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

[whoaretheshia]

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.

[whoaretheshia]

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.

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.

[whoaretheshia]

Brother Noor-us-Sunnah, who obviously has put in a lot of effort, i have no doubt to judge, for the sake of Allah in his mind with this website "youpuncturedtheark" has for years made the following claims:

1. The versions of Thaqalayn which command us to adhere explicitly to the Quran and Ahlulbayt are all weak, and have weak narrators. I have proven this to be false , given al-Albani, al-Arnaut, Ibn Hajar , and some of the greatest Sunni Muhadditheen have authenticated the chain.

2. In updating his article following debates over the years, he included a section trying to explain away why some authenticated the chain, claiming they were being lenient. This again, was proven to be false.

3. A more recent argument he then brought up was pertaining to the text of the version authenticated as 'Hasan' by Al-Albani and Al-Arnaut. He claimed that the use of singular verbs made it open to interpretation. However, there is not a single scholar who has read this version and made the same remark. The Hadith in the second version clearly commands adhering to the Quran and the Ahlulbayt, this is what the narrators would have understood, this is what the compilers would have understood, and this is what the Ijma of Sunni scholars took it to be. This is an attempt - perhaps not deliberately but out of some sort of inner desire- to muddy and weaken the basis for accepting this version further, but it is an argument which should be thrown out.


Given his claim that the text, as well as the chain of narrators and interpretation of some of the greatest Sunni scholars such as Al-Albani , Ibn Hajar, Imam Nawawi, Al-Arnaut, Azamakshari, Ibn Athir go against the claims made in his article, which was the idea that the tradition of Thaqalayn was just about taking care of the family and the wives, he has now evolved his argument and focused more heavily on two key areas.

They are:

1. Trying to claim that even if this version is declared Hasan, has Shawahid that are declared Hasan, and is transmitted in many other chains, it still contradicts a more authentic report in Saheeh Muslim.

2. Zayd b. al-Arqam didn't interpret it like al-Albani, Ibn Athir, Imam Nawawi, and his views should be taken above these scholars.

In my next few posts, i will prove how there is no contradiction with the version in Saheeh Muslim, which was also the view Al-Albani, and many of the great Muhadditheen themselves had. I will also demonstrate how his claim of Zayd b. al-Arqam interpreting it in any way whatsoever is not proven, but ambiguous in its own right. I have not disowned Zayd, i merely claimed that let us first prove the chain and text of the version i presented, which take priority no matter how many companions had another interpretation. Let us do that first, rather than working our way backwards.

[whoaretheshia]

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.


Interestingly, Attiyah, who was considered truthful but who made many mistakes due to a poor memory, is regarded as having a chain with him elevated to the level of Hasan. This is probably due to the fact Al-Albani and Al-Arnaut considered other chains of narrations, with the very same text (which were cited before, namely the two Hasan chains, and others), making it less likely he would have made the exact same mistake with nearly identical words given narrators more reliable than him have narrated the very same thing.

Furthermore, despite  Imaam Ijlee, Imaam Ibn Sa'd, and Imaam Timidhi declaring him Thiqah, he is overall considered to be weak. However, despite that, we find that his traditions can still be used as proof and support, which is exactly what strengthens the chain with Kathir b. Zayd.

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]

 Imaam Yahya ibn Ma'een said: "He is Da'eef, however, write his narrations (for mutaabi'aat)" [Al-Kaamil by Ibn Adee: 5/369, Chain Hasan]

 Imaam Ibn Adee said: "He is Da'eef but in spite of this, write his narration (for mutaabi'aat)" [Al-Kaamil fi Du'afa ar-Rijaal: 5/370]


Therefore the chain indeed is Hasan due to Shawahid. The weakness of Attiyah is not sufficient to render it too weak to be elevated and doubts about his memory are addressed somewhat by the fact this hadith is narrated verbatim by many others, including by reliable narrators.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

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.

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.

Moreover, it isn’t just that Zayd(ra) narrated the hadeeth only, rather he shared his view and explained it as well, about who are Ahlelbayt mentioned in hadith al-Thaqalayn. And this view of Zayd, supports the hadeeth he narrated and it refutes the claims that the hadeeth is about adhering both Quran and Ahlelbayt.

As for him missing the expression of "they will not seperate until they reach me at the pond", then this was the response I gave, which you purposely dodge.

[ You are not allowed to view attachments ] 

[ You are not allowed to view attachments ]
So don't be in delusion that the readers would be gullible enough to not notice how keep dodging the responses I give you, and yet bring the same arguments again and again.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

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.

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 self-made assumption as-usual and attributing it to me is wrong and rather a deceitful attempt of yours which as become your habbit, which readers should take a notice.

My argument is that, the narrator(known for making mistakes) here missed some important words  which would have clarified that the mention of Ahl al-bayt was a reminder to people that Prophet(s) left his family too, which people needed to take care. While this is clear in the accurate version from Sahih Muslim and other books. So this is the issue not the one you made up. Or say he flipped the structure of the content making it confusing or appear in one way to people like you as if both are to be adhered to not go astray. Which I'll explain clearly while explaining Zayd bin Hasan's example and why he narrated contradictory reports. So don't miss it or dodge it while trying to answer me, as usual.

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.

Meaning it is not Hasan on it's own, but rather due to supporting chain, in other words it's weak on its own.

And the content of this report is Munkar, and it's not identical to the ambiguous one from Kathir bin Zayd. Here the structure of the content is messed up and is contradicting the Accurate version.

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.

