Monthly Archives: April 2010

Shiites consider that curse to be a way of gaining Allah’s pleasure!

Some Shi’i sources report from Ja’far al-Sadiq that one day a woman came and asked him whether it is permissible for her to express her loyalty to Abu Bakr and ‘Umar? He said to her: “Be loyal to them”.  She said: ‘Should I say to my Lord on the day of Judgement that you commanded me to be loyal to them?’ He said: “Yes”[1].

They also report that a man among the companions of al-Baqir was astonished when he heard al-Baqir describing Abu Bakrradiyallahu ‘anhu as al-Siddiq, and he said to him: ‘Do you call him al-Siddiq?’ Al-Baqir said: “Of course, al-Siddiq he is, and may Allah, on the day of Judgement, not accept the statement of whoever does not address him so”[2].

What is the Shi’ites’ opinion about Abu Bakr radiyallahu ‘anhu?[3].

The Shi’ite scholars, Abu al-Faraj al-Asfahani in his ‘Maqalat at-Talibiyyin’[4], al-Arbali in his ‘Kashf al-Ghummah’[5] and al-Majlisi in his ‘Jala’ al-‘Uyun’[6], all mentioned that Abu Bakr the son of ‘Ali ibn abi Talib radiyallahu ‘anhu was also killed at Karbala together with his brother al-Husain radiyallahu ‘anhu.  Also killed on that day was the son of al-Husain himself and his name was Abu Bakr, (together with another son of ‘Ali, Muhammad al-Asghar, also nick-named Abu Bakr).

Why do the Shi’ites conceal this matter and only concentrate on the issue of al-Husain?

The most apparent reason behind that is surely the fact that al-Husain’s brother and son were both bearing the name Abu Bakr! And this is something the Shi’ites would not like the Muslims or their gullible followers to know, because that will expose their deceit and lie in claiming that there was bitter enmity between the Ahl al-Bait and the companions of the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wa alihi wa sallam, more especially Abu Bakr radiyallahu ‘anhu.  For, had he been an unbeliever and apostate who usurped the right of the caliphate from ‘Ali and his progeny – as claimed by the Shi’ites – the Ahl al-Bait wouldn’t have named their beloved sons with his noble name. Rather, this is a sign of strong and enduring love, recognizable by anyone who reasons.

Moreover, why would the Shi’ites not emulate the good example of ‘Ali and al-Husain radiyallahu ‘anhuma by naming their sons Abu Bakr?

The Shi’ites cannot deny the fact that Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and ‘Uthman (may Allah be pleased with them) had given the Prophetsallallahu alaihi wa alihi wa sallam their pledge of allegiance under the tree (i.e. at Hudaibiyah), and that Allah had mentioned in the Qur’an that He was pleased with them and knew what was in their minds[7].  How unbecoming is it for the Shi’ites, after all this, to reject Allah’s own view about these people and accept its opposite.  It is as if they are saying to Allah: ‘Our Lord, you do not know what we know about them’ – God forbid.

67 While we find the Shi’ites cursing the most senior of the companions especially the three rightly-guided caliphs: Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and ‘Uthman, and consider that curse to be a way of gaining Allah’s pleasure, we don’t find one single person among the followers of the Sunnah to have taken to that cause on any of the Ahl al-Bait. Rather all Ahl as-Sunnah seek Allah’s pleasure and closeness through their love for Ahl al-Bait, and this is one thing none of the Shi’ites can deny, not even by their usual way of cheap slander[1].

73 The Shi’ites claim that Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and ‘Uthman were after nothing but political leadership and that they oppressed its eligible owners and usurped it from them.

Ironically, we find that none of those three caliphs ever fought a Muslim over the issue of the caliphate.  Rather they only fought the apostates and the unbelievers.  They were the ones who brought the end of the Persian dynasty, quashed the Byzantine empire and by that conquered their lands and peoples and made them lands of Islam and their peoples Muslims.  They strengthened and fortified Islam and the Muslims, and debased disbelief and the unbelievers.

Rebels came to kill ‘Uthman – who was surely lower in status than Abu Bakr and ‘Umar – .  But despite the fact that he was the incumbent and eligible caliph at the time, he did not fight any Muslim for that, nor did he kill one single Muslim in the name of preserving the caliphate to himself.

So, if the Shi’ites will strengthen the probability of those three being power-greedy and oppressors, they must also say the same in the case of ‘Ali radiyallahu ‘anhu[2].

76 Again, how could the Messenger of Allah be buried between Abu Bakr and ‘Umar who according to the Shi’ites were unbelievers? It is not lawful to bury a Muslim between unbelievers, and how bad if that Muslim is the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wa alihi wa sallam himself? This implies that Allah did not preserve His Prophet from the company of unbelievers even after his death.

Another important question here is, what was ‘Ali’s stance from all of this?  Why didn’t he oppose these ‘dangerous’ measures?

One of two options here must be true and the other false.  Either that Abu Bakr

and ‘Umar were Muslims whom Allah had granted the honour of being close to

the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wa alihi wa sallam for their status with Allah and

His Messenger – and this is surely the truth -, or that ‘Ali was deceitfully

fawning on people at the expense of his religion[3] – far be he from that.

Otherwise, how can the best of all people on earth, the esteemed Messenger

of Allah, be buried only steps away from wrongdoers and unbelievers, as the

Shi’ites would like us to believe?

[1] One can search through the vast Islamic literature, especially the books of Aqa’id (Theology and ideological views), never will he find a single statement alluding to any sort of curse or vilification from the scholars of Ahl as-Sunnah toward any member of the Prophet’s household (may Allah be pleased with them). But a mere glance through the main and most reliable Shi’i sources will unfold an enormous amount of narratives speaking ill of the sahabah. Nay, there are others in which they vilify even some of the Ahl al-Bait like al-Hasan ibn Ali ibn Abi Talib for ceding the caliphate in favour of Mu’awiyah, and others like ‘Abdullah ibn Abbas and his father (may Allah be pleased with all).(Translator).

[2] The point here is that in the days of ‘Ali radiyallahu ‘anhu fierce conflicts occurred over the caliphate itself, and a number of Muslims were killed in that cause, even though, no one among the scholars of Ahl as-Sunnah ever accused ‘Ali radiyallahu ‘anhu of being power-greedy.  So, if the Shi’ites will accuse Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and ‘Uthman in whose reign there were no conflict on the caliphate and no Muslim was killed, nor did they fight anyone to gain power, It would be very unfair to accuse them without accusing ‘Ali radiyallahu ‘anhum.(Translator).

[3] That is, if ‘Ali radiyallahu ‘anhu would allow Abu Bakr and ‘Umar to be buried near the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wa alihi wa sallam, having known perfectly that they were non-Muslims – as the Shi’ites claim – that will amount to his being an accomplice to harm the Prophet.  And this is definitely what ‘Ali never did.  So, by allowing their bodies to be buried there, ‘Ali must have believed them to be Muslims, nay the best of Muslims after the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wa alihi wa sallam.

[1] Al-Kulaini, Raudat al-Kafi (8/101).

[2] Al-Arbali, Kashf al-Ghummah Fi Ma’rifat al-A’immah (2/360). The author here somewhat summarized the narrative.  In the original source, the man questioning the imam was asking whether it is permissible to decorate swords.  Al-Baqir rahimahullah said: “There is nothing bad in that, because Abu Bakr as-Siddiq also used to decorate his sword”.  The man said: ‘Do you call him as-Siddiq?’. Al-Baqir jumped to his feet and faced the Qiblah and said: Yes, as-Siddiq, Yes, as-Siddiq, Yes, as-Siddiq!!! May Allah, on the day of Judgement, not accept the statement of whoever does not address him so “.

