Al-Mufeed On Kitab Sulaym

[Ali Hadi.]

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

 

هذا الكتاب غير موثوق به ، ولا يجوز العمل على أكثره ، وقد حصل فيه تخليط وتدليس ، فينبغي للمتدين أن يجتنب العمل بكل ما فيه ، ولا يعول على جملته والتقليد لرواته 

 

This book (Kitab Sulaym) is not reliable, and it is not permissible to act upon most of it, and confusion and tadlees has occurred in it, so the pious should not act upon everything that that is in it (at all), and not rely on what is written in it or imitate its narrations.

 

Tasheeh al-I'tiqaadaat al Imamiyyah, page 149

 

Then, he goes on to say how the scholars should separate the saheeh from the fasid. So he doesn't believe that everything in it is false, and that what is authentic should be separated from what is false.

 

 

Thoughts? And what are the other scholarly opinions on Kitab Sulaym? It's an important issue since the Shia world generally accept everything in it as truth and speakers often quote the book also.

[IbnSohan]

There are many copies of Kitab Sulayim bin Qais. The book is one of the oldest books in the history of Islam. It was written long before the production of papers and long before the scribe profession flourished during Abssid era onward and long before the construction of mega libraries like Darul Hikmah.

Even after the establishment of the huge libraries, they were almost always targeted during wars.

 

Researchers say that there are around 70 manuscript for Kitab Sulaim. The printed version of the book is usually a combination of many of them. We cannot comment of Mufid opinion without knowing which version was in his hand.

 

http://www.aqaed.com/book/358/3.html

http://www.aqaed.com/book/358/4.html

[TheIslamHistory]

 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

 

هذا الكتاب غير موثوق به ، ولا يجوز العمل على أكثره ، وقد حصل فيه تخليط وتدليس ، فينبغي للمتدين أن يجتنب العمل بكل ما فيه ، ولا يعول على جملته والتقليد لرواته 

 

This book (Kitab Sulaym) is not reliable, and it is not permissible to act upon most of it, and confusion and tadlees has occurred in it, so the pious should not act upon everything that that is in it (at all), and not rely on what is written in it or imitate its narrations.

 

Tasheeh al-I'tiqaadaat al Imamiyyah, page 149

 

Then, he goes on to say how the scholars should separate the saheeh from the fasid. So he doesn't believe that everything in it is false, and that what is authentic should be separated from what is false.

 

 

Thoughts? And what are the other scholarly opinions on Kitab Sulaym? It's an important issue since the Shia world generally accept everything in it as truth and speakers often quote the book also.

 

 

(bismillah)

 

Aside from what Al-Mufid said, many scholars at the time, have deepened on Kitab Suliyam concerning specific narrations, however many of the narrations in the book come in line with many other narration is earlier works, so to "Completely" leave the book is not justified. Knowing that it is a very old book, there is no doubt it may have went through a process of editing, however It is just like any other book, such as Al-kafi, or Al-bihar, All books are subject to investigation expect the Quran. In addition it is part of Our Aqeda before taking a narration, we must measure it with the Quran, and if it does not come into agreement with the Quran, then we slam it on the wall. The issue of Kitab Suyliam is similar to Tafsee Al-Askari, So I see no issue of importance.

 

______________________________________________________

(wasalam)

Edited August 8, 2014 by TheIslamHistory

[Ibn al-Hussain]

(salaM)

 

From the book Tradition and Survival: A Bibliographical Survey of Early Shi'ite Literature (Volume 1), by Hossein Modarresi

 

Sulaym b. Qays al-Hilalı, allegedly a Kufan disciple of ‘Alı who escaped from Kufa eastward when Hajjaj cracked down on the pro-‘Alıd elements in Kufa. He went into hiding in the town of Nawbandagan in Iran’s southern province of Fars where he later died while Hajjaj (d. 95) was still in power. It is, however, obvious that such a person never existed and that the name is only a pen name used for the sole purpose of launching an anti-Umayyad polemic in the troublesome later years of that dynasty.

