TwelverShia.net Forum

This version of Hadith al-Thaqalayn is Saheeh li Ghayrihi

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Noor-us-Sunnah

Re: This version of Hadith al-Thaqalayn is Saheeh li Ghayrihi
« Reply #60 on: December 02, 2017, 11:39:08 PM »
Ambigous? How clearer can our beloved Messenger of Allah (saw) get?

Dear brother, again and again your statements prove that you have serious issues with your understanding skills. This disappoints any serious person who chooses to respond you.

No one said that Prophet(saws) made an ambiguous statement you understood it wrong as usual, rather what I meant is that the narrator(esp Katheer ibn Zayd) who is not from the highest level of reliability,  and infact weakened by some Muhadditheen, this sub narrator due the weakness mentioned about him, narrated the hadeeth of Prophet(saws) in an ambiguous manner. While on the other hand I believe, Prophet(saws) made just one speech, and he was quite clear in regards to Hadeeth Thaqalayn, and this we find in the most authentic version of Hadeeth thaqalayn that is the hadeeth present in Sahih Muslim.

Prophet(sawss) 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(singular). 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 your duties) to the members of my family.[Sahih Muslim]

The Hadeeth is Prophet(saws) is quite clear, and he is talking about QURAN ALONE THAT IS TO BE ADHERED FOR GUIDANCE. This is also supported by the fact that Quran alone was again mentioned for guidance on the day of Arafah by Prophet(saws), as per Sahih ahadeeth.

Narrated Jabir bin Abdullah(ra) that: Prophet(saw) said: I have left among you the Book of Allah, and if you hold fast to it(SINGULAR), you would never go astray. [Sahih Muslim]

Similarly,

Abu Shurayh al-‘Adawi and Jubair bin Mut’am both narrated: The Prophet (SAWS) told his companions:.... “This Quran is a means, a part of it is in the hand of Allah and the other part is in your hands, so hold on to it(Singular) so that you will never go astray or perish afterwards.”
[Source: Silsilah al-Sahiha #713 ; Grading: al-Albani said: “Sahih on the condition of Muslim.”]


whoaretheshia

Re: This version of Hadith al-Thaqalayn is Saheeh li Ghayrihi
« Reply #61 on: December 03, 2017, 12:06:18 AM »
It seems you are now taking an entirely different angle, but this one i feel is not only weaker than making your own T'awil, but also weaker than trying to weaken the traditions. With respect, nothing mentioned here is relevant to our discussion. We are talking about the authenticity of the statements made.

Dear brother, again and again your statements prove that you have serious issues with your understanding skills. This disappoints any serious person who chooses to respond you. 

If you are just, i adjure you to swear by Allah that i have not addressed a number of key aspects you have brought to the table, which you have totally ignored and jumped into one line of the 150+ lines i had written in the previous page. Once more, despite pleading for you to drop throwing these childish insults and Adhominem attacks, just focus on what i am writing, refute it as much as you like, and then we can move on.

Quote
No one said that Prophet(saws) made an ambiguous statement you understood it wrong as usual,

Did Hani not explicitly say that even if we took the statement 'if you hold onto them you will never go astray' it would not prove Shia claims ? Did not not then explicitly respond to that point/post and write the quote i took from you about ambiguity ? What is frustrating me is that you are continuing to throw childish remarks, rather than addressing points.  This isn't even an important part of our debate, but everyone can go back and read your direct comment in response to him. If you had meant something else , quoting a particular point, responding to it, and making out one thing when you meant another with respect, is what is really ambitious here.


Quote
rather what I meant is that the narrator(esp Katheer ibn Zayd) who is not from the highest level of reliability,  and infact weakened by some Muhadditheen,

That doesn't matter. That is not how Rijal works. Kathir b.Zayd has a weakness, but that does not make his traditions Dhai'f. Muhammed Shakir, Shu'ayb al-Arnaut have both explicitly graded the chain as 'Hasan'. I have presented many proofs of this. However i won't be abusing you and hurling insults because i believe you have erred here; this is a civil discussion. They did not regard his weakness to be on a level that makes his traditions Dhai'f.

Quote
narrated the hadeeth of Prophet(saws) in an ambiguous manner. While on the other hand I believe, Prophet(saws) made just one speech, and he was quite clear in regards to Hadeeth Thaqalayn, and this we find in the most authentic version of Hadeeth thaqalayn that is the hadeeth present in Sahih Muslim. 

Brother, it does not matter what you believe, with respect. It only matters what the evidence we have tells us. We have a number of Hasan chains corroborating each other on the statement: "If you hold onto them, you will never go astray". Major scholars have graded it in this way, and i have proven it. Furthermore, you are making an assumption that a companion who grew to an age where he was extremely old , started to have declines in his memory memorised and relayed everything word perfect, whilst other several other  Hasnan chains, and several other weaker chains that Al-Albani and Arnaut grade 'Hasan' due to Shawahid, all contain the clause 'if you hold onto them you will never go astray'. Many major scholars did not believe that statement even contradicted Zayd at all but reconciled it with what Zayd said. Furthermore, a major Hadith scholar, al-Arnaut even accepts the Matn of the hadith.

حديث صحيح دون قوله " وإنهما لن يفترقا حتى يردا علي الحوض "
It is a sahih hadith, with the exception of the statement “And, verily, both shall never separate from each other until they meet me at the Lake-Fount”
I got it from this book: Musnad Ahmad, Annotator Shu'ayb al-Arnaut, and you can find the comments on Volume 3, page 59. So putting aside the fact al-Arnaut authenticates the Sanad (in other versions where the chain is reliable), he is even willing to authenticate the part 'if you hold onto them you will never go astray'.



Quote
Prophet(sawss) 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(singular). 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 to the members of my family.[Sahih Muslim]

With due respect this is not a valid point. The Prophet (saw) said i am leaving behind for you two weighty things, which if you hold onto , you will never go astray. The first is the book of Allah, in it there is guidance and light so hold fast to the book.

See? No contradiction whatsoever, and that is why many scholars have accepted the phrase 'if you hold onto them you will never go astray'.

Quote
The Hadeeth is Prophet(saws) is quite clear, and he is talking about QURAN ALONE THAT IS TO BE ADHERED FOR GUIDANCE.

And i have just proven that to be false. In fact, even you would admit we also need to hold onto the Sunnah of the Prophet (saw).


Quote
This is also supported by the fact that Quran alone was again mentioned for guidance on the day of Arafah by Prophet(saws), as per Sahih ahadeeth.

No contradiction once again, between him saying what he did at Ghadeer, and telling us to uphold the Quran (if that is what he said and only what he said for sake of argument). The Prophet (saw) clearly stated he was leaving behind two weighty things, which if we held onto, we would never go astray. Telling us this , and then telling us the Quran at another point does not contradict anything, in the same way telling us to uphold the Quran , and telling us to also uphold his Sunnah does not contradict anything.

Quote
Narrated Jabir bin Abdullah(ra) that: Prophet(saw) said: I have left among you the Book of Allah, and if you hold fast to it(SINGULAR), you would never go astray. [Sahih Muslim]

Again, this was said at Arafah if we accept this is how it was said. Does it mean do we not hold onto his Sunnah? The Prophet claiming for us to hold fast onto one thing does not mean he can not also add at another point additional items. You yourself believe we should hold onto his Sunnah and that he explicitly said in some cases to hold onto his Sunnah. We are explicitly talking about the declaration made at Ghadir Khumm.

Quote
Similarly, Abu Shurayh al-‘Adawi and Jubair bin Mut’am both narrated: The Prophet (SAWS) told his companions:.... “This Quran is a means, a part of it is in the hand of Allah and the other part is in your hands, so hold on to it(Singular) so that you will never go astray or perish afterwards.”
[Source: Silsilah al-Sahiha #713 ; Grading: al-Albani said: “Sahih on the condition of Muslim.”]


The major mistake you are making is in trying to assume the what was said at Arafah according to Sunni Hadith contradicts what was said at Ghadir. The reality is, it doesn't, and your major scholars have accepted the statement "if you hold onto them you will never go astray".

Points which prove this:

1. We have a number of Hasan chains, a number of which have either been directly graded as 'Hasan' by al-Albani, Muhammad Shakir, and Arnaut (proven in previous replies) or graded Hasan due to Shawahid. Therefore by Sanad alone, we know that these traditions are deemed authentic/reliable.

2. Shua'ayb Arnaut and al-Albani have explicitly also authenticated the Matn of the text. As i have pointed out, here are comments from Shu'ayb al-Arnaut:

حديث صحيح دون قوله " وإنهما لن يفترقا حتى يردا علي الحوض "
It is a sahih hadith, with the exception of the statement “And, verily, both shall never separate from each other until they meet me at the Lake-Fount.

Again, he admits the line 'if you hold onto them/that you will never go astray' is authentic. He does not say 'it contradicts Muslim' but he explicitly declares it is authentic.  He also explicitly states the part he believes is not authentic so to claim he and other scholars just authenticated it wholesale based on leniency is false.

al-Albani also accepts the Matn:

"Narrated by Jabir ibn Abdullah: "I saw Allah's Messenger when performing the hajj seated on his she camel Al-Qaswa on the day of Arafah giving an address, and I heard him saying, "O people, I have left among you something of such a nature that if you adhere to it you will not go astray: Allah's Book and my close relatives, my Ahlulbayt (a.s)."

Narrated by Zaid b. Arqam: Allah's Messenger said, "I am leaving among you something of such a nature that if you lay hold of it you will not go astray after I am gone, one part of it being more important than the other: Allah's Book, a rope stretched from Heaven to Earth, and my close relatives, my Ahlulbayt (a.s). These two will not separate from one another till they come down to the reservoir, so consider how you act regarding them after my departure."

Note: Al-Albani comments about both Hadeeth as being Saheeh (Authentic).
Source: Saheeh Sunan Al-Tirmidhi. Vol. 3, Pg. # 543 - 544, H. # 3786 - 378

Let me make it patently clear, al-Albani and al-Arnaut have both not only weakened weak chains, but have been willing to claim certain parts of a hadith are authentic and point to parts they disagree on.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2017, 12:07:30 AM by whoaretheshia »
DISCLAIMER: I AM AWAY UNTIL THE START OF THE NEW YEAR, PM ME IF I OWE YOU A REPLY, MAY ALLAH HAVE MERCY ON ALL OF US, FI AMANILLAH
" O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm in justice.. even if it be against yourselves... So follow not [personal] inclination, lest you not be jus

whoaretheshia

Re: This version of Hadith al-Thaqalayn is Saheeh li Ghayrihi
« Reply #62 on: December 03, 2017, 12:09:36 AM »
Summary points (for those who do not want to read the whole thread or are confused)


What about the version in Saheeh Muslim?
1. The tradition from Zayd bin Aqram , as contained in Saheeh Muslim, and authentic as per the condition of Imam Muslim,  in every single source i have gone through, is only relayed by Zayd when he first claims that he has grown very old, his time has long gone and his memory has been in decline. I am not claiming to weaken him and place him among the ikhtilat, given that the Sahaba are given a blanket assurance of not only bring truthful and trustworthy in reporting traditions, but also only ever reporting what they believed to be accurate. However, i have never contended Zayd was lying, or had reported what he could not properly remember. Rather, the best explanation for having other authentic expressions not included by Zayd is that in his old age and memory decline, while he reported what he believed to be accurate, he missed out some statements. Is there every a precedent set by the companions? Absolutely, and one can find authentic traditions we can all agree upon where ibn Umar said something, and then had to be corrected by Abu Hurairah or Aisha. While they only reported what they believed to be accurate, the combination of very old age and memory decline may have led to Zayd not reporting what the Prophet (saw) said in his entirety.


