Dai Al Mutlaq is Masoom or is he ?

[Al Zulfiqar]

in my books, the only ones in today's time i consider maasoom are the innocent babies who are still on milk and wearing diapers, unable to control or think through their actions.

now if abdes insist on considering dai as maasoom, then, well.....

[ghulam muhammed]

in my books, the only ones in today's time i consider maasoom are the innocent babies who are still on milk and wearing diapers, unable to control or think through their actions.

now if abdes insist on considering dai as maasoom, then, well.....

Well if that is the case then the dai is truly a masoom............. havent you seen the zadas lifting him away abruptly during the last mohurrum ashura vayez ? He was brought back only after an hour during which time the cloth on his taqhat was changed.

[porus]

Adam,

Despite all the brick-bats flung at you on this forum, and despite our disagreement on religious issue, I welcome your participation and your contributions are of immense value because they provoke thought. For quite some time, I have never seen the forum so much 'alive' ever since you re-appeared. Please continue. Thank you.

... because he (dai al-Mutlaq) was appointed by the Imam who was appointed by the Wasi who was appointed be the Prophet, to interpret the Quran.

History attests that the office was Dai al-Mutlaq was created by Hurrat al-Malika. Imam's Aamir's instruction to Hurra to create the postion is revisionary myth.

You're following quotes suprized/disturbed me, for someone who claims to be a Muslim. Seems more like a confused Muslim.

Which would bring us to another Question. Do you believe in the Quran as the infallible word of Allah?
If there is doubt in this answer from yourside (as stated by your above), it would be pretty difficult to discuss Islam with someone who doesn't follow its main source.

I have never claimed any religious affiliation on this board. I only claim that I was born to DB parents. I have been privileged to discuss Islam with several non-Muslims whose knowledge of Islam would put any Muslim to shame. Having lived a life of DB, including attendance in sabaqs, I am interested in DB religion for reasons stated previously. Most of my relatives and friends are DBs and I almost always discuss DB issues with them. Neither they nor I find it difficult to discuss Islam and you should not either.

Supposing you believe in the Quran, your next statement:

That in turn leads me to a logical conclusion that only the Prophet, Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Husain were infallible. I do not believe anyone else to be infallible. Infallibility died at Karbala.

How did you arrive at this "logical conclusion"? Can you cite your sources? Because the names of Panjatan aren't mentioned in the Ayat Tath-heer.

My conclusion ia based on the ayat of Tatheer (33:33) and the hadith of Ahlul Kisaa taken together. The ayat identifies ahlul bayt as being 'purified' and the hadith identifies Panjatan as ahlul bayt.

How does purity imply infallibility? I would like to post an extract which I had posted on the Shiachat forum during a debate with anajmi there:

*****
Now, to the last two sentences of the ayat 33:33.

إِنَّمَا يُرِيدُ اللَّهُ لِيُذْهِبَ عَنْكُمُ الرِّجْسَ أَهْلَ الْبَيْتِ وَيُطَهِّرَكُمْ تَطْهِيرًا

1. Indeed, Allah wants banishment of ‘rijs’ from you, O ahl-al-bayt.
2. And, (Allah wants) you purified to perfection.

Allah indeed says “He wants”. Now, if Allah desires anything, it automatically comes to pass unless it refers to the behavior of human beings still alive. That is because, humans can thwart Allah’s will. However, in this ayat, he addresses those people, including the Prophet, whom He knows will always act in accordance with His will.

First sentence: Indeed, Allah wants banishment of ‘rijs’ from you, O ahl-al-bayt.

What did Allah remove from them? It was ‘rijs’. Translators use dictionary meanings like filth and abomination. In fact this cannot be the meaning here. “Rijs” refers to “unbelief in Allah and His message”. Hence, Allah is saying that ahl-ul-bayt can be relied upon to be the perfect guide from now on. In the hadith of ahl-ul-kisaa, Nabi says that Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Husain are his ahl-al-bayt. He actually does not include himself although that is clearly implied.

Support for rijs=unbelief comes from ayat 6:125

يَجْعَلُ اللَّهُ الرِّجْسَ عَلَى الَّذِينَ لا يُؤْمِنُونَ

Allah places “rijs” on unbelievers. Hence unbelief and “rijs” go together.

Second sentence: And, (Allah wants) you purified to perfection.

So, not only has any trace of “unbelief’ been removed from ahl-ul-bayt, but also they have been purified to utmost perfection. Allah thus blesses his perfect believers with the quality of never committing an error that might tempt even His strongest believers.

In conclusion, Allah’s wish is His command and it always comes to pass. And he has rendered Panjatan perfect among believers and perfect in adhering to the behavior that Allah demands from His devotees.

*********

[anajmi]

I have to interject over here. Here is the complete ayah 33:33 of the Quran which is not quoted by the shia because it causes a problem to their beliefs.

33:33 And stay in your houses. Bedizen not yourselves with the bedizenment of the Time of Ignorance. Be regular in prayer, and pay the poor-due, and obey Allah and His messenger. Allah's wish is but to remove uncleanness far from you, O Folk of the Household, and cleanse you with a thorough cleansing.

