In the name of Allah,Why did you mention Youpuncturedtheark's name, when you didn't want to address the analysis done for the hadeeth in question on it? It not only dealt with the chain, but even the text of the report.
Salam
TSN and Youpuncturedtheark have tried many a time to weaken Hadith-at-Thaqalayn.
Issue with Chain of Transmission:[/size]
Narrator Kathīr bin Zayd is a weak transmitter.
(a). Ibn Abi Hatim in Kitab al-Jarh wa al-Ta`dil:
سئل يحيى بن معين عن كثير بن زيد فقال ليس بذاك القوى…فقال ابو زرعة هو صدوق فيه لين
Yahya ibn Ma`in was asked about Kathir ibn Zayd and he said: “He is not strong according to the Muhaddithin”… Abu Zur’ah said: “Truthful but he has weakness.”[Kitab al-Jarh wa al-Ta`dil, vol 7, page 150-151, #841].
(b). Al-Dhahabi in al-Mizan:
قال ابو زرعة فيه لين…قال النسائى ضعيف
Abu Zur`ah said: “He has weakness”… Nasa’i said: “Da’if(weak)” [al-Meezan, vol 5, page 489]
(c). Ibn Hajar in al-Tahdhib:
صالح بن أبي خيثمة عن بن معين ليس بذاك وكان اولا قال ليس بشيئ…قال النسائى ضعيف…قال ابو جعفر الطبرى كثير بن زيد عندهم ممن لا يحتج بنقله
Ibn Abi Khaythamah has reported from Ibn Ma`in: “He is not reliable.” And he first said: “He is nothing”… Nasa’i said: “Da`if”… Abu Ja`far al-Tabari said: Kathir ibn Zayd is amongst those whose narrations cannot be substantiated from.” [Tahdhib al-Tahdhib vol 8, page 414, #745]
(d). Imaam Dhahabi said: “There is weakness in Katheer ibn Zayd“ [Mu’jam ash-Shuyookh ul-Kabeer by Dhahabi, vol 1, page 240]
(e). Ibn Jawzi mentioned him in Kitab al-Duafa wal Matrukin(weak and rejected narrators). [Kitab al-Duafa wal Matrukin by Ibn Jawzi vol 3, page 22 , #2786 ]
(f). Imaam Ali ibn al-Madeeni said: “Saalih, He is not Strong.“ [Sawalat Ibn Abi Shaybah by Ibn al-Madeeni: Pg 95]
(g). Ibn Ḥajar says: “He is a sadūq(truthful) who makes mistakes in his transmission. [Taqrib al-Tahdhib, vol 1, page 459]
In the above references, the scholars of hadith have explicitly mentioned that the narrator Kathir bin Zayd is weak in the field of hadith. And even though there were some other scholars who praised him, however as the famous principle of hadeeth science “Explained disparagement is given preference over commendation”[Kitab Marifat Anwa ilm Al-hadith by ibn al-Salaah, page 84].
Issue with the Matn(text) :
The text of this version is ambiguous, as we shall see. But before we proceed let us present the grading given by Some Scholars for this report, along with the clarification of these gradings:
Shu’ayb Arnaut states regarding the above tradition: إسناده حسن [Isnaad Hasan]
Ibn Hajar Al Asqalani states: إسناد صحيح [Isnaad Saheeh].
What does the terms Isnaad Saheeh or Isnaad Hasan imply?
Al-Haafiz ibn al-Salaah said:
” قولهم : ( هذا حديث صحيح الإسناد أو حسن الإسناد ) دون قولهم : هذا حديث صحيح أو حديث حسن لأنه قد يقال : هذا حديث صحيح الإسناد ، ولا يصح لكونه شاذا أو معللا ”
When they say “This hadeeth has a Saheeh Isnaad(chain) or a Hasan Isnaad(chain)” instead of “this is a saheeh hadeeth or a hasan hadeeth”, that is because it may be said that this hadeeth has a saheeh isnaad but it is not saheeh per se because it is shaadhdh(odd) or mu’allal(faulty). [Muqaddimah fi ‘Uloom al-Hadeeth, page 23].
Imam Ibn Katheer says:
” الحكم بالصحة أو الحسن على الإسناد لا يلزم منه الحكم بذلك على المتن ، إذ قد يكون شاذاً أو معللاً ”
The fact that the Isnaad(chain) is deemed to be Saheeh or Hasan does not necessarily mean that the same applies to the text, because it may be shaadhdh(odd) or mu’allal(faulty). [Ikhtisaar ‘Uloom al-Hadeeth page 43].
In regards to the accuracy of the text of this hadeeth in question, then it has an ambiguous wording or in a way faulty wording. The readers must know that Prophet(saws) uttered only one version(in regards to formation/structure of sentence) out of the different versions, and the most authentic and clear version(in regards to the sentence formation/structure) is the version of Hadeeth al-Thaqalayn in Sahih Muslim. The ambiguity in the wording of the hadith in question occurred due to the reason that a sub-narrator(who was known for making mistakes in his transmission) narrated it in a summarized form, instead of narrating it in an accurate and proper form as found in Sahih Muslim.
Abu Bakr al-Khatib said:
قال الخطيب البغدادي: “السبيل إلى معرفة علة الحديث أن يجمع بين طرقه، وينظر في اختلاف رواته، ويعتبر بمكانهم في الحفظ، ومنزلتهم في الإتقان والضبط”
“The way to discover the defect of a hadith is to collect the lines of transmission, examine the differences of its transmitters and examine their position in regard to retention and their status in regard to exactitude and precision. [Uloom al-Hadeeth by Ibn Salaah, page 91- 92].
Abdullah bin Mubarak said:
ابْنَ الْمُبَارَكِ ، يَقُولُ : ” إِذَا أَرَدْتَ أَنْ يَصِحَّ لَكَ الْحَدِيثُ فَاضْرِبْ بَعْضَهُ بِبَعْضٍ
If you want to check authenticity of a hadith, then present it against other hadiths. [Al-Jami’ li Akhlaq al-Rawi wa aadaab al-Sama’a #1934]
Therefore, inorder to understand the text of this summarized and ambiguous version, we need to use the most authentic version of Hadeeth al-Thaqalayn, which clarifies the ambuiguity in the summarized version. This is the proper method of doing justice with the report.
Ambiguous version states:
إِنِّي تَرَكْتُ فِيكُمْ مَا إِنْ أَخَذْتُمْ بِهِ لَنْ تَضِلُّوا : كِتَابَ اللَّهِ ، سَبَبُهُ بِيَدِ اللَّهِ ، وَسَبَبُهُ بِأَيْدِيكُمْ ، وَأَهْلَ بَيْتِي
I have left behind over you that which if you hold fast to IT you will never go astray: the Book of Allah – one end of IT is in the Hand of Allah and the other end of IT is in your hands– and my Ahl al-Bayt”.[Musnad Ishaq ibn Rahwayah]
Accurate version of Sahih Muslim{supported by twenty five(25) chains} states:
أَنَا تَارِكٌ فِيكُمْ ثَقَلَيْنِ أَوَّلُهُمَا كِتَابُ اللَّهِ فِيهِ الْهُدَى وَالنُّورُ فَخُذُوا بِكِتَابِ اللَّهِ وَاسْتَمْسِكُوا بِهِ ” . فَحَثَّ عَلَى كِتَابِ اللَّهِ وَرَغَّبَ فِيهِ ثُمَّ قَالَ ” وَأَهْلُ بَيْتِي أُذَكِّرُكُمُ اللَّهَ فِي أَهْلِ بَيْتِي
I am leaving among you two weighty things: the first one being the Book of Allah in IT there is right guidance and light, so hold fast to the Book of Allah and adhere to IT. He continued to encourage and urge regarding the Book of Allah. He then said: (secondly) and my AhlelBayt! I remind you of Allah with regard to the people of my household(Ahlelbayt). [Sahih Muslim #2408]
The Key word that needs to be focused in both versions is the pronoun {هِ/hi/hu= IT}, which is a singular pronoun. Even though as per Arabic grammar, the word (هِ/hi/IT) can occur for two or more things being addressed as in reference to (مَا/maa/Which), but without the change in verbs for the nouns being mentioned and it should be in a single sentence. However, in the accurate version of Sahih Muslim, we see that it has two verbs, Astamsiku bihi(adhere to it) and udhakkirukum(I remind you). These are two sentences, with two different verbs, and it doesn’t have (مَا/maa/which) in it. Moreover, in one of the report (مَا/maa/which) was used in reference to holding on Quran alone[Refer, Mustadrak al Hakim, vol 3, page 613, #6272], and there is no mention of Ahlelbayt in this report, which again proves the correctness of our explanation, that the command was to adhere/hold only one thing, that is Quran.
Therefore, the ambiguous version having the singular pronoun (هِ/hi/IT) must be understood in the light of the accurate and clear version(of Sahih Muslim), which clarifies that the command to “adhere to it” or “hold on it” was for single thing, that is Quran only. The sentence itself demonstrates that the mention of guidance, light, holding and adherence, is for Quran alone. As for mention of Ahlelbayt in the hadeeth, then they were mentioned to be reminded to people about their duties towards them. That’s why in one report there is no mention of Ahlelbayt but Quran alone, holding which people will not go astray.
Afaan — Hassaan bin Ibrahim — Sa’eed bin Masrooq — Yazid bin Hayyan — Zayd bin Arqam said: Prophet(SAWS) said: I am leaving amongst you the Book of Allah, and that is the rope of Allah. He who holds it fast would be on right guidance and he who abandons it would be on misguidance. [Musannaf fi al-Ahadeeth wa al-Athar, by Ibn Abi Shaybah, vol 6, page 133, #30078].
Our explanation is also supported and strenghtened by the authentic reports about Quran alone being source of guidance from (a). Ja’far bin Muhammad(Jafar as-Sadiq) from his father(Muhammad al Baqir) from Jabir bin Abdullah. [Sahih Muslim, vol 3, page 343 — 350, #2950(1218)] ; [Musannaf fi al-Ahadeeth wa al-Athar, by Ibn Abi Shaybah, vol 6, page 133, #30077] (b). Abdullah ibn Umar. [Musnad al-Bazzar, vol 12, page 298-300, #6135] ; (c). Abu Shurayh al-‘Adawi and (d). Jubair bin Mut’am. [Silsilah al-Sahiha, vol 2, page 230, #713] ; (e). Ubay ibn Ka’b. [Hilyat ul- Awliya, vol 1, page 253] ; (f). Also from the Sermon of Ali ibn Abi Talib reported in Shia book. [Nahjul Balagha, Sermon 1] ; (g). Last but not the least, the understanding of Sahabi Zayd bin Arqam, which has been explained in detailed under Section (IX) of this article.
All these reports collectively support the fact that only Quran is to be adhered to gain guidance and not go astray and they collectively support our explanation for the ambiguous version. And this is a proper academic method to understand an ambiguous hadeeth, because an authentic hadeeth of Prophet(saws) which is clear and accurate explains the other ambiguous hadeeth having faulty text.
NOTE: Readers should notice that, we don’t find the mention of Prophet(saws) reminding of Ahlelbayt in this ambiguous/faulty version, so where did it disappear? It is quite clear that, the weak narrator who was known for making mistakes in his transmission, erroneously reported this version of Hadeeth al-Thaqalayn in an ambiguous/faulty form. We won’t find any faulty version of Hadeeth al-Thaqalayn, which mentions adhering or holding both Quran and Ahlelbayt, also mentioning the reminder towards Ahlelbayt.
Most importantly, the Shia interpretation for the faulty version of Hadeeth al-Thaqalayn, even contradicts Quran(4:59). Hence, the Shia interpretation is rejected.
Narrator Kathīr bin Zayd is a weak transmitter.
(a). Ibn Abi Hatim in Kitab al-Jarh wa al-Ta`dil:
سئل يحيى بن معين عن كثير بن زيد فقال ليس بذاك القوى…فقال ابو زرعة هو صدوق فيه لين
Yahya ibn Ma`in was asked about Kathir ibn Zayd and he said: “He is not strong according to the Muhaddithin”… Abu Zur’ah said: “Truthful but he has weakness.”[Kitab al-Jarh wa al-Ta`dil, vol 7, page 150-151, #841].