Does an authentic chain of narrators necessarily mean the text can be taken?

2. I know full well that an authentic chain does not necessarily mean the Matn of the text can be taken. The conditions of a Saheeh Hadith are give, and one of the main ones is that the chain is not odd, or has defects, or the like. However, not only do we have authentic chains (one of the prerequisites ) in the Hasan category , scholars who have authenticated them have not pointed out the statements in them that are not accurate. The scholars who have authenticated them and pointed out statements that are not accurate have not mentioned the phrase 'if you hold onto them, you will never go astray'. Not only has Ibn Hajar graded the chain authentic, without criticising it at all or pointing our defects or claiming it contradicts any authentic narration, Shu'ayb al-Arnau't has explicitly authenticated the Matn 'if you hold onto them you will never go astray'

Example:

حديث صحيح دون قوله " وإنهما لن يفترقا حتى يردا علي الحوض "
It is a sahih hadith, with the exception of the statement “And, verily, both shall never separate from each other until they meet me at the Lake-Fount”
I got it from this book: Musnad Ahmad, Annotator Shu'ayb al-Arnaut, and you can find the comments on Volume 3, page 59.

So putting aside the fact al-Arnaut authenticates the Sanad (in other versions where the chain is reliable), he is even willing to authenticate the part 'if you hold onto them you will never go astray'.

We find al-Albani is also not only willing to authenticate the chain when he deems fit, but also the Matn as well , and so not only have the scholars authenticated multiple Hasan chains, they have also verified that the text (other than the past on separating from the Pond) is authentic in its Matn.

"Narrated by Jabir ibn Abdullah: "I saw Allah's Messenger when performing the hajj seated on his she camel Al-Qaswa on the day of Arafah giving an address, and I heard him saying, "O people, I have left among you something of such a nature that if you adhere to it you will not go astray: Allah's Book and my close relatives, my Ahlulbayt (a.s)."

Narrated by Zaid b. Arqam: Allah's Messenger said, "I am leaving among you something of such a nature that if you lay hold of it you will not go astray after I am gone, one part of it being more important than the other: Allah's Book, a rope stretched from Heaven to Earth, and my close relatives, my Ahlulbayt (a.s). These two will not separate from one another till they come down to the reservoir, so consider how you act regarding them after my departure."

Note: Al-Albani comments about both Hadeeth as being Saheeh (Authentic). Al-Albani has also graded certain chains with a similar Matn as HASAN. He has also explicitly graded some with a weak Sanad as Dhai'f, so we can throw out the 'they graded out of laxity' argument.[/color][/b]
Source: Saheeh Sunan Al-Tirmidhi. Vol. 3, Pg. # 543 - 544, H. # 3786 - 3788.


Laxity - a further point

3. The claim scholars were lax in authenticating the chain in this case is absolutely untrue. This is a deception that is spread. We know this because al-Albani and al-Arnaut have graded chains they judge as weak as 'Dhai'f' . They are explicit in mentioning when they deem a chain is not reliable and when it is reliable and i have present ample proof of that in the last two pages. So the comments about laxities are to be cast aside. Major Hadith scholars have authenticated the first two traditions as 'Hasan' at the very least. I place their grading above what anyone on an online forum decides to grade it.

Examples:

Jabir ibn Abdullah said, “I saw the Prophet (saw) during his pilgrimage as was on his camel speaking, so I heard him say, “I left you that you must abide by that you will never go astray, the book of Allah (swt) and my Ahlulbayt (a.s).”
Footnote: Sahih li ghayri(authentic due to external evidence), the chain of this narration however is weak, because of Zayd Ibn Al-Hasan he is Qurashi and Al-Anmati.

As you can see, al-Arnaut has not just randomly graded this 'Hasan' out of laxity, but he has been absolutely explicit in first stating that the chain is not authentic. So when he then explicitly claims that the Sanad is 'Hasan' is not being lax, because he has been willing to weaken the chain if he saw fit, as in the example i have given [first post] where he explicitly graded the chain as Hasan.

Brother Hani or anyone else coming and trying to weaken it based on chain has no weight whatsoever, considering al-Arnaut has graded it Hasan, Ibn Hajar has even graded the chain as Saheeh. You can try to weaken the chain, but it has no weight. Perhaps for some your readers here who recognise the problems accepting this tradition will lead to, but not for anyone who wants to perform a fair and objective analysis.

Corroboration

4. Brother Hani and the online TSN team have opted to refute major scholars like al-Albani in their belief of corroboration. I say that in our articles, we discard the views of non-scholars on online forums, and side with men like al-Albani in their judgements. There are times where there chain is obviously weak, but we find both al-Albani and al-Arnaut grading the chain as 'Hasan due to Shawahid'. Shuay'b al'Arnaut also agrees with him in certain cases. Once again, we must emphasise that we will not give any weight to statements made against al-Albani and al-Arnaut.


For example:


حدثنا عبد الله حدثني أبي ثنا بن نمير ثنا عبد الملك بن أبي سليمان عن عطية العوفي عن أبي سعيد الخدري قال قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم: اني قد تركت فيكم ما ان أخذتم به لن تضلوا بعدي الثقلين أحدهما أكبر من الآخر كتاب الله حبل ممدود من السماء إلى الأرض وعترتي أهل بيتي الا وانهما لن يفترقا حتى يردا على الحوض


There is no doubt the chain above is weak. However , this is another chain al-Albani is willing to grade as Hasan despite being weak in and of itself, through the witnesses.

He says: وهو إسناد حسن في الشواهد. [ Silsilah al-Ahadith al-Sahihah wa Shayhun min Fiqhihah wa Fawaidihah, go to page 357 in the first edition]

Shu'ayb al-Arnaut agrees with him: سنده حسن بالشواهد. [Muhammad b. Ibrahim al-Wazir al-Yamani, al-‘Awasim wa al-Qawasim fi al-Dhabb ‘an Sunnah Abi al-Qasim  Volume one, go to page 178]

Let us also add in that some of the chains have been graded 'Hasan' by Muhammed Shakir, and i know Arnaut is above him in strictness and weight.


None of the scholars had mentioned the additional versions contradicting the one in Saheeh Muslim. Many of them graded the the chains as Saheeh, some as Hasan, and some graded other weaker chains as Hasan owing to corroborating witnesses. Furthermore the scholars also accepted the Matn as authentic, and not just the chain. Therefore our problem is now in the T'awil of the tradition, and not establishing the authenticity.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2017, 12:15:12 AM by whoaretheshia »
DISCLAIMER: I AM AWAY UNTIL THE START OF THE NEW YEAR, PM ME IF I OWE YOU A REPLY, MAY ALLAH HAVE MERCY ON ALL OF US, FI AMANILLAH
" O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm in justice.. even if it be against yourselves... So follow not [personal] inclination, lest you not be jus

whoaretheshia

Re: This version of Hadith al-Thaqalayn is Saheeh li Ghayrihi
« Reply #63 on: December 03, 2017, 12:18:01 AM »
When al-Arnaut declares the part 'If you hold onto them you will never go astray' as Saheeh, he then quotes al-Sindi: In fact, not only does al-Arnaut say this, he also goes not to quote al-Sindi:

"Al-Sindi in the explanation of, 'My Ahlulbayt:' It was as if the Prophet (saw) made them equal in importance to his position. Just as in his (pbuh) life, it was him and the Qu'raan 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."

There is no doubt as per a great number of your scholars and orthodox standards of Rijal , as well as the methods by some of the most eminent scholars today, the phrase 'if you hold onto them you will never go astray' is actually an authentic expression.

The moment you accept that, you now have to start to question what the Prophet(saw) meant when he stated that if we held onto the Quran and the Ahlulbayt, we would never , ever go astray.  You can take the clear apparent meaning, or you can distort the clear and apparent meaning and try to twist the interpretation, because accepting it based on the clear interpretation will mean you have to rethink a very large part of your faith (a general comment and not directed at any one person).

The choice is clear, to follow Haq, or follow what we desire.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2017, 12:19:53 AM by whoaretheshia »
DISCLAIMER: I AM AWAY UNTIL THE START OF THE NEW YEAR, PM ME IF I OWE YOU A REPLY, MAY ALLAH HAVE MERCY ON ALL OF US, FI AMANILLAH
" O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm in justice.. even if it be against yourselves... So follow not [personal] inclination, lest you not be jus

whoaretheshia

Re: This version of Hadith al-Thaqalayn is Saheeh li Ghayrihi
« Reply #64 on: December 03, 2017, 12:24:23 AM »
Interestingly, they did not take the gradings of Arnaut, al-Albani, or Muhammed Shakir, or ibn Hajar, and many others, but then claimed they would grade it themselves by the following criteria:

"We have only used the most reliable books of Rijal to judge each of the narrators and we decided to not be very harsh or too lenient in our judgment as it would greatly reduce the value and reliability of our research and our hard work would be lost and therefore the truth."

From: http://www.twelvershia.net/2013/10/26/hadith-of-thaqalayn/

And then when it is used as evidence against a view they may hold, suddenly they have graded with leniency. Even if they now retract their position, it wouldn't matter, because major scholars more knowledgable and who actually hold weight, like Arnaut, al-Albani, Muhammed Shakir, ibn Hajar have graded the traditions as 'Hasan' and even those of weaker chains we did not consider reliable as 'Hasan' due to Shawahid (something brother Hani does not believe in).

DISCLAIMER: I AM AWAY UNTIL THE START OF THE NEW YEAR, PM ME IF I OWE YOU A REPLY, MAY ALLAH HAVE MERCY ON ALL OF US, FI AMANILLAH
" O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm in justice.. even if it be against yourselves... So follow not [personal] inclination, lest you not be jus

Noor-us-Sunnah

Re: This version of Hadith al-Thaqalayn is Saheeh li Ghayrihi
« Reply #65 on: December 03, 2017, 12:59:03 AM »
I am not claiming to weaken him and place him among the ikhtilat, given that the Sahaba are given a blanket assurance of not only bring truthful and trustworthy in reporting traditions, but also only ever reporting what they believed to be accurate. However, i have never contended Zayd was lying, or had reported what he could not properly remember. Rather, the best explanation for having other authentic expressions not included by Zayd is that in his old age and memory decline, while he reported what he believed to be accurate, he missed out some statements.
Alhamdulillah, after our explanations, it seems now that, you have realized that its impossible for you to raise fingers at the text of the hadeeth narrated by Zaid(ra) in Sahih Muslim, you would be shooting yourself in the foot, if you try to do so.

Thus, you come up with a new excuse, that Zaid(ra) narrated what he believed to be accurate, but missed out some statements. Readers, please note that, the part which says, Zaid(ra) narrated what he believed to be accurate, because as per this accurate version of Hadeeth Thaqalayn narrated by Zaid(ra), ONLY QURAN IS TO BE ADHERED FOR GUIDANCE, as you can see in the red highlighted portion below.

Prophet(sawss) 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(singular). 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 your duties) to the members of my family.[Sahih Muslim]

And this fact is also supported by ahadeeth narrated by other Sahaba which I quoted in the previous post.

Hence, We find that as per the ACCURATE VERSION narrated by Zaid(ra), ONLY QURAN IS TO BE ADHERED FOR GUIDANCE. And the Ahlelbayt were reminded because they are to be taken care of, by the Muslim society. NOW LET'S SUPPOSE, as our Shia friend claims that, Zaid(ra) missed out some statements, but even if Zaid(ra) supposedly missed some statements, could these statement CONTRADICT what Zaid accurately narrated? No, way. Zaid(ra) accurately narrated that Quran ONLY is to be adhered for guidance, hence if a supposedly missed out statement goes against it and changes the things to be adhered from Quran alone to, Quran and Ahlelbayt, then that directly would seem to be dubious.

ASSUMING THAT ZAID(RA) COULD HAVE MISSED A STATEMENT,  BUT DID HE MISUNDERSTOOD HADEETH THAQALAYN?

Our Shia friend, wants us to be believe that, Zaid(ra) missed a statement, but is he also saying that Zaid(ra) misunderstood Hadeeth Thaqalayn as well? I say this because, Zaid(ra) believed that, Ahlelbayt mentioned in hadeeth Thaqalayn are those members from family of Prophet(Saws), on whom acceptance of Zakat is forbidden, that is family of Aqeel, family of Jafar, family of Ali and family of Abbas. So now, if supposedly Ahlelbayt in Thaqlayn were a source or medium of guidance, adhering whom people will not go astray, then did Zaid(ra) believe that, just because Zakat becomes forbidden on some families which even consist people who could be sinners, they all become a source of guidance for humanity, just like Quran? No, not at all. We all know that, it's irrational to believe so, the fact is that Zaid(ra) who witnessed the moment when Prophet(Saws) mentioned hadeeth Thaqalayn, he never understood that Ahlelbayt were mentioned as a source of guidance, adhering whom people will not go astray.

Therefore it is clear as a sun in the cloudless day, the statement which the Shia friend claims that Zaid(ra) missed out, had nothing to do with proving Ahlelbayt as a source of guidance, adhering whom people will not go astray. If any such statement is found somewhere through a dubious chain, then that is rejected out rightly. Because, not only it goes against, the hadeeth accurately narrated by Zaid(ra), and ahadeeth narrated by other Sahaba regarding Arafat, but it even goes against the understanding of Zaid(ra), which is equally crucial in determining the authenticity of those dubious statements the Shia friend is talking about.


2. I know full well that an authentic chain does not necessarily mean the Matn of the text can be taken. The conditions of a Saheeh Hadith are give, and one of the main ones is that the chain is not odd, or has defects, or the like. However, not only do we have authentic chains (one of the prerequisites ) in the Hasan category , scholars who have authenticated them have not pointed out the statements in them that are not accurate. The scholars who have authenticated them and pointed out statements that are not accurate have not mentioned the phrase 'if you hold onto them, you will never go astray'. Not only has Ibn Hajar graded the chain authentic, without criticising it at all or pointing our defects or claiming it contradicts any authentic narration, Shu'ayb al-Arnau't has explicitly authenticated the Matn 'if you hold onto them you will never go astray'
Please read carefully what I wrote above, and try to contemplate on it. Our scholars are not infallible, authentication of Scholars are nothing, if they can be proven wrong. Same as your scholars, for example:

Grand Shia Āyat Allāh Ĥusayn `Alī al-Muntažarī stated:

واعتقاد الكليني بصحة الرواية ليس من الحجج الشرعية إذ ليس هو معصوما عندنا
“The belief of al-Kulaynī about the correctness of traditions is not a legal proof because he is not an infallible according to us!” [Dirāsāt fī al-Makāsib al-Muĥarrama, of Ĥusayn `Alī al-Muntažarī, volume 3, page 123]

Moreover, It's a known fact that scholars were lenient when grading the hadeeth about virtues. So, its not surprising if you find that scholars authenticating some reports with improper matn as authentic, while keeping in mind the hadeeth of Sahih Muslim. It only gets problematic that you pick these reports authenticated out of lenience since these are about Fadhail, to form a belief. In this case the reports are scrutinized in a proper manner to teach the misguided person who tries to take the undue advantage of the rulings given by scholars out of lenience for ahadeeth of fadhail.

whoaretheshia

Re: This version of Hadith al-Thaqalayn is Saheeh li Ghayrihi
« Reply #66 on: December 03, 2017, 01:23:15 AM »
Alhamdulillah, after our explanations, it seems now that, you have realized that its impossible for you to raise fingers at the text of the hadeeth narrated by Zaid(ra) in Sahih Muslim, you would be shooting yourself in the foot, if you try to do so. 

My position i swear by Allah has never shifted with regards to the text of Saheeh Muslim.
  Rather, i was explicit in stating that taking the traditions of a man who was extremely old and admitted to being in memory decline and finding it very hard to narrations hadith from the Prophet (saw) is a valid explanation for why we find many other authentic/reliable narrations which include certain words or phrases Zayd did not include. So while the text may be reliable in what it related, it does not include certain authentic expressions.

Can a companion narrate something and miss out a part, while being sincere in wanting to only narrate it accurately? Ofcourse, and this has happened many times. You would only have to look at companions like Ibn Umar, to see they often narrated from or about the Prophet, and then had to be corrected later on about a part they missed. Abu Hurairah for example, adding the word 'field' in the narration of Ibn Umar about keeping dogs.


Quote
Thus, you come up with a new excuse, that Zaid(ra) narrated what he believed to be accurate, but missed out some statements. Readers, please note that, the part which says, Zaid(ra) narrated what he believed to be accurate, because as per this accurate version of Hadeeth Thaqalayn narrated by Zaid(ra), ONLY QURAN IS TO BE ADHERED FOR GUIDANCE, as you can see in the red highlighted portion below.

Once again, many narrations graded Saheeh and Hasan by the scholars who also explicitly graded the same narration as weak by Sanad when the chain was weak and i have proven it above (which completely nullifies your point about laxity) have stated that the words 'if you hold onto them you will never go astray' as Saheeh. This has been proven and not even addressed or refuted. Once again, if we add it to the words of Saheeh Muslim we get: "I am leaving behind for you two weighty things, which if you hold onto, you will never go astray. The Quran...in it is guidance, and my Ahlulbayt..."

Thus, both versions can be reconciled, and just because the Prophet (saw) said that there is guidance in the Quran does not mean there are no other sources of guidances. This sort of logic is not acceptable and not tenable. If only the Quran is adhered to for guidance, what about the Sunnah? Rather the Prophet only said that the Quran contains guidance. How does that contradict with adhering to the Quran and the Ahlulbayt? Rather, merely stating the Quran has guidance in it is merely praise of the Quran, and asking us to adhere onto the two weighty things , which if we will do so, we will never go astray is an acknowledgement of both the Quran and the Ahlulbayt.






Quote
Hence, We find that as per the ACCURATE VERSION narrated by Zaid(ra), ONLY QURAN IS TO BE ADHERED FOR GUIDANCE. And the Ahlelbayt were reminded because they are to be taken care of, by the Muslim society. NOW LET'S SUPPOSE, as our Shia friend claims that, Zaid(ra) missed out some statements, but even if Zaid(ra) supposedly missed some statements, could these statement CONTRADICT what Zaid accurately narrated? No, way. Zaid(ra) accurately narrated that Quran ONLY is to be adhered for guidance, hence if a supposedly missed out statement goes against it and changes the things to be adhered from Quran alone to, Quran and Ahlelbayt, then that directly would seem to be dubious. 

Very few scholars have ever claimed the phrase 'if you adhere to them you will never go astray' goes against what is in Saheeh Muslim. Many have claimed they can be easily reconciled. It does not contradict the statement of Zayd and i have proven this. If the Prophet claimed for us to adhere to the Quran alone in Arafat (for sake of argument) does that mean we do not adhere to the Sunnah? Asking us to adhere to one thing, does it mean at the exclusion of another? Or can it mean we should not adhere to any other book above that of the Quran?

ASSUMING THAT ZAID(RA) COULD HAVE MISSED A STATEMENT,  BUT DID HE MISUNDERSTOOD HADEETH THAQALAYN?

Quote
Our Shia friend, wants us to be believe that, Zaid(ra) missed a statement, but is he also saying that Zaid(ra) misunderstood Hadeeth Thaqalayn as well? I say this because, Zaid(ra) believed that, Ahlelbayt mentioned in hadeeth Thaqalayn are those members from family of Prophet(Saws), on whom acceptance of Zakat is forbidden, that is family of Aqeel, family of Jafar, family of Ali and family of Abbas. So now, if supposedly Ahlelbayt in Thaqlayn were a source or medium of guidance, adhering whom people will not go astray, then did Zaid(ra) believe that, just because Zakat becomes forbidden on some families which even consist people who could be sinners, they all become a source of guidance for humanity, just like Quran? No, not at all. We all know that, it's irrational to believe so, the fact is that Zaid(ra) who witnessed the moment when Prophet(Saws) mentioned hadeeth Thaqalayn, he never understood that Ahlelbayt were mentioned as a source of guidance, adhering whom people will not go astray.

Zayd was only explaining what members of the Family of the Prophet he believed the hadith was referring to. Remember he was also giving his opinion at this stage. Zayd was clearly stating who he believed were the true members of the family, and defined Ahlulbayt as explicit blood relations, who were referred to in this Hadith. Remember, Sunnis claim that the wives are also referred to in this tradition, and that we must respect them, and honour them, and that goes against the words of Zayd here who was merely giving his opinion.

Quote
Therefore it is clear as a sun in the cloudless day, the statement which the Shia friend claims that Zaid(ra) missed out, had nothing to do with proving Ahlelbayt as a source of guidance, adhering whom people will not go astray. If any such statement is found somewhere through a dubious chain, then that is rejected out rightly. 

SubhanAllah, several of your own major scholars of Hadith have not only graded several chains containing the statement as 'Hasan in chain' and even ' Saheeh in Chain' and even among he weaker narrations 'Hasan by witnesses', they have also explicitly authenticated the Matn and text. So to come here and claim the chains are dubious and to throw them outright, because of what the author of an online rebuttal forum thinks, over what major Sunn/Salafi scholars have themselves graded and decided, i feel can not be taken seriously by any seeker of the truth.


Quote
Because, not only it goes against, the hadeeth accurately narrated by Zaid(ra),

I have proven it does not go against the narration of Zayd whatsoever, but only adds in an expression he did not add in, and many great scholars of hadith have accepted it, but opted to give their own interpretation to it.

Quote
and ahadeeth narrated by other Sahaba regarding Arafat,

Again we have proven the logic behind this claim is very weak.

 
Quote
but it even goes against the understanding of Zaid(ra), which is equally crucial in determining the authenticity of those dubious statements the Shia friend is talking about.

I'm sorry, but not only does this not have relevance, we have addressed this in this post, and on top of that, we are concerned primarily with the explicit statements of the Prophet (saw).

Quote
Please read carefully what I wrote above, and try to contemplate on it. Our scholars are not infallible, authentication of Scholars are nothing, if they can be proven wrong. Same as your scholars, for example:

Grand Shia Āyat Allāh Ĥusayn `Alī al-Muntažarī stated:

واعتقاد الكليني بصحة الرواية ليس من الحجج الشرعية إذ ليس هو معصوما عندنا
“The belief of al-Kulaynī about the correctness of traditions is not a legal proof because he is not an infallible according to us!” [Dirāsāt fī al-Makāsib al-Muĥarrama, of Ĥusayn `Alī al-Muntažarī, volume 3, page 123]


I have often seen the 'our scholars are not infallible' argument used, and i have seen you also write that in another article on you punctured. Sadly, it has no relevance here whatsoever.

There is a difference between disagreeing with a scholar on a metholodgy, but then claiming several of your great Hadith scholars were wrong, such as al-Albani, al-Arnaut, Muhammad Shakir, Ibn Hajar, and disagreeing with what the common view is of several major hadith scholars when they give a verdict on hadith for no other reason than because non-scholars disagree on an online forum and thus override the scholars because they were not infallible is not a valid point at all.


Quote
Moreover, It's a known fact that scholars were lenient when grading the hadeeth about virtues. So, its not surprising if you find that scholars authenticating some reports with improper matn as authentic, while keeping in mind the hadeeth of Sahih Muslim. It only gets problematic that you pick these reports authenticated out of lenience since these are about Fadhail, to form a belief. In this case the reports are scrutinized in a proper manner to teach the misguided person who tries to take the undue advantage of the rulings given by scholars out of lenience for ahadeeth of fadhail.

