Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
Çåá ÇáÈíÊ

Why Don't Sunnis Believe In Hadeeth Kisa' ?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

They Do believe in it just they imply different implications

they also believe that the prophet raised Alis hand and said : whoever i was his mawla now ali is his mawla

but once again they give it a different Taweel and different implication

the reason is because the usool aldeen is different and their thought system is structured differently

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe because.....

Question: Concerning your answer about Hadith Al-Kisaa, you said that it is not authentic in its details … while, this Hadith is being narrated in some countries before every Husaini gathering and in many other religious occasions. Should it be left out because it is not authentic?

Answer: Caution towards some details which comprise some wrong concepts should be taken because they may lead to what is not legitimate.

Ayatollah Fadlullah

http://english.bayyn.../qa.aspx?id=112

Edited by Ugly Jinn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What hadith do you have in mind when you say hadith al-kisa? The long one popular with Shias (which is refered to in the answer given by Sayyid Fadlallah), or the shorter one that Sunnis also have in their books?

The short version goes something like:

Sahih Muslim, Book 31, hadith 5955

'A'isha reported that Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) went out one norning wearing a striped cloak of the black camel's hair that there came Hasan b. 'Ali. He wrapped him under it, then came Husain and he wrapped him under it along with the other one (Hasan). Then came Fatima and he took her under it, then came 'Ali and he also took him under it and then said: Allah only desires to take away any uncleanliness from you, O people of the household, and purify you (thorough purifying)

The long one, I'm sure you are familiar with, but it may not be entirely authentic, as Sayyid Fadlallah's response indicates. Of course, that doesn't stop people believing in it based on the fact that 'it works', and 'it sounds right', but that is a personal decision.

Edited by Haider Husayn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you serious? ... Hadeeth Kisa' is doubted for its authenticity? Doesn't it have strong chains? I'm talking about the long one with the details, of course.

I don't really care what Fadhlallah said, because he was deviant in his own way, but i just wonder what would make a 'scholar' doubt it, as well as some Shia, i'm shocked. Can someone explain? Haider Husayn, what makes you doubt its authenticity? This narration is the stronghold of the Shia faith.

Or is the narration authentic, but that some people "think that it doesn't sound right"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

(bismillah)

Can someone explain? Haider Husayn, what makes you doubt its authenticity? This narration is the stronghold of the Shia faith.

Stronghold of the Shia faith? The first mention of this du`aa is found in al-Awaalim. The author of this book died in the early 12th century AH, so for 1000+ years the Shee`ah were lacking the "stronghold" of their faith?

(salam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Umm, the short version tells us everything we need to know. What is missing of importance? As for the long version, I'm certainly no expert, but I don't think it has strong chains at all. You might want to ask Nader Zaveri about this, but according to him, the hadith isn't present in any major Shia books (and nobody seems to dispute that). You might want to read the thread or the first half-page anyway.

It doesn't seem that the defences of the authenticity of the long version of the hadith are based on anything very concrete, rather more subjective factors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

(bismillah)

The event of the cloak is 100% established through Sunni and Shee`ah books, but the infamous du`aa that people recite all the time (which can be found here: http://www.duas.org/hadis-e-kisa.htm).This one is unknown, and no recorded in any major hadeeth book, or du`aa book for 1000 years. Even `Abbaas al-Qummi didn't insert Hadeeth al-Kisaa in his MifaateeH al-Jinaan. If you have a copy of MifaateeH al-Jinaan and it has Hadeeth al-Kisaa', then that is an insertion by the publishers and editors, and not of the compiler, `Abbaas al-Qummi.

But the actual event of the cloak is 100% established, I have posted a SaHeeH (Authentic) hadeeth on my blog showing where the later A'immahs referred to the 5 ahlul bayt as "asHaab al-Kisaa'" (companions of the cloak). Click here: http://www.revivingalislam.com/2010/11/ahaadeeth-on-verse-of-muwaddah-in.html

(salam)

Edited by Nader Zaveri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

(bismillah)

Stronghold of the Shia faith? The first mention of this du`aa is found in al-Awaalim. The author of this book died in the early 12th century AH, so for 1000+ years the Shee`ah were lacking the "stronghold" of their faith?

(salam)

I was watching a Sunni and a convert from Islam to Christianity debating the Preservation of the Holy Quran. The convert destroyed the Sunni based on Tarif in Sahih Sitta.

