TwelverShia.net Forum

The Prophet left two weighty things: stop the deception TSN/Sunni Defense/YPTA

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

whoaretheshia

Salam,

As you know, TSN, Sunni Defense, and Youpuncturedtheark have attempted to weaken a version of Hadith al-Thaqalayn whereby the Prophet (saw) clearly states that if people held onto the Quran and the Ahlulbayt, they would never go astray. However, they have not told you that the people weakening this tradition are lay brothers online, namely Hani, and Noor-Us-Sunnah, who are explicitly going against the grading given by your own reliable scholars. I have challenged both Hani and Noor-Us-Sunnah on this without any legitimate response given.

Whose grading will you adopt, Al-Albani, Al-Arnaut, Ibn Hajar and heavy weights in your sect, or online lay bloggers such as Noor-us-Sunnah, and Hani? Ask yourselves what is haq?

Quote
“The Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, said: “I have left behind over you (al-Thaqalayn) that which if you hold fast to it you will never go astray: the Book of Allah – one end of which is in the Hand of Allah and the other in your hands– and my Ahl al-Bayt.”

We wish to present four chains of narrators we feel will be accepted by the vast majority of Sunnis, starting with the one that will be most widely accepted.

Chain one

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. [Musnad Ibn Rahwayh / Sunan Abi Asim]

Chain two

حدثنا إبراهيم بن مرزوق قال : حدثنا أبو عامر العقدي قال : حدثنا كثير بن زيد، عن محمد بن عمر بن علي ، عن أبيه ، عن علي ، أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم  – إني قد تركت فيكم ما إن أخذتم به لن تضلوا :كتاب الله سببه بأيديكم، وأهل بيتي. [Mushkil al-Athar al-Tahawi]

The only difference between the two chains is a narrator at the beginning who is indisputably Thiqah, and so the following will apply for both, although al-Albani/ al-Arnaut were grading the second chain:

1. Muhammad Nasir-ud-Dīn al-Albani included this in Silsila al-aHaadith as-Sahiha, referring to it as a strong Shawahid, whose narrators are trustworthy.

2.Shu’ayb al-Arnaut has graded the chain of narrators as ‘Hasan’ in Sharh Mushkil al-Athar.

3. Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani has graded the chain as ‘Saheeh’ in al-Matalib al-Aliyah bi Zawaid al-Masanid al-Thamaniyyah.

4. Ahmad B. Abu Bakr b.Ismail Al Busri , Itihaf al-Khiyarah al-Maharah bi Zawaid al-Masanid al-‘Ashra declares the chain as ‘Saheeh’.

5. Moulana Muhammad Abasoomar of the well-respected Hadithanswers.com also grades the chain of narrators for this tradition as ‘Hasan’ and has written: “This is a narration from Kitabus Sunnah of Imam Ibn Abi ‘Asim (rahimahullah), hadith: 1563. The chain is sound (hasan).”

This is therefore Hujjah upon Sunnis.
"I leave behind for you two weighty things, which if you hold onto, you will never go astray...the Quran and my Ahlulbayt" - Musnad Ibn Rawayh (al-Albani classes Isnaad *independently* as Hasan, and Matn as authentic, as does Al-Arnaut, Ibn Hajar and others.

whoaretheshia

What common responses are given by Hani, TSN and Youpunctured?

Claim: "The scholars were only being lenient because it pertained to merits of the Ahlulbayt"

Response:

Some have argued that the scholars were just being lenient in grading the traditions, because it is one of ‘virtue’. This however, is shameless intellectual dishonesty. For instance, Shu’ayb al-Arnaut grades the first  chain for the second version brought in this work as ‘Hasan’ , however, the same Shu’ayb al-Arnaut also has graded weak chains of the second version, and has not graded them ‘Hasan’ out of lenience but has declared them weak.

As an example of him grading a chain for the second version as week we find: “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. [1].  Conversely, for the reliable chain presented for version two however as cited before, he states: ” إسناده حسن ” [The chain is Hasan] [2]

Further more al-Albani clearly authenticates the narrators in the chain, and has outright considered them reliable. Many other Sunni scholars of Hadith have objectively considered the chain to be of a Hasan standard. They have graded other traditions whereby the chain was weak to be Dhai'f, and have weakened narrators.

So this false claim can be thrown out. This tradition is also far greater than just merits of the Ahlulbayt, there is a clear command here with significant theological ramifications, which is why TSN/Sunni Defense/Youpuncturedtheark are desperate to weaken it.

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

[2]  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
"I leave behind for you two weighty things, which if you hold onto, you will never go astray...the Quran and my Ahlulbayt" - Musnad Ibn Rawayh (al-Albani classes Isnaad *independently* as Hasan, and Matn as authentic, as does Al-Arnaut, Ibn Hajar and others.

whoaretheshia

Claim: Okay, the chain might be Hasan , but that does not mean the Matn is.

Response:


Many of these same scholars have clearly also authenticated the Matn, including al-Albani himself.

Al-Albani, one of the great modern day Sunni-Salafi scholars of Hadith [Who authenticated the second version]: “What is specifically meant by the members of the household is the righteous scholars among them, who adhere to the Qur’an and Sunnah.  Imam Abu Ja‘far at-Tahhaawi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: The “family” are the members of his household (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) who adhere to his religion and follow in his footsteps. Conclusion: the mention, in this hadith, of the members of his household, alongside the Qur’an, is like the mention of the way of the Rightly Guided Caliphs alongside the Sunnah (way) of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) in the hadith: “I urge you to adhere to my way (Sunnah) and the way of the Rightly Guided Caliphs…”  [1]

Imam Nawawi:”The scholars said: The two have been called Thaqalayn to show their ealtedness and the greatness of their importance. It has also been said that the word is used to show the heaviness of the (responsibility to) act by their instructions.” [2]

Al-Zamakhshari states: Jinn and man have been called the Two Weighty Things (i.e. Thaqalaan, as in Qur’an 55:31) because both of them dwell on the earth, and are actually the two most important beings on it. The Qur’an and the itrah have been likened to them because the good health and survival of the religion is dependent upon them, just as the survival of the earth is dependent upon the existence of jinn and man on it. ” [3]

Ibn Athir:” The two (i.e. Qur’an and Ahl al-Bayt) have been called Thaqalayn (i.e. the Two Weighty Things)because holding firmly onto them and acting by their instructions is a heavy (responsibility), and it is said that everything that is weighty is precious. The two have been called Thaqalayn in recognition of their authority and importance.”  [25]