The ayah begins with addressing the wives of the prophet (saw), so it is unlikely that midway through the ayah, the focus of the ayah would change to address completely different people. The ayah before this one and the one following continue to address the wives of the prophet (saw). Ahlul Bayt in this ayah are the wives of the prophet (saw). Hazrat Ali and his family are also Ahlul Bayt of the prophet (saw), but they are not the ones being addressed in this ayah.

[Adam]

Despite all the brick-bats flung at you on this forum, and despite our disagreement on religious issue, I welcome your participation and your contributions are of immense value because they provoke thought. For quite some time, I have never seen the forum so much 'alive' ever since you re-appeared. Please continue. Thank you.

Thank you. Compliments are returned back to you too. I sometimes just skip the immature behavior comments by others and jump right to you.

... because he (dai al-Mutlaq) was appointed by the Imam who was appointed by the Wasi who was appointed be the Prophet, to interpret the Quran.
You said:
History attests that the office was Dai al-Mutlaq was created by Hurrat al-Malika. Imam's Aamir's instruction to Hurra to create the postion is revisionary myth.

Well again, this is a matter of opinion and sources. Your opinion based on your sources, and our sources state the She appointed them on the order of the Imam. So i'll clarify what I said before about "US" as it doesn't make a difference.

BUT, like i've said many times, since you don't hold anything for the Imams, and don't believe in the need for an infallible Imam and leader after Imam Husein AS, discussing the "appointment" of the Dai from a Fatimid Imam is senseless. Rather the ROOT issue would be the Fatimid Imams and the BRANCH issue would be the appointment of the Dai. Thus, first the needs for an Imam (after Imam Husein, and forever), must first be understood, once that is clarified, that an Imam is needed in every day and age, it will then justify that during his absence, SOMEONE needs to act on his behalf, and in this instance the Dai.
Again, this is off topic (appointment of the Dai), so we can continue this on a another thread.

I have never claimed any religious affiliation on this board. I only claim that I was born to DB parents. I have been privileged to discuss Islam with several non-Muslims whose knowledge of Islam would put any Muslim to shame. Having lived a life of DB, including attendance in sabaqs, I am interested in DB religion for reasons stated previously. Most of my relatives and friends are DBs and I almost always discuss DB issues with them. Neither they nor I find it difficult to discuss Islam and you should not either.

Again, I have nothing against your views. BUT, since "never claimed any religious affiliation on this board", I don't know whether to address you as a Muslim, or someone who is still figuring out Islam and if it makes sense, he will conisder himself a Muslim. What would you consider yourself?
Why I ask this is, if (even in the future) evidence is brought from the Quran, would you still accept it. Or is the Quran in your opinion something for Muslims, but not for "me".

My conclusion ia based on the ayat of Tatheer (33:33) and the hadith of Ahlul Kisaa taken together. The ayat identifies ahlul bayt as being 'purified' and the hadith identifies Panjatan as ahlul bayt.

Thank you for explaining this and I liked the way you connected Rijs to un-belief.

However, all I wanted to know, and I have asked you this before is the source for your interpretation of the HADEETH of the Prophet where he says the "Ahlul Bayt" are the Panjatan, not anyone else. Why? Because it hasn't been stated "clearly" in the Quran, and needs a correct interpretation. Don't get me wrong, we Dawoodi Bohras interpret it in the exact same way (except that we add all Imams to this category also), because OUR sources state so, BECAUSE WE FOLLOW THEM and its beliefs to the core. However, the interpretation you refer to is NOT the same as we refer to.
And whatever/whoever it is, you seem to believe in that interpretation very strongly. I'm just curious to know "What" it is, and using what base do you justify that it is CORRECT?
Because, if i'm not mistaken, each one interprets it in accordance to his own belief. Example, a Sunni interpretor might say the Ahle Bayt are "Abu Bakr and Umar", and cite a HADEETH also!

A perfect example is Anajmi s comment just after yours, (i'm glad he replied to that, even though it's not what we believe in), but it just shows that there's a difference in interpretation.
Some say Ahle Bayt are Panjatan - wives - 3 Caliphas.

So you see, it's all on the sources, and how you interpret it.
I hope i'm clear on that, and I look forward to your reply, and especially to your citation.
Salaam

Jumua Mubarak.

[anajmi]

Just to clarify, my source is the Quran. I quoted the Quran. Nothing can trump the Quran. The Quran by the way, is freely available and not hidden from anyone. The 3 Khalifas are not a part of the Ahlul Bayt. The shia bring them into the Ahlul Bayt as a sunni claim just to give weightage to their own erroneous claim.

[anajmi]

And do not think porus is commenting you for your excellent knowledge. He is just happy that it you that is on the receiving end now.

[Muslim First]

Adam
Jumua Mubarak .

For Muslim Ummah Dhuar prayers on Friday are different then other days.
They have Khutba and Fird prayers are reduced to 2 Rakah instead of 4. This is Sunnah and I believe was followed even by Fatemi Mimams.
It is contrary to your claim that only Abde Bohras follow Qur'an and Sunnah.