Here is an example from his book Rafa’ al-Minarah https://youpuncturedtheark.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/saeed-mamduh.jpg by  where he is misquoting Imam Ibn al-Qayyim. He attributing the madhhab that prophets are alive in their graves to Ibn al-Qayyim by quoting from Nuniyah. In reality Ibn al-Qayyim was quoting the view of his opponents before refuting them. He left the intial of the poem which also indicates that he was presenting opponent’s arguments. Here is the initial:

فإن احتججتم بالشهيد بأنه … حيّ كما قد جاء في القرآن
والرسل أكمل حالة منه بلا … شك وهذا ظاهر التبيان
فلذاك كانوا بالحياة أحق من … شهدائنا بالعقل والبرهان

Ibn al-Qayyim starts the refutation like this:

فيقال أصل دليلكم في ذاك … حجتنا عليكم وهي ذات بيان
إن الشهيد حياته منصوصة … لا بالقياس القائم الأركان
هذا مع النهي المؤكد أننا … ندعوه ميتا ذاك في القرآن
ونساؤه حل لنا من بعده … والمال مقسوم على السهمان
هذا وأن الأرض تأكل لحمه … وسباعها مع أمة الديدان
لكنه مع ذلك حيّ فارح … مستبشر بكرامة الرحمن
فالرسل أولى بالحياة لديه مع … موت الجسوم وهذه الأبدان
وهي الطرية في التراب وأكلها … فهو الحرام عليه بالبرهان
ولبعض أتباع الرسول يكون ذا … أيضا وقد وجدوه رأي عيان

Hence the views of such dishonest, biased and in-academic person  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.

As for Zayd bin Hassan then,  Imam Abu Ḥātim said: “Munkar Al Ḥadīth”[Tahdhib al-Tahdhib vol 3, page 406 #740] ; Imam al-Dhahabi  declared Zayd ibn al-Hasan al-Anmati as Weak. [Al-Kashif by al-Dhahabi vol 1, page 416 #1731] ; Imam Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani declared Zayd ibn al-Hasan al-Anmati as Weak. [Taqreeb al Tahdheeb, page 352, #2139 by Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani]. If Abu Hatim was wrong, then Imam al-Dhahabi or Ibn Hajar would have rejected the view of Abu Hatim and declared him truthful, while this wasn't the case.

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.

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.

But Zayd bin Hassan whom you admitted that He was a weak narrator, has interesting reports as well, which contradicts his own report. Nullifying your whole theory.

And why does he have contradictory reports? It is because of the structure of content he used while narrating, which isn't surprising to occur from a weak narrator.

Now pay attention:

(Muhammad bin al-Fadl al-Saqti — Sa`eed bin Sulayman) & (Muhammad bin `Abdullah al-Hadrami & Zakariya bin Yahya al-Saji) — Both from — Nasr bin `Abdul-Rahman al-Washa’ — Zayd bin al-Hasan al-Anmati — Ma`rouf bin Khurboudh — Abi al-Tufayl — Hudhayfah bin Usayd al-Ghafar. [Mu’jam al-Tabrani al-Kabeer, vol 3, page 65, #2683]
https://youpuncturedtheark.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/mujam-al-tabrani-al-kabeer-vol-3-page-65-2683.jpg

(Muhammad bin `Abdullah al-Hadrami &  Zakariya bin Yahya al-Saji —  Nasr bin `Abdul-Rahman al-Washa’) & (Ahmad bin al-Qasim bin Musawir al-Jawhari — Sa’eed bin Sulayman al-Wasiti)  — Both from — Zayd bin al-Hasan al-Anmati — Ma`rouf bin Khurboudh — Abi al-Tufayl — Hudhayfah bin Usayd al-Ghafar. [Mu’jam al-Tabrani al-Kabeer, vol 3, page 200 – 201, #3052]
https://youpuncturedtheark.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/mujam-al-tabrani-al-kabeer-vol-3-page-201-3052.jpg

Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Hamdan — al-Hasan bin Suffiyan — Nasr bin `Abdul-Rahman al-Washa`— Zayd bin al-Hasan al-Anmati — Ma`rouf bin Khurboudh — abu al-Tufayl — Hudhayfah bin Usayd. [Hilyat al-Awliya, vol 1, page 355].
https://youpuncturedtheark.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/hilyat-al-awliya-vol-1-page-355.jpg

See these three chains from Zayd bin al-Hasan, the content structure of text is such that, "He first mentions Quran, then clarifies that it is holding it will not make people go astray, then mentions Ahl al-bayt, So here is clarity that Quran is to be held and holding it people will not go astray. And this version is support by the authentic version of Zaid bin Arqam in Sahih Muslim.

While when He narrated the version in Tirmidhi which you quoted, He flipped the structure. Instead of Saying Quran first and then saying holding it people will not go astray. He flipped the structure and started off by saying, Prophet(S) left that which abiding by people will not go astray, Quran and Ahl al-bayt. This made people fall in confusion and misunderstanding, as in one way it looks like abiding both Quran and Ahl al-bayt to not go astray. But when you reflect back to the other version from this same guy, where he didn't flip the structure, and which is supported by the accurate version you get the clarity that, Quran was mentioned, then he said, adhering it people will not go astray, then he mentions Ahl al-bayt. Which proved that Quran alone was to be adhered to not go astray.

So I hope this demonstration helps the readers see, how weak narrators or narrators who were known for making mistakes, flipped the structure of the content. Had they mentioned Quran first and then said that holding it people won't go astray and then said Ahl al-bayt, that would have not made people fall into the confusion. That's why it is important to the stick to the version narrated by trustworthy narrators , instead of relying on weak narrators or those who were known for making mistakes.

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:

Since you admit that Habib bin Abi Thabit is a Mudallis, that itself is sufficient to discard the report. But still this is a good example.

