Hadith Al Thaqalayn 2

Ḥadīth al-Thaqalayn
1
Contents
Introduction 3
‘Aṭiyyah’s Report from Abū Sa’īd 6
Jābir b. ‘Abdillāh’s Report 11
Ja’far al-Ṣādiq’s report, from his father al-Bāqir, from Jābir b. ‘Abdillah. 11
Zayd b. al-Ḥasan al-Anmāṭi’s alleged ḥadīth from Ja’far al-Ṣādiq 13
Mujālid’s Alleged Ḥadīth from al-Sha’bī 15
Zayd b. Arqam’s Ḥadīth 18
Yazīd b. Ḥayyān’s Riwāyah from Zayd b. Arqam 18
The Al-A’mash Cluster 20
‘Alī b. Rabī’a’s Report from Zayd b. Arqam 29
‘Abdullāh b. Bukayr’s Variant from Ḥakīm b. Jubayr from Zayd b. Arqam 29
Abū al-Ḍuḥā Muslim b. Ṣubayḥ’s Report from Zayd b. Arqam 32
Salamah b. Kuhayl’s Alleged Variant from Abū al-Ṭufayl from Zayd b. Arqam 36
Ḥuḏayfah b. Usayd’s Alleged Ḥadīth 38
‘Alī b. Abī Ṭālib’s Alleged Ḥadīth 41
Muḥammad b. ‘Umar b. ‘Ali’s report, from his father, from ‘Alī 41
Sa’ād b. Sulaymān’s Report, from Abū Isḥāq, from al-Ḥārith, from Alī 43
Abū Ḏarr’s Alleged Report 45
Zayd b. Thābit’s Alleged Report 47
Abū Hurayrah’s Alleged Report 49
Ibn ‘Abbās’ Alleged Variant 51
‘Amr b. ‘Awf’s Alleged Variant 53
Discussion 55
Bibliography 63
2
Introduction
: ‫ وباهلل الثـقـة‬،‫أق ـول‬
Ḥadīth al-Thaqalayn is a prophetic tradition that is continuously cited and debated in Sunnī-Ṣhī’ite
polemics. It is often cited by Shī’ite scholars and polemicists in the context of establishing the wilāyah
and leadership of the Prophet’s family with respect to the rest of the Muslim community. Throughout
such debates, however, one will often come across a variety of fundamental problems that are the result of
a defective framework when assessing historical reports. These many problems pose a serious challenge
to the keen observer who simply is interested in coming to the most plausible conclusion based on the
data at hand.
In this book, I intend to address many of these issues through a thorough critical examination of the report
(and its many redactions) in Sunnī literature. This ḥadīth is ascribed to many companions of the Prophet,
such as Abū Sa’īd al-Khudrī, Zayd b. Arqam, ‘Alī b. Abī Ṭālib, Jābir b. ‘Abdillāh, Ḥuḏayfah b. Usayd,
Abū Ḏarr al-Ghifārī, Zayd b. Thābit. Abū Hurayrah, Ibn ‘Abbās, and ‘Amr b. ‘Awf etc., which amounts
to around ten ṣaḥābīs.
Al-Samhūdī, when describing this report, said: “Over 20 of the Ṣaḥābah [had narrated] on this matter.”1
The majority of the ten companions I had mentioned are spanned by the figure mentioned in this quote.
The remainder of the companions cited by al-Samḥūdī did not transmit anything on this matter in Sunnī
sources. Rather, they were primarily derived from a book of the Shī’ite traditionist Ibn ‘Uqdah (d. 332).
In fact, a significant chunk of the names which were cited by al-Samhūdī were derived from a single
dubious report Ibn ‘Uqdah narrated, which cited a bunch of companions’ alleged testimonies.
In this book, I am primarily interested in assessing the variants of this ḥadīth documented in Sunnī
sources, as most of the reports in Shī’ite sources on this topic simply are later Shī’ite embellishments of
the “Sunnī” reports which were then projected onto dubious Shī’ite isnāds that can only be found in later
Shī’ite sources. Hence, they are quite irrelevant to my goal(s) in this book.
Most of the challenges that are faced with this ḥadīth stem from the fact that there are many different
variants associated with it. Even though the general report, as we shall demonstrate, has an authentic basis
from the Messenger of Allah ‫ﷺ‬, the more important question is: what is the most authentic wording of the
ḥadīth that is closest to the Prophet’s verbatim speech at the event? This question comes in light of the
1
Jawāhir al-‘Iqdayn (2/234)
3
many theological debates that spring from this ḥadīth’s alleged implications. Indeed, it would be foolish
to vehemently debate the implications of a prophetic tradition if the most authentic wording of that
tradition is yet to be discerned. This shall be one of my objectives throughout this paper.
The next challenge the keen observer will face when studying this tradition stems from the
aforementioned issue as well. The many different wordings of this tradition, which are of varying
implications, all purportedly describe a single event. Thus, it would be impossible to ascertain that all the
vastly different wordings and redactions associated with this ḥadīth were literally uttered by the Prophet
‫ﷺ‬. Rather, only two possibilities exist: (1) some of them are authentic or (2) none are authentic.
Similarly, it is established that any relayed tradition experiences the risk of corruption for two main
reasons: (1) its transmitters’ incompetence and lack of retention and (2) malicious tampering with the
report’s contents. Both of these phenomena are observable in most variants of ḥadīth al-Thaqalayn, as
shall be demonstrated.
Luckily, a useful, reliable and objective method exists to evaluate the validity of such instances of
transmission and to scrutinize them in search of any factors that would indicate the presence of textual
corruption within them. I shall apply this method when evaluating the many different redactions of ḥadīth
al-Thaqalayn in hope of reaching a definitive conclusion in this regard.
Another challenge that is faced in this context is the dishonesty some polemicists display when appealing
to the report. As mentioned earlier, the report at hand has many different variants, and it is undeniable that
the general event described in these many reports definitely has a historical basis from the Messenger of
Allah ‫ﷺ‬.
Nevertheless, many of the existing accounts are corrupt redactions that are inaccurate and imprecise
representations of what the Prophet had said at the event. What often takes place, however, is that many
dishonest polemicists will cite the unreliable variants of the report and then cite the more reliable variants’
sources as the reference for those unreliable accounts. That is dishonest, misleading and unacceptable.
Rather, the correct approach is that which attempts to discern the most authentic variant of ḥadīth al-
Thaqalayn in light of the many divergent traditions that exist. It is only after this assessment can the
ḥadīth’s theological implications be debated.
The bulk of this book consists of a detailed and seemingly ultra-technical analysis. If your main concerns
are the findings pertaining to this ḥadīth, then they are thoroughly outlined in the “Discussions” section
on page 54, where the theological implications of the ḥadīth’s authentic variants are dissected. Otherwise,
the rationale behind those conclusions have been transparently outlined throughout this book.
4
Similarly, it must be noted that Ḥadīth al-Thaqalayn is closely related to another tradition, which is the
famous ḥadīth of al-Muwālā, where the Messenger of Allah is quoted saying: “Whoever I am his mawlā
then ‘Alī is his mawlā.” Despite their relationship, this book does not embody a thorough analysis of
ḥadīth of al-Muwālā, as that was not my goal in this book. Rather, I have only assessed the variants for
ḥadīth of al-Muwālā which may have implications on the authenticity of a few variants of ḥadīth al-
Thaqalayn.
.‫ واهلل أكب‬،‫ وال هلإ إال اهلل‬،‫ واحلمد هلل‬،‫فسبحان اهلل‬
5
I. ‘Aṭiyyah’s Report from Abū Sa’īd
Preview
‘Aṭiyyah b. Sa’d al-Awfī’s redaction of this ḥadīth from Abū Sa’īd is perhaps is one of the most popular
riwāyahs of this Prophetic tradition. It is clear that ‘Aṭiyyah disseminated the ḥadīth effectively, as there
are a variety of notable isnāds that converge back to him. Thus, he seems to have been one of the main
sources of this tradition in Kūfa, with over six notable figures relaying this ḥadīth from him, such as al-
A’mash, Zakariyyā b. Abī Zā’idah, ‘Abdulmalik b. Abī Sulaymān, al-Fuḍayl b. Marzūk, Kathīr al-
Nawwā’, Abū Isrā’īl al-Mulā’ī and others etc.
Isnād Schematic
Figure 1. A schematic illustrating the transmission of this report from Abū Sa’īd al-Khudrī
Wording
In the different variants of ‘Aṭiyyah’s ḥadīth, we can observe a common theme emerging in the many
reports ascribed to him, which makes us capable of reproducing the actual wording of what ‘Aṭiyyah
claimed to transmit.
The wording of ‘Aṭiyyah’s report from Abū Sa’īd is as follows:
6
“I have left among you al-Thaqalayn, one of them is larger than the other. The Book of Allah, a
rope extended from the sky to the land, and my ‘Itrah. They both shall never be separated until
they meet at the Ḥawḍ.”
This redaction is what is generally agreed upon by al-A’mash,2 Abū Isrā’īl,3 ‘Abdulmalik b. Abī
Sulaymān,4 Zakariyyā b. Abī Zā’ida,5 Kathīr al-Nawwā’,6 and al-Fuḍayl b. Marzūq.7 Some have slightly
rearranged the order of the report, and others have added/omitted some clauses.
Al-A’mash and Zakariyyā’s riwāyah does not mentioned the clause: “One of them is larger than the
other.”
Al-A’mash similarly adds a clause that is not found elsewhere. His report concludes saying: “so see how
you deal with them both after me.” Muḥammad b. Talḥa’s report from al-A’mash, before mentioning the
clause about how the thaqalayn shall never separate, says: “Indeed, the Kind and Aware (al-Laṭīf al-
Khabīr) has informed me that….”
‘Abdulmalik’s riwāyah and some redactions from al-A’mash include a clause which describes al-
Thaqalayn saying: “That which if you cling onto, you shall never go astray.”
Fuḍayl b. Marzūq’s riwāyah does not mention the clause: “They both shall never be separated until they
meet at al-Ḥawḍ.” Similarly, he adds another clause when mentioning the rope that is extended from the
sky to earth. His redaction says: “One of its ends is in Allah’s Hand, and the other end is in yours.”
Authenticity
‘Aṭiyyah b. Sa’d al-‘Awfī was the only individual in the world to claim to relay this tradition from the
Medinite companion, Abū Sa’īd al-Khudrī. Rather, the ḥadīth is primarily transmitted in Medīna from
Jābir b. ‘Abdillah, and in al-Kūfa, it is primarily transmitted from Zayd b. Arqam (as shall be later
demonstrated).
The strand of transmission that can be seen in figure 1, which claims to transmit this report from
‘Abdurraḥmān b. Abī Sa’īd instead of ‘Aṭiyyah, clearly is an error. It does not represent a real instance of
transmission, and that is indicated through several factors: (1) the conflicting transmission from Hārūn b.
Sa’d, (2) exclusive transmission from ‘Abdurraḥman despite the fact that the ḥadīth is popularly known
2
Jāmi’ al-Tirmiḏī (6/133), Al-Ṭabaqāt al-Kubrā by Ibn Sa’d (2/194), Al-Mu’jam al-Kabīr by al-Ṭabarānī (3/65)
3
Musnad Aḥmed (17/169)
4
5
Muṣannaf Ibn Abī Shaybah (15/491)
6
Al-Mu’jam al-Ṣaghīr by al-Ṭabarānī (1/226)
7
Al-Ma’rifah wal-Tārīkh (1/537)
7
through ‘Aṭiyyah and (3) the unreliability of its transmitters: Muḥammad b. Abī Ḥafṣ8 and Yaḥyā b. al-
Ḥasan, are obscure transmitters.
What primarily raises doubts in ‘Aṭiyyah’s transmission from Abū Sa’īd is that none of Abū Sa’īd’s close
and reliable companions across the different lands, such as Abū Naḍra, Abū al-Ṣiddīq al-Nājī, ‘Iyāḍ b.
‘Abdillāh, Sulaymān b. ‘Amr, ‘Aṭā’ b. Yasār, Abū Ṣāliḥ al-Sammān (and others) relayed this account
from him. Similarly, ‘Aṭiyyah was a known Shī’ite transmitter9, which would further cast doubts upon his
bizarre and exclusive transmission of a ḥadīth in the merits of Ahlulbait from Abū Sa’īd. Additionally,
there are several accounts regarding ‘Aṭiyyah’s dubious practices during his transmission of ḥadīth that
further raise doubts on his reliability as a transmitter.
Thus, it should not come as a surprise that ‘Aṭiyyah, for such inconsistencies in his transmission and
many other issues, was weakened by the muḥaddithīn. In fact, his particular claim of transmission from
Abū Sa’īd al-Khudrī was specifically disparaged by the early ḥadīth critics.
One of the dubious practices in transmission ‘Aṭiyyah used to engage in was his intentional misattribution
of reports to Abū Sa’īd al-Khudrī. Several ḥadīth critics noted that he used to acquire traditions from al-
Kalbī (a suspect forger) and then arbitrarily quote him as “Abū Sa’īd.” Aṭiyyah would then delude
listeners by implying that he was quoting Abū Sa’īd al-Khudrī while he would be, in reality, quoting the
notorious al-Kalbī. Several ḥadīth critics made note of this reality:
Aḥmed b. Ḥanbal said: “He is weak. It has reached me that ‘Aṭiyyah used to go to al-Kalbī and acquire
[his] tafsīr from him, and ‘Aṭiyyah would ascribe to him the name ‘Abū Sa’īd’. He would consequently
[quote him] saying: ‘Abū Sa’īd said..’..” Aḥmed then said: “Hushaym used to weaken ‘Aṭiyyah.” 10
Aḥmed also said: “Sufyān al-Thawrī used to weaken the transmission of ‘Aṭiyyah al-‘Awfī.”11
Abū Khālid al-Aḥmar and Sufyān al-Thawrī quoted al-Kalbī mentioning that ‘Aṭiyyah ascribed to him the
nickname “Abū Sa’īd.”12
Ibn Ḥibbān said: “He heard ḥadīths from Abū Sa’īd [al-Khudrī], but when Abū Sa’īd died, he sat to al-
Kalbī and his storytelling sessions. Whenever al-Kalbī would say: ‘the Messenger of Allah said’,
‘Aṭiyyah would memorize that. He then nicknamed al-Kalbī ‘Abū Sa’īd’, and he would transmit from
him. The people would thus be deluded into thinking that he was referring to Abū Sa’īd al-Khudrī while
8
Lisān al-Mīzān (7/414)
9
See Sālim al-Murādī’s comment in Al-Ḍu’afā’ al-Kabīr (3/359), and al-Bazzār’s comment in Tahḏīb al-Tahḏīb
(7/226)
10
Al-‘Ilal wa-Ma’rifat al-Rijāl – Riwāyat ‘Abdillāh (1/548)
11
Al-Ḍu’afā’ al-Kabīr (3/359)
12
Al-Ḍu’afā’ al-Kabīr (3/359), al-Majrūḥīn (2/177)
8
he would be referring to al-Kalbī. Thus, he cannot be relied upon, and it is not permissible to transcribe
his ḥadīths except for the purpose of ridicule.”13
Yaḥya b. Sa’īd al-Qaṭṭān refrained from transmitting ḥadīth from ‘Aṭiyyah,14 and Ibn al-Madīnī also
quoted him saying: “Aṭiyyah, Abū Hārūn and Bashīr b. Ḥarb are all the same to me.”15 (Abū Hārūn and
Bashīr were weak transmitters).
Abū ‘Ubayd asked Abū Dāwūd about ‘Aṭiyyah b. Sa’d al-‘Awfī, and Abū Dāwūd replied: “He is not one
to be relied upon.”16 Al-‘Ijlī said: “A reliable Kūfan tābi’ī, and he was not strong.”17
Abū Ḥātim al-Rāzī said: “He is weak in ḥadīth. His transmission should be transcribed, and Abū Naḍra is
more preferable to me than him.” Abū Zur’ah described him saying: “A frail (layyin) Kūfan.”18 Al-Nasā’ī
said: “Aṭiyyah is weak.”19 Ibrāhīm al-Ḥarbī said: “Others are more eminent than him.”20
When transmitting a report through ‘Aṭiyyah from Abū Sa’īd, Ibn Khuzaymah commented on its isnad
saying that he had repudiated ‘Aṭiyyah’s liability.”21 Al-Sājī said: “He is not a ḥujjah, and he used to
prefer ‘Alī over all.”22
Ibn ‘Adiyy said: “Aṭiyyah has a variety of ḥadīths from Abū Sa’īd that are from other than Abū Sa’īd. His
transmission should be transcribed despite his weakness, and he is counted among the Shī’a of Kūfa.”23
Al-Dāraquṭnī said: “Aṭiyyah is shaky (muḍṭarib) in ḥadīth.”24
Yaḥyā b. Ma’īn, on several occasions, has been quoted addressing ‘Aṭiyyah’s status. Al-Dūrī said: I asked
Yaḥyā b. Ma’īn about ‘Aṭiyyah al-‘Awfī and Abū Naḍrah, and he said: “Abū Naḍrah is more preferable
to me.”25 Al-Dūrī also said: Yaḥyā was once asked: “How is ‘Aṭiyyah’s transmission?” and he said: “It is
decent (ṣāliḥ).”26 Yazīd b. al-Haytham quoted Ibn Ma’īn saying: “Nothing is wrong in ‘Aṭiyyah al-
‘Awfī,” and he was thus asked: “can he be relied upon?” Yaḥyā replied: “Nothing is wrong in him.”27
13
Al-Majrūḥīn (2/176)
14
Al-Tārīkh al-Kabīr by al-Bukhārī (5/122)
15
Al-Tārīkj al-Awṣaṭ by al-Bukhārī (1/267)
16
Su’ālāt Abī ‘Ubayd al-Ājurrī li-Abī Dāwūd (p. 105)
17
Al-Thiqāt by al-‘Ijlī (2/140)
18
Al-Jarḥ wal-Ta’dīl of Ibn Abī Ḥātim (6/383)
19
Al-Ḍu’afā’ wal-Matrūkūn by al-Nasā’ī (p.85)
20
Sharḥ Ibn Mājah by Mughulṭāy (p. 1294)
21
Ṣaḥīḥ Ibn Khuzaymah (4/69)
22
Tahḏīb al-Tahḏīb (7/226)
23
Al-Kāmil fī Ḍu’afā’ al-Rijāl (7/85)
24
Al-‘Ilal al-Wāridah ‘ala al-Aḥādīth al-Nabawiyyāh (11/290)
25
Tārīkh Ibn Ma’īn – Riwāyat al-Dūrī (3/438)
26
Tārīkh Ibn Ma’īn – Riwāyat al-Dūrī (3/500)
27
Min Kalāmī Abī Zakariyyā Yaḥyā b. Ma’īn – Riwāyat Ibn Ṭahmān (p.84)
9
Others, however, quoted Ibn Ma’īn more explicitly criticizing ‘Aṭiyyah. Ibn Abī Maryam and al-Walīd b.
Abī al-Jārūd both quoted Ibn Ma’īn weakening ‘Aṭiyyah, and Ibn Abī Maryam added: “nevertheless, his
transmission should be transcribed.”28
Al-Bazzār said: “He was extreme in Shī’ism. The bulk of people transmitted from him; around 40
individuals, 30 of whom were dignified.”29
Ibn Sa’d said: “He was reliable inshāAllah, and some people do not rely upon him.”30
Thus, it becomes apparent that ‘Aṭiyyah was criticized by around 12 ḥadīth critics. Others, such as al-‘Ijlī
and al-Ḥarbī slightly touched on his weakness. Conflicting statements are reported from Yaḥyā b. Ma’īn
regarding ‘Aṭiyyah’s reliability, and al-Bazzār hinted at his notable status without explicitly touching on
his reliability. Ibn Sa’d was the only early authority to explicitly endorse ‘Aṭiyyah without any criticism
(albeit he did acknowledge that others weakened him.)
Conclusion
After a careful assessment of the criticism ‘Aṭiyyah’s had received from the ḥadīth critics, it becomes
clear that such an individual’s transmission cannot be taken at face value. Rather, it must be subjected to
intense scrutiny and criticism before the transmission can be deemed real, let alone authentic. Otherwise,
such criticism directed at ‘Aṭiyyah places doubt in the integrity of what he transmits, especially his claims
of transmission from Abū Sa’īd. Therefore, the default is that this report has no basis from Abū Sa’īd al-
Khudrī. Rather, it originates from the transmission of other companions, as shall be demonstrated.
28
Al-Ḍu’afā’ al-Kabīr (3/359), al-Kāmil fī Ḍu’afā’ al-Rijāl (7/84)
29
30
Al-Ṭabaqāt al-Kubrā by Ibn Sa’d (6/304)
10
II. Jābir b. ‘Abdillāh’s Report
Jābir b. ‘Abdillāh’s account of the Prophet’s sermon at ‘Arafah is a popular Medinite report that was
bastardized by some later ‘Irāqī transmitters. Nevertheless, some variants of the ḥadīth embody wordings
that are quite similar to that of ḥadīth al-Thaqalayn, hence why it is must be evaluated.
Several variants exist for Jābir’s ḥadīth, each with different wordings and isnāds:
1. Ja’far al-Ṣādiq’s report, from his father al-Bāqir, from Jābir b. ‘Abdillah.
2. Zayd b. al-Ḥasan al-Anmāṭi’s alleged ḥadīth from Ja’far al-Ṣādiq.
3. Mujālid’s report, from al-Sha’bī, from Jābir.
1. Ja’far al-Ṣādiq’s report, from his father al-Bāqir, from Jābir b. ‘Abdillah.
Preview:
Perhaps one of the most important reports pertaining to Ḥajj is this ḥadīth of Jābir, which is a detailed
description of the Prophet’s ‫ ﷺ‬Ḥajj from start to finish. The report was of such great value that entire
books were written about it and the fiqh that can be derived from it.
Ja’far b. Muḥammad relayed that his father, Muḥammad b. ‘Alī, once entered upon Jābir b. ‘Abdillāh. He
eventually asked him about the Prophet’s Ḥajj, to which Jābir narrated the entire ḥadīth. The report
included the sermon the Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬gave, hence why it is relevant to our analysis of ḥadīth al-
Thaqalayn.
Since the report is quite long and extensive, I will primarily assess the relevant portion, which is the
Prophet’s sermon.
Wording:
This report quotes the Prophet saying during his sermon:
“I have left among that which you shall never go astray if you grasp onto: the Book of Allah. You
shall be asked about me, so what will you say?”
They said: “We bear witness that you have conveyed (the message), fulfilled the responsibility,
and given wise council.”
The Prophet then pointed his index finger to the sky, and then pointed at the people. He said: “O
Allah bear witness! O Allah bear witness! O Allah bear witness!”
This redaction of the a ḥadīth, as apparent, mentions nothing about the Prophet’s family or household.
11
Authenticity
This report was transmitted by Ḥātim b. Ismā’īl31 and ‘Ḥafṣ b. Ghiyāth32 and others33, from Ja’far al-Ṣādiq
→ His father, Muḥammad b. ‘Alī → Jābir. This isnād is an authentic isnad, hence why the report was
admitted into Muslim’s Ṣaḥīḥ, along with other authentic collections.
Some early ḥadīth critics seem to have criticized Ḥātim b. Ismā’īl’s redaction of this report. ‘Alī b. al-
Madīnī is quoted describing the transmitter, Ḥātim b. Ismā’īl, saying: “He transmitted reports from Ja’far
b. Muḥammad from his father, which were originally disconnected, yet he connected them. One of them
is the Jābir’s long ḥadīth in Ḥajj and Yaḥyā b. Sa’īd’s ḥadīth from Ja’far. Relaying it in a disconnected
manner is more established.”34
Aḥmed b. Ḥanbal is similarly quoted saying: “Ḥātim b. Ismā’īl erred in this long ḥadīth.”35
What they seem to be referring to is that Jābir’s long ḥadīth in Ḥajj consisted of multiple sections. Some
of which Ja’far relayed from his father directly from the Prophet (disconnectedly without Jābir as an
intermediary), and he relayed other portions from his father, from Jābir, from the Prophet (connectedly).
Ḥātim then narrated the entire account in the connected manner, not considering the partitions in Ja’far’s
report.
Abū Dāwūd relayed a report, which is a small section of Ḥātim b. Ismā’īl’s larger ḥadīth from Ja’far,
through other than Ḥātim. He mentioned that Sulaymān b. Bilāl and ‘Abdulwahhb al-Thāqafī both relayed
from Ja’far, from his father that “the Messenger of Allah prayed ẓuhr and ‘aṣr with one aḏān and two
iqāmahs in ‘Arafah, and he did not make tasbīḥ in between them. He similarly prayed maghrib and ‘ishā’
with one aḏān and two iqāmahs, and he did not make tasbīḥ between them.”36
Al-Bayhaqī, after relaying this portion of the report, said: “It is said this portion of the ḥadīth is mursal.”37
In another book of his, he commented on that portion of the ḥadīth saying: “Sulaymān b. Bilāl and
‘Abdulwahhāb al-Thaqafī relayed it in a mursal fashion from Ja’far b. Muḥammad.”
31
Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim (2/886), Sunan Abī Dāwūd (2/182), al-Sunan al-Kubrā by al-Nasā’ī (4/155)
32
Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim (2/892)
33
Abū Dāwūd, in his Sunan (2/187), similarly mentioned that Muḥammad b. ‘Alī al-Ju’fī corroborated Ḥātim b.
Ismā’īl (in at least part of the ḥadīth).
34
Al-Ta’dīl wal-Tajrīḥ (2/524)
35
Al-Sunan al-Kubrā by al-Bayhaqī (1/588)
36
Sunan Abī Dāwūd (2/187)
37
Al-Sunan al-Kubrā by al-Bayhaqī (1/587)
12
Thus it becomes apparent that the criticism was directed at a specific portion of the ḥadīth, which is not
the section we are interested in assessing today. Otherwise, Ḥātim b. Ismā’īl was corroborated by Ḥafṣ b.
Ghiyāth in relaying this tradition, hence Muslim’s authentication of this report.
Conclusion
This report is authentic, and it took place during the Prophet’s farewell Ḥajj on the Day of ‘Arafah. This
is an important and noteworthy point to keep in mind, as all other redactions of this ḥadīth through other
than Jābir speak of a different sermon that took place shortly after Ḥajj on the day of Ghadīr Khumm.
2. Zayd b. al-Ḥasan al-Anmāṭi’s alleged ḥadīth from Ja’far al-Ṣādiq

