72 replies to this topic

[Aliya]

with all due respect, if you didn't open it for shia sunni debate/dialogue, then it wasn't best to open it in the shia/sunni dialogue forum. Next time you might consider what you want to achieve with a thread when deciding which forum to post it in.

[macisaac]

Al-Mufeed, on Jun 30 2008, 11:23 PM, said:

This is taken from "Kitab Al Sulaim Ibn Qais al Hilali". For those who are not familiar with this book, it is said to be written by Sulaim ibn Qais al Hilali who was a companion of the first 5 Imams. He wrote down the hadeeths form the imams them selves or from the companions such as Salman, Abu Dhar, Miqdad etc.

As far as Sulaim him self goes, he is considered a trust worthy narrator. There are many statments by many scholars about his status and his honesty, but this quote from Sayed Khoie in Mujamur Rijal al Hadith should be enough to show that:

"Sulaim was very geniune, extremly respectable and a great personality. Allamah Baqri's statment that he was from the companions of Amirul Mumineen  is sufficent"

Reguarding this paricular book, older scholars attest to its authenticity. Al Nuamani claims that every hadeeth written down by Sulaim in  his book is sahih, and he wrote them down directly from the people he narrated them from (ie Amir al Mumineen or Salman or Abu Dhar or other such personalities).

But I should note that in a conversation I had with a scholar regaurding this particular book, he informed me that In his book on rijal (which I personaly havnt come across my self) Sayed Khoie refrains from calling the book its self Sahih because he says it is difficult to tell whether it was actually written by Sulaim or not. BUT, he doesn’t disagree with the contents of the book which are in line with Shi'sm and do not contradict other hadeeths.

Actually, an ancient view of at least some of the Imamis seemed to be that the book ascribed to Sulaym b. Qays is a forgery by Aban b. Abi `Ayyash.  From the Dhu`afa of ibn al-Ghadha'iri:

- Óõáóíúãõ Èäõ ÞóíúÓ¡ ÇáåöáÇáíø¡ ÇáÚÇãöÑíø.
   Ñæìþ Úä ÃãíÑÇáãõÄúãöäíäþ¡ æÇáÍóÓóäö¡ æÇáÍõÓóíúäö¡ æÚáíøö ÈäþÇáÍõÓóíúä(Ú).
   æíõäúÓóÈõ Åáíå åÐÇ ÇáßÊÇÈõ ÇáãóÔúåõæÑõ.
   æßÇäó ÃÕÍÇÈõäÇ íÞõæáõæä: Åöäø ÓõáóíúãÇð áÇ íõÚúÑóÝõ¡ æáÇ ÐõßöÑó Ýí ÎóÈóÑò.
   æÞÏ æÌÏÊõ ÐößúÑóåõ Ýí ãæÇÖÚó ãä ÛíÑ ÌöåóÉö ßÊÇÈöåö¡ æáÇ ãä ÑæÇíÉö ÃóÈÇä ÇÈä ÃÈí ÚíøÇÔ Úäåõ.
   æÞÏ ÐóßóÑó áåõ ÇÈäõ ÚõÞúÏÉ Ýí «ÑÌÇá ÃãíÑ ÇáãÄãäíä (Ú)» ÃÍÇÏíËó Úäåõ.
   æÇáßÊÇÈõ ãæÖõæÚñ¡ áÇ ãöÑúíóÉó Ýíåö¡ æÚáì Ðáß ÚáÇãÇÊñ Ýíåö ÊóÏõáøõ Úáì ãÇ ÐßÑäÇåõ.
   ãäåÇ: ãÇ ÐóßóÑó Ãóäøó ãõÍóãøóÏó Èäó ÃÈí ÈóßúÑò æóÚóÙó ÃÈÇåõ ÚäÏó ãóæúÊöåö.
   æãäåÇ: Ãóäøó ÇáÃÆãøÉó ËáÇËÉó ÚóÔóÑ.
   æÛíÑõ Ðáß.
   æÃÓÇäíÏõ åÐÇ ÇáßÊÇÈö ÊÎÊáÝõ:
   ÊÇÑÉð ÈöÑæÇíÉ ÚõãóÑ Èä ÃõÐóíúäÉ¡ Úä ÅÈúÑÇåíã Èä ÚõãóÑ ÇáÕóäúÚÇäíø¡ Úä ÃÈÇä Èä ÃÈí ÚíøÇÔ¡ Úä Óõáóíúã.
   æÊÇÑÉð íõÑúæìþ Úä ÚõãóÑ¡ Úä ÃÈÇäò¡ ÈáÇ æÇÓöØÉò.

And regarding Aban b. Abi `Ayyash:

ÃÈÇäõ Èäõ ÃÈí ÚíøÇÔ¡ æÇÓãõ ÃÈí ÚíøÇÔ: ÝóíúÑõæÒ.
   ÊÇÈÚíøñ¡ Ñæì Úä ÃäÓ Èä ãÇáß. æÑæì Úä Úáíø Èä ÇáÍõÓóíúä (Ú).
   ÖóÚöíÝñ¡ áÇ íõáúÊóÝóÊõ Åáíå.
   æóíóäÓöÈõ ÃÕÍÇÈõäÇ æóÖúÚó «ßÊÇÈ Óõáóíúã Èä ÞóíúÓò» Åáíå.

I'm not saying one way or another, I've not really studied the work myself.  Do you know if the English translation is online anywhere?

Edited by macisaac, 02 July 2008 - 09:20 PM.

[Al-Mufeed]

Salam U Alaykum,

I did not open it in the Shia-Sunni Dialouge, another moderator moved it there.

Macissac I am aware that there are some scholars that state that it may have been a forgery. However as I stated earlier there are some older scholars who said it was correct. Such as al-numaani and al majlisi. The reason some scholars say it may be a forgery is because they can not find mention of it for many years from the hadeeths. Howeever there are many scholars such as (majlisi) who find this following narration to be correct:

Imam sadiq said: Who ever doesnt have the book of Sulaim from among our shias and lovers, it is like he has nothing from us and has not learned from us any thing, and it is a secret of the house of muhammad .

Majlisi states that this hadeeth is correct, and it is his basis for saying the book is sahih. Other than that there are some issues, with wether or not it is the original book, if things have been added to it or subtracted from it etc, it is for these reasons that Sayed khoie him self says teh contents are correct, but its difficult to atribute it to Sulaim him self.

As far as I have seen there is nothing in the book that goes against any Shia principles or against any shia historical accounts.

