Objections to the application of Q. 33:33 to the Companions of the Cloak

Salaamun alaikum,

Do you know of any traditions by the early Zaydi imams who relate the tradition of the Kisa related to Quran 33:33?

I am Shia although inclined to agree with the argument put forward Ikrama that this verse is specifically aimed at the wives of the prophet, for the following reasons:

The preceding and later verse is directed at the wives. The context of the verse is about modesty and Allah explains how this is to remove the dirt (al-Rijs), just like praying and fasting etc. This seems to be the the most apparent interpretation at a first glance if we did not have any hadith.
The hadith on the Kisa (blanket) seems to be ideologically trying put forward the notion of "infallibility" which is a later invention - a concept later taken to another extreme level by the Twelvers/Ghulat. The hadith itself seems to be conveying this notion of infallibility - stating that those who are put under the blanket are now infallible. However, I would argue that purity (al-Ismat) is obtained through deeds ('amal) and tests (imtihan) which is the context of Quran the verse above - instructing the wives as mother of the believers to behave in a proper manner. Allah is merely explaining why they must behave in a certain way and that is to obtain purity - a station open for all.
Ikrama and Hasan al-Basri actually defended that the verse "And he who has knowledge of the book" 13:43 was actually about Imam 'Ali and not Abdullah ibn Salaam which Mu'awiyan and his cronies fabricated like many other traditions. Therefore Ikrama is somewhat reliable despite being known as a Khariji.
I have seen in forum posts that mother of the believers Aisha should of used this as a support if it was about her and the other wives, however thinking about it, this verse would actually put her in a negative light as she did the opposite of what the verse had instructed which was to stay at home and not go out. Therefore this verse would imply the opposite of purity because of what happened at al-Jamal and Allah knows best.

It seems all traditions converge on Umm Salama which is strange for a tradition which I would expect to be more variably narrated from the household. It is for this reason I suspect it is an early Kufan forgery to bolster the claims of the 'Alids? I maybe inclined to think otherwise if there are any early traditions about this narrated through the Zaydi imams?

Thanks

wa alaykum as salaam wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu!

Thank you for your question and perspective!

Actually, I don't know if you've read the introduction of the I'tisaam, but we have cited some Zaydi sources. It starts from p. 35. The Amaalis and Al-Muhit mentioned in the text are Zaydi sources. Also, our imams and scholars unanimously apply the verse to the Companions of the Cloak, upon them be peace. The following from amongst our scholars relate it: Imam an-Nasir al-Haqq al-Hassan bin Ali, Imam Abu Tālib, Imam al-Murshid Billah, Allama Muhammad bin Mansur al-Murādi, Alaama Muhammad bin Sulayman al-Kufi, the author of Al-Muhīt„Ali bin al-Hussein, al-Hākim al-Jushmi, and al-Hākim al-Haskāni.

It is also a mistaken assumption that all the narrations converge to Umm Salama when multiple narrators report the event--some of whom include the Companions of the Cloak. It is narrated on the authority of the following: Ali, al-Hassan, Fātima az-Zahra, upon them be peace, Ibn Abbās, Abdullah bin Ja‟far, Jābir bin Abdullah, Umm Salama, her son—Umar bin Abi Salama, A‟isha, al-Barā bin Āzib, Wāthila bin al-Asqa‟, Abu Sa‟id al-Khudri, Anas bin Mālik, Sa‟id bin Abi Waqqās, and al-Hamrā—the freed slave of the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him and his progeny. Some of these narrations can be seen in the attached translation.

As for the argument regarding the context of the verse referring to the Wives, we have addressed this in detail in our book . But basically, the shift of the pronoun from feminine plural to masculine plural back to feminine plural would seem very bizarre in the case that the same group is addressed throughout. This coupled with the mass amount of narrations in which the verse was said to be revealed about the Companions of the Cloak would moreso tip the balance in favour of our view. Even without the narration, the various idiosyncrasies that appear in the series of verses would denote that another group is meant. One of which is the pronoun shift I mentioned. Another one would be the curious usage of the plural of bayt (buyuut) in the first part of verse 33 and verse 34 when referring to the Wives, but then the singular bayt is used in between with Ahl al-Bayt. The word bayt only refers to one house, not plural.

As for the concept of infallibility proven from the verse, I don't believe that it is a forced ideology. If the verse, which was shown to be revealed about the Companions of the Cloak, was not revealed to censure them because the immediate context of the incident does not indicate that they committed any offense for which they would be censured, it would therefore mean that the purification that Allah desires for them is another type of purification. Also, in some of the narrations, the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon them and his progeny, is reported to have supplicated to Allah to remove filth from them and purify them thoroughly. Why? Were they dirty and needed to be bathed? Had they committed any sin for which the Prophet was seeking forgiveness? Or was it it a supplication to confirm the statement of Allah that they are purified from sins?

Another view to consider is if we were to assume that Allah implies that this purity can be obtained through good deeds and such as you stated, the question would be why would such be presented to a group that included prepubescent children? If you will recall, the verse was reported to have been revealed when al-Hasan and al-Hussein, upon them be peace, were children. What deeds can a child do or earn for which they can attain this purity? Remember, it is narrated that our Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him and his progeny, was reported to have said: ((The pen is lifted from the following...a child until he attains puberty)). This would mean that children are not responsible for their sins nor are they expected to earn anything until they are of age. So, where does this leave the Two Grandsons, upon them be peace? Since they were of age that they couldn't earn this purity, it would mean that they were purified by another means.

Ikrima, despite his purported admission that Ali, upon him be peace, was referred to as the {one with the knowledge of the Book}, cannot be held as a reliable witness simply because of that. The enemies of Ahl al-Bayt were forced to acknowledge their knowledge, virtues and connection to the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him and his progeny. Even people like Mu'awiya could not ascribe ignorance to Amir al-Mumineen, upon him be peace. However, this does not mean that all of their statements and narrations are to be trusted.

As for your statement that the reason that A'isha may not have cited this verse in her support is because of the apparent censure, this is of course conjecture, and a proof cannot be established on conjecture. One thing that is not conjecture is the fact that Imam al-Hasan, upon him be peace, actually DID cite this verse as support for himself. He is recorded in various books of history to have said in a public address: "I am among the Ahl al-Bayt from whom Allah removed impurity and purified with a thorough purification!" Simply by applying the principle of the superiority of explicit text over implicit assumption, it is evident that, at least according to one of the members of the Companions of the Cloak, the verse refers to them and none other.

As for the assumption that this was a Kufan forgery, this is also conjecture and a baseless one due to the fact that the sources of the hadith are abundant and not restricted to the Kufans. Please refer to the Introduction of the I'tisaam. It should also be borne in mind that the abundance of pro-Alid claims and ahadith were narrated and spread despite the existence and preponderance of anti-Alid dynasties (i.e. Umayyads, Abaasids). It would therefore seem unlikely that the spread of such narrations would have been allowed to take place. However, as Allah says: {They desire to extinguish Allah's light with their mouths, but Allah shall not allow such but that He completes His light even though the disbelievers may hate it} (Q. 9:32).

And Allah knows best!

IRS

Many thanks for the detailed reply I note the points. I am still struggling to agree given the other references in the Quran to ahl al-Bayt of Ibrahim which included his wife Sarah (r) in Quran 11:71-73. It is only the Kisa tradition which makes us think otherwise to exclude wives such as the Aisha or Umm Salama. Interestingly a tradition in the pdf you quoted does ascribe this to the Kufans:

Abdul-Wāhid narrated it from Shahr b. Hawshab. Abu Abdullah al-Mīz related to us [with a complete chain of narrators to] Abdul-Wāhid b. Umar: “I went to Shahr b. Hawshab and said to him: ‘I heard a hadith narrated from you and I was amazed that it was from you.’ He said: ‘My nephew, what is it? The Kufans narrated hadith from me that I hadn’t narrated.’ I said: ‘This verse: {Verily, Allah only desires to remove from thee filth, O Ahl al-Bayt, and purify thee with a thorough purification} (Q. 33:33).’

The tradition then goes on to have Shahr b Hawshab confirm that it was in fact related by Umm Salamah but how do we know the tradition has not been extended? Granted this is conjecture over explicit text but this can be the trouble with hadith in general. There are many traditions that have truth (haqq) mixed in with falsehood (batil) [see Imam 'Ali's sermon on this in Nahj). This mixing has has caught many so-called "hadith giants" out in many things and is much more subtle that complete fabrication - for example virtues of the Sheikhayn taken from Imam 'Ali and 12 Imams by Bani Abbas - the hadith "specialists" were really masters of their trade in that sense. It amazes me how sheikhs like al-Abani who called the many Umayyad/Abbasid fabrications Sahih is seen as such a giant in the field. It demonstrates how easily duped even the so-called specialists in the field can be, nevermind the layman. The Zaydi imams and Mu'tazila are a lot more discerning in this respect.

