Ibn Al-Ja'abi

(Bismillah) Salam I hope you're doing well, brother. I apologize, as I know your comment is more than a year old, but I was hoping to update the record in case anyone read through this thread and was curious what the final say was and would like to see how this is one of our oldest, greatest, and most important pieces of literature. Kitab Sulaym b. Qays is, without a doubt, the earliest extant piece of Shi'i literature and is a valuable repository for the secrets of the Ahl al-Bayt (عليه السلام). I pray every Shi'i has the tawfiq to gain ma'rifah of their Imams through reading this book, as was recommended to us by the Imams themselves. The Ta'ifah very early on widely disseminated this book, and it has been narrated by our great muhaddithin, including the authors of the Four Books and the Ashab al-Ijma'. It is a modern point of arrogance to think we have somehow figured out the entire Ta'ifah was mistaken and the Imams never bothered issuing a correction despite the popularity of this narrative, yet Jalali and some bloggers like @Nader Zaveri have it figured out. The Ḥadīth of the thirteen Imams is perfectly explicable as a simple mistake in the naql of the riwayah. Since it speaks of the twelve Imams from Imām ʿAlī (عليه السلام), it obviously meant the eleven Imams (عليه السلام) from him (عليه السلام) and mistakenly wrote twelve, the total number of Imams. Other ahadith have this exact same problem in transmission. e.g., the following Ḥadīth in al-Kāfī (vol. 1 pg. 534): مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ يَحْيَى عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ أَحْمَدَ عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ الْحُسَيْنِ عَنْ أَبِي سَعِيدٍ الْعُصْفُورِيِّ عَنْ عَمْرِو بْنِ ثَابِتٍ عَنْ أَبِي الْجَارُودِ عَنْ أَبِي جَعْفَرٍ ع قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ ص‌ إِنِّي وَ اثْنَيْ عَشَرَ مِنْ وُلْدِي وَ أَنْتَ يَا عَلِيُّ زِرُّ الْأَرْضِ يَعْنِي أَوْتَادَهَا وَ جِبَالَهَا بِنَا أَوْتَدَ اللَّهُ الْأَرْضَ أَنْ تَسِيخَ بِأَهْلِهَا فَإِذَا ذَهَبَ الِاثْنَا عَشَرَ مِنْ وُلْدِي سَاخَتِ الْأَرْضُ بِأَهْلِهَا وَ لَمْ يُنْظَرُوا. Muḥammad b. Yaḥyā; from Muḥammad b. Aḥmad; from Muḥammad b. al-Ḥusayn; from Abū Saʿīd al-ʿUṣfūrī; from ʿAmr b. Thābit; from Abū al-Jārūd; from Abū Jaʿfar (ʿas) who said that the Messenger of God (ṣ) said, "I, the twelve from my progeny, and you, O ʿAlī, are the fasteners of the Earth -- meaning the roots holding it firm and its mountains. By us, God fastens down the Earth so that it does not collapse in on itself with its inhabitants. When the twelfth from my progeny has passed, the Earth shall collapse upon its people, and they will not be seen." Of course it would be absurd to cast doubt on al-Kafi or even on the Asl of Abu Sa'id al-Usfuri just because of a simple mistake by a rawi who interpolated the overall number of the Imams (twelve) into the text, displacing the original "eleven", or a copyist who saw "eleven" written and mistakenly corrected it to "twelve" to match the number of Imams and the overwhelming majority of Ahadith that number the Imams. The mistake is merely such as requiring emendation of the text, or at least our understanding of it (since this mistake predates our earliest manuscripts, it may not be a good idea to change it back, but this is me being an overly cautious editor). It would be drastic and unreasonable to weaken the narration itself or the text it appears in over something like this-- to say nothing about the endeavor of going out to weaken hadith so they don't need to be considered in the equation; this is the very opposite of what the Imams want. This post will, InshaAllah, also be a response to myself, as, unfortunately, I myself cast doubt on this tradition from Sulaym and on his book here. I was completely wrong to do so and do tawbah that I held and expressed such a foolish and ahistorical position, which puts one in danger of being taken out of wilayah as understood by the following hadith: أبي رحمه الله قال: حدثنا سعد بن عبد الله، عن أحمد بن أبي عبد الله عن محمد بن اسماعيل بن بزيع، عن جعفر بن بشير، عن أبي حصين، عن أبي بصير، عن أحدهما عليهما السلام قالوا: لا تكذبوا بحديث أتاكم به مرجئي ولا قدري ولا خارجي نسبه الينا، فانكم لا تدرون لعله شئ من الحق فتكذبوا الله عزوجل فوق عرشه Ilal al-Shara'i vol. 2 pg. 395 محمد بن الحسين، عن محمد بن إسماعيل، عن حمزة بن بزيع، عن علي السائي عن أبي الحسن عليه السلام أنه كتب إليه في رسالة: ولا تقل لما بلغك عنا أو نسب إلينا: هذا باطل وإن كنت تعرف خلافه، فإنك لا تدري لم قلنا وعلى أي وجه وصفة Bihar al-Anwar vol. 2 pg. 186 (citing Basa'ir al-Darajat) Regarding the two other points you made: 1. Sheikh Mufid was obviously wrong about what he said. When he expressed this opinion, he was in a deeply misguided period of his life, represented by his flirtations with Kalam, Usul, and the broader Mu'tazili-Sunni intellectual climate in Baghdad. Before Mufid, the intellectual history of the Shi'as can be divided into the mutakallimin, represented by the likes of Aal Nawbakht minus al-Husayn b. Ruh (عليه السلام), who clearly belonged to the latter group, and the "Ashab al-Hadith", as Mufid calls them in al-Masa'il al-Sarawiyyah pg. 73; these would be all of our muhaddithin, including Kulayni, Saduq (who, like the other Qummis, Nayshapur, and more broadly Khurasan and Transoxania, was heavily influenced by Sunnism that results in the annoying muqassir opinions of Saduq and the ragebait of his teachers, such as Ibnul Walid, this phenomenon can be seen in others, like al-Kashshi, al-Ayyashi, al-Fadhl b. Shadhan, etc. as well, but this is beyond the scope of the scope of this post), al-Saffar, and the Ashab, especially those whose fiqhi positions were endorsed by the Imams. The Akhbaris aimed to return to a position like these "ahl al-hadith/" qudama, though