Reliable Hadith al-Thaqalayn

[whoaretheshia]

From: https://shiaresponses.wordpress.com/2019/06/29/hadith-al-thaqalayn/

Unknown to many Sunni Muslims, during the last few months of the life of the prophet Muhammed (saw), at Ghadir Khumm, a place between Makkah and Medina, the Prophet made a very clear and vital major declaration.

What he announced to the masses is as follows:

“The Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, said: “I have left behind over you (al-Thaqalayn) that which if you hold fast to it you will never go astray: the Book of Allah – one end of which is in the Hand of Allah and the other in your hands– and my Ahl al-Bayt.”

We wish to present four chains of narrators we feel will be accepted by the vast majority of Sunnis, starting with the one that will be most widely accepted.

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]

The only difference between the two chains is a narrator at the beginning who is indisputably Thiqah, and so the following will apply for both, although al-Albani/ al-Arnaut were grading the second chain:

1.Muhammad Nasir-ud-Dīn al-Albani included this in Silsila al-aHaadith as-Sahiha, referring to it as a strong Shawahid, whose narrators are trustworthy.

2. Shu’ayb al-Arnaut has graded the chain of narrators as ‘Hasan’ in Sharh Mushkil al-Athar.

3. Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani has graded the chain as ‘Saheeh’ in al-Matalib al-Aliyah bi Zawaid al-Masanid al-Thamaniyyah.

4. Ahmad B. Abu Bakr b.Ismail Al Busri , Itihaf al-Khiyarah al-Maharah bi Zawaid al-Masanid al-‘Ashra declares the chain as ‘Saheeh’.

5. Moulana Muhammad Abasoomar of the well-respected Hadithanswers.com also grades the chain of narrators for this tradition as ‘Hasan’ and has written: “This is a narration from Kitabus Sunnah of Imam Ibn Abi ‘Asim (rahimahullah), hadith: 1563. The chain is sound (hasan).”

Chain three


حدثنا عبد الله حدثنى ابى عن ابن نمير ثنا عبدالملك بن ابى سليمان عن عطية العوفى عن ابى سعيد الخدرى قال قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم انى قد تركت فيكم ما ان اخذتم به لن تضلوا بعدى الثقلين احدهما اكبر من الاخر كتاب الله حبل ممدود من السماء الى الارض و عترتى اهل بيتى وانهما لن يفترقا حتى يردا على الحوض

al-Albani: وهو إسناد حسن في الشواهد  al-Arnaut: سنده حسن بالشواهد.

While the above chain would be considered weak due to Attiyah, al-Albani and al-Arnaut deemed it Hasan due to corroborating witnesses – meaning, they took into account all of the various chains of narrators to strengthen this.

Attiyah was considered Saduq by ibn Hajar, but he was accused of having shia leanings and being a Mudallis. However, the famous Sunni Hadith expert, Mahmud Mamduh has argued that those who have weakened him on account of accusations of Tadlees or Shiite leanings have relied on very weak sources themselves.  Here is an analysis (http://hadithproofsfortawassul.blogspot.com/2005/11/hadith-6-response-to-salafis.html) on Attiyah where the authors also demonstrate Ibn Hajar  and his teacher al-Iraqi grading a Hadith of Attiyah as ‘Hasan’.


Chain four

حدثنا علي بن المنذر كوفي حدثنا محمد بن فضيل قال حدثنا الأعمش عن حبيب بن أبي ثابت عن أمير بن وائل أبو طفيل 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 [Ansab al-Ashraf Baladhuri]

All of the narrators are Thiqah or Saduq, and so the only potential problems one may run into are with al-Amash and Habib b. Abi Thabit. As for al-Amash, he is in the second category of those who perform Tadlees according to Ibn Hajar and so him narrating with an ‘Ananah’ will not effect his transmission. As we will cite further on, in Mushkil al-Athar, Imam al-Tahawi records al-Amash using a ‘Hadathana’  and thus, it is only  Habib b. Abi Thabit who may present some weakness despite being a thiqah narrator. He is in the third category of tadlees according to Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani.