The Sunni didn't know the two track how was the Quran was preserved. The first and the foremost is the memorization, and this track takes precedent over the written track. The Quran is still till today preserved based on the oral track and the memorization.

The written was not complete long after the death of the Prophet, around 70 years after his death. The Usman codex was unreadable, if one hadn't memorized the Quran, becuase it didn't contain the harakat.

Only stupid people base their religion on written track only.

Sahih Bukhari didn't sit down to write his book until 200 years later after the death of the Prophet. And, where did he get all these hadiths from, if not from memory.

Only stupid people base their religion on written track only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't really care what Fadhlallah said, because he was deviant in his own way

Whoa! You may disagree with him but using the word 'deviant' is wrong.

The event of the cloak is 100% established through Sunni and Shee`ah books, but the infamous du`aa that people recite all the time (which can be found here: http://www.duas.org/hadis-e-kisa.htm).This one is unknown, and no recorded in any major hadeeth book, or du`aa book for 1000 years. Even `Abbaas al-Qummi didn't insert Hadeeth al-Kisaa in his MifaateeH al-Jinaan. If you have a copy of MifaateeH al-Jinaan and it has Hadeeth al-Kisaa', then that is an insertion by the publishers and editors, and not of the compiler, `Abbaas al-Qummi.

But the actual event of the cloak is 100% established, I have posted a SaHeeH (Authentic) hadeeth on my blog showing where the later A'immahs referred to the 5 ahlul bayt as "asHaab al-Kisaa'" (companions of the cloak). Click here: http://www.revivinga...uwaddah-in.htm

Not to get technical, but there is no such thing as 100% guaranteed authenticity Hadith/Tradition. Only Quran is 100%.

Fallible Hadiths can only be rated, no fallible can give 100% seal of authenticity.

Edited by Ugly Jinn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was watching a Sunni and a convert from Islam to Christianity debating the Preservation of the Holy Quran. The convert destroyed the Sunni based on Tarif in Sahih Sitta.

Was that between Bassam Zawadi and Nabeel Qureshi? Qureshi is not a convert from Islam, he used to be a Qadiani. I don't really think Zawadi got destroyed either, but maybe I don't look at things in such a biased fashion as you do.

The Sunni didn't know the two track how was the Quran was preserved. The first and the foremost is the memorization, and this track takes precedent over the written track. The Quran is still till today preserved based on the oral track and the memorization.

Right, Sunnis don't know that one of the strongest arguments in favour of the preservation of the Qur'an is its memorization. Are you serious? I'm pretty sure everyone knows this, and I have seen many Sunnis make this argument.

The written was not complete long after the death of the Prophet, around 70 years after his death. The Usman codex was unreadable, if one hadn't memorized the Quran, becuase it didn't contain the harakat.

How does a lack of harakat make Arabic unreadable? People seem to manage it fine these days. Maybe you meant ijam, but even then I think they could manage it back then, even if it was difficult.

Only stupid people base their religion on written track only.

Sahih Bukhari didn't sit down to write his book until 200 years later after the death of the Prophet. And, where did he get all these hadiths from, if not from memory.

Only stupid people base their religion on written track only.

Umm yes, but aren't you always pointing out how unreliable Bukhari is? Plus, when a narration is really long, it kind of makes it more unlikely to be transmitted properly, particularly over 1000 years, wouldn't you say?

Edited by Haider Husayn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was that between Bassam Zawadi and Nabeel Qureshi? Qureshi is not a convert from Islam, he used to be a Qadiani. I don't really think Zawadi got destroyed either, but maybe I don't look at things in such a biased fashion as you do.

No one challenged in the debate that he was not a convert from Islam. You are the first one to say as such.

Right, Sunnis don't know that one of the strongest arguments in favour of the preservation of the Qur'an is its memorization. Are you serious? I'm pretty sure everyone knows this, and I have seen many Sunnis make this argument.

Did Bassam Zawadi make this arguement?

How does a lack of harakat make Arabic unreadable? People seem to manage it fine these days. Maybe you meant ijam, but even then I think they could manage it back then, even if it was difficult.

I meant the complete grammar which is lacking in the Usman codex and Sana findings. No one can read these Quran, unless memorized. They managed it because they had memorized it. To memorize, you don't have to be literate. The Prophet opened bunch of madrasas in his lifetime for tons of Muslims to memorize the Holy Quran. Quran doesn't need to be managed, it has to be read 100% perfectly.