they failed here, as they were merely reactionaries to the Usulis for the most part. Mufid, for example, identified Shaykh al-Saduq as having been among Ashab al-Hadith in his al-Masa'il al-Sarawiyyah, and we know this work was composed during this misguided period in his life, as he expresses other opinions, such as doubt in Muhammad b. Sinan, which would be revised later in al-Irshad, where he includes Muhammad b. Sinan among the Khawass. The twelfth Imam (aj), in his first epistle to Shaykh al-Mufid, wrote the following concern about his positions, as recorded in al-Ijtijaj vol. 2 pg. 271: فَإِنَّا يُحِيطُ عِلْمُنَا بِأَنْبَائِكُمْ وَ لاَ يَعْزُبُ عَنَّا شَيْءٌ مِنْ أَخْبَارِكُمْ وَ مَعْرِفَتُنَا بِالزَّلَلِ اَلَّذِي أَصَابَكُمْ مُذْ جَنَحَ كَثِيرٌ مِنْكُمْ إِلَى مَا كَانَ اَلسَّلَفُ اَلصَّالِحُ عَنْهُ شَاسِعاً وَ نَبَذُوا اَلْعَهْدَ اَلْمَأْخُوذَ مِنْهُمْ وَرٰاءَ ظُهُورِهِمْ كَأَنَّهُمْ لاٰ يَعْلَمُونَ إِنَّا غَيْرُ مُهْمِلِينَ لِمُرَاعَاتِكُمْ وَ لاَ نَاسِينَ لِذِكْرِكُمْ وَ لَوْ لاَ ذَلِكَ لَنَزَلَ بِكُمُ اَللَّأْوَاءُ وَ اِصْطَلَمَكُمُ اَلْأَعْدَاءُ فَاتَّقُوا اَللَّهَ جَلَّ جَلاَلُهُ وَ ظَاهِرُونَا عَلَى اِنْتِيَاشِكُمْ "For our knowledge encompasses information about you, and no news about you slips from us, nor does it escape our awareness of the errors which have befallen you, since many of you have inclined towards that to which your pious predecessors were averse and have discarded the pledge taken from them before them, as if ignorant that we do not neglect our responsibilities in shepherding you, nor are we forgetful of your memory. Were it not for that, calamities would have descended upon you, and your enemies would utterly vanquish you. Therefore, fear ye God, Exalted is His Splendour, and aid us in bringing about your rescue." [Side note:] Shaykh al-Mufid is not unique here, as the Imam (aj) himself reminds us here and as we read in other reports, and in Surah Yasin itself; the Imam (aj) is not ignorant of any of us. He sees us, and he rejoices at our success and cries over our sins. May we all be pleasing to him as Shaykh al-Mufid became pleasing to him. From this point, Shaykh al-Mufid clearly seems to have repented of his previous positions. The final works we should consider from him are his al-Irshad (the latter half of which represents his more guided period; the first half of it is plagued with the problems that plagued his early career more broadly), al-Amali, and al-Ikhtisas. al-Ikhtisas is the most controversial in attribution to him, but this is due to objections by rijalists, which can only be qualified as ridiculous verging on incompetent. This work is clearly his, but he does ta'liq of Asanid to the works of Saduq, as he did at the end of al-Irshad, and, like others, such as al-Tusi, did. Problematizing the entire work over some Asanid mu'allaqah when the rest of the Asanid are clearly from Mufid is incompetent, as such. In al-Ikhtisas, Shaykh al-Mufid clearly repents of his earlier positions, for example, discussing the Raj'ah in depth here. Shaykh al-Ghizzi has a good discussion of this in this lecture of his from his Kitab al-Natiq series. Kitab Sulaym is among the opinions Shaykh al-Mufid had, alhamdulillah, reformed his opinion on, as he uses this in his al-Kafi'ah. 2. Khoei was clearly trying to establish the non-fabrication of Sulaym's work in his Mu'jam Rijal al-Hadith, this is clearly seen in his conclusion here: وعلى ذلك فلا وجه لدعوى وضع كتاب سليم بن قيس أصلاً. For this reason, there is no reason for the spurious claim of the fabrication of Kitab Sulaym b. Qays, at all. https://www.al-khoei.us/books/?id=7422 The other essential issue is attacking the book due to Aban. This has been discussed extensively before, and readers can refer to those discussions. It is absurd, though, that the entire Ta'ifa, as stated above, including Ashab al-Ijma' and Muhaddithin on the level of Saduq and Kulayni, Mufid after his tawba, etc., all narrated from this book. Were they genuinely so moronic that they didn't know about one of the first major Shi'i fabricators and just mindlessly cited his traditions? Either way, as I stated above and as @Ibn al-Hussain he has mistakenly argued on his website here (this article was unfortunately previously referred to by me in the above quote of mine where I held the contrary position to the one I'm arguing for now). The argument effectively boils down to Kitab Sulaym being the only source for the person of Sulaym who records these narratives, which is problematic historically as there is no independent verification for the existence of a Sulaym outside Aban; otherwise, no other biography or prosopographer mentions him. The elusive independent source to Sulaym outside of Aban has been found by an Iranian researcher in his-- as yet-- unpublished research on the book. He has concluded it is Sulayman b. Qays al-Yashkuri, who is indeed a companion of Imam Ali. His reports, as preserved in Musannaf 'Abd al-Razzaq al-San'ani (itself, as even Motzki argued, a repository for genuine first-century material), show a clear textual relationship with narrations in Kitab Sulaym, such that I can't conclude other than that these are the same traditions but at different points in the composition of this work. Of course, one should believe in this work for the theological reasons mentioned above, as well as for the historical reasons that it is, without a doubt, the earliest extant piece of Shi'i literature, and one which was widely circulated in the Ta'ifah, one which is not unique in its contents at all, and which was praised by the Imams. That this work is one every muhibb e ahl e bayt should be familiar with should be evidenced by the fact that it infuriates the muqassirah and batriyyah so greatly. اللهم صل على محمد وآل محمد وعجل فرجهم والعن اعدائهم

