Book of Refutations

The Book Of Refutations I

In-depth refutation regarding The Shiite claim of Verse 33:33

Compilation of refutations demolishing the Shiite belief

Book of Refutations

Contexts Page

Language and wording in the verse - 4

(A) Masculine wording - 6

(B) Masculine wording 8

Commentary on verse 33:33 22

Hadith al kisa - 25

Hadith Al-Kisa indepth Analysis - 29

Linguistics and wording indepth analysis part 1 - 36

Linguistic and wording indepth analysis part 2 44

Sayings of the Shia scholars 48

Tahreef (Distortion) 53

Does verse (33:33) makes anyone infallible? - 58

Final Message - 88

Book of Refutations

Let us Begin with the Quran as our first source of information before dwelling into Hadith:

Book of Refutations

Language and Wording in the Verse

The word in verse 33:33 is:

Now if we take a look at what this word actually means in the English language, translated:

The word which is clearly used is remove; it can also be translated as To Take out or To keep away: Now my Question to the Rafidha that Reject the Hadith and Quran, why would Allah need to remove or keep away impurity, uncleanliness, evil doings from the AhlulBayt? Ask yourself without twisting the verse to suit your own agenda; are they really infallible if Allah wished them to be pure? According to your logic The AhlulBayt are infallible, yet it contradicts the fact Allah wanted to purify them? According to Ayatullah Agha H. M. M. Pooya Yazdi and S. V. Mir Ahmed Ali "Verily Allah intends to keep off from you uncleanness, O you Ahl ul Bayt and purify you with a thorough purification"

Book of Refutations

Now let us move on to one of the claims the Rafidha make regarding the wording used in this verse When we read verses of the Quran, we should read the entire passage and not just isolated parts of it. We must see what the context of what is being said is. Otherwise, we will be misled. We are afraid that many people, either knowingly or unknowingly, are taking the Quran and Hadith out of context simply to win debates. Insha-Allah we should read the Quranic verses in their entirity and with an open heart. The above mentions Verse 33:33 of the Quran. Let us now read to whom this verse in the Quran is addressed to; let us read the entire sentence, starting from verse 33:32 all the way to verse 33:34. O wives of the Prophet! You are not like any other of the women; If you will be on your guard, then be not soft in your speech, lest he in whose heart is a disease yearn; and speak a good word. And stay quietly in your houses, and make not a dazzling display, like that of the former Times of Ignorance; and establish regular Prayer, and give regular Charity; and obey Allah and His Messenger. And Allah only wishes to remove all abomination from you, you Ahlel Bayt (People of the House), and to make you pure and spotless. And recite what is rehearsed to you in your homes, of the Signs of Allah and His Wisdom: for Allah understands the finest mysteries and is well-acquainted (with them). (Quran, 33:32-34) Allah Almighty clearly addresses the wives of the Prophet ( ) . If we were to argue that this verse is the verse of purification and that it makes certain people infallible, then we would have to conclude that it is Aisha ( ) and the rest of the Prophets wives which were made infallible. We base this on the simple fact that the verse was revealed with the heading O wives of the Prophet. how can we say that this verse refers to Ali ( ) and the Infallible Imams when none of them are mentioned here, but only the wives are addressed? We understand that it is a popular concept that this verse makes the Ahlel Bayt infallible. However, it is also the same people who spread such conceptions who believe that Aisha ( ) hated Ali ( ) . It seems to us that, if anything, it is Aisha ( ) who is made infallible, and if indeed that is the case shouldnt the Shia side with her over Ali ( ?) There is actually not a single verse in the Quran which identifies Ali ( ) , Fatima ( ) , Hasan ( ) , or Hussain ( ) to be Ahlel Bayt. Not a single verse in the Quran mentions the 12 Infallible Imams of the Shia, let alone mentioning them as the Ahlel Bayt. Nowhere in the Quran does it refer to the Hidden Imam as the Ahlel Bayt. How is it then that a very fundamental aspect of the Shia faith is not in the Quran, which is supposed to be the ultimate guide to truth? How can the ultimate guide be devoid of the essence of belief, as the Shia claim that following their Ahlel Bayt is? The term Ahlel Bayt has been used twice in the Quran, and both times to refer to the wives. The Quran does not say O cousin of the Prophet but rather it says O wives of the Prophet. In conclusion, the verse you have mentioned, Verse 33:33, was addressed to the Prophets wives.

Book of Refutations
The verse 33:33 does not make anybody infallible. Nobody is infallible, not even the prophets. This idea of making people infallible is alien to Islam and it is akin to what the Christians have done with Prophet Isa (i.e. making him infallible). This is an exaggeration that leads to Shirk, since an attribute of the Creator is given to the creation.

(A)Masculine Wording
In Arabic, There are certain nouns which render the meaning of plurality. Such nouns are known in the Arabic grammar as [ism jama] noun of plural or collective noun. Al-Ghalaayini (2004:217) refers to the collective noun as implying the meaning of plurality, but it has no oneness in its form just in its meaning having their singulars. He also adds that collectives can be treated as singular depending on their form, and they can be treated as plural depending on their meaning. Ahle bayt is not a proper or common noun as many people have a misunderstanding that its a common noun, they try to use it in the manner in which common noun is used. And eventually with that faulty method they end up messing the whole issue. So we would like to emphasize in clearing this misunderstanding that Ahlebayt is a collective noun, And its usage is not like that of a common noun. Because when a group is addressed with a collective noun regardless of their gender or number of the individuals being addressed the pronoun used for the collective noun will be masculine plural. Examples of collective nouns are 'army, family, troop, herd, pride, team, flock; In Arabic collective nouns are always Masculine. The pronouns used for collective nouns dont depend on the gender or number of the individuals being addressed. Even if a group of females is being addressed with a collective noun, then the pronoun that will be used for it will be masculine plural. And even if a single female is addressed with collective pronoun then the pronoun that will be used will again be masculine plural. Importantly in the examples we are going to use, we will be emphasizing on usage of collective noun as a second noun or third noun BUT WHEN ADDRESSED IS DIRECTLY , because in quran in multiple places the word Ahl sometimes is not addressed directly, but the word there is his Ahl/her Ahl. Before we start the examples let us give you a basic example to understand what was explained above. For eg: For a proper noun which is singular masculine . May peace be on you OAli, Then in Arabic the pronoun used for the noun(ali) will be ka i.e. singular masculine pronoun, because Ali is a singular masculine noun. In Arabic it will be in this form. Salam alai (ka) ya ali. For a proper noun which is singular feminine .

Book of Refutations
May peace be on you O Fatima Then in Arabic the pronoun used for the noun(fatima) will be ki which is singular feminine pronoun, because Fatima is a singular femi nine noun. In Arabic it will be in this form. Salam alai (ki) ya fatima. For collective noun: Now here for the same statement when the noun being addressed is changed to collective noun then regardless of the gender of individuals or their number the pronoun that will be used for collective noun will be masculine plural. This pronoun will be same(i.e masculine plural) for a group of males if being addressed with collective noun or just a group of females if they are being addressed with collective noun or a single female if being addressed with collective noun or a single male being addressed with collective noun. For All these scenarios the pronoun used will be masculine plural, and remember this is not because of the gender or quantity of the individuals being addressed but because they were addressed with collective noun then by default the pronoun used will be masculine plural. Suppose a single women is being addressed with the collective noun (ahlebayt), For eg: Peace and blessing be upon you O, ahlebayt. In Arabic it will be in this form. Salam alai (kum) ya ahlebayt The pronoun used here for the collective noun(ahlebayt) was kum which is masculine plural pronoun, because regardless single women is addressed with the collective noun or a group of females or a single male or a group of males , the pronoun that is used for all these scenarios will be masculine plural(kum).

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 (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) and his close companionship with the Prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam). Al-Baydawi, Anwar al-Tanzil (4:374): The Shi`as 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.

Book of Refutations

(B)Masculine Wording Mention of Ahlul Bayt to the Women in the Scripture

Example 1:

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 wonderful thing. They said: Do you wonder at Allahs bidding? The mercy of Allah and His blessings are on you(KUM), O people of the house(ahlebayt), surely He is Praised, Glorious.(quran 11:72-73) Comment: In the verse above, the angels are addressing the wife of prophet Abraham(as), which is also evident by the phrase which is a singular feminine second person form. When the next construction comes with , the gender changes to masculine despite the fact that the addressee is a lady, i.e. prophet Abraham (as)s wife. Though a single lady is being addressed here but because she was addressed with collective noun(ahlebayt), the pronoun that was used for her was (kum) which is masculine plural this is the reason for the change in gender of the pronoun, which changed from feminine singular to masculine plural. The shias who lack academic knowledge are desperate to somehow reject this explanation, so they might say that masculine plural pronoun(kum) was used in the verse after singular feminine was used, because the wife of hz ibrahim(as) was pregnant. To them we reply that : Firstly, nowhere does the quran says she was pregnant , it just says that she was given a glad tiding of the birth of a child, moreover within the verse it also gives gladtidings of a grandson , no one even the most foolish shia on earth will say that someone was pregnant with that grandson at that time too, because of the glad tidings. Similarily, when Maryam ['Alaiha Al Salam] was given glad tidings of Easa ['Alaihi Al Salam] she was not pregnant at the time [Refer 3:45, 19:1920, etc]. Secondly, the arabic word used in the verse(11:71) is (Dahikat), Now a good portion of their(shia) scholars explained it as meaning ( or menstruated). Their scholar Al-Fayd Al-Kashani, for example, [the scholar of his Time and Age according to them] said in his Tafseer: Al-Ayashi from [the way of] Al-Sadiq Alaihi Al salam [said: that Dahikatmeans] Haadhat (she menstruated), same as Al-Qumi who added that she had not had her period for a long time before. Al-Qumi [said]: Dhahikat meaning Haadhat (she menstruated), and it (i.e. her menstrual cycle) had stopped long before that (i.e. before she menstruated that time, she had not had her period for a long time before that). There is another Hadeeth in their book with a SaHeeH isnaad that talk about this. : . : :

Book of Refutations
Here is the SaHeeH hadeeth from Al-Sadooqs Ma`aanee Al-akhbaar that tells us that this explanation (i.e. that she menstruated) has been authentically reported from one of the Shia infallible Imams. Thus, It actually says that she didnt have her period for a long time before she got it this time (refer to the words of Al-Qumi mentioned above which affirms this) meaning that she was Not pregnant at the time. A pregnant women does not menstruate. Based on this, my question would be: According to these scholars and Al-Sadiq (who is infallible according to them), and the understanding they put forth, why would Sarah(as) be addressed with masculine plural pronoun(kum) ? Example 2:

O Consorts of the Prophet! Ye are not like any of the (other) women: if ye do fear (Allah), be not too complacent of speech, lest one in whose heart is a disease should be moved with desire: but speak ye a speech (that is) just. And stay quietly in your houses, and make not a dazzling display, like that of the former Times of Ignorance; and establish regular Prayer, and give regular Charity; and obey Allah and His Messenger. Allah only wishes to remove all abomination from you(kum), ye members of the Family(ahlebayt) and to make you(kum)pure and spotless. (33:32-33) Comment: Even in this quranic verse we see that, a group of females (i.e wives of prophet(saw)) are being addressed, but when they were addressed with collective noun(ahlebayt), the pronoun that was used there was masculine plural (i.e kum), So we observed a change in gender of the pronoun. As said previously that the gender or quantity of individuals being addressed as ahlebayt doesnt effect the usage of pronoun for collective noun. That is why masculine plural pronoun(kum) was used here. Example 3:

And We ordained that he refused to suck any foster mother before, so she said: Shall I point out to you the people of a house(ahli bayt) who will take care of him for you, and they(hum)will be benevolent to him? (Quran28:12) Comment : Similarly in this verse, the phrase is used clearly in the context of a lady, while the gender is masculine again and . It is because the collective noun (ahlebayt) was used in this verse for mother of moses(as) we see a masculine plural pronoun(hum) used for a single lady. Aqa Mahdi Puya says: The mother of Musa is referred to as Ahli Bayt, not as the wife of Imran but as the mother of Musa. Likewise Sara is referred to as Ahli Bayt in verse 73 of Hud as the mother of Is-haq.. (28:12) (From Tafseer of Pooya/M.A. Ali. ) Shia scholar says the same, but tries to find his own benefit in it. Anyways atleast he agreed that a single lady was addressed while a masculine plural pronoun was used. And it is possible that after reading this response the shia out of frustration may discredit the scholarship of their scholars too and might try to take a U-turn with their

Book of Refutations
theories , they might say that, in this verse a complete household is being addressed, not just a single lady. So to such arguments we answer from the quran itself . Because the best way to explain the Quran is, through the Quran itself. For, what the Quran alludes to at one place is explained at the other, and what it says in brief on one occasion is elaborated upon at the other. Quran says: See how We repeat the verses that they may understand. (6:65) And certainly We have repeated for mankind in this Quran, every kind of similitude, but the majority of mankind do not consent to aught but denying. (17:89) Its clear from quran that there was no need for a complete household, But just a single woman who could nurse the child. So why would sister of Moses(as) refer to a complete household? Moreover another verse of quran is more clear to solve the confusion that was it a complete household addressed by sister of moses(as) or just a single lady with the term ahlebayt ? Your sister went to them and said, May I show you someone who will nurse this child?(sarwar shia translator, 20:40) Even explained similarly by shia commentators: She told the men of Pharaoh whether she introduced a woman to them who was able to nurse the baby. The verse continues saying: (Shall I direct you to one who will nurse him? ) Maybe, she added that this woman had a pure milk so that she was sure that the child would accept it. (The Light of The Holy Quran by Ayatullah Sayyid Kamal Faghih Imani and A Group of Muslim Scholars, under explanation of verse 20:40) ) From popular Shia website, Al-Islam.org, which contains the authentic Shia Tafseer of Pooya/M.A. Ali. :When it was picked by Firawns family and they seemed to love the child, she appeared before them and promised to bring a good wet-nurse for the child.(pooya ali, tafseer al islam.org 20:40) Similar is said in another shia tafseer i.e Tafseer namuna vol 7, page 359 Even sunni commentators explain the same: she then said, Shall I show you someone who will take care of him?. Her offer was accepted and so she brought [them] his mother and he took to her breasts.(tafseer jalalayn 20:40) She meant , Shall I guide you to someone who can nurse him for you for a fee So she took him and they went with her to his real mother.(tafseer ibn katheer, 20:40) Quran itself answers such misunderstandings , where it clears that sister of moses(as) referred to single women someone the Quran is its own best commentary . As we proceed with the study of the Book, we find how true this is. A careful comparison and collation of passages from the Quran removes many difficulties. Thus we see here that just for a single lady plural pronoun was used because she was addressed with a collective noun(ahlebayt).

10

Book of Refutations
Example 4: First verse:

When he saw a fire and said to his wife(ahli), Wait I have seen a fire perhaps I may bring you an ember from it or find a way upon the fire.(ahmed raza khan barelwi, kanzul eman , 20:10) Commentaries for this verse: 1. Allah begins to mention the story of Musa, how revelation began to come to Him, and Allahs speaking directly to him. This occurred after Musa had completed the time agreed upon between he and his father-in-law that he would herd sheep. He was traveling with his family, and it has been said that he was headed for the land of Egypt , after having been away from it for more than ten years. He had his wife with him and he became lost on the way during a cold, wintery night . Therefore, he settled down, making a camp between some mountain passes and mountains that were covered with snow, sleet, dense clouds, darkness and fog.(tafseer ibn katheer, for verse 20:10) 2. Here we see Moses (peace be upon him) on the road between Madyan and Egypt, close to Mount Sinai, returning with his wife after he had completed the term he had agreed with the Prophet Shu`ayb. This agreement meant that Shu`ayb would give him one of his two daughters in marriage in return for eight or ten years during which he would be his assistant. He most probably spent ten years before he felt that he could leave with his wife to return to the country where he grew up. There the Children of Israel, Moses people, lived in subjugation.(In the shade of quran, by sayyid qutub, volume XI , surah 20, verse 10.) 3. When he caught sight of a fire and said to his family, namely, to his wife, Wait, here! this was when he was leaving Midian, heading for Egypt Indeed I see a fire [in the distance]. Perhaps I [can] bring you a brand from it, [bring you] a burning wick or a torch, or find at the fire some guidance, that is, someone to guide me by showing me the [proper] route for he had lost it in the darkness of the night (tafseer jalalayn for 20:10) 4. When the thought to return to his native place came, he set out with his wife.((tafseer ul quran by zafar hasan founder of jamia imamia) volume 3, page 243, surah 20 verse 10) [shia commentary] Second verse:

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

11

Book of Refutations
in the direction of the mount perhaps I may bring you(kum) some news from it, or an ember so that you(kum) may warm yourselves.(ahmed raza khan barelwi, kazul eman, 28:29) c. So when Musa (Moses) completed the appointed term and set out with his wife, he saw a fire in the direction of Tur. (That was a flash of Absolute Beauty which caught his heart and fascinated him.) He said to his wife: Stay (here). I have seen a fire. I may bring you some news (about Him) from that (fire in Whose pursuit I have long been wandering), or (I may bring you) some burning brand from the (febrile) fire so that you (too) may feel the burn. (28:29) irfan ul quran, Dr. tahir ul qadri(the favourite sunni scholar of shias) Commentary for this verse: So when Moses had completed the term, of his tending of eight years, or of ten years, which is what is generally assumed and was travelling with his family, his wife, with the permission of her father, in the direction of Egypt, he saw in the distance on the side of the Mount [Tr] a fire (al -Tr is the name of a mountain). He said to his family, Wait, here; I see a fire in the distance. (tafseer jalalayn for 28:29) Third verse: (Recall that incident) when Musa (Moses) said to his wife: I have seen a fire (or I have perceived a flash of love and liking in the fire). Soon I will bring you some news from it (for which we have been wandering in deserts and forests since long), or I bring (you also from there) some burning brand so that you (too) may feel the burn (of its heat).(27:7) tahir ul qadri, irfan ul quran) Commentaries for this verse: Moses accompanied with his wife who was pregnant, and they were going from Madyan towards Egypt. On one side, the darkness of the night in the cold stormy weather of the desert, and, on the other side, the childbirth of his wife, forced Moses to search. The verses under discussion are about this event. The verse says: (Remember) When Moses said unto his family: Verily I perceive a fire; soon will I bring you news of it, or I will bring you a flaming brand, that you warm yourselves. This event happened by the same night when Moses was in a dark desert on the way toward Egypt, accompanied with his wife, Shuaybs daughter, and he lost the way. Then a terrible storm began to blow and at the same time his wife felt the pains of childbirth. Moses thought he severely needed to make a fire in order to use its warmth, but there was nothing in that desert for it. As soon as he saw the light of a flame from distance, he became happy and took it as a sign of the existence of someone or some ones there. He told them that he would go and bring them either some news from it, or a burning firebrand so that they might warm themselves by it. It is noteworthy that Moses says he brings them news or a flaming band, (the pronoun of which plural). This may show that there had been a child or children with him too, because his marriage bad happened in Madyan ten years before that. Or it may be for the sake that, in that horrible desert, that idea could give some further calmness to his addressees. (The Light of The Holy Quran by Ayatullah Sayyid Kamal Faghih Imani and A Group of Muslim Scholars, under explanation of verse 27:7)

12

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

Al-Zajaaj said: remember in the story of Musa when he told his Ahl ( ) meaning his Wife and she was the Daughter of Shuaib (tafseer majmua al bayan, surah naml verse 7) In the verses above (28:29) (20:10) and (27:7) which are describing a same incident in different chapters of quran, Masculine plural pronoun(kum) was used to address wife of hz musa(as). Though majority of translators translated word ahl as family in these verses, but the shia translator muhammed sarwar as well as couple of sunni translators like ahmed raza khan barelwi and the favourite sunni scholar of shias Dr. tahir ul qadri specifically translated the word ahl as wife. And these scholars of Arabic language didnt find it odd or weird translating that ahli refered in the verse as wife of hz musa(as) though a masculine plural noun (kum) was used to address her. This is because they were aware of the rule were are discussing here. And even the shia commentators of quran like Shaykh Abu Ali Fazl ibn al-Hassan ibn alFazl al-Tabarsi about whose tafseer its said: Tafseer Majma ul Bayan, that is considered to be an authentic commentary by the Shia Ithna Ashari[Mazahib-ulIslam, Page 447,Allamah Najam-ul-Ghani Rampuri. It unequivocally states that : In the story of Musa when he told his Ahl ( ) meaning his Wife and she was the Daughter of Shuaib (tafseer majmua al bayan, surah naml verse 7) Moreover zafar hasan a shia scholar and sunni commentators of quran ibn katheer, suyuti and sayyid qutub explicitly mentioned that hz musa(as) was traveling with his wife. And these masters of Arabic didnt find it weird to mention in their works that Ahl in this verse was wife of hz musa(as). All these scholars surely would have noticed the verses before translating or writing its commentary that the verses contain a masculine plural pronoun(kum) and if they had any doubt then it was easy for them to just mention that hz musa(as) was traveling with his family(ahl), not namely mentioning his wife , but we find all these shia as well as sunni translators and commentators who had a great command over Arabic language mentioned that hz musa(as) was with his wife without any hesitation though a masculine plural noun was used to address ahl in the verse. Though we know that there are some recent tafseers from shia scholars which say that, hz musa(as) had two sons too along with his wife (which isnt backed by any authentic Islamic historical proof, but which is taken from Christian sources whose reliability is not accepted by muslims and which goes against their classical tafseer considered authetic

13

Book of Refutations
by them) with whom hz musa(as) was traveling. But our main intention here for bringing this proof is not to argue along with whom hz musa(as) was traveling because its their choice whether to follow corrupted christian sources or their own tafseer which is considered authentic among them. But the main reason to mention this proof is to show our readers that, a number of shia as well sunni scholars who mastered in Arabic language without any doubt translated ahl in that verse as wife though a masculine plural noun(kum) was used there. Or mentioned in there commentaries that hz musa(as) was with his wife what all he said was to his wife. So if some of the shias out of fear of accepting the truth and because of their biasness want to challenge the scholarship of these shias as well as sunni scholars then its their wish. And if this seems to be a weak proof to them, then we would like to say them that , we just used this proof as a backup for rest of the five examples we are going to give in this article. The next examples from authentic narrations(ahadees), just to show the usage of collective noun in Arabic literature. Example 5: : . . . . . . : . . . !

