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

Tragedy Of Zahra [as]

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Veteran Member

(bismillah)

(salam)

salvation

Could you please refer to the mu`tabar Shi`i reports of this incident?

Could you also explain why the qarina that, excepting this case, the b sinan who narrates from b muskan is muhammad b sinan does not give us a reason to believe that the copy of the original source - dalail al imama - did not undergo naskh?

Shukran.

Afwan for the delay.

I personally think that the first hadith is the best candidate for the incident in terms of Sanad.

Fadhlallah interprets the second Hadith [after accepting it] as meaning that Fatima [as] has been given the Daraja of Shahada [being witness] to the Ummah on the day of judgement, and not as her being a martyr.

There are no Mu'tabar Riwayah that I know of that prove or disprove this incident, apart from what is under discussion.

Since at-Tabariy narrates it twice in his Dalail, and both times he is explict that it is Abdallah from Ibn Muskan, then I agree with scholars like al-Mamaqani and at-Tabrizi that it is a case of Abdallah b. Sinan narrating from Ibn Muskan.

If it was just Ibn Sinan without specification it would return to Muhammad due to the establishment of his narration from Ibn Muskan, but since this is not the case and the source is explicit in that it is Abdallah - I see no reason for calling it a Naskh issue in Dalail, the chain being Shadh [in that we do not have occurences of Abdallah b. Sinan > Ibn Muskan in other sources, rather the reverse is true] is not reason enough for it being proved a fabrication .

As for showing examples of Saghir narrating from Kabir, or the chain sometimes reversing itself [two contemporaries taking from each other - sometimes this one narrates from that and other times the opposite], or a Thiqah narrating just once from another Thiqah, these are cases that are proven, and examples will follow, as I am collecting them.

Edited by Islamic Salvation
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Also, I think al-Najashi''s ÑÖí Çááå Úäå tarahhum may be definite tahseen or tawtheeq - he seems to give it to his mashayikh (thiqat) and to big big people like Aban b. Taghlib ÑÖí Çááå Úäå. Hmm...

It is true that an-Najashi gives Taradhi (ÑÖí Çááå Úäå) to Thiqah Mashayikh and other big people, but in this case he gives Tarrahum

(ÑÍãå Çááå ÊÚÇáì) [and not Taradhi] to Abu al-Husayn Muhammad b. Harun b. Musa at-Talaukbariy, and this is a crucial point.

Now one may ask, what is the difference between the two?, are they both not indicators of Tahsin and Tawthiq if coming from an-Najashi, but some have questioned whether Tarrahum serves this purpose, and they limit it only to his Taradhi, and the evidence they bring forward for this is as follows.

an-Najashi says in his Tarjama of Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Abdallah b. al-Husayn b. Abbas (or Ayyash) al-Jawahiriy, the following:

ßÇä ÓãÚ ÇáÍÏíË ÝÃßËÑ æÇÖØÑÈ Ýí ÂÎÑ ÚãÑå.. ÑÃíÊ åÐÇ ÇáÔíÎ æßÇä ÕÏíÞÇð áí æáæÇáÏí¡ æÓãÚÊ ãäå ÔíÆÇð ßËíÑÇð¡ æÑÃíÊ ÔíæÎäÇ íÖÚÝæäå¡ Ýáã ÃÑæ Úäå ÔíÆÇð æÊÌäÈÊå¡ æßÇä ãä Ãåá ÇáÚáã æÇáÃÏÈ ÇáÞæí¡ æØíÈ ÇáÔÚÑ¡ æÍÓä ÇáÎØ ÑÍãå Çááå æÓÇãÍå

"He heard the Hadith so he increased in that [hearing them], and he became confused at the end of his life, ....., I saw this Shaykh, and he was a friend to me and my father, and I heard from him a lot of Hadith, and I saw our Shuyukh making Tadhif of him, so I did not narrate on his authority anything, and distanced myself from him, and he was from the people of Ilm, and strict in Adab, and pleasant in poetry, and having a good handwriting, may Allah have mercy on him - and forgive him".

Now some scholars take this as evidence that an-Najashi can make Tarrahum of someone he makes Tadhif of, so him making Tarrahum on someone is not a source of Tahsin or Tawthiq, thus they limit it to an-Najashi's Taradhi, as Muslim ad-Dawiri says - he has never made Taradhi to someone he goes on to make Tadhif of but the same cannot be said of his Tarrahum.

And others who argue that his Tarrahum and Taradhi are alike point to the fact that he pairs the Tarrahum with Tasamuh [asking forgiveness] for the man in this case, and so it is a Dua, but if he just makes Tarrahum without Tasamuh [as is the case with Muhammad b. Harun in question, whose Tarrahum from an-Najashi appears in his Tarjama of Ahmad b. Muhammad b. al-Rabi] it holds weight of Tahsin or Tawthiq, just as in his Taradhi.