Abu Ameenah  Bilal Phillips  the famous Salafi scholar (though not on the standards of the major ones), founder of the online islamic university and a very influential figure among Salafis, regards Habib ibn abi Thabit as wrongly regarded as a Mudallis. In his famous work ‘ Usual al-Hadith’ [15]  taught to tens of thousands globally, he writes:



Furthermore, in his Sharh Mushkil al-Athar, Imam al-Tahawi authenticates a chain whereby Habib b. Abi Thabit narrates from Abu Tufayl, who in turn narrates from Zayd b. Aqram [15.1]:

كما حدثنا أحمد بنُ شُعيب قال: حدثنا أبو عوانة، عن سليمان – يعني الأعمش – قال: حدثنا حبيب بن أبي ثابت، عن أبي الطفيل، عن زيد بن أرقم قال:
لما رجع رسول الله (ص) عن حجة الوداع ونزل بغدير خم أمر بدوحات فقممن ثم قال :« كأني دعيت فأجبت إني قد تركت فيكم الثقلين أحدهما أكبر من الآخر كتاب الله عزّ وجل وعترتي أهل بيتي فانظروا كيف تخلفوني فيهما فإنهما لن يفترقا حتى يردا علي الحوض »، ثم قال : «إن الله عزّ وجل مولاي وأنا ولي كل مؤمن ومؤمنة» ثم أخذ بيد علي رضي الله عنه فقال : «من كنت وليه فهذا وليه ، اللهم وال من والاه وعاد من عاداه» ، فقلت لزيد : سمعته من رسول الله (ص) ؟ فقال : ما كان في الدوحات أحد إلاّ رآه بعينه وسمعه بأذنه ) ثم قال الطحاوي :

( فهذا الحديث صحيح الإسناد لا طعن لأحد في أحد من رواته

The line made red is translated as follows: “the isnad of this narration is sahih and there is doubt about any of its subnarrators.” Imam al-Tahawi appears to possibly regard there being no disconnection in the chain, and considers Habib b. Abi Thabit having directly heard from Abu Tufayl.


It is also important to note here that Habib b. Abi Thabit and Abu Tufayl were contemporaries, whose life-times largely overlapped and both passing away not too far apart in time. If Habib b. Abi Thabit wished to conceal a narrator, he could have simply narrated directly from Zayd b. Aqram, which we find him doing in a similar chain of narrators in Tirmidhi. It is likely Abu Tufayl was the connecting link between Habib and Zayd.

Interestingly, we find others narrating hadith al-thaqalayn from Abu Tufayl, from Zayd b. Aqram here are a few:

بو بكر بن إسحاق و دلع بن أحمد الصجيري -> محمد بن أيوب -> الأزهر بن علي -> حسن بن إبراهيم -> محمد بن سلمة -> أبيه -> أبو الطفيل -> أبو الطفيل -> زيد بن ارقم [Mustadrak al-Hakim]

محمد بن الفضل السكتي -> سعيد بن سليمان> نصر بن عبد الرحمن الوشع -> زيد بن الحسن الأنماطي -> معروف بن خربوده -> أبي الطفيل -> حذيفة بن أسيد الغفاري. [Mu’jam Tabarani al-Kabeer]

محمد بن عبد الله الحضرمي -> جعفر بن حميد -> عبد الله بن بوكير -> حكيم بن جبير -> أبي الطفيل -> زيد بن أرقم. [Mu’jam Tabarani al-Kabeer]

Some also cast doubt on the author of the book, Baladhuri who was a famous historian, and recorded reports that were also against the Shia narrative such as [16]:

أنت مني يا معاوية وأنا منك لتزاحمني على باب الجنة كهاتين السبابة والوسطى

(The Prophet said) “You are from me O Muawiyah, and I from you. You will be with me at the gate of Jannah like these two: the index finger and the middle finger.”

If one finds a problem with this chain due to it being recorded by Baladhuri, then a similar chain can be found in the 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

[whoaretheshia]

In summary we have:

1. Two outright Hasan chains, based on the grading of Al-Albani, Al-Arnaut, Ibn Hajar and many other highly authoritative scholars of Hadith.

2. Chains which are 'Hasan due to Shawahid'. Essentially, Al-Albani , Al-Arnaut and others have looked at various paths of weak chains, and have considered some weak chains to be 'Hasan due to Shawahid' due to the totality of the different paths and routes. Hani has criticised Al-Albani for doing this, and Noor-us-Sunnah does not appear to accept this kind of Hadith grading. However, I'll leave readers to decide if they wish to accept Al-Alban or online bloggers.

