This version of Hadith al-Thaqalayn is Saheeh li Ghayrihi

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

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.

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.

[Hani]

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

Oh, and let me add that Kathir bin Zayd makes mistakes and isn't very good so he can't even be used unless as a support. Therefore, you have two problematic narrators not one.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

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.

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.

[muslim720]

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.

[Hadrami]

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 😂

[Hani]

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.

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.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

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.


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]

[Hani]

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.

[whoaretheshia]

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 fully understand the key terminologies, and the reality is, you have erred here in your analysis. There are five conditions for a Saheeh, and the Matn is one of them. This is why we sometimes find there is a difference between someone proclaiming the tradition is 'Saheeh by chain' and Saheeh in and of itself. By saying it is 'Saheeh'. However, if a chain is graded as 'Saheeh' but there is no mention of any defect in it, nor it contradicting the Saheeh, it may also be taken as authentic. 

  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).]

Not only do i know this , on the very first page when you questioned me regarding this, i accepted this fully. So to bring it up again as if i was not aware of 'basic terminologies' is intellectual dishonesty. I am surprised at why you had to do this, when you are aware that on page one of this thread i acknowledged this, and in fact, i performed extensive research in order to rebut what you will claim.

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.

It does not go against the tradition of Saheeh Muslim. I have explicitly stated the problem is that it only adds authentic expressions that were missed out, and i will prove this soon.

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.

You need to look at the definition of what constitutes a contradiction. Mentioning holding onto the Quran does not necessitate that it excludes anything else, because you yourself admit there are authentic Hadith which claim we should hold onto the Sunnah.

There are some other reasons too, which you will find out in the article inshaAllah.

I highly recommend brother, before you write your article that you pass your key ideas by me. The last thing we both want is for me to refute it very quickly, and for you to have wanted to clarify and add certain things.

[whoaretheshia]

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]

Zaid bin Aqram narrated only what he felt he could remember, and acknowledged his memory was in notable decline. In our article, we have not claimed Iktilaat applies to him, or to grade his report as weak, but rather the best explanation for other authentic explanations is that he missed out certain parts. Remember, the additional reports with words Zayd did not mention do not contradict what he said at all - they only add to what he himself did not mention.

Is it possible for a companion to narrate something he feels is accurate, but be mistaken in it? Ofcourse it is. You would not have to go far to find this, just consider how many report of Ibn Umar missed out a word here, a phrase there, a sentence here, which had to be corrected by Abu Hurairah and Umm al-M'uminin Aisha.

The truth is the companions may have sometimes not transmitted the full statement of the Prophet (saw) and while Zayd transmitted the part he felt he remembered accurately, there are other authentic expressions other companions themselves transmitted and added to what he said.

[whoaretheshia]

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.

Our full article was banned from this site, so we could not link it. In that article we explicitly stated we are not going to consider Zayd in this class, however, there is already a precedent of certain companions, such as Ibn Umar , sometimes forgetting parts of a Hadith. Whilst what they transmitted was accurate, it is evidently clear they had missed other parts, and at times you find Abu Hurairah or Umm al M'uminin Aisha correcting him.

We know the Sahaba are untouchable as far as being trustworthy and all righteous are concerned (in transmitting hadith) but you can not deny that memory has an effect on an individual. If they complain their memory is going, that they are extremely old, and then relay a Hadith, while we can put aside the claim this tradition renders them in the Ikhtilat, it is a very valid reason for why you find an authentic expression sometimes not included.

Thus, the additional authentic expressions are best explained by the fact Zayd did not remember to include them. Those additional expressions do not contradict what Zayd said, rather, they only add to expressions the Prophet (saw) made.

[whoaretheshia]

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.

In addition to my previous posts which are ubiquitous on this thread demonstrate i am fully aware of this, let me now bring forth a scholar who analyses the Matn (text) of the tradition.  Shu'ayb al-Arnaut is more knowledgable in the field of Hadith than anyone currently posting on this forum.

"The Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, said: “I have left behind over you that which if you hold fast to it you will never go astray after me: the Two Weighty Things (al-thaqalayn). One of them both is greater than the other: the Book of Allah - a rope stretching from the heaven to the earth – and my offspring, my Ahl al-Bayt. Take note: verily, both shall never separate from each other until they meet me at the Lake-Fount.” [Tirmidhi]

The oft repeated claim is that the scholars were lax in grading this tradition, and that they often graded it a level higher out of lenience but that the Matn could be problematic. So here you have Shuay'b al-Arnaut claiming the Matn is all authentic, except the last phrase. So he fully agrees with the phrase 'If you hold fast onto them, you will never go astray'.

