Jump to content
guest051217

Sermon of Fadak - is it reliable?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

53 minutes ago, ShiaMan14 said:

There are sermons of Fadak by 3 marja on this thread (Golpaygani, Amli and Fadlallah) if not more and while they may have slight differences, the core essence stays the same. No one has said which of the 3 is THE most authentic but we are not going to reject any of them either.

The burden of proof does not lie with me or on those who are presenting these sermons by legitimate scholars. Neither does the burden of proof lie with the scholars to gain our trust. They have been vetted and approved by other pious men.

The burden of proof lies on the person objecting to their works. Ibn Al-Hussain rejects the sermons because he has doubts on its authenticity and he cites a book. GREAT! 

Now I have every right to scrutinize his assertions starting with his identity and questioning his qualifications over respected scholars such as Golpaygani, Amli, Fadlallah, etc. 

No one should be offended or rise to his defense if I apply his principles on himself. He wants to discuss chain of narrators. Let's start with him. Once he proves himself to be more qualified (actual proof), then I may consider trusting his words. Until such time, he is a random Internet guy...like all of us.

Again, you seemed to have missed the point. None of these maraje are discussing or analyzing the chain of the narration, rather they are discussing the content. There is therefore no contradiction between the research carried out by Ibn al Hussain and others (pointing to discrepancies in the chain) and the maraje because as of yet nobody has presented their view on the chain or on the narrators. 

If indeed you bring forth the view of a scholar who says that the narrators in the chain were reliable then you have a basis to overrule the research presented earlier in this thread. 

Also keep in mind that the status of the narrators is not something that comes from the imagination of the brother who pointed out that they are unreliable and even admitted to fabricating the narration. Rather he has only pointed out what is already documented. 

Therefore this idea that we need to somehow 'rate Ibn al Hussain as narrator' makes no sense because he isn't transmitting something, rather he has stated what is already documented.

Wallahu a'lam 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:salam:

Thanks to the sensible members who have put some reason back to this thread. Unfortunately, a couple of members have developed a habit of hurling ad-hominem attacks in every other thread I post on turning it into a clown-show. I cannot waste my time on such childish behaviour and I am appalled at how low the quality of forum etiquettes has dropped. The "random internet guy" does not bother me at all - and to be quite frank, it is a true description and one should be cautious in just reading and accepting anything online - these are basic internet rules. The problem, of course, is that in opposition to a "random internet guy" is a "grand Ayatullah" that the member is equally ignorant of his qualifications and credentials. What did bother me is the fact that the person trying to paint a picture of me being "against" Ayatullah Safi Gulpaygani (or any other Marja') is someone who has not read one work of Ayt. Gulpaygani in the field he specializes in (because he does not know the required language nor have the required technical pre-requisites) and is actually not even aware of the methodologies he or other scholars apply (in jurisprudence, let alone in historical matters).

Even though Ayt. Gulpaygani does not bother to do an analysis of the chains of sermon of Fadak (like many others), I know for a fact that the member who is fanboying over him cannot begin to speculate why someone like Ayt. Gulpaygani would actually not even care about the chains of the sermon of Fadak. Same applies to scholars like Ayt. Misbah or Ayt. Jawadi, who want this sermon to become part of the seminary curriculum and to be taught, and what their methodology is which would lead them to not care about the chains. Amongst historians like Jafer Murtaza Amuli, once again he is a historian, but to me, his methodologies are similar to someone traditional feeling uncomfortable with the verdicts of someone like Ayt. San'ei or Ayt. Montazeri or Ahmed Qabil in jurisprudence - when you know the approaches someone takes to arrive at conclusions, you tend to give them less value. If I were to come and say Ayt. San'ei allows equal inheritance for women, Ayt. Montazeri allowed men to shake hands with strange women without gloves, or Ahmed Qabil believed Hijab is only mustahabb - how many other experts in the field, let alone laymen who are brought up with the idea since birth that Islamic rulings say otherwise - will take these views seriously? Not many, because other experts are aware of their methodologies and do not agree with them, hence their conclusions are not taken seriously. For me, the works of Jafer Murtaza Amuli - as great and respected as he is - are similar, since his approach is very lenient and his historical methodology is extremely biased, I often take his conclusions on highly debated matters with a grain of salt.