Preview:
Another noteworthy redaction of Ja’far al-Ṣādiq’s ḥadīth is Zayd b. al-Ḥasan al-Anmātī’s alleged report.
This report is relayed through an obscure Kūfan man by the name of Zayd b. al-Ḥasan al-Qurashī, who
claimed to transmit it with the same aforementioned isnād : from Ja’far al-Ṣādiq, from his father, from
Jābir.
I mentioned this report independently of Ḥātim b. Ismā’īl and Ḥafṣ b. Ghiyāth’s report due to its
divergent wording that conflicts with the entire theme of the previously established report from Ja’far al-
Ṣādiq.
Wording:
Zayd b. al-Ḥasan’s account was reported by al-Tirmiḏī in his Jāmi’38 and al-Ṭabarānī in al-Mu’jam al-
Kabīr.39
Zayd b. al-Ḥasan al-Anmāṭī reported from Ja’far b. Muḥammad, from his father, from Jābir that he said:
I saw the Messenger of Allah during his Ḥajj on the day of ‘Arafah while he was on his camel, al-
Qaṣwā’ giving a sermon. I heard him say: “O people, I have left among you that which if you
hold onto you shall never go astray: the Book of Allah and my ‘Itrah, the members of my
household.”
The wording of this ḥadīth, as apparent is quite different than that of Ḥafṣ b. Ghiyāth and Ḥātim b.
Ismā’īl's report from Ja’far al-Ṣadiq. It exclusively incorporates the clause pertaining to the ‘Itrah and the
Prophet’s household into Ja’far al-Ṣādiq’s ḥadīth from Jābir.
38
Jāmi’ al-Tirmiḏī (6/131)
39
Al-Mu’jam al-Kabīr by al-Ṭabarānī (3/66)
13
Authenticity:
This report exclusively came through the obscure Kūfan transmitter, Zayd b. al-Ḥasan al-Anmāṭī, and his
report essentially is a misattribution to Ja’far al-Ṣādiq. For such reasons, al-Ṭabarānī commented on this
report saying: “No one transmitted this ḥadīth from Ja’far b. Muḥammad except Zayd b. al-Ḥasan al-
Anmāṭī.”40 Al-Ṭabarānī did not consider Ḥātim b. Ismā’īl and Ḥafṣ b. Ghiyāth’s reports as valid
corroborations for al-Anmāṭī’s report, due to its bizarre wording exclusively ascribed to Ja’far b.
Muḥammad through Zayd.
Due to Zayd’s obscure status, not many of the critics addressed his status as a transmitter, even though it
is evidently questionable. Abū Ḥātim al-Rāzī, nevertheless, described him saying: “He was a Kūfan who
came to Baghdād. He is disapproved (munkar) in his ḥadīth.”41
Ibn Ḥibbān mentioned him in al-Thiqāt without commenting on his status, hinting to his obscurity. Some
polemicists today confidently cite Ibn Ḥibbān’s inclusion of Zayd in Al-Thiqāt as an endorsement on his
part. However, that is not necessarily the case, as Ibn Ḥibbān will often mention obscure and unknown
transmitters in his book simply to denote that they existed and transmitted reports. In fact, there are
around 67 biographical entries in al-Thiqāt where Ibn Ḥibbān explicitly acknowledged not knowing who
their respective transmitters were.
A good example of this phenomenon is what Ibn Ḥibbān said in the biographical entry of a man known as
Faza’. Ibn Ḥibbān said:
“He witnessed [the battle of] al-Qādisiyyah. He transmits from al-Muqanna’. It is said that al-
Muqanna’ has companionship [with the Prophet], but I do not know Faza’ nor Muaqanna’, nor do
I know their residence, nor do I know [the names of] their fathers. I only mentioned them for
them for them to be known, not to depend on what they transmit.”42
What further attests to Zayd b. al-Ḥasan’s obscurity with respect to Ibn Ḥibbān is that Ibn Ḥibbān fully
excluded Zayd b. al-Ḥasan’s transmission from his Ṣaḥīḥ, including this report as well. On the other hand,
we see that Ibn Ḥibbān admitted Ḥātim b. Ismā’īl into his Ṣaḥīḥ along with Ḥafṣ b. Ghiyāth, the
transmitters of the original account of the Prophet’s sermon from Ja’far b, Muḥammad. Ibn Ḥibbān
transmitted around 19 reports through Ḥatīm and around 33 reports through Ḥafṣ in his Ṣaḥīḥ, while he
40
Al-Mu’jam al-Awsaṭ by al-Ṭabarānī (5/89)
41
Al-Jarḥ wal-Ta’dīl (3/560)
42
Al-Thiqāt by Ibn Ḥibbān (7/326)
14
transmitted nothing through Zayd b. al-Ḥasan al-Anmāṭī. This demonstrates the (obvious) disparity
between these two reliable transmitters and Zayd b. al-Ḥasan al-Anmāṭī with respect to Ibn Ḥibbān.
What ultimately confirms the unreliability of Zayd b. al-Ḥasan and his riwāyah is the fact that he also
exclusively narrated this account with a different chain of transmission back to Zayd b. Arqam43, which
we shall dissect be dissected in section IV, where Ḥuḏayfah’s report is evaluated.. Zayd’s other redaction
of this ḥadīth was discovered to be a stolen report that was arbitrarily misattributed to a different isnad.
Hence, it seems more likely that he was a disparaged transmitter or a forger whose status was not
addressed due to his obscurity and scarce transmission.
Despite his extremely scarce transmission, Zayd was able to blunder in the few reports he transmitted,
which is indicative of his severe unreliability. Abū Ḥātim’s criticism of Zayd is warranted and spot-on.
Conclusion
This report has no basis from Ja’far al-Ṣādiq, and it is an inauthentic tradition that was falsely ascribed to
Ja’far, which explains why al-Tirmiḏī in his Jāmi’ did not authenticate it. Rather, he referred to it as
“Ḥasan Gharīb.”44
3. Mujālid’s Alleged Ḥadīth from al-Sha’bī

Preview:
This obscure redaction of Ja’far’s ḥadīth is entirely an error, which was committed by Abū Hishām
Muḥammad b. Yazīd al-Rifā’ī. Unsurprisingly, it is an extremely obscure account that barely made its
way into the early primary sources.
Wording:
Abū Hishām Muḥammad b. Yazīd al-Rifā’ī, said: Ḥafṣb. Ghiyāth informed us, from Mujālid, from al-
Sha’bī, from Jābir that he said:
43
Al-Mu’jam al-Kabīr (3/67)
44
In al-Nukat ‘alā Kitāb Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ (1/387), Ibn Ḥajar demonstrated that al-Tirmiḏī’s particular usage of the term
“ḥasan” is not equivalent to how later hadīthists’ used the term. He similarly cited examples where al-Timiḏī
described definitively weak reports as “ḥasan.” Al-Tirmiḏī’s term, as expounded by Ibn Ḥajar and others, can refer
to a wide array of reports, which can be weak or authentic. I only elaborate on this point because many dishonest
polemicists choose to ignore all the data that indicates the corruption of Zayd b. al-Ḥasan’s account and his
criticism. Instead, they cling onto al-Tirmiḏī’s description of the report as “ḥasan gharīb,” thinking that it is some
form of authentication on his part, while it is, in reality, more indicative of the report’s defectiveness.
15
The Messenger of Allah once drew a line, and then said: “this is a path.” He then drew several
lines and said: “These are the paths of the Shayṭān. There is not a path of these except that there is
a shayṭān upon it calling to it. I am but a human who is about to be approached by his Lord’s
messenger, and I shall agree to him. I am leaving among you al-Thaqalayn: the first of them is
the Book of Allah, in it is guidance and light; whoever holds onto it and acts upon it shall be upon
guidance. Whoever abandons it and does not act by it is upon misguidance. [Second is] the
members of my household. I remind you of Allah with regards to the members of my household,
and hold onto Allah’s rope and do not split among each other.45
As evident, this redaction totally diverges from all of the aforementioned accounts ascribed to Jābir b.
‘Abdillāh. It entirely is an error, and the report was never uttered by Mujālid from al-Sha’bī in this
manner as shall be demonstrated.
Authenticity:
This report comes exclusively through Abū Hishām Muḥammad b. Yazīd al-Rifā’ī, a weak transmitter,46
who had erred in this report. The original riwāyah, which he failed to accurately reproduce, is as follows:
Abū Khālid al-Aḥmar said: I heard Mujālid mention, from al-Sha’bī, from Jābir b. ‘Abdillāh, who said:
We were with the Messenger of Allah, and he drew a line, and he then drew two lines to its right
and two lines to its left. He then placed his hand on the middle line and said: “This is the path of
Allah.”
He then recited the verse: “and this is My straight path, so walk along it, and do not follow other
ways, lest you should turn away from the right one.”47
As evident, this is the original and more authentic redaction of Mujālid’s report from al-Sha’bī, and it has
no mention of al-Thaqalayn. This other isnād is, nevertheless, weak as well due to Mujālid b. Sa’īd, who
was a known weak transmitter.48
45
Sharḥ Uṣūl I’tiqād Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jamā’ah (#95)
46
See his full biographical entry in Tahḏīb al- Tahḏīb (9/526-527)
47
Sunan Ibn Mājah (1/6)
48
See his full biographical entry in Tahḏīb al-Tahḏīb (10/39-41)
16
Conclusion:
After a careful assessment of the reports ascribed to Ja’far al-Ṣādiq and Jābir b. ‘Abdillāh, it becomes
evident that the most authentic variant of them all is that of Ḥātim b. Ismā’īl and Ḥafṣb. Ghiyāth. The
other accounts ascribed to Jābir and/or Ja’far al-Ṣādiq simply are erroneous (or intentional)
misattributions.
The inauthentic accounts’ wordings have no authentic basis from Jābir, and they cannot be deemed to be
historically representative of what Jābir relayed from the Prophet regarding this event. The account that
will be affirmed as Jābir’s ḥadīth is the first variant, which was authentically ascribed to Ja’far al- Ṣādiq
by Ḥātim b. Ismā’īl and Ḥafṣb. Ghiyāth.
17
III. Zayd b. Arqam’s Ḥadīth
Zayd b. Arqam’s riwāyah is the most popular riwāyah of this ḥadīith in Kūfa, even surpassing ‘Aṭiyyah’s
alleged riwāyah from Abū Sa’īd. Evidently, multiple men transmitted it from Zayd in Kūfa, unlike Abū
Sa’īd’s report, which was exclusively transmitted by ‘Aṭiyyah, a problematic transmitter. The most
promiennt variants of this ḥadīth from Zayd are the riwāyahs of Yazīd b. Ḥayyan, ‘Alī b. Rabī’ah, Abū al-
Ṭufayl’s alleged riwāyah, and Muslim b. Ṣubayh’s alleged riwāyah as well.
Due to the multiplicity of this report’s chains from Zayd, its transmission will be broken down according
to each riwāyah from Zayd.
1. Yazīd b. Ḥayyān’s Riwāyah from Zayd b. Arqam

Isnād Schematic
Figure 2. An illustration of the isnāds for Yazīd b. Ḥayyan’s riwāyah from Zayd b. Arqam
18
Wording
In the different reports ascribed to Yazīd b. Ḥayyān, we see a common theme. In fact, the reports are
nearly identical to each other. Abū Ḥayyān al-Taymī49 and Sa’īd b. Masrūq50 both transmitted the report
from Yazīd b. Ḥayyān from Zayd b. Arqam with the following theme:
“O people, I am but a man, and the Lord’s messenger (the angel of death) shall come soon, to
which I will approve. I am leaving among you al-Thaqalayn: the first of them is the Book of
Allah, in it is guidance and light.” He then extolled the people in the Book of Allah and enjoined
it.
Then, he said: “and the Members of my household (ahla baytī),” and he said: “I remind you of
Allah with regards to the members of my household” three times.
There are some minor differences in the wordings between the variants from Yazīd, but the general theme
and meaning is retained across all reports. It also must be noted that this report’s wording and theme is
substantially different than the report ‘Aṭiyyah al-‘Awfī claimed to transmit from Abū Sa’īd al-Khudrī.
This variant does not mention anything about clinging onto the Prophet’s family along with the Book of
Allah; rather, the mention of Ahlulbait simply is to enjoin that the Muslims take proper care of them after
his death. Nevertheless, the theological implications of this report will be further discussed in detail after
the analysis of all the reports pertaining to this event.
Abū ‘Awānah’s transmission of this report from al-A’mash, for several reasons, will be discussed in the
next subsection named, “The al-A’mash Cluster.”
Authenticity
This account is much stronger than that of ‘Aṭiyyah’s. Its isnad consists of reliable transmitters who were
not disparaged as was ‘Aṭiyyah al-‘Awfī.
Yazīd b. Ḥayyan is Yazīd b. Ḥayyān al-Taymī, and he is the pivotal transmitter of this account. His
reliability was endorsed by al-Nasā’ī,51 and he is described in a report transmitted by al-Fasawī as “one of
the early Kūfan transmitters.”52
49
Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim (#2408), al-Sunan al-Kubrā by al-Nasā’ī (7/320)
50
Al-Mu’jam al-Kabīr by al-Ṭabarānī (5/182), Musnad al-Bazzār (10/240)
51
52
19
He was not much of a prolific transmitter, and his transmission is scarce. However, it is generally
corroborated, and it is not characterized by any odd peculiarities or practices that would otherwise
indicate his unreliability.
The isnad of this report is authentic, which is why Muslim admitted it into his Ṣaḥīḥ along with other
notable ḥadīthists. In fact, the ḥadīth critic, Abū Zakariyyā Yaḥyā b. Zakariyyā al-Ḥāfiẓ (d. 307)
mentioned that Yazīd’s variant of Zayd b. Arqam’s ḥadīth is the most authentic account of Zayd b.
Arqam’s ḥadīth of al-Thaqalayn.53
ِ ِ َّ‫ َق َال َأ ُبو ا ْل َعب‬:‫ َق َال‬،‫ْي بْ ِن َج ْع َف ٍر التَّيْ َم ِيل‬