Shaykh Hasan al-Saqqaf: "Holding firmly onto the Ahl al-Bayt (as in hadith Thaqalayn) means loving them,defending their rights, copying their manners, following their guidance and conduct, acting by their narrations (of the Sunnah), basing one’s religion upon their opinions, statements and jurisprudence and to prefer them above all others.” [26]

Mullah Ali al-Qari :“Holding firmly onto the Ahl al-Bayt (as in Hadith Thaqalayn) means loving them, defening their rights, acting by their  narrations (of the Sunnah) and basing one’s religion upon their words.” [27]

Shaykh al-Munawi states: “The Holy Prophet (pbuh) made the Holy Qur’an and the Ahl al-Bayt his successors and instructed his Ummah to be kind to them both, to place their rights above their own and to hold onto them both in the religion.”[28]

"I leave behind for you two weighty things, which if you hold onto, you will never go astray...the Quran and my Ahlulbayt" - Musnad Ibn Rawayh (al-Albani classes Isnaad *independently* as Hasan, and Matn as authentic, as does Al-Arnaut, Ibn Hajar and others.

whoaretheshia

Claim: "The more reliable version in Saheeh Muslim should be taken above this"

Response:

Your scholars don't seem to find any contradiction between the version in Saheeh Muslim, and this version. It is already proven that Zayd , in his old age and admitting memory loss, missed out phrases even TSN/YPTA consider reliable, such as "They will never deviant until the pool of Kawthar/Pond". When all of the versions are collated, it is clear they contain a fuller account of statements omitted by others, or summarized by others.

An assessment of the tradition in Sahih Muslim, narrated by Zaid bin Aqram.

Assessment

The most important fact to consider is that this version narrated by Zaid bin Aqram only when he first complains about his advanced age and poor memory. No other companion has narrated it in this fashion. We acknowledge this is not sufficient to discount it – and we are not attempting to claim this is inauthentic. However, one should hardly consider it the most complete account, and given there are authentic narrations with additional expressions, Zaid bin Aqram clearly omitted parts. To emphasise the extent of his memory loss, and advanced age, let us bring forth a tradition in Sunan Ibn Majah:

“Abdur-Rahman bin Abi Laila said: We said to Zaid bin Arqam: ‘Tell us a Hadith from the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ).’ He said: ‘We have grown old and have forgotten, and (narrating) Ahadith from the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) is difficult (not a simple matter).’”[5]

Interestingly for anyone other than the companions (who are given a free pass) , the following (and rather logical) approach is used:

Our dear viewers may want to read what the position is on someone whose memory is said to have changed:

Ibn Kathir in ‘al-Bath al-Hathith’ said while speaking about people whose memory became weak due to different reasons (fear; illness; problem): “Whoever heard from such (narrators) before their change, his narrations are accepted, and if someone heard after, or there is a doubt (if he heard after or before) his reports are not accepted“.[6]  and  Hafidh al-Iraqi in ‘Hafidh al-Alai ‘al-Mukhtalatin’  said: “Ruling regarding those who changed in their memory (ikhtilat), his reports in such state are not accepted“. [7]

It is rather interesting that the companions are given a free pass, and not enlisted into the ‘Mukhtilat’ whereas non-companions may be. This double standard undermines attemptsto objectively analyse this tradition. One may argue Zayd did not report other than what he felt he could remember accurately, but many with memory loss and old age may feel the same way but due to declining memory may mistakenly think they have remembered something accurately. Unless Zayd or the Sahaba were immune to the effects we find in every single generation of human beings, it is clear his memory may have effected him here.

Some examples of Ibn Umar setting a precedent in omitting an authentic expression or perhaps making an error:

Narrated Ibn ‘Umar: The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) as saying: The dead is punished because of his family’s weeping for him. When this was mentioned to ‘Aishah, she said: Ibn ‘Umar forgot and made a mistake. The Prophet (ﷺ) passed by grave and he said: The man in the grave is being punished while his family is weeping for him. She then recited: “No bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another.” The narrator Abu Mu’awiyyah said: (The Prophet passed) by the grave of a Jew. [8]Narrated ‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar:  Allah’s Apostle said, “If someone keeps a dog neither for guarding livestock, nor for hunting, his good deeds will decrease (in reward) by two Qirats a day.’[9]

Abu Huraira (Allah be pleased with him) reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: He who kept a dog except one meant for watching the herd, or for hunting or for watching the fields. he lost two qirat of reward every day. Zuhri said: “The words of Abu Huraira (Allah be pleased with him) were conveyed to Ibn Umar who said: May Allah have mercy upon Abu Huraira; he owned a field.” [10]

As we can see in the example above, Ibn Umar ommits what is an authentic expression to Sunnis, which is correctly preseved by Abu Huraira. If he could do it whilst not being at a very advanced age at the time, why couldn’t Zayd also at an advanced age and suffering from memory loss too omit authentic expressions?

Sunnis should not see the first version as a contradiction to the second, but both as reliable with the second containing an authentic expression the first has omitted, and the third an expression the first and second may have omitted.

[5] Sunan ibn Majah, Book 1, Hadith 26 / ENG: Vol. 1, Book 1, Hadith 25 (Darrusalam).

[6] Ibn Kathir in ‘al-Bath al-Hathith’  (page 668, Maktabatul Maarif)

[7] Hafidh al-Iraqi in Hafidh al-Alai ‘al-Mukhtalatin’ p 7. 

[8] Sunan Abu Dawud, Saheeh: https://sunnah.com/abudawud/21/41
"I leave behind for you two weighty things, which if you hold onto, you will never go astray...the Quran and my Ahlulbayt" - Musnad Ibn Rawayh (al-Albani classes Isnaad *independently* as Hasan, and Matn as authentic, as does Al-Arnaut, Ibn Hajar and others.

Noor-us-Sunnah

I'm not at all interested in again answering the arguments which this Shia keeps bringing even after  these were refuted several times.

But my suggestion for people is to focus on three important points.

1. Until the verse of perfection/completion of religion was revealed by Allah(swt) on Arafah, Prophet(saws) mentioned only Quran as the source he left, holding which Muslims would never go astray.

2.  We don’t find the mention of Prophet(saws) reminding of Ahlelbayt in this ambiguous/faulty version, so where did it disappear? It is quite clear that, the weak narrator who was known for making mistakes in his transmission, erroneously reported this version of Hadeeth al-Thaqalayn in an ambiguous/faulty form. We won’t find any faulty version of Hadeeth al-Thaqalayn, which mentions adhering or holding both Quran and Ahlelbayt, also mentioning the reminder towards Ahlelbayt.

