Some Traditions that Appear to Conflict with \adíth al­Thaqalayn:

[1]

Sháh `Abd al-`Azíz, in the Tu<fah, states that even if \adíth al­Thaqalayn be accepted as such, it contradicts some traditions of the Prophet (S). One of these traditions, which he claims to be #a<í<, is as follows:

Adhere to my sunnah and the sunnah of the rightly-guided successors after me. Hold on to it and cling on to it stubbornly.

Sayyid \ámid \usayn points out that such a contention is invalid:

• Firstly, he says, the tradition has been narrated solely by Sunnís, unlike the \adíth al-Thaqalayn which has been narrated widely both by Shí`í and non-Shí`í narrators.
• Secondly, Sháh `Abd al­`Azíz has here failed to observe his own self-declared principle that his arguments against Shí`í doctrines will be based on material derived from works accepted as reliable by the Shí`ah themselves.
• Thirdly, he points out, this tradition has been avoided by Muslim and al-Bukhárí, whose works are widely accepted by the Ahl al-Sunnah as the most authentic works on <adíth.
• Fourthly, the claim that the above-mentioned narration is #a<í< is not true, because the veracity of its transmitters has been considered as questionable by Sunní authorities.

The tradition has been recorded by Abú Dáwúd, al-Tirmidhí and Ibn Májah in their works. As to al-'Irbá_ ibn Sáriyah, the sole narrator from whom the tradition is narrated, he is not reliable because of the untenable statement he makes in his own praise ("I am one-fourth of Islam").

As to \ajar ibn \ajar al-Kilá'í, aside from belonging to \im#, a Syrian town once notorious for its people's enmity of `Alí (A), is of unknown standing as mentioned by Ibn \ajar in Tahdhíb al-Tahdhíb, iii, 118.

Khálid ibn Ma`dán ibn Abí Karíb al-Kitábí, aside from belonging to \im#, was the chief of police of Yazíd ibn Mu`áwiyah, the most infamous ruler in the history of Islam.

Thawr ibn Yazíd, too, belonged to \im# as mentioned by al­Dhahabí (Mízán al­'i`tidál, i, 374). As mentioned by Ibn \ajar (op. cit., ii, 34) he hated `Alí (A), who had killed his father in a battle. `Abd Alláh ibn Mubárak refrained from narrating from him and considered him a heretic (fásid al­madhhab).

The next transmitter, al-Walíd ibn Muslim, has been accused of forgery by Abú Mu#har, as mentioned by al­Dhahabí in Mízán al-'i`tidál, iv, 347. These were some of Abú Dáwúd's authorities.

The author then goes on to show that the transmitters of the narration recorded by al-Tirmidhí and Ibn Májah, namely Abú `Á#im, \asan ibn `Alí al-Khallál, Bu<ayr ibn Sa`íd, Baqiyyah ibn al-Walíd, Ya<ya ibn Abí al-Mu>á`, `Abd Alláh ibn `Alá', Mu`áwiyah ibn @áli<, Ismá`íl ibn Bishr ibn Man#úr, and `Abd al-Malik ibn al­@abbá<, are all weak (_a`íf) transmitters, as mentioned by Sunní authorities on rijál in their works.

Moreover, al-\áfi~ ibn al­Qa>>án has expressly rejected the authenticity of this sole narration of `Abd al-Ra<mán al-Salamí, as mentioned by Ibn \ajar in Tahdhíb al-Tahdhíb, vi, 238.

The author then goes on to point out that even if this narration be presumed to be #a<í<, it cannot have any weight against \ádíth al­Thaqalayn which has been narrated by a great number of Companions and leading Sunní scholars, while this narration has not been recorded in most of their works. Moreover, should this tradition be really authentic, then the words "rightly-guided successors" should be taken to mean the Twelve Imáms of the Ahl al-Bayt (A), as affirmed by another well-known tradition of the Prophet (S) that there would be twelve khulafá' or a'immah after him.

Thereafter the author goes on to deal with another doubt cast on this tradition by Sháh `Abd al-`Azíz, that even if it be presumed that \adíth al-Thaqalayn does not conflict with the above-mentioned tradition, the word al-`itrah can be taken to mean all the Prophet's kinsmen (aqárib) belonging to Banú Háshim in general, or all of the descendants of Fá>imah (A). Then it would be absurd to say that every individual belonging to them were an imám.