Is there a translated version available online? Only to purchse, from the al-khoie book store.

Edited by Al-Mufeed, 03 July 2008 - 12:32 PM.

[macisaac]

Al-Mufeed, on Jul 3 2008, 01:25 PM, said:

Salam U Alaykum,

I did not open it in the Shia-Sunni Dialouge, another moderator moved it there.

Macissac I am aware that there are some scholars that state that it may have been a forgery. However as I stated earlier there are some older scholars who said it was correct. Such as al-numaani and al majlisi.

Majlisi would be relatively late, though Nu`mani would be early.  Going by what ibn al-Ghadha'iri mentions though (and he's early) it seems it was fairly widespread amongst the Imamis (at least scholars) to consider it a forgery.

Quote

The reason some scholars say it may be a forgery is because they can not find mention of it for many years from the hadeeths. Howeever there are many scholars such as (majlisi) who find this following narration to be correct:

Imam sadiq said: Who ever doesnt have the book of Sulaim from among our shias and lovers, it is like he has nothing from us and has not learned from us any thing, and it is a secret of the house of muhammad .

Majlisi states that this hadeeth is correct, and it is his basis for saying the book is sahih. Other than that there are some issues, with wether or not it is the original book, if things have been added to it or subtracted from it etc, it is for these reasons that Sayed khoie him self says teh contents are correct, but its difficult to atribute it to Sulaim him self.

Question would be, where does that narration come from, and is it sahih itself?  You have some narrations for example that highly praise various individuals, but those same individuals might be of folks who are also narrated to have been ghulat and accursed (i.e. the "praise" narrations might also be forgeries to give support to the status and narrations of the ghali narrator).

Quote

As far as I have seen there is nothing in the book that goes against any Shia principles or against any shia historical accounts.

Actually, the problems that ibn al-Ghadha'iri mentions are in both.  One, he says the book says there would be thirteen Imams.  Now, the copies today don't say that, correct?  But that could simply mean that some later copyists thought to "correct" what they assumed was an earlier error.  The other example of a problem he gives is that it recounts a story of Muhammad b. Abi Bakr exhorted his father on the latter's death bed.  Problem there is that Muhammad b. Abi Bakr would have been a toddler at the time...

Edited by macisaac, 03 July 2008 - 12:55 PM.

[knightstemplar]

Al-Mufeed, on Jul 3 2008, 09:25 PM, said:

As far as I have seen there is nothing in the book that goes against any Shia principles or against any shia historical accounts.

It goes against Nahjul Balagha. You havent responded to the point i have made when i made clarification.

salaams

[Al-Mufeed]

I dont see how it goes against nahjul balagha as he clearly curses uthman several times. All he said was thar umar and abu bakr were worse, and he narrates one story where uthman was nice to him ONE time.

Brother Macissac,

Regaurding the hadeeth about 13 imams, i dont knwo too much about this and can not comment.

Quote

The other example of a problem he gives is that it recounts a story of Muhammad b. Abi Bakr exhorted his father on the latter's death bed. Problem there is that Muhammad b. Abi Bakr would have been a toddler at the time...

I have not come across any such hadeeth, however there is a hadeeth about Abdullah ibn Umar not Muhammad ibn Abi Baker, talking about some things that happend when his father was on his death bed.

I will inshaAllah post all the information I have about the authenticity or lack there of, of the book inshaAllah, from all the difffernt scholars I have come across.

[SpIzo]

Al-Khoie site says this:

Kitab-e- Sulaym Ibn Qays Al-Hilali
The greatness and esteemed value of this book can be gauged by the hadith of Imam Ja’far Al-Sadiq a.s that whoever does not possess this book does not have anything from The Ahlul Bayt AS. This is a book that has received endorsement from five Infallible Imams. This is the first book of the Shi’a containing knowledge of Traditions, History, Theology and Commentary. The author was born in Kufa and came to Madinah but was not able to see The Prophet SAWW. However, he was a trustworthy companion to Five A’immah AS. Many a renowned Sunni traditionalists have quoted ahadith from Sulaym and this is a sure endorsement of his authenticity. Sulaym’s book comprises 91 ahadith, which are illuminating, revealing and heart-rending for the oppression heaped upon Ahlul Bayt a.s after the demise of The Prophet SAWW cannot but move the reader. One of the Ahadith shows how Umar punished all his Governors who had betrayed trust and squandered public funds. Yet one Governor, Qunfuz, was rewarded despite his misdeed. When Sulaym asked Imam Ali a.s why this was so, he Imam a.s replied that Qunfuz was not held accountable because he had helped Umar whip Seyyida Fatimatu Zzahraa a.s when Umar came with a posse to attack and burn down the house of the only daughter of The Prophet s.a.w.a on the second day after The Prophet s.a.w.a’s demise. Sulaym researched and verified events before he penned them so that their authenticity is incontrovertible. Indeed, Sulaym’s sources are impeccable. Sulaym’s book was entrusted to only one person, Aban ibni abi Ayyash who was held to a solemn oath not to talk of the book during Sulaym’s lifetime and that after his death he would give the book only to trustworthy Shi’a of Ali ibni Abi Talib a.s. This explains why Imam Al-Sadiq a.s has said this book contains the secrets of ( The Progeny of the Holy Prophet s.a.w.a)Aale Muhammad a.s. The translator has illustrated the translation with original Arabic text and given an extensive index for easy reference and research. A must-have book.

======
From Wikipedia [yeah, I know not a reliable source nonetheless. .]:

The Book of Sulaym ibn Qays is a Hadith collections, collected by Sulaym ibn Qays who entrusted it to Aban ibn abi-Ayyash.

According to the Shi'a, the book "has received endorsement from five Infallible Imams." The author researched and verified events before he penned them so that their authenticity is incontrovertible. The book was entrusted to only one person, Aban ibni abi Ayyash who was held to a solemn oath not to talk of the book during Sulaym’s lifetime and that after his death he would give the book only to trustworthy Shi’a..."[1]

There is no doubt about the authenticity of the book itself among the shi'a scholars. The author is also regarded as a trustworthy narrator. The book has been mentioned both in the four main collections of Shi'a hadith. Ibn Al-Nadim the famous 10th Century (A.D.) book publisher has said that the book is among the well known books of the Shi'a.(Al-Fihrist, p.275 in chapter titled, "Al-Fan Al-Khamis Min Al-Maqalaht Al-Saadesah"). No'mani has mentioned the book and the author in his book, Al-Ghaibah. In fact, the book is so well known among the Shi'a that most books of hadith and rijal (commentary on the life and trustworthiness of the hadith narrators) have regarded both the book and its author with high regards.

