Confused Shia considering becoming Sunni

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

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

You have misunderstood this hadeeth, Prophet(saws) said that there will be twelver successors, under whom Islam will remain strong. But it doesn't mean there will be only Twelve Successors. Infact, as per Prophet(saws) the number of his Successors is many, that will keep increasing.

Sahi muslim 4.661: Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, “The Israelis used to be ruled and guided by prophets: Whenever a prophet died, another would take over his place. There will be no prophet after me, but there will be Caliphs who will increase in number.” The people asked, “O Allah’s Apostle! What do you order us (to do)?” He said, “Obey the one who will be given the pledge of allegiance first. Fulfil their (i.e. the Caliphs) rights, for Allah will ask them about (any shortcoming) in ruling those Allah has put under their guardianship.”

You can laugh, but before laughing, see the sayings of your Prophet.

My Prophet(saws) also said, that Caliphate on Prophetic Methodology, will NOT be continuous and that the first phase of it will be for 30 years after him. Do you accept this? Because these reports actually annihilate the concept of Shia Imamate.

تكون النبوة فيكم ما شاء الله أن تكون ، ثم يرفعها الله – تعالى – ، ثم تكون خلافة على منهاج النبوة ما شاء الله أن تكون ، ثم يرفعها الله – تعالى – ، ثم تكون ملكا عاضا ، فتكون ما شاء الله أن تكون ، ثم يرفعها الله – تعالى – ، ثم تكون ملكا جبرية فيكون ما شاء الله أن يكون ، ثم يرفعها الله – تعالى – ، ثم تكون خلافة على منهاج نبوة . ثم سكت . . .
الراوي: النعمان بن بشير المحدث: الألباني – المصدر: تخريج مشكاة المصابيح – الصفحة أو الرقم: 5306
خلاصة حكم المحدث: إسناده حسن

Al-Nauman ibn Basheer told us: The Prophet PBUH said: ‘Prophethood will remain in you for as long as God decides for it to remain and then God will remove it when He decides to remove it. After Prophet hood, there will be a Caliphate on the style of prophethood and it will exist for as long as God decides for it to exist, then He will remove it when He decides to remove it. Then there will be a kingdom in which people will face trials and tribulations and it will continue to exist for as long as God decides for it to exist. Then He will remove it, when He decides to remove it. After this, there will be an oppressive kingdom and it will continue to exist for as long as God decides for it to exist. Then He will remove it, when He decides to remove it. Then there will once again be a rule on the style of prophet hood. After saying this, the Prophet (pbuh) was silent.’
source: Takhreej Mishat al Masabih #5306.
grading: Chain is Hasan.

From Hudhayfah that the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said:

تكون النبوة فيكم ما شاء الله أن تكون ، ثم يرفعها الله إذا شاء أن يرفعها ، ثم تكون خلافة على منهاج النبوة ، فتكون ما شاء الله أن تكون ، ثم يرفعها الله إذا شاء أن يرفعها ، ثم تكون ملكا عاضا ، فيكون ما شاء الله أن تكون ، ثم يرفعها الله إذا شاء أن يرفعها ، ثم يكون ملكا جبريا ، فتكون ما شاء الله أن تكون ، ثم يرفعها إذا شاء أن يرفعها ، ثم تكون خلافة على منهاج النبوة ، ثم سكت

The Prophethood will remain amongst you for as long as Allaah wills it to be. Then Allaah will raise it when He wills to raise it. Then there will be the khilaafah upon the Prophetic methodology. And it will last for as long as Allaah wills it to last. Then Allaah will raise it when He wills to raise it. Then there will be biting kingship, and it will remain for as long as Allaah wills it to remain. Then Allaah will raise it when He wills to raise it. Then there will be tyrannical (forceful) kingship and it will remain for as long as Allaah wills it to remain. Then He will raise it when He wills to raise it. Then there will be a khilaafah upon the Prophetic methodology. Then he (the Prophet) was silent.Reported by Ahmad and Abu Dawud. Silsilah as-Saheehah of Imaam al-Albani (1/34 no. 5) and it is Saheeh.

The hadeeth narrated by Safeenah (radiallaahu anhu), that the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said:

خلافة النبوة ثلاثون سنة ثم يؤتي الله الملك من يشاء

The Prophetic khilaafah will last for thirty years. Then Allaah will give the dominion to whomever He wills. Reported by Abu Dawud and al-Haakim. Saheeh al-Jaami’ as-Sagheer (no. 3257) declared Saheeh by Imaam al-Albaani (rahimahullaah).

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].

This wording of Hadeeth is 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.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

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.

Firstly, what you state is a mixture of weak and unreliable reports plus, the authentic report about Hadeeth Kisa, and as has been explained again and again to you, hadeeth Kisa, in itself is a proof that verse was not revealed for them, because if it was revealed for them, there was no need to for Prophet(saws) to make dua. Hence, the incident of kisa is actually an evidence that verse was not revealed for these individuals, so Prophet(saws) made dua to include them in Ayat Tatheer.

Also note that, None of the people(whose reports are authentically reported) exclude wives of Prophet(saws) from Ayat Tathir.

Secondly, There are reports from people like:

1. Ibn Abbas.

2. Urwa bin Zubayr. (nephew of Ayesha)

3. IKrima.

That verse of Tahtheer was revealed for Wives of Prophet(saws).

The ‘Allamah al-tahir ibn ‘Ashur, in his al-Tahrir wa al-Tanwir wrote:
وأَهْلَ الْبَيْتِ: أَزوَاج النبيء صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ، وَالْخِطَابُ مُوَجَّهٌ إِلَيْهِنَّ وَكَذَلِكَ مَا قَبْلَهُ وَمَا بَعْدَهُ لَا يُخَالِطُ أَحَدًا شَكٌّ فِي ذَلِكَ، وَلَمْ يَفْهَمْ مِنْهَا أَصْحَاب النبيء صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ والتابعون إِلَّا أَن أَزوَاج النبيء عَلَيْهِ الصَّلَاةُ وَالسَّلَامُ هُنَّ الْمُرَادُ بِذَلِكَ وَأَنَّ النُّزُولَ فِي شَأْنِهِنَّ
The Ahl-al-Bait are the wives of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), and the statement is addressed to them, may Allah be pleased with them. So none can doubt that…the companions and those who followed them did not understand from the verse except that the wives of the Prophet are the ones meant with that, may Allah be pleased with them. [Tafsir al-Tahrir wa al-Tanwir, Vol. 22, p. 15]

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.

This is again a preposterous argument. Those to whom Ikrima challenged for Mubahila, could be innovators such as Shias, those who were spreading false information or those who were attributing their false views to Sahaba, such as Atiyyah awfi, Kalbi, etc.

What also shows is that Ikrima, due to the teaching he got from ibn Abbas, was so confident of being on truth, that he challenged Mubahila about this issue.

[Ebn Hussein]

Flawless bro NOS, may Allah reward you for defending Islam, the Ahlul Bayt and the Sahaba from the twistings of the 12ers, how shallow their arguments are once investigated further, subhanalllah. My humble self, I'd like to comment on some things Mojtaba said:

Prophet Muhammad himself said that only Imam Ali, Hasan, Husain and Lady Fatima are his Ahlul Bayt.
Narrated Umm Salamah:
"The Prophet (s) put a garment over Al-Hasan, Al-Hussain, 'Ali and Fatimah, then he said: 'O Allah, these are my Ahlul Bayt and the close ones to me, so remove the Rijs from them and purify them thoroughly." So Umm Salamah said: 'And am I with them, O Messenger of Allah?' He said: "You are upon good."'

Sunan At-Tirmidhi, V5, P361, At-Tirmidhi says that the Hadith is Sahih.
Al-Albani says that the Hadith is Sahih (Sahih Sunan At-Tirmidhi by Al-Albani, V3, P306).

Prophet did not say, O Allah these are between my Ahlul Bayt. Instead, he (s) said, O Allah, these are my Ahlul Bayt.

My dear brother, the issue is clear, exept that you do not want to accept the truth.

Your conclusion is flawed and based on your ignorance of the language of the Arabs (heck, I've seen Arab Shia scholars making ABC mistakes in fus7a). The Arabic of the narration says:

اللهم هؤلاء أهل بيتي

This translates to: "O Allah (a form of PRAYER where one BESEECHES AND ASKS ALLAH FOR SOMETHING) these are my Ahlul Bayt."

Why is he PRAYING to Allah BESEECHING Allah saying that "O ALLAH! THESE are myAhlul Bayt"? Doesn't Allah know who the Ahl Al-Bayt are? Is the Prophet (saws) teaching or directing Allah? Of course not, he is PRAYING and BESEECHING Allah (Allahumma ...) to include his beloved cousin and his beloved daughter into the tashri3i will of Allah in verse 33:33.

As an Arab speaker I am telling you, the Prophet (saws) did not need to say:

"O Allah these are between my Ahlul Bayt."

هؤلاء (haa2ulaa2i) is sufficient (to include 'Ali's family into the verse) and contrary to your misunderstanding (due to your ignorance of the language of the Arabs) DOES not EXCLUDE the wives, as it does not mean: "These are my Ahlul Bayt ONLY." I give you a simple example: An old Arab who has 3 sons and 3 daughters is seen in the market with his three sons, someone enquires who the 3 grown up man are who are accompanying him, upon which he answers:

هؤلاء عيالي ("these are my children")

According to no rule of the Arabic language and simple logic that does mean that his 3 girls who are NOT present are NOT his children. Same with the statement of the Prophet (saws). He did not exclude the wives or stated that only 5 ('Ali's family) are Ahlul Bayt and what is an absolute disaster for Shias is that by arguing in such a fashion, they are excluding the rest of the Imams.

btw: Do you take your arguments from the likes of the jahil Essam Al-Emad (Yemeni Ex-Zaydi in Qom who claims to be an Ex-Wahhabi)? He claimed in a debate with Shaikh Othman Al-Khamis that the word إنما (verily, surely, indeed, only) stands for حصر (i.e. everything what is listed after it is EXLUDED) so he argued that:

INNAMAA YUREEDULLAH = Ahl Al-Bayt = Ahl Al-Kisa' ONLY

He obviously shot in his own foot, as this batil understanding (excluding the wives based on the argument of حصر) will also exclude the other Imams they Shias miraciously squash into the Kisa'!

Ahl Al-Sunnah have the most just and balance view with regards to the Kisa' hadith and verse 33:33 as no Hashimi or wive is excluded nor is anybody turned into a demi-god or Prophet-like being.

As for 'Ali (ra) burning people (he was very fond of it according to your own books that you should study better):

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.

Brother NUS has already answered you with an AUTHENTIC narration from your books, but I will have the pledge to put the cherry on the cake:

1. ‘Ali (رضی الله عنه) burnt Idolators in a pit of fire in authentic Shia hadith --> https://shiascans.com/2017/05/08/ali-burns-those-who-worship-idolsicons/

2. ‘Ali ordered the killing (by burning) of lesbians – Shia sahih narration --> https://shiascans.com/2017/04/09/ali-ordered-the-killing-by-burning-of-lesbians-shia-sahih-narration/

3. Infamous Shia website’s admission: Ali advocated execution by burning with fire! --> https://shiascans.com/2017/04/09/infamous-shia-websites-confession-ali-advocated-execution-by-burning-with-fire/

4. ‘Ali burnt proto-Rafidis (Sabaites) for their heretical beliefs – Shia sahih hadiths --> https://shiascans.com/2017/04/09/ali-burnt-proto-rafidis-sabaites-for-their-heretical-beliefs-shia-sahih-hadiths/

5. (that one is really fun) Ali advised Abu Bakr (and Khalid) on how to kill “homosexuals” with fire – Sahih Sirah of Ali in SHIA book! --> https://shiascans.com/2017/04/09/ali-advised-abu-bakr-and-khalid-to-kill-homosexuals-with-fire/

6. Ali told Omar to behead and burn sodomites (“homosexuals”) – Shia sahih hadith  --> https://shiascans.com/2017/04/08/ali-punished-by-burning/

I guess these were all invented and put in your books by "Akrama" (his name is 'Ikramah)?

[Ebn Hussein]

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.

According to your flawed logic in the following verse that includes إنما ...

فلا تعجبك أموالهم ولا أولادهم إنما يريد الله ليعذبهم بها في الحياة الدنيا وتزهق أنفسهم وهم كافرون

(So let not their wealth or their children impress you. Allah only intends to punish them through them in worldly life and that their souls should depart [at death] while they are disbelievers)

... Allah intends creational (takwini) punishment instead of legal (tashri’i) one? Can you see how nonsensical that is and (as usual) how the Qur'an explains the Qur'an and thus pulverises the strongest Shia arguments?

In the above verse it is clear that Allah INTENDS/WANTS to punish a group of people for their crimes which is KUFR just like Allah INTENDS/WANTS to purify the Ahlul Bayt if they abide by certain conditions. Yes, Allah wants to purify ALL people but a SPECIFIC group (wives primarely) will receive a THOROUGH purification (under certain conditions) and they will also receive harsher punishment than others, that makes them special, that's their merit.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

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

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].

Alhamdulillah. So you admit that, there are Shia scholars who believe that the purification mentioned in Ayat Tatheer is not Takweeni, but Tashrihi(legislative).

And this Shia scholar is backed by Sunni Scholars, who believe that the purification in the verse was Tashrihi.

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]

[Ebn Hussein]

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.
 

The onus is on YOU to prove that she wasn't alone, especially since the hadith mentions that he addressed ALL other wives (just like the Qur'an does ...) with AHL AL-BAYT in their respective houses. What you are doing is mere speculation, the Sunnis side has the dhahir/apparent of the text on their side, it says 'Aisha so only 'Aisha was in the house, anybody who includes others (like slaves and servants) must provide evidence.

Furthermore, the following narration is even clearer in its meaning, there is no way you can twist it to somehow justify your Anti-Qur'anic beliefs:

وفي حديث الإفك
" فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم من يعذرنا من رجل بلغني أذاه في أهل بيتي فوالله ما علمت من أهلي إلا خيرا "
صحيح البخاري ج2/ص932
صحيح مسلم ج4/ص2133

Narrated `Urwa bin Al-Musaiyab Alqama bin Waqqas and Ubaidullah bin `Abdullah:

About the story of `Aisha and their narrations were similar attesting each other, when the liars said what they invented about `Aisha, and the Divine Inspiration was delayed, Allah's Apostle sent for `Ali and Usama to consult them in divorcing his wife (i.e. `Aisha). Usama said, "Keep your wife, as we know nothing about her except good." Buraira said, "I cannot accuse her of any defect except that she is still a young girl who sleeps, neglecting her family's dough which the domestic goats come to eat (i.e. she was too simpleminded to deceive her husband)." Allah's Apostle said, "Who can help me to take revenge over the man who has harmed me by defaming the reputation of my family (AHLU BAYTI)? By Allah, I have not known about my family-anything except good, and they mentioned (i.e. accused) a man about whom I did not know anything except good. (Bukhari and Muslim)

hadith proves:

1. The Prophet (saws) who is in contact with Wahyii knows NOTHING but GOOD about his wive (he also never divorced her), that doesn't make her perfect or infallible (nobody is, only Prophets and Messengers in delivering the Message), yet the Rafidah attribute nothing but bad to her (like Mojtaba by quoting random narrations from Tabari and other sources that contain weak and fabricated narrations).

2. The Prophet (saws) was talking about 'AISHA only (as she was accused of Zina not anybody else), he referred to her as HIS Ahlul Bayt (just like the Qur'an does with regards to his wives and the wives of other Prophets), now what are the Shia going to do to get out of this mess? Arguing that he meant 'Aisha and her males slaves?!