Salam akhi, The word "God" in Aramic is Elaah/Elaahaa, which looks similar to Allah but it isn't. It's equivalent to إله in Arabic which is obviously a component of Allah. The -aa at the end is equal to the Al- at the start of Allah (it is the definite article, though this definite use is lost by the time of Syriac). So: إله אלוה -- Eloah (Hebrew) אלה -- Elah (Non-Syriac Aramaic) ܐܠܗܐ -- Elaahaa/Eloho (Syriac Aramaic) The poster did eventually clarify this, but saying that the word for God is Allah in Aramaic is obviously incorrect. Ten years old but if someone is interested in this, Hebrew as an L1 language (first language/living language) seems to have died out around ~200 AD is the common number given-- this is not based on any inscriptions I've seen but rather it seems to be based on social and political history of Judea and assumptions of language populations, granting that it is the case though. This process began as Netzari states after Bakht Nasr (la) and Danyal (عليه السلام), as Aramaic was slowly supplanting many languages across the Middle East and establishing itself as a primary literary language (even for cultures like Palmyrenes and Nabateans, which spoke Arabic, Aramaic was still the preferred written medium, perhaps for prestige reasons). It's clear that Hebrew started being affected by Aramaic vocabulary from the period after the exile as we start finding loanwords supplanting existing Hebrew words (Iggereth for Mikhtav, both meaning "letter" (as in risaalah/khitaab) for example). This is reflected in late Biblical Hebrew, though perhaps somethings can be explained through other mechanisms (perhaps the usage of she- the relative pronoun is influenced by dh-, the Aramaic relative pronoun, where she- even replaces Hebrew ki (anna in Arabic or "that" in English introducing a subordinate clause), or perhaps by Northern Canaanite? Allahu A'lam. By the time for Isa (عليه السلام), the dominant language would have been Aramaic as pointed out with Galileean being very distinct (people commonly point out the passage in the Babylonian Talmud chastising the careless Galileean for being unclear in his speech-- due to dropping pharyngeal consonants much like Samaritans do and as I personally theorize Phoenecians did). This process of language death for Hebrew is complete when by the time after the Bar Kokhba rebellion and the Jews are speaking Aramaic from this point on. The Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of this region (represented in texts like the Jerusalem Targums and the Jerusalem Talmud) gave way to Christian Palestinian Aramaic after the area Christianized, much the same but preferring Greek loanwords to Hebrew loans, and then to Arabic when the Muslims conquered. As a side note, I was thinking about this last night looking at ahadith on the language of Nuh (عليه السلام) being Syriac in Bihar. I believe when the ahadith use Syriac, they use it as a mathal (parallel/stand in) for old languages. Syriac (and Middle Persian) would have been the dominant literary languages of Iraq, where Nuh (عليه السلام) was from, with Akkadian and Sumerian (and anything older than that if Nuh (عليه السلام) did speak something pre-Sumerian) being forgotten from the memory of people, but Syriac still standing in the hadith for Aramaic more broadly (all of its dialects), Hebrew and Aramaic in the context of Jews, and as I believe older regional languages which are all reduced to this cultural memory of an Old Mesopotamian language (called Syriac, as opposed to Farsi which had different connotations in people's mind, and this language is used as a different mathal in hadith). Of course the other possibility is to do tawaqquf on this hadith (and it is never a possibility to weaken and reject a hadith in the way of rijalis and usulis, as this would exit you from wilayah). However, if this explanation works, it is acceptable, InshaAllah.