We have addressed this particular point several times. We have disproven this idea, because the scholars who graded these traditions explicitly graded the same traditions as weak by chain when it was weak by chain, or Hasan by chain when it was Hasan by chain. Furthermore, when they examined the Matn, they also explicitly stated what part of the Matn they disagreed with. Remember, the statement 'if you hold onto them you will never go astray' is not just a simple virtue, it is a serious statement, a command, and that is why they have been serious and cautious about how they have authenticated it. This particular tradition isn't just a virtue, it is a command upon the Muslims, and you can not just grade a command authentically. The whole lax argument with respect in this particular context is absolutely false.


I will once again present evidence:



حديث صحيح دون قوله " وإنهما لن يفترقا حتى يردا علي الحوض "
It is a sahih hadith, with the exception of the statement “And, verily, both shall never separate from each other until they meet me at the Lake-Fount”
I got it from this book: Musnad Ahmad, Annotator Shu'ayb al-Arnaut, and you can find the comments on Volume 3, page 59.

So putting aside the fact al-Arnaut authenticates the Sanad (in other versions where the chain is reliable), he is even willing to authenticate the part 'if you hold onto them you will never go astray' yet explicitly also reject the part which says 'and they will never separate until they meet me at the pond'. So the claim the scholars were just being 'lax' when authenticating the Matn is not true whatsoever.

Could you tell me, and i will read this when i return - are you the author of youpuncturedtheark? If so, you have been misleading a lot of people with these views and opinions. Even at one point, when i had not researched this properly, i just took what you wrote. It is so clear that the things you are writing in that blog are misleading brother, and not even upon the view of the major scholars.




***** I WILL BE AWAY FOR A WEEK OWING TO PERSONAL CIRCUMSTANCES, I WILL REPLY WHEN I RETURN. I HOPE WHOEVER RESPONDS DOES SO RESPECTFULLY AND DOES NOT START TO ABUSE, GLOAT, ACCUSE, OR DO ANY OF THESE THINGS, BUT RATHER JUST MAKES THEIR POINT ABOUT WHERE THEY DISAGREE. IF I FIND THEM TO BE RIGHT I WILL ALWAYS RETRACT MY POSITION*********
« Last Edit: December 03, 2017, 01:31:35 AM by whoaretheshia »
DISCLAIMER: I AM AWAY UNTIL THE START OF THE NEW YEAR, PM ME IF I OWE YOU A REPLY, MAY ALLAH HAVE MERCY ON ALL OF US, FI AMANILLAH
" O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm in justice.. even if it be against yourselves... So follow not [personal] inclination, lest you not be jus

whoaretheshia

Re: This version of Hadith al-Thaqalayn is Saheeh li Ghayrihi
« Reply #67 on: December 03, 2017, 01:40:19 AM »
Even Ibn Taymiyyah himself accepts there are statements not made by Zayd, which are authentic expressions: Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said in Minhaaj as-Sunnah an-Nabawiyyah (7/395):
The Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said concerning his family: “They and the Book will never be separated until they both come to him at the Cistern.” And he is the most truthful one, so this indicates that the consensus of the (Prophet’s) family constitutes proof. This is the view of a number of our companions, and it was mentioned by al-Qaadi in al-Mu‘tamad.

Even al-Albani accepts the statement : "If you hold onto them you will never go astray" but opts to make T'awil and his own interpretation:

Al-Albaani (may Allah have mercy on him) said:

It is well-known that this hadith is among the things quoted as evidence by the Shi‘ah, and they kept on quoting it until some of the Ahl as-Sunnah began to think that they were right, but all of them are deluded, on two counts:

1.  What the hadith refers to, when the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said “my family” is broader in scope than the narrow interpretation of the Shi‘ah. This is something that Ahl as-Sunnah would not reject; rather they adhere to that, namely that it refers to the members of the household of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him). This is stated clearly in some versions of the hadith, such as the version which says, “my family are the members of my household.” The members of his household are, first and foremost, his wives, including as-Siddeeqah ‘Aa’ishah (may Allah be pleased with her). The fact that the Shi‘ah restrict the meaning of “ahl al-bayt” in this verse to ‘Ali, Faatimah, al-Hasan and al-Husayn (may Allah be pleased with them), to the exclusion of the Prophet’s wives, is an example of their distortion of the verses of Allah, may He be exalted, in support of their whims and desires…

2.  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…”

Once you understand the above, the hadith offers strong support for the hadith in al-Muwatta’ which says: “I am leaving among you two things; you will never go astray so long as you adhere to them: the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger.”

End quote from Silsilat al-Ahaadeeth as-Saheehah (4/260).



Interestingly, he contradicts Zayd. Brother, our debate should be on T'awil because i have firmly established the reliability of the statement 'if you hold onto them you will never go astray'. The line you are coming from isn't even something your scholars have tried to do. They have wisely accepted the Hadith, and have said there is no contradiction between it and orthodox Sunni belief.
DISCLAIMER: I AM AWAY UNTIL THE START OF THE NEW YEAR, PM ME IF I OWE YOU A REPLY, MAY ALLAH HAVE MERCY ON ALL OF US, FI AMANILLAH
" O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm in justice.. even if it be against yourselves... So follow not [personal] inclination, lest you not be jus

Noor-us-Sunnah

Re: This version of Hadith al-Thaqalayn is Saheeh li Ghayrihi
« Reply #68 on: December 03, 2017, 02:52:49 AM »
It seems you are now taking an entirely different angle, but this one i feel is not only weaker than making your own T'awil, but also weaker than trying to weaken the traditions. With respect, nothing mentioned here is relevant to our discussion. We are talking about the authenticity of the statements made.
So, am I.

If you are just, i adjure you to swear by Allah that i have not addressed a number of key aspects you have brought to the table, which you have totally ignored and jumped into one line of the 150+ lines i had written in the previous page. Once more, despite pleading for you to drop throwing these childish insults and Adhominem attacks, just focus on what i am writing, refute it as much as you like, and then we can move on.
You did address a number of aspects, which I addressed, I never claimed you didn't address my arguments. What I said is that, you fail to understand or misunderstand, what argument I'm making. And this is what I said. 
Quote
Dear brother, again and again your statements prove that you have serious issues with your understanding skills.

So if you misunderstand the argument I make, and go after it to respond, then obviously the conclusion would be unfruitful. So, it actually turns into crap and unworthy to be responded, hence I opt to leave that crap, as it would be waste of time. And please don't get offended with this, because you have again repeated the same thing, I'll try to demonstrate below.


Did Hani not explicitly say that even if we took the statement 'if you hold onto them you will never go astray' it would not prove Shia claims ? Did not not then explicitly respond to that point/post and write the quote i took from you about ambiguity ?

I guess you are talking about this statement of Hani:
Quote
I was more lenient because this text doesn't really add much to the equation and it can be interpreted in a number of valid ways.

You said:
Quote
Ambigous? How clearer can our beloved Messenger of Allah (saw) get?

Where did Hani say that he believes that this statement was made by Prophet(saws) ? He merely mentions that the text is ambiguous, and by that he doesn't mean Prophet(saws) is ambiguous, AS YOU MISUNDERSTOOD ASUSUAL, but he meant the narrator who erroneously narrated that text, in such an ambiguous manner. So you see, your poor understanding skills is the cause of your frustration. Blame yourself not others.



That doesn't matter. That is not how Rijal works. Kathir b.Zayd has a weakness, but that does not make his traditions Dhai'f. Muhammed Shakir, Shu'ayb al-Arnaut have both explicitly graded the chain as 'Hasan'. I have presented many proofs of this. However i won't be abusing you and hurling insults because i believe you have erred here; this is a civil discussion. They did not regard his weakness to be on a level that makes his traditions Dhai'f.
What I have done is to follow one of the most fundamental usool of Hadeeth science.

قال الخطيب البغدادي: "السبيل إلى معرفة علة الحديث أن يجمع بين طرقه، وينظر في اختلاف رواته، ويعتبر بمكانهم في الحفظ، ومنزلتهم في الإتقان والضبط"
Abu Bakr al-Khatib said,"The way to discover the defect of a hadith is to collect the lines of transmission, examine the differences of its transmitters and examine their position in regard to retention and their status in regard to exactitude and precision [Uloom al-hadeth, page 82].

So, when two ahadeeth has some conflicting info in them about a same topic, then we find the defect by scrutinizing the narrators of both hadeeth, checking their status in regard to exactitude and precision, and Katheer ibn Zayd, as you agree is not known for exactitude and precision, atleast, even if you don't believe he is weak as some scholars deemed him, as follows. Here I'll quote Mahajjah article about Katheer ibn Zayd.

Mahajjah website states:
Quote
1. Ibn Abi Hatim in Kitab al-Jarh wa al-Ta`dil:
سئل يحيى بن معين عن كثير بن زيد فقال ليس بذاك القوى…فقال ابو زرعة هو صدوق فيه لين
Yahya ibn Ma`in was asked about Kathir ibn Zayd and he said: “He is not strong according to the Muhaddithin”… Abu Zur`ah said: “Truthful but he has weakness.”

2. Al-Dhahabi in al-Mizan:
قال ابو زرعة فيه لين…قال النسائى ضعيف…قال ابن المدينى وليس بقوى
Abu Zur`ah said: “He has weakness”… Nasa’i said: “Da`if”… Ibn al-Madini said: “He is not strong.”

3. Ibn Hajar in al-Tahdhib:
قال ابن خزيمة عن ابن معين ليس بذاك وكان اولا قال ليس بشيئ…قال النسائى ضعيف…قال ابو جعفر الطبرى كثير بن زيد عندهم ممن لا يحتج بنقله
Ibn Khuzaymah has reported from Ibn Ma`in: “He is not reliable.” And he first said: “He is nothing”… Nasa’i said: “Da`if”… Abu Ja`far al-Tabari said: Kathir ibn Zayd is amongst those whose narrations cannot be substantiated from.”

4. Nasa’i said in Kitab al-Du`afa’ wa al-Matrukin:
كثير بن زيد ضعيف
Kathir ibn Zayd is da`if.

In the above four references, the scholars of hadith have explicitly mentioned that this individual is unreliable in the field of hadith. His narrations are not worthy of being substantiated from and some have given him a degree of credibility, but that is not worthy of attention as the principle discussed earlier states: “Disparagement is given preference over commendation”, therefore this narration will not be acceptable.

After the above explanation, it will make no difference if the author of Wasilat al-Ma’al reports it in his book, or some other author besides him. It should also be known that in the book Fayd al-Qadir — commentary on the book al-Jami` al-Saghir — `Allamah `Abd al-Ra`uf al-Munawi, whilst commenting on the hadith:

لا تبكوا على الدين اذا وليه اهله
Do not cry over the din if it is managed by its people.

criticises Kathir ibn Zayd by labelling him da`if. Therefore we are not the first and only ones to label him as such; rather we have been preceded by the scholars of the past.


Brother, it does not matter what you believe, with respect. It only matters what the evidence we have tells us. We have a number of Hasan chains corroborating each other on the statement: "If you hold onto them, you will never go astray". Major scholars have graded it in this way, and i have proven it. Furthermore, you are making an assumption that a companion who grew to an age where he was extremely old , started to have declines in his memory memorised and relayed everything word perfect, whilst other several other  Hasnan chains, and several other weaker chains that Al-Albani and Arnaut grade 'Hasan' due to Shawahid, all contain the clause 'if you hold onto them you will never go astray'. Many major scholars did not believe that statement even contradicted Zayd at all but reconciled it with what Zayd said.
I'm glad that you agree that what matters are the evidences. And the fact is that even if 10 weak reports goes against an authentically proven hadeeth, those all reports get discarded as weak.

So lets see is the status of the report you claim to be hasan in your article, under the light of evidences.

hmad ibn Hambal — (1) al-Aswad ibn `Amir — (2) Sharik — (3) al-Rukayn —(4) al-Qasim ibn Hassan — from Zayd ibn Thabit that Rasulullah salla Llahu `alayhi wa sallam said:

Quote
Sharik according Ahl al-Sunnah
 

1. Tahir al-Fattani writes in Qanun al-Mowdu`at:
 

شريك بن عبد الله الكوفى ضعفه يحيى

Sharik ibn `Abd Allah al-Kufi has been classified as da`if by Yahya ibn Ma`in.
 

2. Ibn Sa`d has written in his Tabaqat:
 

كان شريك كثير الحديث وكان يغلط كثيرا

Sharik would narrate excessively and he would also err excessively.
 

3. Al-Dhahabi states:
 

قال ابن مبارك حديث شريك ليس بشيئ-قال الجوزجانى سيئ الحفظ مضطرب الحديث…قال ابو زرعة كان كثير الحديث صاحب وهم يغلط احيانا…قال عبد الله بن ادريس ان شريكا لشيعى

Ibn Mubarak said: “The narrations of Sharik hold no weight.” Jowzajani said: “He had a bad memory and his narrations have a lot of contradictions.” Abu Zur`ah said: “He narrated many narrations. He would get confused and make mistakes at times.” `Abd Allah ibn Idris said: “Sharik was most certainly a Shi`i.”
 

4. Ibn al-Hajar writes in al-Tahdhib:
 

قال ابن القطان شريك بن عبد الله كان مشهورا بالتدليس…قال الازدى انه مائل عن القصد غالى المذهب سيئ الحفظ مضطرب الحديث…قال الساجى كان ينسب الى التشيع المفرط

Ibn al-Qattan said: “Sharik ibn `Abd Allah was well known for concealing his sources…” Al-Azdi said: “He strayed from moderation. He was an extremist in his beliefs. He had a bad memory, he committed many errors and his narrations had many contradictions.” Al-Saji said: “He was looked upon as an extremist Shi`ah.”
 

5. Imam Tirmidhi said:
 

شريك كثير الغلط

Sharik would commit many errors.
 

6. Abu Hatim said:
 

لا يقوم مقام الحجة

His narrations cannot be regarded as worthy evidence.
 
Sharik according to the Shi`ah
 

1. `Abd Allah Mamaqani states in his Tanqih al-Maqal:
 

عن كشف الغمة ما هو نص فى كونه اماميا و ذلك يثبت نجابته

In the book Kashf al-Ghummah, it is clearly stated that he (Sharik) was an Imami. This is sufficient to establish his salvation and nobility.

So you see Shareek is a da`if narrator, he commits many mistakes, he has contradictions in his narrations, he has a weak memory, he hides his sources and he is an extremist Shi`ah. After these elucidations there is no question about accepting his narrations as proof in this chapter.[Credit:Mahajjah]

Imam Shafi’i  said, "If he is a proselytizer, there is no disagreement among them that his transmission is not to be accepted." [Uloom al-hadeeth ibn salah, pg 87]

Abu Hatim b. Hibban al-Busti - one of the authorities of hadith who wrote books - said, "According to our authorities, it is absolutely forbidden to cite the hadith of a proselytizer for sectarian doctrines. I do not know of any disagreement among them on this point.'" [Uloom al-hadeeth ibn salah, pg 87]


With due respect this is not a valid point. The Prophet (saw) said i am leaving behind for you two weighty things, which if you hold onto , you will never go astray. The first is the book of Allah, in it there is guidance and light so hold fast to the book.

See? No contradiction whatsoever, and that is why many scholars have accepted the phrase 'if you hold onto them you will never go astray'.
This is not what the correction version of Hadeeth Thaqalayn says, this is why we have contradiction. The authentic version from Sahih Muslim mentions Quran ALONE as source of guidance. Scholars authenticated those reports out of lenience, as they believed them to be matters of Fadhail. But DON'T FORGET there are scholars who weakened these reports as well. So in this case the one whose verdict will carry weight is that those who abided by the rules of hadeeth science in a proper manner, and not being lenient.


And i have just proven that to be false. In fact, even you would admit we also need to hold onto the Sunnah of the Prophet (saw).
In your dreams. Following Sunnah is proven from Quran again, but unfortunately, this isn't the case for Ahlelbayt. So your logic falls flat.


No contradiction once again, between him saying what he did at Ghadeer, and telling us to uphold the Quran (if that is what he said and only what he said for sake of argument). The Prophet (saw) clearly stated he was leaving behind two weighty things, which if we held onto, we would never go astray. Telling us this , and then telling us the Quran at another point does not contradict anything, in the same way telling us to uphold the Quran , and telling us to also uphold his Sunnah does not contradict anything.

When majority of the Ummah was gathered in Arafah, and they needed the words of advice from Prophet(saws), especially the most important one in regards to guidance. Prophet(saws) mentions just Quran, as if for them guidance of Ahlelbayt was not needed. But then couple of days later, when a large portion of those present in Arafah are not there, he mentions them about guidance again and adds Ahlelbayt along with Quran. Why? What crime did the majority of Muslims from different regions of Arabia did? And ironically Allah too perfected the religion there, without commanding prophet(saws) to mention Ahlelbayt as well in arafah. Wow what a co-incidence.

This is totally irrational and unacceptable for any person blessed with wisdom.


The major mistake you are making is in trying to assume the what was said at Arafah according to Sunni Hadith contradicts what was said at Ghadir. The reality is, it doesn't, and your major scholars have accepted the statement "if you hold onto them you will never go astray".
And I have proven from the understanding of Sahabi who witnessed this event, that the mention of Ahlelbayt had nothing to do with guidance. And know the fundamental principle in the creed of Ahlus-sunnah, that the understanding of sahabi cannot be challenged by scholars of this era. The Sahabi had the deepest understanding of this event, because he lived that event. The scholars you mention, are just scratching the surface of knowledge. Hence the view and understanding of Sahabi is touch stone in this debate, and any view of a scholar of this era can never challenge the view of a Sahabi. This fact actually ends the debate for any unbiased truth-seeker.

Noor-us-Sunnah

Re: This version of Hadith al-Thaqalayn is Saheeh li Ghayrihi
« Reply #69 on: December 03, 2017, 03:47:50 AM »
Thus, both versions can be reconciled, and just because the Prophet (saw) said that there is guidance in the Quran does not mean there are no other sources of guidances. This sort of logic is not acceptable and not tenable. If only the Quran is adhered to for guidance, what about the Sunnah? Rather the Prophet only said that the Quran contains guidance. How does that contradict with adhering to the Quran and the Ahlulbayt? Rather, merely stating the Quran has guidance in it is merely praise of the Quran, and asking us to adhere onto the two weighty things , which if we will do so, we will never go astray is an acknowledgement of both the Quran and the Ahlulbayt.
Both narrations cannot be reconciled. Because, its not a Ziyadah, rather its faulty a text, where text was twisted. The narration of Zaid(ra) in Sahih Muslim, too mentions Ahlulbayt, but in regards to taking their care. And Quran alone as source of guidance. This is the accurate version, as you admitted. Now, how does this turn into Quran and Ahlelbayt both becoming source of guidance in another version? So where did the part of taking care for Ahlelbayt go? Did those narrators swallowed them up? No, rather they erroneously twisted the part which was about taking care of Ahlelbayt and narrated it as both are source of guidance. Thus you see both narrations cannot be reconciled. What really ends this discussion is the understanding of Zaid(ra) himself, he didn't understand that members of Ahlelbayt are source of guidance. Rather he believed they are all of those on whom Saqada(charity) acceptance was forbidden, and hence they are to be taken care of, after Prophet(saws), these people included sinners as well.

As for following Sunnah, then Following Sunnah is proven from Quran again, but unfortunately, this isn't the case for Ahlelbayt. So your argument falls flat.


Very few scholars have ever claimed the phrase 'if you adhere to them you will never go astray' goes against what is in Saheeh Muslim.
Great! So since there are few scholars who supported my view, then in that case, the fair judgement would only be made by looking that which scholar is following the rules of hadeeth scrutinization in a precise manner. And one of the correct way to know which of two disputed hadeeth is correct, is by looking how any of the Sahabi understood it. So there you go, again this rule also takes my side.


ASSUMING THAT ZAID(RA) COULD HAVE MISSED A STATEMENT,  BUT DID HE MISUNDERSTOOD HADEETH THAQALAYN?

Zayd was only explaining what members of the Family of the Prophet he believed the hadith was referring to. Remember he was also giving his opinion at this stage. Zayd was clearly stating who he believed were the true members of the family, and defined Ahlulbayt as explicit blood relations, who were referred to in this Hadith. Remember, Sunnis claim that the wives are also referred to in this tradition, and that we must respect them, and honour them, and that goes against the words of Zayd here who was merely giving his opinion.

Exactly and the understanding of a Sahabi is touch stone in this debate for Ahlus-sunnah.  And Zaid(ra) was spot on, in his understanding of the hadeeth and its purpose, in primary sense. That is he understood it rightly, that Ahlelbayt here are those members of Prophetic family, on whom Sadaqa acceptance is forbidden. This is the primary understanding, now Zaid(ra) not being aware of all those members of Prophetic family on whom Sadaqa acceptance is forbidden is not a big deal, because this is secondary issue. Hence, Zaid(ra) was spot on in his primary understanding of the hadeeth and that is what relevant to the topic.


SubhanAllah, several of your own major scholars of Hadith have not only graded several chains containing the statement as 'Hasan in chain' and even ' Saheeh in Chain' and even among he weaker narrations 'Hasan by witnesses', they have also explicitly authenticated the Matn and text. So to come here and claim the chains are dubious and to throw them outright, because of what the author of an online rebuttal forum thinks, over what major Sunn/Salafi scholars have themselves graded and decided, i feel can not be taken seriously by any seeker of the truth.
Alhamdulillah! Those weak versions were proven to be wrong in an academic way, its open for truth seekers with unbiased approach to judge themselves. On the top of that, those versions also go against the understanding of a Sahabi, and as per the creed of Ahlus-sunnah, the understanding of Sahabi takes precedence. The view of later scholar are nothing against the understanding of a Sahabi.



I'm sorry, but not only does this not have relevance, we have addressed this in this post, and on top of that, we are concerned primarily with the explicit statements of the Prophet (saw).
Wow, you quote the understanding of Al-sindi and others, and when I present the understanding of a Sahabi to disapprove your claim, then it becomes irrelevant. I salute your Double standards. The understanding of the Sahabi is very much relevant here brother, because his understanding, directly proves to us that which version is the correct one and which one is faulty and wrong. And as per the understanding of a Sahabi, the version you hold is unreliable, no matter what certain scholar out of lenience said about it. Because what judges between us, is the understandiing of Sahabi.

Hani

Re: This version of Hadith al-Thaqalayn is Saheeh li Ghayrihi
« Reply #70 on: December 03, 2017, 04:48:49 AM »
Actually if it seems the Shia is trying to weaken the version narrated by Zayd, alright, great we'll weaken it and we'll weaken the others and deem the whole story of Thaqalayn as weak. Less texts to bother with.

You're welcome to weaken Ghadir and others.
عَلامَةُ أَهْلِ الْبِدَعِ الْوَقِيعَةُ فِي أَهْلِ الأَثَرِ. وَعَلامَةُ الْجَهْمِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُشَبِّهَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الْقَدَرِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُجَبِّرَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الزَّنَادِقَةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ الأَثَرِ حَشْوِيَّةً

Religion = simple & clear

Noor-us-Sunnah

Re: This version of Hadith al-Thaqalayn is Saheeh li Ghayrihi
« Reply #71 on: December 03, 2017, 06:47:45 AM »
Even al-Albani accepts the statement ......
Interestingly, he contradicts Zayd. 

SubhanAllah! So you need to discard the view of Al-Albani, because he contradicts Sahabi of Prophet(saws) Zaid Ibn Arqam(ra). Zaid(ra) witnessed the event of hadeeth thaqlaayn, he knows why and for whom and for what purpose it was said by Prophet(saws). Al-Albani came 1300 years after him.

whoaretheshia

Re: This version of Hadith al-Thaqalayn is Saheeh li Ghayrihi
« Reply #72 on: December 10, 2017, 03:39:45 AM »
Actually if it seems the Shia is trying to weaken the version narrated by Zayd, alright, great we'll weaken it and we'll weaken the others and deem the whole story of Thaqalayn as weak. Less texts to bother with.

You're welcome to weaken Ghadir and others.

We aren't weakening Zayd at all. Rather we just want to put away this idea that seeing the Prophet and meeting him not only makes you completely trustworthy and upright (but not infallible) it also makes you immune to the effects of old age, the ability to even unknowingly sometimes make an error in what you say.

I personally don't believe a man who was nearing the end of his life, and for his era lived a very long life and complained consistently of his poor memory and very old age, even if he transmitted what he believed to be accurate, is somehow granted powers that ensure whatever he says does not neglect anything.  Ibn Umar in his youth would often err and miss out a particular thing and have to be corrected in the famous 'and field' incident with Abu Hurairah. There are many examples of this.

The fact we have two main versions, with additional phrases not used by Zayd, transmitted by far more people in each generation, to half a dozen or more companions, some of those, whether you will agree with me or not are Hasan outright, and some may be Hasan due to Shawahid in the eyes of the later scholars, is compelling evidence and i would say clear evidence that the phrase "And if you hold onto them you will never go astray" was uttered by the Prophet(saw).

The most intellectually honest Sunni position would be to do with al-Alabi, Muhammad Shadkir, al-Arnaut, al-Sindi , Ibn Hajar and many others have done which is to accept it is an authentic statement, but differ on the interpretation and strongly prove why it betters fits the Sunni interpretation.

DISCLAIMER: I AM AWAY UNTIL THE START OF THE NEW YEAR, PM ME IF I OWE YOU A REPLY, MAY ALLAH HAVE MERCY ON ALL OF US, FI AMANILLAH
" O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm in justice.. even if it be against yourselves... So follow not [personal] inclination, lest you not be jus

whoaretheshia

Re: This version of Hadith al-Thaqalayn is Saheeh li Ghayrihi
« Reply #73 on: December 10, 2017, 04:29:50 AM »
Where did Hani say that he believes that this statement was made by Prophet(saws) ? He merely mentions that the text is ambiguous, and by that he doesn't mean Prophet(saws) is ambiguous, AS YOU MISUNDERSTOOD ASUSUAL, but he meant the narrator who erroneously narrated that text, in such an ambiguous manner. So you see, your poor understanding skills is the cause of your frustration. Blame yourself not others.

Brother, Hani never said the statement was made by the Prophet (saw). The entire debate here is me convincing the two of you that according to orthodox Rijal standards, these traditions have Hasan chains, and the weaker ones Hasan due to Shawahid. Put aside the chains, it is to show you many scholars who authenticated it did so by both Sanad and Matn too.

Hani was saying that even if we took the Hadith are reliable, what would it matter? A number of major Sunni scholars who have authenticated and accepted it have given it T'awil Hani feels is perfectly appropriate to prove the Sunni view, and he finished by claiming the Shia are relying on ambitious Hadith i.e the version i am trying to prove. He believed this version we are debating on is still too ambiguous to prove the Shia point of view, which is something a number of your own major scholars who have defended this version have themselves stated.


Quote
What I have done is to follow one of the most fundamental usool of Hadeeth science.
قال الخطيب البغدادي: "السبيل إلى معرفة علة الحديث أن يجمع بين طرقه، وينظر في اختلاف رواته، ويعتبر بمكانهم في الحفظ، ومنزلتهم في الإتقان والضبط"
Abu Bakr al-Khatib said,"The way to discover the defect of a hadith is to collect the lines of transmission, examine the differences of its transmitters and examine their position in regard to retention and their status in regard to exactitude and precision [Uloom al-hadeth, page 82].

I am not going to begin insulting you here or questioning your credentials, but i am sure that you are aware of the basic principle that merely having a narrator who sometimes made a mistake, or a narrator going by the following: "Nevertheless, in the case in question (saduqun yukhti-u, or saduqun yahimu or saduqun lahu awham), such a narrator’s Hadiths can be sound (hasan), depending on the nature of the Hadith’s content and its topic of discussion."
(Refer: Shaykh ‘Awwamah’s footnotes on Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah, Hadith: 723, 6028 and 6934)


Quote
So, when two ahadeeth has some conflicting info in them about a same topic, then we find the defect by scrutinizing the narrators of both hadeeth, checking their status in regard to exactitude and precision, and Katheer ibn Zayd, as you agree is not known for exactitude and precision, atleast, even if you don't believe he is weak as some scholars deemed him, as follows. 

We need to be very clear here in that you are the one assuming the traditions conflict. The reality is, they do not conflict, and many of your own major scholars have accepted both versions as authentic. Shaykh al-Albani, al-Arnaut, al-Sindi , Ibn Hajar, and we could go on , accepted it as authentic , not conflicted with the tradition of Zayd, but gave it their own interpretations.

A contradiction would be something that went along the lines of;

A. (Saheeh)Zayd: I am leaving behind for you two weighty things, the Quran and my Sunnah (said at Ghadir)
B. (Hasan Chains) Ali ibn Abi Talin: I am leaving behind for you two weighty things, the Quran and my Alulbayt (said at Ghadir)

In this instance, given the location is the same, the speech referenced is the same, the two versions contradict each other. You might be forgiven here for claiming that the two can not be reconciled.

However in the traditions of Thaqalayn we have, there are no outright contradictions, Zayd remembered a portion of what was said, and other companions merely added to what he said. Even ibn Taymiyyah believed in the line 'and they will never separate until they meet me at the pond' as an additional authentic expression. I have rarely come across many or any scholars who hold the view that he two traditions are someone mutually exclusive.

Here I'll quote Mahajjah article about Katheer ibn Zayd.

Quote
Mahajjah website states:

The writers on here have an absolutely horrendous grasp of ilm al Rijal. They pick some words against a narrator, and then claim he is weak based on those words, despite the fact the way ilm al Rijal works is studying who claimed such a narrator was weak, why they claimed so, what proof they had, and the other comments made on the particular narrator. That is why you have works of Ibn Hajar are considered the best when it comes to the overall grading of a narrator, because he took into account the praise and the words against them, investigated them and gave an over all verdict. Unfortunately, that website finds Ibn Hiban saying x against a narrator, ibn Shahin Y, and then calling him weak , when five others have regarded him Thiqah, and ibn Hajar has also done so, or at the least Saduq.

The definitive proof which shows their ignorance is that they never once picked up on the Tadlees of Habib ibn Thabit or Amash, and in fact didn't even weaken chains with those individual in them, especially when they did not explicitly state ' i heard from' or the like. 

Quote
I'm glad that you agree that what matters are the evidences. And the fact is that even if 10 weak reports goes against an authentically proven hadeeth, those all reports get discarded as weak.

I don't disagree with this brother. The only two issues you have here is that A. The traditions are not weak, but graded Hasan some of the most well respected scholars in the field of Hadith. B. Not regarded s contradicting and conflicting with the version of Zayd by many scholars.

Quote
So lets see is the status of the report you claim to be hasan in your article, under the light of evidences.

Ahmad ibn Hambal — (1) al-Aswad ibn `Amir — (2) Sharik — (3) al-Rukayn —(4) al-Qasim ibn Hassan — from Zayd ibn Thabit that Rasulullah salla Llahu `alayhi wa sallam said:

So you see Shareek is a da`if narrator, he commits many mistakes, he has contradictions in his narrations, he has a weak memory, he hides his sources and he is an extremist Shi`ah. After these elucidations there is no question about accepting his narrations as proof in this chapter.[Credit:Mahajjah]

This is why you should never on that website, and i will demonstrate to you why their so-called ilm al Rijal has failed badly. For one, there are some narrators called 'Shia' and one person has levelled his accusation or said 'some said he was Shia'. The fact is if you look at the overall reports about him, it is a mistake to call him Shia. This is why picking and choosing in Rijal can lead to some severe errors.

Ibn Hajar-Al-Asqalani writes: “Sharik b. ‘Abd Allah al-Nakha’i al-Kufi al-Qadi, (resided) first at Wasit and then Kufah, Abu ‘Abd Allah: Saduq (very truthful), made a lot of mistakes. His memory deteriorated since he became the judge in Kufah. He was just, excellent, a great worshipper of Allah, and he was severe against the people of bid’ah


Quote
Imam Shafi’i  said, "If he is a proselytizer, there is no disagreement among them that his transmission is not to be accepted." [Uloom al-hadeeth ibn salah, pg 87]

Abu Hatim b. Hibban al-Busti - one of the authorities of hadith who wrote books - said, "According to our authorities, it is absolutely forbidden to cite the hadith of a proselytizer for sectarian doctrines. I do not know of any disagreement among them on this point.'" [Uloom al-hadeeth ibn salah, pg 87]

Sharik was not Shia. As for making mistakes, the scholars differ on how to judge him based on this. For one, his mistakes and memory decline only occurred when he was old and the Judge. Secondly, it is well known that Sunni scholars can disagree on a narrator. Sometimes Muslim has a narrator he uses as Hujjah whom Bukhari does not, and vice versa. Sometimes scholars accept an individuals Hadith, and others may not. Sometimes the same Scholar can change his view.

As for his mistakes:

1) al-Dhahabi said: “Al-Bukhari uses him as a witness, and Muslim narrates from him in mutaba’at. Al-Nasai and others rely upon him as a hujjah. [7]” and Dhahabi said: ” I (al-Dhahabi) say: Sharik was hasan al-hadith (i.e. his ahadith are hasan). He was an Imam, a jurist, a prolific hadith narrator. He was not as precise as Hammad b. Zayd. Al-Bukhari has used him as a witness, Muslim has narrated mutaba’at reports from him, and Yahya b. Ma’in declared him thiqah (trustworthy) … His ahadith are in the hasan categories. [8]“  (2) Imam Al Hakim writes: “(Imam) Muslim has relied upon Sharik b. ‘Abd Allah as a hujjah, and he is to be relied upon as a hujjah [9]” (3) Ibn Hajar-Al-Asqalani writes: “Sharik b. ‘Abd Allah al-Nakha’i al-Kufi al-Qadi, (resided) first at Wasit and then Kufah, Abu ‘Abd Allah: Saduq (very truthful), made a lot of mistakes. His memory deteriorated since he became the judge in Kufah. He was just, excellent, a great worshipper of Allah, and he was severe against the people of bid’ah [10]” (4) Imam al-‘Ijli states: “Sharik b. ‘Abd Allah al-Nakha’i, the judge, Kufi: Thiqah (trustworthy), and he was hasan al-hadith (i.e. his ahadith are hasan). [11]”

He developed a memory problem when he became the judge of Kufah. Before this period, he was a completely accurate narrator. We find that (5) Imam Ibn ‘Adi writes: “The overwhelming majority of his ahadith are sahih and accurate (from his shuyukh). As for the repugnancy in his ahadith, that occurred only due to his poor memory [12]”

Quote
This is not what the correction version of Hadeeth Thaqalayn says, this is why we have contradiction. The authentic version from Sahih Muslim mentions Quran ALONE as source of guidance. 

