ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 8 ก.พ. 2025
- Kitab Sulaym ibn Qays is regarded as the first book to provide a detailed report of the oppression of Lady Fatimah Zahra. But the book also contains narrations that appear forged or contradict the fundamental teachings of the School of Ahlulbayt.
Does this leave this book and its content reliable?
#FatimiyyaTheBurningQuestions
Special thanks to @imamhusseintv3 @OpenAI_Lives.
================================================
► MAKE THAQLAIN REACH 100K SUBSCRIBERS:
bit.ly/Subscrib...
► BECOME A MEMBER ON TH-cam:
/ @thaqlain
► HELP US CREATE MORE CONTENT:
thaqlain.org/s...
► CONNECT ON WHATSAPP:
wa.link/hfcf0g
► FOLLOW US:
Facebook: / thaqlain
Instagram: / thaqlainmedia
Play your part in spreading the message of the Quran and Ahlulbayt by performing 3S:
I) Share: Help us reach more hearts by sharing this content with your family and friends (especially those unaware of the School of Ahlulbayt).
II) Subscribe: Connect with us on TH-cam & Social Media Platforms (links in description). Or join our WhatsApp list by clicking on this link: wa.me/message/TAR3C325Z5LYO1
III) Support: Producing content like this is impossible without your support. Be our patron and pledge your monthly contribution at thaqlain.org/support
As a Shia Muslim, Ayatollahs call this book a great historical book. But they caution Shias that this book has some problems espacially with some narrations. So this book should be studied with a scholar beside to identify which part is right or slightly over exaggerated.
Just saying that certain people reported from the book says nothing about its authenticity. Al kafi for instance is riddled with weak and strange narrations so parts of kitab sulaym being in al kafi doesn't make it any more trustworthy.
Saying no book is perfect is also a weak excuse. The entire book came from aban ibn abi ayyash who is deemed unreliable by numerous scholars such as sheikh mufid, sheikh tusi and ibn al ghadairi so there's really no way we can rely on any of it.
Then there are the narrations like there being 13 imams or muhammad ibn abi bakr admonishing his father when he was 3 years old which also raise doubts about the book's authenticity. Is the only reason this book is defended that it is the only piece of evidence used to prove the incident of the door?
A book is never authentic or unauthentic. It is the individuals narrations. In particular case of the narrations on the events that took place after Prophet's demise, as mentioned by Sayed, it is not the Kitab Sulaym that alone mentions these issues. Even some Sunni books mention it -- some explicitly and some through hints. When one puts the different pieces of puzzles found in different books, the picture is very similar to what Kitab Sulaym has painted.
@@Thaqlain I would like to know which sunni books mention this incident "explicitly and through hints"
@@Thaqlain the "sunni" books that mention this incident outright have provided no authentic narration and infact simply picked it from Sulaim. Also, the "hints" that you're pointing to is a very cheap way to make your narrative seem more authentic.
If you actually think this is a good enough explanation that the whole door burning incident happened and Ali (R) stepping on Umar (R) etc. etc., then your entire methodology is pathetic to say the least.
You're hanging on strawman arguments such as "oH cOnNeCt The DoTS" to make a claim for supposedly SUCH A HUGE EVENT??? This would've caused an uproar and there would be waayyyyy too many narrations than literally just one man.
So yeah, anyone who's actually connecting dots here can realize how much of a desperate attempt this is to degrade who you deem enemies
Hence forth this puts this channel and Modaressi in the unreliable camp.
Primary reason being the book itself doesn't have a chain to Sulaim rather its source is Aban.
2nd the burning of the door is not supported by any other narration in Kafi.
3rd when Ahle Sunnah use this book to support the legitimacy of the 1st and 2nd Caliph and Ali endorsing them we give a swooping statement this book is unreliable.
Althought this book only proves that burning of the door and I don't know why sponsored clerics are so adament on keeping this baseless narrative alive. I guess this keeps the cash rolling in.
There are reliable accounts of Qunfuz kicking the door and Sayyeda getting hurt.