Currently, numerous varient manuscripts of this book exist, and it has been suggested that content was added to it and altered in it over time.[2] Furthermore, the oldest known copy of which the majority of modern manuscripts are based was written in 1676 CE.[3] This is problematic as it may also suggest that the true appearance date for the current form of the book, if indeed it existed prior to the rise of the Safavid empire, was from around the 10th century A.D. as it was only at this point in time that mention of it became commonly attributed to Imams and scholars.

======

The Arabic for those who are interested.

======

Brother al-Mufeed, please do post your findings.

[knightstemplar]

Bro

Nahjul Balagha makes uthman as the worst culprit from the 3. There are several more sermons dedicated to his misdemeanors than the preceding 2. Nor are there any sermons where Imam Ali has seen uthman in a mildly favourable light. His negative status is absolute. If thats not clear enough, I dont know what is.

[macisaac]

Al-Mufeed, on Jul 3 2008, 02:13 PM, said:

Brother Macissac,

Regaurding the hadeeth about 13 imams, i dont knwo too much about this and can not comment.

Najashi mentions this as well, under the heading for Hibatullah b. Ahmad b. Muhammad:


[ 1185 ] åÈÉ Çááå Èä ÃÍãÏ Èä ãÍãÏ ÇáßÇÊÈ¡ ÃÈæ äÕÑ¡ ÇáãÚÑæÝ ÈÇÈä ÈÑäíÉ¡ ßÇä íÐßÑ Ãä Çãå Çã ßáËæã ÈäÊ ÃÈí ÌÚÝÑ ãÍãÏ Èä ÚËãÇä ÇáÚãÑí. ÓãÚ ÍÏíËÇ ßËíÑÇ¡ æßÇä íÊÚÇØì ÇáßáÇã¡ æíÍÖÑ ãÌáÓ ÃÈí ÇáÍÓíä Èä ÇáÔÈíå ÇáÚáæí ÇáÒíÏí ÇáãÐåÈ¡ ÝÚãá áå ßÊÇÈÇ¡ æÐßÑ Ãä ÇáÇÆãÉ ËáÇËÉ ÚÔÑ ãÚ ÒíÏ Èä Úáí Èä ÇáÍÓíä¡ æÇÍÊÌ ÈÍÏíË Ýí ßÊÇÈ Óáíã Èä ÞíÓ ÇáåáÇáí: Åä ÇáÇÆãÉ ÇËäÇ ÚÔÑ ãä æáÏ ÃãíÑ ÇáãÄãäíä Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã. áå ßÊÇÈ Ýí ÇáÇãÇãÉ¡ æßÊÇÈ Ýí ÃÎÈÇÑ ÃÈí ÚãÑæ æÃÈí ÌÚÝÑ ÇáÚãÑííä æ ÑÃíÊ ÃÈÇ ÇáÚÈÇÓ Èä äæÍ ÞÏ Úæá Úáíå Ýí ÇáÍßÇíÉ Ýí ßÊÇÈå ÃÎÈÇÑ ÇáæßáÇÁ. æßÇä åÐÇ ÇáÑÌá ßËíÑ ÇáÒíÇÑÇÊ¡ æÇÎÑ ÒíÇÑÉ ÍÖÑåÇ ãÚäÇ íæã ÇáÛÏíÑ ÓäÉ ÃÑÈÚ ãÇÆÉ ÈãÔåÏ ÃãíÑ ÇáãÄãäíä Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã
  It says that he mentioned there to be thirteen Imams (twelve and Zayd b. `Ali being included to count thirteen) and that he used a hadith from the Kitab Sulaym b. Qays al-Hilal as evidence that said that the Imams are twelve from the sons of Amir al-Mu'mineen   (i.e. which would make thirteen in total counting Imam `Ali as the first).

Edited by macisaac, 03 July 2008 - 01:53 PM.

[SpIzo]

Brother macisaac, can you post the actual hadith from the Arabic version of Kitab Sulaym [the link is posted above]?

[macisaac]

SpIzo, on Jul 3 2008, 03:17 PM, said:

Brother macisaac, can you post the actual hadith from the Arabic version of Kitab Sulaym [the link is posted above]?

I don't think the current version explicitly at least has it as such.  I looked through quickly, and several times it mentioned that there was going to be twelve Imams.  However, if what you posted above is correct, then the earliest manuscript we have is fairly late.  Ancient texts (and it is old, no question there.  question is, is it authentic) tend to go through changes over time, sometimes by copyist error, sometimes parts getting lost (or new material getting added in), sometimes deliberate changes to the existing text for whatever motivation.  In the latter case, it's not too hard to believe a later copyist or someone would have changed the reference that seemed to be stating 13 imams, to make it line up with there being 12, maybe not maliciously but with the idea that the version before him couldn't be correct, so he'd "correct" it.

With the apparent lack of manuscript evidence, we'd have to look to see what the older sources reported about the book, and so far I have two (Najashi and ibn al-Ghadha'iri) that are both saying it said or indicated there were to be thirteen Imams.  

Allahu A`lam.

[albaqyr]

Nonsence! Aban bin ayash is relaible the author of ayan ashia said his regarded as weak narrator becasue he is shia .

He means the origin of Aban bin ayash being regared as weak was started by the sunni scholars who regarded him as weak.

And later on he says his thiqah...


Many scholars have also replied to Al-ghatha'ri's comment such as AL-khoei and Al-Majlisi

Edited by albaqyr, 04 July 2008 - 04:28 AM.

[macisaac]

albaqyr, on Jul 4 2008, 05:27 AM, said:

Nonsence! Aban bin ayash is relaible the author of ayan ashia said his regarded as weak narrator becasue he is shia .

He means the origin of Aban bin ayash being regared as weak was started by the sunni scholars who regarded him as weak.

And later on he says his thiqah...


Many scholars have also replied to Al-ghatha'ri's comment such as AL-khoei and Al-Majlisi

That sounds very weak.  Where is there any indication from the old books of rijal (the primary ones, not later works like you're mentioning) that Aban b. Abi `Ayyash is thiqqa?  To say that our early `ulama regarded him as weak because the Sunnis said he was itself sounds weak.  Since when did our ancient `ulama follow the opinions of the `Aam in deciding the status of our narrators?  How many of our narrators did the Sunnis reject, yet we still regard as thiqqa?

