“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.”
I'm not at all interested in again answering the arguments which this Shia keeps bringing even after these were refuted several times.
But my suggestion for people is to focus on three important points.
1. Until the verse of perfection/completion of religion was revealed by Allah(swt) on Arafah, Prophet(saws) mentioned only Quran as the source he left, holding which Muslims would never go astray.
2. 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.
3. Understanding of Sahabi(Zayd bin Arqam) disapproves the view that the purpose behind mention of Ahlelbayt in Hadith al-Thaqalayn was to seek guidance from them. Because according to him any relative of Prophet(S) upon whom acceptance of Sadaqa was forbidden is from Ahl al-bayt, so this even includes members who were sinners.
Details with evidences are in this link:
https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2015/02/19/hadeeth-al-thaqalayntwo-weighty-things-the-correct-understanding-and-a-spot-on-perspective-of-sunnis/
"I'm not at all interested in again answering the arguments which this Shia keeps bringing even after these were refuted several times"
The feeling is absolutely the same here. I'm tired of answering the same questions and addressing the same matters over and over again. Especially by Muslim 720 and mythbuster. But it needs to be done. The propaganda needs to be addressed and the propagandists need to be dealt with.
Lol you dimwit you couldn’t answer even if your life depended on it, you and your kind have been a joke for centuries it’s only right that your ancestors the jokers gave birth to jokers like yourself😂
The joke is.......divine imarmite😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
And you still can’t answer👍
Here we are.
Qur'an (2:124).
"And [mention, O Muhammad], when Abraham was tried by his Lord with commands and he fulfilled them. [ Allah ] said, "Indeed, I will make you an IMAM for the people." [Abraham] said, "And of my descendants?" [ Allah ] said, "My covenant does not include the wrongdoers."
Qur'an (32:24).
"And we made of them IMAMS to guide by our command for they were patient, and they were certain of our clear signs”.
Below are the two verses which absolutely and completely destroy Saqifa.
"And your Lord creates and chooses whom He pleases; to choose is not theirs”
(28:68)
“And it behaves not a believing man and a believing woman that they should have any choice in their matter when Allah and His Apostle have decided a matter” (33:36)
Please do rub yourself in it 😆
Ibrahim as gets promotion AFTER prophethood.........ahlubaith ra get promotion at birth.
😯 THIS IS DIVINE SHIITE IMAMATE!😂
So if you can provide a verse to back that up then I can say you are NOT twisting words of the noble Quran........otherwise like I’ve said before you are just a lying Shiite........not a syed at all😉
The rest of the verses don’t touch on Saqifa until you start ADDING your own commentary on it which is LYING!!!
A confused syed who is most likely the idiot of his village 😂
Brother Noor-Us-Sunnah, the author of youpuncturedtheark, obviously makes a lot of effort in the analysis he does. My impression is - and Allah knows best - these are sincere efforts. His arguments are well thought out, he does his research, but unfortunately, there are errors. These errors i believe, come from what he has assumed apriori; the idea that the Prophet (saw) explicitly designated the Quran and Ahlulbayt as sources of guidance right before his death it at odds with what Sunnis do, what the caliphs did, what many of the companions did, and seems to strongly support the Shia narrative. He has therefore gone to great lengths to weaken the tradition and explain it away.The Shia narrative is that Ahl al-bayt were appointed as Leaders over the Ummah, which contradicts numerous reports showing Sunnah of Prophet(SAWS) and even the understanding of Sahaba including Ahl al-bayt such as Ali(RA).
I will address his latest reply, but if you look on his article, he does a the following:
1. He knows that he needs to explain why well-respected, authoritative and far more knowledgeable scholars of Hadith like al-Albani , al-Arnaut, ibn Hajar etc have authenticated the chain. He erroneously claims this was out of leniency and misuses the principle of being more lax when it comes to traditions pertaining to virtue.
I clearly demonstrated instances when al-Arnaut, and al-Albani grade the same version of the same Hadith as 'weak' due to chain. They did not shy away from doing so, which throws that argument out of the water. There are also instances where, al-Albani for example, explicitly claims the narrators are reliable. Indeed, Allah is a witness, but it is beyond doubt that al-Albani, al-Arnaut, Ibn Hajar and many others have graded the chain to be at least 'Hasan' outright, and not out of leniency.
2. He then , in his article, makes the claim that irrespective of the grading, claiming a chain is 'Hasan' does not mean the scholars agree with the content of the Hadith. This is true, however, i provided evidence where several of the scholars who authenticated it, clearly also accepted the contents, such as Al-Albani himself. The point he raised therefore bears absolutely no relevance to our discussion.I say, that's completely fine for me. Because al-Albani wasn't the only Muhaddith in the world, it's fine if you want to go with his grading, but other disagreed and there is a scope for difference of opinion in this, and this is how an academic approach is, but hypocrisy is when, you take his grading, but reject his interpretation, because if your connotations were applied al-Albani himself would point out to you that, this is false and that would effect the grading of hadeeth as Munkar.
Well, it is up to Sunnis on here to decide for themselves. On one hand, you have scholars who have spent decades upon decades studying the science of Hadith, who have given their expert gratings over the matter of narrators. On the other hand, you have -perhaps- sincere online bloggers, trying to overrule the scholars.The weakening of narrator wasn't by a online blogger as the Shia friend tries to portray but by these authoritative Scholars, which even includes Ibn Hajar.
What is the decent thing for youpuncturedtheark to do, even if he disagrees with scholars far greater than him? At least present the truth. Present the fact Al-Albani, Al-Arnaut, Ibn Hajar and many others authenticated the chain, and not out of leniency, and many of these and others accepted the Matn, though some gave it their own interpretation. Then make it clear you disagree with these scholars, and why.The purpose of article is to refute Shia narrative, and I have done that successfully Alhamdulillah!
Three additional points of brother Noor-Us-SunnahTaking Sunnah as source of guidance proven from Quran again, So if you believe Quran is source of guidance, you need to take Sunnah as guidance as well. So following Sunnah is going back to Quranic guidance again. And don't forget religion was perfected on Arafah.
1. Brother Noor-Us-Sunnah claims that on the day of Arafah, the Prophet (saw) told the people to hold onto the Quran as guidance, but didn't mention anything along with this. If we concede this, for sake of argument, it does not contradict the fact that there are other essential things to also hold onto. Does it mean we ought not to also follow his Sunnah? Does the Prophet (saw) telling the people that he is leaving behind the Quran as a source of guidance for us to hold onto mean he did not, or could not, at any other point of time also make clear that there were other key sources of guidance?
Does Noor-Us-Sunnah not accept the traditions where the Prophet (saw) commands the people to follow his Sunnah, and also the way of the rightly guided Caliphs?I do accept them, because again they are backed from Quran, because following Sunnah and those in authority is proven from Quran again. Hence this is going back to Quranic guidance again.
A better argument to make here would be, why do we not have reliable evidence that the Prophet (saw) claimed he left behind the Quran and the Ahlulbayt at Arafah. Why do it at Ghadeer Khumm? I will respond to this in due course, insha Allah.I'll give you a much better one, why didn't Allah delay the announcement of perfection of religion till Ghadeer, like the Shia fabricators understanding the importance of this verse, fabricated reports that this verse was revealed at Ghadeer. So since you can't help your case with those fabricated reports, trying finding any authentic one, otherwise, you'll fail those poor desperate Shia fabricators and the argument as well.
The brother then regards the version to be ambiguous and faulty. There are two ways in which he can do this:
1. Regard a narrator as weak.
2. Regard the content as problematic or contradicting more reliable versions.
As has been demonstrated already, there are no weak narrators in the chain of transmission. Does he know something Al-Albani didn't? Or perhaps Al-Arnaut, Ibn Hajar and many of the other scholars of Hadith? His attempts at claiming the scholars realized this but were lenient have been proven false.