Let me be clear. No scholar will ever try to establish the sermon of Fadak with its chain of narrators. They won't because they will not get anywhere with that and it will be suicidal. That is fine, after years of Rijal and history you know that the chains of narrators are not all that matters (even though they are crucial) and that you can verify reports through other means and alibis. Especially in this instance where they can cite multiple chains, some of them going through the Imams (a) and so on. All scholars will establish the sermon by citing "popularity" - meaning there are many chains for it and hence it was a popular sermon since the earliest centuries, so there is nothing to be concerned about. This is their line of argument (and some will use Tabrisi's introduction to his al-Ihtijaj to further justify it).

However, as far as I am concerned, that is not enough in this instance to establish the sermon are her words. Historically speaking, this is nothing abnormal. There are many false texts that were produced and misattributed to various people and became very famous texts. A good example is Tawhid al-Mufaddhal, which in recent years some researchers pointed out cannot be from the Imam (a) and resembles Greek texts. People were freaking out, but now more conclusive research has been written and published, to the extent that even the son of Ayt. Sistani cites this research in his Rijal work.

In the case of the sermon of Fadak, at least those chains that end with Zaynab bint Ali (s), what we are basically saying is that a sermon that takes around 20 minutes to read at a somewhat quick pace, was apparently memorized in one go by a little 4-5-year-old girl in 11th hijri, without there really being any motive to memorize it at the time. She then apparently transmitted it to someone 50+ years later. If you believe Zaynab bint Ali (s) had super metaphysical infallible-like powers at that age and that her memorization skills should be treated differently than the skills of other children, then you are outside the folds of mainstream Shi’I theology and conditions of accepting reports from an individual set out by centuries of scholarship.

This is essentially the result of deterioration of critical analysis in Shi’I hadith sciences and content criticism outside the scope of jurisprudence (which I have mentioned earlier on some other thread, that it is really just becoming a trend again amongst some Shi'a scholars). In fact, outside of jurisprudence it is as if all critical thought is cast aside as long as something fits within dogma, whereas within jurisprudence - at times - the critical thought goes so far deep that you lose track of how an average person understands language.

God-Willing, as I get some spare time, I will write out the reasons why I believe this sermon was fabricated in the 3rd century and only became famous and known post-3rd century without it ever having a trace before it (although I already alluded to it in the thread earlier). In fact, the earliest traces of it is found in Sunnis works, by authors and narrators who were either closely attached to the Abbasid government or were supporters of it. You may be wondering why would this sermon first appear in texts written by Sunnis and was narrated by non-Shi'I narrators given its condemnation of Abu Bakr? Good question - Inshallah when I am done writing a detailed response, the educated and well-informed members in Rijal and Tarajim can then judge for themselves or at the very least, a different perspective will be available to them. Others can continue to appeal to authorities they like and there is no issue with it, but I would appreciate they do not stick their noses in places where the nature of discussion is not concerned with appealing to authorities and derail threads with ad-hominems.

Edited by Ibn al-Hussain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

For me, the works of Jafer Murtaza Amuli - as great and respected as he is - are similar, since his approach is very lenient and his historical methodology is extremely biased, I often take his conclusions on highly debated matters with a grain of salt.

I have read Ayatullah Murtaza Muttahari critizing Allama Majlisi. It makes sense when a learned scholar criticize the work of other scholar, they both holds the same status and level of education at least. Now when I being a student of history, start criticizing any scholar who possess the certificate of "ijtihaad", my critics would be considered as "worthless". 

Same is happening with you my dear brother. Who are you at the moment? An Ayatullah, Allama, or what? Why do we listen to you? And why do we believe on what you're saying? Have you ever realized what is the status of your own approach? What is the status of your own methodology? 

Let me tell you with full confidence, I would never take your conclusions on any matters, not even the grain of salt. 

Wassalam.  
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on your silly and ignorant standards, Shahid Mutahhari, who barely studied 10 years in the Hawzah and spent most of his life teaching at universities, should have had no business criticizing one of the giants of Shi'I scholarship Allamah Majlisi. 

lol @ certificate of ijtihad. It doesn't seem like you even know how that works and what it means.