Also, found this regarding the Kitab Sulaym b. Qays from Shaykh Mufid (ar) from his Tashih al-`Itiqad:

æÃãÇ ãÇ ÊÚáÞ Èå ÃÈæÌÚÝÑ ÑÍãå Çááå ãä ÍÏíË Óáíã ÇáÐí ÑÌÚ Ýíå Åáì ÇáßÊÇÈ ÇáãÖÇÝ Çáíå ÈÑæÇíÉ ÃÈÇä Èä ÃÈí ÚíÇÔ ¡ ÝÇáãÚäì Ýíå ÕÍíÍ ÛíÑ Ãä åÐÇ ÇáßÊÇÈ ÛíÑ ãæËæÞ Èå æÞÏ ÍÕá Ýíå ÊÎáíØ æÊÏáíÓ ÝíäÈÛí ááãÊÏíä Ãä íÌÊäÈ ÇáÚãá Èßá ãÇ Ýíå æáÇ íÚæá Úáì ÌãáÊå æÇáÊÞáíÏ áÑæÇíÊå æáíÝÒÚ Åáì ÇáÚáãÇÁ ÝíãÇ ÊÖãäå ãä ÇáÇÍÇÏíË áíæÞÝæå Úáì ÇáÕÍíÍ ãäåÇ æÇááå ÇáãæÝÞ ááÕæÇÈ

Rough translation, but, in sha Allah, gives the gist of what he is saying:

And as to what Abu Ja`far (Shaykh Saduq) has attached from the hadith of Sulaym that comes from the book that is ascribed to him on the narration of Aban b. Abi `Ayyash, then the meaning of it is sahih however this book is not reliable (mawthuq).  There has occured in it confusion and deceit, and the religious person ought to stay away from acting upon everything that is in it, not to depend on all of it and follow its narration, and he should take refuge with the `ulama in what he be in accord with of the hadiths that they may inform him of what is the sahih from it.  wallahu al-muwaffiq lis-sawab.

[SpIzo]

macisaac, on Jul 4 2008, 03:37 AM, said:

In the latter case, it's not too hard to believe a later copyist or someone would have changed the reference that seemed to be stating 13 imams, to make it line up with there being 12, maybe not maliciously but with the idea that the version before him couldn't be correct, so he'd "correct" it.

There has to be some mention about this somewhere?

Quote

With the apparent lack of manuscript evidence, we'd have to look to see what the older sources reported about the book, and so far I have two (Najashi and ibn al-Ghadha'iri) that are both saying it said or indicated there were to be thirteen Imams.

What about an-Nomani?

macisaac, on Jul 4 2008, 06:15 PM, said:

Also, found this regarding the Kitab Sulaym b. Qays from Shaykh Mufid (ar) from his Tashih al-`Itiqad:

æÃãÇ ãÇ ÊÚáÞ Èå ÃÈæÌÚÝÑ ÑÍãå Çááå ãä ÍÏíË Óáíã ÇáÐí ÑÌÚ Ýíå Åáì ÇáßÊÇÈ ÇáãÖÇÝ Çáíå ÈÑæÇíÉ ÃÈÇä Èä ÃÈí ÚíÇÔ ¡ ÝÇáãÚäì Ýíå ÕÍíÍ ÛíÑ Ãä åÐÇ ÇáßÊÇÈ ÛíÑ ãæËæÞ Èå æÞÏ ÍÕá Ýíå ÊÎáíØ æÊÏáíÓ ÝíäÈÛí ááãÊÏíä Ãä íÌÊäÈ ÇáÚãá Èßá ãÇ Ýíå æáÇ íÚæá Úáì ÌãáÊå æÇáÊÞáíÏ áÑæÇíÊå æáíÝÒÚ Åáì ÇáÚáãÇÁ ÝíãÇ ÊÖãäå ãä ÇáÇÍÇÏíË áíæÞÝæå Úáì ÇáÕÍíÍ ãäåÇ æÇááå ÇáãæÝÞ ááÕæÇÈ

Rough translation, but, in sha Allah, gives the gist of what he is saying:

And as to what Abu Ja`far (Shaykh Saduq) has attached from the hadith of Sulaym that comes from the book that is ascribed to him on the narration of Aban b. Abi `Ayyash, then the meaning of it is sahih however this book is not reliable (mawthuq).  There has occured in it confusion and deceit, and the religious person ought to stay away from acting upon everything that is in it, not to depend on all of it and follow its narration, and he should take refuge with the `ulama in what he be in accord with of the hadiths that they may inform him of what is the sahih from it.  wallahu al-muwaffiq lis-sawab.

Can you post the link to this excerpt [the arabic]?

[macisaac]

SpIzo, on Jul 4 2008, 02:05 PM, said:

There has to be some mention about this somewhere?

Yes, so far the reference is in Najashi's and ibn al-Ghadha'iri's books of rijal.  In terms of the book itself, if the earliest manuscripts we have only go back around 400 or so years, then that'd be too late to determine with certainty what it might have said during the time those two authors mentioned that it said that.

Quote

What about an-Nomani?

Yes, he would count as an early scholar.  However, how reliable was everything he quoted himself might be the counter question.  Remember, during the time of Shaykh Mufid and so on, there seems like there were some scholars who related a number of narrations and so forth that other scholars who were perhaps more critical minded would reject the reliability of.

Quote

Can you post the link to this excerpt [the arabic]?

http://al-shia.com/h.../t05.htm#link52

Close to the bottom there.

[macisaac]

SpIzo, on Jul 4 2008, 02:05 PM, said:

Can you post the link to this excerpt [the arabic]?

Hmm, the version I linked to right now has a little more too, it also says within that quote:


æ áÇ íÌæÒ ÇáÚãá Úáì ÃßËÑå


And it is not permissible to act upon most of it.

[SpIzo]

macisaac, on Jul 4 2008, 11:52 PM, said:

Yes, so far the reference is in Najashi's and ibn al-Ghadha'iri's books of rijal.  In terms of the book itself, if the earliest manuscripts we have only go back around 400 or so years, then that'd be too late to determine with certainty what it might have said during the time those two authors mentioned that it said that.

I was talking about the alteration or modification. That, it must be mentioned somewhere if it has been modified?

Quote

Yes, he would count as an early scholar.  However, how reliable was everything he quoted himself might be the counter question.