 

Regarding the book it self, he writes:

 

This is the oldest surviving Shı‘ite book and one of the rare examples of works surviving from the Umayyad period. The original core of the work which is preserved to a great extent in the current version is definitely from the reign of Hisham b. ‘Abd al-Malik (r. 105–25), almost certainly from the final years of his reign when the long-established Umayyad hegemony was already under threat from troubles concerning his succession. There are repeated references in the work to the twelve unjust rulers who usurped the leadership of the Muslim community after the Prophet: the first two caliphs, ‘Uthman, Mu‘awiya, his son Yazıd, and “seven members from the offspring of al-Hakam b. Abı’l-‘A s, the first of them being Marwan” (Kitab Sulaym: 110, 174, 175, 205; see also 136, 170, 200). From among the Shı‘ite Imams, only the first five are mentioned by name, and it is said that the Imamate will continue in the descendants of Muhammad b. ‘Alı b. al-Husayn (al-Baqir) (ibid.: 206; see also 168). Likewise, it is stated that the “masters of Paradise” among the descendants of ‘Abd al-Muttalib were the Prophet, ‘Alı, his brother Ja‘far, their uncle Hamza, Hasan and Husayn, Fatima, and the Mahdı (ibid.: 217; see Kafi 1: 450, 8: 49–50 for other similar statements from the period; these statements obviously predate the formulation of the Imamite theory that considers the Imams to be more excellent than anyone other than the prophets, including Ja‘far and Hamza, a theory already present by early ‘Abbasid period). The hope was that one of the offspring of Fatima (Kitab Sulaym: 140), more specifically a descendant of Husayn (ibid.: 175), would overthrow the Umayyad government.

 

The Shı‘ites at the time were reckoned to be only seventy thousand. The book focuses only on Kufa, describing the situation of the Shı‘ites there in some detail (ibid.: 180–82), a clear indication that the book is from that city, and possibly also suggesting that Shı‘ism had not yet spread beyond that region in any noticeable way. The language of the book is eschatological, depicting some of the historical events of the first century of Islam as seen through a Shı‘ite perspective in the form of prophecies from the Prophet and ‘Alı. In common with books of this nature up to our time, the prophecies have been updated in two or three stages in later periods by the insertion of words or sentences here and there. There is thus a reference in two passages of the book to the black banners from the East that would bring the Umayyad caliphate to an end (ibid.: 157, 175). The reference is obviously an updating and does not necessarily point to a Hashimite Shı‘ite sympathy, as the book has a clear ‘Alıd, pro-Husaynid provenance. There is also a reference to twelve (sic) Imams from among the descendants of ‘Alı who would succeed him (ibid.: 217–18). The relevant passage is inserted in a paragraph that describes how God looked at the people of the earth and selected from among them the Prophet and ‘Alı as his chosen ones. (This follows the statement about the masters of Paradise noted above). The passage then continues by asserting that God then took a second glance (at the earth) and chose, after the Prophet and ‘Alı, twelve legatees of the descendants of the Prophet to be the elect of his community in each generation. The style itself identifies this last line as a later insertion, obviously added after the number of the Imams was finally determined early in the fourth century. This addition was of course a careless slip as the contributor had failed to note that it would raise the number of the Imams, when we include ‘Alı himself, to thirteen. Najashı:330 reports that a fourth century Shı‘ite author, in a book he wrote for a Zaydı patron and in order to please him, used this passage to argue that Zayd b. ‘Alı, the eponym of Zaydı Shı‘ism, was also an Imam, adding his name to the list of the Imamites’ twelve Imams. This was the only report on the number of the Imams in the version of theKitab Sulaym available to the historian Mas‘udı in the early fourth century (see his Tanbıh: 198–9).