3. Understanding of Sahabi(Zayd bin Arqam) disapproves the view that the purpose behind mention of Ahlelbayt in Hadith al-Thaqalayn was to seek guidance from them. Because according to him any relative of Prophet(S) upon whom acceptance of Sadaqa was forbidden is from Ahl al-bayt, so this even includes members who were sinners.

Details with evidences are in this link:
https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2015/02/19/hadeeth-al-thaqalayntwo-weighty-things-the-correct-understanding-and-a-spot-on-perspective-of-sunnis/
« Last Edit: December 09, 2019, 11:58:48 AM by Noor-us-Sunnah »

iceman

I'm not at all interested in again answering the arguments which this Shia keeps bringing even after  these were refuted several times.

But my suggestion for people is to focus on three important points.

1. Until the verse of perfection/completion of religion was revealed by Allah(swt) on Arafah, Prophet(saws) mentioned only Quran as the source he left, holding which Muslims would never go astray.

2.  We don’t find the mention of Prophet(saws) reminding of Ahlelbayt in this ambiguous/faulty version, so where did it disappear? It is quite clear that, the weak narrator who was known for making mistakes in his transmission, erroneously reported this version of Hadeeth al-Thaqalayn in an ambiguous/faulty form. We won’t find any faulty version of Hadeeth al-Thaqalayn, which mentions adhering or holding both Quran and Ahlelbayt, also mentioning the reminder towards Ahlelbayt.

3. Understanding of Sahabi(Zayd bin Arqam) disapproves the view that the purpose behind mention of Ahlelbayt in Hadith al-Thaqalayn was to seek guidance from them. Because according to him any relative of Prophet(S) upon whom acceptance of Sadaqa was forbidden is from Ahl al-bayt, so this even includes members who were sinners.

Details with evidences are in this link:
https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2015/02/19/hadeeth-al-thaqalayntwo-weighty-things-the-correct-understanding-and-a-spot-on-perspective-of-sunnis/

"I'm not at all interested in again answering the arguments which this Shia keeps bringing even after  these were refuted several times"

The feeling is absolutely the same here. I'm tired of answering the same questions and addressing the same matters over and over again. Especially by Muslim 720 and mythbuster. But it needs to be done. The propaganda needs to be addressed and the propagandists need to be dealt with.

Mythbuster1

"I'm not at all interested in again answering the arguments which this Shia keeps bringing even after  these were refuted several times"

The feeling is absolutely the same here. I'm tired of answering the same questions and addressing the same matters over and over again. Especially by Muslim 720 and mythbuster. But it needs to be done. The propaganda needs to be addressed and the propagandists need to be dealt with.

Lol you dimwit you couldn’t answer even if your life depended on it, you and your kind have been a joke for centuries it’s only right that your ancestors the jokers gave birth to jokers like yourself😂

The joke is.......divine imarmite😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

And you still can’t answer👍

iceman

Lol you dimwit you couldn’t answer even if your life depended on it, you and your kind have been a joke for centuries it’s only right that your ancestors the jokers gave birth to jokers like yourself😂

The joke is.......divine imarmite😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

And you still can’t answer👍

Here we are.

Qur'an (2:124).

"And [mention, O Muhammad], when Abraham was tried by his Lord with commands and he fulfilled them. [ Allah ] said, "Indeed, I will make you an IMAM for the people." [Abraham] said, "And of my descendants?" [ Allah ] said, "My covenant does not include the wrongdoers."

Qur'an (32:24).

"And we made of them IMAMS to guide by our command for they were patient, and they were certain of our clear signs”.

Below are the two verses which absolutely and completely destroy Saqifa.

"And your Lord creates and chooses whom He pleases; to choose is not theirs”
(28:68)

“And it behaves not a believing man and a believing woman that they should have any choice in their matter when Allah and His Apostle have decided a matter” (33:36)

Please do rub yourself in it 😆

Mythbuster1

Here we are.

Qur'an (2:124).

"And [mention, O Muhammad], when Abraham was tried by his Lord with commands and he fulfilled them. [ Allah ] said, "Indeed, I will make you an IMAM for the people." [Abraham] said, "And of my descendants?" [ Allah ] said, "My covenant does not include the wrongdoers."

Qur'an (32:24).

"And we made of them IMAMS to guide by our command for they were patient, and they were certain of our clear signs”.

Below are the two verses which absolutely and completely destroy Saqifa.

"And your Lord creates and chooses whom He pleases; to choose is not theirs”
(28:68)

“And it behaves not a believing man and a believing woman that they should have any choice in their matter when Allah and His Apostle have decided a matter” (33:36)

Please do rub yourself in it 😆

 Ibrahim as gets promotion AFTER prophethood.........ahlubaith ra get promotion at birth.

😯 THIS IS DIVINE SHIITE IMAMATE!😂

So if you can provide a verse to back that up then I can say you are NOT twisting words of the noble Quran........otherwise like I’ve said before you are just a lying Shiite........not a syed at all😉

The rest of the verses don’t touch on Saqifa until you start ADDING your own commentary on it which is LYING!!!

A confused syed who is most likely the idiot of his village 😂

iceman

Ibrahim as gets promotion AFTER prophethood.........ahlubaith ra get promotion at birth.

😯 THIS IS DIVINE SHIITE IMAMATE!😂

So if you can provide a verse to back that up then I can say you are NOT twisting words of the noble Quran........otherwise like I’ve said before you are just a lying Shiite........not a syed at all😉

The rest of the verses don’t touch on Saqifa until you start ADDING your own commentary on it which is LYING!!!

A confused syed who is most likely the idiot of his village 😂

You asked me to prove Imamah from the Qur'an and I've proved it again. 😆 It's not my problem that you can't digest it and keep coming with counter arguments, ifs and buts and irrelevant stuff. Next time don't bite off more than you can chew. And don't swallow more than you can digest. 😅 Deal with what you can stomach 😂
« Last Edit: December 15, 2019, 10:39:38 PM by iceman »

whoaretheshia

Brother Noor-Us-Sunnah, the author of youpuncturedtheark, obviously makes a lot of effort in the analysis he does. My impression is - and Allah knows best - these are sincere efforts. His arguments are well thought out, he does his research, but unfortunately, there are errors. These errors i believe, come from what he has assumed apriori; the idea that the Prophet (saw) explicitly designated the Quran and Ahlulbayt as sources of guidance right before his death it at odds with what Sunnis do, what the caliphs did, what many of the companions did, and seems to strongly support the Shia narrative. He has therefore gone to great lengths to weaken the tradition and explain it away.