And the resolution of the affair is left to the serious researcher.

Edited by Islamic Salvation
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

in the second path to his Kitab an-Nawadir - Abdallah b. Ja'far [al-Himyari] [who is in the same Tabaqa as Muhammad b. Yahya as a Shaykh of al-Kulayni] narrates from him directly.

(salam)

Do you mean that Abdullah b. Jafar al-Himyari was also from the mashaykh of al-Kulayni?

w/s

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

(salam)

Do you mean that Abdullah b. Jafar al-Himyari was also from the mashaykh of al-Kulayni?

w/s

S/a

Certainly al-Kulayni met him [in his youth] and took some Ahadith from him directly, so in that sense he could be called a Shaykh of al-Kulayni.

Of course, the massive majority of the Ahadith that al-Kulayni takes from him is through a single Wasita of his Shaykh Muhammad b. Yahya al-Attar or his Shaykh Muhammad b. Abdallah b. Ja'far [al-Himyari's son], but he also heard and narrated from him directly, especially the joint book of Abdallah b. Ja'far and Sa'ad b. Abdallah on Mawalid of the Aimmah.

So technically, he is two Tabaqa's away from al-Kulayni [one away from al-Kulayni's Mashayikh], but al-Kulayni in a few Ahadith bridges that gap and narrates from him directly, and I was referring to that, and so to the definite possibility of Muhammad b. Yahya [from the Mashayikh of al-Kulayni to narrate from al-Amriki, as al-Himyari narrates from him directly in one of an-Najashi's path to al-Amriki].

Examples:

ÚÈÏÇááå Èä ÌÚÝÑ æÓÚÏ Èä ÚÈÏÇááå ÌãíÚÇ¡ Úä ÅÈÑÇåíã Èä ãåÒíÇÑ¡ Úä ÃÎíå Úáí Èä ãåÒíÇÑ¡ Úä ÇáÍÓä Èä ãÍÈæÈ¡ Úä åÔÇã Èä ÓÇáã¡ Úä ÍÈíÈ ÇáÓÌÓÊÇäí ÞÇá: ÓãÚÊ ÃÈÇ ÌÚÝÑ (Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã) íÞæá: æáÏÊ ÝÇØãÉ ÈäÊ ãÍãÏ (Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÂáå) ÈÚÏ ãÈÚË ÑÓæá Çááå ÈÎãÓ Óäíä æÊæÝíÊ æáåÇ ËãÇä ÚÔÑÉ ÓäÉ æÎãÓÉ æÓÈÚæä íæãÇ

ÓÚÏ Èä ÚÈÏÇááå¡ æÚÈÏÇááå Èä ÌÚÝÑ¡ Úä ÅÈÑÇåíã Èä ãåÒíÇÑ¡ Úä ÃÎíå Úáí [ÇÈä ãåÒíÇÑ]¡ Úä ÇáÍÓä Èä ÓÚíÏ¡ Úä ãÍãÏ Èä ÓäÇä¡ Úä ÇÈä ãÓßÇä¡ Úä ÃÈí ÈÕíÑ Úä ÃÈí ÚÈÏÇááå (Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã) ÞÇá¡ ÞÈÖ ÇáÍÓä Èä Úáí (ÚáíåãÇ ÇáÓáÇã) æåæ ÇÈä ÓÈÚ æÃÑÈÚíä ÓäÉ Ýí ÚÇã ÎãÓíä¡ ÚÇÔ ÈÚÏ ÑÓæá Çááå (Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÂáå) ÃÑÈÚíä ÓäÉ

ÓÚÏ Èä ÚÈÏÇááå æÚÈÏÇááå Èä ÌÚÝÑ ÇáÍãíÑí¡ Úä ÅÈÑÇåíã Èä ãåÒíÇÑ Úä ÃÎíå Úáí Èä ãåÒíÇÑ¡ Úä ÇáÍÓíä Èä ÓÚíÏ Úä ãÍãÏ Èä ÓäÇä¡ Úä ÇÈä ãÓßÇä¡ Úä ÃÈí ÈÕíÑ¡ Úä ÃÈí ÚÈÏÇááå (Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã) ÞÇá: ÞÈÖ Úáí Èä ÇáÍÓíä (ÚáíåãÇ ÇáÓáÇã) æåæ ÇÈä ÓÈÚ æÎãÓíä ÓäÉ¡ Ýí ÚÇã ÎãÓ æÊÓÚíä¡ ÚÇÔ ÈÚÏ ÇáÍÓíä ÎãÓÇ æËáÇËíä ÓäÉ

