 فاطمة أهو بالله من الشيطان العين الرجيم بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم والسلات والسلام على أشف الأنبياء والمرسلين السيدنا والنبينا أب القاسم من مصطفة محمد الأمين وألأ أهل بيته الطيبين الطاهرين المعصومين المظلومين واللعنة الله على عداهم أجمعين من الآن إلى قيام يوم الدين آمين يا رب الآلمين يا رب الآلمين أهل بيته الطيبين والنبياء والسلام السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته أهل بيته الطيبين من هذه الثلاثة حواليات وما نتحدث about topics which I think are particularly important which have been inspired and are very relevant to this period of time in which we are commemorating the martyrdom of the daughter of the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه و آله namely فاطمة زهرة may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon her and her father and her husband and her children of course it's very important when we look at the martyrdom of Zahra when we look at how society engages with the martyrdom and the period of martyrdom of Fatima Zahra to understand that we live in a time in which doubts in which skepticism is on an all-time high we see that the people are skeptical of pretty much everything these days and so we find that today we would I believe that those who are particularly devout and religious sheers would be hard-pressed for those who reflect to not know at least one person that has expressed doubts about whether or not Fatima Zahra was physically martyred about whether or not her house was attacked and more importantly I believe that this doubt is normally couched and cushioned and veiled in a particular unique way from my limited experience it's normally asked with Yeb or Vol's reports Sahih now of course I'm not talking about Osoni asking these questions I'm not talking about someone who's been raised to love Abu Bakr asking these questions I'm talking about whether or not this is a common phenomenon within Shi'i circles and I believe that this particular approach is one which is all too common within the contemporary Shi'i community particularly with friends who are from both the Iraqi and Lebanese communities now again we have certain golden rules that I want us to remember to apply here and one of them is to always think the best and assume the best about the one asking the question it's very easy for some of us who have grown up in certain families some of us who have been in certain circles some of us who have read certain books to assume that everybody is on the same page or on the same wavelength and everybody has read the same things as you been taught the same things as you and have the same emotional leanings and respect for the same people that you do that's not the case and we all need to be familiar with the fact that we're not looking at things from the same blank sheet of paper we're looking at things with very different lenses and so those who often do doubt this occasion they're not doubting because they're enemies of Islam they're not doubting because they're enemies of Tashayo and they haven't brought forward the doubt because they want to make excuses for Abu Bakr Omar it's not they're not bringing forward this doubt because they have a love for Abu Bakr and Omar because a lot of the time the people who have doubted this event when I've spoken to them have made it very clear that they hold the mainstream she-e view on Abu Bakr and Omar so we have to be fair we have to acknowledge that sometimes there is a tendency to doubt sometimes there's a desire to know what the truth is about these accounts and it's not always cushioned and it's not always going to be caused by a desire to have a rapproach month with Sonyism nor is it done out of evil malicious intentions to deny the martyrdom of Zahra and that brings me on very briefly to another side topic brothers and sisters know that this is a topic which is solely historical that is to say we're not looking at Aqaida at the moment this discussion is a historical discussion we need to be aware of that we need to know that when it came to the whole launch of an attack on certain historical figures for certain historical figures no certain near-contemporary for their views on this for their mistaken views on the tragedy of Fatima Tezahra one of a few individuals who did not write a letter of open condemnation جوتيه زخلاق وسيد محمد الشرازي the writer of منفق الزهرة instead he felt that the more befitting way to respond was to write منفق الزهرة because we don't need to give someone a label there's no need to judge the intentions of someone just because they've got a mistaken view we need to learn the ادب the etiquette of disagreeing with somebody this is really something that we all and I'm talking about myself primarily need to learn so dear brothers and sisters the topic for today in relation to those friends of ours who might have doubts about whether or not an event has occurred is what is the methodology of Muslim scholars when discussing history and today I'd like to focus solely upon the methodology of Shi'i scholars I'd like to discuss what is the methodology of Shi'is when it comes to discussing history now I know that there's some humorous individuals out there that might say well they have no methodology well that's not the case today we're discussing whether or not very diligent Shi'i researchers when it comes to the science of history have applied a very rigid standard in which we even need to start hearing things like is it Sahih of course the word Sahih to mean strong in the context of history does not mean the same thing as it does in the context of Hadith we need to understand firstly that when it comes to studying history we do not apply the standards of Hadith and to apply the standards of Hadith to the standards of history is akin to being like those arrogant new age materialists