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.

He is explicitly declaring that the tradition is authentic, with the exception a particular statement. So this nullifies the idea that a phrase is not to be taken to nor reliable. If the phrase 'if you hold onto them, you will never go astray' was not accepted as an authentic expression,  al-Arnau't would have made that clear.

al-Arnau't also does not deem it to contradict the tradition in Sahih Muslim, but rather is an authentic expression that may add to it and be reconciled with it.

[whoaretheshia]

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.

al-Albani, al-Arnaut, Ibn Hajar, Dhahabi and many others have authenticated this version of the hadith, and not just in Sanad by the way. You seem to have your own method, whereby you reject al-Albani and many modern scholars and their methods of using corroboration, as well as reject the system of grading by some of the heavy weights in Rijal.

There is no doubt these are authentic expressions. They add an incredible amount and put aside adding to the equation, they shift the equation. The interpretations i have seen for it by a number of scholars go against the apparent meaning and are weak.

Many online refutation websites have acknowledged this, and so they have tried to weaken the hadith itself.

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.

He mentioned what he felt he accurately remembered, just like Ibn Umar narrated traditions he felt was accurate but missed out a phrase or a condition. The very fact he was extremely old, had forgotten a number of hadith, and narrating this version during the twilight of his life gives a very valid explanation as to why we find other authentic expressions mentioned in other texts.

[whoaretheshia]

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?

"I am leaving behind for you two weighty things, which if you hold onto you will never go astray"

Can you get any clear than that?

[whoaretheshia]

When the tradition comes back and is used against ones idea, it is clear some change their stance. Brother Hani, you had written before all of these gradings a condition you would follow:

"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/

Now you've shifted that position , when it is convenient, and have gone against many major scholars of Rijal past to present and developed your own standards.

[whoaretheshia]

Summary points (for those who do not want to read the whole thread or are confused)

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.

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).

Source: Saheeh Sunan Al-Tirmidhi. Vol. 3, Pg. # 543 - 544, H. # 3786 - 3788.

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.


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]


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.

[whoaretheshia]

Further points:

1. Not only is the first chain reliable, the second is also, and Qasim b.Hasan being Maqbul only counts against him if he is the only one narrating this tradition, and the fact is we have other reliable routes, and so, according to ibn Hajar you can not take away that Maqbul grading. Furthermore, it was not only Ijjli and ibn Hibban who gave him Tawtheeq, as others also did so. Ibn Hajar has weighed this up and claimed his tradition and chain can be accepted if we know that tradition coming through other routes. That condition has obviously been met.

2. There are other traditions i would like to present with A'mash and Habib bin Abi Thabait, and i know according to ibn Hajar despite both being Thiqah, A'mash is in the second category of Tadlees (most scholars will take his traditions without need to know he explicitly said he heard from the one he narrates from) whilst Habib ibn Abi Thabit claims he is in the third category.  According to my research there is some disagreement about Habib bin Abi Thabit, in that he may have wrongly been called a Muddalis.

Abu Ameena Shaykh Bilal Phillips writes: "For example, Habeeb ibn Abee Thaabit who was labelled by Ibn Hibbaan and Ibn Khuzaymah as a mudallis, but a large group of specialists, among them al-Bukhaaree, Ahmad, Ibn Ma‘een, ‘Alee ibn al-Madeenee, an-Nasaa’ee, Aboo Haatim ar-Raazee, Sufyaan ath-Thawree, classified him “reliable”. Ibn Hajar mistakenly mentioned him in at-Taqreeb as being a frequent mudallis, but in the beginning of his compendium, Fat’hul-Baaree, he mentioned that Habeeb ibn Abee Thaabit was mis-labelled “weak” based on unacceptable matters. Furthermore, Imaam ath-Thahabee praised him and totally ignored the claims of tadlees."

[Bilal Phillips - Usool al-Hadith]

I know there will be debate about the above.


3. Not only does the tradition come through Hasan chains, there is also an argument for some of the other weaker chains corroborating each other through Shawahid, as al-Arnaut and al-Albani have done.

4. There is no doubt many major scholars considered some of the chains, and certainly the part of the Matn 'if you hold onto them you will never go astray' to be authentic. 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."

As you can see, they accepted thatsome of chains were reliable, and some were so through Shawahid, and that the Matn of the text was authentic, but the only difference they had with the Shia was in the T'awil.