(b). Al-Dhahabi in al-Mizan:
قال ابو زرعة فيه لين…قال النسائى ضعيف
Abu Zur`ah said: “He has weakness”… Nasa’i said: “Da’if(weak)” [al-Meezan, vol 5, page 489]
(c). Ibn Hajar in al-Tahdhib:
صالح بن أبي خيثمة عن بن معين ليس بذاك وكان اولا قال ليس بشيئ…قال النسائى ضعيف…قال ابو جعفر الطبرى كثير بن زيد عندهم ممن لا يحتج بنقله
Ibn Abi Khaythamah has reported from Ibn Ma`in: “He is not reliable.” And he first said: “He is nothing”… Nasa’i said: “Da`if”… Abu Ja`far al-Tabari said: Kathir ibn Zayd is amongst those whose narrations cannot be substantiated from.” [Tahdhib al-Tahdhib vol 8, page 414, #745]
(d). Imaam Dhahabi said: “There is weakness in Katheer ibn Zayd“ [Mu’jam ash-Shuyookh ul-Kabeer by Dhahabi, vol 1, page 240]
(e). Ibn Jawzi mentioned him in Kitab al-Duafa wal Matrukin(weak and rejected narrators). [Kitab al-Duafa wal Matrukin by Ibn Jawzi vol 3, page 22 , #2786 ]
(f). Imaam Ali ibn al-Madeeni said: “Saalih, He is not Strong.“ [Sawalat Ibn Abi Shaybah by Ibn al-Madeeni: Pg 95]
(g). Ibn Ḥajar says: “He is a sadūq(truthful) who makes mistakes in his transmission. [Taqrib al-Tahdhib, vol 1, page 459]
In the above references, the scholars of hadith have explicitly mentioned that the narrator Kathir bin Zayd is weak in the field of hadith. And even though there were some other scholars who praised him, however as the famous principle of hadeeth science “Explained disparagement is given preference over commendation”[Kitab Marifat Anwa ilm Al-hadith by ibn al-Salaah, page 84].
Shu’ayb Arnaut states regarding the above tradition: إسناده حسن [Isnaad Hasan]
Ibn Hajar Al Asqalani states: إسناد صحيح [Isnaad Saheeh].
What does the terms Isnaad Saheeh or Isnaad Hasan imply?
Al-Haafiz ibn al-Salaah said:
” قولهم : ( هذا حديث صحيح الإسناد أو حسن الإسناد ) دون قولهم : هذا حديث صحيح أو حديث حسن لأنه قد يقال : هذا حديث صحيح الإسناد ، ولا يصح لكونه شاذا أو معللا ”
When they say “This hadeeth has a Saheeh Isnaad(chain) or a Hasan Isnaad(chain)” instead of “this is a saheeh hadeeth or a hasan hadeeth”, that is because it may be said that this hadeeth has a saheeh isnaad but it is not saheeh per se because it is shaadhdh(odd) or mu’allal(faulty). [Muqaddimah fi ‘Uloom al-Hadeeth, page 23].
Imam Ibn Katheer says:
” الحكم بالصحة أو الحسن على الإسناد لا يلزم منه الحكم بذلك على المتن ، إذ قد يكون شاذاً أو معللاً ”
The fact that the Isnaad(chain) is deemed to be Saheeh or Hasan does not necessarily mean that the same applies to the text, because it may be shaadhdh(odd) or mu’allal(faulty). [Ikhtisaar ‘Uloom al-Hadeeth page 43].
The Key word that needs to be focused in both versions is the pronoun {هِ/hi/hu= IT}, which is a singular pronoun. Even though as per Arabic grammar, the word (هِ/hi/IT) can occur for two or more things being addressed as in reference to (مَا/maa/Which), but without the change in verbs for the nouns being mentioned and it should be in a single sentence. However, in the accurate version of Sahih Muslim, we see that it has two verbs, Astamsiku bihi(adhere to it) and udhakkirukum(I remind you). These are two sentences, with two different verbs, and it doesn’t have (مَا/maa/which) in it. Moreover, in one of the report (مَا/maa/which) was used in reference to holding on Quran alone[Refer, Mustadrak al Hakim, vol 3, page 613, #6272], and there is no mention of Ahlelbayt in this report, which again proves the correctness of our explanation, that the command was to adhere/hold only one thing, that is Quran.
Therefore, the ambiguous version having the singular pronoun (هِ/hi/IT) must be understood in the light of the accurate and clear version(of Sahih Muslim), which clarifies that the command to “adhere to it” or “hold on it” was for single thing, that is Quran only. The sentence itself demonstrates that the mention of guidance, light, holding and adherence, is for Quran alone. As for mention of Ahlelbayt in the hadeeth, then they were mentioned to be reminded to people about their duties towards them. That’s why in one report there is no mention of Ahlelbayt but Quran alone, holding which people will not go astray.
