Ayat Tathir, Ayat of Mubahala and Thaqalain

[Africanshia1]

Salam Alaikum my Sunni Brothers,

I hope you guys can answer me on this.

# Now, for the sake of argument, let's agree " Ayat tathir" was part of 28-34/35 and let's agree the wives were the ones being addressed. All those verses admonished and we can argue that the promise of purification is upon the conditions set in those admonitions:

1. O wives of Nabi, you are not like other women provided you fear Allah

2. Do you prefer the love of this world than Allah and His prophet?

3. If you commit indecency, your punishment will be doubled just like your reward will be doubled if you do it right.

4. Stay indoor and Do not display your finery like that of the days of ignorance.

# This will simply means that only those who fulfill those admonitions righteously and adhere to it from the day of revelation till the time of death will be purified.

# How does umm al-mu'minina Aisha (especially) fair in those conditions, during and after the demise of Nabi?

Also, many Sunni brothers say "your Imams were born pure and infallible, what's the point of purification?" I respond by:

# Why does Nabi continue to make istighfar more than 70X in a day despite according to your tafasir of sura fatih:1 that Allah has forgiven all his future sins?

# Is/Was Nabi not included himself amongst his "Ahl al-Bayt" that Allah intend to purify?


# Purification, returning (Tawbah), can never ever be exhausted. The more you engage in acts of purification, the more you get close and closer to Allah. However, there is no limitation to this.

[Ebn Hussein]

wa 3alaikumus-salam,

First of all, may Allah guide you and us to the truth, there is no such a thing as "for the sake of argument" with regards to 33:33. You said:

let's agree " Ayat tathir" was part of 28-34/35 and let's agree the wives were the ones being addressed.

Of course it is part it, it is ONE long verse, Shias cut out a PART of a SINGLE verse (the last bit) and TAKE IT completely out of context and present it as a verse (and even name it "Ayah Al-Tathir"), this is academic dishonesty of the highest order (please don't argue with the grammar argument, even more knowledgable Shias who are familiar with BASIC Arabic know why the suffix changes to KUM i.e. masculine plural, this is because AHL AL-BAYT is a MASCULINE noun, the head of the Ahl Al-Bayt is the HUSBAND i.e. the Prophet. Allah used it also for Ibrahim's wife!), one could call it one of the biggest cons in history.

One could also simply start a social experiment asking Shias about "Ayah Al-Tathir", no doubt the majority would believe that it is actually a single clear cut verse, not knowing that it is actually a PART of a longer single verse (all about wives!) mutiliated by Shia scholars who struggle to find a single clear cut verse in the Qur'an supporting their non-Islamic beliefs (like infallibility for the Ahl Al-Bayt).

Even Shia scholars like Ayatullat Haidari admit to the fact that the entire verse (and the verse before and after it!) is about the wives and that a basic rule in tafsir of the Qur'an is that each verse must be looked at and understood within its CONTEXT (misdaaq):

He bashes Shias for all their cheap arguments (and mentions verses from the Qur'an were OTHER wives of Prophets are addressed in with the MASCULINE SUFFIX of Ahl Al-Bayt i.e. the Sunni understand is a pure Qur'anic one), however, his bias and arrogance make him say that the ONLY leg Shias have to stand on are the HADITH about who the Ahl Al-Bayt are NOT the verse, but even the hadith he admits are refuted by Sunnis who ACKNOWLEDGE their authenticity (i.e. hadith Al-Kisa') but (rightfully) say hadith like hadith Al-Kisa' must be understood in the CONTEXT of the verse i.e. just because 'Ali and his family are INCLUDED in the verse doesn't mean we exclude the wives. The man is at least as honest as to admit that the Sunni stance is extremely strong. As for what he said about the narrations (as if hadith Al-Kisa' is in their favour, it's not), our brother Al-Hindi wrote one of the best articles available in English language regarding the Tathir and Kisa' shubhah of the Rafidah, literally every shubha is refuted in his articles:

https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2010/11/22/does-verse-of-tatheer3333-makes-anyone-infallible/

https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2010/12/20/a-scientific-dialogue-regarding-incident-of-kisa-revealing-some-facts/