Before pointing out methodologically what's unsound with this outlined approach, I want to point out that this poster is weak in Arabic as can be seen here: What this actually says is "[This shows] he would narrate from people he did not know..." which is very different from saying he narrates carelessly through majaheel like this islahi genius is implying. The more fundamental issue is that he doesn't realize that tadlis is not an issue for us like it was for Sunnis, especially when our Imams can be accused of narrating in similar ways (recall the Imams ascribing to Jabir narrations from the Prophet and al-Bukhari's (la) reservations about narrating from al-Sadiq (as)). What Ibn Mahbub also isn't tadlis but what our scholars refer to as wijadah (narrating it from the book directly you received without any tariqa to it, rather by merely seeing it and reading it-- genuinely one of the stupidest problems rijal scholars have invented for an entire science that is a stupid import from the Sunnis). Now, funny enough, he hasn't been problematized except by these low-iman apostates you mentioned, like Hobollah. Not even al-Ash'ari had an issue with the ijazah of Ibn Mahbub to Abu Hamza. May the remainder of Shahr Ramadhan bring us closer to the turath of Ahlul Bayt, not further from it like the misguided men admired by the above poster, such as Kamal al-Haydari, Behbudi[1], and Haydar Hobollah. [1] A very sad case of a muhaqqiq getting main character syndrome and going off his meds. We were better off with Ali Akbar al-Ghiffari (rh), who edited Kitab al-Kafi al-Sharif for us and gave us a stable text of al-Khisal than we were with Bahbudi and his Ma'rifatul Hadith, giving us his schizoposts about hadith.