ÓÚÏ Èä ÚÈÏÇááå æÇáÍãíÑí ÌãíÚÇ¡ Úä ÅÈÑÇåíã Èä ãåÒíÇÑ¡ Úä ÃÎíå Úáí ÇÈä ãåÒíÇÑ¡ Úä ÇáÍÓíä Èä ÓÚíÏ¡ Úä ãÍãÏ Èä ÓäÇä¡ Úä ÇÈä ãÓßÇä¡ Úä ÃÈí ÈÕíÑ¡ Úä ÃÈí ÚÈÏÇááå (Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã) ÞÇá: ÞÈÖ ãÍãÏ Èä Úáí ÇáÈÇÞÑ æåæ ÇÈä ÓÈÚ æÎãÓíä ÓäÉ¡ Ýí ÚÇã ÃÑÈÚ ÚÔÑÉ æãÇÆÉ¡ ÚÇÔ ÈÚÏ Úáí Èä ÇáÍÓíä (ÚáíåãÇ ÇáÓáÇã) ÊÓÚ ÚÔÑÉ ÓäÉ æÔåÑíä

ÓÚÏ Èä ÚÈÏÇááå æÚÈÏÇááå Èä ÌÚÝÑ ÌãíÚÇ¡ Úä ÅÈÑÇåíã Èä ãåÒíÇÑ¡ Úä ÃÎíå Úáí Èä ãåÒíÇÑ¡ Úä ÇáÍÓíä Èä ÓÚíÏ¡ Úä ãÍãÏ Èä ÓäÇä¡ Úä ÇÈä ãÓßÇä¡ Úä ÃÈí ÈÕíÑ ÞÇá: ÞÈÖ ÃÈæÚÈÏÇááå ÌÚÝÑ Èä ãÍãÏ (ÚáíåãÇ ÇáÓáÇã) æåæ ÇÈä ÎãÓ æÓÊíä ÓäÉ¡ Ýí ÚÇã ËãÇä æÃÑÈÚíä æãÇÆÉ æÚÇÔ ÈÚÏ ÃÈí ÌÚÝÑ (Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã) ÃÑÈÚÇ æËáÇËíä ÓäÉ

ÓÚÏ Èä ÚÈÏÇááå æÚÈÏÇááå Èä ÌÚÝÑ ÌãíÚÇ¡ Úä ÅÈÑÇåíã Èä ãåÒíÇÑ¡ Úä ÃÎíå Úáí Èä ãåÒíÇÑ¡ Úä ÇáÍÓíä Èä ÓÚíÏ¡ Úä ãÍãÏ Èä ÓäÇä¡ Úä ÇÈä ãÓßÇä¡ Úä ÃÈí ÈÕíÑ ÞÇá: ÞÈÖ ãæÓì Èä ÌÚÝÑ (ÚáíåãÇ ÇáÓáÇã) æåæ ÇÈä ÃÑÈÚ æÎãÓíä ÓäÉ Ýí ÚÇã ËáÇË æËãÇäíä æãÇÆÉ. æÚÇÔ ÈÚÏ ÌÚÝÑ (Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã) ÎãÓÇ æËáÇËíä ÓäÉ

and so on ...

Edited by Islamic Salvation
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

As pointed out by brother Jondab, al-Khui considers someone being from the Mashayikh of an-Najashi to prove his Wathaqa, as it is argued that an-Najashi in some of his words establishes that he does not narrate from whom he considers Dhaif, but to establish that one was from the Mashayikh of an-Najashi he requires a condition of an-Najashi having narrated from him at least once with a Tasrih of Sam'ah, like an-Najashi saying 'Akhbaraniy' or 'Hadathaniy'.

And in this case, an-Najashi narrates from Muhammad b. Harun without Tasrih of Sam'ah, and he just says 'Qala' [refer to where this occurs in the Tarjama of Ahmad b. Muhammad b. al-Rabi'], while he uses 'Akhbarana' for his Shaykh Ahmad b. Abdul Wahid in the same passage.

ÃÍãÏ Èä ãÍãÏ Èä ÇáÑÈíÚ ÇáÃÞÑÚ ÇáßäÏí áå ßÊÇÈ äæÇÏÑ. ÃÎÈÑäÇ ÃÍãÏ Èä ÚÈÏ ÇáæÇÍÏ ÞÇá: ÍÏËäÇ Úáí Èä ãÍãÏ ÇáÞÑÔí. ÞÇá: ÍÏËäÇ Úáí Èä ÇáÍÓä Úä ÃÍãÏ Èä ãÍãÏ Èä ÇáÑÈíÚ Èå.

ÞÇá ÃÈæ ÇáÍÓíä ãÍãÏ Èä åÇÑæä Èä ãæÓì ÑÍãå Çááå: ÞÇá ÃÈí: ÞÇá ÃÈæ Úáí Èä åãÇã: ÍÏËäÇ ÚÈÏ Çááå Èä ÇáÚáÇÁ ÞÇá: ßÇä ÃÍãÏ Èä ãÍãÏ Èä ÇáÑÈíÚ ÚÇáãÇ ÈÇáÑÌÇá

There are other scholars who do not make this distinction, and they would consider Muhammad b. Harun from the Mashayikh of an-Najashi, [ref. Sayyid Bahrul-Ulum's list]

Edited by Islamic Salvation
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

So technically, he is two Tabaqa's away from al-Kulayni [one away from al-Kulayni's Mashayikh], but al-Kulayni in a few Ahadith bridges that gap and narrates from him directly, and I was referring to that, and so to the definite possibility of Muhammad b. Yahya [from the Mashayikh of al-Kulayni to narrate from al-Amriki, as al-Himyari narrates from him directly in one of an-Najashi's path to al-Amriki].

Looking at the other isnad, it seems very unlikely that al-Kulayni narrated from Abdullah b. Jafar directly without a wasitah. It seems that the isnad you mentioned in your last post are the case of 'wijadah'. I have read that scholars of rijaal don't consider Abdullah b. Jafar and even Sad b. Abdullah as direct mashaykh of al-Kulayni. Correct me if I am wrong but I think Syed al-Khoei also believed the same. He does mentions Muhammad b. Abdullah b. Jafar and Muhammad b. Yahya as the mashaykh of al-Kulayni but never said Abdullah b. Jafar as direct mashaykh of al-Kulayni.

See point 18 and 25 here in the list of names of mashaykh: http://alhawzaonline...idiye/02/05.htm

This is also interesting: http://www.al-jalali...089/manhaj2.htm pg. 203.

w/s

Edited by Jondab_Azdi
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

(bismillah)

Thiqqat al-Islam ÑÖí Çááå Úäå is from the same Tabaqah as the Mashayikh of al-Saduq ÑÖí Çááå Úäå if I'm not mistaken and they narrated directly from al-Himyari ÑÖí Çááå Úäå :

3-31 ÍÏËäÇ ãÍãÏ Èä ãæÓì Èä ÇáãÊæßá ÑÖí Çááå Úäå ÞÇá: ÍÏËäÇ ÚÈÏ Çááå Èä ÌÚÝÑ ÇáÍãíÑí¡ Úä ãÍãÏ Èä ÇáÍÓíä Èä ÃÈí ÇáÎØÇÈ ÈÇÓäÇÏå íÑÝÚå Åáì ÇáÕÇÏÞ Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã ÞÇá: ËáÇËÉ áÇ íÓáãæä: ÇáãÇÔí ãÚ ÌäÇÒÉ¡ æÇáãÇÔí Åáì ÇáÌãÚÉ¡ æÝí ÈíÊ ÇáÍãÇã.

3-32 ÍÏËäÇ ÃÈí ÑÖí Çááå Úäå ÞÇá: ÍÏËäÇ ÚÈÏ Çááå Èä ÌÚÝÑ ÇáÍãíÑí¡ Úä ÃÍãÏ Èä ÃÈí ÚÈÏ Çááå¡ Úä ÃÈíå¡ Úä ÚÈÏ Çááå Èä ÇáÝÖá ÇáäæÝáí¡ Úä ÚíÓì Èä ÚÈÏ Çááå ÇáåÇÔãí¡ Úä ÃÈí ÎÇáÏ ãÍãÏ Èä ÓáíãÇä¡ Úä ÑÌá¡ Úä ÇÈä ÇáãäßÏÑ ÈÇÓäÇÏå ÞÇá: ÞÇá ÑÓæá Çááå Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÂáå: ÎíÑßã ãä ÃØÚã ÇáØÚÇã¡ æÃÝÔì ÇáÓáÇã æÕáì æÇáäÇÓ äíÇã.

3-44 ÍÏËäÇ ãÍãÏ Èä ÇáÍÓä ÑÖí Çááå Úäå ÞÇá: ÍÏËäÇ ÚÈÏ Çááå Èä ÌÚÝÑ ÇáÍãíÑí ÞÇá: ÍÏËäí ÃÍãÏ Èä ãÍãÏ Èä ÚíÓì ÞÇá: ÍÏËäí ÃÈæíÍíì Óåíá Èä ÒíÇÏ ÇáæÇÓØí ÈÇÓäÇÏå íÑÝÚå Åáì ÃãíÑ ÇáãÄãäíä Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã ÞÇá: áÇ ÊÓÊÞÈáæÇ ÇáÔãÓ ÝÇäåÇ ãÈÎÑÉ¡ ÊÔÍÈ Çááæä æÊÈáí ÇáËæÈ¡ æÊÙåÑ ÇáÏÇÁ ÇáÏÝíä.