Kufa as we know was and still is a place of Ghuluww which has become a great theological issue in the Twelver madhab. Who's to say they were not deceived by earlier fabrications? Who's to say that the narration of Imam Hasan was not concocted? The whole notion of infallibility being "assigned to individuals" smells like a Kufan idea to me although this is my conjecture I am happy to admit. What strikes me is the lack of solid Shia/Alawi chains of narrations (sanad) for this tradition like from Imam Zayd, Imam al-Baqir, Imam Ja'far and Imam 'Ali etc from native Shia sources - eg, Nahj, al-Kafi. As stated I am skeptical because I know how easily duped the Umma has been by politically motiviated traditions in general. Wilfred Madelung the academic suspects many of these traditions are 'Alawi fabrications to counter the Umayyad dynasty which sought to denigrate and lower the status of Imam 'Ali. Even the use of phase Aal-Muhammad - I was reading a hadith the other day by Imam Jafar al-Sadiq (A) in a Twelver source by a narrator called Umar ibn Yazid who states that the Imam called his follower from Aal-Muhammad. The follower was shocked and asked the Imam why and the Imam quoted the verse:

Most surely the nearest (awla) of people to Ibrahim are those who followed him and this Prophet and those who believe and Allah is the guardian (Wali) of the believers. Quran 3:68

Clearly the Quran was countering the claim of those who claimed to be "Ibrahimi" but for example did not accept Isa (A) or Muhammad (A) which nullified their claims despite impressive lineage. This is why as I'm sure you know that Nuh's (A) son is described not as his son because of his actions. It would seem that lineage in and of itself is useless? For example the sons of Adam where one murdered the other and therefore became less favoured. This may be a disgression, but my point is that the early community in my reading seems to have just referred to Imams of Guidance and Imams of Misguidance which themselves are Quranic notions. For example, see al-Tabari's book on Karbala - one of Husayn's ibn 'Ali (a) followers called Burayr (ra) refers to Uthman as an imam of misguidance. You can find these terms used also by Imam 'Ali in his conversation with Kumayl ibn Ziyad (ra) . We also know that Salman was called Salman al-Muhammadi (ra) for his close association to the household.

Ironically Abu Bakr argued for the imamate on sake of lineage, as Imam 'Ali (as) said they argued with the tree but spoilt the fruit. It's like many people today who claim to be descended from Imam Ridha and call themselves "Rizvi". They may be Rizvi in lineage but in practice Imam Ridha is absolved of the Twelver belief which is technically an innovation - and Allah is the most fair and knowledgable of the circumstances. But for arguments sake I am just pointing out that to be "of" (ahl) of something involves following it correctly. As we see Bani Israel had so many prophets yet veered of the path and some became proud of lineage saying that they would exit out of the fire as they were God's children. Hadhrat Isa (a) clearly refuted such a notion and his disciples were referred to as God's children in the metaphorical sense. In this sense I find limiting the Imamate to the Batnayn difficult Quranically speaking. Again, it only changes when we bring in hadith such as Thaqalayn and Kisa.. Having said that evidently those today who followed the imams ended up more guided than those that didn't - the proof is in the pudding as they say. The Quran does say that the blood relatives (ulul Arham) have more priority (awla) than the believers from the emigrants (Quran 33:6). Aal initially however would of referred to the Bani Hashim (those who were entitled to the khumms and forbidden from Zakat).

