Reliable Hadith al-Thaqalayn

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

In your article, you have an entire section on "V. Why did some of the scholars authenticate weak versions of hadeeth al-Thaqalayn?"

Yet i have demonstrated to you that these scholars did not authenticate them out of leniency, but outright. You never responded to my post, and seemed to accept this was the case.

Will you amend your article?

I have demonstrated in that section the reports I was referring to. And it was a general section. It no where mentions the chains you mentioned. So stop living in delusion.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

Jami’ of Tirmidhi: حدثنا علي بن المنذر كوفي حدثنا محمد بن فضيل قال حدثنا الأعمش عن عن حبيب بن أبي ثابت عن زيد بن أرقم رضي الله عنهما قالا  قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم إني تارك فيكم ما إن تمسكتم به لن تضلوا بعدي أحدهما أعظم من الآخر كتاب الله حبل ممدود من السماء إلى الأرض وعترتي أهل بيتي ولن يتفرقا حتى يردا علي الحوض فانظروا كيف تخلفوني فيهم

This is an interesting report, let's discuss this one. It has Habib bin Abi Thabit and narrated by Zaid bin Arqam.

But it goes against the most authentic version narrated by Zaid bin Arqam in Sahih Muslim and many other books, where in Quran alone was mentioned as source holding which people will not go astray, while Ahl al-bayt were reminded along with it to be taken care of.

But what is interesting now is that, there is another report in Mustadrak al Hakim, vol 3, page 613, #6272 from Habib bin Abi Thabit from Yahya from Zaid bin Arqam and it mentions again Quran alone as being the source holding which people will not go astray.

[ You are not allowed to view attachments ]
So, now this demonstrates that how narrations coming via same narrators would be twisted. That's why need to focus on the text of the report too instead of running after the grading of the chain.

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].

Ali ibn Al-Madeeni said:

علي بن المديني قال الباب إذا لم تجمع طرقه لم يتبين خطؤه

“A particular topic, when its routes are not gathered together, the mistakes will not become clear.” [Al-Jami’ li Akhlaq al-Rawi wa aadaab al-Sama’a, #1666]

[whoaretheshia]

I have demonstrated in that section the reports I was referring to. And it was a general section. It no where mentions the chains you mentioned. So stop living in delusion.

In your work, you explicitly declared Kathir b. Zayd to be weak. You did not declare him to be a Hasan narrator, or a reliable narrator with weakness. You explicitly said he is weak, and so the entire chain would have been considered weak.

In refuting the chains i have presented, you claimed that the scholars only authenticated them out of leniency because they referred to virtues. This has been proven demonstrably false, and now you are claiming you did no such thing.

So it is time for me to show you where you have discussed this with me a year and a half ago, explicitly saying these things on this forum itself.

This was the thread: http://forum.twelvershia.net/imamah-ghaybah/this-version-of-hadith-al-thaqalayn-is-saheeh-li-ghayrihi/40/



This was the first one presented on the thread:




You should acknowledge your error and amend your article. I would have done the same.

[whoaretheshia]

I will present the chains in this thread to you again:

Chain one

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 Abi Asim]

Chain two

حدثنا إبراهيم بن مرزوق قال : حدثنا أبو عامر العقدي قال : حدثنا كثير بن زيد، عن محمد بن عمر بن علي ، عن أبيه ، عن علي ، أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم  – إني قد تركت فيكم ما إن أخذتم به لن تضلوا :كتاب الله سببه بأيديكم، وأهل بيتي. [Mushkil al-Athar al-Tahawi]



Irrespective if you consider the Matn to be problematic due to a Hasan narrator who could err, do you believe the chains on their own are weak , or reliable?

After this, we can deal fully with  the Matn, you can ammend your article, and insha Allah, i can demonstrate how the Matn is not problematic further.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

This is an interesting report, let's discuss this one. It has Habib bin Abi Thabit and narrated by Zaid bin Arqam.

But it goes against the most authentic version narrated by Zaid bin Arqam in Sahih Muslim and many other books, where in Quran alone was mentioned as source holding which people will not go astray, while Ahl al-bayt were reminded along with it to be taken care of.