Sayyid \ámid \usayn clarifies this doubt by quoting various lexicographers, such as al-Jawharí, Ibn al-'Athír, Ibn Man~úr, al­Firúzábádí and others to the effect that `itrah means one's nearest relations (akha## aqáribih), children (walad) and descendants (dhurriyyah).

Moreover, he points out, \adíth al-Thaqalayn indicates the supreme knowledge as well as freedom of the `itrah mentioned in it from sin and error. Such a description applies solely to the Twelve Imáms (A), who in their traditions, from `Alí (A) onwards, have introduced themselves as the `itrah of the Prophet (S) and as the supreme authorities of the Islamic faith by the side of the Qur'án.

[2]

Thereafter, the author deals with another tradition ascribed to the Prophet (S) which too Sháh `Abd al-`Azíz claims to be #a<í<:

Take part of your religion from this \umayrá' (i.e. `Á'ishah).

Sayyid \ámid \usayn points out that many Sunní authorities and scholars have considered it a baseless fabrication and forgery devoid of isnád; among them are:

• al­Mizzí and al­Dhahabí as mentioned in al­Taqrír wa al-ta<bír fí shar< al­Ta<rír, iii 99;
• Ibn Qayyim al­Jawziyyah, who has considered all traditions with the words "yá \umayrá" and "al-\umayrah" as fabrications;
• Ibn Kathír as quoted in al­Durar al­muntashirah fí al-'a<ádíth al­mushtahirah, 79;
• Ibn \ajar al­`Asqalání as quoted in al-Taqrír wa al­ta<bír, iii, 99;
• as well as Ibn al­Mulaqqin, al­Subkí, Ibn Amír al-\ajj, al­Sakháwí, al­Suyú>í, al­Shaybání, al­Shaykh `Alí al­Qárí, al-Zarqání, `Abd al­`Alí al­Shawkání and others.

[3]

Another tradition mentioned by Sháh `Abd al­`Azíz to contend the import of \adíth al­Thaqalayn is the following one ascribed to the Prophet (S):

Seek guidance with the guidance of `Ammár.

Sayyid \ámid \usayn points out that such a tradition cannot be put forward to contest the import of \adíth al-Thaqalayn, for `Ammár himself was one of the staunch followers (shí`ah) of `Alí (A) and had been instructed by the Prophet (S) to obey and follow `Alí (A):

[The Prophet (S) said to `Ammár:] O `Ammár, `Alí will not divert you from guidance. O `Ammár, obedience to `Alí is obedience to me, and obedience to me is obedience to God, Almighty and Glorious.

This tradition has been recorded in various non-Shí`í works, such as:

• Farái'd al-sim>ayn, i, 178;
• al-Mawaddah fí al-qurbá;
• al-Khwárazmí's Manáqib, 57, 124;
• Yanábí` al-mawaddah, 128, 250;
• Miftá< al-najá, MS.; and
• Kanz al-`ummál, xii, 212.

Moreover, it is strange of Sháh `Abd al-`Azíz to bring this tradition as an evidence against \adíth al-Thaqalayn, for `Ammár, as mentioned by al-Ya`qúbí in his Ta'ríkh, ii, 114 and al-Mas`údí in Murúj al-dhahab, ii, 342, was among those who abstained from giving allegiance to the first caliph. `Umar, during his reign, rejected `Ammár's guidance and spoke to him in harsh terms when the latter suggested that one should perform tayammum when water could not be found for wu_ú', instead of abstaining from #alát, as `Umar had ruled. This episode has been recorded by:

• A<mad in his Musnad, iv, 265 and
• Muslim in his @a<í<, i, 110,
• as well as a host of other writers such as Abú Dáwúd, al-Nasá'í, al-^abarí, al-`Ayní, Ibn al-'Athír and al-Shaybání.

`Uthmán during his reign had `Ammár beaten until he fell unconscious and nearly died when the latter handed over a letter of protest written by a group of Muslims against the former's misrule. This episode has been recorded by:

• Ibn Qutaybah in al­'Imámah wa al-siyásah, i, 32;
• Ibn `Abd Rabbih in al­`Iqd al­faríd, ii, 192;
• al-Mas`údí in Murúj al-dhahab, ii, 338;
• Ibn `Abd al-Barr in al-'Istí`áb, iii, 136; and
• al-Ya`qúbí in Ta'ríkh, ii, 160.
  