[Conscíous]

Adam,
Despite all the brick-bats flung at you on this forum, and despite our disagreement on religious issue, I welcome your participation and your contributions are of immense value because they provoke thought. For quite some time, I have never seen the forum so much 'alive' ever since you re-appeared. Please continue. Thank you.

I second that ^^

[Adam]

Just to clarify, my source is the Quran.

Thanks, I got that.
I'll try to answer that later. Just waiting for PORUS s response.

[Muslim First]

Adam
a Sunni interpretor might say the Ahle Bayt are "Abu Bakr and Umar", and cite a HADEETH also!

Sunni will never say that. Only uneducated Shia and Abde Burhan Bohras will say that.

[porus]

You said:

History attests that the office was Dai al-Mutlaq was created by Hurrat al-Malika. Imam's Aamir's instruction to Hurra to create the postion is revisionary myth.

Well again, this is a matter of opinion and sources. Your opinion based on your sources, and our sources state the She appointed them on the order of the Imam. So i'll clarify what I said before about "US" as it doesn't make a difference.

DB sources to which you refer are very partisan, as they have to be, to keep believers in the fold. My sources are scholars who dispassionately dig for evidence of historical claims and weigh them in accordance with modern scholarship. I could compare Daftary's Ismailies with Sayedna's tafseer of Surat al-Kawthar both of which I am familiar with. While Daftary attempts unbiased evaluation of historical sources as dug up by scholars of repute, Sayedna indulges in legends and fables. His tafseer of Surat al-Kawthar uses Pythagorean Numerology and unsubstantiated claims to draw self-serving interpretation equating each letter of the word Kawthar to Khamsat al-athaar. He talks about Aalm-e-Ibda where angels have been performing tasbih of Ali for countless eons etc. While this may be music to an abde's ear, they are of no use to a scholar. You must admit that Sayedna;s bayaans are full of legends and fables.

Specifically, you cannot say that the first Dai al-Mutlaq was appointed by Imam Aamir, can you? Did Imam Aamir know Dhuaib bin Musa? Did he meet him? You must provide historical evidence if you believe he did. Imam al-Tayyib was an infant and disappeared without trace following murder of Imam Aamir. Malika Hurra also never met him. Now, Imam al-Tayyib could not have appointed Dhuaib bin Musa either. So the conclusion is clear. He was appointed by Malika Hurra.

BUT, like i've said many times, since you don't hold anything for the Imams, and don't believe in the need for an infallible Imam and leader after Imam Husein AS, discussing the "appointment" of the Dai from a Fatimid Imam is senseless. Rather the ROOT issue would be the Fatimid Imams and the BRANCH issue would be the appointment of the Dai. Thus, first the needs for an Imam (after Imam Husein, and forever), must first be understood, once that is clarified, that an Imam is needed in every day and age, it will then justify that during his absence, SOMEONE needs to act on his behalf, and in this instance the Dai.
Again, this is off topic (appointment of the Dai), so we can continue this on a another thread.

Let us separate the issue of infallibility from the issue of appointment. Infallibilty of Panjatan was a divine (Allah's) command. Appointment of Imam and Dai is through Nass. While Imamat is splintered owing to disputes amongst different sects, there is an obvious choice of Imams after Muhammad. They are Ali, Hasan and Husain. They are ahlul bayt. By the same token, one must accept appointment of Imam Zanul Abideen as quasi-divine. But after that, all appointments are by fallible humans. Division in Imamat and Duaat is proof of that.

I am aware of the fundamental argument that if Allah did not have a Guide on earth today then that would be Allah's injustice which is impossible. The Shia version of the hadith of thaqalayn refers to Nabi saying that Muslims should follow Ahlul Bayt and Quran (Sayedna claims they are one and the same). However, as I ahave argued, only Panjatan are ahlul bayt.

I do not dispute appointments of Imams after Zainul Abideedn and his successors to Imamat. Nor do I dispute successive appointments of Duaat all the way to the 53rd Dai. And I do not dispute appointments of all claimants of rival Imamats. But I dispute their infallibility. That means that they are not above crticism about their behavior.

Again, I have nothing against your views. BUT, since "never claimed any religious affiliation on this board", I don't know whether to address you as a Muslim, or someone who is still figuring out Islam and if it makes sense, he will conisder himself a Muslim. What would you consider yourself?
Why I ask this is, if (even in the future) evidence is brought from the Quran, would you still accept it. Or is the Quran in your opinion something for Muslims, but not for "me".

I am completely open to persuasion. You only need to address me as someone who is willing to honestly consider your views and arguments.

However, all I wanted to know, and I have asked you this before is the source for your interpretation of the HADEETH of the Prophet where he says the "Ahlul Bayt" are the Panjatan, not anyone else. Why? Because it hasn't been stated "clearly" in the Quran, and needs a correct interpretation. Don't get me wrong, we Dawoodi Bohras interpret it in the exact same way (except that we add all Imams to this category also), because OUR sources state so, BECAUSE WE FOLLOW THEM and its beliefs to the core. However, the interpretation you refer to is NOT the same as we refer to.
And whatever/whoever it is, you seem to believe in that interpretation very strongly. I'm just curious to know "What" it is, and using what base do you justify that it is CORRECT?
Because, if i'm not mistaken, each one interprets it in accordance to his own belief. Example, a Sunni interpretor might say the Ahle Bayt are "Abu Bakr and Umar", and cite a HADEETH also!

