This version of Hadith al-Thaqalayn is Saheeh li Ghayrihi

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

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 .

[whoaretheshia]

The hadeeth you are quoting are weak on their own . Not hasan . 

SubhanAllah. The scholars of hadith have explicitly said the chains are Hasan. Al-Albani, Arnaut, and many others. Maybe you would prefer the grading of non-scholars on an online forum, and so let me show you what TSN themselves have said regarding the first tradition, where they grade it as Hasan themselves, according to what they deem orthodox standards of Rijal.

From TSN itself: http://twelvershia.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/List-of-Texts-and-Chains-of-Thaqalayn.pdf

"Sulayman bin `Ubaydullah al-`Aylani -> abu `Amir -> Kathir bin Zayd -> Muhammad bin `Umar bin `Ali -> his father -> `Ali bin abi Talib.
Hasan, Sulayman is Saduq, `Abdul-Malik is abu `Amro and he is Thiqah, Katheer bin Zayd is Saduq, Muhammad is `Ali bin abi Talib's grandson andIbn Hajar said Saduq in al-Taqreeb, Majhool according to Shia, `Umar is `Ali's son and he is Thiqah..."

Many scholars have graded the chain to be at least Hasan not because they are being lax, but because he chain meets the criteria of a Hasan hadith. You can play this game of Jarh' and T'adil and weaken how you see fit, but it will go against many far more knowledgable scholars of Hadith.

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 reality is, the Hasan chains are not 'Munkar', nor do they go against what Zayd has narrated or contradict it. They only add in additional authentic expressions which Zayd did not include. Furthermore, TSN themselves have accepted statements not made by Zayd are authentic expressions. Please read their work here: http://twelvershia.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Authentic-Expressions-of-Thaqalayn.pdf

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 .

SubhanAllah, not only have we broken down the chains and proven according to orthodox standards they would be classed as Hasan , TSN has agreed upon the first chain. Now if you are talking about 'Lenience' many scholars have graded versions and chains of this hadith as weak when they came through weak chains, and they explicitly stated 'The Chain is weak'.

For 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.

[Source: Jamia Tirmidhi Sunan Al -Tirmidhi. Vol. 6, Pg. # 335].

If there were weak narrators, al-Albani, Arnaut, and others would not state 'the chain is Hasan', but accept that the Chain is weak, but there may be external corroborating evidence. In fact, al-Albani explicitly grades weak chains of Thaqalayn as weak, but authentic due to external evidence.

What youpunctured/you are arguing is that in light of an authentic report, all of the weaker reports are graded as reliable because they corroborate with the authentic one in what they agree with. However they are in themselves not reliable. I am telling you that many major Hadith scholars have explicitly said 'This chain is Hasan', rather than saying 'Saheeh due to external evidence, although this chain is weak'.

Shaykh Shoaib Al-Arnaut declared the chain of this narration as weak, because of narrator Zayd Ibn Al-Hasan Al-Anmati. We find here that even though he weakened the chain of this report, yet he authenticated the tradition based on external evidence; those are authentic versions of hadeeth Thaqalayn, which are regarding the virtues of Ahlulbayt, that mention about taking care of Ahlulbayt and being responsible towards them.

However in the traditions i have quoted Al-Arnaut does not authenticate it based on external evidence, nor does he declare the chain weak but explicitly states the chain is Hasan. The only weakness in it is Kathir b.Zayd who is Saduq but makes mistakes, however, this is why it was demoted from Saheeh to Hasan. Had it been weak, he would have declared it weak, but said authentic due to external evidence.

[whoaretheshia]

And when i claim the two Hasan chains amount to it being elevated to Saheeh li Ghayri, i do not mean the chains are weak and that external evidence supports them. I mean  the chains corroborate one another, and strengthen each other from both sides and so owing to the chains themselves elevate it to that category. Do not confuse this weak other applications of Saheeh Li Ghayri.

Do you know why youpunctured did not reference or realise this? They never researched it. TSN for all its flaws and enormous errors actually is more accurate and balanced when it comes to these issues, when they don't copy you punctured verbatim. They actually bothered, like we did, to go through all of the books and analyse them rather than only looking into Tirmidhi and Mustadrak al-Hakim and another.

[Hani]

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.

[whoaretheshia]

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.

Walaykumsalaam brother Hani.

Are you sure about this? Al-Hafiz ibn Haja al-Asqalani grades him as Saduq:

محمد بن عمر بن علي بن أبي طالب صدوق
Muhammad b. ‘Umar b. ‘Ali b. Abi Talib: Saduq (very truthful).
(Taqrib al-Tahdhib )

In fact, Shu'ayb Arnaut, Ibn Hajar and many others grade this Hasan or above, and there no mention of the chain being weak.

Ibn Hiban declares him Thiqah: محمد بن عمر بن علي بن أبي طالب يروى عن علي بن أبي طالب روى عنه يحيى بن سعيد الأنصاري والثوري كنيته أبو عبد الله أمه أسماء بنت عقيل بن أبي طالب وأكثر روايته عن أبيه وعن علي بن الحسين

[whoaretheshia]

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.

[Hani]

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.

[whoaretheshia]

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).

[Hani]

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.

Again, just 1 piece of evidence, don't write  a paragraph.