Just taking the Quran and hadiths that agree with the Quran we see that fadl such as truthfulness, knowledge and honesty is the main criteria - this is the imam of guidance. This is when true Wilaya is achieved and this person becomes a conduit (wasila) for the heavens and the earth in that sense - a source of baraka. As Imam 'Ali says it is like the axis or pivot in the handmill. Once this is removed the system (leadership/wilaya) becomes broken and tyranical/dictatorial emerges (ahl al-Batil). Just my 2 cents, but it appears that the Umma never quite appreciated the role of the Imam because of the injustice done to Imam 'Ali. As a result Muslims never developed any mature political doctrines whereas the West went on to develop democracy and classical liberalism (after two deadly world wars and many conflicts), while not perfect, they clearly permit academic freedom of inquiry and transparency to challange dogma which allows truth (al-Haqq) to emerge. This ironically was developed by intellectuals in response to the repression of the church and is what enabled the renaissance which many Muslims today benefit from (modern science and technology - although how we use such tools is clearly being re-thought):

They have taken their doctors of law (arhban) and their monks (rahban) for lords besides Allah, and (also) the Messiah son of Marium and they were enjoined that they should serve one Allah only, there is no god but He; far from His glory be what they set up (with Him). Quran 9:31

And we know prophet Muhammad (s) said you will follow in the same footsteps as the Jews and the Christians!

In my readings both Sunni and Shia just seemed to compete to fabricate "fadl" traditions to back their imams rather than actually understanding Wilaya as an idea and reality - that is a commmitment to the truth and justice in its most basic sense - this is the WaliAllah. A person who acts on this principle becomes the embodiment of al-Tawhid which means to unify and make whole - become Tayyab not Khabith. They are a divine link (wasila) between the heavens and the Earth. The imam of batil drives the people to hell and the imam of haqq guides people to paradise - in this sense the realities are within the very being (wujud) and consciousness (wijdan) of people.

In this sense those who laid the foundation for this will clearly bear its weight. In this context it does not surprise me when some Shia works refer to the Abu Bakr and Umar as the gate of perdition (Bab al-Fitan). Some even refer to them as the Dajjal (the hadith says the Dajjal will be found at al-Jurf outside of Medina, which is where Usama ibn Zayd was camped when Abu Bakr and Umar returned to seize the imamate). Yet the so-called "masters of hadith" tell us it will be a one-eyed monster emerging out of a palace near Medina or the ibn al-Sayyid fantasy. This doesn't seem so unbelievable when one considers the entire Umma is divided on wilaya and imamate. And Allah knows best.

The Imam is the Faruq (distinguisher) of the Umma and occupies an elevated station. Imam 'Ali is sometimes called Sahib al-'Araf in Twelver sources and is the divisor (Faruq) between heaven and hell. The true imam recognises the people by their signums/divisons/marks/sects. He is like an expert (Najib) money changer who can easily sift the fakes from the authentic coins each in order of quality. The word itself Di-Visior means two-vision (visio) which is interesting. The etymology of the words themselves reveal the realities on the Batin/Akhiri aspect. The Imam is a truthful (al-Siddiq), Divisor (al-Faruq) and Witness (al-Shahid) to the truth which were all originally titles of the Imam.

I wondered if the Zaydi imams had any tafsir for the Quran 7:46-49? Allama al-Tabatabai uses a mixture of sources suggests that the people of al-'Araf are the 'Arifin (people of gnosis) of the Ummah who recognise the guided, misguidance and the weakened ones (the nominal Muslims with incorrect belief who were misled - they will have intercession of the 'Arifs/Shahids/Witnesses for being misguided by the imams of batil). This reality is played out in the verse and it is read slightly different by the Twelvers. This interpretation is quite different from the Sunni reading of the verse and the Allama explains in his article below why their reading does not quite make sense with the flow of the verse.

[The people of 'Araf who recognise all people by their signs will say]:

Are these [misguided ones] the ones about whom you (imams of batil) swore that Allah will not bestow mercy on them (the confused/nominal Muslims)?

[The Imams al-Haqq/'Arifin will granted intercession saying:]

Enter the garden; you shall have no fear, nor shall you grieve. (Quran 7:49)

These 'Arifs/Imams have their vision illuminated gnosis and "divide the people". They are the witnesses (shahid) on the Umma in this life and the hereafter. It is a rather deep metaphysical explanation put across by the Allama but he seems to suggest that this is a present existential reality only to increase in intensty in the Akhira. I wondered if the Zaydi imams had a similar interpretation or how they interpreted this verse.. or whether this is just Kufan Ghuluww You can read it at Tafsir Al-Mizan - Allamah Muhammad Hussein Tabatabai if you are interested.