Umm yes, but aren't you always pointing out how unreliable Bukhari is? Plus, when a narration is really long, it kind of makes it more unlikely to be transmitted properly, particularly over 1000 years, wouldn't you say?

On the contrary, for 1000+ you heard it in your household, you heard it in majilis, your heard it on most of the Shai occasions. Over and over heard it, memorized it for 1000+ just like the hafiz al-Quran.

Only stupid people base their religion on written track only.

And, the hadiths books were compiled from where esle but the memory. Some two hundred years later after the death of the Prophet (pbuh).

Edited by aladdin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Questions:

1. For those who doubt the narration of Kisa' - you would be rejecting: that Imam Ali said "w fazu shi3tna w rabb il ka'ba", also that the entire universe was created out of love of the five under the cloak, also that Jibrail joined the Five Pure ones under the cloak etc etc... I mean, come on, who would make all of this up? Its already been 100% established that they did go under the cloak and were purified, so why would someone lie about the details? Just to spice it up? I dont think so..

2. Furthermore, you're indirectly stating that we are narrating a lie in every shia mosque. Isn't that eligible for punishment in the afterlife?

3. What do mainstream scholars, such as the likes of Sayed Sistani, say about hadeeth al kisa'?

4. I don't wish to divert the topic, but i'd just liked to know, what if we had no hadeeth or what if we suddenly realized that majority of all narrations are fabrications and unreliable... where would this leave Islam, particularly Shia Islam? Because Quran is just a foundation, a reference book if you will, and it's not enough. It has a verse 33:33 but we have to expound the inner details., through hadeeths...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one challenged in the debate that he was not a convert from Islam. You are the first one to say as such.

People have in other debates.

Did Bassam Zawadi make this arguement?

I don't remember. Even if he didn't, he is certainly aware of it. Probably he has even written something on it.

I meant the complete grammar which is lacking in the Usman codex and Sana findings. No one can read these Quran, unless memorized. They managed it because they had memorized it. To memorize, you don't have to be literate. The Prophet opened bunch of madrasas in his lifetime for tons of Muslims to memorize the Holy Quran. Quran doesn't need to be managed, it has to be read 100% perfectly.

Clearly something went wrong then, since we have at least 10 different qiraat of the Qur'an, and there were 7 different ahruf that were reduced to 1 by Uthman. Even given our belief that there is only one correct reading, clearly lany others arose despite all the memorisation.

On the contrary, for 1000+ you heard it in your household, you heard it in majilis, your heard it on most of the Shai occasions. Over and over heard it, memorized it for 1000+ just like the hafiz al-Quran.

Ok, and people wrote loads of other short hadiths down in books, but for some reason decided not to write this really important long one?

Only stupid people base their religion on written track only.

So what oral tradition are you going by now? I hope you aren't only relying on what is written down, because clearly that would make you an idiot.

And, the hadiths books were compiled from where esle but the memory. Some two years later after the death of the Prophet (pbuh).

Two years after the death of the Prophet (pbuh)? Where did you get that from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

(bismillah)

Here is what `Abbaas al-Qummi said about Hadeeth al-Kisaa':

ÃãÇ ÍÏíË ÇáßÓÇÁ ÇáãÚÑæÝ ÚäÏäÇ ÇáÂä ÝÅäå áã íæÑÏ Ýí ÇáßÊÈ ÇáãÚÑæÝÉ ÇáãÚÊÈÑÉ æÝí ÃÕæá ÇáÍÏíË æÇáãÌÇãÚ ÇáãÊÞäÉ ááãÍÏËíä ¡

"As for hadeeth al-Kisaa’ that is famous among us now, it is NOT mention in the recognized and established books and in the usool of hadeeth and compilations elaborated by the muhaditheen."

Source:

  • Abbaas al-Qummi, Muntaha al-Amaal fee Tawaareekh al-Nabi wa al-Laal (Qum: Mu'assasah al-Nashr al-Islaamiyyah, 5th Edition, 1422 AH), vol. 1, pg. 788

(salam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't wish to divert the topic, but i'd just liked to know, what if we had no hadeeth or what if we suddenly realized that majority of all narrations are fabrications and unreliable... where would this leave Islam, particularly Shia Islam? Because Quran is just a foundation, a reference book if you will, and it's not enough. It has a verse 33:33 but we have to expound the inner details., through hadeeths...