ٌWhile I think it is beyond indisputable that it isn't in al-Baqi' and the Imams allowed this narrative to promote confusion (assisted by the fact that al-Hasan (عليه السلام) shows that his mother's grave cannot be in al-Baqi'), the view of the classical scholars and the number of transmissions from al-Ridha (عليه السلام) stating that it's in her house seems hard to ignore. Some more on this point: أحمد بن محمد بن نصر البزنطي قال: سألت الرضا عليه السلام عن فاطمة بنت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله أي مكان دفنت؟ فقال: سأل رجل جعفراً عليه السلام عن هذه المسألة - وعيسى بن موسى حاضر - فقال له عيسى: دفنت في البقيع. فقال الرجل: ما تقول؟ فقال: قد قال لك. فقلت له: أصلحك الله، ما أنا وعيسى بن موسى؟ أخبرني عن آبائك! فقال: دفنت في بيتها Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Nasr al-Bazanti said, "I asked al-Ridha (عليه السلام) about the grave of Fatima bt. Rasul Allah (saww); what place is she buried in?" He answered. "A man asked Ja'far (عليه السلام) about this matter while Isa b. Musa was present. Isa said to him, 'She is buried in al-Baqi'.' The man said [to the Imam (as)], 'What do You (عليه السلام) say?' He (عليه السلام) answered, 'He gave you an answer already.' So I said to Him (عليه السلام), 'May God preserve you, what do I and Isa b. Musa have to do with one another? Inform me from your forefathers [where she is]!' He (عليه السلام) said, 'She is buried in her house.'" (Qurb al-Isnad - Abu Ja'far al-Himyari) (The use of benedictory prayers in the translation of the following narration from a Sunni source will reflect the original Arabic.) حدثنا أبو غسان، عن عبد الله بن إبراهيم بن عبيد الله، أن جعفر بن محمد كان يقول: قبرت فاطمة رضي الله عنها في بيتها الذي أدخله عمر بن عبد العزيز في المسجد. فهذا ما حدثني به أبو غسان في قبر فاطمة، ووجدت كتابا كتب عنه يذكر فيه أن عبد العزيز بن عمران كان يقول: إنها دفنت في بيتها، وصنع بها ما صنع برسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم، إنها دفنت في موضع فراشها، ويحتج بأنها دفنت ليلا، ولا يعلم بها كثير من الناس Abu Ghassan narrated to us, from Abdullah b. Ibrahim that Ja'far b. Muhammad would say, "Fatima (رضي الله عنه) was buried in her house, which Umar b. Abdul Aziz incorporated into the Masjid." This is what Abu Ghassan narrated to me concerning the grave of Fatima. I found a book written on this topic, which mentioned inside that Abdul Aziz b. Imran would say, "She is buried in her house and what happened to the Messenger of Allah (saww) happened to her. She is buried under where her bed was. This is supported by that she was buried at night, and many people do not know about her. (Tarikh Madinah v. 1 - Umar b. Shubba al-Numayri al-Basri) It may be a tradition among the Medinians, aside from just the Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام), that she was buried in her home, though the first hadith shows multiple views existed and the dominant Sunni one was that she is in al-Baqi'. When one sees these traditions and the narrations from the Imams, as well as the Qudama who held this view, it is hard to conclude she is buried other than in her home. Wallahu A'lam. May Allah curse the killers of Fatima (عليه السلام) until she is pleased.