3. The last chain i presented is considered authentic by chain by Imam Tahawi. It would also be considered reliable by those scholars who did not view Habib b. Abi Thabit as a Muddallis whose narrations are not counted due to his Tadlees. I presented an argument as to why in this instance, it remained highly likely Habib b. Abi Thabit heard from Abu Tufayl, which is what Imam Tahawi seems to agree upon.

[whoaretheshia]

Al-Albani and usage of Shawahid - something Hani and Noor-us-Sunnah do not agree with

Here is an example of how he took chains with weaknesses, and together, allowed them to strengthen each other:


"[Sunan Abu Dawud (Darussalam Publishers, 2007), volume 4, p. 422, The Book of Clothing, chapter 31: “What a woman may show of her beauty,” Hadith number 4104. Classed as Da’if by Hafiz Abu Tahir Zubair Ali Za’i. Imam Abu Dawud said: “This Hadith is Mursal. Khalid ibn Duraik did not meet Aishah. (And Sa’eed bin Bashir is not strong (in narrating)).”]

The Hadith is weak by itself but authentic due to supporting narrations and is used as evidence for this matter . . . It was authenticated by Sheikh Al-Albani in Sahih Sunan Abu Dawud, vol. 2, p. 774, number 3458.

Sheikh Al-Albani explains reasons behind this Hadith’s authenticity in great detail:

“. . . (The narration’s chain is) Bashir from Qatadah from Khalid ibn Duraik from Aishah. Ibn Adiy added that he (Khalid) once attributed it to Umm Salamah instead of Aishah. Abu Dawud said after citing it, ‘This Hadith is Mursal. Khalid ibn Duraik did not meet Aishah.’ Also, Sa’eed ibn Bashir is weak according to Hafidh ibn Hajar in At-Taqrib. However, this Hadith has been reported via other ways that strengthen it:

(1.) A Mursal report recorded by Abu Dawud (no. 437) from Qatadah with an authentic chain that includes neither ibn Duraik nor ibn Bashir: ‘Indeed, once a young girl reaches menses, it is not right for her to expose except her face and hands to the wrists.'

(2.) At-Tabarani (in Al-Kabir 24/143/378 and Al-Awsat 2/230/8959) and Al-Bayhaqi recorded via ibn Lahi’ah from Iyadh from Abdullah from Ibrahim bin Rufa’ah Al-Ansari from his father from (he believed) Asma bint Umays that Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) entered Aishah’s house while she had with her sister Asma bint Abi Bakr, who was wearing wide-sleeved clothes (see the report in question for the remainder of this Hadith’s text) . . . There is no doubt that a report by ibn Lahi’ah does not go below the level of Hasan when it has supportive narrations, as is the case here . . .”

(Jilbab Ul-Mar’at Il-Muslimah pp. 58-59)

Therefore, we can see that the correct view is that the Niqab is recommended, and not obligatory.

Sheikh Al-Albani's knowledge of the Shawahid (supporting narrations in Hadith) was something which was uncontested to by other scholars of his day. Sheikhs Ibn Baz and Uthaymeen even testified to this. While some Hadith scholars would only grade the single Hadith, Sheikh Al-Albani would take into account all supporting narrations of the Hadith. So some Ahadith are authentic due to other texts with the same meaning, so please take note of this. This made his methodology more correct versus other scholars of his day."

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

This article is a sufficient response:
https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2015/02/19/hadeeth-al-thaqalayntwo-weighty-things-the-correct-understanding-and-a-spot-on-perspective-of-sunnis/

[whoaretheshia]

To anyone who reads the article on Youpuncturedtheark above, i'd recommend you to read the discussion between me and Brother Noor-us-Sunnah addressing points he has made:

http://forum.twelvershia.net/general-sunni-vs-shia/the-prophet-left-two-weighty-things-stop-the-deception-tsnsunni-defenseypta/msg26739/#new

It is also an ongoing discussion.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

Attiyah was considered Saduq by ibn Hajar, but he was accused of having shia leanings and being a Mudallis. However, the famous Sunni Hadith expert, Mahmud Mamduh has argued that those who have weakened him on account of accusations of Tadlees or Shiite leanings have relied on very weak sources themselves.  Here is an analysis (http://hadithproofsfortawassul.blogspot.com/2005/11/hadith-6-response-to-salafis.html) on Attiyah where the authors also demonstrate Ibn Hajar  and his teacher al-Iraqi grading a Hadith of Attiyah as ‘Hasan’.