out there who will claim that the only valid forms of knowledge come from the empirical sciences of chemistry, physics and biology and that the only true facts are physical facts and the only knowledge that can be gained is from those physical sciences and in doing so would try to come up with a physical theory for objective morality when we look at such individuals with arrogance when trying to be so reductionist we need not to do the same thing when it comes to looking at history now I know that you are saying this in order to be defensive and apologetic I don't believe I am and I do believe that this distinction was one that was noticed by scholars throughout history including the Hadith scholars themselves but what I'm going to do right now is to cite some of our ألماء who have made this distinction and have made it very very clear that when it comes to the study of history we don't apply the standards of Hadith شيخ العلمة محمد حسين بن شيخ علي بن محمد ربا بن شيخ جافر الكبير who's known as الكاشف الغتاء he states in his response which is a response written to certain questions asked about a particular issue he states in his response to this نعم yes خبر زيد بن أرقم وإبن وكيدا كلاهما في بعض الكتب المعتبرة yes the report of زيد بن أرقم and ابن وكيدا they are both found in some of the reliable books then he goes on to states والمراد هنا الاعتبار التاريخي لا الاعتبار الذي عليه المدار في الأخبار التي يستنبت منها الأحكام الشرعية من الصحيح والحسن والموثق and here when I say that these books are reliable I mean by that the reliability of history namely رلايبلتي in the field of history not the reliability upon which there is the practice of utilizing the word اتبار in the reports that we use to derive Islamic law from صحيح and حسن الموثق so of course just to explain and unpack these terms within the science of علم الدراية when we look at the complete snad of something we would conclude that it is either صحيح which means fully connected and narrated by individuals who are all imami and ثقة or we would say it's موثق where we look at a chain of narration which is fully connected and is all narrated by people who are either إيمامي or considered reliable but might not be إيمامي but they're all nonetheless reliable people in the chain or the chain maybe حسن which is a fully connected chain of people who are all إيمامي when I say إيمامي of course I mean شيعي but are nonetheless not necessarily ثقة by every single one of them is praised and praiseworthy anything that falls short of these classification is classed as وعيف namely ويك ويك doesn't necessarily mean fabricated it just means it doesn't pass the bar which we need it to reach in order for us to derive laws from it in most cases now there are certain exceptions to the rule but today it's not a lesson in the reliability of narrations for the perspective of deriving خطاء كشف الخطاء points out that the report is considered reliable and when we say reliable we mean the reliability that we require for history and not the reliability that we require for passing a legal judgement or deriving laws سيد محسن الأمين of course the famous writer of the book عيان الشيئة he says something which is very similar he says ليس مرجعا للأحكام الشرعية حتى نبهف عن أسانيده ونوصله إلى علي عليه السلام now of course he's talking about ناج البلاغة and he says إنما هو منتخب من كلامه في الموائف والنصائح وانواع ما يأتمده هو الخطباء من مقاصدهم ولم يكن غرض جمعه إلا جمع قسم من كلام السابق في ميدان الفصاها والبلاغة على هد ما جمع غيره من كلام الفصاها والبلاغة الجاهلين والإسلاميين السحابة وغيرهم بيساند وبيغير الساند لذا في تقول أن ناج البلاغة ليس كتابة في which we use to derive فيقهي لوز he says لذلك لن نحتاج لن تنظر أسناد لكي نعرف أن هذا all goes back to Imam Ali and why is he saying this he's saying this because he wants us to know that when it comes to the book ناج البلاغة we're not using it to derive loss and so we don't need to use the same rigorous standards of history in order to know that this book goes back to Imam Ali rather we would look at it as historians and we would use different criteria to the one that we use فيقهي reports of course this is not only found amongst محسنة لامين and it's not only found amongst sheer scholars but today because we are focusing upon sheer scholars I'd like to look again at something else which has been stated by someone who I believe ورجال يون out there from وشيئة and I believe the scholars of the house those who are familiar with the position of our scholarship would know the person I'm quoting is not a small fish and is not someone that should be dismissed as being an irrelevant nobody as far as looking at as far as looking at what sheer standards are in analyzing historical reports and that is أسيد المحقق أيطل الله الأفمة زعيم حوزة نجف أبل قاسم الخوئي who states and by the way this individual is considered to be the reviver of the strict علم الرجال in the shee world he states in his معجم after looking at the profile of جابر ابن عبدالله لنصاري وفي هذه الروايات وإن كانت كلها وعيفة and in these reports I'm regardless of whether or not they are all weak إلا إن جلالت مقام جابر وابهة معلومة ولا هاجمعه عليها except that the مقام of جابر ابن عبدالله لنصاري is something which is واضح it's clear it's معلومة it's known and there's no need for us to have صحيح reports and even if all the reports we've just looked at aren't considered صحيح as a senator it doesn't matter because that's not how سلخوي does history and again in the profile of عمر ابن حمق الخزائي رحمة الله عليه he states the following إن ما تقدم من الروايات وإن كانت كلها وعيفة السند إلا إنها مستفيفة إلا إن جلالت عمر ابن حمق من الواوات التي لا يتعريها الشك and even if that which we previously presented from venerations and even of all of them are weak according to سند according to the chain of narrations except that they have now become