Tafsir "Ahl al-Bayt" (33:33, 11:73)

Bi ismillahir rahmanir raheem

Are sunni's one school of thought now? we have four madhhabs i think you should at least get the basics correct beffore rasing your self to the level of scholars by adressing them the way you have.

Or maybe you adressed Us as one school of thought to highlight your incorect point.

Only one one tafsir above said it doesnt refer to the wives of the prophet the argument is whether it refers to Ali also who were not present at the time of revelation.

Allah himself calls the wives Ahl al bayt you seem to be avoiding this point, maybe you have an elaborate explanation as to why the obvious context in the Quran isnt the actual context?

Read the tafsir again the clear majority of Sunni scholars agree on this point.

Al-Baydawi, Anwar al-Tanzil (4:374): "The Shi`a's claim that verse 33:33 is
specific to Fatima, `Ali, and their two sons - Allah be well-pleased with
them - ... and their adducing it as proof of their immunity from sin
(`ismat) and of the probative character of their consensus, is weak, because
restricting the meaning to them is not consistent with what precedes the
verse and what follows it. The thread of speech means that they are part of
the Ahl al-Bayt, not that others are not part of it also."

This includes Aisha in whose house the verse was revealed.

Bi ismillahir rahmanir raheem

assalamu alaikum

I am really quite surprised at your (and others) insistence that this verse includes the wives of the prophet for two reasons. The first and most important is the Tafseer of this verse from your own scholars. You say that only 1 of the scholars you quoted says that the verse was revealed only about the five, however, there are many, many more well known and respected Sunni scholars who have the same opinion (and have transmitted hadith to support their claim) . I have included only those for which I have a precise, academic reference that can be verified. Here is a partial list;

You have not provided any Tafsir of the verse from any Sunni scholars!

The second highlighted statment is where the mistake is, The hadith that is refrenced is not an indication of the respected scholars opinions on the matter this is your asumption, sunni scholars do not accept or reject ahadith simply becouse we agree with them or we dislike them, we have a complete science to verify the authenticity of hadith those which are authentic we include. This science also deals with hadith contradictions between authenticated ahadith, If you pay close atention to the ahadith non say the verse was revealed becouse of such and suach they only mention time and place unless there is a clear statment to the effect "the reason for this verse to be revealed was this" "the prophet was asked about such and such, and so Allah revealed such and such" it is not considered to be amongst asbab an Nuzool.

Further all that has been given are refrences to "a" hadith without the actual commentary by any scholar.

The second reason for my surprise is that you are using the context of the verse to prove that it was revealed in reference to the wives. In fact the verse itself proves that this cannot be relied upon, as within the same Ayat it quickly changes from addressing an all female group (with a femine pronoun) to either a mixed or exclusively male group (with a masculine pronoun). This shows that two different groups are addressed within the same Ayat, so showing that the statements before and after the "statement of purification" are addressing a different group.

Ya Kafirun means the verse is adressing the Kafir, Ya Munafiq means the verse is adressing a Munafiq, Ya Mu'minuun means the verse is adressing a Mu'min, YA NISAA means O women (adressing women), verse 33 is not seperate from verse 32 it only changes to masculine in the second half of the verse 33 it doesnt change topic read the arabic 32 continues to 33 and only in the second half does it adress the entire group as Ahl al bayt, Sayidah Fatimah was among those included a "female". You can not ignore the context of the Quran, "This is confirmed by the majority of the scholars of Qur'anic commentary" meaning The clear majority of Sunni scholars who are expret in the field of Tafsir hold this opinion The above article are Quotes from these said Scholars.

It is clear that a switch from feminine to masculine with reference to the
address to Ahl al-Bayt means (1) the grammatical value of Ahl is masculine
and/or (2) at least one man is included with the feminine group being
addressed. The latter group would thus consist in the wives of the Prophet
(SAWS) *together* with the Mantle (`Itra): `Ali, Fatima, and their children.

The verse was revealed in the house of Aisha here is exact Quote from Imam Syuti who you may not know is one of Islams Greatest Sunni scholars.

Al-Suyuti, al-Durr al-Manthur (6:603): [after citing the narrations of the
`Itra] Ibn Sa`d narrated from `Urwa that he said: "Ahl al-Bayt [in 33:33]
means the wives of the Prophet (SAWS) and it was revealed in the house of
`A'isha."

you should also note that "2.)     Jalalu'd-din Suyuti in Durru'l-Mansur" 
is the same person (aparently in the same work) clearly saying the oposite of what 
you claim on the basis of only citing a hadith which 
you interprate the intention and his commentary for him.

Al-Jalalayn (one of islams greatest tafisr works, it is held as the standard 
by which to judge other tafsir works): "Ahl al-Bayt [in 33:33] 
i.e. the wives of the Prophet (SAWS)." 

Al jalalayn is Imama suyuti's Tafsir.

