Jump to content
Sayyed_Splinter

A response to Syyed Fadlullah [ra]

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

:bismillah:
Syyed Fadlullah  is famous for suggesting that Syyeda Fatima's [as] martyrdom event did not happen, because Ali (as) would not ignore his cries and leave the killer(Umar's slave) alive, but here is the answer in a hadith:
image.png.65dc03e6ca6f09a7ec9ea172c6386fdb.pngimage.png.8188207424ed68b5a100ff1e0df48dbb.png

Source:  http://purifiedhousehold.com/did-imam-ali-as-defend-fatima-as/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ayuoobi said:

What exactly is the Prophet (s) supposed to have said that stopped Imam Ali?

Anyway good contribution.

Bro, i really dont know

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Shiat3Ali said:

Bro, i really dont know

Its kind of an important detail to making sense of the whole story. I am disappoint. But still a good contribution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:salam:

If someone can prove to me that Sulaym b. Qays even existed, I may consider taking his storybook seriously (of course, even if he existed, the book still has tons of issues).

My opinion on the figure known as Sulaym b. Qays: https://www.iqraonline.net/sulaym-bin-qays-the-thin-line-between-a-fictitious-name-a-loyal-companion/

Wasalam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ayuoobi said:

Its kind of an important detail to making sense of the whole story. I am disappoint. But still a good contribution.

I'm looking for an answer, but I didnt find it in the previous hadiths (in kitab sulaym), really i didnt find

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Q9 - Fatimah's rib: what is your true position regarding this matter?

A - Anyone who claims that I have said that Fatimah's rib was not broken is a liar!

https://www.al-islam.org/fatimah-a-role-model-for-men-and-women/chapter-4-questions-and-answers

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

AUTHOR(S): 

Ayatullah Sayyid Muhammad Husayn Fadlullah

Share this post


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

If someone can prove to me that Sulaym b. Qays even existed, I may consider taking his storybook seriously (of course, even if he existed, the book still has tons of issues).

 My opinion on the figure known as Sulaym b. Qays: https://www.iqraonline.net/sulaym-bin-qays-the-thin-line-between-a-fictitious-name-a-loyal-companion/

 

Salams,

Though Sulaym b. Qays might not have existed and the book cannot be used to definitely prove whether this event happened or not, couldn't the fact that it reached currency and popularity in the circles of traditionists among the early Shi'a does go to show that there was a belief that there had been such an infraction on Sayyida Fatima? While this book cannot be said to have been written by Sulaym with any reasonable certainty, it is still an early book. Amir-Moezzi writes in The Silent Quran and the Speaking Quran that the oldest copy of it was in Khorramshahr (destroyed in the Iran-Iraq war) and was apparently second century hijri copy written on gazelle skin in Kufic, and around the same time traditions from it were put into circulation in various cities over the Islamicate world by individuals like Ibn Abi Umayr and Hammad b. Isa. He also writes:

Quote

These arguments, corroborated by the statement of Ibn al-Nadim that we know already, according to which the Book of Sulaym is the first Shi’ite work, appear definitely to indicate that the primitive kernel, which occurs in diluted form in the present Kitab Sulaym b. Qays, represents the oldest Shi’ite book which has come down to us. It is interesting to note that the authors of the later additions did not deem it necessary to suppress this primitive kernel despite the fact that its drift sometimes contradicts these later additions

So while it might be pseudography, it does seem to represent an early Shia memory regarding Saqifa and what happened to Sayyida Fatima.

Share this post


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

:salam:

If someone can prove to me that Sulaym b. Qays even existed, I may consider taking his storybook seriously (of course, even if he existed, the book still has tons of issues).

My opinion on the figure known as Sulaym b. Qays: https://www.iqraonline.net/sulaym-bin-qays-the-thin-line-between-a-fictitious-name-a-loyal-companion/

Wasalam

Akhi what do you think of this article http://www.revisitingthesalaf.com/2014/12/imam-al-mahdi-ajf-part-iii.html. I'm neutral on this issue but this article basically proves the sanad to Sulaym ibn Qays to be reliable. 

1 hour ago, Ibn Al-Ja'abi said:

couldn't the fact that it reached currency and popularity in the circles of traditionists among the early Shi'a does go to show that there was a belief that there had been such an infraction on Sayyida Fatima?

Sheikh al-Tusi said there was Ijma on this issue if i remember correctly so of course it was a common belief, the issue is this particular event (of Imam Ali (as) threatening Umar) is only found in Kitab Sulaym so if you consider Kitab Sulaym weak you can't really prove this happened.