Anas(ra) 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 hearts 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 asSalamu alai kum to every one of them and said: Members of the household(ahlebayt), how are you(kum)? They said: Messenger of Allah, we are in good state How do you find your family? He would say: In good state. (Sahih Muslims Book 8, Number 3328) Similar narration is present in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 316 : Narrated Anas: A banquet of bread and meat was held on the occasion of the marriage of the Prophet to Zainab bint Jahsh. I was sent to invite the people (to the banquet), and so the people started coming (in groups). They would eat and then leave. Another batch would come, eat and leave. So I kept on inviting the people till I found nobody to invite. Then I said, O Allahs Prophet! I do not find anybody to invite. He (the Prophet) said, Carry away the remaining food. Then a batch of three persons stayed in the house chatting. The Prophet left and went towards the dwelling place of Aisha and said, Peace and Allahs Mercy be on you(KUM), Ya Ahlel Bayt (O the people of the house)! She replied, Peace and the mercy of Allah be on you too. How did you find your wife? May Allah bless you. Then he went to the dwelling places of all his other wives and said to them the same as he said to Aisha and they said to him the same as Aisha had said to him.

14

Book of Refutations
Comment: here we see that , just a single lady is being addressed as ahlebayt, but still the pronoun used is (KUM) which is masculine plural noun was used and as explained previously its because the single lady was addressed with collective noun(ahlebayt). Also to note is that, when prophet(saw) in this narration addressed his wife with collective noun(ahlebayt) he used the pronoun for it as (kum), but when the wife of prophet(Saw) replied him she used the pronoun as ( ka) which is singular masculine, because she did not address him with collective noun. Example 6: - : - : ( : : : )- 6/301-

When Fatima became ill, Abu Bakr came to her and asked for permission to enter. So Ali said, O Fatima, this is Abu Bakr asking for permission to enter. She answerd, Do you want me to give him permission? He said, Yes. So she allowed him (to enter), and he came in seeking her pleasure, so he told her: By Allah, I only left my home and property and my family seeking the pleasure of Allah and His Messenger and you(KUM), O Ahlel Bayt. So he talked to her until she was pleased with him. (Sunan Al -Bayhaqi) This Hadith is narrated by Bayhaqi in al Sunan al Kubra (6:300-301) and Dalail alNubuwwa (7:273-281) who said: It is narrated with a good (hasan) chain. Muhibb al Din al-Tabari cited it in al Riyad Al Nadira (2:96-97 #534) and Dhahabi in the Siyar (Ibid). Ibn Kathir states it as Sahih in his Al Bidayah and Ibn Hajar in his Fath Al Bari. Comment: In this narration too we see that when hz Fatima(ra) was addressed, and only she was being addressed until she was pleased but what to notice here is that when she was addressed with collective noun (i.e ahlebayt) the pronoun that was used was masculine plural(kum) though she was the single lady who was being addressed. Example from Shia hadeeth, where Wife was addressed in singular feminine then when Ahl was used for her, Masculine Plural Pronoun was used, and again it returned to feminine Singular as she was addressed as wife. Example 7: In Mustadrak al-Wasael by al-Mirza al-Noori 41/220, we read the Hadith of Ali(ra) talking about marriage: ) : : 41 220 Translation: From Ali (as): So when his wife is wed to him and she entered on him, he should pray two Rakaat then wipe his hand on her forelock, then he should say: O Allah bless my Ahel for me and bless me for them, if you have gathered us then gather us for goodness and if you wish to separate us then make our separation into goodness. then if he sits by her side he would wipe her forelock. (

15

Book of Refutations
Comment: Above we have highlighted the feminine words and the masculine ones , as you see Ali(ra) is talking about the wife and he addresses her in feminine however when he reaches the part where he calls the wife Ahel he refers to her in masculine plural, this is because the word Ahel is a collective noun and Ali (ra) could never use feminine in this location.The same is in Ayatul-Tathir when Allah refers to the wives as Ahlul-Bayt he uses masculine plural, and then again after that he switches back to feminine. So from this example we came to know that, it depends on the Speaker to address wife in the way he wants, that is if he uses word wife he will use feminine pronoun, but if he uses Ahl for wife, then He will use Masculine plural and there is NO rule that speaker cannot refer the addressed in the previous form(feminine singular) after using the other form(masculine plural), as we find through this Shia hadeeth.

Reason we are emphasizing on the usage of collective noun and why it is very important to understand? The reason is that many shia scholars have completely misunderstood verses of quran and some of them not only misunderstood but they made blunders just because of the misunderstanding in this issue. They concluded that the verses of quran , like ayat e tatheer(33:33) are not in the proper order in which it should have been, and they were deliberately placed in the place where it is present now, which in short means there have been tahreef done in quran. And the main reason for this view of theirs is because in verse (33:33) masculine plural pronoun(kum) was used. And as the gender changed from feminine(while addressing to wives of prophet(saw)) to masculine they were confused and eventually concluded that the verse itself is not in the proper order. Here are some examples: Example 1: The Tafseer e Farman Ali is relied upon heavily by the Shia. It is a translation of the Quran along with commentary by Farman Ali. The book is used by Answering-Ansar and hence there should be no question about its authenticity in the eyes of the Shia. In the commentary of verse 33:33, this Shia Tafseer reads: If we take out this verse (of purification) from the middle, and then we read the verse (addressed to the wives) from the beginning to the end, we then find no fault in it and it looks better in this form. From this, it is clear that this verse (of purification) does not belong to this place and it was added deliberately for some special purpose. (source: Tafseer e Farman Ali, Commentary on Verse 33:33) Example 2: In the commentary of verse 11:73, this Shia Tafseer reads: In the verse before this one, Hadhrat Sara (as) was addressed with the present feminine singular form and in this verse she was addressed with the singular masculine present form, which clearly shows that the people who are addressed in this verse are not the same people and this verse was inserted here without any (justifiable) reason. (source: Tafseer e Farman Ali, Commentary on Verse 11:73)

16

Book of Refutations
Example 3: The Khateem al-Muhhaditheen al-Majlissi says a similar thing in Bihar al -Anwar It is possible that the purification verse was added at this part (of the verse) claiming that it was referring to the wives, or they added in the verses addressing the prophets wives, to suit their religious needsEven if we accept that there was no tampering (by the Companions) in the order (of the verses), we say there are many narrations which discuss the removal/canceling of Quranic verses. [Maybe there were verses before and after the verse of purification and they were removed]; if these verses were not removed before and after the verse (of purification), we would see the apparent link between them.(source: Bihar al -Anwar, pp.234-235 Example 4: Shia Allamah Sharaf al-Din in (Kalimat al-Ghurra, p.213) said: Although we are convinced that no distortion has taken place in the verses of the Noble Quran and that our heavenly Book has not been tampered with in any way, i t is by no means clear that the arrangement and recension of the verses is precisely that in which they were revealed. For it is quite possible that the purification verse concerning the People of the House was revealed separately and then, when the verses of the Quran were being assembled, was placed in the middle of the verses relating to the wives of the Prophet, either in error or deliberately. Example 5: The great Shia Mufassir of this era, Tabatabai, writes: The verse (of purification), in accordance to the (order of) revelation, was initially not a part of the verse about the Prophets wives and had no link to these verses, but rather it was later added between these verses either by the Prophet, or after his death when the Quran was compiled.(source: al-Mizan, Vol.16, p.321,) Example 6: Question: Did Uthman reorder some of the verses to be in line with the politics of that time, for example did he take part in placing the verse of Tatheer between the verses that are speaking about the wives of the Prophet in Surah Al-Ahzab? The answer of Al-Sayid Ali Al-Milani (Shia scholar) Yes, we believe that the location of the verse of Tatheer, and the verse: ([On] This day I have perfected for you your religion), and others like i t is from the action of those people And there are many, thus we request the readers to concentrate in understanding the usage of collective noun in Arabic grammar , because if its not understood then they are bound to make mistakes like the shia scholars above committed.

17

Book of Refutations
Another reason for such change in gender of the pronoun. If the above explanation doesnt seem to be satisfactory to shias then there is another way of explaining them the reason for sudden change in gender of pronouns from feminine to masculine, and this is held by some scholars of Ahlesunnah. The verse was revealed to the Prophet (saw) and was referring to his wives, and thus the term Ahlel Bayt was used, in reference to the Prophet and his wives. It should be clear that the Messenger of Allah(saw) was the head of his household(ahlebayt), even Bukhari has narrated from Abu Bakr(ra) that he said: Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) should be considered to belong to his Ahlul Bayt. (Ibn Hajar in Sawaaiqul Muhriqa, pg. 228). And there are even narrations where prophet(Saw) included himself Among the Ahlebayt, for eg: Ibn Adi mentions in his book from Abu Saeed Khudri that the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: One who hates us, the Ahlul Bayt, is a hypocrite. (Zakhairul Uqba, pg.180). So, in order to include him, it was incumbent to use the article Meem that denotes talking about a group of men. For he was a man and a leader of his household, thus necessitating the usage of the collective masculine tense. If there is even one male in a group of females, then the collective masculine tense becomes necessary. Its not that if there are women out numbering men then a feminine pronoun should be used, no! even if there is a single man present in group of females then a masculine plural pronoun becomes necessary. As we know that women are some times included even when people are addressed with masculine noun. Like ( () O you who believe!) (33:69) For more explanation of this, we should refer to the verse wherein Allah talks about Prophet Ibraahim (Pbuh). They said: Do you wonder of Allahs decree? The grace of Allah and His bless ings on you, oh ye people of the house ! For He is indeed worthy of all praise, full of glory. Quran 11 : 73 Since Abraham was also included in his family, the Holy Quran addressed his wife using musculine plural of men with the article Meem as it is customary in the Arabic grammar. For the plural of men is applied even though there is only one man in the group of females according to the classical Arabic. So, if there is even one male in a group of females, then the collective masculine tense becomes necessary. If Allah was purposefully switching tenses and this so clearly showed Allahs intention, why then do the Shia Ulema(as shown above) argue that there had been Tahreef bit Tarteeb (i.e. tampering in the order of verses) of the Quran? How was Allah purposefully switching tenses when it was supposedly the Sahabah who manipulated the Qurans order and it was they who decided the order, not Allah? This, to us, does not make any logical sense. How can the Shia further two contradictory claims, on the one hand claiming that the Sahabah may have purposefully placed the purification verse in the middle of the verses to the Prophets wives, and on the other hand claiming that this was Allah who was purposefully switching tenses to prove some point? Thus, these were the reasons because of which you find the sudden change from feminine pronouns to masculine plural pronouns, and People who are familiar with Quran to some extent, know that such a change is not a weirdthing, and it has been applied to several places in Quran as well as some authentic narrations as we have proved above.

18

Book of Refutations

Answering some of shias Argument 1: a sharp change of addressee is not a weird-thing, and it has been applied to several places in Quran. For instance we read in Quran:O Joseph! pass this over and (O wife of Aziz!) ask forgiveness for your sin, for truly you have been at fault.(Quran 12:29) In the above verse, O wife of Aziz has not been mentioned and the address to Joseph (AS) looks to continue. However the transition of the address from masculine gender to feminine gender clearly shows that the second sentence is addressing the Azizs wife and not Prophet Joseph (AS). Answer: We have already given sufficient proof that what was the reason for the sudden change in gender of the pronouns. But the ones who are biased may not consider it sufficient to remove their misconceptions. But at the end of the day we have proved the actual and most important argument of shias (i.e the change in gender of pronouns in 33:33) from the proofs of classical arabic literature. And the example they used in not at all a proof in their favor because if you read the whole passage from where they quoted the verse, you can easily find out that for whom the feminine pronoun was used. And it is nothing out of context. Its a part of the story. The women who is referred there for whom the feminine pronoun was used is not alien to the passage if you refer the verses (12:23-32) you can easily make out that the one who was addressed with feminine pronoun was the lady who was addressed in the initial and later verses of the same chapter. How will it appear to shias if someone comes up and says that the one being addressed there with feminine pronoun was not the one who was addressed in the initial verses? Will they not mock the one who holds this view, because its apparent from the context itself that the one who was addressed with feminine pronoun was the very same lady, and views other than that are wrong. So why dont they do the same for the verse 33:33, because the whole passage is for the wives of prophet(Saw) (who too are Ahlebayt atleast in general sense according to shias)the initial and later verse of 33:33 address the wives of prophet(saw), then why is it that they think the ones who were not even mentioned in the whole surah(ahzab) are suddenly addressed even without a noun but a pronoun. As we have said that wives of prophet(Saw) according to shias are ahlebayt in general atleast, then why did Allah put the verse of quran in the middle of the passage where wives of prophet(Saw)(who too are general ahlebayt) were being addressed. And even with usage of pronoun not even a noun, so if this was revealed for Ahle kisa who are nowhere even mentioned in the whole chapter then how can the shias claim that book of Allah is easily understandable. Allah has mentioned it many times in the Quran that it is a Book of clear guidance, and that it is written in an easily understandable form. Allah Almighty says in the Quran: These are the signs of the clear book. (12:1) How clear is the Quran if an unbiased reader will think that it is the Prophets wives who are being referred to but in reality it is supposed to be Alis family(ra) ? What prevented Allah from simply ending this confusion and instead clearly saying O cou sin of the Prophet and his

19

Book of Refutations
family instead of O wives of the Prophet? Why this confusion? Why did Allah place this verse of purification in the middle of commands directed towards the Prophets wives? Wouldnt this mean that this is far from a clear book but rather it is a cryptic and confusing book? But if you see this from a correct perspective then you will easily understand that it was for wives of prophet(Saw) and the change in gender of pronouns was nothing weird as we have proved from other examples from quran. Argument 2: Feminine pronouns are used in the whole passage, before and after, for the wives but here in the middle all of a sudden the plural masuline is used and why does immediately after this verse does it revert back to the feminine AGAIN? Answer: Reply 1: The Quran is the book which is not arranged in chronological order, rather, after Allah had completely revealed the Quran to the Prophet (pbuh), he(saw) was instructed to arrange each verse and chapter in the place we find them today. For example Read [O Muhammad!] in the name of your Lord who created. (96.1) He created man from a clot , we find that the first verse revealed was placed in 96th chapter, and the last verse revealed was , Al yawma akmaltu lakum dinakam wa atmamtu alaikam nimati wa raditu lakumul islama dinan, which means Today I perfected your religion for you and completed my favor to you and have chosen for you Al-Islam as your religion. (5:3) , which is in the third verse of the 5th chapter. Thus we find that the Quran is not arranged in chronological order, rather, after God had completed revealing the Quran to the Prophet (pbuh), he was instructed to arrange each verse and chapter in the place we find them today. There is consensus that it was Prophet Muhammad who identified the place of each verse within its chapter.There are a number of hadiths in the Musnad of Ahmad bin Hanbal (164-241 H / 780-855 CE), Sunnan of at-Tirmithi (209-279 H / 824-892 CE), and other hadith sources that state that the Messenger used to tell the recorders of the revelation in which chapters to place newly revealed verses. So the above question can be answered by saying that the verse of tatheer was not revealed in serial order with the verses before and after it , it was revealed seperately as evident from various ahadees and those verses which were before and after tatheer were already revealedbut prophet(Saw)commanded verse of tatheer to be placed in that position. That is why we find the verses before it and after it in feminine form. YET it did not change anything because we know that the masculine forms that were used in tatheer were because of the collective noun AHLEBAYT(as mentioned by al-samarkandi (d. 375 AH)) in tafsir bahrul ulum) and since the wives were addressed with t hat , it isnt strange from the grammatical point of view and It is evident from various other examples from arabic literature (11:73) etc. So the biggest argument shias had was why was such a change from femine to masculine in the initial part of the verse. Which led some of them to think that the verse of tatheer was deliberately placed in place where it is found now by some evil sahaba. But in our article we have dealt this reason for a sudden change from feminine to masculine in a detailed manner providing several proofs from Quranic verses (11:7273 , etc) and authentic arabic literature. So now the argument that why again the

20

Book of Refutations
gender changes back to feminine should not be a concern, as we have already explained the reason behind it. Reply 2: In Mustadrak al-Wasael by al-Mirza al-Noori 41/220, we read the Hadith of Ali(ra) talking about marriage: ) : : 41 220 Translation: From Ali (as): So when his wife is wed to him and she entered on him, he should pray two Rakaat then wipe his hand on her forelock, then he should say: O Allah bless my Ahel for me and bless me for them, if you have gathered us then gather us for goodness and if you wish to separate us then make our sep aration into goodness. then if he sits by her side he would wipe her forelock. Above we have bolded the feminine words and the masculine ones , as you see Ali(ra) is talking about the wife and he addresses her in feminine however when he reaches the part where he calls the wife Ahel he refers to her in masculine plural, this is because the word Ahel is a collective noun and Ali (ra) could never use feminine in this location.The same is in Ayatul-Tathir when Allah refers to the wives as Ahlul-Bayt he uses masculine plural, and then again after that he switches back to feminine. There is NO rule that speaker cannot refer the addressed in the previous form(feminine singular) after using the other form(masculine plural), as we find through this Shia hadeeth. Reply 3: We have already answered the reason why the change in gender of the pronouns took place from feminine to masculine, as the similar thing happened in (11:73) . Regarding the query that why did the gender of pronouns again changed back to feminine gender, then another answer to it is, because when the word Ahlebayt was used even prophet(Saw) was included since messenger of Allah(saw) was the head of his household(ahlebayt) and even Bukhari has narrated from Abu Bakr(ra) that he said: Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) should be considered to belong to his Ahlul Bayt. (Ibn Hajar in Sawaaiqul Muhriqa, pg. 228). Thus if the same gender would have been continued then the commands in the verse(34) which were given to wives of prophet(Saw) would have been applied to prophet(Saw) also. So, inorder to prevent that the verse again switched to its normal manner in which it was addressing the wives of prophet(Saw). Argument 3: Word Ahl Al Bayt is collective noun, So pronoun attached with noun depends upon number of persons addressed as well as their gender. ahlihinna(4:25) their family 3rd person feminine plural possessive pronoun ahlihi (4:25) his family 3rd person masculine singular possessive pronoun ahlih(4:25) her family. 3rd person feminine singular possessive pronoun ahlika(12:25) your wife 2nd person masculine singular possessive pronoun ahlikum(12:93) your family 2nd person masculine plural possessive pronoun (

21

Book of Refutations
Answer: In all these examples the collective noun is not being addressed directly rather a person to whom the family belongs is being addressed. So the gender of the pronoun is related to them. Let us explain in a different manner, In the examples that were provided, the one who is being refered on that person depends the usage of pronouns.. Suppose We say: bring your(female) family(ahl)sister;.. (your) in this example is for female , thus the pronoun that will be used will be in accordance to that sister not her family. And the person who knows basic grammar though it be english, will never raise such arguments. Now let us show you the flaws in your theories from the example you used yourself: ahlika(12:25) your wife 2nd person masculine singular possessive pronoun In this example as you said ahl here is wife.. then you didnt realize that the pronoun used was MASCULINE.. why? its just because what we have explained here. Allah knows the best.