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

https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2010/10/07/ahlahlebayt-a-collective-noun-and-its-usage/

https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2010/10/06/quran-explicitly-shows-that-wives-of-prophetsaw-are-ahlebayt/

https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2010/10/06/usage-of-word-ahlahlebayt-in-quran/

https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2010/10/06/definition-of-%e2%80%9cahlel-bayt%e2%80%9d-from-linguistic-perspective/

https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2010/10/05/what-was-the-reason-for-the-purification-of-blessed-wives-of-prophetsaw/

https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2010/10/05/the-relation-between-verse-of-purification-and-divine-commands-before-it/

https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2010/10/05/detailed-explanation-of-verse-of-purificationayat-e-tatheer-3333/

https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2016/03/26/hadeeth-kisa-cloak-explained-by-an-ex-shia-scholar/

# This will simply means that only those who fulfill those admonitions righteously and adhere to it from the day of revelation till the time of death will be purified.

# How does umm al-mu'minina Aisha (especially) fair in those conditions, during and after the demise of Nabi?

This verse doesn't speak about infallible super humans or semi-divine individuals, it addresses normal human beings, wives, Allah knows that no human being is absolutely perfect, all of us sin in one way or another, however the wives of our Prophet (unlike other Prophets) are of a very special status so Allah has burden them with a heavier burden than other females, as long as the females addressed in the verse do their admost to adhere to the conditions, then Allah will purify them. Allah revealed similar verses about the Prophet and his Sahaba:

8:11 [Remember how it was] when He caused inner calm to enfold you, as an assurance from Him, and sent down upon you water from the skies, so that He might PURIFY you thereby and free you from Satan's unclean whisperings and strengthen your hearts and thus make firm your steps.

No sane mind (although if Sunnis would exaggerate with the Sahaba as Shias do with Ahl Al-Bayt they would have done that, but Alhamdulillah Sunnis are on the middle path) would argue that the Sahaba are completely cleansed from the whisperings of Shaitan or that they don't sin. Same with verse 33:33, Allah revealed it about a group (wives in specific) that would sin in the future, Allah is All-Knowing, he was certainly aware of it, yet despite that (Him knowing that they are fallibles) he encouraged them to abide by the conditions. This means that sins committed by Hafsa, Maymunah, Umm Salamah, 'Aisha do not exclude her from the verse (especially not fitan like the Jamal war that was chaotic and 'Aisha till the end of her life - according to authentic narrations - regretted to have participated in the first place. Tawbah/repentance IS a sign of believers).

Also, many Sunni brothers say "your Imams were born pure and infallible, what's the point of purification?" I respond by:

# Why does Nabi continue to make istighfar more than 70X in a day despite according to your tafasir of sura fatih:1 that Allah has forgiven all his future sins?

It's a fair objection by non-Shias, one that made me think alot before I left Shi'ism. The issue is much more complicated for Shias. First of all, with no right and clear text they include 9 descendants of Al-Hussein (ra) in that verse (yet exclude the wives in whose houses this verse was revealed!!!), second of all, Shias do not just believe the Imams were pure before death, Shias believe the Imams are made from light (like Sufis believe), created before their own father Adam (!), having circulated the Throne of Allah and from their lights Allah created everything else. I can back up each of these kufri and alien statements from Shia books and their scholars speeches. As for why the Nabiyy (saws) makes istighfar then the answer is easy, our mother 'Aishah has narrated to us why (thanks to her we have this knowledge, after all in verse 34:33 Allah tells the wives to PREACH AND TEACH, no such verse about 12 Imams ANYWHERE in the Qur'an):