 

However, soon after that when Nu‘manı wrote his Kitab al-ghayba around 340, there was at least one copy of the Kitab Sulaym with many further references inserted here and there on the final number of the Imams. The sentences were now more carefully drafted to avoid the problems caused by the former passage. These appear in the printed versions of the work too (Kitab Sulaym: 62, 109, 125, 136, 151, 166, 167, 168, 201, 207). These references made the book a major source for the Imamites’ argument that the Twelfth Imam lived in occultation (see Nu‘manı: 101–102). According to the introductory note at the beginning of the work, the book was entrusted by its original author to Aban b. Abı ‘Ayyash, a hadıth transmitter who was then very young. Aban in turn gave the work to another transmitter two months before his own death. The book is one written by commoners for commoners. It is a display of primitive, unsophisticated beliefs among the rank and file of the Shı‘ites of Kufa during the late Umayyad period with clear residues of the usual Kaysanı exaggerations on the virtues of the House of the Prophet. It also refers to the Umayyad positions on some of the matters discussed. Many such popular, unsophisticated Shı‘ite lines of interpretation and belief were later transformed and developed by the Shı‘ite rationalists of the fourth and fifth centuries. Later Shı‘ite scholars therefore had problems with the ideas expressed in the book as well as a number of factual errors in it (see Mufıd, Tashih: 149, stating that the book is unreliable and that corrupt material has been incorporated into it). However, the text being such an old and persistently popular book among the Shı‘ites, and its chain of transmission up to the first alleged transmitter, Aban b. Abı ‘Ayyash, being conventionally held to be strong, some Shı‘ite scholars of the early centuries and later times thought that Aban, who was generally known as an unreliable transmitter, may have been responsible for the corrupt material (see Ibn al-Ghada’irı 1: 36, 63, 118–19, also emphasizing that the book is undoubtedly a fake and that Aban is the one suspected of the forgery [also quoted in Ibn al-Mutahhar, Muhanna’iyya: 124]; Ibn Dawu d: 178, 414, repeating Ibn al-Ghada’irı’s remarks). A prominent recent Shı‘ite scholar, while confirming that the book is a fake, holds that this forgery “was done for a good purpose” and that its maker piled up all sorts of data, some well known, others incorrect, but in general aimed to serve a purpose. He also supports the idea that the book is late Umayyad, before the number of the “unjust” caliphs went beyond twelve, “as it prophesied that the right [to rule] would then be restored to those entitled to it. This, however, never came to pass as the number of the “usurpers” increased and the right did not return to those legitimately entitled to it” (Abu’l-Hasan al-Sha‘ranı 2: 373–4). It should thus be concluded that one or more of the early transmitters came across this book and related it bywijada (as against sama‘, that is, direct hearing of the material from the author). Meanwhile, someone also added the story about the genesis of the book. The text is, at any rate, older than two months before Aban b. Abı ‘Ayyash’s death, which was in 138. Owing to the fact that a number of insertions were made in the book, there are variations among its different manuscripts, as described by Agha Buzurg 2: 152–9. Fortunately, later accretions seem always to have been in the form of insertions and additions rather than replacements and alterations.56 The old core is therefore preserved in most of the manuscripts, even at the cost of obvious contradictions. Some of these variations are noted in the editions of the book: a number of Najaf editions; Beirut, 1407; Qum, 1415 (the one used here is Najaf: Haydariyya, n.d., 236 pp.).

 

Wassalam

[Ali Hadi.]

There are many copies of Kitab Sulayim bin Qais. The book is one of the oldest books in the history of Islam. It was written long before the production of papers and long before the scribe profession flourished during Abssid era onward and long before the construction of mega libraries like Darul Hikmah.

Even after the establishment of the huge libraries, they were almost always targeted during wars.

 

Researchers say that there are around 70 manuscript for Kitab Sulaim. The printed version of the book is usually a combination of many of them. We cannot comment of Mufid opinion without knowing which version was in his hand.