Our explanation is also supported and strenghtened by the authentic reports about Quran alone being source of guidance from (a). Ja’far bin Muhammad(Jafar as-Sadiq) from his father(Muhammad al Baqir) from Jabir bin Abdullah. [Sahih Muslim, vol 3, page 343 — 350, #2950(1218)] ; [Musannaf fi al-Ahadeeth wa al-Athar, by Ibn Abi Shaybah, vol 6, page 133, #30077] (b). Abdullah ibn Umar. [Musnad al-Bazzar, vol 12, page 298-300, #6135] ; (c). Abu Shurayh al-‘Adawi and (d). Jubair bin Mut’am. [Silsilah al-Sahiha, vol 2, page 230, #713] ; (e). Ubay ibn Ka’b. [Hilyat ul- Awliya, vol 1, page 253] ; (f). Also from the Sermon of Ali ibn Abi Talib reported in Shia book. [Nahjul Balagha, Sermon 1] ; (g). Last but not the least, the understanding of Sahabi Zayd bin Arqam, which has been explained in detailed under Section (IX) of this article.
All these reports collectively support the fact that only Quran is to be adhered to gain guidance and not go astray and they collectively support our explanation for the ambiguous version. And this is a proper academic method to understand an ambiguous hadeeth, because an authentic hadeeth of Prophet(saws) which is clear and accurate explains the other ambiguous hadeeth having faulty text.
NOTE: Readers should notice that, we don’t find the mention of Prophet(saws) reminding of Ahlelbayt in this ambiguous/faulty version, so where did it disappear? It is quite clear that, the weak narrator who was known for making mistakes in his transmission, erroneously reported this version of Hadeeth al-Thaqalayn in an ambiguous/faulty form. We won’t find any faulty version of Hadeeth al-Thaqalayn, which mentions adhering or holding both Quran and Ahlelbayt, also mentioning the reminder towards Ahlelbayt.
Most importantly, the Shia interpretation for the faulty version of Hadeeth al-Thaqalayn, even contradicts Quran(4:59). Hence, the Shia interpretation is rejected.
His explanation is that Kathir b.Zayd, due to the fact he makes some mistakes, took the version in Saheeh Muslim where the words were used in singular to refer to the Quran alone, and perhaps accidentally added in 'Ahlulbayt' after.I didn't mean to say that, Kathir bin Zayd accidentally added Ahlulbayt, but rather Kathir bin Zayd narrated it in a summarized and ambiguous form and not in an accurate form, which was narrated by Zayd bin Arqam in Sahih Muslim. And the ambiguous form is open for interpretation, and I explained it based on other authentic reports.
(i). In Post#4 brother "WhoaretheShia" , tried to argue that Kathir bin Zayd is not weak, keeping aside the fruitless discussion of showing why the criticism on Kathir bin Zayd is explained and preferred, I believe its better to discuss something which we both agree. I believe the Shia brother doesn't disagree with the fact that, Kathir bin Zayd, was declared as someone who made mistakes in his reports. So this must be kept it mind. Because the issue here is with the text of the report. Two of the five conditions for a hadeeth to be deemed reliable are that, there shouldn't be any fault in the text and another is that it shouldn't go against the report narrated by stronger narrators. And in my previous response, I explained that how it doesn't fulfill these two conditions for the Sahih hadeeth.
(ii). Then in Post #6, The Shia brother, quoted a part from Shaykh Albani's explanation, while if you read his complete explanation, you won't agree to most of his points. So you can't pick and choose and reject what you dislike. And not to forget, that Shaykh al-Albani authenticated the hadeeth in Silsilat al-Ahaadeeth as-Saheehah, based on the Shahid of the hadeeth of Zaid bin Arqam in Sahih Muslim(4/356).
In Same post, He presented some other chains in support of the ambiguous version of Kathir bin Zayd, without pointing out the fact that all the chains he presented have weak narrators in them, which supports my stance and weakens his, because the version he is trying to back is coming only from unreliable narrators. While the explicit version in Sahih Muslim from Zaid bin Arqam is supported by other authentic reports, about Quran alone being source of guidance from (a). Ja’far bin Muhammad(Jafar as-Sadiq) from his father(Muhammad al Baqir) from Jabir bin Abdullah. [Sahih Muslim, vol 3, page 343 — 350, #2950(1218)] ; [Musannaf fi al-Ahadeeth wa al-Athar, by Ibn Abi Shaybah, vol 6, page 133, #30077] (b). Abu Shurayh al-‘Adawi and (c). Jubair bin Mut’am. [Silsilah al-Sahiha, vol 2, page 230, #713] ; (d). Also from the Sermon of Ali ibn Abi Talib reported in Shia book. [Nahjul Balagha, Sermon 1] ; (e). Last but not the least, the understanding of Sahabi Zayd bin Arqam.
