Confused Shia considering becoming Sunni

[Rationalist]

This Hadith proves that those 12 Successors of Prophet (s) about whom he (s) talked, are progeny/Ahlul Bayt of him (peace be upon him and his pure progeny) [e.g., Prophet (s) said: The religion will continue until the Hour has been established, and there would be twelve Successors upon you, all of them being from the Quraish (Sahih Muslim, V3, P1453, H1822)].

No it has nothing to do with 12 Imams or only 12 successors. The 12er Shia sect is the only sect which restricts Ahlul Bayt to 14 people. However, in other schools all children of Fatima (sa) are Ahlul Bayt. On the contrary, the degree of purification is not equal. There are some Ahlul Bayt like Zaid bin Ali who is superior to Jafar bin Muhammad.

[Mojtaba]

No it has nothing to do with 12 Imams or only 12 successors. The 12er Shia sect is the only sect which restricts Ahlul Bayt to 14 people. However, in other schools all children of Fatima (sa) are Ahlul Bayt. On the contrary, the degree of purification is not equal. There are some Ahlul Bayt like Zaid bin Ali who is superior to Jafar bin Muhammad.

Dear brother, those Hadiths that I mentioned in the post #19 clearly say that the progeny and Ahlul Bayt of Prophet (s) are the Successors of him and they never separate from Quran and the number of the Successors until the Hour is 12.

On the contrary what you think, Allah says in the Aya At-Tat_hir that He has purified the Ahlul Bayt, with a thorough purification. So, the degrees of purification is not different.

Also, as I said previously in the post #14, we do not restrict the Ahlul Bayt (family, progeny) of Prophet to 14 people. We just believe that the term Ahlul Bayt which is in Aya At-Tat_hir and Hadith of Thaqalain is a special term and do not refers to all the family of Prophet. Instead, it refers to 14 people. Prophet said in the Hadith of Thaqalain that the Ahlul bayt never separate from Quran and we must follow them to be guided to the straight way. So, those non-infallible ones of family and progeny of Prophet (sawaws) are not in the Ahlul Bayt about which the Hadith of Thaqalain talks.

I do not know with what evidence and proof you say that Zaid bin Ali (as) is superior to Imam Jafar Al-Sadiq (as)!!!

Waffaqakallah!   

[Rationalist]

No it has nothing to do with 12 Imams or only 12 successors. The 12er Shia sect is the only sect which restricts Ahlul Bayt to 14 people. However, in other schools all children of Fatima (sa) are Ahlul Bayt. On the contrary, the degree of purification is not equal. There are some Ahlul Bayt like Zaid bin Ali who is superior to Jafar bin Muhammad.

Dear brother, those Hadiths that I mentioned in the post #19 clearly say that the progeny and Ahlul Bayt of Prophet (s) are the Successors of him and they never separate from Quran and the number of the Successors until the Hour is 12.

Only the first 3 Imams declared the Caliphate in terms of ruling over the ummah. The remaining 9 were in the state of taqiyyah.

On the contrary what you think, Allah says in the Aya At-Tat_hir that He has purified the Ahlul Bayt, with a thorough purification. So, the degrees of purification is not different.

The remaining 9 imams were not even alive at the time. So how can be equal to Imam Ali and Fatima's direct sons?

Also, as I said previously in the post #14, we do not restrict the Ahlul Bayt (family, progeny) of Prophet to 14 people. We just believe that the term Ahlul Bayt which is in Aya At-Tat_hir and Hadith of Thaqalain is a special term and do not refers to all the family of Prophet. Instead, it refers to 14 people. Prophet said in the Hadith of Thaqalain that the Ahlul bayt never separate from Quran and we must follow them to be guided to the straight way. So, those non-infallible ones of family and progeny of Prophet (sawaws) are not in the Ahlul Bayt about which the Hadith of Thaqalain talks.

Again this the view restricted to your sect.

I do not know with what evidence and proof you say that Zaid bin Ali (as) is superior to Imam Jafar Al-Sadiq (as)!!!

We have hadith from ibn Asakir which state that Imam Jafar said his uncle Imam Zayd is the most knowledgable in the household.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

Salamun Alaykum wa Rahmatollah.

Dear brother, the verse 11:73 never makes any sense. In that verse, the angels addressed the whole of family of the Abraham (as). When Sara amazed, the angels said to her that she should not marvel, because the blessings of Allah have always embraced them. For example, it was His blessing when He saved Abraham from burning in the fire, etc. So, they addressed all the family, not only Sara herself. You should note this point.

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

Walaikumsalam Wa Rahmatullah.

My dear brother, those who were blessed with wisdom and knowledge,  know that the verse addresses Sara(as), and she was the one with whom the angels were talking.

 In the verse above, the angels are addressing the wife of prophet Abraham(as), which is also evident by the phrase ‘أَتَعْجَبِينَ’ which is a singular feminine second person form. When the next construction comes with ‘أَهْلَ الْبَيْتِ’, the gender changes to masculine ‘عَلَيْكُمْ’ despite the fact that the addressee is a lady, i.e. prophet Abraham (as)’s wife.

Secondly, even if for Arguments Sake, if we agree that it was referring to household of Ibrahim(as), even then the pronoun should have been dual(KUMA) not plural. This point again proves the incorrectness of your argument.

Moreover, there are many examples which proves what I said, which you seemed to have accepted, when presented by other evidences. Like the hadeeth of Shia ahd Sunni books, where a single Female was addressed as Ahlelbayt and the pronoun used there was KUM.

Look at this example from Shia hadeeth, In Mustadrak al-Wasael by al-Mirza al-Noori 41/220, we read the Hadith of ‘Ali(ra) talking about marriage:

عن علي ( عليه السلام ) ، قال : ” من أراد منكم التزويج إلى أن قال فإذا زفت زوجته ودخلت عليه ، فليصل ركعتين ثم ليمسح يده على ناصيتها ، ثم ليقل : اللهم بارك لي في أهلي و بارك لهم في ، وما جمعت بيننا فاجمع بيننا في خير ويمن وبركة ، وإذا جعلتها فرقة فاجعلها فرقة إلى خير ، فإذا جلس إلى جانبها فليمسح بناصيتها۔ مستدرك الوسائل – الميرزا النوري ج 41 ص 220۔
Translation: From ‘Ali (as): …So when his wife is wed to him and she entered on him, he should pray two Raka’at then wipe his hand on her forelock, then he should say: “O Allah bless my Ahel for me and bless me for them, if you have gathered us then gather us for goodness and if you wish to separate us then make our separation into goodness.” then if he sits by her side he would wipe her forelock.

Similarly in Sunni hadeeth:

حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو مَعْمَرٍ، حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الْوَارِثِ، حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الْعَزِيزِ بْنُ صُهَيْبٍ، عَنْ أَنَسٍ ـ رضى الله عنه ـ قَالَ بُنِيَ عَلَى النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم بِزَيْنَبَ ابْنَةِ جَحْشٍ بِخُبْزٍ وَلَحْمٍ فَأُرْسِلْتُ عَلَى الطَّعَامِ دَاعِيًا فَيَجِيءُ قَوْمٌ فَيَأْكُلُونَ وَيَخْرُجُونَ، ثُمَّ يَجِيءُ قَوْمٌ فَيَأْكُلُونَ وَيَخْرُجُونَ، فَدَعَوْتُ حَتَّى مَا أَجِدُ أَحَدًا أَدْعُو فَقُلْتُ يَا نَبِيَّ اللَّهِ مَا أَجِدُ أَحَدًا أَدْعُوهُ قَالَ ارْفَعُوا طَعَامَكُمْ، وَبَقِيَ ثَلاَثَةُ رَهْطٍ يَتَحَدَّثُونَ فِي الْبَيْتِ، فَخَرَجَ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَانْطَلَقَ إِلَى حُجْرَةِ عَائِشَةَ فَقَالَ ‏ "‏ السَّلاَمُ عَلَيْكُمْ أَهْلَ الْبَيْتِ وَرَحْمَةُ اللَّهِ ‏"‏‏.‏ فَقَالَتْ وَعَلَيْكَ السَّلاَمُ وَرَحْمَةُ اللَّهِ، كَيْفَ وَجَدْتَ أَهْلَكَ بَارَكَ اللَّهُ لَكَ فَتَقَرَّى حُجَرَ نِسَائِهِ كُلِّهِنَّ، يَقُولُ لَهُنَّ كَمَا يَقُولُ لِعَائِشَةَ، وَيَقُلْنَ لَهُ كَمَا قَالَتْ عَائِشَةُ، ثُمَّ رَجَعَ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَإِذَا ثَلاَثَةُ رَهْطٍ فِي الْبَيْتِ يَتَحَدَّثُونَ، وَكَانَ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم شَدِيدَ الْحَيَاءِ، فَخَرَجَ مُنْطَلِقًا نَحْوَ حُجْرَةِ عَائِشَةَ فَمَا أَدْرِي آخْبَرْتُهُ أَوْ أُخْبِرَ أَنَّ الْقَوْمَ خَرَجُوا، فَرَجَعَ حَتَّى إِذَا وَضَعَ رِجْلَهُ فِي أُسْكُفَّةِ الْبَابِ دَاخِلَةً وَأُخْرَى خَارِجَةً أَرْخَى السِّتْرَ بَيْنِي وَبَيْنَهُ، وَأُنْزِلَتْ آيَةُ الْحِجَابِ‏
Narrated Anas: A banquet of bread and meat was held on the occasion of the marriage of the Prophet to Zainab bint Jahsh. I was sent to invite the people (to the banquet), and so the people started coming (in groups). They would eat and then leave. Another batch would come, eat and leave. So I kept on inviting the people till I found nobody to invite.
Then I said, “O Allah’s Prophet! I do not find anybody to invite.” He (the Prophet) said, “Carry away the remaining food.” Then a batch of three persons stayed in the house chatting. The Prophet left and went towards the dwelling place of Aisha and said, “Peace and Allah’s Mercy be on you(KUM), Ya Ahlel Bayt (O the people of the house)!” She replied, “Peace and the mercy of Allah be on you too. How did you find your wife? May Allah bless you.” Then he went to the dwelling places of all his other wives and said to them the same as he said to Aisha and they said to him the same as Aisha had said to him.[Sahih Bukhari, Book 65, Hadith 4793]

If any readers wishes to see all those examples, can refer this article, InshaAllah there won't remain any doubt in any objective reader that, the pronoun of KUM is used for the word Ahlelbayt, regardless even if a single woman is addressed:
https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2010/10/07/ahlahlebayt-a-collective-noun-and-its-usage/

Yes. The wives of Prophet (s) are between his household (Ahlul Bayt) and family, in general. No one can reject this issue. But according to the Sahih Hadiths from Prophet Muhammad (s), Umm Salama (ra), Imam Al-Hasan (as), Imam As-Sajjad (as) and also Aisha, the term 'Ahlul Bayt' that is used in the verse of At-Tat_hir is a special term and only refers to the Prophet himslef, Lady Fatima, Imam Ali, Al-Hasan and Al-Husain and the other Imams from the progeny of Imam Al-Husain (peace be upon them all).

Please, don't lie so blatantly brother, already the Shias are infamous for lying as its in the teaching of their Madhab to lie to their opponents, so you should be cautious before making such claims. What is proven is that, Fatima, Ali, Hassan and Hussain(may Allah be pleased with them), were included in the wish of Allah in 33:33, due to the DUA of Prophet(saws), since thee verse was revealed for wives of Prophet(saws), and this was also proven from the authentic hadeeth of Ibn Abbas(ra).

1.As I brought the Sahih Hadiths previousely, Prophet Muhammad (s) recited the verse of At-Tat_hir at the time of Salats Al-Fajr for 6 months only to the house of Lady Fatima, and not other houses.

I didn't see any such hadeeth, please provide the strongest of chain for this hadeeth which mentions 6 months. Moreover, we Sunnis already have an answer which is more rational and logical about this incident.

Here is the answer regarding this argument, from the link which was provided to you:

Whenever the Messenger Of Allah went to perform the daily obligatory prayer, he used to pass by the house of his cousin and son-in-law, Ali(ra) and his spouse Fatima(ra), reminding them of the obligation of prayer by saying:( Stick to the mandatory prayers, O members of the family!)

After this exhortation, he used to recite to them the following verse: “ Allah so wills to remove all abomination from you O members of the family, and to make you pure and stainless.” As stated before in the same verse. By this, he was reminding them, of performing Obligatory prayers. For if one observes all obligatory acts of worship and obey Allah fully, then his reward will be to purify him from all abomination and stains.

We see that prophet(Saw) used to remind ahle kisa the command they had to follow so that Allah may remove the rijs from them indicating that even their purification was conditional and the means to acquire purification for Ahle kisa was salat(prayer), similar to wives of prophet(Saw) as mentioned in 33:33. And salat is a means of purification as mentioned in quran 11:114 establishing prayer was a command given to people if they want their sins to be removed(i.e to attain purification). And there was no need for prophet(Saw) to do this for the wives because their means of purification were already mentioned in quran, but the means of purification for ahle kisa was not mentioned in quran and as they were included in the wish of Allah to purify Ahlebayt of prophet(Saw) by the special dua(supplication) of prophet(Saw). He(saw) had to keep on reminding Ahlekisa that they have to stick to mandatory prayers, as it was the means for purification for them.

If the Shias disagree that, the purification of Ahle-Kisa was conditional, then let us quote what Shia scholar stated:

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

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

Some ignorant people might try to argue that prophet(saw) actually wanted to clarify before the people that who were the purified ones that is why he(Saw) used to do this act for couple of months, but this answer is pure nonsense because if it was to clarify to the people then why would prophet(Saw) do this for couple of months on daily basis? As if he was reminding them of something. It could have been done in one time why would prophet(saw) need to do this for 6 or 8 months daily for every prayer? And how many people would have heard this if prophet(saw) said this infront of hz ali(ra)’s house daily. Surely not everyone muslim was present there. And if it was to make it clear then daily instead of doing that infront of  hz ali(ra)’s house, he would have said that in the mosque where majority of the companions used to gather. Or in the Friday khutbah or at the farewell pilgrimage of hajj. He(Saw) would have given a sermon gathering all the people and would have declared that these are my Ahlebayt, like as the shias say prophet(Saw) did on ghadeer but what he did on ghadeer was not done repeatedly. Moreover he(saw) would atleast have gathered all the muslims before doing this if at all this was to show people that who Ahlebayt were, but nothing of such manner occurred.

Lastly, atleast prophet(Saw) would have addressed the people before or after doing this act that “o muslims these are the purified ones and my Ahlebayt”, if at all it was to clarify before muslims, imagine its to clarify the muslims yet prophet(Saw) didn’t address anything to the muslims on that occasion.

If you wish to counter argue this answer, then first please provide the authentic report which you claimed about this event that supposedly occurred for 6 months.  If you aren't able to provide any authentic report then arguing over it would be meaningless.

2.As I brought the Sahih Hadiths previousely, Prophet Muhammad (s) siad at the time of revelation of that verse that only they are his Ahlul Bayt, not his wives [(O Allah, these are my Ahlul Bayt) not (O Allah, these are also between my Ahlul Bayt)].

The Sahih Hadeeth you previously provided, doesn't exclude wives of Prophet(saws) from Ahlelbayt mention in 33:33. Infact, the hadeeth was  a DUA(supplication) done by Prophet(saws) to include Fatima, Ali, Hassan, and Hussain(May Allah be pleased with them) in the wish of Allah which was for wives of Prophet(saws).

Had the verse revealed for those in Kisa, then there was no need for Prophet(saws) to make the dua(supplication) so soon. This again proves that, it was not revealed for them, but rather it was revealed for wives of Prophet(saws).

3.Imam Al-Hasan said that they are the Ahlul Bayt that the verse of At-Tat_hir refers to [Source, Majma'uz Zawa'id by Al-Haythami, 9/146 Al-Al-Haythami says that the Hadith is authentic : Al-Hasan after the martirdom of Ali, declared a Khotbah in which he said: "We are the Ahlul Bayt for whom Allah has revealed: Only Allah desires to repel all impurity from you, O People of the Household, and purify you with a thorough purification"].

The chain is technically weak, due to narrator Maysara Abu Jameela.  The only tawtheeq provided to him is by Ibn Hibban, which isn’t sufficient according to hadithists since he includes unknown(majhool) narrators in his book Al-Thiqaat

In “Taqrib” mentioned narrator Maysarah ibn Yaqub, Abu Jamilah. Ibn Hajar said he’s maqbul, and that is mean there is uncertainty in him. Mizzi gave his bio in “Tahzib al kamal” and noticed that he narrated from Hasan, and from him narrated Hasin ibn Abdurrahman as-Sulami. Ibn Abu Hatim mentioned him in “Jarh wa tadil” without any note regarding his reliability .

Al-Albani said (Al-Rawd Al-Dani fil Fawa’id Al-Hadeethia, p. 18):
ولهذا نجد المحققين من المحدثين كالذهبي والعسقلاني وغيرهما لا يوثقون من تفرد بتوثيقه ابن حبان
Rough Trans: “And that is why we find the muhaditheen like Al-Thahabi and Ibn Hajar and others, not strengthening those that Ibn Hibban strengthens alone.”

Shaikh Muqbil was asked in Al-Muqtarah (p. 47):
السؤال: ابن حبان معروف أنه يوثق المجاهيل، فإن كان الراوي غير مجهول وقد روى عنه أكثر من واحد، وقال ابن حبان: هذا مستقيم الحديث أو قال هذا ثقة هل نتوقف في توثيقه أم نعتبره؟
الجواب: من أهل العلم كما في التنكيل بما في تأنيب الكوثري من الأباطيل من قال فيه: إنه يقبل. وهو إختيار المعلمي.
أما (ثقة) فالغالب أنه عرف هو نفسه بالتساهل، فيتوقف لأنه قد عرف هو بالتساهل في توثيق المجاهيل، فإذا وثق غير مجهول يقبل منه، أما المجهولون فقد عرف منه التساهل في هذا.
Question: Ibn Hibban is known for strengthening anonymous narrators, so if the narrator wasn’t unknown, and has more than one student, and Ibn Hibban said: mustaqeemul hadith or thiqa, do we still not accept him or do we?
Answer: Some of the scholars, like Al-Mu’allami in Al-Tankeel accepted this. As for the term thiqa, in most cases, he is known for being lenient, so we stop, because he was lenient in strengthening unknown narrators. However, if he strengthened someone that is known, then we accept it.

Therefore, we have Al-Thahabi, Ibn Hajar, Al-Mu’allami, Al-Albani, and Shaikh Muqbil all hold the opinion that Ibn Hibban’s strengthening of unknown narrators is not acceptable.

Regarding text of this report then it says “WE”, which can even include WIVES OF PROPHET(SAW), Hassan(ra) didn’t say Ahle kisa.. he just said WE. Therefore, this report doesn’t support the shias, because Ahlesunnah do consider hz hassan(ra) and the ahlekisa to be part of Ahlebayt mentioned in quran in verse of tatheer(33:33). But we also believe that the verse of tatheer in quran was revealed for the wives of prophet(saw) and hz hassan(ra) and the ahle kisa were included in it because of the special dua(supplication) of prophet(saw). And these narrations in no way go against the understanding of Ahle sunnah.

4.Imam As-Sajjad (as) said to a man who was from Ash-Sham: "Have not you read in the Chapter of Al-Ahzab: 'Only Allah desires to repel all impurity from you, O People of the Household, and purify you with a thorough purification'?" Then the man said: Are you those [Ahlul Bayt]? Then Imam As-Sajjad replied: 'Yes'. (See, Tafsir At-Tabari, V22, P12/ Tafsir Ibn Kathir V3, P495).

First of all, this reports doesn't exclude wives of Prophet(saws) from being Ahlelbayt mentioned in 33:33.

Secondly, the narration has arrived to us through Al-Subah bin Yahya Al-Muzani. Refer to Tafseer Al-Tabari. Ibn Hajar has brought him up in Lisan Al-Mizan and said that he is accused of being a liar. Al-Bukhari also said: feehi nathar, which is one of the strongest forms of jarh by Al-Bukhari. We even had a very hard time figuring out who Al-Daylam is.

There is narration is very weak and unreliable.

If you want to quote random weak reports, then even I can post weak reports proving the verse was revealed for wives of Prophet(saws). Imam Suyuti quotes this hadith:

وأخرج ابن سعد عن عروة رضي الله عنه { إنما يريد الله ليذهب عنكم الرجس أهل البيت } قال: يعني أزواج النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم نزلت في بيت عائشة رضي الله عنها

Imam Ibn S’ad (ra) narrates from Urwa (ra) who said: Ahlul Bayt refers to wives of Prophet (Peace be upon him). This verse was revealed regarding Hadrat Aisha (ra). (Tabaqat, Ibn Sad narrated in volume 8, p 199)

5.Al-Bukhari has narrated in his Sahih that Aisha said: Allah did not reveal anything from the Qur'an about us except what was connected with the declaration of my innocence [of the slander] (Sahih Al-Bukhari, V6, P42). So the verse of At-Tat_hir has no relation to Aisha and the other wives.

Some people try to use this narration , in order to portray that nothing was revealed in quran regarding hz ayesha(ra) except the verses connected with the declaration of the innocence of ayesha(ra). This means verse of tatheer was not revealed for wives of prophet(Saw).  But they fail to understand a simple narration or they deliberately try to fool people by misinterpreting this narration. If we give a closer look this narration we will find that it speaks about the verses of quran which wererevealed specifically for the offspring of abubakar(ra). Since marwan said a particular verse was revealed for Abdur rahman ibn abubakar(who was brother of ayesha(ra)), he didn’t intend to address this to hz ayesha(ra)) or any wife of the prophet. But hz ayesha(ra) replied him saying that for offspring of hz abubakar(ra) only the verse of innocence was revealed.

Moreover, the verse of purification encompassed even other wives of prophet(Saw).. not only hz ayesha(ra), that is why she didn’t include this verse while responding to Marwan.

Secondly we know that verses of surah ahzab (i.e “o wives of prophet(33:32)”)  was revealed for wives including hz ayesha(ra).. then why didnt she say that?  But the fact is that the reply of hz ayesha(ra) was only specific to the verses of Quran which were revealed specifically for the children of hz abubakar(ra)

6.As I said, according to a Sahih Hadith, Umm Salama (ra) said: I wished that Prophet said to me, 'Yes' [when I asked him that am I between Ahlul Bayt about whom the verse of At-Tathir revealed]! So, she believed that she was not between the Ahlul Bayt to which the verse of At-Tat_hir refres.

That hadeeth is not Sahih, rather it is weak and mursal, which I shall proof in the other post, InshaAllah. And here are some other reports where in she was included.

حدثنا عبد الله حدثني أبي حدثنا أبو النضر هاشم بن القاسم حدثنا عبد الحميد يعني ابن بهرام قال حدثني شهر بن حوشب قال سمعت أم سلمة زوج النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم حين جاء نعي الحسين بن علي لعنت أهل العراق فقالت: قتلوه قتلهم الله غروه وذلوه لعنهم الله فإني رأيت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم جاءته فاطمة غدية ببرمة قد صنعت له فيها عصيدة تحمله في طبق لها حتى وضعتها بين يديه فقال لها: أين ابن عمك قالت: هو في البيت قال: فاذهبي فادعيه وائتني بابنيه قالت: فجاءت تقود ابنيها كل واحد منهما بيد وعلي يمشي في أثرهما حتى دخلوا على رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فأجلسهما في حجره وجلس علي عن يمينه وجلست فاطمة عن يساره قالت: أم سلمة فاجتبذ من تحتي كساء خيبريا كان بساطا لنا على المنامة في المدينة فلفه النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم عليهم جميعا فأخذ بشماله طرفي الكساء وألوى بيده اليمنى إلى ربه عز وجل وقال: اللهم أهلي اذهب عنهم الرجس وطهرهم تطهيرا اللهم أهل بيتي اذهب عنهم الرجس وطهرهم تطهيرا اللهم أهل بيتي أذهب عنهم الرجس وطهرهم تطهيرا. قلت يا رسول الله ألست من أهلك قال بلى فادخلي في الكساء قالت: فدخلت في الكساء بعد ما قضى دعاءه لابن عمه علي وابنيه وابنته فاطمة رضي الله عنهم.

Shahr narrated to us, he said: I heard Umm Salamah, when the news of the death of Al-Husien ibn Ali came to her, she said: They killed him, May Allah kill them, and they humilated him May Allah curse them. For I saw the Messenger of Allah [Salah Allah ‘Alaihi wa Salam] and Fatima had come to him one day with a Burmah (a pot, pan, or jar … was made from stone in the past) of hers from which she made a ‘Asida (a dish made by mixing flour with ghee, butter, etc and then cooked) carrying it in a plate of hers, until she placed it in front of him.
He told her: «Where is your cousin?» She said: He is at home. [So] he said: go and call him, and bring forth your sons.

She (i.e. Um Salama) said: she came leading her sons each one of them, and Ali walking on their trail, until they entered upon the Messenger of Allah [Salah Allah ‘Alaihi wa Salam]. He sat them (i.e Al-Hasan & Al-Husien) on his lap, and Ali sat on his right, and Fatima sat on his left.

Umm Salama said: he pulled a cloak (a Kisa) from under me … and then he [Salah Allah ‘Alaihi wa Salam] wrapped it around them all, taking the edges of the Cloak by his left hand, and pointing with his right hand towards his Lord [Exalted and Glorified is He] and said: “O Allah, remove from them the Rijs (evil deeds and sins, etc.), and purify them with a thorough purification”, three times.

She said: [So] I said: O Messenger of Allah, am I not [also] from your Ahl?

[So] he said: Yes, Indeed, [you are].

He said: So enter the Kisa (the cloak) [too].

She said: So I entered after he completed his supplication to his cousin Ali, his sons, and his daughter Fatima [‘Alaihim Al Salam]. (Musnad ibn Hanbal, v6,p298).

ومن حديث هاشم بن هاشم بن عتبة بن أبي وقاص ، عن عبد الله بن وهب ابن زمعة قال : أخبرتني أم سلمة رضي الله عنها ، أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم جمع وفاطمة ، والحسن ، والحسين ، رضي الله عنهم ، ثم أدخلهم تحت ثوبه ، ثم جأر إلى الله تعالى وقال : « « هؤلاء أهل بيتي . فقالت أم سلمة : يا رسول الله أدخلني معهم ، قال : إنك من أهلي »

Umm Salamah رضي الله عنها reported to me that the Messenger of Allâh (صلى الله عليه وسلم) collected Fâtimah, al-Hasan, al-Husayn رضي الله عنهم then he entered them under his cloak, then he called upon Allâh Most High and said: “These are the members of my household”. Then Umm Salamah رضي الله عنها said: O Messenger of Allâh enter me with them, he said: Verily, you are from my family”. [Maqrizi Fadail ahlalbayt p 26]

Comment: Which implies, you are already from my family, and the verse was revealed for you. This doesn't prove negation at all.

Tabarani in “al-Kabir”:

حدثنا بكر بن سهل الدمياطي ثنا جعفر بن مسافر التنيسي ثنا ابن أبي فديك ثنا موسى بن يعقوب الزمعي عن هشام بن هاشم عن وهب بن عبد الله بن زمعة : عن أم سلمة أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم جمع فاطمة و حسنا و حسينا رضي الله عنهما ثم أدخلهم تحت ثوبه ثم قال : اللهم هؤلاء أهل بيتي قالت أم سلمة : قلت يا رسول الله أدخلني معهم قال : إنك من أهلي

2663 On authority of Wahb bin Abd Allah bin Zam’ah (this name is flipped from the previous chain), on authority of Umm Salamah that the Messenger of Allah SAWS assembled Faatimah, Hasan, and Husayn, then brought them under his thawb, and said: “Oh Allah, these are the people of my household”. Then Umm Salamah said: ‘Oh Messenger of Allah, bring me in with them’. He said: “Indeed you are from my household”.

Comment: Which implies, you are already from my family, and the verse was revealed for you. This doesn't prove negation at all.

As I said and proved, the wives of Prophet are between his households, but the Ahlul Bayt which is in the verse of At-Tat_hir is irrevelant to them.
Also, according to the Hadith of Thaqalain, Ahlul Bayt and Quran never separate from each other. But, Aisha disobeyed Quran, so that she separated from it, because Quran ordered the wives of Prophet: Stay in your houses [33:33]. But Aisha exit from his house and fought Imam Ali (as). Also, Prophet frequentely warned her not to fight Imam Ali, but she ignored the clear orders of Allah and His Prophet and did what she did! Al-Albani has confessed that Aisha made a mistake in this doing of her (Silsilatul Ahadith As-Sahihah by Al-Albani, V1, P. 854, ولا نشك أن خروج أم المؤمنين كان خطأ من أصله).

Your proofs were more fragile than a spiders web, they fell like a pack of cards. Infact the solid and authentic proofs along with the clear context of Quran itself proofs that the verse was revealed for wives of Prophet(saws), in the verse wives of Prophet(saws) were given certain commands, which were a means of purification, and adhering to that they would be purified, this was the actual meaning of verse of Quran 33:33.

And, as for the unacademic argument, that Ayesha(ra) didn't stay in house, then read the verse with proper understanding, its about not coming out displaying their finery like women in Jahiliyyah, as for going out for necessary things then there was no prohibition for it. Heck, Ayesha(ra) was present in Makkah, as she went for Hajj, before battle of Jamal occurred. No one said to her, not to go out of house for hajj. As for what happened in Jamal, then what she intented to do was to bring reconciliation between Muslims, and making reconciliation between Muslims, was ordered by Allah in Quran, So Ayesha(ra) went with an intention of following the command of Allah.

