InshaAllah, Youpuncturedtheark, will reply to this article soon.
We are looking forward to it. We have collected several instances where they have presented things one sided , or used a form of ilm al Rijal which is deceitful more than anything else. Just remind them that this is not a debate about al-Thaqalayn, but only how to ascertain the most reliable version. Also ask them to go back and correct all of their previous articles and errors, and ask them to consult proper research this time round.
My advice to whoaretheshia team is that, they must learn some basics of hadeeth sciences and its principles. Its as if we are reading some articles written desperate non-academics. And whole of their article is filled with stupidity and jahalah.
We will await the response you make. For one, we are those willing to amend positions and not stubbornly hold onto them. We sincerely hope you do not apply online standards of Rijal. However, we will withhold judgement and see how you overrule al-Albani. There is very little 'Jahalah'. These are two Hasan chains, attested to even by al-Albani. We can play the game of Jarh and T'adil all we like brother.
Aren't you guys aware of the basic concept that, a narration can have a hasan or Sahih chain, but have a faulty text?
And I have a simple question for you, in regards to Thaqalayn.
Until Arafah as per authentic ahadeeth, by more than one Sahabi, the means holding which people would never go astray was Quran alone(as there was no mention of Ahlulbayt at Arafah).
The religion was perfected in Arafah.
There is one version of Hadeeth in Ghadeer which singles out Quran again as means holding which people will not go astray.
Keeping all these factors in mind, do you think that after deen was perfected in Arafah, a couple of days later, a new means of guidance was added alongside Quran holding which people will not go astray?
Ofcourse,Thanks .
So i would like to see your strategy here:I'll do both InshaAllah.
1. Will you try to weaken any of the two Hasan chains ?
2. Will you try to somehow prove the wording is faulty, and this would be far too easy for us , with due respect to counter.
These can be easily addressed but as we have stated clearly, before we jump to that discussion we want to ascertain the reliability of the Hadith we are mentioning. We have stated this clearly at the beginning of our article on our website.
Thanks .
I'll do both InshaAllah.
Because both problems are interlinked. Because of defects in the narrators the text of the narrated was transmitted in faulty way going against the stronger version of hadeeth. As simple as that. This will be explained in detail InshaAllah.
A hadeeth consists of chain and text both. Not just chain . And with these external strong evidences, the fault in the text of hadeeth you are clinging on can easily be proven to people who are unbiased.
The hadith comes through two Hasan chains. It become Saheeh li Ghayri. The words 'if you hold onto them you will never go astray' as corroborated in well over twenty other additional chains. They have been accepted by many of your scholars who have instead, opted to just make their own T'awil about what the tradition is saying.
The hadeeth you are quoting are weak on their own . Not hasan .
Secondly, the text of the report is faulty. And no matter how many they are if they go against the authentic version , supported by external reports as well , then they are classed as Munkar.
Scholars accepted it out of lenience because they are lenient in regards to ahadeeth of virtues. But when it comes to deriving rulings from these type of reports or basing a belief on them , then such reports are outrightly rejected .
Salam,
I don't have much of my material on me, but this Hadith is actually weak not "Hasan", I graded "Hasan" due to lenience concerning `Ali's grandsons but the narrator "Muhammad bin `Umar bin `Ali bin abi Talib" as far as I know is Majhul:
حدثنا سليمان بن عبيد الله الغيلاني، حدثنا أبو عامر، حدثنا كثير بن زيد، عن محمد بن عمر بن علي، عن أبيه، عن علي رضي الله عنه أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال :إني تركت فيكم ما إن أخذتم به لن تضلوا :كتاب الله، سببه بيد الله، وسببه بأيديكم، وأهل بيتي.
So this is weak in reality.
According to my research It also appears even Dhahabi regarded him as Thiqah (Al-Kashif fi Ma`rifa Man Lahu Riwaya fi al-Kutub al-Sitta, an abridgment of the Tadhhib), Volume 3, page 82 and there are others.
Grt, but that's not how Hadith science works, please bring evidence of him being a Thiqah narrator. I'm not asking for 2 or 3, just 1 evidence.