Commentary on verse 33:33

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 (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) and his close companionship with the Prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam). Al-Baghawi, Ma`alim al-Tanzil (2:393): In this verse [Hud 73] there is a proof that wives are part of Ahl al-Bayt. (3:428) He means by Ahl al -Bayt [in 33:33] the wives of the Prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) because they are in his house and this is the narration of Sa`id ibn Jubayr from Ibn `Abbas. Al-Baydawi, Anwar al-Tanzil (4:374): The Shi`as 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. Al-Khazin, Lubab al-Tawil fi Ma`ani al-Tanzil (3:490): They [Ahl al-Bayt] are the wives of the Prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) because they are in his house. Then he mentions the other two explanations, namely, that they are the `Itra or that they are the families of `Ali, `Aqil, Ja`far, and al-`Abbas. Al-Nasafi, Madarik al-Tanzil wa Haqaiq al-Tawil (3:490): There is in it [verse 33:33] a proof that his wives are part of the Folk of his Household (min ahli baytihi). He said from you [M] (`ankum) because what is meant are both the men and women of his family (l) as indicated by {wa yutahhirakum tathran = and cleanse you [M/F] with a thorough

22

Book of Refutations
cleansing} from the filth of sins. 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 (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam). Al-Zamakhshari, Tafsir al-Kashshaf (2:212): In this [33:33] there is an explicit proof that the wives of the Prophet Allah bless and greet him - are among the People of his House (min Ahli Baytihi). Al-Shawkani, Fath al-Qadir (4:278-280) and al-Mubarakfuri, Tuhfat al-Ahwadhi (9:4849): Ibn `Abbas, `Ikrima, `Ata, al-Kalbi, Muqatil, and Sa`id ibn Jubayr said the wives of the Prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) are specifically meant [in 33:33], and by house are meant the houses of his wives as mentioned before in the verses. While Abu Sa`id al-Khudri, Mujahid, and Qatada it is also related from al-Kalbi said that those meant are specifically `Ali, Fatima, al-Hasan, and al-Husayn. They adduced the fact that the pronouns are in the masculine, but this was refuted by the fact that the noun Ahl is masculine and therefore necessitates a masculine gender as in the verse [Hud 73]. A third group stands midway between the two and includes both [the wives and the `Itra] A number of the verifying authorities consider this the most correct explanation, among them al-Qurtubi, Ibn Kathir, and others. Al-Jalalayn: Ahl al-Bayt [in 33:33] i.e. the wives of the Prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam). Al-Sawi, Hashiyat al-Jalalayn: It was said the verse [33:33] is comprehensive (`mma) to mean the People of his House in the sense of his dwelling and these are his wives, and the People of his House in the sense of his lineage and these are his offspring. 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 (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) and it was revealed in the house of `Aisha. Ibn al-Jawzi, Zad al-Masir fi `Ilm al-Tafsir (6:378): Then He showed their superiority over all women when He said: {You [feminine] are not like anyone [masculine] of the women} (33:32). Al-Zajjaj [the philologist] said: He did not say, like any other woman in the feminine, because the masculine form denotes a general exclusion of both male and female [human beings], one and all. Ibn Juzayy, Tafsir (p. 561): The Ahl al-Bayt of the Prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) are his wives, his offspring, and his near relatives such as al-`Abbas, `Ali, and all for whom receiving sadaqa is unlawful. Al-Bukhari, Sahih: Hadith from Anas: The Prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) visited `Aisha and,upon entering her house, said: As-Salmu `alaykum Ahl alBayt! wa rahmatullah. Whereupon she responded: Wa `alayka as-Salam wa rahmatullah, how did you find your wives [ahlak]? May All ah bless you. Then he went around to see all of his wives and said to them exactly what he had said to `Aisha. Al-Wahidi, al-Wajiz fi Tafsir al-Kitab al-`Aziz (2:865): Ahl al-Bayt [in 33:33] meaning, the wives of the Prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) and the men [and women] of the People of his House.

23

Book of Refutations
Al-Tha`alibi, Jawahir al-Hisan fi Tafsir al-Quran (2:212): This verse [Hud 73] shows that the wife of a man is part of the People of his House (min Ahli Baytihi) and the House in Surat al-Ahzab [33:33] refers to the dwelling quarters [i.e. of the wives]. Ibn Kathir, Tafsir (3:532) and al-Wahidi, Asbab al-Nuzul (p. 299 #733): From Ibn `Abbas: This verse [33:33] was revealed concerning the wives of the Prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam). Ibn Jama`a, Ghurar al-Tibyan fi Ma lam Yusamma fi al-Quran (p. 421 #1201) and alSuyuti in Mufhamat al-Aqran fi Mubhamat al-Quran: Ahl al-Bayt in verse 33 are the Prophet and his wives. It was also said they are `Ali, Fatima, al-Hasan, and al-Husayn, and it was also said they are those for whom sadaqa is unlawful [i.e. l `Aqil, l `Ali, l Ja`far, and l al-`Abbas].

Al-Zarkashi, al-Burhan fi `Ulum al-Quran (2:197): The phrasing of the Quran [in Surat al-Ahzab] shows that the wives are meant, that the verses were revealed concerning them, and that it is impossible to exclude them from the meaning of the verse. However, since others were to be included with them it was said with the masculine gender: {Allah desires to remove uncleanness far from you [masculine plural], O Folk of the Household}. It is then known that this desire comprises all the Folk of the Household both male and female as opposed to His saying {O wives of the Prophet} and it shows that `Ali and Fatima are more [specifically] deserving of this description ["Ahl al-Bayt"] than the wives. Al-Jassas, Ahkam al-Quran (4:378-379): It [the verse Hud 73] shows that the wives of the Prophet Allah bless and greet him are of the People of his House (min Ahli Baytihi) because the angels names Ibrahims wife as being of the People of his House, and so has Allah Most High said when addressing the wives of the Prophet Alah bless and greet him when He said: [33:33]. His wives are part of those meant because the beginning of the address concerns them. Abu al-Su`ud, Irshad al-`Aql al-Salim ila Mazaya al-Quran al-Karim (7:103): This [33:33], as you see, is an explicit verse and a radiant proof that the wives of the Prophet Allah bless and greet him are among the People of his House (min Ahli Baytihi), ruling once and for all the invalidity of the opinion of the Shi`is who narrow it to mean only Fatima, `Ali, and their two sons Allah be well-pleased with them. As for what they claim as their proof [hadith of the Mantle], it only shows that they [the Four] are part of Ahl al-Bayt, not that other than them are excluded.

24

Book of Refutations

Hadith Al-Kisa
'Aisha reported that Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) went out one morning wearing a striped cloak of the black camel's hair that there came Hasan b. 'Ali. He wrapped him under it, then came Husain and he wrapped him under it along with the other one (Hasan). Then came Fatima and he took her under it, then came 'Ali and he also took him under it and then said: Allah only desires to take away any un-cleanliness from you, O people of the household, and purify you (thorough purifying) (Sahih Muslim Book 031, Hadith Number 5955) Firstly where are the remaining 9 Shia Imams mentioned here? Because this hadeeeth excludes them from the list of Ahlelbayt. Secondly, this was a dua made by Prophet(Saw), since the verse 33:33 was revealed for the wives of Prophet(Saw). So Prophet(Saw) made a dua inorder to include family of Fatima(ra). Now the question to Shias is that, since the verse 33:33 was already revealed then why would Prophet(Saw),make Dua to purify family of Fatima(ra)? The Shiite adherents claim that all members of the household of the Prop het and their posterity are infallible. And thus, it is a must to obey them.; For they deserve to be Imams. They do support their claim categorically with the above mentioned Quranic verse and the Prophetic Tradition. How true is their claim? Both the Ahlul Sunnah Muslim and the Shia believe that the Prophet (s) also called Salman Al-Farsi the Persian to be part of Ahlul Bayt. It is transmitted by at-Tabarani and al-Hakim that in one incident some people spoke very lowly about Salman al-Farsi. They spoke of the inferiority of Salman's Persian ethnicity, and upon hearing this the Messenger of Allah (s) declared, "Salman is from us, the Ahlul-Bayt." This narration is accepted by the Shia. Now, let us examine how the Shia makes sense of this Hadith: "The reference to Salman Farsi as a member of the Ahlul-Bayt is honorary. Salman Farsi's conversion to Islam left a great impression on the HolyProphet (S) and others. Throughout the years of the Holy Prophet's mission, Salman Farsi was one of the companions most dedicated in the service, defence and propagation of Islam. His service to the household of the HolyProphet and his sincere love for them earned him great respect from all quarters of the Ahlul-Bayt. Thus, as an honor for him, the Prophet (S) referred to him as one of the Ahlul-Bayt (AS). We pray that he will be raised in the honorable company of the ones he loved so dearly."
Source: http://al-islam.org/organizations/aalimnetwork/msg00450.html

This makes obvious sense. Ahlul Bayt refers to the people who lived under the house of the Prophet and his wives, offspring, etc. This was clearly mentioned at the beginning of this article where we defined what does "Ahlul Bayt" mean. Now, the Prophet (s) wanted to honor Salman Al-Farsi by calling him family, despite the fact that biologically he was not so. For example, I have a good friend which is very close to me, so I refer to him as "brother." Also, when I refer to old women who are very close and dear to me, I say to them "O, you are my mother!" Indeed, this pattern is noticed in the Quran, in which Allah says : "The Prophet is closer to the believers than their ownselves, and his wives

25

Book of Refutations
are their mothers." (Quran, 33:6) Obviously, they are not biological mothers of the believers, but they are honorary mothers. It is honorable to liken someone to be so close as to be family. Indeed, this is why the Prophet (s) called Salman Al-Farsi to be part of Ahlul Bayt. Allah calls the Prophet's Wives as Ahlul Bayt and said that He desired to make them pure and spotless. Let us see the verse again (since the Shia have the nasty habit of splicing Quranic Ayat so we must remind them of the verse in its entirity): "O wives of the Prophet! You are not like any other of the women; If you will be on your guard, then be not soft in your speech, lest he in whose heart is a disease yearn; and speak a good word. And stay quietly in your houses, and make not a dazzling display, like that of the former Times of Ignorance; and establish regular Prayer, and give regular Charity; and obey Allah and His Messenger. And Allah only wishes to remove all abomination from you, you Ahlul Bayt, and to make you pure and spotless." (Quran, 33:32-33) When this verse was revealed, of course this was a great honor for the Prophet's Wives. It was like when the Quran mentioned Zayd (ra) by NAME, what an honor that was for him! Indeed, Zayd (ra) was sad that he would not get to keep the honor of Islaamically having the Prophet's family name, despite the fact that he was adopted by the Prophet. (This would be a technical violation of the Islaamic laws of inheritance.) So it was that Zayd (ra) was very saddened, and Allah then gave him a greater honor in compensation-being mentioned in the Quran by name! What an honor! Indeed, the Prophet's Wives were honored multiple times in the Quran, and were given the name of BOTH Ahlul Bayt and Umm Ul Mumineen (Mothers of the Believers) by Allah in His Book. Indeed, when the verse was revealed, the Prophet (s) wanted to also include other people in his Ahlul Bayt so that they would not feel left out. Remember that the Prophet (s) called Salman Al-Farsi as Ahlul Bayt when people were mocking him for being Persian; so the Prophet (s) wanted to include him and honor him, so he called him as also part of Ahlul Bayt. When the verse was revealed honoring the Prophet's Wives as Ahlul Bayt, the Prophet (s) did not want to exclude the other members of his household from this honor. So he gathered them around under his mantle (cloak) and made them honorary members of Ahlul Bayt just like he would do with Salman Al-Farsi. The Prophet (s) spread his cloak over Ali, Fatima, Hasan, and Hussain; then he said: "These are Ahlul Bayt." In a similar way, the Prophet (s) would say to Salman Al-Farsi: "Salman is from us, the Ahlul-Bayt." So it was that the Prophet (s) made all of these people honorary members of Ahlul Bayt, despite the fact that the word "Ahlul Bayt" is not used in this manner and really only means the Prophet's wives and his children. How can it really mean Hasan and Hussain (ra) who did not even live under the same house as the Prophet? Neither did Ali (ra) live in the same house as the Prophet! Indeed, this is why the Prophet (s) had to clarify that he (ra) also wanted to include these people as part of Ahlul Bayt. The Shia will quote the Hadith of Al-Kisa (the Cloak) and yet fail to interpret it in the same way they do with Salman Al-Farsi. The Shia is very keen on saying that Salman (ra) is an HONORARY member of Ahlul Bayt, and not really a biological family member. Yet, they do not see the same for Ali (ra), who was NOT part of the Prophet's nuclear

26

Book of Refutations
family. Nuclear family refers to the immediate children, spouse, and immediate parents. And more specifically, the term "Ahlul Bayt" is used in the Arabic langauge as a kind and modest way of referring to a man's wives. Ali (ra) is thus not technically part of the Ahlul Bayt, but rather only an honorary member like Salman Al-Farsi.

The Prophet (s) wrapped these members in the cloak asking Allah to grant them the same status as his own Ahlul Bayt. One of the Prophet's Wives asked if she was also at such a lofty status, and the Prophet (s) affirmed this by praising her. Almighty Allah revealed the verse "O Wives of the Prophet...Allah only desires to...". The Holy Prophet (s) covered Ali, Fatimah, Hasan, and Husayn (peace be upon them all) with the cloak and then stretched his hand toward the sky and said: "Allah! These are the Members of my Household, so purify them of all uncleanliness'. Umm Salamah said: "I asked him: "Am I also with you?" He stated: "You are on good and virtue!". First, the Prophet's wife did NOT ask if she was part of Ahlul Bayt. That would be a ridicolous question to ask. By the textbook definition linguistically she was part of Ahlul Bayt, and an entire verse was just revealed about her! She simply asked if she too was with the Prophet, and he replied in the affirmative! How distorted is the Shia interpretation of this. They say that Umm Salamah (ra) asked if she could be part of Ahlul Bayt. Why would she ask such an obvious question? That's like me asking my parents: "am I your son?" The answer is too obvious, since I am by definition my parent's son. My parents sometimes meet my good friends and out of kindness they say "you are our beta" (which translates to "you are our son"). They would not need to say this to me, but its simply out of an honor that they are referring to my friend in this manner to be kind and raise his status to a status that I already have by birth. Likewise, the Prophet (s) was simply raising the status of Ali, Fatima, Hasan, and Hussain to a level that the wives of the Prophet were intrinsically already at, and were specifically mentioned in the Quran as. The Shia love to add parenthetical insertions to the Quran and Hadith, adding words and phrases that do not really appear, praying and hoping that these additions can successfully change the meaning. Let us see how the Shia adds ludicrous paranthetical insertions in the Hadith about Umm Salamah. This is what they added: I asked him: "Am I also with you?" He stated: "You are on good and virtue" (but did not say that you are a member of my Household)'." I laughed when I read this, because nowhere does it appear in the Arabic, and did the Prophet (s) start talking about himself in the third person suddenly? Not only is this funny, but it is KUFR (disbelief) to change the meanings of the Messenger's words; Allah says these are the disbelievers " who know not the Book, but see therein their own desires, and they do nothing but conjecture. Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say: 'This is from Allah,' To traffic with it for a miserable price! Woe to them for what their hands do write..." (Quran, 2:77-78)

27

Book of Refutations

Umm Salamah (ra) did NOT ask if she is part of Ahlul Bayt, so why are the Shia responding with this in paranthesis? It is as if they want to add their own propaganda wherever they can! Umm Salamah (ra) simply asked if she was with the Prophet, and he (s) said "YOU ARE ON GOOD AND VIRTUE" meaning that of course she is. Allah Himself says in the Quran that He will purify the Wives of the Prophet and make them "pure and spotless." So then, the Prophet (s) wanted Allah to also purify the others whom he loved including Ali, Hasan, Hussain, and Bibi Fatima. Suppose the verse was addressed to these people, confirming that Allah had purified them, why would the Prophet (s) ask Allah to include them in the purification?! Think of the logic. Allah says "I purify Ali." Then, the Prophet (s) immediately responds "O Allah, please purify Ali!" Does this make any sense!? The Prophet (s) had to ask Allah for something Allah just said that He already did. This is nonsense talk. Obviously, the Prophet (s) is asking Allah to give the same honor to Ali's family that He gave to his wives. The Prophet (s) would refer to the Family of Ali (ra) as his own family out of honorary love. In fact, he (s) would go to the prayer and stop on the way to collect Ali's Family, and then he would say "O people of the House" despite the fact that none of them lived in the same house as the Prophet. Again, this is out of honorary kindness, to include them on a status as high as his wives who were mentioned as Ahlul Bayt by Allah Almighty. So the Shia can claim that the Prophet (s) called Ali (ra) to be Ahlul Bayt, but can they claim that Allah did as well? The Prophet's Wives can claim both honors! The entire verse is addressed to the WIVES of the Prophet: O wives of the Prophet! You are not like any of the (other) women. If you do fear (Allah), be not too complaisant of speech, lest one in whose heart is a disease should be moved with desire: but speak ye a speech (that is) just. And stay quietly in your houses, and make not a dazzling display, like that of the former times of ignorance: and establish regular prayer, and give regular charity, and obey Allah and His Messenger. And Allah only wishes to remove all abomination from you, you Ahlul Bayt, and to make you pure and spotless. And recite what is rehearsed to you in your homes of the signs of Allah and His wisdom: For allah understands the finest mysteries and is well-acquainted (with them) (Quran 33:32-34) So before and after the part about being pure and spotless, the Quran is clearly talking about the wives of the Prophet. Funny how the Shia argue that all the admonitions of Allah are for the Prophet's Wives and all the praises are to Ali's Family. Is this style of reading intellectually fair? Now the Shia claim Ahlul Sunnah has no Hadith indicating that the Prophet indicated the Wives as Ahlul Bayt at the time of the Hadith of Al Kisa: 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,

28

Book of Refutations
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.

Hadith Al-Kisa indepth Analysis

English (Sahih International): O Prophet, say to your wives, "If you should desire the worldly life and its adornment, then come, I will provide for you and give you a gracious release. (28) But if you should desire Allah and His Messenger and the home of the Hereafter - then indeed, Allah has prepared for the doers of good among you a great reward." (29) O wives of the Prophet, whoever of you should commit a clear immorality - for her the punishment would be doubled two fold, and ever is that, for Allah, easy. (30) And whoever of you devoutly obeys Allah and His Messenger and does righteousness - We will give her her reward twice; and We have prepared for her a noble provision. (31) O wives of the Prophet, you are not like anyone among women. If you fear Allah, then do not be soft in speech [to men], lest he in whose heart is disease should covet, but speak with appropriate speech. (32) And abide in your houses and do not display yourselves as [was] the display of the former times of ignorance. And establish prayer and give zakah and obey Allah and His Messenger. Allah intends only to remove from you the impurity [of sin], O people of the [Prophet's] household, and to purify you with [extensive] purification. (33) And remember what is recited in your houses of the verses of Allah and wisdom. Indeed, Allah is ever Subtle and Acquainted [with all things]. (34) - [al-Ahzab]

If we should ask any person who has read these verses, any un-biased Muslim or nonMuslim, a Bedouin or an Arab Nomad in the desert about what these verses are talking about, his answer would be: "God tells his Prophet to order his wives and prohibit them from certain tasks and show them that they are unique unlike any other women in society, then he clarifies his intention which is to purify them if they obey these orders and prohibitions."

29

Book of Refutations

In no way will you receive an answer other than this answer. However, the sect of Twelver Shia claims that verse 33, to be more specific the last part of verse 33 is not aimed at the wives but is aimed at some other members of the household. The last part of the verse 33 is the one starting from "Allah intends only ...(until)... purification" and in Arabic it starts from "Innama ...(until)... Tat-heera". It is this claim which we will discuss and we know since we have researched this that the Twelver Shia sect is split on this specific issue on two positions:

First position: This verse was revealed about the five of Ahlul-Kisaa (people of the cloak), Scholars such as al-'Allamah al-Majlisi, Grand Ayatullah 'Ali al-Milani and Yusuf al-Bahrani say that this is a completely different verse, the position of this verse was corrupted and changed by the Companions (ra) of the Prophet SAWS as they disliked Ahlul-Bayt (ra), they placed it in the middle of other verses which are talking about the wives of the Prophet SAWS.

Comment: This saying is Tahreef (Distortion Check chapter on Tahreef for more detail) and according to the Muslims if anyone says this then he is a Kafir, This order in which the Quran was placed in is a divine Godly order by the Prophet SAWS himself and no Muslim will disagree to this. However, do you not think that it is strange how these scholars adopted a position that the Quran is corrupted? Why couldn't they have found another way out of this? We will soon see why insha-Allah.

Second position: This verse was revealed about the five of Ahlul-Kisaa (people of the cloak), Scholars such as al-Tabrasi and Ja'afar al-Subhani say that the last part of this verse innama.....tat-heera constitute a parenthetical phrase in the midst of the the discourse directed at the Mothers of the Believers (ra), and that this parenthetical phrase has no relation to what comes before or after it, there are examples of this in the Quran and Hadith al-Kisaa proves that those five are the cause of revelation for this verse.
Comment: So according to them it is in its correct position but it has no relation to all the other verses who surround it. They say there are examples of such parenthetical phrases in the book of Allah. Also Hadith al-Kisaa proves that they are the cause of revelation.