As for the argument that Quran, never separates from Ahlulbayt, then this is again a Shiee misunderstanding. The correct meaning of hadeeth is, It means, that the Prophet(saws) told his nation to take responsibility for two things, the Qur’an and the household, so if a slave held on to the Qur’an yet he wronged the household and oppressed them and harmed them, then he has not fulfilled the wish of the Prophet (saws) and he (saws) will not be pleased with him when he reaches him at the pond. On the other hand, if a slave was loyal to the household and loved them extremely, yet he abandoned the teachings of the Qur’an and deviated and innovated, the Prophet (saws) will not be pleased with him when he meets him at the pond because the responsibility of following the Qur’an and taking care of the household are linked. A true believer must always be responsible towards both.

Also, according to the Hadiths that At-Tirmidhi has grated as Hasan and Al-AlBani has grated as Sahih (Sahih Al-Jami' Al-Saqir, V1, P482), Hakim has grated as Sahih (Al-Mostadrak Aala As-Sahihayn by Al-Haakim, V 4, P 72), Al-Asqalani has grated as Sahih (Al-Matalibul Aliyyah by Ibn Hajar Asqalani, V16, P142) and Al-Haythami has grated as Sahih (As-Sawa'iq, V2, P438), too, we must follow and obey Ahlul Bayt (as) for being guided to the straight way and not to go astray [إِنِّي تَارِك فِيكُم مَا إِن تمسكتم بِهِ لن تضلوا بعدِي أَحدهمَا أعظم من الآخر كتاب الله عز وَجل حَبل مَمْدُود من السَّمَاء إِلَى الأَرْض وعترتي أهل بَيْتِي وَلنْ يفترقا حَتَّى يردا عَليّ الْحَوْض فانظروا كَيفَ تخلفوني فيهمَا]. So that, I am wondering If we consider Aisha as the Ahlul Bayt to which the verse of At-Tat_hir refers, while she ignored the orders of Allah and His Prophet in his battle against Imam Ali (as), we had to follow her if we were in that time?!

This hadeeth has been again misunderstood by Shias, the correct understanding of this hadeeth can be read in this article:
https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2015/02/19/hadeeth-al-thaqalayntwo-weighty-things-the-correct-understanding-and-a-spot-on-perspective-of-sunnis/

Secondly, even Ali(ra), went against the command of Prophet(saws), So as per your unacademic and ignorance based standards, we must expel Ali(ra) also from Ahlelbayt.

`Ali burnt some people and this news reached Ibn `Abbas, who said, "Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet (ﷺ) said, 'Don't punish (anybody) with Allah's Punishment.' No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet (ﷺ) said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' [Sahih al-Bukhari 3017]

As I said, the wives are the household of Prophet in general. No one can reject that the wives of a man are his household. But, as I proved by different Sahih Hadiths, the term Ahlul Bayt in the verse of At-Tat_hir is a special term that as Prophet introduced to us, it only refers to special family and progeny of him, i.e., Prophet himself (s), Lady Fatima (as) and 12 Imams (as).

And I have proven from Quran, through article, that the verse 33:33 was revealed for wives of Prophet(saws) and you have no rational answer for it.  https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2010/10/09/for-whom-the-verse-of-purificationtatheer-was-revealed-and-what-is-the-concept-of-purification-let-the-quran-answer/

As for your arguments, they fell like a pack of cards. Alhamdulillah.

Secondly, including your 9 Imams in it, is indeed ridiculous, it is utterly ignorance based argument.

Differente eminent Sunni scholars have also siad that Ahlul Bayt in the verse of At-Tat_hir refers to Ali, Fatima, Al-Hasan, Al-Husain (as), but does not refer to the wives:

Readers who are interested in an objective approach should refer this article, wherein you will find a long list of Sunni scholars who believed wives of Prophet(saws) are the ones included in 33:33.

Here you can see the list of Scholars who believed 33:33 includes wives of Prophet(saws).
https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2010/10/05/consensus-among-ahlesunnah-scholars-that-wives-of-prophetsaw-are-included-in-ahlebayt-mentioned-in-3333/

1.Ibn Hajar Al-Haythami: The majority of the Mufassireen have believed that it [i.e., Aya At-Tat_hir] was revealed for Ali, Fatima, Al-Hasan, Al-Husain (As-Sawa'iq by Al-Haythami, V2, P421).

It's incorrect.

Imam Ibn katheer(rah) said: This is a clear statement that the wives of the Prophet are included among the members of his family (Ahl Al-Bayt) here, because they are the reason why this Ayah was revealed, and the scholars are unanimously agreed that they were the reason for revelation in this case, whether this was the only reason for revelation or there was also another reason, which is the correct view.(tafseer ibn katheer, for verse 33;33) So he’s saying either way, they are part of the reason for the verse to be revealed.

Al-Shawkani, Fath al-Qadir (4:278-280)  “Ibn `Abbas, `Ikrima, `Ata’, al-Kalbi, Muqatil, and Sa`id ibn Jubayr said the wives of the Prophet 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 Shawkani says in his tafsir al fat-h al qadeer the various views, and he says:

فمن جعل الآية خاصة بأحد الفريقين فقد أعمل بعض ما يجب إعماله وأهمل ما لا يجوز إهماله. وقد رجح هذا القول جماعة من المحققين منهم القرطبي وابن كثير وغيرهما

“and whoever makes this verse refer specifically to either group exclusively (the wives) OR (fatima, ali, hassan, hussein) then he has included part but excluded part which is forbidden to exclude. And to this position a group of scholars has gone, including Qurtubi, Ibn Kathir, and others.”

2.Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani after narrating the Hadith of Aya At-Tat_hir from Umm Salama (ra) says: The Ahl Al-Bayt in this case refers to the Khadija, because Al-Hasan and Al-Husain are from Fatima and Fatima is her duaghter, and Ali grew in her house while he was little. So it is obvious that the term Ahl Al-Bayt of Prophet refers to Khadija, and not others (Fath Al-Bari by Al-Asqalani, V7, P138).

What Ibn Hajar said, can be interpreted in two ways, the first one is what you seem to prefer, without realizing that, it would then exclude anyone else Ahlulbayt as per Ibn Hajar, that is even your other 9 Imams. Since Ibn Hajar rejects anyone else to Ahlulbayt, and He even affirms that the verse was revealed for wife of Prophet(saws), Khadija(ra).

The other way to understand it is that, He meant those four members were only the Ahlulbayt of Khadija. And there were no other Ahlulbayt of other wives of Prophet(saws), so in this way he isn't rejecting that other wives of Prophet(saws) are Ahlulbayt.

As for the view that the verse 33:33 was revealed for Wives of Prophet(saws), then we have the view of Imam al-Mufassireen, Abdulllah ibn Abbas(ra).

[Sahi bukhari 1.75:] Narrated Ibn `Abbas: Once the Prophet embraced me and said, “O Allah! Bestow on him the knowledge of the Book (Qur’an).

And Ibn Abbas(ra) held the view that, 33:33 was revealed for wives of Prophet(saws).

عن ابن عباس : ?إنما يريد الله ليذهب عنكم الرجس أهل البيت ( [ الأحزاب : 33 ] . قال : نزلت في أزواج النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم خاصة .
الراوي: عكرمة المحدث: الذهبي – المصدر: سير أعلام النبلاء – لصفحة أو الرقم: 2/221
خلاصة حكم المحدث: إسناده صالح

Ibn Abbas RAA: “Allah intends only to remove from you the impurity [of sin], O people of the [Prophet’s] household,” He said: It was revealed especially about the wives of the prophet PBUH.

Siyar A’alam al nubalaa
Rank: Good Isnad.

As for the narrator Ikrima, then Ibn Hajar clarified the issue.

Ibn Hajar in “Taqrib” (#4673) said: Thiqat(trustworthy), steady, a`lim bi tafsir(Scholar of Tafseer),and it’s not proved that he was accused in lie by ibn Umar, and it’s not proved innovation from him”

3.Allama Al-Azizi: Ahlul Bayt are Ali, Fatima Al-Zahra and the descendants of them (Al-Siraj Al-Monir, V1, P46).

Ikrima was one of the most knowlegeable Tabaee about Tafseer of Quran.  Let's see what was his view.

Ibn Jarir recorded that `Ikrimah used to call out in the marketplace:(Allah wishes only to remove Ar-Rijs from you, O members of the family, and to purify you with a thorough purification.(33:33)) “This was revealed solely concerning the wives of the Prophet.”(tafseer ibn katheer, for 33:33).

`Ikrimah said: “Whoever disagrees with me that it was revealed solely concerning the wives of the Prophet , I am prepared to meet with him and pray and invoke the curse of Allah upon those who are lying.” (tafseer ibn katheer  for 33:33)

 Aqil ibn Muhammad al-Jurjani informed us (through a verbal authorisation)> al-Mu‘afa ibn Zakariyya al-Qadi> Muhammad ibn Jarir> Ibn Humayd> Yahya ibn Wadih> al-Asbagh> ‘Alqamah> ‘Ikrimah who said, regarding the words of Allah, exalted is He (Allah’s wish is but to remove uncleanness far from you, O Folk of the Household): “This verse was not revealed about whom you think it was revealed. Rather, it is about the wives of the Prophet, Allah bless him and give him peace”. ‘Ikrimah used to proclaim this in the marketplace.

Let us see what was the view of most knowledgeable Mufassir from Tabaeen.

Qatada said: “Most knowledgeable from people in halal and haram is Hasan, and most knowledgeable in rituals of haj Ata, and most knowledgeable in tafsir Ikrima”. (Juzz fihi zikri hal Ikrima mawla ibn Abbas” by  Hafidh Munziri.p 23, #25).

Jabir ibn Ziyad Abu Shatha said: “He is most knowledgeable of people”. (Juzz fihi zikri hal Ikrima mawla ibn Abbas” by  Hafidh Munziri.p 24, #26).

Salam ibn Miskin said: “Ikrima is most knowledgeable of people in tafsir”. (Juzz fihi zikri hal Ikrima mawla ibn Abbas” by  Hafidh Munziri.p 24).

Sufayn as-Sawri said: “Take tafsir from Ikrima, Saeed ibn Jubayr, Mujahid and Dahhak”.(Juzz fihi zikri hal Ikrima mawla ibn Abbas” by  Hafidh Munziri.p 25, #29).

Shabe said: “No one remained more knowledgeable in book of Allah, than Ikrima”. (Juzz fihi zikri hal Ikrima mawla ibn Abbas” by  Hafidh Munziri.p 22, #19).

Ibn Hajar in “Taqrib” (#4673) said: Thiqat, steady, a`lim bi tafsir,and it’s not proved that he was accused in lie by ibn Umar, and it’s not proved innovation from him”

Ibn Hibban mentioned him in “Thiqat” and said: “From scholars of his time in fiqh and tafsir”. (“Tahzib at-tahzib” 7/240).

The wives of Prophet(saws) were given certain commands, which are a "means of purification", adhering to these means of purification wives of Prophet(saws) were to be purified.

This article gives a logical and rational response to this question.

https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2010/10/09/for-whom-the-verse-of-purificationtatheer-was-revealed-and-what-is-the-concept-of-purification-let-the-quran-answer/

The word إنما (only) in the first of the verse reject your saying. Contrary to what you think, the will of Allah in this verse is Takwinniyya, not Tashri'iyya (purifying by giving some commands). Because, the Tashri'iyya will of Allah is to purify all people, not only the wives of Prophet (s). But this verse has إنما which restricts the will of Allah to Ahlul Bayt. So, this will can not be Tashri'iyya.
Because of this Takwiniyya will of Allah,

You were refuted by your own Shia scholar.

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

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

For detailed answered on this argument refer the response to Argument 5 in this link:
https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2010/10/06/usage-of-word-ahlahlebayt-in-quran/

Prophet Muhammad (s) said: Allah placed the tribes in different houses and placed me in the b

est of them, this is because of His saying: "Only Allah desires to repel all impurity from you, O People of the Household, and purify you with a thorough purification." So my Ahl Al-Bayt and myself are pure from the sins.
Ash-Shookani has said that it is permisible to refer to this Hadith [وَقَدْ ذَكَرْنَا هَاهُنَا مَا يَصْلُحُ لِلتَّمَسُّكِ بِهِ دُونَ ما لا يَصْلُحُ] (Fath Al-Ghadir, V4, P323). Hakim At_Tirmidhi, At-Tabarani, Al-Bayhaqi and Ibn Mardowayh have narrated this Hadith in their books.

Waffaqakumullah.

It's a pity that you base all your arguments and weak and fabricated reports.

This hadith isn’t authentic, but fabricated. (Silsila ad-daeefa 5495). These words are part of bigger narration. Ibn Kathir gave it in his “Bidaya wa nihaya” (2/239) and said regarding it: In it oddity and unacceptable (point) (gharabat wa nakarat). Abu Hatim said this hadith is false (batil) (see “Ilalul hadith” by ibn Abu Hatim 4/72).

This hadith along with chain present in “Dalail” (1/92/#77, shamela) by Beyhaki. Starting from Yaqub ibn Shayba al-Fasawe it runs:

حدثني يحيى بن عبد الحميد ، قال : حدثنا قيس ، عن الأعمش ، عن عباية بن ربعي ، عن ابن عباس

Narrated to me Yahya ibn Abdulhamid, said: narrated to us Qays from al-Amash from Abayat ibn Rabia from ibn Abbas.

Everyone except al-Amash discredited.  Ibn Rabia was from qulatu shia. (“Mizanul itidal” 2/387). Al-Amash himself mudalis, and again narrated in anana form. Qays, that’s ibn Rabia. Daraqutni and Yahya said he’s weak. Nasai said he’s abandoned. He was shia with bad memory and rejected narrations in pocket. (“Mizanul itidal” 3/393). Yahya ibn Abdulhamid al-Hamani was accused in lie. (“Mizanul itidal” 4/392).

Infact,
حَدَّثَنَا أَحْمَدُ بْنُ مَنِيعٍ، حَدَّثَنَا زَيْدُ بْنُ الْحُبَابِ، حَدَّثَنَا عَلِيُّ بْنُ مَسْعَدَةَ، عَنْ قَتَادَةَ، عَنْ أَنَسٍ، قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ ـ صلى الله عليه وسلم ـ ‏:‏ ‏ "‏ كُلُّ بَنِي آدَمَ خَطَّاءٌ وَخَيْرُ الْخَطَّائِينَ التَّوَّابُونَ ‏"
It was narrated from Anas that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: “Every son of Adam commits sin, and the best of those who commit sin are those who repent.’”[Sunan Ibn Majah, Book 37, Hadith 4392; Hasan]

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

This narration is very weak

In the Isnad of the report Ibn Lahee’ah (Abdullah bin Lahee’ah) was weak with the agreement of scholars as none of the three Abdullah, who were aware of actual narrations of Ibn Lahee’ah, are the narrator of this report. And those three Abdullah were: Abdullah bin Mubarak, Abdullah bin Wahb and Abdullah bin Yazeed Al-Muqree.

Ibn Sa’d said: People used to read Ahadith which were not from his narrations, and he did not say anything. (and it was taken as his narration). When it was asked to him, he replied: “What is my sin? They come to me reading narrations from books and then leave. If they had asked me, I would have said that it was not my Hadith”.[Tabaqat Ibn Sa’d]

Abdur-Rahman Ibn Mahdi said: I do not count anything which I heard from among the narrations of Ibn Lahee’ah, except what was narrated by Ibn Mubarak and his likes.

Yahya ibn Mu’een said: He was nothing, regardless of whether his conditions were changed or not.

And in another report Ibn Mu’een said: “He was nothing in all of what he narrates”. Abu Zar’ah was asked regarding those people who heard him earlier, he replied: “Hearing of early and later narrators are equal (in terms of authenticity). However, Ibn Mubarak used to look for his Asl (books etc) and they wrote from it. And all others used to took from Shaykh, and Ibn Lahee’ah didn’t hold (remember) his narrations, and he was from among those who are not to be taken as proof”. Ibn Abi Hatim said: I asked my father, “Is Ibn Lahee’ah to be taken as proof when Ibn Mubarak and Ibn Wahb narrates from him?” He replied, No. [Al-Jarh wa At-Ta’deel (5/147)]

Imam Ibn Hibban said: “I studied narrations of Ibn Lahee’ah narrated by early narrators and later narrators, so I found Takhleet (confusion, mix up between different narratons) in his later narrations, and many narrations which did not narrated by early narrators. So I back to check it for support, so I found him performing Tadlees from weak narrators from those whom Ibn Lahee’ah considered to be trustworthy. And in that way those fabrication were attributed to him.” [Al-Majrooheen (2/12)]

Moreover Saaid ibn Kathir ibn Ufayr was saduq.

Abu Muawiyah al-Bajali. It was said that he’s Ammar ad-Duhani. And he’s majhool al-hal.

Salamun Alaykum.

Dear brother, how much easy you rate this Sahih Hadith as weak!

1.Ibn Lahee’ah

Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani has said that he was honest. Also, Ibn Habban has mentioned him in Ath-Thiqat.

Wa'alaikumsalam brother.

The Jarh on Ibn Lahee'ah is explained brother, and he was weakened by top ranking Scholars, as you can see it( and ibn Hibban also included him in ad-dua'fa), and as per the rule of Hadeeth science, Jarh Mufassar(explained Criticism) takes precedence over Tadeel. Hence, without a shadow of doubt the hadeeth you quoted is weak and unreliable.

Anyway, this Hadith has also another route of the narrators in which there is not Ibn Lahee'a. See Ash-Shari'a by Al-Ajori, V4, P2095.

وَحَدَّثَنَا ابْنُ أَبِي دَاوُدَ أَيْضًا قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا سُلَيْمَانُ بْنُ دَاوُدَ الْمَهْرِيُّ قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ وَهْبٍ قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو صَخْرٍ , عَنْ أَبِي مُعَاوِيَةَ الْبَجَلِيُّ , عَنْ سَعِيدِ بْنِ جُبَيْرٍ , عَنْ أَبِي الصَّهْبَاءِ , عَنْ عَمْرَةَ الْهَمْدَانِيَّةِ قَالَتْ: قَالَتْ لِي أُمُّ سَلَمَةَ: أَنْتِ عَمْرَةُ؟ قَالَتْ: قُلْتُ: نَعَمْ يَا أُمَّتَاهْ , أَلَا تُخْبِرِينِي عَنْ هَذَا الرَّجُلِ الَّذِي أُصِيبَ بَيْنَ ظَهْرَانَيْنَا , فَمُحِبٌّ وَغَيْرُ مُحِبٍّ؟ فَقَالَتْ أُمُّ سَلَمَةَ: أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ {إِنَّمَا يُرِيدُ اللَّهُ لِيُذْهِبَ عَنْكُمُ الرِّجْسَ أَهْلَ الْبَيْتِ وَيُطَهِّرَكُمْ تَطْهِيرًا} [الأحزاب: 33] وَمَا فِي الْبَيْتِ إِلَّا جِبْرِيلُ وَرَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ وَعَلِيٌّ وَفَاطِمَةُ وَالْحَسَنُ وَالْحُسَيْنُ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمَا وَأَنَا فَقُلْتُ: يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ أَنَا مِنْ أَهْلِ الْبَيْتِ؟ قَالَ: «أَنْتِ مِنْ صَالِحِي نِسَائِي» قَالَتْ أُمُّ سَلَمَةَ: يَا عَمْرَةُ , فَلَوْ قَالَ: «نَعَمْ» كَانَ أَحَبَّ إِلَيَّ مِمَّا تَطْلُعُ عَلَيْهِ الشَّمْسُ وَتَغْرُبُ

This route of the narrators is also Sahih.

This chain is Disconnected. Hence weak and unreliable again.

Ammar bin Muawiya, himself admitted that, He didn't hear anything from Sa'eed ibn Jubair(rah), so what could be a more powerful evidence, to weaken this report?

عمار بن معاوية الدهني
قال أحمد بن حنبل: لم يسمع من سعيد بن جبير.
قلت: وسأله أبو بكر بن عياش: سمعت من سعيد بن جبير؟ فقال: لا.
Ahmad said: He (Ammar) didn't hear from Sa'eed bin Jubair anything.

Abu Bakr bin Ayyash asked him: Did you hear from Sa'eed bin Jubair? He (Ammar) replied: No.[Tuhfat Al Tahseel by Al Iraqi p. 236]

This can also be found in Al-Dua'fa of Uqayli, vol 3, page 323.

(1341) عمار بن أبي معاوية الدهني حدثنا عبد الله بن أحمد قال حدثنا عبيد الله بن عمر القواريري قال سمعت أبا بكر بن عياش يقول مر بي عمار الدهني فدعوته فقلت يا عمار تعال فجاء فقلت سمعت من سعيد بن جبير قال لا
http://islamport.com/d/1/trj/1/164/3890.html
[Al-Dua'fa of Uqayli, vol 3, page 323.]

2.Abu Muawiyah al-Bajali

It was a mistake, brother. I stand corrected, I mistook him with another narrator with similar name. But this doesn't helps your case since the hadeeth is weak and unreliable without a shadow of doubt, first one due to severe weakness of Ibn Laheeah, second one due to disconnection.

Prophet for making clear that only Imam Ali, Lady Fatima, Imam Al-Hasan and Al-Husain are the Ahlul Bayt about whom the verse of At-Tat_hir talks, said that O Allah these are my Ahl Al-Bayt. Your saying does not make any sense. Indeed, Prophet used from the cloak and directly addressed the Ahlul Bayt about whom the verse was revealed to remove any misunderstandings. Dear brother, see the different emphases of Prophet for making clear the meaning of the verse.

Dear brother, I told you before that, there was no rational answer you could come up with, for the action of Prophet(saws) after the revealation of verse 33:33.  You attempted and in turn produced an irrational response.

You said Prophet(saws) was making clear to Umm Salama, well if it was to make clear to Umm Salama, then there was no Need to make DUA TO ALLAH, he would have just brought them under the kisa and told umm Salama, these are Ahlulbayt about whom this verse was revealed. BUT this didn't happen, what happened is that Prophet(saws) addressed his DUA TO ALLAH, he didn't address people, like O people these are my ahlulbayt about whom this verse was revealed. Rather the addressed one was Allah(swt). Which clearly proves to any objective person that, Prophet(saws) made that DUA TO ALLAH because verse was not revealed about them, hence he made Dua to Allah, so that they be included in it. This is only the rational answer for the action of Prophet(Saws), since he addressed his statement NOT TO PEOPLE but TO ALLAH, even though Allah had already wished purification for Ahlulbayt.

At here, mentioning the Hadith of Mubahila is also useful:
Sa'd (ra) narrated:
when the following verse was revealed: "say, Come! Let us call our sons and your sons, our women and your women, our souls and your souls, then let us pray earnestly, and call down Allah’s curse upon the liars." Allah's Messenger (s) called 'Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Husain and said: O Allah, these are my Ahl [family].

Sahih Muslim, V4, P1871
Sunan At-Tirmidhi, V5, P225 (Shakir).

The incident of Mubahila cannot be used as evidence to exclude wives of Prophet(saws) from Ahlulbayt.

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 not necessary to take his(saw) wives there.

For detailed answers on this topic of Mubahila, I recommend you to read this article.
 https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2010/10/21/can-the-incident-of-mubahila-be-used-as-an-evidence-to-exclude-wives-of-prophetsaw-from-his-ahlebayt/

عن ابن عباس : ?إنما يريد الله ليذهب عنكم الرجس أهل البيت ( [ الأحزاب : 33 ] . قال : نزلت في أزواج النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم خاصة .
الراوي: عكرمة المحدث: الذهبي – المصدر: سير أعلام النبلاء – لصفحة أو الرقم: 2/221
خلاصة حكم المحدث: إسناده صالح

Ibn Abbas RAA: “Allah intends only to remove from you the impurity [of sin], O people of the [Prophet’s] household,” He said: It was revealed especially about the wives of the prophet PBUH.

Siyar A’alam al nubalaa
Rank: Good Isnad.

'Akrama attributed this saying to Ibn Abbas (ra). But who was 'Akrama?

1.

إبراهيم بن سعد ، عن أبيه ، عن سعيد بن المسيب أنه كان يقول لغلام له : يا برد ، لا تكذب علي كما يكذب عكرمة على ابن عباس

Ibrahim bin Sa'd, from his father that Sa'eed bin Mosayyib used to say to one of his slaves: "O Bord, do not attribute lies to me, as 'Akrama who attributes lies to Ibn Abbas!"

Al-Ilal by Ibn Hambal, V2, P71 (رواية ابنه عبد الله)
Seyr 'A'lam An-Nubala by Az-Zahabi, V5, P22

2.

وقال أبو خلف عبد الله بن عيسى الخزاز عن يحيى البكاء سمعت بن عمر يقول لنافع اتق الله ويحك يا نافع ولا تكذب علي كما كذب عكرمة على بن عباس

Abu Khalaf Abdullah bin Isa Al-Khazzaz from Yahya Al-Bakka' who said: "I heard that Ibn Umar used to say to Nafi': 'O Nafi', fear God and don't attribute lies to me, as 'Akrama who attributes lies to Ibn Abbas.'."

Tahzib At-Tahzib by Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani, V7, P267
Seyr 'Alam An-Nobala by Az-Zahabi, V5, P22

3.

جرير بن عبد الحميد ، عن يزيد بن أبي زياد قال : دخلت على علي بن عبد الله بن عباس ، وعكرمة مقيد على باب الحش ، قال : قلت : ما لهذا كذا ، قال : إنه يكذب على أبي

Jarir bin Abd Al-Hamid from Yazid bin Abi Ziyad who siad: I went to Ali bin Abdullah bin Abbas [i.e., son of Ibn Abbas (ra)], while 'Akrama was fastened to the gate of the garden of palm trees. So, I said [to Ali bin Abdullah bin Abbas]: "Why is this man in this position?!" He replied: "Because he attribute lies to my father!"

Tahzib At-Tahzib by Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani, V7, P268
Seyr 'A'lam An-Nobala by Az-Zahabi, V5, P23
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because 'Akrama is who has attributed this saying to Ibn Abbas (ra), so those who has intelligence can not accept it.

Best wishes!

You have research objectively about the status of Ikrima. To make you understand his case better, before I respond to the criticism raised against him, I want to give the example of Zurarah. You will find a lot of reports in Shia books criticizing him, yet you consider him reliable because you will claim that all the criticism levelled against is invalid. Same goes the case with Ikrima.

1. For the first report you used against Ikrima.

Answer:

Imaam Sa’eed used to criticize Imaam Ikrimah based on the differences between the two in some fiqhi issues, and in return Imaam Ikrimah also used to criticize Imaam Sa’eed. Therefore, the Jarh of both contemporaries on each other is rejected.

2. Abu Khalaf Abdullah bin Isa Al-Khazzaz from Yahya Al-Bakka' who said: "I heard that Ibn Umar used to say to Nafi': 'O Nafi', fear God and don't attribute lies to me, as 'Akrama who attributes lies to Ibn Abbas.'."

Answer:

This narration is severely weak and Fabricated because:

·        Its original source and full chain of this narration is not known
·        Yahya al-Bakaa is Matrook and severely weak.

3. Jarir bin Abd Al-Hamid from Yazid bin Abi Ziyad who siad: I went to Ali bin Abdullah bin Abbas [i.e., son of Ibn Abbas (ra)], while 'Akrama was fastened to the gate of the garden of palm trees. So, I said [to Ali bin Abdullah bin Abbas]: "Why is this man in this position?!" He replied: "Because he attribute lies to my father!

Answer:

Its chain contains Yazeed bin Abi Ziyaad who is weak according to the consensus of Muhadditheen.

Now, I will prove the evidences that, Imaam Ikrimah was one of the biggest Fuqaha of his time and a highly reliable and truthful person in the field of Hadeeth.