But what is interesting now is that, there is another report in Mustadrak al Hakim, vol 3, page 613, #6272 from Habib bin Abi Thabit from Yahya from Zaid bin Arqam and it mentions again Quran alone as being the source holding which people will not go astray.

 [ You are not allowed to view attachments ]

So, now this demonstrates that how narrations coming via same narrators would be twisted. That's why need to focus on the text of the report too instead of running after the grading of the chain.

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].

Ali ibn Al-Madeeni said:

علي بن المديني قال الباب إذا لم تجمع طرقه لم يتبين خطؤه

“A particular topic, when its routes are not gathered together, the mistakes will not become clear.” [Al-Jami’ li Akhlaq al-Rawi wa aadaab al-Sama’a, #1666]

Answer this...

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

I will present the chains in this thread to you again:

Chain one

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 Abi Asim]

Chain two

حدثنا إبراهيم بن مرزوق قال : حدثنا أبو عامر العقدي قال : حدثنا كثير بن زيد، عن محمد بن عمر بن علي ، عن أبيه ، عن علي ، أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم  – إني قد تركت فيكم ما إن أخذتم به لن تضلوا :كتاب الله سببه بأيديكم، وأهل بيتي. [Mushkil al-Athar al-Tahawi]



Irrespective if you consider the Matn to be problematic due to a Hasan narrator who could err, do you believe the chains on their own are weak , or reliable?

I feel i have answered this query. No need to run in circles.

[whoaretheshia]

I will present the chains in this thread to you again:

Chain one

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 Abi Asim]

Chain two

حدثنا إبراهيم بن مرزوق قال : حدثنا أبو عامر العقدي قال : حدثنا كثير بن زيد، عن محمد بن عمر بن علي ، عن أبيه ، عن علي ، أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم  – إني قد تركت فيكم ما إن أخذتم به لن تضلوا :كتاب الله سببه بأيديكم، وأهل بيتي. [Mushkil al-Athar al-Tahawi]



Irrespective if you consider the Matn to be problematic due to a Hasan narrator who could err, do you believe the chains on their own are weak , or reliable?

After this, we can deal fully with  the Matn, you can amend your article, and insha Allah, i can demonstrate how the Matn is not problematic further.

You explicitly declared them weak, and only graded reliable by scholars due to leniency. I think it is essential for you to be open about this brother, and not evade the question.

I am asking a very fair, and very simple question. You have not hesitated in answering this in the past, when you declared them weak and built entire articles around the fact these were allegedly weak by chain and matn, and that scholars who graded them reliable did so only out of leniency. Much of our discussion has been to address this. Before we focus on the Matn in greater depth, it is only fair to ask you whether you accept the chain as 'Hasan', like Al-Albani, Al-Arnaut, Ibn Hajar and others have also deemed it?

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

I will present the chains in this thread to you again:

Chain one

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 Abi Asim]

Chain two

حدثنا إبراهيم بن مرزوق قال : حدثنا أبو عامر العقدي قال : حدثنا كثير بن زيد، عن محمد بن عمر بن علي ، عن أبيه ، عن علي ، أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم  – إني قد تركت فيكم ما إن أخذتم به لن تضلوا :كتاب الله سببه بأيديكم، وأهل بيتي. [Mushkil al-Athar al-Tahawi]



Irrespective if you consider the Matn to be problematic due to a Hasan narrator who could err, do you believe the chains on their own are weak , or reliable?

After this, we can deal fully with  the Matn, you can amend your article, and insha Allah, i can demonstrate how the Matn is not problematic further.

You explicitly declared them weak, and only graded reliable by scholars due to leniency. I think it is essential for you to be open about this brother, and not evade the question.

I am asking a very fair, and very simple question. You have not hesitated in answering this in the past, when you declared them weak and built entire articles around the fact these were allegedly weak by chain and matn, and that scholars who graded them reliable did so only out of leniency. Much of our discussion has been to address this. Before we focus on the Matn in greater depth, it is only fair to ask you whether you accept the chain as 'Hasan', like Al-Albani, Al-Arnaut, Ibn Hajar and others have also deemed it?