Fear Allah and come to the truth, to Ahlus-sunnati wal-Jama'ah

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

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]

Unfortunately, your self invented explanations hold absolutely no value. And Ironically, your misinterpretation is refuted by your own giant scholar Shiekh Mufeed.

Shaykh Mufeed  believed that Imams of Ahlul Bayt were not protected from minor sins.
Book: “Awael Al-Maqalat fee Al-Mazhab wa Al-Mukhtarat”
Author: Al-Imam Al-Shaykh Al-Mufeed Muhammad b. Muhammad b. Al-Nu’man b. Al-Mulm (Abi Abdillah Al-‘Akbari Al-Baghdadi)
Examiner: Ibrahim Al-Ansari Al-Zinjani Al-Khoieeni

37 – The saying in the infallibility of the Imams – peace be upon them –

إن الأئمة القائمين مقام الأنبياء (ص) في تنفيذ الأحكام وإقامة الحدود وحفظ الشرائع وتأديب الأنام (1) معصومون كعصمة الأنبياء، وإنهم لا يجوز منهم صغيرة إلا ما قدمت ذكر جوازه على الأنبياء

The imams who are made to stand in place of [and carry out the responsibilities of the] Prophets from the implementation of the rulings, to upholding the limits, to preserving the laws and disciplining the creatures (i.e. the people) are as infallible as the Prophets were. It is not acceptable to occur from them even a Sagheerah (a minor sin), except of the type [I mentioned before] that is permitted to occur from the Prophets [themselves] …,

وإنه لا يجوز منهم سهو (2) في شئ في الدين ولا ينسون شيئا من الأحكام، وعلى هذا (3) مذهب سائر الإمامية إلا من شذ منهم وتعلق بظاهر روايات لها تأويلات على خلاف ظنه الفاسد من هذا الباب،

… neither is forgetfullness permitted to occur from them in any of the matters [pertaining to] the Religion, [just as they] do not forget any of the Rulings [of the Religion]. And upon this is the Mazhab of the Imamiyah altogether, except those from them who took an odd view, and adhered to the apparent meaning of some narrations that could be interpreted in manners contrary to their corrupt thought .

Here is what Al-Mufeed has said:
إن جميع أنبياء الله – صلوات الله عليهم – معصومون من الكبائر قبل النبوة وبعدها وما يستخف فاعله من الصغائر كلها، وأما ما كان من صغير لا يستخف فاعله فجائز وقوعه منهم قبل النبوة وعلى غير تعمد وممتنع منهم بعدها على كل حال، وهذا مذهب جمهور الإمامية، والمعتزلة بأسرها تخالف فيه.
“All of Allaah’s Prophets are protected against major sins before and after prophethood; and from minor sins that make their doer considered astray. As to the minor sins whose doer is not considered astray, it is possible that they are done by the Prophets before prophethood, as non-deliberate acts, but they do not occur after prophethood in any situation. And this is the madhhab of the majority of Imaamee. And the mu`tazilah people oppose (us) in this.”

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.

I have already proven that the hadeeth is weak and unreliable. So its of no use to clutch at straws, if you don't have any academic response.

Btw, you should also believe that anyone who does Hajj becomes infallible.

Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq (a.s.) relates from his forefathers that a Bedouin came to the Holy Prophet (S) and said, “O Messenger of Allah (S)! I started for hajj but could not reach it though I am wealthy. So tell me how much I should spend to obtain the Tawāb equal to it?” The Messenger of Allah (S) said, “Look at Mt. Abu Qubais, If the whole of it turns to gold and comes to your possession and you spend all of it in the way of Allah you would still not be able to reach the status of one who has performed Hajj.” Then he (S) said, “When a person decides to go for Hajj, after this for every item that he pick up and puts down he is rewarded ten times and he is raised ten degrees. When he mounts the camel each of its step is just as stated before. When he performs the tawaf of Kaba he is purified of all sins. After he has finished running between Safa and Marwah he is again cleansed from sins.Again when he stays at Arafat his sins are washed. When he stays at Masharil Harām he is purified of bad deeds. When he stones the satans he is again forgiven the sins.” In this way the Messenger of Allah (S) mentioned each stage and continued saying that the person is purified of sins. Then he (S) told the Bedouin, “How can you reach the level of one who performs Hajj?” After this Imam Sadiq (a.s.) says, “His sins are not recorded for four months and if he does not commit a greater sin, only good deeds are recorded during this period.” (Tahzīb, Vol. 5, page. 19). [Taken from Shia Book: Greater Sins, Volume 3, page 166-167 By Ayatullah Sayyid 'Abd al-Husayn Dastghayb Shirazi]

[Mojtaba]

As-Salamu 'Alykum wa Rahmatollahi wa Barakatoh.

1.Dear brothers and sisters, we should love and respect to each others. I am not going to slander any one and I do not save Taqiyya. I am here to share what I know with you and expect you not to blame me. I do not follow 'Ayatollah Kho'i (ra). The Hadith that brother Noor As-Sunna brought in which it is said that Prophet (s) said that we must باهتوا the people who makes Bid'a in the religion, eminent Shia scholars has not interpreted it to slander them. 'Allam Al-Majlisi, 'Allam Al-feidh Al-Kashani and Mulla Salih Mazandarani said that باهتوا in this Hadith means to discuss with the people who make Bid'a in the religion by the clear proofs to make them dumbfounded, like the saying of Allah: And Abraham said: "God makes the sun rise from the East; so you make it rise from the West," and dumbfounded [فبهت] was the infidel [2:258]. See Bihar Al-Anwar by Al-Majlisi, V74, P204, Al-Wafi by Al-Feidh Al-Kashani, V1, P245 and Sharhul KAfi by Mulla Salih Al-Mazandarani, V10, P34.

In addition, the eminent Shia Faqih, Shahid Al-Thani said that in a discussion, we must discuss with people by the true things, not by the lies [See Bihar Al-Anwar by Al-Majlisi, V74, P204, يصح مواجهتهم بما يكون نسبته إليهم حقا لا بالكذب].

2.As I said, angels meant by the term Ahl Al-Bayt, Abraham (as) himself and all of his family. Indeed, Allah saved Abraham from the fire, and made him a Messenger and so guided his family through him. So, it refers to all the members of the family of Abraham.

In addition, Allamah Syed Rasheed Raza Misri [an eminent Salafi scholar] said that the Bayt in the verse 11:73 refers to the Bayt of Messengership, i.e., the family and progeny of all the Messengers [Tafseer Al-Minar, 12/106: رحمة الله الخاصة وبركاته الكثيرة الواسعة عليكم يا معشر أهل بيت النبوة والرسالة ، تتصل وتتسلسل في نسلكم وذريتكم إلى يوم القيامة]. His saying is more acceptable, because in that Chapter, before the verse 73, Allah (swt) talks about His mercy and blessing upon the Messengers and those who entered Bayt of Messengership by following them [e.g., 11:66, We saved Salih and those who believed with him, by mercy from Us. 11:48, O Noah, disembark in security from Us and blessings upon you and upon nations [descending] from those with you.]. The angels said to Sara that she must not marvel, as the mercy and blessing of Allah had been upon those who were in the Bayt of Messengership.

3.The verse: وَحَرَّمْنَا عَلَيْهِ الْمَرَاضِعَ مِن قَبْلُ فَقَالَتْ هَلْ أَدُلُّكُمْ عَلَى أَهْلِ بَيْتٍ يَكْفُلُونَهُ لَكُمْ وَهُمْ لَهُ نَاصِحُونَ: And We had prevented from him [all] wet nurses before, so she said, "Shall I direct you to a household that will be responsible for him for you while they are to him [for his upbringing] sincere?"

This verse can not help you at all. The term "Ahli Baytin"[أَهْلِ بَيْتٍ] in this verse means " a family". The sister of Moses said them, [Sahih International:] Shall I direct you to a household that will be responsible for him for you while they are to him [for his upbringing] sincere?
Indeed, his sister said them that she knew a family that can accept the responsibility of his caring. The term Ahli Baytin [i.e., a family] never refers just to the mother of Moses. Al-Soddi said:
عَنِ السُّدِّيِّ ، قَالَ : لَمَّا قَالَتْ أُخْتُهُ ( هَلْ أَدُلُّكُمْ عَلَى أَهْلِ بَيْتٍ يَكْفُلُونَهُ لَكُمْ وَهُمْ لَهُ نَاصِحُونَ ) أَخَذُوهَا ، وَقَالُوا : إِنَّكِ قَدْ عَرَفْتِ هَذَا الْغُلَامَ ، فَدُلِّينَا عَلَى أَهْلِهِ ، فَقَالَتْ : مَا أَعْرِفُهُ ، وَلَكِنِّي إِنَّمَا قُلْتُ : هُمْ لِلْمَلِكِ نَاصِحُونَ .
When his sister said: "Shall I direct you to a household that will be responsible for him for you while they are to him [for his upbringing] sincere?" they kept her and said: "Indeed you know this boy, and therefore you direct us to his family." So she said: "I do not know him, but I only said that they [i.e., that family] want the good of the king." [See Tafseer At-Tabari, commentary of the the verse].

So, أَهْلِ بَيْتٍ means a family which includes a man and woman and some children, not only the mother of Moses and the pronoun هم [they] refers to all the members of that family.

4.The 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 : [Saheeh International] And when Moses had completed the term and was traveling with his family, he perceived from the direction of the mount a fire. He said to his family, "Stay here; indeed, I have perceived a fire. Perhaps I will bring you [plural and masculine] from there [some] information or burning wood from the fire that you [plural and masculine] may warm yourselves."

There are different eminent Sunni and  Shia scholars who have said that the term "Ahl" [أهل] in the verse refers to the all the members of the family of Moses who were with him in the travel, not only his wife. Those have mind surely accept that the saying of these scholars is more correct than that of those who said that there was only the wife of Moses with him in the travel. As, 10 yrs after the marriage of Moses with his wife, there had surely some sons who also went with them to the trip. In addition, in the time of Prophet Moses, traveling was dangerous and difficult, so whoever wanted to go to a trip, he/she had to travel with a group and his/her slaves. So, surely there were some sons and slaves with Moses and the term "Ahl" refers to them.
Ibn Abbas (ra) said about this verse: كان في الشتاء ، ورفعت لهم نار ، فلما رآها ظن أنها نار ، وكانت من نور الله ( قال لأهله امكثوا إني آنست نارا ) i.e., It was winter. A fire was made for them [هم plural and masculine, i.e., Moses and all those who were with him], so Moses thought that it is indeed a fire, while it was from the Light of Allah {said to his family, "Stay here; indeed, I have perceived a fire} [See Tafseer At-Tabari, commentary of the verse 20:10]. So, Ibn Abbas (ra) believed that there were a group with Moses, as he said that a fire was made for them.

Imam Fakhr Ar-Razi [one of the most eminent Sunni Mufassir] said:
 وقوله : ( وسار بأهله ) ليس فيه دلالة على أنه خرج منفردا معها وقوله : ( امكثوا ) فيه دلالة على الجمع   
And the saying of Allah: "and [Moses] was traveling with his Ahl", has no proof that Moses traveled only with her [i.e., his wife] and the saying of Allah: " امكثوا [i.e., (Moses said:) Stay here, O you (Plural and masculine)] implies that there were a group [with Moses].
[See At-Tafseer Al-Kabir by Fakhr Ar-Razi, commentary of the verse 28:29]

Ash-Shokani also said: وقيل : المراد بهم المرأة والولد والخادم And it is also said that the term Ahl refers to the wife [of Moses], and the children and the slaves [See Fath Al-Ghadir by Ash-Shokani, commentary of the verse 20:10]. 

Ibn Kathir said: فلما سار بأهله ، ومعه ولدان منهم : So when Moses traveled with his Ahl, and there were some young sons of them with him [See Al-Bidaya wa An-Nihaya by Ibn Kathir, 2/53]. 

So, the term Ahl in those verses refers to those people, i.e., his wife and young sons and slaves who were with Moses (as).

5.In the saying of Imam Ali which was a dua for a man who has married, he said that the man should ask Allah to bless him through his Ahl, i.e., his wife and children. In the time of Imam Ali, the parents needed to some sons to help the father in farming. So they had to produce some sons to help the father and the financial needs family. So, my saying was correct and based on a historical fact. Allah said in Quran: Allah has appointed for you of yourselves wives, and He has appointed for you of your wives sons and grandsons [16:72].

I should say about the narration that you brought and said that in it Abu Bakr addressed Lady Fatima (as) by the pronoun Kum and the term Ahlul Bayt, that it is not correct.
Indeed, this tale itself and your saying about it,  both is not correct:
Your saying is not correct, because Imam Ali and so his sons were not please with Abu Baykr, so the pronoun Kum refers to Lady Fatima, Imam Ali and their sons [i.e., Ahl Al-Bayt]. As Al-Bukhari narrated in his Sahih: When she [Lady Fatima (as)] died, her husband. 'Ali b. Abu Talib, buried her at night. He [Imam Ali] did not inform Abu Bakr about her death and offered the funeral prayer over her himself. Not informing Abu Bakr proves that Imam Ali -and so his sons- were not please with him and if we accept this tale, Abu Bakr was going to seek the pleasure of them All.
This narration is certainly a fabricated tale, because 1.Al-Bukhari narrated in three parts of his Sahih that Lady Fatima never talked with Abu Bakr until she passed away [Sahih Al-Bukhari, 4/79: فَغَضِبَتْ فَاطِمَةُ بِنْتُ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَهَجَرَتْ أَبَا بَكْرٍ، فَلَمْ تَزَلْ مُهَاجِرَتَهُ حَتَّى تُوُفِّيَتْ: Fatima, the daughter of Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) got angry and stopped speaking to Abu Bakr, and continued assuming that attitude till she died/ and 5/139: فَهَجَرَتْهُ، فَلَمْ تُكَلِّمْهُ حَتَّى تُوُفِّيَتْ So she became angry with Abu Bakr and kept away from him, and did not talked to him till she died/ and 8/149: فَهَجَرَتْهُ فَاطِمَةُ فلم تُكَلِّمْهُ حتي مَاتَتْ: Therefore Fatima left Abu Bakr and did not speak to him till she died]. Ibn Qutaybah also said that when Abu Bakr did not give the rights of Lady Fatima (as) to her, she swore not to talk with Abu Bakr at all [فلما لم يعطها إياه حلفت لا تكلمه أبدا]. See Ta'wil Mokhtalif Al-Hadith, P427. Imam Ahmad bin Hambal and An-Nisa'i mentioned this fact in his books, too.