Now that we have established the phrase 'if you hold onto them, you will never go astray' is authentic, the dozens of chains , many of them unique, ubiquitous in hadith literature having the phrase actually managed to retain an authentic expression.

This debate should be about the T'awil, because the chains and the Matn are accepted as authentic.

5. A message to Noor, this does not contradict the version in Sahih Muslim. Furthermore, bringing forth the idea that the Prophet in some cases only said he is leaving behind the Quran as guidance is an irrelevant point dear brother, because he said in other traditions he is leaving behind his Sunnah. This does not qualify as a contradiction.


People need to be aware that these modern day Salafi-Athari leaning (and i know some chief writers are not so) websites do not necessarily go by the view of the scholars. In fact, the only problem some major scholars have had with the hadith is that they believe the T'awil made by the Shia is incorrect.

[whoaretheshia]

Things no-one can refute

1. Ibn Hajar graded the first chain as Saheeh, and the Arnaut graded it Hasan, many others grades it Saheeh purely from the chain. Someone making some mistakes is enough enough to consider the tradition as Dhai'f. It may be enough to downgrade it from Saheeh to Hasan. Shuayb Arnau't explicitly grades it as Hasan. I reject the weakening by Hani, the chief writer of an online forum, and accept that Ibn Hajar, Dhahabi have more weight and greater wisdom in this field and are qualified to be able to stand by their Saduq/Thiqah gradings.  Put aside as i have again explicitly said, one of the greatest scholars of Hadith of our day in the Sunni world is Arnaut, and his gradings have great weight, and even he has graded this Hasan in terms of the chain. He has not been shy to grade the very same tradition weak by chain when he see's fit.  Your attempts to weaken the chains this are ineffective and will only please some followers online who may prefer confirmation bias, than what is truly objective and what their own scholars have attested to. Some truth seeking individuals will admit it. Al-Albani has ought right graded some chains as Hasan, and has also mentioned for some of the weaker chains that go through Attiyah that the chain is weak but is brought up to Hasan because of Shawahid. Arnaut also agreed with him on that , and i have not even presented those chains n the OP.

2. While merely claiming the Isnad is Saheeh or Hasan is not enough, the fact that many scholars who have claimed it is Saheeh by Isnaad have never criticised the test when they claimed that. Furthermore i have demonstrated explicit statements by Arnaut where he explicitly affirms the phrase 'if you hold onto them you will never go astray' is Saheeh. The scholar al-Albani also agrees with him. They only differ in the interpretation, and hence you find Arnaut referring to al-Sindi.

3. There are between 20-30 chains which all bear the word 'if you hold onto it/them you will never go astray' and some those no doubt have been used by Arnaut and al-Albani as Shawahid as has been proven on top of the Hasan chains.

4. The phrase 'if you hold onto them/that you will never go astray' is an authentic praise according to the view point of many of the major scholars.

[whoaretheshia]

If Hani is the chief writer of TSN (and islamistruth) and Noor writes for youpunctured, i now understand their rationale when thy write these responses. With the utmost respect, on one hand there is a complete lack of research on part of Noor, and on the other, Hani seems to adopt his own method of Rijal even when he contradicts major scholars. He also has his own school of Aqeedah as mentioned, mixing up beliefs of the Mutazila, with the Ashariyya, with the Athari-Salafi.  I  don't know exactly how that is meant to work but i respect him for not falling in line with the Salafi-Athari dominated theme of TSN.

This is where Shiapen fell, they didn't anticipate how you would come to counter and allowed themselves to fall into the trap of online Jarh and T'adil. Revisitingthesalaf made good points, but the brother should have broken down every narrator , explicitly and more clearly demonstrated that not only was the expression reliable by chain, it was also reliable by Matn (which he did to a point) but this could have been clearer.

I highly recommend brother Noor to very carefully read every post i have made on this page. I want him to be better informed of what the scholars say, and what our position is because if he writes an article based on his previous understanding, it will be a waste of his time and ours, with due respect.

[whoaretheshia]

Also worthy of note, not only do we find al-Arnaut declaring the first chain as 'Hasan', Ahmad Muhammad Shakir declares it 'Hasan as well.

Here is the scan, and read his footnotes:

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-73duTyYgohY/Tu9RNX1Sx8I/AAAAAAAAARI/A6nf15YVHo4/s640/B-2.jpg

While  Shu'ayb Arnaut is given more weight, he just confirms the grading of Shakir and so both agree that the chain is that of a Hasan category.