Kitab Sulaym b. Qays al-Hilali | Our Classical Hadith (Pt. 5)

Рет қаралды 1,190

After Maghrib 🌙

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 27

@xeinakingdom 3 ай бұрын

Thanks so much for this series we all learned a lot!!

@AfterMaghrib 3 ай бұрын

Thank you for your support, may Allah bless you sister.

@Razasayyedkazmi 2 ай бұрын

Please make a video on Ihtijaj Tabarsi

@snabukhari72 3 ай бұрын

Ahsant - MashAllah.

@AfterMaghrib 3 ай бұрын

May Allah bless you, we hope you benefited from the episode.

@meesumnadeem6512 3 ай бұрын

MashaAllah Great Allah raazi 🤲🏼🤲🏼

@AfterMaghrib 3 ай бұрын

May Allah bless you, we hope you benefited from the episode.

@AbbasKarateman 3 ай бұрын

Great video brother, I admire the supportive evidence you’ve provided en masse. My question is: Some scholars have doubted the contemporary “version” of Kitab Sulaym stating that the modern day content may not line up with content of the original material in the book, thus doubting the validity of the current version. How do we address the possibility of additions, manipulations or forgery which cast aspersions on what we can take from the book? I understand that we can take general meanings that are found in other books through corroboration - but since you said that Kitab Sulaym was written to give unique details not found elsewhere - how can we trust that these “unique” details in the modern version are not additions but trustworthy content from the original version of Kitab Sulaym? I hope this makes sense 🙏🏽

@ShiaDebate 3 ай бұрын

There is no possible way to negate such facts. If we just ignore the printed copies of Sulayam bin Qays and just compare the reports in the corpus of Shia Hadith. You will see that the same reports in Kulayni's work and various other works will have textual variations. The oldest quotation of Kitab Sulayam we have is in Akhbar Siffin (an alternative recension of Wa'qat Siffin). The report in Akhbar Siffin if compared with the same Hadith in later works, you will see clear addtions in the later works. The ertext of Kitab Sulaym is early but we should not trust the book we have today.

@AfterMaghrib 3 ай бұрын

May Allah bless you, we hope you benefited from the episode. With regards to the question you asked, there's no doubt that there are what seem to be possibly additions, transmission errors, and historical inaccuracies - and this does lead to the understanding that there are details within it that should be taken with a pinch of salt - however that is the case with every Hadith book, like I've mentioned - there are historical inaccuracies even in books like al-Kafi. The main point being made in the video was that originally the book is one that is considered to be from the Usool, and it is not like the book was entirely replaced with a new book - when we look at the words of al-Mufid for example, we see that he mentions that the book has been "changed" for which he doesn't present evidence, but the accusation is of 'alteration' not of complete replacement. This means that there are many parts of the book that are from the original 'Asl of Sulaym b. Qays, and from the words and actions of great scholars like al-Kulayni and al-Nu'mani, we see that originally it was heavily depended upon. From this, we can conclude that there is still a lot to be gained from the book - although alterations and distortions have taken place, and this is the case with all of the books of Hadith if we look carefully enough, so this makes Kitab Sulaym no different to the other books of Hadith. I feel that there has been an unfair war against this book specifically, due to different polemical reasons, and not for any real academic reason. Just as a disclaimer, this is brother Mohamed Ali speaking - and all of what has been mentioned is my own view.

@imzy0173 3 ай бұрын

@AbbasKarateman kzbin.info/www/bejne/fYS0dXmGfd6Jqrc

@50secs 3 ай бұрын

Bro Sulaim is a genuine person and he also wrote a book. That is not questionable. The questionable part is, is this the same book because the person source of this book is not Sulaim but rather it is Abaan. Abaan is unreliable even from Shia standards. Hence everything in the book is substandard.

@ShiaSwords 3 ай бұрын

What wild conspiracy theory is this? 😂

@50secs 3 ай бұрын

@@ShiaSwords Shared around by your Ayatullah Fadullah

@syedrafidhi9526 3 ай бұрын

Abaan is unreliable? According to who exactly?

@50secs 3 ай бұрын

Ignorant ahl e sunnah say, aya tatheer is about wives, shias proof comes from Sunni sources to prove the verse is about ahleKisa. Here, Kitab is in question. Now bring a reliable evidence from Imam who corroborate the burning of the door actually happen. You have time till eternity and indeed I am waiting. Further more, what is the sequence of events? Did Bibi went to Abu Bakr for Fadk after burning of the door or before? The entire argument is, Omar came to demand allegiance from Ali right after propbet's funeral. Fair enough, then sermon of Fadak happened after burning of the door, when Bibi herself doesn't mention the burning of the door then? If sermon happened before burning of the door then Omar didn't come to demand allegiance immediately after Saqifa.

@50secs Ай бұрын

@Richard-n7q9u sure Sulaim is Reliable, sulaim wrote a book brilliant. Now prove, Abaan is reliable and the book you have today is the same book that sulaim wrote. If you cannot prove that then prove from a Qol of Imam that the event took place exactly as mentioned in the book of Sulaim which we have today. If you cannot prove than stop shoving it down my throat.

@50secs 3 ай бұрын

It is not authentic, burning of the door is not authentic. Why do you have to fight something which doesn't have a grounding. The actual event is Qunfuz kicking the door, nail or door slamming hard on Bibi and causing miscarraige. Let that sink in burning of the door didn't happen. If it happened then show me a quote of any 1 Imam from Sahih sanad which corroborates Sulaim.

@50secs Ай бұрын

@Richard-n7q9u