 

http://www.aqaed.com/book/358/3.html

http://www.aqaed.com/book/358/4.html

 

 

(salam)

 

From the book Tradition and Survival: A Bibliographical Survey of Early Shi'ite Literature (Volume 1), by Hossein Modarresi

 

Sulaym b. Qays al-Hilalı, allegedly a Kufan disciple of ‘Alı who escaped from Kufa eastward when Hajjaj cracked down on the pro-‘Alıd elements in Kufa. He went into hiding in the town of Nawbandagan in Iran’s southern province of Fars where he later died while Hajjaj (d. 95) was still in power. It is, however, obvious that such a person never existed and that the name is only a pen name used for the sole purpose of launching an anti-Umayyad polemic in the troublesome later years of that dynasty.

 

Regarding the book it self, he writes:

 

This is the oldest surviving Shı‘ite book and one of the rare examples of works surviving from the Umayyad period. The original core of the work which is preserved to a great extent in the current version is definitely from the reign of Hisham b. ‘Abd al-Malik (r. 105–25), almost certainly from the final years of his reign when the long-established Umayyad hegemony was already under threat from troubles concerning his succession. There are repeated references in the work to the twelve unjust rulers who usurped the leadership of the Muslim community after the Prophet: the first two caliphs, ‘Uthman, Mu‘awiya, his son Yazıd, and “seven members from the offspring of al-Hakam b. Abı’l-‘A s, the first of them being Marwan” (Kitab Sulaym: 110, 174, 175, 205; see also 136, 170, 200). From among the Shı‘ite Imams, only the first five are mentioned by name, and it is said that the Imamate will continue in the descendants of Muhammad b. ‘Alı b. al-Husayn (al-Baqir) (ibid.: 206; see also 168). Likewise, it is stated that the “masters of Paradise” among the descendants of ‘Abd al-Muttalib were the Prophet, ‘Alı, his brother Ja‘far, their uncle Hamza, Hasan and Husayn, Fatima, and the Mahdı (ibid.: 217; see Kafi 1: 450, 8: 49–50 for other similar statements from the period; these statements obviously predate the formulation of the Imamite theory that considers the Imams to be more excellent than anyone other than the prophets, including Ja‘far and Hamza, a theory already present by early ‘Abbasid period). The hope was that one of the offspring of Fatima (Kitab Sulaym: 140), more specifically a descendant of Husayn (ibid.: 175), would overthrow the Umayyad government.

 

The Shı‘ites at the time were reckoned to be only seventy thousand. The book focuses only on Kufa, describing the situation of the Shı‘ites there in some detail (ibid.: 180–82), a clear indication that the book is from that city, and possibly also suggesting that Shı‘ism had not yet spread beyond that region in any noticeable way. The language of the book is eschatological, depicting some of the historical events of the first century of Islam as seen through a Shı‘ite perspective in the form of prophecies from the Prophet and ‘Alı. In common with books of this nature up to our time, the prophecies have been updated in two or three stages in later periods by the insertion of words or sentences here and there. There is thus a reference in two passages of the book to the black banners from the East that would bring the Umayyad caliphate to an end (ibid.: 157, 175). The reference is obviously an updating and does not necessarily point to a Hashimite Shı‘ite sympathy, as the book has a clear ‘Alıd, pro-Husaynid provenance. There is also a reference to twelve (sic) Imams from among the descendants of ‘Alı who would succeed him (ibid.: 217–18). The relevant passage is inserted in a paragraph that describes how God looked at the people of the earth and selected from among them the Prophet and ‘Alı as his chosen ones. (This follows the statement about the masters of Paradise noted above). The passage then continues by asserting that God then took a second glance (at the earth) and chose, after the Prophet and ‘Alı, twelve legatees of the descendants of the Prophet to be the elect of his community in each generation. The style itself identifies this last line as a later insertion, obviously added after the number of the Imams was finally determined early in the fourth century. This addition was of course a careless slip as the contributor had failed to note that it would raise the number of the Imams, when we include ‘Alı himself, to thirteen. Najashı:330 reports that a fourth century Shı‘ite author, in a book he wrote for a Zaydı patron and in order to please him, used this passage to argue that Zayd b. ‘Alı, the eponym of Zaydı Shı‘ism, was also an Imam, adding his name to the list of the Imamites’ twelve Imams. This was the only report on the number of the Imams in the version of theKitab Sulaym available to the historian Mas‘udı in the early fourth century (see his Tanbıh: 198–9).