I have answered what I needed to answer. My view is that the text is faulty due to weakness in narrator. So I won't be wasting my time in this silly argument of yours.

If you want to stick with the grading of al-Albani and others, then fine go ahead. What does it prove? It neither support the Shia narrative nor effects my stance.

[whoaretheshia]

I have answered what I needed to answer. My view is that the text is faulty due to weakness in narrator. So I won't be wasting my time in this silly argument of yours.

If you want to stick with the grading of al-Albani and others, then fine go ahead. What does it prove? It neither support the Shia narrative nor effects my stance.

It is absolutely essential for me to know your new opinion on the chain of narrators, whether it is a Hasan or Dhai'f level to you.

If it is a Hasan level, you would have to prove it contradicts with the Saheeh report, and no such thing can be done, as al-Albani himself points out.

If you believe the chain is Dhai'f, you don't need to take the tradition necessarily, given it could merely just be spurious.

You have spent years arguing the narrator is weak, the chain is weak, and that the scholars have only graded it 'Hasan' out of leniency. I have proven that is not the case at all, and i would like you to acknowledge that and give me your opinion on the chain.

This is the most critical aspect of our discussion, if you do not answer, people will begin to wonder why you are being evasive on the matter brother. I have asked several times now, with due respect.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

If it is a Hasan level, you would have to prove it contradicts with the Saheeh report, and no such thing can be done, as al-Albani himself points out.

I told you to proceed with the grading of al-Albani if you want to follow it. And What contradicts is the Shia narrative with the Hadith of Zaid bin Arqam, as shown in other thread and also the understanding of Sahabi Zaid bin Arqam, to whom out of discomfort you tried to disown.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

I told you to proceed with the grading of al-Albani if you want to follow it. And What contradicts is the Shia narrative with the Hadith of Zaid bin Arqam, as shown in other thread and also the understanding of Sahabi Zaid bin Arqam, to whom out of discomfort you tried to disown.

And just to show the importance of the Understanding of a Sahabi.

Abdullah ibn Mas’ood(ra) said:

وقد ذكر سنيد قال حدثنا معتمر عن سلام بن مسكين عن قتادة قال قال ابن مسعود: من كان منكم متأسيا فليتأس بأصحاب رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فإنهم كانوا أبر هذه الأمة قلوبا، وأعمقها علما، وأقلها تكلفا، وأقومها هديا، وأحسنها حالا، آختارهم الله لصحبة نبيه صلى الله عليه وسلم وإقامة دينه، فاعرفوا لهم فضلهم، واتبعوهم في آثارهم، فإنهم كانوا على الهدى المستقيم.

“Whoever wants to follow an example, let him follow the example of those who have passed away, the Companions of Muhammad (S). They were the best of this ummah, the purest in heart, the DEEPEST in knowledge, the least in sophistication. They were people whom Allah chose to be the Companions of His Prophet (S) and to convey His religion, so imitate their ways and behaviour, for they were following the Straight Path.” [Tafseer Al-Qurtabi and Sharh as-Sunnah of Al-Baghawi]

Similarly, Al-Hasan Al-Basri said:

1143 – وحدثنا ابن عبد الحميد قال : حدثنا يعقوب بن إبراهيم الدورقي قال : حدثنا حكام بن سلم الرازي ، عن عمرو بن أبي قيس ، عن عبد ربه قال : كنا عند الحسن في مجلس ، فذكر كلاما ، وذكر أصحاب النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال : « أولئك أصحاب محمد كانوا أبر هذه الأمة قلوبا ، وأعمقها علما ، وأقلها تكلفا ، قوم اختارهم الله عز وجل لصحبة نبيه ، وإقامة دينه ، فتشبهوا بأخلاقهم وطرائقهم ، فإنهم كانوا ورب الكعبة على الهدي المستقيم »