 1-    Uthmaan bin Hakeem narrates that: “I was sitting with Abu Umaamah Sahl bin Haneef (radiallah anhu) when Ikrimah arrived. So he said: O Abu Umaamah mention the name of Allaah, did you hear Ibn Abbaas saying, ‘Accept whatever Ikrimah narrates to you from me, for verily he does not lie upon me’ so Abu Umaamah said, ‘Yes’”
[Taareekh Ibn Ma’een, narrated by ad-Dauri: 2/413, Chain Saheeh]

2-    Imaam Amr bin Deenaar said that Jaabir bin Zayd sent some masaail to me that I ask Ikrimah about them, he said: “Ikrimah is the Mawla (freed slave) of Ibn Abbaas; he is an ocean (of knowledge), therefore ask him”
[Tabaqaat al-Kubra by Ibn Sa’d: 2/293-294, Chain Saheeh]

3-    Imaam Sa’eed bin Jubayr said: “If Ikrimah stops narrating his hadeeth to them, people would travel to him”
[Tabaqaat al-Kubra: 2/294, Chain Saheeh]

4-    The same was said by Imaam Tawoos.
[Tabaqaat al-Kubra: 2/294, Chain Saheeh]

5-    Imaam Yahya ibn Ma’een narrated from Jareer bin Abdul Hameed from Mu’aawiyah bin Miqsam that he said: “It was said to Sa’eed bin Jubayr: Do you know anyone who is more knowledgeable than you?” He replied: “Yes, Ikrimah”
[Taareekh Ibn Ma’een by ad-Dauri: 3/358]

6-    Imaam Salaam bin Miskeen said: “Ikrimah was the biggest Scholar of Tafseer among all men”
[Tabaqaat al-Kubra: 2/294, Chain Saheeh]

7-    Imaam Ikrimah himself said: “When I go out to the market and hear a person speaking with a (good) speech, thus (even) this opens up fifty doors of knowledge for me”
[Tabaqaat al-Kubra: 2/294, Chain Saheeh]

8-    Imaam Abu Ishaaq as-Sabi’ee said that: “Ikrimah came and started narrating, while Sa’eed bin Jubayr was also present there, thus he made a knot of 30 (with his fingers) and said, he narrated the hadeeth correctly”
[Tabaqaat al-Kubra: 2/294, Chain Saheeh]

9-    Imaam Ikrimah said: “Ibn Abbaas (was so strict about my education that he) would teach me the Qur’aan and Sunan by tying a chain on my feet”
[Tabaqaat al-Kubra: 2/294, Chain Saheeh]

10-          Imaam Hammaad bin Zayd said that a man said to Ayyoob (As-Sakhtiyaani), “O Abu Bakr, has Ikrimah been accused (of lying)” Ayyoob remained silent, then he said: “As for me, then I do not accuse him”
[Tabaqaat al-Kubra: 5/221, Chain Saheeh]

Imaam Ayyoob also said: “The Huffaadh of (the hadeeth of) Ibn Abbaas have unanimously consented upon Ikrimah, among them are: Sa’eed bin Jubayr & Ataa bin Abi Ribaah, they would ask him about the hadeeth of Ibn Abbaas”
[Ad-Du’afa al-Kabeer by al-Ukaylee: 3/376, Chain Saheeh]

11-          Imaam Sufyaan ibn Uyaynah said, I heard Ayyoob (as-Sakhtiyaani) saying: “If I were to tell you that Hasan (al-Basari) quit narrating a lot of Tafseer when Ikrimah (the expert of Tafseer) entered upon us in Basrah until he went out of it, then I said the truth”
[Ad-Du’afa al-Kabeer by al-Ukaylee: 3/373, Chain Saheeh]

12-          Imaam Qataadah bin Di’aamah said: “The most knowledgeable of all people about Halaal and Haraam is Hasan (al-Basari), and the most knowledgeable of them in Manaasik is Ataa bin Abi Ribaah, and the most knowledgeable of them in Tafseer is Ikrimah”
[Al-Ma’rifah wal Taareekh: 1/702, Chain Saheeh]

13-          Imaam Yahya ibn Ma’een declared him “Thiqah”
[Taareekh Uthmaan ad-Daarimi: 357, 581, & 604]

14-          Imaam Abu al-Hasan al-Ijlee said: “He is Taabi’ee Thiqah and he is from the whatever people accuse him of  Khaarijiyyah”
[Thiqaat by al-Ijlee: 1/339]

15-          Imaam Bukhaari said: “There is no one among our companions except that he would take evidence from Ikrimah”
[Al-Taareekh al-Kabeer by al-Bukhaari: V. 7 T. 218]

Imaam Bukhaari also narrated from him in his Saheeh.

16-          Imaam Tirmidhi authenticated numerous ahaadeeth of Ikrimah in his Sunan.

17-          Imaam Ibn Abi Haatim ar-Raazi asked his father (Abu Haatim) about Ikrimah, so he said: “He is Thiqah” His son asked: “Is evidence taken from him?” He replied: “Yes, when Thiqah people narrate from him, and those who rejected him: Yahya bin Sa’eed al-Ansaari and Maalik then it was only due to his raye (opinion)” It was said to him, how are the clients of Ibn Abbaas? So he said: “They are Kurayb, Sumay’, Shu’bah, Ikrimah and Ikrimah was the most knowledgeable of them” His son asked him about Ikrimah and Sa’eed bin Jubayr as to which one of the two is more knowledgeable of Tafseer? So he replied: “The companions of Ibn Abbaas was children to Ikrimah”
[Al-Jarh wat Ta’deel: Vol. 7 T. 32]

18-          Imaam Ibn Adee said: “He is Mustaqeem ul-Hadeeth except if a weak person narrates from him…. The A’immah of Hadeeth do not prevent from narrating from him, and the Authors of Sihaah have entered his hadeeth in their authentic books when a Thiqah person narrates from him….There is nothing wrong in him”
[Al-Kaamil: 2/292]

19-          Imaam Ibn Khuzaymah authenticated his hadeeth in his Saheeh

20-          Imaam Ibn Hibbaan mentioned him in ath-Thiqaat
[5/229]

21-          Imaam Ad-Daaraqutni authenticated his hadeeth saying, “Its chain is Hasan Saheeh”
[Sunan ad-Daaraqutni: H. 2233, 2374, 2380, ]

22-          Imaam al-Haakim authenticated his hadeeth to be on the conditions of al-Bukhaari
[Mustadrak al-Haakim: H. 210, 216…]

At another place, he graded one of his hadeeth saying, “All the narrators of this hadeeth are Thiqaat”
[H. 553]

23-          Imaam Bayhaqi said: “Ikrimah is from the Thiqah Thabat people according to the Majority of A’immah”
[As-Sunan al-Kubra lil Bayhaqi: 8/234]

24-          Imaam Ikrimah and Kuthayyir Azzah (the famous poet of Arabs) died on the same day, so the people of Madeenah said: “The biggest Faqeeh of people and the biggest poet of people died today”
[Al-Ma’rifah wal Taareekh: 2/6; Tabaqaat Ibn Sa’d: 5/292]

25-          Imam Dhahabi said: “He is Thiqah Thabat”
[Deewaan ad-Du’afa: 1/278]

26-          Haafidh Ibn Hajar al-Asqalaani said: “He is Thiqah Thabat, the Scholar of Tafseer, the accusing of lying on him from Ibn Umar is not proven, nor is the Bid’ah (of any kind) is proven from him”
[Taqreeb: 4673]

After reading the views of high number of top ranking scholars, any objective reader would know that the hadeeth of Ikrima are Sahih, and he was trustworthy student of Ibn Abbas(ra) and all the accusations against him doesn't hold ground.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

The renowned Shia scholar of Hadith al-Shaheed al-Thani says in his book “Haqaeq al-Iman” pages 150-152:

“What is apparent from the condition of their Shia who lived in their time and narrated from them the Ahadeeth may peace be upon them, that MANY OF THEM did not believe in their infallibility because it was hidden from them but they used to believe that the Imams were pious obedient scholars, anyone who follows their stories and narrations knows this”
[ You are not allowed to view attachments ]

Shia Allama Majlisi quotes Shaheed al thani  as saying:
جمعى از راويان كه در اعصار ايمه بوده‏اند از شيعيان اعتقاد بعصمت ايشان نداشته‏اند بلكه ايشان را از علماى نيكوكار ميدانسته‏اند چنانچه از رجال كشى ظاهر ميشود و مع ذلك ايمه (ع) حكم بايمان بلكه بعدالت ايشان ميكرده‏اند
Most of the Shia narrators around the Imams didn’t believe in their infallibility but considered them pious scholars only, as is clear from Rijal Kashi, and still the Imams would declare them faithful and even trustworthy. [Haqqul Yaqin, p. 544]


The purpose behind posting these quotes from Shia Scholars, is that, I want to ask our dear brother Mujtaba, the following questions:

(i). How was the infallibility of Shia Imams from Ahlelbayt, hidden from most of the narrators around the Imams who were their Shia, since you claim that their infallibility is mentioned in clear verse of Quran 33:33, Didn't Shia narrators believe Imams were Ahlelbayt?.

(ii). Didn't those "large number of faithful and trustworthy Shia narrators" who lived around the Imams read Quran? If they read, then why didn't they clearly see that Ahlelbayt are infallible as per Quran 33:33, as what you claim?

(iii). Was Quranic verses hidden from trustworthy and faithful Shia narrators, due to which they didn't see the clear evidence of Ahlelbayt being infallible, as per Quran, which you Shias are able to see now?

(iv). If Quran was available, then why didn't the Imams atleast hint them to read 33:33 verse, and told them that they are Ahlelbayt mentioned in that verse, hence they are infallible.? Wasn't it the duty of Shia Imams to rectify the corrupt Aqeedah of many Shia narrators who were narrating their hadeeth. Since Imams are guides and this is their very job.

[Abu Muhammad]

And suddenly, coming out from nowhere, ahl al-bayt (as intended by Twelvers definition) were extended to the other 9 men. How convenient! And you claimed it on sahih hadiths.

Please show us the hadiths.

By the way, never ever ayat at-tatheer proves the imamah as believe by Twelvers (in fact, not a single ayat al-muhkamat about imamah in the Quran). It was all about proving the infallibility of the Imams. But when you studied incidents/history of the Imams (for instant, incident between Hasan (ra) and Muawiyyah (ra)), you immediately come into realization that the Twelver's concept of infallibility is not so "infallible" as claimed.

Dear brother, Abu Muhammad,

As I mentioned, Imam As-Sajjad (as) said that he is among Ahlul Bayt about whom the verse of At-Tat_hir was revealed (See, Tafsir At-Tabari, V19, P106 or V20, P266/ Tafsir Ibn Kathir V6, P416 or V7, P183)

Two things:

1. Proof that the hadith is sahih since you claimed in your previous post that it is sahih and the understanding of Imam Sajjad towards ayah 33:33 is the same as Twelvers' understanding.

2. How about the rest of your imams?

Also, Haakim has narrated a Sahih Hadith
 [هذا حديث صحيح على شرط مسلم ، ولم يخرجاه]
according to which Imam Al-Mahdi (as) is also of Ahlul Bayt (as)
[مهدي منا أهل البيت؛ أشم الأنف أقنى أجلى ، يملأ الأرض قسطا وعدلا كما ملئت جورا وظلما ].

Where in the hadith stated that the Mahdi is Ahl Al-Bayt based on ayah 33:33? That could also mean he is Ahl Al-Bayt from the common meaning of desendent of Prophet (saw) through Fatimah (ra). Same like any other desendents of Al-Hasan ibn Ali (ra) that you do not consider as Ahl Al-Bayt.

Note:
Please take note that it is a common knowledge for any student of hadith that Al-Hakim's authentication still require further investigation even if he claimed the hadith is upon the conditions of Bukhari or Muslim.

Also, based on the verse of At-Tat_hir which says that Ahlul Bayt are purified with a thorough purification and Allah has repeled the impurity from them, we can conclude that they never separate from Quran by doing sins and disobeying the orders of Allah in Quran and the orders of Prophet (s). Also, note that doing sins unintentionally and making mistakes are also a kind of impurity. Prophet Muhammad (s) said: I leave twoSuccessors after myself among you: The book of Allah and my progeny, my Ahl Al-Bayt. Indeed, they [Quran and the progeny of Prophet, i.e., Ahlul Bayt] will never separate until they meet me at the Pool.
" (إني تارك فيكم الخليفتين من بعدي: كتاب الله وعترتي , أهل بيتي , وإنهما لن يتفرقا حتى يردا علي الحوض).
 See 1.Mosannaf Ibn Abi Shayba, V6, P.309/ 2.As-Sunnah Li Ibn Abi Asim, V2, P351/ 3.Al-Mo'jam Al-Kabir,  V5, P.154, etc.
Al-Albani and Al-Haythami has said that this Hadith is Sahih (Sahih Al-Jami' As-Saqir wa Ziyadatihi by Al-Albani, V1, P 482/ Majma' Az-Zawa'id by Al-Haythami, V9, P163 and V1, P170).

Disagree. From the ayah 33:33, it is clearly said that Allah only INTEND to purify them. No where it said Allah has made them purified.

And like your previous post, all of sudden, you make a conclusion that "they never separate from Quran by doing sins and disobeying the orders of Allah in Quran and the orders of Prophet (s)." What conclusion to an argument are you talking about?

Prophet Muhammad (s) said: I leave two Successors after myself among you: The book of Allah and my progeny, my Ahl Al-Bayt. Indeed, they [Quran and the progeny of Prophet, i.e., Ahlul Bayt] will never separate until they meet me at the Pool.
" (إني تارك فيكم الخليفتين من بعدي: كتاب الله وعترتي , أهل بيتي , وإنهما لن يتفرقا حتى يردا علي الحوض).
 See 1.Mosannaf Ibn Abi Shayba, V6, P.309/ 2.As-Sunnah Li Ibn Abi Asim, V2, P351/ 3.Al-Mo'jam Al-Kabir,  V5, P.154, etc.
Al-Albani and Al-Haythami has said that this Hadith is Sahih (Sahih Al-Jami' As-Saqir wa Ziyadatihi by Al-Albani, V1, P 482/ Majma' Az-Zawa'id by Al-Haythami, V9, P163 and V1, P170).

This Hadith proves that those 12 Successors of Prophet (s) about whom he (s) talked, are progeny/Ahlul Bayt of him (peace be upon him and his pure progeny) [e.g., Prophet (s) said: The religion will continue until the Hour has been established, and there would be twelve Successors upon you, all of them being from the Quraish (Sahih Muslim, V3, P1453, H1822)].

AND AGAIN, all of sudden, you jump to this hadith and quoted all the sources (which typically a Twelver's tactic to give so-called credibility to an argument) and said that it proves those 12 are successors of Prophet (saw). Those with with sane mind will easily laugh at your argument. Out of nowhere, it proves your argument. Funny, really.


In conclusion, I started off, in the previous post, with a request for you to show me sahih hadiths that the other 9 so-called imams of yours were included in ayah 33:33 (as intended by Twelvers understanding of the ayah, of course) and your responses were so jumble up and incoherent and in the end, proving nothing to be honest. I don't really  know whether you really know what you were talking.

Lastly, don't forget to respond to brother Noor-us-Sunnah's posts. All of them are very interesting!

[Mojtaba]

Salamun Alaykum Jami'anh wa Rahmatollah.

Dear brothers, excuse me for replying late. I was so busy.
I answer all the issues here in this post:

A)The saying of angels to Sara (ra)

I didn't say that they didn't talk with Sara. I meant that they talk with Sara, but they addressed Abraham (as), himself and other people of his house by the term "Ahl Al-Bayt". Here is the saying of your eminent scholar for proving this issue:

1.Ibn Teymiyya:
And like what the angels said: "The mercy of Allah and His blessings are on you, O people of the house." and Abraham (as) is among them [i.e., the Ahl Al-Bayt] [وكما قالت الملائكة : ( رحمة الله وبركاته عليكم أهل البيت ) وإبراهيم فيهم]. See Minhaj As-Sunnah, V7, P241.

2.Ash-Shokani:
[In the verse 11:73 They said: Do you wonder at Allah's bidding? The mercy of Allah and His blessings are on you, O people of the house,]For generalizing, addressing to a person [i.e., Do you wonder at Allah's bidding?!] has been changed to the group [i.e., The mercy of Allah and His blessings are on you, O people of the house], [وصرف الخطاب من صيغة الواحدة إلى الجمع لقصد التعميم]. See Tafseer Fath Al-Qadir, V2, P580.

3.Sayf al-Din al-Amidi:
(They said: Do you wonder at Allah's bidding? The mercy of Allah and His blessings are on you, O people of the house) This refers to her [i.e., Sara] and to those who were in the house of Abraham, from men and women [قالوا أتعجبين من أمر الله رحمة الله وبركاته عليكم أهل البيت ) فكان ذلك عائدا إليها وإلى من حواه بيت إبراهيم من ذكر وأنثى ...)].

So, it is clear that Ahl Al-Bayt in the verse 11:73 refers to Abraham (as) himself plus all the members of his family, e.g. Sara, and it does not refer to Sara only.

B)The saying of Imam Ali (as): So when his wife is wed to him and she entered on him, he should pray two Raka’at then wipe his hand on her forelock, then he should say: “O Allah bless my Ahel for me and bless me for them

What you have ignored is this that the term "Ahl" in the saying does not refers to the wife only. It refers to the wife and the children whom will be created through the marriage. Imam Ali said that after marriage, the man should touch the forelock of his wife and then ask Allah to bless him by his wife and the children whom will be created through the marriage, and to bless them by him. This is all the matter.

C)Narrated Anas: ... The Prophet left and went towards the dwelling place of Aisha and said, “Peace and Allah’s Mercy be on you(KUM), Ya Ahlel Bayt (O the people of the house)!”

Can you prove that there was only Aisha in her house? You can not. Indeed, there were probably others like the slaves in the house of Aisha, so Prophet said the Salam to them All. When Prophet (s) said the Salam to all the people of the house, Aisha answered to his greeting, so others had not to reply to the greeting of Prophet [An-Nawawi said about the replying to the greeting of a person to a group in Al-Majmoo' (4/ 593): وإن كان على جميع فهو فرض كفاية، فإذا أجاب واحد منهم أجزأ عنهم، وسقط الحرج عن جميعهم i.e., When one of the people of the group replies to the greeting, it will be enough and others have not to reply]. So, this Hadith can not prove anything.

D)Why did the Prophet prayed for Imam Ali, Lady Fatima, Imam Hasan and Husain?

You say: "if Allah willed the purity of those 5 people [Prophet, Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Husain pbut] by His Takwini Will,  so they became pure, so why did Prophet pray for their purity after the revelation of the verse of At-Tathir? What does the Dua make sense in this case? Indeed, the Prophet prayed because 1.This will of Allah is a Tashri'i will [i.e., His orders to the wives], 2. to enter them to the group of his Ahlul Bayt, i.e., the wives about whom the verse of At-Tathir was revealed.

But, you have misunderstand the purpose of the Dua of Prophet (s). Indeed, Allah willed to purify the Ahlul Bayt by His Takwini Will. So that, Prophet for 1.identifying that who are the Ahlul Bayt and 2.asking the maintenance of the Will of Allah for his Ahlul Bayt, prayed for them. for example, Allah said that Prophet is in the straight path [Sura Ya Sin: you are indeed one of the apostles, (3) on a straight path. (4)], while Prophet used to recite in his Salats reciting the verse of Al-Hamd: [O Allah!] Guide us to the straight path. Based on the saying of Allah, Prophet was in the straight path, but Prophet used to say in his Salats: 'O Allah, Gide us to the straight path' because of the maintenance of blessing of Allah for kepping him in that path.  .

So, the Dua of Prophet does not mean what you say, rather it means that the wives are not among the Ahlul Bayt of the verse of At-Tathir. As Prophet said: O Allah! These are my Ahlul Bayt ..., and not: O Allah! These are also among my Ahlul Bayt ... .

E)Is there any Sahih Hadith in which it is said that Prophet recited the verse of At-Tathir to the house of Lady Fatima for 6 months?

Yes. There is. First, I mention the Hadith and grading it as Sahih by Haakim, then for proving that it is certainly Sahih, I investigate its route of the narrators:

حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو بَكْرٍ مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ الْحَفِيدُ ، ثنا الْحُسَيْنُ بْنُ الْفَضْلِ الْبَجَلِيُّ ، ثنا عَفَّانُ بْنُ مُسْلِمٍ ، ثنا حَمَّادُ بْنُ سَلَمَةَ ، أَخْبَرَنِي حُمَيْدٌ ، وَعَلِيُّ بْنُ زَيْدٍ ، عَنْ أَنَسِ بْنِ مَالِكٍ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ ، أَنّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَآلِهِ وَسَلَّمَ كَانَ يَمُرُّ بِبَابِ فَاطِمَةَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهَا سِتَّةَ أَشْهُرٍ إِذَا خَرَجَ لِصَلاةِ الْفَجْرِ ، يَقُولُ : " الصَّلاةُ يَا أَهْلَ الْبَيْتِ ، إِنَّمَا يُرِيدُ اللَّهُ لِيُذْهِبَ عَنْكُمُ الرِّجْسَ أَهْلَ الْبَيْتِ وَيُطَهِّرَكُمْ تَطْهِيرًا سورة الأحزاب آية 33 " .

(Al-Mustadrak of Haakim, V3, P172)

Haakim said: هَذَا حَدِيثٌ صَحِيحٌ عَلَى شَرْطِ مُسْلِمٍ ، وَلَمْ يُخَرِّجَاهُ, This Hadith is Sahih based on the Shart of Muslim.

1.أَبُو بَكْرٍ مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ الْحَفِيدُ [Abu Bakr, Muhammad bin Abdillah Al-Hafid]
Both Az-Zahabi and Haakim has rated his Hadiths as Sahih. See Al-Mustadrak of Hakim with Ta'liqat of Az-Zahabi in Talkhis, 1.V4, P235 and 2.V3, P134.

2.الْحُسَيْنُ بْنُ الْفَضْلِ الْبَجَلِيُّ [Al-Husain bin Al-Fadhl Al-Bajalii]
Ibn Hajar Al-'Asqalani said about him that he is among the eminent knowledgeable scholars [فإنه من كبار أهل العلم والفضل]. See Lisan Al-Mizan, V2, P308. Az-Zahabi said about him that he was Al-'Allama, Mufassir, Al-Muhaddith and the scholar of his time [الْعَلَّامَةُ ، الْمُفَسِّرُ ، الْإِمَامُ ، اللُّغَوِيُّ ، الْمُحَدِّثُ أَبُو عَلِيٍّ الْبَجَلِيُّ الْكُوفِيُّ ، ثُمَّ النَّيْسَابُورِيُّ ، عَالِمُ عَصْرِهِ]. Haakim said about him that he was the Imam of his time in the Ma'ani of Quran [إمام عصره في معاني القرآن].  See Seyr 'A'lam An-Nobala, V13, P414.

3.عَفَّانُ بْنُ مُسْلِمٍ ['Affan bin Muslim]
He is among the narrators in both Sahih Al-Bukhari and Muslim. Abu Hatam and other Imams of Al-Jarh and Al-T'dil said that he was a reliable Imam. See Seyr 'Alam An-Nobala, V10, P242-3.

4.حَمَّادُ بْنُ سَلَمَةَ [Hammad bin Salama]
He is among the narrators in both Sahih Al-Bukhari and Muslim. Abu Hatam and other Imams of Al-Jarh and Al-T'dil said that he was reliable [e.g., Muslim narrated through him from Thabit and Homaid in Al-Usool, as he was aware of them (مُسْلِمٌ رَوَى لَهُ فِي الأُصُوْلِ، عَنْ ثَابِتٍ وَحُمَيْدٍ، لِكَوْنِهِ خَبِيْراً بِهِمَا) Or Muhammad bin Mutahher said: I asked Ahmad bin Hambal (about the Hammad bin Salama). So he said: Hammad bin Salama is among the reliable narrators in our view (قَالَ مُحَمَّدُ بنُ مُطَهِّرٍ: سَأَلْتُ أَحْمَدَ بنَ حَنْبَلٍ، فَقَالَ: حَمَّادُ بنُ سَلَمَةَ عِنْدَنَا مِنَ الثِّقَاتِ)]. See Seyr 'Alam An-Nobala, V7, P444-8.

5.حُمَيْدٌ [Homaid]
Az-Zahabi said about him that he was master in Hadith and was knowledgeable and reliable. Yahya bin Ma'in said that he was trustworthy. Abu Hatam Al-Razi also said that he was trustworthy. In addition, Ahmad Al-'Ijli said that he was a trustworthy Tabe'i. 
 
6.أَنَسِ بْنِ مَالِكٍ
One of the companions of Prophet Muhammad (s) and in the belief of Sunnis, all the Sahaba are reliable.

So, the Hadith which says that for six months, the Messenger of Allah (s) would pass by the house of Lady Fatima (as) when going to the Fajr prayer saying: 'As-Salat O Ahlal Bayt! Allah desires to repel all impurity from you, O Ahl Al-Bayt, and purify you with a thorough purification [33:33].' is certainly Sahih.

In addition, At-Tirmidhi has narrated this Hadith through the narration of Ali bin Zayd from 'Anas bin Malik and said that it is Hasan [See, Sunan At-Tirmidhi, V5, P205].

F)The lie that 'Akrama attributed to Ibn Abbas (ra)

'Akrama fabricated that Ibn 'Abbas said:

إنما يريد الله ليذهب عنكم الرجس أهل البيت ( [ الأحزاب : 33 ] . قال : نزلت في أزواج النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم خاصة

"Allah intends only to repel from you the impurity, O people of the [Prophet’s] household,”
He said: It was revealed exclusively about the wives of the prophet PBUH.

According to this fabricated Hadith, Ibn 'Abbas believed that the term 'Ahlul Bayt in the verse, only refers to the wives, and not to the others. But, there is a Sahih Hadith that proves that Ibn 'Abbas believed that the verse of At-Tathir revealed for Imam Ali, Lady Fatima, Imam Hasan and Husain (as). Ibn Abbas (ra) said:

أَخَذَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ ثَوْبَهُ فَوَضَعَهُ عَلَى عَلِيٍّ وَفَاطِمَةَ وَحَسَنٍ وَحُسَيْنٍ وَقَالَ: " {إِنَّمَا يُرِيدُ اللَّهُ لِيُذْهِبَ عَنْكُمُ الرِّجْسَ أَهْلَ الْبَيْتِ وَيُطَهِّرَكُمْ تَطْهِيرًا}ـ

The Messenger of Allah (s) took his cloak and then covered Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Husain by it and said: "Just Allah desires to repel all impurity from you, O Ahl Al-Bayt, and purify you with a thorough purification [33:33]"

Both Az-Zahabi and Haakim said that this Hadith is Sahih. See here. So, Ibn 'Abbas didn't believe that the verse of At-Tathir was revealed especially about the wives of the Prophet (s).

Imam Muslim and Malik avoided his Hadiths [See, Tazkarah Al-Hoffaz by Az-zahabi, V1, P.74]. According to a Sahih narration, Sa'eed bin Mosayyib believed that 'Akrama used to attribute lies to Ibn 'Abbas [Seyr 'A'lam An-Nubala by Az-Zahabi, V5, P22]. Imam Ahmad ibn Hambal and Al-Bukhari said that non of the eminent Imams attended the funeral of 'Akrama [Tahzib Al-Kamal by Al-Mizzi, V20, P290].
   
There is a Sahih Hadith [grated Sahih by Sho'ayb Al-'Arna'oot] in which it is mentioned that Umm Salama (ra) said: فَرَفَعْتُ الْكِسَاءَ لِأَدْخُلَ مَعَهُمْ، فَجَذَبَهُ مِنْ يَدِي، وَقَالَ: " إِنَّكِ عَلَى خَيْرٍ " i.e., "I lifted the cloak so I can join them, but the Prophet pull it away from my hand and said: You are upon good."
(Musnad Ahmad, Al-Muhaqqia Sho'ayb Al-'Arna'oot, H26746)

Pulling the cloak away from the hand of Umm Salama (ra) by Prophet clearly proves that the wives are not among the Ahul Bayt of the verse of At-Tathir.
 
G)The Hadith in which Imam Hasan said that he is among the Ahl Al-Bayt that is in the verse of At-Tathir

Imam Al-Haythami said that the chain of the narrators of the Hadith is Hasan [i.e., authentic]. See As-Sawa'iq Al-Mohriqa, V2, P425 [ وَقد ورد عَن الْحسن من طرق بَعْضهَا سَنَده حسن وَأَنا من أهل الْبَيْت الَّذين أذهب الله عَنْهُم الرجس وطهرهم تَطْهِيرا]. Also see, Majma' Al-Fawa'id, V9, P146 [إِسْنَادُ أَحْمَدَ، وَبَعْضُ طُرُقِ الْبَزَّارِ، وَالطَّبَرَانِيِّ فِي الْكَبِيرِ، حِسَانٌ].

About Ibn Hibban it should be said:
1.Az-Zahabi said about him that he is the source of identifying of the Thiqat [reliable narrators] (ينبوع معرفة الثقات، تاريخ البخاري، وابن أبي حاتم وإبن حبان). See Al-Mughaza by Az-Zahabi, P74.

2.Someones says that Ibn Hibban was Mutisaheel, i.e., he used to identify the narrators as reliable easily. But:

#Az-Zahabi has said that sometimes Ibn Hibban how has talked about the ill of a reliable narrator, as if he did not know that what he was saying [ابن حبان ربما قصب الثقة حتي كأنه لا يدري ما يخرج من رأسه ]! See Mizan Al-'I'tidal by Az-Zahabi, V1, P274. 