1 hour ago, Ibn Al-Ja'abi said:

Amir-Moezzi writes in The Silent Quran and the Speaking Quran that the oldest copy of it was in Khorramshahr (destroyed in the Iran-Iraq war)

Got a pdf of the book? I remember reading on al-islam that Amir Moezzi believed that the original book (as in the book without the distortion and addition which has happened over the ages) would be reliable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To clarify the late Sayyid Fadhlullahs position it was that there is not enough evidence to say that the breaking of the ribs happened; but to deny it requires evidence as well (and the evidence against it is insufficient as well). He says there is plenty of evidence that Sayyida Fatima was mistreated including riwayaat which say she was slapped in the face, Fadak etc. Therefore he advocates an agnostic position specifically regarding the rib incident.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Shiat3Ali said:

:bismillah:
Syyed Fadlullah  is famous for suggesting that Syyeda Fatima's [as] martyrdom event did not happen, because Ali (as) would not ignore his cries and leave the killer(Umar's slave) alive, but here is the answer in a hadith:
image.png.65dc03e6ca6f09a7ec9ea172c6386fdb.pngimage.png.8188207424ed68b5a100ff1e0df48dbb.png

Source:  http://purifiedhousehold.com/did-imam-ali-as-defend-fatima-as/

Just something to think about.....it mentions that Imam Ali (as) 'remembered' what the Prophet (saw) said. However, is it not true that the Imams do not forget?

Share this post


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

:salam:

If someone can prove to me that Sulaym b. Qays even existed, I may consider taking his storybook seriously (of course, even if he existed, the book still has tons of issues).

My opinion on the figure known as Sulaym b. Qays: https://www.iqraonline.net/sulaym-bin-qays-the-thin-line-between-a-fictitious-name-a-loyal-companion/

Wasalam

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQyRAeJDP-Q

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sayyid Fadlallah's(ra) position was not that it did not happen, his position, as stated above, is that there is not enough evidence, evidence that he has seen, to indicate that it did happen. 

And to the brothers and sisters that take this one act as if all of Shiism is based on it, it is not. Please don't trivialize us, as Shia by saying this. Even without the injury of Fatima(a.s) in this way causing her death, (and again, I am not saying it didn't happen), we still have the snatching of Caliphate, the abuse of Fatima(a.s) in other ways, the snatching of Fadak, etc, etc. Our position is that the two took the Caliphate for themselves without right and against the clear order or Rasoulallah(p.b.u.h). We should focus on this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Q9 - Fatimah's rib: what is your true position regarding this matter?

A - Anyone who claims that I have said that Fatimah's rib was not broken is a liar!

Some people have been talking this nonsense for more than five years.7 Here, I have this to say to you, to clarify the matter: to start with, I reiterate that I did not say that Fatimah's rib was not broken, and everyone who claims that I did is a liar. I merely regarded it as unlikely; I raised a question mark on the basis of historical analysis.

I said: 'I do not react positively with this because the Muslims' love for Fatimah (as) had been greater than their love for Ali, and greater than their love for al-Hasan and al-Husain, and greater than that their love for the Messenger of Allah (sawa). I said that it was unlikely that anyone would commit such an act, but conceded that bad intentions were plotted - not to establish the innocence of anyone, but in fear of agitating Islamic public opinion.

There were many narrations: some said that they entered the house, while others said they did not. Hence, I said: 'I see that to be unlikely and I do not react positively to the word itself'. The world roared and heavens fell on earth, and words began to be fabricated and spread in some quarters!

This reaction has still not abated in more than one place, and leaflets are being distributed around the world. It is as if the dangers confronting the Muslims and all the injustice that we live in have become nothing, and all that matters is this historical issue!

In fact, this is a symptom of the backwardness which is being practiced by many in our Islamic arena. This problem still festers among those who do not care about the dangers which confront Islam, and that the problem is still alive means that we are not addressing the major issues on the proper level of awareness.

https://www.al-islam.org/fatimah-a-role-model-for-men-and-women/chapter-4-questions-and-answers

http://english.bayynat.org.lb/Books/Fatimah.pdf

Page 69-70

*****

Its more complicated than saying, data is not there. I did not want to get into the other issues. Lets leave them as we can all read and understand. Why certain opinions are formed.

Taqlid is only in matters of Islamic Law ( Subjects under their Domain/what is written in their Islamic Law books).

We do take these scholars as experts in research . Two Jurists may look at an issue differently, so they may have a different opinion even in Taqlidi ( Fiqhi) issues.

Sometimes there are political and community factors that may influence their opinion, especially of a scholar with a diverse community in his territory. 

*****

https://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235050221-tragedy-of-fadak/?page=2&tab=comments#comment-3055806

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Follower of Ahlulbayt said:

 

16 hours ago, Mansur Bakhtiari said:

Akhi what do you think of this article http://www.revisitingthesalaf.com/2014/12/imam-al-mahdi-ajf-part-iii.html. I'm neutral on this issue but this article basically proves the sanad to Sulaym ibn Qays to be reliable. 

One of the major shortcomings of present-day scholarship is their inability to engage in textual criticism. Formally speaking, this is a relatively new area of studies and the number of scholars involved in it is very limited. It requires a very different way of thinking and analyzing a text. Furthermore, in order to engage in highly reliable textual criticism, you require a lot of secondary information. Information that is only just becoming available to us, based on more research and perspectives - ways that would not have even crossed the minds of some of the earlier scholars (hence their lack of need to engage in textual criticism or their criticism was simply not as in-depth as some scholars today).