6.Why do you reject that there were probably others like slaves and some of the family of each of the wives in the houses of them? Prophet Muhammad (s) had many slaves [See their names in Subul Al-Hoda by As-Salehi Ash-Shami, 11/405-111]. Also, he (s) certainly invited the family of his wives to the ceremony and after its ending, they probably went to the houses of their daughters [i.e., the wives of Prophet]. For example, Muslim narrated in his Sahih [H1462]: Anas narrated, ... It was [the night when the Prophet had to stay] in the house of 'Aisha ... [Abu Bakr said]: Messenger of Allah, [kindly] come for prayer ... When Allah's Apostle (s) had finished his prayer, Abu Bakr came to her [i.e., the house of 'Aiesha] [عَنْ أَنَسٍ، قَالَ كَانَ لِلنَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم تِسْعُ نِسْوَةٍ فَكَانَ إِذَا قَسَمَ بَيْنَهُنَّ لاَ يَنْتَهِي إِلَى الْمَرْأَةِ الأُولَى إِلاَّ فِي تِسْعٍ فَكُنَّ يَجْتَمِعْنَ كُلَّ لَيْلَةٍ فِي بَيْتِ الَّتِي يَأْتِيهَا فَكَانَ فِي بَيْتِ عَائِشَةَ فَجَاءَتْ زَيْنَبُ فَمَدَّ يَدَهُ إِلَيْهَا فَقَالَتْ هَذِهِ زَيْنَبُ ‏.‏ فَكَفَّ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم يَدَهُ ‏.‏ فَتَقَاوَلَتَا حَتَّى اسْتَخَبَتَا وَأُقِيمَتِ الصَّلاَةُ فَمَرَّ أَبُو بَكْرٍ عَلَى ذَلِكَ فَسَمِعَ أَصْوَاتَهُمَا فَقَالَ اخْرُجْ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ إِلَى الصَّلاَةِ وَاحْثُ فِي أَفْوَاهِهِنَّ التُّرَابَ ‏.‏ فَخَرَجَ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَقَالَتْ عَائِشَةُ الآنَ يَقْضِي النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم صَلاَتَهُ فَيَجِيءُ أَبُو بَكْرٍ فَيَفْعَلُ بِي وَيَفْعَلُ ‏.‏ فَلَمَّا قَضَى النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم صَلاَتَهُ أَتَاهَا أَبُو بَكْرٍ فَقَالَ لَهَا قَوْلاً شَدِيدًا وَقَالَ أَتَصْنَعِينَ هَذَا.].

Also, in both Quran and Hadith the feminine pronoun is used for the term 'Ahl. Allah said: They ran into her husband at the door. She said, ‘What is to be the requital of him who has evil intentions for your Ahl [بِأَهْلِكَ] except imprisonment or a painful punishment?’ ... [The husband said:] 'Joseph, let this matter alone', [then he said to his Ahl], 'plead for forgiveness [اسْتَغْفِرِي: feminine form of the verb] for your sin, for you have indeed been [إِنَّكِ كُنتِ: feminine pronoun and verb] erring.’ [12:25, 29]
In the narration of Abu Ya'la in his Musnad which has a Hasan Isnad and the Hadith itself is Sahih [rated by Husain Salim 'Asad: إسناده حسن والحديث صحيح], 'Ayesha said to Prophet: كَيْفَ وَجَدْتَ أَهْلَكَ بَارَكَ اللَّهُ لَكَ فِيهِنَّ؟, i.e., How did you find your Ahl? May Allah bless you by them (i.e.,the wives) [هن: the plural form of the feminine pronoun] (Musnad Abi Ya'la, H3918).
So, When the term 'Ahl refers to a single wife, the singular form of the pronouns and verbs is used in Quran. And in Hadith, when that term refers to the wives, the plural form of the pronoun is used.

[Mojtaba]

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.


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]

Dear brother, Allah directly and clearly said that Prophet was in the straight way. So, he was certainly in the straight way. Straight way is the straight way, it is not two or more. When Allah says that His Prophet was in the straight way, this means that he was fully in it. So, when Prophet used to say in his Salats reciting the Al-Hamd Chapter, "[O Lord] Guide us on the straight way", while Allah said that he was certainly and fully in it, this only means that Prophet asked Allah to maintain His blessings upon him for keeping him in the straight way. Just like this, when Prophet identified the Ahlul Bayt of the verse of At-Tathir with the cloak and said: O Allah these [i.e., those who were under the cloak] are my Ahl Al-Bayt, so repel all impurity from them and purify them with a thorough purification", he asked Allah to maintain His blessings upon them for keeping them in the state of complete purity.

So the saying, "if Allah wanted the purity of the Ahlul Bayt of the verse of At-Tathir with His Takwini Will, so why did Prophet do pray for their purity after revelation of the verse", is not correct and the question itself is false. Because Prophet asked the maintenance of Allah's blessings for keeping the Ahl Al-Bayt in the state of the complete purity.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

As-Salamu 'Alykum wa Rahmatollahi wa Barakatoh.

1.Dear brothers and sisters, we should love and respect to each others. I am not going to slander any one and I do not save Taqiyya. I am here to share what I know with you and expect you not to blame me. I do not follow 'Ayatollah Kho'i (ra). The Hadith that brother Noor As-Sunna brought in which it is said that Prophet (s) said that we must باهتوا the people who makes Bid'a in the religion, eminent Shia scholars has not interpreted it to slander them. 'Allam Al-Majlisi, 'Allam Al-feidh Al-Kashani and Mulla Salih Mazandarani said that باهتوا in this Hadith means to discuss with the people who make Bid'a in the religion by the clear proofs to make them dumbfounded, like the saying of Allah: And Abraham said: "God makes the sun rise from the East; so you make it rise from the West," and dumbfounded [فبهت] was the infidel [2:258]. See Bihar Al-Anwar by Al-Majlisi, V74, P204, Al-Wafi by Al-Feidh Al-Kashani, V1, P245 and Sharhul KAfi by Mulla Salih Al-Mazandarani, V10, P34.

Wa alaykumsalam.

Here is another one:

مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ يَحْيَى عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ الْحُسَيْنِ عَنْ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ أَبِي نَصْرٍ عَنْ دَاوُدَ بْنِ سِرْحَانَ عَنْ أَبِي عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ع قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ ص إِذَا رَأَيْتُمْ أَهْلَ الرَّيْبِ وَ الْبِدَعِ مِنْ بَعْدِي فَأَظْهِرُوا الْبَرَاءَةَ مِنْهُمْ وَ أَكْثِرُوا مِنْ سَبِّهِمْ وَ الْقَوْلَ فِيهِمْ وَ الْوَقِيعَةَ وَ بَاهِتُوهُمْ كَيْلَا يَطْمَعُوا فِي الْفَسَادِ فِي الْإِسْلَامِ وَ يَحْذَرَهُمُ النَّاسُ وَ لَا يَتَعَلَّمُوا مِنْ بِدَعِهِمْ يَكْتُبِ اللَّهُ لَكُمْ بِذَلِكَ الْحَسَنَاتِ وَ يَرْفَعْ لَكُمْ بِهِ الدَّرَجَاتِ فِي الْآخِرَةِ
“The Messenger of Allah (SAWAS) has said, ‘When you after me find people of bid’ah and doubt/suspicion, do disassociation from them and increase your insults to them and accuse them of false things, and oppose them so they may not become greedy in bringing corruption in Islam. You must warn people against them and against learning their bid’ah (innovations). Allah will reward you for this and will raise you darajaat (positions) in the next life.’” (Source: Al-Kulaynee, Al-Kaafee, vol. 2, ch. 159 “Sitting/Associating with Sinful People”, pg. 375, hadeeth # 4 ; & Majlisi has graded this hadeeth Saheeh in Mir’aat Al-’Uqool, vol. 11, pg. 77)

(Shia scholars) al-Ansari and al-Roohani commented on the Hadith (Above) of Imam Abu Abdullah: “The words “Bahitouhum Kay La Yatma’ou” in the Hadith mean accusing them of things and thinking that they have ill intentions which is Haram in the case of dealing with a believer, so one cannot say about the believer things like: “He might be a Kaffir or a Zani”… And it could be left to its apparent form thus it would permissible to LIE to them for a certain benefit.” Shia sources (Kitab al-Makasib by al-Ansari 2/118), (Minhaj al-Fuqahaa 2/228).

Not only Khoei, but a similar fatwa was also issued by Grand Ayatullah Sistani:
السؤال: هل يعاقب الله الشخص اذا اجبر على الكذب في مواضع محرجة اذا سئل عنها خاصة اذا كان المقابل يسال كثيرا عن اشياء لاتخصه؟
الجواب: لايجوز الكذب الا اذا كان لدفع ضرر
https://www.sistani.org/arabic/qa/0653/

2.As I said, angels meant by the term Ahl Al-Bayt, Abraham (as) himself and all of his family. Indeed, Allah saved Abraham from the fire, and made him a Messenger and so guided his family through him. So, it refers to all the members of the family of Abraham.

In addition, Allamah Syed Rasheed Raza Misri [an eminent Salafi scholar] said that the Bayt in the verse 11:73 refers to the Bayt of Messengership, i.e., the family and progeny of all the Messengers [Tafseer Al-Minar, 12/106: رحمة الله الخاصة وبركاته الكثيرة الواسعة عليكم يا معشر أهل بيت النبوة والرسالة ، تتصل وتتسلسل في نسلكم وذريتكم إلى يوم القيامة]. His saying is more acceptable, because in that Chapter, before the verse 73, Allah (swt) talks about His mercy and blessing upon the Messengers and those who entered Bayt of Messengership by following them [e.g., 11:66, We saved Salih and those who believed with him, by mercy from Us. 11:48, O Noah, disembark in security from Us and blessings upon you and upon nations [descending] from those with you.]. The angels said to Sara that she must not marvel, as the mercy and blessing of Allah had been upon those who were in the Bayt of Messengership.

As I said earlier, you are clutching at straws brothers. You are basing your views on odd views which are based on conjecture, which are to be rejected. Whereas, there is clear evidence from the context of the Quran that the one addressed was Sarah(as). Here are I present Shia and Sunni Tafseer proving the wife of Ibrahim(as) was mentioned there.

Shia Tafseer {An Enlightening Commentary into the Light of the Holy Qur'an by A Group of Muslim Scholars, under the direction of Ayatullah Allamah Al-Hajj Sayyid Kamal Faqhih Imani} States:

Question: Considering the fact that in the above verse, the angels addressed Abraham’s wife using the phrase Ahl-ul-Bayt, and since, naturally, everyone’s wife is considered as part of one’s household, why is it then that in the verse of Tathir in the Surah Al Ahzab, No. 33, verse 33,1 the wives of the Prophet Muhammad (S) are not included in his household?
https://www.al-islam.org/enlightening-commentary-light-holy-quran-vol-7/section-7-ministry-lot#surah-hud-verse-73

Imam Al-Jassas(370 AH) states in Ahkam al-Qur’an (4:378-379):
قَوْله تَعَالَى أَتَعْجَبِينَ مِنْ أَمْرِ اللَّهِ رَحْمَتُ اللَّهِ وَبَرَكَاتُهُ عليكم أهل البيت يَدُلُّ عَلَى أَنَّ أَزْوَاجَ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ مِنْ أَهْلِ بَيْتِهِ لِأَنَّ الْمَلَائِكَةَ قَدْ سَمَّتْ امْرَأَةَ إبْرَاهِيمَ مِنْ أَهْلِ بَيْتِهِ
 “It [the verse Hud 73] shows that the wives of the Prophet – Allah bless and greet him – are of the People of his House (min Ahli Baytihi) because the angels names Ibrahim’s wife as being of the People of his House, and so has Allah Most High said when addressing the wives of the Prophet – Allah bless and greet him – when He said:… [33:33]. His wives are part of those meant because the beginning of the address concerns them.”

IMPORTANT POINT:

Apart from the fact that these Sunni and Shia scholars said that in the verse 11:73 wife of Ibrahim(as) was mentioned, the other important point which you and the readers shouldn't miss is that, these scholars didn't find it weird that a masculine plural pronoun(KUM/ كُم) is mentioned for Ahlelbayt, yet they say it is for the wife of Ibrahim(as). These were experts of Arabic language, yet they don't find anything weird that to believe that, even after the mention of KUM(كُم), a woman was addressed. This point destroys your whole, erroneous argument regarding the occurrence of كُم in the Ayat Tatheer for wives of Prophet Muhammad(saws). Shia and Sunni experts of Arabic Language, accept the fact that a single lady can be addressed as Ahlelbayt with the pronoun كُم(KUM). This point strengthens the correct Sunni position, and invalidates your arguments.

3.The verse: وَحَرَّمْنَا عَلَيْهِ الْمَرَاضِعَ مِن قَبْلُ فَقَالَتْ هَلْ أَدُلُّكُمْ عَلَى أَهْلِ بَيْتٍ يَكْفُلُونَهُ لَكُمْ وَهُمْ لَهُ نَاصِحُونَ: And We had prevented from him [all] wet nurses before, so she said, "Shall I direct you to a household that will be responsible for him for you while they are to him [for his upbringing] sincere?"

This verse can not help you at all. The term "Ahli Baytin"[أَهْلِ بَيْتٍ] in this verse means " a family". The sister of Moses said them, [Sahih International:] Shall I direct you to a household that will be responsible for him for you while they are to him [for his upbringing] sincere?
Indeed, his sister said them that she knew a family that can accept the responsibility of his caring. The term Ahli Baytin [i.e., a family] never refers just to the mother of Moses. Al-Soddi said:
عَنِ السُّدِّيِّ ، قَالَ : لَمَّا قَالَتْ أُخْتُهُ ( هَلْ أَدُلُّكُمْ عَلَى أَهْلِ بَيْتٍ يَكْفُلُونَهُ لَكُمْ وَهُمْ لَهُ نَاصِحُونَ ) أَخَذُوهَا ، وَقَالُوا : إِنَّكِ قَدْ عَرَفْتِ هَذَا الْغُلَامَ ، فَدُلِّينَا عَلَى أَهْلِهِ ، فَقَالَتْ : مَا أَعْرِفُهُ ، وَلَكِنِّي إِنَّمَا قُلْتُ : هُمْ لِلْمَلِكِ نَاصِحُونَ .
When his sister said: "Shall I direct you to a household that will be responsible for him for you while they are to him [for his upbringing] sincere?" they kept her and said: "Indeed you know this boy, and therefore you direct us to his family." So she said: "I do not know him, but I only said that they [i.e., that family] want the good of the king." [See Tafseer At-Tabari, commentary of the the verse].

So, أَهْلِ بَيْتٍ means a family which includes a man and woman and some children, not only the mother of Moses and the pronoun هم [they] refers to all the members of that family.

In my previous response, I have argued that by Ahl, the mother of Moses(as) was meant. And even you don't have a problem in accepting the fact that a WIFE can be called as Ahl(family), and this can also be proven from Quran and Hadeeth. So now, you haven't brought anything specific to refute my explanation, all you do is, translate Ahl as family and insert family in brackets, whereas it is agreed upon fact that a single lady can be called as Ahl(family). Hence your desperate and weak attempts gets discarded again.

Esteemed Shia Scholar 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. (28:12) (From Tafseer of Pooya/M.A. Ali. )

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.

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. (Shia Tafseer: 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, Shia 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(ahlelbayt).

4.The 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 : [Saheeh International] And when Moses had completed the term and was traveling with his family, he perceived from the direction of the mount a fire. He said to his family, "Stay here; indeed, I have perceived a fire. Perhaps I will bring you [plural and masculine] from there [some] information or burning wood from the fire that you [plural and masculine] may warm yourselves."

I gave you Shia Tafseer, it seems you prefer Sunni views over the views of some esteemed Shia scholars.

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…”

 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).”

IMPORTANT POINT:

Regardless of the difference in opinion that who all were with Musa(as), the other important point which you and the readers shouldn't miss is that, these Shia as well as some Sunni scholars didn't find it weird that a masculine plural pronoun is mentioned for Ahlelbayt, yet they say it is for the wife of Musa(as). These were experts of Arabic language, yet they don't find anything weird that to believe that, even after the mention of KUM(كُم), a woman was addressed. This point destroys your whole, erroneous argument regarding the occurrence of كُم in the Ayat Tatheer for wives of Prophet Muhammad(saws). Shia and Sunni experts of Arabic Language, accept the fact that a single lady can be addressed as Ahlelbayt with the pronoun كُم(KUM). This point strengthens the correct Sunni position, and invalidates your arguments.

5.In the saying of Imam Ali which was a dua for a man who has married, he said that the man should ask Allah to bless him through his Ahl, i.e., his wife and children. In the time of Imam Ali, the parents needed to some sons to help the father in farming. So they had to produce some sons to help the father and the financial needs family. So, my saying was correct and based on a historical fact. Allah said in Quran: Allah has appointed for you of yourselves wives, and He has appointed for you of your wives sons and grandsons [16:72].