I guess priority is to pin it on Omar and rope on Ali.
The undeniable fact is Ayatullah Fadullah and Ayatuallah Wahid Khorasni doesn't endorze this burning of door narrative. In the entire Kitab al Kafi there none but one narration which just states that my mother was a martyr.
Most importantly, there is a sermon of Fadk which happened after the 1st Caliph took office. If you read the accounts, Sayyeda never spoke to 1st and 2nd Caliph after demanding Fadk.
So the second account that 1st came to apologies was that regarding Fadk or burning of the door?
Timelines have missing bullet points.
Salaam Alaykum. Sayed Mahdi Modarresi has done a complete documentary on the concerns you just shared. The link is: th-cam.com/video/u1AJfAeZrZo/w-d-xo.html
@@Thaqlain wasalaam
Here is Ayatuallah Fadullah rejecting the entire narrative.
th-cam.com/video/HcUxMNRunEg/w-d-xo.html
@@Thaqlain
Here is Ayatuallah Wahid Khorasani discussing Masaib of the Lady.
th-cam.com/video/eGenMmdGvHI/w-d-xo.html
There are loads of videos of her Masaib from Wahid Khorasani.
We guess you are mixing two things:
1) Is Kitab Sulaym ibn Kays reliable? As we have mentioned, the answer has been researched in detail. We have already shared one of the extensive research papers in the comment section.
2) Is everything that is mentioned in Kitab Sulaym divine truth? No. Sayed has answered this already.
3) How do we see some Marajieen rejecting some of the Masaib of Lady Zahra? Even those who disagree with some of the specifics do not conflict with the vital part: the House of Zahra was ambushed, Mohsin died a Shaheed, and Lady Zahra was rejected over her right of Fadak. And she passed away while being angry with the first two caliphs.
This should allow us to close this discussion :)
@@Thaqlain
Correction:
1. Syed mentioned the book is as reliable as anyother book.
The interesting part is that Sunni books say that Lady Fatima's funeral was private and done in secret. But those same books don't tell you the reason why. But this book does.
So, my question to Sunni's: is dosen't it sounds fishy that Lady Fatima did not wanted Abu Bakr, Omar and Usman at her funeral. She did made peace with them but never forgave them because of their actions. Making peace v accepting friendship are two different things.
This is a misconception given to our Christian and Jewish brethren in order to take them away from Imam Mahdi.
the transmitter of this alleged book of Sulaym is "Abban" who has been called unreliable in both Shia and Sunni records..
That's certainly not the case.
@@Thaqlain
that is indeed.
Thanks for letting us know.
The book comes down from two other people who are authentic as well, namely Ibrahim Ibn Umar al-Yamani and Hussain ibn Said al-Ahwazi
The man Sulaym is fictional according to Ayatollah Khoei and Mohsini.
Abban is graded as a liar (kazzab) by both muhaditheen.
The book is written in layman terns for laymen to spread disinformation.
Good for a drama loving sect whose into fiction.
Usulis reject this as piece of garbage.
this man is a gem from Allah.. Sayyed Modarresi
The person who narrates aban ibn abi ayash is not a reliable person
And why is that so?
@@Thaqlain So you accept everything in this book?
Because he is kazzab narrator @@Thaqlain
The book comes down from two other people who are authentic as well, namely Ibrahim Ibn Umar al Yamani and Hussain ibn Said al Ahwazi
Which early shii muhadith actually discusses who Sulaym ibn al Qays is? This is an individual who apparently was born 2 or 3 years before hijrah and was a companion of Ali but is only mentioned 2 to 3 centuries later. At-Tusi, shaykh suduq, al majlisi, and others may mention his narrations a couple of times, but only from the book that Sulaym ibn al qays alledgedly wrote, kitaab sulaym, but no independent sources about his biography... very odd. Its a circular argument. He apparently accompanied amir al mu'mineen but wasnt mentioned in any of his major events. Whilst shia scholars list the names of the close companions of the imams, sulaym is not mentioned from them. Very strange, considering someone who wrote in great details about the alleged events which shia believe in after the prophet died. Prove from early sources that he existed please.
