Ayat al Tatheer : A Separate Verse or a Part of a Verse?

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
الحمد لله نحمده و نستعينه و نستغفره و نسأله الهداية و حسن الخاتمة
ربي اشرح لي صدري و يسر لي أمري واحلل عقدة من لساني يفقهوا قولي

The following is a critical examination of the grammar of Ayat al Tatheer.

We have decided to split into into chapters for easy reading:

• Introduction
• The Positions of Shias Regarding Ayat Al Tatheer
• Narrations about Ayat Al Tatheer
• Is Ayat Al Tatheer a Separate Verse?
• Answer to Masculine Wording in Ayat Al Tatheer
• Independence of Text in Ayat al Tatheer
• Other Statements of Shia Scholars about Ayat al Tatheer

Introduction

Is the Quranic verse [al-Ahzab 33:33] famous as Ayat Al Tatheer (verse of purification) a separate Verse or a part of a Verse? This is the question posed in this thread and if Allah wills it we shall provide the clear strong sufficient answer and end this matter once and for all.

The related verses in Arabic:

If we should ask any person who has read these verses, any unbiased Muslim or non-Muslim, 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 of certain tasks, and to prohibit them from certain tasks, and to tell them that they are unique unlike any other women in society, then he clarifies his intention which is to purify (make tatheer of) them if they adhere to these orders and prohibitions.”

In no way will you receive an answer other than this answer. However, the sect of  Twelver Shia claim that verse 33, or more specifically 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)… Tatheera”.

The Positions of Shias Regarding Ayat Al Tatheer

It is this claim that we shall discuss, and we know since we have researched this that the Twelver Shia sect is split on this specific issue on two positions:

I say: This opinion is pure and simple Tahreef, according to the Muslims if anyone says this then he is a Kafir, This order in which the Qur’an was placed in is a divinely inspired to 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 Qur’an is corrupted? Why couldn’t they have found another way out of this? Was there really no other way to explain the verses’ position and context other than resorting to Tahreef? We will soon see why they adopted this position insha-Allah.

I say: According to these scholars, 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-Kisa’ proves that they are the cause of revelation.

Firstly let us discuss who narrated these narrations?

Narrations about Ayat Al Tatheer

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:

And there are different versions of this narration, in one he SAWS says to her “Yes you are insha-Allah” and in another “You are upon goodness. (twice)” and some other versions…

Now we did not open the topic to discuss the narrations as they’ve been discussed sufficiently in other articles online, 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`a to them, he did not exclude the wives or anyone else from his Ahlul-Bayt, all he did was include the four other members, `Ali, Fatima, Hasan & Husein (ra).

It is also authentically narrated from ibn `Abbas (ra) that the verses were revealed exclusively for the wives of the Prophet SAWS.

Anyway, if the verses were revealed before the event of the cloak, and before he SAWS called on `Ali’s (ra) family to make Du`a for them, then the saying of the Shia “They (the four) are the cause of revelation” is incorrect.

As you all know there is something in Qur’anic sciences called أسباب النزول “Asbab al-Nuzoul” 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:

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:

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.

Is Ayat Al Tatheer a Separate Verse?

Secondly a Shia may say that the text 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 SAWS 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 Sa`d 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?

Surely that is wrong.

I will also provide another example, this verse from Surat al-Noor:

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:

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 different verse? And Surat al-Noor would become 65 verses long?

Surely that is wrong.

And another example from the Hadith of Mu`ath ibn Jabal (ra) regarding Surat al-Baqara:

We read the Hadith of Mu’ath (ra) in Sahih Sunan abu Dawoud by al-Albani:

Would this by any chance mean that the three different colors are three different verses?

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

And in Sahih al-Bukhari we read:

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

I hope that the reader understands what is meant by “Asbab al-Nuzoul” or the causes for the revelations and how the companions (ra) 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- Ayat Al Tatheer 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.

Answer to Masculine Wording in Ayat Al Tatheer

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

Everything highlighted in Red above is feminine in the Arabic Qur’anic 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 had begun in the middle of verse [33:33].

If the Shia answers by saying that the proof is in Hadith al-Kisa’ 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 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:

Here we have quoted classical linguists such as Ibn Junay in “al-Khasa’is” vol.1 page 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.

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 (ra). 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 towards this.

So as we said, Arabs understood the Qur’an 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 al-Quran” page 264:

After this, the Shia will look for a way out, and he will reply with the only two things he could spot as possible “hints” or “proofs” to their parenthetical phrase argument:

Answer: This is an old argument that we’ve replied to a thousand times, in countless Sunni and Shia narrations the wives are referred to as “Ahel” and “Ahlul-Bayt”, also in the Qur’an we find the wives being referred to as Ahlul-Bayt in other popular verses, so this argument fails by default.