It seems you have misunderstood this dua, this dua is not to ask Allah to grant sons, rather its a dua to Allah to bless his existing Ahl, which is wife only, children are non-existing in this scenario, so logically the address is about the existing Ahl only, whom the man wants to be blessed. Read again the wording of Dua again, it is for existing member of family, not non-existing members nor for asking Allah to grant children.

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. [Mustadrak al-Wasael by al-Mirza al-Noori 41/220]

I should say about the narration that you brought and said that in it Abu Bakr addressed Lady Fatima (as) by the pronoun Kum and the term Ahlul Bayt, that it is not correct.
Indeed, this tale itself and your saying about it,  both is not correct:
Your saying is not correct, because Imam Ali and so his sons were not please with Abu Baykr, so the pronoun Kum refers to Lady Fatima, Imam Ali and their sons [i.e., Ahl Al-Bayt]. As Al-Bukhari narrated in his Sahih: When she [Lady Fatima (as)] died, her husband. 'Ali b. Abu Talib, buried her at night. He [Imam Ali] did not inform Abu Bakr about her death and offered the funeral prayer over her himself. Not informing Abu Bakr proves that Imam Ali -and so his sons- were not please with him and if we accept this tale, Abu Bakr was going to seek the pleasure of them All.

Your imaginary and lame excuses are indeed laughable, even the Shias who read your answers would be laughing at you, noticing how desperate excuses you make. Anyways the narration is self explanatory, your lame and foolish excuses are outright discarded, because the next sentence in the narration, explains whose pleasure Abu Bakr(ra) was seeking, and it wasn't Ali(ra) and his sons as you imagine, but it was Fatima(ra) alone.

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).

Notice, the narration it says , He talked to her until she was pleased, which implies Abu Bakr(ra) was addressing her alone, as Ahlelbayt and he used KUM to address a single lady,when he used the term Ahlulbayt for her.

This narration is certainly a fabricated tale, because 1.Al-Bukhari narrated in three parts of his Sahih that Lady Fatima never talked with Abu Bakr until she passed away [Sahih Al-Bukhari, 4/79: فَغَضِبَتْ فَاطِمَةُ بِنْتُ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَهَجَرَتْ أَبَا بَكْرٍ، فَلَمْ تَزَلْ مُهَاجِرَتَهُ حَتَّى تُوُفِّيَتْ: Fatima, the daughter of Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) got angry and stopped speaking to Abu Bakr, and continued assuming that attitude till she died/ and 5/139: فَهَجَرَتْهُ، فَلَمْ تُكَلِّمْهُ حَتَّى تُوُفِّيَتْ So she became angry with Abu Bakr and kept away from him, and did not talked to him till she died/ and 8/149: فَهَجَرَتْهُ فَاطِمَةُ فلم تُكَلِّمْهُ حتي مَاتَتْ: Therefore Fatima left Abu Bakr and did not speak to him till she died]. Ibn Qutaybah also said that when Abu Bakr did not give the rights of Lady Fatima (as) to her, she swore not to talk with Abu Bakr at all [فلما لم يعطها إياه حلفت لا تكلمه أبدا]. See Ta'wil Mokhtalif Al-Hadith, P427. Imam Ahmad bin Hambal and An-Nisa'i mentioned this fact in his books, too.

Actually, its the other way round. The wording in the report, which says that Fatima(ra) was angry with Abubakr(ra) was an interpolation by the narrator ‘Zuhri’, and it is weak. The evidence of it, is that wherever the words regarding anger of Fatima(ra) occurs, one of the narrator in the chain of those hadeeth is ibn Shihab al-Zuhri, who was well known for Idraaj, where as the main narrator was Ayesha(ra). Two sub narrators narrating from Zuhri, clearly distinguished those words to be the words of male narrator:

(i). Narrator Ma’amar.

The narration of Ma’amar from Al-Zuhri in Musanaf Abd Al-Razzaq #9774, in which we find the words “he said,” implies male narrator Al-Zuhri. The same is found through Abdullah bin Mohammad from Hisham from Ma’amar in Saheeh Al-Bukhari #6230, and Mustakhraj Abi Awana #5376 through two chains from Abd Al-Razzaq from Ma’amar.

(ii). Narrator Uqail ibn Khalid.

The narration of Uqail from Al-Zuhri in Saheeh Muslim #2713 includes the words “he said,” implying that it is an addition by Al-Zuhri.

As we know from the methodologies of the early hadith scholars in accepting the additions of reliable narrators, if one Hafiz narrates an addition, it is seen as acceptable. This is the case with Ma’amar, who is one of the strongest students of Al-Zuhri. Plus, it is supported by one of the narrations of Uqail, and we do not believe that it was a coincidence that it was attributed to Uqail with the same version that it was attributed to Al-Zuhri unless it was truly narrated by Al-Zuhri.

Result:

(i). In the light of these evidences, we come to understand that those words were actually uttered by al-Zuhri, hence it becomes clear that they cannot be taken as people often take.

(ii). It cannot be a scribal error for it is so given in multiple sources. Wording of the narration from

    a)  Sahih Bukhari, Hadith 6230
    b) Sahih Muslim, Hadith 4352
    c) Musannaf Abdul Razzaq, Hadith 9774
    d) Mustakhraj/Musnad/Sahih Abu A’wana, Hadith 6679
    e) Tarikh al-Tabari vol.3 p.208
    f) Tarikh al-Madina of Ibn Shabbah, vol.1 p.197
    g) Sunan al-Kubra of al-Baihaqi, Hadith 12732

(iii). Maulana Hafiz Maher Muhammad Mianwalvi in his book  “Tuhfa Imamiya” page 183 aptly explains this issue:
“The number of hadith which mention about Hazrat Fatima(ra) demand for share of the Fadak land are fifteen in number. There are five hadith in Sahih Bukhari, two hadith in Sahih Muslim, two hadith in Ibn Tirmidhi, four hadith in Sunan Abi Dawood, and one hadith in Sunan Nisai. The word “anger” is only mentioned in the Hadith transmitted from Hazrat Aisha(ra). It is not mentioned in the Hadith narrated from other companions like Hazrat Abu Huraira, Hazrat Um Hani, etc. Further the hadith narrated from Hazrat Aisha is of two types, one type mentions the word “anger” while the other type does not mention “anger”. The hadith which mention the word “anger” are all narrated by Ibn Shahab Zuhri[well known for his interpolation of statements]. This means that after Hazrat Abu Bakr(ra) had mentioned the reason for not giving Hazrat Fatima(ra) the share in Fadak, the latter had become silent after being satisfied. The narrator(Zuhri) equated “silence” to “anger” and added the words to the hadith. This is also known as Mudraj in Hadith sciences. “An addition by a reporter to the text of the saying being narrated is termed mudraj (interpolated). Such an addition may be found in the beginning, in the middle, or at the end, often in explanation of a term used”.( Tuhfa Imamiya” page 183).

(iv). Maulana Muhammad Nafi’ after referring to 15 different works of Hadith and history has stated that, he found 36 narrations with the mention of Sayyidah Fatimah’s (RA) question for what she initially understood as her right from Abu Bakr (RA). 11 of those 36 that are narrated from companions other than Aisha (RA) and do not involve Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri as a narrator. None of those 11 has any word about the anger of Sayyidah Fatimah (RA). Out of the 25 that come from ‘Aisha (RA) through al-Zuhri alone, 9 are such that have no indication of the kind either. The remaining 16 do have the words under consideration but as said all these come through one narrator Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri. Out of these 16, there are 6 that clearly have the قال  i.e. “He said” thing mentioned above.(Ruhama-u-Baynahum, Makkah Books, Lahore, vol.1 pp. 126-130).

(v).  (iv). The above understanding can be further strengthened by seeing the flow of wording and placement of the interjecting words like “He said” in the narration of Al-Tabari.

The narration from Tarikh al-Tabari is same as in Bukhari and in the same work it comes with that “he said” thing. In fact careful analysis of it only proves what we earlier mentioned. Here is the actual Arabic text;

حدثنا أبو صالح الضراري، قال: حدثنا عبد الرزاق بن همام، عن معمر، عن الزهري، عن عروة، عن عائشة، أن فاطمة والعباس أتيا أبا بكر يطلبان ميراثهما من رسول الله ص، وهما حينئذ يطلبان أرضه من فدك، وسهمه من خيبر، فقال لهما أبو بكر: أما انى سمعت رسول الله يقول: [لا نورث، ما تركنا فهو صدقة، إنما يأكل آل محمد في هذا المال] وإني والله لا أدع أمرا رأيت رسول الله يصنعه إلا صنعته قال: فهجرته فاطمة فلم تكلمه في ذلك حتى ماتت، فدفنها علي ليلا، ولم يؤذن بها أبا بكر وكان لعلي وجه من الناس حياة فاطمة، فلما توفيت فاطمة انصرفت وجوه الناس عن علي، فمكثت فاطمة ستة أشهر بعد رسول الله ص، ثم توفيت. قال معمر: فقال رجل للزهري: أفلم يبايعه علي ستة أشهر! قال: لا، ولا أحد من بني هاشم، حتى بايعه علي قال لا، ولا أحد من بني هاشم

‘Aishah (said): Fatimah and al-Abbas came to Abu Bakr demanding their share of inheritance of the Messenger of God. They were demanding the Messenger of God’s land in Fadak and his share of Khaybar’s tribute. Abu Bakr replied, “I have heard the Messenger of God say, “Our, i.e. the prophets’ property cannot be inherited and whatever we leave behind is alms to be given in charity. The family of Muhammad will eat from it. By God, I will not abandon a course which I saw the Messenger of god practicing, but will continue it accordingly. He said: Fatimah shunned him and did not speak to him about it until she died. Ali buried her at night and did not permit Abu Bakr to attend her burial. While Fatimah was alive, Ali held respect among the people. After she died their attention turned away form him. Ma’mar: A man asked al-Zuhri, “Did Ali not give his oath of allegiance for six months?” He said: “No, nor anyone of the Banu Hashim until Ali rendered his,”.(Tarikh al-tabari, Dar al-Turath, Beirut, 1387 A.H. vol.3 pp.207-208))

Now this actually supports all we saw earlier about the words “He said” in Sahih Bukhari etc. Just as the last words were uttered by al-Zuhri the earlier words after “he said” are also from al-Zuhri as they are for a surety not of Aisha (RA) as she cannot be referred to as “He”. The words in blue even help us know that it was actually al-Zuhri’s statement to which someone mentioned by Ma’mar sought his clarity about.

Hence, the wording of Fatima’s(ra) anger were an interpolation(idraaj) from the narrator Zuhri, and since he didn’t witness the incident then his view doesn’t hold any weight, as it becomes the Mursal of Zuhri and Mursal reports of Zuhri according to scholars of hadeeth science are useless and nothing.

قال يحيى بن سعيد القطان : مرسل الزهري شر من مرسل غيره
Imam Yahya ibn Saeed al-Qattaan said: “Mursal az-Zuhri is worse than the Mursal of any other!”

أبو حاتم : حدثنا أحمد بن أبي شريح ، سمعت الشافعي ، يقول : إرسال الزهري ، ليس بشيء
Imam shafei said: The irsal of Zuhri is nothing(i.e useless)

يَحْيَى بْنِ مَعِينٍ ، قَالَ : ” مَرَاسِيلُ الْزُّهْرِيِّ لَيْسَ بِشَيْءٍ
Yahya ibn Maeen said: Maraseel of Zuhri are nothing.(Kitab Al-Maraseel).

6.Why do you reject that there were probably others like slaves and some of the family of each of the wives in the houses of them? Prophet Muhammad (s) had many slaves [See their names in Subul Al-Hoda by As-Salehi Ash-Shami, 11/405-111]. Also, he (s) certainly invited the family of his wives to the ceremony and after its ending, they probably went to the houses of their daughters [i.e., the wives of Prophet]. For example, Muslim narrated in his Sahih [H1462]: Anas narrated, ... It was [the night when the Prophet had to stay] in the house of 'Aisha ... [Abu Bakr said]: Messenger of Allah, [kindly] come for prayer ... When Allah's Apostle (s) had finished his prayer, Abu Bakr came to her [i.e., the house of 'Aiesha] [عَنْ أَنَسٍ، قَالَ كَانَ لِلنَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم تِسْعُ نِسْوَةٍ فَكَانَ إِذَا قَسَمَ بَيْنَهُنَّ لاَ يَنْتَهِي إِلَى الْمَرْأَةِ الأُولَى إِلاَّ فِي تِسْعٍ فَكُنَّ يَجْتَمِعْنَ كُلَّ لَيْلَةٍ فِي بَيْتِ الَّتِي يَأْتِيهَا فَكَانَ فِي بَيْتِ عَائِشَةَ فَجَاءَتْ زَيْنَبُ فَمَدَّ يَدَهُ إِلَيْهَا فَقَالَتْ هَذِهِ زَيْنَبُ ‏.‏ فَكَفَّ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم يَدَهُ ‏.‏ فَتَقَاوَلَتَا حَتَّى اسْتَخَبَتَا وَأُقِيمَتِ الصَّلاَةُ فَمَرَّ أَبُو بَكْرٍ عَلَى ذَلِكَ فَسَمِعَ أَصْوَاتَهُمَا فَقَالَ اخْرُجْ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ إِلَى الصَّلاَةِ وَاحْثُ فِي أَفْوَاهِهِنَّ التُّرَابَ ‏.‏ فَخَرَجَ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَقَالَتْ عَائِشَةُ الآنَ يَقْضِي النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم صَلاَتَهُ فَيَجِيءُ أَبُو بَكْرٍ فَيَفْعَلُ بِي وَيَفْعَلُ ‏.‏ فَلَمَّا قَضَى النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم صَلاَتَهُ أَتَاهَا أَبُو بَكْرٍ فَقَالَ لَهَا قَوْلاً شَدِيدًا وَقَالَ أَتَصْنَعِينَ هَذَا.].

Your desperate conjectures are outright rejected as preposterous. Firstly, Prophet(saws) may had several slaves, but the responsibility lies on you, to prove that he had all of them at one point of time, and two of each being present in each wife's house.  I bet even Shias would laugh at your conjectures if you tell them that all wives of Prophet(saws) had two slaves each.

Secondly, as for the imaginary claim that families of wives of Prophet(saws) may have been there, then again its again a conjecture, which carries no weight at all, hence rejected. We take what is clear and apparent, we don't go after baseless conjectures out of desperation. And what is apparent that there was no one in the house of Ayesha(ra) and she was alone, the same would apply for other wives as well. And trust me even Shias would pity on your desperation to reject such overwhelming evidences.

As for the evidence that the salam Prophet(saws) did was for his wife alone then notice these words.