Salam Just a broader point but 11 years on I think this criticism (and the other instances of weakening the reports based on Sahl) has fallen flat based on your own unpublished research into Sahl collecting all his reports and not finding anything problematic. There's a larger point about the folly of Sunni rijal when applied to Shii texts though that remains beyond the scope of what was discussed here, but I'll just point this out for anyone who happens across this thread in the future and experiences doubt in the words of the imams based on what you've said. JazakumAllah.

Delightful to see another student of philology among the Shia of Ahlul Bayt. A few points of contention here though I hope InshaAllah you can share your feedback on. Uvidia is the more likely the Hebrew name עובדיה (Ovadiah in modern pronunciation, 3Ovadhiya in historical, Obadiah as it's transcribed in English). o>u is quite common in Arabic transcriptions/translations of Hebrew names. A better candidate for the Buddha in Islamic materials is Yudhasaf in Kamal al-Din wa Itmam al-Ni'ma by al-Saduq, which may be Tashif for Budhasaf, an Arabization of an Iranic (I won't try to guess which Iranic language) term for Bodhisattva. Wallahu A'lam

According to Yedioth Aharonoth IRG claimed to have hit 3 bases: Nof, Netzarim, and Hatzerim. There's footage of these bases being hit (I've seen videos of apparently Nof and Netzarim being hit), but best to wait for verification.

You're responding seriously to a person lecturing you about you, a person who probably wakes up and goes to sleep with this genocide at the forefront of your mind like everyone else in this thread and like every other decent person InshaAllah, about not caring about the Palestinians while if you go through this thread you can read @kadhim saying things like "don't start it if you don't want it" (putting it less crassly), the Palestinians are an unwanted refugee population that bite the hand that feeds them, that Hamas (who this puerile white boy who has been Muslim for 20 years and still can't pronounce Arabic it seems cause he calls them pork-butt (ham-@ss) as a joke) are cowards for using effective military tactics, that Israel just needs a partner for peace, that al-Shifa was Hamas' command and control center. The fact that he made these arguments for months should be at the forefront of everyone's minds because it tells us three things: (1) he doesn't care about Palestinians, I don't think he cares about brown people generally seeing as the null hypothesis game he was playing when justifying why a hospital was besieged and elderly kidney patients had to die (he also refuses to discuss any of the points he asserted for months, I'm assuming because he knows they are untrue), (2) he's not knowledgeable of the facts at all, despite his constant condescension (unfortunately he read some Arabic words once to become a Muslim but never tried to figure out the ethics expected of a Muslim), and (3) talking down to people, his favorite pastime, is more important to him than the lives of all the Palestinians he took a big fat dump on for months when dehumanizing them. The white guy can talk smart but his points are nonsense. I really recommend you don't lose your cool to him of all people, he's an absolute coward and a monster. Just for the sake of illustration, two cases in point: Ah yes, just the average country that began as a colonial project through collusion with the British and Americans, expelled 750k+300k civilians and then destroyed their homes to prevent return, put the remnant civilians populations of indigenous Palestinians under West Bank style military law so they can now live comfortably as second class citizens, has agitated war with the Arab world since 50s so it can finish the job, etc. How many other countries have such open systems of apartheid? Or created something (Gaza) their right wing generals and heads of intelligence gleefully refer to as a concentration camp when plotting it's ethnic cleansing? It really is amazing you internalized Israeli propaganda of an unfair standard and level of scrutiny being applied to Israel and then you say "I'm not spouting Zionist propaganda!!" What is Zionist propaganda if these are just normal political and historical opinions? It's good to let people speak if it reveals the extent of their nifaq. Biden, the most Zionist president as historian Rashid Khalidi identified him, who, until it started sinking in how politically suicidal it was for him to keep offering this level of blind support for Israel, was saying things like "our team didn't do this", he saw the pictures of the dead babies, and he doubts the death toll of Gazans, he is as balanced as Jimmy Carter. Kadhim evidently is suffering from delusion because if he's truly of this opinion then there's no facts that we can offer him that'll make him reconsider, of course not that he would engage in anything that seriously challenges his views because then he's not the smartest guy on SC. Let this be a lesson, brothers and sisters. You might recite the shahada (and never improve your ability to pronounce Arabic in 20 years then, let alone try to learn it) but it won't instill Iman in you. قَالَتِ الْأَعْرَابُ آمَنَّا ۖ قُل لَّمْ تُؤْمِنُوا وَلَٰكِن قُولُوا أَسْلَمْنَا وَلَمَّا يَدْخُلِ الْإِيمَانُ فِي قُلُوبِكُمْ ۖ وَإِن تُطِيعُوا اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ لَا يَلِتْكُم مِّنْ أَعْمَالِكُمْ شَيْئًا ۚ إِنَّ اللَّهَ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ (14) The Bedouins say, "we have believed." Say, "you have not believed, rather say 'we have submitted' for faith has not yet entered your hearts." And if you obey God and his messenger, he will not deprive you of anything from your deeds. Truly God is forgiving and merciful. Surah Hujarat, ayah 14. Even the munafiqin who reveled in the afflictions of the Muslims, even as they claimed to feel sympathy with them, said that they were Muslims.