#As-Suyuti has said that  the saying that Ibn Hibban is Mutisaheel is incorrect [قِيلَ: وَمَا ذَكَرَ مِنْ تَسَاهُلِ ابْنِ حِبَّانَ لَيْسَ بِصَحِيحٍ؛ فَإِنَّ غَايَتَهُ أَنَّهُ يُسَمِّي الْحَسَنَ صَحِيحًا، فَإِنْ كَانَتْ نِسْبَتُهُ إِلَى التَّسَاهُلِ بِاعْتِبَارِ وِجْدَانِ الْحَسَنِ فِي كِتَابِهِ فَهِيَ مُشَاحَّةٌ فِي الِاصْطِلَاحِ، وَإِنْ كَانَتْ بِاعْتِبَارِ خِفَّةِ شُرُوطِهِ، فَإِنَّهُ يُخَرِّجُ فِي الصَّحِيحِ مَا كَانَ رَاوِيهِ ثِقَةً غَيْرَ مُدَلِّسٍ، سَمِعَ مِنْ شَيْخِهِ وَسَمِعَ مِنْهُ الْآخِذُ عَنْهُ، وَلَا يَكُونُ هُنَاكَ إِرْسَالٌ وَلَا انْقِطَاعٌ، وَإِذَا لَمْ يَكُنْ فِي الرَّاوِي جَرْحٌ وَلَا تَعْدِيلٌ وَكَانَ كُلٌّ مِنْ شَيْخِهِ وَالرَّاوِيعَنْهُ ثِقَةً، وَلَمْ يَأْتِ بِحَدِيثٍ مُنْكَرٍ فَهُوَ عِنْدَهُ ثِقَةٌ. وَفِي كِتَابِ الثِّقَاتِ لَهُ كَثِيرٌ مِمَّنْ هَذِهِ حَالُهُ، وَلِأَجْلِ هَذَا رُبَّمَا اعْتَرَضَ عَلَيْهِ فِي جَعْلِهِمْ ثِقَاتٍ مَنْ لَمْ يَعْرِفْ حَالَهُ، وَلَا اعْتِرَاضَ عَلَيْهِ فَإِنَّهُ لَا مُشَاحَّةَ فِي ذَلِكَ، وَهَذَا دُونَ شَرْطِ الْحَاكِمِ، حَيْثُ شَرَطَ أَنْ يُخَرِّجَ عَنْ رُوَاةٍ خَرَّجَ لِمِثْلِهِمُ الشَّيْخَانِ فِي الصَّحِيحِ، فَالْحَاصِلُ: أَنَّ ابْنَ حِبَّانَ وَفَّى بِالْتِزَامِ شُرُوطِهِ، وَلِمَ يُوَفِّ الْحَاكِمُ]. See Tadrib Ar-Ravi, V1, P114-5.

So, the narration in which it is said that Imam Hasan (as) said that he is among the Ahlul Bayt of the verse of At-Tathir, is authentic. Also, it should be noted that Imam Hasan said that saying as one of the virtues of himself and Ahlul Bayt. But, if we think that the verse of At-Tathir says that Allah has ordered the Ahlul Bayt to do so and so doings, so if they do those orders they will be purified, this can not be considered as a virtue, rather, this is a responsible which must to be done.

Also, there is an other Sahih Hadith in which it is said that when a person hurt Imam Hasan, Imam for mentioning his virtue said that he is among the Ahlul Bayt of the verse of At-Tathir. The Hadith is as the following:
Narrated Abi Jomaila:
While Al-Hassan was praying, someone came and stabbed him. This caused Al-Hassan to remain in bed for several months. When he recovered, he gave a sermon: "Oh people of Iraq, we are your Umara' [leaders] and we are the Ahlul Bayt about whom Allah said: Allah just desires to repel all impurity from you, O Ahl Al-Bayt, and purify you with a thorough purification." He was still talking when all those present started crying.

Al-Haythami said that this was recorded by Al-Tabarani and the narrators are trustworthy [Majma' Az-Zawa'id, V9, P172].

So, the verse does not talk about a Tashri'i will of Allah. Because as I said, if we think that Allah said to Ahlul Bayt that He wants so and so orders for them, so if they do them, they will be purified, this can not be considered as a virtue for Ahlul Bayt, rather, it would be a responsible for them that must be done.

H)The saying of Imam Sajjad (as) that he is among the Ahlul Bayt of the verse of At-Tathir

I said that to prove that at least there is a historical evidence according to which Imam As-Sajjad (as) himself has claimed that he is among the Ahlul Bayt of the verse of At-Tathir. Also, it should be said that this narration is mentioned in the Tafseer of At-Tabari and Ibn Teymiyya has said that it includes the truthful narrations [ابن جرير الطبري ، ومحمد بن أسلم الطوسي ، وابن أبي حاتم ، وأبي بكر بن المنذر ، وغيرهم من العلماء الأكابر ، الذين لهم في الإسلام لسان صدق ، وتفاسيرهم متضمنة للمنقولات التي يعتمد عليها في التفسير]. See Minhaj As-Sunnah, V7, P179.

In addition, I think that even Al-Bukhari believed in that narration from Imam As-Sajjad. As he used to use عليه السلام [i.e., peace be upon him] for Imam As-Sajjad (as) [See Sahih Al-Bukhari, V4, P78, H3091 (عَنِ الزُّهْرِيِّ، قَالَ: أَخْبَرَنِي عَلِيُّ بْنُ الحُسَيْنِ، أَنَّ حُسَيْنَ بْنَ عَلِيٍّ عَلَيْهِمَا السَّلاَمُ أَخْبَرَهُ)/ V9, P137, H7465 (عَنْ عَلِيِّ بْنِ حُسَيْنٍ، أَنَّ حُسَيْنَ بْنَ عَلِيٍّ، عَلَيْهِمَا السَّلاَمُ أَخْبَرَهُ)].

I)The saying of 'Ayesh: Allah did not reveal anything from the Qur'an about us except what was connected with the declaration of my innocence [of the slander].

The verse of 'Ifk was not especially about 'Ayesha. It is about the wives of all the faithful men and, based on what Sunnis believe, the story of 'Ayesha became a reason for the revelation of those verses. Allah said: Indeed those who accuse chaste and unwary faithful women shall be cursed in this world and the Hereafter, and there shall be a great punishment for them [24:23].

so, 'Ayesha believed that just the verse of 'Ifk was revealed for the children of 'Abu Bakr, while 'Ayesha is one of them.
 
J)The belief of Umm Salama (ra) that she was not among the Ahlul Bayt of the verse of At-Tathir

The Hadith is certainly Sahih and it is not Mursal. Its route of the narrators is as the following:

Ash-Shari'a by Al-Ajori, V4, P2095.

وَحَدَّثَنَا ابْنُ أَبِي دَاوُدَ أَيْضًا قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا سُلَيْمَانُ بْنُ دَاوُدَ الْمَهْرِيُّ قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ وَهْبٍ قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو صَخْرٍ , عَنْ أَبِي مُعَاوِيَةَ الْبَجَلِيُّ , عَنْ سَعِيدِ بْنِ جُبَيْرٍ , عَنْ أَبِي الصَّهْبَاءِ , عَنْ عَمْرَةَ الْهَمْدَانِيَّةِ قَالَتْ

The issue is the narration of 'Ammar bin Mu'awiya (=Abi Mu'awiya) Ad-Dohni/Al-Bajalii from Sa'id bin Jobayr. Al-Bukhari, Muslim and Ibn Hibban have said that 'Ammar heard Hadiths from Sa'eed. See Tarikh Al-Kabir by Al-Bukhari, V7, P28 [عمار بن معاوية أبو معاوية الدهني ودهن قبيلة من بجيلة الكوفي سمع أبا الطفيل وسعيد بن جبير], Al-Kona wa Al-'Asma by Muslim, V1, P758 [أبو معاوية عمار بن ابي معاوية الدهني سمع أبا الطفيل وسعيد بن جبير] and Al-Thiqat by Ibn Hibban, V5, P268 [وَكَانَ رَاوِيا لسَعِيد بن جُبَير]. In addition, both Az-Zahabi and Haakim grated a Hadith that is narrated through the narration of 'Ammar from Sa'eed as the Sahih which has the Shart of both Al-Bukhari and Muslim. See Mustadrak of Hakim, H3993 [ثنا عَمَّارُ بْنُ أَبِي مُعَاوِيَةَ الْبَجَلِيُّ، عَنْ سَعِيدِ بْنِ جُبَيْرٍ، عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمَا، قَالَ: «مَا سَكَنَ آدَمُ الْجَنَّةَ إِلَّا مَا بَيْنَ صَلَاةِ الْعَصْرِ إِلَى غُرُوبِ الشَّمْسِ» هَذَا حَدِيثٌ صَحِيحٌ عَلَى شَرْطِ الشَّيْخَيْنِ وَلَمْ يُخَرِّجَاهُ] and the opinion of Az-Zahabi about this Hadith in the Talkhis [على شرط البخاري ومسلم]. There are different satisfying reasons for rejecting the saying of Ahmad bin Hambal [i.e., 'Ammar did not hear anything from Sa'id based on a saying from 'Ammar] in internet. Google about it in Arabic. 

In addition, in the comments that Sho'ayb Al-Arna'oot wrote for the Hadiths that are narrated through the narration of 'Ammar Al-Dohni from Sa'eed bin Jobayr, he did not mention that there is an 'Irsal in them [See, Musnad Ahmad, Al-Muhaqqiq: Sho'ayb Al-'Arna'oot, H2157 and H2525].

K) Did Prophet enter Umm Salama under the cloak?
Allama 'Alusi [a Salafi Sunni eminent Mufasseer] said:

وأخبار إدخاله صلّى الله عليه وسلم عليا وفاطمة وابنيهما رضي الله تعالى عنهم تحت الكساء، وقوله عليه الصلاة والسلام اللهم هؤلاء أهل بيتي ودعائه لهم وعدم إدخال أم سلمة أكثر من أن تحصى، وهي مخصصة لعموم أهل البيت بأي معنى كان البيت فالمراد بهم من شملهم الكساء ولا يدخل فيهم أزواجه صلّى الله عليه وسلم

The narrations which say that Prophet (s) entered Ali, Fatima and their two boys (ra) under the cloak and his saying: O Allah these are my Ahl Al-Bayt, and his prayer for them and not entering Umm Salam under the cloak, is more than to be counted. So, this specifies the general meaning of Ahl Al-Bayt -whatever the Bayt means. So, Ahl Al-Bayt [in the verse of At-Tathir] refers to those whom covered by the cloak and the wives of Prophet are not among them [i.e., Ahl Al-Bayt].   
(TafseerAl-Alusi, V11, P195)

As I said, there is a Sahih Hadith that says that Umm Salama (ra) believed that she was not among Ahl Al-Bayt of the verse of At-Tahir. So, those minority of Hadiths which are weak and say that Prophet said to Umm Salama that she was among his Ahl, have not any value. Even if we accept them, we can say that as At-Tahhavi [an eminent Sunni scholar] said, Prophet meant that Umm Salama (ra) was not among the Ahl Al-Bayt of the verse of At-Tathir, as he didn't enter her under the cloak, rather she was included among those Ahl of Prophet who through following him can enter to this type of Ahl of him (s). As Abraham (as) said: "O my Lord! They have led astray many among mankind. But whosoever follows me, he verily, is of me" [14:36]. See Sharh Mushkil Al-'Aathar by At-Tahhavi, V2, P246-7 [H773].   

L)'Ayesh and battle of Jamal

According to a narration in the Tarikh At-Tabari, 'Ayesha and those who with her, e.g., Zobayr, went to fight Imam Ali:

عَنِ الزُّهْرِيِّ ، قَالَ : ثُمَّ ظهرا ، يعني : طَلْحَة وَالزُّبَيْر ، إِلَى مكة بعد قتل عُثْمَان رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ بأربعة أشهر ، وابن عَامِر بِهَا يجر الدُّنْيَا ، وقدم يعلى بن أُمَيَّة مَعَهُ بمال كثير ، وزيادة عَلَى أربع مائة بعير ، فاجتمعوا فِي بيت عَائِشَة رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهَا ، فأداروا الرأي ، فَقَالُوا : نسير إِلَى علي فنقاتله.

"So they(Talha, Az-Zubayr, etc.) gathered in the house of Aesha. Then said their ideas. Therefore they said,' We will go towards Ali to fight him."
(Tarikh At-Tabari, V4, P452)

In addition, Al-Balaziri has narrated a Sahih narration in Al-Ansab Al-Ashraf that Imam Ali said:

إِنَّ حُمَيْرَاءَ إِرَمَ هَذِهِ أَرَادَتْ أَنْ تَقْتُلَنِي.

Indeed, Humayra' [i.e., 'Ayesha], the commander of this army wanted to kill me.
('Ansab Al-Ashraf, V2, P250)

According to another Sahih narration, Imam Ali also said to Ayesha:

استفززت الناس وقد أقروا حَتَّى قَتَلَ بَعْضُهُمْ بَعْضًا بِتَأْلِيبِكِ.

You exited people until they killed each other because of your sayings.
('Ansab Al-Ashraf, V2, P250)

'Ayesha fought Imam Ali and in this battle many Muslims were killed an this is a big sin. according to an authentic Hadith [Ibn Hajar Al-asqalani said that it is Hasan. See fath Al-Bari, V13, P55], Prophet said to Imam Ali that in the battle of 'Ayesha against Imam Ali, he is the good one and 'Ayesha is the bad one:

'Abi Rafi' narrated:
The Apostle said to Ali,'Certainly an issue[the war of Jamal] will occur between you and Aesha.'
Then Ali asked from Prophet,' O Messenger of Allah, so am I the bad one?'
the Messenger replied,' No[=Aesha is the bad one], but when this issue takes place, send her to her home.'
(fath Al-Bari by Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani, V13, P55)

M)The meaning of Hadith of Thiqlayn
Your interpretation for Hadith of Thiqlayn is odd and incorrect. Prophet clearly said that we must follow Ahlul Bayt and grasp and hold fast them. He also said that they are his Successors.

1.Zayd ibn Thabit (may Allah be pleased with him) has narrated:
The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him and his progeny) said, "I have left two complete Successors among you: The book of Allah and my progeny. Indeed, they will never separate from each other until they meet me at the pool [of Kowthar, in Paradise]."(إِنِّي تَرَكْتُ فِيكُمُ الْخَلِيفَتَيْنِ كَامِلَتَيْنِ: كِتَابَ اللَّهِ، وَعِتْرَتِي، وَإِنَّهُمَا لَنْ يَتَفَرَّقَا حَتَّى يَرِدَا عَلَيَّ الْحَوْضَ).
(Musnad Ibn Abi Shayba, V1, P.108). Imam Ahmad ibn Hambal in his Musnad, Imam Al-Tabarani in Al-Mo'jam Al-Kabir and others have also narrated this Hadith.

Albani in his book, Sahih Al-Jami' Al-Saqir wa Ziyadatihi, V1, P 482, and Al-Haytami in two parts of his book [Majma' Al-Zawaeed V9, P163 and V1, P170] have said that this Hadith is Sahih (صحيح).

2.The Messenger of Allah (s) said: 'Indeed, I am leaving among you, that which if you hold fast to it, you will never be misguided after me. One of them is greater than the other: The Book of Allah which is a rope extended from the sky to the earth, and my progeny - my Ahlul Bayt - and they will never separate until they meet me at the Hawdh [of Kowthar, Paradise].

Al-Albani has said that this Hadith is Sahih (صحيح) (See, Sahih Al-Jami' Al-Saqir wa Ziyadatihi by Al-Albani, V1, P482).

3.Imam Ali (peace be upon him) narrated:
The Messenger of Allah (s) said: "I have left among you which if you grasp will cause you to never go astray, the Book of Allah whose rope is in my hand and yours, and my Ahlul Bayt".

Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani said that the Hadith is Sahih.(هَذَا إِسْنَادٌ صَحِيحٌ).
(Al-Matalibul Aliyyah by Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani, V16, P142)

4.Zayd ibn Arqam (may Allah be pleased with him) narrated:
The Messenger of Allah (s) said:"'O people! Indeed, I am leaving behind two matters among you if you follow them you will never go astray: The Book of Allah and my Ahlul Bayt, my progeny".
(أيها الناس ، إني تارك فيكم أمرين لن تضلوا إن اتبعتموهما ، وهما : كتاب الله ، وأهل بيتي عترتي)
(Al-Mostadrak Aala As-Sahihayn by Al-Haakim, V3, P118)

Haakim said that the Hadith is Sahih.

Prophet clearly said that Quran and Ahlul Bayt never separate from each other [وَإِنَّهُمَا لَنْ يَتَفَرَّقَا], but brother Noor-us-Sunnah said in post #23: "As for the argument that Quran, never separates from Ahlulbayt, then this is again a Shiee misunderstanding!!!"

The truth is obvious, except you don't want to accept it. What brother Noor-us-Sunnah have said in post #23 is about separating of slaves from Quran or Ahlul Bayt (as). But Prophet (s) said that Quran and Ahlul Bayt never separate from each other, not others from Quran or Ahlul Bayt.

In addition, I do not know that why you connect this Hadith to salves!!! Prophet Muhammad (s) said that saying to all the Muslims, not slaves. Prophet (s) said: أيها الناس [O people!] [Sunan At-Tirmidhi, V6, P131 and Al-Mustadrak, V3, P118], and not O slaves! Please do not change the clear meanings of the Hadith.

N)The verses hanging the verse of At-Tathir

I do not know, why do you try to say that the verse of At-Tathir is about the wives, while they themselves said that they are not?!!
In those verses, Allah talks with the wives, then He addresses another ones, i.e., Ahlul Bayt saying that they are not like the wives. As Allah has wanted certainly to repel all the impurity from them and purify them with a thorough purification. Changing immediately from those whom are addressed in the verses to another ones is a usual issue in Quran, e.g., 12:29, Joseph, ignore this. And, [my wife], ask forgiveness for your sin. Indeed, you were of the sinful].

Indeed, Prophet said that who are those Ahlul Bayt of the verse of At-Tathir, and Ahlul Bayt themselves said this and Umm Salama also said that she is not among them. But you instead of following Prophet and his Ahlul Bayt, follow 'Akrama!!!

But, the Hadith that Imam Ali burned someones is narrated again by liar 'Akrama from Ibn Abbas (ra). 'Akrama was a Khariji and followed the Khawarij way, and the enmity of Khawarij to Imam Ali (as) is famous [e.g., see, Tazkarah Al-Hoffaz by Az-zahabi, V1, P.74]. So, we can not accept that Hadith.

O)All the 12 Imams are between the Ahlul Bayt

You said that the saying that the argue that the 9 other Imams are between Ahlul Bayt is ridiculous!!!

You can laugh, but before laughing, see the sayings of your Prophet. Prophet said that the number of his Successors is 12 and he also said that his progeny that is his Ahlul Bayt are his Successors. Prophet Muhammad (s) said: I leave two Successors among you after myself: The book of Allah and my progeny, my Ahl Al-Bayt. Indeed, they [Quran and the progeny of Prophet, i.e., Ahlul Bayt] will never separate from each other until they meet me at the Pool." [إني تارك فيكم الخليفتين من بعدي: كتاب الله وعترتي , أهل بيتي , وإنهما لن يتفرقا حتى يردا علي الحوض]. See 1.Mosannaf Ibn Abi Shayba, V6, P.309/ 2.As-Sunnah Li Ibn Abi Asim, V2, P351/ 3.Al-Mo'jam Al-Kabir,  V5, P.154, etc.
Al-Albani and Al-Haythami has said that this Hadith is Sahih [Sahih Al-Jami' As-Saqir wa Ziyadatihi by Al-Albani, V1, P 482/ Majma' Az-Zawa'id by Al-Haythami, V9, P163 and V1, P170].
   
P)The past Mufasseerin who said that the verse of At-Tathir is for Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Husain (as)

Tabari mentioned in his Tafseer that who believed that the verse of At-Tathir is for Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Husain, and he who believed that it is for the wives. for the first group, he has mentioned [Tafseer At-Tabari, V19. P100-7:
1.ِ Abu Sa'id Al-Khodri (ra)
2. Ayesha
3. Anas bin Malik
4. Umm Salama (ra)
5. Imam As-Sajjad (as): identifing himself as the Ahlul Bayt of the verse of At-Tathir
6. Abi Al-Hamra (ra)
7. Sa'd bin Abi Waqqas (ra)

But At-Tabari has only mentioned 'Akrama as who believed that the verse of At-Tathir is just for the wives of the Prophet (as). See Tafseer At-Tabari, V19, P107-8.

Indeed, 'Ikrimah said: “Whoever disagrees with me that it was revealed solely concerning the wives of the Prophet , I am prepared to meet with him and pray and invoke the curse of Allah upon those who are lying.” (tafseer ibn katheer  for 33:33). Or he said regarding the verse of At-Tathir: “This verse was not revealed about whom you think it was revealed. Rather, it is about the wives of the Prophet, Allah bless him and give him peace”. ‘Ikrimah used to proclaim this in the marketplace.
This, itself proves that there were many scholars who were disagree with 'Ikarama, so that he used to reject them and invite them to do Mubahila.

Q)The saying of Shia scholar, Ja`far Murtada al-`Amili

The saying of Al-Amili never helps Sunnis. If you read all parts of his saying, he says that the term Ahlul Bayt which is in the verse of At-Tathir refers to Prophet, Lady Fatima and 12 Imams (as) and Allah wanted so and so orders from the wives, so may they do not do bad doings which result in the ill of the Ahlul Bayt [i.e., for example if a child does a so bad doing, others may say that that bad child is the child of so and so parents, so this is the ill of the parents, too]. He said that the subject of the word يريد [wants] is not mentioned manifestly in the verse, and its subject is so and so orders of Allah to the wives. His saying that the subject has not mentioned manifestly is true. But his saying about the subject itself is not true and 'Ayatollah Jawadi 'Amoli (Hafazahollah Ta'ala) [the most eminent Shi'i Mufasseer of this time] does not agree with him [See, Tajjali Welayat dar Ayeye Tathir by Abdullah Jawadi 'Amoli, Farsi].

R)Saying of Prophet: Every son of Adam commits sin frequently كُلُّ بَنِي آدَمَ خَطَّاءٌ

This Hadith means that every son of Adam, except those upon which Allah has mercy, commits sin frequently.
Allah says:  Indeed, the soul is prone to evil, except those upon which my Lord has mercy. [12:53]

This is like the sayings of Allah. In a verse, Allah says that no one but Allah knows the Unseen [6:59,  With Him are the treasures of the Unseen; no one knows them except Him] , but in another verse He says that others know it [e.g., the mother of Moses (as) who knew that his son would be come back to her and also he would be an Apostle in future. Or 72:26-7, Knower He of the Unseen, and He discloses not His Unseen to anyone, (26) save only to such a Messenger as He is well-pleased with ...(27)].

The Hadith of Prophet that says that he, himself (s) and his Ahlul Bayt (as) are pure from the sins, is narrated by different Sunni Hadith Imams and Huffaz and also Ash-Shookani has said that it is permissible to refer to this Hadith. So that do not reject it.   

[Rationalist]

The 12 calipahs hadith is not a Mutawatir narration. Secondly it states the 12 will be rulers. Next who the 12ers refer as the 12 Imams they never told the ummah they are the 12 imams or even referenced this hadith. Lastly, many other Fatimids instead claimed they are the Calipahs.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

A)The saying of angels to Sara (ra)

I didn't say that they didn't talk with Sara. I meant that they talk with Sara, but they addressed Abraham (as), himself and other people of his house by the term "Ahl Al-Bayt". Here is the saying of your eminent scholar for proving this issue:

1.Ibn Teymiyya:
And like what the angels said: "The mercy of Allah and His blessings are on you, O people of the house." and Abraham (as) is among them [i.e., the Ahl Al-Bayt] [وكما قالت الملائكة : ( رحمة الله وبركاته عليكم أهل البيت ) وإبراهيم فيهم]. See Minhaj As-Sunnah, V7, P241.

As, I said in my previous post, even if you include Ibrahim(as) in it, it would make the pronoun as Dual(كما), NOT Kum(كم). Therefore, the only rational view is to accept the fact that, the word (أهل البيت) is collective pronoun and regardless of the person addressed with it, be it male or female or their number, the pronoun used will be masculine plural(KUM/كم)

3.Sayf al-Din al-Amidi:
(They said: Do you wonder at Allah's bidding? The mercy of Allah and His blessings are on you, O people of the house) This refers to her [i.e., Sara] and to those who were in the house of Abraham, from men and women [قالوا أتعجبين من أمر الله رحمة الله وبركاته عليكم أهل البيت ) فكان ذلك عائدا إليها وإلى من حواه بيت إبراهيم من ذكر وأنثى ...)].

So, it is clear that Ahl Al-Bayt in the verse 11:73 refers to Abraham (as) himself plus all the members of his family, e.g. Sara, and it does not refer to Sara only.

This argument is preposterous, there was no one else present in the house of Abraham(as), except him and his wife.

There are other proofs from Quran, which supports my argument:

1. Wife of Imran(as) was addressed as Ahli bayt.

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

And We ordained that he refused to suck any foster mother before, so she said: Shall I point out to you the people of a house(ahli bayt) who will take care of him for you, and they(hum) will be benevolent to him? (Quran28:12)

Comment : Similarly in this verse, the phrase ‘أَهْلَ الْبَيْت’ is used clearly in the context of a lady, while the gender is masculine again ‘يَكْفُلُونَهُ’ and ‘وَهُمْ’. It is because the collective noun (ahlebayt) was used in this verse for mother of moses(as) we see a masculine plural pronoun(hum) used for a single lady.

Aqa Mahdi Puya says: The mother of Musa is referred to as Ahli Bayt, not as the wife of Imran but as the mother of Musa. Likewise Sara is referred to as Ahli Bayt in verse 73 of Hud as the mother of Is-haq.. (28:12) (From Tafseer of Pooya/M.A. Ali. )

Shia scholar says the same, but tries to find his own benefit in it. Anyways atleast he agreed that a single lady was addressed while a masculine plural pronoun was used.

And it  is possible that after reading this response the shia out of frustration may discredit the scholarship of their scholars too and might try to take a  U-turn with their theories , they might say that, in this verse a complete household is being addressed, not just a single lady. So to such arguments we answer from the quran itself . Because the best way to explain the Quran is, through the Quran itself.  For, what the Quran alludes to at one place is explained at the other, and what it says in brief on one occasion is elaborated upon at the other.

Quran says: See how We repeat the verses that they may understand.” (6:65)
“And certainly We have repeated for mankind in this Quran, every kind of similitude, but the majority of mankind do not consent to aught but denying.” (17:89)

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

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

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

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

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

Even sunni commentators explain the same:

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

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

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

Thus we see here that just for a single lady plural pronoun was used because she was addressed with a collective noun(ahlebayt).


2. Wife of Musa(as) :

إِذْ رَأَى نَارًا فَقَالَ لِأَهْلِهِ امْكُثُوا إِنِّي آنَسْتُ نَارًا لَّعَلِّي آتِيكُم مِّنْهَا بِقَبَسٍ أَوْ أَجِدُ عَلَى النَّارِ هُدًى

When he saw a fire and said to his wife(ahli), “Wait – I have seen a fire – perhaps I may bring you an ember from it or find a way upon the fire.”(Ahmed raza khan barelwi, kanzul eman , 20:10)

Commentaries for this verse:

1. Allah begins to mention the story of Musa, how revelation began to come to Him, and Allah’s speaking directly to him. This occurred after Musa had completed the time agreed upon between he and his father-in-law that he would herd sheep. He was traveling with his family, and it has been said that he was headed for the land of Egypt , after having been away from it for more than ten years. He had his wife with him and he became lost on the way during a cold, wintery night . Therefore, he settled down, making a camp between some mountain passes and mountains that were covered with snow, sleet, dense clouds, darkness and fog.(tafseer ibn katheer, for verse 20:10)

2. Here we see Moses (peace be upon him) on the road between Madyan and Egypt, close to Mount Sinai, returning with his wife after he had completed the term he had agreed with the Prophet Shu`ayb. This agreement meant that Shu`ayb would give him one of his two daughters in marriage in return for eight or ten years during which he would be his assistant. He most probably spent ten years before he felt that he could leave with his wife to return to the country where he grew up. There the Children of Israel, Moses’ people, lived in subjugation.(In the shade of quran, by sayyid qutub, volume XI , surah 20, verse 10.)

3. When he caught sight of a fire and said to his family, namely, to his wife, ‘Wait, here! — this was when he was leaving Midian, heading for Egypt — Indeed I see a fire [in the distance]. Perhaps I [can] bring you a brand from it, [bring you] a burning wick or a torch, or find at the fire some guidance’, that is, someone to guide me by showing me the [proper] route — for he had lost it in the darkness of the night (tafseer jalalayn for 20:10)

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

5. Shia scholars of Tafseer admitted it such as al-Tabrasi in his “Jawami` al-Jami`” 2/699:

لم يكن مع موسى غير امرأته وقد كنى الله تعالى عنها بالأهل ، فتبع ذلك ورود الخطاب على لفظ الجمع وهو قوله : *  امكثوا * و *  ءاتيكم  * ، *  إني ءانست نارا – تفسير جوامع الجامع – الطبرسي ج 2 ص 699۔

Translation: “Musa was accompanied by no one except his wife and Allah referred to her as his Ahel so she was addressed in the plural, this is his saying *omkuthoo* and *ateekum* and…”
6. Shia Sheikh al-Tarihi agreed while commenting on this verse in “Majma` al-Bahrain” 4/218:

قوله : * ( فقال لاهله امكثوا ) * نقل بعض شراح المغني انه قد تخاطب المرأة الواحدة بخطاب الجماعة الذكور ، يقول الرجل عن أهله فعلوا كذا – مجمع البحرين – الشيخ الطريحي ج 4 ص 218۔

Translation: “Those who explained al-Mughni said that the woman can be addressed in the plural of masculine, as the man says about his Ahel: They did so and so (In the masculine plural form).”

