Respected brother** Das Reich **You responded to my post.
My saying:
It was quite deliberate that I mentioned wives and father in laws.
Historically Shia have inherent problem with Hz.Abu Bakr, Hz. Umar,(both father in laws) Lady Ayeisha and Lady Hafsa (both wives) [May Allah be pleased with all].
No Shia worth his salt will ever agree to include Lady Ayeisha and Lady Hafsa [May Allah be pleased with both] in Ahlul Bayt of the Prophet (saw).
Similarly do think Shia will agree to include Hz.Abu Bakr, Hz. Umar [May Allah be pleased with both] in the qurba of the Prophet (saw)!
In my humble opinion Lady Khadijah (ra) deserves to mentioned as the first person of Ahlul Bayt for her loyalty, unwavering financial and moral support to the Prophet (saw)
.
It surprises me why our Shia brothers/sisters ignore her keeping in mind that she is the mother of Lady Fatimah (ra)!!!
I am sure they want to but can’t because if they include her in the Ahlul Bayt of the Prophet (saw) as a wife, it opens the door to include Lady Ayeisha and Lady Hafsa [May Allah be pleased with both] and that’s the crux the whole matter of leaving the wives out of Ahlul Bayt!!!! [This is my opinion – I could be wrong].
There is textual evidence to include wives, Hz. Fatimah, Hz. Ali, Hz. Hassan and Hz. Hussein (may Allah be pleased with them all) among the AhulBayt.
What authentic textual evidence do the Shias have to inclulde the other Imams (raa)?
salam brother forgive my rough demenor, I descend from a family of country folk which in local language are called "paindoos" they are increadibly rude and hot tempered at times.
anyway to the point you raised, the present 12er stance on ahlulbayt will never agree to inclusion anyone except the 5 and the cause of that has to with intra-shia schisms as well as shia-sunni schisms.And the former I was trying to highlite as both 12ers and sunnis tend to forget about other ahlulbayt members the hariths, jafars, aqeels, abbas' etc.This is important as it throws a wrench at the concept of ahlulbayt = panjatan ONLY.
Imami shia or particularly 12er hostility towards abu bakr/umar and aisha/hafsa has little to do with their HISTORICAL role.Rather it is born out of a theological neccsaity , since when imamate became a central doctrine in what was now shiaism it had to explain the events preceeding the caliphate of ali.It did so by shifting blame squarely on the "2 idols of quraish" and their daughters.But 12ers do not reserve this contempt for these "bad " sahabas only.In 12er discourses there seem to be a general trend ( with some exceptions) to discredit sahaba as a whole e.g hadith "if abu dhar knew what was in heart of salman he would have killed him etc" .Again this is without regard to the historical role of these sahaba.As many of these sahaba are those who had very favorable relations with ali before and during his caliphate.
In imami views sahaba are not important as they fade in comparison to the superhuman imams.Even the ayat of Quran explicitly in favor of sahaba like that of awal-o-sabiqoon is intrepreted to mean ONLy ahlulbayt.Part of the reason for this disregard and degredation of sahaba is that generally for 12ers sahaba are not an important source of hadith.For 12ers sources of hadith are mostly pupils of their imams from 5 onwards and they goto great lengths to defend their memory, just like sunnis do to sahabas.