Although the Prophet (S) was known to have made several statements in `Ammár's favour - such as "The enemy of `Ammár is the enemy of God" - `Ammár was either opposed, hated and mistreated by a number of Companions such as `Abd al­Ra<mán ibn `Awf, Sa`d ibn Abí Waqqá#, al-Mughírah ibn Shu`bah, Abú Músá al-'Ash`arí, Abú Mas`úd al-'An#árí and others. `Ammár stood firmly by `Alí's side and fought with him against `Alí's opponents, ^al<ah, al-Zubayr and Mu`áwiyah, in the battles of Jamal and @iffín. Ultimately he was killed by Mu`áwiyah's men, thus fulfilling the Prophet's well-known prophecy that `Ammár would be killed by a rebellious party (al-fi'at al-bághiyah).

[4]

Sayyid \ámid \usayn then goes on to deal with some other narrations ascribed to the Prophet (S) and cited by Sháh `Abd al­`Azíz, which are:

Hold on to the covenant of Ibn Umm `Abd (i.e. `Abd Alláh ibn Mas`úd).

That which Ibn Umm `Abd approves of is approved for you by me.

Both of these are weak (_a`íf) and isolated (á<ád) traditions, while \adíth al-Thaqalayn is a mutawátir one. That both Muslim and al­Bukhárí did not record them in their works indicates that they considered their isnád to be weak. Moreover, even if assumed to be authentic they do not contradict \adíth al­Thaqalayn, for while they only show the merit of Ibn Mas`úd, Hadíth al-Thaqalayn signifies the preeminence and leadership of the Ahl al-Bayt (A). Furthermore, it is inconsistent of Sháh `Abd al-`Azíz to advance those traditions, for `Umar, instead of approving Ibn Mas`úd's acts, forbade him to give fatwá and narrate the Prophet's <adíth and forbade him from leaving Madínah, which Ibn Mas`úd could not leave until the former's death. `Uthmán went a step further and had Ibn Mas`úd beaten so mercilessly that his ribs were broken.

[5]

Another tradition advanced in this context by Sháh `Abd al-`Azíz is:

Mu`ádh ibn Jabal is the most knowledgeable among you regarding <alál and <arám.

Sayyid \ámid \usayn points out that it has exclusively been narrated by the Sunnís. Muslim and al-Bukhárí, although their traditions do not constitute any binding evidence for the Shí`ah, have avoided it in their compilations. Among a number of Sunní authorities who have considered it as weak or baseless are:

• Ibn Taymiyyah,
• Ibn `Abd al-Hádí,
• al-Dhahabí, and
• al-Munáwí.

Among its narrators, Mu<ammad ibn `Abd al-Ra<mán al­Baylamání, his father, Zayd al-`Ammí, Sálim ibn Salím have been considered unreliable by several authorities on <adíth and rijál, among them:

• al-Bukhárí,
• al-Nasá'í,
• al-Muqaddisí,
• al­Dárqu>ní,
• Ibn \ajar,
• al-Dhahabí,
• Ibn al-Jawzí and others.

Moreover, there are episodes recorded in Ibn Sa`d's al-^abaqát, iii, 585 and Ibn `Abd al-Barr's al-'Istí`áb, iii, 1404 which indicate that Mu`ádh did not possess the kind of competence claimed for him in the above tradition.

[6]

Sháh `Abd al-`Azíz advances another tradition ascribed to the Prophet (S) in this context for which he claims a degree of prevalence (shuhrah) nearing tawátur:

Follow those who will come after me, Abú Bakr and `Umar.

\ámid \usayn points out that the claim of shuhrah is untenable and that a number of Sunní authorities have found fault with it or considered it as baseless, such as:

• Abú \átim al-Rází, al-Bazzáz and Ibn \azm as mentioned in Fat< al-Qádir fí shar< al-Jámi` al-#aghír, ii, 52;
• al-Tirmidhí, @a<í<, v, 672;
• al-`Uqaylí, al-¬u`afá';
• al-Naqqásh, as mentioned in Mízán al-'i`tidál, i, 142;
• al-Dárqu>ní, as mentioned in Lisán al-mízán, v, 237;
• al-`Ibrí al-Farghání in Shar< al­Minháj, MS;
• al­Dhahabí, Mízán al­'i`tidál, i, 105;
• Ibn \ajar al-`Asqalání, Lisán al­mízán, i, 188, 272, v, 237; and
• Shaykh al-'Islám al-Harawí, al­Durr al­na_íd, 97.