As for the direct responses to me, look, there are a couple of aspects of the discussion:

  1. Did someone by the name of Sulaym actually exist? If so, then who was he - do we have any evidence or details about him in any works other than his own? If not, then who is behind this book and what was their motive and why did they use a pen name?
  2. Is the chain of transmission for the book of Sulaym reliable? Even if it is, what does that prove exactly? We are trying to uncover a historical fact here, not trying to establish a binding force for us to act upon. In that case, a reliable chain could very easily be fabricated.
  3. What changes has the book that we currently have at our disposal gone through?
  4. What does textual criticism of the book tell us about this book, the time that it was being written, why is the text so unique and why do we not find most of the information from this book in other primary sources?

The post I put up only addresses question 1. None of the responses to me are even addressing that question. Responding to that question requires a discussion on the epistemology of historical beliefs and methods. The existence of a book is simply not enough - especially in this case if you read my post - to prove that such a person even existed, in reality. I believe Sulaym did not exist, either it is a pen name or it was a work written by a group of people.

The posts and videos are all talking about matters that concern the chain, its manuscripts, what later scholars have said, what are the views on Aban and so on. These are all important discussions as well and I have opinions on these matters, but it is not what I am addressing at all.

Wasalam

Edited by Ibn al-Hussain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Highly Technical Discussion are for the experts. 

We layman/average/common people are not able to recognize a intricacies of these Technical discussion. We just do not have the ability to do that, so there has to be a way for us common people to get to the Truth.  One of the ways is to rely on Common Historical  evidence, common sense, basic fundamental realities, and looking at the opinions of the learned Accredited Jurists/ Scholars, Dean of the schools of Islamic law. i.e, Islamic Academic Institutes of Najaf and Qum. Internet is a virtual world and we can't rely on the internet hadith websites. 

Two learned people can reach a different conclusion, as Data/ Science is itself agnostic. It needs some one to interpret it in proper context. For that we rely on the Top Scholars, and as they may differ we try to understand the Context, the political situation of that time/place/territory and these are not Jurisprudence issues where Taqlid is with out question and asking for proof. 

For example, One of the issues, if someone says that he does no think, that Muslims would disrespect the Daughter of  Muhammad al Mustafa( peace be upon him and his pure progeny). I as a layman have to question, their understanding of the Tragedy of Thursday, the disobedience regarding joining the army, fact that Some "Muslims" did not adhere to the orders of their Mawla( Guardian, the Imam of all Imams, the Prophet of all Prophets) is very concerning to me as a layman.

So, the fact that they will not do something like this because of the respect, even after when they clearly did an about turn, after say Book if Allah(awj) is enough for us, and at Fadak used a secret Hadith, in addition undermined the Qur'an 3: 61 Verse of Mubillah, Truthfulness has been established by their 'Lord", and his Messenger informed them that his daughter is part of him. Branded her as a lier and had the guts to not only entertain the evil thought of disrespecting her by planing to go to her house, than took the Satanic step to move their two limbs forward to accomplish their evil deeds. We are not referring to some common foot soldiers who may not be that "Informed"  - we are referring to the inner circle, the people who were/are looked as the custodian of the message and the religion- is enough to say, that ' Respect" issue can't be the overriding factor in analyzing the agnostic data. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/2/2018 at 11:15 AM, Shiat3Ali said:

:bismillah:
Syyed Fadlullah  is famous for suggesting that Syyeda Fatima's [as] martyrdom event did not happen, because Ali (as) would not ignore his cries and leave the killer(Umar's slave) alive, but here is the answer in a hadith:
image.png.65dc03e6ca6f09a7ec9ea172c6386fdb.pngimage.png.8188207424ed68b5a100ff1e0df48dbb.png

Source:  http://purifiedhousehold.com/did-imam-ali-as-defend-fatima-as/

what were the loyal companions of Imam Ali doing at that time why didnt they stop umar ?

 

also umar seems to have beaten up zubayr  b awwam too was this before he attacked fatima a.s or after ?

Edited by Panzerwaffe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

You have said that I was dragged like a camel with a nose string to swear allegiance (to Abu Bakr at Saqifah). By the Eternal Allah, you had intended to revile me but you have praised me, and to humiliate me but have yourself been humiliated. What humiliation does it mean for a Muslim to be the victim of oppression so long as he does not entertain any doubt in his religion, nor any misgiving in his firm belief! This argument of mine is intended for others, but I have stated it to you only in so far as it was appropriate.

Letter 28: Nahhul Balagha

https://www.al-islam.org/nahjul-balagha-part-2-letters-and-sayings/letter-28-reply-muawiyah-and-it-one-ot-his-most-elegant

*****

Recall all the war's, and understand the above. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×