  

Can't the same thing be said for the two scholars you quoted?

Quote

http://al-shia.com/h.../t05.htm#link52

Close to the bottom there.

Thank you very much.

Since we are talking of the opinion of early scholars, wouldn't Shaykh Saduq's opinion be more veritable than Shaykh Mufeed's? It seems Shaykh Saduq [RA] did not have any problem with quoting from it?

[macisaac]

SpIzo, on Jul 4 2008, 03:23 PM, said:

I was talking about the alteration or modification. That, it must be mentioned somewhere if it has been modified?

Not necessary really.  If we have (that's _if_, again I'm trying to reserve full judgment on this) strong enough evidence that a work said one thing at one time, and then when we look at much later copies it doesn't, it's strongly implies that at some point it has been changed, even if we don't know when it occured, or by whose hand.
  

Quote

Can't the same thing be said for the two scholars you quoted?

Najashi's work of rijal is considered to be the most authoritative one out of all the primary works of rijal.  Ibn al-Ghadha'iri is more controversial with some scholars (particularly recent ones it seems) because 1) they're not sure who wrote it 2) they find it overly critical.  As to 2, the thing is the work is all about weak narrators, so of course it's going to come across as negative.  (There's some suspicion, though we don't have it now, that he wrote or intended to write another work on the reliable narrators).  I don't really agree with that assessment anyhow.

Quote

Since we are talking of the opinion of early scholars, wouldn't Shaykh Saduq's opinion be more veritable than Shaykh Mufeed's? It seems Shaykh Saduq [RA] did not have any problem with quoting from it?

Allah knows best.  However I have generally found Shaykh Mufid (ar) to often be the more critical scholar out of the two, being more careful sometimes in what he would consider an authentic narration or teaching.  Much as I respect Shaykh Saduq (ar) and love his books, there are narrations he quotes at times that really don't seem they could be authentic whether fully or partially, and often if you look into their isnads (if there is an isnad mentioned) contain narrators who are recorded to have been weak, liers, fabricators of hadiths, and/or extremists.

But really, I don't like to say one of their opinions somehow has some more inherent value to it just because he said it.  It's like what I think a scholar said about Shaykh Saduq's I`tiqad and Shaykh Mufid's Sharh on it (the Tashih I'm quoting from here), which of them is true (as in numerous places Mufid will critique and disagree with Saduq's text)?  The truth is between the two of them.

[SpIzo]

macisaac, on Jul 5 2008, 01:18 AM, said:

there are narrations he quotes at times that really don't seem they could be authentic whether fully or partially, and often if you look into their isnads (if there is an isnad mentioned) contain narrators who are recorded to have been weak, liers, fabricators of hadiths, and/or extremists.

That maybe true; but I think that would go for any scholar, wouldn't it?

To give you an example, Shaykh Saduq [RA] rejected the insertion of 'Aliyyan Waliyallah' in the adhan because he considered it to be biddah by the ghuluw or that he considered the notion that the Prophet (S) could forget as the first sign of extremism.

He then quotes from his teacher Mohammad ibn Al-Hasan ibn Ahmad ibn Al-Waleed as saying: "The first stage of extremism is denying the forgetfulness of the Prophet [s]."
(See Man La Yahdharahul-Faqeeh)

http://www.shiachat....h...t&p=1387212

Whilst Shaykh Mufeed [RA] rejected the definition of ghuluw as defined by Shaykh Saduq [RA] itself. So, it would appear that the discrepancies in their opinions is based on the different definitions which they took.

Therefore, you are correct. Who is right, and who is wrong; it's difficult to tell. But for now, I think those who want to refer to Kitab Sulaym ibn Qays, will refer to it; and those who do not; for whatever reason; will not. And could we say, that both are right in their stances?

Edited by SpIzo, 04 July 2008 - 03:36 PM.

[macisaac]

SpIzo, on Jul 4 2008, 04:25 PM, said:

That maybe true; but I think that would go for any scholar, wouldn't it?

To give you an example, Shaykh Saduq [RA] rejected the insertion of 'Aliyyan Waliyallah' in the adhan because he considered it to be biddah by the ghuluw

None of the early scholars so far as we know approved of it.  Shaykh Saduq simply vocalizes it very clearly, whereas others such as Shaykh Mufid would in describing the correct adhan just not make mention of the addition.

Quote

or that he considered the notion that the Prophet [RA] could forget to be the first sign of extremism.

He then quotes from his teacher Mohammad ibn Al-Hasan ibn Ahmad ibn Al-Waleed as saying: "The first stage of extremism is denying the forgetfulness of the Prophet [s]."
(See Man La Yahdharahul-Faqeeh)

http://www.shiachat....h...t&p=1387212

Whilst Shaykh Mufeed [RA] rejected the definition of ghuluw as defined by Shaykh Saduq [RA] itself. So, it would appear that the discrepancies in their opinions is based on the differences of definitions which they took.

Actually, the difference is on what narration they were accepting and some of the logic underlying this.  Shaykh Saduq accepted a hadith that said that the Prophet made a mistake of some sort (I'd have to refer to it to refresh my memory) once when leading prayers.  Shaykh Mufid rejected this.

In many cases the crux of their differences was because Shaykh Saduq would quote a hadith to explain some point or other (as was his usual method), but then Shaykh Mufid would say that the hadith Saduq is quoting is shadh and not to be acted upon.  He might then precede to offer a different understanding of said article of belief.

Quote

Therefore, you are correct. Who is right, and who is wrong; it's difficult to tell. But for now, I think those who want to refer to Kitab Sulaym ibn Qays, will refer to it; and those who do not; for whatever reason; will not. And could we say, that both are right in their stances?

Sure, people will do what they will do.  But that said, it can't both be authentic and a forgery at the same time, so one of the two are wrong (or alternatively, that it'd be a work which has a mixture of authentic and inauthentic traditions, to whatever extent.  The way I'm reading Mufid here seems to imply that, though that the majority of it is problematic.  Whereas the view ibn al-Ghadha'iri is reporting seems to be that it is a complete forgery.)

Edited by macisaac, 04 July 2008 - 03:40 PM.

[SpIzo]

macisaac, on Jul 5 2008, 02:07 AM, said:

None of the early scholars so far as we know approved of it.  Shaykh Saduq simply vocalizes it very clearly, whereas others such as Shaykh Mufid would in describing the correct adhan just not make mention of the addition.