الَ أَنَسٌ وَشَهِدْتُ وَلِيمَةَ زَيْنَبَ فَأَشْبَعَ النَّاسَ خُبْزًا وَلَحْمًا وَكَانَ يَبْعَثُنِي فَأَدْعُو النَّاسَ فَلَمَّا فَرَغَ قَامَ وَتَبِعْتُهُ فَتَخَلَّفَ رَجُلاَنِ اسْتَأْنَسَ بِهِمَا الْحَدِيثُ لَمْ يَخْرُجَا فَجَعَلَ يَمُرُّ عَلَى نِسَائِهِ فَيُسَلِّمُ عَلَى كُلِّ وَاحِدَةٍ مِنْهُنَّ ‏"‏ سَلاَمٌ عَلَيْكُمْ كَيْفَ أَنْتُمْ يَا أَهْلَ الْبَيْتِ ‏"‏ ‏.‏ فَيَقُولُونَ بِخَيْرٍ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ كَيْفَ وَجَدْتَ أَهْلَكَ فَيَقُولُ ‏"‏ بِخَيْرٍ ‏"‏ ‏.‏ فَلَمَّا فَرَغَ رَجَعَ وَرَجَعْتُ مَعَهُ فَلَمَّا بَلَغَ الْبَابَ إِذَا هُوَ بِالرَّجُلَيْنِ قَدِ اسْتَأْنَسَ بِهِمَا الْحَدِيثُ فَلَمَّا رَأَيَاهُ قَدْ رَجَعَ قَامَا فَخَرَجَا فَوَاللَّهِ مَا أَدْرِي أَنَا أَخْبَرْتُهُ أَمْ أُنْزِلَ عَلَيْهِ الْوَحْىُ بِأَنَّهُمَا قَدْ خَرَجَا فَرَجَعَ وَرَجَعْتُ مَعَهُ فَلَمَّا وَضَعَ رِجْلَهُ فِي أُسْكُفَّةِ الْبَابِ أَرْخَى الْحِجَابَ بَيْنِي وَبَيْنَهُ وَأَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى هَذِهِ الآيَةَ ‏{‏ لاَ تَدْخُلُوا بُيُوتَ النَّبِيِّ إِلاَّ أَنْ يُؤْذَنَ لَكُمْ‏}‏ الآيَةَ ‏
He greeted with as-Salamu 'alaikum to every one of them(feminine plural) and said: Members of the household, how are you?(Sahih Muslim 1428 a).

This hadeeth shows the greeting was done to wives only.

Similarly,
فَتَقَرَّى حُجَرَ نِسَائِهِ كُلِّهِنَّ، يَقُولُ لَهُنَّ
Then he went to the dwelling places of all his other wives and said to them(feminine plural)..(Bukhari, Book 65, Hadith 4793)

Again even here we find that the salam prophet(saws) did was for wives only.

Also, in both Quran and Hadith the feminine pronoun is used for the term 'Ahl. Allah said: They ran into her husband at the door. She said, ‘What is to be the requital of him who has evil intentions for your Ahl [بِأَهْلِكَ] except imprisonment or a painful punishment?’ ... [The husband said:] 'Joseph, let this matter alone', [then he said to his Ahl], 'plead for forgiveness [اسْتَغْفِرِي: feminine form of the verb] for your sin, for you have indeed been [إِنَّكِ كُنتِ: feminine pronoun and verb] erring.’ [12:25, 29]

Who are you trying deceive brother? You are deceiving your ownself.

In verse 25 the one who used the word (Ahl) was the wife of that person. But in verse 29 the subject is changed, the one who is speaking those words was the husband of that lady, he hadn't used the word (Ahl) to address his wife. Hence the example you used out of desperation is invalid. When the subject is changed it is not binding upon him to use the same word(Ahl) and the related pronouns.

In the narration of Abu Ya'la in his Musnad which has a Hasan Isnad and the Hadith itself is Sahih [rated by Husain Salim 'Asad: إسناده حسن والحديث صحيح], 'Ayesha said to Prophet: كَيْفَ وَجَدْتَ أَهْلَكَ بَارَكَ اللَّهُ لَكَ فِيهِنَّ؟, i.e., How did you find your Ahl? May Allah bless you by them (i.e.,the wives) [هن: the plural form of the feminine pronoun] (Musnad Abi Ya'la, H3918).
And in Hadith, when that term refers to the wives, the plural form of the pronoun is used.

Firstly the address was to one wife only, Prophet(saws) went to his other wives later, but still plural pronoun was used. Secondly the pronoun here is possessive pronoun(your) while the examples we are dealing with are object pronoun(you). If Ayat Tatheer had possessive pronoun, then you could have used this argument, but there the pronoun is objective, and in all the examples of object pronoun the word KUM was used for Ahlelbayt.

Thirdly, in this same hadeeth when Prophet(saws) addresses Ayesha(as) with object pronoun, he uses KUM.لسَّلَامُ عَلَيْكُمْ أَهْلَ الْبَيْتِ

And the greeting was for wives alone since Feminine plural is used.
فَاسْتَقْرَأَ حُجَرَ نِسَائِهِ كُلِّهِنَّ، يَقُولُ لَهُنَّ كَمَا قَالَ لِعَائِشَةَ
he went to the dwelling places of all his other wives and said to them(feminine plural)..(Musnad Abi Yala).

So here we find that the salam prophet(saws) did was for wives only.

Moreover, take this as a gift from me, another proof where masculine pronoun was used for wife of Prophet(saws). I await your conjectures, lol.

أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال لها يا عائشة هذا جبريل يقرأ عليك السلام فقلت وعليك السلام ورحمة الله وبركاته وذهبت تزيد فقال النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم إلى هذا انتهى السلام فقال رحمة الله وبركاته عليكم أهل البيت
الراوي: عائشة المحدث: الهيثمي – المصدر: مجمع الزوائد – لصفحة أو الرقم: 8/36
خلاصة حكم المحدث: رجاله رجال الصحيح‏‏
The Prophet PBUH told Aisha RAA: “This is Gabriel and he delivers Salam to you” she said: “Wa Aleykum el Salam wa rahmatu Allah wa Barakatuhu” (And she wanted to Say much more) The prophet PBUH then said: “Until here the Salam ends” he PBUH told her ” He(Gabriel) said The Mercy of Allah and his blessings be upon you(KUM) O AhlulBayt”.
Muhaddith: Al haythami from Mujama’a al Zawa’id
Hadith Rank: Rijal of Sahih].

In the above hadeeth Jibreel(as) send Salam on Ayesha(ra) alone, yet he used masculine pronoun(kum) since he used the word Ahlelbayt to address her.

[Mojtaba]

I want to talk about 1.'Ikrama, 2.The Hadith in which it is said that Umm Salama (ra) said that he hopped that Prophet said to her 'yes' when she asked him whether she is among Ahl Al-Bayt of the verse of At-Tathir.

1.'Ikrama himself confessed that he attributed fabricated saying to 'Ibn Abbas. The following Sahih narration shows that 'Ikrama used to make his fake beliefs as the Hadith of Ibn Abbas (ra).
 

القاسم بن معن، حدثني أبي، عن عبد الرحمن، قال: حدث عكرمة بحديث فقال: سمعت ابن عباس يقول: كذا وكذا، فقلت: يا غلام! هات الدواة والقرطاس، فقال: أعجبك ؟ قلت: نعم، قال: تريد أن تكبته؟ قلت: نعم، قال:إنما قلته برأيي

Abd Ar-Rahman narrated:
Ikrama narrated a narration saying, "I heard that Ibn Abbas said so-and-so." So I said [to my slave]: Bring me a paper and pen. So Ikrama said to me: "Did the Hadith marvel you?" Then I said yes. Ikrama then said: "Are you going to write it?" I said yes. Then Ikrama said: "I said that saying according to my opinion."
 [Seyr A'lam An-Nobala by Az-Zahabi, 5/29 and Tahzib Al-Kamal by Al-Mizzi, 20/2826]

Imam Muslim has narrated this narration, too [See Tahzib Al-Kamal, 20/2826]. As I mentioned, Az-Zahabi said that Imam Muslim avoided the narrations of Ikrama [Tazkarah Al-Hoffaz by Az-zahabi, V1, P.74]. Brother Noor As-Sunnah brought 2 Hadiths from Sahih Muslim that was narrated through Ikrama. But brother, you should consider that 1. Imam Muslim only narrated 2 Hadiths from Ikrama, 2. in addition, Muslim even narrated these 2 Hadiths from him besides another one. See the route of the narrators of those 2 Hadiths:

 أَخْبَرَنِي أَبُو الزُّبَيْرِ، أَنَّهُ سَمِعَ طَاوُسًا، وَعِكْرِمَةَ، مَوْلَى ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ
... Abu Az-Zobair said me that he heard that Tawoos and 'Akrama narrated from Ibn Abbas that ...
عَنْ عَمْرِو بْنِ هَرِمٍ، عَنْ سَعِيدِ بْنِ جُبَيْرٍ، وَعِكْرِمَةَ، عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ
... from 'Amro, from Sa'id bin Jobair and Ikrama, from Ibn Abbas ... 

This shows that Muslim did not trust Ikrama. Even Imam Malik did not trust her and as Az-Zahabi said that Malik avoided his Hadiths: [following narrations are authentic]

وَقَال إِبْرَاهِيم بْن المنذر الحزامي، عن معن بن عيسى ومطرف بن عبد الله المدني ومحمد بن الضحاك الحزامي، قالوا: كان مالك لا يرى عكرمة ثقة، ويأمر أن لا يؤخذ عنه.

Ibrahim bin Al-Munzir Al-Hizami narrated from 3 trustworthy students of Malik [Ma'n bin 'Isa, Motarrif bin Abdullah Al-Madani and Muhammad bin Al-Dhahhak Al-Hizami] who said: Malik does not believe that Ikrama is trustworthy and order not to narrate from him.
[Tahzib Al-Kamal by Al-Mizzi, 20/283]

وَقَال عَباس الدُّورِيُّ: عَن يحيى بن مَعِين: كان مالك بن أنس يكره عكرمة قلت: فقد روى عن رجل عنه؟ قال: نعم، شيء يسير

Abbas Ad-Dorii narrated:
Yahya bin Ma'in said: "Malik bin Anas dislikes Ikrama." So I said him, has he narrated through a narrator from Ikrama? He replied: "Yes, a little".
(Tahzib Al-Kamal by Al-Mizzi, 20/283)

As I said, Ikrama said that Ibn Abbas said that the verse of At-Tathir was exclusively revealed for the wives of Prophet, which is exactly the opinion of Ikrama himself. Note that he said that Ibn Abbas said that the verse was revealed solely for the wives and no other ones. But as I mentioned, in a Sahih Hadith from Ibn Abbas that there is not Ikrama in its route of the narrators, Ibn Abbas said that the verse of At-Tathir revealed for Imam Ali, Lady Fatima, Imam Hasan and Husain (as) [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].

According to a Sahih narration, Imam Sa'id Al-Mosayyeb said that Ikrama used to attribute lies to Ibn Abbas (Seyr A'lam An-Nobala, 5/22).
Also, according to two authentic narrations, Imam Ibn Abi Zi'b said that Ikrama was not trustworthy [Seyr 'A'lam An-Nobala, 5/25]:
هِشَامُ بنُ عَبْدِ اللهِ بنِ عِكْرِمَةَ المَخْزُوْمِيُّ : سَمِعْتُ ابْنَ أَبِي ذِئْبٍ يَقُوْلُ:
رَأَيْتُ عِكْرِمَةَ، وَكَانَ غَيْرَ ثِقَةٍ.
هَكَذَا رَوَاهُ: عِمْرَانُ بنُ مُوْسَى بنِ مُجَاشِعٍ، عَنْ إِبْرَاهِيْمَ بنِ المُنْذِرِ، عَنْهُ.

Therefore, remains no doubt that Ikrama falsely attributed his incorrect belief to Ibn Abbas (ra).

2.The Hadith according to which Umm Salam (ra) believed that she was not among the Ahl Al-Bayt of the verse of At-Tathir

The Hadith is Sahih and the narration of 'Ammar Ad-Dohni from Sa'id bin Jobair has no problem and is not Mursal. I previously said that Al-Bukhari, Muslim and Ibn Hibban all said that 'Ammar heard Hadiths from Sa'id bin Jobayr. I also showed that both Az-Zahabi and Haakim said about a Hadith that was narrated through the narration of 'Ammar from Sa'id that it is Sahih and has the Shart of Al-Bukhari and Muslim. In addition, I said that Shu'ayb Al-'Arna'oot did not mentioned in the comments for the Hadiths that were narrated through the narration of 'Ammar from Sa'id that there is an Irsal in them. See post 27, part 'J' for the sources.
   
According to a Sahih narration, 'Ammar Ad-Dohni himself said that he heard from Sa'id bin Jobair: Tafsir Al-Ghor'an min Al-Jami' by Abdullah bin Wahab, 2/72
أخبرنا عبد الله بن عياش [و] أبو صخر عن أبي مُعَاوِيَةَ الْبَجَلِيُّ عَنْ سَعِيدِ بْنِ جُبَيْرٍ أَنَّهُ جاء إليه رجلٌ فسأله، فقال: أرأيتك ابن نوح أَمِنْهُ، فسبح طويلا، ثم قال: لا إله إلا الله، يحدث الله محمدا: {ونادى نوحٌ ابنه}، وتقول ليس منه، ولكنه خالفه في العمل، فليس منه من لم يؤمن. قال أبو معاوية: فسألته عن ذلك ما كانت خيانة امرأة لوط وامرأة نوح، فقال: أما امرأة لوط فكانت تدل على الأضياف، وأما امرأة نوح فلا علم لي بها.

Abdullah bin 'Ayyash and Abu Sakhr narrated to us from Abi Mu'awiya Al-Bajalii from Sa'id bin Jobair that a man came to him and asked him ... . Abu Mu'awiya [i.e., 'Ammar Ad-Dohni] said, 'I asked him [i.e., Sa'id bin Jobayr] about the issue that what was the disloyalty of the wife of Noah and the wife of Loot?' Then he replied: ... .

Here is another one: Tafsir At-Tabari, 12/430

قَالَ ابْنُ عُيَيْنَةَ: وَأَخْبَرَنِي عَمَّارٌ الدُّهْنِيُّ أَنَّهُ: سَأَلَ سَعِيدَ بْنَ جُبَيْرٍ، عَنْ ذَلِكَ فَقَالَ: " كَانَ ابْنَ نُوحٍ، إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَا يَكْذِبُ ـ

Ibn 'Uyaynah said: And 'Ammar Ad-Dohni said to me that he asked Sa'id bin Jobayr about this issue, so he replied: 'He was the son of Noah, [as] Allah never lies.

Here is also another one: Musannaf Adb Ar-Razzaq, 8/26
أخبرنا ابن عيينة، عن عمار الدهني، قال: سألتُ سعيد بن جبير عن السلم في الحيوان؟ فقال: (كَرِهَه ابن مسعود)، فقلت: أفلا تنهى هؤلاء عنه؟ فقال: (إنك إذا ذهبت تنشر سلعتك على من لا يريدها كَسَرَها).
Ibn 'Uyaynah narrated to us from Ammar Ad-Dohni who said: I asked Sa'id bin Jobayr about the submission of the advance payment regarding the animals. So he replied: 'Ibn Mas'ud disliked it.' Then I said: So, do not prohibit these people from it? He then replied: 'If you bring your commodity to a person who does not want it, he will break it.'

But why did 'Ammar said to Abu Bakr bin 'Ayyash that he did not hear from Sa'id bin Jobayr?

وَقَال أَبُو عُبَيد الآجري، عَن أبي داود: كانت لأبي بكر بْن عياش صولة، مر بِهِ عمار الدهني، فَقَالَ لَهُ: تعال هاهنا أنت سمعت من سَعِيد بْن جبير؟ فَقَالَ: لا. قال: اذهب بسلام.