He then tries to claim the text itself is faulty. The reality is, this is clutching at straws. What he argues is that because the singular is used in the version i have presented, this is the error of the narrator at hand, who perhaps confused things. However, the narrators were all fluent Arabic speakers. Given this would have been a grammatical issue, if it was not a way of speaking which was common and absolutely acceptable linguistically, the narrator would have recognized this.
So again, the brother claims:
"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]
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, it isn't just the version I've presented using this mode of expression. The same can be found in many other sources by many other narrators:
Musnad of Imam Ahmad:
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
Jami' of Imam Tirmidhi:
حدثنا على بن المنذر الكوفى حدثنا محمد بن الفضيل حدثنا الاعمش عن عطية عن ابى سعيد والاعمش عن حبيب بن ابى ثابت عن زيد بن ارقم قال قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم انى تارك فيكم ما 2 تمسكتم به لن تضلوا بعدى احدهما اعظم من الاخر كتاب الله حبل ممدود من السماء الى الارض وعترتى اههل بيتى ولن يتفرقا حتى يردا علىّ الحوض فانظروا كيف تخلفونى فيهما هذا حديث غريب
Mu'jam Sagheer of Imama Tabarani:
حدثنا حسن بن مسلم بن الطبيب الصنعانى ثنا عبدالحميد بن صبيح ثنا يونس بن ارقم هارون بن سعد عن عطية عن ابى سعيد الخدرى عن النبى صلى الله عليه و سلم قال انى تارك فيكم الثقلين ما ان تمسكتم به لن تضلوا كتاب الله وعترتى ولن يتفرقا حتى يردا على الحوض-لم يروه عن هارون بن سعد الا يونس
Did these narrators, who are actually considered weak and accused of fabricating the Hadith, who were fluent in Arabic given it was their native tongue, manage to fabricate a tradition but erroneously forget to make sure they amended very, very basic grammar?
Brother Noor-us-Sunnah is clutching at straws and this particular argument he is making is novel to him, and should be thrown out.
I would like to ask brother Noor-Us-Sunnah , that, say i concede Zayd b. Aqram did not consider them to be sources of guidance, what does that prove? If a companion did not recognize the status of the Ahlulbayt, that does nothing to diminish it. Who is greater, Abu Bakr, or Zayd b. Aqram, in the eyes of Sunnis? It is clearly the first Khalifah. He undoubtedly did not hold onto the Ahlulbayt as a clear source of guidance alongside the Quran. Does that disprove clear commands of the Prophet (saw)?
Zayd himself contradicts Sunni scholarship when he in the Hadith claims wives are not Ahlulbayt. Noor-us-Sunnah himself would accept that in his view, the command is to look after the Ahlulbayt, to care for them, and this includes the wives.
Furthermore, it is not proven what Zayd actually thought. He may have accepted that the Prophet said to hold onto the Quran and the Ahlulbayt, but believed the Ahlulbayt were to be considered as certain bloodlines of the Prophet. Nevertheless, many turned away from this, and like they do today, served to give the words of the Prophet their own interpretation.
We find the same for other companions of other Prophets of God in the noble Quran, who clearly hear the command, but convince each other about how best to implement it.
We should concern ourselves with the following:
Did the Prophet (saw) command us to follow the Quran and the Ahlulbayt, as sources of guidance after which we would never go astray?
Does this change the fact the there were classical scholars who weakened the narrator? This even includes Ibn Hajar who did say that the narrator committed mistakes. So what's the problem in calling the version as faulty? Or atleast saying that a report coming from a narrator of this level cannot be used in forming an Aqeedah, which you are arguing for. These are basics, those same scholars whom you are quoting would laugh on this argument that, a report coming from a narrator of this level, who was known for making mistakes, would be used to form an Aqeedah and that too when it contradicts numerous reports of Prophet and Understanding of Sahaba.
If you are here to implying that the grading of al-Albani or Ibn Hajar implies that, the report is spotless and perfectly authentic, even when Ibn Hajar himself admittted that the narrator was known for making mistakes, then I can't help you come out of your delusion. But if you say that, even though the narrator was truthful but would commit mistakes, which makes his report atleast Hasan, which implies it's not at top level of authenticity then, it you shouldn't make a fuss when I say the text is faulty, because the narrator wasn't a top level narrator , whose narration is being called faulty, its a narrator who was known for his mistakes.
I say, that's completely fine for me. Because al-Albani wasn't the only Muhaddith in the world, it's fine if you want to go with his grading, but other disagreed and there is a scope for difference of opinion in this, and this is how an academic approach is, but hypocrisy is when, you take his grading, but reject his interpretation, because if your connotations were applied al-Albani himself would point out to you that, this is false and that would effect the grading of hadeeth as Munkar.
So you can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't use he grading of al-Albani but reject his explanation, because there are several instances wherein Albani authenticated weak reports because in his view those reports were supported by other Sahih reports. But but rejecting his interpretation you are jeopardizing his whole grading.
Now..?? This point is from ages in the article, if you didn't have the tawfeeq to read it in the article then blame yourself.
Now, brother Noor-us-Sunnah is trying to explain that some classical scholars of Hadith may have considered him weak, or put a question mark on him.
However, he knows full well that there is a delicate science to this. We find that for a large number of narrators, there tend to be a divergent number of views regarding them among the classical scholars. Some of those are known to be unfairly strict. There are rules concerning how to take the totality of comments made by these scholars.This was mentioned to remind you that what you are trying to implying is based on your ignorance. You think, online bloggers are weakening narrators out of nowhere. So I thought its important to make you face the ground reality.
This is precisely why Ibn Hajar, despite giving the positive and negative views of Kathir b. Zayd himself authenticates the chain with Kathir b. Zayd by Sanad.This precisely why, I'm not rejecting the hadeeth as a whole by just calling the text as faulty. And such things aren't surprising from narrators who were known for making mistakes. Even if the sanad is hasan, a narrator of such level is open to make mistake.
In terms of what one can use for Aqeedah, Hadith al-Thaqalayn is Muttawatir, particularly between the Sunnis and Shias. However, even if one were to claim it falls below Muttawatir, then the idea of only requiring Muttawatir for Aqeedah is not something adopted by Salafis:You are missing the point that this version of Thaqalayn, not hadeeth Hadeeth Thaqalayn itself, (if Shia narrative is applied) goes against other Mutawattir reports in Sunni books. Which discards the Shia narrative and upholds the Sunni explanation that Ahl al-bayt weren't designated as leaders or source of guidance but they were mentioned to be taken care of.
IslamQA: https://islamqa.info/en/answers/130918/can-ahaad-hadeeths-be-accepted-with-regard-to-aqeedah
"3.If we say that matters of ‘aqeedah cannot be proven on the basis of ahaad reports, then it is possible to say that practical rulings cannot be proven on the basis of ahaad reports, because practical rulings are accompanied by the belief that Allah enjoined this and forbade that. If this opinion is accepted, then many of the rulings of sharee‘ah would be rendered invalid. If this idea is rejected then the idea that ‘aqeedah cannot be proven on the basis of ahaad reports should also be rejected, because there is no difference between the two, as we have explained.
To sum up: If an ahaad report is supported by corroborating evidence which indicates that this is true, then it becomes part of knowledge and rulings of practice and belief may be established. There is nothing to indicate that there should be any differentiation between the two. Any person who suggests that any of the imams differentiated between them has to prove that with a sound chain of narration from that imam, then he has to explain his evidence."
Answered several times, refer the previous discussions in the other threads, i guess you left the older threads where we discussed this and i answered you, for the same reason.
"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]
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."
(iv). 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.