It is clear from the narrative that al-Baqir rahimahullah not only attested to the fact that a Muslim must address those pious companions of the Prophet with respect, especially the best of them Abu Bakr, and that he must be addressed with the epithet given him by the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wa alihi wa sallam himself, that is, as-Siddiq.  Furthermore, al-Baqir also used to regard the actions of the companions as models to be emulated, as is evident clearly from this narrative when he stressed his opinion on decorating swords with the fact that Abu Bakr used to do that, just like someone will use the Qur’an or the Sunnah as proofs. (Translator).

[3] That is, in marked contrast to the stance of their imam Muhammad ibn ‘Ali ibn al-Husain (al-Baqir).

[4] (p. 88; 142; 188) Beirut edition.

[5] (2/66).

[6] (p. 582).

[7] Allah says: {Certainly was Allah pleased with the believers when they pledged allegiance to you, [O Muhammad], under the tree, and He knew what was in their hearts, so He sent down tranquility upon them and rewarded them with an imminent conquest} [Al-Fath: 18].

Leave a comment

Filed under Articles

Abu Bakr(ra) was the right and most eligible caliph

Abu Bakr radiyallahu ‘anhu was the right and most eligible caliph after the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alaihi wa alihi wa sallam. This is substantiated by a number of evidences, some of which are:

1.    The consensus of all the companions to obey and submit to his orders and without any opposition.  Had he been an oppressor who usurped the right of the caliphate they wouldn’t have left him without any revolt, nor would they have obeyed him, considering their steadfastness in religion and their fearlessness in taking action on anything in the name of Allah;

2.    ‘Ali did not go against him nor did he fight him.  And this stance from ‘Ali must be for one of three reasons: one, either for fear of the occurrence of any civil strife in the Ummah; two, due to his weakness and inability to fight; three: for his perfect knowledge of the fact that Abu Bakr was the right caliph and on the right track.

To say that he did not fight for fear of trouble and fitnah within the Ummah is, to say the least, vain talk, because he fought Mu’awiyah radiyallahu ‘anhu and a lot of people were killed in the battles that ensued between them, just like he fought Talha, Zubair and ‘A’isha radiyallahu ‘anhum at a time he was sure that the right of the caliphate was his, without fear of any strife.

It is also illogical to say that he did not fight due to weakness, because those who helped him in his battles against Mu’awiyah were believers on the day of Saqifah, as well as on the day ‘Umar was assigned by Abu Bakr to be his successor, and also on the day ‘Umar, on his death bed, ordered six people to deliberate on choosing one of them as the caliph after him. Had they known that the right to the throne was his they would have helped him against Abu Bakr because, had there been the purported nass(explicit order from the Prophet that ‘Ali should be the caliph immediately after him), Abu Bakr would have been more deserving to be fought than Mu’awiyah[1].

There is therefore no other reason behind ‘Ali’s stance but his knowledge of the fact that the right to the caliphate was Abu Bakr’s.

[1] Who fought for the blood of his kin ‘Uthman bin ‘Affan radiyallahu ‘anhu.


Filed under Articles

How to defend Ali(ra) from the charges labeled against him

To defend ‘Ali radiyallahu ‘anhu from the charges labeled against him by the Kharijites that he was an unbeliever and unjust ruler, the Shi’ites will never be successful except if they follow the path of the Ahl as-Sunnah.  That is because if the Kharijitessay: we do not accept that he was a believer, but was rather an infidel and a wrongdoer – just like the Shi’ites say in respect of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar -, the Shi’ites cannot produce evidence to prove that ‘Ali was actually a believer and a just ruler except that evidence is indicative, in a more deserving manner, of the faith of Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and ‘Uthman.

If they bring as evidence the famous reports about ‘Ali’s early acceptance of Islam, his migration to Madina and his participation in battles with the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wa alihi wa sallam, then this has similarly been reported in respect of those three. Nay, reports about the acceptance of Islam in respect of Mu’awiyah and the Umayyad and ‘Abbasid caliphs are also enormous, as well as about their prayer, fasting and jihad against the unbelievers.  All these are reported through authentic channels.

So, if they claim that one of those three caliphs (Abu Bakr ‘Umar and ‘Uthman) was a hypocrite, the Kharijites also find it easy to have the same claim on ‘Ali.  And whatever thing they may regard to be evidence in their favour, a more deserving response should be used to counter it.

If they further resort to slander by saying that Abu Bakr and ‘Umar were hypocrites and were secretly enemies of the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alaihi wa alihi wa sallam, and that they have done all they could to distort and corrupt his religion, theKharijites can also say the same in respect of ‘Ali.  They will claim that he was envious of his cousin, had bitter enmity towards him, that he wanted to corrupt his religion, and that he had plans that he couldn’t execute during the lifetime of the Prophet himself or the lives of the three rightly guided caliphs.  But during the reign of the third caliph he had the right opportunity when he tried to kill him and, consequently he caused terrible strife and conflict within the Ummah, in which a great number of the companions of Muhammad were killed, all out of his hatred and enmity towards the Prophet.  The Kharijites may also claim that Ali was secretly in agreement with those who deified him or believed him to be a prophet, and that he was only pretending hypocritically to show that he was with the mainstream Muslims out of sheer taqiyyah. And that is why the Batinis were among his followers and they claim that they own his inner secrets and that the so-called batini ideology they hold originated from him[1].

If the Shi’ites will again try to affirm ‘Ali’s faith and his being just by claiming that the Qur’an has mentioned him explicitly, they should be made to know that the Qur’an is general in its nature, and its treatment of all believers is based on an equal level depending on the meaning of the general term that is used.  For example, the term mu’minun refers to all those who believe, the term muhajirun covers all the individuals, men and women who migrated from Makkah to Madina at the time of the Prophet, etc.  So one has no right to claim that a particular verse is referring to one individual – ‘Ali or any other person – only, so long as there is no explicit mention of his name.  Therefore, any verse the Shi’ites claim to be referring to ‘Ali in particular may be used by some other person to claim that it – or another more greater verse – actually refers to Abu Bakr and ‘Umar. Unsubstantiated claims without proof and evidence could be concocted by anyone, moreover, claims in favour of the virtues of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar are easier and more possible than in favour of any of the other sahabah.

But if they claim that his faith has been reported in many narratives, they should know that narratives in favour of those three caliphs are greater in number and are more popular.  If they claim that the narratives on ‘Ali are sound and authentic and reached the level of tawatur, we say that the tawatur in respect of the narratives concerning Abu Bakr, and ‘Umar is more sound and effective.  And if they insist that it was the sahabah who reported ‘Ali’s virtues, it is said to them that the reports of thesahabah in favour of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar are greater in number[2].