Those are the companions of Mohammad, best in the heart, DEEPEST in knowledge, without going out of their way. They were chosen by Allah to accompany his prophet, to stabilize the religion, so follow their manners and ways, for by Allah they were on the straight path.( Al-Sharee’a by Al-Ajurri #1143)

In the first report, Abdullah ibn Masood is telling the Tabaeen –- who are the second greatest generation –- to follow those who have passed away, that is the companions(sahaba) of Muhammad(saws). Abdullah ibn Masood(ra) was saying this in the time of second best generation(Tabaeen). And he gives some reasons for following the Sahaba, one of which is, “they were DEEPEST in knowledge” – notice here the choice of words, Abdullah Ibn Masood(ra) as well as Hasan Al-Basri(rah) didn’t say, Sahaba had the MOST knowledge, but they said Sahaba had the “DEEPEST knowledge”; because there were people who came after Sahaba, who might know things which Sahaba may not have known, for example Imam Al-Bukhari knew more ahadeeth than many Sahaba, because he knew of ahadeeth which different Sahaba had, he knew ahadeeth which Umar(ra) had, which Ali(ra) had, which Ibn Abbas(ra) had, which Abu Huraira(ra) had, which Ayesha(ra) had, etc, He was an encyclopaedia of Hadeeth. So Abdullah ibn Masood(ra) and Hasan Al-Basri didn’t say they had the most knowledge, but they said Sahaba had the DEEPEST knowledge.

Therefore, even though some of the scholars who came later knew the things which some of the Sahaba didn’t know, however none of the people who came after Sahaba have the depth of knowledge that the Sahaba had, because even though a Sahabi may know only two hundred hadeeth or three hundred hadeeth, but he was there when those ahadeeth were spoken by Prophet Muhammad(saws), He knew the circumstances, He knew why Prophet(saws) said it, He was there, he experienced it first hand, therefore everyone who came after Sahaba is just scratching the surface of knowledge, whereas Sahaba lived that hadeeth, an opportunity that none of the people who came after has, so sahaba had an edge over everyone who came later. This is the reason Abdullah Ibn Masood(ra) and Hasan al-Basri advised people to follow the understanding of Sahaba in comparison to those who came after.

[whoaretheshia]

I told you to proceed with the grading of al-Albani if you want to follow it. And What contradicts is the Shia narrative with the Hadith of Zaid bin Arqam, as shown in other thread and also the understanding of Sahabi Zaid bin Arqam, to whom out of discomfort you tried to disown.

I will again repeat the question:

1. Do you consider Kathir b. Zayd to be a weak narrator, or do you consider him to be Hasan-ul-Hadith (meaning he makes some mistakes, but not enough to tarnish the quality of his reports and render him a Dhai'f narrator).

2. Do you therefore consider the chain to be Hasan, like al-Albani, al-Arnaut, Ibn Hajar and many of your greatest Muhadditheen did?

Irrespective if you consider this report to go against a more authentic one, you have to be clear on your view on the grading of the report nonetheless.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

I will again repeat the question:

1. Do you consider Kathir b. Zayd to be a weak narrator, or do you consider him to be Hasan-ul-Hadith (meaning he makes some mistakes, but not enough to tarnish the quality of his reports and render him a Dhai'f narrator).

2. Do you therefore consider the chain to be Hasan, like al-Albani, al-Arnaut, Ibn Hajar and many of your greatest Muhadditheen did?

Irrespective if you consider this report to go against a more authentic one, you have to be clear on your view on the grading of the report nonetheless.

Apparently you are on a damage control mode. So keep repeating the same questions which I have already answered multiple times.

But I have made you admit due to which you are on this damage control mission. That the narrator was known for making mistakes and could make error in the text of the report. The readers can see this themselves.
[ You are not allowed to view attachments ]

[whoaretheshia]

Apparently you are on a damage control mode. So keep repeating the same questions which I have already answered multiple times.

But I have made you admit due to which you are on this damage control mission. That the narrator was known for making mistakes and could make error in the text of the report. The readers can see this themselves.
 [ You are not allowed to view attachments ]

The browser i am using sometimes does not let me quote. Either way, i read every word you write and respond to it holistically.