I can absolutely take his grading but not fully agree with his interpretation, because they are two entirely different matters.If you want to follow his grading then apply your own deviant narrative to it, then it's your wish, it's just like Quran, you have your own interpretation. But you can't ask your opponents to reject the views of Classical Scholars, some who out rightly weakened him and some who said he would make mistakes, and adopt the views of al-Albani and then ask Sunnis to reject the explanation of al-Albani and accept the deviant Shia narrative which goes against Mutawattir Sunni reports and even understanding of Sahabi.
When he is grading the tradition, he is doing so on Sunni standards, and i regard him to be an authority on this matter and to have a much better understanding of narrators than Hani, yourself, or any online blogger. Therefore his grading, as well as that of Ibn Hajar, Al-Arnaut, and other authorities in this field allows me to have the most objective, authoritative and respected verdict on the chain of transmission of a particular hadith, which should be good enough for the vast majority of Sunnis.
His interpretation of the Hadith isn't based on his own judgement, as well as his desire to try to fit the Hadith with an already well crystallized Sunni/Salafi ideology.
Now..?? This point is from ages in the article, if you didn't have the tawfeeq to read it in the article then blame yourself.
And "May have..."??? I never tried to explain, they MAY HAVE considered him weak. Its clearly mentioned that they did weaken him. You have started cheap shots, by putting words in my mouth.
This was mentioned to remind you that what you are trying to implying is based on your ignorance. You think, online bloggers are weakening narrators out of nowhere. So I thought its important to make you face the ground reality.
Brother Noor-us-Sunnah has tried to propose an argument which i have not heard from anyone else. He claims that due to the grammar of the Hadith i have presented, it indicates it is likely Kathir b.Zayd transmitted a very ambiguous form of the Hadith.I based my explanation on the authentic version, because a version which was narrated by a narrator was known for making mistakes or those who were weak narrators by agreement is being explained and corrected using the correct version. This is what the point was.
To those who may be confused, brother Noor-Us-Sunnah claims he ought not to have used the singular, which makes it ambigous whether or not he mistakenly narrated a Hadith which had referred only to the Quran in singular, and then just lumped Ahlulbayt at the end in confusion.
However, this argument is of no use whatsoever and should be thrown out. All of the narrators in that chain of transmission were fluent in Arabic. Kathir b. Zayd was a native Arab and knew full well what was normal rhetoric, speech and grammar. In the Hadith , he is clearly relaying that the Prophet said he is leaving behind that which if we hold onto , we should never go astray, the Quran and the Ahlulbayt.
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 undertand an ambiguous hadeeth, because an authentic hadeeth of Prophet(saws) which is clear and accurate explains the other ambiguous hadeeth having faulty text.
You need to be honest with your readers brother Noor-us-Sunnah.I was fair and honest. But That's hard to expect from a Shia.
For those who are finding it difficult to follow, let me simplify this.
In the sciences of hadith, there are different levels of criticism. What Noor-us-Sunnah has done is looked at the first wave, of classical Hadith scholars, who often gave their verdicts or views on a narrator. We know that for a very large number of narrators, they often disagreed about them.
Scholars who came after, like Ibn Hajar, and later than this, like Al-Arnaut, and Al-Albani looked at what the totality of classical scholars had said, before they gave their overall verdict on a narrator. They were experts at knowing which classical scholars of Hadith were too strict, too lenient, and what external indicators and proofs could be used to give varying degrees of confidence in a narrator.Ibn Hajar even mentioned that the narrator makes mistakes, why are you running away from it. ANd are you claiming that a narrator who is Hasan, yet makes mistakes, who report can be classed as Hasan, can't make an error in the text? If not then then that's your ignorance. You need to educate yourself.
I was fair and honest. But That's hard to expect from a Shia.
This is what i said in the article after presenting the views that shows his weakness.
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].
Ibn Hajar even mentioned that the narrator makes mistakes, why are you running away from it. ANd are you claiming that a narrator who is Hasan, yet makes mistakes, who report can be classed as Hasan, can't make an error in the text? If not then then that's your ignorance. You need to educate yourself.
Brother, i don't think your lack of accuracy is due to you wanting to be willfully dishonest. You're a human being, you obviously have been putting in a lot of time into the work you've done. I just feel you've misunderstood a few things.
You bring up the principle whereby disparagement is given preference over commendation, but that is generally true, but you are applying it inaccurately.
Do you think the great scholar of Hadith, Ibn Hajar, who himself would compile disparagement and praise of narrators in books you yourself have relied on heavily in your articles, didn't know that? You are fully aware that after he collated the varying views, he gave an overall verdict.
Similarly, Al-Albani was aware of this basic principle. However, he too was obviously aware that it isn't as simple as that. It is a general rule, but there are many nuances and varying criteria by which one should use to get to a better outcome. That is why he too, took the totality of what was said and used his expert opinion to give an overall view.
Al-Arnaut, and many others too, adopted this.
So to cherry pick classical scholars who considered him weak, and then claim this overrides what other scholars had said is not acceptable.
You know very well that if Ibn Hibban alone praised a narrator, even if nobody else disparaged that narrator, Al-Albani himself made clear he would often authenticate unknown narrators who may have been weak.
You are also aware that there are classical scholars who were known to be very strict, and whose disparagement was overruled if others praised the narrator.
It isn't as simple as you are trying to portray here. Yes, that is a general rule, but it is far more complicated than that.
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.Stop being dishonest. Where did i say chain is weak? I said narrator was weakened. So please stop this deceit.
Your arguments about faulty or ambiguous text too, have been addressed.And I refuted them.
I would like to ask brother Noor-Us-Sunnah , that, say i concede Zayd b. Aqram did not consider them to be sources of guidance, what does that prove? If a companion did not recognize the status of the Ahlulbayt, that does nothing to diminish it. Who is greater, Abu Bakr, or Zayd b. Aqram, in the eyes of Sunnis? It is clearly the first Khalifah. He undoubtedly did not hold onto the Ahlulbayt as a clear source of guidance alongside the Quran. Does that disprove clear commands of the Prophet (saw)?
Zayd himself contradicts Sunni scholarship when he in the Hadith claims wives are not Ahlulbayt. Noor-us-Sunnah himself would accept that in his view, the command is to look after the Ahlulbayt, to care for them, and this includes the wives.
Furthermore, it is not proven what Zayd actually thought. He may have accepted that the Prophet said to hold onto the Quran and the Ahlulbayt, but believed the Ahlulbayt were to be considered as certain bloodlines of the Prophet. Nevertheless, many turned away from this, and like they do today, served to give the words of the Prophet their own interpretation.
We find the same for other companions of other Prophets of God in the noble Quran, who clearly hear the command, but convince each other about how best to implement it.
We should concern ourselves with the following:
Did the Prophet (saw) command us to follow the Quran and the Ahlulbayt, as sources of guidance after which we would never go astray?
What appears from the initial part of this post is that, Zaid(R) is someone who for NO reason, didn't recognize the status of Ahl al-bayt(as per Shia narrative) and turned away from the instruction of Prophet(S), but He himself narrated those same instructions, making a case against him. That's possible in your perception because of the brain washing done to you and for the Shia narrative you were brought up with. But, not in the view of a rational Muslim, the simplest way is that Zaid(R) just like rest of Sahaba who were superior to him didn't understand that from that report that it meant Ahl al-bayt were designated as source of Guidance by Prophet(S). And what they understood from it, they tried to stick to it. Like Abu bakr(R) who honored Ahl al-bayt and strove to keep good relation with them, same goes with Zaid bin Arqam, who honored Ahl al-bayt and kept narrating their virtues till the last stage of his life.
This even includes Jabir bin Abdullah(R) to whom (a supposed divinely appointed source of guidance) approach to know about the final Hajj of Prophet(S), he narrated to him that event, while he even LED that source of guidance in prayer as well. This might seem not a big issue to you, but the for the narrative you are advocating, it is a big issue.
And, I already answered Zayd's(R) view that wives of Prophet(S) aren't included in Ahl al-bayt of Hadeeth Thaqalayn. And you haven't answered it, so I care to save time by not answer that which was already answered by me, and for which you didn't make any counter response.