[1] See: Ibn Taimiyyah, ‘Minhaj as-Sunnah an-Nabawiyyah’ vol. 2 p. 62-64

[2] The author here follows the method used by Ibn Taimiyah in his Minhaj as-Sunnah.  It is important that the reader should carefully read between the lines in order to grasp the main import of the argument.  Sentiments should be kept aside. Neither Ibn Taimiyah nor our author here endorses the arguments of theKharijites against ‘Ali radiyallahu ‘anhu.  It is rather a simple logical hypothesis to call the Shi’ites to reason and see the gravity of vilifying and defaming the companions of the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wa alihi wa sallam, more especially Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and ‘Uthman.  None of them, including ‘Ali, was infallible.  So, if the Shi’ites will defame or rather condemn them to apostasy and unbelief ignoring their esteemed status with Allah and His Prophet, and the fact that the verses of the Qur’an that touch on their position and virtues did not mention any of them by name, but cover them all in a general manner by using terms that apply to either all the faithful at the time of revelation, or some of them for a specific reason or quality.  To claim that these verses only apply to one of them as against the rest is devoid of any substance.  And this is the bone of contention between the Shi’ites and the Muslim Ummah, for they accuse Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and ‘Uthman of kufr and apostasy despite the fact that the verses of the Qur’an and the hadiths of the Prophet that attest to the fact that all of them including ‘Ali, were faithful and sincere companions of the Prophet, were one and the same.  All of them were faithful Muslims, nay they were the best of the whole Ummah after the Prophetsallallahu alaihi wa alihi wa sallam.  On another side we find the unfair and false accusation of the Khawarij who rebelled against ‘Ali and declared him an unbeliever for accepting the arbitration that occurred between his party and that of Mu’awiyah.  To refute this false slander against ‘Ali it is necessary for one to use the same verses of the Qur’an and the hadiths of the Prophet and narratives in the sirah and history of the Prophet and the rightly guided caliphs after him which speak voluminously about the faith and uprightness of all of the companions of the Prophet.  Shi’ite reports contained in Shi’i sources alone cannot be of any help.  And it is a known fact that the verses of the Qur’an and hadiths of the Prophet do not refer to ‘Ali alone without Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and ‘Uthman radiyallahu ‘anhum. (Translator).

Leave a comment

Filed under Articles

The Shiites falsely claim that Abu Bakr(ra) and Umar(ra) had usurped the caliphate from Ali(ra)

The Shi’ites claim that Abu Bakr and ‘Umar had usurped the caliphate from ‘Ali and conspired against him in order to prevent him from having a hold on it … and other charges.

If this claim were true why did ‘Umar put him among the six members of the Shura he delegated to deliberate on choosing the caliph? Had he removed him the way he removed Sa’id ibn Zaid or had he appointed some other person in his place, no one could have opposed his opinion.

Therefore the unavoidable fact is that the companions surely placed ‘Ali in the right and relevant position he belonged to, without exceeding limits or negligence in that respect, may Allah be pleased with all of them.  They have also given their pledge to the rightly guided caliphs in their relevant and respective orders, beginning with the best, followed by the best etc, thereby putting ‘Ali in his most deserved class.

One thing to buttress this fact is that when ‘Ali ascended the throne after the martyrdom of ‘Uthman, the Muhajirun and Ansarwasted no time before pledging their allegiance in respect of the caliphate to ‘Ali and none of them ever apologized to him for their acceptance of Abu Bakr, then ‘Umar and ‘Uthman before him.  No one on this earth could claim that such a thing occurred from those pious sahabah.  Or did anyone of them ever repent for his rejection of a nass on ‘Ali’s leadership, or did anyone of them ever mention that he remembered a nass he happened to forget in favour of ‘Ali’s Imamate?

..On the day of Saqifah the Ansar contested accepting Abu Bakr as caliph at the initial stage, and called upon everyone to vest Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas with the post. ‘Ali, on the other side, stayed indoor, neither inclining to this nor to the other group.  But in the end the whole of the Muhajirun and Ansar agreed on Abu Bakr may Allah be pleased with all.

This action from the Ansar in particular, i.e. changing their minds to accept Abu Bakr must be for one of three reasons:

1.    That they had been coerced into accepting Abu Bakr;

2.    That Abu Bakr’s right and eligibility to the post emerged so clearly that they had to submit;

3.    That they took that action without any specific reason.

No fourth reason can be thought of here.

So, if the Shi’ites will say that the Ansar were forced to give their pledge, one would necessarily reject that, for it is a sheer lie. Because there was never a battle between the people at Saqifah, nor was there any physical combat or exchange of abuses or threats, and neither was anyone armed. Moreover, it was not possible for the Ansar to be terrorized inside their own home and considering their large population of more than two thousand strong warriors, all from one single clan well known for their bravery, so much so that everyone was weary of launching any attack on them.  That is because they had gone through an eight-year war against almost all Arab clans in their surroundings, resulting in them not being afraid of death.  Above all that their minds were fresh with their experience in the just concluded war against the Romans in the battle of Mu’tah.  It was therefore totally impossible for such people to fear Abu Bakr and just two other men with him, especially considering that Abu Bakr was not from a strong clan, nor did he own many slaves or have strong relatives or wealth.  So how could they return to him while compared to them he was of no value.  But all the same they accepted him and pledged their allegiance to him wholeheartedly.

It is likewise false to assume that the Ansar rescinded their former decision of vesting one of their kinsfolk with the caliphate while they believe that it was their eligible right to claim so, just for nothing.  It is also impossible for the differing inclinations of that large number of the Ansar to agree on something they knew was wrong and void without being forced by fear or intimidation, and without being influenced by their vested interests to acquire some wealth or reputation. How could they wholly sacrifice all that to a man who had neither strong relatives to support him, nor any power or security operatives to guard him, nor had he any palace which he took to be a fortress against any attack, nor strong slaves or wealth and influence with which to acquire whatever he liked and usurp whatever power from whomever he wished.

So, if all the above assumptions are false, nothing then remains but the fact that the Ansar only changed their minds and accepted Abu Bakr radiyallahu ‘anhu for a very strong and authentic proof from the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wa alihi wa sallam,not for a personal ijtihad or a simple assumption like their own.

Having made void the assumption that the Ansar were the right heirs to the throne and the caliphate had slipped from their hands, the question then is, what made all of them agree on denying the purported explicit statement of the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wa alihi wa sallam that ‘Ali would be the imam after him immediately?[1].  It is surely impossible for the views of all of them to agree on helping the same person (i.e. Abu Bakr) that wronged and usurped them of their right, against ‘Ali may Allah be pleased with all of them.

[1] That is, if there was really any nass, why did the Ansar who had just lost the caliphate to Abu Bakr, having known that the Prophet had plainly mentioned the name of ‘Ali as the Imam after him, agree on shutting their mouths on reminding Abu Bakr of the Prophet’s statement, or how could they have connived with Abu Bakr who had just usurped the caliphate from them, to deny ‘Ali his right? (Translator).

Leave a comment

Filed under Articles

Allah praises the companions of the Messenger sallallahu alaihi wa alihi wa sallam

In many places in the Qur’an, Allah praises the companions of the Messenger sallallahu alaihi wa alihi wa sallam. He says,

{But My mercy encompasses all things.  So I will decree it [especially] for those who fear Me and give zakah and those who believe in Our verses. Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered prophet, whom they find written [i.e., mentioned] in what they have of the Torah and the Gospel, who enjoins upon them what is right and forbids them what is wrong and makes lawful for them the good things and prohibits for them the evil and relieves them of their burden and the shackles which were upon them.  So they who have believed in him, honoured him, supported him and followed the light which was sent down with him – it is those who will be successful} [Al-A’raf: 156-157].