Wasalam

Edited by Ibn al-Hussain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

his methodologies are similar to someone traditional feeling uncomfortable with the verdicts of someone like Ayt. San'ei or Ayt. Montazeri

Salam Ayatollah Montazeri maybe has been a good scholar in Hawzah for teaching scholars but he had a "simpleton nature" as Imam Khomeini  (رضي الله عنه) said about him that caused his trust to liberals & later anti Iranian regime  groups that ruined all of his life at the end this is same as Ayt San'ei that has similar nature as him also Ayt San'ei had weird fatwa about Ramadan that a person can drink water in middle of day during fasting in order to continue his fasting during hot Days of Summer 

 

40 minutes ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

was apparently memorized in one go by a little 4-5-year-old girl in 11th hijri, 

her knowledge approved by Imam Sajjad (عليه السلام) after her sermon in Damascus also she was under education of his father Imam Ali (عليه السلام) from childhood that even people that from ordinary people from outside of Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام) family that wer students of Imam Sadiq (عليه السلام) became great personalities even 4 school Imams of Sunni creed were directly or indirectly were his students that could stablish their school of taught that without their teachings & influence from Imam Sadiq (عليه السلام) it wasn't impossible for them to stablish their school of Taughts that a person like ibn Taymieh because of his enmity & not learning from Imam Works created his dangerous & deviated belief as Prophet (pbu) said don't exceed Qur'an & ahlulabayt (عليه السلام) that you will become deviated & don't be lazy to reach them that you will perish but try to move with them simultaneously

 

54 minutes ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

God-Willing, as I get some spare time, I will write out the reasons why I believe this sermon was fabricated in the 3rd century and only became famous and known post-3rd century without it ever having a trace before it (although I already alluded to it in the thread earlier). In fact, the earliest traces of it is found in Sunnis works, by authors and narrators who were either closely attached to the Abbasid government or were supporters of it. You may be wondering why would this sermon first appear in texts written by Sunnis and was narrated by non-Shi'I narrators given its condemnation of Abu Bakr? Good question - Inshallah when I am done writing a detailed response,

inshaAllah you will do a great work on it to work on this but consider that majority of Sunnis reject all of events about Lady Fatimah they just belive her position as Daughter of Prophet (pbu) that died after a severe illness after demise of his father that demise of Prophet (pbu) stil is a controversial subject that some people he martyred by close persons to him like as first & second caliph & his last wife except his uncle Abbas (رضي الله عنه) & Imam Ali (عليه السلام) but  they keep it quite for Unity also Abbasids first Slogan was" returning caliphate to family of Prophet  (pbu)" that despite of standing Imam  Sadiq (عليه السلام) some simpleton Shia groups joined them because they were condemning 3 Caliphs in their slogans but at the end they betrayed to all Shias so they would let this sermons comes in Sunni texts in order to convince that Shia groups join them also they have double standards about treating with Shias during their rulership period & not were same as Ummayids that  had clear enmity with Shias.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Salsabeel said:

I have read Ayatullah Murtaza Muttahari critizing Allama Majlisi. It makes sense when a learned scholar criticize the work of other scholar, they both holds the same status and level of education at least. Now when I being a student of history, start criticizing any scholar who possess the certificate of "ijtihaad", my critics would be considered as "worthless". 

Same is happening with you my dear brother. Who are you at the moment? An Ayatullah, Allama, or what? Why do we listen to you? And why do we believe on what you're saying? Have you ever realized what is the status of your own approach? What is the status of your own methodology? 

 Let me tell you with full confidence, I would never take your conclusions on any matters, not even the grain of salt. 

Wassalam.  