Nobody ever denied that Kathir b. Zayd was on the level of a Hasan, and not a Saheeh narrator, due to the fact he made some (though not many) mistakes. He remains 'Hasan-ul-Hadith' according to your greatest Muhadditheen and scholars, from al-Albani, al-Arnaut, Ibn Hajar, etc.

I had written a response to TSN/Youpuncturedtheark years ago, and acknowledged this already: https://shiaresponses.wordpress.com/2019/07/01/hadith-al-thaqalayn-2/

So i am a little bit surprised you seem to consider this all a revelation? The point i am making here is, if you are discussing a tradition, its authenticity and the like, you can not continue to avoid the one key question:

Do you consider Kathir b. Zayd to be a weak narrator, or a Hasan narrator?

Do you consider the grading of al-Albani, al-Arnaut and others correct, in that the chain of narrators is Hasan?

These are simple questions, pertinent questions, and very fair questions. You are avoiding answering this brother, with due respect, because i have demonstrated to you that al-Albani and others have regarded Kathir b. Zayd as 'Hasan-ul-Hadith' at least, have authenticated the chains and not out of leniency, and if you admit that, half of your article on youpuncturedtheark would be redundant.

Why else are you persistently avoiding to answer a very fair question?

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

The browser i am using sometimes does not let me quote. Either way, i read every word you write and respond to it holistically.

It doesn't even require a browser, if you want to make a quote. It just require typing this:

memorize it.

Nobody ever denied that Kathir b. Zayd was on the level of a Hasan, and not a Saheeh narrator, due to the fact he made some (though not many) mistakes.

That's what my point  is, when you acknowledge that he can make mistake, so stop hiding or fooling around grading made by certain scholars for the chain. Focus on the text:
 
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]

Consider this structure:

I have left behind over you the Book of Allah - one end of it is in the Hand of Allah and the other end of it is in your- hold fast to it you will never go astray and my Ahl al-bayt.

This is just a restructure of the above report. I didn't add anything. Had he narrated it in this way, it would have been clear. That's why the problem here is him not being precise in retention or narrating, because such an issue costed an explicit manner turn into confusing issue. And I'm aware being a staunch Shia you are going to act stubbornly, but this demonstration is for the readers, they can see, how just the structure formation turns the condition of a statement. The re-structure I made is supported by the accurate version of Hadeeth Thaqalayn and also many other reports where in Quran alone was mentioned as the source holding which people won't go astray.

[whoaretheshia]

Only five or six months ago, you had been arguing that Kathir b. Zayd is a weak narrator (going against the views of al-Albani,  al-Arnaut, Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, and their likes) yet admitted i agree Kathir b. Zayd makes some, but not many mistakes (i.e. he is Hasan-ul-Hadith but not Saheeh).

Now you are not willing to explicitly state your current position on Kathir b.Zayd, whether you believe as you did before, he is a weak narrator, rendering the chains weak, or if you believe he only has some weakness.

You are also making claims about me changing, but months ago admitted i never denied Kathir b. Zayd had weakness:

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

Only five or six months ago, you had been arguing that Kathir b. Zayd is a weak narrator (going against the views of al-Albani,  al-Arnaut, Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, and their likes) yet admitted i agree Kathir b. Zayd makes some, but not many mistakes (i.e. he is Hasan-ul-Hadith but not Saheeh).

Now you are not willing to explicitly state your current position on Kathir b.Zayd, whether you believe as you did before, he is a weak narrator, rendering the chains weak, or if you believe he only has some weakness.

You are also making claims about me changing, but months ago admitted i never denied Kathir b. Zayd had weakness:

My previous posts are a refutation to all our damage control techniques, anyone who reads them would clearly see that. We both agree that Kathir bin Zayd can make mistakes, and I have demonstrated how he narrated the text in a faulty/ambiguous form, and when I re-structured the wordings, it was matching the accurate version that Quran alone was to be held to not go astray.

The understanding of Sahaba such as, Zayd bin Arqam(RA) and Umar(RA), supports this view of mine.