Second verse:

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

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

b. So when Moosa completed his term and was travelling with his wife, he saw a fire in the direction of the Mount (Sinai); he said to his wife “Stay here – I have sighted a fire in the direction of the mount – perhaps I may bring you(kum) some news from it, or an ember so that you(kum) may warm yourselves.”(ahmed raza khan barelwi, kazul eman, 28:29)

c. So when Musa (Moses) completed the appointed term and set out with his wife, he saw a fire in the direction of Tur. (That was a flash of Absolute Beauty which caught his heart and fascinated him.) He said to his wife: ‘Stay (here). I have seen a fire. I may bring you some news (about Him) from that (fire in Whose pursuit I have long been wandering), or (I may bring you) some burning brand from the (febrile) fire so that you (too) may feel the burn.’ (28:29) irfan ul quran, Dr. tahir ul qadri.

Commentary for this verse:

So when Moses had completed the term, of his tending — of eight years, or of ten years, which is what is generally assumed — and was travelling with his family, “his wife”, with the permission of her father, in the direction of Egypt, he saw in the distance on the side of the Mount [Tūr] a fire (al-Tūr is the name of a mountain). He said to his family, ‘Wait, here; I see a fire in the distance. (tafseer jalalayn for  28:29)

Third verse:

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

Commentaries for this verse:

Moses accompanied with his wife who was pregnant, and they were going from Madyan towards Egypt. On one side, the darkness of the night in the cold stormy weather of the desert, and, on the other side, the childbirth of his wife, forced Moses to search. The verses under discussion are about this event.  The verse says: “ (Remember) When Moses said unto his family: ‘Verily I perceive a fire; …” “… soon will I bring you news of it, or I will bring you a flaming brand, that you warm yourselves.”  This event happened by the same night when Moses was in a dark desert on the way toward Egypt, accompanied with his “wife”, Shu‘ayb’s daughter, and he lost the way. Then a terrible storm began to blow and at the same time his wife felt the pains of childbirth. Moses thought he severely needed to make a fire in order to use its warmth, but there was nothing in that desert for it.  As soon as he saw the light of a flame from distance, he became happy and took it as a sign of the existence of someone or some ones there. He told them that he would go and bring them either some news from it, or a burning firebrand so that they might warm themselves by it.

It is noteworthy that Moses says he brings ‘them’ news or a flaming band, (the pronoun of which plural). This may show that there had been a child or children with him too, because his marriage had happened in Madyan ten years before that. Or it may be for the sake that, in that horrible desert, that idea could give some further calmness to his addressees. (The Light of The Holy Qur’an  by Ayatullah Sayyid Kamal Faghih Imani and A Group of Muslim Scholars, under explanation of verse 27:7)

Note: This shia mufassir explicitly mentions that hz musa(as) was just with his wife, but he makes some hypothetical assumptions just for sake of defending their self made arguments against verse of tatheer. And these assumptions are extremely weak because its not compulsory that if a man marries a woman he should have children.. take for example of hz ibrahim(as) he didn’t  have children for decades of his marriage. And its not necessary that if the children were born they should have survived until hz musa(as) started the journey. So such assumptions are simply illogical. However we will refute his assumptions from his own master, the books which the shias themselves consider very authentic, here is Tafseer from Majmua al bayan, it states:

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

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

In the verses above (28:29) (20:10) and (27:7) which are describing a same incident in different chapters of quran, Masculine plural pronoun(kum) was used to address wife of hz musa(as). Though majority of translators translated word “ahl” as family in these verses, but the shia translator muhammed sarwar as well as couple of sunni translators like ahmed raza khan barelwi and Dr. tahir ul qadri specifically translated the word ahl as wife. And these scholars of Arabic language didn’t find it odd or weird translating that “ahli”  refered in the verse as wife of hz musa(as) though a masculine plural noun (kum) was used to address her. This is because they were aware of the rule were are discussing here.

And even the shia commentators of quran  like Shaykh Abu Ali Fazl ibn al-Hassan ibn al-Fazl al-Tabarsi about whose tafseer its said: “Tafseer Majma ul Bayan”, that is considered to be an authentic commentary by the Shi’a Ithna Ashari[Mazahib-ul-Islam, Page 447, Allamah Najam-ul-Ghani Rampuri.

It unequivocally states that : In the story of Musa when he told his Ahl (إذ قال لأهله) meaning his Wife and she was the Daughter of Shu’aib (tafseer majmua al bayan, surah naml verse 7)

Moreover zafar hasan a shia scholar and sunni commentators of quran ibn katheer, suyuti and sayyid qutub explicitly mentioned that hz musa(as) was traveling with his wife. And these masters of Arabic didn’t find it weird to mention in their works that “Ahl” in this verse was wife of hz musa(as). All these scholars  surely would have noticed the verses before translating or writing its commentary that the verses contain a masculine plural pronoun(kum) and if they had any doubt  then it was easy for them to just mention that hz musa(as) was traveling with his family(ahl), not namely mentioning his “wife” , but  we find all these shia as well as sunni translators and commentators who had a great command over Arabic language  mentioned that hz musa(as) was with his wife without any hesitation though a masculine plural noun was used to address “ahl” in the verse.

B)The saying of Imam Ali (as): So when his wife is wed to him and she entered on him, he should pray two Raka’at then wipe his hand on her forelock, then he should say: “O Allah bless my Ahel for me and bless me for them

What you have ignored is this that the term "Ahl" in the saying does not refers to the wife only. It refers to the wife and the children whom will be created through the marriage. Imam Ali said that after marriage, the man should touch the forelock of his wife and then ask Allah to bless him by his wife and the children whom will be created through the marriage, and to bless them by him. This is all the matter.

This is a preposterous argument out of desperation. How would a person know that, He will have MORE THAN ONE SON? Because the pronoun here is masculine plural(HUM). Why would a newly wed man, make dua to Allah, to bless his NON-EXISTING children for him? THAT TOO, TWO MALE SONS?

So you see, your arguments are foolish and out of desperation, hence discarded. 

Moreover, Here I give you another example from Arabic literature, where the pronoun KUM was used a single Lady.

وثبت عن فاطمة -رضي الله عنها- أنها رضيت عن أبي بكر بعد ذلك، وماتت وهي راضية عنه، على ماروى البيهقي بسنده عن الشعبي أنه قال: (لما مرضت فاطمة أتاها أبو بكر الصديق فاستأذن عليها، فقال علي: يافاطمة هذا أبو بكر يستأذن عليك؟ فقالت: أتحب أن آذن له؟ قال: نعم، فأذنت له فدخل عليها يترضاها، فقال: والله ما تركت الدار والمال، والأهل والعشيرة، إلا إبتغاء مرضاة الله، ومرضاة رسوله، ومرضاتكم أهل البيت، ثم ترضاها حتى رضيت)- السنن الكبرى للبيهقي 6/301-

When Fatima became ill, Abu Bakr came to her and asked for permission to enter. So Ali said, ‘O Fatima, this is Abu Bakr asking for permission to enter.’ She answerd, ‘Do you want me to give him permission?’ He said, ‘Yes.’ So she allowed him (to enter), and he came in seeking her pleasure, so he told her: ‘By Allah, I only left my home and property and my family seeking the pleasure of Allah and His Messenger and you(KUM), O Ahlel Bayt.’ So he talked to her until she was pleased with him.” (Sunan Al-Bayhaqi).

This Hadith is narrated by Bayhaqi in al Sunan al Kubra (6:300-301) and Dala’il al-Nubuwwa (7:273-281) who said: “It is narrated with a good (hasan) chain.” Muhibb al Din al-Tabari cited it in al Riyad Al Nadira (2:96-97 #534) and Dhahabi in the Siyar (Ibid). Ibn Kathir states it as Sahih in his Al Bidayah and Ibn Hajar in his Fath Al Bari.

Comment: In this narration too we see that when hz Fatima(ra) was addressed, and only she was being addressed until she was pleased but what to notice here is that when she was addressed with collective noun (i.e ahlebayt) the pronoun that was used was masculine plural(kum) though she was the single lady who was being addressed.

C)Narrated Anas: ... The Prophet left and went towards the dwelling place of Aisha and said, “Peace and Allah’s Mercy be on you(KUM), Ya Ahlel Bayt (O the people of the house)!”

Can you prove that there was only Aisha in her house? You can not. Indeed, there were probably others like the slaves in the house of Aisha, so Prophet said the Salam to them All. When Prophet (s) said the Salam to all the people of the house, Aisha answered to his greeting, so others had not to reply to the greeting of Prophet [An-Nawawi said about the replying to the greeting of a person to a group in Al-Majmoo' (4/ 593): وإن كان على جميع فهو فرض كفاية، فإذا أجاب واحد منهم أجزأ عنهم، وسقط الحرج عن جميعهم i.e., When one of the people of the group replies to the greeting, it will be enough and others have not to reply]. So, this Hadith can not prove anything.

Again your argument is based on conjecture and desperation. You assume that THERE WERE TWO MALE SLAVES present in the house of Ayesha(ra)? That would be nothing but stupidity. The famous slave of Prophet(saws), Anas(ra) is the narrator of the hadeeth and he was outside with Prophet(saws), so he can't be there.

Moreover, The hadeeth says that Prophet(saws) went to the houses of other wives as well, and said the same thing. Did all wives of Prophet(Saws) had two male slaves in their apartments?

فَتَقَرَّى حُجَرَ نِسَائِهِ كُلِّهِنَّ، يَقُولُ لَهُنَّ كَمَا يَقُولُ لِعَائِشَةَ، وَيَقُلْنَ لَهُ كَمَا قَالَتْ عَائِشَةُ،
Then he went to the dwelling places of all his other wives and said to them the same as he said to Aisha and they said to him the same as Aisha had said to him. (Bukhari)

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

D)Why did the Prophet prayed for Imam Ali, Lady Fatima, Imam Hasan and Husain?

You say: "if Allah willed the purity of those 5 people [Prophet, Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Husain pbut] by His Takwini Will,  so they became pure, so why did Prophet pray for their purity after the revelation of the verse of At-Tathir? What does the Dua make sense in this case? Indeed, the Prophet prayed because 1.This will of Allah is a Tashri'i will [i.e., His orders to the wives], 2. to enter them to the group of his Ahlul Bayt, i.e., the wives about whom the verse of At-Tathir was revealed.

But, you have misunderstand the purpose of the Dua of Prophet (s). Indeed, Allah willed to purify the Ahlul Bayt by His Takwini Will. So that, Prophet for 1.identifying that who are the Ahlul Bayt and 2.asking the maintenance of the Will of Allah for his Ahlul Bayt, prayed for them. for example, Allah said that Prophet is in the straight path [Sura Ya Sin: you are indeed one of the apostles, (3) on a straight path. (4)], while Prophet used to recite in his Salats reciting the verse of Al-Hamd: [O Allah!] Guide us to the straight path. Based on the saying of Allah, Prophet was in the straight path, but Prophet used to say in his Salats: 'O Allah, Gide us to the straight path' because of the maintenance of blessing of Allah for kepping him in that path.  .

Let us first present before you Shia Tafseer:

” Why must we always ask Allah for guidance to ‘the Straight Path’, as if we are being misguided ? ” Besides, supposing the statement is true about us, the ordinary believers, but what about the holy Prophet and sinless Imams (p.b.u.th.) who were the examples of complete human beings ?

In answer to this question, we may say : Firstly, the fact is that Man is liable to deviate from the Right Path with each step that he takes as he is walking along the path of guidance. So, he should rely on Allah and ask Him to keep him firm on the ‘Straight Path’.

We must not forget that our existence, our being, and all the bounties which always come to us, are from His Origin. To clarify the matter, we cite a simple example : All creatures, including human beings, (from one point of view) resemble an electric lamp. We see that the light of a lamp, when it is on, appears to be constant and monotonous. The reason is that the electrical current flows constantly from a generator to the lamp. The generator continuously produces some new electrical power, a part of which reaches the lamp by some connective wires. Our being is similar

to the lamp. Although it appears as a sustained being, it is, in fact, a continually renewed being that flows ceaselessly to us from the Original Being, the Bountiful Creator.

Therefore, as the continually new being reaches us, we need constant new guidance, too. It is natural that if something wrong or some barriers manifest themselves in our spiritual connective wires with Allah; the vices, injustice, wrong doings, etc., will disrupt our connection with the Origin of guidance. At that moment, we may deviate from the ‘ Straight Path ‘.

So, it is no wonder that even the prophets and sinless Imams (p.b.u.th.) ask Allah to guide them to the ‘ Straight Path ‘, because the Absolute Perfection is Allah and all of us, without any exception, are on the path of perfection, then it is acceptable that they, too, ask Him for higher promotions. (The Light of The Holy Qur’an  by Ayatullah Sayyid Kamal Faghih Imani and A Group of Muslim Scholars, under explanation of surah fatiha , verse 6)

Sunni tafseer:

Question: If someone asks, “Why does the believer ask Allah for guidance during every prayer and at other times,while he is already properly guided Has he not already acquired guidance”?

Answer: The answer to these questions is that if it were not a fact that the believer needs to keep asking for guidance day and night , Allah would not have directed him to invoke Him to acquire the guidance. The servant needs Allah the Exalted every hour of his life to help him remain firm on the path of guidance and to make him even more firm and persistent on it . The servant does not have the power to benefit or harm himself , except by Allah’s permission. Therefore, Allah directed the servant to invoke Him constantly, so that He provides him with His aid and with firmness and success. Indeed, the happy person is he whom Allah guides to ask of Him.(tafseer ibn katheer, for surah fatiha, verse 6)

Thus from the tafseer of both sunnis and well as shias  the answer we get to the first part of the question is that though prophet(Saw) was guided but to keep him firm on straight path he had to keep praying to Allah. As affirmed by shia commentary(tafseer). This is because Allah haven’t made a promise that he has kept the believers always on the straight path(without any condition). Thus to remain firm on the straight path one needs to keep praying to Allah to keep him firm on the straight path.

However, this reasoning cannot be applied to verse of tatheer by the shias. Because the shias believe that Allah said : “Verily Allah intends but to keep off from you”. (shia tafseers) . Thus when Allah had already wished to KEEP AWAY rijs from Ahlebayt(according to shia interpretation), then there seems to be no sensible reason for again making such dua.

Moreover shia scholars explain the phrase of ayat e tatheer we quoted above by saying: “its not only the will of Allah but the declaration of its effect. Since the Ahl ul Bayt have been thoroughly purified, they remain thoroughly purified for ever”.(tafseer of quran, Aqa Mahdi puya )

Thus when Allah had already promised to keep ahlebayt away from rijs and they remained purified(as per shia scholar), then there was no need to ask prophet(Saw) again to purify them. Unlike as for the case in surah fatiha.

The sunni view  regarding this is - Inorder to remain purified one needs to keep asking for purification AS WELL act upon certain commands which would be means for purification, since even if one makes dua to Allah to be kept firm on straight path.. he also needs to keep doing certain acts which would be means for him to remain on straight path. But this understanding of purification of Ahlebayt is unacceptable in the sight of  shias, since they consider the purification of Ahle kisa to be creational purification and and it was non conditional purification. They believe that the Allah had already kept way all impurities from them and there was no condition for them to abide in order to keep them selves purified.

But if we read the verses of quran in context (33:32-33) we will find that Allah first gave wives of prophet(Saw) certain commands which were means for purification then they were purified through it. And for Ahle kisa their means of purification was salah as evident from ahadees where prophet(Saw) would go infront of door of hz ali(ra)’s house and would say assalat assalat and would recite 33:33. Without the means of purification there is no purification, and without performing acts (like offering salaah etc) one can’t remain on straight path. Just mere  supplication(dua) cannot make anyone purified nor can make anyone firm on straight path, unless those individuals  adhere to certain means through which they can get purified and can remain firm on straight path, and it has to be a continuous process.

Again, what was meant in 33:33 was legal(tashri’i) purification not creational(takwini) purification.  It does not become necessary thereby that they(ahlebayt) all be infallible(masum) and the commission of sin by them should not be possible.

Lastly, we would like to show the double standards of Shia scholars, we read:

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

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

So according to Shia scholars, those whom they deem as Ahlelbayt, their purification was liked to the orders which were given to wives of Prophet(saw) in the same verse, but ironically the wives of Prophet(saw) were not addressed as Ahlelbayt in verse of Tatheer(33:33). Does this make any sense? We leave it upon the readers, to judge.

So, the Dua of Prophet does not mean what you say, rather it means that the wives are not among the Ahlul Bayt of the verse of At-Tathir. As Prophet said: O Allah! These are my Ahlul Bayt ..., and not: O Allah! These are also among my Ahlul Bayt ... .

Let me share a scholarly view about this issue for the benefit of readers.

Sheikh Ali Muhammad Sallabi wrote:

The divine will referred to in the verse is His legislative will, which is different from His universal decree…Undoubtedly Allah removed ar-rijs from Fatimah, al- Hasan, al-Husayn, ‘Ali and the wives of the Prophet (may Allah be pleased with them all), but the divine will referred to in this verse is the legislative will. Hence it says in the hadith that when the Prophet(saws) wrapped them in the cloak, he said: “O Allah, these are the people of my household, remove from them ar-rijs.”  The supplication of the Prophet(saws) settles the matter. If there was any indication in the verse of purification that purification of the people of the cloak had already taken place, the Messenger of Allah(saws) would not have covered them with the cloak and prayed for them by saying, “O Allah, these are the people of my household, remove from them ar-rijs.” This is clear evidence that the verse was revealed concerning the wives of the Prophet(saws) the Messenger of Allah(saws) wanted the people of the cloak to be included in this divine revelation of purification, so he gathered them and covered them with the cloak and prayed for them, and Allah accepted his supplication for them and purified them as He(swt) purified the wives of the Prophet, as indicated by the text of the verse. [Ali Ibn Abi Talib, vol 2, page 365-366, by Ali Muhammad Sallabi]

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

E)Is there any Sahih Hadith in which it is said that Prophet recited the verse of At-Tathir to the house of Lady Fatima for 6 months?

Yes. There is. First, I mention the Hadith and grading it as Sahih by Haakim, then for proving that it is certainly Sahih, I investigate its route of the narrators:

حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو بَكْرٍ مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ الْحَفِيدُ ، ثنا الْحُسَيْنُ بْنُ الْفَضْلِ الْبَجَلِيُّ ، ثنا عَفَّانُ بْنُ مُسْلِمٍ ، ثنا حَمَّادُ بْنُ سَلَمَةَ ، أَخْبَرَنِي حُمَيْدٌ ، وَعَلِيُّ بْنُ زَيْدٍ ، عَنْ أَنَسِ بْنِ مَالِكٍ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ ، أَنّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَآلِهِ وَسَلَّمَ كَانَ يَمُرُّ بِبَابِ فَاطِمَةَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهَا سِتَّةَ أَشْهُرٍ إِذَا خَرَجَ لِصَلاةِ الْفَجْرِ ، يَقُولُ : " الصَّلاةُ يَا أَهْلَ الْبَيْتِ ، إِنَّمَا يُرِيدُ اللَّهُ لِيُذْهِبَ عَنْكُمُ الرِّجْسَ أَهْلَ الْبَيْتِ وَيُطَهِّرَكُمْ تَطْهِيرًا سورة الأحزاب آية 33 " .

(Al-Mustadrak of Haakim, V3, P172)

Haakim said: هَذَا حَدِيثٌ صَحِيحٌ عَلَى شَرْطِ مُسْلِمٍ ، وَلَمْ يُخَرِّجَاهُ, This Hadith is Sahih based on the Shart of Muslim.

1.أَبُو بَكْرٍ مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ الْحَفِيدُ [Abu Bakr, Muhammad bin Abdillah Al-Hafid]
Both Az-Zahabi and Haakim has rated his Hadiths as Sahih. See Al-Mustadrak of Hakim with Ta'liqat of Az-Zahabi in Talkhis, 1.V4, P235 and 2.V3, P134.

2.الْحُسَيْنُ بْنُ الْفَضْلِ الْبَجَلِيُّ [Al-Husain bin Al-Fadhl Al-Bajalii]
Ibn Hajar Al-'Asqalani said about him that he is among the eminent knowledgeable scholars [فإنه من كبار أهل العلم والفضل]. See Lisan Al-Mizan, V2, P308. Az-Zahabi said about him that he was Al-'Allama, Mufassir, Al-Muhaddith and the scholar of his time [الْعَلَّامَةُ ، الْمُفَسِّرُ ، الْإِمَامُ ، اللُّغَوِيُّ ، الْمُحَدِّثُ أَبُو عَلِيٍّ الْبَجَلِيُّ الْكُوفِيُّ ، ثُمَّ النَّيْسَابُورِيُّ ، عَالِمُ عَصْرِهِ]. Haakim said about him that he was the Imam of his time in the Ma'ani of Quran [إمام عصره في معاني القرآن].  See Seyr 'A'lam An-Nobala, V13, P414.

3.عَفَّانُ بْنُ مُسْلِمٍ ['Affan bin Muslim]
He is among the narrators in both Sahih Al-Bukhari and Muslim. Abu Hatam and other Imams of Al-Jarh and Al-T'dil said that he was a reliable Imam. See Seyr 'Alam An-Nobala, V10, P242-3.

4.حَمَّادُ بْنُ سَلَمَةَ [Hammad bin Salama]
He is among the narrators in both Sahih Al-Bukhari and Muslim. Abu Hatam and other Imams of Al-Jarh and Al-T'dil said that he was reliable [e.g., Muslim narrated through him from Thabit and Homaid in Al-Usool, as he was aware of them (مُسْلِمٌ رَوَى لَهُ فِي الأُصُوْلِ، عَنْ ثَابِتٍ وَحُمَيْدٍ، لِكَوْنِهِ خَبِيْراً بِهِمَا) Or Muhammad bin Mutahher said: I asked Ahmad bin Hambal (about the Hammad bin Salama). So he said: Hammad bin Salama is among the reliable narrators in our view (قَالَ مُحَمَّدُ بنُ مُطَهِّرٍ: سَأَلْتُ أَحْمَدَ بنَ حَنْبَلٍ، فَقَالَ: حَمَّادُ بنُ سَلَمَةَ عِنْدَنَا مِنَ الثِّقَاتِ)]. See Seyr 'Alam An-Nobala, V7, P444-8.

5.حُمَيْدٌ [Homaid]
Az-Zahabi said about him that he was master in Hadith and was knowledgeable and reliable. Yahya bin Ma'in said that he was trustworthy. Abu Hatam Al-Razi also said that he was trustworthy. In addition, Ahmad Al-'Ijli said that he was a trustworthy Tabe'i. 
 
6.أَنَسِ بْنِ مَالِكٍ
One of the companions of Prophet Muhammad (s) and in the belief of Sunnis, all the Sahaba are reliable.

So, the Hadith which says that for six months, the Messenger of Allah (s) would pass by the house of Lady Fatima (as) when going to the Fajr prayer saying: 'As-Salat O Ahlal Bayt! Allah desires to repel all impurity from you, O Ahl Al-Bayt, and purify you with a thorough purification [33:33].' is certainly Sahih.

In the chain of al-Hakim, Hammaad narrates from Humaid as well along with Ali bin Zaid. This was most probably a mistake from Husain bin Fadhl, the narrator from Hammad in this case. He was opposed by Ahmad bin Hanbal, Abd bin Humaid and many other thiqah narrators. [Shu’ab al-Arna’ut, Musnad Ahmad (14040)]

[ You are not allowed to view attachments ][ You are not allowed to view attachments ]

In addition, At-Tirmidhi has narrated this Hadith through the narration of Ali bin Zayd from 'Anas bin Malik and said that it is Hasan [See, Sunan At-Tirmidhi, V5, P205].

Weak and unreliable due to Ali bin Zaid bin Jud‘an Abu al-Hasan al-Quraisy.

Ahmad bin Hanbal said: He is not strong and people narrated from him

Yahya bin Ma‘in and Abu Zar‘ah said : Cannot be taken as hujjah.

 Abi Hatim al-Razi: He is not strong, his hadith is written but not taken as hujjah

[Source: Ibn Abi Hatim al-Razi – al-Jarh wa al-Ta’dil, jld. 6, ms. 186, biografi no: 1021.]


Even if this narration is considered to be authentic(for sake of argument), then it can be explained in this way:

Whenever the Messenger Of Allah went to perform the daily obligatory prayer, he used to pass by the house of his cousin and son-in-law, Ali(ra) and his spouse Fatima(ra), reminding them of the obligation of prayer by saying:( Stick to the mandatory prayers, O members of the family!)

After this exhortation, he used to recite to them the following verse: “ Allah so wills to remove all abomination from you O members of the family, and to make you pure and stainless.” As stated before in the same verse. By this, he was reminding them, of performing Obligatory prayers. For if one observes all obligatory acts of worship and obey Allah fully, then his reward will be to purify him from all abomination and stains.

We see that prophet(Saw) used to remind ahle kisa the command they had to follow so that Allah may remove the rijs from them indicating that even their purification was conditional and the means to acquire purification for Ahle kisa was salat(prayer), similar to wives of prophet(Saw) as mentioned in 33:33. And salat is a means of purification as mentioned in quran 11:114 establishing prayer was a command given to people if they want their sins to be removed(i.e to attain purification). And there was no need for prophet(Saw) to do this for the wives because their means of purification were already mentioned in quran, but the means of purification for ahle kisa was not mentioned in quran and as they were included in the wish of Allah to purify Ahlebayt of prophet(Saw) by the special dua(supplication) of prophet(Saw). He(saw) had to keep on reminding Ahlekisa that they have to stick to mandatory prayers, as it was the means for purification for them.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

F)The lie that 'Akrama attributed to Ibn Abbas (ra)

'Akrama fabricated that Ibn 'Abbas said:

إنما يريد الله ليذهب عنكم الرجس أهل البيت ( [ الأحزاب : 33 ] . قال : نزلت في أزواج النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم خاصة

"Allah intends only to repel from you the impurity, O people of the [Prophet’s] household,”
He said: It was revealed exclusively about the wives of the prophet PBUH.

According to this fabricated Hadith, Ibn 'Abbas believed that the term 'Ahlul Bayt in the verse, only refers to the wives, and not to the others.

These are slanders by desperate Shias to undermine the credibility of a trustworthy and highly praised narrator. Such attempts are under our feet, We Sunnis give a damn to such deceitful Shia slanders of calling an authentic and reliable hadeeth as fabricated by a trustworthy narrator Ikrima. We know Shias to be religious slanderers.

إذا رأيتم أهل البدع والريب – غير الشيعي أو الشيعي المهتدي – فأظهروا البراءة منهم وأكثروا من سبهم والقول فيهم والوقيعة ، وباهتوهم – اي ابهتوهم بالكذب والبهتان – كي لا يطمعوا في الفساد في الإسلام ويحذرهم الناس )[ تنبيه الخواطر ج 2 ص 162] .
[ وسائل الشيعة ج 11 ص 508] .
[ نهج الإنتصار ص 152] .
Imam Al-sajjad (as) said: If you see people of suspicion and innovation(other than shias or new shia) then show disownment from them and abuse them much, backbit them, make false accusations on them – that is, backbite them by attributing lies on them and make false accusations on them (‘Buhtaan’) …(tanbiah al-khawatir v.2 p.162 – wasael al-shia v.11 p. 508 – Nahj al-intisaar p.152)

Interestingly Giant shia scholars give fatawas(verdicts) based on these narrations for example Grand Ayatullah Al Khoei’i

سؤال 1245: هل يجوز الكذب على المبدع أو مروج الضلال في مقام الاحتجاج عليه إذا كان الكذب يدحض حجته ويبطل دعاويه الباطلة؟ الخوئي: إذا توقف رد باطله عليه جاز.
Question”1245″: Is it Possible to Lie or produce Arguments which contain Lies when Debating with a person who Is a Follower of Bida’a (Innovation) and a spreader or Dala’la (Ignorance) If this Lie would Destroy my Opponent’s Arguments?
Imam Khoei’i Answers: If it will stop his Falsehood then it is Permissible to do So. (Imam Khoei’i, Sirat el Najat, Volume 1, Page 447)

But, there is a Sahih Hadith that proves that Ibn 'Abbas believed that the verse of At-Tathir revealed for Imam Ali, Lady Fatima, Imam Hasan and Husain (as). Ibn Abbas (ra) said:

أَخَذَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ ثَوْبَهُ فَوَضَعَهُ عَلَى عَلِيٍّ وَفَاطِمَةَ وَحَسَنٍ وَحُسَيْنٍ وَقَالَ: " {إِنَّمَا يُرِيدُ اللَّهُ لِيُذْهِبَ عَنْكُمُ الرِّجْسَ أَهْلَ الْبَيْتِ وَيُطَهِّرَكُمْ تَطْهِيرًا}ـ

The Messenger of Allah (s) took his cloak and then covered Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Husain by it and said: "Just Allah desires to repel all impurity from you, O Ahl Al-Bayt, and purify you with a thorough purification [33:33]"

Both Az-Zahabi and Haakim said that this Hadith is Sahih. See here. So, Ibn 'Abbas didn't believe that the verse of At-Tathir was revealed especially about the wives of the Prophet (s).

Lol, You are apparently quite desperate, hence you come up with these foolish arguments, which have already been answered. Infact, Even I believe in the above hadeeth, where did I reject it? So does it mean that even I reject wives of Prophet(saws) are Ahlelbayt? See how stupid you arguments are. Therefore, just as I believe in both hadeeth, even Ibn Abbas(ra) did. And this has already been explained before that the hadeeth of Kisa/above hadeeth isn't a proof that verse of tatheer was revealed for them, but rather it is a proof that it didn't include them initially, but only the wives of Prophet(saws), hence Prophet(saws) made dua so that people of Kisa also be included in it.

So, your slander was based on these conjectures. Its a pity.

Imam Muslim and Malik avoided his Hadiths [See, Tazkarah Al-Hoffaz by Az-zahabi, V1, P.74].

If Bukhari avoided Jafar as-sadiq, that doesn't mean Jafar sadiq becomes a weak narrator. Same rule applies for Ikrima as well. So keep these childish arguments with you.

Infact we find narrations from Ikrima in Sahih Muslim and Muwatta Malik as well.

Hadeeth of Ikrima In Sahih Muslim:

وَحَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ بَشَّارٍ، حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الْوَهَّابِ بْنُ عَبْدِ الْمَجِيدِ، وَأَبُو عَاصِمٍ وَمُحَمَّدُ بْنُ بَكْرٍ عَنِ ابْنِ جُرَيْجٍ، ح وَحَدَّثَنَا إِسْحَاقُ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ، - وَاللَّفْظُ لَهُ - أَخْبَرَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ، بَكْرٍ أَخْبَرَنَا ابْنُ جُرَيْجٍ، أَخْبَرَنِي أَبُو الزُّبَيْرِ، أَنَّهُ سَمِعَ طَاوُسًا، وَعِكْرِمَةَ، مَوْلَى ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ، أَنَّ ضُبَاعَةَ بِنْتَ الزُّبَيْرِ بْنِ عَبْدِ الْمُطَّلِبِ، - رضى الله عنها - أَتَتْ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَقَالَتْ إِنِّي امْرَأَةٌ ثَقِيلَةٌ وَإِنِّي أُرِيدُ الْحَجَّ فَمَا تَأْمُرُنِي قَالَ ‏ "‏ أَهِلِّي بِالْحَجِّ وَاشْتَرِطِي أَنَّ مَحِلِّي حَيْثُ تَحْبِسُنِي ‏"‏ ‏.‏ قَالَ فَأَدْرَكَتْ
(Sahih Muslim 1208 a)

حَدَّثَنَا هَارُونُ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ، حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو دَاوُدَ الطَّيَالِسِيُّ، حَدَّثَنَا حَبِيبُ بْنُ يَزِيدَ، عَنْ عَمْرِو بْنِ هَرِمٍ، عَنْ سَعِيدِ بْنِ جُبَيْرٍ، وَعِكْرِمَةَ، عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ، رضى الله عنهما أَنَّ ضُبَاعَةَ، أَرَادَتِ الْحَجَّ فَأَمَرَهَا النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم أَنْ تَشْتَرِطَ فَفَعَلَتْ ذَلِكَ عَنْ أَمْرِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏.
(Sahih Muslim 1208 b)

Hadeeth of Ikrima in Muawatta Malik

 وَحَدَّثَنِي عَنْ مَالِكٍ، عَنْ ثَوْرِ بْنِ زَيْدٍ الدِّيلِيِّ، عَنْ عِكْرِمَةَ، مَوْلَى ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ قَالَ لاَ أَظُنُّهُ إِلاَّ عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ عَبَّاسٍ، أَنَّهُ قَالَ الَّذِي يُصِيبُ أَهْلَهُ قَبْلَ أَنْ يُفِيضَ يَعْتَمِرُ وَيُهْدِي ‏.‏
[Muwatta Malik, Book 20, Hadith 867]

وَحَدَّثَنِي عَنْ مَالِكٍ، أَنَّهُ سَمِعَ رَبِيعَةَ بْنَ أَبِي عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ، يَقُولُ فِي ذَلِكَ مِثْلَ قَوْلِ عِكْرِمَةَ عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ ‏.‏ قَالَ مَالِكٌ وَذَلِكَ أَحَبُّ مَا سَمِعْتُ إِلَىَّ فِي ذَلِكَ ‏.‏ وَسُئِلَ مَالِكٌ عَنْ رَجُلٍ نَسِيَ الإِفَاضَةَ حَتَّى خَرَجَ مِنْ مَكَّةَ وَرَجَعَ إِلَى بِلاَدِهِ فَقَالَ أَرَى إِنْ لَمْ يَكُنْ أَصَابَ النِّسَاءَ فَلْيَرْجِعْ فَلْيُفِضْ وَإِنْ كَانَ أَصَابَ النِّسَاءَ فَلْيَرْجِعْ فَلْيُفِضْ ثُمَّ لِيَعْتَمِرْ وَلْيُهْدِ وَلاَ يَنْبَغِي لَهُ أَنْ يَشْتَرِيَ هَدْيَهُ مِنْ مَكَّةَ وَيَنْحَرَهُ بِهَا وَلَكِنْ إِنْ لَمْ يَكُنْ سَاقَهُ مَعَهُ مِنْ حَيْثُ اعْتَمَرَ فَلْيَشْتَرِهِ بِمَكَّةَ ثُمَّ لِيُخْرِجْهُ إِلَى الْحِلِّ فَلْيَسُقْهُ مِنْهُ إِلَى مَكَّةَ ثُمَّ يَنْحَرُهُ بِهَا
(Muwatta Malik, Book 20, Hadith 868]

Infact the hadeeth of Ikrima were Narrated by: Al-Bukhaari – Muslim – Abu Dawood – Tirmidhi – Nasaa’ee – Ibn Maajah, which means Ikrima is narrator of Sihah Sitta.

According to a Sahih narration, Sa'eed bin Mosayyib believed that 'Akrama used to attribute lies to Ibn 'Abbas [Seyr 'A'lam An-Nubala by Az-Zahabi, V5, P22].

Imaam Sa’eed used to criticize Imaam Ikrimah based on the differences between the two in some fiqhi issues, and in return Imaam Ikrimah also used to criticize Imaam Sa’eed. Therefore, the Jarh of both contemporaries on each other is rejected. This is a known thing among people of knowledge.

Imam Ahmad ibn Hambal and Al-Bukhari said that non of the eminent Imams attended the funeral of 'Akrama [Tahzib Al-Kamal by Al-Mizzi, V20, P290].

This doesn't effect the credibility of a narrator in any form, especially when you have so many scholars praising Ikrima.

1-    Uthmaan bin Hakeem narrates that: “I was sitting with Abu Umaamah Sahl bin Haneef (radiallah anhu) when Ikrimah arrived. So he said: O Abu Umaamah mention the name of Allaah, did you hear Ibn Abbaas saying, ‘Accept whatever Ikrimah narrates to you from me, for verily he does not lie upon me’ so Abu Umaamah said, ‘Yes’”
[Taareekh Ibn Ma’een, narrated by ad-Dauri: 2/413, Chain Saheeh]

2-    Imaam Amr bin Deenaar said that Jaabir bin Zayd sent some masaail to me that I ask Ikrimah about them, he said: “Ikrimah is the Mawla (freed slave) of Ibn Abbaas; he is an ocean (of knowledge), therefore ask him”
[Tabaqaat al-Kubra by Ibn Sa’d: 2/293-294, Chain Saheeh]

3-    Imaam Sa’eed bin Jubayr said: “If Ikrimah stops narrating his hadeeth to them, people would travel to him”
[Tabaqaat al-Kubra: 2/294, Chain Saheeh]

4-    The same was said by Imaam Tawoos.
[Tabaqaat al-Kubra: 2/294, Chain Saheeh]

5-    Imaam Yahya ibn Ma’een narrated from Jareer bin Abdul Hameed from Mu’aawiyah bin Miqsam that he said: “It was said to Sa’eed bin Jubayr: Do you know anyone who is more knowledgeable than you?” He replied: “Yes, Ikrimah”
[Taareekh Ibn Ma’een by ad-Dauri: 3/358]

6-    Imaam Salaam bin Miskeen said: “Ikrimah was the biggest Scholar of Tafseer among all men”
[Tabaqaat al-Kubra: 2/294, Chain Saheeh]

7-    Imaam Ikrimah himself said: “When I go out to the market and hear a person speaking with a (good) speech, thus (even) this opens up fifty doors of knowledge for me”
[Tabaqaat al-Kubra: 2/294, Chain Saheeh]

8-    Imaam Abu Ishaaq as-Sabi’ee said that: “Ikrimah came and started narrating, while Sa’eed bin Jubayr was also present there, thus he made a knot of 30 (with his fingers) and said, he narrated the hadeeth correctly”
[Tabaqaat al-Kubra: 2/294, Chain Saheeh]

9-    Imaam Ikrimah said: “Ibn Abbaas (was so strict about my education that he) would teach me the Qur’aan and Sunan by tying a chain on my feet”
[Tabaqaat al-Kubra: 2/294, Chain Saheeh]

10-          Imaam Hammaad bin Zayd said that a man said to Ayyoob (As-Sakhtiyaani), “O Abu Bakr, has Ikrimah been accused (of lying)” Ayyoob remained silent, then he said: “As for me, then I do not accuse him”
[Tabaqaat al-Kubra: 5/221, Chain Saheeh]

Imaam Ayyoob also said: “The Huffaadh of (the hadeeth of) Ibn Abbaas have unanimously consented upon Ikrimah, among them are: Sa’eed bin Jubayr & Ataa bin Abi Ribaah, they would ask him about the hadeeth of Ibn Abbaas”
[Ad-Du’afa al-Kabeer by al-Ukaylee: 3/376, Chain Saheeh]

11-          Imaam Sufyaan ibn Uyaynah said, I heard Ayyoob (as-Sakhtiyaani) saying: “If I were to tell you that Hasan (al-Basari) quit narrating a lot of Tafseer when Ikrimah (the expert of Tafseer) entered upon us in Basrah until he went out of it, then I said the truth”
[Ad-Du’afa al-Kabeer by al-Ukaylee: 3/373, Chain Saheeh]

12-          Imaam Qataadah bin Di’aamah said: “The most knowledgeable of all people about Halaal and Haraam is Hasan (al-Basari), and the most knowledgeable of them in Manaasik is Ataa bin Abi Ribaah, and the most knowledgeable of them in Tafseer is Ikrimah”
[Al-Ma’rifah wal Taareekh: 1/702, Chain Saheeh]

13-          Imaam Yahya ibn Ma’een declared him “Thiqah”
[Taareekh Uthmaan ad-Daarimi: 357, 581, & 604]

14-          Imaam Abu al-Hasan al-Ijlee said: “He is Taabi’ee Thiqah and he is from the whatever people accuse him of  Khaarijiyyah”
[Thiqaat by al-Ijlee: 1/339]

15-          Imaam Bukhaari said: “There is no one among our companions except that he would take evidence from Ikrimah”
[Al-Taareekh al-Kabeer by al-Bukhaari: V. 7 T. 218]

Imaam Bukhaari also narrated from him in his Saheeh.

16-          Imaam Tirmidhi authenticated numerous ahaadeeth of Ikrimah in his Sunan.

17-          Imaam Ibn Abi Haatim ar-Raazi asked his father (Abu Haatim) about Ikrimah, so he said: “He is Thiqah” His son asked: “Is evidence taken from him?” He replied: “Yes, when Thiqah people narrate from him, and those who rejected him: Yahya bin Sa’eed al-Ansaari and Maalik then it was only due to his raye (opinion)” It was said to him, how are the clients of Ibn Abbaas? So he said: “They are Kurayb, Sumay’, Shu’bah, Ikrimah and Ikrimah was the most knowledgeable of them” His son asked him about Ikrimah and Sa’eed bin Jubayr as to which one of the two is more knowledgeable of Tafseer? So he replied: “The companions of Ibn Abbaas was children to Ikrimah”
[Al-Jarh wat Ta’deel: Vol. 7 T. 32]

18-          Imaam Ibn Adee said: “He is Mustaqeem ul-Hadeeth except if a weak person narrates from him…. The A’immah of Hadeeth do not prevent from narrating from him, and the Authors of Sihaah have entered his hadeeth in their authentic books when a Thiqah person narrates from him….There is nothing wrong in him”
[Al-Kaamil: 2/292]

19-          Imaam Ibn Khuzaymah authenticated his hadeeth in his Saheeh

20-          Imaam Ibn Hibbaan mentioned him in ath-Thiqaat
[5/229]

21-          Imaam Ad-Daaraqutni authenticated his hadeeth saying, “Its chain is Hasan Saheeh”
[Sunan ad-Daaraqutni: H. 2233, 2374, 2380, ]

22-          Imaam al-Haakim authenticated his hadeeth to be on the conditions of al-Bukhaari
[Mustadrak al-Haakim: H. 210, 216…]

At another place, he graded one of his hadeeth saying, “All the narrators of this hadeeth are Thiqaat”
[H. 553]

23-          Imaam Bayhaqi said: “Ikrimah is from the Thiqah Thabat people according to the Majority of A’immah”
[As-Sunan al-Kubra lil Bayhaqi: 8/234]

24-          Imaam Ikrimah and Kuthayyir Azzah (the famous poet of Arabs) died on the same day, so the people of Madeenah said: “The biggest Faqeeh of people and the biggest poet of people died today”
[Al-Ma’rifah wal Taareekh: 2/6; Tabaqaat Ibn Sa’d: 5/292]

25-          Imam Dhahabi said: “He is Thiqah Thabat”
[Deewaan ad-Du’afa: 1/278]

26-          Haafidh Ibn Hajar al-Asqalaani said: “He is Thiqah Thabat, the Scholar of Tafseer, the accusing of lying on him from Ibn Umar is not proven, nor is the Bid’ah (of any kind) is proven from him”
[Taqreeb: 4673]

After reading the views of high number of top ranking scholars, any objective reader would know that the hadeeth of Ikrima are Sahih, and he was trustworthy student of Ibn Abbas(ra) and all the accusations against him doesn't hold ground.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

G)The Hadith in which Imam Hasan said that he is among the Ahl Al-Bayt that is in the verse of At-Tathir

So, the narration in which it is said that Imam Hasan (as) said that he is among the Ahlul Bayt of the verse of At-Tathir, is authentic. Also, it should be noted that Imam Hasan said that saying as one of the virtues of himself and Ahlul Bayt. But, if we think that the verse of At-Tathir says that Allah has ordered the Ahlul Bayt to do so and so doings, so if they do those orders they will be purified, this can not be considered as a virtue, rather, this is a responsible which must to be done.

Also, there is an other Sahih Hadith in which it is said that when a person hurt Imam Hasan, Imam for mentioning his virtue said that he is among the Ahlul Bayt of the verse of At-Tathir. The Hadith is as the following:
Narrated Abi Jomaila:
While Al-Hassan was praying, someone came and stabbed him. This caused Al-Hassan to remain in bed for several months. When he recovered, he gave a sermon: "Oh people of Iraq, we are your Umara' [leaders] and we are the Ahlul Bayt about whom Allah said: Allah just desires to repel all impurity from you, O Ahl Al-Bayt, and purify you with a thorough purification." He was still talking when all those present started crying.

Al-Haythami said that this was recorded by Al-Tabarani and the narrators are trustworthy [Majma' Az-Zawa'id, V9, P172].

So, the verse does not talk about a Tashri'i will of Allah. Because as I said, if we think that Allah said to Ahlul Bayt that He wants so and so orders for them, so if they do them, they will be purified, this can not be considered as a virtue for Ahlul Bayt, rather, it would be a responsible for them that must be done.

As explained earlier, We believe that Hasan(ra) was included in verse of Tatheer. Hasan(ra) didn't exclude wives of Prophet(saws) from this verse.

Secondly, Allah(swt) intending purification for Ahl-al bayt in itself is a virtue, even when it is Tashrihi(legislative). So as long as the Ahlelbayt fulfill the conditions, then they can claim the virtue. We have many examples of such things.

Hence, as for those who forsake the domain of evil, and are driven from their homelands(Mouhajirun), and suffer hurt in My cause, and fight [for it], and are slain – I shall most certainly efface their bad deeds, and shall most certainly bring them into gardens through which running waters flow, as a reward from God: for with God is the most beauteous of rewards.” (3:195).

Those who fulfilled the conditions here, for them this verse shows their virtue.


Similarly, we find in a hadeeth

Narrated Khalid bin Madan: That ‘Umair bin Al-Aswad Al-Anasi told him that he went to ‘Ubada bin As-Samit while he was staying in his house at the sea-shore of Hims with (his wife) Um Haram. ‘Umair said. Um Haram informed us that she heard the Prophet (SAWS) saying, “Paradise is granted to the first batch of my followers who will undertake a naval expedition.” Um Haram added, I said, ‘O Allah’s Messenger (SAWS)! Will I be amongst them?’ He replied, ‘You are amongst them. [Sahih al-Bukhari #2924]

In this hadeeth there is a virtue of those who followed the mentioned condition.

So, your baseless assumption that purification in hadeeth is Takhwini is wrong and based on pure conjecture. The correct view is that is was Tashrihi, as explained by scholars.

H)The saying of Imam Sajjad (as) that he is among the Ahlul Bayt of the verse of At-Tathir

I said that to prove that at least there is a historical evidence according to which Imam As-Sajjad (as) himself has claimed that he is among the Ahlul Bayt of the verse of At-Tathir. Also, it should be said that this narration is mentioned in the Tafseer of At-Tabari and Ibn Teymiyya has said that it includes the truthful narrations [ابن جرير الطبري ، ومحمد بن أسلم الطوسي ، وابن أبي حاتم ، وأبي بكر بن المنذر ، وغيرهم من العلماء الأكابر ، الذين لهم في الإسلام لسان صدق ، وتفاسيرهم متضمنة للمنقولات التي يعتمد عليها في التفسير]. See Minhaj As-Sunnah, V7, P179.

It's apparent that you intend deceit by these kind of arguments. A presence of report doesn't mean it becomes a historical evidence. If a presence of hadeeth means historical evidence then you,  should believe that the actual Mahdi is Isa(As) because of this hadeeth:
حَدَّثَنَا يُونُسُ بْنُ عَبْدِ الأَعْلَى، حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ إِدْرِيسَ الشَّافِعِيُّ، حَدَّثَنِي مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ خَالِدٍ الْجَنَدِيُّ، عَنْ أَبَانَ بْنِ صَالِحٍ، عَنِ الْحَسَنِ، عَنْ أَنَسِ بْنِ مَالِكٍ، أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ ـ صلى الله عليه وسلم ـ قَالَ ‏ "‏ لاَ يَزْدَادُ الأَمْرُ إِلاَّ شِدَّةً وَلاَ الدُّنْيَا إِلاَّ إِدْبَارًا وَلاَ النَّاسُ إِلاَّ شُحًّا وَلاَ تَقُومُ السَّاعَةُ إِلاَّ عَلَى شِرَارِ النَّاسِ وَلاَ الْمَهْدِيُّ إِلاَّ عِيسَى ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ
It was narrated from Anas bin Malik that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: “Adhering to religion will only become harder and worldly affairs will only become more difficult, and people will only become more stingy, and the Hour will only come upon the worst of people, and the only Mahdi (after Muhammad (ﷺ)) is ‘Eisa bin Maryam.” [Sunan Ibn Majah 4039].

Will you accept this? Ofcourse not. Hadeeths are checked based on their chains in whichever book they may be. So keep your unacademic arguments to yourself.

As for Tafseer Tabari, then Shiekh Salih Munajjid states:

اعتمدَ أقوال ثلاث طبقات من طبقات مفسري السلف ، وهم الصحابة ، والتابعون ، وأتباع التابعين ، ويذكر أقوالهم بأسانيده إليهم ، وهذه ميزة عظيمة في كتابه ، لا توجد في كثير من كتب التفسير الموجودة بين أيدينا ، غير أن هذه الميزة لا تتناسب مع عامة المسلمين الذين ليس لديهم القدرة على البحث في الأسانيد ومعرفة الصحيح من الضعيف ، وإنما يريدون الوقوف على صحة السند أو ضعفه بكلام واضح بَيِّن مختصر .

- فإذا انتهى من عرضِ أقوالِهم : رجَّحَ ما يراه صوابًا ، ثمَّ يذكر مستندَه في الترجيحِ .

 He(Tabari) relied on the views of three generations of mufassireen among the salaf, namely the Sahaabah, the Taabi’een, and the followers of the Taabi’een, and he quotes their opinions with isnaads going back to them. This is an important feature of his book which is not present in many of the books of Tafseer that are in circulation among us. But this feature does not matter to many ordinary Muslims who are not able to research isnaads and distinguish sound isnaads from weak ones; all they want is to know whether an isnaad is sound or weak by means of a clear and brief statement to that effect. 

When he has finished quoting their opinions, he states which he thinks is most likely to be correct, then he describes how he reached that conclusion. 

Moreover, if you want to somehow put Ali ibn Hussain in verse of Tatheer, then let me help you out in doing so, using Shia hadeeth.

We read in Shia hadeeth:
حَدَّثَنا مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ أحْمَد السَنانِي قالَ حَدَّثَنا مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ أَبي عَبْدِ اللَّه الكُوفِي قالَ حَدَّثَنا الفَيْضُ صالِح بْنِ أحْمَد قالَ حَدَّثَنا سَهْلِ بْنِ زِياد قالَ حَدَّثَنا صالِح بْنِ أَبي حَمَّادٍ قالَ حَدَّثَنا الحَسَن بْنِ مُوسَى بْنِ عَلِى الوَشَّاء البَغدْادي قالَ كُنْتُ بِخُرَاسَانَ مَعَ عَلِيِّ بْنِ مُوسَى الرِّضَا عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ فِي مَجْلِسِهِ وَزَيْدُ بْنُ مُوسَى حَاضِرٌ قَدْ أَقْبَلَ عَلَى جَمَاعَةٍ فِي الَْمجْلِسِ يَفْتَخِرُ عَلَيْهِمْ وَيَقُولُ نَحْنُ وَنَحْنُ وَأَبُو الْحَسَنِ‏ عَلَيْـهِ السَّـلامُ مُقْبِـلٌ عَـلَى قَـوْمٍ يُحَدِّثُهُمْ فَسَمِعَ مَقَالَةَ زَيْدٍ فَالْتَفَتَ إِلَيْهِ فَقَالَ يَا زَيْدُ أَغَرَّكَ قَوْلُ نَاقِلِي الْكُوفَةِ إِنَّ فَاطِمَةَ عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ أَحْصَنَتْ فَرْجَهَا فَحَرَّمَ اللَّهُ ذُرِّيَّتَهَا عَلَى النَّارِ فَوَاللَّهِ مَا ذَلِكَ إِلا لِلْحَسَنِ وَالْحُسَيْنِ وَوُلْدِ بَطْنِهَا خَاصَّةً وَأَمَّا أَنْ يَكُونَ مُوسَى بْنُ جَعْفَرٍ عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ يُطِيعُ اللَّهَ وَيَصُومُ نَهَارَهُ وَيَقُومُ لَيْلَهُ وَتَعْصِيهِ أَنْتَ ثُمَّ تَجِيئَانِ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ سَوَاءً لانْتَ أَعَزُّ عَلَى اللَّهِ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ مِنْهُ إِنَّ عَلِيَّ بْنَ الْحُسَيْنِ كَانَ يَقُولُ لُِمحْسِنِنَا كِفْلانِ مِنَ الأَجْرِ وَلِمُسِيئِنَا ضِعْفَانِ مِنَ الْعَذَابِ
 Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Sinani narrated that Muhammad ibn Abi Abdullah al-Kufi quoted on the authority of Abul Faydh Salih ibn Ahmad, on the authority of Sahl ibn Ziyad, on the authority of Saleh ibn Abi Hammad, on the authority of Al-Hassan ibn Musa ibn al-Vosha’ al-Baghdadi, “I was with Ali ibn Musa Ar-Ridha’ (a.s.) in his meeting in Khorasan where Zayd ibn Musa (Imam Ar-Ridha’’s brother) was present and was haughty with those present saying that we (meaning the offspring of Imam Musa Al-Kazim (a.s.)) are such and such. Abul Hassan Ar-Ridha’ (a.s.) who was talking to others heard what Zayd had said. He (a.s.) faced him and said, ‘O Zayd! Have the words of the narrators from Kufa made you so proud when they say, ‘(The Blessed Lady) Fatima (a.s.) maintained her chastity, thus God has forbidden the Fire from touching her progeny.’ By God, this holds true only for Al-Hassan (a.s.), Al-Husayn (a.s.) and Fatima’s (a.s.) own especial offspring. However, if it were the case that your father Musa ibn Ja’far (a.s.) obeyed God, fasted in the daytime and worshipped God at night, but you disobey God and claim to be equal with him (Musa ibn Ja’far (a.s.)) in the Hereafter on the Resurrection Day, this would imply that you are dearer than him (Musa ibn Ja’far (a.s.)) in the sight of God. In fact, Ali ibn Al-Husayn (a.s.) said, ‘There are double rewards for the good-doers from amongst us, and there are double chastisements for the evil-doers from amongst us.’’”[Shia book: Uyun Akhbar Reza a.s, Author: Shaikh Sadooq, Chapter 58]

One would question from where did Ali ibn Hussain get this idea from? The answer is, it is mentioned in the verses before Verse of Tatheer, and they were addressed to wives of Prophet(saws).

O wives of the Prophet, whoever of you should commit a clear immorality - for her the punishment would be doubled two fold, and ever is that, for Allah, easy. And whoever of you devoutly obeys Allah and His Messenger and does righteousness - We will give her her reward twice; and We have prepared for her a noble provision [Quran 33: 30-31]

So you see, Imam Ali bin Hussain(ra) actually used the direction given to wives of Prophet(saws) and he included himself among it.

In addition, I think that even Al-Bukhari believed in that narration from Imam As-Sajjad. As he used to use عليه السلام [i.e., peace be upon him] for Imam As-Sajjad (as) [See Sahih Al-Bukhari, V4, P78, H3091 (عَنِ الزُّهْرِيِّ، قَالَ: أَخْبَرَنِي عَلِيُّ بْنُ الحُسَيْنِ، أَنَّ حُسَيْنَ بْنَ عَلِيٍّ عَلَيْهِمَا السَّلاَمُ أَخْبَرَهُ)/ V9, P137, H7465 (عَنْ عَلِيِّ بْنِ حُسَيْنٍ، أَنَّ حُسَيْنَ بْنَ عَلِيٍّ، عَلَيْهِمَا السَّلاَمُ أَخْبَرَهُ)].

Keep these childish proofs to yourself. Because I can use this same argument to claim that other Scholars like Bayhaqi, Abi Dawood,  Ibn Saad, etc considered Ayesha as Ahlelbayt and that she was included in 33:33

أن سودة كانت وهبت يومها لعائشة عليها السلام
الطبقات الكبرى لابن سعد ج 8 ص 54

عن أبي سَلَمَةَ عن عَائِشَةَ عليها السلام
سنن أبي داود ج 3 ص 233

كانت يد أبي هريرة في يدي يعين ليلة ماتت عائشة عليها السلام
الطبقات الكبرى ج 8 ص 80

The fact about Alaihisalam before the names of some personalities is that:
Imam Ibn Katheer (rah) said: It is very common among many of the scribes who copy out books to write ‘alayhi’l-salaam (peace be upon him) after the name of ‘Ali (may Allaah be pleased with him) but not after the names of other Sahaabah, or to write karrama Allaah wajhahu. Even though the meaning is acceptable, all the Sahaabah should be treated with the same respect. The two Shaykhs (i.e., Abu Bakr and ‘Umar) and ‘Uthmaan are more deserving of that, may Allaah be pleased with them.  [Tafseer Ibn Katheer, 3/517-518 ]

So it can be said that some scribes added alaihi salam to name of Imam Sajjad as well. By the way we find it being used for Umm Khulthum(ra) as well, So now you must believe that even she was Ahlelbayt.

Sahi bukhari:

5504 حدثنا أبو اليمان أخبرنا شعيب عن الزهري قال أخبرني أنس بن مالك أنه رأى على أم كلثوم عليها السلام بنت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم برد حرير سيراء
Source:
http://library.islamweb.net/newlibrary/display_book.php?bk_no=0&ID=3265&idfrom=5605&idto=5607&bookid=0&startno=2

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

I)The saying of 'Ayesh: Allah did not reveal anything from the Qur'an about us except what was connected with the declaration of my innocence [of the slander].

The verse of 'Ifk was not especially about 'Ayesha. It is about the wives of all the faithful men and, based on what Sunnis believe, the story of 'Ayesha became a reason for the revelation of those verses. Allah said: Indeed those who accuse chaste and unwary faithful women shall be cursed in this world and the Hereafter, and there shall be a great punishment for them [24:23].

so, 'Ayesha believed that just the verse of 'Ifk was revealed for the children of 'Abu Bakr, while 'Ayesha is one of them.

Already answered, and you chose to skip the answer.

If we give a closer look this narration we will find that it speaks about the verses of quran which wererevealed specifically for the offspring of abubakar(ra). Since marwan said a particular verse was revealed for Abdur rahman ibn abubakar(who was brother of ayesha(ra)), he didn’t intend to address this to hz ayesha(ra)) or any wife of the prophet. But hz ayesha(ra) replied him saying that for offspring of hz abubakar(ra) only the verse of innocence was revealed.

Moreover, the verse of purification encompassed even other wives of prophet(Saw).. not only hz ayesha(ra), that is why she didn’t include this verse while responding to Marwan.