30

Book of Refutations

We have one authentic narration from the Mother of believers 'Aisha (ra) in Sahih Muslim in which she says that Allah's Apostle SAWS went out one morning wearing a striped cloak of the black camel's hair. And where did he go? He went to Umm Salama's (ra) house and these verses were revealed in her house as she states in the authentic narrations:

: : ! : : : : : - : - : 2/150 :
Translation: Umm Salmah (ra) said: In my house these verses were revealed "Allah only wills to remove what is foul from you Ahlul-Bayt and to purify you thoroughly." So the Prophet PBUH called for 'Ali and Fatima and Hasan and Husein and then said: "These are Ahlul-Bayt", In the Hadith of al Qadi and al Summi he said: "They are my Ahel". So I said: "O Messenger of Allah! aren't I also from your Ahlul-Bayt?" He said: "Yes you are Insha-Allah." Muhaddith: Al Hakim from al Sunan al kubrah for Bayhaqi. Hadith rank: Isnad SAHIH narrators all trustworthy. There are several narrations one says "yes you are insha-Allah" and in another you are upon goodness. (twice)" What we need to know here is that the clear authentic narrations state that the verses were revealed before the event of the cloak and that in this event the Prophet SAWS only read the verses for them and made Du'ah to them, he did not exclude the wives or anyone else from his Ahlul-Bayt, all he did was include the four. So if the verses were revealed before the event then the saying of the Shia "They (the four) are the cause of revelation" is incorrect. As you all know there is something in Quranic sciences called " Asbab alNuzoul" which translates to "The causes of the revelations", this is basically an event which takes place and causes a verse to be revealed as a result, such as:

31

Book of Refutations

They ask you, [O Muhammad], about the bounties [of war]. Say, "The [decision concerning] bounties is for Allah and the Messenger." So fear Allah and amend that which is between you and obey Allah and His Messenger, if you should be believers. [al-Anfal 8:1]

So why was this revealed? What is the cause for revelation OR "Sabab al-Nuzoul"? we read in Sahih Muslim that it is related to the bounties from the battle of Badr:

. . : . . 8/1 : { } : : : - : - 8471 : : Translation: Sa'ad bin abi Waqqas (ra) narrates: My father took a sword from the Khums then he went to the prophet SAWS and told him: "Grant me this sword" but the Prophet SAWS did not agree to grant him the sword, thus Allah revealed: {They ask you about the bounties. Say, "The bounties are for Allah and the Messenger."}

This above illustrates the cause for the revelation for verse [8:1], it is an event which takes place then Allah reveals a verse because of it, but in our case it is incorrect to say that the four are the cause for the revelation of [33:33] because the cause must precede the revelation, this contradicts the authentic narrations that show that this verse had already been revealed before the event of the cloak. Secondly a Shia may say that the narrations or the "form" of the narration shows that this was an independent verse that was revealed separately, this is because we only read in the Hadith of Umm Salamah (ra) a part of the verse and not a complete verse: ((In my house these verses were revealed "Allah only wills to remove what is foul from you Ahlul-Bayt and to purify you thoroughly." So the Prophet PBUH called for 'Ali and...)) They will ask you why didn't Umm Salamah (ra) mention the entire verse? Why only the last part? Then they will say that according to them this means that it is a separate verse altogether. This is incorrect, all you have to do is look up to the verse I provided as an example above in [al-Anfal 8:1] and then read the authentic narration in Sahih Muslim to see that

32

Book of Refutations

Sa'ad bin abi Waqqas (ra) did not mention the whole verse in the Hadith, so based on this can we say that Surat al-Anfal is 76 verses long instead of 75 verses? Can we say based on this that the Blue part of the verse is separate from the Red part of the verse and that they are two separate verses?

They ask you, [O Muhammad], about the bounties [of war]. Say, "The [decision concerning] bounties is for Allah and the Messenger." So fear Allah and amend that which is between you and obey Allah and His Messenger, if you should be believers. [al-Anfal 8:1]

Surely that is wrong. I will also provide another example, this verse from Surat al-Noor:

And let not those of virtue among you and wealth swear not to give [aid] to their relatives and the needy and the emigrants for the cause of Allah, and let them pardon and overlook. Would you not like that Allah should forgive you? And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. [al-Noor 24:22]
In the cause of revelation in Sahih Muslim from the Hadith of 'Aisha (ra) we read that Mistah had accused 'Aisha (ra) of false allegations in the incident of Ifk, so Abu Bakr (ra) got angry at him:

. ! : : . } { [ 24 / / 22 ] : } { Translation: 'Aisha (ra) narrated in a long Hadith: ... Abu Bakr used to give to Mistah (some stipend) as a token of kinship with him and for his poverty and he (abu bakr) said: By allah, now I would not spend anything for him. 'A'isha said: It was upon this that allah the Exalted and Glorious revealed this verse: {And let not those of virtue among you and wealth swear not to give [aid] to their relatives and the needy and the emigrants for the cause of Allah, and let them pardon and overlook. Would you not like that Allah should forgive you?}

So based on this narration in Sahih Muslim, could we say that the Blue part is a verse and the Red part is a totally separate verse so Surat al-Noor would become 65 verses?

And let not those of virtue among you and wealth swear not to give [aid] to their relatives and the needy and the emigrants for the cause of Allah, and let them pardon and overlook. Would you not like that Allah should forgive you? And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. [al-Noor 24:22]

33

Book of Refutations

Surely that is wrong. And another example from the Hadith of Mu'ath ibn Jabal (ra) regarding Surat alBaqara:

O you who have believed, decreed upon you is fasting as it was decreed upon those before you that you may become righteous - (183) [Fasting for] a limited number of days. So whoever among you is ill or on a journey [during them] - then an equal number of days [are to be made up]. And upon those who are able [to fast, but with hardship] - a ransom [as substitute] of feeding a poor person [each day]. And whoever volunteers excess - it is better for him. But to fast is best for you, if you only knew. (184) [al-Baqara 2:183-184]
We read the Hadith of Mu'ath (ra) in Sahih Sunan abu Dawoud by al-Albani:

( : ) Translation: Mu'ath (ra) said: The Prophet SAWS used to fast three days from each month and he would fast the day of 'Ashura so Allah revealed: {decreed upon you is fasting as it was decreed upon those before you that you may become righteous - (183) [Fasting for] a limited number of days. So whoever among you is ill or on a journey [during them] - then an equal number of days [are to be made up]. And upon those who are able [to fast, but with hardship] - a ransom [as substitute] of feeding a poor person [each day].}
Would this by any chance mean that the three different colours are three different verses?

O you who have believed, decreed upon you is fasting as it was decreed upon those before you that you may become righteous - (183) [Fasting for] a limited number of days. So whoever among you is ill or on a journey [during them] - then an equal number of days [are to be made up]. And upon those who are able [to fast, but with hardship] - a ransom [as substitute] of feeding a poor person [each day]. And whoever volunteers excess - it is better for him. But to fast is best for you, if you only knew. (184) [al-Baqara 2:183-184]

A quick final example before we leave this matter, Surat al-Noor verse 31:

And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest, and to display of their adornment only that which is apparent, and to draw their veils over their bosoms, and not to reveal their adornment save to their own husbands or fathers or husbands' fathers, or their sons or their husbands' sons, or their brothers or their brothers' sons or sisters' sons, or their women, or their slaves, or male attendants who lack vigour, or children who know naught of women's nakedness. And let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment. And turn unto Allah together, O believers, in order that ye may succeed. [al-Noor 24:31]

34

Book of Refutations

And in Sahih al-Bukhari we read:

: : } { . : : - : - 9574 : : Translation: Narrated Safiya bint Shaiba: 'Aisha used to say: "When (the verse): "They should draw their veils over their necks and bosoms," was revealed, (the ladies) cut their waist sheets at the edges and covered their faces with the cut pieces."

So now this makes it three separate verses according to the Shia?

And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest, and to display of their adornment only that which is apparent, and to draw their veils over their necks and bosoms, and not to reveal their adornment save to their own husbands or fathers or husbands' fathers, or their sons or their husbands' sons, or their brothers or their brothers' sons or sisters' sons, or their women, or their slaves, or male attendants who lack vigour, or children who know naught of women's nakedness. And let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment. And turn unto Allah together, O believers, in order that ye may succeed. [al-Noor 24:31]

So I hope that you have understood from the above what is meant by "Asbab al-Nuzoul" or the causes for the revelations and how they work and how the companions may refer to a part of a verse and not necessarily all of it in a Hadith, this is very common as you see. So far what we have is: 1- Nothing in the Hadith proves that the last part of [33:33] is a different verse like the Shia scholars claimed. 2- The authentic narrations show us that the verses were revealed and then the Prophet SAWS would call on the four, they are not the cause of revelation. 3- Ayatul-Tathir is a part of a verse and not a separate verse; it is tied logically with what is before it and after it in terms of context.

35

Book of Refutations

Linguistics and Wording indepth Analysis Part 1

During the course of the verses we observe the feminine usage of words such as " Waqarna" and " Waothkurna" so the speech is directed at the wives since all colours in red before and after are feminine with the Arabic letter called "Nun al-Niswa" at the end of each word to prove that it is talking about females.

O wives of the Prophet, you are not like anyone among women. If you fear Allah, then do not be soft in speech [to men], lest he in whose heart is disease should covet, but speak with appropriate speech. (32) And abide in your houses and do not display yourselves as [was] the display of the former times of ignorance. And establishprayer and give zakah and obey Allah and His Messenger. Allah intends only to remove from you the impurity [of sin], O people of the [Prophet's] household, and to purify you with [extensive] purification. (33) And rememberwhat is recited in your houses of the verses of Allah and wisdom. Indeed, Allah is ever Subtle and Acquainted [with all things]. (34)
Everything highlighted in Red above is feminine in the Arabic Quranic text, it contains the speech to the Prophet's SAWS wives ordering them to do things and forbidding them and promising them other things. So how can the Shia know that the part "Allah intends only to remove from you the impurity, O people of the household, and to purify you a thorough purification" is an independent parenthetical phrase detached from all surrounding verses? is this apparent from the context of the verses and the verse itself or did you reach this conclusion based on an outside source other than the words of Allah? I explain: If an Arab or your average Muslim or a Bedouin in the desert during the time of the Prophet SAWS reads these verses, would he notice that Allah switched in the second half of verse [33:33] from addressing the wives and started addressing somebody else? If the Shia answer is yes then by all means show us something in the verses, a sign that hints that the previous topic ended and Allah stopped addressing the wives and he switched to talk to some other people about some other topic, show us the linguistic proof that supports your claim that a subject had ended and a new subject was opened in the middle of [33:33]. If the Shia answers by saying that the proof is in Hadith al-Kisaa then this is a pathetic argument which shows ignorance in the language of the Arabs, because the claim that there is a parenthetical phrase in the middle of a discourse without any signs or hints or

36

Book of Refutations

proofs from the phrase itself shows that there is no eloquence in the speech of Allah and it contradicts the definition of a parenthetical phrase as defined by the Arab scholars of language:

: 533 1 : 605 :

Here we have quoted the linguists such as Ibn Junay in al-Khasaes 1/335 & Ibn Hisham al-Ansari in al-Mughni page 506, they both define the parenthetical phrase saying that it comes in the middle of the discourse or between two connected phrases with the purpose of strengthening the meaning or giving an explanation or making a clarification, and that it should not matter to the original purpose of the sentence nor should the sentence be dependent on it for completion of meaning, and that the parenthetical phrase must come with a sign or hint which proves it. So the parenthetical phrase must be understood from the context of the language - it cannot be left to an external source to prove that it is parenthetical. No Arab hearing this verse on its own (which is how the Arabs understood the Qur'an) would imagine that these words are not meant for the Mothers of the Believers. Furthermore, if there is no contextual evidence that this phrase is parenthetical, this would mean that the parenthetical phrase is completely random - yet Allah's Speech is not random! I seek refuge in Allah from those who hint to this. So as we said the Arabs understood the Quran in its apparent form and this was their religion, this is why the proof needs to be presented from the content itself and not from an outside source, Ayatullah al-Khoei says in his book of Tafseer "al-Bayan fi Tafseer alQuran" page 264:

37

Book of Refutations

- 462 : - - : . Translation: "What proves the authority of the outward appearance of the Quranic text and the Arab's understanding of its meanings: 1- The Quran was revealed to deliver a divine argument to the message, the Prophet SAWS has challenged the people to bring even one similar verse, this means: that the Arabs used to understand its meanings from its apparent words, and if the Quran was a book of secret codes then its miracles would not be proven because they wouldn't understand it in the first place, this beats the point of revealing it and calling humanity to believe in it. 2- The great number of narrations ordering us to hold on to the two weighty things left behind by the Prophet SAWS, it is clear that this means that we must work with what's contained in the book. 3- The Mutawatir narrations telling us to present the narrations to the book of Allah, they say that what contradicts it should be slammed against the wall as it is unacceptable and that the Imams never said it, these narrations are clearly telling us to take the apparent wording of the book because this is what the Arab speaking people understand."

After this the Shia will look for an answer and he will reply with the only too things he could spot as possible "hints" or "proofs" to their parenthetical phrase argument:

(A): Allah was addressing them as wives and he switched to saying Ahlul-Bayt.
Answer: This is an old argument that has been answered a thousand times, in countless Sunni and Shia narrations the wives are referred to as "Ahel" and "Ahlul-Bayt", also in the Quran we find the wives being referred to as Ahlul-Bayt in other verses than this one and they are known to all, so this argument fails by default.

38

Book of Refutations

One of many examples is from this Sahih Hadith: 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 hearts 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 (Ahlul Bayt), 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. (Sahih Muslim Book 008, Hadith 3328)

(B): The feminine was used for all surrounding verses but Allah addresses Ahlul-Bayt with masculine.
Answer: The answer to this is split into two parts, the first one is that we must first check the context of the verses, because the context gives us the meaning as the Shia scholars says:

- - 32 : Translation: "In the science of Usool we say: The context is a proof, meaning that when we need to know the meaning of some words or the meaning of a word, we look at what surrounds it and in what context it is found in, because the words that surround it and the context of the phrase that contains it will aid us in understanding that word or phrase, this is something they mention in 'Ilm al-Usool and this is something Sahih(correct) and no one argues about it." [Ayat al-Tathir, pg 23 - by: Grand Ayatullah Sayyed 'Ali al-Milani]

How I wish al-Milani would apply what he actually says to verse [33:33] that would help solve the whole problem I suppose.

39

Book of Refutations

So we go back to the context to see who is Allah talking to? In verse 28, Allah says: O Prophet, Tell your wives In verse 31, Allah says: O Prophet, Tell your wives So the divine speech is directed to the Prophet SAWS and the mothers of believers (ra), then after Allah tells them what they must do he clarifies that he only intends to purify the prophetic household, so he addresses all of them together by saying: In verse 33: Allah but wills to remove from you all that is foul O people of the household... So he gives this advice to the wives in order to purify the entire prophetic household that contains the Prophet SAWS and his wives. That is a reason for the use of masculine in:

Allah but wills to remove from you all that is foul O people of the household(AHLUL-BAYT) and to purify you a thorough purification "innama yureedu Allahu liyuthhiba AAankumu alrrijsa ahla-albayti wa yutahhirakum tatheeran"
The main reason for the use of masculine (above in blue) however is not necessarily the reason I just presented, the main reason for the use of masculine around the word "Ahlul-Bayt" in the above verse is that the word "Ahlul-Bayt" or "Ahel", this word in Arabic is a masculine word so Allah would never use feminine to refer to a masculine word, if Allah were to actually use feminine then that'd be a grammatical error and Allah never commits grammatical errors. In English this would be called "collective noun" and they are always masculine, this in short is the answer as to why masculine is used. And one needs to know that words in the Arabic language are categorised to either "masculine" or "feminine", a quick example of this would be: The word "sword" in Arabic is a masculine word, while the word "table" is a feminine

40

Book of Refutations

word. So the way you refer to both is different: In case of the sword:

Translation: I saw a sword so I carried it on my back

In case of the table:

Translation: I saw a table so I carried it on my back

As you notice, both of them are referred to as "it" in English but the difference is that in the Arabic language the way you write "it" is different for masculine and feminine objects, notice for sword it is written like this as if saying "carried HIM" but for table it is written like this as if saying "carried HER", this shows that in the Arabic you refer to something based on whether the word itself is a feminine word or a masculine word, this is the case with "Ahlul-Bayt" and "Ahel", they are masculine words so Allah can never use feminine. In the classical Arab book of language "Lisan al-'Arab" volume 11 page 28:

82 11 Translation: Seebaweih said about the plural of Ahel: Ahloun, and al-Khalil was asked: why did they make Taskeen on the letter "Haa" of the word Ahel and did not make Tahreek for it like the word Ardeen? He replied:Because the word Ahel is masculine.

41

Book of Refutations

And in the same volume on page 29:

: : : : : : : Translation: Ahlul-Madhab: those who follow the Madhab. and Ahlul-Islam: those who believe in Islam. and Ahlul-Amr: the Wulat. and Ahlul-Bayt(Household): are those who live in it(House). and Ahlul-Rajol (Ahel of a man): are those who are closest to him. and Ahlul-Bayt of the Prophet SAWS are: his wives, his daughters, his brother in law, I mean 'Ali peace be upon him, it is also said: The wives of the Prophet SAWS and the men who are from his Aal.

I provide some examples: In Mustadrak al-Wasael by al-Mirza al-Noori 41/220, we read the Hadith of 'Ali (ra) talking about marriage:

" ( : ) : - 022 14 Translation: From 'Ali (as): ...So when his wife is wed to him and she entered on him, he should pray two Raka'at then wipe his hand on her forelock, then he should say: "O Allah bless my Ahel for me and bless me for them, if you have gathered us then gather us for goodness and if you wish to separate us then make our separation into goodness." then if he sits by her side he would wipe her forelock.

Above we have coloured the feminine words with Red and the masculine ones in Blue, as you see 'Ali (ra) is talking about the wife and he addresses her in feminine however when he reaches the part where he calls the wife "Ahel" he refers to her in masculine, this is because the word "Ahel" is a masculine word and 'Ali (ra) could never use feminine in this location. The same is in Ayatul-Tathir when Allah refers to the wives as Ahlul-Bayt he uses masculine and these are the rules of the Arabic tongue, and what is meant here is that by following these orders and prohibitions from God they would be purified, as Allah said:

42

Book of Refutations

And when you ask [his wives] for something, ask them from behind a partition. That is purer for your hearts and their hearts. [33:53]

Another example is the verse about the Prophet Musa SAWS and his wife:

i.e: Ith raa naran faqala liahlihi omkuthoo innee anastu naran laAAallee ateekum minha biqabasin aw ajidu AAala alnnari hudan. Translation: When he saw a fire and said to his Ahel, "Stay here; indeed, I have perceived a fire; perhaps I canbring you a torch or find at the fire some guidance. [TaHa: 10]
Here the "Ahel" is referring to only his wife but Musa (as) addressed her in the plural of masculine, even the Shia scholars of Tafseer admitted it such as al-Tabrasi in his "Jawami'i al-Jami'i" 2/699:

* : * * * * - - 996 2 Translation: "Musa was accompanied by no one except his wife and Allah referred to her as his Ahel so she was addressed in the plural, this is his saying *omkuthoo* and *ateekum* and..."
Sheikh al-Tarihi agreed while commenting on this verse in "Majma'a al-Bahrain" 4/218:

: * ( ) * - - 812 4 Translation: Those who explained al-Mughni said that the woman can be addressed in the plural of masculine, as the man says about his Ahel: They did so and so (In the masculine plural form).

Another example if you notice in Surat Hud verse 73, the Angels are talking to Sarah the wife of Ibrahim SAWS:

43

Book of Refutations

i.e: "rahmatu Allahi wabarakatuhu AAalaykum ahla albayti" Translation: They said, "Are you amazed at the decree of Allah? May the mercy of Allah and His blessings be upon you, people of the house. Indeed, He is Praiseworthy and Honorable." [Hud: 73]

She is a female being addressed in the plural of masculine which is the exact same case as verse [33:33]. So in conclusion to this point we say that what the Shia have provided as "proofs" or "hints" for their parenthetical phrase argument were not sufficient and incorrect, to say that Allah stopped referring to them as wives and started referring to them as Ahlul-Bayt is not a proof because the wives are referred to usually as Ahlul-Bayt, and using the switch in the last part from feminine to plural of masculine as a proof is also incorrect since the Arabs refer to their wives in plural of masculine and the prophet SAWS does this in several locations in the authentic narrations.