The hadiths can be two tracks memorization and written, just like the Holy Quran. Written Quran was not complete until 70 years later after the death of the Prophet (pbuh), and this was based on the memorization. Hadiths were written down at least 200 years later after the death of the Prophet from memory and nothing else.

Till today memorization hafiz al-Quran takes precedent over the written. If tomorrow the Saudi Government slowly, slowly started changing the Holy Quran, wh have hafiz al-Quran. Also, the hadiths follow the two tracks, memorization and written.

Only the nincompoops believe in the written track only. In the first place the written track for both Quran and Hadiths is from memory only.

Both the Usman codex and Sana findings, don't have dots for the letters and the complete grammar.

For us to understand what is being discussed above, we will look at an Arabic words and how the use of dots above and below affect them:

The word for “girl” is “bint”. The word is composed of three letters which are “B”, “N”, and “T". When these three letters are connected to each other without dots they will appear identical. They will look like three adjacent crescents facing upwards. The difference between them is nothing. Only the dots can differentiate between them. Here is how is works:

  • If you put one dot below any one of them, it's "B"
  • If you put two dots below any one of them, it's "Y"
  • If you put one dot above any one of them, it's "N"
  • If you put two dots above any one of them, it's "T"
  • If you put three dots above any one of them, it's "Th"

Therefore, there are a multitude of possible alternatives that could arise from the arrangements of dots on each of the letters. Now add to the Diacritics marks on the word, "bint" above. The is Diacritics short vowel, which also has to be shown properly.

Both the Sana Codex and the Uthman (Usman) Codex doesn't have either the dots above the letters, below the letters and add to that, it didn't have Arabic Diacritics.

See here for Arabic Diacritics: http://en.wikipedia....abic_diacritics

Only the nincompoops believe in the written track only. In the first place the written track for both Quran and Hadiths is from memory only.

Edited by aladdin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice Nader.

1. For those who doubt the narration of Kisa' - you would be rejecting: that Imam Ali said "w fazu shi3tna w rabb il ka'ba",
Here is what `Abbaas al-Qummi said about Hadeeth al-Kisaa':

أما حديث الكساء المعروف عندنا الآن فإنه لم يورد في الكتب المعروفة المعتبرة وفي أصول الحديث والمجامع المتقنة للمحدثين ،

"As for hadeeth al-Kisaa’ that is famous among us now, it is NOT mention in the recognized and established books and in the usool of hadeeth and compilations elaborated by the muhaditheen."

Source:

Abbaas al-Qummi, Muntaha al-Amaal fee Tawaareekh al-Nabi wa al-Laal (Qum: Mu'assasah al-Nashr al-Islaamiyyah, 5th Edition, 1422 AH), vol. 1, pg. 788

In fact, it comes from a book called nafasul mehmoom - heres the website http://www.maaref-fo...h/index.htmvery good book. Talks about the tragedies of the third Holy Imam عليه السلام

Ahlul Bayt (poster) used Abbaas al-Qummi in another thread to validate a tradition. Now the same author is rejecting his Hadith e Kisa post. What a conundrum ain't it Ahlul Bayt (Poster). ^_^

(http://www.shiachat....ost__p__2265489

Edited by Ugly Jinn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

(bismillah)

Here is what `Abbaas al-Qummi said about Hadeeth al-Kisaa':

أما حديث الكساء المعروف عندنا الآن فإنه لم يورد في الكتب المعروفة المعتبرة وفي أصول الحديث والمجامع المتقنة للمحدثين ،

"As for hadeeth al-Kisaa’ that is famous among us now, it is NOT mention in the recognized and established books and in the usool of hadeeth and compilations elaborated by the muhaditheen."

Source:

  • Abbaas al-Qummi, Muntaha al-Amaal fee Tawaareekh al-Nabi wa al-Laal (Qum: Mu'assasah al-Nashr al-Islaamiyyah, 5th Edition, 1422 AH), vol. 1, pg. 788

(salam)

I watched a show on TV, where Ayatollah Syed Hyderi showed two different printings within short period of time of the same book written by kabeth ibn Taymiyyah. The wordings were different. There is lots of fishy stuff goes on in printing, online unverified books and online fatwas.