A perfect example is Anajmi s comment just after yours, (i'm glad he replied to that, even though it's not what we believe in), but it just shows that there's a difference in interpretation.
Some say Ahle Bayt are Panjatan - wives - 3 Caliphas.

I have already explained how I have drawn my conclusion from ayat of Tatheer (33:33). I am convinced of the hadeeth of Ahlul Kisaa because it is considered authentic by both the Shia and the Sunni scholars. In fact, if I recall correctly, Aaisha herself, in one of the Sunni Sahee Hadith, is quoted as saying that she was not included in 'Ahlul Bayt' with respect to ayat 33:33.

There is a famous Bohra Hadith in which Nabi Muhammad includes Salman al-Farasi among Ahlul Bayt. This is rather like considering all the family of Imam Husain in Karbala as ahlul bayt. There is nothing wrong in that, but they are not the ahlul bayt referred to in ayat 33:33. They are honorific titles only. Same applies to Sunni insistence that Prophet's wives are ahlul bayt. But of course they are in the sense that they are among Prophet's household but not when it comes to ayat 33:33.

anajmi and I have discussed this issue on this board dozens of times and at one point he appeared to be convinced by my arguments. I do not agree with him and I am not inclined to engage in a debate with him about this issue all over again.

[anajmi]

In fact, if I recall correctly, Aaisha herself, in one of the Sunni Sahee Hadith, is quoted as saying that she was not included in 'Ahlul Bayt' with respect to ayat 33:33.

That is a completely false statement. Hazrat Aisha was only not included in the cloak. There is no mention of ayah 33:33 in that hadith. That addition has been made by the shia interpreters. Besides, I do not understand what the reason is behind purifying only the family of Hazrat Ali (ra) and not the wives of the prophet (saw) with whom he had initimate relationships? Why did Allah want to keep the wives of the prophet (saw) who bore his children, impure? There is no reason for that. The prophet (saw) only wanted his children to be purified, a wish that was granted by Allah as depicted in the hadith. The hadith certainly doesn't negate the ayah of the Quran.

There is a beautiful narration about the time when people were casting doubts on the character of Hazrat Aisha (ra). The prophet (saw) was upset. He spoke to Hazrat Ali (ra) about it and Hazrat Ali (ra) asked the prophet (saw) to divorce her instead of staying upset about her. The prophet (saw) then spoke to Hazrat Abu Bakr (ra) about it and Hazrat Abu Bakr (ra) asked the prophet (saw) if he had ever seen a fly sitting on his body. The prophet (saw) replied in the negative. Hazrat Abu Bakr (ra) told him that if Allah doesn't allow a dirty fly to sit on your body, will he allow a dirty women to sleep on his bed? This statement of Hazrat Abu Bakr (ra) lifted the weight from the prophet (saw)'s shoulders and then Allah revealed the ayahs in the Quran vindicating Hazrat Aisha (ra).

anajmi and I have discussed this issue on this board dozens of times and at one point he appeared to be convinced by my arguments.

That is correct, however, further study and research showed me the error of my thinking. I am now convinced. Besides, there is so much evidence for me to go around that anything any idol worshipper says to me, I now take it with a bucket full of salt.

Look at it this way - If you were to read 33:33 immediately after it was revealed and before the incident of the cloak, who would anyone think are the Ahlul Bayt referred to in the ayah of the Quran? The wives of the prophet (saw) of course!! No one in their wildest imagination would think that that part of the ayah refers not to the wives but to the family of Hazrat Ali (ra). Even shia scholars admit (including porus) that if taken by itself, 33:33 appears to refer to the wives of the prophet (saw). Doesn't that mean that Allah had made a mistake in revealing the Quran? And he had to then ask the prophet (saw) to go through the incident of the cloak to clarify his ayah? Is that possible? Is there any other such ayah in the Quran where the meaning is completely different when looked at in the light of hadith, than what it appears to be?

[anajmi]

Look at it this way - If you were to read 33:33 immediately after it was revealed and before the incident of the cloak, who would anyone think are the Ahlul Bayt referred to in the ayah of the Quran? The wives of the prophet (saw) of course!! No one in their wildest imagination would think that that part of the ayah refers not to the wives but to the family of Hazrat Ali (ra). Even shia scholars admit (including porus) that if taken by itself, 33:33 appears to refer to the wives of the prophet (saw). Doesn't that mean that Allah had made a mistake in revealing the Quran? And he had to then ask the prophet (saw) to go through the incident of the cloak to clarify his ayah? Is that possible? Is there any other such ayah in the Quran where the meaning is completely different when looked at in the light of hadith, than what it appears to be?

[anajmi]

Here is another thing to consider. It is now that we all know about this hadith, but at the time that Imam Muslim was collecting hadiths, how many would've known about it? That means for centuries people were believing in an ayah to refer to completely different people erroneously. I highly doubt that Allah would allow such a thing.