Linguistics and Wording indepth Analysis Part 2

Transliteration: Waqarna fee buyootikunna wala tabarrajna tabarruja aljahiliyyati aloola waaqimna alssalata waateena alzzakata waatiAAna Allaha warasoolahu innama yureedu Allahu liyuthhiba AAankumu alrrijsa ahla albayti wayutahhirakum tatheeran (33:33) Translation: And abide in your houses and do not display yourselves as [was] the display of the former times of ignorance. And establish prayer and give zakah and obey Allah and His Messenger.Allah intends only to remove from you the impurity [Rijs], O people of the household, and to purify you with [extensive] purification. (33:33)
We remember that the Shia stated that the second part is a separate verse not linked to what is before it or after it, and now the question becomes: Is this correct grammatically? Can the second part be independent of the context that surrounds it? I have differentiated the two parts above with different colours and we can see that the second part which is known as Ayatul-Tathir starts from "Innama" and ends with "Tatheeran". Now we ask, can an independent phrase not linked to anything before it or after just

44

Book of Refutations

begin with "Innama"? In the Arabic language the word "Innama" is known to have the function of "Adat-Hasr" and this in English means that it has a function of restriction, it restricts the meaning. The classical Arab linguists such as al-Farraa and ibn Faris say in the book al-Bahr alMuheet:

: . : : { } . : { } . : : { ; } :

They state that "Innama" cannot be used to begin a sentence unless it is linked to what came before it, it is only used at the beginning of speech if it is a response to something else; otherwise, it implies simple totality with no exceptions. This is because according to the scholars of language "Innama" does the function of i.e. "(Ma) al-Nafiyah"and i.e. "(illa) al-Istithnaiyyah", so "Ma" has the function of negating, whereas "illa" has the function of making an exception. An example of the use of "Innama" in the beginning of a sentence without it being linked to anything before it:

Transliteration: Innama Khalaqa Allahu al-Shamsa Translation: Allah only created the sun

As you can see this saying is corrupt, we all believe that Allah created the sun but the sentence above implies that Allah created ONLY THE SUN, this saying is blasphemy as we know Allah created everything and not just the sun. This is because as we said before "Innama" has a restrictive function and in our case it restricted the creations of Allah to ONLY THE SUN, and as we said "Innama" in the Arabic language does the function of two tools and they are"Ma" ( negation),

45

Book of Refutations

and "illa" ( exception). So it is as if we are saying:

Transliteration: Ma Khalaqa Allahu illa al-Shamsa Translation: Allah never created, except the sun

And above you can see how "ma" does the function of denial or negation and this is the word in RED (never), so it gives the meaning that Allah never created anything but then comes the other tool "illa" and this is BLUE (except) since it has the function of making an exception so it made an exception for the sun, thus the meaning would be that Allah never created anything except the sun, which is clear blasphemy. This is why we cannot use the tool "Innama" at the beginning of most sentences as it would restrict the meaning and imply totality UNLESS we are using it to reply to a deviant Mu'atazili for the sake of an example. The Mu'tazilah would say to you: Allah created the Quran and the sun. This is because they (Mu'tazilah) believe that the Quran was created and not eternal and this is a corrupt belief according to the Muslims, so in this case you can reply to him by using "Innama" exactly as it was used above, you would say: "Allah only created the sun." (Innama Khalaqa Allahu al-Shamsa). And in this occasion even if you began your speech with "Innama" it no longer holds a corrupt blasphemous meaning as it did before, this is because as we said previously the tool "Innama" if used has to be linked to the meaning or the context that came before it, in our situation it is a rebuttal to the Mu'tazili argument so the meaning would become: Allah created the sun only (out of the two things the deviant mentioned). So basically you are telling him that what he said is wrong and that from the things he mentioned (Quran & Sun) Allah had created only the sun, and this is how "Innama" is linked to what came before it in context. In what cases can you use "Innama" at the beginning without it being linked to what

46

Book of Refutations

came before it? This can happen if the meaning you are going for is an absolute total meaning such as:

Transliteration: Innama al-Ilah Allah Translation: The God is only Allah

In this case above the use of Innama at the beginning is correct without any need for it to be linked to anything before it, since the meaning we are giving is an absolute one that there is no God except Allah. But we cannot start with "Innama Bilal Karim" or "The kind is only Bilal" because this is a Kufri statement that means: "No one is kind except Bilal". So, how is this relevant to our topic? how is it relevant to verse [33:33]? Well the Shia claim that the second part of the verse is independent and not linked to the context which surrounds it, the second part they are talking about begins with "Innama" and ends with "Tat-heeran", so if it were to begin like this then the function of "Innama" would be in the absolute sense and it would replace "Ma" (negation) and "illa"(exception), this would turn the meaning of AyatulTathir to:

Transliteration: "Laysa Yuridu Allahu illa Ithhab al-Rijs wa al-Tatheer 'an Ahlul-Bayt" Translation: "Allah wants (wills) nothing except to remove the foul and impurity from AhlulBayt"

Which limits and restricts the limitless will of Allah almighty to nothing except purifying Ahlul-Bayt, as if Allah wants nothing else and this is without a doubt blasphemy and Kufr of the highest order Whereas if the word Ahlul-Bayt is referring to the wives as Ahlul-Sunnah understand it and if Ayatul-Tathir is linked in context to what is before it and after it (And it most certainly is) then the meaning would simply become: "O wives if you follow the orders I gave you and stop yourselves from committing what I prohibited you from committing then you shall be purified as I only intend to purify you O household through my orders and prohibitions."

47

Book of Refutations

And this is indeed the correct meaning and the healthy understanding of these verses; this is how any Arab in the desert would understand it. Otherwise, how do we explain that this verse which has absolutely nothing to do with all others which surround it, how do you explain that it suddenly jumped and got here? Is Allah intentionally trying to misguide his followers? Because if the Shia say that what is understood from this is infallibility then this means that every Arab reading this 1400 years ago to this day would understand that the wives are infallible and this is the exact opposite of the Shia belief as they state that his wives are un-trustworthy and downright evil in some cases.

Sayings of the Shia scholars

: . - 8/340 Translation: So the summary of this would be that: Allah wants nothing except to remove the Rijs in this context from Ahlul-Bayt, this proves that al-Rijs was removed from them. That proves their infallibility and if this is proven than what we want has been proven. [al-Tusi, alTibyan: 8/340]
You notice what this hypocrite is saying? Then he mentions that it is only restricted to this context so I ask WHAT CONTEXT? There is none according to the sect of the Rafidha rejecters who are known as the Shia. Theyre only to misguide people and play with words. Then another Shia scholar shows us the lies of the likes of al-Tusi and al-Tabatabaei, we read:

) ( .. ( : :) : Translation: And it appears from the saying of the righteous scholars (ra): that the divine will that is expressed in his saying "Allah only intends to remove from you the foul..." is linked firstly and specifically with removing the foul and with purifying, but we say: That what is apparent is that it is linked firstly and specifically to another matter, it is linked to the same orders and prohibitions that were aimed at the Prophet' SAWS wives. [Ja'afar Murtada al-'Amili, Ahlul-Bayt fi AyatulTathir: pg 66]

48

Book of Refutations

Grand Ayatollah al-Khoi Says Wife is Part of a Mans Ahl: Grand Ayatollah al-Khoi, 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 mans Ahl. It should be noted that Sirat al-Najat is a very famous book which is referenced on Al -Islam.org many times. Is it not clear from this that the Prophets 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 Prophets 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 Pr ophets 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 Prophets wives (i.e. his Ahlel Bayt). We kindly ask the Shia laypers ons 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 ones Ahl as well as to forbid them from the evil things, so in this command, who is Ahl? And is ones wife included in this, and is this command (to convey the truth) applicable to ones wife? Answer by al-Koi: 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-Khoi, p.426

49

Book of Refutations

Now that this is out of the way, we look at another part of the verse [33:33]:

Transliteration: "innama yuridu Allahu li-yudh'hib" Translation: "Allah only wants to remove" Here we have the word "to" which in Arabic is the letter or "Laam" that I highlighted in VIOLET colour in "li-yudh'hib", this letter which is placed before the word "yudh'hib" "remove" has a function that ties the removal of impurity with the orders and prohibitions directed at the mothers of believers. In Arabic it is called ) ) or "Lam al-Ta'aliliya", its function is (consequential) so "li" implies consequence. An example of "li" being used in a sentence is:

Transliteration: "ji'tu li-azurak" Translation: "I came to see you"

So it implies consequence as if you are asking the question "Why did I come?" "To see you." And just like "Innama" covers the function of "Ma" and "illa", the "Lam alTa'aliliyah" covers the function of " Kay", this is why it can be called "Lam kay". So it is as if you said:

Transliteration: ji'tu Kay azurak Translation: I came to see you

And notice that whether you use "Lam" or "Kay" the English translation remains the same, this is because they have the same exact purpose. So in the sentence above, "I came to see you", me seeing you is a consequence of me coming. And in our verse: "Allah only wants to remove"

50

Book of Refutations

The "to" which is "li" also implies consequence, So the cause of Allah's removal of impurity is tied to the wives following the orders and prohibitions "abide in your houses", "do not display yourselves" ect... the removal of impurity is a consequence of them following the Godly orders that came previously, and this is how "li" ties the meaning to what came before it.

Otherwise, Allah could have used a tool which does not tie or link the meaning to the surrounding context, he could have used " An", and this would give us:

Transliteration: innama yuridu Allahu An yudh'hib Translation: Allah only wants to remove
And as you see in English there is absolutely no difference whether you use "li" or "An", the phrase would still be translated the exact same way as both of them would be translated as "to remove". So what's the difference then? The difference is that "An" does not tie the meaning to what is before it whereas "li"implies consequence as we stated and automatically links to the context before it, Allah specifically used "li"because the Ayatul-Tathir is linked to the orders and prohibitions aimed at the wives and as a consequence they get to be purified. Since "An" and "li" translate the same way in English, this becomes a bit hard to express but the matter of the fact is that they are both quite distinct to the Arabs. In the case of "li" we might express this by translating the verse as follows, with "this" in parentheses: "Allah but wills [this] to remove from you all that is foul...

Here, the interpolated word '[this]' refers to all that has gone before, addressed to the Mothers of the Believers. What is most ironic is that the Shia scholars like Ja'afar al-'Amili and al-Tabatabaei, both admit that the "li" in verse [33:33] is "Lam al-Ta'aliliyah" and here we quote:

51

Book of Refutations
() () : { : } - - { : } ] [33 : : )07 - ( :
Therefore, in conclusion, we say that the second part of the verse [33:33] or AyatulTathir cannot stand on its own without a previous context, unless the Shia think that the Arabs can begin with a consequential tool without having a context before it. Therefore the words "innama.....tat-heera" do not constitute an isolated parenthetical phrase, but rather are part of the general context of these Ayat.

52

Book of Refutations

Tahreef (Distortion)
The belief in Tahreef of the Quran is Kufr.

Finally, we will go through Tahreef and this is usually the Rafidhis (Shia) final argument claiming that the Quran that Allah promised its sole protection, the Quran Allah has told us to hang onto for guidance has been as they say Corrupted or Distor ted. For indeed this is the belief of the Kufar. The Shia will then claim that the Quran has been tampered with by the evil Sahabah. Let us see what Ayatollah Allamah Sharaf al-Din is quoted as saying on the Shia website "...it is quite possible that the 'purification verse' concerning the People of the House was revealed separately and then, when the verses of the Qur'an were being assembled, was placed in the middle of the verses relating to the wives of the Prophet, either in error or deliberately." It is clear that the Shia first make up their beliefs and then read the Quran, as opposed to first reading the Quran and then deriving their beliefs from it. When verses of the Quran conflict with Shia doctrine, then possibilities are sought to explain away discrepancies. This is clearly an unnecessary complication. Therefore, it makes sense to read the Quran as is and then decide upon ones beliefs, rather than deciding on a belief first and then manufacturing a Quranic proof in the realm of possibilities. Such a belief that the verses in the Quran were manipulated by being arranged in a certain way is very much in line with the classical Shia opinion that the Quran has had Tahreef (tampering) and has been changed by the Sahabah. How can the Shia believe in Tahreef Bit Tarteeb (tampering in the order of verses) when Allah Almighty has promised in the Quran that He Himself will protect the Quran from any tampering or manipulation. Allah Almighty says in the Quran:

Absolutely, we have revealed the Reminder [the Quran], and, We verily are its Guardian; we will preserve it. (Quran, 15:9)

This is an honorable Quran in a protected book, well-guarded. A revelation from the Lord of the universe. (Quran, 56:77-80)

Indeed, it is a glorious Quran, in a preserved master tablet. (Quran, 85:21-22)

Allah has promised that He will protect and perserve the Quran from any and all tampering. In fact, this is a central belief of Islam, without which the entire faith of Islam

53

Book of Refutations
topples. Indeed, many Western orientalists and evangelical Christians have labored hard to convince people that the Quran has been tampered with. If the Quran were tampered with, then Islam has been changed and altered, just like the Muslims claim that the Bible was changed and altered. To doubt the veracity and integrity of the Quran is to doubt all of faith, and this is Kufr Akbar (Major Disbelief). We ask our Shia brothers not to throw their religious book and their entire faith into the garbage can simply because they wish to hate Aisha ( )and want so desperately to exclude her from the Ahlel Bayt. This is a very poor reason to destroy ones faith. We cannot really have intelligent dialogue with our Shia brothers if we do not both agree on the Quran as the gold standard. We can never prove to the Shia anything when they claim that the subject in the sentence has actually changed. A Non-Muslim could easily claim that the verse talking about Abu Lahab was placed in the wrong place and it should in reality be placed before the verse about following the Messenger! Suddenly, Abu Lahab is the messenger of Allah! How can we seriously argue with people when they play word games with the Quran, using cut and paste to make it mean whatever they want it to mean? This would turn the Quran into a jigsaw puzzle and makes it meaningless as a book of guidance. It is quizzical that certain Shia Ayatollahs of today say that they dont believe in Tahreef of the Quran, but at the same time they claim that verse 33:33 was placed deliberately next to the verse about the Prophets wives; they say that the meaning of the Quran was thus manipulated and the integrity of the Quran lost. In fact, most Shia scholars believe in Tahreef bit Tarteeb, which is the idea that the order of verses in the Quran were tampered with. Even if we look at verse 33:33 in isolation, we see clearly that the verse is talking about the wives: And stay quietly in your houses, and make not a dazzling display, like that of the former Times of Ignorance; and establish regular Prayer, and give regular Charity; and obey Allah and His Messenger. And Allah only wishes to remove all abomination from you, you Ahlel Bayt (People of the House), and to make you pur e and spotless. (Quran, 33:33) Surely, the Quran is not referring to Ali ( ) when it commands to stay quietly in the house and not make a dazzling display. Rather this can only be referring to the Prophets wives.

See how the Shia cannot accept the Quran as a source of guidance but instead they first make up their mind and then rearrange the Quran to make it mean what they want it to mean! How reminscent is this of the classical Shia opinion that the Quran has had Tahreef and been changed by the Sahaba!? This is from the very mouths of the Shias from their most popular Scholars and websites! We remind the Shia that Allah has promised in the Quran multiple times that He Himself will protect the Quran from being tampered with, so how can the Shia make such claims? O Shias, stop trying to make the Quran conform to YOUR beliefs. Instead, make YOUR beliefs conform to the Quran! Stop playing games with the Quran. You will oftentimes see the Shia playing childish grammar games with the Quran to make it look like the Quran actually means something else. But the truth is there for the one who wants to

54

Book of Refutations
see it. And the biased person can make it mean whatever they want it to mean.

It was on this basis that the classical scholars of the Shia claimed that there was Tahreef (tampering) of the Quran. They claimed that the evil Sahabah changed the Quran, and that the Mushaf we have today is not the real Quran (at least not in its unaltered form). The contemporary Shia scholars, however, completely deny that they believe in Tahreef or that this belief was ever a part of their sect. Nonetheless, despite this denial, many of the Shia Ulema hold onto the belief known as Tahreef bit Tarteeb (tampering in the order of the verses of the Quran such that the meaning of it is changed). Many Shia scholars claim that verse 33:33 was altered in such a manner. The Tafseer e Farman Ali is relied upon heavily by the Shia. It is a translation of the Quran along with commentary by Farman Ali. The book is used by Answering-Ansar and the likes, and hence there should be no question about its authenticity in the eyes of the Shia. In the commentary of verse 33:33, this Shia Tafseer reads:

Translation: If we take out this verse (of purification) from the middle, and then we read the verse (addressed to the wives) from the beginning to the end, we then find no fault in it and it looks better in this form. From this, it is clear that this verse (of purification) does not belong to this place and it was added deliberately for some special purpose. (source: Tafseer e Farman Ali, Commentary on Verse 33:33) The Shia scholar, Sayyid Mujtaba Musavi Lari, in the Shia book Imamate and Leadership quotes Allamah Sharaf al -Din (Kalimat al-Ghurra, p.213) as follows:

55

Book of Refutations
Although we are convinced that no distortion has taken place in the verses of the Noble Quran and that our heavenly Book has not been tampered with in any way, it is by no means clear that the arrangement and recension of the verses is precisely that in which they were revealed. For it is quite possible that the purification verse concerning the People of the House was revealed separately and then, when the verses of the Quran were being assembled, was placed in the middle of the verses relating to the wives of the Prophet, either in error or deliberately. (Al-Islam.org, Lesson 19) It should be understood that the Allamahs disclaimer that the Shia do not believe in Tahreef is as disingenuous as those who say I dont mean to be racist, but Whatever follows such a statement is always racist! Allamah Sharaf al-Din basically says: we dont believe in Tahreef but there may have been Tahreef. Utterly absurd! The Shia wish to pay lip-service to the claim that they dont believe in tampering of the Quran, and yet they further various hypothesis that allude to textual tampering of a dramatic proportion. The Khateem al-Muhhaditheen al-Majlissi says a similar thing in Bihar al -Anwar: : Translation: It is possible that the purification verse was added (by the Companions) at this part (of the verse) claiming that it was referring to the wives, or they added in the verses addressing the prophets wives, to suit their religious needsEven if we accept that there was no tampering (by the Companions) in the order (of the verses), we say there are many narrations which discuss the removal/canceling of Quranic verses. [Maybe there were verses before and after the verse of purification and they were removed]; if these verses were not removed before and after the verse (of purification), we would see the apparent link between them. (source: Bihar al-Anwar, pp.234-235) The great Shia Mufassir, Tabatabai, writes: Translation: The verse (of purification), in accordance to the (order of) revelation, was initially not a part of the verse about the Prophets wives and had no link to these verses, but rather it was later added between these verses either by the Prophet, or after his death when the Quran was compiled. (source: al-Mizan, Vol.16, p.321,)

56

Book of Refutations
Conclusion Is it not interesting that the most famous verse to the Shia causes him so much trouble? Various Shia scholars have become utterly confused when they read this verse in its entirety and they have to invent various plausible explanations, anything to explain away a gaping hole in their faith, namely that Allah Himself addressed the Prophets wives as Ahlel Bayt, that same group that the Shia writers malign with the mos t malicious of words! The utter confusion of the Shia scholars is evidenced by the colorful explanations they provide. They seek to somehow explain how the verse about purifying Ahlel Bayt is addressed to the Prophets wives. We have said this before and w e will say it again and again: Shiism cannot be found anywhere in the Quran, but rather they have to take certain verses, splice them in half, distort them, add their own commentary, and mix in their own fabricated Hadith. If we simply pick up any Shia text, we will find the repeated reference to the Ahlel Bayt, but if we open the Quran, we find no such vibe, and even if we look up the word Ahlel Bayt in the Quran, we find that it refers to the Prophets wives! The methodology of the mainstream Muslim is that he first reads the Quran and then makes up his mind after this based on what the Quran says. Meanwhile, the methodology of the Ahlul Bidah wal Dalalah (The People of Innovation and of Hell-Fire, i.e. the Shia) is that they first make up their minds with their own ideas and the ideas of their priests, and then they go into the Quran looking to generate evidences and proof to back up these preconceived beliefs, manipulating and twisting verses of the Quran to make them mean really whatever they want them to mean. May Allah save us from those who seek to butcher the Quran with their lies.

57

Book of Refutations

Does verse (33:33) makes anyone infallible?

Bismillah Al-Rahman Al-Raheem (In The Name of Allah, The Beneficent, The Merciful) The present day shias claim that the verse(33:33) makes the Ahlel Bayt infallible; they believe that this verse is the proof that Allah made the AhlelBayt perfect in the sense that they cannot make any mistakes, nor forget anything, nor commit any sins whatsoever. Based on this interpretation, the Shia claim that the Prophet(saw), Ali(ra), Fatima(ra), Hasan(ra), Hussain(ra) and the other nine Imams are the infallibles. However the reason for writing this article is that this belief of shias has become the biggest hurdle for them to include the wives of prophet(Saw) in Ahlebayt mentioned in (33:33), since they are handed over with various proves regarding the mistakes of wives of prophet(Saw) and are taught that since the Ahlebayt includes only infallibles, thus wives of prophet(Saw) cannot be included among them. And we hope that after we prove from various sources that neither does the verse of tatheer makes anyone infallible nor were the shia imams completely infallible the unbaised and sensible shias will have problem in acknowledging the fact that wives of prophet(Saw) are Ahlebayt mentioned in 33:33, even though they were not infallible. So let us examine that does the verse of tatheer actually make anyone infallible? First off, if we say that this verse makes people infallible, then we must say that it makes the Prophets wives(ra) to be infallible, since Allah addresses the Prophets wives. Let us analyze the entire verse: O wives of the Prophet! You are not like any other of the women; If you will be on your guard, then be not soft in your speech, lest he in whose heart is a disease yearn; and speak a good word. And stay quietly in your houses, and make not a dazzling display, like that of the former Times of Ignorance; and establish regular Prayer, and give regular Charity; and obey Allah and His Messenger. Allah only wishes to remove all abomination from you, you Ahlel Bayt (People of the House), and to make you pure and spotless . And recite what is rehearsed to you in your homes, of the Signs of Allah and His Wisdom: for Allah understands the finest mysteries and is well-acquainted (with them). (Quran, 33:32-34) But the truth is that nobody was made infallible by this verse. Allahs statement was not to assure the Prophets wives that they had already been purified, but rather to stipulate a condition that if they obeyed Him, He would remove all abomination from them and thus purify them. He only wished to purify them if they met this condition, namely that they wear Hijab when they are out of the house (i.e. not making a dazzling display) and establish regular prayer as well as charity. If we analyze the context, we find that Allah Almighty was giving the Prophets wives some divine directions(which were themselves a means of purification), to do all what He commanded them and to abstain from what He forbade. He thus informed them that if they conformed to His commands and abstained from what He forbade, He would reward them by removing all abomination from them and make them pure and stainless.