This is just a few examples from Khisal, there are more.

æÇááå ÃÚáã

Ýí ÇãÇä Çááå

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

These ahadith discussions are fascinating, but you guys need to get together sometime and make a post-to-be-pinned defining some of these technical Arabic terms. Would help those less versed in the field of study of rijal and sanad criticism to learn better from listening in to the discussion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Looking at the other isnad, it seems very unlikely that al-Kulayni narrated from Abdullah b. Jafar directly without a wasitah. It seems that the isnad you mentioned in your last post are the case of 'wijadah'. I have read that scholars of rijaal don't consider Abdullah b. Jafar and even Sad b. Abdullah as direct mashaykh of al-Kulayni. Correct me if I am wrong but I think Syed al-Khoei also believed the same. He does mentions Muhammad b. Abdullah b. Jafar and Muhammad b. Yahya as the mashaykh of al-Kulayni but never said Abdullah b. Jafar as direct mashaykh of al-Kulayni.

See point 18 and 25 here in the list of names of mashaykh: http://alhawzaonline...idiye/02/05.htm

This is also interesting: http://www.al-jalali...089/manhaj2.htm pg. 203.

w/s

S/a

Those in the same Tabaqah as al-Kulayni such as Ibn al-Walid, Ali b. Husayn b. Babawayh, Muhammad b. Qulawayh, the Mashayikh of Saduq (such as Ibn al-Mutawwakil, Ibn Masrur and others) all narrate from al-Himyari and Sa'ad.

Even Ja'far b. Muhammad b. Qulawayh [who narrates al-Kafi from al-Kulayni and is his student] says that he narrated at least two Hadith directly from Sa'ad.

I think al-Khui is mistaken in not including them from the Mashayikh of al-Kulayni, especially Sa'ad, unless of course his definition of Mashyakha is someone narrating alot from the other - but if it just means meeting and narrating some Ahadith then this has occured.

I personally think that in the Isnads I provided above, it is quite possible that al-Kulayni heard it from Sa'ad specifically, but included Abdallah b. Ja'far as the book was a joint collaborative effort by the two.

As for it being Wijada [that he obtained it from a written source] then we have no proof of that, as al-Kulayni does not specifiy this in his narration of it.

And as regarding him meeting and narrating from Sa'ad in specific then the case is even clearer.

Just run a search for al-Kulayni narrating directly from Sa'ad in al-Kafi, and Sa'ad narrating from someone in the second Tabaqah from al-Kulayni such as Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Isa.

Furthermore, an-Najashi says about al-Himyari ÞÏã ÇáßæÝÉ ÓäÉ äíÝ æÊÓÚíä æãÇÆÊíä

"he (al-Himyari) came to Kufah in the year two hundred and ninety something" - this is very much in the life time of al-Kulayni who died in the year 328/329.

Another indicative proof is that an-Najashi in mentioning his path to his books says

ÃÎÈÑäÇ ÚÏÉ ãä ÃÕÍÇÈäÇ¡ Úä ÃÍãÏ ÇÈä ãÍãÏ Èä íÍíì ÇáÚØÇÑ¡ Úäå ÈÌãíÚ ßÊÈå

"Narrated to us a number of our companions from Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Yahya al-Attar from him (al-Himyari) the totality of his books".

Now if Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Yahya al-Attar narrates from him, what about al-Kulayni who is the foremost student of the former's father.

Also at-Tusi in his paths to his books says

ÃÎÈÑäÇ ÈÌãíÚ ßÊÈå æÑæÇíÇÊå ÇáÔíÎ ÇáãÝíÏ ÑÍãå Çááå¡ Úä ÃÈí ÌÚÝÑ Èä ÈÇÈæíå¡ Úäå ÃÈíå æãÍãÏ Èä ÇáÍÓä¡ Úäå¡ æÃÎÈÑäÇ ÈåÇ ÇÈä ÃÈí ÌíÏ¡

Úä ÇÈä ÇáæáíÏ¡ Úäå ".

"Narrated to me the totality of his books and his narrations the Shaykh al-Mufid may Allah have mercy on him from Abi Ja'far b. Babawayh (as-Saduq) from his father (Ali b. Husayn) AND Muhammad b. al-Hasan (Ibn al-Walid) from him (al-Himyari), AND also narrated them Ibn abi Jayyid from Ibn al-Walid from him (al-Himyari)".