Are you saying Ibn Hajar, Dhahabi, Ibn Hiban et al have all erred declaring him Saduq or Thiqah? As well as Hadith scholars such as Arnaut explicitly stating that the chain is Hasan (and a number of others join him in doing this, or elevate it higher than that).
I am aware someone simply claiming 'he is weak' without evidence isn't to be taken unless they provide evidence, rather than just make disparaging statements, but these are some major hadith scholars who have looked at the corpus of material and have not graded him Majhul, but have opted to trust his narrations and said he is truthful or trustworthy. Men like Dhahabi and ibn Hajar have come well after, and have analysed everything to subsequently declare them thus.
Put aside the fact he is the grandson of Ali ibn Abi Talib, and the great grandson of the Messenger of Allah (saw).
erred or not erred isn't my problem, this is a religion of evidence, what's the evidence?
don't give me grandson arguments, that's not how we authenticate, it's very un-academic to say the least and opposes religious philosophy and justice.
The main part of my argument is presenting to you the fact men more knowledgable than you in the field of Hadith, who had access to the whole corpus of material, such as ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, and Dhahabi, have declared him Saduq and Thiqah respectively. Ibn Hiban and others have also given him Thawtheeq. Do you believe you know more than them? What you now want to do is overrule them, and overrule those who have explicitly stated the chain is Hasan or above, like Arnaut, who have probably relied on the grading of the Hadith scholars before him.
Even those who raised a point about Mahjul adding something interesting you might want to read: وقال بن القطان حاله مجهول لكن زعم أنه محمد بن عمر بن علي بن الحسين بن علي بن أبي طالب وأظنه وهم في ذلك [Ibn Hajar cites him]
It isn't any significant part of my argument, and i said 'put aside he is the grandson' meaning that when you made this Hasan because he was the Grandson, you didn't even need to do that, considering major scholars have regarded him reliable to accept Hadith from.
Are you , with due respect, going to overrule ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, Ibn Hiban (and others), as well as Dhahabi who have all agreed to accept his traditions as those of someone truthful and reliable and that there no problem with them? Arnaut didn't grade this Hasan for the reasons you did, but he followed the views of the previous scholars. This is just confirming that online rebuttal websites create their own criteria.
Ibn Hajar and al-Dhahabi are more knowledgeable than you and they chose to be Sunni, are you going to oppose them and remain Shia?
Please don't waste our time, seems you've no clue about Hadith science methodologies.
Some may grade something Hasan due to lenience or because it's a virtue or because other versions similar to it are authentic,
similarly Ibn Hajar & Dhahabi may count on factoring Ibn Hibban & `Ijli's gradings but they're clearly not reliable judgements of narrators.
Nothing out of the ordinary bro, this is all not acceptable as methodology for grading accurately.
PS. They're most likely more knwoledge than you in life, older, well red, more experienced, better grasp of Arabic, more access to sources etc.. So yes, feel free to become Sunni based on that.
Address my post.
Ib Uthaymeen could say the same about you. Unfortunately, i am content believing Allah does not have a form, does not ascend and descend, does not have two feet which are between his Arsh and Kursiy, does not have eyes, hands, fingers et al. Just because ibn Uthaymeen is more knowledgable , doesn't mean you should turn into a Salafi-Athari and change your entire Aqeedah, does it? No matter how 'knowledgable' he was, he did not have the wisdom to grasp and understand basic rational realities about Allah, the Almighty, and so erred enormously in the most fundamental aspect of ones Aqeedah : Tawheed.
Faulty logic Hani.
There are scholars who may have great knowledge, a stronger grasp in Arabic etc, but unfortunately you have totally misunderstood the difference between having knowledge and ability, and being given the wisdom to discern truth from falsehood.
Nothing to address, Hadith is weak until evidence is proven to authenticate the individual highlighted above.
This is the TSN Hadith opinion, overriding the views of the scholars. I think i know who i will place my trust in, as far as Sunni Hadith goes.
Al-Albani said (Al-Rawd Al-Dani fil Fawa’id Al-Hadeethia, p. 18):
ولهذا نجد المحققين من المحدثين كالذهبي والعسقلاني وغيرهما لا يوثقون من تفرد بتوثيقه ابن حبان
“And that is why we find the muhaditheen like Al-Thahabi and Ibn Hajar and others, not strengthening those that Ibn Hibban strengthens alone.