ِ ْ ‫احل َس‬
ْ َ ‫ َسم ْع ُت َأ َبا زَ ك َِر َّيا‬،َ‫اس بْ ُن ُع ْقدَ ة‬
‫َييَى بْ ُن‬ ُّ
ِ ِّ‫بنَا َأ ُبو ال َّطي‬
ُ ْ ‫ب ُحم ََّمدُ بْ ُن‬ َ َ ‫ َأ ْخ‬:‫قال حممد بن عيل بن احلسن العلوي‬
ِ ْ ‫َار ٌك فِيك ُُم الثَّ َق َل‬

".‫ْي‬ ٍ ‫ َأثْب ُت ح ِد‬،‫ان‬
ِ ‫"إِ ِِّّن ت‬: ‫يث ِِف َق ْو ِل النَّبِي‬ ِ َ َّ‫يث َأ ِِب ِحب‬
َ َ َ َّ‫ َع ْن َي ِزيدَ بْ ِن حب‬،‫ان‬ ُ ‫يث َح ِد‬
ُ ‫احل ِد‬
َ ْ ‫ َه َذا‬،‫ول‬ ِ ‫احلافِ ُظ النَّيْ َسا ُب‬
ُ ‫ َي ُق‬،‫ور ُّي‬ َ ْ ‫زَ ك َِر َّيا‬
The transmitter from Yaḥyā is then quoted saying: “Other than Abū Yaḥyā has said that the most
authentic variant is Ḥabīb b. Abī Thābit’s account. Ḥabīb’s cariant shall be addressed in the next section,
and Abū Zakariyyā’s claim about ḥadīth al-Taqalayn seems quite accurate.
Conclusion:
Thus, it would seem that the wording of this report is generally more reliable than that of ‘Aṭiyyah, and
that it is more historically aligned with what the Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬actually said at that event. Nevertheless, this
will be discussed in further detail once all of the reports at hand are outlined and evaluated. This variant
will prove to be one of the most authentic variants from Zayd b. Arqam.
2. The al-A’mash Cluster

Preview:
Before assessing the other redactions from Zayd b. Arqam, another task must be completed. The
transmitter known as “Al-A’mash” is a recurring pivotal figure in the other riwāyāt of this ḥadīth from
Zayd. Seriously conflicting transmission is ascribed to al-A’mash, which has implications on several
reports’ authenticity. Thus, it is in need of a separate analysis for us to properly piece the puzzle of this
report before moving on to the remaining redactions.
Isnād Schematic:
Al-A’mash’s purported transmission has been outlined in figure 3 below:
53
Juz’ min Intikhāb Abī ‘Abdillāh al-Ṣūrī ‘alā Abī ‘Abdillāh Muḥammad b. ‘Alī al-‘Alawī (#33) (Mansucript)
20
Figure 3. An illustration of the conflicting transmission upon al-A’mash
21
As seen in figure 3, Al-A’mash was a later pivotal figure in the transmission of this ḥadīth. However,
some of the transmission from him is conflicting.
Authenticity
The different colors in figure 3 represent the different strands of transmission purported from al-
A’mash.
Black
The black transmission in the aforementioned diagram is al-A’mash’s established transmission from
‘Aṭiyyah al-‘Awfī, which was addressed in a previous section. It had been relayed by a cohort of al-
A’mash’s reliable, unreliable and average companions, and it is not a surprise since ‘Aṭiyyah’s report
was quite popular in Kūfa.
The general wording of al-A’mash’s report from ‘Aṭiyyah is:
‫َت ُل ُفونَنِي‬
ْ َ ‫احل ْو َض َفانْ ُظ ُروا بِ ََم‬ ِ ِ ِ ِ ِ ‫ حب ٌل ََم ْدُ ود ِمن السَم ِء إِ ََل األَر‬، ِ‫ْي ِكتَاب اَّلل‬
ِ ‫َوإِ ِِّّن ت‬
َّ َ ‫ و َل ْن َي ْف َْت َقا َحتَّى َير َدا ع‬،‫ْت ِِت َأ ْه ُل َبيْتي‬
َ ْ ‫َيل‬ َ ْ ‫ َوع‬،‫ض‬ ْ َ َّ َ ٌ ْ َ َّ َ
" ‫فِ ِيه ََم‬
“I have left among you al-Thaqalayn. The Book of Allah, a rope extended from the sky to the
land, and my ‘Itrah. They both shall never part ways until they meet me at the Ḥawḍ, so see
how you treat them both after me.”
This is the general theme Muḥammad b. Fuḍayl1, Muḥammad b. Ṭalḥa2 and Ṣāliḥ b. Abī al-Aswad3
and others agreed upon from al-A’mash, with only minor differences in wording/arrangement
between them.
Green
The green transmission in figure 2 represents the transmission ascribed to al-A’mash, which he
transmitted from Yazīd b. Ḥayyān, from Zayd b. Arqam
This transmission is relayed through several of al-A’mash’s companions: (1) ‘Ammār b. Zurayq → al-
A’mash4, and (2) Yahyā b. Ḥammād → Abū ‘Awānah → al-A’mash5.
1
2
Al-Ṭabaqāt al-Kubrā by Ibn Sa’d (2/194)
3
4
Al-Sunnah by Ibn Abī ‘Āṣim (2/643)
5
Al-Mu’jam al-Kabīr by al-Ṭabarānī (5/182), Tartīb al-Amāli al-Khamīsīyyah (1/196)
22
It similarly seems to have a basis through other than these two men, as Sharīk transmitted a small
clause of this report from al-A’mash with this isnad, where Zayd was asked about the identities of
Ahlulbait.1
The wording of this report is as follows:
"‫وِّن فِ ِيه ََم‬

ِ ‫َت ُل ُف‬ َ ْ‫ َفانْ ُظ ُروا َكي‬،‫ْت ِِت‬
َْ ‫ف‬ ِ ِ ‫ ِكتَاب‬،‫ْي‬
ِ ‫" إِ ِِّّن ت‬
َ ْ ‫اَّلل َوع‬
َّ َ
“I have left among you al-Thaqlayn: the Book of Allah and my Itrah, so see how you treat
them both after me.”
As observed, this variant is quite abridged and not thoroughly representative of Yazīd b. Ḥayyān’s
report from Zayd b. Arqam, which Sa’īd b. Masrūq and Yaḥya b. Sa’īd al-Taymī (Abū Ḥayyān)
relayed from Yazīd b. Ḥayyān.
What is further noteworthy about this redaction is that it has retained some features from al-A’mash’s
report from ‘Aṭiyyah from Abū Sa’īd. Most notably, it has retained the clause: “so see how you treat
them both after me,” which was exclusive to al-A’mash.
This trend in al-A’mash’s transmission of this report is continuously seen, and it will further be
observed in other instances. Nevertheless, the reasons behind this phenomenon shall be explained
later as it is of serious implications on al-A’mash’s transmission of this ḥadīth.
Red & Blue:
The red and blue transmission from al-A’mash are perhaps the most interesting strands relayed from
him. They represent al-A’mash’s conflicting transmission from Ḥabīb b. Abī Thābit. Some
transmitters (red) reported that al-A’mash relayed the ḥadīth from Ḥabīb directly from Zayd, while
others (blue) included an intermediary between Ḥabīb and Zayd b. Arqam, Abū al-Ṭufayl.
The red transmission, relayed by Muḥammad b. Fuḍayl2 and ‘Ammār b. Zurayq3, effectively deems
this report disconnected between Ḥabīb and Zayd. The blue transmission was primarily relayed by
Abū ‘Awānah, and it would hypothetically salvage the report from disconnection.4 Sharīk does
purportedly corroborate Abū ‘Awānah; however, his transmission is exclusively relayed through his
son ‘Abdurraḥmān, and both were criticized transmitters.5
1
2
Jāmi’ al-Tirmiḏī (6/133), Tartīb al-Amālī al-Khamīsiyyah (1/199)
3
Al-Arba’īn Ḥadīthan ‘an Arba’īna Shaykhan li-Arba’īna Ṣaḥābiyyan by al-Shaḥḥāmī (p.75)
4
Al-Sunnah by Ibn Abī ‘Āṣim (2/644), al-Sunan al-Kubrā by al-Nasā’ī (7/310), Sharḥ Mushkil al-Āthār by al-
Ṭaḥāwī (5/18), Al-Mustadrak ‘alā al-Ṣaḥīḥayn (3/118)
5
Al-Ma’rifah wal-Tārīkh (1/536-537)
23
What seems to have taken place is that Ḥabīb b. Abī Thābit directly ascribed this report to Zayd b.
Arqam without an intermediary, and then later transmitters erred and added the intermediary between
them. Perhaps that is because Abū al-Ṭufayl, in other (related but different) reports transmitted
through other than Ḥabīb, is mentioned as a transmitter from Zayd (as shall be demonstrated later).
Nevertheless, Ḥabīb’s transmission from Zayd b. Arqam is disconnected, and the inclusion of Abū al-
Ṭufayl between Zayd and Ḥabīb is but an error. The third century ḥadīth critic, ‘Alī b. al-Madīnī, said:
“Ḥabīb b. Abī Thābit met Ibn ‘Abbās and ‘Ā’isha, and he did not hear from any other Ṣaḥābis.”1
Several other critics made note of the fact that Ḥabīb relayed reports through other Ṣaḥābis, such as
Umm Salamah2 and Ḥakīm b. Ḥizām3, without directly hearing from them.
In fact, this practice of Ḥabīb does not seem limited to the companions of the Prophet, as it is
similarly debated whether Ḥabīb had met several contemporary tābi’īs from whom he relayed reports.
As a result of such recurring practices in his his transmission, Ḥabīb was labled as a mudallis by
several ḥadīth critics, such as: Ibn Khuzaymah4, Ibn Ḥibbān5 and al-Dāraquṭnī6 etc.
Ḥabīb’s variant of the report is a relatively larger redaction, and some have abridged it. Nevertheless,
several sources, such as al-Nasā’ī and al-Ṭaḥāwī, had relayed the longer account, which goes as
follows:
Ḥabīb b. Abī Thābit (allegedly) from Abū al-Ṭufayl, from Zayd b. Arqam that he said:
When the Messenger of Allah returned from the farewell Ḥajj, he took rest at the oasis of
Khumm, and the fields were swept. He then said: “It as though I have been called for and I
have accepted. I have left among you al-Thaqalayn, one of them is larger than the other. The
Book of Allah and my Itrah, the members of my household; so see how you deal with them
both after me. They shall not part from each other until they come to me at al- Ḥawḍ.”
He then said: “Allah is my mawlā, and I am the walī of every believer.”
He then took ‘Alī’s hand and said: “Whoever I am his mawlā then this man is his mawlā, O
Allāh befriend whoever befriends him, and take as an enemy whoever takes him as an
enemy!”
Zayd is then asked: “Did you hear this from the Messenger of Allah?”
1
Jāmi’ al-Taḥṣīl fī Ahkām al-Marāsīl (p.158)
2
Al-Marāsīl by Ibn Abī Ḥātim (p.28)
3
4
Ṣaḥīḥ Ibn Khuzaymah (1/229)
5
Al-Thiqāt by Ibn Ḥibbān (4/137)
6
Ta’rīf Ahl al-Taqdīs bi-Marātib al-Mawṣūfīn bil-Tadlīs (p.37/38)
24
He replied: “There was not a single man in the fields except that he saw him with his eyes and
heard him with his ears.”
As can be seen, this account is quite different than Yazīd b. Ḥayyān’s account from Zayd b. Arqam.
What further attests to the defectiveness of this report is its ascription to Zayd b. Arqam a clause
which Zayd himself had negated in other reports. The clause at hand is the Prophet’s alleged du’ā
mentioned in this ḥadīth: “O Allāh befriend whoever befriends him and take as an enemy whoever
takes him as an enemy!”
Several have transmitted an account to ‘Aṭiyyah al-‘Awfī, where he quotes Zayd relaying the account
without mentioning the aforementioned clause. Aṭiyyah then asked Zayd b. Arqam: “Did the Prophet
say: ‘O Allah befriend whoever befriends him, and take as an enemy whoever takes him as an
enemy’?”
Zayd replied: “I only inform you of what I had heard.”1
‫ إِ َّن َخ َتنًا ِِل‬:‫ َف ُقلْ ُت َل ُه‬،‫ َس َأ ْل ُت زَ ْيدَ ْب َن َأ ْر َق َم‬:‫ َق َال‬،‫ِف‬ ِ ِ ِ ِ ِ ٍ

ِّ ‫ َع ْن عَط َّي َة ا ْل َع ْو‬،‫ َحدَّ َثنَا َعبْدُ ا ْْلَلك َي ْعني ا ْب َن َأ ِِب ُس َليْ ََم َن‬،‫ َحدَّ َثنَا ا ْب ُن ن َُم ْْي‬:‫قال أمحد ِف مسنده‬
‫ َف ُق ْل ُت‬،‫اق فِي ُك ْم َما فِي ُك ْم‬

ِ ‫ إِ َّن ُكم م ْع ََش َأ ْه ِل ا ْل ِعر‬:‫ َف َق َال‬،‫ب َأ ْن َأسم َع ُه ِمن َْك‬
َ َ َ ْ َ ْ
ِ ِ
ُّ ‫ َف َأنَا ُأح‬،‫اَّلل َعن ْ ُه َي ْو َم غَد ِير ُخ ٍّم‬
ُ َّ ‫ِض‬
ِ ِ ‫يث ِِف َشأْ ِن ع‬
َ ‫َيل َر‬
ٍّ
ٍ ‫حدَّ َثنِي َعن َْك بِح ِد‬
َ َ
ِ ‫ و ُهو‬،‫ إِ َلينَا ُظهرا‬K ِ‫ول اَّلل‬

ِ ِ ‫آخ ٌذ بِع ُض ِد ع‬ ِ ْ ِ‫ ُكنَّا ب‬،‫ َنعم‬:‫ َف َق َال‬،‫ َليس َع َلي َك ِمنِّي بأْس‬:‫َله‬
ُ ‫ " َأ ُّ َُّيا الن‬:‫ َف َق َال‬،‫اَّلل َعن ْ ُه‬
،‫َّاس‬ ُ َّ ‫ِض‬
َ ‫َيل َر‬
ٍّ َ َ َ ًْ ْ َّ ُ ‫ َفخَ ْر َج َر ُس‬،‫اْل ْح َفة‬
ُ ْ َ ٌ َ ْ َ ْ ُ
ِ ‫ ال َّل ُهم َو‬:‫ َه ْل َق َال‬:‫ َف ُقلْ ُت َل ُه‬:‫ َق َال‬،" ‫ َف َع ِيل م ْو َال ُه‬،‫ َفم ْن ُكن ُْت م ْو َال ُه‬:‫ َق َال‬،‫ َب ََل‬:‫ون َأ ِِّّن َأ ْو ََل بِا ْْلُؤْ ِمنِْيَ ِم ْن َأنْ ُف ِس ِهم؟ َقا ُلوا‬
،‫ال َم ْن َو َاال ُه‬ َ ‫َأ َل ْستُ ْم َت ْع َل ُم‬
َّ َ ٌّ َ َ ْ
.‫ب َك ك َََم َس ِم ْع ُت‬ ِ

ُ ِ ‫ إِن َََّم ُأ ْخ‬:‫َوعَاد َم ْن عَا َدا ُه؟ َق َال‬
As seen in this different account from the Musnad of Aḥmed, Zayd himself does not ascribe this
clause to the Prophet. When explicitly asked about it, he implicitly answers that he did not hear it.
Though ‘Aṭiyyah was generally criticized as an unreliable transmitter, several indicators from his
account attest to his proper retention of this report: (1) he negates something that would otherwise be
aligned with his theological interests and (2) he had competently partitioned the report without
merging and misattributing its different sections.
The erroneous ascription of this clause seems to have been an early phenomenon among the Shī’ite
community in al-‘Irāq, as this problematic clause was relayed through Zayd b. Arqam from another
problematic transmitter, Maymūn Abū ‘Abdillāh.2 Al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī, however, demonstrated
that the inclusion of this clause in Maymūn’s report is similarly problematic.
He said:
1
2
Musnad Aḥmed (32/73-74)
25
“What Maymūn Abū ‘Abdillāh heard was the beginning of this ḥadīth till when he said:
‘Whoever I am his mawlā, then ‘Alī is his mawlā.’ Regarding what is mentioned after it, he
heard it from other than Zayd from Zayd. Shu’ba demonstrated that in his redaction of this
ḥadīth from Maymūn.”1
Indeed al-Khaṭīb’s criticism is spot-on, as several earlier sources demonstrated that Maymūm, despite
hearing this report from Zayd, did not directly acquire this problematic clause from him. Rather, he
acquired it separately from an anonymous source, which claimed to transmit it from Zayd.
This is apparent in one of Aḥmed’s redactions of this ḥadīth in his Musnad. Aḥmed said:
Muḥammad b. Ja’far informed us, that Shu’bah informed them, from Maymūn Abī ‘Abdillāh that he
said:
I was one day with Zayd b. Arqam, and a man from the farthest end of the tent came to him
and asked him about this.
Zayd then said: “The Messenger of Allah said: ‘Am I not more worthy of the believers than
themselves?’
The people said: ‘Indeed.’
He thus said: ‘whoever I am his mawlā then ‘Alī is his mawlā’.”
Maymūn then said: someone from the people then informed me from Zayd that the
Messenger of Allah said: “O Allah befriend whoever befriends him, and take as an enemy
whoever takes him as an enemy.”2
ِ ‫ َفجاء رج ٌل ِمن َأ ْقَص ا ْل َفس َط‬،‫ ُكن ُْت ِعن ْدَ زَ ي ِد ب ِن َأر َقم‬:‫ َق َال‬،ِ‫ون َأ ِِب َعب ِد اَّلل‬
‫ َف َس َأ َل ُه َع ْن‬،‫اط‬ ٍ ‫ َعن ميم‬،‫ حدَّ َثنَا ُشعب ُة‬،‫ حدَّ َثنَا ُحمَمدُ بن جع َف ٍر‬:‫قال أمحد‬
ْ َ ْ ُ َ َ َ َ ْ ْ ْ َّ ْ َُْ ْ َْ َ ْ َ ُ ْ َّ َ
ٌ ‫ َق َال َميْ ُم‬،‫ َف َع ِ ٌّيل َم ْو َال ُه‬،‫ َم ْن ُكن ُْت َم ْو َال ُه‬:‫ َق َال‬،‫ َب ََل‬:‫ " َأ َل ْس ُت َأ ْو ََل بِا ْْلُؤْ ِمنِْيَ ِم ْن َأنْ ُف ِس ِه ْم؟ َقا ُلوا‬:‫اَّللِ َق َال‬
‫ َف َحدَّ َثنِي َب ْع ُض ا ْل َق ْو ِم‬:‫ون‬ َ ‫ إِ َّن َر ُس‬:‫ َف َق َال‬،‫َذا‬
َّ ‫ول‬
ِ ‫ وع‬،‫ال من و َااله‬ ِ ‫ول‬ ٍ