 

However, soon after that when Nu‘manı wrote his Kitab al-ghayba around 340, there was at least one copy of the Kitab Sulaym with many further references inserted here and there on the final number of the Imams. The sentences were now more carefully drafted to avoid the problems caused by the former passage. These appear in the printed versions of the work too (Kitab Sulaym: 62, 109, 125, 136, 151, 166, 167, 168, 201, 207). These references made the book a major source for the Imamites’ argument that the Twelfth Imam lived in occultation (see Nu‘manı: 101–102). According to the introductory note at the beginning of the work, the book was entrusted by its original author to Aban b. Abı ‘Ayyash, a hadıth transmitter who was then very young. Aban in turn gave the work to another transmitter two months before his own death. The book is one written by commoners for commoners. It is a display of primitive, unsophisticated beliefs among the rank and file of the Shı‘ites of Kufa during the late Umayyad period with clear residues of the usual Kaysanı exaggerations on the virtues of the House of the Prophet. It also refers to the Umayyad positions on some of the matters discussed. Many such popular, unsophisticated Shı‘ite lines of interpretation and belief were later transformed and developed by the Shı‘ite rationalists of the fourth and fifth centuries. Later Shı‘ite scholars therefore had problems with the ideas expressed in the book as well as a number of factual errors in it (see Mufıd, Tashih: 149, stating that the book is unreliable and that corrupt material has been incorporated into it). However, the text being such an old and persistently popular book among the Shı‘ites, and its chain of transmission up to the first alleged transmitter, Aban b. Abı ‘Ayyash, being conventionally held to be strong, some Shı‘ite scholars of the early centuries and later times thought that Aban, who was generally known as an unreliable transmitter, may have been responsible for the corrupt material (see Ibn al-Ghada’irı 1: 36, 63, 118–19, also emphasizing that the book is undoubtedly a fake and that Aban is the one suspected of the forgery [also quoted in Ibn al-Mutahhar, Muhanna’iyya: 124]; Ibn Dawu d: 178, 414, repeating Ibn al-Ghada’irı’s remarks). A prominent recent Shı‘ite scholar, while confirming that the book is a fake, holds that this forgery “was done for a good purpose” and that its maker piled up all sorts of data, some well known, others incorrect, but in general aimed to serve a purpose. He also supports the idea that the book is late Umayyad, before the number of the “unjust” caliphs went beyond twelve, “as it prophesied that the right [to rule] would then be restored to those entitled to it. This, however, never came to pass as the number of the “usurpers” increased and the right did not return to those legitimately entitled to it” (Abu’l-Hasan al-Sha‘ranı 2: 373–4). It should thus be concluded that one or more of the early transmitters came across this book and related it bywijada (as against sama‘, that is, direct hearing of the material from the author). Meanwhile, someone also added the story about the genesis of the book. The text is, at any rate, older than two months before Aban b. Abı ‘Ayyash’s death, which was in 138. Owing to the fact that a number of insertions were made in the book, there are variations among its different manuscripts, as described by Agha Buzurg 2: 152–9. Fortunately, later accretions seem always to have been in the form of insertions and additions rather than replacements and alterations.56 The old core is therefore preserved in most of the manuscripts, even at the cost of obvious contradictions. Some of these variations are noted in the editions of the book: a number of Najaf editions; Beirut, 1407; Qum, 1415 (the one used here is Najaf: Haydariyya, n.d., 236 pp.).

 

Wassalam

 

Jazakum Allah khair. Both very informative.