Salams Looks like kadhim forgot the 3 vetoes on a ceasefire, the veto to even condemn Israel for yesterday's flour massacre, Biden's language about this conflict since October (after Israel bombed al-Ahli, the fairy tale of 40 beheaded babies, denying the death toll, etc), or the fact that Biden started pushing that there would have been a ceasefire around the corner before the vote this week in Michigan, etc. I wonder why the guy who thinks that Palestinians are more responsible for the Palestinian refugee crisis than Israelis, Palestinians are unwanted and "bite the hand that feeds them", Palestinians left because Arab radio broadcasts, al-Shifa hospital was the Hamas Pentagon, and Hamas are cowards for using hit and run guerrilla tactics while he sits comfortably in M...(let's not get him to threaten another lawsuit) conveniently just forgot all of the above. I thought he was smarter than all of us? He talks down to us like he is at least. Who would have guessed, he's overcompensating. I would have paid money to see the look on his face as he was typing this report loool

For a person who insists that he's being mischarachterized as disliking Palestinians while spending 3 months running incorrect, nonsensical Zionist talking points like the following, you like to throw stones and assume the worst of others quite a lot: Al-Shifa is a command and control center of Hamas (whom you autistically can't name anymore because you're so virtuous, or just don't like "Palis" as you like to do caucasianally put it). No body wants the Palestinians, they just bite the hand that feeds them. They bear the lion's share responsibility for their own oppression after all. Or literally any of the other posts you've made, salivating at the prospect of being the smartest jack@ss in the room while a genocide is happening. If I thought you weren't a munafiq, I would sincerely advise you to practice humility, to not treat everyone you speak to with hostility, to not make su' al-dhann a religion and bad manners a culture, practice charitability, etc, but you're beyond any help. If we tell you we all think you're very smart, will you please go away? JazakumAllah.

I'd be interested to know why you think al-Kafi was written to deal with conflicting reports, the sources you cite don't say that and neither is that the format of al-Kafi. Read Tahdheeb closely, though he mentions this, the book aims at substantiating the views of Mufid's Muqni' more than anything else. Istibsar certainly was written to resolve contradictory reports.

