayyim(rah) in his book discusses this issue in a great detail clearing the doubts who believed that wives of prophet(Saw) were allowed sadaqa. He said that, the relation of wives of prophet(Saw) was similar to nasab(lineage) because the wives of prophet(saw) remained haram on other men even after the death of prophet(Saw) and they were his wives even in his life and will be his wives even in hereafter, so their relation to prophet(Saw) was like of nasab(lineage). That is why sadaqa was even haram for the wives of prophet(Saw). Then he said that even Imam Ahmed(rah) was from the madhab who held this same belief. And he refuted all the arguments and claims of the people who denied that wives of prophet(Saw) were eligible to receive sadaqa in an satisfactory. So for detailed answer refer the book (Jila al afhaam by imam ibn qayyim page 331-333.)
Moreover the wives of prophet(Saw) were given a share from Khumms since they were not eligible to receive sadaqa and also there is an authentic narration where hz ayesha(ra) returned a thing which was given to her in sadaqa saying that sadaqa was haram on aal e Muhammad(saw). Here is that narration from Musannaf ibn abi shaybah (chapter Laa tahillu al-sadqa ala bani hashim)
ابن أبي مليكة أن خالد بن سعيد بعث إلى عائشة ببقرة من الصدقة فردتها وقالت إنا آل محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم لا تحل لنا الصدقة
Narrated with sahi sanad From Ibn Abu Malika [narrated] that: Khaled Ibn Saeed sent a cow from the Sadaqah to Aisha, so she sent it back and said: We are the Aal (the family) of Muhammad(saw) the sadaqah is not permissible for us.
Thus the view of hz zaid(ra) is to be rejected, because wife of prophet(Saw) knew better than hz zaid(ra) that what was forbidden for her and what was not. And hz ayesha(ra) was known for her vast knowledge in Islamic fiqh she used to be a teacher for some of the companions and in one of the report (sahi muslim, Bk 31, Number 5920) hz zaid said that:”I have grown old and have almost spent my age and I have forgotten some of the things which I remembered in connection with Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him), so accept whatever I narrate to you, and which I do not narrate do not compel me to do that.” So this was not a marfu narration from hz zaid(ra) but his own mawqoof so this will be rejected.
Secondly we will now through some light on what comes right before the narration in question, namely Hadith-5920, 5921, and 5922. All of these are part of the same narration and event as Hadith-5923. Hadiths 5921, 5922, and 5923 are all abridged versions of Hadith 5920, which is the entire Hadith. For example, Hadith 5922 simply says:
“This hadith [5920] has been transmitted on the authority of Abu Hayyan but with this addition: ‘The Book of Allah contains right guidance, the light, and whoever adheres to it and holds it fast, he is upon right guidance and whosoever deviates from it goes astray.’”
This means that Hadith 5922 cannot stand alone without Hadith 5920, which is the entire Hadith, whereas Hadiths 5921, 5922, and 5923 are abridged versions with minor additions and the words of additional narrators.
In fact, it is stated in Hadith 5923 (the one often quoted by Shia) that it cannot stand alone without Hadith 5920. Notice the bolded part below:
Yazid b. Hayyan reported: We went to him (Zaid b. Arqam) and said to him: “You have found goodness (for you had the honour) to live in the company of Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) and offered prayer behind him…”, and the rest of the Hadith is the same [as Hadith 5920] but with this variation of wording that he said…
(Sahih Muslim, Book 31, Chapter 4, Hadith 5923)
So we see that Hadith 5923 (as quoted by the Shia) cannot stand alone without the un-abridged version of Hadith 5920.
Let us now look at Hadith 5920 which is the un-abridged version:
“He (Husain) said to Zaid: ‘Who are the members of his household? Aren’t his wives the members of his family?’ Thereupon he said: ‘His wives are the members of his family but here the members of his family are those for whom acceptance of Zakat is forbidden.’ And he said: ‘Who are they?’ Thereupon he said: ‘Ali and the offspring of Ali, Aqil and the offspring of Aqil and the offspring of Jafar and the offspring of Abbas.’ Husain said: ‘These are those for whom the acceptance of Zakat is forbidden?’ Zaid said: ‘Yes.’”
(Sahih Muslim, Book 31, Chapter 4, Hadith 5920)
In perhaps the clearest version of this Hadith, Zaid ibn Arqam(ra) says:“His wives *are *among the people of his household, but the people of his household who are forbidden to receive sadaqah (charity) after his death are the family of ‘Ali, the family of ‘Aqeel, the family of Ja’far and the family of ‘Abbaas. All of these are forbidden to receive sadaqah.”
So though the mawqoof of hz zaid(ra) was incorrect , yet he(ra) didn’t deny that wives of prophet(Saw) are from the Ahlebayt of prophet(Saw). Moreover it shows us that Ahlebayt is not restricted to only five people, or 14 infallible as shias claim. But it includes several families as said by hz zaid(ra).
Re: blog in defence of complete Ahlebayt
^ so if we follow this logic isnt jaffar, aqeel, abbas, hamza, ubaidah, Tufayl etc also Ahlebait since they are nephews uncles and cousins i.e kith and kin of the Prophet ?
yes they are indeed... but general Ahlebayt, but not purfiied.. purfied ones are wives and Ahle kisa..
Re: blog in defence of complete Ahlebayt
[QUOTE]
well does it make sense to you that though the rest of 9 imams werent present in the kisa yet they are considered to be purified Ahlebayt , and even when hz hussain(ra) had other sons but they werent included in it. strange isnt it. Now i guess you will come up and say that hey it was decision of Allah, So i say you the same Allah wanted to purify wives of prophet(Saw) because they were not like other women(33:32)... They were given special commands now will you ask that why were they given special commands, and why not the daughter of prophet(Saw) was given special commands..
[/QUOTE]
you failed to answer my question. so my question remains. Why was Fatima not included in the verse 33:33? Since you claim that Ahle Bayt include the entire "family" then the relation of daughter/son is the only relation that is indissoluble. The relationship of wife is not even permanent since it can end any time and following from this simple logic, Fatima was already included in the verse 33:33 and there was no need to make a special dua for her again. If "Ahle Bayt" only refered to the wives then why wasnt the word "wives" used in the verse 33:33?
Re: blog in defence of complete Ahlebayt
Ibn Abbas Narrated that: The Messenger of Allah recited "Verily Allah intends to keep off from you every kind of uncleanness O' People of the House (Ahlul-Bayt), and purify you a perfect purification". (Quran, the last sentence of Verse 33:33) and then the Messenger of Allah said: "Thus Me and my Ahlul-Bayt are clear from the sins."
Sahih al-Tirmidhi, as quoted in: al-Durr al-Manthoor, by Jalaluddin al-Suyuti, v5, pp 605-606,198 under the commentary of Verse 33:33 of Quran
Perfect purification includes every aspect and not just tashri purification as you claim. If it was ordained that they simply adhere to the commandments of Allah then there was no special need to include Fatima, Ali in Ahle Bayt since the prophet could have simply ordered them to be strict adherents of Islam. The inclusion of them under the cloak of Muhammad (s) and then declaring that they are the Ahle Bayt meant that were being bestowed special favor from Allah and were made pure, completely.