Secondly we know that verses of surah ahzab (i.e “o wives of prophet(33:32)”)  was revealed for wives including hz ayesha(ra).. then why didnt she say that?  But the fact is that the reply of hz ayesha(ra) was only specific to the verses of Quran which were revealed specifically for the children of hz abubakar(ra)

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

J)The belief of Umm Salama (ra) that she was not among the Ahlul Bayt of the verse of At-Tathir

The Hadith is certainly Sahih and it is not Mursal. Its route of the narrators is as the following:

Ash-Shari'a by Al-Ajori, V4, P2095.
وَحَدَّثَنَا ابْنُ أَبِي دَاوُدَ أَيْضًا قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا سُلَيْمَانُ بْنُ دَاوُدَ الْمَهْرِيُّ قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ وَهْبٍ قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو صَخْرٍ , عَنْ أَبِي مُعَاوِيَةَ الْبَجَلِيُّ , عَنْ سَعِيدِ بْنِ جُبَيْرٍ , عَنْ أَبِي الصَّهْبَاءِ , عَنْ عَمْرَةَ الْهَمْدَانِيَّةِ قَالَتْ
The issue is the narration of 'Ammar bin Mu'awiya (=Abi Mu'awiya) Ad-Dohni/Al-Bajalii from Sa'id bin Jobayr. Al-Bukhari, Muslim and Ibn Hibban have said that 'Ammar heard Hadiths from Sa'eed. See Tarikh Al-Kabir by Al-Bukhari, V7, P28 [عمار بن معاوية أبو معاوية الدهني ودهن قبيلة من بجيلة الكوفي سمع أبا الطفيل وسعيد بن جبير], Al-Kona wa Al-'Asma by Muslim, V1, P758 [أبو معاوية عمار بن ابي معاوية الدهني سمع أبا الطفيل وسعيد بن جبير] and Al-Thiqat by Ibn Hibban, V5, P268 [وَكَانَ رَاوِيا لسَعِيد بن جُبَير]. In addition, both Az-Zahabi and Haakim grated a Hadith that is narrated through the narration of 'Ammar from Sa'eed as the Sahih which has the Shart of both Al-Bukhari and Muslim. See Mustadrak of Hakim, H3993 [ثنا عَمَّارُ بْنُ أَبِي مُعَاوِيَةَ الْبَجَلِيُّ، عَنْ سَعِيدِ بْنِ جُبَيْرٍ، عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمَا، قَالَ: «مَا سَكَنَ آدَمُ الْجَنَّةَ إِلَّا مَا بَيْنَ صَلَاةِ الْعَصْرِ إِلَى غُرُوبِ الشَّمْسِ» هَذَا حَدِيثٌ صَحِيحٌ عَلَى شَرْطِ الشَّيْخَيْنِ وَلَمْ يُخَرِّجَاهُ] and the opinion of Az-Zahabi about this Hadith in the Talkhis [على شرط البخاري ومسلم]. There are different satisfying reasons for rejecting the saying of Ahmad bin Hambal [i.e., 'Ammar did not hear anything from Sa'id based on a saying from 'Ammar] in internet. Google about it in Arabic.

In addition, in the comments that Sho'ayb Al-Arna'oot wrote for the Hadiths that are narrated through the narration of 'Ammar Al-Dohni from Sa'eed bin Jobayr, he did not mention that there is an 'Irsal in them [See, Musnad Ahmad, Al-Muhaqqiq: Sho'ayb Al-'Arna'oot, H2157 and H2525].

Brother your desperate and un-academic arguments make me laugh.  I provided, the view of the MAN in question himself, Ammar bin Muawiya.  This guy himself says, he didn't hear, but you don't want to accept that, lol desperation.

As for the views of those scholars whom you quoted, they were relating their views on the isnad(chain) in which it was mentioned that Ammar bin Muawiya heard from Saeed ibn Jubayr, however these views will get invalidated because of the presence of overwhelming evidence, where in Ammar bin Muawiya himself denied that he heard from Saeed bin Jubayr. And this was accepted by Imam Ahmad as well.

It would be injustice, if you reject the response of Ammar bin Muawiya himself, for the views of Imam Bukhari or Imam Muslim.


Ammar bin Muawiya, himself admitted that, He didn't hear anything from Sa'eed ibn Jubair(rah), so what could be a more powerful evidence, to weaken this report?

عمار بن معاوية الدهني
قال أحمد بن حنبل: لم يسمع من سعيد بن جبير.
قلت: وسأله أبو بكر بن عياش: سمعت من سعيد بن جبير؟ فقال: لا.
Ahmad said: He (Ammar) didn't hear from Sa'eed bin Jubair anything.

Abu Bakr bin Ayyash asked him: Did you hear from Sa'eed bin Jubair? He (Ammar) replied: No.[Tuhfat Al Tahseel by Al Iraqi p. 236]

This can also be found in Al-Dua'fa of Uqayli, vol 3, page 323.

(1341) عمار بن أبي معاوية الدهني حدثنا عبد الله بن أحمد قال حدثنا عبيد الله بن عمر القواريري قال سمعت أبا بكر بن عياش يقول مر بي عمار الدهني فدعوته فقلت يا عمار تعال فجاء فقلت سمعت من سعيد بن جبير قال لا
http://islamport.com/d/1/trj/1/164/3890.html
[Al-Dua'fa of Uqayli, vol 3, page 323.]

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

K) Did Prophet enter Umm Salama under the cloak?
Allama 'Alusi [a Salafi Sunni eminent Mufasseer] said:
وأخبار إدخاله صلّى الله عليه وسلم عليا وفاطمة وابنيهما رضي الله تعالى عنهم تحت الكساء، وقوله عليه الصلاة والسلام اللهم هؤلاء أهل بيتي ودعائه لهم وعدم إدخال أم سلمة أكثر من أن تحصى، وهي مخصصة لعموم أهل البيت بأي معنى كان البيت فالمراد بهم من شملهم الكساء ولا يدخل فيهم أزواجه صلّى الله عليه وسلم

The narrations which say that Prophet (s) entered Ali, Fatima and their two boys (ra) under the cloak and his saying: O Allah these are my Ahl Al-Bayt, and his prayer for them and not entering Umm Salam under the cloak, is more than to be counted. So, this specifies the general meaning of Ahl Al-Bayt -whatever the Bayt means. So, Ahl Al-Bayt [in the verse of At-Tathir] refers to those whom covered by the cloak and the wives of Prophet are not among them [i.e., Ahl Al-Bayt].   
(TafseerAl-Alusi, V11, P195)

As I said, there is a Sahih Hadith that says that Umm Salama (ra) believed that she was not among Ahl Al-Bayt of the verse of At-Tahir. So, those minority of Hadiths which are weak and say that Prophet said to Umm Salama that she was among his Ahl, have not any value. Even if we accept them, we can say that as At-Tahhavi [an eminent Sunni scholar] said, Prophet meant that Umm Salama (ra) was not among the Ahl Al-Bayt of the verse of At-Tathir, as he didn't enter her under the cloak, rather she was included among those Ahl of Prophet who through following him can enter to this type of Ahl of him (s). As Abraham (as) said: "O my Lord! They have led astray many among mankind. But whosoever follows me, he verily, is of me" [14:36]. See Sharh Mushkil Al-'Aathar by At-Tahhavi, V2, P246-7 [H773].    .   

Here is another version, wherein we find that Umm Salama asked I'm I not from your Ahlelbayt after dua of Prophet(saws), and Prophet(saws) said Yes, InshaAllah.

عن أم سلمة قالت : في بيتي أنزلت { إنما يريد الله ليذهب عنكم الرجس أهل البيت } قالت : فأرسل رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم إلى فاطمة وعلي والحسن والحسين ، فقال : هؤلاء أهل بيتي . قالت : فقلت : يا رسول الله أما أنا من أهل البيت ؟ قال : بلى إن شاء الله
الراوي: أم سلمة هند بنت أبي أمية المحدث: البغوي – المصدر: شرح السنة – الصفحة أو الرقم: 7/204
خلاصة حكم المحدث: إسناده صحيح

Umm Salmah said: in my house it was revealed ” God wants to remove all kinds of uncleanliness from you Ahlul-Bayt ” So the Prophet PBUH then sent after Ali and Fatima and Hassan and Hussein. He said: these are my Ahlul-Bayt. So Umm Salamah said: O Messenger of Allah? am I not also from your Ahlul-Bayt !? He said: yes Inshallah.

Narrator: Umm Salamah Hind bint Abu Umayyah.
Muhaddith: Al baghawi. in Sharh al Sunnah.
Hadith rank: Isnad SAHIH.

By seeing the different versions of Hadeeth Kisa from Umm Salama(ra), it must be concluded that, any such version with slightest weakness, should not be used to make a deduction, unfortunately, some scholars who weren't expert in Hadeeth verification, based their views using the weak versions of this hadeeth, hence their views won't count, because we have authentic hadeeth from Ibn Abbas, who was a known Mufassir of Quran, as well as Ikrima. Moreover, the context of Quran supports this stance as well.

As for your claim that Umm Salama(ra) believed that She was not among Ahlebayt, then I have proven that hadeeth to be weak and unreliable, along with strong evidence.

The most rational understanding of Hadeeth Kisa is as follows:

Shiekh Ali Muhammad Sallabi wrote:

The divine will referred to in the verse is His legislative will, which is different from His universal decree…Undoubtedly Allah removed ar-rijs from Fatimah, al- Hasan, al-Husayn, ‘Ali and the wives of the Prophet (may Allah be pleased with them all), but the divine will referred to in this verse is the legislative will. Hence it says in the hadith that when the Prophet(saws) wrapped them in the cloak, he said: “O Allah, these are the people of my household, remove from them ar-rijs.” The supplication of the Prophet(saws) settles the matter. If there was any indication in the verse of purification that purification of the people of the cloak had already taken place, the Messenger of Allah(saws) would not have covered them with the cloak and prayed for them by saying, “O Allah, these are the people of my household, remove from them ar-rijs.” This is clear evidence that the verse was revealed concerning the wives of the Prophet(saws), the Messenger of Allah(saws) wanted the people of the cloak to be included in this divine revelation of purification, so he gathered them and covered them with the cloak and prayed for them, and Allah accepted his supplication for them  and purified them as He(swt) purified the wives of the Prophet, as indicated by the text of the verse. [Ali Ibn Abi Talib, vol 2, page 365-366, by Ali Muhammad Sallabi]

Al-Shawkani, Fath al-Qadir (4:278-280)  “Ibn `Abbas, `Ikrima, `Ata’, al-Kalbi, Muqatil, and Sa`id ibn Jubayr said the wives of the Prophet 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 Shawkani says in his tafsir al fat-h al qadeer the various views, and he says:

فمن جعل الآية خاصة بأحد الفريقين فقد أعمل بعض ما يجب إعماله وأهمل ما لا يجوز إهماله. وقد رجح هذا القول جماعة من المحققين منهم القرطبي وابن كثير وغيرهما

“and whoever makes this verse refer specifically to either group exclusively (the wives) OR (fatima, ali, hassan, hussein) then he has included part but excluded part which is forbidden to exclude. And to this position a group of scholars has gone, including Qurtubi, Ibn Kathir, and others.”

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

L)'Ayesh and battle of Jamal

According to a narration in the Tarikh At-Tabari, 'Ayesha and those who with her, e.g., Zobayr, went to fight Imam Ali:

عَنِ الزُّهْرِيِّ ، قَالَ : ثُمَّ ظهرا ، يعني : طَلْحَة وَالزُّبَيْر ، إِلَى مكة بعد قتل عُثْمَان رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ بأربعة أشهر ، وابن عَامِر بِهَا يجر الدُّنْيَا ، وقدم يعلى بن أُمَيَّة مَعَهُ بمال كثير ، وزيادة عَلَى أربع مائة بعير ، فاجتمعوا فِي بيت عَائِشَة رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهَا ، فأداروا الرأي ، فَقَالُوا : نسير إِلَى علي فنقاتله.
"So they(Talha, Az-Zubayr, etc.) gathered in the house of Aesha. Then said their ideas. Therefore they said,' We will go towards Ali to fight him."
(Tarikh At-Tabari, V4, P452).

This report is Mursal of Zuhri. Imam Zuhri wasn't even born when these incidents took place.

Yahya bin Sa’eed Al-Qattan said: The disconnected reports of Al-Zuhri are worse than the disconnected reports of others, for he is a hafith, and he could name names, but wouldn’t name those that aren’t qualified or that he is embarrassed to name.

– Al-Shafi’ee said: The disconnected reports of Al-Zuhri are like nothing, for we found him narrating from those like Sulaiman bin Arqam.

– Ibn Ma’een said: The disconnected reports of Al-Zuhri are like nothing.

– Ibn Al-Madeeni said: The disconnected reports of Al-Zuhri are terrible.

See Al-Hadith Al-Mursal 1/337.

In addition, Al-Balaziri has narrated a Sahih narration in Al-Ansab Al-Ashraf that Imam Ali said:
إِنَّ حُمَيْرَاءَ إِرَمَ هَذِهِ أَرَادَتْ أَنْ تَقْتُلَنِي.
Indeed, Humayra' [i.e., 'Ayesha], the commander of this army wanted to kill me.
('Ansab Al-Ashraf, V2, P250).

Ibn Taymiyyah reported in his Minhaaj as-Sunnah (1/59 -62):

وقال مؤمل بن إهاب سمعت يزيد بن هارون يقول يكتب عن كل صاحب بدعة

إذا لم يكن داعية إلا الرافضة فإﻧﻬم يكذبون

Mu’mal Ibn Ihaab said: I heard Yazeed Bin Haaroon (d. 206H) saying,“The narrations of every person of innovation can be written as long as he is not a caller to it, except the Raafidah, since they are liars.

Here is the chain for this report:

وحدثني أحمد بن إبراهيم الدورقي، حدثنا أبو النضر، حدثنا إسحاق بن سعيد، عن عمرو بن سعيد، حدثني سعيد بن عمرو: عن ابن حاطب قال: أقبلت مع علي يوم الجمل إلى الهودج وكأنه شوك قنفذ من النبل، فضرب الهودج؛ ثم قال: إن حميراء إرم هذه أرادت أن تقتلني كما قتلت عثمان بن عفان. فقال لها أخوها محمد: هل أصابك شيء ؟ فقالت: مشقص في عضدي. فأدخل رأسه ثم جرها إليه فأخرجه.

 Firstly:

‘Amr ibn Sa‘eed was either: the grandfather of Ishaaq ibn Sa‘eed, which is what appears to be the case, because his full name is Ishaaq ibn Sa‘eed ibn ‘Amr ibn Sa‘eed. Based on that, the isnaad is munqati‘ (interrupted), because the grandfather died in 70 AH (at-Tahdheeb, 8/34), and the grandson, the narrator, died in 170 AH (at-Tahdheeb, 1/204); there are one hundred years between the two deaths, so it is not possible that he could have heard from him. Based on that the isnaad is munqati‘ (interrupted) and da‘eef (weak).

Or: he was someone else, in which case he is majhool (unknown). Based on that, the isnaad is also da‘eef (weak). In either case there is an unknown narrator, and when a hadith is  narrated only by an unknown narrator, then it is to be rejected.

Secondly:

How could ‘Ali have said concerning ‘Aa’ishah (ra) that she wanted to kill him as she had killed ‘Uthmaan?!

This is pure falsehood. ‘Aa’ishah (ra) is completely innocent of the blood of ‘Uthmaan. She only went out at the battle of the Camel in an effort to bring about reconciliation among the Muslims.

عَنْ قَيْسِ بْنِ أَبِي حَازِمٍ: " أَنَّ عَائِشَةَ قَالَتْ لَمَّا أَتَتْ عَلَى الْحَوْأَبِ سَمِعَتْ نُبَاحَ الْكِلَابِ فَقَالَتْ : مَا أَظُنُّنِي إِلَّا رَاجِعَةٌ ؛ إِنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَالَ لَنَا : ( أَيَّتُكُنَّ تَنْبَحُ عَلَيْهَا كِلَابُ الْحَوْأَبِ ؟ ) فَقَالَ لَهَا الزُّبَيْرُ: تَرْجِعِينَ عَسَى اللَّهُ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ أَنْ يُصْلِحَ بِكِ بَيْنَ النَّاسِ
Imam Ahmad (24133) narrated from Qays ibn Abi Haazim that ‘Aa’ishah said, when she came to Haw’ab and heard the dogs barking: I think that I should go back, for the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said to us: “At which of you will the dogs of Haw’ab bark?” az-Zubayr said to her: Do you want to go back? (Stay, for) perhaps Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, will bring about reconciliation among the people through you.

فَقَالَ بَعْضُ مَنْ كَانَ مَعَهَا : بَلْ تَقْدَمِينَ فَيَرَاكِ الْمُسْلِمُونَ فَيُصْلِحُ اللَّهُ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ ذَاتَ بَيْنِهِمْ
Imam Ahmad(23733): Some of those who were with her said: Rather proceed, for the Muslims will see you and Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, will bring about reconciliation among them thereby. [Classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in as-Saheehah (474).]

وقد روى الإمام عثمان بن سعيد الدارمي رحمه الله ، بإسناده عن نَافِع، يَقُولُ: قَالَتْ عَائِشَةُ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهَا: ( وَايْمُ اللَّهِ ، إِنِّي لَأَخْشَى لَوْ كُنْتُ أُحِبُّ قَتْلَهُ لَقُتِلْتُ - تَعْنِي عُثْمَانَ - وَلَكِنْ عَلِمَ اللَّهُ مِنْ فَوْقِ عَرْشِهِ أَنِّي لَمْ أُحِبَّ قَتْلَهُ ) . " الرد على الجهمية
Imam ‘Uthmaan ibn Sa‘eed ad-Daarimi (rah) said, with his isnaad going back to Naafi‘: ‘Aa’ishah (ra) said: “By Allah, I fear that if I were to want him – meaning ‘Uthmaan – to be killed, then I would be killed. But Allah knows from above His Throne that I did not want him to be killed. Ar-Radd ‘ala al-Jahamiyyah by ad-Daarimi (83).

There is a corroborating report via Mujaahid from ‘Aa’ishah (ra) that was narrated by Na‘eem ibn Hammaad in al-Fitan (202).

According to another Sahih narration, Imam Ali also said to Ayesha:
استفززت الناس وقد أقروا حَتَّى قَتَلَ بَعْضُهُمْ بَعْضًا بِتَأْلِيبِكِ.
You exited people until they killed each other because of your sayings.
('Ansab Al-Ashraf, V2, P250).

Here is the complete report:
وحدثني خلف بن سالم وأبو خيثمة، قالا: حدثنا وهب بن جرير بن حازم، عن أبيه، عن يونس بن يزيد الايلي: عن الزهري قال: احتمل محمد بن أبي بكر عائشة؛ فضرب عليها فسطاطا، فوقف علي عليها فقال: استفززت الناس وقد فزوا حتى قتل بعضهم بعضاً بتأليبك. فقالت: يا بن أبي طالب ملكت فأسجح. فسرحها إلى المدينة في جماعة من رجال ونساء، وجهزها بإثني عشر ألفا.

Again this report is mursal of Zuhri, hence rejected.

Yahya bin Sa’eed Al-Qattan said: The disconnected reports of Al-Zuhri are worse than the disconnected reports of others, for he is a hafith, and he could name names, but wouldn’t name those that aren’t qualified or that he is embarrassed to name.

– Al-Shafi’ee said: The disconnected reports of Al-Zuhri are like nothing, for we found him narrating from those like Sulaiman bin Arqam.

– Ibn Ma’een said: The disconnected reports of Al-Zuhri are like nothing.

– Ibn Al-Madeeni said: The disconnected reports of Al-Zuhri are terrible.

See Al-Hadith Al-Mursal 1/337.

'Ayesha fought Imam Ali and in this battle many Muslims were killed an this is a big sin. according to an authentic Hadith [Ibn Hajar Al-asqalani said that it is Hasan. See fath Al-Bari, V13, P55], Prophet said to Imam Ali that in the battle of 'Ayesha against Imam Ali, he is the good one and 'Ayesha is the bad one:

'Abi Rafi' narrated:
The Apostle said to Ali,'Certainly an issue[the war of Jamal] will occur between you and Aesha.'
Then Ali asked from Prophet,' O Messenger of Allah, so am I the bad one?'
the Messenger replied,' No[=Aesha is the bad one], but when this issue takes place, send her to her home.'
(fath Al-Bari by Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani, V13, P55).

Adding "Ayesha is bad" in brackets, shows how deceitful Shias are. This is a proper translation of hadeeth:

سيكون بينك وبين عائشةأمر قال : أنا يا رسول الله ، قال : نعم ، قال : أنا من بين أصحابي قال : نعم ،قال : فأنا أشقاهم ، قال : لا ولكن إذا كان ذلك فأرددها إلى مأمنها.
Abu Rafi’i said: TheProphet(saw) told ‘Ali: There will be a problem between you and ‘Aisha, ‘Ali said: Me O Rasulullah!? he said: yes, ‘Ali repeated: Me from amongst all my friends!? he said: yes, ‘Ali then said: Then I must have a really horrible end, He(saw) replied: “No, but if it does happen then return her to the safety of her home.” sources: Narrated by Ahmad6/393, and al-Tabarani #995, also narrated by al-Bazzar #3272, al-Haythami said the narrators are trustworthy in Majma’a al-Zawaed, Ibn Hajar said: Isnaduhu Hasan in Fath al-Bari 59/13.)

In no way does it proves, Ayesha(ra) is bad one.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

M)The meaning of Hadith of Thiqlayn
Your interpretation for Hadith of Thiqlayn is odd and incorrect.

Actually, you have based your understanding on weak and incorrect hadeeth. And my understanding is not odd rather, it is understanding of several Sunni Scholars as well.

(i). Shaikh Ali Muhammad as-Sallabi stated in his book:

What is proven in Saheeh Muslim is that the command was to adhere to the Book of Allah, and the instruction was to show respect and kindness to Ahl al-bayt, as we have seen in the hadith of Zayd ibn Arqam in Muslim. The Prophet(saw) enjoined adherence to the Book of Allah, then he said: “And the people of my household. I remind you of Allah with regard to the people of my household, I remind you of Allah with regard to the people of my household, I remind you of Allah with regard to the people of my household”. What he(saw) enjoined was adherence to the Quran. With regard to Ahl al-bayt, the Prophet(saw) enjoined taking care of them and giving them their rights, which had been granted to them by Allah(swt).(See: Haqbat min al-Tareekh, page 203). [Source: Ali ibn Abi Talib, Ali Muhammad as-sallabi, vol 2, page 413].

(ii). Dr. Muhammad Ali as-Saloos, who discussed the speech at Ghadeer and the advice to adhere to the Quran and Sunnah. He studied the reports about adhering to the Quran and Sunnah and the reports about adhering to the Quran and the family of the Prophet(saw) and examined them critically, then he said: “From the above, we can see that the hadith of the two weighty matters is one of the hadiths which are sound in both chain of narration and text. However, of the eight reports which enjoin adhering to the family of the Prophet(saw) alongside the noble Quran, not one of them is free of some weakness in the chain of narration”.  (See: Ma’a Al-Shia al-Ithna Asharia, vol 1, page 136). [Source: Ali ibn Abi Talib, by Ali Muhammad as-sallabi, vol 2, page 411].

(iii). Al-Sindi said in the explanation of, ‘My Ahlulbayt:’ It was as if the Prophet (saw) made them equal in importance to his position. Just as in his (pbuh) life, it was him and the Qu’raan after his death. It was his family and the Qu’raan. But it means that we must abide by their love and position, not abiding to their orders and actions. (Source: Jamia Tirmidhi Sunan Al -Tirmidhi. Vol. 6, Pg. # 335).

(iv). Shaikh al-Islam Ahmed ibn Taymiyyah stated:

However, as for the term ‘al’Itrah’, we find in Saheeh of Muslim narrated Zayd ibn Arqam that he said; The Messenger of Allah spoke to us at a ghadeer Khum located between Mekka and al Medina and He said; “I am leaving among you the two weight things one of them is greater than the other, the Book of Allah (swt)” and incited us to adhere to it and He said; ”My progeny whom they are my Household, I remind you the pledge towards Allah by respecting my household,  I remind you the pledge towards Allah by respecting my household,  I remind you the pledge towards Allah by respecting my household” and in here lies the order to follow the Qur’aan and that He recommended the nation to take care of His Household and as for His saying; ”If you adhere to it than you would never astray after, the Book of Allah (swt) and my Itra (Family)”, it was narrated by al Tirmidhi and Ahmad ibn Hanbal said it is weak. (Source: Bayan Talbis al-Jahmiyyah. Vol. 8. Pg. # 230 – 231).

Prophet clearly said that we must follow Ahlul Bayt and grasp and hold fast them. He also said that they are his Successors.

1.Zayd ibn Thabit (may Allah be pleased with him) has narrated:
The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him and his progeny) said, "I have left two complete Successors among you: The book of Allah and my progeny. Indeed, they will never separate from each other until they meet me at the pool [of Kowthar, in Paradise]."(إِنِّي تَرَكْتُ فِيكُمُ الْخَلِيفَتَيْنِ كَامِلَتَيْنِ: كِتَابَ اللَّهِ، وَعِتْرَتِي، وَإِنَّهُمَا لَنْ يَتَفَرَّقَا حَتَّى يَرِدَا عَلَيَّ الْحَوْضَ).
(Musnad Ibn Abi Shayba, V1, P.108). Imam Ahmad ibn Hambal in his Musnad, Imam Al-Tabarani in Al-Mo'jam Al-Kabir and others have also narrated this Hadith.

Albani in his book, Sahih Al-Jami' Al-Saqir wa Ziyadatihi, V1, P 482, and Al-Haytami in two parts of his book [Majma' Al-Zawaeed V9, P163 and V1, P170] have said that this Hadith is Sahih (صحيح).

Response:

The hadeeth with this wording is actually Munkar(denounced).

This wording comes in the tradition of narrator Shareek from Rukain from Qasim bin Hassaan from Zaid bin Thaabit. It was related by Ibn Abi Shaibah in “al-Musannaf” (31679), Imam Ahmad in his Musnad (21578, 21654) and others.

Narrator Shareek was weak, especially when he opposes others. [See Taqreeb (1/417)] in Shia books al-Sadiq condemned him to hell and he is described as an “Enemy of the Shia”, his grandfather fought al-Husayn (ra)

And as for narrator Qaasim bin Hassan, then Dhahabi quotes from Bukhari that his hadith is Munkar and he was not known. [Meezan (3/369)]

When returning to Al-Albani’s takhreej of Kitab Al-Sunnah, we find the following comments:

حديث صحيح: وإسناده ضعيف لسوء حفظ شريك وهو ابن عبد الله القاضي. والقاسم بن حسان مجهول الحال… وإنما صححته لأن له شواهد تقويه

“The narration is authentic: The chain is WEAK due to the weak memory of Shareek the judge, who is the son of Abdullah, and Al-Qassim bin Hassan, who is anonymous(majhool) in status… but I authenticated it due to supplementary narrations that strengthen it.”

Al-Albani is correct, for this chain is without a doubt weak. Upon returning to Al-Silsila Al-Saheeha to check out his supplementary narrations, we found that they came from the paths of Jabir, Zaid bin Arqam, Abu Sa’eed Al-Khudari, and others. However, none of these narrations includes the wordings “Khalifatayn”.

In other words, what Al-Albani is implying that, the overall narration is authentic, but the wording of this narration is weak, since it comes through a weak path. It is not conceivable to accept such a wording when more authentic versions of the narration do not have this wording. Hence the wording of Khalifatayn is Munkar(denounced).

Similar goes with Shaykh Wasiullah Abbas. In Fadha’il Ahmad (2/747 hadith #1032) Wasiullah Abbas says Isnadahu hasan li ghairih(the chain is hasan due to other chains) then says Shareek is weak, but there are shawahid(witnesses) then, in the end he says, “and the hadith is saheeh, See  (#170). He says the same thing under (hadith #1403 2/988) he says that there are many shawahid and “see (170)”.

But when we go back to(#170) which Wasiullah Abbas asked us to see, we find the following:

تركت فيكم ما أن تمسكتم به فلن تضلوا كتاب الله وأهل بيتي

This witness is WITHOUT the word Khaleefatain, Just like Al-Albani even Wasiullah Abbas is implying that, the overall narration is authentic, but the wording of this narration is weak, since it comes through a weak path.

In fact this narration in its current form, is Munkar(denounced) based on the authentic version of al-Thaqalayn.

Interestingly, we know that Rasul-Allah(saw) said in one version of hadeeth Thaqalayn, “Fandhuru Kayfa Takhlufunani Feehima”, meaning “So be careful how you deal with these two”. Thus he made a Wasiyyah or he(saws) willed for us to be careful in how we succeed him in both of these issues, and this proves that it is us who shall be responsible for them and not the other way around. `

[Ali is reported to have said similarly in of Nahj-ul-Balagha regarding the Ansar, he said: “If the Government was intended for them there would not have been a will concerning them.” (Nahj-ul-Balagha Sermon 67) ]

Esteemed Shia scholar Sayyid Muhammad Shirazi in his sharh of Nahjul balagha says while commenting upon the above words:

فلو کان الانصار امراء، کان اللازم ان يوصيهم الرسول صلي الله عليه و آله و سلم بان يعطفوا علي الناس لا ان يوصي الرسول صلي الله عليه و آله و سلم بان يعطف عليهم
If the Ansar were to be the rulers, it was necessary that the Prophet (saws) should have made the will that they should treat the people kindly, rather than the Prophet (peace be upon him) making the will that the people should be kind to them. (Nahjul balagha, with Taleeq of Ayatullah Shirazi, p. 103)

What `Ali means, is that the Messenger(saw) did not intend for the Ansar to be in a position of government, and the proof is that he (saw) told the believers and willed for them to treat the Ansar with goodness, whereas if they were entitled for it then he (saw) would have told the Ansar to treat the rest of the believers well as they would be in position of power. Since Rasul-Allah (saw) told us to succeed him in taking care of his Ahlulbayt(household) then it is proven that the government(Khilafah) after him was not intended for them.