Imam al-Haskani has hadiths on Quran 7:44-45 which describes the caller in the hereafter (who sents la'na on those made the path crooked) is Imam 'Ali - who is the caller in this life (announcement of disassocation which Abu Bakr was sent first) and then the hereafter. This is linked to how the Umma was misguided on the pillar of al-Wilaya - I'm not sure what Zaydi sources say but Twelver sources generally say that term belief (al-Iman) cannot technically be applied to the non-Shia as the Aqida is incomplete. However in line with the above they shall receive the intercession of the imams and their followers if God permits.

Thank you for your detailed reply and sharing your thoughts!

There is much we can say in reply; however, I am not sure that any reference, citation, etc. would be enough to convince someone who has already convinced himself otherwise. Of course, one is free to believe and hold to anything one wants. However, there are some additional things that I think must be noted:

First, it is extremism to assume extremism on the part of a whole region simply because of the existence of extremists in that region. In other words, it is academically dishonest to label all Kufans as ghuluuw or classify everything narrated from them as ghuluuw. Granted, extremism existed in Kufa as you mentioned; however, not everything from Kufan narrators should be labelled as Alid extremism simply because distinct virtues are mentioned regarding the Ahl al-Bayt. Just to clarify, extremism is in the eye of the beholder, so to speak. Attributing protection from sin cannot be equated with attributing divine essential attributes to creation! One thing that distinguishes true Shi'ism from the ghuluuw tendencies is the ascription of the unique attributes of Allah to creation. Given all of that, a non-Muslim could easily ascribe ghuluuw to Muslims for believing in the infallibility of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him and his progeny. Sure, there were Kufan narrators that were extremist; however, there were others that simply related the distinct virtues of the Alids. If you want to accuse Kufan narrators of bias or pro-Alid sympathies, maybe. But to accuse them of extremism would be a gross misrepresentation of the facts. Even if we accuse the Kufans of bias, the questions would be: Why were they biased? Was this bias based on a flood of pro-Alid propaganda and fabricated ahadith? Or was this bias based on sound narrated traditions that promoted Ali?

It must also be borne in mind that the Zaydis (both of Kufa and elsewhere) were universally known to vehemently oppose extremism. Some of the works of our early imams wrote extensively against ghuluuw. The imam after whom we are named, Imam al-Qaasim ar-Rassi (as) wrote a treatise called Ar-Radd ala ar-Raafida min ahl al-Ghuluuw in which he harshly condemned extremist shiism while holding to the primacy of ahl al-Bayt. The Majmu' of Imam Zayd, our most important hadith collection, was formulated by Kufans, yet one cannot find a trace of extremism in it. This further negates the charge of extremism towards the Kufans.

Second, the charge that the hadith al-kisaa was exclusively Kufan and solely through Umm Salama (ra) has been refuted in my last response. Therefore, it is a moot point altogether.

Third, there has been the tendency to use the only other reference to Ahl al-Bayt in the Qur'an [i.e. Q. 11:71-73] to argue that the reference to Ahl al-Bayt in Ayat al-Tatheer [Q. 33:33] includes the wives. This argument is flawed for a number of reasons. The most obvious reason is that the reference to 'ahl al-bayt' in the account of Nabi Ibrahim (as) is quite literal as it refers to those who were in the house at the time of the blessing. The context of the verse makes it clear that the Messengers entered the house of Ibrahim (as). See verse 69. So when they declared the blessings for the ahl al-bayt, they meant literally 'the people of Ibrahim's house' which included his wife, Sara. However, in the context of Q. 33:33, there is no reference to the literal house of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him and his progeny. In fact, the narrated traditions state that the verse was revealed in Umm Salama's house, and the only ones present in the house were the People of the Cloak. According to the reports, Umm Salama herself was outside of the house when this was revealed! This would further emphasise the exclusivity of the verse in Q. 33:33 referring to the People of the Cloak alone and not the wives.

Fourth, as for the tafsir of Q. 7:43-49, our imams differ. Imam Abu fath ad-Daylami (as) in his Tafsir al-Burhaan identifies the 'men of the heights' in verses 43 and 48 to be the imams who will recognise the people of their time by their marks. Imam al-Haadi (as) said in one of his treatises that the 'men of heights' can refer to a group of believers or a group of Angels assigned to record and preserve men's deeds. The interpretation you mentioned is not in our books.

And Allah knows best!

IRS