[Adam]

Malika Hurra also never met him. Now, Imam al-Tayyib could not have appointed Dhuaib bin Musa either. So the conclusion is clear. He was appointed by Malika Hurra.

Yes, we are not disagreeing with the fact that Mowlatena Hurra appointed the duat. BUT, she appointed him on the order of the Imam. That is Dawoodi Bohra belief.

They are Ali, Hasan and Husain. They are ahlul bayt. By the same token, one must accept appointment of Imam Zanul Abideen as quasi-divine. But after that, all appointments are by fallible humans. Division in Imamat and Duaat is proof of that.

Well, just for arguments sake, there was a division after the Prophet. Does that mean Rasulullah SAW or Imam Ali AS wasn't infallible? Divisions are just caused by not following the right path.

I do not dispute appointments of Imams after Zainul Abideedn and his successors to Imamat. Nor do I dispute successive appointments of Duaat all the way to the 53rd Dai. And I do not dispute appointments of all claimants of rival Imamats. But I dispute their infallibility

We'll discuss this later after the more important matter is discussed.
Just to give you an idea, IF you consider the Panjatan infallible, you would understand WHY they were infallible. Reason being, there must be a "perfect" ideal for people to follow. If there wasn't every man and women after Karbala would have an excuse for going astray following imperfect beings. To sum up, the same reason they were infallible, and their infallibility was necessary, we the Dawoodi Bohras believe that this system must continue.
(Again, first answer the question below and then we can continue)

I have already explained how I have drawn my conclusion from ayat of Tatheer (33:33).I have already explained how I have drawn my conclusion from ayat of Tatheer (33:33). I am convinced of the hadeeth of Ahlul Kisaa because it is considered authentic by both the Shia and the Sunni scholars..

All i've been asking for is your source. Again you words "I have already explained how I have drawn my conclusion from ayat of Tatheer (33:33). I am convinced of the hadeeth of Ahlul Kisaa because it is considered authentic by both the Shia and the Sunni scholars" is debatable, because there is a Sunni on this forum (Anajmi) who doesn't accept.
THUS, the whole matter of sources arises as to: WHO is your source that you follow(name of author etc). How do you consider him credible enough to base your faith on?
If you asked as that same question, we would say, very simply, our sources are our Imams who are infallible and provide our evidence from Fatimid books like Sharhul Akbar and Daim ul Islam which have been authored under the guidance of an Infallible Imam. (You don't need to comment on this, as this is our view point, however, YOUR sources need to be clarified.)

[SBM]

I do not dispute appointments of Imams after Zainul Abideedn and his successors to Imamat. Nor do I dispute successive appointments of Duaat all the way to the 53rd Dai. And I do not dispute appointments of all claimants of rival Imamats. But I dispute their infallibility


We'll discuss this later after the more important matter is discussed.

Cowardly cope out by Adam

[porus]

Yes, we are not disagreeing with the fact that Mowlatena Hurra appointed the duat. BUT, she appointed him on the order of the Imam. That is Dawoodi Bohra belief.

Your belief is not an issue. Let me turn tables on you. What is your evidence that Imam (Aamir, presumably) ordered Malika Hurra to appoint Dai al-Mutlaq. Did she operate on 'ilhaam' like the present Dai does? Ideally, please provide reference for the written testimony of Imam, or less satisfactorily, for the written testimony of Malika Hurra.

Well, just for arguments sake, there was a division after the Prophet. Does that mean Rasulullah SAW or Imam Ali AS wasn't infallible? Divisions are just caused by not following the right path.

My conclusion of infallibility for Panjatan relies on my interpretation of Quran and the Hadith of Ahlul Kisaa. Abu Bakr and Umar's behavior immediately after the death of Rasulullah testifies to their machinations and the fact that they were fallible human beings. Later, post-Husain, splintering of Imamat also owes much to the fallibility of both Imams and their followers.

Just to give you an idea, IF you consider the Panjatan infallible, you would understand WHY they were infallible. Reason being, there must be a "perfect" ideal for people to follow. If there wasn't every man and women after Karbala would have an excuse for going astray following imperfect beings. To sum up, the same reason they were infallible, and their infallibility was necessary, we the Dawoodi Bohras believe that this system must continue.

Quran states that Ahlul Bayt are free of rijs. I have interpreted rijs to mean unbelief. This is my personal interpretation based on my reading of the Quran. Quran does not state the reason why they are infallible. Your conclusion that there must be an ideal to follow is your interpolation

All i've been asking for is your source. Again you words "I have already explained how I have drawn my conclusion from ayat of Tatheer (33:33). I am convinced of the hadeeth of Ahlul Kisaa because it is considered authentic by both the Shia and the Sunni scholars" is debatable, because there is a Sunni on this forum (Anajmi) who doesn't accept.

anajmi is not a Sunni scholar even if pretends to be one and claims to 'know' the mind of God. Neither I nor you accept his pronouncements on this issue, so we can safely ignore him.