This is the fallacy again. Do we not agree that the Ijmah of the companions is guidance ? Do you not agree that the Ijmah of the Ahulbayt is guidance? Do you not agree you must follow the way of the Prophet (saw) and also follow the way of his rightly guided successors? Do you not accept that the Sunnah of the Prophet is guidance along side the Quran?  For argument, let me just accept he said 'Hold onto the Quran' at Arafah. Does that mean he has never said before 'Hold onto my Sunnah' or 'Hold onto the way of my rightly guided successors' ? Does it mean after he can not elucidate on a number of other things which we can hold onto for guidance ?

Furthermore, in the version of Zayd, all he said was 'I am leaving behind two weighty things, The Quran - In it is guidance'  Simply claiming the Quran contains guidance does not mean it is the only thing we should adhere to for guidance. If the Prophet told us to follow his way and the way of his rightly guided successors , as well as to follow the Quran which contains guidance in it, it does not mean that only the Quran guides , but rather the Quran, along with this rightly guided successors are both guides and both sources of guidance.


Quote
Scholars authenticated those reports out of lenience, as they believed them to be matters of Fadhail. 

Why are you repeating this? Remember, the Hadith is not just Fadhail (though it encompasses it), it is a command by the Prophet (saw), therefore it is a pertinent and serious issue, whether merely looking after his family, following their Ijmah, or as the Shia state, following the rightly guided successors from his Ahlulbayt.

Furthermore i have demonstrated that al-Arnaut al-Albani, and a number of other scholars have weakened the chain of the very same Hadith when the chain itself is weak. So the idea the scholars have just been lax in terms of grading is false.


Example:

Jabir ibn Abdullah said, “I saw the Prophet (saw) during his pilgrimage as was on his camel speaking, so I heard him say, “I left you that you must abide by that you will never go astray, the book of Allah (swt) and my Ahlulbayt (a.s).”
Footnote: Sahih li ghayri(authentic due to external evidence), the chain of this narration however is weak, because of Zayd Ibn Al-Hasan he is Qurashi and Al-Anmati.

When the chain is weak, they are willing to say, the chain is weak for this very hadith. In other places they outright grade the chain Hasan because the chain is Hasan. Sometimes in later editions you find them grading a weak chain Hasan due to Shawahid (corroborating witnesses).  This 'lax' argument is nothing more than contrary to the actual facts.

Quote
But DON'T FORGET there are scholars who weakened these reports as well. So in this case the one whose verdict will carry weight is that those who abided by the rules of hadeeth science in a proper manner, and not being lenient.

Ibn Hajar, al-Arnaut, al-Albani, Muhammad Shakir, and many others have openly declared chains with weak narrators as weak, in fact, of this very tradition and i have demonstrated that with al-Albani and al-Arnaut. They are the most influential Hadith scholars in the Sunni world, arguably some of the most qualified and well respected. You don't find them grading weak chains as 'Saheeh' or 'Hasan' by Isnad. Rather, they are very direct in grading the chains weak and i have demonstrated this over a number of posts over a number of pages.

So you might now claim they graded them normally by chain , but that doesn't mean they accepted the Matn as authentic, but rather they were lax in accepting the Matn because a similar thing exists in other books like Sahih Muslim. The reality is, al-Arnaut was quick to criticise parts of the Matn he did not believe were authentic and i have demonstrated that to you. Al-Albani himself accepted the second version and gave it his own T'awil.

Quote
In your dreams. Following Sunnah is proven from Quran again, but unfortunately, this isn't the case for Ahlelbayt. So your logic falls flat.

We are ordered to follow whatever the Prophet (saw) tells us. Following his Sunnah IS following the ones he commands us to follow and in effect IS following Allah. According to Sunni Fiqh, Muttawatir reports are pretty much on level with the Quran in terms of obedience and acting upon them. Put this aside , you believe there will be a man, al-Mahdi, who Jesus Christ will pray behind (Saheeh Muslim) who will be the Imam and ruler of the entire world-wide Ummah , who is a descendent of the Prophet (saw) through his daughter, and who will bring everlasting peace and prosperity on earth after a tumultuous series of major battles. Where is he mentioned in the Quran? Where does it say to follow him?

Rather, Allah commanded us to follow himself, to follow the Prophet (saw), and those vested with authority, and al-Mahdi is going to be one of those vested with authority, whom the Prophet (saw) himself spoke about and traditions about al-Mahadi are Muttawatir, meaning it is Kufr to deny al-Mahdi or his existence.


Quote
When majority of the Ummah was gathered in Arafah, and they needed the words of advice from Prophet(saws), especially the most important one in regards to guidance. Prophet(saws) mentions just Quran, as if for them guidance of Ahlelbayt was not needed. But then couple of days later, when a large portion of those present in Arafah are not there, he mentions them about guidance again and adds Ahlelbayt along with Quran. Why? What crime did the majority of Muslims from different regions of Arabia did? And ironically Allah too perfected the religion there, without commanding prophet(saws) to mention Ahlelbayt as well in arafah. Wow what a co-incidence.

I can answer this, but as i stated in the OP, the debate is solely surrounding the authenticity of this version and nothing else.


Quote
And I have proven from the understanding of Sahabi who witnessed this event, that the mention of Ahlelbayt had nothing to do with guidance. And know the fundamental principle in the creed of Ahlus-sunnah, that the understanding of sahabi cannot be challenged by scholars of this era.

The reality is, the consensus of the Sunnis is that the wives are included in Ahlulbayt, and that they are included in the Ahlulbayt mentioned in this tradition.  In fact, most of the refutation websites made by the Salafi-Atharis and others do not agree with the explanation of Zayd.

Here is one example: http://www.chiite.fr/en/ahlul_bayt_04.html
Here is another: https://islamqa.info/en/10055

The companions are not viewed as 'infallible' and are capable of erring in their judgement. In fact, it is the Shia who have pushed his opinion of Zayd.

Quote
The Sahabi had the deepest understanding of this event, because he lived that event. The scholars you mention, are just scratching the surface of knowledge. Hence the view and understanding of Sahabi is touch stone in this debate, and any view of a scholar of this era can never challenge the view of a Sahabi. This fact actually ends the debate for any unbiased truth-seeker.

Don't you think the scholars are aware of this, or the virtue in their eyes of certain companions? Yet, they do not believe every single opinion a companion gives is automatically Hujjah, if it is from himself, and companions can sometimes err and give their own opinion on an issue.  Nevermind the fact it goes against the consensus view of the Sunni world that those intended are also the wives, and the Ummah is commanded to take care of them all and uphold the Ijmah of the view of the wives and other members of the family of the Prophet (saw)
DISCLAIMER: I AM AWAY UNTIL THE START OF THE NEW YEAR, PM ME IF I OWE YOU A REPLY, MAY ALLAH HAVE MERCY ON ALL OF US, FI AMANILLAH
" O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm in justice.. even if it be against yourselves... So follow not [personal] inclination, lest you not be jus

whoaretheshia

Re: This version of Hadith al-Thaqalayn is Saheeh li Ghayrihi
« Reply #74 on: December 10, 2017, 04:33:24 AM »

You're welcome to weaken Ghadir and others.

Ibn Taymiyyah has already done that for me, and was reprimanded by al-Albani for it:

 ةٌمٌت نب ملسلا خٌش تٌأر ًننأ , ثٌدحلا نم لولا رطشلا فعض دق , امأ و  رخلا رطشلا ,بذك هنأ معزف ! هعرست نم يرٌدقت ًف ةجتانلا هتغلابم نم اذه و اهٌف رظنلا ققدٌ و اهقرط عمجٌ نأ لبق ثٌداحلا فٌعضت ًف 

Rough Translation: When I saw Sheikh ul Islam Ibn Taymiyah considering the Hadith (For whosoever I am Mawla then Ali is his Mawla) as weak/doubtful in its first half and “LIE IN ITS SECOND” then I had to write in length over this issue. In my viewpoint, the reason behind such exaggeration (of Ibn Taymiyah) was that he used to be hasty in deciding the inauthenticity of some Hadiths before seeing them properly [Silsilat ul Ahadith as-Sahiha, Volume No.4, Page No. 344] 

Anyone who has read the works of Ibn Taymiyyah know he is very weak in judging Hadith, very weak in arguing, very weak in Aqeedah and on several occasions goes against the Ijmah on Fiqh issues, such as the suckling of an Adult among other things.
DISCLAIMER: I AM AWAY UNTIL THE START OF THE NEW YEAR, PM ME IF I OWE YOU A REPLY, MAY ALLAH HAVE MERCY ON ALL OF US, FI AMANILLAH
" O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm in justice.. even if it be against yourselves... So follow not [personal] inclination, lest you not be jus

whoaretheshia

Re: This version of Hadith al-Thaqalayn is Saheeh li Ghayrihi
« Reply #75 on: December 10, 2017, 04:48:39 AM »
Both narrations cannot be reconciled. Because, its not a Ziyadah, rather its faulty a text, where text was twisted. The narration of Zaid(ra) in Sahih Muslim, too mentions Ahlulbayt, but in regards to taking their care. And Quran alone as source of guidance. This is the accurate version, as you admitted. Now, how does this turn into Quran and Ahlelbayt both becoming source of guidance in another version? So where did the part of taking care for Ahlelbayt go? Did those narrators swallowed them up? No, rather they erroneously twisted the part which was about taking care of Ahlelbayt and narrated it as both are source of guidance. Thus you see both narrations cannot be reconciled. What really ends this discussion is the understanding of Zaid(ra) himself, he didn't understand that members of Ahlelbayt are source of guidance. Rather he believed they are all of those on whom Saqada(charity) acceptance was forbidden, and hence they are to be taken care of, after Prophet(saws), these people included sinners as well. 

Brother , you are only strengthening the Shia position here. You are saying that the second version clearly gives the idea that we must hold onto the Quran and Ahlulbayt for guidance, rather than just looking after them and giving them a little bit of money from the Khums. Thus, it would heavily support the Shia interpretation. In order to try to get around this, in addition to erroneously weakening the tradition by chain , you have sought to weaken it by Matn and claim that it contradicts the version of Zayd.

Let me just tell you, there are some Hasan chains for this version, and among the weaker chains, scholars such as al-Arnaut and al-Albani have strengthened those due to Shawahid and graded them 'Hasan'. In fact, this tradition is reported by so many regarded truthful and acceptable in Hadith and graded likewise, in addition from several companions, through thirty or more chains of transmission that calling it all a simple twisting of the truth is bordering on an enormous conspiracy which most of your own scholars have not even gone and attempted to claim.

Again, the tradition of Zayd does not contradict these versions, which is why many of your scholars have reconciled the traditions.

Do we not agree that the Ijmah of the companions is guidance ? Do you not agree that the Ijmah of the Ahulbayt is guidance? Do you not agree you must follow the way of the Prophet (saw) and also follow the way of his rightly guided successors? Do you not accept that the Sunnah of the Prophet is guidance along side the Quran?  For argument, let me just accept he said 'Hold onto the Quran' at Arafah. Does that mean he has never said before 'Hold onto my Sunnah' or 'Hold onto the way of my rightly guided successors' ? Does it mean after he can not elucidate on a number of other things which we can hold onto for guidance ?