Muhammad ibn `Ali al-Shaybani — Ahmad ibn Hazim al-Ghifara — Abu Nu`aym —Kamil Abu al-`Ala’ — Habib ibn Abi Thabit — Yahya ibn Ja`dah —  Zayd ibn Arqam. [Mustadrak al Hakim, vol 3, page 613, #6272].
https://youpuncturedtheark.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/mustadrak-al-hakim-vol-3-page-613-6272.jpg

Here you see, Habib bin Abi Thabit narrating the report, while mentioning Quran alone a source holding which people will not go astray.  Hence you need to refer the explanation I gave using the example of Zayd bin hasan and flipping of content structure, to understand why were narrators reporting  in a way which was contradictory.

Moreover, the report is from Baladhuri, who doesn't have tawtheeq from Scholars, which implies he was majhool. And you may say here is report from Tirmidhi, but there Habib is directly narrating from Zaid(R) being a mudallis and never hearing from Zaid(R).

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

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.

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. While the accurate version is via 30 chains,  and  they were narrated by 4 different Sahaba.

so the collection of weaker chains for Munkar or faulty text against the accurate version holds no ground.

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].

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

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.

Al-Sindi said in the explanation of, ‘My Ahlelbayt:’ It was as if the Prophet(saws) made them equal in importance to his position. Just as in his(saws) life, it was him and the Qu’ran after his death. It was his family and the Qu’raan. But it means that we must abide by their love and position, not abiding to their orders and actions. (Source: Jamia Tirmidhi Sunan Al -Tirmidhi. Vol. 6, Pg. # 335).

(vi). Shaykh al-Islam Ahmed ibn Taymiyyah stated:

However, as for the term ‘al’Itrah’, we find in Saheeh of Muslim narrated Zayd ibn Arqam that he said; The Messenger of Allah(saws) spoke to us at a ghadeer Khumm located between Mekka and al Medina and He said; “I am leaving among you the two weighty things one of them is greater than the other, the Book of Allah(swt)” and incited us to adhere to it and He said; ”My progeny whom they are my Household, by Allah I remind you of my household, by Allah I remind you of my household, by Allah I remind you of my household” and in here lies the order to follow the Qur’aan and that He recommended the nation to take care of His Household and as for His saying; ”If you adhere to it than you would never astray after, the Book of Allah (swt) and my Itra (Family)”, it was narrated by al Tirmidhi and Ahmad ibn Hanbal said it is weak. (Source: Bayan Talbis al-Jahmiyyah. Vol. 8. Pg. # 230 – 231).


Understanding of Sahabi disapproves the view that the purpose behind mention of Ahlelbayt in Hadith al-Thaqalayn was to seek guidance from them.

Narrated Zayd bin Arqam: Prophet(saws) said: I am leaving among you two weighty things: the one being the Book of Allah in which there is right guidance and light, so hold fast to the Book of Allah and adhere to it. He exhorted (us) (to hold fast) to the Book of Allah and then said: The second are the members of my household! I remind you of Allah with regard to the people of my household. He (Husain) said to Zayd: Who are the members of his household? Aren’t his wives the members of his family? Thereupon he said: His wives are the members of his family (but here) the members of his family are those for whom acceptance of Zakat is forbidden. And he said: Who are they? Thereupon he said: ‘Ali and the offspring of ‘Ali, ‘Aqil and the offspring of ‘Aqil and the offspring of Ja’far and the offspring of ‘Abbas. Husain said: These are those for whom the acceptance of charity(sadaqa) is forbidden. Zayd said: Yes. (Sahih Muslim, #2408).

Notice, that when the noble Sahabi(companion) of Prophet(saws) was asked about who Ahlelbayt are, he replied that members of household(Ahlelbayt) in regards to Hadeeth al-Thaqalayn are those relatives of Prophet(saws) on whom the acceptance of charity(sadaqa) is forbidden. They are ‘Ali and the offspring of ‘Ali, ‘Aqil and the offspring of ‘Aqil and the offspring of Ja’far and the offspring of ‘Abbas.

Zayd bin Arqam(ra) did not say, Ahlelbayt are those who are chosen by Allah or those who were purified or those who were infallible. Rather Zayd(ra) GENERALIZED that Ahlelbayt in regards to Hadeeth al-Thaqalayn are those relatives of Prophet(saws) on whom acceptance of charity(sadaqa) is forbidden. The question which the readers should ponder over is that; Were all these members from Ahlelbayt on whom acceptance of Sadaqa was made forbidden, eligible or deserving to be adhered or held, to save ourselves from going astray? Undoubtedly, No! People of knowledge know that, not all the relatives of Prophet(saws) on whom acceptance of Sadaqa was made forbidden, were righteous. There were people among them who were unrighteous too and they were fallible, prone to commit sins and mistakes. And even Zayd bin Arqam(ra) knew this fact very well, yet he defined Ahlelbayt mentioned in hadeeth al-Thaqalayn in a generalized manner, that those are the relatives of Prophet(saws) on whom acceptance of Saqada(charity) is forbidden; that is ‘Ali and the offspring of ‘Ali, ‘Aqil and the offspring of ‘Aqil and the offspring of Ja’far and the offspring of ‘Abbas. Which implies that as per understanding of Zayd bin Arqam(ra) the purpose behind the mention of Ahlelbayt in Hadith al-Thaqalayn wasn’t to adhere or hold or seek guidance from Ahlelbayt.

The reason we are saying this is because of the generalized definition given by Zayd(ra). He described Ahlelbayt, as those relatives of Prophet(saws) on whom acceptance of Sadaqa was forbidden, this was the only condition he mentioned to define Ahlelbayt in regards to hadeeth al-Thaqalayn. This is the reason, even though Zayd(ra) accepted wives of Prophet(saws) were Ahlelbayt, yet he said that in regards to hadeeth al-Thaqalayn, Ahlelbayt were those relatives of Prophet(saws) on whom acceptance of Sadaqa was forbidden. If Zayd bin Arqam(ra) believed that righteousness or purification, was a criteria to define Ahlelbayt in hadeeeth al-Thaqalayn, then he would have even included wives of Prophet(saws) in it, since all the wives of Prophet(saws) were righteous[If The Rafidah disagree then we give them the example of Umm Salamah(ra) and Zaynab bint Jahash(ra), atleast they must have been included], but Zayd(ra) didn’t include them and made a generalized definition that, it is those relatives of Prophet(saws) on whom acceptance of Sadaqa(charity) is forbidden, even though this definition included some members who were unrighteous or (atleast) members who were fallible and prone to sins and mistakes. Therefore, Zayd bin Arqam(ra) making a generalized definition which even included unrighteous members, is an apparent proof that, he didn’t believe that in regards to hadeeth al-Thaqalayn, the purpose behind the mention of Ahlelbayt was to adhere them or seek their guidance to avoid going astray.

Rather, the generalized definition made by Zayd bin Arqam(ra) for Ahlelbayt and him stating the only condition for it as, “acceptance of Sadaqa being forbidden”, is a clear proof that, Zayd(ra) understood the purpose behind the mention of Ahlelbayt in hadeeth al-Thaqalayn was to take care of them and to be responsible towards them, not to adhere them or to seek their guidance, and this is the right and correct understanding of hadeeth al-Thaqalayn. This is the reason that in authentic version of Hadith al-Thaqalayn, the mention of Quran has the necessary details i.e. “in it is illumination and guidance. It should be held onto.” Exhortation was sounded to accept it and practice upon it. On the other hand, mention of the AhlelBayt is not accompanied by any such statements that are indicative of them holding a fundamental position in Islamic law, such that it is incumbent to obey them unquestioningly. Rather, what we do see is the encouragement to take care of them and be responsible towards them.

Readers might question that, how does the generalized definition of Ahlelbayt made by noble companion Zayd(ra) in regards to hadeeth al-Thaqalayn, prove that the purpose behind the mention of Ahlelbayt in hadeeth al-Thaqalayn was to take care of them and be responsible towards them?.

The answer is that, hadeeth al-Thaqalayn was mentioned on the location of Ghadeer Khumm, this was in relation to what occurred during Hajj when, the Muslim army from Yemen returned to Makkah, they made multiple complains against their commander -Ali(ra) – who was a member of Ahlelbayt, and one of the complaint was that Ali(ra) had taken a slave girl from Khums, therefore Prophet(saws) rebuked those who complained against Ali(ra) and said that Ali(ra) even deserved more than that from Khums. Therefore, on the way back to Madina after Hajj, and after religion was completed/perfected and after Farewell Sermon was given at Makkah; Prophet(saws) stopped at a resting place called Ghadeer Khumm, and there he addressed people encouraging them to befriend and love Ali(ra) who was a member of Ahlelbayt, and in the same speech He(saws) even mentioned hadeeth al-Thaqalayn, which mentions about being responsible towards Ahlelbayt.

The reason, Prophet(saws) did so, is most likely because he realized that people criticized a member of his household(Ahlelbayt), who took his right from Khums, therefore Prophet(saws) felt the need to remind the people about the importance of taking care of his Ahlelbayt and to be responsible towards them, after him. Because his relatives due to relation with him, were prohibited from accepting Sadaqa(charity), and if some Muslims criticize or object against them, for taking their right, like their share from Khums, which was a right given to them by Allah in Quran, then that would create a big problem for his Ahlelbayt, since they weren’t even eligible to accept Sadaqa(charity); This would even be against the Quran. This is the reason, Prophet(saws) mentioned Hadeeth al-Thaqalayn, where the purpose of mentioning Ahlelbayt, was to remind the people about taking care of Ahlelbayt and to be responsible towards them.

This is the reason, noble Sahabi(companion) Zayd bin Arqam(ra) believed that, Ahlelbayt in regards to hadeeth al-Thaqalayn were those relatives of Prophet(saws) on whom acceptance of Sadaqa was forbidden, since these same people were eligible to receive a portion from Khums.

We read in Shia book regarding the ruling on Khums:

مسألة: المشهور أن المراد باليتامى والمساكين وابن السبيل في آية الخمس من قرابة النبي – صلى الله عليه وآله – من بني هاشمخاصة، ذهب إليه الشيخان، وابن أبي عقيل، وأبو الصلاح، وباقي فقهائنا

It is popular among our scholars that what is meant by the orphans, the poor ones, and the wayfarer, in the verse of khums (8:41), among the kindred of the Prophet(saws), are those exclusively from the Bani Hashim. Among those who advocated this view are Shaikh Mufid, Shaikh Tusi, ibn abi Aqil, Abu Salah, and other scholars.(Mukhtalif al Shia by Shia Allama Hilli, Volume 3 Page 330).

We read in Shia book regarding the ruling on Zakat(obligatory charity) :

وتحرم الزكاة الواجبة علي بني هاشم جميعا من ولد أمير المؤمنين علي بن أبي طالب عليه السلام، وجعفر، وعقيل، والعباس رضي اللهعنهم

(Acceptance of) Zakat is haram for all the Bani Hashim, from the progeny of Imam Ali(as), Ja’far bin abi Talib, Aqil bin abi Talib, and Abbas bin Abdul Muttalib, may Allah (swt) be pleased with them. (Al Muqniah by Shaikh Mufid, Page 243)

As can be seen, the ruling of a share in Khums as well as forbiddance to accept charity is for the same group in general, that is, all the Bani Hashim, not just specific to the children of Fatima(ra) and Ali(ra). It is applicable on all the Muslims among them, whether they are righteous or not. This is same way, Zayd bin Arqam(ra) generalized Ahlelbayt while defining them as per Hadith al-Thaqalayn.

Infact, Imam Hassan bin Hassan bin Ali bin Abi Talib(rah) stated:

أحبونا لله فإن أطعنا الله فأحبونا ، وإن عصينا الله فأبغضونا فلو كان الله نافعا احدا بقرابته من رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم بغير طاعة لنفع أباه وأمه

Love us(ahl al-bayt) for the sake of Allah if we obey Allah. If we disobey Allah then hate us! Had Allah made familial links to the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam a means of benefit without obedience then the most eligible for that would have been his father and mother. [Nasb Quraysh, 2/49.]

The explanation and understanding of Sahabi Zayd bin Arqam(ra) is further strengthened by a reliable version of hadeeth al-Thaqalayn, which has the expression “Kitab Allah wa `Itrati Ahlu-Bayti“, we know that Ahlel-Bayt refers to the household, let’s discover what the “Itrah” means in Arabic.

In the traditional Arabic dictionary Lisan ul-Arab 4/536 by Ibn Manthur, we read:

والمشهور المعروف أَن عتْرتَه أَهلُ بيته وهم الذين حُرّمَت عليهم الزكاة والصدقة المفروضة وهم ذوو القربى الذين لهم خُمُسُ الخُمُسِ المذكور في سورة الأَنفال

“And what is famously recognized is that his ‘Itrah’ are the People of his Household, and they are those upon whom Zakaah and the mandatory Sadaqah is prohibited; and they are the relatives (Thuw al-Qurbaa) who are due a fifth of the spoils of war(Khums), mentioned in Surat al-Anfal in Quran.”]

Therefore, it is established that, as per the understanding of noble companion Zayd(ra), the purpose behind the mention of Ahlelbayt in hadeeth al-Thaqalayn was to remind people about taking care of Ahlelbayt and to be responsible towards them. It wasn’t to adhere them or to seek their guidance, and this is the right and correct understanding of hadeeth al-Thaqalayn.


Sahabi’s understanding of Hadeeth in comparison to the understanding of people(Scholars) who came after.

The Sahabi(companion) of Prophet – Abdullah ibn Mas’ood(ra) said:

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

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

Similarly, Al-Hasan Al-Basri said:

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

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

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

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

[whoaretheshia]

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.

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. I would advise you to tone down your rhetoric, if you wish to have an academic discussion here. I gain absolutely nothing from hiding , or not addressing your points, i am here to seek truth, and not just impose my opinion. If someone presents me a compelling view other than my own, i would be happy to accept it.

Now, one thing i made very clear in all of my discussions surrounding the version in Saheeh Muslim is that i do not consider it to be inaccurate. I do not think Zayd b. al-Arqam was talking and reporting falsities, or things he was not convince he himself had heard - to the best of his knowledge or ability.

I also know full well, despite my reverence and respect for Zayd b. al-Arqam (Radiyallahu anhu), Sunni Muslims would not enlist him as Mukhtalit. I am fully aware of that, which is why i have not tried to weaken the report itself.

However, what i have argued is that Zayd narrated the version we find in Saheeh Muslim when he was very old, was undergoing memory loss and in other authentic narrations (such as the one i cited earlier from Ibn Majah with an authentic sanad), complained that he had forgotten a lot of what he had heard from the Prophet (saw) and narrating had become difficult. 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!

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.

By the way, Ikhtilat is not restricted merely to when a narrator muddles up and confuses narrations, but also applies to those narrators who, due to their old age, lose their memory and forget much of what they had known previously. Many individuals who undergo memory loss may sincerely feel they remembered something, but can often forget parts of it, while retaining the parts they remember. Some may mix things up.

We find in Hadithanswers.com: "1. As a rule, if as a result of a narrator growing old, he loses his memory, the credibility of his narrations will undoubtedly be affected. Such narrators are labelled as ‘mukhtalit’."

https://hadithanswers.com/narrations-in-old-age/

Hadithanswers does say that this does not apply to the Sahaba, because the assumption is that they would only report what they knew to be accurate. 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.

However, i know that approaching the Sahaba and using the same common sense barometer on them as you would with any large body of Muslims does not work with Sunni scholars, so i conceded that let us assume whatever Zayd (ra) transmitted was accurate. 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.

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".

[whoaretheshia]

Just so our dear readers who may be lost can get up to speed:

Zayd b. Aqram (radiyallahu anhu) narrated the version we find in Saheeh al-Muslim when he was very old and had a fair degree of memory loss. He is cognizant of his memory loss, to the extent he warns the person he is narrating to that they should not ask him more than he is able to remember of a particular event.

While a narrator having a fair degree of memory loss would place question marks over whether they remember even what they sincerely feel they can properly, the Sahaba are made an exception here as the assumption is they would only narrate accurately. Many exceptions are given for them in Hadith, which are not afforded to others. However, let us assume that sincerity aside, Zayd was able to transmit accurately.

The reason why we have the three main versions of Hadith al-Thaqalayn, which do not contradict each other, but rather contain expressions the others do not, is simply that Zayd b. al-Arqam narrated in his old age and when he had a good degree of memory loss, and thus did not relay other authentic expressions we find relayed to us by other reliable narrators of hadith.

Those expressions are:

1. I leave behind that which if you hold onto, you will never go astray

and

2. They will never deviate from each other until they meet me at the pool of Kawthar

These expressions have not only been authenticated by al-Albani, al-Arnaut and many other major scholars of hadith, neither of them have considered these expressions to contradict the report of Zayd in Saheeh Muslim, but rather the scholars have taken the statements together and believe they can all be reconciled.

It is brother Noor-us-Sunnah here, who, perhaps out of his own misunderstanding, is seeking to manufacture some sort of contradiction between them, which insha Allah i will address in more detail in the following posts, where i respond to the rest of his points.

[whoaretheshia]

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].

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?

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

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.
[ You are not allowed to view attachments ]

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.

And as explained Zayd's(R) understanding of the report too proves that he wasn't mistaken in narrating it. Moreover Zayd's version is supported by others as well.

These are the supportive reports to Zayd's accurate version:

(Muhammad bin al-Fadl al-Saqti — Sa`eed bin Sulayman) & (Muhammad bin `Abdullah al-Hadrami & Zakariya bin Yahya al-Saji) — Both from — Nasr bin `Abdul-Rahman al-Washa’ — Zayd bin al-Hasan al-Anmati — Ma`rouf bin Khurboudh — Abi al-Tufayl — Hudhayfah bin Usayd al-Ghafar. [Mu’jam al-Tabrani al-Kabeer, vol 3, page 65, #2683]

 Abu Ya’la Ali ibn Abi Abd Allah ibn al-Allaf al-Bazzar — Abd al-Salam ibn `Abd al-Malik ibn Habib al-Bazzar — `Abd Allah Muhammad ibn `Uthman — Muhammad ibn Bakr ibn `Abd al-Razzaq — Abu Hatim Mughirah ibn Muhammad ibn al-Muhallabi — Muslim ibn Ibrahim — Nuh ibn Qays al-Judhami — al-Walid bin Salih — the WIFE of Zayd ibn Arqam. [al-Manaqib Ameer Al-Momineen Ali ibn Abi Talib, page 44 – 45 – 46, #23].

Abdul-Rahman bin `Umar bin Ahmad — al-Husayn bin Isma`eel — abu Hisham al-Rifa`ee — Hafs — Mujalid — al-Sha`bi — Jabir. [Sharh Usool I’tiqaad Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah, vol 1, page 81, #95].

The accurate version from Zayd(R) is also supported and strenghtened by the other authentic reports about Quran alone being source of guidance from (a). Ja’far bin Muhammad(Jafar as-Sadiq) from his father(Muhammad al Baqir) from Jabir bin Abdullah. [Sahih Muslim, vol 3, page 343 — 350, #2950(1218)] ; [Musannaf fi al-Ahadeeth wa al-Athar, by Ibn Abi Shaybah, vol 6, page 133, #30077] (b). 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]

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.

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".

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.

Look at this:

Faulty Structure of wording:  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]

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

I didn't add anything in this re-structure, just flipped the wording which now matches the accurate version. 

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

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?

Not at all, this applies to weak narrator in general, esp when their wording contradicts the Sahih and accurate version. Which I demonstrated in post #45, using the perfect example of Zayd bin Hasan, which you purposely left out.

Know that when it comes to forming an Aqeedah, the Sahih and accurate version will be preferred over the faulty version when it contradicts the Sahih version, no matter how many chains weak chains it has. Hence the quotes from the Scholars are still valid and applicable in this case.

[whoaretheshia]

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. 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.

You are now resorting to trying to explain why the reports contradict, which is what i will address in my next post. Suffice to say many of your major scholars, from al-Albani, al-Arnaut, Imam Nawawi, Ibn Athir, Zamakshari, agreed with you on this.

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.

Furthermore, most of the chains are nearly identical in wording, with some minor variants which does not change the meaning, or even contains the other authentic expression "and they will never deviate until they meet me at the pool of Kawthar", some even give the complete report at Ghadir Khumm, with the declaration of Ali being the Mawla.

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: إسناده حسن al-Arnaut: إسناده حسن

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: إسناده حسن al-Arnaut: إسناده حسن


Now, as for the reports which are weak, i will present to you those weak reports which are not weak on account of having a liar or a forger, but truthful individuals. The chains may on their own be regarded weak, but they constitute proof and support and strengthen each other. Had these chains exclusively been of those which contain liars or forgers, this would be unacceptable. However, given they are not, the following will apply:

وقد احتج جمهور المحدثين بالحديث الضعيف إذا كثرت طرقه وألحقوه بالصحيح تارة وبالحسن أخرى
“The majority of hadith scholars rely on the weak hadith if it carries multiple chains and they attributed it as Sahih or Hasan”

Allamah Muhammad bin Yusuf al-Salehi al-Shami (d. 942 H) records in “Subul al-Huda wa al-Rashad” Volume 1 page 254:

الأحاديث يشد بعضها بعضا، لأن الحديث الضعيف إذا كثرت طرقه أفاد ذلك قوة، كما تقرر في علم الحديث.
“The traditions support one other, because weak traditions with multiple chains constitute strength, as is known from Ilm hadith (science of hadith).”


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

Importantly, it clearly states in an almost identical manner: "إني تركت فيكم ما إن أخذتم به لن تضلوا :كتاب الل...ه و عترتى اهل

The additional expressions here are:

1. One of them is greater than the other - i'll address this in the next post.
2. A rope from the heavens to the earth (which is very similar to the report which states ، سببه بيد الله[وسببه بأيديكم، we find in the narrations graded Hasan outright.
3. "They will never deviate from one another until the pool of Kawthar" - This is a well established authentic expression.


Furthermore, the reason why al-Albani and al-Arnaut elevate this chain, which would be weak on its own, to the level of 'Hasan' is due to the fact Attiyah is not among the class of narrators accused of lying , forging or fabricating. Therefore despite this being weak in chain, it can be strengthened by virtue of other supporting chains of narrators. This particular chain of narrators can also act as a support for the narration of Kathir b. Zayd, and can be used as a Shahid, although it would not elevate that report to a Saheeh, given it is lower in rank.