I will address his latest reply, but if you look on his article, he does a the following:

1.
He knows that he needs to explain why well-respected, authoritative and far more knowledgeable scholars of Hadith like al-Albani , al-Arnaut, ibn Hajar etc have authenticated the chain. He erroneously claims this was out of leniency and misuses the principle of being more lax when it comes to traditions pertaining to virtue. 

I clearly demonstrated instances when al-Arnaut, and al-Albani grade the same version of the same Hadith as 'weak' due to chain. They did not shy away from doing so, which throws that argument out of the water. There are also instances where, al-Albani for example, explicitly claims the narrators are reliable.  Indeed, Allah is a witness, but it is beyond doubt that al-Albani, al-Arnaut, Ibn Hajar and many others have graded the chain to be at least 'Hasan' outright, and not out of leniency.

Will he correct this? I can only hope so, given i have given references and clearly pointed this out to him.

2. He then , in his article, makes the claim that irrespective of the grading, claiming a chain is 'Hasan' does not mean the scholars agree with the content of the Hadith. This is true, however, i provided evidence where several of the scholars who authenticated it, clearly also accepted the contents, such as Al-Albani himself. The point he raised therefore bears absolutely no relevance to our discussion.

Where does this leave us?

Well, it is up to Sunnis on here to decide for themselves. On one hand, you have scholars who have spent decades upon decades studying the science of Hadith, who have given their expert gratings over the matter of narrators. On the other hand, you have -perhaps- sincere online bloggers, trying to overrule the scholars.

What is the decent thing for youpuncturedtheark to do, even if he disagrees with scholars far greater than him? At least present the truth. Present the fact Al-Albani, Al-Arnaut, Ibn Hajar and many others authenticated the chain, and not out of leniency, and many of these and others accepted the Matn, though some gave it their own interpretation. Then make it clear you disagree with these scholars, and why.

"I leave behind for you two weighty things, which if you hold onto, you will never go astray...the Quran and my Ahlulbayt" - Musnad Ibn Rawayh (al-Albani classes Isnaad *independently* as Hasan, and Matn as authentic, as does Al-Arnaut, Ibn Hajar and others.

whoaretheshia

Three additional points of brother Noor-Us-Sunnah

1. Brother Noor-Us-Sunnah claims that on the day of Arafah, the Prophet (saw) told the people to hold onto the Quran as guidance, but didn't mention anything along with this. If we concede this, for sake of argument, it does not contradict the fact that there are other essential things to also hold onto. Does it mean we ought not to also follow his Sunnah? Does the Prophet (saw) telling the people that he is leaving behind the Quran as a source of guidance for us to hold onto mean he did not, or could not, at any other point of time also make clear that there were other key sources of guidance?

Does Noor-Us-Sunnah not accept the traditions where the Prophet (saw) commands the people to follow his Sunnah, and also the way of the rightly guided Caliphs?  Are not the Khawarij who proclaimed that the Quran and Allah were sufficient? 

A better argument to make here would be, why do we not have reliable evidence that the Prophet (saw) claimed he left behind the Quran and the Ahlulbayt at Arafah. Why do it at Ghadeer Khumm?  I will respond to this in due course, insha Allah.

However, would anyone have a good reason to proclaim something at Hajj? Indeed, we find the second Khalifah himself agreed with the wisdom of waiting to proclaim certain things which would be seen as controversial, distorted and twisted in front of the people of Medina, who would (he hoped) better implement it and understand its proper place:

"“I used to teach (the Qur’an to) some people of the Muhajirln (emigrants), among whom there was `Abdur Rahman bin `Auf. While I was in his house at Mina, and he was with `Umar bin Al-Khattab during `Umar’s last Hajj, `Abdur-Rahman came to me and said, “Would that you had seen the man who came today to the Chief of the Believers (`Umar), saying, ‘O Chief of the Believers! What do you think about so-and-so who says, ‘If `Umar should die, I will give the pledge of allegiance to such-and such person, as by Allah, the pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr was nothing but a prompt sudden action which got established afterwards.’ `Umar became angry and then said, ‘Allah willing, I will stand before the people tonight and warn them against those people who want to deprive the others of their rights (the question of rulership). `Abdur-Rahman said, “I said, ‘O Chief of the believers! Do not do that, for the season of Hajj gathers the riff-raff and the rubble, and it will be they who will gather around you when you stand to address the people. And I am afraid that you will get up and say something, and some people will spread your statement and may not say what you have actually said and may not understand its meaning, and may interpret it incorrectly, so you should wait till you reach Medina, as it is the place of emigration and the place of Prophet’s Traditions, and there you can come in touch with the learned and noble people, and tell them your ideas with confidence; and the learned people will understand your statement and put it in its proper place.’ On that, `Umar said, ‘By Allah! Allah willing, I will do this in the first speech I will deliver before the people in Medina.” [ Saheeh of Imam al-Bukhari]



"I leave behind for you two weighty things, which if you hold onto, you will never go astray...the Quran and my Ahlulbayt" - Musnad Ibn Rawayh (al-Albani classes Isnaad *independently* as Hasan, and Matn as authentic, as does Al-Arnaut, Ibn Hajar and others.

whoaretheshia

The brother then regards the version to be ambiguous and faulty. There are two ways in which he can do this:

1. Regard a narrator as weak.

2. Regard the content as problematic or contradicting more reliable versions.

As has been demonstrated already, there are no weak narrators in the chain of transmission. Does he know something Al-Albani didn't? Or perhaps Al-Arnaut, Ibn Hajar and many of the other scholars of Hadith?  His attempts at claiming the scholars realized this but were lenient have been proven false.

He then tries to claim the text itself is faulty. The reality is, this is clutching at straws. What he argues is that because the singular is used in the version i have presented, this is the error of the narrator at hand, who perhaps confused things. However, the narrators were all fluent Arabic speakers. Given this would have been a grammatical issue, if it was not a way of speaking which was common and absolutely acceptable linguistically, the narrator would have recognized this.