Ibráhím ibn Ismá`íl, Ismá`íl ibn Ya<yá, Ya<yá ibn Salamah ibn Kuhayl and Abú al­Za`rá', who have transmitted it have been considered unreliable transmitters by Abú Zur`ah, Abú \átim, Ibn Numayr, al­Dárqu>ní, al­Bukhárí, al­Nasá'í, Ibn Mu`ín, Ibn \ibbán, al-Tirmidhí and others.

The narrations cited above are advanced by Sháh `Abd al-`Azíz to make the point that if \adíth al-Thaqalayn be considered as signifying the imámah of the Imáms of the Ahl al-Bayt (A) then these traditions must also be construed as signifying the imámah of al-\umayrá', `Ammár, Ibn Mas`úd, Mu`ádh ibn Jabal, Abú Bakr and `Umar. Sayyid \ámid \usayn points out that such a conclusion would follow if the traditions advanced were authentic. But as established, in the `Abaqát, all of them are weak and unreliable á<ád, which have no weight in comparison with \adíth al-Thaqalayn, which is a mutawátir tradition narrated widely by the leading traditionists and scholars of the Ummah from the Shí`ah and the Ahl al-Sunnah.

[7]

Sháh `Abd al-`Azíz cites another narration known as \adíth al­Nujúm ascribed to the Prophet (S) in support of his argument:

Verily, my Companions are like the stars (nujúm) in the sky; whichever of them you follow, you shall be guided rightly. The disagreement of my Companions is a blessing for you.

Among Sunní authorities those who have considered this tradition as unreliable are:

• A<mad ibn \anbal, as quoted in al-Taqrír wa al-ta<bír, iii, 99;
• al-Mizzí, as quoted in Jámi` bayán al-`ilm, ii, 89-90;
• al-Bazzáz, as quoted in Jámi` bayán al-`ilm, ii, 90;
• Ibn al­Qa>>án, in al-Kámil;
• al-Dárqu>ní, as quoted in Lisán al-mízán, ii, 137;
• Ibn \azm, as quoted in al-Ba<r al-mu<í>, v, 528;
• al-Bayhaqí, as quoted in al-\áfi~ al-`Iráqí, Takhríj a<ádíth al­Minháj, MS.;
• Ibn `Abd al-Barr in Jámi` bayán al-`ilm, ii, 90-91;
• Ibn `Asákir as quoted in Fay_ al-Qadír, iv, 76;
• Ibn al-Jawzí, in al-`Ilal al-mutanáhiyah fí al-'a<ádíth al­wáhiyah, MS.;
• Ibn Da<iyyah as quoted in Ta`líq Takhríj a<ádíth al­Minháj, MS.;
• Abú \ayyán al-'Andlúsí, in al-Durr al-laqí> min al-Ba<r al­mu<í> published with al-Ba<r al-mu<í>, v, 527-528;
• al-Dhahabí in Mízán al-'i`tidál, i, 413, ii, 102, ii, 605;
• Ibn Qayyim al-Jawzíyyah in I`lám al-múqi`ín, ii, 223;
• Zayn al-Dín al-`Iráqí, in Takhríj a<ádíth al-Minháj, MS.;
• Ibn \ajar al-`Asqalání, in Talkhí# al-Khabír, iv, 190-191;
• Ibn al-Humám in al-Ta<rír bi Shar< Ibn Amír al-\ájj, iii, 99;
• Ibn Amír al-\ájj, al-Taqrír wa al-ta<rír, iii, 99;
• al-Sakháwí in al-Maqá#id al-<asanah, 26-27;
• Ibn Abí Sharíf, as mentioned in Fay_ al­Qadír, iv, 76;
• al-Suyú>í, Itmám al-diráyah and al-Jámi` al-#aghír, iv, 76;
• al­Muttaqí al-Hindí, Kanz al-`ummál, vi, 133;
• al-Qárí, al-Mirqát, v, 523;
• al-Munáwí, al-Taysír fí shar< al-Jámi` al-#aghír, ii, 48 and Fay_ al-Qadír, iv, 76;
• al-Khafájí, in Nasím al-riyá_ (shar< of al-Shifá'), iv, 323-324;
• al­Sindí, Dirását al-labíb fí al­'uswat al­<asanát al­\abíb, 240;
• al Qá_í Mu<ibb Alláh al-Bihárí, in Musallim al­thubút bi shar< `Abd al­`Alí, ii, 510;
• Nizám al-Dín al-Sahálawí, al­@ub< al­#ádiq (shar< al­Manár);
• al­Mawlawí `Abd al-`Alí, Fawáti< al­ra<mút (shar< Musallim al­thubút), ii, 510;
• al-Shawkání, in Irshád al­fu<úl, 83;
• Walí Alláh ibn \abíb Alláh al­Lakhnowí in Shar< Musallim al­thubút; and
• @iddíq \asan Khán al­Qannawjí, in \u#úl al­ma'múl, 568.