Actually, the difference is on what narration they were accepting and some of the logic underlying this.  Shaykh Saduq accepted a hadith that said that the Prophet made a mistake of some sort (I'd have to refer to it to refresh my memory) once when leading prayers.  Shaykh Mufid rejected this.

In many cases the crux of their differences was because Shaykh Saduq would quote a hadith to explain some point or other (as was his usual method), but then Shaykh Mufid would say that the hadith Saduq is quoting is shadh and not to be acted upon.  He might then precede to offer a different understanding of said article of belief.

My point here was that both the scholars differed on the understanding of the ahadith. Therefore, while Shaykh Saduq (perhaps) considered the hadith authentic enough to support a particular belief, Shaykh Mufeed did not. And the differences came about, in their taking different definitions of a particular "concept/term".

Quote

Sure, people will do what they will do.  But that said, it can't both be authentic and a forgery at the same time, so one of the two are wrong (or alternatively, that it'd be a work which has a mixture of authentic and inauthentic traditions, to whatever extent.  The way I'm reading Mufid here seems to imply that, though that the majority of it is problematic.  Whereas the view ibn al-Ghadha'iri is reporting seems to be that it is a complete forgery.)

Of course, there is only one truth. But I was talking about the masses.

Anyway, even if Shaykh Mufeed considers the book unreliable not to quote from it; Shaykh Saduq considered it "reliable" enough. As did an-Numani, Allamah Majlisi and Sayyed Khu'i [who is apparently of the opinion that while the contents of the book are correct; the fact of the book being attributed to Sulaym is doubtful].

Shaykh Mufeed did advise to refer to the scholars who will inform about what is sahih in it and what is not. So as you said, he does not reject it outrightly; but appears to have advised the masses to adopt a more cautious approach towards accepting/rejecting that is in the book. Which, I guess, would go for any other book.

And that's precisely what we are doing.

Edited by SpIzo, 05 July 2008 - 11:11 AM.

[Al-Mufeed]

Salam U Alaykum,

I had forgoten about this thread, however today while doing some reading I came across an interesting book written by Alamah Sayed Jafar Murtada al Amili called "Tragedy of Al-Zahra doubts cast and rebuttals" and it had a section dedicated to refuting claims that kitab al sulaim is false. I think he adresses alot of the points fairly well.

“They Relied Upon SALIM’s Book, Which is Not Reliable”



There are some people who are not pleased by deriving evidence from the traditions recorded in the book written by SALIM ibn Qais which deal with al-Zahra’ (A.S.). Says one of them, “Bring me anything recorded in a book other than this one.” What is the secret of taking such a stand towards SALIM and his book?

He even says, “The book of SALIM ibn Qais, which is the authority on the subject (these are his own words), is not reliable according to the testimony of Shaikh al-Mufid and others, and there is in it a great deal of mix-up as everyone knows.”

We say the following:



FIRST: SALIM’s book is not the authority in what has come to us of the bulk of events which al-Zahra’ (A.S.) underwent. Added to what SALIM’s book contains are numerous narrations consecutively reported from the Infallible Imams (A.S.) as well as historical texts which support each other and which historians of various sects have reported. Int this book, we will cite many of them by the will of Allah Almighty.



SECOND: SALIM’s book is regarded to be one of the first of what the ancient generations wrote, and it represents the basics and what is fixed of this sect in general terms and what the scholars endorsed and accepted and with which they were pleased. We do not find in it any traces of the alleged “mix-up” nor did the person who makes such a claim provide one single example in support of his claim. Nothing in it suggests to us the existence of any “mix-up” other than such a claim.

Perhaps some people are not pleased with it because they do not agree with a great deal of its contents. Rather, it contradicts what the man suggests. We have no reason to exclude SALIM’s book from our historical and doctrinal education. Its seniority and the personal interaction between its author and the Commander of the Faithful (A.S.) and a number of Imams after him gives it preference over all other books written scores of years after it.

In order to make the picture clearer, so that it may become more obvious and more precisely expressive of the truth about this book and the prestige it enjoys and the “justifications,” if any, of such doubts, we would like to say the following:

Origin of Casting Doubt About SALIM’s Book



There are two reasons why some people cast doubts about the book by SALIM ibn Qais:



FIRST: A statement made by Muhammed ibn (first caliph) Abu Bakr to his father as the latter was nearing his death:

It is recorded in SALIM’s book that SALIM met `Abd ar-Rahman ibn Ghunm who informed him what Mu`ath ibn Jabal, Salim slave of Aba Huthayfah and Aba `Ubaydah told him with regard to when their own demise would approach. They said that when they saw the Messenger of Allah (A.S.) and Ali (A.S.) at the time of their demise, each one of them informed the other of going to hell. Then SALIM met Muhammed ibn Abu Bakr who told him what Abu Bakr, too, told him shortly before his demise. Then Muhammed ibn Abu Bakr told him that `Abdullah ibn `Omer [ibn al-Khattab) had heard his father saying the same at the time of his death. He provided him with details of what went on between him and his father. These are very serious charges which cannot be taken seriously by a child two or three years old. Rather, someone with full awareness, understanding and knowledge of the affairs is needed to digest them. Then Muhammed informed SALIM that he visited the Commander of the Faithful (A.S.) and informed him of what he had heard his father saying and what (`Abdullah) ibn `Omer said as he quoted his father. The Commander of the Faithful, peace be upon him said, “Someone who is more truthful than these five individuals<sup>[1]</sup>, someone more truthful than you and than the son of `Omer, had confided in him. (He [a] meant the Messenger of Allah (A.S.) who confided in Ali (A.S.) prior to his demise, or he was informed by the angel who spoke to the Imams, peace be upon them.

After the martyrdom of Muhammed ibn Abu Bakr in Egypt, SALIM met the Commander of the Faithful (A.S.) and asked him about what Muhammed ibn Abu Bakr had said to him. He (A.S.) said to him, “Muhammed, may Allah be merciful to him, said the truth. By Allah, he is alive, receiving his sustenance.” Then he endorsed Muhammed’s statement that all his wasis are narrators of hadith.^[2] As regarding the details of what went on between Muhammed (son of Abu Bakr) and his father at the time of the latter’s death, it is recorded in SALIM’s book^[3]; so, whoever wishes may refer to it.