So again, the brother claims:

"إِنِّي تَرَكْتُ فِيكُمْ مَا إِنْ أَخَذْتُمْ بِهِ لَنْ تَضِلُّوا : كِتَابَ اللَّهِ ، سَبَبُهُ بِيَدِ اللَّهِ ، وَسَبَبُهُ بِأَيْدِيكُمْ ، وَأَهْلَ بَيْتِي

I have left behind over you that which if you hold fast to IT you will never go astray: the Book of Allah – one end of IT is in the Hand of Allah and the other end of IT is in your hands– and my Ahl al-Bayt”.[Musnad Ishaq ibn Rahwayah]

The Key word that needs to be focused in both versions is the pronoun {هِ/hi/hu= IT}, which is a singular pronoun. Even though as per Arabic grammar, the word (هِ/hi/IT) can occur for two or more things being addressed as in reference to (مَا/maa/Which), but without the change in verbs for the nouns being mentioned and it should be in a single sentence."




However, it isn't just the version I've presented using this mode of expression. The same can be found in many other sources by many other narrators:

Musnad of Imam Ahmad:

حدثنا عبد الله حدثنى ابى عن ابن نمير ثنا عبدالملك بن ابى سليمان عن عطية العوفى عن ابى سعيد الخدرى قال قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم انى قد تركت فيكم ما ان اخذتم به لن تضلوا بعدى الثقلين احدهما اكبر من الاخر كتاب الله حبل ممدود من السماء الى الارض و عترتى اهل بيتى وانهما لن يفترقا حتى يردا على الحوض

Jami' of Imam Tirmidhi:

حدثنا على بن المنذر الكوفى حدثنا محمد بن الفضيل حدثنا الاعمش عن عطية عن ابى سعيد والاعمش عن حبيب بن ابى ثابت عن زيد بن ارقم قال قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم انى تارك فيكم ما  2 تمسكتم به لن تضلوا بعدى احدهما اعظم من الاخر كتاب الله حبل ممدود من السماء الى الارض وعترتى اههل بيتى ولن يتفرقا حتى يردا علىّ الحوض فانظروا كيف تخلفونى فيهما هذا حديث غريب

Mu'jam Sagheer of Imama Tabarani:


حدثنا حسن بن مسلم بن الطبيب الصنعانى ثنا عبدالحميد بن صبيح ثنا يونس بن ارقم هارون بن سعد عن عطية عن ابى سعيد الخدرى عن النبى صلى الله عليه و سلم قال انى تارك فيكم الثقلين ما ان تمسكتم به لن تضلوا كتاب الله وعترتى ولن يتفرقا حتى يردا على الحوض-لم يروه عن هارون بن سعد الا يونس



Did these narrators, who are actually considered weak and accused of fabricating the Hadith, who were fluent in Arabic given it was their native tongue, manage to fabricate a tradition but erroneously forget to make sure they amended very, very basic grammar?

Brother Noor-us-Sunnah is clutching at straws and this particular argument he is making is novel to him, and should be thrown out.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2019, 05:33:41 AM by whoaretheshia »
"I leave behind for you two weighty things, which if you hold onto, you will never go astray...the Quran and my Ahlulbayt" - Musnad Ibn Rawayh (al-Albani classes Isnaad *independently* as Hasan, and Matn as authentic, as does Al-Arnaut, Ibn Hajar and others.

whoaretheshia

I would like to ask brother Noor-Us-Sunnah , that, say i concede Zayd b. Aqram did not consider them to be sources of guidance, what does that prove? If a companion did not recognize the status of the Ahlulbayt, that does nothing to diminish it. Who is greater, Abu Bakr, or Zayd b. Aqram, in the eyes of Sunnis? It is clearly the first Khalifah. He undoubtedly did not hold onto the Ahlulbayt as a clear source of guidance alongside the Quran. Does that disprove clear commands of the Prophet (saw)?

Zayd himself contradicts Sunni scholarship when he in the Hadith claims wives are not Ahlulbayt. Noor-us-Sunnah himself would accept that in his view, the command is to look after the Ahlulbayt, to care for them, and this includes the wives.

Furthermore, it is not proven what Zayd actually thought. He may have accepted that the Prophet said to hold onto the Quran and the Ahlulbayt, but believed the Ahlulbayt were to be considered as certain bloodlines of the Prophet. Nevertheless, many turned away from this, and like they do today, served to give the words of the Prophet their own interpretation.

We find the same for other companions of other Prophets of God in the noble Quran, who clearly hear the command, but convince each other about how best to implement it.

We should concern ourselves with the following:

Did the Prophet (saw) command us to follow the Quran and the Ahlulbayt, as sources of guidance after which we would never go astray?

« Last Edit: December 18, 2019, 05:40:37 AM by whoaretheshia »
"I leave behind for you two weighty things, which if you hold onto, you will never go astray...the Quran and my Ahlulbayt" - Musnad Ibn Rawayh (al-Albani classes Isnaad *independently* as Hasan, and Matn as authentic, as does Al-Arnaut, Ibn Hajar and others.

Noor-us-Sunnah

Brother Noor-Us-Sunnah, the author of youpuncturedtheark, obviously makes a lot of effort in the analysis he does. My impression is - and Allah knows best - these are sincere efforts. His arguments are well thought out, he does his research, but unfortunately, there are errors. These errors i believe, come from what he has assumed apriori; the idea that the Prophet (saw) explicitly designated the Quran and Ahlulbayt as sources of guidance right before his death it at odds with what Sunnis do, what the caliphs did, what many of the companions did, and seems to strongly support the Shia narrative. He has therefore gone to great lengths to weaken the tradition and explain it away.
The Shia narrative is that Ahl al-bayt were appointed as Leaders over the Ummah, which contradicts numerous reports showing Sunnah of Prophet(SAWS) and even the understanding of Sahaba including Ahl al-bayt such as Ali(RA).

And as for Ahl al-bayt being designated as being source of guidance and what the Shia narrative is, then this just doesn't goes against Quran, and ahadeeth, but it even goes against the understanding of Sahabi who narrated this report.


I will address his latest reply, but if you look on his article, he does a the following:

1.
He knows that he needs to explain why well-respected, authoritative and far more knowledgeable scholars of Hadith like al-Albani , al-Arnaut, ibn Hajar etc have authenticated the chain. He erroneously claims this was out of leniency and misuses the principle of being more lax when it comes to traditions pertaining to virtue. 

I clearly demonstrated instances when al-Arnaut, and al-Albani grade the same version of the same Hadith as 'weak' due to chain. They did not shy away from doing so, which throws that argument out of the water. There are also instances where, al-Albani for example, explicitly claims the narrators are reliable.  Indeed, Allah is a witness, but it is beyond doubt that al-Albani, al-Arnaut, Ibn Hajar and many others have graded the chain to be at least 'Hasan' outright, and not out of leniency.


Does this change the fact the there were classical scholars who weakened the narrator? This even includes Ibn Hajar who did say that the narrator committed mistakes. So what's the problem in calling the version as faulty? Or atleast saying that a report coming from a narrator of this level cannot be used in forming an Aqeedah, which you are arguing for. These are basics, those same scholars whom you are quoting would laugh on this argument that, a report coming from a narrator of this level, who was known for making mistakes, would be used to form an Aqeedah and that too when it contradicts numerous reports of Prophet and Understanding of Sahaba.

If you are here to implying that the grading of al-Albani or Ibn Hajar implies that, the report is spotless and perfectly authentic, even when Ibn Hajar himself admittted that the narrator was known for making mistakes, then I can't help you come out of your delusion. But if you say that, even though the narrator was truthful but would commit mistakes, which makes his report atleast Hasan, which implies it's not at top level of authenticity then, it you shouldn't make a fuss when I say the text is faulty, because the narrator wasn't a top level narrator , whose narration is being called faulty, its a narrator who was known for his mistakes.


2. He then , in his article, makes the claim that irrespective of the grading, claiming a chain is 'Hasan' does not mean the scholars agree with the content of the Hadith. This is true, however, i provided evidence where several of the scholars who authenticated it, clearly also accepted the contents, such as Al-Albani himself. The point he raised therefore bears absolutely no relevance to our discussion.
I say, that's completely fine for me. Because al-Albani wasn't the only Muhaddith in the world, it's fine if you want to go with his grading, but other disagreed and there is a scope for difference of opinion in this, and this is how an academic approach is, but hypocrisy is when, you take his grading, but reject his interpretation, because if your connotations were applied al-Albani himself would point out to you that, this is false and that would effect the grading of hadeeth as Munkar.

So you can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't use he grading of al-Albani but reject his explanation, because there are several instances wherein Albani authenticated weak reports because in his view those reports were supported by other Sahih reports. But but rejecting his interpretation you are jeopardizing his whole grading.


Well, it is up to Sunnis on here to decide for themselves. On one hand, you have scholars who have spent decades upon decades studying the science of Hadith, who have given their expert gratings over the matter of narrators. On the other hand, you have -perhaps- sincere online bloggers, trying to overrule the scholars.
The weakening of narrator wasn't by a online blogger as the Shia friend tries to portray but by these authoritative Scholars, which even includes Ibn Hajar.

(a). 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.”[Kitab al-Jarh wa al-Ta`dil, vol 7, page 150-151, #841].

(b). Al-Dhahabi in al-Mizan:
قال ابو زرعة فيه لين…قال النسائى ضعيف
Abu Zur`ah said: “He has weakness”… Nasa’i said: “Da’if(weak)” [al-Meezan, vol 5, page 489]

(c). Ibn Hajar in al-Tahdhib:
صالح بن أبي خيثمة عن بن معين ليس بذاك وكان اولا قال ليس بشيئ…قال النسائى ضعيف…قال ابو جعفر الطبرى كثير بن زيد عندهم ممن لا يحتج بنقله
Ibn Abi Khaythamah 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.” [Tahdhib al-Tahdhib vol 8, page 414, #745]

(d). Imaam Dhahabi said: “There is weakness in Katheer ibn Zayd“ [Mu’jam ash-Shuyookh ul-Kabeer by Dhahabi, vol 1, page 240]

(e). Ibn Jawzi mentioned him in Kitab al-Duafa wal Matrukin(weak and rejected narrators). [Kitab al-Duafa wal Matrukin by Ibn Jawzi vol 3, page 22 , #2786 ]

(f). Imaam Ali ibn al-Madeeni said: “Saalih, He is not Strong.“ [Sawalat Ibn Abi Shaybah by Ibn al-Madeeni: Pg 95]

(g). Ibn Ḥajar says: “He is a sadūq(truthful) who makes mistakes in his transmission. [Taqrib al-Tahdhib, vol 1, page 459]


What is the decent thing for youpuncturedtheark to do, even if he disagrees with scholars far greater than him? At least present the truth. Present the fact Al-Albani, Al-Arnaut, Ibn Hajar and many others authenticated the chain, and not out of leniency, and many of these and others accepted the Matn, though some gave it their own interpretation. Then make it clear you disagree with these scholars, and why.
The purpose of article is to refute Shia narrative, and I have done that successfully Alhamdulillah!
And I have presented one of the major reason being the understanding of a Sahabi which destroys the Shia narrative or rather misinterpretation of the report. And it's a rational fact that the understanding of an eye witness Sahabi is superior to those who came centuries after, let alone some innovators(Shia).

Noor-us-Sunnah

Three additional points of brother Noor-Us-Sunnah

1. Brother Noor-Us-Sunnah claims that on the day of Arafah, the Prophet (saw) told the people to hold onto the Quran as guidance, but didn't mention anything along with this. If we concede this, for sake of argument, it does not contradict the fact that there are other essential things to also hold onto. Does it mean we ought not to also follow his Sunnah? Does the Prophet (saw) telling the people that he is leaving behind the Quran as a source of guidance for us to hold onto mean he did not, or could not, at any other point of time also make clear that there were other key sources of guidance?
Taking Sunnah as source of guidance proven from Quran again, So if you believe Quran is source of guidance, you need to take Sunnah as guidance as well. So following Sunnah is going back to Quranic guidance again. And don't forget religion was perfected on Arafah.

Don't you find it odd that, the mention of Ahl al-bayt appears AFTER religion was perfected?

Does Noor-Us-Sunnah not accept the traditions where the Prophet (saw) commands the people to follow his Sunnah, and also the way of the rightly guided Caliphs? 
I do accept them, because again they are backed from Quran, because following Sunnah and those in authority is proven from Quran again. Hence this is going back to Quranic guidance again.

A better argument to make here would be, why do we not have reliable evidence that the Prophet (saw) claimed he left behind the Quran and the Ahlulbayt at Arafah. Why do it at Ghadeer Khumm?  I will respond to this in due course, insha Allah.
I'll give you a much better one, why didn't Allah delay the announcement of perfection of religion till Ghadeer, like the Shia fabricators understanding the importance of this verse, fabricated reports that this verse was revealed at Ghadeer. So since you can't help your case with those fabricated reports, trying finding any authentic one, otherwise, you'll fail those poor desperate Shia fabricators and the argument as well.


Noor-us-Sunnah

The brother then regards the version to be ambiguous and faulty. There are two ways in which he can do this:

1. Regard a narrator as weak.

2. Regard the content as problematic or contradicting more reliable versions.

As has been demonstrated already, there are no weak narrators in the chain of transmission. Does he know something Al-Albani didn't? Or perhaps Al-Arnaut, Ibn Hajar and many of the other scholars of Hadith?  His attempts at claiming the scholars realized this but were lenient have been proven false.

He then tries to claim the text itself is faulty. The reality is, this is clutching at straws. What he argues is that because the singular is used in the version i have presented, this is the error of the narrator at hand, who perhaps confused things. However, the narrators were all fluent Arabic speakers. Given this would have been a grammatical issue, if it was not a way of speaking which was common and absolutely acceptable linguistically, the narrator would have recognized this.

So again, the brother claims:

"إِنِّي تَرَكْتُ فِيكُمْ مَا إِنْ أَخَذْتُمْ بِهِ لَنْ تَضِلُّوا : كِتَابَ اللَّهِ ، سَبَبُهُ بِيَدِ اللَّهِ ، وَسَبَبُهُ بِأَيْدِيكُمْ ، وَأَهْلَ بَيْتِي

I have left behind over you that which if you hold fast to IT you will never go astray: the Book of Allah – one end of IT is in the Hand of Allah and the other end of IT is in your hands– and my Ahl al-Bayt”.[Musnad Ishaq ibn Rahwayah]

The Key word that needs to be focused in both versions is the pronoun {هِ/hi/hu= IT}, which is a singular pronoun. Even though as per Arabic grammar, the word (هِ/hi/IT) can occur for two or more things being addressed as in reference to (مَا/maa/Which), but without the change in verbs for the nouns being mentioned and it should be in a single sentence."




However, it isn't just the version I've presented using this mode of expression. The same can be found in many other sources by many other narrators:

Musnad of Imam Ahmad:

حدثنا عبد الله حدثنى ابى عن ابن نمير ثنا عبدالملك بن ابى سليمان عن عطية العوفى عن ابى سعيد الخدرى قال قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم انى قد تركت فيكم ما ان اخذتم به لن تضلوا بعدى الثقلين احدهما اكبر من الاخر كتاب الله حبل ممدود من السماء الى الارض و عترتى اهل بيتى وانهما لن يفترقا حتى يردا على الحوض

Jami' of Imam Tirmidhi:

حدثنا على بن المنذر الكوفى حدثنا محمد بن الفضيل حدثنا الاعمش عن عطية عن ابى سعيد والاعمش عن حبيب بن ابى ثابت عن زيد بن ارقم قال قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم انى تارك فيكم ما  2 تمسكتم به لن تضلوا بعدى احدهما اعظم من الاخر كتاب الله حبل ممدود من السماء الى الارض وعترتى اههل بيتى ولن يتفرقا حتى يردا علىّ الحوض فانظروا كيف تخلفونى فيهما هذا حديث غريب

Mu'jam Sagheer of Imama Tabarani:


حدثنا حسن بن مسلم بن الطبيب الصنعانى ثنا عبدالحميد بن صبيح ثنا يونس بن ارقم هارون بن سعد عن عطية عن ابى سعيد الخدرى عن النبى صلى الله عليه و سلم قال انى تارك فيكم الثقلين ما ان تمسكتم به لن تضلوا كتاب الله وعترتى ولن يتفرقا حتى يردا على الحوض-لم يروه عن هارون بن سعد الا يونس



Did these narrators, who are actually considered weak and accused of fabricating the Hadith, who were fluent in Arabic given it was their native tongue, manage to fabricate a tradition but erroneously forget to make sure they amended very, very basic grammar?

Brother Noor-us-Sunnah is clutching at straws and this particular argument he is making is novel to him, and should be thrown out.

Answered several times, refer the previous discussions in the other threads,  i guess you left the older threads where we discussed this and i answered you, for the same reason.

Noor-us-Sunnah

I would like to ask brother Noor-Us-Sunnah , that, say i concede Zayd b. Aqram did not consider them to be sources of guidance, what does that prove? If a companion did not recognize the status of the Ahlulbayt, that does nothing to diminish it. Who is greater, Abu Bakr, or Zayd b. Aqram, in the eyes of Sunnis? It is clearly the first Khalifah. He undoubtedly did not hold onto the Ahlulbayt as a clear source of guidance alongside the Quran. Does that disprove clear commands of the Prophet (saw)?

Zayd himself contradicts Sunni scholarship when he in the Hadith claims wives are not Ahlulbayt. Noor-us-Sunnah himself would accept that in his view, the command is to look after the Ahlulbayt, to care for them, and this includes the wives.

Furthermore, it is not proven what Zayd actually thought. He may have accepted that the Prophet said to hold onto the Quran and the Ahlulbayt, but believed the Ahlulbayt were to be considered as certain bloodlines of the Prophet. Nevertheless, many turned away from this, and like they do today, served to give the words of the Prophet their own interpretation.

We find the same for other companions of other Prophets of God in the noble Quran, who clearly hear the command, but convince each other about how best to implement it.

We should concern ourselves with the following:

Did the Prophet (saw) command us to follow the Quran and the Ahlulbayt, as sources of guidance after which we would never go astray?

What appears from the initial part of this post is that, Zaid(R) is someone who for NO reason, didn't recognize the status of Ahl al-bayt(as per Shia narrative) and turned away from the instruction of Prophet(S), but He himself narrated those same instructions, making a case against him. That's possible in your perception because of the brain washing done to you and for the Shia narrative you were brought up with. But, not in the view of a rational Muslim, the simplest way is that Zaid(R) just like rest of Sahaba who were superior to him didn't understand that from that report that it meant Ahl al-bayt were designated as source of Guidance by Prophet(S). And what they understood from it, they tried to stick to it. Like Abu bakr(R) who honored Ahl al-bayt and strove to keep good relation with them, same goes with Zaid bin Arqam, who honored Ahl al-bayt and kept narrating their virtues till the last stage of his life.

This even includes Jabir bin Abdullah(R) to whom (a supposed divinely appointed source of guidance) approach to know about the final Hajj of Prophet(S), he narrated to him that event, while he even LED that source of guidance in prayer as well. This might seem not a big issue to you, but the for the narrative you are advocating, it is a big issue.