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]

There is another chain from Attiyah in the Musnad of Imam Ahmad with an identical Matn, it too would be 'Hasan' due to the Shawahid:

3 حدثنى ابى حدثنا اسود بن عامراخبرنا ابو اسرائيل يعنى اسماعيل بن اسحاق الملائى عن عطية عن ابى سعيد قال قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم انى تارك فيكم الثقلين احدهما اكبر من الاخر كتاب الله حبل ممدود من السماء الى الارض و عترتى اهل بيتى وانهما لن يفترقا حتى يردا على الحوض

[whoaretheshia]

EDIT: "Suffice to say many of your major scholars, from al-Albani, al-Arnaut, Imam Nawawi, Ibn Athir, Zamakshari, agreed with you on this."

I had meant to write, "did not"

When i get time, i will add in the remainder of the chains where the narrator is merely weak, and not accused of lying or forging insha Allah.

I will then address the rest of your points.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

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.

Which I'll go it again for you:

Look at this:

Faulty Structure of wording: 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]

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

I didn't add anything in this re-structure, just flipped the wording which now matches the accurate version. 

So don't assume that narrators are being accused of lying or fabricating. But rather they are being accused of transmitting the structure of the text in an ambiguous/faulty form, due to the weakness we all acknowledge. And that is why we restructure the text and interpret it in the light of accurate version and also the sahih hadeeth from Jabir bin Abdullah(RA) regarding Arafah.

https://youpuncturedtheark.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/sahih-muslim-vol-3-page-350-29501218.jpg

I would like to add that it's not only  the Sahabi Zaid bin Arqam(RA) whose understanding of Hadeeth Thaqalayn rejects the Shia narrative that both Quran and Ahl al-bayt are to be held inorder to not go astray. But rather, Umar(RA) too believed the same, because when Prophet(S) asked the people few days before his death,  when he was seriously ill, that  "I will write for you a statement after which you will not go astray", Umar(R) noticing the condition of Prophet(S) said to the people that, "We have got Book of Allah, that is sufficient for us".
https://youpuncturedtheark.files.wordpress.com/2019/06/sahih-al-bukhari-vol-1-page-121-114-1.jpg

So Umar(R) too held the same understanding as did Zaid bin Arqam(R) held, He(R) didn't say Book of Allah and Ahl al-bayt are sufficient for us, because he was well aware that understanding of Hadeeth Thaqalayn, and also the Sermon of Prophet on Arafah, which Jabir narrated that Prophet(SAWS) said: “You shall not go astray if you hold onto what I have left among you: The Book of Allah.” [Saheeh Muslim #1218].

So now you have Sahabi Umar(R) too that Quran alone was sufficient for people to not go astray, following Sunnah comes under following Quran as explained. You as a staunch Shia are free to make conspiracy theories against Umar(R) and rest of Sahaba, but you can't deny the fact that as per Umar's(R) understanding only Quran was to be held, so as to not go astray, and this was the view of Zaid bin Arqam(R) too.

And as per the principle of Ahlus-sunnah(R) the understanding of a Sahabi takes precedence, that too the Sahabi who is considered the second best after Prophets(AS) as per Ijma of Ahlus-sunnah. Hence a Sunni is bound to follow the understanding of Sahaba, and even if a later scholar goes against the understanding of Sahaba, the understanding of that scholar will be rejected and the understanding of Sahabi would be upheld.

[whoaretheshia]

An analysis of further weak chains (some being possibly 'Hasan' or 'Hasan due to Shawahid'')

Once more, if weak chains contain narrators who were not accused of lying or forging, nor regarded Munkar or abandoned in Hadith on account of their weakness, the various chains strengthen one another. Noor-us-Sunnah has , on his website ''Youpuncturedtheark' quoted scholars claiming that at times, numeral weak chains only make the tradition weaker. What he did not mention however, is the applies when forgery or deception is suspected.

As it has already been established, Hasan chains exist for the version of Thaqalayn whereby the Prophet (saw) states he is leaving behind two weighty things, which if he hold onto, we will never go astray, the Quran and his Ahlulbayt. Furthermore, additional Hasan chains due to Shawahid have been cited.


[Mustadrak al-Hakim]
[/color]
Abū Bakr ibn Isḥāq and Daʿlaj ibn Aḥmad al-Sajzī — Muḥammad ibn Ayyūb — al-Azraq ibn ʿAlī — Ḥassān ibn Ibrāhīm al-Kirmānī — Muḥammad ibn Salamah ibn Kuhayl – (his father) Salamah ibn Kuhayl — Abū al-Ṭufayl ibn Wāthilah — that Zayd ibn Arqam said:

Rasūlullāh  disembarked between Makkah and Madīnah at a place which had five trees with large branches. The people then trimmed the leaves. Thereafter Rasūlullāh he rested until evening. He then woke and performed ṣalāh and thereafter stood to address the people. He praised Allah abundantly, reminded the people (about the hereafter) and he advised them. Thereafter he said that which Allah willed that he should say. Then he said, “O people, I am leaving amongst you two such matters that you will never be misguided as long as you follow them, they are the Book of Allah and my Ahl al-Bayt, my ʿitrah.” After a while he asked three times, “Do you know that I have more right over the Mu’minīn than their own selves?” The people replied, “Yes.” Rasūlullāh he then said, “Whoever takes me as his mawlā then ʿAlī is his mawlā.”

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 weakness in this chain is Muhammed b. Salamah b. Kuhayl. He is not regarded to be a forger, nor a fabricator, nor is he munkar in Hadith. However, he is regarded weak in Hadith. He has narrated this from his father, Salamah b. Kuhayl who was Thiqah, who in turn narrates from Abu Tufayl, from Zayd b. Aqram.