We would like to say the following in comment to all the above:

Shaikh al-Islam, `allama al-Majlisi, may Allah have mercy on him, the researcher-scholar and the genius renown man that he was, said the following:




“This narrative is one of the reasons for assaulting SALIM’s book because Muhammed (ibn Abu Bakr) was born during the year of Hijjatul-Wada’ (the Farewell Pilgrimage), as is well documented. So, his age at the time of his father’s death was two years and a few months. How could he, then, speak such words, and how could he remember such tales?! This may be the insertion of copyists or narrators. Or it may be said that this is one of the miracles of the Commander of the Faithful (A.S.) which he manifested to others. Some men of virtue have said that `Abdullah ibn `Omer admonished his father at the time of the latter’s death. The truth is that such an accusation cannot be directed at a book so well known to the traditionists, one upon which men in the caliber of al-Kulayni and al-Saduq and other ancient scholars reliable. Most of its contents are in agreement with what is narrated through authentic isnad in major reliable references. It is seldom that we find a book dealing with usal and which is free from such stuff.”^[4]

Added to what `allama al-Majlisi states are the following points:



1. Shaikh Muhammed Baqir al-Zanjani has said, “Al-Saffar, al-Saduq, Shaikh al-Mufid, Ibrahim ibn Muhammed al-Thaqafi before them narrated the exact tradition ver batim through isnad to SALIM but through venues other than his book.”^[5]



2. Segments of this tradition are narrated in other books such as Taqrab al-Ma`arif by the respected Faqih Shaikh Abul-Sal ah, Al-amali by the latter’s professor, Shaikh al-Mufid, in Al-K afiya fa Ibtal Tawbat al-Khati’a, also by al-Mufid, in Madanat al-Ma`ajiz by the revered `allama Sayyid Hashim al-Bahrani who quotes Ibn `Abbas and Ka`b al-Ahbar.^[6]

The issue of Muhammed ibn Abu Bakr talking to his father at the time of his death is mentioned by the authority al-Tabari in his book titled Kamil Baha’i and by al-Ghazali in Sirr al-`alaman and by Ibn al-Jawzi in his Tathkirat al-Khawass.^[7]



3. Remains to indicate is that what is stated about how old Muhammed ibn Abu Bakr was at that time is not the final argument here, for some have stated that he was about five years old when his father died, if he was born in 8 A.H. or four if he was born during Hijjatul-Wada`, 9 A.H., for that child could have been a genius.

`Allama al-Majlisi thinks that it could have been a miracle which Allah, Praise to Him, bestowed upon the Commander of the Faithful, peace be upon him.<sup>[8]


[1]</sup>These five individuals are: Mu`ath ibn Jabal, Salim slave of Aba Huthayfah, Aba `Ubaydah [ibn al-Jarrah], `Omer and Aba Bakr, and they are the ones who wrote down the covenant wherein they swore to expel Ali (A) from the position assigned to him by the Prophet (A) as ordered by the Almighty.

^[2]Refer to the Introduction to Salam’s book by Shaikh Muhammed Baqir al-Ansari al-Khoeni, Vol. 1, pp. 187-88 and Vol. 2, pp. 816-824.

^[3]Refer to the book by Salam ibn Qais, Vol. 2, pp. 821-23 edited by Shaikh Muhammed Baqir al-Ansari al-Khoeni.

^[4]Al-Majlisi, Bihar al-Anwar, Vol. 30, pp. 133-34.

^[5]Refer to Basa’ir al-Darajat, p. 372. `Ilal al-Shara’i`, Vol. 1, p. 182. Al-Ikhtisas, p. 324. Al-Kafiya fa Ibtal Tawbat al-Khati’a by Shaikh al-Mufid as quoted by al-Majlisi in his book Bihar al-Anwar (an old edition), Vol. 8, p. 199. Al-Thaqafi, Al-Gharat, Vol. 1, p. 326.

^[6]Refer to the Introduction by al-Ansari al-Khoeni to the book of Salam ibn Qais, Vol. 1, pp. 191-92.

^[7]Refer to the Introduction to Salam’s book by al-Ansari al-Khoeni, Vol. 1, p. 194 and in its footnote from Istiqsa’ al-Afham, Vol. 1, p. 514 and from Kashf al-Hujub, p. 445 and Tathkirat al-Khawass.

^[8]Refer to the Introduction to Salam’s book, Vol. 1, pp. 91-196.

Section’s Conclusion



No matter what, the existence of one problematic tradition in a book does not justify scrapping the whole book altogether. There is always the possibility that there is an insertion in it by someone, or the author himself may have had an oversight, that is, when he meant to say `Abd al-Rahman ibn Abu Bakr (rather than saying Muhammed ibn Abu Bakr), or some other possibility. In respected books, there are many such matters, yet nobody undermined their reliability.


The Second Issue: the Thirteen Imams



SALIM’s book contains a narrative about the Prophet (A.S.) saying, “Surely Allah cast a look at the people of the earth and chose from among them two men: one of them is I, so He sent me as His Messenger, and the other is Ali ibn Abi Talib...,” till he comes to say, “Surely Allah cast a second look, and He chose after us twelve wasis from among my Ahl al-Bayt, so He made them the elite among my nation, one after the other.”^[1]

We say that this cannot be used to discredit the book for the following reasons:



1. It is quite likely that the phrase “...He chose after us twelve wasis” may somehow contain an error in transcribing: one letter looking like another. `Allama al-Majlisi and others have all said, “We have found in some copies accurate wording without any insinuation.”^[2] Al-Majlisi has also suggested that the original text referred to eleven Imams but the copyists distorted it.^[3] What leads to this conclusion is the fact that the same tradition contains the accurate wording in another part of the book.^[4]



2. SALIM’s book, according to someone’s statistics^[5], contains a list of twenty-four other references besides the one under discussion. They all contain the text that the Imams are twelve in clear and unambiguous way.^[6] So, it does not make any sense to stick to the last text in order to cast doubt about the entire book in the pretext that it counts thirteen Imams.

If this single place is indicative of the book being labelled as “inaccurate,” let twenty-four others prove its accuracy and originality especially in the light of the very strong possibility that there was a mistake in transcribing one word as we have referred to above.



3. Ayatullah Sayyid [Abul Qasim] al-Khoei (may Allah sanctify his resting place) has said, “If a book contains something wrong in one or two places, this does not indicate that it is inaccurate. What would you say about the existence of many more in most books, including Al-Kafi, which is the most reliable book of hadith and the best written?”^[7]

`Allama al-Majlisi has said, “... and this cannot be a reason for discrediting, for seldom do we find a book containing many times as many insinuations and alterations. These things exist in Al-Kafi and in other highly respected books as every researcher finds out.”^[8]



4. Al-Mas`adi, who died in 345 A.H., has said, “... The final answer regarding the Twelve Imams, the ones counted by SALIM ibn Qais al-Hilali in his book, ...”^[9]

A number of scholars have counted it among the ancient references which discuss the Twelve Imams, peace be upon them, so refer to it.^[10] This proves that someone made an error in writing this tradition while making copies of the original.