And Allah says,

{Those [believers] who responded to Allah and the Messenger after injury had struck them.  For those who did good among them and feared Allah is a great reward.  Those to whom people [i.e. hypocrites] said, “Indeed, the people have gathered against you, so fear them.”  But it [merely] increased them in faith, and they said, “Sufficient for us is Allah, and [He is] the best Disposer of affairs.”} [Al ‘Imran : 172-173].

In another verse He says,

{It is He who supported you with His help and with the believers.  And brought together their hearts.  If you had spent all that is in the earth, you could not have brought their hearts together, but Allah brought them together.  Indeed, He is Exalted in Might and Wise.} [Al-Anfal: 62-63].

He further says:

{O Prophet, sufficient for you is Allah and whoever follows you of the believers} [Al-Anfal: 64].

He says:

{You are the best nation produced [as an example] for mankind.  You enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong and believe in Allah} [Al ‘Imran: 110].

A host of other verses in praise of the companions are present in the Qur’an.

The Shi’ites believe that the companions of the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wa alihi wa sallam were true believers during the life of the Prophet, and they only became apostates after that.

Oh, how wonderful! How could they agree on the false claim that all the companions became apostate after him? And for what reason?

How could they have helped the prophet in times of hardships and difficulties, sacrificing their souls as ransom for him, but then become apostates immediately after his death, and without any specific reason?

The only reason the Shi’ites could mention is that they became apostates because they agreed to pledge their allegiance to Abu Bakr radiyallahu ‘anhu.

But the issue is, why would the companions of the Messenger of Allah agree on giving their pledge to Abu Bakr?  What threat were they afraid of from Abu Bakr?  Had Abu Bakr that kind of power and authority on them such that he could coerce them into accepting him as a caliph? By the way, Abu Bakr was from the clan of Banu Taim among the Quraishi tribe, who were the smallest clan in terms of population.  The most populated and influential clans among the Quraish were Banu Hashim, Banu ‘Abd ad-Dar and Banu Makhzum.

So if Abu Bakr was not strong enough to force the companions to give him their pledge, then why would all of them sacrifice their jihad, their faith, their help for the Prophet and the religion, their virtue of early acceptance of Islam, and sacrifice their world and hereafter for the sake of someone not from their strongest and most influential clans, that is Abu Bakr radiyallahu ‘anhu?

If the companions became apostates after the death of the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wa alihi wa sallam, as the Shi’ites believe, why then did they fight the apostates – the followers of the most notorious pseudo-prophets: Musailamah, Tulaihah ibn Khuwailid, al-Aswad al-‘Ansi and Sijah, and others, and above that forced them to return to the fold of Islam?  Why did they not help these renegade parties or at least leave them alone, if they were themselves apostates?

Allah’s natural and legal rule on earth is that the immediate companions of all Prophets are the best among the followers of their religion.  That is why if the adherents of any religion are asked: who are the best among the followers of your religion, they would say: the companions of the Messengers.

If the followers of the Torah are asked: who are the best among the followers of your religion? They would say: the companions of Moses alaihis salam, and if the followers of the Gospel would be asked the same question, they would surely say: the followers of Jesus alaihis salam.  The same is true of the followers of all the Prophets, and that is because, the companions of any prophet are closer and more deeply associated with the revelation sent down with that prophet, and their knowledge and acquaintance with prophecy and prophets are stronger and more reliable.

So, why should the case be different with our Prophet Muhammad sallallahu alaihi wa alihi wa sallam, whom Allah has chosen to bear the everlasting and all-encompassing message, and who came with the complete and tolerant law? Why should the case be different with this last Prophet for the advent of whom Allah had prepared messengers and prophets before him, and the one who had been mentioned in all divinely revealed books?  How could his most immediate and close companions reject him – as the Shi’ites believe -, while they were the ones who actually believed in him, helped, honoured and supported him?

What meaning have you – Shi’ites – left for the message of Muhammad sallallahu alaihi wa alihi wa sallam, and what significance have you attached to this divine law, having believed that the most close associates of Muhammad sallallahu alaihi wa alihi wa sallam had deserted him and became apostates?  Going by your line of thinking, if his most close associates were apostates, then those that came after them among those pious and great warriors who left their families and homes in order to help and support the Messenger sallallahu alaihi wa alihi wa sallam, and fought their own fathers and brethren, and after his death conquered many countries and brought them under Islam through their sound knowledge and by the strong words of the Qur’an and the power of their swords – are more deserving to become unbelievers, apostates and great losers.


Filed under Articles

The Shiites believe that most of the companions of the Prophet (pbuh) except a very few number, were hypocrites and unbelievers

The Shi’ites believe that most of the companions of the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wa alihi wa sallam except a very few number, were hypocrites and unbelievers.  If that was the case, why didn’t those unbelievers destroy and wreck that small number that was with the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wa alihi wa sallam?  If they argue that the companions only became apostates after the Prophet’s death leaving only seven of them, why didn’t they bring the whole message of the Prophet to an end by destroying the few number of Muslims left, thereby reverting the situation to what it was in the days of their forefathers?

Is it logically acceptable that the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wa alihi wa sallam failed woefully in choosing his companions, while Khomeini succeeded in that?

If the society of the companions of the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wa alihi wa sallam was such as described by the Shi’ites: a society full of enmity between its populace; its members full of envy against each other; each and every one of them striving for nothing but political leadership; a society most members of which have become apostates and left the religion of Allah – if not for a very small number of them… If all this were true we wouldn’t have witnessed Islam gaining ground and reaching the apogee of its strength and might, conquering various communities and bringing them under its umbrella and thousands of their populace accepting it as a religion, all in the days of the companions radiyallahu ‘anhum.

The Shi’ites claim that reports (from the Prophet) on ‘Ali’s virtues and on his assumed imamate are in very large numbers via Shi’ite narrators.

It is imperative here to assert that the reports narrated by those who were not among the sahabah will never be authentic, for they never met or saw the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wa alihi wa sallam, nor did they hear anything from him.  So their reports from him must be part of what the scholars of hadith term mursal and munqati’.  Those narratives will only be authentic if they report them throug the sahabah and regard them the first authorities in that respect. And it is a known fact that the sahabahrespected and loved by the Shi’ites are very little in number, to be more precise, they are a little more than ten, and this is below the required number for a report to be termed mutawatir.

On another side we find that the Shi’ites vilify the majority of the sahabah who reported the virtues of ‘Ali, and accuse them of disbelief.

If the Shi’ites believe that it is probable that those sahabah who were praised by the Qur’an were liars and that they concealed some of the knowledge they knew concerning ‘Ali’s virtues or his purported Imamate, regardless of their large number, they must also accept that probability in the case of those little number they respect and love. Nay, that probability in their case is even more in place and logical.

The Shi’ites assume that all of the Prophet’s companions were apostates but a few, not more than seven.

The question is, what of the rest of the Ahl al-Bait like the progeny of Ja’far and those of ‘Ali radiyallahu ‘anhuma? Were they also apostates?

We also find that ‘Ali did not consider his opponents unbelievers, not even the Kharijites who fought and harmed him, and declared him an unbeliever.  What is wrong with the Shi’ites that they fail to imitate him in that, even though they heedlessly and boldly declare the companions of Muhammad sallallahu alaihi wa alihi wa sallam, nay his wives, the mothers of the faithful, to be infidels?

