4 伊jmāʿ 先知家族（Ahl ul-Bayt）的共识（Ijmaa’ Ahl ul-Bayt）： Wait, I should translate faithfully without adding. Corrected: 4 Ijmaa’ Ahl ul-Bayt（先知之家的人）ﷺ 的共识：
4 Ijmaa’ Ahl ul-Bayt (people of the house) of the Messenger of Allah (saw):
持有这一观点的人引用了安拉至高者的以下经文作为证据：
The people who held this view used the following statement of Allah Ta’Aalaa as evidence:
真主只愿从你们——圣门之家的人——身上除去污秽（即罪恶与罪过），并将你们彻底地净化（《同盟军》33:33）。
Allah wishes only to remove Rijs (evil deeds and sins, impurity) from you, O members of the family (of the Prophet saw), and to purify you with a thorough purification (Al-Ahzaab 33).
他们认为Ahl ul-Bayt（家族成员）包括'Ali、Faatimah，以及Al-Hasan和Al-Hussein（他们两人是她的儿子）。同时，他们还认为这些人在错误与罪过（Al-Khat'a）方面是无过错的（Ma'soom）。
They considered the Ahl ul-Bayt to consist of ‘Ali and Faatimah, and Al-Hasan and Al-Hussein (their two sons). This was accompanied by the consideration that they were Ma’soom (nfallible) from mistake and sin (Al-Khat’a).
一些什叶派（如贾法里派）也将他们的伊玛目纳入“安拉之家”（Ahl ul-Bayt）的范畴，认为他们享有“伊斯玛”（isma，无谬性），在他们看来，这些伊玛目不会犯错，也不会犯罪。
Some of the Shee’ah (like Al-Ja’fariy) also added their Imaams to the Ahl ul-Bayt in respect to the ‘Ismah (infallibility) who in their opinion are free from erring and do not commit sins.
这一说法已被 Muhibbullah Bin Abdi Sh-Shukoor 在其著作《Muslim Ath-Thuboot》中，于伊斯兰法理学（Usool ul-Fiqh）领域所回应和驳斥。他说："他们为其中一些儿子主张无谬性，如 Zein Al-‘Aabideen 和 Al-Imaam Ja’far 等人。我们则说，经由 Tawaatur 传到我们这里的是：Sahaabah 和 Taabi'een 都是 Mujtahideen（独立思考者），他们所给出的裁决（Fatawaa）与 Ahl ul-Bayt 所给出的不同。他们并未因此受到谴责，也没有人指责他人。事实上，没有人说过违背 Ahl ul-Bayt 而作出裁决的人犯了错误。"然后他说："由此你已明白，Ahl ul-Bait 也包含其中的 Qat'iy Ijmaa'（确定的公议）表明，Ahl ul-Bayt 并不具有 'Ismah（无谬性），这意味着他们的错误 Ijtihaad 是有可能的……"上述作者针对他们的证据和论据进行了讨论，并在题为"Ahl ul-Bayt 的 Ijmaa' 并非仅由他们召集"的标题下予以驳斥。
This has been responded to and refuted by Muhibbullah Bin Abdi Sh-Shukoor in his book: ‘Muslim Ath-Thuboot’ in the subject area of Usool ul-Fiqh when he said: “And they claimed infallibility for some of their sons like Zein Al-‘Aabideen and Al-Imaam Ja’far amongst others. We have (however) said that what has come to us by way of Tawaatur from the Sahaabah and the Taabi’een is that they were Mujtahideen and that they gave verdicts (Fatawaa) which were different to what the Ahl ul-Bayt gave. They were not censured for that and nobody found fault in anyone else. Indeed, nobody said that the one who gave a Hukm contrary to the Ahl ul-Bayt had made a mistake”. Then he said: “It has become evident to you that the Qat’iy Ijmaa’ in which Ahl ul-Bait are part of, dictates that there is no ‘Ismah (infallibility) in the Ahl ul-Bayt which means that the mistaken Ijtihaad is possible from them...” The above author dealt with their evidences and proofs and he refuted them under the heading: ‘Al-Ijmaa’ of the Ahl ul-Bayt is not convened by them alone’.