Imam Al-Dhahabī said: Atiyyah bin Sa’d Al-Awfi Al-kufi – “There is a consensus(of Muhaditheen) on his weakness”. [Deewan al-Duafa wal Matrookeen, page 276 #2843] .

But guess what, our Shia friend will ask us to reject the Ijma or atleast let's say the majority view and go with the odd view. Isn't it???

And yes Ibn Hajar, then he said:
 صدوق يخطىء كثيرا وكان شيعيا مدلسا
“Saduq, used to make many mistakes and was a Shia mudallis.” [Taqreeb (3/393)]

In another place Ibn Hajar said:

ضعيف الحفظ معروف بالتدليس القبيح

Weak in memory, famous for evil Tadlees.(Tabqaat Mudalliseen).

So, its not just that Atiyyah was a Mudallis or Shia, but rather he was a weak narrator as well. But our dishonest Shia friend didn't care to mention that.

[whoaretheshia]

Brother Noor-us-Sunnah has yet to state whether he disagrees with Al-Albani, Al-Arnaut, Ibn Hajar and many of the authoritative scholars of hadith pertaining to the first two chains presented, in being Hasan outright. This is what we have been debating on the other threads. It doesn't matter if the rest of the chains are considered weak, if it can be proven these two are Hasan, which is an easy matter to prove given it is the view of Al-Albani, Al-Arnaut, Ibn Hajar and others.

As for the third chain, i fully acknowledge that on its own, Attiyah for most scholars would be considered weak. However, i explicitly made the point that Al-Albani and Al-Arnaut have deemed the chain Hasan due to Shawahid, which was a principle inwhich weak chains can be elevated to Hasan if the varying routes are taken into account. This is a principle Hani, and it appears Noor-us-Sunnah does not agree with, wherein weak chains can strengthen each other. 

The additional comments made about Attiyah not necessarily being weak would pacify some Sunnis , and some Sunni scholars, and argue that the sources relied on are themselves weak,  but even if he were to be weak, Al-Albani deems the chain Hasan due to taking into account various other chains, all strengthening each other.

And yes Ibn Hajar, then he said:
 صدوق يخطىء كثيرا وكان شيعيا مدلسا
“Saduq, used to make many mistakes and was a Shia mudallis.” [Taqreeb (3/393)]

In another place Ibn Hajar said:

ضعيف الحفظ معروف بالتدليس القبيح

Weak in memory, famous for evil Tadlees.(Tabqaat Mudalliseen).

Ibn Hajar already acknowledged or implied his weak memory in Taqreeb, when he made clear he used to make many mistakes. He hasn't really differed on his opinion at all. He is regarded to be a truthful person, but one who made many errors and concealed who he was narrating from.

Even if it is a weak chain, Al-Albani still elevates the chain to 'Hasan' because of collating all of the various different chains together.

So you don't need to even accept the view of the scholar Mamduh and his evidence that those weakened Attiyah themselves relied on the testimony of liars, etc.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

Brother Noor-us-Sunnah has yet to state whether he disagrees with Al-Albani, Al-Arnaut, Ibn Hajar and many of the authoritative scholars of hadith pertaining to the first two chains presented, in being Hasan outright. This is what we have been debating on the other threads. It doesn't matter if the rest of the chains are considered weak, if it can be proven these two are Hasan, which is an easy matter to prove given it is the view of Al-Albani, Al-Arnaut, Ibn Hajar and others.

So from where did you claim that I weakened the chain?

While he could make an error in the text, your claim that the chain is weak goes against the verdicts of far more authoritative scholars of Hadith.

[whoaretheshia]

Brother Noor-us-Sunnah, do you accept the following chains are 'Hasan', and so, accept in turn, the verdict of Al-Albani, Ibn Hajar and other scholars of Hadith?:

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]


I will demonstrate to you how you argued that these chains were weak soon, insha Allah, but now is your chance to make it clear you do not consider them weak, but accept them as 'Hasan'.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

Brother Noor-us-Sunnah, do you accept the following chains are 'Hasan', and so, accept in turn, the verdict of Al-Albani, Ibn Hajar and other scholars of Hadith?:

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]


I will demonstrate to you how you argued that these chains were weak soon, insha Allah, but now is your chance to make it clear you do not consider them weak, but accept them as 'Hasan'.