Aisha reported that when Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) occupied himself in prayer, he observed such a (long) qiyam prayer that his feet were swollen. Aisha said:
“Allah’s Messenger, you do this (in spite of the fact) that your earlier and later sins have been pardoned for you?” Thereupon, he said: “Aisha should I not prove myself to be a thanksgiving servant (of Allah)?” (Muslim)

So it was a matter of adab with Allah, he did it out of shukr, how is that comparible to a man-made belief of the 'Isma/infallibility of 12 individuals who suddenly need the Prophet to pray for their purification yet they are supposed to be purified even before the creation of the universe?! Heck, the verse says CLEARLY in Arabic (and I am an Arabic speaker): INNAMA YUREEDULLAH (إنما يريد الله ...) "verily Allah WISHES/INTENDS to ..." and not "Allah has already purified you but Allah wants to upgrade your purification" this is your own interpretation that clashes with the language of the Arabs, the basis of the Qur'an!

# Is/Was Nabi not included himself amongst his "Ahl al-Bayt" that Allah intend to purify?

He was, but the verse is obviously about wives and THEIR obligations not the Prophet (saws).

هذا وصل الله وسلم وبارك على سيدنا ومولانا محمد وعلى آله وصحبه وسلم

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

Salam Alaikum my Sunni Brothers,

I hope you guys can answer me on this.

# Now, for the sake of argument, let's agree " Ayat tathir" was part of 28-34/35 and let's agree the wives were the ones being addressed.

Wa' alaikumsalam.

Since you seem to have doubt over this issue, I suggest you to read this article, and share your view, whether you agree or disagree with it, and why if you choose to disagree.
For whom the verse of purification(tatheer) was revealed and what is the concept of purification? Let the quran answer.
https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2010/10/09/for-whom-the-verse-of-purificationtatheer-was-revealed-and-what-is-the-concept-of-purification-let-the-quran-answer/

# This will simply means that only those who fulfill those admonitions righteously and adhere to it from the day of revelation till the time of death will be purified.

I disagree, it means that, as long as these admonitions were fulfilled by the people for whom Allah wished purification, they will remain purified. And if anyone of them fails to fulfill these conditions for a certain time, then their purification will halt, but as soon as this person resumes implementing on these conditions, their purification process will resume. Because the commands given to them were in itself a means of purification, like Salah, Zakat, obey Allah and His Messenger, these are means of purification.

# How does umm al-mu'minina Aisha (especially) fair in those conditions, during and after the demise of Nabi?

Ayesha(ra) feared Allah(swt), She preferred Allah and Prophet(saws) over the world, when the choice was given to wives of prophet(saws). She didn't commit any indecency. She didn't display her finery like in the days of ignorance.

Also, many Sunni brothers say "your Imams were born pure and infallible, what's the point of purification?" I respond by:

# Why does Nabi continue to make istighfar more than 70X in a day despite according to your tafasir of sura fatih:1 that Allah has forgiven all his future sins?

As for the question that why would Prophet(saws) ask for forgiveness, even after being forgiven, then it was out of thankfulness[Refer Sahih Muslim 2819]. It can also be said that Allah(swt) forgave the past and future sins of Prophet(saws) based on His knowledge of future or unseen, wherein He knew that prophet Muhammad(saws) would continue to seek forgiveness till his death, and He even commanded Prophet(saws) to ask for forgiveness as we read in Surah Nasr.

However, your usage of this example is incorrect because, what the Sunni brothers meant while questioning you was that, as per your belief Allah first says that He purified your Imams from their birth, but later WISHES to purify them, which appears to be a contradiction. Your example would have been valid, if the Sunni belief was like, Allah(swt) forgave Prophet(saws) initially, but later said, He wishes to forgive him. Which would appear as a contradiction, but this is not the case, Allah forgave past and future sins of Prophet(saws), but commanded him to keep asking for forgiveness. Whereas, you believe that Allah purified your Imams from birth, but then later again wished to purify them, He just didn't say keep practicing the means of purification, rather He wished to purify them.