" ‫َاد َم ْن عَا َدا ُه‬ َ ُ َ ْ َ ِ ‫ ال َّل ُه َّم َو‬:‫اَّلل َق َال‬
َّ َ ‫ َأ َّن َر ُس‬:‫َع ْن زَ ْيد‬
Thus, it becomes evident that Zayd himself, when narrating this report, used to not mention this
controversial clause. In fact, when questioned about it, he would retort that he only narrated what he
had directly heard. Similarly, we find this clause exclusively ascribed to Zayd through problematic
unreliable sources, which further attests to the notion that Ḥabīb did not acquire his report from Abū
al-Ṭufayl. Rather, he acquired it from an anonymous source, which later transmitters erroneously
interpolated as Abū al-Ṭufayl.
1
Al-Faṣl lil-Waṣl al-Mudraj min al-Naql (1/566)
2
26
Similarly, other transmitters, such as Kāmil Abū al-‘Alā’, relayed part of this report through Ḥabīb b.
Abī Thābit directly from Zayd b. Arqam without Abū al-Ṭufayl as an intermediary, further
strengthening the case that the report originally is disconnected.1
ِ ‫ ع‬،‫ َع ْن زَ ْي ِد بْ ِن َأ ْر َق َم‬، ‫ت‬

‫ " م ْن ُكن ُْت‬:‫َن النَّبِ ِّي َق َال‬ ٍ ِ‫يب ب ِن َأ ِِب َثاب‬ ِ ِ ٍ ْ ‫ ثنا ا ْل َف ْض ُل بْ ُن ُدك‬،‫ ثنا َأ ُبو َبك ٍْر‬:‫قال ابن أِب عاصم‬
ْ ِ ِ‫ َع ْن َحب‬،‫ َع ْن كَام ٍل َأ ِِب ا ْل َعالء‬،‫َْي‬
" ‫َم ْوال ُه َف َع ِ ٌّيل َم ْوال ُه‬
Later, in history, however, we find some trustworthy yet somewhat incompetent transmitters, such as
Fiṭr b. Khalīfah, erring and ascribing the clause (which was negated by Zayd) to Zayd himself through
Abū al-Ṭufayl. Simialrly, other problematic transmitters relayed this account from Abū al-Ṭufayl
and/or Zayd b. Arqam, further indicating the Kūfans’ incompetence in accurately redacting this
tradition.2
For such reasons (and others), Aḥmed b. Ḥanbal disparaged the Kufans’ redaction of this report. Al-
Bukhārī said:
Aḥmed said regarding ‘Abdulmalik’s ḥadīth, from ‘Aṭiyyah, from Abū Sa’īd that the
Messenger of Allah said: “I have left among you al-Thaqalayn.”
Aḥmed said: “These ḥadīths of the Kūfans are disapproved reports (manākīr)”.3
.‫ أحاديث الكوفيْي هذه مناكْي‬:" ‫ " تركت فيكم الثقلْي‬:‫ َق َال النَّبِي‬،‫ عن أِب سعيد‬،‫ عن عطية‬،‫ ِف حديث عبد اْللك‬:‫َق َال أمحد‬
That is because the Kūfans, such as ‘Aṭiyyah and others, had demonstrably blundered in the
transmission of the ḥadīth, which is exemplified by the many misattributions, mergers, and mix-and-
matches that took place in their riwāyāt.
In al-A’mash’s redaction of this ḥadīth from Ḥabīb, which is the pinnacle of this discussion, we see
another problematic clause appear. In each of al-A’mash’s riwāyahs of this ḥadīth, which he acquired
from different sources, we find that his exclusive clause, “so see how you deal with them both after
me,” appear in each of his different accounts. This is indicative that al-A’mash’s redaction of this
ḥadīth has undergone several defects.
After a careful assessment of al-A’mash’s reports, the reason behind this defectiveness in his reports
becomes more apparent. Several critics had pointed out that al-A’mash, despite his reliability, was
particularly incompetent with the transmission of smaller transmitters. Ibn al-Barā’ quoted Ibn al-
1
Al-Sunnah by Ibn Abī ‘Āṣim (2/605). Some other sources relayed this report defectively from Kāmil with
Yaḥyā b. Ja’dah as an intermediary between Ḥabīb and Zayd, further demonstrating the defectiveness of these
accounts.
2
Al-Mu’jam al-Kabīr (5/166, 177, 193, 195, 202, 204, 212…)
3
Al-Tārīkh al-Awsaṭ (1/267)
27
Madīnī saying: “al-A’mash used to err a lot in the ḥadīths of these smaller transmitters, such as al-
Ḥakam, Salamah b. Kuhayl, Ḥabīb b. Abī Thābit, and Abū Isḥāq etc.”1 Ya’qūb b. Shaybah is similarly
reported to have quoted Ibn al-Madīnī saying the same thing.2
Ibn al-Madīnī thus points out that al-A’mash used to err in the ḥadīth of Ḥabīb b. Abī Thābit and
similar transmitters, which explains the defective transmission observed in al-A’mash’s transmission
from Ḥabīb.
Conclusion:
Thus, it is clear that al-A’mash’s redaction of Zayd b. Arqam’s tradition is quite problematic, due to
the many defective characteristics it embodies. Similarly, it seems as though al-A’mash did not
accurately partition the wordings of the different variants, and thus ended up misattributing different
phrases and clauses to the wrong isnāds.
What further increases al-A’mash’s risk for error in the transmission of this ḥadīth is:
1. He acquired a group of different (yet similar) accounts of the same event from multiple
sources.
2. His sources consisted of relatively smaller transmitters, and he used to frequently err in such
individual’s transmission.
3. These different redactions converge and diverge in their content at various points.
4. The confusion surrounding the transmission of this ḥadīth predated al-A’mash, hence why
many defective variants had already existed by the time he relayed the report.
These factors, along with other observations, explain al-A’mash’s error in properly partitioning the
different variants of the ḥadīth, hence the recurring clause in his transmission of all reports: “So see
how you deal with them after me.” Nevertheless, al-A’mash’s redaction of this ḥadīth from Ḥabīb is
weak due to (1) the disconnection between Ḥabīb and Zayd b. Arqam, and (2) al-A’mash’s error in
the text(s) of the report and (3) its conflict with the wording of other established variants from Zayd.
Similarly, his redaction from Yazīd b. Ḥayyān is similarly defective, as its text not aligned with what
the reliable transmitters transmitted from Yazīd.
1
Sharḥ ‘Ilal al-Tirmiḏī by Ibn Rajab (2/800)
2
Sharḥ ‘Ilal al-Tirmiḏī by Ibn Rajab (2/800)
28
3. ‘Alī b. Rabī’ah’s Report from Zayd b. Arqam
Preview:
This report is an abridged variant of Zayd b. Arqam’s report that simply touches on one clause that is
mentioned in the greater report, as reported by other transmitters from Zayd. It is relayed by Isrā’īl b.
Yūnus → ‘Uthmān b. al-Mughīrah → ‘Alī b. Rabī’ah → Zayd b. Arqam.
Wording:
Isrā’īl b. Yūnus reported from ‘Uthmān b. al-Mughīrah, from ‘Alī b. Rabī’ah that he said:
I met Zayd b. Arqam while he was entering upon (or leaving) al-Mukhtār, and so I asked him:
“Did you hear the Messenger of Allāh say: ‘I have left among you al-Thaqalayn: the Book of
Allah and my ‘Itrah?”
He said: “Yes.”1
This report, as evident is extremely abridged, and it does not provide much insight on Zayd b.
Arqam’s ḥadīth. Similarly, it does not provide Zayd b. Arqam’s account of that event. Rather, ‘Alī b.
Rabī’a simply asked him about a clause, and Zayd b. Arqam affirmed it.
Authenticity
This report is an authentic abridgement of Zayd b. Arqam’s account, as its transmitters are generally
reliable.
Conclusion:
The report has a basis from Zayd, and the interaction described in the report between ‘Alī b. Rabī’ah
and Zayd did take place. Nevertheless, it is an abridged account, and the wording provided is from
‘Alī b. Rabī’ah’s question, not Zayd b. Arqam. Thus, this report simply represents an affirmation from
Zayd that the tradition of al-Thaqalayn has a basis from him, and it cannot tell us much about the
wording and structure of Zayd’s greater ḥadīth.
4. ‘Abdullāh b. Bukayr’s Variant from Ḥakīm b. Jubayr, from Abū al-

Ṭufayl, from Zayd
Preview:
This is a relatively later redaction of Zayd b. Arqam’s report, which was relayed by ‘Abdullāh b.
Bukayr → Ḥakīm b. Jubayr → Abū al-Ṭufayl → Zayd b. Arqam.
1
Musnad Aḥmed (32/64), al-Ma’rifah wal-Tārīkh (1/537), al-Mu’jam al-Kabīr by al-Ṭabarānī (5/186)
29
Wording:
The wording of this report is as follows:
‘Abdullāh b. Bukayr, from Ḥakīm b. Jubayrm from Abū al-Ṭufayl, from Zayd b. Arqam that he said:
The Messenger of Allah rested on the day of Juḥfah, and he then approached the people from
the farewell Ḥajj, he prohibited his companions from resting around trees that were in the
field. He then sent for them and prayed beneath them. He then stood up and said: “O People,
the Kind and Aware (al-Laṭīf al-Khabīr) has informed me that there has not been a Prophet
except that his life was half the length of the life of the Prophet before him.
I am about to be called, to which I shall agree, so what will you say?”
They said: “You have given wise council.”
He then said: ““Do you not bear witness that there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah
and that Muḥammad is his slave and messenger? And that His Heaven is true, His Fire is true,
and that the resurrection after death is true?”
They said: “We bear witness.”
He then raised his hands and placed them on his chest and said: “and I bear witness with you
as well.” He then asked: “Do you not hear?” They said: “Yes.”
He said: “I shall arrive before you at al-Ḥawḍ, and you shall come to me at the Ḥawḍ. It’s
width is longer than the distance between Ṣan’ā’ and Buṣrā, and the number of silver cups in
it is akin to the number of stars; so see how you deal with with al-Thaqalayn after me.”
A man then called out: “What is al-Thaqalayn O Messenger of Allah?”
He said: “the Book of Allah: a rope with one end in the Hand of Allah and another end in
your hands; so grasp onto it and do not go astray. The other one is my ‘Itrah. The Kind and
Aware (al-Laṭīf al-Khabīr) has informed me that they shall never separated until they come to
me at al-Ḥawḍ. I requested that from my Lord, so do not step forth before them, lest you will
perish; and do not fall behind from them, lest you will perish; and do not teach them, for they
are more knowledgeable than you.”
He then took ‘Alī’s hand and said: “Whoever I am more worthy of him than I am with myself,
then ‘Alī is his mawlā. O Allah befriend whoever befriends him, and take as an enemy
whoever takes him as an enemy.”1
1
30
This account, as apparent, is quite different in lexicon, structure, and arrangement than the other
accounts from Zayd b. Arqam. Similarly, it has incorporated certain accretions and clauses that cannot
be found in the other variants of Zayd’s ḥadīth al-Thaqalayn.
This account has incorporated clauses and accretions that were characteristic to other variants of this
report. For example, he included the clause, “so see how you deal with them both after me,” which is
characteristic of the reports al-A’mash relayed to Zayd b. Arqam and Abū Sa’īd.
He similarly incorporated the clause, “the Kind and Aware (al-Laṭīf al-Khabīr) has informed me,”
which was exclusive to Muḥammad b. Ṭalḥa’s redaction from al-‘Amash → from ‘Aṭiyyah → Abū
Sa’īd , which I have already addressed.
The transmitters of this account similarly included other problematic clauses and accretions that have
no basis from Zayd b. Arqam, such as the Prophet’s alleged description of al- Ḥawḍ saying: “It [the
Ḥawḍ] is wider than the distance between Buṣrā and Ṣan’ā’, and the number of silver cups in it is akin
to the number of stars.” This clause is only known through other reports that described al-Ḥawḍ,
which have nothing to do with Zayd b. Arqam or ḥadīth al-Thaqalayn.
The transmitters of this account had similarly ascribed to Zayd the clause that he had negated,
himself. It is the clause where the Prophet is quoted saying: “O Allah, befriend whoever befriends
him, and take as enemy whoever takes him as an enemy.”
It is evident from the wording of this report that its transmitters simply aggregated different ‘Irāqī
variants of ḥadith al-Thaqalayn and then incorporated other accretions from different reports into a
single report. This concocted account was then misattributed ascribed to Abū al-Ṭufayl → Zayd b.
Arqam.
Authenticity:
A detailed analysis of this report’s wording in light of Zayd b. Arqam’s other established variants is
sufficient to cast doubts on its reliability and integrity.
Thus, it should not come as a surprise that several transmitters in this isnād were deemed unreliable
by the muḥaddithīn. Ḥakīm b. Jubayr was deemed weak by a cohort of ḥadīth critics, such as:
Shu’bah, ‘Abdurraḥmān b. Mahdī, Aḥmed b. Ḥanbal, Yaḥyā b. Ma’īn, Abū Dāwūd, Ya’qūb b.
Shaybah, Abū Ḥātim, al-Nasā’ī, Zakariyyā b. Yaḥyā al- Sājī, and al-Dāraquṭnī.1 Ḥakīm was also
criticized by al-‘Ijlī, Abū al-‘Arab al-Qayrawānī, Ibn Ḥibbān, and al-Jawzaqānī,2
1
Tahḏīb al-Tahḏīb (2/445-446)
2
Ikmāl Tahḏīb al-Kamāl (4/116-117)
31
Ḥakīm was even accused of forgery by some, and others negated that claim, implying that he simply
was a severely incompetent weak transmitter.
The weakness in this report’s isnād is not limited to Ḥakīm b. Jubayr, as the informant beneath him in
the isnad, ‘Abdullāh b. Bukayr al-Ghanawī, is somewhat obscure and unreliable. Zakariyyā b. Yaḥyā
said: “He is from the people of truth, but he is not strong.” Ibn ‘Adiyy mentioned that he exclusively
narrated several reports.1 Yaḥyā b. Ma’īn, on the other hand, endorsed his reliability and said:
“Nothing is wrong with him.”2 Thus, it becomes apparent that ‘Abdullāh b. Bukayr was somewhat
obscure, and his reliability was debatable among the muḥaddithīn due to several disapproved reports
he relayed, even though they seem to agree that he was a truthful individual.
Conclusion:
This report, as seen from the analysis of its text and isnad, is a baseless nonexistent report, which only
came to be as the result of a gross error. This error seems most likely to be the byproduct of Ḥakīm b.
Jubayr’s unrealiability, since he was a severely disparaged transmitter. However, it is possible that
‘Abdullāh b. Bukayr may have contributed in the erroneous inclusion of some problematic clauses
from other reports.
Nevertheless, the ḥadīth effectively is a forgery, regardless of whether it was intentionally fabricated
or not, and its wording is worthless and clearly not representative of what Zayd b. Arqam historically
relayed from the Prophet ‫ﷺ‬.
5. Abū al-Ḍuḥā Muslim b. Ṣubayḥ’s Alleged Report from Zayd b. Arqam

Preview:
This is an interesting short account of Zayd b. Arqam’s report that is somewhat controversial among
Sunnī and Shī’ī polemicists due to its wording and apparently authentic isnad.
Wording:
The tradition often cited in these discussions is a portion of a larger report. The cited portion is as
follows:
Al-Ḥasan b. ‘Ubaydillāh, narrated on the authority of Abū al-Ḍuḥā Muslim b. Ṣubayḥ, from Zayd b.
Arqam that he said:
1
Lisān al-Mīzān (3/264)
2
Tārīkh Ibn Ma’īn - Riwāyat al-Dūrī (3/404)
32
The Messenger of Allah said: “I am leaving among you al-Thaqalayn: the Book of Allah and
my ‘Itrah, the members of my household. They shall not separate until they come to me at al-
Ḥawḍ.
Jarīr b.’ Abdulḥamīd was one of the main transmitters of this report from al-Ḥasan b. ‘Ubaydillāh.
Out of all the transmitters who relayed this report from Jarīr, an unidentified Yaḥyā exclusively added
the clause: “I am leaving among you that which If you hold onto….”1
The other transmitters from Jarīr, such as Yaḥyā b. al-Mughīrah (a different man), Yūsuf b. Mūsa, and
‘Alī b. al-Madīnī (etc.) did not include this addition.2 What further confirmed my suspicions that the
Yaḥyā cited by al-Fasawī erred in his inclusion of this clause into the ḥadīth was that the other
transmitter of this ḥadīth from al-Ḥasan b. ‘Ubaydillāh, Khālid b. ‘Abdillāh, similarly did not
mention this additional clause in his riwāyah.3 It can thus be confirmed that this exclusive clause from
Yaḥyā was an accretion acquired from another report and erroneously misattributed to Jarīr.
It must be noted that the identity of Yaḥyā was not explicitly outlined, and there are two sheikhs of al-
Fasawī who could be this Yaḥyā. An editor of one of the editions of al-Ma’rifah wal-Tārīkh stated it
was Yaḥyā b. Yaḥyā b. Bukayr, a reliable transmitter and teacher of al-Fasawī. However, this
unidentified Yaḥyā seems more likely to be Yaḥyā b. ‘Abdilḥamīd al-Ḥimmānī, another sheikh of al-
Fasawī and a disparaged transmitter.4 That is because al-Ṭabarānī, in al-Mu’jam al-Kabīr, transmitted
this precise ḥadīth through Yaḥyā al-Ḥimmānī from Jarīr.5 Similarly, it is evident that the Yaḥyā
referenced by al-Fasawī erred in this ḥadīth, which would seem characteristic of al-Ḥimmānī, not the
reliable Ibn Bukayr. Thus, it seems like al-Fasawī’s teacher most likely was the weak al-Ḥimmānī,
even though the accretion would still be weak regardless of his identity.
Authenticity:
This report is quite interesting, as it is the only report with a seemingly authentic isnad to transmit the
clause, “and they shall never separate until they come to me at al-Ḥawḍ.” Other than that, the
remainder of the report is corroborated.
Al-Bazzār commented saying: “We do not know that Muslim b. Ṣubayḥ relayed anything from Zayd
b. Arqam except this ḥadīth.”6 Al-Bazzā’r observation seems to be accurate, as the only other instance
where Muslim can be found transmitting from Zayd b. Arqam is in ḥadīth, “man kuntu mawlāh,”
which is a fragment of this report.
1
2
Musnad al-Bazzār (10/232), al-Mu’jam al-Kabīr (5/170), al-Mustadrak ‘alā al-Ṣaḥīḥayn (3/160),
3
4
See his biographical entry in Tahḏīb al-Tahḏīb (11/243-249)
5
Al-Mu’jam al-Kabīr (5/170)
6
Musnad al-Bazzār (10/233)
33
Nevertheless, this report, as stated earlier, is but a portion of a greater report. In other sources, we
observe the other portions of this report being relayed through the same chain of transmission. The
portion of the account cited earlier was relayed through Jarīr b. ‘Abdulḥamīd1 and Khālid b.
‘Abdillāh2.
Khālid b. ‘Abdillāh3, along with other transmitters, such as: ‘Alī b. ‘Ābis4 and Talīd b. Sulayman,5
relayed another portion of this greater report with the same isnād back to Zayd b. Arqam, which is
ḥadīth, “man kuntu mawlāh.”
I was not able to find any explicit indicators of defectiveness in this report. The ḥadīth revolves
around the transmission of al-Ḥasan b. ‘Ubaydillāh al-Nakha’ī → Abū al-Ḍuḥā Muslim b. Ṣubayḥ →
Zayd b. Arqam.
Al-Ḥasan was a reliable transmitter endorsed by several ḥadīth critics, such as: Yaḥyā b. Ma’īn, Abū
Ḥātim, al-‘Ijlī, and al-Sājī.6 Others praised him as well. The only semblance of criticism is what al-
Bukhārī is reported to have said: “I have not admitted the ḥadīth of al-Ḥasan b. ‘Ubaydillāh because
most of his transmission his shaky (muḍṭarib).”7 Another critic, al-Dāraquṭnī, when demonstrating an
instance where al-Ḥasan’s transmission conflicted with al-A’mash’s, said: “and al-Ḥasan is not
strong. He is not comparable to al-A’mash.”8
Al-Dāraquṭnī’s statement is not an absolute remark on al-Ḥasan’s reliability. Rather, it is a comment

