Some Traditions that
Appear to Conflict with \adíth alThaqalayn:
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:
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,
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
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
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
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.
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:
Another tradition mentioned by Sháh
`Abd al`Azíz to contend the import of \adíth
alThaqalayn is the following one ascribed to the Prophet
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
[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:
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:
`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:
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).
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
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:
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:
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.
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
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:
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.
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:
The tradition is also unacceptable on the following grounds:
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. 
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