Considerable research work has already been done on him in the books of Rijal. You have will have to check them :)
Also, the narrations found in the Book of Sulaym can easily be found in other books, too (without him being in the chain of narrators), including the books of Ahl al-Sunnah. For further details, please refer to the preface of the book written by Allama Muhammad Baqir Ansari Zanjani (available on the internet).
Sulaim is real figure, chain of book associated to him is unclear, which makes the entire book unreliable. It just becomes a book of narrations.
Each and every narration becomes doubtful if it is directly from Sulaim.
There are loads of lectures on youtube regarding this book and clown clerics from both parties do pick and choose from this book.
Madness from the people who are the followers of Sadiq and Ameen.
@@50secs sunnis dont pick and choose anything from this book. Its completely relied on by mainstream shia today, its a big part of shia culture- muharram, majalis, arbaeen events, etc. Sunni scholars only criticize its authenticity.
@@AbuFadl
Alright dive deep into the fiqhi reasons of justification of Muawiyyah and Ummul Momineen of marchinh against Ali in Jamal.
Key word is fiqhi, you need a fiqhi reason to justify the attack against the rightful Caliph. That is the same reason to crush opposition during the Rida wars.
@@50secs
1. Muawiya and Ali's conflict has absolutely nothing to do with what we are talking about.
2. I dont need to justify anything muawiya did. He made ijtihaad, and it was wrong ijtihad. End of story.
This book also says there were 13 Imams instead of 12, and also it says some verses of Holy Qur'an were eliminated out by Sahaba. Is it also True??
In the School of Ahlulbayt, no book except Quran is 100% Sahih.
@@Thaqlain Then how can we decide which part to believe or which to not??
The same way other narrations in other books are scrutinised.
It’s not wrong, the Prophet (PBUH & HP) is also an Imam, or else the Imams would have been higher than him, because Imamat is higher than Prophethood, but since we know they aren’t and the Prophet (PBUH & HP) is the highest we can conclude he also was an Imam
بارك الله فيكم
Amazing lecture sayed ❤
Jazakallah khair
this guy can never defend this absurd book, thats why he do not want to get into it
Because the session was not about defending the Kitab :)
@@Thaqlain then respectfully the shia should prove the legitimacy of the books, whether it be the four books, bihar ul anwar, or this this mentioned in the video, not for sunnis but for our own sake
And yes i am a shia
We guess you are not aware that unlike Sunnis, none of the books in Shia Islam is considered by any scholar to be 100% sahih. We will urge this Shia of Ali to sit amongst the scholars and seek knowledge of Ahlulbayt.
@@Thaqlain if i read the book, for example al kafi, or bihar ul anwar how do i even know what is correct and whats not, sunnis only claim bukhari and muslim to be 100% authentic with respect to chain of narrations, and rest of the books no one says 100% authentic, i also do not understand the lack of translation of shia books to English and providing people like me with each hadees authenticity, there are many scholars in qom, iran, iraq that can do this. Or i may not be aware of some work in english, also the point of sitting with scholars many cannot do so, in this era of internet we can explore and research with open heart, but the lack of english sources is the problem
No matter how many resources we get, the importance of teachers will always be there. However, not sure how you are able to reach a conclusion of lack of resources because last we checked, all major hadith books are translated into English. 100s of other books are available free of charge on al-islam.org, and 1000s are lectures from various scholars on every topic possible are out here on TH-cam.
Nahajul Balagha is and should be the most authentic book after the Holy Qura'an. Everything else can be dubious or contain errors or mistakes. The alleged incident could have been reported by Maula Ali A.S in his letters for the next generation (for his sons) who could take revenge against this alleged oppression.
We will definitely share your opinion with scholars.
How can you declare that this book is relevant
How is it not relevant?
