Fadhlullah Lecture On Sitna Zahra' (as)

[Ya Aba 3abdillah]

It's in Arabic - 1997

[baradar_jackson]

(salam)

Do you have one with subtitles?

Man i wish i knew Arabic...

Edited January 10, 2010 by baradar_jackson

[3alawiyeh]

^ Or, if you don't, can you summarize the lectures for us, please?

[Rohani]

(salam)

Do you have one with subtitles?

Man i wish i knew Arabic...

(salam)

that would be very good if someone could add subtitles and upload

(wasalam)

[AbdullaQ]

Masha-Allah!

THANK you very much for these videos! I very much needed these videos. In the Q and A after the lecture Ayatullah clearly dispels all the ridiculous rumours surrounding him and his aqeeda. Masha-Allah may Allah guard him and guide him and benefit us through him, and may Allah reward the Sayed from his infinite mercy.

Great stuff, thanks.

Peace.

[Maula Dha Mallang]

let me guess....the house wasnt burnt and she wasnt attacked

*rolls eyes*

[BintAlHoda]

let me guess....the house wasnt burnt and she wasnt attacked

*rolls eyes*

I take it from your first sentence that you are unable to understand Arabic well enough to understand the video. Othrwise you would not have to 'guess'.

Therefore, please show some respect for someone whose scholarship is CLEARLY above yours. If you aren't even fluent in the original language of our books, you are in no position to exhibit this much disrespect to someone who spends his life studying religion from its core.

Please show respect for someone whom many people do respect as a scholar. If nothing else, he is your elder.

You don't have to agree, but 'rolls eyes' is infantile.

[Maula Dha Mallang]

lol @ scholarship way above mine, maybe i should start respecting zakir nalaik, since his knowledge of the quran is way above mine too?

[Vigilare]

lol @ scholarship way above mine, maybe i should start respecting zakir nalaik, since his knowledge of the quran is way above mine too?

Sorry, are you saying you know more than him? You may well do, but people should still respect each other?

Where is the disagreement?

[Maula Dha Mallang]

no brother, i am not saying i know more than ayatollah fadhlallah.

what i am saying, however, is that much better and much higher ranked scholars throughout the last 1400 years have agreed almost unanimously that her house was burnt, and she was attacked, and she did die from her injuries. his coming along and deciding that this unbroken chain of ulema who have agreed on the same thing for centuries are somehow all wrong and he is right, frankly, is a slap in all their faces and an insult to her. but obviously insults to ayatollah fadhlallah must never be tolerated.

dont be blinded by usooli double speak and spin. either all the ulema in history are right, and he is wrong, or they are wrong, and he is right.

either she was attacked, or she wasnt. theres no such thing as "difference of opinion". there is, however, such thing as "haqq" and "baatil" despite what usoolis will try and teach.

also, another marja, who far outranked ayatollah fadhlallah, namedly ayatollah jawad tabrizi (may Allah grant him the highest station in jannah), announced ayatollah fadhlallah to be "dhaal modhil", i.e. that he had gone astray and it was forbidden for shias to follow him.

and please, lets not resort to the "oh you dont speak arabic" BS argument. hes an arab. arabic is his first language. its not that impressive. how many marjas do you know speak flawless english? oh thats right. none.

Edited January 12, 2010 by maula dha mallang

[guest 34193]

dont be blinded by usooli double speak and spin.

such thing as "haqq" and "baatil" despite what usoolis will try and teach.

What's Usoolism got to do with this?

also, another marja, who far outranked ayatollah fadhlallah, namedly ayatollah jawad tabrizi (may Allah grant him the highest station in jannah)

Who was also an Usooli.

how many marjas do you know speak flawless english? oh thats right. none.

Which is irrelevant, as knowing Japanese would be irrelevant to the qualifications of a classical Greek scholar. Knowing Arabic on the other hand is absolutely necessary in order to have some amount of qualification in regards to a deeper Islamic study. How could it be otherwise if the person would not even be able to read the book of Allah or the ahadith of the Ma`sumeen (as)?

[Maula Dha Mallang]

What's Usoolism got to do with this?

Who was also an Usooli.

never mind.

[Maula Dha Mallang]

(salam)

The shia really do spit in each others faces in these days!

Our Marja is of a surety High in education, he also explains if you would read his site and his book of fatwa, about how marja are of different levels, as an example just as doctors are of different levels. each in his own field. to say yours is better then ours is arrogance. the whole idea of picking of a marja is to pick one we feel is truthful. if you feel yours is truthful then that is you. not us. we obviously feel differently because we picked ours as truthful. so please keep away from uneducated and arrogant post. by the way you do not say a neurologist is a cardiologist now do you? or a common E.R. Doctor like a surgent? clearly all are considered doctors but they are of higher and more advanced education to do more in depth medical practice.