[IbnSohan]

(salam)

 

From the book Tradition and Survival: A Bibliographical Survey of Early Shi'ite Literature (Volume 1), by Hossein Modarresi

 

Sulaym b. Qays al-Hilalı, allegedly a Kufan disciple of ‘Alı who escaped from Kufa eastward when Hajjaj cracked down on the pro-‘Alıd elements in Kufa. He went into hiding in the town of Nawbandagan in Iran’s southern province of Fars where he later died while Hajjaj (d. 95) was still in power. It is, however, obvious that such a person never existed and that the name is only a pen name used for the sole purpose of launching an anti-Umayyad polemic in the troublesome later years of that dynasty.

 

Can we really read this quote without further reflection?

Is Muharram rituals and all our gatherings to remember the injustice that went upon Ahlulbayt can be lumped up in a "Anti Umayyad polemics?"

Verily, Umayyad dynasty is the cursed tree in Quran

[Ibn al-Hussain]

(salam)

 

Can we really read this quote without further reflection?

Is Muharram rituals and all our gatherings to remember the injustice that went upon Ahlulbayt can be lumped up in a "Anti Umayyad polemics?"

Verily, Umayyad dynasty is the cursed tree in Quran

 

There is nothing inherently wrong with it being a polemic or it being written for the sole purpose of being an anti-Umayyad polemic - in fact it is very courageous. Furthermore, our rituals and gatherings should also have a polemical aspect to them (against oppression and injustice) if they don't already.

 

Wassalam

Edited August 8, 2014 by Ibn al-Hussain

[IbnSohan]

(salam)

 

 

There is nothing inherently wrong with it being a polemic or it being written for the sole purpose of being an anti-Umayyad polemic - in fact it is very courageous. Furthermore, our rituals and gatherings should also have a polemical aspect to them (against oppression and injustice) if they don't already.

 

Wassalam

Seriously?

 

Do our Imams taught us anything regarding the laws of discussions?

 

 

 

used for the sole purpose of launching an anti-Umayyad polemic in the troublesome later years of that dynasty.

The author is claiming that the content of this fishy book which is written by virtual character is of no theological value as it was written only to further weaken the Ummayad rule in an opportunistic style.

 

What's the content of Kitab Sulaym bin Qais? 

Narrations!

Imams words and actions.

Should Imams order us to avoid something then they propagate it?

Did not Quran said that there should be no Jidal in Hajj?

Shouldn't we avoid Jidal while fasting to so that our fast will not turned void?

Cant the virtue of the ilm be nullified by using it for the mere purpose of Jidal, polemics ?

ISnt Jidal in this sense a sort of miraa, lahu, laghu , fadhlu kalam?

 

Was the purpose of the khutbah of Sayyidah fatimah to weaken the rule of abu bakr, was it for the mere purpose of jidal? was it laghu? was it polemics ?

 

Ahlulbayt are not politicians and if they were they will be more careful with their words like umar, moawyiah al rashid, abu ja'afar almansour and almotawakil.

Ahlulbayt are not wordily government. They hold the keys of heavens. That's what Imam Ali said " I am more knowledgeable in the matters of heavens than the matters of earth" That's what his grandson Imam Hadi, the Sahib Al Askar said to mutawakil when was surrounded by the motawakil army "Imam Hadi prayed and numerous angels descended down around Imam Hadi, Imam Hadi said to Motawakil " I am not concerned about your government, I am busy with the heavenly government"

 

But they will go against their teachings of avoiding Jidal and leave us a rich heritage of polemics ? for the soul purpose of polemics?

 

Words of Ahlulbayt are noor, are guidance and were said and were carefully propagated and carefully weighted for the mere purpose of guidance . They are the government of the heaven and they knew what will happen to their sheep and orphans after the Ummayad dynasty. Their role was/ is to guide the past, present and the future generations. They spoke words that shall benefit everyone who have mind. They were well informed about the false hadiths and they handled that matter very well, else they shouldn't be called the trusted by Allah on the religion of his servants.