Salams brother,

You brothers (you, @ShiaMan14, @S.M.H.A., and others participated in this thread and others like it with @Ibn al-Hussain) need to make up your mind as to whether you can comment about religious matters or not. At one instance you presume that you can and will post quotations from your readings but then when these people come with better research looking at primary and secondary sources you say that these discussions are of no value since you're all laymen. @S.M.H.A. went as far as to say that since he is a layman and cannot assess good evidence it needs to be ignored and only what he can assess be considered. Then if @Ibn al-Hussain posts something you'll just gang up on him and bully him saying that since he a turbaned scholar his opinion is useless (while walls of text from al-Islam.org are perfectly acceptable!). If he becomes upset at this repeated behaviour then you'll highlight this anger and use it to dismiss his arguments once again. There's a whole list of fallacious reasoning and argumentation here, from appeals to authority to ad hominem. If this is the quality of discussion, then it is a sorry state of affairs!

In any case, all of those titles you listed are others assessments of someone's learning but don't necessarily mean those that haven't been given those titles and a big turban to accompany it aren't learned. The strength and weakness of his argument should be examined based on the evidence he brings, not who he is or who he's contradicting. This is ridiculous!

I'm reminded of the story from Sayyid Ni'matullah al-Jaza'iri's autobiography where he, at six-years-old, corrected the grammar of his teacher (the size of whose turban he noted in this story).

 

34 minutes ago, Salsabeel said:

Who are you at the moment? An Ayatullah, Allama, or what?

Brother, what does this even mean? How do you even become an Allama? After ten years of study? Is there an Allama committee that come and inform you by mail you've been selected as a candidate on their short list of Allamas to-be? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Ibn Al-Ja'abi said:

Brother, what does this even mean?

This means that Ayatullah Jafer Murtada Amuli wrote a whole book aimed primarily to address the doubts of Ayatullah Fadl Allah. 

To make words & critics worthy, there has to be equality at least. We here on shiachat are not the experts of ilm-e-rijjal, how can we listen and trust what he is saying. It is a waste of time for @Ibn al-Hussain and for me at the same time. I did the correction several times when few famous scholars misquoted or misspelled or forget the verses while delivering the lectures. Does that mean I become more knowledgeable than those scholars? 


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mahdavist said:

None of these maraje are discussing or analyzing the chain of the narration, rather they are discussing the content.

Lets me quote the words of Ayatullah Gulpaygani first:
 

Quote

One of the miracles of Sayyidah Fatima, peace be upon her, is her spontaneously delivered sermon [the Sermon of Fadak].
This grand woman, during that atmosphere [in Medina] of spiritual-asphyxiation and [during that period of the] major coup d’état which had taken place, and [shortly after] the tragic demise of the Messenger of God, peace be upon him and his family, and all of the other heartrending events which had transpired, delivered a sermon which is at the pinnacles of eloquence and oratory prowess.
This sermon is one the likes of which even the Commander of the Faithful, peace be upon him, even though he is the Leader (Imam) of the Eloquent Ones and the Commander (Amir) of those with Oratory Prowess, never had the opportunity to deliver such a comprehensive, illustrative, thrashing and ineffaceable sermon keeping in mind that he [Ali b. Abi Talib, peace be upon him] is the same person who has pronounced: Certainly, we are the masters of speaking. Its veins are fixed in us and its branches are hanging over us
https://www.imamreza.net/old/eng/imamreza.php?id=11929

Is there any doubt after that, that the grand ayatullah have any sort of doubt on the reliability or authenticity of this sermon? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Salsabeel said:

We here on shiachat are not the experts of ilm-e-rijjal, how can we listen and trust what he is saying

Salams,

No one is asking you to trust it. Our brother has referenced his sources which you can, and should, check (I checked the page he mentioned in Tarikh Madinat Dimishq myself to verify what he said is on it). Then you see how he's using the evidence he's citing in his argument, and you evaluate how well the proof supports the conclusion he is trying to make with his argument. At no point did @Ibn al-Hussain ask for your trust.

12 minutes ago, Salsabeel said:

Does that mean I become more knowledgeable than those scholars?

No one is talking about how knowledgeable Shaykh Safi Gulpaygani is or how knowledgeable @Ibn al-Hussain is, we are simply looking at the argument at hand. Just because Shaykh Gulpaygani is more knowledgeable than our brother as an expert in fiqh and usul, it does not necessitate that his opinions on history are correct (the same is true for any historians that might be mentioned). An argument and an opinion need to be evaluated on their own strengths and weaknesses, not who is professing them. What you are suggesting is fallacious as it is an appeal to the authority of scholars.

And you don't need to be turbaned scholar to be able to tell the weaknesses in Sayyid Ja'far al-Amili's book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

In Mohammed bin Jarir Tabari’s Dalael al-Imamah different chains of transmission have been mentioned for Hazrat Fatima Zahra’s Fadak Sermon. This sermon has been narrated in various books authored by early Muslim scholars. The sermon is so famous and widely known that it is impossible to refute it.
Muhammad bin Jarir bin Rustam Tabari is among the Imamiyah scholars[1] and his book entitled “Dalael al-Imamah” is about the leadership of each of the infallible Imams ((عليه السلام).) as well as Fatima Zahra ((عليه السلام).).
Discussing Lady Fatima Zahra’s biography or issues surrounding her life, Tabari deals with the subject of Fadak. Elaborating on “Fadak Tradition”, he first narrates the chain of the transmission of the hadith from different sources and channels. Among the chains of the transmission of the said tradition, he mentions the chain of the transmission in your message.
The chain of the transmission is as such: “Reported by Abul Hasan Muhammad bin Harun bin Musa Al-Talakbari who said, “My father (may Allah be pleased with him) reported and said, Abul Abbas Ahmed bin Saeid al-Hamedani, said that Muhammad bin Al-Mufadhal bin Ibrahim bin Al-Mufadhal  bin Qays Al-Ash’ari said that Ali bin Hassān reported from Amma Abdur Rahman bin Katheer from Abi Abdillah Ja’far bin Muhammad bin Muhammad (Imam Sadiq), peace be upon him from his grandfather, Ali bin Al-Hussein, from his aunt, Zainab daughter of the Commander of the Faithful, Ali bin Abi Talib, who said:  « لمّا أجمع أبو بکر على منع فاطمة (ع) فدکا....» [2]
A Study of the Chain of Transmission of Fadak Sermon
1. Muhammad bin Harun bin Musa Al-Talakbari is among the scholars of the Imamiyah school and one of the friends and classmates of the famous biographer, Najashi who reports some of the books through him from his father Harun bin Musa.  Muhammad bin Harun died in the year 408 A.H.[3]
2. Najashi says about Muhammad bin Musa Al-Talakbari: Harun bin Musa is from Bani Shayban tribe. He is a respected person and a man of status, one who is trusted by people. He has a book titled “al-Jawami’ fi al-Ulum”. His son, Muhammad bin Harun and I were together in his house seeing people coming to recite ahadith in front of him.”[4]
3. Ahmed bin Muhammad bin Saeid Hamedani is one of Imamiyah’s prominent scholars known for his knowledge and memorization of prophetic traditions. He is trustworthy, reliable and enjoys a high position among Imamiyah scholars and jurisprudents.[5]
4. Muhammad bin Mufadhal bin Ibrahim bin Mufadhal bin Qays Al-Ash’ari who was known with the nom de guerre Abu Ja’far was one of the Kufa scholars. He is trustworthy and reliable. Among his books are “al-Taqiyah” and “Majalis al-Aemmah”.[6]
5. As for Ali bin Hassān, there are two personalities known with this name, one being Ali bin Hassān bin Waseti and the other being Ali bin Hassān Hashemi.  Ali bin Hassān Wastei is trustworthy and reliable.[7] As for Ali bin Hassān bin Hashemi, he has been considered as dha’if (weak).[8] One way to distinguish between these two figures is to take notice of those who have narrated from them or those whom these two have narrated from. Technically speaking, in order to distinguish between these two narrators, it is important to look carefully at the narrators and the people from whom they have narrated. 
Ali bin Hassān Hashemi is he who narrates from his uncle, Abdur Rahman bin Katheer. In this narration also, he narrates from his uncle, Abdu Rahman bin Katheer. Clearly, Ali bin Hassān in this narration refers to Hassān bin Hashemi.[9]
Given that Ali bin Hassān who narrates from his uncle, Abdur Rahman bin Katheer, is in the chains of the transmission of Kamil al-Ziyaraat, according to some prominent scholars, he can be considered trustworthy but since the authentication of Ali bin Hassan in the chain of the transmission of Kamil al-Ziyarat goes against the statement of certain elites like Najashi, he cannot be regarded as trustworthy.[10]
6. As for Abdu Rahman bin Katheer, he has been criticized by Imamiyah scholars to an extent that he has been accused of fabricating traditions.[11]
7. After Abdur Rahman bin Katheer, the chain of the transmission of the hadith reaches Imam Sadiq ((عليه السلام).).  He narrates from his father, Imam Baqir ((عليه السلام).) who narrates from Imam Sajjad ((عليه السلام).) and Imam Sajjad narrates from Lady Zainab ((عليه السلام).) who narrates her holy mother’s sermon about Fadak being usurped and taken from her per force.
Although these two people at the end of the chain of the transmission have been considered as weak and unreliable, narrators such as Muhammad bin Mufadhal, Ahmed bin Muhammad bin Sa’eid and Harun bin Musa Al-Talakbari have trusted the hadith which has been passed on by these people. This shows that there have been signs indicating the authenticity of this hadith in their opinion.
As we mentioned earlier, Muhammad bin Jarir Tabari has narrated this tradition from different sources and with different chains of transmission. The first chain of transmission ends in two prominent Sunni narrators I.e. Al-Akramah and he from Ibn Abbas.[12]
As well, this sermon has been narrated by Ibn Tayfoor (d.280 A.H.) with several intermediaries from Zainab (s.a.),[13] and Abu Bakr, Ahmed bin Abdul Aziz Baghdadi has mentioned this sermon in his book.[14] Ibn Abil Hadid praising and authenticating Ahmad bin Abdul Aziz says that he is one of the Sunni scholars.[15] Therefore, this sermon is very well-known and it has been narrated by many a number of the early Muslim scholars.