(wasalam)

brother, with respect, if a doctor gets "struck off" by a more senior doctors panel, then thats a fairly good indication to stop listening to him.

i suggest you research the fatwa of ayatollah jawad tabrizi and others

[Rohani]

brother, with respect, if a doctor gets "struck off" by a more senior doctors panel, then thats a fairly good indication to stop listening to him.

i suggest you research the fatwa of ayatollah jawad tabrizi and others

(salam)

What if the reasons the other doctors struck of that doctor was not just? what if it was a matter of supporting a government? or being just like them? you see even The ayatollah in iran sought advise from Ayatollah fadlallah about their internal problems in iran? why is that if he is struck off?

(wasalam)

[Maula Dha Mallang]

(salam)

What if the reasons the other doctors struck of that doctor was not just? what if it was a matter of supporting a government? or being just like them? you see even The ayatollah in iran sought advise from Ayatollah fadlallah about their internal problems in iran? why is that if he is struck off?

(wasalam)

bro, if we accept that the marjas are unjust, doesnt that put the marja system in general on shaky ground, saying that marjas give fatwas that are not based on truth? how about we just accept that they are right? where does that leave you?

[BintAlHoda]

In any case, knowledge of classical Arabic is definitely necessary to have any opinion at all of the speeches (unless they magically appear with subtitles).

Let's leave the discussion about Sayed Fadlullah for some other place and confine this thread to a discussion of these speeches which have been posted and the actual content of them...... no guesses please.

[Rohani]

bro, if we accept that the marjas are unjust, doesnt that put the marja system in general on shaky ground, saying that marjas give fatwas that are not based on truth? how about we just accept that they are right? where does that leave you?

(salam)

your saying my marja is wrong and all yours are right. that may make you unjust? and saying all marja's say he is wrong is a large assumption. your (few marjas) that disagree with him and say he is wrong, is not them All. and please, when someone disagrees they start crying "he is wrong do not follow him" when it is perfectly allowed to disagree with other marja's. i suspect certain marja's exalt themselves thinking they are 100% right in everything and when someone gives a different ruling they feel their pride and statues hurt. or they want to "dictate" every fatwa and ruling. hmm wonder why that would be? surly they are not imam Al Mahdi to have exact truth! why would they think they do in a 100% ? and if they do not in 100% then they have no right to disagree with someone who may be right just because they do not agree.

I agree let us leave this discussion at this no more talking on this matter

(wasalam)

Edited January 12, 2010 by theunknownpreacher

[Maula Dha Mallang]

In any case, knowledge of classical Arabic is definitely necessary to have any opinion at all of the speeches (unless they magically appear with subtitles).

Let's leave the discussion about Sayed Fadlullah for some other place and confine this thread to a discussion of these speeches which have been posted and the actual content of them...... no guesses please.

ok thats a fair point, can an arab speaker at least summarise whats being said? subtitles arent neccessary

[AbdullaQ]

Sorry now is not a good time for me, there must be a transcript of this and a translation.

Fee Aman Allah brothers.

Peace.

[slowly707]

ok thats a fair point, can an arab speaker at least summarise whats being said? subtitles arent neccessary

Brother Sayyed Fadlullah is a beautiful man. I had the honor of praying behind him couple weeks ago when I was in Lebanon.

Regarding these video clips I have gone through the majority of them and he has delivered a wonderful speech. I dont really have the time to translate the whole speech in terms but I can tell you that there was nothing in those videos but praise for Fatima. Regarding the "door incident" the Sayyed clearly says that he does NOT deny that the incident happened nor can he state with 100% fact that it did happen. For those of you speaking ill about Sayyed Fadlullah you are doing yourself a great diservice to Islam.

[Muhammed Ali]

Sayyed clearly says that he does NOT deny that the incident happened nor can he state with 100% fact that it did happen. For those of you speaking ill about Sayyed Fadlullah you are doing yourself a great diservice to Islam.

^ that implies that the event did not happen. its like saying "we are not sure if 9/11 happened or not". if such a huge event has doubts over it then it did not happen. because big events are so widely reported that there is no way their evdience would become weak. to say that the evidence is weak, amounts to saying that it never happened/

he thinks the event was unlikely. which doesnt suddenly make him innocent. his supporters say things like: "people have misunderstood the sayid. he doesnt deny the event, he says that he doesnt believe in it". that is not good enough.