The Shi’ites believe that the Sahabah were not reputable and just.  But we find in reliable Shi’i sources evidences that confirm their being reputable and just.  They report that the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alaihi wa alihi wa sallam has said in his farewell pilgrimage speech: “May Allah bless the servant who heard my statement and fully understood it, then conveyed it to him who did not hear…”[1]. How could the Messenger sallallahu alaihi wa alihi wa sallam trust the Sahabah in conveying his message if were they not reputable, just and reliable?

If the number of hypocrites and apostates among the companions is as great as the Shi’ites claim, how could Islam have been spread the way it was? And how could the Persian and Roman empires have been conquered, nay how could Bait al-Maqdis (Jerusalem) have been brought under Islam?

The Shi’ites present as proof – to their false claim that the sahabah became apostates after the death of the Prophet – the hadith: “Some men among whom I know and who know me would come to me (on the day of judgement, in order to drink from my pond) but they would be driven away from it.  And I would say: O, my companions, my companions!  But it would be said to me: ‘You know not what they innovated after you’[2].

We reply them by saying, this hadith speaks in a general way without mentioning anybody by name.  It exempts neither ‘Ammar ibn Yasir, nor al-Miqdad ibn al-Aswad, nor Abu Dharr, nor Salman al-Farisi, nor any other person among whom the Shi’ites believe were not apostates. Nay, it does not even exempt ‘Ali radiyallahu ‘anhu himself.  So, why would you specify some and leave out others.  This kind of selective discrimination can be done by anyone, because anybody that has ill feelings against any of the companions can claim that the hadith speaks about him.[3]

The Sahabah’s major crime in the sight of the Shi’ites is their deviation from the wilayah of ‘Ali and their failure to accept him as caliph (after the Prophet immediately).  For this, according to the Shi’ites, they lost their uprightness and reputation.  But why don’t they treat other Shi’ite sects, like ‘al-Futahiyyah’ and ‘al-Waqifiyyah’, who also reject some of their so-called imams with the same token? Instead, they even accept their reports and regard them upright[4].  What kind of contradiction is this?

[1] Al-Khisal (p. 149-150, hadith No. 182).

[2] Reported by al-Bukhari.

[3] The hadith rather speaks about those Arab villagers (al-A’raab) who left the religion of Islam after the death of the Prophet, and whom Abu Bakr and the rest of the companions fought to make them return to Islam.  As for the Prophet’s word “My companions”, it still refers to those Arab villagers because they were following the religion during his life and that is what he means by the word sahabi here.  But if the Shi’ites will claim that rather the closest companions are hereby referred to, they have no reason whatsoever to exclude ‘Ali, ‘Ammar, al-Miqdad, Salman al-Farisi and those among the companions whom they consider the only Muslims after the death of the Prophet, because the word sahabi is applicable to all of them.  But we do not subscribe to this false assumption, for all of the aforementioned together with all other companions – above all Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthman and ‘Ali – were the best of this Ummah, and were the leaders of the faithful.  The Prophet never refers to them in the hadith.  But if they say that the companions were apostates for accepting Abu Bakr as caliph after the death of the Prophet instead of ‘Ali, then we remind them that ‘Ali himself and ‘Ammar, al-Miqdad, Abu Dharr and Salman al-Farisi all accepted Abu Bakr instead of ‘Ali, so if the companions were infidels for this particular reason the Shi’ites should raise their voice loudly and declare these five as infidels as well. (Translator).

[4] See for example: the books ‘Rijal al-Kisshi’ (p. 27; 219; 445; 465), ‘Rijal an-Najashi’ (p. 28; 53; 76; 86; 95; 139), and al-Ardabili’s ‘Jami’ ar-Ruwat’ (1/413).

Leave a comment

Filed under Articles

Wives as Ahl-al-Bayt

Dictionary Definition of “Ahlel Bayt”: We encourage our readers to verify this defintion by picking up any Arabic dictionary. There are three words to look up: Ahl, Bayt, and Ahl-Al-Bayt. Let us reproduce what one such Arabic dictionary has to say, although the results will no doubt be virtually identical in any other dictionary.

Ahl: noun; relatives including wives, children, brothers, sisters, and other kinsmen, and sometimes used to refer to fellow tribesmen

Bayt: noun; house; place of residence

Ahl-Al-Bayt: noun; those people in relation to a man who live in his house, especially his wives and unmarried children that live under his roof and are provided for by him

In fact, the primary definition of Ahl Bayt is a man’s wives; in Arab culture, it is considered rude to call a man’s wives by their actual names, and hence people will refer to a man’s wives simply as his “Ahl Bayt”.

Common Usage of the Term “Ahl-Al-Bayt”: The Quran is an Arabic book that has been revealed to people whose language was Arabic. We will misinterpret the Quran if we attempt to understand its words in a way that was not (and could not be) understood by the primary addressees of the book. Today, if we ask an Arab friend to come to our house with his Ahl-Al-Bayt, the default is that he will come to our house with his wife and children who are staying in his house. He might bring his married children or he might not. He might even bring a friend if the friend is a permanent resident of his house. But primarily, an Arab will understand from this that he should bring his wives, since this is the central and primary definition of the phrase “Ahl-Al-Bayt”.

An Arab will be extremely shocked if he finds that by Ahl-Al-Bayt we meant his cousin, married children, and grandchildren, all of whom live in another house. He will be extremely shocked that we do not mean his wife who lives in his Bayt. This is because for any Arab, the word Ahl-Al-Bayt (which literally means those staying in the house) includes the wife (or wives) of a person. This was in no way any different at the time of the Prophet. It is the same in all Arab countries. It is interesting that even in Iran (being a Shia dominated country) people use the word Ahl-Al-Bayt to refer to the wife as well as children of a person. If we look at any popular book of Arabic words we will find that in the definition of Ahlel Bayt, wife is included. We would thus like to ask the Shia Ayatollahs why they proclaim a different definition of the word Ahlel Bayt? Why should it be that the Prophet’s wives are not part of Ahlel Bayt but rather the Infallible Imams are? In our opinion, this defies logic.

Logic and Common Sense: Ahlel Bayt means the family of a man living in his house. If we were to ask any Shia who is a part of his own family, he would most definitely include his mother (or his spouse) in his response. Mothers and wives are the basic foundation of a family. If we were to ask an unbiased third party as to who the family of Muhammad (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) was, the first names they would mention would be the Prophet’s wives.

The Quran Refers to the Prophet’s Wives as Ahlel Bayt:

وَقَرْنَ فِي بُيُوتِكُنَّ وَلَا تَبَرَّجْنَ تَبَرُّجَ الْجَاهِلِيَّةِ الْأُولَى وَأَقِمْنَ الصَّلَاةَ وَآَتِينَ الزَّكَاةَ وَأَطِعْنَ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ إِنَّمَا يُرِيدُ اللَّهُ لِيُذْهِبَ عَنْكُمُ الرِّجْسَ أَهْلَ الْبَيْتِ وَيُطَهِّرَكُمْ تَطْهِيرًا

[Quran 33:33]

“And stay in your houses and do not display your finery like the displaying of the ignorance of yore; and keep up prayer, and pay the poor-rate, and obey Allah and His Apostle. Allah only desires to keep away the uncleanness from you, O people of the House! and to purify you a (thorough) purifying.”

According to correct opinion of Ahlus Sunnah scholars, the above verse revealed regarding the wives of the Prophet [SAW] but “Ahlal Bayt” (People of the House) also includes other relatives of the Prophet [saw].