If you want to argue that the narration is weak based on him contradicting a more authentic report, this must be declared explicitly as your only reason.We both agree that this narrator used to make mistakes. And a report or the interpretation of a report which goes against an explicit report that was narrator by stronger reports would be rejected.
There are a number of versions of Hadith at-Thaqalayn he authenticated, and it is pertinent here to note he authenticated the following chain:The discussion there was about Albani's explanation of the hadeeth, which is about the text, as for the chain, then we agree that the narrator in there was saduq but used to make mistakes. And since you are bringing up the grading of chain from Albani, then here is what Farid had to say.
حدثنا سليمان بن عبيد الله الغيلاني، حدثنا أبو عامر، حدثنا كثير بن زيد، عن محمد بن عمر بن علي، عن أبيه، عن علي رضي الله عنه أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال :إني تركت فيكم ما إن أخذتم به لن تضلوا :كتاب الله، سببه بيد الله، وسببه بأيديكم، وأهل بيتي. [Musnad Ibn Rahwayh, Sunan Ibn Asim, Aqeedah at-Tahawi]
(https://i.imgur.com/t7A5A5X.png)
2) He often grades the hadith with little attention to wording or false additions.
First look at the fact he regards this tradition as a strong witness.Scholars some times, do not pay attention to the wording of the hadeeth which they use as Shahid. Here is the example of Zubair Ali Za'ee who initially authenticated a report based on Shahid, then eventually retracted his opinion stating the text is not same.
The purpose of presenting the other chains despite knowing they are not authentic to you was not for the chains themselves, but the Arabic. You had claimed the usage of the Arabic in the report was very ambigious and the explanation for it was that Kathir b. Zayd made a mistake. However, you admitted this was still a perfectly acceptable usage of the Arabic, and i presented several other chains of narrators with the very same usage independent of Kathir b.Zayd, which is evidence many others widely used this style of speech , perhaps for brevity or eloquence.You again missed the mark. You are using the text as witness, which was reported EXCLUSIVELY from Weak and unreliable narrators. While this goes against Authentic reports narrated from various other narrators which shows that Quran alone was to be adhered.
After further analyzing brother Noor-us-Sunnah's argument, it appears it entirely hinges on his conjecture of the Arabic words and their usage, which he tries to then present as contradicting the other reports. However, an analysis of the version in Saheeh Muslim and the version presented here demonstrates there is no contradiction at all.Other reports, aren't just from Zaid bin Arqam, but from multiple Sahaba, and in all of these we find Quran alone being source that needs to be adhered. I mentioned those in previous post, but you conveniently skipped.
1. In the version of Saheeh Muslim, the Prophet says he is leaving behind two weighty things, the Quran, to which he then says is light and guidance and that we must hold fast onto it and adhere to it.Due to not reading the article on Youpuncturedtheark properly, the Shia brother is making his claims based on conjecture. While, the reports from Zaid bin Arqam, does mention about not going astray, and even that too, Quran alone was mentioned.
2. In the version presented on this thread, the Prophet states he is leaving behind two weighty things, which if we hold onto, we will never go astray, the Quran, and his Ahlulbayt.
It is clear that the version in Sahih Muslim doesn't contradict the one in the Musnad of ibn Rahwayh/Aqeedah at-Tahawi. Rather, Zayd b. Aqram merely omits 'if you hold onto them you will never go astray' as well as 'and they will never deviate from one another until the lake-fount'. Instead, he goes onto describing that the Prophet said the Quran was light and guidance and to adhere to it, and he repeated three times reminding them and Allah as a witness about his Ahlulbayt.
The other reports do not elaborate on what the Prophet said about the Quran, or about mentioning the Ahlulbayt three times because they merely summarize what the Prophet saidExactly, and this summarized version came us through narrators who were either weak or the one who used to make mistakes. And this summarized version is weak, and IT'S MISinterpretation by Shias goes against Quran version of Thaqalayn and other reliable reports, but it's correct interpretation doesn't.
Once more, Zayd reported he was very old, forgot a number of traditions, and was distressed about his memory loss. He may have sincerely only reported what he thought he remembered accurately, but many who lose memory may sincerely be mistaken. Indeed, the Sahaba are given a free pass and anyone else would have been weakened by Sunni scholars of Hadith on account of this, which undermines the entire objectivity of the debate. Having said that, assuming he reported accurately what he remembered, it is clear he omitted two phrases which we find in other authentic reports, and this may have been due to his memory.Firstly, you are basing your views on assumptions. While on other hand Zaid was confident in what he narrated(accuracy) AND as WITNESS we have reports from other Sahaba as well, which i just quoted, proving that Quran alone is to be adhered.