And, I already answered Zayd's(R) view that wives of Prophet(S) aren't included in Ahl al-bayt of Hadeeth Thaqalayn. And you haven't answered it, so I care to save time by not answer that which was already answered by me, and for which you didn't make any counter response.

whoaretheshia

Quote
Does this change the fact the there were classical scholars who weakened the narrator? This even includes Ibn Hajar who did say that the narrator committed mistakes. So what's the problem in calling the version as faulty? Or atleast saying that a report coming from a narrator of this level cannot be used in forming an Aqeedah, which you are arguing for. These are basics, those same scholars whom you are quoting would laugh on this argument that, a report coming from a narrator of this level, who was known for making mistakes, would be used to form an Aqeedah and that too when it contradicts numerous reports of Prophet and Understanding of Sahaba.

If you are here to implying that the grading of al-Albani or Ibn Hajar implies that, the report is spotless and perfectly authentic, even when Ibn Hajar himself admittted that the narrator was known for making mistakes, then I can't help you come out of your delusion. But if you say that, even though the narrator was truthful but would commit mistakes, which makes his report atleast Hasan, which implies it's not at top level of authenticity then, it you shouldn't make a fuss when I say the text is faulty, because the narrator wasn't a top level narrator , whose narration is being called faulty, its a narrator who was known for his mistakes.


Now, brother Noor-us-Sunnah is trying to explain that some classical scholars of Hadith may have considered him weak, or put a question mark on him. However, he knows full well that there is a delicate science to this. We find that for a large number of narrators, there tend to be a divergent number of views regarding them among the classical scholars. Some of those are known to be unfairly strict. There are rules concerning how to take the totality of comments made by these scholars.

This is precisely why Ibn Hajar, despite giving the positive and negative views of Kathir b. Zayd himself authenticates the chain with Kathir b. Zayd by Sanad.

This too, is precisely why Al-Albani does so too, as well as Al-Arnaut, who are arguably two of the most well respected Sunni scholars of Hadith in modern times. They are not ignorant about the fact a narrator has divergent views, because this exists for a large swathe of narrators. However, given they have studied thousands, upon thousands of narrators, they recognize how to collate all of the various views and give what they consider the most reliable overall view.

Al-Albani, Al-Arnaut, Ibn Hajar and many others therefore regarded Kathir b. Zayd to transmit hadith to at least a Hasan level. This takes into account the divergent views, which stops it being at a Saheeh level, but is not strong enough to condemn it to being a Dhai'f (weak) level. This seems to be the overwhelming view of the great scholars of Hadith, particularly those who had access to the views of many of the others.

The only plausible claim that one can make here is that there is a more authentic version that this particular version contradicts. However, there is no evidence of this whatsoever.

Just because we find the Prophet claiming at one stage, that the Quran is a source of guidance we ought to hold onto if we do not wish to go astray, does not mean at other points he could not inform us of other critical sources of guidance. We know he had informed us to follow his Sunnah, to follow the rightly guided successors,  to follow his Ahlulbayt.


In terms of what one can use for Aqeedah, Hadith al-Thaqalayn is Muttawatir, particularly between the Sunnis and Shias. However, even if one were to claim it falls below Muttawatir, then the idea of only requiring Muttawatir for Aqeedah is not something adopted by Salafis:

IslamQA: https://islamqa.info/en/answers/130918/can-ahaad-hadeeths-be-accepted-with-regard-to-aqeedah

"3.If we say that matters of ‘aqeedah cannot be proven on the basis of ahaad reports, then it is possible to say that practical rulings cannot be proven on the basis of ahaad reports, because practical rulings are accompanied by the belief that Allah enjoined this and forbade that. If this opinion is accepted, then many of the rulings of sharee‘ah would be rendered invalid. If this idea is rejected then the idea that ‘aqeedah cannot be proven on the basis of ahaad reports should also be rejected, because there is no difference between the two, as we have explained.

To sum up: If an ahaad report is supported by corroborating evidence which indicates that this is true, then it becomes part of knowledge and rulings of practice and belief may be established. There is nothing to indicate that there should be any differentiation between the two. Any person who suggests that any of the imams differentiated between them has to prove that with a sound chain of narration from that imam, then he has to explain his evidence."


« Last Edit: December 18, 2019, 02:08:28 PM by whoaretheshia »
"I leave behind for you two weighty things, which if you hold onto, you will never go astray...the Quran and my Ahlulbayt" - Musnad Ibn Rawayh (al-Albani classes Isnaad *independently* as Hasan, and Matn as authentic, as does Al-Arnaut, Ibn Hajar and others.

whoaretheshia

Quote
I say, that's completely fine for me. Because al-Albani wasn't the only Muhaddith in the world, it's fine if you want to go with his grading, but other disagreed and there is a scope for difference of opinion in this, and this is how an academic approach is, but hypocrisy is when, you take his grading, but reject his interpretation, because if your connotations were applied al-Albani himself would point out to you that, this is false and that would effect the grading of hadeeth as Munkar.

So you can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't use he grading of al-Albani but reject his explanation, because there are several instances wherein Albani authenticated weak reports because in his view those reports were supported by other Sahih reports. But but rejecting his interpretation you are jeopardizing his whole grading.

I can absolutely take his grading but not fully agree with his interpretation, because they are two entirely different matters.

When he is grading the tradition, he is doing so on Sunni standards, and i regard him to be an authority on this matter and to have a much better understanding of narrators than Hani, yourself, or any online blogger. Therefore his grading, as well as that of Ibn Hajar, Al-Arnaut, and other authorities in this field allows me to have the most objective, authoritative and respected verdict on the chain of transmission of a particular hadith, which should be good enough for the vast majority of Sunnis.

His interpretation of the Hadith isn't based on his own judgement, as well as his desire to try to fit the Hadith with an already well crystallized Sunni/Salafi ideology.
"I leave behind for you two weighty things, which if you hold onto, you will never go astray...the Quran and my Ahlulbayt" - Musnad Ibn Rawayh (al-Albani classes Isnaad *independently* as Hasan, and Matn as authentic, as does Al-Arnaut, Ibn Hajar and others.

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
5 Replies
1177 Views
Last post February 22, 2015, 10:33:37 PM
by Proud Muslimah
2 Replies
582 Views
Last post May 13, 2018, 12:22:00 AM
by Noor-us-Sunnah
20 Replies
1261 Views
Last post December 09, 2019, 09:47:14 AM
by Noor-us-Sunnah
0 Replies
132 Views
Last post June 10, 2020, 10:23:08 PM
by Soccer