http://www.islamquest.net/en/archive/question/en21752

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Ibn Al-Ja'abi said:

And you don't need to be turbaned scholar to be able to tell the weaknesses in Sayyid Ja'far al-Amili's book.

Perhaps one need to be a turbaned scholar to be able to see his own weaknesses before telling the weaknesses of others. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ibn Al-Ja'abi said:

Then if @Ibn al-Hussain posts something you'll just gang up on him and bully him saying that since he a turbaned scholar his opinion is useless

I have just repeated his words. I would never take his conclusions on any matter even with a grain of salt because of his poor approach & methodology :) 

The link http://www.islamquest.net/en/archive/question/en21752# is more reliable & trustable for me.

3 hours ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

For me, the works of Jafer Murtaza Amuli - as great and respected as he is - are similar, since his approach is very lenient and his historical methodology is extremely biased, I often take his conclusions on highly debated matters with a grain of salt.

 

Edited by Salsabeel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

 

God-Willing, as I get some spare time, I will write out the reasons why I believe this sermon was fabricated in the 3rd century and only became famous and known post-3rd century without it ever having a trace before it (although I already alluded to it in the thread earlier). 

Its is not that you have to search for these reason(s), and do some new research. 

I am sure, before you posted, you must have your entire thesis ready. 

And the amount of time spent on other "activities" and "comments" here, cold have been utilized to write up and  deliver your iron clad case. 

Proving your thesis, with out a shadow of a doubt. 

If you can do that, good. Otherwise, let's move on. All that stuff above is secondary noise. Let's deliver the case for the Jury ( ignore us).

*****

https://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/35348-Sayyida-Fatima-al-Zahra-as-official-thread/?page=3&tab=comments#comment-3194766

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salsabeel dear brother, you are a good man so please give the words dignity by being rational and not forming a team. On a personal level I still to this day come here to learn even though the standard and quality of debate has notched down. I feel sad in that we portray a very sad picture of the Shia. 

You don't know Ibn al-Hussain and hence lending credibility to him or otherwise does not matter and should not. Weigh the material he presents, analyse it and give us counter arguments on those specifics. Sadly none of you have done that for you are not as well read and trust me neither am I. The you my dear brother is in the general sense and refers to all of us. 

There is no point throwing copy paste at him for that is a diversion. Kindly refute if that is not too strong a word rather discuss and further our understanding on what he is saying.

We are all brothers here and need to collect as such to have a meaningful exchange and or readership to hopefully progress in our path of furthering our understanding and knowledge. 