1)Imam Fakhru'd-d Razi in Tafsir-e-Kabir, vol. VI, p. 783;

Al-Razi, al-Tafsir al-Kabir (6:615): "Allah Most High quit using the
feminine pronoun in his address and turned to the masculine by saying
{liyudhhiba `ankum al-rijsa = to remove uncleanness far from you [masculine
plural]}, so as to include both the women of his [i.e. the Prophet's] house
and the men. Explanations have differed concerning the 'Ahl al-Bayt' but the
most appropriate and correct is to say they are his children and wives;
al-Hasan and al-Husayn being among them and `Ali being among them... due to
his cohabitation with the daughter of the Prophet (SAWS) and his close
companionship with the Prophet (SAWS)."

6)Muhibu'd-din Tabari in Riyazu'n-Nuzra, vol. II, p. 188;

Al-Tabari, Tafsir (22:7) [after citing reports explaining Ahl al-Bayt to
mean the `Itra] and al-Wahidi, Asbab al-Nuzul (p. 299 #734): From `Ikrima
concerning 33:33: "It is not as they claim, but the verse was revealed
concerning the wives of the Prophet (SAWS)."

A clear contradiction to what you and the website are saying.

In addition to this, if we have numerous Hadith from the Prophet (a.s.), such as the "Hadith of the Cloak" and others in which the prophet was asked directly who the Ahly Al'Bayt were and he gave a direct answer (i.e., he gathered (himself), Ali (a.s.), Fatima (a.s.), Hassan (a.s.) and Hussien (a.s.) under the cloak), then how can we ignore these and rely on the context.

Br you just said Hadith are over Quran. Many ahadith seem to contradict the Quran that is why the science of hadith authentication and commentary developed to clear these apparent contradictions, no scholar has ever said we take a hadith above the Quran or interprate it in such a way to contradict the Quran.

And how do these hadith exclude his wives being part of Ahl al Bayt, there are other ahadith which also call them ahl al bayt it is only your willingness to put one hadith verse another which is causing confusion, rahter you should say our prophet didnt contradict him self.

There is also a third point, which I wish to avoid (to not potentially offend anyone) regarding Muslim history.

You mean shia version of muslim history, it is unfortunate br you converted to shia islam beffore learning about Sunni Islam from Sunni's .

I sincerely suggest br you impartialy and objectively learn about sunni islam from traditional Sunni scholars not from books written about sunni beliefs by our shia br's, there is a real documented history of fabrication from the shia side, not by respected scholars, but the works have non the less gained popularity and thus influeced Shia popular beliefs and atitude. One such work Is peshwar nights which i can give you clear examples of fabrications concerning sunni sources in order to suport there argument. You may like to further consider this point, early shia muslims used to have names like Abu bakr and Umar and Uthman it is only in modern history that hatred for such companions has fostered.

Look at pure facts without interpretation and you will see how much is opinion.

Edited by rami

Bi ismillahir rahmanir raheem

assalamu alaikum

A GENERAL (and maybe a good ending) POINT On the subject of the meaning of this particular Ayat, we may just have to "agree to disagree for now." No hard feelings!

this is my last comment on the subject,

I believe the verse is adressing the wives and Ali, fatimah and there children, if we were to say the masculine pronoun was purely adressing an all male group then certainly fatimah would be excluded. Since it is adressing both, the wives must be included as it is the context of the verse and versus prior and later.

I will add and you can verify this that generaly you will find else where in the Quran when no gender or both genders are intended Allah (swt) always talkes in the masculine.

REGARDING OTHER POINTS If you read my posts, you will see that I have never insulted Abu Bakr, Omar or Uthman (although many Shia do this, I'll admit). I do not believe that they were deserving of the title of Caliphate, however, that is not an insult. You are correct (and I think other Shia have mentioned this) that in early Muslim history there were Shia with these names. The exagerations and demonization that takes place among both the Shia and Sunni communities is related to the oppression of the Shia by the (in name only, possibly) Sunni Caliphs from 80 A.H. until the 1920's. At this moment in history we have an unprecedented opportunity for dialogue. Let's hope history doesn't repeat itself.

I am not aware of systametic or doctrinal based opression by sunni's, so calling any opression inherently sunni or based on Sunni ideology i dont think would be corect. Our great Scholars where opressed by there own rulers for not agreeing with them we dont claim that every Khalif or monarch as the rule later came to be was righteous so generalising opression would be incorect.

Imam Abu Hanifah who systemised the Shariah into a coherent set of laws was imprisoned and consaquently poisined by the Khalifah at the time for refusing to declare him the rightful Khalifah, Imam Malik was flogged by the Khalif during his time for not taking back a ruling he made that a forced marriage is not binding in Islam which would mean he would have problems with many of his concubines. Our jurisprudent or the rules and guidlines we base our laws on developed seperate from those in charge they did not have a say in this development so at many times our scholars would not back down or shy away from refuting the Khalif if a need arose. Having said that there have been many example of excelent Khalifah "Umar ibn Abd al Aziz" when he came into power "changed the entire government system, his rein was characterised by justice and good administration. During his Khalifah nearly every home became a religious school.".

I think in another post you expressed interest in learning about sunni major works of hadith, if you are interested in these and other areas i can point you to some traditional sources on the net.

May Allah (s.w.a.) remove the prejudice from our hearts, and guide us to clear and straight path. Salam

Ameen

Edited by rami