Furthermore, in the version of Zayd, all he said was 'I am leaving behind two weighty things, The Quran - In it is guidance'  Simply claiming the Quran contains guidance does not mean it is the only thing we should adhere to for guidance. If the Prophet told us to follow his way and the way of his rightly guided successors , as well as to follow the Quran which contains guidance in it, it does not mean that only the Quran guides , but rather the Quran, along with this rightly guided successors are both guides and both sources of guidance.

As for following Sunnah, then Following Sunnah is proven from Quran again, but unfortunately, this isn't the case for Ahlelbayt. So your argument falls flat.

 
Quote
Great! So since there are few scholars who supported my view, then in that case, the fair judgement would only be made by looking that which scholar is following the rules of hadeeth scrutinization in a precise manner. And one of the correct way to know which of two disputed hadeeth is correct, is by looking how any of the Sahabi understood it. So there you go, again this rule also takes my side.

Yes, and therefore you should take the view of Ibn Hajar, Dhahabi, al-Albani, Muhammed Shakir, and al-Arnaut , who have weakened versions of this hadith with a weak chain, graded some outright Hasan (or Saheeh), and graded some of the weaker versions as 'Hasan by chain due to corroborating witnesses'. Instead you are relying on a website which can not distinguish who a Muddalis was, claimed Sharik was an outright Shia, and believes Ilm al Rijal is going into book and finding a few bad words about someone and wholeheartedly ignoring a holistic method and what those who weighed up all of the opinions like ibn Hajar, Dhahabi, and others have said.


Quote
Exactly and the understanding of a Sahabi is touch stone in this debate for Ahlus-sunnah.  And Zaid(ra) was spot on, in his understanding of the hadeeth and its purpose, in primary sense. That is he understood it rightly, that Ahlelbayt here are those members of Prophetic family, on whom Sadaqa acceptance is forbidden. This is the primary understanding, now Zaid(ra) not being aware of all those members of Prophetic family on whom Sadaqa acceptance is forbidden is not a big deal, because this is secondary issue. Hence, Zaid(ra) was spot on in his primary understanding of the hadeeth and that is what relevant to the topic.

The problem is, most of your scholars believe the wives are included in this Hadith. The very same scholars who know more than you and i about the very point you are making. Furthermore, freed slaves of the Prophet (saw) are also forbidden Sadaqah:

"It was narrated that Mihraan the freed slave of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said; “We are the family of Muhammad: the sadaqah is not permissible for us, and the freed slave of a people is one of them.” (Narrated by Ahmad, no. 15152).

Quote
Alhamdulillah! Those weak versions were proven to be wrong in an academic way, its open for truth seekers with unbiased approach to judge themselves.

Nothing like this was proven at all. You did not address:

1. That Ibn Hajar, Muhammad Shakir, and al-Arnaut outright graded the first version as 'Hasan.
2. You did not address the fact al-Albani graded the second as Hasan
3. You did not address for weaker chains, i provided proof and references where al-Albani and al-Arnaut graded those as 'Hasan' due to Shawahid.
4. Your criticism of Sharik based on allegations of Shi'sm is not admissible. Your point about his memory does not have an Ijmah whatsoever, and many of the great scholars of Hadith as i have proven have graded him Hasan ul-Hadth.

Quote
On the top of that, those versions also go against the understanding of a Sahabi, and as per the creed of Ahlus-sunnah, the understanding of Sahabi takes precedence. The view of later scholar are nothing against the understanding of a Sahabi. Wow, you quote the understanding of Al-sindi and others, and when I present the understanding of a Sahabi to disapprove your claim, then it becomes irrelevant. I salute your Double standards. The understanding of the Sahabi is very much relevant here brother, because his understanding, directly proves to us that which version is the correct one and which one is faulty and wrong. And as per the understanding of a Sahabi, the version you hold is unreliable, no matter what certain scholar out of lenience said about it. Because what judges between us, is the understandiing of Sahabi.

As i have mentioned, even freed slaves are considered as those upon whom Sadaqah is not accepted yet we find no mention of them. The scholars are more aware of the status of a companion than you and i, and men like al-Albani would not be ignorant of this simple point. However, the dominant view is that the wives are included as part of the second 'Thiqal' left by the Prophet (saw).  Personally speaking, the opinion of Zayd is not Hujjah on me even if you able to prove the view of most of your scholars was wrong.
DISCLAIMER: I AM AWAY UNTIL THE START OF THE NEW YEAR, PM ME IF I OWE YOU A REPLY, MAY ALLAH HAVE MERCY ON ALL OF US, FI AMANILLAH
" O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm in justice.. even if it be against yourselves... So follow not [personal] inclination, lest you not be jus

Hadrami

Re: This version of Hadith al-Thaqalayn is Saheeh li Ghayrihi
« Reply #76 on: December 10, 2017, 05:04:06 AM »
we are arguing pages upon pages when if we agree with shia understanding, it is clearly doesnt make sense. How can you say you will leave something and we have to use it, but then hide it? 😂😂 Shia logic of shialand

Hani

Re: This version of Hadith al-Thaqalayn is Saheeh li Ghayrihi
« Reply #77 on: December 16, 2017, 02:06:20 AM »
Fun quote I read in the past and stumbled upon again, could come in handy:

 قال الحافظ الزيلعي في نصب الراية 1/360
وكم من حديث كثرت رواته وتعددت طرقه، وهو حديث ضعيف

al-Hafiz al-Zayla`i said in Nasb-ul-Rayah 1/360:
[We find plenty of traditions reported by numerous narrators and many chains, yet they are still weak.]

He means that if the motivations are found, plenty of people can narrate faulty stories and fabricate texts which only increases those texts in weakness.
« Last Edit: December 16, 2017, 02:07:48 AM by Hani »
عَلامَةُ أَهْلِ الْبِدَعِ الْوَقِيعَةُ فِي أَهْلِ الأَثَرِ. وَعَلامَةُ الْجَهْمِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُشَبِّهَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الْقَدَرِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُجَبِّرَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الزَّنَادِقَةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ الأَثَرِ حَشْوِيَّةً

Religion = simple & clear

Noor-us-Sunnah

Re: This version of Hadith al-Thaqalayn is Saheeh li Ghayrihi
« Reply #78 on: December 19, 2017, 08:19:43 PM »
We aren't weakening Zayd at all. Rather we just want to put away this idea that seeing the Prophet and meeting him not only makes you completely trustworthy and upright (but not infallible) it also makes you immune to the effects of old age, the ability to even unknowingly sometimes make an error in what you say.
No one claims that a Sahabi is infallible nor that he is prone to committing mistakes, but we are stressing on the fact that, the Sahabi himself demonstrated extreme caution while narrating. He only narrated that, which he was confident and asked the questioner to ACCEPT IT.


I personally don't believe a man who was nearing the end of his life, and for his era lived a very long life and complained consistently of his poor memory and very old age, even if he transmitted what he believed to be accurate, is somehow granted powers that ensure whatever he says does not neglect anything.  Ibn Umar in his youth would often err and miss out a particular thing and have to be corrected in the famous 'and field' incident with Abu Hurairah. There are many examples of this.
Missing a sentence(which is authentic), doesn't change the meaning of the hadeeth. Secondly, did Ibn Umar(ra) display confidence and accuracy in what he narrated, like how Zayd(ra) did? If not, then your example is irrelevant here.


The fact we have two main versions, with additional phrases not used by Zayd, transmitted by far more people in each generation, to half a dozen or more companions, some of those, whether you will agree with me or not are Hasan outright, and some may be Hasan due to Shawahid in the eyes of the later scholars, is compelling evidence and i would say clear evidence that the phrase "And if you hold onto them you will never go astray" was uttered by the Prophet(saw).
Missing a sentence(which is authentic), doesn't change the meaning of the hadeeth. As for one of the version which you claim to be Hasan, is again ambiguous and can be interpreted to mean Quran alone as it says  (أخذتم به) "hold onto IT(singular), this is not dual. Hence to demonstrate that Zayd(ra) missed the sentence of hadeeth which changes the meaning of hadeeth or he narrated it incorrectly, then you need to have an equally strong evidence. So far what you have got is weak IN COMPARISION to hadeeth of Zayd(ra). 


The most intellectually honest Sunni position would be to do with al-Alabi, Muhammad Shadkir, al-Arnaut, al-Sindi , Ibn Hajar and many others have done which is to accept it is an authentic statement, but differ on the interpretation and strongly prove why it betters fits the Sunni interpretation.
Scholars authenticated it due to lenience, and its example is similar to hadeeth of Quran and Sunnah, even though hadeeth is weak but scholars authenticated and accepted it due it meaning being acceptable. However, with hadeeth thaqalayn(the faulty version) its a different issue, because you want to use their grading out of lenience but reject their interpretation of it. While they authenticated it because they thought its meaning(which they understood ) was acceptable, similar to Quran and Sunnah hadeeth.  But again this doesn't become a hujjah on Sunnis, because these gradings can be challenged and actually have been challenged and proven to be incorrect, as per the standards of hadeeth science.

Shaikh Ali Muhammad as-Sallabi stated in his book:

Dr. Muhammad Ali as-Saloos, who discussed the speech at Ghadeer and the advice to adhere to the Quran and Sunnah. He studied the reports about adhering to the Quran and Sunnah and the reports about adhering to the Quran and the family of the Prophet(saw) and examined them critically, then he said: “From the above, we can see that the hadith of the two weighty matters is one of the hadiths which are sound in both chain of narration and text. However, of the eight reports which enjoin adhering to the family of the Prophet(saw) alongside the noble Quran, not one of them is free of some weakness in the chain of narration”. (See: Ma’a Al-Shia al-Ithna Asharia, vol 1, page 136). [Source: Ali ibn Abi Talib, by Ali Muhammad as-sallabi, vol 2, page 411].

For a better understanding let me give you an example from Shia ahadeeth, there is ahadeeth in al-Kafi about 17000 verses of Quran. This was authenticated by multiple Shia scholars. Likes of Baqir Majlisi even explained it. Yet Shias who made a deep study about its chain found that it has a hidden defect, and they reject this hadeeth(like Nader Zaveri). Now would this hadeeth be a hujjah on you because multiple Shia scholars authenticated it and explained it?

Optimus Prime

Re: This version of Hadith al-Thaqalayn is Saheeh li Ghayrihi
« Reply #79 on: December 20, 2017, 08:23:38 PM »
Brother Noor-us-Sunnah has touched up a significant point.

The scholars who classified the Hadith as sound due to lineancy, did they change their aqeedah, or belief that Deen should come from the family of the Prophet (SAW) including his progency? The fact, they never mentioned such a thing supports what Noor-us-Sunnah is saying.

Although, whoaretheshia has stated in this thread, he doesn't believe it supports the Shia narrative considering the narration in Sahih Muslim explicitly states to look after the family of the Prophet (SAW), he is still clearly on a mission to deviate the minds of the weary Sunni Muslims. Do not be fooled.

We are bound  to focus on the Shariah - on the teachings of the Qur’an and Sunnah. We are not supposed to glance beyond the confines of the Shariah and to create turmoil in our beliefs by postulating unfounded, unsubstantiated theories acquired by means of hallucination conjoured up by the Shias. Regardless of how appealing and appeasing to the intellect the theory of Imamah may  appear, the fact remains that it is totally unsubstantiated by the Qur’an and Ahaadith. In fact, it is in glaring conflict with the teachings of the Deen.

May Allah (SWT) save our Imaan from the onslaught of satanism.

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
887 Views
Last post October 11, 2015, 04:12:17 PM
by Abdullah Efendi
2 Replies
597 Views
Last post March 20, 2016, 03:19:27 PM
by Abu Muhammad
21 Replies
389 Views
Last post April 24, 2017, 06:28:58 AM
by Zlatan Ibrahimovic
0 Replies
129 Views
Last post May 24, 2017, 01:18:45 AM
by Hadrami