Where did Hani say that he believes that this statement was made by Prophet(saws) ? He merely mentions that the text is ambiguous, and by that he doesn't mean Prophet(saws) is ambiguous, AS YOU MISUNDERSTOOD ASUSUAL, but he meant the narrator who erroneously narrated that text, in such an ambiguous manner. So you see, your poor understanding skills is the cause of your frustration. Blame yourself not others.
Brother, Hani never said the statement was made by the Prophet (saw). The entire debate here is me convincing the two of you that according to orthodox Rijal standards, these traditions have Hasan chains, and the weaker ones Hasan due to Shawahid. Put aside the chains, it is to show you many scholars who authenticated it did so by both Sanad and Matn too.
Hani was saying that even if we took the Hadith are reliable, what would it matter? A number of major Sunni scholars who have authenticated and accepted it have given it T'awil Hani feels is perfectly appropriate to prove the Sunni view, and he finished by claiming the Shia are relying on ambitious Hadith i.e the version i am trying to prove. He believed this version we are debating on is still too ambiguous to prove the Shia point of view, which is something a number of your own major scholars who have defended this version have themselves stated.
What I have done is to follow one of the most fundamental usool of Hadeeth science.
قال الخطيب البغدادي: "السبيل إلى معرفة علة الحديث أن يجمع بين طرقه، وينظر في اختلاف رواته، ويعتبر بمكانهم في الحفظ، ومنزلتهم في الإتقان والضبط"
Abu Bakr al-Khatib said,"The way to discover the defect of a hadith is to collect the lines of transmission, examine the differences of its transmitters and examine their position in regard to retention and their status in regard to exactitude and precision [Uloom al-hadeth, page 82].
I am not going to begin insulting you here or questioning your credentials, but i am sure that you are aware of the basic principle that merely having a narrator who sometimes made a mistake, or a narrator going by the following: "Nevertheless, in the case in question (saduqun yukhti-u, or saduqun yahimu or saduqun lahu awham), such a narrator’s Hadiths can be sound (hasan), depending on the nature of the Hadith’s content and its topic of discussion."
(Refer: Shaykh ‘Awwamah’s footnotes on Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah, Hadith: 723, 6028 and 6934)
So, when two ahadeeth has some conflicting info in them about a same topic, then we find the defect by scrutinizing the narrators of both hadeeth, checking their status in regard to exactitude and precision, and Katheer ibn Zayd, as you agree is not known for exactitude and precision, atleast, even if you don't believe he is weak as some scholars deemed him, as follows.
We need to be very clear here in that you are the one assuming the traditions conflict. The reality is, they do not conflict, and many of your own major scholars have accepted both versions as authentic. Shaykh al-Albani, al-Arnaut, al-Sindi , Ibn Hajar, and we could go on , accepted it as authentic , not conflicted with the tradition of Zayd, but gave it their own interpretations.
A contradiction would be something that went along the lines of;
A. (Saheeh)Zayd: I am leaving behind for you two weighty things, the Quran and my Sunnah (said at Ghadir)
B. (Hasan Chains) Ali ibn Abi Talin: I am leaving behind for you two weighty things, the Quran and my Alulbayt (said at Ghadir)
In this instance, given the location is the same, the speech referenced is the same, the two versions contradict each other. You might be forgiven here for claiming that the two can not be reconciled.
However in the traditions of Thaqalayn we have, there are no outright contradictions, Zayd remembered a portion of what was said, and other companions merely added to what he said. Even ibn Taymiyyah believed in the line 'and they will never separate until they meet me at the pond' as an additional authentic expression. I have rarely come across many or any scholars who hold the view that he two traditions are someone mutually exclusive.
Here I'll quote Mahajjah article about Katheer ibn Zayd.