on his status in light of al-A’mash’s status, which is definitely superior to al-Ḥasan’s. It does not
necessarily entail that al-Dāraquṭnī viewed al-Ḥasan to be a weak transmitter. Regarding al-Bukhārī’s
statement, I was not able to fully discern what he was referring to, and perhaps it may have been a
limited observation on his part. Indeed, in al-Dāraquṭnī’s ‘Ilal, one can come across several examples
of al-Ḥasan’s errors during the transmission of hadith, where his transmission conflicted with that of
more reliable transmitters. Nevertheless, it seems negligible in light of his greater pool of
transmission.
To further ascertain the reality of this matter, I assessed and cross-referenced al-Ḥasan’s particular
transmission from Abū al-Ḍuḥā. Al-Ḥasan mostly seemed to transmit tafsīr reports through this chain.
His transmission from Abū al-Ḍuḥā was quite clean and solid and readily corroborated. Thus, I do not
believe there is sufficient evidence to necessarily undermine this report’s authenticity because of al-
Ḥasan b. ‘Ubaydillāh. Thus, it seems generally authentic inshāllah. The clause, “they shall never
1
Al-Ma’rifah wal-Tārīkh (1/536), Musnad al-Bazzār (10/233), Al-Mustadrak ‘alā al-Ṣaḥīḥayn (3/160)
2
3
Al-Sunnah by Ibn Abī ‘Āṣim (2/606)
4
5
Tārīkh Dimashq by Ibn ‘Āsākir (42/218)
6
7
8
Al-‘Ilal al-Wāridah ‘alā al-Aḥādīth al-Nabawiyyah (2/204)
34
separate until they come to me at al-Ḥawḍ,” may be authentic and it may prove to be defective. It is
not clear since this is the only non-weak chain from Zayd to mention this clause. Since I have not
come across any explicit evidence that attests to this clause’s defectiveness in this report, I will lean
towards the position that it has a basis from the Prophet.
Conclusion
This report is a generally authentic account from Zayd b. Arqam, and its wording, implications and
status shall be discussed in more detail in the “Discussion” section of this book.
35
6. Salamah b. Kuhayl’s Variant from Abū al- Ṭufayl, from Zayd b. Arqam
Preview:
This report is transmitted through multiple isnāds back to Salamah b. Kuhayl, who allegedly
transmitted this report from Abū al-Ṭufayl, from Zayd b. Arqam.
Wording:
Salmah b. Kuhayl allegedly narrated on the authority of Abū al-Ṭufayl, from Zayd b. Arqam that the
Messenger of Allah said:
“…I am leaving among you two things which if you follow, you shall never be misguided: the
Book of Allah and my household, my ‘Itrah…”
The wordings are similar across the different variants of Salamah’s report.
Isnād Schematic:
Figure 4. A diagram representing the dubious transmission of this a ḥadīth from Salamah b. Kuhayl
36
Authenticity:
As seen, this redaction is ascribed to Salamah through four dubious routes. His sons, Yaḥyā and
Muḥammad, both relayed this report from him.1 Both of them were extremely weak and their
transmission cannot be deemed valid.2
The other redactions of this report ascribed to Salamah through Sulaymān b. Qurrah3 and Shu’ayb b.
Khālid4 are quite dubious as well, since the exclusively come through later disparaged transmitters.
Sulaymān b. Qurrah along with the transmitter from him, ‘Abbās b. ‘Abdillāh, were obscure
transmitters. Similarly, their redaction of this ḥadīth was exclusively known through Mūḥammad b.
Marwān and his son, Isḥāq. Both were quite unreliable and worthless transmitters.5
Shu’ayb b. Khālid’s report, on the other hand, exclusively came through Muḥammad b. Ḥumayd.
Muḥammad was a vast transmitter, who later in his life was “exposed” and accused of forgery by
some due to his dubious transmission. Regardless of whether he was a forger or not, it is clear from
his biographical entries in the books of Rijāl that he was a severely unreliable transmitter.6
Thus, it is clear, after an assessment of the transmission of this report, that it is a weak variant of of
Zayd b. Arqam’s ḥadīth. Though there seems to be multiple isnāds for this variant, their
interdependence cannot be dispelled, and it is possible (if not likely) that all of these seemingly
interdependent isnāds actually acquired this report from an individual unreliable source beneath
Salamah b. Kuhayl.
Conclusion:
This report is a baseless variant of Zayd b. Arqam’s ḥadīth, as it is of dubious transmission. Similarly,
its wording and greater context conflict with the established reports from Zayd b. Arqam.
1
Al-Mustadrak ‘alā al-Ṣaḥīḥayn (3/118), Juz’ min Ḥadīth Abī al-Ṭāhir Muḥammad b. Aḥmed al-Ḏuhlī (p.50)
2
See Yaḥyā’s biographical entry in Tahḏīb al-Tahḏīb (11/224), and Muḥammad’s biographical entry in Lisān
al-Mīzan (5/183). (Muḥammad’s grandfather’s name, ‫كهيل‬, was misspelled as "‫ "جهل‬in his entry in Lisān al-
Mīzān).
3
Tartīb Amālī Ibn al-Shajarī (1/190)
4
Juz’ min Ḥadīth Abī al-Ṭāhir Muḥammad b. Aḥmed al-Ḏuhlī (p.50)
5
See Muḥammad b. Marwān’s biographical entry in Lisān al-Mīzān (5/376), and his son’s entry in Lisān al-
Mīzān (1/375)
6
37
IV. Ḥuḏayfah b. Usayd’s Alleged Ḥadīth
Preview:
The report ascribed to Ḥuḏayfah b. Usayd is an interesting report, as it gives another spot-on example
of the serious corruption that took place during the transmission of this ḥadīth in the city of Kūfa. The
report revolves around the transmitter, Zayd b. al-Ḥasan al-Anmāṭī, who was previously mentioned in
the chapter pertaining to Jābir’s report. It is an insightful attestation to his severe unreliability as
either: (1) a forger or (2) a grossly incompetent transmitter, further confirming Abū Ḥātim’s
aforementioned disparagement of his status as a transmitter.
Wording:
The complete report from Zayd b. al-Ḥasan was relayed by Ibn ‘Asākir in Tārikh Dimashq.1
In this account, Zayd b. al-Ḥasan al-Anmāṭī is quoted relaying this report from Ma’rūf b. Kharrabūḏ,
from Abū al-Ṭufayl, from Ḥuḏayfah b. Usayd that he said:
When the Messenger of Allah departed from the farewell Ḥajj, he prohibited his companions
from resting around trees that were in the field. He then sent for them and prayed beneath
them. He then stood up and said: “O People, the Kind and Aware (al-Laṭīf al-Khabīr) has
informed me that there has not been a Prophet except that his life was half the length of the
life of the Prophet before him.
I suspect that I am about to be called, to which I shall agree. You and I shall be asked, so what
will you say?”
They said: “We bear witness that you have conveyed (the message), given wise council and
exerted effort, so may Allah reward you.”
He said: “Do you not bear witness that there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah and
that Muḥammad is his slave and messenger? And that His Heaven is true, His Fire is true, and
death is true, and the Hour shall come without a doubt, and that Allah resurrects who is in the
graves?”
They said: “Indeed, we attest to that.” He said: “O Allah bear witness!”
He then said: “O people, Allah is my mawlā and I am the mawlā of the believers. I am more
worthy of them than themselves, so whoever I am his mawlā then ‘Alī is his mawlā. O Allah,
befriend whoever befriends him, and take as enemy whoever takes him as an enemy.”
1
Tārīkh Dimashq by Ibn ‘Asākir (42/219)
38
He then said: “O people, I shall arrive before you to al-Ḥawḍ, and you shall arrive to the
Ḥawḍ, my Ḥawḍ. It is wider than the distance between Buṣrā and Ṣan’ā’, and the number of
silver cups in it is akin to the number of stars. I shall ask you about al-Thaqalayn when you
come to me at al-Ḥawḍ, so see how you deal with them after me with them both. The greater
thaqal, the Book of Allah: a rope with one end in the Hand of Allah and another end in your
hands; so grasp onto it. Do not go astray and alter. And my ‘Itrah, the members of my
household, for the Kind and Aware (al-Laṭīf al-Khabīr) has informed me that they shall never
separate until they come to me at my Ḥawḍ.”1
After carefully assessing this report, I realized that Zayd b. al-Ḥasan completely “ripped off” and stole
Ḥakīm b. Jubayr’s report from Abū al-Ṭufayl, from Zayd b. Arqam (which was mentioned earlier). He
then misattributed it a different isnād that ended with Ḥuḏayfah b. Usayd. Otherwise, the accounts are
extremely similar in structure, lexicon and arrangement.
To demonstrate this striking similarity between both accounts, I have framed them besides each other
and highlighted the nearly identical clauses from both reports with the same colors:
Figure 5. Ḥakīm b. Jubayr’s report on the left compared to Zayd b. al-Ḥasan’s report alleged report to Ḥuḏayfah
As seen, both reports are strikingly similar: they share a similar structure/arrangement, theme(s), and
lexicon. In both reports, the Prophet commences the sermon by saying that his life would only be half
the length of the Prophet’s life before him. This clause cannot be found elsewhere in the in the
transmission of ḥadīth of al-Thaqalayn. Rather, it is mentioned in other reports that had nothing to do
1
39
with this ḥadīth. This alien clause was most likely misattributed to Zayd b. Arqam by Ḥakīm b.
Jubayr. Zayd Al-Anmāṭī then stole Ḥakīm’s report from Ibn Arqam and ascribed it to Ḥuḏayfah b.
Usayd, and his stolen account thus embodies the same accretions as Ḥakīm’s report.
The Prophet is then quoted asking the attendees the same questions (albeit with minor differences in
both accounts). In both reports, the Prophet is quoted giving an identical description of his Ḥawḍ, “It
is wider than the distance between Buṣrā and Ṣan’ā’, and the number of silver cups in it is akin to the
number of stars.” That description is exclusive to these two accounts of ḥadīth al-Thaqalayn, and it is
only found in other ḥadīths that have nothing to do with it. Like the earlier accretion, this accretion
was also most likely taken from those foreign reports and then inserted into this embellished account
of ḥadīth al-Thaqalayn.
Similarly, the clause, “the Kind and Aware (al-Laṭīf al-Khabīr) has informed me,” is found in both
accounts. This clause is exclusive to Muḥammad b. Ṭalḥa’s redaction of al-A’mash’s report from
‘Aṭiyyah, which was addressed earlier. What happened is that one of the transmitters of Ḥakīm’s
report blundered and incorporated this foreign clause into the ḥadīth of Zayd b. Arqam. Al-Anmāṭī
then stole the report, along with the misattributed clauses within it, and ascribed it to Ḥuḏayfah b.
Usayd with a different isnad.
Many more similarities exist between both variants, as apparent in figure 5. It is thus quite apparent
that al-Anmāṭī’s entire redaction is a misattribution of Ḥakīm b. Jubayr’s report from Zayd b. Arqam
to Ḥuḏayfah b. Usayd.
Authenticity
This report effectively is a forgery. It is not clear whether this misattribution was intentional or not on
Zayd b. al-Ḥasan al-Anmāṭī’s part. Nevertheless, it attests to his severe unreliability as a transmitter,
who, in the best-case scenario, is an incompetent transmitter whose transmission cannot be taken at
face value. In the worst-case scenario, he was a malicious forger who stole reports and fabricated
nonexistent chains of transmission. Since his transmission is quite scarce, it is difficult to ascertain his
reality. Either way, he clearly is a disapproved (munkar) transmitter, as rightfully stated by Abū
Ḥātim al-Rāzī.
Conclusion
This report is worthless, as it is a nonexistent report that simply is the byproduct of a misattribution.
Similarly, this blunder on Zayd b. al-Ḥasan’s part attests to his severe unreliability and to the
weakness of his previously mentioned report from Jābir b. ‘Abdillāh.
40
V. ‘Alī b. Abī Ṭālib’s Alleged Ḥadīth
Several riwāyāt of Ḥadīth al-Thaqalayn are ascribed to ‘Alī b. Abī Ṭālib:
1. Muḥammad b. ‘Umar b. ‘Ali’s report, from his father, from ‘Alī

2. Sa’ād b. Sulaymān’s Report, from Abū Isḥāq, from al-Ḥārith b. Alī
1. Muḥammad b. ‘Umar b. ‘Ali’s report, from his father, from ‘Alī
Preview:
This report is a riwāyah allegedly transmitted by a descendent of ‘Alī b. Abī Ṭālib, Muḥamamad b.
‘Umar b. ‘Alī b. Abī Ṭālib. The isnad of this account is very gharīb, as its common link (madār)
exists relatively much later in history. The report revolves around the transmission of Abū ‘Āmir al-
‘Aqadī (d. 204), from Kathīr b. Zayd (d. 158), from Muḥammad b. ‘Umar b. ‘Alī (d. 130), from his
father, from ‘Alī.
Wording:
Abū ‘Āmir al-‘Aqadī narrated on the authority of Kathīr b. Zaid, from Muḥammad b. ‘Umar b. ‘Alī,
from his father, from ‘Alī that he said:
The Messenger of Allah came to the tree in Khumm. He then came out holding ‘Alī’s hand,
and said: “Do you not bear witness that Allah is your Lord?” They said: “Yes.”
He then said: “Do you not bear witness that Allah and His Messenger are more worthy of you
than your own selves? And that Allah and his Messenger are your awliyā’?” They said: “yes.”
He said: “Whoever Allah and His Messenger are his mawlā, then this [man] is his mawlā. I
have left among you that which if you uphold, you shall never go astray: the Book of Allah.
It’s end is in His hands, and its end is in yours; and the members of my household.”1
Authenticity:
The report is exclusively transmitted by Abū ‘Āmir al-‘Aqadī → Kathīr b. Zayd → Muḥammad b.
‘Umar b. ‘Alī → his father → ‘Alī. A report in Tārīkh Dimashq by Ibn ‘Asākir misidentifies Kathīr b.
Zayd as the weak Shī’ite transmitter, Kathīr al-Nawwā’; 2 nevertheless, that simply is an error.
Kathīr b. Zayd generally was a truthful transmitter, but he was, nevertheless, criticized by the ḥadīth
critics for his poor retention (ḍabṭ). Muḥammad b. ‘Uthmān once asked Ibn al-Madīnī about Kathīr b.
1
Al-Maṭālib al-‘Āliyah fī Zawā’id al-Masānīd al-Thamāniyah (16/142), Al-Sunnah by Ibn Abī ‘Āṣim (2/644),
Muskil al-Āthār by al-Ṭaḥāwī (5/13)
2
41
Zayd, and Ibn al-Madīnī replied: “He is decent (ṣālih), and he is not strong.”1 Abū Ḥātim al- Rāzī
said: He is decent (ṣālīḥ), but he is not strong,” and Abū Zur’ah said: “He is truthful, but he has some
frailness (layn.)”2 Ya’qūb b. Shaybah said: “He is not too debased (sāqiṭ), and he is to weakness as he
is.”3 Al-Nasā’ī said: “Kathīr b. Zaid is weak.”4 Al-Ṭabarī said: “And Kathīr b. Zayd, according to
them, cannot be relied upon.”5 Ibn Ḥibbān said: “He used to err a lot despite his scarce transmission. I
am not fond of relying upon him if he exclusively transmits something.”6
Ibn Ma’īn addressed his status several times. Ibn Miḥriz quoted Yaḥyā saying: “He is weak.”7 Ibn Abī
Khaythamah quoted Yaḥyā saying: “He is not that strong,” and prior to that, he used to say that he
was worthless.8 Ibn Abī Maryam quoted him saying: “He is reliable,” and ‘Abdullāh al-Dawraqī
quoted him saying: “There nothing wrong in him.9 Mu’āwiyah b. Ṣāliḥ quoted him saying: “He is
descent (ṣāliḥ).”10 ‘Abdullāh b. Shu’ayb quoted him saying: “He is not that strong.”11
Several ḥadīthists praised Kathīr b. Zayd. Aḥmed b. Ḥanbal said: “I do not see anything wrong in
him.”12 Ibn ‘Ammār al-Mawṣilī said: “Kathīr b. Zayd is reliable.”13 Ibn ‘Adiyy said: “I did not find
anything wrong in his transmission, and I hope that there is nothing wrong in him.”14
The statements of the ḥadīth critics overwhelmingly attest to Kathīr b. Zayd’s poor retention, despite
his truthfulness, which was affirmed by several critics (including some of those who criticized him.)
Nevertheless, such a transmitter cannot be depended on when he relays a report with an isnad that
cannot be found anywhere else. Thus, this report is weak due to Kathīr b. Zayd.
Similarly, a few critics noted the possibility of a disconnection in this chain. Ibn Kathīr, in al-Bidāyah
wal-Nihāyah, said: “Some have transmitted the report from Abū ‘Āmir, from Kathīr, from
Muḥammad b. ‘Umar, from ‘Alī in a disconnected fashion.”15 What Ibn Kathīr was referring to was a
report where Muḥammad b. ‘Umar’s father was omitted from the isnad, rendering it disconnected
between Muḥammad b. ‘Umar b. ‘Alī and ‘Alī b. Abī Ṭālib. This disconnected isnād can be found in
Al-Ḏuriyyah al-Ṭāhirah by al-Dūlābī.16 This omission seems to be an error, as a variety of
1
Su’ālat Muḥammad b. ‘Uthmān b. Abī Shaybah li-‘Alī b. al-Madīnī (p.43)
2
Al-Jarḥ wal-Ta’dīl by Ibn Abī Ḥātim (7/151)
3
4
Al-Ḍu’afā’ wal-Matrūkūn by al-Nasā’ī (p.89)
5
6
Al-Majrūḥīn by Ibn Ḥibbān (2/222)
7
Tārikh Ibn Ma’īn – Riwāyat Ibn Miḥriz (1/70)
8
Al-Tārīkh Al-Kabīr by Ibn Abī Khaythamah (4/336)
9
Al-Kāmil fī Ḍu’afā’ Al-Rijāl (7/204)
10
11
12
Al-‘Ilal wa-Ma’rifat al-Rijāl – Riwāyat ‘Abdillāh (2/317)
13
14
Al-Kāmil fī Ḍu’afā’ Al-Rijāl (7/207)
15
Al-Bidāyah wal-Nihāyah (7/674)
16
Al-Ḏuriyyah al-Ṭāhirah by al-Dūlābī (p.121)
42
transmitters from Abū ‘Āmir affirmed the inclusion of ‘Umar b. ‘Alī in the isnad. Nevertheless, the
report is sufficiently rendered weak due to Kathīr b. Zayd, as mentioned earlier.
Similarly, its wording in this report is somewhat off and unlike the other aforementioned authentic
accounts pertaining to the events. As an example, none of the authentic accounts of this event mention
that the Prophet described the thaqalayn saying: “That which you hold onto, you shall never go
astray.” Such a clause is only authentically reported in the ḥadīth of Jābir b. ‘Abdillah narrated by
Ja’far al-Ṣādiq, which describes a totally different event that took place during Ḥajj, not the day of
Ghadīr Khumm. Similarly, Jābir’s report utilizes this clause to describe to exclusively describe the
Book of Allah, not the Prophet’s household. Thus, there clearly is a degree of misattribution taking
place with the matn of this report.
Authenticity:
This account is weak and cannot be deemed authentic: its novel isnād exclusively comes through an
unreliable transmitter, Kathīr b. Zayd. Similarly, it has embodied several peculiar clauses that cannot
be found relayed authentically anywhere in the context of the event at Ghadīr Khumm, further
demonstrating its unreliability.
2. Sa’ād b. Sulaymān’s Report, from Abū Isḥāq, from al-Ḥārith b. Alī
Preview:
This is an obscure variant of the report ascribed to ‘Alī exclusively through Sa’ād b. Sulaymān, from
Abū Isḥāq al-Sabī’ī, from al-Ḥārith al-A’war, from ‘Alī b. Abī Ṭālib.
Wording:
Sa’ād b. Sulaymān narrated on the authority of Abū Isḥāq, from al-Ḥārith, from ‘Alī that he said:
The Messenger of Allah said: “I will be dying, and I have left among you al-Thaqlayn: the
Book of Allah and the members of my household. You shall never go astray after them, and
the Hour shall not come until the Messenger of Allah’s companions are sought out just as a
lost animal is search for and not found.”1
The last clause mentioned in this report has never been mentioned in the context of hadith al-
Thaqalayn, and this addition will prove to be crucial towards understanding the original source of this
report.
1
Musnad al-Bazzār (3/89)
43
Authenticity:
This report, as stated earlier, was exclusively relayed by Sa’ād b. Sulaymān. Sa’ād was an obscure
criticized transmitter. Abū Zur’ah declared him weak (ḍa’īf).1 Abū Ḥātim said: “He was among the
extreme of the Shī’a, and he was not strong in ḥadīth.”2 This would thus be sufficient to declare
Sa’ād’s exclusive transmission from Abū Isḥāq weak.
What further attests to Sa’ād’s error in his redaction of this ḥadīth is the clause mentioned at the end
of the report, “the Hour shall not come until the Messenger of Allah’s companions are sought out just
as a lost animal is search for and not found.” This clause has not been mentioned in any of the variants
of ḥadīth of al-Thaqalayn. Rather, it was only transmitted as a separate ḥadīth through Abū Isḥāq with
the same isnād, as relayed through his reliable grandson, Isrā’īl.3
What happened in this ḥadīth is that Abū Isḥāq’s original report, which simply consisted of the
aforementioned clause, was taken by Sa’ād and then erroneously incorporated into ḥadīth al-
Thaqlayn. It is entirely the result of Sa’ād’s incompetence, for Abū Isḥāq transmitted ḥadīth al-
Thaqalayn through a different isnad that ends with Abū Ḏarr, not ‘Alī (as shall be demonstrated later).
Asides from the fact that this report was never transmitted with this isnad by Abū Isḥāq, its imaginary
chain contains another source of weakness: al-Ḥārith al-A’war. Al-Ḥārith al-A’war was accused of
forgery by several critics, and he was disparaged by many others. I have written a specific paper on
al-Ḥārith, which I am yet to publish. In it, I concluded that he was predominantly disparaged by the
ḥadīth critics, and that the main attempts to appropriate al-Sha’bī’s accusation of him as a forger stem
from the transmission of a weak transmitter back to Aḥmed b. Ṣāliḥ al-Miṣrī.
Nevertheless, this report never existed with this isnad, and it is entirely the result of an error on
Sa’ād’s part.
Conclusion
This report is the byproduct of Sa’ād b. Sulaymān’s delusional transmission, and it is worthless. The
true riwāyah of Abū Isḥāq al-Sabī’ī will be addressed in the next chapter, which addresses Abū Ḏarr’s
alleged transmission of ḥadīth al-Thaqalayn.
1
Su’ālāt al-Barḏa’ī (p.103)
2
Al-Jarḥ wal-Ta’dīl by Ibn Abī Ḥātim (4/324)
3
Musnad Aḥmed (2/96), al-Muntakhab min Musnad ‘Abd b. Ḥumayd (1/115)
44
VI. Abū Ḏarr’s Alleged Ḥadīth
Preview:
This report represents Abū Isḥāq al-Sabī’ī’s true transmission of ḥadīth al-Thaqalayn. It is
conflictingly relayed through Abū Isḥāq back to Abū Ḏarr al-Ghifārī.
Preview:
Ḥansh b. al-Mu’tamir is quoted saying: I saw Abū Ḏarr al-Ghifārī grabbing onto a handle to the
Ka’ba’s door and say: O people, I am Abū Ḏarr, so whoever has recognized me then indeed I am Abū
Ḏarr! he has recognized me! And whoever has not recognized me, then I am Abū Ḏarr!
Abū Ḏarr then said: Shall I not inform you of what I heard the Messenger of Allah say? I heard him
saying: “O people, I have left among you al-Thaqalayn: the Book of Allah and my ‘Itrah, the
members of my household. One of them is better than the other: the Book of Allah. They shall never
separate until they come to me at al-Ḥawḍ. Their parable is that of Noah’s ark: whoever embarks on it
is saved, and whoever abandons it shall drown.”
Authenticity
Conflicting transmission exists for this report. The 4th century ḥadīth critic, al-Dāraquṭnī, when asked
about this ḥadīth, said:
“Abū Isḥāq narrated it from Ḥansh; that was said by al-A’mash, Yūnus b. Abī Isḥāq, and
Mufaḍḍal b. Ṣālih. [However,] Isrā’īl went against them, and relayed it from Abū Isḥāq, from
‘a man’, from Ḥansh. The correct position, in my opinion, is that of Isrā’īl.”1
Al-Dāraquṭnī thus concluded that the correct redaction of the ḥadīth is the one where an unnamed and
unknown intermediary existed in the chain between Abū Isḥāq and Ḥansh.
I was not able to locate Yūnus’ referenced report in a single source. Similarly, al-A’mash’s referenced
report was exclusively narrated through the disparaged transmitter, ‘Abdullāh b. ‘Abdulquddūs.2
Thus, this variant of the report is evidently inauthentic to al-A’mash.
What is noteworthy, however, is that none of the redactions of the ḥadīth referenced by al-Dāraquṭni,
such as al-Mufaḍḍal’s report3 and al-A’mash aforementioned report, have any mention of ḥadīth al-
Thaqalayn. Rather, they are reports of ḥadīth al-Safīnah, which is the fragment of Abū Ḏarr’s report
pertaining to Noah’s ark. Other than that, it is only Isrā’īl’s variant that has any mention of al-
1
Al-‘Ilal al-Wāridah ‘alā al-Aḥādīth al-Nabawiyyah (6/236)
2
Al-Mu’jam al-Ṣaghīr by al-Ṭabarānī (1/240). It was also exclusively narrated from ‘Abdullāh through another
disparaged transmitter, ‘Abdullāh b. Dāhir.
3
Al-Mustadrak ‘alā al-Ṣaḥīḥayn (2/373)
45
Thaqalayn.1 His variant, as mentioned by al-Dāraquṭnī is the correct rendition of this ḥadīth from Abū
Isḥāq, and Abū Isḥāq’s source in this variant is an unknown man. Hence, it is an evidently weak
report that is inauthentic to Abū Ḏarr. Other than that, Ḥansh b. al-Mu’tamir also was quite a
criticized transmitter himself, which simply adds to the weakness of this alleged ḥadīth.2
Though the identity of the unknown man in this ḥadīth’s isnad is unknown, I fear that it may be the
notoriously weak transmitter, Abū Hārūn al-‘Abdī. That is because Abū Hārūn al-‘Abdī narrated the
portion of Abū Ḏarr’s ḥadīth pertaining to Noah’s ark, and his position in the isnad is the same as that
of the unnamed man in Isrā’īl’s redaction from Abū Isḥāq.
In al-Sharī’ah of al-Ājurrī, Abū Hārūn al-‘Abdī is quoted saying: “a sheikh has informed me, and he
said: I head Abū Ḏarr say: I heard the Messenger of Allah say: ‘The parable of my household is that
of Noah’s ark; whoever embarks on it is saved, and whoever abandons it shall perish’.”3
If the obscured man in Abū Isḥāq’s report truly is Abū Hārūn al-‘Abdī, then the unnamed man Abū
Hārūn mentioned in his isnad would be Ḥansh b. al-Mu’tamir. Nevertheless, I can merely present this
as a possibility, for the report is inauthentic either way.
As a side note, I have comprehensively assessed ḥadīth al-Safīnah elsewhere in an unpublished paper,
and I concluded therein that the entire tradition is most likely a fabrication that originated from
‘Abbād b. ‘Abdillāh al-Asadī al-Kūfī; and Allah knows best.
Conclusion
Ḥadīth al-Thaqalayn has no basis from Abū Ḏarr, as it is exclusively narrated to him through a
disparaged and unreliable isnad of multiple defects.
VII. Zayd b. Thābit’s Alleged Ḥadīth