Now if you have a counter argument over this, then I would definately like to answer it, but before that, I would like to see any authentic Shia hadeeth where Imam used 33:33 to mean infallibility. Because, if you can't bring that, then its futile to discuss this argument, since the argument itself would be baseless. Since, we don't believe that the verse hints towards infallibility for anyone.

# Is/Was Nabi not included himself amongst his "Ahl al-Bayt" that Allah intend to purify?

I don't believe that the wish of Allah included Prophet(saws). The wish of Allah was for wives of Prophet(saws) initially but Prophet(saws) made dua to Allah to include, Fatima(ra), Ali(ra), Hassan(ra) and Hussain(ra) also, in the wish of Allah.

[Africanshia1]

Jazaka Allaah kayran Ikwaan for your answers, I'm actually close to leaving Shiism. Sorry for sounding rude, hope you don't mind me expressing some of my views for clarification.

Now concerning the event of Mubahala, why didn't the Prophet pick any of his wives despite the fact they were alive and the verse made mention of "our women", why only Fatima(as)?

With respect to the hadith of Zaid, he contradicted himself in Saheeh Muslim by saying "No!" when he was asked if the Prophet's wives were from the Ahl el beyt, why this any explanations?

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

Jazaka Allaah kayran Ikwaan for your answers, I'm actually close to leaving Shiism.

Wa iyyakum.

May Allah guide you to the straight path and make it easy for you .

Now concerning the event of Mubahala, why didn't the Prophet pick any of his wives despite the fact they were alive and the verse made mention of "our women", why only Fatima(as)?

Regarding the wives of prophet(Saw) being left:

Reply 1: Well it can be said that though they weren’t taken to the place of mubahila as it was not compulsory to bring the complete ahlebayt, even then they would have been included in the imprecation in the similar way how the families of the Christians even without their presence would have been included.

Reply 2: If the first response doesn’t seem satisfactory to the shias  then the other reply to this is that they were not the ones from whom the progeny of prophet(Saw) survived, So prophet(Saw) didn’t take them. He(saw)  wanted to take those along with him from whom his(saw) progeny would spread as in those days progeny and is survival was given much importance. Thus there wasn’t any necessity of taking them along with him, as they were not the ones with whom survival of his progeny was related.

Reply 3: It can also be said that by the time of incident of mubahila, the special command for wives of prophet(Saw) (i.e “And stay in your houses”(33:33) ) was revealed . So prophet(Saw) might have left them in their homes as the command of Allah, as he(Saw) thought it was inappropriate or not necessary to take his(saw) wives there.

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

With respect to the hadith of Zaid, he contradicted himself in Saheeh Muslim by saying "No!" when he was asked if the Prophet's wives were from the Ahl el beyt, why this any explanations?

This is an interesting topic, a lot of people fail to understand this hadeeth of Thaqalayn and they incorrectly use it in relation to 33:33.

Firstly, what one must keep in mind that hadeeth thaqalayn has NO RELATION with verse 33:33. The Ahlelbayt addressed in hadeeth Thaqalayn and 33:33 are not all same. In fact as per Shia belief, Hadeeth Thaqalayn doesn't include Fatima(ra), it only include their 12 Imams, where as 33:33 does include Fatima(ra) too. So you see, even as per Shia belief 33:33 and hadeeth thaqalayn have no relation.

Secondly, as for the view of Zaid(ra) then look at this hadeeth:

“He (Husain) said to Zaid: ‘Who are the members of his household? Aren’t his wives the members of his family?’ Thereupon he said: ‘His wives are the members of his family but here the members of his family are those for whom acceptance of Zakat is forbidden.’ And he said: ‘Who are they?’ Thereupon he said: ‘Ali and the offspring of Ali, Aqil and the offspring of Aqil and the offspring of Jafar and the offspring of Abbas.’ Husain said: ‘These are those for whom the acceptance of Zakat is forbidden?’ Zaid said: ‘Yes.’”
(Sahih Muslim, Book 31, Chapter 4, Hadith 5920)

So you see, Zaid(ra) agreed that in general wives of Prophet(saws) are Ahlulbayt, but the Ahlelbayt mentioned in hadeeth thaqalayn are those members on whom acceptance of charity(sadaqa) is forbidden.