Mahajjah website states:
The writers on here have an absolutely horrendous grasp of ilm al Rijal. They pick some words against a narrator, and then claim he is weak based on those words, despite the fact the way ilm al Rijal works is studying who claimed such a narrator was weak, why they claimed so, what proof they had, and the other comments made on the particular narrator. That is why you have works of Ibn Hajar are considered the best when it comes to the overall grading of a narrator, because he took into account the praise and the words against them, investigated them and gave an over all verdict. Unfortunately, that website finds Ibn Hiban saying x against a narrator, ibn Shahin Y, and then calling him weak , when five others have regarded him Thiqah, and ibn Hajar has also done so, or at the least Saduq.
The definitive proof which shows their ignorance is that they never once picked up on the Tadlees of Habib ibn Thabit or Amash, and in fact didn't even weaken chains with those individual in them, especially when they did not explicitly state ' i heard from' or the like.
I'm glad that you agree that what matters are the evidences. And the fact is that even if 10 weak reports goes against an authentically proven hadeeth, those all reports get discarded as weak.
I don't disagree with this brother. The only two issues you have here is that A. The traditions are not weak, but graded Hasan some of the most well respected scholars in the field of Hadith. B. Not regarded s contradicting and conflicting with the version of Zayd by many scholars.
So lets see is the status of the report you claim to be hasan in your article, under the light of evidences.
Ahmad ibn Hambal — (1) al-Aswad ibn `Amir — (2) Sharik — (3) al-Rukayn —(4) al-Qasim ibn Hassan — from Zayd ibn Thabit that Rasulullah salla Llahu `alayhi wa sallam said:
So you see Shareek is a da`if narrator, he commits many mistakes, he has contradictions in his narrations, he has a weak memory, he hides his sources and he is an extremist Shi`ah. After these elucidations there is no question about accepting his narrations as proof in this chapter.[Credit:Mahajjah]
This is why you should never on that website, and i will demonstrate to you why their so-called ilm al Rijal has failed badly. For one, there are some narrators called 'Shia' and one person has levelled his accusation or said 'some said he was Shia'. The fact is if you look at the overall reports about him, it is a mistake to call him Shia. This is why picking and choosing in Rijal can lead to some severe errors.
Ibn Hajar-Al-Asqalani writes: “Sharik b. ‘Abd Allah al-Nakha’i al-Kufi al-Qadi, (resided) first at Wasit and then Kufah, Abu ‘Abd Allah: Saduq (very truthful), made a lot of mistakes. His memory deteriorated since he became the judge in Kufah. He was just, excellent, a great worshipper of Allah, and
he was severe against the people of bid’ah Imam Shafi’i said, "If he is a proselytizer, there is no disagreement among them that his transmission is not to be accepted." [Uloom al-hadeeth ibn salah, pg 87]
Abu Hatim b. Hibban al-Busti - one of the authorities of hadith who wrote books - said, "According to our authorities, it is absolutely forbidden to cite the hadith of a proselytizer for sectarian doctrines. I do not know of any disagreement among them on this point.'" [Uloom al-hadeeth ibn salah, pg 87]
Sharik was not Shia. As for making mistakes, the scholars differ on how to judge him based on this. For one, his mistakes and memory decline only occurred when he was old and the Judge. Secondly, it is well known that Sunni scholars can disagree on a narrator. Sometimes Muslim has a narrator he uses as Hujjah whom Bukhari does not, and vice versa. Sometimes scholars accept an individuals Hadith, and others may not. Sometimes the same Scholar can change his view.