Had anyone of them spoke negatively against the book? 

 

Islamic History brother had summarized the widely accepted opinion among our scholars regarding this book. Its hadiths should be weighted individually.

It is really unjust to lower the value of ahlulbayt words  and sufferings to "polemics"

[Ibn al-Hussain]

(salam)

 

Do our Imams taught us anything regarding the laws of discussions?

 

Does this book look like a discussion or a dialogue to you or if it even looks like it intends on opening up a discussion with the enemies? It is an attempt to expose the realities and destroy any premises that the enemies have, and it has done so in a very explicit and blunt manner which almost no one had done during those times. At least nothing as explicit as this book as come down to us from those days.

 

The author is claiming that the content of this fishy book which is written by virtual character is of no theological value as it was written only to further weaken the Ummayad rule in an opportunistic style.

 

First of all the author doesn't call it a "fishy book"; rather he believes in it being one of the oldest surviving books we have today. He does state that there have been alterations made to the book which I don't think any sane scholar will deny and expresses that certain scholars considered it a forgery (or at least some aspects of it - which is really not far fetched). If you have read the author's book Crisis and Consolidation, you should understand why and on what basis it is that he makes such claims about this book.

 

The book having no theological value is your assumption from his statements, as I see no such indication that the author meant such a thing. Furthermore, just because the content of it is narrations, it doesn't mean that the book couldn't be authored in a polemic manner while utilizing those narrations.

 

Jadal can be translated in different ways in English just like it can be used in different ways in Arabic. But in any case it is not problematic all the times. In fact when used properly, it is considered one of the الصناعت الخمس in Mantiq, generally composed up of mashuraat and/or musallamaat.

 

الجدل يقال لمقدمات القياس التي يأتي بها الشخص لإقامة الحجة على أي مطلب كان، حق، أو باطل لإلزام الخصم

 

So I'm not sure what type or extent of Jadal you are referring to. I'm sure the author didn't mean it in the sense of idle or useless kalaam. Polemics doesn't even mean that. A better translation in this specific case would be حرب كلامية. It means that an individual is making statements about a subject opposing something (usually to challenge someone within the same belief system). It is aggressive in its tone (which this book is) and there are no attempts to find any middle grounds.

 

Was the purpose of the khutbah of Sayyidah fatimah to weaken the rule of abu bakr, was it for the mere purpose of jidal? was it laghu? was it polemics?

 

If you think she was trying to play a role of some political diplomat with that sermon and had no intentions to weaken and discredit the rule of Abu Bakr, then I highly suggest you re-read that sermon. You are talking about Jidal in the sense of useless and pointless discussions that don't bring any real benefit. No one is referring to that sort of Jidal here. See 16:125, 29:46 and 58:1 respectively:

 

وَجَادِلْهُمْ بِالَّتِي هِيَ أَحْسَنُ

وَلَا تُجَادِلُوا أَهْلَ الْكِتَابِ إِلَّا بِالَّتِي هِيَ أَحْسَنُ

قَدْ سَمِعَ اللَّهُ قَوْلَ الَّتِي تُجَادِلُكَ فِي زَوْجِهَا وَتَشْتَكِي إِلَى اللَّهِ وَاللَّهُ يَسْمَعُ تَحَاوُرَكُمَا

 

Allamah Tabrasi on Jidal in his Majma' ul-Bayaan, volume 7, page 130 [ http://lib.eshia.ir/12023/7/130/ ]:

 

 وفي هذا دلالة على أن الجدال بالعلم صواب، وبغير العلم خطأ
لأن الجدال بالعلم يدعو إلى اعتقاد الحق، وبغير العلم يدعو إلى اعتقاد الباطل

 

If I recall correctly, you could read and understand Arabic, so I'm not going to translate. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

Wassalam

Edited August 10, 2014 by Ibn al-Hussain