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.
Brother Noor-us-Sunnah is arguing, once again, something i consider to be completely unacceptable, and i am not normally one to claim things like this. Essentially, there is a tradition whereby the Prophet (saw) claims that he is leaving behind the Quran, which if we hold onto we will not go astray. The words used in that tradition are in the singular, because they refer to the noble Quran.
What Noor-us-Sunnah is now doing is something i have not seen a single scholar in any of their analysis of this tradition ever put a question mark on. He claims that because in the version i presented, the singular is used, when referring to the Quran and the Ahlulbayt, this may have been an error on part of the narrator, who may have conflated the two traditions , or lumped 'Ahlulbayt' at the end after perhaps hearing the tradition of the noble Quran.
This is an unacceptable claim to make for the following reasons:
1. Kathir b. Zayd was a fluent , native Arab. In the tradition he is transmitting, it is clear that the Quran and the Ahlulbayt are the two things being referred to as after which, we would never go astray. He knows about Arabic grammar and correct modes of expression and speech, and the singular is clearly a well accepted manner of expression.
2. We also find in many other chains, of fluent, native Arabs, for the same version of other narrators, the narration clearly implying the Quran and Ahlulbayt as the two weighty things, but the singular being used. It would be absurd to accuse not only Kathir b. Zayd, but other native Arabs who knew full well that the tradition pertained to two things, to not amend very basic grammar!
If they had confused the Hadith and added 'Ahlulbayt' when it ought to have only been the Quran, they , being native Arabs would have immediately recognized the singular is what they were using. However, they never were concerned about this at all, because the singular is a perfectly acceptable usage of grammar and speech.
There is no ambiguity whatsoever. How much clearer can the Messenger of Allah get, brothers and sisters?
1. First he places the Quran and the Ahlulbayt side by side by referring to them as 'Thaqalayn', which many great Sunni scholars admit denotes their authority, importance and need to abide by their commands, as we do for the Quran.
2. Then he states, if we held onto the two we would never go astray, making it abundantly clear that the two are the foremost source of guidance for our salvation.
3. He then finishes this with emphasizing again that the Quran and the Ahlulbayt will never deviate from each other until they meet the Prophet at the highest level of Jannah in the pool of Kawthar, which emphasizes that the Quran and the Ahlulbayt go hand in hand, they are inseparable, they are two sides of the same coin.
4. He then , at Ghadir Khumm as part of the same sermon, asks Muslims if he has greater authority over them then they do over their own selves. He grabs the hand of Ali and proclaims that whomsoever he is the Mawla of, Ali too, is their Mawla.
To this i say, Ya Rasullulah, we hear and we obey.
"...And whatever the Messenger has given you - take; and what he has forbidden you - refrain from. And fear Allah ; indeed, Allah is severe in penalty" - Noble Quran
Which the Sahabi - who was an eye witness - understood as taking care of Ahl al-bayt, that too all those Ahl al-bayt for whom acceptance of charity was forbidden, which included members who would commit Sins too. Due to which who have disowned this Sahabi, who is considered respectable as per Shias. It's a huge loss for you.
1. First he places the Quran and the Ahlulbayt side by side by referring to them as 'Thaqalayn', which many great Sunni scholars admit denotes their authority, importance and need to abide by their commands, as we do for the Quran.
2. Then he states, if we held onto the two we would never go astray, making it abundantly clear that the two are the foremost source of guidance for our salvation.Quran alone was mentioned as source of guidance holding which people wouldn't go astray. And how could holding people among whom were sinners(esp from Bani abbas, Bani Jafar, etc) lead to salvation in your view?
3. He then finishes this with emphasizing again that the Quran and the Ahlulbayt will never deviate from each other until they meet the Prophet at the highest level of Jannah in the pool of Kawthar, which emphasizes that the Quran and the Ahlulbayt go hand in hand, they are inseparable, they are two sides of the same coin.This contradicts Quran 4:59, because immunity was mentioned only for Allah and Prophet(S) , not for anyone else.
4. He then , at Ghadir Khumm as part of the same sermon, asks Muslims if he has greater authority over them then they do over their own selves. He grabs the hand of Ali and proclaims that whomsoever he is the Mawla of, Ali too, is their Mawla.This occurred due to criticism of people over Ali(ra) for taking Khums in Yemen, even though Ahl al-bayt were prohibited to accept charity and were assigned a share in Khums. And that's why Prophet(SAWS) reminded people to take care of Ahl al-bayt, that's why the eye-witness Sahabi who understood this statement of Prophet(S), said that Ahl al-bayt are all those upon whom acceptance of charity was forbidden, they are same people for whom a portion of Khums was assigned. A clear relation between taking care of Ahl al-bayt being mentioned at Ghadeer and Ali(RA) being praised. While on other hand it is clearly proven that Quran was the only source mentioned at Arafah holding which Muslims wouldn't go astray(where religion was perfected) and the same was said by the Sahabi who narrated the correct version of Hadeeth Thaqalayn from Ghadeer.
To this i say, Ya Rasullulah, we hear and we obey.And when it is said to them: Believe as the people believe they say: Shall we believe as the fools believe? Now surely they themselves are the fools, but they do not know.(2:13)
"...And whatever the Messenger has given you - take; and what he has forbidden you - refrain from. And fear Allah ; indeed, Allah is severe in penalty" - Noble Quran
Let me put the explanation in a simple way:
THIS AUTHENTIC VERSION - Which mentions Quran as the only source holding which people will not go astray.
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]
THIS ACTUAL VERSION WAS NARRATED IN THE BELOW FAULTY FORM.
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 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].
Now my attempt was to explain the faulty version in the light of the Actual version. And how did the Actual version turn into the above one? Well That is because of the narrator who had weakness in narrating.
As simple as that.
I have addressed this, but will do so again collating everything I've said together clearly. I just want to point out again that the use of the singular {هِ/hi/hu= IT} has no relevance to our discussion. Why? If the narrator was , allegedly confused enough to believe the Ahlulbayt were included in what was left, after which we would never go astray, being a native Arab, as well as adding the Ahlulbayt in the Hadith, he would also have amended the grammar, being a native Arab fluent in his language. However, neither he, nor many, many others who narrate similar variants of this version have, but rather have used the singular {هِ/hi/hu= IT}, which demonstrates it is perfectly acceptable in the Arabic language.I have clarified your misunderstanding multiple times, and each time you are left answer-less you get absent for a span of time then returning by creating a new thread, bringing same arguments which were refuted repeatedly by me.
There are three key points i wish to make here:His narration has more authority over the narration in question narrated by a narrator known for making mistakes. Moreover, even if it is said that Zaid(R) missed an expression, that doesn't effect the content of the hadeeth nor the fact that the understanding of the hadeeth which held for this hadeeth renders my interpretation to be correct and Shia narrative to be false. His understanding actually settles this dispute, that's the reason you chose to disown him in your earlier post.
Point one:
The tradition of Zayd b. Aqram occurred when he was very old and had forgotten much of what he remembered. Even if he sincerely only tried to narrate what he felt he could remember, he still omitted authentic expressions.
Indeed, every single version in Saheeh Muslim occurs when Zayd is very old and proclaims: "Zaid said, “By Allah! I have grown old and have almost spent up my age and I have forgotten some of the things which I remembered in connection with Messenger of Allah (saw), so accept what I narrate to you, do not compel me to narrate what I fail to narrate”.Old age doesn't effect the content of the report, and the expression you claim him missed that doesn't effect the content of it either. And it is more valid and authoritative than the one narrated by a narrator who was criticized for making mistakes.
Point twoThe major difference here is that the narration of Ali(R) was narrated via a narrator who was known for making mistakes in his transmission, never forget or try to cover this fact. And the narration of Zaid(R) from Sahih Muslim is more authoritative and reliable than the one from Kathir bin Zayd who was criticized for making mistakes.
The difference between the version of Zayd when he is old, and other versions are as follows:
In the Musnad of Ibn Rahwayh (teacher of Imam al-Bukhari) , as well as in the Mushkil al-Athar al-Tahawi, in a Hadith on the authority of Ali b. Abi Talib, that the Messenger of Allah (saw) had said:
“I have left behind over you (al-Thaqalayn), that which if you hold fast to it you will never go astray...the Quran...and my Ahlulbayt"
In Saheeh Muslim we find:
"I am leaving with you two weighty things: the first is the Book of Allah, in which there is right guidance and light, so hold fast to the Book of Allah and adhere to it...and my AhlulBayt...I remind you in the name of Allah of my Ahlulbayt ( three times)".
There is an authentic expression which is not in the Saheeh of Muslim, which does not contradict with it at all:Sahih Muslim actually explicitly clarifies that what was to be held inorder not go astray. Here is that version from Sahih Muslim, which clarifies it. That is Quran.
"If you hold fast to it you will never go astray"
Indeed, there is no contradiction between the two versions. They go in harmony, one placing in an authentic expression omitted by the other.The authentic version only mentions Quran as a source holding which people will not go astray. So if the faulty version interpreted in manner then it's in harmony otherwise there is a clear contradiction.
Given the tradition has two Hasan chains, and many other Hasan chains due to the Shawahid, coming from many different chains of transmitters, it would be absurd to think they all united on the same error.Two Hasan chains? You mean both chains having same common narrator known for making mistakes? That's two chains? Well in that case the authentic version is has atleast 25 chains, which mentions Quran alone holding which people will not go astray. In addition to that there are other chains from other Sahaba like Hudhaifa, wife of Zaid bin Arqam, Jabir which support the version that Quran alone is to be held so as to not go astray. Ofcourse all of these can't gather upon an error of mentioning holding Quran alone.
How much clearer can the Messenger of Allah (saw) get? He uses many expressions to not only make it crystal clear, but to emphasize the Quran and the Ahlulbayt being side by side as sources of guidance. If this was a simple matter of asking the people to look after his family, why place the Quran side by side, why claim if we hold onto both we would never go astray, why emphasize the two will never deviate from each other until they reach the highest level of Jannah? This is hardly a call to give Khums to the Ahlulbayt, and many Sunni scholars have recognized it is a far greater command onto humanity.Indeed Prophet(SAWS) was very clear, that why the eye-witness Sahabi who loved Ahl al-bayt (Zaid bin Arqam) clearly understood that Ahl al-bayt are to be taken care of, and they are all those upon whom acceptance of charity was forbidden which even included sinners. It's the deviant groups that emerged later who try to portray that this true lover of Ahl al-bayt - Sahabi - wasn't faithful. These people who emerged centuries later want to argue that Prophet(S) wasn't clear to his own companions who were witnessing his sermon, yet clear to them who came centuries later. As for mentioning Ahl al-bayt alongside Quran, then that is because giving Khums to Ahl al-bayt is proven from Quran. And Prophet(SAWS) had already mentioned Quran alone as source of guidance holding which people won't go astray, on Arafah where religion was perfected. As we find in Sahih Muslim this time from Jabir bin Abdullah, another lover of Ahl al-bayt. https://youpuncturedtheark.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/sahih-muslim-vol-3-page-350-29501218.jpg
I have clarified your misunderstanding multiple times, and each time you are left answer-less you get absent for a span of time then returning by creating a new thread, bringing same arguments which were refuted repeatedly by me.
You think that if it was grammatically incorrect then the narrator would have changed the grammar, but as per your habbit which had lead you remain on misguidance, i.e. self-assuming the opponent's argument, you have misunderstood my claim. My claim is that the report in question having singular form, is open for interpretation, it's not incorrect grammatically, but rather it's open for interpretation, and the interpretation I gave was in the light of authentic version narrated by Zaid bin Arqam, which mentions Quran alone as source of guidance. If someone claims to reject this interpretation then that implies the interpretation he is giving is going against the stronger and correct version, hence could be rejected as well. So you argument is based on your misunderstanding, and hence costed wastage of time.
My emphasis on it being grammatically correct, and an absolutely perfectly acceptable mode of expression is in response to your claim the dual ought to have been used. There is absolutely no ambiguity in the text itself, because it begins by stating:I have already proven that the text is open for interpretation. Two things were left no doubt, but only one was that which was to be adhered holding which people would not go astray. This is explicit from the accurate version of Sahih Muslim, which I already quoted in my previous post. And I have followed the academic way of interpreting a report, that is to use an explicit report to interpret it. Let me quote it again for benefit of readers, so that they can see for themselves, how clear and explicit it is, that Quran alone was mentioned to be adhered in accurate version.
إِنِّي تَرَكْتُ فِيكُمْ مَا إِنْ أَخَذْتُمْ بِهِ لَنْ تَضِلُّوا
Therefore, whatever is to follow, is included in this initial expression. The first was the noble Quran, and the Ahlulbayt are also added as a component of what was in the initial expression by usage of:
" وَأَهْلَ بَيْتِي "
There is therefore no ambiguity whatsoever in this tradition.
Now, you could make a claim that this tradition, which makes clearer that the Quran and the Ahlulbayt are to be adhered to for guidance, after which we would never go astray contradicts reports which only mention holding onto the Quran. Such a claim would be incorrect, and i will explain how, but what you can not do is claim the text itself is ambiguous.Please display some honesty in attributing claims to me. My claim is that this version is open for interpretation, and rather it's your Shia narrative which is contradicting the authentic version and many other reports as well, which I have explained in my previous response.
1. You explicitly claimed those traditions which command us to adhere to both the Quran and the Ahlulbayt are weak, and have weak narrators. I have proven this to be a totally false claim, and some of your greatest Muhadditheen , from al-Albani, al-Arnaut, Ibn Hajar, and many others have authenticated the Sanad. Your article therefore contradicts the comments made by your own major scholars who have far greater authority on the subject matter than you do, or i do, when it comes to Sunni hadith. Will you not amend your article?Alhamdulillah I have proven my case by making you admit that the narrator in question was making mistakes. When this is done, you need to show some honesty and admit that a narrator in question is known for making mistakes, which leads us to a clear reason why the narration from him is implicit and not same as from the stronger narrators.
3. You then claimed those who authenticated the chain, did not necessarily authenticate the content. Once again, i demonstrated how your greatest scholars also accepted the Matn , and did not question it.When accepted it because the way it's content was interpreted by them was fine for them. But they way you interpret it is different and contradicts many Mutwattir traditions. And I have demonstrated to you that there are several scholars who explained Hadeeth thaqalayn as, that Quran was to be adhered and Ahl al-bayt to be taken care of.
You must now realize the only argument you can push forward is that while the version commanding us to adhere to them both contains within it reliable chains, as well as witnesses in other chains of narrators, with unambiguous text, in your opinion, it contradicts a more authentic report in Saheeh Muslim.I have made my case quite clear, in my previous response, That's why you never dare to respond it quoting me. That's a sign for readers to see your weakness. You know that you can't play these run arounds if you try to refute my point by quoting me, like I do when refuting you. Btw Don't miss stating that the narrator in the version you are using was known for making mistakes. That would be really helpful for the readers.
If you agree to this, we can focus solely on dissecting the Matn.
I have already proven that the text is open for interpretation. Two things were left no doubt, but only one was that which was to be adhered holding which people would not go astray. This is explicit from the accurate version of Sahih Muslim, which I already quoted in my previous post. And I have followed the academic way of interpreting a report, that is to use an explicit report to interpret it. Let me quote it again for benefit of readers, so that they can see for themselves, how clear and explicit it is, that Quran alone was mentioned to be adhered in accurate version.
Please display some honesty in attributing claims to me. My claim is that this version is open for interpretation, and rather it's your Shia narrative which is contradicting the authentic version and many other reports as well, which I have explained in my previous response.
Zayd b. Arqam wasn't just old, he was very advanced in age, and was losing his memory, something he not only attested to in Saheeh Muslim, but he also complained about the difficulty of narrating about the Prophet (saw) in an authentic Hadith in Ibn Majah. Zayd himself appeared to forget a supposedly basic fact, in that the wives of the Prophet (saw) were forbidden Sadaqah. You would expect a senior companion to know a very simple matter of Fiqh like that, especially given it is he you rely on for the "deepest" understanding of the tradition. However, you yourself admit he was wrong and mistaken in not believing Sadaqah was forbidden for the wives.Just to expose the dishonesty of this Shia guy to the readers, I would be again reminding that how you keep repeating the arguments that were refuted several times by me. And you know that your arguments are too weak, that's why you are scared to even quote the point I make while trying to make your feeble responses. While I quote you each time, then refute you, so the readers get a better opportunity to understand what's going on. So please don't insult the intellect of readers with such tricks.
According to Sunni Hadith sciences, had this been a non-Sahabi, this would have affected the quality of this report, but given it is a companion, an exception is made. Despite being a very unscientific double standard, let us assume what Zayd reported itself was more or less accurate generally, though he missed - as we both agree - authentic expressions.
Kathir bin Zayd, is the guy who you admitted that was known was making mistakes and could have an made an error in the text. In case you forgot then read it yourself.[ You are not allowed to view attachments ]
Your claim is that Kathir b.Zayd, who al-Albani, al-Arnaut, Ibn Hajar and many of your greatest Muhadditheen regard to be Hasan-ul-Hadith, made an error in including the Ahlulbayt along with the Quran in terms of what was to be adhered onto, lest we never go astray. Now, you might have had a point if he was alone in narrating this, but as we see, he is not alone in narrating this.
We find that Al-Albani, and Al-Arnaut consider the following chain which does not contain Kathir b. Zayd to be 'Hasan' due to Shawahid:Meaning it is not Hasan on it's own, but rather due to supporting chain, in other words it's weak on its own.
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.
Despite Attiyah being a weak narrator, he was regarded as Saduq, and truthful, and not accused of lying. His weakness was not in lying, or forging, but Ibn Hajar declares it may have been in his memory.A narrator with weak memory could screw up the content structure of the report, as it happened in this case. And since you are using the view of Ibn Hajar on Atiyya then you need to know that he was declared a Mudallis as well by Ibn Hajar, so you can't have your cake and eat it too. if you bring in the issue of tadlees, a whole can of worms is gonna open, and it's not that simple. And to reject that Attiya was a Mudallis, one needs to back the claim from authoritative and classical Scholar, not a recent deviant nobody like As for Mahmood Saeed Mamdoh, who is a biased innovator, who has been criticized by Scholars for his ignorance of Hadeeth science, bias and his unacademic approach. Hence his view holds no weight in the sight of Ahlesunnah.
Furthermore, we also have another chain of narrators, going through another individual Zaib b. al-Hassan al- Anmati who was considered weak, but not accused of lying. Tirmidhi considered him to be truthful , Ibn Hibban considered him Thiqah, but Abu Hatim, who was very strict and whose rulings were not taken if anyone other than Ibn Hibban gave Tawtheeq or praise declared him Munkar. The overall verdict however, is that he is a weak narrator. The weakness is not in him being a forger, or a liar, but may be due to weakness in hadith , memory and the likes.Ibn Hibban's Tawtheeq is not taken into consideration, this is what Al-Albani himself said, and several others as well.
Given that Zayd b. Al-Hassan narrates an almost identical report, but perhaps mistakenly declares this occurring at Arafah, and not Ghadir Khumm, it provides another witness:Attiyyah was a mudallis too, so don't use this silly argument that he wasn't accused of lying, etc. If you didn't get what I said, then ask me I'll try to educate you, what Tadlees means.
حدثنل نصر بن عبدالرحمان الكوفى قال حثنا زيد بن الحسن عن جعفر بن محمد عن ابيه عن جابر بن عبدالله قال رءيت رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم فى حجته يوم عرفة وهو على ناقته القصواء يخطب 1 فسمعته يقول يا ايها الناس انى تركت فيكم ما ان اخذتم به لن تضلوا كتاب الله و عترتى اهل بيتى
While the chain is weak on its own, Zayd b. al-Hassan , like Attiyah, are merely weak narrators, but not themselves accused of lying, forging or fabricating, and together, the paths strengthen each other and make it unlikely all of these narrators somehow happened to coincidentally make the same mistake.
Furthermore, there is yet another path that does not include liars or forgers in the Ansab al-Ashraf of Baladhuri:
عبدالملك بن محمد بن عبد الله القرشي -> يحيى بن حماد -> أبو عوانة -> العماش -> حبيب بن أبي ثابت -> `أمير بن وائل أبو طفيل -> زيد بن ارقم … قال انى تارك فيكم الثقلين ما ان تمسكتم به لن تضلوا كتاب الله وعترتى ولن يتفرقا حتى يردا على الحوض…
The only weakness in this chain is Habib b. Abi Thabit, who was a Mudallis of the third category. Some scholars would accept this report, but they are in the minority. However, we do find evidence that the great scholar, Imam Tahawi, was satisfied that Habib b. Abi Thabit, whose lifetime largely overlapped Abu Tufayl, met him, given he declares a similar chain to be Saheeh:
The version whereby the Prophet saw commands people to hold onto the Quran and the Ahlulbayt, after which, they would never go astray comes from:
1. At least 20 chains of narrators.
2. At least five different companions of the Prophet (saw)
3. Two outright Hasan chains, and other supporting chains which are Hasan due to Shawahid.
4. Five chains of narrators without any overlap whatsoever, including from different companions.
Your claim, that Kathir b. Zayd heard hadith al-Thaqalayn and mistakenly added the Ahlulbayt as that which people were to hold onto, to never go astray after, would be given more weight if he was alone in narrating it. There are many other chains of narrators, of individuals who are not accused of lying or forging, but considered truthful with weakness being in other areas, who have reported the very same thing, making it unlikely they all happened to mistakenly narrate something in accurate, especially given Kathir b. Zayd is Hasan-ul-Hadith.
The only plausible alternative for you to try to argue is that this was not an innocent mistake, but a forgery and wider conspiracy, which would not be difficult to throw out.
I would argue the opposite. The version in Saheeh Muslim is open for interpretation, and the version i presented is crystal clear:
“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.”
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.
This is absolutely clear. If we hold onto the Quran and the Ahlulbayt, we will never go astray. There is no ambiguity here. Your claim that the singular verb makes this ambiguous is a claim that should be thrown out. That verb is perfectly acceptable to be used, it has been used in many other reports, and no scholar has ever claimed it renders this version ambiguous. There has been no doubt that in this version, it is clear the Quran and the Ahlulbayt are two things to be held onto, so that we would never go astray.
The claim that this contradicts a more authentic report in Saheeh Muslim is an entirely different matter however. What you can not be doing is claiming this report itself is ambiguous, when it is clear.
The version in Saheeh Muslim however, i will accept, could be open to interpretation. Many of your own scholars have themselves stated the Prophet (saw) placing the Quran along with the Ahlulbayt, as two weighty things in his place, demonstrates the need to uphold and abide by both. Even though the Prophet (saw) mentions that the Quran is guidance, and we should hold fast onto it, this does not mean he denies the same should be done for his Ahlulbayt. However, it leaves ambiguity because a good case can be made in interpreting this way, and it is not just the Shia who do so, but your own scholars:
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]
Just by using the word 'Thaqalayn', placing the Quran side by side, and then claiming that they will never deviate from one another until the pool of Kawthar, it gives the impression that the two are to be held onto for guidance, the two will not dispute one another (some argue the consensus of the Ahlulbayt such as Ibn Taymiyyah).
However, when the Prophet (saw) mentions this:
"“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.”
It should remove any ambiguity for those who previously doubted.
Just to expose the dishonesty of this Shia guy to the readers, I would be again reminding that how you keep repeating the arguments that were refuted several times by me. And you know that your arguments are too weak, that's why you are scared to even quote the point I make while trying to make your feeble responses. While I quote you each time, then refute you, so the readers get a better opportunity to understand what's going on. So please don't insult the intellect of readers with such tricks.
I refuted this point several times and this is the response:
Indeed, Zayd bin Arqam(RA) said he had become old and forgotten many things, this shows the extreme carefulness and cautiousness of Zayd(RA) in narrating hadeeth of Prophet(SAWS). He wanted to narrate only that hadeeth, which he still remembered properly, about which he was confident and sure. Which makes the hadeeth more stronger.
Let us quote what Zayd(RA) said:
حَدِّثْنَا يَا زَيْدُ مَا سَمِعْتَ مِنْ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم – قَالَ – يَا ابْنَ أَخِي وَاللَّهِ لَقَدْ كَبِرَتْ سِنِّي وَقَدُمَ عَهْدِي وَنَسِيتُ بَعْضَ الَّذِي كُنْتُ أَعِي مِنْ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَمَا حَدَّثْتُكُمْ فَاقْبَلُوا وَمَا لاَ فَلاَ تُكَلِّفُونِيهِ
Hussain(narrator) said: Zayd! narrate to us what you heard from Allah’s Messenger(SAWS). He(Zayd) said: I have grown old and have almost spent my age and I have forgotten some of the things which I remembered in connection with Allah’s Messenger(SAWS), so accept whatever I narrate to you, and which I do not narrate do not compel me to do that.[Sahih Muslim #2408]
Point to note is that, even though Zayd(RA) was extremely careful and cautious about narrating the hadeeth from Prophet(SAWS), yet for the hadeeth which he remembered and narrated about Thaqalayn, HE TOLD THE QUESTIONER TO ACCEPT IT. What else can we ask for, to believe in accuracy of the report he narrated. Out of caution, he narrated that event which he witnessed, in which he was sure and confident, which makes the hadeeth most accurate version.
As for the argument of Ikhtilat; then this is an invalid argument in this case. Ikhtilat is when a narrator confuses events and mixes texts and wordings. If a narrator has not done this then he is not deemed a Mukhtalit regardless of whether he forgot some events or not, as long as he doesn’t mix and confuse events he’s good. And none of the Scholar ever claimed that Zayd bin Arqam(RA) was Mukhtalit. Therefore, the argument brought up by Shias, is invalid and it was due to their ignorance and misunderstanding of Hadeeth Sciences.
Hafiz al-Zayla’i said:
قال الحافظ الزيلعي في نصب الراية 1/360
وكم من حديث كثرت رواته و تعددت طرقه وهو حديث ضعيف كحديث…. بل قد لا يزيد كثرة الطرق الا ضعفا
There are many of traditions reported by numerous narrators and many chains, yet they are still weak….Many a time, Abundant chains only increase the narration in weakness. [Nasb-ul-Rayah vol 1, page 360 ]
Even Shia Scholars rejected some of their ahadeeth having many chains due their weakness. For example:
The Shia researcher of the book “al-Masa’il al-Sarawiyyah” Sa’ib Abdul-Hameed, he praises the author, the esteemed Shia Scholar Shaykh al-Mufeed for his scientific professional method in the book by saying:
“In this book we can clearly see the correct methodology (of al-Mufeed) in his research and in how he extracts proofs. He holds on to the authentic established narration and leaves all else, even if what opposes it was related by the great ones such as al-Saduq and ibn al-Junayd. He shows complete disregard to the multitude of narrations whose chains are unreliable, instead he relies on the single authentic chain leaving behind a large pile of weak and fabricated reports. He is the expert diver who selects the pure pearls leaving behind the rubble that floats in the oceans.”[al-Masa’il al-Sarawiyyah, by Shaykh al-Mufeed, Tahqeeq by Sa’ib Abdul Hameed, page 12].
I am addressing your arguments and your points, my browser does not always let me quote people on here, so i have to copy and paste their words.Well you already made a quote in your post, and you always make it general. So if you want to quote it on point to point basis, use this [ You are not allowed to view attachments ] memorize it, So that next time you don't make this silly excuse.
Therefore it should come as no surprise that, while Zayd b. al-Arqam tried to faithfully narrate what he could remember from Hadith al-Thaqalayn, he missed authentic expressions and phrases which are contained in other reports. Simply because we do not find it in the version when he was already very old and undergoing memory loss does not mean the Prophet (saw) did not say it!And I already answered this, and to expose you before the readers, I even gave the screen shot showing I responded you over this argument. This the second time I'm posting the screen shot showing that I already answered this argument of yours, which you keep-repeating.
Rather, what we need to do first is to compile all of the reliable chained reports together, to get a fuller picture of what was said, providing there are no contradictions.If you intention to mean adding another expression, such as "they would not seperate until they reach me at the pond", then this doesn't effect or change the content of the Zaid's(R) report or it's meaning. However if you mean making your own imaginary content, then that would contradict the content of Zaid's(R) report and also many other authentic reports which support this version of Zaid(R) that Quran alone is the source of guidance holding which people won't go astray.
I personally raise a question mark over this double standard, because the Sahaba were human beings. They were not immune from mistakenly narrating things, erring, slipping, being careless. Those like Zayd, who may have sincerely felt they were only narrating what they felt they could accurately remember may not have necessarily accurately transmitted a report. Today, particularity studying the science surrounding this, many who undergo memory loss may sincerely feel they remember an event, but the reality is, they do not accurately transmit it.And you are a nobody.
However, i was firm in that due to his poor memory and old age, this opens a plausible possibility that there are authentic expressions he himself may have forgotten, which we can find in other widely reported narrations, some of which contain reliable chains of narrators.The issue here is the structure of wording, which Zayd(R) accurately transmitted, while when it was narrated by narrators who were either weak or known for making mistakes, they flipped the structure of the wording, even though some of these narrators themselves narrated the hadeeth in proper structure of wording, which you seem to be reluctant in acknowledging.
Expressions such as:
1. "I leave behind, that which if you hold onto, you will never go astray"
and
2. "They will never deviate from one another until they meet me at the pool of Kawthar".
Do you realize why i gave you a number of chains, with narrators not accused of lying, but rather, in several of cases, some of your greatest scholars such as al-Albani and al-Arnaut authenticating some of those chains outright as 'Hasan', and elevating weak chains to the level of 'Hasan' due to the witnesses and other paths? It was precisely to demonstrate that the version of Hadith al-Thaqalayn as per Sunni science of hadith where the Prophet (saw) states "I leave behind that which if you hold onto, you will never go astray..." includes a good number of chains of narrators who report this very statement, are no accused of lying, and in two of the chains, are Hasan-ul-Hadith anyway.
The quotes you are bringing to me would only have applied if i presented for the second version only chains of narrators of those accused of lying, fabricating or forging.
Why else do you think i brought the chains of narrators?
Most of this has been dealt in my previous post. What needs to be addressed is that, all the chains have weakness, and in most cases they contradict the reports by same narrators whom you are using, as i demonstrated. And not to forget the wording of all those which you are referring due to your ignorance isn't same.
Chains having weakness does not mean the chains are all weak. I have demonstrated to you that two of the chains are 'Hasan', a grading given to them by some of your greatest Muhadditheen.I will not allow you to deceive people when you say two chains, you need to be honest enough to say that both chains of same narrator who had weakness in him as he was known for making mistakes. And I have already demonstrated how he made mistake.
You have still refused to tell me your position on the grading of the chain of narrators, despite going against your greatest Muhadditheen and declaring the narrator weak, the chain weak, and the chain graded 'Hasan' due to leniency, all of which have been proven false brother.None of these damage control techniques of yours refute the point that, the narrator in question was known for making mistakes and I have demonstrated that how he narrated the text in an ambiguous form. You first misunderstood that it had something to do with grammatical error, but they I had to clear your misunderstanding. Then when I explained you the problem and even demonstrated it, you have nothing to refute it.
I have also demonstrated to you that among the chains which would be weak on their own, al-Albani and al-Arnaut have elevated some of those chains from 'Dhaif' to 'Hasan' on account of the fact the weakness in those chains can be elevated due to Shawahid. If the chain in question contained liars or forgers, you can not elevated a weak chain to a reliable one due to Shawahid.You are truly an ignorant. When the problem is in the text as explained, then how would shawahid even help in this case? Infact I propose you to use the Shawahid of Sahih version in interpreting it. Like I have done.
As we see all the chains of weakness, as already discussed in this thread. And they go against, the accurate structure of the wording, as explained in my previous post which you are deliberately avoiding to answer.PART ONE: A summarised compilation of the chains which contain the phrase: "I am leaving behind (two weighty things) which if you hold onto, you will never go astray, the Quran and my Itra/Ahlulbayt"
Purpose: To demonstrate that the large bulk of chains do not have liars, forgers, or those abandoned in Hadith, and range from Hasan (reliable, the scholars use as proof like the Saheeh), to chains with minor weaknesses, which the scholars have elevated to 'Hasan due to Shawahid' on account of the sheer strength of the various different chains. Therefore the various paths should not weaken, but rather strengthen this narration.
Musnad ibn Ibn Rahwayh (teacher of Imam Bukhari) as well as from Ibn Asim
.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.
Al-Albani and al-Arnaut, in addition to Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani have graded this chain as at least 'Hasan'. This means that while a narrator may have made some mistakes, these were very few in number and did not effect the general quality of their reports, and they were to be relied on.
Mushkil al-Athar al-Tahawi:
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.
Al-Albani regarded this to be a strong Shawahid, and this is also at a 'Hasan' level as per al-Albani, al-Arnaut, Ibn Hajar and the general majority of Muhadditheen. The narrators are almost identical as above, barring the initial Saduq narrator.
From the Musnad of Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal:
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 and Al-Arnaut have elevated this chain to 'Hasan with the Shawahid' due to the fact the various different chains strengthen each other. Attiyah is also regarded truthful, but weak in Hadith, but his chains can be graded 'Hasan' if other paths strengthen it. They can also be used as supporting proof: Imaam Abu Haatim ar-Raazi said: "He is Da'eef ul-Hadeeth, write his narrations (for Mutaabi'aat and Shawaahid)." [Al-Jarh wal Ta'deel: 6/383]. I would also like to note here that for the non-Salafis, these two articles also presents a good argument as to why Attiyah ought not to be considered weak: 1. https://alsunna.org/proofs-on-tawassul-refuting-the-claims-of-ibn-taymiah-a-wahhabis.html#gsc.tab=0 and 2. http://hadithproofsfortawassul.blogspot.com/2005/11/hadith-6-response-to-salafis.html
Therefore, the following chain will also be 'Hasan due to Shawahid' given Attiyah would be the only weakness:
Sunan al-Tirmidhi:
حدثنا محمد بن الفضيل حدثنا الاعمش عن عطية عن ابى سعي قال قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم انى تارك فيكم ما 2 تمسكتم به لن تضلوا بعدى احدهما اعظم من الاخر كتاب الله حبل ممدود من السماء الى الارض وعترتى اههل حدثنا على بن المنذر الكوفى د بيتى ولن يتفرقا حتى يردا علىّ الحوض فانظروا كيف تخلفونى فيهما
[Mustadrak al-Hakim]
حدثنا ابو بكر بن اسحاق ودعلج بن احمد السجزى قالا انبانا محمد بن ايوب ثنا الازرق بن على ثنا حسان بن ابراهيم الكرمانى ثنا محمد بن سلمة بن كهيل عن ابيه عن ابى الطفيل بن واثلة انه سمع زيد بن ارقم رضى الله عنه يقول نزل رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم بين مكة والمدينة عند شجرات خمس دوحات عظام فكنس الناس ما تحت الشجرات ثم راح رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم عشيه فصللى ثم قام خطيبا فحمد الله و اثنى عليه وذكر ووعظ فقال ما شاء الله ان يقول ثم قال ايها الناس انى تارك فيكم امرين لن تضلوا ان اتبعتموهما وهما كتاب الله و اهل بيتى عترتى ثم قال اتعلمون انى اولى بالمؤمنين من انفسهم ثلاث مرات قالوا نعم فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم من كنت مولاه فعلى مولاه
The only weakness here is Muhammed b. Salamah b. Kuhayl, who is narrating from his father, Salamah b.Kuhayl who is regarded Thiqah, who in turn narrates from Abu Tufayl, who narrates from Zayd b. Arqam. Muhammed b. Salamah is regarded weak, but not abandoned, nor a liar. His Matn is supported by the reliable 'Hasan' chains above. Furthermore, there are several chains going through Abu Tufayl, to Zayd b. Arqam which strengthen this.
[Ja'mi of Imam al-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
The only weakness here is that Habib b. Abi Habit did not receive this directly from Zayd b. Arqam. However, we find Habib b. Thabit narrating the same hadith from Abu Tufayl, who in turn narrates from Zayd b. Arqam in Ansab al-Ashraf of Baladhuri.
[Ansab al-Ashraf of Baladhuri]:
عبدالملك بن محمد بن عبد الله القرشي -> يحيى بن حماد -> أبو عوانة -> العماش -> حبيب بن أبي ثابت -> `أمير بن وائل أبو طفيل -> زيد بن ارقم … قال انى تارك فيكم الثقلين ما ان تمسكتم به لن تضلوا كتاب الله وعترتى ولن يتفرقا حتى يردا على الحوض…
Imam al-Tahawi, in Mushkil al-Athar grades a chain of Habib b. Abi Habit from Abu Tufayl to be 'Saheeh' which is proof he believed Habib did hear from Abu Tufayl:
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:
فهذا الحديث صحيح الإسناد لا طعن لأحد في أحد من رواته
[Mustadrak al-Hakim]
قال محمد بن علي الشيباني - أحمد بن عظيم الغفارة - أبو نعيم - كامل أبو العال - - حبيب بن أبي ثابت - يحيى بن جعبة - ياعيا بن جعبة عن زيد بن أرقم
This is yet another chain going from Habib b. Abi Thabit, this time to Yahya b. Jadah to Zayd b. Arqam. There are no weak narrators here, and the only question would be the connection between Habib and Yahya. The narration is clearly at Ghadir Khum, and starts with: "I am leaving among you that which you will never go astray..." just like the previous narrations cited. However, the narrator mentions "The Quran", and the Ahlulbayt is nowhere to be seen anywhere in this narration. We know for certain that in every narration whereby the Prophet first declares "I leave among you that which if you hold onto you will never go astray" he says "The Quran...and my Ahlulbayt".
Given the Ahlulbayt were explicitly mentioned at Ghadir in Hadith al-Thaqalayn, and given the narration started in this manner, it could only have been referring to the "Thaqalayn" and the complete omission of mentioning the Ahlulbayt is perhaps the deliberate omission of one of the narrators, or their mistake.This is quite ridiculous, it is possible for narrator making mistake in omitting Ahl al-bayt, but it is not possible for narrator who had weakness to narrate the structure of the wording in a faulty manner. Even though I have proven why my claim is correct in my last post, which you are deliberately avoiding. The understanding of Sahaba the witness to that event clearly proves my view to be correct.