Rather I prefer to give grading on the Hadeeth.. The Hadeeth has faulty text. Why? because i has a controversial narrator who was known for making mistakes. So, even if someone sticks to its chain being Sahih or Hasan, yet that won't change the fact that it has faulty text, as it came via a narrator was known was making mistakes.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

Let me summarize what the problem in this discussion is:

You want Sunnis to accept the views of those Scholars who graded the chain of the controversial report as Hasan or Sahih, and reject those classical scholars who had weakened the narrator in the chain.

Now, For those Scholars who accepted the Hadeeth and gave their explanation to it, you want Sunnis to reject their explanation and go for the Shia narrative.

But you don't get that the Shia narrative contradicts many Mutawattir Sunni traditions, which would make the report narrated by controversial narrator as Munkar, So you want Sunnis to reject the Mutwattir narrations as well, or other Ahaad authentic traditions.

But at this position you won't find any Sunni supporting you, at this point you'll play the emotional card of Sunnis rejecting Ahl al-bayt. The root cause of which is a report with faulty and misinterpreted text. That's why I'm making you understand where the problem lies, you think only controversial grading is the issue, but that's not the the only issue there are many, and You won't disagree that eventually you will end up blaming Sunni Scholars even the ones whom you are try to stick for the grading when you'll find yourself cornered.

I wrote this is post to expose the double standards Shias hold, and how they keep picking and rejecting Scholars as that suit their desires and would eventually accuse all Sunni Scholars, just because their agenda can't pass the test of standard principles of accepting and using a hadeeth to form an idea or belief.

[whoaretheshia]

Rather I prefer to give grading on the Hadeeth.. The Hadeeth has faulty text. Why? because i has a controversial narrator who was known for making mistakes. So, even if someone sticks to its chain being Sahih or Hasan, yet that won't change the fact that it has faulty text, as it came via a narrator was known was making mistakes.

The question was very clear brother, is the chain 'Hasan'?

If you deem the overall Hadith to be weak due to the Matn, which can be explained by shortcomings of the Hasan narrator, that is something i have addressed and will continue to address.

This would help us to know where to put our energy and focus in our discussions.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

The question was very clear brother, is the chain 'Hasan'?

If you deem the overall Hadith to be weak due to the Matn, which can be explained by shortcomings of the Hasan narrator, that is something i have addressed and will continue to address.

This would help us to know where to put our energy and focus in our discussions.

Please avoid silly arguments, it's waste of time.

When you know that the matn of a report could still be faulty when the chain is Sahih, so what's the point in asking this?

I have shown that, the controversial narrator was known for making mistakes, so there is no point in asking whether chain is Sahih or Hasan, because the mistake he did was in matn(text), which i have explained.

[Abu Muhammad]

From: https://shiaresponses.wordpress.com/2019/06/29/hadith-al-thaqalayn/

Unknown to many Sunni Muslims, during the last few months of the life of the prophet Muhammed (saw), at Ghadir Khumm, a place between Makkah and Medina, the Prophet made a very clear and vital major declaration.

What he announced to the masses is as follows:

“The Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, said: “I have left behind over you (al-Thaqalayn) that which if you hold fast to it you will never go astray: the Book of Allah – one end of which is in the Hand of Allah and the other in your hands– and my Ahl al-Bayt.”

For the sake of argument, if the hadith is granted, some sufi orders have way more legitimate claim to that hadith than Twelver Shi'ism.

Disclaimer: I'm no sufi.

[whoaretheshia]

Please avoid silly arguments, it's waste of time.

When you know that the matn of a report could still be faulty when the chain is Sahih, so what's the point in asking this?

I have shown that, the controversial narrator was known for making mistakes, so there is no point in asking whether chain is Sahih or Hasan, because the mistake he did was in matn(text), which i have explained.

It's absolutely essential to know your position:

1. Do you consider the first two chains presented to be 'Hasan' by chain, but faulty by Matn?

2. Do you consider them to be weak by chain, as well as problematic in Matn?

Given these are probably the most basic questions one could ask, why are you avoiding answering what your position is, clearly?

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

It's absolutely essential to know your position:

1. Do you consider the first two chains presented to be 'Hasan' by chain, but faulty by Matn?

2. Do you consider them to be weak by chain, as well as problematic in Matn?

Given these are probably the most basic questions one could ask, why are you avoiding answering what your position is, clearly?