However, Zaid(ra) wasn't aware that acceptance of sadaqa was also forbidden for wives of Prophet(saws). Which implies wives of Prophet (saws) are also included in Ahlelbayt mentioned in hadeeth thaqalayn. 

ابن أبي مليكة أن خالد بن سعيد بعث إلى عائشة ببقرة من الصدقة فردتها وقالت إنا آل محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم لا تحل لنا الصدقة
Narrated with sahi sanad From Ibn Abu Malika [narrated] that: Khaled Ibn Saeed sent a cow from the Sadaqah to Aisha, so she sent it back and said: We are the Aal of Muhammad(saw) the sadaqah is not permissible for us.[This hadees(narration) is authentic. Which was even said by sheikh Abdul Muhsin bin Hammad Al-’Abbad Al-Badr in his book the status of Ahlebayt in the sight of Ahle Sunnah, page 12 ]

If you want to read detailed article on the subject of hadeeth thaqalayn, the correct version and it's explanation then, I highly recommend you this article.

Hadeeth Al-Thaqalayn(Two weighty Things) — The correct understanding and a Spot-on perspective of Sunnis.

https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2015/02/19/hadeeth-al-thaqalayntwo-weighty-things-the-correct-understanding-and-a-spot-on-perspective-of-sunnis/

[muslim720]

Salaam alaykum wa rahmatullah,
SubhanAllah, beautiful responses!

[Hani]

Jazaka Allaah kayran Ikwaan for your answers, I'm actually close to leaving Shiism. Sorry for sounding rude, hope you don't mind me expressing some of my views for clarification.

Now concerning the event of Mubahala, why didn't the Prophet pick any of his wives despite the fact they were alive and the verse made mention of "our women", why only Fatima(as)?

With respect to the hadith of Zaid, he contradicted himself in Saheeh Muslim by saying "No!" when he was asked if the Prophet's wives were from the Ahl el beyt, why this any explanations?

quick comments may Allah bless you.

Concerning Mubahalah, it's not a general rule that you have to bring every single member of your family (uncles, aunts, siblings, parents, cousins, in-laws etc...) He (saw) simply brought whatever members were convenient at the time.

Regarding the Hadith of Zayd, he's not contradicting himself it's just two narrations where the narrators differed. WHen you combine them you understand that Zayd said: "Yes, they are from his household BUT he meant those others members from his household." Then he highlights they are the families of `Abbas, `Ali, Ja`far, `Aqil & Harith.

As for the wives being from Ahlul-Bayt, this is the norm in Arabic culture, it is proven from the Qur'an as well as many narrations, dictionaries and books of literature that there's no doubt about it. Shia only argue this point due to the typical ignorance of the Persian foreigners in Arabic and the weakness of their Madhab that requires such illogical argumentation to be saved.

[Ebn Hussein]

As for the wives being from Ahlul-Bayt, this is the norm in Arabic culture, it is proven from the Qur'an as well as many narrations, dictionaries and books of literature that there's no doubt about it. Shia only argue this point due to the typical ignorance of the Persian foreigners in Arabic and the weakness of their Madhab that requires such illogical argumentation to be saved.

Couldn't put it better, as the scholars of Ahlussunnah say, one cause for Dhalaal is weakness in Arabic (pre-Safavid Shia scholars of Persia i.e. Sunnis were pretty much Arabised and masters of the Arabic language, unlike these post-Safavis clowns with their ugly Majoosi-speak and poor Arabic whom the gullible Shia refer to as "Ayatollahs").