The Matn of this text is generally corroborated by the tradition of Ali b. Abi Talib, in Musnad ibn Rawayh, Sunan  Abi Asim, Mushkil al-Athar of Imam al-Tahawi, by outright Hasan chains. In fact, this Matn is corroborated in many other chains of narrators, but the phrase: " انى تارك فيكم امرين لن تضلوا ان اتبعتموهما وهما كتاب الله و اهل بيتى عترتى" The main differences that the word: امرين is used instead of Thaqalayn.

What is rather interesting is that there are many chains going through Abu Tufayl to  Zayd b. al-Aqram with a very similar Matn, such as in the [Ja'mi of Imam al-Tirmidhi]:

“Indeed I am leaving amongst you that which if you hold onto, you will never go astray. One of them is greater than the other, the Book of Allah — a rope that has been extended from the sky to the earth and my ʿitrah who are my Ahl al-Bayt. They will never separate until they meet me at the Pond (al-Kawthar), therefore be careful how you succeed me with regards to them.”

This tradition would be considered at least Hasan, the only problem being a disconnection between Habib b. Abi Habit, and Zayd b. Arqam.

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

However, we find Habib b. Abi Thabit narrating a very similar Matn from Abu Tufayl, from Zayd b. al-Arqam in [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…

“Indeed I am leaving amongst you that which if you hold onto, you will never go astray, the book of All and my Itra, and they will never separate until they meet me pond (of al-Kawhar)".

This is an example of another chain which would be Hasan or Saheeh, but there is a question whether Habib heard from Abu Tufayl. Given Abu Tufayl is between Habib and Zayd - as we have found in many other chains , it is likely he obtained it from him, which would explain the disconnection in Tirmidhi. However, Imam al-Tahawi in his Mushkil al-Athar declares a chain of Habib b. Abi Habit to Abu Tufayl, to Zayd as Saheeh, which is proof Imam al-Tahawi believed on the balance, Habib likely did obtain the tradition 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:

Imam  al-Tahawi declares this chain as 'Saheeh': ( فهذا الحديث صحيح الإسناد لا طعن لأحد في أحد من رواته

Some believe that Baladhuri is Majhul, who is the historian who merely compiled reports. However, we find reports going against the Shia Madhab in his works, including reports which are in praise of Mu'awiyah. This particular report has a Matn which has already been corroborated by reliable chains, and a key component of the chain is also identical in other major works as has been demonstrated. There is a strong level of corroboration.


There are several other additional chains which will be added. I will then address the claim made by brother Noor-us-Sunnah, that this tradition contradicts the version in Saheeh Muslim, and demonstrate to him words of scholars who have not ever themselves claimed such a thing, and see no contradiction.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

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.

Which I'll go it again for you:

Look at this:

Faulty Structure of wording: 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]

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

I didn't add anything in this re-structure, just flipped the wording which now matches the accurate version.

Accurate structure of wording: I'm leaving among you two weighty things, the first of which is the book of Allah in which is the guidance and light. Whoever holds fast to it and adheres to it, will be following true guidance and whoever deviates from it will go astray. And my Ahl al-bayt, I remind of my Ahl al-bayt.
https://youpuncturedtheark.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/sahih-ibn-khuzaymah-vol-4-page-63-2357.jpg


So don't assume that narrators are being accused of lying or fabricating. But rather they are being accused of transmitting the structure of the text in an ambiguous/faulty form, due to the weakness we all acknowledge. And that is why we restructure the text and interpret it in the light of accurate version and also the sahih hadeeth from Jabir bin Abdullah(RA) regarding Arafah.

Narrated Jabir bin Abdullah(RA) that Prophet(S) said:  I have left among you the Book of Allah, and if you hold fast to it, you would never go astray.
https://youpuncturedtheark.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/sahih-muslim-vol-3-page-350-29501218.jpg

I would like to add that it's not only the Sahabi Zaid bin Arqam(RA) whose understanding of Hadeeth Thaqalayn rejects the Shia narrative that both Quran and Ahl al-bayt are to be held inorder to not go astray.But rather, Umar(RA) too believed the same, because when Prophet(S) asked the people few days before his death,  when he was seriously ill, that  "I will write for you a statement after which you will not go astray", Umar(R) said to the people, noticing the condition of Prophet(S) that, "We have got Book of Allah, that is sufficient for us".
https://youpuncturedtheark.files.wordpress.com/2019/06/sahih-al-bukhari-vol-1-page-121-114-1.jpg

So Umar(R) too held the same understanding as did Zaid bin Arqam(R) held, He(R) didn't say Book of Allah and Ahl al-bayt are sufficient for us, because he was well aware that understanding of Hadeeth Thaqalayn, and also the Sermon of Prophet on Arafah, which Jabir narrated that Prophet(SAWS) said: “You shall not go astray if you hold onto what I have left among you: The Book of Allah.” [Saheeh Muslim #1218].

So now you have Sahabi Umar(R) too that Quran alone was sufficient for people to not go astray, following Sunnah comes under following Quran as explained. You as a staunch Shia are free to make conspiracy theories against Umar(R) and rest of Sahaba, but you can't deny the fact that as per Umar's(R) understanding only Quran was to be held, so as to not go astray, and this was the view of Zaid bin Arqam(R) too.

And as per the principle of Ahlus-sunnah(R) the understanding of a Sahabi takes precedence, that too the Sahabi who is considered the second best after the Prophets(AS) as per Ijma of Ahlus-sunnah. Hence a Sunni is bound to follow the understanding of Sahaba, and even if a later scholar goes against the understanding of Sahaba, the understanding of that scholar will be rejected and the understanding of Sahabi would be upheld.

[whoaretheshia]

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.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

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".

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.

I feel this quote from the Shia researcher of the book “al-Masa’il al-Sarawiyyah” Sa’ib Abdul-Hameed, where he praises the author, the esteemed Shia Scholar Shaykh al-Mufeed for his scientific professional method in the book, is sufficient:

“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].

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.