Abu 'Ubayd Al-'Ajori narrated from Abi dawood who said: Abu Bakr bin 'Ayyash had a great grandeur. 'Ammar Ad-Dohni went through him. So Abu Bakr bin 'Ayyash said to him: 'Come here! Have you heard [Hadiths] from Sa'id bin Jobayr? Then he replied, 'No'. So Abu Bakr said: 'Go in peace.'
[Tahzib Al-Kamal, 21/210]

Two reasons can be mentioned:

1.Maybe Abu Bakr bin Ayyash asked 'Ammar about a specific Hadith and 'Ammar said that he did not hear it from Sa'id. As there is a Hadith that 'Ammar narrated it from Sa'id through another narrator, i.e. Muslim Al-Batin. See Tafsir Abd Ar-Razzaq, 3/250 H3030 [عَبْدُ الرَّزَّاقِ قَالَ: أرنا الثَّوْرِيُّ , عَنْ عَمَّارٍ الدُّهْنِيِّ , عَنْ مُسْلِمٍ الْبَطِينِ , عَنْ سَعِيدِ بْنِ جُبَيْرٍ , عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ , قَالَ: «الْكُرْسِيُّ مَوْضِعُ الْقَدَمَيْنِ , وَالْعَرْشُ لَا يُقَدِّرُ أَحَدٌ قَدْرَهُ»]

1.Or maybe because of the grandeur of Abu Bakr bin 'Ayyash, 'Ammar said him 'No' for making himself free from him, as Abu Bakr said to Ammar after the reply of 'Ammar: 'Go in peace.' This is something like the story of Homaid with Sho'bah. Once Sho'bah asked Homaid about a Hadith whether he has heard it from 'Anas, Homaid said him, 'I do think', so he intentionally said him a reply [i.e., I do think] to make the Hadith weak. But after Sho'bah went away, Homaid said that he surely heard the Hadith from Anas, but because Sho'bah used to harden to him, he so wanted to harden to him, too [See Seyr 'a'lam An-Nobala, 7/217].     

So, The Hadith according to which Umm Salama (ra) believed that she was not among the Ahlul Bayt of the verse of t-Tathir, is Sahih.

[Mojtaba]

Your conclusion is flawed and based on your ignorance of the language of the Arabs (heck, I've seen Arab Shia scholars making ABC mistakes in fus7a). The Arabic of the narration says:

اللهم هؤلاء أهل بيتي

This translates to: "O Allah (a form of PRAYER where one BESEECHES AND ASKS ALLAH FOR SOMETHING) these are my Ahlul Bayt."

Why is he PRAYING to Allah BESEECHING Allah saying that "O ALLAH! THESE are myAhlul Bayt"? Doesn't Allah know who the Ahl Al-Bayt are? Is the Prophet (saws) teaching or directing Allah? Of course not, he is PRAYING and BESEECHING Allah (Allahumma ...) to include his beloved cousin and his beloved daughter into the tashri3i will of Allah in verse 33:33.

As an Arab speaker I am telling you, the Prophet (saws) did not need to say:

"O Allah these are between my Ahlul Bayt."

هؤلاء (haa2ulaa2i) is sufficient (to include 'Ali's family into the verse) and contrary to your misunderstanding (due to your ignorance of the language of the Arabs) DOES not EXCLUDE the wives, as it does not mean: "These are my Ahlul Bayt ONLY." I give you a simple example: An old Arab who has 3 sons and 3 daughters is seen in the market with his three sons, someone enquires who the 3 grown up man are who are accompanying him, upon which he answers:

هؤلاء عيالي ("these are my children")

According to no rule of the Arabic language and simple logic that does mean that his 3 girls who are NOT present are NOT his children. Same with the statement of the Prophet (saws). He did not exclude the wives or stated that only 5 ('Ali's family) are Ahlul Bayt and what is an absolute disaster for Shias is that by arguing in such a fashion, they are excluding the rest of the Imams.

btw: Do you take your arguments from the likes of the jahil Essam Al-Emad (Yemeni Ex-Zaydi in Qom who claims to be an Ex-Wahhabi)? He claimed in a debate with Shaikh Othman Al-Khamis that the word إنما (verily, surely, indeed, only) stands for حصر (i.e. everything what is listed after it is EXLUDED) so he argued that:

INNAMAA YUREEDULLAH = Ahl Al-Bayt = Ahl Al-Kisa' ONLY

He obviously shot in his own foot, as this batil understanding (excluding the wives based on the argument of حصر) will also exclude the other Imams they Shias miraciously squash into the Kisa'!

Ahl Al-Sunnah have the most just and balance view with regards to the Kisa' hadith and verse 33:33 as no Hashimi or wive is excluded nor is anybody turned into a demi-god or Prophet-like being.

As for 'Ali (ra) burning people (he was very fond of it according to your own books that you should study better):

Brother NUS has already answered you with an AUTHENTIC narration from your books, but I will have the pledge to put the cherry on the cake:

1. ‘Ali (رضی الله عنه) burnt Idolators in a pit of fire in authentic Shia hadith --> https://shiascans.com/2017/05/08/ali-burns-those-who-worship-idolsicons/

2. ‘Ali ordered the killing (by burning) of lesbians – Shia sahih narration --> https://shiascans.com/2017/04/09/ali-ordered-the-killing-by-burning-of-lesbians-shia-sahih-narration/

3. Infamous Shia website’s admission: Ali advocated execution by burning with fire! --> https://shiascans.com/2017/04/09/infamous-shia-websites-confession-ali-advocated-execution-by-burning-with-fire/

4. ‘Ali burnt proto-Rafidis (Sabaites) for their heretical beliefs – Shia sahih hadiths --> https://shiascans.com/2017/04/09/ali-burnt-proto-rafidis-sabaites-for-their-heretical-beliefs-shia-sahih-hadiths/

5. (that one is really fun) Ali advised Abu Bakr (and Khalid) on how to kill “homosexuals” with fire – Sahih Sirah of Ali in SHIA book! --> https://shiascans.com/2017/04/09/ali-advised-abu-bakr-and-khalid-to-kill-homosexuals-with-fire/

6. Ali told Omar to behead and burn sodomites (“homosexuals”) – Shia sahih hadith  --> https://shiascans.com/2017/04/08/ali-punished-by-burning/

I guess these were all invented and put in your books by "Akrama" (his name is 'Ikramah)?

Dear brother, when Prophet said, 'O Allah these are my Ahl Al-Bayt', he also used from a cloak. For example, if there are 5 persons with a man, when he enters 4 of them under a cloak and then says: 'These are my Ahl Al-Bayt', his saying only means that only those 4 ones are his Ahl Al-Bayt, and that another one is not included.
I should say that we believe that the wives of Prophet (s) are among his family and Ahl Al-Bayt, but the term Ahl Al-Bayt which is in the verse of At-Tathir, has a religious specific meaning and as Prophet identified to us, it only includes some specific ones and not the wives.

But about the Hadiths wich say that Imam Ali burn some people it should be said that Ib Abd Al-Birr has said that it is narrated through the different routes of the narrators that Imam Ali (as) burnt the corpse of someones after killing them [At-Tamhid, 5/305 رُوِيَ مِنْ وُجُوهٍ أَنَّ عَلِيًّا إِنَّمَا حَرَّقَهُمْ بِالنَّارِ بَعْدَ ضَرْبِ أَعْنَاقِهِمْ]. Imam Ali (as) did not burn them when they were alive. Prophet did not burnt those hypocrites when they were alive, so this can not proves that burning someones after killing them is a kind of sin.

Waffaqakallah.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

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.


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]

Dear brother, Allah directly and clearly said that Prophet was in the straight way. So, he was certainly in the straight way. Straight way is the straight way, it is not two or more. When Allah says that His Prophet was in the straight way, this means that he was fully in it. So, when Prophet used to say in his Salats reciting the Al-Hamd Chapter, "[O Lord] Guide us on the straight way", while Allah said that he was certainly and fully in it, this only means that Prophet asked Allah to maintain His blessings upon him for keeping him in the straight way. Just like this, when Prophet identified the Ahlul Bayt of the verse of At-Tathir with the cloak and said: O Allah these [i.e., those who were under the cloak] are my Ahl Al-Bayt, so repel all impurity from them and purify them with a thorough purification", he asked Allah to maintain His blessings upon them for keeping them in the state of complete purity.

So the saying, "if Allah wanted the purity of the Ahlul Bayt of the verse of At-Tathir with His Takwini Will, so why did Prophet do pray for their purity after revelation of the verse", is not correct and the question itself is false. Because Prophet asked the maintenance of Allah's blessings for keeping the Ahl Al-Bayt in the state of the complete purity.

Sorry for the delay in responding brother. Was the busy month.

Two important points refute your argument:

1. Prophet(saws) using the wording in his dua(supplication), "O Allah these are my Ahlelbayt...", if the reason to make dua was to ask Allah to maintain the purification, which he had already intended for Ahlelbayt, then there was no need to tell to Allah that "O Allah these are my Ahlelbayt...", There was no need for the usage of these words, Allah already knew who Ahlelbayt were. Prophet(saws) would have only said, O Allah keep them purified, or O Allah maintain their purification.  But the usage of the words in dua "O Allah these are my Ahlelbayt...", after Allah had intended purification for Ahlelbayt, is a clear sign that, Prophet(saws) was introducing those members, whom the wish of Allah didn't cover, that is why Prophet(saws) had to say "O Allah these are my Ahlelbayt".

2. The Prophet(saws) , as well as the true believers are on straight path. Prophet(saws) said:
 ضَرَبَ اللَّهُ مَثَلا صِرَاطًا مُسْتَقِيمًا ، وَعَلَى جَنْبَيِّ الصِّرَاطِ سُورٌ فِيهِ أَبْوَابٌ مُفَتَّحَةٌ ، وَعَلَى الأَبْوَابِ أُرَاهُ ، قَالَ : سُتُورٌ مُرْخَاةٌ ، وَعَلَى بَابِ الصِّرَاطِ دَاعٍ : يَا أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ ، ادْخُلُوا الصِّرَاطَ جَمِيعًا وَلا تَتَعَوَّجُوا
Allah has set an example: a Sirat (straight path) that is surrounded by two walls on both sides, with several open doors within the walls covered with curtains. There is a caller on the gate of the Sirat who heralds, 'O people! Stay on the path and do not deviate from it...(Musnad Ahmad, Kitab Sunnah by Marwazi)

But we ask Allah to keep us on the straight path, because we all are always in need of Allah's guidance.
 
Moreover shia scholar explain the phrase of ayat al-tatheer saying:

“Innama implies the determined decision or will of Allah. Although the decision of a created being may not take effect at all, but the will of Allah takes immediate effect. There cannot be a slightest gap of time or space in the will of Allah taking effect. When He commands: "Be"; it becomes. Refer to Baqarah: 117; Nahl: 40 Maryolm: 35; Ya Sin 83; Mumin: 68 and Qamar 50. It is 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 for 33:33, Aqa Mahdi pooya).

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, where we all are in need of Allah's  guidance all the time.

Moreover, your example doesn't help in the issue you are confused, if the purification of Ahlelbayt was Takweeni, and it was willed by Allah himself, then there was no need to even ask Allah to maintain this wish, as it was Takweeni, asking to maintain it again proves it was Tashreehi.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

I want to talk about 1.'Ikrama, 2.The Hadith in which it is said that Umm Salama (ra) said that he hopped that Prophet said to her 'yes' when she asked him whether she is among Ahl Al-Bayt of the verse of At-Tathir.

Fine. As for 1. Ikrima, then there is overwhelming evidence from Sunni Muhadditeen, praising Ikrima, which outweighs any jarh on him. I quoted more than 20 scholars and there are more who praised Ikrima and the conclusion is that he is considered Trustworthy, as proven from view of several high ranking Sunni Scholars.

2. The hadeeth is weak and Munkar, because of other reasons as well, such as the narrator Amrah being Majhool, and has Tawtheeq from Ibn Hibban and Ijli, who were criticized by Sunni scholars for being lenient in giving Tawtheeq to Majhool narrators. And the addition in this weak hadeeth goes against the authentic version of the hadeeth present in Sunan Tirmidhi. Even two muhaqqiqs of the al-Sharia by Ajuri, that is Sheikh Abdullah bin Umar bin Sulaiman Dameeji
[ You are not allowed to view attachments ]
and Sheikh Waleed bin Muhammad Nabih Saif al-Nasir, weakened this hadeeth.
[ You are not allowed to view attachments ]

1.'Ikrama himself confessed that he attributed fabricated saying to 'Ibn Abbas. The following Sahih narration shows that 'Ikrama used to make his fake beliefs as the Hadith of Ibn Abbas (ra).
 

القاسم بن معن، حدثني أبي، عن عبد الرحمن، قال: حدث عكرمة بحديث فقال: سمعت ابن عباس يقول: كذا وكذا، فقلت: يا غلام! هات الدواة والقرطاس، فقال: أعجبك ؟ قلت: نعم، قال: تريد أن تكبته؟ قلت: نعم، قال:إنما قلته برأيي

Abd Ar-Rahman narrated:
Ikrama narrated a narration saying, "I heard that Ibn Abbas said so-and-so." So I said [to my slave]: Bring me a paper and pen. So Ikrama said to me: "Did the Hadith marvel you?" Then I said yes. Ikrama then said: "Are you going to write it?" I said yes. Then Ikrama said: "I said that saying according to my opinion."
 [Seyr A'lam An-Nobala by Az-Zahabi, 5/29 and Tahzib Al-Kamal by Al-Mizzi, 20/2826]

This is from Ibn Hajar regarding that report of Ikrima:

قال الحافظ: وأما قصة القاسم بن معن، ففيها دلالة على تحريه فإنه حدثه في المذاكرة بشيء فلما رآه يريد أن يكتبه عنه، شك فيه، فأخبره أنه إنما قاله برأيه، فهذا أولى أن يحمل عليه من أن يظن به أنه تعمد الكذب على ابن عباس رضي الله عنه

Ibn Hajar basically says: "As for the story of Qassim bin Ma'an then it is to take in support of Ikrima, because he said it in normal talk and when he saw that Abdul Rahman is about to write he prevented him.  [هدي الساري (ص428)]

What should be noticed is that, Why would Ikrima prevent Abdulrahman from writing if he was intentionally lying? It seems, Ikrima uttered that by slip of tongue or by mistake, until he realized it. He wanted to say something and unintentionally he attributed it to ibn Abbas, but then he corrected this to prevent this from being propagated.

As I mentioned, Az-Zahabi said that Imam Muslim avoided the narrations of Ikrama [Tazkarah Al-Hoffaz by Az-zahabi, V1, P.74]. Brother Noor As-Sunnah brought 2 Hadiths from Sahih Muslim that was narrated through Ikrama. But brother, you should consider that 1. Imam Muslim only narrated 2 Hadiths from Ikrama, 2. in addition, Muslim even narrated these 2 Hadiths from him besides another one.

Good, so you atleast admit that Imam Muslim narrated from Ikrima, but the narrations are Mutabiat, this is not Jarh. And we have on the other hand the Tawtheeq for Ikrima by several scholars. You can consider this issue similar to the case of Imam Jafar(rah), wherein some scholars raised doubts over the reliability of Imam Jafar, yet the Tawtheeq for him by other scholars outweighed the doubts and Jarh against him and he was considered thiqa(trustworthy) by Sunnis. The same applies for Ikrima.

Ibn Tamiyah records in Minhaj al-Sunnah, Volume 7 page 390:
قد استراب البخاري في بعض حديثه لما بلغه عن يحيى بن سعيد القطان فيه كلام فلم يخرج له

Bukhari had doubts over him (Jafar) due to the criticism levelled at him (Jafar) by Yahya bin Saeed al-Qattan”

Allamah Ibn Abdul Bar in his famed work ‘Al-Tamheed’ Volume 3 page 66 stated under the translation of Imam Jafar al-Sadiq (as):
ذكر ابن عيينة أنه كان في حفظه شيء
Ibn Uyaina said: “There was some thing in his memorizing”

Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani records in Tahddeb al-Tahdeeb Volume 2 page 88 under the translation of Imam Jafar al-Sadiq (as):
قال ابن سعد: كان كثير الحديث. ولا يحتج به ويستضعف

Ibn Sa’ad said: ‘He used to narrate a lot, but not reliable and is considered weak.’