THUS, the whole matter of sources arises as to: WHO is your source that you follow(name of author etc). How do you consider him credible enough to base your faith on?
If you asked as that same question, we would say, very simply, our sources are our Imams who are infallible and provide our evidence from Fatimid books like Sharhul Akbar and Daim ul Islam which have been authored under the guidance of an Infallible Imam. (You don't need to comment on this, as this is our view point, however, YOUR sources need to be clarified.)

I am surprised that after repeatedly pointing out my sources, you still want to know what my sources are. That is simply tiresome. We are both agreed on the sources that I have quoted. They are the Quran and the Hadith of Ahlul Kisaa. Those two are sufficient for my stand on infallibility of Panjatan. Now, the ball is in your court. You have to justify on the basis of quotes both from the Quran and authentic hadith why you consider Imams after Husain and the Duaat to be infallible. I would not be favorably inclined to accept polemical debating points, a la Daimul Islam, like the one you mentioned above of the 'requirement' that there must be an 'infallible' guide present on earth all the time. I will await your justification from Quran.

To forestall a possible argument , let me point out that I do not consider 'Rasikhun fil ilm' or 'Ulul albaab' as infallible unless they refer to Panjatan. The latter are both infallible and Rashikun fil ilm and Ulul Albaab.

[anajmi]

Abu Bakr and Umar's behavior immediately after the death of Rasulullah testifies to their machinations and the fact that they were fallible human beings. Later, post-Husain, splintering of Imamat also owes much to the fallibility of both Imams and their followers.

The Muslim Ummah was united during the times of Hazrat Abu Bakr and Hazrat Umar (ra). Their machinations are a part of shia fantasy and folk lore. Splintering in the Ummah started during the time of Hazrat Umar (ra) and peaked during the time of Hazrat Ali (ra). If that is the yardstick for measuring fallibility then Hazrat Ali (ra) definitely wasn't infallible.

I am convinced of the hadeeth of Ahlul Kisaa because it is considered authentic by both the Shia and the Sunni scholars" is debatable,

You are right. There aren't any Sunni scholars who say that half of 33:33 refers to the wives and half refers to the Panjatan. That is another story created out of thin air. I am yet to come across a Sunni scholar who agrees with this, unless, agreeing with this in itself makes you a scholar, which would put a huge dent in the credibility of said scholar.

A scholar according to porus is someone who agrees with everything that he has to say. Anyone who doesn't agree with him is not a scholar. According to him, non-muslim scholars have more knowledge of Islam than muslim scholars do. Go figure!!!

[anajmi]

A scholar according to porus is someone who agrees with everything that he has to say. Anyone who doesn't agree with him is not a scholar. According to him, non-muslim scholars have more knowledge of Islam than muslim scholars do. Go figure!!!

[anajmi]

Consider this ayah of the Quran - 005.006
يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ إِذَا قُمْتُمْ إِلَى الصَّلاةِ فاغْسِلُواْ وُجُوهَكُمْ وَأَيْدِيَكُمْ إِلَى الْمَرَافِقِ وَامْسَحُواْ بِرُؤُوسِكُمْ وَأَرْجُلَكُمْ إِلَى الْكَعْبَينِ وَإِن كُنتُمْ جُنُبًا فَاطَّهَّرُواْ وَإِن كُنتُم مَّرْضَى أَوْ عَلَى سَفَرٍ أَوْ جَاء أَحَدٌ مَّنكُم مِّنَ الْغَائِطِ أَوْ لاَمَسْتُمُ النِّسَاء فَلَمْ تَجِدُواْ مَاء فَتَيَمَّمُواْ صَعِيدًا طَيِّبًا فَامْسَحُواْ بِوُجُوهِكُمْ وَأَيْدِيكُم مِّنْهُ مَا يُرِيدُ اللّهُ لِيَجْعَلَ عَلَيْكُم مِّنْ حَرَجٍ وَلَـكِن يُرِيدُ لِيُطَهَّرَكُمْ وَلِيُتِمَّ نِعْمَتَهُ عَلَيْكُمْ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَشْكُرُونَ

O YOU who have attained to faith! When you are about to pray, wash your face, and your hands and arms up to the elbows, and pass your [wet] hands lightly over your head, and [wash] your feet up to the ankles. And if you are in a state. requiring total ablution, purify yourselves. [17] But if you are ill, or are travelling, or have just satisfied a want of nature, or have cohabited with a woman, and can find no water-then take resort to pure dust, passing therewith lightly over your face and your hands. God does not want to impose any hardship on you, but wants to make you pure, and to bestow upon you the full measure of His blessings, so that you might have cause to be grateful.

Does it mean that every time we perform Wudhu or Ghusl, we become infallible?

[anajmi]

I have heard teachers of Arabic and the Quran say many times that the beauty of the Quran is that the more you read it the more you understand it. Every time you read it with conviction, you learn new things from the same ayahs. Alhumdulillah, this is absolutely true.

Consider the ayah of the Quran that I mentioned above. It talks about purification and it also talk about the process to achieve that purification. In the light of this, if we look at 33:33, if referring to Hazrat Ali (ra) and his family, the process to achieve the purification is not there. However, if referring to the wives of the prophet (saw), then the process of purification is mentioned in the preceding ayahs and even in the ayah 33:33 itself.