Even those who raised a point about Mahjul adding something interesting you might want to read: وقال بن القطان حاله مجهول لكن زعم أنه محمد بن عمر بن علي بن الحسين بن علي بن أبي طالب وأظنه وهم في ذلك [Ibn Hajar cites him]
The hadeeth you are quoting are weak on their own . Not hasan . Secondly, the text of the report is faulty. And no matter how many they are if they go against the authentic version , supported by external reports as well , then they are classed as Munkar.
SubhanAllah. The scholars of hadith have explicitly said the chains are Hasan. Al-Albani, Arnaut, and many others.
Nothing to address, Hadith is weak until evidence is proven to authenticate the individual highlighted above.
Salam,
I don't have much of my material on me, but this Hadith is actually weak not "Hasan", I graded "Hasan" due to lenience concerning `Ali's grandsons but the narrator "Muhammad bin `Umar bin `Ali bin abi Talib" as far as I know is Majhul:
حدثنا سليمان بن عبيد الله الغيلاني، حدثنا أبو عامر، حدثنا كثير بن زيد، عن محمد بن عمر بن علي، عن أبيه، عن علي رضي الله عنه أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال :إني تركت فيكم ما إن أخذتم به لن تضلوا :كتاب الله، سببه بيد الله، وسببه بأيديكم، وأهل بيتي.
So this is weak in reality.
I agree that without the Qur'an and Ahlul Bayt (ra), one is lost. We have both; what do you have? Over 1200 narrations - 200 of them sahih as per standards set by your madhhab - that speak about tahreef. You think you have caught us offside with the second of the two weighty things when you have stabbed the first of two weighty things right in the heart.even if shia dont believe in tahrif, they are still lost, because shia believe only infallibles can explained alquran. That infallible is not around, in other word the first thaql is useless without the second. Even al-Khoei said quran is not a hujjah, because shia doesnt have authentic qiroat 😂
It's your mistake bro, you grade reports leniently, but you see how Ahl al biddah try to take advantage of your lenience.
Apart from the defects in this chain which you pointed out in previous posts. The text of this report is also ambiguous and unclear. It is open for interpretation. And obviously our interpretation will be the more strong and correct because the it has the backing from the authentic hadeeth of Sahih Muslim about Thaqalayn which is detailed(not ambiguous like the one in question) and also the hadeeth of Farewell pilgrimage, which singles out Quran as the source holding which people won't go astray.
As for our interpretation for this ambiguous hadeeth, we can interpret it in this way that even this hadeeth mentions Quran alone as source holding which people won't go astray, because it says (أخذتم به) "holding IT(singular) its not dual. Hence its talking about Quran alone. Then it says Ahlelbayt, but since the hadeeth is summarized not detailed, people would misunderstand the reason of Ahlelbayt being mentioned, where as it gets cleared when we look at the detailed authentic version of Thaqalayn in Sahih Muslim, why was Ahlelbayt mentioned. Since as per the general rule of hadeeth interpretation, the best interpretation of a hadeeth is from hadeeth itself.
If someone questions that why was this hadeeth narrated in summarized and ambiguous manner? Then answer is quite simple, due to the defects in the narrators already pointed out. To say the least, some of the narrators aren't from the highest level of trustworthiness/reliability, hence such mistakes are bound to occur, and this hadeeth in itself is a proof for this.
I quite possible, that after reading this, the Shia guy is gonna jump and claim that the text of the hadeeth sahih Muslim is not accurate, since it says that Zaid(ra) complained of his memory. However by this the guy would be further humiliating himself for displaying his lacking of understanding skills. And in this case I would simply question him to mention any authoritative Sunni scholar who criticized the text of this hadeeth, because this cyber Shia critic, is an absolute nobody, nor does he have any basic knowledge.
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.Yes, it's ambiguous. But you know how Shias blow things out of proportion.
I add, Zayd said he had become old and forgotten many things, so he mentioned one of the events he still remembers in full detail.Exactly, he narrated in which he was confident and certain. And even asked the questioner to accept it. What else can we ask for, SubhanAllah. The rule of ikhtilat doesn't even apply in this case. And he is a sahabi , not a sub narrator who could mess of the chain of narrators. He is narrating what he himself witnessed and what he is confident of.