We both agree that this narrator used to make mistakes. And a report or the interpretation of a report which goes against an explicit report that was narrator by stronger reports would be rejected.
Scholars some times, do not pay attention to the wording of the hadeeth which they use as Shahid. Here is the example of Zubair Ali Za'ee who initially authenticated a report based on Shahid, then eventually retracted his opinion stating the text is not same.
https://youpuncturedtheark.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/al-hadeeth-vol-100-page-20-by-zubair-ali-zaee.jpg
Secondly, Albani's style of grading was a bit different, he would even use weak reports as acceptable Shahid, to strengthen a report. Here is one example:
Here you see Albani himself weakened a report: https://sunnah.com/abudawud/6/7
But here you see ALbani's using this report as Shahid: https://youpuncturedtheark.files.wordpress.com/2019/05/salat-al-taraweeh-page-9.jpg
Moreover, you cannot make Qiyas over the grading of Albani, because Albani if he wanted could have stated the hadeeth as Hasan, instead of Isnad Hasan, when he knew that both are taken differently. And as I said, his explanation is because the text is ambiguous and he didn't find it an issue hence, interpreted it, which you don't agree with in totality. But the reason I'm pointing out its ambiguity as an issue because the interpretation given by Shias, is going against other authentic reports and even Quran.
To summarize:You are repeating the arguments that have already been answered. Katheer bin Zayd used to make mistakes. That’s my point. If you disagree then say it. Otherwise no need ti repeat answered arguments.
1. Kathir b. Zayd is regarded as at least Hasan-ul-Hadith by al-Albani, al-Arnaut, Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, and accusing him of being a weak narrator has no weight for most Sunnis.
3. As for the Matn, al-Albani and many others accepted it, and never claimed it is ambiguous, nor did he at any point claim it contradicts any other version, and it is patently clear as proven in previous posts there are no contradictions.if it wasn’t ambiguous then there was no need to give its interpretations which he did. Even I wouldn’t have a problem with the text, when I know of it’s proper interpretation, but the issue is when people misinterpret it, that is when they need to reminded that there is a stronger and proper version which refutes the MISinterpretation that is being done.
Youpuncturedtheark/brother Noor-us-Sunnah is incorrect when he claims it contradicts more reliable reports. The only way to weaken a hadith that is Hasan is by showing a stronger report that contradicts it, which is what the brother is now trying to do.Again I repeat what I stated previously. What is contradicting the authentic reports is the Shia MISinterpretation for the ambiguous report. So what got refuted was your MISinterpretation, otherwise , even I explained this hadeeth in a proper way.
In the name of Allah,
Salam,
Time permitting i will address all of the posts i have not done so already, however i'd like to share this for mutual reflection:
Al-Albani, one of the great modern day Sunni-Salafi scholars of Hadith [Who authenticated the second version]: “What is specifically meant by the members of the household is the righteous scholars among them, who adhere to the Qur’an and Sunnah. Imam Abu Ja‘far at-Tahhaawi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: The “family” are the members of his household (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) who adhere to his religion and follow in his footsteps. Conclusion: the mention, in this hadith, of the members of his household, alongside the Qur’an, is like the mention of the way of the Rightly Guided Caliphs alongside the Sunnah (way) of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) in the hadith: “I urge you to adhere to my way (Sunnah) and the way of the Rightly Guided Caliphs…” [22]
Imam Nawawi:”The scholars said: The two have been called Thaqalayn to show their ealtedness and the greatness of their importance. It has also been said that the word is used to show the heaviness of the (responsibility to) act by their instructions.” [23]
Al-Zamakhshari states: Jinn and man have been called the Two Weighty Things (i.e. Thaqalaan, as in Qur’an 55:31) because both of them dwell on the earth, and are actually the two most important beings on it. The Qur’an and the itrah have been likened to them because the good health and survival of the religion is dependent upon them, just as the survival of the earth is dependent upon the existence of jinn and man on it. ” [24]
Ibn Athir:” The two (i.e. Qur’an and Ahl al-Bayt) have been called Thaqalayn (i.e. the Two Weighty Things)because holding firmly onto them and acting by their instructions is a heavy (responsibility), and it is said that everything that is weighty is precious. The two have been called Thaqalayn in recognition of their authority and importance.” [25]
Shaykh Hasan al-Saqqaf: Holding firmly onto the Ahl al-Bayt (as in hadith Thaqalayn) means loving them,defending their rights, copying their manners, following their guidance and conduct, acting by their narrations (of the Sunnah), basing one’s religion upon their opinions, statements and jurisprudence and to prefer them above all others.” [26]
Mullah Ali al-Qari :“Holding firmly onto the Ahl al-Bayt (as in Hadith Thaqalayn) means loving them, defening their rights, acting by their narrations (of the Sunnah) and basing one’s religion upon their words.” [27]
Shaykh al-Munawi states: “The Holy Prophet (pbuh) made the Holy Qur’an and the Ahl al-Bayt his successors and instructed his Ummah to be kind to them both, to place their rights above their own and to hold onto them both in the religion.”[28]
Al-Sindi: “It was as if the Prophet (saw) made them equal in importance to his position. Just as in his (pbuh) life, it was him and the Qu’raan after his death. It was his family and the Qu’raan. But it means that we must abide by their love and position, not abiding to their orders and actions. [29]
Note: Bizarrely, al-Sindi admits that the noble Quran and the Ahlulbayt are on equal position and in place of the Prophet (saw) after his death, and then manages to claim that this does not mean obedience. It is clear that if they are equal in importance to his position after his death, this denotes we obey them and adhere to their commands.