But according to shia view, the red part of the verse revealed specifically for five personalities only, viz., 1. Fatima [ra] 2. Ali [ra] 3. Hasan [ra] [4] Husain [ra] (because of hadith-e-kisa) 5. & some shia believe,, also for nine descendents of Husain [ra].

To support their claim they give many arguments:

Sunni’s do not have any sahih hadith which claims that rasool-allah considered his wives as ahul-bayt at the time of  hadith-e-kisa.

This is a lie. Because sunni do have sahih hadith on hadith-e-kisa which clearly says that wives are also ahul-bayt.

Ibn Asakir in his “Arbain fi ummahatil muminin” (p 137, hadis 28) narrated from Umm Salama:
“While the messenger of Allah (pbuh) was in my house one day, the servant came and said: “Ali and Fatima are at the door”. He said: “Withdraw”, and I withdrew to a corner of a house. Ali and Fatima enter with Hasan and Husayn who were young children. He took Hasan and Husayn and sat them in his lap, and embraced Ali and brought him to him, and took Fatima with his other arm and embraced them both and kissed them. He draped a black cloak over them and said: “O Allah to you, not to the fire, both myself an my family”. Umm Salama said: “And I messenger of Allah?”. He said: “And you”.

Ibn Asakir said hadith sahih.

And at next page he said: “It is related by another route in which he said: “You are part of my family“.

Other of their argument is that the red part of the verse uses masculine gender.

However this is a weak argument because these type of gender change are not new for Quran. Quranic arabic is very rich and many times goes against the modern arabic grammer.

Firstly; Just take two simple example from Quran:

1. while talking to the wife of Ibrahim [as], angels also used the same masculine gender.

قَالُوا أَتَعْجَبِينَ مِنْ أَمْرِ اللَّهِ رَحْمَةُ اللَّهِ وَبَرَكَاتُهُ عَلَيْكُمْ أَهْلَ الْبَيْتِ إِنَّهُ حَمِيدٌ مَجِيدٌ

[Quran 11:73]

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

As we see here also, the Quran calls the wife of Ibrahim [as] Ahlal Bayt, and that while using the musculine gender in sentence.

The verse say “salamun ‘alaikum ahlal bayt“, and the “kum” is the same term which is used in 33:33, and is a masculine term.

2. Quran, Surah al-Kahf verse 107 says:

إِنَّ الَّذِينَ ءَامَنُواْ وَعَمِلُواْ الصَّـلِحَاتِ كَانَتْ لَهُمْ جَنَّـتُ الْفِرْدَوْسِ نُزُلاً

Translation:”And those who believe and engage is righteous deeds, they have for their revelry the Gardens of Paradise.”

Here the Arabic phrase for “FOR THEM” is “LA-HUM”. This is masculine plural. Does this mean only men will go to Paradise? Of course not.

Secondly; ALLAH says in Quran 11:59-60.

إِلاَ ءَالَ لُوطٍ إِنَّا لَمُنَجُّوهُمْ أَجْمَعِينَ – إِلاَّ امْرَأَتَهُ قَدَّرْنَآ إِنَّهَا لَمِنَ الْغَـبِرِينَ

“(All) except the family of Loot. Them all surely We are going to save (from destruction). Except his wife…”

The construction “except his wife” would be non-sensical unless the wife was included in the family of Loot (عليه السلم). Otherwise, why would Allah need to clarify that Loot’s wife was an exception to the rule that the family of Loot (عليه السلام) would be saved?

From above two simple examples we can see:: When there is a group of mixed men and women, even if its all women and just one man, that group is addressed with masculine articles as we see in the above verse addressing mankind in totality. This is the case of most languages which have grammatic distinctions between feminine and masculine nouns.

Extract:; in my opinion, I think this is a result of simple Arabic grammar rule, which is that construction ‘Nisaa Nabi’ (نِسَاء النَّبِيِّ) (wives of the prophet) is feminine while the construction ‘أَهْلَ الْبَيْت’ (people of the house) would be considered masculine in Arabic and hence the masculine gender.

This is evident from other verses of the Quran as well. For instance, in verses 11:71-72 the angels sent from Almighty give tidings of a son to Abraham and his wife in the old age. She remarks with the following,

قَالَتْ يَا وَيْلَتَى أَأَلِدُ وَأَنَاْ عَجُوزٌ وَهَـذَا بَعْلِي شَيْخًا إِنَّ هَـذَا لَشَيْءٌ عَجِيبٌ
She said, “O wonder! shall I bear a son when I am an extremely old woman and this my husband an extremely old man? Most surely this is a strange thing.” (Quran 11:72)
قَالُواْ أَتَعْجَبِينَ مِنْ أَمْرِ اللّهِ رَحْمَتُ اللّهِ وَبَرَكَاتُهُ عَلَيْكُمْ أَهْلَ الْبَيْتِ إِنَّهُ حَمِيدٌ مَّجِيدٌ
They said, “Do you wonder at Allah’s bidding? The mercy of Allah and His blessings are on you, O people of the house, surely He is Praised, Glorious.” (Quran 11:73)
In the verse above, the angels are addressing the wife of prophet Abraham (pbuh), which is also evident by the phrase ‘أَتَعْجَبِينَ’ which is a singular feminine second person form. However, in the same sentence, when the next construction comes with ‘أَهْلَ الْبَيْتِ’, the gender changes to masculine ‘عَلَيْكُمْ’ despite the fact that the addressee is a lady, i.e. prophet Abraham (pbuh)’s wife.

Similarly, in Surah Qasas, reading the story of prophet Moses (pbuh) as an infant, the following verse is encountered,

وَحَرَّمْنَا عَلَيْهِ الْمَرَاضِعَ مِن قَبْلُ فَقَالَتْ هَلْ أَدُلُّكُمْ عَلَى أَهْلِ بَيْتٍ يَكْفُلُونَهُ لَكُمْ وَهُمْ لَهُ نَاصِحُونَ
And We ordained that he refused to suck any foster mother before, so she said, “Shall I point out to you the people of a house who will take care of him for you, and will be good counselors to him?” (Quran28:12)
Similarly in this verse, the phrase ‘أَهْلَ الْبَيْت’ is used clearly in the context of a lady, while the gender is masculine again ‘يَكْفُلُونَهُ’ and ‘وَهُمْ’.

In both these verses, the addresses are the women which are addressed with the phrase ‘أَهْلَ الْبَيْت’. This also shows that really this phrase primarily includes one’s wives.

Another of their argument is that:

If you look to verse 33:33

وَقَرْنَ فِي بُيُوتِكُنَّ وَلَا تَبَرَّجْنَ تَبَرُّجَ الْجَاهِلِيَّةِ الْأُولَى وَأَقِمْنَ الصَّلَاةَ وَآتِينَ الزَّكَاةَ وَأَطِعْنَ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ

If you look at the wording and the arabic grammar you will see that this first section of the verse you will see the Qur’aan speaking in a “feminine” tense

إِنَّمَا يُرِيدُ اللَّهُ لِيُذْهِبَ عَنكُمُ الرِّجْسَ أَهْلَ الْبَيْتِ وَيُطَهِّرَكُمْ تَطْهِيرًا

But look very very closed to this…

the word عَنكُمُ ‘ankum’ is a second person, masculine, plural form. Check arabic grammar you will see what I am saying is right.