Its a pity that you don't understand the terminology of hadeeth science, yet you keep arguing. I said hadeeth is weak on its own. You say that chain is Hasan.
Al-Haafiz ibn al-Salaah (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:
" قولهم : ( هذا حديث صحيح الإسناد أو حسن الإسناد ) دون قولهم : هذا حديث صحيح أو حديث حسن لأنه قد يقال : هذا حديث صحيح الإسناد ، ولا يصح لكونه شاذا أو معللا "
When they say “This hadeeth has a saheeh isnaad or a hasan isnaad” instead of “this is a saheeh hadeeth or a hasan hadeeth”, that is because it may be said that this hadeeth has a saheeh isnaad but it is not saheeh per se because it is shaadhdh (odd) or mu’allal (faulty). [Muqaddimah fi ‘Uloom al-Hadeeth (p. 23)]
Ibn Katheer says:
" الحكم بالصحة أو الحسن على الإسناد لا يلزم منه الحكم بذلك على المتن ، إذ قد يكون شاذاً أو معللاً "
The fact that the isnaad is deemed to be saheeh or hasan does not necessarily mean that the same applies to the text, because it may be shaadhdh (odd) or mu’allal (faulty). [Ikhtisaar ‘Uloom al-Hadeeth (p. 43).]
Al-‘Iraaqi said in his Alfiyyah:
" والحكم للإسناد بالصحة أو *** بالحسن دون الحكم للمتن رأوا "
The ruling that the isnaad is saheeh or hasan does not necessarily apply to the text. [Al-Tabsirah wa’l-Tadhkirah (1/107).]
The two simple reasons that prove that the text of these hadeeth you quote is faulty is that, it goes against the Authentic hadeeth of Sahih Muslim, on which no authoritative Sunni scholar has directed his criticism on its text for any reason.
The hadeeth of Sahih Muslim is detailed and it singles out Quran to be alone means holding which people will not go astray. And the second reason being that the ahadeeth from Sahih Muslim(one of whose narrator is from Ahlalbayt, Imam Baqir i guess) and other books, which mention that during the farewell sermon in Arafah, Prophet(saws) only mentioned Quran being the source holding which people will not go astray.
There are some other reasons too, which you will find out in the article inshaAllah.
Exactly, he narrated in which he was confident and certain. And even asked the questioner to accept it. What else can we ask for, SubhanAllah. The rule of ikhtilat doesn't even apply in this case. And he is a sahabi , not a sub narrator who could mess of the chain of narrators. He is narrating what he himself witnessed and what he is confident of.
Zaid said: I have grown old and have almost spent my age and I have forgotten some of the things which I remembered in connection with Allah's Messenger (ﷺ), so accept whatever I narrate to you, and which I do not narrate do not compel me to do that.[SAHIH MUSLIM]
Ikhtilat is when a narrator confuses events and mixes texts and wordings. If a narrator has not done this then he is not deemed a Mukhtalit regardless of whether he forgot some events or not, as long as he doesn't mix and confuse events he's good.
Its a pity that you don't understand the terminology of hadeeth science, yet you keep arguing. I said hadeeth is weak on its own. You say that chain is Hasan.
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.
I add, Zayd said he had become old and forgotten many things, so he mentioned one of the events he still remembers in full detail.
Yes, it's ambiguous. But you know how Shias blow things out of proportion.
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,
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 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.”]
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Dear brother, again and again your statements prove that you have serious issues with your understanding skills.
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 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.
Ambigous? How clearer can our beloved Messenger of Allah (saw) get?
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
See? No contradiction whatsoever, and that is why many scholars have accepted the phrase 'if you hold onto them you will never go astray'.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
Even al-Albani accepts the statement ......
Interestingly, he contradicts Zayd.
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.
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.
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.
Mahajjah website states:
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.
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]
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]
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.
In your dreams. Following Sunnah is proven from Quran again, but unfortunately, this isn't the case for Ahlelbayt. So your logic falls flat.
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.
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.
You're welcome to weaken Ghadir and others.
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.
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.
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.
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. 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.
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.