Salams, I'm of the opinion that this khutba is historical, though I will say two things about the isnad map: (1) There's an argument to be made of the spread of the hadith (as made in the above map) as being made up of several single strands, rather than any widescale corroboration, but seeing as this is a sermon its spread was probably not like the spread of ahadith. The genre this would have been in early Islamic history would have been siyar and akhbar, the transmission of which is made out to be sloppy with the inclusion of majahil, but the authorities and methods of the historians were different. The method that Mufid transmits this, and it was a point of mockery but the foolish, is the same that Mada'ini, Ibn Sa'd, and other early akhbariyyun would transmit reports (akhbari in the sense of an early historian/transmitter of reports, not the legal school). (2) The person who designed this map made an error, the chain he quotes from Ibn Tawus' Kitabul Tara'if is itself being cited from a copy of Kitabul Gharat found he found in Madratul Nidhamiyya (I presume in Baghdad). I don't believe it's found in present copies of Kitabul Gharat but I also don't think we have the Kitab in its entirety. I'm working on my own ICM isnad map of this which will go over the mutun to compare them, this shows the changes in the process of transmission, groups redactions (which were otherwise seen as minor by editors noting "minor ikhtilaf in words" not realizing the utility in telling us about the transmission). So far, I think it's safe to place this khutba within the second century hijri, especially considering how unique the khutba as transmitted by Imam al-Baqir is, while it generally agrees with the cluster transmitted by Saduq (which are more similar to each other than they are to other redactions, though there are differences between them) and the version cited by Mufid and Ibrahim al-Thaqafi, though in some ways it's simpler. The simplicity might indicate in those areas it's missing something a more original text-- since you would add to, not subtract from a text in the process of editing/tamperring with it (lectio simplicior in textual criticism terms). And while it doesn't agree with any other version word for word, it doesn't contain anything not found in other versions (though not just in one version). It requires some more research but if one can place it in the second century then it might be a memory genuinely reflecting the first century, and being narrated from Imam al-Baqir and Zayn al-'Abidin (عليه السلام) gives it a certain authority to reach back into the first century more securely. I'll save posting an image just yet since there's more asanid to be added and the mutun need to be colour coded for content, though their organization for a line by line comparison is ready. I agree that the major themes of this khutba are about Sabr and Zuhd, as these are what Amirul Mu'mineen (عليه السلام) resorts to, though the framing of the khutba is nevertheless the taking of caliphate from Him, though he was more worthy and their errors after taking it, as well as the context of this sermon as when caliphate was mentioned to him. The conclusion that this was a spur of the moment speech delivered from a place of ex tempore passion stirred up when he heard this subject mentioned would further that, I believe. Wallahu Alam. Though the critiques of it are not minor to say the least, as in the version cited by al-Saduq in Ma'ani al-Akhbar, this redaction states outright that Umar altered the legacy (turath) of the Prophet (saaw) rather than the locutions found in the other redactions which simply imply this. All versions also paint Umar as a harsh man unsuited to the job. And the death of Uthman is (rightly) blamed on his poor decisions and actions. When read in its entirety, it's a rather scatching critique of Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman, and while you're right that these points exist piecemeal in other works, the way they are weaved to create a narrative is one more indiction that the Shii narrative about Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman is as old as Islamic historiography. This is also cited by major historians pretty consistently (Aban b. Uthman is interesting as he was an author of maghazi and siyar and early narrator from the time of the Imams). Wallahu A'lam

Most likely chainmail if one was wealthy enough to afford it.

Of course the guy running Zionist propaganda (including al-Shifa being the Hamas Pentagon because of evidence even the BBC found to be planted) for months is willing to take lazy Zionist propaganda at face value and argue for its authenticity when he sees it, even if he knows better about the way Muslims pray. Anyways, keep arguing the guys who pointed to a calendar and said it's a list of terrorists are being forthright in this silly picture with it's ridiculous implications that 48 Arabs have a place in Israeli society and aren't just a tolerated remnant of the ethnically cleansed indigenous population. Generally, they don't. The 48 Arabs (those living within the Green line/the Zionist entity) are incredibly oppressed in a way comprable to African Americans in Jim Crow America. The type of military occupation you see in the West Bank was first imposed on them between 1948-1966 until Israel decided that they will never be able to regain their sovereignty. About 1% of 48 Arabs did serve in the IDF. As to their motivations, it's not uncommon to find colonized people serving in the armies colonizing them in hope of benefiting from the colonialism more than they otherwise would. It's obviously pointless, Israel is a self identified Jewish state, hence not a state for them. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Indian_Scouts

Ladies and Gentlemen, the intellectual powerhouse of a munafiq who has no problem saying that the Arabs are responsible for the Palestinian refugee crisis, the Palestinians are not wanted as refugees by anyone because there's something wrong with them, and that there's a Tora Bora style Hamas Pentagon under Al-Shifa because Israel said so. What can you expect from a Nasibi who says Imam Husayn threw away his life pointlessly and contrary to what Islam teaches: Please practice humility when talking to mu'mineen, lest you turn into the type who sees the liquidation of a concentration camp and says "you wanted it, bring it". والعياذ بالله