Lord Botta (Farid) was caught red handed.

Only the nincompoops believe in the written track only. In the first place the written track for both Quran and Hadiths is from memory only.

Shias take your deen from Marjas and not from those who don't know Arabic language but are online reviving Islam.

Edited by aladdin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except when the marjas say that a 9 year old girl is baligh, right?

Who denies that a 9 years old is not baligh. You are argumentative, please quit being argumentative. And, please don't hijack the thread so that you can be argumentative.

You win and I lose. Now will you stop being argumentative.

Edited by aladdin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice Nader.

Ahlul Bayt (poster) used Abbaas al-Qummi in another thread to validate a tradition. Now the same author is rejecting his Hadith e Kisa post. What a conundrum ain't it Ahlul Bayt (Poster).

:-[ well that is a conundrum, indeed, BUT he didnt say that Hadeeth Kisa' isn't authentic, did he?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

(bismillah)

:-[ well that is a conundrum, indeed, BUT he didnt say that Hadeeth Kisa' isn't authentic, did he?

Him saying this, and then not including it in his book of du`aa shows that he didn't think it was authentic. And when scholars say "this isn't mentioned in the reliable books", it is saying that particular thing is not authentic.

(salam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

(bismillah)

Him saying this, and then not including it in his book of du`aa shows that he didn't think it was authentic. And when scholars say "this isn't mentioned in the reliable books", it is saying that particular thing is not authentic.

(salam)

I think you are confusing people here, and hopefully it is not intentional.

1. Are you saying that hadith al-Kisa is not authentic?

2. Or, the long version of hadith al-Kisa is not authentic?

3. Or, both the above are not authentic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

(bismillah)

I think you are confusing people here, and hopefully it is not intentional.

1. Are you saying that hadith al-Kisa is not authentic?

2. Or, the long version of hadith al-Kisa is not authentic?

3. Or, both the above are not authentic?

Ugh, no one is confusing anybody. Please read my first post in this topic, it'll clear up your "confusion". This whole topic is about the LONG Hadeeth al-Kisaa' found here: http://www.duas.org/hadis-e-kisa.htm

(salam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

(bismillah)

Ugh, no one is confusing anybody. Please read my first post in this topic, it'll clear up your "confusion". This whole topic is about the LONG Hadeeth al-Kisaa' found here: http://www.duas.org/hadis-e-kisa.htm

(salam)

Thank you.

1. So, when was the long version first ever recorded in the Hadith books?

2. Or, it is never recorded?

3. Was it recited verbally through memorization in the majlisses, at home, at Shia occasions? (keeping in mind that both Quran and Hadiths are recorded from memory. Especially, the hadiths from memory only).

4. If yes, when it was first recited verbally through memorization in the majlisses, at home, at Shia occasions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

(bismillah)

Here is what `Abbaas al-Qummi said about Hadeeth al-Kisaa':

أما حديث الكساء المعروف عندنا الآن فإنه لم يورد في الكتب المعروفة المعتبرة وفي أصول الحديث والمجامع المتقنة للمحدثين ،

"As for hadeeth al-Kisaa’ that is famous among us now, it is NOT mention in the recognized and established books and in the usool of hadeeth and compilations elaborated by the muhaditheen."

Source:

  • Abbaas al-Qummi, Muntaha al-Amaal fee Tawaareekh al-Nabi wa al-Laal (Qum: Mu'assasah al-Nashr al-Islaamiyyah, 5th Edition, 1422 AH), vol. 1, pg. 788

(salam)

Now, the above says, "As for hadeeth al-Kisaa’ that is famous among us now, it is NOT MENTION in the recognized and established books and in the usool of hadeeth and compilations elaborated by the muhaditheen."

Show me where it says, it is NOT SAHIH?

If it is NOT MENTION can you guarantee that it was not recited verbally through memorization in the majlisses, at home, at Shia occasions? (keeping in mind that both Quran and Hadiths are recorded from memory. Especially, the hadiths from memory only).

The event of the cloak is 100% established through Sunni and Shee`ah books, but the infamous du`aa that people recite all the time (which can be found here: http://www.duas.org/hadis-e-kisa.htm).This one is unknown, and no recorded in any major hadeeth book, or du`aa book for 1000 years.