Therefore, the word “Khaleefah” in this tradition doesn’t indicate the successor of Prophet (saws) in any way. Qur’an cannot be a successor of the Prophet (saws) for it was in authority even during the lifetime of the Prophet(saws). In fact, the Messenger of Allah(saws) himself followed the Qur’an. Khaleefah here is simply something which has been left behind.

2.The Messenger of Allah (s) said: 'Indeed, I am leaving among you, that which if you hold fast to it, you will never be misguided after me. One of them is greater than the other: The Book of Allah which is a rope extended from the sky to the earth, and my progeny - my Ahlul Bayt - and they will never separate until they meet me at the Hawdh [of Kowthar, Paradise].

Al-Albani has said that this Hadith is Sahih (صحيح) (See, Sahih Al-Jami' Al-Saqir wa Ziyadatihi by Al-Albani, V1, P482).

The narration is Daef(weak).

The hadeeth came in Sunan Tirmidhi:
حَدَّثَنَا عَلِيُّ بْنُ الْمُنْذِرِ، - كُوفِيٌّ - حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ فُضَيْلٍ، قَالَ حَدَّثَنَا الأَعْمَشُ، عَنْ عَطِيَّةَ، عَنْ أَبِي سَعِيدٍ، وَالأَعْمَشُ، عَنْ حَبِيبِ بْنِ أَبِي ثَابِتٍ، عَنْ زَيْدِ بْنِ أَرْقَمَ، رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمَا قَالاَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ "‏ إِنِّي تَارِكٌ فِيكُمْ مَا إِنْ تَمَسَّكْتُمْ بِهِ لَنْ تَضِلُّوا بَعْدِي أَحَدُهُمَا أَعْظَمُ مِنَ الآخَرِ كِتَابُ اللَّهِ حَبْلٌ مَمْدُودٌ مِنَ السَّمَاءِ إِلَى الأَرْضِ وَعِتْرَتِي أَهْلُ بَيْتِي وَلَنْ يَتَفَرَّقَا حَتَّى يَرِدَا عَلَىَّ الْحَوْضَ فَانْظُرُوا كَيْفَ تَخْلُفُونِي فِيهِمَا

`Ali bin al-Munthir al-Kufi-> Muhammad bin Fudayl-> al-A`mash-> `Atiyyah-> abu Sa`eed AND al-A`mash-> Habib bin abi Thabit-> Zayd bin Arqam.

Abu Sa`eed's (ra) chain has `Atiyyah and he is weak, as for Zayd bin al-Arqam's (ra) chain, its inclusion is a mistake by `Ali bin al-Munthir, this is because Zayd ibn al-Arqam never narrated this text in this form, this is the text of abu Sa`eed al-Khudari. al-A`mash and Habib bin abi Thabit are both Mudalliseen which adds even more weakness to this one.

This was weakened by Imam Ahmad as well, as mentioned by Ibn Taymiyyah in Minhaj al-Sunnah:
والحديث ضعَّفه الإمام أحمد؛ قال شيخُ الإسلام ابن تيميَّة في ((منهاج السنة )) (7/394): (سُئل عنه أحمدُ بن حنبل، فضعَّفه، وضعَّفه غيرُ واحد من أهل العِلم، وقالوا: لا يصحُّ)


3.Imam Ali (peace be upon him) narrated:
The Messenger of Allah (s) said: "I have left among you which if you grasp will cause you to never go astray, the Book of Allah whose rope is in my hand and yours, and my Ahlul Bayt".

Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani said that the Hadith is Sahih.(هَذَا إِسْنَادٌ صَحِيحٌ).
(Al-Matalibul Aliyyah by Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani, V16, P142)
[/quote]
Here is the chain:

Sulayman bin `Ubaydullah al-`Aylani-> abu `Amir-> Kathir bin Zayd-> Muhammad bin `Umar bin `Ali-> his father-> `Ali bin abi Talib

 Sulayman is Saduq, , Katheer bin Zayd is Saduq , Muhammad is `Ali bin abi Talib's grandson and Ibn Hajar said Saduq in al-Taqreeb.

It has three Saduq, narrators So it is apparently not the highest form of authenticity. Secondly, the text of the hadeeth is to be understood in the light of other hadeeth which is stronger than this one and have more clear wordings, that is the hadeeth of Zaid ibn Arqam in Sahih Muslim.

حدهما : كتاب الله ، فيه الهدى والنور ، فتمسكوا بكتاب الله وخذوا به – فرغب في كتاب الله وحث عليه ثم قال : « وأهل بيتي . أذكركم الله في أهل بيتي » ثلاث مرات

[One of them (is): The book of Allah, in it is guidance and light, so get hold of the Book of Allah and adhere to it. Then he urged and motivated (us) regarding the Book of Allah. Then he said: And my household, by Allah I remind you of my household (Three times).]

The Prophet(saws) defines these two heavy elements, the book of Allah contains the words of God, in it is the pure wisdom, the guidance of the soul and the light that extinguishes the darkness of ignorance. He(saws) informed them of the importance of the book and urged them to hold on to it and encouraged them to stick to its teachings.

The second element was his household, he reminded the Muslims of his household, just like any responsible man on his death-bed, he(saws) was worried about his family after his passing, so he reminded the Muslims of them, that they must honor them and love them and support them, he (saws) entrusted the nation with the fate of his family.

This hadeeth was said in Ghadeer Khum, this is where the narration of Thaqalayn took place, not in the farewell sermon(Khutba tul Wida), because the narrations related to the farewell sermon(Khutba tul Wida) are numerous and none of the authentic text of the farewell sermon contain any words regarding the household(Ahlulbayt).

This is what we find in the farewell Sermon(Khutba tul Wida) at `Arafat based on the authentic narrations of Jabir (ra) in Muslim and others:

وقد تركتُ فيكم ما لن تضلوا بعده إن اعتصمتُم به . كتابَ اللهِ . وأنتم تُسألون عني . فما أنتم قائلون ؟ قالوا : نشهد أنك قد بلغتَ وأدَّيتَ ونصحتَ

[I have left among you the Book of Allah, and if you hold fast to it, you would never go astray. And you would be asked about me (on the Day of Resurrection), (now tell me) what would you say? They (the audience) said: We will bear witness that you have conveyed (the message), discharged (the ministry of Prophethood) and given wise (sincere) counsel.(Sahih Muslim, Book 7, Hadith 2803)].

Notice that in the farewell Sermon, when the majority of Muslims were gathered, there is absolutely no mention of the household(Ahlulbayt), the only information we receive is that if the Muslims hold on to the Qur’an, they will never go astray. Therefore, ONLY Quran was referred a source holding which, Muslims would not go astray.

4.Zayd ibn Arqam (may Allah be pleased with him) narrated:
The Messenger of Allah (s) said:"'O people! Indeed, I am leaving behind two matters among you if you follow them you will never go astray: The Book of Allah and my Ahlul Bayt, my progeny".
(أيها الناس ، إني تارك فيكم أمرين لن تضلوا إن اتبعتموهما ، وهما : كتاب الله ، وأهل بيتي عترتي)
(Al-Mostadrak Aala As-Sahihayn by Al-Haakim, V3, P118)

Haakim said that the Hadith is Sahih.

Al-Hakim was mutasahil in his gradings. The hadeeth is weak.

Here is the chain:

Abu Bakr bin Ishaq & Da`laj bin Ahmad al - Sajiri  - > Muhammad bin Ayyub  - > al - Azraq bin `Ali  - > Hassan bin Ibrahim  - > Muhammad bin Salamah  - > his  father  - > abu al - Tufayl  - > Ibn Wadhilah  - > Zayd ibn Arqam.

Da`eef, al - Azraq is Saduq, al - Karamani is Saduq with mistakes, Muhammad bin Salamah is weak.


Prophet clearly said that Quran and Ahlul Bayt never separate from each other [وَإِنَّهُمَا لَنْ يَتَفَرَّقَا], but brother Noor-us-Sunnah said in post #23: "As for the argument that Quran, never separates from Ahlulbayt, then this is again a Shiee misunderstanding!!!"

The truth is obvious, except you don't want to accept it. What brother Noor-us-Sunnah have said in post #23 is about separating of slaves from Quran or Ahlul Bayt (as). But Prophet (s) said that Quran and Ahlul Bayt never separate from each other, not others from Quran or Ahlul Bayt.

Understanding of Sahabi disapprove the view that the purpose behind mention of Ahlulbayt in Thaqalayn was to seek guidance.


Narrated Zaid b. Arqam: Prophet(saw) said: 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 charity(sadaqa) is forbidden. Zaid said: Yes. (Sahih Muslim, Book 31, Hadith 5920).

Notice, that when the noble Sahabi(companion) of Prophet(saw) was asked about who Ahlulbayt are, he replied that members of household(Ahlulbayt) in regards to Hadeeth Thaqalayn are those relatives of Prophet(saw) on whom the acceptance of charity(sadaqa) is forbidden. They are ‘Ali and the offspring of ‘Ali, ‘Aqil and the offspring of ‘Aqil and the offspring of Ja’far and the offspring of ‘Abbas.

Zaid bin Arqam(ra) did not say, Ahlulbayt are those who are chosen by Allah or those who were purified or those who were infallible. Rather Zaid(ra) GENERALIZED that Ahlulbayt in regards to Hadeeth Thaqalayn are those relatives of Prophet(saw) on whom acceptance of charity(sadaqa) is forbidden. The question which the readers should ponder over is that; Were all the members on whom acceptance of Sadaqa was made forbidden eligible to be adhered to save ourselves from going astray? Undoubtedly, No! People of knowledge know that not all the relatives of Prophet(saw) on whom acceptance of Sadaqa was made forbidden, were righteous, there were people among them who were unrighteous too and they were fallibles prone to commit sin and mistakes, to say the least. And even Zaid bin Arqam(ra) knew this fact very well, but still he defined Ahlulbayt mentioned in hadeeth Thaqalayn in a generalized manner, that those are the relatives of Prophet(saw) on whom acceptance of Saqada is forbidden( i.e ‘Ali and the offspring of ‘Ali, ‘Aqil and the offspring of ‘Aqil and the offspring of Ja’far and the offspring of ‘Abbas). Which implies that he didn’t understand that Ahlulbayt mentioned in Thaqalayn were those who must be adhered and from whom guidance must be sought.

The reason we are saying this is because of the generalized definition given by Zaid(ra). He described Ahlulbayt, as those relatives of Prophet(saw) on whom acceptance of Sadaqa was forbidden, this was the only condition he mentioned to define Ahlulbayt in regards to hadeeth Thaqalayn. This is the reason, even though Zaid(ra) accepted wives of Prophet(saw) were Ahlulbayt, yet he said that in regards to hadeeth Thaqalayn, Ahlulbayt were those relatives of Prophet(saw) on whom acceptance of Sadaqa was forbidden.

If Zaid bin Arqam(ra) believed that righteousness or purification, was a criteria to know Ahlulbayt in hadeeeth Thaqalayn, then he would have even included wives of Prophet(saw) in it, since all the wives of Prophet(saw) were righteous[If The Rafidah disagree then we give them the example of Umm Salama and Zaynab bint Jahash, atleast they must have been included], but Zaid(ra) didn’t include them and made a generalized definition that, it is those relatives of Prophet(saw) on whom Sadaqa is forbidden, even though it included some members who were unrighteous or members who were fallible and prone to sins and mistakes. Therefore, Zaid bin Arqam(ra) making a generalized definition which even included unrighteous members, is an apparent proof that, he didn’t believe that in regards to hadeeth Thaqalayn, the purpose behind the mention of Ahlulbayt was to adhere them, to be saved from going astray, or to seek guidance from them. He didn’t believe that the purpose behind the mention of Ahlulbayt in hadeeth Thaqalayn, was to adhere them for guidance.

Rather, the generalized definition made by Zaid bin Arqam(ra) and stating the only condition for it as, “Sadaqa being forbidden”, is a clear proof that, Zaid(ra) understood the purpose behind the mention of Ahlulbayt in hadeeth Thaqalayn was to take care of them and to be responsible towards them, not to adhere them or to seek their guidance, and this is the actual and correct understanding of hadeeth Thaqalayn.

Readers, might question that, how does the generalized definition of Ahlulbayt made by noble companion Zaid(ra) in regards to hadeeth Thaqalayn, prove that the purpose behind the mention of Ahlulbayt in hadeeth Thaqalayn was to take care of them and be responsible towards them?.

The answer is that, hadeeth Thaqalayn was mentioned on the location of Ghadeer Khum, this was in relation to what occurred during Hajj when, the Muslim army from Yemen returned to Makkah, they made multiple complains against their commander -Ali(ra) – who was a member of Ahlulbayt, and one of the complaint was that Ali(ra) had taken a slave girl from Khums, therefore Prophet(saws) rebuked those who complained against Ali(ra) and said that Ali(ra) even deserved more than that from Khums. Therefore, on the way back to Madina after Hajj, and after religion was perfected and after Farewell Sermon was given at Makkah; Prophet(saws) stopped at a resting place called Ghadeer Khum, and there he addressed people for befriending and loving Ali(ra) who was a member of Ahlulbayt, and He(saw) even mentioned hadeeth Thaqalayn, which mentions about being responsible towards Ahlulbayt.

The reason, Prophet(Saw) did so, is most likely because he realized that people criticized a member of his household(Ahlulbayt), who took his right from Khums, therefore Prophet(saw) felt the need to remind the people about the importance of taking care of his Ahlulbayt and to be responsible towards them, after him. Because his relatives due to relation with him, were prohibited from accepting Sadaqa(charity), and if some Muslims criticize or object against them, for taking their right, like a share from Khums, which was a right given to them by Allah in Quran, then that would create a big problem for his Ahlulbayt, since they weren’t even eligible to receive charity. And it would even be against Quran. This is the reason, Prophet(saw) mentioned Hadeeth Thaqalayn, where the purpose of mentioning Ahlulbayt, was to remind people about taking their care and for being responsible towards them.

This is the reason, noble Sahabi(companion) Zaid bin Arqam(ra) believed that, Ahlulbayt in regards to hadeeth Thaqalayn were those relatives of Prophet(saw) on whom acceptance of Sadaqa was forbidden, since these same people were eligible to receive a portion from Khums.

We read in Shia book regarding the ruling on Zakat:

وتحرم الزكاة الواجبة علي بني هاشم جميعا من ولد أمير المؤمنين علي بن أبي طالب عليه السلام، وجعفر، وعقيل، والعباس رضي اللهعنهم

Zakat is haram for all the Bani Hashim, from the progeny of Imam Ali(as), Ja’far bin abi Talib, Aqil bin abi Talib, and Abbas bin Abdul Muttalib, may Allah (swt) be pleased with them. (Al Muqniah by Shaikh Mufid, Page 243)

We read in Shia book regarding the ruling on Khums:

مسألة: المشهور أن المراد باليتامى والمساكين وابن السبيل في آية الخمس من قرابة النبي – صلى الله عليه وآله – من بني هاشمخاصة، ذهب إليه الشيخان، وابن أبي عقيل، وأبو الصلاح، وباقي فقهائنا

It is popular among our scholars that what is meant by the orphans, the poor ones, and the wayfarer, in the verse of khums (8:41), among the kindred of the Prophet (saw), are those exclusively from the Bani Hashim. Among those who advocated this view are Shaikh Mufid, Shaikh Tusi, ibn abi Aqil, Abu Salah, and other scholars.(Mukhtalif al Shia by Shia Allama Hilli, Volume 3 Page 330).

Comment: As can be seen, the ruling is the same with regards to khums as well, the ruling applies in general to all the Bani Hashim, not just the children of Fatima(ra) and Ali(ra). It is applicable on all whether they are righteous or not. This is same as the way, Zaid bin Arqam(ra) generalized Ahlulbayt.

The explanation and understanding of Sahabi Zaid bin Arqam(ra) is further strengthened by a reliable version of hadeeth Thaqalayn, which has the expression “Kitab Allah wa `Itrati Ahlu-Bayti“, we know that Ahlul-Bayt refers to the household, let’s discover what the `Itrah means in Arabic.

In the traditional Arabic dictionary Lisan ul-Arab 4/536 by Ibn Manthur, we read:

والمشهور المعروف أَن عتْرتَه أَهلُ بيته وهم الذين حُرّمَت عليهم الزكاة والصدقة المفروضة وهم ذوو القربى الذين لهم خُمُسُ الخُمُسِ المذكور في سورة الأَنفال

“And what is famously recognized is that his ‘Itrah’ are the People of his Household, and they are those upon whom Zakaah and the mandatory Sadaqah is prohibited; and they are the relatives (Thuw al-Qurbaa) who are due a fifth of the spoils of war(Khums), mentioned in Surat al-Anfal.”]

Therefore, it is proven that, as per the understanding of noble companion Zaid(ra), the purpose behind the mention of Ahlulbay in hadeeth Thaqalayn was to remind people about taking care of them and to be responsible towards them, not to adhere them or to seek their guidance, and this is the actual and correct understanding of hadeeth Thaqalayn.

This is further strengthened by the established fact that, before the perfection of religion at Farewell sermon on Arafah, ONLY Quran was mentioned as a source of guidance adhering to which Muslims would not go astray; there was no mention of Ahlulbayt in any authentic tradition about Farewell sermon.

Our view is also supported by the fact, that Jabir bin Abdullah(ra) who narrated the Farewell sermon to Muhammad bin Ali(Al-Baqir), led them in prayer(Salah).

Ja’far bin Muhammad reported on the authority of his father: We went to Jabir bin Abdullah and he began inquiring about the people (who had gone to see him) till it was my turn. I said: I am Muhammad bin ‘Ali bin Husain. He placed his hand upon my head and opened my upper button and then the lower one and then placed his palm on my chest (in order to bless me), and I was, during those days, a young boy, and he said: You are welcome, my nephew. Ask whatever you want to ask. And I asked him but as he was blind (he could not respond to me immediately), and the time for prayer came. He stood up covering himself in his mantle. And whenever he placed its ends upon his shoulders they slipped down on account of being short (in size). Another mantle was, however, lying on the clothes rack near by. And he led us in the prayer. I said to him: Tell me about the Hajj of Allah’s Messenger(saw). [Sahih Muslim, Book 7, Hadith 2803].

We find that Jabir bin Abdullah(ra) narrated to Muhammad bin Ali(Al-Baqir) about the final Hajj of Prophet(saw) before his death and it even included the Farewell sermon of Prophet(saw) in it, yet Jabir bin Abdullah led them in prayer in his house. Had it been that, he believed that adhering to Ahlulbayt or seeking guidance only through them or taking them as leaders was said by Prophet(saw) , then Jabir bin Abdullah wouldn’t have led the prayer in presence of Muhammad Al-Baqir(rah), he would have made Muhammad Al-Baqir(rah) lead the prayer. This also proves that, the purpose behind the mention of Ahlulbayt in Thaqalayn was not that they be taken as a source of guidance adhering whom Muslims would not go astray.

Note: We anticipate that, some biased and incompetent readers might jump to conclusion that, we mean to say that Ahlulbayt are not a source of guidance nor they should be adhered. No! This is not what we are saying, because Ahl us-sunnah does believe that just like Sahaba, even Ahlulbayt are a source of guidance and should be followed in goodness just as Quran commands to follow the foremost of Muhajireen and Ansar(9:100). We believe that adherence to them and following them is conditional, similar to the case of following Sahaba. Infact, we take a big part of our religion from the narrations of the scholars of the prophetic-household such as:`Ali ibn abi Talib (ra), `Abdullah ibn al-`Abbas (ra), `Abdullah bin Ja`far al-Tayyar (ra), wives of Prophet(saw) and others.

However, in regards to hadeeth Thaqalayn the purpose behind the mention of Ahlulbayt in it, was not regarding adhering them to be protected from going astray, rather the reason they were mentioned in Thaqalayn, was to remind people to take care of them and to be responsible towards them.

Even`Ali(RA) agrees with Sunni understanding of Hadith al-Thaqalayn, that the only means of guidance left behind by the Prophet(SAWS) is Allah’s book(Quran) :

ثُمَّ اخْتَارَ سُبْحَانَهُ لِمحَمَّد صلى الله عليه لِقَاءَهُ، وَرَضِيَ لَهُ مَا عِنْدَهُ، فَأَكْرَمَهُ عَنْ دَارِالدُّنْيَا، وَرَغِبَ بِهَ عَنْ مُقَارَنَةِ البَلْوَى، فَقَبَضَهُ إِلَيْهِ كَرِيماً صَلَّى اللهُ علَيهِ و آلِهوَخَلَّفَ فِيكُمْ مَا خَلَّفَتِ الاْنْبيَاءُ في أُمَمِها، إذْ لَم يَتْرُكُوهُمْ هَمَلاً، بِغَيْر طَريق واضِح، ولاَعَلَمٍ قَائِم. كِتَابَ رَبِّكُمْ [فِيكُمْ:] مُبَيِّناً حَلاَلَهُ وَحَرامَهُ، وَفَرَائِضَهُ وَفَضَائِلَهُ، وَنَاسِخَهُ وَمَنْسُوخَهُ، وَرُخَصَهُ وَعَزَائِمَهُ، وَخَاصَّهُ وَعَامَّهُ، وَعِبَرَهُ وَأَمْثَالَهُ، وَمُرْسَلَهُ وَمَحْدُودَهُ، وَمُحْكَمَهُ وَمُتَشَابِهَهُ، مُفَسِّراً جُمَلَهُ، وَمُبَيِّناً غَوَامِضَهُ.
[…Then Allah chose for Muhammad (saw) to meet Him, selected him for His own nearness, regarded him too dignified to remain in this world and decided to remove him from this place of trial. So He drew him towards Himself with honor. He (saw) left among you the same thing other Prophets left among their peoples, because Prophets do not leave them untended without a clear path and a standing ensign, namely the Book of your Creator clarifying its permission and prohibitions, its obligations and discretion…](Nahjul Balagha, Sermon 1).

Ali(RA) doesn’t mention that the Prophet(saw) left behind the Qur’an and Ahlul-Bayt as guidance, only the Qur’an and this was the way of previous prophets.

In addition, I do not know that why you connect this Hadith to salves!!! Prophet Muhammad (s) said that saying to all the Muslims, not slaves. Prophet (s) said: أيها الناس [O people!] [Sunan At-Tirmidhi, V6, P131 and Al-Mustadrak, V3, P118], and not O slaves! Please do not change the clear meanings of the Hadith.

It means slaves of Allah, all believers are slaves of Allah.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

N)The verses hanging the verse of At-Tathir

I do not know, why do you try to say that the verse of At-Tathir is about the wives, while they themselves said that they are not?!!

The view that wives of Prophet(saws) are included in Ayat Tathir was the view of Ibn Abbas as it has been AUTHENTICALLY reported from him as it has been proven before, and all those criticism against this report was destroyed and proven to be invalid. Ibn Abbas was the person for whom Prophet(saws) made a special dua that, Allah grants him knowledge of Quran, Hence he became one of the greatest Mufassir of Quran.

Secondly, the context of Ayat Tathir itself proves that, wives of Prophet(saws) are included in it. There is no disagreement, that wives of Prophet(Saws) are also called Ahlelbayt, So Allah(swt) has made Quran easy to be understood, So if Ayat Tathir was not for wives, then Allah(swt) wouldn't have placed this verse in the context which was addressed to wives of Prophet(saws), especially when wives of Prophet are also called Ahlelbayt, Allah wouldn't make this so complicated for people to understand.

As for the claim that wives themselves said they are not Ahlelbayt then this is an absurd myth which is based on unreliable and Munkar(denounced) narrations, which has already been demonstrated. And they go against these strong evidences, which are overwhelmingly proving wives of Prophet(Saws) are included in Ayat Tathir.

In those verses, Allah talks with the wives, then He addresses another ones, i.e., Ahlul Bayt saying that they are not like the wives. As Allah has wanted certainly to repel all the impurity from them and purify them with a thorough purification. Changing immediately from those whom are addressed in the verses to another ones is a usual issue in Quran, e.g., 12:29, Joseph, ignore this. And, [my wife], ask forgiveness for your sin. Indeed, you were of the sinful].

the context of Ayat Tathir itself proves that, wives of Prophet(saws) are included in it. There is no disagreement, that wives of Prophet(Saws) are also called Ahlelbayt, So Allah(swt) has made Quran easy to be understood, So if Ayat Tathir was not for wives, then Allah(swt) wouldn't have placed this verse in the context which was addressed to wives of Prophet(saws), especially when wives of Prophet are also called Ahlelbayt, Allah wouldn't make this so complicated for people to understand.

And the example you used is not at all a proof in your favor because if you read the whole passage from where you quoted the verse, you can easily find out that for whom the feminine pronoun was used. And it is nothing out of context. Its a part of the story. The women who is referred there for whom the feminine pronoun was used is not alien to the passage if you refer the verses (12:23-32) you can easily make out that the one who was addressed with feminine pronoun was the lady who was addressed in the initial and later verses of the same chapter. How will it appear to shias if someone comes up and says that the one being addressed there with feminine pronoun was not the one who was addressed in the initial verses? Will they not mock the one who holds this view, because its apparent from the context itself that the one who was addressed with feminine pronoun was the very same lady, and views other than that are wrong.

So why don’t they do the same for the verse 33:33, because the whole passage is for the wives of prophet(Saw) (who too are Ahlebayt atleast in general sense according to shias) the initial and later verse of 33:33 address the wives of prophet(saw), then why is it that they think the ones who were not even mentioned in the whole surah(ahzab) are suddenly addressed even without a noun but a pronoun.

As we have said that wives of prophet(Saw) according to shias are ahlebayt in general atleast, then why did Allah put the verse of quran in the middle of the passage where wives of prophet(Saw)(who too are general ahlebayt) were being addressed. And even with usage of pronoun not even a noun, so if this was revealed for Ahle kisa who are nowhere even mentioned in the whole chapter then how can the shias claim that book of Allah is easily understandable. Allah has mentioned it many times in the Quran that it is a Book of clear guidance, and that it is written in an easily understandable form. Allah Almighty says in the Quran: “These are the signs of the clear book.” (12:1) How clear is the Quran if an unbiased reader will think that it is the Prophet’s wives who are being referred to but in reality it is supposed to be Ali’s family(ra) ? What prevented Allah from simply ending this confusion and instead clearly saying “O cousin of the Prophet and his family” instead of “O wives of the Prophet?” Why this confusion? Why did Allah place this verse of purification in the middle of commands directed towards the Prophet’s wives? Wouldn’t this mean that this is far from a clear book but rather it is a cryptic and confusing book?

But if you see this from a correct perspective then you will easily understand that it was for wives of prophet(Saw) and the change in gender of pronouns was nothing weird as we have proved from other examples from quran.

But, the Hadith that Imam Ali burned someones is narrated again by liar 'Akrama from Ibn Abbas (ra). 'Akrama was a Khariji and followed the Khawarij way, and the enmity of Khawarij to Imam Ali (as) is famous [e.g., see, Tazkarah Al-Hoffaz by Az-zahabi, V1, P.74]. So, we can not accept that Hadith.

It is incorrect that Ikrima was Khariji. Shias are religious liars and religious slanderers[, hence their arguments doesn't hold any weight, especially when I have provided the testimonies of numberous Sunni scholars, taking Ikrima as Hujjah, and considering him trustworthy. Hence Ahadeeth narrated via Ikrima from Ibn Abbas, are Hujjah for Sunnis.

As for the fact that Ali burned people, can also be proven from Shia books.

al-kishi said :
كان يدَّعي النبوة وأن عليًّا عليه السلام هو الله، فاستتابه عليه السلام ثلاثة أيام فلم يرجع، فأحرقه في النار في جملة سبعين رجلاً ادَّعوا فيه ذلك
he(abdullah ibn saba) used to claim prophethood and that ali(ra) is Allah ( astaghfirollah) so imam ali gave him three days to repent but he refused so he burned him with fire with seventy more men who claimed this also
ref: rijel ibn dawood .

This is from rijal kashi with a very strong isnad(the page is 107 narration number 171):

حدثني محمد بن قولويه، قال حدثني سعد بن عبد الله، قال حدثنا يعقوب بن يزيد و محمد بن عيسى، عن ابن أبي عمير، عن هشام بن سالم، قال : سمعت أبا عبد الله (عليه السلام) يقول و هو يحدث أصحابه بحديث عبد الله بن سبإ و ما ادعى من الربوبية في أمير المؤمنين علي بن أبي طالب، فقال إنه لما ادعى ذلك فيه استتابه أمير المؤمنين (عليه السلام) فأبى أن يتوب فأحرقه بالنار

And punishing people by burning is a Sin.

Abu Dawud in “Sunnan”: 2667 .Narrated Hamzah al-Aslami: The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) appointed him commander over a detachment. He said: I went out along with it. He (the Prophet) said: If you find so-and-so, burn him with the fire. I then turned away, and he called me. So I returned to him, and he said: If you find so-and-so, kill him, and do not burn him, for no one punishes with fire except the Lord of the fire.