Preview:
This report is an obscure account of the ḥadīth exclusively relayed by Sharīk k b. ‘Abdillāh (d. 177),
and no other source ascribes this report to Zayd b. Thābit. Similarly, this account exclusively
embodies several peculiar wordings that cannot be found elsewhere.
Wording:
1
2
See Ḥansh’s biographical entry in Tahḏīb al-Tahḏīb (3/58)
3
Al-Sharī’ah by al-Ājurrī (#1700)
46
Sharīk b. ‘Abdillāh narrated from al-Rukayn b. al-Rabī’, from al-Qāsim b. Ḥassān, from Zayd b.
Thābit that he said:
The Messenger of Allah said: “I am leaving you among you two successors (khalīfatayn): the
Book of Allah and my ‘Itrah. They shall never separate until they meet me at al-Ḥawḍ.”1
As evident in this report, it replaces the word “al-Thaqalayn,” which is found in all established
accounts of the ḥadīth with “Khalīfatayn.” The consequent meaning of the report does not change
much, but it is nevertheless an error.
Authenticity:
This report exclusively comes through Sharīk b. ‘Abdillāh was a truthful incompetent transmitter who
was criticized by the ḥadīthists due to this poor retention. Nevertheless, I know for a fact that some
polemicists will proceed to selectively quote the ḥadīthist’s criticism of Sharīk in an attempt to portray
him as a reliable transmitter. Nevertheless, his weakness is evidently outlined in his biographical entry
in Tahḏīb al-Tahḏīb.2
In summary, he was a noble man of great knowledge and virtue who was, nevertheless, criticized due
to his incompetence and many errors in the transmission of ḥadīth. It is mentioned, for example, in his
biographical entry that he erred in around 400 ḥadīths, which is quite significant. The praise Sharīk
has reserved is to be understood in light of the other vast among of criticism he received: he was a
truthful transmitter of great knowledge who was poor in his ḍabṭ and retention of ḥadīth.
Similarly, the fact that Sharīk’s exclusive report contains phrases that were never mentioned
elsewhere, such as khalīfatayn, is further indicative of the defectiveness of his redaction. In fact, I fear
that the ascription of this report to Zayd b. Thābit is entirely the result of a mixing between him and
Zayd b. Arqam, the primary transmitter of this ḥadīth.
Al-Qāsim b. Ḥassān similarly was a somewhat obscure transmitter, as some declared him unknown
and a few endorsed him as well.
Conclusion:
This report does not have a report from Zayd b. Thābit, as it was exclusively ascribed to him through
Sharīk b. ‘Abdillāh. It also embodies bizarre unique phrases that cannot be found elsewhere, further
exemplifying its weakness.
1
Muṣannaf Ibn Abī Shaybah (16/427), Musnad Aḥmed b. Ḥanbal (35/456), Al-Ma’rifah wal-Tārīkh (1/537)
2
Tahḏīb al-Tahḏīb (2/164) I was not able to find Sharīk’s biographical entry in the copy of Tahḏīb al-Kamāl in
the edition I utilized throughout this paper. Nevertheless, I found it in the Al-Risalah print of Tahḏīb al-Tahḏīb,
1st ed., 1435.
47
VIII. Abū Hurayrah’s Alleged Ḥadīth
Preview:
Two self-conflicting variants of this ḥadīth are relayed through Abū Hurayrah with the same isnad,
and both present fundamentally different conceptions of al-Thaqalayn. One of them presents them as
48
the Book of Allah and his household, while the other presents al-Thaqalayn as the Book of Allah and
the Prophet’s Sunnah.
Wording:
As mentioned earlier, two wordings exist for the report, which are relayed with one isnad.
Al-Bazzār narrated on the authority of Aḥmed b. Manṣūr, from Dawūd b. ‘Amr, from Ṣāliḥ b. Mūsā,
from ‘Abdul’azīz b. Rufay’, from Abū Ṣāliḥ, from Abū Hurayrah that he said:
The Messenger of Allah said: “I have left among you two things, after which you shall never
go astray: the Book of Allah and my lineage. They shall never separate until they come to me
at al-Ḥawḍ.1s
A variety of other transmitters, such as: Muḥammad b. ‘Isā,2 Muḥammad b. ‘Abdurraḥmān b.

‘Umārah,3 and Abū Ya’lā 4 narrated this report with the same isnād from Dawūd b. ‘Amr, from Ṣāliḥ
b. Mūsā, from ‘Abdul’azīz b. Rufay’, from Abū Ṣāliḥ, from Abū Hurayrah that he said:
The Messenger of Allah said: “I have left among you two things after which you shall never
be misguided: the Book of Allah and my Sunnah. They shall never separate until they meet
me at al-Ḥawḍ.”
Several sub-chains within this report similarly transmitted it from Ṣālih b. Mūsā through other than
Dāwūd b. ‘Amr with this wording as well,5 thus demonstrating that it is the correct redaction of the
ḥadīth.
It is evident that the correct redaction of this ḥadīth is the one that quotes the Messenger of Allah
saying: “The Book of Allah and my Sunnah,” and the redaction that quotes him saying: “the book of
Allah and my lineage most likely is a diacritical error. The word for “my lineage” and “my Sunnah”
are respectively spelled quite similarly in the Arabic language when the diacritical marks are
removed: ‫ ىسىى‬and ‫سىىى‬. It would seem like a plausible explanation for the different wordings of this
report that its transmitter simply committed a diacritical error and hence erroneously reproduced it.
Authenticity:
As mentioned earlier, the wording of this report was erroneously transmitted in the Musnad of al-
Bazzār, and the correct redaction from Ṣāliḥ b. Mūsā → ‘Abdul’azīz b. Rufay’ → Abū Ṣāliḥ → Abū
Hurayrah is that he quoted the Prophet saying: “the Book of Allah and my Sunnah.”
1
Kashf al-Astār ‘an Zawā’id Al-Bazzār (3/223)
2
Al-Mustadrak ‘alā al-Ṣaḥīḥayn (1/172)
3
Sunan al-Dāraquṭnī (5/440)
4
Al-Kāmil fī Ḍu’afā’ al-Rijāl (5/106)
5
Al-Ḍu’afā’ al-Kabīr (2/250), Al-Tadwīn fī Akhbār Qazwīn (4/178)
49
Nevertheless, this report is baseless in all its forms, as it is exclusively transmitted by Ṣāliḥ b. Mūsā
al-Ṭalḥī, who was a disparaged transmitter.1 His unreliability has been overwhelmingly expressed by
the ḥadīth critics; thus, there is no need to further delve into its details.
Conclusion:
This report is baseless in all its forms, and its wording conflicts with the established accounts
pertaining to the Prophet’s sermon(s).
1
50
IX. Ibn ‘Abbās’ Alleged Ḥadīth
Preview:
A variant of this report is transmitted through Ibn ‘Abbās with a different wording that is popular
among many Muslims today. In this report, the Prophet is quoted mentioning that he had left behind
two things: “The Quran and the Sunnah.”
Wording:
Ibn Abī Uways said: my father informed me, on the authority of Thawr b. Zayd al-Daylī, from
‘Ikrimah, from Ibn ‘Abbās that he said:
The Messenger of Allah gave a sermon during the farewell Ḥajj, and he said: “……O people,
I have left behind you that which if you grasp onto, you shall never go astray: the Book of
Allah and the Sunnah of his Prophet…”1
Authenticity
Al-Ḥākim believed this report was authentic, as he commented on it saying: “Al-Bukhārī relied upon
‘Ikrimah, and Muslim relied upon Abū Uways. The rest of its transmitters are agreeably reliable. This
ḥadīth pertaining to the Prophet’s sermon was agreeably admitted into the Ṣaḥīḥ [of Muslim],” and he
proceeded to quote the authentic report of Jābir b. ‘Abdillāh which was mentioned earlier.
Al-Ḥākim then said: “The mentioning of grasping onto Sunnah in this report is gharīb, and I have
found a shāhid (attestation) to this ḥadīth from the transmission of Abū Hurayrah.” He proceeded to
cite Abū Hurayrah’s report, which was addressed earlier.
Abū Hurayrah’s report, as mentioned earlier, is dubiously ascribed to him, and it cannot be cited as a
valid attestation to Ibn ‘Abbās’ ḥadīth. Nevertheless, the isnad of Ibn ‘Abbās’ ḥadīth is similarly of
questionable authenticity.
Abū Uways is ‘Abdullāh b. ‘Abdullāh b. Uways, and he was a truthful transmitter who was criticized
by a cohort of ḥadīth critics due to his poor retention. His criticism was documented by Ibn Ma’īn, Ibn
al-Madīnī, ‘Amr b. ‘Alī, Ya’qūb b. Shaybah, Abū Aḥmed al-Ḥākim and others etc.2
An accurate statement that described his status was that of Ibn ‘Abdilbarr, where he is quoted saying
in al-Kunā: “It is not mentioned about him that anyone criticized him in his faith or trustworthiness.
1
Al-Mustadrak ‘alā al-Ṣaḥīhayn (1/171)
2
Tahḏīb al-Tahḏīb (5/281-282)
51
Rather, they criticized him due to his poor retention and that he conflicts [with others] in his
transmission.”1
His son, Ibn Abī Uways, was also criticized, and some of those criticisms were quite severe.2
Conclusion
For the aforementioned reasons and others, such as this report’s conflicting text with that of other
established reports, the ḥadīth of Ibn ‘Abbās cannot be deemed reliable. It is inauthentic.
1
Ikmāl Tahḏīb al-Kamāl (8/16)
2
Tahḏīb al-Tahḏīb (1/310), Ikmāl Tahḏīb al-Kamāl (2/183-185)
52
X. ‘Amr b. ‘Awf’s Alleged Ḥadīth
Preview:
This variant is another obscure variant that quoted the Prophet saying that he left behind “the Quran
and the Sunnah.” It is a later variant as well, for it was exclusively transmitted by Isḥāq b. Ibrāhīm al-
Ḥunaynī (d. 216), from Kathīr b. ‘Abdillāh b. ‘Awf, from his father, from his grandfather.
Wording:
Isḥāq b. Ibrāhīm al-Ḥunaynī narrated on the authority of Kathīr b. ‘Abdillāh b. ‘Awf, from his father,
from his grandfather that he said:
The Messenger of Allah said: “I have left among you two things which you shall not be
misguided if you grasp onto: “The Book of Allah and the Sunnah of his Prophet.”1
Authenticity:
This report is baseless, as it is exclusively relayed through several disparaged transmitters. Isḥāq b.
Ibrāhīm al-Ḥunayni was weak.2 Kathīr b. ‘Abdillāh was an abandoned and disapproved transmitter.3
What is noteworthy is that Mālik in his Muwaṭṭa directly relays a very similar account from the
Prophet without an isnad.4 Ibn Ḥajar commented on it saying: “and Ibn ‘Abdilbarr relayed it with an
isnad through Kathīr b. ‘Abdillāh b. ‘Amr b. ‘Awf, from his father, from his grandfather like it. It
seems that Mālik acquired it from him.”5
Ibn Ḥajar’s suggestion seems very plasuible, considering the identical wordings in both accounts. In
Mālik’s Muwaṭṭa’, the ḥadīth is worded as follows:
" ‫اَّللِ َو ُسنَّ َة نَبِ ِّي ِه‬ ِ ِ ِ ُ ‫ " تَرك‬:‫ول اَّللِ ص ََّل اهلل َع َلي ِه وس َّلم َق َال‬
َ ‫ كت‬:‫ َل ْن تَض ُّلوا َما ََت َ َّس ْكتُ ْم ِ ِِب ََم‬،‫ْت في ُك ْم َأ ْم َر ْي ِن‬
َّ ‫َاب‬ َ َ َ َ ْ ُ
ٍ ِ
َ َّ َ ‫َع ْن َمالك َأ َّن ُه َب َل َغ ُه َأ َّن َر ُس‬
The wording transmitted through Kathīr b. ‘Abdillāh, as reported by Ibn ‘Abdilbarr and Ibn al-Shajarī,
is as follows:
‫ْت فِي ُك ْم َأ ْم َر ْي ِن َل ْن ت َِض ُّلوا َما‬ ِ ‫ول‬ ِ ‫احلنَينِي عن كَثِْي بن عب ِد‬