Where do you think the hadiths were recorded from if not from memory. Doesn't mean if it was not recorded for 1000 years, that people didn't recite the dua at their homes, at majilis and at Shia occasion. Doesn't mean if it wasn't recorded for 1000 years it is NOT SAHIH.

Ahlul Bayt (poster) used Abbaas al-Qummi in another thread to validate a tradition. Now the same author is rejecting his Hadith e Kisa post. What a conundrum ain't it Ahlul Bayt (Poster). ^_^

(http://www.shiachat....ost__p__2265489

Keep on twisting and turning, twisting and turning. It doesn't say it is NOT SAHIH, it only says it NOT MENTION.

Keep on REVIVING ISLAM.

Keep on, Reviving Al-Islaam by the Qur'aan and Sunnah

Edited by aladdin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

(bismillah)

Where do you think the hadiths were recorded from if not from memory. Doesn't mean if it was not recorded for 1000 years, that people didn't recite the dua at their homes, at majilis and at Shia occasion. Doesn't mean if it wasn't recorded for 1000 years it is NOT SAHIH.

Unfortunately, you know nothing about Shee`ah hadeeth. Our hadeeth were not orally transmitted, but were written in works by the companions of the Imaams themselves, called Asl (pl. is Usool). And our hadeeth compilations are composed of those Usool books. There are different numbers to the Usool books, the majority opinion is that there were 400 Usool works.

`Abbaas al-Qummi said it is not mentioned in the books, that is how scholars weaken a hadeeth. This is the same wording scholars use to weakened Khutbah al-Bayyaan. Also, him not adding Hadeeth al-Kisaa' in his Mifaateeh al-Jinaan also shows that he thought the hadeeth was weak.

The chain of transmission that is being shown about Hadeeth al-Kisaa' is a full oral transmission that spans a 1000 years. And last time I checked, isn't that the biggest problem you have with hadeeth, oral transmission?

(salam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unfortunately, you know nothing about Shee`ah hadeeth. Our hadeeth were not orally transmitted, but were written in works by the companions of the Imaams themselves, called Asl (pl. is Usool). And our hadeeth compilations are composed of those Usool books. There are different numbers to the Usool books, the majority opinion is that there were 400 Usool works.

So all the Usool traditions were written down while the Imams were alive?

The chain of transmission that is being shown about Hadeeth al-Kisaa' is a full oral transmission that spans a 1000 years. And last time I checked, isn't that the biggest problem you have with hadeeth, oral transmission?

Yes. But isn't it a common occurrence to have oral transmission somewhere in the chain like "I heard person x saying....."?

Edited by Ugly Jinn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, you know nothing about Shee`ah hadeeth. Our hadeeth were not orally transmitted, but were written in works by the companions of the Imaams themselves, called Asl (pl. is Usool). And our hadeeth compilations are composed of those Usool books. There are different numbers to the Usool books, the majority opinion is that there were 400 Usool works.

1. Do you have all the 400 of these so called, usool?

2. How did the companions of the Imam compiled them, wrote them at the same time the Imam narrated it to them, or some of them wrote it later from memory?

`Abbaas al-Qummi said it is not mentioned in the books, that is how scholars weaken a hadeeth. This is the same wording scholars use to weakened Khutbah al-Bayyaan. Also, him not adding Hadeeth al-Kisaa' in his Mifaateeh al-Jinaan also shows that he thought the hadeeth was weak.

1. According to you, he didn't include because he thought that the hadith was weak, is that correct?

2. Or, are you assuming the above?

3. One can also assume that the hadith is so long, that he didn't include because he couldn't verify some of the words?

4. Did he include all the hadiths written in the 400 usool in his book?

5. If not, then does that mean those he didn't include were weak hadiths too?

The chain of transmission that is being shown about Hadeeth al-Kisaa' is a full oral transmission that spans a 1000 years. And last time I checked, isn't that the biggest problem you have with hadeeth, oral transmission?

No it is not the oral transmission. It is someone like Mr. Bukhari making himself a God accepting or rejecting hadiths based on one person, one witness transmission, where as the Holy Quran requires two witnesses.

The long version of Hadith al-Kisa is recited in many Shias home, in Majlisis, in Shia occasions with lots of witnesses. If it is not recorded doesn't mean it is NOT SAHIH.

Maybe, it was even recited at occasions where the Imams (as) were present.