58

Book of Refutations
This is the verse of purification:

People of the house, God wants to remove all kinds of uncleanliness from you and to purify you thoroughly.(33:33 sarwar, shia translator) It should be noted that Allah Almighty has used this pattern of speech to address many people. Consider the following verses: 1. When He caused calm to fall on you as a security from Him and sent down upon you water from the cloud that He might thereby purify you, and take away from you the uncleanness(rijz)of the Shaitan, and that He might fortify your hearts and steady (your) footsteps thereby.(8:11) 2.Take alms out of their property, you would cleanse them and purify them thereby.. (Quran, 9:103) Allah also said in the Quran to all His believers:

3. Allah does not desire to put on you any difficulty, but He wishes to purify you and that He may complete His favor on you, so that you may be grateful. (Quran, 5:6) comment:In these verses, Allah is talking about the believers; should we really conclude that Allah has now made them completely clean and purified based on this? That is indeed missing the important conditional statement that Allah is making. Allah so addresses His servants in many other Quranic verses in a similar manner as we have shown above. Therefore, if we claim that the aim of Allah Almighty in purifying the Ahlel Bayt was to make them infallible, it would necessitate us to say that all the believers are infallible, following the Quranic verse which states that Allah Almighty so wills to purify them. As Allah Almighty told us of His wish to purify members of the Prophets family, He similarly informed us of His wish to purify the believers as well. Therefore, if we suppose that the wish of Allah to purify the believers was meant to make them infallible, then all sincere pious believers are infallible and impervious to sin. (Of course, this is incorrect and we find that none of these verses make anyone infallible.) The purification mentioned in the aforementioned verse (33:33) was not meant to make anyone infallible, but rather simply to expiate them for past mistakes or errors or sins like we get expiation for our mistakes or errors or sins when we go for Hajj. This style is widely used in the Quran, as we have shown quoting several verses from Quran. We will never find anybody who says that the purification mentioned in those mentioned verses was meant to make the Prophets family members or the believers into infallibles.

59

Book of Refutations
Here is one famous commentary of sunni scholar which is often used by the shias inorder to support some of their concepts. But ironically regarding the interpretation of the verse of tatheer by the shias, this is the view of that sunni scholar (i.e sayyid abu ala maudoodi) : A section of the people have not only misconstrued this verse to the extent that they have made the word ahl al-bait exclusively applicable to Hadrat `AIi and Fatimah and their children to the exclusion of the holy wives, but have gone even further and concluded wrongly from its words Allah only intends to remove uncleanliness from you and purify you completely, that Hadrat Ali and Fatimah and their children are infallible like the Prophets of Allah. They say that uncleanliness implies error an d sin, and, as Allah says, these ahl al-bait have been purified of this, whereas the words of the verse do not say that uncleanliness has been removed from them and they have been purified. But the words are to the effect: Allah intends to remove uncleanl iness from you and purify you completely. The context also does not tell that the object here is to mention the virtues and excellences of the Holy Prophets household. On the contrary, they have been advised here what they should do and what they should not, because Allah intends to purify them. In other words, they have been told that if they adopted such and such an attitude and way of life, they will be blessed with cleanliness, otherwise not. However, if the words Allah intends to remove uncleanline ss from yon . . . are taken to mean that AIlah has made them infallible, then is no reason why all the Muslims who perform their ablutions before offering the Prayer are not held as infallible, because about them also Allah says: But Allah wills to puri fy you and complete His blessings upon you. (Al-Maidah: 6) (tahfeem ul quran, tafseer for verse 33:33)

Does AL-RIJS means every kind of impurity ?

As we have proved above that the general interpretation of the verse of tatheer by shias itself is incorrect, we will now deal their argument a bit deeper. They selectively take some of the words of this verse(33:33) and apply them their own meanings based on their qiyas(which is haram in shia madhab). The first word is RIJS, These are the interpretations or meanings given by the shias for the word RIJS :

Argument 1:
The word Rijs in the verse(33:33) has got the article al - at its beginning which makes the word universal. Thus al-Rijs means EVERY KIND of Uncleanliness . The Ahlulbayt, or the members of the Family, whoever they are cleaned and purified from Al -Rijs or All Uncleanliness. The word Rijs literally means unclean. In strict Quranic terms and also as interpreted by Ibne Kathir: 1. To be misguided is Rijs 2. To be tormented by Allah is Rijs 3. To follow the Shaytan is Rijs

60

Book of Refutations
4. To have Allahs wrath and anger upon you is referred to as to having Rijs 5. To sin is referred as Rijs 6. Shaytans evil handworks are called Rijs 7. To have a disease in ones heart (hypocrisy) is as if having Rij s 8. To have doubts related to faith, Prophethood, Tauheed etc is a result of Rijs 9. Shirk and idol worshipping is Rijs 10. Eating haraam is a result of Rijs 11. To be impure inwardly and have a polluted creed is to have Rijs 12. Jahannam or Hell is a recompense for those who have rijs in their heart 13. Misguidance and disorder of faith is Rijs.

Answer:
You will notice that not only do the shias apply their own meanings based on their qiyas which are different from what their imams have taught them from authentic narrations but even they start quoting the interpretations by sunni scholars for this verse, because had they quoted the teaching of their imam then their deception of false interpretation of Ayat e tatheer would have been jeopardized. Moreover it seems they forget some basic teachings and advices of their imams before using the interpretations of sunni scholars. Now lets teach the shias what their imams have taught them for the meaning of the word RIJS in verse of tatheer(33:33) from authentic shia traditions. We hope that after finding these narrations, atleast they will start following the teachings of their imams and will not base their arguments on qiyas(which is haram in shiism) just to convince their opponents.

61

Book of Refutations
Al-Rijs according to the Ahlul Bayt: Al-Rijs is the doubt and, by Allaah, we never doubt in our Lord. This hadeeth is in many shia books through many chains. Here are more SaHeeH chains:

Imaam Jafar al-Saadiq said: Al-Rijs (impurity, referred to in 33:33), that is doubt. By Allah, we never doubt in our Lord. The mithl dhaalik refers to the hadeeth that we cited above. Source: Al-Kaafee, vol. 1, pg. 286-288, h. 1 Grading, SaHeeH Other Sources one can find this same sentence Al-Rijs is the doubt and, by Allaah, we never doubt in our Lord or close to it: Sources: a. Al-Amaalee lil-Toosee, pg. 561 b. BaSaair al-Darajaat, pg. 206, h. 13, under chapter titled Chapter in the Imaams were given knowledge and proved that in their hearts c. Tafseer al-Ayyaashee, vol. 1, pg. 249, h. 169 d. Maaani al-Akhbaar, pg. 138, h. 1 under chapter title Chapter on the meaning of Al Rijs Though we dont consider the shia narrations as hujjah for us, but this narration infact can be used, just to teach them that they cannot use the verse (33:33) as a proof for infallibility of their imams because even their own infallible imams didnt explain and understand the word RIJS as they try to explain. So they should stop deceiving people by putting their own words in the mouth of sunnis commentators while trying to proof that the verse of tatheer makes someone infallible, because none of the sunni scholras whom they quote believed that Ahlebayt were infallible because of that verse, and ironically not even their infallible imams used that verse as a proof for their infallibility. The infallible shia Imaam has specificly said the al -rijs means doubt(shak). He couldve easily said that it means filth/sin, and that they are infallible. But he didnt say so, this even proves that (33:33) cannot be used as proof for infallibility as some knowledgeable shias have confessed(namely nadir zaveri). And this is infact a huge problem for shias because a very important belief of shiism (i.e isma of their imams) is again not mentioned in Quran.

62

Book of Refutations
Thus, we find that according to authentic shia tradition Allah only wanted to remove doubt from Ahlebayt and to purify them . Moreover, Allah said in another verse of quran: When He caused calm to fall on you as a security from Him and sent down upon you water from the cloud that He might thereby purify you, and take away from you the uncleanness(rijz)of the Shaitan, and that He might fortify your hearts and steady (your) footsteps thereby.(8:11) Comment: Now this verse was for the believers of that time and not in particular for Ahlebayt, and Allah here says that the believers being addressed here were purified as well RIJZ OF SHAITAN was removed from them, now does this mean that these people were made infallible. No, not at all, but if the interpretations which shias give to verse of tatheer(33:33) is applied to this verse then it should be concluded that even the believers were being made infallible in this verse because Allah purified them and removed Rijz of Shaitan from them, moreover all the 13 meanings/explanations shias gave for the word Rijs are in some or the other way related to Shaitan, thus its more plausible to say that the ones for whom Allah said RIJZ OF SHAITAN was removed were made infallible. So from their own interpretations which they gave for 33:33 we can conclude from this verse that because Allah specifically mentioned Rijz of SHAITAN being removed from the believers they too were made infallible, because even the book of imam zain ul abedin(ra), Saheefa Sajadiya, says that no one would have disobeyed God, had Satan not mislead them: So all creatures confess that Thou wrongest not him whom Thou punishest and bear witness that Thou bestowest bounty upon him whom Thou pardonest. Each admits that he has fallen short of what Thou meritest. 9 Had Satan not misled them from Thy obedience, no disobeyer would have disobeyed Thee, and had he not shown falsehood to them in the likeness of truth no strayer would have gone astray from Thy path.(saheefa sajjadiya, page 294, under the chapter, His Supplication in Giving Thanks) But neither do we believe this nor does this verse of quran(8:11) makes the believers as infallible, similar to the verse 33:33 which also cannot be used as a proof for infallibility of shia imams.

Argument 2:
Shia said: Your misunderstanding the hadith. The uncleanness is what doubts. That is why the uncleanness is said to be the doubt. As for what doubts, its the uncleanness. As for what believes, its the pure word in us.

63

Book of Refutations
The pure blessed aspect of humanity is what believes and testifies to God and his Messengers on the other hand. The Quran says the only thing God desires to keep away from them is the uncleanness, this all their souls is kept away from. Surely sins effect the soul with uncleanness so they have been kept away from sins as well.

Answer:
This shia tries to some how portray from his illogical theories that doubt encompasses all uncleanness. But this is completely incorrect because uncleanness encompasses doubts but doubts do not encompass uncleanness . Doubt is one of the kind of uncleanness, and uncleanness is of various kinds as we have seen from what the shias themselves quoted from ibn katheer, they derived around 13 kinds of uncleanness and doubt was on 8th among them. Let me give you an example for better understanding. Eg1: A Christian who without a shadow of doubt believes that Jesus is son of God, he worships him. Now can we say that this deed of the Christian is a Doubt? No, not at all we will sound like idiots. But we can say that this deed of the Christian is impure. Eg2: If a Jew murders a Muslim so can we say that the Jew committed a doubt? Inded it will be ridiculous. But we can say that the Jew committed an impure act, since to sin is an impure act. Thus we find that the argument is baseless and was raised due to lack of commonsense because Doubt, sins etc are kinds of uncleanness but its not vice versa.

Argument 3:
Some shias say that there are different degrees of Purification. The ONLY place that Allah said I intend to do a PERFECT purification is in verse 33:33 where He is addressing the Ahlul-Bayt. The word PERFECT comes from the emphasis of Allah by Tathiran which has been used ONLY in verse 33:33? Any small sin is a type of impurity, thus a PERFECT purification will not leave any small sin for the Ahlul-Bayt. If Allah intends to KEEP OFF EVERY KIND OF UNCLEANNESS from Ahlul-Bayt, no impurity, no matter how small, will reach them, because Allah is omnipotent.

Answer:
What is the difference in purification? Are these shias saying Allah does not desire to make believers fully pure? When Allah (swt) says he purified Mariam (as) it means fully purified. Like wise when he says he desires to purify us, it means full purification. This is what it means obviously. There is nothing like partially pure and partially impure. When Allah is doing something then it will be perfect. If Allah says he wants to purify the believers but still some(minor) impurity remains in them, then how can they be called as Pure? Moreover its an insult on Allah that though he purified believers yet there was some impurity in them.

64

Book of Refutations

Argument 4:
According to the verse(33:33), Allah expresses his intention to keep Ahlul-Bayt pure and flawless/sinless, and what Allah intends(yureedu) it will certainly take place as Quran itself testifies (see 16:40). Another shia said: The verb yuridu implies that the continuous will or intention of Allah is His creative will or intention, not legislative. Although the decision of a created being may not take effect at all, but the will of Allah takes immediate effect. There cannot be a slightest gap of time or space in the will of Allah taking effect. When He commands: Be; it becomes. Refer to Baqarah: 117; Nahl: 40 Maryolm: 35; Ya Sin 83; Mumin: 68 and Qamar 50. It is not only the will of Allah but the declaration of its effect. Since the Ahl ul Bayt have been thoroughly purified, they remain thoroughly purified for ever

Answer:
Firstly, the word for desire of Allah in (33:33) is yureedu(intends) but the verse shias quoted (16:40) has the word (aradnahu), Moreover one should ponder that according to shias Ahlebayt were infallible since their birth, their infallibility was creational(takwini), then why did Allah now wished to purify them? They were already pure and infallible right from their birth then what was the reason for this wish of Allah? The only sensible reply we can get regarding this issue from the shias is that either ahlebayt were not infallible from their birth. Or this wish of Allah was not for them. Secondly the wish of Allah in this verse is conditional which takes places only after addressees fulfill the conditions after which Allah will purify them. For example: O you who believe! when you rise up to prayer, wash your faces and your hands as far as the elbows, and wipe your heads and your feet to the ankles; and if you are under an obligation to perform a total ablution, then wash (yourselves) and if you are sick or on a journey, or one of you come from the privy, or you have touched the women, and you cannot find water, betake yourselves to pure earth and wipe your faces and your hands therewith, Allah does not desire to put on you any difficulty, but He wishes(yureedu) to purify you and that He may complete His favor on you, so that you may be grateful.(5:6) Comment: In this verse we see that though Allah wishes to purify the believers, but it will only take place when the believers follow the commands mentioned in the verse regarding ablution. Another example: (3:176) And let not those grieve you who fall into unbelief hastily; surely they can do no harm to Allah at all; Allah intends(yureedu) that He should not give them any portion in the hereafter, and they shall have a grievous chastisement. Comment: In this verse we see that what Allah intends will take place in the hereafter, it doesnt happens then and there.

Argument 5:
Imam al-Suyuti in his Durr al-Manthur, vol. 6, p. 598 and Imam al-Alusi in hisTafsir, vol. 22, p. 43, both record the Holy Prophet, peace be upon him and his family, interpreting this verse in these words:

65

Book of Refutations
I and my Ahl al-Bayt are pure from sins.

Answer:
This hadith isnt authentic, but fabricated. (Silsila ad-daeefa 5495). These words are part of bigger narration. Ibn Kathir gave it in his Bidaya wa nihaya (2/239) and said regarding it: In it oddity and unacceptable (point) (gharabat wa nakarat). Abu Hatim said this hadith is false (batil) (see Ilalul hadith by ibn Abu Hatim 4/72). This hadith along with chain present in Dalail (1/92/#77, shamela) by Beyhaki. Starting from Yaqub ibn Shayba al-Fasawe it runs:

:
Narrated to me Yahya ibn Abdulhamid, said: narrated to us Qays from al-Amash from Abayat ibn Rabia from ibn Abbas. Everyone except al-Amash discredited. Ibn Rabia was from qulatu shia. (Mizanul itidal 2/387). Al-Amash himself mudalis, and again narrated in anana form. Qays, thats ibn Rabia. Daraqutni and Yahya said hes weak. Nasai said hes abandoned. He was shia with bad memory and rejected narrations in pocket. (Mizanul itidal 3/393). Yahya ibn Abdulhamid al-Hamani was accused in lie. (Mizanul itidal 4/392) note: narration analysis by brother Abdullah ibn abi efendi

If Ahlebayt were infallible from their creation as the shias believe, then how come RIJS was REMOVED/TAKEN AWAY from them ? Answer:
Logic and common sense dictates us that the thing which is impure needs to be purified , no one will say that I want to purify a thing which is already pure. Similarly if ahlebayt were infallible from their birth, then why would Allah wish to purify them? Allah would have said that: He wishes you to remain pure. But nothing as such was said by Allah infact Allah said: He wants to purify you. Indicating that they the ones being addressed were not infallible. Secondly, if the ones who were addressed in (33:33) were infallible from birth then why would Allah say that he wants to REMOVE impurities from them? Since we know that the thing which is present only that can be removed, no one will wish to remove a thing which is not present. The shias struggle a lot when they are posed these questions because these questions are like chili pills for those who believe that Ahlebayt were infallible from their birth, thus to defend themselves from these questions them cling a translator who translated the

66

Book of Refutations
word (yuthiba) as keep away, from this they try to explain that the rijs was not removed away from Ahlebayt but it was kept away from them. But this translation is an odd and incorrect translation of the word yudhhiba , neither the shia translator nor the other renowned translators translated the word as this translator(shakir) translated. Because the word yudhhiba actually means to remove/wipeoff and it comes from the root word dahaba which also means to remove. The root word for yudhhiba which is dhahaba ( ) is used in quran you will find that in all verses it means to take away/remove NOT as keep away: dhaha a )

(2:17) took away (11:10) Have gone (11:74) (had) gone away (21:87) he went (33:19) departs (75:33) he went Same word is used in another verse of quran and none of the translators translates it as keep away all of them unequivocally translates it as something similar to remove including the translator (shakir) who translated erroneously translated the same word in (33:33) as keep away. This is the verse which has the same word and every translator translated it similar to the word remove (8:11) (yudhhi a) take away Similar words like yudhhi a in quran: yudhhib = remove (9:15) yudhhibna = remove (11:114) yudhhibanna = will remove (22:15) So the ones who have a misconception that yudhhiba means keep away should correct themselves, because the correct understanding of the wish of Allah was to remove away the RIJS from Ahlebayt.

Argument.
This verse of Quran says: And We enjoined Ibrahim and Ismail saying: Purify My House for those who visit (it) and those who abide (in it) for devotion and those who bow down (and) those who prostrate themselves.(2:125) Does it mean that House of Allah was not pure before?

67

Book of Refutations

Answer:
Firstly, the purification of this verse(2:125) has no relation with the purification mentioned in verse of purification because, in verse of purification(33:33), Allah says He wishes to purify, whereas here Allah commands Ibrahim(as) to purify. This implies that the purification mention in (33:33) is spiritual purification, since Allah will do that, where as purification in this verse (2:125) is physical. Thats why scholars understood this verse to imply the ruling to purify mosques. Tafseer Ibn katheer states: Purifying all Masjids is required according to this Ayah. Moreover, Even Ahlelbayt after revelation of verse of purification could have physical impurity. This shows that this verse has no relation with purification mentioned in verse of purification. Secondly, according to Shia commentary of Pooya/Ali for verse (2:125) : Tahhira (to purify) implies that a house for the worship of Allah already existed there before Ibrahim, which like the Kabah in the times of the Holy Prophet, was despoiled with idols. It was in ruins. Ibrahim rebuilt it. As verse 127 of this surah suggests, after purification, the place was reserved for worship of Allah only. According to verse 96 of Ali Imran, the first house made for the worship of Allah was the Kabah in Makka, and in verse 29 of al Hajj it has been referred to as bayt ul atiq (the ancient house).(Tafseer Pooya/Ali, for verse 2:125) A Shiawebsite states: Historically when Ibrahim was ordered by Allah to build the Shrine for worship over a small he uncovered the original foundations of the Kaaba built by Adam. Ibrahim with the help of his son Ismael erected the new shrine on the same foundations. (source) In Nahjul Balagha sermon 191 it is stated: The Holy Ka`bah ( ( Do you not see that Allah, the Glorified, has tried all the people among those who came before, beginning with Adam, upto the last ones in this world with stones which yield neither benefit nor harm, which neither see nor hear. He made those stones into His sacred house which He made a standby for the people. He placed it in the most rugged stony part of the earth and on a highland with least soil thereon, among the most narrow valleys between rough mountains. soft sandy plains, springs of scanty water and scattered habitants, where neither camels nor horses nor cows and sheep can prosper. Then He commanded Adam and his sons to turn their attention towards it.(Nahjul Balagha, sermon 191) So in the light of these proofs from Shia sources, we find that Kabah was initially built before Ibrahim(as), however it was not taken care properly, that is why Allah(swt) asks Ibrahim(as) to purify it. Another Shia tafseer ( The Light of The Holy Quran) states: Then, it refers to the covenant that He made with Abraham (a.s.) and Ismail (a.s.) about the purification of the Kabah, where it says:{ And We enjoined Abraham and Ismail (saying) : Sanctify My House for those who go around it, for those who abide in it and pay devotion, and to those who bow down and prostrate themselves .}

68

Book of Refutations
What is the meaning of sanctification here? Some have said that the meaning of sanctification here is purification from the existence of idols. Some others have said that the purpose is purification from outward dirt like blood and the contents of animals stomachs which people sacrificed therein, because there were some ignorant persons who thoughtlessly did such deeds as leaving these remains behind. (The Light of The Holy Quran by Ayatullah Sayyid Kamal Faghih Imani and A Group of Muslim Scholars, under explanation of verse 2:125)

Proof from the Quran about mistakes of prophets(as)

The views of the shia scholars who believed that prophets and imams can commit mistakes were not innovated by them, but infact these are strongly supported by quran. Some of the lay shias might argue that though the scholars we have cited were greatest classical shia scholars and were in a way the source understanding shiism. But their view doesnt carry any weight since they go against quran. The response to them is that neither did these shia scholars go against quran, nor did they formed these beliefs from their desires, because this believe is strongly supported from multiple verses of quran as well as both ahlesunnah and the books of shia have authentic reports proving mistakes of prophets and imams. And its the present day shias, who are ghulats in the words of sheikh al sadooq, whose beliefs are against quran which needs to be rejected and corrected. Now lets see various examples from quran which teaches us that the prophets indeed committed mistakes, which compelled the great shia scholars to form these believes which appears to present day shias a bitter poison.