ُ ‫ "ت ََرك‬:‫اَّلل َع َليْ ِه َو َس َّل َم‬
ُ َّ ‫اَّلل َص ََّل‬
ِ ِ ٍ
َّ ُ ‫ َق َال َر ُس‬:‫ ق َال‬،‫ َع ْن َجدِّ ه‬،‫ َع ْن َأبِيه‬،‫اَّلل بْ ِن َع ْم ِرو بْ ِن ع َْوف‬
َّ ْ َ ُ ْ ُ ْ َ ُّ ْ ُ ْ
".‫اَّللِ َو ُسن َِّة نَبِيِّ ِه‬ ِ ‫ََت َ َّس ْكتُ ْم ِِبِ ََم ِكت‬
َّ ‫َاب‬
1
Al-Tamḥīd by Ibn ‘Abdilbarr (24/331), Tartīb al-Amālī ak-Khamīsiyyah (2/203)
2
3
4
Al-Muwaṭṭa’ – Riwāyat Yaḥyā al-Laythī (2/899)
5
Itḥāf al-Maharah bil-Fawā’id al-Mubtakarah min al-Aṭrāf al-‘Asharah (12/518)
53
Both reports are fully identical in their wording, which is indicative of the fact that they do, in fact,
share the same source.
Conclusion
This report is baseless, as it is exclusively transmitted through Kathīr b. ‘Abdillāh. Similarly, it seems
likely that Mālik’s disconnected report in his Muwaṭṭa’ was acquired through Kathīr.
54
XI. Discussion
After a thorough analysis of the different reports that revolve around ḥadīth al-Thaqalayn and its
many variants, it becomes quite apparent that all are weak, except four reports:
1. The report of Yazīd b. Ḥayyān → Zayd b. Arqam that the Messenger of Allah said: “O
people, I am but a man, and the Lord’s messenger (the angel of death) shall come soon, to
which I will approve. I am leaving among you al-Thaqalayn: the first of them is the Book
of Allah, in it is guidance and light.” He then extolled the people in the Book of Allah and
enjoined it. Then, he said: “and the Members of my household (ahla baytī),” and he said:
“I remind you of Allah with regards to the members of my household” three times.
2. The report of Isrā’īl b. Yūnus → ‘Uthmān b. al-Mughīrah → ‘Alī b. Rabī’ah → Zayd b.
Arqam. In it, ‘Alī b. Rabī’ah said: I met Zayd b. Arqam while he was entering upon (or
leaving) al-Mukhtār, and so I asked him: “Did you hear the Messenger of Allāh say: ‘I
have left among you al-Thaqalayn: the Book of Allah and my ‘Itrah?” He said: “Yes.”
3. The report of Al-Ḥasan b. ‘Ubaydillāh → Abū al-Ḍuḥā Muslim b. Ṣubayḥ, → Zayd b.
Arqam that he said: the Messenger of Allah said: “I am leaving among you al-Thaqalayn:
the Book of Allah and my ‘Itrah, the members of my household. They shall never
separate until they come to me at al-Ḥawḍ.” (though the authenticity of this report’s final
clause may be debated)
4. The report of Ja’far al-Ṣādiq → his father, al-Bāqir → Jābir b. ‘Abdillāh that he heard the
Messenger of Allah say: “I have left among that which you shall never go astray if you
grasp onto: the Book of Allah. You shall be asked about me, so what will you say?”
They said: “We bear witness that you have conveyed (the message), fulfilled the
responsibility, and given wise council.” The Prophet then pointed his index finger to the
sky, and then pointed at the people. He said: “O Allah bear witness! O Allah bear
witness! O Allah bear witness!”
All other reports and sub-chains for this ḥadīth are inauthentic traditions that are not independent of
these variants, and many have incorporated clauses and fragments from other unreliable traditions that
were in circulation as this ḥadīth was being disseminated.
Thus, before we delve into the interpretation, let us take a step aside to note the Prophet’s established
words pertaining to al-Thaqalayn:
- He described the Book of Allah and the members of his household as “al-Thaqalayn”, which
means: two weighty things.
- The Prophet reminded the Muslims of the rights of his household following his death.
55
- He (arguably) mentioned that the Book of Allah and his household will not part until they
come to him at al-Ḥawḍ on the Day of Judgment.
- All reports that quote the Prophet compelling the believers to follow/hold onto al-Thaqalayn
are inauthentic.
- The Prophet only mentioned guidance when describing the Book of Allah, as in the ḥadīth of
Jābir b. ‘Abdillāh and Yazīd b. Ḥayyān → Zayd b. Arqam.
- The Prophet only mentioned holding onto the Book of Allah.
- There is not a single authentic variant of ḥadīth al-Thaqalayn that interprets al-Thaqalayn as
the Quran and Sunnah; even though it is agreed among all Muslims that the Quran and
Sunnah are sources of guidance that are to be followed.
When piecing together and debating what the Prophet had actually said in his sermons, several points
must be taken into account: (1) the context behind these reports is crucial to achieve proper
understanding of the events and their potential implications, and (2) the authentic reports that describe
these events necessarily contextualize and explain each other.
Thus, the first step is to construct a storyline of the two ḥadīths from Zayd b. Arqam and Jābir: when
and where did each occur? Were there any backstories to those ḥadīths? How are they related to each
other?
The first event to take place was the one extensively described by Jābir in his ḥadīth. His report
outlines the Prophet’s sermon during Ḥajj when he was in ‘Arafah on the 9th of Ḏū al-Ḥijjah before a
giant congregation that had joined him on his pilgrimage. In this sermon, he made several noteworthy
verdicts, such as the abolishment of the accumulated usury from the times of Jāhiliyyah, and he
started by abolishing the usury of his uncle al-‘Abbās. He similarly abolished the blood money that
accrued during the Jāhiliyyah. He then reminded the congregants of their women’s rights and their
responsibilities towards their wives. It is only after that that he commands the congregation to hold
onto the Book of Allah, as it shall protect them from misguidance. In this sermon, there is no mention
of the Prophet’s family, let alone a command to follow/obey them as religious authorities.
It was in this blessed gathering that Allah’s mercy further descended upon the congregants and their
blessed Messenger, and the religion of Islam was officially deemed complete. ‘Umar reported that
while the Prophet was in ‘Arafah on Friday, Allah revealed the following verse from the Quran:
“Today, I have perfected your religion for you, and completed My favor upon you, and have accepted
Islam as a religion for you.”1 It is noteworthy that the religion of Islam was deemed complete by
Allah prior to any of the Prophet’s announcements pertaining to his household, which, if anything,
1
Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī (1/18), Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim (#3017)
56
should indicate that any announcements to come would not be of fundamental theological
implications.
The Prophet eventually completed his Ḥajj along with the rest of his companions, and each then
departed back to his respective homeland. Around nine days later, on the 18th of Ḏū al-Ḥijjah the
Messenger of Allah arrived to an oasis between Mecca and Medīna, known as Ghadīr Khumm, on the
way back to Medīna ,.1
Figure 5. A map depicting the locations of Mecca, Medīna and Ghadīr Khumm
It is in this setting where the Prophet gave the sermon narrated by Zayd b. Arqam. The Shī’ah cling
onto this event, which has been named “Eid al-Ghadīr.” as some sort of Prophetic decree for the
religious authority of Ahlulbait and the successorship of ‘Alī b. Abī Ṭālib. Nevertheless, the mere
context of this event alone should pose doubts on such an interpretation. It would indeed be
counterintuitive for the Prophet to only disclose such a fundamental announcement after the majority
of the congregates from Ḥajj had departed back to their homelands and when the Prophet was but
accompanied by a minute fraction of the pilgrims on the way back to Medīna. Similarly, this event
1
Al-Bidāyah wal-Nihāyah (7/666)
57
only took place after the religion of Islam had been deemed officially complete, which would further
indicate that the events to follow would not embody new fundamentals that would be given greater
importance to all other fundamentals (as is believed by the Shī’a.)
In this sermon, we find the Prophet, again, reminding the attendees of the importance of grasping onto
the Book of Allah for guidance. He then reminds the congregants of their duties towards the members
of his household, as authentically reported by Yazīd b. Ḥayyān. The question that should thus be
asked is: what pushed the Prophet to remind the believers in this smaller congregation of his family’s
rights while not bringing the matter up in Mecca, where a much larger congregation was present?
Luckily, the context of this entire event was narrated by a companion of the Prophet. Buraydah b.
‘Abdillāh said:
I hated Alī like no one else, and I loved a man from Quraish simply due to his hatred of ‘Alī.
That man was dispatched with cavalry and I traveled with him simply due to his [shared]
hatred of ‘Alī.
We then obtained captives of war. He thus wrote to the Messenger of Allah requesting that he
send someone to partition the spoils into five shares. He sent Ali, and among the captives was
a slave-girl who was from the best of them all.
‘Alī thus split the spoils into five shares, and distributed them. He later came out with water
dripping from his head. We said: “O Abū al-Ḥasan what is this?”
‘Alī said: “Did you not see the slave-girl among the captives? I distributed the spoils and
gathered a fifth of them.1 The slave-girl became within the khums (1/5 of the spoils
partitioned for the Prophet’s usage upon his discretion). She then became within the shares of
the Prophet’s household. She then became within the share ‘Alī’s household, so I slept with
her.”
A man wrote to the Prophet, and I said: “Send me,” so he sent me as a confirmation.
[When I arrived to the Messenger of Allah], I would read the letter and then comment saying:
“He has said the truth!”
[The Prophet] then took my hand and the letter, and asked: “Do you hate ‘Alī?”
I said: “Yes.” He said: “Do not hate him, and if you love him, then love him even more; for
by the One in whose Hand is my soul, Ali’s household’s share the khums is even greater than
a slave-girl.”
1
This is referring to the Quranic obligation mentioned in al-Anfāl:41 , where a fifth of any spoils of war would
be partitioned for Allah and his Messenger.
58
After that, there was no one more beloved to me than ‘Alī.1
This report is authentic, and the theme is found in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī and other sources as well.2
In other authentic accounts of this incident, Buraydah is quoted saying:
“The Messenger of Allah thus said: ‘Am I not more worthy of the believers than they are of
themselves?’
I said: ‘yes, O Messenger of Allah.’
He then said: ‘Whoever I am his mawlā then ‘Alī is his mawlā’.”3
It then becomes apparent that what prompted the Messenger of Allah to issue this statement was a
financial dispute between ‘Alī and a few companions of the Prophet. Those men were envious of the
fact that ‘Alī had acquired a greater share of the spoils since he was entitled to a portion of the fifth of
the spoils. Nevertheless, what further confirms the notion that the Messenger of Allah was specifically
addressing a financial dispute was the conclusion of Yazīd b. Ḥayyān’s account from Zayd b. Arqam,
where Zayd was asked: “Are his wives among the members of his household?” Zayd replied: “His
wives are among the members of his household; however, the members of his household [referenced
here] are those for whom ṣadaqah had been prohibited after him.” Zayd was thus asked: “and who are
they?” He said: “The household of ‘Alī, the household of ‘Aqīl, the household of Ja’far, and the
household of al-‘Abbās.” Zayd was then asked: “Is ṣadaqah prohibited for all of them?” He said:
“Yes.”4
This ending of Zayd b. Arqam’s confirms the general context mentioned by Buraydah, as it clearly
was an issue of Ahlulbait’s financial entitlements. The Messenger of Allah recognized that some
members of his household were being antagonized due to their greater share in the spoil’s of war, and
he feared that they would be deprived of their rights after his death. In this context, it is important to
note that the members of the Prophet’s household were prohibited from accepting ṣadaqah, and they
thus had a right to a share in a fifth of the spoils of war. Considering this context and explanation, one
can fully understand the Prophet’s statement: “I remind you of Allah with regards to my household,”
which he repeated thrice.
For this reason, some of the Salaf held the position that the term, “mawlā,” which the Prophet used to
describe ‘Alī at Ghadīr Khumm, specifically was a reference to ‘Alī’s relationship to the Prophet’s
1
Musnad Aḥmed (38/65-66)
2
Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī (5/163), Al-Mustadrak ‘alā al-Ṣaḥīḥayn (2/141)
3
Muṣannaf Ibn Abī Shaybah (17/136)
4
Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim (#2408)
59
slaves. Ibn Qutaybah mentioned that Abū Thawr was asked about the Messenger of Allah’s statement:
“Whoever I am his mawlā then ‘Alī is his mawlā.” Abū Thawr responded:
“It is as he said. The Messenger of Allah said the truth. The Prophet is from Banī Hāshim, and
‘Alī was from Banī Hāshim. Thus, if the Messenger of Allah were to free any [enslaved]
individual from the spoils of war, then he is the mawlā of the Prophet and the mawlā of Banī
Hāshim; and ‘Alī was from Banī Hāshim. Similarly, anyone who as freed by ‘Alī is of this
status as well, for a freed slave of theirs is called ‘the mawlā of Banī Hāshim’; even though
only one individual from Banī Hāshim had freed him/her.”1
This explanation is excellently aligned with report’s context, content, and theme; especially
considering that it immediately came after a dispute pertaining to a slave girl! Further evidence
confirms that the term mawlā evidently did not refer to successorship:
‘Abdullāh b. ‘Abbās authentically reported that ‘Alī b. Abī Ṭālib once left the Messenger of
Allah while he was afflicted with the illness from which he eventually died. The people thus
said: “O Abū Ḥasan, how is the Messenger of Allah this morning?”
He replied: “He is, alamdulillāh, cured.”
Al-‘Abbās thus grabbed his hand and told him: “By Allah, within three days, you shall
become a subject [of someone else]. By Allah, I see that the Messenger of Allah will die from
this illness of his, and, indeed, I can recognize the faces of Banī ‘Abdalmuṭṭalib upon death.
Let us go to the Messenger of Allah and ask him about who shall assume leadership. If it were
within us, then we would find out; and if it were within other than ourselves, we would find
out, and he would instruct for us[ to be cared for.]
‘Alī then said: “By Allah, if we ever ask it from the Messenger of Allah and he then ends up
barring us from it, then the people shall never give it to us after him. By Allah, I shall not ask
the Messenger of Allah about it.”2
Indeed, this report is fundamentally insightful. Had the Messenger of Allah’s statement at Ghadīr
Khumm been an explicit appointment of ‘Alī as the Prophet’s successor, then indeed it would not
make sense for ‘Alī and al-‘Abbās, out of all people, to believe that they had not been appointed as
successors shortly before the Prophet’s death.
Al-Qāḍī ‘AbdulJabbār (d.415), in response to Shī’ite claims, further commented on this report saying:
“How did ‘Alī not reply to al-‘Abbās saying: O uncle, do you not know that the Messenger of Allah
had already appointed me and made me a Ḥujjah to the rest of the world? And he has left me and my
1
Masālik al-Abṣār fī Mamālik al-Amṣār (23/141)
2
Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī (6/12)
60
sons as successors upon his Ummah till the day of resurrection? How could you forget that when it
was close in time?”1
Al-Qāḍī ‘AbdulJabbār further comments saying: “If the commander of the faithful forgot that the
Prophet had appointed him just as al-‘Abbās had forgotten, then how did the Ṣaḥābah not remind
them since they heard what was taking place? Indeed, [the reality of] this is not hidden from one who
reflects [upon it]; for you have found – may Allah show you mercy – that ‘Alī, al-‘Abbās and the
Ṣaḥābah consensing that the Messenger of Allah did not appoint nor delegate any specific individual
as his successor.”2
The “Thaqalayn” mentioned in the ḥadīth was not a reference to Ahlulbait’s religious
authority/successorship. Rather, it was a reference to the burden of grasping onto the Book of Allah
and the burden/responsibility of caring for his family’s rights after him. It is in this context that one
can understand what the Prophet meant when he (reputedly) said: “and they both shall never separate
until they meet me at al-Ḥawḍ,” meaning that these two burdens/responsibilities will not depart as
important duties for the believers until they meet the Prophet at his Ḥawḍ. Therein, both duties shall
part after they had been fulfilled and brought forth to the Prophet.
The alternative understanding presented in Shī’ī sources is the belief that the clause pertaining to the
Thaqalayn never separating until they met the Prophet at al-Ḥawḍ is a reference to the infallibility of
Ahlulbait, as they would never part ways from the Quran. This understanding is an anachronism, and
it goes against the general context of the report mentioned earlier. Similarly, the conclusion of this
report would not make much sense if it were to be understood respectively: if Ahlulbait were infallible
due to their inseparable relationship with the Quran, then what does it mean for them to separate from
the Quran after meeting the Prophet at al-Ḥawḍ ?3
Indeed, this Shī’ite interpretation of the report conveniently explains the first portion of the report
while disregarding its drawbacks with regards to the report’s conclusion. This understanding similarly
disregards the report’s context along with other explicit data, such as Zayd b. Arqam’s explicit
acknowledgement that the individuals being referenced in this ḥadīth are the households of ‘Alī,
Ja’far, al-‘Abbās and ‘Aqīl. The ḥadīth clearly was not limited to ‘Alī nor his descendants, and it
clearly had nothing to do with the notion of successorship.
Had the Shī’ite polemicists been consistent in their utilization of this tradition from Sunnī sources,
then they would have similarly argued for the infallibility of al-‘Abbās, Ja’far, and ‘Aqīl along with
their entire households. However, we find the Shī’ite polemicist simply citing this report to merely
justify the successorship and infallibility of ‘Alī along with only 12 of his descendants. That is
1
Tathbīt Dalā’il al-Nubuwwah (1/256)
2
Tathbīt Dalā’il al-Nubuwwah (1/256)
3
My friend Farīd Al-Baḥrainī mentioned this point to me while I discussed this ḥadīth with him.
61
because Twelver appeal to ḥadīth al-Thaqalayn simply is an ad hoc appeal that is fundamentally
grounded in an anachronism, hence its numerous inconsistencies. What is even worse is that some
polemicists may present this report and only assert what a portion of it says while discarding the other
portion that explicitly undermines his/her beliefs.
Interestingly, the report transmitted through Ahlulbait themselves (Ja’far al-Ṣādiq’s ḥadīth from Jābir)
has no mention of the Prophet’s household, even though it is the account of a sermon that took place
before a much larger congregation. It is only later that weak and unreliable transmitters consciously or
subconsciously “piggybacked” and projected this Shī’te understanding onto the ḥadīth of Ja’far al-
Ṣādiq. Otherwise, it further demonstrates the flaw in the Shī’ite narrative based around ḥadīth al-
Thaqalayn
Indeed, this ḥadīth provides a case study into the problematic nature of many Twelver appeals to
reports in Sunnī sources to substantiate their theology, especially since the report itself embodies the
refutation of the very same belief these polemicists adopt. I believe that this small book is sufficient to
dispel many of the doubts and fallacious claims pertaining to the Ḥadīth.
I have tried my best to fulfill my duty in addressing this ḥadīth, and the rest is upon Allah, Lord of the
Heavens of the Earth:
“And you shall remember what I now say to you, and I entrust my affair to Allah. Indeed,
Allah is Seeing of the slaves." [Ghāfir: 44]
ِ ‫ول َل ُكم و ُأ َفو ُض َأم ِري إِ ََل اَّللِ إِ َّن اَّلل ب ِصْي بِا ْل ِعب‬
)‫اد‬ ُ ‫ون َما َأ ُق‬
َ ‫( َف َستَ ْذك ُُر‬
َ ٌ َ َ َّ َّ ْ ِّ َ ْ
‫وصلى اهلل على حممد وعلى آله وأصحابه‬
‫ومن تبعهم بإحسان‬
‫إىل يوم الدين‬
‫أمني‬
‫) بفضل اهلل تعاَل‬5/25/2020( 1441 ‫أتتمته ِف غرة اليوم الثالث من شوال وعيد فطر اْلسلمْي سنة‬
62
Bibliography
1. Al-Arba’īn Ḥadīthan ‘an Arba’īna Shaykhan li-Arba’īna Ṣaḥābiyyan, al-Shaḥḥāmī, Edited
by Abu Abdirrhman bin Isa al-Batani, Dar Al-Huda, Algeria, 1419 AH.
2. Al-Bidāyah wal-Nihāyah, Ibn Kathīr, Edited by Abdullah Al-Turki, Dar Hajar lil-Tiba’ah wal-
Nashr wal-Tawzi’ wal-I’lan, 1st ed., 1418 AH.
3. Al-Ḍu’afā’ wal-Matrūkūn, al-Nasā’ī Aḥmed b. Shu’ayb, Edited by Mahmud Zayed, Dar Al-
Waiyy, Aleppo, 1st ed., 1396 AH.
4. Al-Ḏurriyyah al-Ṭāhirah, al-Dūlābī, Edited by Sa’d Al-Hasan, Dar Al-Salafiyyah, Kuwait, 1st
ed., 1407 AH.
5. Al-Faṣl lil-Waṣl al-Mudraj min al-Naql, Al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī, Edited by Muhammad Al-
Zahrani, Dar Al-Hijrah, 1st ed., 1418 AH.
6. Al-‘Ilal al-Wāridah ‘alā al-Aḥādīth al-Nabawiyyah, al-Dāraquṭnī ‘Alī b. ‘Umar, Edited by
Mahfuz Al-Rahman Al-Salafi, Dar Taybah, Riyadh, 1st ed., 1405.
7. Al-Jarḥ wal-Ta’dīl, Ibn Abī Ḥātim, Dar Ihya Al-Turath Al-Arabi, Beirut, 1st ed., 1952 AH.
8. Al-Kāmil fī Ḍu’afā’ al-Rijāl, Ibn ‘Adiyy al-Jurjānī, Edited by Adil Abdulmawjud and Ali
Miwad, Dar Al-Kutub Al-Ilmiyyah, Beirut, 1st ed., 1418 AH.
9. Al-Majrūḥīn, Ibn Ḥibbān al-Bustī, Edited by Mahmud Ibrahim Zayed, Dar Al-Waiyy, Aleppo,
1st ed., 1396 AH.
10. Al-Marāsīl, Ibn Abī Ḥātim, Edited by Shukrullah Qawjani, Mu’assasat Al-Risalah, Beirut, 1st ed.,
1397 AH.
11. Al-Ma’rifah wal-Tārīkh, Ya’qūb b. Sufyān al-Fasawī, Akram Diya Al-Umari, Mu’assasat Al-
Risalah, Beirut, 2nd ed., 1401 AH.
12. Al-Maṭālib al-‘Āliyah bi-Zawā’id al-Masānīd al-Thamāniyah, Ibn Ḥajar, Dar Al-Asimah/Dar
Al-Ghayth, KSA, 1st ed., 1419 AH.
13. Al-Mu’jam al-Awsaṭ, Sulaymān b. Aḥmed al-Ṭabarānī, Edited by Tariq Awadallah and
Abdulmuhsin Al-Husayni, Dar Al-Haramayn, Cairo, 2nd.
14. Al-Mu’jam al-Kabīr, Sulaymān b. Aḥmed al-Ṭabarānī, Edited by Hamdi Al-Salafi, Maktabat
Ibn Taymiyyah, Cairo, 2nd ed.
15. Al-Mu’jam al-Ṣaghīr, Sulaymān b. Aḥmed al-Ṭabarānī, Edited by Muhammad Amrir, Al-
Maktab Al-Islami, 1st ed., 1405 AH.
16. Al-Muntakhab min Musnad ‘Abd b. Ḥumayd, ‘Abdulḥamīd b. Ḥumayd, Edited by Mustafa
Al-Adawi, Dar Balansiyah lil-Nashr wal-Tawzi’, 2nd ed., 1423 AH.
17. Al-Muṣannaf, Ibn Abī Shaybah, Edited by Muhammad Awwamah, Dar Al-Qiblah.
18. Al-Mustadrak ‘alā al-Ṣaḥīḥayn, al-Ḥākim al-Naysabūrī, Edited by Mustafa Abdulqadir Ata,
Dar Al-Kutub Al-Ilmiyyah, Beirut, 1st ed., 1434 AH.
63
19. Al-Muwaṭṭa’ – Riwāyat Yaḥyā al-Laythī, Mālik b. Anas, Edited by Muhammad Fouad
Abdulbaqi, Dar Ihya Al-Turath Al-Arabi, Beirut, 1406 AH.
20. Al-Nukat ‘alā Kitab Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ, Ibn Ḥajar, Edited by Rabi Al-Madkhali, ‫عمادة البحث العلمي‬
‫بالجامعة اإلسالمية‬, Medina, 1st ed., 1404 AH.
21. Al-Sharī’ah, Muḥammad b. al-Husayn al-Ājurrī, Edited by Abdullah Al-Dumayji, Dar Al-Watan,
Riyadh, 2nd ed., 1420.
22. Al-Sunan al-Kubrā, al-Bayhaqī Aḥmed b. al-Ḥusayn, Edited by Muhammad Ata, Dar Al-Kutub
Al-Ilmiyyah, Beirut, 3rd ed., 1424 AH.
23. Al-Sunan al-Kubrā, al-Nasā’ī Aḥmed b. Shu’ayb, Edited by Hasan Shalabi, Mu’assasat Al-
Risalah, Beirut, 1st ed., 1421 AH.
24. Al-Sunnah, Ibn Abī ‘Āṣim, Edited by Nasir Al-Din Al-Albani, Al-Maktab Al-Islami, Beirut, 1st
ed., 1400 AH.
25. Al-Ṭabaqāt al-Kubrā, Ibn Sa’d, Edited by Ihsan Abbas, Dar Sadir, Beirut, 1st ed., 1968.
26. Al-Ta’dīl wal-Tajrīḥ, Abū al-Walīd al-Bājī, Edited by Abu Lubabah Husayn, Dar Al-Liwa lil-
Nashr wal-Tawzi’, 1st ed., 1406 AH.
27. Al-Tadwīn fī Akhbār Qazwīn, ‘Abdulkarīm b. Muḥammad al-Rāfi’ī, Edited Azizullah Al-
Utaridi, Dar Al-Kutub Al-Ilmiyyah, 1408 AH.
28. Al-Tamhīd limā fīl-Muwaṭṭa’ min al-Ma’ānī wal-Asānīd, Ibn ‘Abdilbarr, Edited by Mustafa
Al-Alawi and Muhammad Al-Bakri, ‫وزارة عموم األوقاف والشؤون اإلسالمية‬, Morocco, 1387 AH.
29. Al-Tārīkh al-Awsaṭ, al-Bukhārī Muḥamamd b. Ismā’īl, Edited by Mahmud Zayed, Dar Al-
Waiyy/Maktabat Dar Al-Turath, Aleppo/Cairo, 1st ed., 1397 AH.
30. Al-Tārīkh al-Kabīr, Aḥmed b. Abī Khaythamah, Edited by: Salah Tathi Halal, Al-Faruq Al-
Hadithiyyah lil-Tiba’ah wal-Nashr, Cairo.
31. Al-Tārīkh al-Kabīr. Al-Bukhārī Muḥammad b. Ismā’īl, Da’irat Al-Ma’arif Al-Uthmaniyyah,
Hyderabad.
32. Al-Thiqāt, Al-‘Ijlī, Edited by Abdulazim Al-Bastawi, Maktabat Al-Dar, Medina, 1405 AH.
33. Al-Thiqāt, Ibn Ḥibbān al-Bustī, Edited by Muhammad Khan, Da’irat Al-Ma’arif Al-
Uthmaniyyah, Hyderabad, 1st ed., 1393 AH.
34. Al-Ḍu’afā al-Kabīr, Muḥammad b. ‘Amr al-‘Uqaylī, Edited by AbdulMuti Qalaji, Dar Al-
Maktabah Al-Ilmiyyah, 1st ed., Beirut, 1404 AH.
35. Al-‘Ilal wa-Ma’rifat al-Rijāl – Riwāyat ‘Abdillāh, ‘Abdullāh b. Aḥmed b. Ḥanbal, Edited by
Wasiyullah Abbas, Dar Al-Khani, Riyadh, 2nd ed., 1422 AH.
36. Ikmāl Tahḏīb al-Kamāl, Mughulṭāy, Edited by Adil bin Muhammad and Usamah bin Ibrahim,
Al-Faruq Al-Hadithiyyah lil-Tiba’ah wal-Nashr, 1st ed., 1422 AH.
37. Itḥāf al-Maharah bil-Fawā’id al-Mubtakarah min al-Aṭrāf al-‘Asharah, Ibn Ḥajar, Edited by
Markaz Khidmat Al-Sunnah Al-Nabawiyyah, ‫ ومركز‬- )‫مجمع الملك فهد لطباعة المصحف الشريف (بالمدينة‬
)‫خدمة السنة والسيرة النبوية (بالمدينة‬, 1st ed., 1415 AH.
64
38. Jāmi’ al-Taḥṣīl fī Aḥkām al-Marāsīl, al-‘Alā’ī, Edited by Hamdi al-Salafi, Alam Al-Kutub,
Beirut, 2nd ed., 1407 AH.
39. Jawāhir al-‘Iqdayn fī Faḍl al-Sharafayn, Al-Samhūdī, Edited by Mustafa Ata, Dar Al-Kutub
Al-Ilmiyyah, Beirut.
40. Juz’ min Ḥadīth Abī al-Ṭāhir Muḥammad b. Aḥmed al-Ḏuhlī, ‘Alī b. ‘Umar al-Dāraquṭnī,
Edited by Hamdi Al-Salafi, Dar Al-Khulafa’ lil-Kitab Al-Islami, Kuwait, 1st ed., 1406 AH.
41. Kashf al-Astār ‘an Zawā’id al-Bazzār, Nūr-ul-Dīn al-Haythamī, Edited by Habib Al-Rahman
Al-Azami, Mu’assasat Al-Risalah, Beirut, 1st ed., 1399 AH.
42. Lisān al-Mīzān, Ibn Ḥajar, Da’irat Al-Ma’arif Al-Nizamiyyah, 2nd ed., India, 1390 AH.
43. Masālik al-Abṣār fī Mamālik al-Amṣār, Ibn Faḍlillah al-‘Umarī, Edited by Kamil Al-Jbouri and
Mahdi Al-Najm, Dar Al-Kutub Al-Ilmiyyah, Beirut, 1st ed., 2010.
44. Min Kalāmi Abī Zakariyyā Yaḥyā b. Ma’īn fī al-Rijāl, Ibn Ṭahmān, Edited by Ahmed Sayf,
Dar Al-Mamun, Damascus.
45. Musnad Aḥmed, Aḥmed b. Ḥanbal al-Shaybānī, Edited by Shuayb Al-Arnaout and Adil Murshid
and others, Muassasat Al-Risalah, 1st ed., 1421.
46. Musnad al-Bazzār, Aḥmed b. ‘Amr al-Bazzār, Maktabat Al-Ulum wal-Hikam, Medina, 1st ed.
47. Su’ālāt Abī ‘Ubayd al-Ājurrī Abā Dāwūd, Abū ‘Ubayd al-Ājurrī, Edited by Muhammad Ali
Qasim Al-Umari, ‫عَمدة البحث العلمي باْلامعة اإلسالمية‬, 1st ed., Medina, 1403 AH.
48. Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, Muḥammad b. Ismā’īl al-Bukhārī, Edited by Muhammad Al-Nassir, Dar
Tawq Al-Najah, 1st ed., 1422 AH.
49. Ṣaḥīḥ Ibn Khuzaymah, Ibn Khuzaymah al-Naysābūrī, Edited by Muhammad Mustafa Al-
Azami, Al-Maktab Al-Islami, Beirut.
50. Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, Muslim b. al-Ḥajjāj. Edited by Muhammad Fuad Abdulbaqi, Dar Ihya Al-Turath
Al-Arabi, Beirut.
51. Sharḥ Sunan Ibn Majah, Mughulṭāy, Edited by Kāmil Awidah, Maktabat Nizar Al-Baz, KSA,
1st ed., 1419 AH.
52. Sharḥ ‘Ilal al-Tirmiḏī, Ibn Rajab, Edited by Humam Saeed, Maktabat Al-Manar, Jordan, 1st ed.,
1407 AH.
53. Sharḥ Mushkil al-Āthār, Abū Ja’far al-Ṭaḥāwī, Edited by Shuayb Al-Arnaout, Muassasat Al-
Risalah, 1st ed., 1415 AH.
54. Sharḥ Uṣūl I’tiqād Ahlussunnah wal-Jamā’ah, al-Lālakā’ī, Edited by Ahmed Al-Ghamdi, Dar
Taybah, KSA, 8th ed., 1423 AH.
55. Su’ālāt al-Barḏa’ī li-Abī Zur’ah, Sa’īd b. ‘Amr al-Barḏa’ī, Edited by Muhammad Al-Azhari,
Al-Faruq Al-Hadithiyyah lil-Tiba’ah wal-Nashr, Cairo, 1st ed., 2009.
56. Su’ālāt Muḥammad b. ‘Uthmān b. Abī Shaybah li-‘Alī b. al-Madīnī, Muḥammad b. ‘Uthmān
b. Abī Shaybah, Cairo, 1st ed., 2006.
65
57. Sunan Abī Dāwūd, Abū Dāwūd al-Sijistānī, Edited by Muhammad Abdulhamid, Al-Maktabah
Al-Asriyyah, Beirut.
58. Sunan al-Dāraquṭnī, ‘Alī b. ‘Umar al-Dāraquṭnī, Edited by Shuayb Al-Arnaout, Hasan Shalabi,
Abdullatif Hirzallah, and Ahmed Barhum, Mu’assasat Al-Risalah, Beirut, 1st ed., 1424 AH.
59. Sunan al-Tirmiḏī (al-Jāmi’ al-Kabīr), Muḥammad b. ‘Isā al-Tirmiḏī, Edited by Bashar Ma’ruf,
Dar Al-Gharb Al-Islami, Beirut, 1998.
60. Sunan Ibn Mājah, Ibn Mājah al-Qazwīnī, Edited by Muḥammad Fuad Abdulbaqi, Dar Ihya Al-
Kutub Al-Arabiyyah.
61. Tahḏīb al-Tahḏīb, Ibn Ḥajar Aḥmed b. ‘Alī, Matba’at Da’irat Al-Ma’arif Al-Nizamiyyah, India,
1st ed., 1326 AH.
62. Ta’rīf Ahl al-Taqdīs bi-Marātib al-Mawṣūfīn bil-Tadlīs, Ibn Ḥajar, Edited by Asim Al-
Qaryuti, Maktabat Al-Manar, Amman, 1st ed., 1403 AH.
63. Tārīkh Dimashq, Ibn ‘Asākir al-Dimashqī, Edited by Amr Al-Amrawi, Dar Al-Fikr, 1415 AH.
64. Tārīkh Ibn Ma’īn – Riwāyat al-Dūrī, ‘Abbās b. Muḥammad al-Dūrī, Edited by Ahmed Sayf,
Markaz Al-Bahth Al-Ilmi wa-Ihya Al-Turath Al-Islami, Mecca, 1st ed., 1399 AH.
65. Tartīb al-Amālī al-Khamīsiyyah, Ibn al-Shajarī, Edited by Muhammad Ismail, Dar Al-Kutub
Al-‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut, 1st ed., 1422 AH.
66