On the statement ‘and they will never deviate from one another until they reach the lake-fount”
Ibn Taymiyyah: “The Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said concerning his family: “They and the Book will never be separated until they both come to him at the Cistern.” And he is the most truthful one, so this indicates that the consensus of the (Prophet’s) family constitutes proof. This is the view of a number of our companions, and it was mentioned by al-Qaadi in al-Mu‘tamad.” [30]
Interestingly, Al-Albani when discussing a version which has ‘Sunnah’ in place of Ahlulbayt, makes a very interesting admission:
“Rather, it is obligatory to consider the Book and the Sunnah as a single source, with no difference between them both, as indicated in the statement of the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him: “I have been given the Qur’an and its likeness with it”, that is the Sunnah, and his statement:“Both shall never separate until they meet me at the Lake-Fount.” [31]
[22] Silsilat al-Ahaadeeth as-Saheehah (4/260).
[23] Sharh Sahih al-Muslim, Vol. 15, p. 180
[24] Al-Faiq fi Gharib al-Hadith, Vol. 1, p. 150
[25] Al-Nihayah fi Gharib al-Hadith, Vol. 1, p. 216
[26] Sahih Sharh al-Aqidat al-Tahawiyah, p. 653
[27] Mirqat al-Mafatih, Vol. 9, p. 3974
[28] Fayd al-Qadeer, Vol. 3, p. 20
[29] Footnotes by Shuayb’al-Arnaut quoting al-Sindi in Jamia Tirmidhi Sunan Al -Tirmidhi. Vol. 6, Pg. # 335.
[30] Source: Minhaaj as-Sunnah an-Nabawiyyah (7/395)
[31] Abu ‘Abd al-Rahman Ahmad b. Shu’ayb al-Nasai, al-Mujtaba min al-Sunan (Halab: Maktab al-Matbu’at al-Islamiyyah; 2nd edition, 1406 H) [annotator: Muhammad Nasir al-Din al-Albani], vol. 5, p. 153, # 2736]]
Ibn Taymiyyah: “The Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said concerning his family: “They and the Book will never be separated until they both come to him at the Cistern.” And he is the most truthful one, so this indicates that the consensus of the (Prophet’s) family constitutes proof. This is the view of a number of our companions, and it was mentioned by al-Qaadi in al-Mu‘tamad.” [30]
[30] Source: Minhaaj as-Sunnah an-Nabawiyyah (7/395)
Your appeal to the Sahabi Zayd concerning the understanding of this tradition does not hold water. In Saheeh Muslim, and we know for certain he narrated it during very old age when he complained of memory problems, he is adamant that the Ahlulbayt do not include the wives. If your scholars themselves claim that it is common knowledge the Ahlulbayt include the wives, you can not have your cake and eat it, so to speak dear brother.No one is challenging the understanding of Zayd bin Arqam(RA) it is unchallenged and spotless, for the obvious reason that he witnessed the event when Prophet(S) said those words. I'll give a chance to someone saying he missed some wordings while narrating it due to old age, but no way one could say that he misunderstood that Ahl al-bayt are all those members of household whom upon acceptance of was forbidden. That would be a preposterous claim, because even old age wouldn't make him form that view.