Yes. But isn't it a common occurrence to have oral transmission somewhere in the chain like "I heard person x saying....."?

Here is how you and Mr. Zaveri are wrong. It is not like any hadith which a chain ike "I heard person x saying....."

The hadith al-Kisa was narrated and recited in umpteen Shia homes, in majilis and in Shia gatherings. It is like the transmission of the Holy Quran, which is narrated and recited in umpteen Muslims homes, in majilis and in Muslims gatherings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*facepalm*

This question was orginally being fired at sunnis... and now some Shia are saying hadeeth al Kisa' is not authentic. Unbelievable.

1. For those who doubt the narration of Kisa' - you would be rejecting: that Imam Ali said "w fazu shi3tna w rabb il ka'ba", also that the entire universe was created out of love of the five under the cloak, also that Jibrail joined the Five Pure ones under the cloak etc etc... I mean, come on, who would make all of this up? Its already been 100% established that they did go under the cloak and were purified, so why would someone lie about the details? Just to spice it up? I dont think so..

2. Furthermore, you're indirectly stating that we are narrating a lie in every shia mosque. Isn't that eligible for punishment in the afterlife?

3. What do mainstream scholars, such as the likes of Sayed Sistani, say about hadeeth al kisa'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*facepalm*

This question was orginally being fired at sunnis... and now some Shia are saying hadeeth al Kisa' is not authentic. Unbelievable.

1. For those who doubt the narration of Kisa' - you would be rejecting: that Imam Ali said "w fazu shi3tna w rabb il ka'ba", also that the entire universe was created out of love of the five under the cloak, also that Jibrail joined the Five Pure ones under the cloak etc etc... I mean, come on, who would make all of this up? Its already been 100% established that they did go under the cloak and were purified, so why would someone lie about the details? Just to spice it up? I dont think so..

2. Furthermore, you're indirectly stating that we are narrating a lie in every shia mosque. Isn't that eligible for punishment in the afterlife?

3. What do mainstream scholars, such as the likes of Sayed Sistani, say about hadeeth al kisa'?

anyone willing to answer? I MUST REACH A CONCLUSION. A CLOSURE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I'll give it a go.

*facepalm*

This question was orginally being fired at sunnis... and now some Shia are saying hadeeth al Kisa' is not authentic. Unbelievable.

1. For those who doubt the narration of Kisa' - you would be rejecting: that Imam Ali said "w fazu shi3tna w rabb il ka'ba", also that the entire universe was created out of love of the five under the cloak, also that Jibrail joined the Five Pure ones under the cloak etc etc... I mean, come on, who would make all of this up? Its already been 100% established that they did go under the cloak and were purified, so why would someone lie about the details? Just to spice it up? I dont think so..

I think this would depend on whether or not these other details can be found in other ahadith. As for who would make this stuff up, I hope you aren't serious. There are all kinds of people that would be willing to make up anything for a variety of reasons. There are people who think Imam Ali (as) is God, and you don't think there are people willing to make a few embellishments to a hadith? What about the stories of Jinn fighting with Imam Husayn (as) at Karbala, we could also ask who would make such things up, but almost certainly they did.

2. Furthermore, you're indirectly stating that we are narrating a lie in every shia mosque. Isn't that eligible for punishment in the afterlife?

Not necessarily. Even if someone think the hadith is not authentic, it doesn't mean their opinion is correct with complete certainty. There is always some chance it is authentic. Or they could just be falt out wrong.

The people recititing it presumably believe it is authentic, so even if it isn't so, they can't be accused of lying.

3. What do mainstream scholars, such as the likes of Sayed Sistani, say about hadeeth al kisa'?

I don't know if anyone asked. If I had to guess I would say that they probably accept it, but even if he didn't, I doubt they would say anything. A marja denying that hadith would have serious implications with the general Shia public. Many of them already get upset by relatively minor issues of fiqh like whether or not gelatine is haraam. Then you have the whole reaction to the fatwas against tatbir. And yes, I am saying that I believe scholars sometimes keep their views on certain issues to themselves for fear of the public reaction.

By the way, I should say that personally I like the hadith, and don't have a problem with it being recited. I just wouldn't use it as the core of my faith or as any kind of proof seeing as at the very least there are some questions surrounding it.

What I don't quite understand is why this is such a big deal. What is so important about the long hadith compared to the short one that it makes all the difference whether or not it is authentic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...