If it was really talking about the wives the wording of the Qur’aanic verse would be ‘ankunna’

As coming to his other argument of “Ankum” being “Ankunna”, let’s see the following verse:

قَالُواْ أَتَعْجَبِينَ مِنْ أَمْرِ اللَّهِ رَحْمَتُ اللَّهِ وَبَرَكَاتُهُ عَلَيْكُمْ أَهْلَ الْبَيْتِ إِنَّهُ حَمِيدٌ مَّجِيدٌ

[Quran 11:73]

We see that the verb ‘ta’djabîna’ is used in second person form, feminine, singular form this would then necessitate according to his “astonishing Arabic grammar” that ‘Alaykum” should be “Alayki”, even if you say this includes Sayyidunâ Ibrâhim (عليه السلام) then it would be “Alaykuma” (dual form) but instead it is used in plural form. The reason for this is because after the singular feminine verb she is addressed by the title “Ahl al-Bayt” which necessitates the pronouns referring to Ahl al-Bayt -the title that is used to address her- to be used in the plural form like ‘AlayKUM and as we can see again in 33:33 ‘AnKUM. There is no doubt that wives of the Prophet (صلى الله تعالى عليه واله وسلم) are included in Ahl al-Bayt since Allâh Most High addressed them by this title but this is hard to swallow for Twelver Shi`as since they produced a whole concept of infallibility upon it.

& Another of their argument is that:

Also. If you notice the beginning of the verse starts of by saying بُيُوتِكُنَّ The plural feminine form. Because the wives all had their own houses right? So that is why The Qur’aan is addressing all the wives for them not to leave their houses.

But look at the second part of the verse. It says الْبَيْتِ this is singular form, meaning only 1 house is “thoroughly purified”, if it was the other wives the wording would be Ahlul Bayoot, but it is not.

First let me quote the verse:

وَقَرْنَ فِى بُيُوتِكُنَّ وَلاَ تَبَرَّجْنَ تَبَرُّجَ الْجَـهِلِيَّةِ الاٍّولَى وَأَقِمْنَ الصَّلَوةَ وَءَاتِينَ الزَّكَـوةَ وَأَطِعْنَ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ إِنَّمَا يُرِيدُ اللَّهُ لِيُذْهِبَ عَنكُـمُ الرِّجْسَ أَهْلَ الْبَيْتِ وَيُطَهِّرَكُمْ تَطْهِيــراً

And stay in your houses, and do not Tabarruj yourselves like the Tabarruj of the times of ignorance, and perform the Salah, and give Zakah and obey Allah and His Messenger. Allah wishes only to remove the Ar-Rijs from you, O members of the family, and to purify you with a thorough purification

He mean first Allah said “bayoot-koon” (plural) & then “ahl-bayt” (singular)

Means to include house of wives it should be “ahle-bayoot” instead of “ahl-bayt”! So only one house is thoroughly purified i.e. house of imam ali!

This statement made me laugh. 😛

First let me tell you “ahl” is called ISME-JAMA in arabic grammar means “word used for both plural & singular” or we can say “word without restriction in quantity form”.

Allah said “bayoot-koon” in the beginning because Allah wants all wives of S.A.W. (pbuh) to stay in their own houses (remember bayoot is used for houses not for members & to include members “ahl” is used), then Allah said “ahl-bayt” in the last because Allah wants to purify members of the house not one house itself.

If we analyse shia argument, we find: He said bayoot is plural & bayt is singular (without including “ahl” with “bayt”):

This mean, member of house (if we are considering it singular, as shia said), so this means Allah want to purify only one member not one house, because Allah said “ahl-bayt” not only “bayt”. As you can see how shia can skip word “ahl” from quranic verse only to support his evil & useless arguments. They will always try hard to exclude wives from this verse but always they fail when we compare the quranic verses with other verses.

May be after knowing this grammetic issues the fighting will took place between shia sects i.e. who will be the purified one from the holy four! & then more shia sects will form on this issue. 😛

As we can see this shia argument goes against there own belief, to include more than one member “ahl-bayt” should be considered as plural not singular. & remember “ahl” is plural here because it includes more than one member, so automatically “ahl-bayt” will become plural.

Some other points: The terms ‘Ahlul Bayt’ (أَهْلَ الْبَيْت) and ‘Ahl-i-Bayt’ (أَهْلِ بَيْت) are both consruct states (also known as ‘اضافه’, i.e. genitive) according to basic Arabic grammar rules. The only difference between these two terms is ‘Al’ (ال) that comes with ‘bayt’ ‘بَيْت’ in the first phrase. ‘Al’ (ال) is a definite article translating to ‘the’ in English. So while ‘bayt’ (بَيْت) would mean ‘a house’, ‘alBayt’ (الْبَيْت) would mean ‘the house’. Given this information, basic Arabic rules dictate the meaning of the phrase ‘Ahlul Bayt’ (أَهْلَ الْبَيْت) as “people of the house”, while the phrase ‘Ahl-i-Bayt’ (أَهْلِ بَيْت) would mean ‘people of a house’.

In the Arabic language, this phrase, as apparent from its meaning, is used commonly to represent those who live in one’s house, i.e. people of the house. Now if we look at all the three verses that have been discussed so far (Hud 11:73, Al-Qasas 28:12 and Al-Ahzab 33:33) the context clearly shows that this phrase has been used for people who lived in the houses of each of the subjects under discussion. In my previous response, I quoted these verses in order to clarify the meaning of this phrase using the Quran, irrespective of why it was used for the ladies. As you shall see, this phrase in the other two verses really only means people living in the houses:

In Hud 11:73, the phrase “people of the house” (i.e. a house under discussion) is used for Abraham’s wife who lived in the house of Abraham, thus his ‘people of the house’.

In Al-Qasas 28:12, the phrase “people of a house” (i.e. people in some house) is used as an expression to indicate a lady who can nourish prophet Moses (pbuh).

As a result, when one looks at 33rd verse of Al-Ahzab, one sees that the phrase ‘people of the house’ is used in the context where the entire discussion is directed at prophet Muhammad (pbuh)’s wives. In this context when this phrase appears, there is no doubt that it refers to the ‘people of the house’ of prophet Muhammad (pbuh).

Whether the address in other verses to prophet Abraham (pbuh)’s wife or prophet Moses (pbuh)’s mother is made as wives or as mothers of prophets is not really relevant since the entire discussion is around understanding the meaning of the phrase ‘Ahlul Bayt’ (أَهْلَ الْبَيْت), which in any case refers to the ladies living in a house.

Now let me give an exact example from Hadith where Prophet [saw] used masculine gender while referring to his wives as “Ahlal Bayt”.

It is mention in Sahih Muslim, Book of Marriage..

قال أنس: وشهدت وليمة زينب. فأشبع الناس خبزا ولحما. وكان يبعثني فأدعوا الناس. فلما فرغ قام وتبعته. فتخلف رجلان استأنس بهما الحديث. لم يخرجا. فجعل يمر على نسائه. فيسلم على كل واحدة منهن “سلام عليكم. كيف أنتم يا أهل البيت؟” فيقولون: بخير. يا رسول الله ! كيف وجدت أهلك ؟ فيقول “بخير” فلما فرغ رجع ورجعت معه. فلما بلغ الباب إذا هو بالرجلين قد استأنس بهما الحديث. فلما رأياه قد رجع قاما فخرجا. فوالله ! ما أدري أنا أخبرته أم أنزل عليه الوحي بأنهما قد خرجا. فرجع ورجعت معه. فلما وضع رجله في أسكفة الباب أرخى الحجاب بيني وبينه. وأنزل الله تعالى هذه الآية: {لا تدخلوا بيوت النبي إلا أن يؤذن لكم} [33 /الأحزاب/ الآية 53] الآية

Translation of the relevant part is…

Anas said: I also saw the wedding feast of Zainab, and he (the Holy Prophet) served bread and meat to the people, and made them eat to their heart’s content, and he (the Holy Prophet) sent me to call people, and as he was free (from the ceremony) he stood up and I followed him. Two persons were left and they were busy in talking and did not get out (of the apartment). He (the Holy Prophet) then proceeded towards (the apartments of) his wives. He greeted with as-Salamu ‘alaikum to every one of them and said: Members of the household, how are you?? They said: Messenger of Allah, we are in good state ‘How do you find your family? He would say: In good state.

Here Prophet [saw] greeted his wives as “Assalamu’alaikum. Kaifa antum ya Ahlal Bayt“. The blue parts in the sentence represent masculine gender. Hence, we see Prophet [saw] used the masculine sentence while greeting to his wives. Use of masculine gender in the above hadith doesn’t change the fact that Prophet was referring to his wives not any other members of his family.

The point here is Quranic arabic is very rich and modern arabic grammer doesn’t cover all aspects of it. We can’t just distort the context of Quran, just because it uses the masculine gender while talking to feminine, whose usage is proven for feminine by the way in the arabic books.

Now the following are some narrations which prove without doubt that Wives of the Prophet [saw] were among Ahlal Bayt

1. Hazrat Aisha did consider herself among Ahlal Bayt

35 – (1995) وحدثنا زهير بن حرب وإسحاق بن إبراهيم. كلاهما عن جرير. قال زهير: حدثنا جرير عن منصور، عن إبراهيم. قال:

قلت للأسود: هل سألت أم المؤمنين عما يكره أن ينتبذ فيه؟ قال: نعم. قلت: يا أم المؤمنين! أخبريني عما نهى عنه رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أن ينتبذ فيه. قالت: نهانا، أهل البيت، أن ننتبذ في الدباء والمزفت

Ibrahim reported: I said to Aswad if he had asked the Mother of the Believers (in which utensils) he (the Holy Prophet) disapproved the preparation of Nabidh. He (Aswad) said: Yes. I said: Mother of the Believers, inform me about the utensils in which) Allah’s Apostle forbade to prepare Nabidh. She (Hadrat ‘A’isha) said: He forbade us, the members of his family [Ahlal Bayt], to prepare Nabidh in gourd, or varnished jar. I said to him: Do you remember green pitcher, and pitcher? He said: I narrated to you what I have heard; should I narrate to you which I did not hear?

Note- Ahlal Bayt in bracket is by me as a transliteration of what is present in arabic source.

2. Prophet (S.A.W.) called Aisha(ra)  “Ahli Baytee” (my family) on pulpit, during the incident of Ifk:

وهو على المنبر: (يامعشر المسلمين، من يعذرني من رجل قد بلغني أذاه في أهل بيتي، فوالله ما علمت على أهلي إلا خيرا، ولقد ذكروا رجلا ما علمت عليه إلا خيرا، وما كان يدخل على أهلي إلا معي

“…So Allah’s Apostle got up (and addressed) the people an asked for somebody who would take revenge on ‘Abdullah bin Ubai bin Salul then. Allah’s Apostle, while on the pulpit, said, “O Muslims! Who will help me against a man who has hurt me by slandering my family? By Allah, I know nothing except good about my family, and people have blamed a man of whom I know nothing except good, and he never used to visit my family except with me,”

Sahih Bukhari-

Grand Ayatollah al-Kho’i Says Wife is Part of a Man’s “Ahl”:

Grand Ayatollah al-Kho’i, the former leader of the Hawzah of the holy city of Najaf, wrote in his book “Sirat al-Najat” that the wife is a part of a man’s “Ahl”. It should be noted that “Sirat al-Najat” is a very famous book which is referenced on many times. Is it not clear from this that the Prophet’s wives are a part of his “Ahl”?

Does this not expose the hypocrisy of the Shia leaders when they include their own wives in their Ahl, but they then rip the Prophet’s wives out of his Ahl? This is indeed indicative of the two-faced attitude of the Shia Ayatollahs, whereby they will never tolerate a man insulting their own wives, but they themselves will degrade the Prophet’s wives! Aisha and Hafsa are a part of the Ahlel Bayt, and the Shia leaders lie when they claim to be the lovers of Ahlel Bayt when in fact they are the enemies and revilers of the Prophet’s wives (i.e. his Ahlel Bayt). We kindly ask the Shia laypersons to disassociate themselves from their leaders and to instead embrace the true lovers of Ahlel Bayt, i.e. the Ahlus Sunnah.

Q: There is a command to convey the Haqq (Truth) to one’s “Ahl” as well as to forbid them from the evil things, so in this command, who is “Ahl”? And is one’s wife included in this, and is this command (to convey the truth) applicable to one’s wife?

Answer by al-Ko’i: Yes, the wife is part of the “Ahl”, and this command is in regards to her too. And Allah knows best.

(source: Sirat al-Najat, by Grand Ayatollah al-Kho’i, p.426

Reason: Perhaps the reason that the Shia Ayatollahs love the Ahlel Bayt of Ali (رضّى الله عنه) and not the Ahlel Bayt of the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) has to do with how the faith of Shi’ism came into being. Indeed, the early ancestors of the Shia are the Saba’ites, followers of Abdullah Ibn Saba. These Saba’ites excessively praised Ali (رضّى الله عنه) and eventually even declared that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) was superior to the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم). Today, the Shia adamantly deny this and they say that the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) is superior to Ali (رضّى الله عنه). However, we wonder why then they praise the Ahlel Bayt of Ali (رضّى الله عنه) and not the Ahlel Bayt of Muhammad (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم)? Is this not a remnant of the Saba’ite origin of Shi’ism?

Furthermore, there is absolutely no logic in calling the Infallible Imams of the Shia to be part of Ahlel Bayt and then deny that the Prophet’s wives are part of Ahlel Bayt. Surely, the Prophet’s wives have a much greater right to be part of Ahlel Bayt than people who did not even live in the Bayt of the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم).

Conclusion: The Prophet’s wives are the Ahlel Bayt. Many Shia Ayatollahs slander Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) and Hafsa (رضّى الله عنها) with many baseless accusations (we shall examine these accusations in later articles). We ask our Shia brothers to ponder over the true nature of this love. The Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah are lovers of Ahlel Bayt and certainly not Nasibis (haters of Ahlel Bayt). In fact the reality may be that the Ayatollahs are the ones who are Nasibis as they hate the Ahlel Bayt (i.e. Prophet’s wives) so much that they even deny that they are the Ahlel Bayt!

The fact that the Prophet’s wives are Ahlel Bayt is proven from the Quran, Hadith, scholarly opinion, dictionary, logic, common sense, and common usage of the word “Ahlel Bayt.” Those who care to argue so vehemently against the verses of the Quran can only be those who hate the Ahlel Bayt so much and so passionately that they must even reject the Word of Allah.

I think this is enough to refute shia claim regarding ahlul-bayt.

1 Comment

Filed under Rebuttals