5. The critic, Shaikh Muhammed Taqi al-Tasatturi, has mentioned many such places in Al-Kafi, and we would like here to cite what Shaikh al-Tasatturi^[11], may Allah have mercy on his soul, has said:

“This is an error of expression committed by the narrators; otherwise, the same exists in Al-Kafi, too. For example, in a chapter regarding the Twelve Imams, the Prophet (A.S.) is quoted as having said, “I and twelve from among my offspring, and you, Ali, are the button of the earth... If the Twelve from among my offspring are gone, the earth will collapse with its people.”^[12]

In another narrative, he (A.S.) is also quoted as having said, “From among my offspring are Twelve naqabs instilled with knowledge, the last of them is al-Qa’im.”^[13] Both traditions were narrated by Aba Sa`ad al-`Asfari in the original of which the text says “eleven.”^[14]

In a third transmission (of the same tradition), Jabir [ibn `Abdullah] al-Ansari says, “I visited Fatima (A.S.) and she was holding a tablet in her hands on which the names of the wasis from among her offspring were recorded. I found them to be twelve in number.”<sup>[15]</sup> The same transmission is recorded by al-Saduq in his book titled Ikmal ad-Din wa Itma m al-Ni`ma as well as in `Uyan Akhbar al-Rida (A.S.) and Al-Khisal without the phrase “from among her offspring.”^[16]

In a yet fourth transmission (of the same tradition), Imam al-Baqir (A.S.) is quoted as having said, “The Twelve Imams from the Progeny of Muhammed (A.S.), from among the offspring of the Messenger of Allah (A.S.) and from the offspring of Ali ibn Aba Talib, blessings of Allah be upon both of them, are all informed of hadith.”^[17] And he narrated it in Al-Khisal and in `Uyan Akhbar al-Rida (A.S.) in this wording: “After the Messenger of Allah (A.S.) they all are spoken to, and Ali ibn Aba Talib is one of them.”^[18]

In a fifth narrative from Aba Sa`ad al-Khudri, in the incident involving a Jew asking about the Imams after the Prophet (A.S.) and the Commander of the Faithful (A.S.), blessings of Allah be upon both of them, he (A.S.) said to him, “This nation has Twelve Imams of Guidance from among the Progeny of its Prophet, and they are from me...” till he came say, “As to those who are with him in his house, they are twelve from among his offspring.”^[19]

The gist of this narrative is recorded by al-Nu`mani without the phrase “from among the Progeny of its Prophet.”^[20] Such is the wording of Shaikh al-Tasatturi as exists in Qamas al-Rijal.<sup>[21]

[1]</sup>Book of Salam ibn Qais, Vol. 2, p. 857.

^[2]Al-Majlisi, Bihar al-Anwar, Vol. 22, p. 150. See the Introduction to Salam’s book, Vol. 1, p. 181.

^[3]Al-Majlisi, Bihar al-Anwar, Vol. 22, p. 150.

^[4]Refer to the book by Salam ibn Qais, Vol. 2, p. 686.

^[5]This is a reference to Shaikh Muhammed Baqir al-Ansari al-Khoeini.

^[6]Refer to the Introduction written by Muhammed Baqir al-Ansari al-Khoeini to the book by Salam ibn Qais.

^[7]Mu`ujam Rijal al-Hadith, Vol. 8, p. 225. He is also quoted in the Introduction to Salam’s book written by Shaikh Muhammed Baqir al-Ansari al-Khoeini, p. 170.

^[8]Al-Majlisi, Bihar al-Anwar, Vol. 22, p. 150. He is quoted in the Introduction by Shaikh Muhammed Baqir al-Ansari to Salam’s book.

^[9]Al-Tanbeeh wal Ishraf, p. 198.

^[10]Refer to the Introduction by al-Ansari al-Khoeini to the book of Salam ibn Qais, Vol. 1, p. 172.

^[11]See the Introduction to the book by Salam ibn Qais, Vol. 1, p. 183, written by al-Ansari al-Khoeini as cited by the critic Shaikh al-Tasatturi, may Allah have mercy on him.

^[12]Al-Kulayni, Al-Kafi, Vol. 1, p. 534.

^[13]Ibid.

^[14]Aba Sa`ad al-`Asfari, Al-Asl, p. 1.

^[15]Al-Kulayni, Al-Kafi, Vol. 1, p. 532.

^[16]Al-Saduq, Ikmal ad-Dan, Vol. 3, p. 311. `Uyan Akhbar al-Rida (A) Vol. 1, p. 37. Al-Khisal, Vol. 49, Chapter 12.

^[17]Al-Kulayni, Al-Kafi, Vol. 1, p. 533.

^[18]Al-Saduq, `Uyan Akhbar al-Rida (A) Vol. 1, p. 46; Al-Khisal, Vol. 49, Chapter 12.

^[19]Al-Kulayni, Al-Kafi, Vol. 1, p. 232.

^[20]Al-Nu`mani, Al-Ghayba, p. 67.

^[21]Al-Tasatturi, Qamus al-Rijal, Vol. 4, p. 452.

http://almujtaba.com/books/tragedy/

[Shieflower]

knightstemplar, on Jul 1 2008, 05:09 PM, said:

His worst criticism is reserved Uthman and you dont wont me to quote the ugly specifics unless compelled to do so.

  Is there something that is not mentioned,
please tell us who dont have the posibility to read the books.

[Al-Mufeed]

“Muwiyah made Ziyad Bin Sumaya governor over the people of Kufa and linked it with Basrah. As Ziyad had lived in Kufa during the time of Ali[ra], he was aware of all Shias living there. He dragged Shias from every stone and mount and murdered them, threatened them, cut off their hands and legs, made needles pierce their eyes, hanged them over trees, exiled them from Iraq and made them homeless to the extent that no renowned Shia remained there in Iraq”

Nisaih Kafia, page 70

[Imed14]

salaam alykum,

can we go back to posting narrations now from the book as everyone seem sto feel liek they are finished with all their critisism of the work?


fi aman Allah.....