Answer: The answer to this is in 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 themselves admit:

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

So we go back to the context to see who is Allah talking to?

In verse 28, Allah says:

In verse 31, Allah says:

So the divine speech is directed towards 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:

So the Almighty gives this advice to the wives in order to purify the entire prophetic household that includes the Prophet SAWS and his wives.

That is a reason for the use of masculine in:

However, the main reason for the use of masculine (above in blue) is not just the reason I 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.

One needs to know that words in the Arabic language are categorized 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 word.

So the way you refer to both is different:

In case of the sword:

In case of the table:

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 فحملته as if saying “carried HIM” but for table it is written like this فحملتها 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. Also as a collective noun it is masculine and not feminine even if it is referring to females.

In the classical Arab book of language “Lisan al-`Arab” volume 11 page 28:

And in the same volume on page 29:

I provide some examples:

In Mustadrak al-Wasa’il by al-Mirza al-Noori 41/220, we read the Hadith of  `Ali (ra) talking about marriage:

Above we have colored 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 Ayat al Tatheer 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:

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

Here the word “Ahel” is referring to his wife only, 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` al-Jami`” 2/699:

Shia Sheikh al-Tarihi agreed while commenting on this verse in “Majma` al-Bahrain” 4/218:

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

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 insufficient  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.

Independence of Text in Ayat al Tatheer

Now we begin another topic and we look at the verses once more:

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 Ayat al Tatheer starts from “Innama” and ends with “Tat-heeran”.

Now we ask, can an independent phrase not linked to anything before it or after it, can it just begin with “Innama”? In the Arabic language the word “Innama” إنما is known to have the function of “Adat-Hasr” أداة حصر and this in English means that it has a function of restriction, it restricts the meaning.

The classical Arab linguists such as al-Farra’ and ibn Faris say in the book al-Bahr al-Muheet:

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 two functions, the function of:

ما النافية i.e. “(Ma) al-Nafiyah”

and

إلا الإستثنائية i.e. “(illa) al-Istithnaiyyah”

Where “Ma” has the function of negating, and “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:

As you can see this meaning 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” ما (negation), and “illa” إلا (exception).

So it is as if we are saying:

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 as part of a context, for example to reply to a deviant Mu`tazili like we will show below.

The Mu`tazilah would say to you:

This is because they (Mu`tazilah) believe that the Qur’an 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:

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:

So basically you are telling him that what he said is wrong and that from the things he mentioned (Qur’an & 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 of a sentence without it being linked to what came before it?

Answer: It can be used if the meaning you are going for is an absolute total meaning such as:

In this case, 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 Ayat al Tatheer to:

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 Ayat al Tatheer is linked in context to what is before it and after it (And it most certainly is) then the meaning would simply become:

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 anything surrounding it, how do we explain that it suddenly jumped landed here, in the middle of speech directed towards the wives? 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.

Other Statements of Shia Scholars about Ayat al Tatheer

Towards the end of this article, we look at what some of their scholars say:

Have you noticed what this hypocrite al-Tusi is saying? Then he mentions that it is only restricted to this context so I ask WHAT CONTEXT? There is None according to your sect so stop misguiding people and playing with words!

Then another Shia scholar shows us the lies of the likes of al-Tusi and al-Tabataba’i, we read:

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

Here we have the word “to” which in Arabic is the letter ل or “Laam” that I highlighted in VIOLET color 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 لام) التعليلية) or “Lam al-Ta`liliya”, its function is (consequential) so “li” implies consequence.

An example of “li” being used in a sentence is:

So it implies consequence, as if you are asking the question “Why did I come?” the answer:”To see you.”

And just like “Innama” covers the function of “Ma” and “illa”, the “Lam al-Ta’aliliyah” covers the function of كي “Kay”, this is why it can be called “Lam kay”.

So it is as if you said:

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”

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 أن “An”, this would give us:

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 Ayat al Tatheer is linked to the orders and prohibitions aimed at the wives and as a consequence they get to be purified.

Since both “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:

Here, the interpolated word ‘[this]’ refers to all that has been told to the Mothers of the Believers (ra) before.

What is most ironic is that the Shia scholars like Ja`far al-`Amili and al-Tabataba’i, both admit that the “li” in verse [33:33] is “Lam al-Ta`liliyah” and here we quote:

And

Therefore, in conclusion, we say that the second part of the verse [33:33] or Ayat al Tatheer 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.

— end —