[Adam]

I am surprised that after repeatedly pointing out my sources, you still want to know what my sources are. That is simply tiresome. We are both agreed on the sources that I have quoted. They are the Quran and the Hadith of Ahlul Kisaa. Those two are sufficient for my stand on infallibility of Panjatan. Now, the ball is in your court.

I apologize if I wasn't clear the first time. I accepted that you're quoting the Hadeeth of Ahl Kisa. (I accept that too).
My question was actually, WHAT is your SOURCE for the Hadeeth of Ahl Kisa, ie, which book/scholar has quoted this Hadeeth (as there's no single, universally accepted book for hadeeth.) Why? Again because it comes to the question of authority. Why did you follow his interpretation and not someone else who's claiming the Prophet didn't say that. The question of authority in my opinion arises at every single stage. Since you were not alive at the time of the Prophet SAW you need to listen to someone else, and you cannot do it alone. There has to be an authority that you trust. Because belief is not a small matter, you're authority/source should be justified or else you are playing with your own belief. So please quote the book/person who cites this Hadeeth.
If your answer is "I read the Hadeeth, and I decide what I think is right". Then in my opinion you can't, because and the end of the day, you were never there to witness it.
For example, everyone of us cannot study medicine, we are a different type of Professionals. Thus, when the time arises, you need to follow the authority of a doctor, and you need to justify why you chose him (maybe a friend recommended him, maybe he's known to be the best, maybe he's the disciple of another top doctor). You place your life in his hands. If he's not good, it'll end up worse for you. If you do this for your body, why not for your soul and belief?

You have to justify on the basis of quotes both from the Quran and authentic hadith why you consider Imams after Husain and the Duaat to be infallible.

Very easily, I have already stated. Mankind is not perfect and he cannot do it on his own. He needs a guide. That guide was the Prophet in his time and when he left this world, he left behind his Wasi who would carry out the same task. Wasi left an Imam and so on. The need for authority remains, and that authority has to be an ideal and infallible, or else the followers would go astray.
One ayat maybe. Addressing Rasulullah SAW Allah says he's a "SHAHID" (Surah Ahzab). And in another ayat (Surah Maedah) he says, YOU (Rasulullah are a Munzir) ad FOR EVERY PEOPLE THERE IS A "Shaheed".
Firstly, the Ayat justifies there has to be a Shahid in every day and age. That's what Dawoodi Bohras believe in.
Because he's a "Shahid" and in lieu of Rasulullah SAW was a "Shahid", he must share the same qualities.

There is a story in Sharhul Akbar where people ask Imam Jafar al Sadiq why there are so many differences in the Ummah. He simply says, at the time of the Prophet, people only asked him questions, therefore there was only ONE Saheb and the answers remained ONE.
But then, after the Prophet died, the Ummah went here and there, each followed their own leader. Each person gave their own answer, thus (like chinese whispers - my addition), the true word was lost. The Imam then said, if they followed ONE like they followed ONE at the time of the Prophet SAW, there would be no differences.

-------------------
Regarding the Ayat Tatheer. I have one more point to add in answer to the "Non-Panjatan" belief, which I don't think was discussed before, I wanted to say it but was waiting for PORUS s reply. Anyways, I'm still waiting for that.

YES, the Ayats before and after are addressing the wives, and it may seem the Tatheer ayat is also addressing only them.
However, if you look at the address in accordance to the Arabic Plural.
When addressing the Wives, (feminine plural) the Quran keeps saying : كنّ، كنتن، تردن، منكن only talking to women.
HOWEVER, the Tatheer ayat says عليكم اهل البيت where the address is now NOT ONLY women, it's the masculine plural. Grammatically the Masculine plural can be used for:
1. Only men
2. Men and Women.
Thus those who claim it was ONLY for the wives, this is incorrect, as the Quran clearly shows that there are "others" involved.
Now, the question arises, WHO ARE THESE OTHERS.
Answer?
It all depends on "which authority you follow!"

So, if you don't have an authority, then, simply said - "There's a hole in the bucket" once again

[anajmi]

Thus those who claim it was ONLY for the wives, this is incorrect, as the Quran clearly shows that there are "others" involved.
Now, the question arises, WHO ARE THESE OTHERS.

So we agree that the wives are a part of the ahlul bayt and then there are others also, correct? The "others" refers to the prophet (saw) because he himself is also a part of the household. No one in their right minds would exclude the prophet (saw) from his own household and then add "others" to it.

It all depends on "which authority you follow!"

So, if you don't have an authority, then, simply said - "There's a hole in the bucket" once again

A bucket with a hole is better than a bucket with no bottom which is what your Dai is.

[Adam]

So we agree that the wives are a part of the ahlul bayt and then there are others also, correct? The "others" refers to the prophet (saw) because he himself is also a part of the household. No one in their right minds would exclude the prophet (saw) from his own household and then add "others" to it.

Well again, it's up to interpretation as the Quran doesn't clearly say it. So we follow our the interpretation of the Prophet himself that is stated by our sources.
And Yes, the Prophet is included, but we Panjatani s don't include the wives, in accordance to the Hadeeth.