However, we Sunnis consider Imam Jafar to be Thiqa due to the overwhelming Tawtheeq given to him by other scholars. The same applies for Ikrima as well.

Even Imam Malik did not trust her and as Az-Zahabi said that Malik avoided his Hadiths: [following narrations are authentic]

وَقَال إِبْرَاهِيم بْن المنذر الحزامي، عن معن بن عيسى ومطرف بن عبد الله المدني ومحمد بن الضحاك الحزامي، قالوا: كان مالك لا يرى عكرمة ثقة، ويأمر أن لا يؤخذ عنه.

Ibrahim bin Al-Munzir Al-Hizami narrated from 3 trustworthy students of Malik [Ma'n bin 'Isa, Motarrif bin Abdullah Al-Madani and Muhammad bin Al-Dhahhak Al-Hizami] who said: Malik does not believe that Ikrama is trustworthy and order not to narrate from him.
[Tahzib Al-Kamal by Al-Mizzi, 20/283]

وَقَال عَباس الدُّورِيُّ: عَن يحيى بن مَعِين: كان مالك بن أنس يكره عكرمة قلت: فقد روى عن رجل عنه؟ قال: نعم، شيء يسير

Abbas Ad-Dorii narrated:
Yahya bin Ma'in said: "Malik bin Anas dislikes Ikrama." So I said him, has he narrated through a narrator from Ikrama? He replied: "Yes, a little".
(Tahzib Al-Kamal by Al-Mizzi, 20/283)

 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]

Imam Dhahabi said: “He has been criticized for his opinion not his memory”
[Meezaan: 3/93]

At another place, he said: “He is Thiqah Thabat”
[Deewaan ad-Du’afa: 1/278]

So, you see Ikrima was rejected by Imam Malik, not because of his memory, but because of his opinions. Interestingly, Imam Dhahabi in his famed work Meezan al-Eitidal, Volume 1 No. 1519 records the view of Imam Malik about Imam Jafar Sadiq (as) in this manner:

“Musa’ab ibn Abdullah said: ‘Malik would not narrate from Jafar until he linked it with those narrators who are high, then he would put his (Jafar’s) narration after it” [Meezan al-Eitidal, Volume 1 No. 1519]
 
The correct view is that Imam Malik generally doesn’t include weak narrators in his Muwatta, but we find Imam Malik quoting Imam Ja’afar quite a few times, the same goes for Ikrima as well.

As I said, Ikrama said that Ibn Abbas said that the verse of At-Tathir was exclusively revealed for the wives of Prophet, which is exactly the opinion of Ikrama himself. Note that he said that Ibn Abbas said that the verse was revealed solely for the wives and no other ones. But as I mentioned, in a Sahih Hadith from Ibn Abbas that there is not Ikrama in its route of the narrators, Ibn Abbas said that the verse of At-Tathir revealed for Imam Ali, Lady Fatima, Imam Hasan and Husain (as) [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].

Ikrima held that view, because he was the student of Ibn Abbas(ra), and since his teacher held that view, he too followed his teacher. As for the hadeeth from ibn Abbas you mentioned then, this is the part in the hadeeth you mentioned in the link:

قَالَ: وَأَخَذَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ ثَوْبَهُ فَوَضَعَهُ عَلَى عَلِيٍّ وَفَاطِمَةَ وَحَسَنٍ وَحُسَيْنٍ وَقَالَ: " {إِنَّمَا يُرِيدُ اللَّهُ لِيُذْهِبَ عَنْكُمُ الرِّجْسَ أَهْلَ الْبَيْتِ وَيُطَهِّرَكُمْ تَطْهِيرًا} [الأحزاب: 33]

This no where mentions about the verse being revealed for Ali(ra) and his family, its a general hadeeth of Kisa, for which we have no dispute. It doesn't contradicts the fact that the verse was revealed for wives of Prophet(saws). So have some shame and stop makings such deceitful claims.

According to a Sahih narration, Imam Sa'id Al-Mosayyeb said that Ikrama used to attribute lies to Ibn Abbas (Seyr A'lam An-Nobala, 5/22).

Firstly, 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]

secondly, 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.

Dhahabi says: The speech of peers against one another is not given any attention, especially if it becomes clear that it is a result of personal animosity, partisanship against a particular school of thought, or envy. None is free of this trait except those whom Allah protects, and I am not aware of any era whose people were free of this trait save the prophets and the siddiqin. If I wished, I could compile many volumes expounding upon this topic. [Taken from Al - Raf ʿ Wa  Al – Takmil of Imam Abd al - Hayy al – Laknawi.]

The author of Fath al-Mughith states: ibnʿAbd al-Barr dedicated an entire chapter to discussing the speech of contemporaries against one another in his Jami ʿBayan al - ʿIlm wa Fadlih. He viewed that the criticism of the people of knowledge is not accepted except when there is clear evidence for it. If such criticism is coupled with any sort of personal animosity, then it is even less worthy of being accepted. [Taken from Al - Raf ʿ Wa  Al – Takmil of Imam Abd al - Hayy al – Laknawi.]

Al-Dhahabi states in Siyar Aʿlam al-Nubala’ regarding the great exegete, AbuʿAbd-Allah Muhammad b.Hatim al-Baghdadi (d. 235AH): ibnʿAdi and al-Daraqutni declared him trustworthy. Abu Hafs al-Fallas stated regarding him, ‘He is nothing.’(laysa bi shay,’meaning he is unreliable) I say: This is from the speech of peers, which is not to be given any heed, for the man is a highly reliable narrator (thabt hujjah). [Taken from Al - Raf ʿ Wa  Al – Takmil of Imam Abd al - Hayy al – Laknawi.]

Al-Dhahabi mentions under the biographical entry of Abu Bakr b. Abu Dawud al-Sijistani (d. 316 AH) in his book Tadhkirat al-Huffaz,after mentioning his being declared trustworthy(thiqah) by a group of reliable hadith scholars and his being declared weak by ibn Saʿid and some other scholars: I say: It is not befitting to accept ibn Saʿid’s statement regarding him, just as we do not give any consideration to his (al-Sijistani’s)declaring ibn Saʿid a liar. Likewise, ibn Jarir’s speech against him is not given any heed. This is due to the fact that there was clear enmity between them, so avoid the speech of contemporaries against one another. [Taken from Al - Raf ʿ Wa  Al – Takmil of Imam Abd al - Hayy al – Laknawi.]

Taj al-Din al-Subki states in his Tabaqat al-Shafiʿiyyah:

ينبغي لك أيها المسترشد أن تسلك سبيل الأدب مع الأئمة الماضين، وأن لا تنظر إلى كلام بعضهم في بعض، إلا إذا أتى ببرهان واضح، ثم إن قدرت على التأويل وتحسين الظن فَدُونَك، وإلا فاضرب صفحًا عما جرى بينهم، فإنك لم تُخْلَق لهذا، فاشتغل بما يعنيك ودع ما لا يعنيك، ولا يزال طالبُ العلم عندي نبيلاً حتى يخوض فيما جرى بين السلف الماضين، ويقضي لبعضهم على بعض، فإياك ثم إياك أن تصغي إلى ما اتفق بين أبي حنيفة وسفيان الثوري، أو بين مالك وابن أبي ذئب، أو بين أحمد بن صالح والنسائي، أو بين أحمد بن حنبل والحارث المحاسبي، وهلُمَّ جرًّا إلى زمان الشيخ عز الدين بن عبد السلام والشيخ تقي الدين ابن الصلاح، فإنك إن اشتغلت بذلك خشيتُ عليك الهلاك، فالقومُ أئمةٌ أعلام، ولأقوالهم مَحامِلُ ربما لم يُفهم بعضُها، فليس لنا إلا الترضي عنهم، والسكوتُ عما جرى بينهم، كما يُفعل ذلك فيما جرى بين الصحابة رضي الله عنهم
It would behoove you, oh seeker of guidance, to observe proper etiquette with the past imams and not to pay any attention to their criticisms against one another unless they are supported with clear proof. Therefore, if you are able to give an alternate explanation or interpret the criticism in a more favourable manner, then do so. If that is not possible, then disregard it and move on, for you were not created for this purpose. Busy yourself with that which concerns you and leave that which does not. A student of knowledge remains noble until he delves in to the problems that arose between the early scholars. You must beware of devoting your attention to the disputes that took place between Abu Hanifah and Sufiyan al-Thawri, Malik and ibn AbiDhi’b, Ahmadb.Salih andal-Nasa’i, Ahmadb.Hanbal and al-Harith al-Muhasibi,etc.,all the wayuntil the time of al-ʿIzzb.ʿAbd al-Salam and al-Taqib.al-Salah. If you occupy yourself with such matters, then I fear for your ruin, for those men are from amongst the most eminent of imams. Their statements have proper interpretations, some of which we may not have properly understood, so our only responsibility is to ask Allah to be pleased with them and remain silent about what occurred between them, just as is done regarding the disputes that took place amongst the Sahabah, may Allah be pleased with them.[Tabqaat ash-Shafiya (2/ 39)].

He further states: One must be careful not to understand the maxim ‘narrator criticism (jarh)is given precedence over accreditation (taʿdil)’ in an absolute, unrestricted sense. Rather, the preponderant opinion is that when it comes to a scholar whose status as an imam and whose integrity is already well-established,whose supporters are many and detractors are few, and for whom there is some evidence to indicate that his criticism stemmed from sectarian partisanship or something similar, such criticism is not given any credence.

He further states: We have mentioned that a person’s criticism is not accepted, even if he explained the reasoning behind it(i.e.jarh mufassar),if it is directed towards a scholar whose good deeds far outweigh his misdeeds, whose supporters are far more prevalent than his detractors, and those who testify to his character are far more prevalent than those who criticize him, if there is an indication that there is an unacceptable motive behind this criticism, such as sectarian partisanship, worldly competition, or another such reason, as often occurs between peers. Therefore, one should not entertain the speech of al-Thawri against Abu Hanifah, ibn Abi Dhi’b and others against Malik, ibn Maʿin against al-Shafiʿi, al-Nasa’i against Ahmad b.Salih, etc. If we gave preference to criticism over praise without any restriction, than no imam would remain untouched, because there is not a single imam that has not been criticized or attacked. [Taken from Al - Raf ʿ Wa  Al – Takmil of Imam Abd al - Hayy al – Laknawi.]

Also, according to two authentic narrations, Imam Ibn Abi Zi'b said that Ikrama was not trustworthy [Seyr 'A'lam An-Nobala, 5/25]:
هِشَامُ بنُ عَبْدِ اللهِ بنِ عِكْرِمَةَ المَخْزُوْمِيُّ : سَمِعْتُ ابْنَ أَبِي ذِئْبٍ يَقُوْلُ:
رَأَيْتُ عِكْرِمَةَ، وَكَانَ غَيْرَ ثِقَةٍ.
هَكَذَا رَوَاهُ: عِمْرَانُ بنُ مُوْسَى بنِ مُجَاشِعٍ، عَنْ إِبْرَاهِيْمَ بنِ المُنْذِرِ، عَنْهُ.

Therefore, remains no doubt that Ikrama falsely attributed his incorrect belief to Ibn Abbas (ra).

Refer the answers above, wherein I showed you that, how some thiqa narrators were weakened by one or two scholars, doesn't effect the credibility of narrators, since the narrator was given tawtheeq from some big and heavy weighs in Hadeeth science. I quoted more than 20 Scholars, who praised Ikrima, refer post#24 and post#32.

Also, the report you mentioned from Imam Ibn Abi Dhib is present in he following website, http://muslimscholars.info/manage.php?submit=scholar&ID=11023 , but still the website declares Ikrima Thiqa(trustworthy), because they know that there is overwhelming evidence for the trustworthiness of Ikrima.

The conclusion is as what Haafidh Ibn Hajar al-Asqalaani said about Ikrima:

 “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]

Or what  Imaam Bayhaqi said about Ikrimah:

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

And what Imaam Ibn Adee said about Ikrima:

 “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]

[Abu Muhammad]

@Noor-us-Sunnah

Jazakallahu khairan brother. I've been waiting for this response for quite some time.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

2.The Hadith according to which Umm Salam (ra) believed that she was not among the Ahl Al-Bayt of the verse of At-Tathir

The Hadith is Sahih and the narration of 'Ammar Ad-Dohni from Sa'id bin Jobair has no problem and is not Mursal. I previously said that Al-Bukhari, Muslim and Ibn Hibban all said that 'Ammar heard Hadiths from Sa'id bin Jobayr. I also showed that both Az-Zahabi and Haakim said about a Hadith that was narrated through the narration of 'Ammar from Sa'id that it is Sahih and has the Shart of Al-Bukhari and Muslim.

This was not the only problem present in this hadeeth.  The hadeeth is weak and Munkar, because of other reasons as well, such as the narrator Amrah being Majhool, and has Tawtheeq from Ibn Hibban and Ijli, who were criticized by Sunni scholars for being lenient in giving Tawtheeq to Majhool narrators. And the addition in this weak hadeeth goes against the authentic version of the hadeeth present in Sunan Tirmidhi. Even two muhaqqiqs of the al-Sharia by Ajuri, that is Sheikh Abdullah bin Umar bin Sulaiman Dameeji and Sheikh Waleed bin Muhammad Nabih Saif al-Nasir, weakened this hadeeth.

(i)Sheikh Abdullah bin Umar bin Sulaiman Dameeji weakened the chain of this hadeeth:
[ You are not allowed to view attachments ]

(ii). Sheikh Waleed bin Muhammad Nabih Saif al-Nasir weakened the chain of this hadeeth, he pointed out one of the reason that Amrah is Majhool, even though Ibn Hibban gave her tawtheeq, since ibn Hibban is Mutasahil:
[ You are not allowed to view attachments ][ You are not allowed to view attachments ]

In addition, I said that Shu'ayb Al-'Arna'oot did not mentioned in the comments for the Hadiths that were narrated through the narration of 'Ammar from Sa'id that there is an Irsal in them. See post 27, part 'J' for the sources.

Scholars who weakened the ahadeeth pointing the anonymity of Amrah as one of the reason:

(i). Shuaib Arnaut:

Shiekh Shuaib Arnaut declared the chain of a hadeeth weak, in  Sharh Mushkil Athaar Tahawi - vol 2, p 238 , H 765, he pointed out one of the reason that, No one narrated from Amrah except Ammar, and ibn hibban gave her tawtheeq, which implies that it is insufficient.
[ You are not allowed to view attachments ]

(ii). Shaykh Hamdi Abdul Majeed Salafi:

Shaykh Hamdi Abdul Majeed Salafi weakened a different hadeeth in Mu'ajm al-Kabeer Tabarani-vol 23, p 372-373 , and he pointed out "one of the reason" as chain having Majhool narrator, i.e Amrah. He mentioned that Ibn Hibban gave her Tawtheeq, but he said that, doesn't make a difference because ibn hibban was known for strengthening weak and Majhool narrators.
[ You are not allowed to view attachments ][ You are not allowed to view attachments ]
(iii). Sheikh Waleed bin Muhammad Nabih Saif al-Nasir

Sheikh Waleed bin Muhammad Nabih Saif al-Nasir weakened the chain of this hadeeth, he pointed out one of the reason that Amrah is Majhool, even though Ibn Hibban gave her tawtheeq, since ibn Hibban is Mutasahil.