مستفيفة مستفيفة means that they have been narrated so plentifully إلا إن جلالت عمر ابن حمق من الواوات it's from the clear issues the fact that this man is great is something that cannot be denied and this is something that doubt cannot affect مضافا إلا إن شهادة البرقي إلا إنه كان من شرط الخميس فيها كفاية في إضافة to the fact that البرقي who is one of the raja scholars has said he was from me religious police of امير المؤمنين now this goes to show that the shia scholars when it comes to analyzing history they don't apply the standards of hadith they don't apply the standards that we would use to derive rulings now I know that this might seem weird for some people and some people might be wondering why don't they apply the same standards well the honest fact is that when it comes to measuring anything we use the standard which is designed for that thing it would be inappropriate to handle diamonds with the same equipment which is used to handle for example metal it would be inappropriate for us to use a calculator as a means of communicating with a mobile phone even if a calculator malfunctioned and allowed us to use it for that purpose that would never have been the purpose of the calculator and so why would you utilize something which was never designed for the thing it's used upon as a means of measuring that thing we need to be very clear that when it comes to the issue of history when it comes to looking at what goes down in history this methodology of using only Sahih isnads is not the methodology of the Shia scholars I'll show as well that it's not the methodology of the Sunni scholars either but we need to understand that when it comes to these things we do need to take a stand we do need to make sure that people today don't come along and strawman you and say that look your reports aren't Sahih on this that's fine because our Ulama never said they had to be Sahih in this field you're coming up with a canon of evidence which is not what we would expect when looking at that particular field we need to understand that when it comes to using the four divisions of Sahih, Hassan, Mu'ath, Qanva'if this is designed specifically for Fiqh where we're attributing laws to Allah as we're Jal of course we're going to use the standards of rigorousness but when it comes to understanding history we can't be expected to apply those standards of rigorousness and the Ulama never did not even the Ulama who would tell us to apply it here so for example I don't want to be surrounded bush the Ulama who might question the incident of the door who are Shia someone might want to come forward and go well they were being consistent because you see they didn't want to accept for something that wasn't according to them Sahih well that's fine except that in some of their other fatawa they would likewise use narrations which don't meet their own standards of being Sahih and would be extremely shahd positions so we need to be quite clear that sometimes there is an agenda going on I remember one of the students of probably the most famous rejector of this incident his student is still alive today in Lebanon his student I forget the the surname but his name is Yasser he has entire commentaries on certain duos duos like and yet he'll come forward and deny the validity of every other duos which contains things which he doesn't like and he'll say bring me a Sahih a Senate for that and yet when it comes to the duos he won't have that Sahih a Senate now I'm not judging him as being outside the madrasa I'm sure that he's a very intellectual man I'm sure that he's done a lot for the shia I'm sure he's done a lot for humanity in fact and I mean Allah bless him and bless all of our olama and guide all of us too what I'm questioning here is whether or not we are playing inconsistent with the evidence we need to be consistent with the evidence and this is the only way which we'll be able to break past some of the problems which are affecting us today you see when it comes to whether or not we as shias should accept the events of the door and whether or not we should believe it actually genuinely did happen there's numerous reasons for us to believe it did but most importantly we have to understand that we should not come up with new principles in order to deny things we don't like we shouldn't all of a sudden raise the standard of evidence that was never previously there and act that this is the shii standard because that would be being playing dishonest and we need to be honest and we need to be consistent because the Quran has stated that if this book were from anyone other than Allah you would find in it much inconsistency why? because inconsistency is a hallmark of humanness is a hallmark of falsehood we need to be consistent because our religion demands consistency so my brothers and sisters know but when it comes to analyzing history our شia have had very different standards now all this has done has negated the fact that the ulama of the imamiya have not used the standards of hadith in history it's a very different question as to whether or not the ulama of the imamiya have accepted this event and that's something that was in another episode insha'Allah I just wanted this particular point to be made clear to the viewers because I want the viewer to stay away from this dilemma of thinking whether or not something has to be صحيح by the standards of المدرaya in order for us to believe it has occurred when it comes to history that is not the case dear viewers I'm going to leave this point here and join me in the next episode in which we continue to discuss this point but looking at the Sunni scholars and what their standards are حافا وصلى الله عليه وسلم على سيدنا محمد وعلى أهلبيتة الطيبين الطاهرين المعصومين المبنومين السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته