The Prophet left two weighty things: stop the deception TSN/Sunni Defense/YPTA

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

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.

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.

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.



Just because we find the Prophet claiming at one stage, that the Quran is a source of guidance we ought to hold onto if we do not wish to go astray, does not mean at other points he could not inform us of other critical sources of guidance. We know he had informed us to follow his Sunnah, to follow the rightly guided successors,  to follow his Ahlulbayt.

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:

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."

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.

[whoaretheshia]

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.

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.

Let us remind ourselves of his main point:

"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."

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.

I'm sure Noor-us-Sunnah would himself admit that a fluent Arab transmitting a Hadith which at least in his mind includes the Ahlulbayt in addition to the Quran as what is being referred to for what we ought to hold on to, would have known that the singular to refer to both was improper. However, this is not the case, because it is apparent that his usage of this sort of language is proper and acceptable.

That is why i presented many other chains of fluent Arab narrators, though some of them may have been weak, also transmitting the Hadith in this manner:

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

In response, the brother claimed:

(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.

The problem with his reasoning is that these narrators all allegedly tried to verbatim quote a Hadith where only the Quran was being left, used the very same grammar as the Prophet to refer to the singular, but then lumped the Ahlulbayt at the end. Nobody should take this line of reasoning seriously, with all due respect.

If you read the traditions, they clearly stipulate the Prophet leaving behind two weighty things, and then use the singular in reference to both the Quran and the Ahlulbayt. No scholar has ever raised the objection about the grammar, because in the varying chains of narrators, it is clear that the usage of the singular is absolutely acceptable and not ambiguous.

These narrators, who were fluent Arabs, knew full well the Hadith they were narrating was about the Prophet leaving behind two weighty things, and when they used the singular, they did not attempt to amend it to duality or plurality because the usage of the singular is perfectly acceptable.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

I can absolutely take his grading but not fully agree with his interpretation, because they are two entirely different matters.

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.

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.

[whoaretheshia]

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.

You need to be honest with your readers brother Noor-us-Sunnah.

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.

What Noor-us-Sunnah is doing is cherry picking verdicts of some classical scholars, ignoring the verdict of others, and then overruling scholars who have already collated all of the different views and are experts, such as Al-Albani, and then gone with them, which is not acceptable.

One can not say that a classical scholar gave one verdict, and Al-Albani has given another, and that they go with the classical scholar, because the criticism of the narrator is occurring at two entirely different levels.

The classical scholar gives an opinion. Al-Albani is an expert at looking at what all of the classical scholars have said, and then giving an overall verdict on the most likely degree of confidence we can have on the narrator.

This is why he deems the narrator to be at a 'Hasan' level, a view shared by many experts who have done the same, such as Al-Arnaut, Ibn Hajar etc. Online bloggers like Hani and Noor Us Sunnah have sought to go straight to cherry picking views of some classical scholars, and can hardly overrule the verdicts of those scholars who are deemed the foremost in the field of collating what all the classical scholars have said.

If you are a Sunni, you are obliged to follow the most knowledgeable or knowledgeable group on a particular field or area. The overwhelming majority of Sunni scholars accept that Al-Albani, Al-Arnaut, Ibn Hajar are among the best qualified to give overall verdicts on narrators. It would be unwise to allow online bloggers, no matter how good their intentions, to try to overrule this.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

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.

It's not about them being native Arabs, its about them being weak narrators or atleast those who were known for making mistakes. And instead of rejecting this narration as a whole, it can be accepted  in the light of interpreting it as per authentic version.

As done below:

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.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

You need to be honest with your readers brother Noor-us-Sunnah.

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.

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].

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.

[whoaretheshia]

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].

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, and 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.

[whoaretheshia]

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.

Ibn Hajar, Al-Albani, and Al-Arnaut knew full well that he, like many other Hasan narrators, may make some mistakes and not be on the level of a Saheeh narrator. However they still deemed the chain as "Hasan".

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.

Your arguments about faulty or ambiguous text too, have been addressed.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

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.

Answer this :

Ibn Hajar even mentioned that the narrator makes mistakes. Are you claiming that a narrator who is Hasan, yet makes mistakes, whose report can be classed as Hasan, can't make an error in the text?

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

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.

[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.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

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.

Indeed the understanding of Sahabi Zayd bin Arqam for Hadeeth Thaqalayn, is a thorn in the throat of Shias, This Shia guy was forced to disown the Sahabi who Shias considered to be respectable. This is what happens when you are reluctant in accepting the truth.

[ You are not allowed to view attachments ]

[whoaretheshia]

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

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

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

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.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

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.

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.

And not to forget great Sunni Scholars again who understood this in the similar way.

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.

And this isn't practical as well, because If Ahl al-bayt were with Quran, then how come they never taught the correct Quranic Qira’at? Instead they said it is permissible to recite any of the Qira’at while (supposedly) believing that the different Qira’at are the mistakes, for eg: Qira’at Hafs is a mistake, yet it’s permissible to recite it, and the different Qira’at lead to different rulings. Imams from Ahl al-bayt who were supposed to be protectors of Quran, ask people to recite Quran in false forms, which are based on Human mistakes. This is enough to show that the Shia interpretation of the wording that “Quran and Ahl al-bayt will never seperate with each other” is wrong and incorrect.

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 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

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)

[whoaretheshia]

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.

There are three key points i wish to make here:

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”.

In Ibn Majah with an authentic sanad we find him saying: "We said to Zaid bin Arqam: ‘Tell us a Hadith from the Messenger of Allah (saw).’ He said: ‘We have grown old and have forgotten, and (narrating) Ahadith from the Messenger of Allah (saw) is difficult (not a simple matter).’

Those who suffer from memory loss may sincerely believe they are narrating what they remember, but are more likely to confuse and mix things up while thinking what they are saying is accurate. For sake of argument, let us not assume this necessarily, but accept he omitted authentic expressions, some of which even you agree with.

You agree, for example, and there is no difference between us, that another authentic expression is:

"They will never deviate until they meet me at the Hawdh (Pool of Kawthar at the highest level of Jannah"

There is no dispute, and we are united in that this is an authentic expression, which Zayd has omitted here, perhaps due to forgetfulness.

Point two

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:

"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. 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.

The only way you can dismiss the Hadith is if the tradition contradicts with the version of Saheeh Muslim. You can not use Dhann and speculation. I have to again emphasize, unless there is a contradiction, you can not throw away a Hasan hadith , with many, many chains and witnesses based on your own speculation of what could have happened.

So let us combine the traditions:

“I have left behind over you al-Thaqalayn, which if you hold fast to it you will never go astray, the Quran, , 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).They will never deviate until they meet me at the Hawdh (Pool of Kawthar at the highest level of Jannah.

Indeed, each of the three versions help to combine to give us a fuller picture and they go in harmony.

1. The Prophet (saw) begins by saying he is leaving behind the Thaqalayn, placing the Quran and Ahlulbayt side by side.

2. He proclaims that if we hold onto them, we will never go astray.

3. He emphasizes in the Quran there is guidance and light, so to hold onto it.

4. He then emphasizes his Ahlulbayt, which are of the two weighty things we hold onto to never go astray.

5. He beautifully emphasizes that the two go hand in hand by stating that they will never deviate from one another until they return to the Prophet (saw) at the highest level of Jannah.


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.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

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.

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.

There are three key points i wish to make here:

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.

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.

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.

Moreover, This version in not just restricted to Sahih Muslim, it's in several other books, from other Sahaba as well, which again make your argument to be void.

From Hudhayfah bin Usayd al-Ghafar. [Mu’jam al-Tabrani al-Kabeer, vol 3, page 65, #2683]

From the WIFE of Zayd ibn Arqam. [al-Manaqib Ameer Al-Momineen Ali ibn Abi Talib, page 44 – 45 – 46, #23].

From Jabir(R). [Sharh Usool I’tiqaad Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah, vol 1, page 81, #95].

Point two

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)".

The 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.

There is an authentic expression which is not in the Saheeh of Muslim, which does not contradict with it at all:

"If you hold fast to it you will never go astray"

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.

https://youpuncturedtheark.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/sahih-muslim-vol-6-page-269-62272408.jpg

Similar clarification is in another books as well and again it is for Quran alone:

https://youpuncturedtheark.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/sunan-al-kubra-by-al-nasai-vol-7-page-320-8119.jpg

https://youpuncturedtheark.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/sahih-ibn-khuzaymah-vol-4-page-63-2357.jpg

https://youpuncturedtheark.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/sharh-usool-itiqaad-ahlus-sunnah-wal-jamaaah-vol-1-page-79-88.jpg

https://youpuncturedtheark.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/mustadrak-al-hakim-vol-3-page-613-6272.jpg

https://youpuncturedtheark.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/mujam-al-tabrani-al-kabeer-vol-3-page-64-2681.jpg

https://youpuncturedtheark.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/mujam-al-tabrani-al-kabeer-vol-3-page-65-2683.jpg

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.

And this doesn't end here: There are other evidences as well supporting the fact that  Quran alone is the 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]

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

So there was no scope of any confusion for his companions at all.

[whoaretheshia]

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:

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.

You have dedicated a large body of work on your website, youpuncturedtheark, to try to prove the following, which have been refuted:

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?

2. You then claimed that those scholars who have claimed it is reliable by chain have only done so out of leniency. I have proven this to also be totally false, as Al-Albani, Al-Arnaut authenticated the chain by their usual standards, and this has been proven.

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 i have pressed you to now clearly relay to myself and the dear readers what your verdict on the chains i have presented are, you have avoided answering. This is highly unusual if you have built an entire argument on weakening every chain barring the version in Saheeh Muslim.

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.

If you agree to this, we can focus solely on dissecting the Matn.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

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:

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.

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.

https://youpuncturedtheark.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/sahih-muslim-vol-6-page-269-62272408.jpg

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.

And i have a clear upper hand in this case because, my interpretation is supported by a Sahabi who was an eye witness to this event. Due to which you were forced to disown him.

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.

If you agree to this, we can focus solely on dissecting the Matn.

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.

[whoaretheshia]

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.

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.

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:

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. However, both Al-Albani and Al-Arnaut have noted that there is a Hasan chain from Kathir b. Zayd, which reduces the probability that this was a mistake both made. This means that if one considered it possible for Attiyah to make a mistake due to his memory, the fact the same tradition is transmitted by someone more reliable than he is, who was also faulted - though had a much better memory, the problem of considering the chain weak due to memory is now alleviated.

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.

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:

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:


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