Proof from the Quran about mistakes of prophets(as)

1. prophet Muhammed(saw). 1. O Prophet! why do you forbid that which Allah has made lawful for you; you seek to please your wives; and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.[066:001] comment: The above verse depicted a mortal mistake of Prophet Muhammad when he decreed something forbidden which Almighty Allah already made lawful . The Prophet committed this mistake out of emotion and affection to his wives . Anyway as usual GOD had warned him and rectified him by HIS revelation. 2. (The Prophet) frowned and turned away, because the blind man came to him. But didnt you know that perhaps he might grow (in spiritual understanding)? Or that he might have received an important lesson, and the teaching might have profited him. As to the one who thought he was self-sufficient, you attended to him though it was not your fault that he did not grow (in spiritual understanding). But as to the one who came to you earnestly seeking and with reverence, of him you were unmindful. It should not be so! (Quran, 80:1-11) Comment: Here the Prophet (saaw) is rebuked for not listening to an old man.

69

Book of Refutations
3. That God may forgive you your sins of the past and those to follow; fulfil His favour to you; and guide you on the Straight Way.(48:2) 4. Know, therefore, that there is no god but God, and ask forgiveness for your sin, and for the men and women who believe: for God knows how you move about and how you dwell in your homes.(47:19) 5. Patiently, then, persevere: for the Promise of God is true: and ask forgiveness for your sin, and celebrate the Praises of your Lord in the evening and in the morning. (40:55) 2. Abraham 1. So also did We show Abraham the power and the laws of the heavens and the earth, that he might (with understanding) have certitude.When the night covered him over, He saw a star: He said: This is my Lord. But when it set, He said: I love not those that set. When he saw the moon rising in splendour, he said: This is my Lord. But when the moon set, He said: unless my Lord guide me, I shall surely be among those who go astray. When he saw the sun rising in splendour, he said: This is my Lord; this is the greatest (of all). But when the sun set, he said: O my people! I am indeed free from your (guilt) of giving partners to God. [006:75-078] Comment: we can see Prophet Abraham(as) acknowledged Star, sun and moon as his Rabb at first though for a short time but later repented, still GOD appointed him as Imam. 2. And Who, I(Abraham) ardently hope, will forgive me my sin on the Day of Judgment.(26:82) 3. Jonah(as) 1. And (mention) Dhun-Nun, when he went off in anger and deemed that We had no power over him, but he cried out in the darkness, saying: There is no God save Thee. Be Thou Glorified! Lo! I have been a wrong-doer. So We responded to him and delivered him from the grief and thus do We deliver the believers.(21:87-88) 2. And had he not been one of those who glorify (Allah),He would certainly have remained inside the Fish till the Day of Resurrection.(37:143-144) Comment: If jonah(as) didnt commit a mistake then the ar rahman , ar raheem Allah wouldnt have said that he(jonah) would certainly have remained inside the fish till qiyamah. Some ignorants argue that what jonah(as) did was a less virtues act, so do you say that Allah is mazallah so cruel that they punishes his beloved prophets for committing less virtues acts. How will you apply the attribute of Allah(i.e Ar raheem) in this issue then. 4. Moses(as) 1. And he went into the city at a time of unvigilance on the part of its people, so he found therein two men fighting, one being of his party and the other of his foes, and he who was of his party cried out to him for help against him who was of his enemies, so Moses struck him with his fist and killed him. He said: This is on account of the Satans doing; surely he is an enemy, openly leading astray. He said: My Lord! Lo! I have wronged my soul, so forgive me.Then He forgave him. Lo! He is the Forgiving, the Merciful.(28:15-16) Comment: Prophet Moses killed the man UNINTENTIONALLY He hit him to protect the Israelite and he had no idea the Egyptian would die he was defending the Israelite and

70

Book of Refutations
the sin was not murder it was manslaughter. Moreover if it was not a sin, as some ignorants try to portray then why does Allah too acknowledges that he FORGAVE moses(as). 5. David(as) 1. He (David) said: Surely he has been unjust to you in demanding your ewe (to add) to his own ewes; and most surely most of the partners act wrongfully towards one another, save those who believe and do good, and very few are they; And David guessed that We had tried him, and he sought forgiveness of his Lord, and he bowed himself and fell down prostrate and repented. So We forgave him this (lapse): he enjoyed, indeed, a Near Approach to Us, and a beautiful place of (Final) Return.(38:23-25) Comment: Prophet Dawood(as) commited the sin of passing judgement before hearing the case of the second disputant. 6. Adam(as) 1. We said: O Adam! dwell thou and thy wife in the Garden; and eat of the bountiful things therein as (where and when) ye will; but approach not this tree, or ye run into harm and transgression. (2:35) 2. Then he caused them to fall by deceit; so when they tasted of the tree, their evil inclinations became manifest to them, and they both began to cover themselves with the leaves of the garden; and their Lord called out to them: Did I not forbid you both from that tree and say to you that the Shaitan is your open enemy? They (Adam and Eve) said: Our Lord! We have been unjust to ourselves, and if Thou forgive us not, and have (not) mercy on us, we shall certainly be of the losers. (7:22-23) 3. In the result, they both ate of the tree, and so their nakedness appeared to them: they began to sew together, for their covering, leaves from the Garden: thus did Adam disobey his Lord, and allow himself to be seduced. 20:121 In arabic the crucial part says: la taqraba haza alschajara .. la = dont taqraba = approach ; this is a command not an advice. A very simple explanation to understand this mistake is this: going against Gods will = mistake Adam went against Gods will = Adam made a mistake When we make a mistake = We need Gods redemption Adam(as) made a mistake = God forgave him Disobeying Gods commandment after He says (dont do whatever) is a mistake being seduced by Satan = Mistake Adam was seduced by Satan = Adam(as) made a mistake. So the command of Allah is to be obeyed wherever it may be (i.e heaven, garden or earth) , if someone disobeys Allah then its a mistake. And no sane human can deny this simple fact. So people might argue that what hz adam(as) did was less good act, but this is senseless argument, because only a fool will say that disobeying Allah and

71

Book of Refutations
obeying satan is a less good act. Nor did Allah anywhere said that what hz adam(as) did was less good act, infact Allah said it was disobedience. And our Allah is Ar rahman and Ar raheem, he is not unjust to declare hz adam(as) disobedient for doing a less good act. Or to expel him out of garden for doing less good act. Also some people argue that, Adam(as) was mistaken but his deed was still righteous in intention because his intention was to get closer to God, but this arguments doesnt hold any water because majority of people commit many things with good intention, like nasibis hate hz ali(ra) with the intention that it is good, as they think that Allah will be pleased with that, So can it be said that what they did do is with good intention thus its not wrong. Infact it will be the shias to make takfeer on them. Moreover it is mentioned in shia tafseer: if they were to associate others (with Him) , certainly what they were doing would be vain for them. At first, it says : Such is the guidance of Allah; He guides by it whom He pleases of His servants; Then, in order that nobody thinks that they have chosen this path obligatorily, and also nobody considers that Allah (s.w.t.) has had a particular, exceptional and undue regard towards them, the holy verse continues saying : and if they were to associate others (with Him) , certainly what they were doing would be vain for them. The last part of the verse means that these prophets are encountered the same divine laws that other people are, and there is no unjust discrimination between them. (The Light of The Holy Quran by Ayatullah Sayyid Kamal Faghih Imani and A Group of Muslim Scholars, under explanation of verse 6:88) ) Comment: We realize from this shia tafseer that had it been that the prophets were infallible and they were KEPT AWAY FROM RIJS and were protected by Allah for not committing any mistake, then Allah wouldnt have revealed this verse as it would have been unjust discrimination between normal people and the prophets, because it contradicts the belief that the prophets are infallible. Thus these verses clearly depicts Prophets humanly deviation. The shias can live in a fanatic dream of masoomat dogma , but Allah (swt) doesnt hesitate to expose tha t even Prophets are not above mortal mistakes and deviation . It proves again and again that ONLY Allah (swt) is perfect and error free NO human is ! There should be no doubt left in the minds of anyone that the Prophets cannot only make mistakes but they can also commit minor sins. No human being is above this, The Shia have committed a grave sin by associating the Attributes of Allah to human beings. But alhamdulilah we have shown that there were yet some great shia scholars who rejected the false believes of complete infallibility of shia imams, since they knew that it was against the teachings of quran, which compelled them to reject some narrations regarding the infallibility of shia imams as they were against the quran. The Prophets were the best of the human beings. There is no doubt about this. We should respect all the Prophets and they are leaders to humanity. But we should not exalt them to the status of God, or else we will be falling in to the same trap as the Christians fell into. Allah Almighty says in the Quran: O People of the Scripture, do not exceed limits in your religion beyond the truth and do not follow the inclinations of a

72

Book of Refutations
people who had gone astray before and misled many and have strayed from the soundness of the way. (Quran, 5:77) And I would like to remind a beautiful verse of quran, as i expect that the shias might try to reject these verses proving mistakes of prophets by applying their own taweels to it. It is He Who has sent down to you the Book. In it are verses that are entirely clear, they are the foundations of the Book; and others not entirely clear. So as for those in whose hearts there is a deviation (from the truth) they follow (only) that which is not entirely clear thereof , seeking Al-Fitnah, and seeking its Tawil, but none knows its Tawil except Allah. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: We believe in it ; all of it is from our Lord. And none receive admonition except men of understanding. Quran (3:7) This verse not only teaches us to follow what is explicit from quran, but also to reject the hidden theories people have made for the quranic verses. And when clear verses are produced before them, they try to deny it saying that those verses have got hidden(batini) meanings. So beware of the shia interpretations of explicit verses of quran. And you will soon come to know that who are the ones who follow the clear verses of quran and who are the ones who run after the farfetched and hidden meaning of verses of quran.

Some arguments regarding this issue that are raised by shias:

Argument 1:
some Shia desperately try to cite verse 53:2 to claim infallibility of the prophet: 053.002 Your companion does not err, nor does he go astray;

Answer:
However, the context of that verse is that the revealed Quran is not in error: Nor does he speak out of desire.It is naught but revelation that is revealed (53: 3-4) These verses are talking about the Wahi revealed to the Prophet , i.e., the perfectness of the Quran , not about each and every personal words of the prophet . Since we have already see in verse 66:1 which proves that Pother Muhammad(Saw) made a personal mistake by assuming something forbidden what GOD made Halal , which shows Prophets mortal deviation. The Ummah is agreed that the Messengers do not make mistakes when it comes to conveying the message. The Prophet(saw ) could not make mistakes when it came to religion namely because Allah ensured this. On the other hand, it is not impossible for the Prophet (saw) to make minor mistakes on issues that have no bearing on his delivering the message. For example, he could make minor mistakes when it came to non-religious issues, such as agriculture, carpentry, and other such secular matters. Making minor mistakes in such matters does not put into question the Prophets ability to convey the Message.

73

Book of Refutations

Argument 2:
The prophets and imams can commit mistakes by they dont commit it. So they are sinless human beings.

Answer:
Well firstly I would like to congratulate this shia for atleast accepting the fact that Imams can commit mistakes, but now how will you apply the verse 33:33 to this, since you understand that it makes people infallible, on the contrary you believe that Allah wished to KEEP AWAY ALL KINDS OF RIJS FROM AHLEBAYT, where as on other hand after logical and sensible explanations you have agreed that imams can commit mistakes. So does it mean that the wish of Allah went in vain mazallah. Because its apparent that you have rejected the interpretation of some shias who use 33:33 as a proof for infallibility and that rijs being KEPT AWAY FROM THEM by acknowledging the fact that they can commit mistakes you have accepted that it was not the wish of Allah to KEEP AWAY impurities away from ahlebayt, But infact it was to be REMOVED. Secondly, saying that imams never committed any sin in their whole lives needs a solid proof (i.e the the detailed biography of each and every moment of their lives), because once you have agreed that imams can commit mistake, then there are high chances that they may have committed sins may be unknowingly or mistakenly, but either they were not recorded or if they were recorded even then they dont go down the throats of the fanatic shias, who are brainwashed since childhood to believe in infallibility of their imams, either by hook or by crook. And even we dont find reported sins of Awliyah Allah, you only find their virtues or miracles so will that mean that they too were infallible. Indeed it will be pathetic to believe in such claims even when we have crystal clear proofs from quran where prophets did commit mistakes. Moreover to give the questioner a satisfactory answer, we will inshallah provide some proofs from authentic shias sources where the shia imams reportedly committed mistakes.

Argument 3:
The Shia will continually try pushing the verse in relation to Prophet Ibrahim(as) to prove their concept of infallibilty. They will state that the verse clearly declares that the Imams will be infallible because in it Allah says: My covenant includes not Zalimoon (wrongdoers, unjust, etc).

Answer:
This argument is easily rejected because the opposite of Zalimoon (wrong-doers) is not Infallible but rather it is Mumin (good-doer) or Adl (just). Allah promised to make the righteous to be leaders of the world, but His promise would not extend to those who were Zalimoon. Indeed, a person who is fallible is not necessarily one of the Zalimoon. If that were the case, are we going to argue that Ayatollah Khomeini is one of the Zalimoon? How can the pious Muslims be Zalimoon when Allah orders them to fight the Zalimoon? This would be a logical inconsistency. As can be seen, the opposite of Zalimoon is not infallible. The verse in the Quran regarding Prophet Ibrahim (as) simply

74

Book of Refutations
states that Allahs covenant does not extend to the unjust, so what is the opposite of unjust? Who is a just person? Answer: The immediate word that would come to our minds when thinking of the opposite of unjust is just. It is not perfect or Infallible. This is obvious, and does not need much elucidation. Thus, the qualities of a just person in general is what the reader should strive to look for. The answer is found from the answers given by the office of Grand Ayatullah Ali alSistani: Question: Who is a just person? Answer: A person is said to be just when he performs all those acts which are obligatory upon him, and refrains from all those things which are forbidden to him. And the sign of being just is that one is apparently of a good character, so that if enquiries are made about him from the people of his locality, or from his neighbours, or from those persons with whom he lives, they would confirm his good conduct. It is seen from the Ayatullahs answer that under norm al circumstances the definition of just is not at all connected with divine protection from sin, but rather concerns the overall good conduct and piety of a person. It struck me as strange as to how this can suddenly change for one Verse of the Quran, without any unbiased reason provided from the Shia side.

Argument 4:
A shia claimed that hz Adam(as) was mistaken but his deed was still righteous in intention because his intention was to get closer to God.

Answer:
This arguments doesnt hold any water because majority of people commit many things with good intention, like nasibis hate hz ali(ra) with the intention that it is good, as they think that Allah will be pleased with that, So can it be said that what they did do is with good intention thus its not wrong. Infact it will be the shias to make takfeer on them.

Proof for the mistakes of Prophets and shia imams from authentic shia sources.
proof 1: : : :

. (2)

75

Book of Refutations

I heard Abaa `Abd Allaah say: That Allaah, tabarak wa ta`aala, made the Messenger of Allaah (SWT) sleep for Salaah Al-Fajr until the sun was shining. Then he (SAWAS) got up and began praying two rakkaah which is before fajr, then he prayed fajr, and he forgot in his salaah tasleem in the second rakkaah then he described what he said in his al shamaalayn , and He (SWT) did this by his Mercy of this nation lest a muslim man if he (over) sleeps from his salaah or forgets. It will be said: qad aSaab dhaalik rasoolullaah (SAWAS) I wanted to also say, that after Al-Sadooq narrates this in his Al-Faqeeh, he says only a ghuluww and a mufawwiDa will deny the sahw of the Prophet (SAWAS). proof 2: Muhammad Baqir Majlisi in his Biharul anwar 25/350: : : . ( 1)

Tamim al-Qurashi from his father, from Ahmad ibn Ali al-Ansare from al-Harwi: I said to Ar-Rida (alaihi salam): In Kufa there is group of people they reject (possibility) that prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ali) erred in pray. He said: They lied, may curse of Allah be upon them, the One who didnt err is Allah, no God except Him. proof 3: Chapter: His(IMAMS) Supplication for himself in Confessing Sins after Finishing the Night Prayer 27- Satan has taken possession of my reins through my distrust and frail certainty. I complain of his evil neighbourhood with me and my souls obedience toward him! I ask Thee to preserve me against his domination, and I plead with Thee to turn his trickery away from me! (Saheefa Sajadiya, page 138) 18- I cannot seek access to Thee through the excellence of a supererogatory work, given the many duties of Thy obligations of which I have been heedless and the stations of Thy bounds which I have transgressed, thereby violating sacred things and committing great sins, though Thou hast given me safety from their disgraces as a covering.(Saheefa Sajadiya, page136) chapter: His Supplication when he Asked Release from his Sins or Pleaded in Seeking Pardon for his Defects 14 I am he whose back offenses have weighed down! I am he whose lifetime sins have consumed! I am was disobedient in his ignorance, while Thou didst not deserve that from him! (Saheefa Sajadiya, page 213) comment: The question which arises from these supplication of imam zain ul abedin(ra) for himself : Is he saying that what Allah has wished for Ahlebayt didnt fulfilled by saying that his soul obeyed to shaitan etc. Well if those wordings of the supplications were just to please Allah, then can we find similar words of any imams complaining that they were misled by shaitan while teaching people(i.e in the mission of their imamah) ? Proof 4: Below is Ali(ra)s own admission on his humanly fallibility :

76

Book of Refutations
.Do not evade me as the people of passion are (to be) evaded, do not meet me with flattery and do not think that I shall take it ill if a true thing is said to me, because the person who feels disgusted when truth is said to him or a just matter is placed before him would find it more difficult to act upon them. Therefore, do not abstain from saying a truth or pointing out a matter of justice because I do not regard myself above erring . I do not escape erring in my actions but that Allah helps me in matters in which He is more powerful than I. Certainly, I and you are slaves owned by Allah, other than Whom there is no Lord except Him. He owns our selves which we do not own. He took us from where we were towards what means prosperity to us. He altered our straying into guidance and gave us intelligence after blindness. [nahjul balagha, source] Comment: This sermon of Ali(ra) proves that Ali(ra) admitted his fallible human nature . the shias can change a day to a night by their commentary and interpretation, but the fact is that hz ali(ra) said these words to the people, shias can make lame excuses when they find their imams supplicating Allah to forgive their sins, and they can say the imams did this out of humbleness, but here Imam was not directing his words towards Allah, but the people. If he was to teach them about his infallibility then in no way he(ra) would have said those words to the people, which would have been contradictory to his teachings. Proof 5: From shia sources: Punishing any human being by burning them alive is a major sin, but since hz ali(ra) wasnt aware of this, he burned some people alive. al-kishi said :

he(abdullah ibn saba) used to claim prophethood and that ali(ra) is Allah ( astaghfirollah) so imam ali gave him three days to repent but he refused so he burned him with fire with seventy more men who claimed this also ref: rijel ibn dawood . This is from rijal kashi with a very strong isnad(the page is 107 narration number 171): : )

However burning anyone alive is a major sin: The problem was presented to Imam Jafar as-Sadiq (a.s.) and he asked her mother which sin she had committed. When the mother confessed, Imam (a.s.) said that earth would never accept her because she used to punish Allahs creatures with the punishment that only Allah has the right to punish (That is, burning alive). Then Imam (a.s.) told them to place a little turbah in her grave. This was done and then the earth did not convulse when she was buried in