As for his mistakes:1) al-Dhahabi said: “Al-Bukhari uses him as a witness, and Muslim narrates from him in mutaba’at. Al-Nasai and others rely upon him as a hujjah. [7]” and Dhahabi said: ”
I (al-Dhahabi) say: Sharik was hasan al-hadith (i.e. his ahadith are hasan). He was an Imam, a jurist, a prolific hadith narrator. He was not as precise as Hammad b. Zayd. Al-Bukhari has used him as a witness, Muslim has narrated mutaba’at reports from him, and Yahya b. Ma’in declared him thiqah (trustworthy) … His ahadith are in the hasan categories. [8]“ (2)
Imam Al Hakim writes: “(Imam) Muslim has relied upon Sharik b. ‘Abd Allah as a hujjah, and he is to be relied upon as a hujjah [9]” (3) Ibn Hajar-Al-Asqalani writes: “Sharik b. ‘Abd Allah al-Nakha’i al-Kufi al-Qadi, (resided) first at Wasit and then Kufah, Abu ‘Abd Allah: Saduq (very truthful), made a lot of mistakes. His memory deteriorated since he became the judge in Kufah. He was just, excellent, a great worshipper of Allah, and he was severe against the people of bid’ah [10]” (4) Imam al-‘Ijli states: “Sharik b. ‘Abd Allah al-Nakha’i, the judge, Kufi: Thiqah (trustworthy),
and he was hasan al-hadith (i.e. his ahadith are hasan). [11]”
He developed a memory problem when he became the judge of Kufah. Before this period, he was a completely accurate narrator. We find that (5)
Imam Ibn ‘Adi writes: “The overwhelming majority of his ahadith are sahih and accurate (from his shuyukh). As for the repugnancy in his ahadith, that occurred only due to his poor memory [12]”
This is not what the correction version of Hadeeth Thaqalayn says, this is why we have contradiction. The authentic version from Sahih Muslim mentions Quran ALONE as source of guidance.
This is the fallacy again. Do we not agree that the Ijmah of the companions is guidance ? Do you not agree that the Ijmah of the Ahulbayt is guidance? Do you not agree you must follow the way of the Prophet (saw) and also follow the way of his rightly guided successors? Do you not accept that the Sunnah of the Prophet is guidance along side the Quran? For argument, let me just accept he said 'Hold onto the Quran' at Arafah. Does that mean he has never said before 'Hold onto my Sunnah' or 'Hold onto the way of my rightly guided successors' ? Does it mean after he can not elucidate on a number of other things which we can hold onto for guidance ?
Furthermore, in the version of Zayd, all he said was 'I am leaving behind two weighty things, The Quran - In it is guidance'
Simply claiming the Quran contains guidance does not mean it is the only thing we should adhere to for guidance. If the Prophet told us to follow his way and the way of his rightly guided successors , as well as to follow the Quran which contains guidance in it, it does not mean that only the Quran guides , but rather the Quran, along with this rightly guided successors are both guides and both sources of guidance.
Scholars authenticated those reports out of lenience, as they believed them to be matters of Fadhail.
Why are you repeating this? Remember, the Hadith is not just Fadhail (though it encompasses it), it is a command by the Prophet (saw), therefore it is a pertinent and serious issue, whether merely looking after his family, following their Ijmah, or as the Shia state, following the rightly guided successors from his Ahlulbayt.
Furthermore i have demonstrated that al-Arnaut al-Albani, and a number of other scholars have weakened the chain of the very same Hadith when the chain itself is weak. So the idea the scholars have just been lax in terms of grading is false.
Example:Jabir ibn Abdullah said, “I saw the Prophet (saw) during his pilgrimage as was on his camel speaking, so I heard him say, “I left you that you must abide by that you will never go astray, the book of Allah (swt) and my Ahlulbayt (a.s).”
Footnote: Sahih li ghayri(authentic due to external evidence),
the chain of this narration however is weak, because of Zayd Ibn Al-Hasan he is Qurashi and Al-Anmati. When the chain is weak, they are willing to say, the chain is weak for this very hadith. In other places they outright grade the chain Hasan because the chain is Hasan. Sometimes in later editions you find them grading a weak chain Hasan due to Shawahid (corroborating witnesses). This 'lax' argument is nothing more than contrary to the actual facts.
But DON'T FORGET there are scholars who weakened these reports as well. So in this case the one whose verdict will carry weight is that those who abided by the rules of hadeeth science in a proper manner, and not being lenient.