The tradition is also unacceptable on the following grounds:

1. It not only implies that each and every Companion was righteous himself but was a competent leader and guide of the Ummah; such an implication is false according to consensus, for all of them themselves required guidance.
2. A group of them was guilty of such major sins as adultery, homicide and false witness according to the testimony of history, and it is unreasonable that the Prophet (S) should have appointed such individuals as guides and leaders of the Ummah.
3. There are many verses in the Qur'án, especially in the súrahs of al-'Anfál, al-Bará'ah, al-'A<záb, al-Jumu`ah and al-Munáfiqún, which throw a bad light on the character of a considerable number of the Companions and it is illogical to hold that the Prophet (S) would make such individuals as the leaders and guides of the Ummah.
4. There is a large number of the Prophet's traditions, narrated both in authentic Sunní and Shí`í sources, which make the Companions appear suspect as a group. The above-mentioned narration conflicts with all such authentic traditions. [211]
5. There are traditions recorded in Sunní sources which explicitly prohibit the Ummah from following the Companions. According to one recorded by al-`Á#imí in Zayn al-fatá fí tafsír Súrat Hal Atá, MS., the Prophet (S) is reported to have said:

There will be innovations perpetrated by my Companions after me (i.e. the fitnah that occurred amongst them). God shall forgive them due to their earlier record (of good deeds), but if a people follow them after them, God shall throw them into Hellfire.

6. Some of the Companions are on record as having made statements that imply the denial that they possessed the competence to be followed as guides and leaders. Abú Bakr and `Umar have made numerous statements about themselves which reveal their incompetence as guides who can be followed, like the Qurán, without qualms. [212]

Aware of the difficulty involved in the adoption of the \adíth al­Nujúm, Sháh `Abd al-`Azíz admits that some Companions are known for certain to have erred in their ijtihád because it conflicted with the express commands (nu#ú#) of the Qur'án and the Sunnah. However, he submits, the Companions may be followed in matters when there exist no express commands in the Book and the Sunnah.

Sayyid \ámid \usayn replies by pointing out that:

1. one who is known for certain to have erred in his judgements cannot be a legitimate guide.
2. Secondly, when the Companions are known to have erred in matters where there exist express texts in the Book and the Sunnah, the possibility of error is greater in matters where there are no such express texts.
3. Thirdly, he points out, it is not permissible to follow one who may err when there exist guides the righteousness of whose guidance and whose freedom from error or sin (`i#mah) has been guaranteed by God. The Verse of al-Ta>hír (33:33) and \adíth al-Thaqalayn, as well as a great number of other verses and a<ádíth, introduce the Imáms of Ahl al-Bayt (A) as possessing the quality of `i#mah.
4. Fourthly, the Companions disagreed amongst themselves concerning the laws of the Sharí`ah, including those which did not possess express texts. In such a situation it is highly improper to consider them as stars of the firmament of guidance.
5. Fifthly, the Companions often found fault with one another, some times violating all limits of moderation in attributing falsehood, ignorance and even kufr to one another, as recorded in the books of the Ahl al-Sunnah. Obviously, no rational person will accept all of them as the righteous guides of Muslims.
6. There were individuals amongst the Companions who practised analogy (qiyás) which has been condemned by a large number of the legists of the Ummah.
7. There were individuals among them, including the first three caliphs, who turned to others to find out the rule of the Sharí`ah concerning an emergent issue. It is illogical to imagine that the Prophet (S) would designate ignorant persons as authorities for the Ummah in doctrinal and legal matters. There were some among them who did not understand the meanings of certain words of the Qur'án, such as `Umar, who, for instance, did not know the meaning of 'kalálah'. Al-^abarí in his exegesis, iv, 283-284, has recorded `Umar 's own statement in this regard.
8. Some of them were guilty of usurious transactions,[213] sale of wine,[214] or of giving fatwá without knowledge,[215] and sometimes in opposition to the Prophet's express command.[216] Some of them were guilty of instituting innovations contrary to the Prophet's Sunnah.[217]