@@Thaqlain cause a famous shia scholar Allama hilly rejected this book
@@Thaqlain also acc to this book, Quran karim is not the same as it used to be at the time of prophet sallallahu taala aalai he wa Aalihe Wassallam, this book considers Quran al majeed mutilated, astagfirullah...
Yes .. we have a lot of reasons to reject it ...
In the school of Ahlulbayt, there is no book that is considered as 100% credible except the Holy Quran. We go narration by narration leaving those that go against the Quran or established principles of the religion. The hadiths regarding the acts of companions in regards to Lady Zahra and her family are mentioned in other sources. Even Ahlas Sunnah sources hint about them. For eg. Lady Zahra being upset of Abu Bakr and Umar when they came to meet her.
hahaha its a book of fairy tales. I mean, its hilarious. It just made people up like Qunfudh, who is not known anywhere in the Sunni tradition.
Khalid was also made up? Abd ar-Rahman ibn Auwf was also made up? Mugheera ibn Shuba was also made up? The acceptance by Caliphs of the ambush is also made up?
@@Thaqlain the caliph never accepted an ambush. That's a lie. Abu Bakr confessing on deathbed is in fact a weak Hadith you guys relied on. I am shocked that you are that ignorant of the topic at hand
Historical narrations are looked at with the context. The context is clear: Fadak was usurped, Umar threatened to attack her house, and she died while being angry with the two. For a Muslim, this should be enough to realise that it is not a fairy tale as Fatima, even according to Sunni sources, is someone whose anger is the anger of Allah.
@@Thaqlain Well if we would aproach history like that we could come to any conclusion. If we discuss a matter we have to look at the whole evidence. From this the virtues of Ahlul Bayt are clear and so are the virtues of the Shaykhain. That is why Ahlulbayt loved to call their sons and daughters with names like Umar, Uthman and Aisha. But among modern shias these names are almost extinct. This is evidence enough of your crooked view on history. So nothing is left from your fairytales
If Ahlulbayt "loved to call" their sons and daughters the names you provided in love of the caliphs (you won't find a single narration even in your own books to prove it), then you are implying that for Ahlulbayt, the anger of Lady Zahra did not matter. Because one thing is for sure, no Muslim can deny the usurption, threat and anger. So either the virtues of Lady Zahra are forged or the virtues of Sheikhain are forged. Or there is a 3rd case: you are comfortable with the fact that Sayyeda Zahra was angry with Sheikhain when she passed away.
Shame on you
This book was not given by Sulaim bin Qais al Hilali, it was given by Abaan who said that this book was given by Sulaim.
So, how can you say that Sulaim gave it, when it was only in the hands of Abaan, and about Abaan, Ayatullah Khoei has written that he is not a reliable narrator.
It seems you haven't watched this video. Sayed has already answered your concerns.
@@Thaqlain I listened to him, he didn't say anything special. But I don't expect anything better from you.
Your 1st Book comes from mysterious and lair sources upon which your whole theology is built, so how can anyone expect anything truthful from you.
1) Kitab Sulaym is not our "first book."
2) Neither is our theology built on it
I hope you realise that the content found in Kitab Sulaym can also be found in other books of history, including Sunni books. So while the book can be unreliable, its content cannot be 🙂
@@Thaqlain This is surely 1st book which only shias consider authentic and all the books like Kafi, Bihar ul Anwar came afterwards and simply copied things from it to spread lies and bring their audience to tears.
So, surely, Shiism is built up on this fabricated book. Regarding Sunni books, first of all, the history books have all the true and false stories in them, some of which can be verified while most of them cannot. Same is the case with Shia History books hence we can consider them unreliable.
Only, reliable Hadith books in which those Hadith which according to Ilm ur Rijal are verified to be authentic should be considered to know history but that will be a disaster to you, because you have build your case for 1400 yrs on lies. 🤣
It seems you are an expert of Tareekh, Rijal and Ilm al-Hadith. We should ask our scholars to come study from you. Please share your details so we can refer to your academy.
😂😂😂😂😂 kazaab
Seems like that's how the Sunnah teaches you to address the scholar whom you disagree with 🙂
Shame on you