Ibn Hajar, al-Arnaut, al-Albani, Muhammad Shakir, and many others have openly declared chains with weak narrators as weak, in fact, of this very tradition and i have demonstrated that with al-Albani and al-Arnaut. They are the most influential Hadith scholars in the Sunni world, arguably some of the most qualified and well respected. You don't find them grading weak chains as 'Saheeh' or 'Hasan' by Isnad. Rather, they are very direct in grading the chains weak and i have demonstrated this over a number of posts over a number of pages.
So you might now claim they graded them normally by chain , but that doesn't mean they accepted the Matn as authentic, but rather they were lax in accepting the Matn because a similar thing exists in other books like Sahih Muslim. The reality is, al-Arnaut was quick to criticise parts of the Matn he did not believe were authentic and i have demonstrated that to you. Al-Albani himself accepted the second version and gave it his own T'awil.
In your dreams. Following Sunnah is proven from Quran again, but unfortunately, this isn't the case for Ahlelbayt. So your logic falls flat.
We are ordered to follow whatever the Prophet (saw) tells us. Following his Sunnah IS following the ones he commands us to follow and in effect IS following Allah. According to Sunni Fiqh, Muttawatir reports are pretty much on level with the Quran in terms of obedience and acting upon them. Put this aside , you believe there will be a man, al-Mahdi, who Jesus Christ will pray behind (Saheeh Muslim) who will be the Imam and ruler of the entire world-wide Ummah , who is a descendent of the Prophet (saw) through his daughter, and who will bring everlasting peace and prosperity on earth after a tumultuous series of major battles. Where is he mentioned in the Quran? Where does it say to follow him?
Rather, Allah commanded us to follow himself, to follow the Prophet (saw), and those vested with authority, and al-Mahdi is going to be one of those vested with authority, whom the Prophet (saw) himself spoke about and traditions about al-Mahadi are Muttawatir, meaning it is Kufr to deny al-Mahdi or his existence.
When majority of the Ummah was gathered in Arafah, and they needed the words of advice from Prophet(saws), especially the most important one in regards to guidance. Prophet(saws) mentions just Quran, as if for them guidance of Ahlelbayt was not needed. But then couple of days later, when a large portion of those present in Arafah are not there, he mentions them about guidance again and adds Ahlelbayt along with Quran. Why? What crime did the majority of Muslims from different regions of Arabia did? And ironically Allah too perfected the religion there, without commanding prophet(saws) to mention Ahlelbayt as well in arafah. Wow what a co-incidence.
I can answer this, but as i stated in the OP, the debate is solely surrounding the authenticity of this version and nothing else.
And I have proven from the understanding of Sahabi who witnessed this event, that the mention of Ahlelbayt had nothing to do with guidance. And know the fundamental principle in the creed of Ahlus-sunnah, that the understanding of sahabi cannot be challenged by scholars of this era.
The reality is, the consensus of the Sunnis is that the wives are included in Ahlulbayt, and that they are included in the Ahlulbayt mentioned in this tradition. In fact, most of the refutation websites made by the Salafi-Atharis and others do not agree with the explanation of Zayd.
Here is one example:
http://www.chiite.fr/en/ahlul_bayt_04.htmlHere is another:
https://islamqa.info/en/10055The companions are not viewed as 'infallible' and are capable of erring in their judgement. In fact, it is the Shia who have pushed his opinion of Zayd.
The Sahabi had the deepest understanding of this event, because he lived that event. The scholars you mention, are just scratching the surface of knowledge. Hence the view and understanding of Sahabi is touch stone in this debate, and any view of a scholar of this era can never challenge the view of a Sahabi. This fact actually ends the debate for any unbiased truth-seeker.
Don't you think the scholars are aware of this, or the virtue in their eyes of certain companions? Yet, they do not believe every single opinion a companion gives is automatically Hujjah, if it is from himself, and companions can sometimes err and give their own opinion on an issue. Nevermind the fact it goes against the consensus view of the Sunni world that those intended are also the wives, and the Ummah is commanded to take care of them all and uphold the Ijmah of the view of the wives and other members of the family of the Prophet (saw)
79 Replies
20174 Views
October 11, 2015, 04:12:17 PM