77

Book of Refutations
it.(Mustanadush Shia) (greater sins the complete book by Ayatullah Abdul Husayn Dastaghaib Shirazi , chapter 56) From sunni sources: This incident is not only present in shia sources but even in authentic sources, making this an established fact. sahi bukhari 4.260: Narrated `Ikrima:Ali burnt some people and this news reached Ibn `Abbas, who said, Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, Dont punish (anybody) with Allahs Punishment. No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him. Comment: From this hadees of bukhari its clear that even Hz ibn abbas acknowledges the mistake of hz ali. Abu Dawud in Sunnan: 2667 .Narrated Hamzah al -Aslami: The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) appointed him commander over a detachment. He said: I went out along with it. He (the Prophet) said: If you find so-and-so, burn him with the fire. I then turned away, and he called me. So I returned to him, and he said: If you find soand-so, kill him, and do not burn him, for no one punishes with fire except the Lord of the fire. Ab dawood in sunan :2669 .Narrated Abdullah ibn Masud: We were with the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) during a journey. He went to ease himself. We saw a bird with her two young ones and we captured her young ones. The bird came and began to spread its wings. The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) came and said: Who grieved this for its young ones? Return its young ones to it. He also saw an ant village that we had burnt. He asked: Who has burnt this? We replied: We. He said: It is not proper to punish with fire except the Lord of fire. Comment: We find from these narrations that its only the right of Allah to punish with fire and even prophet(Saw) who was the leader of that time didnt have the right to punish people by burning them. Proof 6: Esteemed Shia Allama al-Majlisi in Uyunul Hayat (1/348) narrated: Narrated Ali ibn Ibrahim WITH AUTHENTIC CHAIN, in his Tafseer commentary of verse O you who believe! do not forbid (yourselves) the good things which Allah has made lawful for you from Abu Abdullah (alaihi salam): It was revealed about commander of faithful (alaihi salam), Bilal and Uthman ibn Maudhun. And commander of faithful (alaihi salam) promised that he would never sleep at night, as for Bilal, he promised that he never would eat during the day, as for Uthman ibn Maudhun he promised that he never would marry (meaning he would never have intercourse with wife). And wife of the Uthman ibn Maudhun entered upon Aisha, and she was beautiful woman. Aisha asked: Why I see you upset?. His wife said: By Allah, my husband didnt approached me from such and such time.. (when prophet sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam entered to Aisha, she said that to him) He went out, and called to

78

Book of Refutations
congregational prayer. People gathered, and minbar was set, he praised Allah, then said: What happen with group which prohibited upon themselves pure things? HEAR, I AM SLEEPING AT NIGHTS, MARRY (WOMAN) AND EAT DURING THE DAYS. AND WHOEVER WOULD GO ASTRAY FROM MY SUNNAH IS NOT FROM ME. Proof 7: In al-Kafi vol.7 pg.203 we see al-Hassan (ra) wipeout his own infallibility from existence: Some of our companions from Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Khaled from Amr bin Uthman and from his father all of them from Haroon bin al-Jahm from Muhammad bin Muslim that he said: I heard abu Jaafar (as) and abu Abdullah (as) say: When al-Hassan bin Ali (as) was present in the Majlis of Ameer al -Mumineen (as) some folks came near him, he asked them: What is your need? they said: We were searching for Ameer al Mumineen (as) He said: What do you want from him? they said: W e wanted to ask about an issue. he said: Well what is it? tell me. They said: A woman had intercourse with her husband and then she went and did it with a virgin female servant of hers, so the sperm of that man was transmitted to that young girl and she was pregnant, what do you say about this? He (as) said: This is a problem that abu al-Hassan can handle, I will say that if I am correct then this is from Allah and from Ameer al-Mmineen (as) and if I am wrong then it is from my self so I hope that I will not make a mistake god willing.(al-Kafi vol.7 pg.203) Grading: Majlisi Sahih Miraat 23/309. ( ) ) ) ( ) ( )

Did the Ahlebayt consider them self infallible? Answer:

Imam sadiq(ra) said as reported sadooq in khisal: : ( )

( )

( 2)

79

Book of Refutations
(3) (4) :

The Imam is Given Ruh al Quds (Holy Ghost) as a helper and between him and Allah is a column of light in which all the actions of the creations(people) are seen and whenever he needs it he looks at it If Allah extends it he can see and if Allah withholds it then he will not see. And the Imams are born and they have children and they are vulnerable to sickness and they are cured and they eat and drink and they urinate and release excrement and they Make Nikah and they sleep and they forget and they makes mistakes and they are happy and sad and they cry and laugh and they live and die and they are buried and they are visited and they are presented on the day of judgement and they are asked and they make Shafaah and whatever they foretell from future events during their lives this was revealed to them by their grandfather the Prophet PBUH or by gabriel after him, all the eleven imams after the prophet PBUH were killed by sword such as Ameer al mumineen and his children as for the others they died with poison by the Tyrants, their death was a real and truthful death unlike what the Mufawwidah and the Ghulat may Allahs curse be upon them claim, They claim that the imams never really died and it was only made to appear so but this is a lie because Allah only made it appear so in the case of his Prophet Jesus son of Mary PBUH.(Khisal, by sheikh sadooq) Same as above one without the Ruh al Quds part, In khisal from imam sadiq(as) : : :

Sheikh sadooq says, imam sadiq(as) said this means that he(ra) did taqreer and this means he(sadooq) has sahih chain to imam sadiq(ra) as this is a habit of sheikh sadooq. when sadooq doubts the saying he would say it was narrated or it was reported but when he says : rasool allah(saw) said or such imam said then he accepts the hadith as sahih.

Did the classical shia scholars believed in infallibility of Ahlebayt? Answer:

As we have seen the that present shias and their scholars take verse(33:33) as a proof for infallibility of their imams, they claim that this verse is a proof that the Ahlebayt is

80

Book of Refutations
immune to each and every kind of uncleanness. But the fact the shias dont know is that their greatest scholars, who are considered as pillars of shiism neither understood the verse(33:33) as a proof for infallibility of Ahlebayt, nor did they believe in complete infallibility of their imams. Let me introduce one of those greatest scholars and he is not an ordinary scholar, he is the same scholar to whom the shias cling when the issue of tahreef of quran is brought up before them, because some of his contemporaries who too are considered great shia scholars believed in tahreef or quran, so the present shias reject those scholars and follow this giant scholar of theirs. Al-Shaikh al-Saduq is the title given to Abu Jafar Muhammad b. Ali ibn Babawaih al Qummi. He was the leading traditionist of his time (4th Century A.H.) and one of the most outstanding traditionists of Shiite Islam. He earned the title of al -Shaikh al-Saduq on account of his great learning and his reputation for truthfulness. It is a title which he also shares with his father. Here is the wordings of grand sheikh sadooq in his book Uyun ahbarul riza- volume 2, page 193 : .

19-2 In another tradition we read, The Imam is certified by the Holy Spirit. There is a column of light between him and God through which he sees the deeds of the people. He is informed about what he needs by it. Sometimes that light is shined at him and he gets to know (what he must become aware of). And sometimes it is taken away and thus he will not know (what he needs not know). The Imam is born. He also has children. He gets ill and he gets cured. He eats and drinks. He urinates and defecates. He gets married. He sleeps.He forgets and he makes mistakes. He gets happy and sad. He laughs and cries. He lives and then dies. He is buried and the people go to visit his shrine. He is resurrected and questioned. He is rewarded and honored. He intercedes. There are two important signs for him: his knowledge and the fulfillment of his prayers. He has heard the news that he gives about the events in the future from his grandfathers from the Prophet of God (s). The Prophet of God (s) has heard them from Gabriel. Gabriel has heard them from the Almighty God. Man la yahduruhul faqih 1/359 Sheikh Saduq wrote something very interesting at page 360: . :

( 4)

And our sheikh Muhammad ibn Al-Hasan ibn Ahmad ibn al-Walid (rahimuhullah)said: First level in quluw its denial of error from messenger (sallalahu alaihi wa ali), and if it is permitted to deny

81

Book of Refutations

narrations with that meaning, then its permitted to deny all narrations, and in their denial is restriction (ibtal) of of religion and shariat. After he quoting words of his shaykh, Saduq added: .

And I hope to gain reward in compiliing book dedicated to proof error of Nabi and refutation to those who reject that. Manla yahduruhul faqih 1/360 At page 359 he said: :

Al-Qulat and al-mufaqida may Allah curse them, reject possibility of error from Nabi, they say: If error in pray possible, then error in tablig also possible Comment: So its clear that modern shias are ghulats in the view of sheikh Saduq and his teacher, the greatest shias scholars. And those ignorants who accuse ahlesunnah to believe that prophets can error should first see what is in their house, because their insults are indirectly towards their greatest scholars. Moreover Imami scholars (such as Shaykh Mufeed ) believed that Imams of Ahlul Bayt were also not protected from minor sins. Book: Awael Al-Maqalat fee Al-Mazhab wa Al-Mukhtarat Author: Al-Imam Al-Shaykh Al-Mufeed Muhammad b. Muhammad b. Al-Numan b. AlMulm (Abi Abdillah Al-Akbari Al-Baghdadi) Examiner: Ibrahim Al-Ansari Al-Zinjani Al-Khoieeni 37 The saying in the infallibility of the Imams peace be upon them (1) ( )

The imams who are made to stand in place of [and carry out the responsibilities of the] Prophets from the implementation of the rulings, to upholding the limits, to preserving the laws and disciplining the creatures (i.e. the people) are as infallible as the Prophets were. It is not acceptable to occur from them even a Sagheerah (a minor sin), except of the type [I mentioned before] that is permitted to occur from the Prophets [themselves] , (2) (3)

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

82

Book of Refutations

Here is what Al-Mufeed has said: .

All of Allaahs Prophets are protected against major sins before and after prophethood; and from minor sins that make their doer considered astray. As to the minor sins whose doer is not considered astray, it is possible that they are done by the Prophets before prophethood, as non-deliberate acts, but they do not occur after prophethood in any situation. And this is the madhhab of the majority of Imaamee. And the mu`tazilah people oppose (us) in this. Conclusion: We saw that the esteemed shia scholars who are the source of acquiring knowledge about shiism, one of them who is relied upon in the matters of belief of quran, they seem to have not understood a simple verse of quran(33:33) which is contradictory to interpretations of later shia scholars who acquired the knowledge from these very same scholars. Well isnt it strange that these great scholars of shias didnt properly understand one verse of quran which according to them is very crucial and important verse for the proof for infallibility of their imams. WELL WHAT CAN BE CONCLUDED IS THAT THESE GREAT SHIA SCHOLARS TOO UNDERSTOOD THIS VERSE THE SAME WAY AHLESUNNAH UNDERSTANDS IT (I.E THIS IS NOT A PROOF FOR INFALLIBILITY OF AHLEBAYT), AS IT IS SUPPORT BY QURAN.

Infallibility of prophet(Saw) , what is the view of Ahle sunnah regarding it? Answer:
We believe that only the Creator Allah Almighty is perfect. On the other hand, creation cannot possibly be perfect as this is an attribute only Allah Almighty can posses. Humans, who were created simply out of dust, are an excellent example of imperfection. All humans commit mistakes and sin. We believe that only Allah Almighty is the One incapable of forgetting or making a mistake. All human beings can make mistakes. This is the definition of being a human being. We will now proceed to prove without a shadow of doubt that Prophets are not infallible according to the Quran. We will show how the Quran refutes all three points and how Prophets can sin, do make mistakes, and do forget. The most obvious example is that of Prophet Adam(as). We cannot fathom how the Shia factor in the story of Adam(as). Allah Almighty forbade Prophet Adam(as) from going near a tree in Paradise. But Shaytan convinced Prophet Adam(as) to sin and violate the Law of Allah. Allah(swt), in that verse, said that if Adam(as) ate from the tree, he would become one of the dhalimeen: And dont go near this tree or you will become of the wrongdoers (dhalimeen)(part of 2:35)

83

Book of Refutations
In Verse 20: 121-122 in the Quran, Allah Almighty says:Thus did Adam disobey his Lord, so he went astray.Then his Lord chose him, and turned to him with forgiveness, and gave him guidance. (Quran, 20:121-122) This appears to say that he forgot: And certainly We gave a commandment to Adam before, but he forgot; and We did not find in him any determination.(20:115) In the result, they both ate of the tree, and so their nakedness appeared to them: they began to sew together, for their covering, leaves from the Garden: thus did Adam disobey his Lord, and allow himself to be seduced. (20:121) Prophet Musa(as) also committed a mistake of killing an Egyptian man. In Verse 28:16 of the Quran, Allah Almighty says: He [Musa] said: My Lord! Verily, I have wronged myself, so forgive me. Then He [Allah] forgave him. Verily, He is the Oft-Forgiving, the Most Merciful. (Quran, 28:16) Some deviants argue that Prophets are role models, they say that If we suggest that that the Messenger committed a sin, there will be a dilemma, because that implies that we are commanded to imitate this sin which was committed by the Prophets. Answer: This argument would only be valid and appropriate if the sin is hidden and not obvious in such a way that it could be confused with acts of obedience. But Allah has explained to His Messengers where they went wrong and enabled them to repent without delay. Thus, there is no confusion on the matter, and the Muslims know what is right and what is wrong, Shaikh Muhammed Al-Munajjid responded to this Shia argument by saying: This argument is valid and is appropriate if the sin is hidden and not obvious in such a way that it could be confused with acts of obedience. But Allah has explained to His Messengers where they went wrong and enabled them to repent without delay. Although the Prophets are not infallible in totality, they are infallible in the specific aspect of conveying the Message of Islam. For example, the Prophet(saw ) would never make a mistake when he was reciting the Quran. Angel Jibrael(as ) instructed the Prophet (saw) to read to which the Prophet(saw ) responded that he could not read. But Allah allowed him to read and recite when it came to the Quran because it was Allah Himself who would ensure that the Prophet(saw ) would convey it correctly. The Prophet(saw) was at first worried that he would forget the words of Allah, but Allah reassured Him that Allah has taken the responsibility of ensuring that the Prophet(saw) conveys it with 100% accuracy. Allah says in the Quran: Your companion (Muhammad) has nei ther gone astray nor has erred. Nor does he speak of (his own) desire. It is only a Revelation revealed. He has been taught (this Quran) by one mighty in power. (Quran, 53:1-5) The Ummah is agreed that the Messengers do not make mistakes when it comes to conveying the message. They did not forget anything that Allah revealed to them, except for things that were abrogated. And Allah guaranteed His Messenger that he would remember it and would not forget it, except for that which Allah wanted him to forget, and He guaranteed to remember the whole Quran in his heart. Allah declared: We shall

84

Book of Refutations
make you to recite (the Quran), so you (O Muhammad) shall not forget (it). (Quran, 87:7) So the fact that the Prophet(saw) is not infallible in totality does not mean that the Message will be compromised at all. The reason for this is clearly stated in the Quran, namely that Allah has taken the responsibility: It is for Us to collect it and to give you (O Muhammad) the ability to recite it (the Quran). (Quran, 75:17) Hence, the Prophet(saw) could not make mistakes when it came to religion namely because Allah ensured this. On the other hand, it is not impossible for the Prophet(saw ) to make minor mistakes on issues that have no bearing on his delivering the message. For example, he could make minor mistakes when it came to non-religious issues, such as agriculture, carpentry, and other such secular matters. Making minor mistakes in such matters does not put into question the Prophets ability to convey the Message. Shaikh Muhammed Al-Munajjid declared: With regard to worldly matterswith regard to agriculture, medicine, carpentry, etc., he was like all other people. Allah did not tell us that he was sent to us as a businessman or a farmer or a carpenter or a doctor. His mistakes in these fields are quite natural and do not impact on his Message at all. The Standing Committee, one of the most respected scholarly bodies of the Ahlus Sunnah, was asked: Do the Prophets and Messengers make mistakes? The Standing Committee replied: Yes, they make mistakes but Allah does not let them persist in their mistakes, rather he points out their mistakes to them as a mercy to them and their nations, and He forgives them for their mistakes, and accepts their repentance by His Grace and Mercy, for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful, as will be clear to anyone who studies the verses of the Quran which speak of that. Shaikh Ibn Taymiyyah said in Majmoo al-Fataawa: The view that the Prophets were protected from major sins (kabaair) but not from minor sins (saghaair) is the view of the majority of the scholars of Islam It is also the view of the majority of the scholars of tafseer and hadeeth, and of the fuqahaa. Nothing was reported from any of the Salaf, Imams, Sahabah, Tabieen or the successive generation that does not agree with this view. What has been narrated from the majority of scholars is that they (the Prophets) are not infallible with regard to minor sins, but they are not left to persist therein. They do not say that this does not happen under any circumstances. The first group from whom it was narrated that they are infallible in all cases, and who say that the most, are the Raafidis (Shiah), who say that they are infallible and protected even against forgetfulness and misunderstanding. There is absolutely no doubt that the Prophets are the best of human beings. It does not take away from their character at all to say that they are not perfect, or to say that they can commit minor mistakes and such. In fact, this only increases them in their greatness. First off, the Prophets do not commit major sins, but only minor mistakes.

85

Book of Refutations
And Allah allows them to commit these mistakes so that He increases them in their faith when they ask for repentance. When a person commits mistakes, and then repents, Allah increases him in status for this. Mistakes are a shortcoming, but only if they are not accompanied by repentance, for repentance brings forgiveness of mistakes, and does not contradict goodness or bring blame upon a person. Rather, in many cases a person may be better after repenting than he was before he committed a mistake. It is well known that no Prophet committed mistake except that he hastened to repent and seek forgiveness. The Prophets did not persist in mistake or delay repentance, for Allah protected them from that, and after repenting they became better people than they were before. [Paraphrased from the words of Shaikh Muhammed Al-Munajjid. And to clear the misconception of some deviants lets us quote an authentic narration from sahi bukhari: Sahi bukhari 6.3: Narrated Anas: The Prophet said, On the Day of Resurrection the Believers will assemble and say, Let us ask somebody to intercede for us with our Lord. So they will go to Adam and say, You are the father of all the people, and Allah created you with His Own Hands, and ordered the angels to prostrate to you, and taught you the names of all things; so please intercede for us with your Lord, so that He may relieve us from this place of ours. Adam will say, I am not fit for this (i.e. intercession for you). Then Adam will remember his sin and feel ashamed thereof. He will say, Go to Noah, for he was the first Apostle, Allah sent to the inhabitants of the earth. They will go to him and Noah will say, I am not fit for this undertaking. He will remember his appeal to his Lord to do what he had no knowledge of, then he will feel ashamed thereof and will say, Go to the KhalilrRahman (i.e. Abraham). They will go to him and he will say, I am not fit for this undertaking. Go to Moses, the slave to whom Allah spoke(directly) and gave him the Torah . So they will go to him and he will say, I am not fit for this undertaking. and he will mention (his) killing a person who was not a killer, and so he will feel ashamed thereof before his Lord, and he will say, Go to Jesus, Allahs Slave, His Apostle and Allahs Word and a Spirit coming from Him. Jesus will say, I am not fit for this undertaking, go to Muhammad the Slave of Allah whose past and future sins were forgiven by Allah. So they will come to me and I will proceed till I will ask my Lords Permission and I will be given permission. When I see my Lord, I will fall down in Prostration and He will let me remain in that state as long as He wishes and then I will be addressed.(Muhammad!) Raise your head. Ask, and your request will be granted; say, and your saying will be listened to; intercede, and your intercession will be accepted. Comment: In the above narration notice the words that it says prophet(Saw) whose previous and latter errors WERE FORGIVEN. If the errors wouldnt have existed as some claim, then the wordings of prophet(Saw), that his past and future mistakes were

86

Book of Refutations
forgiven is senseless, but indeed prophet(Saw) was sinless sins all his future and past mistakes were forgiven. For more info regarding what other school of thoughts among Ahlesunnah belief in this matter then (refer this link).

Conclusion:
Thus we find that the verse of tatheer(purification) in no way can be used to prove infallibility of anyone. So even if we come across some mistakes of wives of prophet(Saw) they cant be used to exclude wives of prophet(saw) from Ahlebayt mentioned in verse of purification, As similar to the mistakes of prophets(as) which doesnt degrade their status and ranks in sight of Allah even the mistakes of wives of prophet(Saw) doesnt exclude them from being the Ahlebayt of prophet(Saw) mentioned in (33:33). And we might come across some shia narrations which says that the imams of shias were infallible, but what should we note here is that they are narrations not verses of quran and as per the rule taught by the shia imam whatever goes against the quran should be rejected(rule), these narrations are invalid since they not only goes against quran but even other AUTHENTIC shia narrations where we showed mistakes from shia imams. Or else that they can be reconciled from shia perspective that those narrations speak about the infallibility of shia imams when it comes to religion(i.e delivering the message) but they can make minor mistakes on issues that have no bearing on delivering the message, as understood by sheikh al sadooq(shia scholar), sheikh al mufeed, etc. And we do expect that the shias will close their eyes when truth will be heard against their self made doctrines, but the unfortunate fact for them is that another important belief of theirs is not present anywhere in Quran.

87

Book of Refutations

Final Message

Perhaps the reason that the Shia Ayatollahs love the Ahlel Bayt of Ali ( ) and not the Ahlel Bayt of the Prophet ( ) has to do with how the faith of Shiism came into being. Indeed, the early ancestors of the Shia are the Sabaites, followers of Abdullah Ibn Saba. These Sabaites excessively praised Ali ( ) and eventually even declared that Ali ( ) was superior to the Prophet ( ) . Today, the Shia adamantly deny this and they say that the Prophet ( ) is superior to Ali ( ) . However, we wonder why then they praise the Ahlel Bayt of Ali ( ) and not the Ahlel Bayt of Muhammad ( ?) Is this not a remnant of the Sabaite origin of Shiism? 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 Prophets wives are part of Ahlel Bayt. Surely, the Prophets 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 ( ) . Conclusion: The Prophets wives are the Ahlel Bayt. Many Shia Ayatollahs slander Aisha ( ) and Hafsa ( ) 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 Jamaah 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. Prophets wives) so much that they even deny that they are the Ahlel Bayt! The fact that the Prophets 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.

88

Book of Refutations

A special Thank You to:

TripolySunni Hani Swords of Sunnah Ibn al-Hashimi Islam Al-Muntaqim

And Allah knows best.

89