(iv). Islamweb Library mentions that Amrah is Majhool
[ You are not allowed to view attachments ]
(v). Another website about Hadeeth narrators mentions that Amrah is Majhool.
[ You are not allowed to view attachments ]
You may check this on this link as well.
http://hadith.islam-db.com/narrators/41320/%D8%B9%D9%85%D8%B1%D8%A9-%D8%A8%D9%86%D8%AA-%D8%A3%D9%81%D8%B9%D9%89

According to a Sahih narration, 'Ammar Ad-Dohni himself said that he heard from Sa'id bin Jobair:

See, the bio of hassan al-basri, you will find chains in which someone attributes the term "hadathana" but the muhadith rejects it. As for the reasons you provide, those are speculations.

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.

Indeed, its incorrect to assume Ibn Hibban was Mutasahil in general, because he was not Mutasahil, rather Mutashaddid in general, however in regards to giving tawtheeq to Majhool narrators in specific, Ibn Hibban was Mutasahil, that is a known fact among people of knowledge.

ON IBN HIBBAN BEING MUTASAHIL

Following Scholars deemed the Tasahul of Ibn Hibban:

(1). Hafiz Ibn Hajr said:
قلت وهذا الذي ذهب إليه ابن حبان من أن الرجل إذا انتفت جهالة عينه كان على العدالة إلى أن يتبن جرحه مذهب عجيب والجمهور على خلافه وهذا هو مساك ابن حبان في كتاب الثقات الذي ألفه فإنه يذكر خلقاً من نص عليهم أبو حاتم وغيره على أنهم مجهولون وكان عند ابن حبان جهالة العين ترتفع برواية واحد مشهور وهو مذهب شيخه بن خزيمة ولكن جهالة حاله باقية عند غيره
“I say : and towards this went Ibn Hibban, that when the Jahalah al-Ayn of a person is finished, then he is trustworthy until negative criticism is proven against him, and this is a strange opinion, and the majority (Jamhoor) are opposing this, and this is the methodology of Ibn Hibban in his book “al-Thiqat” that he composed, and he mentions in it people that Abu Hatim and others have certified to be Majhool, as if for Ibn Hibban the Jahalah al-Ayn is removed with narration of one Mashoor [narrator], and this is the view of his teacher Ibn Khuzaymah, but the Jahalah al-Hal remains according to others than him.” (Lisan al-Mizan 1/6).

(2). Shiekh Al-Albani[/b

Discussing a narrator Shaykh Albani wrote:

وأما ابن حبان فقد ذكره في ” الثقات ” ، وهذا منه على عادته في وثيق المجهولين كما سبق التنبيه عليه مرارا، توثيق ابن حبان هذا هو عمدة الهيثمي حين قال في ” المجمع … التوثيقات التي لا يعتمد عليها لضعف مستندها
“As to Ibn Hibban for he mentioned him in “al-Thiqaat” this is from his habit of authentication of Majhool narrators as we have warned earlier over and over. And authentication (“tauthiq“) of Ibn Hibban was accepted by al-Haithmi as he says in al-Majma’ … authentications that are not valid for their [own] weakness.” (Silsala Da’ifa 1/381 under Narration 213)

Here Shaykh Albani rejected al-Haithmi’s authentication because he merely accepts the controversial authentication of Ibn Hibban. The same rule ought to be applied elsewhere too.

Shiekh Al-Albani said:
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.” [Al-Rawd Al-Dani fil Fawa’id Al-Hadeethia, p. 18].

(3). 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(majhool) 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.

(4). Shaykh Mufti Taqi Usmani:

Shaykh Mufti Taqi Usmani discussing the well known compilations of Hadith and issues around them writes;

“To Ibn Hibban if a Majhool narrator’s teacher and student (means person from whom he is narrating and who is narrating from him) are well known and trustworthy then his Jahalah is not a problem, rather his narration is Sahih according to him. However, other scholars of Hadith reject the narration due to Jahalah of a narrator. This principle of Ibn Hibban even runs through his book “al-Thiqaat” as his definition of “Thiqa” is about the absence of negative criticism. Because of this he has counted many Majhool narrators among “thiqaat”. For this very reason generally scholars of Hadith do not authenticate a narrator merely because Ibn Hibban counted him among “thiqaat” except that his being other than Majhool is proved otherwise.” (Dars Tirmidhi 1/67).

(5). Shaikh Abu abdurrahman fauzi:

Shaikh Abu abdurrahman fauzi in his book “mashoor waqiyat ki haqeeqat” pg 65,92,93 and 119 declared ibn hibban to be mutasahil.

(6). Shaykh Gazi Aziz Mubarakpuri:

Shaykh Gazi Aziz Mubarakpuri states  “Imam Ijli and Imam ibn Hibban(In regards to Tawtheeq of Majhool narrators) are very lenient(Mutasahil)”. (Zaef hadees ki marifat aur unki sharayi haisiyat pg 47).

(7). Hafiz  Mohammad gondalvi:

Hafiz  Mohammad gondalvi states about a narrator: Ibn hibban mentioned him in Thiqaat but the tasahhul of Ibn Hibban is well known. (Khairul kalam pg 252).

(.  Maulana Abdul Salam Abdul rauf bin Abdul Hannan:
Maulana Abdul rauf states about a narrator: Imam Ijli in Tareeq al Thiqaat(186) and Imam Ibn hibban in Kitaab al Thiqaat vol 8, page 261 mention him, but they both are Mutasahil in giving Tawtheeq. (Al qaul al maqbool fi Sharh wa Ta'aleeqh Salawaat ar-rasool, pg 272).

(9). Shaikh Irshad al haq athari:

Shaikh Irshad al haq athari states: Ibn hibban is mutasahil in Zawabit jarh wa tadeel pg 34.

(10). Hafiz Abdul mannan noorpuri

Hafiz Abdul mannan noorpuri states : The Tasahul of ibn khuzaimah and ibn hibban is famous .(Tadad e rakat taraweeh pg 34,Maqalat e Noorpuri pg 330).

(11). Shaykh Abu Ishaq al Huwaini:

Shaykh Abu Ishaq al Huwaini states that both Ijli and Ibn Hibban are Mutasahil. (See naslul bab majmua rijal huwaini pg 497).


ON IJLI BEING MUTASAHIL:

(1).Shaikh Nasiruddin Albani :

Shiekh Albani mentions in Irwa galeel vol 5 pg 289 that Imam Ijli is mutasahil in giving tawseeq.

Shaikh Nasiruddin albani in Gayatul maraam pg 240, mentions that Ijli is mutasahil in giving tawseeq like Ibn Hibban.

(2). Shaikh Abdurrehman Muallami al Yamani:

Shaikh Abdur rehman muallami al yamani deemed Imam Ijli Mutasahil in giving tawtheeq to Majhool narrators, and near to ibn hibban in Tasahul.(See At tankeel vol 1,pg 255 and  Anwar al kashif vol 1,pg 108).

In his other book Allama Muallami Al nukat al jiyaad pg 588  states that the Tasahul of Imam Ijli is too much , specially, in the category of Tabaein, the Tabai who is Majhool, he declares him Thiqa.

(3). Shaykh Abu Ishaq al Huwaini

Shaykh Abu Ishaq al Huwaini declared Imam Ijli Mutasahil in several places in his book. In page 497 he states that both Ijli and Ibn Hibban are Mutasahil. (See naslul bab majmua rijal huwaini pg 46,393,408,497).

(4). Shaikh Muqbil ibn Haadi al Wadi:

Shaikh Muqbil ibn Haadi al Wadi also deemed Imam ijli mutasahil at many places. In page 187 of Al muktarih, he deems both Ibn Hibban and Ijli as Mutasahil in giving tawtheeq to Majhool narrators.  (See Al durrur fi masail al mustalah wal aasar pg 19 and Al muktarih pg 46,47,187).

Similarly, he says Imam Ijli is near from Ibn Hibban in being Mutasahil for giving tawtheeq to Majhool narrators. (Tehqiq Mustadrak al Hakim vol1,pg 525).

(5).  Shaykh Zakariya Ghulam Qadir Pakistani:

Shaykh Zakariya Ghulam Qadir Pakistani in his book Tankeeh al kalaam  pg 345 mentioned that Imam Ijli is mutasahil.

(6). Shaykh Dr. Qasim ali saad:

Shaykh Dr. Qasim ali saad wrote a book on the "Manhaj of Imam Nasai on Jarh wa Tadeel" on pg 1521 he states that Imam Ijli is mutasahil in giving tawseeq.

(7). Shaykh Dr. Akram Zia umri:

Shaykh Dr. Akram Zia umri states that Imam Ijli is Mutasahil in giving Tawtheeq to Majhool narrators.(Al buhoosun fee taarikh is sunnatil musharraqa pg 118).

(. Shaykh Mohammad Nuaym al arkasusi:

Shaykh Mohammad Nuaym al arkasusi states that Imam Ijli is mutasahil in Musnad ahmad risala vol 6,pg 248.

(9). Shaykh Ibrahim zaibak:

Shaykh Ibrahim zaibak states that Imam Ijli is mutasahil in Musnad ahmad risala vol 6,pg 248.

(10). Maulana Abdul Salam Abdul rauf bin Abdul Hannan:

Maulana Abdul rauf states about a narrator: Imam Ijli in Tareeq al Thiqaat(186) and Imam Ibn hibban in Kitaab al Thiqaat vol 8, page 261 mention him, but they both are Mutasahil in giving Tawtheeq. (Al qaul al maqbool fi Sharh wa Ta'aleeqh Salawaat ar-rasool, pg 272).

(11). Shaikh Abu abdurrahman fawzi:

Shaikh Abu abdurrahman fawzi in his book “mashoor waqiyat ki haqeeqat” pg 92,93 stated that Imam Ijli is Mutasahil.

(12). Shaikh Dr Hatim sharif al Awni

Shaikh Dr Hatim sharif al Awni in his book Izaa'aat bahesiya fi uloom al-sunnah pg no 68 to 85 discussed the Tawtheeq of Imam Ijli and deemed him Mutasahil. ( إضاءات بحثية في علوم السنة).

(13). Shaikh Abdul Aziz bin Abdul Latif:

Shaikh Abdul Aziz bin Abdul Latif deemed Imam Ijli mutasahil in (Zawabit Jarh wa Tadeel pg 65). At other place he states “والعجلي قريب منه في توثيق المجاهيل من القدماء” The Qadeem(early) narrators who are Majhool, in giving them Tawtheeq Imam Ijli is near to Ibn Hibban.

(14). Shaykh Gazi Aziz Mubarakpuri:

Shaykh Gazi Aziz Mubarakpuri states  “Imam Ijli and Imam ibn Hibban(In regards to Tawtheeq of Majhool narrators) are very lenient(Mutasahil)”. (Zaef hadees ki marifat aur unki sharayi haisiyat pg 47).

(15). Shaikh Abdul Alim Abdul Azim Bastawi:

In the footnotes, Shaikh Abdul Alim Abdul Azim Bastawi states about the Tasahul of Imam Ijli that:

ويظهر تساهل العجلي في الأمور التالية:

أولاً: إطلاق (ثقة) على الصدوق فمن دونه.

ثانياً: إطلاق (لا بأس به) على من هو ضعيف.

ثالثاً: إطلاق (ضعيف) على من هو ضعيف جداً أو متروك.

رابعاً: توثيق مجهولي الحال ومن لم يرو عنه إلّا راو واحد. تحقيق كتاب معرفة الثقات 1/125 ـ 127.

The Tasahul of Imam Ijli can be seen below:

    First: He deemed those narrators who are Sadooq or below this level as Thiqa.
    Second: Those who are weak, he mentions them as “Laa baasa bihi”.
    Third: Those who are very weak or Matrook, he just mentions them as Daeef(weak).
    Fourth: Those who are Majhool(anonymous) from whom only one narrator narrates, he mentions them as Thiqa.

(Tehqiq kitab marifat al siqat vol 1 pg 125-127”).


Why would Umm salama(ra) be given a negative response but Wathila bin Asqa given a positive response? This shows that the hadeeth is Munkar and illogical

Firstly, as discussed in the earlier posts, for the ahadeeth of Kisa from Umm Salama(ra), we have got different versions. The authentic version wherein we find Prophet's(as) answer for the question Umm Salama(ra) asked about her being included, is the hadeeth which has the ambiguous wording, that is "you are in your place and you are upon goodness". As for the other versions having different wordings, in some the response is positive and in some the response in negative, the ones having negative wording are all WEAK.

The different versions can be summarized as follows:

(i). Neutral: Where Prophet(saws) replied: "You are in your place (meaning you are already a member of my household), and you are goodness."(tirmidhi)

(ii). Positive: she said: am I also from your Ahlul-Bayt? Prophet(saws) said: yes you are InshaAllah.(Sunan Kubra, Bayhaqi).

(iii). Positive Again: Umm Salamah said: ‘Oh Messenger of Allah, bring me in with them’. He said: “Indeed you are from my household”. (Tabari in “Tafsir”).

(iv). Positive: Where she entered the Kisa later: 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)

(v).  Negative, which is reported by Majhool(anonymous) narrator Amrah: Umm salama(ra) said: ‘O Prophet of Allah! Am I too one of the people of the House?’ He replied: ‘Allah will reward you and recompense you.’ I wished that he might have said ‘Yes’ and would have valued such a reply much more than anything else in the world.' (Mushkil al-Athar, by al-Tahawi, v1, p336).

Out of these versions, the version which has negative answer which was narrated by anonymous narrator Amrah is odd, and it is illogical because it goes against, not only other versions from Umm Salama(ra), but a hadeeth from another narrator Wathila(ra), wherein we find Wathila asked the similar question like Umm Salama(ra) and he received a positive response.
جئت أريد عليا رضي الله عنه فلم أجده ، فقالت فاطمة رضي الله عنها : انطلق إلى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يدعوه فاجلس ، قال : فجاء مع رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فدخلا ، فدخلت معهما ، قال : فدعا رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم حسنا وحسينا فأجلس كل واحد منهما على فخذه ، وأدنى فاطمة من حجره وزوجها ، ثم لف عليهم ثوبه وأنا منتبذ ، فقال : ? إنما يريد الله ليذهب عنكم الرجس أهل البيت ويطهركم تطهيرا ? اللهم هؤلاء أهلي ، اللهم أهلي أحق ، قال واثلة : قلت : يا رسول الله ! وأنا من أهلك ؟ قال : وأنت من أهلي ، قال واثلة رضي الله عنه : إنها لمن أرجى ما أرجو
الراوي: واثلة بن الأسقع الليثي أبو فسيلة المحدث: البيهقي – المصدر: السنن الكبرى للبيهقي – الصفحة أو الرقم: 2/152
خلاصة حكم المحدث: إسناده صحيح

Wathilah narrated: I came seeking Ali but never found him so Fatima said: he went to the Prophet PBUH, sit until they come back. Then he came with the Prophet PBUH and they both entered and I entered with them, then the Prophet PBUH called for Hassan and Hussein and he made each one sit on a side of his lap and he came closer to fatima and her husband while I stood alone. Then he surrounded them with a cloak and said: “God wants to remove all kinds of uncleanliness from you Ahlul-Bayt and to purify you thoroughly.” O Allah they are my Ahel and my Ahel are more deserving. I said: O prophet of Allah! am I not from your Ahel? He said: And you are from my Ahel. Wathilah said: this is what I had always wished for.
[Source: Bayhaqi in Sunan al kubrah.
hadith rank: Isnad is SAHIH.]
It was also reported by ibn Hibban in “Sahih” and chain authenticated by Shuayb Arnaut.

Hence its illogical to assume that Prophet(saws) would give a negative response to his own wife Umm Salama, and give a positive response to Wathila. Thus the hadeeth in question is Munkar.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

@Noor-us-Sunnah

Jazakallahu khairan brother. I've been waiting for this response for quite some time.

Wa iyyakum brother.

Sorry brother, had been really busy in work and some other stuff, barely had any time to respond.