Hadith Al Thaqalayn 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hadith Al Thaqalayn 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hadith Al Thaqalayn 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ḥadīth al-Thaqalayn

‘Aṭiyyah’s Report from Abū Sa’īd 6

Jābir b. ‘Abdillāh’s Report 11

Zayd b. al-Ḥasan al-Anmāṭi’s alleged ḥadīth from Ja’far al-Ṣādiq 13

Mujālid’s Alleged Ḥadīth from al-Sha’bī 15

Zayd b. Arqam’s Ḥadīth 18

Yazīd b. Ḥayyān’s Riwāyah from Zayd b. Arqam 18

The Al-A’mash Cluster 20

‘Alī b. Rabī’a’s Report from Zayd b. Arqam 29

‘Abdullāh b. Bukayr’s Variant from Ḥakīm b. Jubayr from Zayd b. Arqam 29

Abū al-Ḍuḥā Muslim b. Ṣubayḥ’s Report from Zayd b. Arqam 32

Ḥuḏayfah b. Usayd’s Alleged Ḥadīth 38

‘Alī b. Abī Ṭālib’s Alleged Ḥadīth 41

Muḥammad b. ‘Umar b. ‘Ali’s report, from his father, from ‘Alī 41

Abū Ḏarr’s Alleged Report 45

Zayd b. Thābit’s Alleged Report 47

Abū Hurayrah’s Alleged Report 49

Ibn ‘Abbās’ Alleged Variant 51

‘Amr b. ‘Awf’s Alleged Variant 53

: ‫ وباهلل الثـقـة‬،‫أق ـول‬

.‫ واهلل أكب‬،‫ وال هلإ إال اهلل‬،‫ واحلمد هلل‬،‫فسبحان اهلل‬

The wording of ‘Aṭiyyah’s report from Abū Sa’īd is as follows:

This report quotes the Prophet saying during his sermon:

2. Zayd b. al-Ḥasan al-Anmāṭi’s alleged ḥadīth from Ja’far al-Ṣādiq

3. Mujālid’s Alleged Ḥadīth from al-Sha’bī

1. Yazīd b. Ḥayyān’s Riwāyah from Zayd b. Arqam

ِ ِ َّ‫ َق َال َأ ُبو ا ْل َعب‬:‫ َق َال‬،‫ْي بْ ِن َج ْع َف ٍر التَّيْ َم ِيل‬

ِ ْ ‫َار ٌك فِيك ُُم الثَّ َق َل‬

2. The al-A’mash Cluster

Al-A’mash’s purported transmission has been outlined in figure 3 below:

The general wording of al-A’mash’s report from ‘Aṭiyyah is:

" ‫فِ ِيه ََم‬

The wording of this report is as follows:

"‫وِّن فِ ِيه ََم‬

Red & Blue:

He then said: “Allah is my mawlā, and I am the walī of every believer.”

Zayd replied: “I only inform you of what I had heard.”1

‫ إِ َّن َخ َتنًا ِِل‬:‫ َف ُقلْ ُت َل ُه‬،‫ َس َأ ْل ُت زَ ْيدَ ْب َن َأ ْر َق َم‬:‫ َق َال‬،‫ِف‬ ِ ِ ِ ِ ِ ٍ

‫ َف ُق ْل ُت‬،‫اق فِي ُك ْم َما فِي ُك ْم‬

ِ ‫ و ُهو‬،‫ إِ َلينَا ُظهرا‬K ِ‫ول اَّلل‬

.‫ب َك ك َََم َس ِم ْع ُت‬ ِ

The people said: ‘Indeed.’

He thus said: ‘whoever I am his mawlā then ‘Alī is his mawlā’.”

ِ ‫ وع‬،‫ال من و َااله‬ ِ ‫ول‬ ٍ

ِ ‫ ع‬،‫ َع ْن زَ ْي ِد بْ ِن َأ ْر َق َم‬، ‫ت‬

" ‫َم ْوال ُه َف َع ِ ٌّيل َم ْوال ُه‬

4. ‘Abdullāh b. Bukayr’s Variant from Ḥakīm b. Jubayr, from Abū al-

The wording of this report is as follows:

I am about to be called, to which I shall agree, so what will you say?”

They said: “You have given wise council.”

They said: “We bear witness.”

A man then called out: “What is al-Thaqalayn O Messenger of Allah?”

5. Abū al-Ḍuḥā Muslim b. Ṣubayḥ’s Alleged Report from Zayd b. Arqam

Al-Dāraquṭnī’s statement is not an absolute remark on al-Ḥasan’s reliability. Rather, it is a comment

They said: “Indeed, we attest to that.” He said: “O Allah bear witness!”

1. Muḥammad b. ‘Umar b. ‘Ali’s report, from his father, from ‘Alī

1. Muḥammad b. ‘Umar b. ‘Ali’s report, from his father, from ‘Alī

2. Sa’ād b. Sulaymān’s Report, from Abū Isḥāq, from al-Ḥārith b. Alī

VII. Zayd b. Thābit’s Alleged Ḥadīth