[Rohani]

(salam)

simply means no solid proof to support saying something happened, and what i have seen is not solid i mean kitab-i sulayman ibn qays is a fabrication, may make you cry but you would be disgusted if you realized it was fake and you just accepted lies as truth. to compare this with 9/11 (that we seen on TV) is far from a proper analogy. Rijal says to stay away from the fabricator of sulayman ibn qays.

here is the proof

Kitab ad-Du`afa of Ibn al-Ghada'iri

قال السيّدُ المعظّمُ: من كتاب أبي الحُسَيْن، أَحْمَد بن الحُسَيْن بن عُبَيْداللَّه الغَضائِريّ، المقصورِ على ذكر الضُعفاء، ومَنْ رُدَّ حديثُهُ من أصحابنا على حروف المعجم‏(5).

الألف: ثمانية عشر رجلا

( 1 ) - 1 - أبانُ بنُ أبي عيّاش، واسمُ أبي عيّاش: فَيْرُوز.(6) تابعيٌّ، روى عن أنس بن مالك. وروى عن عليّ بن الحُسَيْن (ع). ضَعِيفٌ، لا يُلْتَفَتُ إليه. وَيَنسِبُ أصحابُنا وَضْعَ «كتاب سُلَيْم بن قَيْسٍ»(7) إليه.(8)

1 – Aban b. Abi `Ayyash, Abi `Ayyash’s name is Fayruz. A tabi`i, he narrated from Anas b. Malik. And he narrated from `Ali b. al-Husayn (as). Weak, he is not to be turned to. Our companions ascribe to him the fabrication of the book of Sulaym b. Qays.

http://www.*******.org/rijal/kitab-ad-duafa-of-ibn-al-ghadairi

And i am sure the reason Ayatollah fadlallah will not say he has solid proof is because he cannot find such solid proof through any narration that may exist. sometimes one must study many different rijal, and many different outlets to come to a conclusion that something may be not so solid. weather it happened or not we cannot say, because the proofs we have are not sahih therefore if it happened it is better to leave it to Allah to know. because we surly have no solid evidence.

(wasalam)

Edited January 18, 2010 by theunknownpreacher

[Qa'im]

(salam)

Jazakallahu khayran for the post. May Allah accept your du'a.

[SpIzo]

Rijal says to stay away from the fabricator of sulayman ibn qays.

here is the proof

Kitab ad-Du`afa of Ibn al-Ghada'iri

ÞÇá ÇáÓíøÏõ ÇáãÚÙøãõ: ãä ßÊÇÈ ÃÈí ÇáÍõÓóíúä¡ ÃóÍúãóÏ Èä ÇáÍõÓóíúä Èä ÚõÈóíúÏÇááøóå ÇáÛóÖÇÆöÑíø¡ ÇáãÞÕæÑö Úáì ÐßÑ ÇáÖõÚÝÇÁ¡ æãóäú ÑõÏøó ÍÏíËõåõ ãä ÃÕÍÇÈäÇ Úáì ÍÑæÝ ÇáãÚÌãþ(5).

ÇáÃáÝ: ËãÇäíÉ ÚÔÑ ÑÌáÇ

( 1 ) - 1 - ÃÈÇäõ Èäõ ÃÈí ÚíøÇÔ¡ æÇÓãõ ÃÈí ÚíøÇÔ: ÝóíúÑõæÒ.(6) ÊÇÈÚíøñ¡ Ñæì Úä ÃäÓ Èä ãÇáß. æÑæì Úä Úáíø Èä ÇáÍõÓóíúä (Ú). ÖóÚöíÝñ¡ áÇ íõáúÊóÝóÊõ Åáíå. æóíóäÓöÈõ ÃÕÍÇÈõäÇ æóÖúÚó «ßÊÇÈ Óõáóíúã Èä ÞóíúÓò»(7) Åáíå.(8)

1 – Aban b. Abi `Ayyash, Abi `Ayyash’s name is Fayruz. A tabi`i, he narrated from Anas b. Malik. And he narrated from `Ali b. al-Husayn (as). Weak, he is not to be turned to. Our companions ascribe to him the fabrication of the book of Sulaym b. Qays.

http://www.*******.org/rijal/kitab-ad-duafa-of-ibn-al-ghadairi

Ayatullah Gulpaygani considers the book authentic:

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

[Muhammed Ali]

(salam)

simply means no solid proof to support saying something happened, and what i have seen is not solid i mean kitab-i sulayman ibn qays is a fabrication, may make you cry but you would be disgusted if you realized it was fake and you just accepted lies as truth. to compare this with 9/11 (that we seen on TV) is far from a proper analogy. Rijal says to stay away from the fabricator of sulayman ibn qays.