So if Ibn al-Walid, Ali b. Husayn b. Babawayh, Muhammad b. Qulawayh, Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Yahya al-Attar all narrate from these two paragons of Kufic Hadith in Qumm, then it is very difficult to say that al-Kulayni who is their contemporary and in their Tabaqah neglected these two sources and turned away from them.

And note that as-Saduq and Ja'far b. Muhammad who are in the Tabaqah below al-Kulayni need just one intermediary to reach them.

But seeing that al-Kulayni sometimes narrated from al-Himyari with the Wasita of Muhammad b. Yahya al-Attar and Muhammad b. Abdallah b. Ja'far (al-Himyari's son) and others - shows to me that he missed out on a lot of their Julus and sessions, and so he needed to do this i.e. use a Wasita, but this does mean not mean that he could not have narrated other Hadith from them directly [since they were definitely contemporaries], as has occured, and maybe for this reason they do not include him from the Mashayikh of al-Kulayni.

Edited by Islamic Salvation
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Ãä ÇáÙÇåÑ ÇäåãÇ áíÓÇ ãä ÇáãÔÇíÎ ÇáãÈÇÔÑííä ááßáíäí. æÐßÑåãÇ Ýí ÈÏÇíÉ ÇáÓäÏ áÇ ÈÏ ãä Íãáå Úáì ßæäå ãä ÈÇÈ ÇáÊÚáíÞ

I say that it has also been seen al-Kulayni narrating directly without Wasita from them [at least beginning his Sanad with them], even though he also does so with Wasita, and he does it with a Wasita more often than he does without, and the possible explanation for this is that he did not make Idrak of them at the height of the promulgation of their Hadith, and had to refer to a single Wasita [mainly Muhammad b. Yahya al-Attar] for the majority of their Ahadith which he narrates [which in any case are not that many], but it does not negate him narrating fewer Ahadith from them directly, as his older and younger contemporaries [in the same Tabaqah] have done in bulk.

So there is an option of interpreting it apart from making Taliq of it by saying it is Wijada, or Hadhf of intermediaries.

And it explains why they figure less in al-Kafi [with or without Wasita] than how they figure in the books of as-Saduq from his Qummi teachers.

And note that as-Saduq and Ja'far b. Muhammad [ibn Qulawayh] who are in the Tabaqah below al-Kulayni need just one intermediary to reach them, and sometimes narrate directly from them!!

How then do we then interpret the following Asanid of the narrations that begin as follows in al-Kafi:

ÓÚÏ Èä ÚÈÏÇááå¡ Úä ÃÍãÏ Èä ãÍãÏ Èä ÚíÓì¡ Úä ÇáÍÓä Èä Úáí Èä ÝÖÇá¡ Úä ÚÈÏÇááå ÈßíÑ¡ Úä ÈÚÖ ÃÕÍÇÈäÇ¡ Úä ÃÈí ÚÈÏÇááå Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã Ãäå ÓãÚå íÞæá: áãÇ ÞÈÖ ÃãíÑ ÇáãÄãäíä Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã ÃÎÑÌå ÇáÍÓä æÇáÍÓíä æÑÌáÇä ÂÎÑÇä ÍÊì ÅÐÇ ÎÑÌæÇ ãä ÇáßæÝÉ ÊÑßæåÇ Úä ÃíãÇäåã Ëã ÃÎÐæÇ Ýí ÇáÌÈÇäÉ ÍÊì ãÑæÇ Èå Åáì ÇáÛÑí ÝÏÝäæå æÓææÇ ÞÈÑå ÝÇäÕÑÝæÇ

ÓÚÏ Èä ÚÈÏÇááå¡ Úä ÃÈí ÌÚÝÑ ãÍãÏ Èä ÚãÑ Èä ÓÚíÏ¡ Úä íæäÓ Èä íÚÞæÈ Úä ÃÈí ÇáÍÓä ÇáÇæá Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã ÞÇá: ÓãÚÊå íÞæá: ÃäÇ ßÝäÊ ÃÈí Ýí ËæÈíä ÔØæííä ßÇä íÍÑã ÝíåãÇ æÝí ÞãíÕ ãä ÞãÕå æÝí ÚãÇãÉ ßÇäÊ áÚáí Èä ÇáÍÓíä ÚáíåãÇ ÇáÓáÇã æÝí ÈÑÏ ÇÔÊÑÇå ÈÃÑÈÚíä ÏíäÇÑÇ.