S.M.H.A brother you do the same please. Refute what he has said in the first instance if you have knowledge of it.

We are always advised about who we befriend. 

PS. brother I just saw your other post and tells me that you are just trying to bombard others out of the ground by just presenting lengthy material which does not address what Ibn al-Hussain has referenced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's get fews facts out of the way. We are ALL Random/Virtual Entities. I can have a operation from home  and have multiple screen names and have my buddies get involve and we can run a great site. 

I or you or them  could be anyone or anything person/agency/agent etc...

Its not personal.

Let's just keep it to facts, in a holistic way. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/21/2019 at 10:42 AM, Ibn al-Hussain said:

:salam:

The guys who fabricated the sermon (Abu al-'Ayna and al-Jahiz - interestingly both were literary experts and strong grammarians as well as poets) themselves admit to the fabrication. Refer to Tarikh Dimashq, v. 45 - around pg. 441. Unfortunately, the explanation for why these two individuals possibly fabricated the sermon requires expanding on many historical details, an analysis of the Rawandiyah Abbasid sect and so on. Based on experience, it doesn't seem like most members on the site have the ability to digest some of these discussions and hence I'll save my self the hassle.

Wasalam

 

On 1/21/2019 at 6:59 PM, Ibn al-Hussain said:

:ws:

The event of Fadak and what transpired between the lady (s) and the caliph is one thing, but the lengthy sermon we have with us today is another issue. Even if she actually did give a sermon, there is no way to say what we in our disposal today is actually her words. I am referring to the latter. Not only are the chains seriously problematic, and the fact that there is a confession by the fabricator, and that people were already discussing its fabrication in 3rd century Hijri as attested by the author of the earliest extant book in which the sermon is recorded in (Balaghat al-Nisa of Ibn Abi Tayfur), and the fact al-Mas'udi in his Muruj al-Dhahab describes how Jahiz would make up dialogues between Fatima (s) and Abu Bakr in his works; when you actually being analyzing the contents of it in Arabic you will start realizing that many terms and concepts simply were unheard of in 11 AH and were terms and concepts that developed over the next two centuries after the Prophet (p).

Wasalam

So brother S.M.H.A can you shed some light on what has been brought up above. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235048350-sermon-of-Fadak-is-it-reliable/?page=2&tab=comments#comment-3194524

The Historic Fadak Sermon of Fatima

https://www.al-Islam.org/fatimiyyah-ashura-lutfullah-safi-al-gulpaygani/historic-Fadak-sermon-Fatima

Fatimiyyah is ʿAshuraʾ

Ayatullah Lutfullah Safi Gulpaygani

*****

Excerpts from her sermon in the Mosque

https://www.al-Islam.org/fatimah-a-role-model-for-men-and-women/chapter-3-role-model#excerpts-her-sermon-mosque

Fatimah al-Ma`sumah (as): a role model for men and women

Ayatullah Sayyid Muhammad Husayn Fadlullah

*****

Is Fadak Sermon of Lady Fatima Zahra in Muhammad bin Jarir Tabari’s ‘Dalael al-Imamah’ authentic?

http://www.islamquest.net/en/archive/question/en21752

*****

https://www.al-Islam.org/al-amali-dictations-shaykh-al-mufid/fifth-assembly#8-fatimahs-elegy-Fadak

Al-Amali, The Dictations of Shaykh al-Mufid

Shaykh al-Mufid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, haideriam said:

Weigh the material he presents, analyse it and give us counter arguments on those specifics.

What should I weight in it? It is no more than trash for me and deserves to be ignored rightaway.

I advised him before and advising him at this very moment again, to present all his thesis and research work to his teachers and his fellows at howza to receive a proper response.

If I were to present my technical paper on design & operation of ETP, none of you would be able to understand it so this is not the place to present the work related to my field.

Now as for claim that the sermon was a fabricated one, none of our scholars throws that sermon in trash for that reason. The words of Ayatullah Golpaygani has been quoted, analysis of chain of narrators done by islamquest has been shared, I don't know as to why you are recommending me to accept the opinion of a low profile person over the high profile professionals? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. 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...