I think you missed my point.

[Muhammed Ali]

What sayid murtadha amili said about the book:

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.

The statements made by the scholars about SALIM’s book indicate that it is one of the best written books and is very highly regarded. Here are some such statements:

Having quoted many incidents recorded in SALIM’s book, al-Nu`mani has says in Kitab al-Ghayba the following ver batim: “His book is an original of the originals narrated by the people of knowledge and those who bear the weight of reporting the hadith of Ahl al-Bayt (A.S.) and the very earliest because all the contents (or origins) of this book are quotations from the Messenger of Allah (A.S.) and from the Commander of the Faithful (A.S.), from al-Miqdad, Salman al-Farisi, Aba Tharr and those who follow their lines from among those who were personally present with the Messenger of Allah and with the Commander of the Faithful, peace be upon both of them, and heard their hadith. It is one of the original references to which the Sha`as refer and upon which they rely.”[3]

`Allama Shaikh al-Tehrani says, “It is narrated from the father of `Abdullah, al-Sadiq (A.S.), that he said, `Anyone from among our Sha`as and those who love us who does not have a copy of SALIM’s book does not in fact know much about us, nor does he know anything about our causes. It is the alphabet of the Sha`as and one of the mysteries of the Progeny of Muhammed, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him and his progeny.”[4] He also said, “In Mukhtasar al-Basa’ir, it is recorded that Aban ibn `Ayyash read some of the contents of SALIM’s book to our master Ali ibn al-Husain (A.S.) who was in the company of some dignitaries from among the Sha`as, including Abul-Tufail. Zaynul-`abidan (A.S.) endorsed those contents then commented saying, `These are our ahadith, and they are authentic.’”[5]

Al-Kashshi has stated that the said hadith was presented before al-Baqir (A.S.) after his father, al-Sajjad (A.S.), and how his eyes were tearful as he said, “Surely SALIM has said the truth; my father (A.S.) came, after my grandfather, al-Husain (A.S.), had been killed, and I was sitting with him, and he narrated this hadith itself to him. My father said that it was authentic. My father, and my uncle, al-Hassan (A.S.), have narrated this hadith from the Commander of the Faithful, peace be upon him.”[6]

[imam] Ahmed ibn Hanbal, too, referred to this hadith in his Musnad.[7]

Al-Nadam has said about it the following: “It is the first book that appeared for the Sha`as,”[8] meaning it was the first book to publicize the views of the Sha`as.

Badr ad-Din al-Sabki has said, “The first book which was written for the Sha`as is SALIM’s book.”[9]

Many early scholars from among our folks have quoted SALIM’s book. Among them are: Thiqatul-Islam (al-Kulayni) in his book titled Al-Kafi, the chief of narrators, namely Shaikh al-Saduq in his book titled Al-Khisal, Furat in his Tafsir, Man La Yahdurhu al-Faqih, `Uyan al-Mu`jizat, Al-Ihtijaj, Ithbat al-Raj`a, Al-Ikhtisas, Basa’ir al-Darajat, Tafsir Ibn Mahyar, and Al-Durr al-Nazam fa Manaqib al-A’imma al-Lahamam. All these references have quoted him through numerous chains of narrators ending with Aban ibn `Ayyash to whom SALIM gave his book by hand and who also narrates from SALIM.[10]

Al-Najjashi has counted him among the foremost from our good ancestors[11] to put a book together, and the sect’s mentor, namely al-Tusi[12], may Allah have mercy on his soul, refers to him, and so does Ibn Shahr ashab al-Mazandarani[13].

As regarding al-Mas`adi, he said, “The definite number of the Imams, that is to say, the Twelve Imams, are the ones counted by SALIM ibn Qais al-Hilali in his book.”[14]

`Allama Ibn Tawas has said the following: “The book contains testimonies for its being appreciated and its writing is accurate.”[15]

Our master, Muhammed Taqi al-Majlisi, has said, “Both great Shaikhs have judged his book as authentic although the text of the book by itself bears testimony to its own authenticity.”[16] He also said, “Suffices it the endorsement of both Saduqs, al-Kulayni and Ibn Babawayh, and I have the original with me, and its contents testify to its authenticity.”[17]

The in-depth researcher, Shaikh al-Hurr, has considered it among the reliable references the authors of which have received the endorsement of many other authors, whose contents are supported by proofs, and the authenticity of authorship has been verified.”[18]

Refer to what is transmitted by the contemporary Shaikh Muhammed Baqir al-Ansari al-Zanjani al-Ho’eeni in the Introduction to the book of SALIM ibn Qais, Vol. 1, pp. 109, 113 from `allama Sayyid Mustafa al-Tafrashi, `allama Sayyid Hashim al-Bahrani, the critic al-Sheerwani, the in-depth researcher Meer Hamid Husain, author of `Abaqat al-Anwar, and others.

Also, `allama Sayyid Muhsin al-Aman, may Allah have mercy on his soul, has endorsed it and quoted it in his book titled Al-Majalis al-Saniyya at the conclusion of which he says, “And he wrote it from the reliable references and the famous works”[19] He actually wrote this book, namely Al-Majalis al-Saniyya, as a reform work wherein he aspired to distance their biographies, peace be upon them, from anything insinuated, inserted or untrue.[20]

[slowly707]

I honestly cannot believe that some people on here refer to themselves as shia and have the audacity to belie Sayyed Fadlullahs opinions/rulings. Do you honestly think that you are in a better position to be making judegments about what happened 1400 years ago or someone who has spent their whole life studying Islam and has attained the level of ayatullah. It really boggles my mind some of the things I hear. The shia no longer speak about shia-sunni differences but have moved on to portraying shia-shia differences and are at each others necks. The person who equated the door incident to 9/11 needs to re-check their thought process as this is probably the worst comparison one can make. Sayyed Fadlullah made an opinion, not a ruling....nobody says you have to agree with him if you dont want to. He clearly said in one of the videos that only Allah will judge him and and that he is not worried about the accusations of people. Woe be to those who ridicule this aalim or any other scholar for that matter.

[Muhammed Ali]

i think you missed my point more then i missed yours, i am only saying that if we have no solid proof

my point is very simple. if you say that the event is weak then you might as well say that the event never happened. because when such events happen then they always come with an abundance of evidence. it is not possible for this type of event to be weak in evidence. its is either authentic or fabricated.

[Jondab_Azdi]

The taraiq to the book of Sulaym (ra) are all weak. The chains to the book are either mursal or it goes through Aban b. Abi Ayyash (la) who was daif and fabricator.

A/c to many scholars this book is fabricated and Syed Sistani also said that it's chain is problematic.

w/s

Edited January 18, 2010 by Jondab_Azdi

[Muhammed Ali]

I honestly cannot believe that some people on here refer to themselves as shia and have the audacity to belie Sayyed Fadlullahs opinions/rulings. Do you honestly think that you are in a better position to be making judegments about what happened 1400 years ago or someone who has spent their whole life studying Islam and has attained the level of ayatullah.

There are so many great ulama (including the leader) who disagree with him and say that he should not be followed. Should I just ignore their views? Is ayatullah tabrizi wrong for calling him dhaal?

audacity to belie

What is the ruling on looking at sex films and pornographic photos?

The Shariah and ethical principles prohibit looking at the private parts of another person. This fundamentally applies equally to looking at private parts in pictures or films. The reason is that the negative aspects of the latter are almost the same as those of the former. We do not, however, see this as the main criterion in the legal rulings (fatawa); instead specific circumstances dictate the ruling. For there is a condition which afflicts some people to the point where looking at such films may save the marriage, as in the case of frigidity, impotence, or similar dysfunction in either spouse, and looking at such films may offer a cure. Viewing these films and pictures beyond these circumstances, however, may lead to spiritual dissolution, to the point where the viewer becomes obsessed with the ideas of the film and acting them out, necessitating a prohibition-despite the situations which warrant a certain amount of license, as in the first scenario.

http://www.al-islam.org/worldyouth/4.htm

what kind of a ruling is that? a ruling that goes again quran, sunnah & aql.

Edited January 18, 2010 by Muhammed Ali

[Abdul Qaim]

(salam)

simply means no solid proof to support saying something happened, and what i have seen is not solid i mean kitab-i sulayman ibn qays is a fabrication, may make you cry but you would be disgusted if you realized it was fake and you just accepted lies as truth. to compare this with 9/11 (that we seen on TV) is far from a proper analogy. Rijal says to stay away from the fabricator of sulayman ibn qays.

here is the proof

Kitab ad-Du`afa of Ibn al-Ghada'iri

ÞÇá ÇáÓíøÏõ ÇáãÚÙøãõ: ãä ßÊÇÈ ÃÈí ÇáÍõÓóíúä¡ ÃóÍúãóÏ Èä ÇáÍõÓóíúä Èä ÚõÈóíúÏÇááøóå ÇáÛóÖÇÆöÑíø¡ ÇáãÞÕæÑö Úáì ÐßÑ ÇáÖõÚÝÇÁ¡ æãóäú ÑõÏøó ÍÏíËõåõ ãä ÃÕÍÇÈäÇ Úáì ÍÑæÝ ÇáãÚÌãþ(5).

ÇáÃáÝ: ËãÇäíÉ ÚÔÑ ÑÌáÇ

( 1 ) - 1 - ÃÈÇäõ Èäõ ÃÈí ÚíøÇÔ¡ æÇÓãõ ÃÈí ÚíøÇÔ: ÝóíúÑõæÒ.(6) ÊÇÈÚíøñ¡ Ñæì Úä ÃäÓ Èä ãÇáß. æÑæì Úä Úáíø Èä ÇáÍõÓóíúä (Ú). ÖóÚöíÝñ¡ áÇ íõáúÊóÝóÊõ Åáíå. æóíóäÓöÈõ ÃÕÍÇÈõäÇ æóÖúÚó «ßÊÇÈ Óõáóíúã Èä ÞóíúÓò»(7) Åáíå.(8)

1 – Aban b. Abi `Ayyash, Abi `Ayyash’s name is Fayruz. A tabi`i, he narrated from Anas b. Malik. And he narrated from `Ali b. al-Husayn (as). Weak, he is not to be turned to. Our companions ascribe to him the fabrication of the book of Sulaym b. Qays.

http://www.tashayyu....ibn-al-ghadairi

(wasalam)

You do know that Kitaab al Du'afa is itself the subject of much controversy regarding its own authenticity, don't you? Even Shaykh Mufeed stated that Kitaab Sulaym ibn Qays in its current form should be treated with caution as some of it has been corrupted, but that's quite altogether different from saying the whole book is a complete fabrication by Aban b. Abi `Ayyash .

[guest 34193]

As to the question of Kitab Sulaym b. Qays and her (as) martyrdom, may Allah curse her oppressors, thing is that it's not only said work that states she (as) was a shaheeda. Such as this hadith (sahih according to Marhum Tabrizi (ar) and others) from Dala'il al-Imama that states how she was died:

حدثني أبو الحسين محمد بن هارون التلعكبري قال حدثني أبي قال حدثني أبو علي محمد بن همام بن سهيل رضي الله عنه قال روى أحمد بن محمد بن البرقي عن أحمد بن محمد الأشعري القمي عن عبد الرحمن بن بحر عن عبد الله بن سنان عن ابن مسكان عن أبي بصير عن أبي عبد الله جعفر بن محمد (عليه السلام) قال : ولدت فاطمة (عليها السلام) في جمادى الآخرة في العشرين منه سنة خمس و أربعين من مولد النبي (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) و أقامت بمكة ثمان سنين و بالمدينة عشر سنين و بعد وفاة أبيها خمسة و سبعين يوما و قبضت في جمادى الآخرة يوم الثلاثاء لثلاث خلون منه سنة إحدى عشرة من الهجرة و كان سبب وفاتها أن قنفذا مولى الرجل لكزها بنعل السيف بأمره فأسقطت محسنا و مرضت من ذلك مرضا شديدا و لم تدع أحدا ممن آذاها يدخل عليها و كان رجلان من أصحاب النبي سألا أمير المؤمنين أن يشفع لهما فسألها فأجابت و لما دخلا عليها قالا لها كيف أنت يا بنت رسول الله فقالت بخير بحمد الله ثم قالت لهما أ ما سمعتما من النبي يقول فاطمة بضعة مني فمن آذاها فقد آذاني و من آذاني فقد آذى الله قالا بلى قالت و الله لقد آذيتماني فخرجا من عندها و هي ساخطة عليهما .

And this sahih hadith from al-Kafi which explicitly calls her shaheeda:

عن محمد بن يحيى، عن العمركي بن علي، عن علي بن جعفر، عن أخيه، عن أبي الحسن (ع):‏"إِنَّ فَاطِمَةَ ( عليها السلام ) صِدِّيقَةٌ شَهِيدَةٌ وَ إِنَّ بَنَاتِ الْأَنْبِيَاءِ لَا يَطْمَثْنَ ‏

Problem is that the Sayyid does not seem consistent in his methods or verdicts. It's not a case that he's just really strict on rijal and only goes with established riwaya. A hadith might be fine on the isnad, and he might reject it as it goes against his personal views on something. Or it might be weak, and he might use it if it agrees with him. Add to that some pretty basic errors he's gotten caught on in terms of his assessments of the sihhat of things does call into question his qualifications to be passing stuff like this.

As to the question of allowing pornography for "frigid" couples, does this even need discussion?? We're not "only" talking about looking at someone else's private parts, we're talking about watching (and presumably deriving enjoyment from which would after all be the point here) people engaging in full out zina. Can you imagine for an instant our blessed Imams (as) telling their Shi`as they can watch people engage in zina if it'll turn them on to having intercourse with their spouses?? A`udhu billah. And where does this weird idea come from that pornography is somehow helpful to sexual dysfunction? If anything it'd be the opposite as it's a portrayal of unrealistic staged fantasy, giving people a distorted picture of a what a healthy relationship is really about possibly leading to even further disappointment and frustration. And even presuming that there's any truth to this claim, again, how can you justify using the haram as a cure?

[Abdul Qaim]

(salam)

Introduction note to my post: (if it is not one thing it is another with you anti fadlullah propagators, is it not enough if you do not agree to go and agree to whom you agree with? but to be propagating your idea, your division, and your delusion and misunderstandings, and lack of understanding, is very very wrong. if your a ayatollah then sit here and say you disagree with his ruling, the fact is not one of you are. and logic and mercy pays effect on a smart marja, for each matter has it's exceptions. and it's details. so all this anti fadlallah stuff, sounds to me like some people trying to dictate what people think, agree and issue as fatwa when they (the ones you anti fadlullah's would disagree with) have been educated, and thought and considered deeply. it is either you want everyone to be like you and your dictators, or you are trying to keep people away from fadlallah for political reasons (nearly like you work for israeli anti everyone who speaks against them task force and internet propaganda team) or you think your some kind of marja to issue rulings and disagree like you are one? )

now then to the matter at hand

First i would like to show you the ruling you posted from Bayynat.org instead of the source you got it from then i would like to show you the other one related to that one o clear up any misunderstanding.

and here is this one which as you can see below that it clears up what should be sought first, and leaves this as only a very last option

If you cannot understand this, then wait til you are in such a circumstance then decide on what you think.

(wasalam)

(salam)

if some things are taken from truthful sources and added in the mix of something fermented and made up, the whole book is fabricated. the truthful sources would stand alone by themselves somewhere in the catalog of sahih hadith. and the book that had them mixed in, to make it look this way or make it seem this or because the writer added that don't mean the book was truthful from the start and was corrupted later,. but rather stil means it was a fabrication. now then as for your comment about the book of rijal (

Kitab ad-Du`afa of Ibn al-Ghada'iri - Don't apply as it is not the only source saying this) therefore i think brother jondab has said enough to this effect about it's chain and that other marja agree as well.

(wasalam)

Using your criteria for what is and is not fabricated, then Al-Kafi should also probably be classed as a fabrication as there are ahadeeth contained therein which are clearly fabricated. As for the book of Sulaym, Allahu a'lam, though I personally wouldn't base my religion on it.

As for your comments re: Kitaab al Du'afa, plz quote the Maraja that agree with Br. Jondab. Again, I'm not suggesting that it is a fabrication, but since you are using a book without a sahih sanad to criticise another, I'd like to see some supporting evidence ...

[ShiaSoldier@2007]

(bismillah) (salam)

According to Ayatollah Fadhlallah how did Hazrat Fatima (as) leave this world?. It is universally accepted that Hazrat Fatimah (as) was martyred because somebody (la) crushed her with a door.

(name will not be taken or I can't put the "La" after it.

[guest 34193]

(wasalam)

Rough translation (little unsure on some):

حدثني أبو الحسين محمد بن هارون التلعكبري قال حدثني أبي قال حدثني أبو علي محمد بن همام بن سهيل رضي الله عنه قال روى أحمد بن محمد بن البرقي عن أحمد بن محمد الأشعري القمي عن عبد الرحمن بن بحر عن عبد الله بن سنان عن ابن مسكان عن أبي بصير عن أبي عبد الله جعفر بن محمد (عليه السلام) قال : ولدت فاطمة (عليها السلام) في جمادى الآخرة في العشرين منه سنة خمس و أربعين من مولد النبي (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) و أقامت بمكة ثمان سنين و بالمدينة عشر سنين و بعد وفاة أبيها خمسة و سبعين يوما و قبضت في جمادى الآخرة يوم الثلاثاء لثلاث خلون منه سنة إحدى عشرة من الهجرة و كان سبب وفاتها أن قنفذا مولى الرجل لكزها بنعل السيف بأمره فأسقطت محسنا و مرضت من ذلك مرضا شديدا و لم تدع أحدا ممن آذاها يدخل عليها و كان رجلان من أصحاب النبي سألا أمير المؤمنين أن يشفع لهما فسألها فأجابت و لما دخلا عليها قالا لها كيف أنت يا بنت رسول الله فقالت بخير بحمد الله ثم قالت لهما أ ما سمعتما من النبي يقول فاطمة بضعة مني فمن آذاها فقد آذاني و من آذاني فقد آذى الله قالا بلى قالت و الله لقد آذيتماني فخرجا من عندها و هي ساخطة عليهما .