I have no judgement for the chain, as it won't change the fact that the text is faulty. I consider the report faulty by Text. Due to narrator having weakness.

[whoaretheshia]

I have no judgement for the chain, as it won't change the fact that the text is faulty. I consider the report faulty by Text. Due to narrator having weakness.

I must say, i am very surprised at this. Two of the most basic things to consider when criticizing Hadith are the chain of narrators, and the text itself. To claim you don't have any view on whether the chain is weak, or one of the categories of reliable, even if you believe the text is faulty is extremely surprising.

My heart tells me i have shifted your position by demonstrating your assumptions to be incorrect.

In your article, you made the following claims:

1. That scholars who have graded this version to be reliable by chain have done so out of leniency. I have proven this is not true on other threads - something you have not responded to. Will you amend that part of your article?

2. You explicitly claimed that Kathir b. Zayd is a weak narrator, rendering the chain of narrators as weak. You tried to evidence this by presenting the view of those classical scholars who weakened him, and claimed disparagement is above praise, which would explicitly mean he is weak, something you have said verbatim in your article:




You have been doing this for years, and i am astonished why you would claim to not know whether arguably the most fundamental chain of narrators in this entire discussion is weak or reliable?

[whoaretheshia]

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?

[whoaretheshia]

You see brothers and sisters, over the last decade or more, online bloggers, perhaps with sincere intentions and wanting to promote Haq as it appears in their own mind (and Allah knows best) have been promoting the idea that the version of Hadith al-Thaqalayn presented on this thread was weak by chain.

Twelvershianet via Hani, Youpuncturedtheark via Noor-us-Sunnah, TheSunniDefense, Shamsi, Muhammed Hijab and many others have relied on this position.

Now, after direct challenges and demonstrating why they have been wrong, it appears Noor-us-Sunnah is unwilling to accept the verdicts of Al-Albani, Al-Arnaut, and Ibn Hajar, but has also shifted his position to now remain vague concerning the chain.

The brother understands that if he declares the two chains to be 'Hasan', our debate will focus singularly on the content, where his arguments are significantly weaker - most of which i have and will continue to address.

If you accept the Prophet (saw) in reliable traditions by chain declared to hold onto the Quran and the Ahlulbayt as sources of guidance, after which we would never go astray, you will have argue why this clear command is faulty by text.

It will also be upon SunniDefense, TSN, YPTA to amend the errors they have made and declare to their readers honestly and openly that contrary to what they have promoted, there are reliable chains, major scholars have authenticated the chains and not out of leniency, and that their new position is that the content is problematic.

They , however, know full well the ramifications of doing that. It is why they have been absolutely insistent on weakening the chain, given that the tradition gives very clear commands completely at odds with the general Sunni understanding , but rather, is in complete support of key claims made by Shias.

The Prophet declaring at Ghadir Khumm just before his death that he is leaving behind the Quran and Ahlulbayt, as sources of guidance to adhere to after which we would never go astray, followed by (people forget) holding up the hand of Ali and declaring Ali the mawla of whoever the Prophet is the mawla of, makes the overall instruction crystal clear.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

I must say, i am very surprised at this. Two of the most basic things to consider when criticizing Hadith are the chain of narrators, and the text itself. To claim you don't have any view on whether the chain is weak, or one of the categories of reliable, even if you believe the text is faulty is extremely surprising.

My heart tells me i have shifted your position by demonstrating your assumptions to be incorrect.

In your article, you made the following claims:

1. That scholars who have graded this version to be reliable by chain have done so out of leniency. I have proven this is not true on other threads - something you have not responded to. Will you amend that part of your article?

2. You explicitly claimed that Kathir b. Zayd is a weak narrator, rendering the chain of narrators as weak. You tried to evidence this by presenting the view of those classical scholars who weakened him, and claimed disparagement is above praise, which would explicitly mean he is weak, something you have said verbatim in your article:




You have been doing this for years, and i am astonished why you would claim to not know whether arguably the most fundamental chain of narrators in this entire discussion is weak or reliable?

So just because you were caught lying while attributing view to me, you made whole show to cover your lie.

You said I weakened the chain, for which I told you that, I said the narrator was weakened.
[ You are not allowed to view attachments ]
The reason I mentioned that the narrator is weak is to establish that, he could end up narrating the text in faulty way.