As opposed to

ãÍãÏ Èä íÍíì¡ Úä ÓÚÏ Èä ÚÈÏÇááå¡ Úä ãÍãÏ Èä ÚíÓì¡ Úä ÃíæÈ Èä äæÍ Ãäå ßÊÈ Åáì ÃÈí ÇáÍÓä Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã íÓÃáå Úä Çááå ÚÒæÌá ÃßÇä íÚáã ÇáÇÔíÇÁ ÞÈá Ãä ÎáÞ ÇáÇÔíÇÁ æßæäåÇ Ãæ áã íÚáã Ðáß ÍÊì ÎáÞåÇ æÃÑÇÏ ÎáÞåÇ æÊßæíäåÇ ÝÚáã ãÇ ÎáÞ ÚäÏãÇ ÎáÞ æãÇ ßæä ÚäÏ ãÇ ßæä¿ ÝæÞÚ ÈÎØå: áã íÒá Çááå ÚÇáãÇ ÈÇáÇÔíÇÁ ÞÈá Ãä íÎáÞ ÇáÇÔíÇÁ ßÚáãå ÈÇáÇÔíÇÁ ÈÚÏ ãÇ ÎáÞ ÇáÇÔíÇÁ.

Note also that most narrations that contain them without Wasita are about the topic of Wiladah and Wafat of the Imams [it is one book], so it is possible that it is the only book he narrated from them, or maybe it strengthens the Wijada argument.

Edited by Islamic Salvation
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

^^Salam brother,if you carefully read above you can see the brothers have argued so well regarding the authenticity of this incident,by analyzing Asnaad,and moreover there was an agreement of classical scholars on this incident as well.Who could verify the event better than fadulullah.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

^^Salam brother,if you carefully read above you can see the brothers have argued so well regarding the authenticity of this incident,by analyzing Asnaad,and moreover there was an agreement of classical scholars on this incident as well.Who could verify the event better than fadulullah.

Walikum salam sister first let me start by saying i have read what the brothers posted and they did an excellent job on analyzing the asnaad of the incident. When i posted the video I was being neutral and was not saying the Sayyed was right or wrong but when its all said and done the Sayyed does pose very important questions that forces us to look even deeper and some of the details of what actually went down. I dont know if you watched the video sister but the Sayyed never doubts the whole incident he says they came and they threatened but his problem is some details, hes having a hard time accepting that Imam Ali(as) stood around and did nothing when they were attacking his wife and one of the greatest women on earth. His second problem is when some one comes to the door I dont let my wife answer the door I go and answer it so the Sayyed is saying how could they allow Zahra(as) answer when half of Bani Hashem were in the house. bottom line sister and I dont what to derail this thread and im really trying to find out what really happened i dont want to believe something that has been exaggerated even la little, All the Sayyed is saying is its not forbidden to ask questions about historical issues and all hes doing is just raising questions about the incident maybe we made a mistake somewhere .

Allah knows best

Salam

I believe the aim of this thread was to discuss with narrations, not with video clips. Maybe the mods should clear out off-topic posts (including this one)

Wallahu A'lam

the aim of this thread is Tragedy of Zahra(as) and the Video talks about the tragedy of Zahra(as) and a raised questions way more important then just Hadiths and the Sayyed name was being mentioned so people have the right to know where hes coming from on this issue but if the video is going to mess up the conversation of the brothers and upset some members then I dont mind The OP deleting it and pretending it never happened.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Mocking the Prophet (saww) AND calling Imam Ali (as) a coward....and people still think that this man is part of the sect.

He never Mocked or called Imam Ali(as) a coward all he did was ask questions so people can think more into the matter .The Sayyed is not closed mined person where he allows his followers to just have blind faith and not think.

"and people still think that this man is part of the sect." So when I ask questions about Gods existence and have discussions about it does that mean I stopped believing in GodÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì.? Of course not. Don't allow yourself to be tunneled vision brother In the end Allah(swt) will determine if the Sayyed was truly following Ahul el Byte not you. A little side note the incident is a historical issue you are making it equal to the concept of believing of the 12 Imams by saying if he doesn't believe in ALL the detail's of the Zahra(as) incident he"s not a Shia and that's wishful thinking and emotional talk.

salam

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Walikum salam sister first let me start by saying i have read what the brothers posted and they did an excellent job on analyzing the asnaad of the incident. When i posted the video I was being neutral and was not saying the Sayyed was right or wrong but when its all said and done the Sayyed does pose very important questions that forces us to look even deeper and some of the details of what actually went down. I dont know if you watched the video sister but the Sayyed never doubts the whole incident he says they came and they threatened but his problem is some details, hes having a hard time accepting that Imam Ali(as) stood around and did nothing when they were attacking his wife and one of the greatest women on earth. His second problem is when some one comes to the door I dont let my wife answer the door I go and answer it so the Sayyed is saying how could they allow Zahra(as) answer when half of Bani Hashem were in the house. bottom line sister and I dont what to derail this thread and im really trying to find out what really happened i dont want to believe something that has been exaggerated even la little, All the Sayyed is saying is its not forbidden to ask questions about historical issues and all hes doing is just raising questions about the incident maybe we made a mistake somewhere .