[anajmi]

Correct. Panjatani's reject the Quran in favor of the hadith. Muslims hold the Quran above any hadith.

[Udaipuri]

It's amusing to see these Abdes twisting and turning, resorting to lies and misinterpretations, quoting secret documents and making a big production out of a simple and glorious religion of Islam. And all this for what? To defend a corrupt and decadent dawat - a business enterprise designed to bankrupt the abdes both financially and intellectually. The more they lie the more sources they quote. The more sources they quote the more they lie. Round and round they go like a dog chasing its tail.

[porus]

My question was actually, WHAT is your SOURCE for the Hadeeth of Ahl Kisa,

I have said that ultimately, I am the source. I consult history as related by both the Sunni and Shia and come to my own conclusion. Hadith of Ahlul Kisaa is discussed in Daimul Islam and also in Sahih Muslim. It has been reported by both Sunnis and Shia that Prophet recited ayat 33:33 when he put the cloak which he was wearing on Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Husain. The abrupt change of female plural to male plural pronoun in 33:33 has been discussed by me on this forum several times in the past. I agree that this excludes Prophet's wives from Quranic definition of Ahlul Bayt.

Thus, I consider that my conclusion as to the identity of Ahlul Bayt is sound.

You have to justify on the basis of quotes both from the Quran and authentic hadith why you consider Imams after Husain and the Duaat to be infallible.

Very easily, I have already stated. Mankind is not perfect and he cannot do it on his own. He needs a guide. That guide was the Prophet in his time and when he left this world, he left behind his Wasi who would carry out the same task. Wasi left an Imam and so on. The need for authority remains, and that authority has to be an ideal and infallible, or else the followers would go astray.
One ayat maybe. Addressing Rasulullah SAW Allah says he's a "SHAHID" (Surah Ahzab). And in another ayat (Surah Maedah) he says, YOU (Rasulullah are a Munzir) ad FOR EVERY PEOPLE THERE IS A "Shaheed".
Firstly, the Ayat justifies there has to be a Shahid in every day and age. That's what Dawoodi Bohras believe in.
Because he's a "Shahid" and in lieu of Rasulullah SAW was a "Shahid", he must share the same qualities.

I am sorry, but this is not the answer to why you consider them 'infallible'. I do not grudge you the need for a leader to guide you. But on what Quranic grounds do you consider him infallible?

As to a leader who shares the same quality as Rasulullah, I think that he would be very hard to find and in fact I do not think he ever existed or is likely to exist in the future.

Let me go further:

As far as I am aware, Quran does not use the concept of 'infallibility'. Infallibility is an extrapolated interpretation by the Shia.

As far as I am aware none of the Panjatan has explicitly claimed infallibility. But I am open to correction.

However, Sayedna once related an episode described by Qadi Noman (he did not cite the book) which comes close to Nabi claiming 'infallibility' for himself. Once while Nabi was distributing 'maal', a person, unhappy with what he was given, complained to Rasulullah that Nabi was not being 'fair' to him. Rasulullah said, "If I do not do justice, who would do it?" That is the first part of the hadith. What happens later is not relevant to the issue at hand.

[anajmi]

It has been reported by both Sunnis and Shia that Prophet recited ayat 33:33 when he put the cloak which he was wearing on Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Husain.

I seem to be banging my head against a brick wall over here. Here is the narration from Sahih Muslim

'A'isha reported that Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) went out one norning wearing a striped cloak of the black camel's hair that there came Hasan b. 'Ali. He wrapped hitn 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 uncleanliness from you, O people of the household, and purify you (thorough purifying)

The last sentence is the second half of the ayah 33:33. This only suggests that Hazrat Ali (ra)'s family is also the amongst the family of the prophet (saw). The wives are not excluded. Nowhere does the prophet (saw) say that this ayah is for you and you only. This a shia twist to this hadith. There is no exclusion. Only inclusion.

The abrupt change of female plural to male plural pronoun in 33:33 has been discussed by me on this forum several times in the past. I agree that this excludes Prophet's wives from Quranic definition of Ahlul Bayt.

porus is now changing his stance. He seemed to have agreed with me that the change female plural to male plural is simply to include the prophet (saw) as a part of the household, because otherwise we would have to exclude Hazrat Fatima (ra) from the ahlul bayt too, because even though she was in the cloak, the prophet (saw) recited the ayah with the male plural.

Anyway, the bottom line is that if there is dispute as regards to an hadith, we need to go back to the Quran. What does the Quran say? As per the Quran, 33:33, refers to the wives of the prophet (saw) and no sunni or shia can disagree with that.

[anajmi]

Consider this as well, the prophet (saw) recited ayahs of the Quran addressing jews and christians in front of many jews and christians. Does it mean that only those particular jews and christians are being addressed in that ayah and no other jews and christians? Of course not. All jews and christians are being addressed. Similarly, ayahs were revealed vindicating Hazrat Aisha (ra) from the slander that was brought against her, however, the ayahs have been revealed in such a way that it addresses every person who ever thinks of falsely accusing a woman.

I think it is time some scholars seriously thought about going back to the Quranic school. I think porus is in serious need of a religious scholar that Adam keeps talking about.