Abu ‘l-Husayn Muhammad at-Talla`ukbari narrated to me. He said: My father narrated to me. He said: Abu `Ali Muhammad b. Hammam b. Suhayl, may Allah be pleased with him, said: Ahmad b. Muhammad b. al-Barqi narrated from Ahmad b. Muhammad al-Ash`ari al-Qummi from `Abd ar-Rahman b. Bahr from `Abdullah b. Sinan from Ibn Muskan from Abu Basir from Abu `Abdillah Ja`far b. Muhammad (as).

He said: Fatima عليها السلام was born on the twentieth of Jumadi al-Akhira (in) the forty fifth year after the birth of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم and resided in Makka eight years and in Madina ten years and after the death of her father seventy five days. And she passed away in Jumadi ‘l-Akhira (on) third day (i.e. Tuesday) on the third from it, (in) the eleventh year after the Hijra. And the reason for her death was that Qanfadha, the client of the man, jabbed her with the na`l of the sword (the iron or silver thing (shoe)at the lower end at the scabbard) by his command, so she miscarried Muhsin and became ill from that with an intense illness. And she did not allow anyone of those who had hurt her to enter upon her. And two men from the companions of the Prophet asked Amir al-Mu’mineen to intercede for them, so he asked her and she responded. And when they entered in upon her they said to her: How are you O daughter of the Messenger of Allah. So she said: By good, praise be to Allah. Then she said to them: Have you (two) not heard from the Prophet (him) saying “Fatima is a piece (of flesh) of me, so whoever hurts (annoys, troubles, wrongs, harms) her then he has hurt me. And whoever hurts me, then he has hurt Allah.” They said: Yea. She said: By Allah, you have hurt me. So they went out from her and she was angry at them.

عن محمد بن يحيى، عن العمركي بن علي، عن علي بن جعفر، عن أخيه، عن أبي الحسن (ع):‏"إِنَّ فَاطِمَةَ ( عليها السلام ) صِدِّيقَةٌ شَهِيدَةٌ وَ إِنَّ بَنَاتِ الْأَنْبِيَاءِ لَا يَطْمَثْنَ ‏

From Muhammad b. Yahya from al-`Amraki b. `Ali from `Ali b. Ja`far from his brother from Abu 'l-Hasan (as) "Verily Fatima عليها السلام is a siddiqa shahida, and verily the daughters of the prophets do not menstruate."

Now as to the first, one might say isn't this different than the popular story? Thus pointing out that there are different versions of the story that appear to contradict. Possibly, however it's disingenuous to go from that to then saying well the accounts differ, so I'll just put a big question mark on the whole thing (thereby implying strongly you don't believe it happened). If that was how history worked, we'd be throwing out a lot more than that. If it's a report with an acceptable transmission in its narration one wants to go by, well there you go, use the version above. The above report looks pretty solid in its transmission without the questions surrounding it like Kitab Sulaym. And apart from the details, the basic fact of her oppression and the blame of it resting squarely on certain personalities is a very clear fact of history. The story of Karbala also has different reports in some of its details, but that doesn't mean we turn around and question whether it ever happened and start speaking favorably about Yazid.

As to Ibn al-Ghada'iri, I don't agree with the rejection of it in toto and do consider to be an authentic work, however neither do I think it (or any book of rijal for that matter) is infallible in its assessments. It's a work to consider, but isn't the final word on these matters. The irony though as I've pointed out before in discussions with Jondab on this site, is that if one is going to rely on it in order to discredit reports and weaken isnads, then one cannot use this argument about the supposed lack of sahih tariqas for books like Mukhtasar al-Basa'ir, Basa'ir ad-Darajat, al-Mahasin and what have you. All we have for it is Ibn Tawwus saying he found it in a book, _no_ tariqa being mentioned. So if that's fine to use and rely on, with no tariqa, how can one then turn around and reject these other works on such a basis?