Allah knows best

Salam

Thanks for clarifying brother,as for the questions raised by syed,if he is skeptical because how the Best woman of earth was attacked? Then lets take a look at Karbala,the veils of Her daughters,and daughters in law are being snatched,which was bigger humiliation than burning door,but Imam Zain ul Abideen(as) observed patience,even if He was detained He could ask God to annihilate them or to struck those hands reaching out to snatch the veils but for the sake of Islam He remained silent though His Heart was bleeding and kept bleeding till He remained alive.He saw Lady Sakina(as) His younger Sister getting slapped by accursed man,so how was it impossible that His GrandParents could n't go through the same turmoils.

And why Janab e Syeda(as) answered at door? It is possible Imam Ali(as) was busy or something at that time,we can't speculate,there are instances when Prophet(saww)'s wives did answer the door even when their Husband was at home.

Yes we can raise questions regarding Religion,but we should be cautious for not to doubt something which might hurt Her Holiness(as),as She suffered a lot after this incident,not only in form of physical infliction but the spiritual anguish too.And Her Family suffered more after Her.

This incident laid down first brick towards Karbala,if Her Door was not to be set on fire,Her daughters's tents could never be burnt.Same mentality was at work on both sides.

Edited by Kaniz e Zahra
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

(bismillah)

This discussion should stop please as I have clearly stated in my opening post:

I’d like to point out that I am not here to prove or explain details to the incident – neither is this topic. Whether it was Qunfudh or `Umar himself or what Imam `Ali [as] was or wasn’t doing in the mean time and why – irrelevant to this discussion. What is established is the basic narrative of her [as] miscarriage and injuries and subsequent martyrdom.

Sayed Fadhlallah [rh]'s doubts are about details to the narrative that highly variant and are unimportant to the actual basic narrative to the matter. At that point once the truth of the basic narrative has been established for you to logically reconcile them, however strange they might be.

æÇááå ÃÚáã

Ýí ÇãÇä Çááå

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Thanks for clarifying brother,as for the questions raised by syed,if he is skeptical because how the Best woman of earth was attacked? Then lets take a look at Karbala,the veils of Her daughters,and daughters in law are being snatched,which was bigger humiliation than burning door,but Imam Zain ul Abideen(as) observed patience,even if He was detained He could ask God to annihilate them or to struck those hands reaching out to snatch the veils but for the sake of Islam He remained silent though His Heart was bleeding and kept bleeding till He remained alive.He saw Lady Sakina(as) His younger Sister getting slapped by accursed man,so how was it impossible that His GrandParents could n't go through the same turmoils.

And why Janab e Syeda(as) answered at door? It is possible Imam Ali(as) was busy or something at that time,we can't speculate,there are instances when Prophet(saww)'s wives did answer the door even when their Husband was at home.

Yes we can raise questions regarding Religion,but we should be cautious for not to doubt something which might hurt Her Holiness(as),as She suffered a lot after this incident,not only in form of physical infliction but the spiritual anguish too.And Her Family suffered more after Her.

This incident laid down first brick towards Karbala,if Her Door was not to be set on fire,Her daughters's tents could never be.Same mentality was at work on both sides.

I agree we should be cautious because of the sensitivity of the issue and theirs some good point you raised but can we really say that Imam

Zain ul Abideen(as) was in the same position as Imam Ali(as) in the sense that Imam Zain ul Abideen(as) was sick and it was impossible for him to defend while Imam Ali(as) could have wiped them all out in 10 min or better yet so their is no fitna he could have forced them to leave someway I dont know . The Prophet(s) told Imam Ali(as) to protect Islam but He didnt tell him not to defend his wife. Maybe its possible that the Imam can protect Islam and at the same time not let them lay a finger on Zahra(as) . BUt I could also except that Imam Ali(as) was in the same position of Imam Zain ul Abideen(as) in the sense that it was impossible for him to do something and it would be more damaging for ImamAli(as) to do something the beneficial. May Allah forgive me if I indirectly hurt Lady Zahra(as) in anyway by discussing this.

salam

(bismillah)

This discussion should stop please as I have clearly stated in my opening post:

Sayed Fadhlallah [rh]'s doubts are about details to the narrative that highly variant and are unimportant to the actual basic narrative to the matter. At that point once the truth of the basic narrative has been established for you to logically reconcile them, however strange they might be.

æÇááå ÃÚáã

Ýí ÇãÇä Çááå

Sorry brother for messing up your thread the discussion is done from my end .

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.

×
×
  • Create New...