[whoaretheshia]

erred or not erred isn't my problem, this is a religion of evidence, what's the evidence?

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]

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.

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.

With respect brother Hani, i am going to side with the opinions of Ibn Hajar, Dhahabi, Ibn Hiban (and others), as well as the gradings of Arnaut, and major scholars, over (and i do not mean to offend you) the opinion of someone posting in 2017 on an online rebuttal website.

[Hani]

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.

[whoaretheshia]

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?

This is a wholly irrelevant analogy. I do not consider them more knowledgable in me in life, but i do consider them more knowledgable than me in discerning reliable from unreliable narrators of Hadith and making judgements on those narrators as per Sunni Hadith sciences.

Please don't waste our time, seems you've no clue about Hadith science methodologies.

Actually, i choose not to take the opinion over a non-scholar on an online rebuttal website, and would rather accept the view of Ibn Hajar, Dhahabi et al.

Some may grade something Hasan due to lenience or because it's a virtue or because other versions similar to it are authentic,

But you're missing the point. Arnau't graded the very same hadith weak in Tirmidhi, and he explicitly said the chain is week, but it is authentic based on external indicators. Where did he go ahead and merely grade the chain Hasan?   When he graded the version i have cited which is in Abi Asim and Rahwayh, he grades the chain as Hasan. So do tell me why in one instance he was open in declaring the chain weak, but the said it is corroborated due to external factors, whereas in the other, he explicitly declares the chain Hasan? Why not be lax in the other if both are weak?

Let me demonstrate:

Footnote (Arnaut) : 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.
[Source: Jamia Tirmidhi Sunan Al -Tirmidhi. Vol. 6, Pg. # 335].

And

 إسناده حسن [The chain is Hasan]
Abu Ja’far Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Salamah b. ‘Abd al-Malik b. Salmah al-Azdi al-Hajari al-Misri al-Tahawi, Sharh Mushkil al-Athar (Muasassat al-Risalah; 1st edition, 1415 H) [annotator: Shu’ayb al-Arnaut], vol. 5, p. 13, # 1760

Your point about 'virtue' is totally inapplicable here. Arnaut himself declared the chain to be Hasan, and he accepted the verdict given by the previous scholars.

 

similarly Ibn Hajar & Dhahabi may count on factoring Ibn Hibban & `Ijli's gradings but they're clearly not reliable judgements of narrators.

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]

[Hani]

Nothing out of the ordinary bro, this is all not acceptable as methodology for grading accurately.

Again, you're free to provide the evidence. Unlike you Shia, Sunnies have preserved the majority of their top books especially those of Rijal, find me who it is that informed us of his reliability in Hadith so that we accept his narration over the more reliable versions.

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.

[whoaretheshia]

Nothing out of the ordinary bro, this is all not acceptable as methodology for grading accurately.

Address my post.

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.

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.

[Hani]

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.

[whoaretheshia]

Nothing to address, Hadith is weak until evidence is proven to authenticate the individual highlighted above.

So just to be clear, you are:

1. Rejecting the Saduq grading of Ibn Hajar (Third category, right below Thiqah and right above the other Saduq categories)
2. Rejecting the Thiqah grading of Dhahabi
3. Rejecting the Thiqah grading of ibn Hiban as well as others.
4. Stating Shuayb Arnaut erred when he said the chain was Hasan (and by the way, Arnaut explicitly has mentioned at times when the chain is weak for this very same narration)
5. Rejecting the authentication of this version as attested to by ibn Hajar and a number of others who graded it as reliable by chain.

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. It is weak by TS.net standards, namely your opinion as the chief writer on here.

SubhanAllah, there exists two Hasan chains, and others which could have been declared Saheeh had it not been for the Tadlees of Habib bin Thabit. Then you have well over twenty other chains all corroborating the same thing (and yes, i know in Rijal this would not count for much, and i am aware you disagree with al-Albani in bringing forth chains of narrations which all have slight but not severe weaknesses i.e not liars and grading them Hasan li Ghayri - another time where you have overruled a major Hadith scholar.)

PS: When the narrator in Hadith two of this thread is graded Maqbul by ibn Hajar, he is not just relying on Ibn Hiban, and just even just Ijilli , but others.

Rather you are going to ignore all of this, and take a narration that was only ever transmitted by Zayd when he complained he was very old and his memory was in decline? If it had been anyone other than a Sahabi, you would have placed a question mark over his retention. However, the companions are all not just automatically trustworthy, but even old age does not effect them. You have rejected any chance that a possibility for variants of the Hadith may be that while Zayd transmitted what he felt was accurate, his old age may have been a reason for missing out some parts which an incredibly large number of other people through far more unique chains, a number of which reach the level of reliability have transmitted.

In other threads you have called Ali ibn Abi Talib a weak and incompetent leader, blamed him heavily as the main one at fault for Jamal and Siffin, and then claimed Khaybar was just Ali finishing them off after the Shaykhayn inflicted heavy damages.

The problem with these rebuttal websites is that they will override as many scholars as it will take to push through their own opinion.

[Hani]

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.

Trust the evidence.

[whoaretheshia]

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.

[Hani]

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.

Who's the other person who made Tawthiq of him then?

Hopefully not `Ijli?

[Hani]

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]

If you read the footnote of this same book, Ibn Qattan is right but Ibn Hajar was wrong.